University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Love's economy: Aesthetics, exchange and youthful poetics in Roman elegy

(USC Thesis Other)

Love's economy: Aesthetics, exchange and youthful poetics in Roman elegy

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality o f the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print t)ieedthrough, sutwtandaid margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. Bell & Howell Information and Learning 3(X) North Z6eb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA U N O 800-521-0600 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LO VE'S EC O N O M Y: AESTH ETICS, EXC H A N G E A N D Y O U TH FU L POETICS IN R O M A N ELEGY by Trevor M arc Fear A Dissertation Presented to the FA C U LTY OF TH E G RADU ATE SCHOOL U N IV E R S ITY O F SO UTHER N C A LIFO R N IA In Partial Fu lfillm ent of the Requirem ents fo r the Degree DO CTO R OF PH ILO SO PHY (Classics) August, 1999 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number 9955494 UMI UMI Microform 9955494 Copyright 2000 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. a w e Ofrt E lZ :xej EE06 OVL i l l :|3i U N IV E R S IT Y O F S O U T H E R N C A L IF O R N IA . S69i-6S006 eimoiweo T H E G R A D U A TE SCHOOL 'S3,a6uv soi U N IV E R S IT Y P a r e e'uJOj!|BD oiaqinos LOS ANG ELES. C A LIFO R N U 900Q7 (O XiisjaAiun This dissertation, w ritten by ..... under the direction o f füSi... Dissertation Committee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Graduate School in partial fulfillm ent of rg - quirements fo r the degree of DOCTOR O F PHILO SO PHY Dean of Craduate St udi es Date DISSER TATIO N C O M M ITTEE ______________ I ^ Gt mv rpenm ________ . . . . . . |O O l|5S a jB fip B J Q Û VtNHO JITVO fJM3HXnOS JO .U.1S33A1KI1 3s n Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. To m y parents for their love and support u Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A cknow ledgm ents I w ould like to thank m y committee chair Am y R ichlin and the members o f m y com mittee Tom H abinek and Moshe Lazar for their support and w ork during the com pletion o f this project. I also w ould like to thank m y fellow graduate students at USC and m y professional colleagues and students at USC, S U N Y Buffalo and Iow a State U niversity, a ll of whom have contributed support and intellectual stim ulation during the w ritin g o f this dissertation. I thank m y friend C indy Benton for her support and faith. Finally, I w ould lik e again to acknowledge the love o f m y fam ily. m Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table o f C ontents INTRODUCTION 1 Towards an Interpretation of Elegy CHAPTER ONE 33 Difficult Sex; Elegy as Erotic Callimachean Discourse CHAPTER TWO 63 Elegy as a Site of Callimachean Poetic Mastery CHAPTER THREE 89 Poets, Patrons and Prostitutes: Towards the Allegory of Elegiac Gift-Exchange CHAPTER FOUR 124 Embedding and Disembedding the Poet: Elegy’s Battle of the Whores CHAPTER FIVE 158 Elegy and the Reconstitution of Rome’s Elite CHAPTER SIX 188 Elegiac Ambition: A Career of Otium CHAPTER SEVEN 223 Creating Elegy’s Erotic Spectacle Part One: Exploiting Girlfriends and Patrons CHAPTER EIGHT 254 Creating Elegy’s Erotic Spectacle Part Two: Self^Exploitation: Scripting Erotic Initiation CHAPTER NINE 287 Creating Elegy’s Erotic Spectacle Part Three: Self-Exploitation: Scripting the Immature Poet CHAPTER TEN 314 Historicizing a Backdrop of Opposition and Infamy CHAPTER ELEVEN 339 Pandering to Youth and the Sexualization of Poetry CONCLUSION 383 Reconsidering Elegiac Discourse BIBLIOGRAPHY 411 I V Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Introduction Towards an Interpretation of Elegy Boswell. "Then, Sir, w hat is poetry?" Johnson. "W hy, S ir, it is much easier to say w h at it is not. W e a ll know w h at lig h t is; but it is not easy to te ll w hat it is." The analysis in the follow ing chapters w ill focus on poems from w hat m ight be considered to be norm ative elegy, the three books of O vid ’s Amores, the firs t tw o books o f Tibullus and the first three books o f Propertius. There are reasons to group these works together; in each book there is a presentation of a first person narrative, w here the narrator is a poet and a lover w ho is engaged in sim ilar dram atic situations to comparable effect.^ Nevertheless, it is not lost on me that such a grouping reflects a canonical division that could also be seen as arbitrary and constructed in te re s te d ly A very d ifferen t picture o f w hat elegy is could be constructed from focusing on elegiac w orks that m ight be considered to be m arginal w ith relation to the norm ative center outlined above.^ Deciding w hat exactly is elegy, and w hat is not, is w ithout doubt m ore problem atic than it m ight be assumed to be &*om m y own choice of m aterial.^ ^Thus the works can be seen to cohere on expressive, pragmatic, structural and mimetic grounds: a sim ilarity across such a range is taken as the basis of genre classification: see further Abrams (1952); H em adi (1972). ^On the ideological issues involved in canon construction see M artindale (1993:23-29). ^Such works for instance as O vid’s Heroides, his didactic Ars Amatoria and Remedia Amoris, his exile poetry, Tristia and EpisUdae Ex Ponto; the fourth book o f Propertius, the poems attributed to Sulpicia. There are also the considerable remains o f the Carmina Epigraphica. '^On the problems of defining literature generally see Eagleton (1983:1-16). It is also all too easy in talking of elegy to flatten out the individual characteristics o f the different poets. 1 have tried to retain the individual nuances of their poetry w hilst also attem pting to expound the sim ilarities of their generic, social and cultural conditioning. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The decision to concentrate on this m aterial is not intended to validate these particular poems at the expense o f other elegiac works (though inevitably it could be view ed as contributing to, and perpetuating, such m arginalization). Rather, this decision reflects a w ish to explicate the particu larity of this form o f elegiac poetry w hich I personally fin d most com pelling. ^ Acts o f interpretation are inherently problem atic and not just at the level o f establishing a coherent object to in te rp re t Literature is a com plicated phenomenon. Texts are vastly over-determ ined by a cacophony of competing discursive claims, literary, social and cultural. As such they can be view ed as repositories of synchronic arenas of contestation, w here an ind ivid u al author's expression emerges from the specificity o f a cultural and historical context. The passing of tim e inevitably adds a cacophony o f its own: every synchronic m om ent is after a ll also a diachronic one, a point of vertical and horizontal tem poral concision. Hence, any act of w ritin g is burdened not only by its synchronic cultural and historical m om ent o f inscription but also by the diachronic processes that have led up to, and inform ed, that moment.^ The interpretation of literature has a ll too often fractured along form al aesthetic and historidst lines where texts are view ed as either autonomous literary artifacts whose expression is not defined by context or as literary ^In particular I am aware that there is not a great deal o f reference to Sulpicia in this study. This is certainly not intended as a comment on the w orth of her poetry but rather is dictated by my focus on what I regard as the mainstream of elegiac composition which I believe Sulpicia responds to but also transforms. ^ A sim ilar m atrix of course can be mapped out for interpretation. Critics are situated at their own moment of volatile synchronic and diachronic conflation. In this manner acts o f interpretation are like a clash of two interested overdetermined temporal moments. N aturally, criticism is also informed by the passage of time in-between these two moments, including, o f course, a text’s interpretative history. Hence, Charles M artindale (1993) formulates the literary object of critical study as not V irg il but "Virgil where the latter equals "ali-the-forces-that-moulded-the-text-plus- its-reception" (54). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. productions whose expression is inevitably inform ed by context H isto ry and literature have been variously construed as autonomously separate or inevitably e n tw in e d / Literary texts are w ithout question subject to form al constraints; genres are structures o f signification the entry into w hich presupposes some norm alization o f content and expression upon w hich basis interaction betw een reader and author is constructed/ Elegiac composition can be view ed as displaying a specific generic competence o r typological economy w ith in w hich the author's expression follow s a reductive perspective that can be recognized by the reader as the voicing o f an elegiac id e o lo g y / How ever, it rem ains debatable w hether such a form al typological analysis can elaborate the fu ll significance o f a literary text. Literature after a ll exists in history and can be regarded itself as a m aterial practice o f a specific historical and cultural moment: in this m anner literature does not float in a timeless superstructure that is autonom ously suspended over a historical infrastructure ^The former position is represented by such interpretative methods as N ew Criticism w ith its emphasis on the formal qualities o f the text, "imagery," "form," "tone," "paradox," "irony," "tension," "ambiguity" etc, where the text (particularly the poem) is seen as its own basis for interpretation without the need for any external factors, such as historical context or an author; generic and inter-textual studies where form al textual qualities and equivalencies are given pre eminence; and deconstructive interpretations, to the extent that the play of words is de- historidzed and de-contextualized: the latter position is represented by Marxist-based interpretations that see literature as part of the "superstructure" based on a historically specific "infrastructure"; New H istoridsm /C ultural M aterialism which stress the "historicity of [all] texts" and that all expressive acts are embedded in contemporaneous material practices; fem inist literary interpretation that attempts to define the realities of women's lived experience that lie behind literary expression. ®See Fowler (1982); for such w ork on dassical texts see W illiams (1968); Caims (1972); Conte (1986); on elegy specifically see Caims (1979); Veyne (1988); Conte (1989). ^Ideology here signifies the expression of a system o f ideas that can be perceived as particular, and appropriate to elegiac discourse; for the elaboration of this model see Conte (1989). The bibliography on id e o lo ^ is immense; as a starting point for a definition Williams's Keifwords (1976:128-30) remains a valuable start. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. but is anchored quite specifically, and serves as a particular em anation of, a m aterial base.io The form al aesthetic qualities of a literary text cannot be assumed to transcend the m aterial concerns contemporaneous to their prod uction .ii Literary texts are determ ined by history as w e ll as by aesthetic and generic codes. Hence, literature is a structure o f signification that can be interpreted both in terms o f generic form alism and historical conditioning. A t this level the investigation o f literary texts is an inq uiry into social s e m a n t i c s . M eaning is not sim ply equivalent to the structure in w hich it is contained but can be read through the signification of a literary edifice that is b u ilt on a foundation o f specific historical and cultural concerns.^'* The aesthetic and social are both building m aterials in the construction o f a text. The chapters that fo llo w attem pt to elucidate both the aesthetic and social bu ildin g blocks of the elegiac edifice, to see how elegiac ideology is both an expression of literary form alism and historical context. O n both levels the rhetoricity, and self-interest, w ith w hich texts are composed m ust be borne in m ind: the use of aesthetic models and social description is m otivated (w hether consciously or not). Ideology is an expression o f a dubious subjectivity that ^%uch is the basis (in a simplistic form) of M arxist literary criticism; see the concise summary offered by Eagleton (1976). Hence a good deal of energy in N eiv H istoridsm is spent in breaking down the line between literary and non-literary texts in accord w ith the creed of "the textuality of history and the historidty of texts;" for an elaboration of the prindples upon which this interpretative strategy is based see Veeser (1989: xi). ^^Literary forms and aesthetics are, of course, also historically determined; see Bourdieu (1984); Eagleton (1990). ^^The term is taken from Geertz (1973:448): Geertz draws an analogy between the activity of the anthropologist and the literary critic; both are engaged in decoding a culture's textual gestures of signification, whether it be watching a cockfight or a performance of Shakespeare. I'^Struduralism can be viewed as an attem pt to equate meaning and strudure; see Jameson (1972). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. selects its models and describes reality from the perspective o f its ow n interestedness. Thus the elegiac discourse that is produced by historically situated Roman authors can be view ed as an ideology on a m icro-level that is embedded in the larger ideological apparatus of Roman literature at the macro level. As such it is a specific m anifestation o f a w ider and m ore variable form of self-interested discourse. Such m otivated self-interest means that the producers of elegiac discourse cannot be assumed to be passively inscribed by th eir sodo- historic context; rather there is a concerted attem pt on their part to turn such a context to their ow n a d v a n t a g e . I have chosen to concentrate in particular on exploring how the elegists use the im agery of prostitution and pim ping, and construct the sexual effect of their literary product w hilst also exploring the historical and cultural context that produces and inform s the use o f this im agery. In its use of such images I hope to dem onstrate that elegiac discourse is not m erely defined by a narrative content of venal sexuality (reflecting an adaptation o f content to a chosen literary aesthetic m odel), but that such content is also an act o f social semantics, whose significance is not m erely to function as an allusion to, or allegorization, or representation, o f external society b u t also to attem pt to turn such a context to its ow n advantage. The firs t tw o chapters exam ine elegy from the perspective o f its relationship to Callim achean aesthetics. The firs t chapter elaborates how elegiac discourse is form ally constructed as an erotic m anifestation o f Callim achean ^^With respect to the ideological construction o f Roman literature at the macro-level Thomas Habinek (1998:3) views literature as, "not only as a representation of society, but as an intervention in it as w ell.” A t this level literature as a social discourse functions in a sim ilar fashion to individual acts of generic expression as Paul A llen M iller (1994:43) notes: each individual usage is itself not a passive reflection o f the context of enunciation, but an active, transformative response to it." Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. aesthetic principles. A t this level elegy could be read as nothing m ore than a self- contained verbal artifact whose significance resides purely in its narrative content reflecting on a dram atic level a privileged and potentially em powering aesthetic m odel. The influence o f Callim achus on the Roman elegists, particularly Propertius, has been w id ely noted.'^ H ow ever, I th in k insufficient attention has been paid to the m anner in w hich elegiac discourse represents a dram atization o f Callim achean aesthetic principles in a specifically erotic m anifestation. It is not sim ply a question o f the external poet being an adherent o f fastidious aesthetic taste but of how the erotic dram a w ith in the text is shaped by such discrim ination. The style of love life that the elegiac narrator pursues, and the specific sort of erotic object that he chooses, are both constructed as dram atic emanations of Callim achean aesthetic principles. This aesthetic program places emphasis on the pursuit of o rigin ality, refinem ent and exclusiveness. This fastidiousness is, in turn, accompanied by a pronounced disdain fo r the popular and the derivative. These guiding principles predeterm ine the nature o f an elegiac love life . The internal narrator is fated by the literary principles o f the external poet to sexual frustration and an arduous form of sexual pursuit. This defining characteristic of elegiac discourse makes sexual fu lfillm en t in this form o f poetry a highly problem atic activity. Hence, elegy is a dram atic narrative o f a challenged form of m ale sexual gratification w here the players act out an erotic allegory o f aesthetic principles. The firs t chapter explores this issue largely through an extended study of Propertius 2.23. This poem provides a provocative conflation o f aesthetic, erotic ^^The w ork of M aria W yke in particular has expounded w ith great clarity how the elegiac pnella is a signifier of the author's aesthetic preferences: (1987a); (1987b); (1989a); (1989b); (1994). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and literary practices. O n the basis o f this poem I attem pt to dem onstrate how the erotic dram a o f elegy’s narrative is inextricably entw ined w ith aesthetic and generic considerations. Chapter tw o continues the theme of the erotic dram atization of Callim achean aesthetic principles and takes a closer look at the construction o f the principal eroticized/aesthetidzed fem ale fig ure and how her inscription as an obstacle (variously m anifested) fo r the intern al narrator serves as an aid in the poetic project o f the external author. W hen the discrim ination of Callim achean aesthetics is acted out erotically in the text o f elegy, the narrator's intra-textual love life is inevitably found to be problem atic, as he confronts a textually inscribed fem ale w ho in her general inaccessibility and aloofness plays a Callim achean role that frustrates the desire o f the narrator. H ow ever, the dram atic erotic disablem ent o f the poet in the text serves to enable the Callim achean project of the poet outside the text. One poet is erotically mastered but the other rem ains the discursive master. In chapters three and four m y exam ination moves away from a consideration o f elegiac discourse as a rhetorically m anipulative em anation of form al aesthetic qualities and starts to exam ine how the im agery o f erotic venality inscribed in the text is sim ultaneously a rhetorically self-interested piece of sodal semantics. This is achieved in these tw o chapters by considering elegy in the context of aristocratic gift-exchange and lite ra ry patronage. There is a conflation going on in elegy o f social and aesthetic discourses that are not m utually exclusive but sim ultaneously enabling o f the poet’ s m otivated self-interested rhetoric. Aesthetic discourse is charged w ith social energy just as social discourse is charged w ith aesthetic In this m anner I argue that the figure o f the prostitute in elegiac discourse can not only be explicated as Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. an aesthetic bu t also as a social allegory. A t this level a sexualized venal figure in the text can be read as a m etaphor for a patronized poet and a patronizing patron outside o f the text. Chapter three explores how the dynamics of aristocratic gift-exchange m irro r those o f prostitution, taking as a starting point Seneca's elaboration o f the parallels betw een the tw o models o f exchange (De Beneficiis 1.14.4), and then considering how a poet generally functions w ith in this exchange system.^^ Tw o Greek m odels, P indar and Sim onides, are considered as very d ifferen t examples o f how a poet can relate his functioning in a society’s literary superstructure' to the 'infirastructure' of its economy. Pindar chose to embed his poetic function in the aristocratic economy of gift-exchange, whereas Simonides em braced the disem bedded principles o f the m onetary economy. These tw o d ifferen t models of venal poetics can be m apped onto tw o corresponding models o f venal sexuality, the hetaira and the pome. Thus an analogy can be draum not only betw een g ift- exchanging aristocrat and prostitute but also between a poetic and a sexual frie n d / artisan.^® This equation o f poet and prostitute is then examined in a Rom an context by looking at Horace Epistles 1.20 and the p arallel that the narrator draw s o f the distinction between a true amicus and a parasite (scurra) and a matroiw and a meretrix.'^^ Horace, of course, is a poetic firiend and his analogy can be seen as an attem pt to embed his dependency in the form o f a socially validated relationship this chapter I shall be attem pting a synthesis of the many observations on literature and patronage by a w ide variety o f classical scholars: Brunt (1965); W hite (1975), (1978), (1993); Gold (1982), (1987); SaUer (1982); G riffin (1984); Badian (1985); Kurke (1990), (1996), (1997); Henry (1992); Carson (1993); Dixon (1993); OUensis (1995), (1997a), (1997b), (1998); H abinek (1997). ^®On these two Greek poets and their respective mode of operation see Carson (1993); Kurke (1996). ^^Horace Epistles 1.18.3-4.1 shall be m aking particular reference here to Oliensis (1997a), (1998). 8 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. rather than in one o f venal self-interest. H e wants to be a poetic w ife, not a literary w hore. H ow ever, this m etaphor always Üureatens to crack open along the faultlines o f the distinction draw n and the narrator's interestedness in m aintaining i t F in ally, I turn towards an exam ination of the basis fo r the poet's entry into an exchange system, his provision o f lasting com m em oration. The poet offers his capabilities to fashion a mnemonic that w ill go on signifying presence after the referent is absent: he is attem pting to exchange textual m em ory fo r m aterial recompense (m onetary or otherwise). This situation is explored particularly through Cicero's defense of the poet, Archias. Whereas the third chapter is concerned w ith establishing the general parameters of the exchange between poets and aristocrats and describing how both parties are susceptible to being troped as incarnations of venal sexuality, in the fourth chapter 1 w ill be taking a more detailed look at how the discourse of elegy in particular fits into the com plicated nexus o f social factors that surrounded literary production.20 The response set out in elegiac narrative w ill be found to be somewhat paradoxical. The elegist takes the theme o f lite ra ry commemoration, that was the traditional basis o f patronized poetry, and transfers it into his ow n erotic discourse. This produces ironic effects. For in this discourse the poet, whose attem pt to sell m em ory figures him as a prostitute of his literary talent, tries to enter into exchange w ith a wom an, who in her represented venality, looks suspiciously like an actual rather than fig urative prostitute. A t this level elegy appears to present itself as battle of the prostitutes, one m ale and literary, the ^^m portant studies on the link between elegiac discourse and literary patronage that I w ill be considering here are Gold (1993); Gibson (1995); Oliensis (1997a). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. other fem ale and m aterial, that can be read as an allegory o f literary patronage in general. First there w ill be an exam ination o f the general discursive obstacles that are constructed fo r the elegiac narrator in his pursuit of sexual patronage. The narrator is constructed as a pauper who m ust attem pt to entice the puella into a sexual relationship on the basis o f the provision of com mem orative poetry. To achieve this end the elegist m ust verbally persuade the puella that sex for poetry is an equitable exchange: he m ust "doctor" her into a sexual appreciation of his poetic w orth. H aving discussed the general parameters o f the challenges constructed for the elegiac narrator, I w ill then discuss several different scenarios (Properius 1.8,2.11,2.16, 2.26,4.5; O vid Amores 1.8,1.10,3.8; Tibullus 1.5) of the dynam ic of sexualized patronage in elegy. Finally, I w ill com pare these elegiac scenarios to some analogous examples of norm al patronized poetry in order to elaborate the m anner in w hich the elegists textualize contem porary anxieties. H aving discussed in chapters one and tw o elegy 's incarnation as an eroticized form of aesthetics and in chapters three and four how elegy functions as social allegory, I w ant to turn in chapters five and six to the historical and cultural reasons that m ay lie behind elegy's literary incarnation. Chapter five examines how the elegiac complaints over poverty and the social m obility of their rivals m ay be a textualization of the social upheaval of the late civil w ar period and the form ative stages of the Augustan prindpate. In particular I w ill be exam ining the represented equestrian status of the elegiac narrator in the context o f the im pact that this turbulent period of Roman history had upon this social group.^i w ill be drawing heavily here on the w ork of a number of social historians of Rome: Gelzer (1969); Wiseman (1970); Brunt (1971), (1982); Reinhold (1971); Alfoldy (1975); M illar (1977). 10 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The elegiac narrator seems to be represented as a long-established member o f the equestrian o rd e r/ Ita lia n gentry: the O vid ian narrator in particular identifies him self as a m em ber of the elite équités equo publico. How ever, elite status in elegy is coupled w ith a professed poverty and reduced m aterial circumstances. G iven the tim e fram e for elegiac com position it seems inevitable to connect this conflation o f privilege and pauperization w ith the effects o f the confiscations and high taxation of the triu m viral period. This m ight in turn suggest that elegiac poverty is not m erely to be understood as a poetic trope. Augustus was also responsible fo r a restructuring of Rome’s elite in w hat was in effect a consolidation o f the rap id social change o f the period. Seneca the elder describes A grippa as a representative of a group non nati nobiles sed facti.^ Augustus's ow n claim to be nobilis could be represented as tenuous, and the im position of the princeps as the new apex of Rome's social pyram id could be view ed as a concretization of dubious social clim bing. The chaos of the period provided unprecedented opportunities fo r social m o bility and conversely sim ilar inopportune possibilities for elite decline and extinction. The princeps by establishing a new census requirem ent fo r the senatorial order (in spite o f his ostentatious attem pts to prom ote the dignitas of the order and preserve dim inished patrician fam ilies) m ay be perceived to have established an aristocratic plutocracy where elite w orth was quantified m ore rig id ly in m aterial terms. Such a clim ate then gives point to the elegiac narrator's protest at his m arginalization in spite o f elite pedigree and his vituperation o f his econom ically enhanced riv a l, the recens dives eques. Thus the O vid ian narrator's com plaint, "dat ^^ontroversiae 2.4.12. 11 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. census honores" (Amores 3.8.55), can be understood as the im portation into elegiac discourse o f the perceived w orth o f inherent elite status outside the te x t The chapter concludes w ith an attem pt to quantify the w orth o f the equestrian census in the Augustan period. The w o rth of this census is an im portant consideration in tryin g to assess w hether the elegists w ould have required patronage. This exam ination w ill lead to the conclusion that a m inim um equestrian census m ay w ell have not been su ffîd en t to support a poet in an elite lifestyle in Rome, and given the narrator's tale o f m aterial dim inu tio n (and its historic validation outside of the text) it seems lik e ly that the internal poet is a textualized counterpart to an external literary artist w ho w ould have required (or at least benefited fi’om) some degree o f m aterial support. In this m anner the elegist can be seen, in a ll probability, to fa ll in-betw een the poetic dichotom y that Juvenal constructs in Satires 7 o f an im poverished Statius seeking sustenance and a privileged Lucan seeking Jatna and gloria. C hapter six attempts to set the production o f elegiac verse in the context of the establishm ent o f the Pax Augusta. If the period of the late c iv il wars and the ascendancy o f O ctavian dim inished the m aterial resources o f the Ita lia n gentry and equestrian order, then the gradual transform ation of the trium virate into the prind pate, and O ctavian into Augustus, also provided a particular opportunity for poetic compensation. W ith the establishm ent o f the Augustan prindpate pax et quies and otium became centralized rather than peripheral elements of elite life at Rome. 2 3 23rhe extent to which the Augustan period was in actuality a tim e of pax et quies could of course be disputed: Tacitus described the pax w ith the force of oxymoron as pax sine dubio verum cruenta {Animles 1.10) but it indisputably provided a contrast w ith the pitched warfare between Roman citizens that characterized the preceding period. 12 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Tacitus described the successful consolidation o f the Augustan prindpate in terms of a deliberate act of seduction, "cunctos dulcedine o tii pellexit" (Annales 1.2). Otium was the validated space fo r literary activity, the otium cum dignitate of a Sdpio and Laelius as described in Horace.^^ It was traditionally, for an elite m em ber of sodety, an off-duty activity. H ow ever, during the dictatorship of Caesar, Cicero is found com plaining of an otium created by a negotii inopia?^ For Cicero enforced otium though honestum could not be cum dignitate. The Augustan consolidation was d early m ore carefully contrived to fft the mas maiorum than Caesar's attem pt at autocracy. H ow ever, it could be seen, in its prom otion o f o ffid a l otium, to involve a sim ilar appropriation of elite negotium. In this clim ate a form of otium that a Cicero m ight have view ed as otium cum servitio was gradually transform ed and institutionalized as an approved space, and even an arena for, elite com petition and the pursuit o f gloria. Thus the Augustan period saw the rise o f the recitatio and the increasing popularity o f public dedam ation. Such practices can be seen as a precise response to the rise of the prindpate and a m arginalization of elite negotia that led to an increasing validation of elite otium. Such a clim ate gives point to Horace's description in the Ars Poetica (how ever rhetorically exaggerated it may be) o f a studium scribendi. The increased p ro file of otium, and aristocratic involvem ent in the same, led to an Augustan age that was perceived by later patronized poets as a golden age of opportunity. ^^Horace Satires 2.1.73-74. 250e Offtciis 32. ^^Here I w ill be drawing on the studies of Sinclair (1994), Richlin (1997), Bloomer (1997) and Dupont (1997) which variously stress and elaborate the involvem ent o f Rome's elite in the recitatio and declamation and how this can be conceived of as a form of elite compensation in the context of the prindpate. 13 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Horace, him self, although he tries to ironize the stigm a, was a prim e exam ple o f this sodal and m aterial clim bing through poetic m eans.^ The elegists, to the extent th at they can be understood to be im poverished aristocrats, w ould also have benefited hom the conspicuous patronage o f the Augustan age at the same tim e as they textualized elite prejudice against parvenus. Hence, the elegists were enveloped in a double movement of the Augustan prindpate, the high profile literary support of the age and the increasing legitim ization of the space of otium as a legitim ate arena for aristocratic distinction. This led to the developm ent o f a literary form o f ambitio: this com bination, that may have seemed virtu ally oxym oronic to earlier generations of Roman aristocrats, developed rapidly in the changing conditions for Rome's elite generated by the establishm ent of the prindpate. The developm ent of literary activities as an alternate space for aristocratic display and distinction led to its genesis as a riv a l form of eloquentia to that traditionally practiced in the law courts, public assemblies and senate. In this context the central argum ent o f the firs t section o f Tadtus’s Dialogus w ith its relative valuation of poetry and oratory form s an illum inating parallel to the elegiac renundation of traditional oratio and the pursuit of gloria through alternate verbal means. The chapter condudes w ith an exam ination of the case of Pliny the younger, a distinguished consular senator w ith literary am bitions. M atthew Roller has elaborated how Pliny’s engagement in poetry is an attem pt "to create a new arena of aristocratic com petition H ow ever, P liny also struggles w ith w hat he says is the negative valuation o f his poetry by those who think his ^^Oliensis (1997a), (1998) is particularly insightful here. 28RoUer (1998:267). 14 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. involvem ent in com position and recitation is an affro n t to his dignitas, Q e a rly , the elevation o f otium as a means to gloria was m ore controversial in the case of a distinguished senator than in that o f the elegists w ho as members of the landed gentry of the equestrian order could claim otium et quies as their inheritance. Hence, both the Tadtean debate and the reception o f Pliny's poetry can be view ed as later manifestations o f a problem atic predpitated by Augustus's establishm ent o f the prindpate and its shuffling o f aristocratic otium and negotium. H aving examined in chapters five and six the historical and cultural background that inform s the elegiac poetic route to gloria, I turn in the subsequent three chapters to a consideration of how elegy, w ith in this Augustan clim ate of seduction by otium, constructed itself as a successful piece o f poetic propositioning. In chapter seven I elaborate how elegiac discourse takes the analogy of poets/ pim ps, poem s/prostitutes (exam ined variously in chapters three and four) to an extrem e by not only accepting such a m etaphoric equation bu t by literalizin g the very terms of the analogy. Hence, poems are not only im aged as figurative prostitutes but are themselves populated w ith a leading fem ale figure w ho seems suspidously lik e a textualized meretrix. This inscribed meretrix, whose name becomes virtu ally synonymous w ith her author's poetic product, serves the function o f securing for her p im p / author the discursive w ealth of literatu re, readers, through an act o f lite ra ry seduction: the description o f the Thebaid as Statius's arnica in Juvenal Satires 7 forms an im portant non-elegiac exam ple here.^9 ^^The passage o f Juvenal is ably discussed by Bartsch (1994:132). 15 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The construction o f the elegiac 'prostitute' can be view ed best in Amores 1.5 w hich form s a kin d of inverted parallel to the tale o f Pygm alion by creating an aberrant rather than an ideal wom an: a w om an whose venality serves the poetic aspirations o f the external author rather than the sexual needs o f the internal narrator. Amores 3.12 provides the m ost elaborate exam ination o f the theme o f the poet as a pim p in elegiac discourse. The presentation o f the elegiac puella as a capricious meretrix means that elegiac narrative can be understood as a tale of flaw ed sexual ow nership. I w ill be draw ing here an inverted analogy between elegy's depiction o f the elegiac puella and John Berger's observations on oil painting as a depiction o f m aterial p o s s e s s i o n . ^ ^ Elegy deliberately constructs a narrative of flaw ed sexual ow nership and this leads to the apparent paradox w ith in the text that is expressly explored in Amores 3.12 w here the internal narrator is forced to com plain over a dim inu tio n of his love life that is inversely proportional to the success o f the external poet's literary product. Elegy's lite ra lizatio n o f the poem as prostitute m etaphor should also cause the reader to reconsider the nature of the com m em orative pact that the elegiac narrator offers the puella in the text and its ram ifications fo r the basis o f the relationship o f patronage betw een external poet and aristocratic sponsor. The textualization th at the elegiac narrator offers the puella (as elaborated in such poems as Amores 1.3,1.10 and Propertius 2.25) is one o f notorious celebrity. For a respectable w om an incarnation in elegy w ould hardly have been in keeping w ith a traditional Rom an standard of fem ale propriety. In these terms such an act of elegiac publicity w ould only be o f benefit to an actual meretrix, as is elaborated in 30(1972: chs. 3 and 5). 16 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Plato in the m eeting o f Socrates and Theodote.^î Elegy, then, inasm uch as the potential referentiality o f the jmella is assumed, presents itself as either prostituting a respectable" w om an in its text or offering a textual form o f advertising to an actual prostitute. In either event the puella w hether fictional or real, and if real w hatever her extra-textual m anifestation m ay be, is being used to lure the reader to the text. In a sim ilar fashion elegy can be seen to also exploit the textualization o f a patron. As Ellen O liensis has argued, the elegist is not as firee to play w ith the referentiality of a patron as w ith that o f a puella.^^ The appearance o f a patron in the text, as Oliensis has elaborated, may disrupt the narrator's relationship w ith the puella by introducing a m ore eligible m ale analogous to the dreaded dives ainator: nevertheless this act o f textualization that is detrim ental to the internal narrator can also be view ed as a positive by the external poet as it gives his poetic product the added luster o f a cameo celebrity appearance. Thus this phenomenon produces the same paradoxical antagonism betw een internal and external poet that is also apparent in Amores 3.12. Part of the effect of elegy resides in its problem atization o f referentiality and its play between the space inside and outside of the text. Such an effect is achieved by the interm ingling o f textualized figures whose referen tiality is relatively unproblem atic, such as Maecenas and Messalla, w ith figures whose precise relationship to an external referent is less assured, notably the elegiac puella. The identity o f the elegiac puella has been at the heart o f speculation dating from at least the tim e o f A puleius to the present. Such speculation can, in fact, be seen as deliberately accentuated by elegy in its im portation o f historical figures ^^The encounter has been w ell discussed recently by Davidson (1997:120-30) and G oldhill (1998). ^^Oliensis (1997a). 17 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. into the text w hich has the effect of endowing even the fiction al w ith the possibility o f reality. If, as Duncan Kennedy has argued, Roman reading habits tended towards the referential, then elegy can be seen as a deliberate exploitation o f an audience's prurient curiosity to read textual products as insights into an author's extra- textual life.33 Lyric poetry has been described as a form o f expression that elicits a readerly response o f 'overhearing' rather than hearing; the reader is m ade p rivy to an essentially private discourse w here a text poses as a m aterialization o f a transient secular mom ent. 3 4 Lyric's use o f pronom inal forms can then be taken as a deliberate m ethod o f presenting an enunciation that displays a generality rather than a specificity, and thus cannot, and should not be taken as referential of any actuality outside o f the text.35 Such a situation, how ever, is more easily fitted to m odem than to ancient lyric poetry. Ancient lyric forms o f poetry tend to be more insistently nom inal than their m odem counterparts. The names o f actual people are constantly inscribed as addressees, and the author also on occasion refers to him self/herself w ith the same name that signifies h is /h e r extra-textual s e l f . 3 6 In this m anner the rhetorical structure of ancient lyric poetry is more overtly insistent on a 33Kennedy (1993): a sim ilar prurient interest can be discerned in contemporary society in the general nature of such tabloid press publications as Tlie National Enquirer and such television productions as The Lifestyles o f the Rich and Famous. A sim ilar tendency is also discernible in the present reception o f Ted Hum es' Birthday Letters (1998) which has been scrutinized prim arily as a revelation of the true story of Hughes' stormy relationship w ith Sylvia Plath. 34see T.S. Eliot's lecture The Three Voices of Poetry," discussed in Johnson (1982:1-23). 33shakespeare's soimets represent a form o f lyric discourse that has been persistently read in this fashion, see further Barrell (1988); for a more detailed look at the use of pronom inal forms see Benveniste (1971:217-218). 36a situation that Eliot explains as a rhetorical device that disguises w hat is in actuality an interior monologue, see Johnson (1982:1). 18 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. continuity between the dram a inside the text and reference outside its textual param eters. Thus the conventionality of generically engendered expectations resides in a tension w ith the in d ivid u ality o f inscribed points o f specific nom inal reference. In this m anner the question o f w hether the reader is perusing generalized, or specific, experience is always le ft opeiL Elegy is constructed quite precisely in this w ay to tease the reader w ith the edge o f textuality.^7 In chapters eight and nine the investigation o f elegy’s p lay w ith referen tiality is centered upon the textualization o f the poet him self. In these tw o chapters I investigate how the elegiac narrator (who bears the same name as the external poet) is characterized sim ultaneously as a m ale on the lim in a l threshold o f adulthood and a youthful poet engaged in the Indus poeticus. Both these aspects of the narrator's characterization point to an adolescent m ale precariously situated on the perilous boundary o f sexual and poetic m aturity. In chapter eight I set out to define m ore precisely w hat tim e of life the elegiac narrator is depicted as inh abiting .^ The term iuvenis in Rom an culture potentially covers a w ide tem poral span from the age o f 17 to 45, a period covering fo r us late adolescence, and early and m ature adulthood. Em iel Eyben elegiac discourse is reduced entirely to a matter of ludic formalism which is expressly recognized as such by the reader (as it is by Veyne), then the effect of the discourse's rhetoric is lost and probably also the prurient pleasure of reading that is engendered by such referential confusion. To produce referential confusion also necessitates some relation between inside and outside the text which makes elegiac discourse inevitably reflective in some m anner of its historical and social context and not an isolated aesthetic icon. The relation between elegiac discourse and "Roman life is elaborated more systematically by G riffin (1985). However, the rhetorical effects of such conflation, and the manner o f the author s self-interested m anipulation o f referentiality, are not elaborated upon. Kennedy (1993) suggests the w id er possibilities of elegy 's signification. Kennedy points to the polysemous nature o f elegiac, and all literary, discourse. This, I think, is inevitabty true, interpretation always tends to the partial and reflects the interests o f the interpreter. It should be remembered, however, that this is as true of polyvalent, as univocal, readings which, from this perspective, only demonstrate varying degrees o f bad faith. 3^In m y attem pt to understand elegy on this level I am particularly indebted to the w ork of W iedemann (1989); Eyben (1993); and Richlin (1993a); (1997). 19 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. has argued that it was the establishm ent o f the Lex Plaetoria o f c. 200 BCE (to prevent the exploitation of those under 25) and the Lex Villia annalis of c. 180 BCE (w hich set a m inim um age fo r public office) that created a m ore defined terminus fo r youth per se at around the age o f 25 to 30.39 %he beginning o f this period of life , on the other hand, was m arked by the assumption o f the toga virilis which took place typically on M arch 17th, the Ltberalia, at the inception o f puberty at around the age of 14 to 1 7 .^ The narrative o f elegy, I believe, can be broadly understood to take place w ith in the tem poral spectrum for youth as defined above as is borne out by references in Propertius 4. IB and Tristia 4.10. In elegy this period o f life is referred to, ft’ om a typically idiosyncratic perspective, as "aetatis tem pora dura": Cicero, from w hat one suspects was a more m ainstream perspective, calls this tim e of life the vacatio adulescentiae*^ This appears to have been a period of life w here a degree of aberration and anti social behavior was expected and tolerated to a degree: Cicero's Pro Caelio and Seneca Controversiae 2.6 are particularly illum inating here. In the latter w ork a youthful speaker states that he is acting in accord w ith a lex iuvenalis and going through a tirocinium adulescentiae that after a period of perm issible aberration w ill return him ultim ately to boni mores. The tirocinium adulescentiae as outlined in Seneca seems to be a likely setting fo r elegiac narrative and the chronology that the Propertian narrator sets out for his relationship w ith C ynthia w ould seem to support such a tem poral fram e. In Propertius 3.25 the narrator states that he served C ynthia faith fu lly for five years: this tem poral fram e could be seen to correspond to the tirocinium 39Eyben (1993:7). 40wiedemann (1989:114-17); Eyben (1993:6-7); Richlin (1993a: 545-48); (1997:92-93). Propertius 1.7.8; Cicero Pro Caelio 30. 20 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. adulescentiae m aking elegy the narrative of a youth/young man from around 14- 17 to 19-22. Judging horn our adm ittedly scanty knowledge of the lives of the elegists and publication dates there m ay w e ll also have been a rough correspondence (particularly in the phase of recitation that preceded publication) between the age o f the external poet and the presented age o f the elegiac narrator in the text. This tem poral conflation o f external and internal poet is another means by w hich elegiac discourse plays w ith referentiality and obscures the boundaries between textuality and reality. The period o f the tirocinium adulescentiae was also the tim e of sexual in itiatio n . Hence, in Persius Satires 5 the assumption of the toga virilis is im m ediately envisioned as being sw iftly follow ed by a visit to the Subura. This scenario can be seen as parallel to the recollection of Cynthia, as it is constructed in Propertius 4.7, o f her nocturnal meetings w ith the narrator in the Subura. In this m anner elegy could be view ed as a p rurient textualization of a m ale sexual rite of passage involving a sexually inexperienced m ale and a sexually know ing domina. This was also a tim e of life w hen it was easy to incur stigma and blemishes on one's social reputation. Hence, in the Pro Caelio Cicero notes that suspicion of disreputable behavior, whether founded or not, naturally attaches to young men and injdmia is easily acquired. ^ 2 In this context the elegiac narrator can be view ed as an exam ple of how w ayw ard you th ful behavior can acquire social stigm a (a scenario that seems to be facilitated in elegy through the apparent lack o f any fath er/m en to r figure). The elegiac narrator appears to be unable to negotiate the tirocinium adulescentiae in an appropriate fashion and so incurs a negative ^ ^ P r o C aelio 8,11. 21 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. reputation as is set ou t in poems such as Propertius 2.5,2.24, O vid Amores 2.1, 3.1, Tibullus 1.4, S ulpida 1. The elegiac narrator also presents him self as inexorably fated to such a life o f erotic disrepute, "mi fortuna aliq u id semper am are dedit, " "fortune has allotted to me to be always in love" (Propertius 2.22A .18). In this m anner the elegiac narrator professes an adherence to an innate character that through erotic overindulgence confers a negative reputation on him and prevents a socially expected process o f m aturation. This in turn leads to the attem pt o f the elegiac narrator to upgrade m etaphorically his ow n lifestyle by suggesting in such poems as Propertius 1.6 and Amores 1.9 that his ow n militia amoris is a t least as dem anding as the real thing and thus his ow n form of tirocinium amoris should not be seen as a negative alternative to the socially validated tirocinium militiae and tirocinium fori. The eighth chapter concludes w ith a consideration of how the story of Herm aphroditus and Salm ads in the fou rth book o f the Metamorphoses functions as a kind of com m entary on the problem atic lim in ality of elegiac narrative. In this narrative Herm aphroditus leaves home at age fifteen (around the tim e a Roman m ale w ould assume the toga virilis) bu t is unsuccessful (in the presence o f a sexually voradous fem ale) in passing through sexual in itiatio n into the m aturity of adulthood: instead, a consuming sexual encounter perpetually emasculates him and produces a form o f semivir. Hence, this story could be read as a comment on the general discursive situation o f elegy w ith its tale of a m asculinized fem ale domina and an emasculated m ale serous. Thus elegy is presented as an abortive m ale rite o f passage on the road to adu lt d v ic responsibility. 22 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter nine elaborates how the narrator’s protracted and indulgent erotic behavior is m atched on a poetic level by his im m ersion in elegiac com position. Elegy is thus constructed as a tale o f simultaneous erotic and poetic M v o lity and im m aturity. Verbs such as ludere and lascivire that indicate M volous poetic com position, also allow fo r a m eaning o f sexual playfulness. Such a conflation of m eaning is w e ll dem onstrated in the use of ludere in C atullus 68A. In this poem the death o f his brother precipitates the narrator to abandon both sexual and poetic amusement. Engagement in the ludus poeticus was trad itio n ally only deemed respectable in the period o f life w here d v ic responsibility had not commenced or in tim e le ft over from negotium.*^ In this sense, from a yo u th fu l perspective, it is the perfect poetic soundtrack to the tirocinium adulescentiae. Elegy's blend o f erotic and poetic im m aturity is apparent in Amores 3.1 where the nequitia o f the poet seems to include both his dubious reputation and his com positional habits. ^ 4 Hence, in trying to convert the narrator from elegy to tragedy, Tragoedia is also attem pting to switch the basis o f the poet's reputation from one of shady elegiac notoriety (as incarnated in the meretrix, Elegia) to one o f tragic respectability (as represented by the matrona, Tragoedia). The plea of the narrator at the end of this poem fo r a b rief respite to compose elegy before he turns his attention to tragedy can thus be seen as a p articu larly poetic appeal to the conceded space of the vacatio adulescentiae. The elegiac poetry o f Propertius and O vid can be seen to exist in a particular relation to this expected dynam ic o f m aturation. Propertian elegy, w hich o f the w ork of a ll the elegists sounds the most stridently anti-conform ist. have found the w ork o f W agenvoort (1978) on the Itidiis poetictis particularly valuable. 44l shall be drawing here on M aria Wyke's (1989) insightful analysis o f this poem. 23 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ultim ately resides under an act o f closure (Propertius 3.24 and 3.25) that consigns elegiac aberration to the scrap heap o f a youthful learning experience. Past elegiac madness is m atched by a resurgence of Mens Bona (one of the bound captives in O vid's trium ph o f C upid in Amores 1.2) that corresponds to a rejection of past notoriety. U ltim ately, this w ould seem to give Propertian elegy a conform ist rather than socially challenging dynam ic, as in the end the narrator accepts a norm al Rom an scheme o f male m aturation. O vidian e l^ y presents itself as always existing under the shadow of an incipient mains opus that threatens to supplant the present transitory elegiac compositions of the author. Thus the O vidian narrator is presented as a constant site of poetic contestation, always on the verge of generic transform ation but somehow alw ays m anaging to sneak out another book of elegy. This theme of generic conflict runs the whole w ay through the O vid ian collection thus fram ing the whole o f the Amores between the narrator's abortive attem pt to w rite epic in 1.1 and his professed departure to compose tragedy in 3.15: in this w ay, as in many others, elegy is figured as residing under a controlling m etaphor of mora. U ltim ately, it is O vid's continued persistence in elegiac discourse (beyond the Amores) that presents the biggest affront to tem poral propriety and led to such comments as Seneca the elder’ s, "Ovidius nesdt quod bene cessit r e l i n q u e r e . "'*^ Somehow O vid never grew up poetically and in a society where style and character tended to be equated this had obvious negative ram ifications. Chapter ten takes a look at the characterization of the elegiac narrator in the context of contem porary social trends. First of a ll I examine the vocal opposition to Augustus's social legislation.^ The instances of opposition that are ^Controversiae 9.5.17. ^^The potential lin k between this opposition and elegy was pointed out in Judith Hallett's seminal 1973 article. 24 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. recorded in Suetonius and D io point to vociferous dissent on the part of the equestrian class in particular. The apparent hostility to the prom otion of m arriage that is found in these accounts seems to provide a plausible historical background to the antipathy o f the elegiac narrator tow ards trad ition al standards of Roman m orality: in particularly it provides an interesting p arallel to the vigorous reaction o f the Propertian narrator in 2.7 to w hat appears to have been a legislative attem pt to encourage m arriage. The Propertian poem thus indicates how elegy refracted contem porary sources of an xie^ through its ow n particular literary prism . The opposition to Augustus's social legislation m ay also suggest a contemporary audience that was (in part at least) receptive and attuned to the themes o f elegiac poetry. Augustus also appears to have taken a pronounced interest in attem pting to revitalize and train the elite youth o f Rome. Hence Z v i Y avetz has argued that the Res Gestae should be understood as being dedicated "pro i u v e n t a t e . " ^ ^ The princeps seems to have deliberately tried to realign the equestrian order to m irror the senatorial to provide a reservoir of dvically integrated aristocrats. Elegy’ s rejection o f a forensic or m ilitary career m ight again be view ed as a textualization of an equestrian unease over Augustus’ s attem pt to appropriate the traditional right of their order to pursue private interests rather than c iv il service. The fin al part of the tenth chapter deals w ith the phenom enon that has been described as "infamous aristocrats."^ It w ould seem that the period of the late civil wars and early prindpate saw a propensity on the p a rt of Rome’ s elite to ^^Yavetz (1984:20). ^Edw ards (1997:85-90): also o f particular interest here are Levick (1983), Barton (1993) and Gardner (1993: ch. 5). 25 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. participate in activities w hich, if entered into on a professional basis, conveyed infamia as a legal penalty on those participating. There are various accounts during the Augustan principate o f the princeps trying to curb elite participation on the stage and in the arena. M ost notably it appears that in 11 CE Augustus lifte d the ban on the participation o f equestrians in the arena. It is not entirely clear w hy the ban was lifted ; D io notes that the penalty of infatnia was not being taken seriously and it is possible that Augustus hoped that by sim ply rem oving the social stigm a he w ould render the practice less attractive (if notoriety was w hat egged on elite participants). The measure d id not, however, according to D io , w ork, and equestrians continued to tig h t and w ere watched eagerly, and even by the princeps him self. The am biguity here of Augustus's attem pt to control elite participation in infam ous professions and his ow n interest in seeing such a spectacle points to a degree o f hypocrisy in the m anagement o f this phenomenon. The upsurge of elite particip atio n in such activities can be view ed as an attem pt by Rome's aristocracy to gain attention and prom ote themselves in the m ore restrictive circumstances fo r e lite display under the principate (in other words as analogous practices to the developm ent of the recitatio and declam ation as exam ined in chapter six).'*^ This problem atic o f disreputable elite behavior also appears to have encompassed fem ale members o f Rome's elite at this tim e. The most egregious recorded exam ple dates from the tim e o f Tiberius but there is little reason to suppose that the roots, if not the actual practice, w ere to be found in the Augustan period. Suetonius records that Tiberius had to p u t a stop to the " * ^ 1 have found D avid Cohen’s article on the Augustan adultery laws and his examination of the behavior of social elites w ith respect to the expected behavioral norms o f a society a particularly illum inating frame of reference in considering these questions. 26 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. practice o f "feminae famosae" professing lenocinium as a means to avoid prosecution under the term s o f the Augustan adultery law ; Tacitus, in turn, records the case o f V is tilia w ho although from a fam ily o f praetorian rank registered w ith the aediles as a public prostitute.^ Tacitus rem arks that previously it was believed that the social stigm a itself w ould be a su ffîd en t deterrent from preventing anyone o f social rank from undertaking such an act. The narratives of elegy can be seen to fit rather neatly w ith this social clim ate. The opposition to Augustan social legislation suggests a potential audience for elegiac poetry (as w e ll as a genesis for the elegiac product itself), in addition elegy constructs a puella whose curious conflation of the meretrix and the matrona seems akin to the V is tilia incident, and the elegiac narrator him self appears as yet another exam ple of an elite m ale w illin g to incur infamia in exchange for public exposure and recognition. In the fin a l chapter I turn to exam ining how in particular elegy sought to succeed as a literary product by appealing to a youthful audience and through constructing a sexualized reading response that w ould appeal variously to a Roman audience. H ere, I w ill be exam ining some parallels to popular m usic, how the Romans conceived o f a propriety o f style according to age, and the sexualization of style and how elegy produced its own sexual effect Elegy, lik e popular music, p rim arily, I think, catered to a you th ful dem ographic by constructing itself as an em pathetic piece of you th ful angst or an insightful piece o f advice from a know ing praeceptor. Thus, its po p u larity is generated through an a b ility to elaborate poetically the contem porary concerns o f youth (or at least a segment o f society’s youth) ouside the te x t Annales 2.85. 27 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Roman society, like most societies, had a notion o f how style should relate to age. 5 1 Texts such as Horace's Ars Poetica and Q uintilian's Institutio Oratorio point to how such a decorum o f style was elaborated. It is also apparent that the appreciation o f style also sp lit along the lines o f age. Hence, speakers such as Hortensius and Seneca the younger w ho w ere popular among younger members of the audience, d id not fin d sim ilar approval among their old er listeners. In fact such m ature critics o f popular speaking as Seneca the elder and Q u in tilian seem to have viewed such speakers as deliberately attem pting to court popularity by means o f a verbal style that was socially irresponsible. In this m anner elegiac discourse, particularly in its O vid ian m anifestation, could be seen as akin to such practices o f appealing to a youthful audience through a deliberately contrived seductive style: a style that was naturally bolstered in the case o f elegy by its content Elegy's potentially seductive verbal effect should also be set in the context of its contemporary setting w here it has been argued by Paul Zanker that there was an attem pt to use plastic art to create a "superculture " through the use o f an "Augustan classicism and archaism" that aim ed to incarnate a "m oral revival " artistically. 5 2 Hence, the Augustan clim ate could be view ed as prom oting a pu rity of style as a type o f m oral cleansing. This, in turn, w ould mesh neatly w ith the presentation o f the princqjs's ow n view o f literature in Suetonius where we are shown an Augustus who took a very pragm atic view towards literature, seeing verbal com m unication generally as prim arily a means to expressing oneself clearly and literature as a potential reservoir of edifying m oral aphorisms. 5^1 have drawn in this section on the observations o f Eyben (1993) and Richlin (1997). 52Zanker (1988:239-40). 28 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Andrew W allace-H adnll, how ever, has pointed out the drawbacks o f treating the Augustan period as a m onolithic and isolated e n t i t y . ^ 3 For the debate over appropriate style predates the Augustan period and this period in itself can be seen as generating conflict precisely through its attem pts to regulate. Such conflict can be seen as m anifest for instance in the production o f Augustan literature and incarnate in the most famous o f Augustan lite ra ry patrons, Maecenas. Maecenas was used by Seneca the younger as an egregious exam ple o f the aphorism "talis hom inibus fu it oratio qualis vita. "^ According to Seneca, Maecenas's speech was sim ply the verbal em anation of a type o f effem inate character who, as R ichlin has argued, deliberately tried to attract attention to themselves through depraved means.^s Such effem inate behavior incarnated in a m ature ad u lt m ale Roman was a sign of a cinaedusP^ H ow ever, effem inate traits, although they could be view ed in Roman culture as a characteristic of pathological m ature m ales, seem also to have been w idely associated w ith incipient m ale adulthood. The kin d of gender lim bo between the mollitia o f adolescence and the duritia of manhood made the transitory phase o f young adulthood particu larly susceptible to being characterized in terms o f effem inacy. This is perhaps best dem onstrated in Seneca the elder's scathing denunciation o f contemporary youth in the preface to his first ControfoersiaP'^ 53WaUace-HadriU (1989b). ^Epistulae Morales 114.1. SSRichlin (1997:94). ^ O n the manifestation of the cinaedus at Rome I have found Richlin (1993a); Corbeill (1996: ch. 4); (1997); and Parker (1997:60-62) particularly usefuL ^^Controversiae 1, preface 8-9. 2 9 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Such an attack on contem poraiy youth and its efiem inacy must also be view ed in the context of such critics as Seneca and Q u in tilia n wishing to deny the possibility o f eloquentia to such young m en in lig h t o f the traditional d efinition o f an orator as a "vir bonus dicendi p e r i t u s " 5 8 The attem pt by such elder critics to delim it true eloquentia in m oralistic terms can be seen as a defensive gesture in the face of the popularity of the eloquentia of members o f Rome's desidiosa iuventus. The popularity of such youthful speakers m ay also be seen to be related to the sexualized nature o f their eloquentia. Hence, lunius G allio is described in Seneca as belonging to a group o f orators know n as the caldi ( "hot ones") and in the case o f A lfiu s Flavus, Seneca argues that his po pu larity was not based m erely on his eloquentia bu t that his age and desidia also served as pim ps for his talent, lenocinium ingenii.^^ If in the case o f A lfius the popularity o f his declam ations could be seen as in part dependent on his seduction o f the audience through his effem inate p u erility and youthful dissoluteness, then one m ig ht also speculate on how elegy m ight have achieved its literary effect through sim ilar means.^o There are several references to the sexualized effect o f the recital o f poetry on an audience. In Juvenal Satires 7 and Persius Satires 1 epic recitation, as one m ight expect o f a poetic product that is durus, is described in term s o f an active penetration of the a u d i e n c e . 8 1 H ow ever, since elegy is a form o f poetry that presents itself as mollis. ^^Controversiae 1, preface 9; Q uintilian 12.1.1. ^^Siiasoriae 3.6-7, Richlin (1997:95-96); Controversiae 1.1.22. 80ln considering this question 1 w ill be drawing upon the insightful observations of W yke, particularly (1989a) (1989b) and (1994a), Cam el (1989), (1998), Cold (1993) and Kennedy (1993). 8lThe sexualized nature of the responses recorded in these poems has been analyzed by Bartsch (1994) on Juvenal; Bramble (1974); Richlin (1992c); W yke (1994a) and Dupont (1997) on Persius. 30 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. rather than durus, its s&cual effect m ight be expected to be somewhat different. H ere, C atullus 16 provides an im portant parallel.^^ In this poem A urelius and Furius are represented as not being penetrated by C atullus's poetic product but rather responding to a poetic piece o f mollitia by assum ing that the external poet must be a cinaedus/pathicus.^^ Therefore, Furius and A urelius are depicted as responding in a typically Roman v irile m anner to the effem inate literary product placed before them . The sexualized reading response provoked by the CatuUan literary product (in his poems concerning Lesbia at any rate) w ould then be analogous to the scene he him self depicts in poem 56 w here the narrator is represented as anally penetrating another m ale w ho is penetrating a fem ale. Elegy as a form o f textual mollitia m ay w e ll have produced a sexualized response sim ilar to that elaborated in C atullus 16 and 56. Elegiac mollitia is heavily overdeterm ined: the form o f poetry itself is an em asculinized version of epic verse and the narrator's fixation on wom en, his in a b ility to control his desired sexual object and his masochistic patientia a ll m ark him out, in Roman terms, as a w om anly m an. H o lt Parker has argued that such masochistic passivity tow ards a wom an can be m anifested in tw o ways, "by providing cunnilingus" and "by being used, as it were, as a d ild o w ith his p e n i s . The w illin g , and alm ost enthusiastic, capacity of the elegiac narrator to undergo ^^The bibliography on the poem is immense: Richlin (1992c 248 n. 9) provides a good summary of the various interpretative positions. trying to w o rk out the ramifications o f this sexual economy I have found particularly illum inating Richlin (1992c), (1993a), Edwards (1993) and H allett and Skinner U997). ^ T h is threesome' effect is elaborated in Roman visual art by John Clarke (1998:229-35). 65parker (1997:57). 31 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. degradation and hum iliation at the hands o f a wom an m ake him analogous to the most degraded o f a ll Roman sexual practitioners, the cunnilinctor.^ In this m anner elegiac discourse can be seen to have produced a variety of sexualized reading responses that correspond to both sexes and their variety of sexual proclivities. This sexual gratification o f the audience was one of the ways in w hich this youthful literary form of eloquentia produced its popularity and success. In the conclusion to this study I shall be attem pting to draw together the various aspects o f elegiac discourse presented in the m ain chapters and to reach some conclusions over the functioning of elegy in its historical and social context and the reaction that it likely inspired in its contem porary audience. In particular I w ill be dealing here w ith how a literary product may be variously processed by its readers in keeping w ith their alignm ent to ideological models. In this manner I hope to dem onstrate how the reception of elegy can be view ed as a microcosm w ith respect to the macrocosm of the reception o f the Augustan principate and an evolving dom inant ideological paradigm . ^^Visual parallels for this phenomenon are also discussed by Clarke (1998:223-27). 32 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER ONE Difficult Sex: Elegy as Erotic Callimachean Discourse This chapter sets ou t to explore how elegy is a form o f poetry that is constructed so as to produce a dram atization o f Callim achean aesthetic principles on an erotic level. The refinem ent and elusiveness that are preconditions o f Callim achean poetics are inducted into elegy and shape not only the form al properties o f the text b u t also the nature o f the erotic narrative that is presented. In staging a dram a of desire, where an elusive fem ale is pursued by a m ale who is continually hindered and frustrated, elegy displays to the reader an eroticized parable o f Callim achean aesthetics. First I w ill exam ine the m ain tenets of Callim achean aesthetics as set out in a num ber o f famous passages, then I w ill move on to exam ine tw o epigram s w here C allim achus’s aesthetic principles are given an erotic expression. H aving seen how the erotidzation of the aesthetic was set out in Callim achus’s ow n poetry, I shall then dem onstrate how elegiac discourse elaborates upon this m odel. The b u lk o f the chapter w ill deal w ith Propertius 2.23 where the narrator deploys Callim achean aesthetic im agery to dram atize an intended shift in erotic habits. ^ The narrator’ s professed rejection in this poem o f the elegiac love life , in the specific terms o f Callim achean aesthetic im agery, gives the reader an excellent opportunity to examine the connection betw een erotics, aesthetics and poetics. iThe Callimachean imagery evident at the beginning o f this poem was noted by Commager (1974:9) but much remains to be said on how the poem elaborates on the general theme o f the elegiac lifestyle as a reflection o f Callimachean aesthetics. 33 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Callimachean Aesthetics The principles o f Callim achean poetics are elaborated in a num ber o f w ell- know n metaphors and antitheses. It is a poetic program m e that is m arked by restraint, exclusion and exclusiveness: a poetics that attem pts to carve out for itself a distinct aesthetic space in a refined atmosphere o f literary pristine wilderness where popular taste and derivative art m ay not penetrate. The m etaphors contrast the large and the sm all and the frequented and the remote. Hence in the famous preface to the Aetia the poet quotes the follow ing advice of Apollo: Trpôç 5e oe] ical t 6 5 ’ avco ya. r à uf| tra ré o v a w aua^cn TO oreîpeiv, érépcov 5’ ïx v ia ufj Ka0 ’ ô n â 5 i<ppov éXlqv wnG' oTnov à v à TrAaTuv, àAAà K 6Àeu0ouç àTpiTm oiuç, El Km OTEivoTÉpriv èXdoEiç. 25-28 A nd I b id you this too, don't w alk on paths that wagons tram ple; don't drive your chariot on the tracks o f others nor on a broad road, but on unw orn paths, even though it be narrow er. Apollo's advice is appropriately cryptic fo r a god o f prophesy but evidently his strictures on the poet's traveling habits are to be understood as m etaphoric rather than lite ra l. Callim achus's poetic journey is to take place on the remote untram pled paths o f the poetic landscape: it is to avoid the ancient w orld's backed-up poetic freeways along w hich the literary juggernauts o f derivative epic poetry pound. S im ilarly at the end o f H ym n 2 such literary discrim ination is expressed in the form o f an aquatic m etaphor: 'A o o u tti'o u TTOTauoîo uéyaç "pooç, àXXà x à TToXXà Xvjruaxa y fjç Koù ttoXX ô v é q > ’ üB a xi o u u ç e t ô v ëX k e i. A rio î 5 ' oÙK àiTÔ Travxôç ü5cop çopéouoi M éXiaoau àXX’ fÎT iç KaGapfj te kq I àxpdoacoT oç àvépiTEi TTÎbaKOç È Ç lEpfjç ôX îyri X i^à ç d xpov âcoxov. 108-112 34 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The stream of the Assyrian river is great, bu t it drags much m ud and refuse w ith its w ater. But the M elissae don't bring w ater from everyw here to Deo b u t w hatever pure and im defiled creeps up hrom a holy spring, a little stream, the choicest prize. The same set o f Callim achean principles is here transposed from land routes to waterways.^ The epic proportions of the broad frequented road are equated w ith the sim ilarly grandiose dimensions of the Assyrian river. The capacity of both to m etaphorically convey an indiscrim inate load o f poetic traffic inevitably tells against them in Callim achean terms. The volum e of the Assyrian river is undeniably great but its quantity is m arred by its variable quality. The w ater is polluted, it is lacking in poetic hygiene. The connection between this m etaphoric program me of attenuation and poetic preference is also m ade more explicit in the Aetia preface. A pollo draws Callim achus's attention to the differing etiquette appropriate to sacrifice and poetic composition: "àoi5é, TO nèv 6ÛOÇ o t t i -rrdxioTov 6pé+/ai, TTilv MoOaav 5' cbyaôè XerrraXériv" Aetia preface 23-24 Poet, feed your sacrificial victim till it is as plum p as possible, but, sir, keep your M use on a strict diet. It is a m istake to confuse the decorum of one activity w ith that of another. In fact, as the poet has just proclaim ed prior to these lines, the length and pomp of epic is not a pious act that is analogous to the w ell-fattened sacrifice but rather an act of bloated blasphem y: "a\56i 5È T É X V T ] xpivETe,] u q oxoivcp TTepoiBi T q v ooçîqv ^On the imagery of water as opposed to that of wine as possible signifiers o f different poetic practices see Knox (1985). 35 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. H n 6' a ir ' ÈHEÙ 5i<pâTE n ë y a y o ç Ë o u o a v à o iB iiv TiKTEOÔai- P po vrâv o ù k è^6v, àXAà Aiôç." Aetia preface 17-20 From this point on judge by poetic skill, not by the Persian measuring chain; don't look fo r me to produce some din-rousing song: it's Zeus's job to provide thunder, not mine.3 The principal tenets, then, o f Callim achus's poetic/aesthetic program m e are elaborated in a series of m etaphoric assertions that are enum erated to support the poet's chosen mode of com position. Poetic preference fo r the sm all-scale and the esoteric attempts to naturalize its ow n arbitrariness by m etaphorically m ultiplying its privileged view point into a series of judgm ental dichotom ies where the long, frequented, m uddy and loud is inevitably disparaged. A poetic/aesthetic preference expands m etaphorically, encompassing and evaluating a ll else in terms o f itself: As we m ight expect given the principle of correspondence between style and character, letters and Bios, the exponent of the lo w er form correlates his attitude o f scorn for physical enorm ity w ith abhorrence from the grandiose and inflated in literature. A nything grande, tnagnum, pingue, or tumidum is autom atically shunned. ♦ ^The rejection of the w riting of epic where such a mode of composition is equated w ith "thundering" is directly referred to by Propertius at 2.139ff., where Callimachus is appropriately distanced from "thunderous" composition, neque. . . intonet Callimachus,” and cited as an authoritative example of the decorum of a latter-day Roman Callimachus who politely declines to compose panegyrical epic on the m artial exploits of Augustus: sed neque Phlegraeos lovis Enceladique tumultus intonet angusto pectore Callimachus, nec mea conveniunt duro praecordia versu Caesaris in Phiygios condere nomen avos. But neither can Callimachus thunder the Phlegraean wars o f Jove and Enceladus, nor are my powers suited to enshrine the name of Caesar amongst his Phrygian ancestors in hard verse. ^Bramble (1974:158). 36 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. T o w a rd s a Callimachean aesthetic of the erotic W hat happens, then, w hen th is fo rm o f lite ra ry fastidiousness encom passes e ro tic themes? A s w e s h a ll see, a p o e tic preference th a t stands as the c o n tro llin g m etaphor o f C allim achean aesthetics expands to shape content in the term s o f its o w n d is c rim in a tio n . So, in tw o e ro tic epigram s o f C allim achus w e fin d th a t the e ro tic is e xp lica te d in the sam e m e ta p h o ric term s o f equivalence th a t the p o e t has used elsew here w h ils t im a g in g a lite ra ry preference in aquatic o r itin e ra n t term s: 'Ex6a(pco TO TTOiTina to kukAikov où6è K E À e û G c p xaîpco Tiç TToXXoùç x a i < * > 5 6 çépEu m ow KOI TTepi<poiTov èpw pEvov, OÙ5’ à n è Kpqvriç TTivw o iK xa lvw îrà v T a t ô S ripooia. A u o a v iri, où 5 è v a ix 'i k o X ô ç k o X ô ç —àXXà irp lv eItteT v TOÛTO oa<pwç, ’H xco q>r)o( tiç "ôXXoç Éxei. Epigram 28 I despise the poem th a t keeps o n g o in g and I g e t no th r ill in the ro a d th a t carries m any to and hro, and I hate the lo v e r w h o gets around a b it, n o r d o I d rin k fro m a w e ll; I loathe e ve ryth in g shared. Lysanias y o u are re a lly , re a lly cute b u t before someone even gets the w o rd s o u t p ro p e rly , some echo b u tts in "som eone else's." 'CüypEUTqç, ’ETTÎiofSEç, é v oùpeai irâ v T a X ayw ôv 5i<pg K O I TrdoTiç ïx v ia S c p K a X iS c s O T E lP ïl K O I Viq>ETCp K EX PTlU évO Ç , 5 é TIÇ ElTnT) " ttî, t 65e pépX qToi G qpiov," oùk ëXa^ev. Xoùuôç Ëpws t o i6 uo5e * T à y à p ÇEÙyovTo Siw keiv o15e , to 5’ Èv pÉoocp KEipEva irapirÉ TE Toi. E p ig ra m :^ E picydes, the h u n te r in the m o u n ta in s searches a fte r every hare and the tracks o f every d e e r, harassed b y fa llin g a n d sta n d in g snow , b u t if som eone sh o u ld say, "H e re is a s tric k e n a n im a l," he d o e sn 't take it. Such is m y e ro tic im p u ls e ; it kn o w s h o w to pursue fle e in g objects b u t it bypasses those ly in g in com m on g ro u n d . am follow ing here the reading of Bramble (1974: 59-62). Bramble also discusses the problem of whether to punctuate before or after ’Hyco- 37 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In these epigrams the m etaphors that are used to disparage incorrect literary com position are extended to fin d an appropriate analogue in erotic term s. The equivalent denigrated erotic sign ifier that corresponds to the m uddy riv e r/th e common w e ll/th e overcrowded highw ay is the promiscuous, ”TTEp {q> ciTo v épcbnevov," or readily accessible/'réx 5’ èv péaocp KEiueva TTaprrdTETai" lover. These are erotic figures w ho stand in the condemned ground o f "xa Sriuoota" and whose com m onality, accessibility and lack of discrim ination m ake them suitably antithetical to the principles o f Callim achean aesthetics.® In other words these poems demonstrate how aesthetic principles can be im ported into the content o f Callim achean poetry: Callim achean eroticism is inevitably refracted through and shaped by the general tenets of the poet's aesthetic principles.^ ® As Bramble (1974:61) has pointed out w ith regard to Epigram 28 the representation of Lysanias "expresses distaste for the literary and erotic predilections o f the mob:” vulgar taste finds Lysanias attractive even though he is promiscuous. Moreover, its approval is expressed in the language of a trite colloquial form ula that in its interchangeability is an entirely appropriate corollary to Lysanias's erotic lifestyle: in a sim ilar vein the Catullan narrator in poem 43 dismisses the taste of the age, "O saedum insapiens et infacetum," ” 0 stupid and tasteless age" (8) that w ould compare the "decoctoris amica Formiani," T h e girlfriend of the bankrupt o f Formiae" (5) to his object of erotic interest, Lesbia. This sentiment of popular disdain is also expressed in m agisterial fashion at the beginning of Horace's third book o f Odes "Odi profanum vulgus et arceo," "I hate the uninitiated crowd and keep my distance;" see further Oliensis (1998:131). The comments of the narrator in Persius's first Satire appear to indict a contemporary popular poetics that in its foppish, vulgarized and derivative Callimachean form has become the antithesis of innovation and taste: see further Sullivan (1985:74-114). Callimachus's value judgement that the worth of erotic activity can be accurately gauged by its popularity or exclusiveness is also reminiscent of Pausanias's speech in Plato's Symposium where the speaker distinguishes between two types of Aphroditai; a validated "Heavenly" one and a debased "Popular" one (180cl-185c3). ^The concept of a Callimachean programme remains problem atic much o f Callimachus's poetry is lost or fragmentary. The preface to the Aetia which has been taken as the kernel of Callimachus's poetic theory was itself only rediscovered some seventy years ago. Deciding on the basis of the available text of Callimachus precisely w hat literary forms the poet favoured and rejected is more difficult than it is often assumed to be: for further discussion see Asper (1997). 38 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Elegy and the Callimachean love-object G ian Biagio Conte has argued that Roman elegy is a process of "transcodification."® That is to say it is a process o f "reform ulating the w orld" through a narrow ly erotic perspective. I w ould argue, however, that this erotic perspective is in itself a transcodification o f Callim achean aesthetic principles. Therefore, elegy is not m erely a Callim achean project because o f its choice o f genre and its poetic craft but its very erotic content is also regulated by a discerning Callim achean aesthetic. Thus a rt does not im itate life but other art.^ Elegy as an erotic discourse can be view ed as constructing its erotic content under the controlling metaphors of Callim achean poetic discourse as outlined above. Elegiac poetry attem pts to construct its sexual dynam ic in keeping w ith a Callim achean propriety of the ero tic This is an undertaking that has its difficulties and elegiac discourse both struggles w ith and exploits the contradictions that come along w ith such a fusion of Callim achean aesthetics and elegy's erotic content. As outlined in epigrams 28 and 33 above, the erotic object that appears to be validated in Callimachus's poetry is a direct analogue to his other m etaphoric ®Conte (1989). ^The impact o f Callimacheanism on Roman literature was considerable but far from uniform . Callimachean poetic theory was variously appropriable according to the needs of the Roman poet and his generic preference, as is made clear from the use of the aesthetic distinctions that the Greek poet drew by authors as diverse as Horace, V irg il, Propertius and O vid. In this way our understanding o f a Callimachean programme is also inevitably colored by the reception of Callimachus's aesthetic judgments by later Roman poets whose use of the earlier Greek poet was motivated and far from disinterested. Elegy w ith its construction of an erotic form of Callimacheanism is just one more step in this history of interested appropriation. O n the general influence o f Callimachus’s aesthetic principles on Roman poetry see Clausen (1964); for the Neronian period see Sullivan (1985:74-114). The most intense period of appropriation was that effected by the neoterics of the mid first century BCE: for further elaboration see W im m el (1960); Clausen (1964); Ross (1969); Crowther (1971); (1976); (1980); Wiseman (1974); Lyne (1978); Hinds (1998:74-83). The elegiac poets were re-inventing Callimachus for their own generation and literary purposes. 39 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. equations to correct poetry. Hence, the erotic object who is readily accessible and publicly available m ust be rejected: the Callim achean lover, like the Callim achean poet, is a hunter w ho is not interested in the facile acquisition o f a lo v e r/ poetry. H is erotic desire, like his poetic desire, m ust bypass the easy option and seek out the untram pled paths and pure w ater sources of the ero tic/ poetic landscape. It is not the capture that interests the Callim achean erotic hunter but the th rill o f the c h a s e .T h e Callim achean lover does not hunt pragm atically to satisfy a b o d ily need but rather as yet another expression o f superior discrim ination. The Callim achean aesthetic principles of untrodden paths and the avoidance of public highways and common w ells produce an erotic analogue that m ust be hard to fin d and that, one w ould also assume, should be preferably pristine and untouched. Innovation and prim acy in poetics should be matc±ied by a sim ilar originary and defining drive in erotics: in both instances the Callim achean should strive to boldly go where no p o et/lo ver has been before.^ ^ Elegiac discourse as a Callim achean erotic analogue does not construct itself around a pristine fem ale love-object, as one m ight expect. This is not a ^^Carson (1986:21) notes that the visual evidence of Greek vase painting indicates that eros deferred or obstructed, rather than eros trium phant is the favored subject:" this may, as Carson indicates, be a reflection of a Greek "contradictory ethic" that simultaneously validates seduction and the resistance of seduction (on a pédérastie level anyway). The derogatory term "easy" in English can also be seen as a validation of sexual resistance. In this manner the erotic preferences of Callimachus can be seen to partake in the male erotic drives that characterize earlier G reek lyric poetry where the force of eros directs the male narrator towards virginal members of either sex who serve as containers for the power of love. This power, in its abstract form, he cannot conquer, the specific love-receptacle he can. A fter sexual fulfillm ent, desire and the lover m ove on to another prim ary and untouched site of attraction. The pursuit of the virginal and the rejection of the post-virginal are both for instance combined in the Cologne Epode of Archilochus where the offer by the virgin, who is under threat by the narrator, to substitute Meobule for herself is rejected: Neobule, the narrator argues, is "overripe," has lost her "girlhood bloom" and is a "randy slut (the equivalent o f Callimachus's "wandering lover"): on this epode and the poetic/ erotic conventions of archaic poetry that underpin it see Henderson (1976). 40 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. poetic form that stresses the p u rsu it o f a fem ale figure who is construed as v irg in al and who serves the purpose o f a m ale originary conquest O n the contrary, if anyone is being inducted into sexual activity in elegy it is not the fem ale objects o f desire but rather the narrator him self, The principal elegiac fem ale figures, C ynthia, C orinna, D elia, Nemesis are clearly not represented as obstinate attractive virgins w ith whom the narrator is attem pting to achieve a Callim achean prim al sexual act. Q uite to the contrary the elegiac w om an is com pared by the elegiac narrator to notable prostitutes from the p ast ^ 3 Such a comparison by the narrator w ould hardly seem to establish an appropriately Callim achean erotic discourse. For, as the elegiac narrator is careful to point out in enum erating his examples, these figures are central to the erotic desires o f a p lu rality o f m en, "m ultis Lais am ata viris," "Lais loved by m any men" {Amores, 1.5.12), "Phryne . . . m ultis facta beata viris," "Phryne . . . m ade w ealthy by so m any men" (Propertius, 2.6.6): in fact they are constructed as the sexual objects o f w hole cities and even nations o f men, "ad cuius iacu it Graecia tota fores," "A t whose door [Lais's] the w hole o f Greece lay prostrate" (Propertius 2.6.2), "in qua populus lusit Ericthonius,"' "In whom [Thais] the A thenian people sported"' (Propertius 2.6.4). These figures w ould appear to belong to the ancient w orld's erotic freeways and m uddy rivers rather than the untram pled paths o f ancient erotic topography. l^Hence Propertius in 1.1 is presented as captured by Cynthia and his erotic inexperience is stressed, "contactum nullis ante cupidinibus,” "touched by no desire previously" (2); sim ilarly, the narrator in Amores 1.1 complains to C upid that he is not in love and at the beginning o f Amores 1.2 is unsure how to explain the erotic symptoms that he is suddenly experiencing. This characterization of the elegiac narrator w ill be discussed more fully in chapter e ig h t l^In Amores 1.5, Corinna is compared to Semiramis and Lais; in Propertius 2.6, Cynthia is compared to Lais, Thais and Phryne. 41 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. H o w is this contradiction resolved? The erotic object o f elegy is callim achized through placing an emphasis on the degree of d ifficu lty that attends erotic p u rsu it on the part o f lo v e r/ p o et Thus A lison Sharrock w rites of elegiac discourse in general: It is a poetry w hich thrives on rejection and is structured around exclusion, file m ost program m atic m anifestation o f w hich is the paraclausithyron.14 Callim achean aesthetics is a ll about boundaries and exclusions; elegy takes over this notion and eroticizes it. It is the obstacles to erotic gratification that make elegy a Callim achean erotic spectacle (the denigrated Callim achean erotic analogue is the easily accessible love-object). The elegiac puella m ay be sexually available b u t it is the discrim ination that surrounds such availab ility that makes her a peculiarly Callim achean amica. There is not only the general problem of gaining access to the puella but the specific problem o f being able to afford her sexual com pany. The puella m ay indeed be sexually available but that does not m ean that she is available to e v e r y o n e . There are degrees of venality and availab ility and the elegiac puella is constructed as at the m ore refined (and expensive) end o f the spectrum; in the terms of venal sexuality she is constructed not as a scortum/pome but as a meretrix! hetaira.^^ In addition to this circumstance the elegiac narrator is also troped as being poor, thus adding to the difficu lty of acquiring access to his desired fem ale o b j e c t . ^ ^ These circumstances a ll add up to l^Sharrock (1995:162). l^This apparent paradox o f an "easy " wom an who is difficult to get to sleep w ith is, of course, not a circumstance that is encountered only in elegy. Sim ilar sexual relations are depicted in Roman and Greek N ew comedy and in Roman and Greek erotic epigrams. l^The term inology is not unproblematic and historically variable, see Adams (1983); Kurke (1997). This distinction w ill be discussed in more detail in chapter three. l^For the poverty of the elegiac narrator see Tibullus 1.1.5,1.1.19-20; Propertius 4.1.127-130; and retrospectively Ars Amatoria 2.165-166. 42 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ensuring an erotic discourse that fits the Callim achean description o f pursuing Ta <peûyo\n-a, the pursuit o f an elusive erotic object. Propertius 2.23: Rejecting the Callimachean Love-Life The C allim achean nature of elegiac erotic discourse can be w ell explored in a poem o f Propertius where the narrator deliberately uses Callim achean aesthetic im agery to represent an intended change in erotic lifestyle: C u i fugienda fu it indocti semita vu lg i, ipsa petita lacu nunc m ih i du ld s aquast. ingenuus quisquam alterius dat m unera servo, u t promissa suae verba ferat dominae? et quaerit totiens "Quaenam nunc porticus illam integit?" et "Campo quo m ovet üla pedes?" deinde, ubi pertuleris, quos d id t fam a labores Herculis, u t scribat "M uneris ecquid habes?", cem ere u ti possis vultum custodis am ari, captus et im m unda saepe latere casa? quam care semel in toto nox vertitu r anno! a pereant, si quos ianua dausa iuvat! contra, reiecto quae libera vad it am ictu, custodum et nullo saepta tim ore, placet, cui saepe im m undo Sacra conteritur V ia socco, nec sinit esse m oram , si quis adire velit; d ifferet haec num quam , nec poscet garrula, quod te astrictus ploret saepe dedisse pater, nec dicet "Timeo, propera iam surgere, quaeso: infelix, hodie v ir m ih i rure venit." et quas Euphrates et quas m ihi m isit Orontes, me iuverint: nolim furta pudica tori, libertas quoniam n u lli iam restât am anti, nullus lib er e rit, si quis am are volet. I w ho thought the alleyways o f the uneducated masses had to be avoided, now fin d the very w ater draw n from a public dstem sweet. Does any fireebom m an give gifts to another's slave so that l^The use of Callimachean aesthetic imagery in this poem is noted, but not elaborated in detail, by Commager (1974:9) and Myers (1996:18). 43 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. he m ight carry entrusted w ords to his ow n mistress? A nd ask so m any times "What portico covers her now?" and "W hich campus is she strolling through?" Then, when you have endured w hat tradition calls the labors o f Hercules, so that she m ight w rite "Do you have some sort of gift?" or so that you m ig ht see the face of some g rim guardian and often be forced to hide in a filth y hovel? A t w hat expense a single night comes round once in a w hole year! Let them go to h e ll whom the barred door delights! Rather she gives pleasure w ho freely goes w ith covering cast off, fenced o ff by no guards o r fear. The g irl whose soiled slipper gets w orn out on the V ia Sacra, does not p u t up w ith any delay if someone wants her; she never puts you off nor, a ll talk, demands w hat a tight-fisted father w ill often bemoan you've donated, nor w ill she say, "Tm scared, please hurry and get up: poor sap, today m y husband is com ing in from the country " Those delig ht me, the ones the Euphrates and the Orontes have sent for me: 1 don’t care for respectable adulteries. Since now freedom lies in store for no lover, no one w ill be firee who wants to love. This poem opens w ith a couplet that is redolent w ith Callim achean aesthetic imagery: C u i fugienda fu it indocti semita vulgi, ipsa petita lacu nunc m ihi dulds aquast. I who thought the alleyways of the uneducated masses had to be avoided, now fin d the very w ater draw n from a public dstem sweet. Both the "semita " and the "aqua" are d early transliterations o f Callim achean literary m etaphors, the "semita" being the Latin equivalent o f the G reek " K E À E u G o ç " (Callim achus Aetia preface 27; Epigram 28.1), whereas "aqua" corresponds to the various aquatic im agery of Callim achean com positional m etaphor, the uéyaç "pooç of the Assyrian river at H ym n 2.108 and the contrasting oXiyri of 112; sim ilarly the Kpiivri o f 28.3. As was noted earlier, both the overpopulated broad highw ay and the w ide m uddy riv e r are Callim achean m etaphors for types o f poetry that m ust be avoided, nam ely l^The Propertian narrator, unlike his equivalent in Juvenal, clearly saw some value in the influx of Syrians to Rome (Juvenal Satire 3.62). 44 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. popxüist, easily-accessible, d erivative epic. The opening couplet o f this Propertian poem plays on this Callim achean im agery. The "semita" that the poet previously avoided was that of the "indocti vu lg i " : the route traveled by the uneducated masses. As is clear in C allim achean aesthetic theory, w hatever partakes o f popular, facile consum ption m ust be rejected. The firs t line, then, expresses a habitual Callim achean sentim ent bu t this act o f aesthetic solidarity is no w relegated to the past and contrasted w ith a present perspective also presented in term s o f Callim achean aesthetics, " ipsa petita lacu nunc m ihi du lds aquast,"" ""Now the very w ater draw n from a public dstem is sweet to me " ' The approved aquatic m etaphor in Callim achean term s is the sm all, seduded spring, a source o f w ater that is rem oved from the m ajor natural aquatic highways. It is rem ote, hard to fin d and lacking in the debris that larger bodies o f w ater in evitab ly drag along w ith them . The lacus of Propertius 2.23 is antithetical to such approved im agery. Though it is not a large, m uddy river, it does nevertheless partake in a degree o f com m onality that is unacceptable. It is a receptade b u ilt for the express purpose of popularizing its aquatic contents. It holds w ater that is available to a ll, set in the heart of the busy streets of the d ty , the semitae populi that the elegiac/C allim achean poet had previously avoided. For as Callim achus said, " " o ù 5 " an o Kpfjvqg t t i v w o ik x o iv c o ira v T a to briuooia,"' "I don t d rin k from the w ell; I despise everything shared " (Epigram 28.3-4). The transform ation, then, that the narrator professes is coming over him in 2.23, is a m ove from the refined to the popular, a dem ocratization of taste th at is expressed through Callim achean term s, and that, w orking through the discourse of elegy, finds its ultim ate analogy in erotic terms. In Callim achus s epigram the TTEp(q>oiToç èpcbpEvoç (3) is the erotic exam ple o f dem ocratic sentim ent that the 45 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. poet rejects, and Propertius 2J23 expresses itself in a sim ilar concision o f aesthetic and erotic principles.^® As the rest o f the poem w ill go on to explicate, the rejection o f Callim achean aesthetic principles in an erotic discourse is inevitably bound up w ith a change of validated erotic object. Propertius 2.23 represents a vulgarization o f love that rejects a style o f eroticism that is painstaking and arduous and hence an appropriate erotic analogue in Callim achean term s. From The Refined To The Vulgar: Elegiac Eroticism and Erotic Slavery The sw itch in Callim achean aesthetic terms in lines one to tw o is elaborated in the rest of the poem in terms of a suitch from one form of erotic life-style to another. The im plication is clearly that the two correspond in erotic terms to the antithetical aesthetic evaluations contained in the poem's opening couplet In this scheme the erotic life-style (the elegiac) that is rejected in lines 3- 12 corresponds on an erotic level to the narrator's previous aesthetic discrim ination, "cui fugienda fu it indocti sem ita vulgi, " whereas the vulgarized erotic life-style that the narrator seeks to embrace in lines 13-22 corresponds to the popularization o f his aquatic preference in line 2, "ipsa petita lacu nunc m ihi dulds aquast." Lines 3-12 of 2.23 represent a condensed negative stereotype of the elegiac life-style that the narrator now professes to reject. It is characterized by hardship. ^®For another conflation of aquatic and erotic im agery that also disparages commonality consider Athenaeus 15.695E: TTÔpvri KOI ^aXavEÙç tc jù tô w ^ o u o ' è u T T E S é c a s 29oç- èv TaÙTçi m/éXcp tô v t ' àyaBàv tôw t e icaXôv X6eu The common prostitute and the bathman have the same nature as a m atter of rule; for each washes the good and the bad in the same trough. This passage is quoted by Kurke (1997:130) as an illustration of how the hgure of the irôpvri is used in archaic Greek aristocratic discourse as a derogatory allegory for the pernicious influence of democratic practices. 46 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. expense, danger, a lack of sexual gratification, and an in ab ility to control proceedings. O n one level elegy is a tale o f erotic servitude in that sexual control is clearly represented by the narrator as not residing in his hands but in those of the elegiac puella/domina. The figured dom ination o f the female in elegy thus leads to the concluding declaration o f the narrator in 2.23 w hich sum m arizes the radical incom patibility of love and freedom : libertas quoniam n u lli iam restât am anti, nullus liber e rit, si quis amare volet. Since now fireedom lies in store fo r no lover, no one w ill be free who wants to love. In the discourse o f elegy the loss of autonom y is taken to an extreme that m anifests itself m etaphorically as the servitium amoris.^^ For the Propertian lover to love is to be a slave. This is made quite clear by the designation o f his erotic object as his dom ina, literally the mistress of the household slaves.^ The male lover becomes the sexual slave of his domina. Elegy is a discourse of habitual m ale sexual s e r v i t u d e . 2 3 As such it produces behavior on the part o f the m ale narrator that is incom patible w ith freebom status: 2 l0 n servitium amoris see Copley (1947) and Lyne (1979). This theme w ill be further discussed in chapter two. ^Domina in the Republican period seems to refer specifically to the relationship existing between slaves and this female authority figure rather than referring to a relationship between dotnina and dominiisz see further Lilja (1965:81). 23go at 1.4.4 the Propertian narrator asks to be left to his assuetum servitium, where servitium is evidently a metaphor for a habitualized erotic life-style. In similar fashion at the end of 1.10 where Callus seems on the verge of entering a Propertian affair, the narrator stresses the ramifications of such a decision: is poterit felix una remanere puella, qui numquam vacuo pectore liber e rit He w ill luckily be able to remain w ith one girl, who never w ill be free w ith an empty heart. 47 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ingenuus quisquam alterius d at m unera servo, u t commissa suae verba ferat dominae? Does a freebom person give gifts to the slave o f somone else so that he m ight take a message to his ow n mistress? The new found self-criticism of the Propertian narrator finds fa u lt w ith typical elegiac erotic practice w hich must attem pt to use someone else's slaves even to communicate w ith the domina M From a new -found un-elegiac perspective such behavior is now found reprehensible as an unbecoming conflation o f firee-bom and servile status. A freebom person should not be bribing someone else's slaves, and the problem of the elegiac lover's servile posture is elucidated in the words "suae. . . dom inae " (2.23. 4). The lover's m etaphorical elegiac domina is the actual economic domina of the slave he is bribing. If they share the same domina, then his fig u rai servitude is To become the elegiac lover means making the leap from liber to serous. Hence in Amores 13 the narrator says to his puella, "Acdpe, per longos tibi qui deserviat annos,” "Receive one, who would be your slave through long years of service" (5). So too Tibullus 2.4 opens: Sic m ihi servitium video dominamque paratam: iam m ihi, libertas ilia patem a, vale, servitium sed triste datur, teneorque catenis, et numquam misero vincla rem ittit Amor. So 1 see servitude made ready for me and a mistress to go w ith it: N ow farewell for me to that ancestral liberty. But grim slavery is at hand, and I am held in chains, and never does Love let the bonds go slack for poor me. Z^In Propertius 3.6, for instance, the narrator interrogates Lygdamus as to the response of his puella to a message he has sent. Sim ilarly, in Attwres 1.11 and 1.12 the narrator employs the services of Nape, the hairdresser o f Corinna, to convey his messages back and forth and enable meetings. The theme naturally also occurs in O vid's didactic recodification of elegy in the Ars Amatoria, where bribing and gaining the trust of the slave's of one’s domina is highly recommended, "Sed prius ancillam captandae nosse puellae/ Cura sit: accessus moUiet ilia tuos," "But first let it be a concern to get to know the slave-girl of the woman you intend to catch: she w ill make your access easier " {Ars 1.351-352); "Nec pudor ancillas, ut quaeque erit ordine p rim a,/ Nec tibi sit servos demeruisse pudor," "Nor have any shame to have obligated her female slaves, according to the rank of each, nor the male slaves either {Ars 2351-252). N aturally, the advice is replicated for wom en in Bk. 3, "Quid iuvat ambages praeceptaque parva m overe,/ Cum minimo custos munere possit emi?" "W hat’s the point o f beating around the bush and throwing tid bits of advice, when the guard could be bought w ith just a tiny gift? (3.651-652). 48 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. in danger o f contam inating him socially as a coMseruns o f the real thing. In a hierarchical sodety^ the m aintaince of social distinction is an im portant m atter.^ Thus the elegiac narrator is figured as allow ing erotic infatu atio n to im pinge on his sense of social s e l f - e s t e e m . 2 ^ This professed slavery is one m anifestation o f an arduous elegiac erotic practice that m irrors the lite ra ry fastidiousness of Callim acheanism . Problems Of Communication, Access and Funding A nother m anifestation of elegy’s troubled eroticism is the inaccessibility of the domina. Lines 5-6 o f 2.23 point to the in ab ility of the m ale lover to control the movements of his domina, "et quaerit totiens quaenam nunc porticus illa m / integit?' et campo quo m ovet ilia pedes?" ' " ""And ask so m any times "What portico covers her now?" and "What open space is she m oving through now?" " " "Totiens" suggests once more the frequent to il of the elegiac lover who m ust always be trying to track dow n his elusive erotic object (as a good Callim achean lover should, T O y a p ç e û y o v T a Sicôkeiv oT5e). Just contacting the domina can be a problem . In Callim achean terms the domina is an odd conflation of the validated 25So Pliny w riting to Calestrius Tiro congratulates him on preserving such distinctions, ut discrimina ordinum dignitatum que custodias; quae si conhisa turbata perm ixta sunt, nihil est ipsa aequalitate inaequalius," that you keep the distinctions between social orders and rank; if these things are thrown into confusion and all lumped together nothing is more unequal that this so-called equality {Epistles 9 3 3 ). 26in Amores 3.11 A the narrator strikes a sim ilar pose to the Propertian narrator: Ergo ego sustinui, foribus tam saepe repulsus, ingenuum dura ponere corpus humo? ergo ego nesdo cui, quem tu conplexa tenebas, excubui clausam servus ut ante domum? 9-12 Is it possible that I endured, so often repelled from the door, to place a free-bom body on the hard ground? Can it be that for the god knows whom you held in your arms I slept outside a shut-up home like a slave? 49 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. elusive erotic object and the v ilifie d Trep{<poiToç èpcbpevoç. For to the narrator she certainly remains elusive, as a Callim achean love-object ought to, but at the same tim e her m ovement through Rome’s geographic spaces suggests that she is seeking additional erotic attachments.^^ The task o f actually getting a com munication to his dotnina is itself compared to the labors o f Hercules (7-8).28 Then getting a message through is only the beginning o f m ore problems. The stereotypical rep ly that the narrator attributes to the domina is a request fo r rem uneration, "muneris ecquid habes?" "Do you have any gift?" (8).29 The venality o f the elegiac puella is a constant source o f com plaint in the discourse.^o Then there is the problem o f gaining access to the residence o f the puella. There is inevitably a g rim guard in the w ay, custos amarus (9). As pointed out by Sharrock (above), the them e of the exclusus amator and the paraclausithyron are virtu ally synonomous w ith elegiac 22Rome’s colonnades are recommended in the Ars as prime erotic hunting grounds. A t 1.67ff the narrator mentions the porticoes of Pompey, Octavia, Livia and the Portico o f the Danaids in the temple of Apollo on the Palatine. So too in Ars Bk. 3 where the narrator is encouraging his female subject that she has to be conspicuously visible to enjoy erotic success— "Quod latet, ignotum est," "What is hidden, is unknown" (397)— he encourages her to w alk through the Portico of Pompey and the Porticus Argonautarum (387ff). So too in Catullus 55 when the narrator is trying to track down Camerius, one of the places he searches in is the Portico of Pompey where he questions the fetnellae, also referred to as the pessimae puellae, both likely euphemisms for prostitutes as noted by Fordyce (1961:227) and Adams (1983:354). 28The hazards of communication and the potential for rejection are illustrated in Propertius 3.6, 3.23; O vid Amores 1.11 and 1.12; and most humorously in Amores 3.1, where Elegia becomes the personification of the w riting tablets and complains of being hung on doors for everyone to read, being hid in the bosom o f a slave-girl and being sent as a birthday gift and being broken and drowned by the recipient. The tribulations of the narrator's w riting tablets thus m irror the tribulations and hardships o f the writer's Callimachean love-life. 2^Compare the reported words o f a meretrix in Terence's Heauton Timorumems, " da mihi' atque 'adfer m ihi , " 'Give it to me' and 'Bring it to me " (223). 2®For complaints over venality consider Amores 1.10; 3.8; Propertius 2.8; 2.16; Tibullus 1.5; 2 3; 2.4. This theme is inevitably related to the narrator's condemnation of the venality and luxury of the age: Propertius 2.16; 3.13; O vid Amores 3.8; Tibullus 1.4; 1.5; 1.9; 23; 2.4. The venality of the elegiac puella and its Callimachean function w ill be further discussed in chapter two. 50 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. discourse. Hence in Propertius 1.16 the door is allow ed to voice its own m eta com plaint over the incessant abuse that its suffers at the hands o f the locked-out lover.31 There is also the elem ent o f danger and risk, "captus et im m unda saepe latere casa?" "captured and often hiding in a filth y hovel" (10). This is a rem inder that the erotic relationship o f elegiac discourse is not always figured as sim ple interaction between the narrator and the puella but also includes triangular relationships where a vir/coniunx is a further c o m p lic a tio n .In standard elegiac discourse there seems to be no particular anxiety over this figure: the figure o f the vir/coniunx sim ply appears as one more blocking agent that the elegiac narrator m ust try to s u rm o u n t. ^ 3 The problem is, in other words, introjected into elegiac discourse as one o f the m any obstacles that stand in the w ay o f the elegiac lover’s goal o f sexual gratification; it is one more building block in the construction o f an elusive Callim achean love-object. It is only w hen the narrator is in the process o f becoming de-elegized that the problem appears more intense (this confirms to a generic re-evaluation of elegy's content as shall be further discussed below ). ^^Other examples o f this theme are O vid Amores 1,6; 2.2; 2.3; Propertius 2.16; Tibullus 1.2. ^^For example, Tibullus 1.2; 1.6; O vid, Amores 1.4; 1.9; 22; 2.19; 3.4; 3.19. The m arital status of the elegiac puella wiU be further discussed in chapter two. 33Mote the rather lighthearted treatment of the theme in Tibullus 1.5 and O vid passim. In mainstream elegiac discourse the figure appears as a rhetorical challenge rather than a potential castrator. For a detailed look at the sources, legal and literary, on adultery at Rome see Richlin (1981:225-50). 51 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Programmatic Rejection The drawbacks of expense and lack of access are brought together in lines 11-12, w hich sum m arize the narrator's present profession of a rejection o f the elegiac erotic life-style: quam care semel in toto nox v e rtitu r anno! a pereant, si quos ianua clausa iuvat! A t w hat expense a single n ig h t comes around in the course o f a whole year. Let them go to h ell w hom the barred door delights. This form of love costs too m uch and comes around fa r too infrequently. Line 12 is a considered re-w orking o f an earlier Propertian lin e, "ah pereat, si quis lentus am are potest," "To h ell w ith him w ho is able to love w ith a sluggish indifrerence" (1.6.12). As this earlier line is a program m atic declaration of elegiac eroticism , so, too, its transform ed m anifestation here amounts to a rejection of the same. Elegiac love is about dedication, obstacles, endurance, suffering; it is an a ll consuming passion that embraces a masochistic erotic frustration. As such the clausa ianua is a signifier o f this lite ra ry genre:^^ it is a frustrating, painstaking erotic practice that makes it analogous to the effo rt of Callim achean com position. In rejecting the program m atic elegiac clausa ianua the narrator is sum m arizing the negative assessment o f elegiac-style erotics in lines 3-12. In the course of these lines the narrator turns his back on the m ain tenets o f the elegiac erotic experience: the masochistic servitium amoris and the expensive, degrading the narrator in Amores 2.1 is summoned back hom his attempted gigantomachy to elegiac composition by a simple act o f door-closing, "Clausit amica fores, "My girlfriend shut her door. So, too, in Tibullus 2.6, as the narrator contemplates pursuing the m ilitary life, he is rudely summoned back by the clausa ianua into his appropriate elegiac role, "Magna loquor, sed magnifice mihi magna locuto/ excutiunt clausae fortia verba fores," "I'm talking big, but when I’m bombastically through w ith m y big talk closed doors shake off my brave words (11-12). Here the programmatics of Callimacheanism are also asserted. As the poet strays towards the m ilitary life his discourse strays towards the large-scale and epic, magna, "magnifice,” "fortia": the clausa ianua, the signifier of elegy, intervenes to restore a sense o f Callimachean erotic proportion. 52 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. pursuit o f an elusive fem ale. This recusatio o f a certain erotic life-style is thus fig u ratively a rejection o f elegy itself. A Callim achean w ritin g practice and form o f erotics are being rejected sim ultaneously. Opening the Doon The Popular Solution H aving rejected the habitual elegiac erotic life-style the narrator now goes on to expound the alternative, the erotic equivalent o f the anti-C allim achean aesthetic sentim ent of lin e 2, "ipsa petita lacu nunc m ih i dulds aquast." The popularizing of the narrator's aesthetic/ erotic palate leads to the pursuit of an antithetical erotic object: a w om an w ho is freely available and poses no problems o f access, finance, delay o r danger. This woman is read ily accessible, "libera" (13), she circulates w ithout restriction and she is surrounded by no guards or possibility of trepidation, "custodum et nullo saepta tim ore, " "endosed by no fear o f guards'" (14). There is no chance of being forced in to hiding by the im m inent return of a vir, "nec dicet "timeo, propera iam surgere, quaeso:/ in felix, hodie v ir m ih i rure venit", " "N or w ill she say Tm scared, get up, hu rry, please:/ poor sap, today m y husband is coming in from the country " The freedom of the narrator s new love-objed to circulate w ithout restriction, is at the same tim e an indication of her servile origins/status and signifies the lover's new -found desire to shun an erotic object w ho is protected by the conventions o f Roman sodal propriety, "nolim furta pudica to ri, " " T don't w ant respectable adulteries " (22). A lthough the erotic object o f lines 3-12 also circulates through Rome, the elegiac lover is unable either to track her dow n or speak to her d ire c tly .^ 35So in Propertius 3.14 the narrator praises Sparta for allow ing the free circulation of women which removes the problems of access and communication, whereas he complains that at Rome a woman has such a huge retinue that one can hardly get a hnger past all that social cladding. 53 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. H aving taken the decision to desire differen tly, the narrator leaves behind the problems o f d iffic u lt and dangerous access. H e also leaves behind the problem of infrequent sexual gratification. The new -foim d erotic object of the elegiac narrator is clearly represented as a street prostitute w ho is servile, or of servile origins, and accessible to anyone im m ediately fo r a m odest fee. The description, "cui saepe im m undo Sacra conteritur V ia socco," "W ho often wears aw ay the V ia Sacra w ith a soiled shoe" (15) conflates the ideas of public circulation and available sexuality. The fréquentation of the V ia Sacra points to a locale frequented by Rome’s street prostitutes,^ w hilst the verb "conteritur " indicates not m erely the shoe w ear that such activity entails bu t also the sexual w ear that comes from street prostitution. This wom an also has a very different attitude to sexual gratification. There is no possibility here o f sexual deferral, "nec sinit esse m oram , si quis adire v e lit;/ differet haec numquam ," "She doesn’t allow delay, if someone wants to approach; this wom an never puts you off" (16-17). H ere "amor" and "mora" become antithetical erotic qualities rather than being ^ It seems th at, as might be expected, the areas frequented by Rome's prostitutes were either in areas such as the Subura associated w ith low social status and deviant sexuality (see M artial 6.66, 11.61,11.71 and Persius Sat. 5.30-40) or sites otherwise socially marginalized: "The location of the prostitute in the literary conception of the city was in the narrow alleyways, amongst the tombs, in the shelter of em pty public buildings and under the walls of the dty," Lawrence (1994:73). M artial 2.63 refers to a transaction between a Milichus and a prostitute, Leda, who frequented the Via Sacra, " e sacra Leda redempta via (2). The point here seems to be the opposite of Propertius 2.23; Milichus has spent an extravagant sum on a street prostitute. John Clarke (1998:195-240), however, finds such sodal segregation of the sites of prostitution unconvincing. Maybe the non brothel and marginal location o f the prostitute in Propertius 2.23, as in M artial 2.63, is intended to designate her as the lowest and cheapest type of prostitute available, thus marking the greatest possible contrast between the narrator's form er and projected sexual practices. ^^Given the representation o f inunediate sexual gratification it would seem that the Via Sacra is not being worn out only by the socats but also by the sexual activity itself. O n "tero" in a sexual sense see Adams (1982:183). Aside from the Freudian implications o f the "soiled shoe," the socais was also worn by comic adors and thus symbolizes the vulgarity of the narrator's new erotic object. The representation of her socats as itmniindtis points simultaneously to her lack of refinement and her sexual sordidness. 54 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. sem antically elided as they are in elegiac discourse. N o w love is a m atter of instant gratification rather than deferred but continuing attachm ent.^ The Prostitute as Literary Metaphor The stance that the elegiac narrator takes in 2.23 makes him sound very un-elegiac A t the same tim e that the narrator begins to profess a change in his erotic habits and thus moves aw ay from elegiac discourse he also begins to take on new generic characteristics. Erotic life-style choices become so inextricably linked to generic literary expectations that to sw itch one is inevitably to sw itch the other. Female bodies can be appropriated not only as signifiers fo r sex but also as signifiers fo r literary discourses about sex. Thus in a passage o f Diogenes Laertius, Crates is portrayed as giving the follow ing advice to his son Pasicles as they stand in front o f a brothel: T O Ù Ç 5è TMV U O IX E U Ô V TC O V Tpayitcouç. <puyàç y à p Kai <p6vouç éXEiv ÉTTaôXov' Toùç 5è t ô v ÊTalpaiç TrpooiôvTcov KcopiKoO ç 6.89 The affairs o f adulterers belong to tragedy having as their prize exile and m urder; the affairs o f those who consort w ith prostitutes to comedy. The rejection of adultery by the narrator o f Propertius 2.23 and the embrace of the easily available prostitute corresponds to the Cynic's assignment o f these different patterns o f sexual behavior to disparate literary genres. The narrator is slipping down the literary hierarchy as the object o f his sexual desire sim ilarly becomes less elevated: he is m oving from amorous tragedy to erotic comedy. 38Consider the contrast between 2.23.17, "differet haec numquam,” "this one never defers," %vith 2.3.8, "differtur, numquam toUitur uUus amor," "love is postponed, it is never removed.” Elegy operates on a basis of the narrator’s professed continuation o f amorous feelings in spite of the general delay of sexual consummation. Elegiac erotics resist clim ax whereas the new erotic figure in 2.23 offers a swift and unproblematic orgasm. 55 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Elegy, o f course, is not tragedy.39 Nevertheless, in erotic terms elegy does partake of a sim ilar elevation. If tragedy concerns the lives and fates of kings and heroes w ho are rem oved from the m undane and everyday, then so too elegy represents itself as concerned w ith a brand o f eroticism that lifts it above the accessible sexual gratification o f routine street p ro stitu tio n .^ The represented sufferings of the m ale elegiac protagonist (presented usually w ith unrem itting seriousness in Propertius) and his tendency (again in his Propertian m anifestation particularly) to assim ilate his experience to m ythic and heroic exem pla also suggest a lover w ho is tragic in some sense, fated to the inexorable pursuit o f his dura puella.*^ H ow ever, elegy's tragic eroticism is defined in terms of a Callim achean rem oval of its erotic subject m atter from the realm o f the everyday rather than in terms of grandiose proportions. The pursuit of elegy's puella is an erotic epic and an amorous tragedy bu t it is s till produced in in d ivid u al poems that lack both continuity and length.'^ 39As Amores 3.1 and its dram atic confrontation of the personified literary discourses of Tragpedia and Elegia makes clear. For a fuller reading of the discursive and ethical confrontations of this poem see W yke (1989b: 111-43). Amores 3.1 w ill be discussed further, in the context of the author's personal and poetic m aturation, in chapters eight and nine. '^^As sexual literary genres go, elegy, as Richlin remarks (1992c: 32-56), is remarkably refined in its sexual imagery and description. Richlin notes w ith regard to elegy's general lack of explicit description of the female body. I t is as if there were a blank space in the m iddle of the woman" (1992c: 47). ‘ ^^This notion of the lover's character's being innate and predetermined is particularly prevalent in Propertius: "me sine, quem semper voluit fortune iacere/ huic animam extremam reddere nequitiae,” "Allow me, whom fortune has always wanted to be downcast, to deliver my last breath to this worthless w ay o f life" (1.6.25-26); "uni cuique dedit vitium natura creato:/ m i fortune allquid semper amare dedit," "Nature has given some fault to each person at his birth: fortune allotted to me to always love something" (2.22A. 17-18). The figuration o f the elegiac narrator as an innate lover w ill be discussed further in chapter eight. A fter all Callimachus's Aetia was by no means a short poem. Nevertheless, its episodic narrativity reveals its un-epic nature. The same is evidently true o f Ovid's Callimachean epics, the Metamorphoses and the Fasti. 56 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. As the narrator in 2.23 voices criticism of his previous elegiac erotic practices and proclaim s for him self a future o f unproblem atically cheap, easy, and safe instant sexual gratification, he begins to sound m ore and more like a voice from a diH erent literary genre. Thus as the narrator slips away fiom im m ersion in his usual generic character he begins to sound more and more like a different generic stereotype, as though suddenly an author o f a different genre is handing him a new script So the sort o f sentiments that the narrator expresses in 2.23 sound sim ilar to those that a father figure, or an astute socially integrated slave, m ight utter to the adulescens in Roman comedy in an attem pt to steer the young man away from forms of sexual behavior that either incur too m uch expense or social disruption. So in Plautus's Curculio (23ff.) the young lover is advised to stay away firom adultery and extra m arital affairs w ith fireebom women: Pal. Num quid tu quod te aut genere indignum sit tuo fads aut inceptas fadnus facere, Phaedrome? num tu pudicae cuipiam insidias locas aut quam pudicam esse oportet? Phaed. N em ini, nec me file s irit luppiter. Pal. Ego item volo. ita tuom conferto amare semper, si sapis, ne id quod ames populus si sdat, tib i sit probro. semper curato ne sis intestabfiis. Phaed. Q uid istuc est verbi? Pal. Caute u t incedas via quod ames amato testibus praesentibus. Phaed. Q uin leno hie h ab itat Pal. Nem o hinc prohibet nec vetat, quin quod palam est venale, si argentum est, emas. nemo ire quemquam publica prohibet via; dum ne per fundum saeptum fadas sem itam , dum ted abstineas nupta, vidua, virgine, iuventute et pueris liberis, am a quid lubet. 57 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Pal. You aren't doing something unbecoming to you and your fam ily or up to some crim inal activity, are you, Phaedromus? You're not trying to ambush some respectable wom an, or a wom an w ho ought to be respectable, are you? Phaed. N o, or m ay Juppiter blast me. Pal. I second th a t If you're smart y o u 'll always love dose to your chest in case the general public gets to know about it and it should be a m atter o f reproach to you. Alw ays take care lest you end up intestate. Phaed. W hat do you mean? Pal. C areful to go along the open street, love w hat you may love but w ith your witnesses present. Phaed. But it's a pim p th at lives there. Pal. Then no-one prohibits you from buying w hat is openly fo r sale, if you've got the cash. No-one stops anyone to m going along a public street; as long as you don't make a path across endosed ground, provided you keep aw ay to m the m arried wom an, the unm arried woman, the young g irl, the youth and to e-b o m children, m ake love to whatever you want. The young m an is advised to pursue sex along demarcated sodetal lines. Sex must be pursued in the public spaces that d v ic sodety has set aside for such gratification: w ith prostitutes rather than w ith m ale or female members of the d vic body, an opposition m etaphorically represented by the public street, publica via, and private land, fundus saeptus. For, if the youth transgresses these boundaries, then he risks a simultaneous curtailing of his d vic rights and his sexual activities, as is made d ear in the pun, intestabilis.^^ The narrator's stance is also very sim ilar to the diatribes on sexuality that appears in Horace's second satire where the narrator enters upon a discourse on the need fo r due proportion and illustrates his point by looking into men's various sexual habits and preferences.^ As m ight be expected along the lines of '^^The sexuality o f the adolescent is here regulated and properly directed by a real rather than Freudian threat of castration. '^For a fuller discussion of Horace Satires 1.2 see Fraenkel (1957); Armstrong (1964); Rudd (1966: 9-12); Dessen (1968); Baldwin (1970); Curran (1970); Bushala (1971); Richlin (1992c: 174-177); Freudenburg (1993). 58 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. an argum ent proposing nil medium est, the narrator argues against adultery and fo r forms of available, inexpensive, unproblem atic sex th at are not too sordid. D uring the course o f this argum ent the H oratian narrator presents an adaptation of Callim achus Epigram 31: "leporem venator u t alta in nive sectetur, positum sic tangere nolit," cantat et apponit "meus est am or huic sim ilis; nam transvolat in m edio posita et fugientia captat." hisdne versiculis speras tib i posse dolores atque aestus curasque gravis e pectore pelli? Satires 1.2.105-110 "As the hunter pursues the hare in the deep snow and doesn’t w ant to touch one laid-out," he sings and adds "my love is sim ilar to this; fo r it flies past w hat is set out in common ground and pursues w hat flees. " Do you suppose that pain and passion and burdensom e anxiety can be driven out o f you r heart by means of these verselets? The H oratian narrator here doubts the efficacy of such an approach to assuage intense erotic feelings. H e goes on to say that he prefers a different sort of eroticism: nam que parabilem amo Venerem facilem que Satires 1.2.119 For I like easy, no hassle to get, sex Callim achean erotics is then contrasted w ith the Fhilodem ean approach: illa m "post paulo, " "sed pluris," si exierit vir," G allis, hanc Fhilodem us a it sibi, quae neque magno stet pretio neque cunctetur cum est iussa venire. Satires 1.2.120-122 The "in a w hile", "more," "if m y husband goes out" w om an is for the G a lli, Fhilodem us says; he wants one fo r him self w ho isn’t expensive nor delays w hen told to come. Here the spum ed erotic m odel w ith its themes o f delay, expense and adultery can be seen to correspond to the erotic life-style of the elegist. K irk Freudenburg 59 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. has w ell elaborated the potential o f "Gallis" to be a "sophisticated litte ra iy jibe." As Freudenburg points out the G alli, as castrated males, not only reinforce the problem atic o f adulterous love and its possible drastic consequences, but also point to the C allim achean elegist Cornelius Callus and those who follow ed in his literary footsteps. Thus criticism of erotic lifestyle and literatu re flo w together. The im pression is that the narrator is sim ultaneously voicing a criticism of sexual habits and the form o f literatu re that enshrines such behavior. 4 5 Such criticisms center on the themes o f the consequences o f adultery (lines 41-46), expense and loss of reputation (61-63), and the lack o f satisfying sexual desire (109-117). A ll of these are themes th at elegiac poetry could be seen to include in its erotic economy. Indeed, apart from elegy's de-emphasis of the possible consequences of adultery they can be seen as activities and consequences that are essential to an elegiac love-life. W hen, therefore, in Propertius 2.23 the narrator proposes a shift in his erotic orientation and begins to sound lik e the dunts pater of comedy or the censorious narrator o f satire, it becomes clear that erotic life-style and genre are liable to shift sim ultaneously. This in tu rn indicates the interdependence of erotics and literary generics. Elegiac erotics involves expense, adultery, infrequent sex and a lo t o f com plaining; such a model is antithetical to the one of publicly accessible, cheap and easy sex that is propounded in Horace's satire.4^ ^^Freudenburg (1993:197). Elsewhere Horace also mocks elegy's incessant complaining, "Albi, ne doleas plus nimio m em or/ im m itis Glycerae neu miserabiles/ decantes elegos,” "Albius, don't grieve excessively remembering cruel Gtycera, singing miserable elegies, Carmim 133.1-2: it might also be suspected that the Valgius of Carmim 2.9 whose incessant flebiles ttiodi are also a source of criticism was also an elegist 4^0ne might even suspect deliberate parody here. If the elegist who wishes to be a Callimachus in Epistles 2.1.91ff. can be assumed to be Propertius, then one m ight suspect a degree of bad blood between these two very genetically different Roman Callimacheans: see also chapter six. 60 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Playing with Callimachean Difficulty Part o f the criticism that the narrator in Satires 12. voices, after paraphrasing Callimachus's erotic sentiments as expressed in Epigram 31, is that such tactics w ill be ineffectual in rid d in g oneself o f sexual desire, "hisdne versiculis speras tib i posse dolores/ atque aestus curasque gravis e pectore pelli?" "Do you suppose you can d rive pain, and passion and burdensome anxiety from the heart w ith these little verses?" (109-110). H e follows up on this point a little later by saying: num , tib i cum fauces u rit sitis, aurea quaeris pocula? num esuriens fastidis om nia praeter pavonem rhombumque? Satires 1.2.114-116 Surely, w hen thirst bum s your throat, you don't look fo r wine-cups m ade o f gold? W hen you’re hungry you don't disdain everything except peacock and turbot, do you? The pragm atic, u tilitarian narrator here professes a sort of easy-going hedonism: if you have an itch find the easiest w ay to scratch it. Sex should be regarded as a sim ple appetite to be fu lfilled , not a m atter for indulging a gourm et palate. The erotics o f a Callim achus are self-defeating from a pragm atic view point: it is sim ply creating an erotic appetite that does not allow itself to be satisfied. Y et this is to engage in a realist assessment o f an erotic literary analogue. Callim achean love, like elegiac love, is not supposed to be a representation of an external author's actual sexual practices; rather, it is a shaping of erotic literary content to a literary program m e of general aesthetic discrim ination. Elegiac love is not generally supposed to be successful or remove erotic pain: it is a discourse o f deferral and frustration, of denied access and elusive sexual gratification. It is this which makes it a Callim achean erotic discourse. W hich is w hy w hen the narrator in Propertius 2.23 professes a desire to change his erotic 61 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. lifestyle, then he also has to make a change in aesthetic taste (signified in the opening couplet) that corresponds to such a change in validated love-object aesthetic taste, genre and the style o f one's lo ve-life are inextricably entwined, and a change in one has ram ifications in the other. 4 7 H aving established in general how elegy is an erotic discourse that is constructed in accord w ith the validated principles of Callim achean aesthetics, the next chapter w ill examine in more detail how elegy's central fem ale figures are constructed to provide such a dram atic Callim achean challenge. ^Tjhis theme is ako prevalent in Propertius' s Monobiblos, as has been w ell discussed by Fedeli (1981), where poets from different genres are addressed. In the two poems addressed to Fonticus, for instance (1.7 and 1.9), the epic poet is first warned about deriding elegiac verse/love and k then himself elegized, complete %vith difficult domim. Sim ilarly, in the poems addressed to Callus in Book One (15,1.10,1.13) there k a strong contrast draw n between the unelegiac lifestyle of Callus who prefers vagae puellae (a denigrated Callimachean erotic category) and the habitually difficult love-life of the narrator. In 1.10 Callus, under the watchful eye o f the narrator, is sim ilarly elegized and provided w ith an elegiac dondna who acts to ensure that h k taste remains Callimachean, "haec tibi vulgark ktos compescet amores," "She w ill check those common love- affairs of yours" (1.13.11). I find it hard to believe that th k Callus k intended to be the elegkt Cornelius Callus: as the literary / erotic practices attributed to him here are clearly more in line w ith the vulgar model that the narrator in 2.23 professes he w ill follow as an antidote to elegiac behavior, and the fragments o f Callus's poetry and the possible inscription of h k verses into Virgil's tenth Eclogue seem more compatible w ith the represented erotic behavior of the later elegists than w ith that attributed by the narrator to Callus in the poems in Propertius. For a different view see Oliensk (1997a: 158-162). 62 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER TWO Elegy as a Site of Callimachean Poetic Mastery The previous chapter dem onstrated how elegiac discourse constructs an arduous lo velife fo r its m ale protagonist and hence stages an eroticized allegory o f Callim achean aesthetic principles. In this chapter I shall exam ine more closely how the m ain fem ale figure o f elegy, the elegiac domina, is variously constructed to perform h er elusive and intransigent Callim achean role. I w ill argue that there are various possibilities here as the aim is to produce a fem ale figure who is generally unobtainable and not one who is necessarily depicted w ith any great degree of consistency as to her social and m arital status. There are a p lu rality of scenarios that w ill produce the desired Callim achean effect and the elegist in his m edium of relatively short and somewhat tenuously coim ected narrative feels free to conflate and sw itch around between the possibilities. Servitium Amoris and the Elegiac Domina As was discussed in the previous chapter the constructed arduousness of the elegiac narrator’s erotic life style revolves around his subjection to an im perious fem ale erotic fiction. The narrator professes a powerlessness in the face of a fem ale figure whom he desires but whose script is to continually frustrate him . The script of course is w ritten by the external m ale poet who inevitably w rites in , rather than w rites about, the em pow erm ent o f wom en. ^ The would therefore have to disagree w ith Judith Hailett's assessment of the theme of servitium amoris as an attem pt to elevate the status o f women in contemporary Roman society by ascribing to them an unusual degree of autonomy and self-definition in a patriarchal society (1973:103- 124). It seems more plausible, as Aya Betensly wrote in her replies to Hallet's article, that the elegists are elaborating a new poetic not social role,” (1973:267-269); (1974:217-219). However, Betensky I think underestimates the extent to which these tw o can ever be separable: as I w ill discuss later, elegiac discourse enables its own discursive ends by conflating the two whilst 63 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. subjection o f the elegiac narrator can be view ed as s e lf-fu lfillin g . Hence, Duncan Kennedy w rites: Referring to the beloved as domim ostensibly attributes a ll 'pow er' to her w h ilst a t the same tim e seeking to bind her into a relationship in w hich the exercise o f that pow er' is a function o f the fu lfillm e n t o f the lover's desire.^ E vidently, elegy can be read as not a sadistic erotic tale in flicted on the unw illing narrator by the elegiac puella but as a piece of erotic m asochistic self-fulfillm ent. H ow ever, this w illin g masochism can also be read as not only erotically b u t also poetically enabling. It is the sufiering of the m ale narrator in the text that makes elegy an erotic C allim achean spectacle. To the extent that the external poet and the internal narrator bear the same name in elegy, then the tw o can be seen to be conspirators in this enterprise. The internal narrator suffers w illin g ly because he is doing a poetic favor for his external self. 3 Constructing the Female Obstacle The m astery, then, of the inscribed elegiac puella and the powerlessness of the male narrator are a discursive necessity for a Callim achean erotic enterprise. This poetically enabling fem ale love-object can be constructed in various ways to ensure her in tra-textu al dom ination. For there are several options here that w ill successfully fu lfill the requirem ent of m aking sex d iffic u lt and hard to obtain. If simultaneously professing to be nothing but a Callimachean literary practice grounded in aesthetics rather than social reality. I w ould also disagree to some extent w ith M aria Wyke's assessment (1989a: 42) that elegy is "more generally concerned w ith m ale servitude not female mastery"; it w ould seem to me that the two are inevitably entwined and the one cannot exist w ithout at least the semblance of the other. ^Kennedy (1993:73). D avid H alperin explicates the dynamic of the male dtizen-lover at Athens in sim ilar terms, ”[T]he dtizen-lover could afford to luxuriate in his sense o f helplessness or erotic dependency predsely because his self-abandonment was at some level a chosen strategy and, in any case, his ad u al position of sodal preeminence was not in jeopardy," (1990:32 n. * ^This aspect of elegiac discourse w ill be examined more fully in chapter seven. 64 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. elegy exists under the generic symbol o f the clausa ianua, then there are always potentially various reasons w hy the door m ight be closed at any given tim e and in any given poem. One option is the m arried wom an, who becomes elusive by the very nature o f her m arital status. Another option is an avariciousness w hich regulates lovers according to financial means. The two o f course can be combined so the wom an may appear to be both m arried and m ercenary. But any attem pt at resolving the status o f the elegiac puella defin itively is inevitably problem atic [T]he picture varies from one elegy to another, from the idealized im age to the silhouette o f a satirical realism , for our poets develop each situation for itself, unconcerned about the overall coherence o f their collections.^ How ever, any haze that m ight surround the referen tiality o f the elegiac puella does not detract from the coherence of elegy at a poetic level. The point is that whatever the specific m anifestation o f the elegiac puella m ay be there is always (or always im m inent) a degree o f d ifficu lty and obstacles that come between her and the sexual gratification of the elegiac narrator. W hat is im portant is w hat such a variously incarnate female signifier stands fo r, and that is an elusive, frustrating form o f erotics. This is w hat makes the discourse Callim achean in its erotics. The elegiac puella must frustrate and hinder the elegiac narrator, she m ust create mora, the anagram oiatnor that defines elegy’s erotics. ^ Creating Callimachean Scenarios There are several possible scenarios that w ou ld produce a fem ale figure who w ould provide a suitably Callim achean challenge to the male narrator. In 4Veyne (1988:89). ^See Kennedy (1993:74). 65 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. this respect elegy does no t produce a m onolithic narrative but one that adm its a p lu rality of potential referents outside of the te x t The M a rrie d W om an If it is impossible fo r us to decide in any instance w hether vir means "husband" or 'lo v e r/' then it was impossible fo r O vid ’ s readers to decide either: so they, along w ith Augustus, could decide how they liked— or d id n 't like. I do no t believe that O vid knew perfectly w ell w hether he m eant husband o r lover but the am biguity o f the w ord stopped him telling us.^ The above quotation refers specifically to the Ars Amatoria; how ever, the question is also of relevance in earlier elegiac poetry. A lthough I believe elegy adm its a variety and conflation o f fem ale models that makes the pinning dow n of its fem ale signifier to a single social, rather than poetic type, im possible, nevertheless, this does not m ean that on specific textual occasions aspects at least of the puella's definition are not relatively clear. I w ould argue that one o f the blocking scenarios that is m anifested in elegy is m arriage and that a t times there can be relatively little doubt that the m odel of enabling Callim achean sexual firustration is one of adultery, or attem pted adultery. Hence, in Amores 1.4 there is a deliberate distinction draw n between the vir and the narrator that is elaborated in terms of legal and illeg al sexual prerogative and possession. Amores 1.4 opens: V ir tuus est epulas nobis aditurus easdem— u ltim a coena tuo sit, precor, ilia viro! Amores 1.4.1-2 That husband of yours w ill come to the same banquet as us— I pray that dinner m ight be your husband's la s t ^Sharrock (1994a: 112). 66 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The im m ediate use o f "tuus" already defines the puella in term s o f her attachm ent and possession by another. The poem then develops the fru stratio n of the situation from the narrator's perspective: m ust he watch another m an m aking advances to her (3-6)? A t the same tim e the narrator develops a strategy to enable clandestine com m unication, touching feet (16), nods and eye-m ovem ents (17-19), w ords traced in w ine (20), and form s a plan to get the husband drun k and out of the w ay (29-30). A t a ll costs she is to avoid letting him touch and kiss her or he w ill be forced to reveal him self: oscula si dederis, fiam manifestos am ator et dicam "mea sunt!" inidam que m anum . Amores 1.4.39-40 If you kiss him , I w ill become the lover revealed and I shall say "Those are mine!" and stake m y claim . There is a double legal pun here: "manifestus " means not only "visible," "evident " bu t also "caught in the act;"^ inicere manum is a legal term for claim ing property.® Hence, the narrator’s attem pt to assert a legal rig h t that he does not possess w ill lead to the revelation of his ow n sodally dubious conduct. The contrast between the legal rig h t o f the husband and the extra-legal sexual attem pts o f the narrator are also made d ear in lines 59-64: M e miserum! m onui, paucas quod prosit in horas; separor a dom ina nocte iubente mea. node v ir in d u d et, lacrim is ego maestus obortis, qua licet, ad saevas prosequar usque fores, oscula iam sum et, iam non tantum oscula sumek quod m ih i das fu rtim , iure coacta dabis. W retched me! I have given advice that w ill be of use o n ly fo r a few hours; I am separated from m y domina when the night commands it. A t nig ht her ^Aulus Gellius xi. 18.11; Gaius Inst. iii. 183-184. ®AuIus Gellius xx. 1.45; Gaius Inst. iv. 21. 67 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. husband w ill shut her in , I sad w ith tears w elling up w ill fo llo w you as far as I am perm itted, rig ht up to the savage doors. N o w he w ill take kisses, and not only kisses: w hat you give to me secretly, under com pulsion you w ill give to him as a legal rig h t C learly, the contrast here is between a husband, whose sexual possession is sanctioned, "iure," and a lover whose sexual claims are clandestine, "furtim ": the figure of the husband in turn leads to the stereotypical elegiac exclusion, saeoae ianuae. There can be little doubt that Amores 1.4 figures the erotic difficulties of the elegiac narrator around a scenario o f the m arried status of his chosen erotic object.^ It w ould also seem relatively clear that w hen Elegia is incarnated in Amores 3.1, and asserts that she was responsible for teaching Corinna her elegiac script, the scenario she describes is one o f adulterous liaison: she teaches Corinna, as w ife, how to elude the clausa ianua and custodia of her husband: per me decepto d id id t custode Corinna lim inis adstricti soUidtare fidem , delabique toro tunica velata soluta atque inpercussos nocte m overe pedes. Amores 3.1.49-52 Through me, Corinna learnt, w ith the guard having been tricked, to tam per w ith the trust of the tight-dosed threshold, and to slip away from the couch dothed in loosened tunic and to move unstum bling feet at night. ^So too in Amores 2.19 marittis (a much less ambiguous signifier than irir) is used in lines 51 and 57; tmrihts is also used at Amores 2.2.51 and at Amores 3.8.63. In Amores 3.4 it seems that vir can be understood as signifying coniunx or maritus, hence, "non proba fit, quam vir servat, sed adultéra cara," "She doesn't become honest whom a husband watches over but rather a prized adulteress" {.Amores 3.429). The designation of the female figure here as adultéra w ould hardly make any sense if the tnr was not to be understood as her husband, nor would the narrator’s injunction to tolerate adultery and indulge the urban sophistication of m etropolitan Rome, "Rusticus est nim ium , quem laedit adultéra coniunx et notos mores non satis urbis habet," "He is excessively boorish whom an adulterous wife bothers and doesn't have a firm grasp on the ways of the dty" (33-34). Vir and coniunx appear to be used interchangeably in Tibullus 1.6 of the same male figure, vir in line 8 and coniunx in line 15. On the m arital status of the female figures of elegy see WUUams (1968: 528-42). 68 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The use here o f fides and torum point to a m arital context.The program m atic nature o f Elegia's appearance designates adultery as part o f the habitual elegiac erotic life style.i^ The V en al W om an If the inaccessibility^ o f the elegiac wom an due to her sexual possession by another is one elegiac scenario fo r exclusion, then the other m ajor basis is the figured venality o f die fem ale figure. The elegiac domina w ill not allow sexual access (on a regular basis) w ithout the narrator providing some form o f rem uneration. This is a constant source o f com plaint for the elegiac narrator: ^®For fides in a m arital context see Treggiari (1991: s.v). The mode of dress of Corinna, "tunica velata soluta,” is fam iliar, it is in just such a manner that Corinna first appears in the Amores, "tunica velata redncta" (1.5.9): the retrospective implication might w ell that she is fresh from the torum of her coniunx. Sim ilarly, the appearance of Lesbia at Catullus 68.143-146 occurs in a poem in which the narrator acknowledges that she comes to him not as a wife but as an adulteress: nec tamen ilia m ihi dextra deducta patema fragrantem Assyrio venit odore domum, sed furtiva dedit m ira munuscula nocte, ipsius ex ipso dempta viri gremio. N or was she led to me by her father's right hand and came fragrant w ith Assyrian perfume but rather gave stolen little gifts to me in the wondrous night plucked from the very lap o f her husband. The sexual connotations of gremium ("lap") make it quite clear that the sexual pleasures of the CatuUan narrator are stolen right from the male organ to which they legally belong: on gremium in this sense see Adams (1982:77,92,219,220). ^^See also Tibullus 1.5 where the elegiac narrator has taken the place of Elegia in instructing the elegiac puella and is now paying the cost, "ipse miser docui, quo posset ludere pacto/ custodes: eheu, nunc prem or arte mea," "Wretched me, I taught her myself, how to trick the guards: alas, now I am harassed by my own art," (1.6.9-10); this could be seen as an inter-textual reference back to Tibullus 1.2 where the narrator encourages her to elude the custodes and to slip away from the mollis lectus (1 .2 .15ff.). Also, when Cynthia is resurrected in Propertius 4.7 she reminds the narrator of their assignations in the Subura (15-16): iamne tibi exdderunt vigilads furta Suburae et mea noctumis trita fenestra dolis? Have our erotic thefts in the sleepless Subura escaped your memory already and the w indow worn down by nocturnal trickery? The use of Jitrla dearly implies that the erotic pleasures that Cynthia offers the narrator are stolen from someone and her escape from the house would suggest that the theft is from a husband. 69 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. niim donis v in â tu r om nis am or Tibullus 1.5.60 Surely not every love is conquered by gifts eheu divitibus video gaudere puellas Tibullus 2.3.53 Alas I see that puellae delight in riches ilia cava pretium flag itat usque m anu Tibullus 2.4.14 She keeps on dem anding a prize w ith cupped hand ergo m uneribus quivis m ercatur amorem Propertius 2.16.18 So can anyone at a ll buy love w ith gifts? cur sim m utatus, quaeris? quia m unera posds. haec te non patitu r causa placere m ih i. Amores 1.10.11-12 W hy am 1 changed, you ask? Because you ask for gifts. This is the reason that doesn't allo w you to please me. The venality o f the elegiac puella exists in conjunction w ith the figured poverty o f the narrator who faces his m aterially m otivated love-object w ith the severe disadvantage o f his scripted financially-challenged state; me mea paupertas vitae traducat in e rti Tibullus 1.1.5 M y poverty hands me over to an inactive life style V O S quoque, felid s quondam , nunc pauperis agri custodes, fertis m unera vestra. Lares Tibullus 1.1.19-20 You too, guardians of a once prosperous, now poor estate, take your dues. 70 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ossaque legist! non ilia aetate iegenda paths et in tenues cogehs ipse lares: nam tua a im m u lti versarent rura iu ven d , abstulit exoiltas pertica tristis opes. Propertius 4.1.127-130 You collected the bones o f your father at an age you ought not to have had to and you yourself w ere d riven into a poor home. For m any oxen turned your ploughland b u t the grim measuring rod snatched aw ay your agricultural capital. The elegiac script w rites in an elegiac puella who is m aterialistic and an elegiac narrator who is poor.'^ This is a set o f circumstances th at inevitably restricts the narrator’s sexual aspirations and confines him to a Callim achean love life . Questions O f Status There are then tw o basic patterns fo r the elegiac puellae w hich determ ine her as an elusive love-object for the narrator. One is her m arital status, where possession by another m an poses obvious obstacles fo r the narrator and leads to the generic typicality of the paraclausithyron. The other is her venality w hich insists upon rem uneration for her sexual availability. This too leads to the exclusion of the lover: sed pretium si grande feras, custodia victa est nec prohibent claves et canis ipse tacet. Tibullus 2.4.33-34 But if you bring a large price, the guard is prevailed upon, the keys don't get in the w ay and even the dog is silent. ^^The basis of elegiac poverty and its relation to the external poet w ill be discussed further in chapter five. 71 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. According to this m odel o f fem ale venality, access is granted according to financial means. As the narrator is professedly pauperous he is destined generally to be on the w rong side of the clausa lanmA^ In any given scenario of exclusion there are then a t least two possible determ inants: the narrator is excluded because the elegiac puella is m arried and so the custodesr ianua, canis are the obstacles that are intended to preserve the integrity o f a leg ally sanctioned m arriage, o r he is excluded because he proffers an insufficient pretium and so the custodes, ianua, canis are intended to preserve the financial in teg rity of potential lovers. The models are also liable to be conflated so as to m utually support their purpose of exclusion: the elegiac puella can be understood as both m arried and venal, thus doubling the potentiality for the attenuation o f the narrator's love life. Hence, the elegiac puella does not com mit adultery just fo r sexual pleasure but also for m aterial gain. The elegiac narrator in Amores 3.4, realizing the m aterial advantages o f such sexual behavior, attem pts to use such a scenario to appease an intransigent husband: Si sapis, indulge dominae vultusque severos exue, nec rig id i iura tuere v iri, et cole quos dederit— multos dabit - uxor amicos. gratia sic m inim o magna labore venit; sic poteris iuvenum convivia semper inire et, quae non dederis, m ulta videre dom i. Amores 3.4.43-48 If you are w ise, indulge your domina and put o ff stem looks, nor protect the rights of a strict husband, and cultivate the friends whom your w ife w ill donate— and she w ill give m any. In this way great gratitude w ill come w ith m inim al effort; in this w ay you w ill ^^Thus the narrator in Propertius 3.13 remarks, "pretio toUitur ipsa mora, "Delay itself is removed at a price" (14). Inasmuch as "mora" is a defining characteristic of elegiac Callimachean erotics it must be kept in place and so the elegiac narrator must lack the pretiu.:i that would remove the postponement of his sexual gratification. 72 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. always be able to participate in the banquets of the young and to see many gifts at home w hich you w eren't responsible for. The behavior that the narrator seeks to encourage here was in the process of, or had been by this tim e, crim inalized as lenociniumM M arriage and venality then are the general qualities that are scripted for the elegiac puella and w hich lead to the painstaking erotic love life o f the elegiac narrator. W hat, then, is the social status o f the elegiac puella?^^ Like the question of m arital status it is extrem ely d iffic u lt to arrive at an answer th at defin itively answers the question fo r every textual m anifestation of the elegiac puella. There can be no totalizing im age o f a specific, unalterable social type. Y et on specific textual occasions it seems that some conclusions as to status can be draw n. So in Amores 3.4 it seems clear that the elegiac puella must be firee-bom: nec tam en ingenuam ius est servare puellam — hie metus extemae corpora gentis agat! Amores 3.4.33-34 It is not right to guard a free-bom puella~\et this fear harass the bodies o f the foreign bom . The elegiac puella here cannot be a libertina: sim ilarly, in Propertius 3.14, where the narrator complains about the practices of Rome as compared to those of Sparta w ith regard to the circulation of women in public, it w ould seem very l^Depending on whether Amores 3.4 belonged to the original or revised version of the Atnores. In any event the poet allowed the poem to stand in the revised collection. This attitude towards the husband is the constructed antithesis to that expressed to the husband in Amores 2.19 where the ease of adulterous opportunities earns the h u s t^ d the narrator’s censorious tag of leno marihis (2.19.57). On the crim inalization of lenodnitim under the Leges Itdiae of 18 BCE see Gardner (1986: 131-132); McGinn (1998:171-94,216-47). For another textual inscription of this phenomenon in the Augustan period consider Horace Carmim 3.6.21 ff where the w ife seeks out rem unerative partners w ith her husband's fu ll knowledge. ^%)n this question see W illiam s (1968:525-42); Syme (1978:200-203); G riffin (1985:48-64); Veyne (1988:85-100); Treggiari (1991:305-307). 73 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. un likely that the scenario that the narrator points to o f a w om an surrounded by custodes could refer to any other fem ale type than a free-bom Rom an woman: at nostra ingenti vad it drcum data turba, nec digitum angustast inseruisse via; nec quae sit facies nec quae sint verba rogandi invenias: caecum versat am ator iter, quod si iu ra fores pugnasque im itata Laconum, carior hoc esses tu m ih i, Roma, bono. Propertius 3.14.29-34 But our [puella] goes around surrounded by a huge crow d nor is it possible to even insert a finger in the narrow street; nor do you have a chance to form ulate the rig h t expression, or words o f entreaty: a lover plies a b lin d path. But if you had copied Spartan law s and combats, Rome, you w ould be dearer to me fo r that blessing. The com ment o f the narrator on D elia at 1.6.67-68 is perhaps more problem atic than at firs t it appears, "quamvis non v itta lig a to s / im pediat crines nec stola longa pedes," "Although no fille t ties her hair or long dress gets in the w ay of her feet." It m ight at firs t be supposed that this m ust be a reference to a libertina. H ow ever, the passage only refers to the appearance o f D elia, not to w hether she is en titled to w ear w hat she does not. The possibility rem ains open that D elia does not dress as a matrona not because she is not entitled to but because she chooses not to. This choice w ould then be an advertisem ent o f her potential sexual availab ility as opposed to the social cladding o f a matrona which signified that her sexuality was strictly off-lim its, C lothing and m aim er o f dress cannot be taken as an unproblem atic indication of social status. Valerius Maximus notes, the traditional dress of the matron signifies inviolability, "in inviolata manus alienae tactu stola relinqueretur" (2.15). If a woman did not wish to project such an aura of inapproachability, then she may have dressed differently, see Veyne (1988:73): so, too, in the Digest on inwria, an opinion of U lpian is quoted that the damages assessed on a man should be less, if he m ight have been in some doubt as to the woman's status due to her clothing, "si tamen andllari veste vestitas, minus peccare vid etu r m ulto minus, si m eretrid veste feminae, non m atrum fam iliarum vestitae fuissent," "if however they were dothed in the slave-girl garments, his offense appears dim inished and much more so if the women were dressed not in the manner of watronae but o f prostitutes" (Digest 47.10.15.15). There is also a speech of Caecina 74 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. If some of our texts can be believed as referential o f Rom an social reality, then the w earing of such item s as translucent Coan silk was certainly not restricted to prostitutes: Video sericas vestes, si vestes vocandae sunt, in quibus n ih il est, quo defendi au t corpus au t denique pudor possit, quibus sumptis parum liqu ido nudam se non esse iurabit. H ae ingenti summa ab ignotis etiam ad com mercium gentibus accersuntur, u t m atronae nostrae ne adulteris quidem plus sui in cubiculo, quam in publico ostendant. Seneca De Beneficiis 7.9.5 1 see silken clothes, if they can be called clothes, w hich provide nothing by w ay of protecting the body or sexual modesty, so that w hen a woman puts one on she could clearly not swear that she was not naked. These are im ported at great expense from nations that are unknow n even com m ercially, so that our matronae m ay not show m ore o f themselves to an adulterer in the bedroom than they do in public. Seneca’s father also displays sim ilar concerns in one of his controuersiae, where the debate centers on w hether a m arried wom an had an a ffa ir w ith a rich m erchant w hile her husband was aw ay. The merchant died and le ft her a ll his w ealth because she resisted his advances, "pudicam repperi," " 1 found her chaste.’’ O n returning the husband refused to believe this set of circumstances and accused her of adultery Part of the argum ent concerns the propriety of fem ale dress and public behavior and how this serves to attract o r repel Severus, probably dating to the reign of Tiberius, which complains in the senate on the habit of women going out without wearing the stola (Tertullian De Pallio 4.9). A surviving line of the mime w riter T . Quinctius A tta, from his m im e, Aqt4ae Caldae, in its ambiguous expression also poses the question of female dress, cum nostro om atu per vias meretrice lupantur," They are hunting in prostitute fashion in our attire" (R £ X X IV . 1009-10); see further G ardner (1986:252); M cGinn (IW S: 181). The problem, here, centers on the identity of the speaker. If a male of the upper orders, he might be referring to the wearing of the toga by a prostitute. O n the question of whether prostitutes and convicted adulteresses wore togas see M artial 2 3 9 ,1 0 3 2 ; Juvenal 2.68; Gardner (1986:252); Richlin (1992c 215); Parker (1997:59); McGinn (1998:156-71). However, if a tm trom is speaking it may refer to prostitutes wearing the dress of a im trom o r maybe matrome properly dressed acting like prostitutes. ^^Seneca Controversiae 2.7. 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. adulterers. The ideal expressed is that a matrona should only be attired to the extent that she should appear not to be un kem p t "prodeat in tantum om ata quantum ne im m unda sit."'® The opposite, that is alleged o f the wom an, involves her going out w ith translucent clothing, "paulo obscurius quam posita veste nudae," "little more covered than if you w ere naked w ith you r clothes laid aside."'9 Roman m oralistic w ritin g , then, is replete w ith references to matronae who w ear translucent silk and are excessively ornam ented: such a m ode of dress is construed by the m ale author as a sign o f sexual imm odesty that could be view ed as an invitation to adulterers o r as providing the suspicion fo r adultery.20 The route of the problem , it is alleged, is a basic vice of wom an, avarice, "M uliebrium vitiorum fundam entum avaritia est," "Greed is the foundation o f wom anly vices."2' Greed as a constructed essential fem ale vice means wom en are susceptible to sexual m isbehavior for m aterial benefit: the allu re o f Coan silks, gold, pearls, gems are the enticements that w ill lead to fem ale sexual im propriety generally and encourage even Rome's matronae to deliberately attract lovers on the street. It seems to me that elegy is entw ined in this nexus o f m ale m oralistic anxiety over female dress and sexual behavior and that elegy’ s fem ale figures are ^^Controversiae 2.7.3. ^'^Controversiae 2.7.4: sim ilar references to the wearing of translucent silk are found at Seneca the Elder Controversiae 23.7; Seneca Epistulae Morales 90.20; De Consolatione Ad Helviam 16.4. A t Juvenal 2.65-70 there is a reference to an effeminate male who wears a garb so transparent that it would be rejected even by a convicted adulteress. ^®As it says in the excerpts from Controversiae 2.7, Quae potest non tim ere opinionem adulterii, potest non timere adulterium , "She who is able not to fear the reputation for adultery, is able not to fear adultery itself." ^'Seneca Controversiae 2.7, excerpts. 76 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. also caught up in this nebulous, vestim ental signifying system. 22 Propertius 1.2 opens in the follow ing m anner Q uid iu vat om ato procedere, vita, capillo et tenuis Coa veste m overe sinus, aut quid Orontea crines perfundere m urra, teque peregrinis vendere m uneribus, naturaeque decus mercato perdere cultu, nec sinere in p ro p iiis m em bra nitere bonis? Propertius 1.2.1-6 VVhy does it please you, lig h t o f m y life , to go out w ith your hair a ll done up and to move in thin folds o f Coan silk, or to drench your hair w ith Syrian perfum e and to sell yourself w ith foreign gifts and to destroy the the glory o f nature w ith bought refinem ent, and not to allow your lim bs to shine through their natural advantages? The unease of the elegiac narrator here is created by precisely a mode of fem ale dress and ornam entation that is condemned in m ale m oralistic discourse: Cynthia appears as the antithesis of the qualities that Seneca praises H elvia fo r in his consolatio to her: non faciem coloribus ac lenodniis polluisti; num quam tibi placuit vestis, quae n ih il am plius nudaret, cum poneretur. Unicum tib i om am entum , pulcherrim a et n u lli obnoxia aetati form a, m axim um decus visa est pu d id tia. Consolatio ad Helviam 16.4 You never defiled your face w ith allu rin g colours: that sort of dothing w hich is nothing more than nakedness never pleased you. O n you only one ornam ent was seen, that most beautiful form liable to no tem poral decay, that greatest distinction, pudidtia. The rhetorical motives of the elegiac poet are d ear enough. The elegiac narrator is figured as poor, such luxury items are expensive, therefore the narrator cannot afford to provide them , so he m ust try to induce her not to w ant them. There is another sort o f circuitry to such ornam entation that the elegiac narrator must also 22por fuller discussion of women's dress and adornment and m oralizing discourse at Rome on this topic see W yke (1994b: 134-151); Richlin (1995). 77 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. fig h t against. Such ornam entation is expensive, the elegiac puella is venal and so desires them, but these item s also serve as sexual allurem ent and therefore serve the puella to be able to acquire m ore lovers w ho w ill provide her w ith m ore luxury items. If the fig ured aim o f the elegiac narrator is to try and establish an exclusive sexual relationship w ith the puella, then he m ust try to break this circuit of venality and promiscuous sexuality from w hich he him self is in continuous danger of being excluded. 2 3 The appearance o f matronae in m ale m oralistic discourse who are dressed like C ynthia indicates that elegy cannot claim to exclude such fem ale social signifiers from its sexual discourse. A possible social m anifestation o f the elegiac puella is a m arried tnatronaM Clothing can be an am biguous s ig n ifie r the absence of stelae and vittae does not m ean that elegy excludes upper-class m arried wom en as potential incarnate parallels to its fem ale fictions.25 23Hence, condemnation o f the luxury and venality of the present age are common in elegiac discourse: Propertius 2.16,3.13; O vid Atnores 3.8; Tibullus 1 .4 ,1 .5 ,1 .9 ,2 3 ,2.4. Elegy incorporates male moralistic discourse into itself and elegizes its concerns. Female venality and luxury must be condemned not as evils in themselves but because they dim inish the chances of the elegiac narrator to participate effectively in promiscuous sexuality. 2^This possibility is also enhanced by some spectacular instances of aristocratic women acting, or alleged to have acted, like prostitutes in the period roughly contemporaneous to elegiac production. There were the adultery prosecutions of both Julias (in the Augustan period) and the case of Vistilia (in the principate o f Tiberius), the w ife of a man of praetorian rank who registered w ith the aediles as a prostitute: on the Julias see Suetonius Augustus, 34.1,65.4,1013; Syme (1978: 206-11); Richlin (1992a: 67-70); on V istilia see Tacitus Anitales 2.85; Suetonius Tiberius 35.2; Richlin (1981:386-87); (Habinek 1997:29); McGinn (1998:197-201,216-19). The VistiUa incident w ill be treated in more detail in chapter ten; also pertinent are Seneca's comments on adultery as an essential part of the fashionable lifestyle. De Beneficiis 1.93-5. One need not of course treat rhetorical, moralistic texts as unproblematic reflections o f social reality but they are in all probability at least revealing o f real elite anxieties. Elegiac discourse makes its own rhetorical entry into this nexus of sodo-sexual concerns. 25go Alison Sharrock remarks w ith regard to the disclaimer at the beginning of the Ars, "este procul, vittae tenues, insigne pudoris," "Remove yourselves, slender ribbons, sign of sexual respectability" (31-32), "it is not respectability but its signifiers which are to be removed. Women are encouraged to throw o ff their pudor along w ith its trappings?” (1994a: 111 n. 29): the greater insistence in the Ars on libertinae as the narrator's intended sexual quarry, particularly in adulterous contexts, can be viewed as an attempt to make the discourse more obviously 78 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The social and m arital status o f elegy's fem ale fictional figures adm it a p lu ra lity o f possibilities that also makes it possible to visualize the stereotypical situations o f elegiac discourse in a variety o f ways. W hen the elegiac narrator is excluded is it because o f a husband, or because o f a lack o f m oney, or is it because he lacks the rem unerative means that w ould m ake adultery w orth w hile on the p art o f a m arried woman? Are the expensive dress and ornam entation of the elegiac puella an indication o f a successful, unm arried meretrix; an adulterous w ife o f low er social status w ho has acquired, and continues to acquire, such item s through the provision o f sexual favors; or of a m arried matrona whose w ealth and eye on contem porary fashion allow s such a m ode o f dress w hilst also, from a m ale m oralistic perspective, encouraging an aura o f sexual availability? In this sense the distinction that Horace constructs as plain cut between a matrona and a meretrix, "ut m atrona m eretrid dispar e rit atq u e/ discolor, infido scurrae distabit amicus," "as a matrona u ill be unlike and different from a meretrix, so an amicus w ill d iffe r from a disloyal scurra,” m ay not in a ll instances have been so o b v i o u s .2 6 Elegiac discourse, I think, operates w ith in the term s of this confusion and in the process serves to obfuscate any attem pt to dem onstrate that the behavior depicted centers on elite a d u l t e r y . 2 7 respectable in the wake of the Augustan legislation and to suggest that the elegiac puellae were literary types based on a definitive female social type, the sexual pursuit of whom could be viewed as less socially disruptive. 26Horace Epistles 1.18.3-4: on the conflation of the dress-styles of tnatrome and meretrices see the passages listed in RE XV. 1025-26: also there is the problem of defining what constitutes prostitution, is an adulterous w ife who solicits gifts a prostitute? Elegy also deals w ith this problem in its ow n terms, hence in Amores 1.10 the narrator attempts to steer the puella away from a quid pro quo exchange on the ground (among many others) that this is the behavior of a meretrix (this aspect of elegiac discourse w ill be discussed further in chapters three and four). Yet if the elegiac puella is not a meretrix of some form, then the presence of the lem {Amores 1.8; Propertius 4.5; Tibullus 1.5,2.6) m ight seem odd. This again points to the variable social construction o f this female fiction. 79 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Focussing on the problem in Callimachean terms From a form alist, aesthetic perspective of course the m atter of the puella's social status is of little consequence. W hat is im portant is a m odel of inaccessibility that produces a Callim achean life style. As discussed above there are various possibilities, reflecting various social and m arital conditions, that w ill satisfy this condition. From a form alist perspective w hat the poet chooses is understood as a literary choice, not an occasion for social comment or disruption.28 The obstacles of elegiac discourse that are incarnated in the person of the elegiac puella and her supporting cast are the basis o f enabling an erotic Callim achean poetics. This Callim achean principle o f construction is perhaps best demonstrated in Amores 2.19, where the O vidian narrator encounters a set of elegiacally typical circumstances that have been m odified in such a manner as to threaten the Callim achean nature o f the enterprise. Si tib i non opus est servata, stulte, puella, at m ihi fac serves, quo magis ipse velim ! quod licet, ingratum est; quod non licet acrius u rit. ferreus est, siquis, quod sinit alter, amat. Amores 2.19.1-4 may also be possible to see elegiac discourse as a conflation of the various models used by generic predecessors and orginators. So the m odel of an adulterous high-class wife is taken from Catullus and the model of the avaricious libertina/meretrix from Callus. On this type o f conflation in Latin love poetry see Treggiari (1991:307). This conflation of the meretrix and the matrona may also seem of particular im port in the context of the Augustan adultery legislation which, as McGinn (1998:207-15) has elaborated, tried to establish a rigid separation between these two socially disparate figures. 2®Hence, in the Remedia Amoris (361ff.) the narrator responds to criticism that his Muse is proterva by defending himself largely on formalist literary grounds: content and tone are regulated by the generic requirements, he is sim ply fulfilling the Literary role of the elegist Naturally, this also serves as a basis for the poet's defense in exile, most fully elaborated in Tristia 2. On the Remedia passage see Kennedy (1988:76). ~^On Amores 2.19 and Callimachean aesthetics see Lateiner (1978). 80 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. If you have no need o f guarding you r puella fo r yourself, fool, see to it that you guard her fo r m e, so th at I m ight w ant her the more! W hat is allow ed gives no pleasure; w hat is not allow ed provokes more passion. H e is m ade o f iron, w hoever loves w hat another allow s. The elegiac narrator is presented on the typically w rong end o f a trian g u lar situation. How ever, this tim e access does not seem to be problem atic due to the carelessness o f the vir. In the terms o f Callim achean aesthetics the inep titud e o f the vir in turning the elegiac puella into the erotic prey that is easily accessible, " ra 5' ÈV neaocp KEitiEva," rather than that w hich continually eludes possession, "xa q>euyovTa," threatens the status o f elegy as a Callim achean aesthetic discourse. 3 0 The narrator also points to C orinna as the past enabler o f such discourse at Amores 2.19.9-18: V iderat hoc in me v itiu m versuta Corinna, quaque capi possem, callida norat opem. a, quotiens sani capitis m entita dolores cunctantem tardo iussit abire pede! a, quotiens fin x it culpam , quantum que licebat insonti, spedem praebuit esse nocens! sic ubi vexaret tepidosque refoverat ignis, rursus erat votis comis et apta meis. quas m ihi blanditias, quam d u ld a verba parabat oscula, d i m agni, qualia quotque dabat! Cunning Corinna had seen this fa u lt in m e, and sm artly recognized the w ay in w hich I was able to be caught. H ow m any tim es she fd g n ed pain in a head that was w e ll and ordered me to go aw ay as I lingered w ith a tardy foot! H ow m any times she fabricated a charge and provided, as far as it can be done to one innocent, the semblance o f being g u ilty ! 3(^rhe O vidian narrator in a moment o f truculent bitterness over the elegiac erotic life sty^le attempts to turn Callimachean aesthetics against C upid through a paraphrase of Callimachus thirty-first epigram, 'Venator sequitur fugientia; capta relin q u it/ semper et inventis ulteriora petit," 'The hunter pursues the quarry that flies; he leaves behind what has been captured and always seeks what might be found ahead {Amores 2.9A.9-10). Cupid m ight have enabled Callimachean erotic discourse by interrupting the narrator's incipient epic in Amores 1.1 but his continual enforcement of the conditions for such a discourse m ark him out as no Callimachean. 81 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In this w ay w hen she harassed m e and revived the cooling fires, she was again frien d ly and w ell-disposed to m y entreaties. W hat pieces of flatteries, w hat sweet words she used to furnish, and, gods, w hat sort and how m any w ere the kisses she used to give. The represented capture o f the narrator by C orinna along w ith its fulfillm en t of the narrator's erotic ideal, points to an elegiac discourse that is one of w illin g masochism rather fiian enforced sadism. Such a candid admission of the m ale narrator's construction o f his erotic suffering also puts a different spin on the narrative o f the capture o f the Propertian narrator by C ynthia in Propertius 1.1. Is Propertius really suHering or is he reveling in a self-constructed erotic masochism w here C ynthia is m erely playin g w ell the part the internal narrator requires for his erotic kicks and the external poet needs fo r his Callim achean erotic fiction? The tw o are naturally intertw ined.^^ In Amores 2.19 the script is going w rong and the internal narrator is in danger o f losing his erotic fun and the external poet his Callim achean fiction. The new fem ale fiction m ust act out the part o f a C orinna and give the opportunity for Callim achean erotic fulfillm ent: quod licet et facile est quisquis cupit, arbore firondis carpat et e magno flu m in e potet aquam. siqua volet regnare diu , deludat am antem . ei m ihi, ne m onitis torquear ipse meis! quidlibet eveniat, nocet indulgentia nobis— quod sequitur, fugio; quod fu g it, ipse sequor. Amores 2.19.31-36 ^^This element o f the elegiac narrator’s sexual characterization w ill be discussed in more detail in chpater eleven. ^^Though one should allow for differences between the presentations of the poets. Both present a narrative that enables Callimachean erotic fiction; however, one does not have to assume that the narrator in Propertius is a w illing rather than unw illing victim of the external poet's plot. The willingness of the O vidian narrator to follow his script may serve the author s metafictional bent to display the constructedness of his fiction more overtly. 82 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. W hoever desires w hat is easy and perm itted, le t him pluck leaves from a tree and d rin k w ater from a great stream. If any wom an wants to reign for a long tim e, le t her cheat her lover. A h me, m ay I not be tortured by m y ow n advice! Come w hat m ay, indulgence is anathem a to me— w hat follow s I flee, w hat flees, I follow . The narrator’s use o f the im agery o f Callimachus Epigram 31 again points to an erotics inform ed by the form er poet’s aesthetics. The narrator’s w ish that he m ay not be hoist by his ow n petard is from this perspective disingenuous, as this w ill only serve to fu rth er the possibilities of his w illed f r u s t r a t i o n . ^ ^ The Callim achean erotic script requires any elegiac puella to act out the exem plary role of Corinna and any vir she m ay be associated w ith to provide sufficient obstacles to the narrator’s sexual gratification: quid m ih i cum facili, quid cum lenone m arito? corrum pit vitio gaudia nostra suo. quin alium , quem tanta iuvat patientia quaeris? me tib i rivalem si iuvat esse, veta! Atnores 2.19.57-60 W hat have I to do w ith an easy panderer of a husband? H e spoils our fun through his shortcoming. W hy not seek another, whom such great tolerance delights? If it pleases you to have me as a rival, forbid it! The poem centers around a paradox expounded in Callim achean terms: continued erotic attachm ent requires unattainability, "iam que ego praemoneo: nisi tu servare p u e lla m / in d p is, in d p iet desinere esse m ea, ” ’’N ow I ’m w arning you, unless you begin to guard your puella, she w ill cease to be m ine ” (Amores 2 . 1 9 .4 7 -4 8 ).3 4 The narrator m ust be frustrated and exduded for desire and a ^%uch a scenario is presented at Tibullus 1.6.9-10. ^ T h e theme of such erotic paradox is explored w ith Sappho 31 as a starting point in Carson (1986:62-69). This paradox, o f course, is also bolstered by the hum or that is created by the narrator rebuking the husband not for neglecting his m arital duty but for failing to play out properly his appropriate Callimachean role. Thus the husband is berated on aesthetic rather than 83 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Callim achean poetic project to continue. The arguments are n aturally m odified in Amores 3.4, where a vir durus provides a rhetorical fo il to the earlier vir factlis and the narrator w ill argue again from a Callim achean perspective, "Q uidquid servatur cupimus magis, ipsaque fu rem / cura vocat; paud, quod sinit alter, amant," "W hatever is guarded we desire m ore, the concern in its e lf summons the thief; few love w hat another concedes" (Amores 3.4.25-26). This tim e, however, the narrator stresses that the vir through providing obstacles is only m aking the puella a m ore valuable Callim achean commodity. In this w ay it becomes clear in the O vidian narrative that the elegiac theme of the triangular relationship exists to enable the erotic Callim achean project of the poet. The fleshing out o f elegy’s literary metaphors into obstinate or accommodating husbands serve a poetic purpose and a Callim achean, if not often a sexual, fu lfillm en t. The Docta Puella: The In te rn a l and External Audience. O n a num ber o f occasions in the text of Propertius reference is made to a docta puella me laudent doctae solum placuisse puellae Propertius 1.7.11 Let them praise me that I alone pleased a docta puella. me iuvet in grem io doctae legisse puellae, auribus et puris scripta probasse mea. haec ubi contigerint, populi confusa valeto fabula: nam dom ina iudice tutus ero. Propertius 2.13.11-14 moral grounds. Here the rules of society and the imperatives of a Callimachean love life ironically coincide. 350n what it means to be a woman and docta at Rome both as female fictions and as textual inscriptions of real women see Habinek (1998:122-36). 84 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. It pleases m e to have read m y w ritings in the lap o f a docta puella, and to have been approved by pure ears. W hen this is m y lo t, farew ell to the confused ta lk o f the people: fo r 1 w ill be safe w ith m y domina as judge. Propertius 1.7 is addressed to the epic poet Ponticus. In this poem the narrator differentiates his ow n elegiac poetic project, "nos, u t consuemus, nostros agitam us amores," "I, as usual, pursue m y love-affairs/elegiac composition" (5), ffo m the epic poetic projects of his addressee, "Dum tib i Cadmeae dicuntur, Pontice, Thebae," "W hile Cadm ean Thebes is spoken o f by you" (1). In this context the reference to a docta puella is the elegist's assertion o f an appropriate audience/reader fo r his elegies.^® The po int is further elaborated in 2.13 where the docta puella appears again as a figure constructed to validate the poet’s elegiac com position. N o tab ly, the docta puella is perceived in Callim achean terms: her status as docta turns her into a reflection o f the poet's Callim achean doctrina, she is the existimator w ho w ill validate the poet's inherent w orth, and to do so she is provided w ith an appropriately Callim achean auditory condition, "auribus et puris, " that reflects the Callim achean aesthetic aspirations o f the elegiac poet, "primus ego ingredior puro de fonte sacerdos/ Ita la per Graios orgia ferre choros, " " 1 first as a priest from a pure fountain produce Ita lia n rites through Greek choruses " (Propertius 3.1.3-4).^7 A t this level, then, the docta puella is a constructed ideal audience for the poet's elegiac w ork. As elegy is a heterosexual erotic discourse she is naturally fem ale and validation is staged in a suitably sexual context, "in gremio." As gremium can be a euphem ism fo r the fem ale sexual organs, then the validation ^ In conjunction w ith another potential constructed audience the "neglectus amator" (1.7.13). ^7on the connection between one’s status as doctusl docta and as an existimator see Habinek (1998: 122-36); on the ptiella as an incarnation of Callimachean qualities in Propertius 2.13 see W yke (1987b: 58). 85 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. provided by the docta puella conflates sexual w ith literary a p p ro v a l.^ The sexual/ textual approval of the docta puella, the Callim achean existimator, allows the poet to disregard the opinion of the denigrated Calim achean literary consumers, the general p u b l i c . 3 9 The docta puella, then, is a constructed ideal audience fo r elegy as an erotic Callim achean discourse. In this m anner the docta puella can be seen as an ideal audience that is constructed by the elegist fo r his literary appreciation outside of the text: his Callim achean erotic fiction w ill be appreciated by w om en w ho have the discerning capabilities to appreciate the poet’ s efforts. The sexualization of this appreciation by the poet reflects the erotic content of the poetry and also the notion that reading enacts the sexual m astery of the author, "am at q u i scribit, pedicatur qui legit," "He makes love w ho w rites, he is buggered w ho reads. Yet at the same tim e this points to the construction o f erotic relations w ith in the text to the extent that elegiac discourse tends to conflate the person o f the external elegiac poet and the narrator who is a poet w ith in the text. W ithin the text the aim of the poetic narrator is to effect sexual union w ith the elegiac puella. The narrator professes to be poor and so only has his poetry to help him in this endeavor.^i Therefore, he must try w ith in the text to construct 38see Habinek (1998:133): for this use o f granitim see Adams (1982:77.92,219-20): a sim ilar conflation of providing literary and sexual pleasure is surely also apparent at 1.7.11 in "placuisse." 39in a sim ilar fashion the narrator at Horace Satires 1.10.73-74 stresses the need to satisfy a small discerning audience rather than the general public neque te ut m iretur turba labores, contentus paucis lectoribus. N o r strive so that the mob adm ire you but t> e happy w ith a select readership. '^(^The quotation is from an ancient grafito, CIL 4.2360 referred to by Richlin (1992c 82) and Fitzgerald (1995:50); for more on this model in a Greek context see Svenbro (1988). '^^The relation of elegy to poverty and poetic appreciation w ill be dealt w ith variously in chapters three to six. 86 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the elegiac puella into a docta puella in the hope that literary appreciation w ill also m anifest itself as carnal gratitude. Thus the posited m etaphoric sexualization of the reading process by an ideal fem ale audience outside the text is manifested w ith in the text as a deliberate seductive tactic by the elegiac narrator. The elegiac narrator m ust attem pt to turn the elegiac puella into a dram atic Callim achean existimator w ho appreciates sexually.^ H ow ever, a concision o f the docta puella and the elegiac puella w ith in the text could cause a problem , if die form er status led to habitual sexual as w ell as literary appreciation. For if the docta puella is incarnated in the text as a conflation of erotic object and ideal reader whose positive literary evaluation is coupled w ith carnal appreciation, then her ideal status as sexualized critic makes her far too perfect to be a Callim achean erotic object rather than evaluator: constant s exu al/literary approval w ould destroy the Callim achean erotic aesthetic. Thus although on occasion it appears that the narrator has achieved literary approval that has m anifested itself sexually, this cannot typically be the case.43 Callimachean Validation The erotic hardships, then, and construction of elegy's fem ale figures a ll serve the Callim achean aspirations of the elegist w ho is concerned to fashion for him self an erotic fiction in terms of Callim achean aesthetic theory: a tale of erotic obstruction and elusiveness that is the storyline upon w hich a refined Callim achean poetic monument can be erected. It is a poetic space o f rarified 42"rhis theme w ill be dealt w ith further in chapter four. 43por such success see Propertius 2.26B: for failure see O vid Amores 3.8 where positive existimatio leads to the admission of the poetry but not the poet, "quo licuit libris, non licet ire mihi," "Where it was perm itted for my books to go, it is not perm itted for me" (6) and Tibullus 1.5, "heu canimus frustra," "Alas I sing/compose in vain" (67). 87 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. erotic d ifficu lty that serves to differentiate the elegiac narrator as lover from the common lover and hence his poetic creator, as Callim achean poet, fi~om the poetic masses. W ith in this space the author's intransigent fem ale fiction serves as the enabler of Callim achean erotic fiction even as the internal narrator complains over her disablem ent o f his sex life . H ow ever, there can be no other w ay; the com plaints o f the narrator are spurious, as is dem onstrated in Amores 2.19, where the narrator has to react sw iftly to restore the Callim achean integrity o f his erotic spectacle. The firs t tw o chapters have been concerned w ith dem onstrating how elegy functions form ally as an erotic adaptation of Callim achean aesthetic principles. O n this level elegy can be understood as a largely self-contained literary artifact, or m ore precisely as a literary discourse that im ports the external w orld into itself in the terms o f its controlling aesthetic principles. In the next tw o chapters I w ant to move on to a different way o f view ing elegiac discourse by considering how this form o f poetry is inform ed by, and serves as an allegory of, its specific historical and cultural situation. In particular I w ill be focusing on how elegy can be understood against a background of literary patronage and aristocratic g ift- exchange. 88 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER THREE Poets, Patrons and Prostitutes: Towards the Allegory of Elegiac Gift-Exchange In this chapter I w ant to consider the relationship between literary production, aristocratic patronage and prostitution. To this end I w ill be draw ing upon and synthesizing the observations o f a variety o f classical scholars on how literature functions w ith in Greco-Roman society.^ 1 hope to bu ild a background of a system o f exchange, com mem oration and m etaphoric equivalence w hich w ill serve to illu m in ate the fu ller consideration in chapter four o f how the im agery and narrative situations o f elegy are specifically inform ed by their insertion w ith in a lite ra ry system that itself functions w ith in the param eters o f an aristocratic economy of gift-exchange. Using a rem arkably candid rem ark o f the younger Seneca’s on the equivalence o f a gift-exchanging aristocrat and a prostitute as a starting point, I shall proceed to demonstrate how the im agery o f prostitution envelopes both patron and poet as both attem pt to enter into self-interested exchange. The chapter w ill use the different responses o f Sim onides and Pindar to the role o f the poet in a predom inantly aristocratic society as a means of elucidating how the im agery o f venal sexuality m ay be d ifferen tially applied to a poet depending on how the lite ra ry producer aligns him self w ith the aristocratic ethos o f g ift- exchange. The chapter then moves forw ard to consider this same phenomenon at Rome w ith particu lar reference to the im agery o f prostitution that Horace employs at the end o f the firs t book of the Epistles. The conclusion o f the chapter iB nm t (1965); W hite (1975), (1978), (1993); Gold (1982), (1987); Sailer (1982); G riffin (1984); Badian (1985); Kurke (1990), (1996), (1997); H enry (1992); Carson (1993); Dixon (1993); OUensis (1995), (1997a), (1997b), (1998); Habinek (1997). 89 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. deals w ith the actual basis, rather than the m etaphoric consequences, of the exchange betw een poet and aristocrat w ith particu lar reference to Cicero's defence o f the poet, Archias. Seneca's A ristocratic Prostitute Seneca in his De Beneficiis elaborates the parallels between the aristocratic gift-exchanger and the prostitute: Q uem adm odum m eretrix ita in ter m ultos se d iv id e t, u t nemo non aliq u id signum fam iliaris anim i ferat, ita , qui bénéficia sua am abilia esse v u lt, excogitat, quomodo et m u lti obligentur et tam en singuli habeant aliquid, quo se ceteris praeferant Seneca De Beneficiis 1.14.4 Just as a prostitute divides herself among m any so that everyone bears some sign o f intim acy, just so the m an w ho wants his favors to be appreciated, should contrive that m any are placed under obligation but each one gets something w hereby he m ight think he is preferred to the rest. H ere it seems that the successful aristocrat and prostitute operate on sim ilar prem ises. The noble m ust aim to make his bénéficia seem "amabilia:" N o t so much "appreciated" as "lovable. " Like the prostitute, Seneca argues, the favors of the patron w ill function most effectively if they appear to be m otivated by genuine affection rather than m ercenary interest. In this w ay amor (or its appearance) m ay be an aid to successful amicitia. O n the difference between amor and reciprocal exchange {amicitia) Pronto w rites to M arcus A urelius: A t ego n ih il quidem m alo quam amoris erga me tu i nullam extare rationem . Nec omnino m ih i am or vid etu r qui ratione o ritu r et iustis certisque de causis copulatur: am orem ego iliu m intellego fortuitum et liberum et nuUis causis servientem , im petu potius quam ratione conceptum , qui non officiis, u ti lignis, sed sponte ortis vaporibus caleat. Epistulae 1.3.4 90 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I should prefer nothing than that there m ight be no reason for your love tow ards me. For that doesn't seem a t a ll to me to be love w hich arises from a rational principle and is joined to certain, definite causes: I understand love to be som ething chance and free, a slave to no reasons, conceived by a sudden im pulse and not through reason, w hich does not feed o ff services as a fire does o ff logs but o f its own accord grows hot w ith its rising vapors. Amor ought to be spontaneous and based on no m aterial considerations: it is the essential fire o f spontaneous combustion, not the constructed flam e of the b u ilt fire. This also illustrates an aristocratic philosophical ideal concerning amicitia: Amicitia was supposed to be based on virtue (especially fides) and not on iitilitas: an amicus tied only by utilitas, according to Seneca, w ill abandon his friend as soon as he falls on hard times.^ Yet, how m any amicitiae w ere ever actually carried out in accordance w ith such principles? As Sailer says, the social historian has to distinguish "the ideals of the philosophers from the common values and expectations w hich affected everyday life."3 The w ay a society represents its social behavior and the actuality of everyday social practice can be quite different. If amicitia was in theory selfless, in practice its w orkings at Rome seem to be based on a reciprocal exchange mechanism w here self-interest could hardly not be a factor.^ As the passage above from Seneca's De Beneficiis dem onstrates, the key is to successfully hide the m otivation o f self-interest. In this dem ystified context of ^Richard Sailer (1982:12-23) refers to Seneca Ep. ad Luc. 9.8f and Pliny Ep. 9.30.1 as supporting evidence. On the working of patronage and amicitia at Rome see Brunt (1965); Dixon (1993); Konstan (1997:122-148); Sailer (1982); W allace-Hadrill (1989a): on literary patronage w ithin this w ider context see Gold (1982); (1987); W hite (1975); (1978); (1993). 3SaUer (1982:12). '*So Marcel Mauss (1967:1) writes o f gift-exchange among the Trobrianders that "prestations " are in theory "voluntary, disinterested and spontaneous, but are in fact obligatory and interested. The form usually taken is that of the g ift generously offered; but the accompanying behavior is formal pretense and social deception, w hile the transaction itself is based on obligation and economic self-interest." See also Dixon (1993:452,454-55). 91 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. aristocratie gift-exchange the prostitute suddenly appears as a valid ated , rather than despised m odel. For both are systems w here the feigning o f amor can be instrum ental to success. Thus, w hen the lena, the elegiac puella's financial advisor, appears, she also advocates such feigned em otion, "nec nocuit sim ulatus amor; sine credat am ari," "A pretended love doesn't cause any harm ; le t h im believe he is loved."5 But she quickly adds, "et cave ne gratis hie tib i constet am or, " "But take care in case it becomes free love."® Love can be used as an ensnaring tactic but one m ust exercise caution lest the belief in such a feeling becomes an excuse for not providing any rem uneration a t a ll. There can be a fine line betw een exchange and a free ride and neither the aristocrat nor the prostitute should w ish to cross it. Both the aristocrat and the lena also advocate a p lu ra lity o f relationships: Ego vero beneficiis non obicio moras; quo plura m aioraque fuerint, plus adferent laudis. De Beneficiis 1.15.1 Indeed 1 don't place any hindrances in the w ay of benefactions; the more and the greater they are, the more praise they bring in . Com pare again the advice of O vid's Dipsas: nec satis effectus unus et alter habent; certior e m ultis nec tam invidiosa rapina est. plena venit canis de grege praeda lupis. Amores 1.8.54-56 N o r do one or tw o lovers give good enough results; plunder is m ore certain and less envy-provoking if it is from m any. The hoary w o lf gets its fu ll plunder from a w hole flock. ®Ovid Amores 1.8.71. ®Ovid Amores 1.8.72. 92 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. N a tu ra lly , the ideal o f non-instrum entality that surrounds amicitia means that bénéficia ought to be bestowed w ith no thought for return, "nemo bénéficia in calendario scribit nec avarus exactor ad horam et diem appellat," "No-one w rites dow n his ben^cia in a collections book, nor, like a greedy tax-collector, calls them in at the due date H ow ever, the theory and the practice are as usual not en tirely in accord. Returns w ere expected, and failure to reciprocate w ould lead to the opprobrium o f being term ed ingratus. Seneca is hyberbolic in condem nation o f this fault: Erunt hom iddae, tyrann i, fures, ad u lteri, raptores, sacrilegi, proditores; in fra om nia ista ingratus est De Beneficiis 1.10.4 There w ill be m urderers, tyrants, thieves, adulterers, robbers, those w ho com m it sacrilege; but below a ll these is the man who is ingratus. As Seneca goes on to note, the the nature o f the inju ry is that it forces the aristocrat to waste a beneficium, "beneficium perdidisti," "You have squandered a benfit."® The favors of the aristocrat are not to be lavished indiscrim inately. The virulence in the denunciation of the ingratus homo m ay be due to the fact that such an act threatens the w orking o f the w hole system. To take som ething and not give adequate return is to dem ystify the w hole prem ise upon w hich g ift- exchange functions. It is to take lite ra lly the philosophical ideal that such giving is selfless and expects no return. It puts the giver in the aw kw ard position of being offended at seeing no return, w hen he knows according to the ideal he ought to treat such an eventuality w ith equanim ity. It is in short to break dow n a ^Seneca De Beneficiis 1.2.3. ®Seneca De Beneficiis 1.10.4. 93 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. sort o f gentlem anly code that strives to m is-recognize effortlessly any m aterial sordidness in its exchange-system. N a tu ra lly , prostitutes too m ust be on the look-out for the ingratus, for whereas the basic m odel for prostitution is sim ple enough— sex for a fixed price no fee, no sex— the situation becomes m ore com plicated w ith in the terms o f hetaira-style prostitution w hich functions in the context of the more nebulous circumstances of gift-exchange. Therefore, the in itia l sim plicity of Astaphium 's statem ent in Plautus's Tniadentus has to be quickly m odified: dum habeat, dum amet: ubi n il habeat, aliis qui habent, det locum. Truciilentiis 236 As long as he has som ething let him love: when he doesn’t have anything le t him give w ay to others who do have something.’ nam quando sterilis est am ator ab datis, si negat se habere quod det, soli credimus, nec satis accipimus, satis cum quod det non habet. semper daturos novos oportet quaerere, qui de thensauris integris demus dabunt. Truciilentiis 241-245 For w hen a lover is sterile from giving, if he denies that he has anything he m ight give, w e are in the habit of believing him and w e don't get enough w hen he hasn’t got enough. W e always need to be on the look-out for new givers who w ill give from unscathed treasuries. In a system o f exchange based on ostensible etiquette and generosity there can be no question o f exact evaluation. W hat after a ll is a social favor w orth in m aterial terms? In this sense gift-exchange was a little lik e playing the stock-exchange: returns w ere liable to be variable and losses as w e ll as gains could easily occur. ’ Sim ilarly, Lucian Dialogues O f The Courtesans 14 where the lover Doric complains to the hetaira M yrtale that w hen he has pauperized him self on her account he is then denied access (319). Also Alciphron Letters O f Courtesans 9 which opens w ith the hetaira stating, "I wish that a hetaira's household could be sustained by tears.” 94 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. There was no question of the preciseness that occurs in m onetary exchange. The downside, then, for the prostitute who engaged in sexual transactions based on a m odel of aristocratic gift-exchange, was that her returns were liable to be quite variable. W hat was sex w orth, if there was no fixed m onetary equivalence: a necklace or a cheese? The im agery of sterility that is elaborated in Plautus's Truciilentiis w ith regard to the gift-exhausted lover (the amator ingratus) is also used by Seneca w ith regard to the unredprocating friend (the amicus ingratus): quod in hoc perdidi, ab aliis redpiam . Sed huic ipsi beneficium dabo iterum et tamquam bonus agricola cura cultuque sterilitatem soli vincam . De Beneficiis 7.32 W hat I have lost in the case o f this m an, I shall redaim from others. But I w ill give a beneficium to this m an him self again and like a good farm er I shall conquer the bareness o f the soil w ith care and cultivation. The image of sterility in both the case of the prostitute and the aristocrat suggests the need for careful cultivation. The farm er m ust periodically allow a field to lie fallo w in order to get a better return later, and o f course there are always other fields. Thus an unrem unerative lover/unredprocating friend can be carried for a w h ile in the expectation of future return, but naturally at the same tim e other lovers/frien ds m ust be cultivated to compensate for the lo ss.^^ l®Two of the contrasting gifts offered by two different lovers to the hetaira M yrtale in Lucian's Dialogues Of The Courtesans 14. ^^The female body in ancient literature is often troped in terms of m aterial to be cultivated. The inversion of this dynamic by the female prostitute and the application of this imagery by the aristocrat to an unresponsive amicus suggests the effem inization of their respective clients. For further elaboration on the trope of the cultivation of the female body see dubois (1988); Richlin (1995); W yke (1994b). 95 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The im agery o f cultivation also points to a longer-term investm ent: the hetaira-style prostitute, like the aristocrat, is a farm er o f friends. Com m ercial inexactitude is compensated for by the provision for perpetuating exchange beyond the one-off transactions o f the m arket. For exact exchange does not guarantee longevity: It has been suggested that "balanced exchange m ay tend tow ard self-liquidation," for the reason that a precise one-for-one exchange — that is, a com plete and conscious absolution o f debt— leaves both parties free to break o ff the relationship w ithout m oral recrim inations. . . . It was d iffic u lt for an exchange partner to opt out of a relationship on the grounds that his debts w ere paid up, when he could not be sure w hether the repaym ent was commensurate w ith the in itia l favor. Thus both the aristocrat and hetaira attem pt to surround themselves w ith long term and good-risk investments.'^ N atu rally, this also involves a degree o f calculation on the part o f aristocrat and hetaira over whom to enter into exchange w ith: after a ll, one wants m ore crop-bearing than fallo w fields. Hence, Cicero in De Officiis advises his readers that they ought to become "boni ratiodnatores offidorum,"" " good reckoners o f ojficia."^^ Favors ought not to be handed out indiscrim inately but m ust be given out and received w ith a view to the in d ivid u al case.'® This leads to the objection that Seneca constructs in De Beneficiis 4 when an interlocutor raises a problem over w hether the aristocratic bestowal o f bénéficia is really a gratuitous practice: '^Sailer (1982:17); Sahlins (1965) quoted by Sailer (1982:17); see also Dixon (1993:457-58). 13As Dixon (1993:459) points out, gift economies aim at creating bonds of obligation that last over extended periods of time. '^'Cicero De Officiis 1.59. '^See also Seneca De Beneficiis 1.15; 4.10-11; Cicero De Officiis 1.45. 96 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. "D idtis," in q u it, "diligenter eligendos, quibus benefîda dem us, quia ne agricolae quidem sem ina harenis com m ittant; quod si verum est, nostram utilitatem in benefidis dandis sequim ur, quem adm odum in arando serendoque; neque enim serere per se res expetenda est." De Beneficiis 4.9.2 "You state," he says "that w e ought to choose carefully those to w hom w e w ould give bénéficia, because not even farm ers entrust seeds to sand; fo r if this is true, w e are pursuing our ow n advantage in givin g out bénéficia, just as is the case in ploughing and sowing; for sow ing isn't an activity that is sought fo r its ow n sake." Seneca's answer to the objection th at he him self has constructed is not p articu larly satisfying. H is answer is that w hat is konestus is indeed sought for its ow n sake and that somehow the very process of bestowing bénéficia is a m anifestation of such behavior in its very process of discrim inating w ho ought to get a beneficiiim, and w ho ought not.i® The Roman aristocrat, as w e m ight expect, denies any m aterial concern. Yet the objection is w ell-founded and points to an underlying instrum entality that Seneca does little to dispel and w hich helps to draw an analogy between the self-interest that m otivates both aristocrat and prostitute.17 V is u a l Economies o f Success From the prostitutes' point o f view a system o f gift-exchange w ill mean that sex w ill be variously rem unerated depending on the in d ivid u al capacities of her exchange-partners. It also, o f course, means that such considerations m ust Beneficiis 4.9.3. ^^Another instructive text here that points to the parallels between the self-interested pursuit of friends by an aristocrat and clients by a prostitute is the extended letter (the Commentariolum Petitionis) supposedly w ritten by Quintus Cicero to help his brother Marcus in his campaign to secure the consulship for 63 BCE. Here Cicero is encouraged in the circumstances o f a political campaign to flatter and promise indiscrim inately so as to attain a follow ing sufficient for his political ambitions; see Konstan (1997:128-29). 97 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. form part o f a decision o f whom to enter into exchange w ith at any given tim e. N o t surprisingly, M yrtale (see footnote 9) chooses to exchange sex for a necklace, rather than a cheese. That is not to say, how ever, that she w ould not choose a cheese on another occasion, if there were no alternative, or if the alternative were less appealing. The prostitute's choices are economic; the wrong decisions, electing the worse exchange-partner, w ould necessarily have an im pact on her m aterial w ell being (and that o f any figure such as a m other, lena or leno who m ay be controlling her circulation).^* Prostitution, then as now, presum ably was usually a choice influenced by economic necessity. So in Plautus's Cistellaria the lena character explains: quia nos libertinae sumus, et ego et tua m ater, ambae m eretrices fuim us. Cistellaria 38-39 Because w e w ere fi-eedwomen, your m other and I were both prostitutes. neque ego hanc superbiai causa pep uli ad m eretricium quaes tum , nisi ut ne esurirem . Cistellaria 40-41 It w asn't out o f pride that I drove her into the prostitute's profession, it was so I shouldn't go hungry. ^®Hence the mercenary advice w ith regard to exchange-partners that the lenae in Amores 1.8 and Propertius 4.5 offer to the elegiac puella. Also Lucian Dialogues O f The Courtesans 7 between M usarium and her m other where the form er berates the latter for choosing an exchange-partner who is all promises and no gifts: "Aren't you ashamed that you alone o f all the hetairai haven't got an earring, a necklace or fine dress? " (297). So too in Alciphron Letters O f Courtesans 9, Petale, the hetaira, responds to her locked-out, giftless lover, "So you're crying, are you? You'll stop soon enough. But as for me, if some gift-giver doesn't come through, I shall surely go hungry " (2). A real-life case has also come down to us in a transcript from Egypt where a mother requests recompense from the governor of Egypt for the m urder of her prostitute daughter by a senator, see Lefkow itz and Fant (1992:125). ^^Compare also Lucian Dialogues O f The Courtesans 6 where a dialogue between a mother and a daughter is constructed on a sim ilar theme. In this respect little has changed: "The bottom line for 98 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Economie solvency then can be seen as a t the root o f the prostitute's status as a "retailer of intim acy. "^ W hat is at the root of the aristocrat's assim ilated tactic? Seneca provides a clue in his denunciation o f the ingratus homo. This "m axim um crim en " consists o f having made the aristocrat squander a beneficium, "beneficium perdidisti." H ow ever, Seneca im m ediately am eliorates the problem from the aristocrat's perspective, "Salvum est enim tib i ex illo , quod est optim um : dedisti," "The best part o f it, how ever, is s till yours: you gave if'^ i The aristocrat's bestowal of bénéficia results in a return of laus, social esteem; and to some extent that esteem is unaffected by the failure o f the other party to reciprocate. In this sense the bénéficia o f the aristocrat are exchanged fo r an enhancement o f his status. As Seneca explains, one obligation of the recipient of a beneficium is to express his gratitude publicly: cui datur, ita accipienti adhibenda contio est; quod pudet debere, ne acciperis. Q uidam fu rtive gratias agunt et in angulo et ad aurem ; non est verecundia, sed in fitian d i genus; ingratus est, qui rem otis arbitris agit gratias. De Beneficiis 2.23.1-2 To whom [a beneficium ] is given, a public m eeting m ust be summoned to witness his receipt o f it; one who is ashamed to be in debt ought not to take anything. Indeed there are those w ho express thanks stealthily, in a com er, w hispering it in someone's ear; this isn't m odesty but a form of denial; he is ingratus who expresses his thanks when a ll witnesses are rem oved. In this m anner bénéficia can be understood as quite deliberately circulated to produce good publicity for the giver. This makes aristocratic gift-exchange no any woman in the sex trade is economics. However a wom an feels when she finally gets into the life, it always begins as survival— the rent, the kids, the drugs, pregnancy, financing an abortion, running away from home, being undocumented, having a bad reputation, incest— it always starts as trying to get by," HoUibaugh (1988:1); for a more extensive collection of the recollections o f contemporary prostitutes see Bell (1987); Delacoste and Alexander (1987). 20OveraU (1992). 2^Seneca De Beneficiis 1.10.4. 99 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. m ore disinterested than the transactions o f the prostitute. The prostitute receives m aterial benefit in exchange for sex, the aristocrat exchanges m aterial benefit fo r farm. The prostitute prostitutes her body, the aristocrat his w ealth. O f course, this also makes the aristocrat m etaphorically a prostitute’s client, as w ell as a prostitute. This in tu m places the recipient o f the aristocrat's favor in the role o f the prostitute (as we have seen in Horace's attem pted denial) and, as Seneca makes clear, this recip ient/prostitu te is not expected to perform a social/sexual service q u ietly but to proclaim lo u d ly how good it was for t h e m . 2 2 If the prostitute and the aristocrat can both be seen as exploiters o f feigned intim acy in their respective pursuit o f their ow n ends, they can also be seen as sim ilarly engaged in constructing a spectacle of their status that both announces and seeks to perpetuate their success. The success o f both aristocrats and prostitutes was dem onstrated by the num ber o f their clients both eagerly seeking entrance to their patron's house and the chance to enter into exchange. The queue o f clients banging on the door of the aristocratic dominus is rem arkably analogous to the crow d of lovers trying to gain entry to the elegiac domina.^ Such a conflation is apparent in a surviving line firom Epicrates' Anti-Lais, quoted in Athenaeus's Deipnosophistae, w here the narrator says of Lais when she was younger: étSeç 5' âv aùrqç O apvàPaÇ ov <pâTTov àv 570 c You m ight have seen Pham abazus m ore quickly than her. 220n the condemnation of ingratia «md the need for the recipient of a g ift/fa v o r to display his thanks publicly see Dixon (1993:453,457-58). ^T h e parallel is w ell elaborated by Oliensis (1997a). ICC Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Phamabazus was a Persian satrap w ho had a reputation for rarely granting audiences. So here the inaccessibility o f the aristocrat and the successful prostitute are equated; both m ake use o f the problem atic ianua clausaM The residence o f both aristocrat and hetaira was an arena for com petitive display and self-enhancem ent.^ The Economics of Poetry: A Greek Precedent M etaphorically, then, the aristocratic patron could be equated w ith the prostitute. H ow ever, to the extent that he was the one distributing m aterial benefits to his clientes/am id it m ight w ell seem more natural to view them , rather than him , as an exam ple o f the m etaphoric prostitute. Some of an aristocrat’s clientes/am id m ight be poets. Like any other cliens they hoped to enter into exchange w ith an aristocrat on the basis o f having a service to provide. Tw o earlier G reek poets dem onstrate tw o disparate responses as to how a poet should situate him self w ith in the context o f a socially embedded norm of aristocratic gift-exchange co-existing som ewhat uneasily w ith an emerging disembedded economy w here exchange was no longer rooted in social institutions and economic practices could not sim ply be understood as a subdivision o f kinship, political and religious networks.^^ ^ ■ ^ L a is is also one of the examples that Propertius uses in describing the crowds that attend Cynthia in Propertius 2.6. ^ O n the aristocratic house see W allace-H adrill (1994: chs. 1 and 2); Clarke (1991:1-29); Ellis (1994). On the erotic w all-painting schemes of such houses see Fredrick (1995). See also the revealing anecdote about Livius Drusus: when his «architect offered to build Drusus's new house on the Palatine so that he w ould be hidden from everyone's gaze he replied, "si quid in te artis est, ita compone dom um meam, u t quidquid agam, ab omnibus perspici possit," "If you have any skill, build m y house in such a w ay that whatever I do can be seen by everyone," Valerius Maximus 2.14.2-4. Houses were to be seen in, not to hide in. ^^For a form ative study o f embedded and disembedded economic systems see Polanyi (1968); on disembedded sex in elegy see Habinek (1997:27-30). 101 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Pindar expresses a distaste for contem porary poetic practices that are m ercenary in nature: à MoToa y a p où çiXoKEpSnç t t c o ttôt' i^v où5' èpyâTiç* Pindar Isthmian 2.6 For the M use was not then a lover o f p ro fit nor a w orking-girl In this scenario the M use o f the present is m etaphorically equated w ith a greedy prostitute.27 Pindar's literary career coincided w ith a historical period that saw the rise o f democracy and the proliferation o f m oney as a means of exchange. It was a tim e when the role o f the literary artist was being re-negotiated in the ligh t o f immense cultural changes. As Anne Carson says w ith regard to Pindar's near contem porary, Simonides, poetry in this age presents "the dilem na o f the artist in a m oney economy."^ Pindar and Simonides represented very different responses to this historical phenomenon. If Pindar's stance, as illustrated in the quotation above, can be seen to be one o f unease and a nostalgic sense of unfortunate belatedness, then Simonides, as Carson says, "made his m ark on economic history by refusing to be embarrassed by m oney."^ Simonides' response seems to have been to w holeheartedly embrace the grow ing tide o f disembedded economics and tum him self, w ith a degree of shrewd self-prom otion, into an unabashed poetic salesman. Pindar, on the other hand, seems to have sought to appropriate new economics fo r old social structures. K urke argues persuasively that Pindar attem pts to construct " a new aristocratic ethos, w hich depends on em bracing the m oney economy. "^ Aristocrats are encouraged not to spurn a ^ O n Isthmian 2 see W oodbury (1968); Kurke (1990:240-56); (1996). ^Carson (1993: 75). ^^Carson (1993: 76). 3«Kurke (1990:254). 102 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. m onetary system but to use it w isely. In this m anner the no bility are encouraged to dem onstrate their g en tility and superiority by w isely sponsoring a form o f Pindaric com position that serves to perpetuate aristocratic ethos by re- em bedding the use of w ealth in w hat is figured as gift-exchange betw een sim ilarly m inded aristocrats. Pindar, so he w ould have it, always depended on the kindness o f friends. Simonides' attitude by contrast is w e ll illustrated by one o f the m any anecdotes about him . A pparently Simonides kept two boxes in his house, one for m aterial compensation (m oney) and one for non-m aterial com pensation (favors, gratitude). To those requesting a poem w ithout paying for it in cash Sim onides w ould reply by opening up the tw o boxes. The box of m oney, o f course, was fu ll, and the box of favors empty.^^ Simonides did not take lO U 's, and had no w ish to engage in the sort o f continually deferred settling of accounts and economic inexactitude that trad ition ally characterizes a system of gift-exchange. Prostitutes as economic and p o litic a l m etaphors The narratives concerning Pindar and Simonides also dem onstrate that the different attitudes of these poets to poetry and the grow th o f a m onetary economy can be m apped onto tw o different models of prostitution w hich w ere also enveloped in the socio/econom ic upheavals of the period, the tw o models being those of the hetaira and the pome. The form er represented a m odel o f sexual exchange that was integrated into an aristocratic social system. U nder this system the economics of exchange w ere m ystified by the nebulouslessness o f gift-exchange and the reciprocation of favors. The hetaira also represented an ^^Stobaeus 3.10.38; schol. ad Theokritos 16; sdiol. ad Aristophanes Pax 697; Plutarch Mor. 520a; 555f. The anecdote is also related by Carson (1993:80). 103 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. exchange system that, like aristocratic gift-exchange, was intended to function over an extended tim e period. Such an economic system aim ed not at exact com m ercial equivalence but m ore broadly at m aintaining social cohesion and perpetuation among the elite elem ent o f society. I f the hetaira was to circulate in this system , then she had to be assim ilated to its methods o f operation. The exchange o f sex, like the exchange o f anything else in this system , was enveloped in a process o f m ystification that resisted any notion o f an equivalence that was autonom ous rather than socially integrated w ith in the elite. By w ay o f contrast, the pome’s m ode o f sexual exchange stood outside this econom ically m ystified aristocratic system. The pome represented sex as a com m odity. This involved integration into an altogether d ifferen t exchange system. The rise o f the m onetary economy m eant that sex, like anything else, could now be measured in terms o f an autonom ous standard. Sex could be exactly com m odified and its use purchased outside o f a socially integrated m odel. H ere sex could be exchanged for a m onetary equivalence and both parties could go their separate ways w ith ou t any need for lifestyle assim ilation or extended tem poral c o n t a c t . ^ ^ In this m anner the different forms o f sexual exchange that the hetaira and the pome represent also indicate different social and economic systems. The hetaira becomes a sexual signifier for aristocracy and gift-exchange and the pome for dem ocracy and m onetary economy. So modes o f sexual exchange have the potential to function as pow erful p o litical and social m etaphors. The hetaira is a sexual sym bol that is appropriated to validate an aristocratic system and the pome a sym bol that in the same aristocratic discourse can serve as a pow erful 3^For more on this distinction between the tw o types o f prostitutes see Calam e (1989); Davidson (1997: 74-77); Dover (1989: 20-21); Harvey (1987); H enry (1992:263); Kurke (1997). 104 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. m etaphor for the general debasement th at results &om the adoption o f an economic system based on m onetary equivalence. If these sexual metaphors are projected back onto poetic com position, then w e can see that, m etaphorically speaking, Pindar chooses to be the poetic equivalent o f a hetaira and Simonides, a pome. Poets (if they are not financially independent), like prostitutes, offer a service that requires compensation in some form . Pindar chooses, lik e the hetaira, to assim ilate him self into an aristocratic social system where he can m anufacture his equivalence through the m ystification o f economic dependence th at a gift-exchange system provides. Sim onides, on the other hand, apparently chose to be a poetic pome. H e exchanged his poetic services for a direct m onetary equivalence w here the interaction between buyer and seller was lim ited to a calculated economic exchange that was uninterested in socially em bedding its value. In this w ay poetry, from a trad ition al aristocratic perspective, could either be validated or view ed w ith suspicion depending on how its practitioners acted in economic term s, or how hard they tried to embed their com m ercialism in the socio-political system o f contem porary aristocratic society. The poet could be a com panion or a w hore, depending on one's point o f view . The am biguity that surrounded the status o f the prostitute in Greece and one's attitude tow ards her is described by Dover in the follow ing terms: [W jhether one applied the term pome or the term 'hetaira' to a w om an depended on the em otional attitude towards her w hich one w ished to express or to engender in one's hearers.^ Thus the option o f v ilify in g a hetaira as a pome was always open and if the two categories could at th eir extremes be thought o f as polar opposites, then there 33Dover (1989: 21). 105 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. was inevitably also a point where the characteristics of the tw o appeared not so dissim ilar: [T]he d ivid in g line between the tw o categories could not be sharp; how for instance should one classify a wom an who had intercourse w ith four different m en in a w eek, hoped on each occasion to establish a lasting and exclusive relationship, and succeeded in doing so w ith the fourth man.3* The tendency o f the line between the tw o to be easily and interestedly collapsed explains the defensiveness o f a Pindar who wished to rem ain firm ly embedded in an aristocratic system that w ould validate rather than deny his social status. Pindar does not w ish to surrender to m arket forces to the extent that it w ill disem bed him from an aristocratic socio-economic system. The dem ocratization of sex that the pome represents also indicates a grow ing im personalization that inevitably accompanies commercial exchanges w here the value o f w hat is exchanged is calculated to be specifically equivalent and deferral is denied. Commerce replaces the effect o f social bonding that gift-exchange typically achieves: [T]he significance of g ift giving is that it expresses, affirm s, or creates a social lin k between the partners of an exchange. G ift giving confers upon its participants a special relationship of trust, solidarity, and m utual aid.35 ^ D o v e r (1989:21): see also McBrown (1990:248) who refers to Dionysus of Halicarnassus Ant. 1.84.4, Plutarch Solon 15.2 and Athenaeus Deiphn. 13371 D to support the proposition that "'hetaira' was simply a polite w ord for prostitute'." The distinction between different forms of prostitute at Rome is also problematic; though one m ight generally take scortum to be the equivalent of pome and meretrix of hetaira, such a simple distinction is not always accurate, see Adams (1983:321-358); Richlin (1978). 35Rubin (1975), who is describing the findings of Mauss (1967). See also the earlier w ork of M alinow ski (1922), and more recently Bourdieu (1977). 106 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Transactions w ith in gift-exchange guarantee a degree o f social cohesion between the participants w hich this mechanism continues to prom ote through tem poral m anipulation: In every society it m ay be observed that, if it is not to constitute an insult, the counter-gift m ust be d^erred and different, because the im m ediate retu rn of an exactly identical object clearly am ounts to a refusal.^ Such a mechanism o f deferral allow s a system o f gift-exchange not on ly to m ystify its ow n economics but also to perpetually enforce social cohesion among its participants. W hen such a system gives w ay to pure m onetary exchange, then the social bond o f exchange disappears. Hence in a scene from the fourth-century comic poet Philem on: EÎÇ ôPoXôç* eioTniBriçov. o ù k é o t ' où8è e î ç àxKiopoç, où5è Xfjuoç, où5' OçnpTraoev. àXX' eù6ùç iiv ^ o û X e i o ù x w v P o ù X e i xpoirov. èÇfiX0EÇ o î u c o Ç e i v XÉy", àXXoTpia ô t î ooi. The door’s open. [Price] one obol: jum p rig h t in . There's no coyness, no nonsense, she doesn't snatch [herself] away, but straightaw ay w hichever one you w ant and in w hatever position you w ant. Then ou t you go: te ll her to go hang, she's nothing to you.37 H ere com m ercial exchange supersedes any elem ent o f social bonding. In fact the distinct lack o f the necessity to enter into any form o f social relationship that w ill last any length o f tim e is seen here as a m ajor advantage. The client pays his obol, receives an equivalent sexual value, and departs w ith o u t having to involve ^B ourdieu (1977:5). 3^The translation is Kurke's (1997:128-129), the passage is also quoted at greater length by Henry (1992: 260-61); a sim ilar sentiment is expressed in Horace Satires 1.2 (discussed w ith reference to Callimachean aesthetics in ch. 1) where the narrator promotes the readily available «md unproblematic sex of the brothel as opposed to the expensive and dangerous practices of courtesans zmd adultery. The sentiments that are attributed to Cato in Satire 1.2 (and elsewhere) as to civic u tility of cheap prostitution are clearly in line w ith the view point expressed in the fragm ent of Philemon. 107 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. him self in any o f the social niceties that gift-exchange necessitates. Sex has, from the po int o f the view o f the narrator anyw ay, been conveniently disem bedded, so to speak. This passage refers to Solon's supposed establishm ent o f brothels subsidized by the state.^* K urke notes w ith regard to this passage: [I]n th eir perfect interchangeability and alienability, the prostitutes in this speech approxim ate the circulation of coinage in die public sphere.^® The prostitute here has become a com m odity whose services are directly engaged fo r a m onetary equivalence. This form of prostitution, like money itself, has no regard for the social status of its user. C om m odity exchange is alienated from social exchange. Like the prostitute, Simonides wishes to be paid upfront for his lite ra ry services, and has no desire fo r his com m ercial transactions to be entw ined in protracted social reciprocity: Simonides' box o f favors and gratitude is tellin g ly em pty bu t his m oney box is fu ll. Sim onides chose to embrace the m onetary economy unasham edly and disavow the relative value o f trad ition ally em bedded w orth. In doing so, like Philemon's prostitute, he exchanged his services for a m onetary equivalent w ith regard for the value o f his fee, not that of his client. K urke argues that the aim o f Solon's alleged subsidizing o f brothels was "to endow a ll citizens w ith an equal phallic pow er. " 4 ° This, how ever, w ould h ard ly have been the aim o f the prostitutes. The prostitutes' aim is the acquisition o f money, a value that is not dependent on being socially em bedded. As a grow ing standard of universal exchange, the possession of m oney allow s her a ^Athenaeus Deipn. 13.569d; Philem on fr. 3 K-A ; N ikander of Kolophon 2 7 1 /2 F9 Jacoby. 39Kurke (1997:129). 40Kurke (1997:130). 108 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. degree of autonom y from the notion o f socially-em bedded value that the aristocratic gift-exchange system demands. W hen Sim onides was reportedly asked by Hieron's w ife w hether it was true that everything grows old he replied, "Yes of course everything grows old— everything except p ro fit— and quickest of a ll, aristocratic generosities."^^ H ere the poet's alleged preference for disem bedded economics over embedded aristocratic caprice is made clear. M o vin g to Rome Simonides and Pindar can be seen as two responses as to how poetry should function in the face of a grow ing m onetary economy. The disparate responses o f these literary artisans to this phenomenon can be m etaphorically equated w ith the sim ilarly disparate responses of sexual artisans. A t Rome, too, several centuries later, there was a sim ilar set of problem atic circumstances. Along w ith rapid Roman m ilitary expansion came enhanced trade opportunities and the means o f acquiring w ealth along lines that w ere not trad itio n ally validated by Rome's landow ning aristocracy. To the extent that literary production could be seen as a commercial enterprise and one also largely indebted to a foreign culture, then it, too, was em broiled in an aristocratic anxiety over the grow th of form s o f disembedded value and alternate means o f acquiring social authority. Roman literatu re, in its w ritten form , developed precisely at this m om ent of aristocratic crisis, and the attitudes it engendered amongst Rome's elite and its ow n practitioners can be seen as its a b ility to be regarded as both a sym ptom of, and a m etaphor for, a larger cultural crisis.^ ^^Hibeh Papynis 17: On Expenditure. See Carson (1993:79). '^O n this aspect of Rome’s early literary history see Habinek (1998: particularly 34-68): for an analysis that sees early Romein literature as a more autonomous enterprise see G m en (1990:79- 109 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. It is in this context that the Elder Cato's (in)fam ous rem ark concerning poetry m ust be assessed: poeticae artis honos non erat: si quis in ea re studebat aut sese ad convivia adplicabat, grassator vocabatur/^ There was no honour in the poetic art. If someone was enthusiastic in this pursuit or was devoting him self to it at banquets he was called " a m ugger. " Cato in describing the poet chooses a figure, "a mugger, " w ho, lik e the prostitute, reaps m aterial benefit through socially dubious means. The professional poet is inevitably tainted in Roman aristocratic terms by engaging in com m ercial activity. H e and his activity are sym ptom atic of a w ider cultural disruption, the grow th of commerce that threatens the traditionally privileged status o f the Roman aristocrat.'*^ A t the heart o f Cato's acerbic comments about poetry m ight seem to lu rk the question o f w hether the relationship between poet and aristocrat was sym biotic or parasitic. Cato presumably thought the latter, and that the aristocratic patron was in effect being mugged by a parasitic poet rather than being engaged in an equitable exchange.^ As the section on Pindar and Simonides demonstrated, the basis on w hich the econom ically dependent poet m ight be viewed as a prostitute o f some nature is plain enough. The poet was providing a service in exchange for m aterial benefit of some type or other, and even Pindar's attempts to m ystify such an exchange in the terms o f favors between friends in a system that d id not adm it 123): on Rome’s earlier oral rather than w ritten culture see Zorzetti (1990); (1991); H abinek (1998: 36-39). ^^Camten de moribus fgm. 2 Jordan: cf. Aulus Gellius Noctes Atticae 11.23. ‘ *'*An analogous disparaging attitude to professionalism is expressed by Cicero at De Officiis 1.42 and by Cato in the preface to the De Agrictdtura. O n the latter see Habinek (1998:46-50). ‘ *5por the functioning of literary patronage at Rome see Gold (1982); (1987); Badian (1985); G riffin (1984); Sailer (1983); W hite (1978); (1993). 110 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. direct and transitory equivalence could o n ly tu m him into a better sort of p ro stitu te, a hetaira rather than a pome. This sort o f anxiety is also evident a t Rome where lite ra ry production was s im ila rly largely dependent on aristocratic patronage. Financial dependence and social d isp arity are symptoms of Rome's lite ra ry history that lead to the occasional outbreak o f m etaphorical inadequacy.^ In its most unm etaphorical m anifestation there are the suspicions that surrounded Terence and his association w ith the no bility of the day: H ie cum m ultis nobilibus fam iliariter v ix it, sed maxume cum Scipio A fricano et C. Laelio. Quibus etiam corporis gratia conciliatus existim atur Suetonius Vita Terenti 1 This m an lived intim ately w ith m any aristocrats, particu larly w ith Scipio Africanus and Gaius Laelius. It is reckoned that he w o n them over w ith the charm o f his body. H ere the poet is represented as an actual, rather than figurative, prostitute. Such insinuation is hardly surprising, given the d ifferen tial social structure o f Roman patronage. If ancient sexuality can properly be understood as a discourse m ore concerned w ith issues of dom ination and submission, a typology o f active and passive behavior, than w ith the biological sex o f one's partner, then any pow er am icitia was officially a disinterested ideal that oversaw these exchange mechanisms, then one m ust be w ary of confiising social ideeds w ith social realities. A flatly applied social term inology can obscure radical social inequcility: ”[T]he fact that men of varying social status could be called amid does not indicate that all amidtiae fit into a single category of social relationships w ith a single code of conduct," Sailer (1982:7); if all amid, and hence all amidtiae, were equcd in principle, this was clearly not the case in practice. Pliny w ritin g to Bruttius Praesens (praetor c. 104, consul c. 118) asks him if he is ever going to return to Rome where reside his "dignitas, honor, am idtiae tarn superiores quam minores," "esteem, public duties and his greater and lesser fiiendships" {Epistles, 7 3 . 2). According to Seneca such a dassification of one’s amid dated all the w ay back to C. Gracchus and Livius Drusus {De Ben^dis 6.33.3fi). In effect sodal status was an inevitable determinant of how one partidpated in ttie exchange of services and benefits. This was true for the poet as w ell as for anyone else. I l l Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. d iffere n tia l could always be troped in sexual terms.^^ So the socially in ferio r partner in any transaction could alw ays be figured as a sexually passive partner and p articu larly in form s o f asym m etrical m aterial exchange as a figure o f m ercenary, sexual availab ility (e.g. a prostitu te).^ H orace, matronae and meretrices This particular dynamic appears forcefully in Book One of Horace's Epistles w here m etaphors of prostitution are used w hilst the narrator, the patronized poet, dispenses advice on how one ought to act around a patron.**^ In Epistles 1.17 Scaeva is advised that a client w ho accompanies a patron on a road- trip and moans about the traveling conditions and his tru n k being broken into is lik e a prostitute com plaining about lost jewelry.so The next poem has a bold m etaphor on the same theme near its begiim ing: u t m atrona m eretrici dispar e rit atque discolor, infido scurrae distabit amicus Epistles 1.18.3-4 As a m atron is of a different sort to a prostitute so a friend is distinct from a faithless hanger-on H ere the difference between the amicus and the parasite is described as equivalent to the disparity between tw o fem ale social m odels. Oliensis w rites: 47por the elaboration of this sexual model at Rome see Richlin (1992c); Veyne (1985); Foucault (1985); Parker (1997). “ ^OOn the capacity of the dynamics of patronage and sex to m irror one another see Oliensis (1997a): M arx (1964:133) also uses prostitution as a metaphor in criticizing capitalism. ■*® For further discussion of these poems see Konstan (1997:141-42); Oliensis (1997a: 153-55); (1998: 168-72). ^ H orace Epistles 1.17.52-57. 112 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The analogy seems apt. Like a virtuous w ife, a true client looks beyond im m ediate m aterial gratifications to the spiritu al and social benefits of a lasting friendship. Like a courtesan, by contrast, a debased client is a fairw eather friend, w ho sells his services. . . . S till, w hile it m ay be easy enough to distinguish a matrona from a meretrix, it is notoriously d ifficu lt to te ll a flatterer from a friend; no public ceremony, no style of dress, no social form ula or legal record sets the one apart from the other, and the difference between them m ay be only a m atter o f degree.^i In either case, as Oliensis points out, the m ale client is assim ilated to a wom an in a sexual relationship w ith a man.sz Horace here has taken the terms o f the hetaira/pome distinction, that was exam ined in relation to the poetic activities of Pindar and Simonides, and m odified the terms o f the dichotom y. H e has further refined the image so that if the client perform s his role w ell, he w ill appear not to be even a socially-em bedded prostitute such as a hetaira, but rather a more respectable, socially integrated sexual partner altogether, a matrona: a pattern of relationship that is socially embedded so deeply that the very notion o f exchange ought to be rendered non-sensical.^^ A t the same tim e Horace's analogy expresses a degree o f exclusiveness to the relationship. The matrona ought to have only one sexual partner; the differentiatio n of meretrix and matrona in these terms is explained by Scapha to Philem atium in Plautus's Mostellaria: T u ecastor erras, quae quidem iliu m expectes unum atque illi m orem praecipue sic geras atque alios aspem eris, m atronae, non m eretricium est unum inservire amantem. Mostellaria 188-190 ^^Oliensis (1997a: 154); on the difficulty of trying to distinguish between a flatterer and a friend see Konstan (1997:135-36) who points to Cicero De Attic. 25.95; 26.99. 520Uensis (1997a: 154). ^^Though the exchange of Marcia between the younger Cato and Hortensius problematizes such a clear cut distinction. 113 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. You're m aking a terrible mistake w hen you dote on th at one m an alone and ingratiate yourself to him in particular and spurn the rest; it suits the matrona, not the meretrix, to service ju st one lover.^* A t the reductive level o f the last lin e, the difference between the tw o in sexual terms is sim ply that the matrona services one lover and the meretrix many.^s The verb used here, "inservire," clearly suggests sexual subordination in either case; the matrona is the sexual slave o f one man, the meretrix o f m any. In sim ilar fashion in the Cistellaria, just after the lena explains w hy she m ade her daughter into a prostitute, the conversation continues: Selenium: A t satius fuerat eam viro dare nuptum potius. Lena: H eia, haec quidem ecastor cottidie viro nubit, nupsitque hodie, nubet m ox noctu. numquam ego hanc viduam cubare sivi. nam si haec non nubat, lugubri fame fam ilia p ereat Cistellaria 42-45 Selenium: But it w ould have been better to m arry her to a man. Lena: By god, she m arries a m an every day, she m arried one today and presently w ill m arry another one, tonight. I'v e never allow ed her to sleep on her ow n. For if she doesn't m arry, then the fam ily w ould die of sorrow ful hunger. The prostitute here is forced to be figuratively everyone's w ife rather than anyone's in actuality. M arriage and prostitution are here elided through economic necessity. M arriage is figuratively a sexual relationship that provides a ^Com pare Lucian Dialogues of the Courtesans 12 where Joes sa is sim ilarly portrayed as confusing the role of hetaira and w ife to her m aterial disadvantage and in the process incurring the severe criticism of her mother; "I devoted myself to you and controlled m yself just like Penelope, although m y m other complained loudly and abused me to her friends" (311). Engels (1942:63) draws a sim ilarly analogy between w ife «md courtesan w hilst also suggesting that the difference is sim ply one of plurality; "This marriage of convenience turns often enough into the crassest prostitution— sometimes of both partners, but far more commonly of the wom an, who only differs from the ordinziry courtesan in that she does not let out her body piecemeal as a wage worker, but sells it once and for a ll into slavery." 55por a sim ilar dichotomy in the sayings attributed to Julia by Macrobius see Richlin (1992a). 114 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. m eal-ticket. Therefore the m ore sex/m arriages, the m ore m eal-tickets. From this perspective, a p lu ra lity o f sexual relationships is the only w ay to provide economic security. This idea o f p lu rality being the basis for sufficiency in the form o f economic dependence that is prostitution could also easily be transferred to another form o f economic dependence: clientage/am /cztia. A cliens, no less than a prostitute, m ight w e ll require a num ber o f patrons to sustain ecomonic solvency. One sexual/social relationship could only be sufficient if it provided adequate rem uneration. In this instance one m arriage m ight w e ll be enough. In the terms o f prostitution this leads to a d ifferen t mode o f operation that m ight blur the line between meretrix and matrona even further. Thus w e find that Volum nia Cytheris apparently was significantly attached in succession to Volum nius E u t r a p e l u s , ^ ® M . Antonius^^ and Cornelius C a llu s .^ Cicero w rites to Atticus: H ie tamen C ytherida secum lectica aperta portât, alteram uxorem adAtt. 10.10. A ntony carries Cytheris around w ith him in an open litte r, like a second w ife. H ere, albeit w ith u tter sarcasm, the distinction between a hetaira and a w ife is elided.59 In a sim ilar fashion Flora appears to have been attached in succession to Pompey, Gem inus and Caecilius M etellus.^ ^Cicero Epistulae ad Familiares 9.26. ^^Cicero Epistulae ad Atticum 10.10. ^Assum ing that the Lycoris o f Callus's poetry is a pseudonym for Cytheris. elision that could also be enabled by matronae dressing like meretrices, as examined in the last chapter. ®®Plutarch Pompey 2 .3-4. 115 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The H oratian solution is sim ilar in that it posits a long-term , exclusive relationship w ith one m an. N a tu ra lly , w hat it leaves out o f the equation is that the basis o f such an amicitia inevitably centers on the sufficiency o f m aterial assistance that such an aristocrat provides. It is the g ift o f the Sabine farm that allow s Horace, the poetic client, to be converted from a literary pome into a poetic spouse. Yet, how could a H orace, any m ore than a Cytheris, genuinely appear as a matrona rather than a meretrix m asquerading as one? Even if the poet could convince him self o f his successful social integration, then the anxiety rem ained that he w ould always be perceived by others as on the w rong end o f the m etaphor.^i In using the m etaphor o f the prostitute as an anti-paradigm , the poet is inevitably forced to confront how easily such a m etaphor m ight encompass his ow n situation. M erchants o f M em ory Both aristocratic patron, then, and patronized poet are liable to be troped as prostitutes. W hat was the specific basis of exchange between the two? W hat exactly was it that a Pindar, a Simonides or a Horace w ere offering to their friends or customers? If they w ere figurative prostitutes, then w hat was the m etaphorical equivalent o f sex? W hat these poets offered was com m em oration, the chance for m em ory to extend beyond death. These literary prostitutes were selling th eir talent to im m ortalize. As Carson says, it was a constructed exchange o f "oblivion for m em ory. ^^Even if the poet could be perceived as on the right end of this dichotomy there w ould still be the stigma of being the male w ife; see Cicero's comments on the relationship between Curio and Antony at Philippics 2.44-47 and Juvenal’s commentary on male-male marriages in Satire 2. On the passage in the Philippics see RicWin (1992c: 14-15). 62Carson (1993: 78). 116 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Pindar and Simonides w ent about this exchange process very differently. Sim onides, the poetic pome, indiscrim inately com mercialized m em ory. Pindar, on the other hand, the poetic hetaira, lik e Horace, seeks to embed his salesmanship of m em ory into an aristocratic social system. Hence, com m em oration is allied to an endorsement o f aristocratic values. Pindar fights hard to negate the a b ility of money to confer benefit on its possessor irrespective o f h is /h e r social quality. Em bedding Poetry a t Rome: Cicero's Defence o f Archias In 62 BCE Cicero defended the Greek poet Archias in a case designed to question the legitim acy o f the latter's claim to Roman citizenship. The bulk of Cicero's defense consists not of argum entation over the details in question but rather an extended speech on the benefits o f poetry. If the comments o f Cato may seem designed to keep poetry in its place and repress a form of cultural authority that could potentially disrupt the established privilege o f the Roman elite, then the strategy o f Cicero in his defence o f Archias may be seen as a recuperative strategy dem onstrating how poetry and literature could be appropriated and used to reinforce such aristocratic p rivilege.^ If Cato was tem pted to view poets as literary pomai like Simonides, then Cicero was attem pting to show that Archias was a literary hetaira who, like a Pindar, could serve to perpetuate and commemorate aristocratic society. For, as the orator states, no aristocrat is so averse to poetry that he w ouldn't w ish him self to be remembered in that m edium :^ ^ F o r a sim ilar argument concerning Cicero's use of Greek philosophical models see Habinek (1994). ^Cicero's own unsuccesful quest for someone to commemorate the events of the Catilinarian conspiracy which led to the production of his own ill-received version proves the orator’s point. 117 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Neque enim quisquam est tarn aversus a Musis qui non m andari versibus aetem um suorum laborum faüle praeconium patiatur. Cicero Pro Archia Poeta 9.20 For there is no one so averse to the Muses that he w ouldn't allow the eternal com m endation o f his ow n achievements to be entrusted to poetry. For the good aristocrat, as Cicero notes, is inevitably draw n to thoughts o f posterity: N unc insidet quaedam in optim o quoque virtu s, quae noctes ac dies anim um gloriae stim ulis concitat atque adm onet cum vitae tempore esse dim etiendum com m em orationem nom inis nostri, sed cum om ni posteritate adaequandam . Cicero Pro Archia Poeta 11.29 For there dw ells a certain m oral excellence in every noble man's heart w hich rouses the sp irit day and nig h t w ith the goad of achieving renown and warns that the rem embrance of our name should not be exhausted by our liv in g years but made equal to the length o f posterity. Thus Cicero presents a picture o f poetry as an enterprise that can be usefully em bedded in the preservation and prom otion of aristocratic culture.^ V a lid a tin g the W ritten Record Literature's effectiveness as a form o f com m em oration is dependent on the specific qu ality of its nm emonic m edium . Thus in his defense of Archias, Cicero is also careful to prom ote lite ra ry com m em oration over other alternatives. H e quotes the w ords that Alexander the G reat reportedly spoke at the site of A chilles' tomb:“ ^H ence, Cicero's account o f the origins of Latin poetry in the Brutus (75) where the deeds of the maiores are sung at banquets. In this manner too poetry is constructed as serving an analogous function to the aristocratic use of the imagines. Both are means of preserving the memory of Rome's elite. O n the aristocratic use of the imagines see Flow er (1996). 118 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. "O fortunate", in q n it, "adolescens, qui tuae virtu tis H om erum praeconem inveneris." Cicero Pro Archia Poeta 10.24 "O fortunate young man," he said, "you who found H om er as the herald o f your glory."^^ The orator goes on to add his ow n assessment of the tru th o f this statem ent: Et vere. N am nisi Dias ilia exstitisset, idem tum ulus, qu i corpus eius contexerat, nom en etiam obruisset. Cicero Pro Archia Poeta 10.24 A nd he spoke die tru tii. For unless the Iliad had survived, the same tom b w hich had covered his body w ould have buried his name too. H ere it is made clear enough that the com mem orative quality o f a w ritte n record is seen as indubitably greater than that provided by m asonry.^ For in this case the tomb o f Achilles is figured as not an aid but a hindrance to com m em oration. Thus Cicero moves tow ard the conclusion of his speech by expressly privileging the w ritten over the plastic monument: A n statuas et im agines, non anim orum sim ulacra, sed corporum , studiose m u lti sum m i homines relinquerunt, consiliorum relinquere ac virtu tu m nostrarum effigiem nonne m ulto m alle debemus, summis ingeniis expressam et politam ? Cicero Pro Archia Poeta 12.30 M any distinguished m en have assiduously le ft behind statues and portraits, likenesses not o f the soul but of the body; so how m uch m ore ^ O n Alexander's lack of success in obtaining a suitable w ritten record of his achievements see Horace Epistles 2 .1 .237ff. ^^It should be remembered that praeco can mezm not only herald but also auctioneer. This underlying meaning points to the mercenary foundation of the relationship between poet and aristocrat that the language of gift-exchzmge and social propriety attempts to occlude. The bottom line is that the aristocrat is hiring someone to perpetuate his memory and that the poet is being recompensed for doing so. ^ O n Roman literature's propensity to trope itself in terms of epigraphy, see H abinek (1998:103- 21). O n the commemorative urges of Roman society see M acM ullen (1982); W oolf (1996: 22-39). 119 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. w e ought to prefer to leave behind a likeness of our m ental abilities and virtues, represented and refined by supreme ab ility. The achievements o f the summi deserve to be preserved w ith summis ingeniis and in the ultim ate mnemonic m edium , w ritin g . The commemoration that the plastic arts afford is m erely one of em pty verisim ilitude. The Roman drive for commemoration persists through the transition from Republic to Principate and the superiority of w ritin g as a com m em orative m edium is repeatedly stated in the w ork of a later literary artist such as M artial. In a poem that seems to be designed as an accompaniment to a painting o f a deceased child (Cam onius), M artial describes the child's features (presum ably as represented in the portrait) and concludes: sed ne sola tamen puerum pictura loquatur haec erit in chartis m aior imago meis. M artial 9.76.9-10 But lest the picture alone should speak of the boy, there w ill be a larger likeness o f him in m y pages. The analogy between painting and poetry stretches back at least to the m axim of Sim onides preserved in Plutarch, "Painting is silent poetry, poetry is painting that speaks."^® H ow ever, emphasis is now firm ly placed on the second part of this statem ent, how poetry’s representational loquaciousness is a superior com m em orative m edium to the inevitable muteness o f painting and sculpture. A t the same tim e as the poet stresses poetry's greater representational capacity, he also promotes literature as the mnemonic m edium w hich w ill last the longest: m arm ora Messallae fin d it caprificus et audax dim idios C rispi m ulio rid et equos: at chartis nec furta nocent et saecula prosunt, solaque non norunt haec monumenta m ori. M artial 10.2.9-12 ^^Plutarch De glor. Ath. 3.346f. 120 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The fig-tree splits Messalla's m arble and the bold m uleteer laughs at Crispus's halved horses: but thefts do no harm to paper and the passage o f tim e even does it good; these m em orials alone don't know how to die. M artial draws a sharp contrast between the b u ilt m onum ental structures of Rome's aristocracy that are subject to decay and ru in and the w ritten record w hich is not. The mnemonic capacities of the form er are inherently flaw ed, subjected to the ravages of tim e; today's m onum ental rem inder is tom orrow's forgotten ruin. O n ly the record w ritten on paper escapes this fate; it is the m em orial that keeps on rem inding.^ Pliny elaborates on this commemorative relationship between aristocratic patron and poetic client when he w rites to Cornelius Priscus on learning o f M artial's death. H e quotes a poem o f M artial's (10.19) w ritten for him and concludes: D edit enim m ihi quantum m axim um p o tuit, datum s am plius si potuisset. Tam etsi quid hom ini potest d ari m aius, quam gloria et laus et aetemitas? A t non erunt aetem a quae scripsit: non erunt fortasse, ille tamen scripsit tam quam essent futura. Pliny Epistles 3.21.6 For he gave to me the best he could and w ould have given more if he had been able. Though w hat greater a g ift can be given to a m an than renow n, fame and im m ortality? But the verses he w rote sim ilar famous proclamation of literary longevity from the Augustan period is Horace Carmina 3.20, "Exegi monumentum," where once again the w ritten record is excluded £rom the elemental ravages of tim e and privileged as a mnemonic device over such elite memorials as the pyramids. Here, the poet is celebrating his poetry as a mnemonic for himself, but elsewhere he makes clear the u tility of such a medium for the celebration o f the social elite: vixere fortes ante Agamemnona m ulti; sed omnes inlacrimabiles urgentur ignotique longa nocte, carent quia vate sacro. Horace Carmfna 4.9.25-28 M any heroes lived before Agamemnon; but they all, unwept and unknown, are beset by long night because they lack a sacred poet. 121 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. w o n 't be im m ortal, you m ight object: perhaps they w on't be, but he w rote them as if they w ould be. The patron's support o f his poetic client (P liny notes at the beginning of his letter that he provided the expenses fo r M artial to retire from Rome to his native B ilbilis) is based on an expected return o f present pu b licity and lasting com m em oration. The basis o f the exchange mechanism between aristocratic patron and poetic client is made quite explicit here: m aterial support for a form o f com m em oration that promises to extend beyond the lim ited m ateriality o f life itself. P liny's h in t o f doubt suggests a somewhat C atonian skepticism over the w hole enterprise, and w ho could blam e such skepticism : the claims of paper to last longer than stone do not at firs t consideration seem a ll that likely. But P liny professes to trust in the poet's sincerity, and, besides, P lin y was pragm atic enough to realize that his literary patronage in itself enhanced his aristocratic status w hatever the results o f such patronage m ight be.^ If P liny can be understood as an aristocratic prostitute, then he knew that he w ould get his fee o f laus either way: inside M artial's text, w hether it w ould last or not, and outside it by m aking literary patronage the occasion for a display of aristocratic humanitas. S im ilarly, if M a rtia l can be view ed as a lite ra ry prostitute, then he had his fee, paid retirem ent to Spain, whether or not his boast that his poems non norunt mori proved to be true or not. This chapter has been concerned w ith establishing the general parameters o f the exchange between poet and aristocrat and elaborating on how both partners are liable to be enveloped in metaphors o f venal sexuality. The next chapter w ill explore m ore specifically how this im agery functions in elegy and Ironically, if M artial's poetry had not survived, then Pliny w ould have effected for his client w hat his client professed to be doing for his patron. 122 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. how such discourse can then be read as an allegory o f the dynamics o f literary production at Rome. 123 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER FOUR Embedding and Disembedding the Poet: Elegy's Battle of the Whores This chapter takes a closer look at how elegy represents itself in relation to the com plicated set o f social factors that surrounded literary production and patronage at Rome.^ The im agery o f venal sexuality which, as shown in the last chapter, can envelop both patron and poet makes elegy a m edium particularly suited to function as an ironic allegory o f the general relations between literary producer and literary sponsor. The erotic context o f literary exchange in elegy means that the m etaphoric anxieties that are elsewhere expressed over patronage and literary com position have a chance to be literalized in elegy. The elegiac narrator attem pts to offer literary com m em oration in return for sex from a female patron who in her constructed venality appears suspiciously like an actual, rather than a fig urative, prostitute. In this m anner elegy appears as a battle o f self- interested whores whose attem pt to m arüpulate each other can be read as an am using, if negative, parody of literary exchange and sim ultaneously a m editation on more general social anxieties. I w ant to examine first the general discursive obstacles that are constructed fo r the elegiac narrator in his pursuit of sexual patronage: his incarnation as a pauper and his need to entice the puella into a sexual relationship on the basis o f the provision of com m em orative poetry. H aving established the I For im portant w ork on the relationship o f elegiac discourse to literary patronage see Gold (1993); Gibson (1995); Oliensis (1997a). Gold's essay concentrates on how the elegiac narrator constructs a pue/la who functions as a substitution for a real patron; Gibson's essay elaborates on how elegiac discourse incorporates the language and concerns of amûn'tû; Oliensis's article demonstrates the analogy between clients and lovers and shows how elegy constructs a w orld where the client poet, rather than his patron, is in charge. The precarious and fictive nature o f this control however is demonstrated by the occasional intrusion of a Messalla or Maecenas into the text. The entry of such a figure ruptures the space the elegist has carefully constructed w ithin the text as a compensation for his real subordination outside it. 124 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. general param eters o f the challenges constructed fo r the elegiac narrator, I w ill then discuss several instances (Properius 1.8,2.1 1 ,2 .1 6 ,2 .26 ,4 .5 ; O vid Amores 1.8, 1.10,3.8; Tibullus 1.5) o f the dynamic of sexualized patronage in elegy. In the last p art of the chapter I w ill compare the elegiac scenarios to some analogous examples of patronized poetry outside of elegy in an attem pt to concretize how the elegists m etaphorically articulate contem porary anxieties. Th e Pauperous Poet To establish a basis for literary exchange between him self and the elegiac puella the narrator has to emphasize that he possesses no other means of providing recompense. Thus the elegiac narrator is presented w ith in the text as financially challenged. Such poverty, o f course, is textually constructed and there is no m ore reason to suppose that the elegiac narrator w ith in the text may be in desperate financial trouble than his external elite self. In both instances a poet has to play to his strength and try to force the issue on his own terms.^ The poverty of the elegiac narrator m ay also be seen as a natural attribute of his erotic nature. Lovers are supposed to be poor. In Plato’s Symposium D iotim a explains in an amusing conflation o f sex and gram m ar the origin of "Love's" perpetual penury. ^ "Love" is conceived at a banquet o f the gods held to celebrate the b irth of Aphrodite. A t the feast "Resource" (TTôpoç) gets drunk and falls asleep in the garden. "Poverty" (TTevia), w ho has taken the opportunity o f such a beneficent occasion to beg at the door, follow s "Resource" into the garden. She then, w ith an astute eye for her gram m atical and m aterial needs, sees in this ^On the rhetoridty o f the complaints of client poets see Bartsch (1994:98-147); Cloud (1989); Sailer (1983: 246-57). ^ Plato Symposium 203 b-d. 125 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. situation a chance to rem ove her resourcelessness (àTTopCa) by having sex w ith "Resource" (TTôpoç). This conflation o f sex and gram m ar produces "Love" who inherits from his m other her constant poverty, "frévriç âei èori." A lthough the "aporia" of "Poverty" is neatly rem oved by her gram m atical and physical coupling w ith "Resource", unfortunately "Love" s till inherits his fa ir share o f his m other’ s less than prosperous genes. According to D io tim a’s account "Love" is also a skilled hunter, "Sripeurnç Seivôç" and a perpetual w eaver o f stratagems, "del nwaç T rÀ ë K c o v ptixovdç." "Love," then, is an am algam o f poverty and resourcefulness striving to possess "the beautiful" that it lacks. These properties also characterize the hum an m anifestation of ’love," the lover: poor b u t dedicated and cunning in h is /h e r pursuit of the beautiful erotic object that s /h e lacks. In this m anner, the construction of the elegiac narrator’s poverty can be seen as part of the foundation upon w ith his rhetorical pursuit o f the elegiac puella is based. H ow ever, the elegiac narrator is not only a pauperous lover b u t a poet and it is this second quality w hich the narrator emphasizes as m arking him out as an appropriate exchange p artn er.* It should be rem embered, how ever, th at his status as a poet, in conjunction w ith his poverty, suggests the capacity o f this figure to be deceitful. For poetry has trad ition ally been linked w ith a rhetoric of deception and w ith the capacity to m anipulate reality through the m edium of words. In H esiod’s Theogony, the Muses openly proclaim , "ï5jiev yEuSea iroA Xà Xèyeiv èTupoioiv ôuoîa," ” w e know how to speak many false things as if they w ere true" (Theogony 27); Callim achus w rites, "YeuSoipriv àîovToç d xev Tre-TT{0oiev aKouqv," "may I lie / speak so as to persuade the listener ” (Hymn 1.64). *Though the elegiac narrator does also on occasion stress that poverty in itself should not disqualify him . Such a rhetorical strategy is of course necessary if the puella cannot be persuaded to look favourably upon a form o f poetic exchange: see Amores 1.10.53-58; Tibullus 1.5.61-64. 126 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. It is surely no coincidence th at one o f the Latin expressions fo r "to cheat" is verba dare , lite ra lly "to give words As w e saw in D iotim a’s description o f "Love" he is bom o f poverty and the w eaver o f stratagems, "àei Tivaç TrXéxcov nTixavdç" and in Sappho 1 A phrodite is also described in the same term s as "Bo XottAo k e" and associated w ith persuasion as she asks Sappho, "riv a BtiOte tteiSco," "whom once m ore should I persuade " The personification o f "love" is associated w ith deceit and persuasion. W hen poverty, love and poetry are com bined in the single incarnation o f the elegiac narrator, clearly his capacity fo r deceptive persuasion is over-determ ined. The conflation of poverty and poetry as the basis of the elegiac narrator's attem pt to enter into sexual exchange w ith the puella is retrospectively confirm ed by the praeceptor in the Ars: N on ego d ivitibu s venio praeceptor am andi: N il opus est illi, qui dabit, arte mea; Secum habet ingenium , qui cum libet, "acdpe" dicit; Cedim us: inventis plus placet ille meis. Pauperibus vates ego sum, quia pauper am avi; Cum dare non possem m im era, verba dabam. Ars Amatoria 2.161-166 I don't come forw ard as an instructor of love fo r the rich: a man who w ill give has no need o f m y skill; he has his ow n form o f talent who can say w henever he wants, "Take it; " W e give way: that m an pleases more than m y devices. I am the bard of the p»oor because I was poor when I loved; since I couldn't give gifts, I used to give poems. The narrator's recollection here, "pauper am avi, " could be read as a m etonym fo r the Amores. The praeceptor o f the Ars opens his discourse by stressing that his erotic didactics are based on experience, "Usus opus m ovet hoc, " "Experience ^"sdlicet verba dedimus, dedpim us,” Cicero PM . 13.33; "vide ne tibi hodie verba del, Plautus Bac. 745; "satis diu dedisti verba, sat adhuc tua nos fnistratast fides," Terence Ad. 621; "experior curis et dare verba meis," O vid Tristia 5.7.40; "atque aliquando meus det tibi verba cocus," M artial 5.50.8. 127 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. inspires this work" (Ars Amatoria 1.29). The experience in question could be view ed as the poet’s form er erotic discourse, the Amores and hence the m ale n arrato r/ instructor o f this discourse as the reincarnation o f the earlier dram atic m ale lo v e r/p o e t narrator o f the Amores.^ The praeceptor is now a reader o f that earlier discourse w hich he retrospectively perceives as a pauperous, poetic attem pt at seduction. To the extent that verba dare can be construed as m eaning not only providing poetry, but also cheating, the attem pted deception o f the narrator in trying to substitute verba for munera is made m anifest This leads to an ideal o f exchange that the praeceptor elsewhere expresses in the follow ing phrase, "Hoc opus, hie labor est, prim o sine m unere iungi, ” "This is the toil, this is where the w ork lies, to have sex w ithout an in itia l gift"(1.453).7 In the earlier Amores the ideal is to gain sex only for poetry, to the extent that the praeceptor o f the Ars regards poetry as only an exiguum muniis (2.286); this is in effect sex for v irtu a lly nothing. M on um en talizin g The Puella N o t m arble nor the gilded monuments O f princes shall outlive this pow 'rful rhym e. But you shall shine more bright in these contents Than unswept stone, besmeared w ith sluttish tim e. Shakespeare Sonnet 55.1-4 The constructed battle between elegiac narrator and elegiac puella can be seen as one between "an untrustw orthy textuality and an untrustw orthy sexuality " that m irror each other.® ^In the same manner the lena can be understood as an older and more experienced incarnation of the elegiac ptiella: see W yke (1987a: 167); Myers (19%: 1). ^The line is, of course, a parody o f Aeneid 6.129. In Ovid's erotic context obtaining sex w ithout a gift is likened to the challenge of returning from the underworld. 128 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Therefore I lie w ith her, and she w ith me. A nd in our faults by lies we flattered be. Shakespeare Sonnet 138.13-14 The poet-lover in elegy offers essentially the same officium to the elegiac puella, as an extra-textual Roman poet m ight to his m ale aristocratic patron. The inscription of a poet in an elegiac context does not alter his essential function. The conveying of Jama was a poet's officium in the lite ra l as w e ll as figurative sense of the word.^ In both elegiac discourse and in a norm ative context of lite ra ry com m em oration the poet tropes him self as offering w hat no other exchange p artn er can, im m ortality: fortunata, m eo si qua est celebrata libello! carm ina erunt form ae tot m onum enta tuae. Propertius 3.2.17-18 She's the l u c l q r one if she's been celebrated in m y little book! Those poems w ill be so many monuments to yo u r beauty. The lover-poet suggests th at his poetry w ill serve as a lasting m nem onic of the puella’s beauty. 1 0 For a monumentum is, as Festus terms it, w hatever is made for the m em ory of someone: m onum entum est... quicquid ob m em oriam alicuius factum est Festus 123L Propertius' poetry, so his narrator claim s, is nothing more than a poetic edifice celebrating the elegiac puella's beauty. In this aspect, the m onum ental boasting of the elegiac narrator m irrors that o f the patronized poet outside o f this erotic context. ®FeIperin (1985:195). '^Officium seems originally to have signified the activity proper to a certain type of person: see SaUer (1982:15). ^®One should also note the generic expression, si qua."Puellae, like literary patrons, are potentially interchangeable. 129 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The question in both instances is w hether the c lie n t/ poet is m erely an ordinary exchange partner o r whether his poetic ab ility gives him some special claim as an exchange-partner: Horace and V irg il w ere, in short, clients. . . . There is nothing special and peculiar about their status just because they are poets. A n ordinary clien t could not o£fer you im m ortal glory .1^ In the third book o f the Ars Amatoria, w hen the praeceptor amoris ostensibly switches sides, stress is again placed on the m onum ental capabilities of the poet C arm ina qu i fadm us, m ittam us carm ina tantum : H ic chorus ante alios aptus am are sumus. Nos fadm us pladtae late praeconia formae: N om en habet Nemesis, C ynthia nomen habet: Vesper e t Eoae novere Lycorida terrae: E t m u lti, quae sit nostra Corinna, rogant. Ars Amatoria 3.533-538 Let us who compose poems, send only poems. W e are a troop suited above others to love. W e act as heralds far and w ide for the pleasing beauty o f a wom an. Nemesis has renow n, C ynthia has renown: Lycoris is know n East and West: and m any ask w ho m y Corinna is. Just as the Propertian narrator asserts that his poems are lik e monumenta o f the puella's Jbrtna, so too the praeceptor states that poets act as heralds of a puella's Jbrtna that has given pleasure, "Nos fadm us pladtae late praeconia form ae." The language is sim ilar to that w hich we saw Cicero use in the last chapter in his attem pt to convince a panel o f elite Roman jurors of the effîcacy of poetry: llHorsfaU (1981:9). ^2Griffin(1984:217, n. 43). 130 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Neque enim quisquam est tam aversus a Musis q u i non m andari versibus aetem um suorum laborum facile praeconium patiatur. Cicero Pro Archia Poeta 9.20 For there is no one so averse to the Muses that he couldn't pu t up w ith entrusting to poetry the eternal com m endation o f his ow n achievements. Thus the puella, like the Roman aristocrat, is encouraged to have an eye on posterity. The praeceptor w ith his poetic belatedness is also able to point to the successful inscription o f previous elegiac puellae, "Lycoris," ’Nem esis," "Cynthia" and "Corinna." These elegiac women have achieved fam e through their inscription in elegy.^3 The connotations of praeconium are im portant here.i'* For in both instances, elegiac and non-elegiac, the poet is engaged in advertising the reputation o f his patron. In effect the poet is acting as an auctioneer. The question, however, rem ains as to who is benefiting most from the sale.^5 Fighting to Rem ain Em bedded In elegy, then, the narrator, who is also a poet, faces the same challenge as any non-elegiac poet. H e m ust attem pt to enter into exchange w ith a patron on the basis of his ability to aHord commemoration as recompense. W hen the client poet is inserted in the erotic context of elegy, and hence becomes a lover as w ell as a poet, and an aristocratic patron becomes a desired erotic object, then the whole basis of the client-patron relationship becomes reconfigured in allegorical erotic term s. The p o et/lo ver of elegy has to convince his patron/beloved that ^^The listening puella might be given pause by the dear admission on the praeceptor’s part that no one knows who Corinna is. To the extent that she is a successful literary fiction this naturally does not matter; to the extent that she is being put forward as an example of why a puella should sleep w ith a poet it does. should also be noted that praecones were subject to injamia: see further Gardner (1993:130-34). l^This question w ill be discussed more fully in chapter seven. 131 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. com mem oration for sex is a good deal and to make the exchange o f farm function in an erotic, rather than aristocratic, economy. In this m anner the poet in an elegiac context faces the same challenge that confronts any client p o e t H e has to convince his patron that poetry is an a rt that is usefully embedded in the social practices o f Roman society. To do this he has to p it him self and his poetry against other forms of disem bedded value. In this w ay the elegiac narrator finds him self at the center of a contest over the relative w orth o f embedded and disem bedded value. In the erotic context of elegy this contest naturally revolves around w hether the p o et/lo ver gets in his patron’s bed or not. Thus elegy can be read as an erotic dram atization o f the tribulations o f the client poet attem pting to embed the w orth of his poetic product in an increasingly disembedded w orld. D octoring The Puella\^ H ow , then, does the poet fig h t to rem ain embedded? W e have already seen that essentially the elegiac poet uses the same m onum ental tactic that is em ployed in the norm al exchange between literary client and aristocratic patron. Yet this practice of poetic enhancement also requires a reader/sexual exchange- partner w ho can be induced to participate in such exchange. H ere again we come across the concept of the docta puella In the Ars Amatoria the praeceptor follow s his pessimistic assessment of the ab ility o f poetry to compete in the erotic marketplace w ith the possibility of am eliorating this situation: the problematics of female doctrina see Habinek (1998:122-136). ^^The idea of the docta puella was already examined in ch. 2 in the context o f Callimachean aesthetics. 132 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Q u id tib i praedpiam teneros quoque m ittere versus? Ei m ihi, non m ultum carm en honoris habet C arm ina laudantur, sed m unera m agna petim tur: Dum m odo sit dives, barbarus ipse placet. A urea sunt vere nunc saecula: piurim us auro V enit honos: auro co n d liatu r am or. Ipse licet venias M usis com itatus, Hom ere, Si n ih il attulens, ibis, H om ere, foras. Sunt tamen et doctae, rarissim a turba, puellae; A ltera non doctae turba, sed esse volunt. Utraque laudetur per carm ina: carm ina lector Commendet d u ld qualiacum que sono; H is ergo aut illis vigilatum carm en in ipsas Forsitan exigui m uneris instar e rit Ars Amatoria 2.273-86 W hat shall 1 advise you about sending tender poetry? Alas, a poem doesn't have much standing. Poems, it's true, are praised but it's great gifts that are sought after. Provided he's rich even a barbarian pleases. T ru ly , now these are golden ages as gold has the highest standing. Love is w on over by gold. Though H om er him self should come attended by the Muses, if you haven't brought som ething, Hom er, out you go. There are, however, learned girls, a very rare bunch though, and there's another crowd that's not learned, though they w ant to be. Let both be praised through poetry. Let the reader recommend his poems, w hatever they're lik e , w ith a sweet tone. In this w ay to both the learned and the unlearned the poem spedally made fo r only them m ay seem lik e a little g ift. Here the praeceptor stresses the disem bedded nature of the sexual exchange system. Even the poetry of a H om er is of no use here as a means o f exchange. Poetry m ay be politely received and even accorded verbal tribute but it is not the validated means to the form of carnal exchange that the p o e t/lo v e r wishes to enter in to . H ow ever, the praeceptor does add the possibility that poetry can be raised to the level of an exiguum munusA^ To w o rk in this m anner poetry ought to be constructed as an act of laus specifically tailored to the in d ivid u al. Inasm uch circumstance, of course, which enables the Callim achean difficulty of this erotic discourse. The elegist pursues sex w ith a mwtus of only Callimachean proportions. 133 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. as elegiac poetry is envisioned as a monumentum formae, the poetic munus is figured as a specific act o f laus on a particular elegiac puella's beauty. N atu rally, such an act o f poetic praise is to be accompanied by an appropriately seductive tone, dulcis sonus. It is a specifically constructed act o f poetic seduction. As has already been seen, such a form o f lite ra ry m onum entalization is the general tactic o f the client poet that is transferred into an erotic context in elegy. H ow ever, the praeceptor sees that such a tactic has a better chance of success if directed to certain particular types o f potential erotic patrons. Tw o groups are designated as the target fo r such poetic seductions, doctae puellae and those who aspire to be doctae puellae. As was examined in chapter tw o, the docta puella is a constructed ideal reader for the discourse o f elegy: a wom an, and hence a potential sexual object fo r the amorous narrator, and also someone who possesses the necessary skill to be able to evaluate the narrator's poetic skill. She therefore represents the best chance for a positive existimatio that w ith in the erotic context of elegy w ill be expressed sexually. The task, therefore, of the elegiac narrator is not only to prom ote the value of poetry bu t also to try and construct a patron w ho w ill be receptive to its value. Sexual/ Poetic Economics H avin g la id the foundation of the challenges that face the p o et/lo ver in elegiac discourse in his attem pt to secure sexual patronage, I w ant now to turn to exam ine several instances o f this dynam ic in elegy before reconsidering the parallels betw een the elegiac client poet and his non-elegiac counterpart and the capacity o f elegiac discourse to function as social allegory. ^^And poetic seduction is, of course, is the sneakiest kind, as the irate Italian matron explains to her w ard in 1 7 Postim, "Words are the worst thing ever. I'd prefer a drunkard at the bar touching your arse to someone who says. Your smile flies like a butterfly'. " 134 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Im ages of success: Propertius 1.8 and 2.26 O n occasion it appears that the elegiac narrator has succeeded in finding a patron who w ill appreciate his poetry and allow his em bedded talent to trium ph over the forces that w ou ld disembed him : quam vis m agna d a re t quamvis m aiora daturus, non tam en ilia meos fu g it avara sinus, hanc ego non auro, non Indis fiectere conchis, sed potui blandi carm inis obsequio. sunt ig itu r Musae, neque am anti tardus A pollo, quis ego fretus amo; Cynthia rara mea esL Propertius 1.8.37-42 A lthough he gave great gifts and w ould give greater, nevertheless she d id n 't greedily flee m y bosom. I d id n 't persuade her u ith gold nor w ith In d ian pearls but by the w heedling indulgence of m y poetry. The Muses are good fo r something then, and A pollo isn't slow to help a lover, relying on them I get to make love and incom parable Cynthia is mine. non, si Cambysae redeant et flum ina Croesi, dicat "De nostro surge, poeta, toro." nam mea cum récitât, d icit se odisse beatos: carm ina tam sancte nulla puella c o lit Propertius 226.23-26 N ot if Cambyses and the rivers of Cambyses should return, w ould she say, "Get out o f m y bed, poet. " For when she recites m y poems she says that she hates the w ealthy. N o puella worships poetry so religiously. H ere, the narrator presents an ideal scenario fo r the poet attem pting to enter into sexual gift-exchange. W ealth has apparently been rqected in favor of poetry. The attractions of disem bedded value have been successfully overcome as the puella does not flee from the embrace of a poet, or order him from her bed at the prospect of munera magna o r munera maiora. The obsequium blandi carminis is found to be more potent than gold o r ivory: pow erful to such an extent that when the puella recites it she appears to internalize the poet's prom otion of poetry over w ealth, "nam mea cum récitât, dicit se odisse beatos. " This results in, from a 135 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. lo v e r/ poet’ s perspective, a supreme act o f lite ra ry appreciation. In these two instances the elegiac narrator has apparently successfully em ployed the tactic of poetic seduction that the praeceptor later recommends in the Ars Amatoria. The amorous poet has found an erotic patron w ho is docta or w hom he could doctor. The Threat of Poetic Disinheritance The coercive rhetoric that the narrator uses in his attem pt to convince the puella that she needs the benefit o f his poetic talents is read ily apparent in Propertius 2.11. H ere the narrator threatens to discontinue w ritin g about the puella and spells out the consequences: scribant de te a lii vel sis ignota licebik laudet, qui sterili semina ponit hum o. om nia, crede m ihi, tecum uno m unera lecto auferet extrem i funeris atra dies; et tua transibit contemnens ossa viator, nec dicet "dnis hie docta puella fuit" Propertius 2.11.1-6 Let others w rite about you or let you be unknown: let him praise you, who plants his seed in sterile ground. Believe me, the black day o f death w ill carry o ff w ith you a ll your gifts on one bier; and a traveler w ill pass by spum ing your bones, nor w ill he say, "This ash was a docta puella." As was exam ined at the end o f chapter tw o the status of the elegiac fem ale as a docta puella is the natural corollary o f her incarnation (and b u rial) in the text of Propertius. She is docta because she is a literary fiction created by the doctrina of the poet She is, so to speak, the seed of the poet’s doctrina sown in his text and w ithout the nurture o f his s k ill she w ill not take root and grow into a docta puella.^^ Yet inasmuch as she represents a dram atic figure w ith in the text she also 20See W yke (1987:54). 136 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. represents a potential Callim achean existimator in whom the narrator hopes literary acclaim and sexual appreciation w ill coincide. In this m anner the m etaphor o f planting seeds is not only a form al one on a literary level between procreative m ale artist and in ert b u t p o ten tially fru itfu l poetic m aterial, but also one that is used on the level of exchange betw een two parties. The conferral of Unis is a natural means by w hich the lite ra ry client m ight enter into exchange; it is also the means that the praeceptor in the Ars recommends as affording the p o e t/ lover the best chance o f using his poetic skills in an erotic economy. It is not therefore a disinterested gesture but rather one intended to facilitate exchange. The s terility of one partner necessarily m arks h im /h e r as a bad exchange partner w ho by not responding refuses to enter in to a fru itfu l cultivation of exchange. As was noted in the last chapter, this im age o f sterility is used by both exchanging aristocrat (Seneca) and prostitute (Plautus's Astaphium ). Both aristocrat and prostitute w ish to protect th eir investm ent and so w ork to turn sterility into fru itfu l exchange. In 2.11 the narrator, it appears, is on the verge of giving up in his attem pt to reclaim return fo r his poetic Unis and hence pronounces the puelUi unrem ittingly sterile. A t the same tim e he is careful to elaborate the consequences fo r the puella. The poetic laus that the narrator offers gives the possibility of a lite ra ry m onum entalization that, he argues, transcends the ephem erality o f other m aterial munera. The puella can't take her other luxury munera w ith her when she goes, but the munus that the poet can provide w ould mean, in a sense, that she m ight never have to go. If the puella turns dow n the opportunity to demonstrate her status as docta (or the opportunity to appear to be docta) by not entering into exchange w ith the poet (i.e . having sex w ith him ), then there w ill be no 137 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. possibility o f a lasting epitaph to her discrim inating taste, "nec dicet 'd n is hie docta puella fu it' Elegiac Blockers: Amores 1.8 and Propertius 4.5 A t the same tim e as the elegiac narrator attempts to convince the puella that a poet is w orth em bedding, another figure is inscribed in the text w ho is a resolute believer in disem bedded economics. W hen the lena appears in elegy she has little good to say about poetic exchange:^ Ecce, quid iste tuus praeter nova carmina vates donat? am atoris m ilia m ulta leges, ipse deus vatum p alla spectabilis aurea tractat inauratae consona fila lyrae. qui dabit, ille tib i magno sit m aior Homero; crede m ih i, res est ingeniosa dare. Amores 1.8.57-62 See, w hat does that poet o f yours give as a present except new verses? You w ill read m any thousands o f such lover's efforts. The very god of poets is a sight to see w ith his golden robe and he brushes the harmonious strings w ith his gold in la id lyre. A m an who w ill give, let him be greater to you than great H om er; b ^ e v e m e, to give is a m atter of talent. In Amores 1.8 Dipsas draw s a sharp distinction between the poetic dedications of a poet ( "donat " ) and the real offerings o f the potential lover ( "qui dabit"). A fter aU, w hat lover doesn’t th in k he is a poet— "amatoris m ilia m ulta leges." As far as Dipsas is concerned, the poet is getting the wrong message from his patron god, A pollo: it is not his m usical skills that indicate his potential in an erotic exchange- system but rather his golden poetic accessories. W yke (1987) notes, 2.11 in form Is very sim ilar to a Hellenistic sepulchral epigram. W ithout the narrator's inscriptional powers, however, Cynthia w ill be merely buried and not entombed as a docta puella. 2 ^ n the elegiac leiw see G utzw iller (1985); Myers (1996). 138 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In Propertius 4.5 Acanthis voices sim ilar sentiments; aurum spectato, non quae manus atierat aurum! versibus auditis quid nisi verba feres? "quid iuvat om ato procedere, vita, capillo et tenuis Coa veste m overe sinus?” qui versus, Coae dederit nec m unera vestis, istius tib i sit surda sine arte lyra. Propertius 4.5.53-59 Look at the gold, not the hand that bears the gold! W hen poetry has been listened to w hat do you get except words? "W hy does it please you, lig h t o f m y life , to go out w ith h a ir a ll done-up and to rustle the fine folds of Coan silk?" Who w ould give verses and not gifts of Coan clothing, let his artless lyre be mute as far as you are concerned. There is some dispute over w hether lines 55-56 which equal Propertius 1.2.1-2 are genuine w ith in this context. 231 see no reason to question the reappearance of the lines here, where their quotation makes perfect sense. The lem is responding to the tactics of the poet who is trying to prom ote poetry over expensive gifts such as Coan silk. The lem is dem ystifying the narrator's disingenuous attem pt in 1.2 to prom ote natural beauty as a means to creating an exchange situation where a penniless poet w ould not be at an inherent d i s a d v a n t a g e . ^ ^ This lem^ like her O vidian counterpart, is a proponent o f disembedded w ealth, encouraging the puella to look at the gold, not at the hand that brings it. Both see no reason not to engage in exchange w ith those w ho are validated by their m aterial resources, if not their social status:^^ 23rhey are removed by John Goold in the latest Loeb edition (1990:398) and are placed in parentheses in the Oxford edition (1953:148); see G utzw iller (1985:114 nt. 33); Myers (1996:19 nt. 126). 24gee G utzw iller (1985:111-112); Myers (1996:19). 23in this w ay the lenae of elegy function in the same way mothers of courtesans generally do in Greek new comedy, Roman comedy, Lucian's Dialogues O f The Courtesans and Aldphron's Letters of Courtesans: sex is to be exchanged pragm atically, not frivolously. For discussion see ch. 3. 139 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. nec tu , siquis e rit capitis m ercede redem ptus, despice; gypsati crim en inane pedis, nec te decipiant veteres circum a tria cerae. toUe tuos tecum, pauper am ator, avos! Amores 1.8.63-66 N o r spurn one who redeemed his freedom at a price; the reproach of a chalked foot is an em pty one. N o r le t ancient wax-masks around the atrium fool you. Take your ancestors o ff w ith you, poor lover! nec tib i displiceat miles non factus am ori, nauta nec attrita si ferat aera m anu, a u t quorum titulus per barbara colla pependit, cretati m edio cum saluere foro. Propertius 4.5.49-52 N o r le t a soldier not made for love displease you, nor a sailor if he carries m oney in his gnarled hand, nor one o f those on whose barbarous neck a label hung and whose chalked feet once danced in the m iddle o f the forum . The lena encourages the puella to engage in a sensual economy where disem bedded value is to be regarded higher than embedded w orth. In the disem bedded economy it is the provider of the straightforw ard fee who is the aristocrat and w ho consequently stands the best chance of ending up in the puella's bed.2 6 26Myers (1996:1) notes that the leiui serves as a "model o f anti-elegiac values' and G utzw iller (1985:110) states. The difference between Acanthis point o f view and the narrator’s is one of practicality versus idealism." It should, however, be remembered that the demystifying perspective o f the lem is also one that is constructed by the external poet. H er dissonance is scripted and although it is figured as disabling w ithin the text, nevertheless it serves to enable the Callim achean erotic project of the author. The antithesis o f "practicality versus idealism is one that the rhetoric of the narrator constructs in order to shame the puella into compliance w ith his wishes (see Gibson [1995:71]), but its general failure w ith in the text has to be measured against the success of the poet outside the text This aspect of elegiac discourse w ill be examined further in chapter seven. 140 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Erotic Haggling: Amores 1. 10 Am ores 1.10 represents a battleground betw een the elegiac narrator and the elegiac puella over the nature o f sexual exchange betw een them. Confronted w ith a request fo r rem uneration the narrator launches into a series o f argum ents designed to dissuade the puella from pursuing a form o f quid pro quo sexual exchange. In this context the narrator introduces prostitution as a negative model: Stat m eretrix certo cuivis m ercabilis aere, et miseras iusso corpore quaerit opes; devovet im perium tam en haec lenonis avari et, quod vos fadtis sponte, coacta fo d t. Amores 1.1021-24 It is the meretrix who stands as a com m odity available to anyone at a fixed price and seeks wretched gain w ith a body that is under orders; nevertheless, she curses the pow er o f the greedy pim p and does under compulsion w hat you do o f you r ow n firee w ill. The narrator, here, disparages a type o f disem bedded, direct exchange. The puella is acting lik e a form o f prostitute, a pome, w ho engages in equivalent, im m ediate transactions. H e r general availability and her value that is fixed at a m onetary equivalence can only be countenanced, so the narrator argues, under terms of com pulsion. The narrator then elaborates on the general baseness o f com m erdal exchange: N o n bene conducti vendunt p eriu ria testes, non bene selecti iu d id s area patet. turpe reos empta miseros defendere lingua; quod fad at m agni, turpe trib u n al, opes; turpe to ri reditu census augere patem os, et fadem lucro prostituisse suam. g ratia pro rebus m erito debetur inem ptis; pro male conducto gratia n u lla toro. om nia conductor solvit; mercede soluta non manet o ffid o debitor ille tuo. 141 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. pardte, formosae, pretium pro nocte padsd; non habet eventus sordida praeda bonos. Amores 1.1037-48 H ired witnesses do not act w ell in selling perjury nor is it a good thing fo r the purse of the chosen judge to lie open. It is sham eful to be the advocate for w retched defendants w ith a bought tongue, and the tribunal that values w ealth highly is base; it is sham eful too to increase patrim ony w ith sexual profit, and to have prostituted one's ow n beauty fo r a p ro fit. G ratitude is deservedly ow ed in return for unpurchased affairs; no thanks are due in retu rn fo r hired sex. The h irer pays it a ll off; w ith a price paid he does not rem ain indebted in return fo r you r service. Cease, beautiful wom en, to arrange fo r a fee in exchange fo r a night; debased plunder can have no good outcome. The narrator launches into a diatribe on the distasteful effects o f commercialism.^^ The introduction of money disrupts and corrupts norm al social and civic relations. M oney as a form o f im m ediate economic gratification comes between people and prevents social bonding. A t the level o f prostitution this means that sex rather than intim a<y (or the illusion o f intim acy) is exchanged. It is precisely the difference betw^een sex w ith a pome and a relationship w ith a hetaira?-^ Such com m ercially oriented behavior dim inishes the possibility o f in ter action on the basis o f idealized aristocratic exchange. This form o f transaction is calculated w ith an exactness that leaves no residue o f social obligation between the tw o parties: a com m odity is exchanged and both parties have no further claim on the other. If the relationship between the elegiac narrator and elegiac puella is to have any prospect o f longevity and social bonding, then it needs to be shifted firom a m odel o f direct, im m ediate, equivalent exchange to one of ^^For observations onAmores 1.10 from this perspective see Gibson (1995:69-71); Habinek (1997: 29-30,37). 2®Por a fuller elaboration of the difrerence between these two models o f prostitution see the previous chapter. 142 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. deferred and asym m etrical exchange, otherwise there w ill be no scope fo r the exercise of gratia. Consequently, there w ill also be no obligation and no tem poral extension of a relationship beyond one decisive act o f calculated commercial equivalence.^^ In terms o f venal sexu ally the elegiac puella is clearly being encouraged to behave like the hetaira embedded in an aristocratic system o f deferred and asym m etrical exchange and not like a pome who insists on an instant, equivalent, exchange that replaces social inter action w ith a com m ercial transaction. It is w ith in the terms o f such asym m etrical and deferred exchange that the narrator introduces his potential poetic services: est quoque carm inibus m éritas celebrare pueUas dos mea; quam volu i, nota fit arte mea. sdndentur vestes, gemmae frangentur et aurum ; carm ina quam tribuent, fama perennis erit. nec dare, sed pretium posci dedignor et odi; quod nego poscenti, desine velle, dabol Amores 1.1039-64 It is also m y dow ry to celebrate deserving girls in verse; w hoever I w^ant becomes know n through m y art. Clothes w ill be ripped up, gems and gold w ill be broken; the fame w hich verse confers wdll be everlasting. It is not the giving b u t being asked for a rew ard that I hate and despise; w hat I deny to one w ho asks, stop w anting it and I w iU give it! Here, the narrator attem pts to stress the value of poetry as an exchange- mechanism at the same tim e as he continues to denigrate direct and im m ediate exchange. He has a munus, poetic commemoration; how ever, he doesn't wish to be bu llied into providing it. H e w ill provide his munus of his ow n free wiU when she stops pestering him . Deferm ent in gift-exchange is the only gentlem anly w ay. Hence, the contrast betw een compulsion and willingness th at is focused ^9As Habinek (1997:37) says, "Ovid associates sexual performance w ith aristocratic noblesse oblige; each party must feel free to bestow benefits on the other." 143 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. negatively in the case o f the puella's prostitution o f herself, "quod vos fad tis sponte, coacta fad t" (24) is used again by the narrator to denigrate her as it sim ultaneously enhances him w ith in a context o f aristocratic exchange. In this m anner the elegiac narrator attem pts to live on the precarious edge o f gift-exchange by placing him self in the m om ent o f deferral betw een g ift and counter-gift (in this as m uch else elegy functions under the controlling m otif of mora). To the extent th at the narrator delays rem uneration, the puella is culpable in com plaining over a lack o f response u n til the delay has become so pronounced that the narrator can be accused o f ingratia. The vagueness o f when this moment occurs means that the n arrato r potentially has the ethics o f amicitia on his side as w ell as potentially against him . H e seeks to push his sanctioned mora to the lim it. In the Ars Amatoria this is presented as a deliberate tactic by the praeceptor who recommends never giving gifts. Rather, the m ale lover should always seem to be on the verge of giving som ething, "A t quod non dederis, semper videare daturus," "W hat you haven't given you w ill always seem to be on the verge of giving" (1.449). Hence, the narrator should be like a fallo w fie ld , potentially fru itfu l but yielding nothing. If he acts in this m anner he w ill, lik e an attractively packaged bad investm ent, encourage furth er giving from the puella in her expectation of recovering her investm ent : "Ne dederit gratis, quae d ed it, usque dabit," "In case w hat she has given, she should have given free, she w ill keep on giving" (1.454).30 O n this level elegiac exchange can be view ed as a battle by both partners to use the delay w ritte n in to a gift-exchange dynam ic to th eir ow n advantage.^! is the same dynamic that is elaborated by Seneca in the context of aristocratic g ift- exchange; for fuller discussion see ch. 3. 3^As Bourdieu (1977:7) states, "D elay. . . is a way of exacting. . . the deferential conduct that is required as long as relations are not broken off." 144 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. It is also notable in Amores 1.10 that the narrator describes his ab ility to celebrate puellae as his "dos" w hich carries not only the resonance o f "gift" or "particular quality" b u t also, of course, "dowry." Dowries w ere in effect a type of w edding contract: a financial incentive provided by the father o r custodian of the bride to cem ent alliance w ith the g r o o m . 3 2 M arriage w ithout dos w ould not generally have been desirable and w ithout dos it m ight be unclear w hether it even was a marriage.33 Presum ably, the narrator was not intending to use his poetry so th at the puella could m arry someone else.^4 H ow ever, dos m ight also designate a present from bridegroom to groom o r engaged m an to engaged w om an w hich w ould seem a m ore natural m eaning here.35 Such a g ift m ight be offered liberalitatis gratia, in w hich case it became the property o f its recipient, or it m ight be offered affinitatis contrahendae causa, it w hich case it could be reclaim ed if no m arriage ensued (unless such a circumstance was the fau lt of the giver) H ow ever, the g ift offered ajfinitas contrahendae causa had to be made before m arriage and could not be given on the condition that it w ould take effect on m arriage taking place.^^ The last option, however, m ight w ell be w hat the narrator is figuratively proposing as his dos; poetic commemoration is offered, he says, to puellae who are the use of dowries at Rome in their various form and manifestations see Gardner (1986:98- 114);Treggiari (1991:323-64). ^ ^ reg g iari (1991:323); Plautus Trin. 691. ^ T h o u g h in an ironic sense he was doing precisely that in constructing her as a sexually enticing female in his poetry. This aspect of elegy w ill t> e considered in chapter seven. 3^ reg g iari (1991:152-53). ^ O n liberalitas causa see Digest 39.5.1.1, lulus; on affinitatis contrahendae causa, Fragmentum Vaticanum, 262. The affinitatis contrahendae causa t>ecame the later donatio ante nuptias. Fragmentum Vaticanum 96. 145 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. "méritas." Does meritae here mean "deserving" or rather "who have earned it"? In either event it is dear that the poet intends that the puella should earn her poetic celebration by having sex w ith the p o et The elegiac narrator, then, is using his m arriage-gift as an inducem ent to sexual union, or a promised postscript to such union: it is his projected side of a sexual contract. The use of dos figures an image of sexual perm anence and o f a relationship embedded in social propriety (in the terms o f the analogy that was exam ined w ith regard to Horace in the last chapter, it is the narrator's attem pt to be construed as a poetic spouse rather than a poetic whore).^® In this m anner the elegiac narrator, to use the models set out in the last chapter, can be seen to be acting lik e a Pindar (a poetic hetaira) rather than a Simonides (a poetic pome). H e is trying to use poetry to m arry the puella rather than get in her bed just once or sporadically. Rejecting The Poet, Taking The Poem: Amores 3.8, Propertius 2.16, Tibullus 1.5 Amores 3.8 provides a striking exam ple where a poetic munus is ostensibly w ell received by the elegiac puella but the poet him self is rejected.^^ In this instance lite ra ry appreciation is lam entably not expressed carnally (as it appeared to be in Propertius 1.8 and 2.26): E t quisquam ingenuas etiam nunc suspidt artes, au t tenerum dotes carm en habere putat? ingenium quondam fuerat pretiosius auro; a t nunc barbaria est grandis, habere n ih il, cum pulchrae dominae nostri placuere lib elli, quo lic u it lib ris, non licet ire m ihi; ^®The nature o f the relationship between Maecenas and Horace is elaborated by Oliensis (1997a: 162-69). ^^On the breakdown of exchange in this poem in terms of the expectations provided by a context of amicitia see Gibson (1995:68-69). 146 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. cum bene la u d a v it laudato ianua clausa e s t tu rp iter hue illu c ingeniosus eo. Amores 3.8.1-8 Does someone s till now respect noble arts, or thinks tender poetry has some endowment? Once talent was more precious than gold; bu t now it is the height of boorishness to have nothing. W hen m y little poetry books have pleased m y beau tiful mistress. I'm not allow ed to go w here it was allow ed for m y books to go. W hen she's praised them lavishly, the door is shut on the praisee. I go sham efully here and there, talented though I am. H ere again the narrator runs into the problem o f disem bedded economics. The im age of m arriage also surfaces again in "dotes" The poet is endowed w ith a talent w hich he believes ought both to be socially esteem ed (it is an ingenua ars) and serve as a sufficient dow ry to enable his m arriage to the puella. H ow ever, in this instance his poetry is praised but elegy's problem atic ianua is shut in his face; paradoxically his poetic product ends up on the rig h t side of the door bu t the poet does not.^» The lo v e r/ poet is unable to forge the lin k between literary criticism and m aterial retu rn (sex) that is essential to his enterprise and the puella's appreciation rem ains verbal, rather than carnal. L iterary talent goes sexually unappreciated and the striking sententia o f the praeceptor, in a passage from the Ars Amatoria referred to earlier in this chapter, "Carmina laudantur, sed m unera m agna petuntur," is dram atically enacted.**^ interesting image, given the phallic associations of the book roll: Horace Epode 8 15-16; Juvenal 6. 337-38, see Richlin (1992c 111). Given the erotic content o f elegiac poetry maybe there is a suggestion that the elegiac puella w ould rather masturbate w ith the aid of his poetry than sleep w ith the poet. ^^Martial draws a similar, but more self-enabling, distinction w ith regard to his own poetic product: he alleges that people praise the socially respectable practice of tragedy but read his less reputable epigrams, "laudant ilia sed ista legunt," They praise those but read these” (4.49.10). Martial's reader, like Ovid's puella, is promiscuously disembedded. O n the breakdown of exchange in Atnores 3.8 see Gibson (1995:68-69). 147 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In these disabling circumstances the narrator comments w ryly on Jupiter's transform ation into a show er of gold, a tactic th at w ould seem to be the ideal solution to the poet's problems: lu p p ite r, adm onitus n ih il esse potentius auro, corruptae pretium virginis ipse fu it. Amores 3.8.29-30 Juppiter, having been w arned that nothing was m ore pow erful than gold, turned him self into the price o f a corrupt girl.'*^ A sim ilar dynam ic is encountered in Propertius 2 .1 6 .^ The advent o f a rich praetor from Illy ria means the exclusion o f the poet. The praetor is described as "m axim a praeda tib i, m axim a cura m ih i, " "a great source of plunder for you, a great source o f anxiety fo r me " (2). N otably, w hen the praetor is around, the usually intransigent elegiac ianua is in vitin g ly open, "nunc sine me tota ianua nocte patet," "now w ith o u t me the door is open a ll night " (6). A door that is habitually closed to verbal persuasion is a ll too read ily open fo r a m an w ith a fee and not a p o e m . 4 4 The disabling circumstances o f a rich riv a l (the dives ainator) and the suspicion o f a m aterialistic lena behind the scenes also form the basis of the narrator's com plaint in Tibullus 1.5:45 42rhe poet's transform ation of himself into a book does not unfortunately seem to allow him to rematerialize in corporeal form on the other side of the puella's door. 43See also G old (1993:290). 44cold argues that Propertius appears to be relatively unconcerned w ith this situation as the m aterial nature of the exchange between the praetor and Cynthia indicates that no real love is involved." The equinim ity of the narrator's in itial stance, however, dissolves into bitterness as the poem progresses and hence appears as a self-delusion that ultim ately provides no comfort. 4^rhe dives and patqjer also appear as discursive rivals in declamation. Oliensis (1997a: 156-57) makes the observation that when Messalla appears in the text in Tibullus 1.5 his appearance disrupts the dynam ic between the narrator and Delia in such a way as to cast Messalla himself as the dives ainator. W hen a wealthy elite patron is made elegiac he cannot help but become a threat to the poet's ow n erotic aspirations: this scenario w ill be discussed further in chapter seven. 148 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Haec nocuere m ih i; quod adest nim c dives am ator, venit in exititun callida lena m eiun. Tibullus 1.5.47-48 These things harm m y case; because now the rich lover is here, and a cunning lena is at hand for m y destruction. This leads to the narrator's conclusion that a hand fu ll o f cash, rather than a poetic voice, is the key to opening the puella’s door: heu canimus frustra nec verbis victa patescit ianua sed plena est percutienda manu. Tibullus 1.5.67-68 Alas we sing/com pose poetry in vain nor does the door, prevailed upon by w ords, open, fo r it needs knocking on w ith a hand that is fu ll. In the same fashion the puella in Propertius 2.16 is depicted as weighing her lover's purse and not his social w orth: C ynthia non sequitur fasces nec curat honores, semper am atorum pondérât una sinus. Propertius 2.16.11-12 C ynthia doesn't fo llo w badges of office nor care for public distinction, she always weighs the purses o f her lovers. Conflating Erotic and Literary Exchange As has been exam ined so far in this chapter the elegiac narrator is constructed as a pauperous lover who attem pts to enter into exchange w ith his belo ved/p atron on the basis o f his poetic talents. To successfully establish him self in this system of sexual patronage he m ust convince the puella that his ability to commemorate her in verse is an adequate exchange for her attentions. This in turn involves an attem pt on the narrator's part o f trying to in still in the puella an appreciation fo r em bedded w orth rather than disem bedded value. As the passages exam ined above indicate the narrator is less, rather than more. 149 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. successful and he enters the puella’s bed sporadically as a poetic lover rather than habitually as a literary spouse. In this fin al p art o f the chapter I w ant to examine the connections between the narrative scenarios o f elegy and the position of client poets outside the discourse and to see how this literary discourse articulates contem porary social anxieties. The Threat of Oblivion: The Case of Timagenes In Propertius 2.11, examined above, the narrator threatens the uncom pliant puella w ith the w ithdraw al of his poetic services and hence her future commemoration. A n anecdote concerning the Augustan period provides an interesting parallel here. The historian Timagenes of A lexandria appears to have had a close relationship w ith Augustus, residing in his house before being barred by Augustus fo r m aking unfavorable comments about Augustus, his w ife and his fam ily: Timagenes historiarum scriptor quaedam in ipsum, quaedam in uxorem eius et in totam dom um dixerat nec perdiderat dicta; magis enim drcum fertur et in ore hom inum est tem eraria urbanitas. Saepe iliu m Caesar m onuit, m oderatius lingua uteretur; perservanti domo sua interdixit. Seneca De Ira 3.23.4-6 Timagenes, a historian, had said certain things (a record o f w hich does not survive) about him self, his w ife and his whole fam ily; fo r reckless w it is w idely circulated and on the lips o f everyone. O ften Caesar w arned him to watch w hat he said; and w hen he persisted he barred him from his home. Timagenes w ent o ff to live w ith Asinius PoUio and suffered no other retribution from Augustus. H ow ever, Timagenes enacted a form of retribution of his own: 150 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. H istorias, quas postea scripserat, re d ta v it e t libros acta Caesaris Augusti continentis in igne posuit et combxissit De Ira 323.6 H e recited the history, w hich he w rote afterw ards, but burned the books w hich contained the deeds o f Caesar Augustus. The story seems to have fascinated not only the younger but also the elder Seneca: com buret historias rerum ab illo gestarum , quasi et ipse illi ingenio suo in d erd iceret Controversiae 10.5.22 H e burned the histories (he had w ritten ) on the deeds of Augustus, as if he him self w ere barring that m an from his talent. Timagenes exacts his vengeance by denying Augustus literary commemoration and at the same tim e expressing it in a verbal pun that gave Timagenes the last w ord as he m ocked Augustus's interdictio domo w ith his ow n interdictio ingenio.^ If this scenario is read in conjunction w ith Propertius 2.11 then ironic sim ilarities are readily discernible. Augustus in the role o f lite ra ry patron is equivalent to the puella as erotic patron; both Timagenes and the elegiac narrator are poets attem pting to become embedded in th eir patron's house (Timagenes apparently had succeeded); the possibility, or actuality, o f being denied access leads to the w ith draw al o f com m em orative privileges.^^ ^ F o r the Timagenes incident in the w ider context of forms o f opposition to Augustus see Raaflaub and Samons (1990). “ ^^Given the circumstances that led to Augustus's interdictio the princeps may w ell have been relieved, rather than saddened, by the loss o f Timagenes w ork. Sim ilarly, Cynthia is later represented in 4.7 as giving instructions for the verses o f Propertius to be burned. 151 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The Reciprocation of Praise W hen the praeceptor o f the Ars elaborates upon how poetry m ight function in an erotic economy (in a passage discussed earlier in the c h a p t^ ) he stresses that in a contem porary clim ate poetry has little honos, "non m ultum carm en honoris habet" (2.274). Rather, he argues, honos is now accorded to gold, "plurim us a u ro / venit honos" (2.277-78). Honos is a significant term w ith in the context o f reciprocal, aristocratic exchange. Honos represents a means o f repaying a debt, hence the phrase, "honorem habere alicui."'*® It was thus a means o f m aking due return fo r the receipt o f officia or bénéficia. There w ere o f course many ways that such honos could m anifest itself. One w ay in w hich honos m ight be m anifested w ould be through verbal tribute. 4 9 Thus the praeceptor rem arks "carm ina laudantur" (2.275): in such a circumstance a poetic officium / beneficium is repaid w ith a verbal form o f honos. H ow ever, it is also clear from the praeceptor s advice that such a form o f verbal tribute is the thin end o f the w edge as far as honos is concerned, and that is because it is not poetry but munera that are really sought after "m unera magna petuntur" (2.275). The elegiac narrator is evidently m ore interested in affording, than receiving, verbal tribute: the form of honos that he wishes to receive is carnal rather than verbal. As was examined earlier such a circumstance leads to the narrative situation elaborated in Amores 3.8 where a poem is w ell received but a poet is 4®Cato Orig. frg. XXVin, 1; Cicero Vert. 1.38,2.2.4. For further examples and discussion o f the semantic range o f Itonos see Heliegouarc'h (1963:383-87). 49Heliegouarc'h (1963:385): hence Cicero ad Att. 5.21.7: "Nuilos honores m ihi nisi verborum decerni sino." 152 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. rejected. This is a circumstance that can also be paralleled outside o f the erotic context of elegy in the works of later patronized poets: s o gaudet honorato sed m ultus nom ine lector cui victoria meo m unere fam a datur. "quid tamen haec prosunt quam vis venerantia multos?" non prosint sane, me tam en ista iu v a n t M artial 5.15,3-6 M any a reader rejoices at his honored nam e to w hom conquering fam e is given by m y gift. "But w hat is the p ro fit from these things although they honor many?" None o f course, but they delight me a ll the same. d id id t iam dives avarus tantum adm irari, tantum laudare disertos, u t pueri Iim onis avem. Juvenal 7.30-32 N ow the rich m iser has leam t only to adm ire, only to praise the eloquent, as boys do the peacock. In the Juvenal passage, as in Amores 3.8, a patron repays poetic praise w ith verbal praise and such spoken valorization is seen as a sneaky evasion of due rem uneration. In the passage from M a rtial the narrator alleges that his poetic munus confers fama in the form of a nomen honoratum. Such a service naturally cries out for a suitable return. How ever, the poet states that the only p ro fit he has received is some personal pleasure. This, of course, is in itself an obvious rhetorical tactic. In sim ilar fashion the author o f the Laus Pisonis professes that his eulogy is not perform ed w ith an eye to fin an d al benefit: examples that follow involve various chronological leaps. The system of patronage seems to have been rem arkably resilient at Rome. Though chronological change is inevitable and circumstances change, I believe there is enough continuity in the practice of literary patronage to justify such comparisons. 153 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. nec enim me divitis auri im periosa fames e t habendi saeva libido im pulerant; sed laudis amor. 219-221 For it isn't im perious hunger o f rich gold and a savage lust fo r possession that has driven me on but a love of praise. H ere the author stresses that it is amor laudis that leads him to Piso, i.e . the innate and displayed aristocratic qualities o f the noble, not any need to dispel poverty or desire for m aterial advancement. V irtu e m ust be recognized and the poet cannot but help eulogize someone lik e Piso. It should also be pointed ou t that M a rtial 5.15 is a poem addressed to D om itian where the author is eager to stress the salutary rather than negative ( "et queritur laesus carm ine nemo m eo," "and no-one injured by m y verse complains " [2]). To w rite a poem for the em peror should naturally be a delight in itself rather than a financial investm ent. Yet behind this facade there is clearly expectation: M artial, after a ll, has, in his ow n terms, just conferred victura fama on D om itian by m entioning his name. Both the elegiac poet and his non-elegiac counterpart are exponents of obseqiiium blandi carminis.^^ They are both verbal seducers operating in parallel w orlds. The praeceptor in the Ars Amatoria works on a principle that every puella believes herself to be lovable and beautiful, hence affording the lo v e r/p o e t the opportunity to construct a monumentum formae as a basis fo r exchange. So too the client poet works on the basis that every Roman aristocrat believes him self w orth celebrating (as Cicero candidly adm its, albeit w ith a rhetorical agenda o f his own, in the Pro Archia Poeta), thus affording the opportunity to proffer a monumentum laudis as a basis fo r exchange. Hence, the self-interested duplicity of the elegiac narrator could be view ed as the im portation into elegiac discourse o f the always 5^See Propertius 1.8.40. 154 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. potential duplicity o f the client poet w ho offered his patron lite ra ry commemoration. As noted in the last chapter, the niceties of aristocratic exchange depend upon a willingness to reciprocate. D elay and asymm etry are acceptable but a breach of allow ed latitud e leads to an exposure of the underlying instrum entality, rather than professed gratuitousness, o f the system. This serves as the basis for the virulence of Seneca's denunciation o f the ingratus homo discussed in the last chapter. This breaking point is also discernible in the discourse of client poetry. So, M a rtia l’s tone in 5.36, as has been noted by Sailer, is rather different to that just exam ined in 5.15:52 Laudatus nostro quidam , Faustine, libello dissim ulât, quasi n il debeat: im posuit M artial 5.36 Someone or other, Faustinus, w ho was praised in m y poetry-book pretends he knows nothing about it, as if he owes nothing: he’s a cheat. The poet here is calling attention to a debt that has not been paid . The underlying instrum entality of poetic praise is la id bare here as it also is in elegiac discourse as noted earli^^g fadm us pladtae late praeconia formae: Ars Amatoria 3.535 W e act as heralds far and w ide fo r the pleasing beauty o f a wom an. est quoque carm inibus m éritas celebrare puellas dos mea. Amores 1.10.59-60 It is also m y g ift to celebrate deserving girls in verse. In both these instances there is evidently a posited relationship betw een poetic celebration and the adjectives that are used to describe the fem ale recipient. 52SaUer (1983:252). 155 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. There is an ambiguity^ surrounding "pladtae” and "méritas." As discussed above "méritas" could m ean "deserving" or "who have earned it"; sim ilarly "pladtae" could denote a detached aesthetic judgm ent o r past carnal pleasure. W ithin the terms of m ystified gratuitous exchange, redpients of praise should receive w hat is owed to them beyond any consideration fo r a m aterial kickback fo r the poet. Id eally, one should not have to sleep w ith , o r pay, a poet to receive a positive poetic assessment. But, d early, in both the elegiac and non-elegiac w orld the am biguities of "deserving" are evident. The rhetorical nature o f both discourses is dear. Both elegiac and non- elegiac poet engage in exchange in the expectation of recompense. N o amount of attem pting to embed such exchange in the asym m etrical niceties o f aristocratic exchange can disguise the basic instrum entality of their poetic efforts. A poet m ight pose like a P indar as a poetic com panion, or like a Horace as a poetic spouse, but they are really lik e Simonides, a poetic whore. It is precisely the im possibility o f calculating exactly w hat poetry m ight be w o rth that gives the poet his room fo r m aneuver. The same is, o f course, true fo r sex, w hich creates the whole relative evaluation conundrum o f elegiac discourse: two commodities w hich are d iffic u lt to evaluate definitively are pitched against one another. It also points to the potential sneakiness of elegiac discourse and poetic exchange generally: if poetry cannot be evaluated p red sd y, then despite the protestations of d ie n t poets to the contrary there must alw ays be the suspidon that the poet m ight be pulling a fast one on his patron. Elegy, w ith its erotic context, seems particularly appropriate to this question o f w ho m ight be screwing whom . In the next chapter I w ant to turn ffo m exam ining how elegy functions as an allegory of lite ra ry exchange towards considering the historical circumstances 156 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. that m ay have occasioned elegiac com position in the Augustan period and the am bitions that m ay lie behind such an enterprise. 157 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER FIVE Elegy and the Reconstitution of Rome's Elite The previous tw o chapters have been concerned w ith elaborating the dynamics o f aristocratic gift-exchange and the place of literatu re in such a scheme and seeing how elegy functions as a form o f allegory fo r such a dynam ic. In this chapter I w ant to exam ine m ore specifically the historical conditions that lie behind elegiac narrative and fiie presentation of the elegiac narrator as a pauperized equestrian. To this end I w ill be considering how the social upheaval of the fin al stage of the civil wars before the emergence of Augustus im pacted the equestrian class (to w hich O vid , Propertius and Tibullus a ll probably belonged) and how the social upheaval and reconstitution o f Rome's elite during this period are refracted in elegiac discourse. The Elegiac Problems Of Pauperization And Social Mobility In both Propertius 2.16 and Amores 3.8 (exam ined m ore fu lly in the previous chapter) the narrator’s complaints over his rejection s p ill over into a denunciation o f the social background of those lovers w ho are preferred to himself; Ecce, recens dives parto per vulnera censu praefertur nobis sanguine pastus eques! Amores 3.8.9-10 See, a new ly-enriched eques fed on blood, w ho w on his rank through wounds is preferred to me! 158 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. barbarus exutis agitat vestigia ium bis, et subito fe lix nunc m ea regna tenet! Propertius 2.16.27-28 A barbarian w ith loins uncovered shuffles his feet and a ll of a sudden the lu c l^ d e v il has his hands on m y possessions! In both these instances it w o u ld appear that the puella has follow ed the advice that the lena is depicted as dispensing in Amores 1.8 and Propertius 4.5:^ nec tu , siquis e rit capitis mercede redem ptus, despice; gypsati crim en inane pedis, nec te d ed p ian t veteres drcum atria cerae. tolle tuos tecum , pauper am ator, avos! Amores 1.8.63-66 N o r spurn one w ho redeem ed his freedom a t a price; the reproach of a chalked foot is an em pty one. N o r let ancient wax-masks around the atrium fool you. Take you r ancestors o ff w ith you, poor lover! nec tib i displiceat m iles non factus am ori, nauta nec a ttrita si ferat aera m anu, aut quorum titu lu s p er barbara colla pependit, cretati m edio cum saluere foro. Propertius 4.5.49-52 N o r le t a soldier not m ade fo r love displease you, nor a sailor if he carries money in his gnarled hand, nor one o f those on whose barbarous neck a label hung and whose chalked feet once danced in the m iddle o f the forum . The lena's constructed preference fo r disem bedded w ealth naturally leads to a disinterest in the social w o rth o f its possessor: one man's money is as good as another's.^ It is this dichotom y betw een w orth and value that the narrator in Amores 3.8 laments and w hich he sees as an invasion in the erotic sphere of w hat he depicts as generally true outside of it: I For a fuller discussion o f the lena in these poems see the previous chapter. ^Thus the lena is depicted as allow ing money to overturn the traditional Roman social hierarchy represented here by the polar opposites o f an ex-slave and those entitled to the ins imagintim. 159 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. curia pauperibus dausa est~dat census honores; inde gravis iudex, inde severus eques! O m nia possideant; illis Campusque forum que serviat, h i pacem crudaque bella gérant— tantum ne nostros avidi liceantur amores, et— satis est— aliquid pauperis esse sinant! Amores 3.8.55-60 The senate is dosed to the poor— w ealth brings about public office; it is for this reason that the judge has dig nity and the eques is considered grave! Let them have every Â ing ; let the Campus and the Forum serve these, and those conduct peace and bloody wars — only le t the avaricious not bid fo r ou r loves, and le t them leave something that is sufficient for the poor. Roman sodety, the narrator alleges, is ram pant w ith venality. Love, it w ould appear from the narrator's rhetoric, is, or ought to be, the last bastion of embedded w orth and afford a refuge from a tide o f sordid m aterialism . Things have deteriorated so badly that even qualities o f sodal standing such as gravitas and severitas have become commodities rather than inherent or earned tokens of esteem. Sodety, it w ould seem, from the narrator’s interested perspective is nothing more than a venal prostitute on a grander scale; the microcosm that envelops the elegist is, as he w ould have it, the reflection o f the w ider macrocosm of contem porary Roman sodety.^ The Equestrian Status Of The Elegiac Narrator The O vidian narrator stresses that he is an eques of entrenched sodal pedigree rather than an upstart sodal climber:^ ^In the terms of Conte's analysis of elegy it would represent the elegiac "transcodification" of the w orld outside itself. ^This detail is matched by the assertion of the narrator at Epistulae Ex Ponto 4.8.17-18: équités ab origine prima usque per innumeros inveniem ur avos. We shall be found eqiiiles from our first beginnings right through a line of countless ancestors. 160 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. siquid id est, usque a proavis vetus ordims heres, non modo m ilitiae turbine factus eques. Amores 3.15.5-6 If it counts for anything, the ancient heir o f a rank stretching back to distant ancestors, not an eqttes fashioned just now in the w h irl o f w ar. The narrator's assertion of his entrenched social pedigree is also supported by- statements m ade in Tristia 2 w here the poet complains that Augustus had never previously found fau lt w ith him before the catastrophe of his exile: at, m em ini, vitam que meam moresque probabas illo , quem dederas, praetereuntis equo. Tristia 2.89-90 But, 1 remember, you used to approve o f m y life and behavior as 1 rode by on that horse w hich you had granted me. carminaque edideram , cum te delicta notantem praeterii totiens inreprehensus eques. Tristia 2.541-42 1 had published poetry, w hen 1, a blameless knight, rode past you so m any times as you w ere m arking dow n our faults. These two references refer to Augustus's revival of the transvectio o f the equestrian order: the references from Tristia 2 seem to suggest, as Theodor Mommsen argued, that this transvectio was accompanied by some form of recognitio.^ T.P. Wiseman, how ever, has argued that there is no reliable evidence for an annual recognitio carried out at the transvectio and that the O vidian passage is a piece o f rhetorical exaggeration w hich deliberately conflates the annual transvectio w ith the less frequent recognitio.^ ^Mommsen (1887-88:494): see also Dionysus of Halicarnassus 6.13.4; Dio 5531.2; Suetonius Augustus 38,39; A lfoidy (1975:122); M illa r (1977:280-81); Nicolet (1984:96-97). 6 Wiseman (1970:68-69); MiUar (1977:280). 161 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The revival o f the transvectio by Augustus was p a rt o f his deliberate policy of resurrecting the trad ition al rites of republican Rome that had fallen into disuse. The practice was naturally connected to the trad itio n al role of the equestrian order as the cavalry, w hich in tim e had evolved into those entitled to the equus publicus: the lis t o f those entitled to this distinction under the republican system had been review ed every five years by the censors.^ The question, how ever, of how one norm ally became en titled to possess the privilege o f the equus publicus seems vexed, as does the question of w hether this was an autom atic privilege o f the equestrian order or only o f an elite segment of the same.® Dionysus o f Halicarnassus (6.13.4) noted that 5,000 equestrians took part in the transvectio revived by Augustus at Rome: Géza A lfô ld y notes, however, that this was only a m inority o f the equestrian order as m any equestrians d id not travel to Rome and those over 35 were excused from participating (Suetonius Augustus 38.3): he estimates the total num ber of equestrians under Augustus at 20, 000.9 This w ould seem to suppose that a ll equestrians w ere entitled to ride the equus publicus at Rome: M illa r’s analysis on the other hand seems to incline towards treating the possessors of the equus publicus as a special group created by inheritance and the special grant of the princeps. This is the position that W isem an also takes w ith regard to the republican evidence.^® W iseman argues, for instance, that the Lex Roscia's provision of 14 rows o f seats fo r the equestrians in the theater corresponds to the num ber o f équités equo publico and that the ^MiUar (1977:280). ®Wiseman (1970: 71ff.); M illa r (1977:280fL); Hom blow er and Spawforth (1996:550-52). 9A lfôldy (1975:122). I (^Wiseman (1970:71ff.) 162 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. phrase eques Romanus thus properly designates équités equo publico rather than anyone w ho possessed the equestrian census. If this distinction between equestrians proper and those who possessed the equestrian census is right, then clearly O v id came from an elite equestrian background.il In the case o f Tibullus the Vita of Suetonius refers to him as an eques Romanus (o r eques regalis in a variant m anuscript), lists him as a contubemalis o f M essalla du rin g the A quitanian cam paign, and notes that he gained militaria dona in M essalla's campaigns in Aquitania. If Tib ullu s is the "Albius" of Horace Carmina 1.33 and Epistles 1.4 (w hich seems to m e a probable, bu t not sure iden tificatio n ), then the latter poem also identifies the poet as the possessor of country estates at Pedum and describes him as one to whom the gods have given divitiae. There are no overt references to the equestrian status o f Propertius. In the biography provided by Horus for the narrator at 4.1.119ff Horus refers to the aurea bulla o f Propertius (not in itself conclusive evidence of elite status) but also to estates ploughed by many oxen w hich w ou ld seem to indicate membership o f the Ita lia n gentry and possible equestrian status. If the Postumus of Propertius 3.12 is C- Propertius Postumus who held a praetorship, a proconsulship and m arried the daughter (in all likelihood the A elia G alla of 3.12) of Aelius C allus (the adoptive father o f Sejanus), then it w ou ld seem probable that the P ropertii w ere an affluen t and well-connected fam ily, i^ A lso, in 3.23 the narrator refers to llO v id 's assertion (Tristia 2.90) that he participated on these occasions on a horse that Augustus had granted him could thus refer to the special granting o f this status to O vid by the princq>s: this, in turn, may only refer to a general revision o f the lists that accompanied Augustus's revival of the transvectio, rather than a specific individual grant to the poet l% ee Hubbard (1974:97); Syme (1978:182-83): Syme also identifies Propertius Celer mentioned at Tacitus Annales 1.75.3 as a probable relative. 163 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. his residence on the Esquiline, though this m ay have been due to Maecenas (the Suetonian vita notes that V irg il also had a house there near the gardens of Maecenas) rather than an indication o f the poet's independent a f f l u e n c e It w ould seem, then, that the elegiac narrator is generally constructed as an equestrian o f some background. N aturally, one does not have to assume that the textualized narrator is an accurate reflection o f an external Roman. Yet elegy through its depiction o f an internal narrator w ith the same name as an external poet makes the concision between text and reality particularly acute.^^ This in tu rn lends a certainly plausibility to taking some form s of autobiographical assertion at face value. O f course one m ight be w ary o f taking O vidian statements such as "saepe ego lascive consumpsi tem pora noctis,/ utilis et fo rti corpore mane fui" as an accurate depiction of an extra-textual Ovid's actual sexual capacities, but it is surely less problem atic to assume that when Ovid" says he was an eques equo publico that this actually was the case for Ovid.^^ A fter a ll the social status o f O vid w ould have been read ily discernible in a w ay his sexual capacity w ould not have been. It seems to m e, therefore, a reasonable assum ption to view the depicted status of the elegiac poet as an equestrian or m em ber of the Italian gentry, as in a ll likelihood a proxim ate textualization of the poet's social status.i^ 13propertius 3.23.23-24; Vita VergOii 13. ^^This concision w ill be explored in more detail in subsequent chapters. l^The quote is Amores 2.10.27-28. ^^On the social status of the elegists see further Lilja (1965:10-16); Hubbard (1974:96ff); Syme (1978:182-183); W hite (1993:211-22). It m ight also be w orth remembering that the usurpation of social status at Rome was in certain instances criminal, see further Reinhold (1971). 164 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Historidzing Elegiac Poverty It is also made clear in the texts o f Propertius and Tibullus that the narrator's inherited m aterial resources have suffered; V O S quoque, felid s quondam, nunc pauperis agri custodes, fertis m unera vestra. Lares. Tibullus 1.1.19-20 You too, guardians of a once prosperous, now poor estate, take your dues. Lares. ossaque legist! non ilia aetate legenda patris et in tenues cogeris ipse lares: nam tua cum m u lti versarent rura iuven d, abstulit excultas pertica tristis opes. Propertius 4.1.127-30 You collected the bones of your father at an age you ought not have had to and you yourself were driven into a poor home. For many oxen turned your ploughland but the grim m easuring rod snatched away your agricultural capital. The dates of birth fo r Propertius and Tibullus are uncertain: the birth date fo r Propertius listed in the O xford Classical D ictionary is betvv’ -een 54 and 47 BCE and for Tibullus as betw een 55 and 48 BCE.^^ G iven this tim e fram e it is d iffic u lt not to read such lines as a reference to the confiscations and deprivations that accompanied d v il w ar during the triu m viral period: m ore specifically the proscriptions of 43 BCE, the measures to raise money in 4 3 /4 2 BCE in preparation for the P h ilip p i campaign, and the confiscations o f 41 BCE that follow ed the return of the victorious arm y of the second trium virate from P hilippi and the need to provide land in Ita ly for some 100,000 veterans. According to our available sources the proscriptions o f this period led to the ju d id a l m urder o f around 200 senators and some 2000 equestrians: the ^^Homblower and Spawforth (19%: 1258; 1524). 165 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. stratum of sodety to w hich the elegiac poets in a ll pro b ab ility belonged.^® Hence, these events led to the extinction of a significant segm ent o f Rome's elite. Aside from the threat o f death, how ever, there was also the problem of pauperization, fo r although this was an opportunity to rem ove p o litical rivals and the allies o f one's enemies, the proscriptions w ere concerned above a ll else w ith raising revenue. P.A . B runt sets out a confusing series of taxes listed in A ppian and D io that preceded the P h ilip p i campaign: according to A p p ian there was a tax equivalent to one year's income on a ll dtizens and resident foreigners w orth more than 400,000 sesterces (the equestrian census) and a forced loan equivalent to two percent of an individual's capital, D io lists taxes equivalent to a year's rent on a ll house property (or half rent if occupied by the owmer), to a h alf year's income from land, to one tenth of property (in 42 BCE), and a tax on slaves (said to be a 100 sesterces a slave by Appian).^^ As B runt notes, oumers short of ready cash (w hich was most o f the elite given that w ealth was vested so heavily in property) w ou ld have had to sell property in order to m eet the requirements of such taxes.^i D io notes that owners were entitled to surrender property in lieu of taxes and had a rig h t to reclaim one third of property that they surrendered.^ In the chaos o f the period, clearly ^®Plutarch (Ciicm) 46; Brutus 17; Antonins 20) gives figures firom 200 to 300; Appian (B.C. 4 ,5 ,2 0 ) gives 300 senators and 2000 equestrians. For further inform ation on the confiscations of the trium viral period and further settlements during the period 30 BCE to 14 CE see Brunt (1971:326- 44). l% ru n t (1971:123); Appian BC 432-34. 2®Brunt (1971:123); Dio 47.14.16f; Appian BC 5.67 (on the tax on slaves). 2lBrunt (1971:326-27). ^ D io 47.17; Brunt (1971:327). 166 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. reclaim ing surrendered property can have been no easy task, and, as is noted in A ppian, general lawlessness and the expropriation of property that had not been designated by the trium virs w ere also signs o f the times. 2 3 This chaos affected Ita ly w idely and must have led to the m aterial reduction and extinction o f a significant num ber of elite fam ilies. Indeed, Appian and D io both suggest that because o f a fear of further land confiscations there was widespread support fo r Lucius Antonius's uprising in Ita ly in 4 1 /4 0 BCE that resulted in the siege o f P e r u s i a . 2 4 The siege and destruction o f Perusia is clearly alluded to in the fin al poem o f Propertius book one w here the narrator in response to a question from Tullus on his origins launches into a b itter reminiscence of the event: si Perusina tib i patriae sunt nota sepulcra, Italiae duris funera temporibus, cum Romana suos egit discordia dves— sic m ih i praedpue, pulvis Etrusca, dolor, tu proiecta m ei perpessa's membra propinqui, tu nullo m iseri contegis ossa solo— proxim a suppositos contingens Um bria campos me genuit terris fertilis uberibus. 1.22.3-10 If Perusia is know n to you, the tomb of our country, the death o f Ita ly in hard tim es, w hen Roman discord harried her ow n dtizens— Etruscan dust, you are a particular source o f g rie f to me, you w ho endured the tossed out bones of m y relative and d id n ’t cover the poor w retch w ith any earth— U m bria, next-door, bordering on the plains below, fertile in rich earth bore m e. As M argaret H ubbard notes, "From a poet w riting after A ctium , the declaration is unexpected and indeed startling, and it brings the book to a troubling c l o s e . "25 23Appian BC 4.35; Brunt (1971:327). 24Appian BC 5.27; D io 48.13.6; Brunt (1971:328). 167 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Perusia became a notorious event even in the turm o il o f the c iv il wars. The city was v irtu ally starved into submission, the general sack of the city was only prevented by a blaze that started from the funeral pyre of a prom inent city resident, and follow ing the capture of the city a num ber o f the Roman elite and the tow n council were a ll e x e c u t e d , 2 6 This gave rise to the account (probably a piece of civil w ar propaganda) that Octavian answered a ll w ho sued fo r pardon w ith the answer "You m ust die" and that he sacrificed 300 prisoners of equestrian and senatorial rank on the Ides o f M arch on an a lta r erected to Julius C a e s a r . 2 7 The Propertian narrator, then, strongly aligns him self w ith those who suffered in the c iv il w ar period: the combination o f 1.22 and 4.1 suggests at least a poetic persona (and not im plausibly an actual poet) whose fam ily and relatives suffered death and m aterial dim inution during this period o f Roman history. The chances of this happening to the class of the Ita lia n gentry during this period were considerable. The equestrian class was an obvious target for raising revenue and the changing tides of alliances and enm ities m eant one w ould have had to have been extrem ely astute to have avoided ending up on the wrong side of the divide at some point, especially since the riv a l arm ies o f the various factions w ould at various times have swept through the same parts of Ita ly at not too distant a rem ove from each other. Thus the Propertian narrator can certainly be read as a textualized victim of the late c iv il w ar period, and although there is far less emphasis placed on these events in Tibullus, it seems likely that the TibuUan narrator's paupertas can also be understood as deriving from these historical events. The O vidian narrator 25Hubbard(1974:40). ^^Appian BC 5.35*; Lucan 1.41; Syme (1939:211-12); Brunt (1971:290). ^^Dio 48.13.6; Seneca De Clem. 1.11; Suetonius Augustus 15. 168 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. d early is also presented as a m em ber of the equestrian order and Ita lia n gentry. There is no m ention in O vid's elegy of a m aterial reduction o f his fam ily circumstances com parable to that in Propertius and Tibullus bu t the poet does adopt the typical elegiac pose of paupertas. W e m ight assume from this that such paupertas (which in the historical circumstances of the late c iv il w ar period that coindded w ith the ch ild h o o d /early adolescent years o f the earlier elegiac poets m ight be view ed as m uch as a textualization of external circumstances as the elaboration of a lite ra ry commonplace) became a standard p art o f the discourse o f elegiac narrative that O vid inherited. In this circumstance either his situation outside the text was a conveniently dose match to a now established elegiac scenario or the poet created an autobiography that fit the genre's requirements. In other words the them e o f elegiac poverty m ay not entirely be a poetic trope, but rather have some basis too in the sodal and historical circumstances outside the text. This in turn w ould produce a pauperous poet (in elite terms) whose pursuit o f sexual patronage (as outlined in chapter four) could be seen as analogous to the quest of a sim ilarly im poverished poet outside o f an erotic context for literary patronage. In both scenarios the poet is attem pting to use poetry as a means to recovering lost functionality and elegiac discourse is thus an allegorical narrative of a poetic attem pt at self-em powerm ent. The Augustan Recreation o f Rome's E lite The sodal chaos that ensued during the d v il w ar period into the beginning of the Augustan prindpate (as exam ined earlier in the chapter) w ould have produced not only the pauperization o f a certain elem ent o f the elite but 169 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. also an inverse effect o f the prom otion o f members of the social strata below the old nobility in to positions of w ealth and p o w e r . 2 8 A sign o f this shift at the highest level can be gleaned from the num ber of naoi homines gaining the consulship: as A lfô ld y notes, in the period from the first consulship o f M arius to the death o f Caesar (60 years) there w ere only 11 consuls (w e know of) w ho w ere novi kotnines, bu t in the period 43 to 33 BCE there w ere 18.29 G enerally, the chaos o f the period gave tmprecedented opportunities for rap id advancem ent and enrichm ent: the decim ation o f the Roman e lite during protracted c iv il w ar and proscriptions was accompanied by a stream o f those ready to take their places: the Ita lia n gentry flow ed into the senatorial order and an increasing num ber o f provincials entered the equestrian order; the rap id settlem ent o f discharged soldiers in Ita ly and the provinces throughout this period also led to a change in the demographics of the elite, as d id the upw ard m obility of w ealthy ffeedmen.^^ The phenom enon began long before the Augustan period: Sulla introduced 300 equestrians into the senate; Julius Caesar was notorious fo r introducing provincials into the senate, leading to the criticisms recorded in Suetonius that someone put up a poster saying nobody should direct the new ly 2^The change in the structure of the Roman elite during this period forms the basis o f Syme's (1939), (1986) notion of a "Roman Revolution" during this period. For a reassessment of Syme's method see Galsterer (1990); on the possibility o f whether such a demographic change in itself constitutes a "revolution" see Habinek and Schiesaro (1997). 29wiseman (1971:164ff.); A lfôldy (1975:87): in 40 BCE Lucius Cornelius Balbus also became the first provincial to become a consul, Pliny the elder N H 7.43; Alfôldy (1975:90). The calculation of the numbers o f riovt hotnines who became consuls naturally depends on how one defines a tvjvns homo: this debate is treated in detail in Brunt (1982). 20Alfôldy (1975:88-89): as M eyer Reinhold (1971:278-79) also notes this accelerated social m obility was also facilitated by the im possibility of keeping effective public records during this period "thus catapulting into the Roman body politic a large new heedman class endowed w ith the Roman franchise." 170 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. appointed senators to the senate house; in the same context he notes that the follow ing song also became popular:^! Gallos Caesar in trium phum d u d t, idem in curiam . G alli bracas deposuerunt, latum clavum sum pserunt. Julius Caesar 80.2 Caesar led the Gauls in trium ph and into the senate house. The Gauls took o ff their trousers and p u t on the broad stripe. N atu rally, such shifts w ere not only occasioned by the ravages o f w ar and proscriptions but also by the necessity for the pow erful figures o f the late republic to rew ard their ow n supporters and produce a Roman nobility that was obligated to them and controllable. Augustus inherited this problem : according to D io , the senate in the late d v il w ar period had 900 members, and according to both D io and Suetonius, Augustus was confronted w ith a senatorial order of over 1,000 men.^^ According to D io the senate was sw elled w ith both equestrians and foot-soldiers.^^ Augustus reduced this num ber dowm to 600 by means of two review s w hich involved both voluntary and enforced demotion.^^ The process was d iffic u lt and Augustus w ^ a s unable to reduce the num ber to the traditional figure o f 300 w hich appears to have been his aim . 3 5 It seems that those expelled were not deprived of the rig ht to dress as senators or to s it w ith the senators at banquets and 3lA ppian BC 1.68; Suetonius jidius Caesar 80; Syme (1939:78-79); A lfôldy (1975:88-89). 32Dio 43.47.3; 52.42.1; Suetonius Augustus 35.1. 33oio 52.42.1; Nicolet (1984:91). 34d1o 52.42; 54.13; Suetonius Augustus 35. 35Dio 54.13.14: the danger in such a process is also brought out by Suetonius's statements (Augustus 35) that Augustus wore a sword and arm or under his tunic and was surrounded by 10 burly senatoial supporters; he also adds that according to Cremutius Cordus senators were only allowed to approach individually after the folds of their togas had been searched. 171 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. spectacles, w hich had the effect o f at least tem porarily creating another level in the Roman hierarchy . 3 6 Augustus also increased the num ber o f patrician fam ilies and raised (or established) a senatorial c e n s u s . 3 7 Claude N icolet argues that previously the senatorial and equestrian census had been essentially the same at 400,000 sesterces.38 Augustus then proceeded to raise the requirem ent up to the m ark of 1.000.000 sesterces: according to N icolet, the rise was im plem ented after an in itia l setting o f the figure a t 400,000 had already rem ained in force fo r several years. 3 9 The evidence here comes from D io, who states that the figure o f 400,000 was set in itia lly because m any had been deprived o f their ancestral estates by the wars, and then as tim e passed and men acquired w ealth the census was established at 1.000.000 sesterces.'*® C learly, part of the Augustan strategy was, as N icolet argues, to try to invest the senatorial order w ith some clearly defined dignitas w hich he sought to do both by review ing the senate body and by m arking it o ff by a census requirem ent that set it apart firom the equestrian order.'** A lthough N icolet argues that the established senatorial census was a modest figure, there is nevertheless considerable evidence that it was too high 36Dio 54.14.4-5; Suetonius Augustus 35. 3^0n creating patrician families see Dio 52.425, Res Ceslae 8.1; on the senatorial census see Dio 55.13.6; Suetonius Augustus 413; Nicolet (1984:91-93). 38Nicolet (1984:91). 39Nicolet (1984:91-93). '*®Dio 54.263; Nicolet (1984:92 n. 17). Suetonius {Augtistjis 4 13 ) mentions a figure of 800,000 sesterces w hich may have been an intermediary stage; see Nicolet (1984:91 n. 15). '** Nicolet (1984:92,95). 172 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. for m any.‘ *2 There are references in both D io and Suetonius to Augustus having to intervene personally to m ake up the difference fo r those he deemed d e s e r v i n g . ^ 3 jt also seems d e a r from D io that the raising of the census actually did deter some members o f established elite fam ilies from entering the senate and pursuing o ffice.^ Thus, though it m ay have been Augustus's aim , as N icolet argues, to enhance the status o f the senate rather than create a plutocracy (as his support of some im poverished senators suggests), nevertheless there seems to be evidence that his setting o f the census inevitably w ent some w ay to creating such a plutocracy . 4 5 As regards the equestrian order, it is som ewhat undear when the traditionally accepted census o f 400,000 sesterces was established. 4 6 The argum ent centers on w hether this was a traditional fig ure that had served for some tim e as the census for both the senatorial and equestrian orders, w hether it was new ly instituted by the Lex Roscia o f 67 BCE, or w hether it was part of the sodal restructuring of Augustus that also saw the rise in the senatorial census. According to N icolet, the earliest definite evidence fo r this figure comes from Horace Epistles 1.1.57, "Est animus tib i, sunt mores, est lingua fidesque, / sed quadringintis sex septem m ilia desunt: / plebs erit," w hich is datable to a round 23-20 BCE. 4 7 So, although the evidence fo r the fig ure o f 400,000 sesterces is w idely attested, it is not enum erated w ith any certainty before the Augustan 42Nicoiet (1984:94). 45Dio 53.2.1; 54.17.3; 55.13.6; Suetonius Augustus 41; Nicolet (1984:94-95). 44oio 54.26.4-6. 45Nicolet (1984:94-96). 46Nicolet (1984:98-99). 47Nficolet (1984:98). 173 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. period and m ay represent p a rt o f Augustus’s recalculation o f the w o rth o f Rome's elite. In any event a clear distinction in financial terms was established between the equestrian and senatorial orders. This differentiation m ay w e ll have been due to Augustus's desire to set Rome's highest order more clearly apart from the traditionally more heterogeneous equestrian order. For although in m any respects the equestrian order was, lik e the senatorial order, sim ply a subdivision of Rome's elite com prising those w ho m erely chose not to pursue a senatorial career, it was also the preserve o f richer entrepreneurs and m ore susceptible to in filtra tio n by the upw ardly m obile. Inevitably, during the period o f civil wars where fortunes w ere made and lost rap idly, the com position o f the equestrian order was liab le to rap id change. As W isem an notes, the "double standard " of équités equo publico and those possessing the equestrian census m ay have become p articu larly acute under Augustus due to the re-establishm ent o f the census. The taking o f the census in 28 BCE w ould have concretized the extent and the diversity o f those now possessing the equestrian census. Augustus in response d id increase the num ber of those entitled to the equus publicus by turning the eighteen centuries entitled to this distinction into six larger turtnae.*^ This must, how ever, s till have le ft a considerable num ber o f "second class" équités who possessed the census but were not équités equo publico . Augustus d id attem pt to regulate the membership o f the equestrian order in the same w ay as he d id th at o f the senatorial. The recognitio o f the order has already been m entioned in the context o f the transvectio. The review o f the order '^W isem an (1970:76). '^^ionysus of Halicarnassus 6.13.4; Wiseman (1970:76-77). 174 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. was probably not an annual event that took place at the same tim e as the transvectio (as O vid seems to suggest) b u t rather an event analogous to the lectio senatus. Suetonius records that Augustus created a trium virate o£ senators to assist him in the inspection o f the six turmae equitum whenever necessary ("quotiens opus asset")This level o f scrutiny appears to be confined here, as one m ight expect, to the équités equo publico, rather than to the whole body of citizens possessing the equestrian census. As in the case o f the senatorial order, Augustus's ostentatious regulation of the upper tier o f the equestrian order also took place in a context that belied his efforts to suggest sim ple continuity w ith the demographic constitution of Rome's elite in the preceding generations. The num ber of équités equo publico was expanded to take account of the increasing num ber of those who had attained the equestrian census and, as in the case o f senators, Augustus had to intervene on occasion to prevent old-established équités from sinking into obscurity. Thus, as N icolet notes, Suetonius records that équités who had been ruined by the d v il wars were afraid to sit in the fourteen equestrian rows for fear of being penalized by the lex theatralis and so Augustus was forced to issue an edict that the law should not apply to anyone who had possessed (or whose fam ily had possessed) equestrian s t a t u s . In another instance, listed under 4 CE, D io records that Augustus helped to make up the census of some young members of the equestrian order. Hence, the Augustan revival and regulation of the equestrian order was inevitably accompanied by an expansion of its numbers and a reconstitution o f 5®Suetonius Augushts 39.1; Nicolet (1984:96-97); Wiseman (1970:69). ^^Suetonius Augustus 40.1. 52Dio 54.13.6; Nicolet (1984:97). 175 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. its dem ographic Suetonius's anecdote concerning the lex theatralis suggests that the deprivations o f the d v il w ar period d id im pact Rome’s équités equo publico, and presum ably the im pact was even greater outside this elite core of équités. It was not u n til the prindpate of Tiberius th at the tw o tier system of équités was resolved. As M eyer Reinhold reports, this unification o f the equestrian order came about in 23 CE w hen a senatus consultum was proposed follow ing the complaints of a senator C. S ulpidus Galba that tradespeople and innkeepers w ere wearing the anulus aureus and acting lik e équités. The solution was that the ius anuli aurei was to be restricted to those who had not only attained the equestrian census, but also w ho w ere freebom and whose fathers and grandfathers had also been freebom.53 A lthough the Augustan prindpate has generally been characterized as oriented towards establishing clear-cut sodal hierarchies, nevertheless it seems that Augustus him self predpitated some o f the sodal confusion of this period. Thus Reinhold notes that Augustus granted equestrian status and privileges to a num ber of freedmen: Titus Vinius Philopoem en, Pompeius Menas and Antonius M u s a .^ This clim ate of sodal m obility and census establishment should be borne in m ind when reading elegy. W hen the Propertian, O vid ian or TibuUan narrator lashes out at the venality of the age and his new ly enriched erotic rivals, we should see behind the elegiac tropes, the hrustrations of a young equestrian of pedigree in seeing his inherited cultural capital being dim inished in the face of the rising tide o f sodal m obility and economic quantification. ^^Reinhold (1971:285-86); Pliny the elder Nat. Hist. 33.8.32. 54Reinhold (1971:285). 176 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Thus, w hen the O vid ian narrator launches into his diatribe at Amores 3.8.55ff. (quoted previously) th at the senate is now closed to the poor, observes "dat census honores" (55) and wishes that the greedy should at least not bid for his amores, w e m ight see this, again in Conte's term s, as a "transcodification" of the external w orld into elegiac discourse. O vid ’s rem ark "dat census honores" could w e ll be view ed as a negative assessment o f Augustus's quantification of Rome's elite in m aterial terms; it is precisely against this tide of assessing w orth in socially disem bedded terms that the elegiac narrator m ust struggle. For, although Augustus is represented, lik e the elegiac narrator, as trying to tie w orth to social distinction, he can also be view ed as creating, o r m aking worse, the situation he attem pts to control. For the establishm ent of the Pax Romana in some respects m erely served to concretize the position of the social clim bers of the d v il w ar period: as Tenney Frank elaborated, when Augustus eventually restored order and property again seemed to be a safe and sound investm ent, then inevitably real estate prices quickly r o s e . 5 5 This m eant that those w ho had bought confiscated estates, o r the estates of those w ho had been forced to sell to m eet the demands of the taxes of the period, were in a position to cash in , whereas those who had lost such property had little hope o f recovering it. N atu rally, those best positioned to enrich themselves in this w ay w ere the partisans o f the successful figures o f the d v il w ar period, who thus w ith the establishm ent of the Augustan peace form ed a new plutocratic elite. In this context. Sir Ronald Syme notes that M essalla and A grippa were given by O ctavian the house that had form erly belonged to Antony on the Palatine and that M essalla and Pollio w ere la te r referred to by Tadtus as 55prank (1940:18-19); on the rise of real estate prices see Suetonius Augustus 41.1. 177 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. "bellorum praem iis r e f e r t o s . ” 5 6 Syme further elaborates that M essalla him self took Antony's side after P h ilip p i and then switched to Octavian: in this context Messalla's coining of the phrase "desultor bellorum dviliu m " to refer to Q . D ellius m ay have seemed a touch hypocritical G iven the unusual nature o f the w ord "desultor" one is also tem pted to see O v id ’s "non sum desultor amoris" as an erotic rew orking of his patron's phrase and one w hich m ight sim ilarly m ark the com plicity of the speaker in the practice that he distances him self from.^® It is also notable th at the elegists tend always to associate w ar w ith plunder and the quest fo r m aterial advantage. Hence, Propertius at the beginning o f 3.4 clearly ascribes to Augustus a m ercenary m otive for a putative cam paign, "A nna deus Caesar dites m editatur ad Indos, " T h e god Caesar is preparing w ar against the rich Indians" (1) and further describes the enterprise as aim ing at a "magna. . . merces " (3). So too in Tibullus 1.10 the narrator states that w ar was invented because o f greed, "Divitis hoc vitiu m est auri, nec bella fu e ru n t/ faginus astabat cum scyphus ante dapes," "This is the fau lt of rich gold, there w ere no wars when a beech drinking cup stood at the sacrificial feast " (7-8). This association o f w ar and w ealth then manifests itself in the elegiac text in the figure of the riv a l dives amator of Amores 3.8 w ho is the incarnation of bloodthirsty social m obility, an eques recens sanguine pastus. The sim ilarity between this denigrated elegiac figure and the bellorum praemiis referti is striking and surely not accidental. Augustus him self was susceptible to being view ed as an opportunist leading a successful faction of other social clim bers. D uring the w ar o f words ^ y m e (1939:512); Dio 53.27.5; Tadtus Annales 11.7. 5^Syme (1939:512); Seneca the elder Snasoriae 1.7. Amores 1.3.15. 178 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. betw een Antony and O ctavian the form er attacked the sodal pedigree o f the latter referring to his ignobilitas and claim ing that his great-grandfather had been a freedm an rope-m aker and his grandfadier a m o n e y - c h a n g e r . ^ ^ Brunt states that Augustus's natural father was "a parvenu" w ho was praetor in 61 BCE.^° This may have been enough to make Augustus a nobilis technically.^^ It seems fa irly dear, how ever, that before the breakthrough o f his father O ctavian was a "mere collateral o f the consular O ctavii. " ^ ^ Thus Octavian's status o f being a nobilis through a father who was a social clim ber and a convenient adoption into the p atrid an lu lii set the ground for Antony's inaccurate but plausible rhetorical attacks. Maecenas, though a m em ber o f the Ita lia n aristocracy, was not nobilis. Q . Salvidienus Rufus and M . Vipsanius A grippa were both from fam ilies o f no previous sodal standing.^ As Seneca the elder describes him , A grippa was among the dass of people made, rather than bom , nobilis, "Erat M . A grippa inter eos qui non n ati sunt nobiles sed facti. " ^ ^ xhe form ative period o f the Augustan prind pate m ust have seen a proliferation o f such non nati nobiles sed facti: indeed the Augustan prindpate, w ith a degree o f Justification (fo r a ll Augustus's attem pts to integrate him self and his overt gestures at upholding the dig n ity of 59cicero Philippics 3.15; Suetonius Augustus 2; Brunt (1982:15). 60Brunt (1982:15). ^ISee Brunt (1982) for a greater elaboration on w hat it may have meant to be nobüis at Rome. 62Brunt (1982:3). ^^Horace refers to Maecenas in the very Rrst line o f the Odes as Maecenas atavis edite regibus”: for further information on his background see Syme (1939:129). ^'^Velleius 2.59.5; Syme (1939:129). ^^Controversiae 2.4.12. 179 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the senatorial order), could be seen as a m asterful piece o f am bitious social m obility that attem pted to reinvent the Roman nobility w ith a parvenu princeps now firm ly situated at its apex. If A grippa provides an egregious example o f a new made Augustan nobilis, then Vedius Pollio provides a sim ilar exam ple o f those who made good under the establishment of the Augustan prindpate w ith in the equestrian ranks. Vedius Pollio was, like Horace, the son o f a freedm an.^ H is w ealth was legendary, as was the size and scope o f his palatial house. The most famous anecdote concerning Pollio was that he trained lam preys to eat men and attem pted in the presence o f Augustus to feed them a slave who had broken a crystal cup.^^ This context of self-fashioned nobles and the bad taste o f the w ealthy can be seen as affording some context to the elegiac w orld of venality and the under-appredation of poetry.^® The Worth of the Equestrian Census If O vid, Propertius and Tibullus w ere equestrians d id they really need patronage, or w ere they su ffid en tly afflu en t not to have to rely on patrons for m aterial support? As outlined above, the chaos of the d v il wars, proscriptions, confiscations and heavy taxes m ust have taken a heavy to ll on large numbers o f the Ita lia n gentry: Propertius and Tibullus both refer to dim inution of ancestral estates. If all three poets had m aintained an equestrian status, then they ought at least to have been able to m eet the equestrian census requirem ent o f 400,000 ^^Described by Galinsky (1996:97) as a "shady entrepreneur." ^^Dio 54.23; Pliny the elder N H 9.77; Seneca De ira 3.40.2-3; De clem. 1.18.2; Syme (1939:410); Barton (1993:61). ^®Naturally it is itself a rhetorical and elliptical context, but if nothing else it surely does indicate areas o f contemporary social anxiety of w hich elegiac discourse is one manifestation. 180 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. sesterces. M aybe the events of the c iv il w ar dim inished ancestral w ealth so as to bring them dow n closer to tiiis m inim um . The question, then, that m ust be exam ined is w hat level of affluence a census rating o f 400,000 sesterces represents. The conclusions of Peter W hite and Richard Sailer on this issue are disparate. W hite assumes that the equestrian census represents a level of com fortable independent income: such capital w o u ld if invested at a six percent retu rn yield an annual return o f 24,000 sesterces, w hich W hite view s as an adequate sum to liv e on at Rome (w itho ut w orking), although "it w ould leave little extra. Sailer, on the other hand, notes that if the fig ure o f 400,000 sesterces was a figure that had rem ained static since the republic, then it m ay w ell not represent a great deal of money later in the em pire. This difference in perspective m ay in p art result from the fact that W hite is concentrating on the Augustan poets and Sailer is w ritin g about M artial. This returns us to the question o f w hether the figure of 400,000 sesterces was an Augustan innovation, updating an earlier low er figure, o r just the re establishm ent of a traditional republican census rating for Rome’s elite. The fact that D io records Augustus as setting 400,000 sesterces as a low figure in response to c iv il w ar deprivations m ight w ell suggest that this was a trad ition al lin e of dem arcation that he tem porarily reverted to. The question then w ou ld s till rem ain as to when such a figure was set. If it was set at the tim e of the Lex Roscia in 67 BCE, then the w ealth that such a figure represented w ould already have decreased by the Augustan period; if it was set m uch before that date then its ^ ^ h ite (1993:7): W hite’s estimation is based on Richard Duncan-Jones's estimation (1974:33) that the "long-term yield on capital, almost certainly an agricultural dividend in most cases, was commonly of the order of 5-6% in Italy." 181 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. w orth w ould have already have been m ore dim inished in proportion to the added passage of tim e: naturally, this w ould represent even m ore of a problem fo r a M a rtial than a Propertius. M atthias G elzer in his study o f the Roman nobility m entions a passage from Cicero in w hich the orator states that a man barely possessed the equestrian census and thus there was nothing that could be taken from him but his life.^o If the census at this tim e was 400,000 sesterces, then this is a reference (albeit from a senatorial perspective and w ith a rhetorical agenda to fu lfill) to the relative low value of this figure even in the tim e of Cicero. Brunt's view is that the equestrian census was "not a high qualification; a gentlem an needed 600,000 a year to live in luxury, 100,000 w ith economy (Cic. parad. 19). A ll em inent Equités m ust have had far more than the m inim um ."^' How ever, as W isem an notes, A tticus, a notable eques, lim ited his expenses to 36,000 a year. The Contrast in Poetic Practitioners Juvenal in his seventh Satire presents two contrasting images o f the poet: one pole is represented by Lucan, "Contentus fama iaceat Lucanus in hortis/m am oreis," "Let Lucan content w ith jama lie in his m arble gardens" (7.79- 80). Marcus Annaeus Lucanus was the nephew o f the younger Seneca, a member o f Nero's entourage and of senatorial rank: according to the Vita Lucani he was made by Nero part o f his œhors amicorum and granted the quaestorship. Lucan's father, unlike his tw o brothers, retained his equestrian rank and held some equestrian procuratorships. Lucan, then, came from a w ealthy background, the ^^Gelzer (1969:10); Cicero ad Fam. 9.13.4. ^^Brunt (1967:117 n. 1) quoted in Wiseman (1970:77). 182 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. privileged inheritor o f the fruits o f the successful sodal clim bing o f the pro vin d al Annaei. For Juvenal, then, Lucan epitom izes a w ealthy independent poet. Such a poet, freed from any fin and al anxiety, is at leisure to use his poetry as an instrum ent to pursue Jama rather than m aterial enhancem ent Lucan is contrasted first to tw o poets called Serranus and Saleius, "Serrano tenuique S aleio / gloria quantalibet quid erit, si gloria tantum est?" "For w hat w ill glory be to Serranus and Saleius, however much glory it m ay be, if it is only glory?" (7.80-81). C leariy, the point here is that poets who don't have the luxury of independent w ealth, also don't have the luxury o f view ing poetry as prim arily a means to enhance personal reputation; the pursuit of Jama and gloria is an aristocratic prerogative. Lucan, reclining in his m arble gardens, is then contrasted to Statius who is depicted as popular enough to attract a crowd to his readings of the Thebaid: however, to avoid going hungry Statius is represented as having to sell an Agave (presum ably a libretto) to the famous pantomimus Paris. There is, then, a pointed contrast in Juvenal's Satire between poets who, coccooned in their w ealthy retreats, can concentrate on literary Jama/gloria and poets w ho have to subordinate such considerations to the m undane m atters of getting food on the table. The social status of Statius is unclear: as in the case of Propertius, there is a reference to a golden bulla but this is not sure evidence of equestrian status.^ 2 In any event Statius, Serranus and Saleius are a ll clearly contrasted to the affluent, senatorial Lucan. This em phatic contrast between a Lucan and a Statius is a natural illustration of the theme of Juvenal's Satire that the creativity of poetry flourishes best when it is freed from the w orry of m aterial circumstances, "neque enim cantare sub an tro /P ierio thyrsum que potest contingere m aesta/paupertas atque 72s//t«e 53.116-120; W hile (1993:218). 183 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. aeris inops, quo nocte dieque/corpus e g e f' T o r it is im possible for grim poverty to sing in the cave o f the muses or to grasp the thyrsus w hen it lacks money w hich the body needs day and night" (7.59-62). To illu strate this point the narrator also includes the tw o most fam ous examples o f Augustan patronized poets, Horace and V irg il: "satur est enim cum d ic it H oratius 'euhoe!' " "For Horace was fu ll w hen he said euhoe!' " (7.62); "nam si V erg ilio puer et tolerabile desset/hospitium , caderent omnes a crinibus hydri," 'T o r if V irg il had not possessed a slave and a reasonable residence, then a ll the snakes w ould have fallen from her [the fury's] h air " (7.69-70). If no patronage is forthcom ing for the poet w ho has no independent means of support, then instead of reclining in the garden lik e Lucan, such a poet w ill be forced to earn a livin g in other ways: this is the prem ise w ith w hich the poem opens as the narrator looks to Caesar to provide the patronage w hich u ill prevent poets of note, "iam célébrés notique poetae " (7.3), from contracting for bathhouses, bakeries or becoming auctioneers. N aturally, the need for patronage is a fam iliar battle cry in the w ork of dependent poets and Maecenas typically provides a lam entably lost ideal: his provision of com fortable m aterial circumstances fo r Horace and V irg il has been noted above in Juvenal's seventh Satire, and there are sim ilar expressions elsewhere. M artial notes that there should be no surprise that there are no contem porary V irgils as there is no longer a Maecenas, the tw o are inextricably combined: sint Maecenates, non derunt, Flacce, M arones 8.56.5 Let there be Maecenates, Flaccus, and the V irg ils w on 't be lacking 184 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ris it Tuscus eques paupertatem que m alignam rep p u lit et celeri iussit abire fuga. "Acdpe divitias et vatum m axim us esto" 8.56.9-11 The Tuscan eques sm iled and drove aw ay hateful poverty and ordered it to depart in sw ift flig h t. "Receive w ealth and be the greatest o f poets." tu m ih i Maecenas tereti cantabere versu. possumus aetem ae nom en com m ittere famae Laus Pisonis 248-249 You w ill be sung in polished verse as m y Maecenas. I am able to entrust a name to lasting fam e. Inserting the Elegist into the Poetic Spectrum W here, then, does the elegist fit into Juvenal's antithetical scheme of w ealthy and im poverished poets? O ne w ould naturally suspect that a poet of equestrian status, in norm al circumstances, w ould typically fa ll somewhere in - betw een these poles. The equestrian census, I think, clearly represented a trad ition al dem arcation o f elite status: naturally, if this figure rem ained static fo r a considerable period o f tim e, w hich seems probably also to have been the case, then its w orth in capital terms w ou ld have gradually eroded. C learly, from the perspective of a w ealthy senator, a m inim um equestrian census w ould have increasingly represented a paltry sum: equally clearly, from the perspective o f a m em ber of the plebs it w ould have represented, even given tem poral erosion, a figure of substantial w ealth. It is im portant, then, to keep a sense of proportion w hen assessing com plaints about poverty in elite literature. The evidence, I think, points to a m inim um equestrian census, though a substantial sum, probably not being sufficient in itself to m aintain a poet at Rome. "A t Rome" here is an im portant qualification, for, as Richard Duncan- Jones points out, food and rent prices w ere substantially higher at Rome than 185 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. e l s e w h e r e / 3 N atu rally, the expense of livin g at Rome is also a prevalent theme in the w ork of patronized poets. G iven these circumstances, even a poet of equestrian standing m ay w ell have needed patronage in order to devote him self entirely to literary com position and live in a style befitting a m em ber of the elite at Rome. One should, o f course, be w ary o f taking the protestations of patronized poets sim ply a t face value, fo r clearly they had a vested interest in em phasizing the cost o f liv in g in the city nevertheless, it seems a reasonable assumption (even given the im portance o f social netw orking), as Sailer says, th a t "if M a rtial had an adequate independent income, it is hard to believe that he w o u ld have endured the social obligations of the Roman client. ' ^ ^ The elegiac poets, however, m ight w ell represent a greater level o f affluence than M artial: the equestrian census would clearly have been w orth m ore in the 20’s BCE then it w ould have been in the 90 s CE. H ow ever, the particular circumstances of this period m ay w ell have reduced such members of the Italian gentry to a low er level of m aterial w ell being and hence to a greater dependence on patronage. Some Conclusions The elegiac narrator appears, in his Propertian and TibuUan m anifestations, to be constructed as an equestrian or m em ber of the Italian gentry who has suffered m aterial deprivation in the late c iv il w ar period before the rise of Augustus. The O vidian narrator makes no specific reference to a reduction in circumstances but does present him self as o f a long established ^^Duncan-Jones (1974:345-47). 7'^Duncan-Jones refers to Juvenal Satires 3.165-67; M artial 4.66; 10.96. 75SaUer(1983:250n.26). 186 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. equestrian fam ily and poor. Although there is no need to connect the presentation o f textual characters w ith the realities of their authors, nevertheless it seems that elegiac discourse does depend fo r m any o f its effects on precisely such a conflation of the intra-textual narrator and the extra-textual poet. It seems likely, therefore, that the confiscations and ruinous taxation o f the pre-Augustan period can be understood as historidzing the textually pauperous elegiac narrator (o f course such poverty can be seen sim ply as the conventional attributes of both the lover and the poet but even conventions take on added resonances in the rig ht historical circumstances). Such a historical context serves to give point to elegy's erotic narrative: a young equestrian of established lineage struggles to gain sexual patronage; his potential patrons do not always value his cultural capital above the greater m aterial resources o f his parvenu rivals; the elegist curses the new ly rich and the socially upw ardly m obile and a w orld that seems to becoming rap id ly disembedded. The upheavals of the pre-Augustan years and the concretization of such social changes in the Augustan prindpate (even as Augustus ostentatiously denied them) can be seen to be absorbed and allegorized in elegy’ s erotic narratives that are produced by a patronized equestrian poet of the period. In the next chapter I w ant to move on to exam ine how the Augustan period also produced opportunities for poetic sodal advancement and to see how elegy fits into this scheme of poetic am bition in the clim ate of a Pax Augusta and an o ffid al embrace of otium. 187 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER SIX Elegiac Ambition: A Career of Otium In this chapter I w an t to exam ine furth er the historical conditions contemporaneous to the production o f elegiac verse and to d raw some connections between social circumstances and this form o f poetic com position. In particular, I w ill be focusing on the establishm ent o f the Pax Augusta and an o fficial clim ate o f otium as elem ents that prom ote a natural setting for the prom otion of literary activities. The connection between otium and literatu re m eant in turn that literary production could be view ed as both a sym ptom o f the establishm ent of the p rin d p ate, and a validation of its capadty to produce pax et quies. In this clim ate literatu re became a means to sodal advancem ent and the recovery o f m aterial resources lost du rin g the deprivations o f the late d v il w ar period. In addition, as the p rin d p ate involved an appropriation o f the negotia of the Roman elite, the space o f otium became proportionately more im portant and developed as an alternate arena fo r aristocratic display and distinction. The elegist, to the extent that he can be equated w ith an elegiac narrator w ho appears to be presented as an im poverished m em ber of an established equestrian fam ily, can thus be view ed as attem pting both to recover lost functionality and to pursue gloria through poetic means. The Pax Augusta Augustus d e a rly view ed as one o f his m ajor achievements the establishm ent o f peace in the Rom an w orld: thus in the Res Gestae he m entions both his personal responsibility fo r ending d v il strife, "postquam bella d v ilia 188 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. exstinxeram," "after I had p u t an end to d v il wars" (34.1), and the closing o f the doors o f the tem ple o f Janus: lanum Q uirinum , quern daussum esse m aiores no stii voluerunt cum per totum im perium po pu li Rom ani terra m arique esset parta victoriis pax, cum , piiusquam nascerer, a condita urbe bis omnino dausum fuisse prodatur m em oriae, ter me p rin d p e senatus daudendum esse censuit Res Gestae 13 The tem ple o f Janus Q uirinus w hich our ancestors w ished to be dosed w hen peace had been w on by victories by land and sea throughout the w hole em pire o f the Roman people, before m y birth it is recorded that it was dosed a total o f tw o tim es in the period from the foundation o f the d ty , w hile I was princeps the senate voted three tim es that it ought to be dosed. Even Tadtus d id not doubt the v a lid ity o f the Pax Augusta, although he points to the violence that accompanied its establishm ent, "pacem sine dubio post haec, verum cruentam," "there was peace w ithout a doubt after these things, but in tru th a bloody one" {Annales 1.10): in sim ilar vein Seneca the younger refers to Augustus's dementia as "exhausted cruelty" w hich was only exercised after the excesses of Actium , the w ar w ith Sextus Pompeius, Perusia and the proscriptions.^ The establishment o f the Pax Augusta, how ever, d id not mean an absence of w ar, it sim ply indicated its rem oval to an appropriate sphere, the frontiers of the em pire and beyond: w ith in the em pire peace acquired through vid o ry ( "pax victoriis parta") prevailed. Peace and Otium Pax and otium can function alm ost as synonyms in Latin.^ Hence, the establishment of the Pax Augusta naturally also led to an imperium Romanum ^Seneca de Cletn. 11. 189 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. otiosum. The Augustan achievem ent was, in a sense, precisely the provision of otium for the inhabitants o f the imperium Romanum. Otium as a concept adm its o f a variety o f interpretations.^ It can refer on the level o f the state to "internal tran q u illity as distinct from peace on the frontiers," "peace and freedom from disturbance," "relief after war."'* O n the level of the in d ivid u al it signifies " private' or retired ', as opposed to active public life .' It was the state o f the m an who turned his back on public life , and it was also the state o f the m an w ho had played his fu ll part in public life and retired from it." 5 Otium is thus a state that can be used to describe both the in d ivid u al, and the collective of individuals, the state. Otium was not, then, a m onolithic concept and it is often found in conjunction w ith other nouns and adjectives to help define the particular nuance intended. Thus the otium of an in d ivid u al m ay be described as honestum, w here the adjective, as VVirszubski says, "marks o ff this otium from sheer idleness, o r unbecoming pursuits. Honestum otium is how Cicero typically refers to his ow n literary pursuits during his retirem ent from politics brought on by the rise o f the first trium virate and the dom ination of Caesar. H ow ever, such otium, although it m ight be honestum, could s till be described as otium sine dignitate. The concept o f otium cum dignitate is most fu lly developed by Cicero, especially in the Pro S estio."^ W irszubski concludes that this ^See section 4a under otium in the OCD; also W irszubski (1954:4). ^See Wirszubski (1954); Balsdon (1960). '* Wirszubski (1954:4); Balsdon (1960:47). ^Balsdon (1960:47). ^Wirszubski (1954:12). ^For more detailed analysis o f this concept see W irszubski (1954); Balsdon (1960); Wood (1988): it seems unclear whether the phrase was invented by Cicero or is a preexisting political slogan. 190 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. phrase signifies "leisure eiqoyed in the m idst of an active and successful political career."® Thus, w ith the increasing autocracy of Caesar, Cicero was forced into a position w here his exclusion from active politics m eant that his otium was honestum but sine dignitate. The rise of Augustus can be view ed as producing an analogous situation to that w hich Cicero laments under Caesar. Tacitus fam ously noted that Augustus "cunctos dulcedine o tii pellexit," "seduced everyone by the sweetness o f otium " (Annales 1.2). The Augustan policy here can be seen as analogous to that w hich W irszubski says Cicero pursued as consul in 63 BCE, "Aw are that tran q u illity and peace bom of c iv il concord w ere the most popular things at Rome, Cicero declared him self a popular consul in the sense that he intended to be a patron of peace and concord, and by promises of pax, tranquillitas and otium endeavored to w in the confidence of the people as w ell as its support fo r the rejection o f Rullus' land bill."^ The provision o f otium was thus a rallying call fo r both populares and optimales, w ith the difference being, as Cicero w ould have it, that the optimales w ould provide otium cum dignitate, whereas the populares w ould produce otium sine dignitate. This difference in turn, again as represented by Cicero, corresponds to the w ish of the optimales to preserve the status quo and the willingness o f the populares to compromise the republican form of government fo r their ow n personal advantage. C learly, from the Ciceronian perspective, w hich Tacitus perpetuates, the otium provided by Augustus was sine dignitate, as the internal stability provided by the Pax Augusta was at the price both o f the ability o f the senatorial elite to ®VVirszubski (1954:12). ^Wirszubski (1954:6). 191 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. participate as effectively as it was used to in politics and also at the cost o f the republican constitution itself. Hence, Tacitus sees the concretization of the prind pate as effecting a dram atic constitutional and behavioral metamorphosis, "verso d vitatis statu n ih il usquam prisd et integri moris" {Annales 1.4) that the surviving members o f Rome's elite colluded in: "ceteri nobilium , quanto quis servitio prom ptior, opibus et honoiibus extollerentur ac novis ex rebus aucti tuta et praesentia quam vetera et periculosa m allent" {Annales 1.2). Thus, as Tadtus sees it, Augustus seduced an enervated Rom an elite w ith the security of otium^ but this was an otium that was tantam ount to servitium. The potential o f otium and servitium to collide sem antically may w e ll have provided the basis fo r the w ord to be induded in the battle cries of both optimales and populares. Thus in the Oratio Lepidi attributed to Sallust the phrase "otium cum servitio " is " put into the m outh of the popularis Lepidus.''^^ Cicero's otium cum dignitate could also be view ed pejoratively as a form of servitium, hence leading to the counter slogan found in the same speech o f " quies et otium cum libertate.""ii Augustus naturally, given the precedent of Caesar, chose to emphasize continuity w ith the republican system. Thus, Cicero could be recuperated as a positive example: hence, the famous story that Augustus was visiting one o f his grandsons and surprised him as he was reading a book o f Cicero s. The boy tried to hide the book under his do ak only for Augustus to take it o ff him , read most ^^Wirszubski (1954:5). W irszubski (1954:5) notes, it is uncertain whether these phrases represent accepted political slogans dating back to the tim e of Lepidus's speech (78 BCE) and beyond or are the invention of Sallust specifically designed to counter Cicero's "otium cum dignitate." 192 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. of it, and hand it back w ith the words "a learned m an and a lover of his country." This appropriation o f the Ciceronian legacy is also dear in w hat Plutarch relates as the last portion o f his life o f the orator. Augustus m ade Cicero's son his consular colleague in 30 BCE: during this period the senate rem oved a ll statues o f A ntony, repealed any honors given to him , and decreed that no future m em ber o f the fam ily should bear the nam e M arcus. Thus, this form of damnatio memoriae th at was inflicted on A ntony was neatly deflected aw ay from Augustus onto Cicero's son where it could be justified as another act o f filia l piety analogous to Octavian's revenge on the killers o f Caesar. Yet, more im portantly, by sharing a consulship w ith Cicero's son, Augustus was doing the next best thing to sharing a consulship w ith Cicero him self, the now validated m odel o f constitutional propriety and otium cum dignitate. In this w ay, the establishm ent o f the Pax Augusta and its attendant otium could be presented as a realization o f a Ciceronian otium aim dignitate: an establishm ent o f peace and repose in the context o f a revival of the true republican constitution and traditional Rom an m orality and behavior. If from a staunchly republican, senatorial perspective the Augustan restoration could be view ed as a sham th at produced an otium cum seroitio, it could also surely be seen (to the extent that they had not internalized a senatorial perspective) by those outside this narrow band o f elite Romans to be a positive quality: it, after a ll, m ade little difrerence to most Romans whether otium was provided by the autho rity o f one m an or by an oligarchy of nobiles. For the m ajority o f Romans otium cum dignitate was never a possibility as they could ^^Plutarch Cicero 49. ^^Plutarch Cicero 49. 193 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. never attain dignitas anyw ay. The rise o f the prind pate sim ply meant that Rome's senatorial elite w ere being asked to sw allow the same m yth that they had always forced upon Rome's low er orders, nam ely that the otium provided by an authoritative and hierarchical system was a good thing fo r everyone. Tadtus's comments on the culpability of Rome's nobiles in acquiescing to such a state of affairs also produce a heavily slanted perspective on w hat may w ell have seemed, in the context o f tw enty years o f d v il w ar, a reasonable compromise: stability and a cessation of intem edne strife in exchange fo r the im position of a new apex on Rome's sodal pyram id. For those below the senatorial level, surely the quies et otium of the Pax Augusta w ere w h o lly positive qualities. This m ay have been particularly true of the equestrian order who were almost by defin itio n a dass of Romans who lived their lives in a state o f quies et otium. The rise o f the Augustan prindpate m eant secure conditions fo r this order to pursue its business interests in Ita ly and the provinces, and to enjoy the privileges o f elite status w ithout molestation. N atu rally, it was somewhat paradoxical that the figure now offering the promise of such quies et otium was the same m an w ho had been, at least p artially, responsible for the deprivations effected upon the equestrians during the late d v il w ar period. C learly, this w ould account fo r a somewhat am bivalent attitude to O ctavian / Augustus, one w hich seems read ily discernible at times in elegy w hich was produced in the early years of the prind pate when the effectiveness and sincerity of the transition ffom triumvir to pater patriae was being a s s e s s e d . l^Also, elegy may be symptomatic of some equestrian dissatisfaction (particularly among the youthful) over Augustus's attempt to legislate elite m orality and appropriate equestrian otium. This w ill be discussed in more detail in chapter ten. 194 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Literature and otium Literary endeavor in general, as it takes place in the tim e o f otium, cannot be deemed as im portant as activities that partake in the Rom an sphere of negotium. From a trad itio n al Roman perspective the space o f otium could only be enjoyed as an earned respite from the activities of negotium. Thus, as described above, otium could be validated in tw o forms: as otium honestum, the earned leisure of the retired statesman, or as otium cum dignitate, the leisure o f a s till active, influen tial and respected statesman. O f these tw o options, natu rally the latter was to be preferred. Hence, the ideal interface between the worlds o f otium and negotium seems to be expressed in the reports o f the relaxation of Laelius and Scipio in the country reported in Horace and Cicero. In Horace Satires 2.1 the narrator describes the tw o statesmen relaxing w ith Ludlius in the fo llo w in g m aim er, "nugari cum illo et disdncti ludere, donee/ decoqueretur holus, soliti," "They were in the habit o f triflin g and jesting at ease w ith him w h ile th e ir vegetables were stewing" (73-74).^^ Here statesmen taking a break from the rigors o f negotium descend into the w orld of otium w hich expressly contains literary activity, As elaborated at m ore length above, w hat Cicero lam ented about his own otium enforced by the increasing autocracy of the late republic was that it was honestum but not cum dignitate. Thus, he complains during the dictatorship of Caesar w hich facilitates his literary activity by reducing his p o litical role, that this is a perversion o f traditional otium, for it is not leisure as the occasional l^See Wagenvoort (1978:35); Richlin (1992c 179). ^^Nitgari and ludere can t>oth indicate literary composition. Perhaps the most famous reference to poems as niigae occurs in Catullus 1. 195 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. respite from public affairs, b u t rather an otium brought on by a negotii inopiaP In sim ilar fashion, w hen Cicero is being quizzed by his brother Q uintus in the De Legibus about his ow n plans fo r literary com position, the orator says that he has been relying on the freedom afforded by old age, "Ego vero aetatis potius vacationi confidebam ," "Rather, I was relying on the freedom afforded to age" (1.10). Cicero has just argued that literary com position depends upon "vacuum tempus et liberum "; one m ust be free from the w orry and business o f everyday political hfe, "utrum que opus es^ et cura vacare e t negotio" (1.8). The orator's com position so far, he says, has been fitted into the few spare moments that his active political life has afforded, "subsidva. . . tem pora " (1.9). If quies, otium, and a reduction in the burden of negotium w ere necessary prerequisites fo r literary production, then the establishm ent o f the Augustan prind pate, like the dictatorship o f Caesar, produced circumstances (albeit by default from a senatorial perspective) condudve to the production o f elite literature. Inasm uch as the Augustan prindpate involved an appropriation and filtra tio n o f the negotia that was the traditional province o f the senate, then the prom otion of literatu re in this period could be view ed as a means of compensation fo r lost influence, and a deflection o f the energies that would norm ally have been fu lly channeled into senatorial negotiaA^ Hence, the pronounced literary patronage o f the A ugustan period may indicate both a deliberate deflection of elite energies and also a desire to use literatu re m ore generally as an indication of the pervasiveness o f the quies et otium of the period. S im ilarly, the great literary patrons o f the period aside from ^ ^Cicero De Officiis 3 2 . ^^Augustus's appropriation of the functions and powers of traditional republican magistrates is treated at length in Lacey (19% ); see also Eder (1% 0). 196 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Augustus, such as Maecenas, M essalla and Pollio, can be seen as either deliberately prom oting or internalizing Augustan otium. In this context it is w orth rem em bering that Asinius Pollio, a contem porary o f Augustus, is credited by the elder Seneca as having been the firs t Roman to recite his ow n w ork to an invited audience, "prim us enim om nium Romanorum advocatis hom inibus scripta sua recitavit" {Controoersiae 4 pref. 2). Seneca quotes at this point Labienus saying that Asinius ("ille trium phalis senex") d id not declaim in public. Seneca believed that this was probably because he thought declam ation was a type o f perform ance below him , "tantus orator inferius id opus ingenio suo duxit, e t exerceri quidem illo volebat, g lo riari fastidiebat," "So great an orator thought that task inferior to his talents and he w ished to use it as exercise but disdained to take any pride in it" {Controversiae 4 pref. 2). The same is reported elsewhere of Labienus him self, "Non adm ittebat populum et quia nondum haec consuetudo erat inducta et quia putabat turpe ac frivolae iactationis," "He was not in the habit o f letting in the public both because this practice had not yet been introduced and because he thought it sham eful and a m atter of boastful trifling" (Controversiae 10 pref. 4). The comment concerning Labienus that the practice of public declam ation had not yet developed and the contrast draw n between Asinius's introduction o f recitation and his disdain of declam ation point to the varied developm ent o f verbal practices during the Augustan period. C learly, to a man of senatorial standing, recitation before an invited audience was regarded as a more appropriate a c tiv i^ than public declam ation w hich also appears to be in a form ative stage. This validation o f recitation w ould be in keeping udth Florence 197 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. D upont’s analysis of the recitatio as a practice that grew up to compensate fo r a loss in the prestige and influence o f republican oratio.^^ The grow th o f the practice of the recitatio can thus be view ed as a part o f the Augustan clim ate that prom oted otium and its natural corollary, literary com position. If declam ation in its early stages was more susceptible to aristocratic disdain, its popularity grew rap id ly and aristocrats such as Asinius Pollio and Messalla (as w ell, o f course, as Augustus him self) are certainly presented by Seneca as taking a liv e ly interest in proceedings, if not perform ing themselves.20 This intensification and diversification o f verbal practices during the Augustan period can also be related to Horace's comments on w hat he describes as a scribendi studio: m utavit mentem populus levis et calet uno scribendi studio; pueri patresque severi fironde comas vincti cenant et carmina dictant. Epistles 2.1.108-110 The fickle populace has changed its inclination and bums w ith an enthusiasm for w riting; boys and stem fathers, heads wreathed, dine and dictate. One need not o f course take Horace’s image of a Rome consumed u ith a passion fo r w ritin g at face value. H ow ever, one should also not just dismiss its potential referentiality. Such an image of Rome is a natural developm ent of the Augustan provision of quies et otium and the high p rofile literary patronage of the period: such patronage, approved of and practiced by Augustus him self, naturally w ould have been subject to em ulation by Rome’ s elite and thus sparked an upsurge of literary activity such as Horace describes (albeit in a probably ^^Dupont (1997). ^ORichlin (1997; 95) describes the situation: "this august circle is following, like sports fans, questions of style among declaimers." 198 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. exaggerated form that was o f course a com plim ent to Augustan pax m asquerading as an ironic rebuke). The poetic praise o f Augustan otium is perhaps most fam ously expressed by V irg il at Eclogues 1.6, "deus nobis haec o tia fecit," "a god has made this otium fo r me."2i S im ilarly, in the fin al poem o f his last book o f Odes, Horace stresses the dependency o f such otium upon the person o f the princeps: custode rerum Caesare non furor d v ilis aut vis exiget otium , non ira, quae procudit enses et m iseras inim icat urbes 4.15.17-18 W ith Caesar guarding affairs, neither c iv il madness, nor violence, nor anger w hich forges swords and sets w retched cities at odds. A t the same tim e as the poet praises the achievem ent o f the establishment o f Augustan otium, he is naturally also praising the circumstances that enable his ow n literary endeavors, as is m ade exp licit in V irg il, "ille. . . ipsum /ludere quae vellem calamo perm isit agresti," "he allow ed m e to play w hat 1 w ant on m y ru ral reed" {Eclogues 1.9-10). The Poetic Path to Success From the perspective of later patronized poets, the Augustan age represents a watershed in the m aterial support o f lite ra ry artists. The much trum peted establishm ent of the Pax Augusta led to a deliberate attem pt to revivify Rome's cultural life and artistic achievem ents, as the flourishing of artistic production at Rome w ould in itself be seen as a further indication o f the As noted earlier, the context of confiscations to w hich Augustus was party inevitably lends a certain ambivalence to such expressions that always produces the possibility of a negative reading (whether intentional or not). For a representative example of a negative reading of Eclogues 1 see Boyle (1986:15ff.) 199 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. success o f the Augustan consolidation. This in turn m eant that the possibilities o f m aterial advancem ent through poetry w ould have been increased. This clim ate o f potential im perial patronage is figured by Horace in the Ars Poetica in the follow ing term s, "cum speramus eo rem venturam u t, sim ul atque/carm ina resderis nos fingere, commodus ultro/arcessas et egere vetes et scribere cogas," "when we hope it w ill come to this state o f affairs, that, as soon as you fin d out that we are composing verse, that you w ü l gratuitously and courteously sum m on us, ban our poverty and com pel us to w rite" (226-228). The description o f poetic possibilities here is analogous to the description of the opportunities afforded by declam ation by the elder Seneca. Patrick Sinclair describes this situation: "Like Caesar before him , Augustus cultivated the loyalties of talented provincials. O n occasion he attended declam atory performances w hen he was in the provinces and in this w ay the schools of declam ation became a sort of star-search" for up-and-com ing public officials." 22 O bviously, the expectations o f the poets are presented as generally unrealistic in the H oratian passage. How ever, the exam ple of Horace him self and V irg il m ust have encouraged such aspirations to m aterial and social advancem ent through poetry. Horace states quite exp licitly elsewhere that he pursued poetry as a means to counter financial hardship: unde sim ul prim um m e dim isere P h ilip p i, decisis hum ilem permis inopem que patem i et laris et fundi; paupertas im p u lit audax u t versus facerem. Epistles 2.2.49-52 As soon as P h ilipp i discharged m e, low w ith clipped wings and lacking in a paternal home and estate, bold poverty drove me to compose poetry. 22sindair (1994:96). 200 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Horace's adm ission of the functionality o f his poetry here is striking. Poetic com position is presented quite frankly as a means to escape from the poverty trap that the c iv il w ar era has occasioned. E llen Oliensis astutely notes of these verses that "Horace can only purport to expose the m ercenary m otive of his verse w hen he is w ritin g to a m an to whom he is in no w ay indebted. "^ In effect these lines allow us to see behind the facade o f the niceties o f literary exchange: Horace represents him self as having turned to poetry in an attem pt to recover his depleted finances and recover lost functionality^ w ith in society. Oliensis also notes this m ay w ell be a defensive mechanism: "Horace's best defense often consists o f such self-w ounding gestures, gestures that can be neither taken at face value nor entirely d is c o u n te d .If Horace, how ever, was ironically portraying him self as a self-interested social clim ber, then he was treading a fine line: for there is little to prevent one actually seeing Horace in this ligh t and the poet's candid adm ission m ight be view ed as little m ore than a diversionary tactic. Irony, after a ll, only works if it can be perceived as ironic. In another article on Horace's Satires Oliensis has pointed out that the three m ain satiric speakers of Satires 2, O fellus, Dam asippus, and Davus, are a ll characterized as "victims of m isfortune" w ho use satire to try to im prove their position: naturally, this reflects upon Horace him self, w ho likew ise uses his poetic, satiric talents to repair his ow n losses incurred during the trium viral p erio d .^ Horace even dram atizes this situation in Satires 1.9 where the H oratian narrator is presented as attem pting to w ard o ff an am bitious poetic aspirant to 23oiiensis (1998:13). 24oiiensis (1998:13). 25oiiensis (1997a). 201 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the patronage o f M a e c e n a s . 2 6 As Oliensis notes, the am bitious interlocutor manages to ruffle the H o ratian narrator's feathers by both introducing Maecenas into the conversation and suggesting that Horace him self is an excellent role model fo r the opportunistically upw ardly m obile, "nemo dexterius fortuna est usus," "Nobody has used his luck more skillfu lly ” (45). N a tu ra lly , the H oratian narrator quickly tries to dispel this image of the circle o f Maecenas as a group of self-am bitious social clim bers, "non isto vivim us illic / quo tu rere modo, " "We don't liv e there how you m ight think" (48-49). This response, how ever, only draws further incredulity from the interlocutor, "m agnum narras, vix credibile," "W hat a story, barely credibile " (52). As Oliensis rem arks, "Horace's companion and m any o f Horace's readers may not be convinced by Horace's protestations, how ever rhetorically m arked as "heartfelt" they m ay b e . " 2 7 Thus, Horace presents him self as in an impossible position: nobody is going to believe he is not a self-serving literary entrepreneur even if he isn't. H ow ever, the reader should also be cautious of being m anipulated into a position where acknowledgm ent o f the awkwardness of Horace's position is allow ed to entirely dispel the possibility o f the poet's mercenary motives. If the elegist, like Horace or V irg il, was faced w ith m aterial deprivation during the d v il w ar period, and this dearly seems to be a narrative scenario even if it does not necessarily reflect the situation of the external poet, then his poetic narrative can also be read in terms of poetic functionality. This is perhaps best expressed in Tibullus 2.4: 26por two analyses o f this poem see Henderson (1993), Oliensis (1998:36-39). 27oiiensis (1998:39). 202 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ite procul, M usae, si non prodestis am anti: non ego vos u t sint bella canenda coIo, nec refero Solisque vias et quails, u b i orbem com plevit, versis Luna recu rrit equis. ad dom inum faciles aditus per carm ina quaero: ite procul, M usae, si n ih il ista valent. 2.4.15-20 Begone M uses, if you are o f no advantage to a lo v e r I don't cultivate you so that I can sing o f w ars, nor do I relate the nature o f the sun's paths or w hen the m oon has fille d her orb and ru n back again w ith her horses turned around. I seek through song an easy adm ission to m y mistress: begone Muses, if those tunes o f yours have no force. Here poetry is presented in as candidly a pragm atic m anner as it is in Horace Epistles 2.2. The function o f poetry is to get fo r its composer som ething he wants: in this instance sex, in the case o f Horace m aterial advancem ent. G iven the allegorical parallels draw n betw een elegiac patronage and general literary patronage in chapter fo u r, it also seems clear that elegiac narrative could be read as a sexualized allegory o f this social dynamic. As a fu rth er instance o f this allegorization one m ight even consider the term 's words to the puella in Atnores 1.8 concerning poetic gifts, "amatoris m ilia m ulta leges, " "You w ill read m any thousands o f those lover's lines " (57), as a generic incorporation o f the "scribendi studio " th at Horace elaborates in Epistles 2.1. Rome's patrons, erotic and otherwise, are represented as being under literary siege. In this case the elegists" attem pts to protect th eir relationship w ith the domitm can be seen as analogous to the H o ratian narrator's attem pt in Satires 1.9 to w ard o ff a lite ra ry pretender. The eagerness o f Horace's interlocutor in Satires 1.9 to break into the circle of Maecenas through poetic means, "si bene me novi, non Viscum p lu iis am icum ,/non V ariu m facies: nam quis me scribere p lu ris /a u t d tiu s possit versus," "If I appraise m yself correctly, you w ill not value Viscus or Varius more 203 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. as a friend: fo r w ho is able to w rite m ore verses o r compose m ore rap id ly than I" {Satires 1.9.22-24), is a representation of a contem porary perception that saw poetry as a means to social advancem ent Horace is w ell aw are, how ever he tries to ironize the circumstances, that he him self is an egregious exam ple of how to get ahead through poetry. Horace, as the son o f a freedm an, was certainly not a natural m em ber o f the Rom an elite: he had, however, obtained equestrian status in the confusion o f the c iv il w ar period through serving as a m ilita ry tribune in the arm y o f Brutus {Sermones 1.6.48). Thus, he had already p rofited (albeit precariously) from the tu rm o il and social confusion of the late c iv il w ar period. H is unfortunate choice o f w hich side to fight on at P h ilip p i m eant that subsequently he had to turn to poetry to continue his ascent o f Rome's social pyram id. The other most fam ous patronized poet of the period, V irg il, offers a sim ilar story. V irg il is described as "dignitate eques Romanus" in the Vita Bemensis?-^ A t the beginning o f the Vita Vergili, however, it is asserted that V irg il came from hum ble parents, especially his father, who, according to some, was a potter (1): it w ould seem lik e ly , then, that if V irg il ever held equestrian status it w ^ a s a result of his literary recognition. Later patronized poets also provide evidence of poetic social clim bing. In Juvenal’s seventh Satire, after the narrator describes Statius selling an Agave to Paris, he then lists the latter’ s services as including the prom otion o f a poet to the equestrian order, "semenstri digitos vatum drcum ligat auro," "in six months he encircles the fingers o f poets w ith gold" (7.89): a m ilitary tribune became an equestrian after six m onths' service, the practice o f conferring honorary m ilitary 28See W hite (1993:222). 204 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. tribuneships and hence equestrian rank seems to have begun w ith Claudius. This is w hat happened to M a rtia l under D om itian. In this respect the Augustan prindpate, as it d id on various levels, may have functioned as an approved m odel fo r Rome's later principes. Thus, later patronized poets could set out a pattern o f conspicuous literary patronage as a yardstick o f im perial success and propriety, which appears to be precisely the tactic of Juvenal Satires 7. The elegiac narrator's incarnation as a member of the Ita lia n gentry (as elaborated in the previous chapter) accounts fo r his hostility to the sodal climbers o f the post d v il w ar years: the elegist displays an aristocrat's typical disdain for the nouveau riche and the sodally m obile. M oreover, to the extent that elegy can be read as an allegory o f literary patronage, then the narrator's distaste for recentes équités m ight also be seen as a textualization o f a resentment over literary sodal climbers such as Horace. C ertainly, if, as seems probable, the elegiac poet of Epistles 2.2.91ff. w ith whom the H oratian narrator contends is Propertius, then there is, as Horace represents the scene, a degree o f com petitive needling between the two: indeed, competing authors are com pared in this scene to battling gladiators, "caedimur et totidem plagis consumimus hostem /lento Samnites ad lum ina prim a duello, " "we are knocked around and w ear dow n the enemy w ith exchanged volleys of blows like Samnites in a battle lasting till nightfall" (97-98). Horace's com parison o f riv a l poets to gladiators is also an image that recurs frequently in Seneca the elder's description of competing gladiators.^ ^^For a reading of Juvenal's seventh Satire as a criticism of imperial patronage (Paris, after all, is taking the place of the emperor here) see Bartsch (1994: ch. 4). ^^Hence, the subsection of Patrick Sinclair's article (1994:97-103) entitled "Rhetorical Gladiators: 'M aking it' under the Prindpate." 205 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Poetry, fo r a ll Horace's attem pts to suggest otherw ise, was also under the early p rin d p ate a com petitive arena fo r gaining sodal distinction and m aterial advance. The assodation of verbal practitioners w ith gladiators, as w ith the analogy to prostitutes, demonstrates how easily poetry could be assim ilated to professional activities that conferred infimtia on their partidpants (elegy’s relation to an aristocratic trend to balance self-glorification against the possibility of incurring infamia w ill be discussed more fu lly in the fin al two chapters). Horace's choice o f literary genres, % tire and ly ric , could also be view ed as an act of sodal aspiration. By taking Ludlius as a poetic m odel for satiric com position and Alcaeus as his lyric precursor, Horace was aligning him self expressly w ith a mode o f aristocratic poetic com position, a mode o f com position that fitte d in w ith Cicero's validated categories of otium honestum and otium aim dignitate. N atu rally, Horace was self-aware enough to realize that he could never really be an aristocrat w ritin g poetry, but he could at least attem pt to be a poetic aristocrat: a situation that could be brought about not only by professionalizing' literatu re through a Callim achean discrim ination that w ould m ake literatu re the province of the docti but also through the internalization by such non-aristocratic docti of the values and prejudices o f the aristocracy. Horace, notably, displays the same type o f preference fo r the recitatio to larger scale readings that is apparent in Asinius PoUio's willingness to redte to an in vited audience bu t not to declaim in public. Horace, then, from the perspective of the elegists, may w ell have been view ed as not only a sodal clim ber but also as an interloper in the predom inantly aristocratic w orld o f literary otium. Com position in the forms of verse assodated w ith the ludus poeticus was trad ition ally at Rome the province of 206 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. otf-d u ty aristocrats, rather than lower-class literary artisans.^' Horace's invasion and appropriation o f this space could be seen as a deliberate attem pt to tu rn a sphere o f aristocratic otium in to an alternate space of poetic negotium, Horace's attem pt to then present his poetic activities as socially integrated w ith a trad ition al aristocratic ethos could be fu rth er considered as a m ystification o f this self-interested appropriation. Horace, in fact, was engaged here in a very Augustan m ove, masking disjunction w ith continuity. A lthough the elegists w ere m arked o ff from a Horace in th eir inherent social distinction, their elite sneer a t social climbers may w e ll have been com prom ised by the historical circumstances o f the period. For, as set out in the last chapter, confiscations and ruinous taxation of the late c iv il wars doubtless reduced members of Italy's e lite to the same sort of pauperous conditions w hich Horace says initiated his poetic endeavors. In this m anner the elegists m ay w e ll have been caught up in the double m ovem ent o f the Augustan period. O n the one hand, the representations o f the elegiac narrator in Propertius and Tibullus suggest a need sim ilar to that expressed in Horace for poetry to be used as a means to counter reduced m aterial circumstances, and on the other hand the elegists become caught up in the developm ent of poetry as an alternate space fo r expressing elite social distinction. L iterary Ambitio W hen Seneca the elder m entions Asinius PoUio's introduction of the recitatio before an invited audience, he notes, "nec illi am bitio in studiis defuit," "he d id n 't lack am bition in lite ra ry m atters " {Controoersiae 4 pref. 2). The prim ary realm of signification for the term ambitio is the republican w orld o f Roman ^^The relation of the elegists to the ludm poeticus w ill be discussed in more detail in chapter nine. 207 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. politics, the noun being related to the verb antbire indicating the m otion necessary fo r the canvassing of votes in the republican period. The transference o f this term by Seneca into the realm o f literary studies m ay be telling w ith in an Augustan context. If the deliberate prom otion o f lite ra ry patronage w ith in the Augustan period can be seen as in part a w ish to deflect elite energies from pursuits related to negotium into those trad itio n ally confined to times o f otium, then Seneca’s comment on Asinius Pollio m ay show this process in action. Hence, the realm o f otium is represented as in the process o f being transform ed into a fu rth er arena for com petitive aristocratic display. As noted previously, PoUio's embrace o f the recitatio but rejection of public declam ation suggests that the form er, rather than the latter, was seen as a plausible alternative for republican oratio, as D upont suggests. O ratory, of course, d id not cease at Rome but was sim ply, w ith the grow th o f the prindpate, m arginalized from the v ita l political practice that it had been under an effective republican system. This in turn led to a situation under the prindpate where poetry and oratory could be conceived o f as riv a l form s of public eloquentia. The relative value o f these tw o oral forms is one o f the central issues o f Tadtus's Dialogus. In Tadtus’s Dialogus, Aper (Dialogus 5) argues that poetry is generally an attem pt by oratorical failures to gain gloria by less deserving means, "quisquis alius studium poeticae et carm inum gloriam fovet, cum causas agere non possit," "W hoever else favors the study o f poetry and the glory o f song since they are unable to m ake it at the bar. " A per seems particu larly irked that M atem us has chosen to pursue poetry, although he is obviously talented in oratory, "natus ad eloquentiam virilem et oratoriam , " "bom fo r m anly eloquence and oratory. " The designation o f oratory as eloquentia virilis inevitably casts poetry as an 208 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. emasculated o r w om anly type o f eloquence (this issue w ill be further explored in chapter eleven). Aper's argum ent concerning Matemus's destiny is reminiscent of O vid’s different characterization of him self and his brother. A t Tristia 4.10.17-18 O vid describes how his brother's inclination and natural talents drew him to the forum , "hater ad eloquium v irid i tendebat ab aevo ,/ fortia verbosi natus ad arm a fori," "M y brother from a young age directed his attention to oratory, he was bom fo r the sturdy weapons o f the forum " In Amores 1.9 the elegiac narrator (who bears the poet’s name) describes him self in quite the opposite fashion, "ipse ego segnis eram disdnctaque in otia natus;/m ollierant animos lectus et umbra meos," "I m yself was sluggish and bom for unbelted idleness; m y couch and the shade had softened m y spirits ” (41-42). Here the O vid brothers, bom on the same day one year apart, provide a neat (so neat one suspects that if O vid’s brother did n’t exist the poet w ould have had to invent him ) incarnation of two antithetical forms o f eloquence. The elder brother as the proponent of an eloquentia virilis, and the younger demonstrates w hat happens when the Jbrtia and dura of such eloquence are contaminated by mollitia: poetry. M atem us’s decision to pursue poetry means the abandonment of his civic and personal obligations, as A per points out: "Adeo te tragoediae istae non satiant, ” in q u it A per, "quo minus omissis orationum et causarum studiis omne tempus modo circa M edeam , ecce nunc circa Thyestem consumas? cum te tot amicorum causae, tot coloniarum et m unidpiorum clientelae in forum vocent. ” Dialogus 3 "So then have you not yet had your fill o f those tragedies of yours " said A per, "or you w ouldn t spend ^ your tim e now on a Medea, now on a Tkyestes w ith a ll your oratorical and legal activities disregarded? W hen the cases of so many amid and those o f so many clients from the colonies and towns call you into the forum . " 209 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. W hen M atem us {Dialogus 12) comes to defend him self against A per’s accusations he in tu rn attacks contem porary oratory: "Nam lucrosae huius et sanguinantis eloquentiae usus recens et m alis moribus natus, atque, u t tu dicebas, A per, in locum te li repertus," "For the use o f this p ro fit seeking, bloodthirsty eloquence is a recent thing and one bom o f bad modes o f behavior and, as you yourself say, A p er, invented as a form o f weapon." Tacitus's Dialogus has a dram atic date o f around 75 CE, about a century later than the heyday of Rom an elegy. 3 2 Yet M atem us's condem nation of the venality of oratory sounds rem arkably sim ilar to the narrator’s denunciation of oratory at Amores 1.15.7-8 "nec m e / ingrato vocem prostituisse foro," "That I haven’t prostituted m y voice in the thankless forum ” S im ilarly, M atem us’s characterization of oratory as a form of assault weapon is also sim ilar to O vid’s m etaphoric equation o f ’eloq uiu m ” w ith Jbrtia arma at Tristia 4.10.18 (as noted above). One could conclude from this that M atem us’s notion o f this being a recent phenomenon ("recens") is either a commonplace posing as a contemporary assessment, or a use of ’recens ” from the perspective of close to a m illennium of Roman cultural history w hich w ould not divorce O vid ’ s comments from his own tem porally but rather m ake them analogous observations on the practice of oratory under the prind pate. A per continues to attack poetry from the perspective o f its alienation from traditional Roman d v ic life and its inab ility to tap into the elite networks so vital to gaining sodal prom inence at Rome: Nam carm ina et versus, quibus totam vitam M atem us insum ere optat (inde enim omnis flu x it oratio), neque dignitatem uUam auctoribus suis conciliant neque utilitates alunt; voluptatem autem brevem , laudem inanem et infructuosam consequuntur. . . . cui bono est si apud 320n the dramatic date o f the Dialogus see Syme (1958:670-71); Bartsch (1994:98 n. 1). 210 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. te Agam em non aut lason diserte loquitur? Q uis ideo dom um defensus et tib i obligatus redit? Dialogus 9 For poetry and verses, on w hich M atem us wants to spend his w hole life (w hich was the starting po int fo r this w hole debate), neither bring any social standing to their authors nor advance any m aterial benefits; they provide an enjoym ent that is b u t brief, and praise that is em pty and unproductive. . . . To whose advantage is it is in your poetic discourse that Agam em non or Jason speaks eloquently? W ho fo r that reason having been defended successfully goes back home and so is indebted to you? To A per poetry is a form o f frivolous and unproductive eloquence: it does not confer dignitas, is of no practical benefit, provides a form of pleasure that is transitory, a form o f lam that is both inconsequential and unproductive, and a type of eloquentia that unlike oratory does not incur gratitude. Consequently, A p er has little doubt that oratory is a type o f eloquentia that is far better suited to bu ild in g a social reputation and gaining contem porary acclaim. Hence, he argues (Dialogm 9) that a poet slaves a ll year w ritin g a volum e of poetry and then has to run around trying to get an audience to come and hear him , "rogare u ltro et am bire cogatur u t sint qui dignentur audire"; and even putting on a recitation costs the poet, and w hat is the retu rn fo r a ll this effort and expense?^^ E t u t beatissimus redtationem eius eventus prosequatur, om nis ilia laus in tra unum au t alterum diem , velut in herba vel flore praecerpta, ad nullum certam et solidam pervenit frugem , nec aut am id tiam inde refert aut clientelam au t m ansurum in anim o cuiusquam benefidum , sed dam orem vagum et voces inanes e t gaudium volucre. Dialogus 9 ^^Here, the use of "ambire" can be seen as ironically depredative: poets and republican politidans are simultaneously degraded by what Aper, from the perspective of the prindpate, sees as the demeaning practice o f canvassing support. 211 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A nd even if his recitation is a great success, a ll that praise is done w ith in the space of a day or tw o, just like a budding plant plucked before it has reached a fru itfu l m aturity; he obtains from it no atnicitia, no clientela nor the remembrance of a service rendered bu t rather fickle applause, insubstantial acclaim and pleasure th at is fleeting. Again Aper's emphasis is on the ephem eral nature o f the laus that the poet receives. H e neatly turns a poetic image back on itself to suggest that poetic appreciation has no roots in the social fabric o f elite Roman life; its verbal effect is plucked by the audience but fades quickly rather than im planting the seed of obligation and reciprocation.^^ M oreover, A per contends that the pm a that a poet acquires is m uch less notable than that w hich accrues to an orator: N e opinio quidem et fam a, cui soli serviunt et quod unum esse pretium omnis laboris sui fatentur, aeque poetas quam oratores sequitur, quoniam mediocres poetas nemo novit, bonos paud. Quando enim rarissim arum redtationum fama in totam urbem pénétrât, nedum ut per tot provindas innotescat? Quotus quisque, cum ex H ispania vel Asia, ne quid de G allis nostris loquar, in urbem venit, Saleium Bassum requirit? Atque adeo si quis req u irit, u t semel v id it, transit et contentus est, u t si picturam aliquam vel statuam vidisset. Dialogus 10 N o t even do I think that fame, for w hich alone they strive and say it is the one rew ard o f a ll the labor, falls to the lo t of poets and orators equally, since no-one knows average poets and only a few people good ones. For w hen does the report of a poetry red tation , far and few that they are, spread throughout the w hole d ty , m uch less through the provinces? H ow seldom it is that anyone who comes into the d ty firom Spain or Asia, not to m ention m y own G aul, asks after Saleius Bassus? A nd if anyone does ask after him , tiien once he has seen him , he happily goes on his w ay as though he had seen some picture o r statue. ^ T h e theme of the expense of recitation and poetic appreciation not being enough to live off is also elaborated in Juvenal Satires 7, as noted earlier in chapter four: in terms of the sexualized effect of poetry elaborated in this chapter Aper w ould appear to suggest that the audience is gratified gratuitously. 212 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. According to A per, poetic fame is dependent on infrequent recitations w hich even if successful w ill only promote a poet's reputation for a short span o f tim e, and then hardly throughout the itself, m uch less throughout the Roman em pire: sim ilarly, provincials don't come to Rome to see poets, and if they do the dynam ic rem ains nothing more than a piece o f sightseeing, as a poet amounts to nothing m ore than a livin g piece of art. 3 5 The orator, on the other hand, as A per has previously stated, is an everyday object o f attention and adm iration: Quid? fam a et laus cuius artis cum oratorum g lo ria comparanda est? Q uinam inlustriores sunt in urbe non solum apud negotiosos et rebus intentos, sed etiam apud iuvenes vacuos et adulescentes, quibus modo et recta indoles est et bona spes sui? Q uorum nom ina prius parentes liberis suis ingerunt? Quos saepius vulgus quoque im peritum et tunicatus hie populus transeuntes nomine vocat et digito demonstrat? Advenae quoque et peregrini iam in m unidpiis e t coloniis suis auditos, cum prim um urbem attigerunt, requirunt ac v e lu t adgnoscere concupiscunt. Dialogus 7 W hy? The reputation and praise of w hat a rt can be compared w ith the glory that orators possess? For who are m ore distinguished in the d ty not only among those actively engaged in public life but also among young m en a t leisure and youths, too, provided they have an upright nature and some decent expectation of themselves? Whose names do parents thrust in their children's ears before those of orators? W hom more often do the unskilled masses and the people in tunics po int o u t w ith their finger and call by name as they go by? Visitors and foreigners as soon as they arrive in the d ty ask for, and are enthused to recognise, those m en that they have already heard about in the towns and colonies. In this m anner A per dearly aligns him self w ith a validated concept of oratory as a m anly form of eloquence that is usefully em bedded in Rome's sodal 35Hence, Thomas Habinek (1998:105) notes of this passage. The point is not that the poet makes a spectacle of himself, for that would involve no dishonor, but that the low ly provincial (from Spain, or Asia, or even Gaul) enters into no relationship w ith him . H e doesn't ask for a favor, or quake in terror, or shout in awe, or hire him as defense council.” 213 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. fabric. Hence, oratory is presented as a m onolithic positive that contrasts w ith poetry as a negative form o f eloquence. H ow ever, it is w orth noting that A p er also confesses that the contem porary verbal practice o f oratory is not that differen t from poetry: E xig itu r enim iam ab oratore etiam poeticus decor, non A cd i aut Pacuvii vetem o inquinatus, sed ex H o ra tii et V e rg ilii et Lucani sacrario prolatus. H o n im ig itu r auribus et iu d id is obtemperans nostrorum oratorum aetas pulchrior e t om atior exstitit. Neque ideo m inus efficaces sunt orationes nostrae quia ad aures iudicantium cum voluptate perveniim t. Dialogus 20 For now poetic adornm ent is dem anded also of the orator, not stained w ith the age o f an Acdus o r Pacuvius but brought out from the shrine o f a Horace, a V irg il or Lucan. By com plying to the ears and judgm ent o f these listeners the oratory o f our age is m ore beautiful and em bellished. N o r fo r this reason are our speeches less effective because they reach the judges' ears pleasurably. A p e r’s o ra to ry is here cle a rly presented as a p p ro p ria tin g the ve rb a l seductiveness o f p o e tic language fo r its o w n ends. Thus contem porary o ra to ry is represented as parasitic on poetry: the difference between the tw o forms of verbal product being, as A per w o u ld have it, that oratory uses verbal seduction fo r a useful d vic purpose and is so d ally integrated, whereas poetry is little m ore than a form of self-indulgent verbal m asturbation. O ur suspidons are further increased w hen one considers the two positive models of oratorical success that A p er m entions, V ibius Crispus and Epirius M arcellus. For these m en were both notorious delatores under Vespasian whose po litical success could be view ed as the result o f a self-interested, rather than d v ic m inded, form of eloquence. A p er is him self a provindal sodal clim ber, as he confesses, "homo novus et in d v ita te m inim e favorabili natus" {Dialogus 7). H is background is thus sim ilar to other famous oratorical practitioners at Rome— Cato the elder, Cicero, Seneca the elder, Q u in tilian — a ll of whom used oratory as 214 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. a m edium to further personal am bition w hilst, as often is the case w ith newcomers to the n o b ility, m asking personal am bition through a rhetoric of social integration and adherence to elite tradition. The process o f attaining sodal m obility through rhetorical means is also clearly set out in the Commentariolum Petitionis attributed to Q uintus Cicero. H ere Q . Cicero sets out as a sort o f reality check fo r his brother the aphoristic m antra, "Novus sum, consulatum peto, Roma est" (2), and sees Cicero's prim ary asset as his oratorical a b ility , "Nom inis novitatem dicendi g lo ria m axim e sublevabis" (2). One begins to suspect as one looks closer at the Dialogus that w hat really irks A per about poetry is that he sees it as a riv a l form o f eloquence sim ilarly deployed to gain attention. It is notable that Aper's description of the orator being pointed out on the street, "Quos saepius vulgus quoque im peritum et tunicatus hie populus transeuntes nom ine vocat et d ig ito demonstrat? " is sim ilar to some assertions o f poetic popularity. So at Carmina 3.22.21-23 the H oratian narrator thanks his muse fo r his poetic fame in the follow ing fashion, "totum m uneris hoc tu i e s t/ quod m onstror digito praetereun tiu m / Romanae fidicen lyrae," T h is is a ll your g ift that I am pointed out by the finger o f bypassers as the bard of the Roman lyre": so too at Persius Satires 1.28 the poet is made to say, "at pulchrum est digito m onstrari et d id e r hie est,' " "But it is a fine thing to be pointed out w ith the fin ger and fo r it to be said it is he.' " A gain, Tragoedia describes the recognition o f the elegiac narrator by the public at Amores 3.1.19-20 in a sim ilar fashion, "saepe aliquis digito vatem désignât eun tem ,/ atque a it "hie, hie est, quem ferus u rit Am or!" "O ften someone points out w ith his finger the poet as he goes on his w ay and says. This is the m an, this is him w hom fierce love is burning.' " 215 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. As C ynthia Dessen points out in her analysis o f Persius Satires 1, the form ulaic "hie est" m ay point back to a w ell know n anecdote concerning Demosthenes that appears in Q cero, P liny the younger and A e lia n .^ Cicero relates how Demosthenes was delighted by hearing tw o wom en whispering to one another saying "H ie est ille Demosthenes." P liny uses the anecdote as a justification fo r his ow n pleasure, "ego celebritate nom inis m ei gaudere non debeo," at being recognized by a newcom er to the d ty through just a description of his literary works w hich provoked the response "Plinius est" The phrase is also of a particular Augustan resonance, as it is used o f Augustus as Anchises points him out to Aeneas at Aeneid 6.791, "hie v ir, hie est."^^ These examples, then, o f public denotation suggest that both orator and poet wished to construct themselves as readily recognizable visual landmarks; there is a difference, however, in the propriety of such a spectacle, as the orator in the Dialogus is presented (by A per) as an image o f respectable fam e, whereas the effem inate poet in Persius and the elegiac poet are rather examples of notorious recognition. Horace, naturally, w ould have hoped to fa ll into the first, rather than second category b u t (as was examined in chapter four w ith regard to the poet as w hore m etaphor) it is not easy for a poet to attain an unproblem atic reputation. W hen M atem us comes to defend the position of poetry he in turn argues that the fame that poets achieve surpasses that of orators: ^Dessen (1996:30): Cicero Tusc. 536.103; Pliny Epistles 923; Aelian Vera Hist. 9.17. ^^One might even suspect that the phrase in Amores 3.1 is a deliberate allusion to this Vergilian line. 216 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Plures hodie reperies qui Q ceronis gloriam quam qui V e rg ilii detrectent nec ullus A sinii aut Messallae lib e r tam inlustris est quam M edea O v id ii aut V a rii Thyestes. Dialogus 12 You w ill fin d more people today w ho fin d fa u lt w ith the reputation o f Cicero than w ith that o f V irg il, and there is no book o f Asinius or of M essalla as famous as the M edea o f O vid o r the Thyestes of Varius. M atem us's general point is clearly that in the case of contem porary pairings of famous orators and famous poets it is the reputation of the poets that lasts longest- O vid here is thus appropriately em ployed as an exam ple of w hat he him self says is the case in Amores 1.15 w here oratory is presented as a form o f opus mortale that contrasts w ith the eternal fam e that the elegist seeks: M ortale est, quod quaeris, opus, m ih i fam a perennis quaeritur, in toto sem per u t orbe canar. Amores 1.15.7-8 It is bu t a m ortal task that you seek. I seek enduring fame so that I m ight be recited the w orld over. The elegist s pursuit o f gloria through poetry makes him a poetic analog of a traditional elite iuvenis. Thus, in his defense o f Caelius Rufus, Cicero acknowledges that Caelius has engaged in prosecutions that he d id not w ant him to bu t attributes such actions not only to you th ful fo lly but also to Caelius's burning desire fo r gloria: Sed ego non loquor de sapientia, quae non cadit in hanc aetatem; de im petu anim i loquor, de cupiditate vincendi, de ardore mentis ad gloriam . ProCaelio 76 But I am not talking about w isdom w hich is not the province of this tim e of life but about the passion o f the sp irit, about the desire for w inning, about the m ind's eagerness fo r fam e. In this w ay oratory and elegiac com position are troped as riv a l forms of eloquentia both striving towards a telos o f renow n and reputation: Caelius's path 217 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. represents the conventional and validated route that lies through the perform ance o f norm al civic duties and obligations, the path that A per validates, whereas the path of the elegiac narrator represents an alternate route to gloria that the circumstances o f the A ugustan period helped to prom ote. The rebukes that A per levels against M atem us as to the lack o f u tility and u n p ro fitab ility o f poetry are also sim ilar to those the poet presents as having issued from the m outh o f his father du rin g the poet’s form ative years: saepe pater d ix it "studium quid in u tile temptas? Maeonides nuUas ipse reliq u it opes." Tristia 4.10.21-22 O ften m y father said "w hy do you try such an unprofitable pursuit? H om er him self le ft no w ealth behind. The narrator presents his pursuit o f poetry as an avoidance of the anxieties and pressures o f political life: curia restabat* clavi m ensura coacta est; maius erat nostris viribus illu d onus, nec patiens corpus, nec mens fu it apta labori, soUicitaeque fugax am bitionis eram, et petere Aoniae suadebant tuta sorores otia iu d id o sem per am ata meo. Tristia 4.10.35-40 The senate house was w aitin g fo r me bu t the w id th o f m y stripe was checked; that burden was greater than m y strength. M y body was not tolerant of, nor m y m ind suited to, Iw d w ork, and I was a runaw ay from stressful am bition: the Muses were always urging me to seek the leisure that was alw ays loved in m y estim ation. The O vid ian narrator here draw s the trad itio n al contrast between the negotium of politics (the proper province o f ambitio) and the otium of lite ra ry activity. Hence, the poet's rejection of a p o litical career is naturally aligned w ith a lack of ambitio. H ow ever, one should be w ary o f taking such protestations sim ply at face value. O vid m ay not have been am bitious through the channels that w ere norm ally 218 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. validated fo r Rome’s elite bu t clearly, as Amores 1.15 shows, he was am bitious, just in that poetic sort o f w ay. O vid's father was clearly hoping to launch his sons on senatorial careers at Rome. H e was an am bitious equestrian hrom outside Rome just like the elder Seneca after him . H ow ever, un like the elder Seneca, O vid's father seems to have underestim ated the status enhancing potential o f literatu re under the prindpate. M artin Bloomer rem arks that the intent o f Seneca's œntroversiae and suasoriae "was to set Seneca's fam ily on the road to sodal distinction and to elevate w hat was a schoolroom practice to the status o f old-tim e oratory." 3* Poetic com position at this tim e can be seen to be engaged in a sim ilar type of appropriation: it is turning a traditional form of aristocratic otium into a form of alternate aristocratic negotium in a political clim ate w here the benefits and omnipresence of otium w ere being actively prom oted. In this m anner, O vid was not unam bitious, he just chose to pursue his am bition through poetic means and the circumstances o f the Augustan period suggested that such a studium need not be as "inutile" as his father thought. In the Dialogus A per argues that poets profess to strive only fo r fiima, "fam a, cui soli serviunt et quod unum pretium omnis laboris sui fatentur " (10). As described earlier in the chapter, A per does n o tb d ieve that poetry affords as effective a path to fitma as oratory. H e also attem pts to validate his ow n am bitious form of verbal eloquence by suggesting its integration into the w orld o f negotium and presenting the pursuit o f poetic fiima as a second dass and m arginalized attem pt to achieve personal gloria: Neque hunc m eum sermonem sic acdpi volo tam quam eos quibus natura sua oratorium ingenium denegavit deterream a carm inibus. 3®Bloomer (1997:2(X)). 219 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. si m odo in hac studiorum parte oblectare otium et nomen inserere possunt famae. Dialogus 10 I don't w ant m y argum ent to be interpreted as though I was frightening o ff from poetry those whom nature has denied oratorical talent, if they are able to amuse themselves in their leisure in this form o f study and p u t their name in the h all of fam e. Thus A per views poetry as an inferio r and socially irresponsible means o f achieving Jama. It is an attem pt to acquire reputation from the traditionally m arginalized space o f otium, rather than from the traditionally validated space of negotium. This same conflict is later played out in the person of Pliny the younger, orator and poet. As M atthew Roller has persuasively argued, Pliny’ s forays into poetic com position can be understood as an attem pt "to create a new arena of aristocratic c o m p e titio n .R o lle r elaborates in P liny a tension between the desire to use poetry as a means to further social distinction and a defensive awareness of the traditional subordination of the space and activities of otium to those of negotium.*^ Roller further argues that Pliny in his prom otion of such literary activity is "attem pting a sm all bu t significant innovation" in that he is seeking "to move its production and consum ption out of the realm o f largely concealed, if widespread, dilettantism among aristocrats, and into a more visible, public, com petitive realm . The nature of this innovation, however, stretches back to the establishm ent o f the prindpate under Augustus, as Roller him self notes 39RoUer (1998: 267). 4®RoUer (1998:273-78): the problematic tension between otitan and negptium in Pliny's case is exacerbated by his choice to compose in genres that belong to the Indus poetictis (this theme w ill be explored in more detafl in chapter nine). 4lR olIer (1998: 289). 220 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. earlier in his essay. ^ The prind pate’s disruption o f the traditional scope of elite negotia causes a p artial displacem ent o f elite tim e and energies into activities that had been previously view ed as the province of otium: the rise o f the practices o f recitatio and declam ation at a tim e contemporaneous to Augustus's consolidation o f pow er lend credence to these practices being seen as a form o f verbal compensation fo r the dim inished scope fo r self-display in trad ition al oratory. In this sense, Pliny's poetic passions are a natural outgrow th o f the system o f the prindpate. W hat P lin y represents is an intensification o f this process through pronounced self-involvem ent: P liny does not m erely attend redtals and patronize poets, he him self w rites and red tes on a scale that evidently struck some contemporaries as excessive and unusual fo r a m an of senatorial rank. From this perspective Pliny's poetic proclivities can be seen as an attem pt to w in back the space of aristocratic otium as a potential source of sodal validation fio m the likes of a Horace and other sub-elite sodal clim bers. In this scheme the elegists stand somewhere inbetw een the poetic poles that Juvenal represents as a penniless Statius and a fitma-oriented Lucan. The m aterial deprivations of the late d v il w ar caused havoc amongst the Ita lia n gentry and m ay have accentuated the need o f even the relatively affluent equestrian dass fo r m aterial support. A t the same tim e, however, as poetry could be seen as a means to recovering m aterial privilege, it could also be seen as a new ou tlet fo r the aristocratic pursuit o f fiima. N atu rally, the elegists, aristocrats themselves, chose to focus on the la tte r rather than the form er poetic function. T h eir choice of the poetic pursuit o f Jama was, how ever, less problem atic for such members of the equestrian dass than it was fo r a consular senator lik e P liny. The equestrian order was, after a ll, trad itio n ally assodated (in its higher echelons) 42Roller (1998: 266-67). 221 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. w ith a w ith d raw al from negotium and the establishm ent o f the Pax Augusta and the prind pate furth er consolidated the plau sib ility o f an elegiac career. The last tw o chapters have been concerned w ith establishing a connection betw een elegy's allegorization o f lite ra ry patronage and aristocratic gift-exchange (as set ou t in chapters three and fo u r) and the need o f the elegiac poets to pursue patronage in the circumstances o f elite recom position and m aterial hardship that ushered in the Augustan prind pate. In the next sequence of chapters I w ant to consider how elegiac discourse contrives to m ould its e lf into a successful self- em pow ering intervention by exploiting the possibilities o f the negative m etaphoric assodations of poetry w ith venal sexuality. 222 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER SEVEN Creating Elegy's Erotic Spectacle Part One: Exploiting Girlfriends and Patrons In this chapter I w ant to start to examine how the elegiac poet in his construction of a narrative of venal sexuality creates the means of his ow n poetic em powerm ent. If poetry in general can be seen to be m etaphorically a form of prostitution (as exam ined in chapter three), then elegy can be view ed as a kind of dram atic enactm ent o f this scenario. The poems o f the elegist are not just m etaphoric prostitutes but also showcase fem ale figures who seem suspiciously like depictions o f actual prostitutes. In this manner the elegist can be seen as pushing poetic seduction to an extreme: he doesn’t just flau n t an attractive text before his reader bu t poems that incarnate seductive fem ale figures who serve to allure readers fo r th eir author. Hence, elegiac discourse appears as a particularly shameless form o f poetic advertisem ent. M oreover, the subordination o f the figures incarnated in the text to the advancement of the poet has general ram ifications for the practice of commemorative poetry. If the narrator in elegy figures his poetry as a monument erected to the glory o f the puella then it also becomes dear that she also serves as a building block in the poet's ow n literary monument: this returns us to the question o f w hether m onum ental poetry in general is a sym biotic or parasitic practice. This chapter w ill concentrate on how the elegist uses the figure o f the puella, and to a lesser extent that of a patron, to further his ow n literary ambitions. 223 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Poems and Prostitutes The analogy between poems and prostitutes is m ade evident in both Catullus 1 and Horace Epistles 1.20.1 both these texts a lite ra ry product is personified and possesses a flaunting sexual attractiveness: C ui dono lepidum novum libellum arida modo pumice expolitum? Catullus 1.1-2. To whom do I present m y new w itty book, just now polished w ith dry pumice? Vertum num lanum que, liber, spectare videris, scilicet u t prostes Sosiorum pum ice m undus. odisti clavis et grata sigilla pudico; pauds ostendi gemis et com munia laudas. Horace Epistles 1 2 0 .1 -4 Book, you seem to be looking at Vertum nus and Janus, of course so that spruced-up w ith the pumice of the Sosii you m ight go on sale/prostitute yourself. You hate the key and the seal that are welcome to a modest book; you groan at being shown to only a few and praise the public. As W illiam Fitzgerald notes, the use o f pumice conflates lite ra ry endeavor (it was used as an eraser), external literary presentation (it was used to smooth the ends of the scroll) and sexual attractiveness (it was used as a depilatory).^ In this m anner the literary artist is responsible for the production o f a poetic prostitute. He creates a poem that w ill seek public circulation through the m erits of its attractiveness created by dépilation both w ith in the text (em endation) and on its surface (polish). Ellen Oliensis has pointed out that this leads in Horace to an expressed anxiety over the propriety of such an act o f vulgarization, as sexual integrity is equated w ith the book that is content w ith a few readers, and ISee Richlin (1992c 161-62); Fitzgerald (1995:40-41); Oliensis (1995:209-224): Myers (1996:21). ^Fitzgerald (1995:40-41); on male dépilation, see Richlin (1992c), 168,188-189. 224 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. prostitution w ith the book that seeks ou t the general p u b l i c . 3 G iven the aristocratic distaste fo r professionalism and the dependent status of a Horace such an anxiety is h ard ly surprising. The narrator also tries to deflect (ironically and hum orously) the blam e from him self: the Sosii are the real pim ps and salesmen, not the poet, and it is the desire of his literary product, not him self, that his w ork should end up in the marketplace.^ Horace's poems nevertheless are troped as prostitutes w ho w ill provocatively lu re readers into Rome's literary bordellos. If the poem is a prostitute, then the poet m ust be a pim p, and literary success is thus associated w ith a rather disreputable form of com mercial sexual success. Elegy takes this im agery a figurative step furth er. If Catullus and Horace m etaphorically base their literary fame on pim ping their prostitute-poem s, then elegy takes this lite ra ry m arketing strategy to the next level by m aking its poems not only figurative prostitutes bu t also populating its poems w ith fem ale figures who behave like prostitutes. Elegy, then, operates on a dual basis of literary prostitution: the elegiac narrator attem pts (generally to no effect) to prostitute his ^Oliensis (1995): there is evident here a simultaneous aristccratic-style distaste for the tiirba and a validation of Callimachean literary aesthetics; such fastidiousness, however, as also expressed by the narrator in the Satires, "neque te ut m iretur turba labores,/contentus pauds lectoribus," "Don't toil so that the mob may w onder at you, be happy w ith few readers" (1.10.73-74), resides in tension w ith a desire for literary fame that is dram atically expressed in Epistles 1.20 in an acrimonious argument between author and literary product '^Oliensis (1995:214) notes that this dynamic is also expressed in M artial 1.3 where the narrator addresses his "parve liber" (1) which has expressed a sim ilar preference to leave the bookshelves o f the author, "scrinia nostra" (2) and go to the bookstores, "Argiletanas mavis habitare tabemas" (1). In this manner the book w ill escape the continual emendations of its literary dominus and seek the approval of a reading domina, Rome. The author warns his product, however, that it is unaware of the fastidiousness o f such an audience, "nesds dominae fastidia Romae" (3). In elegy the "fastidia" of a domina is effected w ithin the text, as the literary efforts of the narrator go generally unappreciated by the elegiac ptiella but at the same time such a narrative of disdain is the means by which the external poet overcomes the fastidia of the domina outside the text, Rome. 225 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. poems fo r sex w ith in the te x t and at the same tim e the external narrator is using the presentation o f a venal w om an to prostitute his poems outside the text. The act o f literary prostitution in Horace precipitates a fig ured anxiety over a loss of ow nership and control. The poem that is pudicus is kept under lock and key a t home where it can only be appreciated by the author and any discerning existimatores he m ight choose to expose it to. The poem that is prostituted to the public passes beyond the capacity o f the author, and listeners whose judgm ent the author trusts, to control and regulate its circulation and interpretation.^ Yet, literary success (if success is m easured in reaching as m any readers as possible) is inevitably connected w ith such promiscuous reading. If a poem is a sexualized object, as in Epistles 1.20, then to effect the w idest possible literary audience the author m ust accept that he cannot regulate the sexuality o f his text, but m ust cut it loose so that other readers m ight experience its sensual delights. O n this level fame and professionalism ru n parallel paths: fo r the more readers a poet has, that is to say the more lovers his text acquires, the greater his chances o f rem unerative patronage. The literary seekers o f both fam e and m aterial w ealth both prostitute their poems to achieve their respective goals (w hich have a tendency to conflate). To achieve either end the poet has to ^The m oving away from home of the poem in Horace Episties 1.20 is obviously analogous to the progression hom reading a w ork in an aristocratically embedded recitatm and m aking a w ork available to the w ider literate audience: earlier in the Satires the narrator expressly validates the recitatio over more general and indiscriminate reading and circulation, "nec redto cuiquam nisi amicis, idque coactus,/ non ubivis coramque quibusUbet," "N or do I recite to anyone except amid, and I do that only under compulsion, I don't recite openly anywhere to anyone (1.4.73-74). As noted in the previous chapter, Horace's shying away from indiscrim inate public performance is a gesture analogous to Asinius Pollio's validation of the redtatio over public declamation. This anxiety over the ability of w riting to go on signifying and be subject to untutored interpretation beyond the presence o f the author is, as Oliensis (1995:212-13) notes, at least as old as Plato's Pliaedrus. 226 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. renounce exclusive ownership rights and indulge the promiscuous desire of his w ork (w hich is o f course his ow n desire too). Thus (as discussed in the last chapter) Horace internalizes an elite suspicion and contem pt fo r indiscrim inate public perform ance, yet he also realizes the necessity fo r such uncontrolled circulation in order fo r poetic gloria to be attained. This produces an amdety^ w hich manifests itself in the problem atic m etaphoric equation of the poet w ith a pim p and his poems w ith prostitutes. Elegiac discourse, how ever, w ith its incorporation of mercenary sexual fem ale figures in its texts, not only literalizes the m etaphor o f textual prom iscuity and pim ping authors bu t also uses this im agery m ore overtly and systematically to seduce its audience and raise the public profile of the poet. The Poem as G irlfrie n d In Juvenal Satires 7 Statius's Thebaid is described as his arnica: cu rritu r ad vocem iucundum et carm en amicae Thebaidos, laetam cum fecit Statius urbem prom isitque diem : tanta dulcedine captos a d fid t ille animos tantaque libidine volgi auditur; sed cum freg it subsellia versu, esurit, intactam P aridi nisi vendit Agaven. Juvenal Satire 7.82-87 W hen Statius has made the people happy and set a date there is a stampede to his sweet voice and to the poetry of his girlfrien d Thebais: he moves th eir spirits captured by such great sweetness and the m ultitude hears him w ith inordinate desire; but w hen he has broken the benches w ith his verse, he goes hungry unless he sells a virgin Agave to Paris. As Shadi Bartsch has pointed out, the use o f arnica conflates the categories of poem and mistress.^ M oreover, as Bartsch also mentions (follow ing Pichon), ^Bartsch (1994:132); see also Braund (1988:60); Hardie (1983:61). 227 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. much o f the vocabulary of this passage is draw n from that o f love p o e try / Thus the passage may be used as being particularly illum inating of elegiac discourse. Arnica is not just a m etonym fo r mistress but also a euphem ism for prostitute. 8 Hence, the poem is not only the poet's fem ale com panion but also his w hore, and hence his instrum ent o f securing popular approval. The poet seduces the populace w ith his poetry, m etaphorically incarnated as his arnica. The intonation of the poet is seductive, "vocem iucundum , " "tanta dulcedine, " and arouses a passionate desire in his listeners, "tantaque lib id in e volgi," w hich is the measure o f his poetic success. Elegiac discourse fits into this pattern by incarnating the m etaphor of poem as sexualized fem ale m ore insistently. The poetic product o f the elegist is not only potentially a m etaphoric arnica, it becomes v irtu a lly synonymous w ith the arnica o f the poet as depicted in the text. Hence, the m etaphor in the passage of Juvenal is incarnated in elegy as the public is confronted not just v \ith a sexualized delivery o f a poetic product but w ith a sexually allu rin g figure incarnated in the text.^ The extent to w hich text and fem ale figure are conflated in elegy is perhaps most readily apparent in the opening couplet of Propertius 2.24: "tu loqueris, cum sis iam noto fabula libro et tua sit toto C ynthia lecta foro?" ^Bartsch (1994:132); Pichon (1902): the vocabulary in question being promittere noctein, vocem incimdam, dulcedine captos, intactam. «Adams (1983:348-350). ^The seductive delivery of Statius, "vocem iucundum," "tanta dulcedine" to his audience, mirrors the recommendation of the praeceptor in the Ars Amatoria that his attempts at poetic seduction should be delivered w ith a dulcis sonus (2286). The internal dynamics o f seduction in elegy m irror, and enable through their erotic content, the external seduction o f audience by poet as elaborated in juvenaL 228 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. "Do you talk in this w ay, w hen you are already a source o f gossip w ith your book w ell know n and your C ynthia read a ll over the forum?" H ere d e a rly there is an elision of fem ale fic tio n and book as C ynthia is presented as synonymous w ith Propertius's liber. The circulation o f both is m etaphorically equivalent. This conflation o f wom an and text is also apparent in Propertius 2.5; H oc verum st, tota te fe rri, C ynthia, Roma, et non ignota vivere nequitia? haec m erui sperare? dabis m ih i, perfida, poenas; et nobis aliquo, C ynthia, ventus e rit. inveniam tam en e m ultis faUadbus unam , quae fie ri nostro carm ine nota v e lit, nec m ih i tam duris insultet m oiibus, et te vellicet: heu sero flebis am ata d iu . Propertius 2 .5 .1 -8 Is this true, C ynthia, that you are spoken o f a ll over Rome and that you live in consdous nequitia? H ave I deserved to expect this? You w ill pay the penalty, treacherous woman; a w in d w ill carry me o ff somewhere else aw ay from you. I w ill fin d one firom am ong so m any fickle wom en, w ho m ight w ish to be w ell-know n through m y poetry, and w ill not exult over me w ith her harsh behavior and w ill tear you to pieces: alas, too late you w ill weep, you who have been loved for a long tim e. H ere, the elegiac narrator accuses C ynthia o f nequitia and threatens to take his poetic talents elsewhere, Y et there is an obvious d u p lid ty in this rhetoric, centering on the status o f C ynthia both as a book and as a textual inscription o f a real external w om an. The in itia l description o f C ynthia can be seen as applicable to both a book o f poetry and a woman: "te fe rri " could refer to the gossip circulating about a wom an or it could refer to the circulation of a book. Hence, the nequitia o f C ynthia could be read as the m isbehavior of a wom an or the textual fabrication o f such behavior attributed to a literary character. sim ilar scenario to that in Propertius 2.11 examined in chapter four. 229 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The question, "haec m erui sperare?" is also open to interpretation on various levels. From the perspective o f a dram atically isolated, and supposedly sincere, in tern al narrator, the p o in t is clearly that the narrator’s poetic celebration of C ynthia has w arranted m ore respectful and more exclusive sexual behavior on her part. If, how ever, C ynthia is taken as an inherently venal wom an and the narrator's tactic o f poetic seduction inherently flaw ed, then obviously the narrator should have expected the outcome that he now com plains about. If on the other hand the internal narrator and the external poet can be seen as in collusion and inseparable, then the question, "haec m erui sperare?" can be given a positive rather than a negative spin. For the circulation of C ynthia, and the tale of her nequitia, is equivalent to the popularity and circulation o f the author’s literary w ork. The author has achieved precisely w hat he hoped for. Thus the curses of the internal narrator can be seen to hide the sm ile o f the external p o et The textuaUy inscribed nequitia o f C ynthia is the basis o f Propertius's popularity. U n v eilin g the Elegiac Prostitute: O v id Amores 1.5 In the tenth book o f O v id ’s Metamorphoses the story o f Pygm alion’s creation o f a w om an out o f ivo ry occurs.^ ^ The sculptor, in response, the narrator says, to the disgust he feels at being surrounded by the w o rld ’s first prostitutes and his in a b ility to conceive amorous feeling towards such wom en, creates his ow n alternative fem ale m odel out o f ivo ry and falls in love w ith that instead: Quas quia Pygm alion aevum per crim en agentis viderat, oHensus v itiis , quae plurim a m enti fem ineae natura d ed it, sine coniuge caelebs vivebat thalam ique d iu consorte carebat. interea niveum m ira féliciter arte ^^For some discussions of the Pygm alion narrative see Eisner (1991); Janan (1988); Sharrock (1991). 230 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. sciüpsit ebur form am que d e d it qua femma nasd nulla potest operisque sui concepit amorem. Metamorphoses 10.243-49 Because Pygm alion had seen these women [the Propoetides] leading a life of crim e and revolted by the faults w hich nature had given in plenty to the fem ale disposition, he lived celibate w ithout a w ife and for a long time was w ithout a bed-partner. In the m eantime he sculpted fru itfu lly w ith a wondrous a rt the snow -w hite ivory and gave it a beauty such as no wom an had ever been bom w ith , and conceived a love o f his own w ork. The Pygm alion narrative has been read as a m editation on the earlier erotic narratives o f its poetic creator; the parallels between the sculptor and the elegist are easy to draw . As A lison Sharrock has pointed out, both are engaged in "womanufacture:" [T]he story reflects on the eroto-artistic relationship between the poet and his puella explored in Latin love elegy. The Metamorphoses m yth of the art-object w hich becomes a love-object m irrors the elegiac m yth of love-object as art-object. The elegists represent the puella as both art and flesh.i2 The sculptor creates a wom an out of ivory (ebuma) and the elegist a woman out of words {scripta)A^ H ow ever, the difference in m anufactured wom en does not m erely consist of the different m aterials out of which the m ale artist fashions her. Pygm alion creates a w om an w hom he intends to be the antithesis of the venal wom en who surround him . The wom an who is created in the elegiac text, on the other hand, seems to bear m ore of a resemblance to the Propoetides than to the sculptor's sexually innocent statue. The elegist is not creating an ideal but an aberrant wom an. l^Sharrock (1991:36). ^^Hence the title of M aria Wyke's 1987 article, "W ritten Women: Propertius' Scripta Puella 231 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. W hen C orinna firs t enters the scene in Amores 1.5 there is an evident dissonance in her description. As the narrator sets the scene he describes the lig h t as being particu larly suited to a verecunda puella: ilia verecundis lux est praebenda puellis, qua tim idus latebras speret habere pudor. Amores 1.5.7-8 The lig h t was such as is a necessity fo r modest girls, by w hich means fearful shame m ight hope to gain some cover fo r itself. It is onto this stage o f shy modesty that Corinna in itia lly steps: ecce, C o rin n a v e n it, tu n ica ve la ta re dn cta C andida d iv id u a c o lla tegente com a. Amores 1.5.9-10 See, Corinna comes, clothed in a loosened tunic, w ith her parted hair falling on her w h ite neck. The m anner in w hich C orinna is dressed however, "tunica velata redncta," "clothed in an unbelted tunic," already presupposes, from a norm ative Roman perspective, a degree o f impudicitiaM This impression is quickly confirm ed as the narrator launches into analogy: qualiter in thalamos famosa Semiramis isse d id tu r, et m ultis Lais am ata viris. Amores 1.5.11-12 Just as famous Sem iram is is said to have entered the bedroom , and Lais loved by m any a man. The disparity betw een the expectation created by the lig h t suited to a puella verecunda and the narrator's com parison of Corinna to tw o fam ous prostitutes is ^tyhe unbelted pose of Corinna forms a contrast w ith the archetype o f propriety fo r female dress, the tight wrapping around o f the body o f the palla and the stda; what has t ^ n called "the piididtia pose." For further elaboration see Sebesta (1997). 232 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. acute and points to the apparent disparity at the center o f the narrator's perspective. Is the elegiac puella a blushing goddess o r a shameless p r o s t i t u t e ? The com parison o f C orinna to Semiramis and Lais th at follow s the in itia l entry o f Corinna, and the ecce that arrests the narrator's and the reader’ s gaze upon this verbal fem ale figxire, is follow ed by the fu rth er directing o f the gaze onto the fleshing out o f this textual womarui® d erip u i tunicam ; nec m ultum rara nocebat, pugnabat tunica sed tamen ilia tegi; quae, cum ita pugnaret tamquam quae vincere no llet, victa est non aegre proditione sua. u t stetit ante oculos posito velam ine nostros, in toto nusquam corpore m enda fu it: quos umeros, quales v id i tetigique lacertos! form a papillarum quam fu it apta prem i! quam castigato planus sub pectore venter! quantum et quale latus! quam iuvenale fem ur! singula quid referam? n il non laudabile v id i, et nudam pressi corpus ad usque m eum . Amores 1.5.13-24 I tore o ff her tunic; it was thin and so d id n 't get m uch in the w ay, but she s till pu t up a fig h t to rem ain covered by it; ye t she fought like one w ho d id not w an t to w in and was easily conquered by her ow n betrayal. As she stood before m y eyes w ith her clothing laid aside, there w asn't a blem ish anywhere on her w hole body: w hat shoulders; w hat arms 1 saw and touched! H o w apt was the shape of her breasts fo r fondling! H ow fla t her b elly under her faultless bosom! H o w long her flank and o f w hat quality! H o w youthful a thigh! W hy should 1 recount in d iv id u a l details? 1 saw nothing that was not w orthy of praise, and 1 pressed her naked body to m ine. Propertius 2.6 the narrator also compares Cynthia to Lais, Thais and Phiyne: on the atmosphere o f Amores 1 3 resembling an epiphany see NicoU (1977:40-48); Hinds (1988:4-11); Keith (1994:29). l^As O vid also comes after a succession of other elegiac poets— Callus, Tibullus, Propertius— the unveiling of Corinna in Amores 1 3 can also be seen as the premiere of a new m odel o f elegiac woman for the public Corinna is the latest, updated version of the earlier elegiac female figures, Lycoris, Cynthia, Delia and Nemesis, presented by the poet w ith an appropriate suspension enhancing delay and a long-awaited flourish, "Ecce Corinna." 233 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Just as the "ecce" o f lin e 9 conflates the gaze of internal and external view er, so too the positioning o f C orinna before oculi nostri reflects the presentation o f her body both inside and outside o f the text, John Berger has suggested that part of the success o f o il painting is the a b ility o f the m edium to suggest the tangibility o f the object depicted.^® W here the object depicted is a naked person this added suggestion o f tangib ility obviously has an erotic charge. It is rather more d iffic u lt to produce such tangib ility in a verbal m edium ; nevertheless the verbal artist tries his best in Amores 1.5 w ith his description o f the body o f Coriim a: "quales v id i tetig iq u e lacertos! / form a papillarum quam fu it apta prem i," "W hat arms I saw and touched!/ The shape o f her breasts how suited to be pressed!" (19-20). A visual description encourages a tactile appreciation. The voyeuristic gaze at Corinna's body carried on inside and outside the text comes hard on the heels o f the comparison o f this textual fem ale to Lais "m ultis . . . am ata viris," "loved by m any men." Thus the general availab ility o f the body that has just been described is emphasized. W hen the narrator proceeds to conclude "cetera quis nescit?" "who doesn't know the rest, " there is a degree of irony in the expression, or a degree o f dissonance between the perspective o f the internal narrator and the m eaning the external poet allows to surface: the point is not only who cannot im agine the pleasures o f sex in general, bu t also who cannot im agine, or even who has not had, sex w ith Corinna or a wom an like Corinna, l^The gaze is expressly one o f "fetishistic scopophilia," "singula quid referam?”; a cataloguing of individual female body parts; for a reading o f Amores 1.5 from this viewpoint see Greene (1998: 77-84); on the fetishization o f the female body in male poetry see Vickers (1980); for the elaboration of the notion of fetishistic scopophilia in the m edium of film see M ulvey (1989:14-26); for the application of visual theory to elegy see Fredrick (1995), (1997); Richlin (1992c: 45-47). l^Berger (1972:88-89). 234 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the Roman m anifestation of Lais, loved by m any m en. The reader is being invited to penetrate the te xt A lison K eith has pointed out how the term "menda," used in Amores 1.5 of the perfection of Corinna's body, is also a term used m etaphorically of literary faults. Hence, Keith argues, "Ovid explicitly conflates the physique of his elegiac g irlfrien d and the poetics espoused in his elegiac collection." Corinna, then, has a perfect body that incarnates the poetic perfection of her author. I w ould add that C orinna is not just, however, the reflection of her author's poetics, but also the instrum ent o f his poetic am bition. She is a textual female constructed to ensnare the reader. Amores 1.5, then, functions as an unveiling of the elegiac puella before the eyes o f the reader. It is elegy's equivalent o f the nude portrait.20 The elegiac narrator is granted his wish of denuding Corinna w ith in the text but his represented private act of voyeurism and sex is also paraded before a w ider external audience. In this m aim er the external poet scripts the undressing of Corinna as he also scripts the clothing of her. It is the external poet who writes in the Coan silks and expensive ornam entation that the internal poet so disparages.^^ The external poet produces his sexualized fem ale object in the same manner that Plautus's Ballio does in the Pseudolus, "cur ego vestem, aurum atque ea quibus est vobis usus, prohibeo? " "W hy do I provide you w ith clothing, gold and those things w hich you have need of?" (182). The answer for Ballio, the l^Keith (1994:31). excellent, and more detailed, discussions on the relationship beween the erotic written texts of elegy and the visual medium of Roman w all painting, the reader is referred to M yerowitz (1992) and Fredrick (1995). ^^The best example of this theme is Propertius 1.2. 235 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. dram atic representation o f a leno, is o f course that he accessorizes his prostitutes in this fashion to enable them to ensnare lovers w ho w ill enhance the m aterial standing o f their patron. So, too, the elegiac puellae dressed in their Coan silks are also sent out into the text to acquire for th eir p im p /c re a to r the discursive w ealth o f literature; readers.^ In this w ay, the lem w ho is constructed w ith in the text as the m aterial d rivin g force behind the puella is nothing m ore than an internal w ealth-oriented m anifestation o f an external fam e-oriented poet. The Poet as Pimp and the Ramifications of Flawed Sexual Ownership As noted in the last section, the elegiac puella is unveiled in Amores 1.5 by means o f her dress, behavior and com parison. She is thus presented in terms that do not ultim ately depict her as the exclusive sexual possession of the narrator but as a w om an whose sexual companionship is m ore w id ely available. Hence, the effect o f O vid's verbal portrait is quite the opposite o f the nude p o rtrait o f N e ll G v\ynne by Lely as described by Berger. 2 3 Berger sees the effect of this portrait o f the mistress of Charles n , which the K ing com m issioned, as dem onstrating N e ll G uynne's submission to the King, proclaim ing the King's sexual ownership and thus constructing Charles H asan object o f envy. Berger's analysis of Lely's painting is connected to his w ider thesis about the nature o f o il painting (c. 1500-1900 CE) generally, w hich is that the m edium was intim ately connected w ith a historically validated concept o f ownership. O il painting was an artistic m edium that could suggest better than any other the m ateriality o f the objects that it depicted. In doing so it was also especially suited to suggesting the desirability of being able to possess those objects outside of 22Hence, M artial (10.2.5) refers to the reader as "opes nostrae." 23Berger (1972:52). 236 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. th eir painted form . Thus the w ealthy commissioned paintings as a m im etic celebration o f the joys o f m aterial possession:^^ Thus painting itself had to be able to dem onstrate the desirability o f w hat m oney could buy. A nd the visual desirability o f w hat can be bought lies in its tangibility, in how it w ill rew ard the touch, the hand, o f the owner.25 Elegiac discourse produces an effect contrary to that o f Lely's portrait: it is a proclam ation o f flaw ed sexual ow nership. The read er/ view er, rather than being taunted w ith a sexually alluring im age that is expressly unavailable, is, in fact, presented w ith one that encourages the possibility o f sexual possession. This presents a kin d o f paradox at the heart o f elegiac discourse w hich is most elaborately expressed by O vid in Amores 3.12. Amores 3.12 begins, as elegies often do, w ith the narrator com plaining: Quis fu it ille dies, quo tristia semper am anti om nia non albae condnuistis aves? quodve putem sidus nostris occurrere fatis, quosve deos in m e bella m overe querar? Amores 3.12.1-4 W hat day was that one on w hich you ill-om ened birds chirped grim omens fo r the one always in love? O r w hat star should I think is getting in the w ay o f m y destiny, or w hat gods m ight I com plain are taking up arms against me? The specific nature of the narrator's com plaint is clarified in the next tw o lines: possession that naturally included paintings too. Thus Berger (1972:84-87) includes several pages on oil paintings that depict the wealthy art collector in the midst of his paintings: John Clarke (1998:153-161) has made a sim ilar observation on the decorative scheme, including erotic paintings, in the house of the freedman Caecilius lucundus at Pompeii which he argues is also symptomatic of deliberate m aterial display. Another interesting passage in this context is Pliny the elder’s rem ark (.Natural History 35.2) that most collectors of art only pretend to know about art to set themselves apart, "ad segregandos sese a ceteris," and that nowadays people are leaving behind them portraits not of themselves but o f their wealth, "imagines pecuniae, non suas, relinquunt." 25Berger (1972:90). 237 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. quae m odo dicta mea est, quam coepi solus am are, cum m ultis vereor ne sit habenda m ihi. Amores 3.12.5-6 She w ho just now was called mine, whom I began to love a ll on my own I'm ahraid now m ust be shared by me and m any others. So far the narrator's com plaints seem typically elegiac. H e is com plaining about his in ab ility to possess the elegiac puella on a sexually exclusive basis. However, the commonplace nature o f his com plaint becomes m ore complex in the lines that follow : Fallim ur, an nostris iim otuit ilia libellis? sic erit— ingenio prostitit ilia meo. et m erito! quid enim formae praeconia fed? vendibilis culpa facta puella mea est. me lenone placet, duce me perductus am ator, ianua per nostras est adaperta m antis. Amores 3.12.7-12 A m I m istaken or has she become w ell-know n in m y books? That's how it is— she is prostituted by means of my talent. A nd I deserve it! For w hy did I publicly proclaim her beauty? M y g irl, through m y ow n fau lt, has been made into a saleable com m odity. She gives pleasure w ith m e acting as her pim p, the lover has been led in under m y leadership and her door has been opened by m y hand. The situation tha^ the narrator describes here appears as the negative consequence o f the elegist s professed ability to confer finna on the elegiac puella through his literary discourse. In lines 5-6, "quae modo dicta mea est, quam coepi solus am are,/ cum m ultis vereor ne sit habenda m ihi, " "She w ho just now was called m ine, whom I began to love a ll on m y ow n. I'm afraid now must be shared by me and m any others, " there is a conflation o f professed autobiography and literary venture. Thus, "coepi, " " T began" can sim ultaneously refer to the beginning o f a love affair and the commencement o f elegiac com position. The narrator's status as sole lover, "solus," and the acknowledgm ent o f his sole possession o f his elegiac puella, "quae . . . dicta mea est, " sim ilarly po int to the 238 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. originary moment o f both love a ffa ir and composition, before Corinna became an object of textual dissem ination. H ow ever, that moment is now relegated to the past, "modo," "just now," and in the present a potentially disturbing situation has arisen: now Corinna m ust potentially be shared w ith m any. This tem poral m ovem ent from sole to sharing lover corresponds to the tem poral circulation of O v id ’ s text.26 The incongruity between a private girlfriend (the ostensible object of m im esis) and the publicly consumed fem ale literary object (as represented by the poetry-book and its readership) is throw n into sharp relief. H o w can exclusive possession be com patible w ith the necessarily public nature of poetry? The elegiac poet has been hoist by his ow n petard. By commemorating the ptiella he has also advertised her sexual attractions. H e has been her pim p, his ingenium has been the means of prostitution, and the consequence has been the inevitable dow nsizing of his ow n love life. The dynam ic o f a poet exploiting a text m etaphorically equated w ith a sexualized female is the same as is evident in the passage from Juvenal’s seventh Satire (discussed at the beginning o f the chapter) where Statius’ s Thebaid is represented as his g irlfrie n d / w hore {arnica) and where, as a num ber o f scholars have observed, Statius is cast in the role of a pim p haw king his poetry. ^7 In elegy, how ever, the consequences of this m etaphoric equation of poet w ith pim p are more pronounced at the level o f the narrative. For the sexualized fem ale w ho functions as a m etonym for the poet’ s verbal product is also the desired fem ale ^^The conceit is thus the same, if more overtly metafictionalized as one might expect o f O vid, as that presented at the beginning of Propertius 2~5 (examined earlier in the chapter). ^^Bartsch (1994:132) lists the following as having observed the pim p analogy in the Juvenal passage: Tandoi (1969:107,120-21); Wiesen a 9 7 3 :477-78); Rudd (1976:102); Hardie (1983:61); Braund (1988:60). 239 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. object o f the narrator in the text. Hence, the more successful the poet is in pim ping his poetic wares, the less chance the elegiac narrator has of success w ith in the te x t the dow nsizing o f the sex life o f Naso (the internal narrator) is in inverse proportion to the lite ra ry success o f Naso (the external poet). The pim ping of the puella that is to be regretted at the dram atic level of the text, is at an extra-textual level highly desirable, if m etaphorically disreputable.^® Elegiac discourse by applying the name o f the external poet to the intern al narrator allows O vid to construct such a poem as Amores 3.12 where the beleaguered 'O vid ' in the text is forced to lam ent the success o f his extra-textual counterpart L ittle w onder th at the elegiac narrator, from his perspective, has little good to say about poetry: A n prosint, dubium , nocuerunt carm ina semper; invidiae nostris ilia fuere bonis. Amores 3.12.13-14 W hether poetry is of any benefit is dubious, it has always harm ed me and borne me ill-w ill. The narrator also goes on to blam e his sexually dim inished textual existence on the credulity of elegy's readers: Nec tamen u t testes mos est audire poetas; m alueram verbis pondus abesse meis. Amores 3.12.19-20 But it isn't customary to hear poets as if they were legal witnesses; I had preferred w eight to be lacking from m y words too. ^®At this level I find it hard to agree w ith Ellen Greene's analysis (1994:344-350) that O vid in the third book of the Amores has created a narrator, O vid' whose crass commercialism is intended as an indictment of an elegiac form o f amor that "reiterates the mercantilist and im perialist values in Roman society " (350). The rhetoric o f the narrator cannot be assumed to inversely reflect the opinion of the external poet on "sexual politics” especially when the literary success o f the author depends on precisely the sort of exploitation that in this analysis he is taken to be condemning. O vid may not have been like O vid' but that doesn't mean he was Virginia W oolf in a toga. 240 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. E xit in inm ensum fecunda licentia vatnm , obligat historica nec sua verba fide. Amores 3.12.41-2 The prolific license o f poets know s no bounds and doesn’t shackle itself to historic veracity. The narrator accuses the audience o f reading too lite ra lly: o f assuming that elegiac verbal art is realist and exists as an unm ediated representation o f a reality outside o f the text. Such readers have no concept o f poetic license. To support his argum ent he proceeds to relate (a t typ ically O vidian length) some 20 lines of exem pla (lines 21-40). Poets created Scylla, M edusa, the sirens, told o f Niobe turned into a rock, CalUsto into a bear and Jupiter into a shower of gold. To believe in such tales w ould display an incredible naiveté and disregard the poet’s traditional rig ht to exaggerate and fabricate. The narrator concludes that any readers w orth their salt w ould in evitab ly have come to the conclusion that the poetic praise of the elegiac puella was also dubious, "et mea debuerat falso laudato v id e ri/ fem ina, ” "And m y w om an ought to have seemed to have been praised falsely ” (43-44). Even here there is an elem ent o f prevarication. For the narrator is not exactly saying that the femina herself was fabricated but falsely praised. In other words the puella in her poetic form m ay only bear a tendentious relation to an extra-textual referent. Poetic praise is not to be trusted; it is at best a commissioned em endation o f reality. The im age provided by textual inscription does not have to correspond to external reality, indeed the whole point o f textual inscription m ay be to have in the text w h at one does not have outside i t 2 9 The 29A letter of Cicero’s to Lucceius {Ad fam. 5.12.3) is interesting in this context. The orator frankly urges Lucceius to exaggerate the importance o f the events concerning the Catilinarian conspiraty and to let veritas take a back seat to am icitia, "Itaque te plane etiam atque etiam rogo, ut te omes ea vehementius etiam, quam fortasse sentis, et in eo leges historiae neglegas," 'Therefore I frankly entreat you over and over again that you embellish these events w ith even more 241 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. reader should be aw are that the elegiac puella, even if she is a textual inscription o f a real w om an, is not an accurate reflection o f such a wom an. It is only w ith in the text that Corinna's body can be a corpus sine menda; she is poetically enhanced. The elegiac narrator, then, in Amores 3.12, lik e a character in a m etafictional novel, laments how his character is m ade to serve the literary am bitions o f his autho r.^ The poem, in a typically O vidian fashion, points to how part o f the success o f elegy m ay have depended on the genre's capacity to induce a reading response grounded in the potential referentiality o f the elegiac puella. enthusiasm than perhaps you feel, and that in this m atter you pay no attention to the laws of historical composition; " "earn [gratia] si me tibi vehementius commendabit, ne aspemere, amorique nostro plusculum etiam, quam concédât veritas, largiare,” "If it [gratia] recommends me to you more insistently that you do not disregard it and that you bestow a little more on my friendship than truth allows." Pliny (Epistles, 7.33.10) appears to be a little more circumspect when he writes to Tacitus, "Haec, utcumque se habent, notiora clariora maiora tu fades; quamquam non exigo ut excedas actae rei modum. Nam nec historia debet egredi veritatem, et honeste fact is veritas sufficit," These affairs, whatsoever m erit they might have, you can make them more w idely known, more esteemed and important; although I am not asking you to exceed the bounds of what actually happened. For history ought not to exceed the truth and truth is suffident for deeds done honorably." Cicero is also trying to avoid having to w rite his own panegyric, a practice which he realizes is somewhat problematic as it inspires less confidence in the reader, "ut m inor sit fides, m inor auctoritas, m ulti denique reprehendant," "there is less faith accorded to such an account and it has less weight and many criticize" (Adfam. 5.12.8). ^^Consider, as an example of such metafictional angst, the opening o f Kurt Vonnegut s Deadeye Dick (1983:13): To the as-yet-unbom, to all innocent wisps o f undifferentiated nothingness: Watch out for life. 1 have caught life. 1 have come down w ith life. I was a wisp of undifferentiated nothingness, and then a little peephole opened quite suddenly. Light and sound poured in. Voices began to describe me and m y surroundings. Nothing they said could be appealed. They said 1 was a boy named Rudolph W altz, and that was that. They said 1 was in M idland C ity, Ohio, and that was th at They never shut up. Year after year they piled detail upon detail. They do it still. You know what they say now? They say the year is 1982, and that 1 am fifty years old. Blah blah blah. 242 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The Commemorative Pact: Exploiting Girlfriends and Patrons The literalizatio n of the poem as prostitute m etaphor in elegy and the dependency of elegy's success on successfully pim ping its fem ale leads casts doubt on, if it cannot entirely dispel the possibility of, the extra-textual reality of the elegiac puella. This in turn has ram ifications for the nature o f the com m em orative pact that the narrator offers to the puella in the te x t The nature o f this compact between puella and poet is elaborated in Amores 1.3: te m ihi m ateriem felicem in carm ina praebe proveniunt causa carm ina digna sua. carm ine nomen habent exterrita comibus lo et quam flum inea lu sit adulter ave, quaeque super pontum sim ulate vecta iuvenco virginea tenuit cornua vara manu, nos quoque per totum pariter cantabim ur orbem, iunctaque semper erunt nom ina nostra tuis. Amores 1.3.19-26 Provide yourself as fru itfu l m aterial fo r poetry to me and songs w orthy o f their inspiration w ill come into being. lo , terrified by her homs, and she w hom the adulterer deceived in the guise of a river bird , and she carried over the sea by a pretend b u ll, w ho held the curved homs w ith her virg in al hand, a ll have a reputation through song. W e, too, w ill be sung together through the whole w orld, and m y name u ill always be joined to yours. The puella is to make herself available as the m aterial for the narrator’s poetry and in return she w ill obtain literary fam e, "carmine nomen. This w ill be a sym biotic relationship, "nos. . . iu n cta. . . nom ina nostra": they w ill be partners in fam e. How ever, the puella should be w ary o f the examples o f literary incarnation that the narrator produces. Casting him self in the role of Jupiter the narrator offers the puella the chance to become an lo , Leda or Europa: the female as tmteria to be used by the male artist in Ovid's p>oetry see M yerow itz (1985). 243 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. non m ih i m ille placent, non sum desultor am oris: tu m ih i, siqua fides, cura perennis eris. Amores 1.3.15-16 A thousand don't please m e, I am no Git-around in love: you w ill be m y everlasting concern, if there is any tru s t In a poem in w hich the narrator has professed erotic fid e lity , the adoption of the role o f a notorious adulterer should not strike the puella as prom ising (and draws attention to the narrator's q u alifier of "si qua fides"). These wom en are all textualized as the unfortunate rape victim s o f Jupiter. The lesson to be learned is that the narrator's literary fam e w ill be w on at the cost o f the exploitation o f the piiella’s body in the te x t The sneakiness of the narrator's professed com m em oration is also apparent elsewhere.32 A t Amores 1.10.60 the narrator states, "quam volui, nota fit arte mea, " "W hom I have w anted becomes w ell-know n through m y art. " So too at Propertius 2.25.3 the narrator states, " ista meis fie t notissim a form a libellis, " "That beauty of yours w ill become famous beyond a ll in m y poetry books. " There could be seen to be a deliberate prevarication here latent in the sem antic possibilities of nota. The act o f literary rnarking, notare, was associated w ith the censor's nota censoria w hich was entered next to a man's name on the census-lists as a m ark of negative existimatio. Such a m ark was sim ultaneously an expression of, and a reason for, a m an incurring injamia.^^ To the extent (as w ill be examined further in subsequent chapters) that the narrator him self is troped as infamis, then his offer of poetic praise can be seen as problem atic, for to be praised by someone w ho is infamis m ust inevitably constitute a negative form o f existimatio: praise sneakiness that as Oliensis (1997a; 153) points out is already contained in the use of a pseudonym that (if the name in the text can be understood as a mask for a figure outside of itself) allows the poet a license that is not available in the case of an inscribed Messalla or Maecenas. 33j. Crook (1967:83); Digest 38.2.3.4. 244 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. from the w rong person is tantam ount to blam e.^ Thus, the puella is being set up for a problem atic 'notarization.' Coupled w id i the unprom ising nature o f her potential laudator is the problem atic nature o f fem ale public exposure.^ For a wom an a state of being famosa, "much spoken of," was alm ost inherently negative, to the extent that famosa became synonymous w ith prostitute.36 As a puella nota, o r worse still, puella notissima, the elegiac puella is propelled into a dubious celebrity.^^ Such publicity fo r a respectable wom an could, h'om a culturally specific perspective, only be problem atic. H ow ever, if the wom an should happen not to be respectable but a prostitute then such publicity should be to her benefit. A n interesting parallel here is Socrates' encounter w ith Theodote in Xenophon's Memorabilia.^ ^^Hence, when Cicero solicits Lucceius to embark on a historical narrative of the Catilinarian conspiracy (in the same letter as discussed in n. 29), he lists among his reasons for wanting Lucceius to do it the high social reputation of the historian (who was a senator), "Placet enim Hector ille m ihi Naevianus, qui non tantum laudari se laetatur, sed addit etiam, a laudato viro,” "For I like the sentiment of Naevius’s Hector, who rejoices not only at being praised but adds too, by a man who has been praised h im self (AdJam. 5.12.7). A more reputable form of poetic Ians is conferred by a v ir laudatus, which the elegiac narrator clearly is not: on the "implied threat of infamia at the end of Amores 1.10 see Habinek (1997:30). The problematic nature offiana in an erotic context also forms the kernel of Sulpida 1 as excellently discussed by Keith (1997:299-303); see further chapter eight. 35As H illard (1992:37) notes "Very little publicity was good publicity" (37); see also Schaps (1977). 3^E.g., Cicero De orat. 2.277, "me ad famosas vetuit mater accedere," "My mother forbade me to approach disreputable women." See Adams (1983:342); H illard (1992:45). The term Jetnittae fiimosae is also used at Suetonius Tiberius 35.2 to denote adulteresses who registered with the aediles as prostitutes to avoid prosecution for adultery. O n the sim ilar term feminae probrosae see M cGinn (1998a). On the nature of infamia at Rome see Greenidge (1894); Gardner (1%3: ch. 5); Richlin (1993a: 555-61); M cGinn (1998:44-69). 37see Myers (1996:21). 380n this encounter see Davidson (1997:120-30); G oldhill (1998). 245 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Socrates hears that Theodote is so stunningly attractive that painters go to use her as a m odel and so he takes his pupils to look fo r themselves. A fter view ing her Socrates asks: TTÔ TEpov fipâç 5eî pâXAov @ Eo66-[% | x6pw ëxeiv, ô t i fipiv t ô (cdXXoç éavnfjç È T T É B E iÇ e v , q xaurriv riMÎv, ô t i è6eaoàpE6a; dp' eI pèv raOnn càçEXiucjTépa éorlv f| éTTiSeiÇ iç, xaurriv lîpîv x^pw éicrécv, eI 5 è nnîv n Béa, nuâç TauTT]; 3.11.2 W hether we ought to be grateful to Theodote for showing us her beauty, o r she to us because w e view ed her? If the display was more advantageous to her, ought she to be grateful to us, and if the sight to us, then w e to her? H e concludes: a v h r i MÈV T]5ri t e t ô v T ra p ' nn&bv ÉTraivov KEpôaîvEi K ai ETTEiôàv eIç ttX eîo uç Ô iayyE iXcopE V, ttXeico càçEXfjoETai. 3.11.3 She already profits from our praise and when we m ention it to more people, she w ill p ro fit more. As Theodote is a hetaira Socrates naturally assumes that their praise of her and their subsequent repetition of such praise to others w ill p ro fit her. Theodote’s status is constructed in public and the more people who hear of her beauty, the more potential lovers (and hence m aterial profit) she w ill have. The praise of a hetaira increases her erotic status. If the interaction between Socrates and Theodote is transferred into the context o f elegy, then the elegiac narrator's inscription o f the elegiac puella should count as a considerable service. The elegist is in effect constructing a poetic billboard for her. It is the uncertainty that surrounds the puella’s status (as exam ined in chapter tw o) that produces a problem here. If she can be understood to be a matrona then her elegiac inscription renders her culpably infamous, whereas if she is a prostitute she is receiving generous publicity. Elegy produces 246 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. a textuality that allow s both possibilities to coexist in an uncertain haze of referentiality. Inasm uch as elegy can be seen as an allegory o f literary exchange, then the different poles of potential referen tiality fo r the puella, the matrona and the meretrix, could also be seen as illum inating the capacity o f aristocratic patronage to be troped negatively. 3 9 As exam ined in chapter three it is easy to draw parallels between the aristocrat's and the prostitute's exchange o f favors. In this m anner the respectability o f a Rom an aristocrat (as Seneca clearly saw) could always be seen as m etaphorically compromised. The conflation in elegy of matrona and meretrix in the figure o f the elegiac puella could be view ed as an allegorical reference to a sim ilar conflation in the figure o f the Roman aristocrat. The Roman aristocrat, after a ll, lik e a hetaira must embed him self in the respectability o f traditional social relations at the same tim e as taking any opportunity for shameless self-prom otion. To this extent a poetic praeco could be of benefit to both and the means o f persuading a patron, in and outside, o f elegy of the benefits of com m em oration rem ains constant. This in turn produces the conflation of patron and w hore that Seneca him self elaborates. The situation elaborated above in Amores 1.3 m ight also give an aristocratic patron pause fo r tho ug ht If the puella inside the text is analogous to a literary patron outside of the text, then clearly a patron is being figuratively raped by his literary c lie n t the nomen o f a notable patron is being used as a platform fo r the poet's ow n aspirations. As Barbara G old has noted, elegy creates an unlikely context fo r the positive textualization of an external patron: 39lf as Thomas M cGinn (1998:207ff.) argues the effect of the Augustan adultery law was to produce a rigid dichotomy of respectable and non-respectable women by re-establishing the "polarity of meretrix and tmter jamilias" (209), then elegy in its conflation of these two figures can be seen as precisely reflecting the blurring of Roman social propriety that the Augustan legislation sought to redress. 247 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In elegiac poetry, how ever, the poet could hardly praise a patron such as Maecenas by celebrating his deeds w hen the patron’s m ajor accomplishments and activities (politics and w ar) w ere the very object o f the poet’s criticism .^ In this sense the substitution o f the puella for a norm al patron makes perfect sense b u t it does not rem ove the allegorical im plications of the discourse. Real patrons are, how ever, textualized on occasion in elegy. E llen Oliensis has discussed the ram ifications o f the inscription of Messalla in Tibullus 1.1 and 1.5.41 The intrusion o f a M essalla, Oliensis argues, forms a sort o f interface betw een the fictional w orld o f elegy where the poet is in control and the outside w o rld w here he is not. Thus, w hen Messalla intrudes into a scene containing Tibullus and D elia in 1.5 the latter quickly transfers her attentions aw ay from the elegiac narrator towards M essalla and so demonstrates the fragile nature of the narrator’s constructed superiority. As Oliensis notes, the textualized patron thus functions w ith in the text as the generic dives amator whom the puella lavishes attention on at the expense o f the narrator (in such poems a s Propertius 2.16 and Amores 3.8 discussed in chapter six). The hierarchical chain th at is set in m otion by Messalla's entry into Tib ullu s’s text m irrors the situation that Augustus envisioned w ou ld happen w hen he invited Horace to be his personal secretary: Horace, he assumed, w ould leave the "parasitic" table o f Maecenas and attend the ’ royal" table o f A u g u s t u s . 4 2 The princeps seemingly had little doubt that a dependent poet w ould readily sw itch a lesser for a greater patron in the same w ay that a prostitute (or an 40GoId (1993:285). 4l01iensis (1997a: 155-57). 4^The reference comes from a letter o f Augustus's to Maecenas referred to by Suetonius in his life of Horace: see G riffin (1984:202-03); Oliensis (1997a: 166). 248 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. elegiac puella) w ould ditch a poorer fo r a w ealthier clien t.^ Thus the insertion of a w^ealthy Roman aristocrat into the text of elegy produces, as Oliensis w ell elaborates, a textual shuffle to accommodate such eminence. Such a shuffle is necessary, Oliensis states, because the poet cannot m anipulate the textualization o f a patron in the same w ay he can that of the elegiac puellaM This does not m ean, however, that the textualization o f a patron that causes disablem ent w ith in the text could not be enabling outside it.^5 The inclusion o f Messalla m ight d isru p t the erotic aspirations of the narrator in the text bu t they surely m ight enhance those of the external po et Thus a patron can be allow ed to steal a g irlh ien d in the text if it enables a poet to m arket his textual g irlfrien d more effectively. If the elegiac puella is an allu rin g textual Gction whose referentiality rem ains shadowy, then the inscription of a Messalla also promotes the elegiac text both through the effect of a celebrity cameo and by the added referential w^eight that such an appearance gives to the textuality of elegy. In this w ay the elegiac poet though ostensibly being deferential to his patron w ith in the text is exploiting him , as he does the elegiac puella, as a means to his own literary aspirations. Playing with Referentiality As has been examined above, both girlfriends and patrons are liable to be textualized to enable the elegist's quest fo r literary success. The referentiality o f a ^^The fact that Horace did not abandon Maecenas gives more credence to his metaphoric status as a faithful poetic spouse rather than opportunistic poetic whore. 44oiiensis (1997a: 153). •^As Oliensis (1997a: 102) notes w ith respect to the name-dropping that goes on in Horace's Satires and M artin Bloomer (1997:208-10) also notes in the Contraversiae of Seneca the elder. 249 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. figure like M essalla can be in little doubt whereas that o f the puella remains obscure. As stated earlier, if the puella corresponds to an extra-textual matrona then she is being defam ed for the author's b en efit if to an external meretrix then her allure is appropriated by the elegist a t the same tim e as he renders her some added publicity. How ever, the possibility also remains that the elegiac puella has no direct external referent at a ll (as the narrator in Amores 3.12 d arkly hints) and that her construction as an alluring and venal fem ale figure masks nothing but a fem ale fiction program m ed to seduce readers for her author. Thus, when the O vidian narrator in Amores 1.3 outlines his literary contract, he is m erely offering the puella, as his literary construction, the opportunity to jo in the ranks o f other fictionalized females. H e is not offering a wom an fam e through literatu re but a fictional character a literary opportunity. To the extent that the elegiac narrator is also a poetic character he is one literary figure extending an in vitatio n fo r another to join him in the text in a sym biotic (or should that be parasitic) poetic relationship orchestrated by an external elegiac m atchm aker. I w ould argue, however, that it is precisely in the space and uncertainty betu'een life and text that elegiac discourse entices its readers. Elegiac discourse works deliberately to problem atize the relationship betw een inside and outside the text and to exploit this referential confusion for its ow n benefit. There are indubitable historical figures who appear in the texts of elegy: Maecenas, Messalla, Augustus, Tullus. The relationship betw een 'Maecenas' and Maecenas naturally does not have to be precise, bu t the textually inscribed figure of "Maecenas' obviously exists in some relation to the external referentiality of Maecenas. G iven the historicity o f a Maecenas and o f the elegiac narrators themselves it is not d iffic u lt to see how the potential fo r referentiality is also 250 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. assumed fo r the elegiac puella. W hy, after a ll, should she be the only one w ho is pure fiction and unrelated to an external reality? There is a long historical reception of elegy stretching hrom antiquity^ to the present that has fixated on the possible historical identities o f the various elegiac puellae. The earliest case we have is the w e ll know n passage from A puleius’s Apologia w here historical identities are set dow n fo r Lesbia, C ynthia, and Delia.46 A puleius, o f course, was defending him self in court and had his ow n rhetorical agenda for w anting to elaborate on the w idespread referen tiality of Roman literary figures.^^ How ever, as Duncan Kennedy has argued, w hether or not A puleius can be accepted at face value he does dem onstrate that Rom an reading practices (o r the reading practices of some Romans) m ay have been inform ed by biographical speculation.'** The identities that Apuleius posits surely w ere the result of a historical process of speculation on the part of Roman readers rather than the spontaneous assertion o f Apuleius. Hence, the b e lie f in the referentiality of Rome's literary figures m ust have pre-existed A puleius, and presum ably have been reasonably widespread, for him to have cited it in his defense. The extension of such allegorical/referential reading habits by A puleius to even the figures of Corydon and Alexis in the Eclogues shows just how fa r such a mode o f reading could be taken. Apuleius's comments m ay w ell, then, refer to a type of Rom an reading practice that was unabashedly com m itted to reading ^A puleius Apologia 10: the passage is naturally a starting point for every discussion of the possible referentiality of the various elegiac puellae. For two contrasting ways of dealing w ith this Inform ation consider W illiam s (1968:526-27) and Kennedy (1993:84-87). ‘ *^Specifically, that his own praise under pseudonyms of two slave-boys of a friend was nothing extraordinary. ^«Kennedy (1993:88-89). 251 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. poetry as a form o f autobiography, and to interpreting literary discourse generally as a th in ly disguised form o f personal confession. Elegiac discourse, as Ketm edy also argues, m ay have developed from an origin of a pseudonymous domina whose id e n tic although masked was an easy m atter fo r speculation and could be readily associated w ith the external details of the poet's sex life.'*^ In this m anner the w ritings o f C atullus and Cornelius Callus may w ell have provided a fram ew ork o f poetry refracted through external reality that the later elegists inherited and form alized. Such figures as Q od ia M etelli and C ytheris w ould have provided dram atic and enticing referents for textualized females that a poet m ay w ell have constructed and encouraged to exploit contem porary notoriety fo r his own ends. This does not mean, o f course, that such identifications were set in stone. Q o d ia m ay w ell have been outed in a poem like C atullus 79 w ithout ever having been in the poet's bed. The figures of the aristocratic matrona, Q o d ia M e te lli, and the notorious libertina, C ytheris, w ould also have provided later elegists w ith tw o different types o f potential fem ale referents fo r their textualized females (as discussed in chapter tw o). The form ative stages o f elegiac discourse m ay, then, have encouraged fem ale fictions to be read as relatively unproblem atic masks for contem porary notorious female figures w ith w hom the m ale narrator had/could be believed to have had an afrair outside of the text. Later elegists m ay then, as Kennedy notes, have inherited such a "discursive situation " as a natural generic param eter w ith in w hich to compose, s o Readers expected, and w anted to believe, that the intra-textu al antics o f the elegiac narrator and his elegiac domina could be seen as unproblem atically (w ith 49Kennedy (1993:88-89). SOKennedy (1993:89). 252 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the b it o f detective w ork required to penetrate the pseudonym ) grounded in the behavior o f an extra-textual poet and his Augustan g irlfrien d . Thus p art o f the pleasure of reading elegy w ould consist in trying to illum inate the discourse's pseudonyms and attem pting to w ork out who was the colorful extra-textual girlfrien d behind the literary puella. S im ilarly, part of the fun o f w ritin g elegy w ould likew ise have consisted in constructing a textual product that w ould egg on the reader’s insatiable curiosity and hunger for erotic gossip. Hence, it is noticeable that when Cicero finds him self seated next to V olum nia Cytheris at dinner, he stresses that he wasn’t interested in such things even w hen he was younger, bu t that is not to say, o f course, that he wasn’t interested in hearing about, and gossiping about, them.5Z H aving exam ined in this chapter how the elegist exploits the incarnation of the puella in particular (and to a lesser degree that o f a patron), I w ant to move on in the next chapter to discuss how the poet sim ilarly blurs the line between text and reality in the construction o f him self, and how the elegiac narrator is also depicted in the text as an infamous and sexualized otyect to lure and ensnare prurient interest and enable the poet’s literary am bitions. W yke (1989a) draws a sharp distinction between "Augustan G irl Friends" and "Elegiac Women" (27). It is inevitably true that the textual figure is not unproblem tically a referent for an external girlffiend; she' is also an incarnation of the author's poetics. However, it does seem to me that whether or not the elegiac puella is a referent for an external woman, the possibility that she might be provides an essential constituent o f elegiac discourse. ^^See further Wiseman (1985:43-44). 253 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. C H A P TE R E IG H T Creating Elegy's Erotic Spectacle Part Two: Self-Exploitation: Scripting Erotic Initiation In this chapter I w ant to examine the depiction o f the narrator in elegiac discourse. In particular I w ill be concentrating on trying to define the age o f the narrator and how this im age fits into Rome's sexual economy. I w ill be arguing that the narrator is characterized in the text as a m ale on the threshold of adulthood and that this lim in a lity is an essential ingredient o f the effect of elegy. This is a tim e o f erotic in itia tio n and a potentially perilous period o f life that must be successfully negotiated for a Roman youth to become a fu lly integrated and productive m em ber o f society. In the case o f the elegiac narrator this is a tale of unsuccessful transition as erotic in itiatio n leads into protracted erotic entanglement that produces social stigma. Textuaiizin g O neself Patrons and girlfriends are not the only people exploited in the elegiac text. The elegiac narrator is also a character to be scripted and used in the poet’s erotic drama. Elegiac discourse deliberately elides the gap between internal narrator and external poet by using the poet's external name w ith in the text. The narrator in elegy bears the same name— T ib u llu s / Propertius,' "Naso,' 'S ulpida'— inside the text as the external poet does outside the te x t The only w ay that the difference can be m arked is through the use o f quotation marks or such inelegant periphrastic phrases as the internal narrator' and the external poet.' The awkwardness o f trying to express the difference shows how tightly the tw o are bound together. The use of the signifier Naso sim ultaneously invokes a character 254 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. in a text and a Rom an equestrian in real life . In such a circum stance the experiences and characteristics o f the one naturally tend to be prelected onto the other. This does not necessarily mean, of course, that one has to read the text as a poetic transcription o f the poet's external love life , bu t it surely does encourage a degree of elision betw een poetic persona and external referent. In this m anner, I shall argue, the poet w rites him self into his text as a source o f p rurient gossip in the same m anner as he m anipulates the potential referen tiality o f the puella: the question "W hom is Propertius or Naso m aking a fool out o f him self with?" becomes a form o f tabloid Roman headline. It is w ith in this space that the elegiac narrator constructs his notoriety and bemoans his degradation even as he exploits it.i In this chapter I w ant to examine the construction o f the elegiac narrator as a youthful Roman m ale on the threshold of adulthood. In the subsequent chapter I shall exam ine how this lim in al status extends to the characterization o f the narrator as a poet as w ell as a lover. D e fin in g The Elegiac N arrator H ow is the elegiac narrator depicted in elegy? C learly, the narrator is depicted as a young m an. Hence the narrator in Amores 3.7 exclaim s in distress at his sexual under-achievem ent: Quae m ih i ventura est, siquidem ventura, senectus, cum desit numeris ipsa iuventa suis? a, pudet annorum : quo me iuvenem que virum que? nec iuvenem nec me sensit amica virum ! 3.7.17-20 I In this manner elegiac discourse can be seen as exploiting for its ow n ends the rumors, allegations and invective that tended to cluster around members o f Rome's elite: see further Richlin (1992a), (1992c ch. 4); Edwards (1993); CorbeiU (1996). 255 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. W hat kin d o f old age aw aits m e, if indeed one is coming a t a ll, w hen m y very youth is found to be w anting in its ow n measures? O h shame on m y years: w hat’s the po int o f me being young and male? M y girlfriend fe lt m e to be neither. The Propertian narrator in his m ore typically m orbid m anner speculates on w hether C ynthia has fin a lly le ft him and this means death m ust come w h ile he is s till young: sic ig itu r prim a m oriere aetate, Properti? sed m orere; in te ritu gaudeat ilia tuo! 2.8.17-18 Is it lik e this, then, that you w ill die in your youth, Propertius? Yet die; and let her rejoice a t your death! Elegy, on one level, is com prehensible as a poetics o f youthful excess: it is a narrative of the erotic m isadventures o f an elite Roman m ale youth and, inasm uch as internal narrator and external poet share a name, it is cast in autobiographical terms. The Roman term iuvenis, how ever, covers a w ide tem poral span. Em iel Eyben has a systematic exposition o f the various phases as set out in the ancient sources. 2 W hen Varro divided up the cycles of life he came up w ith five 15 year periods fo r a man: pueritia occupied the period firom b irth to 15, adulescentia the period up to 30 and iuventus that firom 30 to 45.^ U nder the arm y reform s of Servius Tullius males were pueri up to 17 and iuniores upto 46. The period, then, o f youth and young adulthood was defined as extensive and the tw o tended to run into each other. As Eyben further elaborates, the Lex Plaetoria of c 200 BCE (a measure to protect those under 25 from possible exploitation) and the Lex Villia annalis of c ^Eyben (1993:6-9). ^Varro, in Censorinus 142; Eyben (1993:6). 256 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 180 BCE (w hich set the m inim um age fo r public office) were 'larg ely responsible for the creation o f a new sub-category, the real' youth This in turn, Eyben notes, led to a change in the use of term inology used in the types of literature that deal w ith this age group: Plautus and Terence use adulescens and adulescentia but poets firom C atullus onwards tend to prefer iuvenis and iuventus.^ Youth, then, in all probability, after these measures of the second century BCE, was perceived to last up to the age at w hich a man was no longer a m inor and at w hich he could start a p o litical career. This w ould provide a term inus to youth in the range between 25 and 30. The beginning of youth, on the ottier hand, w ould be defined by the assumption of the toga virilis.^ The assumption of the toga virilis was accompanied by a sym bolic farew ell to childhood w ith the setting aside of the toga praetexta and the dedication of the bulla to the household gods. The usual date for the assum ption of the toga virilis was M arch 17, the Liberalia. The age at w hich the toga virilis was assumed seems to have been variable (as puberty tends to be) and fe ll in the range from 14 to 17.7 In Propertius 4.1B, in the biography of the narrator that is spoken by Horus, the beginning o f poetic composition that is analogous to the narrative of his elegiac poetry is placed at the moment of transition from child to youth/young adult: ‘ ^^Eyben (1993:7). ^Eyben (1993:6 n. 7). 6 Wiedemann (1989:114-17); Eyben (1993:6-7); Richlin (1993a: 545-48); (1997:92-93). ^There may have been a physical examination element to this ceremony, too, see Rousselle (1988: 59); Richlin (1993a: 546-47). As 17 was the minimum age for active service, as set out by Servius Tullius, and for pleading in court, it would be natural to assume the necessity of the toga virilis being assumed before this age: on the minimum age for pleading in court see Digest 3 .1 .U ; Richlin (1993a: 547). 257 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. mox ub i bu lla n id i dim issast aurea collo, m atris e t ante deos libera sum pta toga, turn tib i pauca sue de carm ine dictât A pollo et vetat insano verba tonare foro. 4.1B 131-134 Presently w hen the golden locket was rem oved hrom your inexperienced neck and the toga o f a m an had been donned before your m other's gods; then A pollo dictates a few things to you from his ow n poetic repertoire and forbids you to thunder out words in the madness o f the forum . In the biography that O vid presents fo r him self in Tristia 4.10 the in itia l recitation by the poet of his w ork is dated in the follow ing manner: carm ina cum prim um populo iuvenalia legi, barba resecta m ih i bisve semelve fu it. 4.10.57-58 W hen I firs t read m y you th ful poetry to the people m y beard had been cut once or tw ice. The shaving of the first beard, the depositio barbae, was another event that took place in the transition from child to man.® This event w ould usually take place a few years after the assum ption o f the toga virilis. Thomas W iedem ann notes that this was a Greek ceremony in origin in w hich the hair was dedicated to Apollo.^ It w ould therefore be a particularly appropriate point for a poet to use as m arking the inception o f his poetic activity. It seems an age around tw enty was usual but, as W iedem ann points out, there was some variation: O ctavian shaved his beard at the age of 23 in 39 BCE; N ero organized the Iuvenalia o f 59 CE, when he was 21, to celebrate the occasion; C aligula was summoned to C apri at the age o f 19 and assumed the toga virilis and shaved his beard on the same day. ®See Richlin (1993a: 547-48); W iedemann (1989:116-117). ^Wiedermann (1989:116-117). ^(^Dio 48.343; Suetonius Ner. 12.4; D io 61.19.1; Suetonius Calig. 10; Wiedemann (1989:117). 258 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The settings depicted in Propertius 4.1B and O vid Tristia 4.10 refer to opposite ends o f the tem poral span of youth (as opposed to young adulthood). If the to tality o f y o u th / young adulthood can be view ed as lasting hrom the assum ption o f the toga virilis to the opportunity to stand for office, then this stretch o f tim e could be further subdivided by the ceremony of the depositio barbae w hich w ould p artition youth from young adulthood. As constructed in Propertius 4.1B the Propertian narrator's poetic activity begins w ith the inception of youth. The Propertian narrator, in the m idst o f his erotic woes, calls this tim e the "aetatis tem pora dura," o r as Cicero from a d ifferent perspective called it, the vacatio adulescentiae.^^ This was a tim e w here a degree o f indulgence seems to have been culturally sanctioned as Cicero argues at Pro Caelio 42, "detur aliquid aetati; sit adulescentia liberior; non om nia voluptatibus denegentur, " "Let some allowance be given to age; let youth be a little freer; le t not pleasure be denied entirely. " This same attitude is apparent in a passage from Seneca’s Controversiae, quoted by Eyben, w here a iuvenis pleads that his luxuria is sim ply an allow able and transitory sym ptom o f his youth: Concessis aetati iods utor et iuvenali lege defungor; id fado quod pater meus fa d t cum iuvenis esset. Megabit? Bona ego aetate coepi; sim ul prim um hoc tirocinium adulescentiae quasi debitum ac sollem ne persolvero, revertar ad bonos mores. Controversiae 2.6.11 1 am u tilizin g the fun allow ed to youth and em ploying the law of the young; 1 am doing that w hich m y father d id w hen he was young. W ill he deny it? 1 began at a good age; as soon as 1 have got through this necessary and customary apprenticeship of youth 1 shall return to good ways. Propertius 1.7.8; Cicero Pro Caelio 30 259 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The period o f the tirocinium adulescentiae seems a lik e ly one to be understood as the context fo r the elegiac narratives o f Propertius. It is a period o f lim in ality where a degree o f aberrant and anti social behavior could be overlooked as a youthful acting out that w ould in due course subside into the m aturity of adulthood. The setting o f Propertian elegy w ith in this period can also be supported by the chronology that the narrator sets out fo r his relationship w ith C ynthia in the firs t three books. The Propertian narrator at the beginning o f w hat was in a ll probability the fin al poem o f Propertius's in itia l collection declares "quinque tib i potui servire fid e lite r annos," "I was able to serve you faith fu lly for five y e a r s . Here again it could be assumed that fictional life and a period of literary productivity are made to coincide. In other words the length of the relationship w ith Cynthia that the internal narrator states in 3.25 was five years could also be understood to be the same am ount o f tim e that the external poet took to compose and publish this serial affair. The span o f tim e autobiographically w ould correspond to the tirocinium adulescentiae running from the assumption o f the toga virilis to the depositio barbae, m aking this a narrative o f a youth from 14-17 to 19-22. This form o f poetic biography, of course, poses its ow n form o f referential uncertainty. A re the biographical details presented in the poems supposed to refer to the literary figure of the poetic narrator or to the extra-textual person of the Roman poet? O r have the two been so closely aligned that differentiation is ^ ^Propertius 3.253 ^^Interestingly, it seems that the O vidian collection of Amores was originally in five books; the manuscript tradition of Propertius is far from certain and Book Tw o must consist of at least two separate books. Maybe there were in the original Propertian collection five books which corresponded, if not in a naively chronological fashion, to the five years of the relationship that the narrator mentions in 3.25. If this were to be the case, then the original O vidian collection would have m irrored the form of that of Propertius. 260 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. inevitably problematic? In other words, are we being inform ed th at O vid or Propertius w ere young when they wrote their elegies, or that 'O vid ' and "Propertius' are to be understood as youthful narrators, or both? The scanty nature of our chronology of the elegists' lives and the publication dates of their works makes this a d iffic u lt area. As noted in chapter five the b irth date for Propertius listed in the O xford Classical D ictionary is between 54 and 47 BCE: the date listed in the same entry for the publication of the firs t book is before October 28 BCE; the last dateable reference in the third book is to the death of M arcellus in 23 B C E .i* This w ould produce a range of age from 18 to 26 at the tim e of the publication of the firs t book to an age of 23-31 at the tim e of the publication of the third book.^5 The b irth date for Tibullus in the O xford Classical D ictionary is listed as between 55 and 48 BCE: there is a reference to the trium ph o f M essalla in book one (25 September 27 BCE) and the death of Tibullus is fixed at 19 BCE by an epigram of Dom itius Marsus w hich precedes the vita of the poeL'^ If book one was published soon after the trium ph of Messalla, say later in 27 BCE, then the poet w ould have been between the ages of 20 and 28 at the tim e o f publication, O vid was bom in 43 BCE. The edition of the Amores that w e possess, as indicated by the epigram that precedes the second book, is a second edition. The chronology of the original collection is therefore extrem ely vexed. J.C. M cKeown gives a date of 22-21 BCE fo r the publication of the original first fiv e books and a ^^Homblower and Spawforth (1996:1258). l^Gian Baggio Conte (1994:331) gives Propertius’s date of birth as 49 to 47 BCE. l^Hom blow er and Spawforth (1996:1524). ^^Conte (1994:326) lists Tibullus's date of birth as 55 to 50 BCE. 261 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. starting point fo r com position o f 26-25 BCE. This w ou ld m ean that O vid w ould have begun com position betw een the ages o f 16 and 18 and w ould have been between 20 and 22 a t the tim e o f publication of the o rig in al collection. Recitation w ou ld n atu rally have preceded publication, so a ll of the above ages could be rounded dow n as to the tim e that the authors w ere firs t publicly circulating their poetry in an o ral form . It is quite possible, then, that the age of the external narrator a t the tim e o f in itia l oral presentation m ay w ell have been very dose to the age o f the narrator depicted in the te x t Publication w ould produce a gap bu t the d isp arity m ay not have been so pronounced, depending on the reliab ility o f our chronology. This period o f life form s an in itiatio n into general a d u lt m ale life which indudes assuming an active sexual role. The sym bolic discarding o f the bulla and the toga praetexta m eant that a boy was ready to become a m an and make the transition from a possible sexual object into an active sexual subject, Thus in Persius Satires 5 the assum ption o f the toga virilis and the dedication o f the bulla is sw iftly follow ed by a v is it to the Subura: Cum prim um pavido custos m ihi purpura cessit bullaque subdnctis Laribus donata pependit, cum blandi comites totaque im pune Subura perm isit sparsisse oculos iam candidus um bo, cumque ite r am biguum est et vitae nesdus erro r d ed ud t trépidas ram osa in com pita mentes Persius Saturae 530-35 W hen firs t the guardianship o f the purple was w ith d raw n from my tim id self and m y donated bulla hung as an offering to the g irt Lares, when companions w ere allu rin g and m y now w hite gow n allow ed me to cast m y eyes over the w hole o f the Subura w ith o u t reproach, at ^®McKeown (1987:75). Richlin (1993a: 545-46); Walters (1997:33-34). 262 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the tim e when, the path o f life is uncertain and erro r that knows nothing of life led m y anxious m ind into the branching crossroads. The satire o f Persius is, o f course, considerably later than the tim e at w hich elegy was being composed. H ow ever, this sexual rite o f passage m ay w e ll have rem ained relatively constant over an extended period. Hence, the venturing o f Persius and his blandi comites into the Subura a t a period corresponding to the tirocinium adulescentiae is paralleled in Propertius 4.7 by the recollection the poet puts into the m outh o f Cynthia: iam ne tib i exciderunt vigilacis fu rta Suburae et mea noctum is trita fenestra dolis? 4.7.15-16 Have our erotic antics in the sleepless Subura so soon slipped from your memory and m y w in d o w -sill w orn dow n by stealth in the night? W hen C ynthia is again reincarnated in 4.8 she turns up on the Esquiline to break up the narrator's party w ith tw o other wom en. The Esquiline has already been established in 3.23 as the area where the narrator resides: i puer, et cdtus haec aliqua propone colum na, et dom inum Esquiliis scribe habitare tuum . 323.23-24 Go boy and quickly post this notice on some p illa r, and w rite that your m aster lives on the Esquiline. In this m anner the w ritten affair o f Propertius and C ynthia could be view ed as a dram atization o f the sexual in itiatio n o f a Roman elite m ale w ho casts aside his bulla and heads fo r Rome's red -lig ht d is tric t A n interesting parallel here is M a rtia l 11.78. A m y R ichlin in her discussion o f this poem elaborates how the epigram represents a form o f m ale com ing o f age as "Victor" has to leam to turn aw ay from his concubinus and direct his sexual attention tow ards his new bride.20 263 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. To facilitate this "process of genital sorting-out" it is suggested that the male novice should be handed over to an instructress in the Subura:^^ ergo Suburanae tironem trade magistrae. ilia viru m fadet; non bene virgc docet. 78.11-12 Therefore hand over the recruit to an instructress o f the Subura. She w ill m ake him a m an; a virg in doesn't instruct so w ell. This scenario of a you th ful sexually inexperienced m ale (as regards women) and a m ature sexually know ing wom an could w ell provide a plausible background to the narratives of elegy. M artial's magistra w ould then correspond to the elegiac domina and his tiro to the rudis iuvenis o f elegy, contactus nullis ante cupidinibus. Infam ous Youth As the passage from Persius in the last section indicates, this was a hazardous tim e of life fo r a Roman male and one during w hich his reputation could s u ffe r.^ Cicero affords an example nearer in tim e to the elegists than Persius. W hen Cicero in his defense o f M . Caelius Rufus in 56 BCE addresses the youngest member o f the prosecution team, Atratinus, w ho according to St. Jerome was 17 at the tim e, he deliberately says he w ill not engage in the m ud- slinging that one could plausibly aim at someone of that age:23 Q uis est enim , cui via ista non pateat, qui isti aetati atque etiam is ti dig nitati non possit quam velit petulanter, etiam si sine uUa suspidone, at non sine argum ento male dicere? Pro Caelio 8 20RicWin (1993a: 534-35). 2lR ich lin (1993a: 535). 22Hence the narrator in Persius decides at this time to entrust him self to the care of Comutus. 23st. Jerome ad Euseb. Qtron. Ol. 189: A m y Richlin (1993a: 538) describes this phenomenon as the "locus de aetate" 264 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. For w ho is there to whom that path is not open, w ho cannot slander as w antonly as he likes one o f your age and good looks, even if w ithout grounds fo r suspicion, though not, how ever, w ith o u t a basis for accusation? The orator fu rth er elaborates on the hazards to one’s reputation at this tim e o f life: Q ua in aetate nisi qui se ipse sua gravitate et castim onia et cum disciplina domestica, tum etiam natural! quodam bono defenderet, quoque m odo a suis custoditus esset, tam en infam iam veram ej^ g e re non p o terat Pro Caelio 11 A t that age unless someone could defend him self by his self-esteem, clean liv in g , domestic life-style, and inherent good qualities, then how ever m uch he was protected by M ends and fam ily, he s till w ould not be able to escape a justifiably bad reputation. Hence Cicero, was careful to po int out w ith respect to Caelius's tirocinium fori that he was carefully chaperoned at this tim e by him self and Crassus:^^ Q ui u t huic virilem togam d e d it. . . hunc a patre continuo ad me esse deductum ; nemo hunc M . Caelium in illo aetatis flore v id it nisi aut cum patre aut mecum aut in M . Crassi castissima dom o, cum artibus hones tissim is erudiretur. Pro Caelio 9 W ho [Caelius’ father] as soon as he gave him his toga virilis . . . this young m an was led straight by his father to me; no one saw Marcus Caelius in the flo w er of his young m anhood except either in the company o f his father or me or in the sexually irreproachable environm ent of the house of M arcus Crassus, w hile he was being trained in the most respectable pursuits. The im agery here is obviously eroticized; the description o f the flow er of Caelius's young manhood is an im age evidently rem iniscent of virg in ity . 2 5 24See further Richlin (1993a: 546); (1997:92-93). 25As employed in Sappho 105c; Catullus 11.21f, 62.39f.; V irg il Aeneid 9.435f. 265 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Cicero and Crassus are in effect the protective gardeners w ho have to prevent Caelius's flo w er from being plucked. The consequences o f a break in such elder m ale m entoring could lead to the sort o f allegations that Cicero makes in the Second P hilippic (a reverse strategy to that em ployed in the Pro Caelio w ith respect to A tratinus), "sumpsisti virilem , quam statim m uliebrem togam reddidisti," "You took on the toga v irilis w hich you im m ediately transform ed into a toga m uliebris " (2.44). There are two points here: A ntony became in fact not a m an b u t a wom an, as he was, Cicero alleges, the passive partner o f C urio, and he was also acting like a prostitute, the toga being the m ark not only o f the ad u lt m ale bu t also of the fem ale prostitute. 2 6 The elegiac narrator, like Cicero's A ntony, is an exam ple of w hat can happen if no guidance is available, or follow ed, and an adolescens is allow ed to pursue his ow n sexual experim entation. This situation seems to be facilitated in elegy, as D avid Konstan has noted, by the conspicuous absence of a father fig x ire .2 7 As Richard SaUer has elaborated, the extent of patria potestas among the Roman e lite m ay have been overem phasized due to insufficient attention being paid to m o rtality rates.28 This w ould have resulted. Sailer argues, in 55% of Roman e lite males at the age of 15 being sui iuris, rising to 68% for those aged 25.29 26see further Richlin (1992c 14-15); McGinn (1998:159). 27Konstan (1994:153-55). 28saUer (1987). 29SaIler (1987:32-33): other scenarios that w ould produce a iiaxnis sui iuris would be etmncipatio or the end o f tutela. Emancipatio Crook (1967:109-110) argues, was "usually a penalty for misbehavior" (which given the elegiac narrator's characterization may not seem entirely implausible), see also Gardner (1993:66ff.); tutela officially ended at the remarkably young age of 14, see further Crook (1967:116-117). 266 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Though the absence of a father in elegy m ay be a generic feature, it m ay also be one that is m eant to predeterm ine the narrator's tale of you th ful self- indulgence and m isdirection. For here clearly is a iuvenis w ith neither good judgm ent nor anyone to provide it fo r him . H e is a figure who on the lim in al threshold of adulthood chooses to ignore civic or m ilita ry responsibility and instead casts his eyes into the Subura that Augustus w ould carefully block out from the new scene o f the assum ption of the toga virilis by a huge retain in g / fire w a ll w hich remains today the m ost im pressive feature o f the Augustan forum and was surely symbolic as w ell as functional. As Cicero rem arks in Pro Caelio 11 (above) it is easy fo r a young m an to incur vera injiimia a t the form ative stage of his adulthood. This is precisely the represented fate o f the narrator in elegy. H is in ab ility to negotiate the tirodnium adulescentiae in an appropriate fashion leads to the kind of social stigm a set out in Propertius 2.24: "tu loqueris, cum sis iam noto fabula libro et tua sit toto C ynthia lecta foro?" cui non his verbis aspergat tem pora sudor? aut pudor ingenuis aut reticendus am or, quod si iam fad lis spiraret C ynthia nobis, non ego nequitiae dicerer esse caput, nec sic per totam infam is traducerer urbem , ureret et quam vis, non m ihi verba d a re t Propertius 2.24.1-8 "Do you talk in this w ay, when you are already a source o f gossip w ith your book w e ll know n and your C ynthia' read a ll over the forum? Whose brow w ould not sweat at these words? Gentlem en should either have a sense of sexual discretion or keep quiet about their passion. But if now C ynthia m ight be w ell disposed to me, I should not be called the fount o f depravity, nor should I be on display throughout the city as the temple of Mars U ltor as the new site of the toga mrilis ceremony see Rawson and W eaver (1997:215). 267 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. an object o f infimtia, and although she m ight inspire me w ith passion, she w ouldn't be tricking me. The narrator's lack o f pudor and his in ab ility to keep his love-life to him self are Hgured as being directly responsible for his status as the caput nequitiae and for the public construction of his infamia. As noted in the last chapter w ith respect to Propertius 2.5, the narrator's com plaints are disingenuous. For the puella's nequitia that helps to produce the narrator's infamia as outlined in 2.24 serves as the basis fo r the external poet’ s popularity. Hence, the narrator not only pim ps a fem ale fictio n /textu alized wom an bu t also his textualized self. H e constructs a prurient spectacle out o f his ow n behavior and the com plaints of the internal narrator in 2.24 over the popularization of his hum iliation at the hands of C ynthia have to be balanced against the success o f the literary product that accompanies such "hum iliation.' It is precisely w ith in the space of an alleged rupture of social propriety that the poet builds his literary reputation. Propertius must necessarily kiss and tell and the quibbles o f the internal narrator over a Roman form of a 'lo ve that dare not speak its nam e " are clearly disingenuous at a literary level. The construction of the elegiac narrator as a sham eful source of gossip is also apparent at the end o f Tibullus 1.4 where the narrator begs M arathus to let him avoid public stigm a, "ne turpis fabula fiam " (83). So too the narrative o f S ulpida 1 revolves around the potential im propriety of revealing an erotic attachm ent and the narrator's desire to do so: Tandem venit am or, qualem texisse pudori quam nudasse alicui sit m ihi fam a magis. exorata meis iliu m Cytherea Camenis a ttu lit in nostrum deposuitque sinum . the literary articulation of the "love that dare not speak its name and its social consequences in Victorian England see Dow ling (1994). 268 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. exsolvit prondissa Venus: mea gaudia narret, dicetur si quis non habuisse sua. non ego signads quicquam m andare tabellis, ne legat id nemo quam meus ante, velim , sed peccasse iu v a t vultus com poneie fam ae taedet: cum digno digna fuisse ferar. A t last a love has come, and such a love that the rum or o f having concealed it w ould cause me m ore shame than disclosing it to someone. H aving been successfully entreated by m y Muses the Cy therian picked him up and p u t him dow n in m y lap. Venus has fu lfille d her promises. Let anyone te ll o f m y pleasures o f whom it can be said that they never had th eir ow iL N ever should I w ant to entrust anything to sealed tablets unless anyone should read them before m y lover. But having sinned gives m e pleasure and donning a mask for the sake o f rum or is irksom e: le t me be said to have been w orthy o f my w orthy m an. As Alison K eith points out, this poem figures itself as an in itia l "oral dissemination" of Sulpida's love poetry that also contains w ith in itself "a figure for its form al literary p u b licatio n . . . in the im age of the unsealed tablets that make our poet's amores available to any rea d e r.H e re the m anipulation of "fama " for poetic celebrity is clearly apparent. M oreover, Sulpida's status as a fem ale author and an aristocrat (as she emphasizes in Sulpida 4) provide an added prurient interest in the details of her love life that she daim s she is about to lay bare in the text. As K eith notes: [Sulpida] emphasizes her extraordinary distance from Roman norms of fem ale propriety through the pervasive sexualization o f the process of poetic com position in the use of sexually charged verbs denoting covering and uncovering {texisse, nudasse), in the im agery o f "pelvic " reception {adtulit in nostrum deposuitque sinum), and in the daim of m isbehavior (peccasse) to describe her w ritin g as w e ll as her physical c o n d u c L ^ s 32Keith (1997:300). 33Keith (1997:301). 269 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. If p art o f the appeal o f Roman elegy lay in its construction of a dubious erotic relationship that encouraged a prurient interest in uncovering the referentiality of the other partner and o f rum m aging through someone else's sexual closet^ then Sulpida's intervention into the genre is rem arkably s k illfu l.^ H e r gender and aristocratic status give added interest to her literary self-serialization and the phrase "mea gaudia n a rre t,/ dicetur si quis non habuisse sua " demonstrates a self-consdous awareness o f the voyeuristic base o f her literary enterprise. In O vid's Amores 2.1 the narrator also emphasizes the t©ct as a tale o f his ow n im propriety: Hoc quoque conposui Paelignis natus aquosis, ille ego nequitiae Naso poeta meae. Amores 2.1.1-2 I, the one bom among the w atery Paeligni, composed this too; I am that Naso, the poet of m y own depravity. This sphragis-like opening to the second book o f the Amores seems to confirm rather than deny the lin k between external Roman author and intra-textu al narrator. The internal narrator after a ll was bom in the author's text not among the Paeligni. Thus, the lin e "ille ego nequitiae Naso poeta meae " deliberately conflates the boundary between inside and outside the text. Inasm uch as "Naso" and Naso are m etonyms, then the poeticizing o f the nequitia in question could equally refer to either the textual inscription o f extem al behavior or the poetic creation of such behavior. The infam ous fate o f the narrator in Propertius 2.24 is replicated in Amores 3.1 where Tragoedia berates the elegiac narrator in the follow ing terms: far cry from the artless sim plicity that Kirby Flower Smith found so endearing in his 1913 commentary. 270 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Et p rio r "ecquis e rit/' d ix it, "tibi finis am andi, O argum enti lente poeta tni? nequitiam vinosa tuam convivia narrant, narrant in m ultas com pila secta vias. saepe aliqtûs d ig ito vatem désignât euntem , atque a it "hiQ hic est, quem férus u rit Am or! fabula, nec sentis, tota iactaris in urbe, dum tua praeterito facta pudore refers." Amores 3.1.15-22 A nd [Tragoedùi] speaking first said, "W ill there be any end of loving, poet sluggish in your narrative development? O ften someone points out the poet w ith a fhiger as he goes on his w ay, and says, "This is the man, this is him whom fierce Tove' is burning! You are a them e o f gossip the w hole d ty over, not that you are aw are o f it, w hile you report your deeds w ith a ll sense of shame cast aside." Again the elegiac narrator is characterized by a lack o f pudor that manifests itself once m ore in his in ab ility to keep quiet about his ow n scandalous love life. This leads again to the elegist becoming a pbula, a source of prurient gossip, all over the d ty . In Amores 3.1 the narrator is the subject o f conversation at every w ine- sodden convivium and cross-roads. These settings m ay serve to confirm the construction o f the narrator's infamia w ith in the text but they simultaneously indicate the circulation and popularity of the extem al poet's literary product. A n Essential Lover and the Resistance O f M atu ratio n The elegiac narrator gains his infam ous reputation through his overindulgence in the pleasures of the tirocinium adulescentiae and through pu b lid y broadcasting his dubious activities. H e appears as a figure who is so overpowered by youthful desire that he w ill endure any hum iliation and stigma: Siquis erit, q u i turpe putet servire puellae, illo convincar iudice turpis ego! sim licet infam is, dum me m oderatius urat. Amores 2.17.1-3 271 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. If there is anyone w ho thinks it shameful to be a slave to a puella, I shall be œ nvicted as sham eful in his judgment! Let me be infamis, provided that she m ight bu m me w ith more restraint The elegiac narrator accepts his turpitude and infamia, he is focused (ostensibly) only on his erotic love-life and how to m ollify a dura puella. H e is, he argues, a natural bom lover who is m erely acting out his inexorable fate. In this he is only pursuing the advice Cicero gives in the De Officiis on the need to regulate one's conduct and aspirations in keeping w ith one's ow n natura: propriam nostram sequamur, u t, etiamsi sint alia graviora atque m eliora, tamen nos studia nostra nostrae naturae régula m etiam ur; neque enim attinet naturae repugnare nec quicquam sequi, quod sequi non queas. De Officiis 1.110 Let us pursue our ow n particular nature, so that although there m ay be more serious and better pursuits, nevertheless, we measure o u r ow n pursuits by the standard of our own nature; for it is pointless to fig ht against nature nor to pursue anything w hich we are unable to pursue. Om nino si quicquam est decorum, n ih il est profecto magis quam aequabilitas cum universae vitae, tum singularum actionum , quam conservare non possis, si aliorum naturam im itans om ittas tuam . De Officiis 1. I l l For if there is any propriety at a ll, then it is nothing b u t a uniform ity o f both a whole life and ind ividu al actions, w hich you couldn't m aintain by im itating the nature of others and ignoring your ow n. The elegiac narrator pursues his natura propria; there are studia that are "graviora atque meliora" bu t the elegist is not suited to them. He cannot fig h t against his natura and natura has m ade him a loving fool: uni cuique d ed it vitiu m natura creato m i fortuna aliqu id semper amare dedit. Propertius 2.22A 17-18 N ature has given a vice to everyone at birth: fortune allotted to me the fault of always being in love. 272 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. me sine, quem sem per vo lu it fortuna iacere, huic anim am extrem am reddere nequitiae. m u lti longinquo periere in am ore libenter, in quorum num éro m e quoque terra te g a t non ego sum lau d i, non natus idoneus arm is: hanc m e m ilitia m fata subire volunL Propertius 1.6.25-30 A llo w m e, w hom fortune w anted always to be downcast, to deliver m y fin a l breath to this worthlessness. M any have w illin g ly perished in a long love and as one o f them le t the earth cover me too. I am not suited fo r glory nor was I bom to bear arms: fate wants m e to undergo this form o f m ilita ry service. The elegiac narrator is fated to play his role o f erotic debasement, to surrender his life to nequitia. H e cannot pursue the traditional career, nor gain the traditional validation, laus, o f a conventional career path. The elegiac narrator m ust seek validation w ith in the lifestyle to w hich, he says, natura has com m itted him . H e is sim ply follow ing a philosophical m axim , "neque enim attinet naturae repugnare nec quicquam sequi, quod assequi non queas." Cicero also uses a D elphic m axim , "Suum quisque ig itu r noscat ingenium ," "Therefore, le t each person know his ow n natural character" (Dc Officiis 1.114), and illustrates his p o int w ith an analogy from the theater.35 H e notes that actors pick plays not according to w hich are best in themselves but w hich best suit an actor's in d iv id u a l abilities, "Uli enim non optim as, sed sibi accommodatissimas fabulas eligunt," 'T o r they don't pick the best plays but those w hich are most suited to themselves " (De Officiis 1.114). Using the m etaphor of the "theater o f life," there is, Cicero notes, a lesson to be learned here, "Trgo histrio hoc videb it in scaena, non videbit sapiens v ir in vita , " ^^The Delphic maxim is also found in an erotic context at i4rs Amatoria 2 .497ff. O n this passage see Sharrock (1994b: 245ff.) 273 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. "Therefore, shall an actor perceive this on. the stage and a w ise m an not see it in life?" (De Officiis 1.114). Cicero's injunction, "Suum quisque ig itu r noscat ingenium , ' along w ith his theatrical elaboration, points to the double m eaning o f ingenium as signifying both character and talent. One perform s the role in life to w hich one's talent is suited. Conversely, w hat role one prefers to play can be seen as a reflection of one's natural disposition. One's literary talen t (ingenium) can be view ed in this m anner as an em anation o f one's personal character (ingenium). Hence, the elegist w rites love-poetry because he is a lover. H is elegiac lite ra ry product is a reflection o f his ow n innate elegiac character.^ The elegist's appropriation of this doctrine, however, is hardly in the s p irit intended by Cicero. It is not, in the orator's view , a license to indulge and perpetuate a bad character. Cicero notes that personal traits should be pursued according to in d iv id u a lity but not corruptness, "tenenda sunt sua cuique non vitiosa, sed tam en propria, " "One's ow n traits m ust be adhered to so far as they are one's ow n and not faulty" (De Officiis 1.110). Each in d ivid u al is encouraged to be the index acris o f his ow n good and bad qualities (De Officiis 1.114). The elegiac narrator, how ever, chooses to indulge and pursue his natura propria even though it is vitiosa. For if one cannot struggle against one's nature, and vitia are part of one's nature, then one is bound to indulge them . The acceptance of a natura vitiosa lies at the heart of elegiac discourse. The narrator m ay profess his faults, and w ish to q u it his adherence to the erotically ^ N a tu ra lly , this serves as the basis of the literary recusath: different writers are suited to different genres. A shift in genre would, on this basis, be equivalent to a m utation of one's natural disposition. Genres m ight be sets of codified rules but which set one chooses could still be seen as a manifestation o f one's character. 274 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. com pelling side o f his natura, but he w ill stay w ith the elegiac lifestyle w ith a blend of masochism, occasional pleasure, and proud assertion of his difference. The aberrant nature of the elegiac narrator's character is dem onstrated in his professed resistance to m aturing in a tim ely Roman fashion into becoming a productive m em ber o f society. I t is a tale o f a youthful male narrator on the lim in al threshold o f adulthood w ho turns his back on the two traditional routes to a productive Roman adulthood (the tirocinium militiae and the tirocinium fori) and plunges w ith a vengeance into the youthful wildness o f the tirocinium adulescentiae.^"^ Both the O vidian and the Propertian narrator are presented as expressly turning their back on forensic oratory and civic life in general: mox ubi bulla ru d i dim issast aurea coUo, m atris et ante deos libera sum pta toga, tum tib i pauca suo de carm ine dictât A pollo et vetat insano verba tonare foro. 4.1B 131-134 Presently w hen the golden locket was rem oved from your inexperienced neck and the toga o f a m an had been donned before your mother's gods; then A pollo dictates to you a few things from his ow n poetic repertoire and forbids you to thunder out words in the madness o f the forum . Q u id m ihi, Livor edax, ignavos obids annos, ingeniique vocas carm en inertis opus; non me more patrum , dum strenua sustinet aetas, praem ia m ilitiae pulverulenta sequi. the tirocinium militiae and tirocinium fo ri see Bonner (1977:84-85); Richlin (1997:92-93); W iedemann (1989:114). In this regard Tibullus is a somewhat more problematic figure than Propertius and O vid . For although the TibuUan narrator voices a typical elegiac distaste for w ar in 1.1, nevertheless, as Duncan Kennedy points out, this programmatic rejection resides in an uneasy tension w ith his association w ith the m ilitary exploits o f Messalla; see Kennedy (1993:13- 21). 275 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. nec me verbosas leges ediscere nec m e in g iato vocem prostituisse foro? Amores 1.15.1-6 W hy, biting envy, do you throw in m y face the charge o f unproductive years and call m y poetry the w ork o f an id le intellect; and the fact that 1 don't in ancestral fashion, w hile a vigorous tim e o f life provides the necessary means, pursue the dusty rew ards of m ilitary life or leam the w ordy laws o r prostitute m y voice in the thankless forum ? The norm al career paths fo r an elite Roman m ale are rejected and v ilifie d . Instead the narrator pursues an elegiac lifestyle th a t in its insistence, as incarnated in the figure o f an im perious domina, forces him to rem ain static in his erotically fixated state. Hence, in Propertius 1.6 the narrator presents his erotic a ffa ir w ith Cynthia as preventing him fi-om accom panying Tullus to Asia and so from being able to m ake a tim ely transition in to m anhood and civic service. In this m anner the poem develops a sharp contrast betw een him self and Tullus w ho is represented as single-m indedly pursuing a senatorial career and resisting the attractions of youthful life: tu patrui m éritas conare anteire secures, et vetera oblitis iura refer sociis. nam tua non aetas lunquam cessavit am ori, semper at arm atae cura fu it patriae; et tib i non um quam nostros puer iste labores afierat et iaorim is om nia no ta meis! 1.6.19-24 You must try to surpass the earned axes o f your unde and bring old laws to forgetful allies. For your youth has never been delayed by love and alw ays your concern was the fatherland under arms; and m ay that boy never bring our tribulations to you and everything know n to m y tears! The elegiac narrator, as is m ade dear in the lines o f 1.6 quoted earlier in this section, presents him self as being fated to pursue a difierent form o f militia, "non ego sum laudi, non natus idoneus arm is:/hanc m e m ilitiam fata subire volunt, " "I 276 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. was not bom suited to glory and arms: the fates w ant me to undergo this particular brand o f militia'' (1.6.29-30). As has been noted by Hans-Peter Stahl and Ellen O liensis, the poem manages by its conclusion to suggest that somehow it is Tullus pursuing the real m ilita ry life in Asia w ho has chosen the easier option rather than Propertius undergoing his figurative militia at Rome.3 8 The cura patriae artnatae is found to be less challenging than a aura amicae. This form s p art o f an e l^ a c strategy of recuperation and appropriation that attem pts (w hether sincerely or not) to place the value of its ow n activities over those trad itio n ally valued as the proper province of lim in al and incipient m ale adulthood. The elegist attem pts to trope elegiac inertia and otium as an alternate and m ore dem anding form of negotium and strenuitas. This is perhaps m ost elaborately expressed in Amores 1.9 where the narrator expounds in detail the parallels between traditional militia and the militia amoris. As the narrator w ould have it, both are activities that are suited to the same period o f life — "quae beUo est habüis, Veneri quoque convenit aetas," "The age w hich is suitable fo r w arfare is also that fittin g to the service o f love" (1.9.3)— and both engage in sim ilar exertions and strategies (elaborated at length in lines 5-30). This leads to the narrator's conclusion that the charges o f desidia that are leveled against the lover are baseless: Ergo desidiam quicum que vocabat amorem, desinat ingenii est experientis amor. Amores 1.9.31-32 Therefore le t whoever used to call love idleness cease. Love is the province o f an enterprising character. 38stahl (1985:93-96); Oliensis (1997a: 157-58): in a sim ilar fashion in Catullus 51 the narrator manages to make otium sound more problematic and painful than the negotium to which it should be a prelude, or a welcome break from. 277 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ipse ego segnis eram disdnctaque in otia natus; m ollierant anim es lectus et um bra meos. in p u lit ignavum foim osae cura puellae iussit et in castris aera merere suis, inde vides agilem noctum aque bella gerentem. qui nolet fie ri desidiosus, amet! Amoress 1.9.41-46 I m yself was slothful and bom fo r unbelted leisure; and the couch and the shade had softened m y disposition. Care fo r a beautiful g irl acted on m y idleness and com pelled me to serve in her camp. For this reason you see me active and waging nocturnal w arfare. W ho doesn't w ish to be id le, let him love! H ere the elegiac narrator attem pts through analogy to validate his ow n m arginal brand of militia and construct the elegiac lifestyle in a positive rather than negative light. Elegy is paradoxically troped as providing the duritia and the strenuitas that it is generally supposed to lack. In other words it is itself the solution to its ow n problem atic mollitia and inertia. How ever, this very attem pt to equate metaphoric and actual militia could in itself be construed by a reader as an exam ple o f the narrator's essential nequitia. In Amores 1.9 the narrator, as noted above, points to the same ages being suited to love and m ilitary service. Such a notion of tem poral propriety, however, is not always evident in elegy where the erotic preoccupations of the narrator are often envisioned as continuing w ell beyond the tem poral confines of youth: nec m ihi rivalis certos subducet amores: ista meam n o rit gloria canitiem. Propertius 1.8.45-46 N o r w ill a rival steal aw ay m y true love: that distinction w ill s till fin d me when I am w hite-haired. nos, D elia, amoris exem plum cana simus uterque coma. Tibullus 1.6.85-86 278 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Let us, D elia, be a positive «cam ple o f lo ve w hen w e are both w hite haired.39 at me ab amore tuo deducet n u lla senectus, sive ego Tithonus sive ego N estor ero. Propertius 2-25.9-10 N o old age w ill separate me from m y love of you, w hether I become a Tithonus or a Nestor. errat, qui finem vesani quaerit am oris: verus am or nullum n o vit habere m odum . Propertius 2.15.29-30 H e is mistaken, who seeks to impose a lim it on m ad passion: true love doesn't know how to have any boundary. Conversely, no tem poral progression is foreseen at a ll as the elegiac narrator contemplates an untim ely erotic death: sic ig itu r prim a m oriere aetate, Properti? sed morere; in teritu gaudeat ilia tuo! Propertius 2.8.17-18 Is it like this, then, that you w ill die in yo u r youth, Propertius? Yet die; and let her rejoice at your death! The projected m orbidity of the Propertian narrator becomes replaced by an exuberant excess when the same theme is handled in O vid: at m ihi contingat Veneris languescere m otu, cum m oriar, m edium solvar et in ter opus; atque aliquis nostro lacrim ans in funere dicat: "conveniens vitae mors fu it ista tuae!" Amores 2.10.35-38 But m ay m y fate be to grow slack in the very act o f love when I die, to be l(x>sed m id-act; and someone m ight say weeping at my funeral: "That was a death in keeping w ith your life-style!" ^^The elegiac narrator, of course, is also capable of adapting this m otif to specific rhetorical contingencies. Hence in Tibullus 1.1 the narrator argues that now is the time to make love as such activity is unseemly in older years, "iam subrepet iners aetas, nec amare decebit,/ dicere nec cano blanditias capite” (1.1.71-72). 279 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In this manner the elegiac lifestyle is not presented as an ephem eral period of life bu t as an exclusive focus d ia t to tally envelops and w ill continue to envelop the narrator. The perversity o f this perspective, fa r from being recognized by the narrator, is instead projected onto anyone w ho w ould disagree, "errat, qui finem vesani quaerit amoris," "He is m istaken, who seeks to impose a lim it on m ad passion" (Propertius 2.15.29). In m uch the same m anner, to retu rn to the theme o f the militia amoris explored above, the Propertian narrator in 2.7 in his absolute resistance to m ilitary service points to the castra o f Cynthia as being those that are vera rather than fig u rative. The Hermaphroditus and Salmads narrative as elegiac parable To conclude this chapter I w ant to tu m to a narrative of the fourth book of the Metamorphoses. The story o f Herm aphroditus and Salm ads is a tale of problem atic lim in ality and em asculation on the verge of adulthood. As such it provides an interesting com m entary on the discursive paradigm s of elegy. Heram phroditus is described as leaving his home when he is fifteen years old: "is tria cum prim um fe d t quinquennia, montes deseruit patrios, Idaque altrice relicta ignotis errare locis, ignota videre flum ina gaudebat." Metamorphoses 4.292-295 "When he firs t reached the age o f fifteen he le ft behind his native mountains and w ith Id a his foster-m other le ft behind he was delighting in wandering in unknow n places and in seeing rivers he was unfam iliar w ith." Herm aphroditus ventures out into the unfam iliar w orld at the same tim e as a Rom an iuvenis w ould assume the toga virilis and start to enter the ad u lt w orld both d vic and sexual. Thus the narrative of Herm aphroditus is a narrative of m ale rite of passage and its attendant dangers: in this particular instance the 280 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. threat o f fem ale sexuality. The site o f H ennaphroditus's disaster is described w ith om inous hindsight; "Unde sit infam is, quare m ale fortibus undis Salm ads enervet tactosque rem o lliat artus, disdte." Metamorphoses 4.285-287 "Leam , how the fountain o f Salm ads became ill-fam ed , how it weakens w ith its badly pow erful w aters and emasculates the lim bs that it touches." The fountain o f Salm ads is the site o f failed transition brom boyhood to adulthood, a salutary w arning o f the potentially em asculating effect o f fem ale sexuality on the lim in al ad u lt m ale and o f the stigm a that could attach to such failure. Iden tifying the predse correspondences betw een Salm ads and Herm aphroditus and the gendered figures o f elegy can be problem atic, as one m ight expect in a herm aphrodite narrative. For, if Herm aphroditus can be seen as parallel to the elegiac narrator, then Salm ads appears to be doubly identified as both lik e the elegiac narrator and the elegiac puella. O n one level she appears, like the elegiac narrator, as a drop-out from an active and vigorous lifestyle o f gender-same age-mates: "nym pha colit, sed nec venatibus apta nec arcus flectere quae soleat nec quae contendere cursu, solaque naiadum celeri non nota D ianae. saepe suas U li fam a est dixisse sorores Salm ad, vel iaculum vel pictas sume pharetras et tua cum d u iis venatibus otia misce!' nec iaculum sum it nec pictas ilia pharetras, nec sua cum duns venatis otia m iscet Metamorphoses 4.302-309 "A nym ph dw ells in the pool, b u t not one suited to hunting or used to bending the bow nor com peting in speed o f foot, she alone o f the Naiads is not know n to sw ift D iana. O ften, it is said, her sisters w ould say to her, "Salmads, take now the javelin or the painted quiver and 281 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. m ix your leisure w ith the toils of the hunt!” But she doesn't pick up the javelin or the painted quiver o r intersperse her leisure w ith the toils of the h u n t" A t the same tim e, lik e the elegiac domina, she is an erotic temptress (a huntress of a different kind, as the elegiac narrator is a soldier of a different kin d ) whose self- cultivation is combined w ith an erotically ravenous eye: sed m odo fonte suo formosos p erlu it artus, saepe Cy toriaco deducit pectine crines e^ quid se deceat, spectatas consulit undas; nunc perlucenti drcum data corpus am ictu moUibus au t foliis aut m ollibus incubât herbis, saepe leg it flores, et tum quoque forte legebat, cum puerum v id it visum que optavit habere. Metamorphoses 4.310-316 But sometimes she bathes her pretty limbs in her ow n fountain, often combs her hair w ith a boxwood comb and consults the reflecting waters on w hat suits her best; now , her body enclosed in a translucent gown she lies dow n on the soft leaves or soft grass; often she picks flow ers. Then, too, she happened to be picking them when she saw the boy and wanted to have w hat she saw. Hence, Salmads is like the elegiac puella in her predatory self-cultivation and tradem ark translucent garb b u t also like the elegiac narrator in that she refuses a traditional active lifestyle and devotes herself to otium. Thus, in a w ay, she appears as a peculiarly elegiac herm aphrodite (even before her transform ation in the Metamorphoses text) representing a fusion of an elegiac iuvenis (contactus nullis ante cupidinibus ) and an elegiac domina in the act of capture. Hence, Salmads's in itia l sighting of H erm aphroditus and decision to engage in erotic capture, "puerum v id it visum que o p tavit habere" (4.316) is parallel to the possessive and m astering female gaze th at Propertius reports at the beginning of Propertius 1.1, "Cynthia prim a suis m iserum me cepit ocellis." Herm aphroditus s erotic inexperience (like that o f the in itia l Propertian narrator) is also stressed in the subsequent narrative of Salmads's address to 282 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. him. Following Salmads's less than coy suggestion that if he is married they should engage in furtiva voluptas and if not they should themselves get married, Hermaphroditus blushes, "pueri rubor ora notavit; nescit, enim, quid amor" (4.329-330). Hermaphroditus's ignorance o f sexual desire is parallel both to the reflective self presentation o f the Propertian narrator in 1.1, "me... contactum nullis ante cupidinibus" and the professed bewilderment o f his Ovidian counterpart a X . Amores 1.2.1, "Esse quid hoc dicam," and to the demographic category that the Ovidian narrator targets at Amores 2.1.6, "et rudis ignoto tactus amore puer."“ During her final assault on Hermaphroditus, Salmacis utters a prayer to the gods that they may never be separated: non tamen effugies. ita, di, iubeatis, et istum nulla dies a me nec me deducat ab isto." Metamorphoses 4.371-372 "Yet you w ill not escape; gods, make it s o that no day may separate him from me nor me from him." This prayer is reminiscent o f the elegiac narrator's wish/compulsion for an enduring bond with his elegiac dominaJ^oetic theme. mi neque amare aliam neque ab hac desistere fas est: Cynthia prima fuit, Cynthia finis erit. Propertius 1.11.19-20 For it isn't right for me to love another nor stop loving this one: Cynthia was the first, Cynthia w ill be the last. nos, Delia, amoris exemplum cana simus uterque coma. Tibullus 1.6.85-85 “And w hich is restated by the praeceptor at the very beginning o f the Ars Amatoria, "Siquis in hoc artem populo non novit amandi.” 283 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Let us, D elia, be a paradigm o f love w hen we are both w hite-haired. nos quoque per totum pariter cantabim ur oxbem, iunctaque semper erunt nomina nostra tuis. Amores 1.3.25-26 W e, too, w ill be sung the w o rld over, and always m y nam e w ill be joined to yours. This is a desire/com pulsion that w ill even surpass death: sed non effugies: m ecum m oriaris oportet; hoc eodem ferro s tille t uterque cruor. Propertius 2.8.25-26 But you w ill not escape: you ought to die w ith me; le t the blood of both of us d rip from the same sword. A sim ilar point is made by C ynthia w hen she is allow ed to retu rn in 4.7: "nunc te possideant aliae: m ox sola tenebo: mecum eris, et m ixtis ossibus ossa teram." Propertius 4.7.93-94 "Now let others possess you: presently I alone w ill hold you: you udll be w ith me and I shall w ear dow n my bones pressed on yours." The solution of the gods in the Metamorphoses is the perfect answ er the fusing together o f Salmacis and H erm aphroditus is lik e a perm anent bonding of elegiac narrator and elegiac puella. The entw ining o f m ale and fem ale in the Herm aphroditus incident is p arallel to the O vidian elegiac narrator's prom ise at the end of Amores 1.3 (see above) that his name and that of his yet unnam ed puella w ill always be bound together. The fin al transform ation o f Herm aphroditus may also be seen as reflective upon elegy and lim in al m ale sexuality generally: "nec duo sunt et form a duplex, nec fem ina d id nec puer u t possit, neutrum que et utrum que videntur. Ergo ubi se liquidas, quo v ir descenderat, undas 284 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. semim arem fedsse vid e t m ollitaque in illis m em bra, m antis tendens, sed iam non voce v iiili Herm aphroditus ait: "nato date m im era vestro, et pater et genetrix, amborum nomen habenti: quisquis in hos fontes v ir venerit, exeat inde sem ivir et tactis subito moUescat in tmdis!" Metamorphoses 4.378-388 "They w ere not tw o b u t a double form , one that couldn’t be called a boy or a wom an but seemed neither and yet both. Therefore, w hen he sees that the waters into w hich he had plim ged had m ade him half-m an and his lim bs had been softened in them, stretching out his hands, Herm aphroditus says b u t not in a m anly voice: "grant this favor, m other and fadier, to your son w ho after a ll bears both your names: whatever man comes into these w aters let him leave them as a dem i-m an and suddenly soften at the touch o f the waters." Taken as a parable o f the effects o f aggressive female sexuality on the yoim g sexually inexperienced m ale, this narrative can be seen as a m editation on the general discursive situation o f elegy which involves an emasculated m ale and a m asculinized fem ale as they are stereotypically portrayed in the persons o f the m ale elegiac serous and the fem ale elegiac domina.*^ Herm aphroditus represents a fusion of these tw o elegiac stereotypes. The fate, then, o f H erm aphroditus, could be sym bolically read as the possible fate aw aiting any yoim g Roman m ale on the threshold o f adu lt sexuality: the waters of the foim tain of Salmacis w ith their enervating properties are representative o f the general effect o f female sexuality on the Roman iuvenis w hich w ill sap the im w ary yoim g adu lt and produce a semivir rather than a robustus vir. In this m anner elegiac narrative threatens to produce a Roman adu lt this respect Ovid's Salmacis, like Sallust's Sempronia and Cicero's O o d ia, is depicted as an active sexual initiator: "quae m ulta saepe virilis audadae fadnora conmiserat,” "who had often undertaken deeds of manly daring” (jCatiline 25.1); "lubido sic accensa, ut saepius peteret viros quam peteretur, " "was so inflam ed by desire that she more often sought out men than was sought ought out by them" iCatiUne 25.3); "Vicinum adulescentulum aspexisti," "You caught sight of a neighboring young-man" (Pro Caelio 25). 285 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. male analogous to the cinaedus in his inab U i^ to m ake a successful transition to norm ative m ale sexual behavior.^ Elegiac discourse, as allegorized in the narrative o f Salmads and Herm aphroditus, thus represents an abortive m ale rite o f passage into d v ic functioning and ad u lt sexu ally. It is a discourse o f a double gender violation, an emasculated m an and m asculinized wom an. I f true Roman m asculinity was an identity one had to attain and fig h t to defend, o r a perform ance one had to act out correctly, then elegy represents a deliberate abject surrender or inadequate stage p e r f o r m a n c e . ^ ^ jt represents itself as a play about lim in al m ale sexuality and adulthood in w hich a hapless m ale lead is enforced to act out a script w ritten by a woman.44 Towards A Poetics Of Immaturity As this chapter has exam ined, the elegiac narrator is presented as a figure who is a lover by nature and whose prospects o f ever m aturing into a responsible citizen seem rem ote. H e is a figure seem ingly rooted in the problem atic space o f the tirocinium adulescentiae and who unlike the youthful character in Seneca Controfoersia 2.6 displays little inclination to pass through this period of life and retu rn to boni mores. In the next chapter I w ill tum towards an exam ination o f how the narrator's problem atic lim in a lity is also constructed on the level of his poetic as w ell as his erotic behavior. ^^The relation of the elegiac narrator's sexual characterization to the cinaedus w ill be discussed more fully in the final chapter. 4^0n the notion o f gender as a performance see Butler (1990). ^^of course, this is an illusion as the script is ultim ately controlled by the extra-textual male poet. 286 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER NINE Creating Elegy's Erotic Spectacle Part Three: Self-Exploitation: Scripting the Inunature Poet In the previous chapter emphasis was placed on how the elegiac narrator is represented as a m ale on the lim in a l threshold o f adulthood and erotic experience. The elegiac narrator, how ever, it m ust be rem em bered, is not only textualized as an incipient lo ver b u t also as a youthful poet. Hence, w e fin d in elegiac discourse that the narrator's protracted and indulgent erotic behavior is matched on a poetic level b y his persistent elegiac com position and his reluctance to move past the training ground of the ludus poeticus onto more m ature poetic com position. Thus elegy is found to be a conflation of youthful erotic and poetic exuberance (in)appropriately incarnated in a lim in ally adult Roman m ale. Poetic Im m atu rity The elegiac narrator is defined not only in terms o f yo u th fu l erotic activity but also in terms o f juvenile poetics. This gives the narrator his tw in personality of lover and poet. Both the represented erotic behavior o f the narrator and his com position of elegiac poetry can be seen as activities that belong properly to the confines of youth and its rem oval firom serious civic and m ilita ry life . In this m anner elegy is a narrative of youthful erotic m isdirection that is sim ultaneously a narrative o f M volous literary activity. Both lover and elegiac poet are supposed to exist in a tem poral space w here such activities can be tolerated fo r a w hile b u t w here indulgence should also lead to developm ent and m aturity. The lover ought to m ature into a responsible and productive citizen 287 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and the poet ought to move on to m ore serious forms o f com position. Hence, the elegiac narrator and the extem al Roman author, to the extent that the tw o are liable to be conflated, are doubly dam ned as both erotically and poetically im m ature. Thus the verbs that are used fo r frivolous youthful poetic composition such as ludere and lascivire tend to conflate friv o lity , poetry and sexual activity. i Perhaps the best example of this conflation of youthful erotics and poetics occurs in Catullus 68A where the narrator in response to the death o f his brother reflects on how such a traum atic event has term inated his youthful lite ra ry /e ro tic activity "tempore quo prim um vestis m ihi tradita p u ra s t,/ iucundum cum aetas flo rid a ver ag eret,/ m ulta satis lusi: non est dea nesda n o stri,/ quae dulcem curis miscet am aritiem :/ sed totum hoc studium luctu fratem a m ih i m ors/abstulit," "Ever since the tim e when I was given the toga o f m anhood, w hen m y flow ering youth enjoyed a pleasant spring season, I played more than enough: the goddess w ho mixes the sweet w ith the b itter is not unknow n to me: but m y brother's death has snatched away that whole enthusiasm from m e through g rie f (C atullus 68A.15-20). Ludere here points to a conflation of youthful erotic and literary activity that corresponds to the request of M anlius fo r munera et Musarum et Veneris (10). The intrusion of harsh reality is figured as forcing the narrator out o f his friv o lity (erotic and literary) into the w orld of adu lt m aturity. W hen Seneca the Younger reports the alleged thoughts of Cicero on lyric poetry the orator appears to have reached a sim ilar conclusion on the general ^The best discussion o f this phenomenon remains Wagenvoort (1935: reprinted as 1978). Ludere used in the context of poetic im m aturity is also found in the epilogue to the Georgies, "Qlo Vergilium me tempore dulds alebat/ Parthenope, studiis florentem ignobilis o ti,/ carmina qui lusi pastorum audaxque iuventa,/Tityre, te patulae cedni sub tegmine (agi," " A t that tim e sweet Parthenope was nourishing me, V irg il, as 1 flourished in the pursuits of an inglorious leisure, I who once played w ith shepherd's songs and in the boldness of youth sang of you Tityrus, under the shelter of a spreading beech" (Georgies 4.559-566). 288 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. unim portance of lyric poetry, "Negat Cicero, si duplicetur sibi aetas, habiturum se tem pus, quo legat lyricos," Cicero used to say that if his life should be doubled he w ould not have the tim e to read the lyric poets Elegy, lik e various other forms o f poetry, belongs to the realm o f the ludus poeticus.^ Literary endeavor in general, as discussed in chapter six, takes place in the tim e o f otium and thus traditionally was deemed less im portant than activities that partook in the Roman sphere o f negotium. Elegy, as one o f a numbers of genres that w ere considered m ore frivolous in nature, is thus subject to a double form o f m arginalization. For, as H endrik W agenvoort rem arks, there is not only a contrast w ith in literary com position between "the m inor over against the m ajor, the light over against the serious" but the totality of literary com position can also be placed on the frivolous end of a dichotom y when set next to the activities that are proper to negotium.^ In this manner elegiac com position is pushed to the extrem e of friv o lity . It falls outside the realm o f negotium and even w ith in the realm of literary otium it is m arginalized to the space of the ludus poeticus. Cicero describes the relaxation of Sdpio and Laelius (w hich as we have seen in chapter six represents an ideal form o f otium cum dignitate) in the follow ing manner: "Laelium semper cum Scipione solitum rusticari, eosque incredibiliter repuerascere esse solitos, cum rus ex urbe tamquam e vinclis evolavissent," "Laelius was always accustomed to spend tim e in the country w ith ^Seneca, Epistulae Morales 49.5: the phrase, however, could be taken as ambivalent. Cicero could be saying that two lifetimes would be insufficient tim e to read the lyric poets sufficiently, rather than that they were inherently not w orth wasting tim e on. ^W agenvoort (1978:34) identifies as belonging to this categoiy "light-hearted improvisations," iambic poems, fescennini, hendecasyOabics, erotic elegies, "other erotic poems," "lyrics in general," bucolics, epyllia, epigrams, satires, "minor epic poems." '^Wagenvoort (1978:31,35). 289 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Sdpio and they, incredible though it m ay seem, w ere in the habit o f reverting to boyhood, w hen they flew from the d ty in to the country as if they had escaped from chains" (de Orat. 2.22). The change fro m negotium to otium corresponds here to a v irtu a l tem poral shift: m en released fro m ad u lt duties again become boys and engage in the activities suitable to such a period of vacatio, w hich indudes forms o f the ludus poeticus, as outlined by Horace "nugari cum illo [Lu dlius] et disdncti ludere, donee/ decoqueretur holus, soliti," "They were in the habit o f triflin g and jesting a t ease w ith him w h ile th e ir vegetables w ere stewing" {Satires 2.1.73-74). Engagement, then, in the ludus poeticus is appropriate only during a period of life where serious d vic com m itm ent has not yet commenced or in periods o f tim e w here a remission from the demands of negotium allows one fig uratively to be puerile again. That the ludus poeticus is properly the province of youth is also elaborated, as pointed out again by W agenvoort, by the m eaning of ludere as "to train oneself.''^ This is the route that lies behind the meaning o f ludus as school and ludere in a m ilitary sense as "to hold a sham fight."^ Hence, the ludus designates a training ground fo r m ore serious activities and this holds true in literatu re as w ell as in m ilitaristic affairs. The notion of the ludus as a transitory training ground poses a problem for those who on a literary level wish to engage in the composition o f form s of poetry that could be dassified as belonging to the ludus poeticus. Such activity can only properly be assigned to the tem poral span of the vacatio adulescentiae or to odd moments o f respite from negotium. A nything beyond this constitutes a potential breach of tem poral propriety a n d /o r a neglect of d v ic duty. This was ^Wagenvoort (1978:38-39). ^See further Wagenvoort (1978:38). 290 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. dearly p a rt o f the problem w ith P liny the yoim ger’s enthusiastic embrace o f literary otium (as outlined in chapter six). For Pliny evidentty composed, and took p art in recitations of, form s o f poetry— /msï«, ineptiae, versiculi, hendecasyllabi, epigrammata— that belonged to the ludus poeticus and thus could be conceived as espedally unsuited to a Rom an o f consular rank. Thus, as P liny him self records, it was not so m uch his poetry that was criticized as the fact that a m an o f his sodal standing should openly and enthusiastically compose such types o f verse and present them p u b lid y, "extitisse etiam quosdam, q u i scripta quidem ipsa non im probarent, me tam en amice s im p lid te r reprehenderent, quod haec scriberem redtarem que," "there even exist some people w ho don’t fin d faults w ith the verses themselves bu t nevertheless criticize me in a friend ly and earnest m arm er because I compose and red te them" (Epistles 5.3.1). The basis of the com plaint is, as R oller states, that "the content o f this poetry is broadly inconsistent w ith the expected public bearing of a high-ranking Rom an aristocrat" ^ Pliny's status as a senator d id not necessarily predude such com position; precedents could easily be adduced, after a ll this was the validated m odel o f Ciceronian otium cum dignitate.^ In Epistle 5.3 Pliny points to a list of senators of the late R epublic, several emperors and various notable lite ra ry figures as affording am ple ju s tifi^ tio n fo r his ow n literary habits.^ As a particular m odel of validation fo r his literary activities P liny points in 7.4 to Cicero.io Pliny came across an epigram attributed to Cicero w ritten to T iro in w hich the orator 7RoUer (1998:279). ®For fuller discussion see Roller (1998:281-89). ^See Roller (1998:281): the theme is further elaboratedat 4.14.4; 7,4.4; 7.9.12. ^%)n Pliny's conception of him self as an im itation Cicero see Rigsby (1998). 291 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. com plained that T iro had not provided him w ith some kisses that he had prom ised. This discovery spurs on P liny, in the lig h t o f Cicero as an impeccable m odel for em ulation, to compose such frivolous verses him self and he concludes: "cur post haec " inquam '"nostros celamus amores nullam que in m edium tim id i dam us atque fatem ur Tironisque dolos, Tironis nosse fugaces blanditias et furta novas addentia flam m as " 7.4.6 "W hy after this " I said "should I hide m y amores and tim orously not throw m y hat into the ring and confess that I know the tricks and flig h ty allurem ents of Tiro and the thefts that add new passion." The use of amores here points to a conflation o f literary com position and erotic activity that is fam iliar from elegy and the use o f "fatem ur" again indicates that poetic production could always be troped in term s o f personal confession. As W illiam Fitzgerald has pointed out in his discussion o f this passage, the publication o f such erotic poetry always places the author in a potentially com prom ised position, "To publish erotic poetry is to play a provocative game w ith one’ s audience, adopting the position of the flirtatious Tiro. 'i^ As R oller indicates, the defensiveness o f Pliny's posture and his careful elaboration o f precedents points to his awareness o f the problem atics o f such literary activity, "His repeated invocation o f exem pla is an index of anxiety, an acknowledgm ent that the objections to w ritin g such poetry are sufficiently form idable that they could aversely affect his jama.''^^ The production of such erotic verse is a potentially precarious balancing act between fama and infamia. Pliny is also very careful to balance his enthusiasm for poetic com position against his professed m arginalization of this activity. H e only composes and Fitzgerald (1995:46). 12RoUer (1998:281); see also Rigsby (1998:75-76,81-82). 292 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. recites poetry in tim e that cannot be em ployed fo r negotium (in w hat Cicero describes as subsiciva tempora).^^ In this m anner Pliny w e ll illustrates the m arginal space o f the ludus poeticus and its potentially hazardous interface w ith Roman respectability. The m anner in w hich a Roman should progress fro m the friv o lity of youth to the m aturity o f adulthood is expressed by Cicero in the Pro Caelio as he attem pts to turn his client into a positive developm ental paradigm : postrem o, cum paruerit voluptatibus, dederit a liq u id temporis ad ludum aetatis atque ad inanes hasce adulescentiae cupiditates, revocet se aliquando ad curam rei domesticae, rei forensis reique publicae, u t ea, quae ratione antea non perspexerat, satietate abiedsse, experiendo contempsisse videatur. Pro Caelio 42 Finally, w hen he has paid attention to pleasure and devoted some tim e to the erotic pleasures of this tim e of life and to these insubstantial desires of youth, let him at length call him self back to a concern for domestic affairs, for legal affairs and the state, so th at those things w hich previously he had not seen clearly w ith the help of the faculty o f reason, he m ight seem to have abandonedthrough satiety and to despise through experience. Here the attitude o f the orator is sim ilar to that expressed b y the speaker in Seneca's Controversia 2.6 examined in the last chapter. W hen the tim e comes fo r the tirocinium adulescentiae to be over then it is proper to p u t away childish things and from a new perspective o f experienced m aturity to devote oneself to the activities of negotium. The orator further emphasizes in the case of Caelius that youthful erotic activities have never delayed him , or anyone endowed w ith an animus firmior, fo r very long:^* l^For a more detailed analysis o f Pliny’s compartmentalization o f otiian and negotium see Roller (1998:273-78). ^^Ann Vasaly (1993:190) suggests persuasively that Cicero's strategy here is to construct Caelius's persona in his own image. Caelius s alleged disinterest in atnores and delidae thus 293 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Am ores autem e t hae delid ae, quae vocantur, quae firm io re anim o praeditis diutius molestae non sclent esse (m ature enim e t celeriter dedorescunt), num quam hunc occupatum im peditum que tenuerunt. Pro Caelio 44 Sex, however, and these "love-affairs,” as they are called, w hich are not as a rule bothersome fo r long to those endowed w ith m ore m ental resolve (for they w ith er early and quickly), these things have never kept this m an preoccupied and entangled. In this m anner Caelius is constructed as a positive developm ental paradigm . The you th ful attractions o f ffie tirocinium adulescentiae have not prevented him (according to Cicero) ffo m m aking a tim ely transition into the ad u lt w orld of negotium. H is ab ility (again according to Cicero) not to be unduly im peded in his m aturation by amores and delidae points to him as a w ell adjusted Roman iuvenis w ho forms a sharp contrast to the elegiac narrator who finds amores both molesti and long-lasting. Amores, it should be rem em bered, can signify not only love affairs but also elegiac com position (as is also apparent in the passage from P lin y quoted above) and although Cicero presum ably d id not intend this secondary m eaning, nevertheless it is interesting to speculate (w ith the orator's alleged comment on ly ric poetry in m ind) that he w ould have thought his pronouncem ent applicable at either l e v e l , is Frivolous you th ful erotic activity and frivolous erotic versifying should both belong to a phase o f life , lim in al m ale adulthood, th at is passed through quickly and consigned to the scrap heap by one's m ore m ature perspective. Both the elegiac narrator’s persistent com position o f elegy and his prolonged entanglem ent in love affairs point to forms o f ludus th at need to be mirrors the orator's assertion, after finding himself seated next to Volum nia Cytheris at dinner, that he was never interested in such things even when he was younger {ad Fam. 9.26). l^The epigram addressed to Tiro that Pliny claims to have come across (w hich is mentioned nowhere else) gives a rather different impression. A difference that is perhaps explicable in a rather more rigid separation on Cicero’s than Pliny's part o f the realms of negotium and otium. 294 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. curtailed or m arginalized fo r an effective transition to Rom an adulthood to be effected. In this m anner the narrator in elegy has to defend not only his erotic indulgence bu t also his poetic habits. Thus in Amores 3.1 the production o f the narrator’ s nequitia can be seen as related not only to erotic life style choices but also to com positional habits. This is a debate, as M a ria W yke has pointed out, between two personified w ritin g practices w ho are also troped in terms of respectability {Tragoedia appears as a Roman matrona) and im propriety (Elegia appears as an allu rin g meretrix)y^ In attem pting to convert the narrator from elegy to tragedy Tragoedia is also trying to sw itch the basis o f the poet's reputation from one o f deleterious notoriety to one of respectable repute. This process of conversion should involve a simultaneous personal and literary m aturation. Thus Tragoedia's opening com plaint conflates the tw o realms of youthful erotics and poetics: E t p rio r "ecquis erit, " d ix it, "tibi finis am andi, O argum enti lente poeta tui?" Amores 3.1.15-16 A nd [Tragoedia] speaking first said, "W ill there be any end of loving, poet sluggish in your narrative development?" The finis amandi here can be seen as sim ultaneously hin tin g that it is tim e fo r the narrator both to stop engaging in love affairs and to cease composing elegies. The narrator has reached the point at w hich he can be berated fo r continuing to indulge in the excesses o f the tirocinium adulescentiae. It is tim e fo r the narrator to grow up personally and poetically. As a poet, Naso is displaying an ^^This theme is prevalent in both Propertius: 1.4,1.5,1.7,1.9.1.10,1.13,2.1,2.10,2.34,3.1,33; and in Ovid: Amores 1.1,2.1,2.18,3.1. l^W yke (1989b). 295 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. inappropriately sluggish m aturation, "O argum enti lente poeta tu i. " Tragoedia here calls the narrator, "lente poeta " : the use of lentus is usually pejorative in elegiac discourse as it signifies a lover w ho is displaying an unelegiac style of dispassionate erotic stance.'^^Tragoedia appropriates the term in her attack on the elegiac narrator as a poet: fo r the excessive erotic dalliance o f the elegiac narrator in turn produces a generically static p o et It is because the narrator is not lentus erotically, that he is poetically. The tim e, however, Tragoedia argues, has come for the narrator to p u t his poetic youth behind him and become a literary man: '"tempus erat, thyrso pulsum graviore m overi; cessatum satis est— indpe maius opus! m ateria prem is ingenium . cane facta virorum . "haec anim o," dices, "area facta meo est! quod tenerae cantent, lu sit tua Musa, puellae, prim aque per numéros acta iuventa suos. " Amores 3.1.23-28 "It is past tim e that you were struck and inspired by a heavier thyrsus; there has been enough delay— begin a greater literary w ork! You are oppressing your talent by your choice of m aterial. Sing o f the deeds of heroes. "This space, " you w ill say, "must be made the province o f my talent."" Your M use has been but playing around w ith m aterial that young- girls m ight sing, and your first you tti has been played out to the accompaniment o f its ow n rhythm s. " Tragoedia wishes to pu t an end to the mora (erotic and literary) of elegiac discourse and ensure that die poet moves onto poetic m aturity and respectability. Hence, the tem poral injunctives o f " tempus erat " and " cessatum satis e s t " " point insistently to the need fo r the narrator to m ove forw ard. So fa r he has only been in rehearsal, "lusit tua M usa. " N ow he m ust m ove beyond the Propertius 1.6.12, "a pereat, si quis lentus amare potest,” "Let him die, whoever can love apathetically;" 2.15.8, "dixit, 'sidne, lente, iaces?', " "She said, are you just laying here like this, sluggard?'; " 3.23, " 'irascor, quoniam's, lente, moratus heri’ " , " I am angry since you, apathetic loafer, stayed away yesterday ; " O vid Atnores 2.19.51, "lentus es et pateris nuUi patienda marito," "You are apathetic and put up w ith things that should be tolerated by no husband." 296 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. sphere o f the ludus poeticus and concentrate on a maius opus that w ill signify his poetic adulthood. The poem concludes w ith the narrator's acknowledgm ent that a generic shift is im m inent but w ith a plea fo r a brief respite: "exiguum v a ti concede, Tragoedia, tempus! tu labor aetemus; quod petit ilia , breve est." M ota dedit veniam — teneri properentur Am ores, dum vacat; a tergo grandius urguet opus! Amores 3.1.67-70 "Tragoedia, allow a short space o f tim e to your poet! You are a labor that is everlasting; w hat she seeks is but brief. " She was m oved and granted me a pardon— le t tender Amores hurry forw ard w hile there is tim e; a more substantial opus is pressing on me from behind. Tragoedia's granting of venia to the narrator of elegy for a tempus exiguum corresponds to the b rief indulgence that can be granted by Roman society to the excesses of the tirocinium adulescentiae: it is the theme of the venia adulescentiae w hich Cicero refers to in the Pro Caelio and w hich he says he has no real need to invoke on behalf o f his client. The poem concludes by again conflating youthful eroticism and poetics in a threatening sexual im age, as has been noted by Duncan Kennedy who translates the last line as "a bigger piece is pressing hard in m y rear."20 The im agery o f riv a l literary forms is troped in terms of a differentiation in sexual activity/p assivity. O vid's Amores are teneri: soft, tender, young (a point reinforced by the characterization elsewhere o f elegiac discourse as mollis): as such they are potential sexual objects for the duritia o f a m ore adult poetic form: the narrator's w arning to his soft, youthful current literary w ork is ^^Pro Caelio 30. 20Kennedy(1993:62). 297 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. that it better clear out o f the w ay before it finds itself buggered by a m ore m ature, adult, sexually active literary form that w ill brook no m ora?-^ This idea o f poetic m aturation is an exam ple of w hat Barbara H em stein Sm ith has called the "developm ental fallacy:" The fallacy so named here is the quite common idea o f a teleologically directed "normal" m aturing o f aesthetic tastes and judgm ents and, accordingly, an ultim ate "fullness" o f developm ent a t w hich point, having m oved beyond the dark glass o f th eir "undeveloped" and "im m ature" likes and dislikes, now -grow n children, unless innately defective, pathologically fixated, o r cu ltu rally deprived o r corrupted, w ill recognize the inherent value o f canonical artw orks and, like their erstw hile teachers and other elders, properly and naturally prefer them . N o t restricted to questions o f literary or aesthetic judgm ent, the notion and fallacy are typically found in em piricist or pu tatively "em pirical" accounts o f value, w hether aesthetic, m oral, or o th er.^ The elegiac narrator as both a composer o f fiivo lo u s poetry and a participant in youthful love affairs has not yet reached a "fullness" of developm ent. In a Roman context such m atu rity w ould consist on a poetic level in the com position of maiora opera and on the level o f norm al adult m aturation in a general prioratization of the activities associated w ith negotium over those involved in the sphere of otium. To resist such a 'natural' progression is to risk being labeled as unseasonably perverse, a state o f affairs that Sm ith illustrates by the examples o f "babies w ho like Bach, senior citizens who lik e rock."^ As Sm ith fu rtiie r notes, such instances indicate variously "prodigiousness, retardation, regression" or are sim ply " p a t h o l o g i c a l They are instances of ^^Given that opus can be a synonym for penis as w ell as sex and tergum can be used as a synonym for anus, then the potential meaning of the phrase, "a tergo grandius urguet opus!” is clear enough. For the meanings otapus and tergtan see Adams (1982:57,115). 22smith(1988:79). 23smith(1988:80). 24Smith (1988:80). 298 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. aberration, from a norm ative standard o f taste at a certain period o f life . In this m anner the elegist's incarnation as poet and lover w ith in the tim e fram e o f the tirocinium adulescentiae could be view ed as norm al rather than aberrant Such friv o lity , how ever, alw ays exists under tem poral pressure and the shadow o f the necessity fo r m aturation. Inasm uch as the elegiac narrator resists, or professes to resist, the process o f m aturation, then he can be troped in Sm ith’ s terms as "innately defective" or "pathologically fixated." This fixation and defectiveness encompass the elegiac narrator sim ultaneously on the levels o f personal and poetic developm ent P ropertian Closure and O v id ia n R epetition Propertian elegy m ay sound stridently anti-conform ist but ultim ately it resides under the sign of a closure (as regards the original collection) where the narrator does not just announce a change o f literary venue that leaves an eroto- literary im m atu rity still operative but rather confesses to a fin a l change of perspective that puts his excess in perspective. Hence, the Propertian collection can ultim ately be perceived as conform ing to, rather than challenging, a norm ative pattern of Roman m ale m aturation. As a closural sequence Propertius 3.24/3.25 brings the collection fu ll circle as the disabling themes of Propertius 1.1 are recuperated: quod rmhi non p a trii poterant avertere am id , eluere aut vasto Thessala saga m ari, hoc ego non ferro, non igne coactus, at ipsa nau&agus Aegaea (vera fatebor) aqua, correptus saevo Veneris torrebar aeno; vinctus eram versas in mea terga m anus. ecce coronatae portum tetigere carinae, traiectae Syrtes, ancora iacta m ihist. nunc demum vasto fessi resipisdm us aestu. 299 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. viilneraque ad sanum nunc coiere mea. Mens Bona, si qua dea's, tua me in sacraria done! Propertius 3 2 4 .9 -2 0 VVhat fam ily M ends were unable to deflect from m e, or Thessalian witches wash aw ay in a vast sea, this I have effected m yself, not by the knife, not forced w ith fire, but (I w ill te ll the tru th ) shipwrecked in a very Aegean sea o f love. Venus having taken hold o f me was roasting me in a savage cauldron; I was bound w ith m y hands tied behind m y back. Yet see my garlanded ship has reached the harbor, the Syrtes are past and my anchor has been tossed out. N o w fin a lly w eary from the vast tide I have regained m y senses and m y wounds have healed into sanity. Good Sense, if you are a goddess, 1 dedicate m yself in your sanctuary. The themes o f an appeal to friends for help, magic, surgery, cautery are all developed in the opening poem of the collection and the resolution reached in 3.24 is the literary denouement of the in itia l them e. The "furor" of 1.1 and the irratio nal life-style, "nullo vivere consilio," are answered by the "resipisdmus" and the devotio to "Mens Bona" in 3.24.25 The cure, according to the narrator, was sim ply tim e and personal m aturation. The narrator emerges as the battle-scarred erotic veteran. 2 6 In the follow ing Propertian poem , presum ably the last of the original collection, the narrator continues his resolution and resigns his notoriety to the past:27 risus eram positis inter convivia mensis, et de me poterat qu ilib et esse loquax. quinque tib i potui servire fid e lite r annos. Propertius 3.25.1-3 ^Metts Bom is one of the figures who is led w ith hands bound like the Ovidian and Propertian narrator in the trium ph of Cupid in Amores 12, "Mens Bona ducetur manibus poet terga retortis,” "Good Sense is led along w ith her hands twisted behind her back" (31). 26jn much the same way as the praeceptor is presented in the v4rs Amaloria at 123ff. 22a s John Goold (1990; 347) notes, 324 and 3.25 together add upto the same number of lines as Propertius 1.1. 300 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I was a laughingstock among the banquets w hen the tables w ere set in place and anyone had lib erty to gossip about m e. For five years I was able to serve you faith fu lly. The description o f the narrator's past predicam ent here recalls his statements in 2.24 that he is called the caput nequitiae (2.24.6) and his infamia is discussed "per totam urbem" (2.24.7). The original Propertian text comes fu ll circle fi’ om the narrator’s induction into irratio nal erotic passion (and elegiac discourse) in 1 .1 to his recovery from erotic illness (and farew ell to elegiac discourse) in 3.24 and 3.25. U ltim ately, this w ould seem to give this discourse not a subversive but a conform ist feel. For although the narrator displays a pronounced lack of judgm ent and no regard for his ow n reputation, nevertheless, in the end he renounces his life o f indulgent youthful excess. If the discourse is read as teleological, then fin a lly any subversive content can be read under the sign of its end as contained.^* In this w ay elegy could be read as a lite ra ry carnival, a narrative of you th ful waywardness, that m uch in the m anner o f Roman comedy indulges a period o f youthful inexperience that in the end finds its w ay home to traditional respectability. Hence, the generational conflict that is represented at the beginning of Propertius 2.30B is ultim ately recuperated by the end of the original collection o f Propertius: 2 9 Is ta senes licet accusent convivia duri: nos modo propositum , vita, teram us iter, illo ru m antiquis onerentur legibus aures: Propertius 2.30B 1-3 2^Which is not to say that the social effect of a discourse can be so easily controlled by an authorial gesture. 29compare the opening of Catullus 5, "Vivamus, mea Lesbia, atque am em us,/ rumoresque senum severiorum / onuies unius aestimemus assis," "Let us live o u r lives, and let us make love, my Lesbia, and let us not give a dam n about the grumblings of straight-laced old men." 301 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Let stem old m en denounce these revels o f ours: le t us, m y darling, keep dow n the same path we have started. Let their ears be burdened w ith old-fashioned strictures. It turns out that the duri senes w ere probably rig h t a ll along and elegiac discourse only serves fin a lly to demonstrate the p ro p rie ^ of a traditional m oral perspective. The m etaphor o f the Propertian narrator having em erged safely firom the tempestuous waters o f love, "nunc dem um vasto fessi resipiscim us aestu," "N ow , fin a lly w earied from the w ild surf I have recovered m y senses" (3.24.17), corresponds to the im age that Cicero uses in the Pro Caelio w hen illustrating how illustrious citizens o f the past have surfaced from the excesses o f youth to become responsible ad u lt citizens, "emersisse aliquando et se ad frugem bonam , u t d id tu r, récépissé gravesque homines atque illustres fuisse," "They surfaced in tim e and turned over a new leaf, as they say, and became serious and notable men" (28). In the same m anner, Julia, when criticized by her father fo r the crowd of profligate young m en w ho surrounded her in contrast to the serious and im portant m en w ho surrounded Livia, replied that these young men w ould also become old.^® Tfie Propertian text fin ally appears to reach a closure in the recovery o f the narrator firom his youthful erotic excess and his potential re integration into a d v ic a lly conform ist stance. ^^^acrobius Saturmlia 2.5.6: for an analysis o f the sayings attributed to Julia in Macrobius see Richlin (1992a). ^^The Propertian narrator does of course return some years later in book four but his style of largely aetiological elegies is noticeably different from his earlier narratives and Cynthia only makes two special guest appearances (4.7 and 4.8). Horus appears in 4.1B to compel the narrator to keep w riting elegies (4.1B.135ff.) but now the nature of elegiac composition itself has shifted to accommodate the narrator's maturation. Propertius has found, or believes he has found, a w ay to move elegy outside o f the ludm poeticus. 302 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The case w ith the O vidian narrator is som ewhat d iffe re n t O vidian elegy, throughout the edition o f the Amores that w e possess, presents itself as existing under the shadow o f an incipient maius opus that w ill inevitably supersede the present you th ful and ephem eral compositions o f the author. In this manner the narrator appears to be constantly on the verge o f generic transform ation and constructs him self as an ongoing site o f poetic contestation. This presents a sort of inverted tem poral decorum that rather sneakily enables the poet's elegiac enterprise. This them e has already been exam ined w ith regard to Amores 3.1 and the debate betw een Elegia and Tragoedia but it is also prom inent in the other two program m atic poems of the collection. In Amores 1.1 the narrator is in itially presented as already on the verge of epic composition: A rm a gravi num éro violentaque bella parabam edere, m ateria conveniente modis. Amores 1.1.1-2 I was preparing to produce arms and violent wars in a somber meter, w ith m aterial that suited the measure. The evident allusion here to the opening o f the V irg il's Aeneid situates the narrator as a budding epicist. However, the epic project is rudely interrupted by the intervention o f C upid who provides the narrator w ith the materia (albeit increm entally over the course of the opening sequence of the Amores) for a different literary project, elegy. Thus, the elegiac narrator is in itia lly cast as an epic narrator com plaining about the generic im propriety of Cupid's intervention. But the intervention o f C upid can be seen to carry its ow n sense of tem poral propriety: fo r the narrator is a young m an w ho thus ought to be involved in erotic friv o lity and a com positional mode to m atch. The narrator's youthful epic 303 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. aspirations are themselves a breach of the developm ental paradigm of life /lite ra tu re. Progression comes through experience: to get to the gravitas o f epic one must first go through the levitas o f elegy. Thus, the O vidian elegiac collection begins paradoxically w ith a farew ell to epic, "ferrea cum vestris bella valete modis," "farew ell, iro n wars w ith your epic rhythm s ' (28). This farew ell wiU eventually be matched by a corresponding farew ell to elegy in Amores 3.15, "inbelles elegi, genialis M usa, valete," "farew ell, unw arlike elegies, jo vial Muse" (19). Hence, the O vidian collection is fram ed between tw o acts o f valediction: a farew ell to epic and a farew ell to elegy. The tem poral/ poetic duration between the two corresponds to the elegiac career/ youthful erotic indulgence of the elegiac narrator. The w hole form s a deliberately constructed slice of po etic/ erotic life fillin g the space of delay between the in itia l attem pt at serious poetry and its figured resum ption (in the form of tragedy rather than epic) w ith w hich the collection closes. Hence, from a trad itio n ally severe perspective elegiac com position is figured as appropriately nothing more than an im m ature mora w hich the narrator insists w ill lead to a m ore m ature poetic form . In this m anner too the narrator's revision o f his original elegiac collection from five in to three books also serves to shorten the extent o f the mora and hence the length o f the author's im m aturity. Thus the w hole collection is validated, albeit disingenuously, by the figuration of an im pending return to the serious poetry w hich is postponed in the collection's very first poem. The same trope o f poetic delay is also encountered in Amores 2.1 where the narrator again refers to an unfinished epic project: Ausus eram , m em ini, caelestia dicere bella centim anum que Gyen— et satis oris erat— 304 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. cum m ale se Tellus u lta est, ingestaque O lym po ardua devexum P elion Ossa tu lit. in manibus nimbos e t cum love fulm en habebam, quod bene pro caelo m itteret ille suo. Amores 2.1.11-16 I had dared, I rem ember, to te ll o£ heavenly wars and hundred-handed Gyas (and I had the inspiration fo r it), w hen Earth m ade its m isguided attem pt at vengeance, and steep Ossa bore Pelion on its back and was heaped on O lym pus. I had the thunderclouds a t the ready and Jove w ith his thunderbolt, w hich he was going to h u rl quite rig h tly on behalf o f the heaven that is his ow n. Amores 2.1 re-w orks the theme o f Amores 1.1. "Memini" reads as a virtu al flashback to the narrator's earlier abortive epic attem pt and "Ausus eram" forms a gram m atical parallel w ith the earlier "Questus eram" (1.1.21). In sim ilar fashion "Habebam " gram m atically reflects the earlier "parabam" (1.1.1) w ith both indicating the past imminence o f epic production at a tim e o f elegiac interruption. Amores 2.1, then, in a sense is a m ere static re-developm ent of Amores 1.1: it is a poetic reminiscence o f the beginning o f elegiac production placed at the beginning o f the in itia l continuation o f w ritin g elegy. Y et it is also clear that the discontinued epic o f Amores 2.1 cannot be understood to be the same as that of Amores 1.1. For this tim e it appears that epic production has disrupted elegiac production rather than vice versa. Thus the reminiscence of the im m inence o f the past production of an epic this tim e is fig ured as preceding an interruption that returns the narrator to, rather than in itiates him in , elegiac discourse: Q au sit amica fores! ego cum love fulm en om isi; exd d it ingenio lu p p ite r ipse meo. lu p p iter, ignoscas! n il m e tua tela iuvabant; clausa tuo m aius ianua fulm en habet. blanditias elegosque levis, m ea tela, resumpsi; m ollierunt duras len ia verba fores. Amores 2.1.17-22 305 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. M y g irlM en d shut the door! I dropped the thunderbolt along w ith Jove; in fact Jupiter flew rig h t ou t o f m y m ind. Pardon m e, Jupiter, b u t your weapons w eren't helping me; a closed door has a thunderbolt that surpasses yours. I took up again m y weapons, flatteries and lig h t elegies; gentle w ords have softened hard doors. The "resumpsi" here makes it evident that although Amores 2.1 is them atically linked to Amores 1.1 it cannot refer to the same situation. Rather, it is a developm ent of the theme o f an elegiac poetry book being dependent on an abortive attem pt to produce epic. The narrator, how ever, does appear to have made a little progress on his second attem pt. In Amores 1.1 a ll that appears is the bare bones o f an epic project in vague, generalized term s, "Arm a . . . violentaque bella" (1.1.1). The verb o f past im m inence here, "parabam," suggests m ore a past inclination than a past actuality. In Atnores 2.1, how ever, an epic project is represented as having m oved a little further forw ard. A n unspecified epic has by the tim e o f Amores 2.1 become a projected epic on the battle of the gods and Titans: the "parabam" of Amores 1 .1 is thus paralleled bu t also advanced by its counterpart of "habebam" in Atnores 2.1: this tim e the narrator already has thunderbolts and a Jove in his hands before he is interrupted. In this m anner the narrator teases his audience unth a slightly fu lle r, more im m inent version o f a discontinued epic project at the beginning o f the second book. The mora of elegy is thus accompanied by w hat appears to be an increasingly insistent epic undercurrent Üiat is figured as b riefly having asserted discursive control in Amores 2.1. The narrator's comment at Amores 2.1.12, "et satis oris erat " points to his continuing belief that his poetic powers are capable of epic production: there is no Callim achean refusal here to w rite epic on grounds of poetic in ab ility. W hat stops the narrator is not that his ingeniutn is 306 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. insufficient but rather the figured distraction of lo ve/eleg y that appears first in Amores 1.1 in the form o f C upid w ith a bow and is continued in the form o f an amica w ith a clausa ianua in Amores 2.1. Both C upid and the amica are images o f the tirocinium adulescentiae / ludus poeticus : the distractions o f youthful amorous a c tiv i^ / im m ature poetic activity that are conflated in the discourse o f elegy. Both cause the narrator to abandon epic narration and un dertake/ revert to elegiac discourse: a sw itch that is figured in Amores 2.1 by the narrator's substitution o f Jupiter's weapons fo r his ow n, "tua tela" (2.1.19), "mea tela" (2.1.21). C upid’ s use o f his ow n tela in Amores 1.1 has provided the narrator w ith his ow n tela (blanditiae and elegi) fo r use in an erotic rather than epic battle: Jupiter's weapons m ay be useful in repelling Titans but elegiac weapons are appropriate for overcoming the obstacles o f elegiac discourse. Thus the reversion to elegiac discourse in Amores 2.1 is figured in terms of a recognition o f elegy’ s greater u tility : Q uid m ih i profu erit velox cantatus Achilles? quid pro m e A trides alter et alter agent, quique tot errando, quot beUo, perdid it annos, raptus et Haem oniis flebilis Hector equis? at fad e tenerae laudata saepe puellae, ad vatem , pretium carm inis, ipsa venit. magna d atu r merces! heroum clara valete nom ina; non apta est gratia vestra m ihi! Amores 2.1.33-36? W hat advantage is it to me to have sung about sw ift Achilles? W hat is it to m e w hat one or the other sons o f Atreus w ill do, and he who w asted so m any years in w andering and w arfare, and Hector, a pitiable subject, dragged by Thessalian horses? But tender girls frequently when their features have been praised come o f their ow n accord to the poet as a sort o f poetry prize and the wages are certainly good! Farew ell, distinguished names of heroes; your form o f recompense is not for me! 307 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In both poems the narrator is saved from w hat seem to be a prem ature attem pt at epic com position by the intrusion o f an elegiac signifier (C upid, amica cum clausa ianua) that returns the p o et/lo ver to an appropriately e ro tic / poetic activity. In this w orld epic m ust be dismissed, for it does not produce the specifically erotic form o f gratia that an elegiac p o et/lo ver requires. Yet a t the same tim e as epic is once m ore dismissed, in a parallel act o f valediction ("heroum clara valete/nom ina," 35-36) to that in Amores 1.1 ("ferrea cum vestris bella valete modis," 28), there is also a continuation o f the them e o f the serious poetry lurking beneath the narrator’s elegiac output, w hich is figured in Amores 2.1 as having already taken over b r i e f l y . Thus O vid's elegiac poetry is figured as alw ays existing in a precarious space of youthful literary activity that is constantly under threat from more m ature poetic form s. This threat is fin a lly represented in book three's program m atic poem, as examined above, in sexualized terms as the narrator's elegies are urged to hurry in order to avoid being buggered by the poet's potentially m ore v irile and m ature poetic works. In this m anner an elegiac poet who tarries too long in his youthful literary endeavors w ill become the figurative equivalent of a cinaedus, " a man carrying over behavior and preferences appropriate to a boy into manhood. " ^ ^ The O vidian narrator professes at the end o f the Amores to have fin ally finished w ith elegiac poetry: ^^Epic poetry after all lurks behind all elegiac poetry, a hexameter being the meter of every other line: colonization w ould only require an extra foot to turn the lim p of elegy into the virile stride of epic. ^^Richlin (1993a: 534): the sexual characterization of elegiac discourse w ill be discussed in more detail in the final chapter. 308 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Quaere novum vatem , tenerorum m ater Am orum ! rad itu r hie elegis u ltim a m eta meis. Amores 3.15.1-2 Seek a new bard, m other o f tender loves. H ere the last turning post is grazed by m y elegies. com iger increpuit thyrso graviore Lyaeus: pulsanda est magnis area m aior equis. inbelles elegi, genialis M usa, valete, post m ea m ansurum fata supers tes opus! Amores 3.15.17-20 H om ed Bacchus has rattled w ith a heavier thyrsus: a greater site m ust be sm itten by m y m ighty steeds. Farew ell unw arlike elegies, a w ork that w ill survive after m y death! By borrow ing a m etaphor from chariot-radng in line 2 the narrator suggests that this poem is the last turning point of his elegiac racing career, thus placing the w hole discourse under the sym bol o f a neat teleological progression and closure. The amores that are encouraged to hurry in Amores 3.1, "teneri properentur Amores" (69), are appropriately troped in the fin a l elegy as a poetic racing chariot that is crossing the finishing line as Tragoedia fin a lly prepares to appropriate the poet fo r herself. The thyrsus graoior and area o f the im pending tragedy of Amores 3.15 point back to their previous inscription in the argum ent of Tragoedia in Amores 3.1 and thus form a neat fram e o f im pending serious poetry for the last book of elegiac discourse. A t the same tim e the conclusion of Amores 3.15, w ith its farew ell to inbelles elegi, also points back to the valediction to epic themes in Amores 1.1, "ferrea cum vestris bella valete modis" (28), thus fram ing the w hole collection betw een two polarities o f a valediction to epic/acceptance of elegy and a valediction to elegy/acceptance of tragedy. Inbetw een these tw o points the w hole discourse of elegy exists under the supposed continuing threat o f its im m inent eradication: a literary piece o f prevarication that lasts three books (or five in its in itia l form ). 309 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The O vid ian narrator, then, presents his ow n literary production in terms of a poetic career that w id i its constructed dynam ic o f m aturation (amores to e p ic / tragedy) m irrors the developm ent o f the Rom an adulescens/iuvenis from self-indulgent vacatio to an adulthood o f m ature productivity. H ow ever, O vid's Medea proved to be a transitory, rather than a perm anent shift in literary direction: a sort o f inverted vacatio before the poet returned to the proper business o f elegiac com position. O vid ’s persistence in elegiac com position form s the most notable transgression o f tem poral propriety.^^ Such a persistence in erotic elegy running from the Amores to the Ars Amatoria to the Remedia Amoris could be seen as underpinning one of the eld er Seneca's comments on the poet "nescit quod bene cessit relinquere," "He couldn't leave alone w hat had already turned out w e l l . " 3 5 In this context Seneca is discussing an orator, M ontanus, w ho due to the repetition of his sententiae had been dubbed by Scaurus the O vid inter oratores. Scaurus's conclusion as regards M ontanus could be taken as equally applicable to O vid's elegiac career, "Aiebat autem Scaurus rem veram : non minus m agnam virtutem esse scire dicere quam scire desinere, " "Scaurus used to say quite correctly that it is no less an adm irable q u ality to know when to stop speaking, as to be able to s p e a k . " 3 6 O ther comments voiced on O vid by the elder Seneca and Q u in tilian are also instructive. Seneca noted too that O vid loved rather than ignored his faults. 34W hen Propertius died is unrecorded. The last dateable reference in book four is to 16 BCE when the poet w ould have been in the region of 30 to 38 years old. Tibullus died according to the vita in 19 BCE when he would have likely been aged somewhere between 28 and 36 years old. Thus O vid was the only elegist who continued to compose erotic elegiac poetry into his forties. ^^Controversiae 9.5.17. ^Controversiae 9.5.17. 310 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. "non ignoravit v itia sua sed am avit,” "He was not unaware o f his faults but loved them."37 H e rem arks elsewhere, after quoting some typically egregious O vidian lines, "Ex quo adparet sum m i ingenii viro non indicium defuisse ad compescendam licentiam carm inum suorum sed anim um ," 'Trom w hich it is apparent that this m an of such great natural ab ility lacked not the judgm ent but the inclination to check the licentiousness o f his v e r s e s . ' ^ s Q u in tilian ’ s assessment of O vid was that he was a nimium amator ingeni sui, "An excessive lover o f his ow n talent The criticism voiced o f O vid as a poet can be seen at a m oralistic level to be applicable to the w ay in w hich every elegiac narrator is ethically constructed. Every elegiac narrator is a non acris index (as Cicero would have it) who can recognize his faults b u t not correct them .^ Every elegiac narrator (even if he professes com pulsion) non ignorât vitia sua sed atnat and clearly he is a textual character who is nimium amator ingeni sui. From a traditional perspective the elegiac narrator is a nimium amator, someone w ho carries his amorous feeling to excess, is ruled by them and neglects the civic duties that he should be perform ing because o f them . Ingenium, as was noted earlier, can signify natural disposition as w ell as talent, and in this sense, too, the elegiac nature is nimium amator ingeni sui, he is someone too predisposed to indulge rather than reject a ^^Controversiae 2.2.12. ^^Controversiae 2.2.12. ^^Quintilian Inst. 10.1.98: for a useful discussion on Roman critidsm of O vid and how these judgments have influenced later interpretations of the poet see Goddard Elliott (1985). 40lf he did so on a consistent basis he would no longer be an elegiac narrator, which is why the Propertian narrator’s renunciation o f the elegiac lifestyle and a profession of having finally seen the light comes in the last two poems, 3.24 and 325, of the final collection. 311 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. natura vitiosa (even if often the narrator appears to be in a love-hate relationship w ith h im self. The criticisins o f Seneca and Q u in tilian were presum ably intended to criticize not the amorous indulgence of O vid's elegiac narrator b u t rather the external poet’ s excessive indulgence o f his natural lite ra ry talent. Yet elegiac discourse exists precisely in a space that works to conflate these tw o aspects. Thus the O vidian narrator a t the beginning of Amores 1.15 rem arks petulantly: Q uid m ihi, L ivo r edax, ignavos obids annos, ingeniique vocas carmen inertis opus. Amores 1.15.1-2 W hy, biting envy, do you throw in m y face slothful years and call m y poetry the w ork o f an idle talent? The narrator's definition of ignavi anni and carmen ingenii inertis as the tw in reasons of reproach points to elegiac discourse as sim ultaneously a narrative of youthful indulgent behavior and frivolous poetics. The later criticism s of Seneca and Q u in tilian perpetuate this conflation. O vid is criticized ultim ately for unseasonably persisting in a frivolous poetic form . The situation in O vid ’s case was exacerbated by his greater tem poral persistence in erotic elegiac com position and by the m ore overtly literary mode of his literary technique w hich m ade his verse appear less as an autobiographical confession o f youthful aberration and more as a self-conscious choice to engage and persist in the ludus poeticus. Thus it is instructive that whereas the amid of Propertius are figured in his elegiac text (in 1.1 and 3.25) as tryin g to help cure the narrator o f his erotic excess, the amid o f O vid, outside o f the text, are figured by Seneca as trying to cure the poet of his literary excess: in the famous anecdote at Contraoersiae 2.2.12. the poet agrees to the request o f his friends that he should censure three lines of his poetry on condition thac he can nam e three that should 312 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. be exem pt brom em endation. N a tu ra lly , the three lines nam ed by both parties tu rn out to be ttie same.^i This chapter has been concerned w ith dem onstrating how the elegiac narrator's immaturity^ is m anifest on a poetic as w ell as on an erotic level. In both his guise as a youthful poet and an adolescent lover the elegiac narrator is found to be culpably tardy in his m aturation and in managing an effective transition into the civic responsibility o f adulthood. In the next chapter I shall be exam ining how the elegiac narrator's w ayw ard career o f erotic and lita ra ry indulgence fits into the context o f the depictions o f "infamous" elite behavior during the Augustan prindpate: this w ü l serve as a prelude to the fin a l chapter w here I shall exam ine how the sexualized nature o f the elegiac product sim ilarly constructs an "infam ous " narrator and how such a tale of youthful aberration m ay have served as the basis o f this literary form 's popularity. ^^The two lines reported by Seneca are, "semibovemque virum sem ivinunque bovetn," "the half ox man and the half-m an ox" (.Ars, 224) and "et gelldum Borean egelidumque Motum," "the freezing north w ind and the unfreezing south w ind" (Amores, 2.11.10). O nly two of the three lines are preserved in the Senecan text. Seneca introduces this anecdote to demonstrate his point (discussed earlier in the m ain text) that O vid lacked not the judgment but the inclination to check his excesses. The w illfid literary indulgence of O vid here corresponds to the general stubbornness of the elegiac narrator in persisting in his singular lifestyle. 313 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER TEN Historicizing a . Backdrop of Opposition and Infamy In this chapter I w ant to exam ine some of the historical circumstances that m ay lay behind the characterized im m aturity zmd shamelessness o f the elegiac narrator and to see how this tale o f problem atic lim in a lity m ight be related to its p articu lar historical moment. In this context I w ill be considering the reported instances o f opposition to Augustus's social legislation; Augustus's plans for both the equestrian order and the trainin g of Rome's elite youth; and w hat seems to have been an increased w illingness on the part of Rome’s elite during this period to engage in professions that conferred infamia on their participants. Consideration o f these factors in turn w ill illum inate how and w hy the elegiac poet constructed his own infam ous narrative. Opposition to Augustus's Social Legislation Judith H a lle tt long ago pointed to elegy as a form o f literature "created and developed by members o f the dissident equestrian class.The basis for this identification is the attested opposition o f members o f the equestrian class to the social and m oral reforms o f Augustus. A t Suetonius Augustus 34.2 the author states that even after some of the provisions o f Augustus's m arriage law had been m odified there was continued opposition, w hich led the princeps to use his ow n fam ily as a positive example: Sic quoque abolitionem eius publico spectaculo pertinaciter postulante equite, acdtos G erm anici liberos receptosque partim in patris grem ium ostentavit, m anu vultuque significans ne gravarentur im itari iuvenis exem plum . iH aU ett (1973:108). 314 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Even then w hen the equestrian order persistently dem anded the rem oval o f the la w at a public show, he summoned the children of Germanicus and displayed them , some in his ow n lap and some in the lap o f their father; signifying by gesture and expression that they shouldn't feel burdened by follow ing the young man's example. Germanicus was bom in 15 BCE and at the tim e (if as seems lik e ly this is a reference to the Lex Papia Poppaea o f 9 CE) w ould have been in his early twenties. H e was already m arried and procreating (the m arriage w ould result in no few er than six children). Thus he provides a figure who in his d vically integrated m aturity contrasts sharply w ith the non-conform ist im m aturity o f the elegiac narrator. A sim ilar narrative is constructed by D io at the beginning o f book 56. Again there is a report o f a dem onstration by the equestrians at the trium phal games of 9 Œ (this in d d en t and Augustus's speeches are in this case made to precede the enactment o f the Lex Papia Poppaea) held in honor of Tiberius. Again the vigorousness of the dem onstration is noted, as D io says, irôXAq o T T O u B q ; compare Suetonius’ s "pertinadter. " Augustus's response in D io is to assemble in one part o f the forum those of them who w ere unm arried and in another part those who w ere m arried and those having children. W hen he perceived by means of this im prom ptu census that the latter group were much few er in num ber he w ent on to address both groups.^ The latter are naturally praised for their personal traditional m orality and fu lfillin g their duty to the state through the production o f children. Augustus’ s description o f a w ife as the checker of youthful madness, " t o O t e vécu TT|v Ennavq 9 Û 01V xaôeîpÇai" (56.3.3), d early signals that m arriage (w hich ^The division takes place at Dio 56.1.2: the address to the married and child-producing occupies 56.2-3 and the address to the unmarried 56.4-9. 315 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. can only be adm itted into elegy as a fig tirative w ay o f describing a relationship) w ould constitute the end o f elegiac im m aturity. W hen Augustus moves on to the unm arried and childless his tone is represented as one o f s h rill and unrestrained rebuke: c5 t { av ôvouàoaiMi Ouâç; 6v6pag; àXX' oùSëv àvGpwv Êpyov TrapexEoGs. TToXiTaç; àXX' ôoov è < p ' OpTv, f| ttôXiç àTTÔXXurai. 'Pcopalouç; àXX’ ÊmxEipEÎTE TÔ ôvopa toO to KaraXOaai. D io 56.4.2 W hat shall I call you? Men? B ut you are not perform ing the w ork o f men. Citizens? But fo r a ll that you are doing the city is being destroyed. Romans? But you are trying to obliterate this name. This is a m atter worse than m urder or robbing temples, fo r this a m atter of m urder (genocide, as Dio's Augustus w ould have it), sacrilege, im piety and treason: KOI UÉVTOI K O I TTIV TToXlTEiaV KUTcXuETE, nf| TTE10ÔHEVOI TOÎÇ VÔ|iOlÇ, KOI TTIV TTarpiba Trpo5i5oTE, OTEpi<pnv TE aCrrfiv kq i dyovov àiTEpyaÇduEvoi, pàXXov 5è dp5r|v KaTaoKditTETE, Epripov t w v oiicTiaovTcov ttoioO vteç* âvGpcoTToi y à p ttou ttôXiç e o tîv, àXX’ oùk oiK iai où5 ê OToai où5' à y o p a l à v 5 p û v KEvai. D io 56.5.3 M oreover, you are destroying the state by not obeying the laws and you are betraying your ow n country by causing her to be barren and childless. W hat is m ore you are throw ing her to the ground by m aking her destitute o f inhabitants; fo r it is m en who comprise a city, not houses nor porticoes, nor m arket-places em pty of men. Such behavior also constitutes a direct challenge to Augustus’ s personal authority: àXX’ UPEIS OÛTE ÈKEIVCOV TIVÔÇ ÔpiyVTlSévTEÇ CUTE T W V ÊTTITIUIW V Tl (p oP T lG éV T E Ç T T à v T a TE a Ù T Ù K a T E Ç p O V lia a T E K O I T T à V T a a Ù T Ù cbç OÙ5È ÈV TTÔ X ei TlVl o IkoO vTEÇ K a T E T T a T ïio a T E . D io 56.6.6 316 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. But you have not striven after any of the incentives nor feared any of the penalties b u t have spum ed aU these things and have stom ped on them a ll as though you were not livin g in a city a t all. Dio's princeps is in no doubt that an aversion to m arriage does not indicate a desire fo r a solitary life of contem plation, rather it is a pretext for excessive personal indulgence: o ù y à p bi^TTOU ^ o vau X lq c x<xip G T E /iv' â v e u y u v a ix c â v b id y n T E , o ù 6 è ê o T iv ô o T iç ù iiû v q a iT e iT a i p 6 v o ç fi k o Be u S e i p ô v c ç , àXX’ è Ç o u o ia v KOI ù ^ p î^ E iv K a l ào E X yaC vE iv ë x « v ééëXeTE. D io 56.7.1 For 1 don't suppose you live w ithout w ives because you take pleasure in a solitary existence, nor is there any one o f you w ho either eats or sleeps alone, but rather you w ant to have the means to run rio t and act licentiously. Finally, as w e m ight expect in such a rhetorical argum ent, Augustus is made to argue from his ow n standing as pater patriae: ■ T T C Ô Ç 8' ÔV ETl TTaTfip ÙpWV Ô pôÛ Ç ÔVOUaÇoîpTlV, â v Jlfl KOI TTaîSaç T p É < p T lT E : m o t ' E ÏT T E p Ô V T C O Ç TÔ TE ÔXXo àyaTTÔTÉ U E, KO I TOÙTr|V HOl Tf|V TTpOOTiyOpiaV OÙX câç K oXaK EÙO VTEÇ 6 XX' cbç TltlMVTEÇ È S C O K O T E , ÈTTlôUUnOaTE KOI Ô vS pE Ç KOI T T O T E p E Ç yEVÉo6ai,ïva KOI aÙTOi THç ÈTrcovupîaç TaÙTTiç pEToXdPriTE xa'i ènè <pEpcôvupov aÙTfjç 'T T O IT ^ O T IT E . D io 56.9.3 H o w can I reasonably be called "father " by you, if you don't raise any children? So if you genuinely care fo r m e and have given m e this title to honor me rather than flatter me, then be eager to become both m en and fathers so that you yourselves m ight take a share in this name and m ake it appropriate for me too. The reported opposition, then, to Augustus's social legislation by the social class to w hich the elegists figure themselves as belonging could be seen as providing a plausible historical context fo r the particular characterization of the narrator in elegy. In this m anner the contrast forged by Augustus at Suetonius, Augustus 34, betw een Germanicus and the protesting equestrians, or the 317 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. contrasting speeches o f D io ’s Augustus between the m arried fathers and unm arried childless equestrians, can be seen as analogous to the protestations of the narrator in Propertius 2.7 w ho is unrem ittingly hostile to any notion of officially encouraged m arriage:^ Gavisa est certe sublatam C ynthia legem , qua quondam edicta flem us uterque diu , n i nos divideret: quam vis diducere amantis non queat invitos lu p p iter ipse duos. "A t magnus Caesar " sed magnus Caesar in armis: devictae gentes n il in amore v a le n t nam d tius paterer caput hoc discedere collo quam possem nuptae perdere more faces, aut ego transirem tua lim in a clausa m aritus, respidens udis prodita lum inibus. 2.7.1-10 Cynthia certainly rejoiced w hen that law was repealed at the issuing of which we had both once w ept fo r a long tim e lest it split us up: although not even Jupiter him self is able to split up lovers w ho are un w illin g. "But Caesar is great. " Yes, but Caesar is great in arms: conquered people are of no w orth in love. For sooner w ould I endure this head to be parted from my neck than should I be able to waste torches in the m anner of a bride, or, a husband, pass by your dosed door, looking back w ith teary eyes at w hat I had betrayed. The poem deals w ith w hat is represented in our sources as a typically Augustan problem : legislation sanctioned by the princqjs concerning m arriage and the ^The question over what, if any, actual legislation Propertius 2.7 refers to has been discussed extensively, see Cairns (1979); Badian (1985). The results seem inconclusive: Badian argues that the reference is to the repeal of an edict of the second trium virate; Treggiari (1991:159-60) and W illiam s (1990:267) remain unconvinced by this theory. Clearly, if the measure in question is understood to have an external referent then it must denote a law that has been repealed ("sublatam . . . legem” ) which could not be the Lex Itilia. Badian s contention that it is an edict of the trium virs designed to raise funds by imposing a tax on œelibes (for which there was republican precedent and which explains w hy Propertius m ight have felt compelled to marry) would seem to tally w ith the m otivation (to increase treasury revenue) that Tacitus provides for Augustus with respect to the Lex Papia Poppaea {Amudes 3.25). This in turn raises the question of whether such a notion, which was conceivable by Tacitus w ith regard to the later legislation, has to be relegated to the trium viral period rather than represent an earlier attempt by Augustus to force through sim ilar and maybe harsher legislation at an earlier period in his principate where it met w ith stiff resistance and was tem porarily shelved if not forgotten. 318 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. vociferous objection o f a portion o f Rome’ s elite. In Propertius's poem this socio/ h istorical/cu ltu ral nexus becomes rebracted through the peculiarly pathological elegiac perspective o f the narrator. Thus a t one level the poem is sim ply rew orked so that elegy can process its them e in its own terms: the militia amoris as opposed to the conventional m ilita ry career.^ This generic appropriation o f the w o rld outside the text should not, how ever, obscure the relationship o f the poem to the historical factors that produced it. Rropertius’ s poem remains a lite ra ry response to w hat appears to have been a very real opposition to m oral legislation. The terms o f his response m ay be subject to generic considerations but they rem ain a response nevertheless. The elegiac narrator's assertion that the authority of Caesar is lim ited to that o f m ilitary affairs, though obviously an elegiac form ulation, can nevertheless be seen as reflective of a concern th at it is not the place of a princeps to interfere in the personal m orality of the aristocracy. ^ Thus elegy can be read as a particularly literary generic response to a historical and cultural problem . Augustus's Youth In itia tiv e s and the A p p ro p riatio n o f the Equestrian O rder Augustus's interest in prom oting m arriage among Rome's elite was also matched by plans to revitalize and train the you th o f the Roman aristocracy and in particular of the equestrian order. ^ As m ight seem inevitable at the beginning ‘ ^This theme is dealt w ith w ell by Gale (1997) both in general terms and w ith specific reference to 2.7. ^Tiberius, for instance, seems to have been much less inclined than his predecessor to pursue this route (Anmles 3.24.2; 3.69.2f.). The Augustan legislation can be seen as a radical piece o f state intervention in the personal affairs of Rome's elite, see further Cohen (1991); Habinek (1997). Augustus's intervention is also evident in his overt m oral scrutiny of the existing members of both the senatorial and equestrian orders (as examined in chapter five). 6See Yavetz (1984:15-20). 319 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. of a new political order (the principate), the success o f its perpetuation lay not so m uch (or at least not only) w ith the generation o f its establisher b u t w ith the generations of the elite to fo llo w . Thus Augustus cast him self in an exem plary chain that denied either any discontinuity^ w ith or any disjunction from the Roman past: Legibus novis m e auctore latis m ulta exem pla m aiorum exolescentia iam ex nostro saeculo reduxi et ipse m ultanim rerum exem pla im itanda posteris tra d id i. Res Gesfae 8.5 By new laws passed a t m y proposal I brought back m any exem plary practices o f our ancestors that were dying out in our ow n age and I m yself handed dow n exem plary practices to be im itated b y posterity. Hence, Z v i Yavetz argues that if the Res Gestae had a dedication it w ould have been "pro iuventute" as it was intended by Augustus to prom ote an im age that could usefully be em ulated by the youth of the elite.^ Augustus revived the practice o f review ing the tunnae equitum (as seen in chapter five) and that of the Lusus Troiae.^ H e also re-instituted the exercitatio campestris. In addition he allow ed the sons of senators to attend m eetings o f the senate straight after the assum ption o f the toga virilis and w hen they began their m ilitary careers gave them additional command responsibilities to ensure that each youthful m em ber o f the Rom an elite w ould be expers castrorum (and not in that elegiac sort o f w ay).^ A t the same tim e he was careful to be protective o f the reputation o f the aristocratic youth, hence measures such as the ban on the beardless participating in the Lupercalia, and he only allow ed the youth o f either 7 Yavetz (1984:20). ®Suetonius Augustus 3 8 3 ,4 3 3 ; Dio 4830.1,51.22.4,54.26.1,55.10.6; V irg il Aeneid 5.550,575; O vid Tristia 3.12.7-22. ^Suetonius Augustus 383 320 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. sex to attend night entertainm ents a t the Secular Games if they w ere accom panied by an ad u lt relative. Augustus also seems to have tried to forge close links between the equestrian order as a w hole and him self and the im perial fam ily. Hence, in the Res Gestae it is stated that the w hole body o f Roman equestrians presented Gaius and Lucius Caesar w ith silver shields and spears and hailed them as princeps iuventutis.^'^ By the creation o f this sort o f ju n io r version of the office o f princeps Augustus was able to incarnate his designated heirs as probative examples of youthful behavior and iden tify the equestrian order specifically w ith the future continuation of the principate. In a sim ilar fashion the habit seems to have grow n of the equestrian order celebrating the birth day of Augustus o f th eir ow n accord and for tw o days at a tim e, By these measures Augustus m ay have intended to bind the loyalties of the equestrian order to the principate in an attem pt to create stability and unity. Augustus also seems to have been deliberately realigning the equestrian order to m irro r the senatorial to ensure not only a com patibility of outlook bu t also a reservoir of suitably qualified aristocrats. Hence, the statement at the beginning o f Suetonius Augustus 37 that the princeps created more offices to enable m ore m en to take part in the governing o f the state, "Quoque plures partem adm inistrandae rei p. caperent, nova officia excogitavit." D uring Augustus’s principate there was also the establishm ent o f the equestrian procuratorships ^®Suetonius Augustus 31.4 ^^Res Gestae 14.2;Tacitus Annales 1 3. Tacitus alleges that they were given this title before they had adopted the toga virilis: "necdum posita praetexta principes iuventutis appellari (13.2). l^Yavetz (1984:16). l3See Nicolet (1984:96-107). 321 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and prefectures (the prefectureship o f Egypt c. 30 BCE; Praetorian G uard 2 BCE; Vigiles 6 CE; Cura Annonae 8 CE). It is reported in both Suetonius and D io that at the elections of the tribunes if there w ere insufficient candidates o f senatorial rank, then equestrians w ere appointed who could then choose to become members of the senatorial order or revert back to mem bership in the equestrian order.14 In the famous debate in D io book 52 betw een A grippa and Maecenas over the w ay the constitution should develop under Augustus both agree on the establishm ent o f a Ciceronian concordia ordinum o r consensus bonorum which must include the participation and integration of the equestrian order. Though the notion of the adlectio developed here m ay be anachronistic, nevertheless there w ould seem to be some reason to attribute to Augustus a strategy aim ed at inducing the equestrian order (in spite of the relative paucity of magistracies and adm inistrative posts open to them) to view itself as com m itted to civic and adm inistrative participation, is Dio's Maecenas also proposes an active program for the education o f the youth of the elite: K O I ÈTTElSàv éç UEipàKia ÈK^dAcOOlV, È T T l TE T O Ù Ç 'iTmOUÇ KOI E T T l TÔ ôrrXa TpéTTcowrai, SiSaoKàXouç ÉKarépcov 5r||iooiÉÙovTaç ÈppioBoUÇ E X O V TE Ç . O U T G O y à p E Ù 0 U Ç Ê K TTaîScûW TTàv6' Ôoa xpf| âvSpaç a Ù T O ù ç yevonévouç e t t i t e A e T v ical paSôvTEç k q i nEXETnoavTEÇ èTTiTnSEiÔTEpoi a o l TTpôç TO v ëpyov yEvqoovTai. D io 52.26.1-2 W henever they attain to young adulthood they should turn to horsemanship and m artial training and have professional teachers ^'^uetonius Augustus 40.1; D io 54.30.2. Dio states that election was contingent on the possession of a senatorial property qualification of one m illion sesterces. l% ee Dio 52.19.4-5 and the rem ark attributed by Livy (42.61.5) to King Perseus in 169 BCE that the equestrian order was the semimrium semtus. 322 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. in each departm ent In this w ay rig h t £rom the tim e o f boyhood they w ill have been taught and practiced a ll those things w h i(^ it w ill be necessary fo r them to do on attaining manhood and so w ill be more useful to you in every undertaking. Augustus also took pains to integrate the traditional ceremony o f the Roman passage into m anhood into his ow n refurbishing o f Rome's civic space. Hence, w ith the dedication o f the new Augustan forum , and Augustus's assum ption o f the title of pater patriae in 2 BCE, the centerpiece tem ple o f M ars U lto r was designated as the place where in the future Roman youths w ou ld assume the toga virilis.^^ Augustus's new found paternal standing, in com bination w ith the tem ple's integration into the m ilita ry life o f the principate, made this an obvious sym bolic spot for the new iuvenes to take th eir place in the civic order under the w atchful eye of the father o f the state. The prom otion of procreation and an emphasis on the training o f the youth o f the elite w ere, then, both im portant themes o f the Augustan principate and ones w hich can be seen to be incorporated into elegy's idiosyncratic w orld. The elegiac narrator's opposition to an erotic m aturation that w ould fin d its goal and civic integration in the institu tio n o f m arriage and the fathering o f children finds a historical parallel in the opposition of members o f Rome's elite to Augustus's social legislation. A t the same tim e the narrator's rejection o f a forensic or m ilitary career in favor o f his ow n elegiac career m ight be view ed as elegy's "transcodification" of an equestrian opposition to the princeps's attem pt to appropriate the traditional rig h t o f the equestrian order to pursue private interests rather than state service.'^ the temple of M ars U ltor as the new site of the toga virilis ceremony see Rawson and W eaver (1997:215) as also mentioned in chapter six. the otium equestre see Nicolet (1969:699-722). 323 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 'Infamous Aristocrats" If the equestrian opposition to Augustus's social legislation and youth training initiatives can be seen to lie behind part of the elegiac narrator's characterization, then another phenom enon that seems to have arisen during the early stages o f the principate m ight account fo r the narrator's shameless embrace o f social stigm a and injamia. This phenom enon has been labeled by Catharine Edwards "Aristocrats o f Infam y, "i* The earliest attested exam ple o f a senator w ishing to fig h t in the arena but being prevented occurs in 46 BCE at some games sponsored by Julius Caesar, According to D io, Caesar prevented the senatorial Fulvius Sepinus firom fighting bu t he d id allow equestrians to enter the arena. Caesar was also notoriously responsible for forcing the equestrian p layw rig h t Laberius to perform in one of his ow n mimes. 2 0 Barbara Levick expressly connects such occurrences to the social upheaval of the c iv il w ar years, "Evidently the question had never arisen u n til the turbulent years of the C iv il W ars. O nly then could a m an enrolled in the senate think o f fighting as a gladiator. " 21 In 38 BCE D io records a ban on senators participating in the gladiatorial games and this issue continues to be prom inent throughout the Augustan prind pate.22 It seems, therefore, that the propensity o f members of Rome’s elite to take part in professions such as acting, prostitution, fighting in the arena, w hich traditionally incurred the status o f injamia on their participants, continued ^®Edwards (1997:85-90); see also Barton (1993, especially ch. 1). ^ ^ io 43.23.5: see further Levick (1983:105); G ardner (1993:141). 20Macrobius Sat. 2.7.3; Edwards (1993:131-34); G ardner (1993: 2:Levick (1983:105). 22d io 48.43.2f: Levick (1983:106); Gardner (1993:141). 324 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. from its probable genesis in the c iv il w ar years into the establishm ent of the principate. There is various evidence fo r this continuing aristocratic flirta tio n w ith infamia. According to D io , Augustus displayed an equestrian m ale dancer and a w om an dancer of noble fam ily at the games that w ere put on by M arcellus as aedüe in 23 BCE.23 H ow ever, in the follow ing year Augustus is depicted as extending the ban on m en o f senatorial rank appearing on the stage; the ban now covered not only the sons o f senators bu t the grandsons too.^^ This a ll appears a little odd as Augustus appears as prom oting in 23 BCE w hat he bans in the follow ing year. M aybe we are to take it that Augustus had no qualms in exploiting a situation to the advantage of the im p erial fam ily in 23 BCE but had to act to prevent an escalation o f this phenomenon w hich he m ight w ell have caused by his ow n sponsorship. Jane Gardner fu rth er records that L. D om itius Athenobarbus (Nero's grandfather) presented equestrians and matronae on stage to act in mimes when he was praetor (probably 19 BCE) and consul (16 B C E ).^ She fu rth er notes that equestrians and matronae also appeared at the praetorian games o f Quinctius Crispus in 2 BŒ .^6 ^ D io 53.31.3: the precise status of the woman is hard to determine as Dio uses the adjective ÈTTiçavT^g. It is also clearly im plied that this display of aristocrats on the stage was something that contributed to the success of the occasion. ^^Dio 54.23: Dio adds "so far at least as these belonged to the equestrian order. Thus Barbara Levick (1983:97-115) suggests that the ban covered the equestrian order too. Suetonius (Augtishis 43) also notes legislation in the tim e of Augustus aimed at prevented equestrians taking part in stage performances and gladiatorial contests. Suetonius states that this legislation was successful w ith the one exception of Lydus, a seventeen-pound d w arf w ith an amazing voice. ^G ardner (1993:141); Suetonius Nero 4. 26cardner (1993:141); Dio 55.10.11. 325 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. It w ould seem that in spite o f attempts to curb the participation of members of Rome's elite they continued unabated w ith the result that in 11 CE the ban on equestrians participating in the arena was lifte d . As a reason for this action D io says that the penalty o f d T i^ia (presumably a Greek equivalent for injamia) was being m ade lig h t of, and either a stiffer penalty was needed or the option o f participating w ith ou t penalty should be m ade available in the hope that its very availab ility w ould detract from its attraction.^^ However, it appears that such a ploy d id not w ork, as D io goes on to state that they fought as much as ever and that their contests w ere watched very eagerly, and by Augustus him self too.28 Clearly, in the D io passage it is suggested that injamia in itself was not a sufficient deterrent to stop this practice. In fact the passage indicates a quite evident am bivalence towards the practice: it was to be officially discouraged, Augustus, after a ll, seems to have been very concerned to regulate the ostensible dignity and m oral behavior o f Rome's elite, but on the other hand it was clearly a very com pelling spectacle to whose charms even the princeps him self was not immune.^9 Thus the princeps and Rome’s elite were caught in an almost hypocritical bind betw een encouraging condemnation and not being altogether loath to watch w hat they w ere supposed to be preventing. The am biguity of Augustus's reaction to the phenomenon of elite perform ers thus reflects a tension the precise nature o f this atimia and its relationship to injamia see Levick (1983:108); Gardner (1993:145). 280io 56.25.7-8. ^^As the early episode w ith elite performers at the games of Marcellus in 23 BCE also makes clear. It is also reported in Dio (51.22.4) that at the games given by Octavian at the consecration of the temple of Divus Julius, Quintus Vitellius, a senator, fought as a gladiator. 326 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. between wishing to protect the dignity^ o f Rome’s upper orders and a desire to exploit a form o f spectacle th at was both intrig uin g and p o p u l a r . ^ o The evidence is som ew hat confusing and it is d iffic u lt to w ork out precisely w ho was banned hrom doing w hat at any given tim e. It is also d iffic u lt to pin dow n precisely the degree o f disapproval o f elite participation and w hether such disapproval attended equally on a ll the various professions w hich incurred infamia. G ardner fo r instance notes that a t the games of Crispinus in 2 BCE Augustus seemed unconcerned about the participation o f équités and matronae, w hich perhaps indicates "that the mere appearance o f knights and matronae on stage was not in itself something that he was disposed to regard as particularly w orth taking action againsL' ^i It m ay also seem from the recoverable evidence th at Augustus (like Caesar before him ) was less concerned w ith the potential particip atio n o f équités than senators. As in the case of d efinin g equestrian status, it seems that Tiberius had to step in to concretize the situation; this was done by a senatorial decree of 19 CE that expressly banned senators (th eir sons, daughters, grandsons and granddaughters) and equestrians (or any m ale whose father or grandfather or brother or any female whose husband, brother, father o r grandfather had ever possessed the right to sit in the 14 rows) from appearing on stage or in the arena. The decree also sought to p u t an end to the practice o f elite Romans deliberately incurring infamia in order to get around the ban on their participation on the stage and in the arena.32 ^(^This tension might also be seen to lie behind Seneca's condemnation o f the gladiatorial spectade in Epistle 7. Seneca protests over the deleterious effects o f such sights but nevertheless is there. 3:Cardner (1993:143). ^^For the text and a commentary on the inscription see Levick (1983). 327 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. W h at does one m ake o f this w hole phenomenon? Does it illustrate, as C arlin Barton has argued, "The glorification of abasement and pleasure in abasement"?^ Is it a gesture o f defiant hopelessness and an attem pt to em power oneself in a w id er socio-political fabric o f inevitable impotence? This depends on w hether an act o f abasement really is an act of abasement if it is entered into vo lu n tarily. It could rather be argued that voluntary degradation is an oxym oron: to choose to abase o r degrade oneself inevitably m odifies the w hole concept o f abasement and degradation: it is to suggest an em pow ered choice w here none is supposed to exist. Thus the aristocrat who enters into a profession or m ode o f behavior that had trad itio n ally been conceived o f as degraded or inappropriate for a m em ber o f Rome's elite may be asserting aristocratic prerogative rather than deliberate debasement. As D avid Cohen points out in his study o f Augustus's ad u ltery laws, the behavior of social elites can often appear contradictory w ith respect to "ideal norms" o f behavior: In m any M editerranean societies (as elsewhere), elites tend to be the most punctilious in m atters o f honor, but at the same tim e far less concerned than other social groups w ith com m unity judgm ents and strictures on sexual freedom . This does not im ply that they act outside the system of honor and shame. O n the contrary, they are among its m ost ardent supporters, fo r it buttresses their ow n social supremacy. This tw o- sidedness has typ ified m ost European aristocracies, and it surely plays an im portant role in the conflict one finds in Roman sources between evidence suggesting that traditional values w ere s till intact and other testim onia indicating m oral degeneracy. That an in d ivid u al lik e Augustus preached the sanctity o f the m arital bond in public and m ay have violated it in privacy is not m ere hypocrisy, but rather a characteristic feature of such czultum complexes.34 33Barton (1993:25). 34Cohen(1991:122-23). 328 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Norm s and ideals o f social practice are seldom congruent and the d ifferen tial betw een the two forms is w hat Cohen describes as a "dynamic system by which individuals orient their behavior and develop strategies for the m anipulation of the norm ative expectations o f their c o m m u n i t i e s " 3 5 The social elite stand in a particular relation to this "dynamic system" as at once the m ain beneficiaries o f enforcing traditionally validated behavior and social stereotypes but also those people most able, and most inclined, to assert their ab ility to transgress such lim itations. Thus, there existed a delicate balancing act between a collective elite consciousness of the need ostensibly to prom ote and conform to trad ition al patterns o f social behavior and the equally strong culturally habituated m indset o f the ind ividu al aristocrat that encouraged him to do just as he pleased. This delicate balancing act became most pronounced in the person of the princqjs him self, whose role at the apex o f a reconstituted aristocratic structure m ade his own behavior, and his attitude towards elite behavior, of particular im port. Thus it is not d iffic u lt to trace in the career of the principes, as Z v i Yavetz has pointed out, a tendency fo r them to be approved or disapproved by Rome's elite according to their propensity to enforce or disregard the traditional social hierarchy. 3 6 From the perspective o f the Roman elite the job of the princeps was to ensure that norm ative social distinctions stayed in place (however such distinctions m ight have to be re-negotiated) and that aristocratic privilege rem ained intact; naturally, it could also be argued that this strategy was also enabling of the princeps's ow n authority as he had to keep an aristocratic apex in 35Cohen (1991) 122. 36Vavetz (1969). 329 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. place to be able to be at the top o f i t A lternatively, the position of the princeps at the apex o f Rome's social elite inevitably pointed to his potential to transgress the norms of elite behavior in spectacular fashion: fo r how could ordinary aristocratic restrictions be expected to apply to the extra-ordinary aristocratic personage o f the princeps? Thus it appears that principes such as C aligula and Nero not only transgressed the proprieties of aristocratic behavior b u t in so doing w ere also advertising their supra-aristocratic capacity to do so.^^ A t the same tim e it also seems that such principes bolstered th eir ow n popularity by both their transgression o f aristocratic taboos, and by their com pulsion o f other aristocrats to do so. 3 8 Thus popularity was courted both by the princeps's personal tram pling on social distinctions and by his com pulsion o f other aristocrats to cross Rom e’s social divides as w ell. By engaging in such activity a princeps such as C aligula or Nero was effectively bypassing the approval of Rome’s elite for that o f its masses. Such a reconstitution of the apex upon w hich the princeps was perched and the suspicion of a disaffected class loyalty inevitably led to aristocratic hostility.3 9 It is surely no accident (if rather ideologically convenient) that 3^Both Caligula and Nero reportedly appeared as performers: Caligula appeared as both a Thracian gladiator and a charioteer, and was apparently planning his stage debut on the night of his assassination (Suetonius Caligida 54): for Nero's role as "imperator scaenicus" see Edwards (1994). 38caligula was reported to have opened a brothel in his Palatine residence where wives and children of aristocrats were forced to play the parts of prostitutes: Suetonius Caligtda 41.1; Cassius Dio 59.28.9; McGinn (forthcoming): sim ilarly Nero enforced the prostitution of aristocratic women and children: Suetonius Nero 12,27; Cassius Dio 62.15.2ff.; Tacitus Aiutales 15.37. Nero also allegedly compelled members of Rome’s elite to perform on the stage and fight in the arena (Suetonius Nero 11-12; Tacitus Anmles 14.14-15). 39such hostility must necessarily be borne in m ind when reading the accounts of the alleged behavior of a Caligula or a Nero. O n hum iliating Roman aristocrats as a means to popularity see further Yavetz (1969:24,53,114-115,153); Barton (1993:34-35); Edwards (1997:86-87). 330 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. C aligtda is depicted as being assassinated on the day he planned to perform for the firs t tim e on the stage and Commodus as he planned to enter a constdship dressed as a g lad iato r.^ A sim ilar problem atic of trad ition al constraint and aristocratic self em powerm ent m ay also have enveloped Rome's fem ale elite. This can be w ell dem onstrated in the jokes attributed to Julia that are preserved in the text of Macrobius’s SatumaliaA^ In one instance Julia is confronted by a firiend and told that she w ould do better to im itate the firugality o f her father's lifestyle. Julia's supposed reply was, "He forgets that he is Caesar, but I rem em ber I am Caesar's daughter."^ H ere we fin d a m editation on a E p ical aristocratic problem : w hether elite superiority ought to be displayed or concealed. Augustus's effective establishm ent o f the principate as a system can be read in terms o f a deliberate concealment or de-emphasis on his ow n preeminence. Hence, his ow n security during the early part o f his principate, and later his generally widespread acceptance, by Rome's elite can be view ed as a quite deliberate policy o f not flaunting his ow n superiority. If, as Julia says, Augustus forgot that he was Caesar that was because he rem embered Julius Caesar. Julia, how ever, was not the creator b u t the inheritor of the status that Augustus had established for him self and his fam ily, she therefore (as she is presented in M acrobius a t any rate) assumes that her position ought to be differentiated. W hat, after a ll, was the point o f being the daughter of a princqjs if one could not behave like one? '^^Suetonius Caligula 54; Herodian 1.14-17; Dio 72.19-22. '*^^For fu ll discussion see Richlin (1992a). ^^Macrobius Saturtialia 2.5.8. 331 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In another o f Julia's jokes, in response to those w ho expressed surprise given her sexual excesses that her child ren looked like their father. A grippa, she is supposed to have replied, "W hy, 1 never take on a passenger unless the ship is fu ll. " 4 3 H ere we see an exam ple o f an aristocratic fem ale asserting a degree of autonom y in her sexual behavior w h ils t trying to stay loosely w ith in the param eters o f justifiable behavior. Julia asserts her rig h t to have sexual relationships outside o f her m arriage provided that it does not interfere w ith the production of legitim ate heirs to her husband. Thus she is caught in the problem atic situation o f attem pting to balance the constraints o f social propriety and the prerogative o f an aristocrat It w ould also appear probable, as Levick has argued, that the Larinum inscription detailing legislation im posing severe penalties on members o f the senatorial and equestrian elites w ho deliberately incurred infamia was a response not only to male elite behavior bu t also f e m a l e ; 4 4 Fem inae famosae, u t ad evitandas legum poenas iure ac dignitate m atronali exsolverentur, lenocinium pro fiter! coopérant, et ex iuventate utriusque ordinis profligatissim us quisque, quom inus in opera scaenae harenaeque edenda senatus consulto teneretur, fam osi iu d id i notam sponte subibant; eos easque omnes, ne quod refugium in ta li fraude cuiquam esset, exsilio adfecit. Vita Tiberii 35.2 Notorious wom en had begun to profess lenocinium so that they m ight avoid the penalty of law and be freed from the social rank o f matrona; and the most debauched youth o f both elite orders, o f their ow n accord, took upon themselves the stigm a o f an infam ing judgm ent so that they should not be prevented by the decree of the senate from appearing on 43Macrobius Satimvdia 2.5.9. 44For further discussion of whether the same legislation covered both the practice o f young men o f Rome's highest orders trying to find ways to perform on the stage and enter the arena and tmtrome who were incurring infamia to evade prosecution under the adultery laws see Levick (1983: llO ff.). 332 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. stage and in the arena; a ll these, m ale and fem ale, he exiled lest anyone should fin d any refuge in such trickery. This reference in Suetonius to jemime famosae is very lik e ly related to the specific case of V is tilia that is related in Tacitus as being the precedent fo r legislation by the senate banning any wom an whose grandfather, father or husband was, or is, a member of the equestrian order from registering as a prostitute. Tacitus says that up to this p o in t it had been presumed that a wom an having to petition the aediles to be p u blicly included on the list o f practicing prostitutes w ould be protection enough from any respectable wom an actually doing so: Nam V is tilia , praetoria fam ilia genita, licentiam stupri apud aediles vulgaverat, m ore in ter veteres recepto, qui satis poenarum adversum im pudicas in ipsa professione fla g itii credebant Anmles 2.85 For V is tilia , o f a Praetorian fam ily, had made know n her availab ility for sexual im propriety w ith the aediles, in the m anner handed dow n from our ancestors, w ho believed that the unchaste w ere sufficiently punished in the very confession of their disgrace. In both the case o f Julia and V istilia the attem pt by a fem ale aristocrat to effect her own re-negotiation o f this balancing act is ultim ately decided by a princeps (Augustus and Tiberius respectively) who come dow n on the side o f enforcing an ideal norm o f elite fem ale behavior. In turn their ow n handling o f the situation becomes p art o f their own high-w ire balancing act o f negotiating the "united we stand, d ivid ed w e fall" problem atic o f the need for Roman elite cohesion. In both the case o f Julia, and in the passage o f Suetonius w hich points to both the practice o f elite females evading the adultery law s and elite males participating in the arena and acting on the stage, there is an emphasis on youth. 450n the Vistüia incident see Richlin (1981:386-87); Cohen (1991:109-10); Habinek (1997:29); McGinn (1998:216-19). 333 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. This generational antithesis is made clear in another o f Julia’ s jokes in M a c r o b i u s . 4 6 A t Saturnalia 2.5.6 there is a scenario w here the im perial party is attending a gladiatorial show. There is a conspicuous difference between the group of m en surrounding Livia, w ho are graves viri, and the crow d o f profligate young men who attend Julia. Augustus tells Julia th at "she should note how great the difference was between the tw o leading ladies {principes feminas)," to w hich Julia replied, "These men w ith me w ill also become old men. " The d ifferential in the behavior o f L ivia and Julia and th eir respective companions is attributed by Julia sim ply to a g e . 4 7 The offending elem ent in Suetonius, lik e the crowd that surrounds Julia, is specifically identified as being draw n from the youth, "ex iuventute," of the senatorial and equestrian o r d e r s . 4 8 jt is ttierefore the you th ful and lim in al elements of Rome's aristocracy w ho are represented as the problem . W hat these acts o f legislation apparently indicate is a willingness on the p art of Rome's elite, male and fem ale, to incur a social stigm a, injamia, that had originally been thought to be sufficient disincentive to prevent the upper strata o f Roman society from engaging in activities that had been deemed to be inappropriate to their position in society. One should also note that injamia tends to be used rather loosely in our sources. There was a considerable difference betw een the legal penalty o f injamia 4^The parallels between this anecdote and the represented lim inal excesses of the elegiac narrator have already been pointed out in the chapter eight. 47a s a contrast to the anecdotes concerning Julia's sexual behavior there is the story in Dio (58.2.4) that Livia once found out that some men were to be executed for encountering her when they were naked. She saved them by arguing that "to chaste wom en such men are no different from statues." 48guetonius Tiberius 35.2: although, as noted in chapter eight, iiiaenis potentially has a wide frame of reference. 334 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and the use of injamia along w ith w ords o f a sim ilar sem antic range, ignominia, probrum, nota, as an indication of non-legal disapproval. This appears essentially to have been the difference betw een the censorial nota and the praetor’s edict on legal infamia.*^ As G ardner points out, it seems that "appearances in theater o r arena as amateurs d id not autom atically render the persons concerned injames under the praetor's edict."50 It w ould seem th at it was the pursuit of certain professions as professions that incurred legal injamia. This is not to say, how ever, that am ateur participation did not incur social stigm a w hich could sim ilarly be signified as in ja m ia .It was presum ably the w illingness o f Rome's elite to incur this form o f reputational, rather than legal, infamia, that was the principal concern of the legislation examined in this chapter. 5 2 In his willingness (or under the com pulsion brought about by the force o f love) to incur such reputational infamia, the elegiac narrator can be seen as analogous to the "infamous aristocrats " w ho participated on the stage and in the arena. The statements o f the various elegiac narrators show a deliberate (or again erotically com pelled) embrace o f such social stigm a. Hence, the Propertian narrator complains in 2.24 that his association w ith C ynthia means he is spoken o f as the caput nequitiae and is held as infamis throughout the city; the TibuUan issue is a complicated one: for further discussion on the nature o f injamia in its various forms see Greenidge (1894); Kaser (1956); Gardner (1993: ch. 5); Richlin (1993a: SSSff.); McGinn (1998:44r69). 50Gardner(1993:151). 51 Hence, Gardner (1993:151) dtes U lpian (Digest 3.2.6) who states that those who fight without wages are not liable under the praetorian edict but that they don't escape the nota. 52rhough, as examined w ith respect to the elegiac narrator in chapter five, the deprivations of the late civU w ar period may w ell have depleted the resources of the more m arginal members of Rome's elite to such an extent that they m ay have been tempted to pursue these various infamous professions as professions rather than as an opportunity to stage notorious am ateur cameos. 335 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. narrator begs M arathus in 1.4 not to le t h im become a turpis fabula; the O vid ian narrator in Amores 2.1 proclaim s he is the poet o f his ow n nequitia, is unable to defend his mendosi mores in 2.4 and is criticized by Tragoedia in Amores 3.1 for allow ing him self to be a fabula and an incarnation o f nequitia discussed at the crossroads and drinkin g parties and the S u lpid an narrator confesses a weariness in composing herself in accordance to the dictates o f fama, "vultus componere fam ae taedet" ( 1 . 9 - 1 0 ) . 5 3 As in the case o f elite perform ers on the stage and in the arena, the elegiac narrator can be seen as a textualization o f an aristocrat w illin g to trade trad itio n al disapproval fo r the potential fo r self-exposure and self-em pow erm ent in the turbulent social conditions of the late c iv il period that became concretized in the principate. The establishment o f the Pax Augusta and the regularization of po litical life m eant alternate means o f pursuing gloria and self-prom otion had to be sought and this, I think, results in attem pts at notorious recognition through dubious perform ance w hich envelops participation on the stage and in the arena and composing elegies. In this sense the elegist’s figurative militia does not align him , as he tries to suggest, w ith the respectability o f the conventional militia, but rather w ith a disreputable m etaphoric equivalent of m ilitary service, the ludus gladiatorius. The infamia of the external elegiac poet (as opposed to his textualized self) is also m etaphorically overdeterm ined by his equivalence to other professions w hich d id confer legal infamia on their participants. As has been discussed in chapters 3 ,4 , and 7, the elegist can be m etaphorically equated w ith both a prostitute and a pim p, both of w hich professions w ere subject to infamia.^ ^^These various passages are discussed in more detail in chapter eig ht 54See particularly M cGinn (1998:44-69). 336 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. M oreover, the poet (as also discussed in chapters 3 and 4) in his association w ith broadcasting an aristocrat's w orth can also be view ed as a praeco: the members of this profession too were subject to injamia as long as they practiced the p r o f e s s i o n . 5 5 The reasons fo r the conferral o f injamia on the members of this profession are subject to debate bu t it is w orth noting w ith in the context o f elegy that, as G ardner rem arks, praecones w ere associated w ith " a constant use o f glib m isrepresentation. " 5 ^ In this chapter, then, I have attem pted to demonstrate some furth er connections between the narratives o f elegy and their contemporaneous cultural clim ate. There appears to have been a protracted battle between Augustus and a section of the elite (particularly it w ould seem the equestrian order) over the princeps's social legislation. Even though the strength of this opposition is im possible to define in scope and in term o f numbers, nevertheless it w ould appear to have been considerable enough to produce public demonstrations of dissent. Although most o f the reports o f dissent seem to cluster around the tim e of the Lex Papia Poppaea of 9 CE, nevertheless Propertius 2.7, if it does refer to actual legislation, w ould extend the possibility o f dissent right through the Augustan principate. Even if there is no historical legislature behind Propertius's poem, it s till demonstrates a clim ate in w hich such legislation must have seemed likely and reflects a possible reaction to such policy (in the same manner as Horace Carmina 3.6 w hich also predates the legislation o f 18 BCE). In any event, elegy can be seen not only to exploit issues of contem porary im port to construct its ^^The most detailed discussion is Hinard (1976); see also Gardner (1993:131-34). ^G ard n er (1993:131). 337 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. own idiosyncratic narrative but also (w hether intentionally or not) to exert an influence on the reception o f such issues as the Augustan legislation. Elegy can also be seen to be related to the phenomenon of "infamous aristocrats." The elegiac narrator's construction as a figure w ho know ingly incurs infamia through the pursuit of dubious behavior places him in an analogous category to those iuvenes o f the elite who are also represented as engaging in pursuits that trad ition ally in flic t social stigm a on those w ho participate in them . This desire to excel otherw ise m ay only have been increased by Augustus's attem pt to channel the equestrian order and the youth o f the elite generally into a predeterm ined and civically integrated career path. This m ay w ell have been view ed as both an appropriation o f equestrian otium and an intrusive intervention in the vacatio adulescentiae. In the fin al chapter I w ant to turn in m ore detail to an exam ination o f how the popularity o f the elegists can be understood as a deliberate pandering to the tastes of youthful lim in ality and w hat the sexualized effect o f elegiac narrative m ight have been. 338 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER ELEVEN Pandering to Youth and the Sexualization of Poetry In this chapter I w ant to exam ine how elegy achieved its popularity and effect through a com bination of appealing to a yo u th fu l audience and constructing a sexualized reading response w hich appealed variously to a Rom an audience. To elucidate the dynam ics o f this process I shall first draw some parallels between elegiac discourse and contem porary popular music, then 1 shall exam ine in more detail how the Romans appear to have developed a notion o f a propriety of style based on the age o f the verbal practitioner; then, the discussion w ill move on to consider how elegy was a form o f verbal product that exploited a traditionally denigrated pu erile style; the fin al p a rt of the chapter w ill then consist o f an exam ination of the sexualization o f style w ith in an Augustan context and w hat sexualized response, in particular, elegy m ay have produced. The Parallel Between Elegy and Popular Music As exam ined in the previous chapter, elegy's narrative of a lim inal male figure, w ho deliberately flouts the conventional career path of an elite Roman and know ingly incurs nequitia and injamia^ can be read against a background of opposition to the social legislation of Augustus and an increasing propensity for members o f the elite to participate in activities, and patterns o f behavior, that had trad itio n ally been construed as dem eaning. This m ig ht w e ll suggest a historical clim ate (in p art a t least) conducive to the production and reception of elegiac poetry. 1 11 w ould therefore disagree w ith Paul Veyne's (1988:94) seemingly complete divorce of elegiac narrative from contemporary social reality. T h e picture of a milieu? Mo, rather a fantasy that makes fun of itself." 339 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Elegy could, then, be understood as reflecting, and exploiting fo r its ow n literary ends, a contem porary clim ate o f disaffection amongst a segment o f the elite, particularly the youth. In this context Paul Veyne’s comparison o f the elegiac narrator to a popular singer makes a lo t o f sense.^ The point o f Veyne’s analogy is to reinforce his point that the actual lives o f the elegiac poets are no m ore to be found in their poetry than generally those o f popular singers are evident in their song lyrics.^ H ow ever, I think the analogy is also interesting on the level o f dem ographic appeal. M ainstream popular music generally caters to a youthful audience, precisely the same age o f lim in al and incipient adulthood that seems to characterize the elegiac narrator. M oreover, the degree o f identification and alienation that popular m usic produces very often also divides along the lines of age, as the nature o f the response to reading elegy m ay w e ll have done. The music that m ay have seemed an indispensable part of one's iden tity in adolescence and early adulthood is less likely to seem so in m iddle age. Conversely, a younger generation’s equivalent o f one's ow n adolescent m usical props are also less lik e ly to produce identification in oneself, and m ay, from a perspective that society typically validates as m ature, even seem offensive and socially disruptive. This diflerentiation in reception according to age w ould have produced a variety of responses to elegy. If one compares the Propertian narrator’s tales o f erotic woe w ith M ick Jagger singing ” 1 can’t get no satisfaction," then one can begin to get some idea of ^Veyne (1988:173-74): M arilyn Skinner (1993a: 66-67) makes a sim ilar comparison to "rock stars and stand-up comedians" in her analysis of Catullus's poetry in terms o f performance. ^Thus, Veyne (1988:174) argues that "Catullus" is simply Catullus's "stage name. I think this observation is correct but it still doesn't get round the fact that part of the effect of such a conflation of "stage name " and actual name on an audience w ill inevitably be to encourage an identification of artist on and off the stage. 340 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the scope o f response possible to such a perform ance. B oth Propertius and M ick Jagger can be variously construed as idols or objects o f ridicule, depending on the degree o f identification or counter identification th a t the listener to such a performance feels: and again age is lik e ly to be a significant factor here. The Propertian text, and elegy generally, m ay w e ll have targeted as its principal audience those on the lim in al threshold o f adulthood and those in the early stages o f adulthood such as the luxuriosi iuvenes w ho are depicted in Macrobius as form ing the retinue o f Julia: this makes o f elegy, a form o f poetry catering to such lim in ality, a sort of soundtrack to the exuberant years o f youth. The popular singer, then, probably also like the elegiac poet, generally finds the most enthusiastic follow ing among an age-group contem porary to, or younger to some extent, than him self/herself. P opular music, again like elegiac poetry, is often a pseudo-autobiographical erotic and angst-ridden narrative. The singers project themselves into a dram atic role that a younger audience empathizes w ith , either as a m odel to be em ulated in the future, or as an insightful disquisition, firom the perspective of experience, of its ow n present tribulations. In either event popularity is generated through an ab ility to key into a contem porary youth audience and to be able to d eliver a perform ance that speaks to the concerns, enthusiasms and taste of lim in a l adulthood. Writing for a Youthful Audience Elegiac narrative does, in fact (in keeping w ith its status as part o f the ludus poeticus and its erotic content), present itself as specifically targeting a youthful audience. As was noted above, popular m usic firequently projects a persona w ho not only speaks to the concerns of those contemporaneous in age to 341 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the perform er but w ho also presents him self/h erself as a figure whose p rio r experience allows authoritative com m unication to a younger audience as a sort o f tutor in popular c u ltu re / erotic in itiatio n . This same conflation o f roles is also apparent in elegy where the narrator figures him self as not on ly a dram atic participant in youthful excess, but also as someone who, through his p u rsu it o f a youthful elegiac career, is also able to im p art inform ative advice and construct a poetic tale that is referential of yo u th fu l erotic reality. In this m anner the text of elegiac poetry represents an elegiac career, the im m ersion in , and passage through which, enables the poet to speak w ith the authority o f experience as a praeceptor (a stance w hich w ould be m ore system atically elaborated in O vid's Ars Amatoria). The experience o f the narrator thus produces a text that is envisioned as being read by an audience that w ill be startled by its insight and em pathy; me legat in sponsi fad e non M g id a virgo, et rudis ignoto tactus amore puer; atque aliquis iuvenum quo nunc ego saudus arcu agnosdt flam m ae consda signa suae, m iratusque d iu "quo" dicat "ab indice doctus conposuit casus iste poeta meos?" Amores 2.1.5-10 Let the g irl w ho is not cold a t the sight of her betrothed read m e, and the inexperienced boy touched by a love he doesn't understand; and let some young m an now w ounded by the bow recognize the em pathetic signs o f his ow n passion, and having w ondered long say, "inform ed from w hat source has that poet w ritte n about m y erotic misfortunes? " nec poterunt iuvenes nostro reticere sepulcro "ardoris nostri m agne poeta iaces." Propertius 1.7.23-24 N o r w ill young m en be able to keep silent at m y tomb, saying, "You who lie there are the great poet of our passion. " 342 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. N o n ego celari possum, qu id nutus amantis quidve ferant m id lenia verba sono. nec m ih i sunt sortes nec consda fib ra deorum , praedn it eventus nec m ih i cantus avis: ipsa Venus magico reiigatum bracchia nodo perdocuit m ultis non sine verberibus. Tibullus 1.8.1-6 W hat the nod o f a lover means and gentle words in a low ered voice cannot be hidden horn me. Yet I don't use lots or entrails that know the w ill o f the gods, nor does b ird song inform me of things to come: Venus herself has taught me w ith m any a blow as m y arms were tied w ith a m agic k n o t In this w ay the elegiac narrator figures his narrative as rem arkably referential. It is aim ed at readers (m ale and fem ale) w ho are themselves on the lim in al threshold of adulthood and sexual experience and w ho w ill see in the elegiac text such an em pathetic treatm ent of their experience that they may w ell w onder if the poet had not been hiding in their closet pen in hand.'^ The S tylistics o f Age If elegy, then, was a literary product specifically designed to cater to a you th ful audience, it can be seen to fit into a cultural context of an age- differentiated propriety o f style. As both Em iel Eyben and A m y R ichlin have pointed out, the Romans perceived a decorum , or norm ality, o f style according to the age of the verbal practitioner. 5 Eyben points to both Horace Ars Poetica 114-116 and Q u in tilian Instit. Orat. 11.1.31-2 as providing guidelines as to how certain styles and ways of speaking are appropriate to certain age-defined categories and occupations. ^In this manner the eiegist turns the voyeuristic gaze of his audience back on itself. Maybe the elegist is not revealing his own secrets in the text but his readers'. SEyben (1993:152-56); Richlin (1997:95). 343 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Q u in tilian notes that such verbal propriety is sim ply an analogue to other forms of tem porally conditioned behavior such as dress: Ipsum etiam eloquentiae genus alios aliu d decet Nam neque tam plenum et erectum et audax et praecultum senibus convenerit quam pressum et m ite et lim atum et quale intellegi v u lt Cicero, cum d id t, orationem suam coepisse canescere; sicut vestibus quoque non purpura coccoque fulgentibus ilia aetas satis apta s it In iuvenibus etiam uberiora paulo et paene periclitantia feruntur. A t in iisdem siccum e t sollidtum et contractum dicendi propositum plerum que adfectatione ipsa severitatis invisum est, quando etiam m orum senilis audoritas im m atura in adolescentibus creditur. Institutio Gratoria 11.1.31-32 Also a different type o f eloquence suits different types o f speakers. For a fu ll, proud, bold and adorned style doesn't suit a senex as w ell as a terse, m ellow and refined style, w hich Cicero wishes to be understood w hen he says his oratory is beginning to get grey hairs; it is just the same w ith dothes, that age is not suited to shim m ering in purple and scarlet. In youth, however, a som ewhat richer and even riskier style can be tolerated. But amongst the same age group a d ry, careful and abbreviated style is despised as suggesting a striving after gravity, since a m ature authority o f character is believed to be prem ature in the young. Sim ilarly, Horace in the Ars Poetica encourages the potential poet to construct the dialogue of his characters w ith a propriety suited to their specific incarnation: there should be a great deal o f difference in the represented speech of an older and a younger man, "interest m u ltu m . . . lo q u a tu r. . . m aturusne senex an adhuc florente iuventa fervidus" (114-116). This returns us again to Barbara Hem stein Sm ith’s "developm ental fallacy." 6 Roman culture, like a ll cultures, had a norm ative standard of m aturation and taste according to age: young m en ought to act and talk like young men and older m en should have a correspondingly m ore m ature way o f behaving and speaking. ^Snuth (1988:79): see chapter nine. 344 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. As exam ined in chapter nine, this led to the concept o f the Indus poeticus as the training ground fo r the m ore m ature lite ra ry works of one’s later years. Y outhful poetic exuberance, lik e you th ful oratorical fla ir, could be view ed as a tem porally specific norm to be tolerated. Hence, Q u in tilian {Institutio Oratoria 2.4.4-S) notes that youthful excess never troubles him , "Nec unquam me in his discentis annis offendat, si quid superfuerit," as it w ill provide the necessary raw natural talent w hich tim e w ill refine: Facile rem edium est ubertati; sterilia n u llo labore vincuntur. Dla m ihi in pueris natura m inim um spei dederit, in qua ingenium iu d id o praesum itur. M ateriam esse prim um volo vel abundantiorem atque u ltra quam oporteat fusam. M ultum inde decoquent anni, m ultum ratio lim abit, aliquid velut usu ipso deteretur, sit modo unde exddi possit et quod exsculpi. Institutio Oratoria 2A.6-7 The rem edy for exuberance is easy b u t sterility cannot be overcome by any effort. The intellect in a boy that gives m e least hope is that in w hich talent is pre-em pted by judgm ent. I w ant the in itia l disposition to be more than copious and overflow ing to excess. The years w ill m uch reduce it and reason w ill file it dow n greatly, and it w ill be somewhat w orn away by life experience so to speak, provided that there is suffident m aterial in the firs t place to allow reduction and pruning.^ In this w ay elegiac poetry m ight be perceived as an exuberant verbal product that is w ell suited to the incarnation of the elegiac narrator as a young m an on the threshold of adulthood. Thus the wantonness of O vid's style and the challenging abruptness of Propertius's are either modes of expression suited to a youthful poet or the convincing im personation by a more m ature author o f such a youthful narrator. ^This whole section of Q uintilian is quoted at greater length by Eyben (1993:153). 345 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Expressing Disapproval over Puerile Style If style is age specific, then it also follow s that the appreciation o f style (as o f popular music) should also sp lit along the lines o f age. Cicero in the Brutus relates how Hortensius as a young m an enjoyed a greater reputation than he d id later in life.® Hortensius was an orator in the Asiastic style w hich Cicero notes was m ore perm issible fo r a younger than an older m an, "adulescentiae magis concessum quam senectuti."^ H ow ever, Hortensius persisted w ith this style in later life w hen such a style no longer seemed suited to his years, "Sed cum iam honores et ilia senior auctoritas gravius quiddam requireret, rem anebat idem nec decebat idem ," "But w hen public honors and a more m ature prestige called for som ething more dig nified he stuck to the same style b u t it was no longer suitable fo r him ."^° By persisting in a mode of oratory that was perceived as the proper province of the young beyond his ow n youth, Hortensius's popularity decreased as he became an anachronism. Hence, he offended tem poral propriety and the decorum of m aturation in the same m anner as the elegiac narrator threatens to by extending youthful erotics and poetics beyond the sphere of indulgence granted to the tirocinium adulescentiae Cicero also notes that Hortensius’s you th ful oratory was received very d ifferently by the young and the old: ®See Eyben (1993:153-54); Richlin (1997:95). ^Brutiis 325. ^^Briittis 327. l^ In this manner Hortensius's persistence in a youthful style of oratory even at a m ature age is analogous to the contemporary spectacle o f a fifty-som ething M ick Jagger still singing Satisfaction": a spectacle that is becoming increasingly common in our own culture w ith the aging and continuing performance (or comeback tours) o f the music stars of the fifties, sixties and seventies. 346 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. N o n probabantur haec senibus— saepe videbam cum irridentem turn etiam irascentem et stomachantem Philippum — sed m irabantur adulescentes, m u ltitu d e m ovebatur. Brutus 326 These things [the tenets o f Hortensius's verbal technique] w ere not approved o f by the older men: often I used to see Philippus mocking and even getting angry and irritab le. But the young used to adm ire him and the common people w ere a ll excited by him . Hortensius's Asiastic style gained the plaudits o f a youthful aristocratic audience and o f the common populace (whose taste from an aristocratic perspective is typ ically view ed as perpetually puerile) bu t was negatively received by older members of Rome's aristocracy such as Philippus. Cicero's comments over Hortensius's style represent w hat appears to have been an ongoing debate running through Rom an culture over w hat represented an appropriate verbal perform ative style fo r an ad u lt Roman m ale. The same type of criticism s that Cicero voiced over Hortensius are repeated in Q uintilian's rem arks about the popularity of Seneca the younger, Q u in tilia n , w hilst denying any personal anim osity, says his remarks w ere based on the need to redirect pupils of oratory from a debased form of speaking, "corruptum et om nibus v itiis fractum dicendi genus, " to a more reasonable standard o f taste, "ad severiora i u d i c i a . " ^ ^ For Seneca, who for Q uin tilian is the incarnation o f the corruptum et fractum genus dicendi, enjoyed tremendous p o p u larity amongst the young, "Tum autem solus hie fere in manibus adolescentium fu it. "^ * This led, according to Q u in tilian , to a deleterious situation w here Seneca was preferred to authors superior to him self. The enthusiasm of ^^For a detailed elaboration o f Quintilian's criticisms see D om inik (1997). ^ Q u in tilia n Instit. Orat. 10.1.125. ^^Instit. Orat. 10.1.126. 347 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. such adolescentes fo r Seneca is m arked by Q u in tilian as a kin d o f blind adulation that did not even result in very good im itations o f his style: Am abant autem eum magis quam im itabantur tantum que ab eo defluebant, quantum ille ab antiquis descenderat. Foret enim optandum pares ac saltem proximos illi v iro fie ri. Sed placebat propter sola v itia et ad ea se quisque dirigebat effingenda quae poterat; deinde cum se iactaret eodem m odo dicere, Senecam infam abat Institutio Oratoria 10.1.126-27 T h ^ loved h im , how ever, more than they im itated him and were as in ferio r to him as he was to the ancients. W ould that they had equaled or at least approached him . But he pleased them only by means of his faults and each directed him self to im itate w hich o f them he could; and then they w ere dam aging Seneca's reputation w hen they boasted to speak in the same m anner. Q u in tilian goes on to expand on w hat he views as Seneca’s deliberate stylistic perversity: Nam si aliqua contempsisset, si parum recta non concupisset, si non om nia sua amasset, si rerum pondéra m inutissim is sententiis non fregisset, consensu pofius eruditorum quam puerorum amore com probaretur. Institutio Oratoria 10.1.130 For if had despised certain expressions, if he had not been so desirous of the incorrect, if he had not loved a ll that was his ow n, if he had not broken the weightiness of his subject m atter w ith triflin g little epigrams, he w ould have been approved by the consent o f the learned rather than by the enthusiasm o f boys. As W illiam D o m inik points out, the m ain problem that Q uintilian has w ith Seneca is "w ith fiie latter's stylistic influence on others and the attem pts to im itate him by young orators learning their art."'® Q u in tilian , in fact, clearly saw Seneca as deliberately courting the popularity of Rome's youth through w hat he perceived as a flashy and depraved style. '®Dom inik (1997:54). 348 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Q uin tilian's b elief that Seneca pleasured a younger audience precisely because of, rather than in spite of, his vitia connects to a comment o f Seneca the elder, m entioned by R ichlin, about A rellius Fuscus (O vid's teacher). A t the end of the text o f Suasoria 2.23 Seneca breaks o ff to recount some elaborations (not recorded) o f A rellius Fuscus, adding, "Quarum nim ius cultus et fracta conpositio poterit V O S offendere cum ad m eam aetatem veneritis; interim non dubito quin nunc V O S ipsa quae offensura sunt v itia delectent, " T h e ir excessive ornam entation and emasculated style m ight cause you offense w hen you get to my age; in the m eantim e I don't doubt that those very same faults, w hich w ill annoy you in the future, now give you pleasure." A gain taste is constructed as something age specific and w hich w ill m ature over the years. From his m ature perspective Seneca the elder has little doubt that the style o f A rellius Fuscus is faulty; youth, how ever, is attracted to such flashy error as it lacks the experience upon w hich to base an inform ed opinion: it appreciates verbal g litte r but fails to perceive the lack o f substance beneath it. The criticism s voiced over the style o f Seneca the younger and A rellius Fuscus are rem arkably sim ilar to those expressed about O vid by Q u in tilian and the elder Seneca (as exam ined in chapter nine). Like Seneca, O vid was also criticized fo r deliberately indulging w hat w ere perceived to be his stylistic shortcomings and fo r shortchanging his ta le n t Both are perceived as, in effect, being in love w ith their ow n stylistic pyrotechnics: "non ignoravit v itia sua sed am avit," "He was not unaw are of his faults b u t loved them " ; "nim ium am ator ingenii sui," "A n excessive lover o f his ow n talent"; "si non om nia sua amasset," ^Seneca Suasoria 2.23; Richlin (1997:94-95). 349 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. "if he had not loved a ll that was his own."^^ In tum this form o f self-love produces a passionate response in a y o u th fu l and im pressionistic audience that is draw n to the very qualities that a m ature audience disparages. Q u in tilian claim ed that the enthusiastic youthful im itators o f Seneca dam aged his reputation ("infam ant") through the poor quality^ o f th eir im itations. H ow ever, it is also clear that Q u in tilian 's disparaging "infam ant " is an attem pt to negate the very real po p u larity o f Seneca’s verbal style. In the same m anner the elegiac poet also trades off a narrative in w hich his textual self incurs infiimia against the popularity o f his poetic product. Thus both Seneca and the elegiac poets can be construed as gaining a you th ful follow ing through verbal seduction. In elegy this seduction goes on both inside and outside o f the te x t H ow ever, it is ultim ately less im portant that the blandi versus of the elegiac narrator seduce the elegiac puella in the text than the audience outside o f i t R ichlin has w ell elaborated this Rom an w orld o f verbal seduction, "O ratory, then, not only m anifests gender attributes in itself but is a m edium w^hereby older men seduce younger m en— though in w ord, not in flesh."^* This is a verbal, erotic battlefield in w hich poetry as a public use o f w ords inevitably has its place. M oreover, poetry through its po ten tial ability to m utate norm al w ord usage in unconventional and startling w ays is peculiarly able to arrest attention and thereby also always a little suspicious and disreputable. It w orks on the m ind of the listen er/read er through an illic it use of language w hich not only makes the poetic seducer alw ays a po ten tially infamous character b u t also ^^Seneca Controversiae 2.2.12; Q uintilian Inst. 10.1.98; 10.1.130. ISRichlin (1997:99). 350 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. conveys a stigma on those w ho have too little m oral fiber to be able to resist In ad d itio n elegiac poetry represents an intensification o f this position by not only seducing an audience through a stylistics o f enticement but also inducing a p ru rien t and sexualized response through the content of its m aterial (as w ill be discussed later in the chapter). If Senecan oratory could be view ed as attaining fo r its author a socially irresponsible popularity through exploiting adolescent inexperience, then evidently elegy was open to sim ilar c ritic ia n : m oreover, to the exten t as noted above, that elegy d id not m erely interfere w ith the verbal style of the young but also prom oted w hat appeared to be socially dubious behavior it was a m uch m ore insidious means to personal success. T h e Dangers o f the M isuse o f Poetry N aturally, it is the young w ho are always perceived as being at m ost risk and being most susceptible to the w anton use of language. Eyben points here to an illum inating passage firom Seneca the elder’s seventh controversia on the theme o f "The Thrice-Disinherited Son Caught Pounding Up Poison."^^ Seneca lists the elaboration of a certain M urredius w hom he describes in disparaging term s, "M urredius pro cetero suo stupore d ix it. " In particular, M urredius used tw o phrases that Seneca describes as "colorem et Publilianam sententiam," " a PubUlian epigram w ith a P u blilian tone." 20 The reference here is to Publilius Syrus, a notable m im e w riter o f the first century BCE. Seneca goes on to note that Moschus com plained of the effect of ^^Controversiae 73: Eyben (1993:157) only mentions the reference in passing but as this example involves poetry it is worth noting in greater detail here. ^^Controversiae 73.8. 351 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Publilius on the young, "M em ini Moschum , cum loqueretur de hoc genere sententiarum , quo infecta iam erant adulescentulorum omnia ingenia, queri de Publüio quasi ille iam hanc insaniam introduxisset," "I remember that Moschus speaking about this type o f epigram , w hich even then had corrupted a ll the talent o f the youth, com plained about Publilius as if he had introduced this madness."2i Cassius Severus defended Publilius by saying that the fau lt was not Publilius's b u t those w ho chose to im itate his lig h t and frothy, rather than substantial, side: Cassius Severus, summus P u b lili am ator, aiebat non illiu s hoc v itiu m esse, sed eorum qui iliu m ex parte qua transire deberent im itarentur, non im itarentur quae apud eum melius essent dicta quam apud quemquam comicum tragicum que aut Romanum aut Graecum. Controversiae 7.3.8 Cassius Severus, a great lover of Publilius, used to say that the fault wasn’t his, but theirs who im itated that part which they ought to have passed over, and failed to im itate those things w hich were better said by Publilius than by any tragedian or comedian, Roman o r Greek. It is instructive to compare the type of sententiae draw n from Publilius’ s poetry w hich are validated by Cassius, w ith those listed in Seneca as examples of a type of P u blilian expression that appealed to younger speakers. The tw o verses that Cassius lists, at Controversiae 7.3.8, as displaying Publilius's serious side are the follow ing: ^^Controversiae 73.8: Moschus's comments seem a little hypocritical given that Seneca elsewhere, as Sussman points out (1978:121), notes that he tried to express everything figuratively w ith the result that his speech was not figured but depraved, "non figurata erat sed prava (Controversiae 10 pr. 10). Sussman does not note the amusing punch line to this observation: when Pacatus met Moschus one morning he greeted him by saying "poteram dicere: ave, Moschus," " 1 could have said: Greetings, Moschus” (Controversiae 10 pr. 10). 352 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. tam dest avaro quod habet quam quod non habet The greedy man lacks w hat he has as m uch as that w hich he does not have. desunt luxuriae m ulta, avaritiae om nia Luxury lacks m uch, greed everything Second, le t us tu m to the sententiae of M urredius that Seneca notes are in the P u blilian m anner. The firs t tw o are listed at Controversiae 7.3.8: they are in the context o f the father finding his son, w hom he has thrice disinherited, m aking, and discarding on discovery, poison. The last is noted at Controversiae 7.2.24 and is a description of the alleged m urderer o f Cicero, Popillius Laenas (who supposedly had earlier been defended by the orator in court). abdicationes suas veneno d ü u it H e diluted his disinheritances w ith poison mortem meam effu d it He poured out m y death P o p illi, quanto aliter reus Ciceronis tangebas caput et tenebas manum eius P opillius, how differently you used to touch Cicero's head and hold his hand w hen you were on tria l. The sententiae of Publilius that are approved o f by Cassius are notably aphoristic. Thus poetry is validated as providing a potential m ine fo r catchy mnemonics to assist m oral e d i f i c a t i o n . ^ ^ O n the other hand the denigrated P u blilian style ^ In sim ilar fashion a list of Publilius's sententiae are listed by Aulus Gellius at Noctes Atticae 17.14.4. This idea is analogous to Lucretius’s argument {De Rerum Natura 1.930-950) that his poetry provides the sweet coat that helps his Epicurean philosophy slip dow n more easily. The same argument, as Eyben (1993:177) notes, is made by Seneca the younger, {Epistulae Morales 108.9-10), who remarks upon the enthusiastic response that aphorisms receive in the theatre (the two lines that he quotes are again from Publilius Syrus) and says that the effect of such wisdom is enhanced by being expressed in poetry, T ad em neglegentius audiuntur minusque percutiunt, 353 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. sententiae o f M urredius are a ll dear examples o f verbal ingenuity and punning: a use o f w ords that brings attention to nothing b u t itself. R ichlin relates another story concerning the effects o f poetry on oratory draw n ffo m Seneca concerning A lfius Fuscus. A lffu s Fuscus was a child prodigy w ho gained a reputation fo r eloquence even w h ile he was s till w earing a toga praetexta. H ow ever, his extraordinary talent, as Seneca describes it, was com prom ised, "desidia obruta et carm inibus enervata," "overwhelm ed by idleness and emasculated by p o e t r y ." 2 3 This p articu lar description m ight seem to quite accurately describe the elegiac narrator (and by extension his extra-textual self) whose inertia and incarnation as a poet form the basis of this form o f poetry. In fact, as R ichlin points out, a later anecdote about A lfius Fuscus from Controversiae 3.7 specifically points to that m ost w anton of elegists, O vid , as the specific source o f corruption: A lfius Fuscus used an epigram that was suspiciously sim ilar to a lin e of O vid's Metamorphoses concerning Erysichthon and was criticized by Cestius:^* H unc Cestius quasi corrupte dixisset obiurgans: Apparet inquit, te poetas studiose legere: iste sensus eius est qu i hoc saeculum am atoriis non artibus tantum sed sententiis im plevit. Controversiae 3.7 Cestius reproaching him as if he had spoken corruptly: it is clear, he said, that you have read the poets enthusiastically: that is fiie sentim ent of him [O vid ] w ho fille d this age not only w ith lover’s arts but also w ith erotic epigram s. H ere, the w anton content o f O v id ’s poetry is equated w ith its stylistic lasciviousness showing the dual im propriety o f elegiac discourse (particularly in quam diu solata oratione dicuntur; ubi accessece num eri et egregium sensum adstrinxere cert: pedes, eadem ilia sententia velut lacerto excussiore torquetur (108.10). 23Seneca Controversiae 1.1.22. 24see Richlin (1997:97-98). 354 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. its O vidian m anifestation). As in Q uintilian's o itid sm s o f Seneca, and Seneca the elder’s disparaging comments about M urredius’ s misuse o f Publilius Syrus, the finger is firm ly wagged at w hat is considered the puerile use o f sententiae. As R ichlin says, "The story o f A lfius Flavus points to a feeling that oratory is contam inated by influence hrom a certain kind o f poetry— a kind o f poetry that itself represents a fa llin g -o ff ffom a m anly style."25 Poets such as Pubilius Syrus and O vid fill the Roman verbal economy w ith a host o f g litterin g sententiae which through their sheer ingenuity and jingling m em orable q u a li^ provide instant gratification. To critics such as Q u in tilian and Seneca such verbal pyrotechnics are little more than insubstantial bombast that caters to those whose defective taste o r judgm ent is inherent (the general populace) or to those whose taste and judgm ent has not yet m atured (the aristocratic youth). The S exualization o f S tyle The debate over appropriate style is one that appears to have been highly topical during the Augustan period. The views o f Augustus him self, as presented in Suetonius, appear to be rem arkably sim ilar to Cassius’s attitude to w hat he believed was the rig h t use of Publilius Syrus. In Suetonius Augustus is presented as quoting V irg il to enforce a proper dress code in the forum {Augustus 40), scouring Greek and Latin literature to send im proving aphorisms to his generals, governors and the m agistrates of Rome {Augustus 89.2), espousing the view that speech was p rim arily a means to reveal one’ s intentions as clearly as possible {Augustus 86.1) and attacking the verbal affectations of those around him (Maecenas, Tiberius, M ark Antony, A grippina the elder; Augustus 86.2-3). 25ïüchlin (1997:98). 355 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Thus Augustus is presented as view ing any attem pt a t ostentatious language and w ritin g as m isguided: the effect o f such language was sim ply to draw attention to itself, it neither provided instruction nor a lucid insight into the intentions o f the speaker. ^ 6 Paul Zanker has discerned in the art and architecture o f the Augustan period an attem pt "to create a kind o f "superculture," w hich w ou ld combine the best traditions o f both G reek and Roman culture, Greek aesthetics w ith Roman propriety and virtus."^ Zanker speaks o f "Augustan classicism and archaism" and sees this as "the vehicle of "A pollonian culture," an outw ard symbol o f the m oral revival." 2 8 According to Zanker this expressly m oralistic form o f aesthetics was a backlash against "the cultural style o f Antony and his follow ers, including the Roman jeunesse dorée w ith its affected poets and Dionysiac feasts."29 In other w ords Zanker sees the Augustan period as one precisely concerned w ith artistic style as a direct m anifestation o f m orality. In such a climate verbal excess w ould inevitably have been view ed as an em anation of dubious character. Zanker bolsters this view o f the Augustan period by p o inting to Dionysus of Halicarnassus’s evaluation of ancient orators in language that conflates 2^Thus a type of "call a spade, a spade" and don't call "a rose by any other name mentality would seem to stand behind Augustus's overtty pragmatic attitude to speech and literature: this is an attitude not dissim ilar to the sentiments attributed by Q uintilian (12.40-41) to a stereotypic severe critic Augustus's capacity to express himself effectively is also rem arked upon by M artial (11.20.10) who, after quoting from an obscene epigram attributed to Augustus, remarks "sds Romana simpUdtate loqui." 27Zanker (1988:239-40). 28Zanker (1988:240). 29Zanker (1988:240). 3 5 6 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. aesthetic and ethical tenninology.^o Dionysus’ s most (in)fam ous observation on the d ifferen t styles o f A tticism and Asianism was to compare the form er to a virtuous housewife and the latter to a w hore.^' As Dionysus probably arrived in Rome around 30 BCE he appears as an excellent proof of Zanker's thesis of a deliberate Augustan denigration o f excessively elaborate style as im m oral: especially, since Dionysus credits Rome w ith launching a rhetorical crusade, as it w ere, to reestablish the A ttic housewife in her rig h tfu l place in the home.32 Thus Augustanism becomes associated w ith a p u rity o f style that has as its natural analogue an effect o f m oral cleansing. H ow ever, as A ndrew W allace-H ad rill has pointed out, Zanker’s scheme is perhaps a little too neat and clearly delineated.^^ H e rig htly emphasizes that the ethically charged debate over oratorical styles pre-dated the Augustan period (as w e have seen in the passage o f Cicero concerning Hortensius) and that there is plenty of evidence o f continuing Asianism in Augustan art and literatu re such as the Sperlonga sculpture and Maecenas as the most prom inent literary patron of the p e rio d .^ As W allace-H ad rill fu rth er rem arks, the behavior and taste of such figures as Maecenas, Tiberius and Julia does not indicate m uch "internalization o f Augustan m orality and style, here, a t the heart of the court c i r c l e . ’^ s 30Zanker (1988: 247-48). Antiquis Oratoribus preface 5,306: there is an excellent discussion of this passage by Page duBois (1% 5; 168-70): duBois (1995:170) also points to a later parallel passage in Q uintilian {Institutio Oratoria 8 pr. 19-20). 3%ee W allace-Hadrill (1989b: 161): this m ight be considered as an aesthetic analogue to the Augustan adultery legislation which, as M cG inn (1998:209), concretized in legal terms the polarity of the mater fomUias and the meretrix. 33W aUace-HadrUl (1989b). 34W aUace-HadrUl (1989b: 161-62). 35w aU ace-H adriU (1989b: 162). 357 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. It is better, as W allace-H adrill says, to view the Augustan period not as a historically isolated instance of stylistic/m o ralistic conflict and resolution but as yet another phase in a conflict that is ongoing in Roman c u ltiire .^ Indeed, W allace-H ad rill is clearly correct in seeing the Augustan period as one that precisely generates these conflicts w h ilst trying to resolve them (as has been exam ined in chapters 5 and 6); O ne could argue that far from resolving the tension between publica magnificentia and privata luxuria, Augustus am plified it by denying the aristocracy an outlet fo r th eir surplus w ealth and a focnis for their scxâal com petition in the glorification o f the City.37 The same argum ent applies to verbal, as w e ll as m aterial, luxury and ostentation. It was a ll very w e ll for Augustus, entrenched at the top of the social pyram id, to view speech as nothing more than an instrum ent fo r clear conununication, but as other routes to social distinction were being shut dow n through the increasing appropriation of Republican offices and powers into the im perial circle, then other means fo r self-display and scxnal m obility had to be found. As has been argued in chapter six, one methcxi was to use one's voice precisely in the m anner that Augustus thought was insane in his criticisms of A ntony, "quasi ea scribentem, quae m irentur potius homines quam inteUegant;" to p rio ritize a construction o f oneself as a verbal objecit to be adm ired (or to attract attention) rather than m erely to be comprehended.^® A t the same tim e as style is sexualized and m oralized it is also (as exam ined earlier in the chapter) conceived o f in terms o f a propriety of age. Thus "bad style" is m ore permissible in the young than the old. W hat is inappropriate 36WaUace-HadriU (1989b: 163-64). 37WaUace-HadriU (1989b: 164). 3®Suetonius Augushis 86.2-3. 358 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. is to persist in atfectation, verbal o r otherw ise, into m aturity, fo r apart hrom this producing an unpleasing aesthetic it is also an indication o f an inherently flaw ed character that can no longer plead youth as an e x c u s e .3 9 In the Augustan period the m ost notorious exam ple o f such unseasonable a^ectation was, o f course, Maecenas: as Maecenas was also the m ost famous literary patron o f the age this produces, as W allace-H adrill sees, an apparent dissonance w ith w hat Zanker sees as the approved aesthetic of Augustanism . C learly, Maecenas could have been construed as a pernicious influence on the poets who surrounded him : even such a poet as V irg il, whom Augustus clearly approved of, was the target o f contem porary criticism as elaborated in Suetonius’s vita o f V irg il: there w ere apparently anti-versions of both the Eclogues ( "Antibucolica") and Aeneid ("Aeneomastix") and A grippa appears to have been outspoken in his condem nation o f V irg il as a product of Maecenas's who produced an insidious type of verbal misuse, "novae cacozeliae repertorem , non tum idae nec exilis, sed ex communibus verbis, atque ideo latentis."^ So, even a poet that Augustus saw as appropriately sententious could s till be view ed w ith suspicion by a Roman lik e A grippa, who one suspects represents a conservative, pragm atic portion o f the Roman elite for whom poetry was always at best som ething dubious and M volous, and in anything lik e a m odem form could hardly be anything less than potentially corrupting. ^ ^ e n c e elegiac discourse, as noted in chapter nine, has a tendency, as a lim inal form of Indus poetiais, to present itself as always existing under the constraint o f a socially conditioned pressure to terminate itself. ^^Vita Vergili 44. "^^A s Horace would have it in the Ars Poetica, this attitude that only poetry validated by age could be of any significance was a Roman cultural norm: a critical practice produced by a culture whose perceptions were shaped by a strong sense of tradition, rnos maiorum, which Augustus was in the process o f trying to intensify through a deliberate "back to the future" policy: Agrippa, of 359 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In the context o f the sexualization o f style it is w o rth recalling the intem perate outburst by Seneca the younger on Maecenas. Seneca saw Maecenas as the clearest m anifestation of the Greek proverb, "talis hominibus fu it oratio qualis v ita ."^ V erbal expression and character are, according to Seneca, inextricably linked: "N on potest alius esse ingenio, alius anim o color. Si ille sanus est, si compositus, gravis, temperans, ingenium quoque siccum ac sobrium est; illo vitiato hoc quoque adflatur," "For it is not possible fo r the character of a man's talent to be o f one sort and that of his soul o f another. If his soul is sound, ordered, dig nified and restrained, then his talent is also p lain and sober; bu t if the one is corrupt, then the other is contam inated too."*^ As R ichlin notes, Seneca concludes this section o f his letter by pointing to Maecenas, and m en lik e him , as deliberately tryin g to attract attention to themselves through depraved m eans:^ Q uod vides istos sequi, qui aut vellun t barbam aut intervellunt, qui labra pressius tondent et adradunt servata et summissa cetera parte, qui lacemas coloris im probi sum unt, qu i perlucentem togam, qui nolunt facere quicquam, quod hom inum oculis transire liceat; in ritan t illos et in se advertunt; volu nt vel reprehendi, dum conspid. Talis est oratio Maecenatis om nium que ahorum , qui non casu errant sed sdentes volentesque. Hoc a magno anim i m alo oritur. Epistulae Morales 114.21 course, arose to prominence firom rather obscure origins (as discussed in chapter five) and hence was always liable to be characterized as a philistine. ^Epistidae Morales 114.1: the original is attributed by Cicero (Tusc. 5.47) to Socrates, and seems, as Cynthia Dessen (1996:23) has noted, to be sim ilar in sentiment to a passage (4(X)d) ft-om Plato's Republic. John Bramble (1974:23-24) lists a series of other passages relating to this theme: the passage o f Seneca on Maecenas is well discussed by Richlin (1992c 4-5), (1997:94). ^^Epistulae Morales 1143. ‘ ^R ichlin (1997:94); as Richlin also remarks, Seneca's attack on Maecenas is somewhat ironic given Quintilian's assessment of Seneca's own style in the same terms. 360 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. W hich [an effem inate style of speaking] you see those m en pursuing who pluck th eir beards, closely shave and d ip th e ir top lip , keeping and le t grow the rest o f their hair, w ho p u t on m antles o f perverse colors and see-through togas, who never do anything w hich doesn't tum men's eyes; they excite diem and d raw atten tion to themselves; they even w ant to be censured, provided that they are noticed. Such is Maecenas's style o f speech and of a ll those others w ho err not by chance b u t know ingly and w illin g ly . This situation arises from a great m alady o f the soul. Here affected speech is view ed both as an effem inate tra it and seen as part of a pattern of intentional ostentation aim ed at gaining atten tion at a ll costs. In a culture where status was negotiated and confirm ed in public there was not necessarily anything w rong w ith m aking a spectade o f oneself; however, the type of spectade one presented, and the means one em ployed to gain attention, were subject to cultural practices of propriety. Maecenas, and the dass of effem inate males w hom he is taken to represent, d early overstep the boundaries of acceptable self-prom otion. As represented by Seneca, th eir verbal style is sim ply another facet of a w hole manner of self-cultivation that is pathologically fixated on arousing and seducing an audience. In this sense a Maecenas is the true analogue o f Dionysus's Asiatic whore, a verbal tem ptress whose linguistic usage solicits the listen er/ reader. W hen such effem inate behavior, as outlined above, is incarnated in a m ature, adult m ale such as Maecenas, it is taken as a sign o f inherent aberration that could be assumed to m ark out a m an as a cinaedus.*^ H ow ever, it seems that such effem inate traits, as w e ll as signifying w hat w ere assumed to be random ly pathological ad u lt m ales, w ere also seen as typically infecting lim in al Roman males. 4 6 4^0n the evidence for, and manifestation of, the cimedus, see the detailed analysis of Richlin(1993a); also C orbeiii (1996: ch. 4); (1997); Parker (1997:60-62). 361 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. As was exam ined in chapter eigh^ the years o f incipient adulthood were view ed in Roman culture as alm ost inherently problem atic it was an age when accusations, w hether w arranted o r no^ w ould seem believable.^^ It was, as R ichlin observes, "a period o f transition" where norm ative m ale adulthood had to be established.^ In this m anner a ll Roman youths were in a sense effem inate as they w ere positioned in a k in d o f gender lim bo sandwiched betw een the w om anly mollitia that characterized pre-pubescence/pubescence and the duritia o f ad u lt m a n h o o d . 4 9 jt was the successful hardening o f the m ale body and the shedding and suppression o f its fem inine softness that was supposed to m ark a passage from boy to m an, and hence the transition from potential sexual object to sexual agent. The Maecenases o f the Roman w orld represent, from a norm ative cultural perspective, a failu re o f the m ale body to grow rig id as it ought to.^o One of the m ost v iru le n t attacks on the effem inate nature o f contemporary youth occurs in the introduction to Seneca the elder's first controversia:^^ Torpent ecce ingenia desidiosae iuventutis nec in unius honestae rei labore vigilatur; somnus languorque ac somno et languore turpior m alarum rerum industria invasit animos: cantandi saltandique obscena studia effem inatos tenent, [et] capillum frangere et ad m uliebres blanditias extenuare vocem, m o llitia corporis certare cum fem inis et inm undissim is se excolere m unditiis nostrorum adulescentium specimen est. Quis aequalium vetrorum quid what were typically denoted as effeminate traits see Richlin (1992c 258 n.3); Edwards (1993: 63-97); Gleason (1995:67-70); CorbeiU (1996: ch. 4); (1997). ^^See Cicero Pro Caelio 8 (quoted in chapter eight). 48Richlin (1993a: 534). ^^On the status of the praetexatiis as a "man-to-be" see Walters (1997:33-34). fact Maecenas's body, as an egregious example of the effects o f effem inate behavior, is depicted as displaying a flu id ity that surpasses even that of a woman, "otio ac m ollitiis paene ultra feminam fluens" (Velleius Paterculus 2.882). ^^The passage is quoted by both Richlin (1992c: 3) and Edwards (1993:81-82). 362 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. dicam satis ingeniostis, satis studiosiis, im m o quis satis v ir est? Em oUiti enervesque quod nati sunt in vita m anent, expugnatores alienae pudidtiae, neglegentes suae. In hos ne d ii tantum m ali ut cadat eloquentia: quam non m irarer nisi animos in quos se conferret eligeret Controversiae 1, preface 8-9 See, the intellects o f our id le youth are sluggish, nor do they stay awake to perform the to il o f a single honest occupation; sleep, slotiti and something m ore sham eful than sloth, diligence in a ll dungs bad, has seized th eir spirits. A fo u l enthusiasm for song and dance captivates these effem inates and s o lin g their hair and extenuating their voice into wom anly w heedlings, com peting w ith wom en in the softness o f their bodies and adorning themselves w ith the foulest elegances, this is the pattern o f our youth. W ho o f your contemporaries is talented enough, hardw orking enough, o r to p u t it more bluntly m an enough? Bom soft and w eak they stay that w ay in life, the invaders of the sexual propriety o f others and the neglecters of their ow n. God forbid that eloquence m ay fa ll to their lo t, 1 w ould not m arvel at it unless it exercised some discretion as to whom it confers itself upon. H ere Seneca indiscrim inately im pugns contemporary youth and thus demonstrates that the isolated allegations of effem inate behavior and impudicitia that tended to cluster around the youths and young adults of the Roman elite could be generalized to apply more w idely to aU those belonging to this age group. Seneca's fin a l statem ent that eloquence is not the province o f such young dandies is the prelude to the quotation of Cato the elder's famous definition of an orator as "vir bonus dicendi peritus. ' ^ ^ How ever, fo r all his effo rt to make declam ation appear as a m anly and m an-m aking cultural practice, it is s till clear that, contrary to Seneca's wishes, eloquence (albeit o f a form that Seneca d id not approve of) d id indeed choose to confer itself on the desidiosa iuventns of Rome. In this context R ichlin relates a revealing story told by Seneca {Suasoria 3.6-7) about lunius Gallio.^^ G allio, on ^^Controversiae 1, preface 9; Q uintilian 12.1.1. 53RicWin (1997:95-96). 363 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. being asked by Messala w hat he thought o f the performance of N icetes, replied "plena deo," "she was fu ll of the god."®* Seneca further rem arks th at G allio w ould rem ark "plena deo" w henever he heard any o f the dedaim ers w hom the students {scholastici) used to call the "hot ones" {caldi), and when he arrived fro m hearing a new dedaim er he was invariab ly asked by Messala, "num qm d plena deo?" M oreover, Seneca further elaborates that G allio said that the phrase greatly pleased O vid , w ith the result th a t he came up w ith the lin e "feror hue illu c , vae, plena deo" w hich he p u t in his Medea. As Richlin rem arks, the use o f this phrase seems to have originated in rejecting or mocking a speaker's style "by labeling him as a woman."®® How ever, it seems equally dear that such speakers were popular and attracted attention particu larly among the young (scholastici). As M ary-K ay Cam el has rem arked, the opposition of such critics as Seneca and Q uin tilian surely in itself indicates the popularity and attraction of such performances.®® The nature of the w ay in w hich such speakers w ere denoted "caldi," surely also suggests a sexualized response to their performance: they turned their listeners on. It is also instructive to retu rn at this point to Seneca's account o f the child prodigy, A lfius Flavus. It is eviden t from Seneca's comments that Flavus enjoyed great popularity, "qui cum praetextatus esset, tantae opinionis fu it u t populo Romano puer eloquentia notus esset," "W ho when he s till w ore a toga praetexta was o f such high repute that a boy was famous to the Roman populace fo r his ®*Seneca has previously explained {Suasoria 3 3 ) that Arellius Fuscus used to borrow heavily from V irg il to please Maecenas and confessed to im itating the Vergilian phrase "plena deo." The phrase does not appear in our texts of V irg il. Norden (1893) suggested the phrase originally came in the description of the Sibyl in book six. ®®Richlin (1997:95). ®®Camel (1998:91). 364 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. e l o q u e n c e . " 5 7 Seneca says that Cestius w orried th at such precocious talent could not last, "im m ature m agnum ingenium non esse vitale," b u t nevertheless rarely had the nerve to speak after him , "sed tanto concursu hom inum audiebatur u t raro auderet post iliu m Cestius dicere," "But he was listened to by such a throng o f m en that Cestius rarely dared to speak after him."58 H ere, again, A lfius is clearly depicted as a huge draw . A lthough Seneca tries to prove that A lfiu s was doing his best to dim inish his natural ta le n t "Ipse om nia m ala fadebat ingenio suo," he cannot, however, deny that A lfius's talent shone out despite his idleness and fondness fo r poetry, "naturalis tam en ilia vis em inebat, quae post m ultos annos, iam de desidia obruta et carm inibus enervata, vigorem tamen suum tenuit"59 vigor of Alfius's natural talent was not in fact castrated by his poetic proclivities.^^ Seneca also remarks that Alfius's reputation fo r eloquence was procured by means other than just his verbal abilities: Semper autem commendabat eloquentiam eius aliqua res extra eloquentiam : in puero lenodnium erat ingenii aetas, in iuvene desidia. Controversiae 1.1.22 A lw ays, however, there was some external factor besides his eloquence to set o ff his eloquence: when he was a puer his age was the procurer of his talent, as a young m an his idleness served the same function. The attraction o f Alfius's eloquentia dearly, as Seneca view ed it, was also based on the contexual qualities of Alfius's youth (aetas) and indolence (desidia). These ^^Controversiae 1.1.22. ^^Controversiae 1.1.22. ^'^Controversiae 1.1.22. the meaning o f enervare see Adams (1983:38); Richlin (1992c 3,109,110, 111). 365 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. contextual qualities are also seen in sexual terms. The youth and idleness of A lfius acted as furth er means to pim p the already seductive m edium of eloquentia and thus produced an irresistible spectacle. It seems d ear, then, th at such effem inate eloquence as provided by A lfius was im m ensely popular even as it could be decried as dubious and a perversion o f true, m anly eloquence b y those, like Seneca the elder and Q uin tilian, who constructed th eir ow n cultural authority by portraying themselves as the true inheritors and preservers o f the Catonian legacy of the orator as a "vir bonus dicendi peritus.'^i Sexualized Responses To Poetic Spectade W e have several references on the effect of poetry reading on an audience w hich are expressed in sexualized terms. One of these passages is the reference in Juvenal Satires 7 to Statius reading his poetry. As was exam ined in chapter seven, Statius's Thebaid is characterized by Juvenal as the epic poet's g irlfrie n d / w hore ("arnica"). The effect that a redtation o f the Thebaid has on the audience is described by Juvenal as "fregit subsellia versu," "he broke the benches w ith his p o e t r y . " ^ 2 general "fractus," as Richlin notes, appears to denote "a lapse in m a s c u l i n i t y . " Therefore, it tends to be used of either an effem inate style or an effem inate m an. In the passage of Juvenal, therefore, as Shadi Bartsch has stated, Statius’s poetry is figured as emasculating his audience.^^ this manner Alfius's verbal performance involves a sim ilar problematic of popularity and disreputability that was examined w ith respect to elite participation on the stage and in the arena in the last chapter. ^^Satires 7.86. ^^Richlin (1997:94): see also Bramble (1974:76); Gleason (1995:112). 64Bartsch (1994:132 n. 89). 366 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A sim ilar piece o f emasculation through poetry occurs in a w ell examined passage from the firs t Satire of Persius:^® scribimus indusi^ numéros ille , hie pede lib er, grande aliqu id quod pulm o anim ae praelargus anhelet. scilicet haec populo pexusque togaque recenti et n atalida tandem cum sardonyche albus sede leges celsa, liquido cum plasmate g u ttu r m obile conlueris, patranti firactus ocello. tunc neque more probo videas nec voce serena ingentis trepidare Titos, cum carm ina lum bum in tran t e t trem ulo scalpuntur ubi intim a versu Satire 1.13-21 We w rite shut aw ay, one in verse and one in prose, som ething grandiose that an over inflated lung puffs o u t O f course, you w ill read this to the people, combed, in a firesh toga, w ith your sardonyx birthstone, w hite, seated on high, p lian t throat rinsed w ith m outhwash, broken w ith a clim atic eye. Then you m ight see the huge sons o f Rome quivering in an unseemly fashion and w ith no calm form of verbal expression as poems enter their private regions and their iim er areas are scratched w ith poetry. Persius here depicts the redting poet as an "efiem inate literatus.”^ Thus, as John Bramble has pointed out, a m etaphoric "elocutio effeminata" is incarnated in the person of the poet.^^ The effect of the poetry on the audience, as in Juvenal Satires 7, is dearly portrayed in terms of passive hom osexual!^. Hence, Bramble notes w ith regard to verses 19-21, "Verse is substituted fo r the physical agents of titillation: for carmina we expect something like membrum virile, fo r versu, digito, or perhaps manu."^^ The most notably sexualized im age in the description o f the poet is "patranti firactus ocello." "Fractus," as just noted above, signifies effem inacy, a 65Richlin (1992c 4); Bartsch (1994:132 n.89); W yke (1994a: 126); Dupont (1997: 51-52). ^^Richlin (1992c 3): the imagery supporting this conclusion is analyzed by Bramble (1974:76-77). ^^Bramble (1974:76). ^®BrambIe (1974:78). 367 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. postiapsarian m asculine state; "patrare" appears to have been a euphem ism for sexual intercourse.^® As Bramble notes, there is a "tension betw een the active intent evidenced by patranti, along w ith the erotic dim inutive ocello, and the suggestion o f im potence in fractus.” Bram ble explains this odd phrase by referring to the subsequent couplet o f the poemf® tun, vetule, auriculis alienis coUigis escas, articulis quibus et dicas cute perditus "ohe"? Satires 123-24 A re you, old m an, gathering food fo r the ears o f others, at w hich, wrecked in joints and skin, you w ould say "enough"? The sense of these lines (as often in Persius) as a sequitur to 19-21 is d iffic u lt. Bram ble paraphrases the lines as "Are you, old man, collecting food fo r the ears of others, [ears] to w hich you, because you are unable to m eet their requirem ents, should say "Enough [no more recitation ]?" ^ ^ Thus, an old poet is presum ably being castigated fo r producing a sexual stim ulus through poetry w hich, the narrator alleges, he can no longer enjoy him self because of his ow n past o v e r i n d u l g e n c e . 7 2 The sense then w ould be sim ilar to that produced by M a rtial 6.37: ^ 3 ^®Bramble (1974:76-77); Adams (1983:142-43): hence, Adams (1983:143 n. 1) notes of the phrase "patranti fractus ocelli," Here a term strictly appropriate to the mentula has been transferred to the eye:" Adams explains this transfer by referring to "the belief that the effects o f orgasm or sexual desire could be seen in the eye," citing Juvenal Satires 7.241 as supporting evidence. ^^n the reading o f lines 23-241 am follow ing Bramble who adopts Madvig's emendation of "articulis" for "auriculis.” Bramble (1974:87). ^^The imagery of such overindulgence is examined in more detail by Bramble (1974:79-90) in his analysis of the general meaning of the tw o lines. ^^The epigram is quoted by Richlin(1992c 138). 368 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Secti podids usque ad um büicum nullas relliquias habet Charinus, et p n u it tam en usque ad um bilicum . o quanta scabie m iser laborat! culvun non habet, est tamen dnaedus. Charinus has nothing le ft o f his asshole cut up to his m iddle, s till he itches rig h t up to his m iddle. W ith w hat an infection the poor m an' struggles! H e doesn't have an asshole and yet he is a dnaedus. Persius's poet and M a rtia l’s Charinus are both troped as cinaedi w ho have overindulged to the po int o f not being able to indulge anym ore. Thus Persius's phrase "patranti fractus ocello " expresses a paradox com parable to M artial's "culum non habet, est tam en dnaedus " Both Statius, as represented in Juvenal, and the poet in Persius ( "grande aliquid") are redting epic. The effect o f epic, as m ight be expected o f a poetic form that is duriis, is to m etaphorically bugger the audience: the dynam ic of reading and listening is sexualized in accord to generic considerations. The audience rushes to take pleasure in poetry, where such pleasure is troped sexually as being penetrated by the duritia of the poetic product. Epic red tation reduces its audience to a sea o f w rithin g, exdaim ing pathics. The poet's breaking of the benches w ith his verse in Juvenal, "fregit subsellia versu " (7.86), and the penetration of the audience's lumbus w ith verses in Persius makes the effect of the red tation of epic m etaphorically equivalent to the inducem ent o f a violent, collective orgasm. N atu rally, troping the effect o f poetry in sexual terms also has sexual ram ifications for those w ho produce such effects and those upon w hom the effects are produced. In this context W illiam Fitzgerald notes the sentim ent expressed in M artial 11.90 w here the narrator addresses a certain Chrestillus who rejects the mollitia of m odem poetry, "Carmina nu lla probas m o lli quae lim ite 369 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. cum m t,” "You approve o f no poetry w hich flow s along on a smooth track" (1).^'* H e prefers archaic diction as represented by L u d liu s, Ennius, Acdus and Pacuvius. The narrator concludes w ith the rem ark, "dispeream n i sds m entula quid sapit," Tm dam ned if you don't know w hat a prick tastes like" (8). As Fitzgerald rem arks, "Depending on w hether w e take sapiat (tastes) lite ra lly or m etaphorically, w e w ill interpret Chrestillus' approval o f the ancient poets' v irility in rather different ways." 7 5 The preference o f Chrestillus for the old-tim e classics o f Roman literary production (a preference that according to Horace in Epistles 2.1 was also widespread in the Augustan period) w hich one w ould expect to be a position of respectful propriety is m etaphorically equated w ith a dubious sexual subordination. Chrestillus’s literary taste, according to M artial, is nothing more than an indication of his passivity: his preference for the extreme duritia o f old tim e epic is a functional one based on his sexual proclivities.^® The interaction between poet and reader is w hat Fitzgerald has called the "drama o f position."77 The issue of control and dom ination w hich seems to have form ed a central tenet of Roman sexual behavior also provided a m odel for m etaphorically assessing other aspects o f Roman life . It thus becomes a controlling m etaphor w hich allows other activities to be troped in terms of itself and in the process provides a mode o f contesting, and a solution fo r fixing. 7‘ *Fitzgerald (1995:50). 75pitzgerald (1995:50). 7®Thus Chrestillus’s literary preferences in their ostensible respectability sneakily hide a pathic nature in the same manner as Stoic philosophy has a tendency to according to M artial and Juvenal: see further Richlin (1992c 138-39). This deconstruction o f apparent respectability is also a tactic recommended in oratory when a speaker is confronted by an opponent who has no readily identifiable moral flaws: Anthony Corbeill (1996:169-73) examines Cicero’s attack on Lucius Caipum ius Piso from this perspective. T^Fitzgerald (1995): the phrase forms part o f the subtitle of the book 370 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. relative hierarchies. W ith respect to w ritin g and reading this is perhaps expressed most graphically in a g raffito that Fitzgerald quotes before his discussion o f M artial 11.90:^® am at qui scribit, pedicatur qui legit, qui auscultât p ru rit, pathicus est qui p raeterit ursi me comedant e t ego verpam qui lego. The w riter makes love, the reader is buggered. The listener itches, the passerby is a pathic. Let bears eat me and I, the reader, a penis. As Fitzgerald notes, the point of the graffito and M artial's comment in 11.90 is " to rem ind the reader that he is the recipient of the poetry.” Thus, the w riter aligns him self w ith the culturally validated side of the active/passive dichotom y: he takes his pleasure of the reader rather than vice versa. In this context Thomas H abinek quotes a telling passage of Seneca the younger (Epistles 46.1-2) in w hich Seneca reveals his reactions to reading a text of Lucilius.®^ As Habinek elaborates, there is a shift during Seneca's reading w hich corresponds to control shifting from the reader to the author: The w riter begins as the controller, the subject o f active verbs, the one who explores a new text a t his convenience, and determ ines to sample only a portion. The text— w hich soon becomes indistinguishable from Ludlius him self— is smooth, lik e a beardless boy, not like a m ature and hairy man. Then somehow the tables are turned, the controller becomes the controlled. (...). The only action le ft fo r Seneca is sw allow it w hole, drink it a ll down. Y et fa r from being hum iliated by his "passivity" Seneca rejoices in w hat he has encountered— the force, the endurance that provides a pleasant surprise. Lucilius is congratulated on a job w ell done, and offered tips on preparing for the ^®Fitzgerald (1995:50); Svenbro (1988:207-18); Richlin (1992c 82): this graffito is also discussed in chapter two in the context of Callimachean aesthetics. ^^Fitzgerald (1995:51); so too Richlin (1992c 82) notes of graffiti in general. The audience has no choice but to read, if the graffito is prom inently displayed.” ®0Habinek(1998:145). 371 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. next encounter. Seneca the reader is not only penetrated by Lucilius the w riter, b u t becomes a w illin g accomplice in the continuation and repetition o f that act o f intrusion.*^ H ere, the sexualization of the reader's response is clearly parallel in its im agery to the passages o f Juvenal and Persius exam ined above. W hat the Senecan passage dem onstrates, as H abinek draws out, is that the reader is troped as a w illin g victim o f literary seduction: resistance (Seneca says he only w anted to get a sm all taste o f Ludlius's book) is a sham hiding an eagerness to be sexually ravished by the text: thus, Seneca presents him self in a m anner analogous to that in w hich O vid depicts Corinna's opposition to the narrator's sexual intentions in Amores 1.5, "quae cum ita pugnaret, tam quam quae vincere noUet" (15). The elegiac puella as a conflation o f desired sexual object and internal audience m etaphorically concentrates the sexualized dynam ic between author and reader. The passage of Seneca, and the g raffito discussed previously, po int to a cultural mode o f reading in w hich the reader/audience is troped as a passive partner in a sexualized form of textual penetration: the Senecan passage fu rth er suggests that this was a w illin g surrender to a literary product that could manage a suitably penetrating textual erection. In the case of epic perform ance, as in the description o f Lucan in Persius and the poet in Persius, this seems like an unsurprising transferal o f literary duritia into sexual terms (as w orked out in M a rtia l 11.90). W hat then was the sexualized effect o f a literary product like elegy that is troped as mollis rather than durusl Catullus 16 form s an im portant parallel here. In this poem A urelius and Furius have concluded from reading Catullus's verses, "quod m ilia m ulta basiorum / legistis " (12-13), that he is less than a m an, "male m e m arem putatis? " (13). The poet's response is sw ift and to the p o in t H e labels SlHabinek (1998:145). 372 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A urelius and Furius as pathics, "A u reli pathice et cinaede Puri,” and threatens to take appropriate sexual action, "Pedicabo ego vos et irrum abo," "I w ill bugger the both o f you and stick m y prick in yo u r m outh.” There are m any sizable controversies surrounding the interpretation of this poem . It w ould seem reasonable, how ever, to assume that "m ulta m ilia basiorum " is a reference to poems 5 and 7 and the narrator’s interaction w ith Lesbia. Thus A urelius and Furius have decided on the basis of the textually inscribed interaction between C atullus and Lesbia that the form er is a dnaedus I pathicus. Such a conclusion from such evidence seems odd to our w ay o f thinking, providing a "seemingly oxym oronic com bination of passive, effem inate subservience and violent, m ale lust."®^ Yet it seems clear from a Rom an cu ltu ral perspective that a m an w ho was fixated on women w ould have been regarded as essentially passive rather than active and hence a viable sexual object fo r a m ore norm ally' oriented male.®^ Hence, as Catharine Edwards says, "accusations o f effem inacy m ay be seen as dilu ted threats of rape. ' ^ s In this m anner, the stereotypical fig ure o f the cultus adulter (sim ilar, as H o lt Parker notes, to our concept "ladies' man") does not prove his v irility through his sexual activities bu t rath er displays a form o f sexual incontinentia that m arks him out as effem inate. Lucilius appears to refer to such men as ^^The bibliography on the poem is immense; for a good summary of the interpretative controversies and their various adherents see Richlin (1992c 248 n. 9). ®3Corbeiil (1996:149); the phrase "oxymoronic combination" is used by Edwards (1993:83) of the concept of the moechodiuiedus. 84See Parker (1992:98-99), (1997:57-58); Richlin (1992c 139), (1993:532-33); Corbeill (1996:148). ®^Edwards (1993:74-75) quoted by Corbeill (1996:147 n. 55): this priapic model of male sexual aggression is elaborated passim in Richlin (1992c). ^ P ark e r (1997: 58): as Parker notes, the phrase cultus adulter" comes from O vid Tristia 2.499. Parker doesn't add that in this context it clearly refers to a stock figure from mime: this opens up 373 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. moechocinaedi, as R ichlin notes, an example o f the "outlandish or invented vocabulary" that the satirist employs in his attem pt to categorize various forms o f sexually aberrant behavior and social types. Hence, M a rtial ends a poem on the excesses of an adulterer by equating him to a dnaedus and wishing for his castration: i nunc et miseros, Cybele, praedde dnaedos: haec erat, haec cultris m entula digna tuis. 9.2.13-14 Go now , Cybele and castrate the wretched dnaedv. this is a prick long w orthy o f your knife. Catullus 16, lik e O vid Amores 3.12, works on the basis of toying w ith the line between text and reality. The poet complains that A urelius and Furius have taken the textually inscribed mollitia of the narrator as indicating the pathic nature of the poet. The credulity o f their reading habits thus provokes the poet to set the record straight through the threat of a dem onstration of his v irility upon them: a counter threat of rape w hich corresponds to the im plied threat of rape that lies behind the attack of Furius and A urelius on the narrator's masculinity.®* The CatuUan narrator explains the sexualized poetic effect of his verses in the follow ing manner: the whole question of the degree of referentiality^ of such a figure. Parker and Richlin (1992c 139 n. 47) point to a number of passages that sim ilarly draw an analogy between effeminacy and adultery which clearly show that this was an established social stereotype. Stereotypes need not, and often don't, accurately reflect social realities, but as Parker (1997:61) says this becomes a question of the "extraordinary power of cultural roles to mold individual actions." It should also be noted that the narrative situation of Catullus's liaison w ith Lesbia does fit a scenario that would cast Catullus in the role o f the ciiltm adulter. ®7Lucüius(1058): Richlin (1992c 169); Edwards (1993:83-84,91). ®*Thus the effect is analogous, as Parker (1997:55) indicates, to the w ell known anecdote from Tacitus's Aiuwles (11.2.2) that when Valerius Asiaticus was accused of effeminacy he retorted to his accuser, P. Suillius Rufus, "Ask your sons, Suillius, they w ill tell you that I am a man." In the terms of the dynamic between reader and w riter/reciter elaborated in Juvenal, Persius and the graffito (C/L 4.2360), this is just a further dramatization of w hat Aurelius and Furius have been undergoing anyway by reading or listening to Catullus's poetry. 374 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. qu i turn denique habent salem ac leporem , si stint moUiculi ac parum p u d id e t quod pruriat in d tare possun^ non. dico pueris, sed his pilosis, qui dures nequeunt m overe lum bos. Catullus 16.7-11 W hich [versiculi] only have bite and w it, if they are a little effem inate and im m odest and are able to in d te a b it o f an itch . I'm not talking about in boys but in those hairy types w ho are unable to m ove their p etrified loins. The question here centers around w hat exactly the sexual effect is that the poet envisions his poetry elid tin g . This in turn depends on w hether the use of prurire is to be understood as active or passive: if it is the form er, then the sexual effect of the poetry w ill be to produce an erection, if it is the la tte r, then it w ill be to produce a pathic w i g g l i n g . C learly, in either event the narrator is suggesting that his poetry arouses even those who are norm ally beyond feeling such stim ulation, "qui duros nequeunt movere lum bos. " If the poetry in question can be understood to be that concerning Lesbia, then it seems m ore lik e ly that prurire should be taken as active and refer to a m astering erection aim ed probably sim ultaneously at the wom an inscribed in the text and the mollis adulter who is controlled by her. In this scenario the effect w ould be com parable to the "threesome" effect w hich is found on a w all-painting at the Suburban Baths at Pompeii and on a terra-cotta m edallion 6*om Lyons as elaborated by John C larke.^ In both instances a w om an is being penetrated from behind by a m an w ho is also being penetrated by a second m an. Am ong the literary parallels that C larke points to is Catullus 56:’ ^ the form er interpretation see Richlin (1992c 248 n. 9); fo r the latter Buchheit (1976:342-44); Wiseman (1987:222-24); Fitzgerald (1995:255 n. 6). 90(1998: 229-235). 375 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. o rem ridiculam , Cato, et iocosam, dignam que aiiribus e t tuo cachiimo! ride quidquid amas, Cato, CatuUum; res est rid icu la et lüm is iocosa. deprendi modo pupulum puellae trusantem ; hune ego, si placet Oionae, protelo rig id a m ea ceddi. O w hat an absurd and am using event, Cato, w orthy o f your ears and laughter! Laugh, Cato, if you have some afiection fo r Catullus; it really is an absurd and too amusing thing. Just now I caught a slip of a boy screwing a g irl; and I, if it suits Venus, fe ll on him in turn w ith my ow n erection. This poem m ay represent precisely the sexualized reaction to reading Catullus's Lesbia poetry that is being elaborated in poem 16. The CatuUan narrator o f the Lesbia poems is a mollis adulter w ho invites the penetrating attention o f a norm aUy' v irile m ale Rom an audience. This is the intended sexual effect o f such poetry and A urelius and Furius have responded in kind . The narrator then com plains in poem 16 that A urelius and Furius have extended this im age of CatuUus w hich is particular to the Lesbia poems to the rest o f his poetic corpus and have thus constructed a CatuUan persona that is monoUthicaUy passive. The CatuUan narrator, how ever, is clearly m ulti-faceted and the assum ption o f a passive CatuUus opens the reader up to the threats o f the phaUicaUy aggressive CatuUus. It is notable, how ever, that in Persius 1 the poet w ho produces a Uterary product that figuratively buggers the audience is him self portrayed as effem inate rather than v irile . In this scenario it seems as though the penetrative excitement induced by the poetry is tantam ount to an em anation of the poet's sexual procUvities: a sort of poetic m asturbation, or sexual fu lfillm e n t through Uterary means, w ith w hich the audience em pathizes. ^^The other examples are Antliologia Palatim 5.49 and Propertius 4.8. 376 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In this m anner even the penetrating effect o f a poetic product m ay be taken as an indication of the author's passivity rather than v irility . Though it seems to me that it is m ore natural to read prurire as active in C atullus 16, it also w ould seem m ore lik e ly to see the reference to pueri as indicating a passive rather than active sexual subject, w hich w ould lend more credence to interpreting prurire in a passive sense. This need not, however, change the interpretation of Catullus 16: if the referent rem ains the Lesbia poems (as I think it m ust) then the inducem ent o f a pathic itch w ould be created through the hgure o f a mollis adulter who invites penetration and hence pathic em pathetic excitem ent. Producing The Elegiac Itch The question of the effect of elegy on an audience is one w ith w hich M aria W yke concludes her investigation into "gender play in the elegiac genre. " Recanting her earlier position that elegy is an "unequivocally "masculine" " " genre, W yke, citing the w ork o f Cam el on O vid and Barbara G old on Propertius, instead sees elegy as a problem atization of established Roman gender categories. Pursuing this line o f inquiry W yke comes to the follow ing conclusion over the sexual incarnation o f the " narrating ego " of Propertian elegy: In the genre o f Propertian love elegy, however, the narrating ego is constituted as an effem inate voice. Paradoxically, it is sexual impotence rather than poten<y that marks the figure o f the m ale lover o f elegy, fo r he is represented as languishing almost perpetually outside his beloved s door. H e submits, not imposes, is weaponless rather than arm ed, soft not hard, and fem inine not m asculine. Even the elegiac couplet itself can be inscribed w ith the condition o f sexual im potence, as when the O vidian lo v e r/p o e t opens his firs t book in such a w ay as to associate that verse form w ith the erection and detumescence of the penis. Thus, as both Duncan Kennedy and W yke have noted, the notion o f m ollitia encompasses both the incarnation of elegy's narrator and the genre o f elegy itself. 377 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. W yke then further relates elegiac m o llitia to a Roman sexual typography that w ould characterize both the genre and the narrator as effem inate. The elegiac narrator's essential mollitia is m anifested variously: it can be seen as a natural attribute o f his lim in al ad u lt status; as attendant upon his characterization as a cultus adulter I moechocinaedus that demonstrates his sexual incontintentia; conversely to the extent that the elegiac narrator attem pts to trope his relationship w ith the puella as a m arriage, then his in a b ili^ to control, and his toleration of, her sexual activities w ith other m en also m arks him out as mollis?^ sim ilarly, his subordination to the elegiac domina also places him in the sexual category of the pathicus. Thus part o f the sexualized literary effect o f elegy w ould have been to produce an effect such as the CatuUan narrator claims fo r his verse at 16.7-11: the spectacle of an effem inate narrator w ould provoke in the v irile m ale reader the itch of a mastering erection and in the pathic reader the em pathetic itch o f a mastered cuius. This lite ra ry spectacle w ould be analogous to the visual depiction o f the threesome. Parker also notes that the "pathicus, if anything, approaches more closely our concept of the masochist than of the homosexual."^^ C learly, the elegiac narrator is scripted into a pattern of such masochistic behavior, as he not only endures hardship but even contrives to ensure that such hardship should stay in place. 9 ' * McGinn (1998:192) on how the patimtia of a cuckolded husband produces a "feminized male." 93parker(1997:57). ^"*On ensuring the continuation o f elegiac hardship see the exam ination of Amores 2.19 in chapter two. More generally on the masochistic elements of the elegiac lifestyle such as the theme of servitiiim atnoris see chapters one and two, where such themes are examined as behavioral traits 378 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Masochistic passivity^ tow ards a w om an could, Parker says, be sexually m anifested in tw o ways: "by provid ing cunnilingus" and "by being used, as it w ere, as a dild o w ith his penis."^® The accusation of an o s impurum seems to have been particularly strong in Rom an cu ltu re.^ The cunnilinctor form s a step dow n even from the dnaedus as Parker shows by quoting M a rtia l 10.40:^7 Semper cum m ih i diceretur esse secreto m ea Polla cum dnaedo, inrupi, Lupe, non erat dnaedus. Since m y Polla was alw ays reported to be closeted aw ay w ith a dnaedus, I broke in . Lupus; it turns out he w asn't a dnaedus after a ll. The elegiac narrator in his passivity and subordination to an elegiac domina appears in sexual terms as doubly depraved from a norm ative Roman v ie w p o in t H e is cast not only in the role o f a mollis adulter f dnaedus but also, at least fig u ratively, in that o f the even m ore defam atory cunnilindor. In the same set of paintings from the Suburban Baths at Pom peii that includes the threesome there is also a depiction of cunnilingus, w hich is also described by C l a r k e . 9 8 As C larke notes, in this scene the m an "seems insignificant" and is "much sm aller than the w o m a n .'9 9 C larke furth er elaborates dictated by the demands o f developing an erotic narrative that conforms to Callimachean aesthetic principles. 95parker (1997:57). 96R ichlin (1992c 99); C orbeill (1996: ch. 3). 97parker (1997: 57): Richlin (1992c 246 n. 36): the poem is also referenced by Clarke (1998: 224-25, 316 n. 65) in connection w ith a visual depiction o f cunnilinguis from the Suburban Baths at Pom peii discussed further below. 98ciarke (1998:223-27). 99ciarke (1998: 224). 3 7 9 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. that this depiction o f cunnilingus is unique in its lack o f m utuality (as cunnilingus is m ore norm ally depicted as being accompanied by the fem ale also perform ing fellatio on the m ale).^** Hence, the comic eHect, as C larke describes it, is "an im age o f a man so enthusiastic about licking a woman's genitals that he eagerly served her, fu lly clothed— his eyes bugging w ith excitem ent— w hile the object o f his enthusiasm, her face expressionless, obliged his perversion. This m ay w ell be a visual effect analogous to the literary effect o f elegiac narrative w here a m ale narrator is so fixated on a fem ale figure that he w ill undergo any degradation to gain her sexual company, and where she is depicted as generally treating him w ith disdain. In this scenario the sporadic sexual access of the narrator can be view ed as nothing m ore than a service call w hich the narrator tries in his typical m anner o f den ial to interpret otherwise: he is, as Parker w ould have it, a m ale acting as a d ild o . R ichlin also remarks w ith regard to accusations o f an os impurum that this form o f accusation seems to be reserved in Cicero's attacks fo r "lowly, less pow erful victim s. " 1 0 2 Anthony C orbeill expands upon this rem ark to elaborate w hat he refers to as an "ideology o f the m outh. " i 0 3 Hence, im proper use, or contam ination, o f the m outh is defined as a class issue. In this context C orbeill refers to the visual depiction o f cunnilingus fi-om the Suburban Baths at Pom peii w hich has just been discussed above: using Clarke's observation that the paintings are executed in a "rough-and-ready" style, C orbeill argues that this lOOciarke (1998: 224). ^01 Clarke (1998:226). 102Richlin (1992c 99) quoted by Corbeill (1996:105). 103CorbeUl (1996:105). 380 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. "may provide fu rth er evidence fo r the lower-class connotations o f this sexual practice [cunnilingus]."'*^ If cunnilingus can be taken as a specifically lower-class sexual practice, or one view ed as such by the Roman elite, then the elegist's m etaphorical equation w ith this sexual activity is a further indication of his w illin g embrace of degradation. This position m ay be furth er supported by Clarke's observation that there is some evidence from g ra ffiti at Pom peii that "women regularly hired male prostitutes to pleasure them w ith cunnilingus. . . for a price sim ilar to that w hich female prostitutes requested for fellatio."'*® This in turn w ould cast the elegiac narrator in a role analogous to a male prostitute. This display o f m ale passivity and w illin g accommodation w ould thus also produce a sexualized response in a female audience as w ell as a male: the literary production o f a sexual itch need not be lim ited to one sex. Hence, elegy produces a sexual spectacle through the dram atized characters o f the narrator and the domina that is susceptible to a range of sexualized responses that corresponds to both sexes o f Romans and their various sexual proclivities. I hope, then, in this chapter to have elaborated how elegiac composition was at Rome a form o f poetry produced by a lim in ally adult m ale prim arily for a youthful audience. This places elegy w ith in an ongoing debate in Roman culture, w hich was acute during the Augustan period, over the propriety o f style and the proper use of public forms o f verbal presentation. Finally, I hope to have suggested, by looking at various other textualized responses to verbal products and the characterization of elegy's narrator w ith in Rome's sexual economy, w hat the sexualized effect o f such a discourse w ould likely have been. In the '*^CIarke (1993:286-87); CorbeUl (1996:124 n. 35). '*®Clarke (1998:225-26): CIL 4.3999; 4.8940. 381 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. conclusion I w ill attem pt to draw together the various facets o f elegy set out in the preceding chapters into an overall picture o f the discourse. 382 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Conclusion Reconsidering Elegiac Discourse Two Modes of Interpreting Elegy Elegy has notably been interpreted as both a lite ra ry discourse that challenged the dom inant ideology o f its tim e and one th at reinforced it. In the form er view the elegiac narrator is view ed as a literary incarnation o f elite opposition to Augustus's social legislation and youth in itiatives. In this m anner elegy, according to Judith H allett, prom oted a "counter-culture" that challenged the entrenched norms and traditional patterns o f Rom an life .i Hence, elegy is conceived of as a deliberately subversive literary m edium that disdained "accepted social practices."^ How ever, the same literary m aterial has also been used to assert an opposite opinion. Francis Caim s, for instance, has read elegy in such a w ay as to produce an entirely different intention on the p art o f its producers. In his article on Propertius 2.7 (a poem examined in chapter ten) C aim s sees in the narrator's "hysterical response" an effect that prom otes, rather than underm ines, Augustus's m oral and social legislation. ^ Thus Propertius's narrative confirms "the existence in society of those pernicious attitudes w hich justified Augustus's proposal of his law in the firs t place. "* ^Hallett (1973:108). ^HaUett (1973:109). 3Caims (1979:188). *C aim s (1979:191). 383 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 'Augustan* and 'anti-Augustan* readings^ The fact that tw o em inent classical scholars such as H a lle tt and Caims should produce tw o diam etrically opposed readings o f Rom an elegy and its social effect m ay in its e lf be taken to indicate the variety o f response that the elegiac text can elicit. In this case to assume that one scholar plain ly got it wrong w ould be to underestim ate the potential fo r polysemous m eaning in the interpretation o f any literary w ork. H ow ever, w e m ig ht also consider the interpretations o f H a lle tt and Caim s as m anifestations of a dichotomous ham ew ork that tends to produce, as Duncan Kennedy has exam ined, a proclivity to label literary texts produced during the Augustan period as 'Augustan' or anti-Augustan' and to anchor such interpretation upon the actualization of the author’s intention in the text.^ Thus elegy can be view ed as either an intentionally subversive or conform ist literary product. Intention, how ever, is a problem area in interpretation. It w ould be obtuse to argue dogm atically that authors don't have intentions; clearly they, like everyone else, do. H ow ever, it w ould be equally obtuse to assume that an author’s intention is necessarily inscribed, as intended, in a w ork, or that the recovery of such intention is unproblem atic In particular, a tim e of pronounced conflict w hen pow er and authority is in flu x (as it was in the early years of the Augustan p rin d p ate) is liable to produce circumstances in w hich the possibility of an author sim ply passing on his intention to a reader is highly doubtful; ^The title of this section is borrowed from that of Duncan Kennedy's 1992 article: " 'Augustan' and 'anti-Augustan': Reflections on Terms of Reference.” ^Kennedy (1992). 384 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. There is a reduced possibility— o r in extreme circumstances, none at a ll— o f coalescing im perceptibly w ith the perceptions, beliefs, and values o f others, that is, o f situating oneself w ith o u t M ction w ith in the netw ork o f existing pow er relatio n sh ip s/ In such circumstances, in the w ake o f civil w ar and social turm oil, it m ay have been inevitable to view elegiac discourse in terms o f its relationship to the evolving center o f Roman social relations, w hich was, as Kennedy describes, Augustus: [T]he emergence o f the principate m ight be view ed as the progressive re-organisation o f a fragm ented discourse, whose previous centre was provided by the institutions o f the Republic, around the princqjs as the new focus o f stable meaning in society/ In this m anner our ow n tendency to judge Augustan literatu re in terms o f its opposition to, or conform ity w ith, the developing dom inant ideology of Augustanism m ight be view ed as our perpetuation o f the terms o f elegy's original recep tio n/ In any event, regardless of w hether any in d ivid u al elegist thought he was producing a w ork that was Augustan' or anti-A ugustan' and inscribing such an intention into his w ork, nevertheless his capacity to determ ine that the text be so received was severely circumscribed. For naturally the reception o f a text depends not m erely on the intention o f the author but on the ideological stance of the reader. Thus Fredric Jameson has argued w ith respect to reading methods that "the w orking theoretical fram ew ork or presuppositions o f a given method are in general the ideology which that method seeks to perpetuate." In other ^Kennedy (1992:35-36). «Kennedy (1992:35). ^Naturally the very term "Augustan literature” in itself encourages such a mode of interpretation. ^^Jameson (1981:58) quoted in Kennedy (1992:46 n. 84). 385 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. w ords readers are liable to process texts in line w ith th eir ow n ideological preoccupations rather than those o f the author. A Tripartite Model of Reader Response The nature o f the response to elegy in an Augustan context w ould naturally have depended on how the reader id en tified w ith the te x t and such identification, or lack o f it, w ould in turn have relied on how the reader situated h im self/h erself w ith respect to the complex evolving ideological paradigm s of the Augustan period.'^ There are three broad possibilities here (obviously a g e n e r a liz a t io n of the m yriad o f potential positions) w hich have been schem atized by M ichel Pêcheux.'^ There is the "good subject" w ho w ould respond to elegy in an act of "total identification;" the "bad subject" w ho w ould refuse the id en tity offered by elegy in an act of "counter-identification;" and w hat is described by Pêcheux as a "third m odality" that falls somewhere in-betw een, in an act of "disindentification." W hich one o f these attitudes any given contem porary reader w ould have assumed tow ards elegy w ould also have inevitably depended on the relationship between a specific in d ivid u al and the overall scheme o f contemporaneous ideological paradigm s that were in a state o f flu x a t the tim e o f the Augustan settlem ent. If the elegiac narrator can be understood (as argued in chapter eight) as a representation of an elite m ale on the threshold of adulthood, then the w ay that a Roman reader w ould have responded to this narrative w ould have depended on " T h e variety o f possible reader/view er positions to an ancient text/spectacle has been w ell elaborated w ith a view to Greek tragedy by Terri Marsh (1992). '^Pêcheux (1975). 386 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. a processing o f this product through an interested ideological perspective. The documented opposition o f a portion o f the elite to Augustus's social reform s, and the evidence fo r the participation o f members o f the elite in infam ous activities, m ight suggest that there w ould have been at Rome a contem porary audience who w ould readily fit Pêcheux's category o f the "good subject." Such readers, in line w ith H allett's interpretation, w ould then consider elegy as a deliberate and laudable piece o f poetic opposition to Augustus's attem pt to legislate m orality and social behavior. H ow ever, the vehemence o f Augustus's denunciation o f those who opposed his social legislation, the attem pts to legislate against the ab ility o f the elite to participate in degrading activities, and the fulm inations o f such a critic as Seneca the elder w ould also suggest a conservative segment o f the elite who w ould fa ll into Pêcheux's category of the "bad subject. " Such readers may w ell have read elegy, in lin e w ith the interpretation of Caim s, in such a m anner as to neutralize its challenge and appropriate it in the interests o f an em ergent socially conservative ideology. In either o f these instances it is clear that the reception of the text is not determ ined by the intention o f the author (though o f course there may be an accidental congruence). These tw o positions, as elaborated in chapter eight, m ay w e ll have split broadly along the lines o f ages; so that elegy could have been perceived as belonging to a form o f youth culture that was generally approved of, or disparaged, according to one's age. In this m anner elegy could also be seen as entuined in a process o f defining the ideological stance o f the youth o f the elite in the incipient stages o f the Augustan principate. A p art from such "good " and "bad " subjects there m ust also have been a broad band of lite ra ry consumers whose relation to this form o f poetry w ould 387 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. have spanned the range from apathetic dislike to tempered enthusiasm, and who w ould thus be engaged in an act o f "disindentification" and so variously fit into the category Pêcheux calls the "ttiird m odality." Generic Defense If elegy could be understood above a ll as prim arily a form of w ritin g contained and constrained w ith in generic boundaries, then its practitioners could argue that any social efiect, and ideological conflict, it m ight produce in any given historical context w ould be entirely accidental and lie beyond both the intention and responsibility of the author. Such a form alist defense o f his lite ra ry product is indeed m ounted by the O vid ian narrator in the Remedia Amoris: N uper enim nostros quidam carpsere libellos. Q uorum censura M usa proterva mea est. Dum m odo sic placeam , dum toto canter in orbe, Q uam libet im pugnent unus et alter opus. A t tu, quicumque es, quem nostra licentia laedit. Si sapis, ad numéros exige quidve suos. Portia M aeonio gaudent pede l% lla referri; D elidis illic quis locus esse potest? Grande sonant trag id ; tragicos decet ira cothumos: Usibus e m ediis soccus habendus e rit Liber in adversos hostes stringatur iambus, Seu celer, extrem um seu trahat file pedem. Blanda pharetratos Elegia cantet Amores, Et levis arb itrio lu d at amica suo. Callim achi num eris non est dicendus Achilles, Cydippe non est oris, Hom ere, tui. Quis feret Andromaches peragentem Thaida partes? Peccet, in Androm ache Thaida quisquis agat. Thais in arte m ea est; lasdva libera nostra est; N il m ih i cum v itta ; Thais in arte mea est. Si mea m ateriae respondet M usa iocosae, Vidm us, et falsi crim inis acta rea est 361-364; 371-388 388 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. For just o f late certain people have criticized m y poetry on the grounds that m y M use is wanton. Provided that I give pleasure and am recited the w orld over le t this person or that assail m y w ork in w hatever w ay he wants. . . . But you, whoever you are, w hom m y wantonness injures, if you are w ise, adjust the content o f each type o f poetry to its own m easure. Brave wars rejoice to be p u t dow n in Hom eric m eter; fo r w hat place can there be there fo r love themes? Tragic poets sing in lo fty style; anger suits the tragic buskin: the comedic slipper m ust em ployed fo r everyday scenes. Let the frank iam bus be draw n against enemies w hether it sw iftly moves forw ard or drags its fin al foot. Let alluring elegy sing of quivered loves and let a fickle g irlfiie n d play around a t her ow n w him . A chilles m ust not be spoken o f in the measures o f Callim achus, Cydippe does not belong to your style o f enunciation, H om er. W ho could bear Thais acting the role o f Andromache? S /h e w ould com m it a gross error w hoever in the part o f Androm ache perform ed Thais. Thais is the proper subject o f m y lite ra ry art; for m y wantonness is unrestrained; I have nothing to do w ith fem ale respectability; Thais is m y appropriate subject m atter. If m y M use is a m atch w ith jovial subject-m atter, then I have proved successful, and she has been brought to court on a false charge. In this passage the narrator mounts an expressly form alist defense of his poetry, as he argues that content is defined by genre, and hence literary success is sim ply an effective mesh o f content and m eter. A poet is concerned w ith standards of generic propriety and not social effect hence, O vid ian elegy ought to be praised for its typological p u rity, not condemned fo r its sordid influence. This sort o f defensive posturing w here a form alist wedge is driven between poet and poem is typical o f Roman literary apologiae and is perhaps most fam ously expressed at Catullus 16.5-6:^3 nam castum esse decet pium poetam ipsum , versiculos n ih il necesse est For the poet him self ought to be pure and upright, bu t his verses don't have to be. Roman literary apologiae see Sullivan (1991: ch. 2); Richlin (1992c 2-13). 389 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. H ere again the sexualized generic efiect o f CatuUan poetry is distanced fio m the professed respectability o f the poet^* In an insightful analysis o f the passage from the Remedia Amoris Duncan Kennedy w rites: Is it out o f order to feel a b it startled by this passage, to feel that O vid either com pletely m isjudged the nature o f the criticism s m ade against his w o rk or perpetrated an egregious category error in his replies to them? W hat he says suggests that O vid held in an extrem e form a view o f poetry as an autonomous, transcendent category, responsible only to its e lf and its ow n criteria o f exceUence: social efiects are irrelevan t so long as form al exceUence is a c h i e v e d . ^ ^ Building upon this prem ise Kermedy further argues that if O vid reaUy d id hold such a rig id ly form alist view o f literature, then "the shock he says he fe lt at his banishm ent w iU have been genuine, and shows the g rip his ow n ideological conception o f Literature had upon him . 'i^ In this w ay O vid m ight be construed as an innocent literary victim o f an Augustan context w here a heightened consideration o f the social efiect of a rt had an unfortunate im pact on those w ho w ere dogm aticaUy form alistic. H ow ever, one should also aUow fo r the possibility that such generic protestations w ere a deliberate w ay fo r an author to m itigate the criticism aim ed at a literary product that know ingly and deUberately contrived its popularity through dubious social ^^The Catullan verses were later appropriated in various degrees of obvious im itation by M artial and Pliny as a means of stressing that a literary product ought not to be taken as reflection o f an author's life and m oral habits. Thus M artial concludes a poem addressed to Dom itian by stating "lasdva est nobis pagina, vita proba," "M y page is wanton, but m y life is upright" (1.4.8) and elsewhere says, "mores non habet hie meos libellus," "this poetry book does not possess the moral habits of its author" (11.15.13). Pliny goes further by quoting Catullus 163-8 in his own attem pt to distance his poetic content from his extra-textual senatorial respectability (Epistles 4.14). ^ ^Kennedy (1988:76). ^^Kennedy (1988:76). 390 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. content (after a ll at a reductive level an author chooses to compose in one form rather than another). N atu rally, elegy (as exam ined in chapter one) could present itself in terms of a detached literary aesthetic, bu t it seems to me extrem ely un likely that O vid, or any o f the elegists, w o u ld have believed, rather than professed, such a com plete divorce between life and literature. Indeed, elegy, as I have argued, depends upon a deliberate confusion o f the boundaries betw een text and reality that w ould undercut the sincerity o f any such profession. The P o p u larity o f Subversion By Roman standards o f obscenity and sexual explicitness, elegy was clearly pretty tame fare; how ever, in the clim ate o f Augustus's m oral legislation, his back to the future' campaign^ and his d rive to reestablish a traditional' training fo r the youth o f Rome's elite, it m ay have rankled som ewhat (though as argued above it could alw ays be processed by the reader as Augustan' rather than anti-A ugustan ). A n awareness o f the potential incongruity o f elegiac discourse w ith em ergent Augustanism m ay lie behind such defensive form alistic gestures as exam ined in the last section. This m ay have been particularly the case given that such incongruity m ay w e ll have been part of the appeal of elegy, as a kind of dashing youthful flo uting o f im perial persuasion. Tacitus's Dialogus again provides an interesting parallel here where Aper suggests that M atem us's provocative pro-republican tragedies are precisely intended to exploit the po pu larity to be gained hrom literary im p erial critique: l^Hence, Shadi Bartsch (1994: ch. 4) in her persuasive analysis of the Dialogus argues that poetry rather than oratory became the realm of free speech under the principate. Though one must 391 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Sentio quid respondexi possit: hinc ingentes existere adsensus, haec in ipsis auditoriis praedpue lau d aii et mox om nium sermonibus ferri. ToUe ig itu r quietis et securitatis excusationem, cum tib i sumas adversaiium superiorem . Dialogus 10 I know the reply that is lik e ly to be made to this; this is the cause o f great acclaim, this is w hat is particularly found m eritorious in the lecture-hall and presently is the theme o f every conversation. So aw ay w ith that excuse of peace and freedom from care, since you deliberately take on an opponent higher in rank than you. H ere poetic otium w ith its aura o f social disengagement and generic detachment is exposed as a facade behind w hich lurks a self-interested populist critique of those in highest authority. Aper's poetic candor is thus presented as a deliberate form of pandering to the audience, a poetic bid fo r attention at the expense of the potentiores. Aper's assessment here coheres w ith the situation as it is described at the beginning of the Dialogus: there, M atem us’ s recitation of his Cato is said to have offended the pow erful, "cum offendisse potentium animos diceretur, " but also to have focused attention on him self and his poetic perform ance, " eaque de re per urbem frequens sermo haberetur" (2 ).i* In this situation Julius Secundus, near the beginning o f the Dialogus, advises M atem us to revise his Cato fo r publication but does not attribute any anti-im perial sentim ent to M atem us but rather to m alicious members of the audience w ho m ay tw ist his m aterial into a prava interpretatio. In other words, M atem us m ay not be injured through his intentions being interpreted correctly but through his intentions being w illfu lly misconstrued: thus interpretative wonder how much this represented a genuine expression o f dissent and how much it represented a deliberate bid for popularity. l^This dynam ic may also be seen to be a continuation of the theater's perceived function and license in the republican period: see further Edwards (1993: ch. 3). 392 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. authority is fig u red as having been m oved firom the author to the audience, or rather to the members o f the audience whose w orldly, if not interpretative authority, is m ost pronounced. H ow ever, M atem us's failure to pick up on Secundus’s suggestion of a prcwa interpretatio and his dogged determ ination to continue doing precisely w hat he has been doing (lik e O vid in the Remedia), "Leges tu qu id M atem us sibi debuerit, et adgnosces quae audisti," "You w ill read w h at M atem us owed to him self, and you w ill recognize w hat you heard" (Dialogus 3 ), suggest that w hat Secundus im plies is a prava interpretatio m ay in actuality be M atem us's intended meaning. For such criticism o f the potentiores afforded a type of levitas popularis upon w hich the very popularity of M atem us's recitations is represented as depending. It is notable that long before Tacitus's Dialogus O v id in exile also used the notion o f a prava interpretatio in his defense. The O vid ian narrator in Tristia 2 attributes Augustus's negative reception o f his poetry as being directly attributable to the prava interpretatio of the potentiores surrounding the princeps: a! ferus et nobis crudelior omnibus hostis, delidas legit qui tib i cumque meas, carm ina ne nostris quae te venerantia libris iu d id o possint candidiore legi. esse sed irato quis te m ihi posset amicus? vix tunc ipse m ihi non inim icus eram . Tristia 2.77-82 Ah] H e was harsh and an enemy m ore cruel to m e than anyone w ho read m y erotic trifles to you taking care that the verses in m y poetry w hich expressly honor you shouldn't be read and so am eliorate your jud gm ent W ho could be m y frien d when you w ere angry w ith me? Then it was hard fo r even me not to be m y ow n enem y. The poet daim s that he has been misrepresented and a p a rtia l reading o f his poetry presented out o f context to ensure Augustus's displeasure: thus the 393 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. princeps has only been inform ed o f the 'anti-A ugustan' rather than the 'Augustan' aspects of his poetry, and hence the poet's ideological balancing act of courting popularity through non-conform ity has been rendered lopsided and c u l p a b l e . i ^ The effect and reception of elegiac discourse u ltim ately reside in the m anner in w hich the reader chooses to process i t B ut w here readers possess m aterial pow er that can affect the life o f the author, interpretation is not sim ply an intellectual game that the author can hope to confine in a lud ic space removed ftrom social reality. Elegiac Containment: The Questions of Patronage and Literary Censorship A t a basic level elegy's m anageability m ight be seen to be predeterm ined, to some extent, by its very dependence on patronage em anating from those close to the princeps. As elaborated in earlier chapters, it seems to me that the elegists w ould lik e ly have been dependent to some degree on such m aterial support. If one therefore assumed that elegy is a deliberately subversive literary m edium one w ould be le ft to conclude, as Cairns notes, that Augustus "sponsored the publication in Propertius' second book of an attack by one o f the w riters under his patronage upon one o f his ow n m ajor policy objectives. There are various ways of looking at this "biting the hand that feeds you " problem atic. It is true that both Maecenas and M essalla, the m ajor sponsors of elegiac production, w ere ardent supporters o f Augustus and w ere indebted to him fo r their ow n prom inence in the Roman state. It w ould therefore seem u n likely that they w ou ld sponsor literature that could be view ed as a deliberate attack on th eir benefactor. ^ th o u g h of course the poet's assertions of such a balance are already dubious. 20caims (1979:186). 394 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A n interesting parallel here is the case o f Timagenes. W hen Timagenes was banned from the house o f Augustus due to his outspoken criticism of the im perial fom ily (as discussed in chapter four) he w ent off to liv e w ith Asinius PoUio. How ever, PoUio cleared this firs t w ith Augustus: "Si iubes, Caesar, statim illi domo mea interdicam ," " If you order it, Caesar, I w ill im m ediately bar him from m y household too."2i A nother saying attributed to Asinius PoUio is w orth rem em bering at this point too, "non est enim facile in eum scribere, qu i potest proscribere," "For it is not easy to w rite against one w ho can w rite you ofi."22 The Tadtean Crem utius Cordus in his famous speech in Annales 4 also mentions Asinius PoUio and MessaUa Corvinus as having w ritten positively about the heroes of the late repubUc: PoUio's w ritings providing an egregia memoria for Brutus and Cassius and MessaUa nam ing Cassius as his imperator.^ Crem utius Cordus concludes by rem arking that both Julius Caesar and Augustus ignored poetic attacks: "carmina Bibaculi et C atuUi referta contum eliis Caesarum leguntur: sed ipse divus lu liu s, ipse divus Augustus et tulere ista et reliquere, haud facile dixerim , m oderatione magis an sapientia. namque spreta exolescunt: si irascare, adgnita videntur." Annales 4.34.8 "The verses of Bibaculus and CatuUus were crammed fuU w ith insults against Caesar: but the divin e Julius and the divine Augustus put up w ith this sort o f thing and let it alone, w hether more through restraint or wisdom I couldn't easily say. For w hat is ignored fades aw ay but if anger is displayed, it seems lik e an admission of its truth. " Various points emerge brom these anecdotes. First that even a PoUio w ould not take in a Timagenes w ithout the p rio r sanction of the princeps, and therefore that ^^Seneca the younger De Ira 323.8 ^M acrobius Satires 2.4.21. ^Annales 4 34.6. 395 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. even a literary patron (w ho was pro-republican, and again this was not necessarily a bad thing in the context of the Augustan revival) w ou ld not be lik e ly to sponsor a poet the princeps disapproved of. Second, toleration o f literary dissidence was to a degree characteristic of the Augustan prind pate, and one suspects was a deliberate prom otion o f republican style libertas. In the case of Timagenes the princeps decided to be indulgent to a figure w ho was o f little social consequence and thus turned the whole incident into a display of p rin d p ia l dementia and continentia. In the cases we have o f action being taken against verbal practitioners (Titus Labienus and Cassius Severus) during the Augustan prind pate, it w ould seem that the princeps was prom pted to action by their viru len t attacks on a num ber of elite members of sodety.^* Tadtus refers to the events concerning Cassius Severus in his comments on the increase in treason trials under Tiberius. The lex maiestatis, he says, under the republic had been solely concerned w ith deeds not w ith words, "fada arguebantur, dicta inpune erant” (Annates 1.72). The m odification of the lex maiestatis to indude verba he attributes to Augustus: prim us Augustus cognitionem de famosis libellis spede legis eius tractavit, commotus Cassii Severi libidine, qua viros feminasque inlustres procadbus scriptis diffam averat. Annates 1.72 Augustus was the first who brought the investigation o f libellous literature under the terms of this law , disturbed by the excessiveness of Cassius Severus w hich he had exerdsed to bladcen the name of notable men and wom en in libellous w riting. Cassius was convicted and banished by decree o f the senate to Crete.25both the case o f Labienus and Cassius it w ould seem that action was taken against 24Seneca the elder Controversiae 10, preface 5-8; Tacitus Annales 1.72: see further Syme (1939:486- 87) Raaflaub and Salmon (1990:439-^). 396 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. specific defam atory w ritings. Tacitus attributes to Augustus the m ove to cover verba rather than facta under the lex maiestatis as a typically insidious practice of the p rin d p ate. H ow ever, even in this practice Augustus m ay have argued that he was only reestablishing republican practice. For action against slander was a legally encoded republican tradition.^® Elegy for a ll its apparent tendency to the anti social and d v ic a lly irresponsible, and the occasional im portation o f the princeps into the text in an incongruous setting, was not a verbal practice that w ould have transgressed the Rom an boundaries of acceptable invective. One should, therefore, be w ary of lettin g the question of O vid's relegation color one's perspective on the potential of elegiac discourse for subversion. For O v id ’ s banishm ent, in a ll likelihood, was determ ined by a variety o f factors, o f w hich his literary output w ould have been only one. 2 7 M oreover, it w ould seem d ear that it was the Ars Amatoria w ith its m ore overt didactidsm and contem porary setting that was understood to be the p articu lar source o f literary disapproval, rather than the author's earlier, more m ainstream elegiac w ork. In ad d itio n O vid's influence due to the longevity o f his lite ra ry career and the espedal verbal exuberance of his style m arked him out from other elegiac practitioners. Nevertheless, one should also note that even if the question o f patronage and the subordination o f the elegists w ith in the Roman hierarchical system m ight seem to d elim it the possibility o f deliberate subversive practices (o r the T^Tadtus (.Annales 4.21) records his death at Seriphus many years later. 26see Cicero De ReptMka 4.12 on the provision in the Twelve Tables for the death penalty for the performance or composition o f slanderous songs. For more detailed discussion see Colem an- N orton (1948); Wirszubski (1968). 27The literature on the reasons for Ovid's relegation is extensive: the study of J.C. Thibault (1964) lists the names of some two hundered scholars who have w ritten on the issue. A useful, if somewhat acerbic, rumination on the various issues and theories is provided by Syme (1978: ch. 12). 397 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. transgression o f an acceptable am ount o f dissidence), then such established param eters in themselves w ould be unable to contain the potential for their literary product to be processed by a reader in a more ideologically challenging fashion. Poetic Im portance W hen speaking in terms o f censorship one m ust also p u t the production of elegiac poetry in perspective. H o w significant a social practice was poetry in Augustan Rome? Christoph Ransmayr in The Lost World writes: N o doubt of it, Naso was famous. B ut w hat, after a ll, d id a famous poet am ount to? Naso had only to sit dow n u ith w orking men in some suburban brandy cellar or w ith the cattle dealers and olive farm ers under the chestnuts of a villag e square an hour or two's w alk from Rome— and no one recognized his name, had even so m uch as heard o f him . W hat was the elegant little audience for poetry compared to those enormous masses that screamed themselves hoarse w ith excitem ent at the circus, in stadiums and grandstands at the racetrack? Some allowance m ust be made fo r historical change. In our society poetry is certainly a peripheral activity (if s till one that confers social prestige) in term s of the numbers attracted to public recitals and the sales of published verse. It is safe to assume that in Augustan Rome poetry was o f a somewhat more centralized significance: Juvenal Satires 7 portrays the Rom an populace flocking to hear a recital of Statius's Thebaid and there are stories o f V irg il receiving a standing ovation in the theater.^^ These are, how ever, both representations of the popularity o f epic poetry. O vid in exile reports on tw o occasions that his poems 28Ransmayr (1991:25). ^ ^ a d tu s Dialogus 13. 398 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. w ere perform ed {saltari) in the theater.^o H ow ever, it w ould seem dear that the perform ance o f elegy norm ally belonged in the sm all scale elite space o f the recitatio. If, how ever, elegy was not significant in terms o f the numbers it was perform ed to, it was at least more significant in the nature o f its audience. As a recitatio took place before an invited audience, and the practice was predom inantly elite in nature, d early this was a verbal exhibition whose effect was p rim arily aim ed a t Rome's upper social orders. So although e l^ y was hardly lik e ly ever to predpitate mass c iv il disobedience, nevertheless its performance in an elite space m ay have enhanced its social significance. In this m anner the attem pt o f the O vidian narrator in Tristia 2 to suggest that elegiac poetry was a practice entirely beneath the attention o f the princeps can be seen as a disingenuous attem pt to lim it the potential significance of his literary product: m irer in hoc ig itu r tantarum pondéré rerum te num quam nostros evoluisse iocos? Tristia 2237-238 Should I w onder, then, that in the m idst o f the w eight of such great affairs you never unrolled a copy o f m y literary frivolity? Elegy and Problem atic Otium As exam ined in chapter six, the establishm ent of the Pax Augusta led to a Roman w orld that was o frid a lly otiosus. In this sense elegy could be view ed as sim ply an exuberant literary response to the Augustan achievement. A t the same tim e the response o f elegy m ight also be seen as precisely dem onstrating the dangers o f a Roma Otiosa. As G alinsky elaborates in his study of the Augustan ^^Tristia 2.519-20; 5.25-28. 399 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. period the establishment o f otium was a "balancing act" as "[djom estic tran quillity was to be restored w ithout resulting in intellectual and cultural torpor and in a loss of m oral fiber." The potentially enervating effects of peace and prosperity w ere a recurring theme in Roman culture perhaps most p ith ily summed up, as G alinslty notes, in Juvenal's phrase "nunc patim ur longae pads mala."32 In such circumstances elegiac discourse could again be perceived (w hether consdously o r not) as an exem plary negative paradigm o f the dangers of otium, particularly fo r the impressionable young. Its effect w ould thus be analogous to the prodam ation of the CatuUan narrator in the fin al stanza of Catullus 51: otium , C atulle, tib i m olestum est: otio exsultas nim ium que gestis: otium et reges prius et beatas p erd id it urbes. Leisure, C atullus, is w hat is bothering you: you revel in , and preoccupy yourself w ith , leisure excessively: but leisure is w hat has in the past ruined prosperous dties and kings. Both CatuUan poetry and elegy can thus be seen as responses to the problem atic of otium. CatuUus’ s poetic response is form ulated in the chaos of the late republic where otium was hardly a norm of everyday life but was (as exam ined in chapter six) a reaUty of political in activity imposed on Rome’ s eUte by the increasing violence and autocracy of the pericxl. Elegy on the other hand was a rejoinder to the generalized otium that follow ed the establishm ent o f the Augustan prindpate. 3:CaIinsky (1996:139). ^^juvenal Satires 6.292); Galinsky (1996:138), who also references the various manifestations of Roman anxiety towards pax et otium. 400 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In this m anner elegy, draw ing on the am bivalent nature of otium, could be perceived as a simultaneous celebration and problem atization o f the Augustan settlem ent. Elegy as lite ra ry C arnival The notion o f "carnival" is one o f the m ain concepts in the w ork o f M ikh ail B a k h t i n . 3 3 C arnival, as one w ould expect, denotes aspects and values of popular culture that are ^rpically undervalued and m arginalized by the elite. C arnival typically involves the reversal o f hierarchies and the staged disruption o f the norms o f authority. This is best m anifested in Rom an culture by the festival of the Saturnalia that began on December 17th w ith its tem porary suspension o f the p o larity o f m aster and slave: Seneca the younger describes this situation as "ius luxuriae publicae datum est."^ In a literary context Bakhtin's "carnival " manifests itself in the prom otion o f exuberant voices that express ideas at variance w ith those o f a dom inant, elite ideology, such as the com ic subplots in Shakespearean tragedy. Elegy could be view ed as a literary m anifestation of carnival both in its prom otion o f values that w ould seem to be quite disparate to the norms of trad ition al Rom an values of m orality and civic com m itm ent, and in its satum alian reversal o f male m astery that form s the theme o f seroitium amoris. H ow ever, the elegiac narrator is figured as an e lite m em ber o f society and elegy itself is an aristocratic rather than a popular lite ra ry form . This makes elegy a particu larly elite form of youthful carnival w here an aristocratic youth is im m ersed in behavior unsuited to the elite rather than representing a populist ^^For a detailed description see Bakhtin (1973:100-149). ^^eneca Epistulae Morales 18.1. 401 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. perspective per se. The effect here w ould be analogous to Prince H arry's im m ersion in the com ic subplot in Shakespeare's Henry Fourth: Part One or, in a Roman context, to the various youthful activities o f N ero. A p a rt from his dubious (from an elite perspective) interest in acting and chariot-radng, a nineteen-year-old N ero is also depicted as breaking into shops at night and auctioning o ff the stolen item s in the palace, and in disguise attacking returning revelers and throw ing them in the sewers.^s As Em iel Eyben notes, the manner in w hich Nero's nocturnal escapades are introduced in Suetonius suggests that such activities w ere not in themselves surprising in an elite youthi^s Petulantiam , libid inem , luxuriam , avaritiam , crudelitatem sensim quidem prim o et occulte et velut iuvenali errore exercuit, sed u t tune quoque dubium nem ini foret naturae ilia v itia , non aetatis esse. Nero 26.1 H e practiced his wantormess, lust, extravagance, greed and cruelty, at firs t gradu ally and secretly as if through youthful aberration but so that even then nobody should be in doubt that these w ere faults due to his inherent nature rather than his age. In the case o f N ero you th ful waywardness (a norm ally transitory stage) is view ed as an indication o f an innately bad character. This form s an interesting parallel to the elegiac narrator's assertions (as exam ined in chapter eight) that his elegiac behavior does not just represent a youthful phase b u t is an indication of a tru ly elegiac character. Hence, the elegiac narrator struggles to resist w hat he sees as a negation o f his idiosyncrasy by the attem pt o f society to label his behavior and beliefs as nothing more than youthful acting out, iuvenilis error. ^ D io 61.8.1,61.9.2-4; Pliny the Elder Natural History 13.43.136; Suetonius Nero 26.1-4; Tacitus Aitiwles 13.25.1-3; Eyben (1993:109-10). 36Eyben (1993:109-110). 402 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Subversion and Containment Bakhtin's m odel o f carnival is liable to interpretation from either a pessimistic or optim istic view point^^ The m ain thrust o f the N ew H istoridsm that emerged in Am erica (in the w ork of such scholars as Stephen G reenblatt and Louis M ontrose) generally produced a pessimistic reading of the possibilities of textual subversion. 3 8 From this po int o f view any subversive effects o f C arnival are already conceded and contained by the prevailing dom inant ideology: thus such subversion, far from being a potential threat to established norm s, actually reinforces such norms through acting as a permissible social safety valve. In this m anner apparent literary ideological challenges actually act as a means to consolidate w hat they seem to be attacking. 3 9 W hen applied to elegy such an analysis w ould be in keeping w ith Cairns's view point as elaborated earlier. H ere elegiac discourse w ould ultim ately represent nothing more than a conceded period o f youthful aberration (the tirocinium adiilescentiae as exam ined in chapter eight). Elegy thus m ight be understood as taking place in a m arginal but conceded space fo r such aberration, the Subura (as also discussed in chapter eight). In this case the fin al sequence of poems in the original Propertian collection (3.24 and 3.25), w ith its profession of past madness and its renunciation o f the elegiac lifestyle, brings such aberration to a close by signaling the ultim ate containm ent of elegiac discourse: this concluding gesture is analogous to the proclam ation o f the youthful speaker in Seneca Controversiae 2.6 that after his allotted period o f adolescent waywardness 37on optimism and pessimism as defining interpretative positions see Richlin (1993b). 38por a more detailed analysis of Mew Historidsm and Cultural Materialism see Veeser (1989); Wilson and Dutton (1993). 39rhis appropriation of carnival is dubbed by Richard Wilson (1992:150 following Peter Burke) the "revenge of Lent." 403 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. he w ill revert to an expected pattern o f adu lt m atu rity, "sim ul prim um hoc tirocinium adulescentiae quasi debitum ac sollem ne persolvero, revertar ad bonos mores," "as soon as I have got through this necessary and customary apprenticeship o f youth I shall retu rn to good ways" (2.6.11). In Shakespeare's Henry Fourth: Part One such you th ful indulgence is even presented as a deliberate strategy on the part o f Prince H arry to use adolescent tarnish to offset favorably adu lt luminescence: Y et herein w ill I im itate the sun. W ho doth perm it the base contagious clouds To sm other up his beauty from the w o rld . That w hen he please again to be him self. Being w anted he m ay be more w ondered at By breaking through the fou l and ugly mists O f vapours that d id seem to strangle him . So w hen this loose behaviour I throw o ff A nd pay the debt I never prom ised By how m uch better than m y w ord I am By so m uch shall I falsify men's hopes; A nd the brigh t m etal on a sullen ground. M y reform ation, g litt'rin g o'er m y fau lt. Shall show m ore goodly and attract m ore eyes Than that w hich hath no fo il to set it off. I l l so offend to m ake offence a skill. Redeem ing tim e w hen m en think least I w ill. A ct O ne, Scene Tw o Shakespeare's Prince H arry thus endows his ow n you th ful excess w ith a particularly self-serving and forw ard-looking rational. Cicero, in the Pro Caelio, w hile not going so fa r as to suggest adolescent indulgence is a deliberate strategy to set up future adm iration, does, however, point to there being no necessary lin k between you th ful excess and adult under-achievem ent: Equidem m ultos et v id i in hac civitate et au d ivi, non m ode qui prim oribus labris gustassent genus hoc vitae et extrem is, u t d id tu r, 404 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. digitis attigissent, sed qu i totam adulescentiam voluptatibus dedissent, emersisse aliquando e t se ad ^ g e m bonam, u t d icitu r, récépissé gravesque homines atque illustres fuisse. Pro Caelio 28 Indeed I have seen m yself and heard about m any men in this state, who have not only tasted this type o f life w ith the tip o f their tongue, and, as the saying goes, touched it w ith the tips o f th eir fingers, bu t w ho have given their w hole youth over to pleasure: yet at some p o in t they have surfaced and, as they say, turned o ver a new leaf and subsequently become respectable and notable m en. V iew ed from this perspective elegiac discourse could be perceived as a form o f iuvenilis error that serves as an alm ost necessary prelude to later civic integration and achievem ent Thus firom a pessim istic' standpoint elegiac discourse can be seen as ultim ately unthreatening and contained. H ow ever, a very d ifferen t reading o f elegiac discourse emerges through the application of an optim istic' perspective. Such a view point w ould be in line w ith the m ethodology o f N ew H istoridsm 's generally m ore cheery cousin. C u ltu ral M aterialism .^ The basis fo r this m ore optim istic approach to the potential o f subversion is found in Raym ond W illiam s's threefold distinction betw een the "residual, " "dominant, " and "emergent " aspects o f a dom inant id eology .4 1 By providing a m ore dynam ic m odel of ideology the C u ltu ral M aterialists also allow ed for the greater possibility o f ideological shifts, as "emergent" aspects cause a dom inant ideology to m odify itself to rem ain dom inant or conversely predp itate the form ation of a new dom inant ideology. In this scenario a culture's subversive practices caim ot sim ply be view ed as benignly propping up the status quo. Fo r the production of alternate subject 40rhe label was adopted by Jonathon Doliim ore, the phrase itself comes from Raymond W illiam s: among others who w ould probably consider themselves C ultural Materialists are Catherine Belsey and A lan Sinfield. 41Wüüams (1977:121-27). 405 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. positions to those approved by a dom inant ideology inevitably introduces the possibility o f change and contradiction: these "emergent" aspects o f a culture once p u t into play cannot sim ply be erased. Either a dom inant ideological paradigm m ust adapt itself to take them into account or it must face the possibility o f eventual replacem ent. In either event such "emergent" aspects o f a culture have an effect that makes ideology an evolutionary process rather than a static given. From this perspective elegy w ith its refection o f civic and m ilitary com m itm ent and its professed lack o f m ale m astery and embrace of degradation m ay be equated w ith an "emergent" aspect o f Roman culture w hich is not sim ply produced by the dom inant ideology to be contained, but has an inevitable effect o f at least m aking such a dom inant ideology m odify itself in order to m aintain control in the face of an ideological challenge. Such a positive view of elegy's potential cultural energy can be seen to correspond to H allett's view o f this form o f poetry as a "counter-cultural" practice. In Conclusion This chapter has been concerned w ith elaborating upon the potential effect o f elegiac discourse and the d ifferen t factors that are in play in this com plicated question. The effect of Rom an elegy as a cultural practice w ill inevitably continue to be disputed as it involves not only the idiosyncratic overdeterm ined perspective o f the in d iv id u a l reader but also an assessment of the problem atic relationship o f literary texts to the dom inant ideological paradigm s of a culture. This relationship in itself forms p art o f an evolving dynam ic o f the "residual," "dom inant," and "emergent" aspects of a culture and thus it is hard to determ ine a t any given historical m om ent, and doubly so when 406 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. w e have to m ap such a perspective back onto a culture separated from our own by tw o m illennia of such ideological shifts. As I hope to have dem onstrated in this chapter, w hatever the intentions of any in d iv id u a l elegist were, the question of interpretation cannot be seen to reside sim ply in the possible recovery of such intention. For the reception o f any literary w ork in any historical context rests upon how readers, in line w ith how they situate themselves (or are situated) towards contem porary ideological paradigm s, process the te x t There are a range o f options here, w hich I have reduced by follow ing Pêcheux's scheme, w hich w ill produce a variety o f results. These results w ill range from seeing a text that is com plidt w ith a dom inant ideological paradigm (as generally is the case in N ew H isto rid st readings) to one that is subversive of such a paradigm (as often in C ultural M aterialist readings). In reading a text in such ways readers are not perform ing a neutral act (w hether they are consdously em ploying an overt theoretical fram e or not) but are processing verbal com munication through ideological bias. Thus they are p artid p atin g in a complex arena of ideological contestation w here dom inant paradigm s are created, altered and replaced. The reception of elegy in its Augustan context can thus be seen as such an arena o f ideological contestation. For elegiac discourse brings together a number o f highly charged Roman sodal and cultural issues, such as patronage, otium, and you th ful behavior, in the w id er context of the m ajor ideological shift from republic to prindpate. In this m anner the reception of elegy can be seen as a m atching microcosm to the macrocosm of how Romans received Augustus and the establishm ent of the prindpate. In this way, too, how Augustanism coped w ith elegiac discourse can be seen as a m anifestation on a sm all scale of how an 407 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. em ergent dom inant paradigm negotiated its successful establishm ent For as Duncan Kennedy w rites: Pow er is successful in so far as it manages not so m uch to silence or suppress as to determ ine the consum ption o f the oppositional voice w ith in its discourse.^ W ith in this context one m ight suppose that the reception o f elegy was largely subsumed in the em ergent aspects of Augustan ideology: thus a clim ate o f m oral and social conservatism helped to determ ine the consum ption o f elegiac discourse as a negative paradigm , or as a you th ful form o f ludic carnival (inscribed in a perm issible geographic and tem poral space, the Subura and the tirocinium adulescentiae) that w ould inevitably be contained in due course by an Augustan "revenge o f Len t" Nevertheless, one should not assume that such elegiac containm ent was an unproblem atic activity. If elegy could be processed as an image of adolescent aberration that inevitably resigns itself to the closure of m aturity and civic integration, there was no certainty (even given the pressures of cultural expectations and em ergent dom inant paradigm s) that it w ould be so received. Hence, elegy as a literary form that idiosyncratically celebrated Augustan pax et otium can be view ed as a m anifestation o f the problem s o f the Augustan settlem ent. For part o f the problem facing Augustus was how a Rome at carnival in the w ake o f the release from c iv il w ar "could be harnessed to the legitim ation o f a program m e o f social c o n s e r v a t i s m . " ^ 3 This was certainly no easy task and the contradictions between the m oral and social legislation o f the princeps and 42Kennedy (1992:41). 43wiIson (1992:150): the context here is the appropriation o f carnival elements in the England of Elizabeth I and James I as a background to the themes and performance of Shakespeare's fulius Caesar. 408 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. such practices as elegy^ elite partidpation in the arena and on the stage, and the registration o f e lite wom en as prostitutes dem onstrates the struggle going on at this period to mesh "residual " and "emergent" elements o f Roman culture into a new and effective dom inant ideological paradigm w here the "revenge o f Lent" contained the exuberance of carnival. In this m anner elegy m ight reasonably be understood as representing one o f challenges th at the establishm ent of the prindpate predp itated and then had to negotiate. O ne m ight even speculate here that the eventual relegation o f O vid was a m istake on Augustus's part as to its ram ifications fo r elegiac reception. For as was noted earlier in the chapter Tadtus's Crem utius Cordus draws out the possible consequences of action against lite ra ry figures, "namque spreta exolescunt: si irascere, adgnita videntur," "For w hat is ignored fades aw ay but if anger is displayed, it seems like an adm ission o f its truth" {Annales 4.34.8). It m ay w ell have been that O vid's com positional habits w ere not the prim ary reason fo r his rem oval: however, the poet's concentration on this aspect, in conjunction w ith Augustus's action against a figure w ho was above a ll a poet, m ay w ell have conferred on elegy a subversive reputation that it w ould never have otherw ise acquired. A lthough this w ould prindpaU y involve the Ars Amatoria itself it w o u ld surely have effected its generic cousin, m ainstream elegy. Fin ally, w hen considering the whole question of the effect of elegy one should not lose sight o f the in d ivid u ality of the elegists themselves. It should be noted that the w o rk o f any tw o elegists, though generically sim ilar, was not going to produce exactly the same effect. For instance, O vid was ultim ately more o f a challenge than the m ore overtly antagonistic Propertius. For the hostility of the Propertian narrator, follow ing his renundation of the elegiac lifestyle, could also be view ed as being consigned to the scrap heap of past im m aturity. The 409 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. O vidian narrator, on the other hand, continues his anti social posturing into adulthood and even constructs his knowledge of his past aberration as an alternate form of m atu rity (the Ars Amatoria and Remedia Amoris). One should also not allow ta lk of literature and ideology on a w ider scale to obscure the astute am bition o f the elegists. A lthough the recovery of intention is problem atic, I shall conclude w ith a shameless piece of intentionalist speculation (which if intention is rem oved w ill produce an accidental, or an ideologically determ ined, rather than ind ividu ally em powered effect): it is tem pting to see elegiac com position on a personal level as a highly crafted and intelligent literary product that deliberately, through an astute m anipulation and exploitation of a contem porary clim ate, produced fam e and m aterial benefit for its authors. In this w ay these Roman authors opportunistically exploited "emergent" elements o f Rom an culture for their ow n benefit even as it was le ft to an evolving dom inant ideological paradigm to sort out the ram ifications of their product. Thus the elegists m ight be view ed as producing a very Augustan form of poetic seduction w ith in the w ider context of w hat Tacitus view ed as the princeps's successful soliciting of the Roman populace in the transform ation of the republic into the principate. 410 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. B ibliography Abrams, M .H . 1952. The Mirror and the Lamp. Oxford: O xford U niversity Press. Adams, J.N. 1983. "Words For 'Prostitute' In Latin." RhM 126:321-358. 1982. The Latin Sexual Vocabulary. Baltim ore: Johns H opkins Press. A lfoldy, Géza. 1975. The Social History of Rome. Translated by D avid Braund and Frank Pollock. Baltim ore: The Johns Hopkins U niversity Press. Arm strong, D. 1964. "Horace, Satires 1 ,1-3." Arion 3:86-96. Asper, M . 1997. Onomata allotria: Zur Genese, Stniktur und Funktion poetologischer Metaphem bei Kallimachos, Stuttgard: Steiner. Bakhtin, M ikh ail. 1973. Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics. Translated by R.W . Rotsel. Arm Arbor: Ardis. Badian, E. 1985. "A Phantom M arriage Law." Philologus 129: 82-98. 1985. Review o f G old (1982). Classical Philology 80:341-57. Baldwin, Barry. 1970. "Horace on Sex." American Journal of Philology 91: 460-65. Balsdon, J.P.V.D. 1960. "Auctoritas, Dignitas, Otium." Classical Quarterly 54:43-50. Barton, C arlin A . 1993. The Sorrows of the Ancient Romans. Princeton: Princeton U niversity Press. Barrell, J . 1988. Poetry, Language and Politics. Manchester: Manchester U niversity Press. Bartsch, Shadi. 1994. Actors in the Audience. Cam bridge, Mass.: H arvard University Press. Bell, Laurie, ed. 1987. Good Girls/Bad Girls: Sex Trade Workers and Feminists Face to Face. Toronto: Women's Press. Benveniste, E. 1971. "The N ature o f Pronouns, " in Problems in General Linguistics. Translated by M E. M eek. Coral Gables, Florida: U niversity o f M iam i Press. 411 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Berger, John. 1972. Ways O f Seeing. London: British Broadcasting C orporation and Penguin Books. Betensky, A . 1974. "A Further Reply." Arethnsa 7: 217-19. 1973. "Forum." Arethnsa 6: 267-69. Bloom er, M artin W . 1997. "A Preface to the H istory of Declam ation: Whose Speech? whose history?" In T. H abinek and A . Schiesaro, eds.. The Roman Cultural Revolution, 199-215. Cam bridge: Cam bridge U n iversity Press. Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction. A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, translated by R. N ice. Cam bridge, Mass.: H arvard U niversity Press. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Translated by Richard Nice. Cam bridge and N ew York: Cam bridge U niversity Press. Boyle, A.J. 1997. Tragic Seneca. London: Routledge. 1986. The Chaonian Dove. Leiden: E.J. B rill. Bradbury, M . 1979. Who Do You Think You Are? London: Seeker and W arburg. Bramble, J.C. 1974. Persius and the Programmatic Satire. Cam bridge: Cam bridge U niversity Press. Braund, S.H. 1988. Beyond Anger. A Study of Juvenal's Third Book of Satires. Cam bridge: Cam bridge U niversity Press. Brunt, P.A. 1983. "Princeps and Equités.” Journal of Roman Studies 73:42-75. 1982. "Nobilitas and Novitas.” Journal of Roman Studies 72:1-17. 1971. Italian Manpower 255 B.C. - A.D. 14. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1967. lime Conférence internationale d'histoire économique. Paris: M outon. .1965. 'Amicitia in the Late Roman Republic." Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Association 191:1-20. Brunt, P.A . and J.M . M oore, eds. 1967. Res Gestae Divi Augusti. O xford: O xford U niversity Press. Buchan, M ark. 1995. "O vidius Imperamator : Beginnings and Endings o f Love Poems and Em pire in the Amores.” Arethnsa 28:53- 83. 412 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Buchheit, Vinenz. 1976. "Sal et lepos versiculorum (C atull c. 16)." Hermes 104:331- 47. Bushala, Eugene W . 1971. "The M o tif o f Sexual Choice in Horace, Satire 1.2." Classical Journal 66:312-315. C aim s, Francis. 1979. "Propertius on Augustus’ M arriage Law ." Grazer Beitrage. Zeitscrift fiir klassische 8:185-204. 1979. Tibullus: A Hellenistic Poet at Rome. Cam bridge: Cam bridge U niversity Press. 1972. Generic Composition in Greek and Roman Poetry. Edinburgh: Edinburgh U niversity Press. Calam e, C. 1989. "Entre rapports de parenté et relations civiques: A phrodite l'hétaire au banquet politique des hétairoi." In Aux Sources de la puissance : Sociabilité et parenté. Rouen: Publications de l'U niversité de Rouen. Carson, Arme. 1993. "Your M oney or Your Life." The Yale Journal of Criticism 6: 75-92. 1986. Eros the bittersweet. Princeton: Princeton U niversity Press. C larke, John R. 1998. Looking At Lovemaking. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: U niversity of C alifornia Press. 1993. "The W arren Cup and the Contexts for Representations o f M ale-to- M ale Lovem aking in Augustan and Early Julio-C laudian A rt." Art Bulletin 75: 275-94. 1991. The Houses of Roman Italy, 100 B.C. - A.D. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: U niversity o f C alifornia Press. Claussen, W endell. 1964. "Callim achus and Latin Poetry. " Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 5:181-96. C loud, Duncan. 1989. "The client-Patron Relationship: Em blem and R eality in Juvenal's First Book." In A . W aU ace-H adrill, ed.. Patronage in Ancient Society, 205-217. London and N ew York: Routledge. Cohen, D avid. 1991. "The Augustan Law on A dultery: The Social and C ultural Context." In D .I. K ertzer and R.P. Sailer, eds.. The Family in Italy from Antiquity to the Present, 109-26. N ew Haven: Yale U n iversity Press. 413 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Cohen, Jean. 1966. Structure du langage poétique. Paris: Flam m arion. Colem an-Norton, P.R. 1948. The Twelve Tables. Princeton: Princeton U niversity Press. Com m ager, Steele. 1974. A Prolegomenon to Propertius. Cincinnati: U niversity of C in d im ati Publications. Conte, G ian Biagio. 1989. "Love w ithout Elegy: The Remedia Amoris and the Logic of a Genre." Poetics Today 10.3:441-69. .1986- The Rhetoric of Imitation. Ithaca and N ew York: C ornell U niversity Press. Copley, P.O. 1947. "Seroitium Amoris in the Roman Elegists." Transactions of the American Philological Association 27:285-300. C orbeill, Anthony. 1997. "D ining Deviants in Roman Political Invective." In Judith P. H allett and M arilyn B. Skinner, eds., Roman Sexualities, 99-128. Princeton: Princeton U niversity Press. 1996. Controlling Laughter. Princeton: Princeton U niversity Press. Courtney, E. 1995. Musa Lapidaria. A tlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press. Crook, John. 1967. Law and Life of Rome. Ithaca, N ew York: C ornell U niversity Press. C row ther, N.B. 1980. "Parthenius, Laevius and Cicero: Hexam eter Poetry and Euphorionic m yth." Liverpool Classical Monthly 5:181-183. 1976. "Parthenius and Roman Poetry." Mnemosyne 29: 65-71. 1971. "Catullus and the Traditions of Latin Poetry." Classical Philology 66: 246-248. Curen, Leo C. 1970. "Nature, Convention, and Obscenity in Horace, Satires 1.2." Arion 9: 220-245. Davidson, James N . 1997. Courtesans and Fishcakes. N ew York: St. M artin's Press. Delacoste, Frédérique and Priscilla, Alexander, eds. 1987. Sex Work. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Cleis Press. 414 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Deroux, C arl. 1973. "L'identité de Lesbie." Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt 1.3:390-416. Dessen, C ynthia S. 1996. The Satires of Persius (2nd edition). London: Bristol Classical Press. 1968. "The Sexual and Financial M ean in Horace's Berm., 1.2. " American Journal of Philology 89:200-208. D ixon, Suzanne. 1993. "The M eaning o f G ift and D ebt in the Roman Elite. " Echos dll Monde Classique/Classical Views 37, n.s. 12:451-64. 1992. The Roman Family. Baltim ore and London: The Johns Hopkins U niversity Press. D over, K.J. 1978. Greek Homosexuality. Cam bridge, Mass.: H arvard U niversity Press. D o w lin g, Linda. 1994. Hellenism and Homosexuality in Victorian England. Ithaca and London: C ornell U niversity Press. duBois, Page. 1995. Sappho Is Burning. Chicago and London: Chicago U niversity Press. 1988. Sowing The Body. Chicago: Chicago U niversity Press. Duncan-Jones, Richard. 1974. The Economy of the Roman Empire. Cam bridge: Cam bridge U niversity Press. D upont, Florence. 1997. "Recitatio and the Reorganization o f the Space of Public Discourse. " In T. H abinek and A . Schiesaro, eds.. The Roman Cultural Revolution, 44-60. Cam bridge: Cam bridge U niversity Press. Eagleton, Terry. 1990. The Ideology of the Aesthetic. O xford: Blackwell. 1983. Literary Theory: An Introduction. O xford: Blackwell. 1976. Marxism and Literary Criticism. London: M ethuen. Eder, W . 1990. "Augustus and the Power o f Tradition: The Augustan Principate as Binding Link." In K u rt A . Raaflaub and M ark Toher, eds.. Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations of Augustus and His Principate, 71-122. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: U niversity o f C alifornia Press. 415 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Edw ards, Catherine. 1997. "Unspeakable Professions: Public Performance A nd Prostitution In A ndent Rome." In Judith P. H a lle tt and M arilyn B. Skinner, eds.. Roman Sexualities, 66-95. Princeton: Princeton U niversity Press. 1993. The Politics of Immorality. Cam bridge: Cam bridge U niversity Press. G oddard E llio t, Alison. 1985. "Ovid and the Critics: Seneca, Q u in tilian , and "Seriousness"".'" Helios 12:9-20. E llis, Sim on P. 1994. ""Power, Architecture, and Decor: H ow the Late Roman A ristocrat Appeared to H is Guests." In Elaine K . G azda, ed., Roman Art In The Private Sphere, 117-134. A nn A rbor: The U niversity o f M ichigan Press. Engels, F. 1970. The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. N ew York: Pathfinder Press. Eyben, Em iel. 1993. Restless Youth In Ancient Rome, trans. by P. D aly. London and N ew York: Routledge. Fedeli, Paolo. 1981. " Elegy and Literary Polem ic in Propertius" Monobiblos." Proceedings of the Liverpool Latin Seminar 3: 227-242. Felperin, H ow ard. 1985. Beyond Deconstniction. O xford: Clarendon Press. Fitzgerald, W illiam . 1995. CatuUan Provocations. Berkeley and Los Angeles: U niversity o f C alifornia Press. Flow er, H a rrie t 1 .1996. Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture. O xford: Clarendon Press. Fordyce, C.J. 1961. Catullus, a Commentary. O xford: Clarendon Press. Foucault, M ichel. 1985. The Use of Pleasure: The History of Sexuality Volume 3. Translated by Robert H u rley. N ew York: Vintage Books. Fow ler, A . 1982. Kinds of Literature: An Introduction to the Theory of Genres and Modes. Cam bridge: Cam bridge U n iversity Press. Fow ler, D P. 1995. " Horace and the Aesthetics o f Politics. " In Stephen H arrison ed.. Homage to Horace, 248-266. O xford: Clarendon Press. Fraenkel, E. 1957. Horace. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Frank, Tenney. 1940. Rome and Italy of the Empire Volume Five. Baltim ore: Johns H opkins Press. 416 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fredrick, D. 1997. "Reading Broken Skin.” In Judith P. H a lle tt and M arilyn B. Skinner, eds., Roman Sexualities, 172-93. Princeton, N ew Jersey: Princeton U niversity Press. 1995. "Beyond the A trium to Ariadne: Erotic P ainting and Visual Pleasure in the Roman House." Classical Antiquity 14.2:266-287. Freudenburg, K irk. 1993. The Walking Muse. Princeton: Princeton U niversity Press. G ale, M onica R. 1997. "Propertius 2.7: Militia Amoris and the Ironies of Elegy." Journal of Roman Studies 87: 77-91. G alinsky, K arl. 1996. Augustan Culture. Princeton: Princeton U niversity Press. 1981. "Augustus' Legislation on M orals and M arriage. " Philologus 125:126- 44. G alsterer, H . 1990. "A M an, a Book, and a Method: Sir Ronald Syme's Roman Revolution after Fifty Years." In K u rt A . Raaflaub and M ark Toher, eds.. Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations of Augustus and His Principate, 1-20. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: U niversity o f C alifornia Press. Gam el, M ary-K ay. 1998. "Reading as a M an: Performance and Gender in Roman Elegy." Helios 25: 79-95. G ardner, Jane. 1993. Being A Roman Citizen. London and N ew York: Routledge. 1986. Woman in Roman Law and Society. Bloomington: Indiana U niversity Press. G eertz, C. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. N ew York: Basic Books. G elzer, M athias. 1969. The Roman Nobility. Translated by Robin Seager. O xford: Blackwell. Gibson, R.K. 1995. "H ow to W in G irlfriends and Influence Them: Amicitia In Roman Love Elegy." Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Association 41: 61-82. Gleason, M aud W . 1995. Making Men. Princeton, N ew Jersey: Princeton U niversity Press. 417 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. G old, Barbara. 1993. "The 'M aster Mistress' o f M y Passion: The Lady as Patron in Ancient and Renaissance Literature." In M ary DeForest, ed.. Woman's Power, Man's Game, 279-304. Wauconda, Illinois: Bolchazy-Carducd. ed. 1987. Literary Patronage in Greece and Rome, ed. Chapel H ill and London: The U niversity o f N orth Carolina Press. 1982. Literary and Artistic Patronage in Ancient Rome. Austin: U niversity of Texas Press. G o ld hill, Sim on. 1998. "The Seductions of the Gaze: Socrates and his G irlfriends." In Paul Cartledge, Paul M ille t and Sitta van Recken, eds., Kosmos: Personal Relations in the Polis, 105-124. Cambridge: Cam bridge U niversity Press. Goold, G.P. 1990. Propertius: Elegies. Cambridge, Massachusetts: H arvard U niversity Press. Greene, Ellen. 1998. The Erotics of Domination. Baltim ore and London: The Johns H opkins U niversity Press. 1994. "Sexual Politics in O vid's Amores: 3.4,3.8, and 3.12." Classical Philology 89: 344-350. Greenidge, A .H J. 1970. Roman Public Life. N ew York: Cooper Square Publishers Inc. G riffin , Jasper. 1985. Latin Poets and Roman Life. London: G erald Duckw orth and Co. Ltd. 1984. "Augustus and the Poets: Caesar qui cogere posset ." In Fergus M illa r and Erich Segal, eds., Caesar Augustus, 189-218. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gruen, Erich S. 1990. Studies in Greek Culture and Roman Policy. Leiden: E.J. B rill. G u tzw iller, K athryn J. 1985. "The lover and the lena: Propertius 4.5." Ramus 14: 153-178. Habinek, Thomas N . 1998. The Politics of Latin Literature. Princeton, N ew Jersey: Princeton U niversity Press. 1997. "The Invention o f Sexuality in the W o rld-C ity o f Rome " In T. H abinek and A . Schiesaro, eds.. The Roman Cultural Revolution, 23-43. Cam bridge: Cam bridge University Press. 418 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1994. "Ideology fo r an Em pire in the Prefaces to Cicero’s Dialogues." Ramus 23:55-67. H a lle tt, Judith P. 1973. "The Role O f W om en In Roman Elegy: C ounter-C ultural Fem inism ." Arethusa 6:103-124. H alp erin , D avid M . 1990. One Hundred Years of Homosexuality. N ew Y ork and London: Routledge. H ard ie, Alex. 1983. Statius and the Silvae: Poets, Patrons and Epideixis in the Graeco- Roman World. Liverpool: Francis Caim s. H arvey, D. 1987. "Painted Ladies: Fact, Fiction and Fantasy. " In J. Christiansen and T. M elander, eds.. Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Ancient Greek and Related Pottery, 242-54. Thorvaldens Musseum: N y Carlsberg G lypotek. Hellegouarc'h, J. 1963. Le vocabulaire des relations et des partis politiques sous la république. Paris: Les Belles lettres. Henderson, John. 1993. "Be A lert (Your Country Needs Lerts): Horace, Satires 1.9." Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Association 39: 67-93. Henderson, Jeffrey. 1976. "The Cologne Epode and the Conventions o f Early Greek Erotic Poetry." Arethusa 9 : 159-179. H en ry, M adeleine M . "The Edible W oman: Athenaeus s Concept o f the Pornographic." In A m y R ichlin, ed.. Pornography and Representation in Greece and Rome, 250-268. O xford: O xford U niversity Press. H em ad i, P. 1972. Beyond Genre. Ithaca: C ornell U niversity Press. H illa rd , Tom. 1992. "On the Stage, Behind the C urtain: Images o f P o litically Active W om en in the Late Roman Republic." In Barbara G arlick, Suzanne D ixon, and Pauline A llen , eds.. Stereotypes of Women in Power, 37-64. N ew York: Greenwood Press. H inds, Stephen. 1998. Allusion and Intertext. Cam bridge: Cam bridge U niversity Press. 1988. "Generalising A bout O vid." Ramus 16:4-31. _1987. "The Poetess and the Reader: Further Steps tow ard Sulpida." Hermathena 143: 29-46. 419 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. HoUibaugh, Am ber. 1988. "On the Street W here W e Live." Women’s Review of Books 5:1-20. H o rsfall, N .M . 1981. Poets and Patron. Oxford: O xford U niversity Press. H ubbard, M argaret. 1974. Propertius. London: D uckw orth. Jameson, F. 1981. The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act. Ithaca, N ew York: C ornell U niversity Press. .1972. The Prison-House of Language: A Critical Account of Structuralism and Russian Formalism, Princeton: Princeton U niversity Press. Johnson, W .R . 1982. The Idea of Lyric. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: U n iversity o f C alifornia Press. Kaser, M ax. 1956. "Infam ia und ignom inia in den romischen Rechtsquellen." Zeitscrift der Savigny-Stiftungfiir Rechtsgeschichte: Romanistische Abteilung 73: 220-78. K eith, A lison. 1997. "Tandem venit amor: A Roman W om an Speaks of Love." In Judith P. H a lle tt and M arilyn B. Skinner, eds., Roman Sexualities, 295-310. Princeton: Princeton U niversity Press. .1994. "Corpus Eroticum: Elegiac Poetics and Elegiac Puellae in O vid's Amores." Classical World 88: 27-40. 1992. "Amores 1.1: Propertius and the O vidian Programme." In C arl D eroux, ed.. Collection Latomus, 327-44. Brussels: Latomus. Kennedy, Duncan. 1993. The Arts of Love. Cam bridge: Cam bridge U niversity Press. 1992. " 'Augustan' and A nti-A ugustan': Reflections on Terms of Reference. " In Anton Pow ell, ed. Roman Poetry and Propaganda in the Age of Augustus, 26-58. London: Bristol Classical Press. 1988. "Kennedy reviews M yerow itz on O vid." Liverpool Classical Monthly 13.5: 72-78. Knox, Peter. 1985. "W ine, W ater, and Callim achean Poetics." Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 89:107-19. Konstan, D avid. 1997. Friendship in the Classical World. Cam bridge: Cam bridge U n iversity Press. 420 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Kurke, Leslie. 1997. "Inventing the H etaira: Sex, Politics, and Discursive C onflict in Archaic Greece." Classical Antiquity 16:106-150. 1996. "Pindar and the Prostitutes, or Reading A ncient Pornography ." Arion, th ird series, 4.2:49-75. 1990.7^e Traffic in Praise : Pindar and the Poetics of Social Economy. Ithaca, N ew York: C ornell U niversity Press. Lacey, W .K . 1996. Augustus and the Principate. The Evolution of the System. Leeds: Francis Caim s. Lateiner, D . "Ovid's Hom age to Callimachus and A lecandrian Poetic Theory (A M . 2,19)." Hermes 106:188-96. Lawrence, Ray. 1994. Roman Pompeii. London and N ew York: Routledge. Lefkow itz, M ary R. and M aureen B. Pant. 1982. Women's Life in Greece & Rome. Baltim ore. The Johns Hopkins U niversity Press. Levick, Barbara. 1983. "The Senatiis Consultiim from Larinum ." Journal of Roman Studies 73: 97-115. L ilja, S. 1965. The Roman Love Elegists' Attitude to Women. H elsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatem ia. Luce, T.J. and A.J. W oodman. 1993. Tacitus and the Tacitean Tradition. Princeton: Princeton U niversity Press. Lyne, R .O .A .M . 1979. "Servitium Amoris." Classical Quarterly 29:117-30. 1978. "The Neoteric Poets." Classical Quarterly 28:167-87. M acM uUen, Ramsay. 1982. "The Epigraphic H ab it in the Roman Em pire. " American Journal of Philology 103: 233-46. M alinow ski, Bronislaw. 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. N ew York: D utton. M arsh, Terri. 1992. "Epilogue: The (O ther) M aiden's Tale." In A m y Richlin, ed.. Pornography and Representation in Greece and Rome, 269-84. Oxford: O xford U niversity Press. M artindale, Charles. 1993. Redeeming the Text. Cam bridge: Cam bridge U niversity Press. 421 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. M arx, K arl. 1964. The Economie and Philosophical Manuscripts. Translated by T. B. Bottomore. N ew York: F. U ngar Publishing Company. Mauss, M arcel. 1967. The Gift. N ew York: N orton. M cBrown, P. G . 1990. "Plots and Prostitutes in G reek N ew Comedy." Proceedings of the Leeds Latin Seminar 6: 241-66. M cG inn, Thomas A.J. 1998a. Prostitution, Sexuality, and the Law in Ancient Rome. N ew Y ork, Oxford: O xford U niversity Press. 1998b. "Feminae Probrosae and the Litter." Classical Journal 93.3: 241-50. M cKeown, J.C. 1989. Ovid : Amores Volume H. A Commentary on Book One. Leeds: Francis Caim s Publications Ltd. M illa r, Fergus. 1977. The Emperor in the Roman World. Ithaca, N ew York: Cornell U niversity Press. M ille r, Paul A llen. 1998. "Catullan Consciousness and the Negative." In David H.J. Larm our, Paul A llen M ille r, and Charles Platter, eds.. Rethinking Sexuality, 182-184. Princeton: Princeton U niversity Press. 1994. Lyric Texts and Lyric Consciousness: The Birth of a Genre from Archaic Greece to Augustan Rome. London: Routledge. Moles, John. 1991. "The Dram atic Coherence o f O vid , Amores 1.1 and 1.2." Classical Quarterly 41: 551-54. Mommsen, Theodor. 1887-88. Romisches Staatsrecht. München: Beck. M ulvey, Laura. 1989. Visual and Other Pleasures. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana U niversity Press. M urray, 0 . 1990. Sympotica : A Symposium on the Symposion. Oxford: O xford U niversity Press. M yerow itz, M . 1992. "The Dom estication of Desire: O vid's Parva Tabella and the Theater o f Love. " In Am y R ichlin, ed.. Pornography and Representation in Greece and Rome, 131-57. O xford: O xford U niversity Press. 1985. Ovid's Games of Love. D etroit: W ayne State U niversity Press. M yers, K. Sara. 1996. "The Poet and die Procuress: The Lena In Latin Love Elegy." Journal of Roman Studies 86:1-21. 422 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. N icolet, Claude. 1984. "Augustus, G overnm ent, and the Propertied Classes." In Fergus M illa r and Erich Segal, eds., Caesar Augustus, 89-128. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1980. The World of the Citizen in Republican Rome. Translated by P S. Falla. London: Batsford Academic and Educational Ltd . N icoll, W . S. M . 1977. "O vid, Amores 1,5." Mnemosyne 30: 40-48. N orden, E. 1893. "Plena Deo: V irg il Aene/d 6: 77-80." Hermes 28:506-11. Oliensis, Ellen. 1998. Horace And The Rhetoric O f Authority. Cam bridge: Cam bridge U niversity Press. 1997a. "The Erotics o f Amicitia: Readings in Tib ullu s, Propertius, and Horace." In Judith P. H a lle tt and M a rily n B. Skinner, eds., Roman Sexualities, 151-71. Princeton: Princeton U niversity Press. 1997b. "Ut arte emendatunis fortunam: Horace, Nasidienus, and the A rt o f Satire." In T. H abinek and A . Schiesaro, eds.. The Roman Cultural Revolution, 90-104. Cam bridge: Cam bridge U n iversity Press. 1995. "Life A fter Publication: Horace, Epistles, 1.20." Arethusa 28: 209-224. O verall, C hristine. 1992. "What's W rong w ith Prostitution? Evaluating Sex W ork." Signs 17: 705-24. Parker, H o lt N . 1997. "The Teratogenic G rid." In Judith P. H a lle tt and M arilyn B. Skinner, eds., Roman Sexualities, 47-65. Princeton: Princeton U niversity Press. Pêcheux, M ichel. 1977. Language, Semantics, and Ideology. N ew York: St. M artin's Press. Pichon, R. 1902. De sermone amatorio apud latinos elegiarum scriptores. Paris: Hachette. Polanyi, K arl. 1968. Primitive, Archaic and Modem Economies. The Essays of Karl Polanyi. Edited by George Dalton: G arden C ity, N e w York: Archer Books. Q uinn, Kenneth. 1973. Catullus: The Poems. Second E dition. London and Basingstoke: M acm illan. 423 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Radîtsa, L.F. 1980. "Augustus' Legislation Concerning M arriage, Procreation, Love A ffairs and Adultery." Aufstieg und Niedergangder romischen Welt n .l3. 278-339. Ransm ayr, Christoph. 1991. The Last World. Translated b y John W oods. London, G lasgow, Toronto, Sydney, Auckland: Paladin G rafton Books. Rauflaub, K .A ., and L.J. Samons II. 1990. "Opposition to Augustus." In K urt A . Raaflaub and M ark Toher, eds.. Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations of Augustus and His Principate, 417-54. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: U n iversity o f C alifornia Press. Rawson, B eryl, and Paul W eaver. 1997. The Roman Family in Italy. Oxford: C larendon Press. Reinhold, M eyer. 1971. "Usurpation o f Status and Status Symbols in the Roman Em pire." Historia 20:275-302. R ichlin, A m y. 1997. "Gender and rhetoric: Producing M anhood in the Schools." In W illia m J. D om inik, ed., Roman Eloquence, 90-110. London and N ew York: Routledge. 1995. "M aking U p a Woman: The Face of Rom an Gender." In H ow ard Eilberg-Schw artz and W endy Doniger, eds.. O ff With Her Headl The Denial of Women's Identity in Myth, Religion, and Culture, 185-213. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: U niversity o f C alifornia Press. 1993a. "N ot Before Hom osexuality: The M a te ria lity o f the Cinaedus and the Roman Law Against Love Between M en." Journal of the History of Sexuality, 3.4: 523-73. 1993b. "The Ethnographer's Dilem na and the D ream o f a Lost Golden Age." In Feminist 'Theory and the Classics, N ancy Sorkin R abinow itz and A m y R ichlin, eds., 272-303. N ew York: Routledge. 1992a. "Julia's Jokes, G alla Placidia, and the Rom an Use o f W om en as P olitical Icons. " In B. G arlick, S. D ixon and P. A lle n , eds.. Stereotypes of Women in Power, 63-91. 1992b. "Reading O vid's Rapes. " In A m y R ichlin, ed.. Pornography and Representation in Greece and Rome, 158-79. O xford: O xford U niversity Press. 1992c. The Garden ofPriapus. Revised edition. O xford: O xford U niversity Press. 424 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. _1981. "Approaches to the Sources on A dultery at Rome." Women's Studies 8: 225-250. 1978. "Sexual Terms and Themes in Roman Satire and Related Genres." Ph.D. diss., Yale U niversity. Roller, M atthew . 1998. "Pliny's Catullus: The Politics of Literary A ppropriation." Transactions of the American Philological Association 128: 265-304. Ross, D .0 .1969. Style and Tradition in Catullus. Cam bridge, Mass.: H arvard U niversity Press. Rousselle, A line. 1988. Pomeia. Translated by Felicia Pheasant. O xford: Blackwell. Rubin, Gayle. 1975. "The Traffic in Women: Notes on the P olitical Economy’ of Sex." In Rayna Reiter, ed.. Towards an Anthropology of Women, 157-210. N ew York: M onthly Review Press. Rudd, N . 1976. Lines of Enquiry: Studies in Latin Poetry. Cam bridge: Cam bridge U niversity Press. 1966. The Satires of Horace. Cambridge: Cam bridge U niversity Press. Sahlins, M . 1965. "On the Sociology of Prim itive Exchange. " In M . Banton, ed.. The Relevance of Models for Social Anthropology, 35-61. London: Tavistock Publications. Sailer, R.P. 1991. "M en’s Age A t M arriage and its Consequences in the Roman Fam ily. ” Classical Philology 86:21-34. 1983. "M artial O n Patronage and Literature. ” Classical Quarterly 33: 246- 257. 1982. Personal Patronage under the Early Empire. Cam bridge: Cam bridge U niversity Press. Schaps, D . 1977. "The W om an Least Mentioned: Etiquette and W omen's Names." Classical Quartely 27:323-30. Scott, K. 1929. "Octavianus’ Propaganda and Antony’ s de sua ebrietate." Classical Philology 24:133-41. Sebasta, Judith Lynn. 1997. "Women’s Costume and Fem inine C ivic M o rality in Augustan Rome. ” Gender and History 9.3 529-541. 425 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Sharrock, A .R . 1995. "The D rooping Rose: Elegiac Failure In Amores 3.7." Ramus 24:152-180. 1994a. "Ovid and the Politics o f Reading." Materiali e Discussioni 33:97- 122. 1994b. Seduction and Repetition in Ovid's ArsAmatoria U. O xford: Clarendon Press. 1991. "W omannfacture." Journal of Roman Studies 81:36-49. Sinclair, Patrick. 1994. "Political Declensions In Latin G ram m ar and O ratory 55 BCE - CE 39." Ramus 23:92-109. Skinner, M arilyn B. 1993a. "Catullus in Performance." Classical Journal 89.1: 61-68. 1993b. "Ego mulier: The Construction o f M ale Sexuality in Catullus." Helios 20.2:107-30. ______1982. "Pretty Lesbius." Transactions of the American Philological Association 112:197-208. Hem stein Sm ith, Barbara. 1988. Contingencies of Value. Cam bridge, Massachusetts and London: H arvard U niversity Press. Sm ith, K irby Flow er. 1913. The Elegies of Albius Tibullus. The Corpus Tibullianum edited with introduction and notes on Books I, II, and IV . 2-14. N ew York: The Am erican Book Com pany. Stahl, Hans-Peter. 1985. Propertius: Love and War. Individual and State under Augustus. Berkeley: U niversity o f C alifornia Press. Sullivan, J.P. 1991. Martial: The Unexpected Classic. Cam bridge: Cam bridge U niversity Press. 1985. Literature and Politics in the Age of Nero. Ithaca and London: C ornell U niversity Press. Sussman, Lewis A . 1978. The Elder Seneca. Leiden: E.J. B rill. Svenbro, Jesper. 1988. Phrasikleia: Anthropologie de la lecture en grèce ancienne. Paris: La Découverte. Syme, R. 1978. History in Ovid. O xford: Clarendon Press. 426 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. .1958. Tacitus. Oxford: C larendon Press. .1939. The Roman Revolution. O xford: Clarendon Press. Tandoi, V . 1969. "H ricordo d i Stazio 'dolce poeta’ nella sat. V II d i Giovenale." Maia 21:103-122. Thibault, J.C. 1964. The Mystery of Ovid's Exile. Berkeley and Los Angeles: U niversity o f C alifornia Press. Treggiari, Susan. 1991. Roman Marriage. O xford: Clarendon Press. Vasaly, Arm . 1993. Representations. Berkeley, Los Angeles, O xford: U n iversity of C alifornia Press. Veeser, H . A ram . 1989. The New Historicism. N ew York and London: Routledge. Veyne, Paul. 1988. Roman Erotic Elegy. Translated by D avid Pellauer. Chicago: The U niversity of Chicago Press. 1985. "Hom osexuality in A ncient Rome." Translated by A nthony Forster. In P. A ries and A . Bejin, eds.. Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Time, 26-35. O xford and N ew York: Blackw ell. Vickers, Nancy. 1980. "Diana Described: Scattered W omen and Scattered Rhyme." In Elizabeth A b el, ed.. Writing and Sexual Difference, 95-109. Chicago: The U niversity o f Chicago Press. Vorm egut, K u rt. 1983. Deadeye Dick. London: N ew York: Delacorte Press / Seym our Lawrence. W agenvoort, H endrik. 1935. "Ludus Poeticus." Les Etudes Classiques^: 108-120. W allace-H ad rill, A ndrew . 1997. "Mutatio monim: the idea o f a cu ltu ral revolution." In T. H abinek and A . Schiesaro, eds.. The Roman Cultural Revolution, 3-22. Cam bridge: Cam bridge U niversity Press. 1994. Houses and Society in Pompeii and Herculaneum. Princeton: Princeton U niversity Press. 1989a. ed. Patronage in Ancient Societies. London and N ew York: Routledge. 1989b. "Rome's C u ltu ral Revolution." Journal of Roman Studies 79:157-64. 427 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. W alters, Jonathan. 1997. "Invading the Roman Body: Manliness and Im penetrability in Roman Thought." In Judith P. H allett and M a rily n B. Skinner, eds., Roman Sexualities, 29-43. Princeton, N ew Jersey: Princeton U niversity Press. W augh, Patricia. 1984. Metafiction. London and N ew York: Routledge. W h ite, Peter. 1993. Promised Verse. Cam bridge, Mass.: H arvard U niversity Press. 1978. "Amicitia and the profession o f poetry in early im perial Rome." Journal of Roman Studies 68: 74-92. W iedem ann, Thomas. 1989. Adults and Children in the Roman Empire. London: Routledge. W iesen, D.S. 1973. "Juvenal and the Intellectuals." Hermes 101:464-83. W illiam s, Craig A . 1997. "Pudicitia and Pueri: Roman Concepts of M ale Sexual Experience." In M artin Duberm an, ed.. Queer Representations: Reading Lives, Reading Cultures, 25-38. N ew York: N ew York U niversity Press. 1995. "Greek Love at Rome." Classical Quarterly 45:517-539. W illiam s, Gordan. 1990. "D id Maecenas "Fall from Favor"? Augustan L iterary Patronage." In K u rt A . Raaflaub and M ark Toher, eds.. Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations of Augustus and His Principate, 258-75. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: U niversity o f C alifornia Press. 1968. Tradition and Originality in Roman Poetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press. W illiam s, R. 1977. Marxism and Literature. Oxford: O xford Universit)'^ Press. 1976. Keywords. London: Croom H elm . W ills , J. 1996. Repetition in Latin Poetry: Figures of Allusion. O xford: C larendon Press. W ilson, Richard and Richard D utton, eds. 1992. New Historicism and Renaissance Drama. London and N ew York: Longman. W im m el, W . 1960. Kallimachos in Rom. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner. W insor Leach, Eleanor. 1994. "Horace Carmen 1.8: Achilles, the Cam pus M artius, and the A rticulation o f Gender Roles in Augustan Rome." Classical Philology 89:334-343. 428 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. W irszubski, Ch. 1968. Libertas as a Political Idea at Rome during the Late Republic and Early Principate. C ^ b rid g e : Cam bridge U niversity Press. 1954. "Cicero’s Cum Dignitate Otium: A Reconsideration." The Journal of Roman Studies 44:1*13. W isem an, T.P. 1987. Roman Studies Literary and Historical. Liverpool: Francis Caim s. 1985. Catullus and His World. Cambridge: Cam bridge U niversity Press. _1974. Cinna the Poet and other Roman Essays. Leicester Leicester U niversity Press. _1971. New Men in the Roman Senate, 139 B.C. - A.D. 14. London: O xford U niversity Press. .1970. "The D efinition O f 'Eques Romanus’ in the Late Republic and Early Em pire." Historia 19: 67-83. .1969. Catullan Questions. Leicester: Leicester U niversity Press. W oodbury, L. 1968. "Pindar and the M ercenary Muse: Isth. 2 1-13." Transactions of the American Philological Association 99:527-42. W ood, N eal. 1988. Cicero's Social and Political Thought. Berkeley, Los Angeles, O xford: U niversity of C alifornia Press. W oolf, Greg. 1996. "M onum ental W riting and the Expansion o f Roman Society in the Early Em pire. Journal of Roman Studies 86: 22-39. W yke, M aria. 1994a. "Taking The Woman's Part: Engendering Roman Love Elegy." Ramus 23; 110-128. 1994b. "Woman in the M irro r: The Rhetoric o f Adornm ent in the Roman W orld." In Leonie J - Archer, Susan Fischler, and M aria W yke, eds.. Women in Ancient Societies, 134-51. N ew York: Routledge. 1989a. "Mistress and M etaphor. " Helios 16:25-47. 1989b. "Reading Female Flesh: Amores 3.1." In A veril Cam eron, ed.. History as Text, 111-43. London: Duckw orth. 1987a. "The Elegiac W om an at Rome." Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Association 33:153-78. 429 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1987b. "W ritten Women: Propertius' Scripta Puella.” Journal of Roman Studies 77:47-61. Yavetz, Z v i. 1984. "The Res Gestae and Augustus’ Public Image." In Fergus M illa r and Erich Segal, eds., Caesar Augustus, 1-36. O xford: Clarendon Press. 1969. Plebs and Princeps. O xford: Clarendon Press. Zanker, Paul. 1988. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus, translated by A . Shapiro. A nn Arbor: The U niversity o f M id iig a n Press. Z o rzetti, N . 1992. "The Carmina Convivalia." In O . M u rray, ed., Sympotica: A Symposium on the Symposion, 289-307. O xford: O xford U niversity Press. 1991. "Poetry and the Ancient C ity: The Case o f Rome." Classical Journal 86: 311-329. 430 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

She's nothing: Gender and representation in Catullus and elegy

PDF

Women and the unspeakable: Rape in Ovid's "Metamorphoses"

PDF

Religion and politics in Aristophanes' "Clouds"

PDF

Forma orbis: Geography, ethnography and shaping the Roman Empire

PDF

Diana on Roman coins

PDF

Sophocles' "Elektra" and "Philoktetes": Knowledge, plot, and self-reference

PDF

Reflexive politics: Cicero's relationship with the Roman voters

PDF

The translation of tragedy into imperial Rome: A study of Seneca's "Hercules" and "Oedipus"

PDF

Countercultural responses to the crisis of masculinity in late republican Rome

PDF

The liberal muse: Juvenal's sexual persona and the purpose of satire

PDF

The legislation of Lucius Appuleius Saturninus and Gaius Servilius Glaucia

PDF

Reading Martial's Rome

PDF

New American fiction and the aesthetics of Camus and Robbe-Grillet

PDF

Paiderastia in Sophocles' "Philoctetes"

PDF

On the nature of particles in Japanese and its theoretical implications

PDF

Syntactic structures in nominals: A comparative study of Spanish and Southern Quechua

PDF

Roman Jakobson's poetic function of language: The historic theory of equivalence projections from the axis of selection into the axis of combination.

PDF

Jacques Prevert: Poetic elements in his scripts and cinematic elements in his poetry

PDF

Representation of focus and presupposition in Japanese

PDF

The phonemics and morphology of Hokkaido Ainu

Asset Metadata

Creator Fear, Trevor Marc (author)

Core Title Love's economy: Aesthetics, exchange and youthful poetics in Roman elegy

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Classics

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag History, ancient,literature, classical,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c17-558530

Unique identifier UC11354301

Identifier 9955494.pdf (filename),usctheses-c17-558530 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 9955494.pdf

Dmrecord 558530

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Fear, Trevor Marc

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA