Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2013
It is often said that amicitia, so prominent in the love poetry of Catullus, plays a negligible role in the elegies of Propertius, Tibullus and Ovid: the elegists avoid the vocabulary of amicitia and prefer to describe the relationships with their beloveds in terms of militia and seruitium amoris. In this paper, however, I shall show that this is mistaken. While the elegists do not use the vocabulary of amicitia systematically, they clearly do continue to appeal to its protocols and moral code – Ovid above all. It will be seen that Catullus and the elegists share the use of the ideology of amicitia to pressurize their beloveds to accept or make a return on the benefacta which they as lovers bestow.
2. See Ross, D. O., Style and tradition in Catullus (1969) 92–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Lyne, R. O. A. M., The Latin love poets from Catullus to Horace (1980) 80Google Scholar, Fedeli, P., Sesto Properzio: il primo libro delle elegie (1980) on Prop. 1.22.2Google Scholar; also Lilja, S., The Roman elegists' attitude to women (1965) 69–76, 212–16Google Scholar.
3. See e.g. Reitzenstein, R., Zur Sprache der lateinischen Erotik (Sitz.-Ber. Akad. Heidelberg, 12 Abh., 1912) 9–36Google Scholar, Ross (n. 2) 80–95, Lyne (n. 2) 24–41, Newman, J. K., Roman Catullus (1990) 318–42Google Scholar, Vinson, M., ‘Party politics and the language of love in the Lesbia poems of Catullus’, in Deroux, C. (ed.), Studies in Latin literature and Roman history 6 (1992) 163–80 (Coll. Latomus 217)Google Scholar.
4. On this vocabulary, see Saller, R. P., Personal patronage under the early Roman empire (1982) 11–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5. As has recently been hinted by Newman (n. 3) 330, 332. See more generally Newman 325–32 for a refreshingly critical view of Catullus' manipulation of the values of amicitia.
6. A point emphasized by Lyne (n. 2) 24–5.
7. Cf. e.g. poems 9, 14, 96, 100, 102 and see Newman (n. 3) 318–19.
8. The poems usually cited in this connection are (e.g.) Prop. 2.9 and 3.20 (on whose problems see Reitzenstein (n. 3) 12–15).
9. Cf. fides and cognates (e.g. Prop. 2.26.27, Tib. 1.5.63, Ov. Am. 1.3.13); iniuria (e.g. Prop. 2.16.31, 4.8.27, Ov. Ars 3.597); gratia and cognates (e.g. Prop. 2.20.26, Ov. Am. 1.10.43, 2.8.23) etc.
10. See Brunt, P. A., The fall of the Roman republic and other essays (1988) 351–61Google Scholar = ‘Amicitia in the late Roman Republic’, PCPS 191 (1965) 1–8Google Scholar.
11. See Saller (n. 4) 11–15, 24–8, idem, ‘Martial on patronage and literature’, CQ 33 (1983) 246–57; also Hands, A. R., Charities and social aid in Greece and Rome (1968) 33–5Google Scholar, Garnsey, P. and Saller, R. P., The Roman empire (1987) 148–59Google Scholar. For ideas on reciprocity in modern British friendship, see Allan, G., Friendship: developing a sociological perspective (1989) 20–4Google Scholar.
12. Catullus 110 (to Aufillena) is one poem where we are made to sense a gap between poet and beloved – in a rather different sense. Here Catullus anticipates the elegist's strategy of trying to coerce the beloved by assimilating her to a meretrix.
13. Alfonsi, L., ‘L'amore-amicizia negli elegiaci Latini’, Aevum 19 (1945) 372–8Google Scholar, attempted to trace in elegy the reappearance of the ideals of Cicero's Laelius de amicitia. What rendered the attempt unconvincing is the fact that the Ciceronian ideals apply mostly to relationships between status-equals.
14. For the principle that gifts should be in accordance with the means and resources of the giver, cf. Sen. Ben. 1.8.1, 2.15.3. According to Horace, this principle helped eliminate competitive strife among the amici of Maecenas; cf. Sat. 1.9.50–2. ‘nil mi officit’ inquam, | ‘ditior hic aut est quia doctior; est locus uni | cuique suus.’ At first it looks as if Ovid is also recommending this principle in order to eliminate strife among the puella's lovers. It is clear by the end of 529–52, however, that the poet considers his character and gift superior to those of other lovers.
15. Cf. Ars. 3.461–2 si bene prominent, totidem promittite uerbis; | si dederint, et uos gaudia pacta date.
16. For these as some of the defining characteristics of amicitia between non-equals, see Saller (n. 4) 1.
17. Cf. Quint. Inst. 12.7.12, also Cic. Off. 2.66, [Q. Cic] Comm. Pet. 19–24, and see Saller (n. 4) 15–17, 29, 123–25, 130, idem (n. 11) 253. On officia generally, and the obligations and bonds they create, see Dixon, S., ‘The meaning of gift and debt in the Roman elite’, EMC 12 (1993) 451–64Google Scholar.
18. For the financial liberality of the wealthy man (Ars 3.531a) and the services of the jurisconsult (Ars 3.531b) also regarded as officia between amici, cf. Cic. Off. 2.61–5. That women did appear as plaintiffs and defendants in Roman courts lends a semblance of plausibility to Ovid's proposal here; see Marshall, A. J., ‘Ladies at law: the role of women in the Roman civil courts’ in Deroux, C. (ed.), Studies in Latin literature and Roman history 5 (1989) 35–54Google Scholar (Coll. Latomus 206), idem, ‘Roman ladies on trial: the case of Maesia of Sentinum’, Phoenix 44 (1990) 46–59. For sexual services also referred to as officia, see the commentary of J. C. McKeown on Ov. Am. 1.10.46.
19. In public patrons would be expected to refer respectfully to lowly dependents as amici rather than demeaningly as clientes (see Saller (n. 4) 8–12); clientis here reflects the advocate's private confidence that he is in fact the far superior party in the amicitia relationship with the beloved. As nempe indicates, however, it is really the puella who is in the superior position.
20. See Saller (n. 4) 28–9, 12–24, idem (n. 11); also White, P., ‘Amicitia and the profession of poetry in early imperial Rome’, JRS 68 (1978) 74–92Google Scholar, idem, ‘Positions for poets in early imperial Rome’ in B. K. Gold (ed.), Literary and artistic patronage in ancient Rome (1982) 50–66, idem, Promised verse: poets in the society of Augustan Rome (1993) 13–34.
21. See White (1993, n. 20) 13–14, (with n. 17), 27–34; also idem (1978, n. 20) 78–82, Saller (n. 4) 11–15.
22. For the publicity and entertainment provided by an entourage, see White (1993, n. 20) 22–6, also below section (4) under ‘the lover as travelling companion’ and ‘the lover as escort’.
23. For publicity and fame and their appeal to patrons, see Saller (n. 11) 256–57, White (1978, n. 20) 82–4, idem (1982, n. 20) 59–66, idem (1993, n. 20) 21–2, Williams, G., ‘Phases in political patronage of literature in Rome’, in Gold, (n. 20) 3–27Google Scholar.
24. For the range of material and non-material benefits which the poet, like the lawyer, could expect in return for his services, see Saller (n. 11; more generally idem (n. 4) 122–6); also White (1978, n. 20) 90–2, idem (1993, n. 20) 15–20. For a panegyrical poet (Archias) apparently successful in seeing returns, see Wiseman, T. P., ‘Pete nobiles amicos: poets and patrons in late republican Rome’, in Gold, (n. 20) 31–4Google Scholar and Gold, B. K., Literary patronage in Greece and Rome (1987) 73–86Google Scholar.
25. As Stroh, W., Die romische Liebeselegie als werbende Dichtung (1971) 175–6Google Scholar points out, the offer of immortal fame is rather undermined by the fact that the beloved will be glorified under a pseudonym. Stroh provides an appendix (235–49) on ‘Unsterblichkeit des Besungenen’ in both Greek and Roman poetry.
26. This offer derives some resonance from the fact that it was possible, at least for some women in the upper echelons of Roman and Italian society, to act in a patronal capacity. See Dixon, S., ‘A family business: women's role in patronage and politics at Rome 80–44 B.C.’, Class. & Med. 34 (1983) 91–112Google Scholar, and gold, B. K., ‘The “master mistress” of my passion: the lady as patron in ancient and renaissance literature’ in DeForest, M. (ed.), Woman's power, man's game: essays on classical antiquity in honor of Joy K. King (1993) 281–4 (with the bibliography referred to there)Google Scholar.
27. For these as the qualities of a good amicus, cf. Hor. Sat. 1.6.49–52, 68–71, 128–9. Contrast the amor habendi which ruins Volteius Mena at Hor. Epist. 1.7.85. For the fides of the amicus, cf. Cic. Lael. 64–5, Catull. 30, Hor. Carm. 2.18.9 and see Alfonsi (n. 13) 374–5. For the loyal companionship of the poet see n. 22 above.
28. On moral excellence increasing the value of a gift, cf. Sen. Ben. 1.6.2, 1.8.1. For being certain of the character of a donor, cf. Sen. Ben. 2.18.5. See also Cic. Lael. 62–81, Off. 1.45–6,2.69–71 for the importance of the personal worth of recipients of beneficia. On the dignus amicus in general, see further White (1993, n. 20) 14 with n. 19.
29. The beloved in elegy is often said to prefer a ‘commercial’ relationship or rich lovers; cf. e.g. Tib. 1.9, 2.3.49, Prop. 1.8, 2.16, Ov. Am. 1.10, 3.8; also Tib. 1.5.47–8, Prop. 4.5.47–58, Ov. Am. 1.8.55–68.
30. In this connection, note the contempt conveyed by pretium (551); cf. CIL 4.1860, Add. p. 64 quae pretium dicit, non mea [puella] sed populi est.
31. That the elegists assimilate their beloveds to patrons is emphasized also by White (1993, n. 20) 87–91 and (in the case of Propertius) by Gold (n. 26) 286–91. While some of our basic material and findings are common, our interests and emphases are different.
32. Many of the passages discussed below are analysed by Stroh (n. 25) as examples of ‘indirekte Werbung’, i.e. poems in which the poet promises to immortalize his beloved's name if she will warm to his attention. Stroh however does not connect the theme with the ideology of amicitia. He concentrates on the elegists' attempts to ‘woo’ the beloved with promises of immortality, rather than on their application of ideological pressure.
33. On Tib. 1.4, see further the excellent discussion by Stroh (n. 25) 113–17, 120–2.
34. On Prop. 2.11, see further Stroh (n. 25) 70–4. The kind of agricultural imagery used here is common in contexts of giving, or failing to receive, a reciprocal beneficium. Cf. e.g. Cic. Off. 1.48, Hor. Epist. 1.7.20–1, Sen. Ben. 1.1.2, 2.11.4, 4.9.2, 7.32.
35. Cf. also e.g. 4.7.49–54 where Cynthia connects her long reign in Propertius' poetry with an assurance of her own past fidelity to him. This contrasts with 4.5.53–8 where the lena is adamant that poets do not deserve to see any return on their poetry.
36. On Am. 1.3, 1.10, 2.17 (discussed below), see further Stroh (n. 25) 154–7.
37. A form of exchange relationship is found in Am. 2.8, although here it does not involve poetry. Ovid, in return for his officia (21) in protecting the slave Cypassis, demands her concubitus (22). When she refuses, he calls her ingrata (23), and then sharply reminds her he is in effect her dominus (24). With a slave the lover feels that he is in control, and can blatantly demand an ‘exchange of services’ without much negotiation. (Cf. the well-known assertion attributed to the declaimer Haterius in Sen. Contr. 4 praef. 10 ‘inpudicitia in ingenuo crimen est, in servo necessitas, in liberto offtcium’.) This throws into relief the usual situation with the beloved. There the lover is not in a position of absolute strength, and must pin his hopes on using the ideology of amicitia to pressurize the beloved.
38. See Dixon (n. 17).
39. Cf. e.g. Mart. 5.36 laudatus nostro quidam, Faustine, libello | dissimulat, quasi nil debeat: inposuit, 12.36, Juv. 7 passim.
40. For this point, made in relation to tradesmen and doctors, cf. Sen. Ben. 4.13.3, 6.14.3–4 (quoted by J. C. McKeown ad loc., who overstresses the legal aspect of the language).
41. On gratia, see further Saller (n. 4) 21.
42. On officium and beneficium, see further Saller (n. 4) 15–21.
43. For the long-lasting obligation created by a beneficium, even after a reciprocal beneficium has been made, cf. Sen. Ben. 2.18.5.
44. For ‘asymmetrical exchange’, see further Saller (n. 4) 16–17.
45. Cf. [Q. Cic] Comm. Pet. 34–8 and see section (4) below.
46. Cf. e.g. Aristotle, , EE 1243a15–1243b40Google Scholar, Sen. Ben. 3.9.3.
47. E.g. in the appeal to gratia (43–6) lies an implicit accusation of ingratia, the worst of all Roman social crimes (cf. Cic. Off. 1.47–8, Sen. Ben. 1.10.4, 2.26ff., 7.31.1).
48. See Zagagi, N., Tradition and originality in Plautus (1980) 118–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
49. For amicitiae inferiores, see Saller (n. 4) 11–12.
50. For more on this theme, cf. e.g. Sen. Ben. 3.9.2–3. and see Yardley, J. C., ‘Sick-visiting in Roman elegy’, Phoenix 27 (1973) 283–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar, idem, ‘Cerinthus' pia cura ([Tibullus] 3.17.1–2)’, CQ 40 (1990) 568–70.
51. For this topos, cf. e.g. Sen. Ben. 3.19.1, 6.25 and see Yardley (1973, n. 50), idem, ‘Catullus 11: the end of a friendship’, SO 56 (1981) 63–9, Labate, M., L'Arte di farsi amare (1984) 215–20Google Scholar.
52. For meritum as a synonym of (the unmetrical) beneficium, see Saller (n. 4) 20–1.
53. For more detail, cf. e.g. Hor. Epist. 1.18.44–54, and see Yardley (1973, n. 50) 287, Labate (n. 51) 203–5.
54. Cf. Cic. Mur. 70 and see further Labate (n. 51) 207–11, also White (1993, n. 20) 88. To this list add ‘legal aid’, which, as we saw earlier, is another classic example of a beneficium between amici. This is, however, not a service which the elegists themselves are able to perform, as they have rejected a career of advocacy (Prop. 4.1.133–4, Ov. Am. 1.15.5–6). Legal aid appears only as a potential service belatedly in the Ars, where the life of love is opened up to all members of society – lawyers included (Ars 1.79–88, 3.531–2).
55. See Ross (n. 2) 91–2.
56. For amicitia in Cat. 11, see Yardley (1981, n. 51).
57. Compare also the elegists' avoidance of Catullus' vocabulary of urbanitas (e.g. facetus, uenustus), despite their concern (particularly in the case of Ovid and Propertius) to appear fashionable. Part of the explanation must be that these terms were rather colloquial.
58. Contrast Catullus 76, where the poet also complains about his beloved's failure to respond to his amor and benefacta with love in return (23). He has no hesitation in employing the vocabulary of amicitia: (of benefacta) omnia quae ingratae perierunt credita menti (9).
59. For this imagery, see n. 34 above.
60. For seruitium, see esp. Lyne, R. O. A. M., ‘Servitium amoris’, CQ 29 (1979) 117–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also Murgatroyd, P., ‘Servitium amoris and the Roman elegists’, Latomus 40 (1981) 589–606Google Scholar.
61. Lyne (n. 60) 129.
62. For seruitium in Catullus, see Lyne (n. 60) 120–1, also Murgatroyd (n. 60) 595–6.
63. For humble amici describing themselves as slaves, cf. further e.g. Juv. 5.127, 161, 172–3, Mart. 2.18, 2.32., 10.56. Amici who acted in a ‘servile’ manner were also likely to find themselves branded ‘slaves’ by others; cf. e.g. Cic. Parad. 39, Hor. Sat. 2.5.99, 2.7.81–2.
64. See Labate (n. 51) 175–226.
65. See Labate (n. 51) 194–211.
66. See Labate (n. 51) 212–19.
67. For this view see Veyne, P., Roman erotic elegy (1988), esp. 85–100Google Scholar.
68. I owe this suggestion to the editors of PCPS.
69. For this stereotype, see Nisbet–Hubbard's commentary on Hor. Carm. 2.4.19.
70. Cf. Cic. Off. 1.45–6, 2.69–71, Sen. Ben. 4.10–11, also 2.18.5. (Cicero and Seneca write from the viewpoint of wealthy benefactors, but this does not affect the point.)
71. See Powell, J., CQ 40 (1990) 199–202 on Catullus 76CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
72. Cf. e.g. Cic. Lael. 71, Sen. Ben. 2.11, 7.25.
73. See n. 24 above.
74. For hostility to women's quasi-patronal status, cf. e.g. Cicero's contemptuous reference to Clodia's muliebris gratia in securing the acquittal of one of her protégés, at Cael. 78. See also the remarks made by Gold (n. 26) 280–1, 287–9.
75. See Saller (n. 4) 37–8.
