Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vsgnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T18:50:56.028Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Virgil's metamorphoses: myth and allusion in the Georgics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2013

Monica Gale
Monica Gale
Affiliation:
Royal Holloway, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas 490

atque metus omnis et inexorabile fatum

subiecit pedibus strepitumque Acherontis auari.

fortunatus et ille deos qui nouit agrestis

Panaque Siluanumque senem Nymphasque sorores. (Geo. 2.490–4)

[Happy is he who has been able to learn the causes of things, and

has trampled underfoot every fear, and unyielding Fate, and the din

of greedy Acheron. Fortunate, too, is he who knows the rustic gods,

Pan and old Silvanus and the sister Nymphs.]

In these famous words, Virgil expresses his ambivalent relationship with his great didactic model, Lucretius. The double makarismos suggests a declaration of allegiance to two incompatible views of the world: the rationalist philosophy of Epicurus and a nostalgic longing for the simple rustic piety which the Romans of the late Republic and early Empire were so fond of attributing to the farmer and the countryman.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society (Second Series) , Volume 41 , 1996 , pp. 36 - 61
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published online by Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Altevogt, H., Labor improbus. Eine Vergilstudie (Münster, 1952).Google Scholar
Boyancé, P., ‘La religion des ‘Géorgiques’ à la lumière des travaux récents’, ANRW 2.31.1 (1980) 549–73.Google Scholar
Buchheit, V., Der Anspruch des Dichters in Vergils Georgika: Dichtertum und Heilsweg (Darmstadt, 1972).Google Scholar
Conte, G. B., The rhetoric of imitation: genre and poetic memory in Virgil and other Latin poets (trans. Segal, C. P., Ithaca and London, 1986).Google Scholar
De Lacy, P. H., ‘Process and value: an Epicurean dilemma’, TAPA 88 (1957) 114–26.Google Scholar
Effe, B., Dichtung und Lehre. Untersuchungen zur Typologie des antiken Lehrgedichts (München, 1977).Google Scholar
Farrell, J., Vergil's Georgics and the traditions of ancient epic: the art of allusion in literary history (New York, 1991).Google Scholar
Farrington, B., ‘Vergil and Lucretius’, AClass (1958) 45–50.Google Scholar
Farrington, B., ‘Polemical allusions to the De Rerum Natura of Lucretius in the works of Vergil’, in Geras: studies presented to G. Thompson (Prague, 1963) 87–94.Google Scholar
Festa, N., Mythographi Graeci vol. 3.2 (Leipzig, 1902).Google Scholar
Frentz, W., Mythologisches in Vergils Georgica (Meisenheim am Glan, 1969).Google Scholar
Gale, M., 'Man and beast in Lucretius and the Georgics’, CQ 41 (1991) 414–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gale, M., Myth and poetry in Lucretius (Cambridge, 1994).Google Scholar
Hardie, P. R., Virgil's Aeneid: cosmos and imperium (Oxford, 1986).Google Scholar
Hardie, P. R., ‘Augustan poets and the mutability of Rome’, in Powell, A. (ed.), Roman poetry and propaganda in the age of Augustus (London, 1992) 57–75.Google Scholar
Härke, G., Studien zur Exkurstechnik im römischen Lehrgedicht (diss. Freiburg im Bresslau, 1936).Google Scholar
Janko, R., The Iliad: A Commentary. Vol. IV: Books 13–16 (Cambridge, 1992).Google Scholar
Jenkyns, R., ‘Labor improbus’, CQ 43 (1993) 243–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jope, J., ‘The didactic unity and emotional import of book 6 of De Rerum Natura’, Phoenix 43 (1989) 16–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klepl, H., Lukrez und Vergil in ihren Lehrgedichten. Vergleichende Interpretationen (Darmstadt, 1967).Google Scholar
Klingner, F., Vergils Georgica (Zürich, 1967).Google Scholar
Liebeschuetz, W., ‘Beast and man in the third book of Virgil's Georgics’, G&R 12 (1965) 68–72.Google Scholar
Lyne, R. O. A. M., ‘Scilicet et tempus veniet…: Virgil, Georgics 1.463–514’, in Woodman, T. and West, D. (eds.), Quality and pleasure in Latin poetry (Cambridge, 1974) 47–66.Google Scholar
Lyne, R. O. A. M., [Review of Mynors], JRS 83 (1993) 203–6.Google Scholar
Miles, G. B., ‘Georgics 3.209–94: amor and civilization’, CSCA 8 (1975) 177–97.Google Scholar
Miles, G. B., Virgil's Georgics: a new interpretation (Berkeley, 1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minadeo, R., ‘The formal design of the De Rerum Natura’, Arion 4 (1965) 444–61.Google Scholar
Minadeo, R., The lyre of science: form and meaning in Lucretius' De rerum natura (Detroit, 1969).Google Scholar
Mynors, R. A. B., Virgil: Georgics (Oxford, 1990).Google Scholar
Nethercut, W. R., ‘Vergil's De Rerum Natura’, Ramus 2 (1973) 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novara, A., ‘La physica philosophia et le bonheur d'après Virgile, Géorg., II, v. 490–492’, REL 60 (1982) 234–47.Google Scholar
Otis, B., Virgil: a study in civilized poetry (Oxford, 1964).Google Scholar
Perkell, C. J., The poet's truth: a study of the poet in the Georgics (Berkeley, 1989).Google Scholar
Pöschl, V., The Art of Vergil: Image and Symbol in the Aeneid (trans. Seligson, G., Ann Arbor, 1962).Google Scholar
Possanza, M., ‘The text of Lucretius 2.1174’, CQ 40 (1990) 459–64.Google Scholar
Putnam, M. C. J., Virgil's poem of the earth: studies in the Georgics (Princeton, 1979).Google Scholar
Reckford, K. J., ‘Latent tragedy in Aeneid 7.1–285’, AJP 82 (1961) 252–69.Google Scholar
Ross, D. O., Virgil's elements: physics and poetry in the Georgics (Princeton, 1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiesaro, A., Simulacrum et imago. Gli argomenti analogici nel De rerum natura (Pisa, 1990).Google Scholar
Schrijvers, P. H., Horror ac divina voluptas: Études sur la poétique et la poésie de Lucrèce (Amsterdam, 1970).Google Scholar
Ramos, B. Segura, ‘Ad Lucr. d.r.n. II 1173–4’, Faventia 4 (1982) 97–9.Google Scholar
Skutsch, O., The Annals of Q. Ennius (Oxford, 1955).Google Scholar
Stehle, E. M., ‘Virgil's Georgics: the threat of sloth’, TAPA 104 (1974) 347–69.Google Scholar
Taylor, M., ‘Primitivism in Virgil’, AJP 76 (1955) 261–78.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. F., ‘Virgil's Georgics and the art of reference’, HSCPh 90 (1986) 171–98.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. F., Virgil: Georgics (Cambridge, 1988).Google Scholar
Vian, F., ‘La guerre des Géants devant les penseurs de l'antiquité’, REG 65 (1952) 1–39.Google Scholar
Wardy, R., ‘Lucretius on what atoms are not’, CPh 83 (1988) 112–28.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, L. P., ‘Virgil's theodicy’, CQ 13 (1963) 75–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, L. P., The Georgics of Virgil: a critical survey (Cambridge, 1969).Google Scholar