Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-jwnkl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T18:25:03.680Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Didactic Tradition in Vergil's Georgics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2014

Gretchen Kromer
Gretchen Kromer*
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Get access

Extract

In a recent book L. P. Wilkinson has said, ‘The chief obstacle to appreciation of the Georgics has been its ostensible genre: it was deceptive and has abundantly deceived. This is no more a didactic poem than Ovid's Ars Amatoria: it simply masquerades as such.’ Throughout the Georgics, however, Vergil explicitly identifies his work as a didactic poem, both by use of didactic convention and through many specific references to the works of earlier didactic poets. Why, then, does Wilkinson reject Vergil's own definition of his work? What is it that makes readers of the Georgics so reluctant to classify it as a didactic poem? Part of the problem, I believe, has to do with the genre itself. Since this literary type is not popular with modern readers, its methods and objectives are not well understood. I will therefore begin this essay with a discussion of didactic convention and of the assumptions that underlie its use. The linguistic structure of didactic poetry provides the poet with an unusual degree of authority and autonomy but it also involves him in certain difficulties. The seriousness of these difficulties is already apparent in Lucretius' De Rerum Natura, a work which profoundly influenced Vergil's development as a poet. In the second part of the paper I will examine Vergil's use of didactic language in the Georgics, placing particular emphasis on the poet's narrative or rhetorical stance. There I hope to show that Vergil makes new demands on this literary genre, for he uses didactic convention as a means for examining and calling into question the fundamental assumptions on which all didactic poetry is based.

Type
Research Article
Information
Ramus , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , 1979 , pp. 7 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © Aureal Publications 1979

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

1. Wilkinson, L. P., The Georgics of Virgil: A Critical Survey (Cambridge 1969), 3Google Scholar.

2. This definition excludes a number of works that are generally classified as didactic poems. In this essay, however, I am primarily concerned with analyzing a particular set of literary conventions and have chosen to deal with works in which they are most explicitly employed.

3. In antiquity the didactic poet was apparently not expected to have technical expertise except in the writing of poetry. Cicero (De Or. 1.69) describes Aratus as hominem ignarum astrologiae (‘a man ignorant of astrology’) and says that Nicander of Colophon poetica quadcrm facilitate, non rustica, scripsisse praeclare (‘wrote excellently because of a poetic not a rustic talent’).

4. Wilkinson (n. 1 above), 268–69. Although many ancient writers believed in spontaneous generation, it is hard to imagine that any beekeeper, however primitive, would have had confidence in the efficacy of the bougonia. It seems likely that the bougonia appealed to Vergil and other ancient writers because of its usefulness as a symbol.

5. The De Return Natura is intended not only to describe the universe but also, in some respects, to represent it. On Lucretius’ ‘atomology’ see Friedlänider, P., ‘Pattern of Sound and Atomistic Theory in Lucretius,’ AJP 62 (1941), 16–34Google Scholar. On the relationship between poetic language and philosophical doctrine, see Amory, A., ‘Obscura de re lucida carmina: Science and poetry in De Rerum Natura’ YCS 21 (1969), 143–68Google Scholar.

6. Osterud, Svein, ‘The Individuality of Hesiod,’ Hermes 104 (1976), 13–29Google Scholar. A number of Osterud’s comments on Hesiod are applicable to didactic poetry in general.

7. Amory (n. 5 above), 151, speaks of Lucretius’ use of ‘sleeve-plucking words’ such as nunc age, ‘come now,’ and percipe, ‘learn.’

8. Osterud, 17.

9. On the relationship between Lucretius and Memmius, see Farringtom, B., ‘Form and Purpose in the De Rerum Natura,’ in Dudley, D. R., ed., Lucretius (New York 1965), 19–34Google Scholar. From what is known of his life, Memmius seems singularly unsuitable as a potential convert to Epicureanism.

10. The contradictions involved in Lucretius’ philosophical position are eloquently discussed by Santayana, G., ‘Lucretius,’ in Three Philosophical Poets (New York 1952), 25–67Google Scholar. These contradictions may, however, have their basis in Epicureanism itself. See De Lacey, P., ‘Process and Value: An Epicurean Dilemma,’ TAP A 88 (1957), 114–26Google Scholar.

11. Williams, G., Tradition and Originality in Roman Poetry (Oxford 1968), 257Google Scholar: ‘Vergil has worked out a perfect technique for giving life to didactic poetry by realizing the poet-teacher relationship: he gives prominence to his own personality by referring every now and again to his own observation and experience, but he intertwines this with addresses to the reader in appeal, exhortation, etc’

12. From the point of view of the writer didactic poetry provides almost unlimited opportunity for experimentation with various types of style and subject matter. On this aspect of didactic poetry as it affects writers of English georgic poetry, see Chalker, J., The English Georgic (London 1969), 13Google Scholar, et passim.

13. Gagarin, M., ‘Dikē in the Works and Days’, CP 68 (1973), 81–94Google Scholar, Osterud (n. 6 above), 23ff.

14. For a discussion of the Golden Age in relation to the Eclogues see Leach, E. W., Vergil’s Eclogues: Landscapes of Experience (Ithaca 1974), 25–69Google Scholar, et passim.

15. On Lucretius’ account of the development of human society see Konstan, D., Some Aspects of Epicurean Psychology (Leiden 1973), 35ffGoogle Scholar.

16. Lucretius repeatedly compares intellectual achievements with physical exploits, as in the proem to the fifth book of the De Rerum Natura where the accomplishments of Epicurus are shown to be superior to the labors of Hercules. See Buchheit, V., ‘Epikurs Triumph des Geistes (Lucr. 1.62–79),’ Hermes 99 (1971), 303–23Google Scholar.

17. The Theodicy and the theme of labor and sloth are discussed in Stehle, E. M., ‘Virgil’s Georgics: The Threat of Sloth,’ TAP A 104 (1974), 347–69Google Scholar. On ars in the Georgics see Parry, A., ‘The Idea of Art in Vergil’s Georgics,’ Arethusa 5 (1972), 35–52Google Scholar.

18. Klingner, F., Virgil: Bucolica Georgica Aeneis (Stuttgart 1967), 247ffGoogle Scholar. discusses Vergil’s use of military language in relation to vines. Cf. the essay by A. Betensky in the present volume.

19. Jermyn, L. A. S., ‘Weather Signs in Vergil,’ G&R 20 (1951), 26–37Google Scholar, 49–59.

20. For an excellent discussion of the conclusion to Georgia I see Lyne, R. O. A. M., ‘Scilicet et tempus veniet …: Virgil, Georgics 1.463–514,’ in Woodman, T. and West, D., edd., Quality and Pleasure in Latin Poetry (Cambridge 1974), 47–66Google Scholar.

21. This sort of interaction between literal and metaphorical is seen throughout the poem and is one of the most notable features of its language.

22. Nethercut, W. R., ‘Vergil’s De Rerum Natura,’ Ramus 2 (1973), 41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23. In some passages of the De Rerum Natura Lucretius describes Epicurus in the language of Hellenistic military-political encomium. See Buchheit (n. 16 above). Vergil reverses the process by applying Lucretian language to Octavian. See especially G.III.lff. and DRN IV.lff.

24. In Georgics I there is a narrowing of focus as various possibilities are excluded one by one. The movement in Georgics II is precisely the reverse, an extending and broadening of outlook. On the various relationships among the four books see Otis, B., Virgil: A Study in Civilized Poetry (Oxford 1964), 148ffGoogle Scholar. and ‘A New Study of the Georgics,’ Phoenix 26 (1972), 40–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25. Otis (n. 24 above), 163ff.

26. The pessimism of Georgics I is sublimated in Georgics II but not entirely absent. See Putnam, M. C. J., ‘Italian Vergil and the Idea of Rome,’ in Orlin, L. L., ed., Janus: Essays in Ancient and Modern Studies (Ann Arbor 1975), 171–99Google Scholar.

27. Unlike Hesiod, Vergil does not make a distinction between competitiveness and ambition: the intellectual and physical qualities that lead to the production of crpps may also be applied to war.

28. Cf. Parry (n. 17 above).

29. The speech of Nature in DRN 111.931–62 expresses a similar idea.

30. See the valuable discussion of Miles, G. B., ‘Georgics 3.209–294: Amor and Civilization,’ CSCP 3 (1977), 177–197Google Scholar.

31. A shorter version of this paper was delivered at the Georgics Seminar at the Annual Meeting of the American Philological Association in December of 1977. I am grateful to the other participants in the seminar, A. Betensky, G. B. Miles, and D. W. Wender, and to the editor of this volume, A. J. Boyle, for their many helpful comments. I have also made use of suggestions from my colleagues in the Classical Studies Department at Indiana University.