Pindar, Virgil, and the Proem to "Georgic" 3

Bibliographic Data

ID3938443
AuthorsRyan K Balot (0000-0001-5900-1639, corresponding author)
Year1998
Volume52
Issue1/2
Pages83
Publication date1998-01-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenuePhoenix (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0031-8299 • E-ISSN: 1929-4883
PublisherJSTOR (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.2307/1088246
OpenAlexW2334259017
LanguageEN
Citations received6
References cited12

THIS PAPER ARGUES that certain prominent features of the proem to Georgic 3 owe a direct debt to Pindar and are thematically and stylistically distinct from the epinician poetry of Callimachus.1 In 1969, L. P. Wilkinson made the case for Pindaric influence in the proem, but since then Richard Thomas and others have advanced powerful arguments, based on newly discovered Callimachean papyri, to the effect that the proem is colored throughout by allusions to Hellenistic poetics.2 These studies mark an advance in our understanding of the proem, but the pendulum has swung too far; scholarly attention to the passage's Callimachean refinement and Hellenistic allusions has begun to obscure the equally important mood of Pindaric triumphalism which characterizes it.3 The matter is undoubtedly one of critical emphasis. It is a well-established principle of Virgilian scholarship that, even in short passages, Virgil can allude at once to two, or sometimes three, other authors.4 As a result, while acknowledging the significance of a Callimachean presence in the proem, I shall argue that Pindar has been undervalued in recent years and that our understanding of the proem can be considerably enriched if we pay closer attention to its Pindaric overtones. Two general points should be made before turning to the proem itself. First, it is wrong to draw too sharp a contrast between Pindar and Callimachus, since we know that Callimachus himself was indebted to Pindar. Several recent studies have detailed Pindar's thematic and stylistic influence on Callimachus, and, given Pindar's own allusiveness, selectivity, and refinement, a connection between these poets should come as no surprise.5 It is possible that some allusions that appear I would like to thank Stephen Harrison and Elaine Fantham, as well as the editor and anonymous referees of Phoenix, for their comments and suggestions. The interpretation I propose thus develops the arguments of Wilkinson 1969 and Wilkinson 1970; cf. also Lundstrom 1976; Buchheit 1972; and now Instone 1996: 24, suggesting that Virgil uses victory-ode topoi in order to compose an elaborate recusatio. As Wilkinson argues, it is very likely that Virgil knew Pindar, since Horace's own lyric poetry gives evidence of multiple debts to Pindar; on Horace's use of Pindar, see Highbarger 1935; Wilkinson 1951; Wilkinson 1970; and recently Harrison 1990: 31-43 and Harrison 1995: 110-115. 2See especially Thomas 1988; Thomas 1983: 92-113; Thomas 1986a: 61-73; Perkell 1989: 61-63; Cameron 1995: 480-481

Art · Classical Antiquity Studies · Historical, Religious, and Philosophical Studies · Organic Chemistry Synthesis Methods

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub