Table Of ContentThe Georgics has for more than twenty years been a source of Werce
controversyamongscholarsof Latinliterature.Is theworkoptimisticor
pessimistic,pro-oranti-Augustan?Shouldwereaditasaeulogyorabitter
critiqueofRomeandherimperialambitions?Thisbooksuggeststhatthe
ambiguityof thepoemistheproductofacomplexandthorough-going
engagementwithearlierwritersin the didactictradition:Hesiod,Aratus
and – above all – Lucretius. Drawing on both traditional, philological
approaches to allusion, and modern theories of intertextuality, Monica
Gale shows how the world-views of the earlier poets are subjected to
scrutinyandbroughtintoconXictwitheachother.Detailedconsideration
ofverbalparallelsandofLucretianthemes,imageryandstructuralpatterns
intheGeorgicsformsthebasisforareadingofVirgil’spoemasanextended
meditationontherelationsbetweentheindividualandsociety,thegods
andthenaturalenvironment.
monica galeisaLecturerinClassicsatTrinityCollege,Dublin.Sheis
theauthorofMythandPoetryinLucretius(1994).
XXXXXX
R
VI GIL ON
R
THE NATU E OF
THINGS
The Georgics, Lucretiusand
the Didactic Tradition
Monica R. Gale
TrinityCollege,Dublin
published by the press syndicate of the university of cambridge
ThePittBuilding,TrumpingtonStreet,Cambridge,UnitedKingdom
cambridge university press
TheEdinburghBuilding,Cambridgecb22ru,UK www.cup.cam.ac.uk
40West20thStreet,NewYork,ny10011–4211,USA www.cup.org
10StamfordRoad,Oakleigh,Melbourne3166,Australia
RuizdeAlarco´n13,28014Madrid,Spain
©MonicaR.Gale2000
Thisbookisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexception
andtotheprovisionsofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements,
noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplacewithout
thewrittenpermissionofCambridgeUniversityPress
Firstpublished2000
PrintedintheUnitedKingdomattheUniversityPress,Cambridge
TypesetinBembo11/13pt[vn]
AcataloguerecordofthisbookisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary
LibraryofCongressCataloguinginPublicationdata
Gale,Monica.
Virgilonthenatureofthings:theGeorgics,Lucretius,andthedidactictradition/
MonicaR.Gale.
p. cm.
Includesbibliographicalreferences(p. )andindex.
isbn0521781116(hardback)
1.Virgil.Georgica. 2.Didacticpoetry,Latin–Historyandcriticism. 3.Lucretius
Carus,Titus.Dererumnatura. 4.LucretiusCarus,Titus–InXuence.
5.Philosophy,Ancient,inliterature. 6.Virgil–Knowledge–Literature.
7.Rome–Inliterature. 8.Virgil–Philosophy. 9.Intertextuality. 10.Allusion.
i.Title
PA6804.G4G352000
871'.01–dc21 99-462247
isbn0521781116
formyparents
quipotueruntrerumcognoscerecausas
Iamwaryofthewordspessimismandoptimism.
Anoveldoesnotassertanything;anovel
searchesandposesquestions.
milan kundera
CONTENTS
Preface ix
Listofabbreviations xiii
1 Introduction:inXuence,allusion,intertextuality 1
2 Beginningsandendings 18
3 Thegods,thefarmerandthenaturalworld 58
4 Virgil’smetamorphoses:mythologicalallusions 113
5 Laborimprobus 143
6 Thewondersofthenaturalworld 196
7 ThecosmicbattleWeld:warfareandmilitaryimagery 232
8 Epilogue:thephilosopherandthefarmer 270
Bibliography 275
Indexofpassagescited 288
Generalindex 314
vii
XXXXXX
R
P EFACE
It is now some twenty years since Michael Putnam’s inXuential study,
Virgil’sPoemof the Earth, Wrst put forwardthe view that the Georgics is a
profoundly gloomy work, a view which has dominated scholarly opin-
ion (at least in the English-speaking world) ever since. Putnam himself
speaks of the ‘realism, graphic and largely pessimistic’ with which the
poet depicts the relationship between human beings and the world
around them; the overt, agricultural subject-matter of the poem is, in
his view, ‘one grand trope for life itself’. Other critics have focussed
their attention on the political stance of the poet, or the position he
takes up with respect to the literary debates of his era; but the majority
have followed Putnam in treating the didactic surface of the poem as a
kind of fac¸ade, behind which the poet’s true concerns lie concealed.
There has been a prevailing tendency, too, to privilege certain sections
of the text over others, in the attemptto construct a univocal ‘message’
from the shifting balance between the elements of light and darkness,
panegyric and vituperation, comedy and tragedy, which make up the
Georgicsasawhole.
It is my contention that attempts to explain away the poem’s ambi-
guitiesin thisway are misconceived.Whilethework admitsof eitheran
optimisticorapessimisticreading,itdoesnotenforceeither.Itseemstome
thatwhatMilanKunderasaysofthenovelinmyepigraphcanequallybe
applied to the Georgics: Virgil ‘does not assert anything’, rather he
‘searches and poses questions’. In what follows, I attempt to show how
the poem engages dynamically with the entire didactic tradition. Virgil
subjectsthediverseworld-viewsofhispredecessors(particularlyHesiod,
Aratus and Lucretius) to a searching scrutiny, without attempting to
resolvetheirdiVerencesoreventofavourparticularaspectsofonesystem
or another.Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura is more frequently evoked, and
informs the themes and structure of Virgil’s poem more fully, than any
ix
x preface
other work in the tradition; but that is not to say that the poem is
consistentlyeitherpro-oranti-Epicureaninitsoutlook.
It is also misleading, I think, to describe Virgil’s agricultural subject-
matter as a metaphor or trope. Clearly, it makes no sense to treat the
poemasapracticalhandbook;yetthepoetseemstometobenoless(and
no more) serious about his theme than Hesiod or Lucretius. Just as
Hesiod’s agricultural precepts are thoroughly intermeshed with his ex-
hortations to work and piety, and just as Lucretius’ account of the
physicalworldissimultaneouslyarejectionofsuperstitionandirrational-
ity, so Virgil’s picture of the Italian farmer and his world naturally
broadens out into wider reXexions on philosophical, theological and
political themes. For the Roman reader, the farmer embodied a very
particularsetofideals:honestandunstintingtoil,old-fashionedpiety,the
toughnessand naturaljusticewhich made Romegreat. Naturally,then,
thesethemestooarecentraltoVirgil’spoem.
Thesimplepietytraditionallyassociatedwithrurallifealsoconstitutes
an obvious and immediate point of contact – and conXict – with Luc-
retius.TheDRNhastwoexplicitaims:tofreethereaderfromthefearof
death, and to combat superstition and irrationality. For Lucretius, both
traditional Roman religion and the more sophisticated philosophical
theologiesoftheStoicsandothersfallsquarelyunderthelatterheading.
Hence,thenatureofthegodsandtheirrelationshipwithhumanbeings
and the world as a whole are central both to Virgil’s poem and to my
readingofit(chapters3and4).
My Wrst two chapters set out the groundwork for this interpretation,
looking Wrst at some questions of theory and critical practice, and then
examiningtheframeworkofproemsandWnaleswhich–Isuggest–invite
thereadertoviewthepoemasawholeasaresponsetotheDRN.Chapters
5,6and7considerfurtherareasofengagementbetweenthetwopoems
andtheirdidacticpredecessors.Lucretiuspromisestofreehisreaderfrom
toil(labor)andanxiety,Wrmlyrejectstheideathatanyphenomenoncanbe
attributedtosupernaturalcauses,andportraysserenityandfreedomfrom
conXictasthe ultimategoals of human life.In responseto each of these
propositions,VirgilpointstotensionsinLucretius’useofimageryandhis
rhetorical strategies, and (so to speak) stages a series of confrontations
between Hesiodic, Aratean, Lucretian and traditional Roman ideals.
Chapter5 looks at the theme of labor, which is common to Hesiod and
Lucretius, though handled very diVerently by each; chapter 6 considers
Virgil’s treatment of the marvellous and supernatural; and chapter 7
