NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS

Swords at Carthage Author(s): D. R. Bradley Source: Classical Philology, Vol. 53, No. 4 (Oct., 1958), pp. 234-236 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/265779 Accessed: 14/01/2010 02:18 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Classical Philology. http://www.jstor.org NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS SWORDS AT CARTHAGE Professor R. G. Austin, in his edition of Aeneid 4 (Oxford, 1955),1 criticizes in his note to 647 the "mere pedantry" of those who are "concerned about the occasion of the gift, or whether it was the same sword as that mentioned in 507." It is with reluctance that one dissents from the view of one who, in this edition as in his pub- lished lecture, The Fourth Book of the Aeneid (Oxford, 1951),2 has brought such sympathetic understanding to his treat- ment of this part of Virgil's poem, but it must be stressed that the question of the swords in Aeneid 4 transcends pedantry and involves appreciation of Virgil's craft. There are in Aeneid 4 two references to a sword (507 and 646), and one more general reference to weapons (495), which belong to the same context. These refer- ences are connected by Aistin, who says (Aen., ad 495): "By arma Dido seems to mean the sword mentioned in 507 and 646, presumably a present that she had had from Aeneas, and which she kept in her room." Virgil, however, provides a plainer link than appears to have been so far admitted, inasmuch as the sword in question is in each of the three passages associated with the same objects: the exuuiae are mentioned at 496, 507, and 651,3 and the bed at 496 (lectum iugalem), at 508 (toro), and at 648 (notum cubile). The repeated reference to objects so closely associated in Virgil's poem (as they are in Dido's mind) leaves no place for doubt that arma points first and foremost to the sword,4 and that in each of these passages it is a question of the same sword. The sword in these passages is a Trojan sword, one which had passed from the possession of Aeneas to that of Dido; as Austin says with less hesitation in his Fourth Book (p. 18), "it had been Aeneas' gift." The expression employed by Virgil at 647, non hos quaesitum munus in usus, admits of no other view. The element of reluctance in the comment (ad 495) of Pease, in his edition of Aeneid 4 (Cam- bridge, Mass., 1935), appears to owe something to the view of editors who find the expression at 647 inconsistent with that at 507, ensemque relictum (cf. Pease, ad 647). An argument against the view that different swords are involved has been given in the preceding paragraph. It may be added that the use of relictum (507; cf. reliquit, 495) need not imply that the sword was not a gift. Two explanations are possible: first, quae fixa reliquit impius (part of the idea contained in which ex- pression recurs at 507 for purposes of identification) could point to a time earlier than the departure of Aeneas for the ships: the sense would then be "which he nailed up and left (to hang) in my chamber in the days when he was not mastered by his sense of duty": a suggestion of this appears already in Austin (Aen., ad 496). Secondly, all that need be implied is that the sword, which may have been "a pledge of love" (Pease, ad 647) or may have had some other significance, has not been removed by Aeneas. This is for Dido the important fact: Aeneas' gift has not been withdrawn from her possession; it is in her power for whatever use she will make of it. The implication, if it be recognized that the sword has any symbolic value, may even be that, at the point in the narrative where the word occurs, Dido has formed the impression that, because the sword has not yet been reclaimed, Aeneas will return from the ships. The second explanation is perhaps awkward, and may attribute to Dido sentiments which she does not at this point have, but the first is unob- 234 NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS jectionable; even without these expla- nations, however, there is-no real incon- sistency involved. The interpretation of quaesitum as "procured," which involves identification of the sword at 646 with that at 262, given by Dido to Aeneas5 (cf. Pease, ad 647), robs the epithet Dardanium of the point which its emphatic position must give it. It is, furthermore, question- able whether "the death of Dido by her own gift" (Pease, loc. cit.) could have been made more effective than is the role which is assigned by Virgil to that gift. For, though it has been recognized that the use to which Dido puts the sword given to her by Aeneas is full of irony,6 it does not appear to have been recognized that there is an even greater element of irony attaching to another sword. This sword is first mentioned at 261-62, in the passage where Mercury discovers Aeneas fundantem arces ac tecta nouantem. This sword is introduced in a context which strongly suggests that it was a gift from Dido, and its ornateness, stellatus iaspide fulua, supports this suggestion. Austin appears to accept that this sword is a gift;7 Pease (ad 261) admits the proba- bility that it is "a present from Dido in exchange for one given by him to her," adding a reference to 647. His assumption that an exchange has taken place is likely to be the correct explanation. The sug- gestions made by Servius and others8 have something to recommend them, but they neglect the salient fact that Aeneas' Trojan sword hangs in Dido's chamber: the Tyrian sword he here wears is most probably one given to him by Dido on the occasion of his gift to her, which quaesitum of 647 suggests was made at her prompting. These lines serve then to illuminate the circumstances in which the later sword was given, and they are not the "rather infelicitous parenthesis" that Mackail (cited by Austin, Aen., ad 260) sees in them; that they are, indeed, an important part of the narrative is revealed on further consideration of the sword which Aeneas received from Dido. The other passage which introduces a sword occurs at 571 if.; here is narrated the sequel to the dream in which Aeneas sees a vision of Mercury, and at the end of Aeneas' speech occur the following lines (579-80): dixit uaginaque eripit ensem/ fulmineum, strictoque ferit retinacula ferro. Neither Pease nor Austin betrays any interest in this sword. Yet the fact that reference has been made on two previous occasions to the sword left by Aeneas in Dido's chamber should inspire the careful reader to ask what sword this is. As it is unlikely that, in a book whose composition reveals the greatest skill, Virgil is to be convicted of carelessness, it must be as- sumed that this sword is the one to which reference has already been made, at 261- 62. The identification is aided by the fact that Mercury is present in the earlier passage, while 579-80 are not far re- moved from the account of the vision of Mercury: the later passage cannot but recall the earlier one. That Virgil could expect a lively awareness in his audience is suggested by the way in which he forges links elsewhere. Austin (Fourth Book, p. 19) calls attention to the way in which infixum stridit sub pectore uolnus (689) echoes taciturn uiuit sub pectore uolnus (67).9 There is, it is true, no verbal echo of 261-62 at 579-80; nevertheless the simi- larity of context is in favor of the as- sumption that the sword which Aeneas uses to sever the rope is the sword which Dido gave to him.10 If there is melancholy in the final use of the sword which Aeneas gave to Dido, there is a rarer poignancy in the use to which he puts her gift to him; its unforeseen employment as the in- strument which sets in motion his flight from Carthage is the counterpart and cause of the equally unforeseen use to which she puts his gift to her. Mention of a disastrous exchange of gifts is, indeed, made by Servius, ad 496: "hoc autem tractum est de Homero, qui dicit gladium Aiaci datum ab Hectore et Hectori ab Aiace balteum, quae eis exitio fuerunt: nam alter tractus est balteo, alter se donato telo interemit."'l If the episode to which Servius refers was the 235 NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS genesis of the pattern which Virgil has woven, it must be recognized that Virgil has here introduced a refinement, since both the one gift and the other lead ultimately to the same death. That this is conscious art on the part of Virgil is more than probable: as Professor Austin says (Fourth. Book, p. 21), "the tale of Dido was clearly planned with as much insight and deliberate thought as ever went to the making of a cardinal part of any masterpiece. " The "deliberate thought" may have played a larger part than has been sup- posed in the selection of vocabulary. If it is too fanciful to suppose that retinacula N( 1. Subsequently referred to as Aen. 2. Subsequently referred to as Fourth Book. 3. Cf. also 648: Iliacas uestis. 4. The comment of Schol. Dan. deserves attention: "ideo generaliter 'arma' nominauit ne mentione solius gladii consilium proderetur." 5. Cf. below. 6. Cf. Serv. ad 647: uertitur munus in perniciem; Henry, Aeneidea, II, 825. 7. Cf. Aen., ad 260: "an Aeneas with a jewelled sword and purple cloak, a Tyrian Aeneas, dressed out in magnifi- cence by Dido." A similar description appears in his Fourth Book, p. 9. genesis of the pattern which Virgil has woven, it must be recognized that Virgil has here introduced a refinement, since both the one gift and the other lead ultimately to the same death. That this is conscious art on the part of Virgil is more than probable: as Professor Austin says (Fourth. Book, p. 21), "the tale of Dido was clearly planned with as much insight and deliberate thought as ever went to the making of a cardinal part of any masterpiece. " The "deliberate thought" may have played a larger part than has been sup- posed in the selection of vocabulary. If it is too fanciful to suppose that retinacula N( 1. Subsequently referred to as Aen. 2. Subsequently referred to as Fourth Book. 3. Cf. also 648: Iliacas uestis. 4. The comment of Schol. Dan. deserves attention: "ideo generaliter 'arma' nominauit ne mentione solius gladii consilium proderetur." 5. Cf. below. 6. Cf. Serv. ad 647: uertitur munus in perniciem; Henry, Aeneidea, II, 825. 7. Cf. Aen., ad 260: "an Aeneas with a jewelled sword and purple cloak, a Tyrian Aeneas, dressed out in magnifi- cence by Dido." A similar description appears in his Fourth Book, p. 9. is intended to suggest the force of retinere in the context of the relationship between Dido and Aeneas, it may be less so to see in fulmineum a reference to the irrevocable nature and destructive power of the ordinances of Jupiter, the Father who corusca fulmina molitur dextra and at whose bidding Aeneas makes his depar- ture.12 If this interpretation prove ac- ceptable, it may well be that Virgil's language deserves closer examination than it has sometimes received. D. R. BRADLEY UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER OTES 8. Serv. ad 262: "multi iaspidem uolunt ad gratiam pertinere"; the Schol. Dan. add "alii ad salutis custodiam plurimum posse," and "sane bene describit luxuriantis ensem." 9. He also (p. 7, n. 2) relates 1. 498 and 4. 147, a harder instance. An easier example is the echo of certus eundi (554) in certa mori (564). 10. The circumstance that Aeneas personally performs this act, on which Pease remarks, ad 580, in this way takes on a new significance. 11. Cf. also n. 6. 12. Pease, ad 580, mentions the notion of irresistibility. is intended to suggest the force of retinere in the context of the relationship between Dido and Aeneas, it may be less so to see in fulmineum a reference to the irrevocable nature and destructive power of the ordinances of Jupiter, the Father who corusca fulmina molitur dextra and at whose bidding Aeneas makes his depar- ture.12 If this interpretation prove ac- ceptable, it may well be that Virgil's language deserves closer examination than it has sometimes received. D. R. BRADLEY UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER OTES 8. Serv. ad 262: "multi iaspidem uolunt ad gratiam pertinere"; the Schol. Dan. add "alii ad salutis custodiam plurimum posse," and "sane bene describit luxuriantis ensem." 9. He also (p. 7, n. 2) relates 1. 498 and 4. 147, a harder instance. An easier example is the echo of certus eundi (554) in certa mori (564). 10. The circumstance that Aeneas personally performs this act, on which Pease remarks, ad 580, in this way takes on a new significance. 11. Cf. also n. 6. 12. Pease, ad 580, mentions the notion of irresistibility. NOTES ON JUVENAL NOTES ON JUVENAL Si natura negat, facit indignatio versum qualemcumque potest, quales ego vel Clu- vienus. ex quo Deucalion nimbis tollentibus aequor navigio montem ascendit sortesque poposcit paulatimque anima caluerunt mollia saxa et maribus nudas ostendit Pyrrha puellas, quidquid agunt homines, votum, timor, ira, voluptas, gaudia, discursus, nostri farrago libelli est. et quando uberior vitiorum copia ? [1. 79-87]. Who was Cluvienus ? A mediocre poet, we are told, living about the time of Juvenal, unknown except for this passage and glosses or references apparently de- rived from it. The mediocrity of his verses is inferred from qualemcumque potest; with all due allowance for Juvenal's as- sumed humility, they were not necessarily so very bad. Qualiscumque is rather dep- recatory than depreciative. This point must be stressed: the lungs of critics are Si natura negat, facit indignatio versum qualemcumque potest, quales ego vel Clu- vienus. ex quo Deucalion nimbis tollentibus aequor navigio montem ascendit sortesque poposcit paulatimque anima caluerunt mollia saxa et maribus nudas ostendit Pyrrha puellas, quidquid agunt homines, votum, timor, ira, voluptas, gaudia, discursus, nostri farrago libelli est. et quando uberior vitiorum copia ? [1. 79-87]. Who was Cluvienus ? A mediocre poet, we are told, living about the time of Juvenal, unknown except for this passage and glosses or references apparently de- rived from it. The mediocrity of his verses is inferred from qualemcumque potest; with all due allowance for Juvenal's as- sumed humility, they were not necessarily so very bad. Qualiscumque is rather dep- recatory than depreciative. This point must be stressed: the lungs of critics are full of old grandmothers when they come to deal with these lines. We have for comparison two well-known passages in which the word is applied to literary productions: quare habe tibi quidquid hoc libelli qualecumque, quod, o patrona virgo, plus uno maneat perenne saeclo [Cat. 1. 8-10]. Plotius et Varius, Maecenas Vergiliusque, Valgius, et probet haec Octavius, optimus atque Fuscus, et haec utinam Viscorum laudet uterque. ambitione relegata te dicere possum, Pollio, te, Messalla, tuo cum fratre, simulque vos, Bibule et Servi, simul his te, candide Furni, compluris alios, doctos ego quos et amicos prudens praetereo; quibus haec, sint qualia- cumque, adridere velim, doliturus si placeant spe deterius nostra [Hor. Sat. 1. 10. 81-90]. full of old grandmothers when they come to deal with these lines. We have for comparison two well-known passages in which the word is applied to literary productions: quare habe tibi quidquid hoc libelli qualecumque, quod, o patrona virgo, plus uno maneat perenne saeclo [Cat. 1. 8-10]. Plotius et Varius, Maecenas Vergiliusque, Valgius, et probet haec Octavius, optimus atque Fuscus, et haec utinam Viscorum laudet uterque. ambitione relegata te dicere possum, Pollio, te, Messalla, tuo cum fratre, simulque vos, Bibule et Servi, simul his te, candide Furni, compluris alios, doctos ego quos et amicos prudens praetereo; quibus haec, sint qualia- cumque, adridere velim, doliturus si placeant spe deterius nostra [Hor. Sat. 1. 10. 81-90]. 236 236 Article Contents p.234 p.235 p.236 Issue Table of Contents Classical Philology, Vol. 53, No. 4 (Oct., 1958), pp. 217-278 Volume Information [pp.277-278] The Manuscript Tradition of Plutarch Moralia 523C-547F [pp.217-233] Notes and Discussions Swords at Carthage [pp.234-236] Notes on Juvenal [pp.236-240] Notes on Codex V of Cebes' "Tabula" [pp.240-241] Juvenal: Two Possible Examples of Wordplay [pp.241-242] Catullus' "Cum Desiderio Meo" [pp.243-244] Tacitus' Treatment of Antonius Primus [p.244] Plotinus 6. 9. 7 (2. 518. 3ff. Volkmann) [p.245] Addendum to "Imitation' in the Fifth Century," cp, LIII (1958), pp. 73-90 [p.245] Book Reviews untitled [pp.246-251] untitled [pp.251-252] untitled [pp.252-253] untitled [pp.253-255] untitled [pp.255-256] untitled [pp.256-257] untitled [pp.258-260] untitled [pp.260-261] untitled [pp.261-262] untitled [pp.262-263] untitled [pp.263-267] untitled [pp.267-269] untitled [pp.269-272] untitled [pp.272-274] untitled [p.274] Books Received [pp.275-276]