Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T09:26:16.785Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tibullus and the Alexandrians1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2013

A. W. Bulloch
A. W. Bulloch
Affiliation:
King's College, Cambridge
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Horace once described Tibullus, in a letter addressed to the elegiac poet, as ‘silently strolling through the healthy woods, pondering on the problems that matter most’ (Ep. 1. 4. 4–5 taciturn silvas inter reptare salubris ∣ curantem quidquid dignum sapiente bonoque est), and this is a view of Tibullus which underlies, in some form or another, most modern approaches to his poetry. After all, Tibullus is singularly dedicated to his concerns of love and the countryside, expressed with directness and simplicity in a style which is, as Quintilian says (x 1. 93), particularly ‘polished and elegant’ (elegia quoque Graecos provocamus, cuius mihi tersus atque elegans maxime videtur auctor Tibullus).

Of his own activity as a poet, and how he saw himself in relation to other writers, he says very little. At 2. 4. 13 ff., in one of love's despairs, he exclaims:

nec prosunt elegi nec carminis auctor Apollo:

illa cava pretium flagitat usque manu.

ite procul, Musae, si non prodestis amanti:…

ad dominam faciles aditus per carmina quaero:

ite procul, Musae, si nihil ista valent.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society (Second Series) , Volume 19 , 1973, pp. 71 - 89
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published online by Cambridge University Press 1973

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

page 72 note 1 Second edition 1969. The most extensive treatment before Luck of the Alexandrian background is in Schuster, Mauriz, Tibull-Studien (Vienna (1930), 35–56)Google Scholar, which contains some useful remarks about general style but no detailed examination of the relevant Greek material (much of which was not then available); Schuster concludes (p. 56) that Tibullus was not very deeply influenced by the Alexandrian writers.

page 74 note 1 In Entretiens Fondation Hardt VII (1960), 295Google Scholar Solmsen records that a Cornell University seminar found cogency in only one of Luck's ‘echoes’ (1. 7. 27–8 = Call. fr. 383. 16).

page 74 note 2 ‘Ernesti’, ‘Pfeiffer’, ‘Gow’, ‘Smith’, and ‘Achilles Statius’ refer to those editions of Callimachus, Theocritus, and Tibullus ad loc. Other authors cited are: Dawson, C. M., ‘An Alexandrian prototype of Marathus?’, AJP LXVII (1946), 1–15Google Scholar, Kassell, R., Rhein. Mus. CXII (1969), 99 ff.Google Scholar, Meineke, A., Analecta Alexandrina. (Berlin, 1843), p. 262Google Scholar, Pino, M., ‘Echi callimachei in Tibullo’, Maia XXIV (1972), 63–5.Google Scholar

Waltz, P., Mélanges G. Glotz (Paris, 1932), II, 889–97Google Scholar suggested that Tib. 2. 4. 27–38 imitates Thess, Antipater. A.P. 5. 30Google Scholar (VI in Gow—Page, GP); I think it much more likely myself that Antipater wrote after Tibullus.

page 79 note 1 Luck (p. 94) suggests two reminiscences of Callimachus in vv. 21–6 which seem to me unconvincing: E. 25 has no direct contact with Tibullus and the theme is a common one in the Greek Anthology; Artemis' standard attributes as a huntress certainly do not have to be derived from fr. 96. Dawson's suggestion that vv. 83–4 echo Call. fr. 195. 30 seems unlikely since there is no similarity in phraseology (, cum mea ridebunt vana magisteria), and Luck (p. 99) is mistaken in his assumption that Callimachus' situation is, as with Tibullus, that of the helpless lover (far from it – he is a scurrilous critic).

page 81 note 1 Dawson, C. M., AJP LXVII (1946), 14Google Scholar suggested ah echo in 1. 8. 77 of Callimachus fr. 195. 22: the papyrus is too fragmentary and Tibullus' phraseology not close enough to enable one to infer a reminiscence.

page 81 note 2 C. M. Dawson, loc. cit. 14 f., also compared 1. 10. 11 and Call. fr. 193. 1; however, the context of Callimachus' line remains very uncertain.

page 81 note 3 Pöstgens, P., Tibulls Ambarvaliengedicht (Diss. Münster: Würzburg–Anmühle, 1940), 64 ffGoogle Scholar. compares 2. 1 and Callimachus II.

page 83 note 1 In general see Alfonsi, L., Riv. di Fil. XXII–XXIII (1944–1945), 130–7Google Scholar (extending Rostagni, A., Poeti Alessandrini (Turin, 1916), pp. 375–82)Google Scholar; also Pasquali, G., Quaestiones Callimacheae (Göttingen, 1913), pp. 153 ffGoogle Scholar. and Riposati, B., L'elegia a Messalino di Albio Tibullo (Milan, 1942)Google Scholar.

Pino, M., Maia XXIV (1972), 63–5,Google Scholar points out that 2. 5. 2, 6, 7 veni may be compared with Call. v 33, 43, 44 : this is not specific reminiscence, of course, but a shared characteristic of hymnal invocation. I do not find convincing Pino's suggestion that 2. 5. 7 echoes Call, v 31–2, nor that 1. 10. 17–20 is based on Call. fr. 100.

page 83 note 2 Mr E. J. Kenney points out to me that the absence of Asclepiades and Posidippus from the list of authors whose influence on Tibullus can be traced is noteworthy. Certainly, so far as I can see there are no direct reminiscences of these epigrammatists, but 1. 2, for example, contains much that is generally owed to their style of poetry (cf., e.g., Asclep. XI, XII, XVI in Gow–Page, HE) even though the tone of Tibullus' poem is very different.

page 84 note 1 Wilamowitz, , Textgesch. der griech. Bukol. 152,Google Scholar argued that the scholion to Theocr. 7. 5–9 k implies that Nicanor of Cos wrote a commentary to Philetas' poetry; however the scholion to 7. 5–90 suggests rather that Nicanor's work concerned Theocritus himself.

Kuchenmüller, G., Philetae Coi Reliquiae (Diss. Berlin, 1928), 28–35Google Scholar, also concludes that the Roman elegists had not read Philetas, though some of his arguments and other conclusions are less acceptable.

page 85 note 1 Quinn, F. K.latin Explorations (London, 1963), p. 136Google Scholar.