¹ It might be objected that ‘fulminat’ (‘hurls lightning’) is not the same as . But I doubt whether the meteorological difference is significant. Both activities are primarily characteristic of Zeus; in Latin the application of both ‘fulmino’ and ‘tono’/‘intono’ may be extended to human beings. If, as I shall suggest, Virgil′s ‘fulminat’ in Georgics 4.561 is based upon Rhianus fr. 1.13 , that would tell against Mynors′ remark in his Georgics commentary ad loc., ‘It would be a mistake to see an allusion here to Jupiter the thunder-god.’ Some have also wished to connect Virgil′ mention of the Euphrates with Callimachus′ ‘Assyrian River’ (hymn 2.108). I am not wholly convinced that the link is significant, despite the fact that in both passages (and in Georgics 1.509) the river is placed six lines before the end of the poem or book. Suggestion of progress to, and potentially beyond, the Euphrates shows the intoxicating influence of Alexander the Great, which is as apparent in Ptolemy III Euergetes′ lost inscription from Adulis (OGIS 54, transcribed by Cosmas Indicopleustes in the sixth century), lines 13ff. , as it is obvious in Georgics 2.171–2 ‘qui nunc extremis Asiae iam victor in oris | imbellem avertis Romanis arcibus Indum’. The last passage, if taken literally, would put Octavian not (as in reality) in Syria, but in the region of Bactria (Afghanistan). If one looks for a grain of historical fact lying behind the reference to the Indians, it might be sought in one of the numerous Indian embassies which came to Augustus (see Nisbet and Hubbard on Horace, Odes 1.12.56, citing Res Gestae 31.1 ‘ad me ex India regum legationes saepe missae sunt’). The Romans could have chosen to interpret such an embassy as making an offer of submission. As for Ptolemy III, W. Dittenberger, the editor of OGIS 54 (ad loc, n. 22) comments ‘Aliquantum igitur certe ultra Babylona ad orientem processit rex… sane regiones… enumeratas vix omnes adiit, cum non improbabile sit earum incolas plerosque sua sponte in deditionem venisse’—compare ‘victorque volentis|per populos dat iura’ (Georgics 4.561–2).

² In the east from August 30 B.C. (when he formally entered Alexandria) until the autumn of 29 (cf. Georgics 2.170–2).

³ The parallel is not noted by Mynors or Thomas in their commentaries on the Georgics, nor by M., Kokolakis in his booklet (Athens, 1968). Kokolakis does refer toGoogle ScholarWeinreich, O., ‘Zu Virgils vierter Ecloge, Rhianus und Nonnos’ (Hermes 67 [1932], 359–63), but the latter is mainly concerned with the ending of the Fourth Eclogue, and makes no mention of the Fourth Georgic.Google Scholar

⁴ The earliest example in Latin poetry lies in the words which Ennius (Varia 23–4 Vahlen2) gave to Scipio Africanus, ‘si fas endo plagas caelestum ascendere cuiquam est, mi soli caeli maxima porta patet’. No doubt we shall in due course be able to consult a full note on Horace, Odes 3.2.21–2 ‘Virtus, recludens immeritis moricaelum, negata temptat iter via’.

⁵ Among other senses LSJ s.v. also give ‘assign, ordain, esp. of the gods’, and generally of any person in authority, ‘appoint, arrange’, quoting Od. 10.563 .

⁶ This possibility is rightly rejected by Kokolakis (n. 3, above), p. 8.Google Scholar

⁷ That is the common view, and probably correct, though challenged by Kokolakis (n. 3, above), pp. 28ff., to whom I assented in Gnomon 41 (1969), 699. ‘Forgetting that his parents are mortal’ (Rhianus line 11) might cover rulers who deified their parents (e.g. the Ptolemies) as well as those (e.g. Alexander the Great, Seleucus I) who claimed that their real father was not a mortal but an Olympian god. Aspiring to marry a goddess (Rhianus line 14), while characteristic of blasphemers in general, was also ascribed to rulers of the fourth century B.C. and later, e.g. the Thracian Cotys, who according to Theopompus (F.Gr.Hist. 115 F 31) . Clement of Alexandria, Protrept. 4.54.6 writes of Demetrius Poliorcetes .Google Scholar

⁸ There is also Amores 3.8.51–2 ‘qua licet, adfectas caelum quoque: templa Quirinus,| Liber et Alcides et modo Caesar habent’. Kenney, E. J. brackets the couplet as spurious in both editions of his OCT; McKeown, J. C. (to judge from his text—we await the commentary) considers it genuine.Google Scholar

⁹ Such astringency (which may be considered Callimachean, if one thinks of the Lock of Berenice) can perhaps be detected in other addresses to Octavian in the Georgics. For example in 1.31 ‘teque sibi generum Tethys emat omnibus undis’: it is in normal circumstances blasphemy for a mortal ruler to woo a goddess (see n. 7 above on wooing Athena in Rhianus), but Octavian is so desirable a bridegroom that Tethys will offer an enormous dowry to secure him as her son-in-law. Or 2.171–2 (see n. 1 above): as has been observed since antiquity, if the Indian is so unwarlike, he does not need much deterring; and if he is so far away, he could hardly threaten the ‘Romanae arces’ (the Seven Hills of Rome, see Mynors ad loc. and on 2.535).

¹⁰ Compare Callimachus, hymn 4.167 (the realm of Ptolemy II Philadelphus).

¹¹ The phrase nearly always has favourable implications (e.g. Aen. 8.670 ‘his dantem iura Catonem’).

¹² Francis, Cairns, Tibullus: a Hellenistic Poet at Rome (Cambridge, 1979), 60, quotes Rhianus fr. 1.10–16 in connexion with Tib. 1.3, but he recognizes that any link is tenuous. One might try to argue that the myth of Apollo in love with Admetus at Tib. 2.3.1 Iff. comes from Rhianus, who, according to Schol. Eur. Ale. 2 (not necessarily wrong if Callimachus' Second Hymn belongs to the reign of Euergetes, as stated by the scholiast on line 26) was responsible for that version (fr. 10 Powell). But Tibullus is more likely to have derived the erotic motivation from Callimachus (hymn 2.49).Google Scholar

¹³ cf. Pausanias, 4.6.3 The fragments of the Messeniaca in Powell (nos. 49–55) are nearly all geographical references from Steph. Byz. But the anonymous papyrus, Suppl. Hell. 946–7, is very plausibly ascribed to this poem (with less confidence also SH 923) and allows us to gain some impression of the overall style (largely Homericizing, similar to that of fr. 1 Powell).

¹⁴ I am grateful to Professor R. G. M. Nisbet and to the Editors for comments on earlier drafts of this note.Google Scholar