For years, scholars have insisted that there are no direct references to Augustus in Grattius’ Cynegetica. The commentaries by Enk,Footnote 1 Verdière,Footnote 2 FormicolaFootnote 3 and SestiliFootnote 4 all firmly date the work to the Age of Augustus through comparison in diction to other Augustan authors as well as through testimony from Ovid (‘Grattius was granting weapons fit for hunting’, aptaque uenanti Grattius arma daret, Ov. Pont. 4.16.34), and yet none has found sufficient evidence for Augustus’ presence in the poem.Footnote 5 Only O’Rourke has argued that ‘Grattius’ hunter can be read as a figure for the emperor himself, the austere leader of the pack with a skill for subduing nature with the arts of civilization’.Footnote 6 Building on this argument, I want to show that Augustus can be aligned with a specific hunter, Hagnon. In the middle of the discussion of the benefits of different dog breeds for hunting, Grattius introduces Hagnon as the mythic inventor of hunting with dogs (213–52). Through an analysis of the semantics of Hagnon’s name and Octavian’s choice of ‘Augustus’ for a name, I argue that Hagnon is an allegorical representation of Augustus inserted into the poem by Grattius.
HAGNON, ἁγνός AND AUGUSTUS
Hagnon is introduced in the discussion of the Glympic dog (213–18):
As O’Rourke has pointed out, qua proprior peteret uia (218) is a direct reference to the proem (propriore uia, 5), and the phrase trepidas artis (217) recalls the trepidam … uitam (13) of the end of the proem.Footnote 9 This diction, then, reminds the reader of the sentiments of the proem (1–15), which expounds on the role of hunting as a civilizing force. By referencing these lines in the description of Hagnon, Grattius sets Hagnon up as a civilizing figureFootnote 10 who deserves plurima | gratia (‘the greatest thanks’, 215–16), a phrase which shows the debt humanity owes to this Hagnon.Footnote 11
As far as we can tell, the figure of Hagnon has no precedent, mythological or real, and may well be Grattius’ invention. Lemaire, in an addendum to his discussion of Grattius in his version of Wernsdorf’s Poetae Latini Minores, suggests that the name was not really a proper name but a nickname;Footnote 12 nevertheless, he goes on to list many historical (H)Agnon that could be the inspiration for this character, including a son of Nicias, a Tean prefect of Alexander the Great, a writer cited by Plutarch and another by Quintilian, and the heir of Nicostratus, but dismisses them all as too recent. Most of the commentaries cite Wernsdorf when they want to discuss who Hagnon might be.Footnote 13 The general trend is just to accept that we will never know who Hagnon really was: Enk notes that ‘eius venatoris nusquam mentio fit nisi hic’ (‘no mention of this hunter is made except here’),Footnote 14 and Whitlatch suggests that he may have been invented by Grattius.Footnote 15
Even if scholars are not sure about the origins of Hagnon, his importance in the text has not been overlooked. Whitlatch argues that he is a prōtos heuretēs or primus inuentor figure, similar to Lucretius’ Epicurus, Virgil’s Daphnis (Eclogue 5) and Aristaeus (Georgics 4), and Theocritus’ Daphnis (Idyll 1).Footnote 16 In the same volume, O’Rourke argues that both Hagnon and Dercylos are praeceptor figures modelled after the author himself,Footnote 17 and specifically examines the eternal praise of the poet that comes from singing of famous men.Footnote 18 While I agree that Hagnon has parallels to other mythic benefactors, as well as parallels to the didactic poet, I argue that the semantics of his name encourage us to draw a connection between Hagnon and a specific political benefactor, namely Augustus. The adjective ἁγνός means ‘holy’ (LSJ s.v. 1), which is quite similar to the meaning of Octavian’s chosen name of Augustus, which means ‘solemn’ or ‘venerable’ (OLD s.v. 1), a word also connected to auctor (‘author’, ‘founder’).
Other such semantic examinations gloss over the religious aspects of this name. Wernsdorf, using evidence from Hesychius, tries to tie the name to ἄγω:
Hesychius indicat ἁγνεῖν Cretes dicere pro ἄγειν. Ὁ ἁγνῶν igitur idem fuerit qui κυνηγός, et ipsum illud, quod Grattius de eo praedicat, nomen eius interpretari uidetur: nam cum primum fuisse dicit, qui canem in siluis ageret uenandi causa.Footnote 19
Hesychius indicates that the Cretans say ἁγνεῖν instead of ἄγειν. Ὁ ἁγνῶν, therefore, would be the same man who leads dogs [κυνηγός], and that very thing, which Grattius announces about him, seems to explain his name: for he says that he is the first who leads a dog in the forests for the sake of hunting.
Grattius does gesture toward this etymology in his text, as Hagnon is introduced with the phrase egit Boeotius Hagnon at line 214. However, Grattius could be playing with more than one meaning when it comes to Hagnon’s name. O’Rourke, citing ‘Wernsdorf and others’, notes that ‘“Hagnon” connotes holiness (ἁγνός; cf. 250 Hagnon magne, tibi diuom concessa [that is, palma] fauore)’,Footnote 20 but does not tie this observation to Augustus nor does he explore the implications further.
The religious significance of both ἁγνός and augustus is important for the men who bear them as names. At the end of his description of Hagnon, Grattius states (249–52):
Following this logic, the name Hagnon reflects not only his divine favour but also his future divinity. When it comes to Augustus, Suetonius in the Diuus Augustus indicates that the religious significance of the word is exactly why Augustus chose it (7.2):
postea Gai Caesaris et deinde Augusti cognomen assumpsit, alterum testamento maioris auunculi, alterum Munati Planci sententia, cum quibusdam censentibus Romulum appellari oportere quasi et ipsum conditorem urbis, praeualuisset, ut Augustus potius uocaretur, non tantum nouo sed etiam ampliore cognomine, quod loca quoque religiosa et in quibus augurato quid consecratur augusta dicantur, ab auctu uel ab auium gestu gustuue, sicut etiam Ennius docet scribens ‘Augusto augurio postquam incluta condita Roma est’.Footnote 21
Afterward, he took the names Gaius Caesar and then Augustus, one through a bequest from his great-uncle, the other on the advice of Munatius Plancus, since, when others were advising him that it was right for him to be called ‘Romulus’ as a quasi-founder of Rome, he insisted that it was better that he be called Augustus, not only because it was a new and greater name, but also because religious places and those in which something is consecrated by augury are called augusta from the increase or moving or feeding of birds, just as Ennius teaches when he says ‘by august augury after famous Rome was founded’.
Contemporary Augustan evidence agrees with this assessment. Ovid in Fast. 1.587–616, the lines that cover the Ides of January, the day on which Octavian officially received the name ‘Augustus’, states contigerunt nulli nomina tanta uiro (‘so great a name touches no other man’, 1.592). Augustus chose the name ‘Augustus’ because it tied him to a founder of the city, reflected his own status as a semi-divine being, and was unique.Footnote 22 Hagnon, the holy man, was a founder of an important skill for the spread of civilization. This holy name is also unique to each of these men: as Ovid points out (Fast. 1.592, cited above), there is no record of anyone else with the name ‘Augustus’. As we saw earlier, the name Hagnon appears only here in extant Greek and Roman literature. Thus, both men have names that not only reflect their future divinity but also are unique.
There is an important Augustan precedent for allegorically speaking about a political figure through a mythical primus inuentor figure. In Eclogue 5, Mopsus and Menalcas sing about the apotheosis of Daphnis. Servius in his commentary on the Eclogues specifically links Daphnis to Julius Caesar. At lines 29–31, Mopsus describes how Daphnis would yoke a tiger to his chariot, and Servius (ad loc.) comments: hoc aperte ad Caesarem pertinet, quem constat primum sacra Liberi patris transtulisse Romam (‘this openly refers to Caesar, who—it is agreed—was the first to bring the rights of father Liber to Rome’). Building on this, various scholars have found other parallels between Daphnis and Caesar.Footnote 23 This precedent is important because it shows that ancient readers were accustomed to interpreting mythic figures through a political allegorical lens.
SEMPER ERIS, DVM CARMINA … MANEBVNT: RECIPIENTS OF POETIC IMMORTALITY
In addition to giving Hagnon a semantically similar name to the princeps, Grattius praises him in terms similar to the praise of Augustus in other Augustan poets. O’Rourke’s comparison to passages of poetic immortality shows a similarity in diction. He uses two Augustan examples, Hor. Carm. 3.30 and Ov. Met. 15.871–9. However, there are two very important differences between these passages and Cynegetica 249–52.
The first and most prominent difference between Grattius’ passage and these poets is the person of the verbs they use to talk about the person who will live forever. Neither Horace nor Ovid shies away from speaking about themselves in the first person. In Carm. 3.30, Horace uses exegi (‘I built’, 1), moriar (‘I will die’, 6), mei (‘of me’, 6), ego (‘I’, 7), crescam (‘I will grow’, 8), dicar (‘I shall be spoken’, 10), princeps [sum] (‘[I am] first’, 13) and mihi (‘my’, 15). Similarly, in Metamorphoses Book 15, Ovid uses exegi (‘I finished’, 871), mihi (‘my’, 874), mei (‘of me’, 875), ferar (‘I shall be borne’, 876), nostrum (‘our’, 876), legar (‘I will be spoken’, 878) and uiuam (‘I will live’, 879). Meanwhile, Grattius uses the second person to address the person whom his song will immortalize: ergo semper eris (‘therefore you will always exist’, 251). He also uses the phrase Hagnon magne, tibi (‘to you, great Hagnon’, 250), which includes not only a second-person pronoun but also a vocative, which is usually used in second-person addresses.
The second difference I see between Grattius and these poets is the insistence in Grattius that there are carmina, namely multiple songs, about Hagnon.Footnote 24 This is demonstrably false—as discussed, we have found no references to any Hagnon in any extant work from Graeco-Roman antiquity, which suggests that Grattius probably invented him. In addition, if Hagnon is Grattius, as suggested by O’Rourke, we only have one song attributable to him, the Cynegetica. There is no evidence for any other poems by the poet. In contrast, both Horace and Ovid have multiple carmina through which they could attain this eternal existence. However, there is someone else who has multiple carmina about him: Augustus. The number of songs produced about Augustus is remarked upon by Propertius, who notes that Caesaris in nomen ducuntur carmina (‘songs are brought out in the name of Caesar’, 4.6.13). Thus Hagnon, like Augustus, will always exist, as long as the songs of praise, including Grattius’ passage, exist.
There are other indications that these passages are meant to be read as praise of Augustus. First, the praise of Hagnon is figured in military terms, fitting for a dux such as Augustus. Hagnon’s metagon, a type of hunting dog, is described as a praesidium (‘protection’, 220). The final capture of prey using Hagnon’s new method of hunting is called a uictoria (‘victory’, 246). For this invention, he deserves the ultima palma tropaei (‘ultimate palm of the trophy’, 249). And the skills he imparts are considered one of the many arma Diania (‘Diana’s weapons’, 252). While this is not the only area where military language is used, as hunting is figured as a military endeavour throughout the poem,Footnote 25 it is one of the only times it is used for praise.Footnote 26 The proem to Virgil’s Georgics 3 praises Octavian for his military endeavours and specifically mentions the uictorisque arma Quirini (‘the arms of victorious Quirinus’, 3.27) and duo rapta manu diuerso ex hoste tropaea (‘two trophies taken from the band of different enemies’, 3.33). Similarly, the sphragis at the end of the Georgics mentions Octavian’s military victories (4.560–2). Anchises speaks of Augustus’ military victories when introducing him in the underworld (Aen. 6.791–800), and the shield of Aeneas includes not only a description of Augustus’ victory at Actium but also his triple triumph afterward (Aen. 8.671–723). Horace celebrates Augustus as dux at Carm. 1.2.52. At Carm. 4.5.25–9, Horace notes that the people of Rome have no fear of war with Augustus safe in the city. In his Epistle to Augustus, Horace lists res Italas armis tuteris (‘you watch over Italian affairs with arms’, Epist. 2.1.2). Propertius, in both 3.11 and 4.6, celebrates Augustus’ victory at Actium. Thus, the use of military language to praise Hagnon aligns this section even more closely to poems of praise to Augustus.
Second, Grattius praises Hagnon as a lawgiver, particularly in his imposition of rules on the metagon: lex dicta officiis (‘a law is announced for his duties’, 231). One of Augustus’ greatest legacies as princeps was his legal reforms, as he outlines in his Res Gestae (8.5):
legibus nouis me auctore latis multa exempla maiorum exolescentia iam ex nostro saeculo reduxi et ipse multarum rerum exempla imitanda posteris tradidi.
Through the introduction of new laws with myself as author I restored many of our ancestors’ customs which were becoming obsolete in our time and I myself handed down customs of many types to be imitated by posterity.
Because of this emphasis on law-making, much of the praise poetry of Augustus mentions his law-making. Horace, in Carmina 4.5, notes that under Augustus mos et lex maculosum edomuit nefas (‘custom and law conquered polluted impiety’, 4.5.22). In his Epistle to Augustus, Horace also notes that res Italas … | legibus emendes (‘you improve Italian affairs with laws’, Epist. 2.1.2–3). Finally, Manilius says that Augustus is qui regis augustis parentem legibus orbem (‘you who rule a world obedient to august laws’, 1.8). Thus the association of Hagnon with laws also suggests a connection to Augustus as lawgiver.
This characterization of Hagnon places him within a wider network of individuals invoked in the work who offer glimpses of an Augustus-figure while resisting any absolute association. These other figures include the dog breeder (279–85) and the master of the hounds (328–33). The dog breeder exhibits an Augustan level of morality, in that he suggests female dogs be guarded (hunc Veneri dedit impatiens natura furorem | si tenuit custos et mater adultera non est, ‘Impatient nature has given this fury to Venus, | if a guardian has watched her and the mother is not unchaste’, 284–5) and be kept for a single husband (unique inclusa marito, 280). Grattius seems to be reacting specifically to the moral legislation of 18 and 17 b.c.e., as the diction of custos, adultera and uni … marito—which is semantically similar to the Roman ideal of the uniuira or ‘one-man woman’—seems to suggest.Footnote 27 Grattius exhorts the master of the hounds as an exerciser of imperium who regulates the dogs’ meals, justice, work and play (328).Footnote 28 Thus, while Augustus himself may not appear by name, there is evidence for his fleeting presence in the text.
CONCLUSION
Can a poem really be considered Augustan if it does not mention Augustus, even obliquely? As Whitlatch has pointed out, it is odd for a poet of the Augustan Age not to mention Augustus.Footnote 29 We know that Grattius read and referenced Virgil, Horace and Ovid,Footnote 30 so the lack of mention of Augustus stands out as odd. In this article, I hope to have shown that Grattius in fact did refer to Augustus, despite never actually naming him. Through the creation of a name with similar semantics to ‘Augustus’, Grattius allows Hagnon to be read as an allusion to Augustus. Both men have unique names that emphasize their status as holy men and future divinity. In addition, Grattius proves his status as Augustan by echoing Augustan praise poetry in his praise of Hagnon—both are praised for using military terms and for their imposition of laws.
But the importance of this allusion goes beyond confirming the date at which Grattius was writing. Rather, it provides another, different, contemporaneous perspective on Augustus and his rule. The passage in which Hagnon is praised stands out for two reasons. First, by highlighting the religious undertones of the name but praising his acts as a mortal, Grattius centres on the human deeds of these great men. While the poets often praise him as a living divinity, and Augustus himself emphasized his relation to the divine, in the end he was still a mere mortal when he accomplished his great deeds. Second, Hagnon may be praised using military diction, but the deeds that are praised do not actually belong to the realm of warfare. Rather, Hagnon is praised for his ability to train a dog in a very specific skill set. As an allusion to Augustus, praise of this sort could refer to the systems of government that Augustus implemented as well as his ability to train an effective army. Regardless, what Grattius’ praise of Hagnon shows is that Augustus is worthy of praise even for things that seem mundane and extremely human.
Open access
