In these two lines of his instructions for making a plough Virgil prescribes (173) the wood of the tilia (lime) as suitable for the iugum (yoke);Footnote 2 he also (173–4) mentions the fagus (beech), seemingly in connection with the making of the stiua (stilt/handle). These recommendations are both problematic, and since the latter admits of no sure solution, treatment of it is relegated to a brief Appendix (below). The body of this paper has two aims: 1) to propose a new understanding of Virgil's prescription of the tilia for the iugum; and 2) to draw attention to Virgil's use of the Hesiod scholia in his plough instructions.
1. THE TILIA AND THE IUGUM
Russell MeiggsFootnote 3 explained why the recommendation of the tilia for the iugum is problematic when he included it among those Virgilian references to wood which, so Meiggs believed, showed Virgil's lack of practical interest in these matters: ‘In his description of making a plough he [Virgil] prescribes a light lime-wood for the yoke where again one would have expected a particularly strong wood.’Footnote 4 The old idea that the Georgics were written as a handbook for Italian peasant farmers has, of course, long been regarded as untenable. But a good case has been made that Virgil's knowledge of agricultural facts and practices was in general sound, and that much of the Georgics would have been of practical use to the upper-class owners of villa estates among Virgil's contemporaries.Footnote 5 Moreover Richard Thomas has drawn attention to the technical writers on agriculture, both Latin and Greek, with whom Virgil engaged closely, and has studied the ways in which Virgil adapted their material to his poetry.Footnote 6 So what Virgil says about the different woods for plough parts should not be judged as due to ignorance or lack of interest, particularly since Hesiod, as Virgil certainly knew, had prescribed bay or elm wood for the yoke-beam, as discussed below.
Virgil's recommendation of the tilia for the yoke should rather be approached in the light of his known interest in learned pseudo-etymologies, including those involving a linguistic equivalence between Greek and Latin. James J. O'Hara calls these ‘translations with paronomasia’ or ‘translations by homonym’, and he emphasizes the etymological intent that can be assumed in them.Footnote 7 Tree names are one of the areas handled by Virgil in this way.Footnote 8 Virgil's treatment of the fagus (beech) has been much discussed: he refers to it in ten loci,Footnote 9 and he is always simultaneously aware of Greek ϕηγός (oak); as a result any Virgilian use of fagus or faginus may point, not to the beech, but to the oak.Footnote 10 The most prominent Virgilian passages in which this identification has been studied are Eclogue 1.1 (Tityre, tu patulae recubans sub tegmine fagi), where Virgil was possibly inspired by Theocritus, Idyll 12.8 (σκιερὴν δ’ ὑπὸ ϕηγόν), and Georgics 3.172 (post ualido nitens sub pondere faginus axis), where faginus axis imitates Homer, Iliad 5.838's ϕήγινος ἄξων, so that faginus indicates an oaken, not a beechen, axle.Footnote 11
The fagus recommended at Georgics 1.173 may well also be the oak; and Virgil's other recommendation of 1.173, of lime-wood for the yoke, should be approached as another such etymological ‘translation by homonym’, sharing (significantly) the same line as fagus. The Greek model of Georgics 1.173 is Works and Days 435, which is from Hesiod's prescription for the making of a plough, or rather two ploughs (Works and Days 427–36), a passage universally acknowledged to lie behind Virgil's plough despite many marked differences (see below). Georgics 1.173 is the only place in Virgil's plough prescription where he mentions the wood of two trees together; and Works and Days 435 is the only place in Hesiod's instructions for his ploughs where two woods are recommended. Hesiod says that the bay (δάϕνη) and the elm (πτελέη) are the woods least liable to rot for making, not the yoke, but the yoke-beam (ἱστοβοεύς, temo):
Latin tilia (lime) is close in sound to Greek πτελέα (elm);Footnote 12 it is (more or less) to πτελέα what fagus is to ϕηγός. I suggest, then, that Virgil, when prescribing the wood for the yoke, selected the tree name tilia to equate with Hesiod's πτελέα in another etymological ‘translation by homonym’, and that he expected his readers to understand tilia, not as lime, but as elm. Interestingly Mynors, criticizing Virgil for being ‘far … from technical details’ in his ‘choice of timbers’, comments casually: ‘Elm was a good one [i.e. for the iugum]’.Footnote 13
2. VIRGIL'S USE OF THE HESIOD SCHOLIA
The Georgics are a self-described Hesiodic poem (Ascraeum … carmen, 2.176), but Virgil does not follow Hesiod slavishly. Thus Virgil's transference (hypothesized above) of elm wood from Hesiod's yoke-beam to the yoke could be viewed as within the range of recognized Virgilian departures from his Hesiodic model.Footnote 14 On the other hand the differences between the two poets’ plough prescriptions are marked, indeed so marked as to suggest that Virgil was also drawing on an additional predecessor text; a difference significant in the present context is the complete absence of the yoke from Hesiod's plough instructions. One might be tempted to speculate that Virgil's inspiration came from Nicander's Georgica or from a work of Nicander's predecessor, Menecrates of Ephesus, who wrote in imitation of Hesiod. It has been plausibly argued that the Georgica did exercise an influence on Virgil's Georgics,Footnote 15 but to judge from its surviving fragments, the Georgica concentrated on horticulture, and so is unlikely to have contributed to Virgil's plough. As for Menecrates, too little is known about him to make speculation profitable.Footnote 16
A better candidate for Virgil's additional predecessor can be found in such Hesiod scholia as were known to him. It is recognized that, in addition to the Homeric epics, Virgil used the Homer scholia for the Aeneid,Footnote 17 as indeed he drew on the Homer scholia for parts of the Georgics;Footnote 18 so Virgil would naturally have turned to the Hesiod scholia too for assistance with the Georgics (although this is a topic hardly touched by modern scholarship). A number of well-known Hellenistic scholars wrote on Hesiod: Callimachus and Apollonius Rhodius treated Hesiodic problems, and others, including Zenodotus, Aristophanes of Byzantium, Aristarchus, Crates of Mallus and Dionysius Thrax, commented on Hesiod to a greater or lesser extent; these scholars contributed to the later commentaries of Plutarch and Proclus.Footnote 19 The scholia vetera to Hesiod as we have them contain paraphrase, elementary information on grammar, etc. and learned comments: the Hellenistic scholars just listed lie behind the last category.Footnote 20
As noted above, the yoke is absent from Hesiod's plough instructions, but it is prominent in the Hesiod scholia,Footnote 21 where it features in the scholia's attempts to make sense of Hesiod's instructions for making his ploughs:
τούτῳ δὲ τῷ γύῃ ἐμπέπηγεν ἄλλο ξύλον μεῖζον κατὰ τὸ ἕτερον μέρος τὸ ἄκρον ἕως τοῦ ζυγοῦ διῆκον τοῦ ἐπικειμένου τοῖς ὤμοις τῶν βοῶν καὶ ζευγνύντος αὐτούς, ἐμπέπηγε δὲ σϕηνωθὲν διά τινων σϕηνισκῶν. εἰ μὲν οὖν ἓν ᾖ ξύλον τὸ ὅλον, ὁ γύης μέχρι τοῦ ζυγοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐλύματος καλεῖται τὸ ἄροτρον αὐτόγυον· ἐὰν δὲ μικρότερος ᾖ τῆς χρείας ὁ γύης, ἐνσϕηνοῦται τὸ ἕτερον αὐτῷ ξύλον τὸ συνάπτον αὐτὸν καὶ τὸν ζυγὸν καὶ καλεῖται τὸ μὲν ὅλον πηκτόν, τὸ δ’ ἐνσϕηνωθὲν ἱστοβοεύς.
(Schol. vet. ad Hes. Op. 427–30, p. 147.17–25 Pertusi)Virgil too appears to have been trying to make sense of Hesiod, and to have found helpful the previous attempts of the scholia to do so. It can be concluded that the presence of the yoke in Virgil is due to his use of scholia similar to those which survive. Another feature confirms this supposition: Hesiod does not mention the ἐχέτλη (= Virgil's stiua/stilt) in his prescription for making his ploughs, although it appears a little later (Works and Days 467), when Hesiod gives instructions for ploughing. However, the Hesiod scholia discuss the ἐχέτλη both as part of their analysis of Hesiod's instructions for making ploughs (which will have helped Virgil to introduce the stiua into his plough-making), and also at a later point when treating Hesiod's ploughing passage.Footnote 22 On Hesiod's prescription for making ploughs the scholia comment:
τίς ἡ ἐχέτλη, ἐξ ὧν ἐστι τὸ ἄροτρον. ἡ μὲν οὖν ὕνις ἐστὶ τὸ σίδηρον αὐτὸ τὸ ἐν τῷ ἀροτριᾶν σχίζον τὴν γῆν· τοῦτο δὲ τῷ ἐλύματι περιήρμοσται ἄνωθεν ἐμβεβλημένον εἰς αὐτὸ κοῖλον ὄν. τὸ δὲ ἔλυμά ἐστι τὸ ἐμβληθὲν εἰς τὴν ὕνιν κατέχον ξύλον κατὰ τὸ ἄκρον, ὃ καλοῦσι νύμϕην, ὃ κατὰ θάτερον μέρος τὸ ἄνω συγγεγόμϕωται πρὸς τὸν γύην. ὁ δὲ γύης ξύλον ἐστὶ μακρὸν ἔχον οὐ πόρρω τοῦ ἐλύματος ὀρθὸν ἐμπεπηγὸς ξύλον ἐν αὐτῷ ὃ κατέχοντες οἱ ἀροτριῶντες ὅλον κινοῦσι τὸ ἄροτρον καὶ διὰ τοῦ ἀρότρου τοὺς βόας· καὶ τοῦτο τὸ ξύλον καλεῖται ἐχέτλη.
(Schol. vet. ad Hes. Op. 427–30, p. 147.7–17 Pertusi)ἱστοβοεὺς λέγεται παρ’ ἐνίοις καὶ τὸ μετὰ τὴν ἐχέτλην ξύλον.
(Schol. vet. ad Hes. Op. 431a, p. 149.17–18 Pertusi)A third item in Virgil's instructions for making the plough which looks to be derived from the Hesiod scholia involves the γύης (plough-beam, Virgil's buris). Hesiod prescribed the holm-oak (Works and Days 429) as the correct wood for the γύης. But the Hesiod scholia explain that the holm-oak is not easily obtainable in Boeotia, where Hesiod lived, and that elm is used there to make the plough-beam: οὐ γὰρ εὔπορος Βοιωτοῖς ἡ πρῖνος, ϕησὶν ὁ Πλούταρχος, ἀλλὰ τοῖς πτελεΐνοις ἀντὶ τῶν πρινίνων χρῶνται τοὺς γύας κατασκευάζοντες (Schol. vet. ad Hes. Op. 427–30, p. 148.5–7 Pertusi). The scholia's citation of Plutarch (fr. 23 Bernard) for this piece of information might seem to raise an objection to hypothesizing its influence on Virgil since Plutarch is later than Virgil; but in general Plutarch draws on tralatician material, and he may well have found this information in an earlier Hesiod scholion. Thus Virgil's agreement with the Hesiod scholia when he declares that the right wood for the plough-beam (his buris) is the elm (ulmus, 170) once again argues for the influence of the Hesiod scholia.
Finally, Virgil's motives for his ‘translation by homonym’ of πτελέα in tilia at Georgics 1.173 may be considered. Parading this perhaps novel etymology as a piece of doctrina was doubtless one motive; another motive may relate to Virgil's concern throughout his plough instructions to emulate Hesiod by correcting him. Because Hesiod, in prescribing woods for ploughs, had failed to mention the yoke and the stilt, Virgil was eager in lines 173–4 to make good these presumed defects by naming woods suitable for these plough parts. This led Virgil to his clearest and perhaps most pressing purpose in his ‘translation by homonym’ of πτελέα: he wanted to achieve variatio in his use of tree names, and by employing tilia to mean elm in line 173 he was able to avoid repeating ulmus from line 170, even though he was referring to the same tree.
APPENDIX: THE TILIA, FAGUS AND STIVA
It is unclear whether Virgil is recommending the fagus of line 173 as an alternative wood to the tilia for the yoke – just as Hesiod had proposed the bay or elm as alternative best woods for the yoke-beam – or whether Virgil is confining the use of the fagus to the stiua, the stiltFootnote 23 used to turn the base of the plough. This uncertainty has been treated in many ways, but without general agreement. Commentators have variously emended stiuaque, or have transposed the two lines,Footnote 24 or have regarded altaque fagus (173) and stiuaque (174) as a hendiadys, or have interpreted stiuaque as ‘explanatory’ of fagus (so PageFootnote 25 and Thomas,Footnote 26 the latter translating ‘a tall beech for the handle’).Footnote 27 Of these approaches the last has had most success, but it was challenged by Mynors,Footnote 28 who wrote: ‘We should say without difficulty “You must cut a beech for the yoke and you must cut a handle”, leaving quite open the question whether the same wood is to be used for both; and the ear, as it hears 173, inevitably couples tilia and fagus.’ One possible solution to this problem is that Virgil was initially echoing his Hesiodic model by hinting that these two woods were alternatives (a hint espoused by Mynors as his part solution), only to change tack, withdraw his hint, and link fagus and stiua by means of repeated -que. In that case Virgil was confirming that the stiua was to be made from the alta fagus by giving the stiua the whole of line 174 and by emphasizing in imos (174) the stiua's antithetical role in controlling the base of the plough. But in doing so Virgil left to subsequent scholarship a puzzling question, possibly conceived as a ‘Virgilian problem’ along the lines of the ‘Homeric problems’.
