"Eclogues" in Receivership: Bucolics to Re/Read*
R. Leclercq. Le divin loisir: Essai sur les Bucoliques de Virgile. Collection Latomus vol. 229. Brussels: Latomus, 1996. 804 pp. 2.91 lbs. Bibliography, no indices. ISBN 2-87031-169-9.
READ IN TANDEM WITH
Charles Martindale. "Green Politics: The Eclogues," in The Cambridge Companion to Virgil, Charles Martindale ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997): 107-124. ISBN 0-521-49885-6pb.
Alan Cameron, Chapter XVIII.1,2 "Vergil and the Augustan Recusatio," in Callimachus and his Critics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995), 454-475.
si quis | captus amore leget
Virgil, Bucolics 6.9-10
As writers and readers of Vergilius we may share the symptoms of a syndrome recently diagnosed: "Virgil operates for the committed Virgilian like a sacred book, endlessly repaying meditation, and part of a system of belief and cognition; it is not so much that Virgil imitates, effectively, an extra-literary world as that, for the lover of Virgil, the experience of the world, including the experience of other people, is significantly informed by his works."1 Nor does the student of reception spare our poet: "an unusual and unusually evident openness to appropriation, so that the meaning of the text is configured within the value system and personal life-history of the individual reader, seems throughout the centuries to have been a particular feature of the response to Virgil."2
These foibles of ours * poet prey to lovers prone to misprision * represent an extreme case of a general subjectivity that is found by receptionist scholars, we are told not without a certain hauteur, to infect every reception of literature: "all readings of past texts, even those claiming 'historical accuracy', are representable as acts of appropriation."3 We Virgilians, with our journal, our society, and our mainly academic corps, must instance the further receptionist tenet that "canonical flourishing is always and necessarily sustained by and within institutions which enable dissemination (which include in this case publishing houses, the media, schools and universities)."4
We risk yet further reproach: "It is not clear that the history of interpretation is best figured as a history of progress;... The mistake of scholars is to suppose that the discourses within which they work are the only ones that can deliver valid 'findings'.... The scholarly concern with source criticism * however illuminating within its own discourse * is bound up with the whole ideology and power-structure of Classics as an institution. It is perhaps no coincidence that some of the most innovative work on Virgil is now being done by scholars outside the discipline."5 When we hear, too, that "'findings' only make sense within the terms of the enquiry that produces them,"6 we may fear lest our very professionality impede our access to those "valid 'findings'" from outside, which the receptionist is privileged to savor and certify, import and promote.7
1 Charles Martindale, "Introduction: 'The Classic of All Europe'," in The Cambridge Companion to Virgil, Charles Martindale, ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 9.
2 Ibid., 6.
3 Ibid. Emphasis added.
4 Ibid., 2. Emphases added.
5 Ibid., 8-9. Emphases added. The works praised as "innovative" include two comparative studies of epic plus Theodore Ziolkoski's fascinating Virgil and the Moderns (Princeton 1993), which reports how Virgil has been a vital source for an astonishing range and variety of readers.
6 Ibid., 11, emphases added; cf. "all findings...are validated or negated only in terms of the discourse, for example 'historical philology', in which they appear": Duncan Kennedy, "Modern Receptions and Their Interpretive Implications," in The Cambridge Companion, 54. The emphasized absolutes signal my growing wonder whether cross-fertilization and interdisciplinarity are being written off. Do definite articles betray recrudescent dogmatics? The ability to make connections and map identities across boundaries has been characterized by Douglas Hofstadter (cf. note 70) as one of the most important forms of intelligence * a metaphoric power with ethical and political as well as cognitive implications in these times.
7 The implied narrative of vision and special cognitive access brings to mind the cognitive parable of Plato's cave.
* I owe much to Derek Walcott for pastoral-epic vision crossing hard lines of ossified power; to Joseph Romero, for his dialogue in rereading the Bucolics; and to Gail Levin, for a model of receptive, far- reaching, resourceful, and responsible research.
1 : Van Sickle
If we take to heart the receptionist's dicta, we may want to look again at the publishing data above. The high number in a monograph series evokes our experience of the back list, which conditions what we expect of Nr 229. The number of pages and weight quantify the investment as hefty, making an issue of the theme * leisure: How, why, and from whom did this author get so much of it? What claim does the outcome have on the precious little of it most of the rest of us enjoy? The other listings reread yield other clues: author auto-anthologized, eclogue as a title, academic entrepreneurship of "Companion" series, prestigious place and publisher (sc. hegemony in culture more tenacious than its original matrix of imperial power.), and one more mega biblion spawned by a master of slight style.
The monograph's table of contents announces three main parts.
The first (L'apparition des Bucoliques à Rome. Contexte historique) opens with a chapter on the place of poetry in Roman society (from the beginning to "les Neoteroi"),8 followed by chapters on "L'utopie bucolique" (with looks at how structure conveys meaning in the eclogue book and how Arcadia has been interpreted), on "Les Bucoliques mythiques" (mythology from Homer down and in B. IV and VI), and on "Les Bucoliques politiques. La Ire Bucolique."
The second part (Étude d'esthétique) has two major sub-divisions, the first of which (L'esthétique du vers) moves from a chapter on "L'expérience poétique moderne" to one on "L'expérience poétique dans l'Antiquité et l'esthétique du vers dans les Bucoliques." The second subdivision (L'esthétique du poème) fields chapters on "L'inspiration," on "Caractères généraux de la Bucolique. Les bergers," on "Caractères généraux de la Bucolique. La nature pastorale," on "Le chant dans l'esthétique des Bucoliques," and on "Le mythe dans l'esthétique des Bucoliques."
The third main part (L'esthétique du triangle) contains a single chapter, "Méditation sur le triangle," divided into two sub-chapters, "Beauté du triangle" and "Le beau et le bien."
The plan, with its background essays, betrays the dissertation, its Doktorväter being A. Michel and M. Hellegouarc'h. The order and themes assume perspectives familiar yet foreign, I suspect, to most readers of Vergilius. The actual experience of reading brought to mind a two-edged apothegm by Stephen Hinds: "No two readers will ever construct a set of cues in quite the same way; no one reader, even the author, will construct a set of cues in quite the same way twice."9 The former tempted me to throw up my hands in despair. The latter held out hope for change, if only someone would dare urge Leclercq to reread.
"Greene, weed this garden of delight," wrote Charles Townsend Copeland on a fledgling composition by William Chase (Scholia Platonica) Greene. Consideration for readers would prune this dissertation into a book of, shall we say, less than 200 pages, plus any tables. Repetitions, digressions, otiose background would be consolidated and refocused or cut, indices supplied.
If you feel you must start with a survey, why ignore the new Roman cultural history associated with names like Bettini, Coarelli, Cornell, D'Arms, Harris, Ridgeway, Scheid, Torelli, Wiseman, and Zorzetti, to say nothing of Kuttner, Zanker, Toher and Raaflaub, or Wallace-Hadrill?10 Where is the line of readings from Scevola Mariotti redeeming the art of Andronicus to Hinds's warning that "Roman literature is already thoroughly Hellenized from the earliest period of writing to which we have access. How often and in what ways can Greek literature come with the force of a revelation into a literary culture which is always already post-Hellenic?"11 How can you ignore the long tradition of spectacle manipulating public opinion at Rome, including the reception of the Bucolics in the theater?12
Better still, just start with chapter two. As dissertations must (and books might well) you declare how your work will innovate with respect to scholarly tradition. You affirm a need to consider the Bucolics a structured ensemble, one in which cohesion gives force to sense, and to stop seeing them as separate and unconnected poems. That sounds like a welcome, if tardy, call to progress beyond the eclogue business-as-usual, which speculates inconclusively on the chronological order of separate poems and ignores the arrangement of the book.13
8 "An entirely bogus and inappropriate modern term," so Alan Cameron, Callimachus and his Critics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995), 462, citing his "Poetae Novelli," Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 84 (1980), 127-41.
9 Stephen Hinds, Allusion and Intertext. Dynamics of Appropriation in Roman Poetry, Roman Literature and its Contexts, Stephen Hinds and Denis Feeney, eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 47.
10 Cf. e.g., Nevio Zorzetti, "Poetry and Ancient City: The Case of Rome," Classical Journal 86 (1991), 311-329; Mario Torelli, Il Rango, Il Rito e l'Immagine: Alle Origini Della Rappresentazione Storica Romana, Saggi di archaeologia (Milan: Electa, 1997); Denis Feeney, Literature and Religion at Rome, Roman Literature and its Contexts, Stephen Hinds and Denis Feeney, eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
11 Hinds, Allusion and Intertext (note 9), 52-53.
12 Cf. T. P. Wiseman, Remus A Roman Myth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), s.v. "drama and history` 131-3, 138- 41, 209"; also my Poesia e potere. Il mito Virgilio (Rome: Laterza 1986), 17-24: "Dal mimo al mito." Reciting and listening rather than individual reading were the norm: William Harris, Ancient Literacy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 226-27. Nicholas Horsfall links the frequency of graffiti from the Bucolics to the frequency of their performances: "Poet and patron reconsidered," Anc. Soc. (Macquarie, 1983), 1-3.
13 Cf. my "The Unity of the Eclogues: Arcadian Forest, Theocritean Trees," Transactions of the American Philological Association 98 (1967) 491-508.
2 : Van Sickle
Despite your aim to progress, in practice you merely echo the innovation already made by Paul Maury before mid-century, finding concentric rings of themes.14 If you wanted to review movements in these studies, and carry them further, why did you ignore important alternatives to Maury: e.g. Otto Skutsch,15 Brooks Otis?16
What sense does it make to compile a list of eclogues containing the theme of song? But if you do, why omit the differentiated singers of B. I, Tityrus teaching woods to echo "fair Amaryllis" (1.5) and Meliboeus nevermore to sing (1.77)? If you considered "song" so important, why did you neglect Virgil's distinction between "songs" and "verses" (which differentiates B. III from B. VII and the two voices within B. VIII)? Why do you report so many philosophical abstractions that place Arcadie everywhere in the Bucolics yet yourself virtually ignore B. X which alone represents Arcadia in persons and place?
In chapter three, how can you defend calling only B. IV and VI mythic? When you identify in B. IV a list of oratorical topics like those proposed for the epiphany of a prince by Menander rhetor, why not cite that theoretician's vogue in recent scholarship? Why do you show such uncertain grasp of rhetorical articulation and dynamics (auxesis, incrementum) in the poem?
How can you return for an entire chapter (four) to the political impact of the Bucolics, yet still not discuss how they made their impact felt through the performance media: if libertas was an issue for Caesar in the mime of Laberius, what about Octavian and Tityrus's libertas and god?17
Introducing part two you aim to get beyond a mere history of mind-sets to recover some principle shared by all mind-sets ("quelque principe qui soit commun à toutes les mentalités," p. 250): your aim for universalism would be denied by the receptionist claim that "all" interpretations are local and relative.18
Your aesthetics of verse in chapter five is a far from universal reflection on prosody and versification in French. Must you always dismember poems? You tantalize with fragments * bits of Apollinaire, Tzara, Baudelaire, Rimbaud, or L'après-midi d'un faune.
Your report on the modern poetic experience focuses on how poetry shifts attention from sense to language itself, making a thing of words and creating a silence in which words can resonate (p. 255). This ought to be suggestive for the Bucolics. Your taste for close reading fascinates until prolixity, repetition, and digression dull. What audience do you have in mind when you write that the depth of Virgil's poetry brings us face to face with a choice between the nothingness of images and God (p. 281)?
You compile copious tables of sonorous similarities between Catullan lyric and epic and you suspect that lepos makes for gratuitous show in epos (p. 345). Did you notice that Catullus even contrives patterns of initial letters (64.4-7: c- a- p-| a- c- p-| a- c- p-| c- a- p-) which Virgil appropriates as he subordinates Catullan (and traditional) heroism (B. 4.34-36: a- t- A- |...| a- T- A-).
Your penchant for tables gives us charts of the separation of adjectives from nouns that inflected languages allow and are especially frequent in Catullus 64. You appropriate instances from my erstwhile fellow graduate student Carl Conrad (pp. 350-379),19 linking them to 43 percent of the verses in the Bucolics. But have you looked closely enough at how such patterns relate to Catullus's appropriation of Trojan myth,20 or how the myth and style together recur reduced in B. IV?21
You believe these verbal structures build on the sentence, as poetry builds on prose, and you posit a contradiction between rhetoric, which gives the sentence sense, and a centrifugal poetic that confers value on words. But then you accept the traditional (Servian) idea that the Bucolics fall into one rhetorical class: genus tenue. Have you noticed how Virgil incorporates three levels that are analogous to those of rhetoric: bucolic foreground as opposed to civic-heroic (mythic) background, but in between a georgic middle ground?22 Why do you flatten Virgil's triple distinction between the lowest level (bucolic), "woods" (siluas, B. 6.2, cf. "woodland muse," siluestris musa, B. 1.2) and the highest level (civic-heroic), signaled by "song of kings and combats" (cum canerem reges et proelia, 6.3, cf. tua dicere facta, 4.54),23 but then his fall-back to the middle term, "country muse" (agrestis musa, 6.8, cf. B. 1.10).24
When you close your inquiry into aesthetics by seeking the deep sources for a verse like formosum pastor Corydon ardebat Alexim (B. 2.1), how can you neglect the fact that formosum is only one of several motival variants relating B. II to B. I (cf. formosam, 1.5)?25
When you turn to the aesthetics of the poem in the second segment of the second part, I marvel at the spirit in which you propose to plumb the sources of Virgil's inspiration. But must you always start with an outline to be adorned with themes plucked randomly from several poems?
14 Paul Maury, "Le secret de Virgile e l'architecture des Bucoliques," Lettres d'Humanité 3 (1944), 71-147.
15 Otto Skutsch, "Symmetry and Sense in the Eclogues," Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 73 (1969), 153-169: "Symetrie" in Leclercq's bibliography, which attributes to Otto Skutsch the monograph, Aus Vergil's Fruhzeit (Leipzig, 1.1901, 2.1906), by his father Franz.
16 Brooks Otis, Virgil: A Study in Civilized Poetry (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964), 97-143, not in Leclerq's bibliography.
17 Cf. note 12.
18 Cf. note 3. Yet all human societies do produce song and story, out of a cognitive capacity specific (genetic) to humanity at large rather than to particular cultures: how can we navigate, negotiate that kind of universal?
19 Carl Conrad, "Traditional Patterns of Word Order in Latin Epic from Ennius to Vergil," Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 69 (1965 not 1955: Leclerq's proofreading is generally haphazard), 195-258.
20 Cf. my "About Form & Feeling in Catullus 65," Transactions of the American Philological Association 99 (1968), 487-501.
21 Cf. my own dissertation, A Reading of Virgil's Messianic Eclogue (New York: Garland, 1992), 7-10, "Reclaiming Heroic Tradition: Catullus' Wedding and Virgil's Child" 37-64.
22 Cf. my The Design of Virgil's Bucolics (Rome: Ateneo, 1978), 257, s.v. "tripartite ordering"; also "supposed rusticity of bucolic style," C. Martindale, "Green Politics: The Eclogues," in Cambridge Companion to Virgil (note 1), 118.
23 For fuller discussion of metapoetic implications here, see note 45.
24 When he does trace siluestris musa to Lucretius, 4.586 ff., he fails to grasp the paradoxical and polemical force with which Virgil reasserts the myth Lucretius debunked: cf. the fundamental reading by P. Damon, Modes of Analogy in Ancient and Medieval Verse (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973); also my review article, "The End of the Eclogues," Vergilius 41 (1995), 121.
25 Cf. Antonio Marchetti, Due Studi sulle Bucoliche di Virgilio (Rome: GEI, 1994), for the semantics of formositas.
3 : Van Sickle
Must you disregard changing sense in progressively differentiated contexts, for example Virgil's changes on antrum (B. 1.75, 5.19, 6.13)?26 Your instinct rightly leads you to focus on Palaemon's invitation to song in B. III, yet why elaborate on it in isolation rather than in context, as arising from the metapoetic drama that precedes and introducing the enlarged epic allusions that prepare for B. IV? Why don't you focus on the poetics of this production (let's be careful what we call it, since Virgil reserves the term certamen for later)? Why not press how amant alterna [sc. carmina] Camenae differs from alternos [sc. uersus] Musae meminisse uolebant?27 When you expatiate on a passage like Damoetas's praise of Jupiter (B. 3.60-61: pp. 444-456), why do you go off into theological speculations, seeing Virgil's poetry as an act of religious faith (pp. 454-55), missing the moment of the (Aratan) motifs for metapoetic development? Why not consolidate all this with chapter two?
Winding up your musings on inspiration (pp. 477-482), you puzzle how a book dominated by the concept of poeta (rational, hellenizing) can twice mention uates (archaizing, suggesting divine madness, magical). Have you considered that Virgil uses internal allusion to link Thyrsis, the would-be uates and defeated versifier in B. VII, to the arguably most archaizing (Catullan-Ennian) of all the eclogues, B. IV? There didn't Virgil create the effective persona of uates for himself, reporting Cumaean song and claiming the authorizing utterance of the Fates? Horace identified language like that as vatic.28
As for the other mention of uates, could we reread the address of Lycidas to Moeris in B. IX? How do we translate et me and me quoque? "Me, too (like you), they made a poet. Me, too (like you), they call a bard, but I don't buy."29 So doesn't "me like you" in the dialogue compare young Lycidas with old Moeris, who thus gets identified as both a poet and a uates? And don't you notice the internal allusions that link Moeris (and his absent protector, Menalcas, as well as Thyrsis) with the public voice of the first halfbook?
Why spend two chapters (eight and nine) on general characteristics of la Bucolique. Abstractions, abstractions. Can't you give more evidence of specific reading and orderly reference to the text? Can't you ever read any single poem from beginning to end, to see what figure it makes?
Does a lacunose survey of natural and bucolic elements in Greek imagination merit space? Rely on Gutzwiller and Buxton,30 or, for Theocritus and his peers, more recent studies.31 I have trouble with your notion of the herdsman as an image of man close to his natural and mythic origins. Origins? Who invents or exploits origin myths? When do you suppose that economic specialization separated herding out as far as Moses on "the backside of the mountain of the Lord," where it could become a locus for imagining in town? When did the lonely and nasty work of herding give rise to urbane metaphors like "Shepherd of the people?"
You pick out Meliboeus (B. I) and Corydon (B. II) as representative, but why pluck them from context, treat the former as later in time when Virgil made him the opening voice in the book,32 vehicle of "L'ébranlement initial," as Jean Bayet called it? And how can you separate Meliboeus from his dialectical other, Tityrus?33 When you say you will interpret l'ensemble of B. II (p. 511 ff), why do you pick and choose, skipping the two etiological myths?. If you find tragic depth in Meliboeus, what of the tragic paradigms in B. VIII and X? It comes as a relief to see in proper order the natural themes from idylls and eclogues in the tables that close the chapter (pp. 557-576).
When you make a detailed meditation on B. 1.1-10 (p. 542 ff), you interpret the arrangement of themes as centripetal (encadrement, aBa). Could you imagine, instead, something more dynamic, with new emphases arising on the return (aBA')? Could you diagram pronouns * tu...nos...NOS...TU / ille...illius...ILLE...(ut cernis) et ipsum * as incremental and recursive (something like abBA/A'cCC'a'), to reflect the mind's movements forth and back?34
As if anticipating my complaints, chapter nine opens with a more coherent way of reading. You show how the images of nature repeat and build to a climax in B. V and reecho in B. VI (pp. 577-582). Yet you interpret the repeated motifs as occasioning rêverie. You assign thresholds of frequency that allow a motif to lodge in memory and create the sense of place (p. 584-86).
Your tables of such basics as flumen, flos, fons, herba, mons, silua, umbra (pp. 590-616) or magnus, formosus, mollis, tener, uiridis, lentus (pp. 632-641), especially the actual lists of lines where they occur, invite meditation. Yet how can you infer that the repeated motifs and tableaux add up to a continuous dream (pp. 625-26)?
E.g., you say B. IX contains a tableau tinged with sweetness and rêverie aérienne organized around the "old beeches" already met at B. 3.12 and seen not for their shade but their height as in B. 2.3 "beeches shady tops" with the variant "now broken tops." Avec la variante.
Is that all you see? How could "now" and "broken tops" simply reinforce a timeless bucolic dream? Doesn't "now" imply discontinuity in time? Have you looked at Philip Damon's magisterial account of how B. IX dismantles the place and possibility of song?35 Do you wonder what role dismantling serves at this point in the book?
Reading back over your lists, I find they don't even include all the occurrences of "beech": patulae sub tegmine fagi (under cover of a single spreading, 1.1), inter densas umbrosa cacumina fagos (among thick, shady peaks, 2.3), hic ad ueteres fagos (here by old, 3.12) pocula ponam | fagina (wager cups of, 3.36-7), immo haec, in uiridi nuper quae cortice fagi | carmina descripsi (songs newly inscribed on
26 For natural features that underlie pastoral myth, see Richard Buxton, Imaginary Greece. The Contexts of Mythology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), e.g. 80-113 on landscape, mountain, sea, cave, and spring.
27 Cf. Design (note 22), 258: "versus distinct from carmina"; also underlined in my Vergilius 41 (1995), 127.
28 Cf. my Vergilius 41 (1995), 123, note 23, observing that Horace identified himself as uates in the poem matched with B. IV, Epode 16; cf. also my Messianic Eclogue (note 21), 3.
29 Cf. my Vergilius 41 (1995), 129-30.
30 Kathryn Gutzwiller, Theocritus' Pastoral Analogies. The Formation of a Genre (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991); and Buxton (note 26).
31 E.g., Richard Hunter, Theocritus and the Archaeology of Greek Poetry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996); Kathryn Gutzwiller, "The Evidence for Theocritean Poetry Books," in Theocritus, M. A. Harder et al. edd., Hellenistica Groningana (Groningen: Forsten, 1996), 119-48.
32 Cf. "Appendix: ...the Achronicity of the Bucolics," in my "Commentaria in Maronem Commenticia: A Case History of Bucolics Misread," in Virgil: 2000 Years, Arethusa 14, no. 1 (1981), 33-34.
33 Cf. my "How Do We Read Ancient Texts? Codes & Critics in Virgil, Eclogue One," Materiali e Discussioni Per l'Analisi Dei Testi Classici 13 (1984), 107-28.
34 Cf. Poesia e Potere (note 12), 45-58: L'impostazione (EG. 1.1-10), Il rafforzamento mediante il chiasmo.
35 For Damon, see note 24.
4 : Van Sickle
fresh bark of, 5.13-4).36 You later list some of these motifs to illustrate how dreamy contemplation accompanies logical judgment (p. 745), but with no sense of how they accompany development in the book.
Chapter ten reiterates that rêverie deepens through the whole length of the book and you indulge in more random listing of motifs. Why not consolidate your thoughts on song? Why not trace and sift the motifs as they vary from the start?37
You refer to the initiatory and cathartic effects of poetry * an ascetics I would like to explore. But your approach is so helter-skelter how can I trust your lead? If experience in reading has shown me anything, it is that hard passages yield sense only when addressed in their context and place, and that context in the first instance means the whole poem, then the book, and then whatever tradition the poet constructs. How often have I had to force myself as a matter of method to consider why a passage comes where it does, what it is doing there.
Must you repeat on B. III? Again lump versus with carmina? Why do you need this chapter at all?
Going into chapter eleven you restate your vision of the mythic B. IV and VI as bases for the apex of B. V and you call B. IV a bouquet of artfully scattered reveries. Enough.
In the last chapter, how could you propose an entire meditation on the deepest meaning of the Bucolics without ever (I have cut every fascicle open, sliced every top and side) so much as mentioning B. X? When you bridle at the liberties taken by Maury with the text, why still neglect the correctives by a textual critic like Skutsch?38 I would gladly be initiated into mysteries linking Plato and number to Virgil, but I need orderly textual referents to guide my ascent.
* * *
Just one more theologue reading "belief and cognition" into the "sacred book," our receptionist would no doubt gloat.39 But when I look for better in Martindale's "Green Politics," I stumble on tangled speculations about genre and self-reflexive exegesis of his "contrivedly ambiguous" title (p. 109).40 Conversation gets going with reproach for critics who distill the pastoral as a self-contained aesthetic form (Veyne, Snell, Alpers, pp. 109-111 [cf. Leclercq's reverie]). Against the aestheticists Martindale invokes Wolfgang Iser on the Bucolics as "a work of art that thematizes art itself," largely free from "the traditional referential function of poetry as mimesis" (p. 111):41 pronunciamentos with an air of déjà lu.42
Sharing Martindale's impatience with academic pastoralism,43 and welcoming any metapoetic aperçu,44 I am puzzled when he perpetuates the scholarly fashion that mistook B. VI for the program of "Virgil's whole project" (p. 111).45 He remarks that the scene of Tityrus reproved by Apollo "can be traced back to farmer Hesiod." But why not retrace the actual path which leads via B. I to Id. VII and thence not to the "farmer" (sc. poet of the Works and Days) but the "shepherd Hesiod" of the Theogony proem?46
Getting it right that Horace classified the Bucolics as epos...molle atque facetum (p. 113),47 Martindale turns to B. X, rehashing the familiar signs that here the poet wraps up and seals his book. Against those who detect genre boundaries seriously explored or bucolic failure confessed, Martindale insists on the poem's "wit and virtuosity." Like Leclercq à la Maury, this leaves hard questions unasked.
Why did Virgil open this poem as he did? I mean, why close his book not just with Arethusa but reclaiming her from Syracuse and situating her in Arcadia? Why dig up and flaunt (slant? reinvent?) the pain of her metamorphosis and exile? If you want to challenge
36 Cf. Design (note 22), 248 s.v. "'beech'; bucolic, symbols of."
37 The same objection applies to the philological and semantic study of formositas (note 25).
38 Cf. note 15.
39 Cf. note 1.
40 To Martindale's eye, "green" reduces to its "11 times" in the book (cf. Leclercq's mechanical tables), and grass is an "unsurprising staple ingredient," while "umbra and silua are more clearly used metonymically as bucolic markers." Another such marker, "beech," acts as a symbol of poetics (cf. note 36), which means, I suspect, that the concept of metonymy opens the door to interpreting motifs for metapoetic import. From there it is only a step to notice how such markers vary according to their positions in poems or the book, e.g. not only the differentiated values of "beech" but also "shade" to "shadow" within B. I and between B. I and X.
41 Cf. Leclercq's shift from sense to language itself and, indeed, the metonymic role excogitated for motifs just now (note 40).
42 Cf. notes 40, 44, 79, and 85. Readers of Vergilius hardly need the oracular authority of an Iser to interpret the "bulls" of B. 1.45 metonymically as a sign of increase in the bucolic genre. For that matter, the oracle's "cows" to be herded "as before" are a metonymic sign of continuity (and a mystificatory gesture) in the discourses of civic and literary tradition.
43 According to Alpers, Virgil merely reduced to generic convention what Theocritus invented: a view I have criticized, e.g. in my "Response to a Georgics Reader Bemused by the Bucolics," Vergilian Scholarship in the Nineties, Vergilius 36 (1990), 58, n. 10; cf. Tracy, cited in note 44.
44 E.g. by Stephen V. Tracy, "Commentary on Alpers," Arethusa 23 (1990), 49-57, quoted in "Response" (note 81), 62. Tracy asserted that Virgil's originality lay not in the crystallization stressed by Alpers but in the fact that Virgil created a "poetry book which took as its principal theme the viability of poetry."
45 An abuse of Callimachus discredited by Cameron (note 8), 454-77, who dubs it the "Clausen school" or "Clausen-Thomas school" since it originated with W. V. Clausen, "Callimachus and Latin Poetry," GRBS 5 (1964), 181-196, to which I offered a corrective with a detailed history of the reception of the Aitia in "Virgil's Sixth Eclogue & the Poetics of Middle Style," Liverpool Classical Monthly 2 (1977), 107-08; cf. also now note 23 above and my Vergilius 41 (1995), 125.
46 Cf. "Response" (note 81), which built on my "Epic and Bucolic (Theocritus, Id. VII / Virgil, Ecl. I)," Quaderni Urbinati Di Cultura Classica 19 (1975), 45-72.
47 The species of epos vouchsafed by the Camenae to Virgil according to Horace (Serm. I.10.43-44): so interpreted also by Joseph Farrell, Vergil's Georgics and the Traditions of Ancient Epic: The Art of Allusion in Literary History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 61-63, which, however, slights the multiplicity of epic allusions in the Bucolics; by Leclercq, pp. 266 and 405, n. 710; and in my Design (note 22), 114-15.
5 : Van Sickle
Theocritus, why not settle for B. V (the lament and praise for dead Daphnis) to supplement Id. I? Why move in B. X to supplant the dying Daphnis of Id. I with the vociferous Gallus? Why displace the scene of the poet's death from Sicily to Arcadia?
Continuing his attack on aestheticists, Martindale next argues plausibly for allegorical reception. His case for topicality both social and political (is there any difference within the pomerium or the beltway?) twits abstractions like those of Griffin and Jenkyns.48
Yet the traditional commentaries dictate Martindale's agenda and circumscribe his reach. He makes a plausible case that an old Tityrus can represent a young Virgil (or a dead Daphnis Caesar).49 But what of the consequent logic that Meliboeus, better than Tityrus, can represent the losses and exiles of civil war? Hence the argument that only the two figures together can represent the contrastive strands (intertwining personal, political, and metapoetic interests) in the poet's shaping of his tradition and his time.50 As for actual reception, we might expect as much from Leclercq (aestheticist par excellence), but how can a receptionist not think that the allegories he vindicates sprouted and flowered in the public media he neglects (recitation and theater)?51
Allegory has long been marked by discontinuity (ubi exigit ratio Servius), which carries over, Martindale urges next, to Virgil's imitation of nature. Faulting critics who generalize the landscape as "Arcadian and idealised" (again Snell and company [cf. again their confrère Leclercq]), Martindale also dismisses "the modern critical stress on the structural unity of the collection" (p. 120), which he sees as undermined by "the considerable variousness of its contents."
Run that by me again. The needling of Snell et al. had lulled me. "Structural" brings me back to the qui vive. Rereading I begin to ask if Martindale, rather like those he disparages, in fact occludes when he dismissively includes. What does it mean to assert that depiction of nature is discontinuous and that motifs vary considerably?
Does this occlude the inquiry into how, where, and why motifs vary? What if such an inquiry reveals that motifs vary according to a considered plan?52 Why exclude that not only "beech," shade, etc., but dusk and dawn, winter, summer, spring may be not merely random sprinkles but coordinated signs?53
Suppose we interrogate Martindale's "considerable variousness": under its umbrella he lumps all landscapes into "a composite of Theocritus' Sicily and various Italian scenes and indeed Arcadia (perhaps out of Gallus' poetry)" (pp. 119-20). Thus freed to dart rather like Leclercq wherever he fancies, Martindale lights on B. IX for cursory and derivative remarks (e.g. "imitates and inverts" Id. VII, Menalcas as "mask for Virgil"). He does recognize the "poetics of fragmentation" (better than Leclercq though still neglecting Damon), but he takes issue with critics who see here "the final 'message' of the whole book...at the expense of, say, Eclogue 6."
How shall we take "composite of...various": does this occlude, or perhaps more bluntly, trample nuanced diversities in composition? How can a flat "composite" respect the range of scenes, from proscribed Italian orchards and farms, grotto and crags where Meliboeus will sing no more, through a universalizing spring in farm and wood encouraging song in B. III, or the transitional pastiche of B. VII (Daphnis cum Meliboeus cum Mincius cum Arcadians rehearsing difference: was ever a scene more contrived to evoke, exhibit, and realize a state in art?), to the Arcadia of peerless song patched together just at the climax? How can "various" do justice to the variegated cross-currents of rise and fall?
And what of "Arcadia (perhaps out of Gallus)": where do parentheses come from? Perhaps another scion from the Callimachus coterie? Is Gallus, too, à la page? Not certainly from attentive reading of Virgil's actual Arcadian motifs in their progressively differentiated series (B. II, IV, VI, VII, and VIII)?54
As for simply linking B. IX to Id. VII, what of the fate of the latter's authorization myth in B. I,55 revised in B. VI,56 which elevated Gallus? What about that "say" falling back on B. VI?57 Why is Martindale as lackadaisical as Leclercq at differentiating metapoetry in B. III and B. VII and its bearing on the egregious B. IV?
Looking back to summarize, Martindale concludes that the discourses of aesthetics and politics must be each "necessarily present within the other, at however occluded a level" and that "we need both discourses" (pp. 120-121). This "we" and "both" sound ecumenical and irenical at first. But does "we" place itself above the divisive discourses of those others? Does it look down on the readers of Virgil, seen as belaboring each other in ideological blinders unless justified and enlightened by the superior viewpoint of reception theory?
How shall benighted readers construe the act of positing a division among us? Shall we suspect a rhetorical maneuver, reducing our unruly diversity to straw men the better to be manipulated. Shall we allow ourselves to be separated as sheep from goats, herded as specimen -ists, whether aesthetic, politic, structural, or whatever, in a plot to promote receptionist discourse?
48 Jenkyns on the Bucolics was also deftly deconstructed by Martindale, Redeeming the Text. Latin Poetry and the Hermeneutics of Reception, Roman Literature and its Contexts, Stephen Hinds and Denis Feeney, eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 5-6.
49 Cf. the pre-modern assimilation of George Washington to Daphnis in John Parke's Virginia (1786), cited in Poesia e potere (note 12), 5-6.
50 Cf. Christine Perkell, "Eclogues," Vergilian Scholarship in the Nineties, Vergilius 36 (1990), 52.
51 Martindale remarks later in another context that "some of the poems...were performed on stage as miniature dramas" (p. 119), citing no source for "some" as opposed to all, ignoring the question of the impact or actual mode of presentation, for which see note 12.
52 Cf. the lines of inquiry broached in notes 44, 41, and 40.
53 Cf. my "Dawn & Dusk as Motifs of Opening & Closure in Heroic & Bucolic Epos (Homer, Apollonius, Theocritus, Virgil)," in Atti del Convegno Di Studi Virgiliani, I (Milan, 1984), 124-47.
54 Cf. my first article on the issue (note 13).
55 Cf. note 46.
56 Cf. note 45.
57 Cf. the scholarly fashion rebuked in note 45.
6 : Van Sickle
Or can we turn the tables? If truly "all readings of past texts...are representable as acts of appropriation,"58
can the receptionist voice escape the fate it declares for others? If receptionists do not claim to read "past texts," that is one thing. But if they do, are they (too) not (re)presentable as (mis)appropriators?59
A bit ago we caught receptionist discourse in the act of occluding what it claimed to reprove. Should we suspect that in the occluded dialogue with garden variety readers receptionism gets caught short? Does its mission of unmasking others' agendas leave it prey to their predilections, which largely determine where it will fight? Does it have to engage in battles on ground belonging to others but with inferior access to their textual ammunition and stores?
What have we seen receptionist discourse achieve against aesthetic purists? It urges the hoary allegory of Tityrus=Virgil and allegory as discontinuous. But it occludes the figurative duo, [Tityrus/Meliboeus], with multiple political, intertextual, and allusive links. It can construe a multiplex figure like Menalcas only in crudely conventional terms as the poet's personal mask. It has nothing to say of the figure's manifold and progressive variants (outsider, young pretender, old master, exiled bard, consumer of acorns in Arcadia).
On the political front, receptionism occludes the actual medium of reception through allegory in recitation and the theater.60
Against structural stress the receptionist urges random variousness with "characterisation" conceived in simple and isolative dramaturgical terms. Does this rule out any linkage between varying character traits and ideological and metapoetic developments? Does it deny internal allusions involving Tityrus, Meliboeus, above all the evolving Menalcas, but even Gallus's up and down? Does it write off other motifs that vary and develop, like the seasonal hints amplified by Spenser and Soubiran, or the trajectory from protecting shade to shadows that repel?61
Hedged in by occlusive closures, no wonder Martindale keeps lamenting that the "innovative" studies are taking place elsewhere, "outside the field." I emphasize the definite article as characteristic of his tendency to absolutize and naturalize his own limitations.62 Readers may well ask, what field he means? Surveyed by what authority in "the ideology and power structure of Classics" with what lines drawn by whom? In "Green Politics" he ranges widely through scholarly and cultural history,63 where, god knows, there is plenty to expose and deconstruct.64 So why has he felt the need to occlude the inner articulation of the Bucolics and their tendentious emplotment in tradition? Why exclude their impact on a whole poetic history of canzonieri, calendars, sequences, suites, and of poem, poetry, and eclogue books, which has, of course, its own history in scholarly fields that I, for one, prefer to think of as enriching and pertinent rather than extraneous others?65
In keeping with his approach and outlook, Martindale applies the non-title "eclogues" to the Liber Bucolicon. He also picks as the "best modern commentary" a work that shares his occlusive * fragmentative and reductive * bent.66 Readers of Vergilius may well extend to both a reproach recently framed in these pages: "limited by the absence of perception deep into the creativity of this poet, of judgment concerning the ways Virgil orders and adapts the ingredients for purposes which share little with those of his models."67 Leclercq at least aims to plumb creativity and grapples with reading. He addresses a host of discrete texts with passion (captus amore). Taken in discreet doses he can stimulate further reading, open not preclude conversation.
* * *
Introducing a set of theoretical essays that has served me here as a kind of sounding board, Stephen Hinds lays down a rule: "the conscientious scholar will resist the impulse to naturalize his or her own terminological choices in such a way as to preempt debate upon them."68 Let me conclude, then, by disclosing the scholarlyinvestments behind my queries to Martindale and Leclercq.
In general I subscribe to a criterion criteria conveniently formulated in a recent essay by Richard Tarrant: "valid, i.e. plausibly arguable with reference to the text."69 To be sure "plausibly arguable" and even "text"
58 Cf. note 3.
59 Many readers will no doubt think here of Cretan Epimenides who said "All Cretans are liars."
60 Cf. note 12.
61 Cf. notes 42, 40, and 36.
62 Cf. the admonition against such naturalizing by Hinds, Allusion and Intertext (note 9), xii.
63 Elsewhere he writes informatively of Virgilian reception in a series arguably at the cutting edge of theory in the field: cf. note 48.
64 But he does praise certain scholarship with which I have found it necessary to take issue: e.g. Annabel Patterson and Paul Alpers in my Messianic Eclogue (note 21), 8, 143-159, cf. notes 44 and 81.
65 E.g. Giovanni della Casa's Poem Book / Ioannis Casae Carminum Liber. Florence 1564, John B. Van Sickle, ed., tr., and comm. (Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, 1998 [in production]); Silvia Longhi, "Il tutto e le parti nel sistema di un canzoniere (Giovanni della Casa)," Strumenti Critici 39-40 (1979), 265-300; also more generally, Neil Fraistat, Poems in Their Place: The Intertextuality and Order of Poetic Collections (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1986), and M. L. Rosenthal and S. Gall, The Modern Poetic Sequence. The Genius of Modern Poetry (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983).
66 Wendell Clausen, A Commentary on Virgil Eclogues, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), which I reviewed in "The End of the Eclogues," Vergilius 41 (1995), 114-33.
67 Richard Thomas, faulting lectures given by Nicholas Horsfall in Virgil's own Naples: Vergilius 39 (1993), 80: a stricture precisely applicable to the case of Callimachus in B. VI, cf. note 45.
68 Allusion and Intertext (note 9), xii.
69 R. J. Tarrant, "Da Capo Structure in Some Odes," ed. S. J. Harrison, in Homage to Horace: A Bimillenary Celebration (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 36.
7 : Van Sickle
depend on vagaries and subjectivities of "appropriation" (as receptionists call it), which may be why Tarrant styles himself "a convinced relativist" in matters interpretive.70 Yet theoretical self-awareness (even self-irony) does not keep him from formulating terms, engaging with texts, and building a case by means of references that strike me as careful and systematic,71 no doubt sweetened by a soupçon of diffidence that smacks of rhetorical tact (but now I may be setting the standard too high).
My specific investment in the Bucolics might have resembled Leclercq's had I taken to findings charted in a visiting professor's class at Harvard (was it 1955 or 1956?). George Duckworth filled the blackboards with ciphers and chaplets of themes drawn from the same Maury who inspired Leclercq. Seven years passed instead before I did take to some very different findings. They came from outside the discipline in the form of a slim bundle of green and yellow mimeographed sheets that were circulating among the likes of I. A. Richards and Robert Lowell. Their author called them an eclogue book, which meant, he said, a suite of poems designed to complement each other and explore the possibility of epic in one's own time: just like Virgil's.72 That sparked my interest and gave me working hypotheses which led to discoveries and were honed and pruned in the course of research. They still come into play as touchstones for (re)reading.
FIRST TOUCHSTONE. The Initial Program.
If Virgil's book formed a suite, the first piece should introduce, define, and anticipate developments. Yet so far as I could tell when I began no one had found a poetic program in the first bucolic. Indeed one of my teachers went so far as to deny the presence of a program in the first poem and posit one, instead, in the sixth, calling the whole book Callimachean.73 Reading on my own, however, I was encouraged to find in the first poem evidence of a program defined by references to literary authorities (as I had been taught programs were), in this case Theocritus, Hesiod, and Lucretius. It dawned on me that like them Virgil was defining his poetics by means of a story of authorization (an etiological myth), only that his figure of authority was a god at Rome.74
Other findings followed as I sharpened my understanding of source criticism and began inquiring into dimensions of meaning that stemmed from genre and politics. Intuitively I grasped, too, the operation of self-reflexive poetics, although I had to work towards an interpretive discourse that could encompass and normalize the concept of metapoetry.
The inquiry into genre found Virgil alluding to Theocritus, Lucretius, and Hesiod. This pattern assimilated him to the tradition of hexameter poetry and identified the bucolic as a species or sub-genre of epos, hexameter tradition, where Horace and Quintilian placed it,75
but with departures that implied a new and distinctive project.
The project's features could be discerned not only in the play of allusion, I came to see, but in the bucolic drama itself.76 The considered dialogue between two countrymen not only implied a revolution in epic but began to carry it out, the dramatic exchange revealing
70 Ibid. An underlying reason for relativism and for humility in our interpretive skirmishes lies in a view of concept formation that I found relevant to the state of scholarship at the time of the Virgil Bimillennium and that seems highly pertinent to the issues raised here:
...The first sequence looks random unless one has developed through a process of abstraction a kind of filter which sees simple structure behind the apparent randomness...
...in this manner...laws of nature are discovered...host of phenomena...chaotic randomness until we select some significant events and abstract from their particular irrelevant circumstances...
...look at the phenomena as if they were messages to be understood. Except that each message appears to be random until we establish a code to read it. This code takes the form of an abstraction, that is, we choose to ignore certain things as irrelevant and we thus partially select the content of the message...
...since the code is not absolute, there may be several messages in the same raw material of the data, so changing the code will result in a message of equally deep significance in something that was only noise before, conversely: in a new code a former message may be devoid of meaning. [Cf. note 6]
...code presupposes a free choice among different, complementary aspects...
...some of these aspects may be completely unknown to us now but they may reveal themselves to an observer with a different system of abstractions. [Cf. note 9]
From a dialogue, Are Quanta Real? by J. M. Jauch, quoted by Douglas Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid (New York: Basic Books, 1979), 408-09, which I cite at the close of my theoretical reflection on fabrication in scholarship, "Commentaria Commenticia" (note 32), 32, n. 63.
71 Tarrant proceeds as I argued one has to (ibid.): "Lest the latter be construed as crypto-positivistic and unwarranted cognitive optimism, let it be clear that I do not share the faith that modernity (or futurity) guarantees that inference will be carried out 'more intelligently': intelligence will still remain an individual function, often most impeded just where certainty is most baldly claimed. [cf. "all" and "the" etc. in the receptionist discourse] What I do draw is the inference that we must continue to refabricate the past in present (future) terms on the premise that only fabrication makes sense."
72 W. Antony, The Arminarm Eclogues With the Hexercises for the Heclogues (Rome: John Van Sickle and Giulia Battaglia, 1971). Cf. Tracy's remarks on Virgil's book (note 44).
73 Cf. note 45.
74 First reported in a shop talk at the American Academy in Rome, then published as "Epic and Bucolic" (note 46); cf. also my Vergilius 41 (1995), 120-21.
75 Cf. note 47.
76 Cf. Design (note 22), 255, s.v. "poetics...; cf. allegory."
8 : Van Sickle
metapoetic import.77 In the first bucolic, Virgil created two representative figures: he posited Meliboeus as a displaced georgic-civic singer (sc. representative of broader modes of epos) played off against Tityrus as an old-renewed bucolic singer-writer (sc. representative of the tradition of bucolic epos).78 The issues of poetics were dramatized, or if you will thematized,79 in the moving scene.80
As the characters became identified with complementary metapoetic functions, logic dictated that neither alone could be read in the manner of traditional biographical inference as representing Virgil tout court.81 It became clear, too, that Virgil, in the figure of Tityrus's Roman god, had coined a kernel of myth that would serve a dual function, both for further epic development and for the ideology of the new regime. It followed that the currency of the idea and the art of its vehicle interacting must account for the initial reception of the Bucolics: issued with such success as to be performed frequently by actors in the theater.82 Plausibly, too, this clamorous reception accounted for the reports that Virgil became a public, even mythic, figure in his own time.83 Looking back now from the standpoint of the receptionist,84 it
seems more than ever clear that Virgil's extraordinary "openness to appropriation" was built into the script and began working at once: more than one sympathy could be beguiled and coopted by the play of Meliboeus and Tityrus and the central, mystificatory oracle of the god.85
SECOND TOUCHSTONE. Poems in their Places: Recursive Progression.
In a suite each successive piece should play a distinctive part at its place. It should look back to what came before and vary enough to modify the range of themes and forms. This process of referring back to move ahead I came to term recursive progression.86 It makes for a unified yet differentiated structure in the whole.87
B. II. As the first poem varied what came before it in tradition, the second should vary what came before it in the book, while positing, at the same time, a distinct tradition. This dual expectation, I came to see, was met in more than one way. Besides the varied motifs of beauty and beech,88 B. II also featured an authorizing utterance at the center (Corydon's inheriting a pipe from an old master: B. 2.35-39), which varied the authorizing utterance at the center of B. I. There the etiological myth was Roman, political and potentially heroic (defined
77 Cf. "Codes and Critics" (note 33), 107-28; also my Vergilius 41 (1995), 120-21.
78 Cf. notes 50 and 44.
79 "It is characteristic of Virgil's artistic method to thematize the conventions of whatever genre he is working in until he has forced these conventions to yield a figure for the subject he has chosen to treat.... Virgil's true subject...is the dynamic of the poetic imagination: the pastoral setting becomes, in Virgil's hands, a figure for the secluded inwardness, perilous detachment, and creative liberty of the poet's mind.": so David Halperin, "Commentary on Ross," Arethusa 23.1 (1990), 78, although the latter needs to be qualified and ironized. As stated, it occludes the public, historical, and tendentious moments that Virgil figures in the polarity of B. I. If Tityrus figures the poet's situation, think only of the irony of servile libertas as a poetic self-portrait (to say nothing of hoary old age), or the irony of the god's response, "slaves, work as before, only harder" (interpreted in note 42), or the broad currents of loss figured in Meliboeus. Cf. my "Response," Vergilius 36 (1990), 61, also discussion of metonymic transfer in notes 42 and 40.
80 A similar approach is required for Theocritus, yet Cameron, Callimachus (note 8), 410-18, writes of the framing narrative in Id. VII as if it described a meeting between two autonomous people. Two fictive characters as archly differentiated as Simichidas and Lycidas might rather be construed as figuring complementary strains within Theocritus's art * one precisely, even preciously, urbane, another outlandishly rural, so that the irony crackling in their exchange stems from the poet's own sense of how his own voices and traditions provoke each other: as Christine Perkell puts it, irony "allows the poet, the zero-voice, to be more inclusive than his speakers" [quoted from the paper answered by "Response," Vergilius 36 (1990), 56]. Cameron buys into the reductive view that Lycidas simply is Apollo and belabors the obvious * that the herder's stick given Simichidas by Lycidas is not a Hesiodic staff * only to misread it. Beyond the historian's conceptual reach lies the poetic device of defining a particular moment by allusive differentiation from others. Theocritus contrives a metapoetic scene in which an emphatically rustic non-Apollo bestows a non-Hesiodic rod via a non-Homeric encounter between town and country on a road in Cos. Allusions signal points of departure from which to reckon distance to what here is * Theocritus's own specifically new position in and against hexameter tradition. Complementing this strain, of course, and representing Theocritus's own complexity of influence, Simichidas compares himself to epigrammatists and his song suggests themes of epigram (odd for Cameron of all people to occlude: he forgets how Theocritus depicts Simichidas as a whole: where coming from. what singing, where arriving * an aristocratic property in the country larded with further literary appropriations). In the china shop of theoretical nuance, Cameron is a bit of a bull.
81 Cf. Perkell (note 50), 52.
82 Bucolica eo successu edidit ut in scena quoque per cantores pronuniarentur: Vita Donati 26-27, in Vitae vergilianae antiquae, Colin Hardie, ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966), 12; the public effect of Virgil's topical language was emphasized by Norman Dewitt, Virgil's Biographia Litteraria (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1923), 129; cf. Design (note 22), 258, s.v. "Vergilius, celebrity of caused by B. performance"; also note 12.
83 Cf. Tacitus, Dialogus de oratoribus 13, and discussion in Poesia e Potere (note 12), 17, as well as the graffiti adduced by Horsfall (note 12).
84 Cf. note 2.
85 Pascite ut ante boues, pueri. summittite tauros (Herd cattle as before, boys. Bring up bulls, B. 1.45): "as before" being a theme to assuage the nostalgia represented in the dispossessed Meliboeus rather than gratify the instance of revolutionary change. The latter is camouflaged in the incoherent manumission tale of Tityrus, although implicit in the reference to "godless, barbarian soldiery": cf. note 42 and my "Codes and Critics" (note 33). The soldiers' import, which is the occluded counterpart to the god's, gets deferred and given voice only in the expropriatory utterance of B. 9.4: "these are mine, old settlers get out."
86 Cf. the account of recursive thought * "Reading back continually into his own past * that of a few words or a few lines previous * the poet enacts the mind's urge to push on by reintegrating its strengths in new formal units of awareness, new functional instruments of appropriation, new and perhaps opaque formulations * the Bucolics taken as a single image, for instance * of the need to grow." * by David Mus, "Tunnelling into Virgil," Glyph (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981); also "recursion * something being defined in terms of simpler versions of itself, instead of implicitly," described by Hofstadter (note 70), 148.
87 For some ancient principles of order and caution in where they apply, see Malcolm Heath, Unity in Greek Poetics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989); for specific, later cases cf. note 65.
88 Cf. notes 36 and 25: the latter's laborious explication of formositas would gain interpretive edge if recast from the viewpoint of recursive and progressive variance (cf. also note 37).
9 : Van Sickle
against Theocritus, Id. VII, and Hesiod); here Corydon's story implied literary inheritance directly from Theocritus (Idd. I, VI, VIII).89 Together the two etiologies in the two first poems could be seen as complementary aspects of a poetic project. Their presence, once recognized, also highlighted the importance of a third poetic etiology, the myth that Pan invented the bucolic pipes (B. 2.32-33), which located a point of origin prior to Theocritus.
B. III. The opening spat about ownership, continuity, responsibility, and skill in song acquired import as a recursive progression dramatizing and effecting development (cf. "Whom's herd? Meliboeus's?" answered by "No, Aegon's, handed over just now," 3.1-2). The third poem built on the complementary allusions of the first two poems and stretched the literary range to encompass Callimachus and Aratus, also Pollio, in prelude for the greater scope of B. IV.
B. IV. Even more brusquely the opening looked back and pushed for change.90 The range of allusion swelled to echo and reverse Catullan heroics (C. 64) and Lucretius on mythic origin.91 The authorizing etiology now boasted a mandate from no less than the Fates (4.46-47) and the project authorized was nothing less than full heroic epic (tua dicere facta, 4.54). Not merely content to project ambition, Virgil underlined its implications by envisioning victory over Orpheus, Linus, Calliope, and Apollo, even over Pan at home in Arcadia (B. 4.55-59). This last climactic boast picked up the origin myth from B. II and inscribed it on Virgil's agenda.92 I realized that each successive poem had its own version of what Hinds aptly calls the Tendentiousness hit its high in B. IV (prompting a rueful thought how that slim eclogue book in Cambridge relegated its version of B. IV to an appendix written in the style of Anne, Countess of Winchelsea, and Pope).
B. V. The opening drama of urgent varying in craft and place demanded to be reinterpreted as metapoetry. A figure developed from B. III, there a querulous youth, but here a sage, Menalcas opened: "Why have we not settled in shade?" In reply, a brash new figure, Mopsus pushed for displacement to a grotto * a recurrence of the place of song lost to Meliboeus in B. I * and boasted of a new inscription on bucolic beech, all of which registered the anomaly of B. IV. The ensuing songs unfolded as a retrospective synthesis. Mopsus's lament for the dead Daphnis reversed joyous motifs of B. IV (providing a sequel to Id. I).93 Menalcas's praise of Daphnis as a god combined positive motifs from the whole halfbook and topped bucolic tradition, mimicking a hymn.94 Positive motifs, needless to say, included the terms of ideological myth, here recast and stretched to embrace the deified father after so much flattery to the living son.
B. VI. The second halfbook fell into place by looking back to the beginning of the first half and varying the etiological myth of Tityrus. His new story, rife with metapoetic implications for the book's movements thus far, told of bucolic beginning, then a stab at heroic growth followed by retreat mandated by a traditional poetic authority (not the god at Rome though arguably his god).95 The ensuing "songs" drew on the Bacchic energy and epic scope of B. IV minus the historical vision (hence the metapoetic key deductum dicere carmen, 6.5).96 The narrative closed with metapoetic hints of echoing the music of the spheres and descending from an Arcadian source.97 The expressly self-reflexive and retrospective narrative cried out for recursive reading to put the traces of Callimachus in their place: one had to try to stop the scholarly juggernaut that hurtled oblivious to the fact that Virgil strongly appropriated and transformed Callimachus for purposes of his own.98
B. VII. After reprogramming Tityrus in B. VI, Virgil recalled Meliboeus and made him report a contest characterized as remembering: the recollective staginess (starting with a pluperfect) dramatized and again thematized recursive progression. Where previously Virgil represented two singers vying with "songs" loved by the Camenae and presently produced (expanding scope towards the splurge of B. IV), here he spoke of a certamen (matching, sifting out) that he represented as the Muses' wish to recollect "alternate (sc. verses)." The outcome favored restrictive over expansive poetics (the loser identified by internal allusion with the expansiveness of B. IV). Both singers were identified as Arcadians in a step towards recovering the myth of bucolic origin (cf. B. II, IV, and the Arcadian traces in VI).
B. VIII. A narrator with links to the beginning of the book (like the narrators of B. VII and VI) anticipated its end. He reported a sharp division between verses of Arcadia, which failed to master love, and songs (Theocritean, sc. Sicilian), which prevailed in the form of magical spells.
89 For details, Design (note 22), 127, note 63.
90 Cameron, Callimachus (note 8), 466-70, builds a convincing case that Virgil's maiora here raises an expectation of panegyric. The cue is generic or intertextual, not allusive, and may be qualified and refocused by the actual project, since Virgil goes on to encapsulate the heroic narratives of Argo and Troy as prelude to telling deeds (see note for B. 4.54). Cameron has little independent grasp of the poetic argument, relying on Clausen's essay, reprinted in his commentary, which has the drawbacks specified in my review, Vergilius 41 (1995), 122-24, and in my Messianic Eclogue (note 21), 9-12.
91 Virgil first engages with Lucretius in B. I, but most broadly and polemically here: cf. Messianic Eclogue (note 21), "Reclaiming Hesiodic Tradition: Lucretian Nature & New Myth," 64-90, a founding moment neglected by recent scholars, e.g. Farrell (note 47), 61-63, 332; Philip R. Hardie, Virgil's Aeneid Cosmos and Imperium (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), 16.
92 Cf. my Vergilius 41 (1995), 124; also my Messianic Eclogue (note 21).
93 For Mopsus as the figure of a uates, allusively recreated as a metapoetic construct, see note 96.
94 Cf. my Vergilius 41 (1995), 124; also my "Reading Virgil's Eclogue Book," Aufsteig und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.31.1 (Berlin 1980), 576-603.
95 Cf. my Vergilius 41 (1995), 125, and notes 45 and 22. Cameron, Callimachus (note 8), 454, does not even cite vv 1-2.
96 One major motif, song of the origin of Apollo's Grynean grove (6.72-73) evokes associations with B. V and epic tradition, ignored by both Clausen (cf. my Vergilius 41, 1995, 125) and Cameron, Callimachus (note 8) 458. Servius on 6.72 says that Gallus translated Euphorion who wrote of a prophesying contest in the Grynean grove between Calchas and Mopsus, who won (also in Hesiod, fr. 278 Merkelbach-West): this history of victory over the Homeric prophet seems presupposed (thematized) in the figure of Mopsus that Virgil recreates in B. V * implicitly a uates, characterized as contentious like the old Mopsus, but also here specifically linked by internal allusion to the vatic B. IV.
97 Ibid., cf. Design (note 22), 158 and 235: adducing Callimachus 699 Pf on the Arcadian sources of Eurotas and Virgil's closing allusion to the Chorographia by Varro Atacinus (p. 97 Morel). For other Callimachean reprises in Silenus's song, see Design, 156-57: the Arcadian legend of Proitus's daughters from Hymn 3.233-36; Atalanta (daughter of Arcadian Iasius) from Hymn 3.215-224; and Dictaeae from Greek dictua (nets), Hymn 3.190-200. Also Design, 148: Scylla from Greek skyllein as in Callimachus, fr. 288 Pf. On these etymologies see now also J. O'Hara, True Names: Vergil and the Alexandrian Tradition of Etymological Wordplay (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996), 94, 248-49. Yet Cameron, Callimachus (note 8), 458, denies any Callimachean presence in B. VI beyond the proem. Negative momentum has overshot. Indeed, when Virgil specifies that Pasiphae loved a white bull (6.53), could that relate to the bull of Apis Callimachus identified as white (fr. 383.16 Pf.) and, says Cameron (p. 477), Tibullus echoed?
98 Cf. notes 95, 80, 67, 45, 23, and 22.
10 : Van Sickle
B. IX. Absent any narrator, a drama unfolded of forced departure from the landscape of the first halfbook (its characteristic motif,
"beeches," returned, but in negated form, "old with broken tops"). Key literary and political motifs of the first halfbook also returned, but as fragments of difficult recall.99 Only here did the etiology of displacement (deferred, occluded, preempted, and mystified in the oracle of B. I) find its voice, in the utterance of the new owner (B. 9.4).100
B. X. The narrator returned, but the place was new, identified for the first and sole time as Arcadia. Virgil thus completed the recovery of the myth of bucolic origin anticipated in B. II, IV and VI and amplified in B. VII and VIII, facilitated in IX (which vacates once and for all the initial Italian premises). Not content merely to reclaim the originative place, Virgil imagined a mythic time before the nymph Arethusa fled to Sicily (where she had been hailed in Theocritus).101 Tendentiously Virgil thus claimed for himself priority over Theocritus in bucolic tradition. Indeed, Virgil replaced the Theocritean hero, Daphnis, with his own passionate Gallus.102 This etiological climax, after the defining etiologies in previous poems,103 anticipated Hinds's closing observation that "Without some idea of the poet as aetiologist, as mobilizer of his own tradition, ever tendentious and ever manipulative, our account of literary tradition will always turn out too flat."104 B. X fell into place as a fitting climax to the entire book and the cornerstone of Virgil's literary authority in the West.
LIBER BVCOLICON: fiscellam texit.
Once the Bucolics caught my interest, I had to come to terms with structure. Duckworth's source Maury envisioned pairs of poems ringing the fifth, which he considered the significant center.105 From him a trail led to Otto Skutsch, who castigated Maury for numerological tinkering with the text but accepted Maury's assumption of concentric symmetry.106 Brooks Otis, however, was arguing for a large linear movement in the book with thematic reversal that made the second half seem rather anti-climactic to the first.107
Reckoning that Otis and Skutsch had isolated parts at the expense of the whole, I suggested a synthesis. Above all I was looking for some way to redeem the second halfbook from being perceived as an anticlimax. In formal terms, I came to argue that recurrent motifs do not merely fall into patterns making concentric sense (aBa), since repetition varies and develops earlier moments (aBA').108 Nor are these latter structures merely linear, since they work by constant referral back and forth. The dialogue between prior and posterior produces present meaning.109 Readers experience development in the suite as they would through recursive structuring in music.110 As a confirming case, the full image of Arcadia in B. X came to read like a musical finale: bringing back, revising, and recombining elements from earlier in the book. My final structural synthesis included enough numerical symmetries to provoke a rejoinder that ruled out my and other accounts of number in Augustan poetry but judged my findings about thematic development valid.111
* * *
If filtering the world through Virgil's works betrays his lovers, my experience makes me guilty as charged, although other filters * maybe Homer, the Bible, Shakespeare, or lately Derek Walcott's Omeros * do get into the act (the sort of thing once touted as a benefit of education, though now we fear lest pernicious narratives, klea andron, turn our heads?).
Leclercq and Martindale remind me of the two takes by Meliboeus on Tityrus as a lucky old man: fortunate senex...fortunate senex. The second waxes rhapsodic (B. 1.51-58), borrowing from the rural abundance praised by Simichidas in Id. VII to project a detailed and vast, sonorous and picturesque, perhaps (someone is sure to quibble) over-reaching ideal of bucolic amenity.112 More guarded the first take (B. 1.46-50): your place will remain, and big enough for the likes of you, however hemmed in by rocks and marsh, not subject to alien fodder or contagion from contiguous flocks.
My own investment, too, prompts analogy. If any word came from outside (like Tityrus's god or Martindale's Iser), it must have been that green and yellow eclogue book with its metapoetic import.113 I remember a shock of recognition on reading Dante's etiological
99 Cf. my Vergilius 41 (1995), 129.
100 Cf. discussion in note 85.
101 Idd. 1.117, 16.102 "Sicilian Arethusa" treated as the tutelary of Syracuse with its ruler. Cf. my Vergilius 41 (1995), 130-31, and my other review article, "Staging Vergil's Future and Past," Classical Journal 93 (1998), 216, note 3.
102 Cf. "Staging" (note 101), 214, n. 1 on the emphasis in sollicitos Galli...amores (loves of Gallus troubled), sc. "as yours will be"; also my Vergilius 41 (1995), 130-131.
103 Ibid., 212.
104 Hinds, Allusion and Intertext, 144. Cf. Design (note 22), 258, s.v. "Vergilius Maro, P.: ambitious artist."
105 Cf. note 14.
106 Cf. note 15.
107 Cf. note 16.
108 Cf. the analysis of motif return with development (ABA'), also invoking musical analogy, by Tarrant, "Da Capo Structure" (note 69), 36, who considers it a special case of ring composition, which I also relate to chiasmus (abBA) in Poesia e potere (note 12), passim; also cf. note 34.
109 Cf. the dialogic model of meaning in Kennedy, "Modern receptions," 54-55.
110 Cf. the comparison between musical and poetic structure by F. Klingner cited by Tarrant, "Da Capo Structure" (note 69), 36; also Design (note 22), 253, s.v. "music, analogy for poetic movement."
111 "Van Sickle, Design, has produced the most persuasive portrait of the Eclogues, arguing cogently for what he calls an 'ideological order'.": W. S. Anderson, "Poetic Arrangement from Vergil to Ovid," in Fraistat (note 65), 65, note 20. I went on to document multiple patterns in "Le Bucoliche. 11. La Struttura," Enciclopedia Virgiliana I (1984), 549-552, which is cross referenced with the complementary analysis of structure within each eclogue, "Strutture interne di singole egloghe nel libro bucolico di Virgilio," Maia 35 (1983), 205-212. These articulations received fuller discussion in my Fulbright lectures for the Virgil bimillennium at Rome University La Sapienza: Poesia e Potere (note 12), which developed the concept of chiasmus in dynamic patterning: abBA'.
112 Cf. the import of rupes (1.56) remarked in my Vergilius 41 (1995), 116-17.
113 Cf. note 72.
11 : Van Sickle
fable of his encounter with Virgil, mi mise dentro alle segrete cose (Inf. 3.21). Innocently no doubt I believed that poets knew things about poetry that scholars might come to share.114 Only later did poetry books get in as an undeclared genre at Rome.115 Does metapoetics still sound normal to every scholar's ear?
Another analogy comes from recalling how I matched Otis with Skutsch to suggest a necessary relation between their opposing concepts of structure.116Did I employ them as foils in an effort to build beyond? Was that different from Martindale positing his aestheticist- political duo? Appropriating and reconstructing arguments, do we work toward levels of discourse that can discover and sift more cues, better discriminate and marshall, synthesize, even emplot in scholarly tradition?
Does the analogy lead back to Virgil's reductive duo of Meliboeus and Tityrus? Can they be seen as representing the fractured discourse of Virgil's times and his own complex relations to tradition * Caesarian vs republican and bucolic vs epic, like political vs aesthetic, or Otis vs Skutsch? Does our superior "we need" with respect to other discourses resemble the supercilious narrator in B. II, whom Virgil placed above and looking down on country discourse, represented as split between erotic excess in the bucolic sphere and orderly rhythms of georgic work? Or if not that supercilious narrator, then the analogy of a Palaemon in B. III * more embedded in the country, absorbing and validating complementary strains of song?
Of course Virgil's game didn't end with those two viewpoints. He went on to a succession in which unifying figures give rise to new polarities, topped by further unifying voices and outbreaks of polarity through the book.117 Nothing that concerted in critical discourse, beyond maneuvers sorting sheep from goats * politics, ideal aesthetics, structure, reception even.118
When all is said and done, the receptionist hangs out in the vestibule ruffling the rolodex of tralatitious remarks. Inside meanwhile the readers in solitary cubicles clutch their texts for dear life. No one seems to occupy the corner office. The author is never in, to hear the receptionist tell it, if not dead then off lining up prospective investors or doing time with old ones in misprision.
Unable to get free of inherited aporias, despairing of innovation, the extremes proliferate, from massive, misguided engagement to dismissive attitude, ostensibly corrective, marketing the status quo. Do pressures of academic commerce contribute to the haste and waste? Inertia? Accidie? How could anyone ever figure such a history as progress?119 What about Servius letting us know that Romans found topical allegory here and there in Virgil and saw Theocritus instead as everywhere simple, simply spoken, as befits rustic characters? What of the counter claim that Theocritus was in fact "Kallimachean," i.e. a practitioner of innovative art artfully flattering to power, argued by H. J. Rose in lectures canonized by academic power?120 What of the other Callimachus, launched by belated commotion from the discovery of papyri for the prologue to his Aitia that puffed him as a unique literary authority and enemy of epic, even promoting him over Theocritus as Virgil's dominant source, also canonized by academic power?121 Or what kind of progress now dethrones Callimachus, only to revert to reading Theocritus and Virgil not all that more subtly than Servius?122 As a practical matter, how can we hope to reconcile the evidence that no two readers concur, nor any one reader return the same, with the hints that a poet repeatedly interacted with language and forms, shaping and
114 Before me was the example of Reuben Brower's friendship with Robert Frost.
115 E.g. the papers I gathered for Augustan Poetry Books, Arethusa 13 (1980) and notes 65 and 81.
116 Design, 27-37.
117 In B. I, the initial polarity gives way (rise) to the famous close, where Virgil expands Tityrus's outlook into a comprehensive picture of tranquillity stretching from the foreground across the farms to the high horizon at dusk, quite overpowering the earlier complaints of Meliboeus. Continuing this comprehensive range, but turning back to the country comes the reporter of B. II. Loftily this narrator divides the country into bucolic disorder that contrasts with georgic rhythms. He reports singing driven by love among lofty beeches. The singer closes with motifs of containing georgic work. Upon and against this equilibrium build the positioning voices of B. III. They generate at a still higher level the embracing and affirming Palemon, identifying the bloom of song with universal spring in field and tree. This comprehensive stance becomes the platform in B. IV for the ambitious singer looking down on woods and yearning to tell of deeds, envisioning victory even over Pan in Arcadia.
After the binge and retrospective harvest in B. IV and V, B. VI gets the ambitious singer-slave, old Tityrus, pulled back to a muse of fields. In tandem B. VII brings back Tityrus's opposite, Meliboeus, summoned from myrtles to a single emblematic tree. The sequel to this recycled Meliboeus is the retrospective narrator in B. VIII, imagined as absorbed by bucolic difference, also as conscious of having opened the book and intending to bring it to closure, meanwhile gazing across the Adriatic sea, yearning to tell of epic deeds. Absent the narrator in B. IX, the synthesis of the first halfbook dissolves once and for all, its fragments freed to reassemble in B. X (e.g. Menalcas comes), where the weaver of the book surfaces as narrator, tying together and getting up, having crossed the Adriatic to Arcadia.
118 For some vicissitudes in Virgil's reception, see Design (note 22), 10-11, and Poesia e potere (note 12): "Parte prima Il mito Virgilio. 1. Il mito s'incrina, p. 4 - 2. Il visionario e lo specchio eroico, p. 5 - 3. L'epopea opinabile, p. 12 - 4. Gli operatori culturali, p. 17 - 5. Dal mimo al mito, p. 20 - 6. La poetica del poter, p. 24."
119 On progress, cf. note . On a recent attempt to sort out scholarly history and take a step ahead, see my review in "Staging" (note 101), 212-16.
120 H. J. Rose, The Eclogues of Vergil, Sather Classical Lectures 16 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1942), 4-5. Rose (p. 242, n. 23), refers to the "vision of the Muses with which the Aitia of Kallimachos started" and traces the scene of Gallus meeting Linus and the Muses (B. 6.64ff) to Euphorion (cf. Servius on B. 6.72, cited in note 96).
121 So Wendell Clausen, Virgil's AENEID and the Tradition of Hellenistic Poetry, Sather Classical Lectures 51 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), 9-14.
122 The portrait of Callimachus as courtier poet links Cameron, Callimachus (note 8), 476 and throughout, with Rose. Yet Cameron discredits the hyper-Callimachean readings of the proem to B. VI without the conceptual tools to relate his findings to Theocritus or the rest of B. VI, still less the book of the Bucolics (cf. notes 98, 97, 96, 95, 90, 80, 67, 57, 45, and 23).
12 : Van Sickle
shaped? That he tested the terms of cohesion and came up against limits? That he figured the diverse conditions, the irreducible vagrants, and the evolving links, in diverse and cogent metonymies (implicit metaphors) of herding, weaving, singing, birth and death? The result is engaging, intelligible enough to induce telling literary appropriations, yet baffling enough to incite the most wildly diverse allegories, to indulge baldly contradictory interpretations, to elude the most self-congratulatory theory, and even put readers off.
The past and the prospects make this reader wonder at the parochialism of certain discourse and "institutions which enable [its] dissemination."123 Does cultural hegemony prefer to replicate the known rather than risk innovation from below or outside? Are scholiastic obsession and occlusive posturing * courtiership and parasitism * no more than just deserts of a poet who identified from the beginning with power?124 No matter that the Bucolics were read as a young poet's first essay, instinct with art, by the old Paul Valéry. By scholars the Bucolics seem to have been written off.125 Where are the venturesome and insightful, responsive and responsible, the compassionate readers? Where is a generation as au courant as, say, Barchiesi, Fowler, Hinds? Can their default be Ovid's latest revenge? Reception of the "eclogues" has long since arrived al verde (as Italians say from the color of certain ceremonial candle ends). Why the delay to (re?)read the Bucolics?
The bankruptcy of eclogue scholarship hardly assures the Bucolics readers. Other voices, worlds clamor. This voice remains ready for conversation plausibly argued (via poetics, politics, whatever) with reference to the text.126
CODA. Stone Sets, The Springs, Autumn 1998.
Up here among the hickories, oaks, and beeches, a poet recently thinned her shelves. Along with paperbacks of middle-English lyric, Milton, Pope and Blake, Williams, Auden, Ginsberg, Plath, and Lowell in the yard sale were Thomas Taylor, The Theoretic Arithmetic of the Pythagoreans (1816), Northrup Frye, The Critical Path. An Essay on the Social Context of Literary Criticism (1971), and I. A. Richards, Practical Criticism (1929). Taylor recalled the perennial lure of a secret mathematical order. Frye opened with hope for "growth in lucidity, or at least an increase of the presbyopia that normally comes in later life." Richards brought home again how reading suffers from the "stock response" and closed with "Suggestions towards Remedies: §22 Critical Fog. §23 Subjectivity. §24 Humility."
Brooklyn College and the Graduate School
The City University of New York
123 On hegemonic institutions, see note 4. On single-minded or monologic versus more open-minded or dialogic reading, with reference to scholarly offenders and the philosophical admonitions of Bakhtin, see "Response," Vergilius 36 (1990), 57, also the grounds for dialogic reading in the model of cognition described in note 32.
124 Cf. note 85.
125 Cf. note 91 and "Staging" (note 101), 212.
126 Cf. the Bakhtinian model of dialogic discourse referred to in note 123.
13 : Van Sickle
: Van Sickle
: Van Sickle
: Van Sickle
: Van Sickle
ATranslated by WordPort from Nota Bene ver. 4 document LECLREV.REV