Commenting on Vergil's hysteron proteron

This article was downloaded by: [Aston University]On: 17 January 2014, At: 15:42Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Symbolae Osloenses:Norwegian Journal of Greekand Latin StudiesPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sosl20

Commenting on Vergil'shysteron proteronEgil Kraggerud aa Dept. of Philosophy, Classics, History of Art andIdeas , University of OsloPublished online: 30 Jul 2012.

To cite this article: Egil Kraggerud (2012) Commenting on Vergil's hysteron proteron ,Symbolae Osloenses: Norwegian Journal of Greek and Latin Studies, 86:1, 118-144,DOI: 10.1080/00397679.2012.700179

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00397679.2012.700179

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sosl20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/00397679.2012.700179

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00397679.2012.700179

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

42 1

7 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

COMMENTING ON VERGIL’S HYSTERON PROTERON

EGIL KRAGGERUD

DEPT. OF PHILOSOPHY, CLASSICS, HISTORY OF ART AND IDEAS,UNIVERSITY OF OSLO

The author presents a sizable sample of examples (40) that have been labelledhysteron proteron (h.p.) by commentators on Vergil, in order to discuss thecriteria underlying the use of the term and - not less importantly - to analysehow this alleged h.p. functions in its context. The interpretations offered willtry to grasp the individual variations and not least to examine how theexamples are embedded in their context. A basic tenet is that tense, mode andaspect must be taken into due account. Very few, if any, of the author’sexamples should in his view be treated as true cases of h.p. in futurecommentaries.

According to age-old school lore1, the figure of speech called hysteron pro-teron (h.p.) 2 can be ascertained “when what should come last, is put first,as Moriamur et in media arma ruamus (A. 2. 353).”3 This ubiquitousexample functions almost as a synonym for h.p., not unlike Vergil’sfamous quos ego (A. 1. 135) which is just an easy way of saying aposiopesis.A. 2. 353, however, has less legitimacy as a standard example of a certainfigure of speech and is on the whole of limited value as a key to under-standing the phenomenon we are about to discuss.

Here I will concentrate on the most well-known form of h.p. discussedin commentaries, the one having two coordinate verbs (or verb forms)juxtaposing two activities mentioned in an order somehow - logically orchronologically - at odds with the natural and expected one.4 With abroader scope than is usual in running commentaries I want to ask:How do the two parts of a so-called h.p. relate to one another and tothe context at large? Especially this latter issue is even today all toooften ignored or downplayed as if an interpretative approach were oflittle relevance. H.p. is far from existing in vacuo, however; it is affectedby the context which in turn is affected by it in various ways. I thereforewant to take into account how a supposed h.p. both contributes to and iscoloured by the situation. The traditional treatment of the h.p. has at timeshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00397679.2012.700179

Symbolae Osloenses 86, 2012

118

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

42 1

7 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

been rather barren, even myoptic, as a simple ‘either - or’ discussion. Inshort, there has been too little interpretation in depth.5 Our mainconcern should be: What has the poet achieved by it or what does hewant to express by deviating from a straightforward order and from themore usual ways of expressing things.

As to my terminology: For the sake of brevity I often call the first part(i.e. moriamur) simply “1”, the second part (in media arma ruamus) “2”in line with Vergil’s own word order without implying anything in theway of temporal sequence. In the quotations the two relevant verbs (orverb forms) will be highlighted in semi-bold.

As to my examples:6 I restrict myself mainly to cases that have beenlabelled h.p. in the scholarly literature, i.e. in the most important commen-taries of the 20th century (or thereafter) and in some monographical treat-ments (cf. the bibliography). I will only now and then be referring to olderinterpretations. Further examples could no doubt have been adduced as aresult of a systematic search, but I hope that I have not missed anythingessential for establishing a fairly representative survey.7

As to restricting h.p. to two verbal forms (most often finite forms): thisdoes not imply that I do not recognize as h.p. cases where two nouns arejuxtaposed in an illogical order. No doubt some of the same factors arevalid for those cases as well.8

The modern discussion of Vergil’s style got an important starting pointat the beginning of the 20th century with the appendices of EduardNorden (1903). He dealt with h.p. as part of his “Anhang II 2”.9 It wascommendable that Norden did not place h.p. under figures of speech inthe traditional way, but treated the phenomenon as part of sentence struc-ture (“Periodik”)10 introducing the relevant section by putting Vergil’s h.p.in this historical perspective: “Aus dem Streben Vergils nach parataktischerSatzfügung zu erklären ist auch die in solcher Häufigkeit sonst kaum nach-weisbare zeitliche Umkehrung der Begriffe …”. But Norden’s new andimportant syntactical approach was only in part satisfactory and commen-tators were justly reluctant to accept Norden’s opinion of the high fre-quency of h.p. One cannot escape the impression that Norden hasgreatly overrated the frequency of the phenomenon. To judge from hisexamples from the Sixth Book one would expect it to occur morethan once every 100 lines in the Aeneid. Norden was partly anticipatedby T.E. Page (1894)11 whose short notice on h.p. has been very influentialfor more than a century, not least owing to the proliferation of his views


119

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

42 1

7 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

through his useful and widely disseminated commentaries. A fruitful ideaemanating from Page and later commentators, but none the less not alwaysfully exploited, is that h.p. is a special variant of the so-called ‘Theme andVariation’ which is in itself a hall-mark of Vergil’s paratactic style. Thisview also plays an important part in the discussions of McDevitt (1967)often referred to in the following.12

A. H.p. based on false interpretations or interpolation.

1. A. 22. 774499 ipse urbem repeto et cingor fulgentibus armis.For this example,see my detailed discussion in the article “Further Textual Issues in theAeneid (2. 749; 5. 300; 9. 539) above.

2. A. 66. 1188-1199 Redditus his primum terris tibi Phoebe sacravit/ remigiumalarum posuitque immania templa.This is Norden’s clearest example of a temporal reversal (‘zeitlicheUmkehrung’): “Erst baut er [Daedalus] den Tempel, in dem erdann die Flügel dediziert”, a h.p. with truly ample time marginbetween 1 and 2 provided Norden’s view is tenable, that is. I cannotexclude the possibility that some early readers may have read thelines like him, i.e. = *postquam immania templa posuit, remigiumalarum sacravit. But a different view is more probable: The lines areembedded in the passage 14-33a with the account of Daedalus’ safetouchdown on the acropolis at Cumae which is the aition for thetemple of Apollo. For one thing Daedalus serves as a sort of paradigm:like Aeneas his first preoccupation is to revere and thank the god. Thereader is halted by an ecphrasis bridging the arrival of Aeneas and hismeeting with the Sibyl, Apollo’s priestess.A straightforward and natural way to understand 18-19, then, is thatDaedalus offers his thanks to Apollo immediately after his descent bydedicating the wings to the god with a religious ceremony appropriatefor the occasion. I therefore believe that Butler (1920) p. 89 who heldthis view was right in his indirect criticism of Norden: “The dedicationof the wings to Phoebus would be immediate and need not wait for thecompletion of the temple.”A famous example of a dedication without a sanctuary being at hand isthe aition for Rome’s first temple: Romulus carried the spolia opimataken from the chieftain of Caenina and brought them to Capitoliumibique ea cum ad quercum pastoribus sacram deposuisset, simul cum dono

EGIL KRAGGERUD

120

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

42 1

7 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

designavit templo Iovis finis cognomenque addidit deo (Livy 1. 10. 5). It isnot to be excluded that Vergil was influenced by this account owing tothe recent publication of Livy’s first pentad around 27 B.C.13

3. A. 77. 662244-662255 Pars pedes ire parat campis, pars arduus altis/ pulverulentusequis furit; omnes arma requirunt.This linguistically extraordinary sentence is taken in the following wayby Goold (2000): “Some make ready to march over the plains on foot,some, mounted on high steeds, storm amid clouds of dust: all cry outfor arms.” (my italics) According to this interpretation there are notonly two groups of warriors - infantry and cavalry - but also twostages in their deployment: Whereas the foot-soldiers are preparingthemselves to start their march over the fields the horsemen arealready galloping off in the dust they are whirling up. Only then weare made aware that they have not the weapons needed.14 Moreover,furere does not mean ‘storm’, ‘dahinjagen’ or anything in that vein,nor does it imply that the horsemen are already traversing the fieldsat full speed.15 Furere, with more than fifty occurrences in Vergilmeans ‘rage’ (for whatever reason that may be), a rage often manifest-ing itself outwardly in more or less uncontrolled manners. In this caseman and horse alike are characterized by their furious and impatientstate. The horses are trampling everywhere while the men are in bois-terous search of arms before being ready to leave the assembly area.Both foot-soldiers and horsemen are still in the same stage of prep-aration before setting off over the fields as an army on the move. Hors-fall is essentially correct here in stressing ‘rage’ as the primary meaning.So also this h.p. vanishes into thin air on closer inspection.

B. Actions not yet realized or not at all.

1. G. 44. 110066b-110088 Tu regibus alas/ eripe; non illis quisquam cunctantibusaltum/ ire iter aut castris audebit vellere signa.According to Biotti (1994) this h.p., consisting of two infinitives,emphasizes the flight as the main action (altum ire iter). That velleresigna is prior to ire iter is clear enough, but in the first place thepoet deals with actions that are to be prevented and therefore donot come to fruition (non… /ire… audebit), secondly we have a dis-junctive statement (aut cf. below on 9. 486) whereby the second partstresses that even the initial step towards the flight was prevented.


121

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

42 1

7 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Accordingly this example is no proper h.p. which it would have beenin ordinary past narrative like e.g. *ausi sunt ire altum iter et vellerecastris signa. Neither Mynors, Thomas nor Erren has anything onh.p. here.16

2. A. 11. 552244-552266 Troes te miseri, ventis maria omnia vecti,/ oramus: prohibeinfandos a navibus ignis,/ [526] parce pio generi et propius res aspicenostras.Austin draws the correct conclusion that it is misleading to use theterm h.p. whereby he phrases his reading of 526 thus: “the importantpoint [is] put first (parce pio generi) and then an explanatory17 phraseappended paratactically, making a single welded unit.” It is relevantto point out, however, that we have to do with a tricolon expressingthree aspects of the same prayer: 1. warding off attack - this is a sign ofleniency 2.) showing mercy and 3) taking a closer look at the cause ofthe Trojans whereby we should mark the difference between impera-tives (connected with the future) and preterite verb forms. It wouldhave been a different thing altogether to say *Dido pepercit Troianiset propius res eorum aspexit, in which case 2 would have signalled asecond phase after she had shown mercy. In the case of imperativesno such feeling of priority arises. 2 is accordingly in this examplesimply a variation of 1.

3. A. 22. 335522b-335533 succurritis urbi/ [353] incensae: moriamur et in mediaarma ruamus.All Norden’s examples except this one is paraphrased by means of aLatin perf. part. pass. (in most cases in the form of an abl. abs.) repre-senting the proteron part (2). This exception, his first example, surprisesus by not having a basic ‘zeitliche Umkehrung’ in the paraphrase“ruentes moriamur”. This seems eo ipso to exclude succession in time,but he does not expatiate on this. Austin (1964) is in agreement withNorden, but refrains from calling it a h.p.: “Virgil has put the impor-tant thing first, appending an explanatory clause by parataxis instead ofsubordination.”18 McDevitt (1967, 316) starts from these interpret-ations but finds them unsatisfactory. He forcefully argues that “thelogical and proper time-sequence is reversed”. Accordingly it wouldhave been legitimate to use the term h.p., but later in the samearticle (319f.) he deals sensibly enough with this example under theheading ‘General and Particular’: Aeneas and his men are in a hopelesssituation and therefore in media arma ruamusmeans in reality the same

EGIL KRAGGERUD

122

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

42 1

7 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

as moriamur.19 It is not easy to harmonize McDevitt’s two readings ofv. 353. In my view he does not attach enough importance to the exhor-tative mood. If one says *mortui sunt (or better: occiderunt) et in mediaarma ruerunt (in prose better: irruerunt) it would bemeaningless. If fut.simpl. had been used in ordinary speech like *moriemur et in mediaarma ruemus the reversal of the expected order would tacitly be trans-formed by the reader/ listener to something more like an ordinaryexperience, e.g.: We will throw ourselves into battle (2) and die (1).The exhortative subjunctive in our example is charged with evenmore emotional and connotative meaning so that no need is felt byan empathic reader to transform it into the more straightforwardsequence (2 – 1). It is immediately felt that to fight is to die and thatany hope of victory or even survival is ruled out beforehand. So theidea of a ‘temporal reversal’ in this example should likewise be aban-doned. Austin’s term ‘explanatory’ reflects the influence from Page,but does not do Vergil’s forceful sententia full justice; simultaneityand virtual identity, reflecting the speaker’s understanding of the situ-ation, are essential factors.

4. A. 22. 554477-554488 Cui Pyrrhus: referes ergo haec et nuntius ibis/ Pelidae gen-itori.It is inconceivable that Vergil would have used the same paratacticconstruction with a preterite tense. The futures contribute to dimin-ishing the sense of temporal sequence. Moreover: Although the basiccriteria for a h.p. are at hand, the predicative nuntius (as nuntius ibis isequivalent to nuntiabis) attaches ibis closer to referes and makes thempractically simultaneous.

5. A. 44. 228888-228899 Mnesthea Sergestumque vocat fortemque Serestum,/classem aptent taciti sociosque ad litora cogant.The observation of Buscaroli (1932) on sociosque ad litora cogant mayseem reasonable enough: “l’emistichio segue a classem aptent per ister-ologia, essendo tutti i socii necessari ai preparativi in parola.” Theimportant thing to be done is mentioned first. Nevertheless otherfactors should be taken into account as well: these are instructionsfor the future and they will be parts of a process going on for sometime. Mnestheus, Sergestus and Serestus will be entrusted the initiat-ive whereby they will have to arrange for the rest to join them in theirpreparations.


123

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

42 1

7 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

6. A. 44. 557744-557766a Deus aethere missus ab alto/ [575] festinare fugam tor-tosque incidere funis/ ecce iterum instimulat.Buscaroli (1932): “o per paratassi (“tagliando …”) o per isterologia,come forse è meglio intendere”. I would prefer the first alternative:festinare fugam gives the total general picture, incidere funis focuseson a detail particularly needed to achieve it. Like the previousexample and the next one these are instructions not yetaccomplished.

7. A. 44. 559944 ferte citi flammas, date tela, impellite remos!Buscaroli: “l’ultima azione comandata dovrebbe essere la prima ese-guita; ma la prima nominata è la più desiderata.” The last assertionis no doubt true, but first of all the flames have to be lit, and therest will easily be taken to follow in succession. But on the wholethe future character of the imperative makes succession an irrelevantquestion.

8. A. 66. 336655-336666 tu mihi terram/ [366] inice, namque potes, portusquerequire Velinos.Here Norden has nothing on his chosen example in the runningcommentary, probably because he considers the case too obvious toneed further comment - and obvious it certainly is in a way. McDe-vitt (p. 320) points out that 1 represents climax/ the natural culmina-tion and the natural order of things would have “ruined the climax”;Vergil aims at “a falling cadence, a release of tension after a climax.20”I am not quite ready to adopt this lofty description. There is no con-troversy here between commentators that the h.p. is manifest, butnobody has so far spent a word on what is in my view the essentialfactor: This is not a 3. person narrative, but direct speech about thefuture whereby the ‘I’ (Palinurus) is totally free to set his own priori-ties as to the order in which he will mention his commands/ wishes.It is obvious that direct speech is a pretty decisive factor in such cases,whereas the chronological order of the instructions is a matter ofminor importance. Not least emotionally the proper inhumationof one’s corpse has priority over information about the place oflanding and where to find his corpse - for Palinurus after all a morecircumstantial question. Who can doubt that Aeneas has to reachthis or that harbour to be able to perform his duty vis-à-vis Palinurus?

9. A. 66. 774488-775511 ‘Has omnis, ubi mille rotam volvere per annos,/ Lethaeumad fluvium deus evocat agmine magno,/ [750] scilicet immemores supera

EGIL KRAGGERUD

124

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

42 1

7 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

ut convexa revisant/ [751] rursus et incipiant in corpora velle reverti.’At first glance one could be tempted to find Norden ad loc justified indiagnosing revisant - incipiant… velle reverti as h.p. At the same timeit is worth pointing out that also other factors contribute to a muchricher and more facetted style than is covered by the label h.p.: 1 (revi-sere) is immediately modified by 2 in the form of incipere velle revertiwhich is not the natural variation of revisere in a h.p. like what e.g.velint reverti or revertantur would have been. But if Vergil hadformed his enunciation with a metrically suitable synonym for *rever-tantur, we would all the same have rejected the idea of h.p. here.Anyway, Vergil is not aiming at a rhetorical figure of speech, but atsupplementing the first ut clause with a deepened understanding inthe next final clause. The first of the two clauses expresses thehigher purpose of palingenesis (with deus as agent): the souls are sum-moned to the Lethe stream so that they, without memory of theirformer existence, can revisit/ see again the heavenly vault (utsupera21 … convexa revisant). So far they are more like passiveobjects in the hands of providence. In the next sentence, however,their own will becomes a decisive factor. The divine order has acti-vated their own longing, not as a light suddenly turned on, but inthe form of a spiritual process. Therefore the construction changesin 2 to mark a new beginning and prepare for rebirth expressed byincipiant and its two expletive infinitives showing how the deadthemselves are being gradually engaged. And once more we havegood reason to point out that the ut clauses are dealing with thefuture and are free from the constraints of normal narrative order.

10. A. 99. 448866b-448877 nec te tua funere22 mater/ [487] produxi pressive oculosaut vulnera lavi.Hardie (1994), followed by Dingel (1997), applies the term h.p. herewithout further discussion, but wrongly in my opinion. We do notneed more context to draw the correct conclusion from what oursurvey has taught us so far: The mother of Euryalus gives vent toher grief that she has been bereft of the ceremonies which a lovingmother is the natural center of when she has lost her son. The veryfact that these rituals have not been performed by her, should warnus against using the term h.p. And it is downright decisive for ourissue that the cola have been juxtaposed disjunctively: The motherof Euryalus has been forced to renounce all of these pious acts; one


125

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

42 1

7 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

or the other would at least have meant some consolation. In the caseof alternatives it is of course not particularly relevant to apply chrono-logical order and point out that produxi, pressi and lavi would havecome in the order 3 - 1 - 2 in a narrative account of a factual burial.If the ritual had been described in preterite tense I venture to assertthat Euryalus’ mother would never have said *filium produxi pressiqueeius oculos in that order.

C. Repeated actions.

1. A. 11. 9900 intonuere poli et crebris micat ignibus aetherI have nothing to add to Austin’s remark ad loc. that it is misleading tocall this h.p., considering that ‘thunder and lightning’ is one.23 Simul-taneity therefore also comes into play (et = ‘and at the same time’).Anyway the repeated action marked by crebris rules out that there isa h.p. based on succession in time.

2. A. 66. 118833-118844 Nec non Aeneas opera inter talia primus/ [184] hortatursocios paribusque accingitur armis.This is one of the more interesting examples on Norden’s list, but thewider context has got little attention.24 The felling of trees necessaryfor the funeral pyre of Misenus has apparently been going on forquite some time already. The collective grief was emphasized at 175whereby not least Aeneas himself was strongly affected by the loss ofhis trumpeter (176a). In a state of weeping ( flentes) the Trojans are con-structing the pyre with timber from the forest (178). As to the followingline, itur in antiquam silvam (179),25 only the most prosaic mind wouldspeak of a hysterologia in relation to congerere arboribus in the previousline. The plural of the preceding main verb (certant) invites us to seethe whole operation as organized in groups, some being involved inthe felling of trees, some in their transport and some in the construc-tion of the pyre. The work in the forest, described in lines 179-182, getsthe lion’s share of the scene.26 From the half-line on the grief of Aeneas(176a) our attention on him is resumed at 18327 where his participationin the work is appended. This leads directly over to his prayer for thegolden bough (187f.) and the omen of the doves’ guidance (190ff.).Aeneas is playing a leading part (primus 183) in the preparations forthe funeral (opera inter talia). As a good leader he encourages his com-rades (hortatur socios) and ‘girds on like weapons’ (Fairclough) whereby

EGIL KRAGGERUD

126

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

42 1

7 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

arma refers to the woodcutter’s ‘tools’. Our lines 183-184 are part of thewhole process, not as anything durative, however - this is not naturallyimplied in the verbs used - but as something repeated. Therebyour interest in the order of the separate actions disappears. Not leastby repeating themselves the abstract encouragement (hortatur) andthe concrete girding (accingitur) can be seen as two overlappingactions: Aeneas is walking to and fro, as a good leader should, whileurging his men in their efforts and taking part in between in thework itself.

3. A. 66. 556666-556699 Cnosius haec Rhadamanthus habet durissima regna,/ [567]castigatque auditque dolos subigitque fateri/ quae quis apud superos furtolaetatus inani,/ distulit in seram commissa piacula mortem.Norden takes castigare as ‘ins Reine bringen’ - in English one couldperhaps say ‘examine closely’, ‘scrutinize’ - and reckons castigatqueauditque as h.p. (‘die Arglist durch Folter im Verhör feststellen’) refer-ring to Page 1894, 204 but without pointing out that Page discusses therelevance of h.p., not for castigatque auditque, but for auditque subigit-que reaching a negative conclusion: “the inquisitor ‘scourges’ hisvictims [castigat] and then ‘hears their guile’ [regular time sequence]compelling them to confess (i.e. by scourging them).” [My additionsin square brackets].Austin likewise finds that the notion h.p. is not called for, writing: “…the repeated -que linking the actions so closely that they seem virtuallysimultaneous.” He takes castigat as ‘reprove’ and offers this reading:“the judge first reads them a lecture [indivually or collectively?], thenhears what they have done, then forces confession of the allegations.”28

In this not sufficiently clarified situation it is worth referring to thecontext: Aeneas is never a visitor in this dire and terrifying part ofHades (549ff.) guarded by Tisiphone at the entrance and by theHydra on the inside - a place of torture and the worst kinds of punish-ment (557f.). The impressions he is receiving and the information con-veyed by the Sibyl come to him through his ears.29 The Sibyl tells himthat Tartarus is a place only for the scelerati and the impii (542f., 563).But it is also a place for differentiated punitive treatment; the scelerumformae require a wide range of responses. Otherwise Rhadamanthus’tribunal would have been superfluous. Consequently, all who are con-demned to this part of the nether world, will have something serious toatone for, and of course they all deserve to be strongly rebuked


127

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

42 1

7 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

(castigat) by the presiding judge. This does not in itself imply whip-ping; it would be natural to take it as dictis castigat.30 A peculiarityof the whole passage should be noted here: Vergil neither calls Rhada-manthus iudex nor characterizes his function by a similar verb.31 Theforensic terms were used when Minos’ function was described pre-viously, see 6. 431-433 (cf. iudex, quaesitor etc., cf. Austin on 431ff.).So it was unnecessary once again to allude to Roman court procedure.Vergil is nonetheless describing Rhadamanthus’ function and role here.Readers would now easily be aware of his role as judge understandingtacitly his function as iudicat and seeing him as a iudex from the termcastigat. Accordingly I take castigat as the wider term comprising theother two activities (auditque subigitque etc.) as parts of the proceedingsat Rhadamanthus’ court of justice. The most natural reading, then,would be to see castigat as the general concept covering the wholeprocess against any individual whereas auditque subigitque deal withthe particular circumstances during the process. As everybody isguilty, the culprit deserves to be scolded right from the start. He hasalready been judged by Rhadamanthus’ brother Minos, now he is infor a closer examination with a view to the particular punishment heshall undergo. In case somebody is trying to hide his offences, Rhada-manthus knows how to extort the truth from him. The presentexpresses repeated actions.

4. A. 1100. 113399-114400 Te quoque magnanimae viderunt, Ismare, gentes/ [140]vulnera derigere et calamos armare veneno.According to Harrison ad loc.: “vulnera derigere implies that Ismarus isalready using the arrows he is here said to prepare, the so-called υστερονπροτερον […] where the poet puts the more important thing first,appending an explanatory clause which precedes it in strict logic.”Both the former and the latter contention seem at first glance indispu-table, particularly so if more prosaic logic would have subordinated 2by means of perf. part. like *calamis veneno armatis vulnera derigereviderunt gentes. Harrison applies moreover and well enough thecomment often found in Page and Austin whereby 1 is the “moreimportant” part, 2 is “explanatory”. Nevertheless I think that thereis room for a more nuanced approach here as well. Vergil could inmy view never have coined a hexameter to render a singular act bymeans of preterits like: *vulnus derexit calamumque armavit veneno.Making many people witness (viderunt … gentes) Ismarus’ archery

EGIL KRAGGERUD

128

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

42 1

7 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

(some of whom would of course have known his practice in this regardalready) the poet suggest that Ismarus could be observed on more thanone occasion. The plural calamos and probably also vulnera point to theway Ismarus used to fight in battles. As was similarly the case at A.6. 184 above, each activity could be observed separately by his com-rades-in-arms as repeating themselves during the course of the siege.Nor would they have known that his arrows were poisoned if theyhad not seen that he applied such poison repeatedly. This takes thesting out of the illogical side of h.p. That 1 and 2 are repeated meansthat their order is important only the first time, thereafter h.p.becomes irrelevant.To call 1 “more important” is by no means universally valid in myexamples. It is often futile to weigh the two parts as to their relativeimportance. 1 and 2 are in this case a whole (‘Ismarus shot poisonedarrows’) and 1 (vulnera derigere) is in itself an uninteresting piece ofinformation and would not be worth recording if it were not for 2(armare veneno).

D. Simultaneous actions.

1. G. 44. 110033-11004432 At cum incerta volant caeloque examina ludunt/ [104]contemnuntque favos et frigida tecta relinquunt.Norden compared this example, about the swarming bees, with A.7. 7, but 2 cannot, as he asserted, be equivalent to tectis relictis.33

The previous line contains another two paratactic verbs which haveto be added to get the total meaning. Line 104 is therefore not anexample of h.p. in itself, but can it be reckoned as the proteron partin a h.p.? Contemnere is ‘keep away from’ (OLD s.v. 3), relinquerebelongs semantically to OLD s.v. 6b ‘to leave behind’ with frigidaas a predicative that favos takes part in.34 In the two lines simultaneityis the dominant factor encompassing 103 and 104 = contemnentes favos(a subjective attitude) et frigida tecta relinquentes (an objective relationof leaving the hives behind).35

2. G. 44. 118844 omnibus una quies operum, labor omnibus unus.In labelling this line a h.p. Biotti has the somewhat pedestrian par-enthesis: “il labor dovrebbe precedere la quies.” But one couldeasily enough in this case as well see labor as preceding becausequies has as its background the previous hectic work, which is labor


129

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

42 1

7 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

indeed, cf. in particular 180: at fessae multa referunt se nocte minores.36

Vergil, then, does not seem to be engaged in exploiting the possibi-lities of a h.p. here, nor does he care about succession in time.

3. A. 22. 113344 Eripui, fateor, leto me et vincula rupiThe label h.p. goes back to Servius, but is none the better for thatreason (see Horsfall). Austin: “Virgil uses an apparent υστερον προ-τερον: but really et appends the explanation of eripui leto me.” I canagree on the explanatory character of 2 if understood as adding theparticular and crucial detail bringing about the freedom focused onin 1: eripui is the general notion summing it all up in one wordwhereas 2 explains how the escape was achieved (et vincula rupi= ‘by breaking the bonds’).

4. A. 22. 222233-222244 qualis mugitus, fugit cum saucius aram/ taurus et incertamexcussit cervice securim.This is similar to the previous instance: fugit encompasses excussitwhich, on its side, marks the decisive act that led to the escape ofthe ox from the altar. Both perfects, eripui and fugit, may be saidto focus on the beginning of the action. So simultaneity is prominenthere as well.

5. A. 33. 7711 deducunt socii navis et litora complent. The second hemistichwas deleted by Novák referring to 3. 676 as Conte’s apparatus informsus. Conte, however, considers this a possible example of h.p. But it is arather obvious case of simultaneous and continuous actions. Prosewould probably have preferred dum instead of et; deducunt navis isthe special action required, complent litora is the general picture.

6. A. 33. 556600 Eripite, o socii, pariterque insurgite remis.Williams ad loc. is critical to using the term h.p. here, but thinksnevertheless that 1 is subsequent to 2. He has no comment on theimperative mode pointing to the future. This example is rathersimilar to no. 3 above except for its tense and mood: Eripite and insur-gite are no doubt two sides of the same action: in this case the generaland essential idea comes first and 2 points to the way it can be realizedsimultaneously: their liberation will come into effect by putting alltheir effort into rowing away.37

7. A. 44. 115544b-115555 atque agmina cervi/ [155] pulverulenta fuga glomerantmontisque relinquunt.Buscaroli (1932 p. 134) paraphrases by means of the abl. abs. montibus

EGIL KRAGGERUD

130

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

42 1

7 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

relictis, but see above on D 1. A process is taking place and 1 is over-lapping 2. Glomerant and relinquunt are simultaneous.

8. A. 44. 226633-226644 dives quae munera Dido/ [264] fecerat et tenui telas dis-creverat auro.This example is adduced by Page in support of his understanding ofh.p. It should, however, have no place in a shortlist of h.p.-examples:Plusquamperf. means that the action of the two halves is a thing ofthe past, fecerat giving the general picture of her handicraft, discreveratthe particular and simultaneous circumstance.38

9. A. 55. 229922 invitat pretiis animos et praemia ponitThis example - an invitation to take part in the foot race - is least of allfit to illustrate h.p. I believe that Norden would have left it out had hepaid attention to older commentators. It is typical of the poet’s‘Theme and Variation’ parataxis: pretia is not different frompraemia. Plessis & Lejay (1913) have this comment ad loc.: “Pretiis:par des objets précieux; indique la valeur en général. Ces objetssont spécifiés par praemia.”39 McDevitt (1967) 319 shares this view,and thinks that invitat animos pretiis suggests the purpose ofAeneas, whereas praemia ponit puts the purpose into effect - acomment a little too subtle, however.

10. A. 66. 111155-111166a [115] Quin ut te supplex peterem et tua limina adirem,/idem orans mandata dabat.Norden thinks that h.p. here is due to the fact that 2 was taken overfrom an older poet. Even so this would not exempt Vergil from theresponsibility of finding a good and tenable place for the borrowedphrase. But Norden has possibly been misled by the adjectivesupplex belonging seemingly only to 1, but it goes equally muchwith 2. However, the verbs themselves settle the question: the diagno-sis h.p. cannot be defended as petere encompasses the journey to theSibyl right from the start making it unneccesary to assume that 1comes after 2 in time. 1 - the petere phase - has had a certain courseprior to the other. At most I would concede that 1 and 2 could beunderstood to overlap each other. The label ‘Theme and Variation’could also be applied.

11. A. 66. 222266-222288 [226] Postquam collapsi cineres et flamma quievit,/ reli-quias vino et bibulam lavere favillam,/ ossaque lecto cado texit Corynaeusaeno.Norden does not comment on this example in his note ad loc., he has


131

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

42 1

7 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

only included it among his examples of h.p. in his Anhang. McDevitt(318f.) applies profitably the ‘Theme and Variation’ label showing thatthe hemistichs present us with “two ways of looking at a dead fire”.40 Iwould prefer to say: “looking at the dying down of a fire.” But McDe-vitt’s observations do not in themselves allow us to remove this h.p.from Norden’s list. Norden’s main flaw is to define, almost automati-cally, so many of his examples as a “zeitliche Umkehrung” (‘temporalreversal’). In spite of being a superb commentator of texts his stylisticreactions were often oversimplified. A sort of Umkehrung there is; inlogical prose a kind of reversal would be natural, something like: *post-quam flamma quievit et cineres collapsi sunt... By substituting, for thesake of the argument, a probable prose sequence like this we easily per-ceive that some chronological order is undoubtedly involved in theunfolding process: the flame is the starting point, eventually it diesdown, while the ashes are becoming gradually the only remainingproduct and are falling in. A process is going on together with theflame dying away. Nobody would hit the mark by representingthese two things as a temporal sequence (one thing happening afteranother). Consequently the poet is perfectly entitled to see 1 and 2as simultaneous. At the end of the day it should not be forgotten,however, that this is no ordinary fire, but a very moving moment inthe life of the Aeneads: they, and not least their leader among them,are taking the last farewell with Misenus; cineres will to them meanthe remnants of a beloved and highly profiled comrade. The languageof the poet would here in particular be expected to surpass the ordin-ary way of saying things. With his “Umkehrung” Vergil has put thecentral notion first emphasizing as well as anticipating what thepyre will end up with, namely the ashes, and putting what hascaused it, the flame, in the second position. It could be said thatthere is a conceptual h.p. here, as cineres is mentioned beforeflamma. But so far in our investigation we have also a feeling thatin cases involving temporal sequence Vergil is careful not to reversethe natural chronology. His kind of reversal has the effect of bringingactions tighter together and making them virtually simultaneous. Incriticism against McDevitt it may be said that in spite of valuable com-ments he is often somewhat obtuse to the poetic enrichment of theline in its context. The ‘Theme and Variation’-form used contributes

EGIL KRAGGERUD

132

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

42 1

7 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

here to giving the emotionally charged side of it a wording out of theordinary.

12. A. 66. 333311 constitit Anchisa satus et vestigia pressit.Norden ad loc. (p. 222) points out that there is h.p. in the verbs, pressitbeing prior to constitit. But McDevitt is on the right track by callingthis ‘Theme and Variation’,41 not h.p., since “constitit means no morethan ‘stood still’, and vestigia pressit ‘ceased walking’”. In view of this itis obvious that the verbs are virtually synonyms, approximately some-thing like: “have stopped and come to a halt.”, and thus simply under-lining his stop.

13. A. 66. 335588b-336611 iam tuta tenebam/ ni gens crudelis madida cum veste gra-vatum/ prensantemque uncis manibus capita aspera montis/ [361] ferroinvasisset praedamque ignara putasset.Page (1900) ad. loc. (which is in substance the same as Page 1894a) cri-ticizes decidedly the use of the term h.p. here, rendering the sentenceas “had attacked me thinking” and states that Vergil put “his mainthought” first and then added “a phrase which is logically subordinatethough in strict grammar co-ordinate.” But the attack of the people isno more the poet’s main thought than their blind urge for booty,rather it is the other way round, because 2 adds essential informationabout their motive for attacking the helpless man. Simultaneity isclearly to be seen. Behind the physical act the abstract putare addsin this case an explanation, a good example that the second part canbe epexegetic, though we should be careful not to find explanatoryadditions as a generally valid form.

14. A. 66. 337744-337755 tu Stygias inhumatus aquas amnemque severum/ [375]Eumenidum aspicies, ripamve iniussus adibis?According to Norden this is an unproblematic h.p. But here as well weare presented with two sides of the same coin. It makes little sense totranform this into hypotaxis as e.g. *postquam ripam adiisti, aspicies. Itis not possible to distinguish between 1 and 2 on the time scale; theone complements the other.

15. A. 66. 445511b-445533a Inter quas Phoenissa recens a vulnere Dido/ errabat silvain magna; quam Troius heros/ [452] ut primum iuxta stetit adgnovitqueper umbras/ obscuram …

Norden has listed 6. 452 among his examples though he has wasted noword on it in his commentary ad loc. His idea is that the recognition in2 causes Aeneas to stop. But few readers would feel inclined to press


133

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

42 1

7 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

the point of a ‘post’ (stetit) in relation to an ‘ante’ (agnovit), I presume.One would think instead that Aeneas stops in the first place becausehe perceives a human shape. By means of this barely perceptible h.p.the poet is able to suggest to us that the two things are practically sim-ultaneous, an idea further emphasized by the difficulty of recognizingDido’s dark and ghostly figure in a gloomy, unknown landscape;agnovit is easily felt as the end result of a gradual process.

16. A. 66. 554422b-554433 at laeva malorum/ [543] exercet poenas et ad impiaTartara mittit.First an attempt at clarifying exercere semantically: Austin took it as“keeps punishment (poenas) busy”, for parallels see OLD s.v. 2 [a](“To keep employed or busy, occupy”), referring as parallels toStatius Th. 3. 4-5. ([…] scelerisque parati / supplicium exercentCurae, probably influenced by Vergil) and Tac. Ann. 1. 44 (iudiciumet poenas de singulis in hunc modum exercuit). But these examples arebetter dealt with by TLL s.v. [1959] 5, 1376, 66ff., where exercere istreated as a juridical term, approximately = “carry into execution”,“implement”; in prose the normal verb would probably be sumere(Norden correctly as also OLD 8a “enforce”, “put to execution”).Austin does not acknowledge h.p. in the sentence, but thinks that “thepunishment of the wicked starts while they are still on their way toTartarus.” I do not think that Austin has grasped correctly Vergil’spoetic and compendious/ pregnant expression: If we ignore 2 forthe time being laeva malorum exercet poenas is something like: “thepath to the left <involves, is characterized by> punishments of thewicked.” The solution found by Vergil is to divide into two indepen-dent sentences what prose would have said in one by integrating theplace ‘whereto’ and ‘where’ (i.e. where the punishment will takeplace) = approximately *at laeva quae ducit ad impia Tartara exercetpoenas malorum. Vergil’s paratactic preferences has led him to post-poning the verb of motion and the place ‘whereto’ until 2 ismarking it as something secondary. Notice also an apo koinou as wehave to add malos to 2 from malorum in 1. As to the question of h.p., Norden has not been sensitive to the fact that 1 comprises it allwhereas 2 supplements 1 by adding the place of destination (where,of course, the punishment itself will take place).

17. A. 66. 554455 Discedam; explebo numerum42 reddarque tenebris.Norden has this comment ad loc.: “mit zeitlicher Umkehrung der

EGIL KRAGGERUD

134

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

42 1

7 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Begriffe = reddar tenebris, ut numerum expleam.” His reading, if putinto prose, would be something like: *cum tenebris redditus ero,explebo numerum. This shows that it is not particularly meaningfulto place 1 and 2 in a chronological sequence. The meeting with Dei-phobus takes place at the end of one part of the underworld journey.Darkness has been the prevailing condition, thrice emphasized in line268 Ibant obscuri sola sub nocte per umbram. We have to understandDeiphobus a little more subtly than Norden: The meeting whichstarted at 494 is approaching its end due to the time of the day(535-537): the conversation is broken off by the Sibyl who makesAeneas aware that he has reached the decisive parting of the wayson his journey through Hades (540-543). The Trojan Deiphobussays that there will be a double consequence of his parting (discedam):that he himself will join the other dead filling his place in their foldand that he will be surrendered to darkness. As a consequence ofone motion - discedere - there will be a double simultaneous result;as he finds his place among the dead (fut. simpl.), darkness encloseshim. This condition he is about to share with all other deceasedpersons in that part of the underworld. If taken together with thewhole passage 426-547 line 545 describes a common destiny. Conse-quently I cannot find any basis for seeing a reversal of 1 and 2 in it.Moreover: Norden fails to relate his h.p.to the previous verb in thesame line, discedam, which is the starting point and premise forexplebo and reddar. Only by taking this verb into account we cansee a logical and temporal order in the line.43 Wisely Austin hasnothing about h.p.

18. A. 77. 77 tendit iter velis portumque relinquit.This line was understood by Norden as *portu relicto tendit. Horsfall(2000) reaches the conclusion - which I find quite convincing - thatthe two actions are simultaneous, adding that the example is close tothe category ‘theme and variation’, provided relinquere is understoodas ‘leave behind’,44 not ‘move out of’.45 The simultaneity of the twoparts - with the attention directed in casu towards respectively bowand stern - represents a situation most people will have experiencedat sea: In the first part (tendit iter velis) the look is directed forwards,in the second (portumque relinquit) one’s eyes are turned towards thereceding land or port. The issue is not one of chronological order, butpoint of view.


135

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

42 1

7 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

19. 88. 8844-8855 quam pius Aeneas tibi enim, tibi, maxima Iuno,/ [85] mactatsacra ferens et cum grege sistit ad aram.Like Austin on 2. 353 (and prior to him Page 1894) Gransden (1976)does not think that 1 and 2 are simultaneous, but points out “that themore important element is placed first with an explanatory clauseappended.” If somebody had written (with perf. hist.) *Aeneas suemmactavit et cum grege constituit ad aram it had not only have beenan obvious h.p., but plain nonsense as well. The present here is notnecessarily telic.46 Mactare as used in descriptions of sacrifices is aprocess of a certain duration. This is also shown by adding sacraferens. To bring the sacrificial animal to the altar (2) is part of thisprocess. I would not label this h.p. as 1 describes the general picturewhereby 2 focuses on a central part of it. This example shows thatit would have been natural in prose to use “cum vere temporale” tosubordinate sistit.47

20. A. 88. 660099-661111 natumque in valle reducta/ ut procul egelido secretumflumine vidit,/ [611] talibus adfata est dictis seque obtulit ultro.Servius’ comment is: est ordo ‘obtulit se et locuta est’. This seems at firstglance to be an obvious h.p, but the last word has perhaps not beensaid. Eden believing that other considerations may also be at playwhen the natural order is abandoned, in particular “relative empha-sis”, somewhat surprisingly maintains “that the goddess is unimpor-tant compared with her appearance in person (ultro)” whereas - asmost English commentators generally think - the emphasis is hereon 1 as the more important pair partner.48 The immediate effect ofthe reversal is that the voice of the goddess with the words she issaying is uttering before her appearance in person, so the poetexpresses that voice and physical shape are simultaneous and thetwo sides of the same epiphany.

21. A. 88. 661155-661166 Dixit et amplexus nati Cytherea petivit;/ arma sub adversaposuit radiantia quercu.Eden discusses the order of these verbs in his note on 611 as an instancewhere other considerations are more important than time-sequence(“Virgil’s order suggests that the goddess embraced her son beforedepositing the arms”). I would suggest this reading of the scene:Dixit is followed by petivit in close temporal order, whereupon (or:at the same time as) she (or an attendant) places the weapons (galea,ensis, lorica, ocreae, hasta and clipeus) under the oak. The fact that

EGIL KRAGGERUD

136

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

42 1

7 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

the goddess appears in person (an epiphany) should be taken intoaccount. It is left to the reader (or listener) to decide how oneshould take dona ferens (609), but we need not think that thegoddess is carrying these weapons in her own arms. It goes withoutsaying that she is accompanied by a helpful attendant to take care ofthe weapons.

22. A. 99. 6699-7711 classem …/ aggeribus saeptam circum et fluvialibus undis/[71] invadit sociosque incendia poscit ovantis.Hardie ad loc., accepting the hysterologia as it seems, points to theprobable influence from Il. 15. 718 (Hector encouring his comradesto attack the Greek ships) οἴσετε πῦρ, ἅμα δ᾽ αὐτοὶ ἀολλέες ὄρνυτ᾽ἀϋτήν49; both incendia (reflecting πῦρ) and ovantis (as ἀϋτήν at theend of the line, cf. Hardie) make it even more probable that forVergil 1 and 2 are simultaneous; cf. Homer’s ἅμα. This is confirmedwhen we take into account the probable ingressive side of presentinvadit and the possible iterative side of present poscit.50

23. A. 99. 551166-551188 immanem Teucri molem volvuntque ruuntque/ [517] quaestravit Rutulos late armorumque resolvit/ tegmina ...“The Teucrians roll up and hurl down a mighty mass, that struckdown the Rutulians far and wide and crushed the protection oftheir armour.” According to Dingel we have a h.p. here because thearmorum tegmina are referring to the shields held upwards for protec-tion (“denn die armorum tegmina sind hier ja die nach oben gehalte-nen Schilde”). But the result will not become a correct temporalsequence if we change 1 and 2. Dingel’s paraphrase is a bit misleadinginsofar as Vergil does not speak specifically about soldiers holdingtheir shields up. His parataxis could be rendered more adequatelyby a gerund in the ablative: *qua late stravit Rutulos resolvendoarmorum tegmina. 1 and 2 supplement each other and are simul-taneous, 2 describing how the Rutulians were struck down. 1 givesthe overall picture with its catastrophic result whereas 2 fills in the par-ticular and important detail.

Concluding remarks

To sum up some impressions from scholarship: Eduard Norden classified,valuably enough, h.p. as a form of parataxis, but he much overrated andmisrepresented the phenomenon which resulted in the claim that Vergil


137

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

42 1

7 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

had reversed the time-sequence quite often. Norden showed regrettablyscant regard for the individual context. Of his 12 examples only one com-plies with a sound definition of h.p. as there is no reversed logical or tem-poral order except in the case of A. 6. 366 tu mihi terram/ inice …

portusque require Velinos where, however, the imperatives point tofuture actions and where moreover logical or temporal order can be seenas irrelevant due to other and stronger factors. The dramatis persona isin such a case free to highlight his priorities without the risk of beingmisunderstood. T. E. Page has justly exercised a stronger influence onscholarship by freeing himself to a high degree from the straitjacket ofthe term h.p. But too often Page was inclined to see, rather mechanically,1 as the main point and 2 as an explanatory addition. In many cases subtlerand more detailed interpretations are required. McDevitt has many valu-able and pertinent remarks on the phenomenon, but sometimes entangleshimself in complicated and/ or artificial interpretations. Eden deservespraise for having pointed out that the so-called h.p. is a form of the para-tactic phenomenon called ‘theme and variation’ (by others: dicolonabundans).

Factors like tense,mode and aspect have scarcely been touched upon bythese scholars though Vergil’s variegated patterns call for individual treat-ment. Semantically the examples above are more open than Vergil’s com-mentators seem so far to have fully realized.

To sum my own impressions: The great number of ‘borderline cases’ isstriking. Vergil has no doubt been aware of the term hysteron proteron andits use among grammarians and commentators. He may himself at timesbe close to deranging logical order, but he has avoided the most provoca-tive form, to reverse temporal order in past narrative (like e.g. *urbemrepeto et cingor armis, cf. A. 1 and Kraggerud (2012)). Often Vergil’s versa-tile forms of parataxis involve indubitable departures from prose usagewhich at first glance may be mistaken for h.p.

A common interpretational formula cannot be brought to bearalthough often 1 is the wider general term or has a special emphasis,whereas 2 adds an important or essential detail within the frame createdby 1 or in some way supplements or defines the situation in some way.The examples adduced above should basically be seen as individual stylisticcreations displaying their potential within the context they are part of. Inmany of them the poet aims at a special ethos (e.g. A. 6. 226). ‘Exceptions’are only apparent due to some kind of modality at work, either a

EGIL KRAGGERUD

138

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

42 1

7 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

command, a wish, a possibility uttered by a character or a verbal aspect(Aktionsart) may come into play.

If my recommendations in the matter will be heeded in the futureVergil scholars will

1) be careful in applying the term h.p. and with inverted commas only,2) mind the tempus used and distinguish between, on the one hand, nar-

ration proper (about realized actions in the past) expressed by means ofpreterite tense and, on the other, not (yet) realized actions (expressedby jussive subjunctive, imperative, negative or disjunctive conjunc-tions). It is my contention that Vergil has avoided the former kindof reversals altogether.

3) mind particularly the use of present tense (which can be used of pastactions, repeated actions, ingressive actions, conative actions, on-going actions and completed actions).

4) and last but not least acknowledge that deviations from the ‘normal’,straightforward order are in need of interpretation and probably havesome poetic enrichment as their effect.

Vergil and Homer

It seems that Vergil has avoided deliberately the one Homeric type of h.p.that is felt as an offence against the natural order of events in past narrative,e.g. Il. 1. 251 δύο … γενεαὶ … ἀνθρώπων/ …, οἵ οἱ πρόσθεν ἅμα ττρράάφφεενν ἠἠδ᾽ἐἐγγέέννοοννττοο/ ἐν Πύλῳ (cf. Il. 2. 547); Od. 5. 264 εἵματά τ᾽ ἀἀμμφφιιέέσσαασσαα θυώδεακαὶ λλοούύσσαασσαα (“having put on fragrant robes and washed”). If wecompare A. 6. 366 with Homer’s future h.p. like Il. 24, 206 εἰ γάρ σ᾽ααἱἱρρήήσσεειι καὶ ἐἐσσόόψψεεττααιι ὀφθαλμοῖσιν (where no special effect or enrichmentseems to be gained by the reversal, however) Vergil may seem formallyclose to Homer, but the difference is nonetheless striking: Vergil’spersona is subjective stressing his own priority,Homer is making an objec-tive statement.

Index locorum

We have dealt with these examples above (with reference to each section inparenthesis): G. 44. 110044 (D1), G. 44. 110088 (B1), G. 44. 118844 (D2), A. 11. 9900 (C1),A. 11. 552266 (B2), A. 22. 113344 (D3), A. 22. 222233f. (D4), A. 22. 335533 (B3), A. 22. 554477 (B4),


139

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

42 1

7 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

A. 22. 774499 (A1), A. 33. 7711 (D5),, A. 33. 556600 (D6), A. 44. 115555 (D7), A. 44. 226644 (D8),A. 44. 228899 (B5), A. 44. 557755 (B6), A. 44. 559944 (B7), A. 55. 229922 (D9), A. 66. 1188f. (A2),A. 66. 111155 (D10), A. 66. 118844 (C2), A. 66. 222266 (D11), A. 66. 333311 (D12), A. 66. 336611(D13), A. 66. 336666 (B8), A. 66. 337755 (D14), A. 66. 445522 (D15), A. 66. 554433 (D16), A.66. 554455 (D17), A. 66. 556677 (C3), A. 66. 775500f. (B9), A. 77. 77 (D18), A. 77. 662255 (A3),A. 88. 8855 (D19), A. 88. 661111 (D20), A. 88. 661155f. (D21), A. 99. 7711 (D22), A. 99. 448877(B10), A. 99. 551177 (D23), A. 1100. 114400 (C4).

Notes

1. The connection with Servius (cf. e.g. ad loc.) and the ancient rhetorically biased exeg-esis in general is clear to see. Servius, however, will not be specifically dealt with in mystudy; cf. instead references in Norden and Zaffagno (1985).

2. “πρωθυστερον” could also have been mentioned as a term since Norden uses it himselfin the commentary part (cf. e.g. p. 222 on v. 331). In Servius on A. 9. 562 “prothys-teron” is a varia lectio (for hysteronproteron); cf. TLL 10. 2280. 1f. The Latin loanwordsare hysteroproteron, hysteronproteron and hysterologia, cf. TLL 6. 3164.40-3165. 7(Rubenbauer 1942).

3. Quoted after and translated from S.B. Bugge, Latinsk Grammatik til Brug ved Under-viisningen i de lærde Skoler, Christiania 1835, p. 558). But worse: H.p. is “die Stellungder Begriffe gegen die n a t ü r l i c h e O r d n u n g, indem das, was in der Zeitvorausgeht, nachgestellt wird. Das Hysteron proteron ist an und für sich einFehler, der sich nicht mit dem Namen einer Redefigur beschönigen lässt.” (H.Menge, Repetitorium der la. Syntax u. Stilistik, 11. Aufl. 1900, § 551.22). EvenSzantyr singles out A. 2. 353 as the typical case.

4. I leave out that type of h.p. in narrative structure which Cicero is preoccupied with inhis letter to Atticus 1. 16. 1 and which is treated thoroughly with Homeric examples byBassett (1920).

5. In order to document the views on the topic I will be citing scholars somewhat moreextensively than what is necessary for my own argument.

6. The examples discussed are not cited from any particular edition. My lemmata areusually complete clauses starting with a capital letter.

7. For a broader and more comprehensive perspective cf. Zaffagno (1985).8. E.g. Ecl. 6. 42 Caucasiasque refert [sc. Silenus] volucres furtumque Promethei, cf. Zaf-

fagno (1985) col. 873a, Holtorf 1959 ad. loc. and the comment of Servius auct.: secun-dum fabulam hysterologia, et hic fabulae ordinem vertit, but logic is perhaps after all notso topsy-turvy on closer inspection (“immagini … rovesciate nella logica causa-effetto”, Zaffagno): We must take into account that in this case 1 and 2 arenothing more than key words for the long lessons of Silenus. And so 2 - in itsform a sort of title ( furtum) - may reflect that part which was attached to a previouspart describing Prometheus vinctus. - Eden sees (with Servius) A. 8. 200-201 as acertain example: attulit et nobis aliquando optantibus aetas/ auxilium adventumquedei: “Hercules must have arrived before he could give help.” By means of this

EGIL KRAGGERUD

140

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

42 1

7 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

temporal reversal the important thing is emphasized (it would not been of any helpfor the Arcadians if Hercules had only arrived without intervening). At the same timethe reversal helps to emphasize the immediacy of the help which would have been lessclear if Vergil had written *adventum auxiliumque.

9. Norden 1903, 372. There are no changes (included the misprint cf. n. 33) in thesecond (1915) and third editions (1927).

10. Norden points himself to Page (1894) 203 f. as a forerunner, but he has apparently to alarge extent ignored Page’s interpretations of the individual examples.

11. Thomas Ethelbert Page (1850-1936).12. Cf. e.g. Eden 1974, p. 161 (ad 8. 611).13. Cf. S.P. Oakley, A Commentary on Livy, Books VI-X, Vol. I, 109 f.14. Brosin (1886): “wie toll (durch die Gefilde) dahinjagt”, Williams (1973): “tear wildly

through the dust”, Perret (1982): “s’élancent avec feu couverts de poussière.”15. It is understandable that Dorvillus (i.e. Jacques Philippe D’Orville 1691-1751) proposed

fugit to Petrus Burmann senior as the latter was preparing his Vergil edition (publishedby his nephew 1746).

16. Biotti adds G. 4. 180, but 181 does not allow the new gathering of honey to be seen as acontinuation of the previous one; this time not only thymos is involved (as in 180-181a),but also (cf. et) arbuta, salex, casia and crocus.

17. “explanatory” is not adequate terminology here.18. Austin (1964) bases himself on Page (1894a, 203-204) here whose paraphrase is: “Let us

<dare to> die by dashing into the thickest of the fray.” That 2. 353 is a good standardexample is now shown by the recent commentary of R.T. Ganiban, Aeneid Book 2,Newburyport, MA 2008, ad loc.

19. Horsfall, seemingly in agreement with Austin, concludes: “the terminology, oremphasis, remains in dispute.”

20. McDevitt holds this to be in character with Vergil’s technique in general and com-pares A. 6. 365 f.

21. For the expression cf. also 6. 241. Norden less convincingly reads super with M andRibbeck.

22. Whether we should accept 1) the ancient paradosis as P. De Paolis now is voting for(“Sacrum poema. Riflessioni sulla nuova edizione Teubneriana dell’Eneide di Virgilio”,Paideia 66, 2011, 577f.) or 2) P. Bembus’ conjecture funere (1530), as most editors to-day accept like myself, or 3) L. Castiglioni’s mea funera (1948) with Geymonat,cannot be further discussed here.

23. Cf. also Conway (1935) ad loc.24. Norden sees both here and at 2. 749 an influence from Ennius in Book 2. As to the

h.p. issue, this has no relevance. Norden is criticized for this by Düring 23 f.25. Cf. also the present itur which suggests an on-going activity.26. Recently Y. Nadeau has pointed to the interesting allusion to C. Iulius Erysichthon

and the preparations for naval war with Sext. Pompey in his study “Naulochus andActium, the Fleets of Paris and Aeneas and the Tree-felling of C. Julius Erysichthon”in: C. Deroux (ed.) Studies in Lat. Lit. and Roman Hist., Brussels 2010, 210-239together with his additional study Latomus 69, 2010, 309-312.


141

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

42 1

7 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

27. In this light I do not consider a new section beginning at 183 natural. Conington andNorden are better in this regard.

28. This is in condensed form the reading Page advances in his review of Papillon andHaig’s and Sidgwick’s editions in CR 4, 1890, 463-466. Page stresses (p. 465f.) cor-rectly that Rhadamanthus is not the executioner of punishment (a task thatbelongs to Tisiphone and her entourage), but the inquisitor. Page: “he whips themand hears their deceits and compels them to confess.”

29. Cf.my article “Further Textual Issues in theAeneid (2. 749; 5. 300; 9. 539)”, SO 86, 2012,30. cf. A. 5. 387 Entellum dictis castigat Acestes, the only other comparable instance of the

verb in Vergil.31. Vergil never uses iudicare which of course would have been very limited anyway (as

only iudicat followed by a vocal can be used in hexameter).32. Incorrectly “III 104” in all Norden’s editions.33. It is to be noted that Norden leaves out the predicative frigida which is badly suited to

his interpretation.34. Cf. Thomas (1988) ad loc.35. In which case not much time is needed for the parallel at A. 10. 819-820 vita per auras/

concessit maesta ad manis corpusque reliquit, which according to Norden is equivalentto corpore relicto vita concessit. Here Harrison’s translation is quite in keeping with ourother interpretations of relinquere: “his soul departed sadly through the air for therealm of the dead, leaving his body behind.” (my italics).

36. I leave out Biotti’s fourth example from Georgics IV, v. 536 namque dabunt [sc.Nymphae] veniam votis irasque remittunt being clearly a case of simultaneousactions.

37. Other examples from book 3 are no better: cf. 60-61 (with Cova’s comment), accord-ing to Page ad loc. there is no need to assume h.p. at 662 postquam altos tetigit fluctus etad aequora venit.

38. Paratore (1947) comments upon this and a number of other cases, but everywhere, itseems, under the influence of Servius; Pease rejects the tradition from Servius in hiscomments on 4. 587 and 655f.

39. Cf. G.F.V. Lund’s school commentary, Copenhagen 1874: “pretiis is defined … bypræmia, = pretiosa præmia”, perhaps under the influence of Heyne - Wagner (1832):“pretia explicantur per praemia: res, quae pretia habentur, et nunc pro praemiis appo-nuntur.” Similarly A. Forbiger (but cf. O. Brosin, Gotha 1890: pretia … bekommena l l e, praemia nur die S i e g e r”).

40. He adds correctly: “In any case it is not necessary for the flames to die before the ashescollapse, so that the order of presentation could also be temporally accurate.”

41. Also called “dicolon abundans”, see G.B. Conte 2007, p. 30.42. explebo numerum: ‘I will complete the count’ (Austin), for the expression cf. also

Norden.43. Asyndeton is necessary by use of the verbs discedere and explere with future tense.44. A similar use of relinquere at 5. 315-316 (cf. Williams 1960 ad loc.)Haec ubi dicta, locum

capiunt signoque repente/ corripiunt spatia audito limenque relinquunt. Cf. also 8. 125with Eden’s note: Progressi subeunt luco fluviumque relinquunt.

EGIL KRAGGERUD

142

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

42 1

7 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

45. Here we may also adduce 4. 154 agmina cervi/ pulverulenta fuga glomerant montisquerelinquunt; cf. Page 1894a, 204; Pease 1935, p. 199.

46. On this term see F. Oldsjö,Tense and Aspect in Caesar’s Narrative,Uppsala 2001, 143 ff.47. Eden rejects the idea of a h.p. and follows W. Warde Fowler, Aeneas at the Site of

Rome, Oxford 1917, p. 44 f. who translates without convincing: “He consecratesthe sow for the honour of the deity, carrying the sacred apparatus in his hand, andbrings her with her progeny to the altar.”, but cf. T. Sardella, Enciclopedia VirgilianaIII s. v. macto arguing that mactare = sacrificare.

48. Page on 8. 611: “The main thought is ‘she thus addressed him,’ and these words [i.e.seque obtulit ultro] are an explanatory addition.” As to my criticism of “explanatory”,“epexegetic”, “cause” in connection with 2 see passim in this article.

49. Cf. G.N. Knauer, Die Aeneis und Homer, Göttingen 1964, 471 (and 270).50. Being morphologically umarked as to tense and aspect the Latin present is function-

ally the most open of all tense forms, and is interchangeable with the narrative perfectin Classical Latin, cf. F. Oldsjö, Tense and Aspect in Caesar’s Narrative, Uppsala 2001,e.g. 281 ff., 298ff. and 345ff.

ReferencesIn my survey of commentaries below I usually leave out “P. Vergilius Maro” (inclusivemodern variants) mentioned on the title side. *Asteriscs mark other publications.

Austin, R. G. (1955) Aeneidos liber quartus. Oxford.Austin, R. G. (1964) Aeneidos liber secundus. Oxford.Austin, R. G. (1971) Aeneidos liber primus. Oxford.Austin, R. G. (1977) Aeneidos liber sextus. Oxford.*Bassett, S.E. (1920) “ϒ Σ Τ Ε Ρ Ο Ν Π Ρ Ο Τ Ε Ρ Ο Ν ΟΜΗ Ρ Ι Κ Ο ϒ (Cicero, Att. 1, 16, 1)”,HStPh31: 39-53.

Biotti, A. (1994) Georgiche libro IV. Bologna.Buscaroli, C. (1932) Il libro di Didone. Milano - Genova - Roma - Napoli.Butler, H. E. (1920) The Sixth Book of the Aeneid. Oxford.Conington, J. and H. Nettleship (1884) The Works of Virgil, Vol, II, 4th. ed. London.Conte, G. B. (2009) Aeneis. Berlin - New York.Conway, R. S. (1935) Aeneidos liber primus. Cambridge.Cova, P. V (1998) Il libro terzo dell’ Eneide, [Biblioteca di Aevum Antiquum. 5]. Milano.Dingel, J. (1997) Kommentar zum 9. Buch der Aeneis Vergils. Heidelberg.*Düring, T. (1905) “De Vergilii sermone epico capita selecta”, Diss. Göttingen.Eden, P. T. (1975) A Commentary on Virgil: Aeneid VIII. Leiden.Fletcher, F. (1941) Aeneid VI. Oxford.Fordyce, C. J. (1977) Aeneidos libri VII-VIII. Glasgow - Oxford.Ganiban, R. T. (2008) Aeneid Book 2. Newburyport, MA.Görler, W. (1982) “Beobachtungen zu Vergils Syntax”, WJA 8:, 69-81.Gransden, K. W. (1976) Aeneid. Book VIII [Cambridge Greek & Latin Classics].Gransden, K. W. (1991) Aeneid. Book XI [Cambridge Greek & Latin Classics].Hardie, Ph. (1994) Aeneid. Book IX [Cambridge Greek & Latin Classics].


143

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

42 1

7 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Harrison, S. J. (1991) Aeneid 10. Oxford.Heinze, R. (1897) De rerum natura Buch III. Leipzig.Henry, J. (1873-1889) Aeneidea I-V. Dublin.Holtorf, H. (1959) Die grösseren Gedichte, I. Einleitung. Bucolica, Freiburg - München.Horsfall, N. (2000) Aeneid 7. Leiden - Boston - Köln [Mnemosyne Suppl. 198].Horsfall, N. (2003) Aeneid 11. Leiden - Boston [MnS 244].Horsfall, N. (2006) Aeneid 3. Leiden - Boston [MnS 273].Horsfall, N. (2008) Aeneid 2. Leiden - Boston [MnS 299].Huxley, H. H. (1963) Georgics I & IV. London.Jahn, P. (1912) Vergils Gedichte, (by Ladewig, Schaper, Deuticke, Jahn). Berlin.*Kraggerud, E. (2012) “Further Textual Issues in the Aeneid (2. 749; 5. 300; 9. 539)”,SO 86.

Lund, G. F.V. (1874) Aeneis. Kjøbenhavn.Lundström, S. (1973) Kommentar till Aeneidens sjätte bok, [Xerox]. Uppsala.Maguinness, W. S. (1953) Aeneid Book XII. London.Norden, E. (1903) Aeneis Buch VI. Leipzig.* Nutting, H.C. (1916) CJ 11: 298 ff.* McDevitt, A.S. (1967) “Hysteron Proteron in the Aeneid”, CQ 17: 316-321.* Page, T.E. (1894) “Notes on Virgil, Aeneid 2, 353 and Eur. Bacchae 506”, CR 8: 203-204.Page, T. E. (1894) The Aeneid, Books I-VI. London.Page, T. E. (1898) Bucolica et Georgica. London.Page, T. E. (1900) The Aeneid, Books VII-XII. London.Paratore, E. (1947) Eneide. Libro quarto. Roma.Pease, A. S. (1935) Aeneidos liber quartus. Cambridge: Mass.Peerlkamp, P. H. (1843) Aeneidos libri I-VI. Leidae.Perret, J. (1982) Énéide. Livres V-VIII2, [Coll. Budé]. Paris.Plessis, F. and P. Lejay (1913) Oeuvres de Virgile. Paris.* Postgate, J.P. (1916) CR 30: 189ff.* Szantyr, A. (1972) = J.B. Hofmann - A. Szantyr, Lateinische Syntax u. Stilistik,München,698-699.

Thomas, R. F. (1988) Georgics. II. Books III-IV [Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics].Cambridge.

Williams, R. D. (1960) Aeneidos liber quintus. Oxford.Williams, R. D. (1962) Aeneidos liber tertius. Oxford.

EGIL KRAGGERUD

144

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

42 1

7 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Documents

Commenting on Vergil's hysteron proteron