Aratus and His Audiences

Author(s): Peter Bing

Source: Materiali e discussioni per l'analisi dei testi classici, No. 31, Mega nepios: Il destinatario
nell'epos didascalico (1993), pp. 99-109
Published by: Fabrizio Serra editore
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40231040
Accessed: 28-09-2015 13:17 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Fabrizio Serra editore and Accademia Editoriale are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Materiali e discussioni per l'analisi dei testi classici.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:17:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Peter Bing

Aratus and his audiences

Following an obligatory libation to Zeus, «whom», so Aratus,

«men never leave unmentioned» (xov ovbinox' avbgeq &<b[iev I
v.
aQQT|xov 1-2), we must begin any discussion of the audiences
of the Phaenomena by examining the poem's ostensible ad-
dressee.
In this regard, we observe first and foremost that, unlike the
addressee in the poem's primary model, the Works and Days,
who is clearly identified as Hesiod's brother Perses, and fitted
out with concrete biographical details, the addressee in Aratus'
poem is left anonymous. This anonymity, moreover, (as I will
attempt to argue) is so disposed as to allow, or even encourage
us to identify ourselves with this role in the act of reading. As a
glance at the appendix shows, imperatives and direct address
occur in the plural only in the appeal to the Muses in the
prooemium (w. 16, 18), and at v. 124, where Dike addresses
mankind, the one instance of reported speech in the poem. In
every other case Aratus uses the intimate second singular, z
usage corresponding exactly to our reception of the text as
solitary readers.
And unlike the Works and Days, which moves us to dissoci-
ate ourselves from the addressees, derogated there as «idiots»,
vrjmoi, and where the path towards virtue (i.e. the path that
Hesiod sets out in his teachings) is long, arduous and full of
sweat (WD 286-292)1, the Phainomena elicit no desire what-
soever to distance ourselves from the addressee, and the lessons
offered are expressly described as easy (761-764):
jioxftog fiev x' 6X1705, to 6e jxvqiov auxix' oveiao
ytvex' £m<pQOoiivT|g aid Jtecputaxyiievq) avdoi.
auxog \iev xd Jiowxa oawxeoog, ev be xai aXXov
jiaQeuwbvwvT^oev,ox' £776^ woooe xeinarv.

Small is the toil, and the instant profit thousandfold

1. Cf. Jens-Uwe Schmidt, Adressat und Paraineseform, («Hypomnemata» 86),

Gottingen 1986, pp. 26, 48-49.

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:17:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 100 Peter Bing

for the heedfulness of the man who is ever watchful.

First, he himself is safer, but he can also well benefit
another by warning him when a storm is stirring near.

Further, there is a notable absence of all-too-specific details

(geographic, vocational, or other) which might prevent us from
feeling ourselves addressed. Scholars exaggerate, I think, in
claiming that the poem's ostensible addressees are farmers and
sailors2. While these are sometimes mentioned, it is far less
often than one might imagine3. Thus, in a poem of 1154 lines,
seafaring is referred to in all of 66 verses; farming in 24. What is
striking here, beyond the meager totals, is that we find gaps of
as much as 300 verses (between 430 and 729) in which neither
seafaring nor farming are mentioned. Indeed, the enumeration
of astronomical data in the first part of the work (1-757) often
seems to occur more for interest's sake than for any specific
practical application. In the second, or meteorological part, the
weather signs might often be taken to apply to any wayfarer
(whether on land or at sea, e.g. 858-861), or anyone indoors
(977-987). There are also signs, moreover, for millers (1044-
1046), goatherds (1098-1100) and shepherds (1104-1112).
Far from excluding anyone, the poem actually contains
numerous instances of inclusive discourse. Typical is a passage
from near the end, where the speaker points up the capacity of a
single sign to mean different things to different people:
ovbe [iev doviftcov ayetaxig r|jieiQ6ftevotvf|Q,
£x vfiocov oxe jioXXai £mjiXr|oaa)oiv aoovoaig, 1095
£qxoii£vou freoeog xa^Qei>neoidei&ie 6' alvwg
ajiTixcp,|xrjol xeveog xai axvojuog ek&\\
avx\i<i>aviTjfteig. xa^Q£l°e nov alnoXog avr\Q
aijxatg 6ovideooiv, £jif|v xata hetqov icooiv,
£Xji6jievog nexejieixa nokvy\ayto<; tviavxov. 1100
ovxa) yaQ hoyeqoI xai atarj|iovegaAAodev aXkoi
^(oojaevavdocojioi, xa 6e jicxqjrooi Jtavxeg £xol|xoi
or\\iax' £myvd>vai xai £g avxtxa Jioirjaacr&ai.

2. E.g. W. Ludwig, Aratos, RE Suppl. X (1965), pp. 33-34, and Bernd Effe, Dicht-
ung und Lehre, Munich 1977, pp. 41, 43. Against this view, cf. G.O. Hutchinson,
Hellenistic Poetry, Oxford 1988, pp. 224-226 esp. n. 17, 233-235.
3. References to seafaring: w. 37-39, 154-155, 287-302, 408-430, 729-731, 744-
748, 758-768 (n.b. el jioxe), 933-936 (i.e. 66 verses total). References to farming:
265-267, 742, 1051-1063, 1075-1081 (24 verses total).

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:17:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Aratus and his audiences 101

Nor at the flocks of birds does a man from the mainland

rejoice, when from the islands they fall upon the fields
with the coming of summer; rather he fears dreadfully
for his crop, lest it come to him empty and as chaff
shriveled by drought. But a goatherding man rejoices
at the same birds, when they come in measure,
hoping then for a year with plenty of milk.
For thus we struggling and restless men live,
each from another livelihood, all of us eager
to interpret things at hand as signs, and apply them presently.

All of us, in Aratus' view, are receptive to signs and innately

disposed to construe them. And all of us do so according to our
abilities and needs. None of us, accordingly, is excluded a
limine from feeling that we are being spoken to.
To be sure, it has been argued that the invocation of Zeus in
the prooemium reflects the ritual conventions of a symposium,
and that we are consequently to imagine this as the poem's
dramatic setting4. But these indications are so vague as to re-
quire only a small step on the part of the reader to imagine
himself in such a milieu. Nor does the first person voice present
an obstacle. For apart from a possible play on Aratus' name
(about which I will have more to say below), the speaker of the
poem remains a shadowy, malleable figure throughout.
Some hundred years ago, G. Kaibel attempted to define the
relationship between speaker and addressee as follows: «It is as
when a father displays the starry sky to his child, now drawing
attention to the beauty of an especially bright star, now telling a
story, now explaining, now observing»5. But Manfred Erren
(op. cit. n. 4 above, pp. 126-134), in a penetrating analysis of
Aratus' use of tense in imperatives, and of tense and mood in
direct address, demonstrated conclusively that this rather naive
picture needed revision.
Aratus' style has nothing of the immediacy of a father out
together with his child on a dazzling star-lit night, no sense that
the speaker is actually showing the addressee something visible

4. Thus E. Maass, Aratea, Berlin 1892, pp. 317-320; M. Erren, Die Phainomena
des Aratos von Soloi, («Hermes» Einzelschr. 19), Wiesbaden 1967, pp. 10-16; W.
Ludwig & D. Pingree, «Gnomon» 43, 1971, p. 350: review of Erren's book (cit.).
5. Aratea, «Hermes» 29, 1894, p. 91.

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:17:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 102 Peter Bing

at that moment. On the contrary, the stars seem strangely dis-

tant. As Erren points out (op. cit. n. 4 above, p. 129), the entire
work contains only one aorist imperative (cf. appendix), i.e.
one alone in which the addressee is expected to respond at once,
and that - remarkably - is the command to the Muses in v. 18:
TExurJQaxe Jtdaav 6oi5rjv, «guide my whole song». Otherwise,
we find mainly present imperatives, temporally neutral and
persistent (rather than immediate) in force: for example, the
injunction oxejtxeo, «look at», or better «watch for» (v. 75, but
especially characteristic of the second part: 778, 799, 832, 880,
892, 994), referring to any time at which the addressee may
have the opportunity to observe the heavens; and then, the
handful of perfect imperatives, which likewise refer to an action
conceived of as ongoing (e.g. w. 430, 758, 930, 1142).
The same is the case with direct address: one is hard put to
find a verb in the indicative. Typically, the speaker communi-
cates with the addressee concerning an action at some unspeci-
fied time, using the potential optative, occasionally the future.
The present indicative is used for direct address only 3 times,
and that within a span of 26 lines, from v. 733 to 759. The latter
two instances (yivcooxeig xd5e xai au, v. 752, and el Jioxe vrji /
moxeveig, v. 759) are clearly generalizing. Verse 733 appears to
be an exception, since the vivid oi)%6g6<?tg;«don't you see?»
seems to urge the reader to see for himself right now. On closer
inspection, however, the urgent question discloses itself as a
sham, a trompe-V-oeil, for it refers not to an immediate,
momentary event, but rather to the phases of the moon occur-
ring over the course of an entire month6. This same generalizing
or nonspecific force appears also in the use of the first person in
the present indicative, by which (as a glance at the appendix
confirms) Aratus conveys constant states of thinking, perceiv-
ing or being.
The distance from any immediate star-gazing is confirmed by
a description, within the text, of the act of star-gazing:
et jiot£ toi vvxxoc; xctftaQfjg,oxe Jiavxag fryauoijc;
ftoxeoag frvdoamoig frudeixvvxai ovgaviT] Nvg, 470
ovde tic; &&oavea)vcpeoexai dixo^iTjvioeXrivr],
dXXa xa ye xvecpaoc;dtacpaivexai 6£ea Jiavxa -

6. Cf. Erren, op. cit. (n. 4 above) p. 130.

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:17:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Aratus and his audiences 103

el Jicni xoi TT)ii6odeJieoi <po£vagixexo ftaujia,

oxei|)aniv(p jiAvtt] xexeaapi^vov etioeCxvxX<p
ovoav6v, r\ xai xig xoi £maxag aXXog£6ei£ev 475
xooxaX6v, FdXa jitv xaXeovoiv.
xelvo Ji£QiYA.T|vfc5

If ever on a clear night, when heavenly Nyx

discloses to men all the stars in their brilliance,
and none goes faded by the full moon,
but they all pierce the darkness brightly -
if ever at such a time wonder comes over your senses
as you gaze at the heaven split by a broad
band, or if someone standing at your side points out
that spangled ring, they call it «Milk».

The evocation of this scene, vivid though it is, clearly assumes

that the poem's audience is at one remove - at least - from
such activity.
But if speaker and addressee are so indeterminate that one
can hardly speak of the work (even superficially) as a «hand-
book for sailors and farmers, the same is true of the content.
Aratus must, as has long been recognized, have left a great deal
out in adapting the scholarly work of Eudoxus. Further, there
are the widely differring emphases with which he treats his
topics in the poem. Together, these factors make the work «en-
tirely useless as an instructional tool»7.
But although we may then construe the Phainomena as
aimed at a potentially broad audience, one perhaps with a
general interest, but no immediate practical or occupational
need8, Aratus nevertheless was also addressing a further, quite
different audience, one not immediately apparent. I mean, of
course, the literary elite of the Hellenistic Age, the cognoscenti
who would appreciate the subtility and refinement of Aratean
style9.

7. Thus Erren, op. cit. (n. 4 above) p. 132.

8. Anthony Bulloch is right, I think, in setting the Phainomena off from the
poems of Nicander with the remark that «Aratus... was making his model more
available, not more obscure, by his adaptation», The Cambridge History of Classic-
al Literature, vol. 1, Cambridge 1985, p. 600.
9. What follows is a somewhat revised version of my article, A Pun on Aratus*
Name in Verse 2 of the Phainomena*, «Harv. Stud. Class. Philol.» 93, 1990, pp.
281-285.

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:17:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 104 Peter Bing

Since the discovery of the acrostic Xejtxrjat w. 783-787 by

J.M. Jacques10, the nature of this «other» audience has become
more apparent. For this term was central to the aesthetic pro-
gramme of Callimachus and his followers, and Aratus thus
-
appears to be showing his colors if that is the way to describe
so veiled a declaration. Understandably, recent scholarship has
been captivated by this acrostic, and by its apparent echoes in
epigrams by Callimachus {AP 9, 507 = 27 Pf. = 56 G.-P.),
Leonidas (AP 9, 25 = 101 G.-P.) and Ptolemy (SH 712). By

10. Sur un Acrosticbe dyAratos,«Rev. Et. Anc.» 62, 1960, pp. 48-61. W. Levitan,
Plexed Artistry: Aratean Acrostics, «Glyph» 5, 1979, pp. 55-68, esp. 57 ff., identifies
a further acrostic, Jidoa, at 803-806 (cf. also G.O. Hutchinson, Hellenistic Poetry,
Oxford 1988, p. 215 n. 4, though he is apparently unaware of Levitan's article), and
thinks that still another may have been attempted unsuccessfully at 808-812
(ZEMEiHfor neut. pl. <rr)H£ia- though is it not more likely to have been for fern. sg.
0T)|i£ia?cf. below), as at Nicander, Alex. 266-274, cf. E. Lobel, Nicander's Signa-
ture, «Class. Quart.» 22, 1928, pp. 114-115.
Confining ourselves to the two indubitable examples, we should note that the
first line of the Jiaoa acrostic at 803 begins, exactly as in the case of Xejittj(and the
acrostic yair\in Philostephanus of Cyrene [D.L. Page, ed., Further Greek Epigrams,
Cambridge 1981, 21], with the word contained in the acrostic, and that that word is
prominent throughout the passage (cf. jtaoiv and jiAvrctin 805, and jiAvtt)at the start
of 802, the line immediately preceding the beginning of the acrostic), cf. Jacques,
op. cit. p. 52 with n. 1. It is no coincidence, moreover, that both instances occur
shortly after the recurrent injunction, «be watchful,* ox&rceo(778, 799). Are we
perhaps meant to take the two nominative feminine adjectives together (Xejitti
jiaoa), supplying a noun such as ftoidrjand recalling the injunction to the Muses at
18 to «guide my whole song,» xex^TJQaxe jiaoav &oi6rjv?Or should we, if we choose
to include the third, more doubtful acrostic, read Xejixf)jiaoa arjiieia?
On the other hand, Michael Haslam (Hidden Signs: Aratus Diosemeiai 46ff.,
Vergil Georgics 1.424ff., «Harv. Stud. Class. Philol.» 94, 1992, pp. 199-204, here
esp. 201) has recently identified a syllabic acrostic at w. 807-808:

\i£o(pa dixaioji^vTig, 61x6605 ye jiev &XQlS&*'avxrjv

OTtyiaivei6ix6jiT)vov, aiaQ jiAXiv ex 6ixofiTJvov

and suggests that, taken together in the context of the section in which they occur,
namely that on the phases of the moon, Xejitti(w. 783 ff.), jiaoa (w. 803 ff.), and
(w. 807 f.) signal the new-phase, full-phase, and half-phase respectively.
|ie*|oi1
In the meantime we know that Aratus' acrostics were not the earliest: for one has
been discovered by R. Kannicht in the tragedian Chairemon (2nd half of the 4th
century B.C.), cf. F14b Snell and Id., Szenen aus griechischenDramen, Berlin 1971,
pp. 159-160, 166-168. On acrostics generally, cf. E. Vogt, Das Akrostichon in der
griechischen Literatur, «Ant. u. Abendl.» 13, 1967, pp. 80-95; E. Courtney, Greek
and Latin Acrostichs, «Philologus» 134, 1990, pp. 3-13.

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:17:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Aratus and his audiences 105

consequence, however, it has largely overlooked another,

comparable piece of evidence which points to these sophisti-
cated readers. And it is to this that I would like to turn.
There appears to be a pun on the otherwise unmentioned
name of Aratus in (xqqtitov,«unmentioned », the first word of v.
2: ex Aiog aQxcofxeafta,xov ovbinox' av6Qeg E<b\ievI aQQrycov11.
The pun, if such it is, is entirely detached from the surface
meaning of the sentence - one reason, perhaps, that readers had
long failed to see it12. Yet even those who have detected the pun
have been content to leave it as an isolated observation, uninter-
preted and unintegrated into any literary/historical context:
-
«probably a play on the name vAqt)to£» nothing more13.
It seems to me we can go further. For Callimachus, I think,
recognized the play, and signalled his recognition in the same
epigram (indeed, the very same phrase) where he alludes to
Aratus' acrostic: xaiQexeXejtxai/ §fjaieg 'Aqt|tov (w. 3-4). It can
be no coincidence that Callimachus juxtaposes these last two
words: he saves the name till this point by using 6 2oXei>gin v.
3. And the juxtaposition will not merely be for the sake of the
sound-play caused by the lengthening of the name's first sylla-
ble (making it metrically equivalent with &qqiitov: thus only
Callimachus and Leonidas, op. cit., cf. G.-P. ad loc.) and by the
use of its Ionic form (likewise only in these two poets). Nor is it
just an allusion to that passage from the Works and Days, §r\zoi
t' aQQriToi xe (4) to which Aratus had referred (cf. n. 12 above) -
though since Callimachus is likening Aratus to Hesiod in this

11. The pun was first noted by W. Levitan, op. cit. (n. 10 above) n. 18; thereafter
cf. D.A. Kidd, Notes on Aratus*Phaenomena>«Class. Quart.* 31, 1981, pp. 355-
362 and N. Hopkinson, A Hellenistic Anthology, Cambridge 1988, p. 139 ad n. 2,
neither of whom seem to know of Levitan's article.
12. One might perhaps take it to mean «Let us begin with Zeus, whom men never
allow (to be like) Aratus», i.e., whom men never allow to assume the status of a
mere mortal, such as the author; or «Zeus, whom we never allow to go unspoken
(sc. as we allow Aratus [that is «Unspoken»] to go unspoken)».
Another reason that scholars may have missed the pun is that most focused their
attention on the fact that &eer]xov»tse^ alludes to a line at the start of the Worksand
Days (v. 4). In Aratus, the word is used of Zeus by men; in Hesiod, by contrast, it is
used of men, «mentioned and unmentioned, by the will of great Zeus» (qtjtoi t'
xe Aidg \iey6Xoio extjti). For the collocation
&QQTfroi £tjxoi x' &qqt]xoi in subsequent
authors, cf. M.L. West, Hesiod. Worksand Days, Oxford 1970, ad loc.
13. Thus Hopkinson, op. cit. (n. 11 above), ibid.

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:17:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 106 Peter Bing

epigram, it is probably that as well. Its witty point depends

rather on the semantic contrast between «utterances » and a
name which means «unuttered»14. In other words, Callimachus
plays on Aratus' name in such a way as to suggest that he
understood the striking &qqtixov,with which Aratus' second
verse begins, as a pun.
Did any other Greek poet appreciate Aratus' pun? It appears
that Leonidas did15. And again, we need look no further than to
the final lines of that epigram, mentioned above, which cele-
brates the Phaenomena (AP 9, 25 = 101 G.-P.):
alveiodco 6fexauxbv ioyov ^eya xai Ai6g elvai 5
devteoog 60x15 fcfrnx'aoroa cpaeivdieoa.

Let him be praised who toiled at this great work, and let it be
said that after Zeus
he comes second, who made the stars shine brighter16.

On the face of it, this final couplet is immediately understand-

able as an innocent if hyperbolic encomium, based not just on
the lofty status it grants Aratus in the cosmic scheme of things,
but also on the jovial play on cpaeiv6xeQa:Aratus has, with
almost Zeus-like power, made the stars «brighter»; on a more
mundane level, however, he has simply made them «clearer,
more intelligible* (thus Gow-Page ad 5 f. s.v. (paeivoxega).
Yet the couplet acquires an entirely different hue in light of
the possible pun on Aratus' name at the start of Phainomena
verse 2. To begin with, alveioftco ... Atog elvai / devxegog implies
that Zeus must be praised first, i.e. the words evidently play on

14. If one could document any ancient awareness of the etymology of 'Hoio6og
from the combination it^i + ati6i^,i.e. «he who emits the voice*, we might be
tempted to see a pointed contrast between fHoi66ovin the first line of the epigram,
and 'AgfJTOv in the last. On this etymology, cf. West ad Th. 22 and G. Nagy, The
Best of the Acbaeans, Baltimore 1979, pp. 296-297.
15. After publication of my article in «Harv. Stud. Class. PhiloU (cit., n. 9
above), I learned that W. Levitan had noted the possibility of this pun - though
without explanation or elaboration - in a footnote of his dissertation, The Field
of
Roman Verse:Studies on Visible Form in Ancient Poetry, Univ. of Texas 1983, 52
p.
n. 21.
16. As Gow and Page note, «atvelvhas apparantly taken on the construction of a
verb of saying*.

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:17:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Aratus and his audiences 107

the opening of the Phainomena with its stress on Zeus' preemi-

nent position (£x Aiog &Qxco^ieoOa). But further, by declaring
Aratus «next after Zeus,» and underlining this position by
situating the word 6eiJT6Qogemphatically at the head of the
second verse of the couplet, Leonidas is, I think, alluding to
aQQT)tov,the head of the second verse in the Phainomena. Put
somewhat differently: with the statement that Aratus comes
next after Zeus, Leonidas spells out what is implicit in the
placement of the pun on that poet's name at Phainomena 2.
Aratus is indeed mentioned second after Zeus - albeit obliquely
and by means of a pun that paradoxically seems to make his
presence «unmentioned.» The location of (xqqtjtovin verse two,
rather than in verse one, where we would normally expect a
sphragis, eloquently reflects an appropriate deference to Zeus,
and the modesty which the meaning of the word itself embo-
dies.
Callimachus and Leonidas were, as far as I can tell, the only
Greek authors to allude to the play on Aratus' name. There
- and
may, however, have been a Latin poet who did so too
did so, just like his Greek predecessors, in a passage which also
alludes to the lemr\ acrostic. For I suspect, though I am less
secure in this instance, that Virgil referred to Aratus' pun in the
Georgics. In that part of Book 1 which adapts the section of the
Phainomena containing the celebrated Xejixr),Virgil apparently
introduced a variation on the acrostic all his own17. Beginning
with v. 429, at precisely that point where the adaptation of the
corresponding Aratean lines commence (and likewise in the 6th
line of a new section), Virgil embedded the first two letters of
each of his tria nomina - and he did so, astonishingly, in alter-
nate lines and reverse order: Publius (433) Vergilius (431) Maro
(429).
Where we would expect Virgil, however, to counter Aratus'
acrostic with a comparable literary critical term, he gives us his
name instead. This deviation to the name is striking, and
prompts us to look for a reason. Could it be that Virgil is simul-
taneously referring both to the acrostic and to the play on Ara-

17. Thus first E. Brown, Numeri Vergiliani. Studies in Eclogues and Georgics,
(Coll. «Latomus» 63), Brussels 1963, cf. R. F. Thomas, Virgil. Georgics>vol. 1,
Cambridge 1988, ad 1, 427-437.

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:17:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 108 Peter Bing

tus' name, in other words that he has conflated the two? Con-
flation of models is, of course, a well-known Virgilian prac-
tice18. And we should point out that Virgil's name is present in
this passage in an oblique way comparable to that of &qqt]tovin
Aratus. That is, the play bears no apparent connection with the
surface meaning of the verses19. Thus, in conflating the acrostic
form with the play on the name (i.e. with a particular content)
has Virgil capped the epigrams of Callimachus and Leonidas
with their (merely) serial references to the two?
If I am correct in my interpretation of &qqt]xovin Aratus, and
of its subsequent echoes in Callimachus, Leonidas and Virgil,
we have an interesting new example of how a few cultivated
readers, literati with a refined sense of word-craft, received and
responded to the Phainomena. No doubt, the majority re-
sponded differently. But polysemousness is entirely in keeping
with Aratus' view of the meaning of orjuaxa. A single sign can
convey a variety of meanings to different audiences (1094-1 103)
and «all of us eager to interpret things at hand as signs, and
apply them presently* (1 102-1 103)20.

Emory University,Atlanta

18. Cf. e.g. R. F. Thomas, Virgil's Georgicsand the Art of Reference, «Harv. Stud.
Class. Philol.» 90, 1986, pp. 193-198 on «conflation, or multiple reference*.
19. Virgil may have included yet another oblique reference to his name, this time
- as in Aratus - a pun. For in the immediate vicinity of the acrostic, the word
virgineum at v. 430 acquires an extra significance: Virgil's nickname is said to have
been Parthenias («like a virgin* ; Servius, ad Aen. praef; the Suetonian Life 11). If
true, virgineum would be a literal translation (thus E. Brown, op. cit. p. 103 and R.
F. Thomas, loc. cit.).
It may also be worth considering whether the phrase is certissimusauctor in v.
432 has some significance in this connection as well. Thomas comments (ad v. 432)
as follows: «The statement is certissimusauctor refers of course to the fourth rising
(ortus), but given V.'s preoccupation with his literary source, might we not see in it
also a complimentary aside to Aratus himself?» Beyond this, I would now ask
whether the phrase might, in addition, play humorously on &qqt]tov?For in the
punning sense of his name, this author - «unmentioned» also by Virgil - is anything
but a certissimus.
20. In Callimachus, too, we find self-conscious accommodation of different levels
of readerly involvement and appreciation, cf. P. Bing, Impersonation of Voice in
Callimachus' Hymn to Apollo, «Trans. Amer. Philol. Assoc.» 123, 1993, pp. 181-
198 and Ergdnzungsspielin the Epigrams of Callimachus, «Ant. u. Abendl.» (forth-
coming).

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:17:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Aratus and his audiences 109

Appendix:

Aratus' use of 1st Person Speech, Direct Address,

and Imperatives

1st sg. + pl. 2nd sg. + pl. Imperatives

1 16
aQxwjAecrfra xaU?olTe 562 jieoiaxetjKxio 15 Xa^Qe
k(b\i€v 76 ejiKpoaaoaio 573 i&oio 18 xexjirjoaxe
4 xexQTJjAeda96 axeitxoio 710 i&oio 75 oxercxeo
5 el^ev 124 i>neig 727 6\peai 89 frunaieo
17 i\ioi xe^eieode 733 6ga<?ig 246 eoxa)
154 ^oi 142 £juxex|ArJQaio752 y1^05*6^ 414 ea3xeo
198 oia) 156 xoi ov 430 6ei6i^i
260 axotjo^ev 157 xoi 758 xoi 725 xexvx^w
298 fined' 161 6r|£ig 759 jiioxeiJeig 758 jiejiovt]oo
336 &y.ovo\iev 186 ^exapXeapeiag773 xoi 778 axenxeo
413 \ioi 196 <paiT]g 776 xoi 799 oxejixeo
460 eya) 198 oe 782 Jiiidoio 801 xex^aiQeo
eiT]v 199 vi6riai 802 xex^Qaio 819 HeXexw
618 dr]et3neda 223 6\peai 818 jiMoio 832 oxeirceo
769 224
yiv<h<y>io\LEv xoi 819 xoi 836 eoxa)
1036 Xeya) 229 £jtixexnf|Qaio 823 xexQi^evog 880 oxenxeo
1102 ^wo^ev 246 xoi eiTjg 890 ejiixgejie
287 jteoixM^oio 832 xoi 892 oxenxeo
289 jieiQr|veiag 836 xoi 910 Y^eoda)
290 xoi 857 xexQTjHevog 930 Jiecpl3A.a§o
302 xaxayoio eirig 974 yiveoftu>
303 xoi 860 oe 987 em66xeve
311 xoi 909 xoi 994 oxejtxeo
405 Jieiioeai 973 xoi 1001 yiveo#u>
430 i6t]ai 983 ov 1017 ejcixeiofla)
434 oe 990 euig 1018 e;ii66xeve
436 drjeig 991 eir]g 1142 xaxovoaao
451 drriaaio 1001 xoi
456 ejiixex^riQaio 1017 xoi
473 xoi 1036 xoi XQV
475 xoi 1038 ejuxexjirjoaio 38
495 voTJoaig 1129 ejuxexfirjoaio 434
1144 daQofioeiag 860
1145 aoifyioiTig 907
1 154 xex|ir|Qaio 995

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:17:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions