Gärtner, U.: From Aeschylus to Phaedrus. Fables in Tragedy, Tragedy in Fables, Ítaca 33, 2017, 37-57

Ítaca. Quaderns Catalans de Cultura Clàssica Societat Catalana d’Estudis Clàssics Núm. 33 (2017), p. 37-57 DOI: 10.2436/20.2501.01.73 From Aeschylus to Phaedrus. Fables in tragedy, tragedy in fables* Ursula Gärtner Graz ursula.gaertner@uni-graz.at ABSTRACT The genres fable and tragedy do not have much in common. The fable was understood as a means of persuasion or illustration but was not held in high esteem. Thus, it is only seldom used in tragedies. In contrast, parody of tragedy has a long literary tradition. Therefore, it is not surprising that Phaedrus offers a perfect Medea prologue in IV 7, full of intertextual references to the texts of his predecessors as well as to the literary criticism of these texts. He shows that he is aware of the literary discourse on poetry and on tragedy in particular. However, contextualizing this tragedy in his fables, he inscribes himself in the tradition of paratragodia. KEYWORDS: Phaedrus, Fable, Tragedy, Parody 1. Introduction At first glance, the genres fable and tragedy do not seem to have much in common. Tragedy belongs to the high style, has a very long tradition, is performed in public and has an important socio-political function. In contrast, * I am very thankful that I had the opportunity to present my ideas at an inspiring conference at the University of Barcelona, organized by Montserrat CAMPS GASET in April 2016. This paper is a further development of ideas I published in 2000. 38 Ursula Gärtner the fable started out as nothing other than a means of persuasion or illustration used by orators, as we can read in Aristotle1. The first collections of fables were meant as a repertorium or finding aid for these orators. The first literary collection of poetic fables as a literary genre was created by the Latin poet Phaedrus in the first century AD2. Though he presented it proudly as a newly created Latin genre, it differs from the high genre of tragedy by belonging to low or small genres like the poems of Catullus or Martial. The socio-political function of the fable was of course completely different from the function of tragedy. It is often claimed that Phaedrus took on the voice of the ‘man from the street’, the underprivileged classes, and that he used the fable to criticise the upper classes, as he could utter his accusations in the realm of animals, in a veiled fashion and therefore without danger 3. I am not convinced that this is entirely true. First, one has to consider that he talks about his recipients only as readers, and indeed it is hard to imagine that he went out to public gatherings and by chance had a fitting poem with him, which he could recite. Those poems were meant to be read and reading and having access to books was a privilege of the rich and highly educated Romans. Therefore, we have to look at those fables as artful poems, which have to be seen in the discourse of Latin poetry of the first century BC and AD. In addition, part of this discourse is the dispute between tragedy and other forms of poetry, especially the small forms. The contrast between tragedy and comedy is already alluded to in the comedies of Aristophanes, a phenomenon called ‘paratragodia’4; moreover, it is used in Latin comedy, especially in Plautus5. The polemic statements of Lucilius aimed at tragedy, and especially at Accius6, are of importance here. Finally, we have to keep Horace’s words about Titius in mind (epist. I 3, 14)7: an tragica desaevit et ampullatur in arte? Or is he raging and thundering in tragic mode? 1. Cf. Arist. Rh. 1393 a 23-1394 a 8. 2. For general thoughts on Phaedrus’ poems, cf. GÄRTNER 2007, 2011, and 2015. 3. Cf. e. g. LA PENNA 1961 and 1968; CURRIE 1984; DEMANDT 1991; BLOOMER 1997; ADRADOS 1999, 120-126; OBERG 2000; BAEZA ANGULO 2011, XV-XX; RENDA 2012a; HOLZBERG 2012, 53-56. For a survey of recent literature on Phaedrus cf. GÄRTNER 2015, 21-58, esp. 37-41; GÄRTNER 2016a. 4. Cf. RAU 1967. 5. Cf. e. g. Plaut. Pseud. 707; Longin. 3, 1. Cf. LEFÈVRE 1982; BLÄNSDORF 1993, 57-74. 6. Lucil. 26. Cf. PUELMA 1949, 116-137; CHRISTES 1971, 103-140, esp. 119-120. Lucilius’ criticism also aims at the remoteness from reality; cf. CICHORIUS 1908, 130; CHRISTES 1971, 118. Realism and relevance to life is also one of Phedrus’ main interests; cf. 1 prol. 3-4. 7. Cf. sat. I 10, 36-37: turgidus Alpinus iugulat dum Memnona dumque | diffingit Rheni luteum caput, haec ego ludo; ludere can be compared with iocorum genus (Phaedr. IV 7, 2); cf. RENDA 2012a, 226. One could also compare Iuv. VI, 634-637: fingimus haec altum satura sumente coturnum | scilicet, et finem egressi legemque priorum | grande Sophocleo carmen bacchamur hiatu, | montibus ignotum Rutulis caeloque Latino? From Aeschylus to Phaedrus. Fables in tragedy, tragedy in fables 39 Parody about tragedy was widely spread8. Therefore, it is not surprising to find reflections about tragedy in fables, as I will show in the main part of my lecture. 2. Fable in Tragedy First, a few words on fables in tragedy. This will be a very short chapter as traces of fables in tragedy are rare. Only three examples are of relevance to our question9: In his Agamemnon Aeschylus lets the choir reflect on the question of what happens, when you let someone enter your house and family (the choir thinks about Helen in Troy who caused grief and destruction); here we find a longer passage, telling of a time when ‘someone once’ took a baby lion into his family which later caused a bloodbath. It is not really a fable and reminds one more of the longer similes in Homer, but it comes close. In a fragment from the Myrmidones (138-139 RADT), the example is more obvious: It is Achilles who mourns the death of his friend Patroclus, asking Antilochus to mourn him, the living, more and then citing ‘Libyan words’10, where an eagle is hit by an arrow and, seeing the feathered weapon, says that he is hit not by others, but by his own feathers. In his Aias, Sophocles lets Menelaus and Teucrus argue. Menelaus says that he ‘once knew’ a man who was brave only in words but was later a coward, and Teucrus answers that he once knew a man who was stupid to gloat about fallen warriors. Again, for me these are not real fables. It is just the beginning ‘someone once did’ that seems related. The reason for this result is quite obvious: Even as means of arguments, fables were thought of as inferior; Aristotle stresses that; and later other authors thought fables were more fitting for less gifted minds such as those of farmers11. High literature more or less avoided fables. 3. Tragedy in Fable It is interesting to see how fables were a great means to parody tragedy. No examples can be found in Greek literature. However, we can already find an example in the first literary Latin fables we have, the fables of Phaedrus. 8. One could also compare Petronius, who lets his characters cite poems, which seem to parody; though of course he knows how to write iambic trimeters (cf. 89), the burlesque poem 55, 6 is written in iambic senars. Cf. BENDZ 1941, 55; PANAYOTAKIS 1995, 87-88; SKUTSCH 1959, 1924. For the relationship between Phaedrus and Petron cf. GÄRTNER 2015, 55-56; 2016a. 9. Cf. HOLZBERG 2012, 14; VAN DIJK 1997. 10. Fr. 139, 1: ὧδ᾿ ἐστὶ μύθων τῶν Λιβυστικῶν κλέος. Cf. Arist. Rh. 1393 a 30: λόγοι, οἷον οἱ Αἰσώπειοι καὶ Λιβυκοί. 11. Cf. Arist.. Rh. 1393 a 23-1394 a 8; Quint. inst. V 11, 19; Prisc. preaex. 1 (= III 430-431 KEIL); Liv. II 23, 8: prisco illo dicendi et horrido modo; Hor. sat. II 6, 77. 40 Ursula Gärtner 3.1. Phaedrus IV 7: Introduction It is the fable IV 7, which is the most interesting poem in this context12. The narrator, the ‘I’ of the fable, defends his poetry against a critic by delivering a prologue of a Medea tragedy13. Tu qui, nasute, scripta destringis mea et hoc iocorum legere fastidis genus, parua libellum sustine patientia, seueritatem frontis dum placo tuae et in cothurnis prodit Aesopus nouis. Utinam nec umquam Pelii nemoris iugo pinus bipenni concidisset Thessala, nec ad professae mortis audacem uiam fabricasset Argus opere Palladio ratem, inhospitalis prima quae ponti sinus patefecit in perniciem Graium et barbarum! Namque et superbi luget Aeetae domus, et regna Peliae scelere Medeae iacent, quae saeuum ingenium uariis inuoluens modis illic per artus fratris explicuit fugam, hic caede patris Peliadum infecit manus. Quid tibi uidetur? «Hoc quoque insulsum est» ait «Falsoque dictum; longe quia uetustior Aegaea Minos classe perdomuit freta iustoque uindicauit exemplo impetum». Quid ergo possum facere tibi, lector Cato, si nec fabellae te iuuant nec fabulae? Noli molestus esse omnino litteris, maiorem exhibeant ne tibi molestiam. Hoc illis dictum est, qui stultitia nauseant et ut putentur sapere caelum uituperant. 5 10 15 20 25 You who turn up your nose at my writings and censure them, you, Mr. Critic, who disdain to read jokes of this kind, have patience to put up with my book a little longer, while I try to appease the stern look on your face by bringing Aesop on the stage for the first time in tragic buskins: O, would that never on Mt. Pelion’s forest height The pine beneath the stroke had fallen of Thessalian axe, Nor Argus for that voyage bold, defying death, 12. Cf. CAVARZERE 1973/4; LUZZATTO 1976, 45-51; GÄRTNER 2000; OBERG 2000, 174-177; SOLIMANO 2005, 246-249; PELLUCCHI 2008; DUNSCH 2010; BAEZA ANGELO 2011, 99-101; RENDA 2012a, 222235. 13. Whether the narrator is Phaedrus himself, is another question. When I speak of ‘Phaedrus’, I mean the persona of the poem. From Aeschylus to Phaedrus. Fables in tragedy, tragedy in fables 41 With Pallas’ aid had wrought to build the fatal ship That first explored the Euxine’s hostile shore, The source of woe for Greeks and foreigners alike. Aye, deeply now the house of proud Aeetes mourns, And Pelias’ realm lies stricken by Medea’s crime, Whose savage will was subtly cloaked in many ways. The murdered limbs of her own brother paved her flight From Colchis, then on Grecian soil she stained the hands Of Pelias’ daughters with the blood of parricide. What think you of this? «That, too, is tasteless,» says he, «and, besides, it’s not true history, since long before that time Minos with his fleet had tamed the Aegean seas and so set up the model of an empire governing by law.» What, then, can I possibly do for you, reader Cato, if neither fables nor tragedies suit your taste? Don’t meddle with literature at all, lest it confront you with greater annoyance than you bring upon it. This is said to those who become squeamish on account of their own folly, then in order to get credit for good taste, rail against heaven. [Translation by PERRY] It is not hard to see that the poem is structured in a way often used by Phaedrus: We find an expositio 1-5, an actio (6-16), a reactio (17-20), a conclusion (21-24) and an epimythium (25-26). As usual, the poet includes no distinct local or temporal information. Moreover, the fable is confined to one action, one place and one time: all elements, which are characteristic of fables. But instead of a real fable, the reader finds something about literary criticism, a topic Phaedrus often talks about in his pro- and epilogues. The expositio starts with Phaedrus asking a critic to accept his new little book (libellus 3) with a little patience (parua ... patientia 3)14. The critic must have uttered harsh criticism about Phaedrus’ poems before. It is important to see that these first lines are not only the expositio, but that they refute possible accusations of poor poetry. The first line shows that Phaedrus does not really want to discuss literature with his opponent. The harsh address tu qui, and especially the following vocative nasute make that clear15. At the same time, the object of that criticism (scripta destringis mea 1) is marked by a penthemimeres; and the hyperbaton illustrates the destringere, which literally means 14. Phaedrus uses the form libellus alluding to the Callimachean programm found in Catull. 1 as he did in I prol. 3; cf. GÄRTNER 2015, 63. Here it is used as a further argument that it will not bother the reader too much; but this has also already become a topos; cf. Ov. am. praef. 15. That this is a vocative rather than an adverb seems obvious if one compares similar addresses (cf. III 11, 6; III 15, 2; IV 11, 7). The exact meaning of nasute is controversial; BERNARDI PERINI 1966/7, 259-261, preferred «tu, critico accigliato e feroce», cf. Hor. sat. I 6, 5; cf. CAVARZERE 1973/4, 115-116; RENDA 2012a, 223-224. But if one looks at Hor. epist. I 5, 23; I 19, 45; Sen. suas. VII 12; Mart. I 3, 5-6; XII 37, 1-2; XIII 2, 1-4; Quint. inst. XI 3, 80, Perry’s translation ‘you who turn up your nose’ or the German ‘Naserümpfen’ seem adequate translations. Cf. MORGAN 1992, 280: ‘disdainful’; DUNSCH 2010, 40. 42 Ursula Gärtner to tear apart and metaphorically to scathe16. This is emphasised by the position of tu and mea at the beginning and end of the line. In the next line, the critic’s aversion to reading (legere fastidis 2)17 is equally marked, as it is almost crushed by its object through a hyperbaton (hoc iocorum ... genus 2). Furthermore, the immediate sequence of three short and three long syllables (legere fāstıˉdıˉs) emphasises hasty reading and long distaste18. The first five lines of the expositio are just one long sentence; the first two lines — a relative clause — concern the critic, the last two lines — a dum clause — the poet, while the main clause with the plea for patient acceptance takes on a central position. Thus, the first lines turn out to be a very artistic and elaborate miniature of a captatio benevolentiae. However, the poet does not only demonstrate his art, but plays with the accusation of the critic against the genus iocorum19, for the critic’s address as a nasute ridicules the opponent and reveals the satiric character of the whole poem20. This is underlined by the contrast between the exaggerated humbleness of the poet and the severity of the critic. But most hilarious is the picture of an old Aesop whom Phaedrus brings on the stage with new21 cothurni22, with which he is unfamiliar. The contrast between Aesop the former slave as an actor in a tragedy, the high genre, is burlesque; but in the imperial period, these cothurni became so high, that they were ridiculous because you could hardly walk23. Just imagine old Aesop in those shoes! Furthermore, the height 16. Cf. Phaedr. I 29, 1-2; Ov. trist. 2, 563: non ego mordaci destrinxi carmine quemquam; cf. DUNSCH 2010, 40; GÄRTNER 2015, 257. 17. For fastidire cf. Quint. inst. V 13, 22: ut quae dicendo refutare non possumus, quasi fastidiendo calcemus. 18. At the same time the author plays with the reception situation. While the recipient is always described as a reader (cf. here: legere 2, lector 21) and while the author asks for a little patience for his book (3), intradiegetically (while we are reading) he starts to talk to his ‘reader’ not to put away the book because Aesop now ‘enters the stage’’. Cf. GÄRTNER 2015, 35-36. 19. Phaedrus calls his poems fabellae, fabulae, ioci, neniae, argutiae and thereby alludes to the refined polished poetry of the Augustan period; for ioci cf. I prol. 7; I 21, 2; II prol 5; III prol. 37. iocus is used already in I prol. 7 in a programmatic way, characterising the whole work as a poetological game. The defence against critics has been a topos in Latin literature since the time of Terence and becomes prevalent in the poetry of the 1st century BC and AD; but no other poet has to fight as hard as Phaedrus — a witty exaggeration of a well-trodden path; cf. GÄRTNER 2015, 43-5 and 66-67; see below. 20. Cf. CAVARZERE 1973/4, 115-116. 21. nouis is a conjecture by PITHOU for the transmitted nobis, usually accepted. DUNSCH 2010, 41, tried to keep nobis, explaining it as a dativus ethicus, and rejected nouis as spoiling the point and being pedantic. Still it seems hard to keep, especially as Phaedrus himself acts as Aesop while nouis just creates suspense; it does not spoil the point, as the outcome of the experience is open. In addition, nouis provides another ironic accent, as tragedy itself was an old genre; cf. OBERG 2000, 175-176. It is Phaedrus giving tragedy a new outfit as he does with the fables, like he said before in 4 prol. 13: usus uetusto genere, sed rebus nouis. 22. The cothurni being the characteristic accessories of tragedy become synonyms for tragedy itself (cf. Hor. carm. II 1, 9-16; Verg. ecl. 8, 9-10; Ov. trist. II 553-554; Quint. inst. X 2, 22). 23. Cf. Luc. JTr. 41; Philostr. VA V 9, p. 89; Mart. III 20, 7; V 30, 1; XI 9, 1; Iuv. VI 634-637; VII 71-73. – SOLIMANO 2005, 246, suggested that this could be another joke as Phaedrus may be alluding to the actor Clodius Aesopus mentioned by Cicero (div. I 80; Tusc. II 39). This is From Aeschylus to Phaedrus. Fables in tragedy, tragedy in fables 43 could also be an allusion to the high genre the fable writer is about to perform24. Therefore, these first lines fulfil one purpose of the fable as Phaedrus had declared himself in the prologue of the first book: quod risum mouet (1 prol. 3) and what the critic had disliked in IV 7, 2. We almost expect the ‘actor’ to fall, the experiment to fail. Out of the blue, the declamation of tragic verses starts, which we can at once recognize as the prologue of a Medea tragedy. This sudden start and change to the high style of tragedy is funny itself but is also significant for the character of parody. Every well-read recipient would expect these lines to be spoken by Medea’s nurse25. Therefore, the declamation-situation doubles as Phaedrus (as a persona in communication with the critic) seems to let Aesop speak who in turn lets the nurse speak26. The ‘nurse’ might also be a subtle allusion to the genre of the fables as they were sometimes called fabulae nutricularum27. Their rhetorical refinement means that these verses are even more elaborate than the expositio — in terms of both structure and stylistic ornaments. There are eleven lines comprising just two sentences (6-11; 12-16). The first sentence, an unrealisable wish in the past tense, has a strict structure of three times two lines (nec ... nec ... relative clause). Some of the many stylistic features include the accumulation of u, the alliteration and the homoioteleuteon in 6 (utinam [...] umquam); the accumulation of i combined with a play with consonants and a hyperbaton in 7 (pinus bipenni concidisset Thessala), the stress on inhospitalis prima before the relative pronoun in 10, which is further stressed by penthemimeres and hyperbaton and finally the i and e accumulation in patefecit in perniciem (10), which presents the main statement of these six lines: If the wishes could have been fulfilled, this would not have happened: the opening of the inhospitalis pontus that caused disaster for the Greeks and barbarians. The structure of the second sentence is different. namque marks it as an explanation. The disaster for the Greeks (12) and barbarians (13) is described in strict parallel28. Medea caused it, and her destructive mind holds the pivotal line in the middle (14)29. The following lines explain this, taking up lines 12 and 13 in the same order — what Medea did to the barbarians (illic 15; 12) and to the Greeks (hic 16; 13). Both lines have a strikingly parallel structure30. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. possible and a pun for the well-read recipient, even though most of them will have thought of Phaedrus’ predecessor. MATTIACCI 2010 showed how Martial and Apuleius defended their works in a very similar way. Cf. Cic. nat. deor. III 75: illa anus. Cf. DUNSCH 2010, 42-43. Quint. inst. I 9, 2; cf. Hor. sat. II 6, 77-78: fabulae aniles; Str. I 2, 8; cf. ftn. 11. Cf. DUNSCH 2010, 41-42. Graium et barbarum is taken up from 11 in reverse order. It is clear to the reader that Medea’s saeuum ingenium takes centre stage; but her action is veiled, as shown by the accumulation of u and the hyperbaton in uariis inuoluens modis. illic – hic (place), per artus – caede (means), fratris – patris (killed relative; stressed by unison at the same position in the verse), explicuit fugam – infecit manus (action; predi- 44 Ursula Gärtner Therefore, the disaster Medea causes is described with increasing intensity: first in general (11), than the crime itself (12-13) and finally the results (1516)31. In contrast to Euripides’ or Ennius’ version (see below) Medea becomes the destructing force here32. At the same time, it becomes clear that it is no longer possible to think of the nurse as the speaker, as the nurse might be afraid but should remain loyal to Medea. The well-read recipient will be surprised about this new opening but will never learn who is talking because the critic does not notice this important change, as we will see33. Phaedrus used two different kinds of composition to structure his ‘prologue’: in the first part, a serial composition with the main statement at the end, in the second, a ‘ringkomposition’ with Medea’s wild mind in the middle as the driving force. As sudden as this prologue started it stops. This immediate transgression in 17 and the simple style of the remaining lines, where the critic is asked what he thinks, underline the effective contrast to the ‘tragedy’34. 3.2. Phaedrus IV 7: Dramatic Intertextuality The poet’s ability to write an elaborate tragedy becomes even more obvious when we look at the intertextual references. They prompt us to think of similar Medea prologues35. The most famous is of course the Medea from Euripides. Εἴθ᾿ ὤφελ᾿ ᾿Αργοῦς μὴ διαπτάσθαι σκάφος Κόλχων ἐς αἶαν κυανέας Συμπληγάδας, μηδ᾿ ἐν νάπαισι Πηλίου πεσεῖν ποτε τμηθεῖσα πεύκη, μηδ’ ἐρετμῶσαι χέρας ἀνδρῶν ἀριστέων οἳ τὸ πάγχρυσον δέρος Πελίαι μετῆλθον. οὐ γὰρ ἂν δέσποιν᾿ ἐμὴ 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 5 cate-object; play with u-a, a-u in the final words); there is no exact correspondence only to Peliadum, which refers to patris as to manus. One should further observe the f-alliteration in 15 and the p-alliteration in 16. Cf. LUZZATTO 1976, 49. It is not convincing that the Argonauts should here be made responsible for everything, as RENDA 2012a, 229, argues. RENDA stresses audacia and professa mors (8). But that makes the Argonauts responsible for death on sea which is a well-known topos of the πρῶτος εὑρετής; cf. GÄRTNER 2009. What Medea does is that she reacts to that for which she alone is responsible. Therefore, the role of Medea does change regarding the Ennian model, as RENDA points out, but in a different way (cf. Hor. ars 123: sit Medea ferox inuictaque; see below). Cf. DUNSCH 2010, 44. I will discuss these lines below; here one should note the anapher quid (17; 21), connecting both the following sections (the question and answer of poet and critic as well as the last utterance of the poet) and the effective final line 24 (hyperbaton and accumulation of m: maiorem [...] molestiam). For close comparisons, cf. CAVARZERE 1973/4; GÄRTNER 2000; OBERG 2000, 174-177; PELLUCCHI 2008; RENDA 2012a, 222-235. From Aeschylus to Phaedrus. Fables in tragedy, tragedy in fables Μήδεια πύργους γῆς ἔπλευσ᾿ ᾿Ιωλκίας ἔρωτι θυμὸν ἐκπλαγεῖσ᾿ ᾿Ιάσονος· οὐδ᾿ ἂν κτανεῖν πείσασα Πελιάδας κόρας πατέρα κατώικει τήνδε γῆν Κορινθίαν 45 10 Would God that Argo’s hull had never flown Through those blue Clashing Rocks to Colchis-land, Nor that the axe-hewn pine in Pelion’s glens Ever had fallen, nor filled with oars the hands Of hero-princes, who at Pelias’ hest Quested the Golden Fleece! My mistress then Medea never had sailed to Iolcos’ towers With love for Jason thrilled through all her soul Nor had on Pelias’ daughters wrought to slay Their sire, nor now in this Corinthian land Dwelt... [Translation by MAIR] But in Rome Ennius’ Medea was no less famous; and especially its prologue was often cited (frg. 103)36: utinam ne in nemore Pelio securibus caesa accidisset abiegna ad terram trabes, neue inde nauis inchoandi exordium cepisset, quae nunc nominatur nomine Argo, quia Argiui in ea delecti uiri uecti petebant pellem inauratam arietis Colchis, imperio regis Peliae, per dolum. nam numquam era errans mea domo efferret pedem Medea animo aegro amore saeuo saucia. 210 215 Would that in the woods of Pelion the fir trunks Had never come down to the earth, cut with the ax, Or that the first building of the ship had never started To commence, that ship which is called by the name Argo because of the chosen Argives who sailed in her And sought to carry away the golden fleece of the ram Of Colchis by the command of King Pelias, through a trick. For never would my mistress Medea, going astray, sick in her soul, Wounded by savage love, have stepped foot from her house. [Translation by COLAVITO] 36. PELLUCCHI 2008 stresses that the choice of Ennius is (after the criticism of Horace) rather unusual, as one preferred Accius and Pacuvius; but this prologue was well know all the time as PELLUCCHI shows herself. For the quotations, cf. ftn. 58 and 61. 46 Ursula Gärtner It is obvious that Phaedrus dealt with both prologues. I just want to point out the most important references37. As these are more notable in the version of Ennius, I will take this as my starting point. The parallels in the first sentences are striking (utinam ne [...] neue [...] quae Enn. 208-212 – utinam nec [...] nec [...] quae Phaedr. 6-11); but we should notice that Phaedrus ‘improves’ this because he changes the construction by Euripides and Ennius: μὴ – μηδ’ and ne – neue to nec – nec and thereby indicates that at least two wishes are to be expected38. In addition, every nec sentence is allocated two lines as well as the relative clause, gaining the strict structure I mentioned before39. The many verbal references show that Phaedrus wants to create clear differences, for example: Pelii nemoris iugo (Phaedr. 6) instead of in nemore Pelio (Enn. 208); bipenni (7) – securibus (208); pinus (7) – abiegna trabes (209); concidisset (7) – accidisset (209). It is interesting that he does not mention the ship’s name Argo as Ennius does; although he does mention her builder Argus, thereby alluding to Ennius’ explanation of the ship’s name, but at the same time making it clear that he himself prefers another explanation (9)40. Finally, I want to point out that he avoids pleonasm and periphrases, which Ennius uses frequently and which were already criticised by ancient commentators41. One could go on here42. The parallels between Ennius and Phaedrus are much closer than those between Phaedrus and Euripides. As Ennius follows Euripides quite closely, this could explain the parallels between Phaedrus and the Greek author. However, it seems clear that Phaedrus also alludes to the Greek original itself. One just has to look at the beginning utinam nec umquam (Phaedr. 6) – Εἴθ᾿ ὤφελ᾿ ... μηδ᾿ ... ποτε (1-3)43. In addition, he changes the wood ‘back’ to pine, while Ennius describes the Argo as being built out of fir (abiegna [...] trabes (Enn. 209) – pinus (Phaedr. 7) – πεύκη (Eur. 4))44. Further allusions 37. Cf. CAVARZERE 1973/4; LUZZATTO 1976, 45-51; PELLUCCHI 2008. 38. nec (6) is an emendation by BONGARS for the transmitted ne which cannot be kept because of the metre. 39. Cf. CAVARZERE 1973/4, 101. 40. Cf. Catull. 64, 1-46, where we can find a similar procedure; cf. THOMAS 1982. We do not find Ennius’ version elsewhere; perhaps he invented it; for Ennius as interpres or aemulator, cf. LENNARZ 1994, who stressed Ennius’ role as a translater, and LEFÈVRE 2013, who thought that Ennius used Euripides scholia as «Anregungen aus der Euripides-Literatur für das eigene Schaffen». Phaedrus suggests the common explanation of the ship’s name after its builder. Cf. CAVARZERE 1973/4, 105-107; PELLUCCHI 2008, 239. 41. For example nominatur nomine, abiegna [...] trabes, inchoandi exordium cepisset, efferret pedem. For ancient criticism on these lines, cf. ftn. 58. 42. Further parallels: regna Peliae (Phaedr. 13) – regis Peliae (Enn. 214); saeuum ingenium (14) – amore saeuo (216). Cf. CAVARZERE 1973/4; PELLUCCHI 2008. As these references to Ennius are obvious and Phaedrus shows elsewhere that he is familiar with Ennius’ tragedies (III epil. 34), it is astonishing that in his own genre, the fable, he does not refer to Ennius (as far as we can conclude from the textual transmission) though Ennius continued to have an effect with his fable of the crested lark (Gell. II 29); cf. Müller 1976. 43. Cf. CAVARZERE 1973/4, 101; PELLUCCHI 2008, 239. 44. Cf. Eur. Andr. 863; Catull. 64, 1-10; Hor. epod. 16, 57-58; Porp. III 22, 11-14; Ov. am. II 11, 2; met. I 94-95. It seems that it was Ennius, who changed this; cf. JOCELYN 1967, 352-353. From Aeschylus to Phaedrus. Fables in tragedy, tragedy in fables 47 can be found, e.g. to Catullus45, and there are allusions to other authors who do not focus on the myth46. And of course, we lost Ovid’s Medea, so Phaedrus may have alluded to that prologue too47. So far, we can already see that Phaedrus shows himself to be a poeta doctus, who refers to the technique of the Augustan poets48. Nevertheless, it is possible to detect even more, and more subtle, kinds of allusions. One can see that Phaedrus also plays with the metre. His fables are, as he says himself in his first prologue, written in iambic senarii where a long syllable or two short syllables are allowed to replace the second and fourth short one49. Horace had criticised Ennius’ tragic iambics because of these long syllables50. And indeed one can feel the magnum pondus in the Medea prologue of Ennius. In six out of nine verses, the second or fourth short syllable is replaced by a long or two short syllables. These replacements can also be found in Phaedrus’ fables51. In our poem, such changes occurin every second line52. However, when Phaedrus switches to tragedy, only two out of eleven verses have a long syllable instead of a short one. This is no coincidence. Phaedrus put more cura and ars in his poetry. But do the two mistakes mean that changes were not made to a sufficient extent? Or were the mistakes included for the purpose of being found53? It is necessary to examine the location of 45. Catull. 64, 1-11: Peliaco [...] uertice pinus (1); fines Aeetaeos (3); diua [...] ipsa [...] fecit (8); pinea texta (9); cf. OBERG 2000, 176. 46. Cf. e. g. Verg. Aen. V 448-449: concidit [...] pinus. 47. Medea was a prominent theme in Ovid’s work and traces of Ennius’ prologue can be found quite often; for a short survey, cf. PELLUCCHI 2008, 237-238. Phaedrus was very familiar with Ovid’s works, as one can see even in IV 7 itself; cf. CAVARZERE 1973/4; PELLUCCHI 2008; e. g. prima malas docuit mirantibus aequoris undis | Peliaco pinus uertice caesa uias (Ov. am. II 11, 1-2); quaque uiam fecit Thessala pinus (Ov. epist. 18, 158); barbara me tellus et inhospita litora Ponti (trist. III 11, 7) sed uetus huic nomen, positaque antiquius urbe, | constat ab Absyrti caede fuisse loco. | nam rate, quae cura pugnacis facta Mineruae | per non temptatas prima cucurrit aquas, | impia desertum fugiens Medea parentem | dicitur his remos applicuisse uadis (trist. III 9, 5-10 and passim); alta iacet Calydon: lugent iuuenesque senesque (met. VIII 526). Therefore, it is possible that there was a similar prologue at the beginning of Ovid’s tragedy and Phaedrus referred to it. This could explain the parallels to Seneca’s Medea, if one does not want to assume that the philosopher read Phaedrus’ fables; for example: audax nimium qui freta primus | rate tam fragili perfida rupit (Med. 301-302); traxit in unum Thessala pinus (Med. 336); Palladia compacta manu [...] Argo (Med. 365-367); cf. LUZZATTO 1976, 48. The relationship between Seneca and Phaedrus is much discussed; for a short survey, cf. GÄRTNER 2015, 56-58. 48. Cf. CAVARZERE 1973/4; DAMS 1970; LAMBERTI 1980; GÄRTNER 2007 and 2015, esp. 43-48. 49. Cf. AXELSON 1949; PIGHI 1954; GUAGLIANONE 1965; KORZENIEWSKI 1970; BARABINO 1981; CAVARZERE 2001; GLAUTHIER 2009, 262. 50. Cf. ars 251-262, bes. 259-262: et Enni | in scaenam missos cum magno pondere uersus | aut operae celeris nimium curaque carentis | aut ignoratae premit artis crimine turpi. 51. BARABINO 1981, gives the percentage for every book. The second short syllable is, for example, replaced by a long (or two short syllables) in almost half of the lines. 52. In the opening lines (1-5) twice, at the end (17-26) seven times. This is the average; cf. BARABINO 1981. 53. KOSTER 1991, 84, rejected this hypothesis, as one could excuse at most one deliberate mistake as a joke. 48 Ursula Gärtner these long syllables. The first example is the final line of the first part (11). As I have shown before, this line is the climax of the first part: patefecit in perniciem Graium et barbarum. The ‘wrong’ long syllable does not only give the line more weight but stresses the most important word perniciem. And it is this disaster that will be explained in the following lines. In line 14 there are even two ‘wrong’ long syllables: quae saeuum ingenium uariis inuoluens modis. This is stressed as we also find two short syllables instead of a long one in the arsis of each of these words. As I have shown before, this is the most important line of the second part, and this time, it is placed in the centre: Medea’s mind is veiled in different ways but it is the cause of all disaster; hereby it becomes clear that Phaedrus’ Medea is not the vulnerable young women Ennius shows, but ferox inuictaque as Horace insisted (ars 123)54. What Phaedrus does is create a literary joke: He knows of course that tragic iambics differ from the senarii. Therefore, he writes better lines than Ennius, showing that he read his Horace. However, the two ‘mistakes’ make us aware of the metre; they are certainly no mistakes but are purposely placed at pivotal points.55 Therefore, Phaedrus’ metre is ‘polished’ as he claims in his first prologue. Perhaps we can also find another improvement on Ennius. Unfortunately, the rest of Ennius’ prologue has been lost; but as he follows Euripides56 on the whole we can assume that Medea’s nurse also talks about how Medea induced Pelias’ daughters to kill, cut and cook their father to rejuvenate him (which of course does not work). Phaedrus left out the reason for the voyage given by Ennius and instead related the motive behind Pelias’ death in an elaborate way (as I have shown). Therefore, he does without things too well known in favour of a shorter and polished version. Thus, he obeys the laws of breuitas he himself demands57 as well as the Horatian laws of limae labor and mora (ars 291). By doing so, he demonstrates that he is familiar with the literary critical discussion about these lines of Ennius. One of the reasons the prologue survived was that it was cited in the Rhetorica ad Herennium (II 34) as a bad example because poets should not revert to something too far back (nimium longe). Later in the rhetorical discourse, these lines become the classic example of an introduction referring to aspect too far back58. 54. Cf. ftn. 32. RENDA 2012a, 230, rightly points out that this Medea shows similarity to the characters of the fables; cf. IV 2, where the old weasel veils itself to catch mice; the fable is told as an example for the persona, who claims that one has to look at the fables carefully as more than one expects is hidden there (conditit cura 7). 55. Cf. PELLUCCHI 2008, 23-24. 56. For Ennius’ treatment of Euripides’ text, cf. LEO 1912, 97-99; GRILLI 1965, 186-191; ARKINS 1982; CLASSEN 1992, esp. 124-126; CLASSEN shows how Ennius taking his recipient into consideration changed the order, reduced some things and added others; thereby, his aim was more clarity and comprehensibility and therefore greater effect; cf. LEFÈVRE 1997; FUHRMANN 1999. 57. Cf. II prol. 12; III 10, 60; III epil. 8; IV epil. 7; cf. GALLI 1983, 195-196; GÄRTNER 2015, 46-47. 58. Cf. Cic. fat. 34-35; inv. I 91; top. 61; Quint. inst. V 10, 83-84; Iul. Vict. rhet. p. 415 HALM; other grammarians cited these lines because of the antiquated language and style; cf. PELLUCCHI 2008, 233-234; for Euripides’ prologue cf. Clem. Al. Strom. VIII 9, 27. From Aeschylus to Phaedrus. Fables in tragedy, tragedy in fables 49 However, the scholia to Euripides show that his Medea prologue was thought to be exemplary59. Nevertheless, even these lines were criticised, because the hysteron proteron of the first lines displeased some critics (First the pine should fall on Mount Pelion and then the Argo could be built and then fly through the Symplegades)60. Something that Phaedrus did reverse! So we can conclude that in antiquity there was a literary dispute about the prologues of Euripides and Ennius, and that Phaedrus avoided what was criticised in each case. Of course, one can ask why Phaedrus chose a Medea prologue to demonstrate his art. The myth of Medea is one that has been focussed on particularly frequently, and Ennius’ verses were quoted exceptionally often, probably becoming a benchmark for every Roman tragedian61. And of course one can ask why Phaedrus includes tragic lines in his fables at all. A first explanation could be the metre, as the iambic it does not allow much else. A sample of epic or didactic poetry in iambus would never have convinced a critic such as the lector Cato. Moreover, a parody — and this is what we have here — will work only if the contrast to the genre is as great as possible62; and the parody of tragedy had a long tradition as I mentioned before. However, it is not only a parody of tragedy63. It is also a witty caricature of literary criticism. We have seen that Phaedrus’ fable is ‘better’ than Euripides’ and Ennius’ as he corrects what had been scathed by literary criticism. This could be meant seriously64, but we have to look at the remaining lines. 59. schol. p. 140, 8-9 SCHWARTZ. 60. Cf. schol. p. 140, 10-11 SCHWARTZ. Of course, this criticism does not do justice to the Euripidian prologue; cf. PAGE 1938, 61: it «is not a hysteron-proteron, but a logical sequence of thoughts». Whether grammarians influenced Ennius, cf. LEO 1912, 97-99; GRILLI 1965, 186187; RÖSER 1939, 4-8, tried to explain the transposition in Ennius’ prologue using stoic thoughts on cause and effect; CLASSEN 1992, 125, rightly rejected elaborate hypotheses like these; cf. JOCELYN 1967, 351. 61. Cf. Cic. Cael. 18; fin. I 4; Tusc. I 45; nat. deor. III 75; top. 61; Varro ling. VII 33; Don. Ter. Phorm. 157; Hieron. epist. 127, 5, 2; Prisc. gramm. VII 40 (=II 320, 15-18 KEIL); metr. Ter. 14 (=III 423, 35-424, 8); cf. JOCELYN 1967, 113-118 and 342-356; cf. ftn. 58. 62. Cf. KOLLER 1956; CÈBE 1966; ROSE 1993; GLEI 1992; MÜLLER 1994. 63. Talking of parody does not imply that these verses were badly done (on parody through style cf. NØJGAARD 1967, 135); on the contrary: As shown elsewhere (cf. GÄRTNER, in this volume, 59-75) Phaedrus is highly acquainted with the refinements of the Callimachean tradition in Roman poetry. He takes over the claims — especially of the Augustan poets, exaggerates them and satirizes them by transforming them into an ‘inappropriate’ genre, the fable. The perfect prologue fits perfectly into this program; it is the context that marks it as a parody. For another point of view, cf. e. g. PELUCCHI 2008, 244, who stresses the seriousness of the intention: «da adeguarlo ai canoni estetici della poetica augustea [...] una reazione sistematica a puntuali stimoli della critica oraziana»; for a similar view on the seriousness of Phaedrus ambitions, cf. DAMS 1970; LAMBERTI 1980; HAMM 2000. 64. Cf. PELLUCCHI 2008; RENDA 2012a, 228; see ftn. 63. 50 Ursula Gärtner 3.3. Phaedrus IV 7: The poet and the critic The critic answers65 but he is not concerned about poetry itself or does not comprehend the subtle intertextuality. What he criticises, is a factual detail66: The Argo was not the first ship, he says, as the ship of Minos was much older (18-20)67. Again, Phaedrus turns out to be a poeta doctus because the question about the oldest ship was the subject of controversial debate in ancient literature68. Sometimes she was thought to be the first ship of all (a position mainly held in Latin literature), sometimes to be only the first ship to sail through the Symplegades and the Black Sea (the Pontus Euxinus)69. Knowing this we recognize the poet’s perfidy. He led the critic into a trap. Of course, we heard him recite that the Argo was the first ship to open the inhospitalis [...] ponti sinus (10); but a reader familiar with the literary tradition would understand that the expression could cover both ideas: pontus could mean the sea (wherever) or, written with a capital P, only the Pontus — the Black Sea70. Again a literary debate was alluded to, but the critic did not notice this and exposed himself (and not Phaedrus’ poem) as insulsus (17)71. We have to consider that the topos of poets having to fight against criticism existed as late as Callimachus (liuor). As he does with many other topoi, Phaedrus seems to exaggerate this one too.72 His critic is extremely severe, but is also a mere caricature of a critic73. Therefore, the poet dismisses him with rather harsh words (21-24); but even these lines are not free from allu- 65. Transmitted is ait, but one should consider PITHOU’s conjecture ais; cf. BURCK 1993, 724; cf. III prol. 4. The fictitiousness of the poem is stressed, as it is Phaedrus who lets the interlocutor speak. Therefore, the whole scene becomes imaginary. This is consistent with other poems where the persona expresses fear of not being acknowledged, though the criticism is all in his mind; cf. e. g. 2 epil.; cf. GÄRTNER 2016b. 66. This is on the same level as the assumed criticism in 1 prol. 5-7 about speaking trees; cf. LUZZATTO 1976, 50; GÄRTNER 2015, 65-66. 67. This version of the myth (cf. Thuc. I 4, 1; I 8, 2) says that Minos was the first owner of a fleet, that he defeated the pirates and became the first ruler of the sea. 68. It is actually still debated; cf. JACKSON 1997; DRÄGER 1999. 69. Cf. V. WILAMOWITZ-MOELLENDORFF 1962, 322 ft. 1: «Durch die Symplegaden [...] ist die Argo zuerst gefahren. So sagt es Euripides. Andr. 864 [...] Daraus ist die später verbreitete Mißdeutung entstanden, daß sie überhaupt das erste Schiff war». In Greek literature, Eratosthenes (Cat. 35) offers the first evidence for the Argo being the first ship of all. This version becomes dominant in Latin literature (cf. ft. 44). 70. Cf. Pontus Euxinus antea ab inhospitali feritate Axinus appellatus (Plin. nat. VI 1); Ov. trist. IV 4, 55-56. Phaedrus purposefully differentiates from unambiguous expressions like Catull. 64, 11; Ov. met. VI 721; Manil. I 412-413; Sen. Med. 318-319; Val. Fl. I 1-2; cf. CAVARZERE 1973/4, 108; LUZZATTO 1976, 45 and 48. 71. In addition, he thereby becomes an exemplum of stultitia. It is the characteristic of a fable to give an example, all the wittier that the critic himself talks about Minos as an exemplum (20) of justice. 72. For Phaedrus’ use of these topoi cf. GÄRTNER 2015, 43-47; cf. in this volume 59-75. 73. He is surely the opposite of the ideal critic Horace described (ars 445-452); cf. RENDA 2012a, 224. From Aeschylus to Phaedrus. Fables in tragedy, tragedy in fables 51 sions. One could ask which Cato74 is meant75, Cato censorius or Uticensis or even Valerius Cato76? Perhaps the first because of his proverbial severity 77. Furthermore, the opposition of fabellae and fabulae (here to be translated with ‘tragedy’ though elsewhere Phaedrus does not make a distinction between those expressions) is witty. Finally, the last two lines (23-23) contain a menace alluding to a very similar statement of Terence78 thus showing how old the topos of literary criticism is. The epimythium, the last two lines, generalise the critic’s behaviour. Again rather drastic words: This is said against those who get sick (nauseant 25)79 reading my poetry, because of their own stupidity and who want to criticise heaven itself (caelum uituperant 26). The last part is usually taken as an exaggeration expressing great annoyance and impertinence 80; but caelum could also mean the chisel of a builder or sculptor, meaning that it could be understood as a metaphor (like lima) for elaborate, polished poetry as DUNSCH convincingly showed81. Again, a double meaning seems intended — again detectable only by the highly educated reader. This might be even more obvious if we have a look at the following fable IV 882. 74. Cato is an emendation of PITHOU for the corrupted lecte reato in PVi. 75. Cato or Catones are often taken as an example of a severe critic without distinction. Cf. Petron. 132, 15, 1: quid me constricta spectatis fronte Catones; Mart. V 5, 15: uultum grauem [...] similis Catoni; X 20 (19), 21: tum me uel rigidi legant Catones; XI 2, 1-2: triste supercilium durique seuera Catonis frons; cf. CAVARZERE 1973/4, 116-119. 76. RIBBECK 1892, 28, thought of Valerius Cato. Suetonius calls him peridoneus praeceptor maxime ad poeticam tendentibus, quotes these anonymous lines: Cato grammaticus Latina Siren | qui solus legit ac facit poetas and refers to Bibaculus who compared him to Zenodots and Krates (Suet. gramm. 11); but these lines are much debated (cf. KASTER 1995, 148-154). Furthermore, there is no literary tradition that this Cato acted as a proverbial harsh critic so that he could be used as a caricature 100 years later. OBERG 2000, 177, thought of Cato Uticensis as an example of severe criticism. One could add the anecdote that Cato Uticensis left the theatre at the Florialia 55 BC; cf. Mart. I praef. 15-21; Val. Max. II 10, 8. 77. HERRMANN 2004 made it quite obvious that Cato Censorius is meant. It was he who brought Ennius to Rome; therefore, it would seem a good choice to choose Ennius to mitigate the critic Cato. Further, the critic’s observation that Minos had the first ship seems to refer to Cato Censorius as the argument is historical as well as a moralization. Finally, maiorem at the beginning of line 24 could be a hint. All these allusions are of a literary refinement the critic does not comprehend. Cf. RENDA 2012a, 233-234. 78. And. 22-23: de(h)inc ut quiescant porro moneo et desinant | male dicere, malefacta ne noscant sua. 79. Not without wit Phaedrus uses nauseo, which fits perfectly to the theme of seafaring; cf. KOSTER 1990, 84. 80. Cf. IV 21, 24: caelum fatigas; Sen. epist. 31, 5. The allusion to Hor. carm. I 3, 38: caelum ipsum petimus stultitia seems especially interesting as not only caelum and stultitia are cited together, but Horace mentions the first ship here as well and the whole poem might be interpreted poetologically; cf. RUMPF 2009. 81. DUNSCH 2010, 46-50. 82. As many fables are lost, we can only speculate about the original order of the fables in each book; cf. HENDERSON 1999; GÄRTNER 2015, 36-37 and 48-50. 52 Ursula Gärtner Mordaciorem qui improbo dente appetit hoc argumento se describi sentiat. In officinam fabri uenit uipera. Haec cum temptaret si qua res esset cibi, limam momordit. Illa contra contumax: «Quid me» inquit «stulta, dente captas laedere, omne assueui ferrum quae corrodere?» 5 He who attacks with wicked teeth one who can bite still harder should understand that he himself is described in the substance of this fable. A viper came into a blacksmith’s shop and, while exploring for something to eat, set his teeth on a file. But that file was stubborn and unyielding. «Why, you fool», it said, «do you try to wound me with your teeth? It’s my habit to gnaw through every kind of iron.» [Translation by PERRY] On first sight, the fable itself seems traditional83; we find similar fables in Aesop84. But again Phaedrus seems to allude to poetological topoi of his Augustan predecessors. One only needs to think of Horace’s metaphor that a critic will harm his tooth85. In this context, it is obvious that this fable is an allusion to the limae labor et mora which Horace demanded (ars 291) and which became a metaphor. Ovid’s expression seems particularly familiar: scilicet incipiam lima mordacior uti (Pont. I 5, 19). Both poems seem to be related: poems where the file had been used cannot be offended by stultitia (cf. IV 7, 25 stultitia – IV 8, 6 stulta). 4. Conclusions The genres fable and tragedy do not have much in common. The fable was understood as a means of persuasion or illustration but was not held in high esteem. Therefore, it is not astonishing, that the evidence of fables in tragedy is rare. The representation of tragedy in fables on the other hand is no less surprising. But as this article tried to demonstrate, Phaedr. IV 7 is not just a rhetorical exercise or a declamatio as scholars thought86. It is part of a poetological discourse about literary criticism that we can find in the pro- and epilogues of Phaedrus. Here, he omits explicit self-defence, but lets poetry itself work for him. The parody of tragedy presents Phaedrus as a poeta doctus. Nevertheless, it is also to be understood programmatically: Like Lucilius, Catullus and Horace, Phaedrus opposes the large and high genres of literature such as the epic or tragedy. That Phaedrus chooses to parody tragedy may 83. Cf. OBERG 2000, 177-178; SOLIMANO 2005, 248-250; GÄRTNER 2011, 221-222. 84. Aesop. 59 and 93 PERRY. 85. sat. II 1, 75-78: tamen me | cum magnis uixisse inuita fatebitur usque | inuidia et fragili quaerens inlidere dentem | offendet solido. 86. E. g. HAUSRATH 1938, 1478. From Aeschylus to Phaedrus. Fables in tragedy, tragedy in fables 53 be part of the literary tradition as I have mentioned before. However, it could also be a punch against the performing arts of his own time87. Phaedrus seems to oppose the common practice of his own time, when it was preferred to recite just single parts from tragedies as kind of ‘bravura arias’. The sudden start and end seem to indicate this88. However, we cannot say for sure why he ridicules tragedy. We can only notice that he does. Fable I 7 can also be interpreted as supporting the idea that he opposes the inflated old-fashioned tragedies and their empty pathos. One of the first fables is that of the fox and the mask89. Personam tragicam forte uulpes uiderat: «o quanta species» inquit «cerebrum non habet!» Hoc illis dictum est, quibus honorem et gloriam fortuna tribuit, sensum communem abstulit. A fox, after looking by chance at a tragic actor’s mask, remarked: «O what a majestic face is here, but it has no brains!» This is a twit for those to whom Lady Luck has granted rank and renown, but denied them common sense. [Translation by PERRY] On first inspection, the fable attacks any kind of self-importance or pomposity90. The lesson we learn is that appearance and success like honor or gloria say nothing about intellectual abilities; but in connection with fables IV 7 and IV 8 this small fable might give the first hint that tragedy was not Phaedrus’ preferred genre. Phaedrus criticises tragedy; but his own prologue is great because of all the allusions to his predecessors as well as to the literary discourse about them. However, the contextualisation shows that it is not taken seriously per se, but is a parody and thus again part of another literary discourse — the parody of tragedy. 87. Tragedies before Seneca’ did not survive. Under Tiberius the production of tragedies was scarce and not without danger: Sempronius Gracchus and Marmercus Aemilius Secundus lost their lives (cf. Tac. ann. I 53; Ov. Pont. IV 16, 31; DC LVIII 24, 3-4). Tacitus and Quintilian mention P. Pomponius Secundus writing under Claudius (cf. Tac. ann. V 8; XI 13; XII 28; Quint. inst. X 1, 98). Perhaps Phaedrus was acquainted with these tragedies; but we do not know enough to recognize this poet as the aim of Phaedrus’ polemic; cf. RIBBECK 1892, 28: «Man könnte an den jungen P. Pomponius Secundus (Consul vom Jahre 44) denken.» 88. Cf. Suet. Nero 21. 89. Cf. Aesop. 27 PERRY; Romul. fab. 44. 90. Cf. OBERG 2000, 53-54; SOLIMANO 2005, 150-151; GÄRTNER 2011, 216-219; RENDA 2012b; GÄRTNER 2015, 130-132. 54 Ursula Gärtner BIBLIOGRAPHY a) Texts A. GUAGLIANONE 1969, Phaedri Augusti liberti liber fabularum, Torino. H. v. LOOY 1992, Euripides. Medea, Stuttgart-Leipzig. H. D. JOCELYN 1967, The Tragedies of Ennius: The Fragments edited with an Introduction and Commentary, Cambridge. B. E. PERRY 1952, Aesopica: A series of texts relating to Aesop or ascribed to him or closely connected with the literary tradition that bears his name. Collected and critically edited, in part translated from oriental languages, with a commentary and historical essay, Urbana-Chicago. b) Books and Articles F. R. ADRADOS 1999, History of the Graeco-Latin Fable. Vol. I. Introduction and from the origins to the Hellenistic age. Transl. by L. A. RAY, LeidenBoston-Köln (Menmosyne Suppl. 201). B. ARKINS 1982, «Tradition reshaped: Language and style in Euripides’ Medea 1-19, Ennius’ Medea exul 1-9 and Catullus 64. 1-30», Ramus 11, pp. 116-133. B. AXELSON 1949, «Die zweite Senkung im jambischen Senar des Phaedrus: Beobachtungen über Versrhythmus und Wortstellung», Vetenskap-Soc. i Lund Arsbok, pp. 45-68. E. BAEZA ANGULO 2011, Fedro: Fábulas esópicas. Introducción, edición crítica, traducción y notas, Madrid. G. BARABINO 1981, «Osservazioni sul senario giambico di Fedro», in G. FABIANO; E. SALVANESCHI (edd.), Δεσμὸς κοινωνίας. Scritti di filologia e filosofia. Per G. BARTOLINI nel secondo anniversario della scomparsa 1979-1981, Genova, pp. 89-122. G. BENDZ 1941, «Sprachliche Bemerkungen zu Petron», Eranos 39, pp. 27-55. G. BERNARDI PERINI 1966/7, «Suspendere naso: Storia di una metafora», AAPat 79, pp. 233-264. J. BLÄNSDORF 1993, «Plautus, Amphitruo und Rudens – oder wieviel literarische Parodie verträgt eine populäre Komödie?» in W. AX; R. F. GLEI (edd.), Literaturparodie in Antike und Mittelalter, Trier (BAC 15), pp. 57-74. W. M. BLOOMER 1997, Latinity and Literary Society at Rome, Philadelphia. E. BURCK, 1993, «Rez. Phaedrus Libertus Augusti. Fabulae. Die Fabeln. Lateinischer Text mit Einleitung, Übersetzung im Versmaß des Originals, kurzen Erläuterungen und Nachwort v. H. Rupprecht, Mitterfels 1992», Gnomon 65, pp. 723-725. A. CAVARZERE 1973/4, «La trama allusiva di Fedro IV 7», AAPat 86, 3, pp. 99119. A. CAVARZERE 2001, «Ego Polivi Versibus Senariis: Phaedrus and iambic poetry», in A. CAVARZERE; A. ALONI; A. BARCHIESI (edd.), Iambic Ideas: Essays on a poetic tradition from archaic Greece to the late Roman empire, Lanham, pp. 205-217. From Aeschylus to Phaedrus. Fables in tragedy, tragedy in fables 55 J.-P. CÈBE 1966, La caricature et la parodie dans le monde romain antique des origines a Juvénal, Paris. C. CICHORIUS 1908, Untersuchungen zu Lucilius, Berlin. J. CHRISTES 1971, Der frühe Lucilius: Rekonstruktion und Interpretation des XXVI. Buches sowie von Teilen des XXX. Buches, Heidelberg (Bibl. d. Klass. Altertumswiss. NF 2 R. 39). C. J. CLASSEN 1992, «Ennius: Ein Fremder in Rom», Gymnasium 99, pp. 121145. H. MacL. CURRIE 1984, «Phaedrus the Fabulist», ANRW 2, 32, 1, pp. 497-513. P. DAMS 1970, Dichtungskritik bei nachaugusteischen Dichtern, Marburg. A. DEMANDT 1991, «Politik in den Fabeln Aesops», Gymnasium 98, pp. 397419. G.-J. VAN DIJK 1997, ΑΙΝΟΙ, ΛΟΓΟΙ, ΜΥΘΟΙ: Fables in archaic, classical, and hellenistic Greek literature. With a study of the theory and terminology of the genre, Leiden-New York-Köln (Mnemosyne Suppl. 166). P. DRÄGER 1999, «War die Argo das erste Schiff?», RhM 142, pp. 419-422. B. DUNSCH 2010, «In cothurnis prodit Aesopus: Phaedrus’ literarische Selbstverteidigung (Fab. 4, 7), Millenium 7, pp. 37-50. M. FUHRMANN 1999, Geschichte der römischen Literatur, Stuttgart. R. GALLI 1983, «Fedro e Orazio», Paideia 38, pp. 195-199. U. GÄRTNER 2000, «Phaedrus tragicus. Zu Phaedr. 4, 7 und seinem Selbstverständnis als Dichter», in E. STÄRK; G. VOGT-SPIRA (edd.), Dramatische Wäldchen. Festschrift für E. LEFÈVRE zum 65. Geburtstag, HildesheimZürich-New York (Spudasmata 80), pp. 661-682. U. GÄRTNER 2007, «levi calamo ludimus: Zum poetologischen Spiel bei Phaedrus», Hermes 135, pp. 429-459. U. GÄRTNER 2009, «νῆες ἀρχέκακοι: Schiffe als Unheilsbringer in der antiken Literatur», Α&Α 55, pp. 23-44. U. G ÄRTNER 2011, «Maske, Perle, Feile, Lyra – Phaedrus, die literari sche Gattung und die klassische Bildung», Hermes 139, pp. 216-248. U. GÄRTNER 2015, Phaedrus: Ein Interpretationskommentar zum ersten Buch der Fabeln, München (Zetemata 149). U. GÄRTNER 2016a, «Phaedrus: 1975-2014», Lustrum [in print]. U. GÄRTNER 2016b, «quod si labori fauerit Latium meo – Phaedrus, ein Dichter zwischen den Welten», in J. J. FERRER-MAESTRo, Chr. KUNSt, D. HERNÁNDEZ DE LA FUENTE, E. FABER (edd.), Entre los mundos. Homenaje a P. Barceló | Zwischen den Welten. Festschrift für P. Barceló, Besançon 2016, 443-460. P. GLAUTHIER 2009, «Phaedrus, Callimachus and the recusatio to Success», ClAnt 28, pp. 248-278. R. GLEI 1992, «Aristoteles über Linsenbrei. Intertextualität und Gattungsgenese am Beispiel der antiken Parodie», Philologus 136, pp. 42-59. A. GRILLI 1965, Studi enniani, Brescia. A. GUAGLIANONE 1965, «Fedro e il suo senario», RSC 16, pp. 91-104. U. HAMM 2000, «Illiteratum plausum nec desidero: Phaedrus über sich als Dichter», Classica Cracoviensia 5, pp. 275-296. 56 Ursula Gärtner A. HAUSRATH 1938, «Art. Phaedrus», RE XIX. 2, pp. 1475-1505. J. HENDERSON 1999, «Phaedrus’ Fables: The original corpus», Mnemosyne 52, pp. 308-329. K. HERRMANN 2004, «Ein ganz besonderer Kritikaster: Der Lector Cato in Phaedrus IV 7», Aevum 78, 91-96. N. HOLZBERG 20123 [1993], Die antike Fabel: Eine Einführung, Darmstadt. S. JACKSON 1997, «Argo: The First Ship?», RhM 140, pp. 249-257. R. A. KASTER 1995, C. Suetonius Tranquillus: De Grammaticis et Rhetoribus. Edited with a translation, introduction, and commentary, Oxford. H. KOLLER 1956, «Die Parodie», Glotta 35, pp. 17-32. D. KORZENIEWSKI 1970, «Zur Verstechnik des Phaedrus. Aufgelöste Hebungen und Senkungen in seinen Senaren», Hermes 98, pp. 430-458. S. KOSTER 1991, «Phaedrus: Skizze seiner Selbstauffassung», in P. NEUKAM (ed.), Die Antike im Brennpunkt, München (Klassische Sprachen und Literaturen 25), pp. 59-87. G. LAMBERTI 1980, «La poetica del lusus in Fedro», RIL 114, pp. 95-115. A. LA PENNA 1961, «La morale della favola esopica come morale delle classi subalterne nell’antichità», Società 17, pp. 459-537. A. LA PENNA 1968, Fedro. Favole. Versione di A. Richelmy. Aggiunte le trenta «Favolae novae» a cura di A. LA PENNA. Testi latini a fronte. Introduzione, Torino. E. LEFÈVRE 1982, Maccus vortit barbare: Vom tragischen Amphitryon zum tragikomischen Amphitruo, Wiesbaden (AAWM 1982, 5). E. LEFÈVRE 1997, «Die Literatur der republikanischen Zeit», in: F. GRAF (ed.), Einleitung in die lateinische Philologie, Stuttgart-Leipzig, pp. 165-191. E. LEFÈVRE 2013, «Beobachtungen zu Ennius als Euripides-Übersetzer», Hermes 141, pp. 227-232. K. LENNARTZ 1994, Non verba sed vim. Kritisch-exegetische Untersuchungen zu den Fragmenten archischer römischer Tragiker, Stuttgart 1994 (BzA 54) F. LEO 19122 [1895], Plautinische Forschungen: Zur Kritik und Geschichte der Komödie, Berlin. M. J. LUZZATTO 1976, Fedro: Un poeta tra favola e realtà. Antologia, Torino. S. MATTIACCI 2010, «Ad cothurnum ascendere. Fedro, Marziale, Apuleio e le tentazioni del sublime», Prometheus 36, pp. 168-184. J. D. MORGAN 1992, «Lucilius and his Nose (Pliny, N. H., praef. 7)», CQ 42, pp. 279-282. B. MÜLLER 1994, Komische Intertextualität: Die literarische Parodie, Trier (Horizonte 16). C. W. MÜLLER 1976, «Ennius und Äsop», MH 33, pp. 193-218. M. NØJGAARD 1967, La fable antique. Tome II. Les grands fabulistes, København. E. OBERG 2000, Phaedrus-Kommentar. Mit 18 Abbildungen, Stuttgart. D. L. PAGE 1938, Euripides: Medea. The text edited with introduction and commentary, Oxford. From Aeschylus to Phaedrus. Fables in tragedy, tragedy in fables 57 C. PANAYOTAKIS 1995, Theatrum Arbitri. Theatrical elements in the Satyrica of Petronius, Leiden-New York-Köln (Mnemosyne Suppl. 146). T. PELLUCCHI 2008, «Il prologo della Medea come paradigma teatrale: Il caso di Fedro IV 7», in G. ARICÒ; M. RIVOLTELLA (edd.), La riflessione sul teatro nella cultura romana, Milano, pp. 229-251 [=Aevum(ant) 4, 2004, 229251] B. E. PERRY 1965, Babrius and Phaedrus: Edited and translated, Cambridge, Mass.-London. G. B. PIGHI 1954, «De Phaedri senariis», Latinitas 2, pp. 107-114. M. PUELMA P. 1949, Lucilius und Kallimachos. Zur Geschichte einer Gattung der hellenistisch-römischen Poesie, Frankfurt. P. RAU 1967, Paratragodia: Untersuchung einer komischen Form des Aristophanes, München (Zetemata 45). C. RENDA 2012a, Illitteratum plausum nec desidero. Fedro: la favola e la poesia, Napoli (Studi Latini 80). C. RENDA 2012b, «Fedro, la volpe e la maschera tragica (1,7)», GIF 3, pp. 195224. O. RIBBECK 1892, Geschichte der Römischen Dichtung. III. Dichtung der Kaiserherrschaft, Stuttgart. M. A. ROSE 1993, Parody: Ancient, modern, and post-modern, Cambridge (Literature, Culture, Theory 5). W. RÖSER 1939, Ennius, Euripides und Homer, Würzburg. L. RUMPF 2009, «Caelum ipsum petimus stultitia: Zur poetologischen Deutung von Horaz’ c. 1,3», RhM 152, 292-311. O. SKUTSCH 1959, «Art. Publilius Syrus», RE XXIII. 2, pp. 1920-1928. G. SOLIMANO 2005, Favole di Fedro e Aviano, Torino. R. F. THOMAS 1982, «Catullus and the polemics of poetic reference (Poem 64.118)», AJPh 103, pp. 144-164. U. v. WILAMOWITZ-MOELLENDORFF 19622 [1924], Hellenistische Dichtung in der Zeit des Kallimachos, Bd. 2, Berlin.