Rhetorical Devices in Eclogue I

Since it will of course make for an excessively long post to mention all of the rhetorical devices in Eclogue I, I will limit my remarks to the three I found most interesting.

The Happy Tityrus

The most extensive rhetorical device I noticed is found in lines 46--58 (line numbers based on the 1916 edition of LCL 63), where Meliboeus proclaims Tityrus' happy state. The device might be called "extended parallelized anaphora".

Meliboeus' words here divide nicely into two parallel but unequal sections. Both begin with fortunate senex (lines 46 and 51). The lines immediately succeeding these beginnings start with et (lines 47 and 52). The last two lines of these sections end with negative indicators: non ... | nec (lines 49--50) and nec ... | nec (lines 57--58). Throughout both sections, the future tense is used exclusively for all main verbs (this futurity actually continues until line 72).

The shorter section prophesies ease in raising flocks. The longer section prophesies enjoyment of comfort. That the two ideas are presented in so similar a pattern suggests that the two are part of one bigger idea, namely, the happy state of Tityrus.

Two Contrasts, One Idea

Another two lines of note are to be found in line 22 and line 62. In both lines, a combination of anaphora and elision work together to express two seemingly contrasting ideas but which are used together to express one sentiment.

Line 22 (sic canibus catulos similes, sic matribus haedos) exhibits anaphora in its repetition of sic (and, in fact, line 23 also contains a sic to round out a tricolon), and similes is elided from the second sic clause. This reliance of both sic clauses on the central similes draws attention to the synchysis exhibited by this line (the pattern is ABCDABC). As we find out in line 23 (where noram has been enjambed), Tityrus used the pattern of puppies being like dogs and [goat] kids being like [goat] mothers to think about how big things compare with little things. Line 22 acts as concrete examples of how he came to think in this way.

Line 62 (aut Ararim Parthus bibet aut Germania Tigrim,) exhibits anaphora (polysyndeton, more specifically) in its repetition of aut, and bibet is elided from the second aut clause. Again, the reliance of both aut clauses on the central bibet draws attention to the peculiar word order (ABCDACB), which is chiastic if we ignore the conjunctions (BCDCB). Looking at the context of this line, we find Tityrus claiming that he will not forget the kind master who has guaranteed that his lands will not be confiscated. To emphasize the lasting impression the master has made on his mind, Tityrus has claimed that the people from the far East would drink from a river in the far West and vice-versa before he forgets the face of the kind master.

Triple Metaphor

The final lines I wish to comment upon are lines 24--25 (verum haec tantum alias inter caput extulit urbes, | quantum lenta solent inter viburna cupressi.). It continues from the earlier discussion on comparing smaller things to bigger things. Tityrus admits that his method of comparison was inadequate to the task of comparing Rome to other cities and so launches into metaphor to more adequately express the difference.

Line 24 compares Rome to other cities, as though raising its head above the others. Assuming the original sense of caput referring exclusively to the human head, we see a personification of the cities, with Rome being the tallest (or at least standing on top of the highest point).

Line 25 continues the metaphor, comparing Rome to the cypress tree. The other cities are compared with wayfaring trees.

Through elision, line 25 also depicts the cypress raising its caput higher than the other wayfaring tress. This personification might be more narrowly termed a pathetic fallacy, since nature is taking on human characteristics.

Thus, cities are like humans, cities are like trees, and trees are like humans. All three ideas are used to convey the same idea: that Rome surpasses all other cities.