Rhetorical Devices in Eclogue II

My initial readings led me to believe that there weren’t many rhetorical devices in Eclogue II. Perhaps my assumptions based on the commentary, which noted that Eclogue II was likely the first of the Eclogues to be written, misled me. If this was one of Vergil’s earliest poems, then it might make sense that there were fewer rhetorical devices employed. After observing how many lines of Eclogue II were nearly synchystic or chiastic (compared to what seemed to be a greater abundance of such in Eclogue I), I was convinced of my supposition and attended class.

The class discussion revealed a critical point I had failed to observe: Eclogue II is a monologue by a character who thinks of himself as a great poet but whom Vergil portrays as a mediocre one. After that discussion, it occurred to me that this is a wonderful conceit to employ for the less experienced poet to practice his craft while both acknowledging and distancing himself from his own deficiencies. Now appreciating more fully the cleverness of Vergil, I will share one section that caught my attention in particular.

Inappropriate Comparison

In lines 63–65 of Eclogue II, Corydon strings together a series of comparisons.

torva leaena lupum sequitur, lupus ipse capellam,
florentem cytisum sequitur lasciva capella,
te Corydon, o Alexi
(LCL 63, p. 34)

The first two lines of this passage exhibit mesodiplosis of sequitur, with sequitur elided from the second clause in the first line. The two lines together look very much like a tricolon, with the three clauses repeating the same idea in three different ways. The pattern is broken by the part of the third line quoted above, which also exhibits elision of sequitur. This pseudo-tricolon, perhaps, is Vergil’s attempt at demonstrating the mediocre skill of Corydon.

Still, there is a nicely balanced pattern in the unelided followed by elided sequitur clauses. There is also an inversion of word order: the first two clauses place the subject first, then the direct object, but the last two clauses place the direct object first, then the subject.

As Prof. Malamud noted in class, the comparison being made seems inappropriate in wooing an object of affection, given how the previous examples are of predators chasing their prey. Perhaps the pattern of progressively more gentle predators is meant to soften the comparison. In any case, it is interesting to consider whether Vergil calculated to put the exuberant expression in the mouth of Corydon so that if the technique were received poorly, it could be excused as the saying of the unrefined lover, but that if the technique were received approvingly, it could be credited to Vergil’s talent. Presumably, some aspect of this comparison was effective, since Vergil employs the hunting metaphor in Aen. 4.68–74 to describe the relationship between Dido (the wounded deer) and Aeneas (the unknowing hunter).