Interpretation of this ode has not been very happy in spite of the care lavished upon it by editors obviously determined to extract some sort of consistent sense. That Horace started from Pindar's Olymp. II. is evident enough; when and why, under what stimulus, or for what occasion he wrote is not so clear. The older commentators do not give much help. I believe, however, that in attending to the list of gods, demi-gods, and Roman heroes given in the ode (...) we have a chance of coming somewhere near to an adequate understanding of the poem. (shrink)

The identification of Daphnis with Julius Caesar, supported in most detail by Servius of the ancient commentators, has in general been either casually accepted or arbitrarily rejected by modern criticism without serious effort to ascertain how far the probabilities point one way or the other.

Editors who profess to interpret these lines, while reaching agreement on some few points of detail, concur chiefly in a somewhat irritable half-confession of puzzlement and not unnatural tendency to avenge their smart on the poet's broader back. Hence the suggestions of historical misrepresentation and dramatic confusion, the hypothesis of a late recension, and other well-worn devices of commentatorial window-dressing. A task more likely to be of value to the study of the Georgics is to explore this short, compact poem (...) for that unifying principle among the multiplicity of details, in accordance with which the triumphator and the temple-builder, the Greek festival and the Italian venue, the lightness of allegory and the ponderous literalism of the Via Sacra, Virgil and Octavian each perform their different functions and move in harmony with the whole poetic plan. (shrink)

Like most of the other poems contained in the Appendix Vergiliana, the Copa still arouses controversy with respect to authorship and date. While the tendency of contemporary criticism may fairly be summarized as favourable to acceptance of the tradition which ascribes this poem to Virgil, nevertheless there are not wanting respectable voices to declare the Copa a post-Virgilian imitation of the Eclogues; nor are the pro-Virgilians decided as to the period to which it should rightly be assigned.

In common with other poems of the Appendix Vergiliana, Copa has incurred the a priori suspicion of forgery or post-Virgilian imitation. But if, as I have tried to show, Copa was written under the direct and immediate influence of Theocritus, that suspicion can no longer be permitted to colour and confuse the enquiry into Copa's date and authorship. The poem has acquired the right to do battle with the Eclogues on equal terms for the palm of priority.

Editors who profess to interpret these lines, while reaching agreement on some few points of detail, concur chiefly in a somewhat irritable half-confession of puzzlement and not unnatural tendency to avenge their smart on the poet's broader back. Hence the suggestions of historical misrepresentation and dramatic confusion, the hypothesis of a late recension, and other well-worn devices of commentatorial window-dressing. A task more likely to be of value to the study of the Georgics is to explore this short, compact poem (...) for that unifying principle among the multiplicity of details, in accordance with which the triumphator and the temple-builder, the Greek festival and the Italian venue, the lightness of allegory and the ponderous literalism of the Via Sacra, Virgil and Octavian each perform their different functions and move in harmony with the whole poetic plan. (shrink)