Abstract
AbstractIn discussion over the dating of theBucolicsof Calpurnius Siculus, an important role has always been played by attempts to identify the character of Meliboeus, who is to be read as a bucolic allegory of the poet's patron. By providing a new interpretation of the description of Meliboeus’ literary production, I argue that he must be the agricultural writer Columella. A consideration of other aspects of Meliboeus confirms this identification, as does the analysis of a number of significant allusions toDe cultu hortorum, the poem that makes up the tenth book of Columella'sDe re rustica. I then establish the date of Columella and discuss the consequences for dating Calpurnius, placing some parts of his book later in the reign of Nero than has been customary.
Highlights
The debate over the dating of Calpurnius Siculus, which ared up in the nal decades of the twentieth century, seems to have died down in the twenty- rst
The Neronian date rst proposed by Sarpe in 1819, and generally accepted since its endorsement by Haupt in 1854, was rejected in 1978 by Champlin, who returned Calpurnius to the third century, though not to his traditional date in the time of Nemesianus
Champlin’s original publication) did not receive systematic rebuttals,3 European scholarship remained convinced of the Neronian date, and on that assumption produced a series of commentaries which cover all the eclogues; in a class by itself is the invaluable commentary on the entire collection by Maria Assunta Vinchesi, who in her introduction, but especially in her notes, does much to undermine the individual points made by the proponents of a later date
Summary
The debate over the dating of Calpurnius Siculus, which ared up in the nal decades of the twentieth century, seems to have died down in the twenty- rst. Sarpe proposed Seneca, adducing his contacts with the emperor, his reputation for literary patronage and his having written both didactic works and poetry, the two kinds of literary production that Corydon ascribes to Meliboeus in 4.53–7 (quoted below); Haupt, on the other hand, suggested that Calpurnius’ name pointed to a connection with C. This is a pity, as this identi cation may be supported by more powerful arguments than those adduced by Chytil, and if proved correct, has important consequences
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
