Talk:Eclogue 4

Undue weight?
This is a very welcome article done with a lot of care. I have one reservation.

Perhaps because of the emphasis on Nachleben, the Christian interpretation of the work strikes me as given undue weight. Allusion to Jewish messianism is not completely implausible (there was a significant Jewish community in Rome in the mid-1st century BC, and Julius Caesar was regarded as a patron of the Jews, so a "court poet" of Augustus might've had some interest in Judaism, as also Varro did around this time), but all the elements of the poem can be explained by a Classicist as something other than proleptically Christian.

For example: the word Aeneid or Aeneas (with its attendant theme of destiny) appears in the body of the article only once. "Christian", "Christ" and related words appear 38 times. There's only one passing reference to astrology in a quote, and the words cosmology/cosmos etc. only twice. "Saturn" appears four times, and the phrase Golden Age six times, only in the synopsis, and the interpretation of the poem in the light of the religions of its own time isn't really taken seriously. Its Christianization is a significant aspect of the poem's Nachleben, of course: but it doesn't actually explain the poem … unless you believe that Vergil as vates was inspired by the Christian god to foretell the birth of Jesus.

There's very little interpretation of the poem as a poem, or of the celebration of poetry itself at the end (the name of Orpheus appears twice in the poem, only once in the article). It isn't much discussed in relation to its genre as an eclogue, and it isn't related to the themes of the Eclogues as a whole.

The poem is stuffed with references to deities and religious practices (such as Lucina and allusions to religious practices associated with birth), and with the agricultural imagery that will become pervasive in Augustan art, as on the Ara Pacis. But instead, I feel that this article treats the Fourth Eclogue as a stepchild to Christian culture.

There's more said about the Sibylline Oracles than the Cumaean Sibyl who actually appears in the poem. To quote from our article Sibylline Oracles: These are a collection of utterances that were composed or edited under various circumstances, probably between the 2nd century AD and the 6th century AD, and are not to be confused with the original Sibylline Books of ancient Roman religion which are now lost. It's the Sibylline Books, destroyed in 83 BC, that were attributed to the Cumaean Sibyl; the reconstruction of these texts and their "preservation" by Augustus is part of Vergi's religious environment.

So I do applaud the care and effort shown here, and forgive me if I sound more critical than I intend, but I can't help feeling that as a reader I wouldn't actually learn much about the poem in its own cultural context. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Valid criticisms! Here's a few quick comments:
 * This poem is notoriously famous due to its perceived connections to Christianity. It has gone down in history as one of those "urban legends" if you will, but the literary tradition is definitely there, so I feel it does deserve a mention. You're right, the rest of the passage could probably be bulked up, though (and just for the record, I don't believe that Vergil was predicting Christ).
 * I think one bit solution would be to add a section called "Symbolism", or the like, and start adding the references to Roman life and deities. This section could also address the poems place in the Eclogues as a whole.
 * I think the addition of a "Reception" section would also be wise. I'll need to get my hand on some other sources (or at least read different parts of the sources I've found).
 * As for the Sibylline Orcles/Cumae Sibyl confusion, Nisbet references this in his paper (which is cited in the article) and explains that Vergil was probably pulling from Eastern Oracles, rather than the Sibylline Books. I'll have to add this, too (maybe as an explanatory note)!
 * All-in-all, I realize this article needs to be expanded. If this were a GA or an FA, I'd worry, too, but it still is in its early stages of infancy. I plan on worked more on this over the next few weeks/months. But thank you for your comments and helpful criticisms, as it will keep the article fresh!-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   21:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being receptive. "Sibylline" stuff is very slippery indeed. I'm not sure why scholars are obsessed with ascribing source influence to material that was so nebulous. What I find interesting is how the Golden Age mythology and the deities who go along with it foreshadow so much of what we see as Augustan iconography and ideology. Is that why Augustus latched on to Vergil? There's scholarship on this that I don't have at my fingertips.
 * I wouldn't call a section "Symbolism". If we use the word "symbolism" in any sort of literary-technical way, I'm not sure that "symbolism" is a habit of Latin poetry in this period. It's more appropriate to think in terms of myth and metaphor, not symbolism in the medieval or Symboliste sense. Another thing to beware of is taking the Classical deities as mythological decorations as they are in poetry of the Christian era. These were still recipients of live religious veneration at this time. The concept of the saeculum or the Great Year strikes me as fundamental to the theme of the new era and the birth of a child, and I don't see a mention of the Etruscan tradition in this regard. I'll keep an eye out for sources to cite, and also any of our own articles that might be handy for you to link to or be aware of. Best wishes on this worthy venture, Cynwolfe (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think scholars are fascinated with material that is... to be frank... kind of "spooky". Anyway, I feel that maybe the best avenue would be for me to make a new article called Christian interpretations of Virgil's Fourth Eclogue, and transplant all the Christian interpretations from this article to that one. That way, it would cut down on the undue weight that is in this article (I feel like maybe a paragraph in this article, with a link to the new one, would suffice).
 * As for symbolism, perhaps my wording was a bit off, but I was thinking more in the vein of religious symbolism but you are correct in that symbolism seems to imply that the "symbols" stand in for something else. Metaphor and Myth is better (and more fun!) 'theme' to work with.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   19:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, unrelated to anything, but it bugs me that the MoS on Wikipedia is to spell "Vergil" as "Virgil". But what can you do...-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   19:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's a thought. I see that you use the Bruce Arnold article, which points to most of what I'm talking about. What if the Synopsis section were more compact, more the bare-bones equivalent of a plot summary? There's a good bit of explanatory material embedded (like "a deity who would be elevated to a special place in the Roman pantheon during the rule of Augustus"). Then themes of religion, myth, cosmology and time could be treated in a separate section or sections. The "Background" section could also be expanded with more of the literary tradition and influences (Catullus is absent and is often brought up in criticism of this poem). I might put Background after the synopsis, since the reader probably wants the outline of the poem in mind first. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There. The Christian stuff has been spun-off into its own article. I trimmed most of it in this article to a single paragraph. I'll definitely implement what you've suggested within the next few days/weeks (seeing if I have time... classes start up soon).-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   03:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)