1ll VANl8llNo oAkulN8 Ol lklAlL8

}Aml8 LulN
1he nymphs are departed.
8weet 1hames, run soltly, till l end my song.
1he river bears no empty bottles, sandwich papers,
8ilk handkerchiels, cardboard boxes, cigarette ends
Or other testimony ol summer nights. 1he nymphs are departed.
1. 8. lliot 1nc wastc anJ
1

l
N lOlm !! Ol 1ll cAkVNA kAA, lriapus is masturbating. with
allected awkwardness, the garden godsymbol ol both natural
lertility and hyperphallic male sexualitypleads that he has stooped to
this level only as a result ol straitened circumstances, though he admits
the shamelulness ol being caught making love to his hand.
2
le has
come upon dark days. whereas, as he says, olden day lriapi (antiui .
riapi) had no shortage ol Naiads and uryads with whom to satisly their
lust, nowadays there is nothing (nunc aJcc nini| cst). ln lact, lriapus'
lust is so insatiable that he can only surmise that all the nymphs
have passed away" (ut nympnas cmnis intcriissc putcm). O'connor notes
how ridiculous lriapus' apologizing seems in this contextthe god is
synonymous with shamelessness, and, more usually, alter the example

larlier versions ol this paper were delivered at the 2008 AlA in chicago and the
200 latinlest" at kutgersmany thanks to the audience on those occasions lor their
comments. lowell ldmunds, marco lantuzzi, and larouk orewing kindly read over the
piece and ollered their criticism and support. uiscussion with oareth williams helped to
crystallize some ol the issues here. kegina lschele generously shared her work with me
belore publication. linally, thanks are due to the editor ol u5c, lathleen coleman, and
the anonymous reader lor their comments and assistance.
1
lines 1-19, lliot 2001:4!-44.
2
riap. !!.-6: lt's shamelul to do it, to be sure, but il l'm not to explode with lust J l
should set my sickle down and let my hand become my girllriend" (turpc uiJcm jactu, scJ
nc tcntiinc rumpar | ja|cc mini pcsita jict amica manus). l use the text ol lianchini 2001.
jamcs 0Jcn
ol the ill-bred ithyphallic satyrs, lriapus acts 'according to his nature'"
(1989:129). lut there is also a kind ol absurd pathos in lriapus' real-
ization ol the loss ol the idealized pastoral landscape ol which he was
once a part. 1he garden god whom 1heocritus once imagined chasing
alter uaphnis, lounder and constant muse ol the pastoral genre (and
son ol a nymph), is now stranded in the urbanized, inlertile landscape
ol the carmina riapca, a world ol prostitutes, pederasts and proliteers
but ol very lew gardens. like the sad nut tree in the pseudo-Ovidian
Nux, which laments its loss ol lruitlulness, having grown too close to a
busy road, lriapus linds himsell caught at an impasse between city and
country, longing lor the oolden Age lertility ol both the idealized coun-
tryside and his own literary past.
Aside lrom the prophetic echo ol 1nc wastc anJ, lriapus' suspicion
that the nymphs have taken leave ol his world provides a key program-
matic cue lor the carmina riapca. 1he poems ol the riapca
!
deliberately
reverse agricultural and pastoral motils present in the earlier oreek and
koman priapic tradition. ln the carmina riapca, lriapus is described
as part ol a semi-urban environment characterized by vegetative
inlertility and populated by stock characters lrom the city. 1ogether,
through these inverted allusions to the earlier tradition, the poems
create a communal narrative tracing the history ol the genre. 1he pria-
pcum
4
has moved lrom the realms ol pastoral and dedicatory epigram
!
l do not rehearse here the major incidents in the scholarly controversy over author-
ship and date ol the poem collection. 8ullice to say that there are two major schools:
luchheit 1962 inlluentially argued lor a single author and a date alter martial, he linds
support with lloss 1998. O'connor 1984, kichlin 1992:141-14!, and 1rnkle 1998 argue lor
the poems' being an anthology ol dillerent writers' work, collected in the early lmpire
(kichlin, 1rnkle) or belore the death ol martial (O'connor). ooldberg 1992:!-!6 is a
convenient summary ol previous views. l have not pursued the matter here, since the
arguments presented in this article do not hinge on the authorship issue. Although it
would, as always, be helplul to know a more specilic date, the social phenomena to which
l suggest the poems are a reaction can be traced lrom the late kepublic throughout the
lirst century Au, certainly the time lrame within which the poems were written.
4
lor the purposes ol this paper, l deline priapca, with larker, as poems written about
the phallic god lriapus, or addressed to him, or spoken by him, or invoking him" (1988:1).
l have excluded lrom consideration literary accounts ol lriapus' exploits that lall within
larger texts ol other genres, such as Ovid's lasti and letronius' 5atyriccn. my argument
concerns not lriapus himsell as a literary character, but rather the codes governing that
tradition ol poems written specilically about him.
1nc vanisnin 6arJcns cj riapus
to the more urbane genres ol invective and satire, and the vanishing
ol lriapus' gardens becomes an index lor this development. moreover,
although this generic narrative tells a story about literary history,
it rellects a parallel narrative propounded by moralists ol the lirst
century Au, which also lixes on the semantic capacities ol the garden."
1o these writerslliny the llder chiel amongst themthe popularity
ol decorative urban ncrti in the lmpire represented a violation ol moral
and societal rectitude in their extravagant non-productivity and locus
on leisure. 1he persistent connections drawn in the carmina riapca
between gardens and sex, play, inlertility and urbanity represent the
galling, larcical underside ol this moralizing discourse. ln this way,
the carmina riapca participate in the wider project ol ascribing social
meaning to the natural world in an urbanized early lmperial kome.
when lriapus lirst appears as a literary character, he comes with
all the trappings ol the pastoral genre. lriapus is programmatically
connected with pastoral through his association with uaphnis, the
mythic inventor ol pastoral song. lndeed, in 1heocritus' lirst Jy||,
lriapus is metapoetically imagined as a part ol the setting ol pastoral
song: at lines 19-2!, the goatherd invites 1hyrsis, who has come
to mastery in pastoral song," to sing ol uaphnis, lacing lriapus and
the springs, where there is that shepherds' seat and the oaks." ln the
song itsell, lriapus is one ol the divinities who appears to the ailing,
wandering uaphnis, and he is represented as having insight into
the object ol uaphnis' lovesickness. ln the third epigram ascribed to
1heocritus,

lriapus is himsell one ol uaphnis' amorous pursuers. lt

is 1heocritus' lourth epigram, though, in which we see lriapus most
elaborately written into a pastoral landscape. ln this poem, a goat-
herd is instructed to ask lriapus to grant him lreedom lrom his love
lor uaphnis. lriapus is located in a sacred precinct" (oeio ' cico,
line ) amidst an elaborate |ccus amccnus, complete with springs, bays,
myrtles, cypress, vines, springtime blackbirds," and melodious night-
ingales."

oow argues that 1heocritus' authorship ol the series 1-22 cannot be convincingly
reluted" (192:2), kossi 2001 suggests that the third and lourth epigrams are the work
ol 1heocritean imitators, albeit ones intimately lamiliar with 1heocritus' corpus and
style.
jamcs 0Jcn
ln direct contrast to this pastoral idealization is the tradition ol
minatory lriapic epigrams, which also begin in the third century lc.
1hese epigrams are also set in the countryside, but embody a dillerent
vision ol the country. 1his tradition begins with leonidas ol 1arentum
and has its ideological origins in that writer's interest in representing
more realistically"
6
the hard work and solitary existence ol individ-
uals ol the lower classes. As outzwiller puts it, leonidas represented
himsell as an active participant in the poverty-stricken existence ol the
lower classes and as an advocate lor the lived philosophy ol the poor"
(1998:114). 8o, although the humorous threat ol lriapus is the central
poetic leature ol leonidas' minatory lriapus epigrams (Antn. |an. 2!6
and 261), these poems also incidentally embody the humble existence
ol the larmer, with its emphasis on thrilt, toil, and sell-sulliciency. ln
Antn. |an. 2!6, a prospective thiel is incredulous that lriapus' trade-
mark punishment is ollered lor the sake ol a lew vegetables, and the
incredulity ol the stranger is preserved as the essential element ol
the epigram in later imitations.

lut central to leonidas' ideological

concerns are the incidental details ol the threat. lriapus is protecting
greens," suggesting the sell-sulliciency ol the poor larmer, and there
aren't even very many ol them (oiiyuv ie_vuv, line 4), suggesting
the extreme parsimony ol the larmer's lilestyle. moreover, lriapus is
described as watchlul" (eyunvovte), and in Antn. |an. 261 leonidas
describes him as trusty" (niotov): lriapus seems less the lusty liber-
tine than laithlul guard-dog (a rustic motil in its own right).
8

1he 1heocritean and leonidean versions ol the priapic poem diller
not merely in their descriptions ol lriapus, but, crucially, in their
descriptions ol nature. 1he picturesque, pastoral" association between
6
As many have pointed out, leonidas' poems employ the oddest ol reality ellects,
since their elaborate phraseology is deliberately juxtaposed with the humble" subject
mattera typically lellenistic literary endeavor," as outzwiller 1998:90 observes. 1he
dillerence between 1heocritus' and leonidas' epigrams has been described by kossi
2001:29-64 as between bucolic" and rural" epigram, see also 8tanzel 200 lor an over-
view ol both 1heocritus' and leonidas' epigrams as bucolic epigrams."

cl. Antn. |an. 2! [1ymnes], riap. 24on which more later.
8
cl. columella's praise ol rural guard-dogs: what more laithlul companion can be
lound7 what guard more incorruptible7 what night-watchman more vigilant7" (uis jiJc-
|icr ccmcs uis custcs inccrrupticr uis cxcuuitcr invcniri pctcst vii|anticr, .12.1).
1nc vanisnin 6arJcns cj riapus
lriapus and verdant greeneryand particularly the springtime land-
scapereappears in the somewhat surprising tradition ol poems
leaturing lriapus as a marine god. ln a series ol epigrams stretching
lrom the third century lc to the sixth century Au (but almost iden-
tical in content),
9
lriapus announces to sailors that the season lor
sailing has arrived, an announcement always accompanied by a stock
description ol springtime lertilitythe meadows blooming, the roses
llowering, the swallows building their nests, and so on. lush pastoral
catalogues ol lruits, plants and wine also typically leature in the tradi-
tion ol dedicatory epigrams to lriapus (Antn. a|. 6.22, 102, 2!2). lut
here, leonidas' rural" worldview also has its inheritors: so, in Antn.
a|. 6.21, lor example, a retiring larmer dedicates the larming equip-
ment with which he worked his vegetable garden. lven lriapus himsell
is addressed here as a gardener" (iqnouo, line 9), and the whole is as
much an ode to the thrilt and hard work ol the larmer as it is to lriapus'
position as a god ol lertility.
writing about lriapus is, then, lrom the beginning, a way ol writing
about nature and the countryside. uescriptions ol plants and landscape,
be they the lush scenes ol lertility ol the 1heocritean tradition or the
thrilty garden scenes ol leonidas' tradition, assume a very prominent
place in many ol the oreek priapic poems, and may be considered almost
a generic prerogative ol their own. lut, more than this, the choice ol
which tradition to lollow carries with it a set ol ideological allegiances
relating to the countryside and its social and poetic meaning.
10
loets
writing in the tradition choose between the idealized pastoral vision ol
1heocritus or the designedly realistic" agricultural vision ol leonidas
as the genre's mcJc||c ccJicc, code model" (to use conte's term).
11
1he
contrast between the two ensures that the question ol what values are
9
Antn. a|. 10.1, 2, 4, , 6, 14, 1, 16.
10
Ol course, as always, the accidents ol transmission may be allecting our picture
here. lt is hard to assess lrom this distance the contributions ol other lellenistic poets
such as luphronius, who reportedly composed an entire book ol priapca (lerter 19!2:18),
or ledylus, whose one surviving priapcum and other epigrams suggest the possibility
ol a more urbane or satirical version ol lriapus (see outzwiller 1998:10-182). lut il (as
always) the lull intertextual matrix is lost to us, the pervasive inlluence ol 1heocritus and
leonidas in the later tradition is, at least, clear.
11
conte 1986:!1, linds 1998:41-42.
jamcs 0Jcn
attached to the natural world remains at the loreground ol the pria-
pcum. Lltimately, although these poems center upon lriapus' mcntu|a
as the dominating presence in the gardens ol lriapus, it is the gardens
themselves in which shilts in the tradition are registered.
1he three riapca preserved in the Vergilian Appendix (84-86
lcheler) represent a signilicant step in the development ol the
oreco-koman priapic genre: they continue the overarching metapo-
etic concern ol the priapic tradition with poetic representations ol the
countryside, but also exploit the parodic potential ol sell-consciously
examining those representations. 1he most remarkable aspect ol these
poems is the way in which they react to each other, and specilically the
way in which the second poem thoroughly deconstructs and demysti-
lies the romantic image ol the countryside in the third. lxpanding upon
the thematic locus ol the earlier lriapic tradition, the third lseudo-
Vergilian priapcum is taken up almost entirely by a lengthy, romantic
evocation ol rural piety and the pleasures ol the countryside.
12
lriapus
here guards a little thatched villa (vi||u|a, line 1), while he himsell has
a little shrine" (sacc||um, line 8). uespite the poverty ol its occupants,
the masters ol the meager hut" (Jcmini . paupcris tuuri, lines -6)
piously observe lriapus' rites. lines -16 are an elaborate description ol
those rites, incorporating a lush catalogue ol lertile vegetation lamiliar
lrom oreek epigrams describing ollerings to lriapus.
1!
we see here a
melding ol leonidas' and 1heocritus' traditions: this priapcum has as
its characters poor, sell-sullicient larmers, but the world they inhabit
is an idealized vision ol a boundlessly lertile earth. 1he contradiction
linds symbolic expression in line 9: the young, pious son ol the larmer
is constantly bearing copious gilts in his small hand" (parva manu jcrcns
scmpcr muncra |ara). 1his priapcum is a vision ol aesthetic and moral
beauty. lrankly, what is missing is mcntu|a. lriapus' otherwise ubiqui-
tous phallic threats are completely elided here in lavor ol rural ideal-
ization, both liguratively and literally: at the end ol the poem, when
12
cl. here lolzberg's interesting suggestion (2004:!-!8) that the poet ol these
riapca deliberately evokes the countrilied" world ol Vergil's c|cucs and 6ccrics in
order to create a credible debut" lor a young Vergil still living at home on his lather's
estate.
1!
cl. e.g. Antn. a|. 6.22, 102, 2!2.
1nc vanisnin 6arJcns cj riapus
lriapus addresses boys contemplating ill-minded thelts" (ma|as rapinas,
line 19), his usual hyperphallic threat ol rape is replaced by the (perhaps
humorously7) meek suggestion that the boys try next door instead.
1his idealized vision is dismantled in the second poem ol the
lseudo-Vergilian riapca. where the third poem begins with a pictur-
esque ekphrasis ol the little villa, here lriapus lixes attention at the
beginning lirmly on himsell, announcing his appearance with all
the hubris (and halting syntax) ol New comic lowlile: l'm the one
me! made with rustic art!yes l, dried-up poplar woodlook!l
protect ."
14
. what7 1his lriapus also protects a poor man's house, but
something is awry. lis description ol their poverty seems over-exagger-
ated and larcical: [l protect] this really little block ol land which you
saw just now on the lelt, and this little villa and this little garden ol my
poor master."
1
Ac||u|us, vi||u|a, ncrtu|us: the three diminutives in quick
succession seem ridiculous in their over-determined littleness, and
although ac||us can have a sentimental ring to it in idealized descrip-
tions ol rustic lile,
16
the double diminutive ac||u|us is almost certainly a
coinage here lor comic ellect.
1
ln lines 6-1, lriapus provides a picture
ol the produce ol the larm he protectsin complete lullillment ol the
generic demand lor descriptions ol vegetative lertilitybut his claims
lor the landscape ol the ac||u|us become more and more extravagant,
and his boasts become more and more lancilul. le starts by describing
the year-round dedications ol garlands, wheat, vines and olives (the
lourlold anaphora ol mini in lines 6-9 continues lriapus' hubristic
emphasis on himsell). lut then we hear about the goat and the lamb,
which lriapus claims lantastically have come lrom my pastures"
(mcis . pascuis, 10) and my sheep-pens" (mcis . cvi|iuus, 12), which bear
their milk to the city and send back a right hand laden with cash"
14
[Verg.] riap. 2:1-2, : c nacc, cc artc jauricata rustica, | cc ariJa, c viatcr, cccc pcpu|us
| . tucr.
1
lines !-4: ac||u|um nunc sinistra ct antc ucm viJcs, | criuc vi||u|am, ncrtu|umuc
paupcris.
16
8o, see Verg. cata|. 8.1, ol which this might even be a parody: vi||u|a, uac 5ircnis cras,
ct paupcr ac||c. (lor a dillerent theory as to the relationship between the two poems, see
lolzberg 2004:!6-!8.) cl. also lucr. .1!6, lor. 5at. 1.6.1, Ov. last. .499.
1
1his is the lirst datable attestation. 1he instance at c 10.620 cannot be dated. 1he
word becomes more lrequent in late antique authors.
jamcs 0Jcn
(ravcm Jcmum rcmittit acrc Jcxtcram, 1!).
18
licturesque images ol the
countryside aside, lriapus' story is now openly contradictory: surely
they are not nis pastures and sheep-pens il he has a master (crus paupcr,
line 4), and il he has sheep-pens and pastures at all, his master's land-
holdings hardly lit within the exaggerated humbleness ol ac||u|us,
vi||u|a, ncrtu|us.
linally, having ascended at the height ol his reverie lrom the halting
comic syntax ol the opening ol the poem to high-llown epic diction,
lriapus warns the passing traveler that he should revere this god"
(that is, himsell), because a tender call " lrom the property pours out
her blood while her mother moans belore the temples ol the gods."
19

1hat, and his mcntu|a, which lriapus says stands savage and prepared.
20

lut just as the traveler starts to say something, the vi|icus arrives:
velim pol" inquis. at pol ecce vilicus
venit, valente cui revulsa bracchio
lit ista mentula apta clava dexterae.
[Verg.] riap. 2:19-21
You say by ood, l'd like to" lut look! ly ood, the bailill
is coming! le breaks oll that cock ol mine with his strong
arm, and it becomes a truncheon litted to his right hand.
1his hubristic and pompous lriapus is made to look ridiculous at the
end ol the poem, as will become a common motil in the carmina ria-
pca.
21
lriapus has his lancilul and sell-llattering reveries interrupted,
22

18
1he cash seems to suggest that lriapus is over-exaggerating the poverty ol the
larm, though he may also be humorously echoing the persona ol the humble larmer ol
the Vcrctum, who is described as selling his best produce to the city and returning home
laden with cash" (ravis acrc rcJiuat, line 80). loth lines derive lrom Verg. c|. 1.!. lor
lurther parallels, see lenney 1984:41.
19
lines 14-1: tcncrauc matrc muicntc vaccu|a | Jcum prcjunJit antc tcmp|a sanuincm.
20
line 18: parata namuc trux stat cccc mcntu|a.
21
8ee on this lolzberg 200, Lden 200:9, 21-22.
22
1he aposiopesis vc|im pc| adds immeasurably to the sense ol a llight ol lancy being
abruptly cut oll by an interruption lrom the real world. 1he ellect is not dissimilar to
catullus' abrupt arrest ol his mounting reverie in the closing line ol catullus 8, just
another, then, ol the many catullan connections in this priapcum (cl. 8alvatore 196!:161-
166).
1nc vanisnin 6arJcns cj riapus
and his threat ol rape is rendered impossible through the loss ol his
lamed mcntu|a. moreover, the contrast between lriapus and the strong-
armed vi|icus (who presumably now does lriapus' job lor him and chases
away the curious traveler with his club) exposes lriapus' inadequacies:
he is wooden and immobile. lut the appearance ol the vi|icus breaks
oll lriapus' lancilul boasting in another way. A bailill (vi|icus), the
chiel-ol-stall on a land-owner's estate, simply does not belong in any
ol the poetic landscapes into which lriapus lancilully inserts himsell.
1he vi|icus, a position much discussed by koman writers because ol its
centrality to the ellicient running ol rural properties, is part ol the real
lile economics ol estate management: he has no place either in pictur-
esque evocations ol humble rural lile or in pastoral landscapes ol ideal-
ized superabundance.
2!
lndeed, guardianship ol a master's property
lrom thelt was an important part ol a vi|icus` responsibilities
24
: the poet
here has lriapus, the poetic garden guardian, ousted by his real-lile
equivalent. 1he abrupt intrusion ol this ligure lrom the real" agricul-
tural world ultimately exposes both the rustic and the pastoral visions
ol the countryside at the heart ol the priapcum as lantasies, poetic
mystilications ol agriculture, mere mythmaking lor an elite audience. ll
their haphazard combination in the poem was humorous lor its obvious
inconsistency, it was only a parodic over-exaggeration ol a combination
already present in the third lseudo-Vergilian priapcum, and, indeed, in
the previous priapic tradition in general.
lriapus is placed even closer to the realities ol urban lile in the best
known ol the latin priapca, lorace's 5atircs 1.8. 1he poem stretches the
boundaries ol the lorm: it is much longer than other surviving priapca
and is largely concerned with a narrative account ol lriapus' encounter
2!
1he sense ol intrusion into a poetic landscape is buttressed by the lact that vi|icus is
itsell an unpoetic word, appearing in classical latin poetry only in the pist|cs ol lorace
and the lables ol lhaedrus. lt may also be signilicant to consider the opposition ol vi|icus
to cu|tcr ac||i (worker ol a small lield") in the opening couplet ol c .280! = c 861
[1ibullus7], although vi|icus is here used in its more general sense ol overseer" rather
than in its specilic agricultural sense. ln this poem, lerspectus (or perhaps, more likely,
lerpetuus: uahlmann 1988:4!-4!8), a lormer city-dweller, now rural larmer, dedicates
a temple to lriapus: vi|icus acrari ucnJam, nunc cu|tcr ac||i, | nacc tiui crspcctus tcmp|a,
riapc, Jicc.
24
8ee Varro kust. 1.1!.2.
jamcs 0Jcn
with witches in his garden. 1rue to generic tradition, though, the
nature ol the garden that lriapus is guarding is crucial both to the
outlook and scenario ol the poem as a whole, and as an index ol how
the priapic poet (here, lorace) has developed the poetic tradition.
lere, lor the lirst time, lriapus is located in a garden ol topographical
specilicity and political signilicance. lriapus in lorace's poem is on
the lsquilinepreviously the site ol, amongst other things, a plebeian
graveyard, but now the site ol maecenas' luxury pleasure gardens.
lorace makes lriapus the witness and commentator on this dynamic
translormation ol urban space. what was previously" (prius, 8) a grave-
yard is now" (nunc, 14) a habitable and salubrious garden. 1he process
is doubled in lriapus himsell, who was once" (c|im, 1) useless wood
but, having been cralted into his present lorm by his maker, lrom that
point on" (inJc, !) has been a god. 1his emphasis on translormation in
the poem may be interpreted sell-consciously to rellect lorace's new
use ol the priapic lorm: when lriapus describes his setting as new
gardens" (ncvis . in ncrtis, ), the newness may reside not only in these
physical changes but also in the generic changes wrought in the poem.
1he topographical changes to which lriapus relers in lorace, 5atircs
1.8, also obliquely allude to changes in the ideological signilicance
ol gardens, a theme which will become more explicit in the carmina
riapca. As lowell ldmunds examines in a recent article, descriptions
ol the lsquiline and the surrounding area belore maecenas' reno-
vation make mention ol small gardens (ncrtu|i) as well as tombs, and
ldmunds sets out the evidence lor the possible existence ol tomb-
gardens and market-gardens on the site.
2
All ol these would have been
suitable locations lor lriapus, either in his customary generic position
as the guardian ol vegetable or llower gardens or in his epigraphically
attested position as the guardian ol tombs. lut lriapus is now, lor the
lirst time in his generic career, located in elite pleasure gardens. ln lact,
it is precisely these gardens, together with the gardens ol lucullus and
8allust, which set a trend lor luxurious gardens in urban or semi-urban
parts ol kome in the late kepublic and into the early lmpire.
26
Lnlike
2
ldmunds 2009, citing cic. c|u. !, livy 26.10.-6.
26
8o, wallace-ladrill 1998 (see especially at 4 lor maecenas, lucullus, and 8allust
1nc vanisnin 6arJcns cj riapus
earlier haunts ol lriapus, here the rustic god linds himsell not in
gardens noted lor their verdant greenery or agricultural produce, but
in pleasure gardens noted rather lor their sunny aspect and pleasant
places to walk.
2
lriapus himsell seems to be aware ol the ill lit at lines
1-20, where he says that he is not troubled by thieves or wild animals
(typical garden pests), so much as by the witcheshere associated with
the city
28
who come to the gardens to dig up herbs and bones. 1he
sense ol incongruity between lriapus and his luxury surroundings is
a signal ol the translormation ol this urban space. lut, when we recall
lriapus' garden surroundings earlier in the tradition, it also becomes a
signal ol the distance between the earlier, humble garden ideal (as in,
lor example, leonidas' lriapus poems) and the luxury pleasure gardens
ol contemporary kome.
1his sense ol incongruity between lriapus and his new, more urban-
ized surroundings is an integral part ol the carmina riapca. 1his juxta-
position is, lirst, evident in the lrequent collocation ol the ligure ol
lriapus with typical ligures lrom koman estates. 1he appearance ol the
vi|icus was part ol the surprise ending ol the second lseudo-Vergilian
priapcum, but it becomes a kind ol running motil in the carmina riapca,
which are, by contrast, shot through with the language ol elite land
ownership. 1he simple, rustic ligure ol lriapus (as he is still character-
ized in the poems) sits, with deliberate and jarring incongruity, side
by side with typical ligures lrom koman estates. lnstead ol the old
stereotype ol the old man and his lriapus," populating tnis garden are
a circitcr ('guard'),
29
a statcr ('sentry'),
!0
and an impecunious inui|inus
('tenant').
!1
1he incongruous appearance ol both lriapus and realistic
as trend-setters, the ones who developed the new model in the most conspicuous and
memorable way").
2
5at. 1.8.14-1. 8ee lurther welch (2001:186-18) on the ill lit between lriapus'
humbleness and crudeness and his luxurious new surroundings.
28
we do not hear where precisely the witches have come lrom, but they run back into
the city when lriapus eventually expels them lrom the garden (line 4).
29
riap. 1.1. A circitcr can be the guard ol a private garden, but the term is also used ol
the guards ol aqueducts and in the military, see ooldberg 1992 ad loc.
!0
riap. 2.!, here used certainly with sexual double entendre (statcr = mcntu|a, lor
lriapus' mcntu|a threateningly described as standing," cl. [Verg.], riap. 2.18).
!1
riap. 0.1.
jamcs 0Jcn
guard-stall in the same poem is something ol which lriapus himsell
seems metapoetically aware, so, in riap. 1, he complains that the
circitcr is taking his job.
!2
moreover, in the carmina riapca, it is olten the
vi|icus ol an estate who sets up lriapus in the lirst place, rather than,
lor example, the old man in his vegetable garden, as in leonidas' code-
model.
!!
lndeed, riapca 24 challenges the reader, in the most direct
way possible, to contrast the new presence ol stall-members with the
rustic sell-sulliciency ol leonidas' original paradigm: the latin poem is
a provocatively inaccurate translation ol leonidas' oreek. ln oreek, the
lirst couplet ol Antn. |an. 2!6 [leonidas] says that ueinomenes set me
up here on the garden wall, wakelul lriapus, as a guard ol vegetables"
(Ato c' eieoieoi tov eyounvovte liqnov | cotqocv ie_vuv
^civocvq uieie). ln the carmina riapca, this becomes 1he
bailill ol the lertile garden here ordered me to take care ol the place
entrusted [to me]" (uic mc custcJcm jccunJi vi|icus ncrti | manJati curam
iussit naucrc |cci). 1he language used herevi|icus, manJati, iussitgives
the humorous impression that lriapus has become part ol the stall ol
an estate, with responsibilities doled out by a bailill (this was, indeed,
one ol the vi|icus` duties).
!4

1hese passages beg the question ol what exactly we are to imagine
as the setting ol the carmina riapca. lut the poems do not oller a
consistent picture ol where we are to imagine their action being set,
rather, poetic traces ol the city and the countryside are intermingled.
most olten, ol course, lriapus is simply in a garden" (ncrtus),
!
which
tells us little, both because ol the semantic breadth ol the wordit
could reler to the humble pauper's plot or (especially in the plural) to
the luxury pleasure gardens ol the city's elite
!6
and because lriapus'
location in a garden" had, by then, become ossilied as a basic poetic
!2
riap. 1: what's your problem, you troublesome guard7 why do you stop the
thiel coming to me7 let him come to me: he'll go away looser!" (quiJ mccum tiui, circitcr
mc|cstc | aJ mc uiJ prcniucs vcnirc jurcm | acccJat, sinc: |axicr rcJiuit).
!!
riap. 10.4, 24.1, 42.1.
!4
8ee especially columella 11.1.-9, also cato Ar. 1..1-.
!
8o, at riap. 1., .!, 24.1, 28.2, 1.2, 2.2, 62.1, 6.4, 6.!.
!6
8ee the article in the 1 by lhlers. ucrtus can be used, like the oreek ijno, to reler
to household gardens (s.v. ncrtus ll.A.1.a.e). Alternatively, like the oreek necioo, it
can be used to reler to the luxury gardens lound on estates (s.v. ncrtus ll A.1.a.). cl. leard
1nc vanisnin 6arJcns cj riapus
building block ol the priapcum, a poetic signal as much as a geographic
descriptor. loregoing the generic tendency towards landscape descrip-
tion (an omission which would have made itsell lelt to those lamiliar
with the tradition), the setting ol these poems is established in mere
glimpses ol a landscape: lriapus is amongst lruit trees in a remote
spot",
!
he is beside the vines, guarding grapes,
!8
he is entrusted" with
the care ol an orchard,
!9
he is guarding the gate ol a pig sty.
40

Nevertheless, the poems' most notable innovation is the combina-
tion ol these details with similarly lleeting glimpses ol koman urban
lile. lriapus is visited by a prostitute, a star amongst the 8ubura girls."
41

uancing paraphernalia is dedicated to him by a celebrity dancer, a true
star in the circus maximus."
42
A prostitute, 1elethusa (a stock character
in martial, and hersell a 8panish export to the city, mart. 6.1), arouses
lriapus in another poem.
4!
1he substitution ol an agricultural lor an
urban setting is made particularly explicit in poem 21. ln this poem,
the apples that are being dedicated to lriapus were, this dedicator
conlesses, not grown in his own garden (as in his poetic models), but
instead bought on the 8acra Via.
44
1his poem lingers precisely on the
counterleit nature ol this rural produce: the lruit is described in line !
on the ambivalence, the tricksiness" ol uses ol the word in these two dillerent senses
(1998:28).
!
riap. 1.: intcr jruticcs |ccc rcmctc.
!8
riap. !0.!-4.
!9
riap. 1.1: ccmmissa mcac . pcmaria curac.
40
riap. 6.!-4.
41
riap. 40.1: Ncta 5uuuranas intcr 1c|ctnusa puc||as.
42
riap. 2.1: uc|iciac pcpu|i, manc nctissima circc . On manc circc, see ooldberg 1992
ad loc. 1he priapcum type in which erotic paraphernalia is dedicated to lriapus is not
an innovation ol the carmina riapca, indeed, it originates in the third century lc with
ledylus (Antn. a|. 6.292). what is remarkable here is the specilicity with which the pria-
pcum is linked to urban lile in kome.
4!
riap. 19. we might make mention here ol riap. 68, in which lriapus provides a
rustic" reading ol lomer, whom he hears his master reciting. Although there are no
explicit mentions ol the city in the poem, the associations ol rusticity with boorishness
and crudeness obviously only exist within an urus : rus dichotomy. 8ee kosen 2006:2!0 on
the carmina riapca (and poem 68 in particular) as a type ol comedy better suited . to
the city than the country."
44
riap. 21.!-4: uacuc tiui pcsui tamuam vcrnacu|a pcma, | Jc sacra nu||i Jixcris cssc via.
mart. .!1 and 10.94 have similar punch-lines.
jamcs 0Jcn
as tamuam vcrnacu|ajust like home-grown." lriapus is surrounded
by a mere simulacrum ol the greenery ol his genre's beginnings.
more than this, the exchange ol home-grown apples lor a commercial
product ol the 8acra Via (known lor sex as much as lor produce)
4
is
a potent symbol lor the shilt in poetic locus in the riapca away lrom
descriptions ol the natural world and more explicitly onto sexual
threat and invective.
46

lndeed, poem 21 is one ol many poems in the riapca in which the
lack ol images ol vegetationa lack surely lelt by those lamiliar with
the genre and its overarching metapoetic concern with how to describe
the natural worldseems itsell to become a sell-conscious trope in
the verse. 1here is an immanent leeling ol Jcllorescence in these
poems. 1he greenery in the carmina riapca, il it is present at alland
it lrequently isn'ttends to be inlertile, hostile or lake. 1he crux ol
the matter is nicely stated in poem 60, in which a larmer laments the
lact that his lriapus has more poems than pcma. ll you were to have
as many lruits as you have verses, lriapus, you would be richer than
old Alcinous," says the larmer.
4
le has a point: the carmina riapca as a
whole is long on descriptions ol lriapus' sexual antics, desperately short
on descriptions ol the vegetative lertility which lriapus used to inspire
and represent. 1he point ol poem 60 is exemplilied in poem 61, in which
a lruit tree laments its current inlertility. why," it asks its larmer, do
you complain in vain in my presence7 lecause lor two autumns l have
stood inlertile, an apple tree once abounding in good lruit7"
48
ln lines
4-12, the lruit tree elaborates a series ol natural causes which might
4
lor the 8acra Via as a place to obtain lruit: Ov. Ars Am. 2.264-26, lor the 8acra Via as
a red light district: lrop. 2.2!.1, mart. 2.6!.2.
46
cl. here those poems in which nature is replaced by sex at the elementary level ol
individual words' signilication. 1he dried grapes, boxwood, and beeswax described in
catalogue lorm at the beginning ol poem !2 turn out to reler to the visccra ol a repulsively
desiccated old woman. ln poem , ncrtus itsell is a metaphor lor natcs, the metaphor is
elsewhere unattested (although the 1 records one instance each ol ncrtus/ncrtu|us -
cunnus: Antn. at. 12.18, 88.2, 1 viJ!.!01.19-21, !018.1-6 lhlers), and it is particu-
larly loaded here, given the rejection ol literal garden imagery elsewhere in the carmina
riapca.
4
riap. 60.1-2: 5i uct naucs vcrsus, tct naucrcs pcma, riapc, | csscs antiuc Jiticr A|cincc.
48
riap. 61.1-!: quiJ jrustra ucrcris, cc|cnc, mccum, | ucJ ucnJam ucnc jructucsa ma|us |
autumnis stcri|is Jucuus aJstcm
1nc vanisnin 6arJcns cj riapus
have stemmed its lruitlulnesshail, the cold ol the late spring, wind,
rain, drought, or ravenous birds. ln the a|atinc Antnc|cy, one ol lriapus'
roles is announcing the coming ol spring and the blossoming ol new lile
and growth in the natural world, in poem 61, by contrast, the benevo-
lent earth has given way to a hostile and unlruitlul vision ol nature. 1he
lruit tree seems grounded not so much in agricultural realism as in a
deliberately anti-pastoral dystopialess 6ccrics than oeorge crabbe.
49

lventually, though, the tree says that it has been destroyed rather by
the poems ol an awlul poet" (carmina pcssimi pcctac) being hung on
its hard-worked" branches (ramis . |aucricsis).
0
lt would be attrac-
tive here to interpret the poet in question as the author ol this very
poem. lspecially given the prevalence ol catullan stylistic buzzwords
elsewhere in the programmatic passages ol the carmina riapca, this
poet may well have identilied (with a knowing intertextual wink) with
catullus' ironic description ol himsell as pcssimus cmnium pccta.
1
1he
suggestion that this poet is himsell rendering vegetation inlertile would
be a neatly sell-conscious way ol acknowledging the new absence ol the
usually verdant lriapic natural world in the carmina riapca.
ln other poems, received poetic motils or clichs describing
vegetable lertility or harmony with the natural world are perverted,
reversed or otherwise emptied ol their usual signilicance. ln poem 2,
lriapus' mcntu|a is described as a scepter, cut lrom a tree," which will
now no longer be llourishing with leal."
2
1he joke ol the line lies ol
49
ln this respect, the poem is similar to riap. 6!, in which lriapus complains that he
is oppressed by scorching heat, torrential rains, hail, excessive labornot to mention his
own shoddy construction. crabbe's greatest work, 1nc vi||ac (18!), lashions a realist
view ol country lile in deliberate opposition to pastoral idealization. lled are those
times, when, in harmonious strains J 1he rustic poet praised his native plains: J No shep-
herds now, in smooth alternate verse, J their country's beauty or their nymphs' rehearse
. Yes, thus the muses sing ol happy swains, J lecause the muses never knew their pains"
(1.-10, 21-22).
0
riap. 61.1!-14.
1
cat. 49.. 1he |aucricsi rami ol poem 61 may also recall catullus' use ol the same
adjective (also ironically7) to describe the work ol cornelius in his lirst poem (1.), cl. also
the allusion to this line in riap. 2.!, in which the lriapic poet says that his poems are not
written nimium |aucricsc (as a result ol excessive labor"). On catullan inlluence on the
riapca, especially at its programmatic moments, see luchheit 1962:11, lallett 1996.
2
riap. 2.1-2: ucc sccptrum, ucJ au arucrc cst rccisum, | nu||a iam pctcrit vircrc jrcnJc.
jamcs 0Jcn
course in the reapplication to lriapus' mcntu|a ol lomer's description
ol the stall upon which Achilles swears in the |iaJ, which will never
again produce leaves and twigs" (to cv o notc uiie ie ou |
uoci), a phrase which alterwards becomes a topos in latin epic.
!

8uch obscene travesties occur elsewhere in the riapca, most strikingly
in poem 68. At the same time, though, the image ol the tree no longer
bearing leal constitutes a striking reiteration ol the theme ol inlertility
in the work. 1he lomeric allusion translorms the body ol the ncrtus'
guardian into the very embodiment ol vegetative inlertility. moreover,
the lact that it is lriapus' mcntu|a that symbolizes this inlertility is
particularly litting in light ol this same lriapus' own sexual impotence.
1he increasing awareness ol this impotence is, as lolzberg argues, a
narrative progression within the carmina riapca as a whole, devel-
oping throughout the poems and climaxing (so to speak) in the closing
sequence.
4
lt is at this moment ol the work that the garden and its
guardian are most strongly identilied in a kind ol pathetic lallacy, with
the inlertility ol the garden linked with the impotence ol its guardian
god.
Nature is replaced by its simulacrum in poem 42, in which the
vi|icus Aristagoras makes a dedication ol the Jc ut Jcs type, ollering
lriapus lruits ol pliant wax" (Jc ccra jaci|i . pcma, 42.2) and asking
him to cause real lruit to grow in exchange. ln an earlier poem ol the
riapca, an image ol a mcntu|a was dedicated to lriapus in his role as
a healing deity,

and waxen elligies are attested elsewhere in magical

rituals.
6
1hus lerter (19!2:22) also assumes that larmers dedicated
images ol produce to lriapus as part ol an agricultural ritual. lut there
is no other evidence lor such a ritual, and we are clearly meant to be
humorously surprised: the dedicator tells lriapus to be content with
the image ol lruit" (ccntcntus imainc pcmi) in line !, as il preempting
lriapus' annoyance at the attempted exchange. lis misgivings may
!
|. 1.2!4-2!. cl. Verg. Acn. 12.206-208, Val. llac. !.0-09 (see ooldberg 1992 ad
loc).
4
lolzberg 200. cl. also lschele 2008.

!.1-2, 11-12. 8ee also ooldberg 1992:201 on the oreek and koman tradition ol
memorial tablets (6cJacntnistajc|), which greatly helps to illuminate poem !.
6
On the use ol waxen elligies in magic ritual, see laraone 199!:62-6.
1nc vanisnin 6arJcns cj riapus
well have been justilied: the description ol Aristagoras as happy with
his well-grown grapes" (|actus . natis ucnc uvis, 42.1), certainly seems
to imply that he already had some lruit to spare. lut the joke here is in
the lruits being Jc ccra.

8pecilically, the lruits here literally made ol

wax seem to constitute an allusion to the lrequent approving descrip-
tion ol lruit (olten but not invariably plums) as waxy." corydon in
c|cucs 2 promises waxy plums" (ccrca pruna, !) to Alexis as part
ol his pastoral bounty, an epithet explained by 8ervius as relerring
either to the color or texture ol the lruit. lis description is echoed in
the pseudo-Vergilian ccpa,
8
in Ovid's Vctamcrpncscs,
9
in calpurnius
8iculus' c|cucs,
60
in martial,
61
and in the riapca itsell, where plums are
described as yellower than lresh wax."
62
ln poem 42, then, the pictur-
esque pastoral clich ol waxy yellow lruits is humorously replaced by
lruits which are actually made ol wax. lurthermore, by sending the
reader back to pastoral images ol nature, and then inverting them, the
poem reiterates the central motils ol the work as a whole. 1he lruitlul-
ness ol old has been replaced by a new artiliciality.
ln yet other poems, the departure lrom the genre's pastoralJagri-
cultural code models is registered through the inversion ol typical
motils with which past poets had expressed praise or allection lor the
countryside. loem 1 is perhaps the best known example ol this. 1he
poem constitutes one ol the lew substantial catalogues ol vegetation
in the riapca, as lriapus, in seventeen detailed lines, lists the produce
lrom the garden he is guarding. An allusion to Arete in line 6 sends
our minds back to the praise ol Alcinous' garden in the oJysscy, the
lounding example ol the |aus ncrti. moreover, the rather anomalous
casting ol lriapus as not only the guardian, but also the worker ol the
garden (mini |aucratum |ccum, he calls it, in lines 2-26, and relers to the
garden and its trees as his own at lines 2 and 11) adopts the popular

8ee ooldberg 1992:14 on the use ol Jc where we might expect cx, which occurs in
both pre- and post-classical latin.
8
ccpa 18: sunt autumna|i ccrca pruna Jic.
9
Vct. 1!.81-818: prunauc . ncvasuc imitantia ccras.
60
2.91: ccrca . cyJcnia (quinces").
61
10.94.6: mittimus autumni ccrca pcma mci.
62
1.9: maisuc ccra |utcum ncva prunum.
jamcs 0Jcn
topos ol the idealized old man and his garden."
6!
lut, rather than
praising the produce ol his larm, lriapus systematically disparages his
produce, which, he says, cannot compete with that ol his neighbors'
gardens. 1his lriapus is, quite deliberately, the antitype ol the corycian
gardener ol 6ccrics 4, showing disdain rather than pride lor his humble
garden: ncc |cricr, he says at line 14.
64
lriapus' occasional scatological
comments (line 10) and incidental threats to would-be thieves (line 8)
also serve to debunk the typically romantic and idealized tone ol the
|aus ncrti. At the end ol the poem, lriapus concludes that the imprc-
uissimi jurcs invading his territory must actually like the punishment
he doles out, since the garden could not possibly be an attraction in
itsell. lriapus' diagnosis is all too likely. keaders and thieves who enter
lriapus' haunts in the riapca in expectation ol his trademark punish-
ment will not be disappointed, his garden, though, may indeed prove to
be rather less ol an attraction.
we have traced the genre to its two code models, 1heocritus and
leonidas, and their competing conceptualizations ol lriapus in terms
ol the idealized pastoral or the more realistic rustic landscape. 1he
contrast between the two ensures that the presentation ol the natural
world in lriapic poetry is always a live issue, an immanent indication
ol how the particular poet is negotiating a position in the poetic tradi-
tion. 1he pseudo-Vergilian riapca, a kind ol mid-point in our survey,
combine and also sell-consciously deconstruct these two artistic and
ideological approaches to the representation ol nature in lriapus'
world. 1he carmina riapca, though, represent a thorough departure
lrom the code models in setting lriapus in a semi-urbanized world,
and this departure lrom the tradition linds metaphorical expression in
the imagery ol inlertile or lake vegetation and the reversal ol pastoral
motils.
6
1aken together, and read with the code-models in mind, the
6!
1hibodeau 2001 has a helplul account ol the tradition.
64
luchheit 1962:96-9 has a discussion ol the poem in relation to the |aus ncrti topos.
6
One exception to the general pattern might be objectedpoem 16, a dedica-
tion poem to lriapus seemingly celebrating abundance and lertility. lut this poem too
is a parody. ln six lines, the ollering ol lruits being made to lriapus is grandiloquently
compared to the lruits in the ncui|is ncrtus" ol the lesperides and Alcinous' garden in
oJysscy , and to Acontius' love-pledge apple. 1hese grandiose mythological comparisons
are so humorously excessive that they crowd out literal description ol the ollerings. 1his
1nc vanisnin 6arJcns cj riapus
poems ol the carmina riapca participate in the creation ol a communal
narrative ol their genre's own development. 1his generic narrative
moves lrom country to city, lrom lertility to inlertility, lrom a locus on
the natural world, its cultivation and productivity, to a locus on lust,
leisure and impotence. 1he sense ol narrative progression is particularly
strong in poem !!, with which we began, with its very strong temporal
juxtaposition: the ancient lriapi (antiui riapi), says lriapus, had Naiads
and uryads to satisly their lust, but now (nunc)in his current generic
incarnationhe has to masturbate because all the nymphs have passed
away" (Nympnas cmnis intcriissc), a vivid metaphor lor the development
ol the genre. lndeed, as we have already seen with lorace's 5atircs 1.8,
the epigrams ol the carmina riapca in general have a very pronounced
sense ol temporality, and olten rellexively stress the newness ol the situ-
ation lriapus linds himsell in. 1his is a specilic adaptation ol the thenJ
now" structure popular in ancient epigram and (naturally) in aetiolog-
ical poetry.
66
8o, the tree lrom which lriapus' mcntu|a is lashioned will
now" (iam, 2.2) no longer bear lruit, the very lusty sentry will now lor
the lirst time" (iam primum, 2.!) open up the gate purposelully to enjoy
the spectacle ol the thieves' punishment, lriapus can still perlorm even
though he is now older" (iam scnicr, 6.1).
1he communal narrative created by the sell-conscious translor-
mation ol the lriapic code models in the carmina riapca is, by its very
nature, a literary narrative, charting the development ol a genre. lut
poetic sell-consciousness is never purely inward-looking. lt is, rather,
a rellection and reapplication ol paradigmsolten social and political
paradigmslound outside the literary sphere and presented with the
mere pretense ol insularity. 1his is especially so in this case, since a
poet who decided to write about gardens (even tangentially, as in the
carmina riapca) could not help but participate in the discourses being
grandiosity is then abruptly contrasted with the humbleness ol the speaker ol the poem,
described as the pious master ol a little lield in llower" (pius Jcminus j|crcntis ac||i, line
). 1he description ol lriapus as naked" (nuJus) in the last line, a detail usually empha-
sized in more explicitly sexual contexts (1.6, 9.1!, 14.8), also serves to lower the tone at
the end. lor possible sexual innuendo in the linal two lines, see O'connor 1989:11.
66
8ee coleman 2006:1-18 on use ol the thenJnow" distinction as a structural device
in epigram.
jamcs 0Jcn
developed around the image and reality ol gardens in the lmperial
era. kecent commentators have traced the development by which
the prominent private gardens ol the late kepublic such as those ol
lucullus and 8allust came to represent a withdrawal lrom political lile,
and then, consequently, were targeted specilically in the lmperial era
as symbols ol decadence, urbanization and artiliciality.
6
Varro had
already noted that, whereas the ancient komans built larms aJ jructum
raticncm (in accordance with the rationale ol productivity"), komans
ol his time built larms aJ |iuiJincs inJcmitas (in accordance with their
unrestrained lusts"), and lorace had similarly depicted unproductive
llowers being sown in contemporary gardens where the earlier owner"
(pricr Jcminus) had planted lertile olive trees.
68
ln 1acitus' Anna|cs, ncrti
lunction in the text as symbols ol imperial rapacity and lemale lack ol
restraint. messalina lusts alter (literally gapes lor," innians, 11.1.1) the
gardens ol lucullus and, later, Agrippina will gape alter" (12.9.1) the
gardens ol 8tatilius 1aurus. Nero neglects the allairs ol state in order to
dedicate himsell to decadence shut up in his gardens" (ncrtis c|ausus,
1.!.1). ln his gardens he will luxuriate while the lisonian conspiracy
is lomented against him.
69
Ol course, Nero's own oolden louse epito-
mized lor lmperial writers both the emperor's libidinous architectural
expansionism and a decadent, monstrous artiliciality8uetonius says
that it encompassed within its urban grounds the countryside in
its variety, with lields and vineyards, pastures and woods"
0
in order,
6
On the kepublican gardens symbolizing a detachment lrom public lile, see espe-
cially wallace-ladrill 1998:4. loatwright 1998:6, although stressing the lact that
gardens come to represent decadence in the lmperial era, also notes that emperors did
use ncrti lor a variety ol ollicial purposes, cl. the lamous account ol caligula's reception
ol lhilo's embassy in ncrti, recounted in that author's catic aJ 6aium (!1-!9). One ol
lhilo's own exegetical works suggestively contrasts the luxury ol contemporary pleasure
gardens with the oarden ol lden (uc cpijicic munJi 1!).
68
Varro kust.1.1!.6, lor. carm. 2.1.-8. On the uekadenzmotiv" in Varro, see uiederich
200:!29-!!. cl. Quintilian (nst. 8.!.8), who compares a llower-bed ol lilies and violets to
productive vines and harvests in order to condemn a kind ol speech over-reliant on orna-
ment. leauty, he reminds us, is never separate lrom uselulness (numuam vcra spccics au
uti|itatc JiviJitur).
69
8ee loatwright 1998:-80, lagn 2006:6-8.
0
8uet. Ncr. !1.1: rura insupcr arvis atuc vinctis ct pascuis si|visuc varia. lor the resent-
ment aroused by Nero's oolden louse, see lurcell 198:198, citing the lampoon preserved
1nc vanisnin 6arJcns cj riapus
as 1acitus puts it, to attempt through art what nature had denied."
1

1he artiliciality suggested by 1acitus is the target ol reproach in other
moralists' condemnation ol urban gardens. 8o, lor example, 8eneca
the llder, in his ccntrcvcrsiac, dramatizes moralizing rants decrying
the imitation ol the countryside in such gardensmen take such plea-
sure in these debased simulacra (pravis imitamcntis), he says, that one
wonders whether their connoisseurs have ever actually seen nature
lor themselves.
2
8eneca the Younger characterizes vice as the rebel-
lion against nature, and rails especially against luxuriant perversions ol
nature in urban ncrti, citing the lashion lor rooltop gardens and llowers
blooming out ol season.
!

1he most extended protest against the new luxuriousness and
lruitlessness ol lmperial gardens comes in book 19 ol lliny the llder's
Natura| uistcry. ln a digression during his discussion ol agriculture,
lliny compares gardens ol his own time to those ol the hardy early
komans, ellectively translorming the kinds ol gardens cultivated in
each period as an index ol their moral standards. 1he hard work ol
the earliest komans is epitomized by the lact that the kings ol kome
cultivated their gardens themselves.
4
A certain kind ol sanctity (sanc-
titas), he says, attached to those gardens. moreover, the thrilt ol the
early komans is demonstrated by the lact that they were entirely sell-
sullicient with their gardens. x ncrtc p|cuci macc||um: the lower classes'
provisions market came entirely lrom their garden (19.2). lliny also
eulogizes the love ol earlier komans lor simpler vegetables: cato sang
in 8uetonius Ncrc !9.2: kome will become a single house: move to Veii, Quirites, il that
house doesn't take over Veii as well" (kcma Jcmus jict: vcics miratc, quiritcs, | si ncn ct vcics
cccupat ista Jcmus). Although recent approaches have begun to stress Nero's intentions
lor public access to its grounds, as coleman points out, to a people who lelt that their
city had been taken lrom them, the ostentatious luxury ol Nero's palace would have been
insupportable" (2006:29).
1
Ann. 1.42.: uac natura Jcncavissct pcr artcm tcmptarc.
2
ccntr. 2.1.1!, cl. .. wall paintings ol gardens also enjoyed popularity in the period:
see }ashemski (199!:!1!-404) lor surviving instances lrom lompeii. lliny the llder makes
relerence to imaincs ncrtcrum, imitations ol gardens," which, he said, ollered the plebs a
daily dose ol the countryside (uN 19.9). 1hese could be paintings, but may also be reler-
ences to small window gardens (linderski 2001).
!
8en. p. 122., 8.
4
uN 19.0: kcmani uiJcm rccs ipsi cc|ucrc.
jamcs 0Jcn
the praises ol cabbages (19.) and a branch ol the Valerian lamily took
lettuce" (actucinus) as a cognomen (19.9). men judged a house-
hold's upkeep by the maintenance ol its garden and deprecated the
wile who had to depend on the market (19.). lliny sharply contrasts
this reverence with the decadence ol his own day. lnstead ol the house-
hold gardens personally maintained by the earliest komans, now,
under the name ol gardens, people own, as luxuries, gardens and villas
within the city itsell " (iam uiJcm ncrtcrum ncminc in ipsa uruc Jc|icias
arcs vi||asuc pcssiJcnt, uN 19.0-1), a corrupt and unnatural inter-
mingling ol city and country. 1he word Jc|iciac here has vivid sensual
overtones which damningly suggest the kind ol libidinous sell-indul-
gence with which lliny associates pleasure gardens. 1he nearly absurd
juxtaposition ol Jc|iciac with ari also larcically evokes the ridiculous-
ness (as lliny sees it) ol the urban smart set's pretensions to country
lile. whereas those earlier gardens epitomized the hard work and thrilt
ol the ancients, lliny attributes the new popularity ol urban pleasure
gardens to lpicurus, the ctii maistcr (master ol leisure"). moreover,
the simple delight in home-grown vegetables has been translormed
into a desire lor exotic loreign loods in order to sate the lust ol the
gullet" (vc|uptatcm u|ac). ln lliny's aetiology ol horticultural decline,
we see the movement lrom thrilt to indulgence, lrom productiveness to
idle sensuality, lrom hard work to leisure.
lliny's moralizing discourse lixes on the ncrtus as its subject, using
the symbol ol the ncrtus as an index ol broader cultural tendencies.
lt is a discourse that depends on the semantic llexibility ol the word
ncrtus. As already noted, ncrtus can reler both to the rustic vegetable
plot and (typically in the plural) to the urban pleasure gardens ol the
late kepublic and early lmpire. 1his polysemy is made use ol by other
writers ol the lmpire. 1he poetic tenth book ol columella's uc rc rustica,
which takes ncrti as its topic, is a very instructive text to compare with
the carmina riapca, since its vision ol gardens is a reconliguration ol
the same social strands ol garden discourse to which the carmina riapca
also alludes. 1he ncrti ol this work also exist in the space between moral-
istic evocation ol humble agriculture and urban lmperial garden-lust.
columella's entire work is lramed by the lamiliar moralistic aetiology
ol koman social mores as a movement lrom rural agriculture to urban
1nc vanisnin 6arJcns cj riapus
decadence.

lndeed, the poem ol the tenth book is claimed to be a song

lor the nc|itcr, the cabbage-gardener" (a very humble word), to sing
amongst his llourishing gardens" (viriJantiuus ncrtis, 10.229). Yet, as
oowers points out, columella's rural idyll is patently tailored to urban
lile, a world ol bijou suburban larms, handy lor the city, and part-time
landlords ." (2000:1!6). moreover, the monstrous, burgeoning vegeta-
bles presented in the poem, in an exotic array ol dillerent kinds, are
just the kind ol thing which lliny mocks in his excoriation ol modern
vegetables grown to extraordinary size and pretentiously classed into
dillerent grades (uN 19.4). meanwhile, the sexual overtones which
surlace elsewhere when discussing the desire lor urban gardens (and
which are perhaps made larcically over-explicit in the carmina riapca)
lind expression in this text in its letishistic sexualization ol both the act
ol gardening and the gardens themselveshere, ploughing is described
as rape (10.68-6), cucumbers snake as they swell in unmistakably
sexual lashion (10.94-9), and the menstrual blood ol a naked woman is
recommended as an insecticide ol choice (10.!-!66).
6

1o this complex ol lmperial texts that ligure themselves in the
space between rural and urban ncrti we should also add the second
c|cuc ol calpurnius 8iculus. like the carmina riapca, these c|cucs
also situate themselves chronologically and ideologically in the history
ol their genre by way ol a spatial narrative moving lrom country to
city and lrom the natural to the artilicial. 8o, in c|cuc , corydon,
who has visited the city lor the lirst time, deprecates the gaucheness
ol his interlocutor lycotas, who prelers the old beech trees" (vctcrcs

8o, at 1.prel.1: cmncs cnim (sicut V. varrc iam tcmpcriuus avcrum ccnucstus cst)
patrcs jami|iac ja|cc ct aratrc rc|ictis intra murum ccrrcpsimus, ct in circis pctius ac tncatris,
uam in scctiuus ct vinctis manus mcvcmus (lor all ol us who are patrcsjami|iac, as Varro
has already lamented ol our lorelathers' age, having lelt behind the sickle and plough,
crept together inside city walls, and we put our hands to use not in cornlields and vine-
yards, but in circuses and theatres"). On this prelace, see milnor 200:26!-26, uiederich
200:!2-!4.
6
lor the sexualization ol horticulture in columella's text, see oowers 2000:1!-1!8,
lenderson 2002:128, and milnor 200:29-282, who stresses instead as a rationale the
displacement ol sexuality lrom the vi|ica (whose duties are discussed in book 11) onto
the natural world. Lnsurprisingly, also making an appearance in columella's gardens is
lriapus, awesome ol appendage" (tcrriui|is mcmuri, 10.!2), both in his sexual guardian
role (10.29-!4) and in a discussion ol aphrodisiacs (10.108-109).
jamcs 0Jcn
jacs, a clear metapoetic relerence to Vergil's c|cucs) to the ncva
spcctacu|a ol Neronian (7) kome.

1he movement lrom country to city

recounted in the poem is simultaneously a narrative ol the text's own
innovation within the pastoral tradition. As carole Newlands observes,
calpurnius 8iculus innovates by creating a kind ol urban pastoral,"
subverting pastoral values in lavor ol a new set ol values that allirm
the supremacy ol the city over the country, and ol imperial themes
over rural subjects" (198:2!0). ln calpurnius' second eclogue, the poet
innovates by inserting horticulturecivilization's technology lor reor-
dering the natural worldinto the pastoral vision, a vision which ideal-
izes precisely a world without that intervention. 1he second eclogue is
an amoebean singing contest on the model ol Vergil's third, lilth and
seventh eclogues. lere, though, one ol the competitors is not a shep-
herd (the usual singer in such competitions), but a Jcminus ncrti (line
2), who attempts to match his companion's claims ol shepherding
expertise by boasting ol his ability to gralt unknown leaves and non-
native lruits" onto trees (41),
8
conlound nature by compelling gralted
peaches to supplant plums" (42-4!),
9
irrigate his gardens with canals
(!though someone else does the actual work ol irrigation, 96), and
generate quality produce such as chian ligs (81).
80


calp. 8ic. .4-6. Although the poems unquestionably presuppose a koman imperial
context, attempts to link the eclogues with Neronian society in particular are somewhat
vitiated by suggestions, most inlluentially by champlin, that the poems are, instead,
8everan in date, see lugmann 1992 lor a survey ol perspectives on the issue. lorslall 199
argues lor a late date on linguistic grounds, while the Neronian date maintains staunch
adherentscl. 8chubert 1998. lor beech trees as the quintessential tree ol the c|cucs,"
see koss 19:2.
8
inctas jrcnJcs ct ncn cnti|ia pcma. calpurnius alludes to a verse ol the 6ccrics
(miratastuc ncvas jrcnJcs ct ncn sua pcma, 2.82) in which Vergil expresses the artiliciality
and violation ol the natural" which gralting entails (so, koss 1980:68).
9
ccit | insita pracccuiuus suurcpcrc crsica prunis. 1he sense ol compulsion in the verb
cccrc leads us to imagine the so-called Jcminus ncrti attempting to exercise a master's
authority over the growth ol the plants ol his garden. 1he metaphor is much-developed
in other garden texts and reaches a kind ol apex in lalladius' lourth-century didactic
poem, uc insiticnc, which begins with a discussion ol masters' control over their slaves,
a discussion which preligures and exemplilies at a social level the gralter's control ol his
plants.
80
1he chian lig, an imported variety transplanted to ltaly (Varro kust. 1.41.6), was
held in particular esteem: see Ath. !.e, mart. .2.8, 12.96.9-10.
1nc vanisnin 6arJcns cj riapus
lart ol the reader's pleasure in calpurnius' second eclogue comes
lrom the ambiguity ol this garden. 1his could no doubt be a ncrtus in a
pastoral landscape, and the gardener may not necessarily be an incon-
gruous participant in a rustic singing contest. lut, given the allusions
to the city and the creation ol a kind ol urban pastoral" in calpurnius'
poems, it is tempting also to see the lmperial interest in urban gardens
here, with the larmer's pride in horticultural technology and luxury
produce signaling to the knowing reader the eclogue's occupation ol
a space between town and country. lliny, lor his part, is more explicit
than this in his treatment ol ncrtus. when he says that ari vi||acuc are
being introduced into the city under the name ol gardens" (ncrtcrum
ncminc, 19.0), he highlights the lact that the word ncrtus is being
stretched to accommodate an entirely dillerent social phenomenon.
lliny draws attention to the semantic llexibility ol the word ncrtusa
semantic llexibility which lacilitated his own moralizing discourse.
1his llexibility is also very much a part ol the garden imagery in the
carmina riapca. we have seen that the rather sketchy settings ol poems
in the carmina riapca are suggested by llashes ol imagery ol the coun-
tryside and the city, but lriapus is most olten merely depicted as being
in his ncrtus. 1his indeterminacy and variation in the possible signili-
cance ol ncrtus in the work is extremely signilicant at a period in which
the slippage in the word has become pivotal in other social discourses
being woven around gardens. lt is precisely the breadth ol the possible
relerents in the ncrti ol the carmina riapca which allows the work to
connect to the moralizing discourse locused on the translormation ol
dillerent kinds ol ncrti in the late kepublic and early lmpire.
lndeed, lliny's dire image ol urbanites' gardens, cultivated lor plea-
sure not produce, is thoroughly and larcically brought to lile in the
gardens ol the carmina riapca, where produce is in desperately short
supply and visitors go (il we are to believe lriapus) explicitly to satiate
their lusts. with galling insistence, ncrti in this text are not associated
with work or productivity, but with sex and sexual desire. Adding to the
pervasive sense ol leisure and indulgence in the work is the program-
matic (neoteric7) emphasis on play in the text, metaphors advertising
a lack ol literary cultivation may easily be translerred to the garden as
well. 8o, in the very lirst line, the poet describes his work as the wanton
jamcs 0Jcn
play ol disordered [unkempt, untrimmed] verse" (carminis inccmpti |usus
. prccaccs, 1.1), he wrote the verse at play, without too much labor"
(|uJcns . ncn nimium |aucricsc, 2.1,!), and scribbled the poems on walls
at leisure" (cticsus, 2.9).
81
keplacing the sanctitas that lliny claims was
associated lrom earliest times with gardens is the sham sanctity ol
the garden ol lriapus, the little shrine ol the horny god" (Jci sa|acis .
sacc||um, 14.1-2). whereas lliny claims llautus as authority lor Venus'
guardianship ol gardens, the carmina riapca ollers a vision, both night-
marish and comic, ol gardens in which Venus' guardianship has been
entirely ousted by that ol her misshapen, unruly ollspring.
82

when we read the carmina riapca with the moralizing discourse
about gardens in mind, other details in the poems come to lile. 1hose
poems in which natural produce is replaced by the artilicial or bought,
lor example, assume new signilicance in a discourse which idealizes
sell-sulliciency as an index ol moral rectitude. ln poem 21, as we have
seen, the dedicator ol some apples enjoins lriapus not to reveal that he
has bought them on the 8acred way. 1his sheepish admission acquires
its humor lrom its lack ol lit with the ideal ol cx ncrtc macc||um, as lliny
put ita common man's garden should be his provision market. lndeed,
in romanticized images ol rustic thrilt, produce is praised precisely lor
being unbought" (incmptus). 8o, in 6ccrics 4, the corycian gardener,
alter a hard day's work, can load his tables with unbought leasts"
(Japiuus incmptis, 4.1!!) and the dutilul wile in the romantic vision ol
country lile in lorace's second pcJc serves leasts unbought" (Japcs
incmptas apparct, 2.48).
8!
1his kind ol praise is, in lact, parodied in poem
81
cl. lliny's deprecation ol the inlluence ol lpicurus, the master ol leisure (maistcr
ctii), on the contemporary lashion lor leisure gardens (uN 19.1) and columella's
condemnation ol urban dwellers as consuming their days with play or sleep" (Jics |uJc
vc| scmnc ccnsumimus, 1.prel.16). On the carelul cultivation ol a kind ol unobjectionable
intellectual ctium, balanced by accounts ol public service, in accounts ol gardens by lliny
the Younger and 8tatius, see myers 200.
82
uN 19.0.
8!
1hat bought" vegetables were, on the other hand, a source ol particular moral
concern arises lrom the discussion at lorace pist. 2.2.16-14: there lorace says that a
man who bought a property long ago, the produce ol which he claims to be homegrown,
is still dining on cmptum nc|us (168, the participle is repeated twice in the line, under-
scoring the particular lorce ol the word).
1nc vanisnin 6arJcns cj riapus
2! ol the carmina riapca, in which incmpta pcma (2!.2) is used ol lruits
that are unbought" because they are stolen.
1he generic narrative that is developed lor the priapcum moves lrom
the lertile and productive visions ol nature in the genre's code models
to a partially urban landscape sullused with artiliciality, leisure, indul-
gence and inlertility. 1his narrative is not a merely literary one, but is
instead an ironic and larcical mirror ol the parallel narrative expounded
by moralists such as llinya narrative also centered on gardens, which
similarly moved lrom lertility to inlertility, city to country, lrom the
natural to the artilicial. 1hat these writers use gardens as a locus lor
exploring (or gleelully depicting) moral decadence is no accident in the
lmperial era. 1he intermittent presence ol the natural world ollered
by elite pleasure gardens in kome must have served as a constant
reminder ol the reconliguration ol city and country in burgeoning and
populous cities, and, increasingly, ol the ability ol the lmperial govern-
ment to arrogate space in order to sate its own libidinousness. 1he
anxiety caused by such massive edilices as Nero's oolden louse, with
its monstrously artilicial gardens and menageries in the middle ol the
city, attests to a particular sensitivity amongst lmperial komans about
this use ol urban space.
1he carmina riapca are about a lot ol things: they are about sex,
and about sexuality, they are about the character ol lriapus, they are
about the translormation ol the epigrammatic tradition. 1hey are also
about gardens. ln lact, as l have sought to show, where such poems
take lriapus as their central subject, the depiction ol the garden is
always a live issue, since the question ol the representation ol nature
is so central to the genre's code models, and thus at the lorelront ol
the priapic genre as a whole. Nor could these poems be about gardens
without participating in the wider lield ol lmperial cultural discourse
centering on the ncrtus, even, again, where the poems are marked more
by the absence (or artiliciality or inlertility) ol gardens than their pres-
ence. 8o olten, indeed, it is the lack ol gardens which is notable: many ol
the carmina riapca present bare accounts ol lriapus' threats ol violent
rape and not much else. 1hese poems replace llowers and larming with
lucking, in all its provocative monotony. lt is precisely this absence ol
nature which makes these poems such a poignant entry in the tradi-
jamcs 0Jcn 216
tion ol lmperial horticultural writing. 1he nymphs had departed. 1his
emptiness, these skeletal, shadowy gardens amidst the celebration
ol decadent sell-indulgence, make the carmina riapca kome's most
powerlully parodic garden text.
cOlLmllA LNlVlk8l1Y
wOkl8 cl1lu
Adams, }. N. 1982. 1nc atin 5cxua| vccauu|ary. laltimore.
leard, m. 1998. lmaginary ucrti: Or Lp the oarden lath." ln cima and
la kocca 1998:2!-!2.
lianchini, l. 2001. carmina riapca. milan.
ling, l., and }. 8. lruss, eds. 200. 8ri||`s ccmpanicn tc uc||cnistic piram.
leiden.
liville, l., l. llantade, and u. Vallat, eds. 2008. cs vcrs Ju p|us nu| Jcs
pctcs .: Ncuvc||cs rccncrcncs sur |cs lriapes. lyons.
loatwright, m. 1. 1998. luxuriant oardens and lxtravagant women:
1he ucrti ol kome letween kepublic and lmpire." ln cima and
lakocca 1998:1-82.
luchheit, V. 1962. 5tuJicn zum ccrpus riapccrum. 2etemata 28. munich.
carlyle, A. }., and k. m. carlyle, eds. 1914. 1nc cctica| wcrks cj 6ccrc
crauuc. Oxlord.
champlin, l. 198. 1he lile and 1imes ol calpurnius 8iculus." jk5
68:9-110.
cima, m., and l. la kocca, eds. 1998. ucrti kcmani: Atti Jc| ccnvcnc intcr-
nazicna|c, kcma, !-e maic !--. kome.
coleman, l. m. 2006. V. va|crii Vartia|is iucr 5pcctacu|crum. Oxlord.
conte, o. l. 1986. 1nc knctcric cj mitaticn: 6cnrc anJ cctic Vcmcry in
viri| anJ otncr atin ccts. lthaca, NY.
uahlmann, l. 1988. lriapeum 82: lin oedicht 1ibulls7" ucrmcs
116:4!4-44.
uiederich, 8. 200. kcmiscnc ArarnanJuucncr zwiscncn lacnwisscnscnajt,
itcratur unJ Jcc|cic. lerlin.
ldmunds, l. 2009. lorace's lriapus: A lile on the lsquiline (5at. 1.8)."
cq, n.s, 9:12-1!1.
lliot, 1. 8. 2001. 1nc wastc anJ anJ otncr writins. New York.
1nc vanisnin 6arJcns cj riapus
laraone, c. 199!. molten wax, 8pilt wine and mutilated Animals:
8ympathetic magic in Near lastern and oreek Oath ceremonies."
ju5 11!:60-80.
lugmann, }. 1992. Nero oder 8everus Alexander7 2ur uatierung der
lklogen des calpurnius 8iculus." ni|c|cus 1!6:202-20.
ooldberg, c. 1992. carmina riapca: in|citun, 0ucrsctzun, ntcrprctaticn
unJ kcmmcntar. leidelberg.
oow, A. 8. l. 192. 1ncccritus. Vol. 2. 2nd ed. cambridge.
oowers, l. 2000. Vegetable love: Virgil, columella and oarden loetry."
kamus 21:12-148.
orimal, l. 1984. cs jarJins rcmains. !rd ed. laris.
outzwiller, l. 1998. cctic 6ar|anJs: uc||cnistic pirams in ccntcxt.
lerkeley.
lallett, }. l. 1996. Ncc castrarc vc|is mccs |iuc||cs: 8exual and loetic usus
in catullus, martial and the carmina riapca." ln llodt 1996:!21-
!44.
lenderson, }. 2002. columella's living ledge: 1he koman oardening
look." jk5 92:110-1!!.
lerter, l. 19!2. uc riapc. oieen.
linds, 8. 1998. A||usicn anJ ntcrtcxt: uynamics cj Apprcpriaticn in kcman
cctry. cambridge.
lolzberg, N. 2004. lmpersonating Young Virgil: 1he Author ol the
cata|cptcn and his iuc||us." Vu 2:29-40.
. 200. lmpotence7 lt lappened to the lest ol 1hem! A linear
keading ol the ccrpus riapccrum." ucrmcs 1!!:!68-!81.
lorslall, N. 199. criteria lor the uating ol calpurnius 8iculus." klc
12:166-196.
lschele, k. lorthcoming. lriape mis en abyme, ou comment clore le
recueil." ln liville, llantade, and Vallat 2008:!-66.
}ashemski, w. l. 199!. 1nc 6arJcns cj cmpcii: ucrcu|ancum anJ tnc vi||as
ucstrcycJ uy vcsuvius. Vol. 2, Appendices. New kochelle, NY.
lenney, l. }. 1984. 1nc |cunman`s uncn: Vcrctum, A ccm AscriucJ tc
viri|. lristol.
llodt, c. ed. 1996. 5atura |anx. lildesheim.
lloss, o. 1998. lritisches und lxegetisches zu den carmina lriapea."
6lA 1:9-28.
jamcs 0Jcn
linderski, }. 2001. 'mac ucrtcrum': lliny the llder and the oardens ol
the Lrban loor." c 96:!0-!08.
macuougall, l. l., ed. 198. Ancicnt kcman vi||a 6arJcns. washington.
milnor, l. 200. 6cnJcr, ucmcsticity, anJ tnc Ac cj Auustus: nvcntin
rivatc ijc. Oxlord.
myers, l. 8. 200. uccta otia: oarden Ownership and conligurations ol
leisure in 8tatius and lliny the Younger." Arctnusa !8:10!-129.
Newlands, c. 198. Lrban lastoral: 1he 8eventh c|cuc ol calpurnius
8iculus." cA 6:9-2.
O'connor, l. m. 1984. uominant 1hemes in oreco-koman lriapic
loetry." uiss. Lniv. ol calilornia, 8anta larbara.
.1989. 5ymuc|um 5a|acitatis: A 5tuJy cj tnc 6cJ riapus as a itcrary
cnaractcr. lranklurt.
lagn, V. l. 2006. kcmc anJ tnc itcraturc cj 6arJcns. london.
larker, w. l. 1988. riapca: ccms jcr a na||ic 6cJ. london.
lurcell, N. 198. 1own in country and country in 1own." ln macuougall
198:18-20!.
kichlin, A. 1992. 1nc 6arJcn cj riapus: 5cxua|ity anJ Arcssicn in kcman
uumcr. 2nd ed. Oxlord.
kosen, k. 2006. comic Aischrology and the Lrbanization ol Arcikia."
ln kosen and 8luiter 2006:219-2!8.
kosen, k., and l. 8luiter, eds. 2006. city, ccuntrysiJc, anJ tnc 5patia|
oranizaticn cj va|uc in c|assica| Antiuity. leiden.
koss, u. O. 19. 8ackrcunJs tc Auustan cctry: 6a||us, |cy anJ kcmc.
cambridge.
. 1980. Ncn sua pcma: Varro, Virgil and oralting." c5 :6!-1.
kossi, l. 2001. 1nc pirams AscriucJ tc 1ncccritus: A VctncJ cj Apprcacn.
leuven.
8alvatore, A. 196!. AppcnJix vcri|iana: pirammata ct riapca. 1cstc c
intcrprctazicnc. Naples.
8chubert, c. 1998. 5tuJicn zum Ncrcui|J in Jcr |atciniscncn uicntun Jcr
Antikcn. 8tuttgart and leipzig.
8tanzel, l.-l. 200. lucolic lpigram." ln ling and lruss 200:!!!-!2.
1hibodeau, l. 2001. 1he Old man and his oarden (Verg. 6ccr. 4,116-
148)." Vu 4:1-19.
1nc vanisnin 6arJcns cj riapus
1rnkle, l. 1998. lntstehungszeit und Verlasserschalt des ccrpus
riapccrum." 7 124:14-16.
Lden, }. 200. lmpersonating lriapus." Aj 128:1-26.
wallace-ladrill, A. 1998. ucrti and lellenization." ln cima and la kocca
1998:1-12.
welch, 1. 8. 2001. st |ccus uni cuiuc suus: city and 8tatus in lorace's
5atircs 1.8 and 1.9." cA 20:16-192.