Kenney_and_Clausen B.M.W.(eds.) - Get a Free Blog

COLUMELLA
sension as he is independent in his judgements. He is well read and not averse
occasionally from general philosophical reflections (e.g. 3-io.9fF.).
Columella writes clearly, neatly, even elegantly. That he cares about style
is evident from various comments made on his predecessors (e.g. 1.1.12, 2.1.2).
Though he does not always avoid repetition, he has at his command a rich
variety of vocabulary in dealing with matters, such as planting, •which often
recur. Contemporary fashions in literary prose leave him virtually untouched
(one may contrast Pliny the Elder), for he does not seek to impress his readers
by ingenuities of antithesis or epigrammatic point. He lacks also, and more
regrettably, that pungency and bite which not infrequently enlivens the writing
of Varro. And, in view of the size of his treatise, he makes comparatively little
use of digressions and 'purple passages'. A few there are indeed (e.g. 7.12.1,
8.8.10), but they are not extravagantly developed. Columella is ever anxious
to get on with his business, for which his unaffected and resourceful style is
singularly well fitted.
One can hardly doubt that Columella was an infinitely painstaking and
very successful farmer (see, e.g., 3.3.13—14). His enthusiasm for his theme is
evident in many ways, not least when argument, which he enjoys, is happily
interwoven with exposition: sometimes he seems to be conducting a dialogue
with himself, as well as other authorities. And he takes a modest pride in
appealing to the results of his own experiments. Today he might be a professor
of agriculture. Or perhaps that is what he was, if, as has been conjectured, he
and Silvinus ran some sort of agricultural school. Still, his treatise has flaws,
in substance and in structure. Some are venial, such as the instances of superstitious
lore (e.g. 2.io.ioff.), of which more and worse may be found in other
writers. But there are errors too (as in astronomical matters in Book 11) and some
confusion or self-contradiction (e.g. 2.20.2, compared with 12.52.18). Again,
Book 10 was a gallant, but ill-fated enterprise. If ever there was a case of
versified prose, we have it here. Columella seems to have assembled the main
material of Book 10 in his usual way, then forced it into hexameters and added
some purely ornamental passages. Not that the poem is inept or faulty technically
: it is such as a well educated man of the period might be expected to
contrive. But comparison with Virgil, which Columella invites, works heavily
to his disadvantage. Again, the treatise was not planned as a whole in its present
form. Columella composed and published in stages, taking account in what
followed of opinions expressed on earlier books (see 4.1.1). This, added to
his habit of leaving matters to be resumed later, makes for some complexity,
if not muddle. And Books 11 and 12 are an addition to his original scheme,
which might have been concluded with Book 10 (see II.I.I—2). It is, however,
instructive to see here, with unusual certainty, how a work of ancient literature
changed and developed in the course of its composition.
669
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008