Volume 167, Issue 1

It is well-known to scholars that the simile of the wool spinner described in Verg. Aen . 8.407–413 reworks on a verbal level Ap. Rhod. Argon . 3.291–295. Comparing Verg. Aen . 8.410 and Ap. Rhod. Argon . 3.291, this paper aims to suggest that in Ap. Rhod. Argon . 3.291 Virgil read a different text from that generally accepted by modern editors.

A concise summary of Nicanor’s theory of punctuation that has recently been discovered in a codex mixtus of the 15th century throws precious new light on a topic of some complexity. The general picture that emerges from the new extract does not substantially differ from that of the other known summary, which has been the starting point for all modern reconstructions of Nicanor’s theory. Therefore, these reconstructions need not be rewritten on a larger scale. The two summaries nevertheless display some telling differences in how they explain and present the details, not least when read against the backdrop of Nicanor’s actual practice that can be derived from the relevant scholia to Homer. The purpose of the present article is to assess the new discovery especially with regard to these differences and their effects on how Nicanor’s theory is to be reconstructed.

The value of the prohoemia or ‘prefaces’ to Cicero’s later philosophical works, composed in the last years of his life, has not yet been settled. Two schools of thought have emerged somewhat more clearly in recent times: one places a greater value on the prefaces as tools for understanding Cicero’s philosophica as a whole, the other applies a more skeptical approach, using a degree of caution as to the nexus between the prefaces and the treatises to which they were affixed. The article advocates for the latter camp, however not only to temper the recent emphasis the optimists have placed on the prefaces as key interpretive elements to the dialogues, but to refocus their importance as extensions of Cicero’s personal and social networking with other Roman elites of his time. I rely on two main lines of argument: the anecdotal evidence from Cicero’s volumen prohoemiorum , “book of prefaces”, mentioned in a letter to Atticus in 44 bce , as well as a broader analysis of a deeper disconnect between Cicero’s prefatory rhetoric regarding Latin philosophical vocabulary compared with Greek and his translation practices in his treatises.

The author returns to a much debated topic, the so-called “Episode of Helen”, which has come to us only through indirect transmission, and endeavors to dismantle the prejudice against Virgilian authorship. G. P. Goold’s pugnacious intervention, dating back to more than half a century ago, contributed decisively – in fact, more than it should have – to the thesis that the text is spurious. A critical analysis of the text will demonstrate this claim to be groundless while offering arguments that support the authenticity of the episode.

The choliambic metre of the prologue poem of Persius’ Satires is key to understanding the poem’s message. On the one hand it creates a link to Hipponax as the canonical exponent of the iambic genre and to the tale of his inspiration transmitted by Giorgios Choiroboskos, and so attests the presence of the iambic poet in the cultured literary circles at Nero’s imperial court. On the other hand the poet alludes to Callimachus, his iambic poetry and his poetology, and so adopts his rejection of a poetry that has sunk to mere literary convention. This casts new light both on Persius’ own claim to be a semipaganus and on his mockery of the profit-oriented corvi and picae .

The character of Paris in the Ilias Latina maintains the ambiguity that characterises him in the Greek Iliad , where he does not lack military attitudes, but chafes against his duties to his country, being committed instead to satisfying his taste for luxury. This ambiguity is even reinforced in the epitome. The ‘heroic’ aspect of Paris’ personality emerges in a clearer light, expressed in a more mature awareness of his obligations to his family and country, but the other aspect, his indolence, is also accentuated: the character becomes a true elegiac lover, immersed in the experience of an exalted passion that partly distinguishes him from the cliché of the libertine of the Homeric tradition. It might therefore seem legitimate to interpret the Paris of the Ilias Latina in a more positive key than the Homeric character. However, this exegesis is opposed by the judgement expressed by the authorial voice at many significant points of the story: by his dissolute and unscrupulous behaviour, Paris has started a war that will lead to the ruin of his country; he himself is thus his own funesta ruina (234), the funesta ... flamma (253) that will burn down Troy and his own fate.

In Roman literature, the Argo commonly ranks as the first ship. The Flavian poet Valerius Flaccus seems to place himself in this line of tradition too by constantly stressing the Argo’s pioneer status. Yet it has rightly been noted that nowhere in the Argonautica is the Argo explicitly said to be the first ever ship. Her exceptional role is based rather on her status as the first sea-going ship to sail across the open sea from Europe to Asia, opening the seas to global marine trade. From this perspective, the hitherto inadequately explained mentions of ships in the Phlegyas simile (3,124–132) and the Lemnos episode (2,107–114; 285–305) can also be analysed as only apparent inconsistencies. The interpretive effort required here draws the attention of the reader or audience, which is called upon to compare the earlier ships to the Argo. In this, the poet suggests a pessimistic judgement: a consequence of the opening of the seas was shipping disasters and human tragedies. Also, it did not only lead to the expansion of civilising achievements, but also held the danger that rituals and customs of a periphery which is read as barbaric would penetrate into the cultural space of the Mediterranean world.

Despite the frequent use of the antithesis of parua and magna in Latin literature, the expression parua magnis in Pliny 5,6,43–44 need not be read as proverbial but as a quotation of Vergil, georg. 4,176. This attribution follows from the naming of Vergil and of Aratus in epist . 5,6,43–44. Combined allusions as in 5,6,43–44, consisting of a quotation, the naming of the author and/or narrative structures, are a pattern in the corpus of the younger Pliny’s correspondence. The context of georg . 4,169–179, too, supports the attribution of the phrase as a quotation, since in Vergil’s lines a comparison of genres is made, which Pliny adopts for his own literary positioning in the descriptions of villas in epist. 2,17 und 5,6. Further, the attribution to Vergil’s didactic poem, in combination with the reference to Aratus, which other interpretations hardly take into account, permits a new understanding of the narrative structure of the villa descriptions and their allusive affinity not only to ecphrasis but also to didactic poetry.

In the complete quotation of Verg. Aen. 4.415 in Auson. Epigr. 75.8 Green, the participle moritura , originally referring to Dido, takes on the obscene double entendre of “about to orgasm”, matching analogous attestations of this distinctive sense of the verb morior .

That the Vergilian commentary by Aelius Donatus – one of the most influential late-antique commentaries that have not survived – was extant in the ninth century and available to some Carolingian scholars is still a widespread belief. The evidence in support of this thesis is said to have been provided by the Harvard Servianist J. J. H. Savage in three articles published between 1925 and 1931. In these articles, Savage claimed that a few marginal notes in one of the ninth-century primary witnesses to the DS scholia, the so-called ‘Vergil of Tours’ (Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Ms. 165), were drawn almost directly from Donatus’ commentary and that a marginal note in a roughly coeval Servian witness (Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Ms. 363) provided information about a place where a copy of the commentary could be found. A re-examination of the two manuscripts shows that the evidence adduced by Savage does not stand scrutiny and that the terminus post quem for the loss of Donatus’ commentary should be antedated by at least one century.