Vergiliana: Critical Studies on the Texts of Publius Vergilius Maro 1315512076, 9781315512075

Citation preview

Vergiliana

In Vergiliana Egil Kraggerud collects together more than 100 new, revised, and previously published discussions of textual issues in Vergil’s Bucolica, Georgica and Aeneis. Through these and in his Introduction, the author argues for a less conservative approach to the text than has been fashionable among 20th-century editors and commentators. This profoundly learned, engaging and valuable contribution is a critical resource for anyone working on the works of Vergil at both under- and postgraduate level. Egil Kraggerud is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Philosophy, History of Art, and Ideas at the University of Oslo, Norway. He has published extensively on Vergil, and has translated works by Vergil, Aeschylus and Euripides, among others.

Vergiliana Critical studies on the texts of Publius Vergilius Maro Egil Kraggerud

First published 2017 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2017 Egil Kraggerud The right of Egil Kraggerud to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Kraggerud, Egil, 1939– author. Title: Vergiliana: critical studies on the texts of Publius Vergilius Maro / Egil Kraggerud. Description: Abingdon, Oxon : Routledge, 2016. Identifiers: LCCN 2016015665| ISBN 9781138201347 (hardback : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781315512099 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Virgil—Criticism and interpretation. Classification: LCC PA6826.K75 2016 | DDC 871/.01—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016015665 ISBN: 978-1-138-20134-7 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-51209-9 (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by Swales & Willis Ltd, Exeter, Devon, UK

Contents

••: not published before •: partly new or changed ❦ (floral heart): author’s original conjecture ❀ (white florette): past conjecture by another defended by me Prefacexiv Introduction1

Bucolica

9

Ecl. 1. 69 post aliquot aristas A disputed phrase in its context

11

Ecl. 2. 32 A god’s title Pan the great innovator and model

13

❦ Ecl. 3. 62 A conjunction at stake Theocr. 5. 82 in the balance

14

❦ Ecl. 4. 8 One child initiating a new age A letter added can make a big difference

16

Ecl. 4. 28–9 Lines sharing words between them Emphasis achieved by artistry

19

❀ Ecl. 4. 62–3 The nature of a baby’s smile A Dutch scholar vindicated

21

Ecl. 5. 3 “Why don’t we sit down?” in Latin What Vergil chose to write

23

vi Contents Ecl. 5. 8 Indicative or subjunctive? In favour of P

26

Ecl. 5. 38 The gender of narcissus Our debt to an ancient grammarian

28

Ecl. 5. 66 Altars for Daphnis Sorting out syntactical order

30

Ecl. 6. 1–12. On the genesis of Vergil’s earliest poetry Call. Aet. 1. 21–4 and Theocr. 16 as inspiration

34

Ecl. 6. 16 Silenus’ hangover The troublesome adverbial ‘cluster’ procul tantum

44

❀(❦) Ecl. 6. 24 The commonest of verbs ousted by a hapax? Peerlkamp’s brilliant point

47

Ecl. 6. 34 A dilemma in P Elided omnia in Vergil?

51

Ecl. 6. 74–81 A praeteritio to fill the day The illustrative effect of complicated syntax

53

Ecl. 7. 5 Equal and well–prepared singers A misleading first impression of their qualities

55

Ecl. 7. 29–32 Corydon’s promise to Diana Variation on the usual contract between man and god

58

Ecl. 7. 33–6 Thyrsis honouring Priapus And, unfortunately, revealing his true self

61

Ecl. 7. 37–44 Love of Galatea The rivals’ respective ‘roles’

63

❀

Ecl. 7. 53–60 An inevitable transposition What is either singer’s ‘part’?

66

Ecl. 7. 64 Justice for Venus Equality restored by an ancient grammarian

72

•❀❦ Ecl. 10. 44 A line revisited and clinched Almost beyond belief: a double corruption

74

Notes

80

Contents vii

Georgica

95

(••)

97

G. 1. 35 Present or perfect I? P and ps. Probus found trustworthy

G. 1. 36 Hope in Tartarus An example of disregarded potentialis

98

G. 1. 83 What does prefixed in- mean? On homonyms with contrary meaning

100

❦

G. 1. 500 Two false birds with one stone Minimal change can work wonders

110

••❦

G. 3. 159 An unnoticed example of ecquis A simplification apt to simplify future discussion

113

••❀

G. 3. 303–4 The reign of the cold Water Bearer A serious issue for goats

115

G. 3. 519 Present or perfect II? Weighing for and against

120

Notes

121

Aeneis I–IV

127



Ille ego qui The false beginning Yet requiring the best syntactical understanding

129

•

A. 1. 1–7 Punctuation and structure The beneficiary effect of a full stop in the flow of lines

131

A. 1. 48–9 Indignant Juno A neglected modal parallelism

135

A. 1. 380 Jove’s descendant How Aeneas can escape criticism – and save half a line

137

A. 1. 458 The protagonists of the Trojan War On Seneca’s version

139

••❀

142

A. 1. 462 A persistent stumbling block? A personal approach to a conclusive answer

viii Contents A. 1. 603–5 A sense of justice and righteousness To whom do these virtues properly belong?

149

••(❀) A. 1. 646 A loving father’s cura An analysis of the use of carus

153

❀

A. 2. 121 Emphasis on a terrifying Apollo Madvig’s support of an anonymous conjecture

156

❦

A. 2. 139 On an unmotivated et Restoration via scriptura continua

158

A. 2. 433–4 A genitive seeking its governing noun From another vantage point: ‘retributive actions’ in context

160

A. 2. 485 In defence of V (and Geymonat) A good, but lonely, singular needs strengthening

162

•

164

A. 2. 567–88 The Helen episode – a never-ending debate? If accepting (1) that it is by Vergil and/or (2) meant to fill a lacuna

A. 2. 598 Accusative or nominative? A real pro et contra case

166

❦

167

A. 2. 738 The heart-breaking loss of Creusa A proper emendation is a natural response

A. 2. 749 An interpolated line? The hysteron proteron diagnosed

169

••❦

A. 3. 417 On Helenus’ prophecy I A challenging instance of abl. medio

171

❀

A. 3. 684–6 On Helenus’ prophecy II Nisbet’s conjecture and the final clause

173

A. 4. 112 Foedera or foedere? A reading to give Venus’ rhetoric an edge?

175

❀

176

A. 4. 126 A terminable intrusion Negatively affecting the context if accepted

Contents ix ❀

A. 4. 176 The birth of Fama How Bährens did away with Fama’s timidity

179

❦

A. 4. 223–4 Jupiter describing Aeneas at Carthage Restoration of the god’s words by lenient surgery

181

❦ A. 4. 375 On the language of strong emotion Within acceptable linguistic bounds

184

A. 4. 469–73 Dido ~ (1) Pentheus and (2) Orestes (1) Allen introduced the Maenads, (2) ego the scene of the matricide

187

Notes

190

Aeneis V–VIII

199

•

201

A. 5. 300 A runner’s name and origin Parisinus Lat. 7306 accepted

A. 5. 851 Treacherous weather Much hinges on what et combines

205

••

A. 6. 153 Animals to soothe the nether deities Pecudes as the chief expiatory rite

206

••❀

A. 6. 293 ‘Hollow forms’ Bentley’s reading adopted

208

••

A. 6. 438 In need of final consensus An opportunity to side with Timpanaro and Conte

210

•

A. 6. 460 Vergil ‘imitating’ Catullus A jocular phrase becomes a tragic confession

212

••

A. 6. 466 Aeneas’ last words to Dido An attempt to solve an enigma of grammatical analysis

217

A. 6. 561 ‘Air’ or ‘ear’? The function of either in context

221

x Contents ••

A. 6. 585–6 Punctuation and punishment The place of a full stop is no trifle

223

••❦

A. 6. 588 Where did Salmoneus challenge Zeus? On the function of the adjective medius

226

••

A. 6. 601–2 Should we miss Tantalus? In other words: is the text sound, corrupt or lacunose?

228

••❦

A. 6. 615 A hidden hendiadys It will emerge if one letter is taken away

231

••❦

A. 6. 658–9 Eridanus below and above ground Horsfall is only one letter from goal

233

A. 6. 746 Present or perfect III? PR, Serv. and Tib. Don. preferred

236

••❀

A. 6. 761 The hopeless lucis loca Heinsius’ suggestion seeks followers

237

••

A. 6. 791 Punctuation to be changed Why Hic vir hic is recommended with no comma

238

A. 6. 817–23 Ultor Brutus Capital Utcumque as part of an interpretation

239

A. 6. 846 Predicting a Fabius as Maximus Cunctator The way Vergil imitates Ennius

242

•(❦) A. 6. 852 Global rule over the populi Half a line grasping its essence

244

❦

A. 6. 893–6 The troublesome exit from Hades What if lines 897–8 are put before 893–6 (excluding 896)?

246

A. 7. 129 ‘Disasters’ or ‘exile’? In support of R.D. Williams

257

••❀

258

A. 7. 377 A queen’s maenadic arena An interpretation based on Jasper’s extension of that arena

Contents xi ••❀

A. 7. 543 A hellish creature flies to heaven In support of Schaper’s (Deuticke’s) and Conte’s dative

261

❦

A. 7. 598–9 An old king’s tragedy Is the transmitted text compatible with truth and logic?

263

A. 7. 741 The annoying soliti The simple solution should as always be heeded

267

••

270

A. 7. 773 A locus solubilis? Critics favouring P have many good points

Notes

272

Aeneis IX–XII

285

A. 9. 51 The right place of a comma Word-order reflects the viva vox of the commander

287

❦

288

A. 9. 79 Cybele’s eternal fame Where a ‘but’ is ill-placed

A. 9. 85–6 A questionable deletion The forest of Mount Ida differentiated

289

A. 9. 91 Cybele’s concern for the Trojan fleet A postponed neu emphasizing

291

A. 9. 130 Jupiter at war with the Trojans To understand Turnus’ sneer M is preferred

292

••

295

A. 9. 140–2 Misogyny sub iudice To acquit the form perosos a comma (141) has to go

•(❦) A. 9. 215 Nisus’ request for burial Peerlkamp was on the right track

298

A. 9. 243 In defence of a future simple It is indeed an issue according to ms. evidence

301

❀

303

A. 9. 363 A spurious line? A definite stand may be close on duty

xii Contents ••

A. 9. 390–2 Where to put a question mark A final decision is yet to be reached

306

•❀

A. 9. 402–3 Nisus praying to Luna With the author’s late recognition of Ribbeck’s brilliance

309

A. 9. 461–4 Turnus arming his ranks The author’s confidence in Wagner and M

311

A. 9. 471 The neglected variant makes its claims P was accepted by La Cerda

313

••

A. 9. 481 The gender of a predicative pronoun R is still without enough support

315

❀

A. 9. 539 Le mot juste Schrader’s proposal unearthed

317

A. 9. 599 ‘War’ or ‘death’? Burmannus helps to make the appropriate decision

320

❦

A. 9. 709 A solitary neuter One’s reaction to an anomaly has its reasons

322

❦

A. 9. 733 The shield of Turnus A description that confuses with its variants

323

A. 9. 764 The back of fleeing fighters An irregularity is sacrificed

325

A. 9. 789 A true dilemma Ablative, genitive or dative?

326

••

A. 10. 366 More than a personal palinode Not only Madvig’s aquis, but also my own eos must go

327

••❀

A. 10. 705 Paris’ name twice over? Ellis against triumphant Bentley

329

❦

A. 11. 50 The troublesome et yet again The solution is presented under A. 2. 139

332

Contents xiii ❦

A. 11. 256 An abnormal pronoun Vergil’s usage wins the day

333

••

A. 12. 161 A pompous mustering of forces Whereby a comma has to change its place

335

••❦❀ A. 12. 218 Brackets or no brackets? A long-winded path towards emendation

337

••

A. 12. 286 Latinus’ report of failure The hidden reference of referens

341

A. 12. 470 Present or perfect IV? V should take the pride of place in the app. crit.

343

(❀)

A. 12. 648 Why not the easy way? Wagner’s case against Housman’s

344

••

A. 12. 790 Exhausted heroes On how to combine and interpret five words

347

Notes References Index philologorum recentiorum

349 357 361

Preface

ποταμοῖσι τοῖσιν αὐτοῖσιν ἐμβαίνουσιν ἕτερα καὶ ἕτερα ὕδατα ἐπιρρεῖ Heraclitus DK B12

I was to begin with not a textual critic. When lecturing on the Tenth Eclogue in the 1980s, however, I found the poem so bewildering that I left it out of my lecture programme for many years. It was when I got behind Wagner’s ‘Heyne’ and saw that Heyne himself had adopted Heumann’s te instead of me at line 44 that my attitude towards the Tenth Eclogue changed and a growing interest in textual criticism as a relevant occupation for a student of Vergil was nurtured. In the following years I became attentive to the textual problems in Vergil’s texts, but not in any systematic way. Gradually I became aware that Vergil’s texts were as liable to corruption as others. The results of my observations and investigations will be found behind these covers. This book is not a Collected Papers on Vergil nor Opuscula selecta.1 It dawned upon me three years ago when looking through my papers on Vergil that it would be convenient for some fellow Vergilians to have a collection of my Vergiliana in an updated form. Offprints of articles are today a thing of the past. Instead we are collecting each other’s PDFs, Xerox copies and attachments as best we can; to file such material requires both time and energy. As it is, I am not in favour of seeing my contributions republished without alteration. Textual criticism, more than any other scholarly activity, is a process where experience and rethinking pay dividends over the years provided one is willing to reconsider old positions. As for myself, I have in the course of my career changed my opinion in four or five notable cases. I have no problem in conceding this. There is even a noteworthy recent palinody (on A. 10. 366) that I am proud of. In a couple of cases where I was earlier hesitant and without a definite answer I have now taken a clear and hopefully final stand. A critic honest to himself cannot avoid thinking of the dictum of Heraclitus quoted as a motto above. ‘Second thoughts’ should never be hidden nor suppressed. They are usually more

Preface xv valuable for the true appraisal of textual difficulties than reviewers’ hasty opinions. In cases where I am still of the same opinion as earlier, I have taken the opportunity to correct details and mistakes, add arguments and improve the line of thought if necessary. The book consists of more than a hundred loci as I like to call them. About one-third of them have not been published before. These are marked with a double bullet (••) in the Table of Contents. In some cases the original article has been extended or altered in a significant way. In those cases I use a single bullet (•) (as at Ecl. 10. 44; A. 1. 1–7; 2. 567–88; 5. 300; 6. 852; 9. 215; 9. 402–3). The ambition of this collection is to influence future editors and encourage them to become a little braver than they have been for the last hundred years or so. In other words, I should like to see a slight change of paradigm in editorial practice. A kind of dogma seems so far to have been strong: to accept nothing in the text without support in the manuscripts or in the indirect transmission. As I hope to have shown in the Introduction, this is an improbable position. If a more natural reading of the evidence is accepted, the question is how many conjectures should have a chance to be considered true. In the course of the two last generations we have seen more and more Carolingian readings come to the fore and some have even been adopted in texts. This is an indication that the ancient paradosis is too lacunose and arbitrary to serve as the sole basis for the text. More than one-third of my loci contain either my own original conjectures or those of other scholars. The former are marked in the Table of Contents with the ‘floral heart’ symbol ❦.2 Those made by other scholars are adorned with the ‘white florette’ ❀; these have either been largely ignored or forgotten by editors or – in a couple of lucky cases – been accepted and adopted in the text by one or two editors.3 It is my hope that all of these conjectures will in the future deserve a place even in a slim apparatus criticus, if not in the text itself. In addition, I have assembled a number of deviating punctuations not discussed in commentaries (e.g. A. 1. 5; 6. 585–6; 6. 791; 9. 51; 9. 40–2; 12. 161). A much larger category is made up by my defence of neglected or overlooked variants.4 It is often a little depressing to see how often editors move in a flock, adhere to national preferences or simply take over some forerunner’s text and punctuation. It is a sign that editors commissioned by a publishing house have too little time for their editorial project to consider properly the problems at stake. Among my loci I have included some of a pure grammatical or lexical nature (like A. 6. 466 and G. 1. 83). I was also tempted to present anew my discussion of the most interesting intertextual issue in all Vergil, i.e. A. 6. 460. In some cases I have also found it necessary to defend the transmitted text against conjectures, transpositions and deletions, particularly in the case of some of the most noteworthy passages in the poems (e.g. Ecl. 1. 69; G. 3. 159; A. 1. 380; 1. 462; 2. 567–88; 6. 601–2; 9. 85–6). Oslo, November 2015 Egil Kraggerud

xvi Preface

Notes 1 Not included among my loci are some earlier contributions that do not fit in with the overall concept for this book: “Die Proteus-Gestalt des 4. Georgica-Buches”, WJA 8, 1982, 35–46; “Perusia and the Aeneid”, SO 62, 1987, 77–87; my article on G. 4. 454–6, SO 64, 1989, 113–18; “Which Julius Caesar? On Aen. 1. 286–96”, SO 67, 1992, 103–12; on Ecl. 4. 4; G. 2. 508f.; A. 12. 835 in SO 65, 1990, 63–7 and 74–5; on cultus G. 1. 102, SO 69, 1994, 65–71; “Caesar versus Caesar again: A Reply”, SO 69, 1994, 83–93; “Vergil Announcing the Aeneid. On Georg. 3. 1–48”, in H.P. Stahl (ed.), Vergil’s Aeneid: Augustan Epic and Political Context, London 1998, 1–20; “Samson Eitrem and the Death of Dido: A Literary Reappraisal of a Magical Scene”, in D. R. Jordan, H. Montgomery and E. Thomassen (eds), The World of Ancient Magic: Papers from the First International Samson Eitrem Seminar at the Norwegian Institute at Athens, 4–8 May 1997, Bergen 1999, 103–13; “Vergiliana (III): On the proem of the Aeneid (1. 1 and 1. 8)”, SO 78, 2003, 5–18. 2 Ecl. 3. 62; 4. 8; 10. 44; G. 1. 500; 3. 159; A. 2. 139; 3. 417; 4. 223–4; 4. 375; 6. 588; 6. 615; 6. 658–9; 6. 893–6; 7. 598–9; 9. 79; 9. 709; 9. 733; 11. 50; 11. 256; 12. 218. 3 Ecl. 4. 62–3; 6. 24; 7. 53–60; 10. 44; G. 3. 303–4; A. 1. 462; 1. 646; 2. 121; 3. 684–6; 4. 126; 4. 176; 6. 761; 7. 377; 7. 543; 9. 363; 9. 402–3; 9. 539; 9. 599; 10. 705. 4 Ecl. 2. 32; 5. 3; 5. 8; 5. 38; 6. 34; 6. 74; 7. 64; G. 1. 35; 1. 36; 3. 519; A. 1. 48–9; 1. 458; 1. 646; 2. 433f.; 2. 485; 2. 598; 3. 684–6; 5. 300; 5. 851; 6. 561; 6. 746; 6. 846; 7. 129; 7. 773; 9. 243; 9. 471; 9. 481; 9. 599; 9. 764; 12. 470.

Introduction

ἀμφοῖν γὰρ ὄντοιν φίλοιν ὅσιον προτιμᾶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν Arist. Eth. Nic. 1.6 (Bekker 1096a 16–17)

On conjectural activities In his comment on line 44 in the Tenth Eclogue Professor Christoph August Heumann (1681–1764) says in his Poecile sive epistolæ miscellaneæ ad literatissimos ævi nostri viros, liber IV, Haliæ 1725, pp. 537–8: valde miror, neminem observasse, a Virgilio scriptum fuisse te, ac perperam vulgo scribi me. Loquitur enim Gallus cum sua Lycoride, quae iam supra v. 23. perque nives alium perque horrida castra secuta esse dicebatur. Ac spero, neminem hanc emendationem meam improbaturum esse. Adeo & res ipsa, & quae praecedunt pariter ac sequuntur, ei suffragantur. What caused Heumann’s astonishment was that more than 250 years of printed editions had passed by before he himself thought of correcting the highly bewildering me. As to his hope for the future, however, he was mistaken. He would have been very disappointed to find that in the course of almost three centuries only two editors of the Bucolics (to my knowledge) had followed suit – Christian Gottlob Heyne (1729–1812) and Onorato Tescari (1876–1966) – whereas all the leading editions of the 20th and the early 21st centuries have adhered to me.1 I see this as a bit disquieting. Generally, textual conservatism has become more rooted in the course of the last century. Proceeding from the serious text editions of the last 50 years I know of no conjecture that has been universally accepted.2 In some highly respected editions it is even hard to find conjectures adopted in the text (Geymonat). The time seems indeed ripe for a slight change of paradigm or, to put it otherwise, to turn towards a less idealistic and more realistic attitude. As can be seen from my References, I have my primary attention directed towards editions and commentaries because of their long-standing influence and indeed responsibility. Editors and commentators represent signposts of scholarship. They are free to ignore or brush aside conjectures put forward in the

2 Introduction periodicals. It is only to be expected that these more ephemeral contributions are subsequently more or less completely forgotten. Only Geymonat’s edition and recently the Spanish Alma mater project (Rivero et al. 2009–11) have diligently collected an adequate neutral basis of information in their apparatus critici. One’s wish is only that they had sifted their information. Instead of finding one bag containing all conjectural efforts one wishes ever so often that the editor had found some proposals worthy of being adopted in the text and relegated others to an appendix critica at the end as being less worthy of our attention. What I will hope for from a future editor is therefore a more differentiated attitude towards conjectures. A modern apparatus criticus should only contain those conjectures that, according to the editor’s best judgement, may have hit the truth. When I am in opposition to editors and commentators or the majority of them I have chosen not to bypass their arguments; I feel an obligation to express myself explicitly and in detail to the contrary in my quest for the truth (therefore my motto above). It happens, for example, that two of my Vergilian φίλοι have gone for the reading of MR at A. 7. 773. I think they are wrong and state my reasons. However, friendship is and should be an irrelevant factor for an impartial critic. The core of my book is the collection of 24 conjectures (marked with ❦) and about the same number of other scholars’ proposals (marked with ❀). I should think that the total number of corrections needed or desirable could be more or less the double of that. We shall never know. Nevertheless, I have below tried to figure out a probable total number based on the number of variants in the tradition. I prefer to call both my own conjectures and those of other scholars emendations. Heumann’s te is for me, as it was for Heumann, an emendation, a removal of a mendum. Those emendations I propose in my own name and those of others will be dealt with as detailed as I have found it necessary. They have as their basis a diagnosed ‘mendum’ in the text. I may here mention two of my own proposals that took a long time in the making, A. 6. 615 and 9. 733. For many years I was tempted to pass over these troublesome spots as nuisances we modern readers simply had to accept. As to 6. 615, however, a parallel in Ovid taught me that there was an easy solution at hand by substituting –que for the transmitted –ve, a common mistake whereby we are now able to diagnose the result as a hendiadys. At 9. 733 it struck me as remarkable that editors had not yet considered clipeus instead of either clipeo (MR) or clipei (P). Case endings belong to the most common group of corruptions in the textual tradition. I hasten to add that the existence of variants in the principal manuscripts is often to be taken as a signpost ‘beware the text: maybe a third and genuine variant has been lost’. My collection of successful emendations by other scholars can be attributed to the following names: Schrader (3), Perret, Heumann, Voss, Peerlkamp (2), anonymus ap. Madvig, Nisbet, Bährens, Bentley, Heinsius, Jasper, Schaper, Wagner, Ribbeck, Ellis. Textual criticism is no university seminar; an ‘ipse dixit’ has no weight. Bentley’s and Lachmann’s merits in the history of philology do not recommend their conjectures in concreto more than that of any ‘anonymus quidam’. Today’s prestige attached to certain periodicals, publishing houses, universities or ‘chairs’ may be misleading factors even today. It is of no relevance what standing

Introduction  3 Heumann, Jasper or Schaper had in the annals of philology. The basis for and quality of each conjecture is the decisive thing.

What is a conjecture or, rather, what should it be? Coniectura means ‘guess’ and may be no more seriously meant than a ‘proposal’. A textual conjecture did not always have a high status and ambition based on conviction among critics. For a prolific man like Peter Hofman Peerlkamp, a ‘conjecture’ was a supposition easily published suggesting the best text he could think of, at times more like a sort of a jeu-d’esprit. He did not adopt his conjectures in the text, but only suggested them in his commentary. Consequently, his reasoning can be deficient, not to say shallow. In particular, he sometimes falls short in assessing the true worth of what is transmitted; in other cases he has ignored (like many of his modern colleagues) the diagnostic part of the process. It is unavoidable that a critic has his favourites, both concerning his own proposals and when looking at those of others. Personally, I admire Schaper’s caelo although now Conte has defended it ably and adequately enough. Jasper’s immensum . . . per orbem belongs also for me to the palmary group. The transmitted text was in both cases obscure and the critic was able to remove the obscurity by the easiest of remedies. We may hope that both scholars will have their merits acknowledged in future editions. At A. 10. 705 I found that I could not acclaim, as so many others have done, Bentley’s solution. The reason was that Bentley sacrificed what seemed to me to be a sound element, namely creat. In fact, Robinson Ellis’ conjecture is an easier solution and will hopefully get its reward in future editions (as it did in Geymonat’s first edition). Only a slight transposition from Parin creat to creat: Paris was the easy solution found by Ellis. Here is the list of other scholars’ conjectures defended by me: Ecl. 4. 63 parenti instead of parentes (Schrader) Ecl. 7. 53–60 Transposition (Perret) Ecl. 10. 44 te instead of me (Heumann) G. 3. 303 dum instead of cum (Voss) A. 1. 455 mirantur instead of miratur (Peerlkamp) A. 1. 646 caro instead of cari (Bährens) A. 2. 121 paret instead of parent (Anonymus ap. Madvig) A. 3. 685 utrimque instead of utramque (Nisbet) A. 4. 126 Deletion (Peerlkamp) A. 4. 176 initu instead of metu (Bährens) A. 6. 293 cavae instead of cava (Bentley) A. 6. 761 luci instead of lucis (Heinsius) A. 7. 377 immensum . . . [per] orbem instead of immensam . . . per urbem (Jasper) A. 7. 543 caelo instead of caeli (Schaper) A. 9. 363 Deletion (Wagner) A. 9. 402 torquet instead of torquens (Ribbeck)

4 Introduction A. 9. 539 A. 10. 705 A. 12. 218 A. 12. 648

recedunt instead of residunt (Schrader) creat: Paris instead of Parin creat (Ellis) aequos instead of aequis (Schrader) nescius instead of inscius (Wagner)

The list of my own conjectures looks like this: Ecl. 3. 62 Ecl. 4. 8 Ecl. 6. 24 Ecl. 10. 44 G. 1. 500 G. 3. 159 G. 3. 304 A. 2. 139 A. 2. 738 A. 3. 417 A. 4. 224 A. 4. 375 A. 6. 615 A. 6. 659 A. 6. 852 A. 6. 893–6 A. 7. 598 A. 9. 79 A. 9. 215 A. 9. 709 A. 9. 733 A. 11. 50 A. 11. 256 A. 12. 218

At instead of Et quom (cum) instead of quo viere instead of videri3 inermem instead of in armis nunc instead of hunc ecquos instead of et quos extremumque instead of extremoque forsit instead of fors et fato mea rapta instead of fatone erepta medius instead of medio res spectat instead of exspectat mediam instead of mediae –que instead of –ve silvas instead of silvam pacis . . . mores instead of paci . . . morem4 Transposition of 897–8 (minus 896) before 893–6 rapta quies instead of parta quies et instead of sed saltem aut instead of solita aut5 tergum instead of tergus clipeus instead of clipeo forsit instead of fors et mitto instead of mitto ea se viribus aequos instead of non viribus aequis

The diagnosis Looking at the critical activity in a historical perspective, it is easy to see a prevailing weakness. I cannot say for sure that the word ‘divination’ associated with textual criticism has led many scholars to ignore a proper diagnosis as the obligatory first step towards a conjecture. A diagnosis is nothing else than an attempt to understand the text adequately from all sides. That is why I insist that a literary analysis is a part of the business. The necessity of a thorough assessment of the text as it is transmitted cannot be overrated. The first step is therefore to evaluate the text in its transmitted form and show its possible flaw. In an ideal world the best thing would be to look at each issue in its entire history. As it is, I have concentrated on editions and commentaries from the 20th century, in other words those editions and commentaries that constitute today’s approach to Vergil. Time

Introduction  5 and again we find, for example, in recent commentaries a defence of Ecl. 10. 44f. Nunc insanus amor duri me Martis in armis / tela inter media atque adversos detinet hostis. The arguments in favour of the transmitted text are reasonable in themselves, but I am not able to accept them without concluding that the poem is a failure and unsuccessful. There are about 50 places in the text where I have been unable to endorse the defence (if something is claimed to be a defence, that is). In such cases it is the duty of the critic to find out whether some easy expedient to get rid of the trouble can be found. I venture to claim that all my solutions are of the easiest kind. The change of a single letter or a case ending have proven to be the usual ways of solving a problem. In some rare cases the reason underlying the corruption must be sought in some misunderstanding of the text (e.g. A. 7. 598–9; 12. 218). Some corruptions that I have found indefensible are of a grammatical nature: Ecl. 4. 8 (an instrumental ablative quo about a person instead of quom); G. 1. 500 (an unmotivated demonstrative); A. 3. 417 (a bewildering ablative); 11. 256 (an abnormal pronoun). The word et in some cases causes a problem that so far has found no satisfactory solution: Ecl. 3. 62 (to be mended by at); G. 3. 159 (to be integrated with quis); A. 2. 139 (to be substituted by sit); 9. 79 (sed ( brackets) my text would amount to: “The peace has been (forcefully) snatched from me” (mihi: dativus incommodi). This text is in harmony with the violent and alas! all too ‘successful’ assault on him whereby his royal authority vanished and his stubborn resistance was overruled by fanatical cries for war. One challenge remains, nam. As is well known, this particle generally requires a keen eye for its relation to the context. In our case an analysis of Latinus’ whole emotional outburst with its introduction must be taken into consideration:

266  Aeneis V–VIII Verum ubi nulla datur caecum exsuperare potestas consilium, et saevae nutu Iunonis eunt res, multa deos aurasque pater testatus inanis “frangimur heu fatis”, inquit “ferimurque procella! Ipsi has sacrilego pendetis sanguine poenas, o miseri! Te, Turne, nefas, te triste manebit supplicium, votisque deos venerabere seris. Nam mihi rapta quies, omnisque in limine portus funere felici spolior.”

595

Overwhelmed by the violent opposition against the Trojan ‘intruders’ Latinus calls the gods to witness as he addresses the crowd dominated by shepherds and Amata’s frantic women allies. His address is not a formal contio, but rather a desperate outburst conveying his feeling of total impotence and loss of royal authority (594). It remains for himself only to put the blame where it belongs and predict the punishment in store for the crowd’s impious intentions and their leader’s downright nefas. The tragic plight of Latinus, for which the crowd and Turnus in particular are responsible, has unfolded before one’s eyes. Lines 591–7 focus on two points: Latinus’ own disastrous situation (594) and the prediction of punishment awaiting the warmongers (596–7). The king’s strong emotional excitement is visible even in the syntax: After he has pitied his compatriots for the punishment they will suffer (o miseri); harshly and without any transitional particle he addresses Turnus in the asyndetic way (Te, Turne) adding another asyndeton in form of the anaphora (te) in the same line. Our nam does not explain, i.e. illuminate, the cause of the punishment to come. The punishment which both the many – and in particular Turnus as their leader and instigator – will undergo will be a just retribution for their sacrilegus sanguis or – in Turnus’ case – his nefas. In his recent Thesaurus article on nam Nigel Holmes points to the particle’s important function of referring at times to an underlying argument in a rather loose way: “explicatur potius dicendi ratio cur quid dictum sit”. This function of nam is the key to an assessment of the particle in our case as well: nam sums up Latinus’ helpless anguish at being crushed by destiny and carried away by the violent storm (594 frangimur heu fatis . . . ferimurque procella) and so nam reflects the effect of the grave onslaught that has rendered the king powerless: “ as peace has been snatched forcefully from me and has left me completely deprived of a happy death on the edge of the grave”.

A. 7. 7411 The annoying soliti The simple solution should as always be heeded

In the catalogue of Latin forces (7. 641–817) one paragraph (733–43) is devoted to Oebalus, his kingdom and his troops. The text of all more recent editors and commentators from line 737 onwards is basically this: . . . late iam tum dicione premebat Sarrastis populos et quae rigat aequora Sarnus, quique Rufras Batulumque tenent atque arva Celemnae, et quos maliferae despectant moenia Abellae, Teutonico ritu soliti torquere cateias; tegmina quis capitum raptus de subere cortex aerataeque micant peltae, micat aereus ensis.

740

The exception to this consensus is G.P. Goold (2000) who, convinced by Courtney,2 changed H. Rushton Fairclough’s Loeb text by adopting the sequence 739–741–740. On G.B. Conte’s return to tradition in his Teubneriana (2009) see below. The modern eye has found the syntax of the passage harsh and difficult to grasp. Having managed the first three lines in this way: premebat (sc. Oebalus) + obj. Sarrastis populos et < aequora> quae etc. (740) et quos maliferae despectant moenia Abellae, then the reader understandably stumbles or hesitates in line 741: How does soliti fit in syntactically? Courtney (art. cit. p. 17) tried to solve the challenge by reversing the order of 740 and 741 “so that the inhabitants of Rufrae and Batulum and Celemna[e] have their item of description in 741 (soliti now agreeing with qui 739), and those of Abella have theirs in 742–3”. Horsfall (2000, p. 483), rejecting Courtney’s proposal and accepting nominative soliti “in agreement with the implicit antecedent of quos”, then provoked a pointed protest against aberrant syntax from Courtney.3 To save grammar, he argued anew, soliti should go instead with the preceding nominative plural qui 739 by means of a transposition of 741 to follow 739. The effect of this transposition is that the warriors from Rufrae, Batulum and Celemna are armed with cateiae whereas their neighbours from the district overlooked by Abella had bark from the cork tree to serve as their headgear as they were marching with flashing shields and bronze swords. Courtney’s transposition might well have some appeal due to a sort of

268  Aeneis V–VIII chiastic symmetry resulting from it: Three townships have one peculiarity in common, whereas the warriors of one town get a tripartite description. Most recently Gian Biagio Conte, rejecting Courtney’s solution, attempts to save both grammar and the traditional order of lines by giving 740 a parenthetical status; cf. his apparatus criticus: “at uerba et quos – Abellae addita sunt διὰ μεσοῦ (quasi sit ‘adde quos – Abellae’), ita ut u. 741 Teutonico ritu soliti proprie cum quique Rufras . . . tenent coniunctus sit”.4 I am sorry to say that this is a futile expedient to solve a false problem. This expedient fails even to counter Courtney’s objections to the traditional text and its interpretation: the three lines 738–40 are one indivisible construction, much as one expects in a catalogue.5 Rufrae, Batulum and Celemna would hardly have been known to contemporary readers while Abella was at least a name among writers on agriculture because of its nuts.6 Abella, as the fourth name and climax of the group, is adorned with an exquisite epithet,7 is marked by its lofty position in the landscape, and, not least, is honoured with a whole line of its own. Fortunately, this whole discussion, extending over almost 30 years, can be relegated to the world of ghosts. It is always to be borne in mind that perfects of deponent and passive verbs often drop forms of esse in poetry, not least in Vergil, cumbersome as such composite forms are in verse.8 Just a few random examples: A. 1. 216 postquam exempta (sc. est) fames mensaeque remotae (sc. sunt); 1. 520 postquam introgressi (sc. sunt); 1. 558 unde huc advecti (sc. sumus); 5. 192 nunc promite animos quibus in Gaetulis Syrtibus usi (sc. estis); 5. 414 his ego suetus (eram). In our passage raptus is definitely finite in line 7. 742. It is, by the way, strange to see that even in the 21st-century editors mess up the structure of the epic’s proem (1. 1–7) by printing a comma instead of a semicolon after iram (v. 4) thereby making passus (5) a participle and denying the word the emphasis it should have as a finite form.9 As to the verb solere, Vergil’s regular practice is this: Ecl. 2. 23 canto quae solitus si quando armenta vocabat, / Amphion Dircaeus in Actaeo Aracyntho; A. 1. 729 implevitque mero pateram, quam Belus et omnes / a Belo soliti; 2. 461 unde omnis Troia videri / et Danaum solitae naves et Achaica castra; 5. 369f. Dares . . . se . . . tollit, / solus qui Paridem solitus contendere contra, / . . . . There is a certain preponderance of such elliptical perfects in relative clauses; for the same phenomenon in a main clause see A. 7. 175f. hic ariete caeso / perpetuis soliti patres considere mensis. The transmitted order 739–740–741 should accordingly be kept and the punctuation after 740 marked with colon, semicolon or full stop. Understood as a finite form, soliti refers to all the warriors under the sway of Oebalus. There was in all probability no ancient lore to build on entitling the poet to distinguish between the king’s contingents characterized by their gear. With a full stop after 740 not only the syntax becomes more lucid, but the twofold structure of the passage comes clearly through: first Oebalus’ reign 737–40 (peoples and country: main clause premebat 737); then the outward appearance of Oebalus’ men marching to war 741–3 (main clause soliti (sc. sunt) 741).

A. 7. 741 The annoying soluti 269 And in case some are interested in the final part of my investigation: Has this simple solution really been ignored to this day? I am happy to say not. Although C.G. Heyne had a colon after Abellae, the comment by G.P.E. Wagner, in the final edition of Heyne’s monumental commentary (1833), shows that the final nature of soliti was not properly understood.10 However, G.W. Gossrau (1810–88), who published his solid school edition for the first time in 1846, stated tersely and correctly what should be an obligatory piece of information in commentaries (quoted here from Gossrau’s second edition 187611): “soliti sc. sunt et raptus sc. est” followed by a reference to the note on 5. 362 where a detailed treatment of such ellipses can be found.12 Herewith my text with its minuscule visible results: . . . late iam tum dicione premebat Sarrastis populos et quae rigat aequora Sarnus quique Rufras Batulumque tenent atque arva Celemnae et quos maliferae despectant moenia Abellae: Teutonico ritu soliti torquere cateias, tegmina quis capitum raptus de subere cortex aerataeque micant peltae, micat aereus ensis. [PS: Rivero et al. (2011) do not follow Courtney and Goold.]

737 740

A. 7. 773 A locus solubilis? Critics favouring P have many good points

Tum pater omnipotens aliquem indignatus ab umbris mortalem infernis ad lumina surgere vitae, ipse repertorem medicinae talis et artis fulmine Phoebigenam Stygias detrusit ad undas.

770

Phoebigenam Pdγ, Probus (ap. Serv.), Tib. : poenigenam Mω, Serv., schol. Stat. Theb. 3. 506

For once I am on the side of the majority in preferring Phoebigenam instead of poenigenam,1 a preference which I want to prop up in the following with some arguments so far missing in the commentaries. For me there are four reasons why poenigenam should have no place in Vergil’s text. (1) Poenigena would be the only example of an abstract noun (poena) as the first element of words composed with –gena, and so this would not be a “leggera estensione” (cf. Horsfall, 2012, 203, n. 18), but in linguistic regard an audacious leap into uncharted waters. So even if poenigenam had been the only form transmitted it ought to be emended to Phoebigenam. The rest of my arguments are in favour of Phoebigena. (2) Vergil seems to have had a very conscious attitude to these coinages in view of how scarce they are in his works: Vergil’s first examples are closely related in being solemn designations for Trojans and Greeks respectively: Troiugena (A. 3. 359 and later at A. 8. 117; 12. 626) was already well established by Vergil’s time as we can see from Cat. 64. 355 and Lucr. 1. 465 and may well have been used by Ennius in his Annals. Graiugena, which Vergil has for the first time at A. 3. 550 (and later at A. 8. 127), is found in Pacuvius (trag. 364) and in Lucretius (1. 477). Therefore Graiugena may well be Ennian too. Next follows another pair as I see it, nubigena and Phoebigena; nubigenae (7. 674) is an epithet going with Centauri (repeated as subst. at A. 8. 293). It may have been coined by Vergil (see Horsfall ad loc. with references). It was soon accepted by other poets, not least by Ovid who extended the use of nouns ending in –gena considerably.2 One impulse came probably from terrigena

A. 7. 773 A locus solubilis? 271 (Lucretius, archaic poetry, cf. Cic. Div. 2. 133), a loan word from γηγενής, which, just like the Greek word, is used both in a wider sense (born from the element terra, i.e. ‘earthborn’, i.e. ‘men’ OLD s.v. c.), and in a narrower sense (pointing to the goddess Gaia as mother of Titans and Giants OLD s.v. a.). The same ambivalent reference seems also to be inherent in both –gena designations in Book 7: nubigena can be understood as having either the element as its origin (nubes = ἀήρ) or the mythical figure (Nubes = Nephele). Phoebigena seems influenced not only by the word αἰθρηγενής ‘born in/from the clear sky’, ‘etherborn’, but also by its context in Homer: ὡς δ᾽ ὅτ᾽ ἂν ἐκ νεφέων πτῆται νιφὰς ἠὲ χάλαζα / ψυχρὴ ὑπὸ ῥιπῆς αἰθρηγενέος Βορέαο (Il. 15. 170f.). Phoebigena designating Aesculapius as a son of Phoebus Apollo, has at the same time preserved some of the meaning of αἰθρηγενής “born in the shining light”. The poet seems to make a point of this meaning in describing Aesculapius’ activity as one who brings dead people up to the lumina . . . vitae (771).3 (3) Vergil’s Phoebigena has apparently inspired Valerius Flaccus to his neologism Soligena which expresses that the Sun god was the father of Aeetes (5. 223 and 317). In many contexts Phoebus was hardly much different from Sol (cf. e.g. A. 3. 637; 4. 6). (4) At Epidaurus Vergil’s poetic designation of Aesculapius as Phoebigena was evidently known and adopted by those engaged in composing disticha for grateful visitors: Cutius has auris tibi voverat olim, / Phoebigena, et posuit sanus ab auriculis (CIL 3. 7266; IG IV2, 1, 440).4 Was this anonymous versifier inspired by A. 7. 773? I would guess so. Finally Quintus Serenus Sammonicus in his Liber medicinalis (probably first half of the 3rd century ad): (XII) 181 Vis et Phoebigenae divinam discere curam? At least both examples seem to be prior to P and may be reckoned as independent witnesses of the correct reading Phoebigena in Vergil.

Notes

A. 5. 300 A runner’s name and origin   1 This is a much extended version of my article in SO 86, 2012, 105–6.   2 Where see West’s discussion.   3 See Thomas’ fascinating note on G. 1. 437. Examples of Panope the Nereid in addition to Vergil’s Panopea: Ov. Fasti 6. 499 (with Bömer), Germ. Arat. 666; other examples in OLD.   4 I will just mention the putative objection that Panopes may have been Vergil’s coinage after the analogy of Achilles (or Ulixes) for Αχιλλεύς. But this hero name is a special case, the Greek hero being always Achilles in Latin (Achilleus is a personal name found here and there in inscriptions); there is no other support for this idea, and names in –eus are fairly common in Vergil (with useful –ea acc.!), cf. esp. Ilioneus, Mnestheus, Orpheus, Proteus.   5 Πανοπεῖς Herodotus, Strabo, Pausanias, Φανοτεύς, -εῖς in Thucydides among others, Φανατεύς, -εῖς in inscriptions.   6 Πανοπεύς Il. 2. 520, 17. 307 and not least Od. 11. 581 where Tityos violated Lato on her way to Delphi (sch. V has Panope), cf. also Hesiod frg. 41.21 (Most).  7 For que . . . que in combination with hypermetrical elision see Harrison on A. 10. 895.   8 See L. Rivero García, “A Trio of Country Bumpkins: A Note on the Text of Verg. Aen. 5. 300–1”, MH 67, 2010, 207–14.   9 Mynors, though, reports Helymusque as the reading both of R and p. 10 When I sent him my paper on 5. 300 previous to publication, he was obviously not in favour of p’s reading as being what Vergil had actually written. 11 It is strange that Mynors, Geymonat and Conte reckon with two separate individuals in the Fifth Book, one Troianus (73), and one Siculus (300, 323, 339), but Helymus is rightly taken as one individual by 20th-century editors like Janell (1920), Mackail (1930), Götte (1958), Williams, Perret (1978), Paratore (1982), Fairclough–Goold (1918–2000), Rivero et al. (2011). But as it often happens, an Index Nominum is that part of an edition which one may suspect is copied without further notice. 12 A useful starting point for a study of Helymus and Acestes is the article in EV s.v. Acesta. More could have been done there to discuss Vergil’s relation to Dionysius from Halicarnassus, Lykophron and the scholia. 13 Acestes was the son of a Trojan maid who had been banished with her sisters by Laomedon after he had killed their father and his male offspring. Acestes was at least half Trojan but born in Sicily, had come to Troy during Priam’s reign; after the city’s sack he left it with Helymus. 14 Cf. F. Della Corta, Mappa, p. 91. Horridus in iaculis et pelle Libystidis ursae emphasizes his hunting gear (iacula) with a slightly zeugmatic in (see OLD s.v. 36, respectively a and b).

Notes 273 15 For more references see Pape–Benseler s.v. 16 Epeios was especially associated with Ligaria near Thurioi. Cf. G. Genovese, Nostoi, tradizioni eroiche e modelli mitici nel meridione d’Italia, Rome 2009, Ch. II, pp. 95–187. On Lycophron and the Epeios legend see now S. Hornblower’s edition of Lycophron’s Alexandra, Oxford 2015, on l. 951, p. 357.

A. 6. 153 Animals to soothe the nether deities   1 Only mentioned as a problem in my short review of Horsfall’s Aeneid 6, Gymnasium 121, 2014, 499.   2 On sic demum see OLD s.v. demum 2b. It should in my view be rendered “Only in this way”, that is practically ‘in no other way’.   3 J. Dyson, King of the Wood: The Sacrificial Victor in Virgil’s Aeneid [Oklahoma Series in Classical Culture 27], Norman 2001.

A. 6. 293 ‘Hollow forms’   1 On the so-called genitivus inhaerentiae see Szantyr §54, Zusatz b (p. 63).   2 E. Hedicke, Varia I. Virgilius Bentleianus, Progr. Quedlinburg 1879.   3 A. Stachelscheid, “Bentley’s Vergiliana”, RhM 35, 1880, 312–13.

A. 6. 438 In need of final consensus   1 In the wake of Norden.   2 Disagreement among commentators cannot be taken as an intended ambiguity by the poet, cf. the famous example of 12. 790 adsistunt contra certamine Martis anheli where I (unlike Tarrant ad loc.) take anheli as a nom. pl.  3 Inamabilis occurs here for the first time in Latin literature as far as we know. It is no doubt prompted by the name of the river (Styx from στυγεῖν). Cf. Thomas on G. 4. 479.   4 Cf. Biotti (1994) ad loc.

A. 6. 460 Vergil ‘imitating’ Catullus   1 This piece consists of three excerpts – the introduction, the analysis of 6. 460 and the “Concluding remarks” from “Disiectorum voces poetarum. On Imitation in Vergil’s Aeneid”, SO 72, 1997, 105–17. In the abstract accompanying the article I refer to some other interesting cases as well: A. 4. 149; 4. 412; 8. 394, but by far the most controversial is A. 6. 640.   2 Though the phenomenon dealt with can more specifically be connected with the socalled ‘two voice’ theory and its aftermath it is likely to pop up anywhere where Vergil’s imitation is an issue.  3 Sed hoc ipsum crimen sic defendere adsuetum ait: ‘cur non illi quoque eadem furta temtarent? Verum intellecturos facilius esse Herculi clavam quam Homero versum subripere’. The Vita refers to Asconius Pedianus’ book against the obtrectatores Vergilii as its source, though Asconius was himself critical of Vergil’s extensive use of Homer (pauca admodum obiecta ei proponit . . . quod pleraque ab Homero sumpsisset). It is improbable that critics would have challenged (parts of) Vergil’s epic in his lifetime, i.e. before publication. The anecdote seems rather to reflect the fierce debate among later critics about Vergilian imitatio of Homer. In the twenties bc there may well have been recitals of parts of the poem not only in the presence of Augustus and

274  Aeneis V–VIII his family, but also for friends and colleagues, but one would like to think that the response to them would have been more favourable (closer to the attitude of Propertius 2. 34. 65f.).   4 H. Naumann, “Was wissen wir von Vergils Leben?”, Der altsprachliche Unterricht 24, 1981, 5–16, esp. p. 7, does not trust the information attributed to Asconius Pedianus in the Vita.   5 The extent of the imitation is without doubt the heart of the matter in this criticism.   6 The passage 450–76 is indebted to Od. 11. 541–67 (Odysseus meeting Ajax; see Knauer, 108–12). It is clearly evident from Knauer’s analysis that the adapted line from Catullus serves to provide Aeneas with tenderness and affection scarcely touched upon in Homer’s scene: Odysseus talks to Ajax with gentle words, ἐπέεσσι . . . μειλιχίοισιν (552), claimed more by the poet than shown by Odysseus, Odysseus’ own speech 553–62 can hardly be said to contain soothing tones. On the contrary, he does not admit any personal responsibility for the tragic outcome (οὐδέ τις ἄλλος / αἴτιος, ἀλλὰ Ζεὺς 558f.), whereas Aeneas almost at once concedes having caused Dido’s death: funeris heu tibi causa fui! (458) (I am in favour of not taking the clause as a question, but as a sad confirmation of what he had learnt already as he himself had just told Dido in the preceding clause; similarly in the editions of for example Goelzer, Götte, Janell, Norden, Plessis and Lejay, Taubmann); accordingly verus mihi nuntius ergo / venerat extinctam ferroque extrema secutam should also be printed without a question mark (the particle ergo points in the same direction).   7 Not so Norden, however, in the 1927 edition of his commentary (in the first edition, 1903, there is nothing but the mere parallel) where he implicitly (by referring to his Ennius und Vergilius, Berlin 1915, 44, n. 1) suggests that the original situation in Catullus is of no relevance for the imitation.   8 S. Skulsky, “‘Invitus regina . . . ’: Aeneas and the Love of Rome”, AJPh 106, 1985, 447–5 thinks (p. 452) that the incongruous allusion “immediately distances us from the hero” and shows “the dehumanizing effect of Aeneas’ political success”.   9 The bibliography has become substantial, especially in recent years. The latest contribution I have seen is R. Drew Griffith, “Catullus’ Coma Berenices and Aeneas’ Farewell to Dido”, TAPhA 125, 1995, 47–59, to whose bibliography (58f.) I refer. Drew Griffith’s reading is a non plus ultra of subtle intertextual interpretation. He postulates – ingeniously, but unconvincingly in my view – the relevance of Achilles at Il. 23. 140–51 not only for Catullus 66 but also for Vergil’s passage in the Sixth Book (together with Dido’s death at the end of the Fourth Book, lines 702–5). Among earlier contributions I would like to single out E.L. Harrison, “Cleverness in Virgilian Imitation”, CPh 65, 1970, 243 (repr. in S.J. Harrison (ed.), Oxford Readings in Vergil’s Aeneid, Oxford 1990, 445–8) and G.B. Conte, The Rhetoric of Imitation, Genre and Poetic Memory in Virgil and Other Latin Poets, Ithaca and London 1986, 88–90. These critics do not lose sight of Vergil’s own claim on his own text. 10 J. Tatum, “Allusion and Interpretation in Aeneid 6. 440–76”, AJPh 105, 1984, 434–50; Skulsky (above n. 8); P.A. Johnston, “Dido, Berenice, and Arsinoe: Aeneid 6.460”, AJPh 108, 1987, 649–54; R.A. Smith, “A Lock and a Promise: Myth and Allusion in Aeneas’ Farewell to Dido in Aeneid 6”, Phoenix 47, 1993, 305–12; R.O.A.M. Lyne, “Vergil’s Aeneid: Subversion by Intertextuality. Catullus 66. 39–40 and Other Examples”, Greece & Rome 41, 1994, 187–204. 11 According to A.H.F. Thornton, “A Catullan Quotation in Virgil’s Aeneid Book VI”, AUMLA 17, 1963, 77–9 there is no incongruity, but parallelism on this basis. Similarly, Y. Nadeau, “Caesaries Berenices (or, the Hair of the God”, Latomus 41, 1982, 101–3, equating caesaries Berenices with Aeneas, alias Caesar. 12 The texts in question share between them also an adjuration: Catullus 66. 40 and A. 6. 458f. (the latter text even more emphatically expressed: per sidera iuro, / per superos et si qua fides tellure sub ima est).

Notes 275 A. 6. 466 Aeneas’ last words to Dido   1 Cf. “It is fated that this is the last time that I speak to you” (Horsfall 2013). – “This is the last word Fate suffers me to say to you” (Goold 1999). – “Fate gives me this last chance to address you” (Ahl 2007).   2 “Dass ich zu dir spreche, dazu gibt das Fatum die letzte Gelegenheit” (E. and G. Binder 1998). – “La dernière fois que le destin me donne de te parler, c’est maintenant” (Perret 1978). – “Questa è l’ultima volta che il destino mi concede di parlarti” (Canali 1979). – “Esto es lo último que, por el destino, te digo” (Rivero et al. 2011).   3 Not a neuter as registered by Wetmore.   4 See Page on 9. 632; EV 2 (1985), 267–8.   5 O. Hiltbrunner voices sympathy for extremis (TLL 5, 2, 2009, 11), but with no support from Vergil’s usage as far as I can see.   6 Although this is now strongly denied by Horsfall ad loc. who combines extremum with hoc est.   7 Lloyd Jones–Wilson (OCT) have a comma after προσεννέπω.

A. 6. 561 ‘Air’ or ‘ear’?  1 Qui and clangor are also variants (in PR and P respectively), but as these variants are not at stake here I have concentrated my attention on auras/auris.   2 Austin (1977) ad loc. calls this a joke.

A. 6. 585–6 Punctuation and punishment   1 Horsfall (2013) has a full stop here.   2 “ich sah den Salmoneus im Tartarus grausam büßen, während er Blitz und Donner nachahmte”. He criticizes rightly G.W. Gossrau, Publii Virgilii Maronis Aeneis2, Quedlinburg 1876, for claiming that Salmoneus was punished by being constrained to mimic Jupiter in Tartarus for ever: “Simplicissima explicandi ratio videtur haec, qua dicimus in eo constitisse poenam superbo, quod etiam in Tartaro Iovem iubetur imitari. Quod quam vanum sit quum cognoverit, in aeternum tamen facere cogitur. Iam quae potest poena excogitari acerbior?”   3 Rightly Butler, however, protests against taking dantem poenas = qui dedit poenas.   4 Cf. Austin on 585f.   5 See e.g. Williams (1972, 495); Horsfall (2013, 409).

A. 6. 588 Where did Salmoneus challenge Zeus?   1 On the syntax preferred by me see the previous article.

A. 6. 601–2 Should we miss Tantalus?   1 As far as the older doxography is concerned I refer those interested to Ladewig–Jahn 1912, 337f.

A. 6. 615 A hidden hendiadys   1 On the effective f-alliteration cf. e.g. 11. 330 qui dicta ferant et foedera firment; 12. 200 qui foedera fulmine sancit; 212 firmabant foedera dictis; 316f. ego foedera faxo/firma manu; 413 foliis et flore (hendiadys); 573 ferte faces propere foedusque

276  Aeneis V–VIII reposcite flammis. Cf. also Naevius 45, Ennius, Tragedies, ed. Jocelyn, Cambridge 1969, p. 262.   2 Today rightly preferred by Williams, Goold and Conte, –que (= –ve) is preferred by S.J. Harrison, SO 80, 2005, 39; he also reads ut instead of et in the previous line.

A. 6. 658–9 Eridanus below and above ground   1 Fletcher was evidently influential when the OLD article was written, cf. s.v. superne 1b.   2 Something like this is also apparent from Austin’s half-hearted defence: “a meaning that is possible here if we imagine the nemus to be on a hillside [cf. iugum 676], with the river flowing down per silvam (659)”. But why ‘hillside’ and not ‘hilltop’?   3 Lucretius who had a propensity for the word superne used it 20 times, more than half of which occurs in book 6: 1. 496; 1105; 2. 1153; 3. 893; 4. 173; 439; 445; 5. 682; 6. 192; 254; 264; 286; 320; 425; 434; 491; 544; 597; 1018; 1099.

A. 6. 746 Present or perfect III?   1 Based on SO 85, 2011, 218.   2 Cf. M. Unterharnscheidt, De veterum in Aeneide coniecturis, [diss.] Monasterii Guestfalorum 1911, 31. Explicitly pointed out also by my old Danish school commentary edited by G.F.V. Lund, Copenhagen 1874: “det siste følger etter det første” (“the latter follows after the former”).

A. 6. 761 The hopeless lucis loca   1 To mention only a few other efforts: Goold has this: “holds by lot of life the most immediate place”. Austin renders similarly: “holds the nearest allotted place in the world of light”, a slight variation of Fletcher’s: “has allotted to him the next place in light”. Another try is to be found in Page: “by lot holds the nearest place in light”.   2 On the dubious instances of proximus with genitive see J. Ramminger TLL 10, 2054, 62ff.   3 The Danish commentary for schools by G.F.V. Lund (Part I: I–VI2):, Copenhagen 1874, deserves praise in this connection (p. 329): “But the genitive lucis is odd: ‘The nearest places of light’ instead of ‘the places nearest to the light’; one would accordingly expect luci”.   4 Patricia A. Johnston in R.T. Ganiban, Aeneid. Books 1–6, 2013. So also Fairclough (Loeb) “holds by lot a place nearest the light”.   5 To continue with Ovid: Met. 1. 28; 1. 64; 2. 173; 4. 533; 5. 184; 8. 399; 9. 669; 12. 14; 12. 164; 12. 398; 14. 509; 15. 432.

A. 6. 791 Punctuation to be changed   1 I for one think that both the pronunciation and the spelling of the adverb hic were different from the pronoun hic for Vergil and his generation. This is reflected in the spelling of the adv. hic in inscriptions either with ‘i longa’ (cf. TLL 6 (3) 2752, 26f.) or with ‘ei’ (ibidem 33–5).

A. 6. 817–23 Ultor Brutus   1 Based on Symbolae Septentrionales. Latin Studies Presented to Jan Öberg, ed. by M. Asztalos and C. Geijrot, Stockholm 1995, pp. 62–7.   2 In his preface to the 3rd ed.

Notes 277   3 Norden was never in doubt that animam superbam belonged to the Tarquinii and that –que was postponed to the third word. This interpretation has in my view rightly been generally rejected. The singular animam is a case in point; the numerus reflects the proper situation, e.g. at 758 and 827. If Vergil had meant to combine the expression syntactically with the Tarquinii he would have written animasque superbas.   4 Austin refers e.g. to 5. 268; 473; 8. 202 and particularly 2. 556f. (Priam) and 3. 475 (Helenus characterizing the coniugium of Anchises and Venus).   5 Williams stresses the ambiguity of the passage (p. 505) adding “in the anima superba of this early Brutus we surely feel an undertone of reference to his famous descendant, the assassin of Caesar”.   6 And silencing other views, I dare say.   7 Norden refers to Heinze (1897) on Lucr. 3. 42 where parallels are adduced for ‘ruhmredig behaupten’, Kenney suggests ‘proclaim’. The semantic point is not particularly strong in Norden’s argument, the usual expression being laudibus ferre, see OLD s.v. 11c), although the possibility should be granted; at A. 8. 288 laudes and facta are objects for ferre in a laudative context.  8 ea facta is of course no true plural, but refers to the punishment of the sons.  9 OLD s.v. fero 18. 10 And by implication run counter to the whole antique tradition. 11 Almost immediately the poet adds another example of the same kind saevumque securi / aspice Torquatum (824–5), which must arouse far less sympathy towards the father, as the transgression of the son was much more forgivable and the severity of the father more revolting, an atrox imperium to quote Livy (8. 7. 20) who talks of Manliana imperia non in praesentia modo horrenda, sed exempli etiam tristis in posterum. 12 V.Max, 5. 8–9. 13 Livy 8. 7. 18. 14 Austin adds to his comment on ferent (‘take’, ‘interpret’) (to appease the Manes of Norden?) “Here praise is implied (but in spite of it Brutus is infelix)”. But Vergil is no doubt primarily thinking of blame. 15 Such as Henry (1889, p. 430) and Conington–Nettleship (1884, on 6. 822). 16 Cf. e.g. sentences like: utcumque erit, iuvabit me memoriae populi Romani consuluisse (Livy 1 pr. 3); sed utcumque casura res est, fatebor me fuisse Seiano amicum (Tac. Ann. 6. 9. 5). 17 Cf. Augustine loc. cit.: et tamquam ad consolandum infelicem, subiunxit, vincit (sic!) etc. 18 Cf. e.g. 2. 119 with emphasis Argolica, or 2. 529 saucius. For further instances see Austin on Aen. 1. 11 impulerit. 19 The dispute is one of posterity, and Anchises is confident that the verdict will be in Brutus’ favour at the end of the day. 20 Brutus compares favourably with Agamemnon. Whereas nobody could have been a more innocent victim than Iphigenia at Aulis, the sons of Brutus had already forfeited their lives. 21 So Williams in his note ad loc. 22 Norden’s comment on this is excellent. It can be added that the double meaning of laus (both ‘fame’ and ‘deed’, ‘accomplishment’) makes it easier to see the objective basis for a person’s laus. Brutus would have put his laus at stake by not disregarding his own love as a father. 23 One can compare the word imperium which is transformed from a negative notion in the hands of the last kings to a positive quality within the frame of Republican liberty. 24 See E. Skard, “Die Heldenschau in Vergils Aeneis”, SO 40, 1965, 53–65; further discussions in P.J. Burke, “Roman Rites for the Dead and Aeneid 6, CJ 74, 1979, 220–8. 25 Plutarch, Brutus 1. He was put there to show that he had been the most resolute man in ending the reign of the Tarquins. Cf. on the group of statues in general L. Delaruelle, “Les souvenirs d’oeuvres plastique dans la revue des héros au livre VI de l’Énéide”, Revue Archéologique 21, 1913, 157–63. 26 Livy 1. 56.

278  Aeneis V–VIII A. 6. 846 Predicting a Fabius as Maximus Cunctator   1 Based on Symbolae Septentrionales. Latin Studies Presented to Jan Öberg, ed by M. Asztalos and C. Geijrot, Stockholm 1995, pp. 67–70.  2 Vilhelm Lundström’s term ‘reverence quotation’ is well suited for this kind of imitation.   3 Since the above was written (1995) the following editions continue on the same track: Goold (1999), Maclennan (2006), Conte (2009), Rivero et al. (2011), Johnston (2012), Horsfall (2013).   4 The last edition of which is the 14th which was revised by R.E. Durand, Paris 1970.   5 It was dropped again by Goelzer’s successor J. Perret.   6 One cannot discredit this reading by referring to the general inferior quality of R as against MP; so Norden, p. 334 (in his 2nd edition, not in his 1st edition p. 327).   7 By choosing for instance this type of expression: Of this man one day will be said: “unus homo etc.”.   8 Skutsch 94 Nec pol homo quisquam faciet impune animatus; 280 suavis homo, iucundus, suo contentus; 329 egregie cordatus homo, catus Aelius Sextus; 514 Dum quidem unus homo Romanus toga superescit; 560 At Romanus homo, tamenetsi res bene gesta est, . . . .   9 Norden saw that the spondaics of 846 contrasted with the anapaestic rapitis Fabii in the previous line.

A. 6. 852 Global rule over the populi   1 See “On the Text of Aen. 6. 852, SO 66, 1991, 47–9; (cf. SO 71, 1996, 108, n. 12), but in particular “Der Friedensgedanke des Anchises des Anchises: Zu Aeneis 6. 852”, Gymnasium 118, 2011, 457–62. Add my remarks in my review of Horsfall’s Aeneid 6, Gymnasium 121, 2014, 498–9. On how to deal with hae tibi erunt artes see my review article Exemplaria Classica 16, 2012, 287.   2 A comparable instance of wavering between the singular and the plural is found at G. 2. 174 and A. 359 (artem vs. artes).   3 It is important to see that respectively populis and populos should be supplied with subiectis and superbos.   4 Luckily it was integrated also in OLD’s Vergil text.   5 A typical instance of a lectio difficilior, not an intrusion from Servius as claimed by Fraenkel.

A. 6. 893–6 The troublesome exit from Hades   1 Following “Vergiliana (II) What is Wrong with the Somni Poertae? (Aen. 6. 893–8)”, SO 77, 2002, 128–44.   2 As to the problems of the last couplet I refer to my discussion in part II below.   3 A. Jönsson and B.-A. Roos, “A Note on Aeneid 6. 893–8”, Eranos 94, 1996, 21–8.   4 E. and G. Binder, Publius Vergilius Maro. Aeneis, 5. und 6. Buch [Reclam], Stuttgart 1998.   5 O. Zwierlein, Antike Revisionen des Vergil und Ovid [Nordrhein-Westfälische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Vorträge G. 368], Wiesbaden 2000, pp. 47–54.   6 Caused by his major project Die Ovid- und Vergil-Revision in tiberischer Zeit, the first volume of which was published in 1999 (Band I. Prolegomena, Berlin and New York).   7 A. Nauck, “Kritische Bemerkungen V”, in Mélanges gréco-romains tires du Bulletin de l’Académie Imperiale de St.-Petersbourg III, 1869–1874, St. Petersburg 1874. Nauck’s deletion was adopted by Ribbeck2 1895.

Notes 279   8 The designation ecphrasis topou has here a makeshift character; cf. part II of this article.   9 Much like that of the patient commentator Austin whose probing common sense approach may well serve as a good starting point. 10 Binder 1998 ad loc. finds a difference between humour (Homer: ‘humorvoll’) and serious context (Vergil). On the other hand, the issue involved in Homer could hardly be more serious (Penelope’s dream announcing bloodshed has indeed issued from the Gate of Horn), whereas Vergil’s Gate of Ivory paradoxically will bring escape and fulfilment. 11 Cf. F.E. Brenk, “The Gates of Dreams and an Image of Life: Consolation and Allegory at the End of Vergil’s Aeneid VI”, in C. Deroux (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, VI, 1992, 277–94, esp. 282 (now in Clothed in Purple, Stuttgart 1999, 100–21). 12 Elsewhere too (e.g. Hor. Carm. 3. 27. 41f.) the whereabouts of the Ivory Gate is irrelevant. 13 Fletcher 1948 has pinpointed this meaning of umbra (p. 102): “veris umbris are not dreams but ghosts, ‘real ghosts’, spirits such as Aeneas has been shown, who will some day pass through the gates of horn to new birth”. It is strange how slow one has been in basing the whole critical assessment of the lines on this understanding. Nauck 1867, however, is an exception: “Albern wird V. 894 geredet von ‘wahren Schatten’, wo ‘wahrhafte Träume’ bezeichnet sein sollten”. 14 It is a fact that people believed that umbrae left Hades to appear in their dreams (see EV V* s.v. umbra col. 380f.), but this requires a line of thought like ‘umbrae (by way of the Gate of Horn) appear in somebody’s dream to foretell something in a true way about our life’. That said, one could think of accepting verae umbrae as a breviloquentia. 15 Though H.R. Steiner, Der Traum in der Aeneis, Bern and Stuttgart 1952, was at least not quite unaware of the correct way of taking it he did not see the underlying polarity, and unconvincingly he considered the umbrae verae to carry two senses at the same time: “sie künden Wahres – im Gegensatz zu den täuschenden insomnia, sind zugleich aber auch wahrhaftige, leibhafte Totengeister, nicht bloss falsche Vorspiegelungen wie die ‘falsa insomnia’” (p. 90). 16 For a one-time Epicurean even Penelope’s scepticism may have seemed too credulous. Epicurus himself rejected divination based on dreams (Usener, Lps. 1887, p. 261f. frg. 395). Lucretius gave much thought to a natural explanation of our dreams (cf. 4. 757ff.; 961ff. and P.H. Schreivers, “Die Traumtheorie des Lucrez”, Mnemosyne 33, 1980, 120–51) and Cicero, whose scepticism was less clearcut (see M. Schofield, “Cicero for and against Divination”, JRSt 76, 1986, 47–65), asked the pertinent rhetorical question at the end of his De divinatione: Quomodo autem distingui possunt vera somnia a falsis? (2.146). Cf. also, with a different conclusion from mine, Verstraete 1980. 17 For this meaning of uerus see OLD s.v. 4: i.e. ‘real’ in the true sense of the word. 18 The essential point was made by J.J. Bray, “The Ivory Gate” in M. Kelley (ed.), For Service to Classical Studies, Melbourne, 1966, 55–70 [not available], quoted here from E. Kopff, C. Kopff and N. Marinatos, “Aeneas: False Dream or Messenger of the Manes? (Aeneid 6, 893ff.)”, Philologus 120, 1976, 246–50, p. 250, n. 22): “You can set off genuine coins against false coins, true words against lying words, but not genuine old masters against forged checks or true affidavits against false banknotes”. 19 With the exception of the unhomeric Manes, see Norden on 893–6. – Kopff–Kopff (1976) paraphrase falsa insomnia as “dreams that look like, but are not the spirits of the dead” trying to show that falsa means ‘unreal’ (“the dreams . . . seem to be what they are not”, p. 250, n. 22; cf. N. Horsfall, A Companion to the Study of Virgil, Leiden 1995, 147). As long as 896 is accepted as genuine one is bound to find such hairsplitting exercises: avis falsus in Ovid is an untrue bird in the sense of deceiving people (who interpreted it otherwise) I would guess that all unprejudiced readers would take it as “deceiving dreams”, that is in the same sense as Homer’s line.

280  Aeneis V–VIII 20 Much ingenuity has been on display not least within our own generation. In the same contributions we find also much relevant criticism of other people’s views. For thorough discussions of the doxography see in particular E. Christmann, “Der Tod des Aeneas und die Pforten des Schlafes”, in H. Görgemanns and. E.A. Schmidt (eds), Studien zum antiken Epos, Meisenheim am Glan, 1976, 251–79, and K. Pollmann, “Etymologie. Allegorese und epische Struktur. Zu den Toren der Träume bei Homer und Vergil”, Philologus 137, 1993, 232–51. 21 G.N. Knauer, Die Aeneis und Homer, Göttingen 1964, 82, 398, 520. 22 Austin’s comment comes pretty close: “The Gate of Ivory was his (i.e. Anchises’) only choice (since the Gate of Horn was reserved for verae umbrae. . . . falsa insomnia (whose meaning moreover are uncertain) . . . only provide the route . . . no direct equation is made between such users of the Ivory Gate and the travellers who are now sent out by it” concluding, however, with the admission: “The matter remains a Virgilian enigma (and none the worse for that)”. 23 Cf. Horsfall 1995, 147: “We need to distinguish the Gate’s normal traffic . . . from Aeneas, who in no way corresponds with it”. 24 Cf. the conclusion of his note on 896: “the problem of the falsa insomnia in relation to Aeneas and the Sibyl as user of the Ivory Gate . . . to my mind still remains inscrutable”. 25 I do not want here to speculate on the work done by Varius (and Tucca); see Horsfall (1995), p. 295 with references. 26 Cf. Austin (on 896): “The ellipse of hac, to correspond with qua above, is unexpected and rather difficult”. 27 Zwierlein is prone to think that it has been influenced by Tibullus 2. 6. 37 ne tibi neglecti mittant mala somnia Manes (speaking of nightmares). I would be more inclined to see influence from Tibullus if what Vergil’s interpolator had read was no more than what has been handed down to us. There is simply too much lost to allow safe conclusions in this direction. As in Tibullus it is natural to understand the manes as Di manes (see OLD 1.b ‘the spirits of the dead, regarded as minor supernatural powers’; and A.M. Negri, Gli psiconimi in Virgilio, Roma 1984, 86, 108). It is a vague notion which does not square too well with either the description of the Underworld itself or with the presence of Anchises. The word manes occurs twice elsewhere in Book VI: We hear of the manes of Eurydice (119), that Aeneas addressed the dead spirit of Palinurus when he had built a cenotaph for him (506) and (according to Anchises) that every man endures his own manes (743), a notoriously difficult expression (see Austin ad loc.). So, as far as line 896 is concerned, it is fair to ask whether Anchises himself belonged to these manes (as 5. 99 indicates), the more so as their mittunt cannot be much different from his emittit (898) – associations that are altogether at odds with the situation since we are unable to see Anchises in that role. 28 Insomnia (n. pl.) ‘dreams’ (on the basis of Greek enhypnion) was probably coined by Vergil for A. 4. 9 Anna, soror, quae me suspensam insomnia terrent! There insomnia clearly alludes to Apollonius 3. 636 (Medea) δειλὴ ἐγών, οἷόν με βαρεῖς ἐφόβησαν ὄνειροι. The word is definitely less arresting when it turns up again at 6. 896. 29 Horsfall 1995, 146, n. 13; cf. e.g. peculi (Ecl. 1. 32), Patavi (A. 1. 247), Lavini (6. 89). Norden’s statement is accordingly a bit too sweeping: “da oblique Casus von somnium unbrauchbar waren”. 30 There is no reason to establish a God of Sleep at this stage (a personification which is natural at 5. 838, the only place where a capital S is required). Editors, however, seem to be unanimous in writing Somni portae. 31 The last one to advocate this opposition is Binder (1998) ad loc. where “echte (Schatten)Bilder” are the opposite of “unechte (Traum-)Bilder”, i.e. Aeneas, Sibylla, Hercules. What is then the difference between umbrae and insomnia? This interpretation would have had better chances if verae umbrae (or even vera insomnia) were set against falsae umbrae. In that case we would have been more willing to accept Aeneas as a false phantom.

Notes 281 32 Cf. my article “Disiectorum voces poetarum: On Imitation in Vergil’s Aeneid”, SO 72, 1997, 105–17 on interpretations importing into Vergil’s text an alien meaning from imitated passages. 33 Concerning the marked hyperbaton one should beware the observation noted at TLL 6, 2740, 21f. (s.v. hic) saepe comprehendit initium et finem versus vel sententiae. 34 Is the tale told in Ovid’s own name or is it a direct speech? It is futile to ask. 35 See H.M. Mulder’s commentary (1954) ad loc. 36 This meaning of hic is more common than is readily seen from dictionaries; another Horatian example is Ars 451 hae nugae seria ducent / in mala. 37 Objections to this transposition are: first, that the additional four lines would give a preponderance to dreams at odds with the catalogue character of this part; second, that the positive notion connected with one of the portae does not read well among all the phantasmogorical bugbears; and third, that the central place of the elm tree (cf. in medio) is spoilt by another rival landmark, both of which are associated with useless dreams. 38 Ausonius, Ephem. 8. 22–6 and Servius on 6. 282, see Jönsson–Roos 27f. Ausonius Ecl. [Cupido cruciatur] 8. 103 (evolat ad superos portaque evadit eburna) ignoring the descriptive part in Vergil could well be taken as an indication that Ausonius did not know the passage in the place where we have it, but wrongly I think. Such e silentio arguments have often led scholars astray. 39 “in medio aut vestibulo aut absolutum est, et intellegimus hanc esse eburneam portam, per quam exiturus Aeneas est. quae res haec omnia indicat esse simulata, si et ingressus et exitus simulatus est et falsus”. 40 Such a detail in the description as fertur is unthinkable in the mouth of Anchises. It would undermine his authority altogether. The report about the material will linger on in the reader’s mind and colour his attitude towards whatever further information there is, i.e. also the relative clause qua veris facilis datur exitus umbris (inspite of the factual indicative). This fertur goes in a formal sense with perfecta to which it is natural to supply it. Cf. 283f. quam sedem vulgo / vana tenere ferunt. Homer’s account is, on the other hand, strictly factual (cf. εἰσίν). 41 Cf. also Horsfall on A. 7. 483. 42 However, ubi tum (as a temporal conjunction), favoured by Norden and occasionally later, is found nowhere else in Vergil. 43 The material was presented by H. Haffter 1934, TLL s.v. ibi, col. 150, 49–77 (with openness as to the nuances involved in some cases). Szantyr (§287 eα) points to the pleonastic use of the combined particles. 44 Cf. Jocelyn, The Tragedies of Ennius, 1967, fr. 264. 45 Thus Aeneas’s orderly exit is in marked contrast to Odysseus’ panic at Od. 11. 636 caused by the assembling hosts of screaming ghosts and his own fear of even more dangerous apparitions to follow. 46 As to Vergil’s kata to siopomenon technique see Austin on 899.

A. 7. 129 ‘Disasters’ or ‘exile’?  1 CQ 11, 1961, 195–7.

A. 7. 543 A hellish creature flies to heaven   1 Carl Schaper (1828–86) changed his predecessor Theodor Ladewig’s text (caeli conversa) in vol. 3 (1875) of the 8th edition of the Aeneid in the ‘Weidmannsche Sammlung’. On Paul Deuticke’s improvement on Schaper’s idea see below n. 9, p. 282, this volume. Schaper’s conjecture was defended by G. Schröter, Beiträge zur Kritik und Erklärung von Vergils Aeneis, 1885. For further comments on readings and proposed

282  Aeneis V–VIII conjectures see the app. crit. in Rivero et al., Delvigo 1987, 40–5, Moretti, Calderini Montanari (1993), Timpanaro (2001).   2 Most modern editors have been in favour of caeli conversa. J. Götte and Paratore follow Janell (1920) and Mackail who still prefer caeli convexa like TLL (H. Jacobsohn) which at the time (1907) was based on the text of G. Thilo (1886) and Ribbeck2 (1895), a reading based on Servius. Hirtzel put convexa per auras between daggers. Sabbadini (1930) read caeli convexa per ardua. It is not immediately obvious that this reading is inferior as caeli delapsa per auras is found at A. 11. 595, at first glance a parallel as good as any, the only difference being that delapsa marks a downward fall, flight or swoop whereas conversa in itself would suggest a horizontal flight.   3 P. De Paolis, Paideia 66, 2011, 576f.  4 See A. 2. 186; 2. 688; 6. 178; cf. Hor. Carm. 3. 23. 1.   5 Ov. Met. 1. 766; 2. 580; 9. 210; 9. 678; 13. 668; ep. 15. 88.   6 Manil. 2. 355; Germ. 635; 705; Luc. 9. 972; V. Fl. 3. 382; Sil. 15. 388; Silv. 3. 342; 5. 3. 89.  7 Converto is found 26 times in Vergil’s poems, one of which is in the Georgics, the rest in the Aeneid, but only in the later books of the Aeneid we have comparable examples.   8 To quote this example in full: Totae adeo conversae acies, omnesque Latini, / omnes Dardanidae – Mnestheus acerque Serestus / et Messapus, equum domitor, et fortis Asilas / Tuscorumque phalanx Euandrique Arcades alae – / pro se quisque viri summa nituntur opum vi, / nec mora nec requies, vasto certamine tendunt. Conversae is rightly seen by the latest commentator, Tarrant (2012 ad loc.) as a finite form (conversae sunt) parallel with nituntur and tendunt. Both sides are turned against each other. There is no forward movement implicit in conversae, as it would have been with e.g. huc or per campum added. Thus this example is different from 12. 269 sic Turno . . . agmina cedunt conversaeque ruunt acies or 12. 276 cum duo conversis inimica in proelia tauri / frontibus incurrunt and 12. 377 ille tamen clipeo obiecto conversus in hostem / ibat.   9 Paul Deuticke (1848–1908) kept Schaper’s caelo conversa in the 9th edition of the commentary (1904) thereby nullifying Schaper’s close connection of per auras with adfatur.

A. 7. 598–9 An old king’s tragedy  1 SO 86, 2012, 111–17.   2 Falsely cited by Burmannus (on whom cf. n. 3 below) and Heyne as amnisque (which justly enough, “vix sensum habet” to quote Heyne).   3 Wordsworth’s proposal was accepted by Housman (1912) in his note on Manilius 2, 303.   4 References: Georgius Waddelus, Animadversiones criticae in loca quaedam Virgilii, Horatii, Ovidii, et Lucani; et super illis emendandis conjecturae, Edinburgi 1734, pp. 24–5; Burmannus; P. Virgilii Maronis Opera, cum integris & emendatioribus commentariis Servi, Philargyrii, Pierii. Accedunt . . . praecipue Nicolai Heinsii notae nunc primum editae: quibus & suas in omne opus Animadversiones . . . addidit Petrus Burmannus. Post cuius obitum interruptam Editionis curam suscepit & adornavit Petrus Burmannus Junior, Amstelaedami 1746, T. III, p. 214.   5 Not to be compared with cases where a governing adjective is doing the work of an adverbial clause like e.g. Tac. Ann. 1. 36. 2 augebat metum gnarus Romanae seditionis . . . hostis (“the fact that the enemy was aware of the Roman mutiny increased people’s alarm”) or Hor. Carm. 1. 37. 12f. sed minuit furorem // vix una sospes navis ab ignibus (“but the fact that scarcely one ship survived abated her frenzy”) – examples, by the way, that are far easier to grasp by the listening ear, combined as they are with active transitive verbs. Cf. Szantyr 303 f. and K–S II, §138 Anm. 2 (p. 770).   6 Like Hor. S. 1. 9. 2 totus in illis = totus in illis (sc. nugis) eram.   7 “Punishment will come, for the Latins and Turnus (and, in a sense, for me too), for . . . ” (Horsfall 2000, p. 389) which reflects a certain uneasiness on the part of the commentator.   8 “[Latinus] kommt . . . schliesslich auf sein eigenes Geschick und klagt, dass ihm selbst nicht Ruhe beschieden sei, sondern dass er schon ganz in der Nähe des Grabes noch eines glücklichen Todes beraubt werde. Obwohl selbst von aller Schuld frei, muss Lat. doch die

Notes 283 allgemeine Verblendung mitbüssen, denn wenn ihn auch nicht, wie die Latiner und den Turnus, der Götter Zorn straft, so steht ihm unter jetzigen Umständen doch kein ruhiger Lebensabend mehr bevor, da er bei seinem hohen Alter befürchten muss, noch während des Krieges, also unter Kämpfen und Unruhen, sein Leben zu beschliessen . . . .”   9 A comparable case can be found at Sal. Hist 4. 69 (Epistula Mithridatis 17, Reynolds’ ed. p. 201, 7) where the Vaticanus has partum, but where raptum (P. Ciacconius) is undoubtedly correct. 10 Perhaps written in the margin and causing the corruption. 11 Introduced at 7. 46 f. like this: Rex arva Latinus et urbes / iam senior longa placidas in pace regebat.

A. 7. 741 The annoying soliti   1 Based on Eranos 106, 2010/12, 62–4.   2 “The Formation of the Text of Vergil”, BICS 28, 1981, 13–29; on our passage p. 17.   3 “The Formation of the Text of Vergil – again”, BICS 46, 2002–3, 189–94; on our passage 191f.   4 Cf. Conte’’s edition also p. xxix.   5 On these towns and settlements see the respective articles in EV.   6 Cf. Cato Agr. 8. 2; Col. 5. 10. 14.   7 Cf. J.S.T. Hanssen, SO 26, 1948, 119f.; J.J. O’Hara, True Names, Michigan 1996, 197.   8 See R.G. Austin’s comments (1971 and 1964) on A. 1. 71; 202; 237; A. 2. 2, etc.  9 See SO 64, 1989, 119ff. (in this book c.f. p. 133). 10 Cf. the 4th ed. Leipzig and London 1833 followed by A. Forbiger in the 4th. ed. 1875: soliti is seen as a so-called “nominativus appositi” with reference to A. 10. 496–8: rapiens . . . pondera baltei and nefas (obj.): . . . caesa manus . . . thalamique cruenti (nom. appositi). The well-known school edition from the publishing house Weidmann, Berlin, edited for more than half a century by T. Ladewig, C. Schaper, P. Deuticke and P. Jahn in succession, seems to take it in the same way (also with a colon at the end of 740); Deuticke published the last edition of Books 7–12 in 1904. 11 P. Vergilii Maronis Aeneis. Illustravit God. Guil. G. ed. sec., Quedlinburgh. 12 It is curious to find in my modest Danish edition of the Aeneid for schools, Copenhagen 1856, by Otto Daniel Fibiger (1824–81) the following adequate comment on 741 (with a semicolon after Abellae): “S o l i t i, sc. s u n t. Somewhat remarkably this sentence [741] has got an independent form whereas the next one is presented as a relative clause; the relative would have its correct place in the first sentence which begins the description of the outfit and armament of the peoples in question, but the poet has sought to eschew such monotony and, may be partly, such vagueness that would arise from an uninterrupted series of relative sentences” (my translation). However, I should like to emphasize again (as above) that the main clause 741 serves to signal the beginning of a new part in the structure of the passage after the part ending with 740.

A. 7. 773 A locus solubilis?   1 Among the more recent critics these are in favour of poenigenam: S. Timpanaro, Virgilianisti antichi e tradizione indiretta, Florence 2001, 64–6, M. Geymonat in his revised ed. of Vergil, Rome 2008, N. Horsfall (who has defended this reading for more than 40 years), L. Rivera García (“Notes on the Text of Virgil’s Aeneid”, in C. Deroux (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History XVI, 2012, 176–97, p. 181).   2 Delvigo 47.   3 Cf. M. Paschalis, Virgil’s Aeneid. Semantic Relations and Proper Names, Oxford 1997, 273.   4 R.P. Hoogma, Der Einfluss Vergils auf die Carmina Latina Epigraphica, Amsterdam 1959, 303.

Aeneis IX–XII

A. 9. 511 The right place of a comma Word-order reflects the viva vox of the commander

Ecquis erit mecum, iuvenes, qui primus in hostem –

A comma after only mecum in order to separate iuvenes from the rest of the line as the addressees of Turnus’ exhortation to attack has for a long time been the preference of editors and commentators; I mention Mynors (1969), Williams (1973), Geymonat (1973/2008), and Perret (1980) and Hardie. But to combine mecum with erit, seems, if not impossible per se,2 flat and little distinctive. And, one may ask, to whom would qui refer in today’s punctuation, to ecquis or to Turnus himself (mecum)?3 The other instances of the strong interrogative form ecquis in Vergil4 rather suggest erit to belong closely with (is) qui whereas mecum should go with the relative clause. Thus in my opinion the only satisfactory punctuation to guide our interpretation is to put a comma after erit: Ecquis erit, mecum, iuvenes, qui primus in hostem – Mecum and primus belong together pointing in the form of an aposiopesis to an appropriate military term, maybe the verb invadere.5 Turnus is inviting his comrades in arms to share with him the glory of the opening attack. This will come out much more feebly by joining mecum with erit. Among more recent editions Paratore alone has a comma after erit. This is one of the not too rare cases of editores veteres meliores; among earlier editors this punctuation was not at all uncommon.6 If a sort of confirmation from Vergil himself is needed, then lines 146f. could be quoted: sed vos, o lecti, ferro qui scindere vallum / apparat et mecum invadit trepidantia castra? [PS: The situation has become somewhat better after 1998: Above all Conte’s Teubneriana (2009) and the Alma Mater project (Rivero et al. 2011) seem to promise permanence for a more satisfactory future text in this locus, although Dingel seems to prefer Mynors’ text here and Goold has not corrected his predecessor Rushton Fairclough.]

A. 9. 791 Cybele’s eternal fame Where a ‘but’ is ill-placed

Studying the Ninth Book anew in the summer of 1995 I became much in debt to Philip Hardie’s sober analysis and probing approach, for example as concerns the below case: Quis deus, o Musae, tam saeva incendia Teucris avertit? tantos ratibus quis depulit ignis? Dicite: prisca fides facto, sed fama perennis.

77 78 79

The last proud uttering from Turnus’ mouth is rendered sensibly (by David West) as: “The tale was told in times long past but the fame of it will live for ever”. The comment of R.D. Williams ad loc.2 is not fit to arouse doubts: “the story is such that only in olden times could it be accepted literally, but in Virgil’s time its value lives on in a symbolic or mythological way”. However, suspicion has been voiced by Hardie, who rightly points to the positive notion of priscus (“old and venerable”) whereby sed is problematic. Only et will preserve and balance the two positive notions prisca and perennis. Hardie cites two emendations: factast et for facto sed,3 but himself prefers Kenney’s (oral, epistolary?) suggestion factost et as “paleographically neater”. The same words were in fact suggested already by A. Weidner.4 But these two conjectural attempts have the drawback of spoiling the neat ellipsis which one would expect a priori in an aphoristic statement like the present one.5 My own suggestion is therefore: prisca fides factis et fama perennis. Palaeographically this text will account well for sed (in M even written set in the late Latin manner). Two possible explanations have struck me: (1) Factis may have got the marginal or supralinear comment facto to show that factis was a poetic plural. (2) Once the s- was severed from factis the resultant genitive facti – in itself quite acceptable – was changed into the more exquisite and Vergilian dative facto.6

A. 9. 85–61 A questionable deletion The forest of Mount Ida differentiated

I should like to have the contested passage presented like this: Pinea silva mihi multos dilecta per annos: lucus in arce fuit summa, quo sacra ferebant, nigranti picea trabibusque obscurus acernis. Has ego Dardanio iuveni, cum classis egeret, laeta dedi; . . . 

85

Lines 85 and 86 look like alternative versions. A usual expedient has been to delete 85.2 This is not to be ruled out. Hardie, who tentatively considers the passage to be a tibicen, takes, with others, lucus as an apposition to silva. This would admittedly substantiate his claim that the passage is left without the care of the poet’s ultima manus. In my view more could be said in defence of line 85 as it is. In the first place I am not unsympathetic to the idea that it should be read with a comma after mihi. This is supported by the penthemimeres and makes mihi a possessive dative with est to be understood; with the strong mihi we need no dat. agentis with the participle dilecta. This interpretation is quite common, cf. e.g. Whiteley: ‘there is to me (= I have) a forest pine, beloved for many years’. With a view to the context that is to say: The silva was Cybele’s whole domain of which only a part, the lucus, was affected by the shipbuilding activities of the Aeneadae. However, the easiest way is to skip a comma and take mihi with dilecta (sc. est). In any case, I see no reason3 why the rest should not be interpreted along the following lines: There was a (special) grove on the mountain top – the more restricted concept – which was particularly sacred because of the rituals going on there.4 This was the lucus that yielded the timber needed for building the ships of the Trojans. What normally would have been a serious sacrilege had the approval and blessing of the goddess. She was happy indeed to give Aeneas all he needed for his fleet (88f.). On the other hand, if one chooses to bracket 85, the deletion would leave a void with consequences to be felt for our appraisal of the whole passage. Left on its own, lucus in arce fuit summa, quo sacra ferebant seems to lack the necessary focus on Cybele. We would have to guess that the offerings were meant for

290  Aeneis IX–XII her. We would of course be able to infer so coming to has ego . . . dedi (88f.), but pinea silva mihi, multos dilecta per annos adds a strong personal involvement right from the beginning of her address to Jupiter and serves admirably to motivate her care and responsibility for the Trojans and for the fate of their ships.

A. 9. 911 Cybele’s concern for the Trojan fleet A postponed neu emphasizing

Solve metus atque hoc precibus sine posse parentem ne cursu quassatae ullo neu turbine venti vincantur: . . . 

90

Hardie correctly points to “the distribution of quassatae . . . over the two clauses”. But we should also put a comma after quassatae. To join ullo with cursu seems on reflection feeble (Whiteley “by any voyage”): ullo should instead go with turbine venti. Though not counted in by Norden among his examples of inverted particles2 it can plead Marx’s ‘Stellungsregel’ on its side. This ‘rule’, however, should be regarded as nothing more than a favoured rhythm, as is generally recognized.3 With our line one can compare G. 4. 48 ure foco cancros, altae neu crede paludi; A. 8. 582 complexu teneo, gravior neu nuntius auris. Notable is also the rhythm with the elision at the third-foot caesura.4 It is not as remarkable as at A. 3. 652 with its complete syntactical break: hanc primum ad litora classem / conspexi venientem. Huic me, quaecumque fuisset, / addixi, but nevertheless its effectiveness in describing the shattering effect of sea and storm on the ships is easily felt. When ullo is taken with turbine this effect comes even clearer to the fore.

A. 9. 1301 Jupiter at war with the Trojans To understand Turnus’ sneer M is preferred

Troianos haec monstra petunt, his Iuppiter ipse auxilium solitum eripuit: non tela neque ignes exspectant Rutulos. ergo maria inuia Teucris, nec spes ulla fugae.

130

130 expectant P: exspectans M (corr. M2), Ribbeck, expectas b, expectat Peerlkamp (after Geymonat) It is the Trojans that these portents are directed against; Jupiter himself has bereft them of their usual help; they do not await Rutulian sword and fire. So the seas are pathless for the Teucrians, and they have no hope of flight. (Goold)

His is often taken to refer to the ships. This is to say that Turnus draws the conclusion from the metamorphosis of the ships that henceforth the fleet of Aeneas has no longer any possibility of escape, that in fact Jupiter himself has bereaved them of that possibility. This is logically puzzling. How could Jupiter be said to have taken away from (eripuit) the ships the usual help (auxilium solitum) by having them transformed into sea nymphs? It would have been more reasonable to say that he gave them help, i.e. allowed them to escape from fire and destruction. Could it then be that the interpretation of the supernatural event offered by Turnus is deviously callous and motivated by tactical considerations? But can even he allow himself to be at odds with the simplest of inferences? According to Hardie it gives a more effective anaphora if we understand his (128) as monstris. This may be doubted. Stricto sensu anaphora is a repetition of the same word in initial position. Nevertheless there is rhetorical effectiveness involved in the word order. From that point of view the only natural way to take his is to refer it to the first word of the previous sentence, Troianos. But the crucial factor at stake is meaning, which is decidedly in favour of his being understood as Troianis. Even more problematic is the next clause non tela neque ignis / exspectant Rutulos. “The subject of exspectant is best taken as the ‘ships’ (turning the uncanny animation of the ships into a joke), rather than ‘the Trojans’; T[urnus]s’

A. 9. 130 Jupiter at war with the Trojans  293 men, their eyes riveted on the metamorphosed ships, would naturally understand it so” (Hardie). As to the improbability of the Trojans being the subject of exspectant I can heartily agree with Hardie. One need only to quote Page’s defence to see how feeble and unnatural the interpretation of such an exspectant must be: “‘They do not wait for the sword and fire of the Rutuli’. Heaven has already destroyed their fleet for them so that they will not have to wait to see it destroyed by us.” This is far-fetched at best and the meaning accorded to exspectare is not the one we would naturally assume. The plain meaning of the clause would then be exactly the opposite of truth: What the Trojans are expecting is a direct attack on the camp. This has been the situation for them since line 46 (armatique cavis expectant turribus hostem). As to Hardie’s own interpretation, the problem is to have the ships as subject at all in these lines. Perret (p. 178, n. 130) tries without much success to extract naves Troianae from Troianos (128). But haec monstra is hardly concrete in its reference, and anyway monstra cannot just simply be substituted by nymphae. The easiest way is to take haec monstra as a poetic plural pointing to the prodigy of the metamorphosis (cf. line 120). So I conclude that so far there has been only one agens in the passage to reckon with, Jupiter: It is Jupiter himself who, according to Turnus, has taken away from the Trojans the help which they had relied on when they fled from their homeland. When the highest god himself is involved one (i.e. Turnus’ men) expects him to express his will and intention by his dramatic and marvellous intervention and that in a way favourable to the Rutulians. And what would be a better interpretation of the omen than to say that the enemy was suddenly prevented from getting away and saving themselves by flight and escape? The implicit thought is that as a consequence the enemy would be securely locked up in their camp as an easy prey for the attackers. And so the only logical sequel, as far as Jupiter is concerned, is that the highest god did not wait for Turnus and his men to set fire to the fleet. In Turnus’ eyes Jupiter’s intervention was totally unnecessary, of course. According to his version of the Gott mit uns argument Jupiter has anticipated Turnus in leaving the Trojans no option but to stay and have their due. To achieve this sense two easy expedients are at hand, either to change exspectant into exspectat suggested by Peerlkamp (but not adopted in his text, let alone by any later editor) or – perhaps better – to follow the first hand of M and adopt exspectans with Ribbeck who is followed by Williams among recent editors. Ergo: Troianos haec monstra petunt, his Iuppiter ipse auxilium solitum eripuit non tela neque ignes exspectans Rutulos. Ergo maria inuia Teucris nec spes ulla fugae.

130

[At the time this was written Dingel (1997) maintained that only the word naves, implicit in auxilium solitum, could be the subject of exspectant. He considers

294  Aeneis IX–XII expectant as an unnecessary conjecture at best without acknowledging the need for another subject than the naves. – Conte in his Teubneriana accepts exspectant quoting Servius’ comment: “non exspectant Troiani ut Rutulorum telis aut ignibus pereant, qui iam nauium amissione perierunt”, an interpretation not likely to be grasped by Turnus’ comrades in the prevailing situation.]

A. 9. 140–2 Misogyny sub iudice To acquit the form perosos a comma (141) has to go

Later in the same speech Turnus has a racist sneer at the Trojans for yet again abducting other men’s spouses and therefore deservedly facing total annihilation: “sed periisse semel satis est”: peccare fuisset ante satis, penitus modo non genus omne perosos femineum.

140

When I dealt with these lines in my 1998 article1 I was right, as I still believe, in rejecting the comma after satis in line 141. I might even have used stronger words of disapproval: this comma is a (luckily rare) instance of a misleading comma in the text of Vergil by severing what needs to be understood as a syntactical unity owing to the long span between the emphatic infinitive peccare and the participle at the end of 141. Goold (2000), Geymonat (2008) and Conte (2009) repeated the comma whereas the Spanish editors seem to have honoured my objection to it. Another usual comment which I objected to was regarding perosos as being loosely attached to the sentence and indicating an action subsequent to that of peccare (see Hardie). Dingel finds this (1997, 89) all the more conceivable as it is due to the hypothetical nature of the idea (and the long space between peccare and perosus). My simple objection to this was (1998, 100, n. 24 in fine), and is today, that perosus is virtually a present participle indicating an abiding characteristic of the Trojans. One need only compare Vergil’s only other example of it at 6. 435: lucemque perosi proiecere animas (“loathing the light of day they threw/ have thrown away their lives”) or Ov. Met. 11. 146 ille perosus opes silvas et rura colebat. Accordingly genus omne perosus femineum would mean “hating strongly all womankind” irrespective of the tense and modus of the sentence; such hate is neither before or after, it is simultaneous encompassing the time where the peccatio takes place. My case for acquiescing in the accusative plural perosos was, however, not equally obvious: “There is so far no reason to doubt perosos”, I wrote without going deeper into the matter. In the footnote I pointed to the manuscript evidence which seemed quite convincing: “The accusative pl. perosos (or perossos) is in all the principal witnesses (FMPR), so it should at least have a fair trial before

296  Aeneis IX–XII being replaced”. For one thing, the consensus codicum is less impressive than I then cared to notice: As to M, Conte notes “in –us corr. alio atramento M2. It was obviously no individual conjecture by the manuscript’s owner: perosus is also found in Fcrg and Charisius 211, 5 which is corrected by a number of Carolingian manuscripts to perosum which is found also in Porphyrio on Hor. Carm. 1. 21. 3. Perosum, although defensible per se as a singular of perosus, can safely be discarded. The ancient evidence points strongly to a form ending in –s. Then there is only one candidate alongside perosos, namely perosis which, according to Hardie, was the form expected by Fordyce. Let us in our attempt at a “fair trial” have a look at the construction in Latin after sat(is) est. The transmitted text makes perosos the subject in an acc. c. inf.; the construction seems less usual. OLD s.v. records, Quint. 5. 13. 2: proponitur [sc. accusatio] . . . uno modo . . . cum accusatori satis sit plerumque verum esse id, quod obiecerit . . . (“A charge is put forward in one way only in so much it is for the most part enough for the accuser that his accusation (id quod obiecerit) is true”). This is the only example from the fairly rich documentation of a similar satis est construction in the pre-Christian era as shown by OLD: it has an accompanying dative that informs us to whom the case in point was sufficient and valid. The difference between this example and our case at 9. 140–1 should be carefully noted: the subject of the infinitive is in our case those hating the womankind whereas in the Quintilian example it is the truth of the accusation. The difference is of some importance for the interpretation. If we want to come closer to Vergil’s way of expressing himself we should first and foremost look at his examples of sat(is) est, a fairly common construction in his poems. It occurs four times in the Bucolics: two of which are comparable to 9. 140f.: (7. 34f.) Sinum lactis et haec te liba, Priape, quotannis / exspectare sat est (“It is enough that you expect a bowl of milk and these cakes, Priapus, each year”) and 10. 70: Haec sat erit, divae, vestrum cecinisse poetam, dum sedet et gracili fiscellam texit hibisco, Pierides (“It will suffice that your poet has sung about these things, you goddesses etc.”). In neither case is there a dative, but in the latter case you may easily find that the Pierian Muses are content, in the first that Thyrsis is the one who found these offerings sufficient for his garden god. In all the other cases sat(is) est is followed by an infinitive. At Ecl. 6. 24 (as we have restored the line) satis est potuisse viere; see further A. 3. 653; 6. 487; 5. 786. Nowhere does Vergil state to whom, that is a dative, the infinitive is sufficient. We should therefore refrain from changing perosos to perosis. The difference between the two possible constructions should be observed. So satis est perosos genus femineum peccare (semel) is: “It is enough that a single sexual misdemeanour suffice for a misogynist people”; perosis would anyway suggest that this people is the right instance to judge in the matter and correct their behaviour. This cannot be the point of Turnus, however. He is appealing to what he believes to be a general (albeit vulgar) opinion prevalent on Italian soil. Perosos is a substantivated adjective.

A. 9. 140–2 Misogyny sub iudice  297 We can now take a look at the passage as a whole: nil me fatalia terrent, si qua Phryges prae se iactant responsa deorum; sat fatis Venerique datum, tetigere quod arva fertilis Ausoniae Troes.

135

Part of Turnus’ rude and contemptuous scorn is in the sexual sphere, for instance by the double meaning of tetigere . . . arva (cf. OLD s.v. tango 4.b. and s.v. arvum 1.b.). Then: Sunt et mea contra fata mihi: ferro sceleratam exscindere gentem coniuge praerepta; nec solos tangit Atridas iste dolor solisque licet capere arma Mycenis. “sed periisse semel satis est”. Peccare fuisset ante satis, penitus modo non genus omne perosos femineum.

140

Turnus seems to quote “sed periisse semel satis” as a possible rejoinder, but he seems rather to make it up on the spur of the moment or on the basis of a truism that may have been a saying. Of course no individual can die twice. On the individual level it is an adynaton. Applied to a people it has of course no force as an argument. Turnus relishes in rhetoric of a perverse kind. He is right in so far as the error or crime is the essential thing for the penalty. Peccare ‘corrects’ periisse by changing the perspective from the death penalty (periisse) to the moral guilt of the people (peccare); ante serves to make the relation between periisse and peccare close in the past; fuisset /  . . . satis takes up again satis est. With peccare we must understand semel from periisse semel. Turnus is quenching any thought of mercy with the culprits by passing a harsh moral verdict: “It ought to have been enough to sin once in the past”. One could well have expected Turnus to say something like: ‘One culprit like Paris should have been enough, but now the Trojans have produced yet another one of the same sort who is going abroad after other men’s wives’. But Turnus is evidently more maliciously subtle than that in his invective against the Trojans. One must therefore be prepared to ask not only how the words penitus modo non genus omne perosos / femineum is construed, but what Turnus more specifically wants to insinuate. Modo non going with omne ‘practically all’, ‘all but’ (see OLD s.v. modo 1d) seems from a linguistic point of view to be clear enough.2 Penitus (OLD s.v. penitus 3 and e.g. Cic. Clu. 171 penitus oderat) strengthens perosos: “It ought to have been enough (according to our moral conceptions) if people with an intense hatred for practically the whole feminine gender had sinned once only”. Turnus’ sneer, then, is that people whom you would not expect to seduce any woman at all owing to their blatant unmanliness and hatred for the female sex (one will remember the contemptuous Phryges just before at 1343), these have done it again – believe it or not – and must be prepared to face the same consequences.

A. 9. 2151 Nisus’ request for burial Peerlkamp was on the right track

Few single words in the Aeneid have caused editors and commentators more trouble and doubt than solita found in the sort of ‘last will’ which Nisus enjoins on his friend Euryalus in the Ninth Book: Sit qui me raptum pugna pretiove redemptum mandet humo †solita† aut si qua id fortuna vetabit absenti ferat inferias decoretque sepulchro.

215

Joachim Dingel (1997, ad loc.) made the wise point that solita ought to be provided with daggers in the text. A survey of opinions seems indeed to justify the use of this rarely used marker of corruption: The latest critical and scholarly text, that of Rivero et al. (2011), is hardly nearer a solution by taking solita as an ἀπὸ κοινοῦ going both with humo and with fortuna: then the adj./p.p.p. would at the same time serve as an abl. with humo and a nom. with fortuna. This would be an unprecedented ἀπὸ κοινοῦ in our poet2 quite apart from the prosodical dilemma a reciter would meet trying to realize this double quantity in his reading. Moreover, it is improbable that humo solitā could be = in humo solita in Vergil. An epithet to go with humo would have to be solitae as Vergil construes mandare alqm/alqd with the dative. Cf. A. 11. 22f. corpora terrae / mandemus. Humo solita, then, is more than dubious.3 Like solitā/solită solida, Heinsius’ conjecture, must also be rejected, be it as ablative or as nominative, nor is there anything to recommend its meaning. Conte (2009), making a pause after humo with a comma, is in favour of solita . . . fortuna4 and endorses Servius’ comment on fortuna as invida or iniqua: i.e. showing her usual attitude towards pious and brave men.5 But invidious and deceitful as fortuna may well seem at times towards deserving men and great enterprises, I fail to see how the quasi-personified nature of fortuna could be of any significance for the concerns of Nisus. In addition, solita quă . . . fortuna seems a strange combination in the sense given to it by Conte. Finally, L.A. MacKay (1938) took solita ingeniously as n. pl. meaning ‘usual rites’ by deleting id6 and thereby changing quă to quā (‘in any way’).7 But this expedient creates an amphibology if not an enigma, as nobody, when reading or listening, would think of solita as a noun in its own right, and not as the feminine epithet. Nevertheless MacKay has been influential and made Goold adopt

A. 9. 215 Nisus’ request for burial  299 his deletion of id8 (but not his interpretation of solita). Instead Goold combined MacKay’s deletion with still another conjecture, J.E. Powell’s aut solitas (1934) to go with inferias. Powell’s idea got a sort of first approval from Housman, but had already been anticipated in the form of a warning by Philip Wagner (1833, vol. III, p. 331), and rightly so: “Neque erit, quod quis poetam scripsisse opinetur: Mandet humo; a u t s o l i t a s, si q. i. F. v. A. f. inferias”.9 Powell’s proposal implied changed word order, a strong elision (-o aut)10 and a wide hyperbaton without any obvious emphasizing effect as far as I can see. Instead of solita aut Peerlkamp (1843) suggested aut saltem. James Henry, Aeneidea (1889, vol. III, p. 835) had obviously read his note attentively for he makes one of Peerlkamp’s parallels, Apul. Met. 1. 13,11 the basis for his own ‘improvement’, mandet humo saltem, in order to escape the transposition of aut and understand it as *sit saltem qui mandet humo. However, there is no reason for according more attention to Henry’s proposal than to Peerlkamp’s. Peerlkamp was on the right track, nonetheless. One should bear in mind the proper function of saltem: it implies a ‘gradatio a maiore ad minus’ (Krebs, Antibarbarus s.v.). In the full form the better alternative is explicitly mentioned, cf. (1), (2), (3) below, whereas the less desirable (but sometimes more realistic) alternative gets the emphasis in the context. Often the best alternative is left unmentioned and even the inferior alternative may be unattainable (6). Some typical instances can pave the way for the correct text in our lines: the preferable thing is put forward (viz. sit qui . . . mandet humo), but if this cannot be achieved for some reason or other (qua . . . fortuna), one should at least wish for the second best (and always possible) option (qui . . . absenti ferat inferias decoretque sepulcro). Cf. e.g. (1) Cic. Fam. 9. 8. 2: si non bono, at saltem certo statu civitatis; (2) Cic. Att. 9. 6. 5 eripe hunc mihi dolorem aut minue saltem; (3) Ter. Eu. 640 si illud non licet, saltem hoc licebit; (4) Caes. Civ. 1. 6. 2 Praeterea cognitum compertumque sibi, alieno esse animo in Caesarem milites neque iis posse persuaderi, uti eum defendant aut sequantur saltem (“or even to follow him”); (5) Cic. S. Rosc. 54 Vere nihil potes dicere; finge aliquid saltem commode, ut ne plane videaris id facere, quod aperte facis; (6) Cic. Fam. 12. 23. 3 Atque antehac quidem sperare saltem licebat; nunc etiam id ereptum est. Compare in particular this parallel to my solution: Saltem si qua mihi de te suscepta fuisset ante fugam suboles, si quis mihi parvulus aula luderet Aeneas, qui te tamen ore referret, non equidem omnino capta ac deserta viderer. Instead of a jussive subjunctive here is a hypothetical one. What Nisus wishes for himself if he should be killed amidst the enemies, is primarily that his corpse should be rescued from the battlefield or that it should be ransomed so that it can be properly buried by his own people. In case some (bad) luck should prevent this, however, he wishes at least (saltem aut with inverted aut!) to get the inferiae due to an absent corpse, and a cenotaphium.

300  Aeneis IX–XII Peerlkamp wrote (vol. II, p. 171): “Transpone aut, et pro SOLITA lege SALTEM, ac fortasse rem pro restituta accipies. Sit qui me raptum ex pugna, pretiove redemtum Mandet humo; aut saltem, si qua id Fortuna vetabit, Absenti ferat inferias.” Peerlkamp’s only mistakes were the unnecessary transposition of aut and writing fortuna with a capital F. Linguistically, examples (2) and (4) above confirm his interpretation. So this is my text (emphasizing saltem’s function to highlight absenti): Sit qui me raptum pugna pretiove redemptum mandet humo, saltem aut, si qua id fortuna vetabit, absenti ferat inferias decoretque sepulcro. It should be observed that the implicit euphemistic meaning of qua fortuna comes better to the fore with saltem aut: It may indeed happen that Euryalus will be killed as well. Then somebody else than Euryalus has to be the qui to care for the alternative. We are soon to witness the pathetic outcome of it all for both friends (424–45) and the gruesome return fate will have in store for them (465ff.).

A. 9. 2431 In defence of a future simple It is indeed an issue according to ms. evidence

Tum sic Hyrtacides: ‘audite o mentibus aequis Aeneadae, neve haec nostris spectentur ab annis quae ferimus. Rutuli somno vinoque soluti conticuere. locum insidiis conspeximus ipsi, qui patet in bivio portae2 quae proxima ponto. interrupti ignes aterque ad sidera fumus erigitur. si fortuna permittitis uti quaesitum Aenean et moenia Pallantea, mox hic cum spoliis ingenti caede peracta adfore cernetis. nec nos via fallit euntis: vidimus obscuris primam sub vallibus urbem venatu adsiduo et totum cognovimus amnem.’

235

240

245

243 fallit PR: fallet M

Hardie cites Page’s translation of nec nos via fallit euntis as “nor is the way we go unknown to us”, but without mentioning Page’s slight dissatisfaction with the present (“the fut. would seem more natural”). But as I have tried to show elsewhere3 the two-(or three-)against-one-count when facing the evidence of (F) MPR is a very doubtful criterion in Vergilian criticism, not least in the case of the endings –it and –et in verbs. In our case Nisus is clearly voicing an optimistic prediction based on some special experience of theirs: By assiduous hunting they have become familiar with the whole of the Tiber valley up to Pallanteum (244f.). My own preference for the future fallet is shared by a fair number of editors in the 20th century (e.g. Sidgwick 1901,4 Ladewig . . . Deuticke 1904, Plessis-Lejay 1913, Fairclough–Goold 1916/2000), among the more recent ones Williams (1973) has also adopted it. [Revising my old articles I should now like to point to the parallelism in tense of: adfore cernetis and fallet euntes: adfore cernetis corresponds to aderimus whereas fallet euntes corresponds to ibimus, the former pointing to a future further ahead than ibimus. One should take care not to be misled by the present participle euntes

302  Aeneis IX–XII which in any case, be it fallit or fallet, will reflect the main verb’s tense as a matter of course whereas the infinitive adfore is a future in relation to the future of the main verb cernetis.]

A. 9. 3631 A spurious line? A definite stand may be close on duty

Euryalus phaleras Rhamnetis et aurea bullis cingula, Tiburti Remulo ditissimus olim quae mittit dona, hospitio cum iungeret absens, Caedicus; ille suo moriens dat habere nepoti; post mortem bello Rutuli pugnaque potiti: haec rapit atque umeris nequiquam fortibus aptat. Tum galeam Messapi habilem cristisque decoram induit. Excedunt castris et tuta capessunt.

360

365

Euryalus snatches the medallions of Rhamnes and his gold-studded belt, items that long ago wealthy Caedicus sends to Remulus of Tibur as gifts, when far away he formed a guest-friendship with him; he when dying passes them to his grandson to be his property; after his death the Rutulians captured them in war and battle. These things he tears away and fits them to his brave shoulders – but to no avail. Then he puts on the helmet of Messapus shapely and beautiful with its plumes. They leave the camp and make for safety.

The most controversial issue in these lines concerns the authenticity of 363 post mortem bello Rutuli pugnaque potiti.2 To heroic poetry belong by right of tradition accounts of the ownership of special objects. The closest parallel in Homer is presumably the description of the special helmet with boar’s tusks given to Odysseus in the Doloneia (Il. 10. 261ff.).3 It has a long history of different owners (266–70): Autolycus (b) had first taken it by force from Amyntor (a), the king of Eleon; Autolycus had then given it as a gift to Amphidamas (c) who in turn gave it to his guest Molus (d). And Molus had again bequeathed it to his son Meriones (e) who is presenting Odysseus (f) with it in the epic situation. It had accordingly been through five pairs of hands before it had at last passed to Odysseus. The history delineated in Vergil is clear enough up to a certain point: The phalerae and cingula of Rhamnes had once belonged to one Caedicus (a) who had sent them as a gift to a guest friend Remulus (b) at Tibur (corresponding to the ξειvήïov given to Molus in the Iliad). Then ille suo moriens dat habere nepoti can scarcely be taken otherwise than that it was Remulus who, on his deathbed, gave them to his nepos, his grandson (c). That this last owner in the row is not

304  Aeneis IX–XII mentioned by name is uncommon. However, if the nepos was none other than Rhamnes, then the account has been brought to its close in the normal manner. For one thing: Why did not Remulus give the objects to his son, as Molus did? Vergil not only shortens his model, but evidently also prefers to make variations on the gift’s pedigree in order not to repeat Homer in the more obvious and expected way.4 In fact we do not get to know why Remulus bequeathed his accoutrement directly to his grandson. If Vergil had a tradition for it, his most learned readers would have known. If there was no such tradition – or (amounting almost to the same) if most readers would have been ignorant – good reasons for jumping a generation are not difficult to see: the most simple one would have been that he did not have a son, but a daughter who had married the father of Rhamnes, evidently a Rutulian of some standing and importance. If this is a valid interpretation of lines 359–62 in the eyes of a contemporary reader, then the following line post mortem bello Rutuli pugnaque (or praedaque) potiti would be an interpolation. The reasoning above is hardly sufficient for deletion of the line. The line is not least highly suspicious in itself, however. Whoever composed it for the place it got in MPRV seems with post mortem to have referred to ille . . . moriens in the previous line.5 If so, it is inept even for an interpolator. Why repeat the obvious? But he may have meant post mortem nepotis, but this is inept as well: When somebody gets hold of the enemy’s weapons in battle, it goes without saying that the owner has been killed in that battle. And finally, to understand it as post mortem Nisi et Euryali would be a rather insensitive foreshadowing and out of tune with the tradition of such passages. In addition to these arguments, one may take exception to the combination bello . . . pugnaque. Nowhere else in Vergil will we find these common words in such proximity to each other, let alone so inelegantly and superfluously linked together.6 One may also well wonder why Vergil should have wanted to focus on a more or less recent enmity between the men of Ardea (the Rutuli) and those of Tibur in a context where they are seen as close allies. Admittedly Turnus is an exception in that he has war experience in a Latium that had for a long time been enjoying peace. Vergil had, however, depicted him as a protector of king Latinus and as guarding the safety of the country (7. 423 and 426; 8. 55). One may also ask: How would Rhamnes have acquired these objects? Had he (like Autolycus) been able to win them on the battlefield? Or had they become his own as a privilege of the commander-in-chief? These are idle questions. An argument in favour of deletion is also to be gleaned from the imitation of Homer (Il. 10. 266–70). Compared with Homer’s lines Vergil’s description of the objects’ pedigree is marked by variation and economy: Euryalus took them as a war booty from Rhamnes who, in my interpretation, had got them from his grandfather Remulus as his heritage. Remulus had obtained them as a gift in forming guest-friendship with Caedicus. These three forms of change in ownership are found in Homer as well: booty (266f.), gift (three times 260; 268f.), heritage (269). If we include line 363 in Vergil’s account we will have another instance of war booty, the one and only ‘repetition’ in the mode of acquirement.

A. 9. 363 A spurious line?  305 The reason why line 363 was interpolated is not far to seek. The fact that the nepos of Remulus is unnamed may early have been regarded as a quaestio.7 One would have thought that the nepos was, like his father, from Tibur. And one would then have liked to know how it was that these objects came to be carried by a Rutulian and a close ally of the warlike Turnus at that. The answer is logical enough: he must have captured the items during a campaign. The interpolator did not go far for his ‘inspiration’: compare line 450 Victores praeda Rutuli spoliisque potiti where Rutuli and potiti are found in the same position in the verse. Wagner’s and Ribbeck’s deletion has not convinced modern editors to follow suit.8 Among older editors Hirtzel9 had brackets which were removed by his Oxford successor Mynors with no trace of suspicion left in the apparatus.10 [PS: I have not much to add looking back at what I wrote in 1998 except the observation that the removal of line 363 from the text makes us see more clearly the illustrative effect of Vergil’s syntactical structure. I prefer to give the lines a typographical form emphasizing their unity: Euryalus phaleras Rhamnetis et aurea bullis cingula – Tiburti Remulo ditissimus olim quae mittit dona, hospitio cum iungeret absens, Caedicus; ille suo moriens dat habere nepoti – haec rapit atque umeris nequiquam fortibus aptat.

359 360 361 362 364

Just after the warning coming from Nisus lines 359–64 show how Euryalus fails to heed his friend’s advice. His blindness is suggested by juxtaposing Euryalus and the desirable objects that obviously have fascinated him. The verb governing phaleras and cingula does not follow before rapit after the slightly anacoluthic and recapitulating haec.]

A. 9. 390–21 Where to put a question mark A final decision is yet to be reached

Nisus abit; iamque imprudens euaserat hostis atque locos qui post Albae de nomine dicti Albani (tum rex stabula alta Latinus habebat), ut stetit et frustra absentem respexit amicum: “Euryale infelix, qua te regione reliqui? quave sequar?” rursus perplexum iter omne reuoluens fallacis siluae simul et uestigia retro obseruata legit dumisque silentibus errat. audit equos, audit strepitus et signa sequentum;

390

Modern editors are by and large in favour of letting the exclamation of Nisus end with sequar at 391: Mynors (following Hirtzel), Geymonat, Williams, Perret, Paratore, Conte.2 I think their decision is wrong. With this sentence structure what follows becomes almost as perplexing as Nisus’ path. Hardie admits the difficulty and mentions Peerlkamp’s conjecture revolvit as tempting, but this is a cure for the symptoms, not for the disease. Grammar may be well enough cared for, but the impression of an overlong sentence, below the usual standard of Vergilian word economy, persists. The character and length of Nisus’ sigh (rather than exclamation) may also be put in the scales. The length of his utterings has consequences for the sympathy we are able to muster for him. His invocation of Euryalus has all the pathos required (Euryale infelix), but the rest sounds more like the questions of a boy scout, that is if we choose to end the quotation with sequar. However, if we add rursus perplexum iter omne reuoluens fallacis siluae to his growing despair the result is remarkable. The adjectives become a pathetic part of Nisus’ assessment of his obligation and task there and then. We are able to feel his despondency at tracing again the entire route he has fled through the dark forest.3 Editors who have taken this line of interpretation in the last hundred years are e.g. Page, Sidgwick, Wainwright, Janell, Mackail, Fairclough, Goelzer, Sabbadini, Sabbadini–Castiglioni, Götte–Bayer, Goold (2000), Rivero et al. The strongest argument in favour of this division between Nisus’ words and the poet’s is the repetitive character of the poet’s words if we let Nisus’ part end with sequar.

A. 9. 390–2 Where to put a question mark  307 Retro . . . iter . . . revolvens would duplicate what is said vestigia retro observata legit. If we include, however, rursus perplexum iter omne revolvens / fallacis sequar it is a convincing part of his bewildered orientation, revolvens being (pace Dingel) perfectly suited as an explanatory extension of the dubitative subjunctive in sequar. The discussion should not end here, and I venture to put forward a couple of suggestions for future editors to ponder on. The problem of the length of Nisus’ exclamation is closely connected with the text problems that follow. As to simul et (392), et causes some embarrassment among commentators.4 It would admittedly have been easier if simul had stood alone. Then we could have compared it e.g. with 9. 560f. ”nostrasne evadere, demens, / sperasti te posse manus?” simul arripit ipsum etc. There are three other instances of simul et in Vergil, all in combination of subjects.5 An easy way would in our case be to take simul et as an inverted et simul = ‘and at the same time’.6 Due to the lack of parallels in Vergil I find this solution artificial. Another line of interpretation is also possible, perhaps recommendable and should at least be mentioned, i.e. to take simul as a temporal conjunction. One is tempted to compare a passage in the Fifth Book where the punctuation and discussion of Williams have been clarifying (315–19): Haec ubi dicta, locum capiunt signoque repente corripiunt spatia audito limenque relinquunt, effusi nimbo similes. simul ultima signant primus abit longeque ante omnia corpora Nisus emicat Earlier it was usual to put a full stop after signant. The changed sentence structure, preferably with a comma after signant, has brought a clear structure back to the foot-race: “as soon as they came in sight of the finish Nisus went away in front”. Although this punctuation was accepted by Mynors, Perret, Goold and Rivero et al. there will hardly be universal consent for some time, as Paratore, Geymonat and Conte are still in favour of a full stop after signant. On this basis I am in favour of taking simul and et together as a temporal conjunction = simul ac. Simul et (perhaps better written simulet) can safely be recognized in Vergil’s time as a variant of simul ac.7 There are four instances found in Cicero: Fin. 2. 33: Omne enim animal, simulet ortum est, et se ipsum et omnes partes suas diligit (cf. 5. 24); Att. 2. 20. 2: Simulet quid erit certi, scribam ad te; Att. 10. 4. 12: Ego ad te [statim] habebo quo scribam simulet videro Curionem. Applied to our case in the Ninth Book simulet as a temporal conjunction would result in a comma after errat (393) and a translation like this: “And as soon as he observes and retraces his steps and wanders through the silent thickets he hears horses, hears shouts and signals from the pursuers”. This would give the repeated audit (394) an instantaneous force.

308  Aeneis IX–XII This is the way I would prefer the passage printed: Nisus abit; iamque imprudens evaserat hostis atque locos, qui post Albae de nomine dicti Albani (tum rex stabula alta Latinus habebat), ut stetit et frustra absentem respexit amicum: “Euryale infelix, qua te regione reliqui quave sequar rursus perplexum iter omne reuoluens fallacis silvae?” Simulet vestigia retro observata legit dumisque silentibus errat, audit equos, audit strepitus et signa sequentum;

390

A. 9. 402–31 Nisus praying to Luna With the author’s late recognition of Ribbeck’s brilliance

These two lines are perhaps the two most Protean lines in the Ninth Book. The Teubner edition of Conte is the best possible introduction to them provided that we look carefully at the critical apparatus going with them: ocius adducto torquens hastile lacerto suspiciens altam et Lunam, sic uoce precatur: 402 torquens codd., Non. 246, 28, Tib.: torquet Wagner cl. Aen. 1. 308 403 altam et lunam Ribbeck (de et tertia sede posito cf. Aen. 12. 381): altam ad lunam et Rj: altam lunam et MPVωγ, Asper ap. schol. Ver.(ut uid.), Tib., Prisc. 16, 16: et del. ed. Veneta an. 1470 The use of an asyndetic doubling of present participle in the above text (torquens . . . / suspiciens) arouses one’s suspicion immediately. Hardie,2 as well as Goold and Mynors, following the suggestion of Ribbeck 1862,3 got rid of this problem by writing: ocius adducto torquet hastile lacerto / suspiciens altam Lunam et sic uoce precatur. However, those finding it too hazardous to introduce the lengthening of the brevis (-quĕt) before the caesura would, deleting et, consider suspiciensque instead, which, albeit being a conjecture, seems to be a much ‘easier’ solution than Ribbeck’s torquet.4 Moreover, this would at any rate be an easier alternative than accepting et postponed to the third place (suspiciens altam et Lunam), an expedient that cannot be justified by pointing to the postponement of et at 12. 381 (referred to above in the app. crit.): . . . Turnus . . . / imam inter galeam summi thoracis et oras / abstulit ense caput; here there is an inversion of et pointing to an emphasized contrast between imam and summi.5 The text I will defend here is the very text of Mynors6 based as it is on Ribbeck’s proposal torquet at 402, but rejecting his transposition of et at 403, in my view an unacceptable encroachment on the text: Ocius adducto torquet hastile lacerto suspiciens altam Lunam et sic uoce precatur:

402 403

If et sic voce precatur is accepted (with RMPV and the rest of the witnesses) then torquēt seems all but unavoidable. Then the only, but nonetheless crucial,

310  Aeneis IX–XII remaining question is this: What is the excuse Vergil (alias Ribbeck) had for using a metrical lengthening in arsi here? Is it a rather audacious prosodic expedient as one might assume? It would be too rash to reject Ribbeck’s conjecture because he introduces with his finite form a so-called ‘irrational’ metrical licence. The phenomenon is not so uncommon in Vergil.7 The parallel usually adduced, i.e. A. 1. 308 qui teneant – nam inculta videt –, hominesne feraene, / quaerere constituit, is of the most ‘regular’ kind, so to speak: it marks a pause with the end of a parenthetical sentence; it may at the same time be seen as rooted (like the examples in –ōr and –āt)8 in archaic Latin prosody as shown by Plautus and apparently often exploited by Ennius (cf. his tenēt at Ann. 159 Sk). It might also, on a more learned or informal level, be seen as imitating Homeric and Alexandrian poetic practice. As Austin and Fordyce (who offers a condensed note in his commentary on 7. 174) point out, there are more than 50 examples of metrical lengthening in Vergil’s works. At the same time these commentators remind us that at least half the number of the examples seem to have no special motivation (either to mark a pause or reflect archaic prosody). The illustrative effect of such lengthenings in Vergil have not been much discussed, however. In our (hypothetical) case such an effect will be pretty obvious. It has to do with an ambiguity implicit in torquere: it means to ‘spin’, ‘make rotate on its axis’ (OLD s.v. 6), that is signifying a stationary movement, for example of a spear in a warrior’s hand. But this is not the most common meaning of the verbs intorquere and torquere. Telum / hastam torsit would naturally mean ‘he hurled his spear/javelin’ signifying a rotating flight through the air. Here both aspects are at play. A warrior’s javelin has in fact two phases: one preparatory and one having left the warrior’s hand (either hitting or missing its target). The present tense is less unequivocal than the perfect. The present marks an unfinished or continuous action whereas the perfect has the force of a finished or momentary action. This has a bearing on the verb torquere in our discussion. If Vergil had said torsit . . . et precatus (sc. est) one would have understood the spear as already hurled by the warrior and, due to the parataxis, a prayer to the goddess would have to be very short to give her a chance to influence its course. A present allows the warrior time for his prayer. The spear does not leave his hand before he has finished his six lines. Then, and then only, he finishes his throw: dixerat et toto conixus corpore ferrum / conicit (410f.). This can come as no surprise for readers and listeners able to appreciate the niceties of Vergil’s style and verse technique: the parataxis torquet and precatur tells him that the present depicts simultaneous actions, the lengthening of torquet underlines that the spear is being prepared for action and is resting in his hand (longer than usual) while he is appealing to Diana/Luna.

A. 9. 461–4 Turnus arming his ranks The author’s confidence in Wagner and M

This was the text of Mynors (1969): Iam sole infuso, iam rebus luce retectis Turnus in arma viros armis circumdatus ipse suscitat: aeratasque acies in proelia cogunt quisque suos, variisque acuunt rumoribus iras.

461

463 cogunt Wagner: cogit codd., Serv. 464 suos PRω, Serv.: suas Mdr Since 1996 I believe, however, that cogunt quisque suas is the correct reading.1 Wagner’s cogunt is undoubtedly correct, having as its reference the viri inflamed for military action by Turnus. Mynors has now the support of Courtney (1981, 15) and Hardie. But I do not share their opinion about suos. Courtney sees in suas a simplification, Hardie makes quisque suos parenthetical “each [mustering] his own men”. In my view suos is a complication of a straightforward enunciation for which parallels abound. In such cases quisque keeps its appositional nature. There is no reason to depart from normal Latin diction, which would be (never mind word order) object (or prepositional phrase) + verb (in this case plural) + quisque + a form of suus belonging to the noun. To cite here a typical instance from Livy: diversique ad suum quisque bellum proficiscuntur (10. 12. 3). Cf. further at random: illi exprobrabant sua quisque belli merita cicatrices acceptas (2. 27. 2); edixit ut omnes cives Romani . . . in suis quisque centuriis in campo Martio prima luce adessent (1. 44. 1); ut omnes in suam quisque civitatem ante kal. Novembres redirent (41. 9. 9); deinde in suas quisque civitates redierunt (29. 2. 18); Etruriae primum pro suis quisque facultatibus consulem adiuturos polliciti (28. 45. 15); et Gracchus ita permisit in publico epularentur omnes ante suas quisque fores (24. 16. 17). The onus of proof lies with those who want suos. Poetic language is admittedly capable of unexpected deviations from the normal and expected construction, but I for one cannot see that anything is gained by such a strained twist as implied by the masculine plural suos. This is the situation: Turnus awakens his officers to action. Each of them assembles his own lines. Vergil focuses on the task of officers in relation to the supreme command, namely to turn a mass of men

312  Aeneis IX–XII into an effective combat line in no time. And this is best brought out with the following text and punctuation: aeratasque acies in proelia cogunt quisque suas variisque acuunt rumoribus iras.

(1996)

[PS: cogit / quisque suas is preferred by Dingel (as by Götte among newer editors), Goold (1999) has cogunt / quisque suos whereas J.A. Estevez and L. Rivero García (Latomus 70, 2011) share my view on the pasage. Conte in his Teubneriana launches a new punctuation, however: “post acies distinxi, coniungens uiros . . . aeratasque acies” (Seruius quoque uidetur idem sensisse: “nam plenum est aeratasque acies”); ex consuetudine Vergilianae elocutionis sequitur asyndeton, ita ut appareat quanta alacritate singuli catervis paepositi mandata Turni perficiant cogit codd., Seru., Tib.: cogunt Cunningham, Wagner”. This is one of the few more conspicuous novelties in Conte’s text (cf. his Praef. p. xxix). According to Conte’s syntax Turnus at daybreak calls not only his sleeping men to arms (in arma . . . suscitat), i.e. all men fit for fight, but also “the bronze-clad lines” (aeratas acies). This punctuation will make readers ask themselves whether there were two groups of men in his camp, one unprepared for action and another in a sort of stand-by position. Conte has spoilt the point of the evolving stages which show how Turnus’ army is being transformed from a mass of sleeping individuals into an army ready to fight. It is consequently more probable that Vergil envisages the process like this: first the leader has made himself ready for action before all others (armis circumdatus ipse), then he awakes his men and urges them to arm themselves, the result of which will be viri aerati. These are next brought into line by their own officers to form (several) acies. *Turnus suscitat in arma viros aeratasque acies would, on the other hand, at best be felt as a zeugma, but hardly a lucky one in as much as it would probably at first glance be taken as “he is rousing his men and the bronze-clad lines to arms”. And, frankly, to call bronze-clad men to arms borders on nonsense. So Conte’s idea should be dropped.]

A. 9. 471 The neglected variant makes its claims P was accepted by La Cerda

The time is no doubt ripe for a wholehearted defence of the reading videbant instead of movebant at 9. 471. But let us first look at the text as presented by the great majority. The initial stage of the attack launched by Turnus on the Trojan camp is described in the following lines: Quin ipsa arrectis (visu miserabile) in hastis praefigunt capita et multo clamore sequuntur Euryali et Nisi. Aeneadae duri murorum in parte sinistra opposuere aciem (nam dextera cingitur amni) ingentisque tenent fossas et turribus altis stant maesti; simul ora virum praefixa movebant, nota nimis miseris atroque fluentia tabo.

465

470

471 movebant MRω, Tib.: videbant Pcrstvyγ On uplifted spears (piteous sight!) they affix and follow with loud clamour the heads, the very heads, of Euryalus and Nisus. On the rampart’s left side – for the right side is girded by the river – the hardy sons of Aeneas have set their opposing line, hold the broad trenches, and on the high towers stand sorrowing, moved by those uplifted heads that they know too well, now dripping with dark gore. (Goold 2000) As far as I have been able to ascertain movebant holds the field completely today and seems to have done so for the last 400 years. Rivero et al. (2011) have recorded in their apparatus criticus only Naugerius (1514) and De la Cerda (1612) as being in favour of videbant. The variant videbant is seldom mentioned by commentators, and if so, only in deprecating terms (‘weak’, ‘blank’). That is understandable as long as simul is taken as an adverb. Simul . . . videbant would hardly give any acceptable sense as a main clause; it would imply, unlikely enough, that the Aeneadae were sad for another, not nearer specified reason. On the other hand,

314  Aeneis IX–XII simul . . . movebant gives sense seen as an asyndeton explicativum: the Aeneadae were maesti as they were moved by the pitiful sight of their comrades-in-arms. Recently a new interpretation has been launched by Huyck.1 “At the same time, they (i.e. the Rutulians) were advancing the heroes’ impaled heads, known only too well to the wretched defenders and dripping with gore”, i.e. movere as a military term in analogy with movere signa (cf. OLD s.v. 5b). With all respect for the learning displayed by Huyck I consider the tacit change of subject from Aeneadae (opposuere, tenent, stant) to the Rutulians a valid argument against this latest attempt. The same shift of subject speaks also against the traditional way which seems, on the face of it, so convincingly rendered by Goold. I have come to consider movebant as a deliberate ancient attempt at correcting videbant in order to justify simul as an adverb. Pace Huyck’s brave reappraisal the ancient corrector meant his movebant to mean “moved (them, i.e. the Aeneadae) emotionally” and to provide the reason for their despondency (maesti). As soon as simul is taken as a conjunction (= simul ac), however, these problems disappear. This simul is so used: Ecl. 4. 26 At simul heroum laudes et facta parentis / iam legere et quae sit poteris cognoscere virtus, / molli paulatim flavescet campus arista etc.; G. 4. 231 bis gravidos cogunt fetus, duo tempora messis, / Taygete simul os terris ostendit honestum / Plias et Oceani spretos pede reppulit amnis etc.; A. 3. 630 Nam simul expletus dapibus vinoque sepultus / cervicem inflexum posuit, iacuitque per antrum / immensus, saniem eructans et frusta cruento / per somnum commixta mero, nos, magna precati / numina sortitique vices, una undique circum / fundimur et telo lumen terebramus acuto / ingens etc.; A. 5. 317 Simul ultima signant, / primus abit longeque ante omnia corpora Nisus / emicat etc. As for the imperfect, it is well known that ut, ubi, simulac with imperfect indicate something going on continuously at the same time as the action in the main sentence unfolds (K–S II, 361); our case I will render: “from the moment they recognized their comrades’ heads, they stood there filled with sorrow and continued to do so”. The imperfect of videre in Vergil is always used of a more or less prolonged view (cf. A. 1. 466; 2. 125; 6. 860; 8. 360; 9. 352; 9. 639). Consequently my text is: Aeneadae duri murorum in parte sinistra opposuere aciem (nam dextera cingitur amni) ingentisque tenent fossas et turribus altis stant maesti, simul ora virum praefixa videbant, nota nimis miseris atroque fluentia tabo.

470

A. 9. 4811 The gender of a predicative pronoun R is still without enough support

hunc ego te, Euryale, aspicio? tune ille senectae sera meae requies, potuisti linquere solam, crudelis? . . . 

481

illa Rdtv: ille MP

Recent editors, Mynors, Williams, Geymonat, Perret, Paratore, and most recently Goold, Conte, Rivero et al., all accept ille. The commentator Dingel and Heyworth, in his review of Conte, are laudable exceptions. The way ille has been defended is interesting: “The unexpected agreement of ille with tu rather than with requies focuses the cruel awareness of the difference with what he was and what he is now” (Hardie).2 Wainwright points to date at 485 as a parallel, but this is a different matter. Conington–Nettleship find support for it from 1. 664 (Venus addressing Amor): Nate, meae vires, mea magna potentia solus. But the line in question has been much better dealt with by Austin to whose text and note I refer: “Nate, meae vires, mea magna potentia, solus / nate patris summi qui tela Typhoëa temnis . . . with solus isolated at the end of the line, the needed emphasis lies on the point that Cupid alone can snap his fingers at Iuppiter”. It is also difficult to agree that ille “is much more likely to have been altered than illa” (Conington–Nettleship). If illa was the original reading – which I strongly believe – it could easily have become ille in view of the natural gender of tu. Moreover, we have tune ille Aeneas quem Dardanio etc. at 1. 617 as a possible influence. Illa, then, may well be said to be the lectio difficilior. What matters, however, is that it is the superior reading. But how is illa senectae / sera meae requies to be taken more precisely in syntactic terms? One possibility, and practically the only one thought of so far, is to read the words as an apposition to tu. The demonstrative illa will then be taken as standing in contrast to the preceding hunc ‘such as this’ (with reference to the appalling head of the son seen by the mother): She has an image of what he would and should have been to her in the future, i.e. her quiet rest for old age.3 A different interpretation is by no means unlikely, namely to take it as two separate questions: tune illa senectae / sera meae requies? on the one hand and

316  Aeneis IX–XII on the other Potuisti linquere solam, / crudelis? Short sentences need no general justification in agitated speech. The ellipsis of the copula would be like the abovementioned A. 1. 617 tune ille Aeneas, quem Dardanio Anchisae / alma Venus Phrygii genuit Simoentis ad undam? As to Potuisti etc., it would correspond to the common form of direct question with posse without particle, e.g. Cic. Verr. 5. 138 Potuit hic locus tam anceps sine quadam incredibili vi ac facultate tractari?4 (In my view this is also the only way of ‘saving’ ille. One could read with a pause after ille: Tune ille, senectae / sera meae requies?5 and compare the ellipsis of es with tune ille Aeneas l. 617.)6 With regard to the punctuation issue I feel inclined to leave it open at this stage. Both alternatives give good sense and the same meaning. The simpler solution is tempting: an apposition after tune gives a more complicated structure, syntactically and metrically, whereas the alternative gives us three questions of roughly the same length before the last and longest one: Hunc ego te, Euryale, aspicio? Tune illa senectae / sera meae requies? and Potuisti linquere solam, crudelis?

A. 9. 5391 Le mot juste Schrader’s proposal unearthed

A critical hour in the Ninth Book is when the besieged Trojans are defending a tower in their camp against the attack of Turnus. At this juncture Vergil implores the Muses to assist him in unfolding the drama (9. 525ff.). The first stage of the fight reaches its climax when Turnus succeeds in fastening a burning torch to the side of the tower: Princeps ardentem coniecit lampada Turnus et flammam adfixit lateri, quae plurima vento corripuit tabulas et postibus haesit adesis. Turbati trepidare intus frustraque malorum velle fugam. Dum se glomerant retroque residunt in partem quae peste caret, tum pondere turris procubuit subito et caelum tonat omne fragore.

535

540

First Turnus flung a blazing torch and made fast its fire in the side; fanned by the wind, it seized the planks and lodged in the gateways it consumed. Within, troubled and terrified, men vainly seek escape from disaster. While they huddle close and retreat to the side free from ruin, under the sudden weight the tower fell, and all the sky thunders with the crash. (G. Goold [Loeb] 2000) Philip Hardie (1993) in his commentary points out that residunt hardly can be used in the sense recedunt (that is, the way Goold translates it2). “[I]t seems to suggest,” Hardie adds, “that the tower itself ‘sinks back’ under their weight before collapsing completely”. Hardie evidently means that the tower gives way and sinks down under the weight of the men seeking shelter as far from the fire as possible. But as is also evident from Hardie’s own comment the tower is not the formal subject of residunt. The verb must be explained without reference to the tower. Strictly speaking Vergil does not say that the fall of the tower was due to the defenders falling back and trying to escape from the devastating fire. The problem, then, is and remains the meaning of residunt (sc. Troes). Modern editors like Mynors, Geymonat and Conte have nothing on the issue. Editors failing to scrutinize the third edition of Heyne’s edition from 1793 are likely to miss an

318  Aeneis IX–XII important discussion: “Jo. Schrader em recedunt; sed alterum [sc. residunt] doctius eodem significatu”.3 The only modern scholar to observe and reflect on this piece of information is Joachim Dingel,4 who tries to explain the meaning of residunt as “eine Rückwärts- und zugleich Abwärtsbewegung”. Having mentioned Schrader’s conjecture and his own suggestion feruntur, Dingel ends by going for residunt which he finds to be Vergilian (‘Vergilisch’). But this impression may be questioned and accordingly adhuc sub iudice lis est. Nothing is better than to look at Vergil’s use of residere. The verb is not uncommon, occurring 12 times (in addition to 9. 539), among which the Georgics have one example, the Aeneid the rest. The primary meaning ‘sit down’ is obvious on more formal occasions like (1) [i.e. Dido] solio . . . alte subnixa resedit 1. 506, (2) 5. 290 (Aeneas ‘sits down’ on a raised seat) and (3) 8.467f. (Aeneas, Latinus, Pallas and Achates take their seats at the meeting between the Latins and Trojans); hardly much different is (4) 5. 180 (Menoetes after his mishap at sea ‘sits down’ on the top of a crag). Equally perspicuous are the cases when somebody ‘sits down’, or rather ‘sinks down’ owing to exhaustion: (5) 8. 232 ter fessus valle resedit [sc. Hercules]: “he ‘sinks down’ exhausted in the valley” (Goold) which is hardly different from (6) 2. 739 erravitne via seu lassa resedit? (Aeneas thinks that Creusa may have ‘sunk down’ from exhaustion).5 These instances are all about humans sitting down either on seats ready for them (1. 506; 5. 290, 8. 467f.) or, due to the circumstances in a situation when a proper seat may have been unavailable, i.e. ‘sink down’ from an upright to a sitting position. The five remaining examples are: (7) 8. 503 tum Etrusca resedit / hoc acies campo (the Etruscan lines ‘settle down’, i.e. in a resting position on the plain); (8) 5.702 . . . Siculisne resideret arvis (Aeneas contemplating whether he should ‘settle down’, i.e. stay in Sicily); (9) 6. 407 tumida ex ira tum corda residunt (Charon’s heart swelling from rage ‘is subsiding’, i.e. returns to its normal basic state); (10) 9. 642 (omnia bella / . . . resident (all wars will be sinking down, i.e. ceasing); (11) G. 2. 479f. maria . . . / . . . rursus .. in se ipsa residant (the rough seas ‘sink back’ on themselves, i.e. ‘come to rest’); and (12) A. 7. 27 f. omnisque repente resedit / flatus (every breeze sinks down, i.e. ‘ceases’). In the examples (1) to (6) humans ‘sit down’ or ‘sink down’ from an upright position, in the rest troops or wandering men come to rest, i.e. settle down, the troubled seas subside as do swelling organs; also wars like winds come to rest, i.e. cease. From Vergil’s use of residere elsewhere it is clear, then, that 9. 539 does not fit into the semantic frame, as ‘sit down’ or ‘sink down’ does not give an acceptable sense in the context. Residere usually signifies a downward motion in Vergil, not the sideways one that is required here. Lucretius’ retroque residit (2. 283) is basically similar to (9) and (11) above: Like the swelling heart or rough sea the copia materiai returns to its stable and settled basic position. The Lucretian parallel sheds no light on A. 9. 539. Goold’s translation is nonetheless correct, but his (and others’) rendering requires recedere, not residere as the appropriate word. As is often the case, even in Vergil, retro is added to emphasize re-, as at 9. 794 retro redit.6 Vergil has once retro cedere without pleonastic re- at A. 3. 496 arva neque Ausoniae semper

A. 9. 539 Le mot juste  319 cedentia retro, perhaps influenced by Lucretius who has retro cedere with in + acc. twice: 2. 508 (Cedere item retro possent in deteriores / omnia sic partis) and 2. 999 (Cedit item retro, de terra quod fuit ante, / in terras). So Schrader’s unpublished conjecture is not only convincing, but indeed necessary. An additional recommendation is that residunt and recedunt would have been very close to each other in pronunciation in the later centuries of antiquity.

A. 9. 5991 ‘War’ or ‘death’? Burmannus helps to make the appropriate decision

‘non pudet obsidione iterum ualloque teneri, bis capti Phryges, et morti praetendere muros?’

598

599 morti PR: morte M¹: marti n Burman, Henry: protendere M¹

The infinitive is hardly a problem: Praetendere, not protendere, must be the obvious choice. At first glance morti seems even less problematic. The manuscript support for it is very strong and it is backed, moreover, by all modern editors;2 morti praetendere muros, then, can be said to be ‘shelter from death behind your wall’ (Sidgwick).3 The word morti could either reveal an attitude of insolence sure of total success and therefore be in character with the person uttering the words, Numanus Remulus: ‘you are doomed to die if you come out to fight’. Or morti could also be taken to refer to an outcome always to be reckoned with when people are courageous enough to fight, mors being always a possibility among fighting men. It seems to me, however, that the notion of death is somewhat counterproductive in the context. If death is the certain or probable outcome the alternative, that is seeking shelter or screen, must seem a sensible precaution.4 Marti,5 on the other hand, strikes the right note in the mouth of an insolent Rutulian. The argument of Numanus is that it is shameful for the Phrygians once again to let themselves be beleaguered and seek shelter behind a vallum without daring to fight as men should. As far as the war before Troy is concerned, this is of course a very unfair exaggeration. The taunt about cowardice already evident in the first part of the sentence is sharpened in the second part by reading marti; according to Numanus the enemy has found shelter behind walls because they do not dare to fight in the open, which is the test of true men. The reading marti goes decidedly better together with pudet. According to this kind of warrior philosophy the behaviour of the Trojans is shameful especially with regard to their passivity. The word morti would (at best) take us one further step than marti, but the element of cowardice would recede into the background. The most important argument to take into consideration is that Numanus derides what the reader knows to be the explicit line of

A. 9. 599 ‘War’ or ‘death’?  321 conduct wisely laid down for the Trojans by Aeneas himself for the duration of his absence (38ff.):6 . . . ingenti clamore per omnis / condunt se Teucri portas et moenia complent. / Namque ita discedens praeceperat optimus armis (stresses his competence as a general) / Aeneas . . . / neu struere auderent aciem neu credere campo (could easily be taken as a sign of cowardice), / castra modo et tutos seruarent aggere muros (cf. uallo teneri . . . praetendere muros). ergo etsi conferre manum pudor iraque monstrat (emphasizing that they felt shame and that their natural inclination was to engage in open fight; cf. pudor . . . marti).

A. 9. 7091 A solitary neuter One’s reaction to an anomaly has its reasons

conlapsa ruunt immania membra, dat tellus gemitum et clipeum super intonat ingens.

708

Hardie discusses whether clipeum is (a) nominative (neuter) with super as an adverb, or (b) accusative (in which case, of course, it could be either masculine or neuter) with super as a preposition and Bitias (ingens) as the subject for intonat. Hardie’s arguments for the first alternative are convincing. In his interpretation the passage falls into line with Homer’s formulaic line (e.g. Il. 4. 504) δoύπησεv δὲ πεσώv (~ conlapsa ruunt immania membra, / dat tellus gemitum), ἀράβησε δὲ τεύχε᾽ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ (~ clipeum [nom.] super intonat ingens). I have only one misgiving. Why the neuter form clipeum? Admittedly it occurs several times in Vergil’s contemporary and compatriot Livy.2 But, as for Vergil himself, he definitely favours clipeus elsewhere.3 The form clipeus would have caused no ambiguity. I am confident that this was what Vergil wrote. This is, moreover, the slightest possible of corrections as it would have been difficult for the ear to distinguish between clipeus super and (a nasalized) clipeum super.4

A. 9. 7331 The shield of Turnus A description that confuses with its variants

continuo noua lux oculis effulsit et arma horrendum sonuere, tremunt in uertice cristae sanguineae clipeoque micantia fulmina mittit.

731

733 clipeique Pγ • mittit M² (-tet M¹)ω, Tib.: mittunt PRanγ, Macrob. 5. 13. 35

Serious problems were caused by the last clause (clipeoque micantia fulmina mittit and its variants) already in antiquity. Modern editors and commentators, however, (Mynors, Williams, Geymonat, Perret, Paratore and most recently Dingel, Goold and Rivero et al.) seem to have reached consensus, but is it to be trusted? The above text is also found in Hirtzel, Janell, Goelzer, Fairclough, Sabbadini, Sabbadini–Castiglioni. We must look back to Heyne–Wagner to find a dissenting voice; they preferred mittunt. But the intransitive or absolute use of mittere elsewhere gives no support.2 A formal objection to mittit [sc. Turnus] is the change of subject in the passage cited. Each short sentence (colon) has the same structure up to clipeoque etc.: visual or auditive impressions are emanating from Turnus’ eyes (oculis) or his accoutrement (arma, cristae). Although Turnus in this way is very much the centre of attention, it is not actions from his side that are focused on so far, but his frightening appearance. Such a sequence is broken, somewhat arbitrarily, both on the conceptual and grammatical level, by a shift of subject for the last verb.3 The parallels that have been adduced from Homer for taking Turnus as the subject of mittit are not quite similar, or to be more specific, are different in one significant respect: At Il. 19. 373 f. Achilles takes up his mighty shield: τοῦ δ᾽ ἀπάνευθε σέλας γένετ᾽ ἠΰτε μήνης (“from it (the shield) a brilliance went far out as from the moon”). This makes the shield itself the source of light, not Achilles, though who would urge that there are water-tight compartments between the agents?4 There seems to be a certain demarcation line between humans and gods in this respect. Athena can light a flash from a hero’s weapons (δαῖέ οἱ ἐκ κόρυθός τε καὶ ἀσπίδος ἀκάματον πῦρ Il. 5. 4). Hector may shine with awful bronze (λάμπε δ᾽ χαλκῷ / σμερδαλέῳ Il. 11. 464). Aeneas (A. 12. 654) and Caesar (G. 4. 560) may appear as lightning (fulminat both times in the first foot). To conclude, I

324  Aeneis IX–XII would say that if the now generally accepted reading were correct it would, as Hardie stresses, present Turnus as another Jupiter. He would, as far as I can see, transcend the limits for such heroic descriptions in Homer and even overshadow the culminating description of Aeneas at A. 12. 654.5 It might, however, be taken as characterizing the hubristic side of this warrior.6 In my view the solution to the problems was suggested already by Heyne who thought that clipeo could be a corruption (via a nominative clipeos not understood by the scribes) of clipeus. This conjecture has been criticized by Hardie claiming that mittere is “vox propria of the person who wields the thunderbolt”. This is to curtail one of the finest of Vergil’s artistic qualities, his competent way of enriching common words and phrases in novel ways.7 In our case the poet has renewed the ordinary type of expression like telum mittere ‘discharge a missile’8 (with an implicit or explicit personal agent added) by associating mittere with the meaning ‘emit’, ‘throw off’ used of shining things (cf. OLD s.v. mitto 10): sol . . . lumen (Lucr. 5. 593), luna lucem (Cic. N.D. 2. 103).9 This is the text I recommend: Continuo nova lux oculis effulsit et arma horrendum sonuere, tremunt in vertice cristae sanguineae clipeusque micantia fulmina mittit.

731

A. 9. 7641 The back of fleeing fighters An irregularity is sacrificed

hinc raptas fugientibus ingerit hastas in tergus, Iuno uiris animumque ministrat

763

764 tergus P¹, Rr, Char. 71. 25 et 146. 7, DSeru. ad A. 1. 211: tergum MP²ω, Non. 414. 9

In tergus is the reading preferred by Mynors, Williams, Hardie, Goold, Rivero et al. among the more recent editors and by e.g. Hirtzel, Janell, Ladewig–Schaper– Deuticke among the older. Tergum is found in Geymonat, Perret, Paratore and Conte following e.g. Page, Goelzer, Fairclough, Sabbadini, Sabbadini–Castiglioni. The editors, then, are fairly evenly divided between tergus and tergum and so are the manuscripts. It is difficult, however, to see why any precedence should be given to tergus.2 Tergum is the favoured form well-nigh everywhere: A. 1. 296; 9. 412; 5. 351; 11. 653, among which 9. 412 et venit aversi in tergum Sulmonis ibique / frangitur. Why the poet should vary in tergum only 300 lines later, is not clear to me. It may be mentioned that we have tergora once, meaning ‘hides’: A. 1. 211 (tergora diripiunt costis et uiscera nudant)3 whereas terga occurs 35 and tergo 22 times. Tergus can claim Ennius Ann. 529 Sk on its side: tergus igitur sagus pinguis opertat: (“so a thick cloak covers the back”), Ov. Met. 5. 434 (with good ms. support). This case I mention, not to insist on a final answer, but to show, as in a great number of similar cases, that decisions should be made on the basis of a pro and contra assessment.

A. 9. 7891 A true dilemma Ablative, genitive or dative?

Turnus paulatim excedere pugnae pugnae PR: pugna Mω

It is appropriate that my last discussion in this long sequence of discussions on the text of the Ninth Book ends on a note of doubt and lingering uncertainty in tune with a couple of my earlier discussions. Some problems are likely to remain open. Hardie recommends pugnae with the label “a Graecizing genitive (cf. 10. 441 tempus desistere pugnae)”. That it has the authority of P and R, is not easily to be dismissed. As the next line ends with unda one might also think that the poet on reflection was attracted by the possibility of a Greek construction to avoid homoeoteleuton. Without mentioning our pugnae Löfstedt deals with a separative genitive inspired by Greek in his Syntactica (II 417). At A. 10. 441 (tempus desistere pugnae), however, Löfstedt compares Greek ἀφίστασθαι.2 But at 9. 789 I am on the whole less confident about the genitive.3 Excedere takes the ablative eight times (G. 2. 474; A. 1. 357; 2. 737; 3. 60; 5. 380; 9. 366; 11. 540; 12. 842).4 I cannot see any reason why Vergil should abstain from the usual construction in one single case, unless he wanted to experiment with language somewhat arbitrarily. Pugnae in part of the tradition may, however, better be seen a dative under the influence of decedere,5 cedere6 or, possibly, of A. 10. 441 (whether it is taken as a genitive or a dative).7 So, if I were pressed, I would vote for the readings of M: ablative pugna at 9. 789 (after excedere) and dative pugnae at 10. 441 (after desistere).

A. 10. 3661 More than a personal palinode Not only Madvig’s aquis, but also my own eos must go

366 quis MRωγ1, Tib., Prisc. 15. 29 et 17. 47: quos Pγ: equos P1?: aquis Madvig: eos Kraggerud olim

Only a few years ago I started a comment on the passage as presented in Conte’s edition in this way: “Mynors, Geymonat and Harrison have accepted Madvig’s elegant aquis which got rid of the embarrassing relative pronoun – embarrassing because of the following conjunction quando. The need for conjecture in this line is dismissed by Conte without further argument (except his references).” I was, however, wrong on the main issue, namely by accepting quando as a causal conjunction and rejecting the possibility that quando could be taken as an indefinite adverb = aliquando. Therefore quis was not only acceptable, it was surely not to be doubted. That is not to say that Conte is right: He says in his apparatus “nam versus sententiam causalem enuntiat (quando)” and the references to Szantyr §308 and K–S 2, §197 are misleading. Let me then start anew: Conte’s analysis confronts2 that of Harrison who had asserted that a relative pronoun alongside the causal conjunction quando is intolerable and that either quis (v.l. quos) or quando must be called to account as a corruptela. Some earlier commentators had admittedly thought that quando should be taken as aliquando, i.e. as an indefinite adverb, but this would according to Harrison give poor sense and would hardly convince anyone by referring to OLD s.v. quando 4[a]. Madvig’s emendation was accepted by Harrison for whom evidently both sound grammar and meaning were restored in this way. A translation based on Harrison’s text would then be “since the nature of the ground, made rough by the waters, had persuaded them to send away their horses”. In my view Madvig’s conjecture (or rather small correction) did not tally well with the context. It is not the water or the rapid flood that is making the ground difficult3 for the cavalry – horses can cope with water no worse than men on foot – but what a (previous!) torrential stream has deposited in its course. Boulder-like stones and fallen trees are making it hard for the Arcadians to manoeuvre their horses and for the four-legged animals, on their part, to follow instructions from the men. The conclusion is that aquis is not an acceptable correction after all.

328  Aeneis IX–XII I have now come to the conclusion that quando in our line is the indefinite adverb. Page held this view and referred rightly to 6. 568 where quis is used instead of aliquis in a relative clause: Cnosius haec Rhadamanthus habet durissima regna / castigatque auditque dolos subigitque fateri / quae quis apud superos furto laetatus inani / distulit in seram commissa piacula mortem. This was also the way Ladewig–Deuticke took quis – quando = ‘denen einmal’. The best semantic parallel in Vergil seems to me to be 8. 200 attulit et nobis aliquando optantibus aetas / auxilium adventumque dei (i.e. “we too, like others, have at last (aliquando) had our prayers answered by a divine deliverance” Fordyce), that is a quando/aliquando which according to a well-known usage signifies ‘eventually’ (see OLD s.v. aliquando 5). I read, then, this text: At parte ex alia, qua saxa rotantia late impulerat torrens arbustaque diruta ripis, Arcadas insuetos acies inferre pedestris ut uidit Pallas Latio dare terga sequaci (aspera quis natura loci dimittere quando suasit equos), unum quod rebus restat egenis, nunc prece, nunc dictis uirtutem accendit amaris:

365

A. 10. 705 Paris’ name twice over? Ellis against triumphant Bentley

In his account of Mezentius’ terrible butchery of his Trojan adversaries Vergil has this sequence: Nec non Euanthen Phrygium Paridisque Mimanta aequalem comitemque, una quem nocte Theano in lucem genitori Amyco dedit et face praegnans Cisseïs regina Parin creat: urbe paterna occubat, ignarum Laurens habet ora Mimanta.

705

I have cited the lines so as to show as closely as possible the text of the best witnesses (P, R, M2), but as line 705 now appears in modern editions the text has been changed to Cisseïs regina Parin: Paris urbe paterna complying with Bentley’s conjecture in his Horace edition (1711 ~ 18593 on Epod. 5. 28, p. 285). Bentley rightly criticizes Servius for allowing occubat without a subject nominative – a licence for which there could be no excuse from metri necessitas as Servius had suggested. One could add that, as lines 705–6 have been phrased by the manuscripts, regina is the nearest noun to be taken as the subject of occubat which would create an unfortunate ambiguity. Bentley finds fault with creat as well: Quin et illud quam redundans et supervacuum, Theano in lucem dedit, et Cisseïs c r e a t? ut ne dicam, inconcinne tempora mutari, dedit, et creat. Quid multa? Sic credo olim fuisse a manu Virgilii. “una quem nocte Theano In lucem, genitore1 Amyco, dedit, et face praegnans Cisseïs regina Parim. Paris urbe paterna Occubat: ignarum Laurens habet ora Mimanta.” Una, ait, nocte Theano Mimanta, et Hecuba Parim in lucem dedit. At quam dispari fato? Paris in urbe patria sepultus est; Mimas in terra longinqua ignotus iacet. Oscitantes librarii (quod sollemne eorum peccatum est) verbum bis positum, semel tantum scripserunt: inde alii ad versum fulciendum ineptum illud creat supposuerunt. Bentley’s diagnosis of the transmitted text rests on three assumptions: (1) occubat cannot be left without a subject, (2) creat is redundant, unnecessary and inept,

330  Aeneis IX–XII since the sentence (in Bentley’s view) has its predicate in common with the previous relative clause (quem . . . in lucem dedit),2 and (3) the change of tense from perfect (dedit) to present (creat) is objectionable. I regard only the first of these objections as valid, and as Paris must be the subject for occubat anyway, to add Paris is admittedly an obvious choice to mend the lacuna. But that is not to conclude that earlier editors and commentators (like Conington, Janell and Page) should have accepted Bentley’s text so wholeheartedly as they did.3 In their wake follow modern editors; Bentley’s conjecture has won the day as completely as any conjecture on the text of Vergil today.4 The edition of Rivero et al. (2012, 192) deserves credit for still harbouring a lurking doubt. Recently A. Ring in a thorough, almost revolutionary article advocates the following text: Nec non Euanthen Phrygium Paridisque Mimanta Aequalem comitemque – una quem nocte Theano In lucem genitori Amyco dedit et face praegnas Cisseis regina Parim creat urbe paterna – Occupant, ignarum Laurens habet ora Mimanta. On the positive side is to say that this gives a simpler solution and a smoother text compared to Bentley’s. I will even call it ingenious and learned, but none the less misbegotten. I reject it for the following reasons: (1) It nullifies the deliberate and fine contrast between the ultimate fates of the two comrades, the one buried in urbe paterna (Paris), the other in Laurens ora (Mimas), a contrast which is at the centre of the parenthetical addition. Instead urbe paterna becomes a pale and dispensable piece of information, i.e. Hecuba having borne her son in his paternal city. Where else? (2) It rejects the excellent intransitive occubat in favour of occupat witnessed by R and M1. These verbs are admittedly easily confounded (and are found to be so according to TLL), but occubare is by far the more chosen verb5 – occubare has 20 lines in TLL against more than 7 columns (of 75 lines) for occupare. (3) The least acceptable consequence of occupat (sc. Mezentius) is this: the gap between object and verb creates a parenthesis of more than two lines. Needless to say, no verb is required from the context as we are in the middle of an aristeia. (4) On the accusative Parim see below. I for one think that Rivero et al.’s suspicion should lead to a reappraisal of Robinson Ellis’ proposal Cisseis regina creat: Paris urbe paterna. It has the a priori advantage over Bentley’s that it is simpler, primarily by keeping creat. Having accepted Paris as the subject of occubat, the most likely idea is that the transmission has changed the word order to provide an object for creat. It is strange that Bentley passes so harsh a verdict on creat. It is an exquisite word for ‘becoming mother’/‘father’. I would not think that it was the first verb to suggest itself as a marginal filler for somebody asking for the missing verb. In that respect Conington’s remark is justified: “it is not likely that in the text of Virg, ‘Paris’ should have dropped out and have been replaced by ‘creat’” (my italics). Moreover, as Conington also notices, the present is idiomatic, as is a well-known

A. 10. 705 Paris’ name twice over?  331 phenomenon in Augustan poetry: Ecl. 8. 45 duris in cotibus illum . . . Garamantes, nec generis nostri puerum nec sanguinis edunt; cf. G. 1. 279 creat; A. 8. 141 generat (cf. K–S II 1, p. 218) – a phenomenon inspired by Greek.6 A real cause for suspecting the ancient transmission, however, is the accusative Parin (or Parim). Paridem is Vergil’s accusative at A. 5. 370 and at line 702 he has just shown Parid- as the stem in Paridis (cf. also A. 1. 27 and 6. 57).7 Ellis’ solution8 seems to me not only quite unobjectionable, but also the one with least changes in the text. It was accepted by Geymonat in his 1973 edition, but in his revised edition (2008)9 he withdrew his support for it and adopted Bentley’s text instead. On the positive side much can be added in favour of the absolute creat implied in Ellis’ conjecture face praegnans / Cisseïs regina creat. It cannot be an objection to this that ‘creat’ would normally have an object: an absolute creat does not strain the Latin language as is shown by parere often used without an object (TLL s.v. 10, 404, 44ff.). I for one, however, would prefer to argue that creat partakes in an ἀπὸ κοινοῦ of the most common type: from the abl. face with praegnans we would easily supply the pronoun eam (sc. facem) with creat.10 Vergil is in any case reminding us of what he has earlier told about Hecuba’s pregnancy at A. 7. 319f. Nec face tantum / Cisseis praegnans ignis enixa iugalis (“It was not only Hecuba, daughter of Cisseus who when pregnant bore bridal torches”, Horsfall). Vergil, then, has repeated the image of Hecuba being pregnant with a torch (face praegnans), but does no longer in the Tenth Book expatiate on the image as he had done in the Seventh Book (ignis enixa iugalis) which Servius paraphrases (on 7. 320) in a form equally valid for both passages: Haec se facem parere vidit et Parin creavit, qui causa fuit incendii. My text is accordingly: Nec non Euanthen Phrygium Paridisque Mimanta aequalem comitemque, una quem nocte Theano in lucem genitori Amyco dedit et face praegnans Cisseïs regina creat: Paris urbe paterna occubat, ignarum Laurens habet ora Mimanta.

705

A. 11. 501 The troublesome et yet again The solution is presented under A. 2. 139

Aeneas addressing the corpse of Pallas says Et nunc ille quidem spe multum captus inani fors et vota facit cumulatqque altaria donis And now he, much beguiled by vain hope, is perhaps offering vows and heaping the altars high with gifts (Goold 2000) There is nothing amiss with this translation, but one will naturally ask: What about et? What is its function? An explicit answer is found in Page’s commentary. On the lemma fors et vota facit he writes (whereby he is summing up the old view on 11. 50 and 2. 139): Probably rightly explained by Conington as an archaism, “there is a chance and he is making vows” being = “there is a chance that he is making vows”; for et in early language is often used to connect two clauses (parataxis) one of which in later speech is made subordinate (hypotaxis) to the other; cf. 2. 139 fors et reposcent; Hor. Od. 1. 28. 31 fors et debia jura . . . te maneant. In cases like 5. 232 fors . . . cepissent (“perchance they would have taken”), 12 183 cesserit . . . si fors victoria all sense of the origin of the idiom must be supposed lost, so that fors becomes a simple adverb = “perchance”, and here it is quite possible that Virgil means “perchance he even makes vows”. Apart from rejecting the last suggestion in Page’s note (that et may mean ‘even’ here) I will maintain here as well (cf. my note on A. 2. 139) that Vergil had a number of options at hand for expressing ‘perhaps’, ‘perchance’: fors, forsan, forsit, forsitan and fortasse (only 10. 548). Forsan and forsit are metrical equivalents, but Vergil may have felt the usefulness of having access to both of these synonyms. Forsan goes better with et (= ‘also’, ‘even’): 1. 203 like forsitan (G. 2. 288; 4. 118; A. 2. 506).

A. 11. 256 An abnormal pronoun Vergil’s usage wins the day

In his report on the embassy to Diomede (A. 11. 243–95) the Latin Venulus quotes the following warning from the Greek hero based on the latter’s experience of the Trojan expedition: quicumque Iliacos ferro uiolauimus agros (mitto ea quae muris bellando exhausta sub altis, quos Simois premat ille uiros) infanda per orbem supplicia et scelerum poenas expendimus omnes, vel Priamo miseranda manus . . . (my emphasis)

255

All we who with steel profaned the fields of Troy – I do not mention the sorrows we suffered in war beneath her high walls, the heroes drowned in the Simois1 – the wide world over, we have paid in nameless tortures all manner of penalties for our guilt, a band that even Priam might pity . . .  (Goold 2000) All the main text witnesses – M,P,R – agree on the wording of the parenthesis, a fact to be noted by those who are collecting indubitable instances of corruptions common to the whole paradosis, provided that my intention in the following to show that ea at line 256 is interpolated and not in accordance with Vergil’s practice is successful. Vergil has nothing against the pronoun is as such.2 It is very useful for him, not least in the Aeneid. I have counted 96 instances in Wetmore’s index. The reputation of is for being unpoetic is due to the fact that Vergil in particular avoids certain forms altogether, such as the genitive sg. eius, the dative sg. ei, the nominative pl. m. ii (ei) and f. eae, the genitive pl. eorum and earum, whereas, on the other hand, is and isque occur 15 times, id and idque 17 times.3 Vergil’s use of is does not straightforwardly concur with prose usage.4 The Thesaurus article (TLL 7, 472, 80ff. [W. Buchwald]) records from Vergil only such attributive instances as A. 1. 529 non ea vis animo; A. 6. 100f. ea frena furenti / concutit (sc. Apollo); and A. 9. 747f. at non hoc telum, mea quod vi dextera versat, / effugies, neque enim is teli nec vulneris auctor where is approaches talis or tantus in sense (TLL 7, 473, 24–31).

334  Aeneis IX–XII Here I concentrate my attention on nominative pl. ea which is found 26 times in the Aeneid. A number of these instances are formulaic at the end of speeches: vix ea fatus eram (2×), vix ea fatus erat (6×), vix ea dicta (once), ea verba locutus (once), elliptic vix ea (twice). These examples comply most obviously with the socalled anaphoric function of is (according to TLL 7, 455, 63 ‘is’ as treated under the heading A: strictius pertinet ad ea, quae memorata sunt). Though less formulaic the same holds good also for the other examples of is both as an adj. and as a pronoun: A. 2. 171 nec dubiis ea signa (“signs thereof”) dedit Tritonia monstris; 2. 194 et nostros ea fata manere nepotes; 6. 153 ea prima piacula sunto; 6. 822 utcumque ferent ea facta minores; 7. 540 atque ea per campos aequo dum Marte geruntur; 9. 1 atque ea diversa penitus dum parte geruntur; 12. 383 atque ea dum campis victor dat funera Turnus. Some should be categorized under the TLL’s B type: (laxius pertinet ad ea, quae animo obversantur) like the following (in direct or indirect speech): A. 2. 123; 3. 100; 5. 798; 6. 711; 10. 267. All examples above refer to something mentioned before/already. From these examples we can easily perceive the predominance of the anaphoric type, i.e. is referring to something just said, pointed out or to something to be inferred from the context. The other great main category of is, the preparatory one (TLL 7, 474, 6ff.), is not represented at all in Vergil – except for 11. 256, a fact which makes it highly suspicious. As this type is most commonly followed by a relative clause in prose (e.g. ea dicimus, quae nescimus ipsi Cic. de Orat. 2. 30), it is probable that our ea was added to the text just to introduce quae at 11. 256. Such an is cannot be justified as written by the poet: quae muris bellando exhausta sub altis is an indirect interrogative sentence like the following quos Simois premat ille uiros (and qui is accordingly the interrogative pronoun with exclamatory force) as in the close parallel at A. 4. 14 quae bella exhausta canebat. An ea serving to introduce two sentences of this kind would be hard to parallel. It is of little help to put a comma after ea marking a quasi pause (as is done for example in Sabbadini’s edition, Rome 19305). Consequently I am unable to find tenable arguments to save ea and we had better read: mitto quae muris bellando exhausta sub altis, quos Simois premat ille viros The sentence is now in accordance with TLL s.v. mitto II A 2 a 1177, 62ff. (mittere followed by an indirect interrogative sentence).6 As to the spondaic disyllable in the first foot,7 the heavy effect of this pattern can be compared with the famous line at A. 1. 33 tantae molis erat Romanam condere gentem. An almost exact parallel is Ecl. 2. 23f. canto quae solitus, si quando armenta vocabat, / Amphion Dircaeus in Actaeo Aracyntho.8

A. 12. 161 A pompous mustering of forces Whereby a comma has to change its place

The text offered by editors is this: Interea reges, ingenti mole Latinus quadriiugo vehitur curru (cui tempora circum aurati bis sex radii fulgentia cingunt, Solis avi specimen), bigis it Turnus in albis, bina manu lato crispans hastilia ferro.

161

165

As I will argue, the comma in the first line is no boon to our understanding of this passage. According to Tarrant, however, there are several indications that the passage had not attained its final form. This is not my view. Although taking the passage correctly in a distributive way, whereby separate clauses introduce Latinus and Turnus, Tarrant finds interea reges to be an abrupt opening and reges a doubtful designation to suggest Latinus and Turnus.1 It is essential first to define the meaning of moles, a word much favoured by our poet (31 times). In his article in TLL s.v. A. Lumpe is hesitant as to putting it under the heading sensus incorporalis C (1340, 79ff. “respicitur potissimum magnitudo, gravitas, maiestas, vis”); his doubt concerns whether it should be taken instead as ‘magnitudo corporis’ (Wagner’s interpretation). Most readers, however, have understood it as Conington–Nettleship in the wake of Servius and Heyne.2 But it would have been clearer to classify it here under the other main group implying sensus corporalis B ‘de multitudine’. This becomes clear if one removes the comma after reges and allows ingenti mole to be closely attached to the comprehensive plural notion reges. Both Latinus and Turnus arrive with a great retinue of men. This meaning of moles (a mass, multitude of soldiers) becomes common in contemporary prose when huge forces are spoken of: Liv. 3. 2. 13 multas passim manus quam magnam molem unius exercitus rectius bella gerere (‘the great mass of a single army’); 5. 8. 7 castra adorti sunt ingentemque terrorem intulere, quia Etruriam omnem excitam sedibus magna mole adesse Romani crediderant (‘with a great multitude’); 29. 4. 3 summae belli molem adhuc in Sicilia esse; 29. 35. 9 Uticensibus tanta undique mole circumsessis in Carthagiensi populo . . . spes omnis erat.

336  Aeneis IX–XII Not least we have Vergil’s own similar use a little later in the Twelfth Book (574f.): Dixerat, atque animis pariter certantibus omnes / dant cuneum densaque ad muros mole feruntur, cf. also 8. 693 tanta mole viri turritis puppibus instant. A slight anacoluthon is undeniable: in regular syntax we would expect a verb, say procedunt, prodeunt, provehuntur or the like which would comprise both leaders, suggest unity and blur the difference between them. Vergil has instead chosen to ‘divide’ the expected, but suppressed predicate into two apposition-like verba eundi characterizing their movement individually: vehitur and it, a very elegant structure within the bounds of Latin syntax. So we had better write: Interea reges ingenti mole, Latinus quadriiugo vehitur curru, cui tempora circum aurati bis sex radii fulgentia cingunt, Solis avi specimen, bigis it Turnus in albis, bina manu lato crispans hastilia ferro.

A. 12. 218 Brackets or no brackets? A long-winded path towards emendation

At vero Rutulis impar ea pugna videri iamdudum et vario misceri pectora motu; tum magis ut propius cernunt [non uiribus aequis]. Adiuvat incessu tacito progressus et aram suppliciter venerans demisso lumine Turnus pubentesque genae et iuuenali in corpore pallor; quem simul ac Iuturna soror crebrescere vidit sermonem et vulgi variare labantia corda, in medias acies formam adsimulata Camerti (cui genus a proavis ingens clarumque paternae nomen erat virtutis, et ipse acerrimus armis), in medias dat sese acies haud nescia rerum rumoresque serit varios ac talia fatur: “non pudet, o Rutuli, pro cunctis talibus unam obiectare animam? numerone an viribus aequi non sumus? En, omnes et Troes et Arcades hi sunt, fatalisque manus, infensa Etruria Turno: vix hostem, alterni si congrediamur, habemus. Ille quidem ad superos, quorum se devovet aris, succedet fama vivusque per ora feretur; nos patria amissa dominis parere superbis cogemur, qui nunc lenti consedimus arvis.”

220

225

230

235

218 non uiribus aequis seclusit Brunck (1785): aequos Schrader

Line 218 in the Twelfth Book has long been discussed and with no final conclusion within reach as far as I can see: Some defend non viribus aequis,1 others have adopted Schrader’s conjecture aequos (non viribus aequos).2 I belong to the group of scholars,3 among whom are Tarrant with his Cambridge commentary and Conte in his Teubner edition, who in fact believe that neither of those positions gives a result worthy of Vergil’s pen. I quite agree with Conte that it is superflous to say that the combatants are not equal in strength having said so already with impar pugna in line 216. On the other hand, I have not acquiesced in deletion as the final answer, that is putting the three words in square brackets. For one thing: It is hard

338  Aeneis IX–XII to believe that Vergil would have left an unfinished line just at this point and, what is more serious, with no suggestion of how to fill the lacuna. Such unfinished syntax is very seldom among Vergil’s unfinished lines, and the exceptions are rather different. So to start my line of thought: tum magis followed by ut propius cernunt seems to suggest that some basic and important factor is about to follow, something even more decisive4 to influence the Rutulians than the idea of an impar pugna; tum magis is rather plain speaking in this regard: that is to say tum magis sc. vario misceri pectora motu: the chaotic feelings raised by the situation reach a new level of intensity. Rebus sic stantibus I will begin by analysing the context by paraphrasing it. The first factor prevalent on the Rutulian side is that this fight, this climactic duel between Turnus and Aeneas, has for some time already been considered unequal: the compatriots of Turnus are simply in serious doubt about the outcome of the fight. This theme may be seen as the main theme in a symphonic movement. It is taken up again with variation by Juturna addressing the Rutulians in the guise of the authoritative and admired comrade Camers, who attaches shame to their grave concern for his life. He says “Are you not ashamed, you Rutulians, to put one man’s life at risk?” (229–230a). Then there is another factor, another theme if you like, which comes to the fore in the passage 219–21, the meaning of which must first be cleared. It presents the figure of Turnus as seen and perceived by the Rutulians there and then. They are deeply touched by seeing their young leader as he advances with silent steps in the manner of a suppliant towards the altar venerating what is at the centre of a religious ceremony and thereby involving the gods who are about to sanctify the duel: Turnus’ eyes are downcast, his cheeks are youthful (reading pubentes genae) and his manly countenance is marked by pallor. Is this only to emphasize the compassion the men have for their commander? I for one think that here is another factor anticipating the important argument in Camers’ subversive speech when pointing in line 234 to Turnus as one who is devoting himself to the gods (quorum se devovet aris), a devotio leading, as the Rutulians are too prone to believe, to a personal heroic status among the heavenly gods after his death, that is a reward which his heroic qualities (his virtus) has in store for him in heaven. He will have a future life on the lips of men, which is anyway true in the Ennian sense in so far as heroic poetry has the power to secure the bravest among warriors an eternal life. This becomes an important factor influencing the Rutulians in the situation they are in. They are convinced that Turnus’ death and deification will bring about their own slavery because of their lack of martial energy. In addition we can perceive in line 221 a variation of Menander’s famous dictum ὃν θεοὶ φιλοῦσιν, ἀποθνῄσκει νέος, which cannot be applied in earnest by any other than his compatriots as Turnus’ shortcomings are too obvious to grant objectivity to the description. The point is the effect the scene has on Turnus’ men. So far, then, this is what I would call a distinct and important theme in our admirable sequence 216–37. But what about still another factor about which I have so far said nothing? It is equally important as part of the backdrop explaining the breakdown of the

A. 12. 218 Brackets or no brackets?  339 truce. This theme comes clearly and distinctly to the fore in the rumour Camers is spreading among the Rutulian warriors, that the Rutulians, together with their allies, are not in the least inferior to the Trojans and their allies, neither in regard to number nor strength. This theme is already hinted at in Camers’ first line, in the self-confident pro cunctis talibus, in other words: the Rutulians must not forget that they are themselves first-class men in combat. They are indeed equal and more than that: numerone an viribus aequi / non sumus? (230f.) He heightens this argument in the next sentence pointing out that all the enemy troops taken together are no match in comparison: “we have scarcely an opponent for every second man among us” (233). My analysis as to the various themes playing a part in this symphonic movement shows this: •• •• ••

impar ea pugna 216 ~ (alluded to in) unam / obiectare animam Turnus approaching the altar 219–21, explained in 234–7 ? ~ pro cunctis talibus 229 + 230b–2.

Now to approach my solution to the enigma of line 218: I think it is of some importance to note that the poet in describing the unstable mood among the Rutulians has already presented in his own name two essential factors contributing to the fierce fight to follow, factors present in the sermones Juturna can hear and act upon and which, a moment later, she is expatiating on in the guise of Camers. Here is a clear relation between the two parts of our episode. The third theme, even more crucial in Camers’/Juturna’s speech, the superiority of the Rutulians and their allies. This as well requires a parallel, in other words: What is the substitute for the question mark on the left side of my equation above? The parallel should be sought in the introductory part (216–21) and is in my view to be found in the corrupt line 218. Let us go back to it again: It begins with tum magis which marks a transition to a new and graver stage as to the mood of the Rutulians concerning the situation. There has been a grave concern for their leader as soon as Turnus had made his final decision to fight Aeneas, that is before they have been lined up as spectators to the ceremony. Their anxiety and tension is then, with the start of line 218, intensified by seeing and perceiving at close range that they themselves are at least equal, equal in numbers and therefore in strength: I propose therefore se viribus aequos instead of non viribus aequis. Then we have here what I marked with a question mark in my quasi equations above. And hopefully we will be able to see clearer that Juturna/Camers elaborates what is there already in the form of comments made by the Rutulian warriors among themselves. She (that is Camers) puts their sermo, awaked by what they can perceive with their own eyes, into instigating speech: numerone an viribus aequi / non sumus? My analysis has hopefully established that the six lines describing the situation (216–21) are a kind of anticipatory part going to be dramatized 222–37, not least by means of the subversive activity of Juno/Camers 229–37). One may for good reason ask: How did this corruption arise? My answer would have to take a longer course. I should only like to say that some authoritative

340  Aeneis IX–XII reader or early commentator must have had serious problems in understanding the situation. The centre of attention is admittedly Turnus in line 216 and in 219. How it could be otherwise in line 218, could have been a natural question. Then a reader has written in the margin that he thought it should be non instead of se, an idea which then was accepted as the genuine text. Well, that is just a possible explanation. At vero Rutulis impar ea pugna videri iamdudum et vario misceri pectora motu; tum magis ut propius cernunt se viribus aequos. Adiuvat incessu tacito progressus et aram suppliciter venerans demisso lumine Turnus pubentesque genae et iuuenali in corpore pallor.

220

A. 12. 286 Latinus’ report of failure The hidden references of referens

Sic omnis amor unus habet decernere ferro. Diripuere aras (it toto turbida caelo tempestas telorum ac ferreus ingruit imber) craterasque focosque ferunt. Fugit ipse Latinus pulsatos referens infecto foedere divos.

285

Thus all are ruled by one passion – to let the sword decide. They have stripped1 the altars (through the whole sky flees a thickening storm of javelins and the iron rain falls fast), they are carrying off bowls and hearth.2 Latinus himself takes flight, carrying away his defeated gods, the covenant now void.

Tarrant ad loc. understands referens as ‘taking back inside’, i.e. back to the city and divos as the ‘physical objects’ of ‘images of gods’ being part of the ritual “pulsatos would then have a double meaning, ‘beaten, knocked about’ and ‘rejected, driven off’”. He rejects the interpretation given by many that referre could mean ‘report’, ‘recall’ (OLD s.v. 5) as unfit for the context, while it is not clear ‘to whom Latinus would be speaking’. The latter arguments may be questioned. Part of the context is provided by the Eleventh Book. After the depressing answer from Diomedes has been brought back, a despondent Latinus summons a concilium (234) which he presides over as king (237f.). As a consequence of Venulus’ report Latinus speaks out summa de re and announces that he will give up further war. Drances asks Turnus to venture to meet Aeneas face to face (374). This is like a senate meeting. At last Turnus accepts a foedus which, however, is disrupted. We have to read our lines in view of this constitutional procedure. Latinus would then, as a matter of course, return to his city with a report on the failure of the covenant. Referre is in the words of Forcellini (1871) s.v. refero 26 ‘renunciare’, ‘deferre’: dicitur de publicis personis qui ex officio hoc agunt: Caes. BG 4. 9, BC 1. 35; Liv. 7. 32; Cic. Frgm. Ap. Non. 380, 34; A. 2. 547 (referes ergo haec et nuntius ibis / Pelidae genitori); 12. 75f. (nuntius haec, Idmon, Phrygio mea dicta tyranno / haud placitura refer).

342  Aeneis IX–XII Pulsatos is a strong word and ‘driven off’ suits the context, cf. G. 1. 496; 3. 106; 3. 555; 4. 313; A. 3. 619; 4. 249; 5. 150; 460; 6. 609; 647; 9. 415; 10. 216; 11. 660; 12. 706. So the last line means: “reporting that the gods had been driven off by the annulment of the covenant”.

A. 12. 470 Present or perfect IV? V should take the pride of place in the app. crit.

Hoc concussa metu mentem Iuturna uirago aurigam Turni media inter lora Metiscum excutit et longe lapsum temone reliquit.

470

470 reliquit MPRωγ, Tib.: relinquit MA?V

For the same reason as we voted for perf. reliquit above at 6. 746 we should here prefer present relinquit (with e.g. Hirtzel and Maguinness). The long series of parallels for coordinate tense with this verb has a bearing on this case as well.

A. 12. 648 Why not the easy way? Wagner’s case against Housman’s

The end of Turnus’ answer to Juturna reads like this in the OCT edition of Mynors: sancta ad vos anima atque istius inscia culpae descendam magnorum haud umquam indignus avorum.

648

To make the first of these lines scan commentators tend to jump out of their skin: The short a at the end of the anima, in the nominative singular, is lengthened and followed by a hiatus which prevents elision between anima and atque. Such a lengthening, hardly known elsewhere, represents a catch in the breath which causes a pause, but no sound. If the line is read aloud in this way the effect becomes quite clear. As Turnus thinks of himself as anima, a shade, and contemplates his departure down to the world below, he is overcome by strong emotion, and falters as he speaks. Perhaps there is almost a sob as he faces death and the shadowy world and his meeting with his honoured dead.1 I would maintain, however, that this ingenious metrical analysis does Turnus wrong. At the end of his speech it is more likely that he is unwavering and selfcomposed. We are methodologically on safer ground with A.E. Housman who analyses this line along with other similar ones in his article “Prosody and Method”: an easier change will set the metre right: sancta adque istius ad vos anima inscia culpae descendam. The form adque is frequent in Virgil’s MSS and is here given by R: a scribe glances from the first to the second ad and writes sancta ad vos anima inscia culpae, adque istius is added in the margin and then inserted in the wrong place. The lengthening of short final us in caesura is well established: the closest parallel

A. 12. 648 Why not the easy way?  345 is georg. IV 453 ‘non te nullius exercent numinis irae’; and Servius, who makes no comment on the scansion there, would naturally make none here. Neither istius nor istius occurs elsewhere in Virgil, but illius and ipsius have their penultimate long or short as required.2 There is an aurea mediocritas between these two extremes, I believe. It is no novelty as it was accepted already by Ribbeck and Hirtzel, but it has not been in vogue in more recent editions.3 If this was an emendation made by a medieval scribe, it is none the worse for that. sancta ad vos anima atque istius nescia culpae. Elsewhere I have dealt with the alternative forms inscius/nescius in Vergil.4 There is hardly any difference in meaning between them, the one is as common as the other (10 and 9 occurrences respectively). In some cases the forms would be metrically equivalent (as in the case of haud in/ne-scius5 and especially in the first foot). In many other cases I believe that the alternatives represent convenient variants, and so the poet must have been free to choose between them.6 As is well known the prosodic alternatives istĭus/istīus, illĭus/illīus and ipsĭus/ipsīus are optional in the poets. That is not to say, however, that there is no difference in meaning involved. Vergil has ipsius 9 times, 5 times with a short i and 4 with a long, illius 8 times, half of which have a short i. If one compares Ecl. 1. 7ff.: namque erit ille mihi semper deus, illius aram saepe tener nostris ab ovilibus imbuet agnus. ille meas errare boves etc. there is reason to believe that the genitive with a shortened i, was without particular emphasis, being a ‘lento’ form, whereas lines 59–63 of the same eclogue exhibit the emphasized (‘allegro’) variant: Ante leves ergo pascentur in aequore7 cervi et freta destituent nudos in litore piscis, ante pererratis amborum finibus exsul aut Ararim Parthus bibet aut Germania Tigrim, quam nostro illius labatur pectore voltus. Whereas the frequency numbers are small for istius, illius exhibits more ample material. According to the TLL there are 19 examples of illius with short i in the fifth foot, the variant with the long i is only found twice: Lucr. 2. 769 (materies ubi permixta est illius et ordo) and Ov. Met. 6. 323 (iusserat inde boves gentisque illius eunti). So it may be safely called difficilior in prosodic respect. A strongly emphasized istius with culpae would be very appropriate in our line. Maguinness reminds us that iste often expresses abhorrence as here. Turnus

346  Aeneis IX–XII strongly rejects the idea that he should save his life through flight (cf. l. 645) and so an emphatic istius going with culpae would be quite natural. The easiest solution is therefore to read istius nescia culpae. [Twenty-five years on I should like to remind critics how often inscius and nescius are mixed up in manuscripts, “passim” according to TLL 7, 1843, 68. In our case the reason for the corruption is probably not far to seek: Some scribe had before the transition from liber to codex scanned istius with the long middle i as istĭus and changed nescia to inscia to make the line closure scan.]

A. 12. 790 Exhausted heroes On how to combine and interpret five words

The controversial line is the last before the Olympian break in the finale of the Twelfth Book. After a fierce fight, balance between Turnus and Aeneas is restored (788–90): olli sublimes armis animisque refecti, hic gladio fidens, hic acer et arduus hasta, adsistunt contra certamine martis anheli

790

790 certamine, b Serv. “alii certamine legunt”: certamina MPa There are four problems in the last line: (a) is adsistunt used absolutely or does it govern certamina? (b) is contra adv. or prep.? (c) if contra is an adverb, what can certamina be? (d) is anheli genitive going with martis or nominative plural going with olli (i.e. Aeneas and Turnus)? These problems can in my view best be treated in the above-mentioned order: (a) To let adsistere govern certamina is, as Paratore candidly concedes,1 unprecedented and must be considered a rather desperate expedient. Adsistunt, then, is ‘they take up position’, ‘they make a stand’ (OLD s.v. assisto 3a). (b) Contra is quite common as an adverb meaning: ‘in front of one’, ‘face to face’ combined with verbs meaning to ‘stand’. Adsistit (sg.) contra would mean: ‘to place oneself opposite or face to face (with somebody)’. In the plural the meaning would be reciprocal: ‘opposite of one another’, ‘face to face with each other’. Cat Agr. 18. 1 is comparable: Torcularium si aedificare voles quadrinis vasis, uti contra ora sient, ad hunc modum vasa conponito (“If you wish to build a pressing-room (for olives) with four presses facing each other, arrange the presses as follows”). The usual interpretation of contra, however, is to construe it as a preposition with certamina: ‘facing the conflict’. So far no adequate parallel has come forth to my knowledge. Having the choice between a perfectly natural expression (contra as adv.) and a doubtful one (contra as prep.), we must vote for the former. (c) Certamina, then, is probably the result of scribal misunderstanding and should be changed to certamine. Whether the transmitted certamine is an

348  Aeneis IX–XII old genuine reading or not, need not concern us too much.2 The consensus codicum is not always binding in Vergil. If we change certamina to certamine another question arises: Is the fight the one to come, the one that is going on or the one that has just been? In other words, is certamine an abl. temp. or should it be otherwise construed? (d) If the above line of reasoning is tenable, then we have the choice between understanding certamine martis anheli as “in the fight of breath-taking war” or ‘exhausted by the fight of war’. In Vergil the horses of the Sun God are anheli (G. 1. 250; A. 5. 739), and so are old men (G. 2. 135) and the breast of the inspired Sibyl (A. 6. 48). This is the more usual meaning in Vergil, rendered by the TLL as ‘anhelans’. Vergil has also tussis anhela (G. 3. 496) and commentators refer to certamina anhela in Lucan (2. 430) for the meaning ‘qui movet anhelitus’. So both meanings would per se be possible. In my view anheli taken as a nom. pl. is preferable.3 It brings once more the new balance between the two contestants into focus. It seems very appropriate to end with a description of the main antagonists markedly different from the resolved antagonism to follow immediately in the Olympic scene. It cannot be objected to this interpretation of anheli that it does not go well with animisque refecti:4 this expression involves the spiritual condition of the heroes, especially that of Turnus, whereas anheli describes the physical condition of both warriors who are all the time in a state of utmost exertion straining every nerve. Last, but not least the lonely abl. certamine seems to need something to govern it.5 The above interpretation is in accordance with Conte’s text and explanation; with Tarrant I agree except on anheli which he will take with martis = pugna, proelium.

Notes

A. 9. 51 The right place of a comma   1 SO 73, 1998, 94f.   2 A. 4. 115 mecum erit iste labor is approximately “that task will rest with me”.   3 Hardie, for his part, considers also the idea of a question mark after iuvenes, with an interrogative qui to follow (Heyne). But we would rather expect qui before primus to be the relative and not the substantival form of the interrogative as Hardie himself is well aware (cf. E. Löfstedt, Syntactica II 79ff.; Fordyce (1977) on A. 7. 38).   4 Cf. Ecl. 10. 28 ecquis erit modus? and A. 3. 341.   5 Page supplies iaculum emittat.   6 E.g. Forbiger, Brosin (1886), Ladewig–Schaper–Deuticke (1904). Conington–Nettleship (1883), Page (1900), Hirtzel (1900), Sidgwick (1901), Sabbadini–Castiglioni (1944), Götte (1958).

A. 9. 79 Cybele’s eternal fame   1 In the spring term of 1997 I had a seminar mentioned in the relevant article in SO 73, 1998, 94, n. 2. As to line 79 I must here refer to SO 72, 1996, 112f.   2 In his commentary on the Aeneid (London 1973) ad loc.   3 According to Rivero et al. this conjecture was proposed by G. Waddel (1734), 27.   4 In Commentar zu Vergil’a Aeneis. Buch I und II, Leipzig 1869, p. 39, n. 1 (cited in Ladewig–Schaper–Deuticke, 9th ed. 1904).   5 Cf. K. Quinn, Virgil’s Aeneid. A Critical Description, London 1968, p. 383.   6 Cf. A. 3. 69: inde ubi prima fides pelago.

A. 9. 85–6 A questionable deletion   1 SO 73, 1998, 95–6.   2 G. Jachmann, RhM 84, 1935 = Ausgewählte Schriften, Königstein 1981, regards line 85 as an interpolation meant to replace 86–7 which were being criticized as faulty on account of the use of acer for ships (cf. Servius on 9. 87).   3 The asyndeton (silva – lucus) is scarcely objectionable in this urgent report.   4 Hardie finds the vagueness of the subject of 86 (ferebant) objectionable. But sacra ferebant (K–S I, 653, A. 21) is hardly different from sacra ferebantur; in both cases the point is not so much the identity of the worshippers as the fact that it was a place of worship; people were used to sacrificing there.

350  Aeneis IX–XII A. 9. 91 Cybele’s concern for the Trojan fleet   1 SO 73, 1998, 96f.   2 On inversion of particles see Norden (1926) Anh. III 3 (pp. 402ff.).   3 Cf. A. Traina, “Una variante sottovalutata (Virgilio Aen. 12. 641)”, Boll. Di Studi Latini 26, 1996, p. 505 with n. 7.   4 Soubiran 1966, 532, 630, 640.

A. 9. 130 Jupiter at war with the Trojans   1 SO 73, 1998, 97–8.

A. 9. 140–2 Misogyny sub iudice   1 SO 73, 1998, 99–100.   2 And, as far as the manuscript tradition is concerned, above serious suspicion. Perret’s apparatus is impressive enough.   3 This theme is taken up again more vehemently by Numanus Remulus in 598ff., 614ff.

A. 9. 215 Nisus’ request for burial   1 This comes instead of my remarks about this locus in SO 85, 2011, 219.   2 See van Konijnenburg (1896).   3 I recant herewith the sympathy I may have shown for this idea in my review article on Conte’s text Kraggerud (2011), 219.   4 This is also the text of Mynors (1969); to judge from his silent app. crit. he does not seem to acknowledge any problem here.   5 Conte finds a parallel for this in a passage possibly inspired by Vergil’s episode, Stat. Theb. 10. 284–5.   6 MacKay’s translation is (1938, 172): “if in any way Fortune forbid the customary honors”.   7 But there is no reason to delete id which refers to the prospect of being properly buried and accordingly quă should not be doubted; for similar expressions with short a see A. 2. 94 (fors si qua tulisset); 7. 559 (si qua super fortuna laborum est); 9. 41 (si qua interea fortuna fuisset).   8 This deletion was first proposed by E. Hoffmann (1858, p. 16).   9 Similarly Peerlkamp (1843, vol. II, p. 171): “Quamquam et solitae inferiae hic parum habeant, quo se commendent. Quas alias Troiani essent laturi?” 10 Cf. M. Haupt, Opuscula I (1875), 92f., who draws attention to the elision of –o in Vergil’s first foot: ergo, immo, quando, ultro, otherwise fando (A. 2. 81) and ambo (A. 11. 291). 11 ‘immo . . . supersit hic saltem, qui miselli huius corpus parvo contumulet humo’. But here saltem gives emphasis to hic, ‘this man at least’, pointing to Lucius, who shall be spared in order to live on so that he can bury the murdered man, but in Vergil saltem is devoid of a reasonable sense if attached to the first alternative: if brought back as a corpse to his own people, he will get his due burial by his friends.

A. 9. 243 In defence of a future simple   1 SO 73, 1998, 102f.   2 The expression bivium portae, puzzling to many commentators, is rendered by OLD as ‘a gangway’, no doubt correctly. See in more detail author SO 73, 1998, 101f.

Notes  351   3 See my “Notes on Anchises’ Speech in Vergil’s Aeneid, Book VI”, in M. Asztalos and C. Gejrot (eds.), Symbolae Septentrionales. Latin Studies Presented to J. Öberg, Stockholm 1995, 59–71.   4 Sidgwick ad loc. “fallit which goes very awkwardly with euntes”.

A. 9. 363 A spurious line?   1 SO 73, 1998, 103–5.   2 A short account of this crux in Paratore 1982 ad loc. In 1968 (p. 237) I took the line as genuine.   3 The episode involving the death of Rhamnes had Il. 10. 469ff. as its model.   4 Compare how Vergil with mittit dona and dat habere varies Homer’s repeated δῶκε(v) (in four consecutive lines in Il. 2. 102–5 and in three consecutive lines in 10. 268–70, two of which lines have the verb in the same position).   5 Thus Sidgwick 1901. Page 1900 has the following ‘solution’: “after his [Remulus’] death the Rutuli, in some struggle with the men of Tibur, came into possession of it, presumably by slaying the ‘grandson’”. This is also the opinion of Hardie ad loc. who sees no difficulty in retaining the line.   6 Something different is A. 2. 438f.   7 Mentioned by Servius and, together with the identity issue in post mortem, reckoned among the twelve insolubilia of the Aeneid.   8 For a compromise between ratio and codices cf. Wainwright: “There is no reason to think the verse spurious, although the poet has left the details rather obscure”. Perret does not signal any problem.   9 Forbiger was also convinced. The last to stand up for deletion was, as far as my knowledge goes; Jachmann 1935, p. 222. 10 Among the defenders of the line are now Conte and Rivero et al.

A. 9. 390–2 Where to put a question mark   1 SO 73, 1998, 105–7.   2 Dingel, after a thorough discussion, is also to be reckoned among these scholars.   3 Cf. Conington–Nettleship 1883: “and the feeling of the words ‘perplexum – omne – fallacis’ is much more appropriate to Nisus”.   4 Page (1900) ad loc. “at the same time too (i.e. before he had finished speaking) with careful note he retraces . . . .”. Whiteley 1955 “also”. Brosin 1886 (punctuating after sequar): “et, que] καί, καί (in disjunktivem Sinne): bald findet er die Spuren, bald verliert er sie wieder”.   5 Cf. A. 1. 144 Cymothoe simul et Triton . . . detrudunt; 5. 298 hunc Salius simul et Patron (sc. secuti sunt); 8. 182 uescitur Aeneas simul et Troiana iuuentus.   6 See for instance A. 5. 357 et simul his dictis faciem ostentabat et udo / turpia membra fimo (with the only slight difference that simul here is a preposition).   7 The full discussion can be found in Williams 1960 ad loc. See also OLD s.v. simul 10 b; K–S, p. 359f. For the use of present in such sentences cf. ubi 11. 702f.

A. 9. 402–3 Nisus praying to Luna   1 NB the ‘palinode’ and new conclusion to what I wrote in SO 85, 2011, 219f.   2 Hardie’s note ad loc. contains no whole-hearted defence of the couplet he has chosen to print.   3 But not Philip Wagner. Wagner had, however, two years before the publication of Ribbeck’s relevant volume proposed torquetque in his “Lectionum Vergilianarum libellus”, Philologus Suppl. Vol. 1, 1860, p. 355. At the time of Wagner’s revision of Heyne (1833) Wagner had no such proposal.

352  Aeneis IX–XII   4 I did this myself at SO 85, 2011, 220. I see that G. Liberman follows suit (CR 62, 2012, 149–51).   5 Cf. Forbiger ad loc.: “Copula tertio loco sententiae posita excusatur eo, quod verba summus thorax iuxta oras in unam quasi vocem coëunt” and – I would add – even more so when the case of an indubitable enallage adjectivi is taken into account.   6 Here as well (cf. A. 5. 505) Mynors made the right decision in following Mackail who has a clear-headed note ad loc. Both Conington and Page cling to torquens; Williams and Binder have accepted torquet.   7 See the article ‘diastole’ by F. Cupaiuolo in EV 2 (1985), 43–4.   8 –ōr e.g. at A. 2. 369; 11. 323; 12. 422; 550; –āt e.g. at A. 5. 853; 10. 383; 12. 772.

A. 9. 461–4 Turnus arming his ranks   1 SO 71, 1996, 463f. I repeated my position in SO 85, 2011, 220f.

A. 9. 471 The neglected variant makes its claims   1 J. Huyck, “Mourning Euryalus: Three Notes on Aeneid 9”, CQ 62, 2012, 705ff.

A. 9. 481 The gender of a predicative pronoun   1 SO 73, 1998, 107–9.   2 Sidgwick (1901) and Williams (1973) do not offer any comment at all.   3 I.e. her possibility for rest. For requies cf. A. 12. 58. The connotation of ‘rest in death’ is near at hand, cf. Eurip. Med. 1033ff., Alk. 662ff., the verb requiesco OLD and quies at A. 10. 745.   4 Quoted with other examples in K–S, p. 502.   5 This idea was anticipated in the last century by e.g. Peerlkamp 1843 (in his notes) and by Brosin 1886.   6 A comma after ille is also the text of Rivero et al.

A. 9. 539 Le mot juste   1 SO 86, 2012, 106–9.   2 So also Page “retire backwards”; “si ritraggono” (Canali in Paratore’s edition); whereas Perret “se tassent en arrière” (Perret) is closer to Hardie.   3 On Schrader’s legacy of unpublished conjectures on the text of Vergil see SO 83, 2008, 65, n. 15.   4 J. Dingel, Kommentar zum 9. Buch der Aeneis Vergils, Heidelberg 1997.   5 On this and my preference for the variant lassa see my previous locus on 2. 738.   6 Cf. Lucr. 2. 130 retroque repulsa reverti, Livy 22. 6. 7 retro . . . repetebant; Caes. B.Afr. 50. 2 neque retro regrediendi . . . oblata facultate. And in Vergil cf. also 11. 627 retro . . . revoluta resorbens.

A. 9. 599 ‘War’ or ‘death’?   1 SO 73, 1998, 109–10.   2 Turnus’ words (142ff.) are often referred to as a parallel: quibus [the Trojans] haec medii fiducia ualli / fossarumque morae, leti discrimina parua, / dant animos. But Turnus’ point is that the defences will be of no avail, as is clear from what follows, whereas Numanus focuses on their lack of courage to fight in the open.   3 Or: “make walls a screen against death” (Wainwright), “and to make walls a shelter against death” (Page).

Notes  353   4 This was clearly seen by Peerlkamp in his note ad loc.: “Muros praetendunt morti, qui certo sciunt, si muros relinquant, sibi esse moriendum. Hoc etiam fortissimi faciunt, et non erat, cur Troianos huius rei puderet.”   5 I would prefer to write marti in view of the clear metonymy.   6 See Nisbet 1978–80, 56 (= reprint, p. 385).

A. 9. 709 A solitary neuter   1 SO 73, 1998, 110.   2 Livy 1. 43. 2; 34. 52. 6 and 7; 38. 35. 5; 40. 51. 3.   3 The nominative form clipeus is found only at 12. 432, as acc. pl. clipeos occurs 6 times (where clipea would have been impossible or difficult to use), clipeum with masculine epithet or relative occurs 4 times. It is a misunderstanding when Georges 1890 s.v. clipeus and the TLL s.v. clipeus 3, 1351, 37 (P. Hoppe) credit Vergil with the neutral clipeum at A. 3. 286. See, however, Neue–Wagener I, p. 794, quoting Servius ad loc. “Clipeum hic masculino, at neutro alibi: Clipeum super intonat ingens”.   4 A close parallel can be seen at 657 where MPR have aspectu (mortalis medio aspectu sermone reliquit) whereas the 9th-century manuscripts, together with Tiberius Donatus, have preserved the correct aspectus.

A. 9. 733 The shield of Turnus   1 SO 73, 1998, 111–12.   2 For intransitive, or rather absolute, use of mittere cf. TLL 8, 1184, 79ff. and L. Feltenius, Intransitivizations in Latin, Uppsala 1977, 105f. with references. For criticism against mittunt; see also Hardie ad loc.   3 One of the referees pointed out to me the staccato rhythm resulting from the different subjects describing Turnus as a warrior (nova lux, arma, cristae, clipeus). Thus the sequence may be regarded as a deliberate means of highlighting the threatening situation and the rapid course of events.   4 Cf. 19. 379f. and Il. 22. 134f. Both these parallels have been adduced by Knauer 1964, but within brackets.   5 The imitation quoted by Hardie ad 733 from Silius Pun. 4. 431f. can in fact be more fully quoted in support of masculine clipeus: . . . tum fulminis atri / spargentem flammas clipeum . . . . – The other instance from Silius, Pun. 11. 339f., seems also to be influenced by the description of Aeneas in A. 10. 270f. . . . tristisque [for this reading see Harrison 1991 ad loc.] a uertice flamma / funditur . . .    6 One could think of the Vergilian Salmoneus dum flammas Iouis et sonitus imitatur Olympi (A. 6. 586) only that in Turnus’ case it could scarcely be intentional.   7 To mention only one example: In Book Seven Vergil describes how the peasants of Latium arm themselves with the first weapon at hand (506f.): hic torre armatus obusto, / stipitis hic gravidi nodis (“some came armed with stakes burned to a point in the fire; some with clubs made from knotted tree trunks” D. West). Harrison (1991) draws together some central aspects of Vergil’s style with references in his Appendix, pp. 285ff.   8 Or hastam, pilum, fulmen, lapidem (cf. TLL 8, 1163, 53ff.).   9 TLL s.v. mitto 8, 1176, 18ff.

A. 9. 764 The back of fleeing fighters   1 SO 73, 1998, 112–13.   2 Except the lectio difficilior argument, but it would serve no purpose in my view.

354  Aeneis IX–XII   3 Serv. auct. ad loc. tried to establish: “TERGORA ‘tergus tergoris’, unde et tergora ‘corium’ significat; ‘tergum’ vero . . . ‘dorsum’ significat, ut Sallustius scilicet quia tergis abstinetur. sed haec a veteribus confundebantur” with reference to 1. 368 on the one hand, and 9. 763 on the other.

A. 9. 789 A true dilemma   1 SO 73, 1998, 113–14.   2 Convincingly Harrison 1991 ad loc. sees it as an imitation of the Homeric ἀπέληγε μάχης. Desistere with ablative is found only once (A. 1. 37). OLD reckons this as a dative (s.v. 1b), and so does the TLL 5, 733, 27ff. with some hesitation, in support of which Statius Theb. 5. 273f. haud umquam iusto mea cura labori / destitit is the best card.   3 But at 9. 789 (pugnae PR, pugna Mω) and at 10. 441 (pugnae MP, pugna Ra), then, the majority of the capital mss. have pugnae; only P has pugnae in both places. In my view only M may have got it right in both places: pugna at 9. 789 and pugnae at 10. 441.   4 Likewise decedere: 4. 306; 5. 551. -– For excedere with abl. see TLL s.v. excedo 5. 1205, 47ff. (where Aen. 9. 789 is registered as pugnā at line 72).   5 Cf. G. 4. 23 decedere . . . calori.   6 Ecl. 10. 69 (c. amori); A. 6. 95 (c. malis). Cf. TLL 3, 727, 75ff.   7 Cf. also succedere pugnae at A. 10. 690 and 11. 826.

A. 10. 366 More than a personal palinode   1 My first attempt was published in SO 85, 2011, 221–2.   2 Conte (edition p. 308 on 10. 366): “aquis frustra coniecit Madvig; incorrupta et expedita currit oratio: nam uersus sententiam causalem enuntiat (quando) quae superioribus cohaeret per coniunctionem relatiuam (quis i.e. ‘Arcadibus’), qua de re uide Hofmann-Szantyr §308, Kühner–Stegmann II. 2, §197”. With these references a full stop after sequaci would be required, but that would leave 362–5 without a main clause and hanging in the air.   3 To make aquis justified in the context we would have to understand aquae as ‘the ongoing flood of the torrent’.

A. 10. 705 Paris’ name twice over?   1 Many editors accept Bentley’s abl. abs. genitore Amyco (see now Conte 2013, 77). I for one cannot see any valid objection to the dative genitori Amyco, cf. Lucr. 4. 1255 Et quibus ante domi fecundae saepe nequissent / uxores parere, inventast illis quoque compar / natura, ut possent gnatis munire senectam. TLL (s.v. pario) 10, 404, 68–70. For the dative cf. also 10. 551 siluicolae Fauno Dryope quem nympha crearat and 12. 271f. quos fida crearat / una tot Arcadio coniunx Tyrrhena Gylippo.   2 Creat is ably defended by Ring (2010), 487f. Most of his arguments I can subscribe to except his remarks on the differentiation in time and his metaliterary speculations (488). Instead I would point to the usefulness of historical presents to allow a wider range of verbs to be used.   3 Janell seems blind to the textual issue. Conington calls Bentley’s conjecture “an infinite improvement”. A survey of other editors is provided by Ring (2010), 486, n. 1.   4 Cf. now also Conte’s enthusiastic acceptance (2013, 76–8).   5 Vergil varies with occumbere 10. 865. Occubare is used for the first time de eis qui obierunt at A. 1. 547; 5. 371 (about Hector buried in Troy). Elsewhere: Liv. 8. 10. 4; Sen. Phaedra 997; Val. Fl. 3. 111; Stat. Theb. 2. 574.   6 Cf. Ring (2010), 487, n. 9 with references.   7 I am well aware that Vergil has both the acc. Daren (A. 5. 456 praecipitemque Daren ardens agit aequore toto) and Dareta (A. 5. 460; 463; 476; cf. also 12. 363). At A. 5. 456 I would be tempted to read Dareta: praecipitemque Dareta ardens agit aequore

Notes  355 toto. Terence, admittedly, uses both Chremen and Chremeta for metrical reasons (Chremem Ad. 361; 527; Chremetem An. 472; 533).   8 I am grateful to Stephen Harrison for sending me a copy of the original publication of Ellis’ paper (Transactions of the Oxford Philological Society of 11 March 1880).   9 The report on Geymonat’s positions in Ring (2010), 486, n. 1 is not altogether correct. 10 See Konijnenburg (1896) and my own campaign for pacisque imponere mores at A. 6. 852 (see my previous locus in this book, p. 244f. and Gymnasium 118, 2011, 457–62).

A. 11. 49–50 The troublesome et yet again   1 Based on Eranos 105, 2008, 36–9.

A. 11. 256 An abnormal pronoun   1 Here a couple of other renderings of the parenthesis: “I pass by the sufferings endured in war beneath (those) lofty walls, the heroes whom that Simois covers” (Page); “I omit all our effort to the very end at war under Troy’s lofty walls, and the men sunk under famous Simois” (Horsfall).   2 It is a bit misleading when Axelson (Unpoetische Wörter, Lund 1945, 70f.) sweepingly underlines “die Abgeneigtheit der meisten Dichter” and “[die] Antipathie der Dichter” against is.   3 16 times if we leave out the doubtful A. 9. 214.   4 Cf. M. Hélin, “Essai sur la mise en valeur d’un mot banal: le pronom is chez Virgile”, REL 5, 1927, 60–8: “le mot n’est pour ainsi dire jamais le simple pronom de renvoi familier aux prosateurs; il a communément la valeur d’un qualificatif, equivalent par exemple à talis: Aen., VI, 100 + VIII, 321” (p. 67).   5 Sabbadini was followed in this by Castiglioni in 1944, but not by M. Geymonat in 1971.   6 Cf. Cic. Ver. 5. 38; Plin. Ep. 3. 11. 6. Cf. also praetereo Cic. Man. 34; Ov. Ars 3. 612; Quint. Inst. 4. 2. 125.   7 The elision of ō before ĕa could probably be accepted in Vergil, harsh though it is, cf. S.E. Winbolt, Latin Hexameter Verse, London 1903, p. 168, but the 42 examples collected by M. Haupt (Observationes criticae, Lipsiae 1841, p. 20 = Opuscula I, Leipzig 1875, 92f.) concerning collision of long and short vowel in Vergil’s first foot demonstrate that mitto ea – alongside cedo equidem (A. 2. 704), credo equidem (A. 4. 12; 6. 848), spero equidem (A. 4. 382), vivo equidem (A. 3. 315) – is something of an exception as the first-person ending ‘o’ in mitto is not ‘protected’ against misunderstanding in the same way by an adverb (almost) exclusively used with the first person; on this metrical nicety see J. Soubiran, L’ élision dans la poésie Latine, Paris 1966, p. 312. So this is another indication of the corruption.   8 Spondaic words in the first foot have been carefully studied in Horace’s hexameter by N.-O. Nilsson in his dissertation Metrische Stildifferenzen in den Satiren des Horaz [Studia Latina Holmiensia I], Uppsala 1952, 97ff. His analysis has been applied on Vergil’s Bucolics by H. Holtorf, P. Vergilius Maro. Die grösseren Gedichte, Freiburg and Munich 1959, 294f. From these surveys can be seen that canto at Ecl. 2. 23 clearly belongs to the majority group of cases where the spondaic word and its diaeresis imply an expressive and emphatic retardation. This is akin to the effect felt in mitto at the start of the parenthesis at A. 11. 256–7.

A. 12. 161 A pompous mustering of forces   1 S. Harrison (Mnemosyne 67, 2014, 159f.) tries to solve the difficulty by reading quadriiugi . . . currus (genitive) instead of quadriiugo . . . curru in order to attain a clear construction.   2 Heyne explains ingenti mole as ‘magna molitione, apparatu’.

356  Aeneis IX–XII A. 12. 218 Brackets or no brackets?   1 Thus Geymonat (1973), Williams, Perret, Paratore, Rivero et al. (2011). Maguinness (1953) reckons with a lacuna after aequis in the wake of Ribbeck, Conington–Nettleship, cf. also Warde Fowler, The Death of Turnus, 64 (claiming: “obviously something wanting”), Courtney (1981, 20).   2 On the basis of l. 230. Foremost among these is Mynors (1969); viribus aequis may seem defended by 5. 809; 10. 357 and 431, cf. also 2. 724. My conclusion is nevertheless aequos after Schrader.   3 So already Hirtzel (1900) and Goold (2000).   4 For a traditional view see Perret in his note p. 247: “Au moment où Énée et Turnus, l’un à côté de l’autre, s’offrent tout proches à leurs regards (ut propius cernunt), les Rutules s’avisent de l’inégalité physique des deux hommes (non uiribus aequis) et elle leur est un motif supplémentaire (tum magis) de tenir ce duel comme impar”.

A. 12. 286 Latinus’ report of failure   1 Better is ‘stripped’.   2 Note Maguiness’ sound commentary: “diripuere and ferunt describe, not acts of sacrilegious violence, but attempts to get the holy objects out of harm’s way”.

A. 12. 648 Why not the easy way?   1 Bertha Tilly in her edition of the Twelfth Book (The Palatine Classics), London 1969, 192.   2 CQ 21, 1927, 10f. (= CP [III] 1124f).   3 Maguinness seems to prefer Housman’s solution, Traina accepts the lengthening of the final a in anima with the hiatus, Conte suggests sancta ad uos anima, en, atque istius inscia culpae, E. and G. Binder proposes sancta ad vos anima atque ipse istius inscia culpae (hardly acceptable); Trappes-Lomax, “Hiatus in Vergil and in Horace.s Odes”, PCPhS 30, 2004, 141–58, supports Housman’s solution, Tarrant, however, finds Housman’s word order unconvincing.   4 In EV s.v. scio.  5 Haud inscius: A. 10. 907. Inscius in the fourth foot: A. 2. 372, nescius e.g. A. 4. 72.   6 The distinctions of J.H.H. Schmidt, Handbuch der lateinischen und griechischen Synonymik, Stuttgart 1889, 677f., seem hardly relevant in Vergil’s case, see my EV article.   7 This is now S. Ottaviano’s convincing reading in her edition of Bucolica (with PseudoProbus).

A. 12. 790 Exhausted heroes   1 The accompanying translation by L. Canali runs: “cominciano l’uno contro l’altro anelanti la contesa di Marte”.   2 See Maguinness ad loc.   3 Thus Heyne–Wagner and Conington–Nettleship, whose note is admirable.   4 For example Forbiger (against Conington) and Warde Fowler, The Death of Turnus, Oxford 1929, 136.   5 Conington aptly compares ἔριδα . . . Ἄρηος (Il. 5. 861 = 14. 149).

References

Not included here are those references, of an ad hoc nature, that are found in the notes to each chapter. Their authors, however, are found in the Index philologorum recentiorum.

Editions; articles on textual criticism Austin, R.G. (1964): P. Vergili Maronis Aeneidos liber secundus, Oxford. ——. (1971): P. Vergili Maronis Aeneidos liber primus, Oxford. ——. (1977): P. Vergili Maronis Aeneidos liber sextus, Oxford. Bährens, E. (1884; 1885; 1887): “Emendationes Vergilianae”, [Fleckeisen’s] Jahrbücher für classiche Philologie 30, 391–412; 31, 385–401; 33, 259–277. Binder, E. and G. (1994–2005): P. Vergilius Maro. Aeneis [Sammlung Göschen], Stuttgart. Buscaroli, C. (1932): Virgilio. Il libro di Didone, Milan, Genoa and Naples. Butler, H.E. (1920): The Sixth Book of the Aeneid, Oxford. Clausen, W. (1994): Virgil. Eclogues, Oxford. Coleiro, E. (1979): An Introduction to Vergil’s Bucolics with a Critical Edition of the Text, Amsterdam. Coleman, R. (1977): Vergil. Eclogues [Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics], Cambridge. Conington, J. and Nettleship, H. (1884): The Works of Virgil with a Commentary4, Vol. II (Aeneid I–VI), London. ——. (1883): The Works of Virgil with a Commentary3, Vol. III (Aeneid VII–XII), London. Conington, J., Nettleship, H. and Haverfield, F. (1898): The Works of Virgil with a Commentary5, Vol. I (Eclogues and Georgics), London. Conte, G.B. (2009): P. Vergilius Maro. Aeneis [Bibliotheca Teubneriana], Berlin and New York. ——. (2013): P. Vergilius Maro. Georgica [Bibliotheca Teubneriana], Berlin and Boston. ——. (2013): Ope ingenii. Experiences of Textual Criticism, Berlin and Boston. Conway, R.S. (1935): P. Vergili Maronis. Aeneidos liber primus, Cambridge. Courtney, E. (1981): “The Formation of the Text of Vergil”, BICS 28, 13–29. ——. (2002–3): “The Formation of the Text of Vergil – Again”, BICS 46, 189–94. Cucchiarelli, A. (2012): Le Bucoliche [Lingue e letterature Carocci 141], Rome. Delvigo, M.L. (1987): Testo virgiliano e tradizione indiretta. Le varianti probiane [Biblioteca di Materiali e discussioni per l’analasi dei testi classici. 5], Pisa. Deuticke, P. (1904): (After T. Ladewig and C. Schaper) Vergils Gedichte9, III, Berlin.

358 References ——. (1907): (After T. Ladewig and C. Schaper) Vergils Gedichte8, I, Berlin. Dingel, J. (1997): Kommentar zum 9. Buch der Aeneis Vergils, Heidelberg. Erren, M. (1985/2003): P. Vergilius Maro. Georgica. [Wissenschaftliche Kommentare zu griechischen und lateinischen Schriftstellern], Heidelberg. Fairclough, H.R. (1935): Virgil, I–II, revised ed. [Loeb Classical Library], London and Cambridge, Mass. Farrell, J. (2013): Vergil Aeneid 5 [The Focus Vergil Aeneid Commentaries], Newburyport, Mass. Fletcher, F. (1948): Virgil. Aeneid VI2, Oxford. Forbiger, A. (1872–75): P. Vergili Maronis Opera4, Leipzig. Fordyce, C.J. (1977): P. Vergili Maronis Aeneidos libri VII–VIII with a Commentary, Glasgow and Oxford. Gagliardi, P. (2014): Commento alla decima ecloga di Virgilio [Spudasmata. B. 161], Hildesheim, Zürich and New York. Geymonat, M. (1965) “Lezioni e varianti virgiliane”, Studi classici e orientali 14, 86–99. ——. (19731; 20082): P. Vergili Maronis Opera edita anno MCMLXXIII iterum recensuit, Rome [Temi e testi. Reprint 4]. Goelzer, H. (1925): Virgile. Énéide. I–II [Coll. “Budé”], Paris. Götte, J. [and M.] (1958): Vergil. Aeneis und die Vergil-Viten, Lateinisch–Deutsch [Heimeran/ Sammlung Tusculum]. Goold, G.P. (1999): Virgil. Eclogues. Georgics. Aeneid I–VI with an English Translation by H. Rushton Fairclough revised by G.P.G. [Loeb Classical Library 63], Cambridge, Mass., and London. ——. (2000): Virgil. Aeneid VII–XII, Cambridge, Mass. Gossrau, G.G. (1876): Publii Virgilii Maronis Aeneis2, Quedlinburg. Hardie, P. (1994): Virgil. Aeneid. Book IX [Cambridge Greek and Latin classics], Cambridge. Harrison, S.J. (1991): Vergil. Aeneid 10, Oxford. Heyne, Chr. G. (1788–89): P. Virgilii Maronis Opera varietate lectionis et perpetua annotatione illustrata a Chr. Gottl. Heyne. Editio altera emendatior et auctior, Lipsiae. Hirtzel, F.A. (1900): P. Vergili Maronis Opera, Oxford. Hoogma, R.P. (1959): Der Einfluss Vergils auf die Carmina Latina Epigraphica, Amsterdam. Holtorf, H. (1959): P. Vergilius Maro. Die grösseren Gedichte. I (Einleitung. Bucolica), Freiburg and Munich. Horsfall, N. (1995): A Companion to the Study of Virgil [Mnemosyne. Suppl. 151], Leiden, New York and Cologne. ——. (2000): Virgil, Aeneid 7. A Commentary [Mnemosyne. Suppl. 198], Leiden, Boston and Cologne. ——. (2003): Virgil, Aeneid 11. A Commentary [Mnemosyne. Suppl. 244], Leiden and Boston. ——. (2008): Virgil, Aeneid 2. A Commentary [Mnemosyne. Suppl. 299], Leiden and Boston. ——. (2013): Virgil, Aeneid 6. A Commentary, I – II, Berlin and Boston. Jahn, P. (1912): (After T. Ladewig, C. Schaper and P. Deuticke) Vergils Gedichte13, II, Berlin. ——. (1915): (After T. Ladewig, C. Schaper and P. Deuticke) Vergils Gedichte9, I, Berlin. Janell, W. (1920): P. Vergili Maronis Aeneis post Ribbeckium tertium recognovit Gualtherus Ianell, Leipzig.

References 359 Johnston, P.A. (2012): Vergil Aeneid 6 [The Focus Vergil Aeneid Commentaries], Newburyport, Mass. Kirsch, A. (1886): Quaestiones Vergilianae criticae, Munster. Konijnenburg, J.W.T. van (1896): De figurae Ἀπὸ κοινοῦ usu apud Vergilium, Snecae (Sneek). Ladewig, T. (1850–53): Vergils Gedichte, I–III [Sammlunbg griech. und lat. Schriftsteller], Leipzig (for later editions cf. Schaper, Deuticke and Jahn). Mackail, J.W. (1930): The Aeneid, Oxford. Mynors, R.A.B. (1969): P. Vergili Maronis Opera [Scriptorum classicorum bibliotheca Oxoniensis], Oxford. ——. (1990): Virgil. Georgics, Oxford. Norden, E. (19031; 19283): P. Vergilius Maro: Aeneis Buch VI, Berlin. Ottaviano, S. (2013): P. Vergilius Maro Bucolica [Bibliotheca Teubneriana], Berlin and Boston. Page, T.E. (1894–1900): The Aeneid of Virgil, I–II, London. ——. (1898): P. Vergili Maronis Bucolica et Georgica, London. Paratore, E. (1947): Virgilio. Eneide. Libro quarto [Convivium. Vol. IV], Rome. ——. (1978–81): Virgilio. Eneide. Vol. I–VI [Scrittori greci e latini. Fondazione Lorenzo Valla/Mondadori], Milan. Pascal, C. (1905): P. Vergilio Marone. L’Eneide. Libro primo, Milan, Palermo and Naples. Pease, A.S. (1935): Publi Vergili Maronis Aeneidos Liber Quartus, Cambridge, Mass. Peerlkamp, P. Hofman (1843): P. Virgilii Maronis Aeneidos libri, I–II, Leiden. Perret, J. (1961): Virgile. Les Bucoliques [Coll. “Erasme”], Paris. ——. (1978–80): Virgil. Énéide, I–III, Texte établi et traduit par J.P. (Coll. “Budé”), Paris. Plessis, F. and Lejay, P. (1919): Œuvres de Virgile, Paris. Ribbeck, O. (1866): Prolegomena critica ad P. Vergili Maronis Opera maiora, Leipzig. ——. (1875): P. Vergili Maronis Opera, Leipzig. ——. (1894–95): P. Vergili Maronis Opera I–IV2, Leipzig. Richter, W. (1957): Vergil. Georgica [Das Wort der Antike. B. V], Munich. Rivero et al. = Rivero García, L., Estévez Sola, J.A., Librán Moreno, M. and Ramirez de Verger, A. (eds.) (2009–11): Virgilio, Eneida, I–IV. Introd., texto latino, traducción y notas. [Alma Mater, Colección de autores griegos y latinos, Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas], Madrid. Sabbadini, R. (1930): P. Vergili Maronis Opera. I–II [Scriptores Graeci et Latini], Rome. Sabbadini R. and Castiglioni, L. (1944): P. Vergili Maronis Aeneidos libri XII. Recensuit R.S. Editionem ad exemplum editionis Romanae (MCMXXX) emendatam curavit L.C. [Corpus scriptorum Latinorum Paravianum], Turin. Saint-Denis, E. de (1967): Virgile. Bucoliques, Paris [Coll. “Budé”], Paris. Schaper, C. (1875–1876): Vergils Gedichte6, I–III, Leipzig. Tarrant, R. (2012): Virgil. Aeneid Book XII [Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics], Cambridge. Tescari, O. (1947): Virgilio. Le Bucoliche, Milan. Thilo, G. (1886): P. Vergili Maronis Carmina, Leipzig. Thomas, R.F. (1988), Virgil Georgics, I – II, Cambridge. Timpanaro, S. (2001): Virgilianisti antichi e tradizione indiretta [Accademia Toscana di scienze e lettere “La colombaria”. “Studi” 195], Florence. ——. (2002): Per la storia della filologia Virgiliana antica2 [Quaderni di “Filologia e critica” VI], Rome.

360 References Traina, A. (1997): Virgilio. L’utopia e la storia. Il libro XII dell’Eneide e antologia delle opere [Testi e crestomazie], Turin. Wagner, G.P.E. (1830): (A revision of Heyne’s edition) P. Virgilius Maro. Vol. I–IV. Ed. quarta, Leipzig and London. Weidner, A. (1869): Commentar zu Vergil’s Aeneis Buch I und II, Leipzig. Williams, R.D. (1972–73): The Aeneid of Virgil, I–II, edited with introduction and notes, London. ——. (1979): Virgil. The Eclogues and Georgics [Macmillan Classical Series], London. Wills, J. (1996): Repetition in Latin Poetry, Oxford.

Some translations Ahl, F. (2007): Virgil. Aeneid [Oxford World’s Classics], Oxford. Berg, W. (1974): Early Virgil, London. Boyle, A.J. (1976): The Eclogues of Virgil, Melbourne. Della Corte, F. (1991) in: Enciclopedia Virgiliana V**, Rome. Geymonat, M. (1981): Bucoliche, Milan. Lanzara, Valeria Gigante (1981): Bucoliche, Naples. Lee, G. (1969), Virgil’s Eclogues [Liverpool Latin Texts 1], Liverpool. West, D. (1990): Virgil. The Aeneid. A New Prose Translation [Penguin Classics], London.

General works Burkard–Schauer = Menge, H. (2000): Lehrbuch der lateinischen Syntax und Semantik. Völlig neu bearbeitet von Thorsten Burkard und Markus Schauer, Darmstadt. EV = Enciclopedia Virgiliana I–V, Roma 1984–1991. K–S = Kühner, R. and Stegmann, C. (1912): Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache. Zweiter Teil: Satzlehre. I–II, Hannover. Knauer, G.N. (1964): Die Aeneis und Homer, Göttingen. Krebs, J.P. (1905): Antibarbarus der lateinischen Sprache7, Basel. Neue, F. and Wagener, C. (1902–05): Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache I–IV, Leipzig. OLD = P.G.W. Glare (ed.) (1982): Oxford Latin Dictionary, Oxford. Ott = W. Ott (1974): Rücklaüfiger Wortindex gu Vergil. Bucolica, Georgica, Aeneis, Jübingen. Soubiran, J. (1966): L’élision dans la poésie Latine, Paris. Szantyr (1972): Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik von J.B. Hofmann, neubearbeitet von A. Szantyr [Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft II.2.2]. TLL = Thesaurus Linguae Latinae 1900–.

Index philologorum recentiorum

Mentioned in the text (and occasionally in the notes) reflecting some of the author’s dialogues with the philological tradition. Adkin, N. 195 Allen, S. 187 Austin, R.G. 129, 135, 160, 181, 187, 233, 239, 250, 310, 315 Axelson, B. 159 Bährens, E. 2, 3, 153, 179f. Barwick, K. 110 Bentley, R. 2, 3, 209, 242, 329, 354 Berg, W. 53 Binder, G. 246, 254, 263 Boyle, A.J. 26, 30, 53 Buchheit, V. 110 Bulhart, V. 171, 226 Burman, P. 263, 320 Buscaroli, C. 180, 184 Butler, H.E. 224, 231 Cahen, R. 80 Campbell, A.Y. 181 Carcopino, J. 17, 18 Castiglioni, L. 21, 51, 97, 105, 181 Chatelain, E. 196, 202 Clausen, W. 11, 14, 17, 22, 28, 31, 34, 41, 47, 51, 52, 58, 60, 63, 74, 75 Coleman, R. 11, 17, 28, 34, 36, 44, 51, 53, 54, 55f., 57, 59, 60, 62, 67, 75 Conington, J. 44, 47, 56, 58, 97, 110, 135, 158, 223, 315, 330, 335 Conte, G.B. 5, 6, 7, 97, 113, 129, 131, 137, 152, 160, 162, 166, 173, 175, 180, 205, 210, 232, 236, 239, 257, 261, 263, 267f., 287, 294, 295f., 298, 306, 309, 315, 317, 325, 327, 337

Conway, R.S. 117, 140 Courtney, E. 11, 66, 183, 187, 263, 267, 311 Crusius, O. 21 Cucchiarelli, A. 12, 16, 22, 27, 49, 71, 77, 83, 92 Cunningham, A. 263, 312 De la Cerda, J. 313 Della Corte, F. 12 De Paolis, P. 261 Deuticke, P. 51, 262, 325 Dingel, J. 287, 293, 295, 298, 312, 315, 318, 323 Dover, K. 14, 15 Düring, Th. 184 Dyson, J. 207 Ellis, R. 2, 3, 4, 329 Erren, M. 82, 97, 111, 115, 118 Estévez, J.A. 312 Farrell, J. 203, 205 Fletcher, F. 233 Forbiger, A. 60, 97, 98, 110, 158, 176, 203, 237, 310 Fordyce, C.J. 257, 263, 296 Fraenkel, E. 105, 244 Fuchs, H. 69, 71 Gagliardi, P. 77 Ganiban, R.T. 158, 162 Gebauer, G.A. 72 Geymonat, M. 3, 5, 6, 7, 21, 47, 51, 97, 131, 160, 162, 166, 175, 180, 181, 202,

362  Index philologorum recentiorum 205, 210, 221, 257, 263, 287, 295, 306, 315, 317, 323, 325, 327, 331 Glaser, E. 109 Goelzer, H. 181, 202, 221, 242, 306, 325 Goold, G.P. 14, 26, 30, 46, 47, 58, 87, 97, 131, 152, 160, 162, 175, 180, 184, 187, 205, 206, 210, 224, 257, 263, 265, 267, 287, 292, 295, 299, 302, 306, 309, 312, 313, 315, 317, 323, 325 Gossrau, G.G. 224, 269 Gow, A.S.F. 14, 15 Götte, J. 97, 306, 312 Hardie, P. 287, 288, 289, 292, 295f., 301, 309, 311, 317, 322, 324, 325, 326 Harrison, S.J. 257, 327, 355 Haupt, M. 176 Hedicke, E. 209 Heinsius, N. 2, 3, 173, 237, 298 Heinze, R. 215 Henry, J. 234, 299 Hermann, L. 66, 91 Heumann, C.A. xiv, 1, 2, 3, 74, 77 Heyne, Ch.G. xiv, 1, 24, 47, 48, 54, 82, 97, 98, 100, 158, 169, 179, 185, 237, 259, 269, 317, 323f., 335 Heyworth, S. 315 Hildebrand, G.F. 188 Hiltbrunner, O. 181 Hirtzel, A. 21, 97, 129, 131, 166, 205, 221, 244, 305, 306, 325, 343, 345 Hofmann, J.B. 114 Holmes, N. 266 Hornblower, S. 204 Horsfall, N. 156, 158, 160, 162, 164, 167, 171, 206, 208, 210, 222, 226, 233, 237, 257, 258, 263, 265, 331 Housman, A.E. 181 Huxley, H.H. 97 Huyck, J. 314 Jachmann, G. 349, 351 Jahn, P. 51, 85, 97, 221 Janell, W. 166, 181, 306, 325 Jasper, F. 2, 3, 259 Jenkyns, R. 85

Jönsson, A. (and Roos, B.-A.) 246, 253f. Johnston, P.A. 233 Kennedy, B.H. 116f., 118 Kenney, E.J. 288 Kirsch, A. 52 Knox, P.E. 216 Konijnenburg, J.W.T. 33 Kovacs, D. (& Ommani, B.) 20, 81 Krebs, J.Ph. 112, 299 Ladewig, Th. 51 Ladewig – Jahn 86, 176, 188, 263, 265 Ladewig – Deuticke 301 Lee, G. 30, 53, 60, 61, 62, 74 Leigh, M. 241 Leo, F. 11 Löfstedt, E. 326 Lund, G.C.V. 275 Mackail, J.W. 176, 306 MacKay, L.A. 298 Madvig, J.N. 2, 3, 157, 192, 327 Maguinness, W.S. 343 Markland, J. 187 Mørland, H. 203 Mynors, R.A.B. 5, 6, 7, 28, 47, 66, 97, 100, 103, 115, 118, 120, 129, 131, 160, 166, 173, 175, 181, 202, 205, 239, 263, 287, 306, 311, 315, 317, 323, 325, 327, 344 Nauck, A. 246 Naugerius, A. 313 Naumann, H. 40 Nisbet, R.G.M. 3, 173f. Norden, E. 223, 231, 233, 239, 255 O’Hara, J. 184, 203 Ottaviano, S. 12, 16, 22, 24, 27, 49, 71, 81, 83, 92 Page, T.E. 44, 97, 158, 205, 293, 301, 306, 325, 327, 332 Paratore, E. 135, 160, 162, 184, 257, 263, 287, 306, 315, 325, 347 Pascal, C. 141 Paschalis, M. 203 Pease, A.S. 180, 181, 184, 189

Index philologorum recentiorum  363 Peerlkamp, P.H. 2, 3, 5, 47, 48, 51, 52, 80, 122, 167, 169, 176, 186, 192, 194, 237, 253, 292f., 299f. Perret, J. 3, 13, 17f., 68, 69, 70, 71, 152, 160, 162, 181, 202, 205, 225, 257, 263, 287, 306, 315, 323, 325 Plessis, F. (& Lejay, P.) 45, 46, 301 Polverini, L. 203 Ribbeck, O. 2, 3, 5, 47, 97, 166, 168, 176, 202, 205, 242, 259, 293, 305, 309, 345 Richter, W. 97 Ring, A. 330 Rivero, L. et al. (Spanish Alma mater project) 131, 152, 161, 162, 166, 187, 205, 210, 257, 261, 269, 287, 295, 306, 315, 323, 325 Rocca, R. 72 Sabbadini, R. 21, 47, 97, 162, 166, 202, 205, 225, 306, 325, 334 Saint-Denis, E. de 18, 53 Salanitro, M. 142, 145 Schaper, C. 2, 3, 51, 261 Schmidt, E.A. 34, 39, 85 Schrader, J. 3, 4, 21, 318f., 337 Schröter, G. 281 Schackleton Bailey, D.R. 159 Sidgwick, A. 301, 306, 320 Skutsch, O. 55 Slater, D.A. 6, 7

Sparrow, J. 176 Stachelscheid, A. 209 Tarrant, O. 335, 337, 341, 348 Tescari, O. 1 Thilo, G. 97 Thomas, R.F. 97, 108, 115, 116 Timpanaro, S. 210 Traina, A. 16 Tyrrell, R.Y. 187 Ursinus, F. 213 Ussani, V. 158 Voss, J.H. 2, 3, 118 Waddel, G. 263, 349 Wagner, Ph. xiv, 2, 3, 4, 77, 97, 98, 100, 205, 269, 299, 305, 311, 323, 335, 351 Wakefield, G. 158 Weidner, A. 288 West, D. 189, 217, 288 West, S. 140 Williams, R.D. 149, 158, 160, 162, 181, 205, 210, 257, 263, 265, 287, 288, 293, 302, 306, 315, 323, 325 Wills, J. 12 Winbolt, S.E. 183 Woodman, A.J. 19f. Wordsworth, C. 263 Zwierlein, O. 246