No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Extract
The ancient evidence about the Culex is collected by Miss Jackson in her article in the Classical Quarterly (Vol. V. 1911, p. 163 sq.). There seems no reason to doubt that Lucan said ‘et quantum mihi restat ad Culicem!’; and, whatever Lucan meant by it, Statius turned it into a compliment for the poet by making Calliope predict the various works he would produce ‘ante annos Culicis Maroniani’ (Siluae II. vii. 70). In the Neronian age, we may take it, it was not an obscure or conjectural matter, but one of common knowledge or belief, that a certain known poem, the Culex, was the work of Virgil. About the other opuscula there is no evidence as early as that. The Aetna and Moretum are ascribed to him dubiously; the Ciris, Dirae, Epigrammata, Priapea, Catalepton are attributed to him with more confidence, but not so confidently as the Culex. It almost looks as if the belief in the Virgilian authorship spread from the Culex to certain other poems which were in some way or other connected with it. Here there is admittedly a great difficulty for those who are inclined to deny or to doubt that it is Virgil's. Are not the facts most easily explained by supposing that it was Virgil's ? At all events it is in various ways improbable that it was written, and produced as Virgil's, at some time between Virgil's death and the youth of Lucan. It is difficult to imagine who would have a motive for doing such a thing, or who could do it successfully. So it is incumbent upon the sceptic to produce some plausible view of what may have happened.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1920
References
page 24 note 1 Something is known about the publication of books at Rome, but one would like to know more. Cicero had some control of his writings through Atticus and his agents, and he could get things altered even when many copies had been sent out. One would like to know—if the story is true—how in 26 or 25 B.C. Virgil could give Georg. IV. a new epilogue, of two or three hundred lines, which completely superseded the previous ending.
page 25 note 1 Lucretius made an enormous contribution to the possibilities of expression in verse. It was subjected to a process of gradual sifting or discrimination during the next thirty years. Not all of it could find a place in the finished and consistent poetic diction to which Virgil gave all but final currency.
page 26 note 1 The last three are not absolutely banished from Augustan poetry. They occur once or twice: perhibent with acc. and inf. finds, Drachmann in Georgics IV. 506Google Scholar . It is perhaps significant that this is in the Epyllion of Orpheus and Eurydice. Drachmann omits to mention that there are two instances in Catullus' Epyllion—be quotes only Enn. Pac. and the passage in the Georgics.
page 27 note 1 Munuscula for gifts to a child. In Catullus (103) the gifts are promised by Ariadne to the gods, and the diminutive has no obvious appropriateness. It may be noted also that Ecl. IV., in which munuscula occurs, has unmistakable reminiscences of Catullus.
page 31 note 1 V.l. ‘edita.’ But even if ‘edita’ is right, resemblance remains.
page 32 note 1 , Observe in the Panegyricus ‘decus’ twice (321, 49)Google Scholar , and a new clause beginning with the sixth foot in 1. 181. But I lay no stress on these points. The author's talk about ‘charta, chartae’ has been noticed already, and the frequency of lines ending in -Ʊ (‘dōnă’).
page 32 note 2 This is Leo's interpretation. Perhaps it is wrong. With a rather slighter effort one can understand the words as meaning ‘assigned,’ that is, allocated by fate or by the nature of things, ‘to wealth’, or very wealthy owners. But the fact that two interpretations are possible helps to enforce the point; it shows the author as curiously indecisive or irresolute in his use of language.
page 34 note 1 If it is permissible to add one more to the many conjectures on this passage, I think the author perhaps wrote ‘atrox Laestrygonas agmen’ (words arranged as in ‘clarum Tyndaridae sidus’ —more than once in the Culex the neuter word ‘decus’ is put in apposition to a personal name, 1. 18 and 1. 265, and in 1. 360 ‘decus’ must go either with ‘Roma’ or in the ace. with ‘omnes quos’).
page 34 note 2 The question is not important for my argument, and it cannot be discussed very briefly. I am inclined to think that Virgil did write the lines, and that Varius thought them so undesirable that he felt justified, for once, in departing from the strict limits of his commission, and struck them out. They offended against what Quintilian calls the , Homericlex prooemiorum (X. c. 1. 481)Google Scholar: they were too glaring an obtrusion of the poet's personality to be tolerated in a heroic ‘epos.’ Ennius had been misled by Callimachus into committing the offence in his Pythagorean somnium.
page 36 note 1 ‘Multa de his ediderunt’ I take to mean dissertations or commentaries on these authors. But the words are perhaps capable of a different meaning.
page 36 note 2 Not necessarily by its formal publication. It was unearthed and talked about, at first as possibly Virgil's, then as probably Virgil's, then as a youthful work of his (in the Neronian age). But it was not so certainly his as to insure its being edited with critical care.
page 36 note 3 Perhaps there was a copy of it among the books and papers of Augustus, forgotten by him—more likely to be forgotten if it was not Virgil's. Livia and Tiberius would not necessarily know much about it, if it was addressed to him before he married her and before Tiberius was born.
page 37 note 1 This would be after Parthenius came to Rome, if we may believe Suidas' statement that he was a captive in the Mithradatic war. Suidas also says that Parthenius lived to the reign of Tiberius. But the passage quoted above from Suetonius makes this rather unlikely. He is there associated with Rhianus and Euphorion.