^{page 593 note 1} E.g. Coleman, R., Vergil: Eclogues (Cambridge, 1977), pp. 194Google Scholar and 205 (‘abrupt’); Williams, R. D., Virgil: the Eclogues and Georgia (London & New York, 1979), p. 114 (‘startling’) and p. 117 (‘extremely striking’);Google ScholarWilliams, G., Figures of Thought in Roman Poetry (New Haven & London, 1980), pp. 223–224 (‘inappropriate and bizarre’).Google Scholar

^{page 593 note 2} To Coleman and Williams, R. D. (above, n. 1) add Mynors, R. A. B., P. Vergili Maronis Opera (corrected edition, Oxford, 1972);Google ScholarGeymonat, M., P. Vergili Maronis Opera (Turin, 1973);Google Scholar and Clausen, W., A Commentary on Virgil Eclogues (Oxford, 1994).Google Scholar

^{page 594 note 3} Courtney, E., ‘Vergil's Sixth Eclogue’, QUUC 34 (1990), 99–112, at pp. 102–3 and p. 111.Google Scholar

^{page 594 note 4} Otis, B., Virgil: a Study in Civilized Poetry(Oxford, 1964), p. 138 (cf. p. 407 ‘the obviously temporal structure of the Silenus song as a whole’).Google Scholar

^{page 594 note 5} Otis, p. 407, who was obliged to describe the Gallus passage as an ‘interlude’.

^{page 594 note 6} Skutsch, O., ‘Symmetry and sense in the Eclogues’, HSCP 73 (1969), 153–169Google Scholar, at p. 164, endorsed by Rudd, N., Lines of Enquiry(Cambridge, 1976), p. 138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 594 note 7} See e.g. Clausen, p. 192.

^{page 594 note 8} Of lines 41-2 Clausen correctly says: ‘brief, allusive references in the Alexandrian manner to well-known stories’. Tt might be thought that a parallel to the Gallus passage is provided by the introduction to Eel.8, where eight lines (6-13) addressed to an unnamed contemporary (surely not Octavian) intervene between two sections on Damon and Alphesiboeus (1-5 and 14-16). But the parallel is false: 8.6-13 is to be read as a parenthesis, in which a grander type of poetry (8 tua dicerefacta)is mentioned as a complimentary alternative to the proposed pastoral (1-5 Pastorum Musam... dicemus),whereas in Eel.6 Gallus is simply one of a number of subjects listed on an equal footing with one another (as turn canitat 64 makes clear).

^{page 594 note 9} Coleman, p. 187, says of line 42 that ‘The mention of the crime after the punishment indicates that the sequence in the preceding line need not be chronologically significant’.

^{page 594 note 10} Dr Heyworth, quoting G.2.4-7 (hue, pater o Lenaee; tuis hie...; hue, pater o Lenaee),questions the validity of Courtney's first objection.

^{page 595 note 11} Skutsch, p. 163, ‘the incongruity of that story [sc. of Gallus] in the mouth of Silenus would have been too obvious’.

^{page 595 note 12} Coleman, p. 203; so also e.g. Clausen, p. 175, Ross, D. O., Backgrounds to Augustan Poetry(Cambridge, 1975), pp. 20, 28.Google Scholar

^{page 595 note 13} Nor by R. Sabbadini in his edition (Rome, 1937) nor by F. della Corte in his commentary (Milan, 1939). Indeed the only recent scholar apart from Courtney to mention the transposition is E. Coleiro in his apparatus criticus to the poem (An Introduction to VergiFs Bucolics with a Critical Edition of the Text[Amsterdam, 1979], p. 332); but his discussion of the eclogue's structure presupposes that the transposition, to which he makes no further reference, is mistaken (pp. 63,211,214–15).

^{page 595 note 14} See e.g. Knox, P. E., Ovicts Metamorphoses and the Traditions of Augustan Poetry (Cambridge, 1986), pp. 10–14Google Scholar, Helzle, M., ‘Ovid's Cosmogony’, PLLS 7 (1993), 123–134, at pp. 123–4.Google Scholar

^{page 596 note 15} Alternatively, as Dr Heyworth has suggested, the scribe's eye leapt from erigit alnos(63) to uolitauerit aits(81). It may perhaps be added that Atthisfor ante(80) has been suggested by Boneschanscher, E. J., CQ 32 (1982), 148–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 596 note 16} Courtney, E., ‘The formation of the text of Vergil’, BICS 28 (1981), 13–29, at pp. 16–20.Google Scholar

^{page 596 note 17} The Lucretian element is minimized by Ross, p. 25, but see Martini, L. Ramorino, ‘Influssi lucreziani nelle Bucoliche di Virgilio’, Civilta classica e cristiana 7 (1986), 297–331Google Scholar, at pp. 324–6, and note also Woodman, A. J., LCM 16 (1991), 92. The tribute to Lucretius should not, of course, obscure Virgil's allusions to Apollonius (on which see e.g. Ross, pp. 25-6, Knox, pp. 11-12, Clausen, p. 176).Google Scholar

^{page 596 note 18} See esp. Rutherford, R. B., ‘Virgil's poetic ambitions in Eclogue 6’, G&R 36 (1989), 42–50, at p. 45.Google Scholar

^{page 596 note 19} Clausen, p. 207, who states that the alternative interpretation ‘must be right’. Yet, if Clausen is correct, what would Silenus' final theme be? Apollo's tragic love for Hyacinthus, which is the usual answer to the question, scarcely suits the adjective beatus(82). Hence P. E. Knox (‘Inpursuit of Daphne’, TAPA120 [1990], 183-202) has suggested an allusion to the story of Daphne; but it is not quite clear from Clausen's note (pp. 207-8) whether he accepts Knox's suggestion. For the appropriateness and importance of Apollo as a closural figure in the eclogue see Williams, G., Tradition and Originality in Roman Poetry(Oxford, 1968), pp. 248–249.Google Scholar

^{page 597 note 20} For the tradition linking Linus and Silenus see Ross, chapter 2.

^{page 597 note 1} Cic.Fam.5.12.5: ‘Etenim ordo ipse annalium mediocriter nos retinet quasi enumeratione fastorum; at viri saepe excellentis ancipites variique casus habent admirationem exspectationem, laetitiam molestiam, spem timorem; si vero exitu notabili concluduntur, expletur animus iucundissima lectionis voluptate.’

^{page 597 note 2} Aetna247-51: