Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-16T00:16:32.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

(MIS)READING THE GNAT: TRUTH AND DECEPTION IN THE PSEUDO-VIRGILIAN CVLEX

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 April 2019

Talitha Kearey
Talitha Kearey*
Affiliation:
Magdalen College, [email protected]
Get access

Extract

The Culex—the earliest and best attested of the purported minor works of Virgil, and the most outright in gesturing towards Virgilian authorship—poses a problem for modern classical scholarship. Since at least the seventeenth century scholars have been preoccupied with the poem's authenticity. Is it a piece of early Virgilian iuuenilia, as the ancient testimonies and mediaeval transmission of the text seem to assert, or a later production? If a later production, should we see it as a deliberate forgery, or as a poem severed in the course of transmission from its original author and helplessly swept up in Virgil's train? The authenticity problem has proven persistent: as recently as the 1970s, scholars tried to claim the Culex for Virgil. Even among those who think it non-Virgilian, the apparent consensus of anonymous late-Tiberian authorship has been contested by Otto Zwierlein's suggestion of M. Julius Montanus and Jean-Yves Maleuvre's, even more unlikely, of Augustus.

Type
Research Article
Information
Ramus , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , December 2018 , pp. 174 - 196
Copyright
Copyright ©Ramus 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I would like to thank Emily Gowers, Bob Kaster and Irene Peirano Garrison for their comments, suggestions and encouragement. Glenn Most and Irene Peirano Garrison kindly shared prepublication material with me. This article originated as an essay submitted for a Cambridge MPhil degree in April 2014, under the wise supervision of Philip Hardie, and was substantially reworked during a stay at the Fondation Hardt (Vandœuvres, Switzerland); I am grateful to the Roman Society and Cambridge's Faculty of Classics for enabling that visit. This work was supported by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (grant number AH/L503897/1).

References

Allan, W. (2008), Euripides: Helen (Cambridge).Google Scholar
Annas, J. (1982), ‘Plato's Myths of Judgment’, Phronesis 27.2, 119–43.10.1163/156852882X00096Google Scholar
Barchiesi, A. (1997), ‘Virgilian Narrative: Ekphrasis’, in Martindale (1997), 271–81.Google Scholar
Barrett, A.A. (1970a), ‘The Authorship of the Culex: An Evaluation of the Evidence’, Latomus 29, 348–62.Google Scholar
Barrett, A.A. (1970b), ‘The Catalogue of Trees in the Culex’, CW 63, 230–2.Google Scholar
Barrett, A.A. (1970c), ‘Note on Culex 292’, CP 65, 43.Google Scholar
Barrett, A.A. (1970d), ‘The Praise of Country Life in the Culex’, PP 25, 323–7.Google Scholar
Barrett, A.A. (1970e), ‘The Topography of the Gnat's Descent’, CJ 65, 255–7.Google Scholar
Barrett, A.A. (1972), ‘Donatus and the Date of the Culex’, CP 67.4, 280–7.Google Scholar
Barrett, A.A. (1976), ‘The Poet's Intentions in the Culex’, Latomus 35, 567–74.Google Scholar
Bartsch, S. (1998), ‘Ars and the Man: The Politics of Art in Virgil's Aeneid’, CP 93, 322–42.Google Scholar
Berg, W. (1974), Early Virgil (London).Google Scholar
Brooks, R.A. (1953), ‘Discolor Aura: Reflections on the Golden Bough’, AJP 74.3, 260–80.Google Scholar
Burrow, C. (2008), ‘English Renaissance Readers and the Appendix Vergiliana’, PVS 26, 1–16.Google Scholar
Casali, S. (2007), ‘Killing the Father: Ennius, Naevius and Virgil's Julian Imperialism’, in Fitzgerald, W. and Gowers, E. (eds), Ennius Perennis: the Annals and Beyond (PCPhS suppl. vol. 31, Cambridge), 103–28.Google Scholar
Casali, S. (2010), ‘Autoreflessività onirica nell’Eneide e nei successori epici di Virgilio’, in Scioli, E. and Walde, C. (eds), Sub Imagine Somni: Nighttime Phenomena in Greco-Roman Culture (Pisa), 119–42.Google Scholar
Clark, R. (2001), ‘How Virgil Expanded the Underworld in Aeneid 6’, PCPhS 47, 103–16.Google Scholar
Courtney, E.J. (1967), ‘Notes on the Appendix Vergiliana’, Phoenix 21, 44–55.10.2307/1086618Google Scholar
Courtney, E.J. (1993), The Fragmentary Latin Poets, edited with commentary (Oxford).Google Scholar
Cucchiarelli, A. (2001), La satira e il poeta. Orazio tra epodi e sermones (Pisa).Google Scholar
Davies, M., and Kathirithamby, J. (1986), Greek Insects (London).Google Scholar
Everett, W. (1900), ‘Upon Virgil, Aeneid VI, vss. 893–898’, CR 14.3, 153f.Google Scholar
Feeney, D.C. (1986), ‘History and Revelation in Vergil's Underworld’, PCPhS 32, 1–24.Google Scholar
Feldherr, A. (1999), ‘Putting Dido on the Map: Genre and Geography in Vergil's Underworld’, Arethusa 32, 85–122.10.1353/are.1999.0002Google Scholar
Felton, D. (1999), Haunted Greece and Rome: Ghost Stories from Classical Antiquity (Texas).Google Scholar
Fowler, D.P. (1991), ‘Narrate and Describe: The Problem of Ekphrasis’, JRS 81, 25–35.Google Scholar
Fowler, D.P. (1997), ‘Virgilian Narrative (a): Story-Telling’, in Martindale (1997), 259–70.10.1017/CCOL0521495393.017Google Scholar
Fraenkel, E. (1952), ‘The Culex’, JRS 42, 1–9.Google Scholar
Fratantuono, L.M., and Smith, R.A. (2015), Virgil, Aeneid 5: Text, Translation and Commentary (Leiden).Google Scholar
Giancotti, F. (1951), ‘Sulla cronologia e sulla dedica del Culex’, Maia 4, 70–6.Google Scholar
Goldhill, S. (1991), The Poet's Voice: Essays on Poetics and Greek Literature (Cambridge).Google Scholar
Gowers, E. (2005), ‘Virgil's Sibyl and the “Many Mouths” Cliché (Aen. 6.625–7)’, CQ 55.1, 170–82.10.1093/cq/bmi012Google Scholar
Gowers, E. (2012) Horace. Satires Book 1 (Cambridge).Google Scholar
Gowers, E. (2016), ‘Dido and the Owl’, in Mitsis, P. and Ziogas, I. (eds), Wordplay and Powerplay in Latin Poetry (Berlin), 107–30.Google Scholar
Grafton, A. (1990), Forgers and Critics: Creativity and Duplicity in Western Scholarship (London).Google Scholar
Güntzschel, D. (1972), Beiträge zur Datierung des Culex (Munich).Google Scholar
Hardie, P.R. (1993), The Epic Successors of Virgil (Cambridge).Google Scholar
Hardie, P.R. (2002), Ovid's Poetics of Illusion (Cambridge).Google Scholar
Hardie, P.R. and Moore, H. (eds) (2010), Classical Literary Careers and their Reception (Cambridge).10.1017/CBO9780511778872Google Scholar
Harris, W.V. (2003), ‘Roman Opinions about the Truthfulness of Dreams’, JRS 93, 18–34.Google Scholar
Harrison, S.J. (2001), ‘Picturing the Future: The Proleptic Ekphrasis from Homer to Vergil’, in id. (ed.), Texts, Ideas, and the Classics: Scholarship, Theory, and Classical Literature (Oxford), 70–92.Google Scholar
Harrisson, J. (2013), Dreams and Dreaming in the Roman Empire: Cultural Memory and Imagination (London).Google Scholar
Heslin, P.J. (2005), The Transvestite Achilles: Gender and Genre in Statius’ Achilleid (Cambridge).10.1017/CBO9780511482236Google Scholar
Heubeck, A., and Hoekstra, A. (1989), A Commentary on Homer's Odyssey, Volume II, Books IX–XVI (Oxford).Google Scholar
Holzberg, N. (ed.) (2005), Die Appendix Vergiliana: Pseudepigraphen im literarischen Kontext (Tübingen).Google Scholar
Holzberg, N. (2014), review of Seelentag (2012), Mnemosyne 67.2, 312–15.10.1163/1568525X-12341331Google Scholar
Horsfall, N. (1985), review of Schmidt (1983), CR 35.1, 186.Google Scholar
Horsfall, N. (1995), A Companion to the Study of Virgil (Leiden).Google Scholar
Horsfall, N. (2008), Virgil, Aeneid 2: A Commentary (Leiden).10.1163/ej.9789004169883.i-632Google Scholar
Horsfall, N. (2013), Virgil, Aeneid 6: A Commentary (2 vols: Leiden).10.1515/9783110229912Google Scholar
Janka, M. (2005), ‘Prolusio oder Posttext? Zum intertextuellen Stammbaum des hypervirgilischen Culex’, in Holzberg (2005), 28–67.Google Scholar
Johnston, S.I. (1999), Restless Dead: Encounters between the Living and the Dead in Ancient Greece (Berkeley).Google Scholar
Kayachev, B. (2016), Allusion and Allegory: Studies in the Ciris (Berlin).10.1515/9783110447767Google Scholar
Kirichenko, A. (2013), ‘Virgil's Augustan Temples: Image and Intertext in the Aeneid’, JRS 103, 65–87.Google Scholar
Kruschwitz, P. (2015), ‘Getting on Top of Things: Form and Meaning in the Pseudo-Vergilian Aetna’, Habis 46, 75–97.Google Scholar
Leo, F. (1891), Culex: Carmen Vergilio Adscriptum (Berlin).Google Scholar
Lowe, D. (2014), ‘A Stichometric Allusion to Catullus 64 in the Culex’, CQ 64, 862–5.10.1017/S000983881400024XGoogle Scholar
Lowenstam, S. (1993), ‘The Pictures on Juno's Temple in the Aeneid’, CW 87, 37–49.Google Scholar
Lundström, S. (1977), Acht Reden in der Aeneis (Uppsala).Google Scholar
Lyne, R.O.A.M. (1998), ‘Propertius and Tibullus: early exchanges’, CQ 48.2, 519–44.10.1093/cq/48.2.519Google Scholar
Magnelli, E. (2006), ‘Bucolic Tradition and Poetic Programme in Calpurnius Siculus’, in Fantuzzi, M. and Papanghelis, T. (eds), Brill's Companion to Greek and Latin Pastoral (Leiden), 467–78.10.1163/9789047408536_020Google Scholar
Maleuvre, J.-Y. (1998), ‘Le moucheron d'Octave’, RBPh 76, 75–86.10.3406/rbph.1998.4255Google Scholar
Martindale, C. (ed.) (1997), The Cambridge Companion to Virgil (Cambridge).10.1017/CCOL0521495393Google Scholar
Michels, A.K. (1981), ‘The insomnium of Aeneas’, CQ 31, 1140–6.10.1017/S0009838800021121Google Scholar
Most, G.W. (1987), ‘The Virgilian Culex’, in Whitby, M., Hardie, P.R. and Whitby, M. (eds), Homo Viator: Classical Essays for John Bramble (Bristol), 199–209.Google Scholar
Most, G.W. (1992), ‘Il poeta nell'Ade: catabasi epica e teoria dell'epos’, SIFC 10, 1014–26.Google Scholar
Most, G.W. (forthcoming), ‘Forging a poetic autobiography: the Culex’, in id., Refractions of Authority: Intertextual Strategies in the Appendix Vergiliana (Cambridge).Google Scholar
Mras, K. (1961), ‘Vergils Culex’, Altertum 7, 207–13.Google Scholar
Mynors, R.A.B. (1969), P. Vergilii Maronis opera (Oxford).Google Scholar
Negri, A.M. (1989), ‘Umbra’, in Della Corte, F. (ed.), Enciclopedia Virgiliana (vol. 5: Rome), 378–84.Google Scholar
Norden, E. (1981), Vergil Aeneis Buch 6 (7th ed.: Stuttgart).Google Scholar
O'Hara, J.J. (1996), True Names: Vergil and the Alexandrian Tradition of Etymological Wordplay (Ann Arbor).Google Scholar
Otis, B. (1959), ‘Three Problems of Aeneid 6’, TAPhA 90, 165–79.Google Scholar
Payne, M. (2010), The Animal Part (Chicago).10.7208/chicago/9780226650852.001.0001Google Scholar
Payne, M. (2013), ‘The Understanding Ear: Synaesthesia, Paraesthesia and Talking Animals’, in Butler, S. and Purves, A. (eds), Synaesthesia and the Ancient Senses (Durham), 43–52.Google Scholar
Peirano, I. (2012), The Rhetoric of the Roman Fake: Latin Pseudepigrapha in Context (Cambridge).10.1017/CBO9780511732331Google Scholar
Peirano, I. (2017), ‘“Newly Written buds:” Archaic and Classical Pseudepigrapha in Meleager's Garland’, in Bakker, E.J. (ed.), Authorship and Greek Song: Authority, Authenticity, and Performance (Leiden), 252–71.Google Scholar
Phillimore, J.S. (1910), ‘The Text of the Culex’, CP 5.4, 418–39.Google Scholar
Poliakoff, M. (1985), ‘Clumsy and Clever Spiders on Hermann's Bridge: Catullus 68.49–50 and Culex 1–3’, Glotta 63, 248–50.Google Scholar
Pratt, L.H. (1993), Lying and Poetry from Homer to Pindar: Falsehood and Deception in Archaic Greek Poetics (Ann Arbor).Google Scholar
Reed, N. (1973), ‘The Gates of Sleep in Aeneid 6’, CQ 23.3, 311–15.10.1017/S000983880003682XGoogle Scholar
Ross, D.O. (1975), ‘The Culex and Moretum as Post-Augustan Literary Parodies’, HSCP 79, 235–63.Google Scholar
Ruaeus [de la Rue], C. (1675), P. Virgilii Maronis opera, interpretatione et notis illustrauit Carolus Ruaeus ad usum Serenissimi Delphini (Paris).Google Scholar
Schmidt, W. (1983), Vergil-Probleme (Göppingen).Google Scholar
Seelentag, S. (2012), Der pseudovergilische Culex: Text, Übersetzung, Kommentar. Hermes Einzelschriften 105 (Stuttgart).Google Scholar
Tarrant, R.J. (1987), ‘Towards a typology of interpolation in Latin poetry’, TAPA 117, 281–98.Google Scholar
Tarrant, R.J. (1989), ‘The reader as author: collaborative interpolation in Latin poetry’, in Grant, J.N. (ed.), Editing Greek and Latin texts: papers given at the Twenty-third Annual Conference on Editorial Problems, University of Toronto, 6–7 November 1987 (New York), 121–62.Google Scholar
Thomas, R.F. (1988), Virgil: Georgics (2 vols: Cambridge).Google Scholar
Thomas, R.F. (2001), Virgil and the Augustan Tradition (Cambridge).10.1017/CBO9780511482403Google Scholar
Trahman, C.R. (1952), ‘Odysseus’ Lies (Odyssey, Books 13–19)’, Phoenix 6.2, 31–43.10.2307/1086270Google Scholar
Watt, W.S. (2001), ‘Notes on the Appendix Vergiliana’, Eikasmos 12, 279–92.Google Scholar
Zogg, F. (2015), ‘ut Homerus, sic Vergilius: Zur Vergil-Zuschreibung der im 1. Jh. n. Chr. bezeugten Gedichte aus der Appendix Vergiliana’, Museum Helveticum 75, 207–19.Google Scholar
Zwierlein, O. (1999), Die Ovid- und Vergil-Revision in tiberischer Zeit. Band I: Prolegomena (Berlin).10.1515/9783110803693Google Scholar