MOUSEION - Memorial University of Newfoundland

M OUSEION 

JOURNAL OF THE CLASSICAL ASSOCIATION OF CANADA 

REVUE DE LA SOCIETE CANADIENNE DES ETUDES CLASSIQUES 

anciennement/formerly Echos du Monde Classique/Classical Views 

XLIX - Series III, Vol.5, 2005 No.2 

ISSN 1496-9343

Mouseion (formerly Echos du Monde Classique/Classical Views) is published by the 

University of Calgary Press for the Classical Association of Canada. Members of the 

Association receive both MOl/seion and Phoenix. The journal appears three times per 

year and is available to those who are not members of the CAC at $25.00 Cdn./U.S. 

(individual) and $40.00 Cdn.lU.S. (institutional). Residents of Canada must add 7% 

GST. ISSN: 1496-9343. 

Mouseion (anciennement EcllOs du Monde Classique/Classical Views) est publie par les 

Presses de I'Universite de Calgary pour Ie compte de la Societe canadienne des etudes 

classiques. les membres de cette societe reyoivent Mouseion et Phoenix. La revue parait 

trois fois par an. Les abonnements sont disponibles, pour ceux qui ne seraient pas 

membres des SCEC. au prix de $25.00 Cdn/U.S.. au de $40.00 Cdn.lU.S. pour 1es 

institutions. Les residents du Canada doivent payer la 7% TPA. ISSK 1496-9343. 

Send subscriptions (payable to "Mouseion") to: 

Envoyer les abonnements (a l'ordre de "Mouseion") it: 

University of Calgary Press 

2500 University Drive N.W. 

Calgary, Alberta, CANADA, T2N lN4 

Back Numbers/Anciens numeros: 

Vols. 9,10,12-25: $10 each/chacun. Vols. 26-28 (n.s. 1-3): $15. Vols. 29-41 (n.s. 4-17): 

$27. Single copies of any 1 issue: $10. 

Editors/Redacteurs: 

JAMES L. B UTRICA, Department of Classics, Memorial University of 

Newfoundland, St. John's, NL, AIC 5S7, CANADA; Tel.: (709) 737-8593; 

FAX: (709) 737-4569; E-Mail: jbutrica@mun.ca 

MARK A. JOYAL, Department of Classics, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, 

MB, R3T 2M8, CANADA. Tel.: (204) 474-9987; FAX: (204) 474-7684; E 

Mail: mjoyal@umanitoba.ca 

L EA M. STIRLING (Archaeological Editor), Department of Classics, 

University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2M8, CANADA; Tel.: (204) 474 

7357; FAX: (204) 474-7684; E-Mail: lea_stirling@umanitoba.ca 

Homepage: www.mun.ca/classics/mouseion 

Manuscripts should be sent to one of the editors. Authors are strongly encouraged 

to consult the Notes to Contributors/Avis aux Auteurs which follow the 

Table of Contents. Articles and reviews relating to archaeology and ancient art 

will normally be published in the annual archaeological issue of each volume, 

for which the submission deadline is 30 January each year. Opinions expressed 

in articles and reviews are those of the authors alone. 

Publications Mail Agreement no. 40064590 

Registration no. 9700 

Return undeliverable Canadian addresses to: University of Calgary Press, 2500 

University Drive NW, Calgary, AB T2N lN4. email: ucpmail@uca1gary.ca 

Printed and Bound in Canada 

Cover illustration: Hellenistic-era Castalian Fountain House at the base of the Phaedriades, 

Delphi. Photo copyright © 2005 Janice Siegel: http://lilt.i1stu.edu/drjclassics/sites/ 

delphi/delphi.shtm

MOUSEION 

Journal of the Classical Association of Canada 

Revue de la Societe canadienne des etudes classiques 

XLIX - Series III, Vol. 5.2005 

ARTICLES 

Alexander MacGregor, Noctes Manilianae: The Terminal 

Ornament in Book III 

F.X. Ryan. The Pontificate of Ti. Claudius Nero (Pr. 42) 

David Amherdt. Le locus inamoenus de Paulin de Nole: La 

rhetorique au service du Christianisme 

REVIEW ARTICLE/COMPTE RENDU CRITIQUE 

No.2 

Giancarlo Giardina on John G. Fitch. ed. and trans.. Seneca, 

Tragedies. Vol. 1: Hercules. Trojan Women, Phoenician Women. 

Medea. Phaedra; Vol. II: Oedipus. Agamemnon, Thyestes, 

Hercules Oetaeus, Octavia I59 

BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 

David Phillips and David Pritchard, eds., Sport and Festival in the 

Ancient Greek World (Bruce S. Thornton) I77 

CM. Reed, Maritime Traders in the Ancient Greek World 

(Kathryn Simonsen) 180 

Eric W. Robinson, ed., Ancient Greek Democracy: Readings and 

Sources (Thanos Fotiou) I84 

Andrew Erskine. ed., A Companion to the Hellenistic World 

(Adrian Tronson) I89 

Loredana Cappelletti. Lucani e Brettii: Ricerche sulla storia 

politica e instituzione di due popoli dell'Italia antica 

(V-III sec. a.C) (John Serrati) 195 

David Amstrong, Jeffrey Fish, Patricia A. Johnston. and Marilyn 

Skinner, eds.. Vergil, Philodemus, and the Augustans 

(Andreola Rossi) 198 

Niall Rudd, ed. and trans., Horace. Odes and Epodes (Elizabeth H. 

Sutherland) 202 

Andrew Gillett, Envoys and Political Communication in the Late 

Antique West. 4I1-533 (David F. Buck) 205 

Bart D. Ehrman. ed. and trans., The Apostolic Fathers 

(Lorraine Buck) 208 

II5 

I35 

I43

P. Murgatroyd. Epitaphs 

P. Murgatroyd. Le chat 

2II 

212

Mouseion aims to be a distinctively comprehensive Canadian journal of 

Classical Studies. publishing articles and reviews in both French and 

English. One issue annually is normally devoted to archaeological topics. 

including field reports. finds analysis. and the history of art in antiquity. 

The other two issues welcome work in all areas of interest to 

scholars; this includes both traditional and innovative research in philology. 

history. philosophy. pedagogy. and reception studies. as well as 

original work in and translations into Greek and Latin. 

Mouseion se presente comme un periodique canadien d'etudes classiques 

polyvalent. publiant des articles et comptes rendus en fran

first century have to take this factor into account when they are using texts 

from this period as historical sources.

Mouseion. Series III. Vol. S (200S) IIS-134 

©2oo5 Mouseion 

NOCTES MANILIANAE: 

THE TERMINAL ORNAMENT IN BOOK III' 

ALEXANDER MACGREGOR 

Book 3 ends (618-82) with a description of the four Tropic signs and the 

Seasons that they inaugurate: first Cancer and Capricorn. properly the 

"tropics" so-called; then Aries and Libra at the vernal and autumnal 

equinox. with a vignette of the Season characteristic of each sign; d. 

2.178. This paper contends that the passage is integral to the book, a 

panoramic climax that links heaven and earth. Moreover. it contains a 

hitherto unrecognized authorial sphragis, a "signature" or token of the 

poet's neo-Platonic or rather Pythagorean allegiance. 

The critical consensus dismisses the passage as a "terminal ornament."2 

The oft-repeated phrase is Housman's (52.xlvi: on 5.710-45. condemned 

on similar grounds): "Having professed that he is teaching 

what powers the four tropic signs enjoy in astrology (mathematica 

arte). the poet merely proffers commonplaces and generalities. Nor for 

the most part are they doctrines explained at greater length by other 

astrologers (astroJogorum), of which several are given at 5.678. In fact. 

a purple patch is being sewn on the end of the book-or rather a patch 

tricked out in four colors-and not very well at that. For the conjunctions 

sed tamen ('but still' in 3.618), which do not refer to 3.586 or anywhere 

else with ease. merely inject a deceptive appearance of propositions 

succeeding each other in order? though in fact what is related of 

I Translations are by the author unless noted otherwise. I would like to thank 

my colleagues M.W. Dickie. A. Kershaw. and W. Wycislo for their advice and 

criticism. as well as the anonymous readers of Mouseion. 

2 The consensus consists of Housman followed by Goold and Bailey. Goold 

(1977) first invokes Housman. then labels the passage "a poetical description" 

(lxxxi) without discussing either the poetry or the description. Bailey (1979) 168 

rejects a generally received conjecture (on S.217) as "a little too artificial for 

even that poet," as if poetry were ever "natural" in Latin or anywhere else. 

Such condescensions would carry more weight if they were not tautologies as 

well. The passage is ignored by Volk. who is concerned with a theory of didactic. 

Hubner's admirable monograph, pace its inclusive title, explicates the poet 

solely in terms of later judicial astrology, which was planetary. Granted some 

overlap, it is a mismatch; d. n. TO below. 

:1 The doubled adversatives sed tamen could hardly "succeed" anything. even 

if the work consisted of Euclidean propositions. In fact, the conjunctions point a 

contrast with the apparent climax of the book, the allocation of the lifespan at 

115

6 ALEXANDER MACGREGOR 

the tropic signs has nothing to do with the lifespan. " 

Such are Housman's expectations, which have been disappointed to 

the point of abuse, and his assumptions, which are many and sweeping. 

Although his assumptions are presented as prescriptive dogmas to be 

taken as self-evident, they are in fact hypotheses that can be falsified. To 

consider the two that bear on the conclusion of Book 3: first that the 

poem as a whole. including the conclusion of Book 3, consists solely of 

predictive "astrology," to be judged as such. 4 In other words, the Astranomica 

is no more than an astrological instruction manual. 

The first verses do promise to describe how the stars govern the 

world. That of itself is not astrology; the arrangement of Book I follows 

that of Plato's Timaeus and Aristotle's de Cado. which rank as science 

or philosophy depending on the viewpoint of the reader. Those two 

works likewise start with the zodiacal firmament and work their way 

down to earth level by level. Book I begins with a star-map that culminates 

in a paean to the order of the firmament (1.452-531). a proof from 

design for the existence of God anticipating the mathematical order of 

Books 2 and 3. The remainder of the book arranges the stars just 

mapped within the celestial circles (the poles. the colures, and so forth). 

then sinks to earth level by leveLS Next comes the Milky Way and its 

denizens the noble dead. and finally the comets. God's only emissaries 

to reach the earth. 6 Books 2 and 3 cover the celestial motions crucial to 

560-617. For adversative priamels see Race (1982). e.g. 13 n. 37. 

4 Space does not permit discussing his more paradoxical obiter dicta: viz.. 

that poetic common-places have no place in poetry: generalities are inappropriate 

to a conclusion; an elevated passage is a "purple patch" (d. Housman [1937] 

on 5.538-618); Manilius intended to deceive; when a topic has been exhausted 

what follows should continue to treat it. 

5 Housman's transposition of 805-8 to follow 538 reverses the level-by-Ievel 

descent in Manilius: Scaliger's transposition after 812 restores the orderly progress. 

and is confirmed by the MS reading etiam in 813. Goold (I977) xxxi accepts 

Housman's transposition the grounds that"Aratus had followed just this order." 

sc. signs. planets, and stellar circles. Since Manilius is voyaging through 

the heavens, as Yolk notes ([2002] 210-21 1.225-234). he would be backtracking. 

For Manilius. though. the planets lie lower than the signs or the circles. Aratus 

is not his model elsewhere. For Manilius, the zodiac organizes the heavens; Aratus 

ignores the zodiac and quarters the heavens. At 2.25-38 Manilius derides the 

mythic aetiologies endemic in Aratus (and Germanicus). 

6 Until Julius Caesar at 1.926. though he goes unnamed; for his deification d. 

Ramsey and Licht (1997). The name of a deified emperor seems to have been 

tabu; so also Alexander (I.770. only his sobriquet. and 1.776). Plato is named at 

1.774. but not qui fabricaverat illum. Metrical difficulty may have abetted piety. 

That verb elsewhere is only applied to creative fire, notably celestial; the apparent 

exception 4.120 has been condemned as spurious on other grounds.

NOcrES MANILIANAE 117 

astrologers and astronomers. then and now. Book 3 discusses how the 

stars determine the human lifespan. That of course was of crucial interest 

to astrologers then. and to Housman as well. an adept astrologer 

himself.? But Manilius was at pains to spike that particular gun. and left 

his formula for calculating the total lifespan deliberately incomplete: he 

explicitly says that he will not discuss the years allotted by the Quarters 

(3.583-85), or the Moon and Planets. Nor does he provide any formula. 

here or later. for combining the allotments and influences of the stars 

and planets; book 3 only treats the stars. 8 Nor does he work through a 

specimen lifespan and how it could be calculated; or conversely how an 

astrologer could predict a lifespan from a given horoscope and its variables 

(temples. athla. decans. dodecatemories). 

Books 4 and 5 then demonstrate the influence of each constellation on 

individual natives and collectivities both (e.g. Rome); once again. there is 

no formula for combining the various influences. In sum. the five books 

are useless for predictive astrology. whatever the overlap. Instead they 

exemplify piecemeal the divine governance of the universe by the stars. 

the embodiment of Reason (1.456-531). Housman's assumption that the 

poem is astrology in any practical sense is simply false. What he expected 

to find there. or wanted to, is not to the point. 

Housman's second assumption is that explication of a text depends 

on parallels from other authors. as opposed to explication on its own 

terms. Little in the conclusion of Book 3. or elsewhere in Manilius. enjoys 

a parallel in later astrologers-and they are all later. His astronomy 

is pre-Ptolemaic and ill-attested; astrology was itself a science in its 

infancy. Moreover, Manilius was the first Roman to treat either at 

length 9 ; but nothing follows from any of this. least of all a cause for 

7See Graves (1980) 215-217: his interest "does not. of course. mean he had 

any personal belief" in astrology. In childhood. his siblings played Solar System 

on the lawn. with himself the chief luminary; later his own horoscope was cast 

by a friend (n.s.. with Uranus), and he reciprocated. Goold's "consummate astrological 

scholar" ([1977] ix) avoided hard problems. though; d. n. 34 below. 

H At 3.585 cum bene constiterit steIJarum conditus ordo. "When planets 

suitably arranged concur." merely has the planets ratify the stellar allotments. 

assuming that the verse refers to planets. It is syntactically independent and 

detachable; so also 2.644, 2.651. 2.689. 2.835 and 3.508 (likely 2.738-49 as well). 

which refer to the planets and have been condemned on other grounds. An interpolator 

tried to harmonize Manilius with later dogmas at 2.732-34 and 

2.978-80 (d. Goold [1977]liii-liv. Ixi-Ixii); presumably the planets were foisted 

onto the text at the same time. They play no part in stellar computations. by 

definition; their irregularity or "difference" was as much an embarrassment to 

Manilius as to Plato (d.. e.g.. Ti. 36b-d). 

9 Manilius stands late in the didactic tradition. of coul'se. But his is always 

"the first treatment of astrology" vel sim. More precisely. it is the first complete

IIB ALEXANDER MACGREGOR 

complaint. Housman. however. holds against Manilius not merely his 

conventionality as a poet following the conventions of poetry but his 

uniqueness as an astrologer as well. lO Not just any stick is good enough 

to beat this dog; either end will do. 

So also Goold remarks on the "irrelevance" of the conclusion. on the 

grounds that it has "no connection with any theme of Book 3. which." he 

concedes. "it brings to a graceful close" ([1977] lxxxi). It is hard to see 

how a conclusion can be graceful and incoherent both. 

There is in fact an intimate link between the conclusion and the preceding 

material. Manilius is extruding the four Tropic signs from the 

earlier zodiacal sequence to assemble them in one place and give them 

each a complementary vignette of the Seasons that they turn. He could 

have distributed the contents of 618-82 earlier. when he discussed the 

varying length of daylight (218-74). where the Tropics are likewise the 

crucial turning-points; or inside his calculations of the time it takes 

signs to rise (385-442). But those trains of thought focused on mathematics 

not susceptible to ornamentation. Manilius wisely defers descriptive 

details about the Tropics to the end. where they would not be an 

interruption. 

Still. such "poetic" details are integral to Book 3. and no digression. 

because the Tropics themselves are integral to the mechanics of the 

heavens. The characteristic effects of the Tropics on earth can thus be 

combined into an appropriate. and therefore graceful. conclusion-this 

for three reasons: 

I. The four Tropics taken together summarize the zodiac as a whole. 

whose turning-points they are. Whatever use Manilius might make of 

them. the book now ends with a sense of fulfillment impossible if he had 

indulged in another run-through of all twelve signs. much less philoso- 

account of stellar geometry and motions. from the firmament down to earth. 

Aristotle gave no star-map. Aratus gave only the star-map. What is missing in 

all three is the planets. 

lOIn Manilius much is unique or nearly so: the stellar enmities at 2-466-641; 

the amantia of the tripartite scheme 2.466-519 are not found elsewhere; of the 36 

features assigned the twelve Temples or "Houses" at 2.788-967 (viz. name. denizen. 

and influence for each) only eight recur elsewhere (d. Goold [1977] 

lviii-Ix); at 3-43-159 the circle of Athla duplicates the function of the Temples: at 

3.510-59 his Chronocrators are zodiacal not planetary. which is suggestive; at 

4.294-407. the Decans; 4.408-50I. the partes damnandae or unfavorable degrees. 

For over 700 verses Manilius is either "the last of the line." or a master with no 

disciples. Just as unique is Book 5. devoted to the TTapavaTEAAovTa. the extrazodiacal 

signs; their influence equals that of the zodiac. Manilius was being rigorously 

logical; but the practical difficulties can be imagined. and no later astrologer 

followed his lead.

NOCTES MANILIANAE JIg 

phical generalities however inspiring. 

The poet is in fact translating into poetic and thus diachronic terms 

the synchronic visualization of time common in mosaic floors of the 

imperial period; later mosaics often incorporate Mithraic symbolism as 

well. The center features "the god." Aion ("Endless Time" rather than 

eternity) or Mithras; he is encircled by the Zodiac. or spins it like a 

hoop." At the four corners the Seasons are depicted. along with their 

emblematic bounty.12 The Seasons are thus isolated visually. just as 

Manilius extrudes the tropic signs that inaugurate them. The Seasons, 

not the mathematics of the Zodiac. make up the living year. and represent 

thereby a climactic epiphany on earth of what divine Reason determines 

in heaven. '3 

The difference of medium between the floor mosaics and the poem 

has a psychological consequence that exemplifies the axiom of Lessing's 

Laocoon. That is, the eye can take in a mosaic all at once; the ear can 

only absorb a poetic pattern over the course of time. The meaning of the 

poem, however. is virtually the same as that of the mosaics or the 

Modena relief of Aion and the serpent, with emblematic heads in each 

cOl'ner.'4 

2. Symbolic of the Zodiac as a whole. the Tropics economically demonstrate 

its influence on the earth and on mankind with the vignettes of 

the seasons they inaugurate. Doubtless Manilius (or an astrologer with 

demanding clients) would have been glad to exhibit natives who died 

the very moment when Moon, Horoscope. and Temple agreed that they 

"For the image d. D.Chr. 12.37. upholding the divinity of the fil'mament as 

against the Epicurean view that "No creator made the universe ... or even did 

what boys do with their hoops. which they set in motion and then let roll along 

on theil' own." 

'2 For such depictions of the Seasons framing the Zodiac. see Jackson (1994). 

esp. 142-143: the mosaic floor at Merida (II); 145 and pI. 8: Philippopolis. Syria 

(III); 154 and pI. 14: Ammaedara. Tunisia (III); 155 and pI. IT Hippo Regius. Algeria 

(III); and for Mithraic elements. esp. 132-136. 137 n. 13 and 143 n. 20; 

160-163 for hoop-bowling (d. D.Chr. 12.37. cited in n. 1I above). 

'3 As a reader for the journal reminds us. the Seasons are a tapas in didactic 

poetry from Hesiod on. Manilius' ecphrasis falls foursquare within that tradition. 

but the fact says nothing about whether the passage is integral to the book. 

the point at issue here. For paeans to the seasons d .. e.g.. PI. Lg. 886a. EpiI1. 

977b; D.Chr. 12.32. 30.31. 41: at Luuetius 5.737-47 even the gods put in an appearance. 

as at Hal'. Carm. 4.7: Vergil's Georgics works its way through the 

farmer's year book by book. Even as late as Augustine. Doctr. Christ. 2. I 6.25. 

four is still hallowed; d. n. 21 below. 

'4 Reproduced in Jackson (r994) fig. I. The pattern survives into Romanesque 

and Celtic Gospel illuminations with a full-length Christ and emblems of the 

evangelists in the corners.


should. But such evidence has always been hard to corne by. and as a 

rhetorical strategy Manilius resorts to the revolution of the seasons to 

suggest the power of the Signs elsewhere as well: ex uno disce OInnes. as 

at r .483-53 r • where celestial regularity argued for the existence of God. 

Book 3 thus ends with four vignettes that comprise an a fortiori argument. 

so to speak. Earlier in the book. the calculations had been both 

innovative and difficult. and the bare formulas for allotments to the 

lifespan lacked examples. even hypothetical ones. Manilius wisely concludes 

the book with a clinching example of zodiacal influence that 

would silence any objection-the Seasons. Any reader would now concede 

the influence of the stars upon this world. 

3. The four Tropics's allow for twenty-four possible permutations of 

order: viz. abcd. abdc .... dcab. dcba. Each could be made to represent a 

climactic order, given the ease with which symbolism can be imposed.1 6 

Manilius must have had a compelling reason to choose the order he did: 

first the pair of actual tropics. then the pair of equinoctial signs. 

In each pair the second and climactic sign is the patron of an emperor. 

For the Tropic. first midsummer Cancer. then Capricorn the 

emblem of Augustus; the year moves from the culmination of daylight 

to its wintry nadir. For the Equinoctial. first Aries then Libra. the emblem 

of Tiberius (4.776); the year moves from springtime beginnings to 

autumnal fulfillment. The motions of the two pairs are thus opposite in 

tone. That of the Tropic signs is a decline. Despite its demerits. Capricorn 

stands second and climactic because of an imposed necessity which 

overrode all other considerations. Capricorn was emblematic of Augustus. 

Neither Cancer nor Capricorn was his actual Horoscope. much less 

the ascendant at his birth. Augustus was born September 23. in Libra. 

Tiberius November r6. in Sagittarius. The Moon in fact was in Capricorn 

and Libra at their respective nativities; the moon was given special 

prominence in the Egyptian school (i.e.. Alexandrian: so Manilius at 

3.590. where the Moon adds to the lifespan).'? In sum. the procession of 

ISSO called for convenience and clal'ity. rather than "cardinals." viz.. the actual 

tropics Cancer and Capricorn. the "turning" points of the Sun, and the 

equinoctials Aries and Libra. 

t6Burkert (1972) 188 allows "an idle hour" to discover that I + 2 + 3 + 4 yields 

10. and the tetraktys. A lifetime, though. would not exhaust the seeming significance 

of a relationship; so here. whatever pattern of the Tropics the poet happened 

to choose. 

'?Garrod (1912) 114-120 argued that Capricorn was the horoscoping natal 

sign of Augustus on the basis of Fotheringham's identification of 22 Sept. 63 BCE 

o.s. as Decembel' 20 n.s. (119). Smyly (1912) 150-159 refuted it. Housman concurred 

(1'.lxix-lxxii: also (1913) 109-114), as does Goold (1977) xii and on 4.552;

NOCTES MANILIANAE 121 

the Tropics touches on the previous emperor only to culminate in the 

one alive and ruling: this motion echoes the climax of Book 1. where 

Manilius reminds Rome that the god she set among the stars engendered 

the god alive on earth (1.926). There the divine pair was Julius 

Caesar and Augustus; here. at a later stage in the composition of the 

poem. it is Augustus and Tiberius. 18 

There is a certain balance. then. It must have struck Manitius as 

highly significant that the two prillcipes of his own lifetime occupied 

tropic signs and not something plebeian. 

Augustus bequeaths the poet unpromising stuff. Capricorn and the 

dead of winter (3.637-43): the sea is blockaded (mare clausum. 3.641); 

fields and rocks lie stiff and slick. Manitius accentuates the positive; the 

calm and quiet are emphasized. and Nature rests for a little while to 

regain her strength for a kinder future. As with the extra-zodiacal signs 

in Book 5. Manilius displays his remarkable ability to see a deep significance 

where no one else had. or ever would. 

Capricorn. however. will "lengthen day I And now dispel the darkness" 

(3.639). and this abets the cosmic optimism that runs through the 

book; d .. e.g.. 3.327-84. which has much to say about the increase in 

daylight. but less about its equally necessary loss. Here the political 

symbolism emphasizes dispelling the darkness. Manilius does concede 

that Capricorn at first causes further losses to daylight. but then repairs 

the loss (3.640)-a reparation symbolic of the sacrifices. indeed mayhem. 

that inaugurated the principate of Augustus and hindsight would 

regard as the price to be paid for peace. order. and good government 

ever after. '9 

Hence the pacific details-the sea now closed to ships. and. most important. 

the colldita castra: Roman troops now in winter quarters. and 

not on the march. For many a year Augustus could boast that Romans 

no longer waged war against fellow citizens much less kindred-bella 

d. Bowersock (1990) 380-394. esp. 385-387. Ramsey and Licht (1997) 147-153 

convincingly argue that Capricorn is a personal sign adopted (or "reborn." as 

Pliny says at Nat. 2.23.93-94) after the comet of 44: the horoscope and lunar sign 

of Augustus remain open questions. 

18Julius Caesar is not credited with even a posthumous horoscope: for 

Manilius the marvellous youth Augustus founded the regime. His pious revenge 

(1.913: d. Res Gestae 2) reminded Trogus of Alexander avenging the Persian 

Wars (so Just. Epit. 11.5.6). as well as Achilles avenging first Helen then 

Patroclus. The accident of history that all three marched east turned into a minor 

topas: revenge will aim for the sunrise at Eleg. Maee. 1.56. exorientis equos. 

19The proscription of Cicero is just such an embarrassment at Sen. Suas. 6-7: 

d. also Nero's Machiavellian speech at Octavia 492-532. "He is new at ruling" 

outlived Zeus.

I22 ALEXANDER MACGREGOR 

plus quam civilia. Manilius rejoices in the peace winter enforces. 

Tiberius fares better with his Libra (3.658-65). which encompasses 

harvest and sowing both, and their promise of alternating fulfillment 

and renewal; the bounteous vintage of the Sign looks like a jolly allusion 

to the habits of an emperor known to his troops as Biberius Caldius 

Mero ("the tippler warm with wine unmixed"; d. Suet. Tib. 42). Manilius 

fancies wine-bibbing elsewhere. though not much else in the way of 

creature comforts: d. 5.234-50 for his eulogy of Crater and its topers. 

In sum. Housman's "terminal ornament" achieves poetic closure, just 

as it is the necessary conclusion of the celestial mathematics that determine 

the lifespan. The book fittingly ends with an overview of the Seasons 

within whose revolutions a lifespan must be lived. since the Tropics 

represent the earthly and human essence of the four cardinal Signs 

that bulked large in the mathematics. Here they are treated in their own 

right. They neither distract the argument with their "poetry," nor are 

they overshadowed by a mathematical context. Fittingly too. the four 

Tropics reveal the celestial origins not just of our earthly year, but of 

the two presiding deities who had ruled Rome so many years themselves 

in human guise. 

Once the Seasons have their due. Book 3 ends diminuendo with a repeated 

reminder that one day alone within each Tropic marks the turn 

of things. now to lengthen the day. and now shorten it. now to do. and 

now undo. The antitheses, and the solemnity, recall Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 

"There is a season to all things ...... But Manilius is emphasizing not the 

reversal but the astronomy. which embodies the idea of a princeps in 

heaven as on earth. The passage runs to eleven verses (669-79), with a 

coda of three verses (680-82) that raise one last question. Which degree 

is the actual turning point in a Tropic-the eighth. the tenth, or the 

first? At first sight this technical point seems a strange note to end on. 

To be sure. it ties off the last threads of the technical discussions that 

were the heart of Book 3 and as such is integral to the run of thought. 

pace Housman. More importantly. it is expressed in a numerological 

pattern. the Pythagorean tetraktys. that adds an emphasis which sympathetic 

contemporaries would have recognized. 20 

20 According to Cicero (Tim. I). Nigidius Figulus introduced Pythagoreanism 

to Rome: the polymath Varro was buried Pythagorico modo, whatever that 

meant (Plin. Nat. 35.160). For Manilius, the mixed Platonic-Pythagorean influence 

of the court astrologer and confidante Thrasyllus set the tone: for his edition 

of Plato d. Tarrant (r993) 178-185. Burkert and now Kahn detail the vacillations 

in the Academy after Plato. At first it was mathematical and cosmological: 

the Socratic sceptics seceded and became Cynics. Then it reverted to Socratic 

scepticism, like the Platonism of Cicero in Natura Deorum, whereupon the 

mathematical- and mystical-minded became Pythagoreans, like Cicero's friends.

NOCTES MANILJANAE 123 

The pattern is simply ten dots arranged 1-2-3-4. a foursome that represents 

the triangular number ten. 2I 

Pythagoreans swore by the tetraktys. 

which the master supposedly discovered: it ranked as "the kernel of 

Pythagorean wisdom. "22 The exuberant symbolism of its components is 

not to the poine3 ; the four seasons suggested its use here. 24 

Manitius was taken with the pattern. The vignette of Lepus at 5.162 

71 is arranged in a 1-2-3-4 tetraktys. Each sentence is "ropellic." a verse 

longer than its predecessor. and begins with the anaphora Ille. The climactic 

native is a juggler. presumably with the traditional seven 

balls-the planets in miniature. 2s Another tetraktys begins at 5.701. but 

the archetype was mutilated at 5.709.26 In any case. the pattern informs 

Manilius was "Pythagorean" in that sense. steeped in Platonic mathematics. 

which from the outset had a Pythagorean color. Compare the Masons of Mozart's 

day: this is not the Pythagoreanism of talking dogs and beans. As a result. 

Platonic elements in Manilius (d. 1.456-531 and 4.387-407) rank as "Pythagorean" 

in the context of the age; uniquely Pythagorean symbols like the tetraktys 

are perforce rare. 

21 Ten was "the most revered number. because it represented the cosmos as a 

whole": so Livio (2002) 33; d. Burkert ([972) 72-73. The components had their 

own significance: cosmic unity. then feminine two and masculine three. Four. 

the last of the terms and their sum. was justice and order. Six. the sum of the 

first three terms. was the first "perfect" number. as being the sum of its factors: 

for Augustine. this was why God created the world in six days (CO. 11.3°). 

22 Burkert (1972) 72: d. Carm. AuI'. 48-49a: Iamb. VP 18.82.29.162; Lucian 

Laps. 5. 

2 3 The tetraktys represents (or "is") the harmony of the universe and its fOUl' 

geometric components (point. line. plane. solid). among much else (the song of 

the Sirens. the wisdom of Delphi). Theo Smyrnaeus. Expositio rerum mathematicarum 

ad legendum Platonem utiJjum 38. gives eleven such tetrads. with 

the eleventh originally a superset of ten tetrads. as Corniord saw ([1937] 69-70). 

The significance of the tetraktys outlived Pythagoreanism: ten is the number of 

the Creator at Augustine Doetr. Christ. 2.16.25. Cf. Sarton (1952) 1.204: Burnet 

(1930) 102-104: Kirk. Raven and Schofield (1983) 233: esp. Burkert (1972) 72-73 

and [86-188. Shaw (1995) 210-215. Thorn (1995) 171-177. and now Kahn (2001) 

3 1-36. 

24 The seasons rank as the tenth (penultimate) tetrad in Thea Smyrnaeus: d. 

Cornford (1937) 70. 

2S Seven balls were the ancient standard: Housman adduces P. Aelius. a contemporary 

of the poet. juggling seven. "As we ourselves have seen onstage": 

Goold ([977) 314 n. a adduces another juggler with seven on an imperial sarcophagus 

(Daremberg-Saglio 4-479. fig. 5668). The number looks canonical and 

is an obvious symbol of the planets: Manilius presumably thought it could go 

without saying. 

26 The last tetraktys made a fitting climax. after the stellar influences of the 

last two books-the superiority of Man over Beast (as at 2.523-35). That is. the 

superiority of Reason (d. 4.924-30 et aI.). Alas. the archetype breaks off after


Sed non per totas aequa est versura figuras. 

[omnia nec plenis flectuntur tempora signis] 

Una dies sub utroque aequat sibi tempora noctem. 

dum Libra atque Aries autumnum verque figurant; 

Una dies toto Cancri longissima signo. 

cui nox aequalis Capricorni sidere fertur: 

cetera nunc urgent vicibus. nunc tempora cedunt. 

Una ergo in tropicis pars est cernenda figuris. 

quae moveat mundum. quae rerum tempora mutet. 

facta novet. consulta alios declinet in usus. 

omnia in aversum flectat contraque revolvat. 

Whole signs do not reverse the seasons four: 

[Nor all times turn within the Signs when full.] 

One day alone within each season stands 

The equal of the night. come Balances and Ram; 

One day alone prolongs the starry Crab 

And grants a night to match in Capricorn. 

When days to come now wax. and night retreats. 

One degree. then. must turn the firmament 

To alter us the fashion of the earth; 

Renew the past; or work the unforeseen. 

Changing its course to spin it round about. 

Unfortunately. interpolation at the outset mars the pattern. though it 

emerges thereafter given the pounding anaphora of una that begins 671. 

673. and 676. 27 The culprit is 3.670. omnia nee plenis fleetuntur tempora 

signis. "Nor all times turn within the Signs when full"; lit. "all times are 

not reversed by full signs." The verse should have long since been de- 

5.709. one verse short. The pattern that survives is 4-2-3 (Bears. Elephants. Tigers). 

with anaphora of Ille once again; given the damage. to rearrange is not 

heroic. The lost verse was. I suspect. something like "Man rules them all. since 

reason rules the man" (ille quidem dominat, quia homo est. ratione superbus; d. 

5.636). 

27The form una begins a verse only here (unaque does at 4.447 and 4.456). 

The probability that the anaphora at 3.67Iff. occurred by chance is at most one 

in nine million. The total verses (n) in Manilius is 4258; once una occurs in 671, 

the probability p that it occurred by chance in 673 and 676 as well is p =(2/(n-I)} 

x \I/(n-2)1 = .OOOOOOII. The p that una occurred in all three by chance is 7.78'". 

A similar calculus applies to illeat 5.I62-7I. Such vanishingly small probabilities 

reinforce the obvious; but there is now no objecting that it occurred "by accident." 

As Wilkinson (Ig6g) 317 rightly observes. "When it comes to intricate 

proportions ... we must remember that ancient poetry was meant to be taken in 

by the ear. and that beyond a very limited Priisenzzeit the ear cannot operate." 

He was addressing Duckworth's subtleties. which were yet to be demolished; 

see Livia (2002) Ig8-200, and Curchin and Fischler (Ig8r) 129-133. The pattern 

proposed for Manilius here falls well within the realm of the obvious.


leted. 28 The preceding verse determined the tropic degree; 670 extends 

the idea to cover all twelve signs. which are irrelevant here. Its phrasing 

is slovenly: plenis signis cannot mean the width of a sign. the point 

of the preceding verse; at 1.462 plenis membris refers not to their 

width. but their sketchy draughtsmanship (e.g.. loss of a claw). Moreover. 

flectuntur is a lame equivocation: in 667 the word referred to the 

disruption of time. not its smooth passage. 

Housman reworked 670 to fit the context and conjectured annua. as 

if "yearly times" meant the seasons without further qualification. His 

parallels are verbal, not substantive. 29 At 3.515 annua tempora means 

not the seasons but the span of the entire year: so Lucretius 5.619 and 

5.692. Cic. A rat. 333. and Germanicus 563-64. It means indefinite "times 

of year" at Lucr. 2.170 and 3.1005. At Verg. G. 1.258 temporibus means 

"seasons" because it is quantified by quattuor; at Man. 4.400 annua vota 

are the farmer's prayers each year, not each season. 

Even if annua tempora meant the four seasons. it is no improvement 

to turn the irrelevant into the redundant: Housman's reworking of 670 

is a prosaic paraphrase of 669. The subsequent anaphora becomes a 

heavy-handed concession to anyone not sophisticated enough to recognize 

a tricolon without it. as if the poet were aiming for such an audience. 

The intrusion of 670 thus raises a simple question. Who would be 

insensitive to neo-Pythagorean symbolism-Manilius and his potential 

readership (e.g. Thrasyllus). or the scribes and scholars of later ages? 

Once the distraction of 670 is deleted. 669-79 embody a tetraktys 

unmistakable given the anaphora una beginning 671. 673. and 676.3" The 

quasi-numeral totas. which sums the preceding discussion. is the corresponding 

element in 669; it is the first nominal though not the first 

word. The anaphora of una also provides a thematic link to 680-82. 

where the single tropic degree proves to be the first. Like the typical 

28 Elsewhere too the same interpolator tries to "say it all"; his handiwork is 

most obvious at e.g. 2.732-34 and 968-70. where the interpolation convicts itself 

because it flatly contradicts a system that the poet has just expounded at length; 

d. Goold (1977) !iii-liv, xli-xlii. 

2 9 Contrast Housman's insistence at 5.744-45 that the resemblance between 

the order in the Heavenly City there and the stars at I.46Iff. was purely verbal 

(verborum tantum similitudinem). 

3"There is Pythagoreanism elsewhere. perhaps thanks to Thrasyllus; for his 

use of the tetraktys in harmonics. d. Tarrant (1993) 223· At 3.592-93 the 

lifespans form a progression. as Goold first noticed ([1977] lxxxi). The maximum 

allocation. 78 years, "diminishes by successive triangular numbers." viz.. 1.3.6. 

IO ... and so on. This is in fact a Pythagorean reduction. which yields 78 along 

with a tetraktys. It sums the zodiac too; 78 = 1+ 2 + 3 + 4 ... + 12. Housman did 

not see this, and arrived at 78 by a remarkably tortuous path (32.xxvii-xxviii).


priamel tricolon in Manilius. the tetraktys here builds to a swelling climax; 

d. Lausberg (1973) §451 (modus per incrementa) and Race (1982) 

7-17. The Pythagorean tetrad thus amounts to a non-verbal sphragis-not 

an embedded acrostic signature. as at Nic. Ther. 345-53. 31 but a 

visible expression of the poet's philosophic allegiance. 

It may add to the numerological significance of the conclusion overall 

(viz. 618-82) that. once 670 is deleted. the passage now totals 64 

verses. That is. the cube of four. considered not as a mere number but as 

a thought of the poet's God. Reason. Fourness is the essence of the Seasons. 

as of the elements; now it is embodied in solid geometry. the threedimensional 

world in which the Seasons revolveY The circle has finally 

been squared-if only in words. To be sure. a listener or reader would 

not be counting verses as he moved along. The significance of their sum 

would rank as a second sphragis pattern. hidden under the tetraktys 

that all could see. 33 But it too would be a sign-to the poet himself and to 

his God. if no one else-that the book of lifespans had indeed corne to a 

fitting close: terminal indeed. but no mere ornament. 

There remains the final tercet (3.680-82). with its seeming tentativeness. 

3 1 

For an impersonal sphragis cf. Aratus 783-87. AEnTH ("elegant"). It is 

emphasized by the anaphora of AElTTn in 783-84. Here the allegiance was to a 

literary coterie; his compliment was repaid by Callimachus at Epigr. 27.3-4; cf. 

Kidd (1997) 445-446. If Aratus gave Manilius the idea for a sphragis. there is no 

comparable pattern cited by Kranz or Cameron. Hellenistic technopaignia afford 

the parallel; Manilius was working his poem into the shape of the cosmos. 

There may be a personal sphragis elsewhere. At 4.152-61 we are told that the 

native of Gemini turns to poetry and astronomy. At 5.168-71 the native of Lepus 

the Hare (rising at 7° of Gemini) proves a deft juggler. presumably with seven 

balls; cf. n. 25 above. But if the poet meant to tell us he was born on 28 May. it is 

a thousand pities he failed to mention the year. 

3 2 The cube of four is the middle term of the "psychogonic" triangle (cf. ps.lamblichus. 

Theol. Arith. 46).33 + 4 3 + 53 = 6 3 , which underlies Plato's "nuptial 

number" at R. 546b; cf. Cornford (1937) 45-52 and Adam ad loc. Given such a 

precedent, the stereometry here is understandable; cf. n. 12 above. 

33 Nor do audiences hear the colophon on Haydn's scores. AMDG-ad majorem 

Dei gloriam. One of the journal's referees questions whether a nonverbal 

tetraktys (much less the cube of four) can properly be called a sphragis. I 

think the extension is legitimate; it gives a Pythagorean "stamp" to the poem. 

Compare Christian tokens-the fish. the triple Amen. the cruciform pattern. 

The tetraktys here would be a gesture and captatio benevolentiae that a fellow 

initiate would recognize in a recitatio. Wilkinson (1969) 317 allows the possibility 

that to amuse himself a poet might indulge in numerological patterns too 

lengthy for the ear to catch.

NOCTES MANILIANAE 

has quidam vires octava in parte reponunt; 

sunt quibus esse placet mediae; nec defuit auctor 

qui primae momenta daret frenosque dierum. 

68 I mediae scripsi; decimae Housman; decimam Bentley; decimas codd. 

Some will allot the Eighth degree this power. 

Others the midmost point; nor do we lack 

For an authority who grants the first 

The spur and then the bridle on our days. 

The verses reflect an old controversy over which degree of a sign is 

the tropic degree. or node (i.e.. where the seasons turn. or the balance 

of the equinox ).34 According to Goold. the first to grasp the nettle. the 

disagreement arose from attempts to reconcile the Zodiac with the precession 

of the equinoxes first noticed by Hipparchus: "the variety of 

opinion over such a factual matter as the nodes of ecliptic and equator 

clamours for explanation. and of course this lies ready to hand: the precession 

of the equinoxes. "35 If precession were the reason for the uncertainty 

over the node. Manilius does not tell us; he ignores precession. 

Indeed he is markedly ill at ease with any phenomenon-the planets in 

particular-which detracts from the clockwork regularity that proves 

the existence of God. 

In fact. with the exception of Ptolemy no ancient astronomical writer 

after Hipparchus takes precession into account or even so much as 

mentions it. 36 Precession cannot be the reason Manitius does anything. 

34 Housman did not invoke precession. or anything else. to explain why different 

degrees were in use. much less why Manilius chose the three he did 

(3 2 

.68). He quotes Hipparchus (2.I.I5). who ascribes "the middle of the signs" 

(TO CfJl-lEIO I-lECO) to Eudoxus. and the first to Aratus. Housman refers the 

eighth. standard at Rome. to Sosigenes and the twelfth to Achilles (23). but knew 

of no authority fOl' the tenth. In his Appendix (74) he adds that Fr. Kugler 

thought that Babylonian use of the tenth degree might have influenced Manilius; 

d. n. 49 below. 

35 For pl'ecession. d. Goold (1977) lxxxi-Ixxxiv; also Barton (1994) 92: Dicks 

(1970) 15-16. To put it simply. the zodiac. a geometric construct based on the 

sun's path. remains fixed; but the earth wobbles as it rotates. and the celestial 

equator and stars all slip forward or "precess" a degree every 72 years (see n. 

38 below). As a result. not long after they were mapped. the stars had noticeably 

shifted with respect to the Zodiac. Goold (1977) puts it neatly: fifty years from 

now "we will start getting Taurus babies" when the sun is actually in Pisces. If 

Hipparchus annotated Aratus before he discovered precession (so Neugebauer 

r[969] 69). his use of the first degree there was not an attempt to reconcile Aratus 

with precession. It was irrelevant to his star-chart in any case. Yolk (2002) 54 

n. 58 confuses the issue; she refers to an "astrological part" of the Phaenomena. 

but there is none. 

3 h Cf. Evans ([988) 262: precession "is never alluded to by Geminus. Cleo- 

127


nor does it account for the odd range of degrees considered the tropic 

degree by various authorities. When Goold asserts that precession "lies 

ready to hand" as an explanation. he is grasping at straws. Precession is 

irrelevant at 3.680-82. 

In any case. the degree of the tropic point was not pace Goold a "factual 

matter" like an angle of declination; it was a matter of calendric 

convention. 37 If precession were at issue here. the difference between 

the first degree and the eighth-let alone tenth or twelfth-would 

amount to time-spans far longer than the actual time elapsed between 

the various authorities for the degrees mentioned. 38 Hence Goold assumes 

without evidence that the zodiacal constellations themselves ascend 

to a misty past long before the zodiac itself existed; "it is certain" 

([1977] lxxxii). The construction of the zodiac then required a fresh 

"schematization based on tropic points." Whereupon Eudoxus and Aratus 

each chose different nodal points to "preserve conventions that do 

not fit the phenomena. "39 Such is Goold's scheme of things. 

A nodal point is not a "schematization"; still less was Aratus a practicing 

astronomer trying to save the phenomena (or the zodiac itself. if 

that is what Goold means by "convention") with a forced explanation of 

the facts by designating 1° as the tropic instead of the Eudoxan IS° established 

less than a century earlier. If the different degrees represented 

different observations. then for no good reason the near- 

medes. Theon of Smyrna. Manilius. Pliny. Censorinus. Achilles. Chalcidius. 

Macrobius. or Martianus Capella.... The only ancient writers who mention 

precession besides Ptolemy are Proclus. who denies its existence. and Theon of 

Alexandria." who edited Ptolemy. Some modern astrologers ignore it: d. Mac 

Neice (1964) 72-74. 

37 Given the instruments available it was impossible to identify the "longest 

day" with any precision. When Manilius cites an up-to-date measurement for 

daylight at the winter solstice. nine and a half hours is the best his source can do 

(3.257). Both Columella (9.14.12) and Pliny (Nat. 18.59.221) follow Sosigenes and 

put the solstice at 8° of Capricorn; but Pliny calls it "mid-winter." 

38 The constant of precession per 100 years is 1.38125°; d. Rochberg (1999) 57 

n. 20. If the difference between the tropic degrees reflected the time when an 

astronomer observed the solstice. then a difference of eight degrees between the 

tropics chosen would mean that around 600 years elapsed between Hipparchus 

and Sosigenes (f1. 49-44 BCE); fifteen. 1100 years between Eudoxus and Hipparchus. 

Since that is false. if the difference between the tropics is due to precession. 

then it must reflect observations taken at different times in the distant 

past. and not by the astronomer himself. What conceivable use would such values 

be? 

39If astronomers all knew about precession and were trying to "save the 

phenomena" from the past by tweaking the tropic points. it is inexplicable that 

the degree established by Sosigenes remained the standard despite the continued 

effects of precession.

NOCTES MANILIANAE 1 29 

contemporaries were trying to save quite different sets of phenomena 

observed more than a thousand years apart. But those considerations 

are speculative. Goold's account is false to the known history of the zodiac. 

He is making the assumption (not original to him) that the zodiacal 

signs were demarcated in a prehistoric age when such precision was in 

fact impossible-for want of the necessary concepts and instrumentation 

both. No evidence supports Goold's assumption. 40 

Homer and Hesiod knew of many a constellation still with us. and 

not one is a zodiacal Sign; they are not attested before the end of the 

fifth century,41 Any attempt to posit their existence earlier still is worse 

than speculation. The prerequisites for the zodiac itself did not exist 

until Plato's day-notably the concepts of the celestial sphere and the 

ecliptic. as well as a recognition of the planets ("the wanderers") as sui 

generis. 42 Before that. the stars that make up the zodiacal Signs were an 

inconspicuous lot hardly worth grouping. More suitable stars were 

available for prognostic constellations; the zodiacal stars are meaningful 

only once spherical geometry existed to give them a context. Even 

then they had to be manhandled before they fit; Scorpio was dismembered. 

and its Chelae became Iugum then finally Libra and its bearer. 

The different choices attested for the tropic points from the fourth 

century on may. but need not. reflect actual observation; but even if 

they did, the observation would have been highly inaccurate given the 

instrumentation available (a stick on a cloudless winter day. to put it 

simply).43 The precision of the various tropic points is spurious (or 

"fudged"). like much else in the ancient record that has passed until recently 

for observation. 44 Since the seasons are not the same length in 

4 11 See Dicks (1970) 64. 120, and 161-163. 

4'Cf. Dicks (1964) 27-38 (Horner and Hesiod) 64.120. and esp. 161-163. The 

exact form if not the existence of the zodiacal signs in the parapegmata (public 

calendars) ascribed to Meton and Euctemon (f1. 431 BCE) is problematic. since 

they are preserved in Geminus. who is first century BCE at the earliest; d. 

Dicks (1964) 84-88. Newton (1976) 163-164. and n. 42 below. 

42 At Lg. 986e-987a Plato can only name Venus and Mercury. They revert to 

"morning" and "evening" stars at Ti. 38c-d; d. Dicks (1964) 123· 

43Cf. Dicks (1964) 159-166; Newton (1976) 164. The relative position of stars 

in a constellation was not mapped out with coordinates until 1609: when Hipparchus 

corrects Aratus. the descriptions are purely verbal. In Babylonian 

horoscopes an eclipse is so many fingers wide; d. Rochberg (1999) 54· 

44 For the parapegmata ascribed to Meton and Euctemon. d. Newton (1976) 

163-164. who concluded that Ptolemy often fudged the data to fit his theories. 

Evans (1998) 267-269 attempts to vindicate Ptolemy. how successfully I am in no 

position to say. So also the Babylonian tables often proffer not observation but 

extrapolations therefrom; d. Newton (1976) 97-110; Rochberg (1999) 40-42.


"priamel") by itself will indicate authorial preference. So e.g. at 1.118. 

684.817 and 3·5; d. Race (1982) 7-17 and 24. and Lausberg (1973) §451. 

Manilius' own preference is obscured by a knowing Callimachean 

allusiveness. which has not worn well. obviously. given the critical reaction. 

But it does not much matter if the poet is referring to Hipparchus 

with hushed awe. or with assumed diffidence to himself in the third 

person as his own authority. Manilius clearly believes that the Signs 

acknowledge the same "primacy" which elsewhere pervades the ordo 

of the principate and universe both. Here the result of his rhetorical 

manoeuvres is an understated climax. as in the diminuendo that ends 

Book 5. which by its very lack of emphasis emphasizes the necessity of 

what could have gone without saying. Of course the first degree controls 

Time itself. 

So ends Book 3. One tropic degree rules the seasons; the seasons in turn 

epitomized the zodiacal calculations earlier in the book. As this paper 

has tried to demonstrate. the Seasons are thus no mere "terminal ornament." 

They are a fitting close. the earthly epiphany of the zodiac. 

So much for the mere structure of the book. which any unprejudiced 

reader might assume enjoyed a modicum of unity; only there has been a 

hundred years of prejudice. Hence this paper. which also proposes two 

textual alterations. If the hopelessly corrupt 3.670 is deleted for once 

and for all. the Pythagorean tetraktys. emblem of cosmic unity. heralds 

the tropic that is unity itself. Even the emendation mediae in 681 shares 

the same cosmic vision in its small way. The poet was honoring his 

predecessor Eudoxus. heir of Pythagoras and colleague of Plato. 

DEPARTMENT OF CLASSICS AND MEDITERRANEAN STUDIES 

COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS AND SCIENCES 

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO 

CHICAGO.IL 60607-7112 

REFERENCES 

Adam. J.. ed. 1902. The Republic ofPlato. Cambridge. 

Bailey. D.R.S. 1979. "The Loeb Manitius," CP74: 158-169. 

Barton. T. 1994. Ancient Astrology. London. 

Bowersock. G. 1990. "The pontificate of Augustus," in K. Raaflaub and M. Toher, 

eds. Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations ofAugustus and his 

Principate. Berkeley. 380-394.


Breiter. Th.. ed. and comm. 1907. Manilius Astronomica. Leipzig. 

Burkert. W. 1972. Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism. Cambridge. 

MA 

Burnet. J. 1930. Early Greek Philosophy. London4 • 

Cameron. A 1995. "Ancient anagrams." AJP I 16: 477-484. 

Cornford. P.M. [937. Plato's Cosmology. London. 

Curchin. L.. R. Fischler. "Hero of Alexandria's numerical treatment of division 

in extreme and mean ratio and its implications," Phoenix35 (1981) 129-133. 

Dicks, D.R 1970. Early Greek Astronomy to Aristotle. London. 

Evans, J. 1988. History and Practice ofAncient Astronomy. Oxford. 

Garrod. H.W.. ed. 1912. Manilius. Book II. Oxford. 

Goold. G.P.. ed. and trans. 1977. Manilius. London. 

__' ed. 1985. Manilius. Leipzig. 

Graves, RP. 1980. A.E. Housman the Scholar-Poet. New York. 

Housman. AE., ed. 1937. Manilius.5 vols. Cambridge'. 

Hubner. W. 1984. "Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter," ANRWII 32.1: 126-320. 

Jackson. H.M. 1994. "Love makes the world go rowld: The classical Greek ancestry 

of the youth with the zodiacal circle in late Roman art." in J.R Hinnells. 

ed. Studies in Mithraism. Rome. [3 [-164. 

Kahn, e.H. 200 I. Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans. Indianapolis. 

Kidd. D. 1997. Aratus: Phaenomena. Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 

34. Cambridge. 

Kirk, G.s., I.E. Raven and M. Schofield. 1983. The Presocratic Philosophers. 

Cambridge'. 

Kranz, W. 1961. "Sphragis: lchform und Namensiegel." RhM 104: 3-46. 97-124. 

Lausberg. H. 1973. Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik. Munich. 

Livio, M. 2002. The Golden Ratio. New York. 

MacNeice, L. 1964. Astrology. Garden City. NY. 

Neugebauer, O. 1969. The Exact Sciences in Antiquity. New York 2 

• 

Newton. RR 1976. Ancient Planetary Observations and the Validity of Ephemeris 

Time. Baltimore. 

Race. W.H. 1982. The Classical Priamel from Homer to Boethius. Leiden. 

Ramsey. J., L. Licht. 1997. The Comet of 44 B.C. and Caesar's Funeral Games. 

Atlanta. 

Rochberg, F. 1999. "Babylonian horoscopy," in N.M. Swerdlow. ed. Ancient Astronomy 

and Celestial Divination. Cambridge, MA. 39-60. 

Sarton. G. 1952. A History ofScience. Cambridge, MA. 

Shaw, G. 1995. Theurgy and the Soul: The Neoplatonism of Iamblichus. University 

Park, PA 1995. 

Smyly. J.G. 1912. "The second book of Manilius." Hermathena IT 137-[68. 

Tarrant, H. 1993. Thrasyllan Platonism. Ithaca, NY. 

Thorn. J.e. 1995. The Pythagorean Golden Verses, with Introduction and Commentary. 

Leiden. 

Valpy, A.J .. ed. 1828. M. Manilii Astronomicon. London. 

Volk. K. 2002. The Poetics of Latin Didactic. Oxford.

134 


Wilkinson. L.P. 1969. The Georgics of Virgil. Cambridge.

Mouseion. Series III, Vol. 5 (2005) 135-141 

©2005 Mouseion 

THE PONTIFICATE OF TI. CLAUDIUS NERO (PR. 42) 

F. X. RYAN 

The emperor Tiberius is said to have been a fatalist and rather neglectful 

of the gods and religion (Suet. Tib. 69. circa deos ac re1igiones 

neglegentior). This indifference is distressing when we remember that 

his father had been a priest in the last years of the Republic. I Historians 

have been as neglectful of the father as the son was of the gods. 

Broughton believed that Ti. Claudius Nero pater became a pontiff 

in 46 B.C. 2 

The full cursus Broughton credited to the father of the emperor 

reads as follows: "Q. 48. Proq. Alexandria 47. Leg.. Lieut. or 

Prefect to settle veterans in colonies in Gaul 46-45. Pro 42. and Propr. 

41-40. Leg.. Lieut.? or Promag.? 35. Pont. 46-33." The date of accession 

to the pontificate is plainly wrong. but in fairness to Broughton it 

should be noted that Munzer anticipated him in this mistake: "708=46 

erhielt er das Pontificat ... und wurde zur Anlegung von Colonien 

nach Gallien entsendet. "3 The only popular magistrate elected in 46 

was Caesar: though he was an incumbent consul in 46. he was designated 

consul for 45 (without a colleague) in an election conducted by 

the other consul of 46, M. Aemilius Lepidus (DC 43.33.1).4 The law 

fixed the occasion of the sacerdotum comitia: these were not held between 

the consular and the praetorian elections. as long believed ,5 but 

in normal circumstances before the consular elections (Cic. ad Brut. 

1.5.4: d. Cic. Fam. 8A.!' 3).6 The depth of the respect Caesar had for 

I The father is mentioned at PIR' C941 and discussed by F, Munzer, Claudius 

254. RE3 2777-2778. 

2 T. Robert S. Broughton, MRR 2. 303 (no query indicating doubt about the date 

s. a.), 547 (no query against the date in the index). 

3 Munzer (above, n. I) 2778. 

4 See G.V. Sunmer. "The lex annalis under Caesar," Phoenix 25 (1971) 35T "The 

only election to take place in 46, apart from those for the plebeian magistracies, 

was that of Caesar to his fourth consulship." The author of this most important 

article did not take sacerdotal elections into his ken. 

S In the twentieth century still by such estimable historians as L.R. Taylor. 

"The election of the Pontifex Maximus in the late Republic," CP37 (1942) 422 n. 7 

and J. Linderski. "The aedileship of Favonius, Curio the Younger and Cicero's 

election to the augurate," HSCP76 (1972) 192-193 = Roman Questions (Stuttgart 

1995) 242- 243. 

6 See F,X. Ryan. "Oer fur die Priesterwahlen vorgeschriebene Zeitpunkt." SHT 

[35

136 F.x. RYAN 

the republican constitution is shown by his own continuation in office. 7 

but it might be thought that he took religion much more seriously than 

the constitution. and that he would have provided for the election of 

priests even though he did not arrange for the election of popular 

magistrates. In fact. his failure to allow the election of popular magistrates 

proves that he was unconcerned about religion: the Judi of the 

curule aediles and of the urban praetor had to go forward under 

makeshift presidents. 8 Since Caesar was not so concerned about the 

public religion as to make sure that the magistrates traditionally responsible 

for the various Judi be in place. his concern to fill vacancies 

in the priestly colleges could be established only by special pleading. 9 

We may consider it an established fact that Nero was not elected to a 

pontificate in 46. 

The pontificate of Nero is mentioned in two sources. The notice in 

Velleius reveals that he was a pontifex in the period after his praetorship 

(praetorius et pontifex. 2.75. r). The notice in Suetonius is much 

more helpful: pater Tiberi. Nero. quaestor C. Caesaris AJexandrino 

4.A.2 (2003) 1-2. 

7 The contempt of Caesar for republican electoral procedure is shown by the 

election held on the last day of 45. Cicero, everyone remembers, was offended by 

the election of a suffect when less than a full day of the term remained: ita 

Caninio consuJe scito neminem prandisse (Cic. Fam. 7.30.1). Here Caesar broke 

with tradition without breaking the law; he did openly flout legal requirements 

by holding the centuriate assembly although auspices had been taken for the 

tribal assembly. 

8 See Broughton. MRR 2.307 for evidence that the plebeian aediles performed 

the Judi Romani in place of their curule counterparts, and OC 43484 for evidence 

that the plebeian aediles had earlier performed the Judi MegaJenses; see OC 

43.48.3 for evidence that one of the urban prefects superintended the Judi Apollinares 

in place of the urban praetor. a. KE. Welch, "The praefectura urbis of 45 

B.C. and the ambitions of L. Cornelius Balbus," Antichthon 24 (1990) 59-60 and n 

43: since the text of DC clearly states that both aediles had charge of the Mega 

Jenses. she slips in saying that these Judi were conducted "by an unnamed plebeian 

aedile." 

9 Such evidence as Suetonius (Jul. 20.1,59,77,79,81.2,4) provides for his religious 

attitudes is not always datable and sometimes susceptible of differing interpretations: 

the argument offered in the text has the merit of being both fairly 

clear and datable. Without argument, the conclusion that priestly elections 

would not be held apart from popular elections was reached by L.R. Taylor, 

"Caesar's colleagues in the Pontifical College," AJP 63 (1942) 406 n. 68; she denied 

the election of Octavius to the pontificate in 48 in these words: "The consuls of 47 

were not chosen until after Caesar's return to Rome late in 47 .... Since it seems 

unlikely that the comitia sacerdotum would have been held in a year when 

comitia for the curule magistrates were omitted, I think it probable that Octavius 

was not elected to the pontificate until 47. " Broughton (MRR 2.292) later dated the 

election of Octavius to 47.

THE PONTIFICATE OF TI. CLA UDIUS NERO 137 

bello c1assi praepositus. plurimum ad victoriam contulit. quare et pontifex 

in locum P. Scipionis substitutus et ad deducendas in Galliam 

colonias. in quis Narbo et Are1ate erant. missus est. tamen Caesare 

occiso. cunctis turbarum metu abolitionem facti decernentibus. etiam 

de praemiis tyrannicidarum referendum censuit (Tib. 4.1). This passage 

assigns the election of Nero to a period just over two years in 

length: it took place after the suicide of Scipio Metellus following Thapsus 

in April 46 (old calendar). and before the assassination of Caesar in 

March 44 (new calendar). Though the place in the pontificate to which 

he acceded fell vacant early in 46. it seems that Nero did not fill it until 

late in 45. The election might have taken place in October 45. before 

the election of the consuls of 45 10 : an election irregular in its chronology. 

since nine months of the year 45 had already elapsed. but regular 

in its sequence. since the sacerdotal comitia did not normally intervene 

between the consular and praetorian" comitia. If not in October 

45. then by December 45: the comitia held on the last day of December 

45 became famous for making Caninius a suffect consul. but had been 

called as quaestorian comitia (Cic. Fam. 7.30. I). and the quaestorian 

election could not take place until the election of priests and higher 

magistrates had been completed. The quaestors of 44 should have entered 

office on 5 December 45. so at first glance it is surprising to see 

quaestorian comitia scheduled for the last day of the month. The 

quaestorian comitia in question were probably delayed comitia scheduled 

to elect the quaestors of 44. 12 The reasons for the delay are not far 

to seek: the triumph of the consul Fabius in October. the festival days 

in November and December. and the necessity of electing not only all 

the popular magistrates of 45 but also all the popular magistrates of 44 

in the antepenultimate and penultimate months of the year.'3 We understand 

the ire of Cicero a little better when we realize that some or 

all of the quaestors of 44 had not been elected. even though their magisterial 

year had already begun. and that the filling of the vacancies in 

the quaestorian college was further delayed for the purpose of elect- 

10 Caesar abdicated his sole consulship in early October. and the new consuls 

Fabius and Trebonius were elected between 3 and 12 October: see Sumner (above. 

n. 4) 357 n. 46. 

II In spite of the fact that they could not have held office a full three months. 

we know that fourteen men were elected to the praetorship of 45 (DC 43.47.2). 

12 Anent comitiis quaestoriis D.R. Shackleton Bailey. Ocera: Epistulae ad Familiares 

(Cambridge 1977) 2-434 wrote: "Held late this year because of Caesar's 

absence and the various celebrations following his return." 

13 The necessity of electing more men to some of the colleges might have 

added to the time consumed by those magisterial elections. Sixteen praetors were 

chosen for 44 (DC 43.49.1), and forty quaestors for both 45 (DC 43.47. 2 ) and 44·

F.x. RYAN 

ing a consul who would hold office for eleven hours. 

If the priestly comitia were part of the elections for 44. it would not 

be easy to gauge the month in which the pontiffs were elected. We do 

not know whether some of the quaestors for 44 had been elected before 

the last day of 45; with forty places to fill. the quaestorian comitia 

by themselves might have consumed several days. The election of curule 

aediles preceded that of quaestors. the election of praetors preceded 

that of curule aediles. the election of consuls preceded that of 

praetors. and the election of priests preceded that of consuls. In short. 

if Nero was elected during the comitia held to elect the popular magistrates 

of 44. he might have gained his victory in November 45 rather 

than December 45; it seems likely. however. that the month of October 

was largely devoted to electing the popular magistrates of 45. 

Nor would it be easy to choose between the two alternatives and assign 

the sacerdotal comitia either to the comitia held to elect the magistrates 

of 45 or to the comitia held to elect magistrates for 44. 14 In favor 

of the former alternative one might argue that the delay in electing a 

successor to Scipio was already unconscionably long at twenty 

months. ls and that the Romans would not have further postponed the 

election of a successor; to this the obvious rejoinder is that the next 

round of elections was not a full year in the future but only a month 

or so in the future. and that a further delay of a month or two was not 

a significant addition to the previous delay of twenty months. In favor 

of the latter alternative one might argue that the Romans would not 

have wanted to defer the election of popular magistrates for 45 by attaching 

the sacerdotal comitia to those elections. since the year 45 was 

rapidly vanishing. This seems a rather strong argument when one 

remembers that the sacerdotal comitia preceded the consular and so 

would delay the elections to all popular magistracies. when one remembers 

that nearly twice the usual number of praetors and exactly 

twice the usual number of quaestors were elected for 45. and when 

one remembers that these elections probably got underway in mid 

October. seven weeks or so before the end of the quaestorian year. 

14 Although in normal circumstances priestly candidates were nominated at a 

contio and the sacerdotal comitia could occur no sooner than a trinundinum after 

the nominations. in the case of delayed elections we may assume that the trinundinum-requirement 

was suspended. a. J. Linderski (above. n. 5). "Cicero's election 

to the augurate" 194 n. 55.196 n. 63 =Roman Questions 244 n. 55.246 n. 63· In other 

words. it would not be proper to adduce the trinundinum-requirement as a reason 

for associating the priestly elections with the comitia for 44· 

15 Between the death of Scipio in April 46 and the elections in October 45 

twenty months elapsed rather than eighteen. since two months were intercalated 

between November and December 46 (Suet. Jul. 40.2).

THE PONTIFICATE OF TI. CLAUDIUS NERO 139 

And it goes without saying that the apparent inability of the Romans to 

complete the election of the quaestors of 44 by the end of December 

45. nearly a month into the quaestorian year. would be easier to understand 

if the sacerdotal elections had been attached to the comitia for 

44. If one assumes. however. that the priesthoods perhaps even usually 

were in the gift of Caesar. in that there was one candidate per 

vacancy. and that the magistracies were filled more quickly than in 

the days of fully free elections. then neither the delay caused by the 

sacerdotal comitia nor the delay caused by the increase in the size of 

colleges would have seemed to require the postponement of the already 

long overdue priestly elections. On balance. it seems likelier 

that the sacerdotal elections took place during the comitia for 45 than 

during the comitia for 44. but the evidence is not so overwhelming as 

to rule out the latter possibility. What may be regarded as certain is 

that Nero became a pontifex in the year 45. and at some point in a twomonth 

period from mid-October to mid-December 45. 

Since some effort and some ink has been expended in an attempt to 

show that no priests were elected in 46 16 -Le.. that no priests were 

elected between late 47'7 and late 45-let us briefly consider a few 

other men elevated to priesthoods at this time. P. Sulpicius Q. f. Rufus 

was proconsul of Bithynia and Pontus in 46-45'8 and publicized his 

pontificate on coins minted then; Broughton remarked. "Probably 

elected in 47. since he is termed Pont(ifex) on coins of Sinope in 

46-45."'9 It is not necessary to excise this remark. but we should add: 

"Definitely elected by 47." Broughton also held out the possibility that 

two augurs whom he included in his account of 47 might have been 

elected only in 46. Of Q. Cornificius he writes. "Became an Augur. 

probably in 47 (DC 42.51.3). certainly by 46 (Cic. Fam. 12.17. and 18)." 

Of the famous C. Iulius Caesar he writes. "Became an Augur. probably 

in 47 (DC 42.51.3). and certainly before he assumed his third dictatorship 

in April. 46 (Grueber. CRRBM 2.576). "20 In each case we may 

,6 For some reason Taylor failed to make against 46 the same argument she 

had made against 48; in fact she lists Nero as entering the college in 47 (Taylor 

[above. n. 5] 412). which must be a typographical error. since on the same page 

she correctly dates the death of Scipio to 46. 

'7 The situation in 47 was almost identical with that in 45: around the beginning 

of October. the Romans commenced to elect popular magistrates for both 

the current year and the succeeding year. It is probable then that already in 47 the 

sacerdotal elections were grouped with the first round of elections. those for 47· 

18 See Broughton. MRR 3.202. He was succeeded already in 45 by Q. Marcius 

Crispus: see MRR2·309-3IO. 3.138. 

'9 Broughton. MRR 2.292. 

20 Broughton. MRR 2.292-293.

14° 

F.x. RYAN 

delete the statement holding out the possibility of election as late as 46 

and note that he became an augur "no later than 47."21 

Something further can be said about the cursus of Nero. As we 

have seen. Broughton dated his colonizing activity in Gaul to 46-45. In 

the passage from Suetonius quoted above. however. the colonizing 

activity is mentioned after elevation to the pontificate. which we have 

dated to late 45. If the activity in Gaul be now correctly dated to 46-45. 

then Suetonius might seem to have wrongly or at least rather clumsily 

placed the elevation to the pontificate before the colonial settlement; 

the error of Suetonius 22 would be easy to explain: since he knew that 

Nero replaced Scipio and that Scipio died after Thapsus. he simply assumed 

that Nero was elected to the pontificate in the middle of 46 (the 

usual time for elections). before setting out for Gaul later in 46 or in 

45. If on the other hand Suetonius has listed these activities in the correct 

order. then the colonial settlement should be dated to 45-44. 23 All 

we know with certainty about the presence of Nero in Rome is that he 

was present in March 44: we do not know that he was present when 

elected to the pontificate in the period October-December 45. Priestly 

candidates. unlike candidates for political office. were not legally required 

to be present in the city when elected (Cic. ad Brut. 1.5.3 sed 

quamvis liceat absentis rationem haberi. tamen omnia sunt praesentibus 

faciliora). So it is possible that Nero began to settle veterans in 

Gaul in the middle of 46 or the middle of 45. was while so engaged 

elected pontiff absens and returned to the city shortly before IS March 

44. Thus it is theoretically possible that the election to the pontificate 

neither preceded nor followed the colonial work. but took place during 

the colonial work. But since Nero was in the senate soon after IS 

March 44 (censuit). it seems that we should range ourselves with 

Broughton and date the colonizing work to 46-45.24 It is at any rate 

possible that in siding with Broughton we are not rejecting Suetonius. 

21 The argument in the text assumes that even Caesar had to be elected augur 

and that even for him no special election was held apart from the magisterial 

elections. 

22 We could suppose that Nero soon after Thapsus was promised a pontificate 

by Caesar. and knew that he would be elevated at the next sacerdotal comitia. 

Such a promise is credible. but that Suetonius knew of such a promise is not 

nearly as easy to believe. 

23 It does not seem likely that the colonizing activity belongs in the period after 

the death of Caesar. especially since the appointment clearly was made by 

Caesar (Suet. Tib. 4.1: quare). and the account of Suetonius also implies that the 

colonizing work was finished before the assassination. 

24 It is at least theoretically possible that the colonizing work of Nero. begun 

before October 45 and perhaps in 46. continued into the calendar year 44·

THE PONTIFICATE OF TI. CLAUDIUS NERO 141 

because Suetonius consciously listed the pontificate and the colonial 

commissionership, which he describes as rewards for good service 

during the Alexandrine war, in order of importance. Apart from the 

presence of Nero in the Senate in March 44, on general grounds colonizing 

activity in Gaul before October 45 makes better sense than activity 

after October 45. 25 The only change necessary in the cursus of 

Nero concerns then his pontificate: he is henceforth to be deemed 

"Pont. 45-33. "26 

DEPARTMENT OF CLASSICS 

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI 

CINCINNATI,OH 45221 

25 L. Keppie. Colonisation and Veteran Settlement in Italy 47-14 S.C (London 

1983) 50 did not try to fix the date more closely than Broughton. but his brief discussion 

of Nero makes us reluctant to lower the date from 46-45 and to assert 

that the colonizing activity commenced in or after October 45. It is known that 

legions VI and X took part in the war in Iberia in 45: "By late in the previous year 

it was probably known that VI and X were destined for settlement in Transalpina. 

and Caesar perhaps diverted them [i.e.. to Iberia] while all but on the march 

to their new homes. Certainly on his return journey from Spain in the summer of 

45. he stopped at Narbo. perhaps briefly to initiate or observe settlement work 

under Ti. Claudius Nero." Here "initiate" concedes the possibility that the colonizing 

work began in the summer of 45. and "observe" concedes the possibility 

that the work had begun earlier in 45 or 46. 

26 The initial draft of this paper was written during a stint as Summer 

Scholar at the Center for Hellenic Studies.

Mouseion. Series III. Vol. 5 (2005) 143-158 

©2005 Mouseion 

LE LOCUS INAMOENUS DE PAULIN DE NOLE : 

LA RHETORIQUE AU SERVICE DU CHRISTIANISME I 

INTRODUCfION 

DAVID AMHERDT 

La litterature latine de l'Antiquite tardive fait la part belle a la forme. 

c'est bien connu. Et cela est vrai quelle que soit l'orientation religieuse 

des ecrivains ayant illustre cette epoque. Ainsi, des auteurs chretiens 

tels que Paulin de Nole ou Augustin ne Ie cedent en rien a leurs contemporains 

non chretiens ou «pai"ens» 2. La presence massive des 

techniques de rhetorique appartient au paysage culturel de l'epoque et 

fait partie des moyens utilises par l'ecrivain pour emouvoir et persuader 

son lecteur. Cette importance donnee a la forme laisse souvent 

perplexe l'homme du XXl e siecle. Et de fait. la rhetorique lui semble 

padois si envahissante qu'il en vient a douter de l'existence de la realite 

ou de l'objet decrits: l'auteur ne s'interesse-t-il qu'aux lieux communs. 

aux motifs litteraires. aux procedes stylistiques, mettant du coup 

la « realite » au second plan? Plus encore: beaucoup de textes de cette 

epoque ont une telle charge rhetorique qu'on peut souvent. a la limite. 

se demander s'ils ne sont pas qu'une simple fiction. En particulier. 

peut-on fa ire de l'histoire avec ces textes ? 

Ce sont ces questions que nous examinerons dans les pages qui 

suivent. en etudiant Ie lieu commun du locus inamoenus tel qu'il apparait 

dans des textes choisis d'Ausone et surtout de Paulin de Nole. 

L'etude de ce topos - en particulier de son emploi dans un cadre 

polemique et de « propagande» religieuse - devrait contribuer a 

ec1airer la conception de la litterature qui etait celle des ecrivains de 

l'Antiquite tardive. Elle nous permettra en outre de nous livrer en 

conclusion a quelques reflexions sur l'attitude que l'historien doit 

adopter face aux textes de cette epoque. 

Les deux premieres parties seront consacrees respectivement a des 

I Cet article est la version ecrite d'une conference donnee dans Ie cadre du 

GRRAT (Groupe de Recherches sur les Rhetoriques de l'Antiquite Tardive), it 

rUniversite de Fribourg (Suisse), le 2 juin 2005. Je remercie tous les participants 

pour leurs remarques et leurs suggestions. 

2 J'utilise le terme « palen» en raison de sa commodite et bien qu'il s'agisse 

d'un terme polemique negatif invente par les chretiens pour designer leurs 

opposants. Voir aussi ci-dessous, n. ro. 

143

144 DAVID AMHERDT 

extraits de lettres d'Ausone et a des extraits de Iettres de Paulin tires 

de la correspondance entre les deux hommes, Dans la troisieme partie, 

nous examinerons des passages de deux textes de Paulin, qui. bien 

qu'etrangers a cette correspondance. en sont comme Ie prolongement 

3 . 

I ,LE LOCUS INAMOENUS, SEJOUR DE L' ARISTOCRATE QUI TRAHIT : LA RHE 

TORIQUE O'AUSONE 

Jusqu'a l'age de soixante ans. Ausone (Decimus Magnus Ausonius. 

310-394). grand aristocrate bordelais. consacre toutes ses energies a 

l'enseignement, d'abord de la grammaire. puis de la rhetorique. a 

Bordeaux, II devient ensuite Ie precepteur de Gratien. Ie fils de 

l'empereur Valentinien leI', A la cour de Treves. notre professeur acquiert 

sous Gratien une influence pOlitique extraordinaire. au point 

qu'on a parfois parle de lui comme d'une sorte de vice-empereur. 

Vers 383. apres l'assassinat de son imperial eleve. Ausone perd son 

influence politique et rentre en Aquitaine. ou il mene une douce retraite 

dans sa ville natale, Bordeaux. et dans ses villas de la region. n 

se consacre ases amis. asa correspondance. ala litterature. II meurt en 

394 4 • La vie de Paulin (Meropius Pontius Paulinus. 352/355-431) - lui 

aussi issu d'une famille d'aristocrates - est intimement liee a celle 

d'Ausone. puisque Ie grand rheteur est quelque temps son professeur. 

a Bordeaux. Depuis Treves. Ausone favorise l'ascension politique de 

Paulin. qui devient consul suffect puis gouverneur de la province de 

Campanie. A la mort de Gratien. il revient lui aussi a Bordeaux. ou il 

se consacre a la litterature et a ses amities. menant Ia vie raffinee des 

grands proprietaires terriens de l'aristocratie provinciale. Vers 3895. 

3 Le texte de Paulin est celui de M. Skeb (Paulinus von Nola: Epistulae - Briefe. 

3 vol.. Fribourg en Br., 1998. Fontes Christiani 25. 1-3) pour les epistulae (= 

Lettres) , de G. von Hartel (Sancti Pontii Meropii Paulini Nolani opera. Prague/ 

Vienne/Leipzig, 1894. Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 30) pour 

les carmina (= Poemes). i.e texte du carmen 10 est emprunte a mon edition de la 

correspondance d'Ausone et de Paulin (D. Arnherdt, Ausone et Paulin de Nole: 

Correspondance. Introduction, texte latin, traduction et notes, Berne, 2004) : les 

textes d'Ausone que nous etudions appartiennent tous acette correspondance et 

sont cites d'apres cette meme edition, qui adopte la numerotation des lettres 

d'Ausone de l'edition de R. P. H. Green. Decimi Magni Ausonii opera, Oxford, 

1999. Sauf indication contraire.les traductions des textes anciens sont de l'auteur 

de cet article. 

4 Pour un etat de la question sur la bibliographie ausonienne, voir Arnherdt 

(d. n. 3), pp. 5-6: pour la vie et l'CEuvre d'Ausone. pp. 9-12. 

5 Sur la chronologie de la conversion de Paulin et de sa correspondance avec 

Ausone, voir Arnherdt (d. n. 3), p. 21.

LELOCUS INAMOENUS DE PAULIN DE NOLE 145 

aecompagne de son epouse Therasia. il abandonne soudain les delices 

de Bordeaux pour se consacrer corps et arne a la religion; il se rend 

en Espagne. vend ses riches domaines et se fait moine. 11 est ordonne 

pretre a Barcelone. qu'il quitte peu apres pour gagner Nole. OU il 

fonde un monastere et dont il devient l'eveque quelques annees plus 

tard. De Nole - devenue grace a lui une plaque tournante de la chretiente 

de l'epoque - Paulin entretient une abondante correspondance. 

notamment avec Sulpice Severe et Augustin 6. 

En reaction ala spectaculaire conversion de Paulin. Ausone saisit la 

plume et reproche a son protege sa desertion. Cest Ie debut d'un 

echange epistolaire qui fera date dans l'histoire du conflit entre christianisme 

et paganisme 7. Ausone demande a Paulin de revenir a sa vie 

de naguere. tandis que Ie nouveau converti expose a son proteeteur les 

motifs de sa decision B. 

Cette conversion est ressentie par Ausone et ses amis comme une 

trahison : Paulin a trahi les valeurs sociales. culturelles et politiques de 

l'aristoeratie. valeurs que ses pairs estiment menacees par Ie ehristianisme 

radical qu'il prone desormais - et ce meme si bien des aristocrates. 

dont Ausone. ne se eonsideraient pas necessairement comme 

etrangers au christianisme et se disaient meme chretiens. du moins 

officiellement 9. Done Paulin a trahi l'aristocratie. On aurait toutefois 

tort de penseI' que son unique interet soit desormais la religion. En 

effet. s'il est vrai que notre poete a vendu une grande partie de ses 

proprietes. il reste tres riche et tres influent. S'il a quitte Ie cercle des 

aristocrates bordelais. c'est pour integrer Ie cerc1e des aristocrates 

ehretiens : Ie christianisme a assimile les valeurs aristocratiques. les a 

faites siennes : Ie modele propose par Paulin dans son CEuvre est 

desormais celui de l'aristocrate chretien. La correspondance entre Ausone 

et Paulin est en fait un temoignage de eette lutte entre deux 

modeles : eelui de l'aristocratie pai'enne 10 et eelui de l'aristocratie ehre- 

6 Pour un etat de la question sur la bibliographie de Paulin. voir Amherdt (d. 

n. 3). p. 6 ; pour sa vie et son

DAVID AMHERDT 

henne. 

Dans les lettres faisant suite a la conversion de Paulin. ecrites entre 

392 et 394. Ausone reproche donc sa trahison a son ami. Voyons ou il 

situe Ie sejour du traitre: Paulin se trouve dans des lieux inhospitaliers. 

dans « les forets de Vasconie ». dans « les gites des neigeuses 

Pyrenees» ". Et Ie poete d'ajouter : 

Quoi! la gloire de sa patrie. et la rnienne. ce pilier du senat. c'est Birbilis.ou 

Calagurris attachee it des rochers. qui Ie possooeront. ou l'aride 

Herda qui. du haut de ses ruines couchees sur des monts rocailleux. regarde 

rower it ses pieds Ie Sicoris 12 ? 

Paulin est entoure de roes. de rochers. de montagnes: nous avons 

sous les yeux un paysage aride. rude et desole: c'est un locus inamoenus, 

un « lieu deplaisant ». Ie contraire du paysage ideaL du 

« lieu agreable ». Ie locus amoenus. La desolation - exageree 13 - des 

lieux que Paulin est suppose habiter desormais est Ie signe de sa trahison. 

de son eloignement de la societe cuitivee des aristocrates galloromains. 

De meme. Ausone fustige Ie personnage qui aurait persuade Paulin 

de garder Ie silence et de couper les ponts avec ses amis de naguere: 

Qui donc fa persuade de garder si longternps Ie silence? Que cet impie 

ne puisse jamais plus faire usage de sa voix, que nulle joie ne l'anime. 

que jamais ni les doux chants des poetes, ni l'emouvante melodie d'un 

tendre chant de deuil. ni les betes. ni les troupeaux. ni les oiseaux ne 

charrnent ses oreilles. ni l'echo cache dans les forets boisees des bergers. 

qui nous console en repondant it nos paroles. Que. triste et pauvre. il 

habite les deserts et qU'il parcoure. muet. les replis des cimes alpestres. 

comme on dit qu·autrefois. prive de la raison. evitant Ie contact avec les 

hommes et rnerne leurs traces. Bellerophon parcourut dans son errance 

des lieux ecartes 1 4 • 

Ie terrne« palen ». voir aussi ci-dessus. n. 2). Sur ce problerne. et en particulier sur 

Ie christianisme d'Ausone. on lira mon« Ausone: Rhetorique et christianisme ». 

dans Approches de la Troisieme Sophistique. Hommages a Jacques Schamp. 

Bruxelles. Collection Latomus (sous presse). 

II Cf. Ausone. Lettre. 21. 51-52: Vasconis hoc saltus et ninguida Pyrenaei / 

hospitia. 

12 Cf. Ausone. Lettre. 21.56-59: Ergo meum patriaeque deeus eolumenque 

senati / Birbilis aut haerens scopulis Calagurris habebit. / aut quae deiectis iuga 

per scruposa ruinis / arida torrentem Sicorim despectat llerda ? 

13 Par exernple. rien ne justifie la description de Calagurris. l'actuelle 

Calahorra.la patrie de Quintilien. comme« attachee it des rochers ». bien qu'elle 

soit effectivernent situee sur une hauteur. 

14 a. Ausone. Lettre. 21. 62-J]2: Quis tamen iste tibi tam longa silentia suasit? 

/Impius ut nullos hie uoeem uertat in usus. / gaudia non illum uegetent. non

DAVID AMHERDT 

est un pauvre here sans feu ni lieu. Les descriptions d'Ausone stigmatisent 

Ie traltre et l'exilent. 

2. CHRETIEN CIVILISE ET PAlEN CHRISTIANISE: LA RHETORIQUE DE PAULIN 

Paulin utilise deux methodes pour repondre aux attaques d'Ausone. La 

premiere consiste arepondre directement aux arguments de l'adversaire 

: tu dis que j'habite des lieux deserts, mais moi je vais te montrer 

que tu as tort: c'est Ia methode negative. La seconde methode est positive. 

constructive: elle consiste a montrer que Ie christianisme est civilisateur. 

2. I. POLEMIQUE 

Paulin commence donc par repondre de maniere directe aux critiques 

d'Ausone. s'insurgeant contre cette image du chretien a l'ecart de toute 

societe qu'essaie de lui imposer Ie rheteur de Bordeaux. II revient 

d'abord sur l'accusation selon Iaquelle il serait un sauvage et un misanthrope. 

une sorte de Bellerophon: 

Car je n'ai pas perdu l'esprit et je ne mene pas une existence cherchant a 

fuir la compagnie des hommes, comme Ie cavalier de Pegase dont tu 

ecris qu'il vivait dans les antres de Lycie 18. 

Dans l'extrait suivant. qui fait suite au passage que nous venons de 

lire. Paulin explique que si de fait il est possible que Ie chretien se 

tienne a l'ecart des hommes, cet eloignement n'est pas inspire par Ia 

misanthropie. bien au contraire. II existe en effet des chretiens - Ies 

moines - qui habitent des lieux arides et deserts. non par sauvagerie 

ou misanthropie. mais pour rendre gloire aDieu. C'est Ie paradoxe: 

Ie chretien trouve dans Ie locus inamoenus un lieu adapte ala priere et 

a Ia Iouange : Ie chretien, pour Dieu. peut etre asocial. 

Us sont pourtant nombreux ceux qui. pousses par la puissance de Dieu. 

habitent des lieux retires, comme Ie faisaient autrefois pour leurs etudes 

ou leurs muses d'illustres sages; maintenant, de meme. ce sont ces lieux 

que frequentent ceux qui ont choisi de mediter Ie Christ d'un cceur pur. 

Ils ne sont pas fous et ce n'est pas par sauvagerie qu'ils choisissent 

d'habiter des lieux deserts, mais tournes vers les hautes etoiles. conternplant 

Dieu et s'appliquant a scruter les profondeurs du vrai. ils aiment 

la tranquillite exempte de vains soucis et, par ordre du Christ et par 

amour du salut. ils se detournent de l'agitation du forum. du tumulte des 

affaires et de toutes les occupations ennemies des dons divins 1 9 • 

18 Cf. Paulin. Poeme, 10, 156-158 : Non etenim mihi mens demens neque 

participantum / uita fugax hominum. Lyciae qua scribis in antris / Pegaseum 

uixisse equitem. 

19 Cf. Paulin, Poeme. ro, 158-168 : licet auia multi / numine agente colant. dari


Mais Paulin affirme peu apres que si certains ont choisi cette condition. 

il n'est lui-meme pas dans ce cas: il n'habite pas des lieux deserts 

perdus dans les montagnes. mais des lieux agreables. sur la plage 

charmante d'un opulent rivage 2lJ. II reproche ensuite a Ausone de situer 

son sejour dans les gorges desolees des neigeuses Pyrenees. 

comme s'il n'y avait pas de place pour lui dans la riche Espagne aux 

villes superbes et aux riantes cultures 21. Enfin. il explique que 

I'Espagne n'a pas que des villes en ruines perdues dans les montagnes. 

mais aussi de charmantes et magnifiques cites teUes que Saragosse. 

Barcelone et Tarragone 22. 

Dans les passages auxquels nous venons de nous referer. Paulin entre 

en polemique avec Ausone. II veut montrer qu'en fait Ie christianisme 

n'est ni misanthropie ni barbarie. mais qu'il est lie a la civilisation 

et ala culture. eest une fa

IS° 

DAVID AMHERDT 

gnes peuplees de bandits. me serais-je endurci dans la demeure d'un 

barbare et assimile it ces paysans dont j'aurais partage la sauvage existence? 

Un esprit pur est inaccessible au mal et les taches que l'on fait 

sur des fibres lisses ne s'y attachent pas; ainsi, quiconque mene. meme 

dans les gorges de Vasconie, une vie exempte de crime aussi bien 

qu'integre. ne peut etre contamine par les mreurs de ses hates barbares 

2 3 . 

Cest Ie premier pas de l'argument visant it montrer que Ie christianisme 

est civilisateur. Notre poete part d'une hypothese; meme si Ie 

chretien habite des lieux barbares et sauvages. dans Ies montagnes. 

dans des reperes de bandits. il n'est pas necessairement contamine par 

Ies mCEurs sauvages de ceux qui l'entourent: il sait preserver sa 

purete. Les elements du champ lexical du locus inamoenus sont Ies 

montagnes. Ies bandits. Ia barbarie. l'existence sauvage. Ies mCEurs 

grossieres. 

Apres avoir bien precise qu'il n'habitait pas des lieux deserts. Paulin 

affirme que meme si c'etait Ie cas il pourrait convertir Ies barbares 

y residant - c'est Ie deuxieme pas de l'argument visant it montrer Ie 

caractere civilisateur du christianisme : 

Et si je vivais sur les terres de Vasconie. pourquoi ce peup1e barbare ne 

se formerait-il pas plutot it l'exempIe de rna vie et n'abandonnerait-il 

pas ses mceurs sauvages pour adopter les notres 24 ? 

Nous avons vu plus haut que Paulin affirmait que les moines peuvent 

parfois choisir des lieux deserts et sauvages pour mieux servir 

Dieu 2 5 . II fait ici un pas de plus: Ie chretien pourrait tres bien 

changer Ies mCEurs sauvages des barbares (des bandits n. et en faire 

23 O. Paulin. paeme. 10.208-215: Sed fuerit fortuna iugis habitasse latronum. 

/ num lare barbarico rigui. mutatus in ipsos. / inter quos habui socia feritate 

colonos ? / Non recipit mens pura malum neque leuibus haerent / inspersae 

fibris maculae: sic Vascone saltu / quisquis agit purus sceleris uitam integer 

aeque. / nulla ab inhumano morum contagia ducit / hospite. Paulin s'inspire 

directement d'Horace, Carmen, I. 22, ou Ie poete explique que l'homme dont la vie 

est sans tache et pure de tout crime n'a pas besoin d'armes pour traverser en 

toute securite des regions dangereuses et inhospitalieres ; notre vers 113 est une 

variation du premier vers de rode horatienne (d. Horace. Carmen, I, 22, I. Integer 

uitae sce1erisque purus). Comme Ie souligne Ch. Witke. Numen Litterarum. The 

Old and the New in Latin Poetry from Constantine to Gregory the Great. 

Leyde/Cologne, 1971. p. 57.1a presente reflexion de Paulin est proche de la topique 

elegiaque de l'amoureux qui se promene protege par son amour (d. Properce. III. 

16): Ie chretien habite par Ie Christ n'a pas it craindre pour sa foi. 

24 O. Paulin. paeme. 10,218-220: Ac si Vasconicis mihi uita fuisset in oris. / 

cur non more mea potius formata ferinos / poneret in nostros migrans gens 

barbara ritus ? 

25 O. Paulin. Paeme, 10,258-268.

LELOCUS INAMOENUS DE PAULIN DE NOLE lSI 

des chretiens ! Des chretiens. mais aussi des Romains ! car Iorsqu'il rut 

« adopter nos mreurs ». il ne parle assurement pas seulement de la 

religion. mais aussi de la pax Romana : Ie chretien prend Ie relais de 

la mission civilisatrice des Romains 26. 

Retenons cette description de la conversion du barbare en chretien 

et en particulier Ie vocabulaire utilise. Sous couvert d'une hypothese se 

met en place une nouvelle image. qui prend Ie contre-pied de celle 

d'Ausone: Ie non chretien se trouve a son tour dans un locus inamoenus; 

Ie christianisme quant a lui est devenu un locus amoenus. 

un monde fertile, chaleureux et cultive. 

Jusqu'ici. nous nous sommes timites a des textes de Ia correspondance 

entre Ausone et Paulin. Nous allons maintenant nous pencher 

sur deux textes posterieurs. l'un tire de la correspondance en prose de 

Paulin (les epistulaeL l'autre de ses carmina. 

3. LA MISSION DE VICTRICIUS ET DE NICETAS : DES BANDITS TRANSFORMES 

EN CHRETIENS? 

3.1. VICTRICIUS 

Or. voici que Ie modele de conversion propose par Paulin dans l'un 

des tout premiers poemes ecrits apres sa conversion. Ie carmen TO 

dont nous venons de lire des extraits -. semble se realiser dans la 

pratique. 

Victricius. eveque de Rouen. est un ami de Paulin. de qui il re


bien sur, mais aussi temporelle: la paix et la securite regnent partout 

35 ! 

3.2. NICETAS 

L'activite missionnaire de Nicetas 3 6 n'a rien it envier it celle de Victricius. 

On ne connaH pratiquement rien de ce personnage, qui etait 

probablement eveque de Remesiana en Dacia mediterranea. Cetait un 

ami de Paulin. a qui il a rendu visite it Nole autour de l'annee 400. A 

la suite de cette visite, a une date difficile a determiner 37, Paulin ecrit 

Ie Poeme 17, en metres saphiques. II s'agit d'un propempticon, poeme 

de salut et d'accompagnement de Nicetas, qui quitte Nole pour la Dacie, 

domaine de son activite missionnaire. 

Apres avoir imagine Ie voyage de retour de Nicetas, qui en chemin 

realise des prodiges de conversion sur les populations qu'il rencontre, 

Paulin fait l'eloge de l'action missionnaire deja accomplie par son ami 

au sein des populations barbares dont il est l'eveque (v. 201-276). 

Notre poete affirme notamment : 

Maintenant. plus riche grace a la recompense que lui apporte son propre 

travail. Ie Besse exulte : 1'01' qu'i! cherchait auparavant dans la terre par 

Ie travail de ses mains, maintenant il Ie recueille avec l'esprit dans Ie 

ciel. 6 comme les choses changent! Voila une maniere de vivre qui s'est 

transformee pour Ie bien! Les montagnes, auparavant inaccessibles et 

ensanglantees. accueillent maintenant des bandits transformes en 

moines. en fils de la paix. Celle qui etait autrefois une terre de sang. est 

maintenant terre de vie, les bandits vioIents sont devenus pieux et se 

tournent vel'S Ie ciel. et Ie Christ favorise la violence de celui qui 

s'empare du royaume des cieux 3 8 . La ou autrefois regnaient des mceurs 

de betes sauvages. maintenant sont en vigueur les coutumes des anges, et 

Ie juste se cache dans les cavernes dans lesquelles lui-meme vivait lorsqu'il 

etait encore un bandit 39. 

35 Voir notamment l'article de H. Sivan, «Nicetas' (of Remesiana) Mission 

and Stilicho's Illyrican Ambition: Notes on Paulinus of Nola Carmen XVII 

(Propempticon)). ReAug. 41 (1995). pp. 79-90. ainsi que E. A. Thompson, 

«Christianity and the northern barbarians», dans A. Momigliano. ed.. The 

Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century, Oxford. 1963. 

pp. 56-'78 (surtout pp. 64-66). 

36 Sur la vie de Nicetas. voir l'etat de la question dans R. Kirstein, Paulinus 

Nolanus Carmen 17, Bale, 2000, pp. 35-54 (references bibliographiques p. 35. n. 68). 

37 0. Kirstein (d. n. 36). p. 55. 

38 Cf. Matthieu. II, 12. 

39 Paulin. Poeme. 17.213-228: Nunc magis diues pretio laboris / Bessus 

exsultat: quod humi manuque / ante quaerebat. modo mente cae10 / conligit 

aurum. / 0 uices rerum! bene uersa forma! / Inuii montes prius. et cruenti. / 

llunc tegunt uersos monachis latrones / pacis alumnos. / Sanguinis quondam.

156 DA VID AMHERDT 

cornme chez Paulin. Ie « non civilise» se trouve dans un etat 

d'isolement. dans un desert, dans un etat barbare ; i1 est au ban de la 

societe. La permanence de ce schema rhetorique est particulierement 

evidente lorsque l'on compare Ie Poeme 10. 208-215 et 218-220 aux 

deux textes decrivant l'action missionnaire de Victricius et de Nicetas. 

la Lettre 18 et Ie Foeme 17. Ce qui frappe Ie plus. c'est que l'hypothese 

du Poeme 10. 2 I 8-220 selon laquelle Ie chretien peut transformer les 

barbares ou les bandits en moines. devient realite dans la Lettre 18 et 

dans Ie Foeme 17. Or. la permanence et l'identite du schema rhetorique 

amenent tout naturellement Ie lecteur a douter de la realite des 

faits decrits par Paulin et a se poser la question suivante: Ie poete decrit-il 

un monde purement fictif. purement litteraire? 

Et de fait, cette question en a tourmente plus d'un. fen veux pour 

preuve les approches parfois diametralement opposees des chercheurs 

- historiens ou philologues - qui se sont penches sur la Lettre 18 et Ie 

Poeme 17 comme possibles sources historiques. Pour Schramm 48 ou 

pour Sivan 49. par exemple. il n'y a pas de raison de mettre en doute 

les propos de Paulin; ces auteurs utilisent ces deux textes comme 

sources historiques. Pour Brennecke 50. en revanche. la description de 

la conversion des peuples barbares du Poeme 17 est tout entiere faite 

de lieux communs ; pour lui, il s'agit purement et simplement d'une 

fiction litteraire. Santaniello 51 considere les deux textes comme des 

documents de valeur historique. tout en soulignant Ie role majeur joue 

par la rhetorique. Dans la meme ligne, Kirstein 52 pense que Ie Poeme 

17 a un noyau historique. qu'il est toutefois difficile de degager, en 

raison de l'omnipresence de la rhetorique. 

Que penser de tout cela ? Pour l'historien. la position intermediaire 

consistant a dire qu'on peut degager un noyau historique d'une rhetorique 

hypertrophiee est tout a fait raisonnable. Car enfin. ce n'est 

pas parce que la mission de Nicetas se deroule sur Ie territoire de peupIades 

dont la barbarie est devenue un lieu commun que cette mission 

doit etre consideree comme une pure invention. Et ce n'est pas parce 

que la rhetorique semble etouffer les faits que tout est faux dans les 

48 G. Schramm. AnHinge des albanischen Christentums. Die friihe Bekehrung 

der Bessen undwelange Folgen, Fribourg en Br.. 1994. 

49 a. ci-dessus. n. 35. 

463· 

5° H. C. Brennecke. « Nicetas (Niceta) von Remesiana ». TRE 24 (1994). pp. 460 

5' G. Santaniello. « L'opera missionaria della chiesa tra il IV ed il V secolo: 

La lettera 18 di Paulino a Vittricio di Rouen ed il carmen 17 a Niceta di 

Remesiana ». Impegno e dialogo. 3. Nole, 1986, pp. 19-59· 

52 a. ci-dessus. n. 36.


descriptions de Paulin. L'historien pourra se servir de ces textes. apres 

les avoir decodes ou decryptes, apres s'etre rendu compte que Ie poete 

deforme la realite. II se servira d'autres sources litteraires et de 

l'archeologie. qui lui montrera evidemment que la realite etait moins 

rose que ce qu'en dit Paulin. Et il n'est pas exclu. «a la limite ». qu'il 

s'agisse d'une fiction litteraire. 

eest un probleme qui a souvent ete souleve a propos des lettres de 

Sidoine Apollinaire. par exemple. Ainsi. il est impossible de dire si la 

description sarcastique et cruelle d'un pauvre messager que Sidoine 

propose dans l'une de ses missives est la description d'un personnage 

ayant reellement existe 53. Mais dans Ie cas de la description d'un personnage 

de ce genre. la question de savoir s'il a vraiment existe. ou s'il 

est Ie produit de !'imagination de l'auteur. ou s'il a existe et que 

l'auteur caricature certains traits de caractere pour amuser Ie lecteur. 

interessait fort peu ce dernier. pour qui l'important etait Ie plaisir 

procure par une lettre qui atteignait une certaine perfection rhetorique. 

En l'occurrence. Ie but de Sidoine Iorsqu'il decrit un pauvre messager 

revetu de tous Ies defauts d'un paysan est d'eveiller Ia fierte 

d'une societe aristocratique sur Ie declin. qui luttait pour sa survie. 

Peu importait Ia realite 54. Dans Ie cas de nos textes. Ie probleme est 

similaire. 

Le but de Paulin lorsqu'il decrit l'activite missionnaire de Victricius 

et de Nicetas est d'eveiller dans ses lecteurs - des aristocrates eleves 

tout comme lui dans Ia culture classique - Ie desir de rester ou 

d'entrer dans Ie cercle des aristocrates chretiens. Et cet eveil se fait par 

Ie biais du plaisir litteraire. La subtile rhetorique de notre poete devait 

toucher Ie CCEur de ses lecteurs. Ies emouvoir et entrainer leur adhesion. 

Pour Paulin. la litterature est l'un des outils essentiels de la 

diffusion du christianisme : par la force de persuasion de sa rhetorique. 

il veut encourager ses lecteurs a se convertir. a entamer ce processus 

interieur dont l'activite missionnaire de Victricius et de Nicetas 

est l'image et qu'il a Iui-meme vecu. Paulin decrit un monde interieur. 

il decrit Ie processus de la conversion. Ie passage des tenebres de Ia 

barbarie paienne a la lumiere de la civilisation chretienne ; cette description 

est portee par la rhetorique 55. 

53 0. Sidoine, Lettre. rv, 7. 

54 fetudie ce probleme dans « Rusticus politicus. Esprit de caste? 

L'agriculture et Ia politique chez Sidoine Apollinaire. Realite et lieux 

commW1S", Hermes, 132 (2004), pp. 373-387 (pour une analyse de la Lettre TV, 7. d. 

pp. 376-378). 

55 La question des rapports entre christianisme et rhetorique est tres vaste. On 

trouvera de stimulantes reflexions sur l'usage de la rhetorique. et notamment du 

paradoxe, par les auteurs chretiens de l'Antiquite tardive dans A. Cameron.

158 DAVID AMHERDT 

Paulin ment-il ? Peut-etre pour nous, lecteurs du XXI e siecle. Car en 

en fait, il ne fait rien d'autre qu'utiliser les moyens d'expression qu'il 

avait a sa disposition. II n'est pas envisageable qu'il ait pu en utiliser 

d'autres. eest done pour nous qu'il ment. Mais nous devons entrer 

dans la mentalite du lecteur de l'epoque. qui ne se posait pas necessairement 

la question de la realite de ce qui etait decrit par l'ecrivain, 

en tout cas pas dans les memes termes que nous. Pour Ie lecteur de 

Paulin, la realite est la realite de la poesie, de ses schemas rhetoriques 

et de sa perfection, qui satisfait pleinement son esprit, qui l'attire et Ie 

charme : I'agrement de la poesie est mis au service de la conversion. 

C'est la parole qui compte vraiment. 

DEPARTEMENT DES SCIENCES DE L'ANTIQUITE 

UNIVERSITE DE FRIBOURG (SUISSE) 

RUE PIERRE-AEBY 16 

CH - 1700 FRIBOURG 

Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire. The Development of Christian 

Discourse. Berkeley/Los Angeles/Oxford. 1991.

Mouseion. Series III, Vol. 5 (2005) 159-176 

©200S Mouseion 

REVIEW ARTICLE / COMPTE RENDU CRITIQUE 

JOHNG. FITCH, ed. and trans. SENECA, TRAGEDIES, VOL. I: 

HERCULES, TROJAN WOMEN, PHOENIOANWOMEN, MEDEA, 

PHAEDRA; VOL. II: OEDIPUS, AGAMEMNON, THYESTES, HERCULES 

OETAEUS, OCTAVIA' 

GIANCARLO GIARDINA 

John Fitch, who has already given us an excellent critical edition of and 

commentary to Hercules Furens (Ithaca/London 1987). now presents 

the complete edition of Seneca's plays for the Loeb Classical Library. 

This review is intended as a discussion of the two volumes of that edition. 

In accordance with the requirements of the Loeb series. Fitch gives 

a critical text with a very scant apparatus limited to passages where he 

makes a textual choice in some measure different from the vulgata. 

In his preface Fitch vows to follow "a middle course between the 

boldness of Otto Zwierlein's Oxford Classical Text and the conservatism 

of Giardina and other editors" (28). In fact. it should be said from 

the beginning that Zwierlein is not so bold and Giardina not so conservative: 

there are really few cases of a radical difference between 

Zwierlein's and Giardina's textual choices. This is partly due to the 

special character of the manuscript tradition of the tragedies. We have 

two branches. one represented almost uniquely by the codex Etruscus 

(of the eleventh century). the other by the mass of the manuscripts. 

The first branch appears to be "genuine" insofar as this adjective indicates 

freedom from intentional alterations. but at the same time it is 

very prone to mechanical errors; the other (the A class) is the result of 

a deliberate process of interpolation (famous as the recensio interpolata). 

but for this reason is less open to banal scribal errors. So. when 

we seek genuineness. we must look at the witness of the first branch. 

and when we seek a more accurate transcription of ordinary words we 

must generally follow the witness of the second. more controlled 

I John G. Fitch. ed. and trans. Seneca. Tragedies. Vol. I: Hercules. Trojan 

Women. Phoenician Women, Medea, Phaedra. Loeb Classical Library 62. Cambridge. 

MA/London: Harvard University Press. 2002. Pp. vii + 551. ISBN 0-674 

99602-X; Vol. II: Oedipus. AgameIJ1l1on. Thyestes. Hercules Oetaeus. Octavia. Loeb 

Classical Library 78. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press. 2004· 

Pp. 654. ISBN 0-674-99610-0. US $21.50 each. 

159

160 GIANCARLO GIARDINA 

branch. Hence in the great majority of cases of difference between 

readings of the E-class and the A-class. the choice must respect the 

rules we have just indicated; and both an innovator (like Zwierlein) 

and a conservative (like Giardina) in the last analysis offer almost the 

same text. 

Now I shall discuss some passages where Fitch's textual choices deserve 

some comment. 

Hercules 

VOLUME I 

20 Fitch reads matribus with Axelson. though in his separate edition of the play 

he accepted nuribus. as in all the MSS. Now. I will not discuss whether matribus 

or nuribus is more appropriate here. I have a serious objection to both readings: 

the verb spargo. here the participle sparsa. can hardly refer to human beings 

(such as the nurus and the matres). Its primary sense is concrete. material. I do 

not imagine that the Theban land could be "scattered" or "spattered" (for this is 

the concrete meaning of the verb spargo) with young women (d. Fitch. Commentary 

129: "Seneca uses nurus here for 'young women''') or mothers. The obvious 

emendation is caedibus. For caedibus impiis compare Ag. 219 caede ... impia; for 

sparsa caedibus see Hercules 372-3 aspersam manwn / fratrwn ... gemma caede. 

Fitch properly translates"a hand spattered with ... blood" in this passage. In 

line 20 of the Hercules the phrase sparsus caede / caedibus must refer to the blood 

of the victim(s) of the caedes. I would translate "the Theban land spattered with 

the blood of the victims impiously killed." For the adjective impiis d. Fitch, 

Commentary 128f.: "the daughters of Cadmus ... killed Pentheus ... and the 

Danaids ... killed their husbands. 

94 Fitch gives latus (Bentley) as the subject of the not very clear genitive montis 

oppositi. Here the infernal deity Discordia is said to be "immured" (Fitch) by the 

flank of an oppositus mons. Bentley's latus is an emendation of specus of the MSS. 

The problem is that we do not have any other witness to Discordia being immured 

by a mountain. She dwells in Hell (85 ab imo Tartari. 90 Styga et manes 

etc. all point to the infen) together with other mischievous infernal deities (Sce 

Ius. Impietas, Error, Furor). In Vergil (Aen. 6.273-281) there is a similar description 

of Discordia and related deities dwelling uestibulwn ante ipswn primisque 

in faucibus Orci. but there is no hint of a mountain hanging over them. And how 

could the entrance to Hell take in a mountain? The text must be corrupt. 

Vergil speaks of a limen aduerswn to the one inhabited by Luctus. Curae, etc. 

as the site of Bellum and Discordia. My suggestion is: quam munit ingens postis 

oppositi sera. "that is kept in by the huge bar of the interposed door." For this 

image d. Tib. 1.8.76 quaecwnque opposita est ianua dura sera. Perhaps Seneca is 

echoing Ennius Ann. 266£. postquam Discordia taetra / Belli ferratos postes portasque 

refregit. 

251 Fitch accepts Watt's emendation curis for the repetitive terris of the MSS (see 

250 sensere terrae pacis auctorem suaeetc.). However. an abrupt abesse curis can 

hardly indicate the absence of Hercules from his work of saving and protecting 

the world: in particular. it is doubtful that curae can designate tout court Hercules' 

brave defiance of the monstra. I find in Med. 264 afuit ferro manus. in a different 

context. but we can imagine in our passage the inermis ignauia of the hero

SENECA. TRAGEDIES. VOLS. I and II 161 

summed up in the words abesse ferro. That ferrum could be among the weapons 

of Hercules is possible. but in this case the transmitted text (ensem) should be 

restored at 1229. where Bentley emended it to arcum. 

634 Surely hostis in 634 is an Echoschreibung of hostis in the following line: so 

Fitch's correction impardeserves some attention. the more so since at 634 Hercules 

adds hanc ferat uirtus notam. It would certainly have been a mark of infamy 

for Hercules if he had killed an unequal (impar) enemy. but also if he had killed a 

hospes (a "stranger" here. not a "guest") like Lycus. I suggest mactetur hospes. 

palaeographically more probable than Fitch's impar. 

742 The variants in the MSS divide themselves thus: animaeque EPCS (which 

Fitch accepts): animoquep c • recc. With the verb parcit. however. neither reading 

appears to be appropriate. And if animaeque parcere = "spare lives." why did 

Seneca not write animisque? There must be a reference in our text to the mild 

behaviour of the"good" king towards his subjects. I propose populisque (or 

populoque) parcit. There is a meaningful parallel in Stat. Theb. 2.446 non parcit 

populis regnum breue (the plural in Statius slightly favours popuJisque in Seneca). 

743 Bentley (followed now by Fitch) emended the transmitted feJicis to uiuacis in 

order to eliminate the repetition caused by felix in line 744. Fine: but I wonder 

whether here the attribute of aeuum should be less "positive" (the context is 

longa permensus diu / ffeJicist aeui spatia uel caelum petit / uel laeta felix nemods 

Elysii loca. An adjective like mortaJis could very well characterize the life 

coming to its end (the king will go to heaven or to the Elysian fields-in any case, 

his life is over). So I read mortalis aeui spatia: d. Tro. 52 mortalis aeui cardinem 

extremum premens. 

793 Fitch keeps the transmitted reading et uterque (Sc. timuit). Many editors have 

been fascinated by Madvig's emendation leuiterque. The context as a whole 

shows signs of deep corruption. As for Madvig's suggestion. it will be sufficient 

to ask: why leuiter? Is that a minor degree of timor? But we must return to the 

text of 791ff., which I consider severely damaged in the tradition: ut propior stetit 

/ laue natus antro. sedit (?) incertus (?) canis / et uterque (?) timuit (?). My added 

question-marks point to words that I suspect are corrupt. The paradosis is sedit 

incertus canis. but in what follows there is no hint of sedate behaviour by Cerberus: 

on the contrary. he latratu graui / Inca muta terret sibilat etc. Nor is there 

any indication of hesitancy by Cerberus in the face of his enemy Hercules. We 

should read uidit infernus canis. Cerberus at first only hears Hercules approaching 

(sensit ... motus pedum). then he sees him. For infernus canis =Cerberus d. 

H0460. 

Now let us consider et uterque timuit. I start from timuit. not very appropriate 

to a situation when Cerberus looks ready to assail Hercules. My suggestion is 

tumuit. and the very corrupt et uterqueshould be emended to rabieque. giving an 

ablative construed with tumuit. For rabie tume(sc)ere d. Verg. Aen. 6-49 et rabie 

fera corda tument. In short. uidit infernus canis (792) rabieque tumuit (793)· 

799 Fitch retains tegit from E, disregarding with some reason clepit in A. In fact. 

the line so contains two concurrent words. tegmine and tegit (ac se tegmine ingenti 

tegit). of which one is superfluous and must be corrected. Fitch apparently 

does not deem clepit a genuine reading and prefers to give a text without it but 

clearly unacceptable because of the repetition tegmme / tegit. I think he is right in 

refusing the clumsy and awkward c1epit. a likely interpolation typical of the A 

tradition. But he should have bettered tegmme to something like fragmine. This


emendation is justified by the words directly preceding ac se etc.. namely et Cleonaeum 

caput / opponit. Hercules is protecting his head with the skull of the Nemean 

lion. which can be defined correctly as a fragmen: hence et Cleonaeum etc. 

and ac se fragmine etc. form a typical poetic repetition. for the sake of uariatio. of 

one and the same idea. For fragmine ingenti d. Verg. Aen. 9.569 ingenti fragmine 

montis Lucretium ... sternit. This is obviously not a similar situation. but simply 

an example of the iunctura ingens fragmen. 

814 The text presents a difficulty that needs to be overcome: (postquam) ... nitor 

/ percussit oculos Iuds ignotae tbonot etc. The end of 814 is occupied by an attribute 

either of nitoror of oculos. For the first case. Buecheler devised nouus. for 

the second Ageno proposed nouos. and this last conjecture is now accepted by 

Fitch. In 822ff. the reaction of Cerberus to the sudden exposure to daylight is aptly 

described (he shuts his eyes unused to light). I would write hebetes (sc. oculos). 

The parallels for this iunctura are numerous and impressive: Col. 6.6.1 hebetes 

oculi. Plin. Nat. 11.94 oculi ... hebetes. Apul. apol. 43 oculis hebes etc. If we imagine 

that the first syllable of hebetes in synaloephe had been confounded with the 

ending of the preceding word. it will not be hard to see how the archetypal -betes 

has produced the corrupt reading bono in our MSS. 

I continue with 81Sf.. resumit animos uictus et uastas furens / quassat catenas. 

The attitude of Cerberus cannot authorize us to read uictus. where the context 

requires a strong postitive adjective like tumidus or. better. fortis. If we connect 

the iunctura resumere animos with an adjective like fortis. my conjecture may be 

supported by Hor. Carm. 2.IO.2If. animosus atque fortis appare (see Nisbet and 

Hubbard ad loc.: "animosus: combined with fortis by Cicero and others [Thes.l.L. 

2.88.4 ff.]"). I consider uictus an Echoschreibungof uictorem in line 816. There 

will be someone. I suppose. who links uictus and uictorem as a beautiful paronomasia 

and polyptoton intended by the author. In this case. I would have no 

answer to this incredible position. to deem finesse de l'auteur that which is only 

the effect of an Influenzfehler. 

909 Fitch. as in his separate edition of this play. prints B. Schmidt's conjecture 

Indi aruis secant. where the MSS offer the nonsensical reading Indorum seges. 

Fitch makes clear in his commentary that he privileges that emendation because 

"the wording of 910 seems to imply some contrast with the harvesting methods 

of the Indians." He approves of Schmidt's conjecture with a resounding adverb 

"admirably." In my opinion there is nothing admirable in those words. which 

make a horribly limping verse and bad Latinity. If the Indian product to which 

Seneca alludes is tus. it is certain that it was not cut out of ploughed fields but 

was collected on trees (d. OLDs.v. tus: "Frankincense or olibanum. the aromatic 

gum of the trees [my emphasis] of the genus Boswe1lia"). So there is no objection 

to referring the words arboribus legunt both to the Indians and the Arabs. In this 

sense. odoris can be referred in commune both to the first and to the second quidquid. 

The corruption must be hidden under the questionable seges. and I find no 

better solution than Withof's genus. Fitch notes that "so weak a use of genus is 

not paralleled in Sen.trag.": however. when we discuss the words of an author. 

we should not imagine that he was a sort of TLL ante litteram. If that wording is 

well witnessed by other writers of good Latinity. this should suffice to accept this 

wording in the text of our author. too. And genus + genitive of the nation is a construction 

widely attested in Latin writers.

Troades 

SENECA. TRAGEDIES. VOLS. I and II 

46 Fitch prints Bentley's conjecture Aiacis ausis (ausa designates the rape of Cassandra 

by Ajax OileL committed near Athena's altar). Gronovius read Aiacis 

armis. and explained "(scelus) quod inter arma ad aras patrauit Ajax." Hecuba is 

describing the assassination of Priam by Pyrrhus. The MSS are divided: aeacis 

armis E. (a)eacide armis A. Latin writers call Pyrrhus Aeacides. Le.. descendant 

of Aeacus. I find some difficulty with maius in 45 (ipsasque ad aras maius admissum 

scelus): if we do not refer armis (ausis Bentley) to the rape of Cassandra 

by Ajax. the comparative maius remains suspended. But if we correct it. with 

Peiper. to manibus. new solutions become possible. I indicate one of them: 

45 ipsasque ad aras manibus admissum scelus 

46 Aeacidae et armis. cum ferox etc. 

Pyrrus' crime is a work both of his hands and of his weapons (the ensis quoted in 

line 50). 

578 uerberibus. igni. tmortet. cruciatu eloqui / quodcumque celas adiget inuitam 

dolor. Fitch prints cruce cruciatu. which is blatantly repetitious. though he 

translates it so that cruce and cruciatu seem to refer to two distinct sufferings 

("crucifixion. torture"). And is he not repeating also the difficulty of the transmitted 

text. i.e.. that we should attribute to Seneca the awkward sequence of first 

crucifixion (= death). then torture (on somebody still alive)? {think. that the main 

difficulty lies in cruciatu. A slight correction. e.g. cruciatam (sc. te), as suggested 

by Koetschau, would make things easier. This is not yet the solution, which 

should be an ablative absolute carne cruciata, dependent on the ablatives of agent 

uerberibus and igni. My translation of this text would be: "when your flesh will 

be tortured by the whips and the fire. then ...." 

770 Fitch accepts Garrod's emendation of the corrupt medius of the MSS to 

melius. I report the whole context: 

768 genetricis 0 spes uana. cui demens ego 

769 Jaudes parentis bellicas. annos aui 

770 tmediust precabar. 

I propose to add a second demens in 770 to the first demens in line 768. 

1098 ferox tsuperbet mouerat uulgum ac duces (Sc. Astyanax). Fitch prints Leo's 

superbit, which in my opinion breaks the rhythm of the line and is scarcely appropriate 

(what is this superbire of the poor boy led to his death?). I suggest two 

alternative solutions: either superbum (Sc. uulgum), meaning that the Greek onlookers 

were outrageously proud. their superbia being stopped by the courageous 

attitude of Astyanax. or supernum (Sc. uulgum): the populace had climbed 

uphill for a better view (r080 hie alta rupe5. cuius in cacumine / erecta summos 

turba librauit pedes). 

Medea 

19 The transmitted text is mihi peius aliquid quod precer sponso malum. The 

dative mihi cannot stand without a verb governing it. Fitch prints Leo's text. 

mihi peius aliquid. quodprecer sponso. manet. Other scholars have tried to correct 

mihi; Bentley proposed est. which appears to be very near to the solution 

required by the context. With a slight difference. we may suggest sit as possibly 

the correct reading. Medea. in the ensuing lines. accumulates many optative subjunctives 

expressing all her own evil wishes to unfaithful lason: uiuat. erret. optet. 

expetat. That sit would be the first of the series: I recommend this emendation


also because of its palaeographical merits. The corruption followed roughly this 

course: "sit> "'sic> "'si > mi / miN. 

136 saeuit infelix amor. Fitch retains saeuit of the MSS. as I had done in my edition 

of 1966 and Zwierlein in his ocr. Now I would rather accept Garrod's fecit. 

Medea has just said nullum scelus / irata feci. to which she adds fecit infelix 

amor. The palaeographical similarity of fecit to s(a)euit is evident. 

249 Fitch. following the mainstream of modern editors. reads terra hac miseriis 

angulum et sedem rogo. Medea is entreating Creon to spare her the exile. The 

reading terra hac is a tentative Verschlimmbesserung by the recentiores of the 

reading they received from older tradition. namely terram ac (EA): that was in 

turn a Verschlimmbesserungof the most ancient reading witnessed by our medieval 

tradition. terram (so the codex Etruscus). Now I repeat the likely progress 

of this corruption a rebours. First a scribe finds a line like terram miseriis angulum 

et sedem rogo. The syntax is impossible. so he adds the copula ac between 

the first accusative and the others. producing terram ac miseriis angulum et 

sedem rogo. Then the next Latinate scribe understands that terram cannot be 

equated with angulum and sedem as the object of Medea's entreaty. so he tries the 

emendation terra hac miseriis etc. Now we have reached the stage of the corruption 

represented by our recentiores. If we desire to go further. we can look at the 

contaminated MSS KQe. with terra in hac etc. The corrupt word is terram: we 

must look for an attribute to angulum appropriate to the context and syntactically 

apt to govern the dative miseriis. This is tutum: d. the OLD S.v. tutus 3 

"Containing no danger. sheltered. safe." From the examples listed there I extract 

the following: Liv. 9.37.10 tutius ... refugium. Gell. 5.14.17 tutiores latebrae (d. 

Sen.latebrasque uiles). and above all Bell. Afr. 62.3 angulum quendam tutum a 

tempestate(d. Sen. angulum ... miseriis tutum). Tutus in the sense "safe from" is 

regularly construed both with a(b) and with the simple ablative (as in Curt. 6.7.1 

externa ui ... tutus). 

345 the MSS offer a line metrically suspect. spargeret astra nubesque ipsas. In 

fact. the first hemistichion of an anapaestic dimeter never ends with a short 

vowel in Sen. trag. (astra). Fitch resolves the problem by a (very doubtful) supplement 

(344 rupe coacta) which enables him to distribute the cola in a correct 

sequence: 

345 uelut aetherio gemerent sorutu. 

346 spargeret astra 

347 nubesque ipsas mare deprensum. 

This is no better a solution than Zwierlein's in his OLI. spargeret arces (Madvig) 

nubesque ipsas. However. a more economical solution is at hand. spargeret 

astra nubes(que) ipsas. 

367 Fitch does not find any difficulty in the transmitted text. regum rderens inclita 

remas. It was not the oars of the kings that Argo would bring back home 

but their groups. their company etc. In Latin that can be aptly expressed by a term 

like coetus. and this is my emendation of remos. a. Cat. 46.gff. 0 dukes comitum 

ualete coetus / lange quos simul a domo prafectas / diuersae uarie uiae repartanto 

The presumed parallel to referens ... remos quoted by Zwierlein in his Kritischer 

Kommentar actually refers to the forwards and backwards movement of 

the oarsmen. not to a ship bringing people home. 

658-61 Every thinking editor of the tragedies has a lot to do with this metrical 

crux. In the space from 658 to 661 we must place. for the sake of symmetry. an


adonion among several Sapphic hendecasyllables. Fitch follows Zwierlein's 

path: 658-659 after 660. 661 before 660. and 660 divided into two lines. thus: 

660a patrioque pendet 

660b crimine poenas. 

I think that W.R. Hardie (jPhil33 [1914] 99f.) decisively resolved the problem. He 

saw that the only verse expendable without irreparable damage to sense and 

metre is 656. ille si uere cecinit futura. This verse was responsible for the pervading 

alterations proposed by editors since the seventeenth century. namely all 

those presents and perfects of the paradosis (657 errauit. 659 cadit. 660 pendit. 663 

impendit) emended to as many futures (errabit Gruter. cadet Gruter. pendet EPS. 

impendes Gronovius). Hardie then divided line 660 of the MSS into two lines. one 

a Sapphic hendecasyllable. >I- >I- >I- patrioque pendit. the other an adonion. crimine 

poenas. 

Phaedra 

508 Fitch considers it impossible to maintain the transmitted text sedesque mutat 

(defended by Cesidio De Meo with precarious arguments like .. qui si vuole 

chiaramente alludere ai continui spostamenti del cacciatore ... "). Axelson (followed 

by Zwierlein) tried solesque uitat. Now Fitch prints. exempli gratia. aestusque 

sedat. I cannot refrain from giving my own suggestion. humi recumbit. A 

full stop is needed at the end of 507. nor is it necessary to connect legit. metatur. 

and perlucet to the verb present in 508. For humi recumbere d .. e.g.. Ov. epist. 

14.100 nuda nuda recumbis humo. but especially Thy. 449ff. 0 quantum bonum est 

/ obstare nulli. capere securas dapes / humi iacentem (Thyestes is rehearsing the 

same topos as Hippolytus at Phaed. 483ft.. i.e.. life in the state of nature). 

596 For amauimus in EA. Axelson substituted admouimus: Watt proposed iam 

mouimus. which is now printed by Fitch. The verb moueo does not seem to me 

appropriate to the object nefanda. I suggest admisimus: d. Tro. 45 admissum sce 

Jus. Plaut. mil. 1287 rnulta adrnisisse .. inhonesta. Hor. serrn. 2.3.212 scdus . 

admittis. Petron. 17.6 admisistis inexpiabile sce1us. 

VOLUME II 

Oedipus 

299-300 Bentley. relying on the fact that at 34 I ff. there is a mention of both a 

heifer (iuuenca) and a bull (taurus). at 299-300 distinguishes the two victims of 

the sacrifice. emending depressurn to depressam (feminine. pointing to the 

iuuenca). However. it must be remarked that the bare participle depressarn not 

accompanied by any specific noun can hardly indicate the iuuenca. I think that at 

299-300 only the iuuenca is mentioned. with the word bouem. which can certainly 

be used of a female (d. OLD S.v. IC). SO we should shift the adjective candidum 

to the feminine (candidam). keeping Bentley's feminine depressam. Mediaeval 

scribes apparently ignored the generic ambivalence of the word bos and 

wrongly put into the masculine both attributes of bouern. At 34Iff. we have first a 

mention once more of the iuuCllca. then of the bull. 

339 The text as transmitted in E is 

trepidusque uultum solis et radios fugit. 

The MSS of the A-class have obliquat in place of solis. and Fitch follows them. 

First of all. one should be suspicious about uulturn. for which I would propose


the emendation lucem. If we accept it. nothing prevents us from keeping E's reading 

solis. It seems to me that A's reading is no more than one of its many interpolations. 

though I concede that it could be supported by the Ovidian parallel Met. 

7.41 If. contra ... diem radiosque micantes / obliquantem oculos. In any case. I 

would not leave lucem unmodified but would add an appropriate attribute like 

nitidam. pointing to such passages as Ov. Met. 14.768 nitidissima solis imago. Tr. 

3.5.55 nitidi solis. Stat. Theb. 3.440f. nitidum .. , diem. reading nitidamquelucem 

solis et radios fugit. 

433""34 The text transmitted by E (we lack here the testimony of the A MSS. which 

omit 430-47r) is 

433 nunc eden ope depulsauit [with en in rasural 

434 sola pang(a)ei (etc.). 

from which Gronovius derived a fairly good sentence: 

433 nunc Edoni pede pulsauit 

434 sola Pangaei etc. 

He saw. however. that what follows in E (nunc Threicio / uertice Pind]) is not 

consistent with the syntactic structure of the clause referring to mount Pangaeum 

and proposed nunc Threicio / uertice Pindum. Leo. on the other hand. turned his 

attention to line 434 and shifted the genitive Pangaei to the ablative Pangaea, 

which has become the vulgate (including Fitch). I think that the arrangement of 

433-434 proposed by Gronovius is unobjectionable and that we should emend 

what follows in 434b and 435. My hypothesis is that uertice close to the genitive 

Pindi hides a neuter plural like culmina. parallel to sola. 

Now I come to the transmitted attribute of Mt Pindus. i.e. "Thracian." Sluiter 

in his edition of Oedipus (Groningen 1941) r:rJ rightly remarked that Pindus rises 

in Thessaly. and so he emended Threicio to Thessalio. In my reading. which has 

Pindi in the genitive, the right emendation is obviously ThessaJici. 

702 Fitch prints the line as emended by Leo apart from adopting Enk's ruat instead 

of Leo's cadat (omne quod dubium est ruat). The two classes of MSS diverge: 

E has obuium est eat, A has dubium putat. Editors manage to devise a text due in 

part to the "authoritative" witness of the codex Etruscus. in part to their own 

very questionable Latin. 

First of alL one must find a solution out of the messy dimissus odit which in 

the same line precedes omne quodetc. For the sake of completeness. I will remark 

that dimissus odit is preceded by quisquis in culpa fuit (701). Here some good 

Latin is to be restored. e.g.. si missus abit (cf. HoI'. S. 2.1.86 tu missus abibis). A 

possible solution for the puzzling remainder of the line could be omne probrum 

se parat. "Whoever is acquitted of a crime. is ready for committing any 

possible misdeed." The implication of this is that if Oedipus wants to go on with 

his investigations of innocent persons like poor Creon. that will only provoke 

more hatred for him from those incriminated in consequence of those investigations. 

902 Here Fitch with all modern editors prints the transmitted text aJitem exspectans 

suum. where alitem is referred to the human (and wingless) Icarus. I consider 

aJitem an Influenzfehler due to auis (gas) and emend it to comitem. 

g08 The text of E (audacis uiae comes audax) is impossible. Editors trust the witness 

of A. comes audacis uiae. where the first word is unmetrical. This Chorus is 

written in glyconics with a trochaic base. which excludes comes. BuecheleI'. now 

followed by Fitch. proposed compede (Fitch translates "in the bonds of that bold


journey"). This gives dubious Latin and contorted sense. A simpler emendation 

might be compar; d. Apul. Met. 4.31 miseriae suae comparem. Icarus was the 

partner of Daedalus in that excessively bold journey. If my arrangement of 902 is 

correct and comitem stood in the archetype. it is easy to see how this influenced 

compar in 908. corrupting it into the unmetrical comes. 

922 Over fluit in E Fitch prefers uolat from the A MSS. though in general a preswnption 

in favour of the codex Etruscus should be in force. the more so when its 

reading is acceptable. as is the case here. A different problem is presented by the 

whole context of 919-924 (a comparison between the perplexed Oedipus and a 

Libyan lion). where the transmitted text shows many signs of a pervasive corruption. 

not detected by editors until now. First of all. I remark that the simile 

does not stop at the end of 920 (as Fitch thinks. who puts a full stop after iubam) 

but goes on to the end of 924 (the correct punctuation is shown. e.g.. in the editions 

of Leo. Zwierlein and Giardina). Too many physical traits typical of a beast and 

specifically of a lion are enumerated in these lines for us to attribute them to a 

man (foruus. truces. murmur. spumat). 

As to the subject of exundat(924). I note that. while dolor may be appropriate 

with such verbs as gemit. plorat. etc.. it is hardly fit for a verb like eXUlldo that 

indicates gushing or pouring forth: this is generally said of fluids. smoke. flames. 

etc. (d. OLDs.v. I.2b). Seneca himself at Phaed. 103 (qualis Aetnaeo uapor exundat 

antro) gives as the subject of the verb eXUlldo a material agent as the vapour. 

And precisely uapor is my emendation of dolor at Oed. 924. Also suspect is minas 

at 923. With uoluit we expect to find an object like fumum. flammam. etc. Nor is a 

iunctura like uoluere minas supported by any parallel. The nearest to a decisive 

emendation I have been able to find is sinus (meaning the bends or curves of vapour?). 

In addition. spumat. which in itself is appropriate for a slavering lion. is less 

apt in a context with exhalating vapours than. say. a verb like fumat. Thus my 

text of 923-924 is fumat et uoluit sinus / ac mersus alte magnus exundat uapor. If 

we are not satisfied with the generic adjective magnus. we can rely on the following 

parallels in order to find a suitable emendation: Pac. trag. 13 sol ... flammeo 

uapore torrens. Lucr. 339 torrenti ... uapore. Sen. Phaed. 640 pectus insanum 

uapor amorque torret. The emendation required is perhaps torrens. 

At the beginning of 922 gemitus is not consistent with the other indications 

given by the author: rather than moaning (gemitus). a lion will more likely 

growl or roar. so we should read fremitus here; d. Verg. A. 9.341 leo ... fremit. 

Luc. 1.200 f. (leo) uasto graue murmur hiatu / infremuit. Sen. Phaed. 348ff. Poem 

quatiunt colla leones / ... tum siJua fremit [my own emendation of E's gemit] / 

murmure saeuo. Mart. 8.53.1f. auditur quantum Massyla per auia murmur. / 

innumero quotiens siJua leone fremit. In conclusion. my restored text of the 

whole passage is: 

922 fremitus et altum murmur. et gelidus fluit 

923 sudorper artus. fumat et uoluit sinus 

924 ac mersus alte torrens exundat uapor. 

1052-53 Fitch's arrangement of these two lines is quite convincing. At 1052 he 

emends corpore (of both E and A) to pectore. In the ensuing line he rightly prefers 

A's corpora to E's pectora. Liv. 28.23.2 shows the same pairing of semianima and 

corpora. Moreover. with a verb like trahitis. the correct obiect is corpora (see 

idioms like trahere membra). not pectora.


I have some perplexity about pectore taken with Jessi as a sort of ablative of 

limitation. Here an instrumental ablative of the cause would be better. like uulnerewith 

fessi in Liv. 1.25.11. But I have no acceptable suggestion. 

Agamemnon 

236 We find here ignauus iste ductor et fortis pater. in which one of the two adjectives 

excludes the other. If we assume that Aegisthus is ironical about Agamemnon 

(fortis being the word indicating his irony). the explicitly derogatory ignauus 

cannot stand. Conversely. if Aegisthus is speaking in earnest and openly 

depreciates Agamemnon. ignauus holds good but fortis must be emended (a 

likely emendation would be turpis). It is better to keep to the ironical view of 

Aegisthus' words. In place of the impossible ignauus we must put a sarcastic 

adjective such as insignis(cf. Liv. 9.17.12 Manlius Torquatus aut Valerius Coruus. 

insignes ante milites quam duces). 

457 The whole line is et dubia parent montis Idaei iuga. In the previous line other 

signs of the ongoing sunset are given (jam litus omne tegitur et campi latent). 

Fitch prints parent. translating "and the peaks of Mt Ida [are] only dimly seen." 

He also registers in his scanty apparatus Poggio Bracciolini's conjecture pereunt 

(adopted by Tarrant in his edition of Agamemnon [Cambridge 1976]. with some 

comments on its merits). As for Fitch's translation of the transmitted parent. it 

says the very opposite of what the word means (d. OLD S.v. 5 "To be visible. be 

seen," and the passages quoted there). My suggestion. in order to improve the line 

while preserving parent. is instead to emend the positive conjunction at the beginning 

of the line (et) to the corresponding negative nee nee dubia parent montis 

Idaei iuga. "nor are the peaks of Mount Ida to be seen" (being hardly visible). 

461 The paradosis is in astra iam lux prona. iam praeceps dies. This cannot 

stand (see the comments of Tarrant ad loc). and astra needs to be emended. Damste 

(not a wonderful emender. by the way) tried alta. "the deep sea" (trans. Fitch). 

which has been adopted by Tarrant and Fitch. Now I will deal with the presumed 

loci similes for this strange equivalence alta =ima indicated by Tarrant: Verg. A. 

2.203ff. ecce autem gemini ... tranquilla per alta / ... angues / incumbunt pelago 

pariterque ad litora tendunt refers to the quiet waves of the sea through which 

the serpents make their way towards Troy: in Ov. Ars3.390 ille Paraetonias mersit 

in alta rates. Phoebus sinks Cleopatra's ships into the deep: in Ov. Fast. 6498 et 

secum celso mittit in alta iugo. Ina casts herself into the deep together with her 

son. These three presumed loci similes are totally different from the passage of 

Agamemnon in that their contexts clearly show that the events take place near. 

or in. the sea: the sea-snakes. the sinking of a fleet. the suicide of a woman jumping 

into the sea. At Ag. 46 I. however. nothing indicates the proximity of the sun to 

the deep sea. and the isolated word alta cannot be a sufficient indication by itself. 

I would rather read freta: d. Ov. Met. II.257f. pronus erat Titan indinatoque 

tenebat / Hesperium temone fretum. Luc. 3.40 Titan iam pronus in undas. 

735-36 The transmitted text (retained by Fitch) is quem petit dextra uirum / 

Lacaena cultu. ferrum Amazonium gerens?Was any cultus peculiarly characteristic 

of Laconian women? And should we consider the abrupt cultu a sort of ablative 

of limitation? Should we understand something like "She was a Laconian 

with regard to her cultus. for-as far as her face was concerned-she rather was 

like an Athenian"? The word cultu is untenable and must be corrected to. for example. 

coniunx (d. uirum).


738 uictor ferarum colla sublimis [E: uexatus A] iacet is the text given by the MSS. 

Fitch reads summissus (his translation. "with neck bowed beneath the ignoble 

jaws"). Heinsius had suggested sublisus. an emendation dearly taking E's reading 

into account. I do not consider these two attempts successful. The adjective 

sublimis is not improper with reference to a lion. the rex ferarum (d. V. Fl. 3.546 

[of a deer] subJimem cornibus). and makes a meaningful contrast with iacet 

("lofty. but now lying on the ground"). Better than colla (an accusative of relation?) 

would be capite: cf. Sen. Dial. 8.5.4 (of a man) sublime fecit illi caput. 

In addition. ductor would be more appealing than the transmitted uictor in 

738. The paradosis implies that the lion. if he is said to be the "conqueror" of wild 

beasts. is not a fera: or else we must understand ferarum as equivalent to ceterarum 

ferarum (which is not so easy). If we read ductor. we are recalling the very 

common description of the lion as the "leader" or "king" of wild beasts. a. Col. 

9.11.3 ex iis aluis. quas plures habent prindpes. dux unus eJigitur (of queen-bees). 

Phaed. 1.5.7 sic est locutus leo: "ego primam tollo nomine hoc quia rex duo" (of 

lion as the king of beasts). a. also idioms like dux armenti (= taurus). dux gregis 

(= aries). etc. 

Thyestes 

3-4 The paradosis is quis male deorum Tantalo uisas [E: uiuas A] domos /ostendit 

iterum?Heinsius emended the participle to inuisas. now printed by Fitch. 

In his edition of this drama (Atlanta Ig85). Tarrant preserved uisas. linking it to 

the adverb male, so that male uisas could be equated with inuisas. His comment 

on the passage is "Tantalus' earlier sight of these domus led to disaster." Moreover. 

he links domos with deorum and understands "home of the gods," i.e.. the 

sky, "here standing for the upper world in general." I have some doubt that the 

disturbed Tantalus can imagine to have been elevated up to the sky or to the 

gods' abode. Everything in his speech denotes his awareness of being on earth 

again, in the region of his old home, Argos, in particular. How could he say regione 

quidquid etc. if he imagined he was in heaven or in the Elysian fields? I 

suggest reading Argiuas, and linking quis with deorum. 

452-53 The transmitted text is tutus ... mensa capitur angusta cibus: / uenenum 

in auro bibitur. Here Axelson (with little effort, to be sure. given the ease with 

which mediaeval scribes confounded cibus and scyphus, two very similar 

words) emended cibus into scyphus. Zwierlein. Tarrant and Fitch adopt this 

emendation. However. the paradosis can be defended. Axelson proposed the 

emendation in his well-known book KorrupteJenkult (Lund 1967) I I If.. a book. 

incidentally, whose main idea, of castigating ultra-conservative editors like Ettore 

Paratore, the direct object of Axelson's polemic. is quite good. but whose 

new conjectures rarely hit the mark. The Swedish scholar was suspicious about 

the fact that" tutus capitur cibus dasselbe besagt wie das vorhergehenden capere 

securas dapes." (So what? At Ag. 545f. there is a similar repetition. first pe1agus 

atque ignes, then fulmen. mare.) In addition. he objects against cibus that" cibus 

keinen geeigneten Gegensatz zum folgenden bibitur gibt (wahrend mensa angusta 

und auro gewissermassen kontrastieren)." My opinion on this point is 

very different: Seneca contrasts the safe life of common folk with the unsafe life 

of the rich and powerful. So we have first the opposition sce1era. regiae vs. innocentia. 

casae (sce1era non intrant casas). then safe meal and drink are contrasted 

with unsafe meal and drink but-in order to give an example of the risks implicit 

in wealth and power-Seneca mentions only venomous drinks (bibitur) , perhaps

17° 


because it was more typical to murder through poisoned drink than to murder 

through venomous food. 

Axelson perceived the difficulty of the idiom capere scyphum (capere cibum. 

however. is very common) and so wrote "scyphus natiirlich genau so gut mit 

einem capiturverbindet wie mit einem poculum (982 poculum cape)." 

I point to a (truly) similar passage in Propertius, 3.5.3f.: nee tamen inuiso uictus 

[my emendation of pectus of the MSS] mihi carpitur auro, / nee bibit e gemma 

diuite nostra sitis. That confirms the appropriateness of the iunctura of capere or 

carpere + cibum oruictum.If we go back to the passage of Thyestes, we will notice 

that the mention of drinking at 453 (bibitur) makes it very unlikely that the 

same mention is made at 452 (if we read scyphus). Also. the correspondence between 

capere securas dapes and tutus ... capitur cibus. far from Signalling a corruption 

in the MS tradition. is a sure sign of its soundness. As a final blow to 

Axelson's conjecture comes the fact that mensa was the place where foods, not 

drinks. were served: d. PI. Men. 208ff.. Petron. 34.6ff.. ApuI. Met. 4.7 mensas 

dapibus largiter instructas. Guests at a dinner had their wine served directly to 

them by slaves who poured it from amphorae. All that should suffice to make us 

extremely suspicious about Axelson's conjecture. 

Hercules Oetaeus 

182-84 The text. as transmitted by the Etruscus. presents a series of dimeters 

disposed in a sequel that shows cuncta (neuter plural with a short final a) at the 

end of a line. and in consequence unobjectionable from the metrical point of view 

(hence it has been retained in the editions of Leo. Giardina and Chaumartin). For 

some reason. other editors print a text with cuncta in a median position in the 

dimeter formed by 181b and 182a and so contra metrum. Many emendations have 

been proposed, including cunctos (Peiper) and cunctas (Zwierlein). Such unnecessary 

emendations cause a change in the meaning of the passage: from the very 

clear pariter cuncta / deflere iuuat. which offers a contrast to the preceding sentence 

quae prima querar? quae summa gemam? (a perfectly intelligible contrast), 

we must turn to the idea that other mourners in addition to Iole can be envisaged. 

The next problem in the passage is the transmitted reading tellus at 183. Gronovius 

commented on it simply. "Rogat. cur non dederit Tellus. quippe omnium 

mater." However Fitch-the first to do so-considers tellus a scribal error and 

emends it to sexus. To me the mention of sex in this context appears inappropriate. 

It is not a flaw limited to the feminine sex not to possess the strength of 

breath necessary to produce a lament worthy of such terrible woes as those poor 

Iole must confront: that is perhaps a flaw of the whole of humankind. Rather 

than sexus, we should print something meaning "nature" or "birth," e.g. partus; 

d. Prop. 2.3.27f. non non humani partus sunt talia dona: / ista decem menses non 

peperere bona. Another quite different and not impossible emendation would be 

mater. for which d. Prop. 2.3.26 haec tibi ne matrem forte dedisse putes. 

Finally, I have doubts about uerbera. If what Iole regrets not possessing is a 

forte pectus, or more exactly plura pectora, the product of her mourning will not 

be uerbera (can that refer to beating of the breast in a show of deep mental pain?) 

but murmura in the sense of a plaintive moan (d. 205 referam querulo murmure 

casus). 

318 I am very happy to see printed at last in a major edition of the tragedies my 

old conjecture Argea. the most likely emendation of angor (E; ragas in A. though 

it is an interpolated reading. shows still some traces of the good reading Argea). 

At Paideia 52 (1997) 159 I proposed reading Argoa, understanding it as a form

SENECA. TRAGEDIES, VOLS. I and II 171 

parallel to, and synonymous with, Argea, not in reference to the ship Argo, but in 

the sense of Argiua. In fact, Franco Munari in his edition of Ovid's Amores (Florence 

1970) prints Argoas in the sense of "Argive" at 1.9.34, where all the MSS have 

it. while at 3.6.46, where the MSS are divided between Argoi and Argei. he prints 

the former. This is a controversial point: the other major editor of Ovid's 

Amores, E.]. Kenney, in both passages prints the forms derived from Argeus. In a 

more recent (still unpublished) note I adjust myoid conjecture Argoa to Argea. 

Fitch, who apparently does not know my article for Paideia, attributes this 

emendation to himself: it's correct all the same. Incidentally, let me draw the 

attention of Senecan aficionados to Zwierlein's baseless conjecture iam tota. 

That, being the reading of the OCT, risks becoming the vulgate, though it is hard 

to see how iam tota could have been corrupted into angor in mediaeval manuscripts. 

373 A gives the line as Ullum ferod stamen intorquens manu (the subject is Hercules, 

who in his service at Omphale's horne had to dress as a woman and perform 

women's work like weaving). Many editors since Canter have accepted his 

emendation of unum to udum. Farnaby comments, "saliva vel aqua, cui inter 

nendum digitos immergere solent." Birt. in RhM 34 (1879) 536, proposed tenerw1l, 

which found its way into Zwierlein's edition and now stands in Fitch's text. 

However, the adjective tener can at best indicate fragility, softness. etc.. not the 

quality typical of thread. In the OLDs.v. tenerone will find it modifying frondes, 

coronae. hastilia, all nouns very different from stamen or filum. The obvious 

attribute of stamen is tenue; d. OLD s.v. tenuis I, "Fine-drawn, slender, thin," 

with the passages quoted there, to which I can add Catul. 64.Il3 and HoI'. Ep. 

2.1.225 (both have tenui ... filo, the latter in a metaphorical sense), and so I suggest 

tenue here. For a tribrach at the beginning of a trimeter d. Ag. 144 ubi animus 

errat. optimum est casum sequi. 

380 The transmitted text is ut alta siluas forma uernantes habet. Fitch prints this, 

recording in his very selective apparatus Bentley's emendation laeta (adopted by 

Leo and Zwierlein). Gronovius also kept the reading of the MSS, with the comment, 

"Alta forma est speciosa altitudo ac proceritas, cui utique adjciunt frondes 

et comae vere florentes. Aut hypallagen cogita, quasi esset: Altas silvas vernantes, 

id est, altis arboribus adest formositas vere virentibus." However, it must be 

said that a construction like forma habet siluas is unparalleled in Roman poetry. 

A verb like habet, in this context, might be synonymous with occupat, orpossidet, 

but again, no parallel for forma occupat or possidet is to be found in our lexica. 

Perhaps then the suspect word is not the verb habetbut its subject forma. If we 

emend it to aura, habet can be supported by the parallel in Prop. 1.18.2 uacuum 

Zephyri possidet aura nemus. The most apt attribute of aura in this context is 

grata (d. Catul. 46.3 iucundis Zephyri auris). I suggest in 380 

ut grata siluas aura uernantes habet. 

which can be seen as anticipating what the following line says, quas ... primus 

inuestit tepor. 

No editor till now has noticed that at 38 I the attribute of nemore cannot be 

nudo ( a bare forest is described at 382ft., making a strong contrast with the thick 

forest in springtime described at 380ff.). My emendation is denso (d. Ov. Met. 

15.488). 

Finally, at 384 the transmitted reading solis ("lonely," "deserted"?) should be 

emended to nudis; trunks of trees in winter are not "lonely" or "deserted" but 

"bare."

1]2 GIANCARLO GIARDINA 

387-90 At 387 the transmitted text. nec illa uenus est. is untenable. though Fitch 

retains it. translating "without that attractiveness it used to have." I would propose 

subit seneetus and refer to Verg. G. 3.67 subeunt morbi tristisque senectus. 

My translation of the restored line would be "And next old age comes." 

At 388 the end of the line contains something that certainly needs to be corrected: 

quidquid in nobis fuit / ohm petitum cecidit et pariter iabat (E: A's partu 

is an interpolation). Fitch prints et pariter soror and links these words with the 

beginning of the following line. materque muitum rapuit ex illo mihi. His comment 

is "she and Meleager's other sisters were grief-stricken by his death." and 

he I'ders to Ov. Met. 8.533-546. Both sororand mater. in Fitch's opinion. stand 

here for the corresponding abstract nouns "sisterhood" and "motheI'hood." I 

have some serious doubts about this interpretation: soror and mater can hardly 

mean anything other than "my sister" and "my mother" here. 

1begin with pariter at 388. for which 1would substitute penitus in the sense of 

"utterly." "through and through" (d. OLD S.v. 5). though I concede that Viansino's 

grauiter is supported by a parallel like Cic. de Drat. 2.249 grauiter claudicanti. 

(A second possibility is aut iamiam iabat.) 

As for 389. it is likely that here at last Deianira mentions that she has given 

birth: hence I suggest partusque as the subject of rapuit. 

In the next line. it will not suffice to shift. with Crotius (now followed by 

Fitch). the transmitted perfect eripuit to the future. if the preceding rapuit at 389 is 

correct. eripuit at 390 is to be considered an Echosehreibung and needs to be 

emended. I suggest adproperat. and refer to Her. F [79 properat ew--su uita citato. 

537 (uirus) mentem per artus adeat et tacitus mas [so El / intret medullas. Gronovius 

remarked that Lipsius had already conjectured intimas after finding in 

some MSS the reading tactus imas (the mainstream of the A MSS. the only witnesses 

known in Lipsius' day. has tactus sinus). Gronovius himself pI'Oposed 

taeitum intimas. an emendation that has found its way into the majority of modern 

editions (including now Fitch. and Zwierlein and Chaumartin before him). 

Leo is an exception. printing tactu sinus. I observe that the most frequent attribute 

of uirus or uenenum is taetrum. which should be adopted here. I object to keeping 

the transmitted melltem. since it is surely not the mind that is affected by poisons 

but the heart. So we can read pectus hel'e. understanding it in the sense of cor or 

praecordia (a very common metonymy). My whole restored text is pectus per 

artus adeat et taetrum ... / intret medullas. The space mal'ked by my ellipsis can 

be filled aptly with Lipsius' and Gronovius' intimas. A secondary option would 

be to accept Richter's emendation of E's mas. i.e. means. and the correction of E's 

tacitus with tactas (taken with medullas; d. Prop. 2.34.60 quem tetigit iaetu certus 

ad ossa deus). I'eading taetas means. 

727-28 abiectus horret sanguis IE: uirus Al et Phoebi comam / tepefactus ardet 

IA: Peiper. starting from E's astris. conjectured arsit. accepted by many editors. 

including now Fitch]. Zwierlein. Chaumartin and Fitch adopt Richter's uillus in 

place of A's uirus. dismissing E's sanguis as an error. 1suppose that the choice of 

uirus has been prompted by the presence in the paradosis of the verb horret but 

this might well be a mere corruption of aretC"dries up"). which would be consistent 

with sanguis. In addition. instead of abieetus ("t ['own away"). we should 

read obieetus ("exposed"). 

In 728 Fitch slightly modifies the paradosis Phoebi by printing Phoebo. It is 

highly questionable that a character in the drama could indicate the sun not only 

by the name Titan (a very common idiom) but by the name of the god himself 

Phoebus. I suggest pallae (Sc. coma). The infected blood. when exposed to day-


light. inflames the wool of the palla (d. 726 palla). Gronovius had in mind precisely 

something like this when (in a note forgotten by modern editors) he proposed 

to read ut PllOebi glomos / tepefecit ardor and commented" Huius lanae 

mentio [Sc. in S. Tr. 675ff.] hic desideratur." 

746 The text given by E. regna triumphi templa Iunonis pete. is untenable (A 

omits the line). Lipsius emended to regna. triumpha, templa etc. Other conjectures 

have been tried. Zwierlein reads plenae triumphi templa etc.. but the image of 

Juno "full of triumphs" is grotesque. Now Fitch prints spolium triumphi templa 

etc. (translating "As Juno's spoil of triumph," etc.). We must notice that Hyllus at 

747 adds haec tibi patent, delubra praec1usa oITmia. So how could he speak of any 

temples in the preceding line? Fitch translates line 747 as "all other shrines are 

barred," but in the Latin text there is no word like cetera, alia, etc. My solution of 

this puzzle is either magno triumpho sacra (etc.) or magnae triumphans sacra 

(etc.). The latter may be better Latin, but magno triumpho could be supported by 

HoI'. Carm. 1.2-49 hiemagnos potius triwnphos. 

761 hunc ecce luctu [E: eiulati PT: eiulatu CS] quem gemis cuncti gemunt. Apart 

from the ridiculous interpolation of the A MSS, we have a text that can be made 

good with some minor adjustment. Richter. followed by Zwierlein, Chaumartin, 

and Fitch, emended luctu to luctum (Fitch translates the phrase as "This very 

grief which you mourn"). The combination luctum gemere, however, is unparalleled. 

1 think that E's ecce luctu hides the name of Hercules plus the pronoun 

"you," and so I read hunc Herculem tu quem gemis (etc.), or (better) llUnc Hercu1em 

quem tu gemis (etc.). 

821-22 truncus in pontum cadit, / in saxa uersus [E: ceruix CS, a reading 

adopted by Zwierlein, Chaumartin and Fitch]: funus ambobus iacet. Gronovius, 

followed by many editors. read uertex. understanding it as synonymous with 

caput. As for fun us, Grotius (followed by Zwierlein. Chaumartin and Fitch) corrected 

it with unus. The resulting sentence makes for very cryptic Latin; Fitch 

translates, "one death in two elements." The episode of Lichas' murder at the 

hands of Hercules is also narrated by Ovid (Met. 9.211-229), from whom I quote: 

A1cides et terque quaterque rotatwn / mittit in Euboicas tormento fortius undas. 

/ iIle per aerias pendens induruit auras, / ... sic ilIum ualidis iactum per inane 

lacertis / exsanguemque metu nec quicquam umoris habentem / in rigidos uersus 

silkes prior edidit aetas. Thus Ovid tells the story of the metamorphosis of 

Lichas into stones (siJices Ovid. saxa the poet of Her. 0.). Ovid's uersus is a 

strong confirmation of E's reading uersus in Her. 0. 822. So the restored text of 

821 -822a can be trwlCUS in pontum cadit. / in saxa uersus etc. I find the correction 

of fWlUS to unus unwarranted. since the idea of Lichas' body being divided into 

two pieces is no longer present in our restored text. I envisage two parallel solutions. 

either to read funus absumptum iacet or truncus absumptus iacet. 

854-55 perdidi sola Herculem [E: erepto Hercule A. which is now printed by 

Fitch] / et ipsa populos. (Zwierlein adopts Heinsius' emendation in solo He.rcule.) 

No-one has noticed that Deianira has just mentioned Phaethon as one who, 

like herself. led the victims of his incompetence to disaster. and so I suggest reading 

perdidi nempe [or namquel Herculem / ut ille [Sc. Phaethon] populos. 

1078 The MSS have nec pomis adhibet manus. the subject being Tantalus. of 

whom the preceding line says excussit rabidam sitim. In fact. an adynaton is 

described here. i.e., that Tantalus' supplicium is suspended under the spell of Orpheus' 

lyre. So we must also write ac pomis etc.. emending the nonsensical nec of 

the paradosis.

174 


1079-80 The reading of E is sic cum inquirens inferos / Orpheus carmina funderet. 

With a slight correction (linquens for inquirens) E's text can be maintained. 

Axelson vindicated Richter's emendation sic cum uinceret inferos / Orpheus 

carmine funditus. which has been accepted by Zwierlein. Now Fitch has a new 

text. sic cum blanda perinferos / Orpheus carmina funderet. First of all, I would 

transpose 1081-1082 to after 1078 (with Richter. followed by Zwierlein and Fitch). 

connecting 1080 with 1077. Next I would arrange the whole context thus: sic cum 

linquens inferos / Orpheus carmina funderet. From 1085 we glean that he is already 

leaving Hell. 

1099 The (untenable) text of the MSS is quod natum est poterit mori. Ackermann 

proposed properat mori. Now Fitch has iterum mori. "what is born, dies once 

more." Perhaps I can do better: quod natum est debet et mori. 

1220ff. sanguinis quondam capax / tumidi iecur pulmonis arentes fibras / distendit. 

At 1222 iecur appears again, this time in an unobjectionable position. 

Many editors intervene on the first iecur. Gronovius proposed the emendation 

decus ("Ille decens Herculeum corpus pulmo, ille sanguinis quondam capax. distendit 

fibras arentes"). Leo obelized iecur. Zwierlein and Chaumartin adopted 

Baden's conjecture uigor. Now Fitch has aeris quondam capax / tumidi specus 

(etc.). which is an excellent reading. The conjecture aeris can be supported by Luc. 

4.327 aeris alternos angustat pulmo meatus. Moreover. specus is the technical 

word for the abdominal cavity. and may well be extended to the pulmonary cavity 

too. However. I would try to save the paradosis here, introducing only some 

minor changes. If the liver can be considered a cavity (d. Cels. 4.1.5 iecur ... intrinsecus 

cauum), that should suffice for justifying a conjecture like cauum (or 

cauus) in place of the transmitted iecur; then sanguinis capax can be easily understood 

of the liver. Schroeder, along these lines, commented upon the transmitted 

text that he suggested not emending: "sensus Herculis videtur esse: jecur, quod 

antea sanguinis tumidi capax ingentem spirituum copiam sufficiebat pulmonis 

fibris easque inflabat. id nunc prae sanguinis defectu puIrnones destituit arentes." 

The text of 1222-1223 invites two minor corrections. In 1222 ardet is not at all 

obvious, and should be emended to aret (see arentes fibras). In 1223 lentus is not 

the expected attribute of uapor. which can be torrens or feruens (d.. e.g.. Plin. Nat. 

13.47 uapore torrente). 

1245£. ubi uires prius / in me sepultae? This despairing lament of Hercules cannot 

be accepted in the form it has in all our MSS. Gronovius proposed ubi uires 

prius / memet sepultae? and explained "Ubi sunt vires, quas priusquam ego 

morerer ac sepelirer. mortuas et sepultas sentio?" However. he suggested a second 

option. in me repertae? Now Fitch has his own arrangement of this tormented 

passage. ubi uires. pater. / in me sepultae? translating "Where is my 

strength. father, now buried within me?" I would. first of all, change quis (1244) 

to sic, then read ubi uires meae / nunc [or iam] sunt sepultae? 

1459 The text of E (A is heavily interpolated here) is recte dolor es. Many emendations 

have been proposed. The most "fortunate" is Richter's cecidit dolose. 

However. as Axelson remarked, that conjecture starts not from E's reading but 

from the clearly interpolated text of the A MSS, namely ced dolores. The Swedish 

scholar acknowledged the finesse of Richter's dolose and suggested recte. dolose. 

but that is not very likely Latin. Now Fitch tries with caecus dolore es. which 

apart from its nonsensical meaning ("You are blinded by grief''') is open to the 

same objection raised by Axelson against Richter's conjecture, i.e.. it starts from 

the reading of the interpolated MSS. My own suggestion (which will be properly


justified in a forthcoming article) is fecit dolose. suggested by idioms like 

bene/male facere. benigne/maligne facere. dolo malo facere (this idiom. so similar 

to the dolose facere of my conjecture. is attested at Cic. Tul. 34). My translation 

of the restored text is "she has acted in a most fraudulent way." 

150M. qUin ipse quamquam [A: quam E] Iuppiter credi meus / pater esse gaudet. 

Fitch emends Iuppiter into maximus. retaining quamquam: I would rather keep 

the unobjectionable Iuppiterand emend quam/quamquam by reading. e.g.. magnus 

or summus. There is no apparent need of a concessive quamquam here. 

156Iff. laudis est purum tenuisse ferrum. / cumque regnabas. minus in proee1lis 

[so E: minimum cruentis CS. now printed by Fitch] / in tuas urbes licuisse fa tis. I 

start from 1559. where the transmitted text is pure nonsense: facta (or fata) discernens 

(or discernes) feriens (or fierI) tyrannos. Hercules is supposed to be admitted 

as a judge in Hell alongside Aeacus. Minos and Rhadamanthus. He will 

"sift men's deeds. chastising tyrants" (trans. Fitch). Will he also "wound" those 

tyrants? For the meaning of ferireis not "to chastise" but "to strike." "to wound." 

Read instead fata dispones. separans tyrannos ("you will assign the due lots to 

the tyrants. dividing them by sending them to the separate places of their allotted 

pains"). 

One would like to know what the "magnates" (dites) are doing in 1560: parcite. 

0 dites (so A and. incredibly. all modern editors. including Fitch: E has the 

unmetrical duces. which in any case gives good sense). We must start from the 

variant of E. and emend it to something like reges. In my opinion the variant 

dites. attested in the interpolated tradition. is the abortive result of an attempt to 

improve the unmetrical reading of the "good" tradition. here attested by the codex 

Etruscus. The obvious emendation reges is supported by cum regnabas in 

1562. 

In 1561 ferrum is surely not the appropriate object of the verb tenuisse if the 

kings are to be its subject. The correct word is sceptrum: d. av. Ep. 16.177f. sceptra 

parens Asiae ... / tenet. Met. 3.264f. si me gemmantia dextra / sceptra tenere deeet. 

V. Fl. 2.590 aurea laeua sceptra tenens, 

Now I come to the very controversial ending of 1562. Clearly it would be reckless 

to follow here the testimony of E by reading minus in proce1lis (though 

Zwierlein and Chaumartin seem to give some credence to it. printing minimum 

procellis. with Fati in the ensuing line. an arrangement first proposed by Gronovius). 

Here storms and tempests have nothing to do with the context: under proeellis 

an appropriate attribute of fatis may be concealed. perhaps irrogatis ("inflicted." 

"imposed" by the kings' power). But in this case pocnis would be better 

than fa tis. and the sense of the whole sentence would be "less has the kings' 

power inflicted penalties. " The words in tuas urbes are simply not what the context 

requires. which is in tuos dues. "against your subjects." Fitch's conjecture 

factis for fatis totally lacks point. 

Octauia 

262£. The text of our MSS (all of the interpolated class. since the Etruscus does not 

include the praetexta) is illo soluta [CS: soluto 0] crine. succincta anguibus / 

ultrix Erinys uenit. Gronovius and the majority of pre-modern editors kept the 

text of CS. Heinsius. followed in the nineteenth century by Leo. modified illo 

slightly into illi. In more recent times. Zwierlein printed illos. Now Fitch reads 

usto soluta crine. an interesting suggestion. I would keep his usto and read soluto


crine ac cincto anguibus because it is not the Erinys herself that is surrounded by 

snakes but her head or hair (d. Prop. 3.540). 

I am not inclined to pronounce verdicts on this or that new edition 

of a classic. as the reviewers of some other journals are used to do. Instead. 

I want to recognize the merits of this new Canadian editor of 

Seneca's tragedies, first of all the sensibility and intelligence displayed 

by him in dealing with so many difficult textual cruces. If I have discussed 

so many of his textual choices, often marking my points of dissent. 

this does not mean that my judgment of his text is on the whole 

negative. On the contrary. it should be understood that I agree in general 

with his arrangement of the text. Some of his original emendations 

are very good indeed. and possibly will be adopted as the new 

vulgate in future editions. My numerous new suggestions indicate how 

much the text of these dramas must still be bettered in order to approach 

anything like a canon. Finally. I hope that Fitch will offer us, at 

some future time. a critical edition of these tragedies complete with 

apparatus and notes: he would make a precious present to all classical 

scholars who love and appreciate the work of Seneca tragicutr-not 

least myself. editor of these plays when a young inexperienced philologist. 

DIPARTIMENTO DI FILOLOGIA CLASSICA E MEDIOEVALE 

UNIVERSITA DI BOLOGNA 

40126 BOLOGNA


DAVID PHILLIPS and DAVID PRITCHARD. eds. Sport and Festival 

in the Ancient Greek World. Swansea: The Classical 

Press of Wales. 2003. Pp. xxxi + 416; numerous figures. 

ISBN 0-9543845-1-2. 

Of all the ancient influences on modern Western culture. sports is one 

of the most interesting and potentially deceptive. On the one hand. the 

similarities between many ancient and modern events suggest continuity. 

for what could be more timeless than the competition between athletes. 

the stark pitting of their strength and skill and will to win against 

one another in front of a cheering audience. with fame and fortune 

awaiting the winner? After all. running is running and jumping is 

jumping. 

Yet that apparent similarity can be misleading. and the differences 

between the ancient and modern cultural contexts of athletic striving 

are profound. Given the marketing of the modern Olympics as an expression 

of cultural continuity stretching back to our Hellenic roots. we 

depend on the scholars of ancient athletics to remind us of those differences. 

In this way. the very real continuities can be more accurately 

identified and more meaningfully appreciated. 

The volume under review. the fruits of a conference held in Sydney a 

month before the 2000 games. for the most part achieves this sometimes 

difficult goal of respecting both the similarities and the differences between 

ancient and modern culture. The eighteen articles cover the 

whole gamut of ancient sports and athletics and their implications in the 

wider societies of the ancient Greek city-states. including the physical 

sanctuaries. the management of the games. athletics and athletic festivals 

in sculpture and litel'ature. and the role of sports in myth. politics. 

education. dance. philosophy. and history. In addition. three al'ticles 

address the issue of "Curating the Ancient Olympics." the various ways 

and means with which the ancient games are presented to the modern 

public. The result is a wide-ranging survey of all the dimensions of ancient 

sports. a collection that both scholars and teachers of ancient 

Greek culture will find valuable. and one whose very variety reinforces 

one of the most important aspects of ancient sports: its expression of the 

177


often brutally competitive spirit endemic in ancient society to an extent 

we moderns can only imagine. 

One cannot do justice to all the essays in a brief review. but a few 

struck me as particularly useful from the perspective of someone 

whose main responsibility is teaching ancient Greek culture to undergraduates 

in general education courses. Stephen G. Miller's "The Organization 

and Functioning of the Olympic Games." another version of 

which appears in his book Ancient Greek Athletics (Yale University 

Press. 2004). is an excellent overview of the everyday details and management 

of the ancient athletic festivals and events. with a splendid recreation 

of a typical festival. Miller is particularly good at highlighting 

those practices and quotidian realities that we moderns would find jarring 

or perhaps not even think about. The mastigophoroi. for example. 

were officials who flogged athletes when they fouled or failed to pay a 

fine. The sudden influx of visitors to a site like Olympia. with no hotels 

or inns. meant that a small city sprang up overnight. so sanitation must 

have been a problem. And given the incessant sacrificing going on by 

priests and hopeful athletes. the flies. smoke. and stench of slaughtered 

animal flesh no doubt were a plague. Throw in the prostitutes. peddlers. 

wrangling poets and sophists. declaiming historians. jugglers. 

magicians. and fortune-tellers. and the ancient games resemble more 

our commercialized modern ones than they do the marmoreal. decorous 

Victorian ideal that in part spurred the creation of the modern 

Olympics. 

Equally misleading is the idealized amateurism that some moderns 

project back onto the Greeks. As most of the essays in this collection 

make clear. competition permeated Greek culture. extending into activities 

that we wouldn't think are occasions for the spectacle of rivalry. 

Harold Tarant's "Athletics. Competition. and the Intellectual" discusses 

how "Competitiveness was central to philosophy at an early stage," a 

phenomenon Aristophanes mined for jokes in the Clouds. The rise of 

the Sophists intensified this "transfer of the competitive ideal into the 

intellectual arena." Language from athletic competition was pressed 

into service when describing philosophical disputes. and a virtue such 

as arete was redefined "to reveal itself intellectually rather than physically. 

and to equip one for leadership challenges of the classical rather 

than the heroic age." Those who purchased the services of Protagoras. 

for example, "would themselves be aiming at a competitive advantage 

[sic] in the city." And since public speaking was the most important 

means of political participation, there was a shift of "the pre-existing 

competitive ethic away from physical towards verbal competition." 

This emphasis on what one could call "binary rivalry" explains the Dissoi 

Logoi. the training in arguing both sides of an issue. better than the

BOOK REVIEWs/COMPTEs RENDUS 179 

Platonic charge that the sophists were indifferent to the true or the 

good. 

Rivalry and competition permeate ancient poetry as well. as Patrick 

O'Sullivan shows in his "Victory Statue, Victory Song: Pindar's Agonistic 

Poetics and its Legacy." The victory ode celebrated not only the 

achievement of the athlete who commissioned it. but also the ode form 

itself. which had to compete in the market with other forms of commemoration 

such as a statue; hence a "palpable sense of competition 

between visual and verbal media is evident in Pindaric writings." In 

addition, competitive poetic recitations were a part of athletic festivals 

by the fifth century BC: "Thus. public festival provides a unifying social 

backdrop to major aspects of athletics, poetry and rhetoric in classical 

Greece in terms of their performance and reception." Art and commerce 

were intertwined and mutually reinforcing. 

As O'Sullivan shows. however, metapoetic concerns were at issue as 

well in Pindar's assertions of language's superiority over sculpture. 

Most important. since song is a "medium of motion" unfolding as it 

does through time. it can better capture the essence of athletic competition, 

which is movement, a movement communicated as well by the 

poet's metaphors from sports: "Pindar unites the realms of athletics 

and poetry, by using athletic imagery to describe the nature of his song, 

equating it with an arrow or javelin." In contrast, the statue is static and 

lifeless: "the statue's inability to move renders it. for Pindar, inferior to 

his flowing song which can travel widely and announce itself." Of 

course, the song's mobility and range are another selling point for the 

victor eager to celebrate his achievement as widely as possible. 

O'Sullivan's article is valuable beyond the issue of epinician imagery 

and competition for customers. The interconnections between artistic 

genre and media. what usually is termed the ut pictura poesis theme 

that occurs throughout Western poetry, are given greater scope in 

O'Sullivan's analysis. By chance. I was teaching Catullus 64 when I first 

read this article. and I found many of O'Sullivan's insights useful for 

understanding Catullus's sophisticated interplay between verbal and 

visual artistic media. 

Again. all the articles in this collection have something to offer scholars 

not just of ancient athletics but also of ancient Greek culture in general. 

And in this age of shoddy bookmaking. the publisher should be 

commended for producing a fine. sturdy volume liberally graced with 

illustrations and drawings; the reprinting of Rachel Rosenzweig's line 

drawings of the figures from the Parthenon frieze in Tom Stevenson's 

"The Parthenon Frieze as an Idealized, Contemporary Panathenaic Festival" 

are particularly useful. as are Stevenson's astute commentary and 

analysis. This volume passes the most important test for scholarly pub-

I80 BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 

lishing: it's useful not just for scholars engaged in the technical dimensions 

of ancient sports and its cultural context. but for anyone fascinated 

with ancient Greek culture and its simultaneous differences with 

and similarities to our own modern world. 

BRUCE S. THORNTON 

DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES AND LITERATURES 

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY 

FRESNO. CA 93740-8030 

C.M. REED. Maritime Traders in the Ancient Greek World. 

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2003. Pp. xi + 162. 

2 maps. ISBN 0-521-26848-6. 

CM. Reed's Maritime Traders in the Ancient Greek World (hereafter 

MTAGW) has had a long gestation period. Back in 1984 the volume. under 

a slightly different title. was described as "forthcoming" from 

Cambridge University Press (CM. Reed. "Maritime traders in the Archaic 

Greek world." Ancient World 10: 31-44). Such a long period of 

time might be expected to produce an exceptionally long work. It has 

not. MTAGW is the product of more than twenty years of the author's 

thoughts on the subject. but he has wielded a very sharp pruning knife. 

At 8 I pages of text proper this is probably the shortest book on the 

subject of ancient traders. Reed has a very clear idea of what he wants 

to discuss. what the evidence is and how far he can push it. He begins 

each chapter with the questions that he intends to raise and then divides 

the text into its sections by means of explicit subtitles. As a result the 

reader knows exactly what each chapter is about and where to find the 

various discussions. Reed's honesty about the amount and the quality of 

the information available about ancient traders-"very little evidence 

for maritime traders" (1) and what there is is "meager" and "markedly 

unrepresentative" (2)-is refreshing. and he tries very hard not to force 

the evidence into "ideal type" concepts because he recognizes that the 

information that we possess cannot take us that far (2-3). On the whole. 

the result is sensible and well balanced; unfortunately. the work shows 

signs of its long development and would have benefited from expansion 

in many places. 

Reed begins (3) by posing the question which will guide his investigation: 

"What was the place. in the states they came from but mainly in 

the poleis they traded with, of those who engaged in inter-regional exchanges 

of goods with the poleis of classical and archaic Greece?" He 

answers this question by dividing the issues over seven chapters. The

BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 181 

first six deal with the Classical period and the fourth centUl'y in particular. 

The seventh chapter covers the Archaic period. Since. however. 

this chapter is drawn from Reed's 1984 article (see above) and the 

author admits (4) that he has done little beyond updating its bibliogI'aphy. 

this review will focus on the six earlier chapters. 

One of the strengths of Reed's approach to the subject is his fondness 

for definitions. In Chapter I. "Corning to Terms." he sets out to identify 

what can be said to be characteristic of an ancient trader or ship owner. 

Reed distinguishes between primary characteristics. which should apply 

to all. and secondary ones. to which there are more exceptions. Defining 

these traits allows Reed to separate "professional" traders from 

those who engaged in emporia at some point but who would not have 

identified themselves as traders (6-14). 

Chapter 2. "Classical Modes and Patterns of Exchange." looks at 

what traders carried and how important these commodities were to the 

cities which received them (IS). Here Reed approaches some of the 

thorniest issues of Greek trade-how much commerce took place as 

opposed to other forms of exchange: how much of the trade was carried 

on by the "professionals" as identified in the previous chapter: what 

was the level of demand for goods? The chapter is I'elatively brief (12 

pages) because the book means to focus on traders. not trade. but an 

idea of how important trade was may provide insight into the status of 

traders. Reed. focusing on Athens. considers the grain and timber 

trades first. These are discussed concisely. and the reader who wishes 

more fully to understand the issues must follow up the arguments in 

the works cited in the copious footnotes. This is one area where the 

author could have expanded his text. It is not always easy to follow the 

steps of the debate unless one possesses an intimate knowledge and an 

accurate memory of all past arguments. Reed then presents the evidence 

for the slave trade and for the traders who provided food to the 

Greek armies. The discussion here is fuller. This may be because Reed 

does not return to these topics in later chapters: as a result he records 

previous views more comprehensively (21-25). 

Chapters 3 through 6 work together, each presenting a different aspect 

of the status of traders and ship owners in society. Reed delves into 

issues of legal status (Chapter 3), levels of wealth (Chapter 4). official 

attitudes of cities where traders conducted their business (Chapter 5). 

and the general. unofficial attitudes of others, the elite primarily. to 

traders (Chapter 6). Of these chapters. I found Chapter 5 to be the most 

interesting and most effective. By looking at the various means that 

Athenians took to encourage foreigners to come to Athens. Reed is able 

to argue that fourth-century Athens did intervene in trade but only to 

the extent that her interests coincided with those of traders. Athens


needed certain types of imports and was willing to support those traders 

who were willing to supply those needs. 

The other chapters in this section were frustrating for a variety of 

reasons. One is the difficulty of following the author's evidence. Reed 

includes several appendices, which catalogue traders and ship owners 

and the various things that can be said about their nationality and 

wealth (see especially Appendix I [82-84] and Appendix 4 [93-132]). The 

information gathered in these appendices allows Reed to draw some of 

the conclusions that he reaches in Chapters 3 and 4, but there is no serious 

discussion of the material. The section. which argues about the 

overall level of wealth among fourth-century traders, is a single paragraph 

of just over sixteen lines (35-36). To follow the author the reader 

must plough through thirty-four pages of catalogue (98-132). In Chapter 

6 Reed disagrees with modern scholars who believe that the views 

about traders expressed by Plato and Aristotle reflect the opinions of 

most Athenians (55). His conclusion (61). that Athenians were unusual 

in that. unlike members of other pre-modern agrarian societies. they 

allowed their need for food imports to "trump" notions of social status 

when it carne to traders. is interesting but might have been more impressive 

if he had said something about the two sociological studies that 

he cites (55 n. 5) for the belief that "those who engaged professionally in 

any sort of commerce were well down the social ladder in agrarian societies"-even 

if it were simply what cultures these studies documented. 

Another concern is the lack of comparanda. Although it is important 

to recognize. as Reed constantly reminds us. that the data are unreliable 

and not representative. we still have to make sense out of what we do 

have. In Chapter 3 (27) Reed argues that relatively few Athenians in the 

fourth century are known to have been traders or ship owners: 12 out 

of 61 (Le., 20%) of those listed in his catalogue. In certain circumstances 

20% is a fairly substantial number. How does this number compare to 

other trades? How does it compare to. for instance. the percentage of 

masons working on the Erechtheion who were Athenians? Or with the 

percentage of native Romans working as traders in Ostia in the first 

century B.C.? Or with the number of Americans working today in international 

brokerage houses in New York City? In fact, Athenians are 

the single largest "ethnic" group in Reed's catalogue (see Appendix I; 

and Greeks completely outnumber non-Greeks). It is possible to ask the 

same question of the number of fourth-century traders or traders/ship 

owners. whom Reed describes as "not poor" (16 or 9 out of 45, Le., 36% 

or 20%; 35) or the number of traders/ship owners who were or may 

have been engaged in bottomry loans (13 out of 62 [61. see below], i.e.. 

21%: 38-39).


Furthermore the term "poor" needs to be defined. Reed concludes. 

tentatively (36). that most fourth-century traders were poor. How do 

we define poor? Are they men who might qualify as hoplites or are 

they thetes? If they are truly poor. how can they even begin to trade? 

The bottomry loan. which has been seen as a sign of the overall poverty 

of traders (]. Hasebroek. Staat und Handel im alten Griechenland 

[Ttibingen 1928] 8-21). was not only useful to wealthy traders as well as 

poor ones (as Reed argues. 34-35), but useless. in fact. to a man who had 

no capital in the first place. As the value of loans seems to have been no 

more than half that of the cargo. traders still needed to fund the other 

half of the cargo. transportation costs. duties. taxes. and food and lodging. 

Reed suggests (56 n. 15) that a trader's absence from his home during 

the summer campaigning season might have weakened his ties to 

his city because his work might have prevented him from serving in 

war. This is an interesting observation. but it also serves as an example 

of why some idea of "poor" is necessary. If a trader is truly poor, what 

sort of military service will he have rendered to his state? 

One sign of this book's long gestation period may be a problem with 

numbers. The number of known fourth-century traders or traders-orship 

owners is given as 45 on 35. Sixteen of these are mentioned as "not 

poor." and their catalogue numbers are given in n. 7-which contains 

only fifteen. On 38. however. the number of "fourth-century active emporoi 

and naukleroi" is given as 62. This makes sense only if Reed has 

three categories. emporoi. naukleroi and emporoi/nau-kleroi. in which 

case he might have made that clearer in the main text of the book. As 

noted above. however. there is a discrepancy between pages 38 and 39. 

where the number of "fourth-century active emporoi and naukleroi" 

changes from 62 to 61 without explanation. Another numerical problem 

tUl'ns up in the discussion of the grain trade (18 and n. 16). Comments 

attributed to P. Garnsey's 1988 Famine and Food Supply in the Greco 

Roman World were made "recently." suggesting that they are more 

recent than Garnsey's 1998 Cities. Peasants and Food in Classical Antiquity. 

about which Reed has been commenting. Since the reference to the 

1988 work in the footnote does not correspond with the topic discussed 

in the text. perhaps the wrong date has been given. 

MTAGW is a valuable but frustrating book. It is a useful contribution 

by a scholar who has thought about ancient traders for a long time. and 

it is short enough to be read by almost anyone. In spite of this. however. 

the intended audience is not obvious. The clarity of the book's outline 

suggests that it is meant to be an introduction. The level of knowledge 

that Reed. at times. expects from his audience indicates a more advanced 

reader. The book would be particularly useful as a discussion 

guide for a senior or graduate level seminar on trade in the Greek


world. Each chapter could fuel a long argument. and his excellent bibliography 

would aid students greatly. I would like to see the author produce 

a revised and enlarged edition with discussions of the history of 

the various debates and comparanda. 

KATHRYN SIMONSEN 

OEPARTMENT OF CLASSICS 

MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY OF NEWFOUNDLAND 

ST. JOHN'S. NL ArC 557 

ERIC W. ROBINSON, ed. Ancient Greek Democracy: Readings 

and Sources. Malden/Oxford/Carlton: Blackwell, 2004. Pp. 

xi + 326. US $34.95 (pb). ISBN 0-631-23394-6. 

A plethora of books (titles of some appear on p. 5 of this volume) has 

poured out of the presses in the last decade following the celebration of 

the "250oth anniversary" of Greek democracy in 1993. This productivity 

may seem to many unexplainable in view of the fact that our source materials 

remain unchanged apart from the occasional discovery of a 

fragmentary inscription which may complement slightly our picture. Is 

there anything new that can be said about a subject that fascinated and 

inspired scholars to write about it for centuries on? The essays Robinson 

judiciously and appropriately selected for this volume not only represent 

the most recent (the majority written in the late r990s for collective 

works or journals) from among the best known scholarship on the 

subject but also-and this is more important. in my view-they reflect a 

significant shift from the traditional historical and institutional approach 

to the new social. "ideological" and comparative methodologies 

as applied by social scientists. As a result. the volume offers an educational 

perspective to the reader by providing sets of articles in which 

the views and interpretations of one scholar are challenged and debated 

by another. In six chapters the issues discussed are vital to our understanding 

of the principal focus. Athenian democracy. but also of Greek 

democracy in general. a notable feature of this book. 

The volume. being part of the series Interpreting Ancient History. 

has as its target "students and other interested readers" who wish to 

gain an appreciation of various perspectives and insights into the ancient 

texts. which are quite aptly coordinated (most of them. at any rate) 

with the essays. What binds the sixteen essays together is the conceptualization 

of demokratia. 

In a five-page Introduction Robinson provides a historical sketch of 

the democracies that emerged in the Greek world already in the early


sixth century. a definition of demokratia and its institutions. a brief survey 

of views-mostly negative-that influenced Roman and Renaissance 

political thought: lastly a short list of the most recent works in 

English. The reader is spared the long and tedious bibliographies commonly 

found at the end of books. Instead. Robinson appends to each 

chapter suggestions for selected further reading. However. for the 

benefit of advanced students. the editor has retained the notes and the 

bibliographies/references for each article. A glossary of Greek names 

and terms. along with a twelve-page index. completes the volume. 

Robinson's conservatism is evident in his selections of ancient Greek 

sources: the reader would in vain seek to find any of the epigraphic evidence 

that illuminates aspects of Athenian democracy: moreover. late 

authors like Plutarch. so controversial and yet so valuable in some respects. 

are missing. Seven of the eleven authors from whose works the 

excerpts are taken wrote during the classical period. Aristotle and 

Thucydides contributing most of the passages: in fact Aristotle's Politics 

is the most frequently excerpted and referenced work. an indication of 

the character of some of the articles of this volume. Quite helpful also 

are Robinson's brief "Introductions" to each chapter in which he expertly 

identifies the main developments. historical. social. constitutional 

or ideological. pertinent to the chapter's theme. and then poses some 

questions for the reader to ponder. In addition. the sources are preceded 

by very brief explanatory notes. 

Chapter One. with its title "Prelude to democracy: Political thought 

in early Greek texts." will surprise a good many of us as we are invited 

to look into Homer and Hesiod for" a kind of thinking that in time led 

to the development of Greek democracy" (7). What "democratic" content 

can be found in epics produced at a period dominated by a powel'ful 

elite? Kurt Raaflaub. in "Homer and the beginning of political 

thought in Greece," a 25-page article published in 1988 and abridged 

here to 13 pages. finds the "roots of Greek political thought" (33) in the 

criticisms leveled at contemporary authority by either a self-conscious 

collectivity of men. such as a Homeric assembly. or by an intellectual 

like Hesiod ranting against the bribe-devouring basiIeis and echoing 

communal prominence as an emerging power factor. According to 

Lowell Edmunds. "Commentary on Raaflaub." concern for political institutions 

is not the same as political thought. of which the Homeric and 

Hesiodic epics are devoid; they are concerned more about a bunch of 

kings than the masses. In "Equality and the origins of Greek democracy." 

the oldest. longest and the most meticulously argued study in this 

volume (45-75). the third contributor. Ian Morris. introduces a theory 

about an ideological conflict in the Archaic Era between elite and middling 

poets. of whom the latter advocated that the polis is the source of

186 BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 

power; for example. "It is the polis that teaches the man" (Simonides. fro 

IS West). According to the author. "some upper class Greeks accepted 

the community of middling citizens as the source of legitimate authority" 

(58) and by 500 Be the elitist ideology was in retreat. the principle 

of equality Usonomia) was spreading and several poleis were ready to 

experiment with democracy when the circumstances arose. This is an 

attractive and interesting interpretation but hardly sustainable on the 

strength of mostly fragmentary poems and the present state of the archaeological 

evidence. The reader would be better able to evaluate Morris's 

thesis if some of the evidence was made available in this chapter. 

Admittedly. however. the nature of the existing sources means that the 

essays in this chapter offer debatable interpretations and views requiring 

a lengthier review. 

Chapter Two introduces "The beginnings of Athenian democracy: 

Who freed Athens?" The texts are excerpted from Herodotus, Thucydides. 

Aristotle's Politics and Constitution of Athens. a fragment from 

the Athenian Archon List. a drinking song to the tyranicides from 

Athenaeus and a scholion to Aristophanes' Acharnians. 

The essay "The Athenian revolution of 508/7 BC: Violence. authority 

and the origins of democracy" by Josiah Ober is well-known for the debate 

it has stirred up concerning the author's unconventional approach 

to interpreting the sources. His conclusions about the events and about 

the roles, relationships and intentions of the primary actors. Cleisthenes. 

the demos and the Spartans, have been scrupulously scrutinized 

and criticized in "Revolution or compromise?" by Loren Samons who 

(rightly in my opinion) finds Ober's "ideological" methodology and his 

use of models from modern history unsatisfactory. There is an editorial 

oversight here: the page references to Ober have not been updated in 

Samons. 

Chapter Three, "Popular politics in fifth-century Syracuse." is 

unique within this volume in that it deals with a polis other than Athens: 

that explains the comprehensive title of the volume. The texts have 

been excerpted from Thucydides, Book 6 (though the excerpt seems to 

have been supplied more to the benefit of the reader than to the three 

essay writers!), Aristotle and Diodorus. Book II, the last being the most 

relevant in spite of its many faults. Both David Asheri and Shlomo 

Berger argue the point. unclear in the sources. whether the polity established 

in Syracuse after the fall of tyranny in 466 BC could be called a 

democracy. Eric Robinson's approach to the problem in his "Democracy 

in Syracuse. 416-412 BC," is a paragon of classical scholarship: he methodically 

reviews Aristotle's testimony and modern scholars' opinions. 

which he effectively proves to be untenable. and convincingly argues 

that Syracuse was a real democracy after 466 Be.


Chapter Four. "Liberty. equality and the ideals of Greek Democracy" 

("Athenian" would have been more appropriate). is the most "ideological" 

section in the entire volume. as the sources themselves reveal: 

Herodotus. Euripides' Suppliant Women. Thucydides (Pericles' funeral 

oration) and Aristotle's Politics. Martin Oswald. in "Shares and rights: 

'Citizenship' Greek style and American style." offers a solid and instructive 

comparison between the ancient Athenian and the modern 

American liberal view of liberty as a democratic ideal. Oswald finds 

close similarities between Athenian and American ideologies concerning 

equality and liberty as the basis of citizenship but points out that the 

Athenians viewed freedom and equality not as rights (the American 

ideology) but as "entitlements" and "shares"; i.e.. participation in the 

social and political community. 

M.H. Hansen. in his "The ancient Athenian and modern American 

liberal view of liberty as a democratic ideal." provides an interesting 

study of political liberty in Athens and Western philosophy represented 

by Isaiah Berlin and Benjamin Constant. He concludes that liberty. especially 

freedom of speech as a right. was "strikingly similar to the modern 

concept of freedom in liberal democracies" (r78). The methods applied 

by these writers in their essays in this chapter differ from those in 

the preceding one. and this methodological variety is a feature of this 

volume. 

Chapter Five addresses one of the most controversial aspects of 

Athenian democracy: "Power and rhetoric in Athens: Elite leadership 

versus popular ideology." The article by P.]. Rhodes. "Who ran democratic 

Athens?" is essentially an extensive commentary on Thucydides' 

assessment of Periclean democracy "as the rule of the first citizen" 

(2.65). Rhodes discusses the function of democratic institutions and their 

powers (the popular courts, an important power player. are not included 

here-a serious omission. I think). disputes Thucydides' view. 

and argues that an orator like Pericles knew how to influence the 

"floating voters" who made up 10% to 20% of the 6.000 assemblymen. a 

novel and interesting interpretation. Peter ]. Wilson's "Demosthenes 21 

(Against Meidias). Democratic abuse" offers a lengthy commentary on 

the historical. social. and cultural aspects of Demosthenes' speech. Hubris. 

the key idea in the speech. is elucidated with examples drawn from 

Athenian society. institutions and tragedy. of which the reader is presumed 

to have a good knowledge. Josiah Ober in his "Power and oratory 

in democratic Athens: Demosthenes 21. Against Meidias" adopts 

the discourse paradigm for the conceptualization of power as developed 

by Foucault and examines the dynamic interplay between the orator 

and the ideologies of the demos or "truth regime." as he likes to call 

it. concluding that Athenian democracy was a viable government be-


cause of such a relationship. Interesting is the author's statement that 

oratory played an important role in the formation of the concept of a 

democratic polis. 

The ancient readings for Chapter Six "Limiting Democracy: The political 

exclusion of women and slaves" come from Thucydides, pseudo 

Xenophon. Aristophanes' Assemblywomen and passages from Aristotle's 

Politics. sources not very useful to the authors of the essays. who 

mostly rely on epigraphic and other literary sources, certainly a noticeable 

omission here. On issues of women and slaves. the nature of the 

ancient sources is such that they often lead modern scholars to disagreements 

and wild assumptions. 

For this reason. the essayists in this chapter question these assumptions 

and offer a more balanced approach. Robin Osborne, in his "The 

economics and politics of slavery at Athens," after a painstaking review 

of the ancient sources. takes issue with the traditional view that slavery 

was economically irrational and argues that Athenians of the hoplite 

class and above owned slaves whose work. not necessarily always profitable. 

made it possible for the citizens to discharge their democratic 

duties. Michael Jameson in "Women and democracy in fourth-century 

Athens" challenges the belief commonly held by modern historians that 

Greek democratic ideology exacerbated the division between men and 

women. citizen and non-citizen. contra statements made by misogynist 

intellectuals like Plato and Aristotle that democracy granted so much 

freedom to women and slaves that group distinctions became quite 

blurred. Jameson's conclusion: certainly women fared better in a democratic 

polis where class divisions were not so rigid as we have been 

led to believe. In "Women and democracy in ancient Greece" Marilyn 

Katz finds that the explanations modern scholars commonly offer for 

the exclusion of women from Greek civic society are based on eighteenth-century 

European ideology and practice where women's domesticity 

was the result of the distinction between the public and private 

sectors. Katz. relying on Aristotle's definition of the polis as a "community 

of families" (Politics I289 b 33). concludes that "the topic of women's 

exclusion from political rights remains inadequately theorized" (306) 

and obviously needs further study. 

All in all. Professor Robinson has produced a volume of essays that 

challenge long held views about Greek democracy and offer fresh perspectives 

on issues so vital for a deeper understanding of the democratic 

process and society. There is. however, a caveat for those who intend 

to use this book in their courses: the book will most benefit 

graduate and upper-year undergraduate students with a sufficient 

background in ancient Greek politics and society. It is a volume con-

BOOKREVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 189 

taining readings that will generate lively discussions and controversies 

for some time to come. 

THANOS FOTIOU 

THE COLLEGE FOR THE HUMANITIES 

CARLETON UNIVERSITY 

OTTAWA. ON Kr5sB6 

ANDREW ERSKINE, ed. A COlnpanion to the Hellenistic 

World. Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World. 

Malden, MA/Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2003. Pp. xxviii 

+ 588, numerous maps and illustrations. US $108.00.1SBN 0 

63 1-22537-4. 

Two assumptions dominate the popular conception of the Hellenistic 

Age. First. that the demise of the classical polis and the dissolution of a 

"living faith" in its gods after the death of Alexander the Great plunged 

the Greek world into an age of "anxiety" or "religious searching" (thus 

H. Bengtson. M. Grant. N. Baynes. F. Schachermeyer); second. that the 

history of the Greeks after Alexander was inconsequential and their 

cultural achievements inferior to those of the Classical age. St. Paul's 

remark to the Athenians in Acts 17 that they were "excessively superstitious" 

(deisidaimonesteroi) confirms the former, and the well-known 

anecdote of Suetonius (Aug. 18) with which Andrew Erskine introduces 

this splendid volume encapsulates the latter assumption. After visiting 

King Alexander's mummy in Alexandria. Octavian declined to inspect 

the tombs of the Ptolemies (regem se voluisse ait videre. non mortuos). 

Thus the Ptolemies and the Hellenistic age. as Erskine says. "were written 

out of history." Pliny the Elder (Nat. 34.52. 36.37). Juvenal (3.58) and 

Tacitus (Ann. 2.53.55) confirm Rome's negative opinion of post-classical 

Greek culture. 

The written history of the period has been shaped by hindsight and 

prejudice. No ancient account specific to the period from the death of 

Alexander until Augustus is attested. and surviving narratives of the 

period. except for fragments of lost histories embedded in later works. 

were all written from within a Roman perspective. Moreover. J.G. 

Droysen's convenient coinage. HelJenismus. which nineteenth-century 

New Testament scholarship applied to a culturally homogenized world 

"into which the Gospels came," has come to define the era as a politically 

confused and decadent interlude between the glorious epochs of 

"classical" Greek and Roman "imperial" history. a world awaiting salvation 

by the pax Romana and Chhstianity. For this reason, subjective


interpretations founded on circumstantial evidence. hindsight and ancient 

moralizing prejudices. have long conditioned modern perceptions 

of "the Hellenistic world." In the last thirty years. however. epichoric 

studies and archeological surveys of individual cities. as well as newly 

published epigraphic and papyrological evidence. have presented a picture 

not of a declining. neurotic Greek civilization but of a vigorous 

one. firmly rooted in and evolving from that of the Classical age. Such 

investigations also reveal that non-Greek societies. far from simply assimilating 

or imitating Greek ideas. appropriated. developed and imposed 

on them their own cultural patterns. 

The British. Continental and North American contributors to the 

Companion represent this new trend in Hellenistic scholarship. and 

their published research informs each chapter. Its comprehensive bibliography. 

glossary of standard abbreviations. detailed analytical index. 

directory of contributors and their affiliations, fields and major publications. 

critical bibliographies for individual chapters. well chosen maps 

and illustrations and lucid and stimulating writing make this book a 

first-rate research-tool for the specialist and a rich mine for the thesis 

writer. It is also a "good read." and anyone who is interested in imperialism. 

propaganda. the mechanics of power and resistance. and the political 

manipulation of culture will be intrigued by the contemporary 

resonance of many of the issues discussed. 

In his introduction Erskine discusses the modern conceptualization 

of "the Hellenistic world" as well as the interpretative problems that 

arise from its complex and multi-voiced source tradition. The subsequent 

twenty-eight lean. informative and judiciously documented chapters 

cover multiple aspects of "Hellenistic civilization." concisely stating 

and interrogating current views and controversies and exposing cliches 

and myths. Part I ("Narratives." Chapters 2 to 6) recounts the political 

history of the Mediterranean world from Alexander to Augustus. with 

abundant references to ancient evidence and recent scholarship. Parts 2 

to 7 comprise twenty-three thematic essays which examine the problem-areas 

that lie beneath the narrative surface: regional affairs. ethnicity. 

cultural interaction. family life, local wars and the impact on ordinary 

communities of royal ideologies and strategies of domination. 

Thanks to Erskine's superb editing. the whole sequence of contributions 

presents "Alexander's legacy" as a world in which the King of Persia. 

whose presence had shaped the history and culture of the Greeks since 

the sixth century and had provided them with a reference-point for 

self-identification. was replaced by Macedonian monarchies which established 

new patterns of rule. opened vast tracts of the Egyptian and 

Asiatic hinterland for Greek settlement and exploitation and established 

new criteria for defining Greekness.


Sheila Ager observes in Ch. 3 that by 28 I B.C. all the kings were {'elated: 

what we have. therefore, is essentially Macedonian history, fragmented 

and evolving within different cultural contexts. From the wars 

of succession and the intrigues of Alexander's generals and their sons 

(the fourth-century dynastic struggles of the court at Pella writ large). 

David Braund (Ch. 2) sees the emergence of "a new world order [based 

on] king-orientated practices" and of "Hellenistic" phenomena such as 

king-worship. the increasing role of "theatre" in the exercise of autocratic 

power, large professionalized. territorial armies and sophisticated 

propaganda methods. In Chapter 3 Ager navigates the treacherous 

source tradition. compensates for the moralizing biases of Justin's 

and Polybius' historiography and untangles the complicated events between 

the death of the last of Alexander's marshals (281) and the emergence 

of Rome as a major force in Greek affairs (217). 

Peter Derow's presentation (Ch. 4) of Rome between 220 and 168 as 

an aggressive superpower, pursuing its ambitions through preemptive 

wars and unequal alliances, confirms the present relevance of E. Badian's 

observation (in a 1959 study) that the Antiochian war (191) should 

be written afresh by each generation. Badian's argument that the two 

"superpowers" (Rome and Syria) were mutually apprehensive and reluctant 

to go to war reflects the Cold War years as much as Derow's 

account does the recent global situation. Popilius Laenas' "circle in the 

sand," which begins Brian McGing's account (Ch. 5) of the years between 

the Battle of Pydna and the death of Mithridates VI (168-63). may 

have literally and symbolically circumscribed the military activities of 

the Macedonian monarchies but. as he argues, it did not prevent independent 

states. as long as they remained low on Rome's political horizon. 

from conducting wars and building empires. His concise treatment 

of the kingdom of Pontus shows the kind of challenge such relative 

freedom could ultimately pose to Roman interests. Claude Eilers' chapter 

(Ch. 6) on Greco-Roman relations from Pompey to Augustus brilliantly 

highlights the catastrophic effect that the greed and political ambition 

of individual Roman magistrates had on Pompey's stabilizing 

policy in the east. His Romanocentric treatment of the Principate of Augustus. 

however, does not account for the undercurrent of Greek resistance 

implied in non-Roman sources (Crinagoras' epigram on the marriage 

of Juba and Cleopatra Selene [AP 9.235]. inscriptions relating to 

Cleopatra VII's revitalization of the Ptolemaic kingdom [e.g. OGIS 194], 

and chapter 27 of Plutarch's Life of Antony, to mention a few). One of 

the greatest of the Ptolemies deserves a more nuanced portrayal than 

that of Roman puppet, corruptor of generals and victim of official history.


The four essays comprising Part 2 ("Protagonists") analyse the salient 

characteristics of the ruling dynasties. the territories that they controlled. 

their strategies of domination, and the responses of the ruled. 

The adaptability of the Macedonians is well brought out in the contrasting 

policies of the Ptolemies (Dorothy Thompson. Ch. 7) and the 

Seleucids (Michel Austin. Ch. 8). The former appropriated and reinvented 

existing ideologies and mechanisms. imposing a distinctly Greco 

Macedonian stamp on Egyptian iconography and institutions and promoting 

Hellenization as a matter of policy. while the latter treated their 

vast and diverse territories as spear-won land. with Greek garrisons, 

planted in far-flung poleis, providing models for informal Hellenization. 

Joseph Scholten's account of the situation in Greece after the 

Chremonidean war (Ch. 9) and Elizabeth Kosmetatou's treatment of the 

Attalids of Pergamum (Ch. 10) show how, in some areas, the ruled 

challenged the rulers by asserting their political identity and autonomy. 

Part 3 ("Change and Continuity") deals with the complexities of administering 

a multifaceted social and political milieu: the need for kings 

and subjects to construct ideologies of ruling and being ruled and to 

reconcile the illusion of tradition and autonomy with absolutism. John 

Ma's concise analysis of the ideological framework of Hellenistic monarchy 

examines the kings' political manipulation of traditional Egyptian. 

Mesopotamian and Hellenic concepts and institutions (Ch. II). 

Richard Billows (Ch. 12) charts the physical and political continuities in 

three cities under the new regimes, burying the long-held opinion that 

the polis "died" with Alexander. Tanja Scheer's account (Ch. 13) of how 

the marginally Hellenized inhabitants of Asia Minor acquired "a Greek 

history" reminds us that in antiquity historical memory was shaped by 

myth rather than by critical historiography. In Chapter 14 Klaus Geus 

shows how Alexander's conquests affected the contemporary worldview. 

Social and cultural interaction between ethnicities is the subject of 

Part 4 ("Greeks and Others"). Jane Rowlandson investigates the mutual 

"otherness" of urban and rural populations in Egypt and highlights 

some startling instances of biculturalism (Ch. IS). Erich Gruen analyses 

the relationship between Jews and Greeks and "Hellenizers" and their 

opponents in the context of the Seleucid persecution of 167 and in the 

Diaspora (Ch. 16). Stephen Mitchell's essay (a study of ancient "doublethink") 

focuses on the Greeks' construction of the Celts as the archetypal 

barbarian Other even while they employed them as mercenaries 

(Ch. 17) and Emma Dench (Ch. 18) argues from the persistence of Hellenic 

themes and signifiers in local Italian iconography that the Romanization 

of Italy was more political than cultural and that local cultures 

were "reconfigured" rather than assimilated or obliterated.


Part 5 ("Society and Economy") focuses on the effect of absolute 

power on the continuity of institutions at the local level. Riet van Bremen 

discusses the extent of royal intervention in city and family affairs 

and questions the popular opinion that women were more "liberated" 

in the Hellenistic age (Ch. 18). and Gary Reger (Ch. 19) examines the 

effect of an all-powerful king on local economies. Geographically marginal 

Greek cities form the subject of three stimulating accounts of survey 

archeology as a tool for studying social continuities in illiterate societies 

(Susan Alcock, Jennifer Gates and Jane Rempel. Ch. 20). Patrick 

Baker (Ch. 21) and Vincent Gabrielsen (Ch. 22) respectively track the 

continuities in the politics, tactics and methods of local warfare and in 

the symbiotic relationship of hegemony, piracy and slavery. In Part 6 

("Gods and Men") David Potter (Ch. 23) shows that flourishing polis 

cults in Hellenistic times dispel the myth of a universal "loss of faith" in 

traditional religion. The political subtexts of the new hybrid cults in the 

east, the Greek appropriation of non-Greek religious oracular texts for 

political purposes. and the deification of living men (distinct from the 

Hellenistic ruler cults) both before and after the time of Alexander. 

point not only to a continuity but also to a vigorous expansion of communal 

religious activity. Angelos Chaniotis (Ch. 24). nicely complementing 

Potter's essay. throws new light on the theory and practice of 

the ruler cults. beginning with the earliest. detailed articulation of this 

idea. not in Alexander, but a generation later in the Athenian hymn to 

Demetrius Poliorcetes. 

Part 7 (" Arts and Sciences") comprises four essays that explode the 

myth that. with the advance of Alexandrian "science." the standard of 

literature and art declined (thus Green. Grant and K.J. Beloch). and that 

after a spectacular start. rational. scientific thought buckled under the 

force of superstition. Rebecca Flemming (Ch. 25), evoking M. Foucault 

on the interrelationship of power and knowledge. uses nineteenth- and 

twentieth-century European imperialism as an analogy to argue that 

the Ptolemies promoted the study of science. especially medicine and 

pharmacology, not for the benefit of humanity but to demonstrate their 

power over man and nature. Philip Mitsis (Ch. 26) critiques the common 

perception of the Academy. the Lyceum. the Stoa and the Kepos as 

prototypes of the modern university. Richard Hunter (Ch. 27) discusses 

the characteristics and context of Hellenistic poetry and its relationship 

with its precedents. showing how the Alexandrian scholars and poets 

invented and defined "Classical Greece" and made "book-culture" the 

uiterion of Hellenicity. In the final essay. Andrew Stewart (Ch. 29) 

harks back to Erskine's introductory premise that the Hellenistic world 

is a modern construct. Focusing on the modern reception of the Laocoon 

sculpture, which he regards as the quintessence of the Hellenistic

194 


ideal. he argues that the disparateness of Hellenistic art. its chronological 

ambivalence and lack of a unifying stylistic motif suggest that, 

rather than having an overarching teleological nature. it is cumulative 

and open-ended. This observation may readily be applied as a general 

model for the Hellenistic age. 

Five hundred pages is a small canvas on which to paint a comprehensive 

picture of the Greek world after Alexander. The editor chooses 

comprehensibility over comprehensiveness and limits the historical 

arena mainly to the Mediterranean and its adjoining hinterland-approximately 

the Augustan empire-reducing an intractable 

and complex conglomerate of societal and political interactions to 

(roughly) a pair of binary oppositions between monarch and polis on a 

regional level and, on a territorial. diplomatic level, between an archaic. 

aristocratic system and a "modern" militaristic republic. This approach, 

however, produces a cropped and somewhat distorted picture. None of 

the Roman segments takes full account of the dynamic complexity of 

Roman imperialism. e.g. the role of rivalry and ambition among the 

nobiles-the notion of la us imperii as one of the engines of imperialism 

(d. P.A. Brunt, Roman Imperial Themes [Oxford 1993] 159-191) and 

Rome's unique system of political clientage. Relations between peripheral 

territories ("India," Parthia. Bactria and Nubia) and their central 

administrations are omitted, as are important cultural issues: the interaction 

of Greek and Jewish thought (Philo Alexandrinus and Meleager 

are barely mentioned). mystery religions, the Hermetic texts. the emergence 

of new cults (e.g. Tyche. Isis and Sarapis). the social and intellectual 

context of the Cynics and Euhemerists and. importantly, the development 

of coinage as propaganda. 

This book will not replace volume VII of the Cambridge Ancient History, 

or the standard works by E. Will, F.W. Walbank, Peter Green. or 

Graham Shipley: it may not satisfy the reader who wants a straightforward 

description and evaluation of "Hellenistic" history. religion. philosophy. 

art. literature, science. or society. since its basic premise challenges 

the idea that the Hellenistic world can be compartmentalized or 

studied as an isolated entity. Each chapter is a probing interrogation of 

established ideas about an extraordinarily interesting stage in the long 

history of the Greeks and their neighbours and it is as a guide to work 

that has been and is being done on this period that the Companion both 

informs and challenges. 

ADRIAN TRONSON 

DEPARTMENT OF CLASSICS AND ANCIENT HISTORY 

UNIVERSITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK 

FREDERICTON, NB E3B SA3


LOREDANA CAPPELLETTI. Lucani e Brettii: Ricerche sulla storia 

politica e instituzione di due popoli dell'Italia antica (V 

III sec. a.C.). European University Studies. Series III, vol. 

940. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2002. Pp. xiv + 296. Can. $5°.00; 

US $39·95; £35·60; €5I.50. rSBN 3-631-37712-6. 

Loredana Cappelletti's Lucani e Brettii is a welcome work that makes a 

solid contribution to our study of the Italic peoples of southern Italy. 

This field has grown at a steady pace over the last two decades and, in 

terms of the Lucanians and Bruttians themselves, Cappelletti's book is 

arguably our greatest advance since Giovanni Pugliese CarI'atelli's 

learned piece in Le genti non greche della Magna Grecia (1972). Lucani e 

Brettii is a revised version of the author's 1999 doctoral thesis from the 

University of Vienna, and the aims of the work are twofold. First, Cappelletti 

attempts to improve on previous research that contained overspeculation 

and preconceived notions concerning the political organisation 

of the Lucanians and Bruttians. She contends that scholars have 

often simply assumed that the leagues into which these peoples were 

organised functioned along lines similar to leagues in the Hellenistic 

East. and thus their work has often featured an unhealthy amount of 

generalisation and supposition. Second, Cappelletti unabashedly undertakes 

the writing of a narrative history for the Lucanians and Bruttians. 

Such a work has never been undertaken on any serious scale. To this 

task the author has collected and synthesised a tremendous amount of 

literary. archaeological, numismatic. and epigraphic evidence in order 

to produce a comprehensive study. 

Lucani e Brettii is divided into two parts. The first covers the 

chronological history of the Lucanians from the fifth century B.C. and 

of the Bruttians from the time of their establishment as an independent 

people ca. 356 B.C. Cappelletti traces the histories of these peoples from 

their supposed origins through their perennial wars with the southern 

Italian Greeks and onwards into their conflicts with Dionysios of Syracuse. 

Alexander of Epiros. Agathokles. and Pyrrhos. The section culminates 

with a lengthy piece on the Second Punic War and their battles 

with Rome. Part I itself is very substantial in terms of size and accounts 

for over two thirds of the book's total. Although at times repetitive. it 

nevertheless does not appear overly meticulous, and Cappelletti succeeds 

in synthesising a large amount of both primary and secondary 

evidence in order to produce a lucid narrative. 

Part II. despite its brevity. is the heart of the work. Here Cappelletti 

presents some studious discussions concerning the validity of terms 

such as "league" and "federation" that have been used to describe the 

political organisations of the peoples in question. Archaeological. nu-

196 BOOK REVIEWs/COMPTEs RENDUS 

mismatic. and epigraphic evidence is also utilised to the purpose of putting 

forth a model for the political organisation of Lucania and Bruttium. 

Cappelletti hypothesises about the nature. functions. and powers 

of institutions. magistracies. and governmental organisations at all levels. 

She furthermore illustrates how local magistrates retained a significant 

amount of power while at the same time fitting into a larger federal 

structure that featured league-run sanctuaries. elected magistrates. 

and a powerful assembly that debated matters. passed laws. issued 

coinage. and conducted the fighting of wars. In the latter area in particular 

they had the extraordinary power of appointing a single war 

leader in emergency circumstances. These conclusions make up the 

most theoretical part of Cappelletti's work and provide a thoughtprovoking 

look at the non-Greek peoples of the southern Italian peninsula. 

While Part II is meant to serve as the crux of the work. as it pre-sents 

some truly original arguments. it is Part I which will stand out over 

time. This is because in it the author has provided a fantastic resource 

for scholars and students alike as she has catalogued nearly every scrap 

of evidence concerning the history of the Lucanians and Bruttians. 

Moreover. the comprehensive set of references and biblio-graphy will 

serve as a solid resource for all future scholars concerned with these 

peoples. The only major criticism of Part I lies in the author's use of the 

source material: while Cappelletti does well from an archaeological and 

numismatic standpoint, in terms of epigraphy and especially concerning 

literature the work is sadly devoid of any review of the primary 

authors. Too often the author accepts the words of Diodoros. Livy. 

Strabo. and Polyainos. among others. concerning southern Italy in the 

fifth to third centuries B.C.. despite the fact that most of our sources for 

this area during the period are at least two and sometimes over five 

centuries beyond the times of which they speak. And while there is 

nothing a priori wrong with our sources being so far removed. their 

validity as a whole must nevertheless be rigorously scrutinised. This 

criticism is not meant to take away from Cappelletti's excellent narrative. 

only to point out that a section that specifically discussed our literary 

source material would have greatly bolstered Part 1. 

Part II presents some engaging theories concerning Lucanian and 

Bruttian ethnicity and the formation of their federal states. but all the 

same it is not without problems. Firstly. Cappelletti concentrates so 

much on the leagues themselves that readers are left asking several 

questions about their formation. something that could have been covered 

in much greater detail considering that Part 11 is not overly long. 

The author tells us a great deal concerning the structures and institutions 

of the leagues. but says too little on how these things evolved into

BOOKREVIEWs/COMPTEs RENDUS 197 

her fully formed models. A deeper concern is over the fact that Cappelletti 

appears to have fallen victim to her own criticism in terms of 

the murky uses of terms such as lega and stato Federale to describe the 

state structures of the Lucanians and Bruttians. Furthermore. her reconstructions, 

while they are more often than not well thought out, at 

times involve a degree of speculation that is difficult for this reader to 

accept. Finally. from an archaeological standpoint. Cappelletti has once 

again collected some wonderful research. but the book would have 

benefited immeasurably by a few illustrations. and it was at times 

grating that the work contained some excellent pieces on settlement patterns 

in southern Italy yet made use of only one map at the very beginning. 

Although Cappelletti has certainly illustrated that the Lucanians and 

Bruttians had identities of themselves as separate peoples, one still 

wonders whether it is right to so fully divorce them from their surroundings. 

The Lucanians and Bruttians were intrinsically linked to the 

peoples. both Oscan and Greek. who were their neighbours. so much so 

that it is difficult to identify exactly what is Lucanian and Bruttian culture. 

if such a thing even existed before the third century B.C. Perhaps 

it is better to treat these peoples as simply a part of the cultural milieu 

that was southern Italy. as J.-L. Lamboley did in his study of another 

southern Italian people. the Messapians (1996). 

While at times we are left wondering about the validity of reconstructing 

institutions from a period about which we know relatively 

little and for which we have meagre and fragmentary contemporary 

sources. in the end Cappelletti's hypothetical reconstruction of the 

leagues makes some valid points and is very useful as a starting point 

towards research on federal states both inside and outside of southern 

Italy. Again. however. it is Pal't I that makes this work a truly welcome 

and valuable piece, as the author's highly impressive collections of both 

primary and secondary material make the book not only a worthy reference 

tool but a necessary starting point for anyone wishing to study 

further the Lucanian and Bmttian peoples. 

JOHN SERRATI 

DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY AND CLASSICS 

JOHN ABBOTT COLLEGE 

STE-ANNE-DE-BELLEVUE. QC H9X 3L9


DAVID AMSTRONG, JEFFREY FISH, PATRICIA A. JOHNSTON, and 

MARILYN SKINNER, eds. Vergil, Philodemus, and the Augustans. 

Austin: University of Texas Press, 2004. Pp. xii + 36r. 

ISBN 029270r8ro. 

What is the relation between poetry and philosophy? Is a literary work 

an expression of a coherent philosophical system traceable to a specific 

philosophical school? These questions are not new and. in the field of 

Classical studies. the so-called Augustan poets have been central to the 

debate. Epicureanism. Stoicism. and the Academy (to mention a few) 

have often been cited. more or less successfully. to uncover the "meaning" 

of Virgil's poetry and Augustan poetry in general. Needless to say. 

the nature and quality of the relation between philosophy and literature 

is a topic of great importance but it is also one of extreme complexity. 

Poetry. and especially Classical poetry. is bound by the conventions of 

the genre and it is often extremely difficult to determine whether actions 

and/or words are to be interpreted within a generic or a philosophical 

frame. Is the ira which makes Aeneas kill Turnus at the end of 

the Aeneid to be understood as a "reenactment" of the menis of his epic 

predecessor. Achilles. or should it be interpreted in light of a philosophical 

school (and which philosophical schooD? How can generic and 

philosophical perspectives be reconciled? Add to this the fact that our 

knowledge of some ancient philosophical systems (and their evolution) 

is patchy at best. It is for this reason that we are all indebted to the editors 

and contributors of this book for tackling this important issue and 

for offering new perspectives on the topic. This book. originating from 

the First International Symposium on Philodemus. Vergil and the 

Augustans. held at the Villa Virgiliana in Cuma in June. 2000. serves 

two important purposes: it sheds important new light on the Epicurean 

philosophy of Philodemus and offers a thought-provoking reading of 

Augustan poetry in the light of this philosophy. 

Thanks to the untiring efforts of Marcello Gigante. to whom this 

volume is dedicated. the last 30 years have witnessed an unprecedented 

progress in the study of Philodemus. His On Poetry. On Music. On 

Rhetoric. On Frank Speaking. On Death. On Anger. and On the Good 

King according to Homer have been edited with translations and commentaries 

and we are now in a much better position to understand the 

nature and quality of his Epicurean teaching. Further. the discovery and 

publication of P. Herc. Paris 2. which shows Philodemus dedicating his 

treatise On Flattery to Plotius (Tucca). Varius (Rufus). Vergilius (Maro) 

and Quintilius (Varus) has finally confirmed the often conjectured affiliation 

of Virgil with the Epicurean school of Philodemus.

BOOK REVIEWs/COMPTEs RENDUS [99 

Grounding their research on these recent findings, this group of 

scholars presents an Epicurean reading of Virgil's poetry. Not everyone 

will be fully convinced by some of the arguments put forward in this 

collection of essays. Nevertheless each article is of very good quality 

and will engage the reader. offering food for thought. 

The book is organized in a chronological order, the Appendix Virgiliana. 

Eclogues. Georgics. and the Aeneid. Only the last two essays 

explore the Epicurean affiliations of other Augustan poets (Horace and 

Propertius), and one feels that the organization of the book suffers from 

the uneven attention devoted to Virgil (14 essays on Virgil and only 2 on 

other Augustan poets). 

The first three articles of the collection are dedicated to the "early 

Vergil." Francesca Longo Auricchio and Diskin Clay discuss Catalepton 

5 and the imagery of the "calm harbor of philosophy." In particular. 

Clay argues for the authenticity of Catalepton 5 on the grounds that the 

image in CataJ. 5.8-10 is drawn from Epicurus' injunction to Pythocles 

to flee paideia. which in turn is modeled on the Homeric episode of the 

Sirens in Odyssey [2. More boldly. Chambert offers a thoroughly Epicurean 

reading of the Culex. I was not fully persuaded that the story of 

Eurydice (Culex 268-95) reconciles "the elegiac and the romantic tendencies 

characteristic of Alexandrian poetry ... with the pessimistic vision 

of love that Lucretius advocates" (46). as the author suggests. After 

all. the equation of love with madness and folly is not solely Epicurean. 

Similarly. the praise of a bucolic life which frames the tale of the Culex 

can not and should not be explained solely as an endorsement of Epicurean 

philosophy. There was a long tradition of pastoral poetry from 

which Virgil draws and which seems to be unrelated to Epicureanism. 

From the Appendix Virgiliana we move on to the Eclogues and the 

Georgics. Davis. in his "Consolation in the Bucolic Mode: The Epicurean 

Cadence of Vergil's First Eclogue." offers a compelling reading of Eclogue 

I and argues convincingly that the rhetorical structure of the 

poem "rests on the foundation of consolatory motifs" (63) which have 

an Epicurean cadence. With W.R. Johnson we turn to one of the most 

enigmatic (and most discussed) passages of the Georgics: the description 

of the Corycian gardener at the end of book 4. There is much of inter'est 

in this piece (the discussion on Leopardi included). but the ending is 

somewhat abrupt and the authol' does not fully explain how and why 

the Corycian Gardener (and his garden) becomes a reflection of the tension 

between Virgil's Epicureanism and Virgil's role as an Augustan 

poet. 

Marcello Gigante's article occupies the place of honor in the collection. 

the "middle." "Virgil in the Shadow of Vesuvius" is an extremely 

learned piece in which a thorough analysis of the evidence of Virgilian

BOOK REVIEWs/COMPTEs RENDUS 

Epicureanism is accompanied by a sophisticated and helpful discussion 

of the relevant scholarship. The piece should be read carefully by everyone, 

for there is much to learn here. 

Notoriously, ira is a key word of the Aeneid. The poem opens and 

ends with a focus on anger, divine and human respectively. Hence it is 

not surprising that two out of the three articles of the section entitled 

"The Emotions" are devoted to a detailed discussion of anger in the Virgilian 

epic. The publication of Philodemus' De ira has allowed us to have 

a better comprehension of the Epicurean view on anger, and we now 

know that. far from condemning anger altogether, Philodemus draws a 

sharp distinction between a legitimate anger (orge), which springs up 

for a legitimate reason, "is brief and not impetuous." and is a pathos to 

which even the wise man can be subject. and thymos. swift and unpremeditated 

anger, which overwhelms us completely. Indelli attempts 

to show that a similar distinction is maintained in the Aeneid. Her line 

of argumentation, however. is not fully convincing, for she is too often 

forced to argue that many times Virgil uses the same term but with a 

different meaning. So Turnus' furor at 12.101 is a bestial rage (lOg), 

what Philodemus would have labeled thymos: in the case of Aeneas, 

however, all references to furor and ira are to be understood as expressions 

of what Philodemus would have called orge. Fish's article has a 

different focus and shows how Aeneas' character changes dramatically 

after his mother's rebuke at the end of Aeneid 2. At the opening of book 

2 Aeneas is driven solely by "empty anger," a pointless desire for the 

pleasure of vengeance. As a result of his mother's rebuke. he undergoes 

a metamorphosis and gains a new sense of personal destiny. Particularly 

solid and valuable is Fish's treatment and reading of the Helen episode. 

The section on emotions. which is rounded out by an original article 

by Schroeder on avocatio, is followed by a section devoted to the concept 

of pietas. Dirk Obbink sheds new important light on a fragment of 

Philodemus' De pietate (P. Here. 1062 fro 6) by expanding and extending 

the text through a new type of combination of fragments in the Herculaneum 

papyri. Johnston and Wigodsky boldly tackle the issue of Virgilian 

theology in the Aeneid and the relation between Virgilian and 

Epicurean pietas. Both articles make for compelling reading. Like many 

Latin scholars. I learned Epicurean philosophy through Lucretius' 

DRN, and I found Johnston and Wigodsky's discussion of Philodemus' 

De pietate and his theology extremely fascinating. This is particularly 

true for Johnston's reading of Aeneas' pietas as a reflection of Philodemus' 

ideals. I also read with great pleasure and interest Johnston's section 

on "Pietas and arma." Here, however, I felt that some problematic


examples of Aeneas' behavior (his impietas?) are left out of the discussion 

(see. for example. Aeneas' aristeia in book 10). 

From pietas we move on to music and poetics. Daniel Delattre. who 

has done pioneering work in restoring the fragments of Philodemus' 

On Music. surveys Virgil's musical imagery in an article which is. to my 

knowledge. one of the first comprehensive studies on this topic and 

shows how Virgil was heavily influenced by innovative Epicurean conceptions 

of music. 

All the articles of the collection up to this point attempt to show a 

Virgilian endorsement of Philodemus' philosophy. With Marilyn Skinner's 

"Carmen Inane." we move in a different direction. Grounding her 

arguments in her analysis of the ekphrases of Aeneid I (temple of Juno) 

and 6 (Apollo's temple). which she reads as episodes of incomplete and 

futile artistic communication. Skinner shows very compellingly how 

Virgil rejects the Epicurean theory of poetry. which denied emotive 

constituents in the production and reception of poetry. 

Two important and very solid essays on Horace and Propertius respectively 

round out the collection. David Amstrong reads Horace's 

first book of Epistles in the light of Philodemus' philosophical treatises 

(especially On Anger. On Death, On the Good King. and On Frank 

Speaking) and demonstrates that Horace's proclaimed eclecticism 

should be understood in terms of the "eclectic" philosophy of Philodemus. 

who in a number of instances is ready to include in his philosophical 

works doctrines of other philosophical school which do not openly 

contradict the basic Epicurean dogma. Francis Cairns credibly argues 

that the "Lynceus" of Propertius 2.34 refers to the famous Varius. who 

was one of Philodemus' addressees in P. Here. Paris 2. Less convincing 

is his attempt to explain the reference to Varius as Propertius' way to 

insinuate himself into the friendship of Virgil's circle. 

As happens with every book which is deeply committed to a thesis. 

there will be readers who will not be fully convinced by this exclusively 

Epicurean reading of so many Augustan poems. Everyone. however. 

will learn a great deal from this collection of essays. and we are all in 

the debt of this group of scholars who have "resurrected" Philodemus 

from the oblivion to which he had been relegated too often by scholars 

of Augustan poetry. Let me just end by saying that the book is wonderfully 

edited. and there are just a few minor typos. 

ANDREOLA ROSSI 


AMHERST COLLEGE 

AMHERST. MA 01002

202 BOOKREVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 

NIALL RUDD, ed. and trans. Horace, Odes and Epodes. Loeb 

Classical Library 33. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard 

University Press, 2004. Pp. ix + 350. US $21.50. ISBN 0-674 

996°9-7· 

Niall Rudd's new Loeb edition of the Odes and Epodes is a welcome replacement 

for the 1914 version of Charles Bennett. Translating Horace 

is never an easy task; Rudd. who is responsible for other editions and 

translations of Horace. as well as many analytical publications, is more 

than equal to the task. While I have quibbles with the finished product, 

overall the new volume gives us a clean, readable, unfussy version of 

these two groups of texts. 

Rudd's volume includes an introduction that, though brief, includes 

more information than did Bennett's original: the requisite biography 

(I-3). an introduction to the Odes (3-9) and a few pages on the Epodes 

(9-12). The metrical introduction is significantly updated and reworked 

in comparison with Bennett's version. Rather than simply listing all the 

meters and their schemata. Rudd helpfully organizes them into family 

groupings. opening each group with the bones of the related meters: 

Asclepiad. Greater Asclepiad. Pherecratean. and Glyconic. for example. 

at the start of his section on Asclepiadic meters. This will be of great 

help to the Latin-reading non-specialist who would like to understand 

the logic behind the structure of the lyric meters. 

The most strenuous of my criticisms are sparked by the body of the 

volume's introduction. Here Rudd frequently takes a biographical 

standpoint in summarizing the Odes, as he has in other publications. In 

the middle of an otherwise pithily useful survey of Stoic and Epicurean 

influences, for example, Rudd states baldly of Horace's religious themes 

that "the deities are the age-old Roman counterparts of the Olympians," 

whom Horace could invoke in his capacity as va tes: but that 

"[plrivately. he was not a believer." Rudd brings the same attitude to 

bear even more strongly in the single paragraph he allows the erotic 

Odes: when Horace speaks of love. "the emotion is not deeply felt. or, if 

it is, it does not appear to have lasted for long .... Whether because of 

age or temperament, it never had the consuming intensity that it had 

for Catullus." One might wish that Rudd had considered, for example, 

Lowell Edmunds' negative comments on the biographical slant of his 

edited collection Horace 2000 in BMCR. February 1993 (http://ccat.sas. 

upenn.edu/bmcr!I994/94.02.2o.html). Rudd's introduction to the Epodes 

is less flawed. as here he focuses on dating and on genre. 

The text is based on Wickham and Garrod, with variations noted at 

the bottom of the left-hand pages. Textual changes are predictably infrequent 

and conservative, only rarely varying from those in Bennett's


edition. 

The introduction concludes with a brief bibliography that is broken 

into "Texts," "Commentaries." "Translations." "Studies," and "Other 

Works." The old standbys (such as Fraenkel and Commagel') dominate. 

with a sprinkling of major recent works (for example, Gregson Davis, 

Polyhymnia: Ellen Oliensis. Horace and the Rhetoric of Authority). 

Generally this is a good selection. though a few on the list are not what I 

would have included (Wilkinson. Horace and His Lyric Poetry, is long 

outdated: and why Kiessling and Heinze over Syndikus as the token 

foreign-language entry?). 

Rudd acknowledges in his Preface the difficulties inherent in translating 

Horace. As a general rule. he observes. one can capture either 

sense or style, but not both; prose translation is limiting. but translation 

into meter inevitably moves one too far away from the original. Rudd 

has decided sensibly on a plain. sturdy prose format. the goal of which 

is to capture meaning over form (as indeed should be the choice in a 

Loeb edition). He avoids colloquialisms and slanginess. As a result. his 

edition should be usable for many years. All translations are clear and 

readable. Each without exception is a breath of fresh air in comparison 

with Bennett's, even though Bennett was one of the less egregious producers 

of early "Loebspeak." By way of example. I compare Bennett and 

Rudd on the opening six lines of Odes 3.6. delicta maiorum: 

Bennett: 

Thy fathers' sins. 0 Roman. thou. though guiltless. shalt expiate. till 

thou dost I'estore the crumbling temples and shrines of the gods and 

their statues soiled with grimy smoke. 'Tis by holding thyself the servant 

of the gods that thou dost rule: with them all things begin: to them 

ascribe the outcome' 

Rudd: 

Though guiltless. you will continue to pay for the sins of your forefathers. 

Roman. until you repair the crumbling temples and shrines of 

the gods. and the statues that are begrimed with black smoke. It is because 

you hold yourselves inferior to the gods that you rule. For every 

beginning seek their approval: to them attribute its outcome. 

It goes without saying that Epodes 8 and 12, mysteriously absent 

from Bennett's translation. appear in their full iambic glory in the new 

Loeb. Rudd pulls no punches in his renditions of these two: his translations 

of these and the other Epodes are. like his versions of the Odes. far 

more streamlined and more pleasing to the modern ear than are 

Bennett's. They are also. to my ear. livelier and more vigorous than 

Rudd's own treatments of the Odes; given his extensive scholarship on 

both Horace's and Juvenal's satires. Rudd may be more at horne with 

invective than with lyric.


On the negative side, Rudd has made little effort to capture variations 

of tone, whether within individual poems or from poem to poem. 

This is particularly true in the Odes. The result is a certain monotony if 

one attempts to read the collection straight through. While one does not 

generally turn to a Loeb edition for an elegant literary translation. at 

least some indication of internal tonal shifts would have been valuable. 

The almost dispassionate clarity and literalness of the translations make 

this an ideal Loeb for quick reference by the scholar or generalist. but 

by the same token it is not a volume that I would order for the undergraduate 

classroom. 

There are occasional spots within the translations where Rudd's emphasis 

or choice of wording seems awkward. In Odes I. I, Maecenas 

atavis. Rudd italicizes toward the poem's close: 

quodsi me lyricis vatibus inseres 

sublimi feriam sidera vertice. (35-36) 

But if you rank me among the lyric bards of Greece, I shall soar aloft 

and strike the stars with my head. 

The emphasis on "you" does not reflect the Latin; it is an interpretive 

choice, and an incorrect one. In Odes 1.5 he again chooses to stress an 

addressee where the Latin does not do so, delivering heu quatiens fidem 

mutatosque deas flebit as "Too bad for him: many a time will he weep at 

your fickle loyalty and his change of luck." There are stray commas in 

this translation as well-perhaps the copy editor's introduction-that 

might induce the Latinless reader to misinterpret: 

qui nunc te fruitur credulus aurea. 

qui semper vacuam. semper amabilem 

sperat, nescius aurae 

fallacis! (1.5.9-12) 

Now the trusting lad enjoys your golden charms. hoping you will always 

be available. always affectionate-unaware, as he is, of the 

breeze's treachery. 

Rudd also overinterprets at lines 2-3 of Odes 1.14. a navis, referent, 

translating fartiter occupa partum as "One final effort now. and make 

port before it is too late!" Such infelicities are quite rare, though, and 

only stand out because of the overall high quality of the translations. I 

find no problems of this sort in his versions of the Epades. 

Footnotes to the translations are mostly basic, explaining mythologicalor 

historical references to the non-specialist reader. An exception is 

Odes 3.2. 17, where Rudd claims of repulsae ... sardidae that"[ilt is not 

altogether fanciful to see these lines as an allusion to an attempt by the 

Princeps to introduce moral legislation in 28 B.C." I would prefer to 

leave this degree of interpretation to the commentaries; any such note

BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 2°5 

in a translation will seem to the unwary reader more authoritative than 

is desirable. 

These are all relatively minor complaints. however. The new volume 

is in all other respects superlative; it will quickly replace Bennett on 

many bookshelves. 

ELIZABETH H. SUTHERLAND 


UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE 

KNOXVILLE. TN 37996-0413 

ANDREW GILLETT. Envoys and Political Communication in 

the Late Antique West, 411-533. New York: Cambridge 

University Press, 2003. US $65.00. ISBN 0-521-81349-2. 

Envoys and Political Communication is not only a very scholarly book. 

but one which is remarkable for the clarity and thoughtfulness of its 

subject matter and approach. Although at first glance the title may appear 

to be wordy or jargonistic. it has been carefully crafted in order to 

avoid the anachronistic and hence misleading term "diplomacy" (5). for 

Gillett includes the activities of embassies within. as well as between. 

late antique states. The period which he treats in detail is not only neatly 

defined by the formation of the first barbarian kingdoms in the West in 

41 I and the beginning of Justinian's wars in North Africa. Italy and 

Spain in 533. but is also characterized by cultural continuity and pOlitical 

change (6). Gillett sets this study within the wider context of the continuities 

and changes in diplomatic pl'actice from ancient Greece to 

Merovingian Gaul. The geographical purview is confined to Constantinople 

and what had been the Roman empire in the West. 

Gillett is refreshingly aware of the characteristics and limitations of 

his sources. and hence he has written about envoys and the process of 

political communication. not the diplomatic history of the West in the 

fifth century. Because the sources are works of literature. he subjects 

them to literary and historiographical. rather than purely historical. 

analysis. His results are enlightening and persuasive. and frequently 

call into question the interpretations and conclusions of previous scholars. 

He also demonstrates that very little of the constant and ubiquitous 

diplomatic activity of this period has been recorded in any detail and 

that. as a consequence. there has been a tendency to view the few known 

embassies as more important than they really were. Hence he is careful 

to place the embassies which he discusses into their proper historical 

perspective.

206 BOOKREVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 

This is a congenial book to use. The preface is followed by seven 

pages of abbreviations of primary and secondary sources and a fivepage-long 

table setting out the emperors, kings and popes from the 390S 

to the 550s. There are also two maps. Given the complexities of this period 

and the plethora of sources, not all of which will be familiar to all 

readers, it is helpful to have these aids at the beginning. The book ends 

with full bibliographic notes on the major primary sources, as well as a 

standard bibliography and four appendices. Citations, information and 

argumentation additional to the text are conveniently printed as footnotes. 

Chapter I is a lengthy introduction to the subject matter and approach 

of the book. The subsequent chapters each treat a particular 

source or group of sources and follow in chronological order. Chapter 

2 is about Hydatius' Chronicle. Hydatius' interest in embassies makes 

him both unique among chroniclers and the best source for the history 

of the fifth century in the West, albeit from a provincial perspective. 

Gillett discusses the structure of the Chronicle, the presentation of individual 

embassies. and the important question of how Hydatius learned 

about these embassies. He then uses Hydatius as the basis for a detailed 

account of the relations between the Gallaecian provincials, the Sueves 

and the Vandals. Indeed. Hydatius serves as a model of how diplomatic 

relations were conducted throughout the fifth-century West. 

Chapter 3 is an illuminating literary study of Sidonius Apollinaris' 

Panegyric on Avitus which is grounded in the political circumstances of 

its delivery to the Roman Senate in 456. Gillett demonstrates that the 

Panegyric is neither a portrait of the historical Avitus, nor a Gallic political 

manifesto. but rather an affirmation of Avitus' right to rule 

which is based on his success as an envoy and peace maker. Next to the 

Panegyric. the fullest depictions of embassies occur in the four Latin 

lives of fifth- and sixth-century bishops which are treated in chapter 4 

and which emphasise their subjects' diplomatic activities because of the 

increasing social value of the envoy. Indeed, such writings regularly 

and erroneously give the impression that clerics monopolised political 

communication, as in the hagiographical accounts which ignore the fact 

that Trygetius and Avienus accompanied Pope Leo on the embassy to 

Attila. Gillett first examines the Life of Germanus of Auxerre which, 

innovative in its narrative structure and portrait of Germanus. shares 

some motifs with Sidonius' Panegyric. In turn, the Life of Orientius of 

Auch shows the influence of the Life of Germanus. It presents an Orientius 

very different from the one who wrote the Commonitorum and has 

led historians to misinterpret the purpose of his embassy. The author of 

the Life of Vivianus of Saintes was familiar with both the Life of Ger-

BOOK REV/EWS/COMPTES RENDUS 207 

manus and the Life of Martin of Tours. Although Ennodius' Life of 

Epiphanius of Pavia has the fullest accounts of embassies in this group, 

and although both Ennodius and Epiphanius are well-known historical 

figures, this life must be used circumspectly. for not only does it focus 

exclusively on Epiphanius. but Epiphanius is concerned only with protecting 

Liguria. and thus Gillett argues against interpreting this Life as 

either a political manifesto or a mirror for princes. 

In Chapter 5. the perspective shifts from provincial to royal envoys 

with an examination of the careers of Cassiodorus and Senarius. Gillett 

outlines the organization of Cassiodorus' Variae. but concentrates on 

the diplomatic letters which were intended. he argues. to be both models 

of official correspondence and a personal memorial. The Variae 

have little information about the administrative arrrangements made 

for embassies. although one letter deals with financing and one with the 

safeguarding of an envoy's personal affairs while on service. Senarius 

was an official of Theoderic's court who went on twenty-five embassies. 

Although Gillett does not ignore the history of Theoderic's relations 

with Franks. Visigoths and others. his main interest is in the literary 

sources for Senarius' career. These are two letters of appointment written 

by Cassiodorus. one to Senarius and the other to the Senate. ten letters 

from Ennodius. and Senarius' own verse epitaph. The result is a 

well-rounded portrait of an eloquent and successful royal envoy who 

was also engaged in contemporary religious questions like the rebaptism 

of heretics. 

The final chapter is "a sketch of the conventions of practice and 

thought which formed the framework for legatine traffic" (222) and for 

which Gillett adduces both prescriptive and descriptive evidence. De 

ceremoniis aulae Byzantinae records the protocol for receiving envoys 

from both the Western emperor and the Shah of Persia. while the /ndiculi 

written by Pope Hormisdas instruct his envoys to Constantinople 

on how to conduct themselves and how to argue their case. The descriptive 

evidence is found in narrative and other sources. some of which 

have already been examined in earlier chapters. Topics covered range 

from accommodation and transportation to patrons. friends and lovers. 

Two general and predictable points emerge from this survey: the importance 

of ceremony and the literary nature of the evidence. 

In conclusion. scholars who have an interest in either the late antique 

west or diplomacy in the ancient world in general will find that Envoys 

and Political Communication repays a close and careful reading. 

DAVID F. BUCK 

CLASSICS DEPARTMENT 

UNIVERSITY OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND 

CHARLOTTETOWN. PE CIA 4P3


BART D. EHRMAN, ed. and trans. The Apostolic Fathers, Vols. 

I and 2. Loeb Classical Library. London: Harvard University 

Press, 2003. US $21.50 per volume. Vol. I, ISBN 0-674 

996°7-0; Vol. 2, ISBN 2-674-99608-9. 

Bart D. Ehrman's two-volume Greek-English edition and translation of 

the Apostolic Fathers is intended "to replace the original Loeb volumes 

produced by Kirsopp Lake" (vii) in 1912. While Lake's work has been an 

invaluable source for the study of Christian antiquity for over ninety 

years. advances in scholarship and textual criticism, as well as changes 

in the English language, have left it wanting. For this reason, Ehrman's 

edition is not simply a reworking of Lake. but an entirely new undertaking. 

The corpus of the Apostolic Fathers represents the works not of a 

single author. but of a number of different authors writing in different 

genres at different times. To Lake's collection of nine authors, Ehrman 

has added two more: Papias and Quadratus. Although the works of 

these two authors do not survive independently in our extant manuscripts, 

but are merely cited by later Christian writers, Ehrman has included 

them in his edition because of their early dates. 

The layout of this edition is similar to that of Lake's in that it provides 

a General Introduction to the corpus of works as well as separate 

Introductions to the individual text or texts. But whereas Lake's introductions. 

like those in most earlier Loeb editions, offer only an overview 

of the author, the date. the purpose. and the textual tradition of 

the work or works, Ehrman's go far beyond this. Indeed. it is in his introductions 

that the value of his edition is most evident. 

Following Lake, Ehrman begins his General Introduction with the 

time-honoured definition of the title Apostolic Fathers. viz. "a disparate 

collection of early Christian writings whose authors were traditionally 

believed to have been followers or companions of the apostles of Jesus, 

and who were thought ... to have produced their works soon after the 

books of the New Testament were completed" (I). But whereas Lake 

simply acknowledges the title's inadequacy, Ehrman continues with insightful 

and scholarly treatments of the history of the term "apostolic 

father"; the collection and circulation of these works in antiquity; the 

rise of interest in the Apostolic Fathers from Renaissance times to the 

seventeenth century when the first modern collection was made; and 

the age-old debate, which has continued to the present day. on whether 

or not the idea of a corpus of works known as the Apostolic Fathers 

should be abandoned, and if not, which works should be included. He 

concludes that the Apostolic Fathers "is not an authoritative collection 

of books. but a convenient one, which. in conjunction with ... other

BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 2°9 

[seemingly arbitrary collections of second- and third-century Christian 

writings] can enlighten us concerning the character of early Christianity. 

its external appeal and inner dynamics. its rich and significant diversity. 

and its developing understandings of its own self-identity. social 

distinctiveness. theology. ethical norms. and liturgical practices" 

(13-14). A Select Bibliography of both primary and secondary sources is 

appended. 

Ehrman's Introductions to the individual texts are no less informative. 

Each one includes an overview of the particular work (or in the 

case of Ignatius' Letters. collection of works). a survey of the manuscript 

tradition. a list of abbreviations used in the apparatus. and a select 

bibliography of secondary sources. In addition. he presents the 

views of contemporary scholars on such questions as the author; the 

date and/or the place of composition; the occasion. the recipient. the 

purpose. and/or the historical significance of the work; and the integrity 

of the text. 

His Introduction to Ignatius' Letters is a prime example. for he raises 

several interesting and challenging questions. The first concerns the 

nature of the heresy or group of heresies that Ignatius was targeting in 

his Letters. Was he concerned solely with Judaizing Gnostics? Or with 

both Judaizers and Docetists? Or with Judaizers. Docetists. and a third 

group who opposed Ignatius' notion of monepiscopacy? Or with several 

Gnostic groups that appear only at a later period. a view which 

necessitates the redating of the letters to the latter half of the second 

century? He also queries the situation that Ignatius was leaving behind 

in Antioch: Was the Church being persecuted from without or torn 

apart from within. and if the latter. was the issue right belief or leadership 

in the Church? A third question concerns the reason for Ignatius' 

removal to Rome. Was he under arrest for his Christian activities in 

Antioch and being sent to Rome to stand trial because he was a Roman 

citizen? Was he being sent to Rome because the chief administrator in 

Antioch at that time did not have imperium? Or was he being sent to 

Rome as a gift by the Syrian governor. a criminal donated for the Roman 

games? Ehrman also includes in this Introduction a discussion of 

the three recensions of Ignatius' Letters-the "long." the "middle," and 

the "short"-recounting the discovery and the chequered scholarly history 

of each and pointing to the "middle" recension. comprising the 

seven letters mentioned by Eusebius in their noninterpolated form. as 

the one generally regarded as original. 

Ehrman states in his Preface that he has tried to "make the translation 

both readable and closely tied to the Greek text." He has kept" the 

strong patriarchal biases of the texts, which form part of their histodcal 

interest and significance." and he has attempted "to reflect the occa-

210 BOOK REVIEWSjCOMPTES RENDUS 

sional awkwardness of the texts. including ... the striking anacolutha in 

the letters of Ignatius" (viii). On the whole. Ehrman has succeeded in 

producing a close translation of the texts in modern. scholarly English 

without compromising either their historical authenticity or their 

uniqueness. As with any translation, however. there are infelicities. 

One instance occurs in the Epistle of Barnabas 1.4 with the words 

CVVEIOWC EI-\OVTt;), OTI EV VI-\IV AoAfjcoc TToAAa ETTlcTOI-\OI. Ehrman's 

translation of the entire passage reads as follows: "And so. since I have 

been persuaded about this and realize that I who have spoken to you 

know many things (since the Lord has traveled along with me in the 

path of righteousness). I have also felt fully compelled to love you more 

than my own soul. For a great faith and love dwell within you in the 

hope of his life." Since Barnabas is here extolling the abundance of the 

divine spirit among his recipients and acknowledging that the Lord is 

his fellow traveller on the path of righteousness, one would not expect 

him to speak with such condescension and pride. Lake's translation of 

the Greek is much more in keeping with the spirit of the Epistle: "being 

conscious that since I spoke among you I have much understanding." 

A second instance. in the Shepherd of Hermas. concerns the Greek 

words l;fjcD Tt;) 8Et;). an expression which recurs throughout the text 

and which. like Lake, Ehrman usually translates as "you will live to 

God." While this reviewer would question what it means. in English. to 

live to God. what causes concern is the fact that Ehrman does not use 

this translation consistently throughout the work. but renders it as living 

"in him." i.e.. in God. in 37(VII).4. and as living "for God" in 

77(VIII. I I ).3. Since this expression appears repeatedly in the text and 

thus had a technical meaning for the author. it should be treated uniformly 

throughout. 

This two-volume Greek-English edition of the Apostolic Fathers is a 

valuable addition to the Loeb collection. Ehrman has produced an eminently 

readable modern translation which is closely tied to the Greek 

text. It is his scholarly introductions. however. complete with select bibliography. 

that most differentiate his volumes from those of Lake. 

LORRAINE BUCK 

RELIGIOUS STUDIES DEPARTMENT 

UNIVERSITY OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND 

CHARLOTTETOWN. PE CIA 4P3

On Richard Hind 

EPITAPHS 

Here lies the body of Richard Hind 

who was neither ingenious. sober. nor kind. 

Cervius hie situs est. vir donee vita manebat 

artibus. obsequio. sobrietate carens. 

On George Gordon. Lord Byron 

Posterity will ne'er survey 

A nobler grave than this: 

Here lie the bones of Castlereagh: 

Stop. traveller. and piss. 

haec Luci Sullae sunt uniea busta. viator: 

haec ad busta gradum comprime, meie. cacao 

On Sir John Vanbrugh, architect. by Abel Evans 

Under this stone. reader. survey 

Dead Sir John Vanbrugh's house of clay. 

Lie heavy on him. earth. for he 

Laid many heavy loads on thee. 

sub saxo hoc. lautarum opifex praeclare domorum. 

ipse tenes luteam turpiculamque domum. 

quod gravia in terra tu ponere saepe solebas 

pondera tectorum, sit tibi terra gravis. 

P. MURGATROYD 


MCMASTER UNIVERSITY 

HAMILTON. ON L8S 4M2

LECHAT 

Viens. mon beau chat. sur mon coeur amoureux: 

Retiens les griffes de ta patte. 

Et laisse-moi plonger dans tes beaux yeux. 

Meles de metal et d'agate. 

Lorsque mes doigts caressent aloisir 

Ta tete et ton dos elastique, 

Et que rna main s'enivre du plaisir 

De palper ton corps electrique, 

Je vois rna femme en esprit. Son regard. 

Comme Ie tien. aimable bete. 

Profond et froid, coupe et fend comme un dard, 

Et. des pieds jusques ala tete. 

Un air subtil. un dangereux parfum 

Nagent autour de son corps bruno 

CHARLES BAUDELAIRE 

in mea corda veni revocatis unguibus aegra; 

formosa 0 feles, in mea corda veni. 

in pulchris oculis tibi sunt adamas ac achates; 

in pulchros oculos mergere me liceat. 

cum digiti tractant vacui tua mollia terga, 

cumque caput palpant. dextraque nostra tui 

ebria deliciis demulcet corporis aestus. 

tum dominam videor mente videre meam. 

more tuo nam torva tuens, 0 bellua bella. 

lumine. ceu telis. haec secat et penetrat; 

se tendunt aurae tenuisque pericla per artus 

de pedibus piceis usque caput piceum. 

P. MURGATROYD 


MCMASTER UNIVERSITY 

HAMILTON, ON L854M2 

212

MOUSEION - Memorial University of Newfoundland

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?