[Much of my site will be useless to you if you've got the images turned off!]
mail:
Bill Thayer

[Link to a series of help pages]
Help
[Link to the next level up]
Up
[Link to my homepage]
Home

This webpage reproduces an article in
Classical Philology
Vol. 24, No. 2 (Apr. 1929), pp109‑132.

The text is in the public domain.

This page has been carefully proofread
and I believe it to be free of errors.
If you find a mistake though,
please let me know!

 p109  The Text Tradition and Authorship
of the Laus Pisonis

By B. L. Ullman

The varying fortunes of the literary productions of antiquity are of peculiar interest. Just why some bits have survived while others have perished is often a mystery, though one which can sometimes be solved by the approved methods of philological detectives. Again, among the surviving works some are highly favored, while others no less beautiful, or let us say no more ugly, are neglected and treated like stepchildren. Take as examples two panegyrics in verse form, both anonymous, one that of Messalla, the other of Calpurnius Piso. The former has survived through its inclusion in the collection of Tibullus' poems and is reprinted in every new edition of that writer; the latter has no such intimate connection with an important author and is rarely reprinted.

The panegyric of Piso was first published by Sichard in his edition of Ovid (Basel, 1527). He used as a basis a Lorsch manuscript which has since disappeared. No other complete manuscript is known. The only manuscripts in existence today are a group of florilegia which give, though in places in an adapted form, 196 of the 261 verses.

Sichard tells us that in his manuscript the poem was attributed to Virgil, but since he published it in an edition of Ovid and since the florilegia name its author as Lucan, it has failed to find a permanent home in the works of any of these authors.

As to the author, it is now rather generally agreed that he lived in the first century of our era⁠1 and that the subject of the panegyric is  p110 the Calpurnius Piso who was the leader in the conspiracy that brought about his death and that of Seneca and Lucan in the year 65. This date is therefore a terminus ante quem for the poem.

As just stated, the lost Lorsch manuscript attributed the poem to Virgil. It is perhaps likely on a priori grounds that the manuscript contained also the minor works of Virgil. There is evidence as well as likelihood in favor of this suggestion, as we shall now see.

Apparently in the same Lorsch manuscript Sichard found twenty lines of epigrams about Virgil attributed to Ovid.⁠2 While these verses are found in manuscripts of Virgil's major works and in other manuscripts, there is at least one group of manuscripts which contains them (ten lines only) together with some of the poems of the Appendix Vergiliana.⁠3 It might even be fairly inferred from Sichard's words that the Ovidian verses preceded the panegyric.⁠4 He also printed them before that poem. If this inference is correct, it is likely that the Ovidian verses were followed by the minor poems of Virgil (as in the iuvenalis ludi libellus) and these in turn by our poem. Sichard said nothing about the Virgilian poems because they were already known.

The only mediaeval reference to the minor poems of Virgil is in a ninth-century catalogue of the monastery of Murbach:

279. Virgilius Bucolicon. 280. Georgicon. 281. Liber Eneydos. 282. Eiusdem Dire, Culicis, Ethne, Copa, Mecenas, Ciris, Catalepion, Priapeya, Moretum.⁠5

Now Lorsch was not very far from Murbach, and it is safe to assume that copies of most of the works existing in either monastery found their way into the other.6

 p111  To sum up at this point: The Lorsch manuscript attributed the poem to Virgil. It also contained certain verses about Virgil. General probability suggests that it also contained the minor poems of Virgil. In a number of existing manuscripts the verses about Virgil are found with the minor poems. The only mediaeval reference to the minor poems is in a catalogue of Murbach, which is not so far away from Lorsch.7

So far we have been dealing only with possibilities in regard to the position of the Laus Pisonis among Virgil's works. What I have been leading up to is to point out the significance of the position and title of our poem in the florilegia. Here we find selections from the Culex and Aetna followed by the Laus Pisonis with the heading "Lucanus in Catalecton" and the title De laude Pisonis, etc.⁠8 The first line under this is one from the Ciris, followed by one from the panegyric. Obviously our poem is here mixed up with the Virgilian Catalepton and Ciris. Thus the florilegia point to association of our poem with the minor works of Virgil in some earlier manuscript and account for the attribution of our panegyric to Virgil in the Lorsch manuscript. The same is indicated by the only mediaeval reference to the panegyric, in a French catalogue of the eleventh century: Liber Catalepton Pisoni.9

There is a further indication of relation­ship between the florilegia and the Lorsch-Murbach tradition (if we are right in assuming the identity of the traditions at Lorsch and Murbach). The order of the works cited in the florilegia is Culex, Aetna, Ciris, Catalepton (or possibly Catalepton, Ciris). The same order is found in the Murbach catalogue already cited. No existing manuscript of those reported by Ribbeck, Baehrens, and Vollmer has this order except one (Wolfenbüttel, Helmstadt 332).10

 p112  It seems, then, that the florilegia are of value in explaining the false attribution to Virgil. Do they help us in the more important question of determining the identity of the author? The attribution to Lucan which they make seems not to have been taken seriously until recently. Miss Martin⁠11 has shown the weakness of the objections to this attribution and has listed a number of verbal similarities between the panegyric and the Pharsalia. Several of these are rather striking: purpura fasces occurs at the end of a line in L. P. 70 and Lucan II.19. Again, the sentence fessa labat mihi pondere cervix (L. P. 75) suggests Lucan IV.754, fessa iacet cervix, and II.204, dubiaque labant cervice.⁠12 It should be added that Miss Martin merely presents the evidence and does not feel justified in deciding the issue.13

To come back to the florilegia, the attribution of our poem to Lucan is due either to correct tradition or to the fact that some reader correctly concluded that the Piso referred to was the conspirator of the year 65 and recalled that Lucan took part in that conspiracy. The former alternative certainly seems more probable, if we grant that the internal evidence does not make the attribution impossible. This evidence will be discussed later in this paper.

Two Paris florilegia (7647, 17903) have been used to support the text based on the Lorsch manuscript. In addition, editors have used the readings of a Codex Atrebatensis reported by Hadrianus Junius in his Animadversorum Libri (1556). This manuscript has been supposed to be lost. Baehrens says of it⁠14 that it mire convenit with the florilegia, and that it was either the Paris manuscript 7647 itself or  p113 certainly a copy of it. Miss Martin refutes this,⁠15 and declares that it is quite possible that the lost manuscript contained the entire poem.

It seems not to have occurred to anyone that the "lost" Atrebatensis might still be in existence, much less that it might still be in the town where Junius saw it. Now "Atrebatensis" refers to the northern French town of Arras, and in the library of Arras there is a florilegium (64) of exactly the same type as those in Paris.⁠16 Presumably it has been in that town ever since Junius heard of its presence there 374 years ago! Thus endeth another dispute.

A fourth member of this group of florilegia is in the Escorial (Q.I. 14). This, too, has not been used for the text of the Laus Pisonis.17

A Berlin florilegium (Diez. B. 60, f. 29) contains a few lines. This manuscript is closely related to and probably descended from the Escorial manuscript. Its readings for the panegyric were reported by Peiper in his edition of the Aulularia (Querolus) (1875), page xvi.

Since these florilegia are the only existing manuscripts containing the panegyric, it seems worth while to print a restoration of their archetype, after which I shall discuss pertinent points.18

The running head "Lucanus in Catalecton" is found three times in p, twice in a, once in e (which also has merely "Lucanus" once). There are no running heads in n, and it could therefore be argued that the running head goes no farther back than the common archetype of e p a. We might grant the possibility that the attribution to Lucan goes no farther back than that if it were not for the words in Catalecton. No explanation for this can be found in the florilegia themselves, and therefore the entire running head must go back to the archetype of all the florilegia.

 p114  De laude⁠1 Pisonis non tantum genere clari⁠2
set etiam virtute multiplici⁠3

Ciris 339 Nichil est quod texitur ordine longum.

¶⁠54 Unde prius cepti surgat mihi carminis ordo

Quosve canam titulos⁠6 dubius feror. hinc tua Piso

Nobilitas veterisque citant sublimia Calpi⁠7

Nomina Romanas⁠8 inter fulgentia gentes,

5 Hinc⁠9 tua me virtus rapit et miranda per omnes⁠10

Vita modos; que si⁠11 deesset⁠12 tibi⁠13 forte⁠14 creato

Nobilitas, eadem pro nobilitate fuisset.

Nam quid imaginibus,⁠15 quid avitis fulta triumphis

Atria, quid pleni numeroso consule fasti

10 Profuerint⁠16 cui vita labat? perit omnis in illo

Nobilitas cuius laus est in origine sola.

17 Felix qui claris⁠18 animum natalibus equas

13 Et partem tituli, non⁠19 summam, ponis⁠20 in illis.

2621tamen⁠22 et⁠23 si bella quierunt⁠24

Non periit virtus;⁠25 licet⁠26 exercere togate

Munia⁠27 militie,⁠28 licet et sine sanguinis⁠29 haustu⁠30

Mitia legitimo sub iudice⁠31 bella movere.

30 Hinc quoque servati contingit gloria civis

31 Altaque victrices⁠32 intexunt limina⁠33 palme.

De eloquentia eiusdem Pisonis⁠34

37  p115  Queque patrum claros quondam visura⁠35 triumphos

Omnes⁠36 turba vias impleverat agmine denso,

37 Ardua nunc eadem stipat fora cum tua mestos⁠38

40 Defensura reos vocem⁠39 facundia⁠40 mittit.

4441 Laudibus ipsa tuis resonant fora. tu⁠42[An underscored blank]43 Piso⁠44

45 Iudicis affectum possessaque pectora⁠45 ducis⁠46

Victor. sponte⁠47 sua⁠48 sequitur quocumque vocasti.

Flet si flere iubet,⁠49 gaudet gaudere coactus

Et te dante capit⁠50 iudex quam non⁠51 habet iram.

52 Sic auriga⁠53 solet ferventia Thessalus⁠54 ora

50 Mobilibus⁠55 frenis in aperto flectere campo

Qui modo non solum rapido permittit habenas

Quadrupedi⁠56 sed calce citat, modo succutit⁠57 arce⁠58

Flexibiles⁠59 rictus et nunc cervice rotata⁠60

Incipit effusos⁠61 in girum carpere cursus.

55 Quis non attonitus iudex⁠62 tua respicit ora?

Quis regit ipse suam nisi per tua⁠63 pondera⁠64 mentem?

Nam tu sive libet pariter cum grandine nimbos

 p116  Densaque vibrata⁠65 iaculari fulmina⁠66 lingua,⁠67

Seu iuvat⁠68 astrictas in nodum cogere voces

60 Et dare subtili vivatia⁠69 verba⁠70 cathene,

Vim⁠71 Laerciade,⁠72 brevitatem vincis⁠73 Atride;

Dulcia⁠74 seu mavis liquidoque fluentia cursu

Verba nec incluso sed aperto pingere flore,

Inclita Nestorei cedit⁠75 tibi gratia mellis.

65 Nec te, Piso,⁠76 tamen populo sub iudice sola

Mirantur fora sed numerosa laude senatus

67 Excipit et meritas reddit tibi curia voces.

84 Huc⁠77 etiam tota concurrit ab urbe iuventus

85 Auditura virum si quando iudice fesso

Turbida prolatis⁠78 tacuerunt iurgia⁠79 rebus.

Tunc etenim levibus veluti proludit⁠80 in armis

81 Compositisque suas exercet litibus artes.⁠82

Quin etiam facilis Romano profluit ore

90 Grecia⁠83 Cicropieque⁠84 sonat gravis emulus urbi.

94 Vocibus hinc⁠85 solido fulgore⁠86 micantia verba

95 Implevere locos,⁠87 hinc⁠88 exornata⁠89 figuris

Advolat excusso velox sententia torno.⁠90

Diligentius hic incipit enumerare optimos eius mores⁠91

Magna quidem virtus erat et si sola fuisset

Eloquio sanctum modo permulcere senatum

Exhonerare⁠92 pios modo, nunc honerare⁠93 nocentes;

100 Sed super ista movet⁠94 plenus gravitate serena

 p117  Vultus et insigni prestringit imagine visus.

Talis inest habitus qualem nec dicere⁠95 mestum

Nec fluidum, leta sed tetricitate⁠96 decorum

Possumus; ingenite stat nobilitatis⁠97 in illo

105 Pulcher⁠98 honos et digna suis natalibus ora.

Additur⁠99 huc et iusta fides et plena pudoris

Libertas animusque mala ferrugine purus,

Ipsaque possesso mens⁠100 est opulentior auro.

Quis tua cultorum, iuvenis facunde,⁠101 tuorum

110 Limina⁠102 pauper adit,⁠103 quem non animosa beatum

Excipit et subito iuvat⁠104 indulgentia censu?⁠105

Quam sincerus esset in dilectione amicorum⁠106

¶⁠107 Quodque magis dono⁠108 fuerit⁠109 pretiosius⁠110 omni,⁠111

Diligit⁠112 ex equo nec te⁠113 fortuna colentum⁠114

Natalesve movent; probitas spectatur in⁠115 illis.

115 Nulla superborum patiuntur⁠116 dicta⁠117 iocorum,⁠118

Nullius subitos⁠119 affert iniuria risus;

Unus amicitie summos tenor ambit et imos.

Rara⁠120 domus tenuem non aspernatur amicum

Raraque non humilem⁠121 calcat fastosa clientem;

120 Illi⁠122 casta licet domus⁠123 et sine crimine constet

Vita,⁠124 tamen probitas cum paupertate⁠125 iacebit.

 p118  Nullus iamJJJ lateriJJJ comitem circumdare queritJJJ

QuemJJJ dat purusJJJ amorJJJ

Nec quisquam veroJJJ pretiumJJJ largiturJJJ amico

125 Quem regatJJJ ex equo vicibusqueJJJ regaturJJJ ab illo

JJJ Sed miserumJJJ parva stipeJJJ[An underscored blank]JJJ ut pudibundosJJJ

Exercere sales inter convivia possit.

Ista procul labes, proculJJJ hec fortuna refugit,

Piso,JJJ tuam, venerande, domum, tu mitisJJJ et acri

130 Asperitate carens positoque per omnia fastu

Inter etJJJ equales unusJJJ numerarisJJJ amicos

Obsequiumque doces et amorem queris amando.

JJJ Quod non vacaretJJJ otioJJJ sed pro loco et tempore honestisJJJ
exercitiisJJJ occupatus cum suisJJJ esset

JJJ Cuncta domus varia cultorumJJJ personat arte,

Cuncta movet studium; nec enim tibi dura clientum

135 Turba rudisveJJJ placet misero queJJJ freta laboreJJJ

Nil nisi summotoJJJ novit precedereJJJ vulgo;

SedJJJ virtus numerosa iuvat. tu pronus in omne

Pectora ducis opus seu te graviora vocaruntJJJ

Seu leviora iuvant.JJJ nec enim facundiaJJJ semper

140 Adducta cumJJJ fronte placet. nec semper in armis

 p119  Bellica turba manet nec tota classicus horror

Nocte dieque gemit nec semper Gnosius arcu

Destinat, exempto sed laxat cornua ferro

Et galea miles caput et latus ense resolvit.

145 Ipsa vices natura subit variataque cursus

147 Non semper fluidis adopertus nubibus ether

Aurea terrificis obcecat sidera nimbis.

Cessat hiems, madidos et siccat vere capillos;

150 Ver fugit estates; estatum terga lacessit

151 Pomifer autumpnus nimbis cessurus et undis.

155 Temporibus servire decet; qui tempora certis

Ponderibus pensavit eum si bella vocabunt

Miles erit; si pax, positis toga vestiet armis.

Hunc fora paccatum, bellantem castra decebunt.

Felix illa dies totumque canenda per orbem

160 Que tibi vitales cum primum traderet auras

Contulit innumeras intra tua pectora dotes.

Quod interdum gravis, interdum non ridiculose
set decenter esset urbanus

Mira subest gravitas inter fora, mirus omissa

Paulisper gravitate lepos. si carmina forte

Nectere ludenti iuvit fluitantia versu,

165 Aonium facilis deducit pagina carmen;

Sive chelim digitis et eburno verbere pulsas,

Dulcis Apollinea sequitur testudine cantus

Et te credibile est Phebo didicisse magistro.

 p120  Ne pudeat pepulisse liram, cum pace serena

170 Publica securis exultent otia terris,

173 Ipse fidem movisse ferox narratur Achilles.

176 Illo dulce melos Nereius extudit heros

Pollice terribilis quo Pelias ibat in hostem.

Quam circumspectus animosus et promptus in armis extiterit

178 Armatos etiam si forte rotare lacertos

Inque gradum clausis libuit consistere membris

180 Et vitare simul, simul et raptare petentem,

Mobilitate pedum celeres super orbibus orbes

et obliquis fugientem cursibus urges

Et nunc vivaci scrutaris pectora dextra,

184 Nunc latus adversum necopino percutis ictu.

188 Heret in hec populus spectacula totaque lusus

Turba repente suos iam sudabunda relinquid.º

209 Sed prius emenso Titan versetur olimpo

210 Quam mea tot laudes decurrere carmina possint.

Felix et longa iuvenis dignissime vita

Eximiumque tue gentis decus, accipe nostri

Certus et hec veri complectere pignus amoris.

Excusatio auctoris quod minus sufficiat ad exprimendas
omnes eius laudes

214 Quod si digna tua minus est mea pagina laude,

215 At voluisse sat est; animum, non carmina iacto.

 p121  Tu modo letus ades; forsan maiora canemus

Et vires dabit ipse favor, dabit ipsa feracem

Spes animum. dignare tuos aperire Penates;

Hoc solum petimus. nec enim me divitis auri

220 Imperiosa fames et habendi seva libido

Impulerint sed laudis amor. iuvat, optime, tecum

Degere cumque tuis virtutibus omne per evum

Carminibus certare meis; sublimior ibo

Si fame mihi pandis iter, si detrahis umbram.

225 Abdita quid prodest generosi vena metalli

Si cultore caret? quid inerti condita portu,

Si ductoris eget, ratis efficit, omnia quamvis

Armamenta gerat teretique fluentia malo

Possit et excusso demittere vela rudenti?

230 Ipse per Ausonias Eneia carmina gentes

Qui sonat, ingenti qui nomine pulsat Olimpum

Meoniumque senem Romano provocat ore,

Forsitan illius nemoris latuisset in umbra

Quod canit et sterili tantum cantasset avena

235 Ignotus populis si Mecenate careret.

Qui tamen haut uni patefecit limina vati

Nec sua Virgilio permisit nomina soli.

Mecenas tragico quatientem pulpita gestu

Evexit Varum, Mecenas alta toantisº

240 Eruit et populis ostendit nomina Grais.

 p122  Carmina Romanis etiam resonantia cordis

Ausoniamque chelim gracilis patefecit Horatii.

O decus et toto merito venerabilis evo

Pierii tutela chori, quo preside tuti

245 Non unquam vates inopi timuere senecte.

Quantum anhelet Pisonis attollere laudes hic iterum aperit

246 Quod siquis nostris precibus locus et mea vota

Si mentem subiere tuam, memorabilis olim

Tu mihi Maecenas tereti cantabere versu.

Possumus eterne nomen committere fame

250 Si tamen hoc ulli de se promittere fas est

Et deus ultor abest. superest animosa voluntas

Ipsaque nescio quid mens excellentius audet.

Tu nanti protende manum, tu, Piso, latentem

Exere. nos humilis domus et sincera parentum

255 Sed tenuis fortuna sua caligine celat.

Possumus impositis caput exonerare tenebris

Et lucem spectare novam si quid modo letus

Annuis et nostris subscribis, candide, votis.

Est mihi crede meis animus constantior annis,

260 Quamvis nunc iuvenile decus mihi pingere malas

261 Ceperit et nondum vicesima venerit etas.

77 Sed nec olorinos audet Pandionis ales

Parva referre sonos nec, si velit improba possit;

Et Pandionia superantur voce cicade,

80 Stridula cum rapido faciunt convitia soli.

 p123  It was shown in the previous article that p and a had a common ancestor, that this ancestor and e were descended from the same original, and that the common ancestor of e p a was a sister or cousin of n. Thus the testimony of n is worth as much as that of the other three manuscripts together. A number of instances were quoted from the Laus Pisonis in substantiation of this view. Others may be found in the apparatus. Three apparent exceptions in addition to those previously given are the following:

94 hinc n a hinc (huic?) p huic e

95 hinc a hic n huic e p

96 torno n a torvo e p

The first two examples are hardly significant in view of the difficulty of deciding whether p has hinc or huic in the first passage. In the second passage I have given the reading of p as huic, but the difficulty of distinguishing u and n in this manuscript makes this doubtful. The same situation holds in the third example.

In 158, n alone has the right reading decebunt; S e p a have docebunt. This is probably an example of independent error on the part of S and the archetype of e p a, though it might be argued that n (or its parent) corrected docebunt to decebunt.19

In 166, S n correctly have verbere; e p a have vulnere. But e started to write verbere (he got as far as ub or ub'). This shows that in the archetype of e p a vulnere was introduced as a variant.

In 215, S has carmine as a variant. This is the reading of n in the text, corrected to carmina in the margin. This apparently means that the common archetype of S and the florilegia had the wrong carmine, which was then corrected in the archetype of e p a and independently by Sichard in his edition.

I have suggested that b is descended from e. In 125 e and b wrongly have rogat and rogatur, where the others have regat and regatur. In 123, e corrects Qui to Quem (the reading of n p a) in such a way that it could easily be taken for Quam (the reading of b). On the other hand, in 131, b has the right reading numeraris with n p a against numerabis in e. This might of course be one of the numerous corrections and changes introduced into the b tradition.

 p124  The rediscovery of a naturally settles some questions about Junius' edition. For example, Wölfflin⁠20 suggests that certain readings are Junius' own emendations. Some of these are now found in a (and in some of the other florilegia): 47 iubes (as corrected in a), 113 clientum, 126 munerat (a2), 221 Impulerit, 237 nomina. Of these munerat is given by an early hand only in a.21

Scaliger, as has been shown,⁠22 had a florilegium similar to n e p a but not identical with any of them. In his Publii Virgilii Maronis Appendix (1572) Scaliger says of the Laus Pisonis:

Hanc Lucani Eclogam esse, fidem fecerit et scheda calamo exarata, in qua ita scriptum inveni: Lucani Catalecton De Laude Pisonis.

If his report is entirely accurate, his manuscript incorporated the running head with the title in a manner not found in any of our manuscripts. The closest resemblance is to e and b.⁠23 Scaliger says further:

Videtur autem initium huic poematio deesse. Nam ita in manu scripto incipit.

Nihil est, quod texas ordine, longum.

The reading texas for texitur was probably not found in Scaliger's manuscript.⁠24 The rest of the line agrees with the florilegia. Scaliger's further remark is rather naïve: Not recognizing that the line is quoted at the beginning of the Laus Pisonis through a confusion, he suggests that it must have been a proverbial expression, as it is also found in the Ciris.25

terminus post quem for the late hand which entered numerous readings in the margin of p is furnished by the reading in 238, which  p125 refers to an edition printed by Colinaeus at Paris. Three editions (of Ovid) were issued by this printer in 1529, 1541, 1545. Unfortunately they seem to be very rare, for Weber could find no trace of them anywhere. Without a report of their readings it is possible to say only that the hand in p must be later than 1529. According to Weber, Brunet reports that the three Lyons editions (1540, 1550, 1555) were based on the Paris edition of 1529. If this is true, we may assume that some of the late readings in the margin of p which agree with one of the Lyons editions go back to the Paris edition of 1529 (or one of the later Paris reprints). Among them are: 52 torquet in auras, 113 Diligis, 182 Flectis, 213 hoc, 79 Sic et Aedonia. There are some indications that the late hand in p had access to Junius' edition of 1556. The readings quoque (44) and munerat (126) probably appeared in print for the first time in the 1556 edition. Junius found them in a. A late hand added quoque to n also. This hand therefore is to be dated after 1556.

The late hand in p mentions also an edition of Horace published by Colinaeus (see on 239). His editions are dated 1528, 1531, 1533, etc. A comparison of these (none of which is accessible to me) with the note on 239 might furnish a later terminus post quem.

In 120 the late hand in p added the word mens. Baehrens says that from there it found its way into the editions. It is more likely that the annotator of p got it from a printed edition, since he explicitly tells us that he got caestu (238) from one. The earliest occurrence of mens in the editions whose readings have been reported is in the one printed in Basel in 1534. Again we do not know about the Paris editions.

As to the further history of the tradition of the panegyric, little remains to be said. Vincent of Beauvais does not quote from it, apparently. We have already seen⁠26 that Guglielmo da Pastrengo, living at Verona in the fourteenth century, must have obtained his knowledge of the panegyric from a florilegium. Only one other possible reference to the panegyric (and that only by inference) is known to me. Sabbadini⁠27 calls attention to a Liber Lucani maioris listed in a Pavia inventory of the fifteenth century.⁠28 This, he thinks, indicates  p126 that a minor work attributed to Lucan was known, and this could only be the Laus Pisonis. In the same way the Metamorphoses of Ovid are often referred to us as Ovidius maior. A further suggestion may be made. Many of the books in the Pavia library came from Verona, where there was a florilegium containing the panegyric. Possibly, therefore, the expression "Lucanus maior" originated in Verona as a result of acquaintance with the florilegium containing the Laus Pisonis and was entered in a copy of the Pharsalia.

I shall now discuss the text of several passages in the light of facts now available from the florilegia.

44 dura Piso nam S tu        Piso n e p a tu quoque Piso a2

The last two editors have gone astray on this passage, it seems to me. The reading of a2 was adopted by Junius and after him by other editors. This is the reading which Miss Martin accepts for her text, though she admits its difficulty. While quoque was introduced into a by a relatively early hand, it clearly is a pure guess (and a poor one at that) to make the line metrical. Baehrens furnishes an emendation of his own which has no merit. The best suggestion thus far made is that of Unger, tu rapis omnem, though an emendation preserving the name Piso, found in both S and the florilegia, would seem preferable.

45‑46 ducis Victor; n e p a tentas; Victus S

Baehrens follows S; Miss Martin, the florilegia. The latter seems to furnish better guidance. To be sure, S should generally be given preference, especially when there is such a radical difference of reading between the two verbs, for in the florilegia there are often violent changes. But ducis goes better with rapis and possessa and keeps up the military comparison in a better way.⁠29 Victor is preferable to Victus because it at once explains ducis and because it is more complimentary to Piso.

47 libet S iubet n a iubes e p a1

Baehrens and Miss Martin adopt iubes. But the agreement of S and n a clearly point to lubet as the reading of the common archetype.30  p127 This would require that eum as well as tibi be supplied in thought. Such a construction is perhaps unparalleled and too harsh to be tolerated. Yet there is no possibility of ambiguity — the final test in a matter of this sort. A comparison to Lucan is not out of place (V.371):

Nil magis adsuetas sceleri quam perdere mentes

Atque perire timet.

Weise interprets mentes as the object of perdere and the subject of perire. Haskins translates Weise's rendering thus:

There is nothing that he [Caesar] dreads more than to lose hearts inured to guilt, and that they should be wasted.

Haskins objects that this is too harsh, and takes Caesar as subject of both infinitives, translating atque perire as "and so be ruined." But Weise's interpretation is more natural. There are other instances of awkwardness of the same general sort in Lucan.31

There are many examples in Latin similar to these from Lucan and the panegyric. In Horace Serm. I.9.62‑63 we read:

"Unde venis et

"Quo tendis?" rogat et respondet.

This means "he asks [and I ask] and he answers [and I answer]," etc. A still better case is ibid. II.3.192:

Ergo consulere et mox respondere licebit?

Some editors point out that licebit is properly used only with consulere, and that with respondere there should be tibi libebit. Others interpret without change of subject, in which case the line may be interpreted like I.9.62‑63. By the former interpretation the sentence is somewhat similar to the line of the panegyric under discussion.

51 rapido S n e p a

Baehrens changed to rabido, as he often did elsewhere as a result of a favorite and overworked fad of his. This reading is not only unnecessary here but distinctly inferior.

52 arce n e p a om. S

Although n does not have arte, as reported by Roth, this is still the best reading. In fact, the agreement of all the florilegia in the senseless reading arce is a better guaranty of the genuineness of arte  p128 than the reading arte would have been, for its shows that the maker of the florilegium had arce before him, that therefore arte is not due to his emendation but rather goes back to an earlier stage.

120 Illi n Illic S Illa e p a

Palaeographically there is a great deal to be said for Illic. The reading Illa may be due to familiarity with a form of a shaped like ic. But, on the whole, Illi is to be preferred; Illic is to be explained as due to the initial letter of the following word, and Illa as due to the last letter of that word.

120 domus om. S

The reading usually adopted here is mens. Baehrens emended to licet. There is no genuine manuscript authority for either. The former was apparently the invention of the first editor to print it (Weber reports that it occurs first in the Basel edition of 1534). From one of these editions a late hand introduced it into the margin of p. We are confronted with a choice between a thirteenth-century manuscript reading (domus) and the pure guesses of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century scholars. The choice should not be difficult. Baehrens and Miss Martin call domus an evident interpolation; I must confess that it is not evident to me (cf. 254). It may have been evident to Baehrens because he had one of his overingenious emendations to suggest.

140 non S nec n e p a

Baehrens and Miss Martin choose nec, but non is preferable not only because, other things being equal, S should be followed but also because it is more apt. The author has just said that there is a lighter side to eloquence as well as a more serious side.⁠32 He then compares eloquence with military life, showing that the soldier does not fight every moment. It is much more appropriate to begin with non rather than nec. To be sure, S wrongly has non for nec in 142, but this is no argument against it in 140. It is even possible to interpret the reading of n e p a so as to favor non. They all have nec, it is true, but earlier in the line e p a have non for cum. This might be explained in this way: The common archetype had non, like S. Someone put nec in  p129 the margin, to make complete rhetorical correlation with nec in 141 and 142. In the next copying nec went into the text and non into the margin. The archetype of e p a thought that non was a variant for cum instead of nec and put it into the text in place of cum.

142 arcu n e p a arcus S

It is not necessary to resort to emendation here. Either of the manuscript readings is possible.

151 nimbis n e p a nubibus S

Miss Martin is right in preferring nimbis to nivibus, the conjecture adopted by Baehrens. She points out that this completes the cycle better. This is especially true since the passage is an obvious imitation of Horace Carm. IV.7.9‑12, in which prominence is given to the thought of the completion of the seasonal cycle and in which the last words are bruma recurrit iners.

169 Nec S n e p a

Reference to the apparatus makes clear that there is no longer any manuscript support for Ne, adopted by Baehrens. By his decision here he is forced in 171 also to adopt Ne for Nec, the reading of S.

In 229 Miss Martin's defense of the reading et of all the manuscripts and demittere of the florilegia is particularly to be commended.

237

Nec sua Vergilio permisit carmina soli:

Maecenas tragico quatientem pulpita gestu

Erexit Varium, Maecenas alta tonantis

Eruit et populis ostendit carmina Graiis,

Carmina Romanis etiam resonantia chordis,

Ausoniamque chelyn gracilis patefecit Horati.

To the many interpretations of this vexed passage I venture to add a partially new one. The text is essentially that of the manuscripts except for the substitution of carmina for nomina in 237 and 240.⁠33 The chief difficulty in the text of the passage is at these points, according to most of the scholars who have worked on the passage. The reading carmina is not new with me: Lachmann suggested it for 237, and  p130 Unger for 240. It seems not unlikely that the wrong nomina should be corrected to the same word in both places.34

I take tonantis to be accusative plural and interpret as follows:

Maecenas brought out of obscurity and revealed to the public those who thundered forth in a sublime style Greek songs and Latin songs as well.

If this interpretation is correct, it throws an interesting light on Horace's tenth satire. The contrast of alta tonantis and gracilis is particularly significant, as is mention of Greek poems.35

S and the florilegia agree in the reading of lines 254‑55, but editors have been unable to interpret them satisfactorily. We have to choose between emending nos to non, or et and Sed to at and Et, respectively. The former seems simpler but makes an awkward sentence. Furthermore, it is inconsistent with the implication in lines 118‑20. There the author attacks the attitude of certain patrons; he obviously implies that, like the clients there mentioned, he is poor and of humble station. One should note the repetition of words and ideas in the later passage: tenuemtenuis, humilemhumilis, casta domusdomus at sincera.

The reading nos need not interfere with the identification of Lucan as the author of the panegyric. Both rank and wealth are relative matters. Though Lucan was wealthy at the time of his death, he was not necessarily so in his own eyes at the time the panegyric was written. It is significant that Lucan's father decided to build up his fortune rather than go through the senatorial cursus honorum.⁠36 Compared with the immensely wealthy Piso,⁠37 Lucan was poor. Similarly with respect to rank: Lucan's father was a provincial eques, in no way comparable to the extremely aristocratic Roman noble Piso.⁠38 The  p131 author of the panegyric, in seeking the patronage of Piso, would naturally minimize his own financial and social status.

The attribution of the panegyric to Lucan has been attacked because the poem is not mentioned in the relatively long list of Lucan's works which are found in the biography of Lucan by Vacca and in a poem by Statius. But Statius' list is far from complete, and Vacca's list does not contain the book addressed by Lucan to his wife Polla, which is mentioned by Statius. Vacca begins his list with the words extant eius complures et alii, which show that the list is not intended to be complete.

Another objection has been raised to accepting the view that Lucan wrote the panegyric: its difference in style from the Pharsalia. But recent controversies about other works of literature leave one skeptical about the validity of our methods for determining the significance of such differences. The striking parallelisms of language which have been pointed out are sufficient at least to counterbalance the differences.

Chronology too suggests that Lucan is the author of the panegyric. It has been shown that it was written between 48 and 59 A.D.39 These limits can, I think, be narrowed. Piso became one of the fratres Arvales in 38 and was present at meetings in Rome in 38, 40, in an unknown year between 43 and 48, and in 57 and thereafter.⁠40 He was banished probably in 40 (he is not mentioned as being in Rome in 41 or 42). After his recall and consul­ship he went to Dalmatia as propraetor, presumably between 48 and 57, when he is not listed among those present in the acts of the Arval brothers. It was during this period (i.e., after his consul­ship, according to the scholia on Juvenal) that he inherited his wealth. Obviously he was back in Rome when the panegyric was written. We know that he was back in 57; he probably was away part of the time between 48 and 457. Therefore it is  p132 more likely that the panegyric was written after 57 than before. We have seen it was written in or before 59.

Lucan was born November 3, 39 A.D. The author of the panegyric says that he is not yet twenty years old (261). If the author was Lucan, the panegyric was written between November 3, 58 and November 3, 59. This fits in so well with the date just arrived at (57‑59) that one is almost forced to accept Lucan as the author. Let it not be forgotten that the manuscript tradition of the poem also favors this author­ship.

The conclusion that Lucan probably was the author of our little poem may surprise the reader. It surprised the writer. Not until the very end did the bits of evidence shape themselves in such a way as to make the picture clear. Even the possibility of any such conclusion seemed to be shut out once and for all when the decision was reached that in verse 254 the proper reading was such as to indicate that the author of the poem was of humble parentage. Certain it is that the generally accepted view that Calpurnius Siculus was the author of our poem has much less to support it than the one here presented.

University of Chicago


The Author's Notes:

Critical Notes:

1 In cruri [i.e.Ciri] de laude, etc. n.

2 dari n a corr. n2 a2.

3 in fine Lucanus e in principio b.

4 1‑4 om. b.

5 1 ¶ om. n p a.

6 vitulos n corr. n1.

7 calp‑ e.

8 romanzzzs et i. m. a n2.

9 Hic n.

10 ¶ Tua est miranda per omnes b.

11 si om. p.

12 deēt (= deessetn a deest p.

13 ubi p.

14 fronte n.

15 ymaginibus b.

16 ex Profuerunt corr. b.

17b.

18 claris] i. m. tantis pr.

19 ponaaa ante summam statim del. b.

20 ponit n i.m.d. s n2?.

21 26‑38 om. b.

22 Tamen n e.

23 et non om. n, ut Baehrens dicit.

24 querunt e qui(ui)erunt a.

25 virtus om. p.

26 lecet a corr. a1.

27 i. m. Munera pr.

28 milicie a.

29 sanguine p corr. p2?.

30 hastu e a hustu p corr. e2? p1? a2.

31 indice p a cor. a1.

32 vitrices e.

33 lumina e.

34 p(er)sonis a p(er)sonzzz a2.

35 ex visus statim corr. p1.

36 Omnes] i. m. olim pr.

37 ¶ Cum incipit b. — i. m. hic commendat Pisonem de eloquentia b.

38 cum tua mestos i. r. p1messos n.

39 Defensura reos vo i. r. p1 (scribere coepit Iudicis affectum [vid. vs. 45]).

40 facondia p.

41 41‑45 om. b.

42 fora ex tu statim corr. n.

43 in sp. rel. quoque a2 (man. vetus) pr i. m. nr.

44 mso a piso a1>.

45 pector p a pectora p2 a2.

46 ducis i. r. p (non erat tentas).

47 Iudex sponte b.

48 tua n.

49 iubet n a iubes e p a1 b.

50 iram ante iudex del. et exp. b.

51 non om. b.

52 49‑111 om. b.

53 ariga e corr. e1.

54 thesalus e. — ras. post Thessalus (erat h?) p.

55 Nobilibus n.

56 Qudrupedi p.

57 succedit a subripit a2.

58 arce n (non arte) i. m. torquet in auras pr.

59 Alexibiles et i. m. d. f n2?.

60 rzzztata p2 i. m. o pr.

61 effussos (u i. r.) e efusos p et fusos a.

62 index n corr. n?.

63 per zzztua exp. a1.

64 ponderzzz et i. m. a n2.

65 vibrati n.

66 fulmine n.

67 lingua] dextra e p a (non n, ut Baetica dicit) i. m. lingua pr.

68 vivat e.

69 vivati e vivatia e1 vivati (?) a vivacia a2.

70 ūmba n.

71 Vir e Vīzzz e1.

72 laertiade p.

73 vincit epa corr. a2 i. m. (vin)cis pr.

74 Dultia e.

75 decidit n.

76 ipso p corr. p2.

77 Hūc n.

78 i. m. res prolatae pr.

79 iurgia ex ur statim corr. p.

80 zzzludit n corr. n1.

81 i. m. dzzz (= deficitn2.

82 letibus arces n.

83 Gretia n e.

84 cicropeique n cicropéêque et i. m. ijs n2.

85 hinc a hīc (non huicn hinc vel huic p huic e.

86 fulore e.

87 locos a iocos a?.

88 hinc a hic n huic e p.

89 exhornata p.

90 torvo e p.

91 mores eius e.

92 Exonerare n.

93 honorare n honerare n1?.

94 monet n movet n?.

95 ducere n.

96 tetrititate e

97 stabilitatis p i. m. stat nobilitatis pr.

98 Pulcer p

99 Aditur e.

100 mens (vel meus) ex p statim corr. a1.

101 faconde p fatunde (e i. r.) e.

102 Lumina e.

103 ad id e adid p adizzz p2.

104 vivat e.

105 incertum est utrum e censu an sensus habeat. — i. m. (cen)sus pr.

106 om. b.

107  om. p.

108 dono magis p lineolis // corr. et magis supra dono scripsit p1? magis eras. et litteras b a sscr. e1.

109 fauit (?) p fzzzint (= fueritp2 fuerat b.

110 preciosius e p a b.

111 omni sscr. e1.

112 Diligis e2? a2 i. m. pr.

113 te] eum b.

114 clientum e p a b.

115 in] et b.

116 paciuntur e spatiuntur b.

117 verba b.

118 i. m. . . . . cum in vana gloria . . . . Ind(e) letaris (?) d(e) i(n) Iuuenalis (?) er.

119 Nullusubitos e corr. e1.

120 sublimis supra Rara scripsit er.

121 humilem ex n statim corr. a1.

122 Illa e p a b Illi n e2? a2?

123 i. m. Illic casta licet mens pr. — domus licet b.

124 victa b.

125 papertate n.

126 tam epa eum b.

127 Sed lateri nullus pr. — laczzzi (= laceri; cf. latzzzilateri eb.

128 querit (non querat, ut Baetica scripsit) n e p a b.

129 Quem ex Qui corr. e quam b.

130 pus p purus p2.

131 Sed quem tulit impia merces i. m. add. pr.

132 vere n.

133 precium e p a b.

134 largiter b.

135 rogat e b.

136 vitibusque e.

137 rogatur e b.

138 126‑128 om. b (ordo est: 125, 255, 129, etc.).

139 mirum a miserum a2.

140 stirpe p.

141 in spatio relicto munerat a2pr.

142 i. m. dzzz (= deficitn2.

143 alterum procul om. p.

144 Piso] ¶ Laudo b.

145 mittis b.

146 ut i. m. pr.

147 imus p.

148 numerabis e.

149 133‑214 om. b.

150 vocaret e corr. e2.

151 ocio pa.

152 hnestis p.

153 exercitus n.

154 cum suis] zzzfinis (= cum vel confinisn.

155 i. m. latus percutere Ter. Horat. latus foedere pr (vid. vs. 144).

156 cunctorum i. m. Cultorum ut supra [vs. 109] Quis tua cultorum etc. pr.

157 ruitve e p a i. m. rudis pr.

158 zzz (= quin.

159 laborē e p a i. m. (labo)re pr.

160 summato e.

161 ex precer statim corr. p1.

162 Si n.

163 vocarzzz (= vocarunt) epa vocarent n.

164 vivant e.

165 fatundia e facondia p.

166 cum] zzz (= none p  a i. m. cum pr.

167 ¬crassicus¬ a corr. µa2µ.

168 ¬gemit¬] ¬simul… n.

169 ex ¬artu¬ corr. a.

170 ¬Ddestinat¬ n.

171 ¬exemto¬ µp aµ (non n).

172 …ferro¬] i. m. ¬nervo¬ mprµ.

173 zzzz

174 zzzz

175 zzzz

176 zzzz

177 zzzz

178 zzzz

179 zzzz

180 zzzz

181 zzzz

182 zzzz

183 zzzz

184 zzzz

185 zzzz

186 zzzz

187 zzzz

188 zzzz

189 zzzz

190 zzzz

191 zzzz

192 zzzz

193 zzzz

194 zzzz

195 zzzz

196 zzzz

197 zzzz

198 zzzz

199 zzzz

200 zzzz

201 zzzz

202 zzzz

203 zzzz

204 zzzz

205 zzzz

206 zzzz

207 zzzz

208 zzzz

209 zzzz

210 zzzz

211 zzzz

212 zzzz

213 zzzz

214 zzzz

215 zzzz

216 zzzz

217 zzzz

218 zzzz

219 zzzz

220 zzzz

221 zzzz

222 zzzz

223 zzzz

224 zzzz

225 zzzz

226 zzzz

227 zzzz

228 zzzz

229 zzzz

230 zzzz

231 zzzz

232 zzzz

233 zzzz

234 zzzz

235 zzzz

236 zzzz

237 zzzz

238 zzzz

239 zzzz

240 zzzz

241 zzzz

242 zzzz

243 zzzz

244 zzzz

245 zzzz

246 zzzz

247 zzzz

248 zzzz

249 zzzz

250 zzzz

251 zzzz

252 zzzz

253 zzzz

254 zzzz

255 zzzz

256 zzzz

257 zzzz

258 zzzz

259 zzzz

260 zzzz

261 zzzz

262 zzzz

263 zzzz

264 zzzz

265 zzzz

266 zzzz

267 zzzz

268 zzzz

269 zzzz

270 zzzz

271 zzzz

272 zzzz

273 zzzz

274 zzzz

275 zzzz

276 zzzz

277 zzzz

278 zzzz

279 zzzz

280 zzzz

281 zzzz

282 zzzz

283 zzzz

284 zzzz

285 zzzz

286 zzzz

287 zzzz

288 zzzz

289 zzzz

290 zzzz

291 zzzz

292 zzzz

293 zzzz

294 zzzz

295 zzzz

296 zzzz

297 zzzz

298 zzzz

299 zzzz

300 zzzz

301 zzzz

302 zzzz

303 zzzz

304 zzzz

305 zzzz

306 zzzz

307 zzzz

308 zzzz

309 zzzz

310 zzzz

311 zzzz

312 zzzz

313 zzzz

314 zzzz

315 zzzz

316 zzzz

317 zzzz

318 zzzz

319 zzzz

320 zzzz

321 zzzz

322 zzzz

323 zzzz

324 zzzz

325 zzzz

326 zzzz

327 zzzz

328 zzzz

329 zzzz

330 zzzz

331 zzzz

332 zzzz

333 zzzz

334 zzzz

335 zzzz

336 zzzz

337 zzzz

338 zzzz

339 zzzz

340 zzzz

341 zzzz

342 zzzz

343 zzzz

344 zzzz

345 zzzz

346 zzzz

347 zzzz

348 zzzz

349 zzzz

350 zzzz

351 zzzz

352 zzzz

353 zzzz

354 zzzz

355 zzzz

356 zzzz

357 zzzz

358 zzzz

359 zzzz

360 zzzz

361 zzzz

362 zzzz

363 zzzz

364 zzzz

365 zzzz

366 zzzz

367 zzzz

368 zzzz

369 zzzz

370 zzzz

371 zzzz

372 zzzz

373 zzzz

374 zzzz

375 zzzz

376 zzzz

377 zzzz

378 zzzz

379 zzzz

380 zzzz

381 zzzz

382 zzzz

383 zzzz

384 zzzz

385 zzzz

386 zzzz

387 zzzz

388 zzzz

389 zzzz

390 zzzz

391 zzzz

392 zzzz

393 zzzz

394 zzzz

395 zzzz

396 zzzz

397 zzzz

398 zzzz

399 zzzz

400 zzzz


Explanatory Notes:

1 Schanz, Gesch. d. röm. Litt., II, 2 (1913), 96; G. Martin, Laus Pisonis (Cornell diss., 1917), p20.

2 P. Lehmann, Johannes Sichardus ("Quellen u. Untersuchungen z. lat. Philologie des Mittelalters," IV, 1), p144. The lines are given in Baehrens, PLM, Vol. IV, No. 176, vss. 1‑20.

3 The group is described by F. Vollmer in "P. Virgilii Maronis iuvenalis ludi libellus," Sitzungsber. Kgl. Bayer. Akad. d. Wiss. (Phil. Hist. Kl., 1908), Abh. 11.

4 So Baehrens assumed without question, as shown by his expression praecedit (op. cit., I, 222). Baehrens, too, thought that the verses and the Laus were in a manuscript containing the minor works of Virgil.

5 H. Bloch in Strassburger Festschrift z. XLVI. Versammlung deutscher Philologen u. Schulmänner (1901), pp257 ff.

6 Cf. Bloch, op. cit., p279: "Der umfangreichste karolingische Bibliothekskatalog, das 'Breviarium codicum monasterii s. Nazarii in Laurissa,' zeigt den allergrössten Teil der in Murbach vertretenen Bücher auch im Besitz des Klosters Lorsch." To be sure, the minor poems of Virgil are not found in this catalogue, but neither is the Laus Pisonis. These works may have come to Lorsch somewhat later.

7 Both monasteries were near the Rhine, a much-frequented thoroughfare during the Middle Ages.

8 See p113.

9 Delisle, Le Cabinet des manuscrits, II (1874), 447, No. 88, and Manitius in Rhein. Mus., XLVII, Ergänzungsheft, p52.

10 Schenkl in his edition of Calpurnius (Leipzig, 1885, p. xlviii) thinks that the sequence of citations in the florilegia shows that a single volume contained Petronius, the minor poems of Virgil, the panegyric of Piso, Calpurnius, and Nemesianus. He points out that Paris 8049 contains selections from Petronius and Calpurnius, the first and last (if we count Calpurnius and Nemesianus as one) in the foregoing list. One recalls also that Poggio found Calpurnius and Petronius in England, though it is not certain that they were in one manuscript (cf.e.g., Sage in Class. Phil., XI [1916], 16). On the other hand, Poggio found a portion of Petronius at Cologne, which, because of its location on the Rhine, might have had contact with Lorsch and Murbach, where the Laus Pisonis and the Virgilian poems existed.

11 Op. cit., pp28 ff.

12 On Lucan's repetition of word combinations see Haskins' edition, p. lxxxiii.

13 Another similarity which has not been noted is the following:

"possessaque pectora ducis

Victor; sponte sua sequitur" (L. P. 44‑45).

"cum mare possidet Auster

. . . . hunc aequora tota sequuntur" (Phars. II.444‑45).

14 Op. cit., I (1879), 224.

15 Op. cit., p9.

16 Cited by me, apparently for the first time in centuries, in Class. Phil., XXIII (1928), 130 ff.

17 I used it for Tibullus in the article just referred to.

18 The following abbreviations are used: n = Paris 17903; e = Escorial; p = Paris 7647; a = Arras; b = Berlin. It has seemed worth while to reproduce variants and notes written in the sixteenth century, especially in p. These are indicated by a superscript r (for manus recens): pr. These variants are taken from the printed editions, of course, but may be of value in determining the owner­ship of the florilegia. Wrong reports in Baehrens are usually pointed out in my apparatus. For other details in regard to the apparatus, see my paper on Tibullus, op. cit., p134.

19 Through an error I reported (op. cit., p152) that in 169 the florilegia have Ne. This is found only in n, in which it is corrected to Nec by the first hand. Nec is the reading of e p a. The conclusion based on the wrong report is of course unsound.

20 Philologus, XVII (1861), 343.

21 See Martin, op. cit., p10. Miss Martin here points out that certain readings in the Lyons edition of 1550 (Ovid) may have been derived from a florilegium before Junius published his edition. This is true, but there is not sufficient material to identify the particular manuscript used.

22 In the Tibullus article, pp159 ff.

23 Of course the suggestion of Wölfflin (op. cit., p342) and earlier scholars that Scaliger had a copy of the Atrebatensis is untenable.

24 Ellis in his edition of the Appendix attributes it to Naeke, who in turn states that it is found at least as early as the Aldine Virgil.

25 Weber reports that Scaliger quotes vs. 142 with the reading arcu in a note on Manilius, p418 (he evidently refers to the edition of 1655); on Manilius v. 599). This is the reading of n e p a.

26 In the Tibullus article, p172.

27 Riv. di fil. cl., XXXIX (1911), 242.

28 G. d'Adda, Indagini . . . sulla Libreria Visconteo-Sforzesca . . . di Pavia (1875), No. 932.

29 Cf. Lucan Phars. IX.278: ducite Pompeios ("lead captive," Haskins), and for possessa ducis cf. Phars. VIII.342: captos ducere reges.

30 Of course the common archetype may have been wrong; cf. (for the same letter) 113 Diligit S n e p a Diligis edd.

31 See Haskins' Introduction, p. cvii (g).

32 In 139 nec enim is the negative of etenim.

33 S has numina in 237.

34 Merely as a guess I might suggest that nota in the margin (perhaps partly in ligature) might have been misunderstood as nōia or nōa (= nomina) and as a substitute for carmina. It should be remembered, however, that S has numina in 237. This might call for an emendation to limina (cf. 236).

35 It seems to me likely that poems in Greek are meant rather than poems based on Greek models.

36 Tacitus Ann. XVI.17.

37 Schol. Iuv. V.109: post consulatum materna hereditate ditatus magnificentissime vixit.

38 L. P. 2, 4, 15 ff.; Tacitus Ann. XV.48: multas insignesque familias paterna nobilitate complexus.

39 Martin, op. cit., p21. H. de la Ville de Mirmont (Revue des Études anciennes, XVI [1914], 50) arrives at a date before 55 in this fashion: He assumes that the Laus Pisonis was written by Calpurnius, author of the extant Eclogues, and that it was composed before the Eclogues. He argues that the first Eclogue was written in 55 A.D. But his assumption as to author­ship is unfounded (see Martin, op. cit., p25) and therefore the date established by La Ville de Mirmont is worthless.

40 See Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopädie, V (1897), 1378.


[Valid HTML 4.01.]

Page updated: 4 Feb 09

Accessibility