Vergilius GraecusAuthor(s): Barry BaldwinSource: The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 97, No. 4 (Winter, 1976), pp. 361-368Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/294094 .

Accessed: 10/11/2013 14:10

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TheAmerican Journal of Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 134.153.184.170 on Sun, 10 Nov 2013 14:10:17 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

VERGILIUS GRAECUS VERGILIUS GRAECUS VERGILIUS GRAECUS VERGILIUS GRAECUS VERGILIUS GRAECUS

Gibbon once observed that the whole of Greek literature from Dionysius of Halicarnassus to Libanius contained not a single allusion to Vergil or Horace. That is an exaggeration, albeit not much of one. It also ignores other manifestations of Greek interest in Roman poetry during the imperial and early Byzantine periods. Vergilian students are not always aware of these; hence the present survey may be of interest and utility.

Translations of Vergil into Greek presumably imply a genuine interest on the part of an hellenophone-reading public. Polybius, the freedman of Claudius, is said by Seneca' to have produced a Greek version of Vergil. Since the allusion couples the Roman poet with Homer, it is probably the Aeneid that is in question.

No surprise there. Vergil was naturally most read for his epic. It will be seen that the Aeneid predominates in the papyri. However, the other poems were not entirely ignored. The Georgics are represented in the papyri, and were translated into Greek by an epic poet called Arrian.2

The papyri also disclose some concern for the Bucolics. Given the Messianic theory and the triumph of Christianity, it was inevitable that obsessive attention was devoted to the Fourth Eclogue, the most intriguing manifestation of which can be seen in a Greek speech by the emperor Constantine. It contains a version of much of Vergil's poem in Greek hexameters, adorned by the imperial exegesis of its supposed Christian message.

The efforts of Polybius the libertus indicate some Greek in- terest in Vergil within a century of the poet's death. A papyrus containing scraps of the Aeneid is preserved from the first century A.D.-the oldest extant Vergilian manuscript.3 At the

Ad Polyb. 8.2; 10.5. 2 Suda, s.v. Arrian Enroroto6. 3 P. Hawara 24. See R. Cavenaile, Corpus Papyrorum Latinarum (Wiesba-

den 1958) 59; R. Pack, The Greek and Latin Literary Texts from Greco-Roman Egypt (2nd ed., Michigan 1965) no. 2947; cf. E. G. Turner, "Half a line of Virgil from Egypt," Studi in onore di A. Calderini e R. Paribeni (Milan 1957) 2, 157-61.

Gibbon once observed that the whole of Greek literature from Dionysius of Halicarnassus to Libanius contained not a single allusion to Vergil or Horace. That is an exaggeration, albeit not much of one. It also ignores other manifestations of Greek interest in Roman poetry during the imperial and early Byzantine periods. Vergilian students are not always aware of these; hence the present survey may be of interest and utility.

Translations of Vergil into Greek presumably imply a genuine interest on the part of an hellenophone-reading public. Polybius, the freedman of Claudius, is said by Seneca' to have produced a Greek version of Vergil. Since the allusion couples the Roman poet with Homer, it is probably the Aeneid that is in question.

No surprise there. Vergil was naturally most read for his epic. It will be seen that the Aeneid predominates in the papyri. However, the other poems were not entirely ignored. The Georgics are represented in the papyri, and were translated into Greek by an epic poet called Arrian.2

The papyri also disclose some concern for the Bucolics. Given the Messianic theory and the triumph of Christianity, it was inevitable that obsessive attention was devoted to the Fourth Eclogue, the most intriguing manifestation of which can be seen in a Greek speech by the emperor Constantine. It contains a version of much of Vergil's poem in Greek hexameters, adorned by the imperial exegesis of its supposed Christian message.

The efforts of Polybius the libertus indicate some Greek in- terest in Vergil within a century of the poet's death. A papyrus containing scraps of the Aeneid is preserved from the first century A.D.-the oldest extant Vergilian manuscript.3 At the

Ad Polyb. 8.2; 10.5. 2 Suda, s.v. Arrian Enroroto6. 3 P. Hawara 24. See R. Cavenaile, Corpus Papyrorum Latinarum (Wiesba-

den 1958) 59; R. Pack, The Greek and Latin Literary Texts from Greco-Roman Egypt (2nd ed., Michigan 1965) no. 2947; cf. E. G. Turner, "Half a line of Virgil from Egypt," Studi in onore di A. Calderini e R. Paribeni (Milan 1957) 2, 157-61.

Gibbon once observed that the whole of Greek literature from Dionysius of Halicarnassus to Libanius contained not a single allusion to Vergil or Horace. That is an exaggeration, albeit not much of one. It also ignores other manifestations of Greek interest in Roman poetry during the imperial and early Byzantine periods. Vergilian students are not always aware of these; hence the present survey may be of interest and utility.

Translations of Vergil into Greek presumably imply a genuine interest on the part of an hellenophone-reading public. Polybius, the freedman of Claudius, is said by Seneca' to have produced a Greek version of Vergil. Since the allusion couples the Roman poet with Homer, it is probably the Aeneid that is in question.

No surprise there. Vergil was naturally most read for his epic. It will be seen that the Aeneid predominates in the papyri. However, the other poems were not entirely ignored. The Georgics are represented in the papyri, and were translated into Greek by an epic poet called Arrian.2

The papyri also disclose some concern for the Bucolics. Given the Messianic theory and the triumph of Christianity, it was inevitable that obsessive attention was devoted to the Fourth Eclogue, the most intriguing manifestation of which can be seen in a Greek speech by the emperor Constantine. It contains a version of much of Vergil's poem in Greek hexameters, adorned by the imperial exegesis of its supposed Christian message.

The efforts of Polybius the libertus indicate some Greek in- terest in Vergil within a century of the poet's death. A papyrus containing scraps of the Aeneid is preserved from the first century A.D.-the oldest extant Vergilian manuscript.3 At the

Ad Polyb. 8.2; 10.5. 2 Suda, s.v. Arrian Enroroto6. 3 P. Hawara 24. See R. Cavenaile, Corpus Papyrorum Latinarum (Wiesba-

den 1958) 59; R. Pack, The Greek and Latin Literary Texts from Greco-Roman Egypt (2nd ed., Michigan 1965) no. 2947; cf. E. G. Turner, "Half a line of Virgil from Egypt," Studi in onore di A. Calderini e R. Paribeni (Milan 1957) 2, 157-61.

Gibbon once observed that the whole of Greek literature from Dionysius of Halicarnassus to Libanius contained not a single allusion to Vergil or Horace. That is an exaggeration, albeit not much of one. It also ignores other manifestations of Greek interest in Roman poetry during the imperial and early Byzantine periods. Vergilian students are not always aware of these; hence the present survey may be of interest and utility.

Translations of Vergil into Greek presumably imply a genuine interest on the part of an hellenophone-reading public. Polybius, the freedman of Claudius, is said by Seneca' to have produced a Greek version of Vergil. Since the allusion couples the Roman poet with Homer, it is probably the Aeneid that is in question.

No surprise there. Vergil was naturally most read for his epic. It will be seen that the Aeneid predominates in the papyri. However, the other poems were not entirely ignored. The Georgics are represented in the papyri, and were translated into Greek by an epic poet called Arrian.2

The papyri also disclose some concern for the Bucolics. Given the Messianic theory and the triumph of Christianity, it was inevitable that obsessive attention was devoted to the Fourth Eclogue, the most intriguing manifestation of which can be seen in a Greek speech by the emperor Constantine. It contains a version of much of Vergil's poem in Greek hexameters, adorned by the imperial exegesis of its supposed Christian message.

The efforts of Polybius the libertus indicate some Greek in- terest in Vergil within a century of the poet's death. A papyrus containing scraps of the Aeneid is preserved from the first century A.D.-the oldest extant Vergilian manuscript.3 At the

Ad Polyb. 8.2; 10.5. 2 Suda, s.v. Arrian Enroroto6. 3 P. Hawara 24. See R. Cavenaile, Corpus Papyrorum Latinarum (Wiesba-

den 1958) 59; R. Pack, The Greek and Latin Literary Texts from Greco-Roman Egypt (2nd ed., Michigan 1965) no. 2947; cf. E. G. Turner, "Half a line of Virgil from Egypt," Studi in onore di A. Calderini e R. Paribeni (Milan 1957) 2, 157-61.

Gibbon once observed that the whole of Greek literature from Dionysius of Halicarnassus to Libanius contained not a single allusion to Vergil or Horace. That is an exaggeration, albeit not much of one. It also ignores other manifestations of Greek interest in Roman poetry during the imperial and early Byzantine periods. Vergilian students are not always aware of these; hence the present survey may be of interest and utility.

Translations of Vergil into Greek presumably imply a genuine interest on the part of an hellenophone-reading public. Polybius, the freedman of Claudius, is said by Seneca' to have produced a Greek version of Vergil. Since the allusion couples the Roman poet with Homer, it is probably the Aeneid that is in question.

No surprise there. Vergil was naturally most read for his epic. It will be seen that the Aeneid predominates in the papyri. However, the other poems were not entirely ignored. The Georgics are represented in the papyri, and were translated into Greek by an epic poet called Arrian.2

The papyri also disclose some concern for the Bucolics. Given the Messianic theory and the triumph of Christianity, it was inevitable that obsessive attention was devoted to the Fourth Eclogue, the most intriguing manifestation of which can be seen in a Greek speech by the emperor Constantine. It contains a version of much of Vergil's poem in Greek hexameters, adorned by the imperial exegesis of its supposed Christian message.

The efforts of Polybius the libertus indicate some Greek in- terest in Vergil within a century of the poet's death. A papyrus containing scraps of the Aeneid is preserved from the first century A.D.-the oldest extant Vergilian manuscript.3 At the

Ad Polyb. 8.2; 10.5. 2 Suda, s.v. Arrian Enroroto6. 3 P. Hawara 24. See R. Cavenaile, Corpus Papyrorum Latinarum (Wiesba-

den 1958) 59; R. Pack, The Greek and Latin Literary Texts from Greco-Roman Egypt (2nd ed., Michigan 1965) no. 2947; cf. E. G. Turner, "Half a line of Virgil from Egypt," Studi in onore di A. Calderini e R. Paribeni (Milan 1957) 2, 157-61.

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY 97 361-368 (1976) Copyright ? 1976 by The Johns Hopkins University Press AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY 97 361-368 (1976) Copyright ? 1976 by The Johns Hopkins University Press AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY 97 361-368 (1976) Copyright ? 1976 by The Johns Hopkins University Press AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY 97 361-368 (1976) Copyright ? 1976 by The Johns Hopkins University Press AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY 97 361-368 (1976) Copyright ? 1976 by The Johns Hopkins University Press

This content downloaded from 134.153.184.170 on Sun, 10 Nov 2013 14:10:17 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BARRY BALDWIN BARRY BALDWIN BARRY BALDWIN BARRY BALDWIN BARRY BALDWIN

moment, this is something of a freak, in that most of the papyrus texts of Vergil date from between the fourth and sixth centuries; yet future discoveries may redress that balance.

It is not always remembered that a passage in Dio Cassius refutes the Gibbonian claim. Dio records (75.10.2) that Sep- timius Severus, in 199 or thereabouts, in the course of his Parthian campaigns, executed the officer Julius Crispus who, bewailing the horrors of that war, quoted Aeneid 11.371-73. Dio subjoins what has been called4 'a rather flat paraphrase": iva 6ij tr/V Aovitviav 6 ToiSQvo?; adydyrTat, u1e[i; Ev OVevi X6oyo TaQaTzoXv,ueOa .

Of course, this passage does not prove that Dio was specially familiar with Vergil. He could have reproduced the item from a source, written or oral, and had no lack of Roman friends to translate for him. For all that, the presence of a formal refer- ence to a Roman poet by name in a Greek writer is signal.

The Constantinian speech in question is the Greek version of his original Latin address Ad Sanctorum coetun.5 It contains6 translations in Greek hexameters of the Fourth Eclogue, lines 1, 4, 5-6, 7, 8-12, 15-16, 17-20, 21-22, 23-25, 26-27, 28, 29-30, 31-36, 37, 38-45 and 48-59 in one uninterrupted sequence, and 60-63.

The emperor turns to Vergil after a brief consideration of Cicero, De divinatione 2.54. For him, the poet is rov EoxtWTarov Trv xVara [acriavtv7zrotrl v, and is twice apostroph- ised as uocporar Joi r]i Ta. The exegesis offered by Constantine is, of course, the Messianic one, and has been regarded7 as the prototype of Christian interpretations, which is of self-evident interest.

The other fascination is textual. Collation of our Latin texts with the Greek equivalents almost always makes it clear as to what readings the latter were based on. True, there are not many textual points of great note in the Fourth Eclogue, apart

4 By F. Millar, A Study of Cassius Dio (Oxford 1964) 143. 5 Ed. I. A. Heikel, Eusebius Werke 1 (Leipzig 1902) 154f; cf. Eusebius, Vita

Const. 4.32. 6 Sections 19-21. 7 See J. B. Mayor, W. W. Fowler, R. S. Conway. Vergil's Messianic Ec-

logue (London 1907) 21-22.

moment, this is something of a freak, in that most of the papyrus texts of Vergil date from between the fourth and sixth centuries; yet future discoveries may redress that balance.

It is not always remembered that a passage in Dio Cassius refutes the Gibbonian claim. Dio records (75.10.2) that Sep- timius Severus, in 199 or thereabouts, in the course of his Parthian campaigns, executed the officer Julius Crispus who, bewailing the horrors of that war, quoted Aeneid 11.371-73. Dio subjoins what has been called4 'a rather flat paraphrase": iva 6ij tr/V Aovitviav 6 ToiSQvo?; adydyrTat, u1e[i; Ev OVevi X6oyo TaQaTzoXv,ueOa .

Of course, this passage does not prove that Dio was specially familiar with Vergil. He could have reproduced the item from a source, written or oral, and had no lack of Roman friends to translate for him. For all that, the presence of a formal refer- ence to a Roman poet by name in a Greek writer is signal.

The Constantinian speech in question is the Greek version of his original Latin address Ad Sanctorum coetun.5 It contains6 translations in Greek hexameters of the Fourth Eclogue, lines 1, 4, 5-6, 7, 8-12, 15-16, 17-20, 21-22, 23-25, 26-27, 28, 29-30, 31-36, 37, 38-45 and 48-59 in one uninterrupted sequence, and 60-63.

The emperor turns to Vergil after a brief consideration of Cicero, De divinatione 2.54. For him, the poet is rov EoxtWTarov Trv xVara [acriavtv7zrotrl v, and is twice apostroph- ised as uocporar Joi r]i Ta. The exegesis offered by Constantine is, of course, the Messianic one, and has been regarded7 as the prototype of Christian interpretations, which is of self-evident interest.

The other fascination is textual. Collation of our Latin texts with the Greek equivalents almost always makes it clear as to what readings the latter were based on. True, there are not many textual points of great note in the Fourth Eclogue, apart

4 By F. Millar, A Study of Cassius Dio (Oxford 1964) 143. 5 Ed. I. A. Heikel, Eusebius Werke 1 (Leipzig 1902) 154f; cf. Eusebius, Vita

Const. 4.32. 6 Sections 19-21. 7 See J. B. Mayor, W. W. Fowler, R. S. Conway. Vergil's Messianic Ec-

logue (London 1907) 21-22.

moment, this is something of a freak, in that most of the papyrus texts of Vergil date from between the fourth and sixth centuries; yet future discoveries may redress that balance.

It is not always remembered that a passage in Dio Cassius refutes the Gibbonian claim. Dio records (75.10.2) that Sep- timius Severus, in 199 or thereabouts, in the course of his Parthian campaigns, executed the officer Julius Crispus who, bewailing the horrors of that war, quoted Aeneid 11.371-73. Dio subjoins what has been called4 'a rather flat paraphrase": iva 6ij tr/V Aovitviav 6 ToiSQvo?; adydyrTat, u1e[i; Ev OVevi X6oyo TaQaTzoXv,ueOa .

Of course, this passage does not prove that Dio was specially familiar with Vergil. He could have reproduced the item from a source, written or oral, and had no lack of Roman friends to translate for him. For all that, the presence of a formal refer- ence to a Roman poet by name in a Greek writer is signal.

The Constantinian speech in question is the Greek version of his original Latin address Ad Sanctorum coetun.5 It contains6 translations in Greek hexameters of the Fourth Eclogue, lines 1, 4, 5-6, 7, 8-12, 15-16, 17-20, 21-22, 23-25, 26-27, 28, 29-30, 31-36, 37, 38-45 and 48-59 in one uninterrupted sequence, and 60-63.

The emperor turns to Vergil after a brief consideration of Cicero, De divinatione 2.54. For him, the poet is rov EoxtWTarov Trv xVara [acriavtv7zrotrl v, and is twice apostroph- ised as uocporar Joi r]i Ta. The exegesis offered by Constantine is, of course, the Messianic one, and has been regarded7 as the prototype of Christian interpretations, which is of self-evident interest.

The other fascination is textual. Collation of our Latin texts with the Greek equivalents almost always makes it clear as to what readings the latter were based on. True, there are not many textual points of great note in the Fourth Eclogue, apart

4 By F. Millar, A Study of Cassius Dio (Oxford 1964) 143. 5 Ed. I. A. Heikel, Eusebius Werke 1 (Leipzig 1902) 154f; cf. Eusebius, Vita

Const. 4.32. 6 Sections 19-21. 7 See J. B. Mayor, W. W. Fowler, R. S. Conway. Vergil's Messianic Ec-

logue (London 1907) 21-22.

moment, this is something of a freak, in that most of the papyrus texts of Vergil date from between the fourth and sixth centuries; yet future discoveries may redress that balance.

It is not always remembered that a passage in Dio Cassius refutes the Gibbonian claim. Dio records (75.10.2) that Sep- timius Severus, in 199 or thereabouts, in the course of his Parthian campaigns, executed the officer Julius Crispus who, bewailing the horrors of that war, quoted Aeneid 11.371-73. Dio subjoins what has been called4 'a rather flat paraphrase": iva 6ij tr/V Aovitviav 6 ToiSQvo?; adydyrTat, u1e[i; Ev OVevi X6oyo TaQaTzoXv,ueOa .

Of course, this passage does not prove that Dio was specially familiar with Vergil. He could have reproduced the item from a source, written or oral, and had no lack of Roman friends to translate for him. For all that, the presence of a formal refer- ence to a Roman poet by name in a Greek writer is signal.

The Constantinian speech in question is the Greek version of his original Latin address Ad Sanctorum coetun.5 It contains6 translations in Greek hexameters of the Fourth Eclogue, lines 1, 4, 5-6, 7, 8-12, 15-16, 17-20, 21-22, 23-25, 26-27, 28, 29-30, 31-36, 37, 38-45 and 48-59 in one uninterrupted sequence, and 60-63.

The emperor turns to Vergil after a brief consideration of Cicero, De divinatione 2.54. For him, the poet is rov EoxtWTarov Trv xVara [acriavtv7zrotrl v, and is twice apostroph- ised as uocporar Joi r]i Ta. The exegesis offered by Constantine is, of course, the Messianic one, and has been regarded7 as the prototype of Christian interpretations, which is of self-evident interest.

The other fascination is textual. Collation of our Latin texts with the Greek equivalents almost always makes it clear as to what readings the latter were based on. True, there are not many textual points of great note in the Fourth Eclogue, apart

4 By F. Millar, A Study of Cassius Dio (Oxford 1964) 143. 5 Ed. I. A. Heikel, Eusebius Werke 1 (Leipzig 1902) 154f; cf. Eusebius, Vita

Const. 4.32. 6 Sections 19-21. 7 See J. B. Mayor, W. W. Fowler, R. S. Conway. Vergil's Messianic Ec-

logue (London 1907) 21-22.

moment, this is something of a freak, in that most of the papyrus texts of Vergil date from between the fourth and sixth centuries; yet future discoveries may redress that balance.

It is not always remembered that a passage in Dio Cassius refutes the Gibbonian claim. Dio records (75.10.2) that Sep- timius Severus, in 199 or thereabouts, in the course of his Parthian campaigns, executed the officer Julius Crispus who, bewailing the horrors of that war, quoted Aeneid 11.371-73. Dio subjoins what has been called4 'a rather flat paraphrase": iva 6ij tr/V Aovitviav 6 ToiSQvo?; adydyrTat, u1e[i; Ev OVevi X6oyo TaQaTzoXv,ueOa .

Of course, this passage does not prove that Dio was specially familiar with Vergil. He could have reproduced the item from a source, written or oral, and had no lack of Roman friends to translate for him. For all that, the presence of a formal refer- ence to a Roman poet by name in a Greek writer is signal.

The Constantinian speech in question is the Greek version of his original Latin address Ad Sanctorum coetun.5 It contains6 translations in Greek hexameters of the Fourth Eclogue, lines 1, 4, 5-6, 7, 8-12, 15-16, 17-20, 21-22, 23-25, 26-27, 28, 29-30, 31-36, 37, 38-45 and 48-59 in one uninterrupted sequence, and 60-63.

The emperor turns to Vergil after a brief consideration of Cicero, De divinatione 2.54. For him, the poet is rov EoxtWTarov Trv xVara [acriavtv7zrotrl v, and is twice apostroph- ised as uocporar Joi r]i Ta. The exegesis offered by Constantine is, of course, the Messianic one, and has been regarded7 as the prototype of Christian interpretations, which is of self-evident interest.

The other fascination is textual. Collation of our Latin texts with the Greek equivalents almost always makes it clear as to what readings the latter were based on. True, there are not many textual points of great note in the Fourth Eclogue, apart

4 By F. Millar, A Study of Cassius Dio (Oxford 1964) 143. 5 Ed. I. A. Heikel, Eusebius Werke 1 (Leipzig 1902) 154f; cf. Eusebius, Vita

Const. 4.32. 6 Sections 19-21. 7 See J. B. Mayor, W. W. Fowler, R. S. Conway. Vergil's Messianic Ec-

logue (London 1907) 21-22.

362 362 362 362 362

This content downloaded from 134.153.184.170 on Sun, 10 Nov 2013 14:10:17 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

VERGILIUS GRAECUS VERGILIUS GRAECUS VERGILIUS GRAECUS VERGILIUS GRAECUS VERGILIUS GRAECUS

from the celebrated business of qui non risere parenti at the end. Still, a look at the Greek version under review is worth- while. It affords a glimpse of the history of the transmission of Vergil's text, and indicates which readings were followed in the age of Servius and the centuries from which most of the extant papyrus texts of Vergil derive. In what follows, the revised OCT of Mynors, the variant readings, the Greek ver- sion, and (where instructive) the ancient commentaries are taken together.

7. Demittitur is read by Mynors; the manuscript variant is dimittitur. The Greek paraphrase has epaavOri, which is un- helpful.

18. At tibi prima, puer, nullo . . . is rightly printed by Mynors instead of the variant ac tibi nulla pater primo .... It was the reading of both Servius and the scholia Bernensia, and of our Greek translator who renders aol 6' daa, r&O . . .

20. Fundet (Mynors);fundit is the alternative reading, nota- bly in Macrobius (6.6.18). The latter was in the Greek trans- lator's text, for he renders by pvPet.

21. Referent (Mynors) instead of the alternative referant. Servius read the indicative, as did our translator with his ovvcxre,Eovo .

26. At (Mynors); ac is the variant. Ac is explained as verum by the scholia Bernensia. The Greek version is avirtxa 6', suggesting at.

26. Parentis. Thus Mynors, rather than parentum. The sin- gular was read by Servius, Nonius (331.34 Lindsay), and Junius Philargyrius. The Greek version Jraro; Tre jyiaorov is consonant.

28. Flavescet is preferred by Mynors to the variant flaves- cit. The former was in the texts of Philargyrius and the scholia Bernensia. The Greek paraphrase ~avO&iv 7jyovro aitwai may imply flavescit.

33. Telluri infindere sulcos (Mynors) rather than tellurem infindere sulco. The Greek reAacov adoveQr is inconclusive, but the balance of the line, 'Pjalt r' EiAltur6 v Exva[/a6tv, may indicate tellurem infindere sulcis, blending the received alternatives.

52. Laetentur (Mynors); laetantur is the alternative. The scholia Bernensia knew the subjunctive. No help is afforded by

from the celebrated business of qui non risere parenti at the end. Still, a look at the Greek version under review is worth- while. It affords a glimpse of the history of the transmission of Vergil's text, and indicates which readings were followed in the age of Servius and the centuries from which most of the extant papyrus texts of Vergil derive. In what follows, the revised OCT of Mynors, the variant readings, the Greek ver- sion, and (where instructive) the ancient commentaries are taken together.

7. Demittitur is read by Mynors; the manuscript variant is dimittitur. The Greek paraphrase has epaavOri, which is un- helpful.

18. At tibi prima, puer, nullo . . . is rightly printed by Mynors instead of the variant ac tibi nulla pater primo .... It was the reading of both Servius and the scholia Bernensia, and of our Greek translator who renders aol 6' daa, r&O . . .

20. Fundet (Mynors);fundit is the alternative reading, nota- bly in Macrobius (6.6.18). The latter was in the Greek trans- lator's text, for he renders by pvPet.

21. Referent (Mynors) instead of the alternative referant. Servius read the indicative, as did our translator with his ovvcxre,Eovo .

26. At (Mynors); ac is the variant. Ac is explained as verum by the scholia Bernensia. The Greek version is avirtxa 6', suggesting at.

26. Parentis. Thus Mynors, rather than parentum. The sin- gular was read by Servius, Nonius (331.34 Lindsay), and Junius Philargyrius. The Greek version Jraro; Tre jyiaorov is consonant.

28. Flavescet is preferred by Mynors to the variant flaves- cit. The former was in the texts of Philargyrius and the scholia Bernensia. The Greek paraphrase ~avO&iv 7jyovro aitwai may imply flavescit.

33. Telluri infindere sulcos (Mynors) rather than tellurem infindere sulco. The Greek reAacov adoveQr is inconclusive, but the balance of the line, 'Pjalt r' EiAltur6 v Exva[/a6tv, may indicate tellurem infindere sulcis, blending the received alternatives.

52. Laetentur (Mynors); laetantur is the alternative. The scholia Bernensia knew the subjunctive. No help is afforded by

from the celebrated business of qui non risere parenti at the end. Still, a look at the Greek version under review is worth- while. It affords a glimpse of the history of the transmission of Vergil's text, and indicates which readings were followed in the age of Servius and the centuries from which most of the extant papyrus texts of Vergil derive. In what follows, the revised OCT of Mynors, the variant readings, the Greek ver- sion, and (where instructive) the ancient commentaries are taken together.

7. Demittitur is read by Mynors; the manuscript variant is dimittitur. The Greek paraphrase has epaavOri, which is un- helpful.

18. At tibi prima, puer, nullo . . . is rightly printed by Mynors instead of the variant ac tibi nulla pater primo .... It was the reading of both Servius and the scholia Bernensia, and of our Greek translator who renders aol 6' daa, r&O . . .

20. Fundet (Mynors);fundit is the alternative reading, nota- bly in Macrobius (6.6.18). The latter was in the Greek trans- lator's text, for he renders by pvPet.

21. Referent (Mynors) instead of the alternative referant. Servius read the indicative, as did our translator with his ovvcxre,Eovo .

26. At (Mynors); ac is the variant. Ac is explained as verum by the scholia Bernensia. The Greek version is avirtxa 6', suggesting at.

26. Parentis. Thus Mynors, rather than parentum. The sin- gular was read by Servius, Nonius (331.34 Lindsay), and Junius Philargyrius. The Greek version Jraro; Tre jyiaorov is consonant.

28. Flavescet is preferred by Mynors to the variant flaves- cit. The former was in the texts of Philargyrius and the scholia Bernensia. The Greek paraphrase ~avO&iv 7jyovro aitwai may imply flavescit.

33. Telluri infindere sulcos (Mynors) rather than tellurem infindere sulco. The Greek reAacov adoveQr is inconclusive, but the balance of the line, 'Pjalt r' EiAltur6 v Exva[/a6tv, may indicate tellurem infindere sulcis, blending the received alternatives.

52. Laetentur (Mynors); laetantur is the alternative. The scholia Bernensia knew the subjunctive. No help is afforded by

from the celebrated business of qui non risere parenti at the end. Still, a look at the Greek version under review is worth- while. It affords a glimpse of the history of the transmission of Vergil's text, and indicates which readings were followed in the age of Servius and the centuries from which most of the extant papyrus texts of Vergil derive. In what follows, the revised OCT of Mynors, the variant readings, the Greek ver- sion, and (where instructive) the ancient commentaries are taken together.

7. Demittitur is read by Mynors; the manuscript variant is dimittitur. The Greek paraphrase has epaavOri, which is un- helpful.

18. At tibi prima, puer, nullo . . . is rightly printed by Mynors instead of the variant ac tibi nulla pater primo .... It was the reading of both Servius and the scholia Bernensia, and of our Greek translator who renders aol 6' daa, r&O . . .

20. Fundet (Mynors);fundit is the alternative reading, nota- bly in Macrobius (6.6.18). The latter was in the Greek trans- lator's text, for he renders by pvPet.

21. Referent (Mynors) instead of the alternative referant. Servius read the indicative, as did our translator with his ovvcxre,Eovo .

26. At (Mynors); ac is the variant. Ac is explained as verum by the scholia Bernensia. The Greek version is avirtxa 6', suggesting at.

26. Parentis. Thus Mynors, rather than parentum. The sin- gular was read by Servius, Nonius (331.34 Lindsay), and Junius Philargyrius. The Greek version Jraro; Tre jyiaorov is consonant.

28. Flavescet is preferred by Mynors to the variant flaves- cit. The former was in the texts of Philargyrius and the scholia Bernensia. The Greek paraphrase ~avO&iv 7jyovro aitwai may imply flavescit.

33. Telluri infindere sulcos (Mynors) rather than tellurem infindere sulco. The Greek reAacov adoveQr is inconclusive, but the balance of the line, 'Pjalt r' EiAltur6 v Exva[/a6tv, may indicate tellurem infindere sulcis, blending the received alternatives.

52. Laetentur (Mynors); laetantur is the alternative. The scholia Bernensia knew the subjunctive. No help is afforded by

from the celebrated business of qui non risere parenti at the end. Still, a look at the Greek version under review is worth- while. It affords a glimpse of the history of the transmission of Vergil's text, and indicates which readings were followed in the age of Servius and the centuries from which most of the extant papyrus texts of Vergil derive. In what follows, the revised OCT of Mynors, the variant readings, the Greek ver- sion, and (where instructive) the ancient commentaries are taken together.

7. Demittitur is read by Mynors; the manuscript variant is dimittitur. The Greek paraphrase has epaavOri, which is un- helpful.

18. At tibi prima, puer, nullo . . . is rightly printed by Mynors instead of the variant ac tibi nulla pater primo .... It was the reading of both Servius and the scholia Bernensia, and of our Greek translator who renders aol 6' daa, r&O . . .

20. Fundet (Mynors);fundit is the alternative reading, nota- bly in Macrobius (6.6.18). The latter was in the Greek trans- lator's text, for he renders by pvPet.

21. Referent (Mynors) instead of the alternative referant. Servius read the indicative, as did our translator with his ovvcxre,Eovo .

26. At (Mynors); ac is the variant. Ac is explained as verum by the scholia Bernensia. The Greek version is avirtxa 6', suggesting at.

26. Parentis. Thus Mynors, rather than parentum. The sin- gular was read by Servius, Nonius (331.34 Lindsay), and Junius Philargyrius. The Greek version Jraro; Tre jyiaorov is consonant.

28. Flavescet is preferred by Mynors to the variant flaves- cit. The former was in the texts of Philargyrius and the scholia Bernensia. The Greek paraphrase ~avO&iv 7jyovro aitwai may imply flavescit.

33. Telluri infindere sulcos (Mynors) rather than tellurem infindere sulco. The Greek reAacov adoveQr is inconclusive, but the balance of the line, 'Pjalt r' EiAltur6 v Exva[/a6tv, may indicate tellurem infindere sulcis, blending the received alternatives.

52. Laetentur (Mynors); laetantur is the alternative. The scholia Bernensia knew the subjunctive. No help is afforded by

363 363 363 363 363

This content downloaded from 134.153.184.170 on Sun, 10 Nov 2013 14:10:17 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BARRY BALDWIN BARRY BALDWIN BARRY BALDWIN BARRY BALDWIN BARRY BALDWIN

the Greek paraphrase, since it resorts to the noun XaQ,uouovvr to convey the sense.

53. Longae (Mynors); longe is the variant. Servius read the adjective, as did translator, judging by his aneLetQEoov.

55. Vincet is preferred by Mynors to vincat. The Greek ovx av t' Exr2t 4ElEtEv must have been based on the subjunctive.

59. Arcadia (Mynors); there is a variant Arcadiae, though not for Arcadia in the preceding line, which is iterated here. Arcadia must be right. The Greek version (which attempts to preserve the iterative effect) has 6v 'AQxa6ori rTxero, which does not help to resolve the minor point in the Latin.

59. Dicat is read by Mynors against dicet, which is in Mac- robius (5.14.6). The Greek paraphrase contains avOEderrat, which seems to imply an original Latin indicative.

61. Mynors has matri for the inferior variant matris. The Greek version does not help, since the mother there appears in the nominative.

61. Tulerunt is printed by Mynors over the rival tulerant. The shortened -er of the perfect is often corrupted by scribes. According to Servius, there was another reading, namely abstulerint, which inevitably spawned tlulerint. The Greek paraphrase affords no guidance as to what the Latin was at this particular point.

62. Qui non risere parenti, rather than cui non risere parentes. To this time-honoured issue nothing need be added save the information that our Greek translator clearly had a text reading cui non risere parentes, for his version is ooi 6e

yovels; . . . -yiaooaav. It might be added that the Greek version does not help to

elucidate the grammar of quo in line 8 (tu modo nascentipuero, quo ferrea primum . . .), recently challenged8 as inexplicable. However, this is a non-problem, if one simply understands nascente with quo, as did Servius.

One also notes a half-line in the Greek version of lines 8-10, consisting of the single word :roaxvrlt. As Heikel's ap- paratus exhibits no corruption or lacuna at this point, the effect must have been intended. It betokens at the very least an

the Greek paraphrase, since it resorts to the noun XaQ,uouovvr to convey the sense.

53. Longae (Mynors); longe is the variant. Servius read the adjective, as did translator, judging by his aneLetQEoov.

55. Vincet is preferred by Mynors to vincat. The Greek ovx av t' Exr2t 4ElEtEv must have been based on the subjunctive.

59. Arcadia (Mynors); there is a variant Arcadiae, though not for Arcadia in the preceding line, which is iterated here. Arcadia must be right. The Greek version (which attempts to preserve the iterative effect) has 6v 'AQxa6ori rTxero, which does not help to resolve the minor point in the Latin.

59. Dicat is read by Mynors against dicet, which is in Mac- robius (5.14.6). The Greek paraphrase contains avOEderrat, which seems to imply an original Latin indicative.

61. Mynors has matri for the inferior variant matris. The Greek version does not help, since the mother there appears in the nominative.

61. Tulerunt is printed by Mynors over the rival tulerant. The shortened -er of the perfect is often corrupted by scribes. According to Servius, there was another reading, namely abstulerint, which inevitably spawned tlulerint. The Greek paraphrase affords no guidance as to what the Latin was at this particular point.

62. Qui non risere parenti, rather than cui non risere parentes. To this time-honoured issue nothing need be added save the information that our Greek translator clearly had a text reading cui non risere parentes, for his version is ooi 6e

yovels; . . . -yiaooaav. It might be added that the Greek version does not help to

elucidate the grammar of quo in line 8 (tu modo nascentipuero, quo ferrea primum . . .), recently challenged8 as inexplicable. However, this is a non-problem, if one simply understands nascente with quo, as did Servius.

One also notes a half-line in the Greek version of lines 8-10, consisting of the single word :roaxvrlt. As Heikel's ap- paratus exhibits no corruption or lacuna at this point, the effect must have been intended. It betokens at the very least an

the Greek paraphrase, since it resorts to the noun XaQ,uouovvr to convey the sense.

53. Longae (Mynors); longe is the variant. Servius read the adjective, as did translator, judging by his aneLetQEoov.

55. Vincet is preferred by Mynors to vincat. The Greek ovx av t' Exr2t 4ElEtEv must have been based on the subjunctive.

59. Arcadia (Mynors); there is a variant Arcadiae, though not for Arcadia in the preceding line, which is iterated here. Arcadia must be right. The Greek version (which attempts to preserve the iterative effect) has 6v 'AQxa6ori rTxero, which does not help to resolve the minor point in the Latin.

59. Dicat is read by Mynors against dicet, which is in Mac- robius (5.14.6). The Greek paraphrase contains avOEderrat, which seems to imply an original Latin indicative.

61. Mynors has matri for the inferior variant matris. The Greek version does not help, since the mother there appears in the nominative.

61. Tulerunt is printed by Mynors over the rival tulerant. The shortened -er of the perfect is often corrupted by scribes. According to Servius, there was another reading, namely abstulerint, which inevitably spawned tlulerint. The Greek paraphrase affords no guidance as to what the Latin was at this particular point.

62. Qui non risere parenti, rather than cui non risere parentes. To this time-honoured issue nothing need be added save the information that our Greek translator clearly had a text reading cui non risere parentes, for his version is ooi 6e

yovels; . . . -yiaooaav. It might be added that the Greek version does not help to

elucidate the grammar of quo in line 8 (tu modo nascentipuero, quo ferrea primum . . .), recently challenged8 as inexplicable. However, this is a non-problem, if one simply understands nascente with quo, as did Servius.

One also notes a half-line in the Greek version of lines 8-10, consisting of the single word :roaxvrlt. As Heikel's ap- paratus exhibits no corruption or lacuna at this point, the effect must have been intended. It betokens at the very least an

the Greek paraphrase, since it resorts to the noun XaQ,uouovvr to convey the sense.

53. Longae (Mynors); longe is the variant. Servius read the adjective, as did translator, judging by his aneLetQEoov.

55. Vincet is preferred by Mynors to vincat. The Greek ovx av t' Exr2t 4ElEtEv must have been based on the subjunctive.

59. Arcadia (Mynors); there is a variant Arcadiae, though not for Arcadia in the preceding line, which is iterated here. Arcadia must be right. The Greek version (which attempts to preserve the iterative effect) has 6v 'AQxa6ori rTxero, which does not help to resolve the minor point in the Latin.

59. Dicat is read by Mynors against dicet, which is in Mac- robius (5.14.6). The Greek paraphrase contains avOEderrat, which seems to imply an original Latin indicative.

61. Mynors has matri for the inferior variant matris. The Greek version does not help, since the mother there appears in the nominative.

61. Tulerunt is printed by Mynors over the rival tulerant. The shortened -er of the perfect is often corrupted by scribes. According to Servius, there was another reading, namely abstulerint, which inevitably spawned tlulerint. The Greek paraphrase affords no guidance as to what the Latin was at this particular point.

62. Qui non risere parenti, rather than cui non risere parentes. To this time-honoured issue nothing need be added save the information that our Greek translator clearly had a text reading cui non risere parentes, for his version is ooi 6e

yovels; . . . -yiaooaav. It might be added that the Greek version does not help to

elucidate the grammar of quo in line 8 (tu modo nascentipuero, quo ferrea primum . . .), recently challenged8 as inexplicable. However, this is a non-problem, if one simply understands nascente with quo, as did Servius.

One also notes a half-line in the Greek version of lines 8-10, consisting of the single word :roaxvrlt. As Heikel's ap- paratus exhibits no corruption or lacuna at this point, the effect must have been intended. It betokens at the very least an

the Greek paraphrase, since it resorts to the noun XaQ,uouovvr to convey the sense.

53. Longae (Mynors); longe is the variant. Servius read the adjective, as did translator, judging by his aneLetQEoov.

55. Vincet is preferred by Mynors to vincat. The Greek ovx av t' Exr2t 4ElEtEv must have been based on the subjunctive.

59. Arcadia (Mynors); there is a variant Arcadiae, though not for Arcadia in the preceding line, which is iterated here. Arcadia must be right. The Greek version (which attempts to preserve the iterative effect) has 6v 'AQxa6ori rTxero, which does not help to resolve the minor point in the Latin.

59. Dicat is read by Mynors against dicet, which is in Mac- robius (5.14.6). The Greek paraphrase contains avOEderrat, which seems to imply an original Latin indicative.

61. Mynors has matri for the inferior variant matris. The Greek version does not help, since the mother there appears in the nominative.

61. Tulerunt is printed by Mynors over the rival tulerant. The shortened -er of the perfect is often corrupted by scribes. According to Servius, there was another reading, namely abstulerint, which inevitably spawned tlulerint. The Greek paraphrase affords no guidance as to what the Latin was at this particular point.

62. Qui non risere parenti, rather than cui non risere parentes. To this time-honoured issue nothing need be added save the information that our Greek translator clearly had a text reading cui non risere parentes, for his version is ooi 6e

yovels; . . . -yiaooaav. It might be added that the Greek version does not help to

elucidate the grammar of quo in line 8 (tu modo nascentipuero, quo ferrea primum . . .), recently challenged8 as inexplicable. However, this is a non-problem, if one simply understands nascente with quo, as did Servius.

One also notes a half-line in the Greek version of lines 8-10, consisting of the single word :roaxvrlt. As Heikel's ap- paratus exhibits no corruption or lacuna at this point, the effect must have been intended. It betokens at the very least an

8 By E. Flintoff, CR N.S. 23 (1973) 10-11, who repunctuates thus: tu modo nascenti, puero quo ....

8 By E. Flintoff, CR N.S. 23 (1973) 10-11, who repunctuates thus: tu modo nascenti, puero quo ....

8 By E. Flintoff, CR N.S. 23 (1973) 10-11, who repunctuates thus: tu modo nascenti, puero quo ....

8 By E. Flintoff, CR N.S. 23 (1973) 10-11, who repunctuates thus: tu modo nascenti, puero quo ....

8 By E. Flintoff, CR N.S. 23 (1973) 10-11, who repunctuates thus: tu modo nascenti, puero quo ....

364 364 364 364 364

This content downloaded from 134.153.184.170 on Sun, 10 Nov 2013 14:10:17 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

VERGILIUS GRAECUS VERGILIUS GRAECUS VERGILIUS GRAECUS VERGILIUS GRAECUS VERGILIUS GRAECUS

acquaintance with Vergil wider than the Fourth Eclogue, for there are no half-lines in that poem.

Now to the papyri. It is not surprising that there are more of Vergil than of any other Latin writer, prose or verse. The favourable Christian attitude, coupled with the resurgence of Greek and Latin epic from the fourth century on, saw to that.9 True, the chance nature of our extant papyri may not give an accurate overall view of what Roman authors were studied in Byzantine Egypt, and future discoveries will (one hopes) in- validate any current tables or lists of authors represented. Yet for the reasons given above, the dominance of Vergil seems neither implausible nor likely to be challenged.

A word on the other Latin writers currently represented by papyrus texts will sharpen the perspective.10 Poetry is rep- resented by four lines of Lucan" and the Antinoe papyrus12 containing Juvenal 7.149-98; Latin versions of bits of Aesop and Babrius are of related interest. Prose authors are domi- nated by Cicero; In Verrem 2 and the Catilinarians appear to have been the most read of his speeches (only the orations are-so far-represented in the papyri). The other prose writ- ers studied were Livy and Sallust. This makes sense, given the large amount of historiography produced from the fourth cen- tury onwards.'3

No Horace, no Ovid. The former might turn up. It is unlikely that he was altogether unknown in Byzantine Egypt and the Greek world in general. Indeed, there is a possible reminis- cence of him in Eunapius.14 The absence of Ovid is far more

9 See Alan Cameron, "Wandering Poets: A Literary Movement in Byzan- tine Egypt," Historia 14 (1965) 470-509.

10 Texts for the most part in Cavenaile, op. cit., 7-70; cf. Pack, op. cit., nos. 2935-52, for basic details of provenance, content, and bibliography. Cf. V. Reichmann, Romische Literatur in griechischer Ubersetzung, Philologus Suppl. Band 34 (1943).

11 P. Lond. 42 (5th or 6th century) contains BC 2. 247-48, 265-66. 12 On this, see C. H. Roberts, "The Antinoe fragment of Juvenal," JEA 21

(1935) 199-209; id. "A latin parchment from Antinoe," Aegyptus 15 (1935) 297-302. The papyrus belongs to the early sixth century.

13 Cf. the unidentified historiographical fragments in Cavenaile, 120-23. 14 VS 459 says of the baths at Baiae 'xeivoti 6 ovx oartv ETreQa

nraapafd2).Aeoat, which is reminiscent of Ep. 1.1.85: nullus in orbe locus Baiis praelucet amoenis.

acquaintance with Vergil wider than the Fourth Eclogue, for there are no half-lines in that poem.

Now to the papyri. It is not surprising that there are more of Vergil than of any other Latin writer, prose or verse. The favourable Christian attitude, coupled with the resurgence of Greek and Latin epic from the fourth century on, saw to that.9 True, the chance nature of our extant papyri may not give an accurate overall view of what Roman authors were studied in Byzantine Egypt, and future discoveries will (one hopes) in- validate any current tables or lists of authors represented. Yet for the reasons given above, the dominance of Vergil seems neither implausible nor likely to be challenged.

A word on the other Latin writers currently represented by papyrus texts will sharpen the perspective.10 Poetry is rep- resented by four lines of Lucan" and the Antinoe papyrus12 containing Juvenal 7.149-98; Latin versions of bits of Aesop and Babrius are of related interest. Prose authors are domi- nated by Cicero; In Verrem 2 and the Catilinarians appear to have been the most read of his speeches (only the orations are-so far-represented in the papyri). The other prose writ- ers studied were Livy and Sallust. This makes sense, given the large amount of historiography produced from the fourth cen- tury onwards.'3

No Horace, no Ovid. The former might turn up. It is unlikely that he was altogether unknown in Byzantine Egypt and the Greek world in general. Indeed, there is a possible reminis- cence of him in Eunapius.14 The absence of Ovid is far more

9 See Alan Cameron, "Wandering Poets: A Literary Movement in Byzan- tine Egypt," Historia 14 (1965) 470-509.

10 Texts for the most part in Cavenaile, op. cit., 7-70; cf. Pack, op. cit., nos. 2935-52, for basic details of provenance, content, and bibliography. Cf. V. Reichmann, Romische Literatur in griechischer Ubersetzung, Philologus Suppl. Band 34 (1943).

11 P. Lond. 42 (5th or 6th century) contains BC 2. 247-48, 265-66. 12 On this, see C. H. Roberts, "The Antinoe fragment of Juvenal," JEA 21

(1935) 199-209; id. "A latin parchment from Antinoe," Aegyptus 15 (1935) 297-302. The papyrus belongs to the early sixth century.

13 Cf. the unidentified historiographical fragments in Cavenaile, 120-23. 14 VS 459 says of the baths at Baiae 'xeivoti 6 ovx oartv ETreQa

nraapafd2).Aeoat, which is reminiscent of Ep. 1.1.85: nullus in orbe locus Baiis praelucet amoenis.

acquaintance with Vergil wider than the Fourth Eclogue, for there are no half-lines in that poem.

Now to the papyri. It is not surprising that there are more of Vergil than of any other Latin writer, prose or verse. The favourable Christian attitude, coupled with the resurgence of Greek and Latin epic from the fourth century on, saw to that.9 True, the chance nature of our extant papyri may not give an accurate overall view of what Roman authors were studied in Byzantine Egypt, and future discoveries will (one hopes) in- validate any current tables or lists of authors represented. Yet for the reasons given above, the dominance of Vergil seems neither implausible nor likely to be challenged.

A word on the other Latin writers currently represented by papyrus texts will sharpen the perspective.10 Poetry is rep- resented by four lines of Lucan" and the Antinoe papyrus12 containing Juvenal 7.149-98; Latin versions of bits of Aesop and Babrius are of related interest. Prose authors are domi- nated by Cicero; In Verrem 2 and the Catilinarians appear to have been the most read of his speeches (only the orations are-so far-represented in the papyri). The other prose writ- ers studied were Livy and Sallust. This makes sense, given the large amount of historiography produced from the fourth cen- tury onwards.'3

No Horace, no Ovid. The former might turn up. It is unlikely that he was altogether unknown in Byzantine Egypt and the Greek world in general. Indeed, there is a possible reminis- cence of him in Eunapius.14 The absence of Ovid is far more

9 See Alan Cameron, "Wandering Poets: A Literary Movement in Byzan- tine Egypt," Historia 14 (1965) 470-509.

10 Texts for the most part in Cavenaile, op. cit., 7-70; cf. Pack, op. cit., nos. 2935-52, for basic details of provenance, content, and bibliography. Cf. V. Reichmann, Romische Literatur in griechischer Ubersetzung, Philologus Suppl. Band 34 (1943).

11 P. Lond. 42 (5th or 6th century) contains BC 2. 247-48, 265-66. 12 On this, see C. H. Roberts, "The Antinoe fragment of Juvenal," JEA 21

(1935) 199-209; id. "A latin parchment from Antinoe," Aegyptus 15 (1935) 297-302. The papyrus belongs to the early sixth century.

13 Cf. the unidentified historiographical fragments in Cavenaile, 120-23. 14 VS 459 says of the baths at Baiae 'xeivoti 6 ovx oartv ETreQa

nraapafd2).Aeoat, which is reminiscent of Ep. 1.1.85: nullus in orbe locus Baiis praelucet amoenis.

acquaintance with Vergil wider than the Fourth Eclogue, for there are no half-lines in that poem.

Now to the papyri. It is not surprising that there are more of Vergil than of any other Latin writer, prose or verse. The favourable Christian attitude, coupled with the resurgence of Greek and Latin epic from the fourth century on, saw to that.9 True, the chance nature of our extant papyri may not give an accurate overall view of what Roman authors were studied in Byzantine Egypt, and future discoveries will (one hopes) in- validate any current tables or lists of authors represented. Yet for the reasons given above, the dominance of Vergil seems neither implausible nor likely to be challenged.

A word on the other Latin writers currently represented by papyrus texts will sharpen the perspective.10 Poetry is rep- resented by four lines of Lucan" and the Antinoe papyrus12 containing Juvenal 7.149-98; Latin versions of bits of Aesop and Babrius are of related interest. Prose authors are domi- nated by Cicero; In Verrem 2 and the Catilinarians appear to have been the most read of his speeches (only the orations are-so far-represented in the papyri). The other prose writ- ers studied were Livy and Sallust. This makes sense, given the large amount of historiography produced from the fourth cen- tury onwards.'3

No Horace, no Ovid. The former might turn up. It is unlikely that he was altogether unknown in Byzantine Egypt and the Greek world in general. Indeed, there is a possible reminis- cence of him in Eunapius.14 The absence of Ovid is far more

9 See Alan Cameron, "Wandering Poets: A Literary Movement in Byzan- tine Egypt," Historia 14 (1965) 470-509.

10 Texts for the most part in Cavenaile, op. cit., 7-70; cf. Pack, op. cit., nos. 2935-52, for basic details of provenance, content, and bibliography. Cf. V. Reichmann, Romische Literatur in griechischer Ubersetzung, Philologus Suppl. Band 34 (1943).

11 P. Lond. 42 (5th or 6th century) contains BC 2. 247-48, 265-66. 12 On this, see C. H. Roberts, "The Antinoe fragment of Juvenal," JEA 21

(1935) 199-209; id. "A latin parchment from Antinoe," Aegyptus 15 (1935) 297-302. The papyrus belongs to the early sixth century.

13 Cf. the unidentified historiographical fragments in Cavenaile, 120-23. 14 VS 459 says of the baths at Baiae 'xeivoti 6 ovx oartv ETreQa

nraapafd2).Aeoat, which is reminiscent of Ep. 1.1.85: nullus in orbe locus Baiis praelucet amoenis.

acquaintance with Vergil wider than the Fourth Eclogue, for there are no half-lines in that poem.

Now to the papyri. It is not surprising that there are more of Vergil than of any other Latin writer, prose or verse. The favourable Christian attitude, coupled with the resurgence of Greek and Latin epic from the fourth century on, saw to that.9 True, the chance nature of our extant papyri may not give an accurate overall view of what Roman authors were studied in Byzantine Egypt, and future discoveries will (one hopes) in- validate any current tables or lists of authors represented. Yet for the reasons given above, the dominance of Vergil seems neither implausible nor likely to be challenged.

A word on the other Latin writers currently represented by papyrus texts will sharpen the perspective.10 Poetry is rep- resented by four lines of Lucan" and the Antinoe papyrus12 containing Juvenal 7.149-98; Latin versions of bits of Aesop and Babrius are of related interest. Prose authors are domi- nated by Cicero; In Verrem 2 and the Catilinarians appear to have been the most read of his speeches (only the orations are-so far-represented in the papyri). The other prose writ- ers studied were Livy and Sallust. This makes sense, given the large amount of historiography produced from the fourth cen- tury onwards.'3

No Horace, no Ovid. The former might turn up. It is unlikely that he was altogether unknown in Byzantine Egypt and the Greek world in general. Indeed, there is a possible reminis- cence of him in Eunapius.14 The absence of Ovid is far more

9 See Alan Cameron, "Wandering Poets: A Literary Movement in Byzan- tine Egypt," Historia 14 (1965) 470-509.

10 Texts for the most part in Cavenaile, op. cit., 7-70; cf. Pack, op. cit., nos. 2935-52, for basic details of provenance, content, and bibliography. Cf. V. Reichmann, Romische Literatur in griechischer Ubersetzung, Philologus Suppl. Band 34 (1943).

11 P. Lond. 42 (5th or 6th century) contains BC 2. 247-48, 265-66. 12 On this, see C. H. Roberts, "The Antinoe fragment of Juvenal," JEA 21

(1935) 199-209; id. "A latin parchment from Antinoe," Aegyptus 15 (1935) 297-302. The papyrus belongs to the early sixth century.

13 Cf. the unidentified historiographical fragments in Cavenaile, 120-23. 14 VS 459 says of the baths at Baiae 'xeivoti 6 ovx oartv ETreQa

nraapafd2).Aeoat, which is reminiscent of Ep. 1.1.85: nullus in orbe locus Baiis praelucet amoenis.

365 365 365 365 365

This content downloaded from 134.153.184.170 on Sun, 10 Nov 2013 14:10:17 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BARRY BALDWIN BARRY BALDWIN BARRY BALDWIN BARRY BALDWIN BARRY BALDWIN

surprising, unless we are misled by his popularity in mediaeval and Renaissance Europe and in later Byzantium.

In which last connection, it is relevant to Vergil to recall the Byzantine Greek versions of Ovid, which appear to derive from a Greek prose translation of the Amores, Ars Amatoria, and Remedia Amoris, probably made by Maximus Planudes or one of his circle.15 The papyri disclose word-for-word Greek construes of Cicero and juxtalinear texts of the Aeneid. Greek prose versions of Vergil are hard to disbelieve in.

Back to the texts of Vergil. 16 One papyrus contains lines 17-31 of the Fifth Eclogue.'7 A fifth-century palimpsest18 of uncertain provenance offers Georgics 1.229-37, accompanied by a Greek translation. From Antinoopolis'9 in the fourth cen-

tury comes a papyrus text of Georgics 2.527-42; 3.1-25. A writing exercise of a student from Tebtunis20 is seen in the form of the first two lines of the Fourth Georgic, repeated five times.

This last is paralleled by the first century papyrus mentioned earlier as the oldest extant manuscript of Vergil. It contains Aeneid 2.601, written out seven times. One can see the early, widespread, and persistent use of Vergil as a school text.

The Aeneid dominates the papyrus texts. Another

phenomenon devoid of surprise. Of overwhelming interest is P. Colt 1, of the sixth century, from Nessana in Palestine.21 It contains bits of Aeneid 1, 2, and 4, adorned by a Latin-Greek

glossary of over one thousand words or phrases. This latter discloses several Greek words hitherto unattested. We may note Ex6QaaevrTa, employed as a synonymn for eiectum (Aeneid 4.373), which eluded the Supplement to LSJ. Also

15 See Ovidiana Graeca (ed. P. E. Easterling and E. J. Kenney, Cambridge

Philological Society, 1965); cf. Kenney, "A Byzantine Version of Ovid," Hermes 91 (1963) 213-27.

16 See V. Ussani, "Virgilio e l'Egitto," Boll. Assoc. Int. Medit. 1(1930) 20-30.

Q. Cataudella, "Sulla fortuna di Virgilio nel mondo greco- egiziano," Chronique d'Egypte (1932) 332-34.

17 P. Stras. lat. 2. 18 Details in Pack, no. 2936. 19 p. Antin. 29. 20 P. Tebt. 2.686 (2nd or 3rd century). 21 Usually cited as P. Colt 1; in addition to Cavenaile and Pack, see H. D.

Colt, "Who read Vergil in Zin?" CJ 42 (1946) 313-23.

surprising, unless we are misled by his popularity in mediaeval and Renaissance Europe and in later Byzantium.

In which last connection, it is relevant to Vergil to recall the Byzantine Greek versions of Ovid, which appear to derive from a Greek prose translation of the Amores, Ars Amatoria, and Remedia Amoris, probably made by Maximus Planudes or one of his circle.15 The papyri disclose word-for-word Greek construes of Cicero and juxtalinear texts of the Aeneid. Greek prose versions of Vergil are hard to disbelieve in.

Back to the texts of Vergil. 16 One papyrus contains lines 17-31 of the Fifth Eclogue.'7 A fifth-century palimpsest18 of uncertain provenance offers Georgics 1.229-37, accompanied by a Greek translation. From Antinoopolis'9 in the fourth cen-

tury comes a papyrus text of Georgics 2.527-42; 3.1-25. A writing exercise of a student from Tebtunis20 is seen in the form of the first two lines of the Fourth Georgic, repeated five times.

This last is paralleled by the first century papyrus mentioned earlier as the oldest extant manuscript of Vergil. It contains Aeneid 2.601, written out seven times. One can see the early, widespread, and persistent use of Vergil as a school text.

The Aeneid dominates the papyrus texts. Another

phenomenon devoid of surprise. Of overwhelming interest is P. Colt 1, of the sixth century, from Nessana in Palestine.21 It contains bits of Aeneid 1, 2, and 4, adorned by a Latin-Greek

glossary of over one thousand words or phrases. This latter discloses several Greek words hitherto unattested. We may note Ex6QaaevrTa, employed as a synonymn for eiectum (Aeneid 4.373), which eluded the Supplement to LSJ. Also

15 See Ovidiana Graeca (ed. P. E. Easterling and E. J. Kenney, Cambridge

Philological Society, 1965); cf. Kenney, "A Byzantine Version of Ovid," Hermes 91 (1963) 213-27.

16 See V. Ussani, "Virgilio e l'Egitto," Boll. Assoc. Int. Medit. 1(1930) 20-30.

Q. Cataudella, "Sulla fortuna di Virgilio nel mondo greco- egiziano," Chronique d'Egypte (1932) 332-34.

17 P. Stras. lat. 2. 18 Details in Pack, no. 2936. 19 p. Antin. 29. 20 P. Tebt. 2.686 (2nd or 3rd century). 21 Usually cited as P. Colt 1; in addition to Cavenaile and Pack, see H. D.

Colt, "Who read Vergil in Zin?" CJ 42 (1946) 313-23.

surprising, unless we are misled by his popularity in mediaeval and Renaissance Europe and in later Byzantium.

In which last connection, it is relevant to Vergil to recall the Byzantine Greek versions of Ovid, which appear to derive from a Greek prose translation of the Amores, Ars Amatoria, and Remedia Amoris, probably made by Maximus Planudes or one of his circle.15 The papyri disclose word-for-word Greek construes of Cicero and juxtalinear texts of the Aeneid. Greek prose versions of Vergil are hard to disbelieve in.

Back to the texts of Vergil. 16 One papyrus contains lines 17-31 of the Fifth Eclogue.'7 A fifth-century palimpsest18 of uncertain provenance offers Georgics 1.229-37, accompanied by a Greek translation. From Antinoopolis'9 in the fourth cen-

tury comes a papyrus text of Georgics 2.527-42; 3.1-25. A writing exercise of a student from Tebtunis20 is seen in the form of the first two lines of the Fourth Georgic, repeated five times.

This last is paralleled by the first century papyrus mentioned earlier as the oldest extant manuscript of Vergil. It contains Aeneid 2.601, written out seven times. One can see the early, widespread, and persistent use of Vergil as a school text.

The Aeneid dominates the papyrus texts. Another

phenomenon devoid of surprise. Of overwhelming interest is P. Colt 1, of the sixth century, from Nessana in Palestine.21 It contains bits of Aeneid 1, 2, and 4, adorned by a Latin-Greek

glossary of over one thousand words or phrases. This latter discloses several Greek words hitherto unattested. We may note Ex6QaaevrTa, employed as a synonymn for eiectum (Aeneid 4.373), which eluded the Supplement to LSJ. Also

15 See Ovidiana Graeca (ed. P. E. Easterling and E. J. Kenney, Cambridge

Philological Society, 1965); cf. Kenney, "A Byzantine Version of Ovid," Hermes 91 (1963) 213-27.

16 See V. Ussani, "Virgilio e l'Egitto," Boll. Assoc. Int. Medit. 1(1930) 20-30.

Q. Cataudella, "Sulla fortuna di Virgilio nel mondo greco- egiziano," Chronique d'Egypte (1932) 332-34.

17 P. Stras. lat. 2. 18 Details in Pack, no. 2936. 19 p. Antin. 29. 20 P. Tebt. 2.686 (2nd or 3rd century). 21 Usually cited as P. Colt 1; in addition to Cavenaile and Pack, see H. D.

Colt, "Who read Vergil in Zin?" CJ 42 (1946) 313-23.

surprising, unless we are misled by his popularity in mediaeval and Renaissance Europe and in later Byzantium.

In which last connection, it is relevant to Vergil to recall the Byzantine Greek versions of Ovid, which appear to derive from a Greek prose translation of the Amores, Ars Amatoria, and Remedia Amoris, probably made by Maximus Planudes or one of his circle.15 The papyri disclose word-for-word Greek construes of Cicero and juxtalinear texts of the Aeneid. Greek prose versions of Vergil are hard to disbelieve in.

Back to the texts of Vergil. 16 One papyrus contains lines 17-31 of the Fifth Eclogue.'7 A fifth-century palimpsest18 of uncertain provenance offers Georgics 1.229-37, accompanied by a Greek translation. From Antinoopolis'9 in the fourth cen-

tury comes a papyrus text of Georgics 2.527-42; 3.1-25. A writing exercise of a student from Tebtunis20 is seen in the form of the first two lines of the Fourth Georgic, repeated five times.

This last is paralleled by the first century papyrus mentioned earlier as the oldest extant manuscript of Vergil. It contains Aeneid 2.601, written out seven times. One can see the early, widespread, and persistent use of Vergil as a school text.

The Aeneid dominates the papyrus texts. Another

phenomenon devoid of surprise. Of overwhelming interest is P. Colt 1, of the sixth century, from Nessana in Palestine.21 It contains bits of Aeneid 1, 2, and 4, adorned by a Latin-Greek

glossary of over one thousand words or phrases. This latter discloses several Greek words hitherto unattested. We may note Ex6QaaevrTa, employed as a synonymn for eiectum (Aeneid 4.373), which eluded the Supplement to LSJ. Also

15 See Ovidiana Graeca (ed. P. E. Easterling and E. J. Kenney, Cambridge

Philological Society, 1965); cf. Kenney, "A Byzantine Version of Ovid," Hermes 91 (1963) 213-27.

16 See V. Ussani, "Virgilio e l'Egitto," Boll. Assoc. Int. Medit. 1(1930) 20-30.

Q. Cataudella, "Sulla fortuna di Virgilio nel mondo greco- egiziano," Chronique d'Egypte (1932) 332-34.

17 P. Stras. lat. 2. 18 Details in Pack, no. 2936. 19 p. Antin. 29. 20 P. Tebt. 2.686 (2nd or 3rd century). 21 Usually cited as P. Colt 1; in addition to Cavenaile and Pack, see H. D.

Colt, "Who read Vergil in Zin?" CJ 42 (1946) 313-23.

surprising, unless we are misled by his popularity in mediaeval and Renaissance Europe and in later Byzantium.

In which last connection, it is relevant to Vergil to recall the Byzantine Greek versions of Ovid, which appear to derive from a Greek prose translation of the Amores, Ars Amatoria, and Remedia Amoris, probably made by Maximus Planudes or one of his circle.15 The papyri disclose word-for-word Greek construes of Cicero and juxtalinear texts of the Aeneid. Greek prose versions of Vergil are hard to disbelieve in.

Back to the texts of Vergil. 16 One papyrus contains lines 17-31 of the Fifth Eclogue.'7 A fifth-century palimpsest18 of uncertain provenance offers Georgics 1.229-37, accompanied by a Greek translation. From Antinoopolis'9 in the fourth cen-

tury comes a papyrus text of Georgics 2.527-42; 3.1-25. A writing exercise of a student from Tebtunis20 is seen in the form of the first two lines of the Fourth Georgic, repeated five times.

This last is paralleled by the first century papyrus mentioned earlier as the oldest extant manuscript of Vergil. It contains Aeneid 2.601, written out seven times. One can see the early, widespread, and persistent use of Vergil as a school text.

The Aeneid dominates the papyrus texts. Another

phenomenon devoid of surprise. Of overwhelming interest is P. Colt 1, of the sixth century, from Nessana in Palestine.21 It contains bits of Aeneid 1, 2, and 4, adorned by a Latin-Greek

glossary of over one thousand words or phrases. This latter discloses several Greek words hitherto unattested. We may note Ex6QaaevrTa, employed as a synonymn for eiectum (Aeneid 4.373), which eluded the Supplement to LSJ. Also

15 See Ovidiana Graeca (ed. P. E. Easterling and E. J. Kenney, Cambridge

Philological Society, 1965); cf. Kenney, "A Byzantine Version of Ovid," Hermes 91 (1963) 213-27.

16 See V. Ussani, "Virgilio e l'Egitto," Boll. Assoc. Int. Medit. 1(1930) 20-30.

Q. Cataudella, "Sulla fortuna di Virgilio nel mondo greco- egiziano," Chronique d'Egypte (1932) 332-34.

17 P. Stras. lat. 2. 18 Details in Pack, no. 2936. 19 p. Antin. 29. 20 P. Tebt. 2.686 (2nd or 3rd century). 21 Usually cited as P. Colt 1; in addition to Cavenaile and Pack, see H. D.

Colt, "Who read Vergil in Zin?" CJ 42 (1946) 313-23.

366 366 366 366 366

This content downloaded from 134.153.184.170 on Sun, 10 Nov 2013 14:10:17 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

VERGILIUS GRAECUS VERGILIUS GRAECUS VERGILIUS GRAECUS VERGILIUS GRAECUS VERGILIUS GRAECUS

worth remarking are the readings sacra for festa (Aeneid 4. 459) andfunalia for ferali (4. 462), the latter of which is not recorded in Mynors' apparatus.22

All in all, there are nine papyri containing juxtalinear texts, all belonging to the fourth century or later. Some 23 appear to be schoolroom exercises, marked with accents and symbols of quantity and punctuation. Others are probably too elaborate to be the work of tyros; Cavenaile24 reasonably suggested that they might be "les preparations des maitres ou des lecteurs prives de Virgile."

The papyri show Greek-speaking students of Vergil to have been distributed throughout Egypt, Syria, and Palestine. The presence of the Messianic bard in the Holy Land is sufficiently piquant. These students did not all forget their Latin after school. Ammianus and Claudian stand out as hellenophones who produced the last great examples of Latin poetry and historiography. And in the foothills of Parnassus, there were toiling such characters as Nonnus and Tryphiodorus, in whom can be seen Vergil and Ovid, 25 albeit little that is Vergilian or Ovidian.

The last word belongs to Christodorus of Thebes. His only extant poem26 is an ecphrasis of the statues in the public gym- nasium called Zeuxippus. Amongst the motley crew of marbles are four Romans. First (92-96), Julius Casear. He is balanced by Pompey (398-406), whose Isaurian conquests are inserted so as to provide a cue for flattery of those of the emperor Anastasius. At this late date, one surmises that Caesar and Pompey were partly linked together by the influence of Lucan.

The other two Romans are writers, one of prose, the other of verse. The prose writer is none other than Apuleius (303-5), which might give hope of future papyrus texts of him, espe- cially as we know he was being worked on in the West in the

22 The Greek version has :revOtxwc E:Et, which suggests funali. 23 PSI 1.21 (5th century) contains Aeneid 4.66-68, 99-102; P. Oxy. 8.1099 (5th

or 6th century) has a Greek paraphrase of Aen. 4.661-705; 5.1-6. Cf. C. H. Moore, "Latin exercises from a Greek schoolroom," CPhil. 19 (1924) 317-28.

24 P. 7. 25 See Cameron, art. cit., 495, on this. 26 AP 2.414.

worth remarking are the readings sacra for festa (Aeneid 4. 459) andfunalia for ferali (4. 462), the latter of which is not recorded in Mynors' apparatus.22

All in all, there are nine papyri containing juxtalinear texts, all belonging to the fourth century or later. Some 23 appear to be schoolroom exercises, marked with accents and symbols of quantity and punctuation. Others are probably too elaborate to be the work of tyros; Cavenaile24 reasonably suggested that they might be "les preparations des maitres ou des lecteurs prives de Virgile."

The papyri show Greek-speaking students of Vergil to have been distributed throughout Egypt, Syria, and Palestine. The presence of the Messianic bard in the Holy Land is sufficiently piquant. These students did not all forget their Latin after school. Ammianus and Claudian stand out as hellenophones who produced the last great examples of Latin poetry and historiography. And in the foothills of Parnassus, there were toiling such characters as Nonnus and Tryphiodorus, in whom can be seen Vergil and Ovid, 25 albeit little that is Vergilian or Ovidian.

The last word belongs to Christodorus of Thebes. His only extant poem26 is an ecphrasis of the statues in the public gym- nasium called Zeuxippus. Amongst the motley crew of marbles are four Romans. First (92-96), Julius Casear. He is balanced by Pompey (398-406), whose Isaurian conquests are inserted so as to provide a cue for flattery of those of the emperor Anastasius. At this late date, one surmises that Caesar and Pompey were partly linked together by the influence of Lucan.

The other two Romans are writers, one of prose, the other of verse. The prose writer is none other than Apuleius (303-5), which might give hope of future papyrus texts of him, espe- cially as we know he was being worked on in the West in the

22 The Greek version has :revOtxwc E:Et, which suggests funali. 23 PSI 1.21 (5th century) contains Aeneid 4.66-68, 99-102; P. Oxy. 8.1099 (5th

or 6th century) has a Greek paraphrase of Aen. 4.661-705; 5.1-6. Cf. C. H. Moore, "Latin exercises from a Greek schoolroom," CPhil. 19 (1924) 317-28.

24 P. 7. 25 See Cameron, art. cit., 495, on this. 26 AP 2.414.

worth remarking are the readings sacra for festa (Aeneid 4. 459) andfunalia for ferali (4. 462), the latter of which is not recorded in Mynors' apparatus.22

All in all, there are nine papyri containing juxtalinear texts, all belonging to the fourth century or later. Some 23 appear to be schoolroom exercises, marked with accents and symbols of quantity and punctuation. Others are probably too elaborate to be the work of tyros; Cavenaile24 reasonably suggested that they might be "les preparations des maitres ou des lecteurs prives de Virgile."

The papyri show Greek-speaking students of Vergil to have been distributed throughout Egypt, Syria, and Palestine. The presence of the Messianic bard in the Holy Land is sufficiently piquant. These students did not all forget their Latin after school. Ammianus and Claudian stand out as hellenophones who produced the last great examples of Latin poetry and historiography. And in the foothills of Parnassus, there were toiling such characters as Nonnus and Tryphiodorus, in whom can be seen Vergil and Ovid, 25 albeit little that is Vergilian or Ovidian.

The last word belongs to Christodorus of Thebes. His only extant poem26 is an ecphrasis of the statues in the public gym- nasium called Zeuxippus. Amongst the motley crew of marbles are four Romans. First (92-96), Julius Casear. He is balanced by Pompey (398-406), whose Isaurian conquests are inserted so as to provide a cue for flattery of those of the emperor Anastasius. At this late date, one surmises that Caesar and Pompey were partly linked together by the influence of Lucan.

The other two Romans are writers, one of prose, the other of verse. The prose writer is none other than Apuleius (303-5), which might give hope of future papyrus texts of him, espe- cially as we know he was being worked on in the West in the

22 The Greek version has :revOtxwc E:Et, which suggests funali. 23 PSI 1.21 (5th century) contains Aeneid 4.66-68, 99-102; P. Oxy. 8.1099 (5th

or 6th century) has a Greek paraphrase of Aen. 4.661-705; 5.1-6. Cf. C. H. Moore, "Latin exercises from a Greek schoolroom," CPhil. 19 (1924) 317-28.

24 P. 7. 25 See Cameron, art. cit., 495, on this. 26 AP 2.414.

worth remarking are the readings sacra for festa (Aeneid 4. 459) andfunalia for ferali (4. 462), the latter of which is not recorded in Mynors' apparatus.22

All in all, there are nine papyri containing juxtalinear texts, all belonging to the fourth century or later. Some 23 appear to be schoolroom exercises, marked with accents and symbols of quantity and punctuation. Others are probably too elaborate to be the work of tyros; Cavenaile24 reasonably suggested that they might be "les preparations des maitres ou des lecteurs prives de Virgile."

The papyri show Greek-speaking students of Vergil to have been distributed throughout Egypt, Syria, and Palestine. The presence of the Messianic bard in the Holy Land is sufficiently piquant. These students did not all forget their Latin after school. Ammianus and Claudian stand out as hellenophones who produced the last great examples of Latin poetry and historiography. And in the foothills of Parnassus, there were toiling such characters as Nonnus and Tryphiodorus, in whom can be seen Vergil and Ovid, 25 albeit little that is Vergilian or Ovidian.

The last word belongs to Christodorus of Thebes. His only extant poem26 is an ecphrasis of the statues in the public gym- nasium called Zeuxippus. Amongst the motley crew of marbles are four Romans. First (92-96), Julius Casear. He is balanced by Pompey (398-406), whose Isaurian conquests are inserted so as to provide a cue for flattery of those of the emperor Anastasius. At this late date, one surmises that Caesar and Pompey were partly linked together by the influence of Lucan.

The other two Romans are writers, one of prose, the other of verse. The prose writer is none other than Apuleius (303-5), which might give hope of future papyrus texts of him, espe- cially as we know he was being worked on in the West in the

22 The Greek version has :revOtxwc E:Et, which suggests funali. 23 PSI 1.21 (5th century) contains Aeneid 4.66-68, 99-102; P. Oxy. 8.1099 (5th

or 6th century) has a Greek paraphrase of Aen. 4.661-705; 5.1-6. Cf. C. H. Moore, "Latin exercises from a Greek schoolroom," CPhil. 19 (1924) 317-28.

24 P. 7. 25 See Cameron, art. cit., 495, on this. 26 AP 2.414.

worth remarking are the readings sacra for festa (Aeneid 4. 459) andfunalia for ferali (4. 462), the latter of which is not recorded in Mynors' apparatus.22

All in all, there are nine papyri containing juxtalinear texts, all belonging to the fourth century or later. Some 23 appear to be schoolroom exercises, marked with accents and symbols of quantity and punctuation. Others are probably too elaborate to be the work of tyros; Cavenaile24 reasonably suggested that they might be "les preparations des maitres ou des lecteurs prives de Virgile."

The papyri show Greek-speaking students of Vergil to have been distributed throughout Egypt, Syria, and Palestine. The presence of the Messianic bard in the Holy Land is sufficiently piquant. These students did not all forget their Latin after school. Ammianus and Claudian stand out as hellenophones who produced the last great examples of Latin poetry and historiography. And in the foothills of Parnassus, there were toiling such characters as Nonnus and Tryphiodorus, in whom can be seen Vergil and Ovid, 25 albeit little that is Vergilian or Ovidian.

The last word belongs to Christodorus of Thebes. His only extant poem26 is an ecphrasis of the statues in the public gym- nasium called Zeuxippus. Amongst the motley crew of marbles are four Romans. First (92-96), Julius Casear. He is balanced by Pompey (398-406), whose Isaurian conquests are inserted so as to provide a cue for flattery of those of the emperor Anastasius. At this late date, one surmises that Caesar and Pompey were partly linked together by the influence of Lucan.

The other two Romans are writers, one of prose, the other of verse. The prose writer is none other than Apuleius (303-5), which might give hope of future papyrus texts of him, espe- cially as we know he was being worked on in the West in the

22 The Greek version has :revOtxwc E:Et, which suggests funali. 23 PSI 1.21 (5th century) contains Aeneid 4.66-68, 99-102; P. Oxy. 8.1099 (5th

or 6th century) has a Greek paraphrase of Aen. 4.661-705; 5.1-6. Cf. C. H. Moore, "Latin exercises from a Greek schoolroom," CPhil. 19 (1924) 317-28.

24 P. 7. 25 See Cameron, art. cit., 495, on this. 26 AP 2.414.

367 367 367 367 367

This content downloaded from 134.153.184.170 on Sun, 10 Nov 2013 14:10:17 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BARRY BALDWIN BARRY BALDWIN BARRY BALDWIN BARRY BALDWIN BARRY BALDWIN

late fourth century.27 The poet is Vergil himself, raised to Homer's level, which is trite enough, but the Roman bard is strikingly chosen to terminate the poem.28

BARRY BALDWIN

THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

CANADA

27 By Endelechius and Crispus Salustius (on the latter, see Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire I [Cambridge 1971] 800-Endelechius is omitted from this work).

28 An extra, implied compliment is the inclusion by Christodorus of Creusa, a tragic heroine uniquely associated with Vergil; cf. R. G. Austin, Aeneid 2

(Oxford 1964) 289.

late fourth century.27 The poet is Vergil himself, raised to Homer's level, which is trite enough, but the Roman bard is strikingly chosen to terminate the poem.28

BARRY BALDWIN

THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

CANADA

27 By Endelechius and Crispus Salustius (on the latter, see Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire I [Cambridge 1971] 800-Endelechius is omitted from this work).

28 An extra, implied compliment is the inclusion by Christodorus of Creusa, a tragic heroine uniquely associated with Vergil; cf. R. G. Austin, Aeneid 2

(Oxford 1964) 289.

late fourth century.27 The poet is Vergil himself, raised to Homer's level, which is trite enough, but the Roman bard is strikingly chosen to terminate the poem.28

BARRY BALDWIN

THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

CANADA

27 By Endelechius and Crispus Salustius (on the latter, see Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire I [Cambridge 1971] 800-Endelechius is omitted from this work).

28 An extra, implied compliment is the inclusion by Christodorus of Creusa, a tragic heroine uniquely associated with Vergil; cf. R. G. Austin, Aeneid 2

(Oxford 1964) 289.

late fourth century.27 The poet is Vergil himself, raised to Homer's level, which is trite enough, but the Roman bard is strikingly chosen to terminate the poem.28

BARRY BALDWIN

THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

CANADA

27 By Endelechius and Crispus Salustius (on the latter, see Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire I [Cambridge 1971] 800-Endelechius is omitted from this work).

28 An extra, implied compliment is the inclusion by Christodorus of Creusa, a tragic heroine uniquely associated with Vergil; cf. R. G. Austin, Aeneid 2

(Oxford 1964) 289.

late fourth century.27 The poet is Vergil himself, raised to Homer's level, which is trite enough, but the Roman bard is strikingly chosen to terminate the poem.28

BARRY BALDWIN

THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

CANADA

27 By Endelechius and Crispus Salustius (on the latter, see Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire I [Cambridge 1971] 800-Endelechius is omitted from this work).

28 An extra, implied compliment is the inclusion by Christodorus of Creusa, a tragic heroine uniquely associated with Vergil; cf. R. G. Austin, Aeneid 2

(Oxford 1964) 289.

368 368 368 368 368

This content downloaded from 134.153.184.170 on Sun, 10 Nov 2013 14:10:17 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions