erant reliquerit. HIERONYM. on Euseb. chron. a. Abr. 2000=737/17 Varius et Tucca, Vergili et Horati contubernales, poetae habentur inlustres (we do not know from other sources that Tucca was himself a poet), qui Aeneidum postea libros emendarunt sub lege ea ut nihil adderent. SERV. prooem. to Aen. p. 2, 10 Th. postea ab Augusto Aeneidem propositam scripsit annis XI; sed nec emendavit nec edidit, unde eam moriens praecepit incendi. Augustus vero, ne tantum opus periret, Tuccam et Varium hac lege iussit emendare (cf. DONAT. vita V. 37=56) ut superflua demerent, nihil adderent tamen. Doubtful instances of their editoral labour are quoted by SERV. Aen. 2, 567. 588 (cf. SERV. prooem. Aen. p. 2, § 22 Th.). 4, 436. 5, 871. 7, 464. NISUS in Don. v. Verg. 42 (60). RIBBECK, prolegg. 90. Superflua demere can only be understood of various readings etc., but cannot be traced now with anything like certainty. But see also GELL. 17, 10, 6 quae procrastinata sunt ab eo, ut post recenserentur, et absolvi quoniam mors praeverterat nequiverunt, nequaquam poetarum elegantissimi nomine atque iudicio digna sunt. itaque cum morbo oppressus adventare mortem videret petivit oravitque a suis amicissimis impense ut Aeneida, quam nondum satis elimavisset, adolerent.

3. The conjecture of LLERSCH (Süddeutsche Schulzeit. 4, 2, 88 and Mus. d. rhein-westphäl. Schulm. 3. 1845) that the Aeneid was originally calculated to fill 24 books, each of the size of a book of the Georgics, and that the present division was not by Vergil himself, is only supported by the analogy of the Homeric poems (though this may also have prevented a modest poet like Vergil from fixing on the number 24), but is contradicted by the express testimony of DONATUS (or rather SUETONIUS), Vita 23 (34). See also THBIRT, antik. Buchwesen 295. The opinion that Vergil intended to pursue his subject beyond the death of Turnus, to the final settlement of Aeneas in Latium, is at variance with all the information we possess, which implies only a qualitative incompleteness, and with distinct hints in the poem itself: see 12, 803. 819. 833. See WHERTZBERG's Aeneid p. 1v.

4. In a work confessedly unfinished and destined by its author to destruction it is a mere matter of course that-besides the great artistic blemishes (see n. 5)— there should be blemishes in detail, incongruities, gaps, contradictions, errors of memory and calculation. JMARKLAND already (praef. to Stat. Silv. ad fin.) observes that in the Aeneid nonnulla sunt contradictoria, multa languida, exilia, nugatoria, spiritu et maiestate carminis heroici defecta, and PEERLKAMP (in his ed. of the Aen., Leid. 1843) explained these defects in his peculiar manner, by inferring the existence of interpolations in the passages at fault. Incongruities in the first six books are pointed out by FCONRADS, quaestt. Virg., Trèves 1863; cf. CSCHÜLER, quaestt. Verg., Greifsw. 1883, 1. Throughout the whole poem ORIBBECK, prolegg. p. 59, follows the example of Peerlkamp, and even attempts the hopeless task of discriminating what blemishes may be due to the imperfect state of the poem, and which to interpolation. Cf. also THLADEWIG, einige Stellen des V., Neustrelitz 1853. THBERGK, griech. Lit.-Gesch. 1, 539. That all the books (though to a different extent) are in an unfinished state is proved by the imperfect lines (about 60), which occur in all. Cf. on this HWENDLAND, ZfGW. 29, 385. WGEBHARDI, JJ. 119, 566. On an early completion (before Seneca) of such a half line see BÜCHELer, RhM. 34, 623. The attempts to explain the incomplete lines as the result of artistic intention and a metrical innovation of the poet have been unsuccessful. So SERV. Aen. 4, 361 et oratorie ibi finivit ubi vis argumenti substitit (cf. SEN. suas, 2, 20. AEUSSNER, Phil. 43, 466); also MZILLE, die unvollendeten Verse der Aen., Lpz, 1865, reprinted in his transl. of the Aen., Lpz. 1868, 361. AWEIDNER'S Comment. on Aen. I and II p. 27. FWMÜNSCHER, die unvollst. Verse' in V.s Aen., Jauer 1879.

5. The belief that the Romans were descended from a Trojan colony, led by Aeneas into Latium, in the Sibylline books called Aeneadae, may perhaps originally have been caused by the Greek worship of Aphrodite on the coasts of Italy, and subsequently formulated and fostered in the vain nobles by flattering Greeks, but it was officially utilised at Rome as early as the first Punic war: see JUSTIN. 28, 1, 5. SUET. Claud. 25. This connection with the Trojans subsequently became one of the standing beliefs with Roman historians and poets. ASCHEBEN, de poetis Aeneae fugam atque fata ante Virgilium describentibus, Münstereifel 1828. JAHILD, la légende d'Enée avant Virgile, Par. 1883. FCAUER, d. röm. Aeneassage von Naev. bis Virg., JJ. Suppl. 15, 95; de fabb. graecis ad Romam conditam spect., Berl. 1884. EWÖRNER, d. Wanderungen des Aen., bei Dion. Hal. u. Virg., Lpz. 1882. HNETTLESHIP, journ. of phil. 9, 29, and in general SCHWEGLER, RG. 1, 279, esp. 307. PRELLER-JORDAN, röm. Myth. 2, 310. MZOELLER, Latium u. Rom. (Lpz. 1878) 70. But this legend had not received special treatment before Vergil. In the time of Augustus, the national motive was still further increased by the interest of the reigning dynasty, whose legendary tradition was that Aeneas through his son Iulus Ascanius was the ancestor of the gens Iulia. Vergil chiefly dwells on this providential mission of his hero, and forgets to represent him acting. Throughout, Vergil formed his hero much in imitation of himself: softhearted, given to tears (cf. § 225, 4 ad fin.), full of piety, accessible to the noblest feelings, but without personal energy, always led and pushed on by the gods or by others. As the frail progenitor of a princely race he is anxiously watched by the gods and, conscious of his great task, he shuns dangerous adventures as much as possible. This is indeed a critical position for the hero of an epic poem, and it is this radical defect which renders a great part of the Aeneid flat and lifeless, not to say oppressively dull. Besides this, the whole legend of Aeneas, in its relation to Rome, was an artificial production, which had no roots in national tradition, no ramification with public life, and Vergil had first to gain such connection for it. He endeavours to keep down all doubts by consistently and intentionally identifying Trojan and Hellenic traits with those of Italy, and by blending legend and history; but through this something untrue, contradictory and characterless has invaded his narrative, an uncertainty in the whole foundation and atmosphere not to be repaired by any local colouring, which Vergil certainly endeavoured to realise and frequently did realise (see below). The language and tone of the Aeneid in contrast with the simplicity of Homer appear constantly stilted, the average style of the poem is so artificially elevated as to leave no room for a successful gradation to a climax in really pathetic passages, and in spite of a multitude of brilliant points, one misses a just distribution of light and shade through the whole. WHERTZBERG, pref. to his review of the Aen. p. ix. This want could not be overcome by the faithful scholarly industry which Vergil devoted to his work: we must acknowledge it in spite of all the sympathy with which Vergil's personality and his performance inspire us, and we must not subscribe to that adoring admiration of hidden beauties in which a hysterical aestheticism has recently indulged. Cf. Vergil's own confession in his letter to Augustus in MACR. 1, 24, 11 paene vitio mentis tantum opus ingressus mihi videor, cum praesertim alia quoque studia ad id opus multoque potiora impertiar.-Vergil honestly strove by immersing himself in the past, and by the study of the works of Cato, Varro and others to give to his work a local Italian tone. In MACR. 1, 24, 16 the poet's knowledge of ius pontificium and ius augurale conspicuous in the Aeneid is praised; 3, 1, 6 sqq. the same praise is given in reference to inferorum deorum cultus; 3, 2, 7 to his profunda scientia, as seen in his verborum proprietas in descriptions of sacrifices, etc. 1, 24, 18 it is stated that he

operi suo

astrologiam totamque philosophiam adspersit. So also SERV. Aen. 6, 1 totus quidem Vergilius scientia plenus est etc.; on 2, 57 saepe dictum est Vergilium inventa occasione mentionem iuris pontificii facere in quacunque persona. See also NIEBUHR, röm. Gesch. 13, 112. 217.—General praise of the Aeneid, and of Vergil, in OVID. am. 1, 15, 25. AA. 3, 837. rem. am. 396. trist. 2, 533. PROP. 3, 34, 65 (see on this EHEYDENREICH, de Propertio Vergilii praecone in d. commentatt. philol. semin. [Lips. 1874] 1). QUINT. 10, 1, 56. 86. STAT. Theb. 12, 816 and others.-CHhVdeBonstetten, voyage sur la scène des dix derniers livres de l'Énéide, Geneva 1804-13 II. HTÖPFER, Virg. geographia in Aen., Arnstadt 1828 -34 IV. LLERSCH, de morum in V. Aen. habitu, Bonn 1836; die Idee u. antiquar. Bed. d. Aen., Mus. d. rhein-westph. Schulm. 2, 1. 18; antiquitt. Verg. ad vitam populi rom. descriptae, Bonn 1843. ECOLLILIEUX, la couleur locale dans l’Énéide, Par. 1881. AGöbel, JJ. 89, 658. CÂMUFF, antiquitt. rom. in Aen., Halle 1864. ANOËL, Virgile et Italie, Par. 1865. ABOUGOT, de morum indole in V. Aen., Par. 1876.

6. MACR. 1, 21, 18 praedicarim quanta de Graecis cautus et tamquam aliud agens modo artifici dissimulatione modo professa imitatione transtulerit. But ASCONIUS defended Vergil against charges circa historiam fere et quod pleraque ab Homero sumpsisset (vita 46-64). From the Homeric poems Vergil derived his whole epic economy and method as well as numerous details (forging of weapons, description of the shield etc.), and especially the device of commencing with the latter part of the wanderings of Aeneas and making him describe his preceding adventures by way of episode; in the same way, b. 6 is entirely in the style of the Odyss. b. 11 and the first half of the Aeneid (the wanderings) may be said to be in imitation of the Odyssey, while the second half (the battles) imitates the Iliad. Its whole tone and spirit are, of course, diametrically opposed to that of Homer. Recent literature besides the works quoted § 225, 5: LMÜLLER, de re metr. 219. 223. 307. 322. PRICHTER, de Verg. imitatore poett. Graec., Rost. 1870. MWILMS, qua ratione Verg. in Aen. aut locuturum aliquem aut locutum esse indicaverit, Duisb. 1865. EEICHLER, d. Unterwelt V.s. ZföG. 30, 600. 721. DRICCOBONI, quib. in rebus V. Hom. aliosque imitatus singulare ingenium prodat, Ven. 1879. 80 II. FHERMANN, V.s Aen. verglichen m. Hom., Dresden 1879-81 III. HBOUVIER, vgl. Erkl. der Schildepisoden in Hom. II. u. V. Aen., Oberhollabrun 1881. JLUNIAK, de homericis similitudinibus ap. V., Journ. d. russ. Min. d. Volksaufkl. 1881. KNEERMANN, ungeschickte Verwendung hom. Motive in d. Aen., Ploen 1882. PCAUER, 2. Verständnis der nachahmenden Kunst des V., Kiel 1885. The substance of the second book is taken from the Cyclic poets (Pisander? MACR. 5, 2, 4,) and b. 4 is imitated from the fourth book (Jason and Medea) of Apollonios Rhodios. Among the Roman poets, Vergil has especially availed himself of Ennius (e.g. 6, 846), as has been shown by SERVIUS in many passages of his commentary, and by MACR. 6, 1 (see CABENTFELD, d. Einfluss des Enn. auf V., Salzb. 1875); likewise non verba sola sed versus prope totos et locos quoque Lucreti plurimos sectatum esse Vergilium videmus (GELL. 1, 21, 7 cf. MACR. 1.1.). On the other hand the coincidences of expression with Naevius, Furius (§ 192, 5) and other Roman epic poets are probably accidental.

7. CGHEYNE, de carmine epico Virg., in his ed. 2, 1; de rerum in Aen. tractatarum inventione, ib. 37; censura eorum quae in Aen. oeconomia reprehendi possunt, ib. 3, 854. PFTISSOT, études zur Virg., comparé avec tous les poètes épiq et dramat. des anc. et des modernes, Par. 1826 IV. WYSELLAR, the Roman poets of the Augustan age: Virgil, Oxf. 1883. DCOMPARETTI (§ 231, 12 in fin.). HNETTLESHIP, lectures and essays 97; cf. also § 224, 1 ad fin. SEGRAIS, l'Én. par rapport à l'art de la guerre (Mém. de l'acad. des inscr. Vol. 24, NAPOLEON I also,

de

guerres de César 209 has accused Vergil of great ignorance). RWI VIECHMANN, Aen. libri II compositione, Potsd. 1876. HGEORGII, on b. 3 of the Aen., in the Festschr. der württemb. Gymnasien (Stuttg. 1877) 63; die politische Tendenz der Aen., Stuttg. 1880. THPLÜSS, d. Reiz erzählender Dicht. und die Aen., Basle 1882; V. und die epische Kunst, Lpz. 1884. Cf. also n. 1.

2

8. Recent separate editions of the Aen. by CTHIEL (with elucidations, Berl. 1834. 1838 II), PHOFMAN-PEERLKAMP (ed. et adnot., Leid. 1843 II), GWGOSSRAU (illustr., Quedlinb. 1876), WGEBHARDI and PMAHN (for students, Paderb. 1880 sqq.), OBROSIN (Gotha 1883), RSABBADINI (Turin 1885).-On b. I. and II. a commentary by AWEIDNER, Lpz. 1869. L. I-VI by LSCHMITZ, Lond. 1879. TLPAPILLON and AEHAIGH, Oxford, 1890.

9. FCONRADS, quaestt. Verg., Trèves 1863; ventorum ap. Verg. turbae, Essen 1872. MADVIG, adv. crit. 2, 29. HNETTLESHIP, suggestions introductory to the Aen., in his lect. and essays 97. WKLOUČEK (see § 231, 11). THPLUSS, JJ. 103, 396. 111, 635. 115, 69. 121, 545. 125, 46. 403. 849. CWNAUCK, notes on V. Aen, 1, 1-405, Königsb. NM. 1862; Aen. 1, 406-760, ib. 1869; Aen. 2, 1–400, ib. 1874; ZfGW. 28, 709. 29, 75. HBRANDT, zur Krit. u. Exegese v. V. Aen. I-III, Bernb. 1876; ZfGW. 28, 82. KKAPPES, notes on V. Aen. (B. I-IV) I Freib. i. Br. 1859. II Const. 1863. III Donauesch. 1870. IV ib. 1871. JKVIČALA, Vergilstudien (esp. on Aen. I-VI), Prague 1871; neue Beitr. z. Erkl. d. Aen., Prague 1881. JHENRY, a voyage of discovery in the Aen. I-VI, Dresd. 1853; in German in his Adv. Virgiliana, Phil. 11, 480. 597. 12, 248. 13, 629. 17, 627; Aeneidea, or critical and other remarks on the Aen., I Lond. 1873; II Dublin 1879. WGEBHARDI, zum 2. Teil der Aen., Meseritz 1879; ZfGW. 32, 200; JJ. 119, 561. KPÖHLIG, Beitr. z. Krit. u. Erkl. zur Aen. B. I u. II, Seehausen 1871. 80 II. FWMÜNSCHER, Phil. 39, 173. HFLACH, zur Chronologie von Aen. B. III, JJ. 107, 853. JSTANKO, de Victorii commentariis ineditis in Aen. 1. IV, Munich 1851. GKETTNER, B. 5 der Aen., ZfGW. 33, 641. KZACHER (on Aen. 1, 406), JJ. 121. 577. FSCHÖLL, RhM. 41, 18. PCORSSEN, RhM. 41, 242. GHEIDTMANN (1. II), in the Festschr. v. Wesel 1883; Beitr. zur Emend. der Aen. (1, 695 sqq.), Wesel 1884; Emendationen (!!) zur Aen. I u. IV, Coblenz 1885. EGROSs, Krit. u. Exeg. z. Aen., Nürnb. 1883. GSCHROETER, z. Krit. u. Erkl. d. Aen., Glogau 1885 II. EBÄHRENS, JJ. 129, 391. 131, 385. 135, 259. 807. THOesterlen (see § 240, 9).—Literary reviews by EBÄHRENS, JB. 1873, 211. 1874/75 1, 216. 1876 2, 149. 1877 2, 50. 1878 2, 113. 1879 2, 140. HGenthe, ib. 1880 2, 144. 1883 2, 185. PDEUTICKE (also on Buc. and Georg.), ZfGW. 36, Jahresbericht 100; 39, Jahresber. 233. CSCHROETER, Beiträge z. Krit. u. Erkl. der Aen. III, Neisse 1888. LHAVET, Aen. 6, 618 sqq. rev. de phil. 12, 145. RSABBADINI, studi critici sulla Eneide, Lonigo 1889. EBRANDES (B. 6 and 8), JJ. 141, 59. 141.

10. Translations by CLNEUFFER (Frankf. 1816, Stuttg. 1830 sqq.), WBinder (Stuttg. 1857), and esp. by WABHERTZBERG (see also his introd. and notes), Stuttg. 1859. In English (prose), by JWMACKAIL, Lond. 1885, (verse) by JCONINGTON, Lond. 1881, WMORRIS, Lond. 1876, WJTHORNHILL, Dublin 1886.

229. Besides these great and undoubtedly genuine works of Vergil we possess also a number of smaller poems, which bear his name with less justice.

1. DONATUS' vita 17 (28) poeticam puer adhuc auspicatus in Balistam ludi magistrum ob infamiam latrociniorum coopertum lapidibus distichon fecit: monte sub hoc etc.' deinde catalecton et priapeia (§ 230, 5, 2) et epigrammata et diras, item cirim

(et cupom adds BAHRENS) et culicem cum esset annorum XVI. (Here follows an analysis of the latter). 19 (30) scripsit etiam de qua ambigitur Aetnam (see § 307). mox cum res romanas incohasset . . . ad bucolica transiit. Donatus (i.e. Suetonius) would therefore seem to consider all these poems as works of Vergil's youth. The so-called SERVIUS (introd. to the Aen. p. 1, 8 Th.) primum a Vergilio hoc distichon factum est in Balistam latronem : ' monte etc.' scripsit etiam septem sive octo libros hos : cirin, Aetnam, culicem, priapeia, catalepton (so cod. Paris, catelepton V. Burmanni : catalecton the rest of the MSS., see § 230, 5, 1), epigrammata, copam, diras (§ 200, 2). According to this the poems had probably been formed even before Suetonius into a collection, which bore the name of Vergil. In our MSS. it is entitled Virgilii iuvenalis ludi libellus or septem ioca iuvenalia Virgilii. These poems have come down to us with a strong admixture of foreign matter. The extant MSS. go back to an original collection, which consisted of the works named by Servius and Donatus, arranged in the following order: culex, dirae, copa, Aetna, ciris, priapea (83-85), catelapta. To these were then added est et non, de viro bono, de rosis nascentibus, moretum (see n. 2 sqq.) and others. Epigrammata (specially mentioned by Servius and Donatus) is only a secondary title for catalepta (thus catal. 4, 9 is quoted by MAR. VICTORIN. GL. 6, 137 as Vergilius iambico epigrammate). More or less complete or valuable manuscripts of this collection, especially : Rhedig. s. XV. Vatic. 3252 s. IX, Paris. 7927 s. X, 8069 s. X, 8093 s. XI; Trevirensis (or Augustanus) 998 s. XI; Cantabrig. s. X/XI, Paris. 17177 (fragm. Stabulense s. XI); Bruxellensis 10675 s. XII; Leid. Voss. O. 81, Monac. 18895, Guelferb. Helmst. 332; the latter s. XV. On these see NÄKE, RIBBECK, Bährens, 1.1. c.c.-On Ambr. D. 267 inf. s. XV see RSABBADINI, la critica delle poesie ps.-vergiliane, Catania 1888, 39.—ANÄKE, de Vergilii libello iuvenalis ludi app. to his Valer. Cato p. 221. ORIBBECK, appendix Vergil. proleg., LMÜLLER, praef. Cat. p. XLI. EBÄHRENS, JJ. 111, 137; Tibull. Blätter 49; PLM. 2, 38 (who conjectures this collection to be the dilettante production of a small society of poets who met in Messalla's house, and supposes it to have been published perhaps under the Emperor Claudius). RPEIPER, Catullus (Breslau 1875) 63. See also Bährens, JJ. 117, 120. MSONNTAG, die append. Verg., Frankf. a/O. 1887.

2. Of the three poems De viro bono, Est et non, De rosis nascentibus (printed e.g. in RIBBECK's append. Verg. p. 181. AL. 644-646), which were not included (see n. 1) in the original collection of the so-called youthful poems of Vergil, the first and second belong to Ausonius (cf. on their transmission CSCHENKL in his ed. p. 149. 150), and De rosis also was attributed by HALEANDER in the Paris ed. of 1511 ex fide vetusti codicis to Ausonius. From its language and style it cannot have been composed before the 4th cent. Cf. RPEIPER, JJ. Suppl. 11, 210. 305. SCHENKL'S Ausonius p. xxxvI. 243.-On equally slight grounds other works are in various MSS. attributed to Vergil: AL. 781 PLM. 4, 160 ad puerum (a prayer to be heard), epigrams AL. 256-63 PLM. 4, 156. AL. 782 PLM. 4, 160. AL. 663 PLM. 4, 161. ALDHELMUS de metr. p. 232 (cf. p. 284) Virgilius libro quem paedagogum praetitulavit, cuius principium est Carmina si fuerint etc.' cf. AL. 675 PLM. 4, 161.

3. Two elegies on the death of Maecenas (RIBBECK, app. Verg. 193 AL. 779 PLM. 1, 125), transmitted to us as one and the same, but the work of two authors (EWAGNER, de Martiale poett. August. imitatore, Königsb. 1880, 42), also bear in MSS. the name of Vergil: their careful construction combined with poverty of substance makes it probable that they belong to. the 1st century of our era; cf. § 251, 5. The extant MSS. go back as far as the 10th cent. In late MSS. (Leid. Voss. O 96 and Vatic. 3269 s. XV) we have the subscription: finil elegia inventa