Pfl 6271 .C2 A3 1920 Copy 1 PA CaA2> LAUS PISONIS A THESIS PRESENTED TO TH I LTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY iu GLADYS MARTIN 11117 Class Book -G/&A3 LAUS PISONIS A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY By GLADYS MARTIN 1917 MAR 261921 OOCL The author is sincerely grateful to Professor C. E. Bennett, of Cornell University, for his interest and generous assistance during the preparation of this thesis. INTRODUCTION Manuscripts and Editions The editio princeps of the Laus Pisonis was published by J. Sichard in his edition of Ovid, Basel 1527, vol. 2, pp. 546-549. According, to his statement in the preface of this edition he made use of a manuscript in the monastery of Lorsch, at Mannheim, and in this old manuscript the poem was attributed to Vergil: 'ne vero sine corollario aliquo ad te veniret, adiecimus vulgaris omnium editionibus ex vetustissimis codicibus, quibus sumus ex bibliotheca Laurissana usi, fragmenta quaedam Ovidii ex libris opinor Epigrammaton, sic enim a Prisciano citantur, atque elegant issimum carmen incerti quidem autoris, sed quod extra controversiam sit vetustissimi alicuius: siquidem ad Pisonem id est scriptum, eum opinor, ad quern et Horatii ars poetica extat; quod quamuis ab Ovidii dictione nonnihil abhorreat, et in vetusto codice falso erat Maroni ascrip- tum, iudicavimus tamen dignum, ut inter Ovidiana locum sortiretur atque hoc demum pacto ab interitu vindicaretur'. In 1556 Hadrianus Junius edited the poem, in his Animadversor. Libri sex, with the help of a certain codex Atrebatensis in which the title was given: Lucani poema ad Calpurnium Pisonem ex libro Catalecton. Verses 72-83, according to Sichard's arrangement, were placed at the end of the poem in the edition of Junius. Of the codex Atrebatensis, used by Junius, and of the Lorsch manuscript, used by Sichard, we have no further history. A late codex Varsaviensis was collated by Martyni-Laguna and his notes were added to the Wernsdorf edition. 1 But Martyni-Laguna himself, according to Wernsdorf (p. 860) recognized that this manuscript was of little worth: 'adhibuit praeterea excerpta ex libro chartaceo manu scripto, in bibliotheca quadam Varsaviensi reperto, qui partem Catalectorum Ovidii, quae Goldastus edidit, in iisque carmen ad Pisonem, nullo auctoris nomine adscripto, continebat: cui quidem ipse vir doctus parum tribuit, quod recentem admodum et inscite scriptum esse vidit'. This codex appears to have followed largely the text of Sichard, though it has the verse arrangement of the codex Atrebatensis . In those cases where its readings differ from the traditional readings they are for the most part corrupt. E. Baehrens 2 mentions a manuscript of the 16th cen- tury which was examined by him and condemned as of no worth, the poem being taken, as in the codex Var- saviensis, from the editions of Junius and Sichard: 'neque qui integrum carmen continent codices Var- saviensis chartaceus a Martyni-Laguna conlatus et Marucellianus A. CLVI saeculi XVI a me inspectus ullum habent pretium, utpote e Sichardi Juniique editionibus descripti'. From the text established by Sichard and Junius the poem was published in various editions of Ovid, Lucan, and Vergil. Jos. Scaliger edited the poem in his Publii Virgilii Maronis Appendix, 1573, under the title M. Annaei Lucani ad Calpumium Pisonem P. guricum. He states that the title found in his manu- script was Lucani Catalecton De Laude Pisonis 3 . He J P. L. M. vol. 4. pp. 861-868. •P. L. M. vol. 1. p. 224. 'Appendix p. 545. 4 does not indicate this manuscript by name but speaks of it now as scheda calamo exarata, now as manuscriptum, and now as codex. 1 Since his text follows that of Junius, which was radically different from the Sichard text, it appears that he used either the codex Atreba- tensis or a copy of the same. Of later editions the most important are the following : J. Ch. Wernsdorf, Poetae Lat. Min. vol. 4, Altenburg 1785; J. Held, Incerti Auctoris ad Calpurn. Pis on. Carmen, Breslau 1831; C. Beck, Statii ad Calpurn. Pison. Poeniation, Ansbach 1835; N. E. Lemaire, Poetae Lat. Min., Paris 1824; C. F. Weber, Incerti Auctoris Carmen Panegyricum in Calpurn. Pison., Marburg 1859; E. Baehrens, Poetae Lat. Min. vol. 1, 1879. To C. F. Weber we are indebted for perhaps the most extensive work done upon the Laus Pisonis. He has included in his edition not only a full critical appara- tus, based upon the readings of the various editions, but has taken up in the prolegomena a discussion of the problems connected with the poem as well as a history of MSS., so far as then known, and of editions. He has also published in the Indices Lectionum, Marb. 1860/61, a discussion of some of the difficult passages in the first half of the poem. In his edition Weber followed the text of Sichard as being the original source. He admitted, however, that the genuine antiquity of the poem might be doubted for a number of reasons, among them the fact that it existed in no old manuscript : *et profecto si quis id agat, ut panegyricum nostrum non antiquitus, sed recens scriptum demonstret, me sibi accedentem habet et compluria ad sententiam suam confirmandam invenerit . . . denique MSS. dubi- ^ppendix pp. 545-6. tationem de antiquitate panegyrici excitare possunt, quum neque supersit nobis MS., quo panegyricus con- tinetur, neque pro certo stet carmen in codice vetustis- simo vel certe membranaceo unquam exaratum fuisse'. But since Weber's publication an almost indisputable argument for the antiquity of the poem has been gained by the discovery of excerpts of it in two Paris MSS. which, it is agreed, are not later than the 13th century. This has helped greatly to throw light upon the textual history of the Laus Pisonis and has made possible a more exhaustive study of it. The critical edition of Baehrens, Poetae Lat. Min. vol. 1, contains a collation of the poem as it is found in the MSS. These MSS., which are numbered as Parisinus- Thuaneus 7647 and Parisimis-Nostradamensis 17903 (Notre Dame 188), are florilegia containing excerpts from a number of classical authors. Of our poem they contain: w. 1-13; 26-31; 37-40; 44-67; 77~8o; 84-90; 94-145; 147-iSi; *55-*7o; r 73 : 176-184; 188-189; 209-261. The MS. Parisinns-Nostradaiy - sis 17903 has been assigned to the first half of the 13th century, by competent critics. 1 The Laus Pisonis was first discovered in this MS. by K. L. Roth and a colla- tion was made with the Weber text. This collation was published by Wolfflin, Philol. 1861, pp. 340-344, from the records of Roth after his decease. A description of both MSS. is given by G. Meyneke in Rhcin. Mus. 1S70, p. 369. According to his opinion. MS. 7647 |is about half a century older than MS. 17903, and thus belongs to the end of the 12th or beginning of the 13th century. MS. 7647 also has the original or older readings more frequently than MS. 17903, though the two MSS. are Wolfflin, Philol. 1861, p. 342. 6 apparently of common origin. In both MSS. excerpts from the Culex and the Aetna precede the Laus Pisonis. At the top of the page upon which the Laus Pisonis is found in MS. 7647, there stood Lucanus in catalecton. As a result of the top of the page being damaged it now reads, fol. 113a, . . . anus incatalecton, fol. 113b, Luc . . . in catalecton. 1 Relation of the Codex Atrebatensis to the Paris MSS. At the beginning of the poem in both MSS. there stands this verse from the Ciris, 'nihil est quod texitur ordine longum' (v. 339). It is noteworthy that Scaliger comments upon the fact that this verse stood at the beginning of the poem in his MS. From this he inferred that the beginning of the poem was lacking: 2 'videtur autem initium huic poematio deesse. Nam ita in manuscripto incipit. — nihil est, quod texas ordine, longum.' The title given by Junius and Scaliger as found in their MS. or MSS. is similar to that found in the Paris MSS., Lucanus in catalecton. But further than this the text established by Junius, and followed by Scaliger, is almost identical with that of our Paris MSS. The difference between the text of Junius and that of the editio princeps was so great that Wernsdorf 3 came to the conclusion that we had represented in our editions two recensions of the poem, while Weber 4 rightly divined that we had really a double family of MSS. as the source ^aehrens, P. L. M. vol. 1. p. 223; Meyncke, Rhein. Mus. 1870, P- 3 78. 2 Appendix, p. 546. 3 P. L. M. vol. 4. p. 47. 4 Proleg. p. 19. 7 of our text. One family is now represented by the Paris MSS. and the text of Junius, the other by the editio princeps. Out of the many instances in which the Paris MSS. differ from the text of Sichard, by far the larger proportion are supported by the reading of Junius. 1 Junius placed w. 72-83, according to Sichard's arrangement, at the end of the poem, while in the flori- legia w. 77-80 are found at the end, w. 68-77 and 80-83 being omitted. From these various points of agreement, which are too important to be mere coincidences, it is evident that Junius and Scaliger must have used a MS. similar to the one from which the excerpts were made. It has been suggested by Wolrnin 2 that the MS. used by Junius was nothing more than a norilegium of the same sort as the Paris florilegia. In favor of this may be mentioned the fact that the text of Junius follows that of the excerpts in several cases where the excerpts after omitting a few verses begin anew with a wording which differs slightly from the text of Sichard, .and which might possibly have been arranged to cover the omis- sion. 3 So also in favor of this theory may be cited the presence of the verse from the Ciris at the beginning of the poem in the MS. used by Scaliger. In the case of an excerpt this might be accounted for in the following fashion : such excerpts were probably made from a M S . containing the complete works of the various authors with the selections to be copied by the scribe noted on *See tables below. 2 Philol. 1 861, p. 34^- •v. 26 tamen etsi, Paris MSS., nee enim si, Sichard; v. 37 quaeque patrum claros quondam, Paris MSS., sed quae Pisonum claros,. Sichard; v. 173 ipse fidem movisse ferox, Paris MSS., sic movisse fides saevus, Sichard. 8 the margin; 1 since excerpts from the Culex and the Aetna precede the Laus Pisonis in the Paris MSS. it might appear that excerpts from the Ciris also were to be included but that in some way through the careless- ness of the scribe only this one verse survived. The verse is not the complete hexameter but only so much as forms a complete thought. I am inclined to think it possible that the explanation given by Wernsdorf, 2 though not based upon a knowledge of the Paris excerpt, is the correct one, 'sed merum hoc glossema est librarii, qui hoc hemistichium in Ciri Virgiliana, ubi versu 339 extat, legerat, et quod respondere sententiae primi versus reperiebat, commodum putabat superscribere'. Thus the verse might have arisen in the archetype of this family of MSS. Baehrens has expressed the opinion that the codex Atrebatensis used by Junius was actually Par. 7647 or a copy of it. 3 This he deduces from the fact that there are corrections in the margin of this norilegium by some hand of the 16th century and that Junius almost always follows these corrections where they differ from the reading of the first hand in both florilegia. But these corrections are in most cases necessary corrections, taken from the reading of Sichard. Such corrections would naturally be made by Junius, in editing the poem, and also by the 16th century scribe. As a proof of the fact that Junius could not have used the MSS. which we have in our possession to-day I cite the reading of v. 52 . This verse was incomplete in the text of Sichard, being marked with an asterisk, but other editions, not excluding those of Junius and Scaliger, have the impos- x See Meyncke, Rhein. Mus. 1870, p. 374. 2 P. L. M. vol. 4, p. 46. 3 P. L. M. vol. 1, p. 224. 9 sible reading torquet in auras. The Paris MSS. alone offer what is apparently the original reading succutit arte. If Junius and Scaliger had had this reading at their command they would not have retained the mean- ingless torquet in auras. In about seven instances Junius appears to have a reading which is not found in the Sichard text or the Paris MSS. These are: v. 36 vigente; v. 69 reticente; v. 79 et Aedonia; v. 126 munerat; v. 1S2 flectis; v. 228 ferat; v. 261 aestas (v. 113 diligis, v. 170 otia, v. 239 Varium, are minor corrections) . For four of these read- ings we can not tell what the archetype of our Paris MSS. had, since vigente and reticente occur in the verses omitted by the excerpts, while there is a lacuna in the place of the verb munerat, v. 126, and also of flectis, v. 182. But all of these readings except munerat, v. 126, and ferat, v. 228, are found in a previous edition, the Lugdunensis secunda, an edition of Ovid published in 1550. This edition, while having, so far as we know, only the text of Sichard as its source, has in at least seven cases corrections of the Sichard text which agree with the reading of the Paris MSS. These are: v. 88 compositisquc; v. 101 insigni; v. 126 pndibundos; v. 158 decebunt; v. 213 et hoc (Paris MSS. ct iiec); v. 23S gestit; v. 242 Horati. The editor was either gifted with an especial talent for emendation or else he had at hand a manuscript of the same family as codex A and the Paris MSS. and of this made use only where the Sichard text was faulty. His corrections of the Sichard text wherever they occur in the verses included in the excerpts are supported by the reading of the excerpts with three exceptions : v. 79 c/ Pandionia, Paris MSS., et Aedonia, Lug. sec; v. 182 plectis, Paris MSS., flm Lug. sec; v. 261 aetas, Paris MSS., aestas, Lit£. 10 In two of these cases, w. 79, 261, the reading of the excerpts is corrupt and the Lugdunensis secunda has the better reading. Corrections due to this editor which occur in the verses omitted by the excerpts are vigente, v. 36, and reticente, v. 69. Of these two corrections reticente at least may be accepted as the correct reading. The text of Junius has the same corrections of the Sichard text which the Lugdunensis secunda has, and follows the text of our Paris MSS. It is possible that Junius used an excerpt of the same sort as the Paris MSS. and supplied the omitted verses from the Lugdu- nensis secunda. But we have shown that the Lugdu- nensis secunda itself agrees with the Paris MSS. in a number of instances. Furthermore in the excerpts it is only w. 77-80 (according to Sichard's arrangement) that occur at the end of the poem, while w. 68-77 an d w. 80-83 are omitted. If Junius had only a similar excerpt, which he supplemented with the text of the Lugdunensis secunda, he must on his own authority have transferred w. 72-77 and w. 80-83 to the end of the poem. It hardly seems probable that Junius would have failed to see the close relation between v. S^ and v. 84 in the arrangement of Sichard. Weber has shown how the transposition of w. 72-83 to the end of the poem might have been brought about in the family of MSS. to which the codex Atrebatensis of Junius belongs. The archetype of this family had 12 verses upon each page, with the exception of the first which had only 1 1 verses in addition to the title. Verses 72-83 would then occur upon the seventh page. The copyist may in some way have overlooked this page and have added the omitted verses at the end. This would explain the position of vv. 72-83 at the end of the poem in the text of Junius and also the position of w. 77-80 at the end of 11 the poem in the Paris excerpts. We are therefore brought to the conclusion that there are difficulties in the way of assuming that the codex Atrebatensis was merely an excerpt, similar to the Paris MSS., and that it is quite possible that it was a MS. containing the complete poem. This MS. was of course a MS. of the same family as that from which the excerpts of the poem were made. Agreement in the Readings of Codex A and the Paris MSS. The number of cases is large in which the codex Atrebatensis, as represented by the text of Junius, and the Paris MSS. have the same reading as against an entirely different reading in the editio princeps. The list is as follows : 1 Codex A. Paris MSS. Sichard V. 10 cui - - si V. ii nobilitas - gentis honos V. 12 felix - - at tu V. 26 tamen ctsi - nee cnim si V. 27 non pcriit - occidit et V. 30 hinc contingit - hie continget V. 37 quacquc patrum - sed q: V. 44 tit (quoqite) Pi so - dura Piso nam V. 45 ducis - tentas V. 46 victor - ictus V. 47 iubcs - libet v. 4S quam - si V. 62 dulcia - dulci V. 77 sed nee - sic N V. 88 compositisque - compos itusqtte V. 98 permulcere - - perfulcire 12 Codex A. Paris MSS. Sickard v. 101 insigm v. 113 clientum v. 126 pudibundos - v. 128 ista procul labes v. 140 nee - v. 142 nee - v. 151 nimbis v. 158 decebunt v. 159 orbem v. 173 ipse fidem movisse ferox v. 183 0/ wwnc v. 21$ et v. 221 impulerit (impulerint) v. 237 nomina v. 238 ges/w - v. 239 eue## v. 239 toantis v. 242 Horatii v. 245 wow unquam msignis colentum pudibundus ipse procul livor non non nubibus docebunt aevum sic movisse fides nunc quoque ut impulerant numina caestu erexit tonantis Arati nonnumquam Codex A and the Paris MSS. have been cited as agreeing wherever the reading of Codex A is found in either MS. In only three cases in the above list do the Paris MSS. differ from each other. In v. 47 Par. 7647 has iubes, Par. 17903, iubet; v. 113 Par. 7647 clientum, Par. 17903 colentum; v. 158 Par. 7647 docebunt, Par. 17903 decebunt. Divergences in the Readings of Codex A and the Paris MSS. The number of divergences in the readings of codex A and the Paris MSS. is few in comparison with the number of cases wherein they agree. We must bear in 13 mind the fact that Junius would not follow his MS. absolutely but would adopt other readings where it seemed best. If we had codex A the number of differ- ences would probably be still less. J. Maehly in Fleckeis. Jahrb. 1862, p. 287 has enumerated some of the main differences but his comparison was based only upon the readings of MS. 17903. 1 MS. 7647 more fre- quently has the original readings and in several instances agrees with codex A where MS. 17903 diverges from it. A list of the cases where the reading of codex A is found in neither MS. is as follows: 2 Codex A v. 12 tantis - v. 28 munera v. 38 olim v. 52 tor quel in auras v. 58 lingua v. 79 et Aedonia v. 94 hinc v. 95 hinc v. 120 illic . . . mens v. 122 sed later i nullus v. 131 ut v. 143 nervo - V. 170 securus v. 176 extudit v. 178 anna tuis . . . lacertis Paris MSS. Claris munia omnes succutit arte d extra et Pandionia huic huic illi . . . dotn }iullus iam lateri et fcrro <.ris exculit, extulit armatos . . . lacertos 'His list, besides being incomplete, is incorrect in the following instances: v. 28 munia A, munera P should be munera A, munia P; so also v. 38 omnis A, olim P should be olim A, omnes P; v. 140 non P should be nee P (according to Baehrens' collation) ; v. 237 notnina. is the reading of both A and P. 'Differences which are merely orthographic are not included. 14 Codex A Paris MSS. v. 1 80 captare ... raptare v. 188 ludos - lusus v. 216 meliora ... maiora v. 228 ferat - gmtf v. 229 dimittere - demittere v. 261 a^as ... a^as Most of these differences arise from the fact that the reading of the Paris MSS. is either impossible or very poor in comparison with that of the Sichard text. Junius naturally did not follow his codex in such cases. C. Calpurnius Piso The author of the Laus Pisonis has given us few facts, other than the name Calpurnius Piso, by which we may identify the person who is the object of his praises. J. Sichard, editor of the editio princeps, expressed the opinion that the panegyric was addressed to that Piso to whom the A rs Poeticaoi Horace is addressed : l 'siquidem ad Pisonem id est scrip turn, eum opinor, ad quern et Horatii ars poetica extat'. This Piso was probably the L. Calpurnius Piso who was consul in 1 5 B. C. and whose death is recorded in Tacitus, A. 6. 10. But aside from the fact that his military achievements 2 would certainly have been praised by the author of the panegyric, the mention of Vergil, Varius, and Horace in v. 230, and following, shows that the poem is to be assigned to a considerably later date than the lifetime of Horace. The name of Maecenas, as we see from v. 248, has become almost proverbial. ^vid. Oper. amat. vol. 1. praef. 2 Tac. A. 6. 10. IS With regard to the public life of this Piso addressed by our poet only one fact is given which might serve as a clue to his identification. This is the mention in w. 68-71 of the glory of theconsulship held by him. We have record of a number of the Pisones who were consuls after the time of Augustus, but upon investigation we feel that none can be the Calpurnius Piso whom we are seeking. In 27 A. D. a L. Calpurnius Piso was consul with M. Licinius Crassus Frugi, and in 57 A. D. another mem- ber of this family, L. Calpurnius Piso, was consul with the emperor Nero and was afterwards appointed pro- consul of Africa. Of these Weber 1 says: 'neuter talis fuit ut laudes panegyrici nostri mereret; nihil certe praeclari de iis constat'. L. Calpurnius Piso Licinianus, who was adopted by the emperor Galba as his son and successor but killed by the soldiers of Otho, is recorded as a youth of great integrity and morality 2 . He, how- ever, had the name of Calpurnius only by adoption, being the son of M. Licinius Crassus Frugi, and was not a consul. C. Beck believed the recipient of the pane- gyric to be the Calpurnius Piso who is mentioned by Pliny. Ep. 5. 1 7. as displaying such affection toward his brother and who, according to Beck, is to be identified with the Calpurnius Piso who was consul under Trajan in in A. D. Since nothing further is known of either Piso, Beck's view has been rightly rejected as having nothing to recommend it. There remains to be considered only one Calpurnius Piso of importance. This is C. Calpurnius Piso, leader of the conspiracy against Xero in 65 A. D. It has been established by Wernsdorf 3 and Weber 4 , to the general satisfaction of scholars, that it is to him our panegyric 'Proleg. p. 3. »P. L. M. vol. 4. p. 36. *Tac. H. 1. 14-15. 'Proleg. pp. 3 16 is addressed. There is a striking agreement between the description gathered from the panegyric and the description of this Piso as given by Tacitus, A. 15. 48: 'is Calpurnio genere ortus ac mult as insignesque familias paterna nobilitate complexus, claro apud volgum rumor e erat per virtutem aut species virtutibus similes ; namque facundiam tuendis civibus exercebat, largi- tionem adversum amicos et ignotis quoque, comi ser- mone ac congressu; aderant etiam fortuita, corpus procerum, decora fades'. Here we have mentioned his nobility of race, his eloquence employed in defending fellow-citizens, his generosity, his gracious speech and address, his handsome countenance. All these are dwelt upon in the panegyric 1 . Furthermore we have the testimony of the scholiast to Juvenal, Sat. 5. 109, that this Calpurnius Piso was exceedingly skilled at the Indus latrunculorum: 'Piso Calpurnius, antiqua familia scenico habitu tragoedias actitavit. in latrunculorum lusu tarn perfectus et callidus ut ad eum ludentem con- curreretur. ob haec insinuatus Caio Caesari repente etiam relegatus est, quod consuetudinem prist inae uxoris abductae sibi ab ipso, deinde remissae repetiisse existamabatur. mox sub Claudio restitutus et post consulatum materna hereditate ditatus magnificentissi- mus vixit, meritis sublevare inopes ex utroque ordine solitus, de plebe autem certos quotannis ad equestrem censum dignitatemque provehere'. In the panegyric there are devoted to Piso's skill at this game 19 verses, a number out of all proportion to the importance of the subject. It is possible that the scholiast may have drawn his knowledge as to this accomplishment of Piso from the panegyric itself; but if so it is evident that he : Cf. v. 3; v. 40; v. no; v. 129; v. 100. 17 too identified the recipient of the panegyric with the Calpurnius Piso of whom we are speaking. About the history of this Piso quite a little is known. He was deprived of his bride Orestilla by the emperor Caligula in 37 A. D. and two years later was banished. 1 He was restored by the emperor Claudius, as we learn from the scholiast to Juvenal (quoted above) , probably soon after the beginning of his reign. His name appears in the Acta Arvalium for the years 38 and 40, before his banishment, and later at various times up to the year 63 A. D. He was the leader of a formidable conspiracy against Nero in 65 A. D. and upon its discovery opened his veins and died. 2 The scholiast to Juvenal also bears witness to the fact that this Calpurnius Piso was consul, though his name does not appear in the Fasti. Wernsdorf 3 and Weber 4 have proposed, with reason, that Piso was a consul stifectus. From the Augustan period down to the last centuries of the empire the consuls did not retain the consulship for a full year but only for a few months. The consuls who entered upon their office at the be ning of the year were regarded as consoles ordinarii and gave their names to the year. The others, the consults sujfccti, were also entered in the Fasti, though at times a name was likely to be passed over and omitted. It seems quite probable that C. Calpurnius Piso was a consul suffectus and that in some way his name was dropped from the Fasti. The testimony of the scho' to Juvenal is in itself to be considered of some weight. The statement of this scholiast as to the restoration of Piso under Claudius is derived from an unknown source, •Suet. Cal. 25; Dio Cass. 49. 8. 5 P. L. M. vol. 4- I 2 Tac. A. 14.65; 15. 4$-59- 4 Proleg. p. 5. iS but one apparently trustworthy since it fits with the historical evidence which we have. The scholiast's knowledge of the consulship may have been drawn from the same source. The year in which Piso was consul suffectus is of course a matter of conjecture. Wernsdorf accepted the opinion of Onuphrius Panvinius 1 who placed the consul- ship in the year 45 A. D. Weber 2 points out that if Piso entered upon the consulship in this year at the legal age of 43 he would seem somewhat old to be the leader of the conspiracy in 65 A. D. Weber is in favor of the year 57 A. D. in which year L. Calpurnius Piso was consul with the emperor Nero. He suggests that C. Calp. Piso took the placeof Nero, as consul suffectus, and that in sharing the consulship with the other Piso his name has gone down to oblivion. If C. Calp. Piso were 43 in this year he would have been 5 1 at the time of his death in 65 A .D. This explanation of Weber's is ingenious. But we can only say that the exact year in which C. Calpurnius Piso was consul must remain in doubt. Date of the Laus Pisonis The date of the Laus Pisonis can clearly be no later than 65 A.D. in which year occurred the death of the C. Calpurnius Piso whom we have identified with the greatest probability as being the recipient of the panegyric . With this in view we may accept the conclusion of W. S. Teuffel 3 who has pointed out that, since the example of Nero is not mentioned among the examples cited in justification of Piso's playing upon the lyre (w. 166- 177), Nero had evidently not yet appeared publicly ^asti 2. p. 200. 2 Proleg. p. 6. 8 R6m. Lit. 6 vol. 2, p. 280. 19 upon the stage as a musician. This public appearance of Nero's took place in 59 A. D. 1 The poem must then have been composed, not necessarily before the begin- ning of Nero's reign, but before the year 59 A. D. The year in which C. Calpurnius Piso held the consulship can hardly have been earlier than 45 A. D., and was probably some years later. The poem may be dated as falling approximately within the years 45-59 A. D. Author of the Laus Pisonis We have two manuscript traditions as to the author of the Laus Pisonis. J. Sichard, editor of the editio princeps, testifies that in the MS. from which he edited the poem it was attributed to Vergil 2 . In the manu- script of Junius the poem was entitled Lucani poema ad Calpurnium Pisoncm ex libro Catalecton, and similarly in the Paris MS. 7647 the poem was inscribed Litcanus in catalecton? On the ground of internal evidence the poem can not be assigned to Vergil 4 . Sichard, recogniz- ing this fact, judged that the poem belonged with cer- tain O vidian fragments found in the same MS. and published it in his Ovidii opera amatoria. The poem thereafter was published in various editions of Ovid, and, following the publication of Junius, in editions of Lucan. That Ovid can no more be the author than Vergil, is evident from the approximate date of the poem. 5 Wernsdorf 6 has endeavored to prove that the poem should be attributed to Saleius Bassus for the following reasons : (1) the author of the panegyric was evidently *See Tac. A. 14. 14-15. 2 See Introd. p. ;>. 8 See above. 3 See Introd. pp. 3 and 7. 6 P. L. M. vol. 4. pp. 39-45 } 20 of slender means (v. 255). Saleius Bassus was so widely known as a poverty stricken poet that Juvenal, 7. 80, speaks of him as tenuis Saleius, while Tacitus tells how his wants were relieved by Vespasian, Dial. 9, 'laudavimus nuper ut miram et eximiam Vespasiani liberalitatem, quod quingenta sestertia Basso donasset' ; (2) the poetical talent of Saleius Bassus is highly praised in Tac. Dial. 5/ quis enim nescit neminem mihi coniunc- tiorem esse et usu amicitiae et assiduitate contubernii quam Saleium Bassum, cum optimum virum turn abso- lutissimum poetam?' and in Dial. 9, 'quis Saleium nostrum, egregium poetam vel, si hoc honorificentius est, praeclarissimum vatem, deducit aut salutat aut prosequitur?'; the talent revealed by the panegyric is such as to give promise of the poet's becoming absolu- tissimus poeta or praeclarissimus vales; (3) the date of Saleius' life falls in the correct period since Quint ilian, Inst. 10. 1. 90, indicates that in his lifetime Saleius was an old man, and the years of his youth would therefore have been passed in the reign of Claudius. These arguments of Wernsdorf have carried no weight. As 1 ards the lifetime of Saleius Bassus, the words of Quintilian are obscure and offer no positive evidence: 'vehrmens et poeticum ingenium Saleii Bassi fuit, nee ipsum <.nectus maturavit'. This is thought to signify that Bassus died young before his powers were ripened by years rather than that he was an old man at the time of Quintilian. Furthermore we are not justified in identifying our poet with Saleius Bassus merely on the ground of a common poverty. Following the suggestion of Barth 1 and of Ouden- dorp, 2 C. Beck 3 has ascribed the authorship of the Laus Ho Stat. Sil. 5. 2. p. 456. 2 adnot. 10. ad Luc. vit. 3 Statii ad Calpurn. Pison. Poemation. 21 Pisonis to P. Papinius Statius. He contends that what our poet says of his non humilis domus and tenuis fortuna (w. 254-5) agrees with what we know of the home and fortune of Statius. He cites Stat. S. 5. 3. 116: 'non tibi deformes obscuri sanguinis ortus nee sine luce genus, quamquam fortuna parentum artior expensis'. Juv. 7. 82-7: 'curritur ad vocem iucundam et carmen amicae Thebaidos, laetam cum fecit Statius urbem promisitque diem; tanta dulcedine captos afficit ille animos, tantaque libidine vulgi auditur; sed cum f regit subsellia versu, esurit, intactam Paridi nisi vendit Agaven.' For the words of our poet to agree with those of Statius it is necessary to adopt the conjecture non humilis instead of the manuscript reading nos humilis. This conjectural reading seems necessary to the sequence of thought in w. 2 54-5 .* A further point of agreement Beck finds in the mention of Naples in w. 91-2 of the panegyric. Statius was a native of Naples and fre- quently alludes to his native city and its Euboean origin. But Naples was also a favorite place of residence of Silius Italicus. On such grounds Beck might just as well identify the panegyrist with Silius Italicus. Since Naples was distinguished as . 'the Greek city' it is natural that it should be cited by our poet as a witness to Piso's fluency in Greek. Although the exact date of the birth of Statius is unknown, his works v published between 92 and 95 A. D. He could hardly be identified with the author of the panegyric who, as a 1 See note to v. 254. 22 youth of 19, was entering upon a literary career in the last years of the reign of Claudius or in the first years of Nero's reign. The opinion of Beck has therefore been generally rejected by scholars. 1 M. Haupt 2 first set forth the theory that Calpurnius Siculus, author of the Eclogues, was the unknown author of the panegyric. This theory was suggested, as Haupt explains, by the similarity of the language in the Eclogues and the panegyric, and by the fact that the author of the Eclogues is called Calpurnius while the panegyric is addressed to Calpurnius: 'sed cum mira- bilis esse videretur versuum arte plane singulari fac- torum in bucolicis Calpurnii et in laudatione Pisonis similitudo, orationis etiam quaedam in dissimilibus carminum generibus adpareret convenientia, poetam autem iuvenem et pauperem bucolica non minus quam laudatio Pisonis ostenderent, et praeterea mirum esset poetam bucolicum vocari Calpurnium, Pisonem qui altero illo carmine laudatur esse C. Calpurnium Pisonem, et mihi et prius, quantum memini, Carolo Lachmanno quicum communicaveram quae de artifi- ciosis Calpurnii versibus dicere poteram, nata est sus- picio Calpurnium bucolicorum scrip torem, scripsisse etiam illam laudationem'. Haupt bases his theory upon the supposition that the author of the panegyric was not only aided in a pecuniary way but adopted by the Calpurnius whom he addresses. 3 When at a later date the Eclogues were published they were inscribed with the adopted name of the poet. The Meliboeus addressed in the Eclogues must then be the Calpurnius Piso addressed in the panegyric. Haupt cites certain ^ee Lehrs' Quaestiones Epicae p. 305; Haupt, Opus. 1. p. 391; Weber, proleg. pp. 12-13. 2 Opus. 1. p. 391. 3 See Opus. pp. 391-2. 23 metrical similarities in the panegyric and the Eclogues, which, he thinks, point to identity of authorship. nescio is used with a short o in the panegyric, v. 252, and this usage is admitted also by Calpurnius. Both poets admit the caesura after the fourth trochee, and use elision only infrequently. 1 Haupt's theory as to the author of the Laus Pisonis has been accepted and championed by various scholars. Th Birt, 2 on the basis of brief metrical investigations, is inclined to think that the metrical art of the panegyric agrees with that of the Eclogues, though he concludes with the statement 'tamen ad certum coniecutura non corroboratur de Calpurnio Panegyrici auctore'. E. Trampe 3 finds a similarity between the panegyric and the Eclogues in the use of monosyllabic conjunctions in the third and fourth arses, and pronounces it as certain that Calpurnius is the author of the Laus Pisonis. Schcnkl, in his Calpurmi ct Xancsiani Bucolica, praef. pp. 1-1 5, endeavors to support the theory of Haupt with stronger arguments. These arguments are based upon (1) similarity of thought and expression in the Eclogues and panegyric, (2) frequent use of same or similar w < «rds, such as contingo and pagina and of adjectives in -bilis, (3) the fact that in the Paris MSS. the excerpts of the Eclogues follow immediately after the panegyric, (4) similarities in versification. As similar passages, Schenkl compares Pan. v. 46 with Eel. 1. 13 and Eel. 6. 35 ; Pan. v. 109 ff. with Eel. 4. 33 ; and Pan. v. 235 ff.with Eel. 4. 39 ff. With regard to the versification of Calpur- 1 There ar • in all only 4 elisions in the 261 verses of the pane- gyric, (v. 14, v. 24, v. 8l, v. 168) and 10 in the 758 verses of the Eclogues. ! Ad Historiam Hexametri Latini Symbola, p. 63. s De Lucani Arte Metrica, pp. 47-8, p. M nius he notes that there is no elision of vowels except short vowels and those always in the first foot of the hexameter. With one exception (Eel. 3. 82) these elisions occur after the first syllable of the first foot. In the panegyric the two examples of elision 1 are of the same sort, except that in one case a long vowel is elided. Schenkl carries still further the metrical investigations of Birt by fixing the relative order of the panegyric and single eclogues as determined by the frequency of use of the caesura after the third foot of the hexameter, a double caesura after the first and second trochees, etc. These calculations are, however, of negative value in establishing the identity of the two authors. While Schenkl defends Haupt's theory in general, he suggests that Calpurnius Siculus, instead of being a poet of different name adopted by Calpurnius Piso, was rather the son of a freedman of the Calpurnian gens. 2 Although the supposition of Haupt has been thus supported and continues to be accepted as probable by some, 3 such strong arguments have been advanced against it by G. Ferrara in a treatise entitled Calpurnio Siculo e il panegyrico a Calpurnio Pisone that Schenkl himself admits that it must be given up. 4 Ferrara first takes into consideration the arguments of Haupt and Schenkl. While the author of the panegyric and the author of the Eclogues both admit the caesura after the fourth trochee, the percentage of instances in the pane- gryic is lower than in any single eclogue. According to Schenkl does not include necesse est, v. 14, and credibile est, v. 168. 2 See praef . p. 9 3 See Teuffel, Gesch. der rom. Lit. 1910; Butler, Post-Augustan Poetry, 1909. 4 See Berl. Philol. Wochenschr. 1907, Sp. 841. 25 such considerations the panegyric is metrically more perfect than the Eclogues, a conclusion that is directly opposed to Haupt's theory. The Meliboeus of the Eclogues could hardly be C. Calpurnius Piso since from Eel. 4. 53 it appears that Meliboeus was an authority on the winds and weather : 'nam tibi non tantum venturos discere nimbos, agricolis qualemque ferat sol aureus ortum, attribuere dei'. This does not agree with the knowledge which we have of C. Calpurnius Piso, as Haupt 1 himself admits, although he excuses the poet ' s statement thus : ' sed potuit aliquid propter pastoricium carmen dici quod in Pisonem non magnopere quadraret; nam cetera in eum accurate quadrant'. In order to show the extent of the similarity of thought and expression to be found in the Lans Pisonis and the Eclogues, Ferrara cites the following similar passages : Pan. v. 46 sequitur quocumque vocasti Eel. 1. 13 quo me cumque vocas, sequor 6. 35 sequiturque vocantem Pan. v. 1 1 1 et subito iuvat indul^entia censu Eel. 4. 33 et tua nos alit indulgentia farre Pan. 214 f. quod si digna tua minus est mea pagina laude at voluisse sat est Eel. 4. 14 f. si non valet arte polita carminis, at certe valeat pietate probari Pan. 234 f. sterili tantum cantasset avena ignotus populis Eel. 4. 45 irrita septena modularer sibila canna ^pus. 1. p. 392. 26 Pan. 37 visura triumphos Eel. 4. 90 visuraque saepe triumphos Pan. 248 tereti cantabere versu Eel. 4. 152 tereti decurrent carmina versu To several of these passages Ferrara further cites parallel expressions to be found in Vergil and Ovid, showing that the resemblances between the passages quoted from the panegyric and the Eclogues are not sufficient to carry with them the conviction that the author must be one and the same. As for the second argument of Schenkl, which had to do with the occurrence of the same words in the panegyric and the Eclogues, Ferrara notes that there are words used frequently in the Eclogues, such as memini and fateor, which do not occur, at all in the panegyric. Adjectives in -bills are, as Schenkl states, used fre- quently by both authors, but they are especially adapted to dactylic metre and are used frequently by Ovid. By a careful examination of the distribution of dactyls and spondees, and of adjectives and substantives in the hexameter Ferrara demonstrates the fact that there is no agreement in the metrical composition of the panegyric and of the Eclogues. The problem as to the author of the Laus Pisonis is then to-day as far from solution as ever. Owing to the general difference in style between the Laus Pisonis and the Pharsalia little credence has been placed in the attribution of the poem to Lucan by the codex Atreba- tensis and the Paris MS. (7647), although Lucan's right to the title was accepted by Richard Bentley, 1 Pieter J To Hor. C. 4. 6. 25. 27 Burman, 1 and Niklaas Heinsius. 2 Justus Lipsius 3 first raised serious objections to the acceptance of Lucan as author of the panegyric: 'ita in panegyrico illo ad Pisonem, qui hoc aevo scriptus, inserta eadem defensio v. 157: nee pudeat pepulisse lyram, cum pace serena publico, securis exultent otia terris. ipse fidem movisse jerox narratur Achilles, quern Ovidio ablatum viri docti tribuunt Lucano. neutri ego. ab Ovidio aetas abiudicat, ab Lucano conditio scribentis, nam ille qui- cumque poeta ignotus fuit, obscura domo fortuna tenui; et humilius blanditur Pisoni quam ut decuerit Lucanum. ait ecce v. 241: tu, Piso, latentem exsere: nos humilis domus, at sincera parentum, sed tenuis fortuna sua caligine celat. at Lucanus certe notus, celeber, per se perque uxorem praedives. adde Senecam patruum in aula; qui huic humili et tenui protendere manum potuisset prae Pisone . . . sed nee Statius huius carminis mentionem facit, cum omnia minima scripta eiusrecen- seat Silv. Because of such objections it has long been considered improbable that the author of the Laus Pisonis could be the author of the Pharsalia. It seems worth while to me to give a fair consideration to the possibility, however remote, of the two being identical. Weber 4 has summed up the main arguments which may be set forth against this possibility : (1) the panegyrist was of humble birth (v. 254), while Lucan was sprung of the noble race of the Annaei; (2) the panegyrist was of slender means (v. 255), while Lucan was rich (Juv. 7. 79); (3) no mention of the Laus Pisonis is found in the gencthliacon written in honor of Lucan by Statius (S. 2.7) or in Vacca's life ^o Petron. 94. p. 451. *To Tac. A. 14. 14. 2 To Ovid A. A. 1. 234. 4 Proleg. pp. 9-10. 18 of Lucan; (4) Lucan was of precocious genius and fam- ous for his youthful poems and declamations ; the pane- gyrist, on the other hand, was as yet in obscurity (v. 224) ; (5) the language of the two poets differs. Lucan was, as Quintilian (Inst. 10. 1. 90) says, ardens etcon- citatus et sententiis clarissimus; the panegyrist may be characterized as lenis et tranquillus. Weber's first argument may or may not be true. As a result of the faulty preservation of w. 254-5 in the Sichard text and Paris MSS. it is questionable whether the poet says that his family is humilis or non humilis. The sequence of thought and connection of words seems to demand non humilis. 1 J. Held, 2 an editor who accepted the author of the poem as unknown and had no especial interest in proving or disproving the theories as to its authorship, first noted that the text demanded the change of nos humilis to non humilis. But the poet was undoubtedly in moderate circumstances, since he says, v. 254: 'sed tenuis fortuna sua caligine celat'. He nevertheless insists that it is not money which he seeks but a road to fame : v. 219 'nee enim me divites auri imperiosa fames et habendi saeva libido impulerint, sed laudis amor' v. 223 'sublimior ibo si famae mihi pandis iter, si detrahis umbram' v. 253 'tu nanti protende manum : tu Piso latentem exere' In contrast to this evidence it will be well to examine the evidence which we have as to the wealth of Lucan. 1 See note to v. 254. 2 Incerti Auctoris ad Calpurn. Pison. Carmen 29 At the time when Juvenal wrote his satires, probably between ioo and 130 A. D., Lucan was considered to have been a wealthy poet, for Juvenal, 7. 79, cites Lucan as an example of a poet free from the cares of poverty : 'contentus fama iaceat Lucanus in hortis marmoreis'. Tacitus, A. 16. 17, tells us that the father of Lucan, L. Annaeus Mela, sought to find a shorter road to wealth by acting as agent for the imperial revenues: 'Mela, quibus Gallio et Seneca parentibus natus, peti- tione honorumabstinuerat perambitionempraeposteram ut eques Romanus consularibus potentia aequaretur; simul adquirendae pecuniae brevius iter credebat per procurationes administrandis principis negotiis' . Could it be possible that at the time when Lucan was a youth of 19 his father was as yet only in moderate circum- stances"" Lucan married a rich wife, as we learn from Statius, S. 2. 7. 85: 'sed taedis genialibus dicabo doctam atque ingenio tuo decoram forma, simplicitate, comitate censu, sanguine, gratia, tepof Lucan left proper ty at his death, to which his father laid claim, and this claim resulted ultimately in the destruc- tion of Mela, Tac. A. 16. 17: 'idem Annaeum Lucanum genuerat, grande adiumentum claritudinis. quointer- fecto dum rem familiarem etus acriter requirit, accusa- torem coneivit Fabium Romanum, ex intimis Lucani amicis. mixta inter patten) riliumque coniurationis scientia fingitur, adsimilatis Lucani litteris: quas inspectas Nero ferri ad cum iussit. opibus eius inhians. at Mela, quae turn promptissima mortis via. exsolvit venas'. 30 There is indeed no mention of a Laus Pisonis among the works of Lucan enumerated in the life of Vacca 1 : 'extant eius complures et alii, ut Iliacon, Saturnalia, Catachthonion, Silvarum 10, tragoedia Medea imper- fecta, salticae fabulae 14 et epigrammata prosa oratione in Octavium Sagittam et pro eo, de incendio urbis, epistolarum ex Campania, non fastidiendi quidem omnes, tales tamen, ut belli civilis videantur accessio'. But Lucan was a prolific writer for one who lived but little over 25 years. At the Neronia in 60 A. D., when but a youth of 2 1 , he won the prize for Latin verse with his laudes Neronis. Still earlier than this he had written the Iliacon and other poetry, as we learn from Statius, who seems to indicate the order of Lucan's poems, S. 2. 7. 54: 'ac primum teneris adhuc in annis ludes Hectora Thessalosque currus et supplex Priami potentis aurum, et sedes reserabis inf erorum ; ingratus Nero dulcibus theatris et noster tibi prof ere tur Orpheus, dices culminibus Remi vagantis infandos domini nocentis ignes, hinc castae titulum decusque Pollae iucunda dabis adlocutione. mox coepta generosior iuventa albos ossibus Italis Philippos et Pharsalica bella detonabis.' Lucan was closely associated with C. Calpurnius Piso in the conspiracy against Nero 2 and on account of this he was forced to commit suicide in 65 A. D. Piso was a man some years older than Lucan, as there is mention of ^osius, Lucanus p. 336. 2 Tac. A. 15. 49, 56, 70. 3i his nuptial banquet in 37 A. D. If Lucan were born in 39 A. D., as the life of Vacca states, he was 19 in 58 A. D. The terminus ante quern established for the Laus Pisonis is 59 A. D. 1 The evidence for the authorship of Lucan is thus so uncertain that Weber 2 himself is compelled to say: 'quae praeterea prolata sunt argument a ad demonstran- dum Lucanum panegyrici nostri auctorum non esse vel parvi vel nullius sunt ponderis. Etenim neque ex argumento, quod in carmine tractatur, neque ex iuvenili poetae aetate, qui 19 annos natus panegyricum scrip- sisse vs. 260 sq. fertur, Lucanum hoc poemation non composuisse sequitur'. In an endeavor to further the solution of this problem I have collected from the Pharsalia those passages, in so far as I have been able to find them, which seem to show a resemblance to the Laus Pisonis. The similarities to be observed are not so much in thought as in diction. Whether these similarities are sufficient to be of any weight is a matter of doubt. Pan. v. 1 unde prius coepti surgat mihi carminis ordo quosve canam titulos Luc. 8. 816 5 ; 2I 4> 221 - 35. magno . . . Cicerone iubente: the Sichard text offers the impossible reading iuventae but this has been ingeniously- altered by Weber to iubente. It has been rightly perceived that our poet in w. 35-6 is referring to Cic. Off. 1. 22, 'cedant arma togae concedat laurea laudi'. The whole passage in Off. 1. 22 is devoted to the thought which our poet wishes to emphasize, namely that the achievements of peace are even more important than those of war. Cf . such statements as 'sed cum plerique arbitren- tur res bellicas maiores esse quam urbanas, minuenda est haec opinio . . . vere autem si volumus iudicare multae res exstiterunt urbanae maiores clarioresque quam bellicae'. It is clear then that our poet has in mind this passage in which Cicero sums up his belief in the verse, quoted above: 'yield, ye arms, to the toga; yield, ye laurels, to civic praises'. Cicero continues as follows: 'ut enim alios omittam, nobis rem publicam guber- nantibus nonne togae arma cesserunt'. From these words as well as the preceding verse our poet has drawn his statement, 'sic etiam magno iam tunc Cicerone iubente — laurea facundis, ces- serunt arma togatis'. iam tunc: iam is explained by Haupt {Opus. 3. 414) as intensifying the temporal force of tunc, the phrase iam tunc differing but little then from the simple tunc. He cites Nemes. Eel. 3. 21, 'iam tunc post sidera caeli — sola Jovem Semele vidit Jo vis ora professum'. 36. facundis: concrete for the abstract facundia. Werns- dorf (Excur. 8) has shown that the verse quoted above from Cic. Off. 1. 22, 'cedant arma togae, concedat laurea laudi', was proba- bly known to our poet as 'cedant arma togae, concedat laurea linguae', linguae has some manuscript authority, though not the best, and is parallel to our poet's use of facundis. 37. sed quae Pisonum: the reading of Sichard. The Paris MSS. have, instead, queque (quaeque) patrum claros quondam, etc. This being also the reading in the editions of Junius and Scaliger, Weber (Ind. Led. p. 5) has shown the following reasons for reject- ing it: que is not a suitable conjunction since it does not intro- duce a thought closely connected with the preceding sentence, but 53 one entirely new, patrum might refer to the old Romans in general, and so it would not be clear whether they or the patres Pisones were meant; quondam is unnecessary because of the fol- lowing olim. sed: J. Maehly (Fleckeis. Jahrb. 1862, p. 290) expresses the opinion that sed is without reason at the beginning of this sentence, and proposes that we write sic. But a satisfac- tory explanation of sed has been given by Weber (Ind. Led. p. 6) who explains the sequence of thought as being: 'sed quid te exhortor, ut superes res bellicas maiorum forensibus tuis actis, cum eloquentia tua in foro iam notissima sit; nam populus iam stipat foro, etc; vel: sed iam antecessisti titulos maiorum tuo- rum; nam populus, qui olim impleverat vias, triumphos maiorum tuorum visurus, nunc stipat eadem fora te dicentem auditurus'. visura: the fut. act. particip. is used independently to express purpose by the poets and the Post-Augustan writers. For the beginnings of the independent use of the fut. act. particip. see Landgraf, Archiv, 9. p. 47. 39. ardua nunc eadem stipat fora: Weber (Ind. Led. p. 6) states that ardua is to be joined with turba, not with fora, and is descriptive of the attentive attitude of the people who stood ereda cervice. He cites Vcrg.A. 9. 53, where it is said of Turnus on •horseback campo sese arduus infert, and Hor. S. 1.2. 89, ardua cervix. This interpretation of ardua with turba seems somewhat forced. It is possible that ardua is to be taken with fora, since,/ ora probably refers to the imperial fora and these, unlike the forum Romanum, were enclosed by walls and colonnades, each forming an architectural unit. Being such, the adjective ardua might be applied to them as to magnificent and lofty public buildings. The forum Julium was begun by Caesar in 54 B. C. and completed by Augustus. Augustus then built the f<>rum Augustum which was dedicated in 2 B. C. Later, but probably not within the lifetime of our poet, there were added the fora of Vespasian, Xerva, and Trajan. The difference in elevation between the imperial fora and forum Romanum could not have been so great that the adjec- tive ardua would be applied for that reason. 39 f. maestos . . . reos: cf. Hor. C. 2. i. 13, 'insigne maestis praesidium reis — et consulenti, Pollio, curiae'. 40. defensura reos . . . facindia: cf. the description of C. Piso given by Tacitus, A. 15. 48, 'namque facundiam tuendis civibus excrcebat, largitionem adversum amicos, et ignotis quoque 54 comi sermone et congressu'. vocem . . . mittit: for the expression cf. Cic. Sest. 19. 42, 'haec ergo cum viderem . . . vocem pro me ac pro re publica neminem mittere'. 41. trepidos: reos is understood. Cf. Ov. F. I. 22: 'quae sit enim culti facundia sensimus oris civica pro trepidis cum tulit arma reis'. decem . . . virorum: a court of magistrates who had jurisdiction in civil matters. The centumviri (cf. v. 42 centeno iudice) were a body of indices before whom civil cases also were tried, the suits which fell especially under their cognizance being actions relating to inheritances. From the time of Augustus the decemviri acted as presiding officers in the centumviral court (Suet. Aug. 36). To this fact our passage bears witness in the words ad iura decem citat hasta virorum . . . centeno iudice. hasta: the spear was the symbol of the centumviri, apparently beine set- up at their place of meeting. So hasta came to be used as synonomous with the centumviral court. Cf. Suet. Aug. 36, 'ut centumviralem hastam . . . decemviri cogerent'. 42. firmare . . . causas: to prove, to bring forward facts to support their cases, centeno iudice : a poetical expres- sion for centum (viris) iudicibus. The distributives are occa- sionally used by the poets in the place of the cardinal numerals. Cf. Stat. S. 4. 4. 43, 'cessat centeni moderatrix iudicis hasta'. 43. capitale nefas: a crime punishable by death or the loss of civil rights. The thought is that whether Piso exercise his elo- quence in civil or criminal cases the fora resound with his praises. operosa: used for the second time. Cf. v. 21 above, diluis: with capitale nefas means literally to extenuate or do away with a capital crime, the thought implied being that of refuting a capital charge. Ovid uses diluo, meaning to extenuate, with peccata, R. Am. 695, 'nee peccata refer, ne diluat'. By Cicero the verb is used with crimen of refuting an accusation. Cf. Cic. Brut. 80. 278, 'sic nos summi oratoris vel sanitate vel vitio pro argumento ad diluendum crimen usi suraus'. 44 ff. tu quoque Piso . . : The reading of w. 44-6 is that found in the texts of Junius and Scaliger. This is also the reading of the Paris MSS. except that there is a lacuna between tu and Piso, quoque being inserted in the text in one MS. (7647) and in the margin of the other, quoque is without meaning in the pas- sage. But the reading of Sichard is equally corrupt: 55 'dura Piso, nam iudicis affectum possessaque pectora tentas, victus sponte sua sequitur quocunque vocasti'. Unger {Johns Jahrb. 1836, p. 268) has suggested that dura Piso nam is a mistake of the scribe for tu rapis omnem. Weber has adopted this conjecture, while Baehrens writes dum rapis una. There was evidently a lacuna at the end of v. 44 in the archetype of both families of MSS. 45. affectum: the emotions; perhaps to be contrasted with pectora, the understanding. For affectum . . . ducis cf. Quint. Inst. 9. 1. 21, 'iam vero affectus nihil magis ducit'. possessaque pectora: possessa, perf. pass, partic. of possido. With the thought cf. Quint. Inst. 6. 2. 6, 'ita omnen veritatis inquirendae rationem iudex omittit occupatus adfectibus: aestu fertur et velut rapido flumini obsequitur'. 45 f. ducis victor: a figure drawn from the triumph of a victorious general. The poet is thus describing the feats of elo- quence in terms of war as in vv. 27-9 above. 47 f. Similar to these verses in thought is Quint. Inst. 6. 2. 3, 'qui vero iudicem rapere et in quern vellet habitum animi posset perducere, quo dicto flendum irascendum esset, rarus fuit'. Because of this similarity L. Radermacher in his edition of Quin- tilian's institutio Oratoria has inserted in the text after flendum the word gaudendum. 49. sic: Piso is as skilled at controlling the emotions of the judge as the Thessalian horseman is at controlling his steed. \ 1 Kic.A: ordinarily a charioteer, but from the description given in the following verses it is obvious that it must mean here a horsema-i. This is apparently the only instance of such a use of auriga. The word is derived from aurea (frenum) and ago (cf. Waldo Et. Wb. and Fest. p. 8. Lind.). It thus denotes merely one handles the reins. According to the derivation then it is equally applicable to horseman or charioteer, but from its usage in literature, were it not for this one instance, we should judge that it was limited entirely to the charioteer, ferventia . . . ora: thejoaming mouth of his steed. Thessalus: Thessaly famed for its horses and horsemen. Cf. Prop. 2. 10. 2: 'sed tempus lustrare aliis Helicona choreis et campum Haemonio iam dare tempus equo'. 56 50. frenis . . . flectere: cf. Hor. C. 3. 7. 25: 'quamvis non alius flectere equum sciens aeque conspicitur gramme Martio'. 51-4. For a similar passage describing the feats of horseman- ship cf. Tib. 3. 7. 91-4: 'aut quis equum celeremque arto compescere freno possit et effusas tardo permittere habenas inque vicem modo derecto contendere passu, seu libeat, curvo brevius convertere gyro'. tardo permittere habenas is to be compared with rapido permittit habenas . . . quadrupedi. Baehrens writes rabido instead of rapido, probably from the feeling that one would not need to give full rein to, and spur on, a fleet horse. But the picture is that of a rider urging on an already swiftly flying horse. 52. sed calce citat: cf. Verg. A. 11. 714, 'quadrupedemque citum ferrata calce fatigat'. modo succutit arte: we are indebted to the Paris MSS. for preserving what is undoubtedly the correct reading here. The verse was incomplete in the text of Sichard, being marked with an asterisk, but later editions have the common reading torquet in aut as. This Weber (Ind. Lect. p. 7) has endeavored to explain, but in the light now thrown upon the passage by the manuscript reading we need not hesitate to condemn torquet in autas as a poor conjecture, made to fill out the incomplete verse, succutit: sc. habenis: now tightly he reins up the sensitive mouth. The rider at times spurs on his horse to faster and faster endeavors, then jerks him up short and wheels him in various maneuvers. The verb succutio is used, in Lucretius 6. 55 1 . of stones jolting a wagon, in Ovid M. 2. 166, of the bound- ing of a chariot, but a nearer approach to the meaning of this pas- sage is found in Apuleius, Apol. 44, where the word is used to describe the jerking of the head of an epileptic boy, 'iam in media quaestione . . . manus contraxisset, caput succussisset'. The horseman by suddenly drawing tight rein jerks up the head of his horse, arte: cf. arto . . . freno in Tib. 3. 7. 91, quoted above. 53. cervice rotata: cf. Ovid's expression, H. 4. 79, 'sive ferocis equi luctantia colla recurvas'. 54. effusos . . . cursus: cf. Livy 2. 50, effuso cursu. carpere cursus: similar in construction is Stat. Th. 1. 311, volatus carpit. Our poet's thought, in gyrum carpere cursus, is expressed in Verg. G. 3. 191, by the simplephrase carpere gyrum. 57 55- QUis non attonitus . . : what judge does not look with awe upon thy countenance? 56. PER tua PONDERA: through thy influence, the weight of thy arguments. Cf. Stat. Th. 1. 213, 'grave et immutabile Sanctis — pondus adest verbis'. The singular pondus is more usual in this signification. But cf. Cic. De Or. 2. 17. 73, 'omnium senten- tiarum gravitate, omnium verborum ponderibus est utendum'. 57. pariter cum: equivalent to una cum (see Hands Tursel- linus 4. p. 388). 58. densaque . . . fulmixa: the adjective densus has here the meaning frequent, repeated. It is so used with such words as ictus and verber. Cf. Verg. A. 5. 459, densis ictibus, and Stat. Th. 6. 421, densis . . . verberibus. vibrata . . . lin- gua: with impetuous tongue. Maehly (Fleckeis. Jahrb. 1862, p. 291) proposes to read vibranti instead of vibrata, on the basis of the reading vibrati in one of the Paris I J (03). But this MS. also has the incorrect reading fulmine. The participle vibrans is used with lingua of the tongue of a serpent (cf. Verg. A. 2. 21 1), but so also is vibratus (cf. Luc. 9. 631). Furthermore vibratus from being applied to something that is moved rapidly and forcefully seems to have acquired almost the meaning of impetuous, forceful. Cf. Aus. 413. 5. 'iambe . . . flammis corusci fulminis vibratior'. 59. astrictas . . . voces: astrictus is thus used of speech which is concise. Cf. Cic. Brut. 95 rborumque astricta comprehensio', and also 90. 309, 'in dialectica exercebar, quae quasi contracta et astricta cloquentia putanda e ium cogere: to condense. A figurative transfer from such an ex- ion as 'capillos colligit in nodum' (l)v. ;.. • . Quin- tilian also uses nodus of rhetorical diction. Cf. Inst. 9. 4. 'membratim plerumque narrabimus. aut ipsas periodos maioribus intervallis et velut laxioribus nodis resolvemus'. 60. et dare . . . verba I a construction modelled upon such a literal expression as 'daret ut catenis fatale mon- strum' (Hor. C. I. 37. 20). catenae: the reference is to simple, concise discourse where one sentence is vitally linked with another. For the metaphorical use of catena as applied to oratori- cal language, cf. Quint. Inst. 5. 14. 32, 'in catenis ligant et inex- plicabili serie conectunt'. Vv. 57-8 are thus in contrast to vv. 59-60, the former picturing the use of all the verbose and weighty- eloquence at an orator's command, the latter, the use of concise and simple diction, none the less powerful. 61. vim Laertiadae . . : thou dost surpass the force of Ulysses and the brevity of Menelaus. Our poet is describing three kinds of oratory, two of which he has already defined and the third he takes up in the following verses (62-4). Of these three kinds he gives as the great representatives, Ulysses, Menelaus, and Nestor (v. 64). Homer mentions the oratory of Menelaus (II. 3. 214), the force of Ulysses' speech (II. 3. 221), and the sweet- ness of Nestor's tongue (II. 1. 249). These three Homeric heroes seem to have furnished stock examples of the different types of oratory. Quintilian, Inst. 12. 10. 64, speaks of them as exemplify- ing three kinds of eloquence: 'nam et Homerus brevem quidem cum iucunditate et propriam, id enim est non deerrare verbis, et carentem supervacuis eloquentiam Menelao dedit, quae sunt virtutes generis illius primi; et ex ore Nestoris dixit dulciorem melle profluere sermonem, qua certe delectatione nihil fingi maius potest; sed summam aggressus in Ulixe facundiam magnitudinem illi iunxit'. Cicero, Brut. 10. 40, mentions two types, the force- ful oratory of Ulysses and the sweet eloquence of Nestor. Gellius 6. 14, defines the three kinds of oratory and cites these same Homeric examples: 'sed ea ipsa genera dicendi iam antiquitus tradita ab Homero sunt tria in tribus: magnificum in Ulixe et ubertum, subtile in Menelao et cohibitum, mixtum moderatum- que in Nestore'. 63. nec incluso sed aperto . . . flore: flos means the embellishment and ornamentation of speech. It is so used by Cicero and Quintilian. Cf. Cic. De Or. 3. 25. 96, 'ut porro con- spersa sit quasi verborum sententiarumque floribus' ; Brut . 1 7. 66, 'iam vero Origines eius quern florem aut quod eloquentiae non habent'. nec incluso sed aperto flore then means not with restrained but with free oranmentation. With incluso we may supply in thought paucis verbis. Cf . Quint. Inst. 8. 3. 68, 'at si aperias haec, quae verbo uno inclusa erant', in which passage we find con- trasted aperias (cf. aperto) and inclusa. pingere: Maehly (Fleckeis. Jahrb. 1862, p. 291) thinks it useless to attempt to explain incluso flore pingere, since this whole verse seems to him 59 out of keeping with the preceding verse, the one emphasizing ornamental, the other, smoothly flowing language. But orna- mentation is not necessarily opposed to smoothly flowing diction. Maehly would read fundere cursu instead of pingere flore and sup- ply rore to take the place of cursu in v. 62. Aside from the fact that such alterations have no manuscript authority, we may urge that liquidoque fluentia cursu is a more natural expression than liquidoque fluentia rore. pingere flore is also a simple and natural metaphor. For pingere used with flos in literal signification cf. Lucret. 5. 1381: 'praesertim cum tempestas ridebat et anni tempora pingebant viridantis floribus herbas'. Just as flos is used of the ornamentation of speech so pingere is used of embellishing speech. Cf. Cic. Brut. 37. 141, 'eaque non tarn in verbis pingendis habent pondus quam in illuminandis sententiis*. 64. incliia NbsTOIBI . • the famous charm of sweet tongued Nestor yields to thee. mellis: an echo of the Homeric passage (II. 1. 249) where words sweeter than honey are said to flow from Nestor's tongue. 65. Piso: is used by the poet with a short o, as also in v 129, 253. So Ovid uses his cognomen Naso. populo sub iudice : for the anastrophe cf. Ti >, Jove sub domino, and luce sub ilia, v. 68 below. 66. numerosa LAUDB: cf. v. 9. numeroso consule. 67. reddit . . . curia voces: the curia echots with the applause thou hast rightly won. curia might also be interpreted as the senate itself and in this case teddit voces would mean merely to bestow applause. But the first interpretation seems best, as avoiding a repetition of the thought in the preceding clause. reddit thus means to echo, give back the applause, voces refi the shouts of approval bestowed upon the orator. Cicero, De Or. 3. 26. 101, tells us what some of these were: 'quare bene et praeclare, quamvis nobis saepe dicatur: belle et festive, nimium saepe nolo, quamquam ilia ipsa exclamatio: non potest melius, sit velim crebra'. 68. luce sub illa : cf . the temporal use of sub in Plin. H. I 115, 'ideo sub ista die quam maxime invia petunt'. 69. reticexte sexatu: the Sichard text has the impossible reading retinente. recinente has been suggested bv Unger (Jahns 60 Jahrb. 1836, p. 269) and adopted in the text of Baehrens. But the reading reticente, which is found in the editio Lugdunensis secunda and in the texts of Junius and Scaliger seems preferable. Piso is represented by the poet as delivering an oration and giving thanks to the emperor, reticente denotes the silent attention of the senate. Cf. Ov. P. 4. 4. 35: 'curia te excipiet, patresque e more vocati intendent aures ad tua verba suas'. 70. bis senos . . . fasces: inasmuch as a consul was preceded by twelve lictors carrying the fasces it is clear that Piso had been elected consul and this was the occasion of his oration. The election of consuls from the time of Tiberius was in the hands of the senate and the vote of the senate was controlled by the emperor. Calpurnius Piso was probably a consul suffectus (see Introd. p. 18). With this verse cf. Ov. P. 4. 9. 4: 'missaque, di faciant, auroram occurrat ad illam bis senos fasces quae tibi prima dabit'. purpura: cf. Ov. P. 4. 4. 25, 'purpura Pompeium summi velabit honoris'. 71. Caesareum grato . . : Pliny the Younger, when appointed consul suffectus in 100 A. D. delivered an elaborate address in eulogy of Trajan. This panegyric has been preserved. We may infer that it was an oration of similar type which Piso delivered. 72-83. These verses were placed at the end of the poem by Junius and Scaliger and the editors who followed their texts. Wernsdorf was among those who kept this arrangement, though he later expressed his disapproval of it (P. L. M. vol. 5. p. 1470). There can be no doubt that the arrangement of Sichard is correct. The poet has been discussing Piso's eloquence in the courts and in the senate. Feeling his inability to do justice to thiss ubject he breaks off and takes up a consideration of his private life. The word hue of v. 84, which is to be referred to penatibus ipsis of v. 83, has no explanation if v. 84 is read immediately after v. 71. These verses, 72-83, are not only needed in their setting to explain the further development of the poem but if placed at the end leave the poem in an apparently incomplete state. 72. quod si 1 am valid ae . . : with this deprecatory statement compare v. 259, 'est mihi, crede, meis animus con- 61 stantior annis'. The poet, though boasting a mind riper than his years, still feels himself immature. 73. PRIMOS . . . ANNOS: cf. V. 26l. 76. succiso poplite: lit. ham-strung. We should expect rather succiduo poplite, as in Ov. M. 10. 458. But with the phrase succiso poplite we may supply velut as Unger {Johns Jahrb. 1836, p. 276) suggests. 77 f. olorinos . . . sonos: among the ancients the swan had a reputation, perhaps largely mythical, for being an especially tuneful bird (cf. Hor. C. 4. 3. 19; Verg. E. 9. - lern scientists distinguish from the tame or mute swan, which is com- monly known, a wild or whistling swan, which is a native of Ice- land and northern Russia and which migrates southward in autumn. It is said to have a musical note. It is possible that some such species gave rise to the ancient belief. Pandionis ales: the nightingale. The two daughters of Pandion, Procne and Philomela, were changed into a nightingale and a swallow. Pandionis ales might then refer to either the nightingale or the swallow. Unger (Johns Jahrb. 1836, | inks that this passage is taken from Lucretius, 3. 6, where the swallow is con- trasted with the swan, 'quid cnim contendat hirundo — cycnis?' But it is better to interpret Pandionis ales as the nightingale because of the comparison between the cicada and the nightingale in the following verses. The poet says: as the nightingale is to the swan, so the cicada is to the nightingale. 78. referre: reproduce, imitate. 79. aedonia: this is the reading of the editio Lugdunensis secunda. The Sichard text offers et hed; 1 is apparently a corruption oiet aedonia. et Pandioniu,oi the Paris probably due to a corrector, aedonia is an adjective formed from acdoti. It occurs a pt in v. 47 of Lact. De Phoe- nice, which is thought to be a relatively modern compilation. Though so rare in use aedonia appears to be the correct reading. CICADAS: the shrill toned cicada, or tree-locust, was well known to the ancients. By the Romans its noise seems to have been considered raucous, perhaps, but not entirely displeasing. Cf.Vefg.G.3.3 'et cantu querulae rumpent arbusta cicadae'. Calp. Eel. 5. 56: 'at simul argutae nemus increpuere cicadae'. 62 The Greek poets use it as a simile for sweet sounds (cf . Horn. II. 3. 151; Hes. Op. 580, Sc. 393). So the comparison of the cicada to the nightingale may not be as disparaging as it seems. 80. stridula . . . convicia: shrill noise or clamor, convicia is thus used of the noise of frogs by Columella, 10. 12, 'perpetitur querulae semper convicia ranae'. rapido . . . soli: the reading of Sichard and the Paris MSS. JBaehrens has adopted the conjecture rabido for which there is no need. Cf. Verg. G. 1. 92, rapidive potentia solis, where rapidus is used of the hot sun. The noise of the tree-locusts is greatest when the sun is hottest. Cf. Verg. E. 2. 12: 'at mecum raucis, tua dum vestigia lustro, sole sub ardenti resonant arbusta cicadis'. 81. quare age . . : the poet now exhorts his Muse to leave the subject of the forensic glory of Piso and take up the con- sideration of his private virtues. 84. Hue etiam . . : the youths assembled at Piso's home to listen to his oratorical exercises and learn something of his art. 86. tacuerunt iurgia: i. e. whenever legal business was sus- pended for some public holiday, iudice fesso points to the fact that it is the feriae aestivae which the poet has in mind. These holidays were kept during midsummer when, because of the heat, many wealthy Romans went into the country. On the jeriae vindemiales, which were held toward the close of summer, there was also a cessation of legal business. With verse 86 cf. Stat. S. 4. 4. 39: 'certe iam Latiae non miscent iurgia leges, et pacem piger annus habet, messesque reversae dimisere forum'. Cf. also Plaut. Capt. 78: 'ubi res prolatae sunt, quom rus homines eunt, simul prolatae res sunt nostris dentibus'. 87. tunc etenim . . : for then he practises with the joils as it were, and exercises his art in fictitious suits, levibus . . . in armis : soldiers and gladiators used in their exercises a wooden staff or sword, rudis, to which levibus armis is here equivalent. Cf. Liv. 26. 51. proludit: cf. the use in Ov. A. A. 3. 515, where the rudis is mentioned as the weapon used for practise: 'sic ubi prolusit, rudibus puer ille relictis, spicula de pharetra promit acuta sua'. 63 88. COMPOSITISQUE . . . litibus: componere litem ordi- narily means to settle a suit, but here to invent or devise a suit. 89 f . These verses are somewhat difficult to interpret satisfac- torily. In Graecia we have a bold expression for Graeca oratio, while as the subject of sonat we must supply Piso. In order to avoid these difficulties Weber (Ind. Led. p. 8) has suggested the reading gratia instead of Graecia, and sonus, instead of sonat, the two nouns thus having a common verb profluit. The verses would then read: quin etiam jacilis Romano profluit ore gratia Cecropiaeque, sonus gravis aemulus urbi. According to such a reading the poet would praise the charm of Piso's Latin speech and his ability in speaking Greek, as Weber (op. cit. p. 8) explains. Such an emendation would only make the passage more obscure. As Maehly (Fleckeis. Jahrb. 1862, p. 291) has pointed out, gratia would thus seem to be a phenomenon among Roman poets. Graecia profluit is a strong metaphor, but we can hardly say that it is impossible, inasmuch as w. 89-92 are obviously dealing with Piso's fluency in Greek. 90. aemulus: used with the dat. in poetry and Post- Augustan prose (see Kuhner-Stegmann, Ausf. lat. Gramm. 2 1 . p. 437). 91. testis: sc. est. Acidalia . . . alite: the dove of Venus. Neapolis was a city of Greek origin, being a colony of Cumae. Cumae was founded by colonists from Chalcis in Euboea, and the fleet of these colonists, according to legend, was guided by a dove. Cf. Veil. Pat. I. 4, 'nee multo post Chalci- denses, orti, lit praediximus, Atticis Hippocle et Megasthene duci- bus Cumas in I talia condiderunt . huius classis cursum esse direc- tum alii columbae antecedentis volatu ferunt, alii nocturno aeris sono, qualis Cerealibus sacris cieri solet. pars horum avium magno post intervallo Neapolim condidit'. Neapolis seems to have taken over the legend of the dove from its parent city. Statius, who was a native of Neapolis, alludes to it in S. 3. 5. 80: 'Parthenope, cui mite solum trans aequora vectae ipse Dionaea monstravit Apollo columba*. 92. BUBOICAM ■ErSBBMS ■ . . arcem: reproducing the Euboean city. Euboicom fan to Chalcis, not Cumae, as the poet naturally wishes to associate Neapolis with the Greek city. Similarly Statius repeatedly refers to its Chalcidic or Euboean origin (cf. S. I. a. 203 ; 2. 2. 94; 3. 5. 12). One might 04 infer that it was settled directly by colonists from Chalcis. Strabo (5. p. 246), while calling it a colony of Cumae, states that it received an additional body of Chalcidic and Athenian colonists. The words of Statius and our poet may be accounted for, however, on the ground that it was a colony of the Chalcidic city of Cumae. faccunda Neapolis : facunda is the emendation of Unger (Jahns Jahrb. 1836, p. 265) for foecunda of the Sichard text. Naples was a place of Greek culture where men of letters spent their time in study. Cf. Verg. G. 4. 563: 'illo Vergilium me tempore dulcis alebat Parthenope studiis florentem ignobilis oti'. Martial speaks of it as docta Neapolis, 5. 78. 14, and so too Columella as docta Parthenope, 10. 134. Wernsdorf (Excur. 9) has expressed the opinion that in w. 90-91 we have special refer- ence to the quinquennial contests at Naples, mentioned by Statius (S. 2. 2. 6; 3. 5. 92; 5. 3. 1 13), in which poets and orators took part. 93. nitor oris: elegance of speech. Cf. Cic. Or. 32. 115- orationis nitor. For os used poetically as oratio or sermo cf . Verg- A. 2. 423, 'atque ora sono discordia signant'. Maehly {Fleckeis, Jahrb. 1862, p. 292) interprets the genitive oris as dependent upon vocibus but condemns it as weak and meaningless, as it certainly would be in such connection. 94 f. hinc . . . hinc: = modo . . . modo; a post- classical usage, solido fulgore micantia verba: words flam- ing with genuine fire. Cf . Quint. Inst. 10. 1 .2, 'solida atque robusta . . eloquentia'. 95. implevere locos: have filled, i. e. enrich, the subject. Wernsdorf explains: 'implevere dicit, quia in his locis inest amplificatio et dilatatio arguments . locus: a topic of discus- sion, or division of a subject, figuris: cf. the definition given by Quintilian, Inst. 9. 1.4, 'figura, sicut nomine ipso patet, con- formatio quaedam a communi et primum se offerente ratione'. 96. advolat . . . sententia: the poet has reference to a brief and forceful, yet polished, mode of expression, advolat: sc. to the audience. For the absolute use cf. Sil. 13. 776, 'Croesi mox advolat umbra', excusso . . . topno: excusso seems to be equivalent merely to agitato, set in motion. We may com- pare its use in Ov. M. 5. 596, 'excussaque bracchia iacto'. The fashioning of words upon the potter's wheel is a metaphor 65 employed by Propertius, 2. 34. 43, 'incipe iam angusto versus includere torno', and Horace, A. P. 441, 'male tornatos . . . versus'. Cf. also Gell. 9. 8, 'hanc sententiam memini a Favorino inter ingentes omnium clamores detornatam inclusamque verbis his paucissimis'. 97. etsi . . . fuisset: a contrary to fact condition with imperfect indicative in the apodosis to show that the conclusion is true independently of the condition. 98. eloquio: cf. Luc. 7. 63, 'Romani maximus auctor — Tullius eloquii'. SANCTUM . . . SBNATUM: sanctus is a regular epithet of the Roman senate, permulcere: cf. Hor. Ep. 1. 16. 26, 'et his verbis vacuas permulceat aures'. 99. exonerare pios . . i. e. free the innocent from false charges and convict the guilty, onerare: to overwhelm, sc. with proofs, or accusations. Cf. Cic. X. D. 3. 3. 8, arguments onerare iudicem. 100. mo vet: sc. the audience. 101. QfSIGNl . . . imagine: imago = species, prae- strinc.it . . . visrs: dazzles the sight. Weber {Ind. Led. p. 8) suggests the use of perstringit in the place of p> 'Saepius in MSS. commutantur praestringere et perstringere, quae oculorum aciem plus minusve nimio splendore obtusam vel per- cussam significant. Itaque et h. 1. scribendum esse videtur perstringit, quod melius quadrat, laudes Pisonis augens, cuius vultus primum audientes in universum movisse, deinde eorum oculos perculisse atque animos percussisse dicitur; ut. L 1 25, 4 horror ingens spectantes perstrin^nt, et Plin. H. X. 2.16 (18) solis — radii visits perstringere nostras'. The ad-iitional force which Weber sets in perstringit is not sufficient to outweigh the fact that praestringere oculos or aciem oculor:.> us is here equivalent, is a regular form of expn Plaut. M. Cie. Vat in. 10. - [03. HABITUS: sc. oris: expression of the face. HABSTUM: stern, scwere. 103. fliilhm: the adjective is opposed to maestum and apparently means mild or gentk. It is used with mollis of bodies lacking in physical strength in Liv. 34. 47 5, 1 et fluida corpora, laeta . . . tetricitate: oxymoron. We render: a pleasant seriousness. The noun tetricitas occurs only 66 here, but the adjective tetricus is used by other writers. Martial applies it to the Fates, 4. 73. 6, 'moverunt tetricas tam pia vota deas'. Cf. also Liv. 1. 18. 4, 'disciplina tetrica ac tristi veterum Sabinorum'. Wernsdorf compares with this passage Sil. 8. 610: 'laeta viro gravitas ac mentis amabile pondus et sine tristitia virtus, non ille rigoris ingratas laudes nee nubem frontis amabat'. 106. additur huc . . : to these characteristics are added an uptight honesty, an independence tempered by restraint, and a disposition free from avarice. 107. ferrugine: iron-rust, i. e. avarice. Wernsdorf would prefer to take it as envy, malice, and cites Hor. S. 1.4. 101 where aerugo, copper rust, is used with this signification, 'hie nigrae sucus loliginis, haec est — aerugo mera'. But Horace also uses aerugo of avarice, A. P. 330, 'at haec animos aerugo et cuia peculi — cum semel imbuerit'. That j err ugine is best interpreted as avarice is shown by the following verses, for it is with this that the poet introduces the subject of Piso's generosity. 108. ipsaque possesso . . : he is enriched by his intel- lect more than by the possession of gold. Cf. Ov. Am. 3. 8. 3, 'ingenium quondam fuerat pretiosius auro'. Wernsdorf cites Stat. S. 1. 2. I2i, 'huic quamvis census dederim largita beatos, — vincit opes animo'. 109. cultorum: clients, cultor is used only infrequently with this meaning. But cf. Juv. 9. 48, 'vos indulgebitis umquam cultori'. IUVENIS facunde: Weber (Ind. Led. p. 8) proposes iucunde as more suitable to the passage: 'sed quid quaeso rei est liberalitati et beneficentiae cum facundia? . . . vocabulum est corruptum; lege iucunde et epitheton recte se habet'. There is, however, nothing inconsistent in facunde. The poet has spoken in turn of Piso's eloquence, of his nobility of countenance, his uprightness and independence, his lack of avarice, his rich intellect, invents facunde serves to recall all this and link with it the new subject of Piso's generosity, facunde is also a more or less formal mode of addressing literary friends (cf. v. 32 above; Ov. Tr. 1. 9. 57; Mart. 7. 91. 1). nof. animosa . . . indulgentia: eager beneficence. The use of animosa in this sense is rare. Cf. Plin. H. N. 10. 83, ani- mosa contentio (avium in cantando); Tac. H. 1. 24, animosus corruptor. For the use of indulgentia cf. Calp. Eel. 4, 33, 'tua 67 nos alit indulgentia farre'. beatum excipit: a proleptic use of the adjective. The client is poor when Piso receives him into his circle, but he is straightway enriched with generous gifts. The sudden change in his fortunes is thus indicated by beatum and subito censu. Wernsdorf cites Claud. Cons. Olyb. et Prob. 47 : 'cernere semper erat, populis undare penates adsiduos intrare inopes, remeare beatos'. 112. quodque . . . fuerit: a parenthetical relative clause with potential force, magis . . . pretiosius: a pleonasm found for the most part in early and post-classical Latin (see Kuhner-Stegmann, Ausf. lat. Gramm. 2. 2 p. 464). 113. diligis ex aequo: thou dost cherish them alike. Piso shows no favoritism according to the fortunes of his dependents. 115. SUPERBORUM . . . DICTA IOCORUM : the 'AttX thrusts of arrogant jests, superborum is a transferred epithet. The humble clients of Piso are not forced to endure the insulting jests of an arrogant patron or his friends, dictum has the special signification of a witty saying. Cf. Macr. S. 2. 1. 14, 'iocos enim hoc genus veteres nostri dicta dicebant. testis idem Cicero qui in libro epistularum ad Cornelium Xepotem secundo sic ait : itaque nostri, cum omnia, quae dixissemus, dicta, essent, quae facete et breviter et acute locuti essemus, ea proprio nomine appellare dicta voluerunt'. 116. Mines: obj. gen. 117. ONUS wiKiiiu: . . one circle of friendship em- braces high and low, Martyni-Laguna compares with this Hor. S. 1. 9. 49: ' "domus haec nee purior uHa nee magis his aliena malis; nil mi officit", inquam, "ditior hie aut est quia doctior; est locus uni cuique suus" '. 118. kara : the adjective is thus used as the equivalent of the adverb taro. Cf. Ov. M. II. 766, 'nee Iliacos coetus nisi rarus adibat'. 119. This verse is a mere repetition of the thought of the pre- ceding, fastosa: an adjective comparatively rare in use. The form jastuosus occurs in Mart. Cap. 6. 579. and 9. 898. Jastosus is an incorrect formation due to the exigencies of metre, according to Schdnwerth-Weyman, Archiv 5. p. 207. But in addition to 6S this passage in our poem it is found in Mart. 10. 13. 7; 13. 102. 2, and Petr. 131. 3. 120. illi: illic, the reading of Sichard, was rejected by Weber and Beck in favor of the conjectural illi. This conjecture is now supported by the reading of one of the Paris MSS. (17903). Though Weber adopted illi in his text he later proposed Mis as better (Ind. Led. p. 9), 'Cur enim clienti soli casta mens et vita tribui debet? Cur non et ami 00? Corrige illis quod ad utrumque cultorem spectat, de quibus postea vs. 122 et vs. 124 sermo est, ad comitem s. clientem et ad amicum quos et antea vs. 1 14 significaverat vv. probitas spectatur in illis'. Weber evidently misinterprets the passage, tenuem amicum and humilem clientem do not refer to two different persons, or classes of persons, but to one and the same person. The poet merely repeats the same idea under different terms. It is the lot of the poor client in general of which he is speaking, mens: this word is lacking in the text of Sichard but is the reading of the old editions. The Paris MSS. read domus, an evident inter- polation. There was probably a lacuna here in the archetype of all our MSS. Baehrens repeats licet to fill the lacuna: illi casta licet, licet et sine crimine constet. 120 f. sine crimine constet vita: though his life lemain without fault. For the use of consto cf. Sen. Ben. 4. 2. 3, 'et ego sine virtute nego beatam vitam posse constare'. 121. probitas . . . iacebit: true worth will be held in no esteem. Cf. Ov. F. 1. 218, 'dat census honores, — census amicitias; pauper ubique iacet'. cum paupertate: indicates the condi- tion under which worth will be held in no esteem. For this use of the preposition cum see Hands Turs. 2. p. 155. Similar is Cic. Sest. 45. 98, 'id quod est praestantissimum . . . cum digni- tate otium'. 122. et: the conjecture of Santen. The Sichard text reads sed which can hardly be correct since the following statement is not adversative or corrective but an amplification of the preced- ing, nullus iam lateri of the Paris MSS. is an attempt to correct this mistake which existed apparently in the archetype of both families. Various conjectures have been made, though none which removes the difficulty any more satisfactorily than the change of sed to et. Beck has proposed nam, Klussmann, sic (Philol. 1856, p. 591), Weber, si. Weber's suggestion involves considerable change in the interpretation. According to his pro- 69 posal (Ind. Led. pp. 9-10) the clause Mi casta licet mens . . . vita must depend upon the preceding verbs, aspernatur and calcat. tamen thus introduces a new statement followed by the conditions si . . . quaerit . . . nee . . . largitur . . . sed . . . focilat: 'Quamobrem ponenda est distinctio minor post v. iacebit et corrigendum si pro sed, quod (S;) in MSS. saepius cum si confunditur, ita ut quae sequuntur ad vs. usque 127, eodem modo inter se coniuncta . . . ab hac particula pen- deant'. Against this ingenious arrangement it may be urged that licet . . . tamen is a natural and frequently used antithesis, and that there is as much inconcinnity in the use of tamen to introduce the statement probitas iacebit as in the use of sed to introduce nullus quaetit. lateri . . . comitem circum- dare: it was the duty of a client to escort his patron when he walked abroad. For this we find such expressions as latus claudere, and latus tegere (Juv. 3. 131 ; Hor. S. 2. 5. 18). A similar use of citcumdare with lateri may be seen in Liv. 30. 19. 8, 'nine patre, hinc Catulo lateri circumdatis privato magis quam publico decor e insignis Romam rediit'. 123. impia merces: the client in return for being present at the salutatio of his patron and accompanying him in public was rewarded with a sportula. This originally consisted of a small basket of food, but later of a small sum of money. Many clients thus earned their living, waiting upon a number of patrons (cf. Mart. 10. 74; 3. 7.) 125. QUSM kegat . . . regatir ab illo: the construc- tion is illogical. Occasionally to a relative clause another clause is thus added in which the relative has no place. Cf. Cic. Prov. 28, 'actum est de decern legatis, quos alii omnino non dabant, alii exempla quaerebant, alii tempus differebant, alii sine ullis borum ornamentis dabant'. regat: the patron was called rex, whence perhaps the use of the verb rego. Cf. Mart. 2. 18, 'qui rex est, regem, Maxime, non habeat'. EX aequo: not equally as in v. 113 above, but on equal terms, as an equal. Cf. Luc. 8. 232, 'solusque e numero regum telluris eoae — ex aequo me Parthus adit'. 126. focilat: Weber {lnd. Led. pp. 10-11) expresses the opinion that this verb is not derived from the same loot a&jociilare (or focillari) which has a short vowel in the first syllable and is to be connected vtith jocus. He explains its derivation and meaning 70 thus: 'foculare contra sive quod hoc loco et in Glossar. Lat. Graec. ex Cod. nr. 7692 apud Du Cange T. 3. p. 332 legitur focilare Nonio auctore 1. 31. p. 10 est i. q. fovere, nutrire. Additur ter tium v. focio, quod extat cum glossa i/zw/uffw, adesco, allicio in Supplem. Antiquar. apud Du Cange lam v. focil- landi nostro loco aptum esse apparet, sive significat adescare, allicere, sive nutrire, sustinere. . . . Est enim focilare sive foculare frequentativum quoddam verbi focare in suffixum il. . . . Proprie significat focare, quod superest in perfocare, praefocare, suffocare, i. q. fauces aliqua re claudere sive implere, quae actio si repetita esse dicitur, fit frequentativum focilare sive foculare, quod est cibum in os saepius inserere, cibare, yj/utfilfav'. jocilat evidently means to support, whether it has, as Weber thinks, the literal force of feeding or providing food for a person or whether it is to be associated with focillare, to joster, cherish. pudibundos: oj which one should be ashamed, i. e. disgraceful. For this passive signification of pudibundus cf. Val. Fl. 1. 805, 'date fallaci pudibunda senectae — exitia indecoresque obitus'. 128. ista procul labes: the reading of Junius and of the Paris MSS. ipse piocul livor, the reading of Sichard, has been rightly rejected by Wernsdorf, Weber, and Baehrens. The poet is not introducing a new subject but is referring to the conditions which he has just described, as is evident from the words, piocul haec jortuna refugit . . . domum. livor has no connection with the preceding verses and furthermore is not suitable where the subject under discussion is the relation of client and patron. ista labes has reference to the contents of w. 118-23. procul: equivalent to in longinquum, e. g. Liv. 7. 5. 5, 'procul inde omnibus abire iussis'. haec fortuna: this condition refers to the shameful treatment of clients just set forth in vv. 124-7. To Maehly jortuna does not seem sufficiently explanatory and he proposes ferrugo used with the same meaning as ferrugine v. 107 above (Fleckeis. Jahrb. 1862, p. 292). jortuna is, however, sufficiently qualified by haec. 129. tu: sc. es. With regard to the felicitous language of vv. 129-32, H. E. Butler, Post-Augustan Poetry, p. 158, says: 'Any great man might be proud to receive such a tribute'. He renders into English thus : 'Mild is thy temper and free from sharp harsh- ness. Thou layest aside thy pride in every act, and among thy 71 friends thou art counted a friend and equal, thou teachest men to follow thee and seekest to be loved by loving'. 131. As similar to the sentiment of this verse Wernsdorf cites Plin. Pan. 2. 4, 'et hoc magis excellit atque eminet, quod unum ille se ex nobis putat nee minus hominem esse quam hominibus praeesse meminit. 132. amorem quaeris amaxdo: cf. Plin. Pan. 85. 3, 'habes ami cos, quia amicus ipse es . . . potest fortasse princeps inique, potest tamen odio esse non nullis, etiamsi ipse non oderit: amari, nisi ipse amet, non potest'. 133. cuncia domus . . : the clients of Piso cultivated various literary arts and assembled in his home to read aloud and discuss their efforts. 134. movet STUDIUM: inspires endeavor. Maehly (Fhckeis. Jahrb. 1862, p. 292) proposes jovet studium on the ground that be knows no passage parallel to movet studium. But cf. Ov. Am. 3. 12. 16, 'ingenium movit sola Corinna meum'. The literary aspirants who frequented Piso's home were inspired to fresh endeavors, not only through hearing things worthy of emulation but through being heard and approved by their friends. Cf. Ov. Pont. 4. 2. 'excitat auditor studium, laudataque virtus crescit, ct immensum gloria calcar habet'. NEC EMM TIBI IH R,\ . . thou dost favor no rough or uncul- tivated throng oj clients who, t dying on menial service, know nothing except to go before thee and clear away the people. 136. summoto . . . vllgo: submovete is properly used of the lictor's duty of clearing away the people to make way for a magistrate (cf. Liv. 3. 48. 3, Hor. C. 2. 16. 10). Piso favored no uncultivated clients who performed for him only the menial service of lictors and had no higher ambitions. 137, >i :> vik ROSA . . but a manij old excellence pleases thee, numerosa, as Wernsdorf notes, has the meaning oj many sorts, useful tor many things. He cites the inscription (Grut. 3) 'corpore in exiguo res numerosa fui', where tes numerosa apparently means having a kncnvledge oj many things, variously accomplished. With this use of virtus numerosa cf. Quint. Inst. 5. 10. 10, numerosius opus, a work of various contents. TU PR IN omne . . : thou dost eagerly apply thyself to every task, great or small. For pronus in the sense of eager, willing cf. Tac. H. I. i, pronis auribus. 139 f. FACUNDIA . . . ADDUCTA CUM FRONTE: Stem- browed eloquence. 141. classicus horror: the neuter substantive classicum is used of the trumpet or sound of the trumpet. But in classicus hortor, for classici horror, we have an adjectival use which is unusual. 142. gemit: Martyni-Laguna (Wernsd. P. L. M., vol. 4. p. 864) notes : 'nemo forte dixit classica gemere. millies permutan- tur in scriptis fremere et gemere. ethic forte: fremit'. But cf. Claud. 3. 218, 'classica non gemerent'. nec semper Gnosius . . : these words recall Hor. C. 2. 10. 19, 'neque semper arcum tendit Apollo', arcu: the reading of the Paris MSS., while arcus is the reading of Sichard. Weber and Baehrens have adopted arcum unnecessarily, destinare is used by post-Augustan writers of the act of aiming performed by archers and slingers. It may take as object the thing aimed at, or the thing aimed. But the thing aimed is naturally the arrow discharged from the bow, not the bow itself. Cf. Veg. Mil. 2. 23, 'sagittis vel certe lapidibus ex fustibalo destinatis,' and Aur. Vict. Caes. 42. 23, 'destinandi sagittas mire promptus'. It seems best to accept the abl. arcu, used as in Stat. Th. 8. 439, 'Phaedimon Iasiden arcu Dircaeus Amyntas — destinat'. destinat is then used absolutely but may be interpreted with some such word as sagittas or tela understood. C. Beck (Statii ad Calpurn. Pison. Poemation) thinks that f eras is to be supplied as object, while Unger {Jahns Jahrb. 1836, p. 269) favors arcus, explaining destinare arcus as an inversion similar to sagittas tendere . . . arcu, Hor. C. 1. 29. 9. 145 ff. These verses imitate freely Hor. C. 4. 7. 1-12. 145. ipsa vices . : cf. Hor. C. 4. 7. 3, 'mutat terra vices'. 146. inversis . . . frontibus: the reading of the Sichard text is frondibus. The Paris MSS. unfortunately omit this verse, jrontibus is the plausible conjecture of Martyni- Laguna (Werns. P. L. M. vol. 4. p. 865): 'displicet: inversis frondibus. Quaenam sunt frondes inversae? aut ego plane caecutio, aut verum est frontibus, ut diversae anni facies dicantur, respectusque fiat ad Janum. Natura explicat annum frontibus inversis, i. e. mutatis. Alia frons veris, alia aestatis, alia au- 73 tumni, alia denique hiemis'. This conjecture has been adopted by Weber and Baehrens. For the expression we may compare versis jrontibus, Verg. G. 3. 24. 147. xox semper . . : cf. Hor. C. 2. 9. 1, 'non semper imbres nubibus hispidos — manant in agros'. 148. aurea . . . obcaecat sidera: puts out the eyes of the twinkling stars. Cf. Plaut. Men. 180 'solem vides — satin ut occaecatust prae huius corporis candoribus'. 149. hiems: the seasons, which were originally conceived of as women, were personified as men by the later Romans. Such seems to be our poet's conception though it is obscured by the natural gender of hiems. madidos . . . capillos: winter is represented with dripping locks because of the storms and snows of the winter season. For the same reason Ovid pictures him with shaggy and hoary hair. Cf. M. 2. 30, 4 et glacialis Hiems canos hirsuta capillos', and M. 15. 212, 'inde senilis hiems tremulo venit horrida passu, — aut spoliata suos, aut, quos habet, alba capillos'. siccat veki ■ ■ nh the returning warmth 0} spring. 150 f. With these verses cf. Hor. C. 4. 7 ) 12: 'frigora mitescunt Zephyris, ver proterit aestas interitura simul pomifer Autumnus fruges effuderit, et bruma recurrit iners'. 150. TB1GA LACBSSI1 : I > BX] ression calls to mind the picture of a victor driving before him his defeated foe. 151. pom 1 ii:k: cf ::n decorum mitibus pomis caput — autumnus agris extulit'. NDfBIs: this is the reading of the Paris MSS., while nubibus is the reading of Sichard. Baehrens has adopted ni:i : >us, the conjecture of Barth. This may at first glance seem appropriate, but either nimbis or nubibus serves better to recall vv. 147--9 which were the starting point in the poet's cycle and in which it is 1 is hiems but aquosa hiems that is WDIS: poetical for aquis. Cf. M. 1 . 266, 'barba gravis nimbis, canis fluit unda capillis". 1 52 ff. These verses are to be compared for similarity of thought withCalp. Kel. .; 'ipse polos etiam qui temperat igne geluque Iuppiter ipse parens, cui tu iam proximus ipse, 74 Caesar, abes, posito paulisper fulmine saepe Cressia rura petit'. 152. recondit: Wernsdorf has proposed reponit. But re- condo is used to describe the sheathing of a sword and is therefore not inappropriate with ignea arma, i. e.fulmina. Observe Ovid's appeal in Tr. 2. 179, 'parce, precor, fulmenque tuum, fera tela, reconde'. 153. et Ganymedeae . . : this verse seems to be modelled on Ovid M. I. 165, 'foeda Lycaoniae referens convivia mensae'. 154. EA . . . dextra: Horace vividly terms it rubente dextra, C. 1.2. 3. 155. temporibus servire: to accommodate oneself to the occasion; equivalent to the Greek phrase 'r£ xcupy 5ov\etciv\ Anth. P. 9. 441. Note the description of Alcibiades given by Nepos, Alcib. 1, 'affabilis, blandus, temporibus callidissime serviens'. 156. pensavit: a gnomic perfect, pensare has, like our own word weigh, the secondary meaning to consider. Thus certis ponderibus pensare means to consider carefully. We may keep the figure by rendering as follows : he ivho weighs each occasion with unerring scales, etc. 157. vestiet: gestiet is the reading of Sichard, but vesliet is found in Paris MS. 7647, and is a much more suitable reading. toga gestiet is so bold a figure that it scarcely forms a parallel to miles erit, while toga vestiet expresses merely the opposite of miles erit and completes the thought in a well balanced way. 158. pacatum, bellantem: a similar juxtaposition of the two words occurs in Liv. 3. 19. 12, 'nescio quo fato magis bellantes quam pacati propitios habemus deos'. 159. felix ill a dies: for a similar beginning of the hexameter cf. Verg. Cir. 27, 'felix ille dies, felix et dicitur annus', totumque . . . per aevum: the reading of Sichard. totumque . . . per orbem is found in the Paris MSS. Either aevum or orbem is appropriate. For aevum cf. vv. 222, 243. The repetition of words is a noticeable characteristic of the poem. 160. vitales . . . auras: the breath of life. 162 f. mira subest gravitas . . : thou hast a wondrous gravity in the forum, and a wondrous charm when for a little thy 75 gravity is laid aside. Cf. Claud. 17. 247, 'rigidi sed plena pudoris — elucet gravitas fastu iucunda remote*'. 164. LUDENTI . . . versu: light or playful verse, ludo is thus used of light poetical composition indulged in as a pastime rather than a serious pursuit. Cf. Hor. C. 1. 32. 2, 'si quid vacui sub umbra — lusimus tecum', fluitantia: smoothly flowing. The adjective is indicative of the ease and ability with which Piso composed verse, when such was his pleasure. Cf. liquidoque fluentia cursu, v. 62. 165. facilis . . . pagina: the ready page, i. e. the page readily, easily runs off poems, deducit: deduco is used figura- tively of spinning out verses. Cf. Hor. Ep. 2. 1. 225, 'tenui deducta poemata filo'. 166. chelyn: a Greek word used mostly by post-Augustan writers. Our poet uses it again in vv. 171, 24.2. It occurs as many as 26 times in the works of Statius. ebirno verbere: a poetical expression for eburno plectro. Seneca, Troad. 321, uses the verb verbeto of striking the lyre, instead of the more usual pulso, 'levi canoram verbenas plectro chelyn*. 167. Ai-ui.i.iNKA: the music produced upon Piso's lyre being worthy of that of Apollo, the poet flatteringly calls it Apollo's lyre, BEQI m I nSTUDINI cam ly (Fleckeis. Jahrb. . p. 293) thinks that sequitur and the instr. abl. testudine are not to be explained. He proposes regitur, but he thereby alters the meaning of the verse, imlcit cantus is not the song of Piso accompanied by the lyre, but the music evoked from the lyre itself. The meaning is: sweet music (produced) upon Apollo's lyre ensues. A similar 'forced' construction of the abl. may be seen in Claud. 17. i 'vel quis non sitiens sermonis mella politi deserat Orpheos blanda testudine cantus?' 168. Phoebo nnm 1 — 10: cf. Prop. 1. 2. 27. 'cum tibi praesertim Phoebus sua carmina donet — Aoniamque libens Calliopea lyram'. 170. exiltent: peace runs riot in the land. A forceful expression. 171 f. NBCPUDBAT . . . SICREDITIR: not be thou ashamed f hat the lyte of Apollo it thought to be played by those hands by which he bow too is dtawn. The thought is: be not ashamed that hands 70 which stretch the bow also play the lyre. The poet expresses this indirectly and figuratively by use of Apollo's example. After citing further the famous example of Achilles he introduces the subject of Piso's dexterity in arms. 171. si creditur: the si clause is not conditional but equival- ent to a substantive clause — a construction not unusual after verbs of emotion (see Kuhner-Stegmann, Ausf. lat. Gramm. 2. 2 p. 424). 172. contend itur: used in its primary meaning, to stretch out, to stretch tightly. It is so used occasionally by the poets. Cf. Verg. A. 12. 815, 'non ut contenderet arcum'. 173. Achilles: Achilles, when compelled to give up Briseis to Agamemnon, refused to take further part in the war and remained in his tent where he solaced himself with the lyre (Horn. II. 9. 186). Cf. Ov. Tr. 4. 1. 15; Stat. S. 4. 4. 35. 174. quamvis mille rates . . : when Hector had suc- ceeded in repelling Ajax the Trojans set fire to the ships of the Greeks (Horn. II. 16. 112-24). Cf. Sen. Troad. 319-21: 'interque caedes Graeciae atque ustas rates segnis iacebat belli et armorum immemor, levi canoram verberans plectro chelyn'. Priameius . . . heros: perhaps an imitation of Ov. A. A. 2. 5, Priameius hospes, which is used of Paris, brother of Hector. Priameius heros occurs in II. Lat. 271, where it too refers to Paris. 175. et gravis . . : and the hoarse trumpet resounded in opposition to the music oj the strings. 176. Nereius . . . heros: a repetition in form of Priameius heros. extudit: similarly elido is used of the pro- duction of melody, Sen. Oedip. 734, 'lituusque adunco — stridulos cantus elisit aere'. 177. terribilis . . . Pelias: the spear of Achilles whose shaft was cut by Chiron upon Mt. Pelion(Hom. II. 16. 143). The use of Pelias alone for Pelias hasta is unusual. Baehrens, in order to avoid this, adopts the conjecture iverat hasta instead of ibat in hostem. This elucidates Pelias but destroys the force of the rest of the clause. The Paris MSS. confirm the read- ing of Sichard, Pelias ibat in hostem, and there can be little doubt that this is the correct reading. In support of this absolute use of Pelias, Buecheler (Rhein. Mus. 1881, p. 336) cites the Hesychian 77 gloss: HrjXLas' To86pv t i5Lu)s rb roO'Ax t ^^f a,I ' caTa XP 7 7 " r " c< ^ 1 5^/cai wav. He compares also the absoluteuseof Libs, Chium, and Appias. If we note the occurrence of IlTjXtdt fieXlij and Ilrj\id5a ireXlrjv in Horn. II. 20. 277, 16. 143 and elsewhere, and of Pelias hasta in Ov. P. 1.7. 52, 2. 2. 26, Her. 3. 126, M. 13. 109, we must conclude that Pelias may well have come to be used alone of the spear of Achilles. 1 78 ff A description of a contest with arms follows. Blunted swords may have been used, or perhaps the clava, a weapon for exercising which seems to have partaken of the nature of a foil and was used especially by soldiers and gladiators. Cf. Veg. Mil. 1. 11. 179. inque gradum . . . consistere: to take position, to place oneself in position, gradus is used of the ground or posi- tion taken by a combatant. Lipsius proposed to read inque gradu . . . consistere and Wernsdorf has approved the sug- gestion, citing Ov. M. 9. 43, inque gradu stetimus. The ace. with in is, however, conceivable after consistere and occurs occasionally, e. g. Caes. B. G. 5. 33. 3, 'ut impedimenta relinquerent atque in orbem consisterent', and Tib. 4. 1. (Paneg. in Mess.) 101, 'seu sit opus quadratum acies consistat in agmen'. clausis . . membris: a use of claudo which seems to be without parallel. Wernsdorf gives the following explanation: 'clausis men i. e. compositis et coercitis intra statum. Quomodo apud Statium Theb. 6. 744, Pollux dicitur, Alcidamanta palaestra exercens, membra eius ad pugnandum composiusse: "ipse deus posuitque manus, et brachia rinxit" '. clausis membris obviously refers to the position of the combatant, but it means more than compositis, coercitis. Note the description of the combat between Paris and Menelaus, II. Lat. 294-7: 'turn adversus uterque constitit et galeam galea terit et pede plantam coniungit, stridetque mucro mucrone corusco. corpus collectum tegitur fulgentibus armis'. The clue to our passage is to be found in corpus collectum tegitur . . . armis. The body is contracted and covered by the shield when the warrior makesready to attack or beattacked. Cf. Verg. A. 1 2. 491 , 'substitit Aeneas et se collegit in arma' and A. 10. 412, 'seque in sua colligit arma*. As commentary to the latter passage Serving writes, 'post scutum se elausit'. The meaning of clausis membris is thus disclosed. The body is held in readiness covered by the shield. For the active use of claudo in this signifi- cation cf. Stat. Th. 4. 350, 'nulli destringere ferrum — impetus, aut umeros clipeo clausisse paterno'. 180. simul, simul: intended to emphasize the agility of Piso who eludes and almost instantaneously attacks his opponent. captare: used of a successful thrust. Cf. II. Lat. 300, 'utque diu rigido captabant corpora ferro'. 1 81 f. orbes plectis: descriptive of the circling about of the combatants. Cf. Verg. A. 12. 743, 'et nunc hue, inde hue incertos implicat orbes'. 183. scrutaris pectora: Wernsdorf explains scrutaris as meaning to search out with the eye a point of attack. But scrutor is used of the actual plunging of the sword into the body, the sword being said to explore the vitals. Cf. Luc. 8. 557, 'quid viscera nostri — scrutaris gladio'. Our poet then uses scrutaris of a thrust which would be fatal were it not a mock combat. Martyni-Laguna considers scrutaris too farfetched for such a con- test. But the language of a real combat is appropriately main- tained. Cf. percutis v. 184. 184. necopino . . . ictu: cf. Stat. Th. 6. 781, 'ilium rigida arma caventem — avocat ac manibus necopinum interserit ictum'. 185 ff. The description of a ball game which follows is of interest in that it adds to the technical terms found in other writers. The game of ball was considered by the Romans wholesome for body and mind, and was indulged in by men of all ages. Even the emperor Augustus took exercise wi h the pila and folliculus (Suet. Aug. 83). Various kinds of balls, such as the harpastum, the follis, and the trigon or pilatrigonalis, were used in different games. Wernsdorf (Excur. 10) thinks that our passage is descriptive of a game with the follis, a wind bag which was tossed about among a circle of players. Becker, Gallus. 3. p. 101, states that in no case can the follis be meant, as it was not caught with the hands. Yet he does not think the game here described can be referred to either the trigon or harpastum. Becker believes that in this passage a striking of the ball backwards and forwards is alluded to, and this he is unwilling to admit as a part of the game of trigon. Mar- quardt (Privatleben d. Rom. p. 843) notes that the author of the Laus Pisonis is not describing a new kind of game but merely using new terms. There is indeed nothing in the passage incon- 79 sistent with the method of playing trigon. Three players stood at the angles of an equilateral triangle, each with a pila trigonalis, and the balls were kept going between the three. The striking of the ball, as well as catching and throwing, was a part of the game. Cf. Mart. 14. 46: 'si me mobilibus nosti expulsare sinistris, sum tua, tu nescis? rustice, redde pilam'. The expression expulsare, which according to Becker signified no more than throwing the ball, has been generally accepted as mean- ing to strike the ball either back to the sender or sideways to the third player. (See Becker-Goll, Gallus 3. p. 178; Becq de Fouquieres, Les Jeux des Anciens p. 206; Smith, Diet, of Ant. 3. 423). The player who in the course of the game dropped the ball least was probably the winner. 185 f. volantem . . . geminare pilam: to repeat the flight of the ball, i. e. to send back the ball. The ordinary terms for throwing the ball back to the sender are reddere and remitiere. But geminare is opposed as a separate action to revocare cadenttem et . . . redder e. It therefore probably means to strike the ball back to the sender. Seneca, Ben. 2. 17, uses repercuttre to describe this stroke, when the ball is struck with the palm of the hand without being first caught and then thrown: Volo Chry- sippi nostri uti similitudine de pilae lusu, quam cadere non est dubium aut mittentis vitio aut excipientis; turn cursum suum servat, ubi inter manus utriusque apte ab utroque et iactata et excepta versatur ... si cum exercitato et docto negotium est, audacius pilam mittemus; utcumque enim venerit, manus illam expedita et agilis repercutiet'. The passage quoted makes use also of other technical terms, such as mittere and iactare, to throw the ball, and excipere, to catch the ball, volantem . . . geminare pilam is obviously an unusual expression. We may compare the use of geminate in Luc. 7. 481: 'excepit resonis clamorem vallibus Haemus Peliacisque dedit rursus geminare cavernis'. In this passage geminare probably means to send back, to re-echo, to reverberate. We find repercutere also used with the meaning to reverberate, resound. Is it possible that our poet has used geminare as the equivalent of repercutere, seeking an unusual term for a customary expression? 186. revocare cadentem: to recover the ball when its fall seems imminent. So 187. et non sperato . . : to make a difficult catch and return the ball unexpectedly. 188 f. The ball game, as an exercise which preceded bathing, took place in the palaestra attached to some public bath. 189. iam: actually, even; adds to the force of subabunda. In the very midst of their own games and exercises men would leave off in order to watch the skillful performance of Piso. 190. iuvat: the repeated use of this verb is monotonous. Cf. w. 59, 164, 186, 221. studiorum: the intellectual pursuits upon which the poet has dwelt in the first part of the poem. 191. non languere: equivalent to mentem molliter recreate. A form of litotes. Since languere means to be idle, inactive, the force of non languere is not to be entirely inactive but to have some light diversion. The poet uses non languere instead of some stronger affirmative expression because the game in which Piso indulges is but a degree removed from the state denoted by languere. tamen: is used with reference to jessum: notwith- standing his tired condition, lususque movere per artem: to wage games of skill, movere is used frequently with bella and, as our poet describes the game which follows as if it were a battle, he is probably imitating this expression in lusus movere. 192 ff. The description of the ludus latrunculorum in the follow- ing verses forms one of the chief passages to be found in Latin literature regarding this game of the ancients. While Piso's skill at such a game may seem a trivial subject to be dwelt upon in the panegyric, if we are to believe the scholiast to Juvenal, 5. 109, he was indeed so famed for it that people gathered to watch him play: 'in latrunculorum lusu tarn perfectus et callidus ut ad eum luden tern concurreretur'. Praise for dexterity in such games was not considered unworthy of the great men of antiquity. P. Mucius Scaevola was likewise famed for his skill in playing ball and duo decim scripta a game comparable to backgammon (Cic. De Or. 1. 50; Quint. Inst. 11. 2. 38). The ludus latrunculorum most resembled modern draughts, or checkers, being played with pawns upon a board divided into squares. Cf. Varr. L. L. 10. 22, 'ad hunc quadruplicem fontem ordines deriguntur bini, uni trans- versa alteri derecti, ut in tabula solet in qua latrunculis ludunt'. 192. tabula . . . aperta: the board was called tabula latruncularia. Cf. Sen. Ep. 117. 30, 'nemo, qui ad incendium 81 domus suae currit, tabulam latrunculariam prospicit, ut sciat, quomodo alligatus exeat calculus'. From the expression tabula aperta it has been judged possible by Becq de Fouquieres (Les Jeux des Anciens, p. 445) that the ancients possessed folding card tables such as those of to-day. But tabula aperta is merely the euivalent, in the terms of this miniature battle, of campo aperto, a phrase frequently used in descriptions of military combat. variatur: is moved about here and there. 193 calculus: a general name applied to the counter or pawn. It is a pseudo-diminutive of calx, which occurs in Plaut. Poen. 908: Sy. 'profecto ad incitas lenonem rediget, si eas abduxerit'. Mi 'quin priu' disperibit faxo quam unum calcem civet-it' . But calx as a name for the pawn is rare, though in the proverbial expression, ad incitas redigere, to reduce to a dead block, calces is to be supplied. Cf. Plaut. Poen. 907 above. As technical names for the pieces used in the ludus latrunculorum we find latrones (Ov. A. A. 3. 357; Mart. 14. 20. i; 7. 72. 8) and latrunculi (Sen. Ep. 106. 11; Yur. L. L. 10. 22; Plin. 8. 215). Becq de Fouquieres (op. cit. pp. 431-5) is of the opinion that there was a distinction between latrones and 1'ittunculi, the latrones being the superior pieces, the latrunculi, the inferior. We learn from Isid. Orig. 18. 67, that the pawns with which each player was equipped were divided into two classes, each possessing different powers and hence of different values: 'calculi partim ordine moventur, partim vage: ideo alios ordinarios, alios vagos appellant; at vero qui moveri omnino non possunt, incitos dicunt'. There then the two classes, the ordinarii and the vagi. The ordi- nary i were moved ordine, square by square in one direction, probably only perpendicularly to th s base of the board Cf Tr. 2. 477, 'discolor ut recto grassetur limite miles'; Isid. Orig. 18. 62, 'item calculi, quod per vias ordinales eant, quasi per calles'. The poft were moved in any direction, both diagonally and perpendicularly. Becq de Fouquieres would identify the ordinarii of Isidorus' description with the latrunculi, the vagi with the latrones. He suggests that the full name of the game would have been ludus latronum et latrunculorum. But we do not find mention of both latrones and latrunculi in the same passage, latrones being used by the poets, latrunculi by the prose writers. This implies that latrones was merely a poetical substitution for the unwieldy diminutive latrunculi. latro meant primarily a mer- cenary, or hired soldier, and is so used by Plautus (cf. M. G. 949). It later acquired the meaning of freebooter, highwayman. Cf. Paul, ex Fest. p. 105 Lind: 'latrones antiqui eos dicebant, qui conducti militabant, dirb ttjs Xarp&as at nunc viarum obsessores dicuntur, quod a latere adoriuntur, vel quod latere insidiantur'. It is probable that the diminutive latrunculi was formed from latro and applied to the pieces of the game before this secondary meaning of latr > had developed. The poets return to latro for metrical considerations, though they use miles and bellator freely in its stead (cf. vitreo milite below). The idea of freebooting was not, however, unsuited to the nature of the game and Ovid apparently so associates latro when he says, A. A. 2. 207: 'sive latrocinii sub imagine calculus ibit, fac pereat vitreo miles ab hoste tuus!' In the long description of this game given by our poet there is no distinction of names though it is evident that the pawns per- form different functions (cf. v. 198, longo venit ille recessu, etc.). Ov. A. A. 3. 359 offers additional testimony that there were on each side, as Isidorus says, pieces of different values: 'bellatorque sua prensus sine compare bellat'. But we can not accept the conclusion of Becq de Fouquieres (so also of W. Wayte, Smith, Diet, of Ant.) that latrones and latrun- culi were the names applied to these two different classes (see note to v. 203 below), vitreo . . . milite: the pawns were commonly of glass. Cf. Ov. A. A. 2. 208, quoted above, and Mart. 7. 72. 8, vitreo latr one. Sometimes they were made of ivory; sometimes gems, which may have been imitation jewels of glass, were used. Cf. Juv. 11. 132, 'adeo nulla uncia nobis — est eboris, nee tessellae, nee calculus ex hac — materia'; Mart. 14. 20, 'insidiosorum si ludis bella latronum — gemmeus iste tibi miles et hostis erit'. 194. niveus . . . niger: the men on each side were different in color. Cf. Ov. Tr. 2. 477, discolor . . . miles, and Sid. Ep. 8. 12. 5, tabula calculis strata bicoloribus. They may also have been different in shape. Becq de Fouquieres {op. cit. p. 437) cites Plin. 8. 54. 215 to prove that the counters sometimes took the form of figurines, but the reading icones, upon which he bases his conclusion, is doubtful. He further cites Suet. Ner. 22, 83 a passage doubtful as to interpretation: 'sed cum inter initia imperii eburneis quadrigis cotidie in abaco luderet'. nigros . . . albos: Wernsdorf explains: 'dicit autem albos, quia unus calculus poterat duos discolores alligare'. But the emphasis is not felt upon the plural nor is the thought one white pawn blocks two black ones, etc. as Wernsdorf suggests. The poet merely means that now white checks black, now the black, the white. alliget: a technical term, meaning to check or block the course of the enemy's man, but not necessarily to reduce it to a position from which it could not be extricated. Cf. the passage in Sen. Ep. 117. 30, (quoted above) 'quomodo alligatus exeat calculus'. The object of the game was to reduce to a dead block or take as many of the adversary's pieces as possible. It appears that a man caught between two of his adversaries was lost. Note the description of the Greek *-6\etj a game similar to the Indus latrun- culorum, in Pollux. 9. 98 'Siyp-qntvuv Si eis 860 tQv \j/J)e\etv . Becq de Fouquieres (op. cit. p. 442) is of the opinion that a man so caught was lost only in case he could not extricate himself. But the evidence tends to show that merely by being caught between two opponents the pawn was lost. Cf. Mart. 14. 17: 'calculus hac gemino discolor hoste perit'. Ov. A. A. 3. 358: 'unus cum gemino calculus hoste perit, bellatorque sua prensus sine compare bellat, aemulus et coeptum saepe recurrit iter'. Ov. Tr. 2. : 'cum medius gemino calculus hoste perit, at mare velle sequens sciat et revocare priorem nee tuto fugiens incomitatus eat'. Not only do Ovid and Martial state that a pawn so situated as to be between two enemies is lost, but Ovid lays great emphasis upon the perilous condition of a pawn which is unaccompanied. 195. te duce: each player was the leader or general of his forces, i. e. the pawns. The military terms are continued through- out in realistic fashion. 196. periturus perdidit hostem: Wayte (Smith, Diet. 0} Ant.) explains thus: 'Piso sacrificed pieces which his opponent could not take without suffering a greater loss', periturus does not, however, necessarily mean that Piso had to sacrifice a piece, but that he was on the point of losing it and would have lost it had he not exercised great skill. By an ingenious move he extri- cated himself from danger and at the same time put his opponent in a position where he must sacrifice a man. Such seems to be the best interpretation of the passage. The fut. act. participle is used, not to denote something which was impending and bound to happen, but something which was likely to happen and would have happened under certain conditions (Helm, Quaest. Syntact. de Particip. Usu. p. yj). Cf. Luc. 9. 611, 'ut aspexit perituros fonte relicto'. 197 ff. ILLE (197) . . . ILLE (198) . . . HIC (199) . . . ille (201) . . . hic (202): In a series of this kind the poets choose their pronouns with great liberty and apparently without regard to symmetry. Cf. Juv. 3. 69, hic . . . hic . . . hic . . . ille . . . hic. For further illustra- tions see Wolfflin, Archiv 12, p. 245. 198. rapit: Maehly (Fleckeis. Jahrb. 1862, p. 293) proposes to read capit on the analogy of captare petentem, v. 180. But rapit seems to be used with especial reference to the tactics of the game. One piece, figuratively speaking, snatches or carries away as his prey (cf. praedam v. 200) the opposing piece when it is caught and must be taken from the board, longo . . . recessu: from a distant corner. This pawn has evidently been stationed on one of the back rows of the board. It is probable that the superior pieces, the vagi, occupied the back rows with the inferior ranged before them. They were then moved up as needed to the help of th ;ir subordinates, longus is equivalent to longin- qicus. Cf. Luc. 3. 477, 'quae prius ex longo nocuerunt missa recessu'. 200. in praedam venientem: advancing upon his prey. decipit: foils, circumvents. 201. ancipites . . . moras: one piece undergoes a double attack, mora is apparently the technical term for check or attack, similisque ligato: Becq de Fouquieres (op. cit. p. 449) gives a diagram to show how one piece may be en prise of two opposing pieces but by a further move may put two enemies in a dangerous position. Wayte (Smith, Diet, of Ant.) disagrees with this interpretation: 'As we explain it he is not really en prise of two pieces but places himself between them, so that he 8S attacks both, while either could take him if it were not for the other; he is similis ligato but not ligatus; the well-known manoeuvre called the lunette at draughts, and a further point of resemblance with the modern game'. The explanation of Wayte is based upon a move possible in checkers, that of Becq de Fouquieres, upon the game as he reconstructs it, which bears some resemblance to chess, some to checkers. The comparison with checkers can not be pressed too far since, as we have shown above, in the Indus latrunculorum a. pawn was sacrificed when caught between two opposing counters. This is essentially different from checkers, in which a pawn is taken by jumping. Knowing so little as we do of the rules of the ludus latrunculotum it is useless to try to formulate possible moves. 202. obligat ipse duos: according to the explanation of Becq de Fouquieres ancipites subit . . . moras and obligat ipse duos represent two successive moments, the attack and counter attack. But there is but one action denoted. The counter is moved to a position where it is apparently checked by two opposing counters, but it itself while in this position (similis ligato) checks two men. ad maiora movetir: is inspired to greater exploits. 203. effracta . . . mandra: effractu is a simple and obviously correct emendation for the reading etfracta of the Sichard text, mandra is a word difficult of interpretation. It is borrowed from the Greek fj-dvSpa, a fold or stable, and lives to-day in the Italian mandra (mandria), a herd or place for herds. In its use in Latin it seems also to have been carried over from the place for th s herd to the herd itself. Cf. Mart . 5. 33. 7: 'vixque datur longas mulorum rumpere mandras quaeque trahi multo marmora fune vides'. Juv. 3. 237: *et stantis convicia mandrae eripient somnum Druso, vitulisque marinis'. The scholiast to Juvenal explains mandra as locus in quo porci includuntur. L. Traube (Philol. 54 p. 132) is of the opinion that mandra in Latin was applied exclusively to the sheep fold or flock of sheep, and he would therefore emend the reading porci of the scholiast to pecora. As proof of his opinion he adduces the glossar. Amplonian. 2 (Goetz 5. 309) in which mandra is explained as cauUi jmum, and cites the use of mandra by the Christian writers, as 86 Bede, Mirac. Cuthberti 4. 16, 'discite, pastores, vigili tutamine mandris — insidias noctis furvosque cavere leones'. We can, however, scarcely understand the passage in Martial, longas mulorum . . . mandras, to be, as he says, merely a witty comparison. The most probable conclusion is that mandra was originally a general word to denote an enlosure for domestic animals, cattle, sheep, or swine, and was then transferred to a herd or drove of animals. Being thus vague in its ordinary use it is naturally uncertain in its application to the Indus latruncu- lorum. That it is a technical word connected with the game is shown not only by this passage but by Mart. 7. 72. 8: 'sic vincas Noviumque Publiumque mandris et vitreo latrone clausos'. Becq de Fouquieres {op. cit. p. 440) explains that the word was applied to a square Occupied by a pawn since the pawn in moving to the square transformed it into a sort of redoubt, mandrae might then, he thinks, be applied to a row of pawns though strictly designating the squares thus occupied. To this explana- tion we may make the objection that there is really nothing in the square in which each counter stands which partakes of the nature of a protection or redoubt, and unless otherwise defended the pawn may easily be captured. L. Traube suggests that in mandra we have a term which is to be explained by comparison with the German Festungsspiel. In this game the board is marked off in the form of a cross, the cross being formed by 33 points with connecting lines. One arm of the cross is called the fortress and is defended by two soldiers. The rest of the board is held by 24 men whose duty it is to try to occupy the 9 points forming the fortress. Traube would explain mandra as the designation, in the ludus latrunculorum, of the fortress occupied by the latrones on each side at the beginning of the game, from which fortress they made their sallies and into which they sought to pen the opposing counters. It is true that the description given in v. 204 in terms of a siege suggests in name at least the Festungs = or Belagerungs- spiel. Yet the evidence of the rest of the passage tends to show that the poet is merely extending his metaphors drawn from mili- tary tactics. We have seen how mandra came to be applied to a herd or drove of animals. It might easily be transferred to a group of pawns. In fact it is apparent that such must be its meaning in effracta mandra. It has been suggested that it was 87 applied especially to the crowd of inferior pawns who were drawn up in front of their superiors (Wernsd. Excur. II; Becker-Goll, Gallus, p. 471). This is apparently the correct interpretation. In deiecto vallo v. 204 we find the parallel to effracta mandra. The mandra was then something to be compared to a protecting ram- part. This could be nothing else except the rows of inferior pawns. The mandra of each player would therefore include the class called the ordinarii by Isidorus, while the latrones would correspond to the vagi. This explanation of mandra is supported by the passage in Martial, mandris et vitreo latrone clausos, in which the mandrae and latrones are obviously mentioned as two different classes. 204. clausaque . . . MOEMA: Maehly (Fleckeis. Jahrb. 1862, p. 293) has failed to grasp the picture presented by clausa moenia and deiecto vallo: 'Auffallend ist ferner v. 204 . . . das Epitheton clausa: denn die Mauern umschlieszen doch eher als dasz sie umschlossen oder geschlossen werden — und wodurch sollen sie dieses? Wenn etwa durch den Wall — der aber jetzt nicht mehr existiert, deiectum est — so ware dies eine sonderbare Ausdrucksweise : denn das Epitheton musste doch eher den Zustand der moenia nach dem Herunterwerfen des Walles bezeichnen'. On the basis of such reasoning he proposes quassa- que . moenia. clausa moenia does not mean, as he thinks, the enclosed walls but the closed walls, i. e. walls with gates closed to hostile approach. The counters of Piso's opponent are represented as an army entrenched within a city whose walls are closed against attack. Piso's counter, metaphorically speaking, breaks through the outside rampart (deiecto vallo) and penetrates to their very stronghold. For the use of clausa moenia in the description of a city under siege cf. Luc. 3. 373. 205 f. sectis . . . militibls: the divided ranks. It is to be assumed that Piso follows up this first counter, which has led the way and split the ranks of the enemy, with other counters, and thereupon battles are fought on every side. 207. aut etiam: the reading of Sichard, though marked with an asterisk. Baehrens writes aut tantum. etiam may be con- strued with pauco spoliata milite to show that Piso wins in any event, either with a full phalanx or even with the loss of a few men. The etiam might lead us to expect the poet to say, even with the loss oj many men. This may have lead to the verse being 88 marked in the Sichard text. But our poet would not wish to admit It possible for one of Piso's skill to suffer great losses. Hence etiam pauco . . . milite. 208. et tibi captiva . . : at the end of the game Piso has his hands filled with the pieces which he has captured from his opponent. Thus we see that he who won the most of his opponent's pieces and, conversely, lost the fewest of his own was winner in the Indus latrunculorum. For further evidence cf . Sen. Tranq. 14. 7, 'ludebat latrunculis, cum centurio agmen perituro- rum trahens ilium quoque excitari iuberet. vocatus numeravit calculos et sodali suo: "vide" inquit "ne post mortem meam mentiaris te vicisse"- turn annuens centurioni: "testis" inquit "eris uno me antecedere" '. From Vopisc. Procul. 13. 2 it appears that the winner of the game was called imperator: 'nam cum in quodam convivio ad latrunculos luderetur atque decies imperator, exisset'. resonat: the pawns, being glass, rattle in his hands. 209. emenso . . . Olmypo: Olympus is used poetically for the sky, as Verg. E. 6. 86, 'et invito processit Vesper Olympo'. versetur: would turn itself; a middle use. We may supply retro. The sun having traversed the vault of the sky would turn in its course at the close of the day. The conception is of the sun going back beneath the earth to its starting point. Cf. Lucret. 5. 644: 'tempore item certo roseam natura per oras aetheris auroram differt et lumina pandit, aut quia sol idem, sub terras ille revertens, anticipat caelum radiis accendere temptans'. 213. certus: with confidence. Cf. Verg. A. 9. 96, 'certusque incerta pericula lustret'; Aug. Civ. 19. 14, 'opus habet magisterio divino cui certus obtemperet'. complectere: to accept with favor, cherish. Stronger in force than accipe. Cf. Liv. 34. 58. 3, 'ut et Romanis ius sit . . . amicitias et tueri, quas habeant, et novas complecti'. 214. quod si digna . . : with the thought of vv. 214-5 cf. Tib. 4. 1. 3: 'at meritas si carmina laudes deficiunt: humilis tantis sim conditor actis, nee tua praeter te chartis intexere quisquam facta queat, dictis ut non maiora supersint. est nobis voluisse satis, nee munera parva respueris'. So also Propertius, 3. 1.6, says: 'in magnis et voluisse sat est'. 89 2 1 6. tu modo laetus ades: the poet adroitly invokes the favor of Piso as though he were a god. So Vergil invokes Maecenas, G. 2. 39: 'tuque ades inceptumque una decurre laborem, o decus, o famae merito pars maxima nostrae'. 217. vires dabit . . . favor: cf. Lucan's address to Nero, I. 66, 'tu satis ad vires Romana in carmina dandas'. 219. divitis auri: cf. Tib. 1. 10. 7, 'divitis hoc vitium est auri'. 220. imperiosa fames: overmastering greed. Cf. Verg. A. 3. 57, auri sacra fames. 221. impulerint: impulerant is the reading of Sichard. Wernsdorf suggests that impulerunt should be read, and this con- jecture is adopted in the text of Baehrens. The Paris MSS., according to Baehrens' collation, offer impulerit, though Roth, who was the first to collate MS. 17903, ascribes to it the reading impulerint (Philol. 1861, p. 344). The latter is probably the correct reading. The imperative dignate (v. 218) supplies a future condition to which impulerint forms the apodosis: ij thou dost deign to open thy home to me, no love of gain will have been my instigator, hut the loir of fame. Similar paratactic constructions are to be seen in Cic. Tusc. 1. 30, 'tolle hanc opinionem, luctum sustuleris', Or. 232, 'immuta paululum . . . perierit tota res'. The fut. perf. impuhrint is used to specify a future result, since the truth of the pn will become apparent only in case Piso heeds his entreaty, laldis amor: cf. Ov. Tr. 5- 12.38: 'denique non parvas animo dat gloria vires et fecunda facit pectora laudis amor. 222 f. CUMQIE TlIS VIRTITIIHS . . . CERTARE: the poet's words are well chosen. If he is favored by Piso he promises to extol the merits of his patron in a way that will do him justice. For the thought cf. Tib. 4. 1. 191, 'non te deficient nostrae memorare Camenae'. 233. SUBLIMIOB IBO: these words recall Hor. C. 1. 1. 36, 'sublimi feriam sidera vertice'. 224. iamae . . . pandis iter: imitated, according to Schenkl (praef. 7. Calpumii et Xemesiani Bucolka), by Statius, Th. 12. 812, 'iam certe praesens tibi fama benignum — stravit iter', 90 and this in turn by Nemesianus, Eel. i. 84, 'iamque hie in silvis praesens tibi fama benignum — stravit iter'. 226. cultore: cf. Lucan's use of scrutator, 4. 298: 'non se tarn penitus, tarn longe luce relicta — merserit Asturii scrutator pallidus auri'. inerti: used to describe portu because within the sheltered harbor the waves are more sluggish. The adjective also helps to emphasize the state of inaction of a ship which remains in inerti portu. 228. armamenta: though a general term for the tackle of a ship it frequently excludes the sails, as Caes. B. G. 3. 14. Such seems to be its use here since there is especial mention of the vela (v. 229). 229. et: this conjunction has been deemed superfluous inas- much as que unites the two verbs gerat and possit, and the two ablatives are interpreted as different in kind, and hence not to be connected by et. Maehly (Fleckeis. Jahrb. 1862, p. 293) sets forth this view, explaining that teretique malo is to be taken with fiuentia, excusso rudente with the verb. He proposes two possible emendations, but they have nothing to recommend them. Baehrens writes possit ab excusso dimittere . . . rudenti. It is the position of the participle fiuentia that has lead Maehly and others to interpret malo as dependent upon it, yet such is not necessarily the construction of malo. It is quite possible to inter- pret the two ablatives as of the same kind and rightly connected by et if they are construed with the verb. For this the reading demittere of the Paris MSS. is to be preferred to dimittere of the Sichard text. We may render thus: and can let down from the rounded mast and untied ropes the flowing sails. Mast is thus used loosely for antennae. Cf. Ov. M. 11. 477, 'cornuaque in summa locat arbor e totaque malo — carbasa deducit'. We are to picture the sail as rolled up and fastened to the mainyard from which it is let down when occasion demands. The ancients appear to have brailed up their sails to reduce the area exposed to the wind. 232. Romano . . . ore: cf. v. 89. 233 f. A charming way of saying that Vergil would have remained in obscurity, nemoris . . . quod canit: refers to the Eclogues of Vergil. Cf. Eel. 1. 1-6; 6. 1-8. 237. permisit numina: numina is the reading of Sichard, while the excerpts offer the impossible nomina. numina is so 91 unsatisfactory that various emendations have been offered. Lachmann (Haupt, Opus. 3. 416) thought that the poet must have written carmina and had reference to Verg. E. 1. 9: 'ille meas errare boves, ut cernis, et ipsum ludere quae vellem calamo permisit agresti'. Guido Suster (Riv. di Fit. 19. p. 95-6) suggests the emendation omnia, though he admits that the last syllable of permisit thus loses its length by position. Baehrens writes somnia. Martyni- Laguna (Wernsd. P. L. M. vol. 4. p. 866) would explain numina thus: 'sua numina permisit est simpliciter se permisit'. 238 f. TRAGICO QU ATIENTEM PULPITA GESTU . . . VARUM: Varum is the reading of the MSS. and of the Sichard edition, but the reference is obviously to Varius, friend of Vergil and Horace (cf. v. 242). Horace tells us that he was recommended to the circle of Maecenas by Vergil and Varius. -, 'optimus olim — Yergilius, post hunc Varius, dixere quid essem'. These three celebrated poets are also mentioned together by Martial as being under the patronage of Maecenas, 12. 4. 1 : 'quod Flacco, Varioque fuit, summoque Maroni Maecenas, atavis regibus ortus eques, gentibus et populis hoc te mihi, Prisce Terenti, fama fuisse loquax chartaque dicet anus'. Varius was not only celebrated for his epic poetry but was renowned as a writer of tragedy. Quintilian, Inst. 10. 1. 98, says that his tragedy Tkyestes might stand comparison with any of the Crock tragedies. Cf. also Mart. 8. 18. 7 cessit Romani laude cothurni — cum posset tragico fortius ore loqui'. 239 ff. The reading of this passage, which is that found in the Sichard text, appears almost hopeless. But the Paris h support this reading except for toantis, which is evidently a corrup- tion of Umantis, (MS. 17903 also reads alu instead of alta). Various emendations have been proposed. Haupt (Opus. I. 406) says that be thought the poet must have reference to C the freedman of Maecenas who, according to Suetonius, wrote plays of a novel sort which he called trabeataf. Following his suggestion Lachmann proposed the emendation: 'Maecenas apta togatis — emit et populis ostendit acumina Gai'. It need hardly be said that our poet would not mention the name of this obscure freedman along with the illustrious names of Vergil, 92 Varius, and Horace. Th. Birt (Rhein. Mus. 1877, p. 417) suggests a transposition of the verses as follows : Maecenas alta tonantis carmina Romanis necdum resonantia chordis emit et populis ostendit nomina Grais Ausoniamque chelyn grandis patejecit Horati. The whole passage he thinks must concern Horace. He explains the meaning thus: 'Maecenas eruit Graisque populis ostendit nomina eius qui carmina tonat alta necdum Romanis chordis resonantia'. Birt writes necdum instead of etiam, presumably because there is no explanation for etiam according to his arrange- ment. It seems doubtful as to whether a Latin poet would speak of the poems of Horace as Romanis necdum resonantia chordis. Weber has adopted Unger's conjecture ostendit carmina vatis, and thus too the w. Maecenas alta tonantis . . . patejecit Horati are all made to refer to Horace. As Maehly (Fleckeis. Jahrb. 1862, p. 294) points out, it is improbable that the same poet would be characterized in v. 239 as alta tonans and in v. 242 as gracilis. Birt, in order to avoid this difficulty, has replaced gracilis with grandis (see above). Maehly maintains, with reason, (1) that Graiis must be kept since Romanis undoubtedly forms its opposite; (2) that Graiis is not to be joined with populis according to the previous conception but with chordis, which thus brings out the contrast; (3) that nomina must therefore give place to carmina. It is only thus that etiam between Romanis and chordis has its proper signification. Maehly proceeds, how- ever, to say that alta tonans must refer to Varius and that the poems of Greek and Roman sort are to be understood as his poems. Yet the repetition of Maecenas tends to show that a new thought is introduced: Maecenas . . . evexit Varium, Maecenas, etc. Buecheler (Rhein. Mus. 1881, p. 336) thinks that Propertius must have been included among the poets here mentioned and professes to see such reference in the manuscript reading alta tonantis . . . nomina, which he explains as follows: 'iam quid Maecenas eruit? alta Tonantis nomina, id est Jovis tutelae Augusti atque imperii Romani, antiqua haec nomina Romana fieri iussit etiam Romanis fidibus resonantia carmina ostenditque Graecis'. He cites the poems in the fourth book of Propertius in which he undertakes to sing of the holy rites and ancient names of places — 'sacra diesque canam et cognomina prisca locorum' 93 4. i. 69). It hardly seems possible that our poet would attempt to make mention of Propertius by alluding to his poems in so indirect and vague a fashion. 239. tonantis: it is scarcely necessary to consider the read- ings Thoantis and Toantis found in the editions of Wernsdorf, Scaliger, and others, as they are apparents attempts to make a name out of the reading toantis which is preserved in the excerpts. Wernsdorf proposes sonantis as more suitable than tonantis, but tonantis may be used just as fittingly of the poet's speech. Cf. Prop. 3. 17. 40, 'qualis Pindarico spiritus ore tonat'. 241. resonantia chordis: for the dative cf. Hor. S. 1.4. 76, 'suave locus voci resonat conclusus'. 242. Ausoxiamque chelyn: Horace, C. 4. 3. 23, speaks of himself as Romanae fidicen lyrae. gracilis . . . Horati: in the term gracilis there is certainly no disparagement of Horace. It is used rather to bring out the distinction between writers of lyric and epic poetry. Note the description given by Gellius, 6. 14, of that poetry or oratory which was called gracilis: 'et in carmine et in soluta oratione genera dicendi probabilia sunt tria . . . uberi dignitas atque amplitudo est, gracili venustas et subtilitas'. 243 ff. o dec is . . Wernsdorf understands these words to be addressed to Maecenas but they are more appropriately interpreted as an address to Piso. As a whole w. 243-5 form merely an exclamatory address comparable to Verg. A. 10. 506, 'o dolor atque decus magnum rediture parenti!' 245. iNori . . . senectae: cf. Verg. G. 1. 186, 'inopi metuens formica senectae'. 246. quod sr. begins a new sentence. The sequence of thought is: thou art protector of bards; if then there is any room for my entreaties, etc. 247. memorahii.is OUM: rw Kcned in future ages, the adjec- tive is used proleptically as it expresses the result of tu mihi . . . cantabere. 249 f. Cf. Luc. 9. 980: 'o sacer et magnus vatum labor, omnia fato eripis et populis donas mortalibus aevum'. 250. si TAMBM . . the poet adds a modest restriction to his sweeping statement in v. 249. 94 251. deus ultor: apparently a general term used without especial application to any god or goddess. Cf. Tib. I. 8. 72, 'nescius ultorem post caput esse deum'; Sen. Here. Fur. 385, 'sequitur superbos ultor a tergo deus'; Ov. M. 14. 750, 'quam iam deus ultor agebat'. Ovid also speaks of the dei ultor es and men- tions Nemesis as separate from them, M. 14. 693, 'ultoresque deos et pectora dura perosam — Idalien memoremque time Rham- nusidis iram'. 253. nanti: Martyni-Laguna proposes the reading vati- But the picture intended to be conveyed is that of an exhausted swimmer, perhaps the victim of a shipwreck, to whom a helping hand is extended. That the thought is almost proverbial is shown by Ovid, Tr. 2. 6. 11, who compares his unfortunate lot to the condition of a shipwrecked sailor with these words: 'nunc mihi naufragio quid prodest discere facto, qua mea debuerit currere cumba via? bracchia da lasso potius prendenda natanti : nee pigeat mento supposuisse manum'. Cf. also Tr. 5. 9. 17: 'naufragiumque meum tumulo spectarit ab alto, nee dederit nanti per freta saeva manum'. 254 f. non humelis . . : the Sichard text and Paris MSS. agree in reading nos humilis domus et sincera patentum — sed tenuis fortuna, etc. This reading is obviously incorrect. Weber and Baehrens emend by reading at sincera instead of et sincera and et tenuis instead of sed tenuis. The verses thus read nos humilis domus, at sincera, parentum — et tenuis fortuna sua caligine celat. But the sed of manuscript authority could scarcely be a corruption of et. Furthermore the adversative shows that some contrasting statement has preceded. This contrast is effected by the change of nos to non, the non modifying humilis. non humilis is thus the equivalent of nobilis. The poet then says: a parentage of no humble rank, and pure, is mine, but a slender fortune enshrouds me in its mist. 254. domus: sc. est. 255. caligine: similarly used of obscurity in Veil. 2. 36. 1, 'Augustus . . . omnibus omnium gentium viris magnitudine sua inducturus caliginem'. celat: sc. me. 95 26o. quamvis . . : Maehly (Fleckeis, Jahrb. 1862, p. 289) thinks that there is a logical inconcinnity in this sentence, that we have the concessive clause where we should expect some further reason for the assertion est mihi . . . animus constantior annis. But the sequence of thought is more clearly seen by plac- ing the concessive clause first : though the pride of youth but now begins to cover my cheeks and my twentieth year has not yet arrived, I have a mind riper than my years. BIBLIOGRAPHY Baehrens, E — Poetae Latini Minores, vol. I., 1879. Birt, Th. — Ad Historiam Hexametri Latini Symbola, Bonn 1876. Ferrara, G. — Calpurnio Siculo e il panegyrico a Calpurnio Pisone, Pavia 1905. Haupt, M. — De Carminibus Bucolicis Calpurnii et Nemesiani, Opus. 1. p. 391, Leipzig 1875. Lemaire, N. E. — Poetae Latini Minores, vol. 3., Paris 1824. Maehly, J. — Zur Litteratur des Panegyricus in Pisonem, Fleckeis. Jahrb. 1862, p. 286. Scaliger, J. — Publii Virgilii Maronis Appendix, Lyons 1573. Schenkl, H. — Calpurnii et Nemesiani Bucolica, Leipzig 1885. Trampe, E. — De Lucani Arte Metrica, Diss. Berl. 1884. Unger, R. — P. Papinii Statii ad Calpurn. Pison. Poemation, Jahns Jahrb. 1836, p. 261. Weber, C. F. — IncertiAuctoris Carmen Panegyricum in Calpurn. Pison., Marburg 1859. Indices Lectionum, Marburg 1860/61. Wernsdorf, J. Ch. — Poetae Latini Minores, vol. 4., Altenburg I785- Wolfflin, E. — Zu dem Carmen panegyricum in Calpurnium Pisonem, Philol. 1861, p. 340. 97 \ LIBRARY OF CONGRESS II ll 002 035 496 3