Chapter LIX: Book III: of the second part of the prologue (ll. 33-63) to the epilogue (1)

of Book II.

[414] III. _epil._ 1; IV. _prol._ 1-10.

[415] V. x. 9-10. That Phaedrus here alluded to his own advanced years was the view of Ribbeck, _Gesch. der röm. Dichtung_, iii. p. 27.

[416] _E.g._ II. _prol._ 11. Havet claims that prol. and epil. of Bk. III. were addressed to an unknown Illius at a date not earlier than A.D. 43.

[417] Bücheler, _Rh. Mus._, xxxvii. pp. 333 _sqq._

[418] IV. _epil._ 4: “uir sanctissime”; _prol._ 17-19:

“Mihi parta laus est, quod tu, quod similes tui
Vestras in chartas uerba transfertis mea
Dignumque longa iudicatis memoria.”

[419] V. x. 9-10:

“Quod fuimus, lauda, si iam damnas quod sumus:
Hoc cur, Philete, scripserim, pulchre vides,”

where the reading of P is _fili te_, and of R _filiᵉ de_.

[420] L. Müller’s ed. 1877, Introd., pp. xiii.-xxxvii.; Plessis, _op. cit._, pp. 488-491.

[421] Ellis (_op. cit._) gives a useful account of MSS. and early history of the text. Janelli, the editor of the “Perottine” fables in 1811, has been supported by Cardinal Mai, Orelli, Lachmann, L. Müller, Hervieux and Ribbeck in accepting their descent from Phaedrus. Ellis (_op. cit._, pp. 25-28) gives reasons against crediting this, and compares the impression left by these fables to that left by various imitations of Ovid, the _Nux_ or the _Epicedion Drusi_ or the spurious poems among the _Heroides_.

[422] For Müller’s opinion of Dressler’s iambic composition see his ed. of 1877, pp. xxxviii.-xxxix.

[423] I. _prol._ 6.

[424] The account of trees favoured by different deities in III. xvii. is not an example; but in _Fab. Nouae_ (Müller’s ed., No. xiii.), the oak admits to the ash that they were justly cut down because they had ordered the wild olive to supply a man with an axe-handle.

[425] Otto Crusius, _Rh. Mus._, xxxix. p. 603; Ellis, _op. cit._, p. 4; _cf._ Rutherford, _Babrius, Introd._, p. xi.

[426] Aul. Gell., II. xxix.; Hor. _Epist._ I. i. 73 _sqq._ (the sick lion, previously in Lucilius, _vid._ Non. 303); I. vii. 29 (the _uolpecula_ that raided the bin); I. x. 34 (horse securing man’s help against stag); Sat., II. vi. 79 (town mouse and country mouse).

[427] I. _prol._ 1-7:

“Aesopus auctor quam materiam repperit,
Hanc ego poliui uersibus senariis.
Duplex libelli dos est: quod risum mouet
Et quod prudenti uitam consilio monet.
Calumniari siquis autem uoluerit,
Quod arbores loquantur, non tantum ferae,
Fictis iocari nos meminerit fabulis.”

[428] II. _epil._ 1-2:

“Aesopi ingentem (_v.l._ ingenio) statuam posuere Attici
Seruomque aeterna collocarunt in basi.”

_Ingenio_ is most likely. This is one of a few cases in which N and V preserve by their reading (“Aesopi ingenio”) the right tradition against the older manuscript P and the record of R. P gives “Aesopo ingentem (_m. pr._ Aesopi ingento)....”

[429] II. _epil._ 8-9:

“Quod si labori fauerit Latium meo,
Plures habebit quos opponat Graeciae.”

[430] III. _prol._ 52-55.

[431] IV. vii. 5: “Et in cothurnis prodit Aesopus nouis.”

[432] IV. xxi. (xxii.)

[433] IV. _prol._ 11: “Quas Aesopias non Aesopi nomino.”

[434] Ed. 1877, p. 98.

[435] IV. _prol._ 7-8:

“Sua cuique cum sit animi cogitatio
Colorque proprius.”

[436] II. _prol._ 8-11:

“Equidem omni cura morem seruabo senis;
Sed si libuerit aliquid interponere,
Dictorum sensus ut delectet uarietas,
Bonas in partes, lector, accipias uelim.”

[437] Bücheler, _Rh. Mus._, xxxvii. p. 332.

[438] For these instances, see III. x.; V. vii.; V. v.

[439] IV. vi. 2: “Historia quorum et in tabernis pingitur.”

[440] _Ardalio_, _ardelio_, _ardulio_ are spellings found in glossaries. Nettleship inclined to favour _ardalio_, _Contribns. to Lat. Lexicography_, p. 267.

[441] II. v.

[442] III. _prol._ 33-37:

“Nunc fabularum cur sit inuentum genus
Breui docebo. Seruitus obnoxia,
Quia quae uolebat non audebat dicere,
Adfectus proprios in fabellas transtulit
Calumniamque fictis elusit iocis.”

[443] I. xv. 1-2:

“In principatu commutando ciuium
Nil praeter domini nomen mutant pauperes.”

[444] I. i. 14-15:

“Haec propter illos scriptast homines fabula,
Qui fictis causis innocentes opprimunt.”

[445] I. xvii.

[446] I. ii.

[447] I. vi. 9: “Quidnam futurumst si crearit liberos?”

[448] III. _prol._ 38-43:

“Ego porro illius (_sc._ Aesopi) semita[m?] feci uiam,
Et cogitaui plura quam reliquerat,
In calamitatem deligens quaedam meam.
Quodsi accusator alius Seiano foret,
Si testis alius, iudex alius denique,
Dignum faterer esse me tantis malis.”

[449] III. _epil._ 29-35.

[450] IV. ii. 1-4:

“Ioculare tibi uidetur, et sane leui,
Dum nil habemus maius, calamo ludimus.
Sed diligenter intuere has nenias:
Quantam sub illis utilitatem reperies!”

[451] I. xv. 2.

[452] I. xxx.

[453] I. ii. 31: “Hoc sustinete, maius ne ueniat, malum.”

[454] III. _prol._ 49-51:

“Neque enim notare singulos mens est mihi,
Verum ipsam uitam et mores hominum ostendere.
Rem me professum dicet forsan quis grauem.”

[455] IV. x.:

“Peras imposuit Iuppiter nobis duas:
Propriis repletam uitiis post tergum dedit,
Alienis ante pectus suspendit grauem.
Hac re uidere nostra mala non possumus;
Alii simul delinquunt, censores sumus.”

_Cf._ Catull., xxii. 21: “Sed non uidemus manticae quod in tergo est.”

[456] IV. xxi. 16-26.

[457] IV. xviii. 9-10:

“Parce gaudere oportet et sensim queri:
Totam aeque uitam miscet dolor et gaudium.”

[458] III. ix.: “Vulgare amici nomen, sed rarast fides....”

[459] I. xi., xiv., xxv.; III. i.

[460] I. vii.

[461] IV. xxiv.: “Mons parturibat, gemitus immanes ciens,” etc. _Cf._ Hor., _A.P._ 139.

[462] I. x. 9-10.

[463] S. Reinach, _Orpheus_, Eng. ed., 1909, p. 16.

[464] III. vii. Havet’s theory (_Rev. des études anciennes_, 1921) that this fable represents an actual dialogue in A.D. 16 between Arminius, the Cheruscan warrior, and his Romanized brother Flavus cannot be either proved or disproved.

[465] The most famous line in Phaedrus is probably V. iii. 5:

“Iniuriae qui addideris contumeliam.”

[466] I. iv.; II. iv. Lessing in the one case and Ellis in the other criticized adversely Phaedrus’s accuracy. For similar mistakes, see J. J. Hartman, _op. cit._

[467] I. xix., xxi., xxiii., xxix.

[468] _E.g._ II. _epil._ 10-14; III. ix. 4; IV. _prol._ 15; IV. vii.; IV. xxii.

[469] _E.g._ II. _prol._ 12; IV. _epil._ 7. III. x. closes with explanation that the story has been fully told because his brevity has offended some.

[470] II. _epil._ 1-9.

[471] III. _prol._ 32; IV. _epil._ 5-6:

“Particulo, chartis nomen uicturum meis,
Latinis dum manebit pretium litteris.”

[472] IV. xxiii. and xxvi.

[473] III. _prol._ 17: “Ego, quem Pierio mater enixast iugo,” etc.

[474] III. xii.

[475] Sen., _Cons. ad Polyb._, viii. 3 ... “fabellas quoque et Aesopeos logos, intemtatum Romanis ingeniis opus.” Most scholars take this to imply either an ignorance or an ignoring of Phaedrus on Seneca’s part. But Seneca was writing to a Greek freedman, and remembering that Phaedrus was Greek too, he compliments his correspondent by remarking that fable-writing was a sort of literary work which _Romans_ had not tried. I have argued in _C.R._, XXIX. (1915), pp. 252-253, that there is no need to implicate Seneca in a wilful falsehood.

[476] _Inst. Or._, I. ix. 2.

[477] Mart., III. xx. 5. This is Friedländer’s suggestion _ad loc._ Teuffel, _Gesch. d. röm. Lit._, § 284, 3, dismisses it summarily as against probability (“ohne Wahrscheinlichkeit”). But Plessis, _La poés. lat._, p. 487, agrees with Friedländer. Ellis (_op. cit._, p. 8) takes Martial to mean the fabulist, and _improbi_ to allude to fables such as I. xxix.; III. i.; III. iii.; IV. xv. (xvi.); IV. xviii. (xix.). Thiele, in _Philologus_, LXX., 1911, pp. 539-548, proposes to read in Martial “an aemulatur improbi _logos_ Phaedri,” taking _logos_ = _apologos_ (_cf._ Sen., _Cons. ad. Polyb._, viii. 3) and _improbi_ = “audacious” applied to political allusions in the fables.

[478] The process of abridgement, mutilation and transformation of Phaedrus took place between the time when Avianus must have read the fables in verse-form (_i.e._ with intervals marked between lines), and the ninth or tenth century, when the _Pithoeanus_ has them without any mark to distinguish them from prose. Ellis (_op. cit._, pp. 9-10) argues that the abridgement “may have been executed in the 5th or 6th cent., and that the gradually declining knowledge of ancient language and metre, which the unsettled state of Europe produced, caused the iambics of Phaedrus to be written in prose. As prose they were probably read by the Carlovingian scholars.”

[479] “Ex libris bonae memoriae Ademari grammatici” is part of a note in the MS., which was written in the Abbey of St. Martial de Limoges.

[480] The influence of Phaedrus, and especially the strong influence of the Romulus collection, upon the MS. of Ademar, are discussed in _Der illustrierte lateinische Aesop_, Thiele, 1905; _cf._ Zander, _De generibus et libris paraphrasium Phaedrianarum_, 1897; _Phaedrus Solutus_, 1921.

[481] IV. vii.

[482] IV. vii. 21-22. Cato is, of course, the type of the austere literary judge, _e.g._ in the Petronian epigram, 132:

“Quid me constricta spectatis fronte, Catones?”

[483] _E.g._ I. xiii. 12: “Tum demum ingemuit corui deceptus stupor”;

II. v. 23: “Tum sic iocata est tanti maiestas ducis”;

III. v. 9: “Sed spes fefellit inpudentem audaciam”;

_cf._ the personification in I. xxvii. 6:

“Poenas ut sanctae Religioni penderet”;

and in IV. xi. 4:

“Repente uocem sancta misit Religio.”

[484] _E.g._ I. xxiv. 8: “quis maior esset,” where “uter” would be correct (_cf._ Lucan, I. 126, “quis iustius induit arma” of Caesar and Pompey); III. v. 8: “persuasus” (_cf._ I. viii. 7). Ellis (_op. cit._, 21) quotes in defence of the latter _Ad Herenn._, I. vi. 9, and Ovid, _A.A._, iii. 679.

[485] I. xi. 6; IV. ii. 16; I. xii. 5; I. xxi. 5. The epithet _fulmineus_ is shared with Ovid and Statius.

[486] III. xviii. 6-8:

“Sed forma uincis, uincis magnitudine;
Nitor smaragdi collo praefulget tuo
Pictisque plumis gemmeam caudam explicas.”

[487] IV. ii. 4. A case in point is the threefold lesson, each, as it were, numbered and labelled, from the story of the thief who stole an altar-lamp, IV. xi. 16-21.

[488] I. xxxi. 13: “merito plectimur.”

[489] Butler, _Post-Augustan Poetry_, 1909, pp. 70-71.

[490] His usage with regard to various feet is discussed in Müller’s ed., 1877, pp. ix.-xiii. Consult also the careful essay on metre and prosody in Havet, _Phaedri ... Fabulae Aesopiae_, 1895.

[491] _Lat. Lit._, 1899, p. 160.

[492] Suet., _Tib._, lxx.

[493] Wight Duff, _A Lit. Hist. of Rome to Golden Age_, 1909, pp. 619-623.

[494] Text: _In Astron. Veterum Scripta Isagogica Gr. et Lat._ (w. Proclus, etc.) _Ciceronis, Festi Avieni, Germanici Aratea_, in off. Sanctandreana, 1589; _Caesaris Germanici Aratea_ (with Phaedrus, etc.), Orelli, Zur., 1831; with Aratus, Koechly (Firmin-Didot), Par., 1851; Breysig, ed. 1, Berl., 1867; ed. 2, Lpz., 1899; Baehrens, _P.L.M._, i. pp. 148-200. _Cf._ Frey, _Epist. Crit. de Germanico Arati Interprete_, Culm, 1861; Sieg, _De Cicerone, Germanico Avieno Arati interpretibus_, Halle, 1886.

[495] Suet., _Cal._, iii.; Tac., _Ann._, II. 83; Plin., _N.H._, VIII. 155: “fecit et diuus Augustus equo tumulum, de quo Germanici Caesaris carmen est.”

[496] Lact., _Div. Inst._, V. v. 4: “ut Germanicus Caesar in Arateo loquitur carmine:

‘Nec consanguineis fuerat discordia nota.’”

[497] 205-206:

“Sed poenae facies remanet districtaque pandit
Bracchia ceu duri teneantur robore saxi.”

[498] _De Germanico Arati Interprete_, 1861.

[499] Ll. 31, 165, 264: “ueterist si gratia famae,” “si uere Iuppiter infans ...” etc.

[500] _Suas._, i. 15.

[501] _Elegiae III. et frag._ (cum interpret. et notis Jos. Scaligeri, etc.), Amst., 1715; Latin w. Eng. version, Kidderminster and London, 1807. The name Albinovanus Pedo suggests a possible relationship with Albinovanus Celsus mentioned by Horace, _Epist._, I. viii. 1. He accompanied Tiberius to Armenia in 20 B.C.

[502] Ll. 20-22:

“Di reuocant rerumque uetant cognoscere finem
Mortales oculos: aliena quid aequora remis
Et sacras uiolamus aquas?”

[503] The chief authors of comedy traceable during the Silver Age are the Pomponius Bassulus recorded in an inscription at Aeclanum (_C.I.L._, IX., 1165) as a translator of Menander as well as a writer of original plays, and the Vergilius Romanus of Pliny’s letters who composed comic dramas after the old fashion. These, it may be guessed, were not intended to be acted.

[504] Sen., _Ep._, viii. 8.

[505] Suet., _Aug._, xcix.

[506] Juv., VIII. 185-187; Suet., _Cal._, lvii.; Joseph., _Ant._, XIX. i. 13: μῖμος εἰσάγεται καθ’ ὃν σταυροῦται λῃστῶν ἡγεμών.

[507] Suet., _Tib._, xlv.; _Galb._, xiii. See later part of chap. on “Senecan Poetry.”

[508] Lucian, _De Saltatione_; Friedländer, _Sittengesch._, II. iii. 3; Butler, _Post-Augustan Poetry_, pp. 26-28.

[509] Dio, lviii. 24: ἑάλω διὰ τραγῳδίαν.... Ἀτρεὺς μὲν τὸ ποίημα ἦν, κ.τ.λ.

[510] Suet., _Cal._, xxvii.

[511] Tac., _Ann._, V. viii., XI. xiii.; _Dial._, 13;, Plin., _N.H._, VII. 80, XIII. 83, XIV. 56; Plin., _Ep._, VII. xvii. 11; Quint., X. i. 98. Interesting light is thrown on his life and qualities by Cichorius, _Röm. Studien_, 1922, pp. 423-432, where it is shown that Pomponius lived till late in Nero’s reign.

[512] Attraction to the Troy-saga may explain the tragic songs which Paetus Thrasea rendered at the _cetaria_, or festival, in honour of the Trojan Antenor at Padua, where Thrasea came from; _cf._ Charisius, p. 125 K. (based on Pliny, _i.e._ presumably the lost _Dubius Sermo_); Tac., _Ann._, XVI. 21.

[513] Text: In _Scriptores Rei Rusticae Veteres Latini_, ed. Gesner, Lpz., 1735; Bipont. ed., 1787; sep. ed., Ress, Flensburg, 1795. Book X., Lundström, Ups., 1902 (fasc. vi. of edn., of which fasc. i., 1897, was _De Arboribus_); ed. Postgate, _Corp. Poet. Lat._, 1905.

Transln., _Columella: Of Husbandry in Twelve Bks. and His Bk. concerning Trees_, Lond., 1745; _Le Poème des Jardins de L. J. M. Columella_, trad. en vers français avec le texte, Bonafous, Par., 1859; Barberet, _De C. vita et scriptis_, Nancy, 1887; _cf._ _Agricola_, Heitland, Camb., 1921 (esp. pp. 250-269).

[514] VIII. xvi. 9: “in nostro Gadium municipio”; X. 185: “et mea (_sc._ lactuca) quam generant Tartesi litore Gades.”

[515] II. xvi. 4; V. v. 15: “uir illustribus disciplinis eruditus ac diligentissimus agricola Baeticae prouinciae”; VII. ii. 4; XII. xxi. 4: “patruus meus, illustris agricola.”

[516] III. ix. 2.

[517] _C.I.L._, IX. 235 (= Dessau 2923): “L. Iunio L. f. Gal. Moderato Columellae, trib. mil. leg. VI. ferratae.”

[518] II. x. 18: “hoc quidem semen Ciliciae Syriaeque regionibus ipse uidi mense Iunio Iulioque conseri et per auctumnum ... tolli.”

[519] II. xxii. 5-6.

[520] III. iii. 3: “Nomentana regio ... quam possidet Seneca uir excellentis ingenii atque doctrinae.” See discussion hereon in relation to Plin., _N.H._, XIV. (5), 49-51, by Barberet, _De Columellae Vita et Scriptis_, 1887, pp. 23-25. Cichorius, _Röm. Studien_, 1922, pp. 417-422, makes it probable that Columella served on the expedition to Cilicia Trachea in A.D. 36 (II. x. 18), and was at Rome in 41 (III. viii. 2).

[521] I. i. 12-14.

[522] XII. lvii. 6: “Clausulam peracti operis mei, P. Siluine, non alienum puto indicem lecturis (si modo fuerint qui dignentur ista cognoscere), nihil dubitasse me paene infinita esse, quae potuerint huic inseri materiae: uerum ea quae maxime uidebantur necessaria, memoriae tradenda censuisse. Nec tamen canis natura dedit cunctarum rerum prudentiam. Nam etiam quicunque sunt habiti mortalium sapientissimi, multa scisse dicuntur, non omnia.”

[523] See Wight Duff’s _Lit. Hist. of Rome to Close of Golden Age_, for Cato, pp. 262-264; for Varro, pp. 342-343.

[524] III. xvii. 4.

[525] IX. ii. 1.

[526] Other examples are given by Prof. Summers, _Silver Age of Latin Lit._, p. 286.

[527] III. xxi. 3-4.

[528] X. 96-102:

“Pingite tunc uarios, terrestria sidera, flores,
Candida leucoia et flauentia lumina caltae
Narcissique comas et hiantis saeua leonis
Ora feri calathisque uirentia lilia canis,
Nec non uel niueos uel caeruleos hyacinthos.
Tum quae pallet humi, quae frondens purpurat auro,
Ponatur uiola et nimium rosa plena pudoris.”

[529] _Nubigenae_, _uersicoloribus_, _pestifer_ are Virgilian: _frugifero_ and _nubifugo_ are not, though the former was used by Ennius.

[530] X. 80: “Veris et aduentum nidis cantabit hirundo.”

[531] X. 159-160:

“Inuigilate, uiri: tacito nam tempora gressu
Diffugiunt nulloque sono conuertitur annus.”

[532] X. 209-214.

[533] X. 227-229:

“Et secum gracili conectere carmina filo
Quae canat inter opus Musa modulante putator
Pendulus arbustis, holitor uiridantibus hortis.”

[534] X. 255-262.

[535] X. 436 (the closing line): “Ascraeum cecinit Romana per oppida carmen,” echoing Virg., _Georg._ II. 176: “Ascraeumque cano Romana per oppida carmen.”

[536] Text: ed. pr. (before recovery of _Cena Trimalchionis_), _Petronii arbitri satyrici fragmenta_, w. _Scriptores Panegyrici Lat._, etc., Milan, circ. 1482; _Fragmentum Traguriense_ (= _Cena Trim._), Frambotti, Padua, 1664; Burman, _Petr. Satyr. Quae Supersunt_ (copiously annotated), Utr., 1709, and Amster., 1743; Bücheler, ed. maior, Berl., 1862; ed. min., 4th ed., 1904, 6th revised by Heraeus, Berl., 1922; Latin w. earliest Eng. trans. of 1694; Gaselee (illustns.), Lond., 1910; Latin w. Eng. tr., Heseltine (Loeb), Lond., 1913; Mitchell, Lond., 1922; w. French tr., Ernout, Par., 1922; _Cena Trim._ (Germ. tr. and notes), Friedländer, Leipzig, 1891; w. Eng. tr. and notes, Lowe, Camb., 1905; Ryan, Lond., 1905; w. Seneca’s _Apocol._ and Pompeian inscrns., Sedgwick, Oxf., 1925; _Bellum Ciuile_ (from _Satyr._) w. Eng. tr. and notes, Baldwin, New York, 1911. For Poems ascribed to Petronius, see Bährens’s _P.L.M._, vol. iv., and Bücheler’s ed. minor. The 1708 Eng. trans. was privately reprinted, Lond., 1899.

Other wks.: Beck, _The Age of Petronius_, Camb., U.S.A., 1856; and _The MSS. of the Satyricon ... described and collated_, Camb., U.S.A., 1863; Pétrequin, _Nouvelles Recherches hist. et crit. sur Pétrone_, Paris and Lyon, 1869; Boissier, _Un roman de moeurs sous Néron_ in “L’opposition sous les Césars,” Par., 1875; Émile Thomas, _L’Envers de la société romaine d’après Pétrone_, Par., 1892; Collignon, _Étude sur Pétrone_, Par., 1892; and _Pétrone au moyen âge_, etc., 1893; Paul Thomas, _L’âge et l’auteur du Satyricon_, Gand, 1905; F. F. Abbott, _Origin of Realistic Romance among Romans_ in “The Common People of Anct. Rome” (orig. in _Class. Phil._), Lond., 1912, and _Petronius: A Study in Ancient Realism_ in “Society and Politics in Anct. Rome,” Lond., 1914; Mendell, _P. and the Greek Romance_ in _Class. Phil._, XII. 2, 1917.

On Language: Ludwig, _De Petronii sermone plebeio_, Marb., 1869; Guericke, _De linguae vulgaris reliquiis apud Petron. et in inscript. parietariis Pompeianis_, Gumbinn., 1875; Cesareo, _De Petronii sermone_, Rome, 1887 (esp. on Neapolitan elements); Heraeus, _Die Sprache des Petron. u. die Glossen_, Leipz., 1899; and _Cena Trim. nebst ausgewählt. Pompeian. Wandinschriften_ (“Sammlung vulgärlateinischer Texte”), Heidelb., 1909; _cf._ Schuchardt, _Der Vocalismus des Vulgärlateins_, 1866-1868; Cooper, _Word-Formation in Roman Sermo Plebeius_, 1895.

[537] See Studer, “Ueber das Zeitalter des Petr. Arb.,” _Rh. Mus._, ii., 1843, p. 50, p. 202, and others.

[538] He founded on Plin., _N.H._, XXXVII. 20; Plut., _De discr. am. et adul._, 19, p. 60 e.

[539] Tac., _Ann._, XVI. 18-19.

[540] J. Wight Duff, _Lit. Hist. of Rome to Golden Age_, pp. 334-337.

[541] §§ 61-62, 63 and 111-112.

[542] This was Mommsen’s view, _Herm._, XIII. 114 (_cf._ “Trimalchios Heimat u. Grabschrift” in his _Ges. Schr._, 7, 1909, Berl.), which some think incompatible with Trimalchio’s reference to seeing the Sibyl in a cage at Cumae (_Satyr._, 48). For other views see Schanz, _Gesch. d. röm. Lit._, 1913, p. 126. After the sea-voyage, from § 116 to the end, the scene is definitely at Crotona. Some missing incidents may have occurred at Massilia; for Servius (ad Verg., _Aen._, III. 57) ascribes to Petronius the story of a human scapegoat there in time of plague (_cf._ Sid. Apoll., XXIII. 155-156: “te Massiliensium per hortos sacri stipitis Arbiter colonum....” But it is too impetuous to infer therefrom, as some have done, a Gallic origin for Petronius, or to regard his _Satyricon_ as the beginning of the French novel!)

[543] _Sat._, 34:

“Eheu nos miseros, quam totus homuncio nil est!
Sic erimus cuncti, postquam nos auferet Orcus.
Ergo uiuamus, dum licet esse bene.”

[544] § 59.

[545] § 68.

[546] § 48.

[547] § 50.

[548] § 52: “et pueri mortui iacent sic ut uiuere putes.” Squire Western is equally confused in his recollections of the metamorphosis of Actaeon into a stag: “I’d rather be run by one of my own dogs as one Acton was that the story-book says was turned into a hare and his own dogs killed un and eat un.” Fielding, _Tom Jones_, XVII. ch. 3.

[549] § 53.

[550] § 71.

[551] § 37.

[552] § 41.

[553] § 42.

[554] § 45.

[555] § 46: “Videris mihi, Agamemnon, dicere ‘Quid iste argutat molestus.’ Quia tu, qui potes loquere, non loquis. Non es nostrae fasciae, et ideo pauperorum uerba derides. Scimus te prae litteras fatuum esse.”

[556] § 88.

[557] § 118.

[558] § 119-124.

[559] § 126.

[560] _E.g._ Giton concealed under the bed is compared to Ulysses under the ram; one of Encolpius’s enchantresses is Circe, etc.

[561] Klebs: “Zur Composition von Petr. Satirae,” _Philol._, 47 (1889), p. 623, considers this wrath as the _Leitmotiv_ of the whole romance.

[562] § 139:

“Me quoque per terras per cani Nereos aequor
Hellespontiaci sequitur grauis ira Priapi.”

[563] The type is seen in the Widow of Ephesus (_Satyr._, § 111-112). On Milesian tales see Norden, _Die Antike Kunstprosa_, II., 602, 604 _n._; Rohde, _Der Griech. Roman_ (1900), 586; _Kl. Schr._ (1901), II. 25 _sqq._; Lucas, “Zu den Milesiaca des Aristides,” _Philologus_, 61 (1907), 16 _sqq._

[564] Schanz, _Gesch. d. röm. Lit._ (1913), p. 125; Abbott, _Common People of Anct. Rome_, pp. 128-133.

[565] Chauvin, _Les romanciers grecs et latins_, 1864.

[566] For traditional features from banquets in Greek lit. see Geffcken, _Studien zur griech. Satire_ in _Neue Jahrb. f. d. klass. Alt._, XXVII. (1911), 395 and 484; and, in general, Ullrich, _Entstehung u. Entwickelung d. Litteraturgattung des Symposion_, Würzb., 1908.

[567] Collignon, _Étude sur Pétrone_, pp. 254 _sqq._; Revay, “Horaz u. Petron,” _Class. Phil._, XVII. (1922), pp. 202 _sqq._; Shero, “The _Cena_ in Roman satire,” _Class. Phil._, XVIII. (1923), esp. pp. 134-139.

[568] Hor., _Sat._ II. viii. 77-78:

“Et soleas poscit: tum in lecto quoque uideres
Stridere secreta diuisos aure susurros,”

Petr., _Sat._, 41, 9: “ab hoc ferculo Trimalchio ad lasanum surrexit. Nos libertatem sine tyranno nacti coepimus inuitare conuiuarum sermones.”

[569] Among the manuscript titles is _Petronii arbitri affranii Satirici lib. incip._, where the at first puzzling appearance of the name of Afranius indicates Petronius’ resemblance to that writer of togata-comedies _in puerorum foedis amoribus_ (Teuffel, _Gesch. d. röm. Lit._, § 305, 1).

[570] _Satyr._, § 132: “damnatisque nouae simplicitatis opus.”

[571] Apul., _Met._, iv. 28–vi. 24.

[572] Even the grammar is intentionally varied; _e.g._ the correct accusative, _Nicerotem_ 61, contrasted with Trimalchio’s _Niceronem_, 63.

[573] _Sat._, 117, 12; 134, 2.

[574] _E.g._ _athlum_, 57; _phantasia_, 38; _philologia_, 39; _polymitus_, 40; _synoccio_, 93); _apoculare_, 62 and 67 (= ἀποκυλίω), and hybrids like _bilychnis_, 30 (= bis + λύχνος; _percolopare_, 44 (= _per_ + κόλαφος); _lupatria_, 37; _excatarissasti_, 67.

[575] _E.g._ _amasiunculus_, 45; _amasiuncula_, 75; _lamellula_, 57; _cor(i)cillum_, 75; _manuciolum_, 63. The loss of force in popular diminutives is plain from “hominem ... ualde audaculum,” 63 = “a mighty bold fellow.”

[576] § 71: “amici,” inquit, “et serui homines sunt et aeque unum _lactem_ biberunt, etiam si illos malus _fatus_ oppressit.”

[577] Guericke, _op. cit._, p. 34.

[578] The neuter form, instead of the usual _margarita_, was used by Varro, Tacitus (_Agr._, 12) and Tertullian.

[579] It is an easy development from the physical sense of _notare_, “to note” or “mark down,” and the transition is found in Cicero.

[580] _Sat._, 123, ll. 209-232: _tantum fugit_ (221) is echoed by the corresponding metrical position of _tantum trahit_ (231); _maerentia tecta relinquunt_ (225) by _maerentia pectora iungant_ (229); _relinquunt_ ends 225 and _relinquit_ 227.

[581] _Sat._, 127:

“Emicuere rosae uiolaeque et molle cyperon,
Albaque de uiridi riserunt lilia prato:
Talis humus Venerem molles clamauit in herbas,
Candidiorque dies secreto fauit amori.”

[582] _P.L.M._, iv. 74-108, 120-121.

[583] _Ib._, 74:

“Inueniat (? inuenias) quod quisque uelit: non omnibus unum est
Quod placet: hic spinas colligit, ille rosas.”

[584] _Ib._, 75, l. 5: “Ante oculos stabat quidquid promiserat annus.”

[585] _Ib._, 81:

“Paruula securo tegitur mihi culmine sedes
Vuaque plena mero fecunda pendet ab ulmo,” etc.

[586] _Ib._, 84:

O litus uita mihi dulcius, a mare! felix
Cui licet ad terras ire subinde tuas, etc.

[587] _Ib._, 99: The English verse is from J. Wight Duff’s “Sonnets from the Antique” in Quatercentenary number of _Alma Mater_, Aberdeen Univ. Mag., 1906.

The elegiacs show Petronius’s departure from the rigorous Ovidian disyllabic ending in the pentameter:

“Lecto compositus uix prima silentia noctis
Carpebam et somno lumina uicta dabam:
Cum me saeuus Amor prensat sursumque capillis
Excitat et lacerum peruigilare iubet.
‘Tu famulus meus,’ inquit, ‘ames cum mille puellas,
Solus io solus, dure, iacere potes?’
Exsilio et pedibus nudis tunicaque soluta
Omne iter incipio, nullum iter expedio.
Nunc propero, nunc ire piget, rursumque redire
Poenitet et pudor est stare uia media.
Ecce tacent uoces hominum strepitusque uiarum
Et uolucrum cantus turbaque fida canum.
Solus ego ex cunctis paueo somnumque torumque
Et sequor imperium, magne Cupido, tuum.”

[588] Text: Prose wks., ed. pr., Nap., 1475; Erasmus, Bas., 1515, 1529; Lipsius, Antw., 1605, 1615; Ruhkopf, Lpz., 1797-1811; Haase, Lpz., 1852 _sq._; later Teubner ed., Vol. I. 1, _Dialog._, Hermes, 1905; I. 2, _De Ben._, _De Clem._, Hosius, 1900; II., _Nat. Quaest._, Gercke, 1907; III., _Epist._, Hense, 1898, 1914; IV., _Frag._, Bickel. Sep. edns., _De Ben._, Gertz., Berl., 1876; _Dial._, Gertz, Copenh., 1886; _Dial._, X., XI., XII., J. D. Duff, Camb., 1915; _De Otio_, Waltz, Par., 1909; _Ad Helu._, Favez, Laus., 1918; _Select Letters_, Summers, Lond., 1910; _Ep. Mor._, Beltrami, Brescia, 1916; Loeb. ed. (w. trans.), Gummere, Lond. and New Yk., 1917-1920; _De Clem._, Préchac, Par., 1921.

Tragedies and satire: see next chapter.

Transns.: _Prose Wks._, Lodge, Lond., 1614. _On Benefits_; also _Minor Dial. and Clem._, Stewart, Lond., 1889; _Quaest. Nat._ (_Physical Science in Time of Nero_), Clarke and Geikie, Lond., 1910.

Chronology of Wks.: Jonas, _De Ordine librorum Sen._, Berl., 1870; Schanz, _op. cit._; Gercke, _Seneca-Studien_, Lpz., 1895.

Life: Waltz, _La Vie politique de S._, Par., 1909.

Philosophy: (General) Zeller, _Die Philos. d. Griechen_; Martha, _Les moralistes sous l’empire romain_; Boissier, _La religion romaine d’Auguste aux Antonins_; Schiller, _op. cit._; Arnold, _Roman Stoicism_, Camb., 1911; (Special) Corsi, _Lo stoicismo romano ... particolarmente in Sen._, Prato, 1884; Levy-Bruhl, _Quid de deo Sen. senserit_, Par., 1884; Weissenfels, _De Sen. Epicureo_, Berl., 1886; Rubin, _Die Ethik Sen. in ihr Verhält. z. älter. u. mittler. Stoa_, Berl., 1892; Burnier, _La Morale de S. et le Néo-stoïcisme_, Laus., 1908; Gummere, _S. the Philosr. and his modern Message_, Bost., Mass., 1922.

Literary Qualities: Hoppe, _Ueber d. Sprache des Philos. Sen._ (syntactical), Lauban, 1873; Weber, _De Sen. philos. dicendi genere Bioneo_, Marb., 1895; Kunz, _Sentenzen in S.’s Tragoedien zusammengestellt_, Wienerneust., 1897; Nottola, _La prosa di S._, Bergamo, 1904; Merchant, _S., his theory of style_, _Amer. Jrnl. Philol._, 26 (1905); Norden, _Kunstprosa_, etc., p. 311; Bourgery, _Sénèque Prosateur_, Par., 1922; Albertini, _La Composition dans les ouvrages philosophiques de S._, Par., 1923.

For recent lit. on Seneca, Münscher in _Bursian’s Jahresb._, Lpz., 1923, pp. 109-214.

[589] The conjectural date is based on _De Tranq._, xvii. 7; _Ep._, cviii. 17 and 22; _Nat. Q._, I. i. 3. Lehmann, _Claudius u. Nero_, I. 152, prefers 8 B.C. Favez, in ed. of _Ad Helu._, supports the earlier date because of Seneca’s recollection of Asinius Pollio recorded _De Tranq._, xvii. 7; Pollio died in A.D. 5.

[590] He gives his full name, _De Ben._, IV. viii. 3. For his b.p. see Mart., I. lxi. 7-8.

[591] Acts xviii. 11-17. M. Anatole France gives a lively account of Gallio in _Sur la Pierre Blanche_, as already mentioned, p. 44 _n._

[592] _Contr._, II. _praef._ 4.

[593] _Ad Helu._, xix. 2.

[594] _Ep._, lviii. 5, lxxxviii. 3 _sqq._ and 37, cviii. 24; _De Br. Vit._, xiii. 2.

[595] _Contr._, X. _praef._ 2, 8, 9, 12.

[596] _Ep._, xx. 2: “facere docet philosophia, non dicere”; cxv. 1-2: “quaere quid scribas non quemadmodum.”

[597] _Contr._, I. _praef._ 22; IV. _praef._ 1; VII. _praef._ 9.

[598] _Ep._, xvi. 3.

[599] _Ep._, xix. 1, xxii. 1 _sqq._, xcviii. 13.

[600] _Ep._, iv. 10-11, xvii. 3-4, xxxi. 10.

[601] _De Ira_, III. xxxvi.

[602] _Ep._, VI. 1 (sign of grace to see one’s faults); VIII. 3.

[603] _Ep._, vi. 4 (“gaudeo discere ut doceam”), viii. 3 (“rectum iter ... lassus errando aliis monstro”), xxxiii. 1 (“adsero te mihi: meum opus es”), xlviii. 7-8.

[604] _Ep._, xviii. 5-9, cviii. 13 _sqq._

[605] _Ep._, xxxi. 11, xli. 2, xcv. 50.

[606] _Ep._, liv. 1, lxxvii. 9, lxxviii. 1, civ. 1.

[607] _Ad Helu._, xix. 2 and 4-6.

[608] Suet., _Cal._, liii.: “commissiones meras ... harenam esse sine calce.”

[609] _Dio_, LIX. xix. 7 ... πιστεύσας ὅτι φθόης τε ἔχοι κακῶς καὶ οὐκ ἐς μακρὰν τελευτήσοι.

[610] _Ep._, xlix. 2.

[611] _De Ira_, I. xx. 8-9; II. xxxiii. 3 _sqq._; III. xviii. 3-4 and xix.

[612] _De Tranq._, xvii. 3: “miscenda tamen ista et alternanda sunt, solitudo et frequentia: illa nobis faciet hominum desiderium, haec nostri; et erit altera alterius remedium; odium turbae sanabit solitudo, taedium solitudinis turba.”

[613] Dio, LX. viii. 5-6; schol. ad Juv., V. 109.

[614] Tac., _Ann._, XII. viii.

[615] Suet., _Ner._, lii.

[616] The _quinquennium_ is here used in its customary sense, and not the less likely one in which Mr. J. G. C. Anderson applied it to the last five years of Nero’s reign on the ground that the Golden House scheme and rebuilding after the Great Fire were the achievements which aroused Trajan’s admiration. (_Jrnl. Rom. Stud._, I. pt. 3 (1912), pp. 173 _sqq._)

[617] Tac., _Ann._, XIII. ii., vi., xi.

[618] Tac., _Ann._, XIII. v. and xiii.

[619] _Ib._, XIII. xiv.

[620] Dio, LXI. iv. 1.

[621] Tac., _Ann._, XIII. xvii.; XIV. vii. and xi.

[622] _Ib._, XIV. lii.: “exueret magistrum.”

[623] _Ib._, XIV. liii.-liv.

[624] Seneca had been attacked by Suillius in A.D. 58, _Ann._, XIII. xlii.; for attacks in 62 see _ib._, XIV. lii. and lxv.

[625] _Ib._, XIV. lv.-lvi.

[626] _Ib._, XV. xlv.; Dio, LXII. xxv. 3.

[627] Tac., _Ann._, XV. lxv.

[628] _Ib._, XV. lx.-lxiv.

[629] I. vi.

[630] _De Vit. Beat._, xvii. 3: “Non sum sapiens”; 4: “ego in alto uitiorum omnium sum”; xviii. 1: “cum uitiis conuicium facio, in primis meis facio”; _Ep._, lvii. 3: “multum ab homine tolerabili, nedum a perfecto absum.”

[631] _Ep._, lxi. 2.

[632] _Ep._, xxvi. 5-6: “non timide itaque conponor....”

[633] _Journal des Savants_, Par., 1912: “Les travaux récents sur la chronol. des œuvres de Sén.,” p. 213.

[634] See Mr. J. D. Duff’s notice of M. Albertini’s _La Composn. dans les ouvrages philos. de Sén._, _C. R._, May-June, 1924.

[635] Albertini states with admirable clearness the difficulties of the problem and indicates the variety of answers given. His conclusions are often in agreement with Gercke’s.

[636] _Aduersaria Critica_, Vol. II. 344, Copenhagen, 1873.

[637] The logical sequence and arrangement of topics in the treatises (other than _N.Q._) and letters are examined by Albertini, _op. cit._, pp. 51-146.

[638] Only one, the _De Tranq._, has a form suggestive of “dialogue” in the true sense.

[639] Favez, _Ad Helu._, pp. xxxviii. _sqq._

[640] _Ad Pol._, xiii. 3, xviii. 9.

[641] Müller, _De Sen. librorum de ira compositione_, Lpz., 1912; Rabbow, _Antik Schriften üb. Seelenheilung u. Seelenleitung_, Lpz., 1914.

[642] Albertini, _op. cit._, pp. 61-63.

[643] _De Ira_, III. ii.

[644] _Ib._, III. ix. 1-2.

[645] _Ib._, I. i. 3-4.

[646] _Ib._, II. xxv. 2: “questus est quod foliis rosae duplicatis incubuisset.” A longer anecdote, admirably told, is that of Augustus twitting Asinius Pollio with keeping in his house “the wild beast” Timagenes, _ib._, III. xxxiii.

[647] _De Vit. Beat._, iii. 2: “quod inter omnis Stoicos conuenit, rerum naturae adsentior”; viii. 2: “idem est ergo beate uiuere et secundum naturam.”

[648] _Ib._, iii. 4.

[649] _Ib._, xvii. 1: “Quare ergo tu fortius loqueris quam uiuis?” xviii. 1: “aliter (inquis) loqueris, aliter uiuis”; xx. 1: “non praestant philosophi quae loquuntur.”

[650] Ed. _De Otio_. According to Marchesi, _Seneca_, 1920, all three were written about 62. Dessau’s view, _Herm._, liii., 1918, pp. 192 _sqq._, is that they were composed after Serenus’s death, late in Seneca’s career, as a memorial recreating three stages in a dead friend’s advance towards and in Stoicism. Waltz stands not alone, as Dessau said, but has Münscher’s support, for dating the _De Const._ early in Claudius’s reign, about 42. Most concur in putting all three somewhere in Nero’s reign; _e.g._ _De Const._, 54-56; _De Tranq._, 59; _De Otio_, 62.

[651] _De Const._, ii. 1: “Nuper cum incidisset mentio M. Catonis....”

[652] Dessau, _op. cit._, finds difficulties in the usually accepted date, and considers the _De Breu._ was composed about A.D. 62. This view is criticized by Albertini.

[653] _N.Q._, IV. _praef._ 1 and 12. Seneca quotes from a poem of his, _N.Q._, III. 1; a hexameter, _Ep. Mor._, xxiv. 21; iambics, viii. 10.

[654] Schanz, _op. cit._, p. 381, does not think so. On the other hand, Albertini, _op. cit._, p. 102, says; “Je suis de ceux qui croient que la fin du _De Prouid._ est mutilée.”

[655] _De Clem._, II. i.: “Vellem nescire literas!”

[656] _De Ben._, I. xv. 6.

[657] _Ib._, V. i. 1.

[658] M. Bourgery concludes that Bks. VI. and VII., as exhibiting an increase of regular _clausulae_, were written after the other books. M. Pichon asks why, if that metrical criterion holds for VI. and VII., one should not apply it to Bk. V. Bk. V. is credited with only 41% of regular clausulae, and so by M. Bourgery’s test should be earlier than I. and II., which have about 50%.

[659] M. Paul Thomas, _Morceaux choisis de Sénèque_, ed. 8, 1918, p. 145, says: “il serait aussi difficile que peu utile d’en donner une analyse.”

[660] _E.g._ _De Ben._, I. vii. 2: “ut dixi.”

[661] _Ib._, I. xiv. 1: “ad propositum nunc reuertamur”; I. x. 1: “sed longius nos impetus euehit prouocante materia.”

[662] _Cf._ _argumentum_ to Bk. I. in the Strasbourg ed. of 1809: “libri boni sunt sed mehercule in ordine et tractatu confusi, quem uix est uel adnitentem expedire.”

[663] _Ad Helu._, xx.

[664] A table of varying rearrangements is given by Schanz, _op. cit._, p. 400. The last book (VII.) is put first by Gundermann, and the first last by Schultess and Gercke. Diels, Müller and Gercke begin with III., which Bourgery would put at the end according to his metrical tests.

[665] _E.g._ _Ep. Mor._, xlviii. 1, lxxi. 1, lxxv. 1.

[666] _E.g._ Hilgenfeld, Gercke, Schanz, Bourgery. Albertini thinks the letters real, and discusses the problem, _op. cit._, pp. 132-146. I accept his views.

[667] Various attempts have been made: _e.g._ Bourgery, _Rev. de Philol._, xxxv., 1911, pp. 40-55; Albertini, _op. cit._

[668] _Ib._, cxviii. 1-2.

[669] _Ib._, xxi. 5.

[670] _Ib._, cxviii. 1-3.

[671] _Inst. Or._, X. i. 125-131.

[672] Tac., _Ann._, XIII. iii.: “ingenium amoenum et temporis eius auribus accommodatum.”

[673] _Ep._, lxxv. 1: “qualis sermo meus esset si una sederemus aut ambularemus, inlaboratus et facilis, talis esse epistulas meas uolo quae nihil habent accersitum nec fictum.”

[674] _Ep._, lxxvii. 4, 6 and 20, xxxvi. 1 and 4, cviii. 29.

[675] _Ep._, xxiii. 11, ii. 3, xiii. 10, xviii. 6.

[676] Summers, _Select Letters of S._, pp. xlii. _sqq._, gives a careful study; _cf._ Bourgery, _Sénèque Prosateur_, pp. 206-305.

[677] _E.g._ Lact., _Div. Inst._, I. v.: “Annaeus quoque Seneca, qui ex Romanis uel acerrimus Stoicus fuit, quam saepe summum Deum merita laude prosequitur!”

[678] _Ep._, xxxvii. 1.

[679] _Ep._, lxxxix. 8: “ad uirtutem uenitur per ipsam.”

[680] _Ep._, cviii., lvi., lxxviii. 23 and 25.

[681] _Ep._, cxvi. 5.

[682] xlviii., cvi.

[683] cxiii.

[684] liii.

[685] lxxxvii.

[686] Ed. pr. Ven., 1477; Baiter in Orelli’s Cicero; Kiessling and Schöll, Berl., 1875; Clark, Oxf., 1907.

[687] Teuffel, _op. cit._, §§ 300-301. For Probus’s notes on Virgil, see Keil, Halle, 1848.

[688] Mart., III. ii. 12; _cf._ Gell., I. xv. 18. He is to be distinguished from the grammarian Probus of the 4th cent.

[689] Suet., _Gr._, 24.

[690] X. i. 118.

[691] Tac., _Hist._, I. xc.

[692] Tac., _Ann._, XV. lxxi.: “Verginius studia iuuenum eloquentia fouebat.” He is mentioned or cited by Quintilian as “Verginius,” _I. Or._, III. i. 21; III. vi. 45; IV. i. 23; VII. iv. 24; as “Flavus,” VII. iv. 40; as “Flavus Verginius,” XI. iii. 126.

[693] Text: ed. pr. (_In morte Claudii Ludus_), Rome, 1513; Schusler, Utr., 1844; Bücheler, _Symb. philol. Bonn._, Leipz., 1864-1867 (Einl. u. Comment.); ed. min. (w. Petronius), 1871; 6th ed. (Heraeus), Berl., 1922; Ball, (tr. and comm.), New Yk., 1902; Rouse (Loeb ed. w. Petron.), Lond. and New Yk., 1913; Weinreich, Berl., 1923.

[694] Birt, _De Sen. Apoc. et Apoth. lucubratio_, Marb., 1888, thinks Sen. wrote not only the existing political satire, but a lost philosophical _Apocolocyntosis_. Stahr, _Agrippina_, append., Berl., 1867, also refuses to identify the _Apotheosis_ with the _Apocolocyntosis_, but further denies S.’s authorship of the extant skit. Hartman, _Mnemos._, N.S., xliv. (1916) holds that the pumpkinification was contained “in aliquo colloquio” distinct from the extant “Ludus.”

[695] The Greek title ἀποκολοκύντωσις is from κολοκύντη = Lat. _cucurbita_. For the satiric use of _cucurbita_ _cf._ Petron., 39; Juv., XIV. 58; Apul., _Met._, I. xv. The title _Ludus de morte Claudii Caesaris_ is in inferior MSS., and involves an un-Latin use of _ludus_.

[696] lx. 35: συνέθηκε μὲν γὰρ καὶ ὁ Σενέκας σύγγραμμα ἀποκολοκύντωσιν αὐτὸ ὥσπερ τινὰ ἀπαθανάτισιν ὀνομάσας.

[697] Bickel in “Der Schluss d. Apoc.,” _Philol._, lxxvii. (1921) defends the ending as it stands.

[698] _Apoc._, 7: “putares omnes illius esse libertos: adeo illum nemo curabat.”

[699] _E.g._ _Apoc._, 7: “ante templum, ius dicebam”; 10: “antequam audires, damnasti”; 12: “discere causas una tantum parte audita, saepe ne utra”; 14: “illum altera tantum parte audita condemnat.”

[700] Diderot argued that either Seneca’s adulation was sarcastic or that the _Consol. ad Polyb._ was written by some one to damage Seneca’s character.

[701] Tac., _Ann._, XIII. iii.

[702] Tac., _Ann._, XIII. iii.: “postquam ad prouidentiam sapientiamque flexit, nemo risui temperare.”

[703] Dio, lx. 35: τοὺς γὰρ μύκητας θεῶν βρῶμα ἔλεγεν εἶναι: Suet., _Ner._, xxxiii.

[704] Tac., _Ann._, XII. viii.: “infensus Claudio dolore iniuriae credebatur.”

[705] Bücheler dates the _Apoc._ immediately after Claudius’s death. Hirschfeld (_Kl. Schriften_, 1913) connects the composition with Nero’s annulment of Claudius’s consecration (Suet., _Claud._, xlv). Bickel (_op. cit._) accepts Hirschfeld’s date.

[706] For examination of Seneca’s relationship to Menippean Satire, see Weinreich, _Senecas Apocol. ... Einführung, Analyse, Untersuchung_, Berl., 1923.

[707] Helm, _Lukian u. Menipp_, 1906.

[708] _E.g._ (proverbs) 1: _aut regem aut fatuum nasci oportere_; 7: _manus manum lauat_; (colloquialisms) 1: _dicam quod mihi in buccam uenerit_; 3: _in semen relinqui_; (slang) 4: _animam ebulliit_; 9: _mapalia_ (Punic = “shanties”); (parataxis) 2: _si dixero, mensis erat October_; 10: _dic mihi ... quare damnasti_. The diminutives _nummulariolus_, _ciuitatulas_, _auriculam_, and a few more, occur.

[709] Weinreich, _op. cit._, pp. 65-66, considers that he travesties his own _Herc. Fur._

[710] Five out of fourteen lines have an anapaest in the fifth foot.

[711] Baehrens, _P.L.M._, iv. (1882) pp. 55-73; Riese, _Anth. Lat._, Leipz., I. (1894); II. (1906).

[712] Plin., _Ep._, V. iii. 5.

[713] li. 4-5:

“Sic dulci Marcus qui nunc sermone fritinnit,
facundo patruos prouocet ore duos.”

[714] ii. 5:

“Corsica terribilis cum primum incanduit aestas.”

[715] xxxvi. 5-6:

“qua frigida semper
praefulget stellis Arctos inocciduis.”

[716] Tragedies: ed. pr., Ferrara, _c._ 1481; Lipsius, Leid., 1588; Gruter, Heidelb., 1604; Gronov, Leid., 1661; Pierrot, Par., 1829-1832; Peiper and Richter, Leipz., 1867 (influenced by erroneous belief in strophic arrangement); improved ed., Richter, Leipz., 1902; Leo, Berl., 1878-1879 (vol. i., _Obseruationes criticae_, pp. 232, vol. ii., _Tragoediae_); Miller (Loeb ed. w. prose trans.), 2 vols., 1916-1917.

Trans.: Heywood and others, Lond., 1581; Harris (verse), Lond., 1904; Miller (blank verse and lyric metres), Chicago, 1907.

Dramatic influence: Cunliffe, _Influence of S. on Elizab. Tragedy_, Manch., 1893; Vaughan, _Types of Tragic Drama_, Lond., 1908; Spearing, _Eliz. Transns. of S.’s Tragedies_, Camb., 1912; Godley, _Senecan Tragedy in Eng. Lit. and Classics_, Oxf., 1912; Kastner and Charlton, _Growth of Senecan Tradition in Renaiss. Trag._, introd. to _Poet. Works of Sir W. Alexander_, Lond., 1921; Lucas, _S. and Eliz. Tragedy_, Camb., 1922; Jourdain, _Drama in Europe_, Lond., 1924.

[717] Quintil., X. i. 128: “tractauit etiam omnem fere studiorum materiam: nam et orationes eius et poemata et epistulae et dialogi feruntur”; _cf._ VIII. iii. 31; Tac., _Ann._, XIV. lii.; Plin., _Ep._, V. iii. 5.

[718] Examples may be found in Schäfer’s _De Philosophiae Anneanae in Senecae tragoediis vestigiis_, Jena, 1909.

[719] Birt (_Neue Jahrb. f. d. klass. Altert._, 1911). Jonas, _De ordine librorum Sen._, 1870, aimed at a closer determination of dates, _e.g._ _Med._ and _Tro._ soon after Seneca’s return from exile in 49, _Herc. Fur._ after 57, _Oed._ after the Parthian war of 58, _Thyest._ after Seneca’s retirement in 62. Weinreich (_Apoc._, _Einführung_, etc., 1923, p. 65), founding on Münscher’s metrical analyses, remarks with airy confidence, “Daran denkt man heute nicht mehr dass die Tragödien, ganz oder zum Teil, in der Jugendheit oder während des Exils entstanden seien.” Weinreich maintains that Seneca wrote _Thyest._, _Herc. Fur._ and _Tro._ before he composed the anapaests of the _Apoc._ in 54. He gives Münscher’s dates for the remaining plays: _Phaed._ and _Med._, 54 or 55; _Agam._, a year or two later; _Oed._, 57; _Herc. Oet._ and _Phoen._, 64 or 65.

[720] Cichorius, _Röm. Studien_, 1922, pp. 426-429; Quintil., VIII. iii. 31.

[721] Tac., _Ann._, XI. xiii.

[722] Differences in plot or structure between the Latin and corresponding Greek plays are exhibited in the comparative analyses appended to Miller’s edition (Loeb). The chief differences are summarized by Schanz, _Gesch. d. röm. Lit._

[723] Strauss, _De ratione inter Sen. et antiquas fabulas Romanas intercedente_, Rost., 1887 (combats Ribbeck’s views on ancient Roman tragedy); Liedloff, _Die Nachbildung griech. u. röm. Muster in Senecas Troades u. Agamemnon_, Grimma, 1902; Schreiner, _Sen. als Tragödiendichter in seinen Beziehungen zu den griech. Originalen_ (contains bibliography), Münch., 1909; Tachau, _Die Arbeiten üb. d. Tragödien des Sen. in d. letzten Jahrzehnten, Philol._, 48 (1889) p. 340.

[724] Sen., _Ep._, lxxxiv. 5 “... in unum saporem uaria illa libamenta confundere, ut etiam si apparuerit unde sumptum sit, aliud tamen esse quam unde sumptum est, appareat.”

[725] _Phoen._, 383-386.

[726] _Phoen._, 654.

[727] Schanz, _op. cit._, II. 2 pp. 56-57.

[728] _Med._ 549-550:

“Sic natos amat?
Bene est—tenetur. Vulneri patuit locus.”

[729] So too Ovid in _Her._, iv. (Phaedra’s epistle to Hippolytus) seems to follow the earlier rather than either the later Euripidean version or Sophocles’s lost _Phaedra_.

[730] Leo, _De Sen. tragoediis obseruationes criticae_, 1878, p. 133.

[731] Strauss, _op. cit._, esp. pp. 44-57.

[732] _Inst. Or._, X. i. 98.

[733] Leo considers it in part spurious, _Obseruationes_, vol. i. of his edn., p. 74; _cf._ Summers, _C.R._, XIX. (1905), p. 40. Ackermann maintains the genuineness of the whole, _De Senecae Hercule Oetaeo_, Marb., 1905; _cf._ his _Der leidende Hercules des S._, _Rh. Mus._, lxvii. (1912), pp. 425-471.

[734] _Herc. Oet._, 237-253.

[735] Schreiner, _op. cit._, p. 9.

[736] _Med._, 408-410.

[737] _Med._, 82 sqq.

[738] _Med._, 607-669.

[739] _Med._, 744-747; _H.F._, 750-756; _Phaed._, 1230-1237; _Agam._, 15-21; _Thyest._ 1-12; _Oct._, 619-623.

[740] _Phaed._, 1256 _sqq._

[741] _Agam._, 26-27.

[742] _Phaed._, 350-351:

“amat insani
Belua ponti Lucaeque boues.”

[743] _H.F._, 1259-1261.

[744] _E.g._ _Phoen._, 313-319.

[745] _E.g._ _Phaed._, 132-135. There are many _sententiae_ in her speech of remonstrance 129-177.

[746]

_Phaed._, 211: “cur sancta paruis habitat in tectis Venus?”

215: “quod non potest uult posse qui nimium potest.”

[747] _E.g._ conception of a tranquil sea, expressed three times over in _Tro._, 199-203; or notion of the abasement of the proud repeated again and again, _Agam._, 79-107.

[748] _Tro._, 255 _sqq._:

“Quid caede dira nobiles clari ducis
Aspergis umbras? noscere hoc primum decet,
Quid facere uictor debeat, uictus pati.
Violenta nemo imperia continuit diu,
Moderata durant; quoque Fortuna altius
Euexit ac leuauit humanas opes,
Hoc se magis supprimere felicem decet
Variosque casus tremere metuentem deos
Nimium fauentes. magna momento obrui
Vincendo didici. Troia nos tumidos facit
Nimium ac feroces? stamus hoc Danai loco
Vnde illa cecidit. fateor, aliquando impotens
Regno ac superbus altius memet tuli;
Sed fregit illos spiritus haec quae dare
Potuisset aliis causa, Fortunae fauor.
Tu me superbum, Priame, tu timidum facis!...
Equidem fatebor (pace dixisse hoc tua,
Argiua tellus, liceat) affligi Phrygas
Vincique uolui: ruere et aequari solo
Vtinam arcuissem ... exactum satis
Poenarum et ultra est. regia ut uirgo occidat
Tumuloque donum detur et cineres riget
Et facinus atrox caedis ut thalamos uocent
Non patiar. in me culpa cunctorum redit:
Qui non uetat peccare, cum possit, iubet.”

[749] _Tro._, 510-512:

“Fata si miseros iuuant,
Habes salutem; fata si uitam negant,
Habes sepulchrum.”

[750] _Tro._, 869: “Optanda mors est sine metu mortis mori.”

[751] _Tro._, 917-922.

[752] _Tro._, 792.

[753] _Tro._, 489:

“Haec causa multos una ab interitu arcuit,
Credi perisse.”

[754] _Med._, 159 _sqq._

[755]

_Agam._, 115: “Per scelera semper sceleribus tutum est iter.”
130: “Quod ratio non quit saepe sanauit mora.”
144: “Vbi animus errat, optimum est casum sequi.”
259: “Nec regna socium ferre nec taedae sciunt.”

_Thy._, 487: “Serum est cauendi tempus in mediis malis.”

_Phaed._, 249: “Pars sanitatis uelle sanari fuit.”
598: “Honesta quaedam scelera successus facit.”
607: “Curae leues locuntur, ingentes stupent.”

[756]

_Med._, 55: “Quae scelere parta est, scelere linquenda est domus”
503: “Tibi innocens sit quisquis est pro te nocens.”

[757] _H.F._, 135-138:

“Aspersa die dumeta rubent
Phoebique fugit reditura soror.
Labor exoritur durus et omnes
Agitat curas aperitque domos.”

[758] _Med._, 375-379:

“Venient annis saecula seris
Quibus Oceanus uincula rerum
Laxet et ingens pateat tellus
Tethysque nouos detegat orbes
Nec sit terris ultima Thule.”

[759] _Tro._, 378-381, 397-398, 402-408:

“... Post mortem nihil est ipsaque mors nihil
Velocis spatii meta nouissima....
Rumores uacui uerbaque inania
Et par sollicito fabula somnio....
Quaeris quo iaceas post obitum loco?
Quo non nata iacent.”

[760] _Thy._, 344 _sqq._

[761] _Agam._, 605-611:

“Perrumpet omne seruitium
Contemptor leuium deorum,
Qui uoltus Acherontis atri,
Qui Styga tristem non tristis uidet
Audetque uitae ponere finem.
Par ille regi, par superis erit.
O quam miserum est nescire mori!”

[762] _E.g._ _Phoen._, 89-103, 146, 151-153.

[763] _Phaed._, 878: “mori uolenti desse mors numquam potest.”

[764] _E.g._ _Epist. Mor._, xii. 10, where “patent undique ad libertatem uiae multae, breues, faciles” significantly resembles _Phoen._, 153, “mille ad hanc (_sc._ mortem) aditus patent”; xiii. 14, lviii. 36. Seneca disapproved of a merely capricious suicide, _Epist. Mor._, xxiv. 25, xxx. 15.

[765] _Phaed._, 972-988.

[766] _Thy._, 396-400 (“Quiritibus ... plebeius”); _H.F._, 164, 839; _Phoen._, 103 (“ius uitae ac necis”).

[767]

_Med._, 109: “rara est in dominos iusta licentia,”
and 113: “festa dicax fundat conuicia fescenninus.”

[768] _H.F._, 650-829.

[769] _Tro._, 442-491.

[770] They are all cases of words of four syllables, like _nepotibus_, _Med._, 512. Hardie, _Res Metrica_, 1920, p. 83, adds from _H.F._, 20, _nuribus impiis_, if that is the right reading.

[771] _Med._, 740-751; _Oed._, 223-232; _Phaed._, 1201-1212.

[772] Butler, _Post-Augustan Poetry_, pp. 41-42, 71.

[773] Ellis, _Catullus in XIVth. Cent._, Oxf., 1905, pp. 10-11.

[774] _E.g._ _Seneca: His Tenne Tragedies_, Lond., 1581. (The _Octauia_ is included, wrongly).

[775] _E.g._ 152, Nero is called “iuuenis infandi ingeni.”

[776] Hardie, _Res Metr._, p. 67; _cf._ p. 84 _n._

[777] Nordmeyer, _De Oct. Fab._, Leipz., 1892. For views on this over-discussed question, see Schanz, _op. cit._, pp. 75-76.

[778] Since I wrote this I have noted with satisfaction P. J. Enk’s recent conclusions, in _Mnem._ liv., “De Octauia Praetexta,” that the play was written not long after Nero’s death and by an author well acquainted with Seneca’s tragedies.

[779] _Oct._, 310-375.

[780] _Oct._, 174 _sqq._

[781] _Oct._, 915-916, and she uses the Greek word ἀηδών.

[782] Plin., _Ep._, VI. xxi. 2.

[783] Sen., _Ep. Mor._, viii. 8.

[784] Suet., _Nero_, xi.

[785] Suet., _Nero_, xxxix.

[786] _Ib._, x.: “declamauit saepius publice; recitauit et carmina non modo domi sed et in theatro.”

[787] _Ib._, xxi.

[788] _Ib._, xlvi.

[789] Tac., _Ann._, XI. xiii.

[790] Tac., _Dial._, 2, 3 and 11.

[791] Juv., VII. 12 and 72-73; Mart., XI. ix. and x., with vet. schol. ad Juv., I. 20; Ribbeck, _Trag. Rom. Fr._, p. 269. It has been previously indicated that Martial connects Ligurinus and Bassus with a _Thyestes_, p. 257 _supra_.

[792] MSS. give the Etrurian form _Aules_.

[793] Text: P. Pithoeus, Par., 1585; Casaubon, Par., 1605, etc.; cum schol., Jahn, Leipz., 1843; ed. ii., Bücheler, 1886; ed. iv., Leo, 1910; w. tr. and comm., Conington, ed. Nettleship, Oxf., 1872, 1874 and 1893; Gildersleeve, N.Y., 1875; étude et trad. fr., Rousse, Par., 1884; w. Juvenal, Owen, Oxf., 1902; Némethy, Budapest, 1903; in _Corp. P.L._, II., Summers, Lond., 1905; Santi Consoli, Rome, 1911; w. Juvenal, Eng. tr. G. G. Ramsay (Loeb), Lond., 1918; Cartault, tr. fr., Par., 1920.

To consult: Nisard, _Études sur les poètes lat. de la décadence_, Par., 1834, 1849, 1867, etc.; Martha, “Un Poète Stoïcien” in _Les Moralistes sous l’emp. rom._, 1865, etc.; Wilcke, _Quid elocutio Juvenalis a Persiana differat_, Stendal, 1869; Werther, _De Persio Horatii imitatore_, Halle, 1883; Sorn, _Die Sprache d. Satirikers_ P., Laibach, 1890; Morgan, _A Bibliography of P._, Camb., U.S.A., 1893; Gérard, _Le latin vulgaire et le langage familier dans les satires de P._ in _Le Musée belge_, 1897; Burnier, _Le rôle des satires de P. dans le développement du neo-Stoïcisme_, Chaux-de-fonds, 1909 (bibliog.); Schönbach, _De Persii in saturis sermone et arte_, Leipz., 1910; Villeneuve, _Essai sur Perse_, Par., 1918 (bibliog.).

_Transns._: Batten Holyday, ed. 3, 1635; Dryden, 1693; Thos. Sheridan (prose), 1728; Wm. Drummond, 1797; and in Conington’s and G. G. Ramsay’s edns.

[794] Lehmann, “Zur erklär. d. _Sat. des P._,” _Philol._, vi. (1851) p. 432.

[795] _Sat._, III. 44-51.

[796] Plin., _Ep._, I. xiii. 3: Tac., _Ann._, XIV. 19; _Dial. Or._, 23.

[797] Suet., _Ner._, xxxvii.

[798] _Vita Persii_: “Cognouit et Senecam sed non ut caperetur eius ingenio.”

[799] Cornutus: _Theol. Graecae Compendium_, Lang, Lpz., 1881; Rappe, _De L. Annaeo Cornuto_, Lpz., 1906; Villeneuve, _Essai sur Perse_, pp. 47-102.

[800] V. 22 _sqq._, reading in 34-35:

“Cumque iter ambiguum est et uitae nescius error
Diducit trepidas ramosa in compita mentes.”

[801] V. 41-46:

“Tecum etenim longos memini consumere soles,
Et tecum primas epulis decerpere noctes....”

[802] These may have been sketches of the nature of Lucilius’s _Journey to the Sicilian Straits_ or Horace’s _Journey to Brundisium_.

[803] _Inst. Or._, X. i. 94: “Multum et uerae gloriae, quamuis uno libro, Persius meruit.”

[804] Pretor, _C.R._, xxi. (1907) pp. 72 _sqq._, argues that the choliambics are a prologue, and, being intended as a blind to safeguard the author against Nero’s vengeance for alleged allusions to the emperor, contain deliberate untruths, _e.g._ that the writer has no capacity for authorship and is only half-educated or at least provincial (_semi-paganus_).

[805] I. 76-78.

[806] I. 99-102: “Torua Mimalloneis inplerunt cornua bombis,” etc. The lines have been ascribed to Nero, but more probably are Persius’s own parodies on the Catullian and pre-Augustan type of poetry favoured by many contemporaries who were court-favourites.

[807] I. 114-118.

[808] II. 61 _sqq._

[809] III. 33-34:

“caret culpa, nescit quid perdat, et alto
Demersus summa rursum non bullit in unda.”

[810] III. 38: “Virtutem uideant intabescantque relicta.”

[811] III. 66-67:

“Discite, o miseri, et causas cognoscite rerum;
Quid sumus et quidnam uicturi gignimur.”

[812] IV. 23-24.

[813] IV. 52: “Tecum habita: noris quam sit tibi curta supellex.”

[814] V. 52: “Mille hominum species, et rerum discolor usus.”

[815] V. 93-95.

[816] V. 119 _sqq._

[817] Macleane’s is a plausible theory that “uende animam lucro” (l. 75) begins a new branch of the subject which is left unfinished. Pretor (introd. xix.-xxii.) argues that the gap comes earlier in Sat. vi. Jahn, who considered Sat. vi. to be among the first composed and our Sat. i. to have been among the last, believes that the sixth is complete as we have it and that the incompleteness is in Sat. i.

[818] Fiske regards Lucilius as a source for Persius second in importance only to Horace. _Transns. Amer. Philol. Assoc._, vol. 40, pp. 121-150.

[819] Hor., _A.P._, 102:

“Si uis me flere, dolendum est
Primum ipsi tibi”;

Pers. I. 91:

“Verum nec nocte paratum
Plorabit qui me uolet incuruasse querela.”

Other phrases in Persius’s first satire which may be instructively compared with their Horatian bases are l. 43: “scombros metuentia carmina”; l. 64: “ut per leue seueros effundat iunctura ungues”; l. 106: “pluteum caedit nec demorsos sapit ungues.”

[820] Villeneuve, _op. cit._, p. 179 _sqq._

[821] Villeneuve, _op. cit._, p. 165.

[822] Hor., _Sat._ II. ii. 60: “Bioneis sermonibus et sale nigro.” The varied linguistic elements and polemic artifices of the lost moral disquisitions of Bion are partially discernible in the remains of Teles, an obscure Cynic of the 3rd cent. B.C. For Bion, see Villeneuve, _op. cit._, pp. 130-135.

[823] Pers., I. 44: “Quisquis es, o, modo quem ex aduerso dicere feci”; _cf._ _1 Corinthians_ xv. 35-37.

[824] Lyd., _De Mag._, I. 41: Πέρσιος δὲ τὸν ποιητὴν Σώφρονα μιμήσασθαι θέλων τὸ Λυκόφρονος παρῆλθεν ἀμαυρόν.

[825] “Obuoluisti ipse te caeca nocte.... Nolebas intellegi, forte et tu non intellegebas!... Latebas intra te, ne te curiosa et erudita inueniret sagacitas. Eras ipse inuolucrum tibi.”

[826] V. 92: “Dum ueteres auias tibi de pulmone reuello.”

[827] I. 58:

“O Jane, a tergo quem nulla ciconia pinsit,
Nec manus auriculas imitari mobilis albas,
Nec linguae quantum sitiat canis Apula tantae.”

[828] _E.g._ I. 9: “istud uiuere triste”; I. 27: “scire tuum”; I. 122: “hoc ridere meum”; _cf._ Hor., _Epist._ I. vii. 27: “reddes dulce loqui: reddes ridere decorum.”

[829] I. 15-21.

[830] III. 1-6.

[831] III. 10-14.

[832] III. 43-51.

[833] III. 78-85.

[834] VI. 43-49.

[835] VI. 29-31.

[836] III. 105-106.

[837] I. 108-109.

[838] II. 50-51.

[839] V. 5-18.

[840] V. 13: “nec _scloppo_ (? stloppo) tumidas intendis rumpere buccas.” The loan-words from vulgar Latin in Persius (e.g. diminutives and obscenities) are such as occur in comedy and satirists like Lucilius and Horace. He also shares colloquialisms (_ebullire_, etc.) with contemporaries like Petronius in the _Satyricon_ and Seneca in the _Apocolocyntosis_.

[841] Specified in the Latin of the _Vita_ as _Neronem principem illius temporis_.