Aeneid - Book IV

[AoM]

I found this bit from Knapp in an old Classical Weekly. Though I disagree with him somewhat, he makes a fair point:

"We are not satisfied with Book IV, as a whole, simply because we do not believe in the gods. When we are not listening to Dido, we are thinking of Aeneas: at Jupiter, Juno, Venus, and Mercury we glance dourly over our shoulder when they speak, and forget them utterly when their words are ended. But they rule the action. Could we realize their existence and power as vividly as Dido's love and despair, our verdict on the poem would be altered completely. And here lies Vergil's vast failure―his one vast failure in this Book; he has not succeeded in making us believe as we read that Juno and the rest are even more real than Dido―and no less than that (one writes it with all respect) it was his plain business to do. We do not believe in Zeus and the inspiration of the Delphic oracle, but while reading the Choephoroe we experience all the emotions which Aeschylus intended to arouse, not simply a horror of matricide. The weakness, then, of this Fourth Book is certainly not that Aeneas acts shamefully, but that Vergil, having pinned his every chance of success to our belief in the gods, has failed to produce that belief in us effectively."

 

[AoM]

I was going back through the book and noticed this bit:

His dictis incensum animum flammavit amore
spemque dedit dubiae menti solvitque pudorem. (54-5)

The subject is Anna, the animum being Dido's.

For incensum, there's the reading impenso, but both Conington and Williams prefer the former.

With the reading incensum, Conington writes:

"Amore" with "flammavit," "his dictis" being an abl. of circumstance. It is just possible however that "his dictis" may go with "incensum," as in v. 197 below.

By the way, line 197 is: incenditque animum dictis atque aggerat iras.

However, Williams takes amore with incensum, saying that "amore fits better with incensum; Anna heaps fuel on the fire, she does not light the fire."

Any thoughts?

 

[Dantius]

All those interpretations make sense, so I'm not sure which one I prefer.

 

[AoM]

I'm leaning toward Williams, but the syntax alone (though not definitive, of course) makes me consider Conington.

 

[AoM]

Doing these threads feels like both forever ago and yesterday.

Thought I would bump this since I just noticed that Fratantuono and Smith put out an 800+ page commentary for the book last August. I'll probably check it out eventually.

Commentary

"Commentary" published on 25 Aug 2022 by Brill.

brill.com

 

[AoM]

Planning to start that Fratantuono and Smith commentary soon.

I was looking through O'Hara's introduction for book 4 in those Focus commentaries (the one with the Page issues) and saw he mentioned that a Cambridge green and yellow by Sergio Casali was "forthcoming".

The thing is: that was back in 2011.

Looking him up, Casali mentions on his CV that it's still being worked on. I know these commentaries take time, but... damn lol.

 

[AoM]

at regina gravi iamdudum saucia cura
vulnus alit venis et caeco carpitur igni.

I hadn't considered this. Makes sense.

"Austin (so also Tilly, and O’Hara) takes the ablative as instrumental (following Henry, who sees a parallel to Sophocles, Phil. 313 for the notion of feeding something with one’s very flesh); better is Pease’s locative use (especially if there is an implicit reference to Cleopatra’s suicide); so also Negri. Maclennan (perhaps wisely) sees no reason to distinguish between the uses."

 

[AoM]

quam tu urbem, soror, hanc cernes, quae surgere regna
coniugio tali! Teucrum comitantibus armis
Punica se quantis attollet gloria rebus!

I expected them to go with dative, but they went with ablative.

"It is impossible to be sure whether quantis rebus should be taken as ablative or dative (Austin prefers the latter; Paratore the former; Pease noncommittal); it is probably best to take it as the third in a string of ablatives after coniugio tali and comitantibus armis: first comes the marriage, then the supportive arms and military force of the new husband’s people, and finally the great renown and prosperity secured by said arms."

 

[Pacifica]

I instinctively took it as ablative but I see how you could argue for the dative. That usage of the dative would be unusual but not unconceivable in poetry.

 

[AoM]

Now for the difficult line 54 mentioned above. They actually print both readings, with Smith supporting the former and Fratantuono the latter ("not without some reservations").

his dictis incensum animum inflammavit amore

his dictis impenso animum flammavit amore

Supporting the latter: Ribbeck; Hirtzel's OCT; Sabbadini; Buscaroli; Tilly; Mynors' OCT; Geymonat; Perret's Budé; Paratore (with the orthography inpenso); Conte; Rivero García et al.; Holzberg's Tusculum; Cussen 2018; Binder 2019; Adema 2019; both O'Hara and Gildenhard.

Supporting the former: Tib.; Henry; Forbiger; Page; Sidgwick; Stephenson; Mackail; Austin (in his commentary); Dolç; Goold's Loeb; Maclennan.

And supporting his dictis incensum animum flammavit amore: Pease; Conington; Papillon and Haigh; Butler; Gould and Whiteley; Götte's Tusculum; Williams; Heuzé's Pléiade.

Besides being the difficilior, here's their note on impenso:

For the adjective cf. Lucretius, DRN 5.964 vel violenta viri vis atque impensa libido (OLD s.v. 2b, "immoderate/excessive of conduct/feelings, etc."); Benoist, e.g., cites this parallel (though he prints the vulgate of his day). Cf. Catullus' impensius uror (c. 72.5). Impenso is the reading of F and DServ.'s "alii"; P has penso. The alternate incensum is attested inter al. by M; the first corrector of P; R; Serv.; imcensum is read by a corrector of F. One of the problems posed by the variant readings here is that both are somewhat tautological (as Gildenhard observes); to set on fire a mind that is already ablaze will seem more or less appropriate to different readers, while impenso could be said "to take the obvious for granted" (Gildenhard). At 4.197 we both read incenditque animum dictis atque aggerat iras (of Fama with Iarbas), which has been taken (understandably enough) as evidence in favor of reading incensum here.

Virgil may have had in mind Plautus, Bacchid. 394 ingrato homine nihil impensiust, of the supreme valuelessness of an ungrateful man (an image that would certainly fit the later developments of the love affair); one perhaps might wonder if the adverb impense should be read here (see further Barsby on Terence, Eun. 413). Gildenhard notes that reading impenso allows for an effective hyperbaton with animum, as well as "a certain elegance" in leaving animum without an adjective. In other words, reading either impenso or incensum can be defended on (ultimately subjective) stylistic grounds. Kraggerud per litt. draws particular attention to Lucretius, DRN 5.962–965, noting the impensus amor is not a phenomenon of early man alone. "...impenso is exquisite and saved from oblivion thanks to a few witnesses."

There may be another relevant parallel passage to consider: 12.19–21 o praestans animi iuvenis, quantum ipse feroci / virtute exsuperas, tanto me impensius aequum est / consulere atque omnis metuentem expendere casus, where Latinus addresses Turnus—who has just been compared to a wounded lion in Punic fields (12.4ff.)—in the wake of the Rutulian's bold comment about the question of who will win Lavinia.

 

[AoM]

Not sure if genius or ridiculous.

Dictaeos; haeret lateri letalis harundo.

"The verse is literally framed by the title/name of the young queen: DIctaeos-harunDO."

 

[Dantius]

Not sure if genius or ridiculous.

Dictaeos; haeret lateri letalis harundo.

"The verse is literally framed by the title/name of the young queen: DIctaeos-harunDO."

Lol, this is literally an ancient scholarly game for Homer; Athenaeus and Gellius talk about it.

Καὶ πάλιν στίχους Ὁμηρικοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς πρώτης συλλαβῆς καὶ τῆς ἐσχάτης δηλοῦντας ὄνομα οἷον·
« Αἴας δ´ ἐκ Σαλαμῖνος ἄγεν δύο καὶ δέκα νῆας.〈Αἴας〉.
Φυλείδης, ὃν τίκτε Διὶ φίλος ἱππότα Φυλεύς.〈Φυλεύς〉.
Ἰητῆρ´ ἀγαθώ, Ποδαλείριος ἠδὲ Μαχάων. (Ἴων) »

Εἰσὶ καὶ ἄλλοι στίχοι Ὁμηρικοὶ δηλοῦντες σκευῶν ὀνόματα ἀπὸ τῆς πρώτης καὶ ἐσχάτης συλλαβῆς οἷον·
« ὀλλυμένων Δαναῶν ὀλοφύρεται ἐν φρεσὶ θυμός. Ὅλμος.
Μυθεῖται κατὰ μοῖραν ἅπερ κ´ οἴοιτο καὶ ἄλλος. Μύλος.
Λυγρὸς ἐὼν μή που τι κακὸν καὶ μεῖζον ἐπαύρῃ. Λύρη. »

Ἄλλοι στίχοι δηλοῦντες ἀπὸ τῆς ἀρχῆς καὶ τοῦ τέλους τῶν ἐδωδίμων τί·
« Ἀργυρόπεζα Θέτις, θυγάτηρ ἁλίοιο γέροντος. Ἄρτος.
Μή τι σὺ ταῦτα ἕκαστα διείρεο μηδὲ μετάλλα. Μῆλα. »

Again, verses in Homer whereof the first and last syllables together reveal a proper name, as 'Ajax led twelve ships from Salamis.''Phyleides, whom the horseman Phyleus, dear to Zeus, begot.''Two noble healers, Podaleirius and Machaon,' Then there are other Homeric verses where of the first and last syllables together reveal names of utensils, as: 'The heart within the breast hath pity on the dying Danaans,' giving holmos (mortar). 'He speaks aright, and even as another would think,' giving mylos (mill). 'Pitiful as thou art — lest haply an evil even greater befall thee,' giving lyrê (lyre). Other verses there are, revealing some kind of edible at the beginning and the end: 'Silver-footed Thetis, daughter of the old man of the sea,' gives artos (bread). 'Do not thou ask of all these things nor make question,' gives mêla (sheep).

 

[Dantius]

Athenaeus attributes the practice of finding these verses to classical Athens, so it may well be that Vergil was aware of this game and deliberately included such material in his poem. I'm not sure I believe that, though.

 

[AoM]

Yeah, seems like he would have done more than just the one. I'm not sure I've seen any others pointed out (though I could be forgetting them).

 

[AoM]

egregiam vero laudem et spolia ampla refertis
tuque puerque tuus: magnum et memorabile nomen/numen,
una dolo divum si femina victa duorum est.

numen seems to be read more often, but I like their argument about uses in later authors.

"The decisive evidence for nomen in the estimation of some comes from the Ovidian imitation at Met. 10.607–608 … habebis / Hippomene victo magnum et memorabile nomen, of Hippomenes’ boast before his race with the lovely Atalanta (a passage where there is no manuscript confusion)."

"Nomen with memorabile also at Ovid, Met. 6.12; Lucan, BC 9.964; Statius, Silv. 1.1.67; Silius Italicus, Pun. 4.184 egregium Ausoniae decus ac memorabile nomen (rightly cited by some as another parallel to the present passage); 8.31; 439; 12.33; 397. Memorabile numen not once in argentine verse. Magnum numen is Ciceronian (Phil. 3.32.9 magna vis est, magnum numen unum et idem sentientis senatus); Livian (1.23.4.3–4)."

 

[CSGD]

I wasn't aware that there was the reading nomen here, and it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense in that context. She's clearly talking about the divine influence of the two deities.
It's vice versa in the parallel passages that are cited, where the reading numen wouldn't make a great deal of sense. I don't see how one can reason on that basis.

 

[AoM]

sed fatis incerta feror, si Iuppiter unam
esse velit Tyriis urbem Troiaque profectis,
miscerive probet populos aut foedere/foedera iungi.

"Here one may be open to the criticism that there is merely a wish to take up Kraggerud’s implicit challenge about printing foedere. We agree with Kraggerud’s serious consideration of foedere, even to the point of printing it (albeit not with anything remotely approaching temerity). It does seem to us to express a “tighter bond” between the peoples. That said, the principal hesitation here (leaving aside the witness of the capital manuscripts) might be from the attractiveness of a tricolon: urbem; populos; foedera, each with one infinitive (esse; misceri; iungi). With ablative foedere, on the other hand, there are two objects of the indirect statement—the city and the peoples—and these two accusatives relate more closely together than any mention of treaties. One treaty here is simpler and more to the point than plural foedera (cf. Pease here though, with the argument that the plural would emphasize the mutuality of the bond—and certainly elsewhere foedera is standard poetic language for one treaty); the one city would meld two peoples, and it would have one foedus. Populos would be in balance to urbem, both at the midpoint of their respective verses. Lastly, foedere would more easily be corrupted into foedera than the other way around. Difficilior lectio potior indeed—and foedere may be printed, even if (as so often in textual cruces where the meaning is not very different either way) not without a healthy degree of doubt and hesitation."

"Servius too was not sure of the correct reading, and his analysis is important here: “si ‘foedera,’ per se plenum est; si ‘foedere,’ ad populos pertinet.” The populos of 111 would seem to be the main focus of the passage—and the una urbs, with the singular foedus with emphasis of the same class as the numerical adjective with its (key) noun."

 

[CSGD]

and certainly elsewhere foedera is standard poetic language for one treaty

Well, yes. If you read foedera, it's pretty obvious that a poetic plural is implied here. There isn't as much to be read into such a plural as the commentator seems to think.

That said, I have to agree that I like the ablative better. I wouldn't call it the more difficult reading, though.

 

[AoM]

They definitely like going against the grain for the controversial lines. Their notes on why 126 should be bracketed.

speluncam Dido dux et Troianus eandem
devenient. adero et, tua si mihi certa voluntas,
[conubio iungam stabili propriamque dicabo.]
hic hymenaeus erit.

"Conte in his extended discussion in his Critical Notes volume highlights the main syntactical problem: propriam refers at 1.73 to the nymph Deiopea, who will be Aeolus’. In the present passage, as Conte notes, "'propriam for whom?' we may ask. For Aeneas naturally, and not for Venus, whom Juno is addressing and to whom the adjective propriam would relate, for obvious grammatical reasons … Here in book 4 it is only possible to refer propriam to Aeneas; in reality it is an absurd forcing of the syntax … In short, the short text [i.e., without 126] offers just a fleeting, discreet hint at marriage. This is Virgil’s style. We may simply add that the formulation hic hymenaeus erit [127] sounds bitterly equivocal: Juno is talking of a wedding, but a treacherous ambiguity lurks in her choice of language."

"The main argument in defense of the authenticity of the verse here is admittedly a weighty one: it is attested in every manuscript, as well as in the ancient commentators. If it is an interpolation—and we agree with Conte and Kraggerud (the two modern scholars who have considered the problem at greatest length) that it is—it would have been inserted at a very early date. It emphasizes the permanence and legality of the union envisaged between Dido and Aeneas (indeed, it is a verse that Dido herself probably would very much be in favor of retaining in the text). One thinks inevitably of the unfinished nature of the epic, and of marginal annotations of early editors and critics. But in our judgment the syntax and grammar of the verse simply do not work here absent torturous critical calisthenics, and Conte is correct that there is much to gain from omitting it, and little to commend its retention. It is probably fanciful to think that an early defender of Dido as aggrieved party inserted the line here—but then again, stranger things have happened in the long reception of Virgil’s epic. Sparrow 1931, 143 speculates that an editor may have been commenting on 127 hymenaeus, and that a careless scribe then inserted the gloss into the text."

 

[AoM]

at puer Ascanius mediis in vallibus acri
gaudet equo iamque hos cursu, iam praeterit illos,
spumantemque dari pecora inter inertia votis
optat aprum, aut fulvum descendere monte leonem.

Dative with dari or ablative with optat. They just had to lean toward the former. : P

"The question of dative or ablative here may not have occurred to Virgil, though it is perhaps best taken as the former (after dari—so Gildenhard, contra e.g., Conington, Pease, and Austin, who construe it with 159 optat)."