This note argues for the presence of an allusion to Ennius “Annales” 1 Sk. (Musae, quae pedibus magnum pulsatis Olympum) at Appendix Vergiliana “Dirae” 48 (undae, quae uestris pulsatis litora lymphis). This has ramifications not only for the interpretation of the poem, but also for the dating of the “Dirae”, and for the question as to whether Enn. Ann. 1 Sk. is in fact the first line of Ennius’ epic poem.

Together with the majority of modern commentators, Professor Skutsch believes that the ‘devotio’ prayer in lines 191–4 of Ennius' Annals was spoken by the consul P. Decius Mus before the battle of Ausculum in 279 B.c. This seems to me unlikely for several reasons, and I am still not persuaded after reading his note.

Nos sumus Romani, qui fuimus ante Rudini, “We who once were Rudians are now Romans”. One of the most known in the Annals of Quintus Ennius, this fragment explicitly refers to the citizenship granted to the poet, probably in the year 184 BC, one of the dates accepted as terminus post quem for the beginning of the composition of his epic poem. Even in other fragments, although less explicitly, Ennius shows this sense of belonging, as he calls himself (...) a Roman, besides being the bard to Rome’s res gestae. By means of a combined study of these fragments, this text aims to analyze the image the poet creates of himself as a Roman citizen within the Annals and, therefore, how his persona is self-represented. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to propose a new and more satisfactory context for a fragment from one of Ennius’ tragedies preserved in Cicero and discussed by a late scholiast on the Ciceronian passage. It will be shown that the scholiast, or more likely the source upon which he drew, had in front of him a bit more of the Ennian passage than the partial line preserved in Cicero and that the scholiast drew a false conclusion concerning the (...) identity of one of the interlocutors from the way in which one speaker addressed the other. Previous scholars have sought to remove the inconsistency in the scholiast's sketch of the scene either by changing the locale of the dialogue or by correcting the scholiast's identification of the out-of-place speaker. It will be shown that a more productive line of investigation is to seek to discover the underlying cause of the scholiast's apparent error. The identification of the cause not only sheds light on the fate of Ennius’ text in Late Antiquity but permits us to restore, by means of conjecture, an additional word to the corpus of Ennius’ tragedies, a word that is a favourite of his in the Annales, but until now has not been attested in a Roman tragedy before the age of Seneca. (shrink)

The contents of the sixth book of Ennius' Annals have recently become a matter of dispute. Ever since Columna's edition it had been assumed that the book was entirely given over to the story of the war against king Pyrrhus . That view was based on the anecdote told by Quintilian 6.3.6, that Cicero, asked to say something de Sexto Annali, a witness in a law case, replied: ‘Quis potis ingentis oras euoluere belli’. It seems as good as certain (...) that this was the first line of Book VI, and belli was taken by all as referring to the Pyrrhus war. According to Dr T. Cornell, however, ‘unrolling the mighty scroll of war’ means that the poet is now going to describe warfare on the grand scale, thus setting the sequence of the third Samnite War, the Pyrrhus War, and the second Punic War against the minor wars described in the first five books. I doubt if Ennius would have felt that the early Latin war with the story of Lake Regillus, the capture of Veii, the Allia, the fall of Rome to the Gauls, and the second Samnite war were minor wars; but I am certain that bellum in the singular, except in contrast to the notion of pax, cannot refer to war in a general sense, covering a plurality of wars. (shrink)

This article argues that the discovery of Pythagorean volumes in Numa's tomb in 181 b.c. may have played a significant role in the conception of the meeting between Numa and Pythagoras in the last book of Ovid's Metamorphoses, since several features of this event integrate very well into the discourse at the heart of Book 15 on the Greek origins of Roman culture and literature, on the immortality of poetry, and on the relationship between poetry and power. The article further (...) argues that Ennius’ Annals Book 15 may have covered the events up to 179, if that really was the year of Nobilior's dedication of the Aedes Herculis Musarum, and included the discovery of Numa's books in 181; and hence that Ovid may have used the Ennian account of this discovery as a model for the Numa–Pythagoras episode, appropriating the poetic and political meaning that it already had in Annals Book 15. (shrink)

‘The last stanza of Horace's poem’, writes Denis Feeney of Hor. Carm. 3.3, ‘declares virtually outright that he has just been “quoting” epic matter: “desine peruicax | referre sermones deorum et | magna modis tenuare paruis” ’. A poem that recounts the doings of gods automatically demands comparison with epic, but if the speeches of gods are presented, all the more so. Horace's poem in fact evokes an episode within a specific epic poem, the Council of the Gods that occurred (...) during the first book of Ennius’ Annales. But such divine councils are a ‘stock epic scene’, and rather more than that: they are moments when epic is at its most quintessentially epic. In simple terms, an epic poet ‘may underline the significance and increase the dramatic effect’ of a critical point in the narrative ‘by showing us that it exercised the gods’, and that analysis applies to any divine presence in a poem: if a key impulse of epic is to amplify the significance of human activity, those occasions when higher forces overtly assert their control of human destiny satisfy a number of fundamental preoccupations of the genre. But in the Council of the Gods we have the most developed and impressive realization of this divine concern for mortal existence, as well as a topos that in Rome at least achieved special status within the broader field of divine machinery in epic. That status is perhaps reflected in a tendency discernible in the Roman section of the tradition for such councils to fall early in the epic narrative, as if initiating the epic plot. If so, however, Virgil's Council at Aen. 10.1–117 defies expectation by failing to be convened until the plot of the epic is very far advanced indeed, and even then, as this article will consider, achieving strikingly less than one might expect of a plenary gathering of supernatural powers at an advanced stage in an epic narrative. (shrink)

In Corp. Gloss. Lat. V. 435–490 Goetz published excerpts from the A A glossary. Further interesting items were published by C. Theander in Eranos XXIII 51–61, 167–176. The complete glossary is now being prepared for the press, and Professor W. M. Lindsay has kindly communicated to me some of the new items which may possibly contain quotations from classical authors. The most interesting of them is the following: MA 2 ‘Mabortia res quae ad pugnam pertinet unde moenia funduntur vel res (...) Martia.’. (shrink)

In C.Q. xxiii. 2 Dr. C. M. Bowra examined the Ennian phrases in the Aeneid which Virgil adopted but transformed. Bowra, whose object was to investigate the reasons which led Virgil to make slight changes in these echoes, naturally had nothing to say about those borrowings which remained unaltered in Virgil. Of these, perhaps the most striking is the allusion to Q. Fabius Maximus Cunctator in v. 846 above. The following points can be noted about the line: 1. It is (...) not a subconscious, or apparently purposeless, reminiscence of familiar words, a habit of which the best-known example is Aen. vi. 460, invitus, regina, tuo de litore cessi, cf. Cat. lxvi. 39. (shrink)

Among the difficulties in Propertius is the question whether to retain ‘cecinit’ in 3. 3. 7 or to adopt the conjecture ‘cecini’. Propertius dreamed that he was reclining upon Helicon in a grove by Hippocrene and that he was able to compose a Roman historical epic: Visus eram molli recubans Heliconis in umbra, Bellerophontei qua fluit umor equi, Reges, Alba, tuos et regum facta tuorum neruis hiscere posse meis, Paruaque tam magnis admoram fontibus ora Vnde pater sitiens Ennius ante (...) bibit, Et cecinit Curios fratres et Horatia pila Regiaque Aemilia uecta tropaea rate Victricesque moras Fabii pugnamque sinistram Cannensem et uersos ad pia uota deos Hannibalemque Lares Romana sede fugantes, Anseris et tutum uoce fuisse Iouem, Cum me Castalia speculans ex arbore Phoebus Sic ait… According to the paradosis 7–12 constitute a summary of Ennius' Annales. In that I case Propertius' failure to observe historical sequence is peculiar; nor is it defended securely by I supposedly parallel passages. More damaging, however, is that 8 must describe the triumph of L. Aemilius Paullus in 167, two years after the accepted date of Ennius' death. Hertzberg and Postgate claimed that it alludes to the defeat of Demetrius of I Pharos by a L. Aemilius Paullus in 219 ; this is unlikely for some of the same reasons as the rival theory of Butler and Barber, which has found many adherents, that it refers to the victory over Antiochus' navy by L. Aemilius Regillus at Myonnesus in 190. (shrink)

Although we do not know the philosophical source these scholia derive from , there can hardly be any doubt that we have here a new Pythagorean fragment which communicates basic notions about metempsychosis. Pythagoras is criticized for representing the soul as afflicted by pain and grief when it leaves the body before entering a new one. The reasons given for its distress need not detain us here, but this new Pythagorean fragment clearly offers a conclusive solution to the vexed question (...) of Homer's tears in Ennius, alluded to in Lucretius 1.120ff. (shrink)

This note adduces corroborating evidence for Skutsch's ascription of Enn.Ann. 5 to a description of the water cycle in the speech of Homer in the proem to theAnnales. Despite the flawed argumentation in Skutsch's presentation and despite a general reluctance among scholars to endorse his ascription, this note argues that his solution should remain part of the scholarly discussion, not least because there are aspects of Skutsch's argument that remain uncontested and because Lucretius seems to endorse this location of the (...) fragment in the originalAnnales. (shrink)