the scholion to Lucan, “Bellum Civile” 8, 618 that is found in the “Adnotationes super Lucanum” is at first sight pointless, but it becomes immediately meaningful if we accept the idea that the scholiast commented the text by systematically comparing it with Livy’s narrative on those same events. This approach casts a new light on how these ancient commentators read Lucan and can be also useful to solve exegetical issues.

non, si Cambysae redeant et flumina Croesi,dicat ‘De nostro surge, poeta, toro’. In these two lines Propertius is proud to say that his puella would not dismiss him for the fabulous treasures of some dives amator. The problem is caused by the interpretation of Cambysae as given in all the manuscripts; it is difficult to understand both as a genitive singular and as a nominative plural. This form of the genitive is not, in fact, recorded before Apul. Fl. 15.12, and (...) the concurrent form Cambysis is even less common. Moreover, the Persian king Cambyses was not an example of opulence in Antiquity like the Lydian king Croesus, but of cruelty. The only passages where he is linked with the idea of richness are Apul. Mun. 26.13–15: Cambyses et Xerxes et Darius potentissimi reges fuerunt. Horum praepotentiam, quam ex opibus collegerant, lenocinium vitae effecerat celsiorem, and Juv. 14.328–31: Si nondum implevi gremium, si panditur ultra, | nec Croesi fortuna umquam nec Persica regna | sufficient animo nec divitiae Narcissi, | indulsit Caesar cui Claudius omnia, cuius | paruit imperiis uxorem occidere iussus, where we find apparently the same connection between Persian royalty and Croesus' richness that we read in Propertius' line. (shrink)

the scholion of the “Commenta Bernensia” to Lucan 8, 824–826 about the Sibylline oracle concerning the prohibition for the Romans to send a military contingent to Egypt reveals both the influence of late antique commentaries cum notis variorum and the presence of allegedly genuine details about the history of the late Roman republic from sources now lost.

In a passage of the Life of Nero concerning the emperor’s indecision over what to do after the revolt of the provincial armies, it can clearly be seen that there is an influence from an argumentative structure particular to a certain type of deliberative oratory, the suasoria triplex. This influence may be due simply to Suetonius’ familiarity with the declamatory exercises in vogue at the rhetorical schools, but some hints allow us to suppose the existence of a suasoria theme that (...) took as its subject this very episode in the life of the emperor. (shrink)

Persae et Magi omnes qui Persicae regionis incolunt fines ignem praeferunt et omnibus elementis ignem putant debere praeponi. The Persians and all the Magi who dwell in the confines of the Persian land give their preference to fire and think it ought to be ranked above all the other elements.Iulius Firmicus Maternus was a Latin writer who lived in the fourth centurya.d. In the 340s, following his conversion to Christianity, he wrote theDe errore profanarum religionum, which has been preserved only (...) in the tenth-century manuscript Vaticanus Palatinus Latinus 165. In this work he argues against the pagan cults, calling for the emperors to suppress them. The first sections are dedicated to the pagan worship of the natural elements: objects of a cult are water among the Egyptians, earth among the Phrygians, air among the Assyrians. The chapter we are dealing with, the fifth, is dedicated to fire, a central element of the Zoroastrian religion. Greek and Roman writers, pagans and Christians alike, were aware of this, and references to some sort of fire-cult among Persians are numerous in literature and are found as early as Herodotus. Just like Firmicus Maternus, some authors also state that the Magi worship fire as a god or divine element and that they conduct fire-related rituals. In Greek and Latin authors there is a view that the Magi, these specialists of the rituals of the Persian religion, were originally a Median tribe. As shown by the passages of Ammianus and Basil, such knowledge was also available to Firmicus Maternus’ contemporaries, and there do not appear to be particular differences in the way in which Greek and Latin authors viewed the Magi in Achaemenid and Sassanid times. Regrettably, one cannot know for certain which of these sources Firmicus Maternus knew. (shrink)