In reviewing Ellis' OCT of Catullus, Housman scorned the ‘diction and metre’ of Carm. 64.37, ‘Pharsaliam coeunt, Pharsalia tecta frequentant’. Yet several subsequent editors have agreed with Ellis and have also refrained from emending Pharsaliam. Even if there has not been enough discomfort with the MS reading to put some editors off retaining it, they might yet welcome a piece of positive evidence to support this decision. I will make the case that a passage in Statius' Achilleid may indicate that (...) the later poet was familiar with the line as the MSS have it. (shrink)

Provoked by Tom Geue’s recent book Author Unknown (2019), this article argues that a close reading of Calpurnius Siculus’ fourth Eclogue provides significant information about how and where the poet expected his poem to be received by its audience. Read against Vitruvius’ description of painted porticos and Diomedes’ account of the ‘common kind’ of poetry, in which ‘the poet himself speaks and speaking characters are also introduced’, the text was evidently designed to be presented as a performance, probably (...) in the imperial property on the Palatine. (shrink)

In 135b.c., unable to endure the treatment of their master Damophilus, a group of slaves, urged on by the wonder-worker Eunus, captured the city of Enna in Eastern Sicily in a night-time raid. The subsequent war, according to our sources the largest of its kind in antiquity, raged for three years, destroying the armies of Roman praetors, and engaging three consecutive consuls in its eventual suppression. The success of the rebels in holding out for years against a progression of Roman (...) armies indicates the importance of the event, and the capabilities of their leaders. One expects the man capable of leading such a revolt to have been exceptional, and in this respect the ancient accounts do not disappoint: in a narrative replete with larger-than-life characters, ranging from the depraved slave-owner Damophilus (Diod. Sic. 34/5.2.10, 35–8) to the restrained Roman consul Calpurnius Piso (Val. Max. 4.3.10), one figure stands out in Diodorus Siculus' depiction: the leader of the slaves. This man, Eunus, whom Diodorus describes as the leader of the event he calls the (first) Sicilian Slave War, has been variously interpreted in modern scholarship. Analyses have fallen into two (not mutually exclusive) categories. On the one hand, the hostile and outlandish account of Diodorus is accepted uncritically, with the details of Eunus' character understood as faithful, historical representations. On the other hand, the negative facets of Eunus' character are reinterpreted in a positive historical context, thereby outlining his suitability and capability to lead such a large and successful insurgency against Rome. Indeed, Urbainczyk recently argued that despite the difficulties in saying anything definite about the leaders of the so-called Sicilian Slave Wars ‘[Diodorus] attributed to [Eunus] all the powers, abilities, wisdom, and cunning that challenges to the status quo had to have in order to succeed’. (shrink)

Chapters 114 and 115 of Diodorus Siculus Book 17 give rise to impressive difficulties, considering their relative brevity. At the beginning of Chapter 113 Diodorus has announced the opening of the year 324/3 —the last year of Alexander the Great's life. Alexander by then has already, at the end of the previous year, taken the fateful step of entering Babylon: wounded in his soul by Chaldaean prophecy, Diodorus says, but healed by Anaxarchus and the philosophical corps of the Macedonian (...) army. The new year, 324/3, begins with Alexander dealing with diplomatic missions from three continents; and then, at the beginning of Chapter 114, Diodorus brings in the funeral of Hephaestion. (shrink)

Diodorus Siculus has not enjoyed a positive reputation among historians of antiquity. Since the nineteenth century hisBibliothēkēhas been dismissed as a derivative work produced by an incompetent compiler, useful often only in so far as one can mine his text for lost and, evidently, far superior works of history. Diodorus’ own input into theBibliothēkēhas been dismissed as the clumsy intervention of ‘a small man with pretensions’. In one of the sharpest expressions of the traditional view, Diodorus is not a (...) historian but ‘a mere epitomizer and an incompetent one at that’. In recent years voices of dissent have spoken up, determined to investigate Diodorus’ own contribution to ancient historiography. Their contributions have been notable for their desire to study and understand Diodorus on his own terms or to problematize his derivative use of his sources. Sacks, in particular, has argued that Diodorus’ voice can be heard in nearly every proem, a feature that occurs regularly in the text, and that Diodorus’ own views structure his analysis of historical events copied from other authors. (shrink)

It has been customary to believe that apart from selection and abridgement Diodorus Siculus made little contribution to his Scholars have admitted the contribution of Diodorus himself when he refers to his native town Agyrium with some pride and to Sicily in general and when he occasionally records details of his own life. Beyond statements of this character, however, the tendency has been to assume that the origin of any particular statement is to be sought in the single source (...) which Diodorus was currently using, or, as others would argue, in the major source supplemented by a subsidiary source, or, as Tarn would postulate for 17, the medley of sources used by the Sicilian historian. An examination of the attribution of one item in 17 may throw some light on Diodorus as an historian. (shrink)

According to Plutarch (Sert. 7.1–2) and Sallust (Hist. 1.83–4), a certain P. Calpurnius Lanarius killed L. Livius Salinator, a member of Sertorius’ staff in charge of military operations in the Pyrenees, in the early stages of the Sertorian War (82–72 b.c.). Through the analysis of the verb δολοφονέω in Plutarch's and St. Jerome's use of Sallust's Histories, this article seeks to demonstrate that Lanarius was an exile of the Sullan regime who treacherously assassinated his superior Salinator. The article puts (...) forward the suggestion—not hitherto considered—that Lanarius was one of those proscribed. (shrink)

It has been customary to believe that apart from selection and abridgement Diodorus Siculus made little contribution to his Scholars have admitted the contribution of Diodorus himself when he refers to his native town Agyrium with some pride and to Sicily in general and when he occasionally records details of his own life. Beyond statements of this character, however, the tendency has been to assume that the origin of any particular statement is to be sought in the single source (...) which Diodorus was currently using, or, as others would argue, in the major source supplemented by a subsidiary source, or, as Tarn would postulate for 17, the medley of sources used by the Sicilian historian. An examination of the attribution of one item in 17 may throw some light on Diodorus as an historian. (shrink)

Recent months have brought forth a new edition of Nemesianus and a 294-page study of the textual tradition that he shares with Calpurnius. The edition, prepared by P. Volpilhac for Budé , offers nothing new on the tradition beyond reports of a few manuscripts known to previous editors; but Luigi Castagna's book I bucolici latini minori: una ricerca di critica testuale makes an earnest attempt at solving once and for all the problems that survived the last contribution of any (...) weight, Giarratano's edition . Though most of what Castagna says is true, however, his readers may be cushioned against the sharper points by an undue amount of padding, which also fails to hide gaps. Before he proceeds to his own edition of Nemesianus, therefore, a few things can usefully be said. (shrink)

Recent months have brought forth a new edition of Nemesianus and a 294-page study of the textual tradition that he shares with Calpurnius. The edition, prepared by P. Volpilhac for Budé, offers nothing new on the tradition beyond reports of a few manuscripts known to previous editors; but Luigi Castagna's book I bucolici latini minori: una ricerca di critica testuale makes an earnest attempt at solving once and for all the problems that survived the last contribution of any weight, (...) Giarratano's edition. Though most of what Castagna says is true, however, his readers may be cushioned against the sharper points by an undue amount of padding, which also fails to hide gaps. Before he proceeds to his own edition of Nemesianus, therefore, a few things can usefully be said. (shrink)

The theme of the second declamation of Calpurnius Flaccus is ‘Matrona Aethiopem peperit. Arguitur adulterii’. In one of the excerpts , the accuser is arguing that for a white woman with a white husband to produce a black child is certain proof of adultery, for individual races have fixed physical characteristics to distinguish them. I give the text as argued for by W. S. Watt.