The Student’s Companion to Latin Authors

by

GEORGE MIDDLETON, M.A.

LECTURER IN LATIN, ABERDEEN UNIVERSITY; LATE SCHOLAR OF EMMANUEL COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE

AND

THOMAS R. MILLS, M.A.

LATE LECTURER IN GREEK, ABERDEEN UNIVERSITY, AND CLASSICAL LECTURER, OWENS COLLEGE, MANCHESTER; FORMERLY SCHOLAR OF WADHAM COLLEGE, OXFORD

WITH AN INTRODUCTORY NOTE BY

PROF. W. M. RAMSAY, D.C.L., LL.D.

ABERDEEN UNIVERSITY

London Macmillan and Co., Ltd. New York: The Macmillan Co. 1896

All rights reserved

GLASGOW: PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS BY ROBERT MACLEHOSE AND CO.

PREFACE

The object of this book is to give in a convenient form all the facts of importance relating to the lives and works of the principal Latin Authors, with full quotation of original authorities on all the chief points. It appears to us that these facts are not at present readily accessible; for the ordinary histories of literature are compelled to sacrifice much exact information to the demand for a critical appreciation of the authors. The latter aspect does not enter into the plan of this book, which may therefore, with advantage, be used side by side with any work of the kind indicated, the two supplementing one another. The authors have been, as far as possible, illustrated from their own works. Special attention has been paid to the great writers, as the book is meant for use in the upper forms of schools and by students at the Universities. We had collected a considerable amount of matter upon the minor authors, most of which it was thought advisable to omit, so as not to extend the book unduly. An attempt, however, has been made to retain the most important facts

about these, whenever they illustrated one of the great authors, or whenever it was thought that they ought to be in the hands of a student. We have attempted no treatment of early Latin as seen in inscriptions and the like, but have started with the first literary author, Livius Andronicus, and have gone down to Tacitus and the younger Pliny, dealing with each author by himself. A section has been added on Suetonius. A sketch of the chief ancient authorities on Roman writers is given at the end of the book, as well as a selected list of editions, which, without being exhaustive, will, we hope, be of service to the average student.

Apart from our own study of the authors, our principal authority has, of course, been the History of Roman Literature by Teuffel and Schwabe (translated by Prof. G. C. W. Warr), and we have made an extensive use of editions and monographs both English and foreign, which are mentioned where necessary. Ennius has been quoted from Vahlen’s edition, Plautus from the new edition of Ritschl, the fragments of the tragedians and comedians from Ribbeck, of Lucilius from L. Müller, and of the minor poets from Bährens, the minor historians from Peter’s Fragmenta, and Suetonius’ fragmentary works from Reifferscheid.

Some of our materials were originally prepared for the Humanity classes in Aberdeen University, and the Latin Literary Club in connexion with the Honours class. We have to thank some of our pupils for help and criticism, particularly Mr. A. Souter, of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, and Mr. A. G. Wright, of St. John’s College, Cambridge, the latter of whom prepared the materials for the article on Tibullus, and gave us some useful suggestions. We are specially indebted to Professor W. M. Ramsay, without whom the book would not have been written. Professor Ramsay has read nearly the whole of the work as it has passed through the press, and has all along given us invaluable assistance and advice. For any errors in the following pages we are, of course, solely responsible.

Aberdeen, September, 1896.

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

The authors ask me to write a word of introduction to their book; but an introduction is not needed when the book supplies a want and is trustworthy in what it says. As to the second point, the text will speak for itself. On the first, a word may be permitted about my own experience in lecturing. The young student of Latin Literature requires help in two ways. In the first place, he needs guidance in learning to recognize and appreciate the literary merit of the authors. Mr. Cruttwell’s, and, still better, Mr. Mackail’s book, will serve his purpose well. They are interesting to read, and they tempt him on to study for himself. Mr. Mackail’s book, especially, shows delicate literary feeling, and a remarkably catholic and true sense of literary merit. But, secondly, the student wants a clear statement of the facts, certain or probable, about the life of each author, the chronology of his works, and their relation to the circumstances and personages of the time. Neither of the books which I have named is satisfactory in this respect. Both

of them omit a large number of facts and theories which the student ought to have before him: Mr. Cruttwell occasionally even sinks to inaccuracy.

About three years ago I suggested to Mr. Middleton that he should try to fill up this gap with a book, in which he should bring together all the information that a student should have ready to his hand in reading the more familiar classical authors, that he should keep down the size of his book by omitting all that the student does not want, and that he should set before his readers the evidence on which each fact rests, so that they might be led to form opinions and judgments of their own. Teuffel-Schwabe’s great work contains a vast deal that the ordinary student does not want; and it does not contain a certain amount which will, I believe, be found in the present book, the materials for which have been gathered from a wide range of reading.

I am convinced that much can be done to stimulate and invigorate the young student’s feeling for Latin literature by helping him to feel for himself how each author’s words spring from his life, and conversely how facts and circumstances of his life can be elicited from his words. There will always remain doubts as to the facts and dates, e.g., in Horace’s or in Catullus’ life; but any reasoned theory has its interest, and is better for the pupil than no theory. The present book will, as I hope, be found useful as an aid to that method of teaching and of study, provided that both teacher and pupil bear in mind that it is a companion to other books—not a book complete in itself.

W. M. RAMSAY.

COMPANION TO LATIN AUTHORS

EARLY POETS AND PROSE WRITERS.

LIVIUS ANDRONICUS.

(1) LIFE.

L. Livius Andronicus, according to the poet Accius, was taken prisoner at the capture of Tarentum by Q. Fabius Maximus in B.C. 209, and exhibited his first play in B.C. 197.

Cic. Brut. 72-3, ‘Accius a Q. Maximo quintum consule captum Tarenti scripsit Livium annis xxx. postquam eum fabulam docuisse et Atticus scribit et nos in antiquis commentariis invenimus: docuisse autem fabulam annis post xi., C. Cornelio Q. Minucio coss. ludis Iuventatis, quos Salinator Senensi proelio voverat.’

But ancient evidence is unanimous that he was the first literary writer of Rome, and this is confirmed by his archaic language. Hence the statement of Cicero ibid., that Livius produced his first play in B.C. 240, must be accepted.

‘Atque hic Livius, qui primus fabulam, C. Claudio Caeci filio et M. Tuditano coss., docuit anno ipso antequam natus est Ennius; post Romam conditam autem quarto decimo et quingentesimo ... In quo tantus error Acci fuit, ut his consulibus xl. annos natus Ennius fuerit: cui si aequalis fuerit Livius, minor fuit aliquanto is, qui primus fabulam dedit, quam ei, qui multas docuerant ante hos consules, et Plautus et Naevius.’

Cf. Cic. Tusc. i. 3, and Gell. xvii. 21, 42.

Probably Accius, finding in his authorities that Livius was taken prisoner at the capture of Tarentum (i.e. in B.C. 272), wrongly thought of the second capture by Fabius. In spite of Cicero’s correction, the error of Accius was, we may infer, reproduced by Suetonius, and thus penetrated into Jerome, who says, yr. Abr. 1830 = B.C. 187, ‘T. [an error] Livius tragoediarum scriptor clarus habetur, qui ob ingenii meritum a Livio Salinatore, cuius liberos erudiebat, libertate donatus est.’

It is probable that Livius was the slave of C. Livius Salinator, the father of the victor of Sena (M. Livius Salinator), and taught the latter; for he must have been set free before B.C. 240, and the victor of Sena could hardly have been born earlier than B.C. 258. This connexion made M. Livius Salinator when consul, B.C. 207, select Livius Andronicus to prepare a hymn of expiation to the Aventine Juno, and, probably in the same year, to compose a hymn of thanksgiving for the success of Rome in the Hannibalic War. For his services the privileges of a guild were assigned to writers and actors.

Livy xxvii. 37, ‘Decrevere pontifices ut virgines ter novenae per urbem euntes carmen canerent ... conditum ab Livio poeta ... Carmen in Iunonem reginam canentes ibant illa tempestate forsitan laudabile rudibus ingeniis, nunc abhorrens et inconditum, si referatur.’

Fest. p. 333, ‘Cum Livius Andronicus bello Punico secundo scripsisset carmen quod a virginibus est cantatum, quia prosperius res publica populi Romani geri coepta est, publice attributa est ei in Aventino aedis Minervae, in qua liceret scribis histrionibusque consistere ac dona ponere, in honorem Livi, quia is et scribebat fabulas et agebat.’

Livius had a twofold reason for writing, (a) To assist him in his profession as a schoolmaster he published a translation of the Odyssey; (b) as an actor, he wrote the plays he acted, and afterwards published them.

Sueton. Gramm. 1, ‘Livium et Ennium ... quos utraque lingua domi forisque docuisse adnotatum est.’

Livy vii. 2, 8, ‘Livius ... qui ab saturis ausus est primus argumento fabulam serere, idem scilicet, id quod omnes tum erant, suorum carminum actor.’

(2) WORKS.

1. Tragedies.—From the scanty fragments extant and from the titles (Achilles, Aegisthus, and six others are known) we see that these were close imitations of Greek plays. Thus l. 38 (Ribbeck),

‘Quem ego nefrendem alui lacteam immulgens opem,’

is, according to Conington, a rendering of Aesch. Choeph. 883-4,

μαστὸν πρὸς ᾧ σὺ πολλὰ δὴ βρίζων ἅμα οὔλοισιν ἐξήμελξας εὐτραφὲς γάλα.

2. Comedies.—Slight fragments of three of these are extant.

3. A translation of the Odyssey in Saturnians.[1] This, though rough and incorrect, long remained a school-book. So Hor. Ep. ii. I, 69 sqq.,

‘Non equidem insector delendave carmina Livi esse reor, memini quae plagosum mihi parvo Orbilium dictare: sed emendata videri pulchraque et exactis minimum distantia miror.’

For examples of translation, of. Gell, xviii. 9, 5, ‘Offendi ... librum ... Livi Andronici, qui inscriptus est Odyssea, in quo erat versus primus ...,

“Virúm mihí Caména | ínsecé versútum,”

factus ex illo Homeri versu,

Ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, Μοῦσα, πολύτροπον.’

Fragments 2 and 3,

‘Meá puer, quid vérbi | éx tuo óre súpera fugít? neque ením te oblítus | Lértié, sum, nóster,’

represent Od. i. 64,

τέκνον ἐμὸν, ποῖόν σε ἔπος φύγεν ἕρκος ὀδόντων; πῶς ἂν ἔπειτ’ Ὀδυσῆος ἐγὼ θείοιο λαθοίμην;

NAEVIUS.

(1) LIFE.

Cn. Naevius’ dates can only be given approximately as B.C. 269-199. As he served in the First Punic War, he cannot in any case have been born later than B.C. 257. He was a Campanian by birth.

Gell. i. 24, 2, ‘Epigramma Naevi plenum superbiae Campanae, quod testimonium esse iustum potuisset, nisi ab ipso dictum esset,

“Inmortales mortales si foret fas flere, flerent divae Camenae Naevium poetam. Itaque postquam est Orci traditus thesauro, obliti sunt Romae loquier lingua Latina.”’

Naevius’ first play was produced B.C. 235; the fact that he served as a soldier shows that he was not an actor.

Gell. xvii. 21, 45, ‘Eodem anno (A.U.C. Dxix.) Cn. Naevius poeta fabulas apud populum dedit, quem M. Varro in libris de poetis primo stipendia fecisse ait bello Poenico primo, idque ipsum Naevium dicere in eo carmine, quod de eodem bello scripsit.’

In his plays he attacked the senatorial party, particularly the Metelli, and was imprisoned, but afterwards released.

Gell. iii. 3, 15, ‘Sicuti de Naevio quoque accepimus, fabulas eum in carcere duas scripsisse, Hariolum et Leontem, cum ob assiduam maledicentiam et probra in principes civitatis de Graecorum poetarum more dicta in vincula Romae a triumviris coniectus esset. Unde post a tribunis plebis exemptus est, cum in his, quas supra dixi, fabulis delicta sua et petulantias dictorum, quibus multos ante laeserat, diluisset.’

Pseud.-Asconius on Cic. in Verr. act. prior, 29. ‘Dictum facete et contumeliose in Metellos antiquum Naevii est, “Fato Metelli Romai fiunt consules,” cui tunc Metellus consul (B.C. 206) iratus versu responderat ..., “Dabunt malum Metelli Naevio poetae.”’

Cf. the contemporary reference in Plaut. Mil. 212,

‘Nam os columnatum poetae esse indaudivi barbaro,[2] quoi bini custodes semper totis horis occubant.’

For Naevius’ freedom of speech cf. his comedies, l. 113 (Ribbeck),

‘Libera lingua loquemur ludis Liberalibus’;

l. 108 (on Scipio),

‘Etiam qui res magnas manu saepe gessit gloriose, cuius facta viva nunc vigent, qui apud gentes solus praestat, eum suus pater cum palliod unod ab amica abduxit.’

Naevius was banished and went to Utica, where he died, probably about B.C. 199. It must have been after peace was concluded (B.C. 202), as otherwise he could have reached Utica only by deserting to the enemy.[3] Jerome gives B.C. 201, Cicero B.C. 204, although he says Varro put the date later. The verses on Scipio quoted above could hardly have been written before the battle of Zama.

Jerome yr. Abr. 1816 = B.C. 201, ‘Naevius comicus Uticae moritur, pulsus Roma factione nobilium, ac praecipue Metelli.’

Cic. Brut. 60, ‘His consulibus (B.C. 204), ut in veteribus commentariis scriptum est, Naevius est mortuus; quamquam Varro noster, diligentissimus investigator antiquitatis, putat in hoc erratum vitamque Naevi producit longius.’

(2) WORKS.

1. Tragedies.—There are extant seven titles and a very few fragments.

2. Comedies.—There are titles of about thirty-four palliatae,[4] and upwards of one hundred and thirty lines extant.

Naevius seems to have adopted contaminatio[5] in his plays. Ter. Andr. prol. 15,

‘Id isti vituperant factum atque in eo disputant contaminari non decere fabulas ... qui quom hunc accusant, Naevium Plautum Ennium accusant.’

3. Praetextae.—Tragedies on Roman subjects, ‘Clastidium’ and ‘Romulus.’ The praetexta was invented by Naevius.

4. Bellum Punicum, an epic poem in Saturnians, divided later into seven Books. About seventy-four lines are extant.

Sueton. Gramm. 2, ‘C. Octavius Lampadio Naevii Punicum bellum, uno volumine et continenti scriptura expositum, divisit in septem libros.’

Books i. and ii. contained the mythical origin of Rome and Carthage, Aeneas’ flight from Troy and his sojourn at the court of Dido in Carthage. In Book iii. the history of the First Punic War commenced. The work was imitated by Ennius and Virgil, sometimes closely by the latter. Cf. Servius on Aen. i. 198-207, ‘O socii,’ etc. ‘Et totus hic locus de Naevio belli Punici libro translatus est.’ Ibid. i. 273, ‘Naevius et Ennius Aeneae ex filia nepotem Romulum conditorem urbis tradunt.’

Macrob. Saturn. vi. 2, 31, ‘In principio Aeneidos tempestas describitur et Venus apud Iovem queritur.... Hic locus totus sumptus a Naevio est ex primo libro belli Punici.’

PLAUTUS

(1) LIFE.

Plautus’ full name, T. Maccius Plautus, was discovered by Ritschl in the Ambrosian (Milan) palimpsest, which gives, e.g. after the two plays named: ‘T. Macci Plauti Casina explicit’: ‘Macci Plauti Epidicus explicit.’ In Plaut. Merc. l. 6, the MS. reading Mactici was emended by Ritschl to Macci Titi; and in Asin. prol. l. 11, Maccius is the right reading. The MSS. read Maccus, which Bücheler (Rhein. Mus. 41, 12) takes to mean ‘buffoon,’ or ‘writer of comedies,’ from which Plautus took his family name, Maccius, on becoming a Roman citizen. ‘M. Accius,’ formerly supposed to be the name, is found in no MS., but ‘Accius’ is found in Epitome Festi, p. 239, which gives us the poet’s birthplace, Sarsina in Umbria, and suggests another derivation for his name: ‘Ploti appellantur, qui sunt planis pedibus, unde et poeta Accius, quia Umber Sarsinas erat, a pedum planitie initio Plotus, postea Plautus est dictus.’

In the corresponding passage of Festus, we have only ‘...us poeta, quia Umber,’ etc. The name of the poet is lost, and the epitomizer has doubtless made a mistake.

Sarsina is mentioned once by Plautus, Mostell. 770,

‘Quid? Sarsinatis ecquast, si Umbram non habes?’

The year of his birth can only be conjectured; he died B.C. 184.

Cic. Brut. 60, ‘Plautus P. Claudio L. Porcio coss. mortuus est.’

Jerome erroneously assigns Plautus’ death to yr. Abr. 1817 = B.C. 200, ‘Plautus ex Umbria Sarsinas Romae moritur, qui propter annonae difficultatem ad molas manuarias pistori se locaverat; ibi quotiens ab opere vacaret, scribere fabulas et vendere sollicitius consueverat.’

From this notice, and from the passage of Gellius below, we learn that Plautus lost in foreign trade the money he had made as an assistant to scenic artists, and had to work for his living in a flour mill at Rome, during which time he wrote plays, and continued to do so afterwards.

Gell. iii. 3, 14, ‘Saturionem et Addictum et tertiam quamdam, cuius nunc mihi nomen non subpetit, in pistrino eum scripsisse, Varro et plerique alii memoriae tradiderunt cum, pecunia omni, quam in operis artificum scaenicorum pepererat, in mercatibus perdita inops Romam redisset et ob quaerendum victum ad circumagendas molas, quae “trusatiles” appellantur, operam pistori locasset.’

We conclude from these varied employments that Plautus can hardly have been less than thirty years old when he began to write plays. His intimacy with the Scipios (Cic. de Rep. iv., apud Augustin. Civ. D. ii. 9), who fell in Spain B.C. 212, leads to the conclusion that he must have been well established as an author by that date, though none of his plays can be proved to have been written so early. If we suppose that his career as a playwright commenced at thirty, and that his acquaintance with the Scipios lasted ten years, the year of his birth must have been about B.C. 254. This view is supported (1) by the notice in Cic. Brut. 73, that Plautus had produced many plays by B.C. 197; (2) by Cic. Cato maior, 50, ‘quam gaudebat ... Truculento Plautus, quam Pseudolo,’ where Plautus is said to have written these plays as senex. Now the Pseudolus was written B.C. 191; and therefore, as a man could not be called senex till he was at least sixty, his birth must have been not later than B.C. 251.

Plautus is said to have written his own epitaph.

Gell. i. 24, 3, ‘Epigramma Plauti, quod dubitassemus an Plauti foret, nisi a M. Varrone positum esset in libro de poetis primo:

“Postquam est mortem aptus Plautus, Comoedia luget, Scaena est deserta, ac dein Risus, Ludus Iocusque, et Numeri innumeri simul omnes conlacrimarunt.”’

(2) WORKS.

Plautus’ plays were early criticized as to their genuineness. Gell. iii. 3, 1-3, after mentioning the canons of Aelius Stilo, Sedigitus, etc., says that Varro admitted twenty-one plays which were given by all the canons, and added some more. ‘Nam praeter illas unam et viginti, quae Varronianae vocantur, quas idcirco a ceteris segregavit, quoniam dubiosae non erant, set consensu omnium Plauti esse censebantur, quasdam item alias probavit adductus filo atque facetia sermonis Plauto congruentis easque iam nominibus aliorum occupatas Plauto vindicavit.’