23 April 2024: We are investigating problems with ecommerce on Cambridge Core. We apologise for any inconvenience and hope to have full functionality restored shortly.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
J. M. C. Toynbee's study ‘Nero Artifex: the Apocolocyntosis Reconsidered’, C.Q. xxxvi, 1942, 83–93, has the double merit of questioning what had never been questioned—the dating of the Apocolocyntosis about A.D. 54–5—and of making many valuable observations on the importance of the Neronia of A.D. 60. But the attempt to transfer to these Neronia the Apocolocyntosis, the Carmina by Calpurnius, the second of the Carmina Einsiedlensia, and, to a certain extent also, Lucan's De Bello Civili, seems to me, if I may anticipate my conclusions, entirely misleading.
page 96 note 1 Cf. in general Schanz-Hosius, ii; Morelli, C., ‘Nerone poeta e i poeti intorno a Nerone’, Athenaeum, ii, 1914, 117Google Scholar; Münscher, K., ‘Senecas Werke’, PhiloL., suppl. xvi. I, 1922, 53Google Scholar; Faider, P., ‘La Vie littéraire à Rome sous le règne de Néron’, Èlud. Class iii, 1934, 3Google Scholar, and the bibl. of CAH x and xi.
page 96 note 2 BMC Imp. Coins, i. 251 ff.
page 96 note 3 Cf. Harv. Theol. Rev. xxix, 1936, 125Google Scholar; whereas Wissowa, G., Rel. u. Kuiius 2, p. 453, n. 3Google Scholar, refrains from dating these ludi. Cf. Fink, R. o., Yale Class. Stud, vii, 1940, p. 62, n. 167Google Scholar; Instinsky, H. U., ‘Kaiser und Ewigkeit’, Hermes, lxxvii, 1942, p. 329Google Scholar, who identifies these ludi and the Neronia, and also, in general, Sauter, F., Derrōm. Kaiserkult bei Martial und Statius, 1934, 116Google Scholar; Robert, L., Étud. Épigr. 1938, 111–12Google Scholar.
page 96 note 4 Pace Préchac, F., Rev. Ét. Lai. x, 1932, 91Google Scholar; xi, 1933, 344, with the bibl. there quoted, in favour of 54–5, and Herrmann, L., Rev. ét. Ane. xxxvi, 1934, 353Google Scholar, who suggests the absurd date 58; also Vallette, P., Mélanges Thomas, 1930, 687Google Scholar, is not persuasive, but Faider, P., Études sur Sénéque, 1921, 209Google Scholar, and Sénèque, De la Clemence, i, 1928Google Scholar, Introduction, is sound.
page 96 note 5 Cf. also Renard, M., ‘Suétone et I'Apoc.’ Rev. beige phil. hist. xvi, 1937, 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar(wrong) and Scott, K., Am. Journ. Phil. Iii, 1931, 66CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
page 97 note 1 On the text Leo, F., Die griech. -rötn. Biographie, p. 13, n. 6Google Scholar; cf. also Schanz, M., GRL ii. 2, 3 ed., 1913, p. 104Google Scholar; Schanz-Hosius, ii. 495, and Glaeser, F., Quaestiones Suetonianae, diss. Breslau, 1911, 28 ffGoogle Scholar.
page 97 note 2 Cf. Nock, A. D., CR xl, 1926, 17Google Scholar.
page 97 note 3 Cf. , Suet.Claud. 46Google Scholar; Pliny, , N.H. 2. 92Google Scholar; Dio, 60. 35. I. The point was definitely settled by Postgate, J. P., CR xvi, 1902, 38Google Scholar. Hubaux, J. in Mél. Thomas, 1930, 451Google Scholar, and ‘Les Thèmes 4599.11 bucoliques dans la poésie latine’, Mém. Ac. Belgique, xxix, 1930, 206 ff.Google Scholar, tried to substantiate the hypothesis that the comet was that of A.D. 60 (cf. Tac. 14. 22; , Suet.Nero, 36Google Scholar; , Sen.N.Q. 7. 17. 2Google Scholar; 21. 3; 29. 2) but, among other things, he had to declare spurious the first three lines of the eclogue (cf. also his paper in Rev. beige phil. hist. vi, 1927, 603)Google Scholar. His attempt did not survive Herrmann's, L.criticism in Rev. beige phil. hist. x. 1931, 145CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
page 98 note 1 Typical is Cesareo, E., La poesia di Calpurnio Siculo, Palermo, 1931, 194Google Scholar.
page 98 note 2 Mé. Girard, 1912, i, 123; Corso, ii. 2, 1928, p. 100.
page 98 note 3 Treasure Trove in Law and Practice, 1936, 19–20.
page 98 note 4 Cf. Rev. Étud. Anc. xv, 1913, 49Google Scholar, and Philol. lxxxvii, 1932, 268Google Scholar.
page 98 note 5 Cf. Lösch, S., Die Einsiedler Gedichte, diss. Tübingen, 1909, 41Google Scholar. Herrmann, L., Mél. Thomas 432Google Scholar, offers mere speculations.
page 99 note 1 Cf. for instance Lucan, I. 598, and in general Thes. L. L. vi. 289. Bucheler's opinion ap. Senecae Epp., ed. Hense, O., p. 542Google Scholar.
page 99 note 2 The Pedius of 1. 85 I believe with Conington and others to be a mixture of the advocate named by Horace, Sat. 1.10. 28, with the Pedius Blaesus of Tac. 14. 18 (A.D. 59). Maenas et Attis of 1. 105 can hardly be dissociated from Dio, 61. 20. 2 (A.D. 59) έκιθαρώϬηϬέ Τε ÂΤινΤ ιγàή B áκхаςò A ǔγονστος. But, of course, neither point is certain. Mere speculations, for instance, in Kukula, R. C., Persius u. Nero, Festschrift Graz, 1923 (118 pages)Google Scholar; Herrmann, L., Rev. ét. Lat. vi, 1928, 313Google Scholar; id., Rev. it. Anc. xxxiv, 1932, 259 (where, however, the date of Sat. i is right as against the impossible chronology defended by Cartault, A., Rev. Phil, xlv, 1921, 66)Google Scholar; Bardou, H., Rev. Ét. Lat. xiv, 1936, 337Google Scholar. Sober opinions in Haguenin, E., Rev. Phil., N.S. xxiii, 1899, 301Google Scholar; Gaar, E., Wien. Stud, xxxi, 1909, 236Google Scholar; Leo, F., Hermes, xl, 1910, 45Google Scholar; Villeneuve, F., Essai sur Perse, 1918, 185Google Scholar; Hendrickson, G. L., Class. Phil. xxiii, 1928, 97CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lienhart, G., Tiberius … Nero, quid extra munera imperatoria scripserint, diss. Freiburg, 1934, 44Google Scholar.
page 99 note 3 It would be interesting to know whether the Elegiac in Maecenatem (Vollmer, F., PLM, i. 145)Google Scholarare earlier than Seneca, ep. 91 and 114, and whether there is a direct connexion between the two writers. Though there is something to be said for Eleg. I being an answer to Seneca (cf. especially Axelson, B., Eranos, xxviii, 1930, 23)Google Scholar, no certain argument has yet been offered. For the Neronian or post-Neronian date, see also Middendorf, J., Elegiae in Maecenatem, diss. Marburg, 1912, 14 ff.Google Scholar; Martini, E., Einleitung zu Ovid, Prag, 1933, 67Google Scholar; Steele, R. B., The Nux, Maecenas and cons, ad Liviam, Nashville, Tennessee, 1933, 63Google Scholar. For the earlier, more probable date see especially Skutsch, P. -W. iv. 945; Ellis, R., The Elegiae in Mate, London, 1907Google Scholar; Vollmer, F., SB. Bayer. Ak., 1918, 4. 9 ffGoogle Scholar. (other bibliography in Middendorf and Martini).
page 100 note 1 The latest interpretation by Highet, G. ‘Petronius the Moralist’, T.A. Phil. Ass. lxxii, 1941, 176Google Scholar, had been anticipated by Schissel, O.. Fleschenberg, V., Wiener Studien, xxxiii, 1911, 264Google Scholar, especially 272.
page 100 note 2 Paoli, U. E., St. It. Fil. CL., N.S., xiv, 1937, 3Google Scholar; xv, 1938, 43; Studio, et documenta historiaeet iuris, ii, 1936, 368; Riv. Fil. Class., N.S., xvi, 1938,13, and Biscardi, A., St. It. Fil. Cl. xv, 1938, 78Google Scholarversus Funaioli, G., Bull. 1st. Diritto Rom., N.S., iii, 1937, 385Google Scholar; St. It. Fil. Cl. xv, 1938, 197; Marmorale, E. V., Petronio nel suo tempo, Napoli, 1937Google Scholar; Gaselee, S., CR li, 1937, 232Google Scholar; Suss, W., Gnomon, 1938, 643Google Scholar; Helm, R., Phil. Woch., 1938, 420Google Scholar.
page 100 note 3 That this argument was first produced by N. Heinsius–cf. Burmann's Petronius, 1st ed., 1709, p. 282 (‘oblique hie Pallantem … perespecially stringit, ut reor’)–and not by Latte, K., Philol. lxxxvii. 1932, 266Google Scholar, I learned from E. Fraenkel. To him, the Camden Professor, and Mr. M. N. Tod I am indebted for other improvements in form and substance.
