Bibliographie
Austin, R. G. (1971), P. Vergili Maronis Aeneidos liber primus. Oxford : Clarendon Press.
Austin, R. G. (1963), P. Vergili Maronis Aeneidos liber quartus. Oxford : Clarendon Press.
Axelson, B. (1944), Textkritisches zu Florus, Minucius Felix und Arnobius. Lund : Gleerups.
Baldwin, B. (1988), ‘Four Problems with Florus’, Latomus 47 : 134–42. DOI : https://www.jstor.org/stable/41540766
Benario, H. W. (1980), A Commentary on the Vita Hadriani in the Historia Augusta. Chico, CA : Scholar’s Press.
Berger, Ł. (2020), ‘Greeting in Roman comedy : register and (im)politeness’, JLL 19 : 145–78. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1515/joll-2020-2012
Bessone, L. (1990), ‘Floro : un retore storico e poeta’, ANRW II 34.1 : 80–117.
Bessone, L. (1996), La storia epitomata. Introduzione a Floro. Rome : L’Erma di Bretschneider.
Bessone, L. (2004), ‘Sallustio e Cicerone in Floro’, Patavium 12 : 21–42.
Birley, A. R. (1997), The Restless Emperor. New York and London : Routledge.
Bloomer, W. M. (2011), The School of Rome : Latin Studies and the Origins of Liberal Education. Berkeley and Los Angeles : University of California Press.
Boyle, A. J. and Dominik, W. J. (eds.), (2003), Flavian Rome. Culture, Image, Text. Leiden : Brill.
Caldelli, M. L. (1993), L’agon capitolinus : storia e protagonisti dall’istituzione domizianea al IV secolo. Rome : Istituto italiano per la storia antica.
Coleman, K. M. (1986), ‘The emperor Domitian and literature’, ANRW 2.32.5 : 3087–115.
Courtney, E. (2003), The Fragmentary Latin Poets. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
Curtius, E. R. (1953 European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages (trans. W. R. Trask). Princeton : Princeton University Press.
Dahlmann, H. (1965), ‘Florus Preis der “profession litterarum”’, Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 2 : 9–21 ( =Kleine Schriften (Hildesheim and New York), 253–65).
Damsté, P. (1912), ‘Ad P. Annii Flori fragmentum de Vergilio oratore an poeta’, Mnemosyne 40 : 145–6.
Di Giovine, C. (2020), Metafore e lessico della relegazione : studio sulle opere ovidiane dal Ponto. Rome : Deinotera editrice.
Dyck, A. (2020), A Commentary on Cicero De Divinatione II. Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press.
Dyck, A. (2004), A Commentary on Cicero, De Legibus. Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press.
Eussner, A. (1888), ‘Vindiciae’, Blätter für Bayerischen Gymnasialschulwesen 24 : 66–82.
Ferrari, G. R. F. (1987), Listening to the Cicadas : A Study of Plato’s Phaedrus. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Geue, T. (2019), Author Unknown : the Power of Anonymity in Ancient Rome. Cambridge : Harvard University Press.
Griset, E. (1952), ‘Note critiche a Floro II’, RSC 1 : 132–6.
Garzetti, A. (1964), ‘Floro e l’età adrianea’, in Athenaeum 42 : 136–56.
Hardie, A. (1983), Statius and the Silvae : Poets, Patrons and Epideixis in the Graeco-Roman World. Liverpool : F. Cairns.
Hardie, A. (2003), ‘Poetry and Politics at the Games of Domitian’, in Boyle, A. J., and Dominik W. J. (2003), 125–47.
Havas, L. (1993), ‘Réminiscences d’Horace chez Florus’, ACD 29 : 53–77.
Havas, L. (1997), P. Annii Flori opera quae exstant omnia. Debrecen : Kossuth Egyetemi Kiadó.
Haß, P. (1998), Der locus amoenus in der antiken Literatur : zu Theorie und Geschichte eines literarischen Motivs. Bamberg : Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Bamberg.
Helmreich, G. (1897), Rev. of Rossbach 1896, Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift 17 : 76–7.
Henderson, J. (1993), ’Be alert (your country needs lerts) : Horace, Satires 1.9. PCPS 39 : 67–93.
Henderson, J. (2004), Morals and Villas in Seneca’s Letters : Places to Dwell. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Hirzel, R. (1895), Der Dialog : ein literarhistorischer Versuch. Leipzig : Verlag von S. Hirzel.
Hudson, J. (2019), ‘The Empire in the Epitome : Florus and the Conquest of Historiography’, Ramus 48 : 54–81. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1017/rmu.2019.9
Jal, P. (1967), Florus. Œuvres I–II. Paris : Les Belles Lettres.
Janson, T. (1964), Latin Prose Prefaces : Studies in Literary Conventions. Stockholm : Almqvist and Wiksell.
Kaster, R. (1980), ‘Macrobius and Servius : Verecundia and the Grammarian’s Function’, HSCP 84 : 219–62. DOI : https://doi.org/10.2307/311051
Ker, J. (2004), ‘Nocturnal Writers in Imperial Rome : the Culture of Lucubratio’, CP 99 : 209–42. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1086/429195
Lana, I. (1951), ‘I ludi capitolini di Domiziano’, RFIC 29 : 145–60.
Landgraf, G. (1914), Kommentar zu Ciceros Rede pro Sex. Roscio Amerino. Leipzig : Teubner.
La Penna, A. (1956), ‘Due note sulla cultura filosofica delle Epistole oraziane’, in Studi italiani di filologia classica 27–8 : 192–201.
Laughton, E. (1964), The Participle in Cicero. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
Leeman, A. D. and Pinkster, H. (1981), De Oratore Libri III (1. Band : Buch I, 1–165). Heidelberg : Carl Winter.
Le Guin, U. K. (2008), Lavinia. Orlando : Harcourt.
Lendon, J. E. (2022), That Tyrant, Persuasion. Princeton : Princeton University Press.
Lévy, C. (1995), ‘Le mythe de la naissance de la civilisation chez Cicéron’, in S. Cerasuolo (ed.), Mathesis e philia : Studi in onore di Marcello Gigante, 155–68. Naples : Pubblicazioni del Dipartimento di Filologia Classica dell’Università degli Studi di Napoli.
Lévy, C. (2018), ‘De la rhétorique à la philosophie : Le rôle de la temeritas dans la pensée et l’oeuvre de Cicéron’, in G. M. Müller and F. Mariani Zini (eds.), Philosophie in Rom—Römische Philosophie ? Kultur–, Literatur– und philosophiegeschichtliche Perspektiven, 283–303. Berlin : De Gruyter.
Malcovati, H. (1972), (2nd) L. Annaei Flori quae exstant. Rome : Typis officinae polygraphicae.
Miodoński, A. (1892), ‘Miscellanea latina’, Abhandlungen der Krakauer Akademie, philologische Klasse 16 : 393–6.
Mommsen, T. (1861), ‘Handschriftliches’, RhM 16 : 135–47.
Montiglio, S. (2006), ‘Should the Aspiring Wise Man Travel ? A Conflict in Seneca’s Thought’, in AJP 127.4 : 553–86. DOI : https://www.jstor.org/stable/4496934
Morelli, C. (1916), ‘Floro e il certame capitolino’, A&R 19 : 97–106.
Nauta, R. R. (2002), Poetry for Patrons : Literary Communication in the Age of Domitian. Leiden : Brill.
Norden, E. (1932), ‘Antike Menschen im Ringen um ihre Berufsbestimmung’, Sitzungsberichte d. Preuß. Akad. D. Wiss. Philos.-his. Kl. XXXVII–LIII ( =1966 Kleine Schriften zum klassischen Altertum. Berlin : De Gruyter).
Peirano Garrison, I. (2020), Persuasion, Rhetoric, and Roman Poetry. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Richardson, J. S. (2000), ‘Tarraco in the Age of Trajan : the Testimony of Florus the Poet’, in J. González Fernández (ed.), Trajano Emperador de Roma, Rome : 427–50.
Ritschl, F. (1842), ‘Der Dichter Florus’, RhM 1 : 302–14, 479.
Renda, C. (2020), In brevi quasi tabella : immagini e strategie retoriche nella storiografia di Floro. Naples : Federico II University Press.
Rocchi, S. (2014), ‘Floro, Vergilius orator an poeta : un’ipotesi archeologica sull’ambientazione del dialogo presso il tempio di Augusto a Tarraco (con nuove note filologiche al testo)’, Rivista d’Arqueologia de Ponent 24 : 51–4.
Rocchi, S. (2020), P. Annio Floro, Virgilio : oratore or poeta ? Introduzione, testo critico, traduzione e commento. Berlin/Boston : De Gruyter.
Rossbach, O. (1896), L. Annaei Flori epitomae libri II et P. Annii Flori fragmentum de Vergilio oratore an poeta. Leipzig : Teubner.
Rossbach, O. (1909), ‘Florus n. 9 (L. Annaeus Florus)’, in RE VI 2 : 2761–70.
Schmidinger, F. (1894), ‘Untersuchungen über Florus’, Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie Suppl. 20 : 788–803.
Schofield, M. (2008), ‘Ciceronian dialogue’, in S. Goldhill (ed.), The End of Dialogue in Antiquity, Cambridge : 63–84.
Schönbeck, G. (1962), Der locus amoenus von Homer bis Horaz. (diss. Heidelberg)
Schmalz, J. H. (1909), ‘Si tamen’, Glotta 1.3 : 333–9.
Sinko, Th. (1903), ‘Coniectanea’, WS 25 : 158–60.
Syme, R. (1964), Sallust. Berkeley and Los Angeles : University of California Press.
Spencer, D. (2010), Roman Landscape : Culture and Identity (Greece & Rome New Surveysin the Classics 39) : Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Stangl, T. (1906), ‘Sprachliches zu “Florus Vergilius orator an poeta”’, Philologus 65 : 307–16.
Thomé, S. W. (1881) De Flori rerum scriptoris elocutione. Frankenstein : Hugo Lonski.
Verweij, M. (2014), ‘Florus, Vergilius orator an poeta. Een uniek handschrift in de Koninklijke Bibliotheek van België te Brussel’, Kleio. Tijdschrift voor oude talen en antieke cultuur 43.3 : 98–132.
Verweij, M. (2015), ‘Florus and his Vergilius orator an poeta. The Brussels manuscript revisited’, WS 128 : 83–105. DOI : https://www.jstor.org/stable/24752742
Walter, F. (1930), ‘Zu lateinischen Schriftstellern I.’, WS 48 : 75–82.
Woodman, A. J. and Kraus, C. S. (2014), Tacitus : Agricola. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Yunis, H. (2011), Plato : Phaedrus. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Haut de page
Notes
Cf. non aliter, si conferre paruis magna licet [‘just so, if one may compare great things with small’] Flor. Verg. 2.4 ~ non aliter, si parua licet componere magnis [‘just so, if one may compare small things with great’] Verg. G. 4.176, sic paruis componere magna solebam [‘Thus I used to compare great things with small’] Ecl. 1.23 (with my comparandum, Milton, Paradise Lost 2.921) ; and Lucr. 2.123–4, Ov. Tr. 1.3.25, 1.6.28, Met. 5.416, Stat. Silv. 1.5.61, 3.3.56, etc. ; see Otto 1008 s.v. magnus (cf. p. 267 : ‘paruus s. magnus’). On Florus’ comparison, see further below.
First edited in Ritschl (1842), following the discovery of the text in a single manuscript (MS 10615-729) in the Royal Library of Belgium in Brussels, first by Corneille-Pierre Bock, and then by Theodor Oehler. See Verweij (2015) 83 and Rocchi (2020) 13.
As a result, the (mis)treatment of VOAP by scholarship has resembled that of anonymous Latin texts, a trend so valuably countered by Geue (2019). This is, of course, paradoxical given the relative abundance of ‘authorial’ tidbits packed into the fragment.
And very likely of the surviving poems, as well as of the remains of letters to Hadrian ( =Char. p. 66.10 and 177.13, and p. 157.21 K). VOAP is attributed to [‘pannivs’ >] P. Annius Florus, the Epitome to Iulius Florus and L. Ann(a)eus Florus, the Carmina to Florus, and the Epistulae to Annius Florus and Florus. For details, see the discussion of Jal (1967) I cxi–cxiv, II 131–2, Baldwin (1988) 134–7, Bessone (1996) 132–4, 150–2, and now Rocchi (2020) 3–7. In this article I assume the following for Florus’ fl. : birth in (likely late) 70s CE, participation in the Capitoline Games of either 90 or 94 (less likely 86 ; puero VOAP 1.4), several years’ travel (VOAP 2.1–3), 4- or 5-year sojourn at Tarraco (quinquennio VOAP 3.3), dialogue of VOAP set soon after the Dacian triumph of either 102 or 107, exchange of verses with Hadrian (SHA Hadr. 16.3–4 =Flor. carm. 1) sometime after the emperor’s visit to Britain in 122.
Until, that is, Rocchi (2020), extending VOAP a truly warm welcome, at long last.
Text used is Rocchi (2020), with minor changes. VOAP’s opening words are likely garbled : intransitive Capienti is defended by Griset (1952) 134 n. 6 (‘Trovandomi’), and retained by Jal (1967) (doubtfully : ‘Comme je me promenais [?]’) and Verweij (2015), but it is unparalleled ; other editors substitute (Spatianti Mommsen (1861), Latenti Rossbach (1896), Vadenti Miodoński (1892), Incedenti Sinko (1903), Cogitanti Havas (1997) or supplement (<Otium> capienti Helmreich (1897), in templo <otium> Damsté (1912), mihi <leuamen> Walter (1930), mihi <quietem> Schopen). Otium capere is well-attested, and I follow Damsté here. See now the detailed discussion of Rocchi (2020) 51–3. Alternatively, perhaps our narrator really was trying to catch a wink : Capienti mihi in templo <somnum>.
On lucubratio, see Janson (1964) 97–8, 147–8 and Ker (2004). Florus may be the first to make a direct link between the exhausted, vegetative enjoyment of a locus amoenus and the vigilant exertions of the night before.
Capienti mihi <otium> (1.1) ~ si ita indulges otio (2.1) : a moment of private R&R abruptly shifts into laid back, good-mannered story-swapping—each are components and miniature versions of the leisure that is learned dialogue which comprises the entire work (we must imagine). Gauging the respectability of otium is always part of its meaning : even if Florus’ picture lays claim to legitimate leisure, the mild self-mockery of the opening groggy portrait bubbles up again in his characterization of the Egyptians as a people ‘always idle in temples’ (populum semper in templis otiosum 2.2). Crowded as it is with references to otium, the preface to Rep., especially the opening exchange between Scipio and Tubero at 1.14, must be somewhere in the background.
Mention of Baetica cannot help but conjure up a couple of far more imposing VIPs from Italica, Trajan and Hadrian. We might make out, as if through the Baetican’s ‘cloud’ (quasi per nubilum 1.2), a nod to the latter, who once used Florus’ adjective pereruditus (scarcely attested otherwise) to show up his exemplar Augustus in point of learning (tametsi … Augustus non pereruditus homo fuerit … [‘though A. was no deep scholar’] Char. GL 1.209K ~ uir, ut postea apparuit, litteris pereruditus 1.2 ; note a similar qualification in Cic. Att. 4.15.2, homo pereruditus, ut aiunt, et nunc quidem deditus Graecis litteris Pituanius [‘P., a real scholar, they say, and quite devoted of late to Greek literature’]). Gardens of Tarraco are, it so happens, the site of another testing run-in, this one of Hadrian, who coolly fights off an assassination attempt and delivers the apparently disturbed attacker to medical care (SHA Hadr. 12.5) ; cf. below.
The Epitome relishes spectactula (1.1.10, 1.5.4, 1.13.8, 1.28.12, 1.32.1, 1.38.10, 20, 21, 1.47.10).
See, most recently, the stimulating discussion of Peirano Garrison (2020) 236–40 and now the detailed commentary of Rocchi (2020).
‘Mit solcher Wärme spricht m. W. im gesamten Altertum kein Schulmeister von seinem Beruf wie dieser spanische unter dem Kaiser Traianus’ (Norden [1932] 567 n. 3) ; ‘Wir kennen nun seit Beginn der Kaiserzeit Lobeserhebungen der officia des Philosophen, des Rhetor, auch des Dichters, aber keiner sonst hat den Beruf des grammaticus, des Literaturprofessors an einer höheren Schule, so wie Florus in die gleiche Wertordnung mit diesen Berufen zu rücken gewagt, das Glück der Befriedigung durch ihn mit so hohen Worten dargestellt, im Preis seiner Aufgaben im Blick auf die Personen, an denen sich die Arbeit auswirkt, wie auch auf die Dinge, die diesen labor ausmachen.’ (Dahlmann [1965] 19) Other poets exhibit scorn and resentment of their childhood teachers : e.g., Horace’s plagosum … Orbilium (Ep. 2.1.70–1, cf. Suet. Gram. 9 with Kaster [1995]), allegedly deficient in both pedagogy and literary judgment, subjecting young students not only to blows but to… Livius Andronicus (cf. Bentley’s doubts, quoted by Brink [1982] 119–20, that a grammaticus could truly have had such poor taste as to make Livius a school text [conjecturing Laeui]—in other words, nodding along with Horace’s conflation of didactics and aesthetics).
Cf. Schofield’s (2008) 80 discussion of the preface to Div. 2 (possibly composed as a reaction to the assassination of Julius Caesar) : ‘Whether we should believe that or not, announcing half way through De Diuinatione that the current political crisis is threatening to disrupt the work of Cicero the author by necessitating the reappearance on the public stage of Cicero the statesman is a brilliant stroke – the perfect literary self-exemplification of the disruption.’
Each of the familiar examples in Herodotus (1.14.2 ἀληθέι δὲ λόγῳ χρεωμένῳ οὐ … ἐστὶ [‘but to tell the truth it is not...’]), Thucydides (1.1.3 ἐκ δὲ τεκμηρίων ὧν ἐπὶ μακρότατον σκοποῦντί μοι πιστεῦσαι ξυμβαίνει [‘but from the evidence which, inquiring as far back as possible, I happen to trust’], 1.10.5, 1.21.2), and Xenophon (Mem. 4.1.1 ὥστε τῷ σκοπουμένῳ τοῦτο καὶ εἰ μετρίως αἰσθανομένῳ φανερὸν εἶναι [‘that it was clear to one examining this with even moderate discernment’]) occurs in a context of the consideration of evidence ; none is really ‘prefatory’. The Ciceronian usage is pinned down by Laughton (1964) 36–8 in his discussion of the dative ‘reciprocal’ predicative participle, appearing in such basic complements as ‘ask—answer, request—give (grant, refuse), seek—find, say (deny, swear, promise)—believe (disbelieve, agree, disagree)’, and observable in early Latin (e.g., LY rogare hoc unum te uolo. PA rogitanti respondebo. [‘I want to ask you this one thing.’ ‘When you ask, I’ll answer.’] Plaut. Mer. 515).
Laughton (1964) 37 : ‘There is one form of the reciprocal pattern which Cicero made particularly his own. Here the complementary concepts are those of thinking, on the one hand, and getting an idea, on the other. Since the notion of thinking is intrinsically more durative than those of asking, promising &c., the concomitant value never disappears in this formula’. He notes its earliest appearance at Har. resp. 55, and then Cicero’s marked use of the topos in the opening sections of de Orat. 1 (four instances of reciprocal datives, two of which are of this new ‘concomitant’ type : cogitanti 1 and intuenti 6 (a re-prefacing : ac mihi quidem saepe numero … intuenti quaerendum esse uisum est [‘for my part, as I have often examined ... it has seemed to me worth inquiring’] ~ Cogitanti mihi saepe numero et memoria uetera repetenti perbeati esse … illi uideri solent [‘As I often consider and call to mind past times, those men seem to me to be extremely fortunate’]) vs. cupientibus atque exoptantibus 2, neque hortanti … neque roganti 4). This story could by complicated by (?)Quintus ‘thinking day and night about [his brother’s] electoral campaign’ (quae mihi ueniebant in mentem dies ac noctes de petitione tua cogitanti) prefacing the Commentariolum Petitionis : perhaps more likely for a post-de Orat. ‘fake’ think-piece to mime that so famous dialogue proem than for Cicero to have worked up a line from bro’s weird, non-confidential letter (of 64 BCE).
Cf. Laughton’s comments on the first sentence of de Orat. (37–8), as well as Leeman and Pinkster (1981) ad locc. Book 3 begins with similar marked syntax and authorial positioning (Instituenti mihi, Quinte frater, eum sermonem referre et mandare huic tertio libro … acerba sane recordatio ueterem animi curam molestiamque renouauit. [‘As I was setting out, brother Quintus, to recount these remarks and commit them to this third book ... a truly bitter reminiscence reawakened the former concern and distress in my heart’]). The topos can even be deployed on the smaller scale of a carefully written letter such as Fam. 7.3.1 (Persaepe mihi cogitanti de communibus miseriis in quibus tot annos uersamur et, ut uideo, uersabimur solet in mentem uenire illius temporis quo proxime fuimus una [‘As I very often consider the collective miseries in which we have been involved for so many years and, so far as I see, will be involved, I tend to recall the last time we were together’]) and, perhaps with gentle self-irony, Fam. 4.13.1 (Quaerenti mihi iam diu quid ad te potissimum scriberem non modo certa res nulla sed ne genus quidem litterarum usitatum ueniebat in mentem [‘As I have been pondering for a while now just what to write to you, not only has no particular thing come to mind, but not even a way of writing typical to correspondence’]). In both cases, the prefatory participle functions both to call up for the addressee the writer’s pre-epistolary presence and authorize correspondence. In a subtle way it extends the timespan of the letter and stamps the writer as in effect perpetually preparing to drop his correspondent a line.
This prominent beginning is itself a renovated version of Inv. 1.1 (Saepe et multum hoc mecum cogitaui… [‘I have often and deeply considered this...’ i.e., whether eloquence has more benefitted or harmed humanity] ; cf. … ac me quidem diu cogitantem ratio ipsa in hanc potissimum sententiam ducit … [‘and indeed as I have been considering this for a long time, reason itself leads me to this view’, i.e., that wisdom without eloquence doesn’t help, and eloquence without wisdom usually harms, and never helps]). The pattern of de Orat., with double participles, is later reiterated at Div. 2.1 (Quaerenti mihi multumque et diu cogitanti … nulla maior occurrebat [‘As I examined deeply and considered for a long time ... no greater way occurred to me’]), on which see Dyck (2020) 84, who notes the defense against temeritas as a particular concern of the Academics (comparing Lévy [1995] and [2018]). Cicero has Laelius ‘preface’ his own speech with the formula at Amic. 26 (saepissime igitur mihi de amicitia cogitanti maxime illud considerandum uideri solet ... [‘as I very often, therefore, contemplate friendship it seems to me that this especially should be considered...’]). Seneca adapts the pattern at De tranq. anim. 1 (Inquirenti mihi in me quaedam uitia apparebant, Seneca, in aperto apposita [‘As I examined myself, certain vices of mine appeared to me, Seneca, set out in the open’]). This pre-dialogue cogitation is later elaborated by Apuleius Mun. praef. (Consideranti mihi et diligentius intuenti ... uidebatur [‘As I considered and examined rather carefully ... it seemed to me’]) and, even more directly, by Minucius Felix Oct. 1 (Cogitanti mihi et cum animo meo Octaui boni et fidelissimi contubernalis memoriam recensenti—the first participle takes on a metaliterary shade here [‘As I contemplated and recalled the memory of my good and faithful companion, Octavius’]), Ps. Cypr. Ad Nouat. 1, and Lactant. Div. inst. 4.1.1. Cf. Jal (1967) II 106. For further examples, consider the extensive catalogues in Landgraf (1914) 142–3 and now Rocchi (2020) 52–3.
As perceptively noted by Rocchi (2020) 53.
Brut. 10 : nam cum inambularem in xysto et essem otiosus domi, M. ad me Brutus, ut consueuerat, cum T. Pomponio uenerat … [‘When I was strolling in my portico, free at home, Brutus stopped by, as he often did, together with Atticus...’].
[‘Never was a shade ... more sweet.’] G. F. Handel, Serse.
For Cicero’s bag of prefatory tricks, see Att. 16.6.4 and Schofield (2008) 76–7.
Rocchi (2020) presses hard, and plausibly, for the Augustan temple inside Tarraco, rather than a more traditional oceanside locale. See also Rocchi (2014).
Phdr. 230 b2–c5 (Socrates) : ἥ τε γὰρ πλάτανος αὕτη μάλ᾽ ἀμφιλαφής τε καὶ ὑψιλή, τοῦ τε ἄγνου τὸ ὕψος καὶ τὸ σύσκιον πάγκαλον … ἥ τε αὖ πηγὴ χαριεστάτη ὑπὸ τῆς πλατάνου ῥεῖ μάλα ψυχροῦ ὕδατος … εἰ δ᾽αὖ βούλει, τὸ εὔπνουν τοῦ τόπου ὡς ἀγαπητὸν καὶ σφόδρα ἡδύ· [This plane tree is very wide-spreading and tall, and the height and thick shade of the willow is very beautiful... Then again, if you like, how lovely and very pleasant the airiness of the place is’] (cf. 229 a7–b2) Alas, no cicadas, or pillowy grass, but note : Νυμφῶν τέ τινων καὶ Ἀχελῴου (‘sacred to some Nymphs and to Achelous’) ~ in templo and [ἡ πόα] ἱκανὴ πέφυκε κατακλινέντι τὴν κεφαλὴν παγκάλως ἔχειν (grass ‘thick enough to be just perfect for resting one’s head upon’) ~ caput … recreanti. See Yunis (2011) 95–6 on the passage, and Ferrari (1986). Cicero had already played up Plato’s plane when he had his characters get comfortable (on cushions) beneath its shady likeness (de Orat. 1.28–9) and transmuted a bit of the above leafiness into Latin (platanus … quae non minus ad opacandum hunc locum patulis est diffusa ramis quam illa cuius umbram secutus est Socrates [‘plane ... which extends its spreading branches to cover this spot no less than that whose shade S. sought’] ~ μάλ᾽ ἀμφιλαφής).
For discussions of the locus amoenus, see Curtius (1953) 183–202, Schönbeck (1962), and Haß (1998).
An Epicureanizing ( ?) Atticus, scoffing at the marble floors and coffered ceilings of lavish villas, no match for natural landscapes like this (fictionalized) one : ductus uero aquarum quos isti Nilos et Euripos uocant, quis non cum haec [the interlocutors’ present natural surrounds] uideat inriserit ? [‘who wouldn’t scoff at the channels they dub “Niles” and “Euripi” when they see this here ?’] (Leg. 2.2) Cf. Dyck (2004) ad loc.
Ep. 55.6 : platanona medius riuus et a mari et ab Acherusio lacu receptus euripi modo diuidit [‘A plane grove is split in the middle by a channel running into the sea and into Lake Acheron, like an euripus’]. See, bracingly, Henderson (2004) 62–92, esp. 81–2. E.g., Pliny’s itemized account of Caninius Rufus’ villa at Comum (Ep. 1.3.1), which includes, among a variety of other ingredients for a world-class private locus amoenus, a green and glittering channel (euripus uiridis et gemmeus ; textually abutting an appropriately super-shady planetation, platanon opacissimus) ; cf. Spencer (2010) 121. Given quasi-formulaic sequencing of plane-channel(/spring/stream, cf. Div. 2.63 sub platano umbrifera, fons unde emanat aquaï [‘Beneath an umbrageous plane, whence flowed a wellspring of water’], C’s rendering of Il. 2.299 ; Calp. Ecl. 4.2 ; Apul. Met. 1.19), and the strangeness of plurimarum arborum (Rocchi [2020] 57 digs up only Plin. Nat. 13.91 and Apul. Apol. 22.3), perhaps Florus really was going full Platonic : platanorum [arborum] amoenitate … ?
Ov. Ars 3.385 : gelidissima Virgo ; Seneca psychrolutes used to plunge into its frigid waters, Ep. 83.5. The euripus in the Circus Maximus was perhaps as well-known (D.H. Ant. 3.68.2), but had been filled in during the first century CE.
Fron. Aq. 84.3 ; Ov. Pont. 1.8.36–8 : nunc subit … stagnaque et euripi Virgineusque liquor [‘now the pools [Stagnum Agrippae] and canals [the Euripus] and the maiden’s water [Aqua Virgo] come to mind’].
Brut. 10 : cum inambularem in xysto (his in-home portico in Rome, apparently, cf. above) ; cf. Justin Dial. 1 : Περιπατοῦντί μοι ἕωθεν ἐν τοῖς τοῦ ξυστοῦ περιπάτοις [‘As I was walking early in the walkways of the portico’] (probably in Ephesus). Hence, e.g., Mommsen’s Spatiani mihi in xysto, picked up by Stangl (1906) 309–10. obuiam … quidam fuere does get along easier with a verb of motion (cf. the rest of the above clause in Justin, συναντήσας τις μετὰ καὶ ἄλλων [‘someone met me, together with others’]).
Admittedly, together with Plutarch’s De E apud Delphos and De defectu oraculorum (412d–413d). See Hirzel (1895) I 558 (on R.), II 66 (Florus) ; cf. Jal (1967) 117 ; accepted by Rocchi (2020) 53–4. The dialogue proper begins with Varro’s first-person account of his arrival at the aedes Telluris (1.2.1), having been summoned by the sacristan ; there he meets his fellow guests and interlocutors contemplating a wall-painting of Italia (in pariete pictam Italiam). See Spencer (2010) 71–3.
Or in order to defend the difficulty of in templo, or indeed to argue for a particular identification of the historical temple in question (Rocchi [2020] 54–5—however persuasively !).
Privileging Florus’ own account (vs. V. Max. 6.3.1 and Livy 2.41.10) of the temple’s foundation, the triumphant/appeasing work of P. Sempronius Sophus following his quake-tainted victory over the Picentes in 268 (qui tremente inter proelium campo Tellurem deam promissa aede placauit [‘who, when an earthquake took place during the battle, propitiated the goddess Tellus by vowing a temple’] Epit. 1.14.2). The feast meal (of Tellus’ feriae sementiuae), to celebrate which Varro’s interlocutors have gathered at the temple, is finally called off by the late announcement of the aeditumus’ shocking murder (1.69.2–3).
Indeed, perhaps he was influenced by the local habit (or stereotype) of not taking the Augustan cult too seriously : et Augustus, nuntiantibus Tarraconensibus palmam in ara eius enatam, ‘apparet’ inquit ‘quam saepe accendatis.’ [‘and Augustus said, when the people of Tarraco reported that a palm tree had grown on the altar dedicated to him, “That shows how often you light its fire.”’] Quint. 6.3.77 (a lighthearted roast, of course, but likely based on something). We might even speculate that Florus is meant to be lounging in the shade of the Augustan palm.
Hor. S. 1.9.1–2 [‘I happened to be moseying along the Sacred Way, as I do, mulling over some bit of nonsense, totally caught up in it’].
But looking closer, can you trace the tracks of Florus’ migraine (saucium uigilia caput 1.1) : worried sick (~ saucia cura Verg. A. 4.1), cruelly abandoned (~ uoluebat saucia curas Catul. 64.250) ?
accurrit quidam notus mihi nomine tantum | arreptaque manu ‘quid agis, dulcissime rerum ?’ [’somebody known to me only by name jogged up and grabbed my hand : ‘How goes it, my dear fellow ?’] See Henderson (1993) for an acute unravelling of the Horatian tête-à-tête.
The per-rare pereruditus is itself an erudite choice. Florus’ qualified phrasing is reminiscent of Cicero’s comment on a certain Pituanius (Att. 4.15.2, see above). For the probably ‘neoteric’ vibe, cf. Licinius Calvus’ ironic hendecasyllabic et talos Curius pereruditus (i.e., ‘with a doctorate in dicing’), at Asc. Tog. 84.3.
In VOAP 2 ; see my forthcoming related article.
Perhaps even a faux-gloomy hint of Cicero’s version of Simonides’ famous epitaph for the fallen at Thermopylae : Dic, hospes … (quoted at Tusc. 1.101). Tullius orator an poeta ? Some either/or questions are easier than others...
Dido’s re-use is noted by Austin (1963) 103, (1971) 226 ; also used of Aeneas by Dido at 4.10 (addressing Anna) ; hospes Acestes (5.63, 630) is the exception which proves the rule of Aeneas’ ‘recurrent epithet’ (Peirano Garrison [2020] 238).
Quasi is, like, a constant linguistic mannerism of the Epitome, appearing 123 times ! Cf. Florus ad diuum Hadrianum : quasi de Arabe aut Sarmata manubias [‘Florus to Hadrian : “as if spoils from Arab or Sarmatian”’] (Char. p. 157.21–22k), perhaps referencing the conceit in Epit. 2.21.7, the ‘whole’ sea floating with spoils post-Actium. On quasi in Florus, see now Renda (2020) 163–209.
For the former, Peirano Garrison (2020) 237–8 ; Rocchi (2020) 62, for the latter.
[‘For this plane tree of yours has reminded me’]
[‘I beg you, if it isn’t too much trouble, to show me where your hiding place is.’] nisi molestum est in Cicero : Rep. 1.46, Ac. 1.14, Fin. 1.28, 2.5, Tusc. 1.26, N.D. 1.17, Amic. 6.8 ; already in Plautus Per. 599, Poen. 50, Rud. 120, Trin. and Terence Ad. 806 ; also, Afranius com. 95.
Le Guin (2008) 3.
Quid istic ? only in Plautus and Terence ; otherwise carefully deployed by Seneca (Ep. 17.11, to make sure Lucilius is still listening, for the punchline of his epistolary lesson). Contrast Prisc. G.L. 3.85.9–11, who terms it a simple aduerbium confirmatiuum. Cf. Rocchi’s (2020) 62–3 note.
Thrice in Adelphoe (133, 350, 969), a teaching text which Florus likely would have had occasion to expound.
Hist. 2.112 survives as a quotation of Aemilius Asper (uetuste ‘obuiam fuere’, Char. Gramm. =G.L. 1.209K). Syme (1964) 240–273.
Likewise a signature feature of the Epitome, as at 1.18.15 (Sardiniam adnexamque Corsicam transit), 1.38.1 (Thessaliam atque Dalmatiam).
Each ancient writer posits an ellipsis : remoramur (Donatus 171.4), uerba facimus (Priscian).
On (esp. Ovidian) si tamen and si quidem, see Schmalz (1909).
[‘at their festivals and councils, when he had them crowded together in groves’].
Cf. Tacitus on Domitian’s cruel and shameless surveillance (Ag. 45.2) : praecipua sub Domitiano miseriarum pars erat uidere et aspici, cum suspiria nostra subscriberentur, cum denotandis tot hominum palloribus sufficeret saeuus ille uultus et rubor, quo se contra pudorem muniebat [‘A crucial part of the miseries under Domitian was to see and to be watched, as our sighs were noted down against us, as that savage and ruddy face with which he fortified himself against shame, managed to mark down the pallid looks of so many people’], with the illuminating notes of Woodman and Kraus (2014) ad loc. ; and Plin. Ep. 3.9.33 on Norbanus Licinianus’ success under Domitian (sub Domitiano) coming back to ruin him. Ovid’s famous duo crimina at Trist. 2.207 (also, e.g., nostri criminis 3.5.52, mei criminis 3.6.26 etc.).
At populum uides 2.7, Florus shows off his newly adopted community in language that identifies him with them.
[‘He said, “Are you him, are you that Martial, whose naughty gibes everyone knows who doesn’t have the ear of a Batavian ?”’ ; ‘“Then why do you have such bad coats ?” he asked’]. Martial’s picture of his modest acknowledgment resembles Florus’ : subrisi modice, leuique nutu | me quem dixerat esse non negaui [‘I gave a little smile, and with a slight nod let on I was the one he meant.’] (~ quae cum me uideret uerecunde agnoscentem 1.5).
[‘I replied : “Because I’m a bad poet.”’].
Jal (1967) 117 adduces Poscimur (well supported and in, e.g., Pomp. Porph., instead the now more widely accepted Poscimus) : ‘on réclame de nous des vers lyriques’ ; cf. Ov. Met. 5.333. Summo consensu : besides Cic. Mil. 25 (of Milo’s consulship) and Marc. 3 (of senatorial support for Marcellus’ recall), V. Max. is fond of the phrase.
A similar image of the ‘foot-dragging tyrant’ recurs in Tacitus (Ann. 5.4 principe inuito, 13.1 inuito principe). Soon Florus, by contrast, will graciously read the room, indulging in a bit of nostalgia that the emperor’s ungenerous refusal set in motion (inuito quidem Caesare 1.4 ~ nec inuitus priorum recordabor 2.1).
The murky modern notion of Florus’ ‘Africitas’ arguably furthered the exclusion Domitian is described to have carried out against the poet. Yet there is no other evidence of regionally based disqualification in the Capitoline games. On the latter, see Lana (1951), Caldelli (1993), and Hardie (2003), 126–34 ; and Florus, Morelli (1916).
Inuidia and cruel fate : Aeneas’ cry upon seeing the dead Pallas (‘tene,’ inquit ‘miserande puer, cum laeta ueniret, inuidit Fortuna mihi, ne regna uideres nostra neque ad sedes uictor ueherere paternas ? A. 11.42–4 [‘Was it you,” he said, “pitiable boy, that Fortune begrudged me upon her happy arrival, so you wouldn’t see my realm or ride back victorious to your father’s home ?’]) ; also, Jupiter to Mercury, on Aeneas obstructing Ascanius’ destiny (Ascanione pater Romanas inuidet arces ? A. 4.234 [‘does Ascanius’ father begrudge him the towers of Rome ?’]). Domitian was not bitter, no : ~ Ecl. 1.11 non equidem inuideo (evictee Meliboeus not begrudging Tityrus his salvation from on high) ; and (not) like Eurytion the good sport, letting a deserving champion win his laurels (nec bonus Eurytion praelato inuidit honori A. 5.541).
V. Max. 4.1.5.
Ibid. : Fabius uero Maximus, cum a se quinquies et a patre, auo, proauo maioribusque suis saepe numero consulatum gestum animaduerteret, comitiis, quibus filius eius summo consensu consul creabatur, quam potuit constanter cum populo egit ut aliquando uacationem huius honoris Fabiae genti daret, non quod uirtutibus filii diffideret, erat enim inluster, sed ne maximum imperium in una familia continuaretur. [‘Fabius Maximus, when he considered that the consulship had been held five times by himself and often by his father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and ancestors, at the elections in which his son was about to be named consul by overwhelming consensus he strove as much as could to convince the people to grant the Fabian family an exemption from this office at last, not because he was not confident in his son’s excellent abilities—for he was outstanding—but lest the highest power be maintained in a single family.’]
Cf. Livian Perioch. 107, on Caesar’s ability to stand for consulship in absentia passed with Cato dissenting (inuito et contradicente M. Catone)—Domitian is no Cato.
For the jingle inuito … inuideret, compare Seneca on Scaevola : donec Porsina cuius poenae fauebat gloriae inuidit et ignem inuito eripi iussit Ep. 66.51 [‘until Porsenna, whose punishment [Mucius] was facilitating, grew jealous of his glory and ordered the fire to be removed against his will’] (Florus lacks Mucius’ fortitude, but he finds a way of withstanding his tyrant) ; also [Quint.] Decl. Mai. 15.5.
See Kaster (1980) on uerecundia, as noted by Peirano Garrison (2020) 239. An ancient commentator’s misreading of Horace’s amice (addressing Maecenas at Epod. 1.2) nevertheless exposes the deference written into such literary-social hierarchy : non uidetur uerecundiae Horati conuenire, ut amicum se Maecenatis dicat, cum clientem debeat dicere [‘it does not seem appropriate to Horace’s modesty that he would call himself Maecenas’ “friend”, when he ought to say “client”’] (Pomp. Porph. in Hor. Epod. 1.pr, even going on to suggest that amice must mean amice Caesaris).
‘ama … igitur fautorem tuum.’ ‘quidni amem ?’ 1.5 ~ neque enim cuiquam tam clarum statim ingenium [~ singulari ingenio 1.7] ut possit emergere, nisi illi materia occasio, fautor etiam commendatorque contingat (Plin. Ep. 6.23.5) [‘for no one’s talent is so outstanding that he can make his start, unless he finds an opportunity, a chance, not to mention a supporter, someone to recommend him’] (NB the conspicuous absence of the tyrant’s approval in this formula for success). Since Domitian torpedoed Florus’ opportunity/big chance (materia, occasio) at the fateful games, his ‘emergence’ now pends, residual celebrity aside (‘… ubi [sc. Romae] uersus tui a lectoribus concinuntur …’ 1.6). Incidentally, we are to assume the Baetican is not the kind of apparently predatory admirer flagged in Lucilius ? (qui te diligat aetatis facieque tuae se | fautorem ostendat, fore amicum polliceatur 269–70 M [‘who is fond of you and shows that he is an admirer of your youth and good looks, and promises to be your friend’]).
[‘One mustn’t flee love, for the truest friendship is born from it’]. Only the participle foederatus (first at Cic. Ver. 2.2.160) appears before Florus’ use of the finite verb (perhaps a learned archaism ? OLD posits a back formation, perhaps anticipated by Livy’s trans. use at 25.18.10). For the entire phrase nascentem amicitiam foederabamus, there is a striking echo in Jerome (gratulor itaque tibi et, nascentem amicitiam ut dominus foederare dignetur, precor Epist. 4.1 [‘I therefore congratulate you and pray that the lord think fit to ratify our growing friendship’]) ; Rocchi (2020) 70–1 marks it as the latest intertext. Foedus and amicitia are regularly joined in Latin, and alongside touchstones such as Verg. A. 7.546 and Sal. Jug. 80.4, 104.4, 5, Livy’s propensity for the pairing may have conditioned Florus (more specifically, his amicitiae foedus/foedera at Epit. 1.4, 2.13 recall V. Max., e.g., 2.9.6, 5.1.3, 9.11. ext. 4).
ubi uersus tui a lectoribus concinuntur 1.6 ~ Plin. Ep. 2.10.3 enotuerunt quidam tui uersus, et inuito te claustra sua refregerunt [‘certain verses of yours have become known and, against your wishes, have broken free of their bonds’].
ubi uersus tui a lectoribus concinuntur 1.6 ~ sed meus in Geticis ad Martia signa pruinis | a rigido teritur centurione liber [ !], | dicitur et nostros cantare Britannia uersus (3–5) [‘my book is fondled by the hard centurion next to Mars’ standards amidst Getic frosts, and Britain is said to recite my poems’].
clarissimus ille … triumphus 1.6 ~ e.g., clarissimos triumphos Plin. Pan. 89 ; triumpho … omnium clarissimo (Scipio Africanus) Liv. 30.45.2 ; clarissimi triumphi (Paullus) V. Max. 1.5.3 ; clarissimus … triumphus (Metellus Numidicus) Vell. 2.11.2. With triumphus exultat (1.6) Florus apparently nods at the etymology recorded in Serv. Aen. 10.775 (triumphum, ἀπὸ τοῦ θριαμβεύειν, id est ab exultatione). Florus himself also links triumphs and song at Epit. 2.13.8 : cum… Ponticos et Armenios triumphos, in Pompeianis theatris Roma cantaret [‘when... Rome was singing her Pontic and Armenian triumphs in the theaters of Pompey’] (~ ubi uersus tui … concinuntur et in foro omni clarissimus ille de Dacia triumphus exultat, noted by Thomé (1888) 3).
singulari ingenio 1.7 ~ Ver. 2.4.87 (systematically condemning Verres requires remarkable talent which Cicero simply hasn’t), Tul. 33, Flac. 76, Div. 1.53 (singulari uir ingenio Aristoteles [ !]) ; otherwise, taken up by the ‘rhetorical’ Mela 1.72 (the Corycian cave), 3.48 (Gallizenae, Druid priestesses), 3.102 (a spring) ; otherwise, Col. 5.1.2, SHA Ant. Pius 2.1. Tantaque natura is of course generic, but note Cic. de Orat. 1.196 (the unique power of nostra patria).
nec urbam illam reuisis 1.6 ~ aut etiam properans urbem petit atque reuisit Lucr. 3.1067 [‘or even heads back in haste to see the city once again’].
[‘Fondness for their hosts and for the city held many in Rome’] Triumphalism (mostly nostalgic republican or Trajanic) : ille <uictor [princeps Malcovati]> gentium populus ~ praecipue … huius principis populi et omnium gentium domini atque uictoris [‘especially of this foremost people, one that is master and victor over all others’] Cic. Planc. 11 (on Roman voting) ; Assyrii principes omnium gentium [‘The Assyrians were the first of all peoples’ to have an empire] Vell. 1.6.6 ( =Aemilius Sura ?) etc. ; and in Florus’ own Epitome 1.44, 2.1, 2.2, 2.34 (uictor), 2.7, 2.13 (princeps) (whence the supplements !) ; in se … conuertit omnium oculos hominum ac deorum ~ hominum deorumque coniectos in se oculos [‘the eyes of men and gods cast upon them’] Plin. Pan. 63.8 (Trajan’s predecessors couldn’t bear the whole world watching) ; tibicinum quoque collegium solet in foro uulgi oculos in se conuertere [‘The guild of aulos-players is apt to draw the eyes of the crowd in the forum’] V. Max. 2.5.4, unus itaque tot ciuium, tot hostium in se oculos conuertit [‘thus he alone drew the eyes of so many compatriots, so many enemies’] 3.2.1 (Horatius Cocles), totius ciuitatis oculos in se numerosa donorum pompa conuertentem [‘drawing the eyes of the entire citizenry by his lavish train of awards’] 3.2.24 (brave L. Siccius Dentatus, with his military crowns and decorations).
The Livian parallel also supports Rocchi’s ‘l’affetto per l’Urbe’ rather than Jal’s ‘l’amour que te porte la Ville’.
nihil … nihil … nihil … ? nihil denique … ? ~ Cic. Catil. 1 (6 nihils), V. Max. 3.7.1a (4) ; with closing nihil denique : Rhet. Her. 2.3 ; Cic. Ver. 2.3.131, Clu. 124, 126, Catil. 3.26, Sul. 21 ; Plin. Pan. 66.5 ; [Quint.] Min. 254.3, 254.16. Behind nihil te caritas urbis, nihil … ? I must assume Florus does not hear nihil mea carmina curas ? | nil nostri miserere ? Ecl. 2.6–7 [‘do you care nothing for my songs ? Don’t you pity me at all ?’].
Fugazi, ‘Recap Modotti’ (End Hits, 1997).
uarie perturbatus 1.8 ~ Varie sum adfectus tuis litteris, ualde priore pagina perturbatus [‘I have felt varying emotions in reading your letter, deeply upset by the first page’] Cic. Fam. 16.4.1 (a reply to Tiro about his illness, because of which Cicero left him behind at Patrae as he hastened back to Rome) ~ Varie me adfecerunt litterae tuae [‘Your letter has stirred up in me various feelings’] Plin. Ep. 5.21.1 (replying about sad news of Julius Valens’ illness and of Julius Avitus’ untimely death).
Ad quae (for atque) is Rossbach’s correction, followed by Malcovati (1972) and defended by Axelson (1944) 17–18 (cf. Rocchi [2020] 77, who retains atque). But atque ego almost never introduces a direct reply (apparently only at Gel. 15.9.7 : …’ atque ego his eius uerbis, ut tum ferebat aetas, irratior ‘… [‘then I, rather irritated by these words of his, as happened at my age, [said]’]). Instead, ad quae ego (with ellipsis of verb of saying) sounds like a casual account of a conversation recapped in a letter, as in Cic. Att. 10.4.10 : ad quae ego me recessum et solitudinem quaerere (‘Replied I was after some peace and quiet’—which could well be a summed-up version of Florus’ comments 1.8–9, 2.1–9, 3.2, 3.3–8, which make up an extended response to 1.6–7).
E.g., ad Aen. 2.331 (Panthus), 4.367 (Dido), 4.674 (Anna) 10.515 (Aeneas).
[‘Thus throughout the whole army joy, sadness, grief, and happiness were felt in various ways.’ ; ‘the others voiced their agreement variously with one or another speaker.’]
Cf. Livy’s recurring use of uarie animos adficere/uarie animi adfecti sunt etc. for groups.
E.g., sin uarie fit … satietatem uitare poterit [‘but if it is handled with variation ... it will be possible to avoid tedium’] Cic. Inv. 1.98 (on enumeratio), Cic. Att. 1.14.3 (on his own oratorical performance).
Inst. 9.2.19 : adfert aliquam fidem ueritatis et dubitatio, cum simulamus quaerere nos unde incipiendum … quid potissimum dicendum … sit [‘Hesitation imparts a certain credibility, when we feign to ask ourselves where to begin ... what above all must be said’].
~ quid ad haec respondeam ? Cic. Tul. 54, quid ego nunc tibi argumentis respondeam … ? Asc. Corn. 66, de plausu autem quid respondeam ? Deiot. 15. But NB, quid nunc uis (tibi) ? is pure Plautus : Florus orator et poeta.
A Virgil instructor would know not to stop there : 1.387 (Venus addressing Aeneas—of course she knows, esp. as he has just told her) ; 2.148 (Priam believing Sinon) ; 4.577 (Aeneas acquiescing to Mercury—whom he recognizes) ; 6.388 (Charon, dismissively, to Aeneas) ; 2.148, on which see Austin with Servius, who derives the expression from the words of a general taking in a transfuga, as in Livy (fr. 71 Jal), quisquis es, noster eris [‘whoever you are, you will be one of us’]).
[‘Whoever you are, do not open up again my charges [wounds]’].
[‘O whoever you are, whom I have just made my devil’s advocate’]
Elsewhere only at Fam. 3.11.2 ; cf. Paulus’ speech at Liv. 45.41.6 (mihi quoque ipsi nimia iam fortuna uideri eoque suspecta esse [‘even to me this fortune came to seem excessive, and for that reason I distrusted it’]).
Another hint of Florus reading up on what leaving Rome (or not) looks like in canonical Latin : quod non Romae morer (1.8) recalls Cicero to Varro (Fam. 9.2) explaining his decision to defiantly remain in the city after Thapsus (haec [reasons why skipping town would look bad] ego suspicans adhuc Romae maneo 3), senseless habit having long hardened the wound of his indignation (et tamen λεληθότως consuetudo diu<tu>rna callum iam obduxit stomacho meo ~ quare desine … uulnus dolorum meorum rescindere 1.9).
1.15.5 : sed animus idem qui semper infixus in patriae caritate [~ caritas urbis 1.7] discessum ab eius periculis ferre non potuit [~ potesne … pati ? 1.7] [‘But this same spirit, forever fixed on love of country, could not bear parting from its perils’].
[‘and in fact just as it is right for him to give an account of his action’].
Recast, with comparable abuse, by Martial : 1.41.14 (’So stop imagining you’re urbanus, Caecilius, ’cause you’re not’) and 10.65.14 (‘So quit calling me “brother”, Charmenion, or I’ll call you “sister”’). These, and Catul., suggest that Florus’ abrupt transition show him momentarily forgetting his manners.
Summing up : quare, quid possit mea Cynthia, desine, Galle | quaerere : non impune illa rogata uenit [‘So stop seeking to learn, Gallus, what my Cynthia is capable of : once asked, she comes—with punishment.’]. Cf. Horatian satiric diatribe : ‘so cease chasing matrons’ (S. 1.2.77–8).
‘How not to lose your audience’ : tum autem [sc. oportebit], id quod difficilius est [~ nihil est difficilius 1.8] … reducere in memoriam, quibus rationibus unam quamque partem confirmaris Cic. Inv. 1.98 [‘but sometimes—a greater challenge—it will be useful to ... recall to mind the arguments by which you have demonstrated each point’] (again of enumeratio ! Cf. above) ; reliving loss : Pliny (Ep. 3.10.2) afraid he would rekindle Spurinna’s grief (si in memoriam grauissimi luctus reduxissem) by verses he wrote on the latter’s deceased son.
On the passage, see Di Giovine (2020) : 60, part of a discussion of images of wounding in Ovid’s exile poetry (45–72) ; cf. above.
uulnus meorum dolorum rescindere 1.8 ~ rescisso uulnere Plin. Ep. 7.19.9 (Fannia’s death will feel like Arria’s all over again).
As Florus himself knew, settling on similar phrasing (Epit. 2.11.4) for a post-Sullan Roman state that will not chance re-opening the scabs of civil war by letting Lepidus recall the proscribed from exile : expediebat ergo quasi aegrae sauciaeque rei publicae requiescere quomodocumque [i.e., ‘give it a rest, Lepidus/Baeticus !’], ne uolnera curatione ipsa rescinderentur [‘It was helpful, therefore, that the state, sick and wounded, as it were, be given a rest in some way or other, lest its wounds be torn open by their very treatment.’]. Thomé (1881) 3 and Rocchi (2020) 78 note the parallel.
Florus lingers on the mythologized suicide, with lurid detail, at Epit. 2.13.71–2.
[‘Unspeakable, queen, is the pain you ask me to revive’]. It isn’t close verbally, but must underly Florus’ mock-epicizing, ironic autofiction. Eussner (1888) 79 didn’t flinch (‘bewusste Entlehnung’) ; Rocchi (2020) 79 has doubts.
A leave-taking formula typically addressed to a deity (cf. Cicero’s playful dig at Epicureanism—quid enim dicam ‘propitius sit [sc. deus]’ ? —N.D. 1.124, closing the book [‘for why should I say “may god be gracious” ?’]). Florus’ mini ‘valediction’ is elegantly packed : artful changes of subject (sit … fruantur … permittit), polyptoton (illa … illā), ellipsis (of eis, dative with propitia sit ; and of ii, unstated subject of fruantur and antecedent of quibus). A hint of what they’re missing.
This transitional formula (often with quidem) is at home in [Quint.] (Min. 295.2, 314.16, 321.16, 332.5 ; Mai. 7.2) and turns up in the Senecas (Suas. 7.1 [Haterius comparing himself to Cicero !] ; Dial. 12.10.2). For the ‘Aeneid’ of Florus, see my forthcoming related article.
Rocchi (2020) 27 rightly records ‘un impiego sovrabbondante dell’enfatico ille’ in his overview of VOAP’s style.
~ atque ex illo die recordamini eius usque ad Idus Martias consulatum Phil. 2.82 [‘And remember his consulship from that day down to the Ides of March.’].
[‘You yourself are my witness of late in Libyan waters...’].
Fam. 12.13.1 : ut haec nouissima nostra facta non subita nec conuenientia sed similia illis cogitationibus quarum tu testis es fuisse iudices meque ad optimam spem patriae, non minimam tibi ipsi, producendum putes … 2 animum tibi nostrum fortasse probauimus ; ingenium diutina seruitus certe, qualecumque est, minus tamen quam erat passa est uideri. [‘so that you judge these latest actions of mine not as sudden or inconsistent but in accordance with the ideas to which you were witness, and that you consider me worthy of advancement as the best hope for the state’s interests, and as no insignificant one for your own. ... you have perhaps come to approve of my spirit ; as for my talents, such as they are, longstanding servitude has allowed them to seem less than they were.’]. Cassius Parmensis’ toga also morphs (1) into Cicero’s (in)famously symbolic one (here itself snatching from enemies’ hands ~ 1.9 ; see below) : est enim tua toga omnium armis felicior [~ cedant arma togae], quae nunc quoque [ !] nobis paene uictam rem publicam ex manibus hostium eripuit ac reddidit [‘your toga is more fortunate than the weapons of all, which now again has wrested our nearly conquered state from its enemies’ hands and delivered it back to us’].
Never to be underestimated ; see, e.g., recently, Lendon (2022).
Manibus et capiti ereptam : in Cic. and elsewhere in prose nearly always with e (or de) manibus (though note Sen. Ben. 1.11, Clem. 1.15, Apul. Met. 8.6, 9.1), but always of ‘saving’ ; e.g., the most famous ‘Res P. etc. etc. snatched from the jaws of fate and restored’ (Catil 3.1). uidi : this is of course also part of Florus’ remarkable tendency to articulate in terms of ‘seeing’ (Florum uides 1.3, cum me uideret 1.4, Siciliam … uidi 2.1, ut ora Nili uiderem et populum 2.2, uides, hospes 2.4, populum uides 2.7, si uetera templa respicias 2.9).
[‘I have been deeply troubled to see that a most decisive and deserved triumph has been stripped from you by this scheme of haters.’ ; ‘because [many thought] victory which he had already won was being snatched from his hands’]. Again, vs. me manibus inpiis eripite [‘save me from impious hands’] 24.10 (Adherbal’s plea to the Senate).
To Tiro, 44 : tantum enim mihi dolorem cruciatumque attulerunt errata aetatis meae ut non solum animus a factis sed aures quoque a commemoratione abhorreant [‘The youthful mistakes I’ve made have brought me so much pain and torment that I shudder not only to remember my actions but to hear them spoken of.’] ; cf. Oct. 2.
Son Engaged in Oedipal Acts : Nearly Whacked by Hurt Hubby. Cf. Serv. Aen. 11.85 quasi qui consternatus nimio dolore.
[‘Therefore let us keep back from fortune as much as we can.’].
[‘and their puffed-up necks recoiled from the yoke that was lately imposed on them’].
[‘surely forgetting your fatherland and father Latinus’ ; ‘“Go off to your betrothed, with your untimely love,” he said, “forgetting your brothers, both dead and living, forgetting your country.”’] And Hor. Ep. 1.11.8–10 (tamen illic [sc. Lebedi] uiuere uellem | oblitusque meorum, obliuiscendus et illis [‘I’d still like to live there [in sleepy Lebedos], having forgotten my own, to be forgotten by them too’]) reaffirms the futility of Florus’ attempts to flee his sorrows ; on this poem, which is significant to the travel narrative that follows, see below in my forthcoming related article.
Epit. 2.21.3 : sed patriae, nominis, togae, fascium oblitus totus in monstrum illud ut mente, ita habitu quoque cultuque desciuerat [‘but forgetting his country, name, toga, symbols of office, he had entirely degenerated into that monster, in mind as well as in style and dress’]. Unmoored, yes, but paradoxically prefiguring his account of restless—aggressive—Roman mobility : per diuersa terrarum 1.9 ~ haec inter diuersa terrarum populus Romanus [‘Such things had the Roman people accomplished throughout diverse parts of the world’] Epit. 1.22.41 (Bellum Punicum Secundum) ; per diuersa gentium terrarumque uolitabat [sc. Magnus] [‘Pompey was hastening through diverse peoples and lands’] 1.40.27 (Mithridaticum) ; populus Romanus per diuersa terrarum districtus est [‘the Roman people were drawn apart through various parts of the world’] 1.41.1 (Piraticum) ; imperio per diuersa terrarum occupato [‘as the empire was engaged through various parts of the world’] 2.7.2 (Seruile). But cf. Livian periochae 112.1 : trepidantia uictarum partium in diuersas orbis terrarum partes et fuga refertur [‘the panic and flight of the defeated side to various parts of the world is recounted’] (like the vanquished Pompeian remnants, Florus will make himself scarce).
~ Cic. Div. 2.80, on the absurdity of auspicy, an art based on the inconstant motions of birds : quae est igitur natura [sc. auspicii], quae uolucris huc et illuc passim uagantis efficiat ut significent aliquid et tum uetent agere, tum iubeant… ? [‘What, then, is the nature of auspicy, which makes it so that birds, roving all over, here and there, can portend something and at one moment forbid people from doing something, at another bid them ... ?’].
For furenti similis Seneca Her. F. 1009 (of Megara fleeing the (madly) slaughtering Hercules), Phoen. 427 (Jocasta madly speeding to stay the battle) ; Her. O. (Deianira) ; Epic. Drusi 317 ; furenti similis is Servius’ gloss on (Dido) furibunda at Aen. 6.262. But, interestingly, Florus himself also uses the phrase of Caesar at Epit. 2.13.82. The construction is widespread but cf. A. 5.254, 7.502, 8.649, 12.754, Hor. S. 2.5.92.
Eussner (1888) 81. Perhaps even Hercules : ecce furens … huc ora ferebat et illuc [‘there he was, raving ... he was turning his face this way and that’] A. 8.228–9 (noted by Rocchi [2020] 81).
Peragrare is at home in Cicero and Livy, and programmatic in Lucretius (auia Pieridum peragro loca nullius ante | trita solo [‘I traverse the trackless places of the Pierides trodden before by no one’s foot’] 1.926–7 =4.1–2, perhaps in the background ; also atque omne immensum peragrauit mente animoque [‘and he traversed the boundless universe with his mind and spirit’] 1.74, of Epicurus), but here likely recalls Aeneas rounding off his address to the disguised Venus : ipse ignotus, egens, Libyae deserta peragro, | Europa atque Asia pulsus [‘Myself unknown, in need, I rove through the wastelands of Libya, driven from Europe and Asia’] (A. 1.384–5). Cf. [Quint.] Min. 320.6 (ego sum ille qui longas terras et ignotas regiones peragraui, ego ille qui tam longe abieram ut in patriam redire non possem [‘I am the one who wandered through remote territories and unknown regions, I am the one who had gone so far that I could not return to my homeland’]) ; also, differently, but cf. the elevated style of a pre-exile, agitated dubitatio, the Sen. Her. O. 1796–8 : quae petam Alcmene loca ? quis me locus, quae regio, quae mundi plaga defendet ? [‘What places should I, Alcmene, seek ? What locale, what region, what part of the world will protect me ?’].
This lively lead-in sets the stage for what follows (VOAP 2–3, on which see my companion piece), the most obviously ‘Virgilian’ section of the fragment (his far-flung wandering and eventual ‘homecoming’ in quiet Tarraco), and for his unparalleled defense of teaching, in the service of literate (Latin) civilization in the imperial provinces.
Haut de page