Bibliographie
Ahl 2007: F. Ahl, Virgil. Aeneid. Translated with Notes by Frederick Ahl, Oxford 2007.
Alvar 1985: J. Alvar, «Matériaux pour l'étude de la formule sive deus, sive dea», Numen 32.2 (1985), 236-273.
Amerasinghe 1953: C. W. Amerasinghe, «Saturnia Iuno: its Significance in the Aeneid», Greece &Rome 22.65 (1953), 61-69.
Ames and De Santis 2011: C. Ames and G. De Santis, «La memoria histórica de la diversidad étnica italiana en Eneida de Virgilio», Circe 15 (2011), 41-54.
Ando 2002: C. Ando, «Vergil’s Italy: Ethnography and Politics in First-Century Rome», in D. S. Levene and D. P. Nelis (eds.), Clio and the Poets. Augustan Poetry and the Traditions of Ancient Historiography, Leiden-Boston-Köln 2002, 123-142.
Ando 2008: C. Ando, The Matter of the Gods. Religion and the Roman Empire, Berkeley 2008.
Beard, North and Price 1998: M. Beard, J. North and S. Price, Religions of Rome. Vol. I: A History, Cambridge 1998.
Berti 1990: N. Berti, «Scipione Emiliano, Caio Gracco e l’evocatio di Giunone da Cartagine», Aevum 64 (1990), 69-75.
Bettini 2005: M. Bettini, «Un’identità ‘troppo compiuta’. Troiani, Latini, Romani e Iulii nell’Eneide», Materiali e discussioni per l'analisi dei testi classici 55 (2005), 77-102.
Bloch 1972: R. Bloch, «Héra, Uni, Junon en Italie centrale», Comptes rendus des séances de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 116.2 (1972), 384-396.
Blomart 1997: A. Blomart, «Die evocatio und der Transfer ‘fremder’ Götter von der Peripherie nach Rom», in H. Cancik and J. Rüpke (eds.), Römische Reichsreligion und Provinzialreligion, Tübingen 1997, 99-111.
Bouché-Leclercq 1907: A. Bouché-Leclercq, s. v. Pontifices, DAGR IV.1, 567-578.
Cairo 2016: M. E. Cairo, «Memoria troyana e identidad romana en Eneida. Una lectura de los diálogos entre Júpiter y Venus (I, 233-304) y entre Júpiter y Juno (XII, 791-842)», Auster. Revista del Centro de Estudios Latinos 21 (2016), 95-110.
Cancik 2004: H. Cancik, «Ein Volk gründen. Ein myth-historisches Modell in Vergils Aeneis», in A. Bierl, A. Schmitt, and A. Willis, Antike Literatur in neuer Deutung, Munich-Leipzig, 2004, 307-323.
Coleman 1982: R. Coleman, «The Gods in the Aeneid», Greece & Rome 29.2 (1982), 143-168.
Davies 1969: P. V. Davies, Macrobius. The Saturnalia, New York-London 1969.
Della Corte 1983: F. Della Corte, «Giunone, come personaggio e come dea, in Virgilio», Atene e Roma 28 (1983), 21-30.
Dumézil 1974: G. Dumézil, La Religion romaine archaïque, Paris 1974.
Eden 1975: P. T. Eden, A Commentary on Virgil: Aeneid VIII, Leiden 1975.
Egan 2012: R. Egan, «Insignes Pietate et Armis: The Two Camilli of the Aeneid», Vergilius 58 (2012), 21-52.
Feeney 1984: D. C. Feeney, «The Reconciliations of Juno», Classical Quarterly 34 (1984), 179-194.
Feeney 1991: D. C. Feeney, The Gods in Epic. Poets and Critics of the Classical Tradition, Oxford 1991.
Feeney 2007: D. C. Feeney, «The History of Roman Religion in Roman Historiography and Epic», in J. Rüpke (ed.), A Companion to Roman Religion, Oxford-Malden 2007, 129-142.
Ferri 2006: G. Ferri, «L’evocatio romana. I problemi», Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni 72 (2006), 205-240.
Ferri 2009: G. Ferri, «Giunone Celeste», Storia, Antropologia e Scienze del linguaggio 24.1-2 (2009), 181-202.
Ferri 2010a: G. Ferri, Tutela segreta ed evocatio nel politeismo romano, Roma 2010.
Ferri 2010b: G. Ferri, Tutela urbis. Il significato e la concezione della divinità tutelare cittadina nella religione romana, Stuttgart 2010.
Fratantuono 2018: L. M. Fratantuono, «A Furious Fury: Virgil’s Camilla, Livy’s Camillus, and the reconciliations of Juno», in M. C. English and L. M. Fratantuono, Pushing the Boundaries of Historia, London-New York 2018, 172-184.
Fratantuono and Alden Smith 2018: L. M. Fratantuono and R. Alden Smith, Virgil, Aeneid 8. Text, Translation, and Commentary, Leiden-Boston 2018.
Gaertner 2008: J. F. Gaertner, «Livy's Camillus and the Political Discourse of the Late Republic», Journal of Roman Studies 98 (2008), 27-52.
Gelormini 2009: N. Gelormini, Augusto. Hechos. Edición trilingüe, Buenos Aires 2009.
Glinister 2000: F. Glinister, «Sacred rubbish», in E. Bispham and C. Smith (eds.), Religion in Archaic and Republican Rome and Italy, Edinburgh 2000, 54-70.
Grandi 2015: E. Grandi, La religione romana e le pratiche dell’evocatio, PhD dissertation, Firenze 2015.
Gustafsson 2000: G. Gustafsson, Evocatio Deorum. Historical and Mythical Interpretations of Ritualised Conquests in the Expansion of Ancient Rome, PhD dissertation, Historia Religionum 16, Uppsala 2000.
Henry 1989: E. Henry, The Vigour of Prophecy. A Study of Vergil’s Aeneid, Bristol 1989.
Hickson 1993: F. Hickson, Roman Prayer Language. Livy and the Aeneid of Vergil, Wiesbaden 1993.
Hild 1900: J. A. Hild, s. v. Juno, DAGR III.1, 1900, 668-690.
Hillen 2007: H. J. Hillen, T. Livius. Römische Geschichte. Buch IV-VI, Düsseldorf-Zurich 2007.
Johnson 1976: W. R. Johnson, Darkness Visible. A Study of Vergil’s Aeneid, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London 1976.
Johnston 1980: P. Johnston, Vergil’s Agricultural Golden Age. A Study of the Georgics, Leiden 1980.
Johnston 2015: P. Johnston, «Saevae memorem Iunonis ob iram: Juno, Veii, and Augustus», Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 55 (2015), 167-178.
Le Gall 1976: J. Le Gall, «Evocatio», in L’Italie préromaine et la Rome républicaine. I. Mélanges offerts à Jacques Heurgon, Rome 1976, 519-524.
Levene 1993: D. S. Levene, Religion in Livy, Leiden 1993.
Liebeschuetz 1967: W. Liebeschuetz, «The Religious Position of Livy’s History», Journal of Roman Studies 57 (1967), 45-55.
MacKay 1956: L. A. MacKay, «Saturnia Iuno», Greece and Rome, Second Series 3.1, (1956), 59-60.
Mignone 2016: L. M. Mignone, The Republican Aventine and Rome’s Social Order, Ann Arbor 2016.
Most 2001: G. W. Most, «Memory and Forgetting in the Aeneid», Vergilius 47 (2001), 148-170.
Musiał and Gillmeister 2018: D. Musiał and A. Gillmeister, «Evocatio deorum as an Example of a Crisis Ritual in Roman Religion», Graeco-Latina Brunensia 23.2 (2018), 95-107.
Mynors 1969: R. Mynors, Vergili Maronis Opera, Oxford 1969.
Ogilvie 1978: R. M. Ogilvie, A Commentary on Livy. Books 1-5, Oxford 1978.
Orlin 2002a: E. Orlin, «Foreign Cults in Republican Rome: Rethinking the Pomerial Rule», Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 47 (2002), 1-18.
Orlin 2002b: E. Orlin, Temples, Religion, and Politics in the Roman Republic, Leiden 2002.
Orlin 2010: E. Orlin, Foreign Cults in Rome. Creating a Roman Empire, Oxford 2010.
Prim 2021: J. Prim, Aventinus mons. Limites, fonctions urbaines et représentations politiques d’une colline de la Rome antique, Rome 2021.
Scheid 2015: J. Scheid, «Livy and Religion», in B. Mineo (ed.), A Blackwell Companion to Livy, Oxford 2015, 78-89.
Seider 2013: A. M. Seider, Memory in Vergil’s Aeneid. Creating the Past, Cambridge 2013.
Syed 2005: Y. Syed, Vergil’s Aeneid and the Roman Self. Subject and Nation in the Literary Discourse, Ann Arbor 2005.
Tarrant 2012: R. Tarrant, Virgil Aeneid Book XII, Cambridge 2012.
Thilo and Hagen 1887 (1961): G. Thilo and H. Hagen, Servii Grammatici qui feruntur in Vergilii Carmina Commentarii, Leipzig 1887 (repr. Hildesheim 1961).
Toll 1991: K. Toll, «The Aeneid as an Epic of National Identity: Italiam Laeto Socii Clamore Salutant», Helios 18 (1991), 3-14.
Toll 1997: K. Toll, «Making Roman-ness and the Aeneid», Classical Antiquity 16.1, (1997), 34-56.
Torelli 1999: M. Torelli, Tota Italia. Essays in the Cultural Formation of Roman Italy, Oxford 1999.
Warrior 2006: V. Warrior, Livy. The History of Rome. Books 1-5, Indianapolis 2006.
Weigel 1982/1983: R. D. Weigel, «The Duplication of Temples of Juno Regina in Rome», Ancient Society 13/14 (1982/1983), 179-192.
Willis 1994: J. Willis, Ambrosii Theodosii Macrobii Saturnalia, Leipzig 1994.
Wimperis 2017: T. Wimperis, Cultural Memory and Constructed Ethnicity in Vergil’s Aeneid, PhD dissertation, Chapel Hill 2017.
Haut de page
Notes
References and quotations from the text correspond to the edition by Mynors (1969). On Juno’s memory, see especially Seider 2013, 66-75 and 171-175.
The terms “historical” and “mythical” are employed as in Feeney 1984, 183.
The shipwreck in Book 1, the love plot with Venus in Book 4 (which aims at making Aeneas stay in Carthage, the sending of Alecto in Book 7, but ends up causing the outbreak of the war in Latium), and the inflammation of Turnus through Iris in Book 9, are among the main episodes in which Juno intervenes.
Cairns 1989, 105: “The stress by Jupiter on the sibling relationship between Juno and himself (12.830) which complements the emphasis placed by him on their conjugal state at the beginning of their discussion (12.793), redoubles the significance of their concord. Jupiter then 'yields' to Juno even though he has defeated her, an example of the 'no victors' concept”. Cf. also Seider 2013, 172.
12.829-830: es germana Iouis Saturnique altera proles, / irarum tantos uoluis sub pectore fluctus. I agree with Tarrant 2012: 302: “Jupiter seems almost to admire the intensity of Juno’s anger as a shared family trait. His easy acceptance of divine wrath is literally a world away from V.’s question (1.11) tantaene animis caelestibus irae?”
According to Tarrant 2012, 303, this is a paradox that suggests that, in the end, Jupiter is still in control.
12.834-837: sermonem Ausonii patrium moresque tenebunt, / utque est nomen erit; commixti corpore tantum / subsident Teucri, morem ritusque sacrorum / adiciam faciamque omnis uno ore Latinos. Regarding concepts such as “Ausonians” or “Latins”, see Ando 2002, 139-140; Syed 2005, 206; Bettini 2005, 78-85 especially n. 8 and n. 10; Tarrant 2012, 303. About the question of ethnicity in Vergil’s Italy, see Toll 1991, Cancik 2004, Ames and De Santis 2011.
12.838-840: hinc genus Ausonio mixtum quod sanguine surget, / supra homines, supra ire deos pietate uidebis, / nec gens ulla tuos aeque celebrabit honores. Tarrant (2012, 305) highlights Jupiter’s rhetorical skill – he does not promise that she will be the most venerated deity in Rome, since he is Optimus Maximus, but that no other nation will worship her with a better cult than the Romans. Juno’s concern in 1.48-49 (et quisquam numen Iunonis adorat / praeterea aut supplex aris imponet honorem?) is therefore eliminated.
Johnson (1976, 126) presents different interpretations of laetata. It is possible that Juno is satisfied because of the cult that she will receive in the future, or perhaps she is happy that she could reach her goal, or maybe her satisfaction is based on the suffering that the Romans will go through during the Punic wars.
Cf. Serv. ad Aen. 12.841. Ogilvie (1978, 674), in his introduction to 5.21, observes that the word exoratio used by Servius implied that the deity was persuaded to change his allegiance but not his home, while evocatio included the agreement to leave the original city and have a new home in Rome. Ando (2008, 129 n. 25) believes that the word exoratio does not have a technical meaning.
Cf. Feeney 1984, 179-181.
About the historicity of this episode, cf. Berti 1990, 71-75; Ferri 2009, 185-187; Grandi 2015, 27-28.
References and quotations from Macrobius’ text follow the edition by Willis 1994.
This translation is quoted from Davies 1969.
About these two possible grounds for the evocatio ritual, cf. Dumézil 1974, 425; Berti 1990, 69; Gustafsson 2000, 132-133; Ferri 2010a, 39-41.
Macrobius states (Sat. 3, 9.6) that he took the carmen from a treatise by Samonicus Serenus, who in turn claimed to have drawn it from Furius (repperi in libro quinto Rerum reconditarum Sammonici Sereni utrumque carmen, quod ille se in cuiusdam Furii vetustissimo libro repperisse professus est). According to Alvar (1985, 255), this text was no longer used in Macrobius’ time. The author quotes a Republican exemplum, the one of the conquest of Carthage in 146 BCE, to prove that he is drawing upon scholarly knowledge. For a detailed analysis of the carmen, cf. Ferri 2010b and Grandi 2015, 30-31.
According to Berti 1990, 70 it is possible that Livy modeled his account of the taking of Veii on the basis of a tradition referring to the ritual celebrated by Scipio.
As fundamental studies for the study of the evocatio ritual, cf. Alvar 1985, Berti 1990, Blomart 1997, Gustafsson 2000, Ferri 2006, Ando 2008, Ferri 2008, Ferri 2009, Ferri 2010a, Ferri 2010b, and Grandi 2015.
Alvar 1985, 265 and Blomart 1997, 100-102 point out that it is possible to have evocationes in non-war contexts.
I will not refer here to the problem of the secret name of tutelar deities; see Alvar 1985; Gustafsson 2000, 129-134; Ferri 2010a, 101-128; Ferri 2010b, 157-222.
About the centrality of cult images for this ritual, cf. Bloch 1972, 388-389 and Ferri 2010a, 41. According to Blomart 1997, 101, evocatio was a frequent ritual, but it did not always involve the transfer of the statue to Rome. See also Gustafsson 2000, 80.
Gustafsson (2000, 81) states that the important features of the evocatio ritual were the war context and the votum, more than the image transfer. In the conclusions of her study (153-154), she expresses her reservations regarding understanding evocatio as a fixed practice, with a specific ritualization, given the scarcity of testimonies: “Obviously, there had been a strong tradition that deities had been ‘called out’ before a decisive attack on a city that was to be conquered by the Romans, possibly in accordance with a specific ritual formula. We do not know, however, in what ways such a possible ritual might have been regulated, when and where it could be applied or how it may have developed during the course of Roman history”.
The bibliography discusses whether it is an exceptional or a frequent ritual. Bouché-Leclercq 1907, 573 and Glinister 2000, 62 believe it was an exception, while Alvar 1985, 255, Blomart 1997, 100, and Grandi 2015, 28 defend the second option. Ferri 2010a, 58 proposes a halfway solution: “Si può pertanto formulare l’ipotesi che, in occasione degli assedi, si evocassero gli dèi protettori della città con una certa frequenza, […] e che la decisione fosse presa caso per caso, alla luce delle particolari e contingenti motivazioni belliche o religiose”. About devotio hostium as a complement of evocatio, see Le Gall 1976, 524; Gustafsson 2000, 65-70; Ferri 2006, 214-216; Ando 2008, 130.
About the Roman system of incorporation of foreign gods and cults, cf. Bloch 1972, 391; Beard, North and Price 1998, 132-133; Orlin 2002a, 2; Orlin 2010; Ferri 2010a, 43-44.
Ferri (2010a, 39) mentions three records of this ritual: a) Iuno Regina from Veii in 396 BCE, b) Iuno Caelestis from Carthage in 146 BC, and c) the tutelary deity from Isaura Vetus in 75 BCE. Gustafsson (2000, 63) argues that the evidence about the ritual is scarce because the testimonies are too late in relation to the events to which they refer.
Cf. Orlin 2002b, 15: “The addition of new gods functioned as a conscious display of Rome's growing power. The establishment of a foreign cult in Rome served as a mark of Roman domination of the deity's country of origin; even its gods have been brought to Rome”.
Opinions regarding the effective transfer of Juno’s simulacrum to Rome differ. According to Dumézil (1974, 468), the image was housed in Juno Moneta’s temple. Grandi (2015, 56-57) contemplates this option, as well as the possibility that it was transferred, or that it was assimilated to another divinity of the Carthaginian pantheon – perhaps Melquart, the Phoenician parallel to Heracles, which would explain the construction of a temple to Heracles in the Forum Boarium in 142 BC.
About Iuno Caelestis, cf. Ferri 2009 and Ferri 2010b, 87-108. The epithet Caelestis points to an astrological character (cf. Bloch 1972, 394) that makes possible the interpretatio of Juno as equivalent to the Carthaginian goddess Tanit (Ferri 2009, 190-192).
The English translation of the Aeneid is quoted from Ahl 2007.
1.446-447: hic templum Iunoni ingens Sidonia Dido / condebat, donis opulentum et numine diuae.
For a summary of the historical context of the conquest of Veii, see Ogilvie 1978, 626-630.
Cf. Dumézil 1974, 299-309. See also Hild 1900, 682.
About Juno’s temples in Rome, cf. Dumézil 1974, 301-302 and 426; Weigel 1982/1983; Orlin 2010, 37; Tarrant 2012, 305. Ferri (2010a, 52) observes that the deities who had temples in the Aventine Hill were defined by their alterity and marginal character. For detailed discussions of the sanctuaries on the Aventine, including the temple dedicated to Juno Regina, see Prim 2021 (esp. 349-468); cf. also Mignone 2016, 5, 45, 96, 120, 182-183.
Bloch 1972, 391.
About the identification of the goddesses, see Ogilvie 1978, 674; Feeney 1993, 116; Ferri 2010a, 22.
References and quotations from the text correspond to the edition by Hillen 2007. For an analysis of Juno’s evocatio in Livy, see chapter 5 in Gustafsson 2000 and Ferri 2010b, 55-86. Another account of this episode can be found in Plut., Cam. 6-7.
Cf. Levene 1993, 176-177.
Cf. V.1.6-7: Gens itaque ante omnes alias eo magis dedita religionibus quod excelleret arte colendi eas, auxilium Veientibus negandum donec sub rege essent decrevit; cuius decreti suppressa fama est Veiis propter metum regis qui a quo tale quid dictum referretur, pro seditionis eum principe, non vani sermonis auctore habebat. Ogilvie (1978, 626) observes: “Book 5 illustrates how the fortunes of the city veer as her rulers observe and neglect their religious duties. […] Veii fell because of her own impiety (1.4-5) and Roman piety (15.2, 19.1ff, 21.8)”. In similar terms, cf. Scheid 2015, 79.
Cf. V.13.4-6: tristem hiemem sive ex intemperie caeli, raptim mutatione in contrarium facta, sive alia qua de causa gravis pestilensque omnibus animalibus aestas excepit; cuius insanabili perniciei quando nec causa nec finis inveniebatur, libri Sibyllini ex senatus consulto aditi sunt. duumviri sacris faciundis, lectisternio tunc primum in urbe Romana facto, per dies octo Apollinem Latonamque et Dianam, Herculem, Mercurium atque Neptunum tribus quam amplissime tum apparari poterat stratis lectis placauere. Cf. Ogilvie 1978, 654-658.
Cf. Livy 5.15.7-12: cumque progressi ambo a suis longius essent inermes sine ullo metu, praevalens iuvenis Romanus senem infirmum in conspectu omnium raptum nequiquam tumultuantibus Etruscis ad suos transtulit. qui cum perductus ad imperatorem, inde Romam ad senatum missus esset, sciscitantibus quidnam id esset quod de lacu Albano docuisset, respondit profecto iratos deos Veienti populo illo fuisse die quo sibi eam mentem obiecissent ut excidium patriae fatale proderet. itaque quae tum cecinerit divino spiritu instinctus, ea se nec ut indicta sint revocare posse, et tacendo forsitan quae di immortales volgari velint haud minus quam celanda effando nefas contrahi. sic igitur libris fatalibus, sic disciplina Etrusca traditum esse, [ut] quando aqua Albana abundasset, tum si eam Romanus rite emisisset victoriam de Veientibus dari; antequam id fiat deos moenia Veientium deserturos non esse. exsequebatur inde quae sollemnis derivatio esset; sed auctorem levem nec satis fidum super tanta re patres rati decrevere legatos sortesque oraculi Pythici exspectandas. Cf. Ogilvie 1978, 660-663.
Cf. Livy 5.18.11-12: his tumultuosiora Romae, iam castra ad Veios oppugnari, iam partem hostium tendere ad urbem agmine infesto, crediderant; concursumque in muros est et matronarum, quas ex domo conciverat publicus pavor, obsecrationes in templis factae, precibusque ab dis petitum ut exitium ab urbis tectis templisque ac moenibus Romanis arcerent Veiosque eum averterent terrorem, si sacra renovata rite, si procurata prodigia essent. Note the prominence of matronae, which can be interpreted as an advance of the cult of Juno Regina.
Cf. Livy 5.19.6: quibus cum gratias in senatu egisset dictator, satis iam omnibus ad id bellum paratis, ludos magnos ex senatus consulto vovit Veiis captis se facturum aedemque Matutae Matris refectam dedicaturum, iam ante ab rege Ser. Tullio dedicatam.
Cf. Gustafsson 2000, 93-94.
Torelli (1999, 24-25) points out that terracotta statuettes of Aeneas carrying Anchises were found in the main sanctuaries of Veii. This archaeological evidence points to a strong presence and circulation of the Trojan myth in this region, which can support the idea of a parallelism between the Trojan war and the conquest of Veii: “the colonization of Veii was brought about in the mythical framework of the Trojan legend and […] the awareness of such an ideological stimulus spread to the lowest levels of society, to which we must ascribe the dedicators of the statuettes”.
Cf. Liebeschuetz 1967, 53; Gustafsson 2000, 96, 112-128; Gaertner 2008, 36-37. Ogilvie (1978, 670) identifies some features in the character of Camillus that present him as one of the many exemplary men of Roman history: Aeneas, Scipio, Sulla, Augustus. Moreover, there are many elements that connect the account of the conquest of Veii with the Trojan war – the ten-year siege, the central role of fatum, the final conquest through a stratagem, which allows this Republican episode to be presented in epic terms. Egan (2012, 25) connects Camillus not only to Aeneas, but also with Romulus and Augustus himself: “Camillus, a savior of the old Rome and founder of the new, bisects Roman history between Romulus’ foundation and 27 BC, the signal year for Octavian/Augustus”.
Cf. Hickson (1993, 17-19). The poetic influence of Homer and Ennius is especially noticeable in prayers, the main topic of Hickson’s study. Fratantuono (2018) presents Livy’s Camillus as an inspiration for both Virgil’s Camilla and Turnus.
This translation is quoted from Warrior 2006.
Cf. Livy 5.22.4: delecti ex omni exercitu iuvenes, pure lautis corporibus, candida veste, quibus deportanda Romam regina Iuno adsignata erat.
Livy 5.22.5: id signum more Etrusco nisi certae gentis sacerdos attractare non esset solitus. See Ogilvie 1978, 678 and Orlin 2010, 39.
Cf. Livy 5.22.6: sequentis modo accepimus levem ac facilem tralatu fuisse.
Cf. Orlin 2010, 38.
Cf. Livy 5.22.7: integramque in Aventinum aeternam sedem suam quo vota Romani dictatoris vocaverant perlatam, ubi templum ei postea idem qui voverat Camillus dedicavit.
The ignorance of the people from Veii is described in Livy 5.21.5-7: Veientes ignari se iam a suis vatibus, iam ab externis oraculis proditos, iam in partem praedae suae vocatos deos, alios votis ex urbe sua evocatos hostium templa novasque sedes spectare, seque ultimum illum diem agere, nihil minus timentes quam subrutis cuniculo moenibus arcem iam plenam hostium esse, in muros pro se quisque armati discurrunt, mirantes quidnam id esset quod cum tot per dies nemo se ab stationibus Romanus movisset, tum velut repentino icti furore improvidi currerent ad muros. See Ogilvie (1978, 675): the use of ignari refers to the conquest of Troy in Aeneid 2; there are probably Ennian resonances in both texts.
See Seider 2013, 174-175: “Juno’s words imply that Rome and Troy cannot co-exist, even that Rome cannot exist if it contains any Trojan characteristics. With the Trojans’ name, language, and dress gone, so too is the prospect for the continuation of any rituals that may carry on their social memory. […] Her repetition of the verb “die” (occidit, occiderit) leaves no doubt as to her wishes, and the climactic placement of “Troy” (Troia) affirms what is at the core of her wrath. In spite of Troy’s physical destruction, the Trojans have been keeping the city alive by commemorating it in spirit. This has only exacerbated Juno’s anger, and now she wants to ensure the complete annihilation of both the city and its name. Troy is the final word of her speech and the final word she speaks in the Aeneid, and it brings the epic back to the memories that motivated her anger in Aeneid 1 and reaffirms that they still motivate it now in Aeneid 12”. See also Ando 2002, 139.
About the meaning of the mentions to Latium and Italy in this passage, cf. Syed 200, 206; Bettini 2005, 77-85; Wimperis 2017, 211-214. Seider (2013, 174) examines in detail the problem of the oblivion of Troy. In Juno’s request, it is important to understand the emphasis on virtus as an intrinsically masculine feature, in contrast to the frequent feminization suffered by the Trojans. A clear example of this contrast can be found in Numanus Regulus’ speech in Aen. 9.598-620.
Cf. Johnston 1980, 75 and Seider 2013, 176-177.
8.322-323: Latiumque vocari / maluit, his quoniam latuisset tutus in oris. Cf. Eden 1975, 107-108 and Fratantuono-Alden Smith 2018, 426-428.
Cf. Johnston 1980, 74.
MacKay 1956, 60: “It can hardly be accidental that the name Saturnia is applied to Juno chiefly in the part of the poem where her chief activity is the direct defence of the old order, the native traditions, the indigenous element of the Saturnia tellus”. See also Johnston 1980, 75 and 88.
Cf. Henry 1989, 171.
RG 19: curiam et continens ei Chalcidicum templumque Apollinis in Palatio cum porticibus, aedem divi Iuli, Lupercal, porticum ad circum Flaminium, quam sum appellari passus ex nomine eius qui priorem eodem in solo fecerat, Octaviam, pulvinar ad circum maximum, aedes in Capitolio Iovis Feretri Iovis Tonantis, aedem Quirini, aedes Minervae et Iunonis Reginae et Iovis Libertatis in Aventino, aedem Larum in summa sacra via, aedem deum Penatium in Velia, aedem Iuventatis, aedem Matris Magnae in Palatio feci.
Tarrant (2012, 305) disagrees and considers it unnecessary: “a happy Juno is a sinister enough note on which to end”.
See, for example, the dialogue between Jupiter and Cybele in Aen. 9.80-106.
Regarding the alleged contradiction between what Jupiter states here, and his speech to Venus in Book 1, see Cairo 2016.
Haut de page