^{page 174 note 2} Horace (Oxford, 1957), 418 n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 174 note 3} N.s. xviii (1968), 116–31.Google Scholar

^{page 175 note 1} Op. cit. 418–19.

^{page 175 note 2} Od. i. 3. 8, ii. 17. 5Google Scholar. Possibly the Claudii Nerones (Augustus' heirs presumptive at the time) should be added to the list, but Neronibus in Od. iv. 4. 37Google Scholar refers primarily to the dead Nerones.

^{page 175 note 3} Od. ii. 1. 14Google Scholar; i. 4. 14; i. 6. 5.

^{page 175 note 4} Georg. iii. 16Google Scholar. In a recent Harvard lecture (HSCPh lxxiii [1968], 153–69)Google Scholar Professor Skutsch reminds us that this applies also to the first Eclogue. Cf. also Fraenkel, E. in Das Problem des Klassischen und die Antike, ed. Jaeger, W. (Leipzig, 1933), 52.Google Scholar

^{page 175 note 5} e.g. the heading in some manuscripts Ad Vergilium unguentarium; or Heinze's introduction to the poem: ‘Der Gast, Vergilius, hat mil dem Dichter der Aeneis nichts gemein … sondern wird in v. 25 als ein Geschaftsmann charakterisiert, der … in den Hausern der vornehmen Jugend als gern gesehener Gast verkehrt.’ Cf. most recently Williams, G. W., Tradition and Originality in Roman Poetry (Oxford, 1968), 122Google Scholar, where, without argument, the opposite view is condemned as unintelligent.

^{page 175 note 6} CR xlii (1928), 165–7Google Scholar; cf. also Hahn, , TAPA lxxvi (1945), xxxii–xxxiii.Google Scholar

^{page 176 note 1} The Structure of Horace's Odes (London, 1961), 75–6.Google Scholar

^{page 176 note 2} Latin Explorations (London, 1963), 11Google Scholar; cf. AUMLA v (1956), 34–43.Google Scholar

^{page 176 note 3} Op. cit. 26.

^{page 177 note 1} 10. 45.

^{page 177 note 2} 5. 40 ff., 6. 54 ff.

^{page 178 note 1} Cf. Quint, , x. 1. 98.Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 2} Sat. i. 10. 43.Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 3} Ecl. 9. 35.Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 4} Epp. ii. 1. 247.Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 5} 1. 55.

^{page 178 note 6} iv. 2. 33.

^{page 178 note 7} Since 21 B.c. he had been the husband of Augustus' niece (and Agrippa's former wife), the elder Marcella. He was to be praetor in 13 B.c. and consul in 10 B.c., and, according to Plut. Ant. 87Google Scholar, he ranked next in Augustus' estimation to Agrippa and the two Nerones. His execution (or suicide) as one of Julia's reputed paramours in 2 B.c. was still a long way off. Cf. also Syme, R., The Roman Revolution (Oxford, 1939), esp. p. 427.Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 8} Iullus Antonius heroico metro Diomedeas duodecim libros scripsit egregios et prosa aliqua.

^{page 178 note 9} Cf. Heinze, adGoogle ScholarHor. Epp. i. 16. 27Google Scholar. See also Savage, J. J., Class. Bulletin xxxvi (1959–1960), 1–4, 9–10Google Scholar, on a possible Diomedeia by Varius Rufus.

^{page 179 note 1} As Heinze points out, he may well have been curule aedile in 16 B.c. and as such officially concerned with the preparations for the expected triumph.

^{page 179 note 2} Cf. Sat. i. 10. 85.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 3} Cf. also Ecl. 3. 84 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 4} See CQ N.s. xviii (1968), 116–17, 119.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 5} tuque pedestribus | dices historiis proelia Caesaris, | Maecenas, lines 9–11.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 6} Horace, 375Google Scholar. The earliest Aeneid quotation, however, is perhaps to be found not in the well-known Propertius passage (ii. 34. 61–6) usually cited in this context, but in Horace, 's second book of Satires (i. 8–15Google Scholar, echoing Aen. ii. 8–15)Google Scholar; see Kytzler, B., ‘Das früheste Aeneis-Zitat’, in Gedenkschrift für G. Rohde, ed. Radke, G. (Tübingen, 1961), 151–67.Google Scholar

^{page 180 note 1} 11. 51–2.

^{page 180 note 2} Aen. vi. 853Google Scholar; cf. Conway, R. S., Proc. Class. Ass. xxv (1928), 33.Google Scholar

^{page 180 note 3} Aen. ii. 31Google Scholar; cf. 183 ff.

^{page 180 note 4} Aen. ii. 540–3Google Scholar. Compare especially Horace, 's ille non… (Od. iv. 6. 13)Google Scholar with Virgil's at non ille…

^{page 181 note 1} Aen. i. 257–96Google Scholar; cf. Williams, R. D., Proc. Virg. Soc. v (1965–1966), 19 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 181 note 2} invisum nepotem, | Troica quern peperit sacerdos, Od. iii. 3. 31–2.Google Scholar

^{page 181 note 3} 1. 33. On the position of Romulus in these odes cf. CQ N.s. xviii (1968), 119–20.Google Scholar

^{page 181 note 4} Cf. 5. 1, 8. 22–4.

^{page 181 note 5} 11. 53–6.

^{page 181 note 6} 11. 792–3.

^{page 182 note 1} Od. iv. 8. 13ff.Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 2} According to Jerome, Quintilius Varus died in 24/3 B.c.

^{page 183 note 1} ad Ecl. 10. 1Google Scholar, Georg. iv. 1Google Scholar. The echo, in the quoted lines, of nesciaque humanis precibus mansuescere corda (Georg. iv. 470)Google Scholar is hard to overlook. 2 D.A. 66.

^{page 183 note 2} By Coleman, R., ‘Gallus, the Bucolics, and the Ending of the Fourth Georgic’, AJP lxxxiii (1962), 55–71Google Scholar; on the whole controversy cf. the summary by Duckworth, G. in CW lvii (1963–1964), 204Google Scholar; also Otis, B., Virgil, a Study in Civilized Poetry (Oxford, 1963), 408–13.Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 1} In Pollio's case principum amicitias et arma (ii. 1. 4)Google Scholar, in the case of Maecenas, proelia Caesaris (ii. 12. 10).Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 2} e.g. ii. 17.

^{page 184 note 3} 11. 73 ff.

^{page 185 note 1} e.g. 64. 76–9, 65. 13–16, 68. 51 ff., etc.

^{page 185 note 2} ad Hor. Od, iv. 8. 17Google Scholar: quid enim? an ille, re fere recente, turn id ignoraverit, quod hodie decimo et septimo post saeculo pueri decennes sciunt? … nullumne habuit amicorum, … qui tarn reconditum arcanum proderet, duos fuisse Scipiones, cognomine Africanos?3

^{page 185 note 3} See, for example, Page, T. E., adGoogle ScholarHor. Od. i. 37. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 1} C. J. Fordyce, ad loc.

^{page 186 note 2} Poems 35 and 95; cf. Fordyce's commentary on 95 for other examples.

^{page 187 note 1} For a detailed discussion of these echoes see Bowra, C. M., CR xlii (1928), 165–7Google Scholar, and cf. Quinn, K., op. cit. 11 n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 2} iii. 13.

^{page 187 note 3} Collinge, N. H., op. cit. 74.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 1} The way in which Virgil is introduced in Sat. i. 5. 39–41Google Scholar is clearly relevant to the animae dimidium meae of Od. i. 3. 8Google Scholar. In recalling it in this connection we do well to remember that friends did not always addrress each other in the genus ahum dicendi.

^{page 188 note 2} Cat. 13. 13–14.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 3} Loc. cit., p. 167; so also Quinn, K., op. cit. 14Google Scholar. The frequent references to an ‘in erial command’ in this context themselves appear to rest on a misinterpretation of coegerit in Suetonius' Vita Horati (ut non modo saeculare carmen componendum iniunxerit sed et Vindelicam victoriam Tiberii Drusique privignorum suorum, eumque coegerit propter hoc tribus carminum libris ex longo intervallo quartum addere); see Brink, C. O., Horace on Poetry (Cambridge, 1963), 191 n. 3Google Scholar, and cf., for example, Prop. i. 4. 2. On the whole subject see also Fraenkel, , op. cit. 364.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 4} ‘Of the extant poetic works of that period no other book shows so refined an arrangement as the last book of Horace's odes’ (Fraenkel, 410).Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 5} Ligurinus in 33 ff., Lyce through the mention of Cinara in 1. 4 and 13. 21 ff. Ode 7 (Diffugere nives), the other apparent exception, gains its relevance from the fact that ‘among other things, it is meant to serve as a preparation for iv. 8’ (Fraenkel, 419).

^{page 189 note 1} Most recently by Williams, G. W., op. cit. 122.Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 2} Op. cit. 7 ff.

^{page 189 note 3} For references see Bowra, loc. cit. Bowra also cites the Culex (252)Google Scholar as a poem by the youthful Virgil, but in view of the doubts on this point, on which cf. Fraenkel, E., JRS xlii (1952), 1 ff.Google Scholar, no reliance can be placed on this reference.

^{page 189 note 4} 511 ff.

^{page 189 note 5} 78–81. The occurrence of the story in the list of acceptable neoteric topics in this poem (cf. Skutsch, O., HSCPh lxxiii (1968), 162–4Google Scholar; also Williams, G. W., op. cit. 243–9)Google Scholar is of special interest in view of the place occupied by Gallus a few lines earlier.

^{page 190 note 1} On this subject see most recently Hardie, C. G., Proc. Virg. Soc. vi (1966–1967), 1–11Google Scholar (esp. p. 8); Skutsch, O., loc. cit. 165–6Google Scholar; Williams, G. W., op. cit. 236Google Scholar. We need not perhaps ask whether or no the poem is a ‘catalogue’ in any strict sense in order to accept that it is full of echoes of Gallus' work and that Servius' comment is not wholly unjustified.

^{page 190 note 2} Met. vi. 412–674.Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 3} In a recent lecture to the Virgil Society (Proc. Virg. Soc. vii [1967–8], 1–11)Google Scholar Mr. Peter Levi did well to emphasize the traditional element in Virgil's Arcadia, but he seems to me to go too far in his conclusion that the pastoral Arcadia of the Eclogues was in no way an original contribution. (He also recognizes the dependence of Iam veris comites on the Eclogues, but can still bring himself to believe that the poem, though written, as he thinks, after Virgil's death, was addressed to a different Vergilius.)

^{page 190 note 4} By Panofsky, E., ‘Et in Arcadia Ego’, in Philosophy and History, Essays presented to Ernst Cassirer (Oxford, 1936), 223Google Scholar; cf. Snell, B., ‘Arkadien, die Entdeckung einer geistigen Landschaft’, Eng. trans, in The Discovery of Mind (Oxford, 1953), 281–309Google Scholar; Highet, G., The Classical Tradition, (Oxford, 1949), 163Google Scholar, and additional note, p. 614, with further references; Hardie, C. G., Proc. Virg. Soc. vi (1966–1967), 7Google Scholar.

^{page 190 note 5} Panofsky, , 230.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 1} Ibid. 227–8.

^{page 191 note 2} 42–4; cf. Skutsch, , loc. cit. 166–9Google Scholar. Admittedly the fifth Eclogue is not, like the seventh and the tenth, explicitly located in Arcadia, but neither is it placed in Theo critus' Sicily; and possibly the presence of Pan (59) suggests Arcadia rather than Sicily. In any case, it shows the tomb in the pastoral setting.

^{page 191 note 3} Panofsky, , 228.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 4} Cat. 65. 14Google Scholar; cf. also above, p. 189 n. 5.

^{page 192 note 1} i. 18 (Nullam, Vare).

^{page 192 note 2} Cf. Od. iv. 9. 10.Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 3} It is at any rate remarkable that, after the four elegies addressed to Gallus in the Monobiblos, no later poem is addressed to any friend of that name.

^{page 192 note 4} It would be in the Horatian manner to make a self-contained ode serve at the same time as an introduction to the poem that follows. An analogous relationship applies to iv. 7 and iv. 8 (cf. above, p. 187 and n. 5) and to i. 34 and i. 35 (cf. Fraenkel, , 253)Google Scholar; and the resemblance between this phrase and dulce est desipere in loco is unmistakable.

^{page 193 note 1} Note especially Cecropiae domus and barbaras regum … libidines. This, as far as I know, is the only occasion in Horace's Odes where a poem does not supply sufficient information of the relevant parts of a myth without outside knowledge.