Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-564cf476b6-4htn5 Total loading time: 0.374 Render date: 2021-06-22T01:35:27.653Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

POETS AND READERS IN SEVENTH-CENTURY ROME: POPE HONORIUS, LUCRETIUS, AND THE DOORS OF ST. PETER'S

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2020

DENNIS TROUT
Affiliation:
University of Missouri-Columbia
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

This essay offers several reasons for reconsidering seventh-century Rome's reputation as a literary dark age. It provides close readings of several epigrams inscribed in Roman churches during and soon after the papacy of Honorius I (625–38) as evidence for a revived literary scene in the city during these years. It also argues that the intertextual maneuvers deployed by these epigrams suggest, contrary to current opinion, that Lucretius's De rerum natura had Roman readers in the early seventh century. Lucretius's “popularity” in contemporary Visigothic Spain; the likelihood that Honorius's younger contemporary and acquaintance, Jonas of Bobbio, was familiar with Lucretius; and the eventual presence of a (lost) manuscript of the De rerum natura in the library of the Bobbio monastery are enlisted in order to set both early seventh-century Rome and the De rerum natura in wider historical context. In general, this essay encourages the re-evaluation of the place of epigraphic poetry in our histories of late Latin literature and literary culture.

Keywords

Pope Honorius I Lucretius carmina epigraphica S. Agnese fuori le mura Old St. Peter's Isidore of Seville Jonas of Bobbio Vergil Ovid Chintila Clavis Patrum Latinorum, ed. E. Dekkers, 3rd ed. (Steenbrugis, 1995) G. B. de Rossi, Inscriptiones christianae urbis Romae septimo saeculo antiquiores, vol. 2, part 1 (Rome, 1888) Paola De Santis, Sanctorum Monumenta: ‘Aree sacre’ del suburbio di Roma nella documentazione epigrafica (IV–VII secolo) (Bari, 2010) Inscriptiones christianae urbis Romae septimo saeculo antiquiores, nova series, 10 vols. (Rome, 1922–92) E. Diehl, Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae Veteres, 3 vols. (Berlin, 1925–31; rev. ed. 1961) C. T. Lewis and C. Short, A Latin Dictionary (Oxford, 1879) Le Liber Pontificalis: Texte, introduction, et commentaire, ed. Louis Duchesne, 3 vols., 2nd ed. (Paris, 1955–57) Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae: Suburbium, 5 vols. (Rome, 2001–8) P. G. W. Glare, Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford, 1982) The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, Volume II: 395–527, ed. J. R. Martindale (Cambridge, 1980) The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, Volume III: 527–641, ed. J. R. Martindale (Cambridge, 1992). Word searches have been conducted using the Packard Humanities Database (PHI) of Classical Latin Texts (http://latin.packhum.org/), the Brepols Library of Latin Texts Series A (LLT-Series A), and the Brepols Cross Database Searchtool (BCDS), which accesses the Brepols Library of Latin Texts Series A, Series B, and the MGH. BCDS searches have typically been restricted to the periods “Antiquitas (< ca. 200)” and “Aetas Patrum (ca. 200–735).” When appropriate the parameters of searches are indicated to allow replication
Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Fordham University 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

Footnotes

I am especially grateful for insights shared by Francis Newton, Gregor Kalas, Christine Shepardson, and Maura Lafferty and for comments from audiences at Duke University and the University of Tennessee. All translations are my own unless otherwise noted.

References

1 See especially the thorough survey of Butterfield, David, The Early Textual History of Lucretius’ De rerum natura (Cambridge, UK, 2013), 46–135, esp. 100CrossRefGoogle Scholar on the “attenuated” circulation of the text after the fourth century. The earliest manuscripts of the De rerum natura are ninth-century.

2 Butterfield, Early Textual History, 100: “troubled” and “literary dark age”; 89: on Sidonius, who was in Rome ca. 455–61 and again in 468; 83–85 (with Table 1 and 28 citations): on the familiarity of Priscian (d. ca. 530) with the De rerum natura in Constantinople; and 89–91: on Isidore. See also the “testimonianze medievali” collected at Solaro, Giuseppe, Lucrezio: Biografie umanistiche (Bari, 2000), 93122Google Scholar, covering roughly the late seventh through the fourteenth century.

3 Reynolds, L. D., “Lucretius,” in Texts and Transmission: A Survey of the Latin Classics, ed. Reynolds, L. D. (Oxford, 1983), 218–22, at 220Google Scholar. See further Fleischmann, Wolfgang Bernard, “Lucretius Carus, Titus,” in Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum: Medieval and Renaissance Latin Translations and Commentaries, Volume 2, ed. Kristeller, Paul Oskar and Cranz, F. Edward (Washington, D.C., 1971), 349–65, at 350–51Google Scholar. For the Irish-born monk Dungal's emendation of the Oblongus, see Ferrari, Mirella, “In Papia conveniant ad Dungalum,” Italia Medioevale e Umanistica 15 (1972): 152, at 38Google Scholar; and Ganz, David, “Lucretius in the Carolingian Age: The Leiden Manuscripts and Their Carolingian Readers,” in Medieval Manuscripts of the Latin Classics: Production and Use, ed. Chavannes-Mazel, Claudine A. and Smith, Margaret M. (London, 1996), 91102Google Scholar. For an early statement of the contested thesis that the majority of early medieval and Carolingian citations or echoes of Lucretian words and ideas were secondary, gleaned from the classical poets, the Christian apologists, and the grammarians, see Philippe, J., “Lucréce dans la théologie chrétiennes du IIIe au XIIIe siècle et specialement dans les écoles carolingiennes,” Revue de l'histoire des religions 32 (1895): 284302Google Scholar; 33 (1896): 19–36 and 125–62, succinctly at 33 (1896): 19–21. On Poggio's rediscovery of the Oblongus, see also Greenblatt, Stephen, The Swerve: How the World Became Modern (New York, 2011)Google Scholar with the corrective review by Michael Herren in The Journal of Medieval Latin 22 (2012): 295–301.

4 Only Boethius directly references Lucretius, (mis)quoting one line of the De rerum natura (1.715) in his De institutione arithmetica (CPL 879) 2.1. See Butterfield, Early Textual History, 86–88 (though the quotation inadvertently slips to the De consolatione philosophiae at 88). Arator performed his text over four days in April and May 544 at the church of S. Pietro in Vincoli. On Arator and his poem's classicizing diction, invoking Lucan as well as Vergil and Ovid but not Lucretius, and paraphrastic technique, see, for example, Green, Roger P. H., Latin Epics of the New Testament: Juvencus, Sedulius, Arator (Oxford, 2006), 251–350, esp. 332CrossRefGoogle Scholar on the absence of Lucretius; and McBrine, Patrick, Biblical Epics in Late Antiquity and Anglo-Saxon England: Divina in Laude Voluntas (Toronto, 2017), 173209CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who records (186) a long list of classical writers known to Arator, from which Lucretius is absent.

5 Moorhead, John, “Gregory's Literary Inheritance,” in A Companion to Gregory the Great, ed. Neil, Bronwen and Dal Santo, Matthew J. (Leiden, 2013), 249–67Google Scholar, a balanced and sensitive assessment. As Moorhead notes (267), Isidore of Seville offers the best evidence of renewed engagement with the classical heritage. On the subtle ways in which some traditions of the “old schools” (the prose-rhythm, for example) persisted in the clerical establishment at Rome into the seventh century, see Richard Matthew Pollard, “A Cooperative Correspondence: The Letters of Gregory the Great,” in A Companion to Gregory the Great, 291–312, esp. 310–12.

6 This “narrative” for Italy is overt or implicit in most literary-historical surveys. See, for example, Conte, Gian Biaggio, Latin Literature: A History, trans. Solodow, Joseph. B. (Baltimore, 1994), 713–18Google Scholar, who opined that for two centuries following the “arrival of the Lombards” literature was an unaffordable luxury in Italy (718); and Brunhölzl, Franz, Histoire de la littérature latin du Moyen Âge, trans. Rochais, Henri (Turnhout, 1990), 1.1:33–70Google Scholar, for whom Jonas of Bobbio's Vita Columbani is the most important literary work in Italy between Gregory the Great and “le Renouveau carolingien” (65). Furthermore, in surveys of late Latin poetry the riches of the fourth and fifth centuries justifiably steal the show. See, for example, McGill, Scott, “Latin Poetry,” in The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity, ed. Johnson, Scott Fitzgerald (Oxford, 2012), 335–60Google Scholar, wherein the elegist Maximianus and epicist Arator confirm the endurance of poetic activity in Rome at least into the 540s (339). The stock of the former is now on the rise. See, for example, The Elegies of Maximianus, ed. and trans. A. M. Juster, with introduction by Michael Roberts (Philadelphia, 2018).

7 “Ultimate truths”: Hardie, Philip, “Lucretius and Later Latin Literature in Antiquity,” in The Cambridge Companion to Lucretius, ed. Gillespie, Stuart and Hardie, Philip (Cambridge, UK, 2007), 111–28, at 112Google Scholar.

8 Dennis Trout, “Sagax animo: Jonas of Bobbio and the Verse Epitaph of Pope Honorius,” Early Medieval Europe (forthcoming).

9 On the (understandable) tendency to depreciate literary life in seventh-century Rome and Italy, see Riché, Pierre, Education and Culture in the Barbarian West From the Sixth Through the Eighth Century, trans. Contreni, John J. (Columbia, SC, 1976), 345–52Google Scholar, for whom Rome had plenty of desirable books but little learning; Brunhölzl, Histoire de la littérature latin, 1.1:64–7, for whom epigraphic verse in Italy is the one feeble sign of literary activity in an age otherwise “voilée à nos yeux par un nuage presque impenetrable” (67); and Fontaine, Jacques, “Education and Learning,” in The New Cambridge Medieval History, Volume 1: c. 500–c. 700, ed. Fouracre, Paul (Cambridge, UK, 2005), 735–59, at 739Google Scholar, wherein seventh-century Italy is a “depressed” area with a “stagnant” literary culture.

10 For general consensus on the traumatic end of ancient Italy in the sixth century, see O'Donnell, James J., The Ruin of the Roman Empire: A New History (New York, 2009), 257–70Google Scholar; Heather, Peter, The Restoration of Rome: Barbarian Popes and Imperial Pretenders (Oxford, 2013), 168–72Google Scholar; and Kulikowski, Michael, Imperial Tragedy: From Constantine's Empire to the Destruction of Roman Italy, AD 363–568 (London, 2019), 306–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a grim (but controversial) assessment of the combined impact of plague and war on Italy, see Harper, Kyle, The Fate of Rome: Climate, Disease, and the Fate of an Empire (Princeton, 2018), 262–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Elton's, Hugh The Roman Empire in Late Antiquity: A Political and Military History (Cambridge, UK, 2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar provides a concise narrative from the perspective of the imperial court. For an analysis of ways in which the crises of the late fifth and sixth centuries may actually have spurred the Roman papacy to accept and institutionalize new roles of civic leadership, see Kristina Sessa, “Rome at War: The Effects of Crisis on Church and Community in Late Antiquity,” in Urban Developments in Late Antique and Medieval Rome: Revising the Narrative of Renewal, ed. Gregor Kalas and Ann Van Dijk (Amsterdam, forthcoming). On shatter zones as large regions of instability produced by incursion and warfare, note Mapping the Mississippian Shatter Zone: The Colonial Indian Slave Trade and Regional Instability in the American South, ed. Robbie Ethridge and Sheri M. Shuck-Hall (Lincoln, 2009); and Pekka Hämäläinen, Lakota America: A New History of Indigenous Power (New Haven, 2019), 21–23.

11 Gregory, Homiliae in Hiezechihelem prophetam 2.6.22, ed. M. Adriaen, CCL 142 (Turnhout, 1971), 310: “Quid est iam, rogo, quod in hoc mundo libeat? Ubique luctus aspicimus, undique gemitus audimus, destructae urbes, eversa sunt castra, depoplulati agri, in solitudine terra redacta est.”; trans. Richards, Jeffrey, Consul of God: The Life and Times of Gregory the Great (London, 1980), 23Google Scholar. On Gregory's Rome, see Pani, L. Ermini, “La Roma di Gregorio Magno,” in L'Orbis christianus antiquus di Gregorio Magno, ed. Pani, L. Ermini (Rome, 2007), 1947Google Scholar.

12 For summaries of Honorius's pontificate, see Richards, Jeffrey, The Popes and the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages, 476–752 (London, 1979), 179–80Google Scholar; Sennis, Antonio, “Onorio I,” in Enciclopedia dei Papi (Rome, 2000), 585–90Google Scholar; and Moorhead, John, The Popes and the Church of Rome in Late Antiquity (London, 2015), 172–78Google Scholar. For a detailed study, see Thanner, Anton, Papst Honorius I. (625–638) (St. Ottilien, 1989)Google Scholar.

13 The epitaph, ICUR 2 (1935) 4161, is discussed more fully below.

14 On checking Arianism, note the discussion below of ICUR 2 (1935) 4119 (lux arana dei) and Honorius, ep. 1 (PL 80.469A–B) to Isaacius, the exarch at Ravenna (625–44), seeking his support for the Catholic king Adaloald against his rival the Arian Arioald. See PLRE 3, 719–21: “Isaacius 8.” On Honorius's unfortunate role in the Monoenergism / Monothelite controversy, see Richards, The Popes and the Papacy, 181–200; and Moorhead, The Popes and the Church of Rome, 177–78.

15 Richards, The Popes and the Papacy, 179.

16 Honorius's Life can be found at LP 1.323–27. For composition of the seventh-century Lives (after the Life of Boniface V [619–25]) relatively soon after each pope's death, see Duchesne at LP 1. ccxxxii: “Depuis Honorius, les notices ont dû être rédigées une à une,” a scheme now affirmed in McKitterick, Rosamond, Rome and the Invention of the Papacy: The Liber pontificalis (Cambridge, UK, 2020), 1213CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For keen insights on Duchesne's edition and his editorial principles see Franklin, Carmela Vircillo, “Theodor Mommsen, Louis Duchesne, and the Liber pontificalis: Classical Philology and Medieval Latin Texts,” in Marginality, Canonicity, Passion, ed. Formisano, Marco and Kraus, Christina Shuttleworth (Oxford, 2018), 99140Google Scholar.

17 LP 1.323: “Honorius, natione Campanus, ex patre Petronio consule sedit ann. XII mens. XI dies XVII.”

18 LP 1.323: “Hic erudivit clerum.”; and LP 1.324: “Fecit autem in domum suam iuxta Lateranis monasterium … ubi praedia et dona simul obtulit.”

19 Moorhead, The Popes and the Church of Rome (n. 12 above), 173. On the Liber's building lists as part of the “text's campaign” to represent “the visible establishment of papal power,” see McKitterick, Rome and the Invention of the Papacy, 100–22 (quotation at 100).

20 Krautheimer, Richard, Rome: Profile of a City, 312–1308 (Princeton, 1980), 87Google Scholar. Note the surveys of Honorius's church projects in Moorhead, The Popes and the Church of Rome (n. 12 above), 173–75; Alessandro Taddei, “Il VII secolo: Da Sabiniano (604–606) a Sergio I (687–701),” in La committenza artistica dei papi a Roma nel Medioevo, ed. Mario D'Onofrio (Rome, 2016), 145–80, at 148–58; and Dennis Trout, “(Re)Founding Christian Rome: The Honorian Project of the Early Seventh Century,” in Urban Developments in Late Antique and Medieval Rome (n. 10 above), forthcoming.

21 On the translation of suburban relics to intra-mural churches, see Osborne, John, “The Roman Catacombs in the Middle Ages,” Papers of the British School at Rome 53 (1985): 278328, esp. 286–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The process begins with Pope Theodore (642–49), reaching peak velocity under Paul I (757–67). See further Goodson, Caroline J., “Building for Bodies: The Architecture of Saint Veneration in Early Medieval Rome,” in Roma Felix — Formation and Reflections of Medieval Rome, ed. Carragáin, Éamonn Ó and de Vegvar, Carol Neuman (Aldershot, 2007), 5179Google Scholar; and eadem, The Rome of Pope Paschal I: Papal Power, Urban Renovation, Church Rebuilding and Relic Transformation, 817–824 (Cambridge, UK, 2010).

22 For the story in outline, see, for example, Krautheimer, Rome: Profile of a City, 80–83: “Rome in the sixth and seventh centuries grew to be the magic center of the West,” with “flood proportions” of pilgrims by the “time of Gregory and under his successors,” an inundation that “vastly increased” in the seventh and eighth centuries (80). See further Alan Thacker, “Rome of the Martyrs: Saints, Cults and Relics, Fourth to Seventh Centuries,” in Roma Felix, 13–49; idem, “Rome: The Pilgrims’ City in the Seventh Century,” in England and Rome in the Early Middle Ages: Pilgrimage, Art, and Politics, ed. Francesca Tinti (Turnhout, 2014), 122–31; and Maskarenic, Maya, City of Saints: Rebuilding Rome in the Early Middle Ages (Philadelphia, 2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. A persuasive argument for the vitality of several inter-connected late antique monumental forms (walls, gates, and processional ways) in many post-Roman cities of seventh- and eighth-century Spain, Gaul, and Italy is offered by Dey, Hendrik W., The Afterlife of the Roman City: Architecture and Ceremony in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (Cambridge UK, 2015), 127–89Google Scholar, though with minimal attention to Rome itself.

23 The texts are ILCV 1770-71. For the church, see Brandenburg, Hugo, Le prime chiese di Roma: IV–VII secolo (Milan, 2013), 2666Google Scholar; and Mondini, Daniela, San Lorenzo fuori le mura: Storia del complesso monumentale nel Medioevo (Rome, 2016)Google Scholar.

24 The seven epigrams credited here to Honorius are ICUR 2 (1935) 4119–20, 4160, and 4792; and ICUR 8 (1983) 20755–57. Honorius's own epitaph is ICUR 2 (1935) 4161.

25 The verse epitaph of Deusdedit is ICUR 2 (1935) 4160. Note that ICUR 2 (1935) 4162, the epitaph of Boniface V (619–25), Honorius's immediate predecessor, may also have been Honorius's handiwork, but unlike the former it does not contain Honorius's name.

26 S. Agnese: ICUR 8 (1983) 20755–57. St Peter's: ICUR 2 (1935) 4119–20. S. Paolo f.l.m.: ICUR 2 (1935) 4792. There was also an Honorian prose inscription in the apse of his newly built S. Pancrazio; see de Rossi, 2.1, 24.28 (Codex Einsidlensis) = ILCV 1786 = ICUR 2 (1935) 4292 = De Santis, 29.

27 On Vergil, in addition to the works cited in the next note, see the essays in Romane memento: Vergil in the Fourth Century, ed. Roger Rees (London, 2004). On Ovid's popularity, see now Fielding, Ian, Transformations of Ovid in Late Antiquity (Cambridge, UK, 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Ovid in Late Antiquity, ed. Franca Ela Consolino (Turnhout, 2018).

28 For exemplary studies of intertextual allusion in late Latin poets, see Mastrangelo, Marc, The Roman Self in Late Antiquity: Prudentius and the Poetics of the Soul (Baltimore, 2008)Google Scholar; Ware, Catherine, Claudian and the Epic Tradition (Cambridge, UK, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pelttari, Aaron, The Space That Remains: Reading Latin Poetry in Late Antiquity (Ithaca, 2014)Google Scholar; O'Hogan, Cillian, Prudentius and the Landscapes of Late Antiquity (Oxford, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fielding, Transformations of Ovid; and Hardie, Philip, Classicism and Christianity in Late Antique Latin Poetry (Berkeley, 2019)Google Scholar.

29 For Latin texts of the passio Agnetis (BHL 156), see Boninus Mombritius, Sanctuarium seu Vitae Sanctorum, 2 vols., a fifteenth-century collection re-edited in 1910 by the Benedictines of Solesmes (Paris, 1910; reprinted Olms, 1978), 1:40–44; and AASS Jan. II (Paris, 1863), 715–18, with English translation in Lapidge, Michael, The Roman Martyrs: Introduction, Translations, and Commentary (Oxford, 2018), 348–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the date and context of composition (Rome during the papacy of Symmachus [498–514]), see Lanéry, Cécile, Ambroise de Milan hagiographe (Paris, 2008), 357–61Google Scholar; further refined (between 506–514) at idem, “Agnes et Emerentiana (BHL 156): Rome, entre 498 et 514,” in Hagiographies: Histoire internationale de la littérature hagiographique latine et vernaculaire en Occident des origines à 1550, ed. Guy Philippart (Turnhout, 2010), 5:193–203.

30 On the parallels between the passio and the apse program and a treatment of the imagery, see Trout, Dennis, “Pictures with Words: Reading the Apse Mosaic of S. Agnese f.l.m. (Rome),” Studies in Iconography 40 (2019): 126Google Scholar. Compare the mosaic image of Theodora from Ravenna's S. Vitale (540s). For another recent treatment of the visual and textual components of this mosaic, see Thunø, Erik, The Apse Mosaic in Early Medieval Rome: Time, Network, and Repetition (Cambridge, UK, 2015), 2427CrossRefGoogle Scholar and passim.

31 ICUR 8.20757.1–8. On establishing the text, which is also preserved in four syllogae, and on the differences between the inscription currently in the apse and the “original,” see Dennis Trout, “ICUR 8.20757: Poetry and Ambition at S. Agnese fuori le mura,” in Fide non Ficta: Essays in Honor of Paul B. Harvey, Jr., ed. John D. Muccigrosso and Celia E. Schultz, Biblioteca Athenaeum 64 (Bari, 2020), 147–63.

32 For Vergil's and Ovid's use of aurora and iris, see Trout, “Pictures with Words,” 24, n. 74–75; and idem, “ICUR 8.20757: Poetry and Ambition,” 158–59. Vergil's Chaos appears at Aeneid (hereafter Aen.) 4.510–11: “deos Erebumque Chaosque / tergeminamque Hecaten”; and Aen. 6.264–5: “di … et Chaos et Phlegethon.” Vergil is cited from P. Vergili Maronis Opera, ed. R. A. B. Mynors (Oxford, 1969), with recourse to Vergil: Eclogues, Georgics, Aeneid, ed. H. Rushton Fairclough, rev. G. P. Goold, 2 vols. (Cambridge, MA, 1999).

33 LP 1.325–6. See also Hansen, Maria Fabricius, The Spolia Churches of Rome: Recycling Antiquity in the Middle Ages, trans. Havekland, Barbara J. (Aarhus, 2015), 100–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In this project Honorius echoed that of Pelagius II at S. Lorenzo, who had removed a hillside to set his church over the tomb and whose apse epigram (ILCV 1770.1–2) immediately advertised that feat: “demovit dominus tenebras ut luce create / his quondam latebris sic modo fulgor inest” (As the lord removed the darkness by creating light, so now there is brightness in these once hidden recesses).

34 For example, Antonio Ferrua in ICUR 8 (1983) 20757. The same text had been invoked by Pelagius's hexameter (cited in the previous note).

35 This paper's use of “allusion” shares the ideas espoused by Pucci, Joseph, The Full-Knowing Reader: Allusion and the Power of the Reader in the Western Literary Tradition (New Haven, 1998), esp. 27–48Google Scholar, who does not deny that authors have intentions but recognizes that authorial intentions cannot control the interpretations that will be activated in “the mind of the reader.” See also Gale, Monica R., Virgil On the Nature of Things: The Georgics, Lucretius, and the Didactic Tradition (Cambridge, UK, 2000), 36CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 Propertius parodied it with “felix qui potuit praesenti flere puellae” (1.12.15). See Heyworth, Stephen J., Cynthia: A Companion to the Text of Propertius (Oxford, 2007), 5960Google Scholar: an “obvious, and joky, echo.” Lucan, too, would reprise the line with “felix qui potuit mundi nutante ruina / quo iaceat iam scire loco” (4.393–4), indicating the happiness of those fortunate enough to be impartial spectators of civil war. On Lucan's Vergilian allusion, see Asso, Paolo, A Commentary on Lucan, De bello civili IV (Berlin, 2010), 186CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For Augustine, see De civitate Dei 7.9, ed. B. Dombart and A. Kalb, CCL 47 (Turnhout, 1955), 193.

37 “Continuous dialogue”: Philip Hardie, “Lucretius and Later Latin Literature” (n. 7 above), 114, also observing (115) that Georgics (hereafter Geo.) 2.490–2 are “drenched in the language of the DRN.” See also P. Vergili Maronis: Bucolica et Georgica, ed. T. E. Page (London, 1963), 284; Virgil: Georgics, ed. R. A. B. Mynors (Oxford, 1990), 169: “nowhere is he closer to Lucr. than in book two”; Gale, Monica R., “Virgil's Metamorphoses: Myth and Allusion in the Georgics,” in Vergil's Georgics: Oxford Readings in Classical Studies, ed. Volk, Katharina (Oxford, 2008), 94–127, at 96Google Scholar on Lucretius as Vergil's “major model” throughout the Georgics and 94–95 on these particular lines as a “certain reference” to Lucretius in one of the “most overtly programmatic passages” in the Georgics; Monica Gale, Virgil on the Nature of Things, 8–14; and Philip Hardie, “Cosmology and National Epic in the Georgics (Georgics 2.458–3.48),” in Vergil's Georgics, 161–81 and 169 on lines 490–92 as a “tissue of Lucretian reminiscences.” For earlier resistance, see Virgil: Georgics. Volume 1: Books I–II, ed. Richard Thomas (Cambridge, UK, 1988), 253.

38 See also Lucretius (hereafter Lucr.) 5.1185: “nec poterant quibus id fieret cognoscere causis.” Lucretius is cited from the edition of Cyril Bailey: Lucreti De Rerum Natura Libri Sex, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1922).

39 On the popularity and availability of Servius in the early Middle Ages, see P. K. Marshall, “Servius,” in Texts and Transmission (n. 3 above), 385–88.

40 Geo. 2.493–4: “fortunatus et ille deos qui novit agrestis / Panaque Silvanumque senem Nymphasque sorores.”

41 Thilo, Georg, Servii Grammatici qui feruntur in Vergilii Bucolica et Georgica commentarii (Leipzig, 1887), 266Google Scholar ad loc.: “repetitio est superioris coloris; nam hoc dicit: et rustici felices sunt, et qui tribuunt operam philosophiae. ‘rerum causas’ id est physicam philosophiam.”

42 De Santis, 47–49, who notes that the line “martyrum e bustis hinc reppulit ille chaos” is prominently placed in the center of the apse for maximum visibility.

43 OLD, s.v. “bustum 1,” although by extension bustum could also stand for the tomb or funeral mound (OLD, s.v. “bustum 2”).

44 Trout, Dennis, Damasus of Rome: The Epigraphic Poetry (Oxford, 2015), 222–23Google Scholar; and De Santis, 21–46, on tumulus and sepulchrum. Propertius, for example, deployed bustum ten times in his four books of elegy; see PHI, [Prop] #bust. Vergil has it three times, all in the Aeneid: 11.201, 11.850, and 12.863; and Ovid fourteen times, once in the Fasti (4.750) as e bustis to describe sheep grazing above graves; see PHI, [OV] #bust.: “pabulaque e bustis inscia carpsit ovis.” In the ten books of his Bellum civile Lucan (tellingly) used bustum a robust forty times; see PHI, [Luc] #bust. Ovid is cited throughout from the following editions by Goold, G. P., Metamorphoses, 2 vols. (Cambridge, MA, 1977 and 1984)Google Scholar; Heroides and Amores (Cambridge, MA, 1977); The Art of Love and Other Poems (Cambridge, MA, 1979); Tristia and Ex Ponto (Cambridge, MA, 1988); and Fasti (Cambridge, MA, 1989).

45 Prudentius has the term three times: once for the tombs of the Jewish patres and sancti resurrected with Christ in the “harrowing of hell” (Cathemerinon. 9.99: “eque bustis prodeunt”); once indicating pagan tombs crowding in on Rome's suburban roadways (Contra Symmachum 1.405) and once (Apotheosis 415) for the tombs that were home to the Gerasene demoniac of Mark's Gospel (5.1), which itself used the term monumenta. For Arnobius, Jerome, and Paulinus of Petrocordium, see the citations in Albert Blaise, Dictionnaire Latin-Français des auteurs chrétiens (Turnhout, 1954), s.v. “bustum.”

46 Ennodius, carm. 1.12.4, ed. Guilelmus Hartel, in Magni Felicis Ennodii Opera Omnia, CSEL 6 (Vienna, 1882), 542. Ennodius was fond of the word. He would use bustum metaphorically (for example, carm. 1.10.6 and 1.11.19) and often in his epitaphs, where it was typically neutral or negative and something to be overcome. See, for example, ep. 5.7 (epitaph of Cynegia; ed. Hartel, p. 130): “nil sexus nec busta nocent”; and carm. 2.2.1 (epitaph of Habundantius; ed. Hartel, p. 557): “post busta superstes,” a phrase that appeared as well in Ennodius's own epitaph (ed. Hartel, 609.7). See also carm. 2.6.5 (epitaph of Melissa; ed. Hartel, 559), 2.99.1 (epitaph of Albinus; ed. Hartel, 591), and 2.148.1 (epitaph of Dalmatia; ed. Hartel, 606). For context, see Kennel, S. A. H., Magnus Felix Ennodius: A Gentleman of the Church (Ann Arbor, 2000), 65–67 and 125–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 Lucr. 3.906, where it is literally a funeral pyre (horrificum bustum), and 5.993, where it is the living tomb (vivum bustum) of a man devoured by an animal.

48 Chaos does not appear in the Genesis creation account but does make one dubious appearance in the Vulgate at Luke 16:26, although chasma, which is the Greek source word, is the preferred manuscript reading. In 389 Augustine, in an anti-Manichean tract, would cite chaos as the Greek word denominating the materia confusa et informis with which God had worked to create caelum and terra. See Augustine, De Genesi contra Manichaeos 1.5.9, ed. Dorothea Weber, CSEL 91 (Vienna, 1998), 76: “primo ergo materia facta est confusa et informis … quod credo a Graecis chaos appellari.” For background, see the introductory essays in Hill, Edmund, On Genesis in The Works of St. Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (New York, 2002), I/13:25–35Google Scholar. Honorius's chaos, however, is clearly more directly indebted to Vergil.

49 Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 10.2, in Diogenes Laertius: Lives of Eminent Philosophers, trans. R. D. Hicks (Cambridge, MA, 1925). For the texts and commentary, see also André Laks, “Édition critique et commentée de la ‘Vie d’Épicure’ dans Diogène Laërce (x, 1–34),” in Études sur l’épicurisme antique, ed. Jean Bollack and André Laks (Lille, 1976), 1–118. See further Obbink, Dirk, “How to Read Poetry about Gods,” in Philodemus and Poetry: Poetic Theory and Practice in Lucretius, Philodemus, and Horace, ed. Obbink, Dirk (Oxford, 1995), 189–209, esp. 189–92Google Scholar where he discusses this passage and its importance for Epicurus's “attitude toward traditional literature, poetry, and paideia” (189). Sextus Empiricus, Against the Physicists, 2.18–19, ed. and trans. by Bury, R. G., Sextus Empiricus (Cambridge, MA, 1936), 3:218–21Google Scholar, which is also identified as Adversus Mathematicos, 10.18–19.

50 PHI, s.v, [Lucr] semina ~ rerum; see also Titi Lucreti Cari De Rerum Natura Libri Sex, ed. Cyril Bailey (Oxford 1947), 2:607 on Lucr. 1.59. It is generally agreed (1) that Ovid was a close reader of Lucretius and (2) that in his creation account he was philosophically eclectic and drew upon a number of poetic models. See, for example, Robbins, Frank Egleston, “The Creation Story in Ovid Met. i,” Classical Philology 8 (1913): 401–14, at 405–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; DeLacy, Phillip, “Philosophical Doctrine and Poetic Technique in Ovid,” Classical Journal 43 (1947): 153–61Google Scholar; Due, Otto Steen, Changing Forms: Studies of the Metamorphoses of Ovid (Copenhagen, 1974) 29–33Google Scholar; Schiesaro, Alessandro, “Ovid and the Professional Discourses of Scholarship, Religion, Rhetoric,” in The Cambridge Companion to Ovid, ed. Hardie, Philip (Cambridge, UK, 2002), 6275CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Butterfield, Early Textual History (n. 1 above), 48. For discussion of the wider role played by chaos (moral as well as physical) in the Metamorphoses, see Tarrant, Richard, “Chaos in Ovid's Metamorphoses and its Neronian Influence,” Arethusa 35 (2002): 349–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Briefly on semina rerum and Lucretius's avoidance of Greek “philosophical terminology” (atomus), see Warren, James, “Lucretius and Greek Philosophy,” in The Cambridge Companion to Lucretius, ed. Gillespie, Stuart and Hardie, Philip (Cambridge, UK, 2007), 19–32, at 22Google Scholar.

51 Ars amatoria 2.470; PHI, s.v, [Lucr] inanis and inane. See Titi Lucreti Cari De Rerum Natura, 2:651–54 and ad loc. on Lucretius 1.330 est in rebus inane (“there is a void in things”). For discussion, see DeLacy, “Philosophical Doctrine and Poetic Technique in Ovid,” 155–56.

52 Persius, Satire 1.1, trans. G. G. Ramsey, Juvenal and Persius (Cambridge, MA, 1961).

53 Seneca, Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium 72.9; text and translation (modified) in Seneca: Ad Lucilium epistulae morales, ed. and trans. Richard M. Gummere (Cambridge, MA, 1930): “imperitis ac rudibus nullus praecipitationis finis est; in Epicureum illud chaos decidunt, inane sine termino.”

54 Lactantius, Institutes 2.8.8, ed. Samuel Brandt and Georg Laubmann, CSEL 19 (Vienna, 1890), 132: “nec audiendi sunt poetae qui aiunt chaos in principio fuisse.” The idea was later echoed by Zeno of Verona, Tract. 1.7, ed. B. Löfstedt, CCL 22 (Turnhout, 1971), 44. For the influence of Ovid's Metamorphoses on the late Latin poetic paraphrases of Genesis, see Evans, John M., Paradise Lost and the Genesis Tradition (Oxford, 1968), 122–32Google Scholar; and Roberts, Michael, “Creation in Ovid's Metamorphoses and the Latin Poets of Late Antiquity,” Arethusa 35 (2002): 403–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 Roberts, “Creation in Ovid's Metamorphoses,” 406; with Hagendahl, Harald, Augustine and the Latin Classics (Stockholm, 1967), 214Google Scholar. Ovid, Metamorphoses (hereafter Met.) 1.84–86 is enlisted by Augustine in De civitate Dei 22.24 (n. 36 above), 849–50. Ovid, Met. 1.84–86 had already been directly quoted by Lactantius in Institutes 2.1.15, ed. Brandt and Laubmann, 98; and Met. 1.76–78 at Institutes 2.8.64, ed. Brandt and Laubmann, 140.

56 Colish, Marcia L., The Stoic Tradition from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages: Volume 2: Stoicism in Christian Latin Thought through the Sixth Century (Leiden, 1985)Google Scholar; and Torre, Chiara, “Seneca and the Christian Tradition,” in The Cambridge Companion to Seneca, ed. Bartsch, Shadi and Schiesaro, Alessandro (Cambridge, UK, 2018), 266–76Google Scholar.

57 Martin of Braga, De ira, ed. C. W. Barlow, in Martini episcopi Bracarensis opera omnia (New Haven, 1950), 145–58; and more recently Martini Bracarensis De ira: Introduzione, testo, traduzione e commento, ed. Chiara Torre (Rome, 2008). On the debt to Seneca, see Iberian Fathers, Volume 1: Writings of Martin of Braga, Paschasius, Leander of Seville, trans. Claude W. Barlow (Washington, DC, 1969), 9–10 and 11–13; L. D. Reynolds, “The Younger Seneca,” in Texts and Transmission (n. 3 above), 358; and Colish, The Stoic Tradition, 2:297–302, esp. 298 for the accusation of larceny.

58 Liber de moribus: Colish, The Stoic Tradition, 1:16. Carolingian activity: Reynolds, L. D., The Medieval Tradition of Seneca's Letters (Oxford, 1965)Google Scholar; and idem, “The Younger Seneca,” in Texts and Transmission (n. 3 above), 369–75, with five manuscripts that include epp. 1–88 dating to the ninth century.

59 LP 1.323: “Investivit regias in ingressu ecclesiae maiores, qui appellatur mediana, ex argento, qui pens. lib. DCCCCLXXV.”

60 ICUR 2 (1935) 4119 (lux arcana); and 2 (1935) 4120 (lumine sed magno) = De Santis 24. Both were also printed by Duchesne in LP 1.325. For the syllogae, see de Rossi, 2.1, 52.3–4. For brief discussion, see de Rossi, 2.1, 53; and de Blaauw, Sible, Cultus et Decor: Liturgia et architettura nella Roma tardoantica e medieval: Basilica Salvatoris, Sanctae Mariae, Sancti Petri (Città del Vaticano, 1994), 525Google Scholar, though these two texts and the doors they adorned seem (another surprise) to have attracted very little discussion.

61 ICUR 2 (1935) 4119.1–10.

62 John 1:4: “in ipso vita erat et vita erat lux hominum.” Lux appears four times in the first nine verses of John. At 1 Cor. 2:7 the wisdom of God is also veiled in mystery: “sed loquimur Dei sapientiam in mysterio, quæ abscondita est.”

63 1 Cor. 1:24: “Christum Dei virtutem, et Dei sapientiam”; at Luke 11:49 Christ speaks about the “wisdom of God” (sapientia Dei) not as himself.

64 2 Cor. 12:4: “et audivit arcana verba quae non licet homini loqui.”

65 This is the moment, in other words, that saw Honorius's drift into the troubled shoals of the Monoenergism / Monothelite controversy. See Richards, The Popes and the Papacy (n. 12 above), 181–200.

66 Pelagius's epigram: ICUR 2 (1935) 4117. Duchesne, LP 1.325, already noted the similarity. The relevant sylloge (Laureshamensis I = Vat. Pal. 833) places it on an altar; see de Rossi 2.1, 145.7 and 459. The complete epigram runs to twelve lines (six couplets).

67 2 Cor. 4:4: “Christi, qui est imago Dei”; and Col. 1:14–15: “in regnum Filii … qui est imago Dei invisibilis.”

68 Exod. 40:33: “maiestate domini coruscante.” Lightening at Ezek. 1:14: “in similitudinem fulguris coruscantis (“like flashing lightening”).”

69 Luke 17:24: “nam sicut fulgur coruscans … ita erit Filius hominis in die sua.” Honorius's letter of reply to Sergius (PL 80.471B = Honorius, ep. 4) also used the adjective but, in that case, Honorius followed Leo's Tome closely with “et qui coruscavit in carne plena divinis miraculis.” Note that Brepols LLT (14 Nov 2019) corusc* + miracul* also yields many results in Augustine and Gregory though it does not pick up the Tome (because the letters are not in the database).

70 For Honorius's reading of Leo in relation to the Monoenergism controversy, see Galtier, P., “La première lettre du pape Honorius: Sources et éclaircissements,” Gregorianum 29 (1948): 4261Google Scholar; and Zocca, Elena, “Onorio I e la tradizione occidentale.Augustinianum 27 (1987): 571615CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the role of the Tome at Chalcedon, see Price, Richard, “The Council of Chalcedon (451): A Narrative,” in Chalcedon in Context: Church Councils 400–700, ed. Price, Richard and Whitby, Mary (Liverpool, 2009), 7079Google Scholar.

71 Leo, Tomus ad Flavianum = Leo, ep. 28, PL 54.767B and Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. and trans. Norman P. Tanner (London, 1990), 1:79–*79: “unum horum coruscat miraculis” (“one of these flashes with miracles”). The surrounding passage and expression (unum horum coruscat miraculis) had already appeared in an Easter sermon Leo gave on 5 April 442 = Tractatus 54, ed. Antoine Chavasse, CCL 138A (Turnhout, 1973), 318.

72 Leo Tractatus 67, ed. Chavasse, 411: “Nam licet in ipso ortu coruscarent in eo signa deitatis, et omnia incrementa corporalium prouectuum diuinis essent plena miraculis, infirmitatum tamen nostrarum susceperat ueritatem.”

73 Honorius's reply: PL 80.471B = Honorius, ep. 4.

74 Compare John 1:4: “in ipso vita erat et vita erat lux hominum (“in him was life and that life was the light of humankind”).”

75 Aug. sermo 263A (CPL 284), PLS 2.494–7, at 495 = D. Germanus Morin, Sancti Augustini sermones post Maurinos reperti, Miscellanea Agostiniana vol. 1 (Rome 1930), 347–50 at 348 (ex sermonibus ab Angelo Mai editis, no. 98); for translation and discussion of date, see Augustine, Sermons III/7 (230–272B) on the Liturgical Seasons, trans. Edmund Hill (New Rochelle, 1993), 222–25. Note similar expressions, for example, at Augustine, sermo ad populum 112A (CPL 284), PLS 2:427; and sermo ad populum (CPL 284) 212, PL 38.1059: “ascendit in caelum unde nunquam recessit.” For clarity on the editions of Augustine's sermones to date, see Éric Rebillard, “Sermones,” in Augustine Through the Ages: An Encyclopedia, ed. Allan D. Fitzgerald (Grand Rapids, MI, 1999), 773–92.

76 Aug. Contra sermonem Arianorum 12.9 (CPL 702), ed. P.-L. Hombert, CCL 87A (Turnhout, 2009), 208 = PL 22.692: “Quia in Verbo iam erat sine tempore, ideo in carne completum est suo tempore; in qua carne ascendit in caelum, qui de caelo non recessit etiam cum inde descendit, et in qua sedet ad dexteram Patris brachium Patris, et in qua descensurus est ad iudicium in iussu, in uoce archangeli et in tuba Dei (1 Thess. 4:16).”

77 On the transparency of the anti-Arian agenda of the Ascension theology expressed in Augustine's sermons, see Kramer, Johanna, Between Earth and Heaven: Liminality and the Ascension of Christ in Anglo-Saxon Literature (Manchester, 2014), 4648Google Scholar. For Honorius's reading of Augustine (as well as Leo) in relation to the Monoenergism controversy, see Galtier, “La première lettre du pape Honorius” (n. 70 above); and Zocca, “Onorio I e la tradizione occidentale” (n. 70 above).

78 John 1:9.

79 2 Cor. 4:6.

80 Col. 1:13 (the same passage that offers Paul's gloss on Christ as the imago Dei invisibilis).

81 Aug. In Iohannis evangelium tractatus 1.19 (CPL 278), CCL 36 = PL 35.1388: “et lux in tenebris lucet, et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt. ergo, fratres, quomodo homo positus in sole caecus, praesens est illi sol, sed ipse soli absens est; sic omnis stultus, omnis iniquus, omnis impius, caecus est corde. praesens est sapientia, sed cum caeco praesens est, oculis eius absens est: non quia ipsa illi absens est, sed quia ipse ab illa absens est.”

82 Lucr. 5.1–54 with a focus here on 1–12; commentary in Lucreti De Rerum Natura (n. 38 above), 3:1323.

83 Lucr. 1.62–79; 3.1–30; 5.1–54; and 6.1–43.

84 Lucr. 5.1–2: “quis potis est dignum pollenti pectore carmen / condere pro rerum maiestate hisque repertis?”

85 Lucr. 5.7–12.

86 Quickly picked up by Vergil at Eclogue (hereafter Ecl.) 5.64 (deus, deus ille, Menalca) and Ecl. 1.7 (namque erit ille mihi semper deus).

87 Arnobius, Adversus nationes 1.38, ed. A. Reifferschied, CSEL 4 (Vienna, 1875), 24–25. See also Hagendahl, Harald, Latin Fathers and the Classics: A Study on the Apologists, Jerome, and Other Christian Writers (Stockholm, 1958), 1723Google Scholar; and George McCracken, Arnobius of Sicca: The Case Against the Pagans, Ancient Christian Writers 7 (Westminster, MD, 1949), 287–88. Note that Arnobius has one distinct echo of Lucretius (deus ille fuit, deus), but otherwise very much changes the Lucretian language, harmonizing with Lucretius only in “general tone and line of thought” (Hagendahl, Latin Fathers and the Classics, 19).

88 Lactantius, Institutes 3.14, ed. Brandt and Laubmann (n. 54 above), 216; with Hagendahl, Latin Fathers and the Classics, 60–61.

89 Lucr. 2.14–16. The dangers of acquisitiveness and pride are highlighted at Lucr. 6.9–23.

90 Lucr. 2.55–61. The passage is reprised at Lucr. 6.35–41.

91 Lactantius, Institutes 1.21.47, ed. Brandt and Laubman (n. 54 above), 87; with Hagendahl, Latin Fathers and the Classics, 58–59.

92 Both tenebrae and caecus are high frequency words in the De rerum natura. LLT-Series A, Lucretius, “tenebr*” > 32 usages; “caec*” > 35 usages. But they were no less popular with Vergil and Ovid.

93 Lucr. 1.62–79: “religio.”

94 Lucr. 3.1–2: “e tenebris tantis tam clarum extollere lumen / qui primus potuisti inlustrans commoda vitae”; and Lucr. 3.9: “tu pater es, rerum inventor.”

95 Lucr. 5.50–1: “nonne decebit / hunc hominem numero divum dignarier esse”; and Lucr. 6.8: “ad caelum gloria fertur.”

96 Arnobius and Lactantius: Hagendahl, Latin Fathers and the Classics (n. 87 above), 12–76; and Butterfield, Early Textual History (n. 1 above), 57–60 (quotation at 60), for whom Lactantius, who cites sixty verses, partially or fully, of the De rerum natura, offers “the most concerted anti-Epicurean attack surviving from antiquity” (57). It has also been long recognized, however, that both writers also found in Lucretius an ally in their denunciations of polytheism and myth; see J. Philippe, “Lucréce dans la théologie chrétiennes” (n. 3 above), 292–94; and Hardie, “Lucretius and Later Latin Literature” (n. 7 above), 117–18.

97 Evans, Paradise Lost (n. 54 above), 122–23: “a detailed refutation of Lucretius's ideas concerning the origins of the world”; Martorelli, Ugo, Redeat verum: Studi sulla tecnica poetica dell'Alethia di Mario Claudio Vittorio (Stuttgart, 2008), 166–69Google Scholar on “l'aemulatio di Lucrezio” at Alethia 2.108–48; Michele Cutino, “Connaissances scientifiques et exégèse de GN 1, 1–8 dans l’epos biblique des Ve–VIe siècles,” in Science et exégèse: Les interprétations antiques et médiévales du récit biblique de la création des elements (Genèse 1, 1–8), ed. Béatrice Bakhouche (Turnhout, 2016), 254–60 at 259: “L’Alethia ainsi se présente comme un modèle antithétique au De rerum natura de Lucrèce, souvent évoqué sur le plan formel de façon antiphrastique”; and Hardie, Philip, “Reflections of Lucretius in Late Antique and Early Modern Biblical and Scientific Poetry: Providence and the Sublime,” in Lucretius and Modernity: Epicurean Encounters Across Time and Disciplines, ed. Lezra, Jacques and Blake, Liza (New York, 2016), 187–202, at 192–93Google Scholar. For a list of Victorius's (potential) Lucretian borrowings, see Claudii Marii Victorii Alethia, ed. P. F. Hovingh, CCL 128 (Turnhout, 1960), 277–78. Notably, the first book's second line, which ends with semina rerum, gestures immediately towards Lucretius; see Roberts, “Creation in Ovid's Metamorphoses” (n. 54 above), 404–405.

98 Cyprianus Gallus, Hept. 1.4, ed. Rudolf Peiper, CSEL 23 (Vienna, 1881), 1. On the Ovidian echoes in the poem's creation account, see Cutino, “Connaissances scientifiques et exégèse,” 248, though he does not acknowledge any Lucretian link. For the possibility that line 3's “immensusque deus” evokes Lucretian diction, see McBrine, Biblical Epics (n. 4 above), 64–5.

99 I offer here the text as edited by Angelo Silvagni at ICUR 2 (1935) 4161 (= de Rossi 2.1, 127. 8 [Vat. Pal. 833 = Laureshamensis II, which contains a collection of thirteen papal epitaphs assembled in the late seventh century] = LP 1.326) — but with one exception, preferring in line 19 the namque of the manuscripts (and de Rossi) to Silvagni's emendation to namqui. In line 24 Vat. Pal. 833 offers bonis, which Silvagni emended to bonus. Silvagni considered bonus to be a proper name (Bonus), but de Rossi had earlier suggested (2.1, xliv–v) emending bonis to Donus, the name of the pope of 676–78, whom, therefore, de Rossi also tentatively identified as the author (as a younger man) of all of Honorius's known epigrams. De Rossi implied, however, that Donus composed the epitaph at the time of Honorius's death in late 638. Here I have accepted Silvagni's bonus, but I have translated it above as “rightly.” For another possible emendation, see Trout, “Sagax animo” (n. 8 above).

100 For example, Moorhead, The Popes and the Church of Rome (n. 12 above), 172; and Sennis, “Onorio I” (n. 12 above).

101 Durliat, Jean, “L’épitaphe du pape Honorius (625–638),” in ΑΕΤΟΣ: Studies in Honour of Cyril Mango, ed. Ševčenko, Ihor and Hutter, Irmgard (Stuttgart, 1998), 7186Google Scholar.

102 For a corpus, see Schneider, Fedor, Die Epitaphien der Päpste und andere stadtrömische Inschriften des Mittelalters (IV. bis XII. Jahrhundert) (Rome, 1933)Google Scholar.

103 The hexameters all have a third foot caesura and the pentameters all have the standard two-dactyl second half. There are four elisions (lines 7, 11, 14, and 23). Vowel length: statuta (10) requires lengthening the first syllable; perfidia (11) lengthening the classically short second syllable; fecunda (18) shortening the first syllable; and epitaphium (23) lengthening the second syllable.

104 Ovid, Fasti 6.73: “aurea possedit socio Capitolia templo / mater et, ut debet, cum Iove summa tenet.”

105 Paul. Nol. Natalicium 8.228, ed. Franz Dolveck, CCL 21 (Turnhout, 2015), 372 = carm. 26.228, ed. Guilelmus Hartel and Margit Kamptner, CSEL 30 (Vienna, 1894/1999), 254; and Prud. Apotheosis 1001.

106 Arator, De actibus apostolorum 2.730, ed. Arthur Patch McKinlay, CSEL 72 (Vienna, 1951), 118.

107 Felle, Antonio Enrico, “Sacra Scrittura ed epigrafia al tempo di Gregorio Magno (570–610),” in L'Orbis christianus antiquus di Gregorio Magno, ed. Pani, L. Ermini (Rome, 2007), 298Google Scholar.

108 Compare “sic unum domini reddis ovile pium” with John 10:16: “Et alias oves habeo, quæ non sunt ex hoc ovili: et illas oportet me adducere, et vocem meam audient, et fiet unum ovile et unus pastor.” On the frequency of the motif in papal poetry, see Felle, “Sacra Scrittura ed epigrafia,” 290, n. 40.

109 The expression appears in Jonas of Bobbio's obituary notice for Honorius in his Vita Columbani et discipuli eius 2.23, ed. Bruno Krusch, MGH, Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum separatim editi 37 (Hanover and Leipzig, 1905), 283.3–5 and surely derives from the Honorian epitaph. See Trout, “Sagax animo” (n. 8 above) with the suggestion of Jonas's authorship of Honorius's Vatican epitaph.

110 OLD, s.v. “sagax 1.” Ovid uses the word three times in the nominative (each unit beginning a line): Met. 3.207: “Ichnobatesque sagax,” for a keen-scented hound (canis); 5.146: the once wise “Aethionque sagax quondam”; and 8.316: the prophetic “Ampycidesque sagax” (Mopsus). He also uses it once as “sagaci” (Remedia amoris 201): “catulo sagaci,” for a keen-scented hound; and once as “sagacior” (Met. 11.599): “sagacior anser,” for a goose more watchful than dogs.

111 German. Arat. frag. 4, lines 161–62 (a piece independent of his translation of Aratus). For the text, see The Aratus Ascribed to Germanicus Caesar, ed. D. B. Gain (London, 1976), 51. See also Le Boeuffle, André, Germanicus: Les phénomènes d'Aratos (Paris, 1975), xxxiiGoogle Scholar: “Germanicus semble particulièrement imprégné des poémes de Lucrèce, Virgile, Ovide et Manilius.” The priority in the relationship between Germanicus and Manilius, however, is unclear since the specific identify of Germanicus and exact date of his poem remain open to debate. For a range of opinions, see idem, Germanicus, vii–ix; The Aratus, 16–20; and Possanza, D. Mark, Translating the Heavens: Aratus, Germanicus, and the Poetics of Latin Translation (New York, 2004), 1516Google Scholar.

112 Manilius, Astronomica, ed. G. P. Goold (Cambridge, MA, 1977), 2.157–58: “sagaci animo”; 2.788: “animum sagacem”; 3.276: “animo sagaci”; and 4.368: “sagacis animi.” Manilius's other uses are 1.83: “sagax usus” (“shrewd experience”); and 2.898: “sub corde sagaci,” both of which also indicate mental acuity; and 5.200 and 5.709, where the phrase “catulos sagacis” (“keen-scented whelps”) reverts to the primary meaning of sagax as “keen scented.”

113 Butterfield, Early Textual History (n. 1 above), 48; Flores, Enrico, “Gli Astronomica di Manilio e l'Epicureismo,” in Epicureismo greco e romano: Atti del congresso internazionale, Napoli, 19–26 maggio 1993, ed. Giannantoni, Gabriele and Gigante, Marcello (Naples, 1996), 2: 900Google Scholar: “uno dei testi base del linguaggio poetico di Manilio è senza dubbio Lucrezio”; Volk, Katharina, Manilius and His Intellectual Background (Oxford, 2009), 192–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar, where Manilius is a “veritable anti-Lucretius” (192); and Gale, Monica R., “Digressions, Intertextuality, and Ideology in Didactic Poetry,” in Forgotten Stars: Rediscovering Manilius’ Astronomica, ed. Green, Steven J. and Volk, Katharina (Oxford, 2011), 205–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For consideration of the political context of the Astronomica, see Green, Steven J., Disclosure and Discretion in Roman Astrology: Manilius and his Augustan Contemporaries (Oxford, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Ironically, Manilius was “rediscovered” by Poggio on the same manuscript hunting expedition that yielded Lucretius.

114 Statius, Silvae, 3.3.98. The passage, however, is emended, since M (codex Matritensis M 31) reads vigilite animaeque sagacis. See, for example, P. Papini Stati Silvae, ed. E. Courtney (Oxford, 1990): vigil iste animique sagacis. The phrase is likely a Lucretian borrowing. On the frequency of Lucretian echoes and allusions in Statius, see, for example, Statius: Silvae Book II, ed. Carole E. Newlands (Cambridge, UK, 2011), 277.

115 Based on the searches BDCS, “sagacis + animi,” “sagaci + animo,” “sagacem + animum,” and all plural forms.

116 Pliny, Naturalis Historia 2.83.4, ed. Carolus Mayhoff (Stuttgart, 1967), 154, describing Pythagoras as a “vir sagacis animi.”

117 Jerome, Commentariorum in epistolam ad Ephesios libri tres (CPL 591), Book 2, ad versus 3:16–19, PL 26.490C: “ut sagaci animo comprehendamus.”

118 Sextus Pompeius Festus, De verborum significatu, ed. Wallace M. Lindsay (Leipzig, 1913), 426: “sagaces appellantur multi ac sollertis acuminis … Lucretius lib. II (840): ‘nec minus haec animum cognoscere <posse sagacem.’ Sagacem> etiam canem … (Enn. Ann. 533) ‘invictus ca<nis> … ribus fretus’”; and Scholiorum Veronensium in Vergilii Bucolica, Georgica, Aeneidem Fragmenta, ed. Hermann Hagen in Servii Grammatici qui feruntur in Vergilii carmina commentarii, ed. Georg Thilo and Hermann Hagen (Leipzig, 1902), 3.2:408, commenting on Vergil, Geo. 3.3: “Sic Lucretius: vacuas aures animumque sagacem.” This commentary is no later than the fifth century.

119 Sil. Ital. Punica 1. 431, ed. and trans. J. D. Duff (Cambridge, MA, 1934), 36: “litore ab Hesperidum Temisus, qui carmine pollens.”

120 Publius Optatianus Porfyrius, Carm. 9.14, ed. Iohannes Polara, Publii Optatiani Porfyrii Carmina. I. Textus (Torino, 1973), 39: “hinc voveat, titulo votorum carmine pollens.”

121 Edward L. Bassett, “Silius Italicus,” in Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum: Medieval and Renaissance Latin Translations and Commentaries, Volume 3, ed. Edward Cranz and Paul Oskar Kristeller (Washington, D.C., 1976), 341–98, at 344–46; but with a note of caution by M. D. Reeve, “Silius Italicus,” in Texts and Transmission (n. 3 above), 389.

122 See the long list of possible citations and echoes of Silius in Aratoris subdiaconi De actibus apostolorum, ed. Arthur Patch McKinlay, CSEL 72 (Vienna, 1951), 246–47.

123 Catullus 64.321, ed. Fordyce, C. J., Catullus: A Commentary (Oxford, 1961), 57Google Scholar: “talia divino fuderunt carmine fata,” and glossing divino as “prophetic” on p. 317.

124 Ver. Ecl. 6.67: “ut Linus haec illi divino carmine pastor,” with P. Vergili Maronis: Bucolica et Georgica, ed. T. E. Page (London, 1963), 146.

125 CPL 1481, ed. C. Schenkl, in Poetae Christiani minores, CSEL 16 (Vienna, 1888), 609–15. On Pomponius's name and authorship, via Isidore of Seville, see Berardino, Angelo di, Patrology, Volume IV: The Golden Age of Latin Patristic Literature from the Council of Nicaea to the Council of Chalcedon (Westminster, MD, 1988), 271Google Scholar.

126 Servii Grammatici qui feruntur in Vergilii Bucolica et Georgica commentarii, ed. Georg Thilo (Leipzig, 1887), 77 ad loc.

127 Ovid: pollens: Met. 5.508, Fasti 1.269 and 6.54, and Tristia 3.10.55; pollentibus: Met. 7.196, and Fasti 2.425 (both with herbis); pollet: Heroides 8.34; and polleat: Heroides 16.39. Notably, Silius's eighteen-book Punica, with eight uses, ties Ovid; pollens: 1.431 (Temisus), 7.570, 8.383, 14.81, and 16.559; pollentia: 8.597; pollentior: 14.338; and pollent: 16.297.

128 Lucretius: pollens: 1.48 (ipsa suis pollens opibus), 2.650 (ipsa suis pollens opibus), 4.342 (mage pollens), 5.745 (Auster fulmine pollens), 6.237 (pollens fervore corusco); pollentia: 1.574 (solida pollentia simplictiate), 1.612 (solida pollentia simplictiate); pollenti: 5.1 (dignum pollenti pectore carmen); and pollere: 5.1413 (pollere videtur).

129 The point is made by Thomas, Richard F., “Virgil's Georgics and the Art of Reference,” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 90 (1986): 171–98, at 175CrossRefGoogle Scholar, which in Thomas's typology qualifies as a “casual reference.”

130 Lucr. 5.1–2, with commentary in Lucreti De Rerum Natura (n. 38 above), 3:1323.

131 Hadzsits, George Depue, Lucretius and His Influence (New York, 1935), 31Google Scholar.

132 On the flourishing literary culture of the period, see Alberto, Paulo Farmhouse, “Poetry in Seventh-Century Visigothic Spain,” in Wisigothica after M. C. Díaz y Díaz, ed. Codoñer, Carmen and Farmhouse, Paulo Alberto (Florence, 2014), 119–75Google Scholar, quotation at 119; and Fear, Andrew, “Putting the Pieces Back Together: Isidore and the De Natura Rerum,” in Isidore of Seville and His Reception in the Early Middle Ages, ed. Fear, Andrew and Wood, Jamie (Amsterdam, 2016), esp. 81–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

133 Isidore of Seville: On the Nature of Things, trans. Calvin B. Kendall and Faith Wallis (Liverpool, 2016), 14–15 and ad loca.

134 For an edition of Sisibut's poem, see Isidore de Seville: Traité de la nature, ed. Jacques Fontaine (Bordeaux, 1960), 155–56. Fontaine saw Sisebut's poem as a Lucretian cento or “pastiche”; likewise, idem, Isidore de Séville et la culture classique dans l'espagne wisigothique (Paris, 1959), 454–55. See also Recchia, Vincenzo, “La poesia cristiana: Introduzione alla lettura del ‘Carmen de luna’ di Sisebuto di Toledo,” Vetera Christianorum 7 (1970): 2158Google Scholar, stressing the allegorical potential of the poem; Green, R. P. H., “Sisebuti Ecloga?Vigiliae Christianae 32 (1978): 113–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar, arguing for the influence of Vergil's Eclogues but acknowledging that “the main part of the poem (14ff.) is heavily Lucretian” (116); and Gasti, Fabio, La letteratura tardolatina: Un profilo storico (secoli III–VII d.C) (Rome, 2020), 212Google Scholar.

135 The Etymologies of Isidore of Seville, trans. Stephen A. Barney et al. (Cambridge, UK, 2006), 470–71. Note also Ganz, “Lucretius in the Carolingian Age” (n. 3 above), 98–99. On Braulio's role, see Merrills, Andy, “Isidore's Etymologies: On Words and Things,” in Encyclopaedism from Antiquity to the Renaissance, ed. König, Jason and Woolf, Greg (Cambridge, UK, 2013), 312–13Google Scholar.

136 Butterfield, Early Textual History (n. 1 above), 9.

137 Fontaine, Isidore de Séville et la culture classique, 743–44; and Butterfield, Early Textual History (n. 1 above), 90. For a dissenting voice, see Farmhouse Alberto, “Poetry in Seventh-Century Visigothic Spain,” 149.

138 José M. Lacarra, “La Iglesia visigoda en el siglo VII y sus relaciones con Roma,” in Le chiese nei regni dell'Europa occidentale e i loro rapporti con Roma sino all’ 800 (Spoleto, 1960), 353–84 and 405–12. On the friendship and correspondence of Gregory I with Leander of Seville, see Richards, Consul of God (n. 11 above), 89–91; and, more broadly, Jamie Wood, “A Family Affair: Leander, Isidore and the Legacy of Gregory the Great in Spain,” in Isidore of Seville and His Reception (n. 132 above), 31–56. Follow Gregory's correspondence (CPL 1714) with Leander at epp. 1.41, 5.53, 5.53a, and 9.228 and with Reccared at epp. 9.229a, 9.229b, and 9.229c; see Martyn, John R. C., trans., The Letters of Gregory the Great, 3 vols. (Toronto, 2004), 160–62, 378–85 and 696–704Google Scholar, whose numbering I follow here and who offers parts of this correspondence not included in S. Gregorii Magni Registrum epistularum, ed. Dag Norberg, CCL 140 and 140A (Turnhout, 1982).

139 The epigram (CPL 1534) can be found at de Rossi, 2.1, 254.7 = ICUR 2. 4121 = José Vives, Inscripciones cristianas de la España romana y visigoda (Barcelona, 1969), no. 389, where it is the final text in a seven-epigram “Isidorian” anthology. The small collection apparently originated in mid-seventh-century Spain and was included in manuscripts of Isidore's Etymologies before, in the same century, it was joined to the sylloge Turonensis (T). As the epigram is not present in any collection of epigrams deriving from Rome, it stands as evidence only of the dispatch (not receipt in Rome) of the gift from Spain. The manuscript lemmata assign it to a velum that Chintila sent to Rome. See de Rossi's commentary at 2.1, 254. Damasus had several times styled himself supplex in his epigrams (for example, 33.3 and 59.7), but the clausula munera supplex appears at Ver. Geo. 4.543. As noted in Salvador Iranzo Abellán, “Composiciones poéticas menores de época visigoda,” in Roma, Magistra Mundi: Itineraria Culturae Medievalis. Parvi Flores. Mélanges offerts Père L. E. Boyle à l'occasion de son 75e anniveraire, ed. Jacqueline Hamesse (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1998), 3:192, Venantius Fortunatus was fond of the clausula salutis opem. See also Farmhouse Alberto, “Poetry in Seventh-Century Visigothic Spain” (n. 132 above), 159.

140 On friendship, see de Rossi, 2.1, 254: “Chintila rex Wisigothis imperavit, quum Romanam sedem obtineret Honorius I, quocum arta ei amicitia fuit.” On the correspondence, see Pietro Conte, Chiesa e primato nelle lettere dei papi del secolo VII (Milan, 1971), 110, n. 39, and 418. Note also Susman, Francesco, “Il culto di S. Pietro a Roma dalla morte di Leone Magno a Vitaliano (461–672),” Archivio della Società romana di Storia patria 84 (1961): 107Google Scholar.

141 Farmhouse Alberto, “Poetry in Seventh-Century Visigothic Spain” (n. 132 above), 154–61, provides a catalog of seventh-century verse inscriptions.

142 ILS 835 (quisquis ardua) = CLE 299 = ILCV 792 = Vives, Inscripciones cristianas, no. 362. On Comenciolus, see PLRE 3, 321–26: “Comentiolus 1” and “Comentiolus 2.”

143 Refectory (non hic auratis): de Rossi, 2.1, 269.2 = Vives, Inscripciones cristianas, no. 353. Basilica (post evangelicum): de Rossi, 2.1, 269.1 = Vives, Inscripciones cristianas, no. 349.

144 Isidore, carm. 1–15, ed. José María Sánchez Martín, in Isidori hispalensis versus, CCL 113A (Turnhout, 2000), with rationale on the location of these and the remaining epigrams at 27. Jacques Fontaine, Isidore de Séville et la culture classique (n. 134 above), 738–41, identified Roman inspiration behind Leander's initiation and Isidore's completion (after Gregory I's death in 604) of the Seville library program. See also Isidori hispalensis versus, 20–21 and 842. On the Roman libraries and their tituli, see Marrou, H.-I., “La bibliothéque du Pape Agapit,” École française de Rome: Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire 48 (1931): 124–69Google Scholar; Panella, S. and Pavolini, C., “’Bibliotheca Agapeti’,” LTUR 1, 195–96; and Fabrizio Bisconti, “L'affresco del s. Agostino,” Mélanges de l’École française de Rome 116 (2004): 5178, esp. 61–68Google Scholar. See also, though cautiously, Gamble, Harry Y., Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts (New Haven, 1995), 161–65Google Scholar.

145 Isidore, carm. 11, offering the series of Christian poets to readers who might be “offended” by Vergil, Horace, Ovid, Persius. Lucan, and Statius (but no mention of Lucretius): “Si Maro si Flaccus si Naso et Persius horret / Lucanus si te Papiniusque tedet.” ed. Sánchez Martín, 223. See Farmhouse Alberto, “Poetry in Seventh-Century Visigothic Spain” (n. 132 above), 143 for caution in accepting the list as evidence for the presence of these authors in the library.

146 Isidore, carm. 13: “Quantum Augustino clares tu Hippone magistro / tantum Roma suo praesule Gregorio,” ed. Sánchez Martín, 225, with Martial 14.195. On the anomalous vocative (Hippone), see Isidori hispalensis versus, 75.

147 Conte, Chiesa e primato (n. 140 above), 417–18. See also Regesta pontificum Romanorum ab condita ecclesia ad annum post Christum natum MCXCVIII, ed. Philippus Jaffé and Gulielmi Wattenbach (Leipzig, 1885) 1:226, no. 2038; and Lacarra, “La Iglesia visigoda en el siglo VII” (n. 138 above), 363–65. The evidence is in Braulio of Saragossa's reply: Honorius's decretum demanded “quo et robustiores pro fide et alacriores in perfidorum essemus rescindenda pernicie.” See Luis Riesco Terrero, Epistolario de San Braulio (Seville, 1975), 108–14 (ep. 21) = PL 80.667–70. There is an English translation in Iberian Fathers, Volume 2: Braulio of Saragossa and Fructuosus of Braga, trans. Claude W. Barlow (Washington, DC, 1969), 51–56.

148 Honorius's scriptural misquotation in his decree: PL 80.668D; Scylla and Charybdis: PL 80.670B. On Chintila's summons: Vives, José, Concilios visigóticos e hispano-romanos (Barcelona, 1963), 233Google Scholar. Succinctly on Chintila and the Fifth and Sixth Councils of Toledo, see A. Barbero and M. I. Loring, “The Catholic Visigothic Kingdom,” in The New Cambridge Medieval History, Volume 1 (n. 9 above), 354–56.

149 Moralia and Regula: Fontaine, Isidore de Séville et la culture classique (n. 134 above), 842–3. De differentiis: Fontaine, Isidore de Séville et la culture classique (n. 134 above), 33–35; and Brunhölzl, Histoire de la littérature (n. 6 above), 1.1:883–84. De natura rerum: Kendall and Wallis, On the Nature of Things (n. 133 above), 15–16; see also Wood, “A Family Affair” (n. 138 above), 45–48: “the Isidorian text with the highest reliance on Gregory” (45). On the chronology of Isidore's works, see The Etymologies of Isidore (n. 135 above), 7–10.

150 On the latter, note the reputed seventh-century origins of the medieval syllogae as argued by Angelo Silvagni. For a synopsis, see Trout, Damasus of Rome (n. 44 above), 63–64.

151 P. K. Marshall “Isidore,” in Texts and Transmission (n. 3 above), 194–96, quotation at 194.

152 Reydellet, Marc, “La diffusion des Origines d'Isidore de Séville au Haut Moyen Âge,” Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire 78 (1966): 338437CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Marshall, “Isidore,” in Texts and Transmission (n. 3 above), 194–96.

153 Claudia Di Sciacca, “Isidore of Seville in Anglo-Saxon England: The Synonyma as a Source of Felix's Vita S. Guthlaci,” in Isidore of Seville and His Reception (n. 132 above), 133–57 at 133.

154 Christopher Heath, “Hispania and Italia: Paul the Deacon, Isidore, and the Lombards,” in Isidore of Seville and His Reception (n. 132 above), 159–76.

155 Noble, Thomas F. X., The Republic of St. Peter: The Birth of the Papal State, 680–825 (Philadelphia, 1984), 219–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and idem, “Literacy and the Papal Government in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages,” in The Uses of Literacy in Early Mediaeval Europe, ed. Rosamond McKitterick (Cambridge, UK, 1990), 82–108, at 84–85.

156 The conclusion rests primarily on passages of the LP, most notably, perhaps, a note in the life of Hilarus (461–468): “fecit autem et bibliothecas II in eodem loco” (LP 1.245). See Bisconti, “L'affresco del s. Agostino” (n. 144 above), 62–63; and Real, Ulrich, “La residenza lateranense dall'età di Giustiniano all'inizio dell'epoca carolingia,” Mélanges de l’École française de Rome 116 (2004): 98Google Scholar.

157 Marrou, “La bibliothèque du Pape Agapit” (n. 144 above), 126–27; and Gamble, Books and Readers (n. 144 above), 162–63.

158 Bisconti, “L'affresco del s. Agostino” (n. 144 above), affirming an early sixth-century date for the fresco (62 and 74) but leaving open the identity of figure and space (63–78).

159 Marrou, “La bibliothèque du Pape Agapit” (n. 144 above); Gamble, Books and Readers (n. 144 above), 164–65; and S. Panella and C. Pavolini, “‘Bibliotheca Agapeti’” (n. 144 above), 195–96. The composition of the Dialogues is noted in the lemma preceding the verses inscribed in the library: “in bibliotheca s(an)c(t)i gregorii quae est in monast(erio) clitauri ubi ipse dyalogorum [libros] scripsit.” See de Rossi, 2.1, 28 and 55.

160 The fullest evidence is a marginal addition, perhaps of the eighth century, to Honorius's life in LP 1.324**: “fecit autem in domum suam iuxta Lateranis monasterium in honore sanctorum apostolorum Andreae et Bartholomei, qui appellatur Honorii, ubi praedia et dona simul obtulit.” Modern scholarship tends to locate the monastery at the current San Giovanni Addolorata Hospital. See further Ferrari, Guy, Early Roman Monasteries (Rome, 1957), 159–62Google Scholar; G. De Spirito, “Monasterium Honorii,” LTUR 3, 273; and Real, “La residenza lateranense,” 99.

161 Reeve, Michael D., “Rome, Reservoir of Ancient Texts?” in Rome Across Time and Space: Cultural Transmission and the Exchange of Ideas, c. 500–1400, ed. Bolgia, Claudia, McKitterick, Rosamond, and Osborne, John (Cambridge, UK, 2011), 52–59, at 53Google Scholar. For wider context, see McKitterick, Rome and the Invention of the Papacy (n. 16 above), 171–78. Between the years 550 and 750, manuscript survival reveals that very few classical works were being copied; see Texts and Transmission (n. 3 above), xv–xvii.

162 PLRE 2, 173–74: “Asterius 11”; and Cameron, Alan, The Last Pagans of Rome (Oxford, 2011), 441Google Scholar, though he also suggested (p. 466) that the Asterius subscription might have been “added by a later copyist from another manuscript.” For the debate on the provenance of subscriptions, see also the remarks of Reeve, “Rome, Reservoir of Ancient Texts?” 54. On the Medicean Vergil, see Lowe, E. A., Codices Latini Antiquiores: A Palaeographical Guide to Latin Manuscripts Prior to the Ninth Century, ed. Lowe, E. A. (Oxford, 1938), 3:7 (no. 296)Google Scholar.

163 L. D. Reynolds, “Virgil,” in Texts and Transmission (n. 3 above), 433–34. Unlike a number of other late antique non-patristic codices at Bobbio it was not erased and reused, perhaps because it was a work of Vergil. On Bobbio's late antique non-patristic palimpsests, see Zironi, Alessandro, Il monastero longobardo di Bobbio: Crocevia di uomini, manoscrttti e culture (Spoleto, 2004), 57–63, esp. 62–63Google Scholar on the “outsider” Medicean Vergil.

164 Becker, Gustavus, Catalogi bibliothecarum antiqui (Bonn, 1885), 6473Google Scholar, in which Lucretius (librum Lucretii I) is catalog number 375. The catalog, a tenth-century copy (now lost) of a ninth-century original, was discovered and published in 1714 by L. A. Muratori. See Esposito, M., “The Ancient Bobbio Catalogue,” The Journal of Theological Studies 32 (1931): 337–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zironi, Il monastero longobardo di Bobbio, 71–72 and 139–57, whose table identifies still extant codices; and Tosi, Michele, “Il governo abbaziale di Gerberto a Bobbio,” in Gerberto: scienza, storia e mito: Atti del Gerberti Symposium (Bobbio 25–27 luglio 1983) (Piacenza, 1985), 71–234, esp. 130–38Google Scholar where he records his own discovery at Modena of a copy of the (lost) tenth-century document, a copy which, he argues, had been made for Muratori by the monk Giannantonio Cantelli. Tosi provides (195–214) a facsimile and critical edition, in which Lucretius is number 386. For a recent overview of this history and a study of the catalog's contents, see Richter, Michael, Bobbio in the Early Middle Ages: The Abiding Legacy of Columbanus (Dublin, 2008), 140–56Google Scholar.

165 Lachmann, Karl, Commentarius in T. Lucretii Cari De rerum natura libros: Quartum editus (Berlin, 1882), 3Google Scholar, but offering no comment on its origin or arrival at Bobbio. The quotation is from Reynolds, “Lucretius,” in Texts and Transmission (n. 3 above), 219.

166 Fiesoli, Giovanni, “Percorsi di classici nel medioevo: Il Lucrezio Bobiense. Raterio lettore di Plauto e di Catullo,” Medioevo e rinascimento 15 (2004): 137, at 4–8Google Scholar, building on Lachmann's suggestion.

167 Butterfield, Early Textual History (n. 1 above), 30–33.

168 On Dungal's activities, see Ganz, “Lucretius in the Carolingian Age” (n. 3 above), 94–98.

169 Richter, Bobbio in the Early Middle Ages, 142 and 146–47.

170 BCDS, Jonas, Vita Columbani, “sagax” and “sagac*” > thirteen results, two of which are the noun sagacitas found in the chapter headings (de sagacitate) for 1.3 (Krusch 148.18 and 155.10). BCDS, Ionas, Vita Columbani, “polle*” > thirteen results. Pollens appears at 1.14 (Krusch 176.4), 2.23 (283.5), and 2.25 (291.33); pollentes (though the alternate reading is habentes) at 1.9 (168.23); and pollenti at 2.10 (256.3). Other forms at 1.3 (pollebat; 157.22); 1.30 (pollent; 224.3); Versus in eius festivitate 27 (polles; 225); 2.10 (polleret; 252.21); 2.13 (pollebat; 262.20); and 2.19 (pollere; 271.25). The twelfth result at 2.3 (234.3), however, is pollex. There is also one usage in Vita Iohannis 19 (pollebat; 342.17).

171 102 lines to be exact: the seven epigrams (78 lines) credited to Honorius (see n. 24 above) plus Honorius's own epitaph (24 lines). This count does not include ICUR 2.4162, the twenty-four-line verse epitaph of Boniface V (619–25), which is perhaps by Honorius.

172 On late antique distinction, see Pelttari, The Space That Remains (n. 28 above), succinctly at 2–9; and Kaufmann, Helen, “Intertextuality in Late Latin Poetry,” in The Poetics of Late Latin Literature, ed. Elsner, Jaś and Lobato, Jesús Hernández (Oxford, 2017), 149–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On continuity with earlier practice, see Hardie, Classicism and Christianity (n. 28 above), explicitly at 2–3.

173 Quotation from White, Richard, The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650–1815 (Cambridge, 1991), 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar, as he embarked on a now classic study of another post-shatter zone world in which the sources were comparatively meager.

174 The list of classical poets is drawn from Zironi, Il monastero longobardo di Bobbio (n. 163 above), 147–48 (nos. 358–375), except Valerius Flaccus (150, no. 477). Vergil reappears at no. 523 (152). Late Latin poets in the library's holdings, in several cases in more than one copy, include Juvencus, Ausonius, Claudian, Prudentius, Paulinus, Dracontius, Sedulius, Fortunatus, and Arator.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

POETS AND READERS IN SEVENTH-CENTURY ROME: POPE HONORIUS, LUCRETIUS, AND THE DOORS OF ST. PETER'S
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

POETS AND READERS IN SEVENTH-CENTURY ROME: POPE HONORIUS, LUCRETIUS, AND THE DOORS OF ST. PETER'S
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

POETS AND READERS IN SEVENTH-CENTURY ROME: POPE HONORIUS, LUCRETIUS, AND THE DOORS OF ST. PETER'S
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *