Page images


Nevius 33 enim dicit Venerem libros futura continentes Anchise dedisse: unde reliquit aut magdavit (sic) significat, aut libros reliquit qui haec responsa continebant.

Miss Saunders, in her article "The Relation of Aeneid III to the Rest of the Poem" (Class. Quart. XIX (1925), 85–91) has thrown considerable light on the fulfilment of the prophecy by the Harpy and its relation to Anchises. Indeed, I cannot do better than cite a passage from her admirable paper inasmuch as she has handled this well-known Virgilian crux in the clearest and most natural way.

In book III, 247-266 the Harpy-Fury foretells the eating of the tables. This prophecy is addressed not simply to Aeneas but to the Trojans in general (248, 259). Anchises seems to have been present; in any case he soon knew of the prophecy (263–266). Celaeno's authorship is confirmed by a later reference to the matter in lines 365-367 (cf. 713). Now when the prophecy is actually fulfilled at the mouth of the Tiber, Aeneas recognises the fact and tells the Trojans that they have reached their home, adding VII, 122–127 . . . Aeneas orders a libation to Jupiter and Anchises, and Servius comments (on 134): "Anchisen genitorem: bene Iovem et Anchisen qui causa oraculi fuerunt”—apparently with no memory of the Harpy. But need the words "Anchises fatorum arcana reliquit" mean that Anchises was the author of the prophecy? In book III his position seems to be that of ‘honorary leader' of the expedition; he interprets the dark sayings (cf. III, 103–117; 143-146; 179-188) which characterize the book. It is significant, then, that Anchises is especially mentioned in the account of the reception of the prophecy of Celaeno (259–266). Perhaps he was discouraged by his previous lack of success,

33 For other fragments of Naevius in the additions to Servius edited by Thilo from the manuscripts of Fulda and Fleury, see comments on Aen. 1, 198 (= Macrobius, Sat. v1, 2, 31), 273; п, 797; II, 10; IV, 267; Ix, 712. Three of these refer definitely to the Bellum Poenicum of Naevius. L. Mueller, Q. Enni carminum reliquiae, accedunt Cn. Naevi Belli Poenici quae supersunt (1884), frag. XXIII, is inaccurate in ascribing the scholium on Aen. 1, 273 to Servius and not to "Serv. Dan."

for he does not offer any interpretation of the mensae adesae; he begs the gods to ward off such a calamity and to protect the faithful (265-266).34

Besides the two important scholia just discussed, there is another adjunct to a Servian note found, like that on Orpheus, in the marginal comment on the sixth Aeneid in Paris. lat. 7930. This curious bit of information on the Latin names of the Furies might have been transmitted by Varro himself. I will again place the comment of Servius and that of the Paris codex side by side so that the probability that this scholium is an unidentified fragment of Servius auctus may be more in evidence:

Paris. lat. 7930, Aen. vi, 375: Eumenidum: Eumenides dicuntur Furiae per contrarium, quae quamvis vulgatis nominibus utantur, tamen propria nomina habent. nominantur autem his nominibus: Agmentis, Pecmentis,35 Furina.

Thilo, p. 60, 16:

Eumenidum autem circa quem habitant Eumenides κατὰ ἀντίφρασιν dictae.

In Varro, L. L. vi, 3, 19 (Goetz) we have information on Furrina and Furrinalia: Furrinalia [a] Furrina [e], . . . cuius deae honos apud antiquos: nam ei sacra instituta annua et flamen attributus: nunc vix nomen notum paucis. There was a lucus Furinae (Cicero, N. D. III, 46). Cicero would identify Furina

34 Should we not rather assume that, inasmuch as a thank-offering or libation was given to Jupiter (and Anchises) at the mouth of the Tiber (Aen. VII, 133-134; cf. the comment of Servius on v. 134, cited by Miss Saunders), Virgil had a general conception of prophetic powers as being shared in by all numina including Anchises and Celaeno?

It should be noted that the writer of the additional scholium to Servius on Aen. II, 212 identifies the Harpies with the Furies, whose mother, says this scholiast, was either Terra or Nox. Virgil too calls Celaeno maxima Furiarum (Aen. III, 252). Allecto is the daughter of Pluto and Nox (Aen. vII, 327 and 331). Now on his arrival in Italy, right after the incident of the eating of the tables (Aen. VII, 135 f.), Aeneas prays to the following divinities amongst others: Tellus, Nox, Noctis orientia signa, Idaeus Iuppiter, Anchises, and Venus ("duplices Caeloque Ereboque parentes"). Are not all these significant?

35 agmtis, pecmtis, MS.

with one of the Furiae apparently: Quae Eumenides si deae sunt, quarum et Athenis fanum est et apud nos, ut ego interpretor, lucus Furinae, Furiae deae sunt, speculatrices, credo, et vindices facinorum et sceleris. Cicero may well be dependent on Varro for his information here.36

There was a lucus Furrinae trans Tiberim and a sanctuary dedicated to Furrina near Rome on the Appian Way according to Cicero.37 Hild (Daremberg and Saglio, s.v. Furrina) attributes to "les hellénisants au temps de Cicéron" the identification, which he calls purely arbitrary, of Furrina with Furia. That the cult itself was an ancient one is attested by the fact that there was a flamen Furinalis 38 and a festival, the Furrinalia, is recorded for July 25.39

It is interesting to note in this connection that we are indebted to Varro (cited by Gellius, III, 16, 10) for the names of three Roman Fata (Parca, Nona, Decima). Are the names of Latin Furiae also from Varro? The scholia of our Paris manuscript elsewhere show that the writer (or writers) was interested in the Greek names of the Fates (on Ecl. 4, 47; Geor. III, 37). He also mentions the names of the Gorgons (on Geor. III, 37),

36 For the arguments against the identification of Furrina or Fūrina with Fúria, see Rapp in Roscher, Lexikon, s. v. Furiae, col. 1561. For two Roman inscriptions referring to divinities named "Forinae" (genio Forinarum; ad aram Forinarum) see Wissowa in Roscher's Lexikon and in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopädie, s. v. Furrina. The former of these inscriptions was discovered in the excavations of 1906-1909 on the site of the ancient shrine of Furrina. A Greek inscription also of the imperial period was found there: Διὶ Κεραυνίῳ . . καὶ νύφες Φορρίνες (sic). See Wissowa, ib.; A. J. A. XI (1907), 359; A. B. Cook, Zeus, II, p. 808, n. 6 (17). For the connection between the Eumenides and the weather, see Rapp in Roscher, Lexikon, s. v. Celaino, col. 1313. Cf. the dedication to Zeus Kepaivios just cited.

37 Q. fr. 3, 1, 4, near Satricum in Latium.

38 Varro, L. L. v, 84: obscura Dialis et Furinalis cum Dialis ab Iove sit, (Diovis enim), Furinalis a Furrina cuius etiam in Fastis feriae Furinales sunt. Cf. ib. vi, 19; vii, 45.

39 Cf. Aust, Die Religion der Römer, p. 181; Rapp, l. c.; Calendar in Wordsworth, Specimens of Early Latin, 1874, p. 269, 40. Varro wrote a satura called Eumenides; for fragments see Wordsworth, op. cit. pp. 359-361; T. Roeper, Varronis Eumenidum reliquiae, 1858.

the Harpies (ib.) and even of the Graces (on Aen. 1, 720).40 The Greek names of the Furies are given in a note on Geor. IV, 482 with etymologies of each; that of Tisiphone is similar to the note of Vaticanus 3317 on v. 452 and that of Servius on the next verse. I mention these facts to show that the scholiast (if he is the same one as the writer of the note on Aen. VI, 375) was not ignorant of the names of the Eumenides and that he was not without some interest in precise details concerning such mythological groups of three.

This style of note is very common in Servius auctus. One need but examine the scholia passim as Thilo has printed them in his edition. The citations of Varro and the information in regard to the Furiae would, if printed in italics under the corresponding Servian notes, pass muster among scores of similar comments.

That these additions are found in one manuscript only is no argument against their genuineness or at least against their possible intrinsic value. Thilo, following Daniel, the first editor of Servius auctus, has incorporated sixteen marginal notes from the Virgil of Tours in his text.41 Fourteen of these, curiously enough, are from one book, the seventh Aeneid.

The citation of Naevius in the margin of the Paris manuscript occurs in a note on a verse of the same book.

The position I have elsewhere taken and repeated above (n. 28) as to the relative importance of Paris. lat. 7930 among the manuscripts containing the additions to Servius on Aen. III to XII is borne out, I believe, by the analysis of the more important scholia here given. I say books III to XII of the Aeneid advisedly, though the only important additions (including the possible Sallustian fragment on Aen. vi, 104, noted above, p. 232) to the text of Servius auctus as constituted by

40 The scholium ends: nomina illarum [Gratiarum] sunt haec: pasidea, eilale, euprosiana. Cf. Myth. Vat. 1, 132; 1, 36; ш, 112. Sosistratus (Eusthatius on Homer, p. 1665) has the names Parithea, Cale, Euphrosyne. According to Baehrens, Studia Serviana (1917), p. 55, both Eustathius and "Serv. Dan." obtained their material from a common source.

41 See "The Virgil of Tours," p. 149, n. 1.

Thilo are found in the sixth and seventh books.42 We have noticed how Thilo's subsidiary manuscript for these and the following books, the Turonensis, itself supplied several valuable notes to both Daniel and Thilo especially in the seventh Aeneid.43 As a matter of fact, there are fewer additional scholia extant in Thilo's basic manuscript for the last seven books of the Aeneid as compared with those on the first five books. It would not be unnatural, therefore, to claim for the Parisinus a place beside the Turonensis in the estimation of future editors of the great body of valuable scholia on Virgil attributed to Servius.

42 Unless we are to claim for the addition to the Varronian note from Servius auctus on Aen. III, 12 (n. 30 above) what we have advocated for at least one other citation in this manuscript from the Roman scholar.

48 Cf. "The Virgil of Tours," ib.

« PreviousContinue »