Untying the commentator’s knot: bonds and lacunae in Silvae 4.4 and Propertius 2.1

Editing and Commenting on Statius’ Silvae Edited by Ana Lóio leiden | boston Contents Acknowledgements vii List of Figures viii Abbreviations x Notes on Contributors xi Introduction: Commenting on Statius’ Silvae: No Place for Dead Wood 1 Ana Lóio part 1 The (First) Rediscovery 1 Roman Humanism and the Study of the Silvae in the Fifteenth Century 25 Giancarlo Abbamonte 2 Poliziano’s (Commentary on Statius’) Silvae: Between Imitation and Exegesis 48 Luke Roman part 2 The Sequel: A New Age of Disclosure 3 The Role of Translation in Commentary on Statius’ Silvae 89 Bruce Gibson 4 Notes from a New Commentary on Statius’ Silvae 109 Antonino Pittà 5 Commenting on the Silvae: Visuality, Versatility, Verisimilitude 126 Kathleen M. Coleman vi contents part 3 A Path to the Future: Statian Readings in Augustan Poetry 6 Errant Poetics: Rethinking a Comment on Silvae 2.2.83–85 167 Carole Newlands 7 Commenting on an Ovidian Model: An Authorized Desertion in Silvae 1.2 185 Gianpiero Rosati 8 The Hut and the Temple: Private Aetiology and Augustan Models in Silvae 3.1 197 Federica Bessone 9 Untying the Commentator’s Knot: Bonds and Lacunae in Silvae 4.4 and Propertius 2.1 226 Ana Lóio Index of Manuscripts and Incunabula 245 General Index 246 Index Locorum 249 © Ana Lóio, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004529069_011 chapter 9 Untying the Commentator’s Knot: Bonds and Lacunae in Silvae 4.4 and Propertius 2.1 Ana Lóio For editors and commentators, to study, on the one hand, parallels between texts and, on the other, the complex chain of reading and rewriting is a regular and fundamental practice.This traditional method of approach is all the more important when the text suffers from poor transmission, as is the case with Statius’ Silvae. As is explained elsewhere in this volume, the whole textual traditionof thatworkrestsonasinglemanuscript(Madrid,BibliotecaNacionalde España, Ms. 3678).1 Therefore, examining echoes of Statius’ occasional poems and identifying compositions that have influenced the poet prove to be particularly valuable in establishing and clarifying the text. My aim in this chapter is to illustrate that premise by showing that there is still space for improving upon Statius’ text while simultaneously elucidating the poet’s referents. I will argue that Propertius 2.1 and Silvae 4.4, which are linked by Statius’ interaction with Augustan elegy, are capable of shedding light on one another, thus enhancing our limited reading and understanding of poorly transmitted parts of both poems. Silvae 4.4 is a letter addressed to Marcellus, the dedicatee of the fourth book of the collection. Using a personified epistula as messenger, Statius urges his patrontobenefitfromsummerrest(12–45),whilehepictureshimself atNaples, nexttoVirgil’s tomb(51–55),2singing toMarcellus,whosephysicalandintellectual excellence, as well as ancestral virtue, predict a brilliant future in Rome under Domitian (56–77). Finally, the poet updates Marcellus on the course of his poetic career, asking his advice on whether to embrace the enterprise of composing an imperial epic, now that the Thebaid is finished (87–105).3 1 In this volume, the rediscovery of the Silvae and its sole manuscript are addressed in the introduction (pp. 2–3) and in the chapters by Abbamonte (pp. 25–27) and Roman (pp. 49– 50). Priscian quotes one verse from the Silvae (13, p. 10, l. 23). 2 In this volume, see Newlands (pp. 175–176) on these verses and Roman (pp. 80–81) on Poliziano’s interpretation of them. 3 On Silvae 4.4 see Coleman (1988) 135–157; see alsoVollmer (1898) 460–467, Hardie (1983) 164– 171, Lockwood (1995) 107–111, Liddell (2003) 129–136, Rühl (2006) 230–238, Newlands (2010) 111–116, McCarter (2012) 465–478. untying the commentator’s knot 227 The poem is remarkably complex, due in great part to rich, meaningful allusions to Horace and Virgil.4 I would like to add Propertius 2.1, an elegy to Maecenas, to its intricate background (which already includes the other composition addressed by Propertius to his patron) by suggesting that it provides Statius with the appropriate language and metaphors for approaching a cultivated patron—perhaps with an interest in philology—who is close to the princeps; thus this elegy furnishes a precedent for how to address the issue of writing an imperial epic. More importantly, the acknowledgement of Statius’ indebtednesstoPropertius2.1inthebrief catalogueof eternalfriendsthatillustrates his relationship with Marcellus at Silvae 4.4.100–105 offers new ground for discussing textual issues posed by both poems. 1 Maecenas and Marcellus: secundae curae Attheendof Silvae4.4,Statiusaddressestheissueof thekindof epicheisgoing to write. Directed by an un-Callimachean Apollo to the possibility of writing arma maiora ducis (95–96), the poet is torn between impetus and timor (96– 97) and is left with doubts about his aptitude for the task. Statius keeps within the scope of mythological epic in passing fromThebes toTroy. This leads to his askingMarcellus’opinionaboutthepathtotake,beforeconcludinghisfarewell with the expression of deep friendship for his patron: nunc vacuos crinis alio subit infula nexu: Troia quidem magnusque mihi temptatur Achilles sed vocat arcitenens alio pater armaque monstrat Ausonii maiora ducis. trahit impetus illo iam pridem retrahitque timor. stabuntne sub illa mole umeri an magno vincetur pondere cervix? Dic, Marcelle, feram? fluctus an sueta minores nosse ratis nondum Ioniis credenda periclis? Iamque vale et penitus voti tibi vatis amorem corde exire veta. nec enim ***** Tirynthius almae pectus amicitiae, cedet tibi gloria fidi 4 See Hardie (1983) 164–171, Coleman (1988), 137–138, McCarter (2012) 468–470 on Horace’s Epistles,Coleman (1988)153 and Liddell (2003)onthe Georgics, Lockwood(1995)108 onOvid. 228 lóio Theseos et lacerum qui circa moenia Troiae Priamiden caeso solatia traxit amico. Silv. 4.4.93–105 coleman Now a head-dress with a different knot covers my bare hair: it is Troy and heroic Achilles whom I am undertaking, but the archer god summons me elsewhere and brings before me the still greater campaigns of our Ausonian lord. For a long time now my inclination has dragged me in that direction and fear has dragged me away again. Will my shoulders sustain that burden or will my neck be crushed under the enormous weight? Tell me, Marcellus, shall I bear it? Or should my craft, accustomed to lesser waves,not yetbe entrustedtothe dangersof the Ionian sea? Nowfarewell and don’t let affection for a poet who is deeply attached to you disappear from your heart. For … Hercules … not … a heart of life-giving friendship. The fame of faithful Theseus will be eclipsed by you, as will the hero who dragged Priam’s mutilated offspring round the walls of Troy as reparation for his slaughtered friend. trans. coleman [1988] The end of Silvae 4.4 lays emphasis on the friendship that brings together poet and patron by affirming that Marcellus will surpass twoproverbial examples of loyalty (cedet tibi, 103):Theseus and Pirithous, Achilles and Patroclus. Coleman notesthattheversesare‘generallyreminiscent’of Horace’sOde4.7,particularly theexpressionnequeenimand thereferencetothepair‘Theseus/Pirithous’ina brief catalogue of eternal friendships.5 I propose that Statius was influenced by a strikingly relevant passage of Propertius 2.1. After insisting that his beloved is his only subject-matter (1–16), Propertius lists the themes that he would never sing of, even if he possessed the required talent to compose epic poetry (17– 24), before announcing what he would celebrate: first Caesar, then Maecenas. The latter is inseparable both from Caesar and his glorious deeds (25–34) and from Propertius’ poetry:6 5 Coleman (1988) 157. Hor. Carm. 4.7.25–28 infernis neque enim tenebris Diana pudicum / liberat Hippolytum, /nec Lethaea valet Theseus abrumpere caro / vincula Perithoo, ‘Diana does not rescue her chaste Hippolytus / from the darkness beneath the earth, / nor does Theseus havethestrengthtobreaktheLetheanchains/thatbindhisdearPirithous’,trans.West(1997). 6 Fedeli (2005) 39 lists the most relevant bibliography. For bibliography on Propertius’ relationship with Maecenas, see Cristofoli (2014) 181–220. untying the commentator’s knot 229 te mea Musa illis semper contexeret armis, et sumpta et posita pace fidele caput: Theseus infernis, superis testatur Achilles, hic Ixioniden, ille Menoetiaden. Prop. 2.1.35–38 Fedeli 35 contexerit N A F Δ: contexuit ς: connexerit Itali; sed cf. ThLL iv 693,18sqq. 37–38 del. Fontein, quem nonnulli uiri docti secuti sunt: ante 3,9,33sq. transt. Postgate: 3,9,33sq. post. u. 38 transt. Housman: lacunam ante u. 37 statuit Jacob, ante u. 39 recte statuit Vulpius; elogium enim indissolubilis inter Augustum et Maecenatem amicitiae nimis breue et ex abruptointermissummihiuidetur;cf.etiamB.-B.190:ordinemtraditumdef. Jones CIR 75 (1961) 198 37 inferius A (corr. A2) F … my Muse would always be weaving you into these exploits, you the soul of loyalty in commending as in rejecting peace. Theseus to the shades below, Achilles to the gods above proclaims a comrade’s love, the one of Ixion’s, the other of Menoetius’ son. trans. goold [1990] The verses of Propertius and Statius display precisely the same examples of loyalty in friendship and in the same order. Propertius refers to Theseus’ and Achilles’ dear friends by means of patronymics, Ixioniden and Menoetiaden (2.1.38): Pirithous was the son of Ixion, the king of the Lapiths, and Patroclus’ father was Menoetius, one of the Argonauts. Statius employs a patronymic as well, when alluding to Hector, lacerum … Priamiden (4.4.104–105), the son of Priam, the celebrated king of Troy. Theseus, with Greek inflection in Statius, occurs at the beginning of the verse in Propertius and Statius (Prop. 2.1.37, Stat. Silv. 4.4.104); one also may identify some similarity of thought between almae pectus amicitiae (Silv. 4.4.102–103) and fidele caput (Prop. 2.1.36).7 Independently of the many questions raised by Propertius’ verses (see below), scholars who accept the couplet in this position generally agree that the examples of Theseus and Achilles, following the case of Augustus and Maecenas, support the depiction of the friends as inseparable and eternal. Yet another pair of friends is at stake, Maecenas and Propertius, as the juxtaposition of te and mea 7 Vollmer (1898) 467 calls attention to the similarity of verse 105 with Propertius 2.8.38 ( fortem illum Haemoniis Hectora traxit equis, ‘he dragged the valiant Hector behind his Thessalina horses’, trans. Goold [1990]) and to the comparison of almae pectus amicitiae (Silv. 4.4.102– 103) with fidele caput (Prop. 2.1.36). 230 lóio musa (35) at the beginning of the couplet makes clear. Statius develops this idea in his focus upon the relationship between poet and patron. If Maecenas would always be the subject of Propertius’ poetry, Marcellus should be part of Statius’ heart forever (101–102). Propertius illustrates the idea of inseparability of poet and patron by resorting to myths that could provide material for the type of epic he will not compose;8 on the contrary, Statius literally concludes his poem by singing the end of Achilles’ saga inTroy (already adumbrated),9 as if the poet were already writing his next epic or answering the question he had just posed to Marcellus. Thehypothesisof areminiscenceof Propertius2.1 inSilvae4.4isstrengthened by further relevant features of the context in which it occurs; Propertius 2.1 might have attracted Statius for specific reasons beside the encoding of the recusatio.Statius’interestcould lie in the fact that it is thefirstinstanceof Maecenas being explicitly addressed as a ‘second’ or a ‘subordinate’ figure next to Augustus: bellaque resque tui memorarem Caesaris, et tu / Caesare sub magno cura secunda fores, 25–26 (‘I should tell of your Caesar’s wars and policies, and aftermightyCaesaryouwouldbemysecondtheme’,trans.Goold[1990]).10This is most adequate for the delicate circumstances of Silvae 4.4.The letter to Marcellus occupies the fourth place in the book after a sequence of three poems devoted to laudes of Domitian.11 The poet thus faces the challenge of reconciling Domitian’s presence in Silvae 4 with the book’s dedication to another patron. Statius may be seen to perform this task from the very beginning of the book in the opening and at the end of the prefatory epistle: Inveni librum, Marcelle carissime, quem pietati tuae dedicarem … … hunc tamen librum tu, Marcelle, defendes, si uidetur, hactenus; sin minus, reprehendemur. vale. Silv. 4 praef. 1, 32–35 coleman I have contrived a book, my dearest Marcellus, that I could dedicate to your caring affection. […] In spite of everything you, Marcellus, will defend this book, if you see fit, up to this point; if not, we shall stand rebuked. Farewell. trans. coleman [1988] 8 Williams (1980) 169. 9Silv. 4.4.35–36 talis cantata Briseide venit Achilles / acrior et positis erupit in Hectora plectris, ‘Just so, when he had sung about Briseis, Achilles came forth more fiercely’ (trans. Coleman [1988]). 10 See Citroni (2018) 84–85. 11 Inagreementwith theprinciple acknowledgedby Statius:a Ioueprincipium(Silv. 1praef.). untying the commentator’s knot 231 It is tempting to find a hint at a relationship of loyalty between Marcellus and Domitian (a fundamental point after Saturninus’ conspiracy) in the eulogy of the patron’s pietas towards the emperor. However, this is probably not at issue in the trope pietati tuae.12White goes so far as to state that Marcellus will defend this book in particular because Domitian is an important part of it.13 It follows that, for a man whose loyalty to Domitian is stressed, it would surely be an honour—not at all an embarrassment—to be the dedicatee of a book that includes encomiastic poems to the Emperor, in addition to being ‘second’ to him. Another important aspect of Statius’ conscientious negotiation between DomitianandMarcellusinSilvae4isthecarefularticulationof thebook,which is achieved by the combination of several motifs: the sending of the letter, which frames the second section of book 4 with Silvae 4.4 and 4.9 (Statius’ epistle to Marcellus running through the previously extolled Via Domitiana,14 and the rebuke to Plotius Gryphus); the new road, which facilitates the thematic turn from public to private,15 that is, from Domitian at Silvae 4.1–4.3 to Statius’ other patrons at Silvae 4.4–4.9; and the use of hendecasyllables in Silvae 4.3 and 4.9, which performs in both poems a closural function by finishing the two sections.16 These motifs aid in creating the sense that the poems devoted to Statius’ non-imperial patrons form a ‘second booklet’ by forging an adequate context for Marcellus’ composition to appear as a preface, as suits the poem addressed to the dedicatee of a book. Lastly, the very motifs, echoes and language that structure and enrich Silvae 4.4 seem to have been carefully chosen in order to turn Marcellus’ poem into a new preface by endowing book 4 with a second beginning: the considerations about Statius’ ‘career’ as poet, the gesture of turning to the patron for advice on the path to pursue,17 12 Coleman (2012) 195 argues that the expression pietati tuae is an example of ‘the use of the polite third person by substituting abstract qualities associated with the Great Man who is being addressed (the ‘Your Majesty’ formula)’; see also Coleman (1988) 55. White (1973) 279 with n. 3 thinks otherwise. 13 See White (1973) 279: ‘The word hunc, by its position at the head of the sentence, and by its disjunction from its noun, is made to carry the strongest possible emphasis. It means “this book in contrast to my others”, and Statius is thinking again of the fact that so much of Book 4 is devoted to the emperor’. 14 Newmyer (1979) 128. 15 McCarter (2012) 453, 466. 16 Van Dam (1984) 453 notes the clausural function of the metre in Silv. 4.3. For the complex significance of the hendecasyllable in the Silvae, see Morgan (2010) 52–76, 106–113. Newmyer (1979) 122–123 and Bright (1980) 66–70 discuss structural aspects of book 4. 17 Poems exhibiting these features become a common channel for flattering a patron of literature. An epistle, a libellus, or even a metre are personified and apostrophized, receiving 238 lóio of Achilles assuring the remembrance (‘assicurare il ricordo di qualcuno’, p. 75) of Patroclus superis. In truth, defining the case of infernis and superis does not solve the problem of finding a meaning for the words. They appear to draw an opposition, but it is dubious what the opposite of infernis might be—‘heaven’ or ‘earth’, ‘the gods’ or ‘the living’; for Housman, there is not even an opposition: ‘Theseus in hell and Achilles in his isle of Leuce are everlasting remembrances of their less famous comrades and keep their character and story from oblivion’.36 In regard to the relationship of the verses to the context of elegy 2.1, Camps states the clearest reading, i.e., Propertius shows how his tribute to Caesar would commemorate Maecenas: ‘My epic would always have associated you with Caesar’s exploits; the tales of Theseus in the underworld, of Achilles on earth, are memorials of Peirithous and Patroclus too’.37 Vahlen is at the opposite end of this interpretation: the mythological pairs are called to attest to the fact that they have been trustworthy friends, but that their fidelity has no bearing on Augustus and Maecenas.38 In between these readings, there are problemstobeacknowledgedanddiscussed.Rothsteinobservesthatthemythological examples lack a syntactic connection with the previous verses (‘auffallend kurzen und ohne grammatische Verbindung mit dem Vorhergehenden eingeschobenenSatzes’).39Similarly, Butler and Barber state that ‘the intended parallel is obvious […] but it is never completed and the couplet is suspended inmidair’.40 Fedeli continues thislineof thought.Heconsiders the versestobe toobrief andabruptforaeulogyof MaecenasandAugustus41andnotesthelack of aclosingdistich,that is,of aconclusion thatwouldresultfromthecomparisons.PostgateandHousmanidentifysuchacoupletintheotherelegyaddressed to Maecenas by displacing 3.9.33–34 to poem 2.1 and inserting that couplet after verse 2.1.38. Heyworth also devises a radical solution: he argues that the distich on mythological friendships ‘obstructs the basic antithesis between the impossibility of a Propertian epic, even on Caesar’s triumphs, and the Callimachean material he can essay, the lover sticking to his bed’, and concludes thatitisthe‘embellishmentof alearnedreader’.HesupportsHousman’s exclusion of the verses from the context where they were transmitted.42 36 Housman (1914) 153. 37 Camps (1967) 71. 38 Vahlen (1923) 154–155. 39 Rothstein (1898) 217. 40 Butler and Barber (1933) 190. 41 Fedeli (2005) 48. See also Rothstein (1898) 217, Butler and Barber (1933) 190. 42 Heyworth (2007) 109. untying the commentator’s knot 239 Yet if one acknowledges that Statius had the Propertian passage in mind, the end of Silvae 4.4 becomes a testimony of the transmitted order of Propertius 2.1.35–38. Statius provides new grounds on which to refute editors who rearrange the elegy by removing the distich 2.1.37–38 and one more argument in favour of those who read the couplet as a natural development of the previous verses. Statius reproduces the order of ideas in Propertius: (i) Propertius and Statius resort to the topic of the poet’s inability to undertake a given poetic enterprise (the former affirms it, while the latter expresses doubts) and indicate an alternative: Prop. 2.1.1–34 ~ Silv. 4.4.94– 100; (ii) there is a link between poet and patron that is expected to be eternal: et penitus voti tibi vatis honorem / corde exire veta,Silv. 4.4.101–102 ~ te mea Musa illis semper contexeret armis, Prop. 2.1.35; (iii) the poets address their patrons with a poetic expression of deep friendship: almae / pectus amicitiae,Silv. 4.4.102–103 ~ fidele caput, Prop. 2.1.36; (iv) and the friendship that unites poet and patron is illustrated by the same mythical examples: Theseos, et lacerum qui circa moenia Troiae / Priamiden caeso solacia traxit amico,Silv. 4.4.104–105 ~Theseus infernis, superis testatur Achilles, / hic Ixioniden, ille Menoetiaden, Prop. 2.1.37–38. If the mythological examples were ‘out of place’ in the structure of elegy 2.1 or if the couplet were an interpolation, as Heyworth maintains,43 one would have to suppose a very early rearrangement of Propertius 2.1 or a very early interpolation prior to Statius’ reading of the poem. Moreover, the structural comparison displayed above (Prop. 2.1.35–38 and Silv. 4.4.101–105) makes clear that there is indeed in Statius what Fedeli and others find lacking in Propertius, that is, the concrete linking of the mythological examples to the pair of friends Maecenas/Propertius. Statius affirms that the glory of Theseus and the great Achilles will be outshone in their fidelity towards their friends by Marcellus: cedet tibi gloria fidi / Theseos … et …qui (Silv. 4.4.103–104).44 Silvae 4.4.103–104 might be seen to further the case for a lacuna in elegy 2.1 after verses 37–38, as Fedeli and others propose, which also strengthens Camps’ argument that there are two verses missing in the first section of the poem (1–38) that would have resulted in a balanced structure.45 43 Heyworth (2007) 108–109. 44 In these verses, only the mode of cedet (the reading of M) has been questioned. A similiar structure is used by Statius at Silv. 2.2.61 (cedat tibi gloria plectri) and is imitated by Ausonius in a very similar context (Epist. 24.34 Green cedebat Pylades, Phrygii quoque gloria Nisi). 45 Camps (1967) 65–66. According to Camps, the first section is composed of 22 verses fol- 240 lóio 3 Conclusion A profile like Marcellus’ would make it highly flattering for him to be compared to Maecenas: both are men of culture; both benefit from their proximity to the princeps; and both possibly act as middlemen in regard to the delicate issue of writing an ‘imperial’ epic. According to Fedeli, the long patronymics in the Propertian couplet on friendship point to the hypothesis that the elegist was responding to a Greek model.46 Of course we cannot exclude the possibility that Statius depends on the same model for Silvae 4.4.101–105.Yet I believe that the connections between the passages on friendship in Silvae 4.4 and elegy 2.1 make it highly probable that, even in such a case, Statius would have read the Greek model through Propertius; that is, he would still have been interested in exploiting the resonances of the Latin poem. Statius was a good reader of Propertius.47 As I have suggested, Statius found particular interest in Propertius’ poems with panegyric potential, such as the Actium poem (Prop. 4.6).48 His reading of Propertius’ elegies to Maecenas (2.1 and 3.9) points precisely in this direction. Acknowledgements This work was partially written with the generous support of the Fondation Hardtpourl’Étude de l’AntiquitéClassique,which grantedmea researchscholarship in July 2016. I am most grateful to Paolo Fedeli, William Dominik, and Cristina Pimentel for their suggestions, and to Darcy Krasne and Barry Taylor for correcting my English. lowedby8linesof apologytoMaecenas,whilethesecondsectioniscomposedof 24verses followed by 8 lines on the poet’s condition. The idea that the passage on friendship would close the elegy, and thus section 39–78 does not belong to 2.1, was abandoned long ago. The fact that Statius echoes that passage at the end of Silvae 4.4 is not reason to extrapolate that the verses on friendship formed the end of Propertius’ elegy. Statius saw in them a clausural effect that they certainly have, for they close the first part of the recusatio, which consists of an extended list of themes that Propertius refuses to celebrate. 46 Fedeli (2005) 73. 47 SeenowBessone(2018),whoalsoassemblestherarebibliographyonPropertius’influence upon Statius. 48 On what brings together this elegy and Statius’ Silvae see Coleman (1999) 78 and Coleman (2003) 43, 45. untying the commentator’s knot 241 Bibliography Alvoni, G. (2006). ‘Nur Theseus oder auch Peirithoos? Zur Hypothesis des PseudoEuripideischen “Peirithoos”’. Hermes 134: 290–299. Bessone, F. (2018). ‘La ricezione dell’elegia properziana nell’opera di Stazio’. In G. Bonamente, R. Cristofoli, and C. Santini, eds. Properzio fra Repubblica e Principato: Proceedings of the Twenty-First International Conference on Propertius (Assisi–Cannara, 30 May–1 June 2016), 13–50. Turnhout. Bright, D.F. (1980). Elaborate Disarray. The Nature of Statius’ Silvae. Meisenheim am Glan. Butler, H.E. and Barber, E.A. (1933). The Elegies of Propertius. Oxford. Camps, W.A. (1967). Propertius: Elegies Book ii. Cambridge. Citroni, M. (1986). ‘Le raccomandazioni del poeta: Apostrofe al libro e contatto col destinatario’. Maia 38: 111–146. Citroni, M. (1988). ‘Pubblicazione e dediche dei libri in Marziale’. Maia 40: 3–39. Citroni, M. (2018). ‘I dedicatari di Properzio e il patronato letterario tra repubblica e principato’. In G. Bonamente, R. Cristofoli, and C. Santini, eds. Properzio fra Repubblica e Principato: Proceedings of the Twenty-First International Conference on Propertius (Assisi–Cannara, 30 May–1 June 2016), 51–91. Turnhout. Coleman, K.M. (1988). Statius: Silvae iv. Oxford. Coleman,K.M.(1999).‘MythologicalFiguresasSpokespersonsinStatius’Silvae’.InF. de Angelis and S. Muth, eds. Im Spiegel des Mythos. Bilderwelt und Lebenswelt, 67–80. Wiesbaden. Coleman, K.M. (2003). ‘Apollo’s Speech before the Battle of Actium: Propertius 4.6.37– 54’. In A.F. Basson and W.J. Dominik, eds. Literature, Art, History:Studies on Classical Antiquity and Tradition in Honour of W.J. Henderson, 37–45. Frankfurt. Coleman, K.M. (2012). ‘Bureaucratic Language in the Correspondence between Pliny and Trajan’. TAPhA 142: 189–238. Collard, C. and Cropp, M. ed. and trans. (2008). Euripides: Fragments. Cambridge (MA)/London. Cristofoli, R. (2014). ‘Properzio e Mecenate’. In G. Bonamente, R. Cristofoli, and C. Santini, eds. Properzio e l’età augustea. Cultura, Storia, Arte. Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Conference on Propertius (Assisi–Perugia, 25–27 May 2012), 181– 220. Turnhout. van Dam, H.-J. (1984). P. Papinius Statius Silvae Book ii. A Commentary. Leiden. van Dam, H.-J. (1996). ‘The Coming of the Silvae to the Netherlands’. In F. Delarue, S. Georgacopoulou, P. Laurens, and A.-M. Taisne, eds., Epicedion. Hommage à P. Papinius Statius 96–1996, 315–324. Poitiers. van Dam, H.-J. (2008). ‘Wondering Woods Again: from Poliziano to Grotius’. In J.J.L. Smolenaars.,H.-J.vanDam,andR.R.Nauta,eds.,ThePoetryof Statius,45–64.Leiden/ Boston. 242 lóio Dimundo, R. (2009). ‘Properzio 1975–2000’. Lustrum 51: 7–251. Enk, P.J. (1955). ‘Propertiana’. Latomus 14: 31–34. Fedeli, P. (1985). Il libro terzo delle Elegie. Bari. Fedeli, P. (2005). Properzio. Elegie libro ii. Cambridge. Fitch,J.G.ed.andtrans.(2002).Seneca.Tragedies,vol.1: Hercules,TrojanWomen,Phoenician Women, Medea, Phaedra. Cambridge (MA). Gauly, B. et al. eds. (1991). Musa tragica. Die griechische Tragödie von Thespis bis Ezechiel. Ausgewählte Zeugnisse und Fragmente griechisch und deutsch, unter Mitarb. von Richard Kannicht, bearb. von einer Arbeitsgruppe des Philologischen Seminars der Universität Tübingen. Göttingen. Gold, B.K. (1982). ‘Propertius 3.9: Maecenas as Eques, Dux, Fautor’. In B.K. Gold, ed. Literary and Artistic Patronage in Ancient Rome, 103–117. Austin. Goold, G.P. ed. and trans. (1990). Propertius. Elegies. Cambridge (MA)/London. Hardie, A. (1983). Statius and the Silvae. Liverpool. Harmon, A.M. trans. (1936). Lucian: The Passing of Peregrinus.The Runaways. Toxaris or Friendship. The Dance. Lexiphanes. The Eunuch. Astrology. The Mistaken Critic. The Parliament of the Gods. The Tyrannicide. Disowned. Cambridge (MA). Heyworth, S.J. (2007). Cynthia. A Companion to the Text of Propertius. Oxford. Housman, A.E. (1914). ‘A Transposition in Propertius’. CQ 8: 151–155. Jones, D.M. (1961). ‘Three Notes on Propertius’. CR 11: 197–199. Liddell, E. (2003). ‘Statius’ Silvae 4.4.49–55 and Vergil’s Georgics 1.424–437: tenuis Intertextual Connections and the Tradition of Refined Poetry’. New England Classical Journal 30: 129–136. Lockwood, J.F. (1995). ‘A Note on Silvae 4.4’. In P. de Jonge et al., eds. Ut pictura poesis. Studia latina Petro Iohanni Enk septuagenario oblata, 107–111. Leiden. McCarter, S. (2012). ‘Maior post otia virtus: Public and Private in Statius’ Silvae 3.5 and 4.4’. CJ 107: 465–478. Morgan, L. (2010). Musa Pedestris. Metre and Meaning in Roman Verse. Oxford. Nauta, R.R. (2002). Poetry for Patrons. Literary Communication in the Age of Domitian. Leiden. Nauta, R.R. (2006). ‘The recusatio in Flavian Poetry’. In R.R. Nauta, H.-J. van Dam, and J.J.L. Smolenaars, eds. Flavian Poetry, 21–40. Leiden. Newlands, C. (2010). ‘The Eruption of Vesuvius in the Epistles of Statius and Pliny’. In J.F. Miller and A.J. Woodman, eds. Latin Historiography and Poetry in the Early Empire: Generic Interactions, 105–122. Leiden. Newmyer, S.T. (1979). The Silvae of Statius: Structure and Theme. Leiden. Riesenweber, T. (2007). Uneigentliches Sprechen und Bildermischung in den Elegien des Properz. Berlin. Rothstein, M. (1898). Die Elegien des Sextus Propertius. Berlin. Rühl, M. (2006). Literatur gewordener Augenblick: die Silven des Statius im Kontext literarischer und sozialer Bedingungen von Dichtung. Berlin. untying the commentator’s knot 243 Shackleton Bailey, D.R. ed. and trans. (2015). Statius: Silvae. Corr. ed. by C.A. Parrott. Cambridge (MA). Smolenaars, J.L., van Dam, H.-J., and Nauta, R.R. eds. (2008). The Poetry of Statius. Leiden. Stahl, H.-P. (1985). Propertius: Love and War. Individual and State under Augustus. London. Sullivan, J.P. (1976). Propertius: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge. Syndikus, H.P. (2010). Die Elegien des Properz: eine Interpretation. Darmstadt. Vahlen, L. (1923). Gesammelte Philologische Schriften ii. Leipzig/Berlin. Vollmer, F. ed. (1898), Papinii Statii Silvarum libri. Leipzig. West, D. (1997). Horace: The Complete Odes and Epodes. Oxford. Wheeler, A.L. trans. (1975). Ovid: Tristia, Ex Ponto. Rev. edn. Cambridge (MA)/London. White, P. (1973). ‘Notes on Two Statian Prosopa’. CPh 68: 279–284. Williams, G. (1980). Figures of Thought in Roman Poetry. New Haven. Wimmel, W. (1960). Kallimachos in Rom. Die Nachfolge seines apologetischen Dichtens in der Augusteerzeit. Wiesbaden. Zissos, A. (2008). Valerius Flaccus:Argonautica,Book 1. Oxford.