That Claudian imitates Virgil's Georgics in the De raptu Proserpinae is well known. Most of his allusions are restricted to Golden Age or Underworld imagery, largely from Books 1, 2, and 4. However, one imitation of the third Georgic that appears not to have been noted previously occurs at De raptu Proserpinae 1.82. The context is Claudian's famous description of Pluto enthroned: ipse rudi fultus solio nigraque uerendusmaiestate sedet: squalent inmania foedosceptra situ; sublime caput maestissima nubesasperat et dirae (...) riget inclementia formae;terrorem dolor augebat. I argue that this recalls the following passage in Virgil: optima quaeque dies miseris mortalibus aeuiprima fugit; subeunt morbi tristisque senectuset labor, et durae rapit inclementia mortis. Inclementia occurs some twenty times in extant classical and late antique Latin verse. Claudian himself uses it three other times. None the less, the construction of Claudian's line makes it clear that the line from the Georgics is being imitated here: the lines are metrically equivalent, and the sound-pattern and identical grammatical structure make the imitation unmistakable. (shrink)

Current scholarly opinion holds that the poet Claudian was a pagan who was able to hide sufficiently his personal views at a largely Christian court. This opinion is not unanimous: Claudian has in the past occasionally been considered a Christian, and recently that view has reappeared in print. That Claudian wrote carm. min. 32, de saluatore, should not be doubted; yet this collection of stock phrases cannot be considered Claudian's credo. As Gnilka has shown, Claudian's (...) treatment of the traditional gods and goddesses displays warmth and fondness beyond the requirements of epic and consequently reveals his true beliefs. The poem is an Easter card for Honorius, displaying not religious convictions, but an instinct for survival at a Christian court. The exegesis of Carmina Minora 50 here proposed suggests that Claudian was familiar enough with Christian ideas to criticise them. Nothing hinders him from repeating them when it proved advantageous. The interpretation of carm. min. 50 depends in some measure on the literary relationship between Claudian and the Christian poet Prudentius. Specifically, it is important to ascertain whether Claudian was aware of the work of his contemporary. Several studies have argued that Prudentius read and used Claudian, but only recently has Cameron suggested Claudian also read and used Prudentius. His arguments and example are convincing and conclusive, revealing at the same time the nature of Claudian's use of his contemporary's words and ideas. Because similar echoes of Prudentius' poetry will appear in the interpretation of carm. min. 50, it will be useful to cite the example here. (shrink)

Claudian of Alexandria's last datable poem, the Panegyric on the Sixth Consulship of Honorius, was delivered in Rome in 404, presumably on 1 January. This performance occurred in the course of the first visit to Rome by an emperor for nearly a decade and a half. Imperial visits to Rome were notoriously rare in the fourth century and, in a well-known passage of that poem, the goddess Roma herself muses on their rarity: she had only seen an Augustus three (...) times in the last hundred years. This is not quite true, but the only legitimate emperors known to have paid formal visits to Rome in that period were Constantine in 312–13, 315 and 326, Constantius II in 357, and Theodosius I, accompanied by his four-year-old son Honorius, in 389. In this article I shall begin by making an observation about the court's intentions in moving to Rome in late 403, and then deal with two problems bound up with the interpretation of this poem and with the circumstances of imperial visits. The first problem concerns the visit of Honorius during which the poem was first performed. In Claudian's narrative the description of Honorius' triumphal entry leads into a description of his assumption of the consulate, and scholars have sometimes asserted that he made a triumphal entry as consul on 1 January 404. This is clearly wrong: Honorius arrived in Rome weeks or months before. But even when this point is recognized, it is often asserted that the poem blends triumphal and consular imagery, and elements of the triumphal entry are confused with the assumption of the consulship. My argument therefore moves from the chronology of Honorius' visit to elucidating the structure and imagery of Claudian's poem, as well as casting light on the patterns of the late antique imperial aduentus more broadly. The second problem concerns the description of Honorius' previous visit to Rome with his father in the summer of 389. Here it has sometimes been inferred on the basis of Claudian, and of late chronicles, that Honorius was created Caesar by his father on 13 June, the day of the aduentus. I shall show on the basis of a critical examination of the chronicle tradition, as well as a survey of contemporary numismatic, epigraphic and literary evidence, that this belief is unfounded, and that the relevant passages of Claudian require a different interpretation. However, this evidence also makes clear that signals were being sent in 389 about Honorius' imperial future. (shrink)

In his article ‘On the shoulders of giants', Don Fowler argues for the identification of the Aeneid with its opening arma, saying that in post-Augustan Latin verse arma is always seen as significantly intertextual. The word may apply to the Aeneid itself, or, more generally, to imperial epic or epic in the style of Virgil.

In his recent monograph on textual criticism, Richard Tarrant discusses the history, problems and practices of diagnosing interpolations in Latin texts, and persuasively argues for ‘restor[ing] interpolation to the editor's armoury’. In the hopes of better arming future editors, I identify a possible interpolation in the second book of Claudian's De Raptu Proserpinae. The passage in question describes the celebrations in the underworld that attend the wedding of Pluto and Proserpina; joining in the holiday mood, the Furies let their (...) snaky hair down to enjoy a drink of wine while they light festive torches for the nuptials :oblitae scelerum formidatique furorisEumenides cratera parant et uina ferocicrine bibunt flexisque minis iam lene canentes 345extendunt socios ad pocula plena cerastaset festas alio succendunt lumine taedas. (shrink)

Since the appearance of Th. Birt's monumental edition of Claudian in 1892, followed in the next year by the Teubner one of Julius Koch, but little has been done for the text of a poet who for more reasons than one deserves something better than neglect. And I shall be glad if the publication of the ensuing notes draws the attention of scholars to the work that has yet to be done. The majority of my corrections were made some (...) sixteen years ago; but only two have seen the light, and these merely in passing mention, Laus Serenae 86 sqq. in my review of the two editions, Classical Review IX p. 167 b, and Panegyricus dictus Probino et Olybrio cons. 48 sqq in my note on Lucan VII 755. (shrink)

The text of Claudian has received little serious attention since the great edition of Theodor Birt in 1892 . The Teubner edition of the following year is by a pupil of Birt, J. Koch, and, though it is a handy text with a useful preface, it cannot really be used independently of Birt. After that, apart from two not very substantial contributions by J. P. Postgate.

Mr. Alan Ker in C.Q., N.S. vii , 151–8, proposes to alter the text of Claudian in numerous places where the tradition appears to me to be blameless, in some cases substituting for readings which seem characteristic and admirable others which seem less so. Claudian is an elegant poet, whose mastery of language many regard as comparable with that of the Silver Age poets, and Mr. Ker's dismissal of him as ‘a simple writer, with a small and unambitious (...) vocabulary’ does less than justice to his powers. I would suggest, in particular, the following points for consideration. (shrink)

‘Prince, lovelier than the flashing star’, says the Poet Laureate to his Emperor; ‘Leda would rather have produced thee than Castor, Thetis than Achilles; Delos prefers thee to Apollo, Lydia to Bacchus.’ Then follows a passage describing the effect on nature of the Emperor's going out to hunt: ‘the beasts will gladly fall to your spear, the lion will be proud to die at your sacred hand. Venus scorns Adonis returned to life, Diana Hippolytus’.

This article proposes an interpretation of Claudian’s preface to his Panegyric for Mallius Theodorus that places the poem in the communicative context of its recitation and in the literary frame of the panegyric. An analysis of the political messages in both poems, the panegyric and its brief ‘paratext’, reveals that the preface consistently uses the myth of the two eagles of Jupiter to indicate symbolically that the new consul is still upholding ‘genuine’ Hellenic culture in the West. This interpretation (...) illustrates how Claudian’s poems for the new consul of 399 assume the Greek cultural heritage to be a part of the Roman identity and that they play a significant role in the poet’s agenda between 397–400, by progressively unveiling the anti-Byzantinism of the Western court. (shrink)

Claudian's panegyric for Olybrius and Probinus, the young consuls of 395, includes a passage describing Rome armed in the image of the goddess Minerva. Lines 83–90 read as follows: ipsa, triumphatis quae possidet aethera regnis,assilit innuptae ritus imitata Mineruae.nam neque caesariem crinali stringere cultu 85colla nec ornatu patitur mollire retorto;dextrum nuda latus, niueos exserta lacertos;audacem retegit mammam laxumque coercensmordet gemma sinum; nodus, qui subleuat ensem,album puniceo pectus discriminat ostro. 90.

Since the appearance of Th. Birt's monumental edition of Claudian in 1892, followed in the next year by the Teubner one of Julius Koch, but little has been done for the text of a poet who for more reasons than one deserves something better than neglect. And I shall be glad if the publication of the ensuing notes draws the attention of scholars to the work that has yet to be done. The majority of my corrections were made some (...) sixteen years ago; but only two have seen the light, and these merely in passing mention, Laus Serenae 86 sqq. in my review of the two editions, Classical Review IX p. 167 b, and Panegyricus dictus Probino et Olybrio cons. 48 sqq in my note on Lucan VII 755. (shrink)

The extent to which Latin was familiar to the inhabitants of late sixth- and early seventh-century Constantinople is a topic of current discussion and interest. While there is little evidence to suggest a significant knowledge of Latin even among the educated in the seventh century, it is clear that in the late sixth century the language was still familiar to a section of the upper classes. Among native easterners, the degree of this familiarity would certainly have varied considerably, from those (...) who could recognise a few words of Latin, through the lawyers, administrators and military men who had a specialised, professional knowledge, to the small proportion who could detect the Virgilian echoes in Corippus' panegyric of Justin II. Whether Paul the Silentiary, epigrammatist and panegyrist of the Emperor Justinian's church of S. Sophia, should be included in the small category who were acquainted with Latin literature is indeed a more far-reaching issue than that of the survival of Latin in the eastern capital, since it is an element in the larger problem of the extent to which late Greek poets knew and imitated the work of their Latin predecessors. The broad generalisations of the past no longer satisfy modern scholarship, which rightly demands rigorous scrutiny of the evidence for each individual author. (shrink)

In a recent article, P.G. Christiansen has strenuously questioned the communis opinio that Claudian was an immigrant from the Greek-speaking eastern Empire. Although Christiansen injects a healthy skepticism into the debate about Claudian's biography, his arguments in favor of Claudian being a native Latin speaker are flawed or unpersuasive. The only relevant external evidence indicates that in the centuries after Claudian's death he was considered an Egyptian. The evidence in Claudian's poems – the unique passing (...) reference to Nilus noster in carm. min. 19, the invocation the symbols of Egypt at the end of carm. min. 22, and Claudian's claim in carm. min. 41 that his first public Latin composition occured in 395 c.e. – suggest an eastern origin. The example of the inscription to Cronius Eusebius suggests that the bilingualism in the inscription to Claudian could point to a personal connection with Greek. Since the positive case for a western origin can be neither supported on linguistic or textual grounds, and recent research has shown that high levels of Latinity were possible for contemporary authors in the eastern Empire, the case for a western origin is decisively weaker than that supporting an origin in Egypt. (shrink)

The late 4 th Century CE Egyptian poet Claudian with all probability enjoyed a thorough rhetorical education in both his mother tongue Greek and in the language of most of his extant literary work: Latin. Hence, for a long time the identification of possible traces of Greek literature in his poems has been the object of many, yet often inconclusive discussions. This paper argues that the political situation and the social status of the Latin language at the end of (...) the 4 th century also need to be considered: The apparent evocation of the specifically Latin literature and tradition was of great importance to Claudian in order to reinstate Roman identity, independently of his actual literary sources, as exemplified by Claudian’s use of the Greek epic poet Oppian. (shrink)