Scholarship on Quintus Smyrnaeus has long moved past the point where he is considered nothing more than an ‘artificial imitator of a bygone age’. Rather, scholars generally recognize the dynamism of Quintus’ relation to Homer, as can be seen in the subtitles of two volumes on Quintus published in the past few years:Engaging Homer in Late AntiquityandTransforming Homer in Second Sophistic Epic. Even in passages that are clearly modelled on passages in Homer, Quintus is no (...) longer seen as slavishly imitating but as creatively rereading and re-imagining his works. Calum Maciver, perhaps Quintus’ most vocal champion, sums this approach up nicely, arguing that ‘Quintus imitates, manipulates, comments on, differs from, in sum reads, Homer’, and describing the epic as ‘a demanding text with intricate possibilities for interpretation’. And Maciver is hardly alone in this; various studies in recent years have shown that Quintus’ use of Homer reflects his own values and preoccupations, and those of his society. (shrink)

A guide that Marcus Cicero's brother wrote for him as he prepared to campaign for consul in ancient Rome includes a surprising amount of information that can be applied to today's political contests, and is now presenting again, in a ...

Quintus Smyrnaeus’ Posthomerica 9, 338–352 deals with the most famous Λήμνιον κακόν of the ancient myths: the women of Lemnos, jealous of the relationships between their husbands and some Thracian slaves, killed all the male population of the island. Quintus’ story uses as an intertextual model Apollonius Rhodius’ Argonautica 1, 609–632, dealing with the same episode. The aim of this paper is not only to show the intertextual relationship between Quintus’ and Apollonius’ texts, but also to (...) show how Quintus changes the innovative point of view of Apollonius in order to come back to the traditional “masculinist” point of view. In doing so Quintus inserts in his text some fundamental details of Apollonius’ version, but he ingeniously modifies their functions or meanings in order to remind the readers both of Apollonius’ version and of the changes he made to it. (shrink)

In Book 12 of Quintus Smyrnaeus’Posthomerica, the epic poet prepares to list the heroes who entered the Wooden Horse before the sack of Troy. Before he begins, he breaks off to ask for help :τούς μοι νῦν καθ᾽ ἕκαστον ἀνειρομένῳ σάφα Μοῦσαιἔσπεθ᾽, ὅσοι κατέβησαν ἔσω πολυχανδέος ἵππου·ὑμεῖς γὰρ πᾶσάν μοι ἐνὶ φρεσὶ θήκατ᾽ ἀοιδήν,πρίν μοι ἀμφὶ παρειὰ κατασκίδνασθαι ἴουλον,Σμύρνης ἐν δαπέδοισι περικλυτὰ μῆλα νέμοντι 310τρὶς τόσον Ἑρμοῦ ἄπωθεν, ὅσον βοόωντος ἀκοῦσαι,Ἀρτέμιδος περὶ νηὸν Ἐλευθερίῳ ἐνὶ κήπῳ,οὔρεΐ τ’ οὔτε λίην (...) χθαμαλῷ οὔθ᾽ ὑψόθι πολλῷ.Muses, I ask you to tell me precisely, one by one, the names of all who went inside the cavernous horse. For you were the ones who filled my mind with all song even before down was spread across my cheeks, when I was tending my renowned sheep in the land of Smyrna, three times as far as the shouting distance from the Hermus, near Artemis’ temple in the garden of Liberty, on a hill that is neither excessively high nor too low. (shrink)

This article explores Triphiodorus’ use of Cassandra in his brief epic Sack of Troy. An examination of the placing of the prophetess within the poem's plot and a comparison with previous literary attestations demonstrate that Triphiodorus makes extended use of the previously supplementary character. The reader is particularly invited to read Cassandra against the Cassandras of Euripides’ Trojan Women and Quintus Smyrnaeus’ Posthomerica, thus identifying ties with both epic and tragedy. Cassandra's speech alludes to the proem of the (...) epic. At the same time, Cassandra's prophecy constitutes the key for understanding the connection between imagery deployed prior and subsequent to her presence, thus ensuring the thematic congruity of the poem. Triphiodorus’ Cassandra constitutes a doublet of the poet, depicted as imitating his poetic voice and effectively summarizing the entire epic in her speech; entwined in Triphiodorus’ poetic agenda, she also becomes its intradiegetic mouthpiece. (shrink)

For about a hundred years there has been an intermittent but sometimes vigorous debate1 on the question whether Quintus Smyrnaeus and Tryphiodorus directly used the Second Aeneid as a source for their epic descriptions “of the capture and destruction of Troy. Heyne thought that they did not; but towards the end of the nineteenth century it appeared more likely that they did. Heinze opposed the general belief: but it was reaffirmed for Quintus by Paschal and Becker4 and (...) for Tryphiodorus by Dr. E. Cesareo on internal evidence. Meanwhile Professor Samuel E. Bassett had concluded that Quintus was not after all dependent on Vergil: and still more recently Dr. J. W. Mackail, reviewing Cesareo's monograph, has maintained with emphasis that the Aeneid is certainly not the source of the late epic. Accordingly the controversy cannot even now be considered closed. (shrink)

For about a hundred years there has been an intermittent but sometimes vigorous debate1 on the question whether Quintus Smyrnaeus and Tryphiodorus directly used the Second Aeneid as a source for their epic descriptions “of the capture and destruction of Troy. Heyne thought that they did not; but towards the end of the nineteenth century it appeared more likely that they did. Heinze opposed the general belief: but it was reaffirmed for Quintus by Paschal and Becker4 and (...) for Tryphiodorus by Dr. E. Cesareo on internal evidence. Meanwhile Professor Samuel E. Bassett had concluded that Quintus was not after all dependent on Vergil: and still more recently Dr. J. W. Mackail, reviewing Cesareo's monograph, has maintained with emphasis that the Aeneid is certainly not the source of the late epic. Accordingly the controversy cannot even now be considered closed. (shrink)

The reference to a novum sidus in Quintus Curtius’ book 10, commonly applied to the comet seen at the end of Nero’s reign, could be related to Claudius as well. Both Claudius and Caligula were named “star”, and they sought to appear as the beginners of a new cycle in the history of Rome. Claudius’ ludi saeculares allegedly meant the starting point of a new time for Rome. Other facets of Claudius’ censorship, as the enlargement of the pomerium or (...) the Emperor’s assumption of the title pater patriae, could be interpreted in a similar sense. Likewise, Caligula’s death may have been understood as the end of a period in the history of Rome. Thus, Curtius’ “new star” could be applied to Claudius, and not necessarily to Vespasian. (shrink)

The most striking example of Roman intervention in the affairs of mainland Greece between the Achaean and Mithridatic Wars is provided by an inscription now in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. This stone bears the text of a letter to the city of Dyme in Achaea from a Roman proconsul named Q. Fabius Maximus, which describes his trial and sentencing of certain men of Dyme whom he had judged responsible for a recent disturbance in that city. One crux to be resolved (...) is chronological: A date of c. 115 b.c. has long been generally accepted, but recently evidence from another, still unpublished inscription has been thought to point to the year 144. Further, the letter of Fabius Maximus has long been held to exemplify the close supervision that most scholars, regardless of their position on the vexed question of Greece's formal status after 146, assume was exercised over Greece by Roman commanders in Macedonia from the time of the Achaean War. The document has also often been cited to bolster the claim that Rome pursued in second-century Greece a conscious policy of suppressing democracy or the political aspirations of the lower class. This is not, of course, the place for reassessment of these old, complex controversies. My purpose here is rather to show that interpretation of the letter of Fabius Maximus has not always been sufficiently mindful of the many obscurities of the text and, consequently, of the events that lie behind it; too often the great lacunae in our knowledge have been filled with assumptions that beg the questions that are under debate. (shrink)

Both the author and the date of this five-volume poem, the first Western document to link the houses of the zodiac with the course of human affairs, are uncertain. The author's name may be Marcus Manilius, or Manlius, or Mallius, and the latest datable event mentioned in the books themselves is the disastrous defeat of Varus' Roman legions by the German tribes in 9 CE. The writing shows knowledge of the work of Lucretius, but the work is not referred to (...) by any subsequent writer, suggesting that it was never widely disseminated. A manuscript was rediscovered by Poggio Bracciolini in 1416 or 1417, and editions were produced by Scaliger and Bentley, but this immensely erudite edition of 1903–1930 by the scholar and poet A. E. Housman is regarded as authoritative. Volume 5 describes the non-zodiacal signs and their influence. (shrink)