Search

The account of the death of Palinurus at the end ofAen.5 raises to a higher level of importance a figure who has previously seemed very much a minor character in theAeneid. This is achieved partly by the narrative brilliance of Virgil's account of his destruction by Somnus, and partly also by the atmosphere of solemn mystery which surrounds his fate. This solemn note is first struck in the passage which directly prepares the way for Palinurus' death. AtAen.5.779 Venus, anxious that Juno's wrath may still prevent the safe arrival of Aeneas in Italy, appeals for help to Neptune. He reassures her. Aeneas will arrive safely. There is, however, one condition:unus erit tantum amissum quem gurgite quaeres;unum pro multis dabitur caput. (5.814–15)

Of the various contests held by Aeneas to mark the anniversary of his father's death the ship-race (Aen. 5. 116–286) is marked out by its length and initial position as especially important. However its precise significance is by no means obvious. That Virgil intends it to have some relevance to events of later Roman history seems fairly clear. First, we are told the names of the families descended from three of the four captains involved — Cluentii, Memmii and Sergii. It seems therefore that we should look to the activities of members of these families to discover Virgil's intention. Two families — Cluentii and Memmii — are a mystery, since none of their members plays an obviously prominent role in the events of Virgil's own time. However, Sergestus and the Sergii point unmistakably towards Catiline. Sergestus' rash folly, which is nearly the ruin of his men and his ship, exactly matches Catifine's own furor, which would have destroyed Rome. Even the name of his ship, Centaurus, reinforces the point.

The general significance of Ovid's Apollo-Dapbne (Met. 1. 452 ff.) within its immediate context seems plain enough. Ovid's technique, as Otis remarks, is to set epic pretensions beside elegiac behaviour and thus to show a struggle between incompatible styles of life and poetry. Yet the episode still poses certain problems. These mainly concern the significance of the story within the wider context of the opening of Ovid's poem. One difficulty is hinted at by Otis himself. He observes that with the Apollo-Dapbne and Jupiter-10 (1. 568 ff.) Ovid has ‘deflated his divine prologue’. Yet elsewhere3 Otis remarks that in one sense the gap between the behaviour of the gods in the concilium deorum (1. 163 ff.) and their philandering in the Daphne and Io stories is very slight.

The Platonic MS. Vat. gr. 225 (Δ) (saec. XII–catalogue: non ante saec. XIII–Post: saec. XV–Schanz) contains tetr. I, VI. 3, 4, II–IV, while its companion volume in the same hand Vat. gr. 226 (Θ) contains V–VI. 2, VIII. 3, VII, Spp., VIII. 1, 2. Posts states that for tetr. I and VI. 3 A is close to Vind. suppl. gr. 7 (W) (A.D. 950–1050–Maas: saec. XI–Diels, Post, catalogue: saec. XII?–Alline, Robin, Diès) and thereafter derives from the Clarkianus (B) (A.D. 895). I am here concerned only with the testimony of Δ in. 2 (ApoL).This manuscript has been largely ignored by commentators and editors. Schanz does not quote it, nor does Bekker (at any rate for ApoL.). Alline is scornful about it. Neither Burnet nor Croiset quotes it—and indeed Burnet claims that it is merely an interpolated apograph of W. Stallbaum seems to be the only editor who quotes it for Apol. This appears to be an unwarranted neglect since A has, in fact, a good claim to be considered as a primary witness in this dialogue.