BMCR 2009.04.19: La Barbera on Fitzgerald, Ennius Perennis: The Annals and Beyond. Cambridge Classical Journal. Supplementary Volume, 31

William Fitzgerald, Emily Gowers, Ennius Perennis: The Annals and
Beyond. Cambridge Classical Journal. Supplementary Volume, 31.
Cambridge:  Cambridge Philological Society, Pp. xiii, 172.  ISBN
9780906014301.  $90.00.

Reviewed by Sandro La Barbera, Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa
([email protected])
Word count:  6485 words
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009-04-19.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2009/04/20090419.html
-------------------------------

[Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review.]

This volume comes in a revolutionary season of Ennian reappraisal, and
in a long expected series of contributions to the study of the Annals,
predominantly, and less frequently of the Tragedies and minor works.
Although Ennius perennis is somewhat too broad (mocking, even) a
definition for the scanty pieces of that otherwise gigantic author, it
seems aptly chosen when describing the perennial well from which so
many fragments have been drawn to fit into as many new contexts. For
that is the main aim of these contributions, to study Ennius from
behind the posthumous lens of Reception. No wonder in that, since, like
Emily Gowers states in her Introduction, we are today provided with
excellent (if still perfectible) Ennian resources, such as Jocelyn's
and Skutsch's commented editions, Courtney's Ennian sections or
Suerbaum's thorough bibliography;[[1]] unfortunately, more recent works
which would have afterwards proved to be of essential reference (like
Russo's edition of 'minor' Ennius,[[2]] or Laurens's partial edition of
the Africa[[3]] for discussions on Petrarch and Ennius), were still
unavailable to the contributors, whose papers were submitted to the
2005 Laurence Seminar entitled "Ennius perennis: revolutionary and
figurehead"; the book was published two years later. I should here add
that I apologize for delivering this review far later than I had hoped,
only partially sharing my fault with inter-continental post
(dis)services.

With regard to printing, the volume has been prepared with due
attention to typographic and bibliographic coherence, and also with
remarkable editorial consistency in the contributors' cross-references
to each other's papers. The only visible defect from this point of view
lies in the absence of a more detailed Index which, if particularly
desirable when dealing with ancient sources, is nevertheless pardonable
in such a collection of essays to whose inner secrets the light Index
supplied may give proper access. Only minor slips can be found in
ancient texts, as well as in English ones.[[4]]

As to contents, I will briefly summarize each paper, its methods and
peculiarities, trying to show its objective achievements and limits.
But it might be useful to have first a general sketch of the whole
collection. First of all, a brilliant team of both long-reputed and new
Ennianists could not but produce a sound gathering of observations and
discussions which will certainly affect future interpretations of
Ennius's poetry; in particular, the mediation of later authors (Cicero
and Virgil in primis) in handing the Father of Latin literature down to
his descendants, is highlighted with important new considerations in
matters of literary theory and canon consolidation. In this respect,
one could argue that deeper textual discussions on how Ennius' lines
were sifted over centuries should have been paired with literary ones,
and it might be generally stated that in this case textual criticism
has been almost completely ousted from some essays which would have
been better supported by textual defence. Texts, incidentally, are
sometimes referred to but not quoted literally, which could complicate
the readers' approach to arguments, should they not know those
fragments by heart; however, those which are reported directly in Latin
or Greek are then accompanied by the authors' translations (and
sometimes translations demote texts to the footnotes). Furthermore,
some general statements about Ennius and his whole literary career,
offspring and afterlife, would have certainly benefited from a closer
inspection of all (though fragmentary) of his works, however
specifically limited to the Annals the papers, as well as the volume
itself and the occasion which produced it, may have been conceived to
be.[[5]] Also, such an opportunity to establish some clearer ways of
tradition into Late Antiquity for the first Latin hexameter masterwork
could be better exploited, though Middle Ages are well represented by
Petrarch's reception. Some sort of late antique flavour is yet to be
found in the generally sparkling tone of the volume, which can sound
much more striking when one considers that, more or less, it similarly
permeates the style of seven different authors, to whom we now proceed.
It is by the way time to say that there are actually eight papers, but
the last of them is a "Petrarchan" text, as we will later see; the
eight papers are subdivided into 4 sections, and are preceded by
Gowers's Introduction.

The first section is entitled 'The Ennian Corpus' and includes essays
by James E. G. Zetzeland Gowers (at pp. 1-16 and 17-37, respectively).

Zetzel's paper immediately shocks his readers with its title 'The
influence of Cicero on Ennius'. What lies behind this paradox is the
assumption that our perception of Ennius is in fact our perception of
Cicero's Ennius, meaning that -- as the most relevant fragments from
the Annals resurface from Cicero's works, together with his peculiar
way of treating and focusing on them -- it is therefore obvious that it
would be easier to talk about the interpretation Ennius had already
undergone in antiquity than allowing us any new one. Important remarks
about Ennian quotation shares in Cicero show that he preferred a
definite set of works (namely Annals, Andromacha and Medea) and, within
them, certain passages (which are therefore repeatedly alluded to or
quoted) or contexts; moreover, such quotations are mostly meant to fit
into Cicero's own arguments and demonstrations, so that they are not
chosen for aesthetic reasons, but just in compliance with specific
concepts. It should be here noted that a further general analysis could
have given, and still could, a neater picture of Cicero's behaviour and
aims in all cases of quotations from Ennius, although this is not the
aim of the paper, which is for its part carefully developed, and which
is alert to Cicero's attitude and literary language. In particular, the
relationships between his appreciation of Ennius and his dislike of the
cantores Euphorionis are so explored as to strengthen the impression of
a rejection of Hellenizing style and Epicurean contents through a
remodelled view of Ennius' real production (whichin fact included such
an item as Epicharmus).[[6]] Tagging Cicero as "a traditionalist in
language" is probably excessive if one rightly thinks of him as a
pathfinder of Latin poetic language, but it seems true that he plays a
fundamental role in transforming Ennius into a thenceforth lasting
stereotype of long-established, archaic, "anti-neoteric" phrasing,
maybe, as Zetzel states, because of "his own growing [sc. in the late
50s] interest in the Roman past" (p. 7). The last part of the paper is
mostly devoted to the discussion of the famous Pro Archia passage where
Cicero's client is compared to Scipio's (and other great men's)
encomiast (Arch. 22). That discourse has many times caused conjectural
skirmishes on how much or how little reliance may be placed upon
Cicero's account of Ennius' relationship to Roman noblemen, which --
Zetzel intends to show -- is itself rather conjectural than
historically correct, and is therefore to be regarded circumspectly and
not used as evidence (although he seemingly favours some
reconstructions); the author also inclines to think that many anecdotes
regarding Ennius have in time derived from the evaluation of Cicero,
who would not even be in the know. Finally two issues related to
Cicero's influence are debated. The first is the composition of the
Annals, i.e. the reconstruction of how Ennius ultimately came to the
closure of his Roman epic: Gellius (17.21.43) tells us that, according
to Varro, in book 12 Ennius stated he was then 67, which would mean
that book 12 should be dated to 172 BC, when his death should be dated
only three years later in 169 BC; that is why scholars generally emend
Gellius' text in order to have higher numbers and consequently more
yearly instalments for the composition of books 13-18. On the contrary,
Zetzel believes that the right date is the transmitted one, and that we
should rather try later anecdotes about composition and book additions,
collaterally accepting the fact that the Annals must have been composed
very rapidly at the end of Ennius' life. This can also mean that in his
days Ennius was particularly known, during his Roman sojourn, because
of other works (the Tragedies above all) rather than for the Annals
which appeared far later than any other work of his: again Cicero might
have instead made the Annals the most important one (as if it were such
even to Ennius' contemporaries). The epigram on Scipio (43 Courtney) is
the last text examined, and its seriousness is challenged in favour of
a possible ironic interpretation of this (apparently mutilated) text,
since it was written after Scipio's death, as well as Scipio, both of
them being "not immediate reflections of Scipio as Ennius' patron" (p.
16).  Some statements may sound bald and will surely make doubts rise
in the minds of readers, who will nevertheless appreciate Zetzel's
lucidity and important new achievements.

After introducing the volume, Gowers reappears as its second
contributor, again with her bubbly style which eases the staging of the
Ennian body, but not in its literary sense: 'The cor of Ennius' should
precisely sound as 'Ennius' heart', although -- this appears to be the
aim of the paper -- it is just in order to reach the core of Ennius'
poetry that he is being dissected. I must confess I was a little
disappointed as I had the impression that mere statistics about the not
intended recurrence of cor (and its derivatives) in extant fragments
were being proposed; nevertheless, if statistics actually propelled
this paper (Gowers herself admits that on p. 17), single reasonings on
single lines and groups of lines turn out to be, if not always
conclusive, very interesting. Two main hypotheses are pursued: "that
the multiple appearances of cor in the fragments reflect what was a
genuinely central position in Ennius' work; and that the word cor (...)
is intimately connected with Ennius' conception of himself, his poetics
and the wider world, and with later poets' reception of his legacy" (p.
18). A preliminary note tries to show that Ennius' cor derives from
Homer's, in both a literary (poetic affiliation) and concrete
(metempsychotic transfer) sense, and that should, if I am not mistaken,
positively prompt the speculation on the first hypothesis.
'Cardiocentrics' is the title of the second paragraph, which goes into
the matter of heart transmigration, founding it on ancient sources both
literary and philosophical; it might be found useful in particular for
such information,[[7]] and I do not really believe that the seeming
abundance of cor falls into a precise poetic strategy, also because we
should first check, and we unfortunately cannot,  the relevance of that
word to common Latin language in Ennius' days. In particular, a link
with Empedocles is sought, in order to restore a genealogical chain
(from Empedocles to Ennius, to Lucretius and later to Ovid) formerly
investigated by Philip Hardie.[[8]] Connections with Empedocles are
again at the start of section 3 ('Discordia and bodily landscapes'), in
which Ennius' lines on Paluda (Ann. 220s.) are as usual interpreted
from an Empedoclean perspective; some observations about the iconic
displacement of words and its possible relation to Greek (and later
Latin) philosophies are offered (although I do not share them,
me/trique verbale here being all too stretched); disiectio in Ennius'
language is further interpreted also with reference to Horace and
Lucretius, as well as Democritus and Philodemus -- but one could almost
argue that too many arguments have been advanced.[[9]] A discussion on
the famous tria corda which our poet claimed to possess (if it is not a
case of later autoschediastic frills) could not be missing, and section
four ('Hearts of iron, hearts in threes') sees to that. Gowers's
conclusion seems to be that the tria corda are not to be generally
taken as three "consciousnesses, even national or linguistic
identities" (p. 28) but three "memory banks" (p. 29), which would
descend from a supposed adherence to a stem of cor-words within the
semantic area of memory. 'Fixed and wandering hearts' are those which,
in Gowers's words, paradoxically "mark out various literary genres" (p.
30), meaning that in particular Juvenal's mention of a cor Enni (Iuu.
6.10) can raise questions about the work (and its genre) in which it
had been said to pulse, the possible solutions to which questions
Gowers tries to give also trying new approaches. Section seven ('Heart
and marrow') gives other body parts the chance to stand out, marrow in
particular, as the notorious uersus propinas flammeos medullitus could
suggest; whatever limb or organ may be given prominence, the point is
that, if no incontrovertible definition of cor to Ennius can be
produced, that should nevertheless sound like proof that "we could see
cor as a multipurpose symbol of the essence of Ennius" (p. 33).
Empedocles lastly reappears in Ringkomposition as epigrams written
about him by Diogenes Laertius (8.75) are offered as parallels for the
medullitus distich (but I dare say they are not too fitting). This
paper will be found useful for its rich collection of ancient and
modern sources, and for a rearrangement (however welcomed) of typical
Ennian issues.

The second, gendered section of the book is 'Ennian voices and
landscapes', in which Jacqueline Elliot and Alison Keith discuss mainly
about social functions of Ennian characters and related matters (pp.
38-54 and 55-72).

With her 'The voices of Ennius' Annals', Elliot means to investigate
the possibility that Ennius showed "sympathy for the underdogs of the
Roman political establishment, such as women and Rome's military
enemies" (p. 38), which she intends to deduce from speeches in extant
fragments. These, we are reminded, fall into three main categories,
which respectively include fragments transmitted for grammatical
interest, for their contextual aptness in narrations or generic
quotations, and for their influence on Virgil. The relative reliability
of the first category, i.e. grammatical quotations, is pronounced
undamaged by those ideological interpretations which are potentially to
be found in the other categories. One could here object that many lines
transmitted as Ennius' have in fact been taxed with spuriousness (and
still many more could be, in my opinion) and if they are not genuine
they can indeed fall into a kind of archaic-style-stereotype ideology
-- but that impression is substantially right. Going on to the second
category, a notorious line (moribus antiquis  etc.: Ann. 156) is
offered as an example of how a writer, in this case Augustine (who
quoted Ennius from Cicero's recollection in De republica), could be
completely unaware of the original context of a quotation and could
therefore transform later perceptions of such quoted lines (which is
the same point as Zetzel's in his paper). In particular, it seems
likely to Elliot that, although that line has been long believed to
belong in a speech by an authoritative moral paradigm (such as Manlius
Torquatus Imperiosus), we must face that the longest extant speeches
(which coincide with some of the longest fragments transmitted) "do not
belong to Roman men, but to women and enemies of Rome" (p. 43), namely
Ilia and Pyrrhus (Ann. 36-50 and 183-90 respectively), so that caution
is invoked when it comes to giving figures about Ennian 'narrative
grammar' (Conte's definition). Thirdly, sources dealing with Virgil are
taken into high consideration, as they "offer us (...) momentary and
partial views of a Virgilian perspective" on the Annals (p. 44); above
all, they are rightly condemned as incomplete accounts of Ennius'
substance, just inasmuch they rather use it to form the basis of
Virgil's poetry, as if it were teleologically destined for that. All of
this prompts possible new readings of fragments yoked with Virgil's
texts, and Elliot gives some proof of such possibilities, which also
entail considerations about the underdogs before alluded to. For
instance, Ann. 361 et simul erubuit ceu lacte et purpura mixta is
(maybe correctly) reassigned to book 11 or 10, depending on mss.,
against Skutsch's objection that those books cannot contain such female
blushing, and Elliot also shows that it can rather link Homer's
prototype to Virgil's revision through Ennius' own reworking of epic
into dramatic diction, though still in a warring context. Ilia's dream
is the next, and of course longest-discussed, example: always
interpreted as an indirect celebration of the founding of Rome, it is
here seen as rather insisting on Ilia's psychology and narrative
function. I found it unlikely that, as Elliot ultimately believes,
Ilia's dream, the only founding account dealt with by Ennius, should be
taken as a patent predilection for women's point of view: in my
opinion, we likelier owe this yet unfathomable pearl to some
Hellenistic genre affiliation, and it can be used only perilously to
demonstrate "the uselessness of the male and imperialistic perspective
to Ilia". Nevertheless, we have to admit that the focus, here as well
as at Ann. 58s. or 158, is on the female character's psychology and,
although I would not deepen such a gendered perspective, many
statements on Ennius' alleged obsession for sturdy authorities must in
fact be dethroned. Ann. 162 cogebant hostes lacrumantes ut misererent
is then said to be "ambiguous" since "it seems at first as if hostes
will be the subject of cogebant, lacrumantes a descriptor of its direct
object" (p. 52): that would prove the existence of multiple
perspectives, intended as such by Ennius himself and his iconic
composition -- yet readers might be in doubt (and some mss. have the
less problematic hostis). The last example is Pyrrhus' speech (Ann.
183-90) which, through Cicero's pointed remark about genus Aeacidarum
and its apparent opposition to Ennian Appius' stolidum genus
Aeacidarum, would reversely conceal an inner intended contradiction of
the Annals and its "complex process of characterization and
counter-characterization" which would be "in a way reminiscent of the
Aeneid" (p. 54). The idea of the Annals as a poem with a polyphonic
structure, if sought through sometimes excessive or doubtful evidence,
is an intriguing one, and it sensibly widens the array of Ennian
questions that scholars can now deal with.

Keith's paper, entitled 'Women in Ennius' Annals', draws on the
perspective already adopted in her recent book about Engendering Rome:
Women in Latin Epic (Cambridge, 2000), where she admits that Ennius'
case had not been studied in depth. In that volume, Latin epic poems
are analyzed with regard to the narrative and symbolicfunction of women
as they are fitted into a manly genre conceived to carry out men's
education. Here the emphasis is particularly on the "exploration of the
dynamics of gender in Ennius' imperial narratives of foreign conquest
and external expansion" (p. 55) and the assumption is that "contests
over dominion of Latium that preceded the Roman conquest of Italy and
the Mediterranean (...) are conceived in gendered terms" (p. 57).
Putting the example of Ilia (whose past handling in Engendering Rome is
briefly summarized) aside, Aeneas' arrival in Latium (Ann. 26-32) is
involved in the first discussion, which seeks to prove that a sort of
metaphorical ground lies behind Aeneas' marriage to Latinus' daughter,
since it would more deeply represent "the Trojans'territorial
acquisition as a joint project of the Trojans and the native Italians"
(p. 58). The next item is the rape of the Sabines and the related
speech attributed to Hersilia (Ann. 98-103), which is thoroughly
analyzed in its linguistic texture and is shown to be interpretable as
possibly coinciding -- by means of repeated markers of
physical/territorial/linguistic appropriation -- with Ennius' own
participation in "the Roman imperial project" (p. 62). Virgil's fall of
Troy (especially Aen. 2.313, 486-90) is rightly presented as deriving
from Ennius' destruction of Alba Longa (as Servius ad loc. lets us
guess), but things are maybe stretched too far when it comes to Ennius'
specific representation, which only conjecturally could have staged it
"from the perspective of the women who inhabit the city and whose
removal from the city both rehearses the rape of the Sabines and
similarly symbolizes Roman territorial conquest" (pp. 62f.). Paluda is
the protagonist of the next section of Keith's paper, where etymology
and interlinguistic puns are the basis for a detailed characterization
which somehow extrudes from the main discussion but is very rich,
although not all apparent punning schemes and observations sound
cogent.[[10]] In the last section, Keith tries to draw Greek Muses --
female Muses, to be exact, that appear as such in the proem at Ann. 1,
and in the proems to books 7 and 10 (Ann. 206-210, 322f.) -- into the
previously seen model of "female victims of Rome's imperial ambitions"
(p. 71) who perform the joining of different empires so that, in
Keith's opinion, "despite their Greek origin, in Ennius' poem the Muses
speak the language of their captors, Latin, and celebrate the defeat of
their fellow Greeks". In conclusion, this paper is suited to scholars
of both gender studies and erudite reconstructions, who will find
proper material for their experiments -- but I am afraid that any
further engendering of Ennius and his fragile, bruised body, could
rather result in unwelcome endangering, the best scholarly designs
notwithstanding.

The title of the third section, 'Ennius and Virgil', could let the
reader think that Ingo Gildenhard  and Sergio Casali aim to develop
Norden's long-established model, but they actually reinterpret it and
establish new ways of analysis (their papers are at pp. 73-102 and
103-128 respectively).

A theoretical premise on Freudian (literary) relationships between
Ennius and Virgil introduces  Gildenhard's paper, entitled 'Virgil vs.
Ennius, or: The Undoing of the Annalist', which in fact deals with
'evolutive' comparison between Ennius and Virgil's respective
"authorial self-fashioning, political culture, views of the
supernatural and (...) [way of relating] literary format and conception
of history" (p. 75). The two authors are studied separately in a
diptych structure, and priority is naturally given to Ennius, in
relation to whose Selbstdarstellung the first section discusses an
anonymous epigram on Ennius (Cic. Tusc. 1.34) -- where importance is
given to the anomalous collective address to the ciues (although this
is the epigrammatist's formulation, not Ennius') -- and the famous
Lunai portum etc. (op. inc. 1 Sk. = Pers. 6.9-11), which is accepted
into the Annals (following Kissel's idea)[[11]] and again offers an
apostrophe to ciues (this time in Ennius' own words), thus establishing
a likely noteworthy social background for Ennius' operation.
Socio-political observations recur in the second section, in which
Gildenhard reminds us of how Homer's substance was Romanized into a
poem which "did not just celebrate the exploits of the ruling elite" as
"the Annals contain the success story of a civic community, in which
aristocrats and common soldiers excelled in equal measures" (p. 80);
furthermore, it is stated that ethnic peculiar identities are subsumed
under the general sphere of common citizenship, since to Ennius "Rome
is a citizenry rather than an ethnos" (p. 82): we cannot be sure about
the quantitative aspects of Ennius' assertions about ethne and civic
brotherhood, but certainly this seems at any rate the most enticing
option. Religion, too, entails cultural medley, since rites and
divination especially mingle archaic, hierarchized practices with
foreign or private ones, as well as Roman beliefs with Greek theories.
Politics finally reappear in the last Ennian section, since on the one
hand it deals with the "literary format (of the poem) and its
conception of history" (this is the section title), but on the other
links the literary aspect to a political one. In fact, the joining of
cultures that the Annals seem to promote could take on Nobilior's
attitude as a censor, who had to (and managed to) reconcile parties,
and whose magistrate list was as open-ended as the Annals (which from
that kind of list derive their name) would later prove to be, as Ennius
decided to add three more books to the original bulk just in order to
celebrate his patron. The Virgilian section starts with an antiphrasis
of the preceding sketch of Ennius: Virgil reminds us of an ancient
uates while his predecessor preferred the label of poeta, diffracts the
civic fraternity into ethnic heterogeneity, superimposes fatum on that
multi-religious world we saw staged in the Annals, and encloses the
annalistic historical open-endedness in an aoristic, immutable myth
narrative. 'The return of the uates' gives matter to the first
argument, where the political implications of this terminological
choice are explored as contrary to the republican elite's (as well as
Ennius') favourite divination, insofar as it is now individual and
specific and  comes directly from the gods, thus also being addressed
not to citizens but to the king. Such a connection between kings and
prophets is spotted in Aeneas' ascension to the Sibyl, during which he
becomes a "uates retrouersus, prefiguring current events" (p. 91) --
this connection connects with the one which subsists between Augustus
and Virgil, the latter reviving the very voice of the Sibyl and with it
justifying Augustus' new 'edition' of her oracles. A discussion of
Romanam condere gentem (Aen. 1.33) follows, in which Gildenhard tries
to demonstrate that gens, a marker of familiarity (gens as aristocratic
clan) or foreign countries (gentes), was paradoxically used to
designate the populus Romanus and have it coincide with Aeneas' gens,
less than a paradox if one considers Virgil's political project. All of
this "desenfranchizes the republican elite and prepares the ground for
a novel vision of Roman history and its heroes" (p. 94). The Anchises
episode in book 6 is the object of further discussion, where even the
lament for Marcellus is reinterpreted according to this populus/gens
scheme. Gildenhard concludes that two "identity-schemes" act in the
Aeneid: "the (...) 'agnatic' lineage of the gens Iulia" and "a looser
notion of Roman ethnicity by which the Romans become the people of
Aeneas" (p. 97). The open-endedness with which we credited the Annals,
which progress with the years and for the future, is in Virgil shut
down and gives way to a conception of historical events overwhelmed by
prejudicing fatum, already written as Sibylline oracles were and whose
readers were those uates Ennius once despised as bestowing some sense
of inevitability upon unwelcome events. As to narrative form, according
to Gildenhard, "in two places in the Aeneid Virgil evokes annalistic
history a\ la Ennius" (p. 100), i.e. the pageant of heroes at Aen.
6.864 and the Shield (8.626-9), but there Virgil's predecessor is
modified in order to obtain results matching the political project
already seen, so that "the republican past and the annalistic scheme
are thus bent out of shape, becoming a marginalized backdrop to a
historical vision, in which the mythic past and the Augustan present
assume an overpowering pre-eminence" (p.101); one could also add that
for Ennius myth is only the beginning of the narrative, while in Virgil
it is the narrative itself and prefigures archaic legitimating of the
present: in short there could be uncertainty on the degree of
premeditation in Virgil's overturning. This paper is really rich in
substance and provides a revealing insight into Ennian and Virgilian
macro-issues which, although related to different projects and times,
seem to be configurable as opposing facets (republican, open-minded,
rational vs. imperial, prejudicial, inspired) of authentic -- though
evolving -- Latin thinking.

Casali's paper deals with 'Killing the father: Ennius, Naevius and
Virgil's Julian imperialism'. The starting point is that Virgil, like
for the 'repressed' Lucretius, similarly had to correct Ennius, since
with all certainty he (as well as Naevius) did not include a male son
of Aeneas' as founder (or at least precursor) of Rome and its deeds, in
particular those related to the gens Iulia. A first correction is made
to Alba's ancestry, which Ennius rightly depicted as Italic: Virgil
would instead advocate a Trojan descent by laying Ennius'
representation of the destruction of Alba upon his own destruction of
Troy, thus "suggesting (not only) an 'Alban Troy', but also a 'Trojan
Alba'" (p. 109); furthermore, the detail of people -- the Julian gens
among them -- fleeing from Alba is seen in relation to Aenas and Iulus'
departure from Troy, which would therefore draw on the former in order
to configure a more ancient (and nobler) "displacement toward 'Rome' of
Augustus' ancestors -- exactly as the destruction of Alba does" (p.
110): Casali's suggestion, with which can agree, is that Virgil is
precisely aiming to revitalize "the only Julian detail" in Ennius'
work. Anchises plays a major role in the following discussion (he is in
a sense the 'Father' of the paper title), which begins from 'Elysium as
a theme-park of metapropaganda', an intriguing metaphor for the
exceptionally figurative character of afterlife encounters with one's
ancestors. Casali tries to show that the prominence given in Aen. 6 to
both Greek poets and Roman offspring can be analyzed from an Ennian
point of view, according to which Musaeus is chosen to point to
Anchises since the "Greek man-of-the-Muses" is best suited to leading
to "the Roman man-of-the-Muses par excellence", as Anchises could be
defined when taken as "a deeply Ennian figure" (p. 112). I must admit
some scepticism on my part for this case, as well as for the opinion
that Aen. 6.644 pedibus plaudunt choreas et carmina dicunt could
literally (and phonosymbolically) suggest Ann. 1 Musae, quae pedibus
magnum pulsatis Olympum (as stated at p. 112). Further analyzed is the
genealogical table, where Aen. 6.650 Ilusque Assaracusque et Troiae
Dardanus auctor is shown to be a new, Virgilian-minded counterpart of
Iliad 20.232, whose non-Augustanism Virgil would remedy with such a
hyper-correction. But more is said on the interrelationship between
that line and georg. 3.34-6, and Ennius' Assaraco natus Capys optimus
isque pium ex se / Anchisen generat (Ann. 28f.), so as to prove that
actual Roman adaptation of Trojan myths was already present in Ennius'
work, and that Virgil's extended reworking both improves Ennius and
rehabilitates him inasmuch as Virgil would be mostly interested in his
predecessor's use of "genealogy as an instrument of political
propaganda" (p. 114). Anchises' death seems to reconfigure him as the
archaic character of Ennius and Naevius, so that he recovers the
prophetic powers they had equipped him with; but just this recovery
again corrects Ennius, since no Julian prophecy could be made in the
Annals while the Aeneid does quite the contrary. And any act -- Casali
repeatedly suggests -- which involves changing "Father Anchises" and
his attitudes, also involves changing "Father Ennius" and (to minor
extent) "Father Naevius". The first consequence lies in Anchises'
attitude towards the escape from falling Troy: in Ennius it was him who
probably urged Aeneas to escape (if Skutsch rightly comments on Ann.
17), in Virgil it is Aeneas who sponsors running away, just because
prophecy is no longer granted to Anchises, who also alludes to his
disabling by the thunderbolt (cf. Hom. Hym. Aphr.), which Casali infers
(probably rightly) to be absent from Ennius, and is helped by the
Ennian Venus to persuade their son, while he is here conversely
persuaded by Iulus' flaming head. The loss of prophecy also accounts
for Anchises's wrong interpretation of other peoples' prophecies, like
the one on the Ancient Mother (Aen. 3.99-120), where he cannot
'remember rightly' (si rite audita recordor, 3.107) as remembering is
not applicable to a developing invention of Virgil's (and to Ennius'
therefore 'ignorant' poetic fatherhood). But killing is the ultimate
resort of Virgil's 'un-Fathering': Anchises' death before landfall at
Latium completely reorders the archaic epic matter, according to which
("in Naevius, surely, and in Ennius, possibly", p. 119) he did reach
Latium; Ennius is thus similarly abandoned within Anchises' grave;
also, the funeral games contain the most overt allusion to the Trojan
descent of some Roman families (Memmii, Sergii, Cluentii), as the both
mythological and poetic "non-Alban, non-Julian past of the Roman race"
(p. 120) is discarded and the ludus Troiae takes place. Naevius then
joins the discussion, as we are told by Macrobius that the Bellum
Poenicum is being presupposed by Virgil when he makes Jupiter present
prophecies for a complaining Venus at Aen. 1. Casali, on the basis of
such a parallel (about which we can be quite sure, loss of fragments
notwithstanding), notes that Aen. 1.223 et iam finis erat could be a
metapoetic reference to what happened in Naevius' poem; that Jupiter's
smiling and brightening alludes to Ennian and Naevian diction; that the
promises Venus is recalling were formulated by Jupiter in Ennius and/or
Naevius; and that all of this Ennian-Naevianity had to be diverted into
Julian teleology. Further considerations on "a metapoetic irony in the
beginning of Jupiter's words to Venus (1.257-8)" (p. 123) are to be
treated cautiously, but the general impression that Virgil is
'dialoguing and correcting' is carefully given substance. The next
efforts are concentrated on 'Anchises the chronographer', which should
mean that Anchises, who in Casali's opinion represents (as we have
already seen before) Ennius, is represented as a chronography scholar
in the presentation of Aen. 6.679-83: the expressions lustrabat studio
recolens and recensebat numerum are stressed as if it were Virgil's
intention to represent Anchises-Ennius as literally studying
genealogies and ancient (pluperfect, actually) history in order to
correct the chronological mistake of the Annals, which -- according to
the reconstruction Casali adopts -- saw Troy fall in 1100 BC and Aeneas
directly beget Romulus' mother. Such corrections (but I still have some
perplexity on the real range of Ennius' assumed error) would be
addressed to Eratosthenes too, to whom Casali thinks Virgil might be
referring when he says studio recolens, as studio would remind us of
Ennian dicti studiosus and further recall Eratosthenes' archetypal
self-definition as philologos. But scepticism may be raised against the
opinion that "Anchises' new chronographical researches (to be taken
literally) allow him to deliver a politically acceptable genealogical
speech" (p. 127). In the conclusion, we are warned that "(maybe) the
repressed Ennian version is somehow, irrationally, returning" with the
mention of Silvius Aeneas, "Aeneas' own alter ego" (p. 128), as
Romulus' ancestor. This paper is certainly the richest and broadest of
the volume, and it will certainly provoke attentive scholars in many
ways and towards many directions; some suggestions are maybe too daring
but the overall result is extremely interesting.

The fourth and last section, 'Ennius and his reception, includes essays
by Hardie and, as I have already  said, Luke B. T. Houghton's
translation of a "Petrarchan" letter (respectively at pp. 129-144 and
145-158).

Hardie's paper is entitled 'Poets, patrons, rulers: the Ennian
tradition' and his aim is to show whether Ennius might have preceded
Horace and Virgil in representing "his own achievement as a poet
through the ultimate image of Roman power, that of the triumphator" (p.
131) and whether Petrarch was alluding to such a perception of Ennius
and the self-praising contents of his lost work when he depicted him as
poeta laureatus at the end of Africa, book 9. A comment is given on the
Good Companion fragment, to whose possible interpretation as Ennius'
self-portrait Hardie adds his remarks, showing (if I understand
correctly) a circumspect preference for the self-portrait option but
aware of its boldness. Anyway, we could easily state that it represents
Ennius' conception of a great man's friend: such a conception is then
compared to Horace's, as he models his own companions in his Satires
(both analogies and differences are recorded). Sat. 2.6 is particularly
different from Ennius' (self-)portrait, since Horace complains about
not being treated too intimately by Maecenas. A mediation is naturally
found in Lucilius, the inuentor of satire and predecessor of the kind
of relationship with Roman great men which Horace hopes for (cf. Sat.
2.1.71ff.), although Ennius' Good Companion (apart from probably being
alluded to by Lucilius himself) is nearer to Horace's own social
status, as well as to his ideal depiction. Then considering that the
proem to Virgil's third Georgic seems very Ennian in character, and
that Virgil represents himself as uictor in a triumphal context, Hardie
wonders "whether Ennius had already used epinician and/or triumphal
imagery of his own poetic Anspruch" (p. 138). A possible occasion is
found in the (at one point last) book 15 of the Annals, where the
building of Nobilior's temple Herculis Musarum could have been
concluded by dramatic and athletic games. Horace Odes 3.30 is further
investigated, as it shows a triumphal image (princeps Aeolium carmen ad
Italos | deduxisse modos) in a context which has been claimed as Ennian
in many occasions (cf. the notorious case of aere perennius), and which
Hardie also relates to Lucretius and his attitude towards Memmius
(possibly through Lucretius' own Ennian memory). Epistles 1 closes
Hardie's "Ennius-hunting" (p. 141), who perceives Ennian flavour in the
last two epistles, where the relation to Ennius is contradictorily
observable in both triumphal declarations of poetic independence and
admission of social inferiority, as such a contradiction could already
exist in Horace's most ancient precursor (in Ennius' Satires likelier,
Hardie rightly surmises). This paper, whose conclusions, though largely
conjectural, may be easily (if not completely) accepted, will be found
interesting particularly by scholars of Augustan poetry and its
relationship with archaic literature, as well as of history of genres.

What Houghton translates should be a new Petrarchan Latin letter
addressed to Giovanni Boccaccio, on the composition of the Africa,
which "was serendipitously unearthed in the depths of a Cambridge
college library shortly before the Laurence Seminar in June 2005" (p.
145). Unfortunately no more than this is said about the original text,
whose location and discovery are still shrouded in mystery, and whose
Latin texture, though easily re-obtainable from Houghton's fluent
English translation (its incipit "How often and with what pleasure have
I recalled your last visit", surely presupposing something not too
different from Quam saepe ac libenter [cf. Enn. Ann. 268] mecum
aduentum tuum sum recordatus), still seems to be lacking from our
knowledge of Petrarch's works. Furthermore some elements sound so
suspicious -- the paper epigraph ("Knowledge may have its purposes, but
guessing is always much more fun than knowing"), some odd statements
(Petrarch says: "the Africa -- a work loved by many but read by few"),
or the absence of details itself, or the contrary abundance of
references we usually hunt for in vain, even Petrarch's very adherence
to what we would say about the composition and literary qualities of
the Africa from our point of view -- that one could even not help but
scent a forgery. For which mordant doubt a remedy is to be distilled
from contacting the translator himself, as I did to my scholarly
relief.

TABLE OF CONTENTS


Contributors vii
Introduction ix


I The Ennian corpus
1. The Influence of Cicero on Ennius 1
James E. G. Zetzel


2. The Cor of Ennius 17
Emily Gowers


II Ennian voices and landscapes
3. The Voices of Ennius' Annals 38
Jacqueline Elliott


4. Women in Ennius' Annals 55
Alison Keith


III Ennius and Virgil
5. Virgil vs. Ennius, or: The Undoing of the Annalist 73
Ingo Gildenhard


6. Killing the Father: Ennius, Naevius and Virgil's Julian Imperialism
103
Sergio Casali


IV Ennius and his reception
7. Poets, Patrons, Rulers: The Ennian Traditions 129
Philip Hardie


8. A Letter from Petrarch  145
L(uke) B. T. Houghton

Bibliography 159


------------------
Notes:


1.  H. D. Jocelyn, The tragedies of Ennius, Cambridge, 1967; O.
Skutsch, The Annals of Q. Ennius, Oxford, 1985; E. Courtney,  The
fragmentary Latin poets, Oxford, 1993 (20032); W. Suerbaum, Ennius in
der Forschung des 20. Jahrunderts (= Bibliographien zur klassischen
Philologie 1), Hildesheim, 2003.

2.  A. Russo, Quinto Ennio. Le opere minori, Vol. I. Praecepta,
Protrepticus, Saturae, Scipio, Sota (= Testi e studi di cultura
classica 40), Pisa, 2007.

3.  P. Laurens, Pe/trarque. L'Afrique (Affrica), Tome premier (Livres
I-V), Paris, 2006. Be it here noted that, on the contrary, texts
already available and of some importance have been neglected (though
rarely): that is the case, for example, of A. Golzio, Per la critica
del testo del frammento dell'Amico di Servilio. Note su Ennio Annali
268-286 Skutsch (234-251 Vahlen), Roma, 1991 (maybe useful for
discussions on that fragment and its relationship, for instance, with
Petrarch's portrait of Ennius).

4.  Latin: p. 26 (centum aere claudunt uectes instead of centum aerei
claudunt uectes; super arma centum instead of super arma et centum), p.
32 (si quid adiuuero instead of si quid ego adiuuero); Greek: p. 34
(<greek>pw=s a)\n e)t' Mega/rois</greek> instead of <greek>pw=s a)\n
e)t' e)n Mega/rois</greek>); English: p. 109 (Rome instead of Alba), p.
129 (Hannnibal).

5.  In reality, some papers offered during the Seminar and not here
included, seem to have been concerned with at least some Tragedies:
cfr. Intr. p. xi.

6.  This issue has been recently tackled by Jacqueline Elliott in her
doctoral thesis "Poetry and History in Ennius' Annales" (Columbia
University 2005), spec. 95ss.

7.  Further suggestions, like the "temptation" of tracing Ennian
character -- and, with it, lost poetry -- in some occurrences of cor by
Catullus and Virgil, are conveniently displayed within a footnote (p.
20, n. 11).

8.  The reference is to P. R. Hardie, The speech of Pythagoras in Ovid
Metamorphoses 15: Empedoclean epos, CQ 45, 1995, 204-214.

9.  For example, in my opinion we have to reject the possibility that
Lucr. 1.117-26, by means of punning on cor-onam and cor-pora, should be
thought to conceal some Ennian cor-addiction.

10.  For instance, the identification of Paluda and Discordia, though
likely, is not evident in our sources, and it cannot be laid at the
bottom of more complex discussions.

11.  W. Kissel, Aules Persius Flaccus: Satiren, herausgegeben,
uebersetzt und kommentiert, Heidelberg, 1990.