No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2013
The literary sources upon which Claudian drew for De Raptu Proserpinae were recognized early. A great number were noted by Parrhasius in his edition of the poem (1500), and others by the editors of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, particularly Heinsius. The eighteenth-century editors of Claudian had less work to do in this field. Gesner's edition (1759) made an important contribution to the study of Claudian, but the value of his commentary, both on the De Raptu and on the other poems, lay in judicious observation rather than discovery. Birt's edition in M.G.H. (1892) assembled the material in a valuable form, yet with the omission of some significant parallels and the addition of some which are slight and even questionable. Our task now is not so much to discover the sources of Claudian's language as to examine his use of them, and in attempting this we have two advantages. We have a better knowledge than our predecessors of Claudian's milieu and of classical culture at the end of the fourth century A.D.; and we have not been accustomed to regard poetry as necessarily less original because it is a grouping of associations.
page 5 note 1 For example, D.R. I, 167Google Scholar; cf. Tac., Hist. v, 6, 9–10Google Scholar; D.R. I, 244Google Scholar; perhaps cf. Tac., Ann. xv, 43Google Scholar. D.R. Praefat. Lib. II, 29; cf. Tac., Ann. I, 33Google Scholar, 5 (mentioned below). The historical poems also show his knowledge of Tacitus, e.g. De Bell. Gild. I, 247Google Scholar; cf. Tac., Hist. II, 93Google Scholar.
page 5 note 2 D.R. I, 173–6Google Scholar; cf. Sen., N.Q. VI, I3, 3–4Google Scholar.
page 5 note 3 D.R. III, 265–7Google Scholar; cf. Ambrose, , Hex. 6, 4Google Scholar.
page 5 note 4 See inter al. D.R. I, 265Google Scholar: contristat…telas. Pan. Dict. Prob. et Olyb. coss., 123: tremulis…splendoribus.
page 5 note 5 For example, Cento Probae; though this was probably not composed by Faltonia, Anicia Proba—whom Claudian eulogizes, Pan. dict. Prob. Olyb. coss., 192–204Google Scholar—but by her grandmother, it was certainly current in Claudian's time.
page 6 note 1 Compare, however, D.R. I, 171–2Google Scholar and Aetna, 553–4. From 1, 172 onwards, the influence of Aetna on the wording increases.
page 6 note 2 D.R. I, 165Google Scholar; Met. II, 213Google Scholar. D.R. I, 163–4Google Scholar; Met. II, 233Google Scholar. D.R. I, 164–5Google Scholar; Met. II, 204–5Google Scholar. Perhaps also: D.R. I, 167Google Scholar; Met. II, 222Google Scholar.
page 6 note 3 Met. II, 220Google Scholar (Ardet in immensum geminatis ignibus Aetna) may have been the association which had recalled it.
page 6 note 4 Cf. (inter al.) D.R. I, 37Google Scholar; Theb. VII, 15–16Google Scholar. D.R. I, 41Google Scholar; Theb. VII, I, 3Google Scholar. D.R. I, 43–5Google Scholar; Theb. VIII, 42–4Google Scholar. D.R. I, 116Google Scholar; Theb. VII, 34–5Google Scholar.