Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:25:54.581Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘TO HEAVEN ON A HOOK’ (DIO CASS. 60.35.4): ENNIUS, LUCILIUS AND AN INEFFECTUAL COUNCIL OF THE GODS IN AENEID 10

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 March 2020

Llewelyn Morgan
Llewelyn Morgan*
Affiliation:
Brasenose College, Oxford
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

‘The last stanza of Horace's poem’, writes Denis Feeney of Hor. Carm. 3.3, ‘declares virtually outright that he has just been “quoting” epic matter: “desine peruicax | referre sermones deorum et | magna modis tenuare paruis” (70–2)’. A poem that recounts the doings of gods automatically demands comparison with epic, but if the speeches of gods are presented, all the more so. Horace's poem in fact evokes an episode within a specific epic poem, the Council of the Gods that occurred during the first book of Ennius’ Annales. But such divine councils are a ‘stock epic scene’, and rather more than that: they are moments when epic is at its most quintessentially epic. In simple terms, an epic poet ‘may underline the significance and increase the dramatic effect’ of a critical point in the narrative ‘by showing us that it exercised the gods’, and that analysis applies to any divine presence in a poem: if a key impulse of epic is to amplify the significance of human activity, those occasions when higher forces overtly assert their control of human destiny satisfy a number of fundamental preoccupations of the genre. But in the Council of the Gods we have the most developed and impressive realization of this divine concern for mortal existence, as well as a topos that in Rome at least achieved special status within the broader field of divine machinery in epic. That status is perhaps reflected in a tendency discernible in the Roman section of the tradition for such councils to fall early in the epic narrative, as if initiating the epic plot. If so, however, Virgil's Council at Aen. 10.1–117 defies expectation by failing to be convened until the plot of the epic is very far advanced indeed, and even then, as this article will consider, achieving strikingly less than one might expect of a plenary gathering of supernatural powers at an advanced stage in an epic narrative.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 69 , Issue 2 , December 2019 , pp. 636 - 653
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This article has been a number of years in gestation, and in that time has accrued many debts, notably to Michael Reeve, Philip Hardie, Andrew Sillett, Denis Feeney, Matthew Leigh and Bob Cowan. At the end of the process the readers for CQ were very helpful in encouraging me to restructure and clarify my argument.

References

2 Feeney, D.C., ‘The reconciliations of Juno’, in Harrison, S.J., Oxford Readings in Vergil's Aeneid (Oxford, 1990), 339–62, at 349Google Scholar.

3 Hardie, P.R., The Last Trojan Hero (London and New York, 2014), 27CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 West, M.L., The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Early Poetry and Myth (Oxford, 1997), 179Google Scholar.

5 Barchiesi, A., ‘Senatus consultum de Lycaone: concili degli dèi e immaginazione politica nelle Metamorfosi di Ovidio’, MD 61 (2008), 117–45Google Scholar, at 117 and n. 1 for the concilium deorum as a discrete topos; and at 120 for Silius Italicus’ introduction of a meeting of the actual Roman Senate in his first book in a fashion that self-consciously evokes an established tradition of divine assemblies: concilium uocat (Pun. 1.609) recalls Verg. Aen. 10.2 and Ov. Met. 1.197 (cf. Claud. In Rufinum 1.28), and is ‘by this time the classic formula for the epic topos of the Senate of the gods’, though the summoning in this case is being done, characteristically of Silius, by a human consul.

6 There are divine councils in the first book of Ennius’ Annales, Ovid's Metamorphoses, Valerius Flaccus’ Argonautica, Statius’ Thebaid and Lucilius; for Silius Italicus, see n. 5 above. The pattern in Valerius Flaccus is idiosyncratic, a report of a concilium of marine deities at 1.211–17, a colloquy on Olympus between Sol and Jupiter in the presence of all the gods (1.498–573) and a dispute on Olympus ending in a banquet, a Homeric touch (5.618–95): for the significance of their placement, see Martín, S. Romano, El tópico grecolatino del concilio de los dioses (Hildesheim, 2009), 306Google Scholar.

That the divine Council of Book 1 was the only one in the Annales has been clearly re-established after Norden, E., Ennius und Lucilius (Leipzig and Berlin, 1915), 41–53Google Scholar (proposing a second Council in Book 7): see Skutsch, O., The Annals of Quintus Ennius (Oxford, 1985), 368Google Scholar; Romano Martín (this note), 136–40, the clinching evidence being Romulus’ statement in Lucilius’ Council (frr. 20–2 Warmington), uellem adfuissemus priore | concilio, referring to one previous council at which he was not present, and thus evidently the one in Annales Book 1 which sanctioned his own deification. The demonstration by Elliott, J., Ennius and the Architecture of the Annales (Cambridge, 2013), 45–50 and 303–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar that divine interventions will have been distributed throughout the Annales, and not restricted to the ‘mythological’ early books, remains incontestable.

7 Hammond, M., ‘Concilia deorum from Homer through Milton’, Studies in Philology 30 (1933), 1–16Google Scholar; Schaar, C., Marino and Crashaw, Sospetto d'Herode. A Commentary (Lund Studies in English 39) (Lund, 1971), 13–15Google Scholar.

8 Hardie (n. 3), 28.

9 See Barchiesi (n. 5), 117 n. 1 for the variety of kinds of divine encounters in the Iliad and the Odyssey that have more loosely been classified as councils.

10 West (n. 4), 112 and cf. 177–81; Barchiesi (n. 5), 117; Romano Martín (n. 6), 21–4. Akkadian divine Councils also display a tendency to migrate toward the start of a text: West (n. 4), 173–4.

11 Ennius may have had his own models in Roman epic: Blänsdorf, J., Fragmenta poetarum Latinorum epicorum et lyricorum praeter Ennium et Lucilium (Berlin, 2011 4), 49–51Google Scholar (Naevius, frr. 21–4) identifies a divine Council in Book 2 (out of seven, and the book structure is a later imposition by C. Octavius Lampadio: Suet. Gram. et rhet. 2) of Naevius’ Bellum Punicum; for a careful discussion of the very inconclusive evidence, see Romano Martín (n. 6), 125–34.

12 Boissier, G., Nouvelles promenades archéologiques. Horace et Virgile (Paris, 1907 6), 312–13Google Scholar, cited by Romano Martín (n. 6), 194.

13 Barchiesi (n. 5), 125–6.

14 Barchiesi's reference is to Cicero's De Temporibus Suis, on which see page 13 below.

15 Cf. Manuwald, G., ‘Concililia deorum: ein episches Motiv in der römischen Satire’, in Felgentreu, F., Mundt, F. and Rücker, N. (edd.), Per attentam Caesaris aurem: Satire—die unpolitische Gattung? (Tübingen, 2009), 46–61, at 61Google Scholar on the redeployment of the Ennian/Lucilian model of the Council of the Gods in later authors ‘regardless of the generic affiliation of their works’.

16 The accepted account of the genesis of Lucilius’ thirty-book œuvre referred to in antiquity remains Marx, F., C. Lucilii reliquiae I (Leipzig, 1904), liii–livGoogle Scholar. The earliest collection, in iambo-trochaic metres until the hexametrical Book 30, became known as Books 26–30; Books 22–5 seem to have been in elegiacs, but are quite mysterious as very little indeed survives of them. The books in hexameters, 1–21, are referred to as an independent collection at Varro, Ling. 5.17; Lucilius’ metrical choice was respected by the entire subsequent tradition of Latin verse satire with the single exception of Persius’ choliambic prologue.

17 Gratwick, A.S., ‘The satires of Ennius and Lucilius’, in Kenney, E.J. and Clausen, W.V. (edd.), The Cambridge History of Classical Literature, II: Latin Literature (Cambridge, 1982), 156–71, at 170CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Morgan, Ll., Musa Pedestris: Metre and Meaning in Roman Verse (Oxford, 2010), 317CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Romano Martín (n. 6), 149.

20 Hass, K., Lucilius und der Beginn der Persönlichkeitsdichtung in Rom (Munich, 2007), 72Google Scholar; Romano Martín (n. 6), 151. Juvenal's human Council in Sat. 4 (uocantur | ergo in consilium proceres, 72–3) bears a comparable relation to the epic Council of Statius’ almost entirely lost De Bello Germanico, beside its direct debt to Lucilius: Braund, S.M., Juvenal Satires Book 1 (Cambridge, 1996), 271–2Google Scholar.

21 See n. 6 above and pages 640–641 below on the awareness of the participants at Lucilius’ Council of the ‘previous’ Council in the Annales.

22 Marx, F., C. Lucilii carminum reliquiae II (Leipzig, 1905), 5Google Scholar; Skutsch (n. 6), 779–80; Hardie, P.R., Virgil Aeneid IX (Cambridge, 1998), ad locGoogle Scholar.

23 Skutsch (n. 6), 142–3, 202.

24 The major debate in the scholarship is whether the council fell in the vicinity of the birth of the twins to Ilia, or closer to Romulus’ actual foundation of Rome: see Feeney (n. 2), 356 and nn. 69 and 70 for a succinct summary of the arguments.

25 Enn. Ann. frr. 54–5 Skutsch. Skutsch (n. 6), 205: ‘Hexameters cited by Varro without the name of the author belong to the Annals (see 7; 116 ff.; 207; 220; 487; 554), whether or not Ennius has been named before.’

26 Skutsch (n. 6), 205.

27 Feeney (n. 2).

28 Juno's refusal to allow the new foundation to be called ‘Troy’ may have been, judging from Hor. Carm. 3.3 especially, her major point of principle: Feeney (n. 2), 355–60.

29 Coffey, M., Roman Satire (Bristol, 1989 2), 42–3Google Scholar.

30 Leo, F., Geschichte der römischen Literatur I: die archaische Literatur (Berlin, 1913), 420Google Scholar.

31 Skutsch (n. 6), 205; Feeney (n. 2), 351 and n. 52 for further supporters of the idea.

32 Gratwick (n. 17), 168.

33 Cf. n. 6 above; Hass (n. 20), 72–3 n. 125.

34 Cichorius, C.A., Untersuchungen zu Lucilius (Berlin, 1908), 221–4Google Scholar; Manuwald (n. 15), 52; Romano Martín (n. 6), 161.

35 Connors, C., ‘Epic allusion in Roman satire’, in Freudenburg, K. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Roman Satire (Cambridge, 2005), 123–45, at 128CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barchiesi (n. 5), 119.

36 Pierini, R. Degl'Innocenti, ‘Il concilio degli dei tra Lucilio e Ovidio’, A&R 32 (1987), 133–59Google Scholar = Pierini, R. Degl'Innocenti, Tra Ovidio e Seneca (Bologna, 1990), 13–35, at 146 (= 29)Google Scholar.

37 Marx (n. 22), 3; Barchiesi (n. 5), 117–18.

38 The persuasive emendation by Marx, F., Studia Luciliana (Bonn, 1882), 61–2Google Scholar of the cuiusdam iudicis rei, cuiusdam ducis or cuiusdam in rebus of the MSS.

39 There is a closely argued recent reconstruction at Romano Martín (n. 6), 155–80.

40 Marx (n. 22), 3; Skutsch (n. 6), 203–4; R. Heinze, Vom Geist des Römertums (Stuttgart, 19603), 315 and n. 8; Romano Martín (n. 6), 143.

41 See Gratwick (n. 17), 169–70 on the contemporary linguistic mannerisms, cultural references and concerns of Lucilius’ gods.

42 N. Terzaghi, Lucilio (Turin, 1934), 262–3.

43 RE 4.1386.68–1387.44 s.v. ‘Cornelius’ no. 224; MRR 1.501 n. 1.

44 ‘Mucius’ is Q. Mucius Scaeuola Augur (cf. Juv. 1.154), whose prosecution by T. Albucius, also for extortion, Lucilius described in Book 2, frr. 53–93 Warmington. Lucilius’ satire, which satirized both parties to the trial, was an important model for Hor. Sat. 1.7: Fiske, G.C., Lucilius and Horace (Hildesheim, 1966), 324–30Google Scholar.

45 For the implications of cooperto, Muecke, F., Horace Satires II (Warminster, 1993)Google Scholar, ad loc.

46 Chahoud, A., ‘The Roman satirist speaks Greek’, Classics Ireland 11 (2004), 1–46, at 19–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 See n. 38 above.

48 Piwonka, M. Puelma, Lucilius und Kallimachos. Zur Geschichte einer Gattung der hellenistisch-römischen Poesie (Frankfurt am Main, 1949), 29Google Scholar; Houghton, L.B.T., ‘The wolf and the dog (Horace, Sermones 2.2.64)’, CQ 54 (2004), 300–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 Freudenburg, K., ‘Seneca's Apocolocyntosis: censors in the afterworld’, in Bartsch, S. and Schiesaro, A. (edd.), The Cambridge Companion to Seneca (Cambridge, 2015), 93–105, at 98–105Google Scholar.

50 Marx (n. 22), 17.

51 Cichorius (n. 34), 226–9. Pierini, R. Degl'Innocenti, ‘Le battaglie del foro (per l'esegesi e la collocazione dei vv. 1228 ss. M. di Lucilio)’, Maia 42 (1990), 249–55, at 253–5Google Scholar argues that a jaundiced Lucilian account of life in Rome, frr. 1145–51 Warmington, is to be included among the fragments of the Council, perhaps in the mouth of Romulus; cf. Romano Martín (n. 6), 164–5.

52 Skutsch, O., ‘Enniana VI’, CQ 14 (1964), 85–93, at 89–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar (= Studia Enniana [London, 1968], 103–16, at 109–12).

53 Connors (n. 35), 127.

54 Connors's view is that we are being encouraged to react unsympathetically to this ‘rigid version of Romanness’. But later satirists, at any rate, were far from unsympathetic to a Romulus-Quirinus figure championing resistance to non-Roman influences. The same god keeps Horace's verse appropriately Roman at Hor. Sat. 1.10.31–5, and Juvenal brings us particularly close to Lucilius’ Romulus, alerting Quirinus to the even greater degree to which Romans have succumbed to Greek cultural and linguistic influence by his day: rusticus ille tuus sumit trechedipna, Quirine, | et ceromatico fert niceteria collo (3.67–8).

This satirical theme also offers a sidelight on the question of whether the deified Romulus in Ennius was identified with Quirinus. The current consensus is against: Skutsch (n. 52 [1968]), 130–7; Jocelyn, H.D., ‘Romulus and the Di Genitales (Ennius, Annales 110–111 Skutsch)’, in Diggle, J., Hall, J.B. and Jocelyn, H.D. (edd.), Studies in Latin Literature and its Traditions in Honour of C.O. Brink (Cambridge, 1989), 39–65, at 40 and 55Google Scholar: ‘It was another creative spirit [than Ennius] from a later time who introduced the figure of Iulius Proculus to the story and identified the Alban founder of the city with the Sabine deity Quirinus.’ But what this leaves unclear is how Ennius could have claimed Romulus had been deified in the absence of any corresponding deity who was worshipped in Rome. Certainly the satiric tradition seems to make the identification, and that combined with Ovid's version of the story (Met. 14.805–51) in a passage modelled on the end of Annales Book 1 offers literary testimony to similar effect.

55 Freudenburg (n. 49), 100–1, a further potential parallel with the Apocolocyntosis, where Augustus, the last censor before Claudius, condemns his successor; Warmington, E.H., Remains of Old Latin, vol. III: Lucilius, The Twelve Tables (Cambridge, MA, 1938), at frr. 28–9Google Scholar and Hass (n. 20), 72 similarly identify Apollo with Appius Claudius Pulcher. I find the equation of Romulus and Cato also in Richter, W., ‘Staat, Gesellschaft und Dichtung in Rom im 3. und 2. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Naevius, Ennius, Lucilius)’, Gymnasium 69 (1962), 286–310, at 308Google Scholar. Freudenburg characterizes Cato as a personal enemy of Lupus on the basis of a speech apud censores in Lentulum (Gell. NA 5.13.4; ORF fr. 200 Malcovati), which may have been directed at our Lentulus. Cic. Tusc. 3.51, written by an author extremely familiar with Lucilius, records disagreement between Cato and Lupus on the question of Carthage, but the point of the illustration there is that their political differences were pursued without personal rancour. With reference to both Cato the Elder and turnips, Plut. Cat. Mai. 2.2 describes M.’ Curius Dentatus (presented as a figure whom Cato strove to emulate) boiling up turnips when Samnite ambassadors arrive at his humble cottage and offer him a bribe, and sending them away saying that a man satisfied by such a meal had no need of gold.

56 Chahoud (n. 46), 19–21.

57 Coffey (n. 29), 43; Freudenburg (n. 49). A physical representation of Lupus, the face that launched satire, may have survived into modern times: RE 4.1387.34–44. At the end of the sixteenth century, during excavation of the foundations for a house in Tivoli, near the Cathedral of S. Lorenzo and thus on the site of the ancient forum of Tibur, an inscribed bronze tablet was discovered along with a male bust. The inscription (CIL I².586) recorded a letter from a Roman praetor, L. Cornelius Cn. f., in which he communicated to the people of Tibur that the Roman Senate accepted their explanation of some or other action, now beyond recovery, that had brought suspicion upon them. The praetor of the inscription has been confidently identified as L. Cornelius Lentulus Lupus, who will have held the magistracy not later than 159 b.c. The bust was assumed from the time of its discovery to be linked to the inscription and thus to represent Lupus, although this cannot of course be verified. The whereabouts of both inscription and bust is now unknown: a bust identified as Lupus was sold early in the eighteenth century to Thomas Coke, later the 1st Earl of Leicester who filled Holkham Hall in Norfolk with his collection of antiquities. But the bust in question very clearly represents the Emperor Nerva, and Coke was sold not a Lupus but a pup. There is a clear and succinct account of these discoveries at Tivoli, with further bibliography, at Buchet, E., Tibur et Rome: l'intégration d'une cité latine (Dijon, 2015), 91–100Google Scholar. Before its disappearance the bust was drawn by Theodor Gallaeus for Illustrium imagines ex antiquis marmoribus, nomismatibus et gemmis expressae quae extant Romae; maior pars apud Fulvium Ursinum (Antwerp, 1598), 50.

58 Freudenburg (n. 49), 101.

59 Manuwald (n. 15), 52–3; Romano Martín (n. 6), 177–9. The gods may also have emphasized their warning with an admonitory storm (frr. 39–41W): Marx (n. 22), 19–21; contra, Cichorius (n. 34), 224–6.

60 The fragments of Lucilius Book 1 are collected in Marx (n. 16), 3–6; Terzaghi, N., C. Lucilii saturarum reliquiae (Florence, 1934), 3–6Google Scholar; Warmington (n. 55), 2–18; Charpin, F., Lucilius Satires I (Paris, 1978), 90–8Google Scholar; Krenkel, W., Lucilius Satiren (Leiden, 1970), 1.104–25Google Scholar. There are detailed discussions of the fragments of Lucilius Book 1 in Marx (n. 38), 54–67; Marx (n. 22), 1–28; Cichorius (n. 34), 219–32; Moeller, P., Deos consiliantes qua ratione Lucilius in libro primo aliique effinxerint (Jena, 1912)Google Scholar; Terzaghi (n. 42), 261–79; Michelfeit, J., ‘Zum Aufbau des ersten Buches des Lucilius’, Hermes 93 (1965), 113–28Google Scholar; Romano Martín (n. 6), 149–80. Briefer accounts of the episode include Coffey (n. 29), 42–3, Gratwick (n. 17), 169–70, Connors (n. 35), 125–9 and Manuwald (n. 15), 49–55.

61 Manuwald (n. 15), 53; cf. Romano Martín (n. 6), 243.

62 Cf. Connors (n. 35), 141.

63 Pease, A.S., ‘Notes on stoning among the Greeks and Romans’, TAPhA 38 (1907), 5–18Google Scholar; Cantarella, E., I supplizi capitali in Grecia e a Roma (Milan, 1991), 326–9Google Scholar; Fehling, D., Ethologische Überlegungen auf dem Gebiet der Altertumskunde (Munich, 1974), 59–79Google Scholar.

64 Thus Fowler, D.P., ‘Deviant focalisation in Virgil's Aeneid’, PCPhS 36 (1990), 42–63, at 56Google Scholar on ‘the practice whereby poets retrospectively make their predecessors less complex and more monolithic to enable their own rebellion’.

65 Cichorius (n. 34), 220; Cf. Moeller (n. 60), 62–3; Coffey (n. 29), 175; Gratwick (n. 17), 634; Freudenburg (n. 49), 98–105; Hass (n. 20), 72–3 n. 125; Romano Martín (n. 6), 293–7. Eden, P.T., Seneca Apocolocyntosis (Cambridge, 1984), 17Google Scholar comments that ‘[d]irect influence of Lucilius on Seneca might be postulated, were it not that features shared among other ‘councils of the gods’, including the Apoc., are used as guidance for the reconstruction [of Lucilius’ concilium]’, but significantly overstates the dangers of circularity.

66 Eden (n. 65), 1 n. 1.

67 Manuwald (n. 15), 60.

68 Eden (n. 65), 115, a further potential point of contact between Claudius and Lupus: Claudius is above all a judicial villain, an unjust judge himself deserving condemnation: see p. 642 above.

69 Eden (n. 65), for the origin of the proverb.

70 See n. 65 above.

71 Freudenburg (n. 49).

72 Degl'Innocenti Pierini (n. 36); Romano Martín (n. 6), 254–5. On Ovid's Council in the tradition of the satirical concilium deorum, see also the suggestive survey in Connors (n. 35), 140–4.

73 Degl'Innocenti Pierini (n. 36), 142.

74 Manuwald (n. 15), 57; Barchiesi (n. 5).

75 Degl'Innocenti Pierini (n. 36), 143.

76 Degl'Innocenti Pierini (n. 36), 145.

77 For much fuller discussions of Ovid's Concilium, see, alongside Degl'Innocenti Pierini (n. 36), Barchiesi (n. 5), which focusses especially on respects in which Ovid's episode, in the description of its location, its judicial character and the character of Lycaon's conspiracy and its punishment, carries echoes of the Roman Senate, especially in its Augustan instantiation.

78 Cf. Barchiesi (n. 5), 121, discussing Statius’ Concilium as a creative distillation of the Concilia of his predecessors Virgil and Ovid.

79 Romano Martín (n. 6), 336–7.

80 Feeney, D.C., The Gods in Epic (Oxford, 1991), 350Google Scholar; Schubert, W., Jupiter in den Epen der Flavierzeit (Frankfurt, 1984), 128–30Google Scholar.

81 Schubert (n. 80), 128.

82 The testimonia are conveniently collected in Courtney, E., The Fragmentary Latin Poets (Oxford, 1993), 173–4Google Scholar.

83 Harrison, S.J., ‘Cicero's De Temporibus Suis: the evidence reconsidered’, Hermes 118 (1990), 455–63Google Scholar.

84 Harrison (n. 83), 457.

85 Goldberg, S., Epic in Republican Rome (Oxford, 1995), 166Google Scholar; Manuwald (n. 15), 56. Gabinius was tried for maiestas and then de repetundis, in each case related to a bribe he took to restore Ptolemy Auletes; that Piso's time in Macedonia could also be mined for material for invective is well enough established by Cicero's own In Pisonem.

86 Courtney (n. 82), 156–73.

87 Harrison (n. 83), 462. Courtney (n. 82), following Quintilian's suggestion (Inst. 11.1.24) of Greek models for Cicero's episode, suggests the account of the dream of Hannibal, probably attributable to the historian Silenus (FGrHist 175 F 3), in which he was summoned to a divine council (Cic. Diu. 1.49; Dio Cass. apud Zonar. 8.22.9).

88 There is a temptation, especially given the peculiarly political resonance of the Roman concilium deorum, on which see Manuwald (n. 15), 49 and Barchiesi (n. 5), 124–5, to ponder the impact of this epic/satirical choice between deification and condemnation on political oratory. Cicero's Catilinarians trade in a dichotomy between a saviour figure, a new Romulus, Cicero himself, and a criminal, Catiline, for example at Cat. 1.33, and a comparable polarity is discernible at Planc. 95 and Mil. 80. In the former, Laterensis has accused Cicero, in his praise of Plancius, of making an arch (or maybe a citadel or altar) out of a sewer, and worshipping a tombstone like a god; in the latter, Cicero contrasts the divine honours awarded tyrannicides in Greece with the threat of execution (supplicium) faced by his client. For discussion of these passages, and analysis of Cicero's contribution to the development of the language of apotheosis in Rome, see Cole, S., Cicero and the Rise of Deification at Rome (Cambridge, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

89 See n. 5 above and Barchiesi (n. 5), 120.

90 Harrison, E.L., ‘The structure of the Aeneid: observations on the links between the books’, ANRW 31.1 (1980), 359–93, at 390Google Scholar.

91 Lyne, R.O.A.M., Further Voices in Vergil's Aeneid (Oxford, 1987), 89Google Scholar.

92 Klingner, F., Virgil: Bucolica, Georgica, Aeneis (Zurich, 1967), 568Google Scholar.

93 Timpanaro, S., ‘Quanti concilii degli dei negli “Annali” di Ennio?’, GIF 41 (1989), 209–31, at 228Google Scholar = Nuovi contributi di filologia e storia della lingua Latina (Bologna, 1994), 203–25, at 222.

94 Barchiesi (n. 5), 137.

95 Penna, A. La, ‘Concilium’, in Enciclopedia virgiliana (Rome, 1984), 1.868–70, at 869Google Scholar.

96 Harrison, S.J., Vergil Aeneid 10 (Oxford, 1991), 59Google Scholar.

97 Feeney (n. 2), 341.

98 Skutsch (n. 6), 203–4.

99 Harrison (n. 96), 57: see his notes at 10.2, 4, 5, 6–15, 6–7, 8, 34–6, 37–8, 45–6, 52–3, 54–5, 65–6, 91, 96–7, 100, 101, 101–2, 104 and 116–17. Cf. Norden (n. 6), 45, 48; see also Goldschmidt, N., Shaggy Crowns: Ennius’ Annales and Virgil's Aeneid (Oxford, 2013), 127–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar and n. 89 for the Ennian character of the Council, especially Jupiter within it.

100 Harrison (n. 96), at 10.1–117.

101 Barchiesi (n. 5), 122 n. 1 seems to be closest to Servius’ sense. Cf. Michelfeit (n. 60), 114–15; Moeller (n. 60), 59.

102 Heinze, R., Virgils epische Technik (Leipzig, 1903), 286–7Google Scholar; Moeller (n. 60), 59; Barchiesi (n. 5), 122 n. 1.

103 See, for example, Freudenburg (n. 49), 100.

104 Marx (n. 22), 3.

105 Norden, E., Ennius und Vergilius (Leipzig, 1915), 48Google Scholar.

106 Wigodsky, M., Vergil and Early Latin poetry (Wiesbaden, 1972), 107Google Scholar: ‘Vergil could have found in [Lucilius’] parody details not present in any of the earlier serious treatments [of the divine Council], but capable of serious use.’

107 A comparable dilemma, again hinging on an allusion to Lucilius, is perhaps posed in Aeneid Book 9, when the introductory line of Lucilius’ Council (consilium summis hominum de rebus habebant, fr. 5 Warmington) is redeployed to describe the Trojan council that will sanction the mission of Nisus and Euryalus (consilium summis regni de rebus habebant, Aen. 9.227). ‘Behind both Lucilius and V. may lie Ennius’, Hardie (n. 22), ad loc. sensibly remarks: the Lucilian line has an obviously epic structure and vocabulary. But here also it seems reasonable to suppose that, if an Augustan poet imitated a line used by two celebrated authors, Ennius and Lucilius, an allusion was designed that incorporated both predecessor texts. Foundation or destruction of an entity closely identified with the city of Rome is undoubtedly at issue in Aeneid Book 9, and the Nisus and Euryalus episode ends with a notoriously ambivalent promise to the dead youths, after their futile mission, of immortal fame (9.446–9). An allusion that encompassed Lucilius as well as Ennius would certainly strike an appropriately ambiguous and disquieting note at the opening of this episode.

108 Both outcomes are predicted to Venus by Jupiter at 1.258–60, cernes urbem et promissa Lauini | moenia, sublimemque feres ad sidera caeli | magnanimum Aenean. Aeneas’ deification is also broached alongside the dominant issue of the settlement of the newcomers in Latium in the other passage closely related to the Council, the ‘reconciliation’ of Juno and Jupiter at 12.791–842. For the rich interrelationships between these three divine encounters, see especially Feeney (n. 2).

109 See pages 637–638 and 650.

110 See page 640 and n. 31 above. On Romulus and Remus as models for Aeneas and Turnus, see Nicoll, W.S.M., ‘The death of Turnus’, CQ 51 (2001), 190–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

111 Zetzel, J.E.G., ‘The influence of Cicero on Ennius’, in Fitzgerald, W. and Gowers, E. (edd.), Ennius Perennis: The Annals and Beyond (Cambridge, 2007), 1–16, at 3Google Scholar.