Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T09:20:38.783Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Claudian's methods of borrowing in ‘De Raptu Proserpinae’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2013

Extract

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.

Type
Papers Published in a Fuller Version
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published online by Cambridge University Press 1951

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.)

References

page 5 note 1 For example, D.R. I, 167Google Scholar; cf. Tac., Hist. v, 6, 910Google 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, 34Google 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., 192204Google 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, 1516Google 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.