The Latin Iliad: Introduction, Text, Translation, and Notes

1,543 436 2MB

Engish, Latin Pages 75 [40] Year 1998

Report DMCA / Copyright


Polecaj historie

The Latin Iliad: Introduction, Text, Translation, and Notes

Citation preview

THE LATIN ILIAD Introduction, Text, Translation, and Notes

by George A. Kennedy

THE LATIN ILIAD Introduction, Text, Translation, and Notes

by GeorgeA. Kennedy

The Latin Iliad

Copyright O 1998 by George A. Kennedy P.O. Box271880

Fort Collins, CO 80527 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the author

Table of Contents To all, Colleagues, Students, Friends, who joined to honor him, October 13-24, 1998, the Author offers this Memento of his deep Appreciation.



The Significance of Tile Lati11Iliad 9 The Author and Date of the Poem 9 Italicus' Treatment of Tl1eIliad 11 History of the Text 13 Selected Bibliography 14

1/ias Latina: The Latin Text


The Latin Iliad: Translation and Notes


Glossary of Epithets and Patronymics





The Significanceor the Latin Riad The Latin Iliad is an epitome, or summary, of the Homeric epic in 1070 hexameter verses, probably composed by Baebius ltalicus as an exercise in verse composition around A.D. 60. Although not artistically distinguished,the poem is interesting for severalreasons. First, it is evidencefor how the Iliad was viewedby a Romanreader in the Silver Age, seen particularly in what ltalicus chose to omit or summarize briefly, what he retained in a form close to that of the original, and what changes he made to adapt the poem to Romancultureand literarytaste or to his own interests. Second, the work is a part of the history of Silver Latin narrative epic, which includes the poem on the fall of Troy in Petronius'Satyricon and Statius' Achilleid, as well as the greater epics ofLucan, Silius,ValeriusFlaccus,and Statius. Third, the poem is an example of how the art of translationwas understoodin Rome. And fourth, from late antiquity until the Renaissancethe Ilias Latina was the primary source for a knowledge in western Europe of the over-all contents and arrangementof the Greek Iliad, and of some incidentsin it. For about a thousand years the Greek original was not known in the West, and the numerousmanuscriptsof 1/ias Latina found all over westernEurope and used as schooltexts complementedwhat could be read about the legendsof the Trojan War in Virgil'sAeneid and writings of Ovid and other Latin poets; to some extent it may have counteractedthe popular but eccentric versionsof the tradition found in late antiqueworks attributedto Dares the Phrygianand Dictys of Crete. In addition, since the vocabulary, grammar, and style of ltalicus' epitome is heavily indebtedto the Aeneid and to Ovid, the availabilityof a new Latin text may be convenientfor Latin teachers looking for suitablepassagesfor sight translationby their studentsor for a quick summaryof the lliad. Withthat in mind, I have chosen not to print the English translationon pages facing the Latin. The primary function of the English translation is to provide a means of reading the text or portions of it rapidly and of comparingit to the Greek origina~to other classicalworks, or to medievaltexts that may be indebtedto it. In makingthe translationI havetried to keep closeto the originaland to the numberedlines of the text, but also to give, where possible, some rhythmical and acousticqualityto what is essentiallya prose version.

The Authorand Dateor the Poem The numerousmedievalmanuscriptsof the llias Latina in most cases attributethe poem to "Homer."1 The scribesseem not to have realizedthat the 1/iasLatina begins and ends with an acrostic, spellingout verticallythe words ITALIC*SSCRIPSIT,"ltalicuswrote it." The acrostic was less evident than it might have been because the first letter of the 1 In a rew ca.sesto "Pindaror Thebes,"a poet C\'enless knownin the MiddleAges than Homer.Scaffai (pp.35-6)has shownthat this probablyresultsfrom a corruptionor HOMERUS DEJNDEDARES in the tide or a manllSCript that containedthis poem,followedby the lfis10,y of the Fall of Troy, attributedto Dares of Phrygia.



seventh line, the U, had been obscured in the archetype of our manuscripts, whether by a blot, a worm hole, tear, or other accident in antiquity. The occurrence of the name Italicus in the acrostic seems to have been first pointed out by Oskar Seyfert in 1875.2 This naturally led to speculation, which has continued in the twentieth century, that the epitome was a work, probably a youthful work, of Silius Italicus (A.O. 26-101), author of the epic Ptmica. In 1890, however, Heinrich Schenk! published a description of a fifteenth-century manuscript in Vienna that attributes the epitome to Baebius ltalicus. 3 The manuscript in question (Vindobonensis latinus 3509), besides being a rather late example of the text, is ot~erwise undistinguished, showing many of the corruptions present in other manuscripts. lt 1s extremely odd, perhaps unparalleled in textual history, that so late a manuscript ~hould alone correctly identify an author. The name Baebius Italicus was quite unknown m the fifteenth century and thus can hardly be a conjecture by the scribe. This one manuscript has, perhaps, derived the name from a much earlier manuscript that preserved a title going back to antiquity. Earlier and better manuscripts perhaps did not preserve the name because it was meaningless to the scribes and because they preferred the more attractive attribution to "Homer." As it turns out, there really was a Roman named Baebius Italicus, who lived in the first century after Christ. A Greek inscription from Asia Minor, dating from A.O. 85 and first published in 1897, is a dedication to Publius Baebius Italicus, legah1sAugusti in Lyci~.• This, with additional epigraphical evidence found subsequently, has made it possible to reconstruct his career: 5 quaestor in Cyprus, tribune of the plebs under Vespasian, propraetor in Gallia Narbonensis, legate of the 14th legion in Germany in A.O. 8~, legatus Augusti propraetore in Lycia-Pamphilia from 84 to 87, and suffect consul m Rome, A.O. 90. He was probably born in Italy sometime between A 0. 40 and 50 and could have composed the Latin epitome of the Iliad as a student exercise when he was in his teens, giving the work a date in the reign of Nero (A.O. 54-68) There are internal reasons for believing that the Jlias Latina is a product of the Ner?nian period, and especially of the earlier and happier years of Nero's reign. In particular, the description of the shield of Achilles in lines 862-91, differing greatly from the Greek original, has seemed to critics to echo Neronian propaganda about the return of peace and justice after abuses of the Claudian period, propaganda that is found also in Seneca's De Clementia and Apocolocyntosis, in eclogues of Calpumius Siculus, and in the anonymous Einsiedeln Eclogues, all dating from early in Nero's reign. 6 Whether references to Apollo in the description of Achilles' shield and in the concluding lines of the poem are to be understood as evoking Nero, as has been claimed, 7 is less certain but not impossible. In addition, there is the passage about Aeneas in lines 899-902: "Had not the ruler of the great seas preserved him to refound Troy in exile in happy lands and 'Sec Eduard Munk and Oskar Seyfert, Geschichte der r/JmischeLiterature, IT' (Berlin: Dwnmler. 1875), f-24~-43; cf Scaffai,p.12. . HemnchSchenk, "Zur 1/iasLatina des ltalicus," WienerStudien 12 (1890): 317-18. The title reads "Bebii 1talicipoetae clarissimi epithime in quaruorviginti homeri iliados. 'lnscriptiones Graecae ad Res Romana,;Pertinentes Ill (1902) no.548 = Dessau,fnscriptiones Latinae Selectae 8818. : er.ProsopographiaImperii Romani I, s.v. "Bacbius" no. I7, and Scaffai, pp.16-18. • Sec E. e12ek,L'Epoque de Neron et ses controversesideologiques (Leiden: Bril~ 1972). er.,e.g., Scaffai, pp.20-22.

raised the Augustan race to reach the shinning stars, the sources of a glorious_ line wo~ld have been lost to us." The words "a glorious line" probably refer to the Juho-Claud1an dynasty, of which Nero was the last member, and suggest that the work was composed before Nero's death, at the latest. Although the evidence for author and date of composition of the Jlias Latina cannot be regarded as certain, what evidence we have suggests that the poem was probably written about A.O. 60 by a young Roman named P: Baebius Italicus. In any event, the acrostic indicates that the author's cognomen was Itahcus.

Italicus' Treatmentof the Riad Roman practice in making translations to or from the_Greek shows considerable fre_edom. Official translations of documents sought to be hteral, word for word, but h.terary translation from the earliest time can often be better described as imitation of the onginal, with adaptation to Roman practices and interests, and was, of course, influenced b~ ~he requirements of the verse form used in the translation. The fragments of L1v1us Andronicus' translation of the Odyssey are in some cases litera~ in others rather free, and apparently Livius considerably condensed the poem. The same may well have been t~e of the translation of the Iliad by Gnaeus Matius in the early first century B.C., of ~h1ch few fragments survive. Versions of Greek tragedy and comedy for Roman audiences were usually creative imitations, not verbatim transl~tions, but were th.ought of by authors and public as in some sense translations. The practice of Catullus, Cicero, and others of whom some translations survive show at times considerable freedom in their treatment of the original. Latin translations of the astronomical poem Aratus by Cicero, Germanicus and Avienus contain omissions, corrections, and add111ons. Itali~s clearly worked with a similar understanding of the art of translation. He seems to have sought to shorten the text to something approximating o~e of the longer books of a traditional epic poem, about I 000 lines. The need to abbreviate the !had to about one twenty-fourth of the whole certainly required major omissio_ns and condensations, but there are also numerous changes (some perhaps mistakes), rearrangements of the narrative order, and additions making the po~ more .relevant :or Roman readers or increasing the pathos of the text in accordance with rhetoncal pracuce of the Silver Age. Coverage of the several books is very unequal: over a hundred lines each is devoted to Books I, 2, and 5, but Book 9 is disposed of in 11 li~es as are B~oks 14 and 23, and Book 17 is given only 3 lines. Material from Book 21 1s moved up mto Book 20 and what is labeled Book 21 in the manuscripts largely comes from Book 22. At the halfway point in his epitome ltalicus is still narrating events from Book 5; thus the . later books tend to gel briefer treatment, except for Books 16, 18, 22, and 24. Differences between the Iliad in Greek and the Jlias Latina suggest that Italicus did not work directly from the Greek text. He may have consulted the text occasion3:1Iy but often seems to rely on memory, and sometimes reai:ranges the ?rder of the narratte within a book. lt is possible that he worked from an earlier prose epitome or summary m which some of these changes already existed, or from book by book hypotheses composed by some grammarian, but we cannot say for certai_n.In word c~oice and style he was heavily influenced by the Latin poetry he knew. Thts may have included early


• Such as the summaries of the now lost cyclic epics, at1ributedto Proclus in late antiquity.




Latin epics by Naevius and Ennius and Matius' translation of the Iliad, and cenainly included the major Latin poets of the Augustan period and their first centuiy successors, and occasionally his treatment of an incident has been modified by the influence of a Roman predecessor Some of these are identified in the notes to the translation. Italicus' own tastes and interests are indicated by what he chose to include in some detail, to summarize briefly, or to omit entirely. His choices differ considerably from those a modem reader might make, for he passes over in few words or completely omits parts of the Iliad that are much admired today, while including a comparatively long version of the catalogue of ships in Book 2, which a modem reader might skip,a comparatively complete account of Book I 0, often thought to be a digression, and many accounts of combats that are not of great significance for the poem as a whole. Examples of notable omissions include the speeches of Achilles and Agamemnon in Book I, the scene in Book 3 where Helen appears on the walls of Troy with Priam, and of the scene at the beginning of Book 14 where Hera seduces Zeus. The debates of Books I, 9, and elsewhere, andHectors meeting with Andromache in Book 6 are reduced to a few lines. All the great similes are omitted, and when a simile does appear it may not come from the Homeric context. Italicus' similes are short and usually similes of violence. The Iliad is a poem of violence, but also contains many domestic scenes and extended similes drawn from the world of peace. These Italicus largely neglects. What he seems to have liked best arethe battle scenes, which accounts for the unusually lengthy treatment of Book 5. It is perhaps predictable that a young Roman anticipating a military career - a hope fulfilled in the case of Baebius Italicus if he is the author -- would eajoy writing descriptions of fighting, some of which he modifies to adapt to Roman procedures/ but it is probably also the case that battle scenes with their limited vocabulaiy and formulaic structure were easier to compose than were speeches or similes. ltalicus does include some speeches, although they often differ from the speeches in the Greek: Helen's speech to Paris in lines 320-30 is sympathetic and pathetic rather than caustic as is her speech in Iliad 3; Priam's appeal to Achilles in lines 1028-42 also differs considerably from the Greek. But many of what we today regard as major speeches that are important for characterization and plot are omitted. Of all of the major features of the Iliad, it is probably the characterization of Achilles that suffers the most. Italicus' sympathies are clearly with the Trojans; he presents Ulysses in the negative way found in Virgil's Aeneid, and Hector is the clear hero of his version of the poem. Aeneas, destined to bring Troy to Italy, is, of course, also favorably treated. Some of ltalicus' treatment obscures the development of the plot. In Book 2, for example, he fails to explain that the dream sent to Agamemnon by Zeus is a deliberate attempt to deceive him, and he omits Agamemnon's confession of his blindness at the beginning of Book 19, which is a turning point in the plot. On the other hand, he treats the catalogue of Book 2 as a flashback, rather than a mustering of troops in the ninth year of the war, which might be regarded as an improvement on the original. Many of Italicus' variations on the Homeric texts are pointed out in the notes accompanying the translation, but a few of the most striking will be noted here as an indication of his approach to the poem and his method of composition.

' Examples include lines 540-41, referring to a Roman biumph, and the siege scene in 763-68 with its referenceto the use of ladders and a tes1udo.

One important change emerges immediately in Book I. Italicus pres~nts Agamemnon's anger at being forced to give up Chryseis as resulting from sexual passion, not from an affront to his honer; his taking of Briseis from Achilles then re~ults _fromhis demand for a sex partner (though at line 693, as in the Homeric poem, he 1s said not to have touched her). 10 By implication, Achilles' anger seems also largely focused on t~e loss of a beloved companion, and little or nothing is said about his pnde. When Theus pleads with Zeus on Achilles' behalf, the main argument ~he gives why Zeus should intervene is to prevent virtue from being overcom~ by lus'. (hne ~2). A! line S~6 we find Achilles in his tent soothing his "lost love" with music. ltal1cus did not mvent the interpretation of Ag~memnon as motivated by lust and of Achilles as ~rimarily m~tivat~d by love, both of which are found elsewhere (cf, e.g., Horace, Epistles 1.2.13, Ovid, Heroides 3; Propertius 2.8.35). . Another striking change is Italicus' treatment of Patroclus' appearance m Book 16, where he takes on the arrnor of Achilles. In Italicus' version, Hector and the Tro1ans are deceived into thinking that Achilles has entered the battle and not aware this is Patroclus may welt. be !hata until Apollo strips off the helmet, when Patroclus' face emerges. follctale of one hero fighting when disguised as another stands behind the version m the Iliad but in Iliad I 6 Greeks and Trojans alike realize that the warrior is Patroclus. Ita!ic'us•treatment might be thought ofas an implicit criticism of the failure on the part of the poet of the Iliad to take advantage o~the s!tuation. . , . . , A more radical change is found m Italtcus' descnption of the shield of Achilles m Book 18. Instead of describing Hephaestus making the shield, as is done in the l!i~d, ltalicus describes Achilles looking at it, like Aeneas in Aeneid 8. He omits the two c11tes, one at war and one at peace, that organize much of the picture on the Homeric shield; and his description of the shield as a whole is indebted more to Ovid's des~ption of the palace of the sun at the beginning of Metamorphoses 2 than to the Homeric account. As mentioned earlier, it also seems heavily indebted to Neronian propaganda. In addition to rewriting speeches, Italicus often borrows passages from other contexts in the original poem, what commentators call "contamination": an example is the description of the death of a charioteer in lines 5 I 4-15 in Book 5, whi~h actuall_y comes from Iliad 8.119-23, and from time to time he also adds two or three Imes of his own composition, often to increase the pathos of a scene; the description of Hector's death in lines 944-78 furnishes examples of all his methods.


History of the Text , , The earliest indications of familiarity with the text of the Ilias Latina are found m wnters of late antiquity: in poems of Dracontius, in the prose a~count _of the Trojan ~ar anributed to Dictys of Crete, and in the commentary on Stat1us attnbuted to L~ctantms Placidus. By the Carolingian age, Italicus' poem, referred to as "Homer," ':"'as be1~g read as a school text 11 and it continued to be listed as a regular part of the cumculum m later centuries. 12 Ma~y manuscripts, complete or partial, survive; Marco Scaffai consulted 45 manuscripts in preparation of his fine edition and commentary, and there are numerous ic On Agamemnon's lust, cf. lines 25-26, 63, 70-73, 79-80, and 90-92. . 11 See E.R. Curtius,European Literal!Jre and the Latin MiddleAges, trans. by W. R Trask (Princeton, l 953), pp.49,56, 26U,and 46-1. 12See Scaffi1i,pp.33-JS, 11ithbibliography.

13 12


others dating from the fourteenth and fifteenth century. The oldest manuscripts are P, now in Antwerp, and W, in Valenciennes, both written in France in the tenth or eleventh century. The llias Latina is usually found bound in manuscript collections with other short works, the prose accounts of the Trojan War attributed to Dares and Dictys, or the Disticha Catonis or Statius' Achi//eid, but also sometimes combined with the comedies of Terence or the satires of Persius, or other works, classical or medieval. Selected Bibliography Some additional works are identified in footnotes

The most important edition of the llias Latina, to which references are made throughout this work, is: Scaffai, Marco, ed. Baebii ltalici l/ias Latina: lntroduzione, edizione critica, traduzione ita/iana e commento. Bologna: Patron Editore, 1982. Other relevant books and articles include: a Hadrien. Second ed., Bardon, Henry. Les empereurs et les /ettres Latines d'A11g11s1e Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1968. (Discussion of the Latin l/iad, pp.223-35) Hennann, Leon. "Recherches sur \'l/ias Latina," Allliq11itec/assique 16 (1947): 241-S I Manitius, Max. "Beitriige zur Geschichte romischen Dichter im Mittelalter, S," Philologus SO(1891): 368-72. Ronconi, Alessandro. "Sulla tecnica delle antiche traduzioni Iatine da Omero," Studi ltaliani di Fi/ologia Classica 34 (1962): 5-20. Schanz, Martin von., and Carl Hosius, Geschichte der romischen Literatur, IP Munich. Beck, 1935, pp. 505-8. Vollmer, Friedrich. "llias Latina," Paulys Real-Encyclopadie der classische11 Altertumswissenschaft IX, I (1914), coll. 1057-60.



1/iaslatina l/iasLa1ina


= Antwerp, Musee P!antin-Moretus,!at 66, sec. X/XI


= Valenciennes,Bibliotheque publique, 448, sec. X/XI


lrampande mihi Pelidae, Diva, superbi,


Tristia quae miseris iniecit funera Grais Atque animas fortes heroum tradidit Oreo Latrantumque dedit rostris volucrumquetrahendos lllorum exsangues, inhumatis ossibus, artus. Confiebat• enim summi sententia regis, pertulerantbdiscordia pectora" pugnas, Sceptriger Atrides et bello clarus Achilles.

Baehrens:Poetae Latini Mi11ores,recensuit et emendavit Aemilius Baehrens, lII, pp.3-59: Ita/ici Ilias Latina. Leipzig: Teubner, 1881. Bergk: Th. Bergk, "Kritische Analekten, X:X'VI,"Philologus 16 ( 1860}622ff. Courtney: E. Courtney, "Some Remarks on the Ilias Latina," ClassicalReview 18 (l 968} 22-23. Doring: R. Doring, Ueberde11HomerosLatinus, PrngyrnnasmaLycei Strassburg, 1884. Higt: apud Scaffai ex van Kooten. Muller: apud Scaffai. Scaffai:Baebii lta/ici llias Latina: lntroduzione, edizione critica, traduzione italina e commento a cura di Marco Scaffai. Bologna: Patron, 1982, Schrader:apud Scaffai ad loc. ex van Kooten. van Kooten: Incerti Auctoris VulgoPindari Homericaeex recensione Th. van Kooten, edidit H. Weytingh. Amstelodaerni, 1809. Vollmer: Poetae Latini Minores, post Ae. Baehrens iterum recensuit Fr. Vollmer, II,3: HomerosLatinus. Leipzig: Teubner, 1913. ~

Wernsdorf:Poetae Lalini Minores, curavit Iohannes Christian Wemsdorf, IV, 14:Incerti auctoris.fortasseRufi Festi Avieni, EpitomeIliados Homeri.Altenburg, 1785. Weytingh: apud Scaffai ex van Kooten,

Quis deus hos ira tristi contendere iussit? Latonae et magni proles Iovis. Ille Pelasgum infestam regi pestem in praecordia misit implicuitque gravi Danaorum corpora morbo. Nam quondam Chryses, sollemni tempora vitta implicitus, raptae flevit solacia natae invisosque dies invisaque tempora noctis egit et assiduis implevit questibus auras. Postquam nulla dies animum maerore levabat nullaque Jenibantpatrios solacia fletus, castra petit Danaurn,genibusque affitsus Atridae per superos regnique decus miserabilisorat ut sibi causa suae reddatur nata salutis. Dona simul praefert. Vincuntur fletibus eius Mymidones reddique patri Chryseida censent. Sed negat Artrides Chrysenque excedere castris despecta pietate iubet ferus ossibus imis haeret arnor spernitque preces darnnosa libido. Contemptus repetit Phoebeia templa sacerdos squalidaque infestis maerens secat unguibus ora dilaceratque comas annosaque tempora plangit. Mox ubi de.fositi gemitus lacrimaeque quierunt, Fatidici his sacras compellat vocibus aures: "Quid coluisse mihi tua numina, Delphice, prodest aut castarn vitam multos duxisse per annos? Quidve iuvat sacros posuisse altaribus ignes,





• Confiebat Schrader, conficiebat codd. Undc et pertulerant N. Dane, ClassicalJournal 47(1952):189, UI primumtulerantBt12hrens,Versarant ex quo Dllring, a/ii aliter, protulerantex quo PW, ex quo contulerantCCJd. Vindibonensi.r3509 ' discordiapecroraPI!~ discordipectorenonnulli codd. et Baehrens b

• FatidicihisHig1, Fatidiciscodd



//;as Latina lliaslatina

si tuus extemo iam spemor ab haste sacerdos? En, haec desertae redduntur dona senectae? Si gratus tibi sum, sim te sub vindice tutus. Aut si qua, ut luerem sub acerbo crimine poenas, inscius admisi, cur o tua dextera cessat? Posce sacros arcus, in me tua derige tela. Auctor mortis erit certe deus. Ecce, merentem fige patrem. Cur nata luit peccata parentis atque hostis duri patitur miseranda cubile?" Dixerat. Ille sui vatis prece motus acerbis luctibus infestat Danaos pestemque per omnes immittit populos. Vulgus ruit undique Graium vixque rogis superest tellus, vix ignibus aer: deerat ager tumulis. lam noctis sidera nonae transierant decimusque dies patefecerat orbem, cum Danaum proceres in coetum clarus Achilles convocat et causas hortatur pestis iniquae edere Thestoriden. Tune Chalchas numina divum consulit et causam pariter finemque malorum invenit effarique verens ape tutus Achillis haec ait: "Infesti placemus numina Phoebi reddamusque pio castam Chryseida patri, si volumus, Danai, portus intrare salutis." Dixerat. Exarsit subito violentia regis. Thestoriden dictis primum compellat amaris mendacemque vocal. Tum magnum incusat Achillem inque vicem ducis invicti convicia suffert. Confremuere omnes Tandem clamore represso cogitur invitosb aeger dimittere amores intactamque pio reddit Chryseida patri multaque dona super. Quam cunctis notus Ulixes impositam puppi patrias devexit ad arces atque iterum ad classes Danaum sua vela retorsit. Protinus infesti placantur numina Phoebi et prope consumptae vires redduntur Achivis. c Non tamen Atridae Chryseidis excidit ardor; maeret et amissos deceptus luget amores Mox rapta magnum Briseide privat Achillem solaturque suos alienis ignibus ignes At ferus Aeacides nudato protinus ense tendit in Atriden et, ni sibi reddat honestae munera militiae, letum crudele minatur, nee minus ille parat contra defendere se ense. • • aercodd, arborSchroderco/1 Ovul, Meta. 7.6/3 • invitos codd., inlicitos Shackleton-Ba1/ey apud Phoerux 23 ( 1978) 317-19 c V.69 erhibenl PW, onuttunt mu/11codd et Baehrens

Quad nisi casta manu Pallas tenuisset Achillem, turpem caecus amor famam liquisset in aevum gentibus Argolicis. Contempta voce minisqueb invocat aequoreae Pelides numina matris ne se Plisthenidenc contra patiatur inultum. At Thetis audita nati prece deserit undas castraque Mynnodonum iuxta petit et monet armis abstineat dextram ac congressibus/ inde per auras emicat aetherias et in aurea sidera fertur. Tune genibus regis sparsis affusa capillis: "Pro nato veni genetrix en ad tua supplex numina, summe parens. Ulciscere meque meumque corpus• ab Atrida, quodsi permittitur illi ut flammas impune mei violarit Achillis, turpiter occiderit superata libidine virtus." luppiter haec contra: "Tristes depone querelas, magni diva maris, mecum labor iste manebit. Tu sol are tui maerentia pectora nati." Dixit. At ilia !eves caeli delapsa per auras litus adit patrium gratasque sororibus undas. Offensa est Iuno: "Tantum" que ait, "optime coniunx, Doride nata valet, tantum debetur Achilli, ut mihi quae coniunx dicor tua quaeque sororis dulce fero nomen, dilectos fundere Achivos et Traum renovare velis in proelia vires? Haec ita dona refers nobis? Sic diligor a te?" Talibus incusat dictis irata Tonantem inque vicem summi patitur convicia regis. Tandem interposito !is Ignipotente resedit conciliumque simul genitor dimittit ab aula.r lnterea sol emenso decedit Olympo et dapibus divi curant sua corpora largis. Inde petunt thalamos iucundaque dona quietis.








Nox erat et tot fulgebant sidera mundo humanumque genus requies divumque tenebat, cum pater omnipotens Somnum vocat atque ita fatur: "Vade per tenues auras, lenissime divurn, Argilocique ducis celeri pete castra volatu dumque tuo premitur sopitus pondere dulci,












se ense PW. sesc cell.

b Lacunam

unius versus post v.80 signijicat Baehrens

'Plisthcnidcn Bergk. plus thelidis codd. • del