{"title":"(误)读蚊蚋:伪维吉尔的诗中的真理与欺骗","authors":"Talitha Kearey","doi":"10.1017/rmu.2018.13","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Culex—the earliest and best attested of the purported minor works of Virgil, and the most outright in gesturing towards Virgilian authorship—poses a problem for modern classical scholarship. Since at least the seventeenth century scholars have been preoccupied with the poem's authenticity. Is it a piece of early Virgilian iuuenilia, as the ancient testimonies and mediaeval transmission of the text seem to assert, or a later production? If a later production, should we see it as a deliberate forgery, or as a poem severed in the course of transmission from its original author and helplessly swept up in Virgil's train? The authenticity problem has proven persistent: as recently as the 1970s, scholars tried to claim the Culex for Virgil. Even among those who think it non-Virgilian, the apparent consensus of anonymous late-Tiberian authorship has been contested by Otto Zwierlein's suggestion of M. Julius Montanus and Jean-Yves Maleuvre's, even more unlikely, of Augustus.","PeriodicalId":43863,"journal":{"name":"RAMUS-CRITICAL STUDIES IN GREEK AND ROMAN LITERATURE","volume":"9 1","pages":"174 - 196"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"(MIS)READING THE GNAT: TRUTH AND DECEPTION IN THE PSEUDO-VIRGILIAN CVLEX\",\"authors\":\"Talitha Kearey\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/rmu.2018.13\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Culex—the earliest and best attested of the purported minor works of Virgil, and the most outright in gesturing towards Virgilian authorship—poses a problem for modern classical scholarship. Since at least the seventeenth century scholars have been preoccupied with the poem's authenticity. Is it a piece of early Virgilian iuuenilia, as the ancient testimonies and mediaeval transmission of the text seem to assert, or a later production? If a later production, should we see it as a deliberate forgery, or as a poem severed in the course of transmission from its original author and helplessly swept up in Virgil's train? The authenticity problem has proven persistent: as recently as the 1970s, scholars tried to claim the Culex for Virgil. Even among those who think it non-Virgilian, the apparent consensus of anonymous late-Tiberian authorship has been contested by Otto Zwierlein's suggestion of M. Julius Montanus and Jean-Yves Maleuvre's, even more unlikely, of Augustus.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43863,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"RAMUS-CRITICAL STUDIES IN GREEK AND ROMAN LITERATURE\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"174 - 196\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"RAMUS-CRITICAL STUDIES IN GREEK AND ROMAN LITERATURE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/rmu.2018.13\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"CLASSICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"RAMUS-CRITICAL STUDIES IN GREEK AND ROMAN LITERATURE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rmu.2018.13","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"CLASSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
《库勒斯》是最早的、最能证明维吉尔的小作品,也是最直接地表明维吉尔是作者的作品,它给现代古典学术提出了一个问题。至少从17世纪开始,学者们就一直在关注这首诗的真实性。它是像古代证词和中世纪文本的传播似乎断言的那样,是早期弗吉尼亚的一件作品,还是后来的作品?如果是后来的作品,我们应该把它看作是故意伪造的,还是看作是一首在传播过程中与原作者分离的诗,无助地被维吉尔的火车卷走了?事实证明,真实性问题一直存在:就在20世纪70年代,学者们试图声称库莱克斯是维吉尔的。即使在那些认为这是非弗吉尼亚人的人当中,对泰伯里晚期匿名作者的明显共识也受到了质疑,奥托·茨维尔莱因(Otto Zwierlein)认为是朱利叶斯·蒙塔努斯(M. Julius Montanus),让-伊夫·马勒弗尔(Jean-Yves Maleuvre)认为是奥古斯都(Augustus),这更不可能。
(MIS)READING THE GNAT: TRUTH AND DECEPTION IN THE PSEUDO-VIRGILIAN CVLEX
The Culex—the earliest and best attested of the purported minor works of Virgil, and the most outright in gesturing towards Virgilian authorship—poses a problem for modern classical scholarship. Since at least the seventeenth century scholars have been preoccupied with the poem's authenticity. Is it a piece of early Virgilian iuuenilia, as the ancient testimonies and mediaeval transmission of the text seem to assert, or a later production? If a later production, should we see it as a deliberate forgery, or as a poem severed in the course of transmission from its original author and helplessly swept up in Virgil's train? The authenticity problem has proven persistent: as recently as the 1970s, scholars tried to claim the Culex for Virgil. Even among those who think it non-Virgilian, the apparent consensus of anonymous late-Tiberian authorship has been contested by Otto Zwierlein's suggestion of M. Julius Montanus and Jean-Yves Maleuvre's, even more unlikely, of Augustus.