Lably
Skip to content

Appendix Vergiliana

Collection of poems written by Virgil

  • 12 min read
  • 2 chapters

Explore on Lably

ToursExplore Lably’s 3D tours

Many of the poems in the Appendix were considered works by Virgil in antiquity. However, recent studies suggest that the Appendix contains a diverse collection of minor poems by various authors from the 1st century AD.

Scholars are almost unanimous in considering the works of the Appendix spurious, primarily on grounds of style, metrics, and vocabulary.

Authorship

Besides the Eclogues, the Georgics, and the Aeneid, a collection of minor works attributed to Virgil certainly existed by the reign of Nero. These poems were not included in the edition of Virgil's works published after his death by Varius Rufus and Plotius Tucca and are not found in any of the major Virgilian codices, nor is there any allusion to them in the vita prefixed to the 1st century commentary of Valerius Probus. The vita which preceded the 4th century commentary of Donatus, which is generally supposed to be heavily dependent on the 2nd century Suetonius, enumerated the Catalepton, Priapea, Epigrammata, Dirae, Ciris, and Culex as early works of Virgil; yet as two 15th-century manuscripts omit the Catalepton and Ciris, but insert the Moretum, Henry Nettleship suspects that Suetonius referred only to the Culex, of which he goes on to give a brief account, and the rest of the list is interpolated. Suetonius adds, however, that "he also wrote the Aetna, about which there is some controversy." The phrase "about which there is some controversy" is lacking in some manuscripts, and believed by some critics to be interpolated. The life given by Servius contains the statement, "he also wrote these seven or eight books: Ciris, Aetna, Culex, Priapea, Catalepton, Epigrammata, Copa, Dirae."

The Culex is quoted as Virgilian by Statius and Martial, and in Suetonius' Life of Lucan. Quintilian quotes Catalepton 2 as the work of Virgil. The Elegiae in Maecenatem cannot possibly be by Virgil, as Maecenas died eleven years after Virgil in 8 BC. The poems are all probably by different authors, except for the Lydia and Dirae which may have a common author, and have been given various, nebulous dates within the 1st century AD. The Culex and the Ciris are thought to have been composed under the emperor Tiberius. Some of the poems may be attempts to pass works off under Virgil's name as pseudepigraphia, such as the Catalepton, while others seem to be independent works that were subsumed into the collection like the Ciris which is influenced more by the late Republican neoterics than Virgil.

Emil Baehrens theorized that the poems of the Appendix already constituted a single collection in antiquity. This theory is generally rejected by modern scholars, and there is no evidence of a collected edition of the poems prior to an entry in a mid-9th century catalogue of the library at Murbach Abbey, which lists under Virgil the following item: "Dire; Ciris; Culex; Catalapeion; Ethne; Priapeia; Copa; Moretum; Mecenas." Some manuscripts containing these poems also include three 4th century compositions, De viro bono, Est et non, and De rosis nascentibus, of which the first two certainly, and the third probably, were written by Ausonius. It has become conventional to refer to the poems collectively as the Appendix Vergiliana since the 1573 edition of Joseph Scaliger.

Charles de la Rue, S.J., suggested that although Virgil had indeed written a poem called the Culex, it had been lost at an early date, and a writer of a later era had composed the Culex which we now possess as a fictitious replacement of it; he likewise judged the Ciris to be the work of an author later than the time of Ovid. François Oudin, S.J., made the first serious attempt to prove the spuriousness of the Culex in 1729. Oudin was the first to draw attention to the seeming discrepancy between the extant poem and the abstract of Virgil's Culex given by Suetonius.

Though the authenticity of the Appendix was once generally accepted, 19th-century criticism judged these works unworthy of Virgil, and therefore spurious; Alfred Gudeman expressed the general verdict of the age when he wrote that "their spuriousness is established by incontrovertible proofs." Controversy over the date and authorship of these poems was revived by Franz Skutsch, who argued in his work Aus Vergils Frühzeit (1901) that parallels between the Aeneid and the Ciris demonstrate the influence of the Ciris upon the Aeneid and not the reverse, and that the Ciris is a work of Virgil's friend Cornelius Gallus. The discussion is ongoing.

Sign in to keep reading

One more chapter is free with a Lably account.

More in Ancient history