Gianmarco Bianchini, University of Toronto
In ancient and late-antique materials that provide support for the interpretation of classical Latin texts, Virgil is the author who appears most frequently, being repeatedly cited as a reference point for linguistic, stylistic, and moral purposes. Recent investigations have focused on the function of Virgilian authority in the complete corpus of scholia on Lucan (Esposito 2004; Lanzarone 2004) and on Porphyrio’s quasi-uncritical perspective and exaggerated consideration of Virgil’s linguistic exemplarity in the commentary on Horace (Mastellone Iovane 1998).
Despite the increasing attention on the significance and purpose of Virgilian quotations in the Roman exegetical tradition, there have been only partial studies of the role of Virgil in the exegesis of Cicero (La Bua 2019). That is not because the material to do so is lacking: the late-antique glosses to the Verrines known as pseudo-Asconius are characterized by a ‘Virgilian texture’ which, if less dense than in other commentaries, still highlights the significant role of the poet’s language to explain Cicero’s own.
This paper centers around moments where pseudo-Asconius suggests that Virgil derives information or linguistic usage from Cicero, focusing on the symbiotic relationship between the two authors in the mind of the commentator. In the note on Verr. 1.5, for instance, pseudo-Asconius suggests that the Virgilian use of semel in the sense of “almost never” in Aen. 8.222 (associated with Cacus’ fear of Hercules’ vengeful fury) derives from Cicero’s description of Verres, who until the trial had always committed his misdeeds without any fear. Similarly, the expression ecce autem, which in Verr. 1.17 Cicero relates to Verres’ newfound confidence that he could be acquitted, was allegedly read by Virgil and reused in the description of the two monstrous serpents sent by Athena to prevent Laocoon from revealing the Greeks' deception (Aen. 2.203).
Deriving Virgil’s language from Cicero does not have the effect of diminishing Virgil’s authority in favor of the orator. Instead, this way of thinking indicates a more reasoned and critical conception of poetic auctoritas. Virgil remains the privileged comparandum, and his pre-eminence as an authoritative source for Latin usage is not questioned or diminished when pseudo-Asconius, relying on chronological criteria, makes Cicero the model for the later poet’s language. Rather, what emerges is a retrospective conception of authority: not only does Cicero assume the role of source for Virgil, but also, since Virgil was writing the same language, the orator acquires additional prestige precisely from the unquestioned authority of the poet.