Minor Latin poets; with introductions and English translations

INTRODUCTION TO-'to which school M. Hubaux has ascribed CataleptojiIX bequeathed to us in the Appendix Jergiliana ?To most of these and to several related questions,the most contradictory ansvrers have been given,which cannot here be more than lightly touchedupon. Since Haupt in his classic essay of 1854,De carminihus hucoUcis Calpumii et Nemesiani, divided,^on principles of style, the eleven eclogues which hadoften passed together under the name of CalpurniusSiculus into seven by him and the remaining four byNemesianus, there has been no serious doubt aboutthe gap in date between the two sets. Indeed,attention to certain suhscriptiones and headings inthe manuscripts (including a tell-tale blunder inRiccarcUanus 363, Titi Calphurnii hucolictim carmen adNemesianum Karthaginiensem '^) ought to have led toan earlier separation of the poems by all editors.In any case, it is now generally agreed that CalpurniusSiculus belongs to the Neronian age and the" In Les themes bucoliques dans la poesie latine, Brussels,1930.^ For a resume of the different h^^otheses, see Groag, " C.Calpurnius Piso," P. W. Reahncyd.lll. (1899); Skutsch, " T.Calpurnius Siculus," ibid. ; Schanz, Gesch. der rom. Literatur,II. 2 ; Clementina Chiavola, Delia vita . . . di Tito CalpurnioSiculo, 1921.*Haupt -was the first to make clear the Xeronian date ofCalpurnius' seven eclogues; but the Aldine edition of 1534prints the two sets separately—in fact Nemesiani Bucolicaprecede Calpumii Siculi Bucolica.^ This confusion, which quite impossibly makes Xemesianuscontemporary with Calpurnius, may be due either toa misreading of a double manuscript title, giving the namesof both poets at the beginning of the eclogues, or to acorruption of words separating the two collections finisbucolicorum Calphurnii Aurelii Nemesiani poetae Carthaginiensisegloga prima.