Burke

Charles Burke

Classics Senior Thesis

Professor Timothy Wutrich

February 26, 2015

Reworking the Aeneid: Vegio's Supplementum and the Twelfth Book

of the Aeneid.

Background

According to tradition, on his deathbed, Virgil asked for

the Aeneid to be burned because it was incomplete.1 Today most

scholars see the unfinished hexameters as evidence for this

incompleteness2, but read the ending as Virgil’s true intention.

However, writers in the Italian Renaissance commonly believed

that the Aeneid ended too abruptly, and that, had Virgil lived

longer, he would have composed a more fitting ending to his epic 1 Farrell 2010: 438.

2 Thomas 2001: 278-279. O’Hara 2010: 104-105 points to the lengthof the twelfth book and the parallels between the poem’s opening and closing as evidence that the Aeneid was complete, while Duckworth 1969: 2 claims the twelve books have an intricate structure amongst themselves, in which the first six books can bepaired with the last six (1 corresponds to 7, 2 with 8, etc.) andthe whole poem can be broken into a trilogy of four-book sections. Therefore, Duckworth reasons, Virgil must have intendedonly twelve books.

1

Burke

poem.3 Thus, when one writer in 1155-60 composed in Old French

the Roman d’Eneas, based heavily on the Aeneid, he used 342 lines

after Turnus’ death to conclude the poem, and Heinrich von

Veldeke wrote a decade or more later the Eneasroman, which uses

around thrice as many lines after the death of Turnus.4

These instances lend some important context to the most well

read poem of Maffeo Vegio, the Supplementum. Written in 1428 by a

21-year-old Vegio5, this so-called thirteenth book of the Aeneid

consists of some 600 Latin lines in Virgilian hexameter6 that

begin exactly where the twelfth book ends, as Aeneas stands over

Turnus’ fresh corpse. Vegio’s work, no doubt intended to complete

what he believed Virgil did not have time to write,7 details the 3 McCahill 2009: 168-169.

4 Putnam 2004: x-xi; Kallendorf and Brown 1990: 108.5 Putnam 2004: vii; Kallendorf 1984: 47. For a brief summary of the life of Vegio, see Brinton 1930: 5-24.

6 Although contemporaries called Vegio an “alter Maro” (another Virgil) for his excellent imitation of Virgilian hexameters (Brinton 1930: 5), Duckworth 1969, while refuting the notion thatVegio is too speech-heavy by comparing the percentage of time devoted to speech in books 1 and 4 of the Aeneid with that in the Supplementum, proves that on the metrical level, Vegio’s work is not very Virgilian.

7 This is an important point in the paper and will be discussed in more detail below.

2

Burke

fate of Aeneas until his eventual apotheosis. This paper studies

the effect of Vegio’s additions on three instances in Book Twelve

of the Aeneid: the sudden conclusion, the use of ira and furor in the

final scene, and the characterization of Turnus. In these

instances, Vegio’s goal will be to laud virtue and disparage

vice.

When the poem opens, the Latins are giving up on war and

willingly submitting to the victorious Aeneas, who gives a speech

over Turnus’ body that shows both condemnation of and pity for

Turnus. Aeneas says there is no shame to have died at his hand

and returns Turnus’ body to the Latins. As Aeneas celebrates with

sacrifices to the gods, he asks the Trojans that they treat

kindly the Italians and Latinus and promises to lead them to even

greater prizes.

Meanwhile, Turnus’ corpse is brought before Latinus, who

mourns but also condemns Turnus as one too hungry for power and

glory. At the orders of Latinus, the mourning Latins bear Turnus’

corpse to his father Daunus. In Ardea, which has suffered

terribly from the war, Daunus grieves his dead son with a speech

that, if it blames anyone for this fate, blames the gods and

3

Burke

Turnus rather than Aeneas. Latinus then encourages the Latins to

welcome Aeneas with joyful triumphs, while Drances and other

ambassadors go to Aeneas and ask for peace and for his marriage

to Lavinia. Aeneas gladly accepts and promises to build a strong

relationship with the Latins in the morning, once all the dead

have been burned on pyres.

The next day, after Aeneas and Latinus meet and express

mutual affection and respect, Aeneas marries Lavinia, whom he

finds beautiful, and offers generous gifts to Latinus. The

celebration lasts for nine days, and then as Aeneas works to

build a city, Venus appears to assure him that peace has at last

come to the Trojans, to instruct him to bring the Lares into this

city, which he will name after his wife, and to foretell his

reign as king and his eventual apotheosis. Later, when Aeneas is

king, Venus asks Jupiter to grant the apotheosis, which he does.

She commands Numicius to wash away Aeneas’ mortal body, and then

she conveys his soul to the heavens.

The Supplementum became an incredibly popular work, being

printed in many editions of the Aeneid, especially so in the

fifteenth century but continuing even as late as the seventeenth

4

Burke

century.8 By 1513, most of the important editions of Virgil

contained the Supplementum.9 At least forty-nine manuscripts exist

– three of which even mistakenly attribute the Supplementum to

Virgil.10 Gavin Douglass’ Scottish translation of the Aeneid and

the first English translation both include a translation the

Supplementum.11 Not fifteen years after its publication, Iodocus

Badius Ascanius had written a commentary, and Sebastian Brant had

made six woodcuts for it.12 Although many writers today have a

tendency to disparage it, the readers of the Renaissance saw in

Vegio’s poem some virtue that made it worth reading and

reprinting time and time again.

There are numerous reasons this addition could have been

popular among Renaissance readers. For one thing, the Aeneid

seemed to end abruptly when contrasted with the Iliad or the

Odyssey, and this fact may have lead some readers to crave a more

8 Kallendorf and Brown 1990: 108-109.

9 Ross 1981: 217.

10 Kallendorf and Brown 1990: 108-109.

11 Putnam 2004: xxiii.12 Kallendorf 1984: 47.

5

Burke

conventionally epic ending.13 Additionally, readers in the

Italian Renaissance, like Vegio himself, would have believed that

an epic was meant to praise the virtues of a hero and to condemn

the vices of others.14 That is, the Supplementum provides more

praise of Aeneas and condemnation of Turnus, and to the Italian

Renaissance reader, this black-and-white moralism was a sign of a

good epic. Good epic encouraged the reader to seek praise with

good deeds and to fear vice.15 If Aeneas were not virtuous, what

model would the reader follow?

Recent scholarship has often found the Supplementum to be a

regrettable “mistake” in the history of literature.16 Sometimes

used as a parable for the absurdity of optimistic criticism in

the Aeneid, the Supplementum has become little more than a footnote

in our discussions.17 However, Vegio was writing for the

13 O’Hara 2010: 105.

14 Kallendorf 1984.

15 Kallendorf 1984: 48.

16 Duckworth 1967: 2.

17 O’Hara 2010: 104; Thomas 2001: 280-281. Similarly, see Kallendorf 1999: 397-398.

6

Burke

preferences of his day, if not always the preferences of ours.18

For many people in the Renaissance, the Supplementum was a work

of art on par with Virgil’s poetry, and Vegio was considered an

“alter Maro” (another Virgil).19

Renaissance Aeneas

Vegio was popular because his tastes line up with the tastes

of Renaissance. In Putnam’s words, “[Vegio] looks to what he

surmises to be incompletions, or even infidelities, in the

narrative itself and sets out both to extend and to modify

Virgil’s text in ways which we perhaps are meant to imagine might

be Virgil’s own (such is the poem’s illusion), but which are in

fact more those of Vegio and his own time.”20 To understand the

Supplementum, then, one must understand the perception of the

Renaissance and specifically of Vegio with regard to the Aeneid.

In the Renaissance, it was important that literature portray

the ideals of the age21, and there existed a prominent tradition 18 Hijmans 1971-72, Kallendorf 1989: 126-128.19 Brinton 1930: 5. Likewise, Kallendorf and Brown 1990: 108 notethat Vegio was called “novus Maro” and “alter Parthenias.”

20 Putnam 2004: xiii.

21 Kallendorf 1989: 2, Kallendorf 1984: 52.

7

Burke

of interpretation to read the Aeneid as “praise of virtue and

condemnation of vice.”22 Thus, Cristofo Landino, considered by

Kallendorf “[t]he most important Virgil critic of the second half

of the Quattrocento,”23 comments about Virgil as author of the

Aeneid,

Qua obsecro ille acrimonia, quo verborum flumine, metum, ignaviam, luxuriam, incontinentiam, impietatem, perfidiam, ac omnia iniustitiae genera reliquaque vitiainsectatur, vexat? Quibus contra laudibus, quibus praemiis invictam animi magnitudinem, et pro patria, pro parentibus, pro cognatis amicisque consideratam periculorum susceptionem, religionem in deum, pietatem in maiores, charitatem in omnes prosequitur?

With what bitterness, I ask, with what stream of words,does that man [i.e. Virgil] attack fear, laziness, luxury, intemperance, impiety, treachery, and every kind of injustice and the remaining vices? How does he disparage them? By contrast, with what praise, with what prizes does he describe the unconquered magnificence of the spirit; the undertaking of dangers with the consideration of the fatherland, of parents, of relative and friends; worship for the gods; pietas for the ancestors; and charity to all men?24

22 Kallendorf 1989: 101. See also Tudeau-Clayton 1998: 517-521 and Hardie 2010: 174-175.

23 Kallendorf 1989: 129.

24 Kallendorf 1983: 525-526 cites “Christophori Landini Florentini de peculiari Publii Virgilii Maronis laude, honesta praefatio,” in Virgil's Opera [Venice, 1544; reprint New York, I976], fols. i-ii of the “Praenotamenta.” Although the translation is mine, I borrow the Latin from Kallendorf 1983:

8

Burke

Similarly, Francesco Petrarca, influenced by epideictic

oratory,25 enjoyed Horace because he encouraged virtue with

praise and mocked vice.26 Giovanni Boccaccio remarks that “the

poets were the greatest in praising virtues and condemning

vices.”27 The visual arts also conform to this reading of Aeneas

as the virtuous hero, as Virgilian scenes painted on marriage

526n.

25 Kallendorf 1989: 22. Kallendorf 1989: 9 explains that epideictic oratory “relies on praise and blame as its distinctiveelements and directs these elements toward attaining virtue and vice.”

26 Kallendorf 1989: 24-25 cites Fam. XXIV.10, ll.67-71.Quo te cunque moves quicquid agis, iuvat:Seu fidos comites sedulus excitasVirtutem meritis laudibus efferensSeu dignis vitium morsibus impetisRidens stultitiam dente vafer levi.

Wherever you go, whatever you do, there is pleasure, whether you unremittingly inspire your faithful companions, extolling virtue with the praise it deserves, or take off after vice with the attacks it deserves, slyly smiling at folly with a polished bite.

I borrow both the Latin and the translation from Kallendorf 1989:25.

27 This quote from Kallendorf 1989: 9 is a translation of Boccaccio: “[I] poeti… furono grandissimi commendatori delle virtù e vituperatori de’ vizi.”

9

Burke

chests demonstrated the exemplary character of Aeneas and, in

order to condemn vice, the consequences of the love affair for

Dido.28

Vegio seems to agree with his contemporaries. In his De

educatione liberorum et eorum claris moribus, he presents ways in which

ancient literature can teach morality to students.29 In this

work, he discusses the Aeneid specifically, citing how Dido

receives praise during the building of Carthage as she is a model

for people to imitate, but receives condemnation for her

abandoning her duties once she falls madly in love.30 He also

discusses Aeneas specifically: Virgilius sub Aeneae persona virum omni

virtute praeditum, atque ipsum nunc in adversis, nunc in prosperis casibus,

demonstrare voluerit (“Virgil in the person of Aeneas wished to

describe a man provided with all virtue, and wished to show this

man himself now in adverse circumstances, now in prosperous

circumstances”).31

28 Liversidge 1997: 96.

29 Kallendorf 1984: 48-49.

30 Kallendorf 1984: 48.

31 De educatione II.18. All translations, unless otherwise noted, are my own. This Latin is taken from Kallendorf 1989: 102.

10

Burke

Similarly, in his De preseverantia religionis, Vegio writes about

how Aeneas displays virtue in all circumstances. He stays strong

during the difficulties of the storm and shipwreck in the first

book, and during his leisurely stay at Carthage, he can still

make the right decision to leave his pleasant life behind.32

Meanwhile, Dido represents the horrible fate of those who do not

remain firm in virtue.33 One would expect therefore that the

Supplementum contains a similar praise and condemnation pattern.

However, more interesting is the way the Supplementum brings

out this pattern in the text of the Aeneid. Whatever Virgil

intended the Aeneid to mean, there is no doubt that someone

reading the Aeneid with the Supplementum in mind would read

something different. The Supplementum is filled with references to

the Aeneid that put the Aeneid in a certain light. Because Aeneas

32 Kallendorf 1984: 49.33 Kallendorf 1984: 49. Here there is also a discussion of the religious allegory displayed in the De preseverantia. I do not treatthis example because I do not believe it is relevant to Vegio’s intention for the Supplementum. I believe Vegio intends the Supplementum to be able to exist without Christian allegory, and that he in no way caters to an obvious Christian allegory. For more on this, see page 12 of this paper, as well as Ross 1981, towhich my thinking is deeply indebted.

11

Burke

is described placido ore (13.23) (“with a calm expression”), for

example, the reader might overlook his rage when he kills

Turnus.34 In overlooking the anger, the reader is observing

Vegio’s intention for the Aeneid, which is equally important to a

reading of Vegio as his intention for the Supplementum itself.

However, I would press this point further. There are instances in

the Supplementum that seem to interact with earlier parts of the

Aeneid in such a way as to make the earlier passages seem like

foreshadowing to the Supplementum’s passages. I would even say that

Vegio intends the Aeneid to appear to reference the Supplementum.

In these references, Vegio’s intention for the Aeneid reveals

itself to be very different from Virgil’s.

In this paper, I propose to study the nature of these

differences in the three instances mentioned on page 2 above: the

abrupt ending to the twelfth book of the Aeneid, the use of ira and

furor in the final scene, and the depiction of Turnus. In each

instance, I begin by discussing Virgil’s intention for various

passages and the ambiguities they contain. I then show how Vegio

intends the passages to be read – how he intends these passages

34 Thomas 2001: 282.

12

Burke

from the Aeneid to interact with passages from the Supplementum,

and how these interactions bring out the virtue’s praise and

vice’s condemnation. In doing so, I hope to shed light on Vegio’s

art and subtly. One of the most impressive feats of the

Supplementum is the way it seamlessly reappropriates the words of

the older text.

Two Premises of This Paper

This paper’s thesis relies on two central premises. The

first is theoretical. Given that the thesis of this paper argues

that the Supplementum repurposes the Aeneid, the easiest

assumptions would be those that rely on the Death of the Author

and reception theory. If authorial intention is irrelevant, it

has long been acknowledged that texts would talk to each other;

that the intertext would no longer be one way.35 Those of us who

know literature better are at times saddened by this idea: a 35 Take, for example, Bourne 1916, who even before the death of the author was content to study Constantine’s “interpretation” (reception) of the fourth eclogue – an interpretation which sees Virgil’s text referring to the later Gospels. Or consider the beliefs of Gray 2007: 143-147 who, remarking on a different tradition of literary theory and much inspired by T. S. Eliott, concludes that texts can “talk to each other.” Similarly, RicardoApostol in his forthcoming article uses reception theory to explore how Black Swan, a recent movie, changes our understanding of a Horatian text.

13

Burke

friend of mine once recounted how his children thought A Christmas

Carol’s “God bless us everyone” was a reference to something the

gingerbread man said in the movie Shrek. Reception theory could

render this child’s argument valid – or at least render the study

of this child’s argument valid. Although I am admittedly

interested in this sort of reading and the many interesting

possibilities it creates, I do not wish in this paper to stretch

my reader’s opinions on theory.

Rather, I will confine myself to seeking meaning from

authorial intention. I will not go so far as to say the only

meaning worth studying is the author’s intention, but I will

follow E. D. Hirsch, who wrote in his Validity in Interpretation:

[I]f the meaning of a text is not the author’s, then nointerpretation can possibly correspond to the meaning ofthe text, since the text can have no determinate or determinable meaning… If a theorist wants to save the ideal of validity, he has to save the author as well…36

I use authorial intention as a determiner of meaning because in a

sense it is the most legitimate determiner of meaning. If one

looks to the text for meaning, then any critic can become an

author of an equally valid meaning, and in this democracy of 36 Hirsch 1967: 5-6.

14

Burke

meanings, there is “no very firm ground” to decide what reading

is more valid.37 Although I do not believe authorial intention is

the only way to find meaning in a text, it presents the surest

ground for a discussion of meaning in a scholarly context.

The first premise then is that Vegio has a meaning that can

be discerned. For one thing, this statement assumes that Vegio

has a meaning. Given the last section, where various Italian

Renaissance scholars including Vegio himself were cited as saying

that the purpose of poetry was to laud good deeds and rebuke bad

ones, it is evident that Vegio and his contemporaries believed a

poem should have a purpose and should therefore mean something. I

draw particular attention to the passage in Landino, which

credits not the Aeneid for creating meaning but ille (“that man”) –

that is, Virgil. One can logically assume that in the context of

the Renaissance, Vegio assumed his work should mean something and

so attached a meaning to it.

It is more difficult to prove that this meaning can be

discerned. Hirsch does well to point out that just because one

cannot know definitively that he has deduced the author’s

37 Hirsch 1967: 1-6.

15

Burke

intention does not mean that he has not deduced the author’s

intention, and that although an author’s experience with his text

may change, this does not mean the author’s meaning in the text

changed.38 Since Vegio’s meaning can be discerned, one can

discern Vegio’s meaning for the text of the Aeneid.

An astute reader should argue that Vegio is not the author

of the Aeneid; the Aeneid was in fact written by Virgil over a

thousand years prior. Since Virgil wrote the Aeneid without

knowledge of the Supplementum, the Aeneid could not possibly

reference or interact with the Supplementum in any logical way.

Vegio, therefore, could not even have influenced the Aeneid, let

alone meant something by it. If one should wish to divine Vegio’s

meaning in a text, one should look to a text written by Vegio.

The second premise of this paper is based on just such an

interpretation.

I assume in writing this paper that Vegio intended in the

Supplementum to write a continuation of – that is, a part of – the

38 For these arguments and other defenses of the author, see Hirsch 1967: 1-21.

16

Burke

Aeneid, as opposed to a sequel to it. 39 There are many reasons for

this assertion. First, unlike the Roman d’Eneas or Heinrich von

Veldeke’s Eneasroman, mentioned above, the Supplementum is

composed in Latin, and specifically in a style meant to mirror

Virgilian hexameters.40 Vegio even prefers to write events that

he can model on Virgil’s text.41 The Supplementum is intended to

look like the rest of the Aeneid, to camouflage with the verses

that precede it. Moreover, the fact that the book begins

immediately after the twelfth book indicates an unusually close

relationship with Virgil’s text.

Further, rather than turn the Aeneid into an allegory for a

Christian message, as might be expected of a Renaissance poet,

Vegio insists on preserving the pagan Aeneas.42 Although Douglas’

prologue to the thirteenth book calls it a “schort Cristyn wark”

39 Interestingly, the publishers seemed to believe Vegio’s poem was a supplement Virgil’s work rather than a stand-alone piece, since in thirty-five of the forty-nine manuscripts detailed by Kallendorf and Brown, it is published alongside the Aeneid. (Kallendorf and Brown 1990: 108, 110-125)

40 Putnam 2006: x-xiii; Kallendorf and Brown 1990: 108.

41 McCahill 2009: 170-176, Kallendorf 1989: 113-114.42 Putnam 2006: xiii-xix.

17

Burke

– a comment which has misled scholars43 – this prologue is not

meant to be taken very seriously. It depicts a lazy Douglas

explaining to Vegio that he does not wish to translate the

Supplementum because he does not wish to waste more time on pagan

literature, and Vegio in turn, violently beating Douglas, claims

his poem is a “schort Cristyn wark.”44 Obviously, one cannot

deduce a serious scholarly analysis from this joke prologue, and

moreover, Douglas might not have intended “Christian” to mean

“related to Christianity.” Instead, he might have only meant the

work presents Aeneas as a paragon of virtue.45 Although Vegio

does write about Christian allegory in the Aeneid in his De

Perseverantia Religionis, he takes care to note that Virgil is a

gentile author.46 Finally, Vegio turns to Virgil and Ovid as his

models for the deification.47 In doing so, he is trying to match

the cultural background of the rest of the Aeneid. Significant in 43 See, for example, Brinton 1930.

44 Ross 1981: 216-217.

45 Ross 1981: 222.

46 Ross 1981: 218-219.

47 Putnam 2006: xiii-xix.

18

Burke

this choice is that Aeneas goes to the stars rather than to

heaven – a fact which would not by itself exclude a Christian

message, but which certainly reaffirms Vegio’s preference for a

Pagan Supplementum.48 In this manner, Vegio manages to make his

work blend with Virgil’s.

Kallendorf further speculates as to reasons why Vegio might

believe the work was incomplete. Given the position of Vegio and

the Italian humanist, it seems likely they would have been

adverse to the ethical problems that are raised by the Aeneid’s

abrupt ending, such as what will happen to Turnus’ body.49 It is

also easy to see how it might be strange that in a poem bent on

showing how virtue earns praise, the end comes before the hero

can enjoy any of the rewards of his virtue.50 Finally, many

people have struggled with the idea of killing Turnus as he begs

for mercy.51 Because the Supplementum answers these questions, I

assert that Vegio thought he was completing what Virgil left

unfinished.48 Ross 1981: 220.49 Kallendorf 1989: 104.

50 Kallendorf 1989: 104.

51 Putnam 2011: 102-103.

19

Burke

If, as the first premise states, it is possible to

understand Vegio’s intention, and if, as the second premise

states, Vegio intended the Supplementum to be an additional part

of the Aeneid, and not merely a sequel to it, then when one reads

the Supplementum for Vegio’s intention, one must read it as part

of the Aeneid. This reading changes how the texts interact.

Although few people would argue that an earlier work could

reference a later work with intertext, intratext – that is,

references within a work – certainly is not subject to sequence

of events. The first chapter of a book can reference the last;

something said at the beginning of a movie can have meaning that

relies on something said at the end. Put simply, Vegio intended

that the Aeneid reference the Supplementum, and one cannot read

Vegio’s intention in the Supplementum without this fact in mind.

Those more familiar with Hirsch’s argument may think I mean

to discuss the Aeneid’s significance to Vegio – that is, what the

Aeneid means to Vegio.52 This significance is undoubtedly an

important factor since it informs Vegio’s use of the Aeneid, and

that is why the previous section is devoted to it. However, the 52 Hirsch 1967: 38-39.

20

Burke

real aim of this paper is to discuss Vegio’s repurposing of

Virgil’s words. No one would claim that Vegio really thought

Virgil intended to reference the Supplementum, but when Vegio

writes the Supplementum, he is essentially incorporating the

Aeneid into his own newer work. Vegio’s new work consists of not

only his original words, but also the words borrowed from Virgil

– that is, the text of the Aeneid. This work was informed by his

understanding of the Aeneid, but was also separate from it.

Consider, by way of example, T. S. Eliot’s “The Wasteland,”

which borrows phrases from other poets. In a sense, the

Supplementum does this to an unprecedented degree, borrowing the

entire text of the Aeneid. Just as when we read Eliot’s verses and

seek Eliot’s meaning in the borrowed phrases, so we can seek

Vegio’s meaning in the borrowed twelve books. We can seek how

Vegio wants the twelve books to be read in light of his

Supplementum.

I am not the first person to make an observation of this

sort, and my argument is heavily indebted to Putnam, who notes

how Vegio is “playing on his audience’s knowledge of the Aeneid,

allusions to which saturate his text, so as to alter, in ways

21

Burke

immediate and less apparent, both Virgil’s emphases and the

reader’s expectations.”53 He even goes so far as to list

instances of the use of furiae and ira and related words in the

Supplementum and notes, “Vegio… has pondered Vergil’s words well,

and by adopting them and distributing them to protagonists other

than his central hero he relieves Aeneas of their moral onus, as

instigator of his actions, and places the burden elsewhere.”54 I

in fact do not disagree with Putnam’s analysis of the poem. My

approach differs only in that it explores this specific

phenomenon in more detail.

To put it as simply as possible, this paper is not about

Renaissance culture or Renaissance reception of the Aeneid except

to the extent that such information reveals Vegio’s intentions in

his text. This paper is about how Vegio’s Supplementum creates

the illusion that Book Twelve of the Aeneid alludes to it. I

believe that this illusion was the intention of Vegio, and I

intend to study Vegio’s purpose for this illusion. Although this

purpose will coincide with Renaissance reception of the Aeneid,

53 Putnam 2004: xix.54 Putnam 2004: xx.

22

Burke

deciphering Vegio’s intention is the primary objective.

Conclusions about the reception of Renaissance authors and about

the reception of Vegio to the Aeneid are given earlier in this

paper to validate and make more plausible the claims about

Vegio’s intention, but to what extent Vegio’s intention validates

the earlier claims on reception is a happy coincidence.

The Abrupt Ending of the Twelfth Book

Although the ending to the Aeneid is often thought of as very

quick, Nicholas Horsefall points to the prophecies in Book Twelve

as a way that Virgil offers closure. In his words, “we do, after

all, pretty much know what happens next, from the Aeneid itself.”55

Indeed, this knowledge has led some scholars to criticize the

Supplementum’s ending as overkill. George Duckworth, after

pointing to the prophecies at the end of the Aeneid, sarcastically

remarks, “Vegius apparently thought that Vergil had failed to

make Aeneas' future sufficiently clear.”56 Similarly, D.

Blandford, referring to the principle events of the Supplementum,

writes, “[A]ll these incidents are implicit in Virgil”57, and 55 Horsfall 2000: 195

56 Duckworth 1969: 1.57 Blandford 1959: 29.

23

Burke

believes “to take a whole book describing them is, as Pope

observes, to ‘overshoot the mark.’”58

Yet many modern scholars believe the abrupt ending of the

Aeneid serves to open ambiguities in the text, at least in

relation to how Aeneas will treat Turnus’ body. Richard Thomas

wonders whether Aeneas will do to Turnus’ body what Achilles did

to Hector’s or what Aeneas and his comrades did to Mezentius’.59

Edgeworth and Stem consider Virgil’s decision to deny the reader

the satisfaction of knowing Turnus’ body was returned

“astonishing,” especially given Homer’s intense treatment of

corpses.60 They also note that the fate of Turnus’ corpse was

never made explicit during any of the prophecies.61 Virgil’s

silence in this regard is all the more striking. O’Hara considers

58 Blandford 1959: 30.

59 Thomas 2001: 284. Thomas 2001: 282 also discusses the possibility of civil war at the end of the Aeneid, but given the prophecies about what will come after the end of the Aeneid, I am not convinced by this argument.

60 Edgeworth and Stem 2005: 4-7.

61 Edgeworth and Stem 2005: 5.

24

Burke

the sudden ending to be an asset that allows the work to be more

open to interpretation.62 The list goes on.

Therefore, Vegio’s book no longer seems redundant. He is not

rehashing what has already been said. Instead, he is expanding

and making explicit what he perhaps believes is already implicit

in the prophecies. At any rate, he intends the readers to believe

the immediate good fortune is implicit in the prophecies.

In a sense, Vegio’s work resists ambiguity simply by

existing. If one is reading the end of Book Twelve, but knows

there is yet another book to come, the death of Turnus is merely

a climatic scene. If one wonders what will happen to the body, he

or she only needs to read forward. The ending is no longer open:

one cannot debate whether or not Aeneas will return the corpse

any more than one can debate whether Aeneas will leave Carthage.

Further, if we look at Book Twelve as Vegio intended and

seek the ways in which Book Twelve appears to reference the

Supplementum,63 we find that many of the prophecies seem to

anticipate a happier outcome. In Book Twelve, the reader has been62 O’Hara 2010: 105.63 That is, the ways in which the Supplementum is made to make Book Twelve appear to reference it.

25

Burke

told that Aeneas will marry Lavina, found Lavinium, and

ultimately be deified.64 These prophecies do not on their own

validate an optimistic reading of the Aeneid: a pessimist might

easily imagine that more strife is in store at the end of Book

Twelve. However, reading with the Supplementum in mind, these

prophecies provide a positive light through which to read the

ongoing battle. Rather than merely providing closure or a

reference to the tradition, the prophecies serve to remind the

reader that there is a purpose and a goal to the fighting, and

that this goal is good and not too far in the future.

Finally, Book Twelve contains an extended bull metaphor,

which ends stat pecus omne metu mutum, mussantque iuvencae / quis nemori

imperitet, quem tota armenta sequantur (“all the cattle stand mute with

fear, and the cows whisper about who will rule the woods, whom

the whole herd will follow,” 12.718-19). Thomas sees this simile

as evidence of an ambiguous ending: “[T]he herd’s future, like

the outcome itself, was uncertain and unresolved in the poem.”65 64 Blandford 1959: 29 cites 12.27-28 and 12.821-22 for the marriage, 12.193-94 for the founding of the city, 12.794-95 for the deification. Additionally, he notes the rule of Aeneas is foretold in Book One.65 Thomas 2001: 281.

26

Burke

Although he acknowledges that Vegio “adapts and advances” the

simile,66 the effect is much deeper than that. When we read now

the initial simile in the Aeneid as Vegio intended it, something

new stands out. The phrase quem tota armenta sequantur (“whom the

whole herd will follow,” 12.719) seems less ambiguous. Given the

later metaphor of the Supplementum, where quae victo pecora ante

favebant / nunc sese imperio subdunt victoris (“those hearts, which before

were favoring the one now defeated, now submit themselves to the

rule of the victor,” 13.16-17), this earlier phrase seems to

indicate definite submission. The reader of Vegio will see the

bull metaphor as an indication that this battle of Book Twelve

will always be the last battle, that even in the heat of the

fight, Aeneas and Turnus know what is at stake.

Indeed, one might also point to the terms of Aeneas’ single

combat with Turnus. Whoever wins was supposed to win the war.

Blandford, who observes that Turnus, Latinus, and Aeneas all

recognize and agree to the terms, claims that it is unnecessary

to demonstrate that the terms were followed.67 However, to those

66 Thomas 2001: 281.

67 Blandford 1959: 29.

27

Burke

like Thomas who question the outcome of the duel, the

Supplementum removes all potential ambiguity. As in the case of

the bull metaphor, one can see plenty of evidence for the

Supplementum’s plot in Virgil’s text; the Supplementum merely serves

to make this evidence more apparent.

Book Twelve, then, is not an abrupt ending. Simply because

there is more to come, it is hard to read the end of Book Twelve

as sudden. Furthermore, the prophecies along with the bull

metaphor look forward to the events of the Supplementum in a way

that reminds the reader of the good that is to come. The reader

of Book Twelve is never confused by the fight or the fight’s

purpose. He or she knows to what end Aeneas battles Turnus, and

he or she knows Aeneas will do the right thing.

The Use of Ira and Furor

Thomas identifies a moment toward the beginning of the

Supplementum where “Vegio in effect contradicts Virgil.”68 Aeneas,

having just killed Turnus in a fit of anger, now stands placido ore

(“with a calm expression,” 13.23). Although this seeming

contradiction is not easy to reconcile, it is the role of the 68 Thomas 2001: 282.

28

Burke

analyst to assume a work’s unity and attempt to derive some

meaning from it. In this seeming contradiction, for example, one

might be drawn to Horsfall’s suggestion that perhaps the ira and

furiae at 12.946 are “simple, old-fashioned battle-rage” necessary

to kill Turnus.69

However, the Supplementum cannot erase all of Aeneas’ anger

with two words at the beginning of the book. On several other

occasions, Aeneas’ rage leads him to kill relentlessly. Even

before Book Twelve, Aeneas in Book Ten after the death of Pallas

proxima quaeque metit gladio (“cuts down with his sword anything

nearby,” 10.513), and later kills Latin captives on Pallas’ pyre.

Even earlier, in Book Two, he contemplates killing Helen as Troy

burns, but is stopped by his mother (567-88).70

In order to show how he intends Aeneas’ rage against Turnus

to be perceived, Vegio strategically places words like furia and

69 Horsfall 2000: 213.

70 It should be noted that the lines for this last example are often considered spurious. However, even if these lines do not reflect the intention of Virgil, Vegio still had to combat them and their influence on the interpretation of the Aeneid and had toaccount for them in his repurposing of the Aeneid.

29

Burke

ira through his poem.71 Ira in particular is attributed to Jupiter,

when Aeneas notes, Magnum etiam capit ira Iovem, memoresque malorum /

sollicitat vindicta deos (“Anger seizes even great Jupiter, and vengeance

arouses even the gods mindful of evil deeds,” 13.29-30). With

this in mind, Aeneas’ anger takes on a different tone. If ira

seizes even Jupiter, then Aeneas cannot be at fault for his ira.72

More than that, however, Aeneas seems to shift the blame to

Turnus. Aeneas, in remembering the evil Turnus had done to

Pallas, is more than justified; he is even godlike. One might say

the gods’ anger creates a contrast between Aeneas’ desire to kill

Turnus and Aeneas’ earlier desire to kill Helen in Book Two. When

one reads about Aeneas’ anger at the end of Book Twelve, Vegio

71 In these observations, I am deeply indebted to Putnam 2004: xx.

72 Turning to Book Ten, Putnam 2011: 22-25 reads a gruesome intertextual relationship between the humans killed on Pallas’ pyre and a sacrifice of cows in the Georgics. He notes a similarity in the language: quator… totidem for a total of eight men/cattle to be sacrificed is used at Aen.10.518/Geor.4.550-51. Although this paper is primarily concerned with Book Twelve, perhaps it is also worth noting how Book Thirteen’s religious imagery is meant to influence the reading of this passage in BookTen. In light of Jupiter’s anger, the sacrificial imagery seems to be less a demonstration of Aeneas’ brutality and more a reminder of the gods’ will in Aeneas’ rage. Aeneas can here, too,be piously angry.

30

Burke

intends that the reader believe this ira is pious. Meanwhile,

Turnus is the one who had done mala (“bad deeds”), which Aeneas

remembered, and in the lines immediately preceding, these mala

are given a specific character:

Quae tanta animo dementia crevit,ut Teucros superum monitis summique Tonantisimperio huc vectos patereris, Daunia proles,Italia et pactis nequicquam expellere tectis?Disce Iovem revereri et iussa facessere divum. (13.24-28)

What so great insanity grew in your mind, son of Daunus, that you would try in vain to expel the Trojans, who were dragged here by the commands of the gods and the authority of the highest Thunderer, from their agreed upon houses. Learn to revere Jove and to follow the decrees of the gods.

The mala were not merely against Pallas. In fact, they were very

much against Jupiter as well. Aeneas in his final act against

Turnus was doing the will of Jupiter, as he had done through his

entire journey. Hence when Daunus mourns Turnus, he does not

lament Aeneas’ anger, but the anger of the gods.73 Ira is again

attributed to the gods at 13.429, where Latinus claims the war

was due to the gods’ anger at the human madness that opposed

them.73 13.294-96.

31

Burke

The use of furiae and its related words remains more

complicated. Given their negative connotation, furiae and its

related words seem more difficult to spin in a completely

positive light. Instead, Vegio shifts the furiae from Aeneas to

Turnus. At 13.47, Aeneas claims he was vestris actus furiis (“driven by

your [the Latins’] rage”). Vegio seeks to justify Aeneas’ furiae

in this way: he was responding to the furiae of the Latins and of

Turnus in particular.74 Aeneas’ furiae in Book Twelve is similar to

fighting fire with fire; he is merely hating those who hate him.

He blames the Latins’ madness for causing his madness: he was

actus (driven) by the Latins’ madness. Hence, Drances apologizes

on behalf of the king for the war:

…quicquid tanto armorum flagrante tumultutantorum furiisque operum atque laboribus actum est,id rapidus Turni et stimulis incensus iniquiscorreptusque odiis furor attulit. (13.339-42)

Whatever happened on account of this so great fiery uproar of so great arms and on account of this rage (furiis) of deeds and on account of these hardships, Turnus’ swift rage (furor) burning by unfair stimuli andcorrupted by hate caused it.

74 Kallendorf 1989: 112 draws the same conclusion from this line (13.47).

32

Burke

Drances blames furiae at first more generally, but then sites

Turnus’ furor as the true source. He seems to apologize for furiae

in the fighting and in the war – furiae which was by no means

exclusive to Turnus – before he explains that Turnus’ furor

started the more general furiae. He is trying to justify the

Latins’ rage, but his words validate Aeneas as well. At 13.32,

Turnus’ furor was the reason Iliacam rupto turbasti foedere gentem (“with

the treaty broken, you [Turnus] stirred up trouble for the Ilian

race”), and furor is again ascribed to Turnus by Latinus at

13.146. Thus Vegio shifts blame for Aeneas’ furiae onto Turnus.

However, Vegio also does some work to neutralize the furiae as

well. Although he uses furor and furiae in a negative light, he uses

furiens in a more morally neutral way. On two occasions, Turnus is

called furientem: at 13.195-96, Vegio mentions the horse qui vexerat

ante / victorem Turnum atque hostile strage furentem (“which before had

carried Turnus, a victor raging in an enemy massacre”) and at

13.268-69 Vegio says the Troes in armis / horrendum et trepidi totiens sensere

furentem (“the Trojans in arms and fearful often sensed him

[Turnus] dreadful and raging [furentem]”). In both these instances

Turnus is furentem, but he is dreadful only in the sense that any

33

Burke

enemy is dreadful in war. His actions are not necessarily

contemptible. One reading the Aeneid and the Supplementum together

would read these instances as evidence that the furiae in Book

Twelve was just, as Horsfall suggested, “simple, old-fashioned

battle-rage.”75

In this way, Aeneas’ rage does not prevent him from being a

moral ideal. His ira and furiae do not seem out-of-control. Instead,

Vegio would have us believe that they are inspired by the gods

and by Turnus himself, and that they amount not necessarily to

some madness, but perhaps only to the anger already inherent in

war.

Treatment of Turnus

Turnus is a sympathetic character in the Aeneid. Putnam

points to a passage in which Turnus’ failure is compared to our

nightmares – the use of first-person making Turnus closer and

more relatable to us.76 Putnam further argues that he is painted

also as a younger Aeneas.77 At the very least, Turnus arouses

75 Horsfall 2000: 213.76 Putnam 2011:94-96 cites 12.908-914.

77 Putnam 2011: 91-93.

34

Burke

sympathy because he is the underdog in the battle and doomed to

lose.78 Furthermore, the love of Amata and his sister encourage

the reader to have some love for Turnus or at the very least

acknowledge Turnus is loveable.79 Most obviously, however, Turnus

himself reminds Aeneas and the readers that he has a father who

will mourn his death.80

Simultaneously, there are many reasons to condemn Turnus and

many ways in which Virgil invites the reader to dislike Turnus.

In Horsfall’s words, “Virgil interweaves his characteristic

feeling for the loser with undiminished commitment to the

detailed portrayal of Turnus’ vitiated character and unhallowed

cause.”81 Latinus says that in joining Turnus, he took up arma

impia (“impious arms,” 12.31) and the narrator says accenso gliscit

violentia Turno (“Violence swelled in the inflamed Turnus,” 12.9).82

78 Horsfall 2000: 210.

79 Putnam 2011: 97.

80 Putnam 2011: 102.

81 Horsfall 2000: 210.

82 These examples are taken from Horsfall 2000: 210n.

35

Burke

The key word here, violentia, is used only to describe Turnus.83

Later in Book 12, Tunus will kill many men as he is compared to a

lion that fremit ore cruento (“roars with a bloody mouth,” 12.8) – a

phrase which links Turnus’ rage to the furor impius (“impious rage”)

described by Jupiter at 1.294 - 96.84

Searching for a balance between the sympathetic Turnus and

the raging Turnus, Sara Mack, after noting how Allecto’s attacks

resemble that of Cupid on Dido, notes

We do not get to know Turnus until [Allecto] has infected him, as one of the teachers at the NEH Institute pointed out, so we cannot really tell what hemight have been like otherwise. Presumably he was the sort of person who would be susceptible to fury, but all we know about Turnus before his meeting with Allecto is that he is the handsomest of Lavinia's suitors, well-descended, and, in Amata's view at any rate, Lavinia's betrothed. He does not seem unduly upset about the Trojans when Allecto arrives in his bedroom masquerading as a priestess of Juno… Only afterAllecto reveals herself and hurls her torch at him doeshe become the fiery warrior he is in the rest of the poem.85

83 I borrow this observation from Putnam 2011: 87.

84 For the link between these phrases, see Putnam 2011: 86-87. For Turnus’ killing, see Aen. 12.311-382, and note particularly the use of names. Putnam 2011: 22 notes how Virgil makes us feel for Trojan captives by giving them names and family. Something similar is happening here with Turnus’ victims.

85 Mack 1999: 144.

36

Burke

It is unclear whether Vegio may have had similar thoughts with

regards to Turnus’ meeting with Allecto. However, Vegio’s

treatment of Turnus emphasizes a similar way of thinking, a way

which separates the hero Turnus could be from the crimes he

commits. Vegio’s Supplementum shows that one can pity Turnus for

the madness that befell him, but differs from Mack’s reading in

that one must still condemn Turnus for the madness.

In light of the Supplementum, it is impossible to read

Turnus as acting rightly. On a very explicit level, Aeneas

condemns Turnus’ actions, as does King Latinus. These

condemnations serve to prove that Turnus was, if worthy of some

sympathy, still deserving of death. Both Latinus and Aeneas blame

his death on his furor: Aeneas at 13.30-32 and Latinus at 13.145-

147. In Vegio’s strongest attempt to validate the rightness of

Turnus’ death, Turnus’ father Daunus grieves his son, but at no

point blames Aeneas. Instead he blames his son at 13.261 in a

rhetorical question Hic clarae virtutis honos et gloria sceptri? (“Is this the

honor of shining virtue and the glory of the scepter?”) that

37

Burke

recalls Latinus’ explanation for Turnus’ madness;86 he blames

mortem invisam (“hostile death”) itself at 13.279; and he blames

the superi (“the gods”) at 13.290. In these instances, Aeneas is

not seen as the vengeful killer. No one resents Turnus’ death.

They mourn him, but blame him for his death.

On a subtler level, Vegio chooses to use Drances as a

reminder of the dissent against Turnus already present in the

Aeneid. Here again, Vegio is taking something in the Aeneid and

giving it undue emphasis in order to change the perception of the

reader. If one reads the Aeneid with the Supplementum, Drances

becomes a more important character, and his criticisms of Turnus

weigh more heavily on the mind. Although the reaction of the

other characters to Turnus’ death place a similar emphasis, the

specific use of Drances is very poignant.

However, despite O’Hara’s sarcastic complaint that in the

Supplementum Turnus “was very, very bad,”87 Vegio does not make

86 13.145: O fragilis ruitura superbia sceptri! (“O frail, ruinous pride for the scepter!”)

87 O’Hara 2010: 104.

38

Burke

Turnus a wholly unsympathetic character.88 Vegio knows that the

text of the Aeneid makes Turnus sympathetic, so he manipulates the

way in which one sympathizes with Turnus. Aeneas, previously

filled with rage, mourns Turnus immediately after his death, Heu,

nobile corpus, / Turne, iaces (“Alas, Turnus, noble corpse, you lie,”

13.36-37) and again upon seeing Lavinia, Turni casus miseratus acerbos

(“he pitied the bitter fortunes of Turnus,” 13.471). Similarly,

Latinus remembers not only Turnus’ bad qualities, but his good

qualities also:

At nunc, Turne, iaces! Ubinam tam magna iuventaegloria et excellens animus? Quo splendidus altaefrontis honos? Quonam illa decens effugit imago? (13.177-79)

But now, Turnus, you lie! Where is the so great glory of your youth and where is you excelling spirit? Where went the splendid honor of your exalted brow? Where didthat graceful image flee?

Of course Daunus weeps as well. Further, the Latins and even

Turnus’ horse are depicted mourning the fallen hero.89 Vegio does88 Horsfall 2000: 209 states, “Is Turnus a Tragic Hero or an Enemy of the State? The obligation to choose is itself an illusion; the categories are neither mutually exclusive [nor] severally sufficient.” I argue here that Vegio encourages this same view.89 The Latins at 13.125-28 and the horse at 13.194-95. There is some ambiguity because as to whether the horse is crying or is wet with the tears of others.

39

Burke

not deny that Turnus is a sympathetic character. Instead, he

seeks to mold that sympathy into something less ambiguous. The

heroes here mourn Turnus because he had such power and potential

but was swept away by his ambition for the scepter (13.145), by

his lust for Lavinia (13.471-473), and most importantly by furor

(13.146). The heroes teach the reader of Book Twelve how to pity

Turnus without thinking he is right. To borrow a recent religious

phrase, Vegio tries to use these heroes to help the reader “love

the sinner but hate the sin.”

Thus Vegio can allow Turnus to be both a sympathetic

character and a model for wrongdoing. He does not need to make

Turnus unlikable to make him wholly incorrect. In this way, he

can better manipulate the text of Virgil, which asks the reader

to pity Turnus. Vegio asks readers to pity Turnus in a very

specific way. When Aeneas kills Turnus, Vegio asks the reader to

feel bad for Turnus but to understand it was his fault. Hence

Vegio brings the Aeneid ever closer to Renaissance epic.

Conclusion

Vegio’s work cannot change the meaning of Virgil’s Aeneid.

However, it is Vegio’s intention that his reader reads the Aeneid

40

Burke

in different ways, in ways that are influenced by his

Supplementum through intertext. In fact, one might more properly

call this intertext “intratext,” since the Supplementum is meant

to be part of the Aeneid. At any rate, looking at merely the

Supplementum without the effect it is meant to have and without

the meaning it is meant to impose on the earlier work misses the

true art of the Supplementum.

This study has looked at Virgil’s Aeneid and the way Vegio’s

Aeneid differs from Virgil’s even while keeping the words

themselves the same. Vegio manages to turn his Aeneid into a

Renaissance epic. Aeneas is lauded for his virtue; Turnus is

condemned for his defects. The words of the Aeneid, which without

the Supplementum appear morally ambiguous, seem straightforward

when read with the Supplementum according to Vegio’s intention.

With his inclusion of an epilog that no longer ends abruptly on a

death, gives new significance to the words ira and furiae from the

final scene, and presents Turnus as corrupted, Vegio changes the

emphases of the Aeneid.

The goal of this paper has been to emphasize the art in

Vegio’s poetry. No doubt there is room for further studies,

41

Burke

whether on his characterization of Lavina, or the beautiful

laments of Daunus, whose mourning reminds the reader of the human

cost of the war. Unfortunately, there is neither the time nor the

space here to exhaustively detail every moment of the

Supplementum and the art behind it. I have taken up its subtle

effects on the original text of the Aeneid’s twelfth book as

simply one example of how the Supplementum is impressively

crafted. Though I might even admit some admiration for the

aesthetic it creates, I certainly cannot prove that this

aesthetic is beautiful. Such an argument is too subjective for

this paper. Instead, I turn again to the preferences of the

Renaissance to prove that Vegio achieved his desired aesthetic,

and to suggest that his ability to do so is worth the admiration

and study devoted to it in these pages.

Vegio’s Aeneid proves to be a beautiful Renaissance epic

built upon the text of Virgil because Vegio’s Aeneas is a

brilliant epic hero. Vegio, like many in his day,90 believed 90 See Kallendorf 1989 and above pages 4-8. I draw attention hereto Kallendorf 1989: 2 in particular: “[F]or most writers and critics of the Trecento and the Quattrocento, literature was a carrier of ideals, a proponent of things as they should be ratherthan things as they are.”

42

Burke

Aeneas was meant to be an example of virtue: Virgilius sub Aeneae

persona virum omni virtute praeditum (“Virgil in the person of Aeneas

wished to describe a man provided with all virtue”).91 When

Aeneas is like a bull fighting Turnus, and the reader knows the

conclusion of the bull metaphor to come, Aeneas’ fight with

Turnus becomes a way of striving for peace. When Aeneas rages,

and the reader has learned to associate anger with the gods,

Aeneas can be righteously angry. When the reader has learned to

understand the rage as the fault of another – namely, Turnus –

Aeneas can remain pure if the anger should ever seem excessive.

When Aeneas kills Turnus, and the reader understands to pity

Turnus but accept his punishment as his own fault, Aeneas is

justified. Finally, in Book Thirteen, the Supplementum, Aeneas

receives rewards and ultimately even deification for his virtue.

I end on this note of the pious Aeneas because Vegio was

more than an Optimist. For Vegio, the point of the Aeneid and the

point of literature is that virtutem sequi vitiaque fugere maxime doceamur

(“we might learn to follow virtue and flee vice”).92 Aeneas is 91 De educatione II.18. This Latin is taken from Kallendorf 1989: 102.

92 I take this Latin from Kallendorf 1984: 48.

43

Burke

meant to be our guide on how to live, and as such must be

perfect. The compelling nature of Vegio’s vision is attested in

the widespread popularity of his book. It has been the aim of

this paper to attest to the success of his vision and the art

with which he communicated it.

Selected Bibliography

On the Supplementum

Brinton, A. C. 1930. Maphaeus Vegius and His Thirteenth Book of the Aeneid: A

Chapter on Virgil in the Renaissance. Stanford: Stanford University

Press.

Duckworth, G. E. 1969. “Maphaeus Vegius and Vergil's Aeneid: A

Metrical Comparison.” Classical Philology, 64.1: 1-6.

Hardie, P. 2010. “Spenser’s Vergil: The Faerie Queene and the Aeneid.”

In Farrell, J. and Putnam M. C. J. eds. 173-185.

Hijmans, B. L. 1971-1972. “Aeneia Virtus: Vegio's Supplementum to

the Aeneid.” The Classical Journal 67.2: 144-155.

Kallendorf, C. 1983. “Cristoforo Landino's Aeneid and the

Humanist Critical Tradition.” Renaissance Quarterly 36.4: 519-

546.

44

Burke

-------- 1984. “Maffeo Vegio’s Book XIII and the Aeneid of Early

Italian Humanism.” In Reynolds, A. ed. Altro Polo: The Classical

Continuum in Italian Thought and Letters. Sydney: University of

Sydney. 47-56.

-------- 1989. In Praise of Aeneas: Virgil and Epideictic Rhetoric in the Early Italian

Renaissance. Hanover: University Press of New England.

-------- 1999. “Historicizing the ‘Harvard School’: Pessimistic

Readings of the Aeneid in Italian Renaissance Scholarship.”

Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 99: 391-403.

Kallendorf, C. and Brown V. 1990. “Maffeo Vegio's Book XIII to

Virgil's Aeneid; a checklist of manuscripts.” Scriptorium

44.1: 107-125.

McCahill, E. M. 2009. “Rewriting Vergil, Rereading Rome: Maffeo

Vegio, Poggio Bracciolini, Flavio Biondo, and Early

Quattrocento Antiquarianism.” Memoirs of the American Academy in

Rome 54: 165-199.

Putnam, M. C. J. 2004. Maffeo Vegio: Short Epics. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

45

Burke

Ross, C. S. 1981. “Maffaeo Vegio’s ‘Schort Cristyn Wark’ with a

Note on the Thirteenth Book in Early Editions of Vergil.”

Modern Philology 78.3: 215-226.

Thomas, R. 2001. Virgil and the Augustan Reception. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Tudeau-Clayton, M. 1998. “Supplementing the Aeneid in Early Modern

England: Translation, Imitation, Commentary.” International

Journal of the Classical Tradition 4.4: 507-525.

Ziolkowski, J. M. and Putnam, M. C. J. eds. 2008. The Virgilian

Tradition: The First Fifteen Hundred Years. New Haven: Yale University

Press.

On the Aeneid

Edgeworth, R. J. 2005. “The silence of Vergil and the end of the

Aeneid.” Vergilius 51: 3-11.

Farrell, J. and Putnam M. C. J. eds. 2010. A Companion to Vergil’s

Aeneid and Its Tradition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Farrell, J. 2010. “Vergil’s Detractors.” In Farrell, J. and

Putnam M. C. J. eds.435-448.

46

Burke

Mack, S. 1999. “The Birth of War: A Reading of Aeneid 7.” In

Perkell, C. G. ed. Reading Virgil’s Aeneid: An Interpretive Guide.

Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.128-147.

Mynors, R. A. B. 1969. P. Virgili Maronis Opera. Great Britain: Oxonii.

O’Hara, J. 2010. “The Unfinished Aeneid?” In Farrell and Putnam,

eds. 96-106.

Putnam, M. C. J. 2011. The Humanness of Heroes: Studies in the Conclusion of

Virgil's Aeneid. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Miscellaneous

Apostol, R. “From Album Alitem to Black Swan: Horace and Aronofsky on

Poetic Perfection and Death.” In Apostol, R. and Bakogianni,

A. Masks, Echoes, Shadows: Locating Classical Receptions in the Cinema.

Forth coming.

Bourne, E. 1916. “The Messianic Prophecy in Vergil's Fourth

Eclogue.” The Classical Journal 11.7: 390-400.

Gray, R. J. 2007. A Web of Words: The Great Dialogue of Southern Literature.

Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.

Hirsch, E. D. 1967.Validity in Interpretation. New Haven: Yale

University Press.

47

Burke

Liversidge, M. J. H. 1997. “Virgil in art.” In Martindale, C. ed.

The Cambridge Companion to Virgil. New York: Cambridge University

Press. 91-103.

48

Burke

Index locorum

Petrarca, Familiares

XXIV.10, ll.67-71 6

Vegio, De educatione

II.18 7, 28

Vegio, Supplementum

13.16-17 18

13.23 19

13.24-28 20

13.29-30 20

13.32 22

13.36-37 25

13.47 21

13.145 25

13.146 22, 26

13.177-79 26

13.195-96 22

13.261 25

13.268-69 22

13.279 25

13.290 25

13.339-42 21

13.429 21

13.471 25

Virgil, Aeneid

1.294-96 24

2.567-88 19

10.513 19

12.8 24

12.9 23

12.31 23

12.718-19 17

12.946 19

49