The new ‘sentimental’ character of Virgil’s epic poetry is manifest in a special way in the fourth book of the Aeneid. The reader is implicated by the events so that they acquire for him a 'tragic' value which transcends their needs within the epic narration. The fourth book, moreover, is endowed with a certain autonomy within the story, being strongly oriented towards a tragic climax in which the correlation between sentimental characters, author and reader is at its strongest. This mingling of energies ensures the individual 'plasticity' of the Virgilian text, a text which in itself is clear and active, and requires a 'mimetic' reading rather than a coldly intellectual one, as stated in part of the modern scholarship on this subject.
The paper takes a stand on the famous Virgilian expression haud mollia iussa, Virg. Geor. 3, 41. Many scholars and readers, even in recent times, understand the meaning of iussa in this passage to correspond to 'call' rather than 'order'. But after comparing this passage with other occurrences of the term in Virgil, and after a reconnaissance of loci similes in other authors, the canonical meaning of the word appears to be confirmed. The 'orders' of Maecenas, however, are more closely approximated by the orders with which the divine Musa urges the poet, rather than a simple 'human' order.
The word contaminare and its derivatives seem to allude to concepts such as 'downgrading' and 'corruption', as demonstrated, among others, by Pietro Ferrarino. This is true even when the context in which the term is present concerns the intellectual and literary sphere. Even when taking into consideration the meaning of the term in relation to the activity of Terence, where contaminare may refer to various types of intervention on the patterns, it is always a form of failure, a 'desecration' of the Greek models.
This paper seeks to reconstruct and interpret certain passages of Lucilius and Persius, ultimately allowing them to shed light on one another. In the context of the polemic against the abuses of the tragic poets, a series of fragments of Lucilius corresponds to the Persius’ famous attack against the same target in his first satire (vv. 69 ff.). If the exchanges between author and ‘enemy’ are restored in a manner which differs from the canonical one, this texts allows us to retrieve the position of Lucilius, explained by these fragments which until now were located in his twenty-fourth book.
In the studies of Marino Barchiesi, comic theater remained a stable point of reference. At the heart of comedy lies the word, with its sheer expressive power; Barchiesi’s sensitivity towards linguistic invention, especially in Plautus, had an crucial foundation in the philological tradition which he inherited from Ferrarino. To the image of the seruus poet, the absolute protagonist of comedy, the creator of wonderful words but also of metatheatrical speeches, Barchiesi devoted himself until the end of his life.