Search

Search Results

• Acrostic shit (Ecl. IV 47-52)

  21–37

  Neil Adkin

  Views:

  135

  The cacata-acrostic (Ecl. IV 47-52) is considered accidental, as being inconsistent with the dignitas of this “Messianic” Eclogue. It is however possible to demonstrate that Virgil employs such acrostics on other occasions with the object of undercutting such political panegyric. The intentionality of this cacata-acrostic is further buttressed by clues in the lines it spans as well as by winks tipped in other parts of the poem. Pointers to this acrostic are also embedded in the foregoing third Eclogue, especially in the section devoted to Pollio, dedicatee of Eclogue IV. Problematic passages in both these Eclogues are elucidated by the presence of the cacataacrostic.

• Quis est nam ludus in undis? (Virgil, Eclogue IX 39-43)

  43–58

  Neil Adkin

  Views:

  79

  The undis-acrostic that has recently been discovered in Eclogue IX 34-38 has proved problematic. The present article argues that the acrostic’s point is the etymology of litus as the place where these “waves” do not “play” (39: ludus), but “strike” (43: feriant for synonymous but exceedingly scarce lidant). This acrostic is accordingly hot-potato politics, since it pertains to the land confiscations round Virgil’s “wave”-begirt Mantua. The poet also provides endorsement in the form of an unidentified onomastic.

• „Read the edge”: Acrostics in Virgil’s Sinon Episode

  45–72

  Neil Adkin

  Views:

  109

  Virgil’s famous Sinon episode at the start of Aeneid II contains four hitherto unidentified acrostics. Examination of these particular instances sheds light on Virgil’s acrostical practice in general.

• Acrostic Conversation: Horace, Ode I 18

  67-100

  Neil Adkin

  Views:

  142

  This article argues that gamma-acrostical disce in Horace’s Ode I 18 (ll. 11–15) alludes to the land-confiscatory acrostics recently identified in Virgil’s Eclogues (I 5–8; VI 14–24; IX 34–38). Horace has carefully signposted his acrostical intent. Virgil himself interfaces with this Horatian cryptography by means of other acrostics of his own. The result is an ‘acrostic conversation’.

• MA VE PU again: Kill Caesar! (Georg. I 424–471)

  73–90

  Neil Adkin

  Views:

  95

  This article deals with the Virgilian onomastic in Georgic I 429-433: some fresh considerations are advanced. In particular this sphragis would seem to endorse an overlooked acrostic: “Kill Caesar!”