Conjectural Emendations in the Aeneid, 4.436 & 12.423


  • Egil Kraggerud University of Oslo



Vergil, Textual criticism



I: A. 4.436 has caused commentators and interpreters serious worries and have done so for two millennia: (1) Which reading is correct, dederit or dederis? (2) Which varia lectio is preferable, cumulatam or cumulatā? (3) What does morte refer to? (4) What is meant by (veniam) remittere? These issues are constantly seeking some form of unified solution. The 19th century made several attempts at conjectures none of which gained ground. After discussing the best among these at length (Philip Wagner’s 1832 proposal) the time has come to move outside the well-trodden paths and make a new try at a solution. II: Taking his point of departure from an error in Hirtzel’s Vergil edition (OCT 1900) the author advocates a new text at A. 12.423, nullā for nullo, finding the resulting