CAESI IUVENCI AND PIETAS IMPIA IN VIRGIL

t is commonly remarked about the Georgics that the boundaries

between man and beast are fluid.1 The society of bees, with its

"kings" and "citizens," is obviously meant as some sort of allegory

for human society; the bulls and horses in Book 3 are subject to
all-too-human emotions, such as the desire for glory or grief over
their lost young; and in the other direction, the twin evils of Book
3, amor and the plague, have a chilling tendency to bring men down
to the level of beasts. Against such a backdrop, the slaughtering of
beasts becomes susceptible to moral ambiguity: sacrifice is the
quintessential act of piety toward the gods, but murder is the quintessential act of impiety. I shall argue that Virgil uses slaughtered
bullocks, caesi iuvenci, to symbolize both pietas and impietas. I shall
also suggest that this animal sacrifice is often meant to remind
the reader of human sacrifice-something
occurring not only
throughout the Aeneid, but also in historical accounts of Octavian's
subjugation of Perusia during the Civil Wars.
An examination of caesi iuvenci in the Georgics will illuminate
Virgil's use of verbal ambiguity to create moral ambiguity. The
phrase first appears at the end of Georgics 2, in a reference to the
end of the Golden Age and the passing of the torch from Saturn to
Jupiter (2.536-38):
ante etiam sceptrum Dictaei regis et ante
impia quam caesisgens est epulata iuvencis,
aureus hanc vitam in terris Saturnus agebat.
This instance of caesi iuvenci is anomalous both metrically and
morally; only here does the adjective appear before the principle
caesura, and only here is the context unequivocally
negative.
Commentators compare the passage in Aratus in which men of the
Bronze Race dined on ploughing oxen, a crime leading to the
departure of Dike from the earth (Phaen. 130-34):
YEVE11,
XaXKCEiT1
1npot'epov 6X0o? Epot

v68pEE,

K c6pyov EXaXKECacxvtolyaxatlpav
o~inproTotl

See, e.g., Liebeschuetz (1965), Gale (1991).

TheClassicalJournal91.3 (1996) 277-86

278

JULIAT. DYSON
P
EivOirTv, picco't

Pvo

Eicci'aOVr'
&poppycov,

Ai KEivcovyEvo;av5pdv
cALttE uitaloao AiKTl
EniTxO'
bnoupavit.

It was a popular passage of a (strangely) popular poem, which Cicero

in fearless youth translated into Latin (ND 2.159):
ferrea turnvero proles exorta repente est,
ausaque funestum prima est fabricarierensem,
et gustare manu iunctum domitumque iuvencum.
In the De Natura Deorum, Cicero's Stoic quotes the passage from
Aratus in the context of demonstrating the usefulness of ploughing
oxen: "So valuable was deemed the service that man received from
cattle (bubus) that to eat their flesh was held a crime" (2.159). Varro,
similarly, states that the useful services and companionship provided by the bull (taurus) made it a capital crime to kill one in Attica
(RR 2.5.4).2 Virgil thus draws on a tradition of viewing the eating
of cattle as an act of criminal aggression-and postlapsarian discord
between man and nature-both in myth and in history. Mynors,
commenting on the Georgics lines, remarks, "As an example of
impietas, we could not ask for better."3
Yet Virgil's treatment of the subject in the Georgics differs from
others in an important respect. This difference, though seemingly
small, has given rise to a scholarly controversy that well illustrates
different strategies of reading Virgil. The problem is this. Aratus
specifies that these are ploughing oxen, po&Wv
apotipmyv; Cicero's
translation highlights and elaborates on this fact: manu iunctum
domitumque iuvencum, "the bullock yoked and trained by hand."
All treatments besides Virgil's make clear that the crime consisted
in killing for meat animals that were man's best friend, so to speak.
But Virgil does not specify that these were ploughing animals, or
useful, or companionable-he does not elaborate beyond the simple
adjective caesi. This silence leads Thomas Habinek to argue that
the use of caesi iuvenci with the verb epulor, a word etymologically
derived from the ritual meal following a sacrifice, justifies reading
this passage as a full-blown ritual sacrifice; its performance by a
2 It is difficult to
say how sensitive Virgil and other Roman writers were to the
distinctions between different members of the genus bovillum; iuvencus does seem
to carry connotations of relative youth, and thus to exacerbate the criminality of
the slaughter. See Mynors (1990) on 1.45-46, Krause (1931) 258-64.
3 Mynors (1990) on 2.536.

CAESIIUVENCIAND PIETASIMPIAIN VIRGIL

279

gens impiathus forms a "provocative oxymoron."4RichardThomas

argues strenuously against this view, pointing out that epulor is
often used in non-sacral contexts, whatever its root meaning; that
Aratus' version of the myth (which Habinek does not mention)
would have been the first thought of Virgil's readers, steering them
away from thoughts of sacrifice; and that iuvencus is indeed the
most commonword in the Georgicsforploughingcattle.5WhatThomas
does not mention, however, is that the phrase caesi iuvenci, which
appears 5 other times in Virgil's works, always (with one strange
exception) does in fact designate bullocks that have been sacrificed.
One other Greek hexameter source may also have some bearing on
how to interpret the phrase here: Empedocles specifically notes the
absence of sacrifice from the Golden Age, stating that the "altar
was not drenched by the unspeakable slaughter of bulls, but this
was held among men the greatest defilement-to tear out the life
from noble limbs and eat them."6
Are we justified, then, in seeing the caesiiuvenciof Georgics2 as
sacrificial beasts? Given Virgil's affinity for significant ambiguity,
it seems unsatisfying to say (with Thomas) that the slaughtered
bullocks here simply reflect "Vergil'savoidance of the ratherclumsy
way in which Cicero translated Po'ov... apotilpov."7But it would
also be going too far to say (with Habinek) that Virgil openly refers
to an impious race performing a ritual slaughter. Virgil does not
statesuch things; he leaves the words indeterminate, allowing them
to be colored by their context here and elsewhere in the poem. This
first instance of caesi iuvenci explicitly indicates impiety, and thus
shouldnotbe readas an overtreferenceto "sacrifice."
Butthe anomalous
negative use is nevertheless enough to provide an unsettling echo
when the phrase appears subsequently in contexts of sacral piety.
Theseimpiouslyslaughteredbullocksareparticularlynoteworthy
given the opening of the next book. Virgil's famous description of
the temple he plans to build to Augustus is commonly regarded
(in Joseph Farrell's phrase) as a "very inaccurate adumbration of
the Aeneid."8The passage has been much discussed, and there is
no need here to go into the various argumentsfor and against seeing
4 Habinek (1990) 215.
5 Thomas (1991) 214-15.
6Fr. 128 Diels = 411 Kirk, Raven, and Schofield (1985) 318 (translation by KRS).
Putnam (1979) 162 mentions the Empedoclean fragment (along with the passages
from Varro, Cicero, and Aratus discussed above, and Ovid Met. 15.81).
7Thomas (1991) 215.
8Farrell (1991) 314.

280

JULIAT. DYSON

it as an emblem of the Aeneid. In any event, slaughtered bullocks

appear among the trappings of the temple, as something the poet
in his imagination rejoices to see (Geo.3.21-23):
ipse caput tonsae foliis ornatus olivae
dona feram. iam nunc sollemnis ducere pompas
ad delubra iuvat caesosquevidere iuvencos.
The poet himself, crowned with the olive wreath worn by both
athletic victor and officiant at a sacrifice,9 leads the bullocks to be
sacrificed. Thirty lines after we first meet them in Book 2, caesi iuvenci,
here again with no other adjectives modifying them, appear in a
clearly celebratory religious context.10 As an example of pietas, we
could not ask for better. Virgil does not comment explicitly on these
apparently opposite uses of the same phrase-just as he does not
comment on the discrepancy between his depictions of farmers as
at once the inhabitants of the Golden Age of Saturn and the Iron
Age of Jupiter, or Italy as a paradise without snakes before he lists
all its poisonous snakes, or wine as one of the great boons to mankind before he complains about its dangers."1 The Georgics are like
that. We might even say that such paradoxes are at the heart of
Virgil's meaning.
The final appearance of caesi iuvenci in the Georgics is in that
bizarre and ultimately mysterious episode of the bugonia, in which
the putrifying blood of slaughtered bullocks supposedly gives birth
to bees (4.283-85):
tempus et Arcadii memoranda inventa magistri
pandere, quoque modo caesisiam saepe iuvencis
insincerus apes tulerit cruor.
Though this act has some of the characteristics of sacrifice, it differs
enough from proper Roman ritual to leave the reader wondering
whether it should be considered one. Standard sacrificial procedure
9 Mynors (1990) on 3.21.
10Buchheit (1972) 81 notes that this
repetition of caesi iuvenci is one of several
thematic continuations (or reversals) between the end of Book 2 and the beginning
of Book 3: "in Proomium III gegeniiber Finale II die Thematik entweder gesteigert
oder in umgekehrter, d.h. positiver Wertung aufgenommen ist." Habinek (1990)
215 formulates the paradox clearly: "Two interpretations of ox-slaughter-as impious
crime and as unifying ceremony-are delicately balanced at the very center of the
Georgics."
1 See Ross (1987) 109-128 on the implications of "Laudations and the Lie."

CAESIIUVENCIAND PIETASIMPIAIN VIRGIL

281

required a willing victim, quick cut of the throat, and ritual meal;
the bugonia involves plugging the orifices of the beast as it struggles
(multa reluctanti,4.301), pulverizing its insides without breaking
the skin, and leaving it to rot.12 Then a swarm of bees miraculously
appears, whizzing from the rotten hide like the Parthians' fabled
poisoned arrows (4.299-314). This may be an image of death and
rebirth, but it must be acknowledged that Virgil describes it in
shockingly violent language, starting with the darkly evocative
insinceruscruor,sparingno detail of the bull's sufferingas it suffocates,
and ending with an image of treacheryfrom Rome's worst enemies.
If the bee society of Georgics4 is in fact some sort of allegory for the
Roman state,13 this description of "rebirth"seems dubious at best.
The reader is left suspended between the impious slaughter of
Georgics2 and the pious sacrifice of Georgics3. Could it be that the
bugonia represents on some level the rebirthof Roman society from
the perverse sacrifices of civil war, insinceruscruor?14
Though the phrase caesi iuvenci does not appear again in the
Georgics,two vignettes from the plague at the end of Book 3 show
Virgil probing the boundaries between human and animal sacrifice.
When men attemptto sacrificea plague-riddenanimal,it wilts before
they can complete the ritual; it has been noticed that this animal is
described in terms recalling the sacrifice of Iphigeneia at the
beginning of the DRN. Then a horse dies, then a bull-one who, as
Monica Gale points out, seems to have led an "exemplaryEpicurean
life."15The death of so many cows at this time, Virgil tells us, led to
a shortage of animals to draw Juno's sacred chariot, which meant
that it had to be drawn by ... buffaloes. This is rather an odd twist,
since in the story Virgil is alluding to, as Servius tells us, and as we
hear from Herodotus, the ones who had to draw the chariot were
men (Cleobis and Biton). Why does Virgil give us buffaloes where
we expect men? This substitution of animals for humans, I suggest,
will have important ramifications in the Aeneid.16
The phrase caesi iuvenci occurs three times in the Aeneid. The
firstslaughteredbullocksarevictims in an apparentlyroutinesacrifice
12Though

Habinek(1990)215does readthebugoniaas "anaetionof sacrifice,"the

objections of Thomas (1991) 213 are, I think, sound.
13See, e.g., Griffin(1979)94-111,
Briggs (1980)68-81, Dahlmann (1954)547-62.
14Farrell
(1991)263-64 remarksthat the bee society of Georgics4 "is wiped out
by a disease thematicallyidentical to civil war and then rebornthrough the miracle
of the bugonia." I would emphasize also the bloodiness of the bugonia itself.
IsGale (1991) 422-23.
16 On such substitution in the context of combat and sacrifice (the boxing
match), see Hunter (1989).

282

JULIAT. DYSON

performed by Helenus in Book 3, before he prophesies Aeneas' future (3.369-71). The next set, however, are more ominous. Their
blood causes the unfortunate Nisus to slip near the end of the footrace in Book 5 (5.327-33):17
iamque fere spatio extremo fessique sub ipsam
finem adventabant, levi cum sanguine Nisus
labitur infelix, caesisut forte iuvencis
fusus humum viridisque super madefecerat herbas.
hic iuvenis iam victor ovans vestigia presso
haud tenuit titubata solo, sed pronus in ipso
concidit immundoque fimo sacroque cruore.
This episode contains some interesting echoes from the Georgics
plague: the dying horse, like Nisus, is described as victor, and shares
with him the phrase labitur infelix (3.498-99),18 which occurs nowhere
else in Virgil's works. But more importantly, I would like to explore
the symbolic implications of Nisus' slipping in the blood of the
not dung, as in the parallel scene in
sacrificed animals-blood,
Homer. The change in this detail and the evocative phrase sacer
cruor suggest that Virgil wishes to darken one of Homer's lightest
moments. It has been remarked that the games in Book 5 prefigure
events with tragic consequences later in the poem,19 and our first
glimpse of Nisus and Euryalus in the footrace is no exception. In
Book 5, it is the blood of slaughtered bullocks that causes Nisus'
downfall; in Book 9, it is the blood of slaughtered men. After Nisus'
first kill, Virgil emphasizes that the ground becomes hot and wet
with the slain man's black blood, atro tepefacta cruore / terra torique
madent (9.333-34), as the sacer cruor of the bullocks had wet the
grass, madefecerat herbas. One might expect that blood-soaked
ground would be a common image in the Aeneid, but in fact it occurs
only once more.20 The desire for slaughter mesmerizes Euryalus as
he is carried away by "too much slaughter and greed," nimia caede
atque cupidine (9.354). Yet it is ultimately the two friends themselves
who will be sacrificed. It has been noted that the Georgics plague
borrows language from the Lucretian sacrifice of Iphigeneia;21 Philip
17Hardie (1993) 51-52 observes that "Nisus and Euryalus had been caught up
in sacrificial patterns from their first appearance in the Aeneid," noting the "sacrificial occasion" (funeral offerings for Anchises), the ritual vocabulary describing
Nisus' fall (332-33 pronus ... concidit), and the "blood on the track."
18
Thomas (1988) on 3.498-99.
19See, e.g., Putnam (1965) 64-104.
20In 12.691, immediately before Turnus summons Aeneas to the final combat.
21Gale
(1991) 422.

CAESIIUVENCIAND PIETASIMPIAIN VIRGIL

283

Hardie has shown how this Lucretian theme is "distributed"

throughout Aeneid2, coloring the scenes with Sinon, Laoco6n, and
Iulus' flaming hair;22Page Dubois points out important echoes in
the Dido episode23-and the list goes on. I would add one more
reminiscence, in the opening of the assembly that will send Nisus
and Euryalus on their mission. The leaders are described in the
words (9.226),
ductoresTeucrumprimi,delectaiuventus,
as the Greek leaders about to sacrifice Iphigeneia are described

(DRN1.86),
ductoresDanaumdelecti,primavirorum.
Withthis unmistakableecho,24Virgilseemsto be implyingthatthe
two friendswill experiencea sacrificialdeathsymbolicallyparallel
to thatof Agamemnon'sdaughter.
It would be too muchto discussherethemanyscenesof human
sacrificein the Aeneid.The climacticsacrificeof Turnusis but the
culmination of a theme that has been building throughoutthe
poem.25Virgilcontinuallyprobestheboundariesbetweenmanand
beast, symbolicallysubstitutingone for the other-as Nisus slips
in the blood of sacrificedbullocks,laterto becomeboth a sacrificer
of men anda victimhimself.Slaughteredcattlehavebeenthe image
of bothpietasand impietas-ascivil war,whose horrorspervadeall
of Virgil'sworks,combinesthe pietasof killing one's enemy with
the impietasof killingone'sbrother.
Now let us turn to the final appearanceof caesiiuvenciin the
Aeneid,at the centerof the shieldof Aeneas.Thispatrioticecphrasis
fulfills Virgil'spromisein the proemof Georgics3: the poet/priest
was to build a temple with Augustus in the center,in medio(Geo.
3.16= Aen.8.675),a processionof sacrificialbullocks(Geo.3.22-23,
Aen.8.719),and conqueredpeoples all around(Geo.3.26-33,Aen.
22Hardie(1984)406-412.
23Dubois (1976) 19.
24Noted (but not interpreted) by Hardie (1994) on 9.226.
25 A
few examples are Sinon (me destinatarae,2.129); Priam, killed at his own
altar (altariaad ipsa,2.550); the scapegoat Palinurus (unumpro multis dabiturcaput,
5.815);the 8 youths and the priestHaemonideswhom Aeneas sacrifices(quosimmolet,
10.529; immolat,10.541);and Aulestes, killed by Messapus on an altar (haecmelior
magnisdatavictimadivis, 12.296).See Hardie (1993) 19-56.

284

JULIAT. DYSON

722-28). Augustus is shown on the shield after his triple triumph

of 29 B.C., dedicating not one temple but 300 (8.714-19):
at Caesar, triplici invectus Romana triumpho
moenia, dis Italis votum immortale sacrabat,
maxima ter centum totam delubra per urbem.
laetitia ludisque viae plausuque fremebant;
omnibus in templis matrum chorus, omnibus arae;
ante aras terramcaesistravere iuvenci.
This is a joyous occasion, and the caesi iuvenci here, as in Georgics 3,
are part of the celebration. But as I hope I have shown, slaughtered
bullocks should put us on our guard.26 The "300 temples," each
equipped with altar and sacrificial beast, are poetic fiction rather
than historical fact: in the Res Gestae, written over 30 years after
Virgil's death, Augustus claims to have built 12 temples and restored 82 (RG 19-21). "300" was often used in Latin parlance to
represent "an indefinite large number."27 In reference to Augustus,
it was the number attached to his slaughter of knights and senators
at the altar of Divus Iulius after the capture of Perusia (40 B.C.), one
of the greatest atrocities of his reign.28
This is not to say that the caesi iuvenci on the shield can be neatly
equated with slaughtered citizens. Unlike the iuvenci, the knights
and senators were killed at a single altar, not at 300 separate altars.
The details about the number are also unclear: Dio claims "300
knights and many senators" (innilr TETpaXc6otoa
oXX01ot
Koii oIEUd
order" (trecentos ...
"300
of
each
while
Suetonius
48.14.4),
says
TE,
utriusque ordinis, Aug. 15), which could mean either "300, drawn
26 Putnam (1979) 169, pointing out that slaughtered bullocks were a token of
"moral decline" in Georgics 2, sees their appearance in Georgics 3 as "disquieting";
he also suggests a connection between the proem of Georgics 3 and the shield of
Aeneid 8, noting in particular the echo of caesi iuvenci. However, he finds it "unnecessarily ironic, not to say bitter, to contend that Virgil adopts this strategy to offer
visible proof of the ambiguous posture of Octavian and his associates (though the
Aeneid offers some reason to commend such a view)." I am arguing that Virgil does
employ such a strategy, though I would soften "visible proof" to "subtle suggestion."
27See Fordyce (1977) on 8.716; Gransden (1976) 189-90; Weinstock (1971) 398-99.
28
Suetonius, Aug. 15: Scribunt quidam trecentos ex dediticiis electos utriusque
ordinis ad aram Divo lulio exstructam Idibus Martiis hostiarum more mactatos. Dio,
48.14.4: inti -bv Piog6v Kaoipt pUr.iITpo-rpq xoYthAtavovdtXOvrE4tiriiEtrE
ptrcotot
o
KaOl
OcEur a a tot zE icc b6Kcavvoizto b6Tt ptoo ... 60T1ruacyv.Seneca Clem. 1.11.2
refers to the Perusinae arae as an example of Augustus' brutality. Woodman (1983)
182 notes that Perusia became "a byword for cruelty"; Heinze (1993) 188 associates
the sacrifice by Augustus at Perusia with the sacrifice by Aeneas of 8 youths to the
shade of Pallas. See Weinstock (1971) 398, Brenk (1988) 75.

CAESIIUVENCIAND PIETASIMPIAIN VIRGIL

285

from both orders" (300 total) or "300 from each of the two orders"
(600 total).However we interpretthese sources, "300"is undoubtedly
an exaggeration, numerologically appealing rather than factually
accurate. Nevertheless, the sacrifices and the number 300 emerge
clearly from both accounts; these must have been the elements that
stood out in the popular imagination, and it is these elements that
stand out on the shield of Aeneas. Did the sacrifice of 300 men,
hostiarum more, really take place? Scribunt quidam, says Suetonius.

Whetheror not the incident was historicalfact is probablyirrelevant

as far as Virgil is concerned, for the perception of history, not the
reality, is what matters to the artist.
antearasterramcaesistravereiuvenci.
It is an impressive spondaic line, and only when we get to the end
of it do we hear that it is cattlewho have been sacrificed.
Virgil does not referexplicitlyto the human sacrificecommanded
by Augustus, just as he does not point out to us that he has used
caesi iuvenci to symbolize both pietas and impietas. But the slaugh-

tered bullocks throughout his poems, like Dido in the Underworld,

say much by their silence. It is characteristicof Virgil's art that the
same phrase should convey both harmony and discord, triumph
and murder. Virgil never forgot the suffering of the Civil Wars.
The glorious prophecies of Rome with which the Aeneidalmost ends
do not obliterate its final image, the resentful soul of Aeneas' last
sacrificial victim.29
JULIAT. DYSON
University of Texas at Arlington

WORKSCITED
Brenk, F. E. 1988. "Wind and Waves, Sacrifice and Treachery: Diodorus,
Appian and the Death of Palinurus in Vergil." Aevum 62: 69-80.
Briggs, W. W. 1980. Narrative and Simile from the Georgics in the Aeneid.
Mnemosyne Suppl. 58. Leiden.

Buchheit, Vinzenz. 1972. DerAnspruchdes Dichtersin VergilsGeorgika:

Dichtertumund Heilsweg.Darmstadt.
Dahlmann, H. 1954. "Der Bienenstaat in Vergils Georgica." Akad. der
Wissenschaft Mainz, 547-62.

2An earlier version of this paper was delivered at the 1995 CAMWSAnnual
Meeting. I am grateful to the editor and the referee for their helpful suggestions.

JULIA T. DYSON

286

Dubois, Page. 1976. "The qpapCiaK6of Virgil: Dido as Scapegoat."

Vergilius 22: 14-23.

Farrell,Joseph. 1991. Vergil'sGeorgicsandtheTraditionsofAncientEpic:

TheArt of Allusion in LiteraryHistory.Oxford.
Fordyce, C. J. 1977. P. VergiliMaronisAeneidosLibri VII-VIIIwith a

Commentary. Ed. John D. Christie. Oxford.

Gale, Monica. 1991. "Man and Beast in Lucretius and the Georgics."
CQ 41: 414-26.
Gransden, K. W. 1976. Virgil. Aeneid. Book VIII. Cambridge.
Griffin, J. 1979. "The Fourth Georgic, Virgil, and Rome." In Virgil, ed.
I. McAuslan and P. Walcot (Oxford, 1990), 94-111.
Habinek, Thomas N. 1990. "Sacrifice, Society, and Vergil's Ox-Born

Literature
Bees." In Cabinetof theMuses:Essayson Classicaland Comparative

in Honor of Thomas G. Rosenmeyer, ed. M. Griffith and D. J. Mastronarde.

Atlanta, 209-223.
Hardie, Philip R. 1984. "The Sacrifice of Iphigeneia: An Example of
'Distribution' of a Lucretian Theme in Virgil." CQ 34: 406-412.
.1993. The Epic Successors of Virgil. Cambridge.
.1994. Virgil. Aeneid. Book IX. Cambridge.
Heinze, Richard. 1993. Virgil's Epic Technique. Trans. Hazel and David
Harvey and Fred Robertson. Berkeley-Los Angeles.
Hunter, R. 1989. "Bulls and Boxers in Apollonius and Vergil." CQ 39:
557-61.
Kirk, G. S., J. E. Raven, and M. Schofield. 1983. The Presocratic Philosophers. Cambridge.
Krause, C. 1931. "Hostia." PW Suppl. 5: 236-82.
Liebeschuetz, W. 1965. "Beast and Man in the Third Book of Virgil's

Georgics."G&R12: 64-77.

Mynors, R. A. B. 1990. Virgil's Georgics: A Commentary. Oxford.

Putnam, Michael.1965. ThePoetryof the "Aeneid":FourStudiesin Imaginative Unity and Design.Cambridge, MA

. 1979. Virgil's Poem of the Earth: Studies in the Georgics. Princeton.

Ross, David O. Jr. 1987. Virgil's Elements: Physics and Poetry in

the "Georgics."Princeton.
Thomas, Richard F. 1988. Virgil. Georgics. Vol. 1: Books 1-2. Cambridge.
. 1988. Virgil. Georgics. Vol. 2: Books 3-4. Cambridge.
. 1991. "The 'Sacrifice' at the end of the Georgics, Aristaeus, and
Closure."
CP 86: 211-18.
Vergilian
Weinstock, Stefan. 1971. Divus Julius. Oxford.

Woodman, A. J. 1983. VelleiusPaterculus:TheCaesarianand Augustan

Narrative(2.41-93). Cambridge.