1. The most important examples are the entries on Virgil by W.S. Teuffel in his article in Pauly's Realencyclopädie [the earliest version] VI (1852) 2644-62, and in his own Geschichte der römischen Literatur I, first published in Leipzig in 1868-9; the fifth edition was revised by L. Schwabe in 1890 and has been frequently reprinted. The basis of his judgements, and his presuppositions, are revealed by statements such as: 'Virgil is not a natural poet, nor is he a folk-poet: he is a literary poet; and he is not a literary genius, merely a talented writer. . . . And most of the shortcomings in his work stem from this fact, that he is a literary poet' (Pauly 2650-1); or, from the first edition of his Geschichte der römischen Literatur (391): 'He is too little of a genius. . . . The extreme conscientiousness of his work cannot compensate for his lack of creative power and imagination and of originality, vividness and vivacity'.

      These judgements reflect the aesthetic theories of the Romantic school, and the authority of a man such as Barthold Georg Niebuhr, whose frequently quoted opinion of Virgil ( Vorträge über römische Geschichte , lectures delivered in Bonn in the winter semester of 1828/9, Isler [ed.] [Berlin, 1848] III 130) is apparent throughout. Before long, the influential Theodor Mommsen, who shared Niebuhr's aversion to Virgil, added the weight of his authority to Teuffel's views (cf. Wilamowitz, 'Theodor Mommsen: warum hat er den vierten Band der Römischen Geschichte nicht geschrieben?', in Kleine Schriften VI [1972] 31). Still more negative judgements by specialists on Virgil's Aeneid were gathered together by H.T. Plüss in Virgil und die epische Kunst (Leipzig, 1884) 1-4, which, despite its scholarly imperfections, must be regarded as a forerunner of Heinze's work.

2. A prime specimen of this type of criticism is W. Kroll, 'Studien über die Komposition der Aeneis', Fleckeisens Jahrbuch Suppl. 27 (1902) 135-69.

3. In his Leipzig inaugural lecture, 'Die gegenwärtigen Aufgaben der römischen Literaturgeschichte' ( Neue Jahrbücher 19 [1907] 161-750), Heinze announced that he intended to pursue research into the literary technique of Roman authors. The significance of this remark was immediately perceived by E. Bickel ( Bursians Jahresbericht 140 [1908] 244-7).

4. However, Heinze says little about Book 6 of the Aeneid , since Eduard Norden's commentary ( P . Vergilius Maro : Aeneis Buch VI [Leipzig 1903]) appeared at approximately the same time.

5. Published posthumously under the title 'Virgil' by A. Körte in R. Heinze, Die augusteische Kultur (Leipzig, 1930; reprinted Darmstadt, 1960) 141-56; the quotations are from pp. 151 and 152.

6. An early example is H.W. Prescott, The Development of Virgil ' s Art (Chicago, 1927; reprinted New York, 1963), in which the first part of the 'epochmaking work of Richard Heinze' appears in a new guise, 'paraphrased, rearranged, condensed and expanded' (Preface viii-ix).

7. In this context, the most important discussions are the Virgilian studies of continue

      F. Klingner, which are strongly influenced by Heinze, especially his article 'Virgil als Bewahrer und Erneuerer', in Das humanistische Gymnasium 42 (1931) 123-36 (see p. 131 for Heinze), and V. Pöschl's influential Die Dichtkunst Virgils (first edn Wiesbaden, 1950; third edn Berlin and New York, 1977; translated into English by Gerda Seligson as The Art of Virgil [Ann Arbor, 1962]).

8. Expressed in the reviews by R. Helm, Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift 15 (1903) 454-60, 489-93; F. Leo, Deutsche Literaturzeitung 10 (1903) 594-6; J. Ziehen, Neue Jahrbücher 13 (1904) 644-52 (a joint review of Heinze and of Norden's commentary on Aeneid VI); G.J. Laing, AJP 26 (1905) 330-42; E. Bickel, loc. cit. (n. 3 above).

9. Unsympathetic and, in some parts, petty criticism is to be found above all in P. Jahn, Bursians Jahresbericht 130 (1906) 61-70, in the reviews mentioned on p. 70 of his article, and in the works discussed in the pages that follow (71-7).

10. F. Leo, loc. cit. (n. 8 above) 596: 'To the best of my knowledge of the secondary literature, this book is the best thing yet written about Virgil. Furthermore, it has general significance in that it is a model of thorough analysis and scholarly appreciation of a great work of literature'.

11. The most important obituaries: A. Körte, 'Worte zum Gedächtnis an Richard Heinze', Berichte der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften , philol .- hist . Klasse 81.2 (1929) 11.30; F. Klingner, 'Richard Heinze

12. F. Leo, loc. cit. (n. 8 above) 595, immediately declared that he was convinced by Heinze on this point, and regarded this 'discovery' as one of the most important conclusions of the book; so too J. Ziehen, loc. cit. (n. 8 above). H.W. Prescott (n. 6 above) 479-80 also accepted Heinze's view, though his interpretation involved certain modifications of it.

13. C.M. Bowra, 'Aeneas and the Stoic ideal', Greece and Rome 3 (1933) 8-21; id. From Vergil to Milton (London, 1945) 58-9.

14. K. Büchner, RE VIII 2 (1958) passim .

15. They were pointed out very cautiously by F. Klingner in his review of Pöschl's book on Virgil (n. 7 above) in Gnomon 24 (1952) 138; cf. K. Büchner, loc. cit. 1337-9, and Brooks Otis, Virgil : a Study in Civilised Poetry (Oxford, 1963) 405. continue

      In this context it is worth mentioning that H. Dahlmann (a pupil of Heinze's) used to say that Heinze had serious doubts about publishing his book, and even considered destroying the manuscript. It was not until Georg Kaibel encouraged him and urged him to publish that he was persuaded to change his mind. Hence the dedication.

16. F. Klingner, loc. cit. (n. 15 above).

17. E.T. Merrill, Class . Jnl . 11 (1915) 511. break