(Leipzig, 1884) 1-4, which, despite its scholarly imperfections, must be regarded as a forerunner of Heinze's work. Still more negative judgements by specialists on Virgil's Wilamowitz, 'Theodor Mommsen: warum hat er den vierten Band der Römischen Geschichte nicht geschrieben?', in Before long, the influential Theodor Mommsen, who shared Niebuhr's aversion to Virgil, added the weight of his authority to Teuffel's views (cf. , lectures delivered in Bonn in the winter semester of 1828/9, Isler III 130) is apparent throughout.

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 ( The extreme conscientiousness of his work cannot compensate for his lack of creative power and imagination and of originality, vividness and vivacity'. 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 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. . . . Schwabe in 1890 and has been frequently reprinted. I, first published in Leipzig in 1868-9 the fifth edition was revised by L. The most important examples are the entries on Virgil by W.S.

Res affectus mores erklrung