of the rhetorical course are probably to be explained in large measure, therefore, by his contact with the teachers of the provinces.  Vergil did not scorn Apollonius because Homer was revered as the supreme master, and though the easy charm of Catullus taught him early to love the “new poetry,” he appreciated none the less the rugged force of Ennius.  Had his early training been received at Rome, where pedant was pitted against pedant, where every teacher was forced by rivalry into a partizan attitude, and all were compelled by material demands to provide a “practical education,” even Vergil’s poetic spirit might have been dulled.

[Footnote 1:  Suetonius, De Gram. 3.]

How long Vergil remained at Milan we are not told; Donatus’ paulo post is a relative term that might mean a few months or a few years.  However, at the age of sixteen Vergil was doubtless ready for the rhetorical course, and it is possible that he went to the great city as early as 54 B.C., the very year of Catullus’ death and of the publication of Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura.  The brief biography of Vergil contained in the Berne MS.—­a document of doubtful value—­mentions Epidius as Vergil’s teacher in rhetoric, and adds that Octavius, the future emperor, was a fellow pupil.  This is by no means unreasonable despite a difference of seven years in the ages of the two pupils.  Vergil coming from the provinces entered rhetoric rather late in years, whereas Octavius must have required the aid of a master of declamation early, since at the age of twelve he prepared to deliver the laudatio funebris at the grave of his grandmother.  Thus the two may have met in Epidius’ lecture room in the year 50 B.C.  Vergil could doubtless have afforded tuition under such a master since he presently engaged the no less distinguished Siro.  We have the independent testimony of Suetonius that Epidius was Octavius’ and Mark Antony’s teacher.

If Antony’s style be a criterion, this new master of Vergil’s was a rhetorician of the elaborate Asianistic style,[2] then still orthodox at Rome.  This school—­except in so far as Cicero had criticized it for going to extremes—­had not yet been effectively challenged by the rising generation of the chaster Atticists.  Hortensius was still alive, and highly revered, and Cicero had recently written his elaborate De Oratore in which, with the apparent calmness of a still unquestioned authority, he laid down the program of the writer of ornate prose who conceived it as his chief duty to heed the claims of art.  While not an out and out Asianist he advocates the claims of the “grand-style,” so pleasing to senatorial audiences, with its well-balanced periods, carefully modulated, nobly phrased, precisely cadenced, and pronounced with dignity.  To be sure, Calvus had already raised the banner of Atticism and had in several biting attacks shown what a simple, frugal and direct style could accomplish; Calidius,