you have successfully pieced together the exact literary puzzle! The theme you are describing—the tragic story of the soldier Maevius, who unknowingly commits fratricide during a Roman civil war—does exist, but there was a minor mix-up with the poem numbers and volume formatting. [1]

The correct identifiers and details for this specific text are outlined below:

1. The Correct Poem Identity: Anthologia Latina 462 (Not 131/132)

The poem you are seeking is Anthologia Latina 462, titled "De malo belli civilis" ("On the Evil of Civil War"). It is commonly preserved in the group of epigrams historically attributed to Pseudo-Seneca (the younger Seneca). [1, 2, 3]

Because modern scholarly editions divide the Anthologia Latina into two primary physical volumes (Pars Priorand Pars Posterior), it is often abbreviated as A.L. 2, 462 (Volume 1, Part 2, Poem 462), which is likely where the number "2" in your query originated. [1]

2. Where to Find it in Poetae Latini Minores (P.L.M.)

In older compilations like Johann Christian Wernsdorf's or Emil Baehrens' editions of the Poetae Latini Minores, this exact poem is included under the Epigrammata Superna/Senecae. [1]

3. The Story of Maevius the Fratricide

The poem deals with a devastating narrative trope from the Roman Civil Wars (specifically referencing the Battle of Actium). The Latin text opens directly with the character you named: [1, 2, 3]

"Maevius, a castris miles melioribus, ausus / hostilem saltu praecipitare ratem..." [1]

Translation: "Maevius, a soldier from the better camp, having dared to leap onto an enemy ship..."

The Narrative Arc:

• The Deed: Maevius aggressively boards an enemy ship, fights fiercely, and kills an opposing soldier, feeling proud of his battlefield victory. [1]
• The Revelation: While stripping the enemy's armor and weapons as spoils (exuvias), he peels back the helmet and recognizes the face of his own brother (fraternos vultus videt). [1]
• The Political Affiliation Connection: What was supposed to be a glorious military achievement (virtus) is instantly transformed into an unholy crime (scelus) because the "enemy" was a blood relative fighting for the opposing political faction. [1]
• The Resolution: Devastated by the fratricide, Maevius gives a speech declaring that no excuse can defend killing a brother; the only way to wash away the sin is to use the very same weapon to commit suicide, joining his brother in death. [1]

Would you like me to provide the complete Latin text of A.L. 462 alongside a full line-by-line English translation? [1]

Le risposte dell'AI potrebbero contenere errori. Per una consulenza legale, rivolgiti a un professionista. Scopri di più

what sides were each?

In Anthologia Latina 462, the poet does not explicitly name a historical general (like Julius Caesar, Pompey, Octavian, or Mark Antony). Instead, the poem relies on an intentional poetic abstraction to emphasize the sheer tragedy of Roman civil war. [1, 2]

The two sides are defined purely by moral and physical positioning:

1. Maevius's Side: "The Better Camp" (Castris Melioribus)

The poem opens by explicitly placing Maevius on the side that is morally or politically superior. [1]

• The Latin: "Maevius, a castris miles melioribus..."
• The Meaning: Maevius is fighting for the "better camp". In Roman literature, this phrasing typically hints at the faction the author favors as the lawful or traditionally righteous side (often associated with the Republican forces, or Octavian's forces defending Rome, depending on the poem's dating). [1, 2]

2. The Brother's Side: "The Enemy" (Hostilem)

Maevius’s brother belongs to the opposing faction, which is framed entirely as the enemy until the tragic unmasking. [1]

• The Latin: "...hostilem saltu praecipitare ratem"
• The Meaning: The brother is stationed on the "hostile ship". [1, 2]

The Ultimate Point of the Poem

By withholding concrete historical names, the author creates a sharper paradox. Maevius is a good soldier fighting for a "righteous" political cause (virtus), yet because it is a civil war, his duty forces him to commit an unforgivable family sin (scelus). [1, 2]

The poem argues that in a civil war, there are no truly "right" sides—even fighting for the "better camp" ultimately turns a man into a fratricidal criminal (impius). [1, 2, 3]

If you are trying to match this to a specific historical event taught in your class (like the Battle of Actium or Pharsalia), let me know which specific Roman civil war your syllabus is covering!

but have critics pistulated sides?

No, literary critics generally do not postulate specific historical factions for the brothers. Instead, the consensus among classical scholars is that the poet intentionally leaves the sides anonymous to serve a broader literary and philosophical purpose. [1]

Scholars point to three main reasons why critics view the "sides" as an abstraction rather than a specific historical puzzle:

1. The Rhetorical/Declamatory Tradition

The poem belongs to a genre heavily influenced by Roman declamation (declamatio)—rhetorical exercises practiced by students and elites. Declamations routinely relied on highly dramatic, fictionalized stock scenarios (e.g., "A brave soldier unknowingly kills his brother on the battlefield"). Because these exercises were designed to debate abstract morality, ethics, and emotional delivery, pinning down real-world political parties like the Caesarians or Pompeians undermines the universal lesson of the text. [1]

2. A Trope of Civil War (Bellum Civile)

In Roman literature (especially under the Empire), the image of a soldier killing his brother on a ship or battlefield is a recurring literary archetype used to show the ultimate horror of civil strife. Similar scenes appear in the works of Livy, Tacitus, and Lucan. Critics note that by keeping the factions anonymous, the poem elevates the tragedy from a localized historical event to a timeless critique: in a civil war, the enemy is always yourself.

3. The Irony of "The Better Camp" (Castris Melioribus)

Critics have analyzed the phrase "castris miles melioribus" ("a soldier from the better camp") as a piece of deliberate, tragic irony: [1]

• Maevius believes he is fighting for the "better," more righteous political faction.
• The poet uses this phrasing to show that even if your political cause is completely just, the systemic nature of civil war still forces you to commit an act of absolute impiety (impius). [1]

If your professor or textbook does associate this poem with a specific historical battle, it is almost always used as an illustration of the Battle of Actium (31 BCE, between Octavian and Mark Antony) due to the explicit mention of boarding an enemy ship (hostilem ratem). [1]

Are you analyzing this poem for a specific essay topic, or trying to link it to a particular Roman Emperor's reign? Let me know how you want to frame the analysis!

and people take Naevius as a dummy name?

Yes, absolutely. Scholars and legal historians consider the name "Maevius" to function exactly as a dummy name, placeholder, or stock character within the Roman tradition. [1]

The use of "Maevius" as a dummy name operates across different contexts in Roman culture:

1. The Legal "John Doe" (Titius, Gaius, and Maevius)

In ancient Roman law, particularly in juristic texts like Justinian’s Digest and Gaius's Institutes, legal scholars needed generic placeholder names to write out hypothetical legal problems, contracts, or wills. [1]

• For primary parties, they used Titius or Caius (the Roman equivalents of "John Doe" or "Jane Doe").
• For a secondary or tertiary party—such as an alternate heir or a generic third party—the standard placeholder name used by Roman lawyers was Maevius. [1, 2]

By using "Maevius" in Anthologia Latina 462, the poet evokes a legalistic, generic persona: "Consider a citizen named Maevius..." This signals to the reader that the soldier represents any ordinary Roman citizencaught up in the systemic machine of civil war.

2. The Satirical Stock Character

In Augustan and Imperial poetry, "Maevius" (frequently paired with "Bavius") was also used as a stock literary dummy name for a clumsy, envious, or incompetent person. [1, 2]

• Virgil mocks him in Eclogues 3.90 ("Let him who does not hate Bavius love your songs, Maevius...").
• Horace uses him as a target of absolute scorn in Epode 10, wishing for Maevius to be shipwrecked and drowned. [1, 2, 3]

Why the Dummy Name Matters for this Poem

Because Maevius was universally understood as a placeholder name, using it in a poem about fratricide achieved two specific goals for the author:

• Anonymity and Safety: Writing about the real, historical figures who split families during the Roman Civil Wars (like the actual families torn apart under Julius Caesar or Augustus) was politically dangerous. A dummy name protected the author. [1]
• Universality: If the soldier were named after a real, specific general, the poem would just be a historical footnote. By naming him "Maevius," he becomes an abstract Everyman. The tragedy belongs to the whole of Rome, not just one family. [1]

Are you looking at how this placeholder name functions in declamation exercises, or are you contrasting it with how Virgil and Horace used the same name?