mail:
Bill Thayer |
![]() Help |
![]() Up |
![]() Home |
||
|
By B. L. Ullman
The varying fortunes of the literary productions of antiquity are of peculiar interest. Just why some bits have survived while others have perished is often a mystery, though one which can sometimes be solved by the approved methods of philological detectives. Again, among the surviving works some are highly favored, while others no less beautiful, or let us say no more ugly, are neglected and treated like stepchildren. Take as examples two panegyrics in verse form, both anonymous, one that of Messalla, the other of Calpurnius Piso. The former has survived through its inclusion in the collection of Tibullus' poems and is reprinted in every new edition of that writer; the latter has no such intimate connection with an important author and is rarely reprinted.
The panegyric of Piso was first published by Sichard in his edition of Ovid (Basel, 1527). He used as a basis a Lorsch manuscript which has since disappeared. No other complete manuscript is known. The only manuscripts in existence today are a group of florilegia which give, though in places in an adapted form, 196 of the 261 verses.
Sichard tells us that in his manuscript the poem was attributed to Virgil, but since he published it in an edition of Ovid and since the florilegia name its author as Lucan, it has failed to find a permanent home in the works of any of these authors.
As to the author, it is now rather generally agreed that he lived in the first century of our era1 and that the subject of the panegyric is p110 the Calpurnius Piso who was the leader in the conspiracy that brought about his death and that of Seneca and Lucan in the year 65. This date is therefore a terminus ante quem for the poem.
As just stated, the lost Lorsch manuscript attributed the poem to Virgil. It is perhaps likely on a priori grounds that the manuscript contained also the minor works of Virgil. There is evidence as well as likelihood in favor of this suggestion, as we shall now see.
Apparently in the same Lorsch manuscript Sichard found twenty lines of epigrams about Virgil attributed to Ovid.2 While these verses are found in manuscripts of Virgil's major works and in other manuscripts, there is at least one group of manuscripts which contains them (ten lines only) together with some of the poems of the Appendix Vergiliana.3 It might even be fairly inferred from Sichard's words that the Ovidian verses preceded the panegyric.4 He also printed them before that poem. If this inference is correct, it is likely that the Ovidian verses were followed by the minor poems of Virgil (as in the iuvenalis ludi libellus) and these in turn by our poem. Sichard said nothing about the Virgilian poems because they were already known.
The only mediaeval reference to the minor poems of Virgil is in a ninth-century catalogue of the monastery of Murbach:
279. Virgilius Bucolicon. 280. Georgicon. 281. Liber Eneydos. 282. Eiusdem Dire, Culicis, Ethne, Copa, Mecenas, Ciris, Catalepion, Priapeya, Moretum.5
Now Lorsch was not very far from Murbach, and it is safe to assume that copies of most of the works existing in either monastery found their way into the other.6
p111 To sum up at this point: The Lorsch manuscript attributed the poem to Virgil. It also contained certain verses about Virgil. General probability suggests that it also contained the minor poems of Virgil. In a number of existing manuscripts the verses about Virgil are found with the minor poems. The only mediaeval reference to the minor poems is in a catalogue of Murbach, which is not so far away from Lorsch.7
So far we have been dealing only with possibilities in regard to the position of the Laus Pisonis among Virgil's works. What I have been leading up to is to point out the significance of the position and title of our poem in the florilegia. Here we find selections from the Culex and Aetna followed by the Laus Pisonis with the heading "Lucanus in Catalecton" and the title De laude Pisonis, etc.8 The first line under this is one from the Ciris, followed by one from the panegyric. Obviously our poem is here mixed up with the Virgilian Catalepton and Ciris. Thus the florilegia point to association of our poem with the minor works of Virgil in some earlier manuscript and account for the attribution of our panegyric to Virgil in the Lorsch manuscript. The same is indicated by the only mediaeval reference to the panegyric, in a French catalogue of the eleventh century: Liber Catalepton Pisoni.9
There is a further indication of relationship between the florilegia and the Lorsch-Murbach tradition (if we are right in assuming the identity of the traditions at Lorsch and Murbach). The order of the works cited in the florilegia is Culex, Aetna, Ciris, Catalepton (or possibly Catalepton, Ciris). The same order is found in the Murbach catalogue already cited. No existing manuscript of those reported by Ribbeck, Baehrens, and Vollmer has this order except one (Wolfenbüttel, Helmstadt 332).10
p112 It seems, then, that the florilegia are of value in explaining the false attribution to Virgil. Do they help us in the more important question of determining the identity of the author? The attribution to Lucan which they make seems not to have been taken seriously until recently. Miss Martin11 has shown the weakness of the objections to this attribution and has listed a number of verbal similarities between the panegyric and the Pharsalia. Several of these are rather striking: purpura fasces occurs at the end of a line in L. P. 70 and Lucan II.19. Again, the sentence fessa labat mihi pondere cervix (L. P. 75) suggests Lucan IV.754, fessa iacet cervix, and II.204, dubiaque labant cervice.12 It should be added that Miss Martin merely presents the evidence and does not feel justified in deciding the issue.13
To come back to the florilegia, the attribution of our poem to Lucan is due either to correct tradition or to the fact that some reader correctly concluded that the Piso referred to was the conspirator of the year 65 and recalled that Lucan took part in that conspiracy. The former alternative certainly seems more probable, if we grant that the internal evidence does not make the attribution impossible. This evidence will be discussed later in this paper.
Two Paris florilegia (7647, 17903) have been used to support the text based on the Lorsch manuscript. In addition, editors have used the readings of a Codex Atrebatensis reported by Hadrianus Junius in his Animadversorum Libri (1556). This manuscript has been supposed to be lost. Baehrens says of it14 that it mire convenit with the florilegia, and that it was either the Paris manuscript 7647 itself or p113 certainly a copy of it. Miss Martin refutes this,15 and declares that it is quite possible that the lost manuscript contained the entire poem.
It seems not to have occurred to anyone that the "lost" Atrebatensis might still be in existence, much less that it might still be in the town where Junius saw it. Now "Atrebatensis" refers to the northern French town of Arras, and in the library of Arras there is a florilegium (64) of exactly the same type as those in Paris.16 Presumably it has been in that town ever since Junius heard of its presence there 374 years ago! Thus endeth another dispute.
A fourth member of this group of florilegia is in the Escorial (Q.I. 14). This, too, has not been used for the text of the Laus Pisonis.17
A Berlin florilegium (Diez. B. 60, f. 29) contains a few lines. This manuscript is closely related to and probably descended from the Escorial manuscript. Its readings for the panegyric were reported by Peiper in his edition of the Aulularia (Querolus) (1875), page xvi.
Since these florilegia are the only existing manuscripts containing the panegyric, it seems worth while to print a restoration of their archetype, after which I shall discuss pertinent points.18
The running head "Lucanus in Catalecton" is found three times in p, twice in a, once in e (which also has merely "Lucanus" once). There are no running heads in n, and it could therefore be argued that the running head goes no farther back than the common archetype of e p a. We might grant the possibility that the attribution to Lucan goes no farther back than that if it were not for the words in Catalecton. No explanation for this can be found in the florilegia themselves, and therefore the entire running head must go back to the archetype of all the florilegia.
p114
De laude1 Pisonis non tantum genere clari2
Ciris 339 Nichil est quod texitur ordine longum. ¶54 Unde prius cepti surgat mihi carminis ordo Quosve canam titulos6 dubius feror. hinc tua Piso Nobilitas veterisque citant sublimia Calpi7 Nomina Romanas8 inter fulgentia gentes, 5 Hinc9 tua me virtus rapit et miranda per omnes10 Vita modos; que si11 deesset12 tibi13 forte14 creato Nobilitas, eadem pro nobilitate fuisset. Nam quid imaginibus,15 quid avitis fulta triumphis Atria, quid pleni numeroso consule fasti 10 Profuerint16 cui vita labat? perit omnis in illo Nobilitas cuius laus est in origine sola. 17 Felix qui claris18 animum natalibus equas 13 Et partem tituli, non19 summam, ponis20 in illis. 2621tamen22 et23 si bella quierunt24 Non periit virtus;25 licet26 exercere togate Munia27 militie,28 licet et sine sanguinis29 haustu30 Mitia legitimo sub iudice31 bella movere. 30 Hinc quoque servati contingit gloria civis 31 Altaque victrices32 intexunt limina33 palme. De eloquentia eiusdem Pisonis34 37 p115 ¶ Queque patrum claros quondam visura35 triumphos Omnes36 turba vias impleverat agmine denso, 37 Ardua nunc eadem stipat fora cum tua mestos38 40 Defensura reos vocem39 facundia40 mittit. 4441 Laudibus ipsa tuis resonant fora. tu42 45 Iudicis affectum possessaque pectora45 ducis46 Victor. sponte47 sua48 sequitur quocumque vocasti. Flet si flere iubet,49 gaudet gaudere coactus Et te dante capit50 iudex quam non51 habet iram. 52 Sic auriga53 solet ferventia Thessalus54 ora 50 Mobilibus55 frenis in aperto flectere campo Qui modo non solum rapido permittit habenas Quadrupedi56 sed calce citat, modo succutit57 arce58 Flexibiles59 rictus et nunc cervice rotata60 Incipit effusos61 in girum carpere cursus. 55 Quis non attonitus iudex62 tua respicit ora? Quis regit ipse suam nisi per tua63 pondera64 mentem? Nam tu sive libet pariter cum grandine nimbos p116 Densaque vibrata65 iaculari fulmina66 lingua,67 Seu iuvat68 astrictas in nodum cogere voces 60 Et dare subtili vivatia69 verba70 cathene, Vim71 Laerciade,72 brevitatem vincis73 Atride; Dulcia74 seu mavis liquidoque fluentia cursu Verba nec incluso sed aperto pingere flore, Inclita Nestorei cedit75 tibi gratia mellis. 65 Nec te, Piso,76 tamen populo sub iudice sola Mirantur fora sed numerosa laude senatus 67 Excipit et meritas reddit tibi curia voces. 84 Huc77 etiam tota concurrit ab urbe iuventus 85 Auditura virum si quando iudice fesso Turbida prolatis78 tacuerunt iurgia79 rebus. Tunc etenim levibus veluti proludit80 in armis 81 Compositisque suas exercet litibus artes.82 Quin etiam facilis Romano profluit ore 90 Grecia83 Cicropieque84 sonat gravis emulus urbi. 94 Vocibus hinc85 solido fulgore86 micantia verba 95 Implevere locos,87 hinc88 exornata89 figuris Advolat excusso velox sententia torno.90 Diligentius hic incipit enumerare optimos eius mores91 ¶ Magna quidem virtus erat et si sola fuisset Eloquio sanctum modo permulcere senatum Exhonerare92 pios modo, nunc honerare93 nocentes; 100 Sed super ista movet94 plenus gravitate serena p117 Vultus et insigni prestringit imagine visus. Talis inest habitus qualem nec dicere95 mestum Nec fluidum, leta sed tetricitate96 decorum Possumus; ingenite stat nobilitatis97 in illo 105 Pulcher98 honos et digna suis natalibus ora. Additur99 huc et iusta fides et plena pudoris Libertas animusque mala ferrugine purus, Ipsaque possesso mens100 est opulentior auro. Quis tua cultorum, iuvenis facunde,101 tuorum 110 Limina102 pauper adit,103 quem non animosa beatum Excipit et subito iuvat104 indulgentia censu?105 Quam sincerus esset in dilectione amicorum106 ¶107 Quodque magis dono108 fuerit109 pretiosius110 omni,111 Diligit112 ex equo nec te113 fortuna colentum114 Natalesve movent; probitas spectatur in115 illis. 115 Nulla superborum patiuntur116 dicta117 iocorum,118 Nullius subitos119 affert iniuria risus; Unus amicitie summos tenor ambit et imos. Rara120 domus tenuem non aspernatur amicum Raraque non humilem121 calcat fastosa clientem; 120 Illi122 casta licet domus123 et sine crimine constet Vita,124 tamen probitas cum paupertate125 iacebit. p118 Nullus iamJJJ lateriJJJ comitem circumdare queritJJJ Nec quisquam veroJJJ pretiumJJJ largiturJJJ amico 125 Quem regatJJJ ex equo vicibusqueJJJ regaturJJJ ab illo
JJJ Sed miserumJJJ parva stipeJJJ Exercere sales inter convivia possit. Ista procul labes, proculJJJ hec fortuna refugit, Piso,JJJ tuam, venerande, domum, tu mitisJJJ et acri 130 Asperitate carens positoque per omnia fastu Inter etJJJ equales unusJJJ numerarisJJJ amicos Obsequiumque doces et amorem queris amando.
JJJ Quod non vacaretJJJ otioJJJ sed pro loco et tempore honestisJJJ
¶ JJJ Cuncta domus varia cultorumJJJ personat arte, Cuncta movet studium; nec enim tibi dura clientum 135 Turba rudisveJJJ placet misero queJJJ freta laboreJJJ Nil nisi summotoJJJ novit precedereJJJ vulgo; SedJJJ virtus numerosa iuvat. tu pronus in omne Pectora ducis opus seu te graviora vocaruntJJJ Seu leviora iuvant.JJJ nec enim facundiaJJJ semper 140 Adducta cumJJJ fronte placet. nec semper in armis p119 Bellica turba manet nec tota classicus horror Nocte dieque gemit nec semper Gnosius arcu Destinat, exempto sed laxat cornua ferro Et galea miles caput et latus ense resolvit. 145 Ipsa vices natura subit variataque cursus 147 Non semper fluidis adopertus nubibus ether Aurea terrificis obcecat sidera nimbis. Cessat hiems, madidos et siccat vere capillos; 150 Ver fugit estates; estatum terga lacessit 151 Pomifer autumpnus nimbis cessurus et undis. 155 Temporibus servire decet; qui tempora certis Ponderibus pensavit eum si bella vocabunt Miles erit; si pax, positis toga vestiet armis. Hunc fora paccatum, bellantem castra decebunt. Felix illa dies totumque canenda per orbem 160 Que tibi vitales cum primum traderet auras Contulit innumeras intra tua pectora dotes.
Quod interdum gravis, interdum non ridiculose
¶ Mira subest gravitas inter fora, mirus omissa Paulisper gravitate lepos. si carmina forte Nectere ludenti iuvit fluitantia versu, 165 Aonium facilis deducit pagina carmen; Sive chelim digitis et eburno verbere pulsas, Dulcis Apollinea sequitur testudine cantus Et te credibile est Phebo didicisse magistro. p120 Ne pudeat pepulisse liram, cum pace serena 170 Publica securis exultent otia terris, 173 Ipse fidem movisse ferox narratur Achilles. 176 Illo dulce melos Nereius extudit heros Pollice terribilis quo Pelias ibat in hostem. Quam circumspectus animosus et promptus in armis extiterit 178 ¶ Armatos etiam si forte rotare lacertos Inque gradum clausis libuit consistere membris 180 Et vitare simul, simul et raptare petentem, Mobilitate pedum celeres super orbibus orbes et obliquis fugientem cursibus urges Et nunc vivaci scrutaris pectora dextra, 184 Nunc latus adversum necopino percutis ictu. 188 Heret in hec populus spectacula totaque lusus Turba repente suos iam sudabunda relinquid.º 209 Sed prius emenso Titan versetur olimpo 210 Quam mea tot laudes decurrere carmina possint. Felix et longa iuvenis dignissime vita Eximiumque tue gentis decus, accipe nostri Certus et hec veri complectere pignus amoris.
Excusatio auctoris quod minus sufficiat ad exprimendas
214 ¶ Quod si digna tua minus est mea pagina laude, 215 At voluisse sat est; animum, non carmina iacto. p121 Tu modo letus ades; forsan maiora canemus Et vires dabit ipse favor, dabit ipsa feracem Spes animum. dignare tuos aperire Penates; Hoc solum petimus. nec enim me divitis auri 220 Imperiosa fames et habendi seva libido Impulerint sed laudis amor. iuvat, optime, tecum Degere cumque tuis virtutibus omne per evum Carminibus certare meis; sublimior ibo Si fame mihi pandis iter, si detrahis umbram. 225 Abdita quid prodest generosi vena metalli Si cultore caret? quid inerti condita portu, Si ductoris eget, ratis efficit, omnia quamvis Armamenta gerat teretique fluentia malo Possit et excusso demittere vela rudenti? 230 Ipse per Ausonias Eneia carmina gentes Qui sonat, ingenti qui nomine pulsat Olimpum Meoniumque senem Romano provocat ore, Forsitan illius nemoris latuisset in umbra Quod canit et sterili tantum cantasset avena 235 Ignotus populis si Mecenate careret. Qui tamen haut uni patefecit limina vati Nec sua Virgilio permisit nomina soli. Mecenas tragico quatientem pulpita gestu Evexit Varum, Mecenas alta toantisº 240 Eruit et populis ostendit nomina Grais. p122 Carmina Romanis etiam resonantia cordis Ausoniamque chelim gracilis patefecit Horatii. O decus et toto merito venerabilis evo Pierii tutela chori, quo preside tuti 245 Non unquam vates inopi timuere senecte. Quantum anhelet Pisonis attollere laudes hic iterum aperit 246 ¶ Quod siquis nostris precibus locus et mea vota Si mentem subiere tuam, memorabilis olim Tu mihi Maecenas tereti cantabere versu. Possumus eterne nomen committere fame 250 Si tamen hoc ulli de se promittere fas est Et deus ultor abest. superest animosa voluntas Ipsaque nescio quid mens excellentius audet. Tu nanti protende manum, tu, Piso, latentem Exere. nos humilis domus et sincera parentum 255 Sed tenuis fortuna sua caligine celat. Possumus impositis caput exonerare tenebris Et lucem spectare novam si quid modo letus Annuis et nostris subscribis, candide, votis. Est mihi crede meis animus constantior annis, 260 Quamvis nunc iuvenile decus mihi pingere malas 261 Ceperit et nondum vicesima venerit etas. 77 ¶ Sed nec olorinos audet Pandionis ales Parva referre sonos nec, si velit improba possit; Et Pandionia superantur voce cicade, 80 Stridula cum rapido faciunt convitia soli. |
p123 It was shown in the previous article that p and a had a common ancestor, that this ancestor and e were descended from the same original, and that the common ancestor of e p a was a sister or cousin of n. Thus the testimony of n is worth as much as that of the other three manuscripts together. A number of instances were quoted from the Laus Pisonis in substantiation of this view. Others may be found in the apparatus. Three apparent exceptions in addition to those previously given are the following:
The first two examples are hardly significant in view of the difficulty of deciding whether p has hinc or huic in the first passage. In the second passage I have given the reading of p as huic, but the difficulty of distinguishing u and n in this manuscript makes this doubtful. The same situation holds in the third example.
In 158, n alone has the right reading decebunt; S e p a have docebunt. This is probably an example of independent error on the part of S and the archetype of e p a, though it might be argued that n (or its parent) corrected docebunt to decebunt.19
In 166, S n correctly have verbere; e p a have vulnere. But e started to write verbere (he got as far as ub or ub'). This shows that in the archetype of e p a vulnere was introduced as a variant.
In 215, S has carmine as a variant. This is the reading of n in the text, corrected to carmina in the margin. This apparently means that the common archetype of S and the florilegia had the wrong carmine, which was then corrected in the archetype of e p a and independently by Sichard in his edition.
I have suggested that b is descended from e. In 125 e and b wrongly have rogat and rogatur, where the others have regat and regatur. In 123, e corrects Qui to Quem (the reading of n p a) in such a way that it could easily be taken for Quam (the reading of b). On the other hand, in 131, b has the right reading numeraris with n p a against numerabis in e. This might of course be one of the numerous corrections and changes introduced into the b tradition.
p124 The rediscovery of a naturally settles some questions about Junius' edition. For example, Wölfflin20 suggests that certain readings are Junius' own emendations. Some of these are now found in a (and in some of the other florilegia): 47 iubes (as corrected in a), 113 clientum, 126 munerat (a2), 221 Impulerit, 237 nomina. Of these munerat is given by an early hand only in a.21
Scaliger, as has been shown,22 had a florilegium similar to n e p a but not identical with any of them. In his Publii Virgilii Maronis Appendix (1572) Scaliger says of the Laus Pisonis:
Hanc Lucani Eclogam esse, fidem fecerit et scheda calamo exarata, in qua ita scriptum inveni: Lucani Catalecton De Laude Pisonis.
If his report is entirely accurate, his manuscript incorporated the running head with the title in a manner not found in any of our manuscripts. The closest resemblance is to e and b.23 Scaliger says further:
Videtur autem initium huic poematio deesse. Nam ita in manu scripto incipit.
Nihil est, quod texas ordine, longum. |
The reading texas for texitur was probably not found in Scaliger's manuscript.24 The rest of the line agrees with the florilegia. Scaliger's further remark is rather naïve: Not recognizing that the line is quoted at the beginning of the Laus Pisonis through a confusion, he suggests that it must have been a proverbial expression, as it is also found in the Ciris.25
A terminus post quem for the late hand which entered numerous readings in the margin of p is furnished by the reading in 238, which p125 refers to an edition printed by Colinaeus at Paris. Three editions (of Ovid) were issued by this printer in 1529, 1541, 1545. Unfortunately they seem to be very rare, for Weber could find no trace of them anywhere. Without a report of their readings it is possible to say only that the hand in p must be later than 1529. According to Weber, Brunet reports that the three Lyons editions (1540, 1550, 1555) were based on the Paris edition of 1529. If this is true, we may assume that some of the late readings in the margin of p which agree with one of the Lyons editions go back to the Paris edition of 1529 (or one of the later Paris reprints). Among them are: 52 torquet in auras, 113 Diligis, 182 Flectis, 213 hoc, 79 Sic et Aedonia. There are some indications that the late hand in p had access to Junius' edition of 1556. The readings quoque (44) and munerat (126) probably appeared in print for the first time in the 1556 edition. Junius found them in a. A late hand added quoque to n also. This hand therefore is to be dated after 1556.
The late hand in p mentions also an edition of Horace published by Colinaeus (see on 239). His editions are dated 1528, 1531, 1533, etc. A comparison of these (none of which is accessible to me) with the note on 239 might furnish a later terminus post quem.
In 120 the late hand in p added the word mens. Baehrens says that from there it found its way into the editions. It is more likely that the annotator of p got it from a printed edition, since he explicitly tells us that he got caestu (238) from one. The earliest occurrence of mens in the editions whose readings have been reported is in the one printed in Basel in 1534. Again we do not know about the Paris editions.
As to the further history of the tradition of the panegyric, little remains to be said. Vincent of Beauvais does not quote from it, apparently. We have already seen26 that Guglielmo da Pastrengo, living at Verona in the fourteenth century, must have obtained his knowledge of the panegyric from a florilegium. Only one other possible reference to the panegyric (and that only by inference) is known to me. Sabbadini27 calls attention to a Liber Lucani maioris listed in a Pavia inventory of the fifteenth century.28 This, he thinks, indicates p126 that a minor work attributed to Lucan was known, and this could only be the Laus Pisonis. In the same way the Metamorphoses of Ovid are often referred to us as Ovidius maior. A further suggestion may be made. Many of the books in the Pavia library came from Verona, where there was a florilegium containing the panegyric. Possibly, therefore, the expression "Lucanus maior" originated in Verona as a result of acquaintance with the florilegium containing the Laus Pisonis and was entered in a copy of the Pharsalia.
I shall now discuss the text of several passages in the light of facts now available from the florilegia.
The last two editors have gone astray on this passage, it seems to me. The reading of a2 was adopted by Junius and after him by other editors. This is the reading which Miss Martin accepts for her text, though she admits its difficulty. While quoque was introduced into a by a relatively early hand, it clearly is a pure guess (and a poor one at that) to make the line metrical. Baehrens furnishes an emendation of his own which has no merit. The best suggestion thus far made is that of Unger, tu rapis omnem, though an emendation preserving the name Piso, found in both S and the florilegia, would seem preferable.
Baehrens follows S; Miss Martin, the florilegia. The latter seems to furnish better guidance. To be sure, S should generally be given preference, especially when there is such a radical difference of reading between the two verbs, for in the florilegia there are often violent changes. But ducis goes better with rapis and possessa and keeps up the military comparison in a better way.29 Victor is preferable to Victus because it at once explains ducis and because it is more complimentary to Piso.
Baehrens and Miss Martin adopt iubes. But the agreement of S and n a clearly point to lubet as the reading of the common archetype.30 p127 This would require that eum as well as tibi be supplied in thought. Such a construction is perhaps unparalleled and too harsh to be tolerated. Yet there is no possibility of ambiguity — the final test in a matter of this sort. A comparison to Lucan is not out of place (V.371):
Nil magis adsuetas sceleri quam perdere mentes Atque perire timet. |
Weise interprets mentes as the object of perdere and the subject of perire. Haskins translates Weise's rendering thus:
There is nothing that he [Caesar] dreads more than to lose hearts inured to guilt, and that they should be wasted.
Haskins objects that this is too harsh, and takes Caesar as subject of both infinitives, translating atque perire as "and so be ruined." But Weise's interpretation is more natural. There are other instances of awkwardness of the same general sort in Lucan.31
There are many examples in Latin similar to these from Lucan and the panegyric. In Horace Serm. I.9.62‑63 we read:
"Unde venis et "Quo tendis?" rogat et respondet. |
This means "he asks [and I ask] and he answers [and I answer]," etc. A still better case is ibid. II.3.192:
Ergo consulere et mox respondere licebit? |
Some editors point out that licebit is properly used only with consulere, and that with respondere there should be tibi libebit. Others interpret without change of subject, in which case the line may be interpreted like I.9.62‑63. By the former interpretation the sentence is somewhat similar to the line of the panegyric under discussion.
Baehrens changed to rabido, as he often did elsewhere as a result of a favorite and overworked fad of his. This reading is not only unnecessary here but distinctly inferior.
Although n does not have arte, as reported by Roth, this is still the best reading. In fact, the agreement of all the florilegia in the senseless reading arce is a better guaranty of the genuineness of arte p128 than the reading arte would have been, for its shows that the maker of the florilegium had arce before him, that therefore arte is not due to his emendation but rather goes back to an earlier stage.
Palaeographically there is a great deal to be said for Illic. The reading Illa may be due to familiarity with a form of a shaped like ic. But, on the whole, Illi is to be preferred; Illic is to be explained as due to the initial letter of the following word, and Illa as due to the last letter of that word.
The reading usually adopted here is mens. Baehrens emended to licet. There is no genuine manuscript authority for either. The former was apparently the invention of the first editor to print it (Weber reports that it occurs first in the Basel edition of 1534). From one of these editions a late hand introduced it into the margin of p. We are confronted with a choice between a thirteenth-century manuscript reading (domus) and the pure guesses of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century scholars. The choice should not be difficult. Baehrens and Miss Martin call domus an evident interpolation; I must confess that it is not evident to me (cf. 254). It may have been evident to Baehrens because he had one of his overingenious emendations to suggest.
Baehrens and Miss Martin choose nec, but non is preferable not only because, other things being equal, S should be followed but also because it is more apt. The author has just said that there is a lighter side to eloquence as well as a more serious side.32 He then compares eloquence with military life, showing that the soldier does not fight every moment. It is much more appropriate to begin with non rather than nec. To be sure, S wrongly has non for nec in 142, but this is no argument against it in 140. It is even possible to interpret the reading of n e p a so as to favor non. They all have nec, it is true, but earlier in the line e p a have non for cum. This might be explained in this way: The common archetype had non, like S. Someone put nec in p129 the margin, to make complete rhetorical correlation with nec in 141 and 142. In the next copying nec went into the text and non into the margin. The archetype of e p a thought that non was a variant for cum instead of nec and put it into the text in place of cum.
It is not necessary to resort to emendation here. Either of the manuscript readings is possible.
Miss Martin is right in preferring nimbis to nivibus, the conjecture adopted by Baehrens. She points out that this completes the cycle better. This is especially true since the passage is an obvious imitation of Horace Carm. IV.7.9‑12, in which prominence is given to the thought of the completion of the seasonal cycle and in which the last words are bruma recurrit iners.
Reference to the apparatus makes clear that there is no longer any manuscript support for Ne, adopted by Baehrens. By his decision here he is forced in 171 also to adopt Ne for Nec, the reading of S.
In 229 Miss Martin's defense of the reading et of all the manuscripts and demittere of the florilegia is particularly to be commended.
Nec sua Vergilio permisit carmina soli:
Maecenas tragico quatientem pulpita gestu Erexit Varium, Maecenas alta tonantis Eruit et populis ostendit carmina Graiis, Carmina Romanis etiam resonantia chordis, Ausoniamque chelyn gracilis patefecit Horati. |
To the many interpretations of this vexed passage I venture to add a partially new one. The text is essentially that of the manuscripts except for the substitution of carmina for nomina in 237 and 240.33 The chief difficulty in the text of the passage is at these points, according to most of the scholars who have worked on the passage. The reading carmina is not new with me: Lachmann suggested it for 237, and p130 Unger for 240. It seems not unlikely that the wrong nomina should be corrected to the same word in both places.34
I take tonantis to be accusative plural and interpret as follows:
Maecenas brought out of obscurity and revealed to the public those who thundered forth in a sublime style Greek songs and Latin songs as well.
If this interpretation is correct, it throws an interesting light on Horace's tenth satire. The contrast of alta tonantis and gracilis is particularly significant, as is mention of Greek poems.35
S and the florilegia agree in the reading of lines 254‑55, but editors have been unable to interpret them satisfactorily. We have to choose between emending nos to non, or et and Sed to at and Et, respectively. The former seems simpler but makes an awkward sentence. Furthermore, it is inconsistent with the implication in lines 118‑20. There the author attacks the attitude of certain patrons; he obviously implies that, like the clients there mentioned, he is poor and of humble station. One should note the repetition of words and ideas in the later passage: tenuem = tenuis, humilem = humilis, casta domus = domus at sincera.
The reading nos need not interfere with the identification of Lucan as the author of the panegyric. Both rank and wealth are relative matters. Though Lucan was wealthy at the time of his death, he was not necessarily so in his own eyes at the time the panegyric was written. It is significant that Lucan's father decided to build up his fortune rather than go through the senatorial cursus honorum.36 Compared with the immensely wealthy Piso,37 Lucan was poor. Similarly with respect to rank: Lucan's father was a provincial eques, in no way comparable to the extremely aristocratic Roman noble Piso.38 The p131 author of the panegyric, in seeking the patronage of Piso, would naturally minimize his own financial and social status.
The attribution of the panegyric to Lucan has been attacked because the poem is not mentioned in the relatively long list of Lucan's works which are found in the biography of Lucan by Vacca and in a poem by Statius. But Statius' list is far from complete, and Vacca's list does not contain the book addressed by Lucan to his wife Polla, which is mentioned by Statius. Vacca begins his list with the words extant eius complures et alii, which show that the list is not intended to be complete.
Another objection has been raised to accepting the view that Lucan wrote the panegyric: its difference in style from the Pharsalia. But recent controversies about other works of literature leave one skeptical about the validity of our methods for determining the significance of such differences. The striking parallelisms of language which have been pointed out are sufficient at least to counterbalance the differences.
Chronology too suggests that Lucan is the author of the panegyric. It has been shown that it was written between 48 and 59 A.D.39 These limits can, I think, be narrowed. Piso became one of the fratres Arvales in 38 and was present at meetings in Rome in 38, 40, in an unknown year between 43 and 48, and in 57 and thereafter.40 He was banished probably in 40 (he is not mentioned as being in Rome in 41 or 42). After his recall and consulship he went to Dalmatia as propraetor, presumably between 48 and 57, when he is not listed among those present in the acts of the Arval brothers. It was during this period (i.e., after his consulship, according to the scholia on Juvenal) that he inherited his wealth. Obviously he was back in Rome when the panegyric was written. We know that he was back in 57; he probably was away part of the time between 48 and 457. Therefore it is p132 more likely that the panegyric was written after 57 than before. We have seen it was written in or before 59.
Lucan was born November 3, 39 A.D. The author of the panegyric says that he is not yet twenty years old (261). If the author was Lucan, the panegyric was written between November 3, 58 and November 3, 59. This fits in so well with the date just arrived at (57‑59) that one is almost forced to accept Lucan as the author. Let it not be forgotten that the manuscript tradition of the poem also favors this authorship.
The conclusion that Lucan probably was the author of our little poem may surprise the reader. It surprised the writer. Not until the very end did the bits of evidence shape themselves in such a way as to make the picture clear. Even the possibility of any such conclusion seemed to be shut out once and for all when the decision was reached that in verse 254 the proper reading was such as to indicate that the author of the poem was of humble parentage. Certain it is that the generally accepted view that Calpurnius Siculus was the author of our poem has much less to support it than the one here presented.
University of Chicago
1 In cruri [i.e., Ciri] de laude, etc. n.
❦
2 dari n a corr. n2 a2.
❦
3 in fine Lucanus e in principio b.
❦
4 1‑4 om. b.
❦
5 1 ¶ om. n p a.
❦
6 vitulos n corr. n1.
❦
7 calp‑ e.
❦
8 romanzzzs et i. m. a n2.
❦
9 Hic n.
❦
10 ¶ Tua est miranda per omnes b.
❦
11 si om. p.
❦
12 deēt (= deesset) n a deest p.
❦
13 ubi p.
❦
14 fronte n.
❦
15 ymaginibus b.
❦
16 ex Profuerunt corr. b.
❦
17 ¶ b.
❦
18 claris] i. m. tantis pr.
❦
19 ponaaa ante summam statim del. b.
❦
20 ponit n i.m.d. s n2?.
❦
21 26‑38 om. b.
❦
22 Tamen n e.
❦
23 et non om. n, ut Baehrens dicit.
❦
24 querunt e qui(ui)erunt a.
❦
25 virtus om. p.
❦
26 lecet a corr. a1.
❦
27 i. m. Munera pr.
❦
28 milicie a.
❦
29 sanguine p corr. p2?.
❦
30 hastu e a hustu p corr. e2? p1? a2.
❦
31 indice p a cor. a1.
❦
32 vitrices e.
❦
33 lumina e.
❦
34 p(er)sonis a p(er)sonzzz a2.
❦
35 ex visus statim corr. p1.
❦
36 Omnes] i. m. olim pr.
❦
37 ¶ Cum incipit b. — i. m. hic commendat Pisonem de eloquentia b.
❦
38 cum tua mestos i. r. p1 — messos n.
❦
39 Defensura reos vo i. r. p1 (scribere coepit Iudicis affectum [vid. vs. 45]).
❦
40 facondia p.
❦
41 41‑45 om. b.
❦
42 fora ex tu statim corr. n.
❦
43 in sp. rel. quoque a2 (man. vetus) pr i. m. nr.
❦
44 mso a piso a1>.
❦
45 pector p a pectora p2 a2.
❦
46 ducis i. r. p (non erat tentas).
❦
47 Iudex sponte b.
❦
48 tua n.
❦
49 iubet n a iubes e p a1 b.
❦
50 iram ante iudex del. et exp. b.
❦
51 non om. b.
❦
52 49‑111 om. b.
❦
53 ariga e corr. e1.
❦
54 thesalus e. — ras. post Thessalus (erat h?) p.
❦
55 Nobilibus n.
❦
56 Qudrupedi p.
❦
57 succedit a subripit a2.
❦
58 arce n (non arte) i. m. torquet in auras pr.
❦
59 Alexibiles et i. m. d. f n2?.
❦
60 rzzztata p2 i. m. o pr.
❦
61 effussos (u i. r.) e efusos p et fusos a.
❦
62 index n corr. n?.
❦
63 per zzztua exp. a1.
❦
64 ponderzzz et i. m. a n2.
❦
65 vibrati n.
❦
66 fulmine n.
❦
67 lingua] dextra e p a (non n, ut Baetica dicit) i. m. lingua pr.
❦
68 vivat e.
❦
69 vivati e vivatia e1 vivati (?) a vivacia a2.
❦
70 ūmba n.
❦
71 Vir e Vīzzz e1.
❦
72 laertiade p.
❦
73 vincit epa corr. a2 i. m. (vin)cis pr.
❦
74 Dultia e.
❦
75 decidit n.
❦
76 ipso p corr. p2.
❦
77 Hūc n.
❦
78 i. m. res prolatae pr.
❦
79 iurgia ex ur statim corr. p.
❦
80 zzzludit n corr. n1.
❦
81 i. m. dzzz (= deficit) n2.
❦
82 letibus arces n.
❦
83 Gretia n e.
❦
84 cicropeique n cicropéêque et i. m. ijs n2.
❦
85 hinc a hīc (non huic) n hinc vel huic p huic e.
❦
86 fulore e.
❦
87 locos a iocos a?.
❦
88 hinc a hic n huic e p.
❦
89 exhornata p.
❦
90 torvo e p.
❦
91 mores eius e.
❦
92 Exonerare n.
❦
93 honorare n honerare n1?.
❦
94 monet n movet n?.
❦
95 ducere n.
❦
96 tetrititate e
❦
97 stabilitatis p i. m. stat nobilitatis pr.
❦
98 Pulcer p
❦
99 Aditur e.
❦
100 mens (vel meus) ex p statim corr. a1.
❦
101 faconde p fatunde (e i. r.) e.
❦
102 Lumina e.
❦
103 ad id e adid p adizzz p2.
❦
104 vivat e.
❦
105 incertum est utrum e censu an sensus habeat. — i. m. (cen)sus pr.
❦
106 om. b.
❦
107 ¶ om. p.
❦
108 dono magis p lineolis // corr. et magis supra dono scripsit p1? magis eras. et litteras b a sscr. e1.
❦
109 fauit (?) p fzzzint (= fuerit) p2 fuerat b.
❦
110 preciosius e p a b.
❦
111 omni sscr. e1.
❦
112 Diligis e2? a2 i. m. pr.
❦
113 te] eum b.
❦
114 clientum e p a b.
❦
115 in] et b.
❦
116 paciuntur e spatiuntur b.
❦
117 verba b.
❦
118 i. m. . . . . cum in vana gloria . . . . Ind(e) letaris (?) d(e) i(n) Iuuenalis (?) er.
❦
119 Nullusubitos e corr. e1.
❦
120 sublimis supra Rara scripsit er.
❦
121 humilem ex n statim corr. a1.
❦
122 Illa e p a b Illi n e2? a2?
❦
123 i. m. Illic casta licet mens pr. — domus licet b.
❦
124 victa b.
❦
125 papertate n.
❦
126 tam epa eum b.
❦
127 Sed lateri nullus pr. — laczzzi (= laceri; cf. latzzzi = lateri e) b.
❦
128 querit (non querat, ut Baetica scripsit) n e p a b.
❦
129 Quem ex Qui corr. e quam b.
❦
130 pus p purus p2.
❦
131 Sed quem tulit impia merces i. m. add. pr.
❦
132 vere n.
❦
133 precium e p a b.
❦
134 largiter b.
❦
135 rogat e b.
❦
136 vitibusque e.
❦
137 rogatur e b.
❦
138 126‑128 om. b (ordo est: 125, 255, 129, etc.).
❦
139 mirum a miserum a2.
❦
140 stirpe p.
❦
141 in spatio relicto munerat a2pr.
❦
142 i. m. dzzz (= deficit) n2.
❦
143 alterum procul om. p.
❦
144 Piso] ¶ Laudo b.
❦
145 mittis b.
❦
146 ut i. m. pr.
❦
147 imus p.
❦
148 numerabis e.
❦
149 133‑214 om. b.
❦
150 vocaret e corr. e2.
❦
151 ocio pa.
❦
152 hnestis p.
❦
153 exercitus n.
❦
154 cum suis] zzzfinis (= cum vel confinis) n.
❦
155 i. m. latus percutere Ter. Horat. latus foedere pr (vid. vs. 144).
❦
156 cunctorum p i. m. Cultorum ut supra [vs. 109] Quis tua cultorum etc. pr.
❦
157 ruitve e p a i. m. rudis pr.
❦
158 zzz (= qui) n.
❦
159 laborē e p a i. m. (labo)re pr.
❦
160 summato e.
❦
161 ex precer statim corr. p1.
❦
162 Si n.
❦
163 vocarzzz (= vocarunt) epa vocarent n.
❦
164 vivant e.
❦
165 fatundia e facondia p.
❦
166 cum] zzz (= non) e p nō a i. m. cum pr.
❦
167 ¬crassicus¬ a corr. µa2µ.
❦
168 ¬gemit¬] ¬simul… n.
❦
169 ex ¬artu¬ corr. a.
❦
170 ¬Ddestinat¬ n.
❦
171 ¬exemto¬ µp aµ (non n).
❦
172 …ferro¬] i. m. ¬nervo¬ mprµ.
❦
173 zzzz
❦
174 zzzz
❦
175 zzzz
❦
176 zzzz
❦
177 zzzz
❦
178 zzzz
❦
179 zzzz
❦
180 zzzz
❦
181 zzzz
❦
182 zzzz
❦
183 zzzz
❦
184 zzzz
❦
185 zzzz
❦
186 zzzz
❦
187 zzzz
❦
188 zzzz
❦
189 zzzz
❦
190 zzzz
❦
191 zzzz
❦
192 zzzz
❦
193 zzzz
❦
194 zzzz
❦
195 zzzz
❦
196 zzzz
❦
197 zzzz
❦
198 zzzz
❦
199 zzzz
❦
200 zzzz
❦
201 zzzz
❦
202 zzzz
❦
203 zzzz
❦
204 zzzz
❦
205 zzzz
❦
206 zzzz
❦
207 zzzz
❦
208 zzzz
❦
209 zzzz
❦
210 zzzz
❦
211 zzzz
❦
212 zzzz
❦
213 zzzz
❦
214 zzzz
❦
215 zzzz
❦
216 zzzz
❦
217 zzzz
❦
218 zzzz
❦
219 zzzz
❦
220 zzzz
❦
221 zzzz
❦
222 zzzz
❦
223 zzzz
❦
224 zzzz
❦
225 zzzz
❦
226 zzzz
❦
227 zzzz
❦
228 zzzz
❦
229 zzzz
❦
230 zzzz
❦
231 zzzz
❦
232 zzzz
❦
233 zzzz
❦
234 zzzz
❦
235 zzzz
❦
236 zzzz
❦
237 zzzz
❦
238 zzzz
❦
239 zzzz
❦
240 zzzz
❦
241 zzzz
❦
242 zzzz
❦
243 zzzz
❦
244 zzzz
❦
245 zzzz
❦
246 zzzz
❦
247 zzzz
❦
248 zzzz
❦
249 zzzz
❦
250 zzzz
❦
251 zzzz
❦
252 zzzz
❦
253 zzzz
❦
254 zzzz
❦
255 zzzz
❦
256 zzzz
❦
257 zzzz
❦
258 zzzz
❦
259 zzzz
❦
260 zzzz
❦
261 zzzz
❦
262 zzzz
❦
263 zzzz
❦
264 zzzz
❦
265 zzzz
❦
266 zzzz
❦
267 zzzz
❦
268 zzzz
❦
269 zzzz
❦
270 zzzz
❦
271 zzzz
❦
272 zzzz
❦
273 zzzz
❦
274 zzzz
❦
275 zzzz
❦
276 zzzz
❦
277 zzzz
❦
278 zzzz
❦
279 zzzz
❦
280 zzzz
❦
281 zzzz
❦
282 zzzz
❦
283 zzzz
❦
284 zzzz
❦
285 zzzz
❦
286 zzzz
❦
287 zzzz
❦
288 zzzz
❦
289 zzzz
❦
290 zzzz
❦
291 zzzz
❦
292 zzzz
❦
293 zzzz
❦
294 zzzz
❦
295 zzzz
❦
296 zzzz
❦
297 zzzz
❦
298 zzzz
❦
299 zzzz
❦
300 zzzz
❦
301 zzzz
❦
302 zzzz
❦
303 zzzz
❦
304 zzzz
❦
305 zzzz
❦
306 zzzz
❦
307 zzzz
❦
308 zzzz
❦
309 zzzz
❦
310 zzzz
❦
311 zzzz
❦
312 zzzz
❦
313 zzzz
❦
314 zzzz
❦
315 zzzz
❦
316 zzzz
❦
317 zzzz
❦
318 zzzz
❦
319 zzzz
❦
320 zzzz
❦
321 zzzz
❦
322 zzzz
❦
323 zzzz
❦
324 zzzz
❦
325 zzzz
❦
326 zzzz
❦
327 zzzz
❦
328 zzzz
❦
329 zzzz
❦
330 zzzz
❦
331 zzzz
❦
332 zzzz
❦
333 zzzz
❦
334 zzzz
❦
335 zzzz
❦
336 zzzz
❦
337 zzzz
❦
338 zzzz
❦
339 zzzz
❦
340 zzzz
❦
341 zzzz
❦
342 zzzz
❦
343 zzzz
❦
344 zzzz
❦
345 zzzz
❦
346 zzzz
❦
347 zzzz
❦
348 zzzz
❦
349 zzzz
❦
350 zzzz
❦
351 zzzz
❦
352 zzzz
❦
353 zzzz
❦
354 zzzz
❦
355 zzzz
❦
356 zzzz
❦
357 zzzz
❦
358 zzzz
❦
359 zzzz
❦
360 zzzz
❦
361 zzzz
❦
362 zzzz
❦
363 zzzz
❦
364 zzzz
❦
365 zzzz
❦
366 zzzz
❦
367 zzzz
❦
368 zzzz
❦
369 zzzz
❦
370 zzzz
❦
371 zzzz
❦
372 zzzz
❦
373 zzzz
❦
374 zzzz
❦
375 zzzz
❦
376 zzzz
❦
377 zzzz
❦
378 zzzz
❦
379 zzzz
❦
380 zzzz
❦
381 zzzz
❦
382 zzzz
❦
383 zzzz
❦
384 zzzz
❦
385 zzzz
❦
386 zzzz
❦
387 zzzz
❦
388 zzzz
❦
389 zzzz
❦
390 zzzz
❦
391 zzzz
❦
392 zzzz
❦
393 zzzz
❦
394 zzzz
❦
395 zzzz
❦
396 zzzz
❦
397 zzzz
❦
398 zzzz
❦
399 zzzz
❦
400 zzzz
1 Schanz, Gesch. d. röm. Litt., II, 2 (1913), 96; G. Martin, Laus Pisonis (Cornell diss., 1917), p20.
❦
2 P. Lehmann, Johannes Sichardus ("Quellen u. Untersuchungen z. lat. Philologie des Mittelalters," IV, 1), p144. The lines are given in Baehrens, PLM, Vol. IV, No. 176, vss. 1‑20.
❦
3 The group is described by F. Vollmer in "P. Virgilii Maronis iuvenalis ludi libellus," Sitzungsber. Kgl. Bayer. Akad. d. Wiss. (Phil. Hist. Kl., 1908), Abh. 11.
❦
4 So Baehrens assumed without question, as shown by his expression praecedit (op. cit., I, 222). Baehrens, too, thought that the verses and the Laus were in a manuscript containing the minor works of Virgil.
❦
5 H. Bloch in Strassburger Festschrift z. XLVI. Versammlung deutscher Philologen u. Schulmänner (1901), pp257 ff.
❦
6 Cf. Bloch, op. cit., p279: "Der umfangreichste karolingische Bibliothekskatalog, das 'Breviarium codicum monasterii s. Nazarii in Laurissa,' zeigt den allergrössten Teil der in Murbach vertretenen Bücher auch im Besitz des Klosters Lorsch." To be sure, the minor poems of Virgil are not found in this catalogue, but neither is the Laus Pisonis. These works may have come to Lorsch somewhat later.
❦
7 Both monasteries were near the Rhine, a much-frequented thoroughfare during the Middle Ages.
❦
❦
9 Delisle, Le Cabinet des manuscrits, II (1874), 447, No. 88, and Manitius in Rhein. Mus., XLVII, Ergänzungsheft, p52.
❦
10 Schenkl in his edition of Calpurnius (Leipzig, 1885, p. xlviii) thinks that the sequence of citations in the florilegia shows that a single volume contained Petronius, the minor poems of Virgil, the panegyric of Piso, Calpurnius, and Nemesianus. He points out that Paris 8049 contains selections from Petronius and Calpurnius, the first and last (if we count Calpurnius and Nemesianus as one) in the foregoing list. One recalls also that Poggio found Calpurnius and Petronius in England, though it is not certain that they were in one manuscript (cf., e.g., Sage in Class. Phil., XI [1916], 16). On the other hand, Poggio found a portion of Petronius at Cologne, which, because of its location on the Rhine, might have had contact with Lorsch and Murbach, where the Laus Pisonis and the Virgilian poems existed.
❦
11 Op. cit., pp28 ff.
❦
12 On Lucan's repetition of word combinations see Haskins' edition, p. lxxxiii.
❦
13 Another similarity which has not been noted is the following:
"possessaque pectora ducis Victor; sponte sua sequitur" (L. P. 44‑45). |
"cum mare possidet Auster . . . . hunc aequora tota sequuntur" (Phars. II.444‑45). |
❦
14 Op. cit., I (1879), 224.
❦
15 Op. cit., p9.
❦
16 Cited by me, apparently for the first time in centuries, in Class. Phil., XXIII (1928), 130 ff.
❦
17 I used it for Tibullus in the article just referred to.
❦
18 The following abbreviations are used: n = Paris 17903; e = Escorial; p = Paris 7647; a = Arras; b = Berlin. It has seemed worth while to reproduce variants and notes written in the sixteenth century, especially in p. These are indicated by a superscript r (for manus recens): pr. These variants are taken from the printed editions, of course, but may be of value in determining the ownership of the florilegia. Wrong reports in Baehrens are usually pointed out in my apparatus. For other details in regard to the apparatus, see my paper on Tibullus, op. cit., p134.
❦
19 Through an error I reported (op. cit., p152) that in 169 the florilegia have Ne. This is found only in n, in which it is corrected to Nec by the first hand. Nec is the reading of e p a. The conclusion based on the wrong report is of course unsound.
❦
20 Philologus, XVII (1861), 343.
❦
21 See Martin, op. cit., p10. Miss Martin here points out that certain readings in the Lyons edition of 1550 (Ovid) may have been derived from a florilegium before Junius published his edition. This is true, but there is not sufficient material to identify the particular manuscript used.
❦
22 In the Tibullus article, pp159 ff.
❦
23 Of course the suggestion of Wölfflin (op. cit., p342) and earlier scholars that Scaliger had a copy of the Atrebatensis is untenable.
❦
24 Ellis in his edition of the Appendix attributes it to Naeke, who in turn states that it is found at least as early as the Aldine Virgil.
❦
25 Weber reports that Scaliger quotes vs. 142 with the reading arcu in a note on Manilius, p418 (he evidently refers to the edition of 1655); on Manilius v. 599). This is the reading of n e p a.
❦
26 In the Tibullus article, p172.
❦
27 Riv. di fil. cl., XXXIX (1911), 242.
❦
28 G. d'Adda, Indagini . . . sulla Libreria Visconteo-Sforzesca . . . di Pavia (1875), No. 932.
❦
29 Cf. Lucan Phars. IX.278: ducite Pompeios ("lead captive," Haskins), and for possessa ducis cf. Phars. VIII.342: captos ducere reges.
❦
30 Of course the common archetype may have been wrong; cf. (for the same letter) 113 Diligit S n e p a Diligis edd.
❦
31 See Haskins' Introduction, p. cvii (g).
❦
32 In 139 nec enim is the negative of etenim.
❦
33 S has numina in 237.
❦
34 Merely as a guess I might suggest that nota in the margin (perhaps partly in ligature) might have been misunderstood as nōia or nōa (= nomina) and as a substitute for carmina. It should be remembered, however, that S has numina in 237. This might call for an emendation to limina (cf. 236).
❦
35 It seems to me likely that poems in Greek are meant rather than poems based on Greek models.
❦
❦
37 Schol. Iuv. V.109: post consulatum materna hereditate ditatus magnificentissime vixit.
❦
38 L. P. 2, 4, 15 ff.; Tacitus Ann. XV.48: multas insignesque familias paterna nobilitate complexus.
❦
39 Martin, op. cit., p21. H. de la Ville de Mirmont (Revue des Études anciennes, XVI [1914], 50) arrives at a date before 55 in this fashion: He assumes that the Laus Pisonis was written by Calpurnius, author of the extant Eclogues, and that it was composed before the Eclogues. He argues that the first Eclogue was written in 55 A.D. But his assumption as to authorship is unfounded (see Martin, op. cit., p25) and therefore the date established by La Ville de Mirmont is worthless.
❦
40 See Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopädie, V (1897), 1378.
Images with borders lead to more information.
|
||||||
UP TO: |
![]() Laus Pisonis |
|||||
![]() Antiquary's Shoebox |
![]() LacusCurtius |
![]() Home |
||||
A page or image on this site is in the public domain ONLY if its URL has a total of one *asterisk. If the URL has two **asterisks, the item is copyright someone else, and used by permission or fair use. If the URL has none the item is © Bill Thayer. See my copyright page for details and contact information. |
Page updated: 4 Feb 09