'cadentia sidera:' delete Aen. 2, 9. 46 is misplaced through alphabetical considerations ? There has been considerable reshuffling in the EX-section. E.g. p. 67, 13-19=Aen. 5, 534; 5, 687; omit 15; 5, 626; 7, 642; 7, 84; 7, 465. 15. Goetz, s.v. 'ex[t]entero,' says 'cf. euiscero'; i.e. he refers to p. 66, 16, 'euiscerat: excomedit.' 'Euiscerat' occurs Aen. 11, 723. But the problem seems still unsolved, for Cass. has 'exegerat.' So also on p. 71, though there is disorder, there is still coherence of Virgil-glosses. E.g. 16-24 = Aen. 2, 213; 2, 470; 2, 658; 2, 229; 1, 429; 6, 746; 4, 267; 8, 418; 6, 890. 25-28 must be omitted. Goetz ventures to assign 29 to Aen. 8, 395. At 30 the batch resumes again, going down to 33 - Aen. 3, 224; 4, 322; 4, 625 (both 32 and 33). 34 must be omitted. Goetz seems hardly justified in assigning 35 to Aen. 2, 169, if the following are correct. 36 and 37 seem to be a correction of the defective 'expedi,' 47. There we should no doubt read expedi<am: dicam, explicabo, narrabo>,' Aen. 7, 40. 38-48= Ecl. 7, 34; Geo. 4, 157; 4, 315; Aen. 2, 625; 3, 425; 3, 419; 4, 550; 5, 107; 6, 770; 7, 40: 7, 424 (i.e. the second half of 47-' externus: extraneus'); 9, 193. Corrections.-18. Goetz wrongly refers to Aen. 12, 424. 36-37 and 47. S.v. 'expedio,' delete 'dic [externus extraneus], IV. 71, 47, Ter. Ph. 197; delete also 'expediam dicam,' IV. 71, 36; and s.v. 'explicabo,' delete 'explicabo narrabo,' IV. 71, 37; add new paragraph s.v. ' expedio,' linking together 47 (first part), 36 and 37. For 47, s.v. 'externus,' add 'extraneus,' IV. 71, 47, Aen. 7, 424. 39. S.v. 'experior,' for Aen. leg. Geo. 42. S.v. 'exercita<n>tem,' leg. ‘exertantem' (Nettleship). 43. S.v. 'exuo,' bracket 'indue,' which Cass. omits. 44. S.v. 'expertus,' leg. 'experta<m>: temptata<m>.' 45. The marginalia at Aen. 5. 107 seem to have been 'Excierat: uocauerat, Accierat : conuocauerat' (p. 7, 9, standing in a Virgil-batch between Aen. 2, 671 and Aen. 5, 613). For a marginal note of this sort cf. p. 85, 4, 'Halant: spirant ; alias' (i.e. ‘alunt,' Nettleship) 'reficiunt.' 46 seems to be a note on 'egregius,' of Aen. 6, 770. So s.v. 'excretus,' delete IV. 71, 46, and add s.v. 'Egregius.' MO-section. P. 118, 21-30- Geo. 1, 329; 3, 224; 3, 370; 3, 405; 4, 460; Aen. 1, 135; 1, 424; 1, 670; 4, 367; 4, 175. 25. Another gloss like 71, 45 and 85, 4. Read '<chorus: multitudo>,' p. 46, 2; (also in Virg. Gloss) ; 'modii x: corus.' So s.v. 'chorus,' add after 46, 2, p. 118, 25, '<Chorus, multitudo modii x corus.' 29. Leg. '<ad>morunt'; s.v. 'moueo,' delete item and add s.v. 'admoueo.' Cf. Virg. Gloss. 453, 27. = Disarrangement appears in the PRO-section, the glossary reaching the ABC-stage: P. 150, 48-151, 5= Aen. 2, 86; 1, 250; 1, 739; 2, 24; I, 536; 3, 72; 2, 733; 2, 505 (first part of 55; the second part, '<Proauus>; aui pater =3, 129); 3, 366; 4, 166; 5, 185 (leg. 'Pr. propiat' ?); 4, 231; 6, 795. 50. Leg. 'Pr. profudit'? 53. Leg. 'Pr. portu: egredimur'? 55 (second half). S.v. ' proauus,' add new item; cf. p. 459, 31. P. 151, I. Note on 'prodigium' of Aen. 3, 366 ? leg. Pr. praedicit.' 5. S.v. 'profero,' leg. 'producet.' Lack of space prevents me from doing more than merely calling attention to some other batches to which readers may refer. E.g. p. 7, 5-14 (omitting No. 7), beginning Aen. 1, 32; p. 20, 28-33, beginning Aen. 1, 250; p. 45, 43-9, beginning Aen. 1, 337; p. 82, 37-45, omitting 39 (if it is not 'gessi[t]: egi[t]' of Aen. 2, 156), and beginning Aen. 5, 51 or 192-traces of reshuffling are to be found; p. 101, 33-6, beginning Aen. 1, 339; short and scattered batches in the LA-section, e.g. p. 105, 40-3, beginning Aen. 4, 667; p. 106, 33-6, beginning Aen. 4, 73; p. 110, 24-31, beginning Aen. 2, 727 (as explained above, 27 seems to be a note on 'diues' of Aen. 6, 195); p. 126, 13-17, 13 being a fusion of Geo. I, 22-'non<ullo>: nullo '-and Aen. 1, 38 (cf. p. 454, 13); p. 134, 28-32, beginning Aen. 2, 1; p. 156, 33-7, beginning Aen. 2, 8, and in 37 reading 'perstrinxit '- Aen. 10, 344; p. 160, 17-19, and 27-9, beginning respectively at Geo. 1, 409 or 2, 427, and Aen. 7, 742; p. 173, 33-9, beginning Aen. 1, 742; p. 182, 36-43, beginning Ecl. 8, 16; p. 184, 28-31, beginning Geo. 1, 279; p. 186, 10-13, beginning Aen. 1, 355; p. 187, 5-8, beginning Aen. I, 1; p. 192, 1-14, omitting 11, and beginning Geo. 3, 59. This last section shows traces of reshuffling. Even this list of batches does not exhaust my material. But from what has been given it is clear that Virgil notes must have formed a very large part of the constituents of Abolita. My article, of course, does not claim to be exhaustive, for I have not aimed at sweeping into my net every possible Virgil-gloss. 8 Two questions remain for discussion, and these I shall deal with as briefly as possible: Was the Appendix Vergiliana used? The answer, in the absence of certain examples from the App. Verg., must be in the negative. I have not come across any such example in proximity to a Virgil-batch. This result is not to be wondered at, since there are strong reasons for believing that Abol. is of Spanish origin (v. Class. Quart. Vol. XI. 3, 'The Abstrusa Glossary and the Liber Glossarum '). Again, were the marginalia used the scholia or extracts from the scholia of Servius, Donatus, and others? Here too a negative answer must be given. The general verdict will be that they are more or less trivial interpretations. I have compared many of the glosses of Abol. with the commentary of Servius and Servius auctus,' but have found no conclusive proof that the compiler of Abol. used these commentaries. Resemblances between them there are, and this fact has no doubt induced Goetz to make many references to Servius in the case of Abol. glosses. But his references are unwarranted: the resemblances are natural, the explanations in each case being the inevitable explanations of the text. It remains for me to record my indebtedness to Professor Lindsay, who suggested the investigation, and who has given me invaluable help all the time I have been engaged on it. For his criticisms and hints my warmest thanks are due. KING'S COLLEge, Aberdeen. ROBERT WEIR. ANTH. LAT. RIES. 678. THIS poem, first printed by Scaliger in his Ausonianae lectiones, lib. II c. 29, from a MS in the possession of Cuiacius, will also be found in Burman's anthologia Latina, vol. II p. 321, in Meyer's, no. 1032, and in Baehrens' poetae Latini minores, vol. V p. 350. In date, combining as it does the prosody of planetae with the syntax of sex (for sexiens) denos, it can hardly be earlier than Prudentius and may easily be much later. It is edited by Riese from eight MSS better than the Cuiacian, three of the 9th century, three of the 10th, one of the 11th, and one of the 12th: the best of these, and the only one of which he professes to give a full collation, is C, Aug. 167 at Karlsruhe. The texts of Scaliger, Burman, and Meyer are corrupted by the false readings of the Cuiacian MS, and all five texts are corrupted by conjecture. All of them desert the MSS in two verses, some of them in more; in every one of these cases the MS reading is true or at least unimpeachable, the alteration useless or even false; and the editors' explanations, where they make bold to give any, are no more serviceable than their conjectures. The text which I present below contains nothing but what is found in the MSS or at least in some one MS: my own innovations are merely typographical, a comma in verse 5 and a capital letter in verse 10. This text is intelligible from beginning to end, and every detail of its astronomy, even when false, can be confirmed from other sources. bis sex signiferae numerantur sidera sphaerae, 5 ΙΟ The verses purport to give the times occupied by the Sun and Moon and the five planets in performing their revolutions. For antiquity in general the times of the five planets were fixed by Eudoxus, whose figures are recorded by Simplicius in his commentary on Aristotle's de caelo, ed. Heiberg. p. 495 11. 26-8 Saturn 30 years, Jupiter 12 years, Mars 2 years, Venus 1 year, Mercury I year. They reappear, for example, in Theon Smyrnaeus astr. c. 12 (p. 136 Hiller), Achill. isag. 18, Stob. ecl. I 8 42°, Plut. placit. II 32, Cic. n. d. II 52 sq., Macr. somn. Scip. I 19 3. For Venus and Mercury they are correct; for Saturn and Jupiter and Mars the round numbers are somewhat in excess of the truth. The seven planets are usually ranged in the order of their supposed distances from the earth, and the order here assigned them is the Chaldaean order, which, though disturbed by the earliest Greek astronomers, regained authority later and is observed in most of the ancient accounts, as for instance Gemin. I 24-30, Cleom. I 3 (16 sq.), Cens. de d. nat. 13, Claud. III cons. Hon. 164-8, Apoll. Sid. carm. 15 61-6, anth. Lat. Ries. 786 and 798: Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sun, Venus, Mercury, Moon. 1. If sphaerae here meant the zodiac it would be incorrectly used, for the zodiac is not a sphere but a circle. There is however no need to give the word this sense, nor yet to adopt the sperae of some MSS and interpret it as spirae. sphaera is simply the sky: the words which mean the zodiac are signifera sphaera, that is sphaerae pars signifera. Lucan has signifer polus in the same sense at III 254, and Ammianus at XXVI 1 8 interprets the phrase, 'polo percurso signifero, quem Codiaκóv sermo Graecus appellat': it is like pomifero anno for anni parte pomifera, the autumn, in Hor. carm. III 23 8. The word signum, though applicable to any constellation, is often appropriated to the twelve constellations of the zodiac, as is stella to the five (or seven) planets: Seneca for example in dial. XII 6 7 says 'sol... per omnes signorum partes discurrit,' which is true only of the zodiacal signs; and the adjective signifer is subject to the same restriction of meaning. 3. The theme of this verse must be the first planet, Saturn, and the time which it mentions, 30 years, is the time of Saturn's revolution; but in place of Saturn's name the greater part of the MSS and all the editors give Pollucis proles. Hereupon Meyer says 'i. e. Saturnus,' and Riese says 'Saturnum dicit,' and they say no more; and neither Burman nor Baehrens says anything. But how can Pollucis proles signify Saturn? Saturn indeed was no model of the domestic virtues; he was a bad son, a bad husband, and a bad father; but he is not on that account to be charged with the unheard-of enormity of being his own great-grandchild. Well might he devour his offspring, if this was to be the consequence of letting them live. Scaliger refers us to Fulgentius myth. I 2, and there indeed we find Saturnus Pollucis filius dicitur, . . . Pollucis . . . filius siue a pollendo siue a pollucibilitate quam nos humanitatem dicimus, Pollucis quasi poli filium dicunt,' but we find it only in the less good and ancient of the two families of MSS: the other in all three places has Polluris. And so in our verse Polluris is the reading of the best MS and of one or two more. Again in Mai's mythographi Vaticani (class. auct. vol. III) we have I 102 Saturnus Pollucis filius dicitur,' III 1 9 'Saturnum Pollucis filium refert Fulgentius,' 2 6 Saturnum . . . Pollucis filium. . . dicunt,' but in each case with the variant Polluris; and in II I we have 'Saturnus Caeli uel Polluris filius' without the variant Pollucis. If Polluris has eight times supplanted Pollucis it is very strange: strange not merely because Pollux and its cases are familiar words, but because only the genitive case is thus corrupted, and only in a certain connexion. It is always dependent on a word meaning 'son,' and that son is always Saturn. But what then is this name Polluris, unknown to lexicographers and existing only in the genitive? It is a name like Boadicea, a name never borne by the person whom it is meant to designate, and owing its origin simply to a chance corruption of two letters in a MS. Who were Saturn's parents? Who were Saturn's parents? His father was Caelus and his mother was Terra, whose name is also Tellus and whose genitive is then Telluris. In some MS of some author who had called Saturn Telluris filius the name was ill written or defaced, and was deciphered as Polluris by some reader who was himself an author and who therefore had good opportunity to propagate his error. This has already been half-perceived by Mai and Bode at myth. Vat. I 102: 'scriberem Telluris nisi alibi scirem dictum filium Pollucis'; 'error satis antiquus est, quo Pollucem pro Tellure acceperunt.' 4. The scatterer of thunderbolts (Jupiter) makes the circuit in twelve summers.' bis sex sidera is perhaps to be supplied from above as object to the verb; but even to take lustrat absolutely would be better than to adopt with Burman and Meyer Scaliger's proposal duodenas . . . aristas, which yields no proper sense. 5. bellipotens genitor is Mars pater; and then follows mensum pensare bilibri. The thes. ling. Lat. II p. 1986 8 calls this uersus corruptus', and none of the editors can interpret it. Scaliger writes bilibre, which makes no difference1; Burman and Meyer accept mensem from a cod. Petauianus and then pronounce the words corrupt, Burman in his addenda proposing pensatque, which is unintelligible to me in default of explanation; Riese marks the loss of two half-verses after genitor, but does not suggest what they contained. Baehrens, adopting the conjectures of Burman and of Scaliger, wrote 'bellipotens genitor mensum pensatque bilibre': if he meant bilibrem, that would be capable of the required sense; but que is thus three places removed from its proper seat and superfluous into the bargain, and the required sense is already given by the reading of the MSS. bellipotens genitor is vocative, like Cytherea in 8 and Phoebe in 13; pensare is 2nd pers. sing. pres. indic. passive; and the words literally mean 'father Mars, you weigh a couple of pounds of months', which signifies that the time of the revolution of Mars is two years. The brachylogy by which a planet is mentioned instead of a planet's revolution will recur in verse 10 and is exactly like the use of sol for annus in Manil. III 547 and Nemes. cyn. 122. pensari 1 bilibre is the ablative used by the other writers (all of them late) who make bilibris a substantive; but bilibri cannot be deemed incorrect in view of bipenni and biremi. |