صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني
[ocr errors]

garulus (i.e. graculus) dixit,' while the MSS. of Thiele's Ancient Recension have calcibusque ac morsibus fatigauerunt semiuiuumque dimiserunt. tum grauiter ille sauciatus' e.q.s. A comparison of these variants shows that there was a duplicate reading in the medieval tradition, the rostris of PR and a lection to which miseri comes nearest in form and morsibus in sense. This can be nothing else than morsu. Phaedrus, it may be added, uses only the ablative singular and plural of morsus in three and one passages respectively. But whether he used it here is another matter.

I. 20. 3 sqq.

corium depressum in fluuio uiderunt canes :

id ut comesse extractum possent facilius

aquam coepere ebibere; sed rupti prius

periere quam quod petierant contingerent.

This is the reading of D; but between prius and periere PR add ibi, which needs accounting for. As the id of 4 can be dispensed with, I suggest that it should be replaced by ibi.

[blocks in formation]

siluas petiuit, homini ut accessum daret.

The Considerate Lion divides the carcase of the bullock that he has killed, and retires into the forest that the Good Traveller may take his share. But no example of tergore in this connexion is forthcoming. The nearest is its use for a 'flitch,' in Ovid Met. VIII. 649 (' sordida terga suis' has preceded), which seems to be a transformation due to confusion of tergus 'hide' and the tegus of older Latin (Plautus Capt. 902, etc.). And it is not surprising that corpore has been proposed. I think however that the sense needed is flesh' and that 'homoiographon' has been at work here, and I conjecture 'tunc diuiso | <uisc>ere.' For the meaning and the number cf. e.g. Lucilius 475 'pane et uiscere' 'bread and meat,' Lucretius III. 719. It is noteworthy that Charisius quotes our phrase from Ovid, 'Ouidius singulariter uiscere diuiso.' Gr. L. (K.) I. p. 550. 18.

II. 7.

[ocr errors]

Muli grauati sarcinis ibant duo:
unus ferebat fiscos cum pecunia,
alter tumentes multo saccos hordeo.
ille, onere diues, celsa ceruice eminet,
clarumque collo iactat tintinnabulum;
comes quieto sequitur et placido gradu.
subito latrones ex insidiis aduolant
interque caedem ferro mulum sauciant,
diripiunt nummos, neglegunt uile hordeum.
spoliatus igitur casus cum fleret suos,



'equidem' inquit alter 'me contemptum gaudeo:
nam nil amisi nec sum laesus uulnere.'

I have printed the whole of this fable and marked by spaced type the words most relevant to my present purpose, in order that the corruption in v. 8 may appear in the clearest light. There are two mules in the incident, and, as we expect from a workmanlike Latin writer, they are carefully distinguished in the narrative. The most careless reader of lines 2, 3, 4, 6, 1O (where spoliatus is the equivalent of a Greek participle with article prefixed, a common usage in Silver and poetical Latin) and II cannot doubt which of the two animals is meant. But in the verse which is the pivot of the whole action what do we find? Why, the wounded animal described as mulum, that is as a mule' or as 'the mule.' The first is senseless, and the second false; for the mule' could only mean the unassuming animal of the previous line. Throughout the apologue the mules regard their loads as their own possessions. Hence the nil amisi of the one mule, while the other is rich (onere diues) until he is 'robbed.' It surely needs no great perspicacity to divine that here too a gloss has ousted the original reading

[ocr errors]


interque caedem ditem ferro sauciant.

But most of our editors, vainly busied in extracting something from the corrupt alteration trucidant which P(R) offer for the sauciant of NV, have let the chief culprit go. The naïveté of the interpreter who thought it needful to explain that the 'rich one' was not a man but a mule would have delighted Cobet. He was a twin-brother of the author of the traditional text of Herodotus III. 32 init. in the description of Cambyses' match of a lion whelp and a puppy νικωμένου δὲ τοῦ σκύλακος ἀδελφεὸν αὐτοῦ [ἄλλον σκύλακα !] ἀπορρήξαντα τὸν δεσμὸν παραγενέσθαι οἱ.


III. Prol. 45 sqq.

suspicione si quis errabit sua,

et rapiet ad se quod erit commune omnium,
stulte nudabit animi conscientiam.

huic excusatum me uelim nihilo minus;

neque enim notare singulos mens est mihi,

uerum ipsam uitam et mores hominum ostendere. 50

Phaedrus desires to propitiate those who are angry with his fables because 'the cap fits.' It seems clear that the apodosis to si is contained in v. 48, not in 47, because otherwise there is no point in nihilo minus.' If so, then rapiet-nudabit' will be an asyndeton, for which there is no sufficient justification, as nudabit is not contrasted with rapiet but is a consequence from it. rapiens (rapies) for rapiet, with a comma after 'conscientiam,' would be an easy improvement. The verbal forms are confused at II. 6. 11 (uadens V.) and II. 7. 4, 5·

III. 5. 10

comprensus namque poenas persoluit cruce.

There is not the slightest fault to be found with this line as it appears in

PR. NV however have soluit sceleris, which may point to a variant version, to wit, soluit facinoris.

III. 15. (Thiele No. XXXIII.)

[ocr errors]

Inter capellas agno ballanti canis

stulte' inquit 'erras; non est hic mater tua.'

Thus PR, balanti NV. But the paraphrasts (excluding Ademar and Wissemburg which do not give the fable) present 'inter capellas agno uaganti canis dixisse fertur,' except that one MS. has ragienti, which is conceivably meant for uagienti. Hence Salmasius and Prasch conjectured palanti, accepted by M. Havet. The word however is no more a synonym of uagari than English 'straggle' is of 'wander.' If uaganti and bal(l)anti are to be combined, their common original should be oberranti, the first letter having been lost through the homoiographon in 'agno.' The elision presents no difficulty in Phaedrus, cf. Havet § 26, also IV. 16. (17) 3 'feminae aequassent.' But the evidence is not absolutely decisive, and balanti is tolerable.

III. Epil. II sq.

et hoc minus ueniet ad me muneris

quo plus consumet temporis dilatio.

So PR, and upon this do the editors build. But redibit will duly come' seems to be the most appropriate verb; cf. IV. 26. 19' rediit hora dicta ' 'came in due course,' v. 8 'breuitati nostrae praemium ut reddas peto,' and at IV. 22. 7 NV have redire, while PR give uenire, upon which also correction is generally based. The corruption is found elsewhere in Latin MSS., e.g. at Hor. Carm. IV. 5. 31, Epist. II. 2. 22.

IV. 2. 3 sq.

sed diligenter intuere has nenias;
quantum subtilis utilitatem reperies.

The Vulgate correction is sub illis (Pithou), of which M. Havet says 'post has nefas.' This statement is too strong, and his own correction sub titulis, though palaeographically plausible, does not provide a satisfactory expression. I submit as possible

[blocks in formation]

The current emendation of the faulty metre is the quorum et of Heinsius and Bentley, with an et at best superfluous. M. Havet prefers the quoius of Dressler, to which, as indeed to quorum likewise, it may be objected that we should expect quae, and not a genitive of the relative. I propose quot sunt, that is, a story painted up in all the booths there are, a colloquial exaggeration recalling the similar turn in Catullus 47. I 'adeste hendecasyllabi, quot

estis, omnes undique,' and 49. 2. quotsunt might easily pass to quorsum, and from this to quorum was but a step.

IV. 17. (18.) 8

factus periculosis tum gubernator sophus.

So P, R apparently having periculo sis with a line (of junction over the sis?). The vulgate periclo, Pithou's correction, leaves the sis unexplained, while Orelli's periclis does not account for the -os- and in addition gives us an inappropriate plural. The superfluity of syllables suggests the presence of a doublet, which receives some support from the indications in R. I suggest that periculo sis is for periclo sic, and that the tum should be struck out as an attempt at explanation or improvement.

Appendix XI. 9 sq.

ferendus esses, arte si te diceres

superasse qui esset melior uiribus.

The halting metre of v. 10 may be more easily set right than by M. Havet's insertion of quam tu before qui, or by the other devices which are recorded in his notes, if we read

superasse eum qui te esset melior uiribus.

In the previous line Halbertsma's arte for forte seems necessary.
Appendix XVI. 6 sq.

postquam esurire coepit fera societas,

discerpsit dominum et fecit partes facinoris.

V. 6 is unmetrical, fera having been drawn from its place by the attraction of its noun. It was put by L. Mueller, whom M. Havet follows, after societas. But it is more probable that it has come from the earlier part of the line, and should precede esurire.

In 7 I had conjectured funeris 'the corpse,' when I found this conjecture had already been made by M. L. Duvau and adopted in M. Havet's school edition (1916).

Appendix XXI. 7 sq.

cum circumspectans errore haesisset diu

et perdidisset tempus aliquot milium.

M. Havet rejects errore, the simple correction of V's orrore, on the double ground, as it would seem, of sense and of metre. So far as sense goes, nothing more appropriate than error could be found. It means 'bewilderment' 'perplexity,' as at III. 10. 41, IV. 5. 33; compare errare at Lucan VIII. 804 with my note. The metrical question is more difficult. This does appear to be the only place in Phaedrus where there is an elision in the caesura of a spondaic fourth foot, unless in App. VIII. 28 we read hostile for hosti, where the vulgate has hostis and M. Havet prints hosticum, an emendation which his own comment refutes; cf. 'hostile corpus' I. 21. 8. If the metre bars error(e),

we must then fall back on error with the Phaedrian use of the abstract. Instances like 'decepta auiditas-dimisit cibum' I. 4. 5 sq. or 'nec hanc repulsam tua sentiret calamitas' I. 3. 16 (to quote only two) go far to justify 'circumspectans error haesisset.'

Appendix XXIV. 1 sqq. (Thiele, No. xcv.)

Odiosa cornix super ouem consederat,
quam dorso cum tulisset inuita et diu,

'hoc,' inquit, 'si dentato fecisses cani
poenas dedisses.

So PR. I have already, in a forthcoming paper (Classical Philology, vol. XIII., 1918), argued that 'inuita et diu' is unsound. With my change to inuito the PR reading becomes tolerable. But a little indication in the paraphrasts points to something quite different, which I will now submit as an alternative. It may be premised that the vulgate leaves us to conjecture what the cornix did to the sheep when it had perched on its back. But Ademar has 'oui cornix consederat tundens dorsum eius. hoc cum diu fecisset ait ouis cani temptationem hanc' (an attempt to make something of the corruption temptato (tentato) for dentato, as Thiele ad loc. has correctly divined) 'non ferres latratum eius' (a simple substitute for poenas dedisses). Now tundere (xpoúew) is the very word which Plautus uses for a bird's incessant pecking at As. 262' sed quid hoc quod picus ulmum tundit? hau temerariumst,' and Ademar's 'hoc cum diu fecisset' means no more and no less than tutudisset, of which, when tu had fallen out before tu, the tulisset of PR would be an easy corruption, while inuita et is merely inuita e with a wrong division of the word and an exceedingly common corruption. Two other slight changes are required to restore the variant reading quae dorsi for qua dorso, and we obtain

quae dorsum cum tutu disset inuita e diu

Nauck, it may be added, as I learn from M. Havet's note, had already proposed quae; but with the vulgate this change does not seem to be necessary.


January 5, 1918.

(To be continued.)


« السابقةمتابعة »