صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

NOTES ON ACHILLES TATIVS

(Continued.)

I. 9. 4, 5. ἡ δὲ τοῦ κάλλους ἀπορροή, δι' αὐτῶν εἰς τὴν ψυχὴν ἀπορρέουσα, ἔχει τινὰ μίξιν ἐν ἀποστάσει· καὶ ὀλίγον ἐστὶ τῆς τῶν σωμάτων μίξεως· καινὴ γάρ ἐστι σωμάτων συμπλοκή.

ὀλίγον must contain some reference to ἀπορροή, otherwise καινή is ungrammatical. An easy correction would be καὶ ὁδηγός ἐστι=‘it is a guide towards union.'

II. 7. 5. Τί ποιεῖς;” ἔφη, ‘καὶ σὺ κατεπᾴδεις;” ‘Τὴν ἐπῳδὸν εἶπον “ ὅτι φιλῶ ὅτι μου τὴν ὀδύνην ἰάσω.

Salmasius ejected the first ὅτι. We may read ' ἔτι φιλῶ, ὅτι . . .' 'I am still kissing my charmer.'

II. 9. 3. ἀλλ' ὅ γε Σάτυρος συμφύρας πάλιν τὰ ἐκπώματα ἐνήλλαξεν ἡμῖν.

May we not read συμψήσας=ο mixed them together and changed them? The word is used of silver by Eupolis.

II. 15. 3 fin. ἡ χροιὰ δὲ οἵαν τοὺς τοῦ Θρακὸς ἵππους ἐπαινεῖ.

If sound, olav = 'that in respect of which.' May not the reading be

τοῖς · · ἵπποις ὑφαίνει = " which he invents for the steeds ?

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

II. 19. 3. χωρίον ἦν μέγα τέσσαρα οἰκήματα ἔχον, δύο μὲν ἐπὶ δεξιά, δύο δὲ ἐπὶ θάτερα· μέσος δὲ διεῖργε στενωπὸς ὁδὸς ἐπὶ τὰ οἰκήματα·

Editors excise ὁδός. The true reading is simply ὅλος = a passage right along the chambers.'

II. 34. 3. ἀνάξας δὲ ὁ σὺς σπουδῇ ἔτρεχεν ὡς ἐπ ̓ αὐτό.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Edd. translate 'right at him. The author wrote αὐτώ = them two (the youth and the horse).

IV. 12. I. ναῦς ὁμοῦ καὶ δίκελλα, κώπη καὶ ἄροτρον πηδάλιον καὶ τρόπαιον.

Salmasius proposed κρώπιον, a brilliant suggestion. As the word is rather uncommon, may we not simply read δρέπανον?

V. 10. 6. τάχα γὰρ ἂν αὐτοὺς ἐξευρήσομεν· καὶ οὐ δεῖν τὸ συμβὰν ἀτύχημα μανθάνειν Σώστρατον. ἀσμένως δὲ ὅποι ποτ ̓ ἂν ὦσιν ὄντες μάθωσι τὴν ἐγγύην, καὶ ἀφίξονται.

Jacobs read δεῖ· δέον is nearer the MSS. In the next sentence ἄν του may be read for ὄντες.

V. 12. 2. μισεῖ δὲ ὁ Θεὸς τοὺς ἀλάζονας. φέρε πείσθητι τῷ Σατύρῳ καὶ ἵδρυσαι τῷ θεῷ.

[ocr errors]

The key to ἵδρυσαι is in μισεί. Edd. accept χάρισαι = ' do a good turn to the god! The author wrote ἄρεσαι = make it up with. In V. 27. 2 Cleitophon feared a μήνιμα ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ.

V. 16. 5. ἐμοὶ μὲν ὑμέναιον ἄγειν δοκεῖ τὰ τῶν ἀνέμων αὐλήματα.
The passage cries aloud for ἠχεῖν.

V. 17. 8. 'Ω κακὴ κεφαλή, τοιαῦτα πότε κἂν τῶν ἀχρειοτάτων οἰκετῶν τεθέασαι παρ' ἡμῖν οὕτως ᾐκισμένον ;

Leucippe is before the speaker showing τὰ νῶτα διαγεγραμμένα (V. 16. 6). For τοιαῦτα Jacobs put τίνα, a poor suggestion indeed. It is better to read τὸν ἀχρειότατον τῶν οἰκετῶν.

V. 21. I. ᾔδειν γὰρ τὴν Μελίττην οὐκ ἀνήσουσάν με τῆς νυκτὸς τὸ μὴ συγγενέσθαι τοὺς γάμους ἡμῖν·

Cobet read τὸ μὴ οὐ γενέσθαι : but the marriage had already taken place, and γενέσθαι is fat. We should read ζεύγνυσθαι = ' be made fast.'

VIII. I. 5. καὶ ὁ μὲν ἐπὶ τῇ πληγῇ μαλακὸν ἀνακραγών.

Ι.ε. μανικόν. The word is a favourite with the Greek romance-writers.
I.e.

VIII. 5. 5. ἐξῆρον καὶ τὰ αὐτῆς ἔτι μᾶλλον ἢ τἀμὰ ἑτέρως αὐτῇ χαριούμενος ἀκούοντος τοῦ πατρός.

We should read ἢ τἀμαυτοῦ, ὡς ... as is clear from § 2 ἐξῆρον τὸ πρᾶγμα ἐμαυτοῦ. The corruptions of o to e and v to p are common enough in the MSS.

VIII. 6. 13. τοῦ τόπου πνεῦμα ἔχοντος μουσικὸν εἰς τὴν σύριγγα ταμιείον.

The author wrote θάμιζον = ' coming oft to the syrinx, as is clear from § ΙΙ: τὸν Πᾶνα θαμίζειν τε αὐτοῦ καὶ τῇ σύριγγι συνήθως αὐλεῖν.

[ocr errors]

VIII. 8. §§ 1, 2. This is the most difficult passage in this author. After saying he does not know where or how to begin, Thersander continues : τά τε γὰρ τετολμημένα πολλὰ ὑπὸ πολλῶν καὶ οὐδὲν οὐδενὸς τῷ μεγέθει δεύτερον. πάντα δὲ ἀλλήλων γυμνὰ καὶ μεθ' ὧν οὐδ ̓ ἂν ἅψωμαι κατηγορῶν. τά τε γὰρ τῆς ψυχῆς κρατούσης, φοβοῦμαι μὴ ἀτελής μοι ὁ λόγος γένηται.

[ocr errors]

In order to make some sense out of the passage, it is plain that we must put a fullstop after ἅψωμαι, and read κατηγοροῦντά τι γὰρ . . . for, if my emotions master me when I am bringing a charge forward.' The rest is darkness.

§ 3. This section begins with oτav with three subjunctives, then continues τὰς ἡμέρας δὲ λογιζόμενος ἢ ταῖς δούλαις καὶ τοῖς δεσπόταις, τί δράσειέ τις ἔτι ;

In the first part a verb in the subjunctive is demanded and a construction for the two datives. This can be got by reading δικάζωμεν ἴσα κτλ.=‘and when we are during the day (Ts for Tàs) deciding on justice between slaves and their masters.'

VIII. 8. Ι3. τοῦτον χρόνῳ πολλῷ συνόντα αὐτῇ καὶ ἐν ἀνδρὸς χώρᾳ τῇ οἰκίᾳ τῇ ἐμῇ, οὐκ ἐν μοίχου μόνον, καθεστηκότα. . . .

Jacobs inserted ἐν before τῇ οἰκίᾳ. No such word is necessary. The author wrote τῇ οἰκείᾳ τῇ ἐμῇ='my wife. L. and S. quote from Menander

οἰκεῖον οὕτως οὐδὲν . . . ὡς ἀνήρ τε καὶ γυνή.

...

VIII. Io. 3. καὶ τοῦ λόγου τὸ προοίμιον μέμψεις εἰς Θέρσανδρον, ἐφ ̓ οἷς αὐτὸν εἶπεν.

Thersander's advocate is attacking his opponent, who is alleged to have done nothing but abuse Thersander. Perfect sense is got out of the above passage by reading οὐδέν for αὐτόν= mere slanders against Thersander, in which his statements were of no value. οὐδὲν λέγειν is a common idiom. ois agrees with a number of words of different genders preceding the above

extract.

T. W. LUMB.

THE FRAGMENTS OF LVCILIVS IX. ON EI AND I.

I PRINT these fragments as they appear in Marx' edition (p. 25, 11. 358-370): I. ' meille' hominum, duo 'meilia,' item huc e utroque opus, ' meiles' 'meilitiam.' tenues i: 'pilam' in qua lusimus, 'pilum'

2.

quo piso, tenues. si plura haec feceris pila
quae iacimus, addes e 'peila' ut plenius fiat.

porro hoc si filius Luci fecerit, i solum, ut Corneli Cornificique.

(Scaurus, Keil VII. p. 19.)

(Charisius, K. I. p. 78.)

3. iam 'puerei uenere' e postremum facito atque i

ut puerei plures fiant, i si facis solum
'pupilli, pueri, Lucili,' hoc unius fiet.

(Longus, K. VII. 56; iam puerei . . . fiant, Quintilian I. 7, 15;
part of it, Charisius, K. I. 78.)

4. mendaci furique addes e, cum dare furei

iusseris.

(Quintilian I. 7, 15.)

5. hoc illi factum est uni,' tenue hoc facies i:
'haec illi fecere' addes e, ut pinguius fiat.

(Longus, K. VII. 56.)

These fragments are curious, and the history of the exegesis of the two with which I am mainly concerned (Nos. I and 4) is hardly less curious. No. 4 at any rate seems to have been handled by successive scholars with singular disregard of their predecessors. The traditional, and in fact the only possible, interpretation, if the MS. text is preserved, was impugned by Lachmann as impossible, and by a slight emendation he produced a totally different meaning. Lucian Müller developed this into a tertium quid which differs vitally from both. Yet though Halm noticed Lachmann's emendation with some favour, the post-Halmian editors of Quintilian have entirely ignored both him and Müller, and what is stranger still the latest editor of Lucilius, Marx, in a fairly full commentary shows the same unconsciousness. So does Funaioli in his edition of Grammaticae Romanae Fragmenta. Nor can I find in the articles in German periodicals on Lucilian subjects which I have looked at any reference to the question. On the other hand, Lindsay's Latin Language, a book whose value to myself I could hardly exaggerate, accepts Müller's view

te smallest hint that any other is possible. All this has led me to Attempt to evaluate the various reconstructions and interpassages may be of some service, or at any rate will not be It will be seen that I have also ventured to add some

meaning of No. 1, as printed, is of course 'write meille, meilia, , milk, etc. Write pila (a ball) and pilum (a pestle), but ou mean “javelins." Before we go further I may as well appears in the two MSS. of Scaurus, where alone it is found: allnum duo milia item huce e utroque opus mille Bateaues i pilam in qua lusimus pilum

[ocr errors][merged small]

adesse

anus adde se pella ut plenius fiat.

rections 'piso,' 'addes e peila,' and the to my mind less peared in Dousa's edition of 1597, and were apparently

which occurred to me on studying the passage in Marx ca out in the third line. Lucilius, who regularly makes the has ostentatiously made it short in line three to suit 'pïla,' A him to indicate in the same way the length of 'pilum.'

supplied either before 'tenues,' or, if we can dispense efeceris, after it. When I turned to Dousa's edition, I y had this last, again after Scaliger. Why the succeeding Need this simple emendation I cannot imagine.

aque that does not seem to have appealed to any editor nd considerable difficulty in the accusatives 'meilitiam,' d of course treat the accusative or any other case as volves the point at issue, but hardly otherwise. As cuation would take it after the second 'tenues,' leaving Sut this is surely impossible, and indeed in his note bia own spelling overboard and take 'tenues i pilam' A holds the construction to be I do not know, but he ....... non tolles cum antea legatur "meilitiam." But is ste of the unanimity of scholars, from Scaliger and vesice to doubt it. Observing that the MSS. of Scaurus ggest:

[ocr errors]

Ju milia. item huc e utroque opus' meille'

.....wala. In both cases we should have the e. Write 19 a vactice of first showing the erroneous spelling and then www.od toum, appears again in 'pila, peila' in lines three

« السابقةمتابعة »