صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

I. 271-276:


principio uenti uis uerberat incita cortus
ingentisque ruit nauis et nubila differt,
interdum rapido percurrens turbine campos
arboribus magnis sternit montisque supremos

siluifragis uexat flabris: ita perfurit acri

cum strepitu saeuitque minaci murmure pontus.

[ocr errors]

The difficulty lies in the two words at the end of the first and last lines of the extract, cortus being manifestly corrupt, and pontus inappropriate. In 276 it is fairly clear that 'the wind' should be the subject of the sentence, and Markland's uentus is now printed by most editors: in 271, in spite of a variety of conjectures, editors are mostly agreed that the sea' should be the object, and Marullus' pontum is usually accepted. The sense is thus rectified, but there remains a serious palaeographical difficulty, neither of the corruptions pontum cortus, uentus > pontus being very probable in itself or paralleled in the Lucretian MSS. It has been suggested, both by Professor Reid (Harvard Studies in Class. Phil. XXII., 1911) and by Professor Merrill (1907), that the last words of the two lines have been interchanged. If this theory can be accepted, it at once gives us pontum in 271: the nominative pontus is only an attempt to adjust it to its new context in 276. We should then be left with cortus at the end of 276, and I suggest that the obvious correction is then corus. Corus or caurus is, of course, frequently used by Latin poets in a general sense for 'the wind,' and by Lucretius himself in VI. 135:


crebram siluam cum flamina cauri

Cori was in fact suggested by Merrill for the end of 271. A similar interchange of last words has certainly taken place in II. 257 sq.-uoluptas, uoluntas -though these words are very alike and the lines contiguous: it is also, I believe, as Merrill has suggested, the true solution of II. 105 sq.

I. 551-5:

denique si nullam finem natura parasset
frangendis rebus, iam corpora materiai
usque redacta forent aeuo frangente priore,
ut nil ex illis a certo tempore posset
conceptum summum aetatis peruadere finis
finis 0; fine Q; finem Q corr.

Giussani has most ably expounded the rather subtle doctrine contained in this paragraph, and the sense of the last two lines must be so that nothing could be conceived out of them within a fixed time and pass on to the full

measure of its life,' i.e. attain the zenith of its growth, 'aeui contingere florem ' as Lucretius expresses it in 564. The majority of editors have assumed that the last word of 555 is a stopgap, and have introduced florem (Lambinus), ad auctum (Munro), ad horam (Everett). But the variation in the MSS. points rather to some case of finis, of which the final syllable became blotted or torn in the archetype. The plain man would then say that with the adoption of finem, the correction in Q, the required sense would be obtained, but two objections have been raised, (i.) that finis is elsewhere feminine in Lucretius (e.g. in 551), and (ii.) that peruadere by itself means 'go through' and not 'reach.' As regards the first objection, finis is always a word of varying gender, such a variation is just in Lucretius' manner, and-what is more important—in the one passage of the poem where Lucretius recurs to this idea (II. 1116 sq.) the MSS. again have finis masculine:

donec ad extremum crescendi perfica finem,

omnia perduxit rerum natura creatrix.

In any case the

constant in the MSS.

confusion of masculine and feminine terminations is Peruadere does not occur elsewhere in the poem, and I think the objection is probably sound; if so ad must be inserted before summum. The line will then run:

conceptum <ad> summum aetatis peruadere finem.

III. 1011-1013:

Cerberus et furiae iam uero et lucis egestas,

Tartarus horriferos eructans faucibus aestus,

qui neque sunt usquam nec possunt esse profecto.

The difficulties in the lines are two: (i.) the asyndeton 'egestas, Tartarus,' (ii.) the anacoluthon with its pendent nominatives.

Parallels may be found in Lucretius both for asyndeton and for anacoluthon; for the asyndeton I. 455 sq., and more especially II. 500-503, where we have -que followed by no connexion; for the anacoluthon followed by a relative clause II. 342-348 and IV. 123-126. But here the combination of the two awkwardnesses is overwhelming, and most scholars would agree that something has dropped out. For myself, I feel strongly that the asyndeton is not only unobjectionable, but exactly in Lucretius' manner, but that on the other hand the relative anacoluthon is much more violent than in the other longer passages. I should therefore mark a lacuna after 1012, not with Munro after IOII. 'Cerberus and the furies and the darkness and Tartarus (are similarly told of in story), though they never exist nor could exist': the masculine qui with the two prominent proper names does not seem to me unnatural.

IV. 414-419:

at collectus aquae digitum non altior unum,
qui lapides inter sistit per strata uiarum,
despectum praebet sub terras impete tanto,

a terris quantum caeli patet altus hiatus;

nubila despicere et caelum ut uideare uidere

corpora mirande sub terras abdita caelo.

The general sense is clear, a chance pool in the road gives a reflection of apparently infinite depth showing the whole sky,' but the last two lines are desperate. I venture to add another to the long list of conjectures, or rather to combine two previous suggestions: add et at the end of 418 and adopt mirando from 1. 31 in 419.

nubila despicere et caelum ut uideare uidere <et>

corpora mirando sub terras abdita caelo,

'so that you seem to look down on the clouds and to see the clear sky and objects hidden deep beneath the earth in a magic sky': the sky and clouds are the background, and against these are seen the terrestrial objects near at hand. Corpora (with res) is Lucretius' most inclusive word for 'things' formed by atomic combination, and mirando, which does not occur elsewhere in Lucretius (except in the adverbial form mirande in IV. 462), may be paralleled by uses of mirus 'strange,' ' uncanny,' 'miraculous,' in I. 123, 730, IV. 39 [35], V. 97, 838, 1181, 1404, and VI. 186. It is objected that et never occurs at the end of the hexameter in Lucretius, and Sauppe maintains that it is never so placed by good poets, but Lucretius has much that is unparalleled in 'good poets.' Et has slipped out in many other places in the Lucretian MSS.

IV. 959-961:

fit ratione eadem coniectus partim animai
altior atque foras eiectus largior eius,

et diuisior inter se ac distractior intus.

Lucretius is speaking of the effect of food on the anima in producing in an excessive form the symptoms connected with sleep. The passage must be read in close connexion with 916-918 and 944-947. The effects of sleep are three: (i.) part of the anima retires deeper within, cf. 918 'partim contrusa magis concessit in altum' and 945 'introrsum pars abdita cedit'; (ii.) part is driven out, cf. 917 'partimque foras eiecta recessit,' and 944 'fit uti pars inde animai eiciatur '; (iii.) part is distraught' through the limbs and cannot unite its motions, cf. 917 'ubi est distracta per artus uis animae' and 946 'pars etiam distracta per artus non queat esse coniuncta inter se neque motu mutua fungi.' Here Lucretius, wishing to show that these effects are exaggerated by food, and to put the idea into the comparative, chooses in the first two lines the method of abstract substantives: the coniectus is altior, and the eiectus is largior. What was the construction of 961? If he continued the same form of expression, then there must have been a third substantive, and we cannot do better than Lachmann's actus, ' the working' of the anima. But it is quite probable that he slightly changes the construction. Looking back to the parallel in 917, 'distracta per artus uis animae,' I should be inclined to suggest 'distractior est uis,' but intus has the look of genuineness, and I prefer to retain my original

conjecture intust. There is the close parallel of necessust, II. 725, IV. 1006, VI. 206, and intust itself was conjectured by Langen in Plautus Rudens 1174. The subject is then of course anima, derived from animai in 959.

VI. 43-51:

et quoniam docui mundi mortalia templa
esse <et> natiuo consistere corpore caelum,
45 et quaecumque in eo fiunt fierique necessest
pleraque dissolui, quae restant percipe porro.
quandoquidem semel insignem conscendere currum
uentorum exirtant, placentur omnia rursum

quae fuerint sint placato conuersa fauore,

50 cetera quae fieri in terris caeloque tuentur

mortales. . .

Verses 47-49 are a well-known crux, but the whole passage must be considered together. All modern editors are agreed on certain points: (i.) the insertion of et with the Italian MSS. in 44; (ii.) lacuna after 47; (iii.) furore with Lambinus for fauore in 49. There would also be general agreement that 43-46 refer to Book V., and that dissolui means 'I have explained' (cf. dissoluere causam IV. 500).

Can we form any conclusion as to the form and content of the rest? 47 quandoquidem seems to start a metaphorical statement as to his task: 'Since I have (made bold to) climb the glorious car (of the Muses?) I must pursue my task to the end, and tell how . . .': the lacuna then may have been of two or even more lines-probably not more, as the genesis of storms is the first topic of Book VI., and could not therefore be preceded by anything else.

The line immediately preceding 48 must have ended with something like ut proelia saepe.

In 48 existant for exirtant is surely certain: existant, placentur is an asyndeton, and I think it is more in Lucretius' manner that the construction should be carried on with et and not, as Brieger thought, with ut. But omnia quae fuerint is still weak: is it not possible that furerent is the right reading? ' and all things, which were raging, are turned again and their rage appeased': the sequence would not be unparalleled in Lucretius. Finally in 50 cetera must go back to the governing verb in the lacuna before 48: 'I will explain how storms arise and are pacified, and the other things, which have caused religious fears.'

I should therefore write from 41 to 50 as follows:

quandoquidem semel insignem conscendere currum

[blocks in formation]


THE inscriptions, with their brevity and their tendency to formulaism, are not so profitable a field for the study of the syntax of the Kown as the papyri, and literary documents like the New Testament. Nevertheless, it is possible to glean from them some evidence, which adds to the sum-total of our knowledge; and when the time comes to deal with the Hellenistic language as a whole, they will have their contribution to make. I propose to deal with the evidence for case-usage provided by the popular inscriptions of Asia Minor, particularly those of that inland region, which corresponds roughly with the limits of ancient Phrygia.

The nominative and vocative call for no special remarks.



I may start by noting the tendency, well attested elsewhere, to employ the accusative with the preposition eis to denote 'place where.' It was a tendency, which later hardened into a custom and dealt a mortal blow at the locative dative. Phrases like ἀπετέθη εἰς τὰ ἀρχεῖα, θάψαι εἰς τὸ μνημεῖον, very common in the inscriptions, are of course quite in accordance with classical usage; the idea of motion is here strong enough to justify the accusative. In a confession inscription (Ramsay, C. and B., No. 48) we have πaρýμn eis τǹU κóμŋ ('I was present in the village'), which also can be readily paralleled in classical Greek, though the verb contains no idea of motion in itself, but only implies previous motion; it is probably this 'pregnant' use that formed the starting-point of the process which ultimately caused ev to disappear. clearer example appears in an inscription of Akmonia (C. and B., No. 564), ἔσονται αὐτῷ κατάραι . . . εἰς ὄρασιν καὶ εἰς ὅλον τὸ σῶμα αὐτῷ καὶ εἰς τέκνα Kaì eis Biov, beside an inscription of Augustopolis (J.R.S., '12, p. 254, No. 12), ὁ θεὸς αὐτῷ προσκόψαιτο ὄρασει τέκνοις βίῳ. ἐλπίζω in classical Greek takes the locative (e.g. Thuc. 3. 97, Tŷ Túx”); in a Christian inscription of Dokimion (C. and B., No. 689) we find exπížovσw eis avтóv. In N.T. the verb takes both eis and éri, the latter with accusative and locative. One may add from the Legends of Pelagia (Usener, 6. 13), εἰς τὸ πλῆθος τῆς εὐσπλαγχίας σου ἤλπισα σωθῆναι. σwoĥval. Were the Christians, in their use of the verb, influenced by the analogy of πιστεύω ? ἐν fought a hard battle for survival, even occasionally turning defence into attack, and taking positions that belonged rightfully to εἰς ; in Acta S. Marinae we have εἰσελθὼν ἐν ̓Αντιοχεία (19, 13), and ἀπαχθῆναι ἐν τῇ φυλακῇ (24, 1).1

1 See also Hatzidakis, Einleitung, p. 210.

« السابقةمتابعة »