صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني
[ocr errors]

pamilei. This is the identifying feature in Lucan's lines-it comes ast a te jescripcon-but the other items harmonize with what we know from Screnius resonent tristi cantu recalls Suetonius' tibicines; Romana suum PREMA JAI suggests Suetonius' lectum magistratus et honoribus functi dewells... sepulcra is a brief equivalent of aurata aedes. . . intraque turnus, 2001; parentem resembles Parenti Patriae; and triumphos may refer the sure thing as ex triumphorum instrumento, as we shall see.

the readers of Lucan's day the story of Caesar's funeral, with its P.SI TORIs, such as the casting of the arms in the fire, must have been WELCOME They would instantly recognize this detail in Lucan's line and e runs of the allusion.

Last was hard put to it to introduce the magnificent features of Caesar's Save, not furnished such fine epic material, without making his poem a Age & Caesar. His use of Caesar's funeral is much more clever and Ne dar some of his other devices. He is very clumsy and heavy when he Nas 20 4 Massilian enemy of Caesar's the brave deed of Acilius, one of Case &iders, who kept on fighting after his right hand had been cut off.

a paper printed in abstract in A.J.A. XXIV. (1920), p. 77, Miss Tanzer And out that Lucan describes the marriage of Marcia and Cato (II. gets a series of negatives, and thereby gives valuable information about mange customs. The treatment is suggestive of that in our passage. PerJere are other similar passages in Lucan.

W the preceding explanation, several perplexing problems in the pesso under discussion find an easy solution. proiectis, in the last line, has p. d the editors. Some scholars have even resorted to emendation, as Noses, who in his first edition suggested protentis. Some editors have taken As the sense of demissis or uersis, i.e. with inverted arms, as a sign of motong, others in the sense of porrectis, with arms extended in battle formaross orbers in the sense of abiectis, throwing their arms away. By comI out with Suetonius we see that the word is used like coniectis or iniectis, down is the fire. The latest editor of Lucan, Postgate, rejects this 2004 on which is favoured by Haskins and Francken), and finds the line But the explanation of the reason for the parallelism between Lucan

v Nicata should remove all doubts.

the spectation of parentem in vs. 732 has likewise varied. Some have Na terence to the carrying of the body of the deceased by the d.. 1994ax at the funeral of Metellus. Others have seen a reference to the pole Nova (FMA) patriae. The latter interpretation is made probable by pole pong khas y sextaposition of Romana suum at the beginning of the clause.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Postgate remarks that we do not know that Pompey was ever called parens patriae. We may go farther and say that the chances are that he was not, or we should have heard of it. Postgate argues that Lucan's words do not imply that the title was ever applied to Pompey and compares IX. 601, ecce parens uerus patriae (of Cato). But the word uerus shows that Lucan is not using parens patriae in its usual sense of a formally bestowed title. It is necessary in our passage to interpret parentem as referring to parens patriae as a title, and it is impossible to apply this to Pompey. Caesar, as we know, received this title. According to the interpretation suggested in this paper, Lucan refers to Caesar, not Pompey. Suetonius tells us that on the occasion of Caesar's funeral the people inscribed 'Parenti Patriae' on a marble column.

Still another line in Lucan may be reinterpreted in the light of the Suetonius passage. Triumphos in vs. 733 has usually been taken to refer to the placards on which were inscribed the names of conquered towns and nations. But Suetonius' statement that the actors who took part in the funeral had put on costumes belonging to the triumphal wardrobe suggests that Lucan had in mind these costumes instead of, or in addition to, the placards. As it was customary for an actor to imitate the dead man, perhaps one of the actors at Caesar's funeral wore Caesar's triumphal toga picta. In IX. 175 sqq. Lucan says that Cornelia, on arriving in Africa, burned the togae pictae and other insignia of Pompey in lieu of the body itself. Postgate remarks that it is not clear where these were got from. We need not suppose that Lucan found this episode in his historical sources. He is trying to show Pompey a few of the honours which his rival Caesar had obtained.

Finally, it may be remarked that it seems that the funeral of Augustus, as described by Dio Cassius, was intended as a deliberate imitation, within bounds, of the funeral of Caesar, just as Augustus himself constantly followed in the footsteps of his predecessor.




AMONG the writings of Isocrates the discourse on the Peace' ranks second only to the Panegyricus. Apart from its literary merits and historical importance, an additional interest attaches to this work, because it is one of the few classical writings of which an early papyrus in a fair state of preservation has come to light.

Of this papyrus, now in the British Museum (B.M. Pap. 132), of which a collation by Sir F. G. Kenyon appeared in 1891 in Classical Texts from Papyri in the British Museum, a transcript has more recently been published.1 The papyrus in all probability dates from the first century A.D., and contains quite two-thirds of the speech. It cannot be referred to either of the two clearlymarked families of MSS., for though in a large number of cases its readings agree with T (Urbinas) and E (Ambrosianus), and in far fewer instances with the vulgate reading, there are a number of passages where the papyrus has variants hitherto unknown.2 The aim of the following notes is to review certain of the more important passages in the speech where the received text would appear to require alteration or modification. In some cases it will be seen that the papyrus affords new readings which improve the text, in others it supports the vulgate reading and challenges the supposed infallibility of г, against which a distinguished authority has in a recent publication very rightly protested.3

De Pace, $ 16. The papyrus here reads φημὶ δ ̓ οὖν χρῆναι ποιεῖσθαι τὴν εἰρήνην μὴ μόνον πρὸς Χίους καὶ Βυζαντίους καὶ Ῥοδίους καὶ Κνιδίους ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸς ἅπαντας ἀνθρώπους. Though the papyrus is rather fragmentary here, enough remains to make the reading absolutely certain. The original scribe had written in place of the first in Kvidíovs, but this has been corrected. Now Dionysius, in quoting from this speech, gives the words kai Koovs before áλλá, but the Isocratean MSS. have not got these words. With regard to the kai after aλλá, papyrus here agrees with the vulgate against TE and Dionysius. This latter point need not, however, detain us. The important fact is that all recent editors omit the words raì Koovs given by Dionysius, because they do not appear in the MSS. of the De Pace nor yet of the Antidosis, where Isocrates alludes to the passage. The second objection carries little weight, for Isocrates is not actually quoting from the de Pace;

1 Journal of Philology XXX. p. 1 (by H. I. Bell).

2 Kenyon in Classical Texts gives the number of passages where the papyrus agrees with Urbinas as 123, and with the vulgate as 54. Since then

additional fragments have been joined on and published by Bell, op. cit.

3 Dr. B. P. Grenfell in J. H. S. XXXIX. (1919) P. 30.

4 Antid. § 68-69.

and besides, when he wrote the Antidosis, complete historical accuracy was not called for, though it would be essential in the earlier work. Further, it is at least arguable that Koovs dropped out in the Antidosis passage, just as it appears to have done in the MSS. of the De Pace. Diodorus1 expressly mentions the Coans in his account of the Social War; similarly Demosthenes at the end of the speech on the peace2 speaks of Cos with the other three States, and in the speech on the liberty of the Rhodians Cos and Rhodes are mentioned together.

The papyrus reading Kvidious cannot possibly be right as it stands. There is no mention of Cnidos in the Social War or even in the second Athenian confederacy; indeed, the inclusion of that city would have been a direct violation of the agreement made with the king of Persia when the confederacy was formed, that no cities in the Persian dominions—and Asia Minor at this time was included therein-should join the league. But though the actual reading Kvidíovs is wrong, the papyrus supports Dionysius in so far as it shows that a fourth State was mentioned besides Chios, Rhodes, and Byzantium, and lends weight to the argument that kai Koovs should be restored to the text. Isocrates wrote this discourse at the close of the Social War, and it is inconceivable that he should omit to mention a State which quite clearly was one of the most formidable of Athens' late antagonists. How the confusion vid for w arose it is difficult to say, or perhaps it was merely careless copying of a scribe more familiar with one city than another.

§ 36. The papyrus reads ὡσπὲρ πρόχειρόν ἐστιν ἐπαινέσαι τὴν ἀρετὴν οὕτω ῥᾴδιον εἶναι πεῖσαι τοὺς ἀκούοντας ἀσκεῖν αὐτήν. This agrees exactly with the version already adopted by Baiter-Sauppe, and with the vulgate reading except for the omission of the superfluous xai before pádiov. T has a number of variants-namely, ἐπαινεῖσθαι for ἐπαινέσαι, οὕτω προσῆκον for οὕτω ῥᾴδιον, and τοὺς ἀκούοντας πεῖσαι ἀσκεῖν instead of the order given above, so causing a peculiarly harsh hiatus. In the most recent edition of the text Blass adopted a suggestion made by Kayser, and read ὡσπὲρ προσῆκόν ἐστιν ἐπαινεῖσθαι τὴν ἀρετήν, οὕτω πρόχειρον εἶναι πεῖσαι τοὺς ἀκούοντας ἀσκεῖν αὐτήν, that is to say he adopted the readings of Γ but transposed προσῆκον and πρόχειρον.

This course involves a drastic manipulation of the text, gets no sort of support from the papyrus, and makes poor sense. As has already been indicated, the papyrus agrees with I far more often than with the vulgate reading, and any serious divergence from T is therefore all the more worthy of careful consideration. The deciding factor in a case like this must, however, be the general context of the passage. Isocrates has been contrasting two classes of citizens-those who openly favour ȧdiría and are ever intent on aggrandisement, but who sooner or later are overtaken by disaster, and those who believe in justice and live up to their precepts. The writer concludes his paragraph by saying that the most ridiculous and untenable attitude is that of 1 Diodor. XVI. 21. 3 Id. de libert. Rhod. § 27.

2 Demosth. de Pace, § 25.

a third class of citizens, who admit that in theory justice is more desirable than injustice, but in practice they consider that the unjust man has a better time. Then follows the sentence under consideration. Isocrates is still thinking of this third class, and begins his new period with the perfectly natural sentiment: 'I wish it were as easy a thing to persuade my hearers to practice as it is the obvious thing to praise virtue.' πpóxeɩpov, in other words, is synonymous with pádiov; but if we read πpоonov, an entirely different thought is introduced, which does not seem to bear on the context. The propriety of praising virtue has nothing to do with the argument. The conclusion then is that the reading of the papyrus, which was also the reading of the Zürich editors, should be restored to the text.

§ 46. The right reading here would appear to be καὶ τοὺς συμμάχους τοὺς ἡμετέρους αὐτῶν ἰδίᾳ λυμαινόμεθα. There is great divergence amongst the MSS. here. I and the vulgate omit idia, E has d'oùs after avτŵv, and so have and A in the passage as quoted in the Antidosis. Dionysius read idíą after avτŵv, a reading adopted only by Benseler. On the basis of Dionysius and E, Sauppe emended S' oûs to idious. The papyrus is very fragmentary at this part of the speech, but the letters . . . wv idiai are clearly preserved, thus supporting Dionysius. The variant idious would easily creep in through the preceding words συμμάχους τοὺς ἡμετέρους, and then by transposal of the initial letters become corrupted to the senseless d'oùs. In support of the reading idíą it is worth citing a good parallel in Panegyricus, § 104: τοῖς αὐτοῖς νόμοις ἁπάσας τὰς πόλεις διῳκοῦμεν . . . ὅλων μὲν τῶν πραγμάτων ἐπιστατοῦντες, ἰδίᾳ δ' ἑκάστους ἐλευθέρους ἐῶντες κ.τ.λ.

§ 56. MSS. Trixeipoinv, but in the quotation in the Antidosis r has Éπixeiρńσaiμev; the latter reading was adopted by Benseler in the text of the De Pace. The papyrus has πixeiρýσaiμ, and a number of considerations make it probable that this is the true reading. In the first place there are two close parallels to the passage under consideration:

Archid. § 81. ἐπιλίποι δ ̓ ἂν τὸ λοιπὸν μέρος τῆς ἡμέρας, εἰ τὰς πλεονεξίας τὰς ἐσομένας λέγειν ἐπιχειρήσαιμεν.

Demon. § II. ἐπιλίποι δ' ἂν ἡμᾶς ὁ πᾶς χρόνος, εἰ πάσας τὰς ἐκείνου πράξεις καταριθμησαίμεθα.

In both passages the aorist optative is used in the protasis, and in the second the plural is required after the preceding uâs; in the Archidamos no personal pronoun occurs in the apodosis, so that either the singular or the 'editorial we,' of which Isocrates is fond, would be possible. But in the De Pace the apodosis has the singular personal pronoun, which makes the plural in the protasis (in the Antidosis) very awkward, and Kayser, on the basis of Archid. 81, proposed deleting μe in the De Pace and Antidosis. If the papyrus reading be adopted this deletion is unnecessary. Secondly, it is important to note that Isocrates uses the aorist optative of eπixeipeîv in twelve instances, the present optative only in four. Further, in two out of these four passages1 1 Antid. § 8 and Trapez. § 29.

« السابقةمتابعة »