« AnteriorContinuar »
resolved to try to unravel the perplexity by allowing to each word its natural signification. ¢¢ I rendered indifferently according to the Versions before the year 1611, insomuch as, or, according to our version from that date, for that. äxer vóuov in ver. 13, I understood with Grotius to mean ‘ante legem Mosis, quae gravibus facinoribus poenam ascribit mortem,' as μέχρι Μωϋσέως in the next verse ; not with Origen and Augustine 'usque ad finem legis Mosaicae' (Critici sacri). Then, noting that ydp in ver. 13 was ushering in a reason, I observed that the reason was repugnant to έφ' ώ πάντες ήμαρtov, but confirmatory of the earlier part of the statement in ver. 12. Thus it appeared that 8' @ Trávtes ñuaptov, while seeming to confirm what preceded, was both contradicting it and verse 17, and intercepting a good reason for it immediately following.
Then I observed that, although ver. 13 lent no support to é 8' Trávtes ñuaprov, yet conversely $' Távtes nuaptov was a corroboration of άχρι νόμου αμαρτία ήν εν κόσμω, one indeed which the Apostle might have used, (though with a little detriment to the sequence of his argument) had be not already used it twice in iii. 9 and 23. These reflexions led me to the conclusion that 8' Trávtes ñuaptov was a marginal gloss on åxpl...kógum, taken from iii. 23, and that this is the answer to be given to Chrysostom's query echoed by Theophylact.
Here I must acknowledge that the MSS exhibit no variation and that I have nowhere met with any expression of doubt as to the correctness of the text: but I know that Bentley did not believe that the MSS could supply correction of all errors; that Valckenaer (Scholae in 1 Cor. xv. 29) says, “In omnibus libris antiquis mendae remanserunt antiquiores codicibus, quibus adeoque sanandis nulla datur medicina, aut in ingenio petenda est;" and that Porson says on Mark vii. 6, “The transcribers of the Greek MSS have in other places been very prone to stuff out the text with the same sentence:” of which he gives examples (Letters to Travis, p. 166). I must add one. In several MSS the first verse in chap. viii. of this same Epistle contains a line taken from the fourth verse of the same chapter. In consequence our Version has it in both verses.
GILBERT AINSLIE. PROPERTIUS III (II) 34 61–84.
PROPERTIUS gives his opinion of Virgil's different works in these beautiful and very interesting verses; but as they now stand, there is much difficulty and obscurity in them. In the first place the way in which the poet passes to and fro from the third to the second person, and then from the second to the third, then back again to the second, and still once more to the third in addressing Virgil, is intolerably harsh even for him. And in the next place, after asserting in vv. 77–80 that the georgics are as perfect a poem as Apollo himself could compose, it is quite ludicrous to go on to say that yet this poem will not be unwelcome to any reader, whether new to love or not. Why, what more in the world would a reader have, and what have the georgics to do with teaching love ? Much of the obscurity and absurdity vanishes at once by a simple transposition, made by Prof. O. Ribbeck in a Kiel program which the writer courteously sent me about a year ago. In vv. 67—76 'Tu canis umbrosiHamadryadas', the poet speaks of the eclogues : then in 77–80 * Tu canis—articulis' of the georgics, having first of all extolled the coming Aeneid : Ribbeck simply puts the four verses concerning the georgics before the ten which treat of the eclogues, vastly to the benefit of the whole passage; the transposition too is easily accounted for by the same words 'Tu canis' commencing each of these sections. So far then all is in order: after saying in v. 75 that Tityrus is now resting wearied with his oaten pipe, yet is he praised by the kindly wood-nymphs, in v. 81 he thus proceeds : 'yet these eclogues such as they are will be welcome to every reader, whether new to love or not'. But then follow two difficult verses which stand thus in the manuscripts :
Nec minor hic animis aut sim minor ore canorus
Anseris indocto carmine cessit olor.
All editions rightly give si for sim, the m having come from minor. Ribbeck's transposition throws some light on these lines too; but I have never seen any explanation of them, as they stand, in the least satisfactory to my mind : Lachmann in his first and large edition transposes and alters them to very little purpose: most editors read his for hic, but with small result; and Mr Paley makes 'cessit carmine' =cessit carmini, comparing several other ablatives in Propertius. But neither Propertius nor any Latin writer to my knowledge has an ablative really like this which I should look upon as portentous. It appears to me that the omission of a single letter will make all clear: for · Anseris' I read' Anseri', which the scribes would have been sure to alter for metrical reasons: thus in Juvenal XII 32 Jahn and Mayor seem rightly to follow Lachmann in reading “Arborì incertae' for ' Arboris' of Mss.; and in Lucretius VI 743 ‘Remigi oblitae’ is changed by the scribes to *Remigio ob.': comp. Virgil's Insulae Ionio', Catullus' 'lectulo erudituli', Ennius' Scipið invicte', and the like. The sense then will be: And not lower here (hic i.e. in the eclogues) in genius, or, if somewhat lower in expression (minor ore), yet here too the tuneful swan has not by an unskilled song yielded the palm to Anser (the goose): an allusion, as all have seen, to Virgil's own 'argutos inter strepere anser olores'. · I would here add that as the best Ms. N omits the end of v. 83 minor ore canorus', so above it has lost the conclusion of the corrupt v. 53, which in other Mss. is given thus 'Nec si post Stygias aliquid restaverit undas' or 'restabit erumnas': Jacob's 'arbiter undas 'I believe to be right; but aliquis sedet' or 'manet' is not probable: I would read Nec si post Stygias aliquid rest (=re est) arbiter undas': comp. Propertius' own
Sunt aliquid manes :' letum non omnia finit'; Ovid's “Aut sine re nomen deus est', and similar expressions.
H. A. J. MUNRO.
VIRGIL AND SENECA, ETC.
ONE cannot read the tragedies of Seneca without feeling in every page how thoroughly the writer's mind was saturated with Virgil and the odes of Horace. As the great contemporary grammarians and commentators have perished, he might be looked upon as after Ovid one of the oldest extant illustrators of Virgil. Born apparently not more than ten or fifteen years after the poet's death, he must have been brought up among those who were best acquainted with him and his editors, and who would have preserved the first and freshest traditions as to the meaning of obscure passages; for his father was not many years younger than the poet himself and dwelt in the very focus of the intensest literary life of Rome.
Aeneid vi 545, Deiphobus says to the impatient Sibyl, Discedam, explebo numerum reddarque tenebris’: Conington prefers one of Servius' explanations, 'I will fill up the number of the shades by rejoining them'; but says that the meaning is not yet placed beyond doubt. Though he quotes I see a line from Seneca after Forbiger, I will cite the whole passage, because it appears to me to prove that Seneca thus understood Virgil : Phaedra (Hippol.) 1158 “Pallas Actaeae veneranda genti, Quod tuus caelum superosque Theseus Spectat et fugit Stygias paludes, Casta nil debes patruo rapaci : Constat inferno numerus tyranno'. As Theseus was fated to return to the light, 'the nether tyrant has his tale complete', 'numerus expletur', nothing is due to him.
Vss. 743 744 of the same book are even more obscure, forming as they do a strange parenthesis in the midst of an otherwise continuous description; but I here speak only of 'Quisque suos patimur manis', which I am convinced means simply we put on, bear the burden, each one of us good or bad, of his own manes, or garb of death', i.e. the shadowy semblance of one's living self which the dead spirit was supposed to assume at the funeral pile or elsewhere. This is illustrated by the old picture in the Vatican Virgil, and, as I think, by Seneca ibid. 1226
Donator atrae lucis, Alcide, tuum Diti remitte munus, ereptos mihi Restitue manes. impius frustra invoco Mortem relictam'.
Aen. II 12 ' animus meminisse horret luctuque refugit': the perfect is illustrated by the Herc. Furens 1199 Miserere, genitor, supplices tendo manus : Quid hoc? manus refugit: hic errat scelus'; and perhaps by Hor. epist. II 2 170 Sed vocat usque suum, qua populus adsita certis Limitibus vicina refugit iurgia'. I think I have observed similar uses of fūgit and suffūgit.
Seneca's prose as well is full of allusions to Virgil's language: epist. 74 29 'aeque magna est (virtus), etiamsi in se recessit undique exclusa' has a reference to georg. IV 147 spatiis exclusus iniquis', and shews that exclusus = inclusus, and something more: 'shut up within narrow limits and prevented from expanding myself freely'.
Ovid would be an older interpreter than Seneca : in georg. III 232 we have the obscure expression 'irasci in cornua'. Conington comes to the conclusion that it may perhaps virtually = ‘irasci cornibus'. Aen. x 725 'surgentem in cornua cervum' is also not very clear : Heyne thinks it means 'surgere, eminere, erigere se cornibus', but has more of évapyelas. From the more precise expression in the Metamorphoses x 538 `Aut pronos lepores aut celsum in cornua cervum', Ovid too would seem thus to have understood Virgil: ‘high-raised by their horns' or 'towards, in the direction of their horns'.
Ecl. 111 16 'Quid domini faciant, audent cum talia fures ?' seems to be a reminiscence of Catullus 66 47 “Quid facient crines, cum ferro talia cedant?': Virgil has the more poetical indicative in the second clause, while Catullus employs the more usual subjunctive. Perhaps the same love of variety has induced him to put faciant for Catullus' facient; but the manifest echo of the ars III 655 ' Quid sapiens faciet, stultus cum munere gaudet ?' would dispose one to infer that Ovid found or fancied he had found facient in his Virgil. Journal of Philology. VOL. II.