« AnteriorContinuar »
familiar endearment. That Catullus would have hesitated to use such a familiar expression, as ipsimae or issimae I cannot think, when we find 50 expressions like, 'charta loquatur anus', 'fama loquetur anus', 'sacer alarúm hircus', 'ut decuit cinaediorem', ‘inepta crura ponticuli', 'suppernata securi', 'iste meus stupor', 'pater essuritionum', 'tuis ab unguibus reglutina', 'cum isto Vappa', 'quidquid est domi cachinnorum', cacata charta', 'scabies famesque mundi', 'vetuli Falerni', 'salaputium disertum'; and in our poem “ista vostra defututa mentula', "lancinata sunt bona', 'uncta devorare patrimonia'.
“Urbis ipsimae' then=dominae urbis or dominae Romae: Ovid has dominae conditor urbis', 'domina retinebit in urbe', 'dominam venietis in urbem'; Martial domina in urbe' and 'domina ab urbe'; Horace dominaeque Romae', Martial
dominae fastidia Romae', 'Moenia dominae pulcherrima Romae', 'septem dominos montes': for luem compare Seneca's
luem tantam Troïae atque Achivis', 'Helena pestis exitium lues Utriusque populi', ‘ista generis infandi lues', 'sacra Thebarum lues', 'iste nostri generis exitium ac lues': Catullus therefore means 'ob Mamurram, istam pestem dominae urbis': after shewing that he has ruined or is ruining one province after another, he finishes with this bitterest of his taunts:
Was it then on his account, for this plague-sore of the mistress Town, O father- and son-in-law, that ye have ruined all'. It now remains to point out what Catullus probably alludes to, and, tedious as I have been, I must quote at length the passage of Pliny twice before spoken of: XXXVI 6 § 48 'primum Romae parietes crusta marmoris operuisse totos domus suae in Caelio monte Cornelius Nepos tradit Mamurram Formiis natum, equitem Romanum, praefectum fabrum C. Caesaris in Gallia, ne quid indignitati desit, tali auctore inventa re; hic namque est Mamurra Catulli Veronensis carminibus proscissus quem, ut res est, domus ipsius clarius quam Catullus dixit habere quidquid habuisset comata Gallia. namque adicit idem Nepos primum totis aedibus nullam nisi e marmore columnam habuisse, et omnis solidas e Carystio aut Lunensi’: in these words Pliny, who dearly loved a scandal and was like his nephew a great admirer of their conterraneus' Catullus, makes up his story by uniting with the poet's abuse Nepos' narrative of facts. It is natural enough that Mamurra's wealth and extravagance, combining with that scientific and mechanical skill which Caesar's chief engineer officer must have possessed, would induce him to indulge in architectural display and in the invention of new forms of construction and ornament; and, as Catullus' very abuse proves him to have been many years in the enjoyment of great wealth, that already he had begun the house which Nepos and Pliny speak of. Other kinds of extravagance or pretension may have joined to rouse the jealous and supercilious feelings of Catullus' coterie towards the newly enriched upstart, as they might regard him in their antagonism to Caesar and Pompey: this would explain and point Catullus' last and bitterest taunt, that he was the 'lues' of the mistress town. The last I say; for to my taste the force and beauty of the poem are greatly impaired by placing either with Mommsen the four, or with Schwabe the two concluding verses after v. 10, or by changing with Ribbeck the order throughout; nor do I agree with Schwabe that the position which the last verse has in the poem of the Catalecta, is no argument whatever that it had the same place in our piece: the force and point of the parody surely in some measure depend upon that.
This paper is already too long; or else our argument might have been illustrated by an examination of other poems directed against Caesar or Mamurra or both. I have referred above to the obscure 54th, the close of which is a manifest allusion to our poem: the 93rd, consisting of only two lines, is written in a defiant tone towards Caesar, probably much about the same time as our 29th. Towards the end there are four obscure, unimportant and uninteresting, but most insulting elegiac epigrams, addressed to Mamurra under the name of Mentula which the 13th line of our poem must have fastened upon him among the 'boni': these four with some other of the later elegiac pieces the world would willingly have let die. To one only of them shall I refer in conjunction with the 57th: the latter attacks both Caesar and Mamurra in a tone that would be even more offensive than that of our 29th, if its very excess of ribaldry did not loudly attest that it was only meant for
Journal of Philology. VOL. II.
petulant banter, one part of it flatly contradicting the other if taken in earnest: I shall condescend to say a word on two verses only, 6 and 7, ‘Morbosi pariter, gemelli utrique, Uno in lectulo, erudituli ambo': these words, illustrated by what we know of Caesar, we shall thus interpret: he and his first scientific officer, at the end of the year 55 and beginning of 54 used to be closeted together for hours every day in Verona, mapping out Gaul and arranging the march of the legions and the movements of the fleet, so that all should be assembled at the right moment in the Portus Itius for the second invasion of Britain; relaxing themselves at times by sketching out plans for draining the Pomptine marshes and enlarging Rome by changing the course of the Tiber. The 105th poem is as follows: “Mentula conatur Pipleum scandere montem : Musae furcillis praecipitem eiciunt'; which rightly interpreted would mean that Mamurra not only possessed the special acquirements befitting Caesar's chief engineer; but had a taste for general literature and poetry as well; and perhaps retorted the insults of Catullus with less success, but equal goodwill, and let him know what ·Ameana puella’ thought of him. But enough.
H. A. J. MUNRO.
SOME VARIOUS READINGS OF THE EPISTLES
TO THE THESSALONIANS.
From a collation of about 30 cursive' mss of these epistles at Paris Oxford London and Cambridge I have selected (1) such various readings as may help us to determine the text. This of course is not often the case: but there are passages where the evidence of the better cursives may be of substantial use in confirming a good reading, or in deciding us between two of nearly equal merit to place one in the text and assign the other to the margin. (2) such as may afford a fair test of the comparative value of mss. Many men who have opportunities of spending spare hours usefully in public libraries will I am sure from my own experience welcome any hint on this point. Of the mss seen by me after 17 “the queen of cursives” 6, 23, 31, 39, 47, 137 and (though very careless) 154 are the most worthy of careful collation. (3) such as seem to indicate affinity. The likeness of 47 to A has been already noticed: 39 as far as I have hitherto collated it reminds me more than any other cursive of 17: Brit. Mus. Addl. 11836 and 221 (Scriveners o) are undoubtedly near akin: and in the same group with the pair from Athos 20 and 23 we probably ought to include some of the other cursives which have the same curious variation at the end of the fourth chapter. Other resemblances will occur to a collator: but where the evidence is very slight it is better not to risk any unsafe suggestion.
1 All these cursives are noticed in Scriveners Introduction. Those which have Pauline numbers (pp. 200—207) are cited by them. To the Bodleian ms Canonici Gk. 110 (p. 199) and to Brit. Mus. Addl. 7142 (p. 207) and 11836 (p. 186) I have assigned the numbers 501, 714 and 836: taking care not to
make the confusion of our nomenclature worse confounded by choosing numbers which had already represented the whole or part of any other manuscript.
? Scrivener, p. 201.
3 This point I hope hereafter to make clearer in some select various readings of the epistle to the Hebrews. 836.
Along with these various readings from cursives collated by myself I have given the readings of those uncial MSS which have been publisht at full length. For comparison this was necessary: it may otherwise be useful to readers. For many readers will not have at hand the text of X: the readings of A, as far as we can judge from these eight chapters, are not always accurately given by recent editors: not many possess Tischendorfs edition of the Codex Vaticanus: few can afford to buy the sumptuous volume which contains the text of the Catholic and Pauline Epistles from his late palimpsest P. May not a student of textual criticism fairly grumble that the tools of his trade are often so needlessly cumbrous and costly ? For a so-called facsimile type multiplies the price of a reprint but subtracts hardly anything from the chance of mistakes: whereas such a book as Scriveners Codex Bezae satisfies all the demands of accuracy and is at the same time far preferable to any folio.
To quote no reading which had not been verified either in the original or in a full reprint seemed the only safe way of avoiding the numerous mistakes which arise from readings inferred e silentio. This rule obliges me not without reluctance to omit all notice of K and L; as also of the trustworthy collations of 37 and other mss appended by Mr Scrivener to his Codex Augiensis.
Let me end by expressing my regret that Mr Scrivener seems to have abandoned a pursuit in which he so decidedly excels. To carry out his original design of collating all the mss of the Greek Testament deposited in England may be unfortunately now impossible. But by examining and describing at least all the more accessible English manuscripts, and by printing a full collation of some portion of each, on which we could rely as a means of estimating their comparative value, he would materially assist all who are engaged in these studies.