The Classical Review http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR

Additional services for The Classical Review:

Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here

The New Maximianus The Elegies of Maximianus. Edited by Richard Webster, Classical Fellow of Princeton University. Princeton Press. 1900. Studio sulle Elegie di Massimiano. Giardelli. Savona, 1899. Der Elegiker Maximianus. Von Prof. Dr F. Heege. Blaubeuren, 1893.

Robinson Ellis

The Classical Review / Volume 15 / Issue 07 / October 1901, pp 368 - 371 DOI: 10.1017/S0009840X00031000, Published online: 27 October 2009

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0009840X00031000

How to cite this article: Robinson Ellis (1901). The Classical Review, 15, pp 368-371 doi:10.1017/ S0009840X00031000

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR, IP address: 132.239.1.231 on 14 Mar 2015 368 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. Under the head of the 'Mood of Prohi- down by Hoffmann and widely current, but bition ' Dr. Lebreton naturally discusses the rejected now by Schmalz in his third edition. conclusions of Professor Elmer, to which he He acutely notices that if Riemann was does not consider that the articles contri- right in supposing cum in such cases to be buted to the Classical Review by Sir W. co-ordinating rather than subordinating, the Geddes, added anything of value; and sub- cum clause ought to go into the infinitive in mits them to a severe criticism, following reported speech, whereas it is always in the mostly the lines of Professor Bennett. He subjunctive. protests against the exclusion of the letters, There is a good discussion of the subjunc- as not representing the classical usage; tive in conditional sentences; but it does and insists on the prohibitive force of the not take us much farther than the view perfect subjunctive with nee, nihil and ne- stated so clearly by Mr. Roby, that the quidem, examining the examples of these mental attitude may be shifted between the constructions. With regard to ne with the clauses of a hypothesis. present subjunctive Dr. Lebreton holds that Several other points call for notice, such Professor Elmer is as lax in admitting as the use of the infinitive with a relative, cases, as he was severe in excluding them the omission of the subject of an infinitive, previously. There is an interesting collec- the use of the gerundive, the use of ab with tion of instances of the usage of quaeso, passive verbs, and the attaching of -que, -ne, a propos of the much-discussed Att. xiv., -ve to e. But enough has been said to show 1, 2, ' Tu, quaeso, quicquid novi (multaautem the nature and variety of the topics treated. exspecto) scribere ne pigrere'; in which Dr. It may just be remarked that in the Introduc- Postgate's view is duly noted, but not dis- tion there is a caveat against an undue as- cussed. The conclusion is that in Cicero sumption of resemblances between Cicero's there are forty-three instances of the perfect epistolary style and the diction of the subjunctive in prohibitions, and not one comedians. Dr. Lebreton points out, what no decisive instance of the present. one has better indicated than Dr. Tyrrell, In dealing with the use of the moods in who is here criticised, that Cicero has not relative sentences, Dr. Lebreton adopts fully one, but a dozen epistolary styles ; and that the negative results of Dittmar's criticism of phrases natural in the letter to Lentulus, Professor W. G. Hale's theories (cf. C.R., would be quite out of place in writing to for December 1898); but considers him to Trebatius or Hirtius. Still it is clear that have failed completely in substituting for it the Letters must not be left out of account his rival theory of the ' polemical' force of in studying classical Latin prose. the subjunctive. The exegesis of the passages Whatever may be thought of particular quoted in this part of his book seems to me conclusions, Dr. Lebreton's studies show so particularly good. On Pro Sest. 67, 140, he much acuteness and diligence, and, so far as is quite clear in his support of Dr. Eeid's it has been possible to control them, so view as against Dr. Holden's. much accuracy, that all who have to do In discussing the usage of cum ' equiva- with the language of Cicero will do well to lent,' much use is made of the investigations keep them within easy reach for frequent of Lattmann, which, however, deal more reference, facilitated as this is by very full with the tense than with the mood. He indexes of subjects, of words, and of definitely rejects the theory of grammarians quotations. The last indeed almost amounts who like Madvig allow the use of the sub- to a grammatical commentary on the whole junctive imperfect with an ' equivalent * cum. works of Cicero. For cutn-tum Dr. Lebreton accepts the refut- A. S. WILKINS. ation by Professor Hale of the rules laid

THE NEW MAXIMIANUS.

The Ulegies of Maximianus. Edited by Der JElegiker Maximianus. VON PROF. DR. RICHAHD WEBSTER, Classical Fellow of F. HEEGE. Blaubeuren, 1893. Princeton University. Princeton Press. 1900. THESE three works on the Elegies of Maxi- Studio sulle Elegie di Afassimiano. GIAR- mianus, all within the compass of eight DELLI. Savona, 1899. years, and especially the first of them, open THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 369 again, but hardly solve, the points in dispute Maximianus is the name of the poet himself : about the life, personality and date of the e.g. Bodl.2 after the poems has the words poet, his creed, and the relation of the MSS. explicit liber Maodmiani. But it must be to each other. Dr. Heege's programm is observed that the Eton MS., which is mainly occupied with the diction, syntax, acknowledged to be the best, has no heading and prosodial specialities of Maxim., and or conclusion of the kind : that Bo1 (Bodl. on these points is copious and erudite; it is 38) ends with a mere Finit: while Keg. 15 perhaps somewhat excessive in demonstrating A 7 has this colophon. how closely the language of the Elegies is Talibus infecte deponis uerba senecte modelled on the classical period, though it 1 is useful to be assured of this; and I may Scriptus ab auricamo maximiane lupo be allowed here once more to protest against in which the obviously corrupt auricamo the statistical record of the distribution of may perhaps represent an original ewrimaco dactyls and spondees in the verses of the or evnnachio, if we may make such an in- poet as not compensating the writer's ference from the form it bears in a marginal labour by any corresponding utility. note in the Antwerp edition of 1567 eumacho, The Savona professor's dissertation is which with other marginalia was written by divided into the following sections: 1. the younger P. Pithou, as he himself informs Morphology, including peculiarities in the us : contuli cum MS. Puteanorum fratrum comparison of adjectives, pronouns, verbs, Lutetiae MDCXI KAL SEP Petrus Pitkoeus.2 adverbs, prepositions, particles. 2. Syntax. Again, it would be easy and natural to This section is very well done, and forms an transfer the name which originally attached excellent introduction to the Elegies. to the hero of El. iv. 26 to the poet himself, 3. Locution. 4. Metric; short, but dwelling to say nothing of a mediaeval Maximianus on everything that can fairly be called of cent. XII. who wrote on old age, but of salient. 5. Imitation. 6. A critical ap- whom little is known. pendix treating many of the more difficult As regards the date of the author, passages. I have read this with great Webster, accepting the prevailing identifica- interest, and can recommend Giardelli's tion of Boetius in El. iii. with the philosopher lively and unpedantic style as likely to of that name, and considering it improbable make the poems, themselves lively and from the close resemblance to the Consolatio natural, more read and studied. traceable in many passages, that the poems These works, excellent so far as they go, can be far removed from Boetius' death in are, however, in importance, not comparable 524 A.D., and on the other hand, pointing to with the elaborate edition of It. Webster. the palpable imitations of Maxim, found in The volume, which is most beautifully the Xth and Xlth of the minor poems of printed at the Princeton Press, contains 128 Eugenius of Toledo, places them between octavo pages, of which the following is a 524 and the death year of Eugenius 657, short account. 1. Bibliography, giving a yet so that they lie much nearer to the 6th list of all the most recent dissertations, than to the 7th century. editions, or articles on Maxim. 2. Author- The arguments of Manitius in support of ship. 3. Manuscripts. 4. Text of the the poet being a Christian, Webster shows Elegies with a full app. crit. 5. Critical to be of an unsolid kind : we cannot argue Appendix mentioning most of the emenda- from the uncertain attitude of the philoso- tions which are of any importance. 6. Com- pher to the uncertain language of the poet. mentary. 7. Index. It is rather more probable that he was not Webster, remarking on the increasing a Christian. Heege, however, p. 6 note, unreality of Roman Elegy as exhibited from calls attention to three passages which to Tibullus to , on the fact that the Elegies me have a Christian ring. III. 83 Salute are little more than variations on the sancta, inquam, semperque intacta maneto theme • old age,' exhibiting in a formalistic Uirginitas : per me plena pudoris eris : I. 218 way the phrases of the erotic and consolatory Terram qua genita est et reditura, uidet: cf. Elegy, and the tendency to a rhetorical cast in Gen. iii. 19 donee rewrtaris in terram, de the motif and manner, denies that they are qua sumptus es: V. 118 Vnius ut faciat autobiographic, and finds them to be not corporis esse duo : cf. Gen. II. 32 et erunt personal or historical, but a dramatic series duo in came una. And at any rate it of tableaux, in which the supposed hero Maximianus is merely a dramatic personage, 1 al. arrepto. not an actual and living poet. It is true 2 For this reference I am indebted to Prof. W. M. that the MSS. seem to favour the view that Lindsay. NO. CZXXV. VOL. XV. B B 370 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. cannot be said that the Elegies contain any- It would be rash to say what is right thing distinctly pagan. here: but the variant sic found in some The account of the MSS. has, I believe, MSS. would seem to be wrong. Bis seems- nothing very new. Webster does not accept possible. the primacy of the Eton MS. to the extent of Petschenig, who has made it the one 272 basis of his text, a conclusion which has led Lentaque per senium Caspia tigris erit Bo1, him to some extravagant results, and which, aspera E. in the bare form exhibited in his edition, cannot but shock the susceptibilities of most I am afraid to follow Petschenig and ears. My own re-examination of the earliest Webster in accepting aspera on the evidence Bodleian MS. (Bodl. 38) only confirms the of E. This non-elision of -um at the end of high opinion of it which I stated in 1884, the first half of a pentameter would be and I have thought it worth while to add greatly against the careful rules of Maxim.'s to this notice a complete collation of it. metre; and not only is caspia attested by Here some typical specimens of its readings the early evidence of Bo1, but (if Webster's may be mentioned. Bo^ Bodl. 38. E = App. crit. may be trusted) is the reading of the Eton MS. all the other MSS. Of those I have exa- mined, I have found it also in the two I. 177, 8. Bfit. Mus. codices, and in Bo2, where it Turpe senum uultus nitidi uestesque decorae assumes the form capsida. Quis sine iamque ipsum uiuere turpe senum. I shall perhaps be doing the greatest ser- E. has Turpes enim uultus—turpe sene. vice I can to students of these Elegies by 201 Multa licet nolis. E. has nobis appending a complete collation of Bo1 with- (wrongly). the text of Webster. 205 nequiquam both Bo1 and E : most I. 59 moribus prouintia 61 mi corrected to MSS. have the inferior spelling nequicquam. mihi 65 uel ut ante petita 72 ponsus 1 73 name 77 mihi om 80 Nee—nee 84 207 Plaudens Bo : plaudent E. honoris habet 85 machra 87 Si de- 223 Hinc est quod Bo1: Hie est quod E. lectat 88 Nee cuiuslibet 90 propiis- 253 Mollia 'filtra thoris Bo1. 92 Cyprus 93 cesaries 99 preciosius auro marg. V aurum 100 Gemma est inditio- A most important reading. E, according 111 Nunc quia (large capital) inutilis 113 to my collation (made in 1878) has silcra conditio 117 hui altered to neu 118 Tar- or perhaps filcra. tareas uiuum 119 minor atque caligant Bahrens' G = Leid. Gronov. 87 also has 122 expertam 125 con corpore 126 ad- filtra. The ordinary reading is fulcra. But stupet 130 aut rabiis 131 speties 136 how can fulcra be soft 1 The word implies Et placerant (p half smudged) uncae scabrida solid wood or metal. There can be little menbra manus 137 fronte (r half erased) doubt that fdtra is the right word. Gotz c Thesaur. Glossar. Emendatarum, p. 199, 143 ludisse senes necredere 150 sceptum s.v. Centonem writes " Centones ex mnltis 154 lam duplices aepulae 157 iam om pellibus uestes confectae, II. p. xiv. filbra V. 160 abstineas 163 munia 165 oras 168 584, 5 Papias cLfeltrum apud Ducangium, quic quid 169 materie 177 senum 178 feltre apud Osb. p. 117, 144.' From these senum 179 cumuiuia 182 eris 183 Inmo- glosses filtra would seem to mean the soft 186 apositis 196 ipsa 198 sapit esse material of a mattress. It remains an putat 201 referret reuoluses 205 nequi- interesting question whether this word, quam 206 Nilque satis horret 208 ob- which has a prima facie look of a later probriao 209 Hee 210 petet 212 speties period than cent. vi. or vii., already existed 213 humeris 215 ipsa oni 216 dimidii then as an acknowledged Latin word. It 221 requirunt om 223 inconbens 225 gressu- appears to me indubitably right in the 227 genteris(?) 228, 9 om 233 expen- passage of Maxim., attested as it is by two dere 236 dura om 238 attracti 240 me such early guarantors as E (Xlth cent.) and putet 248 Telux qua 253 filtra toris 254 Bo1 (perhaps Xllth cent.), see Madan's habet 261 HISVENIENS in capitals honerata account of this MS. in his Summary Cata- 266 menbris his sepelire 267 hieu 269 logue III. no. 8849. longeuo 270 equus 272 Laentaque caspia 273 consumet 277 figuram 279 qui posset 266 Et sensus menbris his sepelire suis Bo1, 281 sequntur 282 Nee quicquam 284 me- hie E. uocitare 285 gressus iam om 292 ruunt. r

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 371 II. 1 liquoris 6 inbellem 7, 8 om 10 134 placet 137 usus 138 Nonne quod Ut spretus uitio iudicer esse meo 11 Hec iuuenis est non arnica malis 139 inpendunt (H a large capital) 13 buic inquid hesi 143 Tu post 147 potentia uictrix 148 {Capital large and conspicuous) 15 uomitu sepes uoles 149 resumes 151 rediuiua etceu 17 Et (largish capital) affers quis- 152 perit but p was a later addition 153 quam 25 Atque equidem 27 PRESTAT Conticuit {a very large capital) sotiata, ADHVC spetiosa 28 sedspicit changed to a despicit 33 Reliquias ueterum in niueis 34 but the a is in lighter ink and seems a later Sed si quid 38 Nullus ad amplexus 39 solis addition 154 obsequiis meritis omnia possunt luctus 40 Quodt vi. 2 Namque et hoc 3 Sit 4 Con- habuit 42 nota uiros 43 CRGO prae- tractata 5 loeti 7 Ac 8 Hie 9 uolubile scientia 44 memoremur 45 fugiant 46 11 corpore surgo FINIT repetant 47 diligit 48 quaerat 49 can- Mr. Webster's commentary is perfectly tet philomela 50 Sitque 52 Hospitia original and new. It exhibits a large and petas 63 NECME addeo 64 En facio uersus multifarious acquaintance not only with the et mea dicta cano 68 Et quo pertendi 70 writers ordinarily drawn upon for quotation affectus 73 HIS After 74 follows EXPLICIT or illustration, but, which is more to the LIB. i INCIPIT LIB ScDs. purpose, with the later writers of the time III. 1 NUNC instead of iuuentae only the which followed the adoption of Christianity first f of a lost word remains. The leaves as the state religion; Ausonius, , containing iii. 2-iv. 59 have been cut out of Prudentius, , Avitus, Boetius, Corippus, Dracontius, Ennodius, Fortunatus, the MS. It recommences with iv. 60 Et Sedulius, and many others. The commentary quod non capiunt pectora bruta uolunt. is particularly rich in quotations from the vi. 1 Missus {large capital) functus 4 blanda Corpus of Latin Inscriptions, and will be nefanda 7 amori rather than amore 10 very attractive to those who make this- greco 13 afflictae amanti 19 Ilia syrenum branch of literature their province. The 20 ulixis 21 quia cantus euincere molles Anthologia Latina has also been utilised 23 se lege 24 plausibus 26 collore 28 not a little. In his judgments on the mean- abstringens claudetret 29 Ad fractura ing of the many disputed passages in Maxi- 30 exausto 31 abstringere 33 tua sunt mianus, Mr. Webster holds his own, and me 36 uenie 42 semen 43" MVNERIS 47 his opinion comes with all the authority of sed adfuit 48 Munia grandeuo 51 a learned and unbiassed scholar, who has ob- inpfesta but f over another letter, perhaps c viously made a con amore study of the Elegies. (t incesta) triumphum 52 increpitans debita I do not profess always to think he is right reddis ait 55 Erubui tune et stupui and am sometimes disposed to hold to the uerecundia motus 57 Contractare 60 opinions I have expressed in the American focum 61 credelis 64 Hec 67 nonnQqua, Journal of Philology. But if he is com- carpere 68 tristitiam 71 TVNC 72 pared with the only previous commentator Effusus 73 hieuque uitium crimenque known to me on the whole of the poems, 76 Vendicor 79 ipse 80 quo 81 Protinus Wernsdorf, he will be found to be far hi& {large P) 81 argiuas 83 menbri 87 MENTVLA superior in freshness of treatment, happiness 88 delitiae 96 Adstans 99 Nampe 100 of illustration, and, if one may judge by the- nampe 103 funere 105 Haec 107 lang- great variety of works cited in the notes, orem menbri 109 ILLA 110 cahos 112 width of reading. His style too is attrac- totum 115 geminans toto 116 duos 118 tive, recognisably American and German, rather than English, in freedom and bold- Hec 119gemnia 120fallat 121 secretaque ness of tone. creta 122 fructiferumque caput 123 Vade 124 Et tibi 125 quod est ultra 133 risitque ROBINSON ELLIS.

SWETE'S INTRODUCTION TO THE LXX. An Introduction to the Old Testament in 592. Price 7s. 6i. Cambridge Univer- Greek. By H. B. SWETE, D.D., Hon. sity Press. Litt.D. (Dublin). With an Appendix containing the letter of Aristeas edited THIS well-filled volume affords an admirable by H. ST. J. THACKERAY, M.A. Pp. xi. illustration of the scientific method as B B 2