Aetna ; Would Have Been Impossible in Catullus, Not Indeed in Isolated Speci- Mens, but in Consecutive Lines
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
HENRY FROWDE, M.A. PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD LONDON, EDINItUKGII NEW YORK AETNA A CRITICAL RECENSION OF THE TEXT, BASED ON A NEW EXAMINATION OF MSS. WITH PROLEGOMENA, TRANSLATION, TEXTUAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY, EXCURSUS, AND COMPLETE INDEX OF THE WORDS ROBINSON ELLIS, M.A., LL.D. CORPUS PROFESSOR OF THE LATIN LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE HONORARY FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE OXFORD AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 1901 OXFORD 1 RINTED AT THE CLARENDON PRESS nv HORACE HART, M.A. IRINTP.R TO THE UNIVERSITY TO THE REVEREND THOMAS FOWLER D.D. PRESIDENT OF THE COLLEGE OF CORFL'5 CHRISTI THIS VOLUME IS DEDICATED IN RECOGNITION OI" MANY ACTS OF FRIENDSHIP CONTINIED THROUGH A PERIOD OF MORE THAN FORTY YEARS Digitized by tine Internet Archive in 2008 with funding from IVIicrosoft Corporation C^-v http://www.archive.org/details/aetna OOelliuoft PREFACE This volume does not aspire to do more than adumbrate the present state of criticism on the many problems which the difficult poem Aetna raises. When, in 1867, Munro gave to the world for the first time a complete collation of the one unimpeachable source for constituting the text, the tenth-century Cambridge MS. Kk v. 34, he was really laying the basis of a more exact criticism ; for though the value of C was well known, and its readings had been used by Moriz Haupt in his various papers and dissertations on Aetna, no complete con- spectus of the MS. was before the public till the great Cambridge scholar exhibited it in its entirety. Little was done for the further illustration of the poem till 18S0 when Bahrcns edited the poem as part of the Appendix Vergiliana in the second volume of his Poetae Latini Minores. Munro had not included among the MSS. he employed the eleventh century fragment of Stavelot (fragmentum Stabu- lense) : this, which had first been published by Bormans in Btdlctins de PAcademie Royale Belgiqtie, Tome xxi (1854), pp. 258-379, was re-collated by Bahrens and shown to agree generally, where it could be read, with the somewhat earlier written C. He also exhibited the readings of two Paris col- lections of excerpts, Par. 7647 and 17903. Except in these points Bahrens' recension must be considered a retrogression. Munro had been careful to point out the questionable authen- ticity of some of the Gyraldinian variants. Bahrens boldly adopted them all and even made of them a first class as compared with the other MSS., C and S included. Munro had throughout the poem kept C steadily in sight, rarely admitting conjectures, and emending on the basis of C, where he thought emendation was required : transposition of verses vii TRICFACE he carefully avoided. IJiihrens, always free-handed in this matter, nowhere allowed himself greater licence than in emending and transposing the verses of Ae/nn. A new departure was made in 1882 by Kruczkiewicz' dis- sertation, Poana dc Aetna immte Vergilio auctoti praccipue iribucndum^ in which a return was made to the view, mentioned in the Life of VergH ascribed to Donatus, but now generally believed to be by Suetonius, that Vergil was the author of the poem. This was followed in 1884 by Wagler's de Aetna poe- qiiacstiofies matc critical : a review of which by Karl Schenkl will be found in Philolog. Afizeiger, xvi. 117-121. When, in 18S7, I visited Rome with the object of examining IMSS. of the Vergilian opuscula, it was one of my chief aims to find a new codex of Aet7ia ; a codex from which C might be corrected, or the Gyraldinian readings confirmed and esti- mated in their proper light. Fortune did not befriend me in this I : could nowhere meet with a MS. which, like the Corsini MS. of the Culcx, could confidently be said to restore at least one desperate passage. The best of those I saw, Vat. 3272, was imperfect and often badly interpolated. The poem, how- ever, was never out of my thoughts, and in the Journal of Philology for 1887 began a series of papers continued thence- forward at intervals up to 1899^ I also delivered three public lectures upoi the poem: i. 'A Prose Translation' (March 11, ' 1896) ; 2. 'The Date of Aetna' (Nov. 17, 1898) ; 3. The MSS. of Aetna' (Nov. 16, 1899). My first recension of the text was printed in Professor Postgate's Corpus Poetaru7n Laiinorum in 1896. In his volume on the Cutex, published in 1887, Richard Hildebrandt treated many passages of ^^/«rt, and followed up ' I. Jount. of PhiloL, 1887, pp. 292-316 (with R. Unger's emen- dations, continued in 1888, pp. 155-157;. 2. Ibid., 1892, pp. 207-236, on the Rehdiger MS. 3. 1894, p. 314, Escorial MS. of Aetna excerpts. 4. 1895, Re-collation of fragm. Stabulense, with further remarks. 5. 1899, p. HI, Emendation of Aetna, 171. 6. 1900, Classical Review, pp. 123 -125. On the manuscript tradilio.T of Aetna (the Pithou variants in MS. D'Orville, x. i. 6. 6). viii PREFACE these studies in 1897 by a paper in Phi/ohgus, xvi. pp. 97-117, which discussed {a) the Gyraldiniis, {b) the Fragm. Stabulense. More recently in his Beittiige sur Erklarimg des Gedichtes Aetna he has made a valuable contribution to a more minute knowledge of the diction and syntax of the poem, as my fre- quent references to him will show. Like Wagler, and later Sudhaus, Hildebrandt is a thorough believer in the goodness of the Gyraldinian readings, a point of view from which Munro had already dissented, and which, after my own strong dis- claimer in Xhc Journal 0/ P/iilohgy, Alzinger, in a notable paper communicated in 1896 to the 153rd vol. of Neiie Jahrbiicher p. 845, Der Wert des Codex Gyraldmiisfur die Kritik des Aetna, even more emphatically repudiated \ Alzinger had already in his Studia m Aetnain collata re-examined the question of authorship and, arguing on the lines of Kruczkiewicz, assigned to the poem a date after the publication of Lucretius' de reruvi natura (the language of which is closely imitated) but before Vergil, whose many resemblances of diction to Aetna Alzinger considers to prove that he had read our poem and borrowed consciously from it. Alzinger's list of parallels, drawn from Lucretius and Vergil, are of very great value, though as regards is ^'^ergil, many will reject his conclusion ; he not so happy in restoring the text. It is with a very mixed feeling that I speak of Sudhaus' edition (1898). In fulness of scientific illustrations, drawn equally from ancient and modern authorities, it far surpasses contention, that any of its predecessors ; and its author's main the poet's chief source was Poseidonius, though of course in- capable of proof- for Seneca's Natural Questions are enough to show how vast an array of scientific writings we have to deplore as irrecoverably lost — is enforced with an assiduity, not to say pertinacity, which commands respect and might almost seem convincing. Moreover, the work is written throughout con amore, and displays an enthusiasm not un- worthy of the poet himself, even where the meaning of the ' Schanz, however, Geschichte der Roitiisc/ien Litteraliir, § 239. ed. 2, 1899, sides with the pro-Gyraldinians against Alzinger, ix PREFACE words is obscured by imperfect art in the composer or hopeless vitiation in the MSS. Nor will any one deny that Sudhaus' position is throughout that of a perfectly independent explorer, assured of the truth of his own views, and not afraid of asserting them boldly and undisguisedly. For the actual restoration of the text he has made at least one suggestion which most scholars will consider certain {irecenii, 579), and his discussion of critical and exegetical difficulties throughout goes hand in hand with an enlarged scientific perception, such as neither Jacob nor Munro could claim. But after all, the value of an edition of a difificult work of antiquity, especially a poetical work, and this transmitted in an imperfect and often deeply vitiated condition, must ultimately rest on considerations of a more tangible and palpable kind, such as the inter-relation of the MSS. which have preserved it, and the indications of language and metre. Now, as regards the MSS. of Aetna, Sudhaus starts with two hypotheses, neither of which is proven : (i) that no weight is to be given to the fifteenth century codices, even in cases where, as against C or 5, they seem to be right (2) that the ; variants reported as coming from the so-called Gyraldinian MS. are always to be preferred to those of our earliest and best actually existing MSS. {C and S). The latter of these two hypotheses appears to me indisputably wrong, and if it is wrong, as I hope to have shown in my Prolegomena, any text of the poem which adopts the whole of these Gyraldinian variants, must be erroneous and untrustworthy. When we come to metre, what can be said of creber, 107 ; fortis, tenuis, as nominatives singular, 314, 494; fluiiium, unelided before haut, lengthened hQ.{oxt.flexere, 289? 129 ; forte, Flagrant as these offences against prosody must be thought, they are surpassed by the boldness, not to say violence, of ' Sudhaus' exegesis. Trained to believe that the ' (jberlieferung or MS. tradition of the text is to be retained at any cost, he has not scrupled to elicit from passages obviously corrupt meanings which, to a sane criticism, they cannot possibly bear. As examples may be mentioned his defence of eripiantur, the 393 ; coritiir, 4c6 ; extra, as abl. fem. of exter, 456 ; and X PREFACE impossible renderings of 375 sqq., 462 sqq.