TEE ECLOGUES AEL CYUEGETICA OP 2'%IŒSIAI:US, ELITEL WITH AN INTRODUCTION AND COJU-IENTARY BY HEATHER JOY WILLIAMS Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the University of London February 1980 Department of Latin, Bedford College, Regent’s Park, London ProQuest Number: 10098396 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest. ProQuest 10098396 Published by ProQuest LLC(2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 ABSTRACT Although editions of Nemesianus have been surprisingly numerous, very few of them have contributed appreciably to our understanding of this author, and most texts have been based on a very limited number of manuscripts. There has been no commentary of any length since that of Burman and there has never been one in English covering the whole corpus. The present thesis is an attempt to remedy these deficiencies. There is a text of the Eclogues and Cynegetica which is the first to have been based on an examination of all the known manuscripts, and a detailed and accurate apparatus criticus is provided. Readings of interest for which there is no room in the main body of the apparatus criticus have been included in an appendix. The textual history of both the Eclogues and the Cynegetica is thoroughly discussed. The question of the authenticity of the Eclogues is examined and llemesianus*s authorship is held to be proved. There is a commentary, mainly concerned with textual and grammatical matters, on both the Eclogues and the Cynegetica. A complete list of editions of I'lemesianus to date is provided, as well as a bibliography. There- is also an excursus on the scansion of final -£ in Latin poetry and an Index Verborum. 2a TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Abstract 2 Acknowledgements 3 Abbreviations 4 The Authorship of the Eclogues 5 The Manuscripts of the Eclogues 15 The Manuscripts of the Cynegetica 39 The Manuscript Tradition of the Eclogues 42 The Relationship of the Manuscripts of the Cynegetica 99 Editions 116 Orthography 131 The Apparatus Criticus 132 Text of the Eclogues 133 Text of the Cynegetica 165 Commentary on the Eclogues 109 Commentary on the Cynegetica 286 Appendix Lectionura 356 Titles 361 : Colophons 566 Short Final -o in Latin Poetry 568 : Bibliography 377 Index'‘Verborum 384 h \ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My thanks are due to the many librarians at- home and abroad who have assisted me, particularly those of Bedford College Library, the Joint Library of the Hellenic and Roman Societies and the British Library; to Mr, S.G. Pembroke, who offered some valuable suggestions; and to my fellow postgraduates for their helpful interest. Above all, I owe a very special debt to my supervisor. Dr. J.E, Hall, whose advice, support and patience have never been wanting at any stage during the writing of this thesis. ABBREVIATIONS ALL Archiv für lateinische lexicographie. K-S Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache, R. Klihner and C. Stegmann, 1955» LHS Lateinische Grammatik, Leumann - Hofmann - Szantyr. TLL Thesaurus Linguae Latinae OLD Oxford Latin Dictionary R-E Paulys Real-EncyclopSdie der classischen Altertums- wissenschaft. Abbreviated references to periodicals usually follow the system of L'Annee rhilologique. The editions of Nemesianus by Barth (1615), Ulitius (1645 ), Johnson (l699), Maittaire (1713), Burman (1731), Wernsdorf (178O), Beck (I8O3 ), Adelung (I8O4 ), Lemaire (l824), Stern (l852), Haupt (I838), Glaeser (I842 ), Baehrens (I88I), H. Schenkl (IB85), Keene (I887), Postgate (1905), Martin (191?), Giarratano (1924), Raynaud (1931), Duff (l934), Van de Woestijne (1937 ), Dunlop (1969), Volpilhac (l975) and Korzeniewski (1976) are cited by the authors' names. E. Lbfstedt's Syntactica (Lund 1942) is referred to as Lbfstedt. L. Castagna, I Bucolici Latini Minori. Una Ricerca di Critica Testuale, Florence 1976, is referred to as Castagna. Neue-Vagener, Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache, Leipzig 1902, is cited as Neue. The etymological dictionary of Walde-Hofmann (third edition) is indicated by the authors' names. In the commentary, plain sets of figures (e.g. 2,14) refer to the Eclogues of Nemesianus. THE AUTHORSHIP CF THE ËCLCGUSS Since the early sixteenth century, as a glance at the list of editions will show, the vast majority of editors have taken the view that the eleven Eclogues assigned to Calpurnius in all the V manuscripts are really the work of two different poets, and that the last four poems are in fact by Nemesianus, In their editions Werns­ dorf (178O), Lemaire (l824, virtually a copy of Wernsdorf) and Raynaud (1931) attempted to demonstrate Calpurnius's authorship of all eleven, but Haupt (Opuscula 1.p.564ff), summarised by Keene in his edition (pp. 14-22), found no difficulty in refuting Wernsdorf's rather weak arguments. More recently, however, A.E.Radke (Hermes 100 (1972), 615-23 ) has seen fit to re-open the debate by attacking Haupt, and it is therefore necessary to examine her arguments point by point. The attribution of all eleven Eclo.gues to Calpurnius can be traced back as far as the twelfth century, to the Florilegium Gallicum, which includes excerpts from the eleventh eclogue, now generally attributed to Nemesianus, under the title Scalnurnius (or Calpurnius ) in bucolicis. The Eclogues as a whole appear attributed to Calpurnius by the scribes of all the V manuscripts (although in several later hands have added the name Nemesianus), and by a number of early editors. On the other hand we have evidence (also dating from the twelfth century), that Eclogues written by an Aurelianus existed apart from the Eclogues of Calpurnius : two catalogues of the library of the monastery at Prtifening datable to the twelfth century^ include the items "Bucolica Aureliani" (no. ^Gustav Becker (Catalogi bibliothecarum antioui. Bonn I885), dates the catalogue to 1158 but on p215 tells us that the date 1165 is found in it. i?3) and "IIII paria bucolica Calpurnll" (no, 178)^ (see Haunt p. 373 and Castagna pp. 249-51). Again, v/e find i-n G before poem 3 the title Aureliani neir.esiani cartaginenais egloghe (sio) and in H Aurelii nemesiani cartavinensis noetae illustris/ carmen bucolicum, while the Parma edition c, 1490 has a similar title. In Hiccardianus 636 , Angelius has added Aurelij Kemesiani Cartag bucol' Explicit. Thus we can trace the attribution of all eleven poems to Calpurnius back to the twelfth century, but we also seem to have evidence of the existence of eclogues by Nemesianus at this time. Also, although the vast majority of manuscripts attribute all eleven poems to Calpurnius, we have the evidence of the less-interpolated branch of the tradition that Nemesianus was responsible for the last four. Radke argues that if we were dealing with two poets, one from the first century and one from the third, we should expect to find scribal errors characteristic of the different scripts she alleges must have been involved, but that in fact we find the same errors throughout the corpus, suggesting a unitary tradition dating back to the first century. The examples of corruptions which she cites, however, are all either commonplace, or psychological errors, or similar to corruptions found in other manuscripts where the old Roman cursive script is not involved. As far as script is concerned, there is no evidence either way, since we cannot now know which scripts or how many were involved in the transmission of the text, p Either the compiler of the catalogue is confusing the four Eclogues of Nemesianus with the seven of Calpurnius, or else we have a reference to a manuscript which contained only four eclogues of Calpurnius. There are two such.still extant, Farisinus lat. 8049 which Reeve tells us (CQ 28 (1978), 228) never left France, and Vaticanus lat. 5245. It is possible that a relative of one of these manuscripts is here referred to. and the fact that the poems appear in some manuscripts together with Virgil's Eclogues makes it perfectly possible that we are dealing with two sets of poems originally put together for a similar reason, i.e. they are all examples of the same genre. According to Radke, there is no evidence within the poems themselves for separation. She does not, however, comment on the fact that there is glorification of the Emperor in poems 1, 4 and 7, but none in the last four poems; that the parenthetical use of memini and fateor which is found in the first seven poems (memini - 3.11 and 4 .105; fateor - 2.6l; 3.28; 4*70; 6.30 ) is not found in the others; that etenim, which is rare in the poets generally - occurring not at all in Lucan, only once each in Virgil, Propertius and Tibullus, three times in Silius Italiens, four in Ovid, five in Valerius Flaccus and six times in Horace, - occurs twice in the first seven poems, but not at all in the last four or in the Cynegetica, and, a significant point, that otatius is imitated in the last four Eclogues and in the Cynegetica (e.g. hem. 1.84-5 imitates Theb. 12.812f and 818; 2.18, Theb. 1.452; Cyn. 18f, Theb. 7.167 etc.), but not at all in the first seven, since, as Eaupt shows, Wernsdorf is wrong to compare 4*87 with Siluae 5.1.1 If.