Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

These verses were seen also by Achaintre and Jahn in several codices of the tenth and eleventh centuries, in at least one instance after verse 6or instead of after verse 614, and with many variants. Of course, these circumstances arouse suspicion of the authenticity of the passage, which in its present form is not intelligible and is excluded from the text by all editors." In the scholia Pithoeana (6, 348) are found the following verses:

qui nunc lascivae furta puellae hac mercede silent:crimen commune tacetur. These were formerly regarded as a quotation from some old poet,' but are now seen be an independent witness to a double recension in this passage, and that the recension embodied in the recently discovered fragment. Though the new verses stand in the manuscript after v. 365, it seems clear from the connection that they were intended to stand after v. 345. In his comment on the latter verse Valla's Probus reports the variant reading sed non ad quas nunc ludius aras, which may easily have resulted from the eye of a copyist falling on the verse immediately following, that is, the first of the Bodleian fragment, in quacumque domo vivit luditque professus. If this inference be correct, we must suppose that when the paragraph dealing with the corrupting influence of the mollis in the home was removed from the text, the last five verses were condensed to three and used to introduce a new section on the subject of the extravagance of women. And it must be acknowledged that by the removal of verses 346 to 365 and the substitution of the thirty-four verses preserved in Canon. Lat. XLI, the sequence of thought is far more natural and easier to follow. In many copies, doubtless, the earlier recension was preserved, either in the text or on the margin; if the former, we should expect to find it in the very position which it occupies in the Bodleian manuscript, at the end of the section which was written to take its place. On the whole, then, if the literary

1 R. Ellis, l. l., p. 15. But compare A. E. Housman's attempt to emend and explain the verses, Class. Rev. XV, 1901, pp. 265 f.

2 F. Buecheler, Rhein. Mus. 54, 1899, p. 488.

3 For other views see M, Maas, Arch. f. lat. Lex. u. Gram., XI, p. 422 ; F. Ramorino, Atene e Roma, 3, 1899, col. 60; A. E. Housman, l. I. p. 265.

* See also Gött. gel. Anz., 1899, p. 896, where P. von Winterfeld, who believes that vi A was intended to stand between 345 and 349, offers a most ingenious explanation not only of the position of the new verses but also of the origin of the manuscript itself.

methods of the author and the weakness of the satires from the point of view of rhetorical structure are taken into consideration, there seems to be nothing improbable in the statement of one of the vitae, that in later life'ampliavit satiras et pleraque mutavit.''

Up to this point the genuineness of the new fragment has been assumed. This, after all, is the chief question and one on which it does not become us to speak with too great confidence. In the brief commentary given above I have attempted to show that there is here presented no stylistic peculiarity or metrical irregularity which does not find a parallel in the best of Juvenal's work. The rhetorical coloring as well as the subject and general tone of the passage are precisely what we should expect of Juvenal, and even his most ordinary tricks of style are to be observed. Up to the present time only one voice has been raised in denial of the genuineness of the verses, and that a voice to which all Latinists are accustomed to listen with the greatest respect. Professor Buecheler thinks that the author must be sought in the fourth century among those contemporaries of Ammianus Marcellinus? who were so zealous in their study of Juvenal. His chief objections to the assumption of Juvenalian authorship may be briefly summarized as follows: 1) weakness of some verses, e. g., V. 20; 2) vagueness of expression, e. g., v. 24; 3) faults of syntax and structure, e. g., a) the apposition of arma in v. II, b) the construction of rides aliis, and c) anacoluthon in v. 27 (as he punctuates); 4) false position of the passage in the manuscript. As far as 1) and 2) are concerned, the same is true of almost any thirty verses of Juvenal which could be selected; in 3) a) the passage is without doubt corrupt, while the difficulties of b) and c) are removed by a better punctuation; with regard to 4) I have tried above to show that there is no real cause for objection in the location of the verses. But the most important point to which he calls attention and the one which militates most strongly against recognition of the passage as genuine is the presence of the trochee instead of the spondee before the bucolic caesura in verse 2, as it appears in the manuscript, promittit omnia dextra. This phenomenon occurs not rarely in metrical inscriptions as early as the second century, and from the fourth century is found in Christian poetry. Now while the transposition of Prof. Housman easily disposes of the difficulty, it leaves one with the uneasy feeling that after all he had perhaps no right to alter the transmitted text on such grounds. But notwithstanding Prof. Buecheler's emphatic position, the conviction has grown steadily deeper in the minds of students of Juvenal, as far as they have expressed themselves, that in these verses we have a genuine product of antiquity and the work of Juvenal's own hand. Though we cannot fully share the enthusiasm of Prof. Reinach and cry "indubitablement authentiques," we can scarcely believe that the new fragment could have been written by any known author of the first four centuries except Juvenal, or that the author of such verses would have remained in obscurity.

* Jahn's number IV; Dürr, Das Leben Juvenals, Ulm, 1888, p. 25.

2 28, 4, 14.

3 Buecheler, Carmina Epigraphica, 448, 3; 474, 7.

In conclusion, it may be useful to append the bibliography of this question up to the present time.

1. E. O. Winstedt, A Bodleian MS of Juvenal, in Class. Rev XIII, 1899, pp. 201-205.

2. J. P. Postgate, On the new fragments of Juvenal, in Class. Rev. XIII, 1899, pp. 206-208.

3. A. E. Housman, Notes in Athenaeum of May 13, 1899

p. 604.

4. A. E. Housman, S. G. Owen, H. Jackson, J. P. Postgate, J. D. Duff, The New Fragment of Juvenal, in Class. Rev. XIII, 1899, pp. 266-268.

5. Paul v. Winterfeld, Zu den Oxforder Juvenalversen, in Berl. Ph. Woch. XIX, 1899, col. 793-4.

6. F. Buecheler, Der echte oder der unechte Juvenal, in Rhein. Mus. LIV, 1899, pp. 484-488.

7. Max Maas, Die neuen Juvenalverse, in Archiv f. lat. Lex. u. Gram. XI, 1899, pp. 419-423.

8. E. O. Winstedt, Juvenalis ad satiram sextam in codice Bodl. Canon. XLI additi versus XXXVI, exscripsit E. O.W. Accedit simulacrum photographicum, Oxonii, MDCCCXCIX.

9. J. P. Postgate and H. Jackson), On the new fragments of Juvenal, in Class. Rev. XIII, 1899, p. 401.

10. P. Thomas, Notes sur un passage, récemment découvert,

1 "Sind die Verse echt, von Juvenal selbst ? Hr. Postgate ist geneigt daran zu glauben, ich ganz und gar nicht,” l. l., p. 487.

* Of course, the quotation in the scholia Pithoeana (6, 348) shows that they must have been in existence as early as about A. D. 400.

de Juvénal, in Bulletin de l'Académie Royale de Belgique (classe de lettres), 1899, No. 7, pp. 576-581.

11. S. Reinach, Une tirade inédite de Juvénal, in Rev. Archéologique, XXXIV, 1899, pp. 448-454. Read before the Academy of Inscriptions on June 16, 1899; cf. compte-rendu for that date.

12. Paul v. Winterfeld, in Gött. gel. Anz. for November, 1899, pp. 895-897.

13. F. Ramorino, Dei nuovi versi di Giovenale recentement scoperti, in Atene e Roma III, 1900, col. 54-61.

14. O. Rossbach, in Berl. Ph. Woch. XX, 1900, col. 747-8.

15. R. Ellis, The New Fragments of Juvenal; a lecture delivered at Corpus Christi College on Feb. 5, 1901, published by Frowde, London.

16. A. E. Housman, The New Fragment of Juvenal, in Class. Rev. XV, 1901, pp. 263-266. Johns HOPKINS UNIVERSITY,

HARRY LANGFORD WILSON.

IV.-ON THE FORM OF HORACE'S LESSER

ASCLEPIADS.

A Lesser Asclepiadean verse (->1-01-11-w-U1-^) is a logaoedic period composed of two cola, which are separated from each other by a fixed diaeresis. Each colon has three feetthe first: irrational trochee, cyclic dactyl, triseme syllable; and the second: cyclic dactyl, trochee, catalectic trochee. Substitutions are not permitted. Therefore, the verse invariably has twelve syllables, the quantities running in a fixed order. In the Odes of Horace 86 Lesser Asclepiads are found under the form of strophe I, 164 under strophe II, 189 under strophe III, and 70 under strophe IV. Total, 509 verses. Of these, 185 are in Book I, 21 in Book II, 172 in Book III, and 131 in Book IV.

It would at first seem that when these verses are indefinitely repeated, such uniformity of structure could result only in monotony and flat sameness. Yet the fact turns out quite otherwise. A large variety of sound-effects is produced through the poet's management of the following elements : I. Diaereses and Caesuras. II. Sense-Pauses. III. Elision and Ecthlipsis. IV. WordAccent as related to Ictus. V. Word-Order. VI. Other SoundEffects. Let us examine these several phases of the verse.

I. Diaereses and Caesuras. (a) The verse shows in its parts unequal compactness. This term is here used to describe the sound-effect of any part of a verse as determined by the number of diaereses and caesuras contained in that part. A verse, for example, whose initial two feet show more diaereses and caesuras than the final two feet, may be said to be more compact' in the latter than in the former part. The above thesis is established as follows.

Among Horace's Lesser Asclepiads, diaeresis or caesura as the case may be is found in:

29 per cent of the verses after the ist syl. 48 54

2d 3d

« PredošláPokračovať »