« PredošláPokračovať »
יְהוָה חָפֵץ לְמַעַן צִדְקוֹ יַנְדִיל תּוֹרָה וְיַאֲדִיר
Isaiah 42: 21.
For έβουλεύσατο ίνα δικαιωθή (Codd. BNAT)
read έβούλετο ίνα δικαιωθή (Cod. Q). The Revised Version translates the verse thus: It pleased the Lord, for his righteousness' sake, to magnify the law, and make it honorable (margin, to make the teaching great and glorious).
? The entire verse reads thus in the Septuagint: Kúplos ó Deos εβουλεύσατο ίνα δικαιωθή και μεγαλύνη αίνεσιν. “The Lord God took counsel that he might be justified and might magnify his praise.'
The iva clause undoubtedly arose from the fact that the translator took p7for an infinitive. He further supposed that this infinitive was continued by the imperfect (571?). Doubtless he was misled by the unusual construction with Yon of the imperfect instead of the regular infinitive with. On the analogy of Isa. 45:4; 49: 7, etc. (ipps with a noun), one would expect évekev της δικαιοσύνης αυτού in place of ίνα δικαιωθή. Cf. for pp. ένεκεν Toù époù óvóuatos, Isa. 48: 9, and iva tò õvoua, 66: 5; similarly ows tò ovoua, Ezek. 20: 9, 14, 22, 44. Cf. also Ezek. 21: 28 (33), onws OTBns ? ? (, ?).
It is clear that iva dikawwāņ was the original Septuagint reading, being occasioned by a misunderstanding of the Hebrew. The only question is whether to read eBouleuoato with Codd. BX A and T, or iBoúhero with Cod. Q. The following considerations seem to show that Cod. Marchalianus (Q) has preserved the correct reading
In the first place, the regular equivalents for yo are Boulopat and θέλω (βούλομαι 35 times, θέλω 20, ευδοκέω 4). There are but two instances of βουλεύομαι, in each of which βούλομαι appears as a variant reading. In Isa. 42: 21,-the case under discussion, Boúleto is supported by Q, an excellent MS of the sixth century, while in the other passage, Jer. 49 (42): 22, all the MSS but A, viz: BX and Q, read Boulcode.
The noun yon is usually rendered by Deanua, e. g. Ps. 1: 2; Eccles. 5: 3. Cf. Delntów I Sam. 15: 22, and medov I Kgs. 10: 13. In Isa. 46: 10, for 'yon-5? the Septuagint has távra coa Beboúlevpar, but it is not improbable that here Beßoúanual should be read. Cf., for the same expression, távra tà Deanuará pou Isa. 44: 28. Cf. also
Isa. 53: 10, where Boúlouai stands for an in the first part of the verse, and in the second part for yon. Moreover, the usual rendering for Yon with the infinitive is Boúhomas with the infinitive (e. g. Deut. 25: 7, 8; Job 9: 3; Isa. 53: 10; Ofw is so used but two or three times, e. g., I Kgs. 9: 1).
On the other hand, the regular equivalent for Bouleuopat, a verb especially common in Isaiah, is Cf. II Sam. 16:23; Ps. 70: 10; Mic. 6: 5; Isa. 7: 5; 14: 24, 26, 27; 23: 9, etc. Furthermore, the verbal object of Boulevouat is regularly the infinitive,-either alone (15) e. g. Ps. 61: 5; Isa. 23: 9; (cf. 32: 7); I Mac. 8: 9, 30; or with toll (6) e. g. Ps. 30: 14; Isa. 51: 13; I Mac. 3: 31. There is no case in the Septuagint-unless Boulevgato can be proved to be the correct reading in Isa. 42: 21-where Bovlevopat is followed by iva. In the New Testament, on the other hand, both constructions are found, (the infinitive, Acts 27: 39, a iva clause, Jn. II: 53 and 12: 10). Cf. Bovan éyéveto iva Acts 27:42, and συμβουλεύομαι ένα Mt. 26: 4.
The foregoing evidence constitutes a strong antecedent probability in favor of Bolero. The probability that it was actually written instead of eBoulevcato is increased when it is remembered that scribes often wrote one verb for the other. Cf., besides Jer. 49 (42): 22, I Kgs. 12: 6; II Chr. 10: 6, 9; Esd. B 4: 5; Acts 5: 33; 15: 37. The reading Boudeúoaro may have been due to carelessness, but more probably it was purposely substituted for iBottero by a scribe who was familiar with the use of iva after Bovlevomat but not with Boulomai iva. The New Testament contains no instance of βούλομαι ίνα, though θέλω ένα is common. The latter never appears in the Septuagint, and Boúrouat iva only in the passage under consideration. The only case in the Greek Bible of Bothopai with an interrogative subjunctive is John 18: 39. The reading which it is here attempted to establish, cannot properly be considered an illustration of the use of iva after Bottomai, -an idiom which is found occasionally in late classical and ecclesiastical writers. It is rather a word for word translation of pupsyon. If the usual } had followed yaméBoúleto, we may be sure, would have been followed by an infinitive.
JOHN WESLEY Rice.
REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTICES.
Römische Elegiker. Eine Auswahl aus Catull, Tibull, Properz,
und Ovid. Für den Schulgebrauch bearbeitet von K. P. SCHULZE. Vierte Auflage. Berlin, Weidmann, 1900, 354
pages. The third edition of Schulze's excellent book of selections from Catullus and the Elegy appeared in 1890. The increase of nearly seventy pages in the fourth edition is, for the most part, due to expansion of the old commentary. This has been much enriched and improved by a more copious citation of illustrations, and shows the beneficial effects of a wider reading in prose than editors of the Roman poets are wont, as a rule, to allow themselves.
The introduction, dealing with the history of the Elegy etc., is practically unchanged. Indeed the survival from former editions of the dates, 234-149 v. Chr.,' attached to the name of Porcius Licinus (p. I, n. 1), shows that he-or was it the editor?- is still haunted by the memory of M. Porcius (Cato the Elder).
Schulze's grouping of his Catullian poems under categories'Lesbialieder,' 'An die Freunde,' 'An die Wiedersacher etc.is a matter of taste and, perhaps, of expediency. It has always been my own experience, however, that the traditional arrangement, based on the principle of variation, is just as welcome to the average American boy–who cares no more for categories in his poetry than the author did—as it was to the Roman reader for whom it was first devised. The worst of it is that categories involve us in chronology. By studies in chronology the evil wrought by these women of Catullus and the Elegy lives after them, and the teeth of innocent scholars are set on edge. The chronology of any love-affair-even your own-is difficult. How much more so that of a love-affair known to you only from the occasional poems of one of the participants, who was neither on his oath nor interested in that phase of the subject. If, therefore, Schulze has changed the order of his ‘Lesbialieder 'since the census of 1890 it is no matter for surprise. Incerta certa facere ratione postulat. Schulze's commentary on the episode of Ariadne, which is his excellent selection from the difficult LXIV, is considerably enlarged and improved.
As a matter of fact, did Catullus ever intend this for an episode except in appearance? So far as I now recall them the many theories of construction for the LXIV assume the Ariadne as strictly episodical, therein encountering their most serious difficulty, since, as such, the Ariadne is out of all proportion to the rest of this piece, for that matter, of any piece in which it might occur. Hence, it does not help matters much to suppose that LXIV was either left incomplete by the author or has reached us in that state. The old scribe christened the poem 'Argonautica,' probably on account of the first line. One wonders whether we have improved matters much by calling it the 'Marriage of Peleus and Thetis', and whether Ariadne at Dia’ would not be preferable. In that case, whatever difficulties might ensue, the otherwise inordinate length of the Ariadne would at least be best accounted for. Moreover, the method of construction, which consists, so to speak, in giving a frame to the picture, is familiar enough in Alexandrian as well as in modern literary art.
In the first elegy of Tibullus, the substance of which, Aristophanically stated, is
μα Δ' άλλ' εν ειρήνη διαγαγείν τον βίον,
έχoνθ' εταίραν και σκαλεύοντ’ άνθρακας, the rare but normal construction vita traducat (5) for the first time receives adequate notice in a commentary.
Classica pulsa (4) is a phrase which should have troubled commentators more than, in some cases, it seems to have done. Schulze is certainly correct in his explanation. But while the transfer to wind-instruments of a word proper only of stringedinstruments is well attested in Greek, indeed, was especially noted by Plutarch, Pollux and Suidas, I, for one, have found no exact parallel in Latin to this use of pulsa. Huschke quoted Claudian, , Cons. Theod., 313,
cui tibia flatu,
Cui plectro pulsanda chelys etc. but this may be explained by zeugma. At all events it seems clear that Tibullus's use of pello in this sense is a reflection of the Greek idiom' which, as its occurrence in the Comic fragments shows, was perfectly ordinary. Such seems not infrequently to have been the literary method of Tibullus. His general knowledge of the Greek language and style was apparently remarkable but, in distinction from all of his contemporaries, he betrays few traces of any one Greek poet now existing.
Lehnert's article on annus in the new Thesaurus shows that Schulze ought to reconsider his theory that in line 13,
Et quodcumque mihi pomum novus educat annus, novus annus means Spring. His ver novum, aestas nova are not parallels. Indeed, simply from a plain farmer's point of view
1 Doubtless Tibullus himself, who had seen service, knew how it felt to be suddenly startled out of a sound sleep by the night-alarm. But perhaps it would be too fanciful to suppose that his choice of the word was also suggested by his own sensations at such moments.
unless educat is forced into a meaning not supported by Schulze's appeal to Catullus LXII, 41-it would seem that his interpretation quite upset the natural chronology of the apple in all climates except, perhaps, that of the Golden Age, when, according to Ovid, 'ver erat aeternum.' I should prefer to translate novus annus here by something like “the season.”
In line 14 agricolae deo is perhaps collective. At any rate the various attempts of the elder commentators to guess which god the poet was thinking of were labor lost. Tibullus is purposely indefinite.
The substitution of igne (AV) for the traditional and well attested imbre (GPar, and the best editors) in 47-48,
Aut gelidas hibernus aquas cum fuderit auster,
Securum somnos, imbre iuvante, sequi, seems a little too suggestive of a porcelain stove and a feather-bed to be an improvement in this connection, and will hardly commend itself to those for whom a country attic, imbre iuvante, is one of the memories of childhood.
Those of us who have toiled over the Sulpicia question will heartily sympathize with the feelings, even if unconvinced by the logic, which, since his third edition, have prompted Schulze's addition of the following sentence to his introduction on II, 2:
“Vgl. Nr. x (iv. 6): dort bittet der Dichter die Götter, die Sulpicia mit ihrem Cerinthus-Cornutus zu vereinigen: hier sind sie vermählt.” The italics are mine.
If we possess any imagination and it will be a sorry day when imagination and scholarship finally part company-we illuminate the dark corners of this question with the feeling that, amid the feminine characters of the Elegy, all of whom are so suspiciously typical, here, at least, is a genuine girl, of sufficient brains and position to make her emotions a matter of interest, and really in love with an actual, if not a genuine, man. We scorn the possible insinuation that the daughter of Servius Sulpicius could have been ill-favored or passée. We joyfully welcome anything helping us to believe that this attractive and wilful young person was happily united to her Gaius in the bonds of holy confarreatio. Certainly, she seems to have given up the composition of elegiac love-letters. Possibly she found it more advisable, in the course of time, to cultivate a branch of the Roman lyric more literally deserving of Quintilian's tota nostra than ever the Satire was. The one fragment of it. preserved by the Scholiast on Persius, 3.16, is also an undoubted example of “Feminine Latinity." Let us believe all, or any part, of this if we can. But we are not justified in citing Tibullus II, 2 as a document in the case. The identity of Cornutus and Cerinthus is scarcely to be proved.
It would be impossible here to make a detailed examination of Schulze's commentary on his selections from Propertius, moreover, the record of disagreement regarding the interpretation of such an