The keynote of the preface (xi-xiii) is the author's conviction that a stemma cannot be constructed and that variants must be considered on an individual basis. Recent work on the manuscripts of Lucan has only confirmed that this is the best approach to editing the poem. Since Badali devotes much of his preface to explaining the rationale of his edition (descriptions of the manuscripts are given in lengthy footnotes), the reader who wants a detailed discussion of the tradition must turn to the editions of Housman and Hosius and Gotoff's Transmission of the Text of Lucan in the Ninth Century (Cambridge, Mass. 1971). The preface is followed by a conspectus of editions and thirty-seven pages of bibliography which, along with an unnecessary table of abbreviations for periodicals, inconveniently separate the list of manuscript sigla from the beginning of the text. Badali reports the readings of MZVPQUG, the fragments NII, and occasionally nine other manuscripts, all listed in Hosius, as well as the lemmata (c) and text ([c.sup.1]) of the Commenta Bernensia and the lemmata
(a) and text ([a.sup.1]) of the Adnotationes super Lucanum. He has collated all the manuscripts he reports (preface, xx).
Also included in this edition are detailed reports of inscriptiones and subscriptiones, fragments of Lucan's lost poetry, the Suetonian Life, the Vacca Life, and an extensive appendix of errores singulares for MZVPQUGNII, the Commenta, and the Adnotationes: an ocean of error that would overwhelm a committee of Uberlieferungsforscher.
Badali's editorial practice is consistent with the rationale set forth in the preface. He is not hamstrung by allegiance to any manuscript or coalition of manuscripts, and he is not hostile to conjecture. The soundness of his judgment is confirmed by his overall consistency in rejecting the lectio facilior that un-Lucans Lucan, whether it be a manuscript variant or a conjecture, and in adopting conjectures that improve the text. Here follows a sample of controversial textual problems in which, in my opinion, he makes the right choice. The reading of his edition is always given to the left of the bracket. I employ his sigla, which are the same as Hosius': O = the consensus of the manuscripts, except those cited; s = the deteriores. In some cases I have simplified the reports.
1.227 fatis O] satis his Housman. Housman's emendation gives a much easier sequence of thought, but that in itself is not sufficient to promote it into the text. It is possible that in 226-27 we have two antithetical pairs, Fortuna - fatis and foedera-bello, arranged in the interlocking order ab-[a.sup.1][b.sup.1], Fortuna ... foedera ... fatis ... bello.
1.304 transcenderit MZU] transcenderet VPG. There is nothing unusual about a primary tense of the subjunctive in an unreal comparative clause, although secondary tenses are more common is such clauses introduced by quam si. Transcenderit is rightly retained for two reasons: it is the more difficult reading, and a tense of prior action is required. Fear in Rome could be no greater than if Hannibal had crossed (not were crossing = transcenderet) the Alps.
2.61 urbi Ls] orbi O. It is clear from the context that Rome is the prize.
2.292 conplosas Z] conpressas O. The trivialization conpressas has won general acceptance. But as Housman observed, a reference to folded hands unwilling to help is irrelevant here. The point is not refusal to help but emotional indifference (290 expers metus, 297 securo me): striking the hands together is a sign of emotional agitation.
2.387 maximus O] unicus Bentley. Maximus is convincingly defended by Hakanson in PCPS 25 (1979) 29.
4.578 uritur O] subditur Axelson angitur Burman vincitur Bentley. Libertas uritur is a very difficult phrase. It seems best to give Lucan and the manuscripts the benefit of the doubt; likewise at 7.43 gemitus edere dolorem and 8.665 iratamque deis faciem.
5.804-5 vadis ... fugis Gs] vadit ... fugit O. The second person is rhetorically more effective, especially in the company of fida comes Magni.
6.137 gemit [GV.sup.2]] vomit O Sonat Hakanson. As Housman noted, vomit needs an object. Hakanson's sonat is weaker than gemit, which produces a nice sound pattern: crebros gemit agger ad ictus.
6.532 lectum PGU (-to MZ)] letum [M.sup.2][V.sup.3][U.sup.3]. Housman defended letum with a memorable sententia: "lectum funebrem omnes novimus, Lucanum non omnes." But letum is too abstract and tame for this inversion of funerary ritual.
6.637 gutture O] pectore s. Hakanson's vigorous defense of pectore in PCPS 25 (1979) 32 is undermined by transmissional probability and by his assertion that the corpse's throat must be intact. As Erictho goes about her ghoulish autopsy, she has two requirements for a corpse, freshness (621-23) and undamaged lungs (629-30). Therefore, she chooses a corpse that has been wounded in the throat rather than in the chest as a guarantee of undamaged lungs. As for transmissional probability, Housman wrote, speaking of this same pair of variants in Juvenal 1.156, that gutture is "superior palaeographically, as the less common word" (Cambridge 1931) xix.
7.20 venturis O] mens curis Bentley. The appearance of mens in the Commenta's note may be nothing more than a piece of scholiastic interpretation prompted by the use of animus in the note on line 8. The more difficult construction of supplying quies in 22 with anxia in 20 is to be preferred.
7.677 te praesente O] parte apsente Housman. The Fates have decreed that Pompey will die without his wife at his side. Housman and earlier editors detected an inconsistency in the fact that Cornelia witnesses the assassination of Pompey (8.632 and 637). It is clear, however, that from Cornelia's point of view she is being separated from her husband: 8.578, impatiens desse marito, cf. 651. If Cornelia and Pompey are each on separate boats and the boats are separated by a stretch of ocean, how can Cornelia be thought of as praesens with respect to Pompey in his hour of need?
In general Badali shows a steady hand in his choice of variants and conjectures: 1.209 iubam et vasto grave ZG] iubas et vasto MUV iubas et grave P (the note in the apparatus is unclear). 1.229 it PV] et ZUG. 1.234 seu (prius) 0] sed Housman. 1.254 ruentem G] furentem O. 1.260 tacet O] iacet P. 1.531 denso VG] tenso O. 2.295 furorem O] pudorem Hakanson. 2.587 nusquam V] numquam O. 3.159 Gallus Housman] Pyrrhus O. 3.188 Athaman Bentley] Athamas O. 3.190 unda Francken] undas O. 4.20 coerces s] coercens O. 4.412 spoliarat Guietus] spoliabat O. 4.590 quas MZ] quae O. 5.137 farique Burman] fatique O. 6.421 cui Heinsius] qui ON. 6.663 praebente Madvig] praesente O. 7.464 parentum Housman] parentes O. 8.294 pugnandi Guietus] regnandi O. 9.38 Graia Housman] Creta O Graeca ed. prin.
Readers of Lucan may rehearse with great profit Pope's couplet "'Tis with our judgments as our watches, none / go just alike, yet each believes his own." For they will never be completely satisfied with any edition of the Bellum Civile. Transmitted variants, augmented by acute conjectures, provide too much fuel for disagreement. Some of my disagreements are listed below; my preference is given to the right of the bracket.
1.8-9 punctuated as a question. This punctuation, defended by Mayer in Mn 32 (1979) 338-39, is problematic. What is the construction of praebere in 9? It cannot be an adnominal infinitive dependent on licentia, because licentia is defined by ferri. One can say licentia ferri or licentia praebere cruorem but not licentia ferri praebere cruorem. The parallel cited from Seneca, Nat. Quaes. 5.15.3, is no help, because spes is not accompanied by a dependent genitive and spes relinquere is perfectly normal. Nor can praebere be appositional: furor and licentia denote the insanity and lawlessness of fratricidal civil war; praebere cruorem introduces a different idea, a by-product of that slaughter, foreign nations glutted with Roman blood. 8 must stand alone as a question. 13-18 are better punctuated with an exclamation mark and 19-20 with a period. (Punctuation ought to be revised at 2.73-74, 3.76-78, 3.114, 638-39 Bentley, 4.719, 823, 5.213-14, 216-17,8.43 549-50.) 1.103 franget MUG] frangat [ZVM.sup.2]. 1.481 Alpemque O] Albimque van Jever. 1. 602 festis s] festus O. 1. 641 moventibus O] sequentibus Bentley. 2.165 tam O] tot [UM.sup.2]. 2.262 ferantur O] ferentur Housman. 2.303 prosequar VG] persequar O. 2.406 iuncto Sapis Isauro PU] iunctus Apise Pisaurus J. D. Morgan, anticipated in part by Vossius' iunctus Sape Pisaurus. 2.554 qua ... hostis PGUV] quoi (Housman) . . . hosti ZM. 2.665 Aegaei O] Aeolii Bentley. 3.249 Orestas O] Oretae (Oritae?) Scaliger. An eastern people is needed. 3.253 Aethiopumque solum] compare Housman's exegetical note on pp. 327-29, cited in the apparatus, with his addenda to Manilius 4.804. 3.328 rerum O] scelerum Schrader nunc MZ] non O illis UV] ullis MZ. 3.433 vibrare M2] librare O. 3.588 pectore O] corpore van Jever. 4.253 faciem O] facie s. 4.329 nocturnum O] nociturum Bentley 4.746 tunc Z] ut O. 5.386 dominis ON] dominos al. 5.443 rigente O] regente M. 5.489 medias O] medios Oudendorp. 6.6] alitur O] capitur Hakanson. 6.585 averrere MZ] avertere VPG. 6.709 dedi lavi O] deo lavi V. 6.716 omina U2] omnia O. 6.778 tactae U] tacitae VG. 6.782 alii O] Latii Housman. 7.244 fatis O] et fatis s. 7.658 voluitque O] vovitque V. 7.843 avide MZP] avidae VUG. 8.375 tota O] totum G. 8.767 succensa MZPQ] succense VG.
Badali prints nine of his own emendations in the text, none of which, in my judgment, makes a real improvement: 2.493 prolapsus. 2.678 caesu. 5.814 lenta. 7.43 gemitu caruere. 7.335 fatum isto. 7.616 vinxere. 7.735 coactis. 10.314 nobis sunt. 10.518 rependit (the line was deleted by Heinsius).
The apparatus is overburdened with extraneous matter, in particular with the ubiquitous names of Hosius and Housman (truly an odd couple), with the variation of -is/-es in the accusative plural and of tum and tunc, and with the much overworked fort. recte, which also turns up in the vernaculars (8.224, 9.1033). Although the orthography has been systematically normalized, one finds tesca at 2.426 but tesqua at 6.41, quom at 2.541, dirigere for de-, and an occasional haut. There are misprints at 6.676, 8.42, 9.27; the note in the apparatus at 2.630 appears to belong to 3.630.
Despite these criticisms scholars owe a great debt of gratitude to Badall for his Herculean labors in doing battle with this textual Hydra. His edition will give new impetus to the textual criticism and interpretation of the Bellum Civile and will provide a solid foundation for a full-scale commentary on Lucan's epic, if one should ever be written.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Possanza, D. Mark|
|Publication:||American Journal of Philology|
|Article Type:||Book Review|
|Date:||Jun 22, 1994|
|Previous Article:||The Edges of the Earth in Ancient Thought: Geography, Exploration, and Fiction.|
|Next Article:||The occasional contextual appropriateness of formulaic diction in the Homeric poems.|