Printer Friendly


In CQ 45 (1995), 547-50, S. J. Harrison and M. Winterbottom (hereafter H-W) propose a series of emendations to the text of the recently discovered passage of Donatus which contains his commentary on Aen. 6.1-157. I offer some further emendations (bold figures refer to lines of Virgil).

6 Et recte translatione usus flammae semina posuit scintillas...; ipsae enim e modicis in maiora ducuntur augmenta nutrimentis additis, ut in reliquis seminibus uidemus ex paruis arbores maximas prouenire uel fruges ex messibus.

I do not entirely share H-W's suspicion of in reliquis seminibus, but agree with them that fruges ex messibus is wrong. However, instead of the various deletions and transpositions which they report I should merely change fruges ex messibus to messes ex frugibus (`grains'); this assumes a common type of mistake. It is true that there remains an awkwardness in the combination of in reliquis seminibus with the accusative and infinitive construction, but this awkwardness is perhaps tolerable in this sort of writing.

7 Compendio inuentam [sc. aquam] dixit, qui eius inquisitionem praetermisit.

I suspect that qui should be quia; note that the preceding sentence ends with a qui clause. Similarly at 21 H-W change qui (after dixit) to quia; see also my note on 83 below.

14 Daedalus... ausus est contra humani generis naturam caelum petere et uolare, quod ut et ausus eius modi praeueniret, pinnis ad imaginem ueri formatis desideratos effectus ingenii subtilitate compleuit.

H-W find quod very difficult and praeueniret inappropriate in sense. To meet the latter point they propose ut ausum eius modi proueniret, `in order that a daring enterprise of this kind might prosper'; this is good sense, but I see no need to change the masculine ausus to the neuter ausum. The most satisfactory way of dealing with quod is probably not deletion (which is one suggestion of H-W) but the assumption of a small lacuna, perhaps due to two consecutive words having the same initial letter, e.g. quod ut <exsequeretur> et ausus eius modi proueniret.

52-3 Istae, inquit, omnes nesciunt aperiri nisi preces fuderis et solueris uota.

`There is no point in omnes, and a feminine plural noun is needed as subject to agree with istae. Read fores, or ianuae' (H-W). Perhaps the point of omnes is that there were a hundred of them (1. 43); this is certainly the point of omnes in the note on 81, `miraculum fuit ianuas omnes nullo curante patefactas'. As for istae, if it is not possible to supply ianuae from the notes on 43 and 44, it could be inserted after istae, where its omission could be explained by homoeoteleuton.

55 Non fundit preces ab imo pectore nisi qui necessariis urgetur et premitur.

Since the corresponding note in the Berne scholia is `premebatur necessariis rebus' it is possible that rebus has dropped out of Donatus's text.

60 Quantum enim transmiserat maris ut uideret et Syrtes, tot maria se dixit intrasse, cum unum sit mare.

The only way of construing this passage, if the reading is right, is to put an exclamation mark after Syrtes. Similar exclamations are found at 20, quantum sceleris e.q.s., and at 63, quantum laudauit e.q.s.

66-7 Non alienum quaero sed debitum, fatorum mihi arbitrio et uoluntate decretum.

I suspect that deorum has fallen out (for an obvious reason) before decreturn.

73 Et libri Sibillini et ipsius nomen Sibillae in honore tum magno et acceptabili fuerant.

For turn magno et the manuscript reads sub magno, where sub may be an erroneous repetition of the first three letters of Sibillae. Rather than emend acceptabili (H-W propose admirabili or adorabili) I should insert auctoritate before it; for the auctoritas of the Sibyl cf. Cicero, Div. 2.110, Juvenal 8.126.

79-80 Domabatur os eius, domabatur et pectus insaniens, et cum premeretur in uaticinationem, quantoque illo furore carere cupiebat, tanto eam magnitudo numinis fatigabat.

`Unless there is a lacuna, we should replace quantoque with quanto' (H-W). I think that there is a lacuna, e.g. uaticinationem <furebat>, the verb then being picked up by the noun furore.

81 Miraculum fuit ianuas omnes nullo curante patefactas, quoniam totum poterat numen efficere cuius nutu reserebantur.

Totum must be the object of efficere, not an adjective agreeing with numen. In that case tantum would be much more satisfactory; the two words are easily confused.

83 Nuntiabantur bona cum malis, quo nuntio Aeneas releuari potius debuit. Non enim adeo grauia praedicebantur, quae unum aduersi genus dicebant esse transactum et aliud superesse.

Praedicebantur quae dicebant is unintelligible. I think that quae should be quia (as at 7 and 21), and that dicebant should be dicebat (sc. Sibylla, the subject of ait at the beginning of the next sentence but one).

110 Praeter rationem pietatis et sanguinis dicit quibus rebus cariorem quam suffecerat habuerit patrem.

Aeneas `indicates, quite apart from the motives of pietas and consanguinity, why he held his father... more dear' (H-W); Anchises had endeared himself to Aeneas by following him around the world. The comparative cariorem is naturally followed by quam, and it only remains to emend the nonsensical suffecerat to cum fugerat (from Troy); cf. 112 (of Anchises) `qui fugit cum eo [so I would emendfugitum est] de ruinis patriae'.

123 ET MI GENVS AB IOVE SVMMO EST. Et mi quomodo et illi.

The last word should surely be illis.

136 Redit ad partem sollemnitatis et mortis, sed eam quam supra non dixit.

Mortis is a strange partner for sollemnitatis, `ritual'. Read moris.


COPYRIGHT 1997 Cambridge University Press
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1997 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:WATT, W. S.
Publication:The Classical Quarterly
Date:Jan 1, 1997
Previous Article:INTERPOLATING AN ISTHMUS: JUVENAL 6.294-7(1).

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2022 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |