Unfounded Consensus: On Vergil Ecl . 6. 34; G . 1. 36; A . 1. 458
2013; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 88; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1080/00397679.2013.819162
ISSN1502-7805
Autores Tópico(s)Classical Philosophy and Thought
ResumoAbstractToday's consensus on the text of Ecl. 6. 33-34 may arguably be contested as line 34 will fit the context better when omnis (gen. extracted from P) is read instead of omnia. As to G. 1. 36, the author believes that the consensus on sperant (indicative) is misplaced and that the neglected readingFootnote1 sperent, taken as a potential subjunctive and parallel to veniat (37), ought to be preferred. At A. 1. 458 Seneca's Atriden should replace the plural Atridas transmitted by the codices. Notes1. Among my own latest examples I would mention here: auris (instead of auras) at A. 6. 561), omnes (instead of omnis acc. pl.) at 2. 598, ne (instead of ni) at 3. 686, caelo (instead of caeli) at 5. 851, reliquit instead of relinquit at 746, exiliis (instead of exitiis) at 7. 129, relinquit (instead of reliquit) at 12. 470. See Kraggerud (Citation2011).2. Hirtzel (Citation1900) was wrong about his ex omnia primis when writing in his apparatus quod postea in P inventum est, coniecit Peerlkamp.3. Instead of “Proserpina reclaimed” I would prefer “Proserpina, albeit reclaimed”; commentators like Huxley and Della Corte rightly emphasize the concessive nature of repetita.4. In connection with the jussive mood Thomas points to the fact that desire for royal power (cf. regnandi … dira cupido in Vergil) “is a political phrase of the utmost opprobrium.”5. It is still useful to read Handford's caveats (p. 29) on too sharp distinctions between the functions of the subjunctive.6. See N. Holmes in ThesLL 9, 26, 73 ff. s.v. nam: appendix 7 (“inducit parenthesin persaepe”).7. Richter (Citation1957) p. 126: “Die Parenthese kennzeichnet eine Praeteritio”.8. Another, but equally humorous, way of taking the line could be: “Tartara (i.e. the inmates of that region) could not hope for a king like you as their ruler”. Servius' comment is also a valid reading and was for centuries quoted with approval by the early commentators: “‘nec sperent’ dixit, quasi beneficium det quocumque venerit”.9. The grammarian Arusius is probably the earliest witness.10. See for example Weidner: “ … da beide die Vertreter ihrer Völker sind, factisch = den Griechen sowohl wie den Troianern”.11. It may also be argued that Seneca is not always a reliable textual witness, cf. Ep. 92, 34 where he quotes the latter part of A. 9. 485 as canibus data praeda marinis against Latinis in the Vergil manuscripts.12. The well-known textual problem in this passage, the succession of lines, is irrelevant for my argument.13. Atrides is used of Agamemnon three times in Horace: S. 2. 3. 187; Carm. 2. 4. 7; Ep. 1. 2. 12; Atridae twice: S. 2. 3. 203; Carm. 1. 10. 13.14. “[ … ] leggendo Atridem, è naturale che il poeta dica: Achille fu infesto ad Agamemnone e a Priamo; ad Agamemnone per l'ira della rapita Briseide e a Priamo per l'uccisione di Ettore. [ … ].” I would rather say that his wrath against Priam is the natural wrath against the leader of the enemy.
Referência(s)