Book XIII of Ovid’s ›Metamorphoses‹: A Textual Commentary [1 ed.] 3110610108, 9783110610109

Table of contents :
Acknowledgements
Contents
Introduction
Bibliography
Commentary
Index of notable textual phenomena
Appendix critica

Citation preview

Luis Rivero García Book XIII of Ovid’s Metamorphoses A Textual Commentary

Sammlung wissenschaftlicher Commentare

Luis Rivero García

Book XIII of Ovid’s Metamorphoses A Textual Commentary

De Gruyter

ISBN 978-3-11-061010-9 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-061249-3 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-061153-3 ISSN 1864-3426 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Rivero García, Luis, author. Title: Book XIII of Ovid's Metamorphoses : a textual commentary / Luis Rivero García. Description: Berlin : De Gruyter, 2018. | Series: Sammlung wissenschaftlicher Commentare Identifiers: LCCN 2018023828 (print) | LCCN 2018026378 (ebook) | ISBN 9783110612493 (electronic Portable Document Format (pdf) | ISBN 9783110610109 (print : alk. paper) | ISBN 9783110612493 (e-book pdf) | ISBN 9783110611533 (e-book epub) Subjects: LCSH: Ovid, 43 B.C.-17 A.D. or 18 A.D. Metamorphoses. Liber 13--Commentaries. Classification: LCC PA6519.M9 (ebook) | LCC PA6519.M9 R54 2018 (print) | DDC 873/.01--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018023828

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com

Acknowledgements The present volume was conceived over a decade ago and has taken shape in different places and with the collaboration of numerous individuals and institutions. To begin with the latter, the book owes a great deal to the support of the University of Huelva, which harbours the projects of the Nicolaus Heinsius Research Group, within which Prof. Antonio Ramírez de Verger made his proposal to compile all the information possible on the transmission of the text of Ovid’s Metamorphoses and make it available to the international community. With this book we bring that idea to partial fruition, to be accompanied by my colleagues’ studies on other books of Ovid’s poem. For this ambitious task we have also enjoyed the institutional support of several Research Projects of Excellence: “OVIDIANA: Comentario crítico-textual y edición del texto de las Metamorfosis” (FFI2008-01843) and “The Metamorphoses of Ovid: 35 Years of Research (1980–2014). With an Appendix on Manuscripts and Editions (s. IX-XXI)” (FFI2013-42529), both financed by the Spanish government with the aid of FEDER funds during the years 2009–2018; “Las Metamorfosis de Ovidio: edición crítica, traducción y comentario” (HUM-1019) and “Edición crítica y comentario textual de las Metamorfosis y Opera Minora de Ovidio” (HUM-4534), both financed by the regional government of Andalucía during the years 2006–2014. These projects have guaranteed the efficient teamwork required to locate and acquire documents (mainly manuscripts, editions and critical articles), and have enabled us to establish common working lines and methods for the production of the commentaries, as well as to train new researchers by means of four doctoral theses read in this period (on Books III, VII, X and XI). But our work would have been less efficient had we not been able to count on the support of Huelva University Library and its staff, ever attentive to our needs and promptly overseeing the location and acquisition of the do­­ cuments essential to our research tasks. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all of them, and in particular to Dª Aurora Romero, who from the Interlibrary Loan Service attended to our constant and often problematic requests with patience, thoughtfulness and professional discipline. However, my work has not only been carried out at home but, thanks again to the financial support of different institutions, I have been given access to the wealth of bibliographical resources of several European libraries, whose staff I would also like to thank for enabling me to make the most of my research stays: the Bibliothèque Nationale de France in Paris; the Universiteitsbibliotheek of Leiden; the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek in Munich; the https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110612493-201

VI

Acknowledgements

Biblioteca Universitaria di Bologna; the libraries of the Deutsches Archäeo­ logisches Institut, the École Française and the Nazionale Centrale in Rome; the Biblioteca Palatina di Parma; the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana in Flo­ rence; the Biblioteca Nazionale di Napoli. Special thanks, however, are due to Dra. Paola Errani, of the Biblioteca Malatestiana di Cesena, who along with the rest of her team greatly facilitated my research into the fragmentum Caesenas in February 2014. Also to Dr. Marco Buonocore, on whose learned help I have been able to count in each of my consultations and who made my work in the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana so much easier in the first half of 2015. And, finally, to Dra. Denise Gavio and all the staff of one of my favourite study places: the American Academy in Rome, in whose main building on the Gianicolo a considerable part of this commentary was produced, in both March-September 2008 and March-June 2015, thanks to scholarships from the Spanish government. And, returning home, to the people to whom I am most greatly indebted: my colleagues in the Departamento de Filología and the Centro de Investigación en Patrimonio Histórico, Cultural y Natural (CIPHCN) of the University of Huelva, ever ready to assist when I have needed their help, and in particular to my colleagues in the Nicolaus Heinsius Research Group, without whom I now feel almost incapable of working. I would like to acknowledge the permanent availability, whether in person or at a distance, of doctors Ramírez de Verger, Estévez Sola, Bellido Díaz, Díez Reboso, Suárez del Río, Fàbregas Salis and Fernández Valverde, and to this list I must add the name of the sadly departed Georg Luck. The constant exchange of information and suggestions with all of them has enriched each and every one of the pages of this book. In particular, I would like to thank Professor Bellido Díaz for having read the first version of the book and for his perceptive corrections, and Professors Ramírez de Verger and Estévez Sola for their willingness to take over my teaching tasks so that I could enjoy one year’s research leave during the academic year 2014–2015. I would also like to thank J.J. Zoltowski for his help with the English translation of the book. Finally, I would like to offer public recognition of my gratitude to the publisher Walter de Gruyter for bringing this volume to the hands of our readers. I cannot but finish these acknowledgements without mentioning all those who with their understanding and patience – and no less with their proud support – have made it possible for me to devote endless hours to the scrutiny of manuscripts and the analysis of these verses of Ovid, in short, to our famous nugae philologicae: To Salud and Luis, mea uita; to my mother, sister and brothers, who were always at hand; to my father, who did not live to see this book in print but is present in every word; to my friends, gaudium meum, freely chosen from those who have chanced to cross my path. Huelva-Sevilla-Extremadura, March 2018.

Contents Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The manuscript transmission of the text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 The editors of the text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Manuscripts used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Group Γ (ss. IX-XII1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Group Δ (ss. XII2-XIII1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Group Θ (s. XIII2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Group Σ (s. XIV) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Group Φ (s. XV-XVI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Group Ψ (excerpta) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Editions and commentaries used. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 The codices of N. Heinsius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Titles cited. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Abbreuiationes hoc in opere usitatae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Commentary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Index of notable textual phenomena. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413 Appendix critica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417

Introduction The essential objective of Philology is to establish a text for subsequent internal and external analysis. This critical-textual commentary on Book XIII of Ovid’s Metamorphoses is presented as a basic tool for this primary purpose. The aim is for the specialist reader to be able to find here all the textual information generated by each passage from the earliest manuscripts transmitting, in whole or in part, this book of Ovid’s opus magnum, without ignoring the data provided since Ovid’s own time by the evidence of the indirect tradition. Also included here is information on the way in which editors and critics have interpreted each passage from the 15th century down to the present. Finally, this volume does not hold back from entering the fray in an attempt to make its own modest contribution to the fixing of the text at its more obscure points. Consequently, the commentary on each section is generally accompanied by a reasoned stance adopted by the author of these pages in relation to the textual obstacle under discussion.1 The text of Ovid’s Metamorphoses has been preserved for us in around 570 manuscripts dated between the 9th and 16th centuries and has been the subject of more than 500 editions and reprints since the appearance in 1471 of the editiones principes of Bologna and Rome.2 To these daunting figures must be added the vast number of critical-textual studies with which scholars from the Renaissance down to our own days have attempted to shed light on the

1 The general structure of the commentary will be as follows: 1) a portion of the Latin text as proposed by me; 2) the textual information (following the format of the apparatus criticus of a critical edition) concerning only the most relevant points under discussion; 3) critical-textual commentary on the passage. For all additional textual information about the passage, the reader will be referred to the “Appendix critica”. In both the apparatus and the appendix mss. are listed alphabetically and grouped by period (see below), followed by chronological lists of editors and critics. Whenever I refer to a ‘common’ (or ‘frequent’ etc.) textual phenomenon, the reader is invited to consult the “Index of notable textual phenomena”. 2 For the complete list of manuscripts I refer the reader to the study by Estévez 2013. Working from the principal previous studies (basically those of Munari 1957, 1965, 1970 and Coulson 1988, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996), he updates and enhances the catalogue of witnesses. For an overview of the editions of the Metamorphoses  I also recommend, as a recent and all-embracing study, that of Ramírez de Verger 2016. Also useful are the syntheses by Díez (2014, xiii-xxiii), Suárez (2015, xiii-xxii) and Fàbregas (2016, xv-lx). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110612493-001

2

Introduction

numerous passages of the Ovidian epic which continue to present difficulties or signs of error in transmission.3

The manuscript transmission of the text In order to organize this huge body of manuscript material more manageably we have grouped the witnesses according to chronological and typological criteria.4 The first group is formed by the fragmenta antiquissima, five in all, though none of them contain text from book XIII. However, ll. 1–403 are contained in the fragmentum Caesenas (Cs), which Tarrant (2004, ix) reported as being aetatis incertae, whereas I have been able to demonstrate (Rivero 2016) that this fragment now occupies ff. 65–102 of the ms. Caesen. S.I.5 (Cs2, s. XIII2) and that it was copied by a hand from the end of the 12th century or the first half of the 13th. The second group (Γ) comprises the 25 mss. dated between the 11th century and first half of the 12th, only 13 of which contain the text of book XIII (AGfL3Lr2LuMM2NP2S2TV2V3). I have collated the text in its entirety for all of them, from a digitized copy in all cases but also from the originals in the case of mss. MM2NP2TV2V3.5 Group Δ consists of the 87 mss. dated between c. 1150 and c. 1250. Only 56 of these contain the text of book XIII, which I have again collated fully in all cases,6 with the exception of three, to which the owners have not allowed us access.7 Some 80 mss. in group Θ, i.  e. those dating from the second half of the 13th c., contain our text. In the present commentary I offer the total or partial evidence of 418 as well as that of another 21 mss. dating from the 14th c. (group 3 Those which affect the text of book XIII are dealt with in the present commentary. A specific list of critical studies of the complete text of the Metamorphoses is planned for the Bibliography currently being prepared for Lustrum: “The Metamorphoses of Ovid: 35 Years of Research (1980–2014). With an Appendix on Manuscripts and Editions (s. IX-XXI)”. For a recent overview with interesting second thoughts on the task of editing this poem, see Tarrant 2018. 4 By “we” I refer to the Research Team at the Universidad de Huelva. This listing is available at http://www.uhu.es/proyectovidio/pdf/cronológico.pdf 5 In the case of S2 there is now an excellent-quality image available at http://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/list/one/csg/0866. We now also have a magnificent reproduction of N at https://www.wdl.org/en/item/4524/ 6 Within this group I have had the opportunity to read the original copy of CsLdMo­ P3P4PrT7V8, and Dr. Díez has checked for me a number of readings of mss. Lr3Lr4. 7 The codices in question are: Abredoniensis Bibl. Univ. 165 (C2.7.63), s. XIII1 (Ad), which we have been unable to obtain from the holding library; and the Phillipici 1038 (s. XII/ XIII; Ph) and 6912 (c. 1250; Ph3), now in private hands and equally inaccessible. 8 From the original document in the cases of Cs2Ld6Mo3P8P10. Whenever the text of a ms. has not been collated completely or directly, this will be made clear in the ms. listing. (infra).



The manuscript transmission of the text

3

Σ),9 29 from the 15th to 16th centuries (group Φ)10 and 13 excerpta (group Ψ) dated to between the 11th and 15th centuries.11 The manuscript tradition of the Metamorphoses is marked at the outset by one consideration: no witness has been preserved from before the 9th c., and in the specific case of book XIII the oldest witnesses date from the 11th c.12 This offers a completely different panorama from that presented, for example, by the works of Virgil and one which will also condition a clearly different methodology in the approach to the text, as we shall see.13 Critics were able to isolate two lines or families of manuscripts, calling them “Lactantian” or “non-Lactantian” depending on whether or not they contained the tituli and narrationes which were at one time attributed to Lactantius Placidus, author of a commentary on Statius.14 On the basis of this distinction an attempt has been made to establish the only indication of a stemma our text permits.15 It is clear that the presence of these elements is the result of a common origin, but it is equally obvious that the codices which transmit them offer disparate texts and that it is very difficult to identify readings that are clearly exclusive to one or other family.16 The only clear evidence as things stand today for the text of Ovid in general and that of the Metamorphoses in particular is the mass horizontal contamination involved, to the point of its becoming the phenomenon that truly defines it. Even so, it is also true that a few mss. show signs of drawing from different sources than the rest. The main manuscripts for the Metamorphoses, both because they are heir to this specific tradition and because of the objective   9 From the original document in BoBo2Cs3T13. 10 From the original document in Ld11. 11 From the original document in Mo9V45Ld13. The collation of V45 from the original was provided to me by Dr. Suárez. 12 At the earliest the 10th c., if we accept the dating of the excerpta Mo9 to the 10th-11th c. (thus Halm-von Laubmann-Meyer 1894, 215), and not to the end of the 11th c., in accordance with the most recent catalogues (see Munk Olsen 1985, 176; and http:// www.uhu.es/proyectovidio/pdf/descripcion.pdf), or even ss. XIex-XIIin, as defended by Tarrant (2004, xiv). 13 For the manuscript transmission in general and the different hypotheses on the first edition of Ovid’s text I refer the reader to the studies by Tarrant (1983, 276–82), Coulson (1987, 1991, 2002, 2009, 2010), Coulson-Roy (2000), Hollis (1996), Zwierlein (1999, 2000), Cameron (2004) and the recent updating by Gatti (2014, 27–85, and see the review by Kretschmer 2015). Also extremely useful, of course, are the praefationes to the editions of Magnus (1914), Anderson (1982) and Tarrant (2004). See also the updated overviews by Díez (2014, viii-xi), Suárez (2015, viii-xii) and Fàbregas (2016, xv-xxxiv). For the survival of Ovid in late-mediaeval authors, see Tilliette 1994. 14 On this matter the studies by Otis (1935, 1936), Breitzigheimer (1937), Gelsomino (1962), Senis (1990), Tarrant (1995) and Cameron (2004, 3–32, 313–6) are still valid, and to these should be added the recent study and updating by Gatti (2014, 28–39). See also Díez (2014, xxiv-xxviii); Suárez (2015, xxii-xxvi); Fàbregas (2016, xxxv-xliv). 15 See Anderson 1982, xi-xii; Tarrant 2004, xx-xxvii. 16 See e.  g. our notes on ll. 10 (promptum [est]); 77 (in); 78 (hostem); 140 (non); 157 (est isto); 184 (erant); 356 (haec); 607 (uera); 662 (dedantur).

4

Introduction

quality of their texts, are M (Marcianus Florentinus 225, s. XI2) and N (Neapolitanus Bibl. Nat. IV.F.3, s. XI/XII), and this lends particular importance to those few recentiores which directly follow them:17 MoN2 (Δ), V16 (Θ) and Bo3Lr22V30Vd11 (Φ), to which we naturally must add Lr27 (a. 1456), a clean copy of M,18 and Lr8 (s. XIII), likewise of N although only up to 11.66.19 The obvious relationship between M and N affects in turn V2 (Vaticanus Vrbinas lat. 341, olim 798, s. XI2), written, like N, in Bari-type Beneventan script: frequently the initial text of N coincides with the text of M, and the first correction of N coincides with the text of V2.20 Now, on a significant number of occasions this first correction of N (= V2) is precisely the reading of the mss. in general (what Magnus 1914 termed family “X”), as against the original reading, which N shares exclusively with M and the above-mentioned group of closely related recentiores.21 It is difficult to be more detailed concerning the interdependence of these three codices, but I am inclined to believe that V2 is later than N and that it may be an apograph of a copy of N which already contained the final part of the poem which is missing there (i.  e. 14.839–15.879) and which was added by later hands.22 The close relationship between M and N, on their part, is particularly obvious not only in the common deviations in their texts, but also because in both codices the text breaks off towards the end of book XIV: in l. 830, in the case of M, and l. 838, in that of N. Moreover, it is highly significant that in the initial configuration of the two mss. the portions of text 8.340–402 and 13.276–343 are missing, and the fact that in M ll. 14.272–307 are also missing seems to indicate clearly that both mss. are copying, not one and the same codex, but copies which themselves might in turn be apographs of a common antigraph. Finally, and even though this is a mere suspicion which will have to be confirmed or refuted with further data from other books, I am inclined to think that the first copyist of N reproduces an older version of the text than that reproduced by the copyist of M. Indeed, some of the readings in which M stands practically on its own can be explained from the original reading 17 A list of passages of our book where this relationship is obvious can be seen in the “Index of notable textual phenomena”. The relationship between these recc. and MN calls for a rectification of the claim by Magnus (1914, xxv) when, in reference precisely to the “family O” (= MN), he stated: “haec familia, ut uidetur, post saec XII propagari desita est”. 18 See Slater (1927, 31) and Munari (1957, 30  f., nº 134). 19 See Anderson 1977, 261–74. 20 See Tarrant 2004, xi; Díez 2014, xxvii and xxxvii-xxxix; Suárez 2015, xxv and xxxiv-xxxvi. Exceptional in this respect is the coincidence of M and V2 in the striking reading siluis in l. 905, but the fact is that this variant might already have been present in N (uid. ad loc.). 21 A selection of passages in which this dynamic can be detected can again be found in the “Index of notable textual phenomena”. 22 See Anderson 1977, 274–7, who was inclined rather to consider the text of N as later than that of V2 (which he calls U).



The manuscript transmission of the text

5

of N and in general as an error, which in turn should warn us against the long-upheld belief evident, for example, in the 2nd ed. of Merkel (1875), that M is the best preserved witness of the poem.23 Here are a couple of examples to illustrate this: in l. 762 (quid sit amor sentit nostrique cupidine captus) M (followed by L42MoN2 Bo3Lr27Vd11) gives ualidaque in place of nostrique, a reading which has been adopted by a substantial number of editors since Riese (1872) but which I suspect originates in an erratum such as can still be read in the original version of N: utrique, which in Beneventan script (uαrique) can equally be read as uarique and looks very close to ualique (uid. ad loc.); in l. 802 (laudato pauone superbior, acrior igni) the absurd variant phitone in M (also in Bo3Lr27) can be explained by the erroneous variant of NV2: pαone, which in Beneventan script can equally be read as ptone.24 Be that as it may, it is obvious that the copyist of M did not work directly from N, as is shown by the fact that l. 211, omitted in N but copied inter lineas by the manus prima, is absent from M, or that this ms. lacks ll. 14.831– 8, which are, however, to be found in N.25 A different question and one that is much more difficult to determine is at what point in the transmission and for what reasons this two-fold textual line appears, and this also brings us to the hotly debated problems of “double version” and the interpolations.26 To begin with the latter, I believe personally that it is difficult for such a popular text as this to have been transmitted down through the centuries without the odd copyist succumbing to the temptation to introduce his own particular “contribution”,27 but it also seems obvious that the interpolation argument has been put forward much too readily (suffice to recall that Merkel went so far as to condemn more than 250 lines) and as a tool to bring the text as transmitted into line with a preconceived notion, often following excessively rational premises and at 23 Anderson (1982, xii): “bonus, non optimus est. nam plurimis erroribus et lectionibus dubiis deformatus suspicionem mouet, ubicumque lectionem unicam exhibet”. See Fàbregas 2016, xviii. 24 See also 37; 442 (late); 472 (redimat ius triste sepulcri); 817; 853. Stephen Heyworth has recently (2018, 106) defended that the oldest ms. of the Fasti, A, might also derive from an antigraph written in Beneventan script. See also Clark 2011, 7. 25 It is true that in M l. 14.830 is in the last line of f. 119r but it is also the fact that the copyist has left blank the whole of f. 119v, where he could have copied these 8 lines had he had them in front of him. That the antigraph of N, for its part, finished at this l. 838 seems to be proved by the special calligraphy with which the copyist reproduces the line on f. 188v (see Tarrant 2004, xi, n. 13). 26 To the bibliography cited in note 13 should be added the following pages: Magnus 1914, iii-x; Tarrant 2004, xxxiv-xxxv; Díez 2014, xxix-xxx; Suárez 2015, xxvi-xxviii; Fàbregas 2016, xxxviii, n. 65, and lxi-lxii. 27 In the whole of our book the only case which seems clear to me is that of l. 332 (see Rivero 2015b, 169–77), and perhaps also ll. 560  f. (2016b, 145–7). For other passages of our book in which some have detected this problem, see Rivero 2015b, 161–9, 2016c, 2016d, 2017, 2017b, 325–7.

6

Introduction

times attributing to the supposed interpolator an expertise it would be easier to attribute to the poet himself.28 As regards a double version by the author, there are no sure signs of this in our book (except, perhaps, in the second hemistich of l. 333, though I prefer a different explanation). No doubt this hypothesis is not to be ruled out, but neither is it demonstrable with the data we have at present and I am inclined to think, along with editors such as Magnus and Tarrant, that there are simpler ways to explain the texts which have come down to us in a different version. Finally, as regards the numerous variants in which the tradition is split into two or more large groups, I think we should tackle them with the idea that they are not alternative and equally valid variants, but that only one came from the pen of Ovid himself and that the others are either copying errors or stem from glosses that have slipped in and are metrically possible, or else are variants introduced by copyists who believed they were thereby correcting the text. In these cases we can only apply philological methods without attributing any previous value to the fact that they appear in one or other “family” of codices, or in older and more authoritative manuscripts in opposition to readings supported only by recentiores.29 For good or bad, I feel that we must continue to accept the conclusion reached by G.P. Goold in his “Preface to the Second Edition” (1984, vi-vii) after observing the situation of the manuscript transmission of this work as depicted in the recent edition by Anderson: “Yet it must be confessed that the picture of the tradition thus unfolded is more blurred than had been expected: the principal manuscripts are not free from vicious interpolation, and the true readings (whether inherited or conjectural) may appear anywhere; the lines of transmission seem confused beyond our power to disentangle, and today’s editor finds himself back in the position of Heinsius and Bentley, forced in the quest of Ovid’s ipsissima uerba to practise an eclecticism controlled only by inherent considerations of fact and reason”. While accepting the validity of this conclusion, I believe that two things must be pointed out: 1) Anderson’s edition far from offered an even representative overview of the manuscript tradition of this work; 2) there is no path other than the one that has already been walked, and in the case of the 28 Vid. ad 294  f.; 333; 404–7; 692  f.; 707 (Iouem). 29 See e.  g. Tarrant (1989, 104): “The situation I have outlined occurs many times in the text of the Metamorphoses. The older manuscripts agree on a reading that is in itself unobjectionable, but one or more of the recentiores – which in this tradition means manuscripts of the twelfth century or later – offers a variant that is arguably superior on grounds of style: more elegant, more pointed, or more readily paralleled in the works of other Latin poets. Are these variants to be accepted as authentic readings that have dropped out of the earliest surviving stratum of transmission, or should they be treated as the refined interpolations of erudite ancient or medieval readers?” See also Tarrant 1995, 114; 2004, xxv and xxvii; 2016, 61; Fàbregas 2016, xxxvii-xliv. On the matter of minor variants, see also Wilson 1987.



The manuscript transmission of the text

7

manuscripts the greatest number of witnesses possible must be read, if not in the hope of making great discoveries, at least so that the small details resulting from reading them directly may offer us guidance, for example, on possible connections or the potential value of different codices that may appear to be insignificant. Naturally, the evaluation of the weight of the manuscript tradition in the selection of different variants may also differ greatly depending on the range collated.30 We therefore find ourselves today at a great advantage over Heinsius, who in turn was much better placed than Bentley because of his direct handling of and familiarity with the manuscripts of Ovid. Accepting these limitations and their corresponding methodological implications, the experience of having collated a significant number of mss. of book XIII leads me to believe that a different general assessment of the contribution of the mss. can however be made, depending on the different periods in which they were written: just as in the mss. prior to 1250 we can still clearly perceive the two branches which we identify grosso modo with MN and with the rest (families “O” and “X” in Magnus’s terminology), the mss. which we bring together here in groups Θ and Σ (i.  e. between 1250 and 1400) are, with exceptions such as Lr8 or Vd16, the ones which present a more stable adhesion to the mass or group “X” and therefore the ones which offer a ‘poorer’ text. The situation of the mss. of the following century (Φ) is different, since in the odd exceptional case we are dealing with copies probably made by the humanists from recently discovered manuscripts which might have been particularly early or at least especially valuable, as is the above-mentioned case of Lr27, the antigraph of which has in this instance been preserved. In this group we should include mss. such as Bo3Lr22V30Vd11, the text of which is close, at times almost uniquely close, to that of MN, but diverges from them in many other passages, indicating that they come from different codices of MN but ones which contained a text preserving clear traces of the same tradition.31 Unless there are unlikely discoveries of early codices containing the text of the Metamorphoses, I believe that it is these late apographs which might in the future present editors of this work with a pleasant surprise. Little more remains to be said on the links between the preserved manuscripts. In the course of my collations and those of my colleagues in the University of Huelva research team we have been able to establish some particular connections between specific codices, and even in these cases it must be admitted that a relationship that is self-evident in a certain book of the Metamorphoses may not be so obvious in another, which would seem to point once more to horizontal contamination (the use of more than one antigraph) and perhaps to the transmission of the text by books or by epi30 As is only to be expected, this distortion becomes pitifully apparent in conservative editions such as those of Loers (1843) or Anderson (1982). 31 For the case of Bo3 see e.  g. l. 11 (feroci); 220  f.; 912 (loco), but cf. in turn l. 158 (si petat). For Vd11, cf. e.  g. 442 (late); 574 (sic omnes); 684 (Hyleus); 748 (sic sum); 756 (en); 853 (soli); 886 (auitas). To Lr22V30 I shall return below.

8

Introduction

sodes.32 Among these particular connections I would like to mention the following:33 Ba-G; Cv-Ps; F2-Ld11-Z; Lr2-Lu2;34 Lr7-Cs3;35 Ls-B14;36 N2-T13; T7-Cs.37 In addition, there is an obvious link between P38 (Parisinus lat. 8016, s. XV) and the ed. by Calphurnius of 1474.38 I reserve a final mention for the relationship between mss. Lr22V30 (s. XV), on the one hand, and the ed. princeps Aler. 1471, on the other.39 As I have mentioned above, these two codices belong to the select group of those that are in line at times with the text of MN when it diverges from the vulgata of “family X”,40 even though in many other passages they are independent, which seems to suggest that they were copied from another manuscript belonging to the same line of transmission. The connection between these and Aler. 1471 is what results in this edition offering a considerably more 32 I am thinking, for example, of the relationship between the texts of Cs3 and Bo2, valid throughout the episode of the “Judgement of arms” but which fades out afterwards. For the use of several antigraphs as habitual practice of the Carolingian copyists, see Fàbregas 2016, xxxix. 33 Some passages illustrating each of them can be found in the “Index of notable textual phenomena.” Tarrant (1982, 350) refers to a “particular affinity” between M2T (cf. 235 repono), but in our book their divergences are much more numerous than their points of coincidence. 34 In this case Lu2 is a direct copy of Lr2, as noted by Díez (2014, xxxvii). A divergence such as the omission of crimine in l. 57 can be explained as a mechanical error occurring during the copying process (uid. ad loc.). However, the divergence in the order of the sequence taurus uacca on l. 871 would seem to indicate that the copyist of Lu2 was using another antigraph for this passage in addition to Lr22. 35 Vid. ad 758–87. In spite of being a codex full of errors and absurdities, Lr7 also displays very significant affinities with the above-mentioned group MN MoN2 V16 Bo3­ Lr22V30Vd11. 36 B14, the “Berolinensis” of Bothe (1818), cited by Jahn (1832) and Bach (1836), among others, is a direct apograph of the Lausannensis, as I have been able to establish, and its text enables us to reconstruct the mutilations suffered by Ls in the upper corners and which affect the beginning or end of some 17 ll. per page. Moreover, there is a special connection between the text of these mss. and that of the ed. Veneta of 1472 (see “Index…”). 37 Vid. ad 146  f.; 230 (terrore pauentes). 38 It should be recalled that the printer was the Frenchman Jacques Le Rouge (Iac. Rubeus), resident of Venice (see Pellegrini 2001, esp. 186–8). However, the ed. of Calph. 1480 shows greater affinity with the princeps of Puteol. 1471 (uid. e.  g. ad 452; 717). For more detailed information on the ms., see http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8452774s/ f300.image.r=metamorphoseon.langES. For Calphurnius’ method in editing Catullus, see Bertone 2018, 213–8. 39 Fàbregas (2016, xxxi) suspects that there is also a relationship between this group and a ms. dated 1480 which I have not collated: Cc2 = Coloniacensis Bibliotheca Bodmeriana 124 (olim Malverniensis, C. W. Dyson Perrins Collection 87). 40 See e.  g. 54 (debita); 94 (spem); 108 (nec); 110 (caelatus); 184 (erant); 234 (hostem); 273 (reppulit); 539 (uocem); 568 (in); 572 (Troasque suos hostesque); 581 (color); 587 (quas); 601 (uolumina); 666 (per quos); 683 (hunc); 778 (in pontum); 790 (pratis); 853 (soli); 892 (saxi); 904 (fretum scindens); 925 (cingitur herbis).



The editors of the text

9

interesting text than the other editio princeps, the Bononiensis of F. Puteolanus, which is much more faithful to the text of “X”. However, determining the particular relationship between these three documents is no easy matter. What does seem clear is that V30 is earlier than Lr22 and Aler. 1471, since in many passages it presents errors which are corrected in the latter two.41 Following the same reasoning, I have identified several passages where Lr22 corrects – or believes he is correcting42 – errors43 in V30 and Aler. 1471, which ought to lead us to assume that Lr22 is a clean copy of the edition. However, in l. 887 both mss. give the absurd de more,44 which is corrected by the editor to de mole, and, more significantly, the two mss. omit ll. 501  f., which do, however, appear in the edition, thus appearing to rule out the possibility that the copyist of Lr22 had the text of the edition in front of him.45

The editors of the text This is the foundation on which so many editors have carried out their praiseworthy task. Outstanding among the early editions, in addition to the two pioneering ones, is that of Regius (1493), as it incorporates annotations in a first attempt to produce a commentary on the work. Also important are the first two Aldine editions (1502 and 1516), in particular the latter, by A. Naugerius,46 since his critical acumen manages to break some of the inertia of previous editions heir to the Bologna ed. princeps. Importance must also 41 See e.  g. 11; 15–18; 77; 113; 306; 360; 383; 411; 438; 460; 489; 544; 572; 581; 614; 651; 664; 692; 747; 808; 840; 858; 868. In this same group must be included those cases in which the supposed correction is not such but essentially an attempt to emend and improve the text, as e.  g. in l. 94, where Lr22 and Aler. 1471 give an erroneous nostri as a correction of the even more erroneous nostre of V30. I have found only one passage in which V30 gives the correct reading against the other two, but in a word (quae) that is too unstable to back a hypothesis of dependence (l. 782): baculi qu(a)e V30  : baculi quoque(per comp. qo3) Lr22  : baculiq3 Aler. 1471. 42 Thus e.  g. l. 232: audet et Lr22  : audeat et V30, Aler. 1471. 43 Thus e.  g. ll. 57; 319; 427  f.; 554; 631; 749; 857. 44 In l. 651 Lr22 initially gives stirpis, as does V30, which it then corrects into stirpi, as appears in Aler. 1471. In l. 840, in turn, V30 gives the erroneous liquidamque and Lr22 gives the reading liquida’que, but this is the copyist’s usual way of marking -ā, and I therefore do not believe that this spelling can have led to the error in V30. 45 Passages in which the text of Lr22 diverges from that of the other two documents are exceptional. Thus, for example, in l. 352, for cum socia clipeum pro classe ms. Lr22 gives pro socia clipeum cum classe, a reading which apart from here I have found only in H3. In l. 817 Lr22 also diverges with the strange reading lucentia, which I have found only in Mo3. It is, however, different as regards the Lactantian narrationes, which in V30 and the edition are identical (though purged of errata in the edition) and which are occasionally absent from Lr22 (uid. ad 532). For the procedure of the same editor (and the same printers) in the editio princeps of Virgil (Rome 1469), see Kallendorf 2015, 14  f. 46 For his contribution, see Luck 2005. For all these early editions, see Ramírez de Verger 2016, 245–50.

10

Introduction

be attached to the editiones Gryphianae (Lugd. 1546, 1565),47 which enriched the catalogue of manuscripts consulted. A great deal of attention was paid to these editions by Bersman (15963), who also incorporated the textual information of Ciofanus (1575) and added the collation of mss. DsDs2 and another, as yet unidentified. The 17th century is dominated by the most important edition of this work to appear up to now: that of Nicolaus Heinsius. A first edition of 1652 was followed by the corrected and annotated edition of 1659, for which the Dutch scholar used a catalogue of around 100 manuscripts,48 collated personally or through friends and acquaintances. His critical genius is manifest at every step and his notes, enhanced in subsequent editions,49 are still required reading for any attempt at a critical understanding of the text. Even so, many of Heinsius’ proposals and comments did not find their way into his printed notes but ended up in the margins of collations, no doubt because he eventually rejected them. Whenever possible I have located these unpublished notes, in order to make them accessible to the reader.50 Heinsius has rightly been reproached for a certain indulgence in his libido emendandi, but subsequent experience has shown that we will only be in a position to restore the text of Ovid if we consider the manuscript evidence cautiously and critically. Heinsius’ excesses in matters of conjecture are easily recognizable today, and in any case represent a very small group if we compare them with his indisputable corrections. Finally, one of Heinsius’ great merits was his recognition of the enormous value of M (for him, “Florentinus S. Marci optimus”, collated in b3 and o5), although he failed to detect the real importance of N, which he knew as “codex S. Iohannis Carbonarii Neapoli” (also collated in b3 and o5) and which he cites more sporadically. The great landmark of the 18th century is the edition by Burman (1713, without notes; 1727, annotated), which incorporates a magnificent text, fruit of both the correct decisions of Heinsius and the later contributions by Burman himself. Its main interest today lies in its wealth of notes, both his own and those of previous scholars, which enhance the reading of the text.51 The 19th century was witness to a multitude of new editions and an increase in the number of manuscripts collated in order to fix the text. Of 47 These are the ones I have consulted. 48 When Heinsius (or also Burman) attests a certain reading in a given manuscript, I have always attempted to identify the codex in question, but at times the references are very vague (e.  g. “unus meus”, “multi”) and occasionally the manuscripts are lost or unidentified. For the identification of these manuscripts, see Rivero 2016, 384 n. 2. For the worth of the ed. of Heinsius, see Ramírez de Verger 2016, 250–6; Fàbregas 2016, xlvii-l. 49 This corrected and expanded version is the one reproduced by Burman (1727), and it is also accessible in Heinsius 1758 (book XIII, on pp. 689–711). 50 The so-called “manuscripts of Heinsius” (in reality collations written on the text of different editions) are cited here by abbreviations which the reader will find in the corresponding list below. See also Ramírez de Verger 2016, 256. 51 See Ramírez de Verger 2016, 256  f.



The editors of the text

11

these I would briefly highlight the following:52 Gierig (1807, expanded and with some notes by Jahn in Gierig-Jahn 1823), which was the first attempt to establish the text with the addition of brief critical notes; Bothe (1818), who left us the complementary Vindiciae Ouidianae of the same year, a wealth of critical notes which, however, undoubtedly accorded too much importance and authority to the ms. Berolinensis (B14, s. XV), whose readings he himself contributed; Lemaire (1822), a towering edition because of the resources it contained: in addition to the work of Ovid, the version by Planudes (vol. V) and a wealth of indexes (vol. IX); Jahn (1832), an attempt at a great edition owing to the incorporation of numerous manuscript testimonies53 and which is characterized by a marked tendency to distance itself from the proposals of Heinsius; Baumgarten-Crusius (1834), a good edition with select and generally pertinent notes; Bach (1836), an excellent edition with a wealth of perceptive critical notes; Loers (1843), a finely produced edition but at the same time a good example of the limitations inherent to an excessive fidelity to the text as transmitted by the manuscripts; Merkel (1850; 18752), undoubtedly a landmark in the history of the Ovidian text, applies the most modern philological methods in order to establish the text, but grants (particularly in the 2nd ed.) excessive importance to the evidence of M and lets himself be carried away by the temptation to abusively condemn and seclude lines; Riese (1872; 18892), a work endowed with positive critical spirit which incorporates the collation of N into the 2nd edition. In the 20th century I would stress the value of the works by Magnus, Ehwald, Bömer and Anderson.54 Magnus has left us with an edition (1914) 52 The year of the edition refers to the one I have used or consider preferable, and corresponds in all cases to the volume containing book XIII of the Metamorphoses. For the individual references, see below the list of editions used. See also Ramírez de Verger 2016, 257–60. 53 Although on numerous occasions these references do not correspond to the readings of the codices: see e.  g. the case of Tu and its “Rhenouianus” (uid. ad 9 igitur fictis), but in fact this phenomenon affects a good proportion of the mss. cited. For an assessment of this edition as the inauguration of a new aetas Germanica in force until 1977, see Ramírez de Verger 2016, 260–5. 54 One very acceptable edition is that of Edwards for the Corpus poetarum Latinorum (1894; 19052), which is of interest as it reflects above all the contributions from the English-speaking world (Bentley, Housman, Ellis, etc.), and as such it inaugurates the aetas Angloamericana (Ramírez de Verger 2016, 265–70). Of undoubted interest also is G.P. Goold’s revision of the Loeb text (1977; 19842). Neither of these two, however, seem to me to be opera maiora. What cannot fail to be mentioned with reference to the 20th century is the work of D.A. Slater (1927), although it did not become an edition precisely because of the wealth of its critical contributions, which were at odds with the sparseness of the Oxford critical apparatus for which they were intended. Slater added to the manuscripts used by Magnus and Ehwald a great deal of information extracted from the collations of Heinsius, which had hitherto scarcely been disseminated, and he also drew attention to the version by Planudes, probably overvaluing its critical worth: see Tarrant 2004, xix-xx; Fisher 2007; Fisher 2011, 35; Fàbregas 2016, xxxv and lviii.

12

Introduction

that is truly impressive for its handling of the manuscripts but even more so because the author devoted a whole life to shedding light on the text and studying its transmission, as can be seen in the articles he wrote on the text of the Metamorphoses from the 1870s down to the final one, published posthumously in 1925. The editio maior of Ehwald (1915) is also the culmination of decades given over to the work and in particular to the text, as is shown not only in his numerous articles but also in the preceding ed. by Haupt-Korn-Ehwald (1898). The editions published over the following five decades are indebted to a greater or lesser degree to the editions of Magnus or Ehwald, and normally explicitly so, and it was Anderson himself who partially departed from this dynamic in his new Teubner edition (1977; 19822), although its greatest limitation was in his excessively close following of a group of manuscripts which came nowhere near the number used by Heinsius three centuries previously. Bömer’s commentary on the Metamorphoses, from its initial volume in 1969 to the posthumous complementary volume of 2006, is one of the important works of 20th century Classical Philology, and there is no way to approach this work without necessarily consulting its well-documented pages, for all that even here no particular attention is paid to textual problems. The present century has seen the publication of the long-awaited Oxford edition by R. Tarrant (2004), a well-documented study and one enhanced by the critical sagacity of the editor, whose eclectic approach overcomes the limitations of the Germanic tradition preceding it, over-reliant on a series of manuscripts which cannot be expected to offer any more authority than they actually have.55 It is Tarrant’s text that has provided my own starting-point, my indebtedness to which I wish to make clear here. Aside from divergences in the interpretation of certain passages and some differences in punctuation, this edition, in my opinion, suffers from limitations in the information presented by its apparatus criticus, which in its desire for brevity resorts to conventions in the denomination of the codices – especially the recentiores – which have the effect of impeding even an approximate reconstruction of the real situation. In addition, the range of manuscripts used is again much more restricted than that of Heinsius.56 This last observation, far from being a criticism, confirms in my view an obvious limitation that we must accept as the situation stands at present: a critical edition of Ovid’s Metamorphoses is not yet a task proportionate to the energies of one indi-

55 On the reception given to this edition, see Ramírez de Verger 2016, 267, and see in particular the reviews by Luck 2005b and Ramírez de Verger 2006b. 56 One defect that can be imputed to practically all editions after Heinsius is the frequent practice of citing information which has not been obtained directly but rather from previous works, thus running the risk of perpetuating errors on the part of the scholar who was first to offer the information: for an example, see our line 496.



Manuscripts used

13

vidual but is one that must be undertaken, at least at the documentation stage, by an extensive team.57

Manuscripts used The reader will find below a brief reference to each of the manuscripts used in the present study, followed where applicable by the name given by Heinsius. For a complete description the reader should refer to our website (http:// www.uhu.es/proyectovidio/pdf/descripcion.pdf).58 I occasionally add some specific bibliographical information or else a note on the way in which the manuscript has been consulted for this study. Unless otherwise indicated, it should be understood that the manuscript (i.  e. the text of book XIII) has been collated in its entirety from a digital copy:59

A Gf L3 Lr2 Lu M M2

Group Γ (ss. IX-XII1) Ambrosianus R 22 sup, s. XII1. Ambrosianus primus. Guelferbytanus Bibl. Duc. 2942 (4.11. Aug. 4º), s. XI/XII. Londinensis Mus. Brit. King’s 26, s. XI/XII. Lactantianos titulos tantum in primo libro exhibet.60 Laurentianus Strozzianus 121, s. XIIin. Strozzianus. Codex Lu2 (uid. infra Φ) ex hoc manat. Lucensis Bibl. Govern. 1417 (Lucchesini 129, rubro 101), s. XI/XII. Descr. Fabbri 1922, vol. I, vii-viii.61 Marcianus Florentinus 225, s. XI2. Florentinus S. Marci optimus. Nostri libri desunt uu. 276–343. Codicem contuli. Marcianus Florentinus 223, s. XI2. Codicem contuli.

57 Let me offer as an example my own commentary, to which I have devoted years of intense work and in which I have had to forego the possibility of collecting information on many of the manuscripts dating from after 1250 which contain book XIII. 58 See also Anderson 1982, xii-xx; Tarrant 2004, viii-xix; Díez 2014, xxxii-xlvi; Suárez 2015, xxix-xlviii; Fàbregas 2016, xv-xxxiv. 59 An asterisk before the sigla of a ms. indicates that it has been consulted only for some passages, normally following up information provided by Heinsius or Burman and occasionally by Ciofanus. If the reference has a different origin, it will be specified in a note. The reference “codicem/fragmentum contuli” indicates that the collation was made from the original. 60 A ‘negative’ collation in Hall 1983. 61 As Fabbri comments in his description of the ms. (1922, vol. I, viii), it coincides on many occasions with the Lactantians, although it does not contain the narrationes. For the description see also Munari 176; Munk Olsen 1985, 146.

14

N P2 S2 T V2 V3

A2 A3 A4 Ab B B2 B3 B4 B5 Ba Be2 C Cs

Introduction

Neapolitanus Bibl. Nat. IV.F.3, s. XIex-XIIin. Codex S. Iohannis Carbonarii Neapoli. Nostri libri desunt uu. 276–343, sed manus coaeua uel paulo recentior ff. 161–162 suppleuit. Codicem contuli.62 Parisinus lat. 8001, s. XII. Codex Berneggerianus uel Argentoratensis.63 Codicem contuli. Sangallensis 866, s. XII.64 Monacensis clm 29208(1, s. XI2. Nostri libri continet uu. 1–126, 191– 318, 384–461, 464–832, 897–968. Descr. Anderson 1979; Hauke 1994, 12s. Frusta contuli. Vaticanus Vrbinas lat. 341 (olim 798), s. XI2. Vrbinas ueterrimus. Descr. Buonocore 1994, 162. Codicem contuli. Vaticanus Pal. lat. 1669, s. XI2. Primus Palatinus uel Palatinus ueterrimus. Codicem contuli. Group Δ (ss. XII2-XIII1) Ambrosianus F 102 sup., s. XIII1. Continet huius libri uu. 1–717, 810–856, 919–968. Ambrosianus H 65 sup. (olim H 64 sup.), s. XII/XIII. Ambrosianus E 54 inf., s. XIII1. Atrabaticus Bibl. Civ. 996 Caron (359 Catal. Génér.), s. XII. Continet huius libri uu. 1–906.65 Berolinensis Deutsche Staatsbibl. Diez. B Sant. 9, s. XII. Codex alter Gronouii. Huius libri continet uu. 1–398. Berolinensis Deutsche Staatsbibl. Diez. B Sant. 10, s. XII. Codex tertius u. cl. Iohannis Frederici Gronouii. Berolinensis Deutsche Staatsbibl. Qu. 270, s. XII/XIII. Berolinensis Deutsche Staatsbibl. Diez. B Sant. 12, s. XII/XIII. Gronouianus codex. Huius libri uu. 1–496 sunt in f. 90r-94v; uu. 497–968 in f. 103r-107v. Berolinensis Deutsche Staatsbibl. Diez. B Sant. 13, s. XII/XIII. Codex meus quem Mediolani comparaui. Contulit Suárez (2013). Baltimorensis Walters Art Gallery W 77, s. XIII1. Bernensis Bibl. Civ. 345, s. XII/XIII. Cantabrigiensis Trinity College 606 (R.3.26), s. XIII1. Olim fuit Heinsii fragmentum Caesenas (“uetustum apud Caesenates fragmentum, cuius excerpta V. Cl. Lucas Langermannus mecum communicauit”), aetatis et sedis incertarum. Inerant uu. 9.235–11.169 et 13.1–403, quorum uariae lectiones in Oxon. Bodl. Auct. S.V.5 cum siglo c receptae sunt. Hodie tamen fragmentum in ff. 65–102 codicis

62 See Tarrant 2004, x. 63 The “Paris. 2” of Lemaire and Jahn. 64 Tarrant 1991, 935: “St. Gall 866 is surely closer to the beginning than the end of s. XII”. 65 f. 86 (13.907–14.19) has been cut; f. 87r continues with 14.20  ff.



De Dr E

Es F Fe G Gg H2 H3 Hd L4 Ld Ld2 Ld3 Lr3 Lr4 Lr5 Lr6 Lr7

Manuscripts used

15

Caesen. S.I.5 (Cs2: uid. infra Θ) insertum reperitur. Continet uu. 9.234–13.403 a manu saec. XII2 uel XIII1 exaratos. Descr. Rivero 2016. Dertusensis Archiv. Capit. 134 (Ov. Metamorphoseon libri XV), ss. XII/XIII. Contulit Librán (2006; 2007). Dresdensis Sächische Landesbibliothek, App. 1092, s. XII/XIII. Erfurtanus Bibl. Amplo. f. 1, s. XII/XIII. Huius libri uu. 1–437 manus altera, uu. 438–968 altera manus paulo recentior scripsit (et correctiones uariasque lectiones addidit). Codex Erfordianus collegii Portae Caeli uel prior Erfurt. Escorialensis S.III.19. Continet Met. (ff. 1–125). Huius libri tantum uu. 915–968 ad primam manum (fort. s. XIIex) pertinent. Versus autem 1–914 manus tertia (an s. XVI.?) exarauit. Contulit Murcia (2008). Francofurtanus Bibl. Ciu. et Uniu. Barth. 110, s. XII/XIII. Codex ms. Francofurtensis s. Bartholomae Bibliothecae 500 annorum. Ferrariensis Bibl. Civ. Antonellianus 1 (598), s. XIII1 (f. 1: 1214). Graecensis Bibl. Univ. 1415 (quondam 42/101), s. XII/XIII. Glasguensis Mus. Hunterianus 266 (U.5.6), s. XII/XIII. Continet e libro XIII. uu. 1–906.66 Hauniensis Bibl. Reg. Gl. Kgl. S. 2009 4º, s. XIIex. Codex Ecclesiae cathedralis Hamburgensis (alter Hamburgensis in editione). Hauniensis Bibl. Reg. Gl. Kgl. S. 2008, s. XII/XIII. Codex Ecclesiae cathedralis Hamburgensis (prior/primus Hamburgensis in editione). Heidelbergensis Bibl. Univ. Palat. Lat. 1661, s. XII/XIII. Alter/secundus Palatinus.67 Londinensis Mus. Brit. Harl. 2737, s. XII/XIII. Leidensis B.P. Vossianus Lat. O. 51, s. XII2. Codex Arondelianus. Codicem contuli. Leidensis B.P.L. 97 (110), s. XIII1. Vnus ex Leidensibus. Leidensis B.P. Vossianus Lat. Q. 25, s. XIII1 (libro decimo tertio68). Vossianus Turnebi. Laurentianus 36.10, s. XII/XIII. Mediceus secundus (tertius Mediceus in editione). Locos quosdam mihi ipso in codice contulit Díez. Laurentianus 36.14, s. XIIex. Tertius Mediceus (quartus Mediceus in editione). Locos quosdam mihi ipso in codice contulit Díez. Laurentianus Acq. e doni 434, s. XII/XIII. Huius libri continet uu. 1–484. Laurentianus Strozzianus 120, s. XIIex. Alter Strozzianus. Laurentianus 36.19, s. XIII1. Septimus Mediceus. Omisit huius libri uu. 758–787.

66 The text of our book is on ff. 40v-50v, and the following f. is missing. 67 The Myrtiletanus of Bothe and Jahn. 68 The ms. is made up of two parts. The initial ff. 1–12, which contain met. 1.1–2.105, belong to s. XIV-XV, but ff. 13–157 (met. 2.106–15.879) belong to XIII1.

16

Ls Mo Mt N2 O O3 O4 P3 P4 Ph2 Pr T7

Tr Tu V4 V5 V6 V7

Introduction

Lausannensis Bibl. Cant. et Univ. 403, s. XIIex. Codex B14 (uid. infra Φ) ex hoc manat. Monacensis clm 23612, s. XII. Codicem contuli. Matritensis ms. 10038 Bibl. Nac. (olim Toletanus 102–8), s. XII/XIII/ XIV. Contulit Díez (2012). Neapolitanus Bibl. Naz. IV.F.2, s. XII.69 Oxoniensis Bodl. Auct. F.4.30, s. XII. Fragmentum Boxhornianum. Oxoniensis Bodl. Canon Class. Lat. 1, s. XII/XIII. Oxoniensis Bodl. Auct. F.4.22, s. XIII1. Codex Sprotii (“codex meus membraneus, quem Carolus Sprotius dono dedit”). Parisinus lat. 7993, s. XII2. Alter Regius. Codicem contuli.70 Parisinus lat. 8000, s. XII/XIII. Primus Regius. Codicem contuli.71 Phillippicus 9033 (Marstonianus Yalensis 47), ca. 1200. Parmensis Bibl. Palatina 2930, s. XII/XIII. Codicem contuli. Monacensis clm 29208(4 (antea 29007b), s. XII2. Continet 11.394–457 (f. 1r); 11.460–517 (f. 1v); 13.147–206 (f. 2r); 13.209–266 (f. 2v).72 Descr. Hellmuth 1883, 229s.; Munari 211. Codicem uel potius fragmentum contuli. Turonensis 879 (Saint-Gatien 414), ca. 1200. Contulit Martel (2010). Turicensis Bibl. Centr. 413 (Rheinau 46), s. XII. Nostri libri continet uu. 1–733a a manu prima exaratos, et 733b-753 ab altera manu.73 Vaticanus lat. 11457, s. XII.74 Vaticanus lat. 1593, s. XII. Primus Vaticanus. Vaticanus lat. 1596, s. XII/XIII. Vaticanus lat. 3266, s. XIIIin.

69 Its affinity with MN is supported by the divergences in its text; in addition, note for example that at the beginning of our book N2 shares with M (and also with e.  g. Vd11 and Accurs. 1475) the literality of the 8 Lactantian capita or fabulae contained therein. 70 It contains the Lactantian tituli, though not the fabulae. 71 Jahn’s “Paris. 1”. Its text coincides to a great extent with that of Gg. 72 In our book (l. 161 and – uniquely – in 202, 223) it coincides with Magnus’ codex Nicolaensis (uid. ad 161 ducar). The modern-day fragment is the size of an octavo folio (or slightly larger), but folded vertically down the centre and written in a single column on each side. Book XIII is in the last two columns. 73 In principle this codex should be identified with the “Rhenou(i)anus” of Jahn and Bach, but on numerous occasions the references do not coincide. To go no further, in 13.727 Jahn (1832, 871) reads the form expertem in the “Rhen.” when Tu omits this line. By contrast, however, he is right in l. 753 when he points out (1832, 874): “In hoc uersu cod. Rhen. desinit”. This seems to suggest that he is in fact using more than one Rheinau ms., but this is at odds with the information he himself provides in the praefatio (1832, vol. I, p. XXII, nº 133), where he states that he cites a single “Rhenouianus”. Tarrant (1982, 351, n. 37) refers to Jahn’s “still unidentified Codex Rhenouanus” and states of Tu: “Not identical with Zürich Zentralbibliothek Rheinau 46 (…), an MS resembling Vat. Lat. 11457 [sc. V4] in both appearance and text” (my square brackets). 74 For its possible proximity to Tu, see the previous note.



V8 V9 Vd

*A6 *B7 B8 *Bs2 *Bs3 *Bs4 Cs2

*D Ds Ds2 *E2 *Et *Ge *Gf4 Go *L5 *L6 *L7

Manuscripts used

17

Vaticanus lat. 5179, s. XIII1. Secundus Vaticanus. Codicem contuli.75 Vaticanus Palatinus lat. 1667 (C.79.1886), s. XIII1. An quartus Palatinus?76 Vindobonensis Bibl. Nat. 207, s. XII/XIII. Group Θ (s. XIII2) Ambrosianus S 32 sup, 1241–1260. Alter Ambrosianus. Berolinensis Deutsche Staatsbibl. Diez. B Sant. 5, s. XIII. Sixianus uel codex Iohannis Sixii, qui Gruteri olim fuerat. Berolinensis Deutsche Staatsbibl. Diez. B Sant. 11, s. XIII. Codex Menardi.77 Basileensis Bibl. Publ. Univ. F.II.26, s. XIII. Primus Basileensis. Basileensis Bibl. Publ. Univ. F.II.28, s. XIII. Tertius Basileensis.78 Basileensis Bibl. Publ. Univ. F.II.27, s. XIII2. Secundus Basileensis.79 Caesenas S.I.5 (s. XIII2). Continet Met. 1.1–9.252 (ff. 1–64) et 13.364– 15.879 (ff. 103–122); ff. 65–102, inter saec. XVII2 et XIX2 in hunc codicem inserta, alterius sunt manus et pro uetusto apud Caesenates fragmento (Cs: uid. supra Δ) recognita sunt. Descr. Rivero 2016. Codicem contuli. Diuionensis Bibl. Civ. 497 (288), s. XIII. Excerpta Iureti (“excerpta F. Iureti, quae Philippus de la Mare mecum communicauit”). Dessauiensis HB Hs. 8, s. XIII.80 Dessauiensis HB Hs. 9, s. XIII.81 Erfurtanus Bibl. Amplo. fol. 2, s. XIII. Codex eiusdem collegii; alter Erfurt. Etonensis 91, s. XIII. Iunianus. Geneuensis Bibl. Pub. et Univ. lat. 94, s. XIII. Codex Geneuensis. Guelferbytanus Bibl. Duc. 3034 (13.9. Aug. 4º), s. XIII. Codex 500 annorum quem Langermannus dono mihi dedit. Gothanus Bibl. Ducalis II 58 (Jacobs V 90), s. XIII.82 Londinensis Mus. Brit. Harl. 2742, s. XIII. Vossianus. Londinensis Mus. Brit. Burn. 223, s. XIII. Londinensis Mus. Brit. Burn. 224, s. XIIIex. Vnus ex duobus Twisdenianis; primus uel prior Twisd.

75 See Buonocore 1994, 217, and uid. ad 770  f. 76 Vid. ad 760. 77 See Tarrant 1982 345 n. 17; Ramírez de Verger 2016b. 78 The “Basil. 2” of Bach and Jahn. 79 The “Basil. 3” of Bach and Jahn. 80 One of Bersman’s codices. 81 Bersman’s second codex. 82 Jahn’s “Goth. 2” and Bach’s “Goth. A”.

18

Introduction

Leidensis B.P. Vossianus Lat. Q. 61, s. XIII. Codex Vossianus ante trecentos ferme annos scriptus. Codicem contuli.83 *Ld7 Leidensis B.P.L. 95 (108), s. XIII. Vnus ex Leidensibus.84 *Ld8 Leidensis B.P.L. 96 (109), s. XIII. Vnus ex Leidensibus. *Li3 Lipsiensis Bibl. Civ. 44, s. XIIIex.85 Lr8 Laurentianus 36.5, s. XIII. Codex optimus; quintus Mediceus (secundus Mediceus in editione).86 *Lr10 Laurentianus 36.11, s. XIII. Mediceus 500 annorum (Mediceus sextus – an quartus? – in editione). Mo3 Monacensis clm 28504, s. XIII2. Codicem contuli. Mt2 Matritensis ms. 603 Bibl. Nac., s. XIII. Mt3 Matritensis ms. 3767 Bibl. Nac., s. XIII. Contulit Toribio (2009). *O5 Oxoniensis Bodl. D’Orville 171, s. XIII. Vossianus.87 P5 Parisinus Bibl. Arsenal 1207, s. XIIIex.88 P8 Parisinus lat. 8002, s. XIII. Alter codex ab eodem (Iohanne Mentelio medico Parisiensi) mihi donatus. Codicem contuli. P10 Parisinus lat. 8003 (Colbertinus 4057), s. XIII. Codicem contuli. P16 Parisinus lat. 11316, s. XIII. Re Remensis Bibliotèque Municipale, 1399, s. XIII. So Soriensis ms. 4-H Bibl. Pub., s. XIII2. Sp Spirensis Bibl. Gymnasii 2 Pfälzische Landesbibliothek Speyer, s. XIII2. Tb Tubingensis, Universitätsbibliothek Tübingen Mc 296, s. XIII. Nostri libri continet tantum uu. 13.795–894. Toletanus Bibl. Cap. 102.6, s. XIII. To *V10 Vaticanus Barberinianus lat.70 (2386-VIII.70), s. XIII. Barberinianus.89 *V12 Vaticanus lat. 1597, s. XIII. *V13 Vaticanus lat. 1598, s. XIII. V16 Vat. lat. 5859, a. 1275.90 Ld6

83 This is an unpredictable codex which swings from aberrant readings or gratuitous errors to variants linking it to the best mss. It has clear links e.  g. to MtTu or others from the same period such as SoTo. 84 As in the following case, this is a codex of very little value, as was made clear in the note by Th. Gottlieb, who read it in 1883–1884, as can be seen in the relevant pages of the register. 85 The “Senatorius secundus” of Jahn, whose testimony I reproduce. 86 See Anderson 1977. 87 See D’Orville 1806, 35; Munari 227. 88 The ms. is written by at least two hands, but book XIII, on ff. 109r-119r, was copied by a late 13th c. hand. 89 See also Buonocore 1994, 70. 90 See Anderson 1982, xv-xvi; Buonocore 1994, 220; Tarrant 2004, xv, who points to its similarity in form with B12 (s. XIV1), although in our book the texts do not coincide significantly. For its obvious link with the text of MN, uid. 4.



B12 Bo Bo2 Cs3 Es2 Es3 Ft *Gf7 *Gf8 Mc Mt4 Mt5 *O9 *O10 *P24 P28 *Pt3 Rd T13 To2

Manuscripts used

19

Group Σ (s. XIV) Berolinensis Deutsche Staatsbibl. Diez. B Sant. 1, s. XIV1.91 Bononiensis Bibl. Univ. 2278, s. XIV. Primus Bononiensis. Codicem contuli. Bononiensis Bibl. Univ. 2350, s. XIV. Alter Bononiensis. Codicem contuli. Caesenas S.XXV.6, ca. 1381–1400. Codicem contuli.92 Escorialensis g.III.7, s. XIV. Escorialensis T.II.7, s. XIV. Florentinus Bibl. Naz. II.VI.11, s. XIV. Guelferbytanus Bibl. Duc. 4463 (159 Gud. Lat. 4º), s. XIV. Codex Reginas 500.93 Guelferbytanus Bibl. Duc. 4427 (123 Gud. Lat. 2º), s. XIV. Codex Bernardi Rottendorphii. Maceratensis Bibl. Civ. “Mozzi-Borgetti” 346 (quondam 5.3.B.29), a. 1387. Matritensis ms. 10058 Bibl. Nac. (olim Toletanus 102.7), a. 1393–1394. Matritensis ms. 13406 Bibl. Nac., s. XIV. Oxoniensis Bodl. Rawl. G. 103, s. XIV. Codex Reginas. Oxoniensis Bodl. Canon Class. Lat. 7, s. XIVex. Parisinus lat. 8253, s. XIV. Alter Thuaneus uel codex Thuani. Parisinus lat. 8008, s. XIV. Alter codex Thuani. Patauinus Bibl. Capit. C. 63, s. XIV. Codex Patauinus Ecclesiae cathedralis. Roudnicensis Bibl. Lobkoviciana R VI Ef 12, s. XIV. Monacensis clm 29208(12 (antea 29012), s. XIV2. Continet (f. 1r-v) 12.587–628 et titulum libri XIII.; (ff. 1v-2v) 13.1–55. Folium contuli.94 Toletanus Bibl. Cap. 102.5, s. XIV.95

91 It contains the Lactantian tituli and narrationes. Although, as stated in the previous note, its text displays no particular affinity with that of V16, its reading templa in 624, which it shares exclusively with M (Lr27), is, however, striking, as is canis in 643, which I have found only in Hd (cf. also arcton … expertem in 726  f.; 770, 896, 933, 940). It also has significant points of coincidence with A4 (e.  g. 259, 276, 371, 477, 525, 635, 668  f., 780, 820, 896, 934), although the two mss. differ in many other passages. Finally, note singular variants such as uiri in 735, shared with P3 Sp and Es6 (cf. molle in 887), or seruant in 830, which is shared with CMtO4. 92 Its text is close to those of Lr7 and Mt5, as well as to that of Bo2 throughout the episode of the “Judgement of arms”. 93 If this is not the “codex Graeuianus”, as suggested by Dr. Bellido, its text is very close to it: uid. ad 289 caelestia. 94 Two loose folios, with the contents detailed above. In spite of its short length, the text coincides significantly with that of N2 (see e.  g. 15; 32; 40; 47; 53–5), although the Lactantian narrationes are missing. 95 I have not had access to To3 (Toletanus Bibl. Cap. 102.9, s. XVI), the only known Spanish ms. which has not been collated for this study.

20

*Vt

Introduction

Wratislaviensis Bibl. Urb. Rehdigeranus 110 (XIV quart. S.I.6.2), s. XIII/XIV.96

Group Φ (s. XV-XVI) Assisiensis Bibl. Civ. 300, s. XV. As B14 Berolinensis Ms. Lat. fol. 37 (Rose 1004), s. XV.97 Bo3 Bononiensis Bibl. Univ. 2315, s. XV. Tertius Bononiensis.98 *Bs6 Basileensis Bibl. Publ. Univ. F.III.7, a. 1456. Quintus Basileensis. *Bs7 Basileensis Bibl. Publ. Univ. F.VI.12, a. 1478. Quartus Basileensis. Cv Cracouiensis Bibl. Univ. Jagell 528 (DD VI 5), s. XV. Es uid. supra Δ. Es4 Escorialensis T.II.23, a. 1402. Es5 Escorialensis R.I.14, s. XV. Es6 Escorialensis S.III.12, s. XV. F2 Francofurtanus Bibl. Civ. et Univ. Ms. Lat. Qu. 21, a. 1455. Go2 Gothanus Bibl. Ducalis I 97 (Jacobs V 91), s. XV.99 *Ho Holkhamicus 324, a. 1494. *Ho2 Holkhamicus 323, a. 1458. *Ld11 Leid. Bib. der Rijksuniv. Thysia 1674 (olim 810), s. XV. Codicem contuli.100 *Lr20 Laurentianus 36.3, a. 1406. Codex Mediceus Chartaceus. Lr22 Laurentianus 36.1, s. XV. Mediceus recens, undecimus.101 Lr27 Laurentianus 36.15, a. 1456. Decimus octauus Mediceus.102 Lu2 Lucensis Bibl. Govern. 1416 (Lucchesini 128, rubro 100), s. XV1. Nostri libri continet uu. 1–357 et 517–968.103 *Nr3 Norimbergensis Bibl. Civ. Cent. V, 56, s. XV. Codex Noricus siue bi­ bliothecae Noricae. *O11 Oxoniensis Bodl. Canon Class. Lat. 2, a. 1422. *O12 Oxoniensis Bodl. Auct. F.2.3, s. XV. Codex meus chartaceus Florentiae emptus. *O13 Oxoniensis Bodl. Add. C 138, a. 1450–1460. P38 Parisinus lat. 8016, s. XV. Codex Regius quartus.104 P41 Parisinus Bibl. Arsenal 1046, s. XV. 96 The citation is from Jahn. 97 As stated above, this is Bothe’s “Berolinensis”, and it is a direct apograph of Ls. 98 For its obvious connection with the text of MN, uid. 4 and 7 n.  31. 99 Jahn’s “Goth. 1” and Bach’s “Goth. B”. The citation is theirs. 100 A codex of little value, the text of which is very close to those of F2Z. I collated the original only up to l. 192, and selectively from a digital copy from that point on. 101 For its links with V30 and the ed. Aler. 1471, uid. 8  f. 102 As mentioned above, this is a clean copy of M, hence its importance. 103 A direct copy of Lr2, as indicated above. 104 For its connection with the ed. Calph. 1474, uid. 8.



Manuscripts used

21

Posnaniensis, Miejska Biblioteka Publicznaa im. Edwarda Racyńskiego Rek. 171, s. XV. *V26 Vaticanus Palatinus lat. 1670, ca. a. 1400. Quintus Palatinus. V30 Vaticanus Chisianus H.V.164, s. XV.105 Vd11 Vindobonensis Bibl. Nat. 12746, ca. 1470.106 *Z Zwiccaviensis Ratsschulbibliothek XIII.IV.3, s. XV.107 Ps

Group Ψ (excerpta) Mo9 Monacensis clm 4610, s. XI2. E nostro libro lectiones nonnullae in ff. 78v-81r reperiuntur. Codicem contuli.108 V45 Vaticanus Ottobonianus lat. 1354, s. XI; f. 84v continet 13.213, 401, 562, 711, 712, 742, 803, 830, 832. Codicem mihi contulit Suárez. P46 Parisinus lat. 7647 (Colbertinus, olim Thuaneus), s. XII/XIII; f. 62v continet uu. aliquot huius libri inter u. 9 et u. 850; ff. 70r-72v continent uu. 1–428.109 Ca2 Carnotensis Cod. S. Pauli in Carinthia 61–3 (Sankt Paul in Lavanttal (Kärtnten) Stisftsbibliothek 61/3), s. XIII. E nostro libro haec continentur (f. 24r): 107–154; (f. 24v): 155–199; (ff. 25r-29v): 200–680.110 Hd2 Heidelbergensis Bibl. Univ. Sal. 9. 62, s. XIII. E nostro libro haec continentur (f. 126v): 9–10, 218, 848–850. L23 Londinensis Mus. Brit. Add. 18459, s. XIII. E nostro libro haec continentur (f. 4v): 9–10, 569–570, 824, 847–850. O19 Oxoniensis Bodl. Add. A 208, s. XIII. E nostro libro haec continentur (f. 7v): 9–10, 270–271, 360–361, 365–368, 540, 646, 824. P47 Parisinus lat. 17903, s. XIII. E nostro libro haec continentur (ff. 19v22r): 1–398, 494–526, 539–540, 646, 758–759, 824, 847–850.111 Co Cordubensis ms. 150 Arch. Catedr., s. XIII/XIV. E nostro libro in f. 275vb continentur uu. 9–10, 70, 363–364, 646. Es7 Escorialensis Q.I.14, s. XIV. E nostro libro lectiones nonnullae in ff. 34v-35r reperiuntur. Ld13 Leidensis Bibliotheek der Rijkuniversiteit, Gronov. 17, s. XV. E nostro libro haec continentur (ff. 63v-66v): 5–122, 128–381, 457–473, 494–532. Codicem contuli.112 U3 Upsaliensis Bibl. Univ. C 931, a. 1463; f. 57v continet 13.789–807.

105 For its connection with Lr22 and the ed. Aler. 1471, uid. 8  f. 106 For its connection with MN, uid. 4 and 7 n.  31. 107 Its text is very close to that of F2 as well as that of Ld11. The citation is from Jahn. 108 See Tarrant 2004, xiv; Clark 2011, 7. 109 See Lafaye 1928, xxviii-xxix (t). 110 See Estévez 2013, 205  f. 111 See Lafaye 1928, xxviii-xxix (d). 112 I detect in it a certain proximity to the text of Ld6 and that of Accurs. 1475.

22

Introduction

Mv7 Marcianus Venetus Lat XII 1 (= 4159), s. XV-XVI. E nostro libro uu. 730–968 continentur (s.p.). Plan. translatio Graeca a Maximo Planude ca. 1300 facta.113

Editions and commentaries used This is a chronological list of the editions and textual commentaries I have used. In cases where the comparison has been carried out selectively and not on the whole text of the book, this will also be marked by an asterisk. For a fuller description of the titles, I refer the reader to the website http://www. uhu.es/proyectovidio/pdf/edicionesycomentarioscita.pdf: Puteol. 1471  ed. Franciscus Puteolanus (Francesco dal Pozzo); impr. Aug. Carnerius, Bononiae 1471 (ISTC nº io00126000). Aler. 1471 ed. Ioh. Andreas de Buxis, episc. Aleriensis (Giovanni Andrea Bussi); impr. C. Sweynheym – I. Pannartz, pars I, Romae 1471 (ISTC No. io00127000).114 Venet. 1472  impr. Iac. Rubeus (Jacques Le Rouge), Venetiis 1472 (ISTC No. io00177000). Calph. 1474  ed. Ioh. Calphurnius (Giovanni Planza de’ Ruffinoni, ‘Calfurnio’); impr. Iac. Rubeus, pars I, Venetiis 1474 (ISTC No. io00128000).115 Accurs. 1475  ed. Bonus Accursius Pisanus (Bonaccorso da Pisa); impr. Philippus de Lavagnia, Mediolani 1475 (ISTC No. io00178000).116 Calder. 1477  ed. Dom. Calderinus (Domizio Calderini);117 impr. St. Corallus, vol. I, Parmae 1477 (ISTC No. io00129000). Regius 1493  ed. Raphael Regius (Raffaele Regio); impr. Bern. Benalius, Venetiis 1493 (prima editio licita) (ISTC nº io00189000).118 Aldina 1502  Ouidii Metamorphoseon libri quindecim, vol. 1, Venetiis 1502. Fanensis 1508  Iacobi Constantii Fanensis collectaneorum hecatostys prima Hadriano Cardinali dicata […] In fine: Impressa Fani ab H. Soncino pridie sesti Diui Paterniani. Sexto idus Iulias 1508. *Argent. 1515 P. Ouidii Metamorphoseon libri XV, Argentorati, ex aedibus M. Schurerij mense Iulio anno Christi Iesu, 1515. 113 I follow his text from the edition of Papathomopoulos-Tsavare 2002, listed in the Bibliography, although it was previously available in that of Boissonade included in vol. V of the ed. by Lemaire 1822. A good intellectual biography of Planudes is available in Fisher 2011. 114 For its relationship to mss. Lr22V30, uid. 8  f. 115 See Pellegrini 2001 (esp. 186–8). I have also compared the edition published in 1480 (Pinerolii). 116 This is the first ed. to incorporate the narrationes Lactantianae. 117 In fact the text of Accursius with the addition of a Vita Ouidii by Calderini. Consequently I cite it only when its text diverges from that of Accurs. 1475. 118 In some passages I have compared later editions (1497, 1498, 1540) containing the same commentary but with occasional corrections (and the very rare modification) of the previous text. The edition by Regius was the first to incorporate a commentarius perpetuus in the margins. See Álvarez-Iglesias 2005 and Iglesias-Álvarez 2006.



Editions and commentaries used

23

Naug. 1516  Ouidii Metamorphoseon libri XV, curante A. Naugerio (Andrea Navagero), vol. 3, Venetiis 1516.119 Viuianus 1522  Caroli Viuiani castigationes et Ouidianae metamorphoseos lectiones uariae, Florentiae 1522. Spreng. 1570  Metamorphoses Ouidii, argumentis quidem soluta oratione, enarrationibus autem & Allegoriis elegiaco uersu accuratissime expositae, summaque diligentia ac studio, per M. Ioan. Sprengium Augustan., una cum artificiosis picturis, praecipuas historias aptê repraesentantibus, Parisiis, apud H. de Marnes & G. Cauellat, sub Pelicano, monte D. Hilarii, 1570. Ciof. 1575 Herculis Ciofani, Sulmonensis, in P. Ouidii Metamorphoseon ex XVII antiquis libris Obseruationes, quibus loci quamplurimi et emendantur, et aliorum quoque tum Graecorum, tum Latinorum poetarum aut simili, aut etiam uaria doctrina illustrantur, Venetiis, apud Aldum Nep., 1575.120 *Micyl. 1543 Micylliana  I, vol I: Metamorphoseos libri XV cum comment. Raph. Regii, adiectis etiam annotationibus Iac. Micylli (qui praefatus est), nunc primum in lucem editis, Basileae, per Io. Hervagium, 1543.121 Lugd. 1546 Pub. Ouidii Nasonis Metamorphoseon libri XV. Denuo collatis probatissimae fidei exemplaribus quam accuratissime emendati, Lugduni, apud Seb. Gryphium, 1546.122 *Micyl. (retract.) 1549  Micylliana II. Vol. II: […] Eiusdem Iac. Micylli locorum aliquot ex Ouidiana Metamorphosi retractatio (s.p.), Basileae, per I. Heruagium, 1549. Lugd. 1565  Publii Ouidii Nasonis MetamorphoseΩn libri XV. […] Lugduni, apud Antonium Gryphium, 1565. *Glar.-Long. 1570  P. Ouidii Nasonis opera, ueterum exemplarium auxilio ab infinitis mendis emendata. Henrici Glareani annotationes in Metamorphosin & ad uerba & ad res intelligendas magni usus. Praeterea Longolii, quae lectorem plurimum in impeditis locis iuuare possunt. Item, fragmenta quaedam Ouidii ex libris, qui magna parte periere, epigrammaton & non male natum carmen ad Pisonem. Excudebat I. Kyngstonus, s.l., 1570.123 *Basil. 1580  Pub. Ouidii Nasonis Metamorphoseon libri XV …, Basileae 1580. Bersm. 1596  Bersmaniana III: Publ. Ouidii Nasonis Operum Tomus II., quo continentur Metamorphoseon libri XV. […] Editio tertia aliquot locis auctior, Lipsiae, imprimebat M. Lantzenberger, 1596.124 *Var. 1601  Pub. Ouidii Nasonis Sulmonensis Poetae Operum Tomus Tertius: in quo Metamorphoseωs Lib. XV. Cum Commentariis Raphaelis Regii, & Annotationibus Iacobi Micylli: et Carmen in Ibin. […], Francofurti, Typis Wechelianis apud Cl. Marnium & heredes I. Aubrii, 1501. *D. Heinsius 1629  Opera quae exstant omnia, Dan. Heinsius textum recensuit. Accedunt breues notae ex collatione codicum Scaligeri et Palatinis Iani Gruteri. To119 This is the 2nd ed. Aldina. 120 I have occasionally compared it with the 1583 ed. (Antverpiae 1581–1583, vol. 3). 121 In reality it follows the text of the 2nd ed. of Regius (1513): see Iglesias-Álvarez 2006, 125. I have occasionally consulted the ed. of 1563 (Francofurti). 122 Both this 1st ed. and that of 1565 had a significant influence on Bersman (1596) and on Heinsius himself. 123 On occasion I have also consulted the edition of 1541 (Basileae, per Henricum Petrum). 124 Where necessary I have consulted the 1st ed., of 1582.

24

Introduction

mus II. Qui XV Metamorphoseon, siue Transformationum, libros continet. Cum breuibus notis; è MSS. potissimum Palatinis, Lugduni Batauorum, ex officina Elseuiriana, 1629. *Farnab. 1630  Metamorphoses, cum notis Th. Farnabii, Amstelodami, typis I. Blaeu, 1630. Heinsius 1652 Operum P. Ouidii Nasonis editio noua, accurante Nicolao Heinsio, Dan. fil., Tom. II.: met., Amstelodami, typis L. Elzeuirii, 1652. Heinsius 1659 Heinsiana. Operum P. Ouidii Nas. editio noua. Nic. Heinsius, Dan. F. recensuit, et notas addidit. Tomus  II: P. Ouidii Nasonis operum tomus II qui METAMORPHOSES complectitur. Nicolaus Heinsius, D. F. locis infinitis ex fide scriptorum exemplarium castigauit, & obseruationes adiecit, Amstelaedami, ex officinâ Elzevirianâ, 1659.125 Heinsius 1758  Nic. Heinsii Commentarius in P. Ouidii Nasonis Opera omnia. Tomus II: Nic. Heinsii Commentarius in Ouidii Metamorphoseon libros XV, Lipsiae, in Libraria Veidmania, 1758.126 Gron. 1662 Ioh. Freder. Gronouii Obseruationum libri tres, Lugduni Batauorum 1662, in Iohannis Frederici Gronouii Obseruationum libri quattuor. Post F. Platnerum denuo edidit, uitam Gronouii praemisit, eiusdem obseruatorum in scriptoribus ecclesiasticis monobiblon breuesque adnotationes suas adiecit C.H. Frotscher, prof. Lips. Accedunt indices locupletissimi, Lipsiae, sumptus fecit et uenumdat A. Lehnholdus, 1831. Faber 1665 Multa passim in libris MetamorphoseΩn Ouidii uel tentantur uel emendantur; in queis et Virgilii locus quidam, in Tanaquilli Fabri Epistolae. Liber secundus, Salmurii, apud D. de Lerpiniere et I. Lesnerium, 1665 (16591), epist. LXIX (Renato Rapino u. cl.), pp. 307–23.127 Schepperus 1665  Isaci Schepperi coniecturae et emendationes ad Ouidii Metamorphoseis, in Faber 1665, epist. LXXI (Eliae Boherello amico suo), pp. 327–45.128 Burm. 1713  Publii Ouidii Nasonis operum Tomus II, qui Metamorphoses complectitur. Petrus Burmannus ad fidem ueterum exemplarium castigauit. Sine notis. Amstaelodami, apud Rod. & Gerh. Wetstenios, H. FF, 1713.129 Burm. 1727  Opera omnia, IV uoluminibus comprehensa, cum integris Iac. Micylli, Her. Ciofani, Dan. et Nic. Heinsiorum, et excerptis aliorum notis, quibus suas adiecit Petr. Burmannus, Amstelodami, apud R. et J. Wetstenios et G. Smith, 1727. Tom. II: met., cum eorumdem et Constantii Fanensis et Glareani notis.130 125 pp. 1–356 contain the text of Metamorphoses, followed by an “Index” and Heinsius’ notes. The text of book XIII is on pp. 279–306 and the notes to this book on 331–58. I also refer when relevant to Heinsius 1658, corresponding to vol. I (opera amatoria), and to Heinsius 1661, vol. III (fast., tr., Pont., Ib.). 126 Notes on book XIII on pp. 689–711. 127 Notes on book XIII on pp. 318–20. 128 Notes on book XIII on pp. 342  f. 129 Vol. I contains the opera amatoria; vol. III, fast., trist., Pont., Ib. 130 Tom. I: epist.; am.; ars; rem.; med.; halieut.; epicedion Drusi; Sabini epist.; Tom. III: fast., cum eorumdem et Car. Neapolis notis; trist.; Pont. Tom. IV: Ibis, cum notis eorumdem et Iac. Constantii Fanensis et Dion. Salvagnii Boessii; appendix continens uitas et elogia Ouidii, praefationes uirorum doctorum, et indices tres. Promiserat Heinsius se suas notas curis secundis castigatas et auctas daturum. Sed promissa non potuit perficere, eratque Petr. Burmanno destinatum hoc dono mactare orbem eruditum. Is tex-



Editions and commentaries used

25

Walch. 1731  Publii Ouidii Nasonis Metamorphoseon libri XV. Io. Georgius Walchius ad exemplar probatissimorum codicum recensuit emendauit et copiose inlustrauit commentariis philologicis et aliis ad modum Ioannis Minellii, Lipsiae, sumpt. M. G. Weidmanni […], 1731.131 *Bailey 1774 Ovid’s Metamorphoses, in Fifteen Books; with the Notes of John Minellius, and Others, in English. With a Prose Version of the Author. By Nathan Bailey, Carefully Revised, Improved and Enlarged, Dublin, Printed by John Exshaw, 1774. *Köppen 1791  Metamorphosen von Ovid. Herausgegeben von J.H.J. Köppen, director des Andreanums zu Hildesheim, Braunschweig, in der Schulbuchhandlund, 1791. *Beller. 1806  Metamorphoses, ad optimas ed. collatae, tironum institutioni accommodatae. Studio et cura I.I. Bellermanni, Erfordiae 1806. Gierig 1807  P. Ouidii Nasonis Metamorphoses. Recensuit uarietate lectionis notisque instruxit et indices duos, unum uerborum, alterum nominum propriorum adiecit G.E. Gierig. Editio altera ad singulos prope uersus uel emendatior uel auctior. Tomus posterior (Met. IX-XV), Lipsiae, sumptu F. B. Schwickerti, 1807.132 *Mitsch. 1819  P. Ouidii Nasonis Opera omnia e recensione P. Burmanni curauit indicesque rerum et uerborum philologicos adiecit Ch.Gl. Mitscherlich. Tom. I-II. Editio secunda, Gottingae, apud H. Dieterich, 1819 (1st. ed. vol. I: 1796, vol. II: 1798).133 Bothe 1818  F.H. Bothe, Vindiciae Ouidianae, siue annotationes in P. Ouidii Nasonis Metamorphoseon lib. XV, in quibus annotationibus recensentur lectiones cod. MSS. academiae regiae Berolinensis; accedunt Ioan. Henr. Vossi, uiri celeberrimi, lectiones et notae, Gottingae, in libraria Dieterichiana, 1818.134 Bothe 18182  P. Ouidii Metamorphoseon libri XV. Collatis Academiae Berolin. codice ms. aliisque bonis libris curauit F.H. Bothe […], Manhemii, sumtu T. Loeffleri, 1818. Lemaire 1822  Publius Ouidius Naso ex recensione G.E. Gierig cum uariis lectionibus codicum Parisinorum cui nouas addidit notas N.E. Lemaire; vol. IV: Met. 8–15, Parisiis 1822.135

tum Heinsianum iterum castigauit e libris scriptis et editis, in eoque constituendo et emendando ab Heinsii audacia saepenumero discessit. Notas Heinsii tertia parte ex ejus autographo auctiores edidit, iisque suas adiecit: ita ut haec editio merito praestantissima habeatur. The text and notes on book XIII are on pp. 853–931. 131 On occasion I also cite the previous 1714 ed. (Lipsiae). When I allude to the ed. of 1739 I am in fact referring to Var. 1739: P. Ouidii Nasonis Opera quae supersunt ad exemplar Nic. Heinsii et Petr. Burmanni castigata. Praemissa est Io. Georgi Walchi diatribe critica Latinitate poetica, Lipsiae, ex officina Weidmanniana, 1739, 3 vols. It contains the same text as Walch. 1731, though with corrections (as well as new mistakes). 132 The tomus prior (met. I-VIII) was published in 1804. 133 The indexes were never published. Vol. I: epist., met. I-IX; Vol. II: met. X-XV, fast., trist., Pont., Ib., fragmenta. 134 Notes to book XIII on pp. 126–43. Vossius’ notes on our book are on pp. 174  f. Also contained is a collation of ms. Hd on pp. 183–208. 135 Vol. V contains Boissonade’s annotated edition of the translation by Planudes. Lemaire’s complete edition, in nine volumes, was published between 1820 and 1825.

26

Introduction

Gierig-Jahn 1823 P. Ouidii Nasonis Metamorphoses. Recensuit uarietate lectionis notisque instuxit [sic] et indices duos, alterum uerborum alteum [sic] nominum propriorum adiecit G.E. Gierig. Editio tertia emendata et aucta ab I.Ch. Jahn, scholae Thomanae Lipsiensis collaboratore. Tomus posterior (Met. IX-XV), Lipsiae, sumptu E.B. Schwickerti, 1823.136 Richter 1828  P. Ouidii Nasonis quae supersunt ad optimorum librorum fidem accurate edita curauit A. Richter. Editio stereotypa. Tomus II: Met., Lipsiae, sumtibus et typis C. Tauchinitii, 1828.137 Jahn 1832  P. Ouidii Nasonis quae supersunt Opera Omnia ad codicum mss. et editt. fidem recognouit, uarias lectiones subiunxit et clauem Ouidianam addidit J.Ch. Jahn, Tom. II (met. 8–15), Lipsiae, sumtibus F.Ch.G. Vogelii, 1832.138 Baumg.-Crus. 1834  P. Ouidii Nasonis Metamorphoses, recensuit et perpetua annotatione illustrauit D.C.G. Baumgarten-Crusius, Lipsiae, sumptibus et typis B.G. Teubneri, 1834. Bach 1836 P. Ouidii Nasonis Metamorphoseon libri XV, mit kritischen und erläuternden Anmerkungen von E.C.Ch. Bach, vol. II (met. 8–15), Hannover 1836.139 Loers 1843  P. Ouidii Nasonis Metamorphoseon libri XV. Recensuit, uarias scripturas omnium codicum adhuc collatorum et uetustissimarum editionum apposuit, commentariis instruxit, praefatus est et indicem addidit V. Loers, Lipsiae, apud F. Fleischer, 1843. Weise 1845  P. Ouidii Nasonis Opera Omnia. Textum ad codicum Lipsiensium Aldinarumque fidem accurate recognouit C.H. Weise. Noua editio stereotypa. Tomus II: Metamorphoseon libri XV, Lipsiae, sumtibus et typis C. Zauchnitii, 1845. Merkel 1850  P. Ouidius Naso, ex recognitione R. Merkelii. Vol. II, Lipsiae, sumptibus et typis B.G. Teubneri, 1850.140 *Lindemann 1856  Publii Ouidii Nasonis opera. Ovids Werke. Berichtigt, übersezt und erklärt von H. Lindemann. Dritter Theil. Die Werwandlungen (Buch 11–15), Leipzig, Verlag von W. Engelmann, 1856. Koch 1866  P. Ouidii Nasonis Metamorphoseon libri XV, ad fidem librorum manu scriptorum recensuit et in usum scholarum edidit G.A. Koch, Lipsiae, sumptibus et typis Ph. Reclam Iun., 1866 (= 1851). *Siebelis 1868 P. Ouidii Nasonis Metamorphoses. Auswahl für Schulen. Mit erläuternden Anmerkungen und einem mythologisch-geographischen Register versehen von Dr. Johannes Siebelis. Zweites Heft. Buch. X-XV und das mythologisch-geographischen Register enthaltend. Fünfte Auflage, Leipzig, Teubner. Riese 1872  P. Ouidii Nasonis Carmina, edidit A. Riese. Vol. II. Editio stereotypa, Lipsiae, ex officina B. Tauchnitz, 1872.141

136 The tomus prior was published in 1821. 137 With no notes, only the text and the argumenta Lactantiana at the end. 138 The ed. comprises 3 volumes, published between 1828 and 1832. 139 Vol. I (met. 1–7) was published in 1831. This second volume includes after Metamorphoses “Herrn Professor Ochsner’s Bemerkungen zu Ovid’s Metamorphosen” (pp. 515–75; book XIII on pp. 560–6), notes dealing with literary matters and realia. 140 Tom. I: am.; epist.; med.; ars; rem.;Tom. II: met.; Tom. III: trist.; Ib.; Pont.; fast.; halieut. 141 Vol. I: epist., am., med., ars, rem.; Vol. II: met.; Vol: III: fast., trist., Ib., Pont., hal., fragmenta.



Editions and commentaries used

27

Merkel 1875  P. Ouidius Naso, ex iterata R. Merkelii recognitione. Vol. II, Lipsiae, in aedibus B.G. Teubneri, 1875. Korn 1880  P. Ouidius Naso, recensuit O. Korn. Tomus II. Metamorphoseon libri XV, Berolini, apud Weidmannos, 1880. Zingerle 1884  P. Ouidii Nasonis Carmina ediderunt H.St. Sedlmayer, A. Zingerle, O. Güthling. Vol. II: Metamorphoses. Schoralum in usum edidit A. Zingerle, Lipsiae, sumptus fecit G. Freytag, 1884. Polle 1888  P. Ouidii Nasonis Metamorphoses. Auswahl für Schulen. Mit erläuternden Anmerkungen und einem mythologisch-geographischen Register versehen von Dr. J. Siebelis. Zweites Heft. Buch. X-XV und das mythologisch-geographischen Register enthaltend. Zwölfte Auflage. Besorgt von Dr. F. Polle. Leipzig, B.G. Teubner, 1888.142 Riese 1889  P. Ouidii Nasonis Carmina, edidit A. Riese. Vol. II. Editio stereotypa iterum recognita, Lipsiae, ex officina B. Tauchnitz, 1889. Simmons 1889  P. Ouidii Nasonis Metamorphoseon XIII. XIV. Edited with Introduction, Analysis and Notes by Ch. Simmons, London, Macmillan & Co., and New York, 18892 (18871).143 Lejay 1894  Morceaux choisis des Métamorphoses d’Ovide avec une introduction et des notes par P. Lejay, Paris, Armand Colin et Cie, Editeurs, 1894.144 H-K-E 1898  Die Metamorphosen des P. Ovidius Naso. Zweiter Band. Buch VIII-XV. Im Anschluss an M. Haupts Bearbeitung der Bücher I-VII erklärt von O. Korn, in dritter Auflage neu bearbeitet von R. Ehwald, Berlin, Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1898.145 Keene 1898 The Thirteenth Book of the Metamorphoses. With Introduction and Notes by Ch.H. Keene, London, G. Bell & Sons, York-St., Convent Garden  – Cambridge, Deighton, Bell & Co., 18984 (18841).146 Edwards 1905  Corpus poetarum Latinarum a se aliisque denuo recognitorum et breui lectionum uarietate instructorum edidit I.P. Postgate. Tom. I quo continetur Enni fragmenta, Lucretius, Catullus, Vergilius, Horatius, Tibullus, Propertius, Ouidius. Metamorphoseon libri XV, recogniti a G.M. Edwards, Londini, sumptibus G. Bell et filiorum, 1905 (editio altera emendatior; 18941). Hedicke 1905  E. Hedicke, Studia Bentleiana. V. Ouidius Bentleianus, Freienwaldiae, typis expressit C. Hesse, 1905. Magnus 1914  P. Ouidi Nasonis Metamorphoseon libri XV. Lactanti Placidi qui dicitur Narrationes Fabularum Ouidianarum. Recensuit, apparatu critico instruxit H.

142 Polle republished Siebelis’ selection a number of times. The 5th ed. is dated 1868 and the 11th 1880. This edition does not give the complete text, nor do the lines follow the usual numbering, but rather the text is arranged by characters or episodes. 143 The author states (p. vi) that he follows the text of Haupt-Korn (Berlin 1881), though with references to the points where Merkel and Riese differ and with occasional references to Jahn (1832), Korn (1880) and Zingerle (1884), in addition to other annotated texts from Burman down. It is undoubtedly a commendable commentary. 144 As stated in the title, this is a selection (4.700 ll. in all) aimed at students. 145 The critical notes on book XIII are on pp. 405–9. 146 I do not cite his text regularly as it follows that of the ed. by Haupt-Korn (Berlin 1881) with the exception of the differences expressly noted on p. 10.

28

Introduction

Magnus. Accedunt index nominum et tres tabulae photographicae, Berolini, apud Weidmannos, 1914.147 Ehwald 1915  P. Ouidius Naso. Opera. Vol. II. Ex iterata R. Merkelii recognitione edidit R. Ehwald. Editio maior. Commentarius criticus ex Hugonis Magni apparatu maximam partem transumptus est, Lipsiae, in aedibus B.G. Teubneri, 1915. Fabbri 1923  P. Ouidii Nasonis Metamorphoseon libri XI-XV. Recensuit, praefatus est, appendice critica instruxit P. Fabbri, Aug. Taurinorum, Corpus scriptorum latinorum Paravianum (vol. 34), 1923.148 Slater 1927  D.A. Slater, Towards a Text of the Metamorphosis of Ovid, Oxford.149 Lafaye 1930  Ovide. Les métamorphoses. Texte établi et traduit par G. Lafaye. Vol. 3 (met. XI-XV), Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1930.150 Trepat-de Saav. 1932  Ovidi Nasó. Les Metamorfosis, text revisat i traducció de A.Mª. Trepat i A.Mª. de Saavedra, vol. III, Barcelona, Fundació Bernat Metge, 1932.151 van Proosdij 1951  P. Ouidii Nasonis Metamorphoseon libri I-XV. Textus et commentarius naar de editie van D.E. Bosselaar uitgegeben door B.A. van Proosdij, Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1951. Breitenbach 1964  Ovids Metamorphosen. Herausgegeben und übersetzt von H. Breitenbach, Zürich, Artemis-Verlag, 1964 (= 19582).152 H-K-E-A 1966  P. Ovidius Naso: Metamorphosen. Erster Band: Buch I-VI, Erklärt von M. Haupt. Zweiter Band: Buch VIII-XV, Erklärt von M. Haupt und O. Korn. Unveränderte Neuausgabe der Auflage von R. Ehwald, korrigiert und bibliographish erganzt von M. von Albrecht, Zürich-Dublin 1966.153 Anderson 1982  P. Ouidius Naso. Metamorphoses, edidit W.S. Anderson, editio stereotypa editionis alterae, Monachii et Lipsiae, in aedibus K.G. Saur, 1982 (19771). Bömer 1982 P. Ouidius Naso. Metamorphosen. Kommentar von F. Bömer. Buch XII-XIII, Heidelberg, Carl Winter, 1982.154 Segura 1983  P. Ovidio Nasón. Metamorfosis. Volumen III (Lib. XI-XV). Traducción por A. Ruiz de Elvira. Texto, notas e índices de nombres por B. Segura Ramos. Madrid, C.S.I.C. (col. Alma Mater), 1983.155 Goold 1984  Ovidius. Metamorphoses. With an English Translation by F.J. Miller. Revised by G.P. Goold, London-Cambridge (Mass.), Loeb Classical Library, 19842 (19771). 147 I occasionally refer to a previous selection for schools: Ovids Metamorphosen in Auswahl. Für den Schulgebrauch erklärt, Gotha 1885–1886 (I have consulted the reprints of 1892 and 1896). 148 The critical apparatus appears at the end (pp. 143–53 for book XIII). 149 This does not contain the text, but only the apparatus criticus. 150 As he himself states, he follows closely the text of Magnus and Ehwald. Vol. 1 (I-V) and vol. 2 (VI-X) were published in 1928. 151 Vol. I (I-V): 1929; vol. II (VI-X): 1930; vol. III (XI-XV): 1932. In the first volume (1929, x) the authors declare they have limited themselves to a revision of Magnus 1914 and Ehwald 1915, following, it must be said, very conservative criteria. However, for vol. III they had the text of Lafaye at their disposal and this would appear to be the one they follow most closely. 152 The critical apparatus is at the end (pp. 1132  f. for book XIII). 153 The critical notes on book XIII are on pp. 514–9. 154 The other volumes of this commentary are listed in the Bibliography. 155 The text depends basically on those of Ehwald 1915 and Lafaye 1930.



Editions and commentaries used

29

Huyck 1991  J.R. Huyck, A Commentary on Ovid’s Armorum Iudicium, Metamorphoses 12.612–13.398, Diss. Haruardiana, 1991.156 von Albrecht 1994  P. Ovidius Naso. Metamorphosen. Übersetzt und herausgegeben von M. von Albrecht, Stuttgart, Philipp Reclam jun., 1994.157 Bernardini Marzolla 1994  Publio Ovidio Nasone. Metamorfosi. Testo latino a fronte. A cura di P. Bernardini Marzolla. Con uno scritto di Italo Calvino, Torino, 19942 (19791).158 Galasso 2000  Ovidio. Opere. A cura di P. Fedeli; ed. con testo a fronte. 2 Le metamorfosi, trad. di G. Paduano; introd. di A. Perutelli; comm. di L. Galasso, Torino, Einaudi, 2000.159 Hill 2000  Ovid. Metamorphoses  XIII-XV. Edited with Translation and Notes by D.E. Hill, Warminster, Aris & Phillips, 2000.160 Hopkinson 2000  Ovid. Metamorphoses. Book  XIII, ed. by N. Hopkinson, Cambridge-New York, CUP, 2000. Scivoletto 2000  Opere di Publio Ovidio Nasone. 3, Metamorfosi. Ed., trad. e note a cura di N. Scivoletto, Torino, UTET, 2000.161 Tarrant 2004 P. Ouidi Nasonis Metamorphoses. Recognouit breuique adnotatione critica instruxit R.J. Tarrant, Oxford, OUP (OCT), 2004. R. de Verger 2005  Publio Ovidio Nasón. Obras completas; intr., ed. (bilingüe) y notas críticas de A. Ramírez de Verger, Madrid, Espasa Calpe, 2005.162 Fink 2007 Publius Ovidius Naso. Metamorphosen; hrsg. und übers. von G. Fink. München-Zürich, Artemis und Winkler, 20072 (20041).163 Hardie 2015  Ovidio. Metamorfosi. Volume VI (libri XIII-XV), a cura di Ph. Hardie, testo critico basato sull’ed. oxoniense di R. Tarrant, trad. di G. Chiarini, Milano, Mondadori (Fond. Lorenzo Valla), 2015.164 156 The text presented here is his own and he returns to it frequently in the commentary. This is an excellent commentary on the episode. 157 The author follows the text of Anderson 1982 except at express points of divergence (for those in book XIII, see pp. 878–80). 158 The text is based on several previous editions such as those of Merkel, Ehwald, Magnus or Lafaye. I cite only the author’s textual proposals explicit in pp. 656  f. 159 As the authors themselves state (p. CXVI) that they have followed the text of Anderson (19967), I cite only the divergences (for book XIII, on p. CXX). 160 Although in principle the commentator establishes his own text, this is not a critical edition. He occasionally states that he has had access to the material being prepared at the time by Tarrant for his upcoming edition. 161 He states (p. 30) that he is following the text of Anderson 1982, although he lists and defends his discrepancies (pp. 30–9, those for XIII on pp. 37  f.). I therefore cite him only when he differs from Anderson. 162 The critical notes on book XIII are on pp. 1962–4. 163 The author himself states (p. 966) that he has followed closely the ed. by E. Rösch (München, Heimeran, 1952, which was reworked and given a new introduction by N. Holzberg, Zürich – Düsseldorf, Artemis & Winkler, 19962). Fink’s text for book XIII presents no variation on the former, and in any case the text is close to Merkel’s. 164 Since on the cover itself he recognizes his indebtedness to the text of Tarrant 2004, I cite him only in cases of divergence. This comprehensive commentary, which however lacks a clear textual direction, appeared in May 2015, when the present book was at a very advanced stage of preparation.

30

Introduction

Holzberg 2017  Publius Ovidius Naso. Metamorphosen; lateinisch-deutsch; hrsg. und übersetzt von N. Holzberg, Berlin-Boston, Walter de Gruyter, 2017.165

The codices of N. Heinsius166 b b2 b3 b4 b5 b6 b7 b8 b9 o o2 o3 o4 o5

Berolinensis Diez. 4º 1069 Berolinensis Diez. 8º 1072 Berolinensis Diez. 4º 1075 Berolinensis Diez. 8º 2541 Berolinensis Diez. 8º 2571 Berolinensis Diez. B Sant. 148 e Berolinensis Diez. B Sant. 148d Berolinensis Diez. (libri impressi cum notis manuscriptis) 2647–2649 Berolinensis Diez. (libri impressi cum notis manuscriptis) 2671 Oxoniensis Bodl. Auct. 2 R VI 23 Oxoniensis Bodl. Auct. 2 R VI 25 Oxoniensis Bodl. Auct. S V 5 Oxoniensis Bodl. Auct. S V 8 Oxoniensis Bodl. Auct. S V 11

165 This edition, whose text is primarily based in that of Tarrant 2004 (or, rather, in the revision by Hardie 2015), appeared after the initial version of my work was finished. I cite this edition only in cases of divergence from Tarrant (see 803  f.). 166 See Fàbregas 2016, lxii-lxiv.

Bibliography Abbreviations J.B. Hofmann – A. Szantyr, Syntax und Stilistik, vol. II of M. Leumann – J.B. Hofmann  – A. Szantyr, Lateinische Grammatik, München: C.H. Beck, 1972, 3 vols. R. Kühner – F.W. Holzweissig – C. Stegmann, Ausführliche Grammatik KS der lateinischen Sprache, 2. Auflage, Hannover: Hahn, 1912–1914. Leumann M. Leumann, Laut- und Formenlehre, vol. I of M. Leumann – J.B. Hofmann – A. Szantyr, Lateinische Grammatik, München: C.H. Beck, 1972, 3 vols. LS Liddell & Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford 19839. OLD Oxford Latin Dictionary, Oxford 19822. TLL Thesaurus linguae Latinae, Leipzig-München 1900-. HS

Titles cited Ahl 1985  F. Ahl, Soundplay and Wordplay in Ovid and Other Classical Poets, Ithaca-London 1985. von Albrecht 1964  M. von Albrecht, Die Parenthese in Ovids Metamorphosen und ihre dichterische Funktion, Hildesheim 1964. Álvarez-Iglesias 2005  C. Álvarez – R. Iglesias, “El método de Raphael Regius, comentarista de Ovidio”, in J. Costas, coord., “Ad amicam amicissime scripta”. Homenaje a la profesora María José López de Ayala y Genovés, Madrid 2005, 123–138. Anderson 1977  W.S. Anderson, “Studies on the Naples Ms. IV F 3 of Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, ICS 2, 1977, 261–274. Anderson 1979 W.S. Anderson, “On the Tegernsee ms. of Ovid’s Metamorphoses (Munich Clm 29007)”, CSCA 11, 1979, 1–19. Arens 1950 J.C. Arens, “–fer and –ger, their extraordinary preponderance among compounds in Roman poetry”, Mnemosyne 3, 1950, 241–262. Austin 1955  P. Vergili Maronis Aeneidos liber quartus, edited with a Commentary by R.G. Austin, Oxford 1955. Bach 1819  E.C.Ch. Bach, Albii Tibulli Carmina, textu ad codd. mss. et editiones recognito insigniori lectionis uarietate notis indicibusque adiectis edidit…, Lipsiae: in libraria Hahnia, 1819. Bailey 1947  C. Bailey, Titi Lucreti Cari De rerum natura libri sex, ed. with Proleg., Critical App., Transl. and Comm. by …, 3 vols., Oxford 1947. Barchiesi 2006 A. Barchiesi, “Music for Monsters: Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Bucolic Evolution, and Bucolic Criticism”, in M. Fantuzzi, Th. Papanghelis, edd., Brill’s Companion to Greek and Latin Pastoral, Leiden 2006, 403–25. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110612493-002

32

Bibliography

Barchiesi-Rosati 2007  A. Barchiesi  – G. Rosati (comm.), L. Koch (trans.), Ovidio Metamorfosi. Volume II. Libri III-IV. Roma-Milano 2007. Beck 1996  M. Beck, Die Epistulae Heroidum  XVIII und XIX des Corpus Ovidianum: echtheitskritische Untersuchungen, Paderborn 1996. Bergk 1884  Th. Bergk, Kleine philologische Schriften, herausg. von R. Peppmüller. I. Band, Halle a. S.: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, 1884. Bertone 2018  S. Bertone, Tradizione di Catullo e critica del paratesto: Divisiones, titoli e facies del Liber, Parma, Tesi di dottorato, 2018. Billerbeck 1999  M. Billerbeck, Seneca. Hercules furens, Einleitung, Text, Übersetzung und Kommentar von …, Leiden 1999. Billerbeck-Somazzi 2009  M. Billerbeck – M. Somazzi, Repertorium der Konjekturen in den Seneca-Tragödien. Unter der Mitarbeit von H. Kaufmann und S. Marchitelli, Leiden 2009. Birt 1878  Th. Birt, De Halieuticis Ouidio poetae falso adscriptis, Berolini: apud Weidmannos, 1878. Bömer 1957–1958 F. Bömer, P. Ovidius Naso. Die Fasten, herausgegeben, übersetzt und kommentiert von …, Band I: Einleitung, Text und Übersetzung (1957); Band II: Kommentar (1958), Heidelberg. Bömer 1969 F. Bömer, P. Ovidius Naso. Metamorphosen. Kommentar von  … Buch I-III, Heidelberg 1969. Bömer 1976 F. Bömer, P. Ovidius Naso. Metamorphosen. Kommentar von  … Buch IV-V, Heidelberg 1976. Bömer 1976b F. Bömer, P. Ovidius Naso. Metamorphosen. Kommentar von  … Buch VI-VII, Heidelberg 1976. Bömer 1977 F. Bömer, P. Ovidius Naso. Metamorphosen. Kommentar von  … Buch VIII-IX, Heidelberg 1977. Bömer 1980  F. Bömer, P. Ovidius Naso. Metamorphosen. Kommentar von … Buch X-XI, Heidelberg 1980. Bömer 1986 F. Bömer, P. Ovidius Naso. Metamorphosen. Kommentar von  … Buch XIV-XV, Heidelberg 1986. Bömer 2006  F. Bömer†, P. Ovidius Naso. Metamorphosen. Kommentar von … Addenda, corrigenda, indices. Aufgrund der Vorarbeiten von F. Bömer zusammengestellt durch U. Schmitzer, Heidelberg 2006. Boyle 2011  A.J. Boyle, Seneca. Oedipus, edited with Introduction, Translation and Commentary by …, Oxford 2011. Braune 1849  L. Braune, De Ouidii Metamorphoseon locis quibusdam disputatio critica, Cottbus: Tornow, 1849. Breitzigheimer 1937  F. Breitzigheimer, Studien zu Lactantius Placidus und dem Verfasser der Narrationes fabularum Ouidianarum, Würzburg 1937. Briscoe 1973 J. Briscoe, A Commentary on Livy. Books  XXXI-XXXIII, Oxford 1973. Broukhusius 1708  J. van Broekhuyzen, Albii Tibulli equitis Romani quae exstant, ad fidem ueterum membranarum sedulo castigata, Amstelaedami: off. Wetsteniana, 1708. Bruere 1939 R.T. Bruere, “The Manuscript Tradition of Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, HSCPh 50, 1939, 95–122. Buonocore 1994  M. Buonocore, AETAS OVIDIANA. La fortuna di Ovidio nei codici della Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Sulmona 1994.



Titles cited

33

Burm. 1727b  P. Burman, ed., Sylloge epistolarum a uiris illustribus scriptarum, Leiden 1727. Burm. 1746  P. Virgilii Maronis opera. Accedunt … praecipue Nicolai Heinsii notae nunc primum editae. Ed. P. Burmannus et P. Burmannus junior, Amstelodami, 1746, I (ecl., georg.), II (Aen. I-V), III (Aen. VI-XI), IV (Aen. XII, Appendix Vergiliana). Burm. 1780  Sex. Aurelii Propertii Elegiarum libri IV cum commentario perpetuo Petri Burmanni Secundi et multis doctorum notis ineditis. Opus Burmanni morte interruptum Laurentius Santenius, IC, absoluit, Traiecti ad Rhenum: ap. B. Wild, 1780. Cameron 2004  A. Cameron, Greek Mythography in the Roman World, Oxford 2004. Capof. 1659  Joannis Gulielmi Capoferrei Animadversionum in auctores classicos l.l. Liber I. qui est in Ouidii Metamorphosin, Lipsiae, Typis & Sumptibus Johannis Wittigau, Anno M DC LIX. Casali 2004  S. Casali, “Terre mobili. La topografia di Azio in Virgilio (Aen. 3, 274– 389), in Ovidio (Met. 13, 713–715) e in Servio”, in C. Santini – F. Stok, edd., “Hinc Italae gentes”. Geopolitica ed etnografia dell’Italia nel “Commento” di Servio all’“Eneide”, Pisa 2004, 45–74. Casali 2007  S. Casali, “Correcting Aeneas’s voyage: Ovid’s commentary on Aeneid 3”, TAPhA 137, 2007, 181–210. Casali 2017, S. Casali, Virgilio. Eneide 2. Introduzione, traduzione e commento, Pisa 2017. Casamento 2003  A. Casamento, “Tutius est igitur fictis contendere verbis (Ov. Met. 13,9). Aiace, Ulisse e i πάθη dell’oratore”, in L. Landolfi – P. Monella, edd., Ars adeo latet arte sua. Riflessioni sull’intertestualità ovidiana. Le metamorfosi, Palermo 2003, 127–153. Del Castillo 2009  M. del Castillo Herrera, “Las formas de perfecto de indicativo en –iit en la versificación latina: ¿una cuestión métrica o una cuestión morfológica?”, CFC(L) 29, 2009, 5–20. Chantraine 1953 P. Chantraine, Grammaire Homérique, II: Syntaxe, Paris 1986 (= 1953). Clark 2011  J.G. Clark, “Introduction”, in J.G. Clark, F.Th. Coulson, A.S. McKinley, edd., Ovid in the Middle Ages, Cambridge – New York 2011, 1–25. Codoñer 1983  C. Codoñer, “El adversario ficticio en Séneca”, Helmantica 34, 1983, 131–148. Coffey-Mayer 1990  M. Coffey – R. Mayer, Seneca. Phaedra, Cambridge 1990. Coulson 1987  F.Th. Coulson, “The Vulgate Commentary on Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, Medievalia. A Journal of Medieval Latin 13, 1989 (= 1987), 29–61. Coulson 1988, F.Th. Coulson, “An Update to Munari’s Catalogue of the Manuscripts of Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, Scriptorium 42, 1988, 111–112. Coulson 1991  F.Th. Coulson, The ‘Vulgate’ Commentary on Ovid’s Metamorphoses. The Creation Myth and the Story of Orpheus, Toronto 1991. Coulson 1992  F.Th. Coulson, “Newly Discovered Manuscripts of Ovid’s Metamorphoses in the Libraries of Florence and Milan”, Scriptorium 46, 1992, 285–288. Coulson 1994  F.Th. Coulson, “A Bibliographical Update and corrigenda minora to Munari’s Catalogues of the Manuscripts of the Metamorphoses”, Manuscripta 38, 1994, 3–22. Coulson 1995  F.Th. Coulson, “Addenda to Munari’s Catalogues of the Manuscripts of Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, RHT 25, 1995, 91–127.

34

Bibliography

Coulson 1996  F.Th. Coulson, “Addenda to Munari’s Catalogues of the Manuscripts of Ovid’s Metamorphoses (II)”, Manuscripta 40, 1996, 115–118. Coulson 2002 F.Th. Coulson, “Addenda and Corrigenda to Incipitarium Ovidianum”, The Journal of Medieval Latin 12, 2002, 154–180. Coulson 2009  F.Th. Coulson, “Addenda and Corrigenda to Incipitarium Ovidianum (II)”, The Journal of Medieval Latin 19, 2009, 88–105. Coulson 2010  F.Th. Coulson, “Renaissance Latin Commentaries on the Iudicium armorum (Met. 13, 1–398)”, StudUmanistPiceni 30, 2010, 91–100. Coulson-Roy 2000 F.Th. Coulson  – B. Roy, Incipitarium Ovidianum: a Finding Guide for Texts in Latin Related to the Study of Ovid in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, Turnhout 2000. Courtney 2003  E. Courtney, “Tum and tunc”, Prometheus 29, 2003, 235–240. Courtney 2011  E. Courtney, “Some passages of Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, Maia 63, 2011, 84–87. Crede 1792  H. Crede, Animaduersionum in loca quaedam ueterum poetarum, eorumque uertendorum periculum, facit  …, Marburgi: Sumtibus Nov. Bibliopol. Acad., 1792. Cugusi 1982  P. Cugusi, “Carmina Latina epigraphica e tradizione letteraria”, Epigraphica 44, 1982, 65–107. Damsté 1894  P.H. Damsté, “De locis quibusdam ex Ovidii Metamorphosesin”, Mnemosyne 22, 1894, 58–65. Davis 1981 J.T. Davis, “Risit Amor: Aspects of Literary Burlesque in Ovid’s ‘Amores’”, ANRW II 31.4, 1981, 2460–2506. Dee 2006, J.H. Dee, Repertorium Ouidii Metamorphoseon hexametricum. A Repertory of the Hexameter Patterns in Ovid, Metamorphoses, compiled by…, Hildesheim 2006. Dietsch 1850  R. Dietsch, s. t., NJhbb 58, 1850, 87–90. Díez 2012 S. Díez Reboso, “Colación del manuscrito Matritensis 10038: Ovidio, Metamorfosis”, ExClass 16, 2012, 81–135. Díez 2014  S. Díez Reboso, Edición crítica y comentario textual del libro XI de las Metamorfosis de Ovidio, Tesis Doctoral Universidad de Huelva 2014. Dippel 1990 M. Dippel, Die Darstellung des trojanischen Krieges in Ovids Metamorphosen (XII 1  – XIII 622), Frankfurt am Main  – Bern  – New York  – Paris 1990. Dörrie 1971  P. Ouidii Nasonis Epistulae Heroidum, quas Henricus Dörrie … ad fidem codicum edidit, Berlin-NewYork 1971. Doll 2000  D.B. Doll, Ovid’s Metamorphoses 13.623–14.608: The Influence of Apollonius’ Argonautica upon Ovid’s Reading of Virgil, Ph.D. thesis Univ. of Colorado, 2000. Duc 1994  Th. Duc, “‘Postulat, ut capiat, quae non intellegit arma’ (Ov., Met. XIII, 295): Un Discours Programmatique?”, Latomus 53, 1994, 126–131. Due 1974  O.S. Due, Changing Forms: Studies in the Metamorphoses of Ovid, Copenhagen 1974. Earle 1903  M.L. Earle, “Obseruatiunculae ad locos quosdam poetarum Romanorum”, RPh 27, 1903, 269–272. Ehwald 1882  R. Ehwald, “Jahresbericht über Ovid 1881 bis Juli 1883”, Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der classischen Alterthumswissenschaft, begründet von Conrad Bursian 31, 1882, 157–205.



Titles cited

35

Ehwald 1885  R. Ehwald, “Jahresbericht über Ovid Juli 1883 bis Juli 1886”, Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der classischen Alterthumswissenschaft, begründet von Conrad Bursian 42, 1885 (1887), 125–282. Ehwald 1889  R. Ehwald, “Ad historiam carminum Ovidianorum recensionemque symbolae”, Prog. Herzogl. Gymnasium Ernestinum, Gotha 1889, 1–20. Ehwald 1892  R. Ehwald, “Ad historiam carminum Ovidianorum recensionemque symbolae”, Prog. Herzogl. Gymnasium Ernestinum, Gotha 1892, II, 1–22. Ehwald 1894 R. Ehwald, “Jahresbericht über Ovid von Juli 1886 bis Dezember 1893”, Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der classischen Alterthumswissenschaft, begründet von Conrad Bursian 80, 1894, 1–118. Ellis 1881  R. Ellis, P. Ouidii Nasonis Ibis, ex nouis codicibus edidit, scholia uetera commentarium cum prolegomenis appendice indice addidit …, Oxford: Clarendon Pr., 1881. Ellis 1882–1883  R. Ellis, “On some passages of Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, Transactions of the Oxford Philological Society 1882–1883, 28–30. Enk 1962  P.J. Enk, Sex. Propertii Elegiarum Liber Secundus, Leiden 1962. Ernout-Robin 1925–1928  A. Ernout – L. Robin, Lucrèce De rerum natura, commentaire exégétique et critique, précédé d’une introduction sur l’art de Lucrèce et d’une traduction des lettres et pensées d’Épicure, 3 vols. Paris 1925–1928. Estévez 2013  J.A. Estévez Sola, “New manuscript witnesses of Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, ExClass 16, 2013, 191–208. Estévez 2020  J.A. Estévez Sola, A Textual Commentary on Book XII of Ovid’s “Metamorphoses”, forthcoming. Fàbregas 2016  P. Fàbregas Salis, Edición crítica y comentario textual del libro X de las Metamorfosis de Ovidio, Tesis Doctoral Universitat de Barcelona 2016. Fantham 1982 E. Fantham, Seneca’s Troades, a Literary Introduction with Text, Translation, and Commentary, Princeton 1982. Farrell 1992 J. Farrell, “Dialogue of Genres in Ovid’s ‘Lovesong of Polyphemus’ (Metamorphoses 13. 719–897)”, AJPh 113, 1992, 235–268. Fedeli 1980  P. Fedeli, Sesto Properzio: Il Primo libro delle elegie, introduzione, testo critico e commento a cura di …, Firenze 1980. Fedeli 2005  P. Fedeli, Properzio. Elegie, Libro  II, introduzione, testo e commento di …, Cambridge 2005 (ARCA 45). Fedeli 2006  P. Fedeli, Sextus Propertius elegiarum libri IV, edidit …, editio stereotypa editionis correctioris, München-Leipzig 2006 (= 1994). Fedeli 2007  P. Fedeli, review of Tarrant 2004, Gnomon 79, 2007, 605–612. Fedeli 2015  P. Fedeli, Properzio. Elegie, Libro IV, introduzione di …; commento di P. Fedeli, R. Dimundo, I. Ciccarelli, Nordhausen 2015. Felgentreu 2002  F. Felgentreu, “Ovid weiss es besser: Met. 13, 730  f. und Verg. Aen. 3, 420  f.”, RhM 145, 2002, 305–313. Fisher 2007 E. Fisher, “Ovid’s Metamorphoses, sailing to Byzantium”, CML 27, 2007, 45–67. Fisher 2011 E. Fisher, “Ovid’s Metempsychosis: The Greek East”, in J.G. Clark, F.Th. Coulson, A.S. McKinley (eds.), Ovid in the Middle Ages, Cambridge-New York 2011, 26–47. Führer 1991  R. Führer, “Metrik und literarische Konkurrenz”, Glotta 69, 1991, 247– 249. Fuss 1823  J.D. Fuss, J. D. Fuss ad J. B. Lycocriticum Epistola in qua loci Metamorpho-

36

Bibliography

seon et Fastorum Ouidii, nec non alii nonnulli siue defenduntur et illustrantur, siue emendantur, Chr. Conr. Sprengel emendationes exempli causa refutantur, Leodii: Typis P.J. Collardin, 1823. Gaertner 2005  J.F. Gaertner, Ovid, “Epistulae ex Ponto”, Book I, Oxford 2005. Gaertner 2007  J.F. Gaertner, “Tum und tunc in der Augusteischen Dichtersprache”, RhM 150, 2007, 211–224. Galán 2002  G. Galán Vioque, Martial, Book VII: a Commentary, Leiden 2002. Galasso 2004 L. Galasso, “Ovid’s variations on Achilles in the Metamorphoses”, BICS 47, 2004, 83–98. Galasso 2005  L. Galasso, “Ovidio, Metamorfosi 13, 679–701: le figlie di Orione”, in F. Crevatin – G. Tedeschi, edd., Scrivere Leggere Interpretare: studi di antichità in onore di Sergio Daris, Trieste 2005, 217–224. Gatti 2014  P.L. Gatti, Ovid in Antike und Mittelalter – Geschichte der philologischen Rezeption, Stuttgart 2014. Gelsomino 1962  R. Gelsomino, Le fonti ovidiane di Vibio Sequestre. Questioni delle narrationes fabularum Ouidianarum attribuite a Lattanzio Placido, Bari 1962. Gifanius 1565  Titi Lucretii Cari De rerum Natura libri sex, Mendis innumerabilibus liberati; & in pristinum paene, ueterum potissime librorum ope ac fide, Ab Oberto Gifanio Burano Iuris studioso, restituti. Antverpiae, ex officina Christophori Plantini, MDLXV. Gifanius 1595  Titi Lucretii Cari De rerum Natura libri sex, ad postremam Oberti Gifanii emendationem accuratissime restituti, Lugduni Batauorum, ex officina Plantiniana, MDXCV. Gilbert 1896  J. Gilbert, Ouidianae quaestiones criticae et exegeticae, Progr. Misniense 1896. Gnesotto 1881  F. Gnesotto, Animaduersiones in aliquot Ouidii Metamorphoseon locos, Patauii: ex off. J.B. Randi, 1881. Goold 1965  G.P. Goold, “Amatoria Critica”, HSPh 69, 1965, 1–107. Gratwick 1973  A.S. Gratwick, “Corydon and his prospects”, CR 23, 1973, 10. Greenberg 1970, N.A. Greenberg, “The Hexametrical Maze”, Revue-Organisation Internationale pour L’Étude des Langues Anciennes par Ordinateur 4, 1970, 17–63. Griffin 1983  A.H.F. Griffin, “Polyphemus and Galatea in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, G&R, 30, 1983, 190–197. Gron. 1662b  L. Annaei Senecae Tragoediae. I. F. Gronouius recensuit. Accesserunt eiusdem et Variorum notae. Amstelodami, apud J. Pluymer, MDCLXII. Grunauer 1883 E. Grunauer, “Zu Ovidius Metamorphoses”, Jahrb. f. Class. Phil. 127, 1883, 420. Halbertsma 1878  T.J. Halbertsma, “Otium Harlemense (Continuatur ex Tom. V pag. 336)”, Mnemosyne 6, 1878, 105–110. Halm-von Laubmann-Meyer 1894  K. Halm – G. von Laubmann – W. Meyer, Catalogus codicum latinorum Bibliothecae Regiae Monacensis, Bd. 1,2: Codices num. 2501 – 5250 compl., Monachii 1894. Håkanson 1969  L. Håkanson, Statius’ Siluae. Critical and exegetical remarks with some notes on Thebaid, Lund 1969. Håkanson 1982  L. Håkanson, “Homoeoteleuton in Latin Dactylic Poetry”, HSCPh 86, 1982, 87–115. Hall 1980  J.B. Hall, review of Anderson 1977, PACA 15, 1980, 62–70.



Titles cited

37

Hall 1983  J.B. Hall, “An Eleventh-Century Manuscript of Ovid’s Metamorphoses: British Library King’s 26”, RFIC 111, 1983, 295–308. Hall 1985  J.B. Hall, Claudianus. Carmina, Leipzig 1985. Hardie 1985  P.R. Hardie, “Imago Mundi: Cosmological and Ideological Aspects of the Shield of Achilles”, JHS 105, 1985, 11–31. Hartman 1904  J.J. Hartman, “De Ouidio poeta commentatio (Continuantur e Vol. XXXII pag. 419)”, Mnemosyne 32, 1904, 371–419. Hartman 1905  J.J. Hartman, De Ouidio poeta commentatio, Leiden 1905. Hartman 1905b  J.J. Hartman, “De Ouidio poeta commentatio (Continuantur e Vol. XXXII pag. 419)”, Mnemosyne 33, 1905, 99–124. Hartman 1915  J.J. Hartman, “De cantoribus Euphorionis et de quibusdam aliis disputatiunculam”, Mnemosyne 43, 1915, 245–267. Hartman 1920  J.J. Hartman, “Ad Ouidii Met. XIII, 133”, Mnemosyne 48, 1920, 433. Hauke 1994  H. Hauke, Katalog der lateinischen Fragmente der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek München: Bd. 1. Clm 29202–29311, Wiesbaden 1994. Häuptli 1983  Seneca. Oedipus, edidit et appendice testimoniorum commentarioque instruxit B.W. Häuptli. 2 vols. Frauenfeld 1983. Havet 1911  L. Havet, Manuel de critique verbal appliquée aux textes latins, Roma 1967 (= Paris 1911). Hedicke 1905 E. Hedicke, Studia Bentleiana. V. Ouidius Bentleianus, Freienwald 1905. Heinze 1897 R. Heinze, T. Lucretius Carus. De rerum natura Buch  III, erklärt von …, Leipzig: Teubner, 1897. Hellegouarc’h 1964  J. Hellegouarc’h, Le monosyllabe dans l’hexamètre latin. Essai de métrique verbale, Paris 1964. Hellmuth 1880  C. Hellmuth, Emendationsversuche zu Ovids Metamorphosen, Progr. Caesareolutreanum 1880. Hellmuth 1883 C. Hellmuth, “Ueber Bruchstücke von Ovids Metamorphosen in Handschriften zu Leipzig und München”, SBAW 1883, II, 221–56. Helm 1901  R. Helm, “Vindiciae Ouidianae”, RhM 56, 1901, 340–68. Helm 1915  R. Helm, review of Magnus 1914, Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen 177, 1915, 505–554. Hendry 1995–1996  M. Hendry, “Ovid, Metamorphoses 13.471”, MCr 30–31, 1995– 1996, 247–248. Heubeck 1992  A. Heubeck, A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. II (books IXXVI), Oxford 1992. Heyworth 2018  S.J. Heyworth, “Editing and Interpreting Ovid’s Fasti: Text, Date, Form”, in L. Rivero, Mª.C. Álvarez, R.Mª. Iglesias, J.A. Estévez, edd., Viuam! Estudios sobre la obra de Ovidio – Studies on Ovid’s poetry, Huelva-Murcia 2018, 103–120. Hilberg 1896  I. Hilberg, “Beobachtungen über die prosodischen Functionen inlautender muta cum liquida bei Ovid”, Serta Harteliana, Wien: F. Tempsky, 1896, 172–176. Hollis 1977  A.S. Hollis, Ovid. Ars Amatoria, Book I, ed. with an Introd. and Comm. by…, Oxford 1977. Hollis 1996  A.S. Hollis, “Traces of ancient commentaries on Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, PLLS 9, 1996, 159–174. Hopman 2012  M.G. Hopman, Scylla. Mith, Metaphor, Paradox, Cambridge 2012.

38

Bibliography

Horsfall 2000  N. Horsfall, Virgil, Aeneid 7: A Commentary by…, Leiden 2000. Horsfall 2006  N. Horsfall, Virgil, Aeneid 3: A Commentary by…, Leiden-Boston 2006. Horsfall 2008  N. Horsfall, Virgil, Aeneid 2: A Commentary by …, Leiden-Boston 2008. Horsfall 2013  N. Horsfall, Virgil, Aeneid 6: A Commentary by…, Berlin 2013. Housman 1890  A.E. Housman, “Emendations in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, TCPhS 3, 1890, 140–153 (= 1972, 162–172). Housman 1893  A.E. Housman, “The manuscripts of Propertius (II)”, JPh 21, 1893, 161–197 (= 1972, 277–304). Housman 1903  A.E. Housman, M. Manilii Astronomicon Liber Primus. Recensuit et enarrauit … Accedunt emendationes librorum II III IV, Londinii 1903. Housman 1910  A.E. Housman, “Greek Nouns in Latin Poetry from Lucretius to Juvenal”, JPh 31, 1910, 236–266 (= 1972, 817–839). Housman 1919  A.E. Housman, “Nihil in Ovid”, CR 33, 1919, 56–59 (= 1972, 1000– 1003). Housman 1920  A.E. Housman, M. Manilii Astronomicon Liber Quartus. Recensuit et enarrauit …, Londinii 1920. Housman 1920b  A.E. Housman, “De nihilo”, CR 34, 1920, 161–164 (= 1972, 1012– 1015). Housman 1972  A.E. Housman, The Classical Papers of A.E. Housman, collected and edited by J. Diggle and F.R.D. Goodyear, I-III, Cambridge 1972. Iglesias-Álvarez 2006  R. Iglesias – C. Álvarez, “Raphael Regius y su exégesis de las Metamorfosis Ovidianas”, RELat 6, 2006, 123–138. Jackson Knight 1958 W.F. Jackson Knight, “Ovid’s metre and rhythm”, in N.I. Herescu, ed., Ovidiana. Recherches sur Ovide, Paris 1958, 106–120. Jakobi 1988  R. Jakobi, Der Einfluss Ovids auf den Tragiker Seneca, Berlin-New York 1988. Janka 1997  M. Janka, Ovid, Ars Amatoria. Buch 2. Kommentar, Heidelberg 1997. Kallendorf 2015  C. Kallendorf, The Protean Virgil. Material Form and the Reception of the Classics, Oxford 2015. Kenney 1984  E.J. Kenney, review of Bömer 1982, CR 34, 1984, 33–36. Kenney 1996  E.J. Kenney, Ovid. Heroides, XVI-XXI, ed. by …, Cambridge 1996. Kenney 2011  E.J. Kenney (comm.), G. Chiarini (trans.), Ovidio Metamorfosi. Volume IV. Libri VII-IX. Roma-Milano 2011. Keulen 2001  A.J. Keulen, L. Annaeus Seneca Troades. Intr., Text and Comm. by …, Leiden 2001. Kirk 1990  G.S. Kirk, The Iliad: A Commentary, vol. II: Books 5–8, Cambridge 1990. Koch 1864  H.A. Koch, “Coniectanea in poetas Latinos”, in Symbola philologorum Bonnensium in honorem Friderici Ritschelii collecta, Leipzig: Teubner, 1864–1867, 313–358. Kraner et alii 1967  C. Iulii Caesaris Commentarii de bello Gallico, erklärt von F. Kraner, W. Dittenberger und H. Meusel, vol. II, Dublin-Zürich 196721. Kretschmer 2015 M.T. Kretschmer, review of Gatti 2014, ExClass 19, 2015, 345– 353. Kvíčala 1892  J. Kvíčala, Nove kritické a exegetické příspěvky k Vergiliově Aeneidě, Praze: Nákl. České akademie cisaře Františka Josefa pro vědy, slovesnost a umění, 1892.



Titles cited

39

Labate 2012  M. Labate, “Polifemo in Ovidio: il difficile cammino della civiltà”, in C. Álvarez – R. Iglesias, coord., Y el mito se hizo poesía, Madrid 2012, 229–245. Lachmann 1882  Caroli Lachmanni in T. Lucretii Cari De rerum natura libros Commentarius quartum editus, Berolini: G. Reimer, 1882 (18501). Laguna 1992  G. Laguna, Estacio, Silvas III, introd., ed. crít., trad. y com. de …, Sevilla-Madrid 1992. Lamacchia 1974  R. Lamacchia, “Tra « sub » e « in » in alcune espressioni latine”, SIFC 46, 1974, 51–84. Landolfi 2001  L. Landolfi, “Il nefas mancato e i suoi retroscena: dal sacrificio di Ifigenia alla facondia di Ulisse (Ou. Met. XII 24–38; XIII 181–95)”, Vichiana 3, 2001, 26–38. Lausberg 1960  H. Lausberg, Manual de retórica literaria, Madrid 1966, I-III (trad. esp. de José Pérez Riesco; orig. alem. München 1960). Lease 1902  E.B. Lease, “On the Use of Neque and Nec in Silver Latin”, CR 16, 1902, 212–214. Lease 1902b  E.B. Lease, “The use of atque and ac in Silver Latin”, in Studies in Honor of Basil L. Gildersleeve, Baltimore 1902, 413–425. Lenz 1967  F.W. Lenz, Ovid’s “Metamorphoses”. Prolegomena to a Revision of Hugo Magnus’ Edition, Dublin-Zürich 1967. Liberman 2002  G. Liberman, Valerius Flaccus. Argonautiques (chants V-VIII), Paris 2002. Liberman 2004 G. Liberman, “Observations sur le texte des Métamorphoses d’Ovide”, RPh 78, 2004, 57–90. Liberman 2010  G. Liberman, Stace. Silves, édition et commentaire critiques par …, Paris 2010. Liberman 2017 G. Liberman, “Commenter Properce, une affaire complexe et éminemment philologique”, ExClass 21, 2017, 175–215. Librán 2006  M. Librán, “Colación de ‘Dertusensis 134 (Ov. Metamorphoseon libri XV)’ I”, ExClass 10, 2006, 83–111. Librán 2007  M. Librán, “Colación de ‘Dertusensis 134 (Ov. Metamorphoseon libri XV)’ II”, ExClass 11, 2007, 83–104. Lorenzetti 2001 E. Lorenzetti, “L’Armorum Iudicium di Ovidio. Appunti sulla Tradizione Epica nelle Metamorfosi”, AFLM 34, 2001, 219–247. Luck 1961  G. Luck, “Notes on the language and text of Ovid’s Tristia”, HSCPh 65, 1961, 243–261. Luck 1967  G. Luck, P. Ouidius Naso. Tristia, vol. 1: Text und Übersetzung, Heidelberg 1967. Luck 1977  G. Luck, P. Ouidius Naso. Tristia, vol. 2: Kommentar, Heidelberg 1977. Luck 1982  G. Luck, “Notes on the text of Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, AJPh 103, 1982, 47–61. Luck 2005  G. Luck, “Naugerius’ Notes on Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, ExClass 9, 2005, 156–224. Luck 2005b  G. Luck, review of Tarrant 2004, ExClass 9, 2005, 249–271. Luck 2008  G. Luck, “Emendaturus, si licuisset, erat”, Euphrosyne 36, 2008, 9–19. Luck 2009  G. Luck, “More missing letters in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, MH 66, 2009, 88–119. Luque 2009  J. Luque, “Impotens: ¿impotente o prepotente (valde potens: Non., p. 187, 6 L.)?”, RELat 9, 2009, 47–81.

40

Bibliography

Madvig 1873  I.N. Madvig, Aduersaria critica ad scriptores Graecos et Latinos. II: ad scriptores Latinos, Hauniae 1873. Magnus 1878 H. Magnus, “Ovid und die römischen Elegiker. 1876 u. 1877”, Zeitschrift für das Gymnasial-Wesen 12, 1878, 95–117. Magnus 1883  H. Magnus, “Ovid und die römischen Elegiker. 1881–1882”, Zeitschrift für Gymnasial-Wesen 9, 1883, 241–297. Magnus 1887 H. Magnus, Studien zu Ovids Metamorphosen (Wissenschaftliche Beilage zum Programm des Sophien-Gymnasiums. Ostern 1887., Programm Nr. 59), Berlin: R. Gaertner, 1887. Magnus 1887b  H. Magnus, “Zu den Metamorphosen des Ovidius”, Neue Jahrb. für Philol. und Paedag. n.f. 33, 1887, 129–142. Magnus 1891  H. Magnus, “Studien zur Überlieferung und Kritik der Metamorphosen Ovids. I. Fragmentum Bernense”, Neue Jahrb. für Philol. und Paedag. n.f. 37, 1891, 689–706. Magnus 1893  H. Magnus, “Studien zur Überlieferung und Kritik der Metamorphosen Ovids. II. Der Archetypus”, Neue Jahrb. für Philol. und Paedag. n.f. 39, 1893, 601–638. Magnus 1894  H. Magnus, “Studien zur Überlieferung und Kritik der Metamorphosen Ovids. III. Die Familie O”, Neue Jahrb. für Philol. und Paedag. n.f. 40, 1894, 191–207. Magnus 1894b  H. Magnus, “Studien zur Überlieferung und Kritik der Metamorphosen Ovids. IV. Marcianus und Neapolitanus”, Neue Jahrb. für Philol. und Paedag. n.f. 40, 1894, 637–655, 759–799. Magnus 1904  H. Magnus, “Neue Studien zur Ueberlieferung und Kritik der Metamorphosen Ovids”, Hermes 39, 1904, 30–62. Magnus 1905  H. Magnus, “Ovids Metamorphosen in doppelter Fassung?”, Hermes 40, 1905, 191–239. Magnus 1925 H. Magnus†, “Ovids Metamorphosen in doppelter Fassung? II”, Hermes 60, 1925, 113–143. Maltby 1991  R. Maltby, A Lexicon of Ancient Latin Etymologies, Leeds 1991 (ARCA 25). Maltby 2002  R. Maltby, Tibullus: Elegies, Text, Introduction and Commentary by …, Cambridge 2002 (ARCA 41). Marahrens 1971 I. Marahrens, Angefochtene Verse und Versgruppen in den Metamorphosen, Diss. Universität zu Heidelberg 1971. Marcilius 1604  Th. Marcilius, Ad Horatii Flacci opera omnia, quotidiana & emendatae lectiones, Parisiis: apud B. Macaeum, 1604. Mariner 1965 S. Mariner, “Atque/Ac; Deinde/Dein, Exinde/Exin, Proinde/Proin, Neque/Nec: Una interpretación fonemática de su distribución”, Revista de Estu­ dios Clásicos 9, 1965, 7–17. Markland 1728  P. Papinii Statii Siluarum libri V. Ex uetustis exemplaribus recensuit et notas atque emendationes adiecti J. Marklandus. Londini: Typis G. Bowyer, MDCCLXXVIII. Martel 2010  G. Martel Bravo, “Colación de las Metamorfosis de Ovidio en el ms. Turonensis 879”, ExClass 14, 2010, 91–173. Mastellone 2004  E. Mastellone, “La fine di Messalina in Tacito: una morte ‘tragica’ a rovescio”, BStudLat 34, 2004, 531–557. McKeown 1989  J.C. McKeown, Ovid: Amores. Text, Prolegomena and Commen-



Titles cited

41

tary in four volumes. Vol. II: A Commentary on Book One, Leeds 1989 (ARCA 22). McKeown 1998  J.C. McKeown, Ovid: Amores. Text, Prolegomena and Commentary in four volumes. Vol. III: A Commentary on Book Two, Leeds 1998 (ARCA 36). Mehler 1878  E. Mehler, “Miscellanea”, Mnemosyne 6, 1878, 387–412. Mendner 1939  S. Mendner, Der Text der ‘Metamorphosen’ Ovids, Diss. Köln 1939. Michalopoulos 2001  A.N. Michalopoulos, Ancient Etymologies in Ovid’s ‘Metamorphoses’: A Commented Lexicon, Leeds 2001 (ARCA 40). Michalopoulos 2003  A.N. Michalopoulos, “Working on an Established Background: Ovid and his Hellenistic Predecessors”, in Nifadopoulos 2003, 165–175. Michalopoulos 2006  A.N. Michalopoulos, Ovid, ‘Heroides’ 16 and 17: Introduction, Text and Commentary, Cambridge 2006 (ARCA 47). Monteleone 1979  C. Monteleone, “Esegesi ovidiana dell’ecloga seconda di Virgilio”, RhM 122, 1979, 88–90. Moreno Soldevila 2011  R. Moreno Soldevila, ed., Diccionario de motivos amatorios en la literatura latina (ss. III a.C.  – II d.C.), Anejo  II de Exemplaria Classica, Huelva 2011. Most 1979  G.W. Most, “Three textual notes on Ovid’s Amores”, in C. Deroux, ed., Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, Bruxelles 1979, I, 356–372. Müller 1847  C.H. Müller, Emendationes Ouidianae, Blankenburg 1847. Munari 1957  F. Munari, Catalogue of the MSS. of Ovid’s Metamorphoses, London 1957. Munari 1965  F. Munari, “Supplemento al catalogo dei manoscritti delle Metamorfosi ovidiane”, RIFC 93, 1965, 288–297. Munari 1970  F. Munari, “Secondo supplemento al catalogo dei manoscritti delle Metamorfosi ovidiane”, in Studia Florentina Alexandro Ronconi sexagenario oblata, Roma 1970, 275–280. Munk Olsen 1985  B. Munk Olsen, L’Étude des Auteurs Classiques Latins aux XIe et XIIe Siècles, vol. II: Livius-Vitruvius; Florilèges-Essais de Plume, Paris 1985. Munro 1893  H.A.J. Munro, T. Lucreti Cari De Rerum Natura libri sex, edited by…, London: G. Bell and sons, 18934. Murcia 2008  E. Murcia Estrada, “Colación del manuscrito S-III-19 de las Metamorfosis de Ovidio del Real Monasterio de San Lorenzo de El Escorial”, ExClass 12, 2008, 69–102. Murcia 2012  E. Murcia Estrada, El libro VII de las Metamorfosis de Ovidio: Edición crítica y comentario textual, Tesis doctoral, Huelva 2012. Naug. 1754  Andreae Naugerii Patricii Veneti Oratoris et Poetae Clarissimi Opera Omnia, quae quidem magna adhibitae diligentia colligi potuerunt. Curantibus Jo. Antonio J.U.D. et Cajetano Vulpiis, Bergomensibus fratribus de literaria republica optime meritis, Venetiis 1754. Navarro 1996  F. Navarro Antolín, Corpus Tibullianum III.1–6. Lygdami elegiarum liber, edition and commentary by…, Leiden-New York-Köln 1996. Nifadopoulos 2003  Ch. Nifadopoulos, ed., Etymologia: Studies in Ancient Etymology: Proceedings of the Cambridge Conference on Ancient Etymology, 25–27 September 2000, Münster 2003. Nisbet-Hubbard 1970  R.G.M. Nisbet  – M. Hubbard, A Commentary on Horace: Odes, Book I, Oxford 1970.

42

Bibliography

Nisbet-Hubbard 1978  R.G.M. Nisbet  – M. Hubbard, A Commentary on Horace: Odes, Book II, Oxford 1978. Nisbet-Rudd 2004 R.G.M. Nisbet  – N. Rudd, A Commentary on Horace: Odes, Book III, Oxford 2004. Ogilvie 1965  A Commentary on Livy. Books 1–5, by R.M. Ogilvie, Oxford 1965. D’Orville 1806  Codices manuscripti et impressi cum notis manuscriptis, olim D’Oruilliani, qui in Bibliotheca Bodleiana apud Oxonienses adseruantur, Oxonii, e typographeo Clarendoniano, 1806. D’Orville-Burman 1733  J.-P. D’Orville, P. Burman jr., Miscellaneae obseruationes in auctores ueteres et recentiores, Vol. II tom. 1, Amstelaedami, apud Janssonio-Waesbergios, 1733. Otis 1935 B. Otis, De Lactantii qui dicitur Narrationibus Ouidianis, Cambridge (Mass.) 1935 (cf. HSCPh 46, 1935, 209–211). Otis 1936  B. Otis, “The Argumenta of the So-Called Lactantius”, HSCPh 47, 1936, 131–163. Oudendorp 1786  F. Oudendorp, Appuleii Metamorphoseon libri XI, ed. D. Ruhnken, Lugduni Batavorum, 1786. Palmer 1898  A. Palmer, Ovid. Heroides, ed. by …; new Introduction and Bibliography by D.F. Kennedy, Exeter 2005. Papaioannou 2007  S. Papaioannou, Redesigning Achilles. ‘Recycling’ the Epic Cycle in the ‘Little Iliad’ (Ovid, Metamorphoses 12.1 – 13.622), Berlin-New York 2007. Papathomopoulos-Tsavare 2002 M. Papathomopoulos, I. Tsavare, ΟΒΙΔΙΟΥ ΠΕΡΙ ΜΕΤΑΜΟΡΦΩΣΕΩΝ ὃ μετήνεγκεν ἐκ τῆς Λατίνων φωνῆς εἰς τὴν Ἑλλάδα ΜΑΞΙΜΟΣ ΜΟΝΑΧΟΣ Ο ΠΛΑΝΟΥΔΗΣ, Athens 2002. Pascal 1902  C. Pascal De Metamorphoseon locis quibusdam, Torino 1902. Paschalis 2003  M. Paschalis, “Names, Semantics, and Narrative in Ovid’s Polydorus and Polyxena Episodes and their Intertexts (Euripides’ Hecuba and Virgil’s Aeneid)”, SIFC 4ª ser. 1, 2003, 142–159. Passerat 1608  Io. Passeratius, Commentarii in C. Val. Catullum, Albium Tibullum, et Sex. Aur. Propertium, cum tribus accuratissimis rerum, uerborum, autorum et emendationum indicibus, Parisiis 1608. Pavlock 2003  B. Pavlock, “Ulysses’ Exploitation of Etymological Puns in Metamorphoses 13”, in Nifadopoulos 2003, 143–151. Pease 1967  Publi Vergili Maronis Aeneidos liber quartus, ed. by A.St. Pease, Darmstadt 1967 (= Cambridge, Mass., 1935). Pellegrini 2001  P. Pellegrini, “Χειρ χεῖρα νίπτει: per gli incunaboli di Giovanni Calfurnio, umanista editore”, IMU 42, 2001, 181–283. Pérez 2000  P. Ovidio Nasón. Cartas desde el Ponto, introducción y texto de A. Pérez Vega; texto y traducción del Libro II a cargo de F. Socas Gavilán, Madrid 2000. Petitus 1642  Samuelis Petiti Obseruationum libri III., in quibus uaria ueterum scriptorum loca, quae ad Philologiam, Iurisprudentiam & utriusque Ecclesiae Iudaicae atque Christianae historiam pertinent, illustrantur aut emendantur, Parisiis: apud Simeonem Piget, 1642. Pichon 1902 R. Pichon, Index verborum amatoriorum, Hildesheim 1966 (= Paris 1902). Polle 1885  F. Polle, “Zu Ovidius”, NJhbb 131, 1885, 889–893. Polle 1888b  F. Polle, “Zu Ovidius Metamorphosen”, NJhbb 137, 1888, 266–270. Polster 1897  L. Polster, “Zu Ovidius Metamorphosen”, NJhbb 155, 1897, 224.



Titles cited

43

Possanza 2005  M. Possanza, review of Tarrant 2004, BMCR 2005.06.27. Postgate 1920 J.P. Postgate, “On Some Quantities in Phaedrus”, Hermathena 42, 1920, 53–55. Postgate 1921  J.P. Postgate, “De nihilo nil”, CR 35, 1921, 23–25. Preibisch 1881  P. Preibisch, “Zu Ovidius Metamorphosen”, Jahrb. f. Class. Phil. 123, 1881, 128. Pricæus 1650  I. Pricaeus, L. Apuleii Madaurensis Metamorphoseos libri XI, Goudae 1650. Pulbrook 1973  M. Pulbrook, “The Third Declension Accusative Plural in –is and –es in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, PACA 12, 1973, 2–10. Ramírez de Verger 2003 A. Ramírez de Verger, Ouidius. Carmina amatoria, München-Leipzig 2003. Ramírez de Verger 2006  A. Ramírez de Verger, “Notas críticas a las Metamorfosis de Ovidio (I 386, VI 399, VII 77, IX 653, XIII 602, XV 364)”, Emerita 74, 2006, 29–39. Ramírez de Verger 2006b  A. Ramírez de Verger, “A New Edition of Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, in C. Deroux, ed., Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, Bruxelles 2006, 315–334. Ramírez de Verger 2008  A. Ramírez de Verger, “Seven critical notes on Ovid’s Metamorphoses (3.242; 7.532; 8.150; 11.145; 13.922; 15.169; 15.624)”, Athenaeum 46, 2008, 807–812. Ramírez de Verger 2016 A. Ramírez de Verger, “The Sources of the Editions of Ovid’s Metamorphoses (The example of Met. 6.401–674)”, in J. Velaza, ed., From the Protohistory to the History of the Text, Frankfurt am Main 2016, 245–278. Ramírez de Verger 2016b  A. Ramírez de Verger, “El Codex Menardi de N. Heinsius y P. Burmannus”, in E. Borrell, Ó. de la Cruz, edd., Omnia mutantur. Canvi, transformació i pervivencia en la cultura clàssica, en seves llengües i en el seu llegat, II, Barcelona 2016, 115–26. Rappold 1871  J. Rappold, Beitrag zur Erklärung und Kritik der Ovidianischen Metamorphosen, Progr. Leobeniense 1871. Rappold 1881 J. Rappold, “Zu Ovid’s Heroiden und Metamorphosen”, ZÖG 32, 1881, 401–415. Rappold 1881b J. Rappold, “Textkritisches zu Ovid’s Schriften”, ZÖG 32, 1881, 801–817. Reed 2004  J.D. Reed (comm.), G. Chiarini (trans.), Ovidio Metamorfosi. Volume V. Libri X-XII, Roma-Milano 2004. Richmond 2006 J.A. Richmond, review of Tarrant 2004, Hermathena 180, 2006, 129–132. Río 2014  A. Río Torres-Murciano, “Mauors in lingua: hombres de acción y hombres de palabras en la épica romana”, CFC(L) 34, 2014, 195–223. Risberg 1907  B. Risberg, “In poëtas Latinos coniectanea”, Eranos 7, 1907, 143–144. Rivero 1996  L. Rivero García, “Observaciones críticas a los Medicamina faciei femineae de Ovidio”, Emerita 64, 1996, 79–93. Rivero 1997  L. Rivero García, Prudencio. Obras, 2 vols., Madrid 1997. Rivero 1998  L. Rivero García, “A note on Ovid’s Med. 23”, Hermes 126, 1998, 123– 124. Rivero 2003  L. Rivero García, “ἀπροσδόκητον en Ovidio, Amores II 15, 5: nota crítica”, Emerita 71, 2003, 277–282.

44

Bibliography

Rivero 2012  L. Rivero García, review of “R. Florio, Transformaciones del héroe y el viaje heroico en el Peristephanon de Prudencio, Bahía Blanca 2011”, Minerva 25, 2012, 276–279. Rivero 2015  L. Rivero García, “Nota critico-esegetica a Ou. met. 13.257”, RaRe 6, 2015, 103–120. Rivero 2015b  L. Rivero García, “Sobre dos posibles interpolaciones en el Armorum iudicium de Ovidio (met. 13.294s., 332s.)”, GIF 67, 2015, 161–180. Rivero 2016  L. Rivero García, “N. Heinsius’ fragmentum Caesenas of Ovid’s Metamorphoses rediscovered”, CQ 66, 2016, 384–394. Rivero 2016b  L. Rivero García, “Three critical notes on Ovid (met. 13.554, 560  f., 602)”, Eikasmós 27, 2016, 143–152. Rivero 2016c L. Rivero García, “On Ou. met. 13.400b”, Paideia 71, 2016, 409– 415. Rivero 2016d  L. Rivero García, “On the text of Ou. met. 13.692–696”, SO 90, 2016, 85–92. Rivero 2017  L. Rivero García, “Requests as orders: on Ou. met. 13.377–379”, Mnemosyne 70, 2017, 406–416. Rivero 2017b  L. Rivero García, “Critical discussion on three passages of Ovid’s Metamorphoses 13 (ll. 129, 432, 653)”, RhM 160, 2017, 320–328. Rivero 2017c  L. Rivero García, “Two suggestions on the text of Ovid’s Metamorphoses (13.8; 13.94)”, Hermes 145, 2017, 499–503. Rivero et alii 2009–2011  L.  Rivero – J.A.  Estévez – M.  Librán – A.  Ramírez de Verger, Virgilio. Eneida, 4  vols., Madrid  2009–2011. Rivero-Estévez 2009 L. Rivero  – J.A. Estévez, “Further Remarks on Verg. Aen. 3.684–6”, Maia 61, 2009, 93–100. Rivero-Estévez 2010  L. Rivero – J.A. Estévez, “A note on Verg. Aen. III 581”, Glotta 86, 2010, 93–97. Röhl 1875  H. Röhl, “Zu Ovidius Metamorphosen [XIII 685–699]”, Neue Jahrb. für Philol. und Paedag. 112, 1875, 633–634. Rosati 1996  G. Rosati, Heroidum epistulae XVIII-XIX: Leander Heroni, Hero Leandro, a cura di …, Firenze 1996. Rubio 1972  L. Rubio, “Estructura del estilo indirecto en latín y en castellano: pro­ blemas de traducción”, Rev. Esp. Ling. 2, 1972, 259–272. Rudd 1989  N. Rudd, Horace, Epistles Book II and Epistle to the Pisones (“Ars poetica”), Cambridge 1989. Scarcia 1999  R. Scarcia, “Gli abbellimenti di Tacito”, Schol(i)a 1, 1999, 57–74. Schawaller 1987  D. Schawaller, “Semantische Wortspiele in Ovids Metamorphosen und Heroides”, GB 14, 1987, 199–214. Schrader 1776  J. Schrader, Liber emendationum, Leouardiae 1776. Schulze 1894  G. Schulze, Orthographica et Graeca Latina. Iterum typis exscripta. Praefatiunculam scripsit Eduardus Fraenkel, Roma 1958 (= 1894). Schwind 1993  J. Schwind, “Beiträge aus der Thesaurus-Arbeit XXVI: penna und pinna”, MH 50, 1993, 170–177.​ Sedlmayer 1881  H.S. Sedlmayer, Kritischer Commentar zu Ovids ‘Heroiden’, Wien 1881. Segal 2003  Ch. Segal, “Ovid and Lucretius on virgin sacrifice”, in P. Defosse, ed., Hommages à Carl Deroux. 4: Archéologie et histoire de l’art, religion, Bruxelles 2003, 531–539.



Titles cited

45

Senis 1990  G. Senis, “Le Narrationes Ouidianae e il cod. Neap. IV F 3”, Maia 42, 1990, 167–178. Shackleton Bailey 1954  D.R. Shackleton Bailey, “Ovidiana”, CQ 4, 1954, 165–170. Shackleton Bailey 1981  D.R. Shackleton Bailey, “Notes on Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, Phoenix 35, 1981, 332–337. Shackleton Bailey 1994  D.R. Shackleton Bailey, Homoeoteleuton in Latin dactylic verse, Stuttgart-Leipzig 1994. Skutsch 1956  O. Skutsch, “De fulminum appellatione Scipionibus indita et de locis quibusdam Ouidianis”, SIFC 27–28, 1956, 536–540. Slater 1915  D.A. Slater, “Some codices Vossiani and the Metamorphosis of Ovid”, CR 29, 1915, 174–178. Solodow 1986  J.B. Solodow, “Raucae, tua cura, palumbes: Study of a Poetic Word Order”, HSCPh 90, 1986, 129–153. Sprengel 1815  Ch.K. Sprengel, Neue Kritik der Klassischen Römischen Dichter in Anmerkungen zum Ovid, Virgil und Tibull, Berlin 1815. Stampacchia 1968  G. Stampacchia, La tragedia di Ecuba nelle Metamorfosi ovidiane. Nota per uno studio del monologo in Ovidio, Pisa 1968. Steiner 1951  G. Steiner, “Source-Editions of Ovid’s Metamorphoses (1471–1500)”, TAPhA 82, 1951, 219–231. Steiner 1952  G. Steiner, “The Textual Tradition of the Ovidian Incunabula”, TAPhA 83, 1952, 312–318. Stok 1990 F. Stok, “Le Troiane di Ovidio (Met. 13,408–428)”, in L. Nicastri, ed., Contributi di filologia latina, Napoli 1990, 85–101. Stok 2008  F. Stok, “Metamorfosi di Ecuba (Ov. met. 7, 362; 13, 406)”, in P. Arduini et al., edd., Studi offerti ad Alessandro Perutelli, Roma 2008, 2, 503–511. Suárez 2013 Á. Suárez del Río, “Colación del ms. Berolinensis Diez. B Sant. 13: Ovidio, Metamorfosis”, ExClass 17, 2013, 101–187. Suárez 2015  Á. Suárez del Río, Edición crítica y comentario textual del libro III de las Metamorfosis de Ovidio, Tesis Doctoral Universidad de Huelva 2015. Suchier 1859  R. Suchier, “Zur Kritik von Ovidius Metamorphosen”, Jahrb. f. Class. Phil. 79, 1859, 570–575, 639–643. Tarrant 1976  R.J. Tarrant, Seneca. Agamemnon, edited with a Commentary by  …, Cambridge-New York-Melbourne 1976. Tarrant 1982  R.J. Tarrant, “Editing Ovid’s Metamorphoses. Problems and Possibilities”, CPh 77, 1982, 342–360. Tarrant 1983  R.J. Tarrant, “Ovid”, in L.D. Reynolds, ed., Texts and Transmission. A Survey of the Latin Classics, Oxford 1986 (= 1983), 257–284. Tarrant 1985  R.J. Tarrant, Seneca’s Thyestes, edited with Introduction and Commentary by …, Atlanta, Ga., 1985. Tarrant 1987  R.J. Tarrant, “Toward a Typology of Interpolation in Latin Poetry”, TAPhA 117, 1987, 281–298. Tarrant 1989  R.J. Tarrant, “Silver Threads Among the Gold: A Problem in the Text of Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, ICS 14, 1989, 103–117. Tarrant 1991  R.J. Tarrant, review of Munk Olsen 1982–89, Speculum 66, 1991, 930– 936. Tarrant 1995  R.J. Tarrant, “The Narrationes of ‘Lactantius’ and the Transmission of Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, in O. Pecere – M.D. Reeve, edd., Formative Stages of Classical Traditions: Latin Texts from Antiquity to the Renaissance, Spoleto 1995, 83–115.

46

Bibliography

Tarrant 1999  R.J. Tarrant, “Nicolaas Heinsius and the rhetoric of textual criticism”, in Ph. Hardie – A. Barchiesi – S. Hinds, edd., Ovidian Transformations, Cambridge 1999 (CPhS Supp. 23), 288–300. Tarrant 2000  R.J. Tarrant, “The Soldier in the Garden and Other Intruders in Ovid’s “Metamorphoses’”, HSCPh 100, 2000, 425–438. Tarrant 2016  R.J. Tarrant, Texts, editors, and readers. Methods and problems in Latin textual criticism, Cambridge 2016. Tarrant 2018  R.J. Tarrant, “Editing Ovid’s Metamorphoses: Past, Present and Future”, in L. Rivero, Mª.C. Álvarez, R.Mª. Iglesias, J.A. Estévez, edd., Viuam! Estudios sobre la obra de Ovidio – Studies on Ovid’s poetry, Huelva-Murcia 2018, 21–45. Thomson 1997  D.F.S. Thomson, Catullus, Edited with a Textual and Interpretative Commentary by…, Toronto 1997. Tilliette 1994  J.-Y. Tilliette, “Savants et poètes du Moyen Âge face à Ovide : les débuts de l’aetas Ouidiana (v. 1050  – v. 1200)”, in M. Picone  – B. Zimmermann, edd., Ouidius rediuiuus: Von Ovid zu Dante, Stuttgart 1994, 63–104. Tissol 1997  G. Tissol, The Face of Nature. Wit, Narrative, and Cosmic Origins in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Princeton 1997. Tola 2010  E. Tola, “… Quid facundia posset / Re patuit (Ou., Met. XIII 382–383): las estrategias oratorias de Ulises en el armorum iudicium ovidiano”, Emerita 78, 2010, 299–318. Toribio 2009  P. Toribio Pérez, “Colación del Matritensis 3767, Ovidio, Metamorfosis”, ExClass 13, 2009, 27–69. Traina 1969  A. Traina, “Laboranti similis. Storia di un omerismo virgiliano”, Maia 21, 1969, 71–78. Tursellinus 1829  Ferdinandi Handii Tursellinus seu de particulis latinis commentarii, I, Lipsiae: Weidmann, 1829. Venini 1952  P. Venini, “L’Ecuba di Euripide e Ovidio, Met. XIII 429–575”, RIL 85, 1952, 364–377. Waddel 1734  G. Waddeli Animaduersiones Criticae in Loca Quaedam Virgilii, Horatii, Ovidii, et Lucani; et Super Illis Emendandis Conjecturae, Edinburgi 1734. Wagner 1832  G.P.E. Wagner, Quaestiones Virgilianae, in Chr.G. Heyne, P. Virgili Maronis opera uarietate lectionis et perpetua adnotatione. Editio quarta. Curauit …, vol. IV, Hildesheim 1968 (= Leipzig-London 1832). Wakefield 1813  G. Wakefield, T. Lucretii Cari De Rerum Natura Libri Sex, vols. I-IV, Glasguae: A. Duncan, 1813. Watt 1988  W.S. Watt, “Siliana”, MH 45, 1988, 170–181. Watt 1995  W.S. Watt, “Ovidiana”, MH 52, 1995, 90–107. Weissenborn 1900  W. Weissenborn, H. J. Müller, T. Liui Ab urbe condita libri, vol. II (lib. III-V), Dublin-Zürich 1973 (= 19006). Wilamowitz 1884 U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, “Coniectanea”, Index schol. aest. Gott., Gottingae: officina academica Dieterichiana, 1884, 3–18. Wills 1996  J. Wills, Repetition in Latin Poetry: Figures of Allusion, Oxford 1996. Wilson 1996  Ch.H. Wilson, Homer. Iliad. Books VIII and IX; edited with an Introduction, Translation & Commentary by … Warminster 1996. Wilson 1987  N. Wilson, “Variant readings with poor support in the manuscript tradition”, RHT 17, 1987, 1–13. Withof 1749  J.H. Withof, Praemetium crucium criticarum, praecipue ex Seneca tragico, Lugduni Batauorum, apud S. Luchtmans et filium, 1749.



Titles cited

47

Zwierlein 1999  O. Zwierlein, Die Ovid- und Vergil-Revision in tiberischer Zeit. 1, Prolegomena, Berlin-New York 1999. Zwierlein 2000 O. Zwierlein, Antike Revisionen des Vergil und Ovid, Wiesbaden 2000.

48

Abbreuiationes hoc in opere usitatae

Abbreuiationes hoc in opere usitatae: a.c. add. adhib. alt. ap. app. append. cens. cod. comp. coni. corr. damn. def. desin. dist. dub. ed. emend. eras. ex itin. fort. gloss. hab. ibid. infrascr. i.l. improb. inu. ord. i.ras. iter. lect. lit. loc. m.p. mg. ms. n.b. n.l. not. obel. om. pag. p.c. prob. prop.

ante correctionem additum(/-idit) adhibuit alter apud apparatus criticus appendix critica censuit codex compendium coniecit correctum(/-xit) damnatum(/-auit) defendit desinit distinxit dubium, dubitanter editio, editor emendatum(/-auit) erasum(/-sit) ex itinere forte, fortasse glossa, glossema habet, habuit ibidem infrascriptum(/-psit) inter lineas improbat inuerso ordine in rasura iteratum(/-auit) lectio litura locum manus prima margine manuscriptus nota bene non liquet notatum(/-auit) obelos omissum(-isit) pagina post correctionem probat proposuit



Abbreuiationes hoc in opere usitatae

rec. reic. sc. scr. secl. suppl. suprascr. tempt. test. u. uet. uid. u.l. Ω Γ Δ Θ Σ Φ Ψ edd.

recens, recentior reicit scilicet scripsit seclusum(/-usit) suppletum(/-euit) suprascriptum(/-psit) temptauit testatur uersus uetus uide, (ut) uidetur uaria lectio

codices omnes praeter eos qui nominatim citantur codices usque ad a. 1150 codices inter aa. 1150 et 1250 codices inter aa. 1250 et 1300 codices saeculi XIV. codices saeculorum XV. et XVI. excerpta editores omnes praeter eos qui nominatim citantur

49

Commentary 1–6: Consedere duces et uulgi stante corona surgit ad hos clipei dominus septemplicis Aiax; utque erat inpatiens irae, Sigeïa toruo litora respexit classemque in litore uultu, intendensque manus “agimus – pro Iuppiter! –” inquit  “ante rates causam et mecum confertur Vlixes!

5

• 4 respexit] rexpexit V3  : respecxit V6 P8  : prospexit S2 CsOPrVd Bs2P10So B12 Nr3P38, “prim. Moret. et sex alii” test. Heinsius 1659, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Baumg.-Crus. 1834  : propexit Gg  : ɔspexit B B8Mt2  : respiciens F Ld72(i.l. u.l.)P5  : prospiciens Mo3, test. Viuianus 1522 •

1: the first line of the book (cf. Iuu. 7.115; Verg. Aen. 7.431 [2.1], Quint. 1.5.43) offers nothing of significance in the transmitted variants apart from mere copying errors (uid. append.). N. Heinsius proposed to read at uulgi (b3, 350). In the fragmentum Caesenas (Cs) this first line occupies the final position (fol. 98v) of that portion of the text which was lost at least until it was discovered by Lucas Langermann and was consequently recopied by another hand at the beginning of fol. 99r (see Rivero 2016). In addition, the ms. which N. Heinsius called codex Menardi, correctly identified by R. Tarrant (1982, 345 n. 17) as B8, opens book XIII with the lines 12.627  f. as a result of a saut du même au même (duces), with the corresponding special capital letter for the A of Argolicos. 2: ad hos: ms. V30 (s. XV) gives the aberrant et hos, which is however significant as it illustrates, for the first time in this book, its obvious link with the Roman editio princeps (Aler. 1471), which reproduces the unmetrical surgit & ad hos. However, Lr22, also linked to both texts, does give the correct reading. The variant ad os appears in a considerable number of mss. but is simply a banal error. More important is the variant ad hoc, which was tentatively conjectured and proposed by Bothe in his Vindiciae Ovidianae (1818, 126  f.: “si in libris reperiretur”) but which I have in fact been able to find in mss. De (ss. XII-XIII) P5V16 (s. XIII2) and P28 (s. XIV). Bothe defends it palaeographically on the grounds of confusion in the uncials and, from the literary point of view, he takes hoc to refer to uulgus, since it is they whom Aias is trying to convince (l. 123), while Ulysses convinces the chiefs (l. 382). Heinsius, for his part, proposes, but without pressing the point, the https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110612493-003

52

Commentary

variant ab his, which is contrary to the sense of direction already present in the obvious Homeric model (e.  g. Il. 1.68) τοῖσι δ’ ἀνέστη (Simmons 1889, 78; Keene 1898, 52). clipei dominus: Cs alone presents the metrical inversion dominus clipei (cf. am. 1.7.7). 3: impatiens irae: “Impatiens con il genitivo […] è usato qui nel senso di impotens, «incapace di controllare»” (Hardie 2015, 219). Heinsius (1758, 689) reports that in Liu. 5.37.4 ([Galli] flagrantes ira cuius impotens est gens) the reading of early mss. and edd. until “Rhenanus emendauit” is impatiens, in spite of the fact that, as we are reminded by Weissenborn (1900, 216): “inpotens] vor Livius nicht mit dem Genetiv verbunden” (cf. Ogilvie 1965, 719; Luque 2009, 62 n. 48). 4: respexit: against this verbal form, backed by the vast majority of mss. and edd., the earliest edd. give prospexit (uid. app.). According to Baumgarten-Crusius (1834, 487): “Primus Ciofanus ex suis codd. scribi iussit respexit, quod editores exinde tenuerunt”. However, the form respexit is already present in Aler. 1471 (notwithstanding Magnus 1914, 480 in app.) as well as in the edition of Naugerius (1516). After Ciofanus (1575), I can only again find prospexit in Bersman (1596) and Baumgarten-Crusius (1834). Finally, another three very much minority variants are conspexit, respiciens and prospiciens, the latter attested by Viuianus (1522, ad loc.) and which I have found only in Mo3. The latter two readings extend the main clause down to inquit (l. 5) and create a balance in re-/prospiciens … intendens (ll. 4  f.). 5: here we have the striking inversion proh iupiter agimus, which is of interest not so much because of its being metrical as because it offers the first clear indication of the extremely close relationship between two 15th c. mss.: F2Z, to which Ld11, from the same period, is also very close. intendensque: I see little of interest in the variant praetendensque of ms. Mt (ss. XII-XIV), just one of many examples of the replacement of prefixes with a metrical result. This case seems to point to a semantic invention by the copyist rather than a copying slip. Cf. 8.107: intendensque manus passis furibunda capillis. 6: this line, cited by Quint. 5.10.41 (Aiax apud Ouidium ‘ante rates’ inquit ‘agimus causam, et mecum confertur Vlixes!’; for the sense, cf. Catull. 64.343 non illi quisquam bello se conferet heros), appears without the copulative et in a few 12th-13th c. mss. (Lr7V4V5), in one of Bersman’s codices (Ds2, s. XIII, as reported by Jahn [1832, 809]; for this editor’s information on mss. “Paris. 1, 2”, uid. append.) and in one from the 14th c. (Bo). Although it could well be an involuntary omission, it is not impossible that the intention here was to underline the paradoxical nature of the two statements by means of asyndeton: ante rates causam: mecum confertur Vlixes! In fact, the use of et in these “indignant questions” is common (see Keene 1898, 53). The same emphatic intention may explain the parenthesis (et … Vlixes?) which Regius introduced into his edition of 1540, even if this punctuation is out of place



53

Commentary

here, as it leads to an inappropriate adversative coordination between the agimus and the dubitauit clauses (ll. 5–7). One question linked to the nature of the confertur clause is that of the punctuation: it is generally marked with an exclamation, but a not inconsiderable number of mss. of all periods, though few edd. (with the additional doubts noted by Tarrant 2004, 370 in app.), opt for a question mark (cf. l. 338). Naturally, both make perfect sense, although the exclamation is a better reflection of the irony in the words spoken by Aias (Bömer 1982, 207), who wishes to demonstrate to those present the paradox in Ulysses’ daring to compare himself with him here of all places (ante rates), where Aias’ supremacy in combat was shown to be incontestable. 7–12: At non Hectoreis dubitauit cedere flammis, quas ego sustinui, quas hac hac classe fugaui! Tutius est igitur fictis contendere uerbis quam pugnare manu. Sed nec mihi dicere promptum  nec facere est isti, quantumque ego Marte feroci inque acie ualeo, tantum ualet iste loquendo.

10

• 8 hac hac scripsi  : hacac N(a.c.)  : hac ac Hd  : hac hac a Cs3(a.c.)  : hac Cs(a.c.) V5(a.c.) Li3Mt2(p.c.; hac a a.c.) Mt4 P41  : a a B5  : hac a Ω, edd.  : hic(hac i.l. u.l. Lu2) a Lu  : a Lr2 Lu2  : hac ego A3Cs(i.l. p.c.)Lr6P3 Ld8Li32(p.c.)P16, Bothe 18182  : nostra Lr5(nostra a mg. p.c.), “Moreti” test. Burm. 1727  : hec(hac p.c.) a Be2  : hac ab GLd3  : hac de V9 Ld6  : ac a L4(a.c.)  : hanc a Es2 • 11 ego Marte] in Marte L3 G2(i.l. p.c.)H3Ph2V5 DsLd6To Rd2 P41, “sex Heins.” test. Jahn 1832  : Marte G B12  : in arte Lr7 To(a.c.) To2  : in morte “sex libri” test. Burm. 1727  : ego mente Ld8  : imparte Mt4 • 12 inque] quantum N(inque i.l. a m.p.), “Berol., Dresd.”(inque hab. Dr B14) test. Jahn 1832, prob. Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Magnus 1914, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932 : inqua Lr3  : quamque A3Lr5 GoP10V16, “quinque ueteres” test. Heinsius 1659  : iamque P28  : quid Mt4 a.c. n.l.  : om. Mt5 •

7: dubitauit: the variants are of no interest as far as the text itself is concerned but they are significant as regards the links between the codices. Thus, the banal error dubitauit/-abit/-abat is interesting because it illustrates the close relationship between M and the codices Mo (s. XII) and Bo3 (s. XV). In view of the lack of other evidence of affinity, the coincidence with B3 should be considered a casual one. There is little to be said about the variants dubitaui and dubitat, except that in this codex Ps (s. XV) these shortened forms for the perfect are very frequent, with no marks to show that the reader is to expand any abbreviation. 8: quas hac hac: leaving aside a few readjustments of the line such as et quas a (thus Lr2, s. XIIin., and its direct apograph Lu2, s. XV [though uid. ad 871 taurus uacca]; for this dependence, see Díez 2014, xxxvii) or et quas hac (thus Mt4, a. 1393–1394), the mss. are divided between the clear majority

54

Commentary

reading quas hac a and variants such as quas hac ego and quas nostra, to cite only the main ones (uid. app. et append.). I for my part have corrected the text into quas hac hac with the partial support of N and Hd (also of Cs3) and in accordance with a very Ovidian syntactic construction (fugare + abl.). From the stylistic point of view, this expressive repetition, reinforced by the anaphora quas  … quas, enables Aias to demonstrate the effrontery of Ulysses, who aspires to the prize in the very same place where Aias displayed his superiority, and it will be countered by Ulysses with another analogous euidentia in l. 284: his umeris – his inquam umeris – ego corpus Achillis, as well as in the culminating huic date, in a sort of “Ringkompostion” (Huyck 1991, 203 ad 381; for these echoes or responses, see Rivero 2017, 407 n. 2). For a detailed discussion, see Rivero 2017c, 499–501. fugaui: the variant remoui is worth considering. I have found it attested in A42(i.l. p.c.)B4 B82(mg. u.l.) and Burm. (1727, 855) said it was in “prior Gron. [sc. B4] & duo alii” (one of them may be B8, the codex Menardi, but there is no record of Burman’s having known A4). The verb remouere makes complete sense in this passage, but fugaui is much more expressive and suited to the context of the twofold action of Aias, who first contains (sustinui) the enemy flames and then drives them away (fugaui). Compare 15.665: Postera sidereos Aurora fugauerat ignes (and note, in passing, that it is precisely the form dimouerat of his clear model in Verg. Aen. 4.6  f. that Ovid replaces). 9: igitur fictis: a line whose gnomic echoes led to its being quoted in other works and florilegia (uid. append.; cf. Ps. Cat. dist. 1.10 Contra uerbosos noli contendere uerbis: / sermo datur cunctis, animi sapientia paucis; Vinc. Bellou. Spec. Hist. 6.117 [he erroneously states “in duodecimo”] Tutius est contendere uerbis quam pugnare manu). Once again Cs alone presents an inversion with a metrical result: fictis igitur, which Jahn (1832, 810) also finds attested in the “cod. Rhen.”, although, contrary to what might be expected (cf. Jahn 1832, vol. II, tom. I, p. XXII, nº 133), this is certainly not the reading found in ms. Turicensis Bibl. Centr. 413 (Rheinau 46): Tu (s. XII), which keeps the order igitur fictis (uid. ad 753). Against the evidence of the rest of the tradition and despite the fact that the conjunction igitur fits better in this position, the inversion in the fragmentum Caesenas was accepted without comment by Heinsius (1659), which led to its inclusion in the editions by Burman (1727), Walchius (1731) and Baumgarten-Crusius (1834) (cf. Crede 1792, 36: “Sed pro Tutius est fictis igitur mallem: Tutius est igitur fictis”, where it seems to be understood that the common reading is fictis igitur). Given the ironic nuance (Bömer 1982, 208) in igitur, it is not surprising that there should be variants which undoubtedly originated from glosses. fictis … uerbis: in contrast to this majority word order we find uerbis contendere fictis in B2 O19 (cf. ad 905). Nor should the variants of fictis (cf. Verg. Aen. 9.602 fandi fictor Vlixes) be taken seriously, but it is revealing that once again Lr22V30 and Aler. 1471 coincide in the incorrect uictis.



Commentary

55

10: promptum: here we find the common oscillation between the appearance and omission of est at the end of a line. It is worth noting that the ‘Lactantian’ mss. are unanimous in its omission (which is not the case with its inclusion in the non-Lactantian). Ms. Ls (s. XIIex.) lacks the line ending as the upper corners are damaged (this mutilation affects some 17 ll. per page), but it is reasonable to deduce that it contained the reading promptum as in B14 (s. XV), the “Berol.” of Bothe, as I have ascertained that this is its direct apograph. 11: est isti: against this majority reading a considerable number of the mss. offer est illi, yet another example of inconsistency in the transmission of demonstratives and phorics. In this case isti is clearly preferable, not only because of its greater weight in the mss. as well as its being supported by some of the other variants, but because of its pejorative force, which fits so well in Aias’ opening references to Ulysses (cf. l. 12; Bömer 1982, 208). ego Marte: in the space of four lines we find for the second time the pronoun ego competing with a preposition: in this case the majority option is ego Marte (ego mente, from Ld8, the “Leidens. unus” mentioned by Burm. 1727, 856, would simply appear to be an incorrect expansion of the abbreviation m’te), but a number of mss. have in Marte (and other variants with in: uid. append.), in an attempt to balance the verb ualeo governing its two circumstantial clauses – which are in fact pleonastic (in Marte inque acie) – in the following line. It is significant that in some mss. which have ego Marte the preposition appears above the line, as in B2, where a second hand has written in above Marte as a simple gloss, with no intention of correcting the text. This is a further example of the opposition (cf. 9.29  f. [Hercules]; Verg. Aen. 11.338  f., 378 [Drances]; Bömer 1982, 208; Huyck 1991, 103) which Aias attempts to establish in these ll. 7–12 between the cowardly behaviour of the eloquent Ulysses, whom he either does not mention at all (non dubitauit) or refers to with contempt (est isti; ualet iste), and his own shining bravery, referring to himself always – and this is obviously emphatic in Latin – with a pronoun (ego sustinui  … [ego?]  … fugaui; mihi  … promptum; ego  … ualeo). feroci: none of the variants merit critical consideration, but they do offer information on the transmission, since it is symptomatic that three mss., M Mo Bo3, give the reading p.c.: the copyist of M initially wrote ferocem and then someone scratched out the last two uprights of the -m and placed a suppression mark below the e, leaving as an i what had previously been the first upright of the -m (the copyist of Lr27 either fails to see or to understand the correction and does not incorporate it). Quite possibly it was the complicated nature of this procedure that led to the error by the copyist of Bo3, who originally wrote feroce, but this would imply that Bo3 is a direct apograph of M, which would be contradicted by other passages of this book. In the case of Mo it is impossible to see what was there before feroci. As regards the variant ueloci of V30, in itself a banal

56

Commentary

error, it is interesting to note that it is not in Lr22 or Aler. 1471, which give the correct feroci. 12: inque: in spite of being an extremely frequent iunctura in the works of Ovid, especially at the beginning of a line (cf. e.  g. ars 2.154 et passim), many copyists appear to find it awkward, which gives rise to variants and even aberrant readings such as inaciemque ualeo (Ft), Inualeoque acie (Es6), in ualeo acie (F2Z) or inualio acie (Ld11). Leaving aside variants that might be simple errors (inqua in Lr3 or iamque in P28), an attempt at emendation is offered by quamque, which I have found in A3Lr5 GoP10V16 and which Heinsius (1659, 331) claims to have seen in “quinque ueteres”. But more interesting beyond a doubt is the reading quantum, which appears in ms. N alone (the same hand writes inque acie above and this is the reading incorporated into V2) and was accepted by Heinsius himself (ibid.: “Neapol. quod placet”). Bothe (1818, 127) states: “B. quoque: Quantum acie, quod recte ex uno Neapolitano recepit Heinsius”, but there is a mistake here, because “B” (i.  e. B14) simply offers Inque. Bothe’s mistake made its way into the notes of Jahn (1832) and Bach (1836), who also find this reading attested in their “Dresd.”. This would suggest that this ms. should be identified with our Dr (s. XII/XIII) and yet the latter again gives inque. A further error is introduced by Fabbri in his apparatus criticus (1923, 143), as he attributes it to Lu when there is no sign of such a reading there. On these manuscript bases and following the authority of Heinsius the reading quantum was admitted in 18th-20th c. edd. (uid. app.) and was even regarded with some sympathy by Bömer (1982, 209: “fort. recte”). The uariatio introduced by inque, however, is a perfectly happy one and the construction with ualeo presents no difficulties (cf. e.  g. 8.59, also with variants). 13–20: Nec memoranda tamen uobis mea facta, Pelasgi, esse reor – uidistis enim –: sua narret Vlixes, quae sine teste gerit, quorum nox conscia sola est.  Praemia magna peti fateor, sed demit honorem aemulus: Aiaci non est tenuisse superbum, sit licet hoc ingens, quicquid sperauit Vlixes; iste tulit pretium iam nunc certaminis huius, quod, cum uictus erit, mecum certasse feretur.  

15

20

• 16 praemia  … fateor] ‘praemia magna petis’.  – fateor mallet Slater • peti] peto M(a.c.) Fe(peti i.l. u.l. m.p.)O3Vd(a.c.) Lr27, Ehwald 1915, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Bömer 1982, Segura 1983, Hopkinson 2000, dub. Magnus 1914(in app.)  : petis Mt  : pati Ld11 • 17 post aemulus dist. L3Lr2P2T B4FGHdLdLr4TuV4V7 Ds Bo2Rd Vd11, def. Burm. 1727(in notis), prob. edd. : post Aiaci dist. Ω, Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731  : post utrumque V2 A4EH3L4V9 P28  : non dist. O4Pr Lr8 Es5Ld11V302 Lr27 P47 • 19



Commentary

57

certaminis Ω, edd. ante Merkel. 1875  : temptaminis MN(uid., a.c.) Mo(cert- i.l. p.c. Mo2) Bo3Lr27, prob. Merkel 1875, edd. post. •

14: the clause uidistis enim is clearly parenthetic and was marked as such as early as ms. L3 and other later codices (uid. append.). Among the edd. I can find this punctuation in the 1st Aldina (1502), Naugerius (1516), the edd. Gryphianae (Lugd. 1546 and 1565) and, among modern editors, Ramírez de Verger, who opportunely also adds the colon (2005, 1962: “sic distinxi”) that should mark the explanatory opposition joining the narret clause with the reor one. 15–18: this is an omission resulting from saut du même au même, which I have observed in Gg V30 and P46. Not unconnected with this is the transposition of A3, which has l. 19 after l. 14. These lines are copied in the margin of ms. V30, but they do appear in Lr22 and the ed. Aler. 1471. If it could be established that the hand of that marginal notation was that of Giovanni Andrea Bussi, we would have solid proof that the ms. was used for composing the edition. 15: the expression conscia sola appears in the reverse order in Lr6 and Bo(consia)Bo2, and these mss. will coincide again in a good number of readings. 16: peti: against this reading, which appears in practically all the mss. and edd. (cf. Plan. αἰτεῖν), we find in ms. M(a.c., although Anderson 1982 prefers to read peti[re eras.]) and in FeO3Vd(a.c.) Lr27 the equally grammatical peto, which would leave fateor in its normal parenthetic use (cf. e.  g. Ib. 641 pauca quidem, fateor, sed di dent plura rogatis). Based on the authority of M this reading was accepted by Ehwald (1915, though not yet in H-K-E 1898) and other edd. in his wake until the second half of the 20th c. (uid. app.). Although he did not actually incorporate it into his text, Magnus (1914, 480) was inclined to favour it, adducing the parallel of epist. 16.19: praemia magna quidem, sed non indebita posco. Bömer (1982, 209) defends this parenthetic use of fateor (“parataktisch”) and accepts peto. Hopkinson (2000, 83) regards it as a conjecture and accepts it in his text precisely because of this parenthetic sense of fateor and parallels such as l. 31 (fraterna peto; 150, 158, 180, 356), although he also refers to the passive uses of peto in ll. 97 and 122. Of course, peti might be considered to be a 1st person form of the perfect, but this tense does not fit so well here with the present and in no instance does Ovid make use of this contracted form, opting instead for petii (9.627, 13.249, trist. 1.2.77). It is not necessary, however, to fall back on this forced reading or on the variant peto, which may well correspond to a mistake in copying as a result of anticipating the personal form of fateor. The fateor plus infinitive or acc.+inf. construction is amply attested in Ovid (e.  g. am. 1.2.18, 3.14.37, Pont. 1.2.9, 2.3.33, 4.8.35 [parua quidem fateor pro magnis munera reddi]). Finally, Slater (1927, ad loc.) tentatively conjectured petis (a reading I have found in Mt) with the following punctuation: ‘praemia magna petis’. – fateor, supported

58

Commentary

by parallels such as Cic. Sull. 22  f. However, this “fictitious adversary” device is one that goes back to Cynic-Stoic diatribe (see e.  g. Codoñer 1983) and does not suit our context precisely because the adversary here is not fictitious but a perfectly recognizable one: Ulysses. 17: is the dative Aiaci to be taken with demit or est superbum? The vast majority of mss. of all periods tend to place a punctuation mark after Aiaci, thus connecting it to the previous clause, and this is how it appears in the edd. down to Walch. 1731. However, some early mss. (L3Lr2P2T) and other recentiores (B4FGHdLdLr4TuV4V7 Ds Bo2Rd Vd11) punctuate after aemulus. Although he does not go so far as to adopt it in his text, this punctuation is defended in notis by Pieter Burman (1727, 856): “Mallem distinguere […] Aemulus. Ajaci […] Ut Ajax Ulixi opponatur, & ita Francius notauerat in ora libri sui” (in reference to his compatriot Petrus Francius, 1604–1705, professor of history, Greek and rhetoric at Amsterdam, whom he cites on more than one occasion: see Burm. 1727b, 5.825; Dörrie 1971, 21). It is rightly adopted by all edd. thereafter, thus leaving the clauses of ll. 17  f. framed by the names of the two rivals (Bömer 1982, 209; Hopkinson 2000, 83). tenuisse: Heinsius in his day suggested (b3, 350): “Leg. renuisse uel spreui­ sse” but without incorporating this proposal into his printed notes. 19: iste: another alternation with ipse, which appears often in mss. and edd. down to Bersman (1596). Because of its pejorative sense, iste was defended as early as Viuianus (1522, ad loc.): “iste ad contemptum ab omnibus usurpatur”, and likewise later by Heinsius (1659, 331): “ex melioribus scriptis […] utebantur ea uoce, quoties cum contemtu de aliquo loquerentur” (thus also Luck 2005, 213). iam nunc: note the variations (uid. append.), which if anything are of interest for the light they shed on the relationships between certain mss. certaminis: this is the reading of almost all the mss. and all edd. prior to 1875. Against it we find the variant temptaminis in M and most likely in N(a.c.), as well as in three recentiores closely linked to M: Mo (where another hand has corrected it and written certaminis above), Bo3 (uid. ad 7 [dubitauit], 11 [feroci], 220  f.) and Lr27. This same reading is wrongly attributed by Magnus (1914, 481) to M2T and H3 (and this information is blindly accepted by Fabbri 1923 and Anderson 1982). On the sole authority of M it was adopted by Merkel, though not in the first edition (1850) but in the second (1875), and from him on it has been adopted by all the edd. without exception. The reading certaminis is unobjectionable per se and is even supported by the parallel of 10.584 (certaminis huius in the clausula of the hexameter), to which Ochsner (ap. Bach. 1836, 561) added the parallel of 13.89  f. (huius / fortunam pugnae), where huius … pugnae can be considered a semantic equivalent. It is, of course, striking that Merkel, who was the first editor to incorporate the reading temptaminis, did not take the trouble to point this fact out as he did with other new features of his 2nd edition (1875, XXXVII-XXXIX). The other editors, on the other hand, duly attribute this change to Merkel2



Commentary

59

(except for Breitenbach 1964, who does not show the variant in his app.), but with no fresh arguments (Simmons 1889, 80, Hill 2000, 126, Hopkinson 2000, 83, and Hardie 2015, 221  f. accept the reading but without considering it worthy of comment; Bömer 1982, 210 limits himself to stating: “eine Wortbildung Ovids”; Keene 1898, 54 does reflect the other two appearances of the word [infra]). Undoubtedly temptamen is difficilior and it is even possible that the parallels cited for certamen (together with others that could be adduced) may work against it and point instead to a banalization of two words written almost identically. However, it is equally true that the noun temptamen has obvious limitations. It is, in fact, an invention of Ovid, who was very fond of these forms in -men (see Huyck 1991, 103; Kenney 2011, 246 ad 7.227) but only used this one on two other occasions (3.341, 7.734, with no significant variants in either of them) and in both cases in the plural form temptamina, probably as a metrical variation on the Virgilian temptamenta (Aen. 8.144), which Ovid himself uses elsewhere (7.728, 15.629; in sing. attested only in Gell. 9.15.6.1 temptamenti gratia). The Ovidian neologism was imitated in only one subsequent passage, again in the form temptamina (Stat. silu. 5.2.109): … stupuere patres temptamina tanta. Against this term we should recall that Ulysses refers again to the dispute on two other occasions, in both with the same word, certamen: (l. 129, in the same metrical position) non foret ambiguus tanti certaminis heres; (l. 159) operum certamen. Nor should we fail to recall another passage with extremely significant phraseolgy (epist. 16.263): di facerent, pretium magni certaminis esses. This expression, in fact, should prompt us to consider that, if the use of temptamen in the sing. would be a hapax in the whole of Latin literature, the very idea of a “payment in return for an attempt” would also be so. The payment or reward (pretium, praemium) is given as retribution for participation in a competition (certamen, lis: cf. e.  g. epist. 16.374: certamen praemia magna mouent), not for an attempt (temptamen, conatus). The nearest I can find to the latter is in Liu. 4.35.7: nihil non adgressuros homines, si magna conatis magna praemia proponantur but, as can be seen, the construction is different. There is no problem whatsoever in the appearance of certasse in the following line: rather, it is a very Ovidian way of insisting when the end of a line of argument is reached, because in this case the whole emphasis falls on mecum [certasse] (“that man has already obtained payment for this dispute, since once he has been vanquished it will be said that he has fought with me”; cf. 5.191  f., 9.5–7; Bömer 1982, 210; Hopkinson 2000, 83; Hardie 2015, 221  f.). The proposal by Merkel2 had already been rejected by Hartman (1905, 153): “Sic [sc. certaminis] legendum non temptaminis, quod legitur quidem bis in Metam. III, 341 et VII, 734 sed tam diuerso sensu ut hic ferri nequeat”. For other examples of errors exclusive to MN, uid. ad 95 uera. 20: quod: the conjunction quod alternates with other forms of the relative, as is commonly the case with these particles, because of mistakes that

60

Commentary

often originate in a faulty extension of the abbreviations. In this line the most frequently found variant after quod is qui (note the correction in B14 with respect to Ls, which gives cui), which is present in a considerable number of mss. (uid. append.) and accepted in the ed. princeps of Bolonia and in other early editions until Bersman (1596), and is present among the later ones only in Baumgarten-Crusius (1834). A lesser presence in the mss. but a greater interest can be attributed to the variant quo, which I have found in two mss. as important as MP2(a.c.) and again in some later ones: L4(a.c.)O Go2Lr27 (Jahn 1832 again attributes it to “Rhen.” but Tu certainly contains quod). This was the reading adopted by Heinsius (1659, 331: “nimirum certamine”) and in many important edd. thereafter down to the 20th c., including some of those which had adopted temptaminis in the previous line (Tarrant 2004, 370 even grants it a “fort. recte” in app.), which implies the idea, so alien to Latin diction, of (in) conatu/ temptamine uinci (thus Magnus 1894, 790). feretur: a banal variant, probably the result of a misreading or contamination from l. 27, is fatetur for the more suitable future form feretur (uid. append.). 21–28: Atque ego, si uirtus in me dubitabilis esset, nobilitate potens essem, Telamone creatus, moenia qui forti Troiana sub Hercule cepit litoraque intrauit Pagasaea Colcha carina. Aeacus huic pater est, qui iura silentibus illic     reddit ubi Aeoliden saxum graue Sisyphon urget. Aeacon agnoscit summus prolemque fatetur Iuppiter esse suam: sic a Ioue tertius Aiax.

25

• 26–27 sic confl. M Lr27: reddit ubi eoliden saxum graue sisiphon(-phoo Lr27) fatetur • 26 urget] fatetur M Lr27 (om. u. 27)  : urgit Rd • 27 om. M  : rescr. Rd2(p.c.; quid a.c. n.l.) •

22: there is really nothing worth mentioning in this line. Jahn (1832, 811) leaves us the following information: “Edd. Ald. et Arg. distinguunt. Nob. potens, essem T. cr.”. I have indeed been able to verify this punctuation in the 1st Aldina (1502), but apart from the relative critical value the punctuation merits in these first edd., it may be a simple typographical error and in any case the punctuation is corrected shortly afterwards in the Aldina of Naugerius (1516): the apodosis is potens essem. 25–27: Aeacus … Aeacon: a very tricky question is the declension of the nom. Aeacus/-os. The mss. are virtually unanimous in the consecutive endings -us … -on (I have found the acc. Eacû only in Lr2 So Bo3Lu2 and the symptomatic Eacun in Lr8: uid. append. and cf. Bömer 1982, 11 ad 12.1) and that is the form kept by the edd. except Tarrant 2004, who reads Aeacos … Aeacon



Commentary

61

and states in his Appendix orthographica et morphologica (p. 483): “Aeacos 13. 25 -os scripsi : -us Ω ; cf. 27. alibi -us legitur”, although he has Aeacus in the Index nominum (p. 504). Hill 2000, who declares (p. 6) that he is closely following the text sent to him by Tarrant in draft form while he was writing his commentary, also defends Aeacos in the following terms (p. 127): “The arguments for doing this are too complex to present here, but they include an aesthetic judgement that Aeacus and Aeacon in close proximity (which is what most editors read) is unacceptable”. This “aesthetic judgement” may not be groundless, but the fact is that in l. 26 we also find the acc. Sisyphon and as the situation stands at present no Latin text has the nom. form Sisyphos. Naturally the nom. of this noun does not appear “in close proximity” here, but it is over-problematic to postulate a morphological hapax Aeacos (all its occurrences in Latin are transcribed nowadays as Aeacus) as a result of this conjunctural aesthetic conditioning and in opposition to the unanimous reading of the witnesses (Richmond 2006, 131: “I hesitate to agree with T. that Aeacos is necessary at 25”). 25: Aeacus: the copyist of M writes aeacus, as opposed to the majority eac- which the mss. generally use to reflect this name. Taking advantage of the separation between the initial a- and the rest of the noun, the second hand (the same one as had written fatetur in the margin at l. 20) writes an initial N- and the nasal tilde above the a, leaving us with a surprising (in metrical and grammatical terms) Nâ eacus. The copyist of Lr27 incorporates the reading with no abbreviations. In view of the lack of further support, we should take the reading to have originated in a grammatical gloss. illic: some recentiores (uid. append.) offer an interesting variant at the end of this line: umbris, a noun frequently found in this metrical position but one which could also originate in a gloss on this euphemistic adverb (cf. Gr. οἱ ἐκεῖ; Huyck 1991, 105; Hardie 2015, 223), as we see for example in B3, where above illic a different hand has written: “umbris infernalibus”. 26–27: probably influenced somehow by a saut du même au même in ll. 25–27, the scribe of M and that of its apograph Lr27 offer the substitution of fatetur for the unmetrical urget: reddit ubi eoliden saxû graue sisiphon fatetur. A second hand in M before l. 28 indicates the omission, but without correcting or completing the text, albeit in the right-hand margin a word has been erased. 26: Aeoliden  … Sisyphon: against the acc. in mss. and edd. Aeoliden  … Sisyphon, I have found the nom. in 6 mss. that are in principle unrelated (except for Lr2-Lu2): L3Lr2 G V10 Rd Lu2. Among the edd. this reading found some favour only in Burman (1727, 857: “non male”), who opportunely compared 4.460 (he mistakenly has “459”; this passage, however, had already been noted by Heinsius in o2, 315): aut petis aut urges periturum, Sisyphe, saxum. It is clear that in the Sisyphus episode, as already related in Hom. Od. 11.593–600, it can be understood both that Sisyphos urget saxum in order to place it in the desired spot, and that saxum urget Sisyphon with its heavy load

62

Commentary

(Huyck 1991, 105  f.; see also Hardie 2015, 223). Burman himself accepts (ad loc.) these other interpretations and takes his proposal no further. 27: agnoscit: the minority variant agnouit (uid. append.) was accepted in some early edd. down to Bersman (1596), and Heinsius, who reports it (1659, 311), may have seen it in the edd. Gryphianae (Lugd.). 28: a/ab: as the distinction established by the grammarians seems not to have been fully applied from early times (Tursellinus 1829, I, 5–7; TLL I 2.35–3.12), it seems more advisable to investigate the contexts in which it is used and the information offered by the mss. in each case. The expression a Ioue is used by Ovid (although with alternating forms in the mss.) on 6 occasions, in 3 of them as an agent complement (a Ioue pulsus in fast. 1.236 and 3.796; a Ioue percussus in Pont. 1.7.50) and in another 3 as a pure separative complement (a Ioue uenerunt in Ib. 326; a Ioue quintus eris in epist. 8.48; a Ioue tertius Aiax, here). Against this form Heinsius preferred the orthographical variant ab Ioue, with its Virgilian echoes (ecl. 3.60; georg. 3.35; Aen. 1.380, 6.123, 7.219) and also its redolence of genealogies (e.  g. Aen. 6.123 et mi genus ab Ioue summo), used by Ovid in the other 4 instances in the Metamorphoses (3.272, 9.405, 9.414, 10.148) and also in fast. 5.111. The backing of Heinsius, along with that of Merkel two centuries later, has led to its being present in numerous edd. – some of them important – down to our days (uid. append.). Heinsius supported his preference (1659, 331) “cum pr. Vatic. pr. Bas. et sec. Pal.”; to these authorities Jahn (1832, 311) added “Goth. 2 …, Rhen. …, et ed. princ.”. But the fact is that both Heinsius and Jahn are partly wrong (with other editors such as Magnus and Anderson following behind them), since in fact the variant ab appears in only two of these mss. (V5 Bs2) and the combination sic ab in just one of them (Bs2), since the primus Vaticanus (V5) actually has the unmetrical sic est ab. The other mss. mentioned (exercising caution in the identification of the Rhenou. with Tu: uid. ad 9) and both edd. principes give a. In view of these facts and with the close parallel, cited above, of epist. 8.48 it seems more reasonable to keep a. 29–33: Nec tamen haec series in causam prosit, Achiui, si mihi cum magno non est communis Achille.     Frater erat: fraterna peto! quid sanguine cretus Sisyphio furtisque et fraude simillimus illi inseris Aeacidis alienae nomina gentis?

30

• 29 causam ALr2MN(-a p.c.)V2 A4AbBB3B5CFeGg2(mg. p.c.)L4Ld(-a p.c.)Lr3Lr4Lr5­ Lr6LsMoN2O3V6V9Vd B8DsDs2Lr8Mo3P5P8P10P16SoV16 B12Es2(ch- a.c.)FtP28T13 B14Bo3Es5Es6Lr27Lu2P38V30Vd11 P46P47Ld13, edd.  : causa Ω, Heinsius 1659(qui “uetustiores plerique” test.), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843 • post u. 33 hunc u. hab. Hd: quod non ille facit non ueni ad bella coactus •



Commentary

63

29: causam: the mss. are divided between causa and causam, both forms possible and their confusion probably due to abbreviated written forms (for example, câ, equivalent to causa, can still be read in A2A3B4CsDrLd2V7V8 Mt2To McMt4RdTo2 As). The acc. has the backing, among the potiores, of ALr2MN(a.c.)V2 and a large number of recentiores (uid. app.), and is the form chosen by the majority of editors. The abl. has even more numerous ms. support. Heinsius was the first editor to include it in his text, on the basis of the support of “uetustiores plerique” (1659, 331), and after him it was accepted by others until Loers (1843). The arguments in favour of one or other reading seem to me to be almost equivalent: it can be argued that Aias is declining to take advantage of his genealogy in his cause (in causa), much as in [Quint.] decl. 254.12.3 etiam in causa plurimum noceat. But it can also be understood – and I believe the nuance is sufficient to tip the scales in its favour – that this genealogy should not be an argument in favour of his cause (in causam): cf. e.  g. Liu. 33.28.8 in eam partem probabiliter argumentatur (“„Finales“ in”: Bömer 1982, 213). 30: est: a small group of mss. of different periods (uid. append.) gives sit instead of est, a reading which is only accepted in the Gryphianae and Bersman (1596) edd., presumably influenced in the latter case by the testimony of one of the mss. he worked with (Ds). 31: cretus: nothing of significance is offered by the different variants, stemming from spelling mistakes or incorrect expansion of abbreviations, save the apparent connection (uid. append.) between the codices Ba (s. XIII1) and G (s. XII-XIII). The variant crete is a grammatical correction in the light of the verbal form inseris in l. 33. The expression sanguine cretus Sisyphio (cf. Eur. I.A. 524 Σισύφειον σπέρμα; 1362 Σισύφου γόνος) is cited by Seru. ad Verg. Aen. 6.529 and by Lact. ad Stat. Achil. 1.472. 32: furtisque: against this majority reading I have found the sing. furtoque in N and another three recentiores (AbV9 O9; “quatuor libri” says Burm. 1727, 857) as well as the also metrical furtis in A and other recentiores (uid. append.), among them the second codex Bersmanni (Ds2). Heinsius finds the reading  – again metrically correct, although it involves a hiatus  – et furto attested in the now-lost codex Balliolensis (Oxon. Balliol College 142, O18: see Munari, 214), which he collated in b2 with the siglum B (our passage is on p. 350), although he limited himself to recording the testimony without assessing its worth, while Burman (ibid.) also reports “quod praeferebat Heins.”. 33: inseris: the vast majority of mss. and edd. reproduce this 2nd p., but a small group of recentiores (uid. append.) give the form inserit, which Heinsius (1659, 331  f.) claims also to have found in the as-yet unidentified “excerpta Langermanni” as well as in “unus Voss. et unus meus” (the Vossianus may be Ld6 and by meus he could be referring to P8). Once again, Jahn (1832, 812, from where it was adopted by the edd. of Bach 1836 and Loers 1843) attributes it to the “Rhen.”, but Tu gives inseris, and likewise Bach (1836, 297) attributes it to the “S. Gall.”, while S2 also gives inseris.

64

Commentary

With this backing inserit was accepted in the text by Heinsius 1659 (“quod sequentia confirmant”) and Burman (1727, 858, who adds the parallel – a valid one although not definitive proof for our case – of Val. Max. 6.2.1 inserit se tantis uiris mulier alienigeni sanguinis). They were followed by other editors such as Walch. 1731 (who in his notes, however, claims to prefer inseris) and the majority of 19th c. editors (uid. append.) continuing on to Edwards 1905 or Fink 2007 (Ehwald supported inseris as early as H-K-E 1898, 405). The vacillation in the mss. between forms of the 2nd and 3rd p. sing. will reappear in other passages in the course of the speeches of Aias and Ulysses (ll. 48, 81, 299, 341). Not for nothing did the poet himself wish to add dramatic liveliness by means of these sudden changes to the 2nd p. (cf. e.  g. ll. 77–9, 223  f.), something which is particularly opportune here when Aias has just alluded to the bastard origins of Ulysses as natural son of Sisyphus (Bömer 1982, 213  f.; Hill 2000, 127  f.; Hopkinson 2000, 85  f.; Hardie 2015, 223  f.). After l. 33 here ms. Hd (s. XII-XIII) alone has the line quod non ille facit non ueni ad bella coactus. Stylistic considerations aside (cf. Bothe 1818, 205: “Qui uersus unde uenerit, non habeo dicere. Ceterum Ouidio est indignus”), it is obvious that it has no place here. 34–39: An quod in arma prior nulloque sub indice ueni arma neganda mihi? potiorque uidebitur ille,     ultima qui cepit detrectauitque furore militiam ficto, donec sollertior isto (et sibi inutilior) timidi commenta retexit Naupliades animi uitataque traxit ad arma?

35

• 38 (et … inutilior) pro parenth. hab. Magnus 1914, Huyck 1991, Fink 2007 • et Ω, edd.  : sed(sic P16, sed suprascr. ut gloss.) “Berol.”(et hab. B14) test. Jahn 1832, Heinsius 1659(“cum uno Leidensi”), edd. aliquot (uid. append.)  : om. Ld6  : at dub. Heinsius 1659, prob. Bothe 18182 •

34: sub indice: cf. Verg. Aen. 2.83 falsa sub proditione (with Casali 2017, 132 ad loc.). 35: ille: the majority of the mss., including N(p.c., not a.c. as stated by Tarrant 2004, 371 in app.), offer illis at the end of the line, apparently more the result of the grammatical banalization after uidebitur, if not contamination from the illi of l. 32, as it has no clear referent, since the judges who have to consider potior one of the contenders are the very ones to whom Aias is appealing, and therefore the deictic illis would be unsuitable. This reading, however, was accepted by early edd. until Bersman (1596; uid. append.), and Magnus (1914, 482 in app.) accorded it a “fort recte, ut sit datiuus”, which in turn might have had some influence in its inclusion in the text by Lafaye (1930) and Trepat-de Saavedra (1932). In contrast, a numerous



Commentary

65

group of important mss. has the preferable ille, which is followed by all the other editors. Halfway between intrusive gloss and mere conjecture is the variant esse (Lr7 Bo2Cs3Mt5 As). 36: detrectauitque: most of the mss. and a significant proportion of the edd. (uid. append.) keep the analogical spelling detractauitque, a situation which will be repeated at l. 271 (cf. e.  g. 5.246). TLL 5.1.834.74: “persaepe scribitur in codicibus -act-”. 37: ficto: the only point worthy of comment in this line is the spelling ficgto of M (uid. append.) in that it recalls the correct spelling of ficto in Beneventan script (as can be seen, for instance, in N), that is, in the measure that it could be a sign that the antigraph of M might have been written in this way (uid. ad 442 late, 590, 762, 802, 817, 853). Note that its apograph Lr27 diverges in giving fugit. 38: the interrogative clause is extremely long (another reason, it must be said in passing, to mark an interrogative pause after mihi in l. 35 and not have one single question from l. 34, as some edd. choose to do) and after the main clause and its subordinate relative clause (ll. 35–7), the subject of which is Vlixes (ille … qui), a subordinate time clause (donec, ll. 37–9) is introduced. This, in turn, has a subject, Naupliades, which is not revealed until l. 39. It is to this noun that the adjectives sollertior and inutilior are applied, modified chiastically by isto and sibi. However, if sollertior clearly applies to Palamedes (Naupliades) for all that makes him stand out above Ulysses in the field in which Ulysses was stronger (cf. Palamedi perspicax prudentia in Cic. off. 3.26.98 [Acc. 112 W; trag. inc. 58 R3]; Bömer 1982, 215; Casali 2017, 128  f.), the reference sibi inutilior is restrictive to the point of appearing to be almost a comment made by the orator en passant to seek the conspiratorial favour of his audience, who would recall that the help given to the Greeks by Palamedes in confronting Ulysses cost him his life (Bömer 1982, 215  f.; Hopkinson 2000, 87). Seen in this light, the text gains in clarity with the parenthesis introduced by Magnus 1914 (which should possibly be extended down to sollertior isto). Now, this restriction, this compensatory negative factor in the action of Palamedes would appear to be expressed better by an adversative (sed) than a copulative (et). For this reason Heinsius (1659, 332) introduced sed into the text “cum uno Leidensi. nisi mauis At” (in b3, 351, however, he had expressed the opposite proposal: “leg. At sibi, uel, Sed, quomodo unus Leid.”), and this has been accepted by several edd. down to the present day (the translation of Planudes, ἑαυτῷ δ’ ἀλυσιτελέστατος, cannot be adduced in its support as some edd. would have it). To the testimony of the Leiden ms. (“non nisi unus Leid. unde sumsit Heins. qui malit, At” reproduced by Gierig 1807, 246 in app.), Bothe (1818, 127) adds that of his Berolinensis: “Sed. Ita et B. Vulgo: Et. Suauius est, quod Heinsio placuit, At, germanumque mihi uidetur” and refers to his note on 4.92 (ibid., 33), where he himself conjectures at. However, the fact is that B14 clearly has et, as do all the Leiden mss. known today, with the exception of

66

Commentary

Ld6 (s. XIII), in which the beginning of the line reads si îhutilior, i.  e. omitting the conjunction. The only sed I have found in a ms. is written above et in P16 (s. XIII), but with no correction mark or any sign that it is an u.l., which indicates that it is a gloss. I have also found it in B4 (s. XII/XIII), but in place of sibi (i.  e. & s7), and it was later corrected. In short, the evidence for sed in the mss. is more than dubious. Moreover, I do not consider it necessary to fall back on the supposedly adversative force of et in passages such as 13.451 (fortis et infelix), as Magnus (1914, 482) does, since the parenthesis he himself proposes is more than sufficient to suggest that restriction mentioned above. If forced to conjecture, at would certainly be preferable to sed, but I see no need for this, and in any case this is not the only conjunction in these lines which could seem to be at odds with logic, since rather than the – sarcastic – quod of l. 34 “Strict logic would require a concession” (Huyck 1991, 106). Finally, I can find no trace of the information reported by Magnus (ibid.): “ut sibi coni Hs”, which makes me assume that ut is an erratum for at. 39: ad: apart from the absurd ui tantaque, one of the variants of uitataque (uid. append.), which is significant in that it illustrates once again the close relationship between mss. Ls B14 and the ed. Venet. 1472, the greatest interest in the line lies in the vacillation between ad and in as the preposition governing arma. The former is the reading of almost all the mss. and the majority of edd.; the latter I have found only in some mss. (GgO3 B8D Mc CvEs4Es5) while Heinsius (1659, 332) states he has also seen it in “sex alii”. He incorporates it into his text with a reference to his comm. ad epist. 3.136 (sic eat auspiciis Pyrrhus ad arma tuis, where he defends in), and there (1658, 21) he defends the phrase in arma as “elegantius” and because “Τὸ in enim infesti animi significationem interdum prae se fert”, which he illustrates with other passages. Heinsius’ choice for our passage was followed by a number of edd. (uid. append.), and even Bach, who did not include it in his text, demonstrated a clear sympathy for it in his notes (1836, 297  f.), as he considered it “dichterischer als ad a.”, a claim he illustrates with the parallel of Verg. Aen. 12.812 (traherentque inimica in proelia Teucros), “weil man bei arma nicht Waffen an sich, sondern bellum, proelium zu denken hat”, which he illustrates in turn with the parallels of am. 1.4.8 (Atracis ambiguos traxit in arma uiros) or met. 4.471 (in facinus traherent Athamanta furores). However, he then gives in to the weight of the witnesses and concludes that in this case arma should be taken in its proper, not figurative sense, as he concludes from l. 40. In fact the ad/in alternation is constant in the mss. and in several passages we shall see a certain propensity in the edd. towards in as the less prosaic option. However, in the present passage practically all the mss. make it clear that what we have here is not the conventional expression of purpose trahere/ ducere in arma/proelia (cf. e.  g. l. 82), but an insistence on the poet’s part not on the objective but on the phase prior to the combat, that is, the determined effort Palamedes had to make in order to drag (trahere) the reluctant Ulysses



67

Commentary

to the arms (ad arma, it being immaterial whether in a proper or figurative sense) which he had shunned (uitata). 40–42: Optima nunc sumat, quia sumere noluit ulla?  nos inhonorati et donis patruelibus orbi, obtulimus quia nos ad prima pericula, simus?

40

• 40 quia LuMN(a.c.)V2 MoN2 T13 Bo3Lr27, prob. Merkel 1850, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, Lejay 1894, Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, Huyck 1991, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007  : qui N(p.c.) Ω, Plan., edd., def. Luck • ulla Lr2Lu(illa a.c.)MM2(illa a.c.)N(illa p.c.)P2S2V3(illa a.c.) A2A32(u.l.; illa alt. u.l.)A4(illa u.l. A42)BB22(i.l. u.l.)BaGGg2(mg. p.c.)H22(i.l. p.c.)H3L4(illa a.c.)Ld2(i.l.)Ld2Lr3Lr4­ Lr52(mg. u.l.)Lr6Lr7LsMoN2O4Ph2V5V9 B8Lr82(i.l. u.l.)Mt3P8To Bo2Cs3(p.c.)Es2(p.c.)Es3(illa a.c.)FtMt4Mt5T13 AsB14Bo3Es6F2Ld11Lr22Lr27Lu2P38V30Vd11 P46Ld13, edd., def. Luck  : illa Ω, Plan., Regius 1493  : il Cs3(ex itin. corr.)  : arma A3Lr5 P5  : ista Tu  : ullam Es2(a.c.) •

40: there are two ways in which this line is most commonly edited: optima nunc sumat qui sumere noluit ulla // optima num sumat, quia sumere noluit ulla. The second of these is naturally considered an interrogative clause; the first form can be taken as either interrogative or exclamatory (some edd. postpone the interrogative or exclamatory punctuation until simus in l. 42, which goes against any possible comfortable reading rhythm). nunc: faithful to his decision to give prevalence to the readings of M, for his edition (1850) Merkel recovered the reading num, found only in MN(a.c.), in Mo, which is generally so close to M, and in Lr27 (not so Bo3, which differs here and gives nunc) and most likely in Be2, although the abbreviation ñ could also be read as non (cf. P46). Merkel’s choice was followed by almost all subsequent editors down to the present (uid. append.). In contrast, all the other mss., including N with the correction of its m.p. (not a second hand, as stated by Ehwald 1915, 381 in app.), and the other editors have the adverb nunc, to which Magnus (1914, 482 in app.) dedicates a “fort recte” and which Luck (1982, 60) defends alongside the verbal form sumet, which I have only found in B2. Vid. ad 195. quia: the other main discrepancy is between the pron. qui of the mss. and all the edd. down to Merkel, which is defended by Luck (ibid.), and the conj. quia of a very select group of mss.: Lu(per comp.)MN(a.c.)V2 MoN2 T13 Bo3Lr27, and of all the editors from Merkel on (uid. app.). ulla: for the third variant of the line: ulla/illa, the edd. are virtually unanimous in the reasonable defence of ulla, while the mss. are again divided into two equal currents (uid. app.). I believe that nunc is the stronger option in our context, as it draws the minds of the judges from the past in which Ulysses sought to shun armed

68

Commentary

battle to this present in which paradoxically the finest weapons might be assigned to him. As for num, it would appear to be a grammatical correction prompted by the subj. sumat. Regarding qui/quia, there should be no objection to the pronoun, whose presence also serves to highlight the opposition to nos in the following line. However, quia (in spite of its reappearance, it is true, in l. 42: see Luck 1982, 60) seems preferable precisely because it goes against logic, in that it points to the sarcasm of Aias in presenting as the motive for a prize an action that ought to be a disgrace on any warrior, balancing and compensating for the the action of Aias, glossed in ll. 41  f. I therefore opt for a halfway solution: optima nunc sumat, quia sumere noluit ulla? I have found this reading in mss. LuV2(which gives illa) N2 T13 Bo3 and in the editions of Fabbri 1923 and Huyck 1991 (without comm. ad loc.). 41: nos: note the variant nosque of Ab (s. XII), which is an attempt to avoid the asyndeton, and the opposite tendency (uid. append.) in the omission of et, which I can find in only a small number of mss. (BB5Ld3Lr3V6V7V9). 42: quia: all the mss. I have read except A, P3 and Bs3, which have qui (uid. append.), coincide here in the reading quia, although Heinsius (1659, 332) comments: “tres qui nos. bene” (two of these three may be A, his Ambrosianus primus, and Bs3, tertius Basileensis; besides P3, his alter Regius, gives qui nos, although with the dislocation qui nos obtulimus). Jahn (1832, 812 ad 41) says he also found qui in Vt (s. XIII-XIV) and Bach (1836, 298) adds the testimony of “ed. Rom.”, while Aler. 1471 has quia. Suffice to quote the criticism of Loers (1843, 475): “Heinsius mera libidine mutandi … dedit qui”. Note that some edd. (e.  g. Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Loers 1843) take these lines to express the indignation of Aias rather than his sarcasm and therefore have an exclamation, not a question mark. 43–49: Atque utinam aut uerus furor ille aut creditus esset nec comes hic Phrygias umquam uenisset ad arces hortator scelerum! Non te, Poeantia proles,       expositum Lemnos nostro cum crimine haberet; qui nunc, ut memorant, siluestribus abditus antris saxa moues gemitu Laërtiadaeque precaris quae meruit (quae, si di sunt, non uana precaris).

45

• 49 (quae … precaris) pro parenth. habeo • si … sunt] dissident Gf(p.c.)  : sissident Gf(uid., a.c.)  : sident V5(uid., a.c.)  : si desunt V5(uid., p.c.)  : dii si sunt V9  : si sint dii P8  : fidiu(uel sidiu) P47  : Dî, Dî dent Heinsius 1659, prob. Walch. 1731  : Dî dent ô prop. Heinsius 1659(in notis)  : di tibi dent prop. Huyck 1991(in notis) • sunt Ω P46Ld13, edd.  : dent AL3N(p.c., de- i.ras.; sunt uid. a.c.)M2P2S2TV3(sunt i.l. u.l.) A32(i.l. u.l.)AbB(sunt i.l. B2)B2(sunt i.l. u.l. B22)B4Ba2(i.l. u.l.)Be2De(sunt mg. p.c.)H2(sunt i.l. H22)Lr4O4(i.l.)TrTuV72 SoToV16 Es3(uid.; sunt p.c.)Rd Cv(mg.)B14Es4Es6, in ii lib. test. Ciof. 1575, Venet. 1472, Heinsius 1659(qui et “octo aut nouem alii” test.), Walch. 1731, Baumg.-Crus. 1834  : sint N2(i.l. u.l.)



Commentary

69

HdLr6MtP4 P8P16V13 B12Cs3Es2, “nonnulli” test. Heinsius 1659, “Joan., unus Maff., … Sulm. 1” test. Jahn 1832  : dant V4 Ds  : om. Mc(sunt corr. m.p.)Mt4(sunt i.l. p.c. Mt42) •

43: aut … aut: as is common in these cases, the correlation leads to instability in the text (uid. append.), leaving us with metrical variants such as the omission of the first aut, which Burman (1727, 858) finds attested in a “Medic.” that I cannot identify as well as in a “Voss.”, which may be Ld3 or Ld6. This reading is incorporated into the edition by Bothe, who mistakenly attributes it, however, to B14 (18182, 326) when this ms. clearly gives utinam(per comp.) aut uerus. Bothe thus attempts to avoid the double consecutive sinaloepha: “non elisis uocabulis duobus continuis, quod inuenustum” (see 1818, 127 and 27–9 ad 3.398). The omission of the double aut which we find in P3 is also metrical and makes sense (if uerus is taken predicatively). furor ille: among the different variants in the text between uerus and aut (uid. append.), P3B5 (one of them probably the “unus Heinsii” mentioned by Burm. 1727, 858) have furor illi, a reading which was to the liking of Burman (ibid.): “non male, si distinguas post furor”. 45: the variants for hortator scelerum (uid. append.) demonstrate nothing except the reiteration of mechanical errors in the mss., this being such an obvious echo of Verg. Aen. 6.529: hortator scelerum Aeolides (cf. Verg. Aen. 2.164; Pl. Capt. 661; Stat. Theb. 5.103; cf. Bömer 1982, 216  f.; Hopkinson 2000, 88). If anything warrants mention, it is the appearance of three rare readings of Lr5 in three consecutive lines (43: ac; 44: huc; 45: sceleris, a reading shared with Mc). 47: siluestribus: the sequence siluestribus abditus antris with its inverse association of cadence and case, possibly linked to the pressure of the subject qui in this line, gives rise to the variant siluestrisque of Cs(a.c.), which is metrical but difficult to fit in gramatically (it would have to be in correlation with Laërtiadaeque), and also to siluestris (B Lr8 Es3[uid.] P46), which does not scan. For the expression, cf. Claud. Olyb. 42: abdidit antris. 48: for the moues/mouet vacillation, common in this episode, uid. ad 33. The presence of precaris dispels any doubt in this case (uid. ad 49). For the difficulties the name Laërtiadae presents to the copyists (the one of V2, for example, goes out of his way to correct ler- to laer-), uid. ad 144. 49: in a clear example of a saut du même au même (precaris), Ph2 (c. 1200) had omitted l. 48, but there is a larger group of mss. that omits this l. 49, compensating for it in different ways (uid. append.), and even some mss. that repeat it, such as HdLs, and also V5, which has it in its proper place and later again after l. 50 (here with the correct reading si di sunt: uid. app.). For the textual problems arising from the repetition quae  … quae, uid. append. and cf. ll. 8, 43. sunt: the main obstacle in this line are the variants si di sunt/dent and other minor variants which these give rise to (uid. app.). The bulk of the mss. and practically all the editors read si di sunt, in accordance with a rhetorical formula (“beschwörende Formel”: Bömer 1982, 218; Hardie 2015,

70

Commentary

226) which insists on the existence of the gods precisely by questioning them (Huyck 1991, 108, however, prefers to see in the formula symptoms of “deeper … agnosticism”: uid. infra). A not inconsiderable group of mss., however, gives dent, and this reading si di dent – in fact a tautology in relation to its apodosis – is the one reproduced in the ed. Venet. 1472 and the edition of Baumgarten-Crusius 1834. Basing his argument on these ms. testimonies which he had found for dent, Heinsius conjectured (1659, 332, and 1658, 53  f. ad epist. 6.156) Dî dent ô. However, he immediately went on to conjecture and publish in his text Dî, Dî dent, “quae indignantis animi adfectum eleganter exprimunt”, although this proposal was taken up only by Walchius (1731). This is, in fact, the first occasion in this book on which Burman diverges from Heinsius’ text (1727, 859): “Sed cum maior pars codicum stet pro uulgata, non temere uersum, satis leniter fluentem, in scabriorem mutarem” (Baumg.-Crus. 1834, 490 describes Heinsius’ two proposals as “inutiles coniecturas”, although he shares with him dent and preceris). precaris: Heinsius, like at least Calph. 1474 and Regius 1493 before him, also opts for the form preceris, found in very few mss. (pace Baumg.-Crus. 1834, 490, under the distorting influence of the witnesses adduced by Heinsius: “Etiam preceris maiorem habet librorum auctoritatem”), and in this he was followed by a number of editors over the following two centuries (uid. append.). This form, as is the case with dent, might have been influenced by the model of Hor. serm. 2.8.75  f.: … tibi di, quaecumque preceris, / commoda dent. However, the indicative, in epistrophe with the previous line (see Hardie 2015, 225), is much more effective here: “fortius id quidem subiunctiuo quorundam codicum, quos sequuntur Heinsius et Burmannus” (Bothe 1818, 127) and also clearer, as we shall see below. For his part, Huyck (1991, 108  f.) presents the text as follows: “The paradosis is confused. The only coherent alternative to the text (E2MUW2) is quae si di dent non uana preceris (E1), where si introduces a wish […]. The succession of five monosyllables common to both readings is problematic: perhaps then quae di tibi dent non uana precari (or preceris), cf. Hor. S. 2.3.191 di tibi dent capta classem reducere Troia, Mart. 6.87.1  f. di tibi dent et tu Caesar, quaecumque mereris: / di mihi dent et tu quae uolo, si merui”. Huyck therefore seems determined to make non uana p. depend syntactically on the verb in the conditional clause, which calls, on the one hand, for dent as opposed to sunt, and on the other for the replacement of the indicative precaris by the infinitive or subjunctive. However, the argument is structured somewhat differently: Aias sets out by considering the benefit the Greeks would have obtained had Ulysses seen his ploy win the day and not come to Troy (ll. 43–5). This benefit is illustrated by the exemplum of Philoctetes, who would not have been abandoned at Lemnos in an affront to all of them (ll. 45  f.). He immediately launches into the miseratio (ll. 47–9) with a direct apostrophe to the absent one (moues … precaris … precaris; cf. Hill 2000, 128  f.) in which he represents his misfortunes



71

Commentary

to the point of hyperbole or “pathetic fallacy” (siluestribus abditus antris / saxa moues gemitu; see Hopkinson 2000, 90; Hardie 2015, 225) and makes his desire for revenge clear (Laërtiadaeque precaris quae meruit), closing all of this with a comment on the side, which is much clearer if the whole thing is in parentheses (and not only the formula si di sunt, as some early old edd. punctuated). Though formally addressed to Philoctetes (precaris), this commentary in fact seeks the consent of the judges, since in effect it implies that there is justice underlying this wish and is almost a warning or tacit request (“an implicit challenge to the gods to act”: Hopkinson 2000, 90) for the punishment such justice demands for Ulysses: (quae, si di sunt, non uana precaris). The audience knows what the result will be, and this is what impregnates the observation with “agnosticism”, but from Aias’ lips it is still an expression of moral conviction, of confidence that injustice will be recognized and punished in the end (cf. also l. 70). 50–54: Et nunc ille eadem nobis iuratus in arma       (heu! pars una ducum), quo successore sagittae Herculis utuntur, fractus morboque fameque uelaturque aliturque auibus uolucresque petendo debita Troianis exercet spicula fatis.

50

• 50 et] om. B4(a.c.)  : at Ld7Mo3, “Oxon.” test. Burm. 1727  : Heu Bothe 18182(uid. ad u. 51) • 51–52 (heu … utuntur) pro parenth. hab. Walch. 1731 • 51 heu] et S2, dub. Naug. 1516(in notis), Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Ciof. 1575(qui heu tamen mauult), Bothe 18182  : hu V6 • pars] pras Tu  : spes coni. Postgate • una] magna B14, Venet. 1472, Bothe 18182  : illa coni. Korn 1880, prob. Simmons 1889, improb. Magnus 1914 • 53 uelaturque] uenaturque LuM(a.c.)V23(p.c.) A32(mg. u.l.)Ba(uelaturque mg. u.l. Ba2)Lr32(p.c.)V5(a.c.) Go(uelaturque i.l. u.l. Go2)To2(p.c.) Mc2(p.c.)P28 B14(p.c. a m.p.)Bo3Es4P38Vd11 Ld13, Plan., “in quibusdam” test. Naug. 1516, “aliique nonnulli” test. Heinsius 1659, Calph. 1474(uelaturque 1480), Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Ciof. 1575(dub.), dub. Boissonade(in notis), Fabbri 1923(in app.), Luck  : uenatur Lr27  : uelanturque P2(a.c.)  : uoraturque A2(uid. a.c.)  : uersaturque Ab  : insequiturque B4(corr. B42)  : uellaturque N2 Rd  : uelatur V4(a.c.)Vd(a.c.) Mt2 Ft  : bellaturque T13  : ueneraturque Es3 • 54 debita] dedita MN(debita i.l. u.l. N2)V2 Mo(uid., a.c.)N2 V16 T13 Bo3Lr22Lr27V30, “Leidenses duo et Gronou. et tres alii” test. Burm. 1727, Aler. 1471  : irrita B4(mg. corr. B42; i.l. u.l. B43)  : depita Tu(a.c.) •

50: the initial reading of ms. B4 (s. XII/XIII): nunc eadem nobis […] inimicus in arma, is interesting as it would suffice to add an anapaestic or spondaic sequence in what has been erased to obtain a hexameter. 50–51: the subject (ille … iuratus) that appears in l. 50 is not united with its verbs until ll. 53  f. (Bömer 1982, 218: “Ungewöhnlich lange … Periode”), which, along with the usual instability of monosyllables at line-beginning (cf. Bömer 1982, 41 ad 12. 91), has led to alterations in these lines. The co­pu­

72

Commentary

lative et in l. 50 makes full sense, as it joins the beginning of the miseratio (ll. 47–9) to its fuller development and the demonstration of the high cost the Greeks had to pay for the relegation of Philoctetes (ll. 50–4), the squandering represented by the use in birdcatching of the arrows of Hercules, which fate had destined for Troy. It is therefore not necessary to read the adversative at which Burman (1727, 860) finds attested in “Oxon. et Leidens.” (Ld7, but in none of the Oxford mss. I have consulted) and which I have also found in Mo3 (with the gloss sed written above by Mo32). Line 51, for its part, opens with the interjection heu, but the important ms. S2 gives et instead (it is not the case, as is claimed by Slater 1927, ad loc. and repeated by Luck 2005, 214, that this is also the reading of Planudes, since he brings forward the translation of heu to the previous clause, which forces him to link the two clauses with a copulative of his own devising: Καὶ νῦν αὐτὸς φεῦ! ὁ πρὸς τὰ αὐτὰ συνομωμοκὼς ἡμῖν ὅπλα καὶ μέρος τῶν ἡγεμόνων τυγχάνων…). This reading of S2, which may well simply be an erratum from the previous line and which in any case has the sole (and questionable) advantage of coordinating the modifiers iuratus and pars una ducum, had already been conjectured in his notes by Naugerius (1516, in adnot. s.p.; Naug. 1754, 159): “(heu pars una ducum) Sic in omnibus. Sed fortasse sit rectius Et pars una ducum”. Bothe applauds the intuition of Naugerius but goes even further, in inverting the order of interjection and conjunction and introducing ll. 50 and 51 respectively with Heu and et (1818, 127  f.): “Sensit aliquid uir doctus, sed in media ad emendationem uia substitisse mihi uidetur. Certe longe haec coniunctiora erunt cum superioribus, si legas: Heu, nunc ille eadem nobis iuratus in arma / Et pars magna ducum etc. Facillime autem ei (nam sic fere pro hei uel heu codd.) cum et coniunctione permutatum est”, and he compares 6.690 (ui/ut) and refers the reader to what he himself has previously written (1818, 67) ad 7.306. This proposal does not improve the text of the mss.; it is more in line with the general Ovidian practice not to open an account of a misfortune with heu but to keep it back for a second moment or scene in the depiction (cf. e.  g. trist. 3.4b.5  f. ulterius nihil est nisi non habitabile frigus: / heu quam uicina est ultima terra mihi!). From the palaeographical point of view, it might be possible to accept the corruption et > ei > hei > heu, but Bothe’s proposal forces us to believe that in two successive lines this corruption and its opposite have occurred, which is somewhat unlikely and less plausible than considering the possibility of a mechanical swap during the copying process. Finally, let us note the words of Viuianus (1522, ad loc.) in defence of Heu pars una ducum: “sic in omnibus et quidem elegantissime interiectione ad mouendum apposita quidam tamen quos nihil mouet, & Ouidio dictare parati Et pars una d. fortasse (inquiunt) melius est”. 51: pars una ducum: in this expression the semata of una and of the collective pars might seem contradictory, which would explain the problems in the transmission. As early as the Venet. 1472 we find the reading pars magna,



Commentary

73

which Bothe also read in his Berolinensis (B14; in ms. Ls only successore sagitte is preserved in this line) and which Jahn (1832, 813) stated he had found in “Myrt.” (Hd), where, however, the reading is una. With the backing of the testimony of B14 Bothe adopted pars magna for his edition (18182), a reading he defends (1818, 127) as “fortius” and “uerius” (i.  e., more in accordance with the tradition of the episode), and also with the support of the parallel of Verg. Aen. 2.6 (et quorum pars magna fui). For his part, Korn (1880) conjectured pars illa, in a laudatory sense, and this reading was adopted – although with no comment – by Simmons (1889), while it was explicitly rejected by Ehwald (H-K-E 1898, 405) and Keene (1898, 57  f.), who defend una. Postgate (ap. Edwards 1905) opts in turn to modify not the adjective but the noun, proposing the ingenious spes una. However, there would appear to be nothing here that needs to be changed, and neither is the expression pars una contradictory. The noun pars is used here in its sense of a portion of a whole (TLL 10.1.465.82–83 μέϱος est id, ex quo totum quoddam componitur) and more particularly “de eis qui (quae) quolibet modo alicuius sunt, in aliquorum numero sunt” (TLL 10.1.466.45– 59), to denote “a member …; one who has a part” (OLD s.u. pars, 7, 1300). The numeral, for its part, indicates “One (of a number), an ordinary” (OLD s.u. unus, 10, 2095). Keene (1898, 57) and Magnus (1914, 482) recalled that the expression pars una can be found in this very work at 2.426: o comitum, uirgo, pars una mearum; 5.577  f. Pars ego nympharum … / una fui; 9.20 ero et rerum pars una tuarum; 14.288 quae nisi uitasset, pecoris pars una manerem; 14.482 uellemque horum pars una fuissem (see also Bömer 1982, 219). It is true that the interjection heu would have us expect a more striking modifier than una, but in fact Aias’ earnest plea centres on ducum (Huyck 1991, 110; cf. the example of 2.426, which Bömer 1982, 219 rightly describes as “ähnlich pathetisch”; not for nothing did Luck 2005, 214 defend the paradosis with this parallel): a supreme general, no less, a member of the Greek military high command, the successor of Hercules himself in the use of the famed arrows, leads a wretched life and uses these weapons for ignoble purposes. As for the punctuation, this insistence, essentially a further observation by the orator en passant, can be made even clearer by enclosing heu! pars una ducum between brackets, as was done in the early editions. However, I am not convinced by the attempt by Walchius (1731) to get round the traiectio between the subject and its verbs by extending the parenthesis as far as (heu  … utuntur) (ll. 51  f.), since the subordinate relative clause is no more associated with pars una ducum than it might be with ille. 52: utuntur: Bothe (1818, 128) tentatively proposed the subjunctive utantur as having a causal nuance: “Haud deterius foret utantur, quo relato ad magna idque declarante et probante Aiax magnam ducum Graecorum partem Philocteten dicat propterea quod eo successore utantur sagittae Herculeae” (uid. append.). fameque: for the prosody of famēque, see Hopkinson 2000, 91.

74

Commentary

53: uelaturque: there is a variant uenaturque (uenatur in Lr27) found in a not insignificant number of mss. and early edd. (uid. app., and note in passing the spellings uellaturque/bellaturque which again associate N2 and T13). As regards the version by Planudes (θηρεύει) its editor Boissonade defended this reasonable reading (ap. Lemaire 1822, V, 550) as follows: “Habuit Planudes lectionem multorum codd. uenatur, quae mihi quidem non displicet; nam auget miserationem, quum fractus morbo cogatur heros infelicissimus uenari et per rupes dumosque perreptare, non sine ingenti dolore. Philoctetes Sophocleus uitam sustentat θηροβολῶν” (cf. Soph. Philoc. 165 θηροβολοῦντα; further passages in Bömer 1982, 219). A century later Fabbri (1923, 144) hesitantly suggested a “fortasse recte” in his app. with the backing of his ms. Lu, of M, of the other mss. that transmit it, and of Planudes himself. However, long before this Farnabius (ap. Burm. 1727, 860) and after him Heinsius (1659, 332) had adroitly defended uelaturque with reference to passages from Accius (trag. frg. 539  f. [Cic. fin. 5.32]): … et ea perferant quae Philoctetam uidemus in fabulis; qui cum cruciaretur non ferendis doloribus, propagabat tamen uitam aucupio. ‘sagittarum configebat tardus celeres, stans uolantis [uolatilis Scaliger]’, ut apud Accium est, pennarumque contextu corpori tegumenta faciebat; Pro ueste pinnis membra textis contegit (cf. also Quint. Smyrn. 9.362, and see Hardie 2015, 226). For the phraseology, cf. 2.376: penna latus uelat. Luck (2005, 214), however, has his doubts about the expression auibus (as opposed to pennis, plumis…) uelari, and defends uenatur as a brachylogy: i.  e. uenatur aues et auibus alitur. See append. for other possible though not preferable readings, such as aliturue or auibusque alitur. 54: debita: against this reading, which is preferable in this case (see passages in Bömer 1982, 219), we find a variant dedita whose main interest lies in illustrating a significant association between the witnesses (I have been unable to find it in any Leidensis or codex Gronouii, as documented by Burm. 1727, 860): MNV2 Mo(uid., a.c.)N2 V16 T13 Bo3Lr27V30, and in turn, once more, between Lr22V30 and Aler. 1471, which brings this ed. princeps closer to the tradition of the potiores. For debita/dedita, cf. l. 921 (Prop. 1.6.17). 55–60: Ille tamen uiuit quia non comitauit Vlixem;      uellet et infelix Palamedes esse relictus (uiueret aut certe letum sine crimine haberet), quem male conuicti nimium memor iste furoris prodere rem Danaam finxit fictumque probauit crimen et ostendit, quod clam praefoderat, aurum.  

55

60

• 56 uellet] mallet M(uellet a.c.) Lr27, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Merkel 1850, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, Lejay 1894, Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav.



Commentary

75

1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007, dub. Tarrant 2004(in app.)  : uelit B5 • 57 om. MN(a.c.; i.l. add. coaeua m.) Lr27  : uncinis not. Merkel 1875, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Riese 1889, Edwards 1905, Goold 1984, Huyck 1991, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004  : secl. Merkel 1850, Polle 1888, Lejay 1894, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, Holzberg 2017 • 59 rem Danaam] res Danaum V9 Lr22V30, “duo” test. Burm. 1727, Plan., Aler. 1471, prob. Slater 1927 • danaam MN B4(uid., a.c.)L4Lr4Lr5Mo2(mg. u.l.)N2 Bs4V16 Bo Lr27, Heinsius 1659, edd.  : danaum Ω, Plan., Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Weise 1845, Koch 1866, Trepat-de Saav. 1932  : donauit Ds(a.c.)  : dandum Ld11 • 60 quod] qui Gg(a.c.) Es5  : quo Vossius, prob. Bothe 18182 • clam dub. Burm. 1727(in notis), prob. Vossius, Bothe 18182, Luck  : iam Ω, edd.  : om. Ds •

55: comitauit: apart from the predictable variants qui or quod for quia (uid. append.), this line offers the alternatives comitauit/-atur/-atus (est). The active form appears only in a small group of mss. in which the association once again reveals a common branch: M Ab2(i.l. u.l.)B2MoN2 P102(i.l. u.l.) T13 Lr27 (the reading of T is not this, as claimed by Magnus 1914, 483, but comitatur). It was adopted by Heinsius (who states moreover that he found it in “unus Gronouii”, probably B2) and by almost all later editors. For its part, comitatur is the reading of the largest and most important group of mss. and of the majority of editions until Bersman (1596). Finally, the perfect comitatus has the backing of another important group of mss., although it was published only in the princeps Romana and Venet. 1472, as well as by Weise (1845, probably because it was the form present in Li3, one of his Lipsienses) and Koch (1866), while Fabbri defends it only in app. (1923, 144): “fortasse recte, cum ex comitatus fieri comitatur potuerit”. In fact both comitatus and comitatur may be corrections (with interference, in turn, between the two as a result of an erroneous expansion of the corresponding abbreviations) of a verb that was being used more and more widely as a deponent (OLD s.uu. comito et comitor, 360  f.) and whose active forms therefore have an archaizing flavour (Bömer 1977, 223, ad 8.692: “comitare in altertümlicher aktivischer Form”). Ovid does use the deponent forms (4.484 Luctus comitatur euntem; trist. 5.4.25 te, qui comitatus Oresten), but not nearly as often as the active ones, so much so that it becomes a feature of his style (see Heinsius 1661, 241  f. ad trist. 1.8.31, where he conjectures comitaret for comes iret): 8.692 comitate gradus; 14.259 comitant uestigia; Pont. 1.9.47 comitare; 2.2.81 comitauit euntem; 2.3.43 comitauit ad undas; 3.2.33 comitauit Oresten (add the passive uses, as in trist. 3.7.47 ingenio tamen ipse meo comitorque fruorque, or in the numerous passages in which he uses the perf. part. in a passive sense: e.  g. 2.441). Vlixem: for the forms Vlixem/-en (uid. append.), see Housman (1910, 259  f. [1972, 834  f.]), who only admits the form in -em (never – according to him – conditioned by the metre, this point being of some importance) on the grounds that “Achilles and Vlixes are not Greek words. […] They are Latin words, which first belonged to the 5th decl. and then passed into the 3rd”. It is

76

Commentary

true – he admits – that Vlixen is no more anomalous than the vocative Vlixē: “Still, the vocative does not suffice to commend the accusative.” See also Kenney 1984, 34. 56: uellet: all the mss. give uellet (including the excerpta Mo9 – s. XI2 –, where the reading is uellet et in felix). The text of M, however, is corrected to mallet (Heinsius 1659, 332 states that the reading is attested, but not that it is p.c.) and this reading, also present in the apograph Lr27, finds its way into the edition by Heinsius and thereafter to a significant number of later edd. (it is not the case, as claimed by Magnus 1914, 483 in app., that this is the reading of Aler. 1471). Tarrant, who keeps uellet in his text (so Holzberg 2017 too), accords mallet a “non male” (2004, 372 in app.). I find insufficient grounds for adopting this unique reading, since the two verbs are equally valid for introducing a new exemplum of victims of Ulysses: here, the case of Palamedes. et: for the variant ac infelix which Jahn (1832, 813) attributes to the “Cod. Bersm.”, it should be borne in mind that this is an error resulting from the reading ms. Ds2 gives instead of aut in the following line (uid. append.). 57: a problematic line, as it appears in almost all the mss. but was omitted by M (Lr27) and N, although in the latter it was copied i.l. by a contemporary hand (if not the m.p.itself). The inversion in the order of ll. 56–7 in Bo3 may be the result of the absence of this line in the exemplar used by the copyist (M or a very close relation), who corrected the missing line by introducing it into the wrong place. On this basis it was rejected by Merkel for his first edition (1850), and his opinion has been shared by some other edd. down to Tarrant 2004 (uid. app.; cf. Tarrant 2000, 435–7), either transcribing it in brackets or directly eliminating it (with the corresponding change in line numbering in the case of Lejay 1894; Trepat-de Saavedra 1932 do not even reproduce it in app.). Mendner (1939, 13 n. 47) gives it as as an example of a “mit alternativpartikel einsetzende Interpolation”, i.  e. a clarification (uiueret) to which is added material that – in his opinion – anticipates the content of ll. 58–60 (“Das Nächste nimmt die folgenden Gedanken vorweg”) and consists of content (sine crimine haberet) brought in from l. 46 (similarly Huyck 1991, 111). Its authenticity, on the other hand, is defended by Ehwald, who believes that the omission is due to the position of this line, as is the case with l. 82, at the bottom of the page (H-K-E 1898, 405 [H-K-E-A 1966, 514  f.]): “habe ich die Interpunktion geändert; aus dem Fehler von v. 57 in MN ist ebensowenig ein Schluss auf seine Unechtheit zu ziehen, wie für v. 82 aus demselben Umstand: diese beiden Verse sind wahrscheinlich die Endverse auf der Vorder- und Rückseite eines Blattes und als solche abgeschnitten oder unleserlich geworden; auf den Ausfall eines Doppelblattes geht der Ausfall von 276–343 in M zurück; dieselben Verse sind an unrichtiger Stelle in N nach 138 nachgetragen”. Consequently, as l. 57 introduces an explanation, he places a colon after relictus (l. 56). If this codicological explanation is considered insufficient, there is also the possibility of an omission through a saut du même au même, especially



Commentary

77

bearing in mind that the abbreviations for uellet and uiueret could have been quite similar. The line is, in effect, an explanation of what has been stated in l. 56, reiterative, admittedly, but in line with Ovid’s normal tendency (Hill 2000, 129: “either an interpolation or an example of the excess often alleged against Ovid”). As regards the punctuation, however, I feel that the link between Palamedes and quem (l. 58) is much clearer if we take l. 57 as an explanatory parenthesis (not necessarily deleting it, as postulated by Hopkinson 2000, 92; cf. also Keene 1898, 58: “If it [i.  e. the line] is retained, it is to be taken parenthetically”). Although I have my doubts, I do not think that there are sufficient grounds for seclusion. As regards the other variants of the line, some of them grammatical but not deserving further consideration (uid. append.), note the omission of crimine in Lu2, which thus diverges from Lr2, although by a mechanical error on the part of the copyist (sine crimine). Note also that Lr22 does give letum as against the erroneous locum of V30 and Aler. 1471. 58: the main difficulty in the line stems from the brachylogy male conuicti furoris memor (even the translation of Planudes: ὃν οὗτος, ὁ σφόδρα τῆς ἐλεγχθείσης μνημονεύων μανίας, correct in other respects, avoids a rendering of male. Curiously the κακῶς is supplied by Baumg.-Crus. 1834, 490 in his explanation in notis). This led to misreadings of different types and scope in some mss., both in the preceding quem, changed to quam in view of male, and, in particular, in the forms of the past participle: conuictum, coniuncti, conuecti, confricti… (uid. app. et append. and cf. ad 444 iniusto) and also prompted attempts at emendation. Thus, Schepper (1665, 342) conjectured either conficti, a reading present in G(a.c.) and one to the liking of Burman (1727, 861: “probabilis Schepperi coniectura, male conficti, id est frustra, temere conficti”), or else contecti (ibid.), with an equivalent meaning (“Vanae coniecturae sunt Schepperi”, however, is the opinion of Baumg.-Crus. 1834, 490). For his part, Slater (1927, ad loc.) suggests, again with a similar meaning, commenti, a reading he might have seen in P41 (cf. ibid., 12). The technical sense of conuincere rem, characteristic of legal terminology although  – it is true  – alien to poetic language (Bömer 1982, 220), advises against such a change. The sense is therefore that Ulysses’ actions are guided by the permanent recollection “of his tragically revealed madness” (κακῶς ἐλεγχθείσης μανίας), where male may refer to Palamedes (Simmons 1889, 84: “‘unhappily’ for himself”; Keene 1898, 58: “in an evil hour […] unfortunate for Palamedes”; Bömer, ibid.: “male, ‘zu seinem (d. h. des Palamedes) Unglück’”; Hopkinson 2000, 92: “in damnum illius”; Hardie 2015, 226: “dimostrato fallace, a proprio danno”). At the same time, however, it may allude to the dishonour involved for Ulysses, an ambivalence already commented on by Hill (2000, 129). Aias once more refers disparagingly to Ulysses as iste, again with the appearance of the usual variants ipse, ille (thus in Ds2, according to Bersm. 1596, although there seems to be a slight correction to iste) and the noteworthy esse (probably an erroneous expansion of an abbreviation) which is offered by MM2N(uid., a.c.)T Tu Bo3 (mss. CPr, in a

78

Commentary

by no means isolated example of affinity, have an abbreviation ie which might serve for ille but perhaps also for ipse or iste). Also striking is ante, transmitted in abbreviated form (añ) by Mo3. 59: prodere: against the unobjectionable prodere some mss. give the more banal perdere in yet another example of the systematic instability of the preverbs pro-, prae-, per- and their respective abbreviations. rem Danaam: in contrast with the unanimity of the mss., which give rem Danaum/-am, V9 and Lr22V30 (and therefore also Aler. 1471) have res Danaum (cf. Planudes: τὰ τῶν Δαναῶν  … πράγματα), a reading which Burman (1727, 861) also finds attested in “duo” (one of which might be V9, although there is no evidence of his having been familiar with Lr22 or V30). Slater commends him for it (1927, ad loc.: “bene”), following the conjecture by Kvíčala (1892, 127) for Verg. Aen. 2.170 (res Danaum for spes Danaum). The most obvious discrepancy, however, is not in the noun but in its modifier: Danaum, according to most of the mss. and edd. prior to Heinsius, or else Danaam, on the evidence, once more, of a select group of mss.: MN B4(a.c. uid.)L4Lr4Lr5Mo2(mg. u.l.)N2 Bs4V16 Bo Lr27 (curiously, not Bo3). This reading was adopted by Heinsius and, after him, by the vast majority of editors. Both forms are widely attested in classical poetry, but the frequency of Danaum is so high that it makes Danaam the lectio difficilior (Bömer 1982, 220). For the expression res Danaa, equivalent to res mea, res Troiana…, see Burman (1727, 513) ad 7.513, as well as Bömer (ibid.). Note the inversion finxit danaum shared by O P10So. 60: quod: Bothe (18182, 255 in app.) refers that instead of the relat. quod Vossius proposed quo, which Bothe himself incorporated into his edition and justified in the following terms in his Vindiciae (1818, 128): “in quem locum clam praefoderat”, i.  e. ostendit aurum quo … praefoderat, which fails to improve the text. clam: of greater interest is what originally was a timid proposal by Burman (1727, 861) in preference to iam: “Malim, quod clam”. This reading was also approved by Vossius, according to Bothe (18182, 255 in app.), and by Bothe himself (1818, 128): “Sane τὸ iam alienum est”. Although without showing explicit approval, Slater (1927, ad loc.) adduced the interesting parallel of Hyg. fab. 105.2: Vlysses autem clam noctu solus magnum pondus auri, ubi tabernaculum Palamedis fuerat, obruit. In any case such behaviour would be fully consistent with Ulysses’ personality (Huyck 1991, 111; Luck 2009, 111): ll. 103  f. qui clam … / rem gerit (cf. 32, 106, 111). Some measure of sympathy is shown not only by Huyck (ibid.: “If the pleonasm posed a problem […], Burman’s clam would provide an elegant solution”) but by Hopkinson (2000, 92): “Burman’s conjecture clam (cf. 103) would reinforce the underhandedness of Ulysses’ operations, and iam is hardly necessary for the sense when prae- follows”. On these same arguments Luck (2009, 111) bases his explicit defence, seeing here in addition another example of “missing letters” (“clam lost its initial c and l was read as i”).



79

Commentary

praefoderat: the particular meaning with which Ovid uses this verb (“temporal rather than locatival”, Hopkinson 2000, 92; cf. Keene 1898, 59), which is already in itself unusual (Bömer 1982, 220, and see TLL 10.2.649.20–23), may have contributed to the proliferation of variants (uid. append.). These in any case are further examples of the constant changes in the preverbs. 61–62: Ergo aut exilio uires subduxit Achiuis aut nece: sic pugnat, sic est metuendus Vlixes. • 61 Achiuis] achiuas GfL3LuM2(a.c.)N2(i.l. u.l.)P2(a.c.)T AbEFLd2(achiuis i.l. u.l.)Lr3Lr7Mo(i.l. u.l. a m.p.)N2Ph2TuV5(corr. V52) Ld7To Es4RdTo2 Go2, “Argent. pro uaria lectione” test. Burm. 1727  : achuis O3  : achiuus Pr •

61: aut: the predictable variants appear (uid. append.), among which I would only point to uel (A2), undoubtedly the result of a gloss inasmuch as the ms. maintains the correlation in l. 62. exilio: M gives exitio, a frequent variant of this word; B has ex illo, a simple palaeographic error but one with a feasible result; O P5 offer auxilio, in itself a frequent variant of exilio but reinforced here by aut (note the reading ergo auxilio of N2). subduxit: a very few mss. have subducit, no doubt through assimilation with the present forms in the following line, overlooking the fact that there it expresses a generalizing conclusion (ergo) for the past actions of Ulysses. The form sustraxit is clearly a gloss and as such it appears above the line in e.  g. A32Ld22. Achiuis: this datiuus incommodi (rather than separative abl.: Simmons 1889, 84  f.; Hopkinson 2000, 92) is much more expressive than the banal Achiuas, which however has considerable backing (uid. app.), including the now-lost Argentinensis cited by Burman (1727, 861), unless “Argent. pro uaria lectione” is in fact a reference to the reading a.c. of P2, i.  e. the “Argentoratensis”. 62: sic1: although this is a recurring variant (cf. e.  g. ll. 748, 866) and one with an impoverishing effect in this passage, note that si involves a reinterpretation of the text in the mss. which offer it (uid. append.): ergo aut exilio … subduxit … aut nece, si pugnat (pugnet in O3). Vlixes: for the variant Achilles of Be2(a.c.) Bs4(a.c.), cf. l. 502. For the phraseology, cf. Verg. Aen. 2.44: sic notus Vlixes! 63–69: Qui licet eloquio fidum quoque Nestora uincat, haud tamen efficiet desertum ut Nestora crimen esse rear nullum; qui cum imploraret Vlixem    

65

80

Commentary

uulnere tardus equi fessusque senilibus annis, proditus a socio est. non haec mihi crimina fingi scit bene Tydides, qui nomine saepe uocatum corripuit trepidoque fugam exprobrauit amico. • 64–65 crimen / … nullum] nullum / … crimen B4H2 • 64 ut] aut M Lr27  : om. Be2Lr4 Bs4P8P16 Bo As, “septem libri” test. Burm. 1727 • 67 mihi] ego Ds • fingi] fingo AbGgLd2(i.l. u.l.) Ds  : finxi A32(mg. u.l.)A4BB2B3B4(corr. B42)BaBe2CEFe(a.c.)Gg(i.l. u.l.)L4Ld2(i.l.)Ld2Ld3(a.c.)O3O4(a.c.)P32(x i.l.)PrV8V9 B8Bs4Ds2Ld6P10P16So Es5P41  : frugi Dr  : fincxi Lr6  : fixi V6  : fungi V7(a.c.) Ld33(mg. u.l.)  : tinxi Ld3(p.c.)  : finsi Mc  : finxit Mt3  : figni Mt4  : quid P2 B5 a.c. n.l. •

63: quoque: Burman (1727, 861) records a variant sibi in a “Basil.” (Bs4): “quod efficacius; fidum sibi, quem tamen ille perfidus prodidit et deseruit”. uincat: note (uid. append.) the exclusive reading uincet offered by Ls B14 and the ed. Venet. 1472. 64–65: note (uid. app.) the new example of inverse enjambement with a metrical result nullum / … crimen which is given exclusively by two coetaneous codices known to Heinsius: B4 (Gronouianus codex) and H2 (alter Hamburgensis). 64: haud: wherever it appears, there is constant alternation between this adverb (or its frequent full spelling haut, which in turn gives the erratum aut) and the more frequent non, no doubt a gloss (uid. append.). Recall that Viuianus (1522, ad loc.) reads the variant haud inde for h. tamen. For haud tamen efficiet, cf. 12.484. desertum ut Nestora: the corruption or omission of ut when preceded by -m (uid. app. and cf. e.  g. 192) is not infrequent. Also common is the vacillation over the endings -ora and -ore, for all that in our passage the abl. Nestore perverts the meaning of the text. Perhaps in an attempt to resolve this, the copyist of P41 (uid. ad 458) opted to change the participle also: non tamen efficiet deserto ut Nestore crimen / esse rear nullum. 65: Vlixem: for the ending, uid. ad 55. 67–68: note the omission in Ps (s. XV) of two metrical hemistichs: proditus a socio est. qui nomine sepe uocatum, a phenomenon that is repeated with some frequency. 67: non haec: ms. N reads hec nec, where hec is the correction of a previous nec and nec the correction of something illegible that has been erased but which might have been hec, in view of the reading nec hec found in CsV4 Mc. fingi: some mss. simplify the syntactic structure haec mihi crimina fingi scit Tydides by replacing fingi with a personal form (fingo, finxi) juxtaposed to scit. One of Bersman’s mss. (Ds) goes further by replacing mihi with ego (non haec ego crimina fingo). 68: the variants of uocatum are of little interest, except perhaps the reading notatum which Burman (1727, 861) finds attested in “unus Basil. [Bs4] et Moreti”.



81

Commentary

69: for the deformations tepido and exprobauit (uid. append.), it should be borne in mind that in many mss. the words are correctly abbreviated as tepido and exprobauit. 70–72: aspiciunt oculis superi mortalia iustis:     en eget auxilio qui non tulit, utque reliquit sic linquendus erat: legem sibi dixerat ipse!

70

• 72 (legem … ipse) pro parenth. hab. Huyck 1991 • ipse] istam M2P2S2T Ab(ipse mg. u.l. Ab2)B2CDeEFFeGLd2Lr7TuV9 Lr8P5 CvEs4Es5Ps P46P47, “decem alii” test. Heinsius 1659  : ipsam L42(mg. u.l.), “duo” test. Heinsius 1659  : ipsi dub. Heinsius 1659 •

71: en eget: the interjection en is often subject to corruption (cf. l. 496), especially at the beginning of a line, as in this case, as a result of faulty word division, which leads in turn to further alterations such as auxilium (uid. append.). 72: linquendus: for the systematic fluctuation between the forms of the pres. and perf. stems of (re)linquo, uid. append. ad 71  f. Note, in any case, the striking unmetrical reading relinquendus offered in A and To (cf. reliquendus in V8 a.c.). legem sibi dixerat ipse: these four words refer to the consequences that his own behaviour brought Ulysses (the parenthesis in which they are enclosed by Huyck 1991 is clear, although probably unnecessary). In the case of the verb (dixerat), I have found as many as four variants in the mss.: duxerat, fixerat, fecerat, dederat. For legem dicere alicui, cf. epist. 12.39 (with note ad loc. by Burm. 1727, I, 159) and see Bömer (1982, 223). As regards the pronoun (ipse), it appears in the acc. in a significant number of mss., either in the form istam or ipsam. Heinsius (1659, 332) tentatively proposed ipsi. For the suitability of the nom., cf. e.  g. Cic. Verr. 2.3.1 legem enim sibi ipsi dicunt (Liu. 45.24.4). 73–76: Conclamat socios. adsum uideoque trementem pallentemque metu et trepidantem morte futura. opposui molem clipei texique iacentem         75 seruauique animam (minimum est hic laudis) inertem. • 74 et] om. A2B2(a.c.)DrPrTu(a.c.)V6V9 DsDs2   : ac Es3, Burm. 1727, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822 • trepidantem AGfV3 A2A3A4AbBB3BaDrGgH2HdLd3Lr6LsO3O4P3P4V4Vd B8Ds2Mo3Mt2Mt3P5 B12Es2Es3McTo2 CvB14Es3P38P41Ps P46P47Ld13, Puteol. 1471, edd.  : trepidentem Be2  : trepidante Pr  : metuentem Ω, Plan., Aler. 1471, Calph. 1480, Ehwald 1915, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Hill 2000, dub. Magnus 1914(in notis)  : metuenti V9  : timentem Bo2(i.l. u.l.) •

82

Commentary

73: trementem (τρέμοντα Plan.): its variants are all the result of graphic confusion, although in the case of timentem there is also the semantic affinity. 74: the insistence on the idea of fear in this line and the previous one has probably prompted the variants. Thus, e.  g., in Es5 (s. XV) we find metu & metu & metuentem. The reading is clearly a regressive repetition of its model (i.  e. having copied & metu[-entem] the copyist has returned to the noun metu), but it also offers a hint on how the corrupt reading metuentem might have come about. To this we will return below. et: in some mss. we find the usual omission of et within a line, with a metrical result (uid. app.; note some of the adaptations resulting from this omission, in an attempt to avoid the asyndeton: pallentemque metu trepidante morte futura, in Pr; pallentemque metu metuenti morte futura, in V9). More surprising is the variant ac, which I have only found in Es3 (the ms. can possibly be dated s. XIIex., but virtually all of our book was copied by this late hand, probably in the 16th c.). It was incorporated by Burman, Gierig, Bothe and Lemaire into their respective texts with no mention of or comment on its origin. Jahn (1832, 815) states in his notes: “Heinsius tacite edidit: ac, quod cod. Berol. confirmare uidetur”. However, B14 undoubtedly gives et, the reading also given by Heinsius in his edd. of 1652, 1659 and 1685. Later edd. such as Magnus (1914, 483) or Fabbri (1923, 144) repeat this attribution to Heinsius but offer no specific references. For the recurrence of et in this metric sedes, particularly frequent in Aias’ speech (6, 41, 74, 79, 122) as against Ulysses’ (only in 277), and its stylistic implications, see Führer 1991. trepidantem: this is the reading of an important number of mss., including some from group Γ (uid. app.), and of the majority of edd. (including that of Galasso 2000, which explicitly diverges here from Anderson 1982: see “Avvertenza”, p. CXX). In contrast, the majority of the mss. give metuentem (including Lu, despite the explicit claim of Fabbri 1923, 144, who attributes trepidantem to it). This is also how it is translated in Planudes (φοβούμενον), although Magnus (1914, 483) erroneously gives the reading as trepidantem, from the τρέμοντα by which Planudes actually translated trementem in l. 73 (καὶ ὁρῶ τρέμοντά τε καὶ ὠχριῶντα τῷ δέει καὶ τὸν ὅσον οὐκ ἤδη φοβούμενον θάνατον). This reading was followed by some 15th c. edd. and later by others in the 20th c. from Ehwald on (H-K-E 1898 still gives trepidantem), among them Anderson, perhaps believing that trepidantem had the support only of V3 and Hd. To this reading Magnus (1914, 483 in app.) dedicated a “haud scio an recte”. Hardie (2015, 228) argues that “trepidantem è preferibile a metuentem, che ripete inutilmente metu”. It is true that repetition is, as we have noted above (uid. ad 8), a typically Ovidian device but it is one which seeks intensification or, at the very least, some form of beauty and aesthetic enhancement, whereas in this line it only produces a cacophonous redundancy. In addition, I would argue that metuentem obviously arises as a gloss on trepidantem, this possibility not being feasible the other way around. For the model of the line, cf. Verg. Aen. 8.709 pallentem morte futura (4.644), where fear is similarly



Commentary

83

denoted by means of a somatic effect (see also Bömer 2006, 300). Cf. also met. 9.111: pallentemque metu fluuiumque ipsumque timentem. 75: iacentem: this is the unanimous reading of the mss. and edd., but Burman (1727, 861) finds the reading latentem attested in “tres libri” (I have found none; just possibly written above in O42  – Heinsius’ codex Sprotii –, although the reading is unclear) and discloses his sympathy for it (“non male”) based on the parallel of l. 79: post clipeumque late. Huyck (1991, 115), for his part, defends iacentem with a reference to ll. 80  f.: cui standi uulnera uires / non dederant. The Homeric model (Il. 11.485– 8) does not endorse either reading, and it is not for nothing that the episode is submitted to a reworking contrary to Ulysses in the mouth of Ovid’s Aias (Bömer 1982, 224  f. ad 80; Hopkinson 2000, 93  f. and 96 ad 80  f.; Hardie 2015, 228). Hopkinson himself (2000, 95) chooses to see in texique an etymological wordplay on Ovid’s part with clipei, because of the possible linking of clipeus and καλύπτειν (cf. Seru. ad Aen. 2.389 ‘clipeus’ maiora scuta, quibus latemus), but this play would not necessarily also affect the complement (for a contrary etymological link between clipeus and γλύϕειν/caelare in the Metamorphoses, see Michalopoulos 2001, 57  f.). Magnus (1914, 483), for his part, reports the proposal pauentem, which was put forward by Bergk (1884, 223) when he cited our passage en passant in his discussion of a passage of Ennius. In it he limits himself to reporting the two readings of the mss., with no arguments whatsoever for his ingenious proposal. 76: minimum est hic: as is often the case in words with the physiognomy of minimum, there are variants derived from misreadings (i.  e. mistakes in counting the upright strokes), and in this case the variant is nimium in different combinations with or without est, and with or without –que (uid. append.). This, moreover, is what Planudes seems to have translated: ἐνταῦθα δὴ τὸ πλεῖστον τῶν ἐπαίνων ἐστὶ. It is worthy of no further attention, and neither is the old proposal of Heinsius: minimae est hoc (“legebam olim” he states in 1659, 333: see b3, 352). A more difficult decision is whether the adv. hic or alternatively the pron. hoc is preferable here. The former is given by the majority of mss., as well as by Aler. 1471, Heinsius in his edd. (and Burman as late as his ed. of 1713) and a significant number of later edd. (uid. append.). Other mss., on the other hand, give hoc (at times the use of abbreviation makes it difficult to determine whether it is hoc or haec), and this reading has been accepted by a good many edd. I myself prefer hic, which seems to me to be difficilior, and I opt to follow the testimony of the majority of the mss. As Hopkinson himself (2000, 96) points out, it is also possible that hoc is a corruption prompted by the neuter minimum immediately before it. Finally, Huyck, who publishes hoc, states in app. (1991, 75) that he would rather have hinc than hic.

84

Commentary

77–81: – Si perstas certare, locum redeamus in illum, redde hostem uulnusque tuum solitumque timorem post clipeumque late, et mecum contende sub illo! –. At postquam eripui, cui standi uulnera uires       non dederant, nullo tardatus uulnere fugit.

80

• 77–79 pro susp. dub. hab. Haupt-Korn • 78 hostem LuMN(-es p.c.)S2V2 LdLsMoTr B14Bo3Go2Ld11(-es p.c.)Lr22Lr27V30, Aler. 1471, Heinsius 1659(-es 1652), edd.  : hostes Ω, Plan., Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Ciof. 1575, Bersm. 1596, Weise 1845, Koch 1866 • uulnusque] uultumque BaGg To, Plan., coni. Schepperus • 80 at] ast Lu B Mo3P5To  : sed Ab  : aut Ps • 81 fugit] fugis Lr5 •

77–79: in the note to their ed. of 1876 (p. 161) Haupt-Korn express scepticism regarding the authenticity of these lines. In their view they wrongly separate ll. 76 and 80, which should naturally be consecutive. As so often is the case, such reasoning suffers from excessive rigidity, quite unsuited to approaching a poetic text. An analysis of these lines can be found in Hardie 2015, 228. 77: in: once again, a not very numerous but fairly significant group of mss. (uid. append.), followed only by Aler. 1471 (and note the discrepancy with V30 and the coincidence with Lr22 in this reading) among the editions prior to Heinsius, offers in as opposed to ad, the reading of all the other mss., the edd. prior to Heinsius, and those of Weise 1845 and Koch 1866 among the later ones. This is one of the “common errors” pointed to by Tarrant (2004, xxiii) for the “non-Lactantian” manuscripts. However, note that ms. Lu, which lacks the narrationes, gives in and that ad is given (apart from N p.c.) by L3, a ms. which does offer the narrationes in the first book. It is not easy to rule out either reading, since both are possible. In favour of ad we might adduce the parallel of epist. 19.169: quisque suas iterum redeamus ad urbes, although the specific and exact nature of the noun locum would seem to call rather for in (cf. e.  g. trist. 3.13.26 in loca ne redeas … ista; more passages in Bömer 1982, 224). Recall, in addition, the extremely frequent expression redire ad in the sense of “return to a matter or topic” (e.  g. Cic. diu. 1.48.1 redeamus ad somnia), which might have led to the change of in to ad. 78: hostem: a very similar example as regards its transmission to the one just mentioned above, the sing. is given by a small group of mss. (uid. app.), Aler. 1471, Heinsius and almost all subsequent edd. The pl. hostes, for its part, has been transmitted by the other mss., the edd. prior to Heinsius and, among the later ones, only by Weise 1845 and Koch 1866. Nor is the distinction between Lactantian and non-Lactantian mss. as clear as Tarrant (2004, 373 in app.) maintains: LuS2 give hostem; L3 (again, also N p.c.), hostes. Both forms are possible, as the “enemy” referred to is a multiple one (Hom. Il. 11.411–88) and for that very reason the generic sing. seems preferable. It can



Commentary

85

also be understood that this generic enemy is personalized in the figure of Sokos, and once again the sing. is preferable. uulnusque: that is, the wound Sokos inflicted on Ulysses during the struggle (Hom. Il. 11.447  f.; 459). However, in three mss. I have found the reading uultumque, the same one Planudes seems to have read (τὴν ὄψιν σαυτοῦ; “Habuit ergo non uulnus, sed uultum, quod coniiciebat Schepperus”, as Boissonade [ap. Lemaire 1822, V, 552 n. 2] rightly points out) and for which Schepper (1665, 342) conjectured: “hoc est, pallidam et cadauerosam illam faciem pauoris ac inertiae tuae indicem; de uulnere enim post loquitur”. However, as Burman himself countered with an argument that was correct although really not incompatible (1727, 862): “immo iam uulneratus erat, nam addit eum prae uulnere non potuisse stare”. 79: note (uid. append.) the alterations of the text with a metrical result in C: postque late clipeum, and in Dr: post clipeum lateas mecum et. 80: at: this adversative at the beginning of a line is usually accompanied by variants (cf. et in l. 50), in this case only ast, sed and aut (uid. app.; Bömer 1982, 224 transcribes an unmetrical atque by symptomatic error). 81: fugit: Lr5 has fugis in another example of inconsistency between indirect and direct references in the course of the speech (uid. ad 33). In this case the copyist has failed to understand that the direct address has finished in l. 79 and that now Aias again addresses the gathering, ironically referring to Ulysses in the 3rd person. 82–84: Hector adest secumque deos in proelia ducit, quaque ruit non tu tantum terreris, Vlixe, sed fortes etiam: tantum trahit ille timoris. • 82 om. M(a.c.)N(a.c.) Lr27  : ima pagina suppl. m.p. in M et post u. 83 per signum loc.  : i.l. suo loco scr. m.p. in N • 84 hunc u. eras. et denuo scr. M; quid a.c. n.l.  : hunc u. iter. F2 • timoris] furoris CsH3Ph2V5V82(mg. u.l.) Go(mg. timoris)To Es22(i.l. u.l.)Mt4To2, “nouem libri. et ita Politianus ex ueteri codice” test. Burm. 1727, prob. Bothe 18182  : timores Cv(a.c.) •

82: for the omission of this line in MN, uid. ad 57. 83: once again there is a proliferation of different combinations in the opening words of the line, some with a metrical result (uid. append.). For the voc. Vlixe, uid. ad 55, although some mss. give Vlixes (uid. append.). 84: timoris: the variant furoris offered by some mss. and published by Bothe (with no commentary whatsoever in 1818) seems to derive from l. 58: nimium memor iste furoris, although it is true that it is backed by the parallel of Luc. 2.108–10 crimine quo parui caedem potuere mereri? / sed satis est iam posse mori. trahit ipse furoris / impetus, et uisum lenti quaesisse nocentem. In our passage, however, Ovid alludes to the fear Hector inspired among the Greeks: cf. Hom. Il. 15.280 τάρβησαν, πᾶσιν δὲ παραὶ ποσὶ κάππεσε θυμός.

86

Commentary

85–90: Hunc ego sanguineae successu caedis ouantem  eminus ingenti resupinum pondere fudi; hunc ego poscentem cum quo concurreret unus sustinui; sortemque meam uouistis, Achiui, et uestrae ualuere preces. si quaeritis huius fortunam pugnae… non sum superatus ab illo. 

85

90

• 86 eminus] comminus “Oxon.” test. et prob. Heinsius 1659, Plan., Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807(qui tamen eminus mauult in notis), Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832(qui “Dresd., … et Rhen.” test. contra lectionem codicum DrTu), Baumg.Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, prob. Luck  : sustinui(cf. u. 88) Es2 • 88 uouistis AGfL3(p.c.)MP22(mg. u.l.) A3A4AbB2(p.c.)B4Be2C2(i.l. p.c.)CsDrEFe(a.c.)H2LdLd2Ld3(a.c.)Lr4Lr5LsMoP4Ph2Tu(a.c.)V7 Bs3Bs4GoP5P16To Bo2Cs3Es3P28Rd B14Ld11Lr22Lr27PsV30 P47, Aler. 1471, Regius 1493, edd.  : uoluistis V2 O3Pr Bo3, Bothe 18182  : nouistis L3(a.c.)Lr2LuM2N(uid.)P2S2TV3 A42(i.l. u.l.)BB2(p.c.)B3B4(uid., p.c.)B5BaBe2(p.c.)FFe(p.c.)GGgH3HdL4Ld3(p.c.)Lr6Lr7N2OO4P3Tu(p.c.)V4V5V6(p.c.)V8V9Vd B8Ds(p.c.)Ds2Ld6Li3Lr8Mo3Mt2Mt3P8P10SoV16 B12BoEs2FtMcMt4Mt5To2Vt(a.c.) AsCvEs3Es4Es5Es6F2Lu2P38P41PsVd11Z Ld13, Plan., Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475  : uidistis A2C : noluistis B2 Ds(a.c.)  : mouistis Lr3V6(a.c.)  : nouisti P46  : fouistis coni. Heinsius(in notis) •

85–87: for the omission of 85  f. or 86  f. as a result of the typical saut du même au même, uid. append. 85: cf. 12.298: assiduae successu caedis ouantem. 86: eminus: no fewer than 10 edd. beginning with Heinsius’ first ed. (1652) read com(m)inus here based on the testimony (Heinsius 1659, 333) of an “Oxon.” which I have been unable to identify. We also have the indirect testimony of Planudes, who translates ἐγγύθεν (“patet Planudem legisse cominus”, Boissonade, ap. Lemaire 1822, V, 552 n. 3). Heinsius was followed by edd. such as Burman (1727), Walchius (1731) and Gierig (1807), although the last-mentioned confesses to being unconvinced in his notes (250): “Cominus ex vno Ms. Oxon. recepit Heins. pro eminus, quod reliqui tuentur omnes. Caussam reddit hanc: “Plus enim laudis Ajaci, quod cominus cum Hectore erat congressus, quam si eminus congressus fuisset”. Verum hoc non sufficit”. com(m)inus is also accepted by Bothe, with the following explanation (1818, 129): “ingentia pondera non eminus iaciuntur a mortalibus; id quod uidit optimus Nicolaus”. The reading was kept in some edd. down to Bach 1836 (uid. app.) and was recently supported by Luck (2009, 111). To its witnesses Jahn (1832, 816) adds those of “Dresd., … et Rhen.” when in fact neither Dr nor Tu gives this reading. Loers, who reads and convincingly defends eminus (1843, 477), adds however for com(m)inus the evidence of “Basil. 1. 4.”, but neither Bs2 nor Bs7 nor other Basel mss. to which I have had access give this reading. This, then, is the base which some edd. turned into ς and others χ. As regards the content itself, Heinsius falls into the error of forgetting that the reference is not to any ordinary combat but that Ovid here is replaying the



Commentary

87

confrontation between Hector and Aias as narrated by Homer in Il. 14.402– 20. There it is clear that, after his missed spear-throw, Hector withdraws (l. 408 ἐχάζετο) and then Aias throws at him (l. 412 βεβλήκει) one of the boulders serving as chocks for the beached ships. “This is an example of Ajax’ fighting eminus”, Hopkinson rightly concludes in his analysis of the passage (2000, 96, ad 82–97, § 2). pondere: this alludes, naturally, to the enormous weight of the rock thrown (Il. 14.410 χερμαδίῳ), and there is no real interest in the variants uulnere, puluere or pectore, which serve to illustrate the systematic oscillation between these dactylic trisyllables, particularly in the 5th foot. 87: unus: the form unum, wrongly assimilated to hunc  … poscentem, is of little importance. More interesting is the translation by Planudes, who because of the ambiguous position of unus associates it with concurreret (as was pointed out by Jahn 1832, 816): Τοῦτον ἐγὼ ζητοῦντα μεθ’ οὗ μόνος ἀγωνιεῖται ὑπέμεινα (ἀγωνιεῖται μόνος in the ed. of Papathomopoulos-Tsavare 2002, 467: “huc transtulimus monente Boiss.” [ap. Lemaire 1822, V, 552 n. 4: “Ut distincta sunt latina, in graecis legi oporteret…”]). For the literary interpretation of unus, see Hardie 2015, 229. 88: uouistis: the mss. are divided mainly between uouistis and nouistis and in fact in many of them it is difficult to decide which letter should be read. The former reading has been followed by Regius (1493) and almost all later edd., with the valuable precedent of Aler. 1471. The second was chosen for the other 15th c. editions. The justification for sortem uouere was made clear early on with the explanation by Regius (1493, ad loc.): “Vouistis ergo uoto optastis. tametsi nouistis fere legatur” (cf. Keene 1898, 61, with an opportune reference to 12.200 [11.128]). In fact, in this careful amalgam of Homeric passages brought together by Ovid’s Aias (Hopkinson 2000, 96  f. ad 82–97), uouistis clearly recalls the candidates desired by the Greeks in the course of the lot cast to choose Hector’s rival in hand-to-hand combat: cf. Hom. Il. 7.177–83 (although the candidates are reduced by the Ovidian Aias to his person alone. The passage is cited by Regius ad loc.). The expression sortem nosse is inappropriate, since it can only be applied to each warrior’s recognition of his own sors (cf. Il. 7.185 οἱ δ’ οὐ γινώσκοντες). In spite of this, Burman (1727, 862) was sceptical of uouistis: “Nescio an satis Latine”, and this scepticism was echoed by Bothe to justify his choice of uoluistis (from uolo), a reading he attributes to a “Bononiensis” but which in fact (uid. app.) is already in V2 and a few other mss. (Bothe 1818, 129): “Sed huius [sc. uouistis] latinitatem non immerito addubitat Burmannus. Recte, me iudice, Bononiensis: uoluistis”. Keeping to one side variants such as uidistis, noluistis or mouistis, Burman (ibid.) makes an opportune reference to the old conjecture of Heinsius (b3, 352) fouistis, which he backs up with trist. 1.5.41  f. qui non contraria foui / arma. Palaeographically and semantically the conjecture is a brilliant one but his resulting text is less precise than it would be with uouistis.

88

Commentary

90: pugnae: note (uid. append.) the inversion fortune pugnam in C. As regards the form pugnem which is shared by the edd. Aler. 1471 (-em) and Venet. 1472 (-ē), I observe that in Ls it is punctuated pugne? It is possible that the verb form in the editions can be traced to a mistaking of the question mark for a nasal tilde. For the possible ties between Venet. 1472 on the one hand and Ls and B14 on the other, uid. e.  g. ad 39; for their sporadic points of coincidence with Aler. 1471, ad 28, 45, 55. 91–94: Ecce ferunt Troës ferrumque ignesque Iouemque in Danaas classes: ubi nunc facundus Vlixes? Nempe ego mille meo protexi pectore puppes, spem uestri reditus: pro tot date nauibus arma. • 94 spem] spes M B42(s i.l.)MoV5(spem u.l.) Lr22Lr27V30, Plan., Aler. 1471  : spe Es5 • pro tot date scripsi cum Lr22V30, Aler. 1471  : date pro tot T(uid.) Ω, edd.  : date tot pro A3A4BBaBe2DeDrGgH2HdLd3Lr6O3O4P3P4V4 Li3Mt2Mt3P5P8P16 AGfV3 B12Es2Es3McMt4To2Vt(p.c.) B14CvEs3P38Ps P46, in ii. suis lib. test. Ciof. 1575, “Rhen. [non Tu],  … unus Maff.” test. Jahn 1832, prob. Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Koch 1866, Polle 1888, Merkel 1890, Hill 2000, Fink 2007  : date prae tot B5(a.c.)  : date pro itot V7(a.c.)  : date tot Vt(a.c.)  : date per tot Ld11  : date mi pro tot P41  : quid M2 a.c. n.l.  : deest in Ls(sed cf. B14) •

91: ignesque: in l. 384 Ovid repeats the expression with a slight variation: qui ferrum ignesque Iouemque and here too there is a significant distribution in the mss. between the sing. and the pl. (cf. ad 78, 653). Although the two are equally possible, the sing. would appear to be the result of assimilation to the other two complements, while the plural introduces a pleasant uariatio. In fact, the expression ferrum ignemque is only attested in Liu. 22.23.4, 28.22.10 and Stat. Theb. 7.24, while ferrum ignesque, along with similar iuncturae, is more widespread and is always the one used by Ovid: Cic. Planc. 98.3 impium ferrum ignisque pestiferos; Prop. 1.1.27 fortiter et ferrum saeuos patiemur et ignis (Ou. epist. 20.183 ferrum patiuntur et ignes; rem. 229 ferrum patieris et ignes); Ou. met. 3.550 ferrumque ignisque sonarent; 3.698 ferrumque ignesque parantur; Sen. Ag. 232 ferrumque et ignes (= Med. 167); Stat. Theb. 10.561 ferrum undique et ignes; Iuu. 6.624 ferrum atque ignes (cf. Ou. met. 14.109 dextera per ferrum, pietas spectata per ignes). In 13.384, on the other hand, there is no occurrence of the form ignisque, which was accepted here by Magnus (1914) on the sole testimony of N. The problem of the -es/-is endings in the acc. pl. does not, in my opinion, make any absolute certainty possible and the mss. of Ovid are too late to serve as a reasonable indication. In fact, they do not offer any minimally systematic pattern of behaviour, as can be seen from a simple comparison of



Commentary

89

the appearances of the same word in the same codex (see a more optimistic view in Pulbrook 1973, esp. p. 7 for ignis/ignes; Most 1979, 364 n. 23 for the e/i alternation in Ou. Amores). Nor is there any sign of stylistic motivation which might have prompted Ovid to use the ending -is, as so often happens in Virgil, who uses it on occasion to create an enriching ambivalence (e.  g. Aen. 4.66 est mollis flamma medullas, with mollis in zeugma). 92: nunc: a small but important number of mss. (uid. append. and note that M = N(a.c.) as N(p.c.) = V2: see Anderson 1977, esp. 259  f.), followed by Aler. 1471 (so often close to the text of M), gives nunc. Heinsius adopted this reading adducing (1659, 333) the support of the “castigatiores”, and he was followed by all later edd. except, once again, Weise 1845 and Koch 1866 (cf. ad 55, 77, 78). Burman (1727, 863) also defends it on the basis of parallels such as epist. 4.150 (heu! ubi nunc fastus altaque uerba iacent?; also 12.103, which today reads erant … erat, as well as other passages; see his note on epist. 4.150 in 1727, I, 53  f.). By contrast, the other mss. and some early edd. give tunc. The combination ubi nunc is very frequent in the classical texts from the archaic period (e.  g. Pl. Bacch. 47), while ubi tunc appears only once before Ovid (Cic. Amer. 92.4) and in three passages of Statius (Theb. 7.214, 542; 11.487; cf. also Dig. Iust. 1.2.2.24.15). Be that as it may, I feel that the sense is more important than statistics here, and Aias has just evoked the scene of the Trojan attack with a present (ferunt) of great expressiveness, which calls for ubi nunc as an equally expressive counterpart. 93: pectore: in a number of mss. (uid. append.) other dactylic trisyllables have slipped in, among them corpore, which is a possible option but not preferable to pectore, be it because the latter fits in fully with the “alliterative emphasis” (Hopkinson 2000, 98) of the line (mille meo protexi pectore puppes) or because “Ajax’ broad breast is best suited to be protected by the armour of Achilles” (ibid. ad 94). puppes: for the glosses naues and rates, uid. append. 94: spem: the pl. spes is interesting not so much because it presents advantages over spem as because of the information it offers us regarding the witnesses. It is the reading of M and Mo, mss. which we have already seen coinciding on other occasions (cf. e.  g. ll. 7, 11, 19, 40, 54, 55, 59, 836, 934  f.); it is that of the primus Vaticanus, V5, in which a nasal tilde has also been placed above the e along with the sign for u.l. (i.  e. spłês); it is the reading of a correcting hand in a codex Gronouianus, B4; it is that of Lr27, the apograph of M; it is that of the mss. Lr22V30 and their inseparable ed. Aler. 1471, which are also frequently close to the text of M; and finally, it seems to have been the reading of Planudes for his translation: ταῖς ἐλπίσι τῆς ὑμετέρας ὑποστροφῆς. uestri: the alternation between the forms of uester and noster, generally transcribed in abbreviated form, is constant (cf. e.  g. ll. 265, 287). In this case both are possible: nostri would highlight the communion of the Danaans and Aias’ membership of the group; uestri, which has greater weight in the tradi-

90

Commentary

tion, underlines the benefit the audience receives from Aias’ action (cf. Verg. Aen. 5.672 uestras spes uritis). pro tot date: these words have been transmitted in three different sequences (uid. app.). The most common in mss. and edd. is date pro tot; secondly, a considerable number of mss. give date tot pro, in accordance with the customary inversion of the adjective (cf. e.  g. l. 864 tanto pro corpore); finally, Lr22V30 and Aler. 1471 stand apart from the tradition as a whole with the daring inversion pro tot date, for which I opt since it is more in line than the other readings with the position in which Ovid uses the imperative date elsewhere and also because it has the ictus and the hephthemimeral caesura fall, not on the preposition, but on tot, thus stressing the importance of the benefit brought about by Aias and linking pro nauibus more smoothly. For further details, see Rivero 2017c, 501  f. 95–97: Quod si uera licet mihi dicere, quaeritur istis       quam mihi maior honos coniunctaque gloria nostra est, atque Aiax armis, non Aiaci arma petuntur.

95

• 96 coniunctaque … est] coniuncta est gloria nostra H2, Venet. 1472  : desunt in Ls • nostra est] uestra(per comp.) est Hd  : nostra H2O3PrV6 So(est mg. suppl. So2) Mt4 Es5Ld11  : nostrae(per comp.) P47 • 97 Aiaci arma] arma aiace Es5, “Arundel. male” test. Burm. 1727 • Aiaci] aiace A CsL4Lr7V5 B8Lr8 Bo2Cs3Mt5To2 AsEs5  : aiacet A2  : iaci F(a.c.) •

95: quod: for the habitual variations in quod at the beginning of a line, uid. append. and cf. ad 20. For the variant sed (quod), it should be borne in mind that sed appears as a gloss written above quod in some mss. (e.  g. Ld Rd). uera: note the mistake unique to MN: uerba (uid. append. and cf. 19 gestaminis, 464 gemenda). quaeritur: another unique mistake in MN (and Lr27): quaeritis, probably conditioned by istis (and cf. querist in Lr8: uid. append.). 96: quam mihi maior: these three words have been written in N by the m.p. on an erasure which has left no trace of the original reading. honos: the mss. are equally divided between honos and honor (uid. append.), two spellings of unpredictable distribution in the Classical period (TLL 6.3.2916.16–50). Although it is claimed that Ovid is in general more in favour of the form honor (TLL 6.3.2916.35–36 praeualet -s apud Liu. […], -r apud Hor. et Ou.”; modern edd. have 6 examples of honos as against 17 of honor), it seems clear that the choice of one form or the other might have been closely conditioned by contextual reasons of euphony (ibid. 36–40), as was recognized by Servius (ad Aen. 1.253 hic pietatis honos): “cum secundum artem dicamus -r …, plerumque poetae ‘r’ in ‘s’ mutant causa metri; ‘os’ enim longa est, ‘or’ brevis …, sed ecce in hoc loco etiam sine metri necessitate -s dixit”. In our passage the use of honos, also before the penthemimeral, as in the passage of Virgil (cf. am. 2.2.39, [Ou.] hal. 66, Drus. 133, 456; but cf. met.



91

Commentary

8.277, 13.153, followed by s- in both, and fast. 5.267, where an f- follows), may stem from the ending of maior (cf. Huyck 1991, 119). This iunctura, which appears here for the first time in Latin texts (cf. maior honor, only in Rhet. Her. 2.45.10), was later used four times by Statius (Theb. 2.241; 4.335; silu. 3.3.213; 5.1.55). coniunctaque gloria nostra est: note the reading, metrical to boot, offered solely by H2 and Venet. 1472: coniuncta est gloria nostra. The mutilated text of Ls can be restored from B14. For the fluctuation at line ending, uid. append. 97: Aiaci arma: a number of mss. (uid. app.) transmits the form Aiace, presumably as a separative, instead of the preferable dative. Burman (1727, 863) reports (and rejects) the reading arma Aiace (“Arundel. male”; this is certainly not the reading of the codex Arondelianus of Heinsius, Ld, which has Aiaci arma), which I have found only in Es5 (s. XV). Note the heavy rhythm (SSSS) of the line, well suited to the sententious tone of the ἀντιμεταβολή or commutatio (Lausberg 1960, II, 217–21, §§ 800– 803; Bömer 1982, 228  f.; Huyck 1991, 119  f.; Hopkinson 2000, 99; Hardie 2015, 230). 98–102: Conferat his Ithacus Rhesum imbellemque Dolona Priamidenque Helenum rapta cum Pallade captum: luce nihil gestum est, nihil est Diomede remoto.     Si semel ista datis meritis tam uilibus arma, diuidite, et pars sit maior Diomedis in illis.

100

• 99 rapta ALuMN(uid., a.c.)S2V2 A2A3B4Cs(a.c.)FeL4Ld3Lr4Lr6LsMoMtN2OTrTuV7 Ds2Lr8(p.c.)Mo3P8P10P16(uid., a.c.)SoV16 Bo2Cs3Es3FtMt5P28To2 AsB14Bo3CvEs5Lr22Lr27P38P41PsV30Vd11 Ld13, edd.  : capta Cs(p.c.) M2N(p.c.; c- i.l. quoque N2)P2TV3 AbBB42(mg.)Be2DrEFGH3HdLd2Lr7O42(i.l.)P3P4Ph2V4Vd Go(a.c.)Mt2Mt3P16(p.c.) B12BoMcRd(a.c.)  : capita Lr8(a.c.)  : casta L3Lr2 A4B2B43(i.l.)BaCGgH2LdLr3O3O4PrV5V6V8V9 DsGo(p.c.)Ld6P5To Rd2(p.c.) Es3Es4Es6F2Ld11Lu2 P47, in uno cod. test. Ciof. 1575, prob. Vossius  : acta B5  : raptum DeLr5  : captum Gf B3 B8 Mt4 P46  : sacra Es2(p.c.; quid a.c. n.l.) • captum] capta Gf B8(mg. u.l. a m.p.)  : raptum A4(captum i.l. u.l. A42)B43(i.l.; captum mg. B42)CH3(a.c.)V9 Ds2 Ld11P41, in duobus suis codd. test. Ciof. 1575  : casta DeLr5 B8 P46  : quorum B3B4  : castum Pr  : choro Mt4  : captu V7  : raptam Mc  : captus Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472  : deest in Ls • 100 luce  … gestum] quorum luce nichil(nihil Es5Lr27) gestum MN(uid., a.c.) Es5Lr27  : Gestum in luce nichil N4(p.c.) • gestum est Ω, Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Magnus 1914  : gestum est est Hd  : actum est Ls B14 P46  : gestum Lr2LuM B5GgMoN2O4PrV6 Lr8Mt3SoV16 FtMt4 Bo3Es5Es6Lr27Lu2Ps, Naug. 1516, Heinsius 1659, edd.  : de Ba n.l. •

98: the end of this line presents a significant degree of instability (uid. append.; V3 has rhesû, though Slater 1927 and after him Anderson 1982 read Rhesumque) but no reading really worth considering (for the depiction of Dolon

92

Commentary

as imbellis, see Huyck 1991, 120). What is interesting, as I have only found it in mss. Gf and C, is the variant resû dolonaq3 cesos, an incomplete and therefore unmetrical reconstruction of epist. 1.39: rettulit et ferro Rhesumque Dolonaque caesos. 99: Priamidenque Helenum: Bothe (18182) not only keeps the Greek ending in the patronymic (uid. ad 55 Vlixen, and cf. Housman 1910, 237–40 [1972, 818–20]) but also, following B14 (which in turn copies Ls), prints Helenon: “Helenon, sicut Priamiden, quod non spernendum in scriptore graecissante” (1818, 129). Cf. Hom. Il. 6.76: Πριαμίδης Ἕλενος; Verg. Aen. 3.295 Priamiden Helenum (cf. 13.723, 15.438). For the lengthening in Prī-, see Bömer 1982, 229; Hopkinson 2000, 100  f. rapta  … captum: the mss. show a clear division in both terms. Most of them coincide, however, in keeping the order fem. + masc., which is more poetic than the reverse order (uid. app.: raptum DeLr5  : captum Gf B3 B8 Mt4 P46 || capta Gf B8(mg. u.l. a m.p.)  : casta DeLr5 B8 P46  : acta B5; note also the reading of Mc: priamidemque helenum capta cum pallade raptam). As regards the lexical choice, there is also general agreement on the second word: captum, which really has only one alternative worth considering, namely raptum, but even this is not preferable to captum (for possible etymological wordplay between the name Helenus and this root, see Hopkinson 2000, 101) and it is not widely enough attested (uid. app.; for the variant quorum of B3B4, uid. ad 100). The greatest variance is in the first adjective: rapta is the reading of the most important ms. group and all the edd., since it is clearly the one best adapted to the episode. There is also significant ms. support for capta, a reading which after all would not be alien to Ovidian aesthetics and the poet’s fondness for polyptoton (capta … captum; cf. also rapta … raptum in Ds2 P41). Graphically close to this last reading and very much in accordance with the ethos of Pallas is the third of the majority readings: casta, which in addition had the approval of Vossius (see Bothe 1818, 174). 100: in contrast with the other mss., M (with Lr27) and N diverge in introducing another word at the beginning, an addition which surprisingly is also found in Es5 (s. XV). The word in question is quorum, which in N has been erased and can only be assumed from the testimony of M. The word must have arisen as a gloss on nihil and then been erroneously incorporated into the text. In M (and Lr27) it leaves us with an unmetrical text: quorû luce nichil gestum. nichil ê diomede remotû (cf. Es5: quorum luce nihil gestum. nihil ê diomede remoto). The copyist of N must have seen this, as he deletes the second nihil: [xxxxxx] luce nichil gestum est. diomede (dimede a.c.) remoto. That is, the first version of the text (with the correction diomede, probably by the m.p. itself) can be assumed to have been the hexameter quorum luce nichil gestum est. diomede remoto. A later hand, with a different style, erased quorum and gestum (the latter still legible under the scraping) and instead wrote Gestum in the space left by quorum, as well as nichil est above diomede: Gestum in luce nichil est. nichil est diomede remoto.



Commentary

93

The copyists of mss. B3B4 (s. XII/XIII) must also have found quorum misincorporated into the text of their antigraph and opted to incorporate it at the end of l. 99 instead of captum, and I suspect that something similar lies behind the variant choro of Mt4 (a. 1393–1394) for the same part of the line. nihil gestum est: there are two questions concerning these words. As regards punctuation, most mss. and edd. consider that the pause should be after gestum (est), coinciding with the penthemimer, but Bothe (18182; no comm. in 1818, 129) opted to place it before nihil, thus highlighting the trihemimer and hephthemimer. This punctuation convinced Ehwald (1915; not so in H-K-E 1898 or H-K-E-A 1966) and some 20th c. editors, among them Anderson (1982) and those who follow his text (uid. append.). In addition, we encounter the recurring presence/absence of est within the line even when uncalled for by the metre. It was omitted by a small but significant group of mss. close to M, and by Naugerius (1516), who was followed by Heinsius (1659) and the vast majority of later editors. However, the copulative verb is in the great majority of the mss. (and also, incidentally, in a ms. not listed in our catalogue as it contains only this line of met.: Vat. Reg. Lat. 1671 [s. XII2-XIII1], fol. 70, to which Pellegrin [II.1, 353] erroneously attributed gestum igitur; this has been confirmed to me by a direct reading of the codex on the part of Prof. Ángela Suárez) and it is also to be found in the early edd., though only those of Loers 1843, Weise 1845 and Magnus 1914 in the more modern period. It is difficult to come up with clinching arguments one way or another. Even so, I am inclined to associate gestum (est) with the first member (cf. e.  g. Antist. Ai. 5 ὃ μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ἔστιν ὅ τι ἂν δράσειε φανερῶς) and to keep est, which would thus reinforce the repetition nihil … nihil, on the syntactic and rhythmic basis of its parallel in Pont. 3.1.113 morte nihil opus est, nihil Icariotide tela (for the textual problems of the passage, see Hopkinson 2000, 101 and Pérez 2000, 109 app. ad loc.), as well as because of the Virgilian model of the passage (Aen. 9.153 certum est [infra]), in which Turnus similarly presents proof of his greater bravery in contrast with the tenebras et inertia furta with which the Greeks defeated the Trojans (see Simmons 1889, 89; Huyck 1991, 121  f.): non armis mihi Volcani, non mille carinis est opus in Teucros. addant se protinus omnes Etrusci socios. tenebras et inertia furta       150 Palladii caesis late custodibus arcis ne timeant, nec equi caeca condemur in aluo: luce palam certum est igni circumdare muros.

101: semel: a considerable number of mss. (uid. append. and cf. 242  f.) give the variant tamen, probably the result of a gloss or an erroneous expansion of an abbreviation of the type ſ-m (however, “quod maxime placet” is the claim made by Viuianus 1522, ad loc.). It is also possible that the idiomatic si semel

94

Commentary

was felt to be strange on the grounds that it is more characteristic of the colloquial language than of lofty poetry (Bömer 1982, 231). 102: I have found the order maior pars sit in Lu Ds2 Go2 (Jahn 1832, 817 also attributes the reading to “Dresd. […] et Rhen.”, but it is not found in at least DrTu). Heinsius 1659 adopted this order for his 2nd ed. (1659) and was followed by a few edd. down to Bach (1836). Of greater interest is the variant melior which appears in P2 (it might have been this Berneggerianus which was referred to by Burm. 1727, 863 as “unus Heins.”; for an analogous variation, cf. e.  g. 9.269, 15.875). It was included by Bothe in his ed. (18182), although in his Vindiciae he defends maior in the following terms (1818, 129): “Nam quod modo legimus maior honos 96., propterea expetendum fuerit potius quam repudiandum istud maior hoc loco usurpatum, utpote in infante ac stolido” (and he gives examples of other errors in the address by Aias). Note, finally, the metrical inversion Diomedis maior in EFeLd2Pr. 103–106: Quo tamen haec Ithaco, qui clam, qui semper inermis rem gerit et furtis incautum decipit hostem? Ipse nitor galeae claro radiantis ab auro        105 insidias prodet manifestabitque latentem. • 103 quo] quid GfM2(a.c.)P22(quo P2 a.c.)V24(mg.) A2A3A4AbBB2B4Ba(a.c.)DeGgH2(p.c.)H3L4(p.c.)LdLd2Lr4(quo mg. u.l. Lr42)Lr5MoN2O3P32(p.c.)PrV6V7V8V92(u.l.)Vd Ds2Lr8Mo3Mt2P102(u.l.)SoTo(uid.) Bo2Cs3McMt4Mt5 AsEs3Es5Es6F2P41Z P46P47, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472  : cur Lr2 B3C CvLu2  : qui B5 Ld6 P28  : quod(per comp.) P8  : deest in P16  : ut quid M(i.l., ut gloss.) • 106 latentem] iacentem L3 Rd  : pauentem Ls B14(a.c.), “Oxon. et duo alii” test. Burm. 1727  : lacenthem Mt  : la- p.c. i.ras. N •

103: quo: “to what end” (Keene 1898, 62); “wozu” (Bömer 1982, 231); “to what purpose” (Hopkinson 2000, 101). The relatively unusual interrogative, together with the systematic oscillation in these pronouns and adverbs (cf. e.  g. ll. 20, 40, 42, 55), has favoured the proliferation of the variant quid (uid. app.; M2 has a gloss ut quid above quo; Go2, for example, has ad quid), as well as cur (Lr2 B3C Lu2) and qui (B5 Ld6 P28). haec: sc. arma (thus also in superlineal glosses, e.  g. in Gf2M2). Even so, the variant hoc also appears (uid. append.), as is so often the case in the paradigm of this deictic. qui clam qui: apart from misreadings (because of the cl-d confusion) such as quidam qui (V3 Ds[a.c.] To2 P47), the anaphora again leads to instability (cf. ll. 8, 49). In T both instances of qui are replaced by quâ; in Lu it is qui tamquam that takes the place of the repetition; P4 (Jahn’s “Paris. 1”) replaces the first member with the gloss prosunt: qu. t. h. I. prosunt? qu. s. i. (cf. the same gloss in Pr: qu. t. h. I. qui prosunt s. i.), and Go (Jahn’s “Goth. 2”) with cedant, also a gloss. More unexpected is the reading of P10 (s. XIII), merito



95

Commentary

qui (i.  e. quo merito), undoubtedly the fruit of conjecture, though it presents no corrections, comments or variants. 104: decipit: for the variant decidit (B14), see Bothe (1818, 129), with more examples of the p/d confusion. 105: claro radiantis ab auro: the expression was not to the liking of Faber because of the adj. (1665, 318): “Istud claro adeo ignauum inersque est hoc loco, mihi ut persuadeam scripsisse poetam, __ cono radiantis ab aureo”. Burman (1727, 864) rejects this argument with the parallel of l. 704 (claramque auro gemmisque coronam), although he immediately goes on to propose tentatively ferro radiantis et auro (et auro was already in Ge, as he himself pointed out [cf. l. 473]): “ferreae enim erant et auro inductae. ferrum uero in splendorem erat datum. Sil. iv.13. Inductus ferro splendor” (Sil. 4.13 induitur). In CsLd2O4 Es2 (Burman had already found the evidence of “unus Leid.”) I read the variant in auro (cf. e.  g. Verg. Aen. 1.640; Ou. met. 6.488 al.). For the sense of ab, see Simmons 1889, 89  f.; Keene 1898, 63; Bömer 1982, 232; Hopkinson 2000, 102. Note, finally, the variant flauo which Burman (ibid.) reads in the “prim. Moret.”. 106: prodet manifestabitque: the predictable variants appear, either the result of a faulty expansion of the prefix or because of the variation in the future endings of prodet and manifestabit (uid. append.). The line is cited by Eutyches (ars 2.15, GLK 5.483, ed. Putsch.) with the text prodit (a form I have found only in P10) manifestauitque (already reported in Jahn 1832, 817). latentem: cf. l. 79. For the variants iacentem-pauentem, uid. app. (and note that in N the initial la- is the result of correction) and cf. ad 75. For the thought expressed in 105  f., cf. Antist. Ai. 3, Vl. 6, which Ovid skillfully combines with the familiar model of the telltale helmet of Euryalus (Verg. Aen. 9.373  f.): see Huyck 1991, 124  f.; Scarcia 1999, 67  f.; Hopkinson 2000, 101  f.; Hardie 2015, 231. 107–111: Sed neque Dulichius sub Achillis casside uertex pondera tanta feret nec non onerosa grauisque Pelias hasta potest imbellibus esse lacertis; nec clipeus uasti caelatus imagine mundi       conueniet timidae nataeque ad furta sinistrae.

110

• 109 hasta … esse] esse … hasta B4(recte mg. B42) Bs3, “cod. Rhen.”(non sic Tu) test. Jahn 1832, prob. Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836 • 110 hunc u. damn. Merkel 1875(non sic 1850) • c(a)elatus] concretus M Lr22Lr27V30, Aler. 1471, Merkel 1875, Lejay 1894, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, H-K-E-A 1966, Segura 1983, Fink 2007  : celûat’ B2(a.c.)  : uelatus Ld2(a.c.)  : celatus Plan.(καλυπτομένη)  : curuatus coni. Korn 1880(in app.)  : conuexus coni. Polle • pictus supra concretus scr. M2  : sculptus supra celatus scr. N2 •

96

Commentary

108: feret: Burman (1727, 864) reports ferat … conueniat (l. 111) in a “Medic.” and judges this to be “melius”, although he prints the future forms. nec: the mss. LuMV2 give sed, the reading which can still be detected in N, whose m.p. corrected it into nec. Some recentiores also give sed, among them Lr22V30, and as usual this is also consequently the reading of Aler. 1471. The double negation nec non has thrown the copyists, but this is the only reading that makes sense. onerosa: apart from other banal variants (uid. append.), which can be explained by the corruption of the common spelling honerosa (with or without abbreviation), Burman (1727, 864) finds the form generosa attested in “Oxon. Basil. et alius”, which I have been unable to trace. The appropriate adjective for this passage is onerosa, precisely because its Homeric model (Il. 16.140–2) hinges on the weight of Achilles’ spear (cf. 141 βριθὺ μέγα στιβαρόν; met. 12.82: grauis hasta; cf. also Verg. Aen. 9.384  f.: Euryalum tenebrae ramorum onerosaque praeda / impediunt), the only piece of his equipment that Patroclus was unable to use (see Huyck 1991, 126  f.; Hopkinson 2000, 103; Hardie 2015, 231  f.). 109: (h)asta … esse: against this order mss. B4 Bs3 give esse … (h)asta (Jahn 1832, 818: “quod cod. Rhen. confirmat”, but this is not the reading at least of Tu), a reading which Heinsius “tacite edidit” (Jahn, ibid.) and which was kept by some editors down to Bach (1836). Although the transposition in itself offers no obvious improvement to the text, I believe it must have circulated in fairly early exemplaria, as is indicated not only by the reading of B4 but also that of N2: acta (i.  e. asta … acta). 110: caelatus: this is the reading of virtually all the mss. and edd. (uid. app.) and celatus was also what Planudes read, although he took it literally and mistranslated it as ἡ τῷ τοῦ μεγάλου κόσμου καλυπτομένη ἀσπὶς σχήματι. Against this, in M and Lr27 and – symptomatically – Lr22V30 and Aler. 1471 we find the variant concretus (cf. Heinsius 1659, 333: “Concretus in Florentino S. Marci, cum glossa id est pictus. atque ita unus quoque Mediceus”). Merkel, closely following the text of M as ever, opted to take up this reading in his 2nd ed. (1875) and other editors have followed him in keeping it until very recently, perhaps with even greater determination than Merkel himself, since in that 2nd ed. (e.  g. 1875, 258) the latter marked the line as spurious. Editors since Merkel have also adduced the gloss pictus written above in M2 as an indication of the sense of concretus. Magnus, for example (1914, 485 in app.) interprets it as “der Schild gehärtet (geschmiedet) mit dem Bilde der Welt”, in line with the interpretation of Vollmer which he cites at this very point: “qui concreuit singulis ex partibus, quae imaginem mundi conplent”, backing it with the semantic parallels (the evidence of which seems to me to be very limited: thus also Bömer 1982, 233) of Pont. 2.11.9  f. Grande uoco lacrimas meritum quibus ora rigabas, / cum mea concreto sicca dolore forent, and Verg. Aen. 6.737  f. corporeae excedunt pestes, penitusque necesse est / multa diu concreta modis inolescere miris (cf. Tib. Cl. Don. ad loc.: concretum dicitur quod ex minutis multis in una redditur massam), and he adds:



Commentary

97

“de liberiore usu ablatiui cf 963 alia” (cf. an identical defence in H-K-E-A 1966, 288 [515] in not.). In a lengthier article devoted to the cosmological representation on Achilles’ shield, Hardie (1985, 16) defended the relevance of concretus on the grounds of its connection with the field of creation (cf. natae in l. 111), its added cosmogonic value and its sense of “connection” (cf. Verg. ecl. 6.33  f.). At the same time he defended imagine mundi as an “ablative of result”, following the interpretation of Vollmer cited above (in 2015, however, he keeps caelatus along with Tarrant 2004: see p. 232). So much for the arguments in favour. However, I believe that the line with caelatus presents no problems of interpretation (cf. l. 291 neque enim clipei caelamina nouit), unlike the alternative with concretus, and not because of the ablative which Hardie himself (1985, 16) admits is “difficult”, but because there is no evidence in Ovid in particular or in Latin in general of the meaning it supposedly has here (Helm 1915, 545: “Nie und nimmer heisst concretus einfach »gehärtet = geschmiedet«”). As regards the gloss of M2, it should be recalled that it is analogous to that found in N2 above celatus: sculptus. Consequently the gloss of M2 could well be one of the numerous glosses copied from another codex and placed above text to which they do not correspond. In other words: the gloss pictus does not justify per se the sense some wish to give to concretus, nor can anyone reasonably argue that pictus and concretus are even approximate synonyms, a basic condition required of any gloss. I therefore fully share the view and conclusion of Bömer (1982, 233): “concretus ist sicher die lectio difficilior […], doch gibt es für die Verwendung von concrescere im Bereich des Schmiedehandwerks keine Anhaltspunkte; caelare ist das eigentliche Wort für die handwerkliche Arbeit dieser Art.” And if further reasons are needed, Hopkinson (2000, 103  f.) adds the possible etymological wordplay between cl(i/u)peus and γλύϕειν/caelare (uid. ad 75), on the one hand, and between caelatus (cf. caelum, and see also Michalopoulos 2001, 44  f.; Pavlock 2003, 149  f.; Hardie 2015, 232) and mundi, on the other. See also ad 289 caelestia. Finally, there have been attempts to emend the text on the part of edd. later than Merkel who were similarly unconvinced by concretus. Thus, Korn (1880, 281 in app.) cautiously recalls his previous proposal (“olim temptaui”): curuatus. For his part, Polle (1885, 891) also rejected concretus but attempted at the same time to use it in order to find the original reading: “vielleicht conuexus imagine”, although he surprisingly defends the construction on the basis of curuatus (ibid.): “über den ablativ bei conuexus vgl. den ganz gleichartigen XIII 963 cruraque pinnigero curuata nouissima pisce”. imagine: for the variations in this word (uid. append.), uid. ad 840. 111: conueniet: for the subj. conueniat, which I have found in B4(a.c.) and which Burman (1727, 864 ad 108) said he had seen in a Mediceus, uid. ad 108.

98

Commentary

112–116: Debilitaturum quid te petis, improbe, munus? quod tibi si populi donauerit error Achiui, cur spolieris erit, non cur metuaris ab hoste; et fuga, qua sola cunctos, timidissime, uincis,     tarda futura tibi est gestamina tanta trahenti.

115

• 114 metuaris] timearis A3Lr6V8  : metuendus AbFe  : metueris B(a.c.)Lr3, Puteol. 1471, Calph. 1480  : tuearis Ld3  : spolieris Bo  : metuar Ca2(a.c.)  : quid B5 a.c. n.l.  : merueris Venet. 1472 • 115 et] sed Gf  : at Lr22V30, Aler. 1471, fort. recte • (qua … uincis) pro parenth. hab. Walch. 1731 • sola … uincis] uincis sola timidissime cunctos So • 116 est] om. V2(i.l. V23) PrV6 V16(uid., a.c.) BoMcTo2 P41 •

112: the question should close after munus, as is the case with the edd. in general, and not go on as far as trahenti (l. 116), as in Goold (1984), clearly violating the rhythm of the text. 113: quod: the habitual quod/quid alternation (uid. append.) is favoured here by the interrogative context. Note that Lr22 and Aler. 1471 give the correct quod as opposed to the erratum quo of V30. donauerit: P41 (s. XV) presents donauerint followed by a pause, which suggests a reinterpretation of the line on the part of the copyist: quod tibi si populi donauerint  – error!  – Achiui… For this manuscript’s propensity towards conjecture, uid. ad 458. 114: spolieris erit: the sequence of two verbal forms unjuxtapposed syntactically has given rise to simplifications such as spoliatus eris/erit (uid. append.). non cur: among the different variants (uid. append.) it is worth observing nâ cur (Lu V5), not so much for the proposal in itself (nô-nû-nâ interferences are constant) as for the reinterpretation on the part of the scribe of Lu in placing a question mark after hoste: … cur spolieris erit: nam cur metuaris ab hoste? (the copyist of V5 has no question mark, while there is one in Puteol. 1471, Calph. 1474 and Accurs. 1475, incorrectly so, as their texts have non cur). For cur non, cf. 220  f. 115: et: the et/at alternation, especially at line-beginning, is constant, but in this case the adversative (Lr22V30, Aler. 1471) makes full sense (cf. sed in Gf), since although Aias introduces an added argument, it is relatively independent of the preceding one: “and flight, in turn, …”. qua … uincis: Walchius (1731), in line with his tendency to use parentheses, enclosed this whole sentence as a (malicious) parenthetic commentary. Although the sense is acceptable, the direct address (uincis) to the adversary seems to contradict this presumed aside. Note the curious reordering of the line in So (s. XIII2): qua uincis sola timidissime cunctos, which unfortunately annuls the significant juxtaposition sola cunctos (cf. also Verg. Aen. 4.322 qua sola sidera adibam). 116: trahenti: note (uid. append.) the usual synonymous glosses (ferenti, gerenti) and the also recurring form of the gerund trahendi. In form and



99

Commentary

meaning trahenti contributes to the “Exaggeration durch starke Alliteration in -t-” (Bömer 1982, 234; cf. Hopkinson 2000, 105; Hardie 2015, 233). 117–122: Adde quod iste tuus, tam raro proelia passus, integer est clipeus; nostro, qui tela ferendo mille patet plagis, nouus est successor habendus. Denique, quid uerbis opus est?: spectemur agendo!  Arma uiri fortis medios mittantur in hostes; inde iubete peti et referentem ornate relatis”.

120

• 117 pr(o)elia] uulnera P22(mg. u.l.) B42(mg.)H2(proelia i.l. u.l. H22) Es6F2Ld11Z, “tribus aliis” test. Heinsius 1659  : pericula G  : in prelia P41 • 120 (quid  … est?) pro parenth. hab. H-K-E 1898, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, Huyck 1991, Fink 2007, prob. Possanza • 121 hostes] hostis M(a.c.)T, Magnus 1914, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, Fink 2007  : ostes Mc • 122 et] om. V4(a.c.)V9 EtLi3 Es2Es3(a.c.)Mt5, “Cantab.” test. Burm. 1727, dub. Magnus 1914(in app.)  : quid N a.c. n.l. • relatis] lacertis M Lr27  : petitis P3  : coronis P10  : relictis Rd •

117: adde quod iste tuus: note (uid. append.) the omission of quod iste in L4, reinstated in the margin by the m.p. itself, and compare with the reading adde tuus quod iste of Ls, two mss. between which I have detected no further connections (the copyist of B14 does correct the text). raro: some mss. (uid. append.) present the unmetrical rara, although G reconstructs the line by adding the variant pericula: tam rara pericula p. proelia: for proelia pati, see Bömer 1982, 234; for the variant uulnera (uid. app.), cf. l. 391 (6.297; 12.171; Verg. Aen. 6.660; Luc. 5.1). Hopkinson (2000, 105): “… uulnera, which gains support from plagis (119) in the contrasting sentence”. 119: nouus est successor: cf. Bothe (1818, 129): “Ceterum in uerbis nouus successor notanda est περισσολογία loquacis rudisque militis: nam cum alterutrum horum sufficeret, utrumque dixit” (Bömer 1982, 234  f.: “Pleonasmus […] als rhetorische Exaggeratio”; uid. ad 102). 120: in contrast with the traditional punctuation of this line, which links denique to the interrog. quid uerbis opus est?, Ehwald associated it with spectemur agendo!, closing the question in parentheses (see H-K-E 1898, 405 [= H-K-E-A 1966, 515]: “habe ich die Interpunktion geändert”). This punctuation was followed by Magnus 1914, Anderson 1982 (without the exclamation mark) and Goold 1984, among others (uid. app.), and approved by Bömer (1982, 235) on the grounds of the “formelhaft” character of quid uerbis opus est? But denique introduces the peroratio of Aias’ singular speech and should therefore be linked primarily to his renunciation of his right to speak (cf. Hopkinson 2000, 106: “denique is much more effective applied to uerbis, conveying the sense that this reluctant orator is glad to stop speaking at last”; see also Hardie 2015, 233  f.).

100

Commentary

121–122: the passage was quoted by Seneca (contr. 2.2.8) as an example of Ovid’s admiration for and imitation of M. Porcius Latro: “adeo autem studiose Latronem audit, ut multas illius sententias in uersus suos transtulerit. In armorum iudicio dixerat Latro: mittamus arma in hostis et petamus. Naso dixit: arma uiri fortis medios mittantur in hostis; / inde iubete peti” (see Bömer 1982, 235; Huyck 1991, 131–3; Hopkinson 2000, 105  f.; Hardie 2015, 234). 121: hostes: since the mss. of Seneca transmit both texts with the acc. pl. hostis (“codd. pler. edd.; -es cod. T”: Bömer 1982, 236), which is also found in another parallel for Latro’s text, namely Flor. 1.5.2 (= 1.11.2): signum in hostis iaculatus est, Magnus (1914, 486) considered that this form should be kept, as it was also attested in M(a.c.) (and also in T, although Magnus does not adduce this reading). For these forms, uid. ad 91. For this passage in particular, the final relatis of the following line should be borne in mind. 122: et: some mss. (uid. app.) omit the conjunction, leaving the two sentences in asyndeton (in N this conj. is written above something that has been corrected and is now illegible). This is simply yet another example of the instability of the copulative in mid-line, although Magnus (1914, 486) hesitantly showed some sympathy for it (“fort recte”). For the stylistic relevance of et in this position, uid. ad 74 et. ornate: cf. Enn. ann. 6.183  f.: scutisque feroque / ornatur ferro; Hor. epist. 2.2.32: Clarus ob id factum donis ornatur honestis (see Bömer 1982, 236; Hardie 2015, 234); for the variant armate, cf. 12.462 (see Burm. 1727, 840 ad loc.). relatis: the variant lacertis of M and Lr27 is included by Housman (1903, lix) as an example of the various transpositions of syllables and letters found in the mss. of all authors. The copyist of P3 keeps the rhetorical play of the line with a variant of his own invention, petitis. Ms. P10 again (cf. ad 103) offers us a conjecture: coronis. 123–127: Finierat Telamone satus uulgique secutum ultima murmur erat, donec Laërtius heros astitit atque oculos paulum tellure moratos     sustulit ad proceres expectatoque resoluit ora sono – neque abest facundis gratia dictis –:

125

• 126 post hunc u. usque ad u. 191 deficit T • 127 dictis] uerbis Gf  : rebus P41 •

124: Laërtius: the prosody of this name tends to present the copyists with problems (uid. ad 144). To go no further, the copyist of M gives the correct form, which he later changes to laerteius (and note that the copyist of Lr27 “corrects” it in turn to lertheius; uid. append.). 125: moratos: the variant remotos is a further example of syllable inversion. Burman (1727, 865) reads the nom. moratus in “Cantabr. et decem aliis” (uid.



101

Commentary

append.), which would involve taking oculos as an acc. of relation. However, this reading would appear to be unnecessary if we compare, with Burman himself, 14.106  f.: illa diu uultum tellure moratum / erexit (for the gesture, cf. Hom. Il. 3.217; Triph. 116; see Bömer 1982, 236  f.; Huyck 1991, 133–5; Hopkinson 2000, 107  f.; Hardie 2015, 234  f.). 127–190: the first substantial part lacking in ms. T in this book: see Hellmuth 1883, 231  f.; Anderson 1979; Hauke 1994, 12  f. 127: neque: the mss. are generally divided (uid. append.) between the forms nec and neque although the reasons which might have led the author to opt for one or the other in each case are not at all clear (cf. 9.481: nec abest imitata uoluptas). Some studies point to a certain preference for neque before a vowel (unless this initial vowel is u-, in which case the statistics favour nec: Lease 1902, 212  f.), although Mariner (1965, 7) observes that this distribution is “generalmente admitida y, generalmente también, incontrastada” (see also ibid., 15 n. 28). There also seems to be a preference for nec among the Silver Age authors (Lease 1902, 213) and the late writers (Mariner 1965, 11), although even this tendency had obvious restrictions (e.  g. neque enim, in preference to nec e.). We will therefore follow the always subjective criteria of euphony, the evidence of the transmission and the usus scribendi of Ovid, this last one being a somewhat unreliable criterion in that it must be understood as referring to its present editorial state. neque abest: ms. O, known to Heinsius as fragmentum Boxhornianum, offers a curious variant here which we should take to be the fruit of conjecture: atque aderat (i.  e. o. s. atque aderat f. g. d.). The litotes is supported not only by the unanimity of the mss. but by the parallel of Prop. 1.2.29: unica nec desit iucundis gratia uerbis, cited by Burman (1727, 865), this being a passage of Propertius in which Burman himself goes so far as to consider correcting iucundis into facundis, “ut Ouidius imitatus Propertium sit” (a proposal not taken up by any modern commentary). facundis: though clearly inferior variants, some mss. offer the readings fecundis and facundus (and note here that once again V30 gives an incorrect form whereas Lr22 and Aler. 1471 have the correct one). gratia: for the variant gloria (Mc), uid. ad 446. dictis: ms. Gf has uerbis, influenced by Prop. 1.2.29 (supra), just as, under the influence of our passage, some mss. of Propertius give in that line the reading dictis (see Fedeli 2006, 5 ad loc.), which was preferred by Housman (1893, 168 [1972, 283]): “the superior vigour of dictis is evident” (see Fedeli 1980, 107). 128–130: “Si mea cum uestris ualuissent uota, Pelasgi, non foret ambiguus tanti gestaminis heres, tuque tuis armis, nos te poteremur, Achille.    

130

102

Commentary

• 129 gestaminis Lu2(i.l. u.l.) F2(i.l. u.l.), malit Magnus 1914(in app.), prob. Fabbri 1923  : certaminis Ω, edd., def. Huyck 1991  : certamis(per comp. c’tamis) V6 •

129: gestaminis: the majority reading is certaminis, but the expression certaminis heres does not fully fit the sense or Ovidian usus. This was already the feeling of Magnus when he suggested (1914, 486 in app.): “gestaminis (cf 116, 347) malim”. His intuition was backed up by the appearance of the reading  – albeit from a second hand and written above as u.l.  – in ms. Lu (s. XI/XII), which led to Fabbri including it in his text, with the following argument (1923, 144 in app.): “certaminis heres male congruit”. For my part I have also found this reading – again by a second hand and also written above as u.l. – in ms. F (ca. 1200). I believe that certaminis is clearly facilior and that gestaminis respectfully situates Ovid in the wake of Virgil, who coined the term (Aen. 3.286; 7.246–8). For more details, see Rivero 2017b, 320–3. 130: poteremur: the vast majority of mss. and edd. down to the Gryphianae (Lugd. 1565) give the form potiremur (uid. append.), which Viuianus (1522, ad loc.) defended “syllaba reclamante”. The 1st Aldina (1502) already had poteremur and Regius corrected it with the following argument in his 1526 ed. (not yet so in that of 1493): “poteremur autem legendum est, ut sit tertie coniugationis, ita uersu exigente”. Heinsius (1659, 333) also defends this form “ex multis ueterum, ἀρχαϊκῶς”, with the support of other passages. See also Burm. 1727, 865  f.; Wakefield 1813, I, 286 ad Lucr. 2.506; Baumg.Crus. 1834, 493; Loers 1843, 480. 131–134: Quem quoniam non aequa mihi uobisque negarunt fata” (manuque simul ueluti lacrimantia tersit lumina), “quis magno melius succedat Achilli quam per quem magnus Danais accessit Achilles? • 133 succedat A4B5H3(uid., a.c.)Mt(suce- Mt)V7(a.c.) Mt2 Es2FtTo2(uid.), Plan., Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Heinsius 1659(qui et “Oxon. … & alii quatuor” test.), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Merkel 1850, Riese 1872, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, Lejay 1894, Goold 1984, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007  : succedet AGfP2(uid.) B2B3B43(i.l.)CFGGg(p.c.)HdL4LdLd22(p.c.)Lr5OO3O4P32(p.c.)Ph2(p.c.)TrV8Vd(p.c.) Ld6Lr4So Es4, Naug. 1516, Bersm. 1596  : succedit Ω, edd.  : successit L3Lr2 B4Ld3Lr6P3Vd(a.c.) P8 B12Mc Es6Lu2P41 P47(a.c.)  : quid Ph2 a.c. n.l. • 134 accessit coni. Faber 1665, Weise 1845, Koch 1866, dub. Cartault, def. Hartman  : successit Ω, edd.  : succedit B2(a.c. uid.)B43H2(a.c.) Mt3 Es3(a.c.)Mt4(suce-) Ld11  : suscedit Mt  : succedet O4(successit i.l. O42)  : successet Tu(a.c.)  : succescit Mc  : succexit V30 •

132: tersit: among the different variants transmitted (uid. append.), generally the result of erroneous developments of the group -ers-, the form tergit should be noted in that it is evidence of the close relationship between mss. F2Ld11Z. Note too the unusual divergent reading tersunt in Lr27 with respect



Commentary

103

to M, no doubt due to the correction in the latter being incomplete. For the expression (see also Bömer 1982, 239), cf. Catull. 66.30: tersti lumina saepe manu; [Verg.] Mor. 107: saepe manu summa lacrimantia lumina terget; Stat. silu. 1.2.92  f.: madentia  … / lumina detersi; 2.2.102: rorantia lumina tersit; 3.3.7: laudataque lumina terge (cf. Stat. silu. 5.1.163  f.: inlacrimat signatque fores et pectore terget / limina). 133–134: magno melius / magnus Danais: in both ll. a significant number of mss. (uid. append.) and the edd. Aler. 1471 and Loers 1843 transmit the inverse order. Loers (1843, 480), within the range of mss. collated, wrongly understood that this inverse order “maiorem habet auctoritatem codicum” and adopted it in accordance with his usual conservative criteria. The positioning of the noun at the end of the hexameter and its corresponding adj. after the penthemimeral caesura is such a firmly established pattern in Latin hexameter verse that there are no arguments for changing this majority reading to the one which would shift the adj. to the penthemimeral caesura, even if this too is a regular pattern. succedat … accessit: the verbal forms of the two lines present difficulties (uid. app.). As regards the first, the mss. are divided between a majority form succedit, the fut. succedet (which is supported by some potiores such as AGf and, probably, P2) and the subj. succedat, the reading of some recc. (among which does not appear P4, pace Loers 1843, 480). In spite of its majority presence in the mss. and even in the edd., succedit seems inappropriate in that it implies a present action which would appear to call for an immediate response and decision, and its ending may well originate in the successit immediately below (cf. e.  g. both spellings in V2), either because of mechanical copying or as the result of a process of assimilation of the two forms, as we shall argue below. More appropriate, in any case, would be the future succedet, but clearly preferable between this form and succedat would appear to be the eventuality represented by the subjunctive, all the more natural in Ulysses’ question and, at the same time, a verbal form that is difficilior in its transmission in respect to the other two. This is the form translated by Planudes (τίς ἂν ἄμεινον τὸν μέγαν διαδέξαιτο Ἀχιλλέα) and incorporated into the text by the ed. Gryphiana (Lugd. 1546), which was followed by Heinsius and the 18th c. editors, the majority of those of the 19th c. and only Rösch (19962 = 1952; cf. Fink 2007) and Goold (1984, not so Miller 19212, who gives succedit) in the 20th, as well as Tarrant (2004) and Ramírez de Verger (2005) in the present century. For its effect as a responsio (cf. ad 129) to the successor with which Aias closes his speech (l. 119), see Pavlock 2003, 147. As regards the latter form, successit is the virtually unanimous reading of the mss. and edd., although Tarrant allows himself the comment “quibusdam suspectum” (2004, 375 in app.), which seems to point to certain doubts in his own case. Nor should we find this surprising, since Danais successit Achilles is not perfect Latin (Ovid, in fact, uses succedere and accedere very frequently, and neither ever has the sense of the other). This was already noted by Tan. Faber (Tanneguy Le Fèvre) in 1665, conjecturing accessit (a reading

104

Commentary

accepted only in the edd. of Weise 1845 and Koch 1866) and pointing to a dittograph (Danaissacc-) as the likely origin of the corruption, an argument repeated, although without acknowledgement, by Cartault (ap. Lejay 1894) and Hartman (1920, 433). This is what is stated by Faber (1665, 318  f.): “Neminem natum arbitror a quo doceri possim, quid sibi hoc uelit, [Danais successit Achilles] neque tamen huc usque animaduersum id a quoquam fuisse arbitror. Dicam igitur quod mihi in mentem. Illud S, in quod desinit [Danais] geminatum fuit, ita ut uox secuens corrupta fuerit: Cum enim ab Ouidio scriptum fuisset, Danais accessit Achilles, ex geminato illo S. factum fuit Saccessit: quod cum nihili esse uiderent, Latinum quidem uerbum fecere, scribentes svccessit, sed sententiam & Latinitatem perdidere. Dein homines nullo iudicio praediti, bellum aliquid & sane politum esse existimabant, [Achilli succedat Vlysses, per quem Achilles successit Danais] Rem egregiam, scilicet! Sed cur Achilles accessisse Danais dicitur? Nil opus Pythii sortibus: uidelicet inter postremos uenit ille Heros: & norunt pueri fabulam de Thetide praescia uenturi; & cui ignota Scyros est? Itaque certa emendatio est, ni fallor.” The defenders of the paradosis successit have unanimously pointed to wordplay. Keene, for example, paraphrased it in these terms (1898, 65  f.): “Who could better follow Achilles (in the possession of his weapons) than I, by whose means the great Achilles followed the Danai?” Bömer (1982, 239) expressed himself similarly: “Wer verdient es mehr Achills Nachfolger im Besitz seiner Waffen zu sein, als ich, durch dessen Bemühung Achilles den Dan. [sc. von Scyrus: XIII 162  ff.] nachfolgte?” Like Keene, therefore, Bömer argues that successit here is being used in the sense of “‘sequi’ (sc. exercitum), ‘suivre’”, a thesis which is not supported by Latin usus. He backs it up with parallels such as 7.192  f.: quaeque diurnis / aurea cum Luna succeditis ignibus astra, or 15.187: iubar hoc nitidum nigrae succedere nocti, but here the verb implies replacement or substitution as well as succession, and never mere accompaniment. Tissol (1997, 22  f.) also sees wordplay here, but his translation again proves revealing: “Who better succeeds great Achilles than he who succeeded at winning him over to the Greeks?” (my italics). This same objection was also raised by Huyck (1991, 138  f.), who nevertheless eventually accepts successit for rhetorical reasons: “… the repetition of the verb in a different sense is suitably, and necessarily, specious. Insofar as it contributes to the portrayal of Ulysses’ character [sc. as a glib and sophistical speaker], the slight incoherence may be reckoned an actual merit.” That is to say, he too chooses to see wordplay here, which at the same time does not prevent him from rejecting accessit with the argument that “[p]uns depending upon a shared simplex form required that the simplex form itself remain unchanged (e.  g., succedit … accedit)”. Other commentators have also tried to find a specific meaning for successit, and the discrepancy between them is in itself significant. Thus, for example, Hill (2000, 135) claims that the verb is used here in its sense of “to move up into the position (of)” (OLD, s.u., 4a), which is clearly inexact,



Commentary

105

while Hopkinson (2000, 109) holds that here it has its meaning of “to move up (…) as a relief or replacement” (OLD, s.u., 4b), an interpretation that is equally at odds with the reality of events, for at no point did Achilles replace the Danaans but simply join them. Hardie (2015, 236) is the latest to fall back on the theory of wordplay, even at the cost of the meaning of the very words: “l’effetto non dovrebbe essere rovinato con la correzione di successit in accessit, anche se non esiste alcun parallelo esatto per il senso richiesto «venne per dare aiuto militare a»”, and he points to the concept of “semantisches Wortspiel” used by Schawaller (1987, 201  f.) in her analysis of this passage, indicating that successit would have the sense of “sequi aliquem” and referring in turn, in a vicious circle, to Bömer’s gloss “suivre”. Against this defence of wordplay Hartman (1920, 433) states forcefully: “Non lusus uerborum hic est, sed merae sunt ineptiae. Quomodo enim, obsecro, successisse Danais dici potest Achilles? L. accessit cf. III 691 accessi sacris. Dittographia male correcta per multa saecula legentes ludibrio habuit” (he had previously used similar arguments in 1905, 153  f., and there he did not fail to recall Tan. Faber: “Atque sic iam Tan. Faber emendauit, sed nemo eum sequitur, nemo eius inuentum commemorat!”). In the same line, some decades earlier Cartault had interpreted this presumed wordplay as the work of a falsifier of the text. As stated by Lejay (1894, 71): “« Je ne sais si un sciolus n’aura pas voulu rendre le jeu de mots plus complet en substituant successit à accessit qui pourrait bien être l’écriture primitive d’Ovide. Le redoublement de l’s de Danais peut aussi avoir produit la corruption. Je ne vois pas bien nettement le sens de Danais successit Achilles; cf. au contraire v. 297 sqq.: [s]erum accessisse labori. » Note communiquée par M. Cartault.” Cartault is indeed correct when he speaks of “rendre le jeu de mots plus complet”, because succedat … accessit is already itself a sufficiently clear case of wordplay (cf. 153  f.: quaeratur … requiritur) to provide the rhetorical effect commented on by Huyck. A copyist, prompted either by the mechanical conditioning of a dittograph or by simple libido emendandi, has attempted to round off the wordplay by assimilating the prefix of the second verbal form to that of the first and the ending of the first to that of the second, giving rise to the un-Latin majority paradosis succedit … successit. 134: the similarity between the beginning of this l. and that of l. 131 (cf. 320), as well as the identical line endings (note the supression of 134 in BO3 as a result of saut du même au même: uid. append.) appears to have led to the slip on the part of the copyist of V30, which here gives the text quem quoniam danais magnus succexit Achilles. This error, in turn, seems to have drawn in the erroneous quoniam per quem instead of quam per quem in the ed. Aler. 1471. This certainly seems more plausible than making the inverse assumption: that the error of Aler. 1471 might have given rise to the one in V30. If this were so, it would be an indication that the ed. is an apograph of the ms. and not the contrary. Lr22 in turn does give the correct text, which might suggest that it is later than the edition, but this sequence is ruled out

106

Commentary

by the fact that both mss. omit ll. 501  f. when they are, however, to be found in the ed. 135–139: Huic modo ne prosit quod – ut est – hebes esse uidetur,  neue mihi noceat quod uobis semper, Achiui, profuit ingenium, meaque haec facundia, si qua est, quae nunc pro domino, pro uobis saepe locuta est, inuidia careat, bona nec sua quisque recuset.

135

• 135 uidetur] fatetur Bs3(uidetur mg. u.l. a m.p.), Bothe 18182, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, prob. Koch, dub. Magnus 1914(in app.), Tarrant 2004(in app.)  : uidentur Ld13 • 138 hunc u. om. N(a.c., ima pagina add. m. recentior) P41 • post hunc u. (ff. 161s.) N hab. bifolium a recentiore manu Beneuentana exaratum, quod 8.398–402, 597–600b, 603–608, 13.276–343 continet; uid. ad 276 • 139 bona … sua] sua nec bona So •

135: ut: although Ovid continually uses ut, he does not shun the archaizing form uti, though it never appears before a vowel. This would be the only case in which Ovid used the expression uti est (uid. append.), thus establishing a strange bond with Cato (agr. 100.1.2), Vitruuius (3.2.7, 3.3.5, 4.8.4, 4.8.4), Boethius (3.9.11; 4.6.17; 4.7.11) and several passages from the work of Justinian, among others. It would seem to be more prudent here also to keep the form ut est, which Ovid himself uses elsewhere (epist. 9.161; fast. 2.48, 6.527; Pont. 4.9.128; Ib. 239, 458, 534). uidetur : this is the unanimous reading of the mss., but Heinsius (1659, 333) reported that “unus Bas.” (i.  e. Bs3, s. XIII) gave fatetur, and this reading was supported by Vossius (ap. Bothe 1818, 174): “fatetur ex uno Basil.”, who was in turn followed by Bothe, incorporating it into his ed. (18182) and defending it in the following terms (1818, 129): “Recte unus Basileensis: fatetur, hellenismo, quem illustrat Heinsius ad hunc locum. Ajax supra 10 […]; quo respicit Ulysses” (and for the confusion between the two verbs he refers to 14.844 et al.). After Bothe this reading was published only by Baumgarten-Crusius with the argument (1834, 494): “uidetur … nimis ieiunum est”. Koch (1864, 343) defended it on the grounds of comparison with ll. 10–12 and 137–9 and went so far as to consider it “unice uera … scriptura”. More cautious was the sympathy expressed for it by Magnus (1914, 486: “fort recte”), Tarrant (2004, 375: “non male”) and Luck (in R. de Verger 2005, 1962). Magnus, in fact, had been much more emphatic in his defence of it a decade earlier (1893, 609: “ich halte  … FATETUR für richtig”), arguing that Ulysses here is rebuking Aias not for his lack of refinement, which he takes for granted, but his public vaunting of it. However, it seems to be going too far to conclude that in declarating his rhetorical limitations (10: nec mihi dicere promptum) Aias is simply recognizing himself as hebes. We should understand, as already pointed out by Bothe, that this is one more example of confusion between fateor and uideor, the intruder in this case,



107

Commentary

however, being fateor (Huyck 1991, 139  f. paraphrases thus: “what do Ajax’s admissions matter, when his failings seem as evident as they are?”, and he gives further examples of the “conjunction of esse and uideri”). Finally, it should not be forgotten that in Bs3 the m.p. itself notes uidetur as u.l. after fatetur. 137: facundia: Vossius (ap. Bothe 1818, 174) follows the reading sollertia he finds in the “I. Gronov.” (= B4; but facundia mg. B42), no doubt coming from other passages of Ovid in which this noun occupies the same metrical position (1.391, 6.575) and most likely from the passage in which Ulysses himelf attributes it ironically to Aias (13.327). 138: after this l., which, added by a more modern hand, closes f. 160v, ms. N contains a bifolio written by another hand, also Beneventan although somewhat more recent, which has transcribed ll. 8.398–402, 597–600b, 603–8 and 13.276–343 (see Anderson 1977, 259). 140–143: Nam genus et proauos et quae non fecimus ipsi,     uix ea nostra uoco. Sed enim, quia rettulit Aiax esse Iouis pronepos, nostri quoque sanguinis auctor Iuppiter est totidemque gradus distamus ab illo.

140

• 142 esse Ω, edd.  : ipse MM2(a.c.)N(uid., a.c.)P2S2 FLdLr7Mo(esse i.l. u.l. Mo2)MtN2Tu CvEs6F2Ld11Lr22Lr27PsV30Z, Aler. 1471 • 143 hunc u. om. P2(mg. suppl. P22) •

140: non: in accordance with the not infrequent phenomenon of confusion of the two words, some mss. give nos (favoured, besides, by the sequence of fecimus; uid. append.), an error in which M2 is aligned with the “Lactantians” (Anderson – 1982, 303 in app. – is no doubt confusing it with N when he attributes to it a correction to non) and in which N2 shows that it had before it a ms. containing it, when line was reworked as n. g. e. p. que nos non f. i. For the idea behind these lines, cf. Hor. serm. 2.5.8 (see Huyck 1991, 140  f.; Hopkinson 2000, 110; Hardie 2015, 237; 238  f.). For an imitation of the first part of the verse, cf. Ven. Fort. carm. 1.15.17. 141: the most noticeable feature of this line is the striking disorder in which it appears in the excerpta Mo9 (s. XI2): sed enim quia retulit aiax. Vix uoco ea nostra(terra a.c.), as well as the variant ille for Aiax which appears uniquely in P3 (s. XII2), a case in which the genuine term, however, seems to be a gloss on the intruder. For other minor variants, uid. append. 142: undoubtedly a simple error in the expansion of the abbreviation lies behind the variants esse/ipse (uid. app.), as rettulit Aiax ipse Iouis pronepos cannot easily be defended, although early commentators such as Ciofanus (1575, 171) felt obliged to justify esse: “constructio Graeca, ut recte admonet Linacer lib. VI. de figuris” (see also Bach 1836, 305; Simmons 1889, 93  f.; Keene 1898, 66; Bömer 1982, 241; Hopkinson 2000, 110).

108

Commentary

143: the apearance of Iuppiter in this l. and in 145 gives rise to numerous slips on the part of the copyists as a result of saut du même au même (uid. append.). 144–147: Nam mihi Laërtes pater est, Arcisius illi, Iuppiter huic – neque in his quisquam damnatus et exul –.  Est quoque per matrem Cyllenius addita nobis altera nobilitas: deus est in utroque parente.

145

• 144 nam mi(c)hi Ω, edd.  : iam mihi B5DeFe(a.c.)Gg  : namque mihi L3NP2V2(nam mihi p.c.) A3Ba(a.c.)Be2CsEFGH2H3Lr4OP4Ph2(p.c. a m.p.)V4V5V8 DsMt2P10V16 Es2Es3(a.c.)McTo2 CvEs3Es4Es6Ld11P41PsVd11Z Ca2  : nam mihimet M2 Mt  : namque Ph2(a.c.) • Arcisius Ehwald 1915, van Proosdij 1951, H-K-E-A 1966, Segura 1983, Huyck 1991, Galasso 2000  : Arcesius V2(mg. a m. recent.), Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, H-K-E 1898, def. Micyll. 1543, edd.  : acrisius Ω, Plan., Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493  :  ]crisius Ls  : acrysius ELd3  : achrysius Es6, Puteol. 1471  : otresius(per comp.) O3  : achirisius To • 146 addita nobis] altera nobis CCsELd2P3(p.c.; quid a.c. n.l.) Go Rd(uid.; corr. Rd2)  : adita nobis Tu Bo(a.c.)  : addirta nobis N2(a.c.)  : abdita Pr Li3  : addita uobis Mo3 • 147–206 hab. T7 • 147 altera] addita CCsELd2P3T7 Go Rd(uid.; corr. Rd2), prob. Slater 1927 •

144: nam mihi Laërtes: the prosody of the trisyllable Laërtes, which the copyists tend to read as a bisyllable (cf. 48, 124; 12.625), leads not only to other corruptions of the name (uid. append. and note that the copyist of Lr27 once more “corrects” that of M) but also to a great rift in the mss. between the correct nam mihi (with the variation iam mihi, probably attributable to the initial I- in the previous l.) and the attempt to fix the metre with namque mihi (similarly, nam mihimet, found only in M2 Mt), as well as other vacillations in the opening clause of this line (uid. app.). For the frequent occurrence in Ovid of the expression pater est before a caesura, see Bömer 1982, 241. Arcīsius: cf. Hom. Od. 16.118: μοῦνον Λαέρτην Ἀρκείσιος υἱὸν ἔτικτε. Practically all the mss. and early edd. give the form Acrisius (or slight variations: uid. app.), a simple copying error with the added influence no doubt of the familiar name of Acrĭsius, father of Danae. In the margin of V2 a recent hand, which Luck (2005b, 266) identified with Giacomo Costanzi (“Fanensis”), has written arcesius, the reading which appears in the 1st Aldina (1502). It is then incorporated by Naugerius into his edition (1516) and is defended by Micyllus in his notes on the text of Regius (1543, 285; Regius himself had already noted in the margin of his 1526 ed.: “legitur etiam Arcesius”). The ed. Gryphiana (Lugd. 1546) accepts this correction and from then on this is the spelling of almost all the editions. However, Ehwald, who previously (H-K-E 1898, 228) had kept this form Arcesius, published the spelling variant Arcīsius in 1915 (thus TLL 2.468.21– 22), which was followed by a small number of editions, ones normally faithful to Ehwald’s text (uid. app.), as well as by Huyck (1991) and Galasso, who



109

Commentary

to do so explicitly diverges from Anderson (2000, CXX “Avvertenza”). It is Huyck (1991, 141) who most convincingly resumes the arguments in favour of Arcīsius: first of all, it explains the ms. tradition better than Arcesius does; secondly, the general norm presented as such by the grammarians is that Gr. -ειbecomes Lat. -ī- when it is followed by a consonant (e.  g. Νεῖλος – Nīlus). For the spelling difficulties concerning this name in Latin, see Bömer 1982, 242. 145: neque: for the neque/nec alternation in the mss. (uid. append.), uid. ad 127. quisquam: the pronoun, no doubt transmitted in abbreviated form, was omitted by a few mss., MN (uid. append.) among them, and an erroneous reincorporation of the word may be the cause of the inversion we find in Lr3 (s. XII2): damnatus quisquam. damnatus: there being no other evidence of affinity, we should regard as a matter of chance the coincidence of the mistaken dominatus in M(a.c.)/Lr27 and As(a.c.). 146–147: addita nobis / altera nobilitas: in a further example of inversion with enjambement and metrical result, mss. CCsELd2P3 Go and perhaps Rd(a.c.) transmit altera nobis / addita n., a variant which was approved by Slater (1927, ad loc.: “bene”). This is also likely to have been the reading of T7, a codex which coincides on several occasions with Cs (Rivero 2016, 388 n. 32), which gives addita in l. 147 but does not contain l. 146. Note that in l. 147 the copyist of M initially wrote altera nobis[, correcting it immediately to altera nobilitas, although I can find in this no implication regarding the question which concerns us here. Although the sequence altera nobis / addita is perfectly euphonious (perhaps even more so than the majority reading), I see no reason to consider it genuine. 148–153: Sed neque materno quod sum generosior ortu nec mihi quod pater est fraterni sanguinis insons proposita arma peto: meritis expendite causam,       dummodo quod fratres Telamon Peleusque fuerunt Aiacis meritum non sit, nec sanguinis ordo, sed uirtutis honor spoliis quaeratur in istis.

150

• 148 quod sum] quod sim OV9 P10 Ft Es4Es5F2Lr22V30, Aler. 1471  : qui sim Es5  : quod sit B  : quoniam Mt  : quod Be2 B8(a.c.) • 150 post causam sic dist. Zingerle 1884, Riese 1889(plene dist. 1872)  : causam,  – dummodo dist. Magnus • 152 meritum … sit] non sit meritum B5V6V7  : meritum non est Mo(sint i.l. u.l. Mo2)  : merito non sit Ld11 • nec] non(per comp.) AbV9 Li3To  : neque P2(a.c.) Lr7 Bo2Cs3Mt5 AsEs5Es6F2Ld11Z • post ordo sic dist. Magnus 1914 •

148: sum: against this common reading, a few recc. and the ed. Aler. 1471 opt for the also-correct subjunctive (uid. app.). The weight of the tradition indicates that Ovid wanted the words of Ulysses to sound emphatic, the

110

Commentary

fruit of his inner conviction, when he claims the superiority of his maternal lineage. 149: est: the habitual omission of this verbal form, quite unacceptable here, is particularly frequent in ms. V6 (uid. append.), no doubt because of confusion between its abbreviation and the sign reproduced systematically in place of it:  ; 150–153: the punctuation of these lines presents at least two controversial aspects. The first is the pause that must be established after causam: traditionally editors placed a full stop here, leaving the subordinate clause dummodo  … non sit verging on anacoluthon. Some therefore softened it with a semicolon (thus e.  g. Gierig-Jahn 1823, in contrast with the full stop of Gierig 1807; thus, too, Merkel 1875, as opposed to the full stop of 1850) and Jahn (1832, 820) even went for a colon, an even more acceptable solution in that it allows the reader to take the coda of ll. 151–3 in the restricted sense which they do in fact have. However, the preferable solution is a comma, as we already have in the ed. by Riese 1889 (but not in that of 1872, which keeps the full stop). Tarrant (2004, 376) attributes the change to Riese: “causam, dummodo coniunxit Riese”. However Riese was not the first to do so, as the comma is already to be found in the ed. by Zingerle (1884), who also recalls (p. XVIII, in app. ad 150) that the punctuation proposal came from Magnus (1883, 243, and cf. 1914, 487 in app. ad 150). Magnus does indeed propose the punctuation causam, – dummodo, thus interpreting the following coda as a kind of parenthetic comment, not necessary but not aberrant either if it is borne in mind that these lines contain a development, not without its irony, of the very concept of meritum which Ulysses requests (l. 150) should be the basis on which the judges’ decision should be argued. The second question is the syntagm sanguinis ordo, which some editors make parallel with uirtutis honor (i.  e. both as subjects of quaeratur), placing after sit either a colon (e.  g. Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Gierig 1807) or a semicolon (e.  g. Riese 1872), or else eliminating any graphic sign after ordo (e.  g. Jahn 1832). It seems clear, however, that sanguinis ordo is the subject of non sit and not of quaeratur, and Magnus also attempted to make this clear in the same place (1883, 243) by proposing the punctuation ordo: (in 1914 ed., however, he would opt for the more appropriate comma; a colon was still used by e.  g. Zingerle 1884 and Riese 1889; a semicolon by e.  g. Edwards 1905). This change was already reflected at least in the edd. by Zingerle (1884), Riese (1889, XXV: “interpunxit Magnus”), Ehwald (H-K-E 1898, 405 [H-KE-A 1966, 515]: “151 ff. habe ich die Interpunktion geändert, 152 mit H. Magnus”), Edwards (1905: “interpunxit Magnus”), and logically in Magnus (1914). This is the sense I give to the passage (ll. 150–3): “weigh the cause on merit, / as long as the fact that Telamon and Peleus were brothers / should be no merit of Aias, nor his bloodline, / but let it be the honour of manhood that is sought in these spoils.” That is to say, gaining the spoils of Achilles



Commentary

111

will give the winner recognition of his supremacy in the uirtutis honor, and the judges must not regard as a meritum any aspect of lineage (140: quae non fecimus ipsi) as expressed by two subjects: quod fratres Telamon Peleusque fuerunt and the reference to the sanguinis ordo with which Ulysses picks up Aias’ reference to his genealogical series (ll. 25–8), which Aias also requested should be of no weight in the judgement (l. 29), while leaving open a loophole, by means of refusal, to the possibility of its being considered in his favour because of his specific bond to Achilles (l. 30): si mihi cum magno non est communis Achille. This being so, I feel that it is not advisable either to omit all punctuation before nec (as has been done by some edd. to make explicit its connection with what comes before), but that it is preferable to mark with a comma the different function of the attributive nom. meritum and the subject nom. ordo, even if this punctuation (i.  e. enclosing nec sanguinis ordo within commas) may give rise to a certain initial ambiguity, given that the presence – unnecessary in an adversative coordination – of a comma after ordo makes quite clear its disconnect from sed uirtutis honor (uid. ad 152 nec). 150: proposita: we again find the habitual alternation between the preverbs pro-/prae-/per- (uid. append.). The substitution of praeposita for proposita in the ed. Lugd. 1565 may be due to a simple error. peto: note the gloss rogo which has slipped into the text of O. For peto, cf. 112, 122. meritis: AbO coincide in including a -que to attenuate the asyndeton (uid. append.). However, the peto and expendite clauses are far from being parallel and it is this juxtaposition which has the function of evoking effectively the adversative-illative opposition between them. expendite: in spite of the variants presented in the mss. (uid. append.), the Ovidian expression is clear and of almost technical precision (cf. the glosses ‘soluite  … rectum’ written above in V32): cf. Cic. or. 2.309: equidem cum colligo argumenta causarum, non tam ea numerare soleo quam expendere; Plin. epist. 1.22.10: deliberare uero et causas eius expendere; Tac. ann. 13.27: priuatim expenderent causam libertorum; 14.35: si causas belli secum expenderent. 151: Telamon Peleusque: some mss. (uid. append.) present yet another example of inversion with a metrical result. 152: Aiacis meritum non sit: another case (cf. previous l.) of inversion with a metrical result in some mss. (uid. append.). It is surprising that the mss. do not transmit ne instead of this non + subj. (for the usage, see Simmons 1889, 94  f.; Keene 1898, 67; Bömer 1982, 243). nec: in addition to the recurring alternation with neque (uid. app.), mss. AbV9 Li3To have opted to repeat non, an anaphora that improves the text in that it makes clear the link between sanguinis ordo and the previous clause quod … fuerunt, but which is backed by very little support. 153: honor: for the alternation in the honor/honos spellings, uid. ad 96. The present context, where the word is followed by an initial s-, would appear to

112

Commentary

recommend the form honor, as transmitted by the best mss., in spite of the opinion of Heinsius (1659, 333; uid. append.). Bothe referred to the variant honos in the following terms (1818, 130): “ob concursum s litterae minus placet in eloquente, qualis est Ulysses”. 154–156: Aut si proximitas primusque requiritur heres, est genitor Peleus, est Pyrrhus filius illi:       quis locus Aiaci? Pthiam haec Scyrumue ferantur!

155

• 156 h(a)ec] om. A2 B2B5(mg. B52)DrE(i.l. E2)FeHdLdLd2Lr5Lr6Mo(i.l. a m.p.)MtN2O3V6V7V9Vd Ld6Lr8Mo3Mt3P5P8P10 FtMcVt Go2P41Vd11, Puteol. 1471, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836  : -ue A2CsV8  : haec(per comp.) ue Ds • Scyrumue] Sc(h)yronue As, Venet. 1472, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Merkel 1850, Koch 1866  : Sc(h)yronque Cs32(h suprascr.) P38(scy-) Ld13(scy-), Puteol. 1471, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502  : Scyrumque Hill 2000 •

154: aut: we are again presented with the habitual alternate forms in other monosyllables (uid. append.). heres: this n. tends to be confused in the mss. with heros (uid. append. and cf. 129), especially at the end of a line, a position in which the former noun is so frequent (cf. e.  g. 166, precisely the line which has led to the omission of ll. 154–65 in Pr in moving on from f. 79v to 80r as a result of saut du même au même). In our passage the reading, in any case, offers no doubts, both because of its precise technical sense (Bömer 1982, 244; Hopkinson 2000, 112; Hardie 2015, 239) and in view of its Virgilian model (Aen. 7. 424): abnegat, externusque in regnum quaeritur heres. 155: est … est: the instability characteristic of this verbal form, generally transmitted as an abbreviation, gives rise to variants (uid. append.) of no great significance. Heinsius (1659, 333) offers us this comment: “pro Est genitor Oxon. non male En genitor. & tum etiam foret scribendum en Pyrrhus.” Although en is preferable in this context and would appear to be more authentic than est when the two are at odds in the transmission of a text, the witnesses for en in this line do not enable it to be considered the genuine form. est Pyrrhus: note the striking coincidence of N and So in the singular reading P(y/i)rrus quoque, which N2 corrects by writing est above as u.l. on Pyrrus, not on the gloss quoque (uid. append.). Note the form purus in V8 B14, originating from the spelling pirrus, which is the majority reading of the mss. (uid. append.). The copyist of B14 has misinterpreted the text of Ls, where the reading is pirrus although the spelling might suggest purus.



Commentary

113

filius: the copyist of Lr7 has misread the strokes, leaving us with the absurd fuluis. And the copyist of N2 has mistakenly repeated genitor, a reading corrected in N22. 156: quis: note (uid. append.) the grammatical regularization of T7, which gives the adj. qui. “The distinction seems to be that quis simply asks for identification, qui for description and characterisation also” (Simmons 1889, 95). Pthiam haec Scyrumue ferantur: as always happens when non-Latin proper names appear, the number of written forms is multiplied exponentially (uid. app. et append.). If we add to this the appearance of haec and -ue under the wing of these names, chaos is guaranteed. Note the omission of haec in several mss. (or its replacement by -ue, with spellings such as phyam uesirumque in Cs), as well as in the edd. of Puteol. 1471 and Heinsius 1659, along with others following in the latter’s wake down to Bach 1836, and observe also other false breaks at the end of the line with forms such as ueferantur, ueteratur, referantur, ferebantur. Pthiam: most of the edd. give Phthiam, which is supposedly more etymological but in fact one of those “false forms” which Hall (1980, 64) warned the reader against. Magnus (1914, 487) was the first to reintroduce the correct form Pthiam (see Schulze 1894, 42–85 and esp. 50–2, 81–5), though attributing the proposal to Vollmer (“suasit Vollmer”). However, a significant number of later edd. (e.  g., Ehwald 1915 [already in H-K-E 1898], Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Fink 2007) kept the traditional form. Heinsius (1659) had previously gone one step further and published, on the testimony of the “sec. Moret.”, Phthian, a metrical reading given his omission of haec. This form was followed only by Walch. 1731 and Bothe 18182. Scyrumue: working from the mutiple variants in the mss. (uid. append.), the editors are split between those who prefer the Latin or Greek ending (-um/-on) and those who favour the disjunctive or copulative enclitic (-ue/que). As regards the ending, practically all the mss. in group Γ give -um: I have found -on only in Lu, which in any case gives the gemination scyron syrumue. As for the enclitic, the disjunctive seems clearly preferable, both because it is generally rarer in the transmission and because this sense is required here, since Ulysses is suggesting that the arms of Achilles should be taken to his father (Pthiam; cf. Hom. Il. 19.323) or his son (Scyrum; cf. ibid. 326), and it would make no sense to split up and share them or carry out two successive deliveries. 157–158: Nec minus est isto Teucer patruelis Achilli: num petit ille tamen? num, si petat, auferat illa? • 157 est isto] est istic N(p.c.) Ds(a.c.) BoP28 P47  : istic est V3 H2(a.c.)P4V4, “pri. Cantabr.” test. Heinsius 1659  : est isti GfN(a.c.)S2 AbEFGL4Ld3Lr6Lr7LsN2O4Tr Go B14Es6Nr3

114

Commentary

P46, “quinque alii” test. Heinsius 1659, Venet. 1472  : isti est F Nr3  : est illic M Mo(a.c.) Lr27  : est illo Lr4V8 B8Mt3So Bo3F2Ld11Z  : est huic Mo(p.c.)  : hic est Es3  : isto Ft  : isto est H2(p.c.)O3V9(a.c.) Li3Mt2 Es2  : iste est Tu  : est ipso B12  : in isto est “in uno Mediceo” test. Heinsius 1659  : en ipsi uel extincto dub. prop. Heinsius 1659 • 158 num1] non AGfLr2LuN(p.c.; num uid.,. a.c. et item i.l. u.l. N2)P2(uid.; num p.c.)V2 A2A3AbBB3B4(corr. B42)BaBe2DrEFFeG(p.c. a m.p.; num uid., a.c.)GgH2HdL4Ld22(p.c.)Ld3Lr3(uid.)Lr4Lr5Lr6Lr7LsMtOO4P3TrV4(p.c.)V5V6V7Vd B8Bs3DsDs2EtGoLr8Mt3P5P8P10SoTo B12BoBo2Cs3Es2Es3(p.c.; num uid., a.c.)FtMcMt4Mt5To2 AsB14Bo3CvEs4Es5Es6F2Ld11Lr22Lu2P38P41PsV30Vd11 P46Ca2P47Ld13, edd. ss. XV-XVI, Weise 1845  : nec A4B2(a.c.)CCsLdO3V8 Ld6Mo3V16, “in uno Maffei” test. et prob. Ciof. 1575, “Cael., Sulm. 1, 2” test. Jahn 1832 • ille … illa LuMS2V2 DrLr3MoMtN2T7Tr DsP8 Es3 Bo3Lr27Vd11 Ld13, “Codd. Viv.” test. Jahn 1832, Puteol. 1471, edd.  : ille … ille BLs B14, Tarrant 2004, mallet Huyck 1991(in app.)  : ille … arma N(arma N2 p.c.; quid a.c. n.l.) Ω, Plan., Aler. 1471, Calph. 1474, Lugd. 1546(mg.), Lugd. 1565(mg.), Ciof. 1575, Heinsius 1659(qui “plurimi ueteres” test.), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Koch 1866, prob. Vossius  : ille … ipse B52(mg.)BaO4 McTo2 P41  : ille … ipsa O42  : illa … illa V5 P5To, Bentley  : illa … arma Vd Bs3 Ps(ille sinist. mg. scr. m.p.)  : ista … arma Mt3 • num2] nec GfN(num u.l. N2)V2 A2A4B2B3CsLdLr5(num u.l.)O3P32(num P3)V6 B8Bs3Ds2Ld6Mo3P5P10So B12To2 Es5Lr22V30 Ca2(p.c.), in tribus suis codd. test. et prob. Ciof. 1575, Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Weise 1845  : non A3AbBB4(sed pro numquid suprascr. B43)B5BaBe2DrEFeGg(ñquid i.l.)L4(a.c.)Ld2Lr4Lr5(a.c.)LsN2(uid., a.c.)OO4P4V5V7Vd DsEtGoMt2P8 Es2Mc B14CvP41PsVd11 P46P47  : quid P2 a.c. n.l. • si petat] sperat ut MN(uid., a.c.) L4(postea eras.; si petat mg. L42)Lr4N2(uid., a.c.) Et Lr27Vd11, prob. Fanensis 1508, Heinsius 1659(qui et “excerpta Calandrae” test.), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828 •

157: est isto: the line (a good example of contamination in the assumed Lactantian and non-Lactantian families) presents a variation in the order of verb and monstrative, and numerous variants for the latter: isto, isti, istic, iste, illi, illic, illo, hic, huic, ipso (uid. app. et append.). As far as the order is concerned, the only option free of metrical problems is istic est, which I have found in V3 (Heinsius’ primus Palatinus, which was probably in his mind when in a slip he stated [1659, 334] “pri. Vatic.”, for V5 does not contain this reading), as well as in H2(a.c.)P4V4 and, again according to the testimony of Heinsius (ibid.), in the “pri. Cantabr.” (it is certainly not so in CC2C3). As for the deictic, Ovid uses the combination est istic / istic est on only two occasions (epist. 18.207; Pont. 1.9.46), with an adverbial use of the monstrative in both but not in a comparative construction, which I have only found in Ter. Maur. 442: non minus est istic. Much more frequent is the use of the adv. illic by Ovid, but in our passage it is attested only in M (where the reading may be more like illtc), Mo(a.c.) and Lr27. The other variants worth considering are divided between abl. (isto, illo) and dat. forms (isti, illi). The copyists, in my view, felt uncomfortable with the comparison minus patruelis isto, in which patruelis appears in its full adjectival sense: cf. e.  g. Ter. Phor. 597  f.: ubi Phaedriae esse ostenderet nihilo minus / amicum esse quam Antiphoni; Sen. ben. 7.12.3: non magis amici sunt (Cic. Planc. 72.3); Simmons 1889, 95: “Teucer is Achilles’ cousin as well as he”; Bömer 1982, 245: “Teucer



Commentary

115

ist ebenso patruelis (…) wie Aiax”; this also appears to be the interpretation of Planudes: Ἔστι δ’ οὐδὲν ἧττον τούτου καὶ ὁ Τεῦκρος ἀνεψιὸς τῷ Πηλείδῃ. Others took est as having an absolute value (= uiuit), which probably opened the door to the adverbial forms istic, illic, analysed above. This awkwardness also gave rise to the formulas with the dative, banal in our context. However, this seems not to have been the view of Heinsius, who tentatively proposed (ibid.) another two formulas with the dative: en ipsi and extincto (not extincti, as erroneously stated by Magnus 1914, 487 in app.). In view of the weight of the manuscripts, the relative rareness of the syntactic construction and the greater suitability of the paradigm of iste in the pejorative references of the two contestants (uid. ad 11, 19, 58), the genuine reading, in my view, is est isto. Achilli: for the strange variant origo offered by Cs and Bo2(a.c. a m.p.), cf. 1.352: quam commune mihi genus et patruelis origo and other lines with similar endings: e.  g. Lucr. 5.176 (5.324, 5.1212): genitalis origo; Ou. met. 13.609 (12.471; Stat. silu. 5.3.124): natalis origo. 158: there is not a single word in this line that has not been altered in the course of transmission. Let us begin with the verbs, as they present fewer problems. petit: in reality all the mss. give this (with the occasional variants petetpetat: uid. append.), although we find the metrical inversion tamen ille petit in FeHdLr5 GoV16 as well as “in uno Maffei”, according to Ciofanus (1575, 171). si petat: leaving aside other variants of lesser interest (uid. append.), the weightiest alternative is sperat ut, both for its intrinsic value and because it is the reading of M (although symptomatically not of the very close Bo3, which gives non petit ille tamen, num si petat auferat illa), most likely also that of N(a.c.) and of a few other mss. (uid. app.), to which must be added the unidentified excerpta Calandrae according to the testimony of Heinsius (1659, 334). This reading also received the timid approval of G. Costanzi (Fanensis 1508, ad loc.): “Exemplaria non mendosa sic habent. Nec sperat ut auferat arma”, and was adopted by Heinsius, who was followed by a very small number of edd. (some degree of sympathy was also shown by Luck 2005b, 266). Although from the palaeographical point of view the confusion si petat / sperat may have arisen in either direction (the necessary addition of ut, however, argues against sperat), the repetition in petit … petat (cf. e.  g. 122; Bothe 1818, 130: “repetitio uerbi petere uere Ouidiana”; Wills 1996, 290–310, esp. 304–6) is much more in line with Ovid’s style. Cf. in addition Hor. epist. 1.6.16; Ou. Fast. 1.599. auferat: prominent among the different variants transmitted (uid. append.) is the future auferet, given by a handful of mss. of different periods, translated by Planudes (λήψεται) and published only by Bothe (18182). The alternation between fut. and subj. forms is systematic in the mss. and in this case is also conditioned by the eventual decision on the modality of the phrase, as we shall see below.

116

Commentary

ille … illa: all of the transmitted variants in this line coincide in having two members, at the syntactic pause in the position of the penthemimeral caesura. If on top of this we have the almost unanimous coincidence of the mss. in other resources of parallelism through repetition such as petit … petat and num … num (or other variants; uid. infra), we must conclude that in the case of pronouns too what is most to be expected and best-suited to this line is some form of the pron. ille. Indeed, with the exception of a small minority of mss. which offer in the first hemistich the variants ista or illa (the latter noted by Bentley with no arguments – see Hedicke 1905, 32 – and generally attributed to him by the editors, although I have found it in mss. Bs3V5Vd P5To Ps), the reading ille here is unanimous (uid. app.). This being so, it seems prudent to treat with suspicion in the second hemistich what is actually the majority reading of the mss.: arma, the reading translated by Planudes (ἀλλ’ οὐ μέντοι γε τὰ ὅπλα ἐκεῖνος αἰτεῖ· ἤ, εἰ καὶ αἰτήσειε, λήψεται;) and accepted by a considerable number of edd. from Aler. 1471 to Koch 1866. And if the stylistic arguments are insufficient, it is obvious that arma may have originated as a gloss on illa whereas the contrary is not feasible. The reading illa, which does maintain the parallelism and enables the origin of the variant arma to be explained, is transmitted by a small but authoritative group of mss. (to which should probably be added N a.c.: uid. app. et append.) and has been the choice in a majority of edd. since Puteol. 1471 (that the use of ille … illa in a single line with different referents is “umgangssprachlich”: Bömer 1982, 245, is no argument against). Finally, two 12th c. mss. (BLs) and B14 (s. XV), an apograph of the latter, have the variant ille, which Huyck preferred in his app. (1991, 78: “mallem”, with no ms. backing) and which he defended in his comm. (p. 141) by attacking the variant which he himself had published (ille  … illa): “A meretricious variation whose only effect is to divert attention from the two points of logical emphasis, the verbs petit and auferat. Ovid may well have written illa…illa (Bentley) or, still more likely, ille…ille.” These arguments must have convinced Tarrant, the only editor to incorporate ille … ille into his text (now Holzberg 2017 too), attributing it (2004, 376 in app.) to Huyck (in the same line, Hardie 2015, 239: “La variazione ille … illa distoglie l’attenzione; […] ille … ille ha una maggiore carica espressiva”). However, the “diverting” effect pointed to by Huyck would also be perceptible in the ille  … ille repetition, both in that it is a rhetorical device and because its presence is unnecessary in Latin. As I have argued above, I think that the better choice is the variant illa, which Ulysses would be using to refer once more to the arma (l. 150) by means of a monstrative pronoun, as in l. 156 (haec). num … num: leaving aside (uid. append.) banal or clearly erroneous variants, the mss. present a wide range of combinations which give rise basically to four patterns depending on the modality of the phrase: 1, two interrogative sentences; 2, two declarative; 3, a declarative plus an interrogative; 4, an interrogative plus a declarative (although I consider them the result of error,



Commentary

117

other readings which do not fit into these patterns should not be forgotten, for example, those of Hd: non tamen ille petit si n[damn.] petat auferat arma; V9: nun[sic] petit ille tamen si nô petat auferat arma; and C: nec petit ille tamen ne si petat auferat arma). The particles introducing each clause in both hemistichs (uid. app.) are num (the majority choice of the edd.), non (the form most frequent in the mss.) and nec (which also has not-unconsiderable support). To enable the reader to have a clearer idea of the variants, here they are, exemplified with the different possible punctuations (separated by /): 1, Nec minus est isto Teucer patruelis Achilli: num petit ille tamen? num, si petat, auferat illa? 2, Nec minus est isto Teucer patruelis Achilli:/, nec/non petit ille tamen, nec/non, si petat, auferat illa. 3, Nec minus est isto Teucer patruelis Achilli:/, nec/non petit ille tamen;/. num, si petat, auferat illa? 4, Nec minus est isto Teucer patruelis Achilli: num petit ille tamen? non/nec, si petat, auferat illa.

As can be observed, all make full sense and all have sufficient support in the transmission. However, the overwhelming evidence that the line has a bimember, parallel construction would seem to argue against patterns 3 and 4 and in favour of the first two. In pattern 2, in turn, I believe that nec should be ruled out in favour of non, at least in the first hemistich, both because this nec could originate in the one opening the previous line and because this succession of three instances of nec would be completely inappropriate to join three clauses which are not on the same level, since it is clear that the one in l. 157 presents the argument and the two in l. 158 offer the proof or conclusion. We are faced, therefore, with the usual non-num alternation (ñ/nô as against ñ/nû), in which the invading word, in the sense of being the most frequent, is non. This pointer in favour of pattern 1 is reinforced, as I see it, by a tactical rhetorical argument: Ulysses is arguing that, if it is a matter of looking for heirs to the arms of Achilles by lineage, Peleus and Pyrrhus are in front of Aias, and on a par with him is Teucer, who, however, neither claims them nor, it goes without saying, deserves them, thus invalidating the argument of family inheritance. However, it is not appropriate for Ulysses, as one of the parties being judged, to express so emphatically a verdict which would in any case be the competence of the judges present. It is much more astute to use different questions to prompt those same judges to be the ones who reach that same verdict in their own minds. For the expression num tamen … num, cf. am. 1.8.7  f.; cf. also epist. 18.41  f.: tam gelidus quod sis, num te tamen, improbe, quondam / ignibus Actaeis incaluisse negas?, a passage affected by a similar instability in the transmission, non being the reading of several mss., all of them recentiores apart from G (Guelf. 260, s. XII), in which the reading is dubious (see Dörrie 1971, 234 in app.), while num has the support of older mss. (Sedlmayer 1881, 66:

118

Commentary

“Ebenso ist num aus P herzustellen, wodurch der Satz die Form der Frage erhält. Merkel und Riese geben aus den jüngeren Hss. Non”). 159–161: ergo operum quoniam nudum certamen habetur, plura quidem feci quam quae comprendere dictis  in promptu mihi sit; rerum tamen ordine ducar.

160

• 161 sit] sint GfLr2N2(p.c.; sit a.c. N et item i.l. u.l. N2)P2V2 B52(p.c.)FeH3Lr7Mo(a.c.)MtP32(p.c.)P4V4 B8Li3Mt2Mt3To To2 Es3Es4Lu2Vd11  : sunt B3B5Be2LsV9 DsLd6 B12Rd B14, Venet. 1472(sit 1474)  : est P38  : non B122(mg. u.l.)  : om. F2Ld11 Ca2(a.c.)  : sine Puteol. 1471(uitio preli) • ducar] dicam A2(mg.)Lr2(per comp.) Fe(ducar u.l. Fe2)L4Ld22(u.l.)T7Tu(p.c.) Ds To FtMt4(uid., a.c.) Cv(u.l. a m.p.)Lu2Ps Ni  : ducam M2(a.c.) Tu(a.c.)V4(a.c.)  : dicar Gf(a.c.)M2(p.c.) N2(a.c.)P3(a.c.) McP28Rd2(u.l.)  : durcar Go(a.c.)  : ducor F2Ld11 •

159: nudum: one striking variant among the different ones found, many of them due to the non-num alternation, is apertum, which Bothe (1818, 130) explains in these terms: “quod fuisse uidetur initio: qu. putum cert.” My understanding is that he is simply trying here to explain the origin of the variant apertum, i.  e. as having derived from a reading pŭtum which, naturally, would have to be a gloss given that it is just as unmetrical as apertum (unless pŭtum is a mistake for pūrum). I find this explanation unnecessarily complicated, since apertum (certamen) as a gloss is self-explanatory. In any case, the variant is interesting as it is the exclusive reading of Ls B14 and the ed. Venet. 1472, this not being an isolated coincidence. 160–194: ms. Ph2 (ca. 1200) omitted these lines and a later hand restored them in the margin. Given that there are no other internal indicators that might point to a jump on the part of the copyist, we may surmise for Ph2 a jump of one folio in an antigraph containing 17 ll. per page. 160: quam quae: as is habitual, and more so when preceded by quam, the relative quae is found replaced by other words (uid. append.). comprendere: among the numerous mss. which give the unmetrical spelling comprehendere (uid. append.), note that Ds2 (alter codex Bersmanni) presents an etymological spelling which aims to reconstruct the metrical structure of the line: pl. qu. feci quam compraehendere dictis. For the model, cf. Lucr. 6.1083: nec me tam multam hic operam consumere par est, / sed breuiter paucis praestat comprendere multa. dictis: the variant uerbis (Es6F2Ld11Z), irrelevant here as it has so little backing, is nevertheless a further illustration of the close relationship between F2Ld11Z. 161: in promptu: note that a significant number of mss. transmit the form in -um (uid. append.). For the constr., cf. 2.86. sit: a misinterpretation of quae as subj. and not obj. of comprendere led many copyists of different periods to write sint or sunt (uid. app.). Note once more the coincidence of Venet. 1472 with Ls and B14 in the reading sunt.



Commentary

119

ducar: this genuine form (cf. the distant model of Verg. Aen. 1.341  f.: Longa est iniuria, longae / ambages, sed summa sequar fastigia rerum) was replaced by the pregnant dicam in some mss., among them the one which Magnus (1914, 488) calls “cNicolaens”, described by Hellmuth (1883, 229  f.) and Munari (1957, nº 211), and which we have identified with our T7 (s. XII2): see Díez 2014, 309 ad 11.452 (fata) and cf. here ad 202 (at), 223 (fugit) and cf. 235 (repono). Our textual deduction is also reinforced by the old catalographic fiche accompanying the fragment in the folder where it is currently stored in the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek in Munich, on which appears in parentheses: “(von St. Nicola bei Passau)”. 162–164: Praescia uenturi genetrix Nereïa leti dissimulat cultu natum, et deceperat omnes – in quibus Aiacem – sumptae fallacia uestis. • 163 et] om. V7 Mt4, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Merkel 1850, Polle 1888, Keene 1898  : ɔ Ld6  : ex Ft •

162: genetrix: for this form, recovered among the edd. by Burman (1727) against the spelling genitrix of the majority of mss. and edd. down to Koch 1866 (uid. append.), see TLL 6.2.1821.19–30. For praescia uenturi, cf. Verg. Aen. 6.66; for the unique expression genetrix Nereïa, see Bömer 1982, 247. 163: cultu natum: some mss. (uid. append.) present another case of inversion with a metrical result: natum cultu. et: only two of the mss. I have collated (V7 Mt4) have the usual omission of et, although Heinsius adopts this reading on the authority of “septem ueteres” (1659, 334), and is followed by some other editors and commentators down to Keene 1898. Cf. Bothe (1818, 130): “nec placet asyndeton uulgatarum editionum”. 165–170: Arma ego femineis animum motura uirilem       165 mercibus inserui, neque adhuc proiecerat heros uirgineos habitus, cum parmam hastamque tenenti “nate dea,” dixi “tibi se peritura reseruant Pergama: quid dubitas ingentem euertere Troiam?”, 170 iniecique manum fortemque ad fortia misi.         • 169 euertere] uertere Lr2M2 BCs Ft Lu2, “quinque aut sex” test. Heinsius 1659  : euetere B5(a.c.)  : perdere(per comp.) N2 • 170 misi] moui A Go2 : missi A3(a.c.)  : duxi dub. Slater 1927 •

120

Commentary

166: neque: for the neque/nec alternation in the mss. (uid. append.), uid. ad 127. proiecerat: Burman attests and approves in his notes (1727, 868  f.: “duo libri; non male”) the variant deiecerat (I have found it only in V9) and adds this information: “Heinsius malebat, reiecerat. non ego” (I have found this variant in Tr Es5; Heinsius’ observation may come from an annotation in b3, 355). The two verbs reappear together in other passages, such as 2.582, where Burman again defends deicere in the following terms (1727, I, 139): “Deiicere] Multi codices, reiicere, quae sollemnis scribarum est aberratio. sed deiicere uestem est in terram proiicere, reiicere in tergum”. As can be seen, these same words of Burman support the suitability of proicere: “to throw down” (cf. e.  g. epist. 21.165: proicit ipse sua deductas fronte coronas; Hor. serm. 2.7.53: proiectis insignibus; Verg. Aen. 5.673: galeam ante pedes proiecit inanem; 9.577: proiecto tegmine) for the gesture of Achilles, who rapidly strips himself of his female disguise to wield the arms. 167: cum … tenenti: the sequence has led the copyist of N to a false association, leaving us with the reading cui for cum (uid. append.). In turn, the dative of the pres. part. at the end of a line presents the usual deformations. For the formal model of the line, see Hardie 2015, 240. 169: euertere: no doubt inspired by the Virgilian model (Aen. 5.810: cuperem cum uertere ab imo / structa meis manibus periurae moenia Troiae; cf. 2.625: ex imo uerti Neptunia Troia), some mss. (uid. app.) transmit the simple verb uertere (complementarily, in the Virgilian passage euertere is the reading of at least the important mss. Pγ). Given that both verbs fully fit the context and, moreover, in view of the fact that its precise meaning makes it the compound verb that is required here (see Burm. 1727, I, 841 ad Nuc. 161), it seems wise to respect the majority reading (cf. ll. 623  f.: euersam Troiae … fidem; fast. 1.523: euersa … Troia; see Bömer 1982, 248; Hopkinson 2000, 115). Note also (uid. append.) the metrical reading of O4: tu euertere, in which the pron. no doubt comes from a clarification written above dubitas. Cf. also ad 393 (e)ducere; 888 (e)uanescere. 170: iniecique manum: cf. am. 1.4.40: et dicam ‘mea sunt!’ iniciamque manum; 2.5.30: iniciam dominas in mea iura manus; epist. 12.158: clamarem ‘meus est!’ iniceremque manus; Verg. Aen. 10.419: iniecere manum Parcae (perhaps also in Catull. 35.9  f.: manusque collo / ambas iniciens, but cf. Thomson 1997, 295 ad loc.). This is a legal formula already present in the text of the XII Tables (1.1.): manum endo iacito: cf. Seru. ad Verg. Aen. 10.419: sermone usus est iuris (cf. Gai. inst. 4.21). See Simmons 1889, 97; Keene 1898, 68; Bömer 1982, 248; Huyck 1991, 142  f.; Hopkinson 2000, 115; Hardie 2015, 240  f. misi: although they are not unattractive, there is no case for considering either the variant moui (A Go2) or the timid proposal by Slater (1927, ad loc.): duxi, which is suggested to him by a “similis uarietas” in the text of “Narrat Fab ad 11.329” (a variant I have been unable to find: cf. Magnus 1914, 694; Slater 1927, ad loc.; for the variants dixi/misi in 11.329, see Díez 2014, 239  f.). For misi, cf. Verg. Aen. 6.812 (cf. 11.47): missus in imperium magnum.



Commentary

121

171–176: Ergo opera illius mea sunt: ego Telephon hasta pugnantem domui, uictum orantemque refeci; quod Thebae cecidere, meum est; me credite Lesbon, me Tenedon Chrysenque et Cillan, Apollinis urbes, et Scyrum cepisse; mea concussa putate        175 procubuisse solo Lyrnesia moenia dextra; • 174 apollinis Ω, edd.  : et apollinis L3LuMM2NP2S2V2 A3AbB3B4CsEFFeH3Ld2Lr3Lr7MoN2OT7TuV8 B8DsDs2Ld6Lr8Mo3Mt2P10SoToV16 Bo2(uid.)Cs3Es22(p.c.)Es32(p.c.)Mt5RdTo2Vt AsBo3CvEs4Es6F2Ld11Lr27PsVd11Z  : apollinus(uel –iis) B5  : et in appollinis V5(a.c.) • 175 Scyrum Ω, edd.  : syrum Lr4 Es5, Regius 1493  : Syron “Rhen.”(cyrum hab. Tu) test. Jahn 1832, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596(qui tamen Scyron mg. prob.), Gronouius, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Weise 1845  : Scyron Aldina 1502, prop. Micyl. (retract. 1549, “sed pro urbe”), prob. Jahn 1832, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Koch 1866, Huyck 1991, Tarrant 2004  : Seston(sextum Mc) dub. mg. coni. Regius 1493  : Scepsin dub. Micyl. 1543  : Siphnon “nescio quis” test. Magnus 1914 •

173: est: again some mss. (uid. append.) omit this verb while not disrupting the metre, although in the present line there is no doubt that it should be there (cf. 171: mea sunt; 237: est, in the same position; epist. 12.205  f.; see Bömer 1982, 249). me: note the reading mihi of N, stemming from a misinterpretation of the syntax of credite, which is in fact followed by the acc.+inf. construction me credite … cepisse (173–5). 174: the appearance of proper names, especially Greek ones, leads to the ms. variants multiplying exponentially (uid. append.) and even prompts some copyists to reconstruct a line with a certain ability, as is the case of the excerpta Ca2 (s. XIII), which give us this reading: Me crisem et tenedon me scillam apollinis urbes. In the present passage the obvious Homeric model (Simmons 1889, 98; Keene 1898, 69; Bömer 1982, 249; Hopkinson 2000, 116; Hardie 2015, 241) of Chryses’ prayer to Apollo (Il. 1.35–8: πολλὰ δ’ ἔπειτ’ ἀπάνευθε κιὼν ἠρᾶθ’ ὃ γεραιὸς / Ἀπόλλωνι ἄνακτι, τὸν ἠΰκομος τέκε Λητώ· / “κλῦθί μευ ἀργυρότοξ’, ὃς Χρύσην ἀμφιβέβηκας / Κίλλάν τε ζαθέην Τενέδοιό τε ἶφι ἀνάσσεις) ratifies both the spelling of the names (Chrysen and Cillan) and the appositive function of the syntagm Apollinis urbes, which in many mss. (uid. app.) is linked to the previous names by means of an inappropriate conj. et (with synaloepha of Cillam), occasioned by the preceding sequence -que et itself (cf. Prop. 3.9.37). Note, in any case, that these very misspellings enable certain connections to be detected between mss., one example out of many being that already indicated between M-N(a.c.), on the one hand, and N(p.c.)-V2, on the other. 175: Scyrum: the numerous variants actually transmitted by the mss. (uid. app. et append.) can, however, be summarized as follows: Scyrum, supported by the majority of mss. (in this exact form or different deformations of it) and

122

Commentary

of edd.; Scyron, not transmitted exactly in this form but in approximate spellings such as sciron, schiron, scirom, chiron and scito, printed by the 1st Aldina (1502) and followed by Jahn 1832, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Koch 1866, Huyck 1991 and Tarrant 2004 (although in 377 in app. he appears to follow Scyrum); Syrum, transmitted only by Lr4 and Es5 (and indirectly by Bo p.c.: sirum) and published and defended by Regius 1493, among others; Cyprum, which can be traced to the form ciprum of A3Vd(p.c.); Schoenum, transmitted by P38 and published by Calph. 1474 (Schaenum in 1480; cf. also the variant scoenen, a reading I have found in Ld13, excerpta from the 15th c.). The other forms which come into play have not been transmitted by the mss., as we shall see. Leaving to one side the more implausible forms Cyprum and Schoenum (for the latter, cf. e.  g. Hom. 2.497; Plin. nat. 4.18, 23, 26; 5.104), critics have attributed to Naugerius (1516) the conjecture Syron, although Regius 1493 had already published Syrum (supported, it should be recalled, by Lr4 and Es5, and indirectly by Bo p.c.: sirum) with this note in the margin: “Syros absque  .c. insula est ioniae cum urbe eiusdem nominis. Nam scyros per  .c. patria est Lycomedis.’” The form Syron was read by Jahn (1832, 822) in the “Rhen.” (also by Magnus 1914, 488), but once again this testimony does not coincide with the reading of Tu, in which the reading is cyrum. Tarrant (2004, 376), for his part, finds it in what he calls v3, which ought to correspond to the fragmentum Theatinorum Romae of Heinsius (Romanum Bibl. Vallicelliana F.25, s. XIIex, our ms. R), but this fragment contains no lines from book XIII (this attribution is repeated by Luck 2005, 215). This reading Syron of Naugerius (1516; in the digitized copy of Aldina 1502 I have at my disposal someone  – perhaps Naugerius himself  – has crossed out the -c- of Scyron) was followed by the edd. Gryphianae (Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565) and after them, as usual, by Bersman (1596), although he notes in the margin that he prefers Scyron: “Scyron. m.sc. recte. Intelligit enim urbem cuius meminit Homer. ἰλ. ί” (again the testimony should be taken as approximate, as of the two known mss. Ds gives scyrû and Ds2 has chyrum). This was likewise the reading published by Heinsius 1659 and other edd. after him down to Weise 1845 (uid. app.), although even before Heinsius Samuel Petitus (1642, 28) had put it forward as a conjecture for both Sen. Tro. 226 and our passage, and from him it was picked up in turn by Gronouius in his note on Sen. Tro. 225 (1662b, 383  f.). That is to say, Gronouius, like Petitus before him, backs up his conjecture Syros for our passage on the basis of the conjecture he makes for the passage of Seneca: “De Syro uindicat Nasonem hic locus Senecae” (ibid.; see also Keulen 2001, 205  f. ad 226; Billerbeck-Somazzi 2009, 22). For his part, Regius himself (1493), immediately after the marginal explanation reported above, proposes the following conjecture: “Tametsi seston forsitan non inepte legeretur. Est enim Sestus urbs hellesponti notissima’” (cf. the reading sextum in Mc). In a long note on the passage, Micyllus (1543, 286), who in his text had published Syrum, in debt as he was to the 2nd ed. of Regius (1513; see Igle-



Commentary

123

sias-Álvarez 2006, 124  f.), hesitantly suggests Scepsin, although his most obvious motivation is not to propose this reading but to rule out both Syrum and Seston: “Locus obscurus est. neque enim Graeci alibi legunt expugnasse Cycladas, inter quas Syrus a Strabone refertur libro decimo, neque Scyron Achilles, in qua seruatus fuerat, filiumque ex Deïdamia Neoptolemum procrearat. Aut igitur mendae aliquid inesse nomini Syro dicendum, aut una ex undecim urbibus, quas Achilles ante expugnationem Troiae cepisse dicitur, eadem haec accipienda, quandoquidem cum Chrysa, Cylla, & Lyrnesso recensetur. […] Apud Strabonem autem lib. 13. & Scepsis quaedam memoratur, ubi regia Aeneae fuerit, & ex qua idem Lyrnessum aufugerit, quando ea loca ab Achille uastabantur. Vnde ipse Achilles apud Homerum Aeneae obiicit: [Hom. Il. 20.188–92]. Vt hinc aliquis, Scepsin magis quam Seston, quod Regio placet, pro Syro reponendum putare possit. Quanquam mihi neque hoc, neque illud satis probatur, quando neutrum cum priore uoce conuenit”. Only a few years later, however, he came out openly in favour of Scyron (Micyl. retract. 1549, s.p.): “Recte legitur hoc loco Scyron: sed pro urbe, cuius & Homerus meminit nono Iliados, his uersibus: [Il. 9.663–8]”. He goes on to state: “Quo loco Coment. addit, Σκῦρος πόλις τῆς νῦν μὲν Φρυγίας, πρότερον δὲ Κιλικίας, ἔσι δὲ καὶ νῆσος τῶν Κυκλάδων, ἣν οὐ πορθήσας, ἀλλ’ εἰρηνικῶς καταλαβὼν ἐλαφυραγώγησεν. Et mox ἦν δὲ Ἐνυεῆὺς [sic] οὗτος υἱὸς Διονύσου”. Finally, Magnus (1914, 488 in app.) reports the conjecture Siphnon (cf. 7.464–6) although without indicating its author (“nescio quis”), this information no doubt obtained from Jahn (1832, 822): “Coniecerunt Seston, Scepsin, aut Siphnon”. However, as is noted by the bulk of the commentators (Simmons 1889, 98; Keene 1898, 69; Bömer 1982, 249  f.; Hardie 2015, 241), Ovid is referring here to the Phrygian city of Skyros (Σκῦρος), from the sacking of which Achilles brought Iphis as a companion for Patroclus (Hom. Il. 9.666–8, and cf. ibid. 664  f. for Achilles’ attack on Lesbos, to which Ovid is alluding here in l. 173; cf. also Sen. Tro. 215–27). Bömer (1982, 250) however describes as ancient (“seit der Antike”) the controversy over which of the two places named Skyros was being referred to by Homer in that passage: the Phrygian city or the well-known island (Wilson 1996, 248, for example, limits himself to mentioning the island and ignoring the controversy, and other commentators do not even deal with the toponym), but we have already seen that Micyllus himself had indicated that it would have been inappropiate for Achilles to plunder the island where he had found shelter and even a mother for his son Neoptolemus. It is true that the legend of Achilles hiding on Skyros dressed as a young maid is not in the Iliad (Bömer 1982, 246 ad 162), but it is in Ovid, which at the very least still makes the idea of the sacking of the island inappropriate here. The confusion with this identically named island is due to the latter’s greater renown (similarly, in l. 173 Ovid had mentioned Thebae in reference to the city in Misia and not the better-known towns in Boeotia or Egypt: cf.

124

Commentary

Hom. Il. 1.366  f.; Ou. met. 12.110 with the comm. by Bömer 1982, 46; see Simmons 1889, 97; Keene 1898, 68; Hopkinson 2000, 116) and to the fact that the former had already been mentioned in l. 156. Surprisingly, however, Hopkinson (ibid.) sees an argument in this in favour of the island: “Ovid, however, must refer to the island, which he has mentioned already in connexion with Achilles’ son (156)”. As regards the form, I have kept the Latin decl., as at l. 156 and in accordance with the vast majority of the ms. variants. mea: note the interesting exclusive reading of NV2: mea et (not mea est, as erroneously stated by Slater 1927, ad loc.), a hyperbaton for which I can find no clear parallels in Ovid. It is more likely that the conjunction originated in a faulty expansion, at some point in the transmission, of the abbreviation of con- in the following word. 177–180: utque alios taceam, qui saeuum perdere posset Hectora, nempe dedi: per me iacet inclitus Hector! Illis haec armis quibus est inuentus Achilles arma peto: uiuo dederam, post fata reposco.      

180

• 177 alios] alias M Lr27 P46, “Rhen.”(non sic Tu) test. Jahn 1832, Heinsius 1659(qui et “unus Mediceus” test.), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915 (alios 1898), van Proosdij 1951, H-K-E-A 1966, Segura 1983  : alio Es2 • 178–179 Hector / illis his armis Marklandus •

177: alios: this is the majority reading of the mss. and edd., but no less an authority than M (and Lr27) gives alias (I have also read it in P46, s. XII-XIII; Jahn 1832, 825 again mentions the testimony of the cod. “Rhen.”, but once more it fails to coincide withTu). Based on the testimony of M, to which he adds that of “unus Mediceus” (probably Lr27), Heinsius (1659, 334) adopted this reading “ut ad ciuitates expugnatas referatur”, and his decision was followed by a few edd. (uid. app.). However, this thesis was rejected by Loers (1843, 483): “Male Heinsius ex Flor. et uno Medic. edidit alias, ut enumeratio ciuitatum ab Achille occupatarum continuetur. Recta et elegans est scriptura librorum alios: nam ignobili uulgo ab Achille caesorum opponitur Hector”. Besides, it is sufficient to consider the sense of the subordinate clause introduced by ut (a final, not a “concessive” ut, as claimed by Hopkinson 2000, 117), which naturally leads us to the dedi clause and its logical conclusion per me iacet inclitus Hector, to recall what was already evident: that in general, examples of praeteritio are cataphoric and not anaphoric, i.  e. the clause is used to announce that there will be no mention of what in fact is immediately made explicit (“to mention no others, it is through me that famed Hector lies dead”). qui: some copyists have failed to notice that qui … posset depends on dedi as a relative clause with a consecutive nuance and have turned it into an inter-



Commentary

125

rogative: quis … posset. This must also have been aided by a false wordbreak (note e.  g. M2, where the reading is quisęuû, and uid. append.). perdere: although this reading, which is widespread in mss. and edd., is also the one used by Heinsius in his text, in the notes (1659, 334) he reproduces it as uincere, an obvious gloss which I have found only in Fe (uid. append.). posset: this verbal form presents the recurring alternation with the form possit (uid. append.), which is unsuitable here in a past context (dedi). In addition, in his Thuaneus optimus (P28, s. XIV) Heinsius found the variant posses, which he did not go so far as to publish but for which he did declare his sympathy (1659, 334: “quod placet”), a change to the 2nd person that would be inappropriate here, separated as it would be from any address to Achilles. 178–179: the constr. used in ll. 179  f. is certainly awkward (illis haec armis … / arma peto: “versus serpentinus”, Bömer 2006, 302, and see 1986, 107 ad 14.301) and even laden with a certain syntactical obscurity infrequent in Ovid: illis armis, for example, is taken as “in the strength of those [arms]”, as an “instrumental ablative”, by Simmons 1889, 98; as “on the ground of those [arms]” by Keene 1898, 69 (so too Hardie 2015, 241); as “Abl. causae” by Bömer 1982, 251 and by Hopkinson 2000, 118 as “on account of those weapons” (note the interesting reading pro illis haec armis… of Ps, which with no further support we must take as having originated in a grammatical clarification). This led Markland (1728, 328), who described the textus receptus as being “sine sensu”, to put forward a different arrangement of these lines on the basis of the minimal change of haec to his, that is, by making illis his armis and its subordinate relative clause depend on the iacet clause: per me iacet inclitus Hector / illis his armis qu. e. i. Achilles. However, this proposal replaces one rare usage with another, namely the juxtaposition illis his, and separates armis … arma which Ovid is using as a clear polyptoton (Bach 1836, 308 ad loc.: “Marcl. zu Stat. V, 5, 46 wollte abtheilen und lesen: per me iacet inclitus Hector Illis his armis, quibus etc., wodurch aber ein arger Misston erzeugt, und das Gedankenspiel mit armis – arma vernichtet wird”). 181–185: Vt dolor unius Danaos peruenit ad omnes Aulidaque Euboicam complerunt mille carinae, expectata diu nulla aut contraria classi flamina erant, duraeque iubent Agamemnona sortes immeritam saeuae natam mactare Dianae.        185 • 181 ad] in V2 • 184 erant Lr2MNV2 A4(i.l. a m.uid.p.)B5Lr4Lr6MoN2OP3V6 Ds2Lr8P5P10 BoP28Vt Bo3Lr22Lr27Lu2V30Vd11 P46P47, Plan., Aler. 1471, Riese 1872, Merkel 1875, edd.  : sunt Mt(p.c.; quid a.c. n.l.) Ω, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834,

126

Commentary

Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Merkel 1850, Koch 1866, Huyck 1991, def. Viuianus 1522  : errant L4  : dant P41  : om. Lu So •

181: ad: once again we find the alternation of ad/in, especially frequent in this position in the hexameter, but in this case V2 is the only ms. to diverge from the general reading. 182: complerunt: among the different variants of this unusual form in classical poetry (cf. Lucr. 6.197; see Bömer 1982, 251), all of them rejectable (uid. append.), it is worth noting impleuerunt (B P10), in that it represents an attempt to maintain the metrical scheme, and also complerant (V30), which in Lr22 and the ed. Aler. 1471 appears with a subjunctive complerent, possibly stemming from the dependence on ut. 183–184: note how the copyist of P41 (s. XV) manages to salvage the text working from simple errata: et sperata (et spectata in V7) diu nulla aut contraria uenti / flamina dant. For this manuscript’s propensity for conjecture, uid. ad 289. 184: erant: Tarrant (2004, xxiii) points to the variant sunt in this line as one of the common errors of the “non-Lactantian” family. Although the observation in itself is true, it should be noted that the distinction is not perfectly clear here, as is shown for example by the appearance of erant in Lr2. Leaving to one side the form errant (L4) and the already-mentioned dant (P41), note that the omission of the verbal form in Lu (pace Fabbri 1923, who chooses to read an erant which is not there) and in So would appear to point rather to two separate antigraphs with an abbreviation for sunt. This present form was followed by the majority of 15th c. edd. and by Viuianus and Bersman in the 16th (uid. app.) and explicitly defended by the former in these terms (1522, ad loc.): “sunt melius uidetur praesenti tempore, ut iubent denegat & c.” The support of Heinsius (1659, 334: “ueteres plerique sunt. recte”) was sufficient, not surprisingly, for it to be accepted by Burman and Walchius and by a large proportion of the edd. of the 19th century (including Merkel in his 1st ed.), while among 20th century editors it has found favour only with Huyck 1991 (and with no arguments presented). The imperf. erant, in turn, was transmitted by a select group of mss. in the wake of MNV2 (and note again the presence of MoN2 Bo3Lr22V30Vd11), translated by Planudes (ἦσαν) and published, among the 15th c. editions, only by the ed. princeps Romana, and by Naugerius (1516), the Gryphianae and Ciofanus (1575) in the following century, to be recovered much later, at the end of the 19th c., by Riese in his 1st ed. (1872) and by Merkel in his 2nd (1875), as well as by virtually all edd. since then. This form is undoubtedly preferable as a transition from the perfects peruenit – complerunt to the pres. iubent, and more so in that its durative character stresses the anxious wait of the Greeks at Aulis.



127

Commentary

186–190: Denegat hoc genitor diuisque irascitur ipsis, atque in rege tamen pater est. Ego mite parentis ingenium uerbis ad publica commoda uerti. Nunc equidem fateor – fassoque ignoscat Atrides –: difficilem tenui sub iniquo iudice causam.      

190

• 189–191 nunc … hunc] hunc (equidem … Atrides: / … causam), / hunc tandem coni. Vollmer • 189 nunc Ω, Aler. 1471, edd.  : hanc L3N2(p.alt.c.)V2V3 BaH2Ld3P3P4Ph23V52(mg.) Bs2 Rd, “Cantabr.  … et multi alii” test. Heinsius 1659, Puteol. 1471, prob. Vossius “cum plurimis”, Bentley, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Koch 1866, Korn 1880, Riese 1889(nunc 1872), Simmons 1889, Lejay 1894, Goold 1984, R. de Verger 2005  : huuc(sic) N(p.pr.c.; nunc a.c.)  : hunc DrGg(nunc i.l. u.l.), coni. Vollmer  : haec A2De P46  : hoc BPr B8Mt2 P47, “tres” test. Heinsius 1659  : N ñc Be2(nunc p.c.)  : hoc P8  : nec Es5Ps  : nanc Vt(nunc p.c.)  : tunc dub. Heinsius 1659(in notis) • (fassoque  … Atrides) dist. edd. plerique  : (equidem  … Atrides) dub. Heinsius 1659(in notis), Vossius, Bentley  : (fateor  … atrides) dist. P38, Calph. 1474, Bach 1836, Koch 1866, Riese 1889(haud sic 1872), Lejay 1894, H-K-E 1898, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, van Proosdij 1951, H-K-E-A 1966, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007, prob. Luck • fassoque ignoscat] fasso hoc ignoscet test. Viuianus 1522 •

187: atque in rege tamen pater est: this is the paradosis of almost all the mss. (uid. append.), including Mo9 (s. XI2), but So (s. XIII2) offers us this curious rearrangement with a metrical result: atque pater tamen est in rege. 188: publica commoda: apart from minor graphic variants or the inversion commoda publica present in some mss. (uid. append.), it is worth looking at the reading munera which Bothe found in B14 (I have also found it in F2, and it was almost certainly the reading of Ls, the now-mutilated antigraph of B14), and which he did not actually publish although he did consider it an example of double redaction on Ovid’s part (1818, 130): “uulgato commoda non deterius, et fortasse uerum, certe διττογραφία ipsius Ouidii”. For the suitability of the legal expression publica commoda (cf. e.  g. Hor. epist. 2.1.3: in publica commoda peccem), see Bömer 1982, 252; Hardie 2015, 243. 189–190: the habitual confusion of forms such as hunc-nunc-hanc and similar has given rise in this passage to various editorial proposals both in the selection of the word and in the punctuation of the lines. The best summaries in this regard are in Bömer (1982, 252) and Huyck (1991, 145  f.). As regards the initial word (uid. app.), nunc is the paradosis of the majority of mss. and edd. from Aler. 1471; hanc also has the backing of some important mss. (“multi” according to Heinsius 1659, 334), was the reading published by Puteol. 1471 and later by Baumgarten-Crusius (1834), and was awarded the explicit approval of Vossius (ap. Bothe 1818, 174, who exaggeratedly stated that he adopted it “cum plurimis”), and it was also proposed by Bentley (see Hedicke 1905, 32; supported also by Luck 2005b, 266); hunc has scarcely any support in the mss., but was conjectured by Vollmer in a proposal we shall develop later; haec and – prosodically more problematic – hoc are also found in some mss. but are more banal; and finally tunc is surprisingly not present in any of the mss. I have collated, but it was a tentative proposal by Heinsius

128

Commentary

at the end of his note (1659, 334): “Puto, Tunc (equidem fateor) difficilem tenui causam”. As regards the punctuation, it must be decided whether this initial word should be related to fateor or else to l. 190, and in this regard it is symptomatic that a significant proportion of the mss., starting with MN, already include some punctuation mark both after fateor and after Atrides, prompting a bimember reading of the line around the penthemimeral caesura (also so in the 15th-16th c. edd.). This is the punctuation, enclosing fassoque ignoscat Atrides either between commas or parentheses, which has been adopted by the majority of editors. In contrast, as we have just seen, Heinsius in his timid proposal (1659, 334; not so in his text, where he keeps a comma after fateor and a semicolon after Atrides) brought the parenthesis forward to equidem (although he closes it after fateor in his note, I understand from the unusually telegraphic tone that we should take it as closing at Atrides, and this is also how it seems to have been interpreted by Burman 1727, 870, who reproduces Heinsius’ words with the significant addition of “etc” after fateor). This same punctuation met the approval of Vossius (ap. Bach 1836, 308 in notis) and Bentley (see Hedicke 1905, 32). By contrast, Bach held that equidem modified tenui and not fateor, therefore opening the parenthesis just before fateor (not before fassoque, as Tarrant 2004, 377 in app. wrongly states), and the proposal was accepted by some 19th-20th c. editors (generally with an added exclamation mark: Atrides!) and by Luck (2005b, 266) and Ramírez de Verger (2005) in the present century. He argues as follows (1836, 308): “So glaube ich lesen und ordnen zu müssen statt der Vulg. Nunc equidem fateor – Atrides: Warum will aber gerade jetzt Ulysses bekennen? Warum zu fateor das betonende equidem? Dazu kömmt, dass fateor höchst selten einen Satz dieser Art für sich bildet, vielmehr meistens in die Rede eingerückt wird, oder einen Accusativ, auch Accus. cum Inf. von sich abhängig macht” (cf. Ehwald’s approval, in H-K-E 1898, 405). Finally, a more extreme solution was decided on by Vollmer (ap. Magnus 1914, 489), who opens the parenthesis before equidem but continues it down to causam in l. 190 and substitutes tandem for tamen in 191: hunc (equidem … Atrides: / … causam), / hunc tandem… In my opinion, the text which flows best is in this case also the one with the best transmission. The expression nunc equidem fateor is absolutely appropriate (thus also Helm 1915, 545  f.), since it is now that Ulysses can allow himself to recognize (cf. epist. 13.85: nunc fateor: uolui reuocare animusque ferebat) that he had to persist until victory (for causam tenere, see Bömer 1982, 252; Huyck 1991, 146; Hopkinson 2000, 119; Hardie 2015, 243) in a cause made difficult by the judge’s being iniquus, i.  e. biased in favour of the opposite thesis (Hopkinson 2000, 119  f.; Landolfi 2001, 34–6; Hardie 2015, 242  f.). This insinuation of Agamemnon’s bias (already commented upon in Mo9, fol. 79v) is what justifies both the parenthetic licentia of fassoque ignoscat



Commentary

129

Atrides (cf. 7.85; am. 3.9.35; epist. 17.225, 19.4; Pont. 2.7.7 [Prop. 2.6.13]) and the tamen in l. 191 with which Ulysses describes Agamemnon’s subsequent behaviour, at odds with his pietas (cf. 12.29  f.). From the rhetorical point of view, “while pretending to censure the king’s partiality [Ulysses] exalts both the king’s piety and his own skill” (Huyck 1991, 145; for examples of the device of “self-serving confession” as “a favorite tactic of declaimers”, see ibid. 145  f. and Hardie 2015, 243). As regards the other proposals, I subscribe here to the arguments of Huyck (1991, 146): “(i) nunc (equidem fateor  … Atrides) difficilem–Heinsius, leaving nunc to signal a nonexistent advance in the narrative, (ii) nunc equidem (fateor  … Atrides) difficilem–Magnus and Haupt-Ehwald, compounding the first fault by disrupting the natural bond between equidem and fateor (Pont. 4.1.5., Verg. Aen. 2.77, Tac. Dial. 21.1), (iii) hanc equidem (fateor  … Atrides–Miller-Goold, the disruption aside, showing too little concern for hunc in 191, (iv) hunc equidem (fateor … Atrides: / difficilem … causam), / hunc tandem–per coni. Vollmer, showing too much concern” (for argument “iii”, cf. a similar reasoning already in Hartman 1905, 154). I would only add that the reading hanc … causam would also represent an emphatic and quite inappropriate traiectio. 189: fassoque: among the different variants documented (uid. append.), I would point to the bold faxoque given initially in N and V3, later joined by BoBo2(a.c.)Mc, and the analogous attempt in P3(a.c.): faciamque. And So once again surprises us (cf. ad 187) with a conjecture: confesso. For the repetition fateor fassoque in a parenthesis, cf. 12.87  f.: ‘quid a nobis uulnus miraris abesse?’ / (mirabatur enim). 191–195: Hunc tamen utilitas populi fraterque datique summa mouet sceptri, laudem ut cum sanguine penset. Mittor et ad matrem, quae non hortanda sed astu decipienda fuit: quo si Telamonius isset, orba suis essent etiamnum lintea uentis.        195 • 191–318 redit T • 191 hunc] nunc MN(damn. N2; hunc i.l. u.l. N2)T B2(a.c.)DrL4(uid., a.c.)Mo(illinc suprascr.; hunc mg. Mo2) Lr27Vd11, Calder. 1477  : haec Gf Li3  : Vnc E(a.c.)  : huic Mt5  : nec T7  : huc P28 • tamen] tandem Vollmer (uid. ad 189) • fraterque] fratrisque M2(mg.)M22(p.c.) A4DrLr6MtOPh23V6V7(p.c.)Vd B8GoP8P10So2(p.c.) B12Mc2(p.c.)Mt4(sed damn. et ex itin. fraterque scr.) Es6F2Ld11Lr27Z, “Rhen.”(non sic Tu) test. Jahn 1832, Burm. 1727(qui “tredecim libri” test.), Gierig 1807 (sed frater “aeque bene” in app.), Lemaire 1822  : fratres M2(uid. per comp. a.c.)  : fratrique Pr So(a.c.)  : fratisque Mc(a.c.)  : deest in Ls • 192 ut] om. AbCsMtO(supra penset scr. O2)V6V7 P10(p.c.) Bo2Ft F2Ld11 Ca2(a.c.)  : et Ds2 Z • cum] om. A(a.c.) A4BFeGL4(a.c.)OVd Mo3 B12(a.c.) Es4Es6 •

130

Commentary

191–318: we again fall back on the text of the valuable ms. T (uid. ad 127–190). 191: hunc: as in l. 189, we once again (uid. app.) have the alternation between this correct form and others such as nunc (as is the case, incidentally, in the ed. by Calder. 1477 in contrast with the hunc in Accurs. 1475) or haec (sc. utilitas). fraterque: the sequence populi fraterque datique and the pressure of the polysyndeton have prompted the appearance of the form fratrisque, which is not aberrant in itself (sc. utilitas fratris) but which would break the actual polysyndeton (i.  e. utilitas populi fratrisque, datique summa sceptri) and is in any case clearly inferior to the uariatio introduced by the nom. fraterque. Surprisingly, it was the gen. form that was published by Burman (1727, 871), even though he opens the lemma of his note with the form fraterque, which suggests that there might be an erratum in the text, a mistake which if so would presumably already have slipped into the ed. of 1713 (275) and persisted e.  g. in the ed. of 1789 (Venetiis, 462). Be that as it may, the form fratrisque was published by Gierig (1807, 257) and Lemaire (1822, 372), although they present an identical comment in their respective notes: “fraterque aeque bene”. 192: summa: Burman (1727, 871) states that “multi” give the reading cura, which I have found only in Ld2, and compares the same variation in fast. 5.72. For the expression summa sceptri (cf. am. 1.9.37: summa ducum, Atrides), see Burman (1727, I, 91) ad epist. 7.12; Simmons 1889, 100; Keene 1898, 70; Bömer 1982, 253; Hopkinson 2000, 120. laudem ut cum sanguine penset: the sequence of two monosyllables, the first of them after synaloepha, has led to occasional omission of one or the other (favoured, in the case of cum, by the fact that the verb usually takes a simple ablative: Keene 1898, 70; Bömer 1982, 253) and the subsequent reordering of the phrase: cf. e.  g. A4: summa mouet sceptri ut laudem sanguine penset; Fe: summa mouet sceptri laudem ut sanguine penset. 193: hortanda: this form, reproduced without the h- in numerous mss., is replaced by oranda (cf. horanda in B4, Calph. 1480) in Lr22V30 and Aler. 1471, although Burman (1727, 871) offers the testimony of “quatuor libri” (uid. append.). This reading is also reproduced in the margin of the ed. Lugd. 1546 and from there, also in the margin, in Bersman (1596), with no indication in either case of the origin of this reading. There is another example of this alternation in l. 196 (uid. append.). 194: quo: in a further example of alternation between forms of the relative, a good number of mss. and the ed. Aler. 1471 offer the reading quod, undoubtedly also under the influence of the sequence quo(d) si. 195: etiamnum: Tarrant was not completely off the mark in stating (1982, 348 n. 24): “The tiresome vacillations between tum and tunc also seem dispensable; an editor might well decide to print tum everywhere except before vowels and leave it at that”. Indeed, the uncertainty over which of the two forms is the genuine one in each case (TLL 5.2.955.47–956.47) leads to the editor having to follow subjective phonic criteria or the weight of the manuscript tradition, which in the case of Ovid at least must always be prob-



131

Commentary

lematic (see Huyck 1991, 147). In this passage the majority of the mss. have etiamnunc (or else etiam nunc, or even et iam nunc) and this is the form that appears in edd. of all periods (uid. append.). By contrast, Heinsius (1659, 334) published etiamnum with the backing of M, P28 and an “Oxon.” (although the reading is also to be found, e.  g., in N a.c. and Mo), and this is the reading of many other edd. down to the present century. I keep it here, not without reservation. lintea: Heinsius (1659, 334) had the variant carbasa from the fragm. Caesenas (Cs), which I have also found in B, a manuscript which likewise has uelis for uentis (along with P10: uid. append.). For lintea uentis, cf. 7.40, 9.592 (Luc. 5.430); for carbasa uentis, cf. epist. 7.171, 21.71; ars 2.337; rem. 531; trist. 1.2.91; Sen. Herc. f. 152; Luc. 3.596, 5.560, 9.77; Stat. Ach. 1.446; Val. Fl. 4.422; Sil. 3.130. 196–201: Mittor et Iliacas audax orator ad arces uisaque et intrata est altae mihi curia Troiae – plenaque adhuc erat illa uiris! –. interritus egi quam mihi mandarat communis Graecia causam, accusoque Parin praedamque Helenamque reposco  et moueo Priamum Priamoque Antenora iunctum.

200

• 198 (plenaque … uiris) pro parenth. hab. Magnus 1914, Fink 2007 • 199 mandarat] mandauit A4LdLr7O3Tu Ld6 Bo2Cs3Es2McMt4Mt5 As, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472  : mandaue A2(a.c. a m.p.)  : mandabat Ld3  : madarat To2 • communis] communem coni. Bentley, prob. Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, Goold 1984, R. de Verger 2005, dub. Huyck 1991(in app.) •

196: orator: for the (h)ortator confusion (uid. append.), cf. ad 193. 198: plenaque adhuc erat illa uiris: the clauses in ll. 196  f. develop the actions carried out by Ulysses, who appears either as the subject of a passive verb (mittor … ad arces) or else in the form of the so-called dative agent (uisaque et intrata est … mihi). The clause plena … erat illa is not on the same level although it is a clarification aimed at extolling the actions of Ulysses. The proposal by Magnus to punctuate as a parenthesis helps it to be better understood, although in this case I prefer to use dashes and not rounded brackets because it is a comment made directly to the audience en passant, and not an interior or general consideration directed equally to Ulysses’ audience and to the readers of the poem. For alterations in the order of the elements, uid. append. erat: note (uid. append.) the variants on this pyrrhichius, among them the perf. fuit. interritus: among other corruptions of the word (uid. append.), note the reading non territus, which happens to be correct but clearly originates in a faulty expansion of the abbreviation î- as ñ, or else in a gloss.

132

Commentary

199: mandarat: yet another example (uid. app.) of the frequent confusion between these syncopated forms of the past perfect and the forms of the imperfect (mandabat) or the perfect (mandauit). In this case, the form mandauit should be ruled out as it is more regular morphologically and looks like an assimilation to the form egi, on which it depends. communis: against this general ms. reading (uid. app.) Bentley (see Hedicke 1905, 32) proposed communem (sc. causam), a proposal which was accepted in the edd. of Korn (1880), Zingerle (1884), Polle (1888) and Simmons (1889) in the 19th c., and in that of Goold (1984) in the following. It was also incorporated into the text of R. de Verger (2005). Huyck, for his part, dedicated to it a “nescio an recte” (1991, 80 in app.) but did not deal with it in his commentary. Although he does not accept it in his edition, Magnus does refer to the following text of the narrationes Lactantianae (1914, 489 in app.): “(Lactantii) Arg XII fab I: … consilia sua, quibus communem rempublicam iuuisset, cf Append”. In this quotation, however, he makes the mistake of referring to “Arg XII” when in fact it is XIII, and the text is presented incorrectly, since the actual reading is (ibid., 699) “… rempublicam adauxisset, iuuisset…”. Anderson also refers in app. to “Argum. 12, fab. 1” and appears to admit the possibility that communem was the genuine reading (1982, 305 in app.): “Lact. Argum. 12, fab. 1 fortasse indicat eum communem, ut Bentley coniecit, in codd. legisse”. We are naturally faced with the doubt of whether he is repeating in this quotation the initial error made by Magnus (as would seem to be indicated by the expression “eum communem”, which points to a literal citing of the term), or whether in fact he is referring, though he does not reproduce the text, to the following passage, which this time is in fact from book XII (fab. 1 2; ap. Magnus 1914, 696): “quae [Iphigenia] cum pro re communi ad aram esset applicata…”. The following note by Haupt-Korn-Ehwald (1898, 405) refers to the same text as Magnus, here again in search of elements deciding in favour of communem, but what I find particularly interesting in the note is the final observation, added in brackets in H-K-E-A 1966, 515: “communem scheint allerdings der auffallende Ausdruck des Paraphrasten (cum) Ulysses consilia sua (rettulisset), quibus communem rempublicam adauxisset, iuuisset duces quoque zu bestätigen [communem rempublicam entspricht vielmehr dem überlieferten communis Graecia]”. We may indeed debate whether the expression quoted, pro re communi, is equivalent to communis Graecia or to communem causam, but there is no room for such doubt with communem rempublicam, which can only indicate communis Graecia. The conjecture, in short, “seems unnecessary” (Hopkinson 2000, 122). For equivalents such as communis patria or c. ciuitas, see Bömer 1982, 255, and cf. 12.6  f.: coniurataeque sequuntur / mille rates gentisque simul commune Pelasgae (cited by Bömer ibid.; Tarrant 2004, 378 in app.; Hardie 2015, 244). 200: Parin: the mss. waver (uid. append.) between the forms Parin, Parim and even Parî. Among the editors, the first to print Parin was Regius 1493



Commentary

133

(the spelling Parrin of Aler. 1471 may well come from Parim, as in V30), followed by Micyl. 1543, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1659 and a good many down to the present. For its part, Parim was the spelling of the other 15th-16th c. edd. and those of Riese 1872, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915 (-in in 1898), Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983 and Huyck 1991. See Bömer 1982, 189 ad 12.601. 202–204: at Paris et fratres et qui rapuere sub illo uix tenuere manus – scis hoc, Menelaë – nefandas, primaque lux nostri tecum fuit illa pericli. • 202 at] et L3 B3DrGg(at i.l. u.l.)Lr3(uid.)O3P3P4TuV5V7(at i.l. u.l. V72)V8V9 Ds2Ld6Li3Lr8P8 Mc F2Go2Z P46P47, Trepat-de Saav. 1932  : a Pr(p.c.; quid a.c. n.l.)  : sed T7 B12Rd  : atque Vd  : ac Ds : aut Mo3(sed i.l. Mo32) • 204 lux] nox L4(a.c.)  : uel uis uel lis mg. Mo(a m.p.)  : uix Tu  : om. B3(a.c.)  : pars uel laus prop. Marklandus •

202: at: once again an at opening the line comes under pressure from other conjunctions, especially et (uid. app.). In this case it is clear that an adversative is needed to contrast Ulysses’ success when confronted by Priam and Antenor and his resounding failure against Paris. The variant sed, which I have found in T7 (the “cNicolaens” cited by Magnus 1914, 489 in app. and previously by Hellmuth 1883, 230: for this identification, uid. ad 161 ducar) as well as in Rd, is simply a gloss on at. sub illo: “est duce Paride, ut sup. 23” (thus Burm. 1727, 872) and not “in illo tempore”, as claimed by Regius (1493, ad loc.). The variant fideles of P3(a.c.) must be understood to have originated in a gloss, although it might also have been influenced by passages with parallel echoes such as Prop. 3.23.9: qualescumque mihi semper mansere fideles; Luc. 8.63: quem postquam propius famulae uidere fideles (cf. Ou. Ib. 353: possis gaudere fideli). 203: hoc: in addition to the unsurprising alternation with other forms of the demonstrative (uid. append.), and in this case with haec (again it is difficult to determine which of the two readings is represented by the abbreviation in some recc.), in this passage some mss. have the variant o, of which Vossius approved “cum 4” (ap. Bothe 1818, 174) and Heinsius (1659, 334) opined “probe”. By contrast, Burman (1727, 872) rightly prefers hoc, adducing the parallel of 12.440: scit tuus hoc genitor, also parenthetic (cf. also 13.76). The interjection can probably be traced to one of the extremely frequent marks written above vocative forms, although it might also be a dictation error. nefandas: note the form nefanda (neph- in N) found in M and also a.c. in P2 and N. In the case of P2, where the m.p. corrects the demonstrative into haec, the copyist might be considered to have interpreted scis haec nefanda. The real reading is manus nefandae (cf. 3.731), i.  e. those which attempt to transgress the inviolability of any ambassador (see Simmons 1889, 102).

134

Commentary

204: lux: the term has proved awkward from early times. In the mg. of Mo (s. XII) the m.p. itself has noted two ingenious uariae lectiones: uis and lis. It would seem that Bentley too detected some anomaly in the term, but he offered no proposal (Hedicke 1905, 32: “In ed. Heins. uocem linea notasse satishabuit”). Markland, however, did (1728, 237 ad Stat. silu. 5 epist. Abasc., lin. 3): “Primaque pars nostri tecum fuit illa pericli: ita legendum puto; uel laus; uulgo, primaque lux: quod sane non intelligo”. He adduced, among others, the parallels of epist. 12.91: uidi etiam lacrimas – an pars est fraudis in illis?; Verg. Aen. 7.266: pars mihi pacis eris; 11.214: longi pars maxima luctus. Leaving to one side the proposal laus pericli, as being unusual and shocking, what does have a stronger base is the expression pars pericli. In addition to the parallel constructions of pars cited by Markland himself, one might recall the not infrequent examples in which the phrase pars peric(u)li is found, starting with Lucr. 2.6–5: suaue etiam belli certamina magna tueri / per campos instructa tua sine parte pericli, and continuing with our own poem (11.447): nec uult Alcyonen in partem adhibere pericli. This expression was to the liking of Livy, who even used it along with secum (2.20.11): proceres aequato genere pugnae secum partem periculi sustinentes (5.20.7: ut quisque laboris periculique praecipuam petere partem soleat; 28.19.16: partem periculi capessendam esse ratus; 31.1.11: uelut ipse in parte laboris ac periculi fuerim; 44.41.1: in parte praecipua laboris periculique), and it is also found in Pliny (nat. 23.48): dimidia pars periculi est noctu, and in Silius (15.486): auulsa parte inguinibus causaque pericli. However, as can be seen in these examples, the noun pars appears either on its own or accompanied by appropriate adjs., such as the possessive (Lucr.), or dimidia (Plin.) or praecipua (Liu. 5.20.7, 44.41.1). But what can prima pars pericli mean? If it is “the first in time”, this sense does not fit in well with the meaning of pars (though it possibly does with that of laus); if it is “the highest or principal” or “greatest”, it would be better modified by praecipua, as we have seen, or summa (cf. e.  g. Cic. nat. 2.117), maxima (cf. Verg. Aen. 11.214, supra) or even magna (uid. ad 51). As regards the marginal proposals of Mo, the expression lis pericli makes little sense. What is more, the association of the two words occurs in the reverse order, i.  e. periculum litis/litium: cf. Cic. Verr. 2.1.97; Caec. 74.15; Iust. 3.5.30, 32.1.8 (cf. Cat. or. 121.1: ad litis Censorias periculatus sum). What would undoubtedly make more sense is uis periculi, which also has a parallel with close echoes in Lucr. 6.603: at tamen interdum praesens uis ipsa pericli (cf., by contrast, Curt. 7.8.27: periculum uirium). The meaning would be: “And that was the first violence [i.  e. the first occasion of physical violence] of my danger with you”. However, I believe that a different and preferable interpretation might lead us to keep lux. The use of lux = dies can be of no surprise (cf. e.  g. 14.227), although the brachylogical nostri tecum  … pericli is certainly somewhat obscure (see Bömer 1982, 256). What is more, what is really surprising is



135

Commentary

the very expression lux pericli, which is in fact unique in the Latin texts, so much so that perhaps we ought to read primaque lux nostris tecum fuit illa periclis. Now, there is another possible interpretation which is partly suggested to me by the commentary of Huyck (1991, 148), who recalls that prima lux may literally refer to “just the first day of the war”, although he continues to associate pericli with lux. However, we could take it not (lit.) as “that was the first day of our danger with you” (as it was understood, more or less, by Simmons 1889, 102; Keene 1898, 71; Hopkinson 2000, 122) but, in accordance with the Latin word order itself, “and the first day [i.  e. “of the war”] was that of our [i.  e. “of my”] danger with you”, that is, as an opportune vindication of the protagonism of both men, for it was indeed the failure of the embassy and the risk run by Menelaus and Ulysses that (most immediately) triggered the hostilities and the beginning of the war (see Hardie 2015, 244 ad 196–204). 205–206: Longa referre mora est quae consilioque manuque  utiliter feci spatiosi tempore belli.

205

• 206 tempore] in tempore N2V4 Mt3 Es3 Es3Es5Lr22V30, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472  : tempora A2(uid.) P38, Puteol. 1471, Calph. 1474 •

206: spatiosi: note (uid. append.) the assimilation spatioso tempore (cf. am. 1.8.81) in some mss., breaking the enallage adiectiui. For the use of the adj., cf. 8.530: spatiosum increpat aeuum; 12.186: spatiosa senectus; 15.623: spatiosa uetustas; epist. 1.9: spatiosam … noctem (see Keene 1898, 71). tempore: a recurring phenomenon in the mss. is the addition or suppression of a monosyllable in synaloepha. In this case a few mss. (uid. app.), followed only by the edd. Aler. 1471 and Venet. 1472, add in after spatiosi. This preposition is written in above, as a grammatical clarification, for example in N2 B22B42 Mt42 and this is no doubt its origin in the mss. that have incorporated it into the text. In this line the first column of text from book XIII contained in T7 (s. XII2) is cut off. All that can be read is utiliter feci spatios[. The column must also have contained ll. 207  f., since on the following page the text continues with l. 209. Likewise, the other text containing the fragment (11.394–457 and 460–517) has a two-line laguna at the same point. 207–209: Post acies primas urbis se moenibus hostes continuere diu, nec aperti copia Martis ulla fuit. Decimo demum pugnauimus anno.

136

Commentary

• 207 post … primas] post primas acies Lr2 B Lu2  : primas(primasq3 a.c.) post acies V7 • 209–266 cont. T7 •

207: note the metrical inversion post primas acies, shared by B and Lr2-Lu2, and the more daring and elegant primas post acies, which I have found only in V7. The inversion hostes se moenibus urbis, in V6 (uid. append.), looks like an attempt to simplify the expression. se moenibus: for the reading se in moenibus (V9 Lr8 Bo), uid. ad 206. 208: Martis: this reading gives rise in turn (uid. append.) to readings such as mentis, as a result of an incorrect expansion of the abbreviation (cf. ad 11), or to belli, originating in a gloss. For the expression, cf. Sil. 8.4: impatiensque morae fremit: ut sit copia Martis (Verg. Aen. 9.720: quoniam data copia pugnae; Stat. Theb. 4.4: miseri data copia belli). 209: ulla: for illa (uid. append.), frequently alternating with ulla, cf. 40 and see Bothe 1818, 130, who comments on this phenomenon in B14. decimo demum: the similarity of the two words in contact (cf. 227: domum … decimo … dedecus) leads to the predictable errors on the part of the copyists (uid. append.). 210–215: Quid facis interea, qui nil nisi proelia nosti?      210 quis tuus usus erat? Nam, si mea facta requiris, hostibus insidior, fossa munimina cingo, consolor socios ut longi taedia belli mente ferant placida, doceo quo simus alendi armandique modo, mittor quo postulat usus.     215 • 212 fossa munimina coni. Ehwald 1882, prob. Polle 1888, H-K-E 1898, Ehwald 1915, van Proosdij 1951, H-K-E-A 1966, Goold 1984, Huyck 1991, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005  : fossa munimine P2(-as munimine p.c.), Calph. 1480  : fossis munimina Ld3 : fossas munimine Ω, edd.  : fossasque munimine CLr4 So Ft Ca2(a.c.)  : fossas munime V4(a.c.) Ld6 Mc P41  : fossas numîe V6 : fossas in uimine Lr8(a.c.) : fossas munumine B12  : classes munimine Halbertsma • 215 armandique] amandique Ld Lr8(a.c.)  : armandiue “Mediceus” test. et prob. Burm. 1727(-que 1713), “Rhen.”(non sic Tu) test. Jahn 1832, prob. Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834 •

210–211: some mss. (uid. append.) omitted l. 211 as a result of saut du même au même (Ds had previously done this with l. 210). The fact that the m.p. of N copies the line i.l., when it is completely missing from M, appears to rule out the possibility that the copyist of M might have had access to N. Although the line in itself is not strictly necessary, it does provide the required transition from the “you” of Aias to the “I” of Ulysses. The sequence quid … qui … / quis gives rise to the inevitable errors and even to instances of reorganization of the text (cf. e.  g. Cv, which repeats quid for qui at 210 and closes the line with a question mark: uid. append.).



Commentary

137

211: nam si mea: note the attractive inversion mea nam si, which is shared exclusively by three texts bridging the 12th and 13th centuries: De P46P47 (uid. append.). requiris: the majority of mss. give this reading, although I have found both requires and requiras (uid. append.). Burman (1727, 872) says that requiras is given by “Iunian. [sc. Et] & Leidensis”, but this is not the reading of any of the Leidenses known to us today. The nearest to it is requires in Ld7, subsequently corrected. In his note (though not in the text) Burman accepts the form requiras (“bene”) on the basis of the parallels of epist. 7.83: si quaeras ubi sit formosi mater Iuli (cf. 4.119) and met. 3.141: at bene si quaeras. Variation on these forms in comparable conditional contexts is frequent: cf. e.  g. epist. 16.175 (Dörrie 1971, 202); not so in l. 154 (si … requiritur heres), no doubt because of metrical restrictions. 212: fossa munimina: the reading of practically all the mss., fossas munimine cingo, aroused suspicions as what is most to be expected is fossis munimina/ moenia cingere (τὰς τάφρους τὰς περὶ τὰ τείχη: uid. infra; cf. 1.97: nondum praecipites cingebant oppida fossae: see Hartman 1905, 154). From early on the commentators considered that the episode that inspired these words was Hom. Il. 12.52–7, which describes the palisade and trench built by the Greeks around their ships. Thus e.  g. Micyllus (1543, 287): “Fossas munimine cingo: uidetur ad fossam respicere, quae a Graecis ante nauium stationem ducta, et muro cincta fuit, quem postea Neptunus immissis fluminibus Phrygiae deleuit. De qua re Homer. Ilia. duodecimo”; Gierig (1807, 258): “Munimen illud, ἀλεωρὴν, describit Homer. Il. μ, 52–57. Fossam latam utrimque cingebant praecipitia decliuia, κρημνοὶ ἐπηρεφέες, desuper ualli acuti, σκόλοπες ὀξᾶς, defixi erant. Sed illa opus Vlyssis fuisse, Homerus non dicit”; Loers (1843, 484): “Huius munitionis mentio habetur XII, 52 sqq. Sed, quod ibi communi Graecorum exercitui tribuitur, Ulisses h.l. se fecisse iactat”. However, from what is recounted and described in that passage it can in no way be deduced that the trench “muro cincta fuit”, as Micyllus claims. On the contrary Homer makes it clear that the moat was the first obstacle the Trojans had to overcome in their attack before going on to tackle the palisade, the last impediment in the way of their reaching the ships (ibid. 89  f.): μέμασαν δὲ μάλιστα / τεῖχος ῥηξάμενοι κοίλῃς ἐπὶ νηυσὶ μάχεσθαι. This is probably what led Halbertsma to put forward this simple proposal (1878, 106): “Absurdum esse fossas munimine cingere nemo non uidet. Pro fossas requiro classes”. Nevertheless, there is another model, also in Homer, for this moat, and neither there is it stated that Ulysses was behind its construction. The fact is that Ovid’s Ulysses is attributing to himself the building of a trench which in fact was the work of the Greeks in general (λαὸς Ἀχαιῶν; Hom. Il. 7.433–41) and at the request of Nestor in particular (ibid. 336–43). In the Homeric description the first reference is to building a wall and towers (436  f. τεῖχος … / πύργους θ’; towers alone, πύργους, in 338) and after that an outer (ἔκτοσθεν) trench (τάφρον) around and hard by the wall (ἐγγύθι, in 341): Hom. Il. 7.440:

138

Commentary

ἔκτοσθεν δὲ βαθεῖαν ἐπ’ αὐτῷ τάφρον ὄρυξαν (cf. 7.341: ἔκτοσθεν δὲ βαθεῖαν ὀρύξομεν ἐγγύθι τάφρον). This was the lucid reasoning which prompted Ehwald to replace the vulgate fossas munimine (uid. app.) with fossa munimina, a reading which I have been able to establish has the partial and complementary support of P2(a.c.): fossa munimine, and Ld3: fossis munimina. This was his initial reasoning (Ehwald 1882, 198): “Gegen Halbertsma’s classes munimine cingo (XIII 212) halte ich meine von Polle in den Text gesetzte Vermuthung: fossa munimina cingo wegen der Wichtigkeit, die gerade der Graben besonders in der Teichomachie hat, aufrecht”. Ehwald’s proposal was followed in the Teubner anthology by Polle 1888 (though not yet in Siebelis-Polle 1880, 74, in view of which I am unable to say which edition Ehwald is referring to in the passage cited above) and later it was Ehwald himself who incorporated it into the text of the ed. by H-K-E 1898, with this somewhat fuller note (p. 232): “Die um das griech. Lager gezogene aus Mauer und Graben bestehende Befestigung kennt die Ilias nicht als das Werk des Ulixes; nach Ilias 7, 337 ff. rät zum Bau einer betürmten Mauer und dem Ziehen eines Grabens vor ihr (ἔκτοσθεν δὲ βαθεῖαν ὀρύξομεν ἐγγύθι τάφρον) Nestor; in den mythographischen Handbüchern fehlte vielleicht der Name wie bei Apollod. epit. 4, 3. Ovid lässt den besten Redner des Mythus sich desselben Verdienstes rühmen, wegen dessen Demosthenes belobt wurde, ὅτι τὰς τάφρους τὰς περὶ τὰ τείχη καλῶς ἐτάφρευσε (Aeschines adv. Ctesiph. § 236)”. In the notes added by Ehwald at the end of that volume as variants with respect to Korn (1898, 405), he gives this additional information (same note in H-K-E-A 1966, 515): “fossa munimina cingo habe ich nach eigener Vermutung eingesetzt, vgl. Burs. Jahresb. 31, 198; die Gegengründe, die H. Magnus Jahrb. f. kl. Phil. 1887, 133, Anm. 9 anführt, haben mich nicht überzeugt; sie scheitern alle an der Bedeutung von cingo”. This had been Magnus’ reasoning, to the effect that the use and sense of cingo appear to be forced (1887b, 133 n. 9): “XIII 212 fossas munimine cingo = fossas duco et m. cingo. beiläufig sei bemerkt, dasz an der letzten stelle die überlieferung von REhwald ua. wohl mit unrecht angefochten worden ist: munimine ist nach Hom. Μ 52–57 (und Η 440. Θ 343. Ο 1; vgl. Xen. anab. V 2, 5) in meiner anm. zdst. genügend erklärt; vgl. auch Il. Lat. 649 renouant fossas et uallum robore cingunt, zum plur. fossas vgl. met. XII 149 Argolicas seruat custodia fossas” (note too that the passage from the Ilias Latina is not proof in itself). After the editio maior of Ehwald in 1915, the conjecture fossa munimina appeared in only a few editions from the second half of the 20th c. onwards (uid. app.). In the vulgate fossas munimine cingo some influence may have been exerted by the well-known line of Verg. Aen. 4.121: dum trepidant alae saltusque indagine cingunt (cf. Luc. 3.377: longo munimine cingi). I find no basis in the defence presented by Bömer (1982, 257) of fossas munimine cingo as a case of “inversion” (“Umkehrung”), because this “poetische Prinzip”, just like hypallage, is aimed at highlighting the relationship between elements



139

Commentary

by means of a formulation that is contrary to the habitual one (e.  g. 13.46, where earth has the man and not vice versa; and see the other examples presented by Bömer 1982, 85 ad 12.221) but is also logical, as well as plausible from the pragmatic point of view, a situation which does not apply in the passage under consideration here. 213: consolor socios: note (uid. append.) that supralinear notes such as etiam, et and o have made their way into the text against the metre. Equally unmetrical is the quasi-conjectural variant of Es3: consulo sociis. 214–215: alendi / armandique: in preference to the majority reading Burman has armandiue (1727, 872; not so in 1713, where he wrote armandique) based on the testimony of a “Mediceus” and the approval (“bene”) of Heinsius (b3, 357), and he was followed only by Gierig (1807), Bothe (18182), Lemaire (1822) and Baumgarten-Crusius, who in addition defends it (1834, 497) as “rectius ut de re diuersa”, a questionable claim in that both activities, although different in nature, may be taken as constituting basic military instruction in the years prior to the war (cf. 53: uelaturque aliturque, with Huyck 1991, 151). It is true that in the cases of vacillation between -que and -ue the first form is clearly invasive, but in the present passage I find no sufficient basis for replacing it against the overwhelming evidence of the mss. For these uses of -que, see Wagner 1832, 551–3; for possible models for the passage in Hom. Il. 19.216–37 and, esp., 2.272–4, see Hopkinson 2000, 124; Hardie 2015, 245  f.; for the end of the line, Bömer 2006, 303. 216–221: Ecce Iouis monitu, deceptus imagine somni, rex iubet incepti curam dimittere belli. Ille potest auctore suam defendere uocem; non sinat hoc Aiax delendaque Pergama poscat, quodque potest, pugnet, det quod uaga turba sequatur!  Cur non arma capit? Cur non remoratur ituros?

220

• 216 monitu  … somni] monitos  … somnos coni. Heinsius 1659(in notis) • 218 uocem] causam ALr22(mg. u.l.)P2(mg. u.l.) A42(mg. alt.u.l.)AbCFe(mg. u.l. a m.p.)GGgLd2V8(uocem V82) B8Bs4Lr82(i.l. u.l.)Mt3P5(a.c. a m.p.)P8 B12Bo Ca2, Heinsius 1659(qui et “pri. Moreti, aliique complures” test.), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Koch 1866  : factum Cs  : culpam A42(mg. pr.u.l.)B2B4H2Ld3LsMtP32(u.l.)Ph2(uocem mg. u.l. Ph22) Mo3P102(mg. u.l.)So Mt4 B14Go2, “nonnulli” test. Heinsius 1659  : uoce B  : nocem Ld6  : urbem aut nauem in “Rhen.”(non sic Tu) leg. Jahn 1832 • 220–221 … det, quod uaga turba sequatur / … cur non remoratur ituros? scr. Riese 1889, Lejay 1894, Hartman  : inu. ord. Ω, edd. • 220(antea 221) det … sequatur] cur non remoratur ituros M Mo(dat … sequatur mg.) Bo3(mg.)Lr27, Riese 1889, Lejay 1894 : cur non scr. Vd(ex itin. damn.)  : quid N a.c. (det … sequatur i.ras.) n.l. •

140

Commentary

216: monitu … somni: (Heinsius 1758, 691  f. [Burm. 1727, 872]): “Tot uocabula substantiua sine adiectiuo aut epitheto ullo non recordor uno uersu coniuncta alibi apud Nasonem occurrere, unde fit, ut erigendam orationem nonnihil censeam, ac scribendum proinde, Ecce Iouis monitos deceptus imagine somnos Rex iubet. cum nihil sit familiarius aut maiore in usu Nasoni nostro huiuscemodi Graecismis” (see also 1659, 334  f.). He goes on to recall that the somni moniti are those in which the gods appear, and refers the reader, in addition to other passages with moneo or its compounds, to Claud. Stil. (Carm. mai. 22) 2.217: ominibus uentura notant aut alite monstrant / aut monitos certa dignantur imagine somnos. Heinsius’ wealth of argumentation meets this response from Burman (1727, 873): “Vix persuadet Heinsius, et durissimum hunc Graecismum paucis, puto, approbabit”, claiming (873  f.) that monitu = ex monitu. It is surprising that to support his proposal Heinsius did not cite Luc. 7.7  f.: at nox felicis Magno pars ultima uitae / sollicitos uana decepit imagine somnos (cf. Sil. 8.641). From the point of view of the transmission, Heinsius adduced some of the variants of monitu, which in any case do not countenance the form monitos (uid. append.). Heinsius’ proposal is not unattractive, especially in view of the passages of Luc. 7.8 and Claud. Stil. 2.217, and the recurrence of the expression imagine somni at the end of the hexameter (epist. 16.45; met. 7.649, 8.824, 9.686; fast. 3.27; Pont. 1.2.47; Val. Fl. 4.531, 7.213; Paul. Nol. 15.244; cf. -ine somnus in met. 9.480; Stat. Theb. 3.419) is certainly not the best argument in defence of the majority reading in our passage. However, neither is the configuration of the line as transmitted as aberrant as Heinsius suggests (cf. e.  g. 9.686: cum medio noctis spatio sub imagine somni) nor is his own proposal so seamless as to be embraced unreservedly, as the striking accusative of respect is accompanied by the strange genitive Iouis, where it is not clear whether it should be linked to imagine or somnos. For the episode, cf. Hom. Il. 2.6–34, 114  f. (see Hill 2000, 141; Hopkinson 2000, 125; Hardie 2015, 246). 217: incepti: in view of the position of this adj. and its meaning (see Simmons 1889, 103; Hardie 2015, 246) it is clear that it refers to belli. However, some edd. (e.  g. Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915) report in their app. Bentley’s reading inceptam, which is simply a lapsus on the part of the brilliant critic (Hedicke 1905, 32): “13,216–7 cit. R. B. ad Lucan. 9,545, ubi memoria lapsus inceptam scripsit pro incepti”. curam: as is usual with this noun, some mss. have the variant causam (uid. append.), the result of an erroneous expansion of the abbreviation. For the phrase cura belli, see Bömer 1982, 258. 218: uocem: the metonymic use of this noun (cf. e.  g. the marginal note “i. iussionem” in O42), along with the definite brachylogical obscurity of auctore (“ioue” e.  g. is the note i.l. in A2M2T2; cf. 2.281, epist. 17.49, and see Simmons 1889, 103), caused surprise in readers and led to its being replaced by other terms in some mss. (uid. app.). The most common was causam, because of the familiarity of the expression defendere causam, and this reading was adopted



Commentary

141

by Heinsius and other edd. down to Koch (1866). The fragmentum Caesenas (Cs) opts for the incorporation of the gloss into the text and has suum defendere factum, and the same explanation can be applied to the variant culpam (“ex interpretatione” states Bothe 1818, 130 when reporting this reading in B14), present only in recc. (Heinsius 1659, 335: “Nonnulli culpam, minus bene”). Jahn (1832, 825) again records the variants “urbem aut nauem” in the “Rhen.”, but in Tu the reading is uocem and only by forcing the reading (for the characters -oc- are in fact somewhat deformed) could we attempt to read urvem or uavem (for the identification of the Rhenou(i)anus, uid. ad 9 igitur fictis). 219: Pergama: in contrast with this general reading (cf. 13.320: delenda ad Pergama poscunt; 12.445: capienda ad Pergama), a small group of mss., among them Gf (uid. append.), give moenia, a variant we should interpret as proceeding from Verg. Aen. 9.524: scalas in moenia poscit (cf. Homer. 764). poscat: for the variant poscit of Ld2(a.c.), cf. Verg. Aen. 9.524 (supra); for quaerat (P8), cf. Verg. Aen. 10.58: Pergama quaerunt. 220–221: some mss., among them M and most likely N a.c. (uid. app.), offer in the second hemistich of l. 220 the reading cur nos/non solatur ituros. In the second hemistich of 221, in turn, M and Bo3(mg.), accompanied in this case by Mo and Lr27, give cur remoratur ituros instead of det/dat quod uaga turba sequatur (and note Vd, which also begins this line with cur non). This led Riese, who in his 1st ed. (1872) had published the standard text, to modify it in his 2nd ed. (1889, XXV: “scripsi cum M”), leaving the distich as follows: quodque potest, pugnet! det, quod uaga turba sequatur! cur non arma capit? cur non remoratur ituros?

This proposal was taken up only by Lejay (1894) in his selection, although he strangely punctuates the sequatur clause as an interrogative. It was also defended by Hartman (1905, 154), who however fails to mention Riese: “Mihi semper iusto durius uisum est asyndeton capit dat, neque aptis ab editoribus defensum exemplis. Transponendo (nam in hac praesertim parte, ut iam uidimus, uersus integri et dimidiati saepe inter se confusi sunt) lego: Quodque potest pugnet. Det quod uaga turba sequatur: / Cur non arma capit, cur non remoratur ituros? Det cum Hauniensi. Nunc omnia apte sunt disposita: siue Aiax arma capit, siue (oratione) ituros remoratur, dici potest dare quod turba sequatur: uel exemplum uel praeceptum. Et post istud “cur non remoratur ituros” egregie sequitur: Non erat hoc nimium nunquam nisi magna loquenti. Qui semper magna loquitur certe uoce sua trepidam multitudinem coercere potest”. If there is something I unswervingly share in this line of argument, it is with regard to the harshness of the asyndeton capit, dat, long ago pointed out by Bach (1836, 310): “Erst Heins. aus 3 Codd. dat – sequatur? so dass cur non bei dat zu wiederholen. Sehr hart. Der Conjunctiv ist wie in sinat u. d. folgg. zu nehmen” (cf. also Loers 1843, 485: “III Heinsii dat, ut haec quoque uerba

142

Commentary

interrogantis sint. Simplicior et elegantior est scriptura librorum et ueterum edd. det. Det autem pro det exemplum est”). The indicative dat is indeed clearly a minority reading in the mss. (uid. append.) and it was incorporated into the text by Heinsius (1659, 335): “cum tribus scriptis, quod praecedentia requirunt”, a statement which simply means that he associates the verb with cur non. Heinsius’ proposal has been followed by a significant number of edd., while a more or less equivalent number have chosen to keep the subjunctive det, the general reading of the mss. (it is not clear what Planudes is translating, in that he opts for a consecutive subordinate final clause.: Τί δή ποτε μὴ ὅπλα λαμβάνει, ὡς ἂν αὐτῷ καὶ τὸ δυσκάθεκτον πλῆθος ἕποιτο;). This subjunctive det should naturally be taken as exhortative (thus the glosses in a good number of mss., as in N mg.: “uel cur non dat consilium ut turba sequatur”; cf. also e.  g. Regius 1493, ad loc.: “Det. edat. dicat aliquid. Proponat aliquod consilium quod turba sequatur”; Baumg.-Crus. 1834, 498: “Restitui ueterem lectionem librorum consensu comprobatam, et mire conuenientem oratoris animo, qui ironice prouocat tardum Aiacem ad rem gerendam”). From the stylistic point of view, it would seem reasonable to expect Ovid to complete the sequence of exhortative subjunctives in the two consecutive lines, with his deliberate centrifugal and centripetal arrangement (sinat  … poscat / … pugnet, det …), in order to add the final touch to Ulysses’ criticism by means of different negative interrogatives (i.  e. stating what Aias failed to do). But if this observation seems excessively subjective, we might also observe a tendency in the usus scribendi of Ovid, who usually avoids repetitions of cur in successive periods and, when he does use them, always does so at the beginning of consecutive lines (epist. 18.129  f.; 19.69  f.; am. 3.14.31–3; cf. a variation in met. 7.14  f.) and not bridging a second hemistich and the one immediately following, with this sole exception (epist. 19.73  f.): cur ea praeterita est? cur non uentura timebat? / tam bona cur periit, nec tibi rapta uia est? By contrast, he leaves us some examples of this anaphora within the same hexameter, as in the above-mentioned case of epist. 19.73, or in these other cases: met. 6.42: cur non ipsa uenit? cur haec certamina uitat?; fast. 2.283: cur igitur currant, et cur sic currere mos est; trist. 2.1.103: cur aliquid uidi? cur noxia lumina feci? Cf., with the relative force of cur, 13.114: cur spolieris erit, non cur metuaris ab hoste; in a different metrical position, 13.341: uerba uiri? cur hic metuis? cur audet Vlixes. In short, at some not very distant point in the transmission of a select group of mss., among them MN Mo Bo3, a copyist has erroneously repeated, with slight variations, the hemistich cur non remoratur ituros, a repetition no doubt related to the similarity of the final pugnet-capit, pugnet-det and sequatur-remoratur (for a relatively similar case, cf. 268  f.). From the information that can be extracted from the data gathered I believe it is more plausible to deduce that det quod uaga turba sequatur appeared in 220 and not in 221, and that the phrase cur non probably slipped in there from a marginal



Commentary

143

or interlinear gloss expanding on the concise det quod, as with the marginal gloss in N reproduced above (“uel cur non dat consilium ut turba sequatur”). To these glosses, it should be pointed out, we probably also owe the indic. dat. This suspicion is also strengthened by the verb which can be read today in M CLr7 Bo3Lr27 and which we can intuit in N: solatur, in very close proximity to sequatur, a verb which in M(a.c.) symptomatically presents the form selatur (I believe that this is the form, not salatur as was read in app. by e.  g. Ehwald 1915, 388, Magnus 1914, 490). 220: the variant dum in Cs (i.  e. dum non remoratur ituros) should be taken as a conjecture of the copyist in an attempt to establish a causal subordination (“… and let him fight, since he does not hold back…”), rather than as a remnant of the first consonant in det. This, by the way, is the supposed variant capit dum which Slater (1927, ad loc.) mistakenly reads in Cs for l. 221 and relates to the above-cited version λαμβάνει, ὡς ἂν of Planudes. 222–224: Non erat hoc nimium numquam nisi magna loquenti. quid quod et ipse fugit? uidi – puduitque uidere! – cum tu terga dares inhonestaque uela parares. • 223–233 uncinis not. Merkel 1850, Siebelis-Polle 1880 • 223 fugit] fugis A2(p.c.; fugit A) Lr5, Heinsius 1659(“malo cum uno Palatino, Zulich. et tribus aliis”), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834  : egit T7 • uidi] uidi et Lu(a.c.)M(a.c.)  : uidit CsPr Ds(a.c.) Bo3(a.c.)  : uidid Lu2(a.c.)  : uidiq3 P47  : om. Hd •

222: erat hoc: as is frequent both with the short forms of sum and the paradigm of hic, one or other of these elements is omitted or altered in the mss. (uid. append.). Note that the omission of hoc is corrected in Lr2 by a later hand than its apograph Lu2, where it is still missing. Note also that instead of erat B14 gives esset through the abbreviation eêt, the same one as was written above erat in its antigraph Ls2. 223–233: Merkel 1875 enclosed these lines in brackets (he had marked them with strokes in the margin in 1850, and on p. XI had included l. 223 among those which “rectius abessent”) and Polle (1888) omitted them, which may simply be due to the selective nature of his edition and not for critical reasons, since he himself had announced (p. 62) that he would omit these lines, although it is also true that in Siebelis-Polle 1880 the lines already appear in brackets. As was shown by Marahrens (1971, 223–7), although these lines are not strictly necessary for the development of the narration, they do fulfill an expressive or intensifying function therein, and are not at odds with any of the stylistic or grammatical features of Ovidian usus. This is her conclusion (p. 227): “Der Sinn der von Merkel athetierten Versgruppe liegt darin, ein-

144

Commentary

erseits das unsoldatische Verhalten der Truppe und des Aiax im besonderen sowie anderseits die Verdienste des Odysseus ins rechte Licht zu setzen. Der dramatische Effekt beruht auf dem Wechsel von direkter Rede, die das Geschehen der Vergangenheit in die Gegenwart rückt, und anschaulichem Bericht. – Die von Merkel vermutlich beanstandeten Doppelungen des Ausdrucks sind unverkennbar, aber nicht funktionslos, denn in ihrem jeweiligen Zusammenhang dienen sie teils der Steigerung oder Intensivierung, teils der Kontrastierung” (Bömer 1982, 260: “kein Grund zur Athetese dieser Versgruppe”). 223: quid quod et: the sequence of three monosyllables leads to the expected omissions (at times badly resolved: cf. N2) and deformations (uid. append.). fugit: this is the majority reading of the mss. (uid. app.), but in Lr5 and A2 I have found the form fugis, which Heinsius (1659, 335  f.) said he preferred “cum uno Palatino, Zulich. et tribus aliis” and which appeared in some edd. down to Baumg.-Crus. 1834 (cf. ad 487 ediderat). Switches between the 2nd and 3rd person references are frequent in the whole “Judgement of arms” (uid. ad 33), but the change seems inopportune here as it removes some of the force of the tu of the following line, because the sequence fugis  … terga dares … uela parares would be tautological (Marahrens 1971, 224) and because the expressiveness of the phrase quid quod (Bömer 1982, 259) is reinforced if this question is still addressed to the judges. For the reading egit of T7, which Hellmuth (1883, 230) finds in the cod. Nicolaensis, uid. ad 161 ducar. uidi: instead of this majority reading some mss. (uid. app.) give uidi et, in line with the recurring alternation in these cases. Apart from the overwhelming evidence of the mss. we have the imitation of Homer. 321  f.:  … uidi puduitque uidere, / arreptum cum te traheret uiolentus Atrides. Cf. also Inc. tr. 61–3: uidi te, Vlixes, saxo sternentem Hectora, / uidi tegentem clipeo classem Doricam: / ego tunc pudendam trepidus hortabar fugam (see Hardie 2015, 247). puduitque uidere: the copulative does not introduce a new action but a nuancing of the previous one, as is shown by the repetition of the verb, and therefore the text can gain in clarity if it is punctuated as an expressive comment. Note (uid. append.) how the erratum udere in Lr2 is badly resolved in its apograph Lu2 with the variant iure. Observe too that the correction in Lr2 is again later than the copy Lu2 (uid. ad 222). 224: cum: B3 gives dum. The vacillation between the two conjunctions is constant in the codices. 225–227: Nec mora: ‘quid facitis? quae uos dementia’ dixi     ‘concitat, or socii, captam dimittere Troiam? quidue domum fertis decimo nisi dedecus anno?’.

225



Commentary

145

• 225 facitis] fugitis P38, Puteol. 1471, Calph. 1474 • 226 dimittere] dimittite GfMNT Be2Ld3V6 Mo3 FtMc Lr27, Magnus 1914, dub. Slater 1927, def. Marahrens  : dimitttere M2(a.c.)  : demittere P41 • 227 quidue] quidque coni. Magnus 1914(in app.), prob. Goold 1984, R. de Verger 2005 • fertis] quaeritis Pr  : uertis Koch 1866 •

225: facitis: the reading fugitis, clearly a gloss, has no further interest than that of illustrating the relationship between P38 (s. XV) and the ed. of Calph. 1474 (for this edition, see Pellegrini 2001, 186–8). For the relationship between the two texts, cf. e.  g. 770  f. (cf. also 3.216, omitted in both and Puteol. 1471). uos: against expectation, since the nos-uos vacillation is constant in the mss. (cf. ad 94 uestri), I have found the variant nos only in Pr and the translation by Planudes, in whose text the original reading was ἡμᾶς (see Boissonade, ap. Lemaire 1822, V, 561 n. 1). 226–227: dimittere: this is the general reading of the mss. and what is translated by Planudes (καταλιμπάνειν), and it should be taken to depend on concitat, a construction not found elsewhere in Latin but defended by Ehwald (H-K-E 1898, 233) as analogous to iubeo + inf. (cf. e.  g. 242). For this innovation he adduces the parallels of impello + inf. (am. 2.12.21  f.) or compello + inf. (fast. 3.860), to which can be added (with HS 3462) Publil. 1.3: Inuitum cum retineas, exire incites (see Bömer 1982, 260). In any case this would not be the only extension in the use of causative verbs by the Augustan poets in general and Ovid in particular (HS 3454–3462). Against this reading GfMNT and a very few recc. (uid. app.) give dimi(t)tite, a form that made it possible to avoid the constr. concitare + inf. and which for this reason (and beause of its presence in MN) was defended by Magnus (1894, 204  f.), who also saw in the imperative a more appropriate form for the highly emotive tone of the passage (“but in sense and rhythm it is inferior”: Hopkinson 2000, 129). Moreover, Magnus believes that the origin of the corruption (“die hauptsache”) lies in what he sees as the intrusive form quidue, which should be replaced by quidque, so that the passage would read: “… quae uos dementia” dixi / “concitat, o socii? captam dimittite Troiam!  – / quidque domum fertis decimo nisi dedecus anno?” In a study of the same year, although published in 1895, Ehwald (1894, 71  f.) recalls the frequency with which forms such as dimittere-dimittite are interchanged in the mss. (cf. e.  g. 263, 372) and points out the impossibility of combining the imperative and the copulative when the second clause is interrogative (this observation appears precisely in his note on “variants” with respect to Korn’s text – where, incidentally, he reads quidque … anno? –, in H-K-E 1898, 405 [= H-K-E-A 1966, 515]: “Dass in der Form der demonstratio der zweite Satz mit einer kopulativen Konjunktion eingeleitet werden kann, ist nicht zu bestreiten (…), aber die Möglichkeit eines Fragesatzes in diesem Fall hat Magnus nicht erwiesen”). Magnus’ proposal was picked up by Slater (1927, ad loc.) with a “fortasse recte”, although Magnus himself later refrained from introducing the form quidque into the text of his edition (1914), limiting himself to noting (1914,

146

Commentary

491 in app.): “Quidque dom. l c conieci || potuit tamen poeta dicere, dementis esse et Troiam captam dimittere et post tot annos nihil nisi dedecus domum ferre”, a paraphrase which clearly does not correspond to the phrasing of the Ovidian text. The variant dimittite has been explicitly defended, on the basis of the arguments of Magnus, by Marahrens (1971, 223  f.) as “bessere Überlieferung”, a debatable claim (already made in Magnus 1894, 204), but not the conjecture quidque, which she rejects in favour of quidue “da die Frage der Aufforderung (v. 226) entgegengestellt wird”. I feel that the weakest point in the whole of Magnus’ proposal is indeed this untenable quidque, although it was recovered in their texts by Goold (1984) and Ramírez de Verger (2005). In view of this, I limit myself to subscribing to the words of Helm (1915, 546): “Ist der Satz durch den Imperativ unterbrochen, so ist das ue sinnlos geworden.” This scholar also pertinently recalls that there are innumerable passages which indicate the appropriateness of-ue: e.  g. Verg. Aen. 1.539  f., 2.150  f., 3.88 etc. 227: domum  … decimo  … dedecus: for the wordplay with assonance (Skutsch 1956, 536), cf. Hom. Od. 5.263: τῷ δ’ ἄρα πέμπτῳ πέμπ’ ἀπὸ νήσου δῖα Καλυψώ, and cf. ad 209 decimo demum. For the notion, cf. Hom. Il. 2.295–8. 228–229: Talibus atque aliis, in quae dolor ipse disertum fecerat, auersos profuga de classe reduxi. • 229 reduxi] retraxi CLr5 Gf4, “Argent.” test. Burm. 1727  : reduci O3 •

228: ipse: Burman (1727, 874) attributes to Heinsius the reference to having read ire in “Arund. ut apud Virgil. iv. Aeneid. 413. Ire in lacrimas”, but the ms. Heinsius denotes as codex Arondelianus, Ld, does not offer this reading, and neither does Heinsius make any comment in this regard in his collation of the codex (o, 162). 229: auersos: Lr2 and a substantial group of recc. (uid. append.) give the reading aduersos, which is clearly inferior (Heinsius 1659, 336: “auersos cum melioribus scriptis reponendum”). reduxi: in mss. CLr5 and Gf4 (the ms. “Langer.” cited by Burm. 1727, 874) I have found the variant retraxi, no doubt originating in 237. 230–233: Conuocat Atrides socios terrore pauentes,      230 nec Telamoniades etiam nunc hiscere quicquam audet: at ausus erat reges incessere dictis Thersites etiam – per me haud impune – proteruus!



Commentary

147

• 230 hunc u. uncinis not. Haupt-Korn 1876, Korn 1880, Simmons 1889 • 232 audet at A4B2C(p.c. a m.p.)H2LdO3O42(at i.l. u.l.)P3Vd(p.c.) Mo3 B12Bo2(a.c.), Plan., “alii decem” test. Heinsius 1659, prob. Jahn 1832, edd. post. (uid. append.)  : audeat MV2V3(a.c.) AbELr5O3 B8Ds2P5 Bo Lr27P41, “Cantabr.  … et sex alii” test. Heinsius 1659, prob. Anderson 1982  : audet ut LuN(p.c.; quid a.c. n.l.)P2S2V3(p.c.)T B42Be2C(a.c.)FGHdL4Lr4Lr7N2OO42(ut i.l. alt.u.l.)TrTuV4V7 DGoLr82(ut i.l. u.l.)V16 Bo2(p.c.)Cs3Es3FtMt5P28Vt Es3Es4Es5Vd11 P46Ca2(a.c.)P47, “quindecim alii” test. Heinsius 1659  : audet et Ω, Puteol. 1471, edd. (uid. append.)  : audet set M2  : audet nisi B5  : audet Ld2  : audit et Mt, “unus meus” test. Heinsius 1659, Regius 1540 : audeat et V5(a.c.) V30, Aler. 1471  : audet aut Vd(a.c.)  : ausus at “unus Ambros.” test. Heinsius 1659, coni. Bentley  : ausus et “alius” test. Heinsius 1659  : ausit et “Oxon.” test. Heinsius 1659, Walch. 1714 et 1731  : ausit, at Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1739, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828  : quid Ca2 p.c. n.l. • 233 proteruus Ω, Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, edd. (uid. append.) : proterus(per comp.) Fe(a.c.)  : superbus G(a.c.)  : proteruius Bo  : proteruis M2(uid., a.c.) BB5CsELr3LsO4(p.c.)P3(a.c.)PrT7TuV7(p.c.)Vd(a.c.) Ld6(p.c.)Li3Mt3(uid.) RdVt B14Es5, prob. Heinsius 1659(qui “et alii circiter uiginti” test.), edd. post. (uid. append.)  : paternis Ld6(a.c.)  : quid Ph2 a.c. n.l. • nam manus hunc [s]ceptro mater percussit eburno post u. 233 hab. V6V7  : iam manus hunc sceptro mea tunc percussit eburno Lr8; cf. Homer. 140 (Eleg. in Maec. 1.51) •

230: this line was printed in brackets by Korn in the ed. by Haupt-Korn 1876 with the following note (p. 168): “230. Der Vers ist wohl unächt. Einmal ist die angegebene Thatsache nicht richtig: nicht der Atride, sondern Ulixes bringt die Menge zusammen. Zweitens ist ebenso socios – (die Fürsten? das Volk?) unklar, wie sein Attribut paventes der Situation unangemessen. Ferner ist der Inhalt des Verses bereits durch v. 229 vorweggenommen. Schliesslich ist der Vers ein leoninischer Hexameter” (for the seclusion of 223–33 by Merkel, uid. ad loc.). The brackets are kept both in the text of Korn 1880 (284 in app.: “uncinis seclusi ut insiticium”) and in that of Simmons 1889, who lists and adopts (p. 105) the four arguments in Korn’s note (thus also Keene 1898, 73). Ehwald, for his part, refutes them as follows (H-K-E 1898, 405 [H-KE-A 1966, 515]): “O. Korn athetiert diesen Vers. Dass der Widerspruch mit der Erzählung der Ilias nichts beweist, zeigen die in der Anm. angeführten Stellen [i.  e. n. ad loc., p. 298: Il. 2.162, 196  ff., 212, 245, 267, 279, 284…]; socii entspricht dem homerischen Vers ὅν τινα μὲν βασιλῆα καὶ ἔξοχον ἄνδρα κιχείη (Il. 2, 188) und metu pauentes dem οὔ σε ἔοικε κακὸν ὣς δειδίσσεσθαι (ebend. v. 190); dass der Ausgang der Vershälften Atrid e s und pauent e s einen Verdachtsgrund nicht abgeben kann, lehrt schon v. 224”. Tarrant (2000, 435 and 438) continues to doubt its authenticity, although in his text (2004, 379) he publishes it without brackets. Indeed, there seem to be no sufficient grounds for seclusion (thus Bömer 1982, 261) if we consider, in the words of Huyck (1991, 152), “(i) that there Odysseus is apparently acting on Agamemnon’s orders (2.75), (ii) that he displays his authority by carrying Agamemnon’s scepter (186), (iii) that he checks the fleeing troops by appealing to Agamemnon’s supremacy (204 […])  , and finally (iv) that Thersites, the first speaker at the assembly, immediately sees the whole affair as Agamemnon’s doing (225 […])  . […] Someone must

148

Commentary

convene the assembly and thus, according to the custom, seat the troops, for Ulysses cannot stand up (234 erigor) until he has sat down”. For Hill (2000, 141) “Homer reports that it was Odysseus (Il. 2.207–10) who reconvened the assembly, but it is more tactful to suggest that it was Agamemnon and […] better suited to Ulixes’ purposes”. And this is how the line is defended by Hopkinson (2000, 129): “There seems no good reason why a line giving a false version of events should have been interpolated. If it were removed, etiamnunc would refer to the chaotic scene at the ships […], but lines 232–5 show that it must refer to the subsequent assembly.” See also Kenney 1984, 34  f. As regards its transmission (uid. append.), the line appears in all the mss. and its first hemistich (conuocat atrides) is also found in Mo9 (s. XI2). It is true, however, that in V16 (a. 1275) ll. 230  f. appear in the same line, although not as the result of a correction but because they were written like this from the start, while the whole text was being copied. terrore pauentes: note (uid. append.) that the copyist of T7 probably introduces a gloss when he gives the reading terrore timentes and that the copyist of Cs rewrites the iunctura as pauore timentes. In Rd (s. XIV) it is impossible to see what might have been there before the correction, although a lower stroke can be distinguished in the initial letter (pauore?). 231: etiam nunc: for the nunc-num alternation (uid. append.), which the metre rules out here, uid. ad 195. Glareanus-Longolius (1570, 235 in annot.): “Vide num posuerit nunc pro tunc, ut saepe fit”. Ehwald defended the joined-up etiamnunc (H-K-E 1898, 405). Cf. 668. 232: audet at: this is the reading of a handful of recc. (uid. app.) and probably the one translated by Planudes (Τολμᾷ δ’ ὁ Θερσίτης). Among the edd. it was taken up again by Jahn 1832 and has been fairly widely accepted ever since. There is a close reading in MV2V3(a.c.) and some recc.: audeat, scarcely valid in itself (and yet printed by Anderson 1982, on his own) but of value as a witness to the origin of the corruption (uid. infra). The mss. V5(a.c.) and V30 as well as the ed. Aler. 1471 (but not Lr22, which has audet et) give the unmetrical audeat et and in this respect it is symptomatic that this is the reading that Fabbri (1923, 145 in app.) attributes to M, for in fact in this ms. the reading audeat (as copied in Lr27) is followed by a punctuation mark (identical to those closing e.  g. ll. 229 or 235) which has been interpreted as an abbreviation of et (Fabbri, ibid. also attributes to M a separated aud eat, but the ms. clearly reads audeat). That is to say, in reading the copulative either in M or in another codex very close to M (uid. ad 94 pro tot date), the copyist of V30 may have made the same mistake as Fabbri. In the case of V5 I have found no evidence of any connection with M; if anything, it tends to coincide with L3 among the mss. of group Γ (cf. e.  g. 57 certum; 77 ipsum; 150 expendete; 202 et). One variant that supports audet at is the unmetrical audet set, found in M2 and clearly originating in a synonymic gloss like those that can still be read above the line e.  g. in B2, E or Mo3. Finally, the unmetrical reading of



Commentary

149

Vd(a.c.): audet aut, can also be considered to reflect a paradosis audet at due to the systematic at-aut alternation in the mss. The reading audet ut has greater weight in the mss., although it was rightly avoided by the edd., given that this ut clearly originates in an interlinear commentary introduced to compare the different behaviour of Aias and Thersites. The best-documented variant in the mss. and one followed in some editions from Puteol. 1471 to Galasso 2000 (he explicitly diverges from Anderson on p. CXX, “Avvertenza”) is audet et, which was defended by Marahrens (1971, 224): “scheint mir von der Vielzahl der Lesarten audet et ausus erat dem Sinn am besten zu entsprechen, wobei et betont und in der Bedeutung “und dabei” aufzufassen ist”, as it had been previously by Bach (1836, 311), who detected in et an adversative-concessive sense. Other variants are ausus at, the reading of “unus Ambros.”, according to Heinsius (1659, 336), which also appears among Bentley’s proposals (Hedicke 1905, 32; “fort. ut ἀποσιώπησις esset”, according to Huyck 1991, 82 in app.). For the combination ausus et Heinsius (ibid.) offers the testimony of “alius”. Heinsius himself states that he has read the variant ausit et in an “Oxon.” and this is the text published by Walchius (1714 and 1731). For this reading Heinsius (ibid.) proposes (“Lege” is his only argument) and publishes ausit, at, and he is followed by Burman (1727), Walchius (1739, with no commentary) and Gierig, Bothe, Lemaire and Richter in the 19th c., although the proposal was challenged in the following terms by Baumgarten-Crusius (1834, 498): “Ausit. at ausus erat, quod miror editores exinde recepisse, quum corrumpat sententiam, re praeterita ad praesens tempus reuocata”. In short, the preferable reading is audet at, which enjoys sufficient direct and indirect support in the manuscript transmission. This was the text adopted by Scivoletto, who diverged from Anderson 1982 as the basic text (2000, 37) with the following argument: “audeat;  ]  : nonostante che la lezione venga trasmessa da parecchi testimoni, non si capisce bene la funzione del potenziale nel racconto che Ulisse fa sull’assemblea convocata dall’Atride; per questo sembra ragionevole supporre qualche accavallamento di lettere esistente nell’originale, se è vero che l’autorevole M legge audeat et, F legge solo audet e PW e la seconda mano di EN leggono audet ut, lezione che impone, quasi, la correzione audet at” (note that for the manuscript transmission his information seems to come more from Fabbri 1923 than Anderson 1982). Luck (2009, 111) rightly defends audet at “because it explains the others”, i.  e. as a further example of “missing letters”: AVDETAT > AVDEAT. As regards audet et, it is yet another example of the intrusion of et to the detriment of at as being a much more frequent and better-known word. reges incessere dictis: note again the inversion with metrical result in V7: dictis incessere reges. For incessere, cf. 566. 233: etiam: depending on whether we take this adv. as going with per me or ausus erat, the comma will have to be placed after Thersites (Heinsius) or

150

Commentary

after etiam itself (Ehwald), respectively, this latter solution being the one I opt for without reserve (see Magnus 1914, 491 in app.). proteruus: the abl. proteruis, parallel with dictis in the same position in the previous line, is a reading whose presence is dubious in M2(a.c.) and a not very large group of recc. (uid. app.), but it was recovered by Heinsius, who had in fact read it in a wide range of his mss. (at the other extreme, Anderson 1982, 306, attributes to it the sole testimony of E), with this brief commentary (1659, 336): “pro proteruus repone mox proteruis. dictis uidelicet”. As usual Heinsius was followed by a long line of editors and some, such as Bach (1836, 311), adduced the reasonable parallels of trist. 3.11.31: dictis incessit amaris and Sil. 3.171: monitis incessit amaris. Against this reading, the bulk of the mss. give proteruus, applied to Thersites in such a way that noun and adj. occupy both ends of the line. For my part, I find the application of the adj. to the person more effective than having it modify dictis, a solution that strikes me as facilior in that it is more banal in spite of the traiectio (a figure which applies in both cases and at almost the same distance) and in spite of the expression lingua proteruior in Homer. 137, which in any case comes after the direct characterization of the individual (Homer. 136  f.): hic tunc Thersites, quo non deformior alter / uenerat ad Troiam nec lingua proteruior ulli (cf. Regius 1493, ad loc.: “Thersites quo nemo deformior, nemo lingua proteruior’”). But the fact is that, if we go back to the original source, we can see that throughout the Homeric episode the peculiar figure of Thersites is portrayed precisely by using qualifying adjs. in reiterated fashion (Hom. Il. 2.212): ἀμετροεπὴς; 216: αἴσχιστος; 217: φολκὸς ἔην, χωλὸς δ’; 220: ἔχθιστος; 246: Θερσῖτ’ ἀκριτόμυθε, λιγύς περ ἐὼν ἀγορητής; 248: χερειότερον. Of all these adjectives it seems clear that Ovid is using proteruus to refer to his brazen tongue (cf. Homer. 137: lingua proteruior), a characteristic Homer had evoked at the beginning (212 ἀμετροεπὴς) and the end (246 ἀκριτόμυθε) of his description and which explains the natural manner in which this adj. has been taken as modifying dictis in Ovid’s text. Cf. also 12.232  f., which contains the sequence  … uerbis / … proteruis without there being any relationship between the two words. For further defence of proteruus, see Loers (1843, 485): “mihi scriptura plurimorum uett. librorum etiam elegantior uidetur, quia simplicior est”; Ehwald (H-K-E 1898, 405 [H-K-E-A 1966, 515]): “proteruis = N. Heinsius nach codd.; proteruus MN, bei der von mir eingesetzten Interpunktion (O. Korn Thersites, etiam per me haud impune, proteruis) ist eine Änderung der guten Überlieferung unnötig”. Finally, Hopkinson (2000, 130) also points to possible etymological wordplay both in ausus erat (232) and in proteruus, since “Thersites’ name […] is formed from tharsos (Aeolic thersos), ‘boldness’”. 233b: following in the wake of the same passage of the Ilias Latina mentioned above, mss. V6V7 and Lr8 give this text: nam(iam Lr8) manus hunc (s)ceptro mater(mea tunc recte Lr8) percussit eburno. Cf. Homer. 139  f.:  … quem consiliis inlustris Vlixes / correptum dictis sceptro percussit eburno (cf.



Commentary

151

Hom. Il. 2.265  f.: σκήπτρῳ δὲ μετάφρενον ἠδὲ καὶ ὤμω / πλῆξεν; for sceptro … eburno, cf. Iuu. 10.43; for percussit eburno, cf. eleg. in Maec. 1.51: Actius ipse lyram plectro percussit eburno). Mss. V6V7 coincide in a considerable number of places, but their readings also diverge in numerous passages. Ms. Lr8 appears to have a text of greater quality, above all because it is an apograph of N (see Anderson 1977, 261–74), but this link only holds up to 11.66, “and the remainder of the poem was completed by a totally different second hand (using a different source of clearly inferior value)” (ibid. 262). In any case and as far as this passage is concerned, the isolated line that has come down to us sounds dissonant. 234–237: Erigor et trepidos ciues exhortor in hostem amissamque mea uirtutem uoce repono.        235 Tempore ab hoc, quodcumque potest fecisse uideri fortiter iste, meum est, qui dantem terga retraxi. • 235 repono P22(mg. u.l.)S2 Ld2(i.l. u.l.)Tu(-e a.c.) Bs2, coni. Marcilius 1604, Bentley, prob. Bothe 18182, Riese 1872, Merkel 1875, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, Lejay 1894, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Goold 1984, Huyck 1991, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005, dub. Hopkinson 2000(in notis)  : reposco Ω, Aler. 1471, edd.  : roposco Ph2  : reposto(add. “i. recupero”) Bo2(i.l. u.l.)  : refundo M2P2T A4(reposco mg. u.l. A42)GLr7Mo(mg. u.l. a m.p.)OTrV92(mg. u.l.) DSo2(mg. u.l.)V16 BoCs3Es22(i.l. u.l.)Mt5 Bo2(reposco mg. u.l. Bo22)Vt AsCvEs6F2P38PsZ, “pri. Moret.  … multique alii” test. Heinsius 1659, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Regius 1493  : refirmo “unus Mediol.” test. Heinsius 1659  : reformo Go2(i.l.), “unus Voss.” test. Heinsius 1659  : rependo “unus meus” test. Heinsius 1659  : reprendo dub. Heinsius 1659 •

234: hostem: again the “select” group of mss. (uid. append.; and note that N once more coincides with M, while N2V2 are now contaminated) preserves the preferable sing. to a pl., no doubt conditioned by the preceding trepidos, by the previous two lines ending in -s and even as an echo of l. 121 (cf. 207). Ovid is equally fond of the phrase in hostem (ars 3.667; met. 12.78, 282, 358, 373, 511) and in hostes (am. 1.9.17; met. 7.139; 8.338; 13.121; trist. 1.5.23; 2.1.187), both always at the end of the hexameter. Among the edd., Aler. 1471 and Naug. 1516 had already recovered this reading in opposition to other contemporary edd., and Bersm. 1596 displayed his sympathy in a marginal note. It was Heinsius, once again, who established it in the text, with the sole subsequent disagreement of Jahn 1832, Weise 1845 and Koch 1866. 235: repono: the mss. and edd. in general offer reposco, an identical form to the one we have already seen in the same position in ll. 180 and 200. However, both in those two passages and in its other appearances in Ovid (epist. 5.91; ars 3.252; met. 14.401), the verb has its proper sense of “demand the return of something that is one’s own” (cf. OLD s.u., 1620  f. and see Hardie 2015, 244 ad 200), which is not exactly what Ulysses means here.

152

Commentary

Bach (1836, 311), who considers reposco “Bedeutungsvoller”, attempts to interpret it as the demand to return to the valour that has been lost, but this does not imply the restoring of something that is Ulysses’ own and therefore there is no validity in the parallel he adduces of Verg. Aen. 12.573: foedusque reposcite flammis. Nor is Hopkinson’s attempt to broaden the verb’s semantic range valid, although his explicit doubts are eloquent (2000, 130): “reposco, if it is the correct reading, must mean ‘summon back’ (OLD s.v. posco 3). Some MSS. have repono […]; it may well be right”. Here, rather, Ulysses is reasserting his contribution to the recovery of his companions’ lost bravery (Keene 1898, 73: “repono = restituo”; see also Huyck 1991, 153; although it cannot be used as clear proof in favour of any reading, Planudes’ translation, ἐπανασῴζω, seems to stress more this idea of reestablishment than that of a demand). The editors recall that Bentley (see Hedicke 1905, 32) conjectured repono, but Heinsius (1659, 336, with more information in 1758, 694 [Burm. 1727, 874]) had already pointed out that this proposal had been put forward by Marcilius (1604, 52) in his note on Hor. carm. 3.5.29  f.: “Cvrat reponi virtvs. Ouidius lib. xiii in Oratione Vlyxis. Amissamque mea uirtutem uoce reposco, Errore librarii reposco ibi male pro, repono. Atque ita rectius quam ut alii correxere, refundo. Vt uirtutem addere apud Sallustium in concione C. Marii in Iugurth. & adlocutione Catilinae ad milites in Catilinario, sic uirtutem reponere.” Bentley must have taken the idea from there. When Hellmuth (1883, 230) testifies to this being the reading of the ms. “Nic.”, this information is taken by Zingerle (1884, XVIII: “repono Bentley, cuius emendatio nunc cod. Nic. confirmatur”) as proof that Bentley was right. Zingerle was followed by others such as Simmons (1889, 105), Edwards (1905, 474 “cod. Nicolait.”) and Magnus (1914, 491), but this is an error on Hellmuth’s part as T7 clearly gives reposco (uid. ad 161 ducar). Even so, it should be remembered that Heinsius had already attested this reading as u.l. of the second hands of P2 and Ld, as well as the unique reading of Bs2, and Jahn (1832, 827) had added the testimony of the “Rhen.”, which in this case does coincide with Tu(p.c.). But in addition  – and this has not been pointed out hitherto – this is the indisputable reading of S2 (s. XII1). The first ed. to incorporate the reading repono is that of Bothe 18182 (surprisingly he does not even mention it in his Vindiciae: 1818, 130) and it was followed by others in the same century, among them that of Riese (1872) or the 2nd ed. of Merkel (1875; in 1850 he had reposco), and principally by the English language editions from Simmons 1889 down to our day (recently by Holzberg 2017 too). The meaning of repono in fact suits our context perfectly and indeed the variant is backed by the parallel adduced by Marcilius (Hor. carm. 3.5.29  f.): nec uera uirtus, cum semel excidit, / curat reponi deterioribus (and cf. a m i s s o s colores / lana r e f e r t in the same passage, ll. 27  f.; see also Hardie 2015, 249). Indirect proof of the copyists’ unease in the face of reposco are the other variants of the mss. (uid. app.), such as reposto, which I have found written



Commentary

153

above as u.l. in Bo2 (Bo has refundo) with the added note “i. recupero” and which seems simply to be a deformation of reposco (cf. roposco en Ph2); refirmo, a non-classical word (cf. Ruf. 14) stemming clearly from a gloss (cf. e.  g. the unmetrical reuoco written i.l. in Mo3, or resuscito, in Ld2) and read by Heinsius (ibid.) in “unus Mediol.”; reformo, a reading found by Heinsius in “unus Voss.” but which I have only seen written above in Go2, and which looks like a simple variant of the previous reading, as it does not fit the sense of the passage; refundo, the variant with the second-greatest weight in the ms. tradition and which was accepted in the early edd. down to Regius 1493 (“Refundo. in animos eorum remitto. Reparo. Restituo. quamuis in quibusdam exemplaribus reposco legatur’”), but which clearly does not fit the sense of the passage; rependo, which Heinsius found in “unus meus” but whose meaning, “compensate” (cf. e.  g. am. 1.8.80: uanescit culpa culpa repensa mea; see OLD s.u. 6, 1617) does not fit here either. Working from this last-mentioned reading Heinsius suggested reprendo (1659, 336 [Burm. 1727, 874  f.]: “putem reprendo. eleganter”), presenting the following parallels: 15.526: membra rapi partim, partim reprensa relinqui (“hoc est, tanquam ex fuga retracta uepribus adhaerere”); epist. 11.53: elapsa … uerba reprendo (“ubi multi codices etiam rependo”); Lucr. 6.568  f.: uis nulla refrenet / res neque ab exitio possit reprehendere euntis; Prop. 3.19.9: quam possit uestros quisquam reprehendere cursus; Liu. 34.14.8: adeo turbati erant  … ut quosdam consul manu ipse reprenderit. This proposal is by no means preposterous, and neither would it be aberrant to consider reporto (cf. 3.369; epist. 7.159; fast. 3.855). However, repono is preferable, both because of its meaning and because it enables the origin of the other variants to be explained. 236: tempore ab hoc: although the reading in itself is of no worth, note that, from the variant ad of some recc., in line with the usual -b-/-d- confusion (uid. append.), LdO3 go one step further and also offer tempus: i.  e. tempus ad hoc. quodcumque: from this original reading in M the -d- has been erased and the -o- has been marked to make it possible to read -e-: i.  e. quecumque (thus e.  g. AGfS2 T7: uid. append.). The copyist of Lr27 has not fully understood the correction and has written the incorrect quocumque. For quaecumque, cf. 907, 950. 237: qui: some mss. (uid. append.) give quem, a reading Heinsius (1659, 336) attributed to “meliores” and incorporated into his text, to be followed by Burman in his 1713 ed. and by Walchius in all of his. However, in his 1727 ed. Burman wisely corrected it to qui on the following grounds (1727, 875): “Durior ille concursus uocum in em exeuntium, et quod a librariis profectum fuit, qui metuebant Orbilium, si post meum est, sequeretur qui”, giving the lie to the supposed lack of style (“ungewöhnliche Brachylogie”, Bömer 1982, 262) with the parallels (ibid. and see also his note in 1727, III, 473  f. ad trist. 1.5.41) of trist. 1.5.41: causa mea est melior, quae non contraria foui (cf. 2.1.51); 3.5.45  f.: non … petitum / Caesareum caput est, quod caput orbis erat;

154

Commentary

Pont. 3.4.91: nec mea uerba legis, qui sum… Many other examples can be added, such as Cic. fam. 3.9.3.6: non est meum, qui … ponam; 1.9.23.22: ad arbitrium tuum, qui haec semper amasti; Sen. epist. 102.18: meum, qui laudor. 238–240: Denique de Danais quis te laudatue petitue? at sua Tydides mecum communicat acta, me probat et socio semper confidit Vlixi.    

240

• 240 ulixi M(p.c.)S22(p.c., i suprascr.) Lr27  : ulixe Ω, edd.  : ulixes uel ulixe M(a.c.) •

238: laudatue petitue: as is to be expected, the forms -ue/-ne/-que alternate repeatedly here as do false wordbreaks (uid. append.). The only variant worth considering is probatue, which Burman (1727, 875) read in “Cod. Menard. [B8] et alius”, but which comes from the probat of l. 240. 240: socio semper confidit Vlixi: the bulk of the mss. and all the edd. give ulixe, and this might also have been the original reading of M, as other editors point out, although in view of the length of the erasure I am more inclined to read ulixes (cf. 6, 14, 18, 62, 92, 305, 341, 387, 485, 773). Whatever the case, it is clear that this reading was corrected into ulixi and this is what was copied in Lr27. Similarly, S22 underlines the -e and writes an -i above  . The verb confido (and note in passing that the reading ofidit in Bo3 points to the spelling ɔfidit in its antigraph) is constructed with both the dat. and the abl. (TLL 4.206.80–208.18; cf. Seru. ad Aen. 1.452: fido et confido datiuum regit), but the abl. is the almost exclusive domain of the prose writers (the first clear example in verse is Luc. 4.406: illic bellaci confisus gente Curictum) and it usually refers to things and not to animate beings (TLL 4.207.28: “c. abl. (aliqua re)”). Focusing on Ovidian usus and leaving to one side the construction with acc.+inf. (met. 9.255  f.; trist. 3.3.79), his preference for the dat. is clear (epist. 17.173: uitae confidit; ars 2.143: confide figurae; met. 10.69: confisa figurae), although in some of these passages the mss. and edd. also vacillate between the dat. and abl. forms (see Burm. 1727, 690  f. ad 10.69  f. and cf. Fàbregas 2016, 111 ad loc.). We will therefore have to take as datives the two cases in doubt (am. 3.9.39: carminibus confide bonis; fast. 3.569: hospitio regis confisa uetusto). There now remains only the passage in epist. 9.99: et male confisum pedibus formaque bimembri, in which the mss. also give confixum and confusum (Dörrie 1971, 133), but they do seem to be unanimous in the reading forma, which once again has an inanimate referent. For the model of the episode, cf. Hom. Il. 10.242–7 (Huyck 1991, 154  f.; Hopkinson 2000, 131  f.; Hardie 2015, 249).



155

Commentary

241–246: Est aliquid de tot Graiorum milibus unum a Diomede legi. Nec me sors ire iubebat; sic tamen, et spreto noctisque hostisque periclo, ausum eadem quae nos Phrygia de gente Dolona interimo, non ante tamen quam cuncta coëgi     prodere et edidici quid perfida Troia pararet.

245

• 243 † si tamen et † not. Huyck 1991; sponte mea dub. prop. in notis • sic GfN(p.c. a m.p.; sed i.l. u.l. N2)V3(uid.; sed p.c. a m.p.) B5(sed a.c.)Gg(sed i.l. u.l.)H2HdP4(sed p.c. P42)V5Vd B14Lr22V30, Aler. 1471, Heinsius 1659(qui et “Cantabr. … et alii quinque” test.), edd.  : sc M(a.c.)N(a.c.)  : si V2, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Possanza  : sed Ω, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Fabbri 1923  : sum M(p.c.) Lr27, Korn 1880  : sed me De  : deest in Ls • et … periclo pro parenth. hab. Ehwald 1915, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983 • 244 ausum … Phrygia] ausum eadem frigia quae nos Ld6 • ausum … nos] ausus et ausum eadem coni. Korn 1880 •

242–243: the connection between these lines presents obvious difficulties, as is illustrated by the variants of the first word in l. 243, which can be summarized, although with different weighting in each case (uid. app.), as sic, si, sed and sum. Of these, si is the clear reading of V2 and the edd. have chosen to read it as the first text of MN, although my impression is that in both the initial reading was sc (s c, with the separation characteristic of the first letter of the line). In M the second letter has been erased and M2 has û in its place, and this reading sum is copied in the apograph Lr27 but fails to appear in any other of the mss. I have collated. In N, on the other hand, the correction has been made by inserting an -i- between s and c (i.  e. sic), the work of the same m.p., and it is N2 that writes above the s- as a u.l. the abbreviation 7 (i.  e. set = sed). As for sic, it is the reading of Gf and probably (more likely than si) of V3(a.c.), as well as a few recc., the ed. Aler. 1471, Heinsius and almost all later editors. Finally, most of the mss., the editions prior to Heinsius and only Fabbri (1923) after him have transmitted sed, a form very frequently associated with tamen in Ovid (cf. e.  g. 278), which as a result appears as an intrusive variant in other passages (e.  g. 4.537) but here is more difficult to reconcile with the copulative et that follows. Nor do I find any sense in si in connection with the preceding clauses, and certainly not with the iubebat clause. This is so self-evident that Magnus opted to enclose the sentence in brackets, taking it as a new comment on the part of Ulysses, and his proposal was followed by Ehwald (though not yet in 1898) and Anderson, who also wrote si. However, although Ulysses’ observation is in fact laden with irony and is yet another attempt to prove his superiority over Aias, who had indeed acted out of obligation (l. 88), the resulting conditional period is unacceptable (as already noted by Helm 1915, 546): Est aliquid … a Diomede legi …, si … Dolona interimo, and Bömer (1982, 263)

156

Commentary

fails to convince in his attempts to prove that si is used here as “si identicum” (“wenn (wobei)”), that tamen is “nur leicht adversatives” and that et is “Korrelat zu vorhergehendem nec” (for the now-rejected other variant si tamen, cf. ad 101). I do not share either the defence made by Possanza (2005), who accepts Magnus’ parenthesis, takes et to be an adverb (“as well [as Diomedes]” and forces the meaning of tamen, translating the text in this way: “It counts for something to be the one man alone chosen by Diomedes out of so many thousands of Greeks (and in fact the lot was not commanding me to go), if, in spite of what has been said, scorning the dangers of the night and the enemy as well, I kill Dolon …”. As for the correction sum in M2 and Lr27, it was taken into consideration only by Korn (1880, 285), who made room for it at the cost of transforming the whole text (243–5): sum tamen et spreto … periclo / ausus et ausum eadem … Dolona / interimo. The conjecture is a clever one and the polyptoton ausus et ausum would be to the liking of Ovid himself, but neither the collocation sum … / ausus … nor the connection with et nor much less the quasi-absolute structure of sum ausus are convincing (cf. the model in Verg. Aen. 12.350, also in reference to Dolon: ausus … poscere). This then leaves sic tamen, which Burman defends explicitly (1727, I, 304 ad epist. 20.219): “Eadem elegantia, qua sic quoque saepe occurrit”. For Huyck (1991, 155), on the other hand, although it is preferable to si it does not go together neatly with the following et, to which objection he adds (ibid.) the suspicious repetition of tamen in l. 245, which leads him to propose, though only at the very end of his comm. ad loc., the expression sponte sua (i.  e. sponte sua et spreto…) as the likely genuine text from Ovid’s hand, obelizing si tamen in the text. However, although it is true that et would be joining two members (sic tamen and spreto periclo) that “are not grammatically parallel” (Huyck ibid.), it should be recalled that this is not a unique or unsurmountable grammatical difficulty (Ehwald’s solution of enclosing et … periclo in brackets strikes me, not as aberrant, but definitely unnecessary, since the need to make the elements hang together persists), because the fact is that et is joining the adverbial reference sic and the also adverbial reference spreto periclo. Ulysses has just made it clear that, unlike Aias, he could have opted not to go on that dangerous expedition, and he goes on to add that even so (tamen), in those conditions (sic) and spurning the obvious danger (et spreto periclo) he killed Dolon (thus Hopkinson 2000, 132). For the inaccuracy of this last-mentioned claim by Ulysses, as it was Diomedes who killed Dolon and also Rhesus and his companions (l. 250), cf. Hom. Il. 10.446–502 (Huyck 1991, 155  f.; Hill 2000, 142; Hopkinson 2000, 132  f.; Hardie 2015, 250). 244: ausum eadem quae nos: for the conjecture ausus et ausum eadem of Korn (1880), uid. supra. Heinsius (b3, 358) finds both ausus idem quod nos and ausum eadem qui nos (in M the original quæ is corrected to qua and that is what is copied in Lr27, but I think that the reading qui should not be



157

Commentary

ruled out in M either). However, among those notes of Heinsius I have been unable to find the variant ausurumque eadem which Magnus (1914, 492 in app.) claims to have read there. Finally, Heinsius (1659, 337) suggests reading ausum eadem nobis, as a Graecism, based on the parallels of l. 50: eadem nobis iuratus in arma, and am. 1.4.1: Vir tuus est epulas nobis aditurus easdem (see his note in vol. I, 1658, 201). Burman (1727, 875) rejects this proposal and defends the vulgate quae nos as “aeque elegans et Latinum magis”. eadem: the variant etiam of a significant number of mss. and some edd. (uid. append. and note that von Albrecht 1994, 878, diverges expressly from Anderson in adopting eadem) seems to have been introduced from 275. H-K-E 1898, 406: “etiam scheint als Glosse von eadem in den Text gedrungen zu sein” (however, Ehwald later accepted it for his ed. of 1915). ausum … Phrygia: note the inversion with a metrical result of Ld6: ausum eadem frigia quae nos. 246: cf. Homer. 727  f.: … postquam quid Troia pararet / cognouere uiri. 247–252: omnia cognoram nec quod specularer habebam et iam promissa poteram cum laude reuerti: haud contentus eo petii tentoria Rhesi inque suis ipsum castris comitesque peremi,     atque ita captiuo, uictor uotisque potitus, ingredior curru laetos imitante triumphos.

250

• 247–248 suspectos hab. Merkel 1850 • 247 quod S2 Be2C(p.c.)ELd2TrV4 Bs2L7Ld6SoToV16 BoEs3Mt4Rd, Plan., Heinsius 1659(qui et “prim. Moret. … et uno meo” test.), Burm. 1727(qui “Cantabrig.” test.), edd.  : quid Ω, Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Weise 1845, Koch 1866  : per quod V5(a.c.)  : quo C(a.c.)Vd • 249 eo] ego Mc(a.c.)  : ea coni. Heinsius 1659, prob. Burm. 1727, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834 •

247: Merkel (1850 or 1875, XI) included this line among those which, in his opinion, “rectius abessent”, even if he did not go so far as to enclose them within brackets in the text (he did mark both this one and 248 with a line in the margin in 1850). For the imitation of Homer. 727  f., uid. ad 246. cognoram: aside from the usual alternation with the perf. cognoui in the mss. (uid. append.), note the erratum cognorant which once more unites Lr22V30 with Aler. 1471. quod: although it is not always easy to determine what lies behind the abbreviations of quod-quid, I believe that the form of the rel. pron. is given only in S2 among the mss. of group Γ as well as some recc. (uid. app.) and by the translation by Planudes (καὶ οὐκ εἶχον ὅ, τι ποτὲ πλέον ἂν κατοπτεύοιμι). The first editor to restore it was Heinsius, who was rightly followed by all subsequent edd. except Weise (1845) and Koch (1866). “The structure habere

158

Commentary

quid + subj. elsewhere always means ‘know what one may X’, where X is the subjunctive verb” (Gratwick 1973 ad Verg. ecl. 2.2), but Ulysses certainly would have known what to spy on; his present situation is rather that he “had nought left me to espy” (Simmons 1889, 107; “habere mit konsekutivem Relativsatz” Bömer 1982, 264) for the simple reason that omnia cognoram: cf. Cic. sen. 68: At senex ne quod speret quidem habet (see also Earle 1903, 269 ad Verg. ecl. 2.2: “Quin reponimus, quod solum est uerum, nec quod speraret habebat”; Huyck 1991, 156  f.). 248: promissa: against this majority form, some mss. offer praemissa in line with the usual vacillation between preverbs. This variant was published by Heinsius and after him only by Burman and Walchius. Heinsius himself hazarded (b2, 357) “forte et promerita legi posset”, this comment later being noted by Burman (1727, 876) although Heinsius himself decided not to publish it in his own notes. Burman, for his part, hesitantly implies the appropriateness of promissa later on, when with regard to l. 348 he displays his sympathy for the variant pacta in preference to parta (uid. ad loc.). Heinsius’ change is in fact not necessary, “nam per promissam laudem intelligit gloriam quam sibi ex eiusmodi facinore promiserat, id est, sperarat” (Faber 1665, 319; for this promissa laus, uid. Hom. Il. 10.212–7). Bothe for his part suggested (18182, 269 in app.) praemessa, which he defends in these terms (1818, 131): “Coniiciebam aliquando legendum esse praemessa μεταφορικῶς, sicut passim metere usurpatur, ut quasi praelibata laude redire se tunc potuisse dicat Ithacensis, cum in ipso hostium exercitu atque urbe speculandum sibi amplius non fuerit, ut cui Dolon, quae ab iis pararentur, omnia prodidisset”. However, the participial form praemessus is unknown in classical Latin. 249: eo: Jahn (1832, 828) reads in “Langerm. et unus Medic.” the variant ea (also, with some doubts, in the “Berol.”, but B14 clearly gives eo), which was approved by Heinsius, and this information appears again e.  g. in Magnus (1914, 492 in app.). Heinsius stated (1659, 337 [Burm. 1727, 876]): “Haud contentus eâ rescribo, laude nimirum, non eo, cum Langerm. et uno Mediceo”. The reading is valid but most likely unnecessary. 250: inque suis ipsum castris comitesque: the mss. offer some instances of reordering with a metrical result as well as the odd variant (uid. append.), which represent no improvement on the majority reading although they can illustrate certain affinities (e.  g. comites castris ipsumque in P10So). For the suitability of the order as transmitted, cf. Huyck (1991, 157): “A snug situation for ipsum, cf. Il. 10.474 Ῥῆσος δ’ ἐν μέσῳ εὗδε. Note also Sen. Contr. 9.1.13 (breuitate Thucididen) Sallustius uicit et in suis illum castris cedidit”. For the real responsibility for these deaths, uid. ad 242  f. 251: captiuo: the adj. obviously refers to curru in l. 252 (cf. Verg. Aen. 7.184 [2.765]; “ungewöhnliches Enjambement” Bömer 1982, 264, and for this cf. Verg. Aen. 12.75  f.: haec … placitura), as Ulysses and Diomedes brought back no prisoner (see Simmons 1889, 107). For this reason, and in order to avoid the association captiuo … uotisque potitus (cf. 335, with Dardanio in the same position as captiuo and depending on potitus at the end of the line), uictor



Commentary

159

uotisque potitus should be separated by commas (“beinahe ein Pleonasmus”, Bömer ibid.), this being the punctuation found in Goold (1984; already present in Miller 19212) and in Ramírez de Verger (2005). uictor uotisque: uotis uictorque is another example of reordering in some mss. (uid. append.), but it disrupts the syntax. For some banal variants of uotisque, uid. append. For these uota, cf. Hom. Il. 10.282 and see Hopkinson 2000, 133  f. 252: among the numerous deformations with which all the words in this line are transmitted (uid. append.), and which can be explained as mechanical errors, note the attempted reconstruction which aligns Mc with P41: ingredior currus letos imitante triumpho. 253–254: cuius equos pretium pro nocte poposcerat hostis, arma negate mihi, fueritque benignior Aiax! • 253–254 damn. Bentley, sed postea Ouidio trib. • 254 damn. Merkel(in notis) • fueritque benignior] fueratque benignior L3(uid., a.c.)Lr2 Ld(fuerit i.l. u.l.) Mt3 Lu2  : fuerat benignior L3(p.c.) Lr7, “in altero antiquiore” test. Ciof. 1575  : fuerit(fuerit “Farn. et Sulm. 2” test. Jahn 1832) benignior Fe(a.c.)H3(a.c.)Pr FtMt4  : fuerit quod dignior Bs4, prob. Baumg.-Crus. 1834  : fiuntque benignior Ld6  : fuitque benignior Es2(a.c.)  : fuuitque benignior P47(a.c.)  : fuerit quia dignior A62(mg. u.l.), “Excerpta Calandrae” test. Heinsius 1659  : ferat haec ut dignior prop. Muretus, prob. Ciof. 1575, mg. reic. Bersm. 1596  : tuleritque ea dignior uel fueritque his dignior prop. Heinsius 1659 (fueritque his dignior prop. quoque Capof. 1659, prob. Baumg.-Crus. 1834 in notis, def. Dietsch)  : fuerit me dignior mallet Slater 1927  : obelos adhib. Huyck 1991, Galasso 2000(tantum fueritque) • Aiax] Hector coni. Gronouius, Bailey, Köppen, def. Koch •

253–254: the dense syntax and Ulysses’ surprising description of Aias as benignus have led to proposals for elimination or modification. The most drastic was that of Bentley, who marked the lines outright as spurious (Hedicke 1905, 32), although in his controversial Preface to the Dissertation on the Epistles of Phalaris (LXX) he later glosses them as Ovidian (uid. infra). Merkel (1850 or 1875, X) alludes to l. 254 as an example of the interpolation of hemistichs (I assume he is referring to the second one, although he does not state so) but introduces no mark in the text. More recently Huyck returned to the question and obelized fueritque benignior in his edition (1991, 83). His arguments are as follows: 1) the supposed reference of benignior to the words of Aias (101  f.: Si semel ista datis meritis tam uilibus arma, / diuidite, et pars sit maior Diomedis in illis, this being the argument of the defenders of benignior), “is already 150 lines old, and 150 lines is too far to look for the exegesis of such slender wit”; 2) none of the alternative proposals by the edd. (uid. infra) “provides a satisfactory resolution of the suspense created in the previous verse”; 3) “In paratactic constructions of this sort, where the imperative clause is logically subordinate (here = si arma mihi negaueritis), the two clauses typically either stand

160

Commentary

in asyndeton (F. 1.17 da mihi te placidum, dederis in carmina uires) or are linked by et (Ars 1.486 insequere, et uoti postmodo compos eris, Sen. Contr. 1.7.4 […])  , ac perhaps may also serve (Pl. Bac. 695 perge, ac facile ecfeceris [ac del. Seyffert]), but -que would appear to be illicit (K-S II 5. 165)”. All of which leads to the conclusion that “Ovid did not write the words fueritque benignior” (1991, 158  f.). However, he goes on to state, the obvious link between l. 153 and am. 1.10.47: pretium pro nocte pacisci, and that erotic innuendo which subliminally would compare the avarice of Dolon (cf. also Verg. Aen. 12.350: ausus [sc. Dolon] Pelidae pretium sibi poscere currus) to that of the prostitutes, “incline me to credit the authenticity of 253. How the circumstances presented in 253 might have been exploited in the second hemistich of 254 (if at all) I leave for others to conjecture” (p. 160). And finally, basing his decision on Huyck’s reasoning regarding the inappropriateness of -que, Galasso obelized fueritque, thus explicitly distancing himself from Anderson (Galasso 2000, 580, 1451 and “Avvertenza”, p. CXX). As regards their transmission (uid. app. et append.), the lines appear in all the mss. with a fairly similar text, most of the variants being the result of basic mechanical errors, an explanation which also covers variants, whether metrical or not, such as fuerit, fuerat(que), fuitque or fiuntque (the reading tuleritque benignior which Jahn 1832, 828 attributes to P2 is simply wrong, since this ms. gives fueritque). Ciofanus (1575, 172   f.) states that for the unmetrical variant fuerat benignior of one of his mss. (the same one mentioned by Jahn ibid. as “Sulm. 1”) M.A. Muretus conjectured ferat haec ut dignior (this claim of Ciofanus would appear to imply that Muretus had not seen this adjective in any other codex, which is unlikely). Ciofanus embraces this proposal “libentissime” as he does not think that benignior fits in the passage, to which Bersman (1596, 513) replies: “est ironia q. d. sitque melius de uob. meritus Aiax, quam ego”. As regards the adjective, the vast majority of the mss. coincide in the form benignior, although Heinsius (1659, 337) attested dignior in these three variants: fuerit quod dignior in “unus Basil.”, which I have been able to identify as Bs4 (s. XIII2), although there the m.p. itself adds the comm. “quam hanc uestram benenigtatem [sic]”; fuerit quia dignior, which he reads in the unidentified “Excerpta Calandrae”; and fuerit quoque dignior, in the “sec. Ambros.”, but in A6 the reading is actually fuerit quia dignior, as a marginal u.l. in a different hand (the text keeps fueritque benignior). Based on these variants he made this twofold proposal (ibid.): “puto tuleritque ea dignior uel fueritque his dignior”. Though not followed by any of the editors, the second was also suggested by Capoferreus in that same year (1659, s.p.; see Burm. 1727, 1100): “Muretus ferat haec ut dignior Aiax. Mihi quidem benignior non placet; sed emendatio Mureti nimium a scriptura recedit. medio certissimus ibis: fueritque his dignior Aiax” (Dietsch 1850, 89, surprisingly defends it as “die nach den besten Handschriten vermuthete Lesart”). On the authority of Bs4 Baumgar-



Commentary

161

ten-Crusius printed fuerit quod dignior, but in his note he adds (1834, 499  f.): “quamquam scribendum puto: fueritque his dignior Aiax, quod et Heinsio in mentem uenit”. Finally, for the same adjective Slater (1927, ad loc.) suggested fuerit me dignior. Instead of changing the adj., the edd. attribute to Köppen (“post Gronouium Köppen” is in fact what Magnus 1914, 492 states in app., but Koch 1864, 343 had called it “egregiam Koeppeni emendationem”) the idea of replacing Aiax with Hector, a proposal which would be backed up by the evidence of the constant changing of names in the mss. (cf. e.  g. append. ad 62, 387) and which would mean, to quote Huyck’s paraphrase and his own conclusion (p. 159): ““If you do any less for your spy than Hector was willing to do for his, your worst enemy will have proved more generous than you.” But that argument, too, would lose much of its point to mental exertion”. This proposal, however, does not appear in the posthumous ed. of J.H.J. Köppen (1755–1791), in which the reading is Aiax (1791, 320), nor have I been able to trace it in other passages of his work. Where I have found it, however, is in at least two previous works: as a proposal by an unnamed “amicus” in D’Orville-Burman (1733, 40  f.; cf. Ochsner in Bach 1836, 563) and in Bailey’s notes to his edition of 1774 (p. 470): “I wish, …, it could be read fueritque benignior Hector”. Hardie seems to show some sympathy for it (2015, 251): “Hector (Koeppen) avrebbe un senso migliore”. However, the lines bear the clear imprint of Ovid, as we have seen, including the ἀπροσδόκητον (cf. Rivero 2003) in the closing benignior Aiax, and their very density makes it unlikely that anyone would have added them. Besides, the difficulties that have been detected in them are only apparent. In fact, from early on there were voices defending the appropriateness of benignior. We have already seen the reply by Bersman, who took it as melius meritus. Heinsius himself altered his criterion some time afterwards, adding the following to the note reproduced above (1758, 694  f. [Burm. 1727, 876]): “Sed nil fortasse mutandum, ut benignior passiue sumatur, pro eo qui benigne habetur. cuius tamen significationis aliud exemplum quaero. Ita sit benignior, gratiosior”; to which Burman immediately adds: “Immo benignior est magis popularis, blandus; ut ideo obtineat quae uelit”. Bothe, for his part, defends it in these terms (1818, 131): “benignior. Recte, ut opinor; h. e. humanior seu mitior, quam se oratione ostendit sua; et comparatiuo accepto pro positiuo”. And Bach as follows (1836, 313): “Das natürlichste ist wohl, benignior in dem Sinne von aequior zu nehmen, wie Luc. V, 107, und es in Beziehung zu bringen mit der billigern Äusserung des Ajax, Vs. 102”. Now, none of these explanations is necessary, as what the sense demands is that Aias would have been more generous than the judges, an obvious reference to 101  f., and this is precisely the primary and basic meaning of benignus (TLL 2.1901.84: “i. q. liberalis, largus, beniuolus, humanus”). Bentley rightly saw it this way in his rectification (praef. Epist. Phal., LXX): “If you deny me That, fuerit benignior Aiax, even Aiax himself, as much as he is my Enemy, would reward my services more generously”, and this is how other critics

162

Commentary

have taken it in modern times (Simmons 1889, 108; Damsté 1894, 65; Keene 1898, 75; Kenney 1984, 35; Hill 2000, 143; Hopkinson 2000, 134). As for the supposed syntactical limitation, there is no reason in the Latin language why -que should not join two clauses as et does (and for its coordinated use uniting inaequalia, see Wagner 1832, 553  f.). What is more, at times -que in Latin has a recognized conclusive force (“und so”, “folglich”: KS 2.2.7 § 152, 13). The tendency towards asyndeton can be explained from the stylistic point of view by the gnomic flavour of some of these expressions (cf. Cato rhet. 15: rem tene, uerba sequentur), but it is obvious that writers can equally opt for copulative coordination. Bömer (1982, 265) sees no difficulty in this, and neither does Hopkinson (2000, 134), who believes that “-que links this clause closely with what precedes, and the verb is therefore probably perfect subjunctive, parallel in sense with negate”. However, I cannot share this last interpretation and am inclined rather to take fuerit as a fut. perf., more in keeping with the conditional sequence (cf. Cato, supra, and see HS 3112). 255–260: Quid Lycii referam Sarpedonis agmina ferro         255 deuastata meo? Cum multo sanguine fudi Coeranon Iphitidenque Alastoraque Chromiumque Alcandrumque Haliumque Noëmonaque Prytaninque, exitioque dedi cum Chersidamante Thoona et Charopem fatisque immitibus Ennomon actum,     260 • 257–260 ad nomina restituenda lege Hom. Il. 5.677s., 11.422–6 • 257 Iphitidenque To2, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Heinsius 1652, Huyck 1991, Galasso 2000  : Iphitidenque et Bo2Cs3Mt5, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472  : Iphitiden et Ω, Heinsius 1659, edd.  : Iphitiden(uel sim., omisso et) L3LuM A2CsH3LdLr3Lr7MoN2Ph2T7V9 DsDs2Lr8So B12Es3(p.c.)FtRdTo2 Bo3Es5Lr27Vd11, Regius 1493, Bersm. 1596, D. Heinsius 1629  : Hippasiden et coni. Fanensis, prob. Burm. 1727, Bothe 18182, Richter 1828  : Hippasidenque Weise 1845  : Hippasiden Gierig 1807, Lemaire 1822 • Alastoraque] -que om. M2NS2 A4CDeFeH2Lr5(a.c.)V4 B8 Mt4 Ca2  : et Alastoraque Ω, edd.  : atque Alastora Dr  : alastora Ld6  : et alacoren atque P41 •

255–262: in these lines Ulysses boasts of the casualties he has inflicted on the Trojan band, although for the accumulation of names he has to combine at least two different episodes of the Iliad (5.663–78, 11.420–7) and even silence the odd fact that might prove to be unfavourable (cf. Hom. Il. 5.679–82 and see Hopkinson 2000, 134  f., Pavlock 2003, 145  f.; Papaioannou 2007, 187–97). As is normal in these cases, the variants and deformations of these non-Latin proper names are multiplied exponentially, especially when combined, as here, with the odd prosodic irregularity. 255: Lycii: Sarpedon was a Lycian general (cf. e.  g. Hom. Il. 2.876 and see Bömer 1982, 265; Hardie 2015, 251) but M (and Lr27), N and the mar-



Commentary

163

ginal note in a different hand in V2, this trio being joined here by Lr4 (uid. append.), present the reading pilii. ferro: the unique reading of F: marte received Burman’s approval in his notes (1727, 876): “Eleganter … quod plus notat, quasi ductu suo, non tantum opera sint deuastata”, and he compares it to 275: Hectoreo … Marti, where, however, it seems preferable to read Hectoreis … telis. 257: Iphitidenque: the majority reading in the edd., Iphitiden et, presents a serious grammatical difficulty: the fitting of the copulative conjunctions Iphitiden et Alastoraque; and a second, literary or mythographical one: the identification of the patronymic Iphitiden, probably with no clear referent (in the style e.  g. of Verg. Aen. 2.435  f.). Working from all the readings transmitted by the mss. and considering the different emendations proposed from ancient times (uid. app.), I opt for Iphitidenque Alastoraque, with hiatus, in accordance with a reading traditionally attributed to Naugerius (1516) but already present in the 1st Aldina (1502) and which I have found in To2 (s. XIV). For a detailed argument, see Rivero 2015. 258: the numerous variants (uid. append.), however, do not conceal a line that has been clearly transcribed, this both because of the Homeric model (Il. 5.678): Ἄλκανδρόν θ’ Ἅλιόν τε Νοήμονά τε Πρύτανίν τε, and because it is the only occasion (thus Galasso 2000, 1452; Hill 2000, 143) on which Ovid takes a whole line of Virgil word for word (Aen. 9.767), correcting it to some extent from the literary point of view (Hopkinson 2000, 136; cf. Bömer 1982, 266). 259–260: as in the previous l., the variants present no undue difficulty for the fixing of the text (cf. Hom. Il. 11.422–7): αὐτὰρ ἔπειτα Θόωνα καὶ Ἔννομον ἐξενάριξε. Χερσιδάμαντα δ’ ἔπειτα καθ’ ἵππων ἀΐξαντα δουρὶ κατὰ πρότμησιν ὑπ’ ἀσπίδος ὀμφαλοέσσης νύξεν· ὃ δ’ ἐν κονίῃσι πεσὼν ἕλε γαῖαν ἀγοστῷ.     425 τοὺς μὲν ἔασ’, ὃ δ’ ἄρ’ Ἱππασίδην Χάροπ’ οὔτασε δουρὶ αὐτοκασίγνητον εὐηφενέος Σώκοιο.

Note that the Homeric text (l. 426) implies a nom. Χάροψ, leaving no other possible Latin accusative than Charopem (cf. ad 55 Vlixem), as defended by Bentley (see Hedicke 1905, 32). The Ovidian characterization of Ennomus may well originate in turn in a contamination with the homonymous priest slain by Achilles (Il. 2.858–60); cf. fatis immitibus – κῆρα μέλαιναν (Simmons 1889, 109; Keene 1898, 76; Hopkinson 2000, 136). 261–265: quique minus celebres nostra sub moenibus urbis procubuere manu. Sunt et mihi uulnera, ciues, ipso pulchra loco; nec uanis credite uerbis:

164

Commentary

aspicite en!” uestemque manu deduxit et “Haec sunt pectora semper” ait “uestris exercita rebus.      

265

• 264 deduxit Ω, Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, edd. (uid. append.), prob. Heinsius 1659(in notis), dub. Tarrant 2004(in app.)  : diduxit AM2N(p.c.)P2TV3 A2A4AbEFFeGH2Ld3(a.c.)Lr6LsO3P3P4TuV4V9 V16 Es3 B14Es3Es4 P46P47, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, edd. (uid. append.)  : deducit CMtT7 Bs4Ld6 Rd, Heinsius 1659(“cum prim. Hamburg. [sed H3 diducit hab.] et quinque aliis”), Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Lemaire 1822, Baumg.-Crus. 1834  : deduxitque Ft  : diducit L3 H3Lr3Ph2, Burm. 1727, Bothe 18182, Richter 1828  : eduxit B5  : duduxit N(uid., a.c.) •

261: nostra: the proximity of urbis leads to the appearance of the erroneous reading nostrae, present in some of the most important mss. (uid. append.). Cf. a similar case in 840 (liquidae). 262–264: the difficulties in interpretation found in these lines by some edd. (e.  g. Keene 1898, 76; Huyck 1991, 162–4; Hopkinson 2000, 137; see also Hardie 2015, 252) seem unnecessarily complicated. Ulysses is claiming – like any brave soldier – the right to display, with no need for words, old wounds endorsing his bravery. 262: sunt et: Burman (1727, 877) finds the variant sunt o in “Basil. & Gronou.”. This is indeed the reading of B4 and I have also found it in Bs6 (a. 1456). However, the interjection clearly comes from the supralineal note accompanying the voc. ciues in a good number of mss. ciues: some recc. (uid. append.), to which Heinsius adds the testimony of “unus Medic.”, give the variant testes, from which Heinsius himself suggested in his notes (1659, 337) the reading sunt en mihi uulnera testes, as he did in fast. 4.885 (1661, III, 97 and 163 ad loc.). However, it seems unlikely that Ovid would have repeated en in the space of three lines (cf. 264). For Heinsius’ penchant for the interj. en, cf. ad 155, 496. 263: nec uanis credite uerbis: the mss. A4H2LdO3P3 invert the order of the n. and adj. (uid. append.), and in addition A4LdO3 offer the interesting inversion nec: uerbis nec credite (necredite Ld) uanis (cf. Verg. Aen. 2.48: equo ne credite, Teucri). 264: deduxit: the mss. are systematically divided between the forms in de- and di- (cf. e.  g. 3.480 with Suárez 2015, 343–5; for this alternation and for a complete analysis of the passage, see Huyck 1991, 165–8). The main variants transmitted (uid. app.) are deduxit, the one most frequently present in the mss. and edd. and for which sympathy was expressed by both Heinsius (1659, 337: “cum melioribus scribendum”) and Tarrant (2004, 381 in app.: “fort. recte”), and diduxit, which also has considerable backing and is defended by Regius (1493, ad loc.) as “Remouit a pectore”, a gloss which in any case serves for both verbs (the translation by Planudes: παρήγαγε, seems to point rather to diduxit). Much less frequent are deducit (finally accepted by Heinsius, who however claims to have found it in the primus Hamburgensis, mistakenly, since H3 has diducit) and diducit, but they are, after all, forms that are also attested and acceptable. A good summary of the question



Commentary

165

can already be found in Burman’s note on am. 1.7.48 (1727, I, 353  f.; and see also McKeown 1989, 188 ad loc.) as well as on met. 3.480 (1727, 212). Clearly, deducere implies that the garment (be it a Greek-style chiton or a Roman tunic, both forms being plausible for Ovid’s Ulysses: see Huyck 1991, 164  f.) is pulled up from its upper hem (cf. summa ora in Ou. am. 1.7.47, met. 3.480 [summo ore mss. plerique], 5.398, or uestis summa in Iuu. 13.132) over the shoulders and lowered to the waist, offering a view of the chest, an action which could be achieved with one hand (manu). By contrast, diducere implies a horizontal exposure, which would more appropriately be effected by both hands, opening the garment either in the centre or at the sides, and which in grieving scenes can be assumed to be accompanied also by a tearing of the cloth (see Bach 1831, 144 ad 3.480; Loers 1843, 487 ad loc.). In short, it seems more reasonable here to defend the form with the best transmission: deduxit (cf. 6.404  f. with Bömer 1976b, 114 ad loc.). The same opinion is shared by Hardie (2015, 252): “Qui deduxit, «abbassò» risulta preferibile a diduxit, «strappò», un gesto forse eccessivo in questo contesto”. 265: rebus: mss. A2B4 give the variant curis, clearly a gloss (but cf. 7.634: curis exercita corpora), if not a recollection of 15.768: iustis exercita curis. In addition Burman (1727, 878) finds it in “duo alii”. 266–267: At nihil impendit per tot Telamonius annos sanguinis in socios, et habet sine uulnere corpus! • 266 ni(c)hil Ω, edd., def. Housman  : nil Lr2LuMV2 A2AbB4B5L4Ld3Lr4MoN2O3V6V9 Ds2Lr82(i.l. u.l.)SoV16 P28 Bo3Lr27Lu2P41(ni a.c.), Merkel 1850, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, Lejay 1894, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Fink 2007  : ubi(per comp. ui) P8 • post hunc u. def. T7 •

266: nihil: in opposition to this majority bisyllabic reading, some mss. (among them Lr2LuMV2) offer the contracted form nil, which Merkel adopted following M as did other edd. after him down to the present day (uid. app.). Housman (1919, 57  f. [1972, 1000–2]) showed that when Ovid uses the word in the second half of the first foot (i.  e. preceded by a monosyllable) it is always bisyllabic (and therefore a Pyrrhic) and followed by a vowel. Of the 21 examples listed there, only in 3 passages is nil the majority reading of the mss., our passage being pointed to as one of these exceptions. However, the collation of a greater number of mss. has shown that this is not the case in our passage either, not even among the mss. of group Γ, not to mention the later ones. Housman’s contribution prompted a response from J.P. Postgate (1920), answered in turn by Housman (1920b) and Postgate himself (1921), publications which might have served as “low enjoy-

166

Commentary

ment” (see Tarrant 2016, 20) for leisured readers but which do not alter the essential in the evidence that is of interest to us here (see also Huyck 1991, 170  f.). After this line comes the end of the text of T7, the codex Nicolaensis (uid. ad 161 ducar). 267: uulnere: for the banal variants which tend to appear with nouns of this type, uid. append. 268–269: ‘Quid tamen hoc refert, si se pro classe Pelasga arma tulisse refert contra Troasque Iouemque?’, • 268–269 hos uu. sic hab. P3(fort. etiam P4 a.c.): quid tamen hoc refert contra troasque iouemque / arma tulisse refert si se pro classe pelasga  : tantum uno uersu sic conflau. V3(corr. V32) Be2(corr. Be22) Ld6: quid tamen hoc refert contra troasque(-oiasque Be2  : -oesque Ld6) iouemque • 268 hunc u. om. Es2(summa pag. ante u. 267 scr. Es22) • si … pelasga] i.l. V32(contra troasque iouemque V3) F2(quid a.c. n.l.)  : i.ras. scr. P8(a m.p., quae item omissum u. 269 mg. suppl.)  : contra troasque iouemque i.l. u.l. N2 • 269 hunc u. om. (sed mg. suppl. mm.pp.) Lr2 P8So •

268–269: the lines are reversed in some mss. as the result of a clear saut du même au même (rēfert/rĕfert; uid. app.; cf. ad 15–18; 220  f.). Some have omitted one of the two lines, but more often (thus e.  g. V3) they have combined both in one and if necessary then proceeded to correct it by adding the second hemistich of 268 and the first of 269. From the literary point of view, they present a clear objection to the accusation which Ulysses has just presented against Aias (266  f., and cf. 91–3) and it is that accusation to which hoc refers anaphorically; it is not the case that it “looks forward to the si-clauses” (so Hopkinson 2000, 138, who therefore interprets it – mistakenly, in my opinion – as “what does it signify if he says that…?”). The same anaphoric, not cataphoric function can be seen in the other two passages in which Ovid uses the expression quid tamen hoc refert: epist. 16.213, where this hoc reflects what has been expressed, again by means of negation, in ll. 205–12; and fast. 3.495, where it also alludes to the accusation of the previous lines. It is therefore an objection formulated literally by a “fictitious adversary” (see Codoñer 1983), not by Ulysses, and so must be taken as coming from his mouth, for which reason it should be within inverted commas. It is, in fact, Ulysses who immediately (270–2) goes on to accept its validity, though with conditions, as we shall see. 268: refert: among the variants (uid. append.) of this form it is worth noting that of Cs: referam, which may be a misreading from an antigraph in Beneventan script. Indeed, Heinsius attributes (o3, 347; b3, 358) this reading to V2, but refert should be read followed by a question mark (i.  e., referα?) and not a nasal tilde (referα’). The variant could likewise be a conjecture to place



167

Commentary

the argument in Ulysses’ mouth in the form of a praeteritio. Also striking is the reading prodest of some recc., clearly a gloss (thus e.  g. in N2). 269: contra Troasque Iouemque: cf. 82, 91  f. 270–274: confiteorque: tulit (neque enim benefacta maligne     detrectare meum est), sed ne communia solus occupet atque aliquem uobis quoque reddat honorem: reppulit Actorides sub imagine tutus Achillis Troas ab arsuris cum defensore carinis;

270

• 270–271 (neque … est) pro parenth. hab. Magnus 1914, Breitenbach 1964, Goold 1984, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007 • 272–273 honorem, / reppulit dist. Simmons 1889(in notis), prob. H-K-E 1898, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, Hopkinson 2000, R. de Verger 2005 • 273 sub Ω, edd.  : sed MN(uid., a.c.; sub p.c.)V2V3(sub p.c.) A3AbBaGgH2LdMoMtN2O3P3P4V5(p.c.) Mt2P5V16(sub a.c.) Bo Lr27, “multi” test. et prob. Burm. 1727(in notis), prob. Anderson 1982, fort. recte •

270–274: as indicated above (uid. ad 268  f.), a fictitious adversary plays down the accusation Ulysses directed at Aias (ll. 266  f.) for having his body free of scars (for the “unscrupulous rhetoric” of Ulysses underlying this accusation, see Huyck 1991, 168–70), arguing that this is of no importance since Aias did wield arms in order to hold back the devastating attack of the Trojans. To this Ulysses replies (not continuing with his question(s), as understood by Edwards 1905 in punctuating tulit?) accepting (confiteor) this latter deed (tulit) and seizing the opportunity to introduce a comment (neque enim benefacta maligne detrectare meum est) proving his own generosity and, by means of negation, depicting Aias as malignus (cf. l. 254), but immediately placing a limit on this recognition of Aias’ merit: that he should not claim it for himself alone (ll. 271  f., by means of a dicolon abundans). He goes on at once to illustrate his arguments with a direct example (ll. 273  f.: Patroclus also fought) and another concomitant one (ll. 275–9: you did not fight Hector out of bravery but because the lot determined that it should be so). For analysis of the passage, see Hopkinson 2000, 138 (ad 268–79); Hardie 2015, 252–4. The relative structural complexity of the text has given rise to the expected alterations in the punctuation and consequently in the transmission of its connectors (sed/modo/si; ne/nec; atque/aut: uid. append.). Specifically, it has been debated whether the occupet and reddat clauses are unsubordinated jussive clauses, as understood by a large number of the edd., who have placed a strong punctuation after meum est, or else are final subordinate clauses dependent on reppulit (l. 273), as argued by Simmons in his notes (1889, 109  f.) and accepted after him by other edd. (uid. app.), punctuating accordingly with a comma after honorem (l. 272).

168

Commentary

Finally, there is one last possible interpretation, which is that these clauses depend syntactically on what goes before, confiteor (also, pregnantly, on neque  … meum est), an option which would recommend the adoption of the variant modo instead of sed (l. 271). This variant has been transmitted by a significant number of mss. (in fact, it was adopted by Loers 1843, 488, because in his day it had “maiorem auctoritatem ueterum libb., donec codices accuratius excussi fuerint”). It was accepted by some edd. from Aler. 1471 to the 2nd ed. of Riese (1889) and this is what was translated by Planudes: Μόνον μὴ τῶν κοινῶν μόνος ἀντιποιείσθω, καὶ δή τινα καὶ ὑμῖν ἀποδιδότω τιμήν. It is of course more plausible it might have been replaced by a gloss sed than viceversa. The restrictive conditional expression modo ne was much to the liking of the comedy and prose writers (e.  g. Cic., Liu.), but the fact is that it is also present in poetry of the Augustan age (Tib. 2.3.67: O ualeant fruges, ne sint modo rure puellae) and later (Val. Fl. 8.50–3: tecum aequora, tecum / experiar quascumque uias, modo nequis abactam / huc referat me forte dies oculis parentis / ingerar). See TLL 8.1303.50–73, HS 6164, and cf., though with a different function, Ou. epist. 16.171; met. 13.135, 465. The lack of a clear parallel in Ovid, however, along with the greater weight of sed in the manuscript tradition, perhaps makes it advisable to keep this conjunction, which after all maintains the restrictive nature of the following clauses. What is clear, however, is that, since Ulysses immediately goes on to introduce two exempla with a paradigmatic function for his probatio, there should be a colon after honorem. 270–271: (neque … est): with this parenthesis Magnus (1914, 493) marked the rhetorical comment which is in fact contained in these words (uid. supra) and his proposal has been followed by some edd. (uid. app. and cf. 291, 564, 900). However, the fact that the restriction contained in the following lines also alludes pregnantly to this statement and not only to the public acknowledgement by Ulysses (confiteor) would equally make it possible to remove this parenthesis. 270: neque enim: for the neque/nec alternation (uid. append.), uid. ad 127. Observe the elegant invention by the copyist of P3: sua nec. maligne: note the erroneous benigne, which proves once again the connection between Ls and B14. 271: detrectare: uid. ad 36. meum est: cf. 173, 237. Note the invention by the copyist of V6: uolo (uid. append.). sed: for the attractive variant modo, uid. supra ad 270–4. ne: being introduced by sed, the occupet and reddat clauses should be taken as exhortative (aliter Hopkinson 2000, 139: “in case he should…”), the first negative (ne … occupet) and the second affirmative (atque … reddat; Hopkinson 2000, 139: “ut is to be understood from ne in the previous line”). As regards the former, ne has been the majority reading transmitted by the mss. and edd., while a group of mss. (Lr2 alone among the oldest: uid. append.) gives nec, the reading adopted by Aler. 1471 following Lr22V30 and adopted



Commentary

169

in 1659 by Heinsius, who had published ne in 1652, with this brief argument (337  f.): “quinque, quod placet”. The proposal survived until the ed. by Koch (1866) and was later recovered by Huyck (1991, with no comm. ad loc.). 272: atque: the mss. are equally divided between this form (the variant acta looks like a dictation error), adopted by the edd. in general, and aut, picked up only by the ed. of Aler. 1471, in the 1st ed. of Heinsius (1652) and by Anderson (1982) and those who follow his text. However, the transition from negative to affirmative is made especially clear by means of the particle atque (uid. infra). uobis … honorem: the variant nobis, systematic in the appearances of these paradigms, is inappropiate, because with uobis Ulysses is making a psychologically effective show of generosity before his judges (Heinsius 1659, 338: “Conatur enim omni arte odiosum Graecis facere Aiacem”; Hill 2000, 144; Hardie 2015, 253). An attempt to avoid the move from affirmative to negative no doubt lies behind the metrical reading I have found only in S2 and Dr (and cf. G): a uobis ferat unus honorem. Finally, Heinsius (ibid.) registers the variant cedat (“unus meus ex melioribus”), also proposed by Bentley (Hedicke 1905, 32). 273: reppulit: the banal variant rettulit which M presents almost exclusively (uid. append.) led Heinsius (1659, 338) to suggest, with no great enthusiasm, the reading rettudit (cf. am. 2.9.13). sub: this is the majority reading of mss. and edd. (uid. app.), but a sizeable group of mss. offers the variant sed. In his notes Burman (1727, 879) displayed a preference for it (“rectius, ut non per suam uirtutem Patroclus haec ediderit”), comparing the passages of Luc. 4.342  f.: gerit omnia uicti, / sed ducis, and Mart. 6.78.6  f.: misceri sibi protinus deunces, / sed crebros iubet. The only editor to adopt this reading was Anderson (1982), followed by Galasso and Scivoletto, but not von Albrecht, who diverges from it explicitly (1994, 878) and writes sub. It is true that the variation may be the result of a simple mechanical error in the transcription of some words generally represented by very similar abbreviations, but it is no less true that the recurrence of the expression sub imagine, found in almost a score of passages in Ovid (see Hardie 2015, 253), may have displaced a genuine sed, which would in any case be irreproachable. tutus: against this fully aceptable majority reading (cf. e.  g. 743; 7.808), Bs3 (s. XIII) has tectus (the m.p. himself writes tutus above as u.l.), no doubt a gloss originally intended to alert the reader to its participial nature (Simmons 1889, 110). Bentley, however, made the same proposal. He later proposed to delete ll. 273  f. (see Hedicke 1905, 32), but later, in his Preface to the Dissertation on the Epistles of Phalaris (LXX-LXXI), he refers to them as Ovidian, making no mention of his previous rejection of them.

170

Commentary

275–279: ausum etiam Hectoreis solum concurrere telis  se putat oblitus regisque ducumque meique, nonus in officio et praelatus munere sortis. Sed tamen euentus uestrae, fortissime, pugnae quis fuit?: Hector abit uiolatus uulnere nullo.

275

• 275 Hectoreis … telis] hectoreo … marti AGfV2V3 A2A3A4BB5(p.c.)BaBe2GgH2HdL4LdLr5Lr6Ls(tantum hectoreo exstat, sed cf. B14)O4P3P4PrTrV4V52(mg. u.l.)V9 B8GoLi3Lr8(p.c.)Mo3Mt3P5 B12BoBo2Cs3Es2Es3Mt5To2 AsB14CvEs3Es5P38P41PsVd11, Plan., Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Koch 1866, dub. Hopkinson 2000(in notis)  : hectoreos … telis Ab(a.c.)  : hectoreo  … telo B2, “duo” test. Burm. 1727  : hectoreo  … telis V5  : equoreo  … marti Lr7  : ethereo … marti Mt  : hectorei … marti V6  : hectoreum(uid., a.c.) … marti Lr8  : hectoreo … mariti(a.c.) B5  : hectoreo … marte O3  : hectoreis … flammis “duo” test. Burm. 1727 • 276–343 om. MN(post 138 suppl. m. coaeua uel paulo recentior = N*) Lr27 • 276 ducumque coni. Heinsius 1659, edd. post. plerique  : ducisque Ω, Plan., edd. ante Heinsium, Loers 1843, Ehwald 1915(ducumque H-K-E 1898), van Proosdij 1951, H-K-E-A 1966, Segura 1983  : dulcisque T  : ducesque B : putatque Mt  : ducis Ps • 279 Hector abit] est Hector E Ca2, Merkel 1850 •

275: ausum etiam Hectoreis: note (uid. append.) the metrical variation Hectoreis ausum attested in DrLr4 V16 and, with the unmetrical addition of etiam, in Lr2 Ft Lu2. Hectoreis … telis: against this majority reading an important group of mss. (uid. app.) and the translation by Planudes (τῷ Ἑκτορείῳ … πολέμῳ) offer Hectoreo … Marti, a reading which received the innecessary support of Heinsius (1659, 338: “plurimi ueteres. optime”), since it is neither the reading with the best backing nor does Ovid ever use the metonym Mars = bellum (on the latter see Burm. 1727, 423 ad 6.464) along with an anthroponymic adj. like Hectoreus. Hopkinson, who in his commentary (2000, 139) shows his sympathy for this reading as being “less obvious”, initially translates it as “the strength of Hector” and adduces precisely as an example of “mars qualified by an adjective derived from a proper name” that of [Tib.] 3.7.149: inuictus Romano marte Britannus, a somewhat forced argument in each case. concurrere: none of the variants (uid. append.) is of any interest (cf. l. 87), except for the curious departure of the copyist of Lr27 – in what I take to be the result of distraction – from the text of M. 276–343: this whole block is missing from M (and therefore from Lr27) as well as from N, although in this latter ms. a hand similar to the m.p., although somewhat larger and perhaps more recent (possibly the same N2 who writes i.l.) and which I here call N*, made good the absence of this text, alongside passages from book VIII, in a bifolio (ff. 161  f.) after l. 138 (uid. ad loc. et ad 399–401; see Anderson 1977, 259). This lacuna, together with that of the end of book XIV and the whole of XV, is a sign of the special link between MN as opposed to V2.



Commentary

171

276: ducumque: this is Heinsius’ correction of the general reading ducisque (uid. app.). He argued as follows (1758, 695 [Burm. 1727, 879]): “Scribe ducumque. Nouem enim sortiti erant, ut ex Homero discimus. Rex erat solus Agamemnon, reliqui duces” (cf. Hom. Il. 7.161–9). His correction was adopted by all later edd. except Loers, Ehwald (from 1915) and the followers of the latter (though not Anderson, who gives ducumque, pace Bömer 1982, 270). Loers interprets regisque ducisque as a unique double reference to Agamemnon (1843, 488): “Quod nunc uulgo legitur ducumque parum elegans est coniectura Heinsii; nam etiam Ulixes et Agamemnon e ducibus erant. Regisque ducisque de Agamemnone intelligenda sunt”. Ehwald for his part takes it as a reference to Diomedes as member of the triad (Agamemnon – Aias – Diomedes) from which the Greeks wished the lot would designate the chosen one (Il. 7.179  f., and see H-K-E-A 1966, ad loc.; Breitenbach 1964, 1132). Loers’ interpretation, supported by Bömer (1982, 270) with a number of parallels previously noted by Heinsius (epist. 8.46: dux … ducum; Sen. Ag. 39: rex ille regum, ductor Agamemnon ducum, cf. 1007; Homer. 983: dux ille ducum), would be more credible if Ovid had limited the polysyndeton of -que to these two words as a mark of unity, but its repetition in meique makes it difficult to identify Agamemnon clearly in the first two words (“Enough to cite 328, sociisque regique mihique”, as is rightly stated by Huyck 1991, 172). In turn, to claim that in a generic designation such as ducisque the reader should identify Diomedes is to force or obviate the forms of ancient erudite reference, and it comes up against the great obstacle that meique could never round off the triad but refers to Ulysses as one of the nine generals with options in the lot to be drawn (as an emergency solution – “eine Verlegenheitslösung” – in the words of Bömer 1982, 270). In short, it would seem more understandable to have a generic reference to the duces (ducumque) distinguishing only Agamemnon as primus inter pares (regisque), with the speaker (meique) reserving for himself, out of false modesty (Simmons 1889, 110), a final self-reference (and accordingly better in that order than with the inversion meique ducisque offered by a significant number of mss.: uid. append. and cf. 328), as if he formed no part of that élite, but in fact according himself much-sought prominence (see also Hardie 2015, 253). 277: another example of the omission of et in mid-line (uid. append.), which in any case must be kept (uid. ad 74 et). For the interpretation of nonus, see Huyck 1991, 172  f.; Hopkinson 2000, 140; Hardie 2015, 253  f. 279: Hector abit: on the sole authority of E (I have also read it in the excerpta Ca2), Merkel published est Hector. The edd. have presented a reasoned rejection of this reading. For the plausible consideration of abīt as perf., see Bömer 1982, 271.

172

Commentary

280–283: Me miserum, quanto cogor meminisse dolore     temporis illius quo, Graium murus, Achilles procubuit! Nec me lacrimae luctusque timorque tardarunt quin corpus humo sublime referrem.

280

• 282 lacrimae  … timorque] luctus lacrimeque dolorque A2  : lacrimeque dolorque Ab  : lacrimeque timorque Gg(a.c.)  : luctus lacrimeque timorque Gg(p.c.)  : lacrimeque(lacrime Ld) luctusque(luctuque Ld) timorque Ld2(p.c.)O3V5 F2 • luctusque timorque] luctusue timorque Go Go2  : luctusue timorue Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1823, Bothe 18182, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Merkel 1850, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, H-K-E 1898, Fabbri 1923  : luctusque timorue Gierig 1807, Lemaire 1822, fort. recte • timorque] dolorque A2AbCs Ld6 Es2, “in uno meo” test. Ciof. 1575, “duobus” test. Burm. 1727, prob. Hardie 2015, Holzberg 2017, dub. Tarrant 2004(in app.)  : timores Mt4  : timoque Ld13 •

280: quanto cogor meminisse dolore: note (uid. append.) the variant quantum … dolorem which appears in some mss., and also the gen. quanti … doloris offered as a result of false relation by Bs4. We cannot appeal to the mss. “Argent. et Thysii”, mentioned by Burman (1727, 879) as witnesses of quantum … dolorem, as the former was destroyed (uid. ad 291) and the latter is as yet unidentified. Both coincide on many occasions, but not always, with F2Z and in this case it is not, as might be expected, the Leid. Bib. der Rijksuniv. Thysia 1674 (olim 810), Ld11, whose text is very close to the former. 282: lacrimae luctusque timorque: the succession of three nouns and their asymmetrical union by means of enclitics have given rise to several variants (uid. app.). Leaving to one side reorderings like luctus lacrimaeque timorque/ dolorque, which are to the detriment of a text which goes from tears as an external, palpable element to inner abstract feelings, the conjunctions and the variation timor/dolor deserve attention. I have found the variant dolorque in A2AbCs Ld6 (the Vossianus mentioned by Burman) and Es2, to which must be added the Sulmonensis of Ciofanus and another two referred to by Burman (1727, 879). In addition, the timid proposal “fort. dolorque” appears on the part of Tarrant (2004, 381 in app.), who was aware of the restrained sympathy felt towards it by Huyck (1991, 173  f.), and it has made its way into the text of Hardie (2015, 28, and hence in Holzberg 2017, 646), who also adduces in its defence (p. 254) the term ἀχνύμενος used by Homer in Il. 13.419: ἀλλ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ἀχνύμενός περ ἑοῦ ἀμέλησεν ἑταίρου. Also in its favour is the fact that it fits better into the copulative sequence, since lacrimae luctusque dolorque would be three expressions of the same thing. Against it is the insistence on one and the same idea, which would go even further than the use of the dicolon abundans with an abundance that is not matched by conceptual enrichment, as well as the fact that it would represent the repetition of the same n. at the end of two almost consecutive lines (Hardie 2015, 254: “La ripetizione […] è poco elegante”). Finally, it is possible that the variant can be traced to 9.328: lacrimaeque dolorque.



173

Commentary

With regard to the conjunctions, Heinsius published luctusue timorue with the support of no witnesses and with no arguments or comments, and his reading was followed by some edd. down to Fabbri (here again, the testimony of Jahn 1832, 832 “quod cod. Rhen. confirmat” does not correspond to Tu, which gives luctusque timorque). The mss. Go and Go2 give the variant luctusue timorque (neither is it true that this is the reading of the “Berol.” or of the “ed. princ.”, as Jahn claims there, since B14 and Aler. 1471 reproduce the majority reading). Finally, Gierig (1807) and Lemaire (1822) give timorue (in 1823 Gierig adopted the reading of Heinsius). The pressure exerted by -que in the cases of -ue is intense in the mss. and undoubtedly many disjunctives have been buried in the tradition under the weight of the copulative. Clearly, in this context we might expect at least one disjunctive to break a sequence in which the three words are not accumulated. In fact, Ulysses argues that he did not let himself become paralysed by the grief (lacrimae luctusque) and fear (timorque) that ensued upon the death of Achilles, but in this sequence timor is clearly separated from the previous two nouns, which do form a block. There is no justification, therefore, for the change implemented by Heinsius, which was to introduce an unnecessary disjunctive lacrimae luctusue and would keep the three terms on the same level, and neither is there a case in favour of the reading lacrimae luctusue timorque in that the two most dissimilar terms would be united by a copulative. I therefore find the third option more convinving: lacrimae luctusque timorue. Even so, the doubt remains as to whether the majority reading can reflect, as I stated above, Ovid’s intention to present the lacrimae as an external element (“the weeping”) and luctusque timorque as interiorized feelings whose equivalence is marked precisely by the polysyndeton (cf. also the possible model of Lucr. 3.461: luctumque metumque). 284–287: His umeris – his inquam umeris – ego corpus Achillis et simul arma tuli: quae nunc quoque ferre laboro.     Sunt mihi quae ualeant in talia pondera uires, est animus certe uestros sensurus honores.

285

• 284 corpus Achillis] solus Achillem “unus Mediceus” test. Burm. 1727 •

284: for the repetition of the demonstrative his … his as an expressive device for the euidentia (Huyck 1991, 174), cf. ad 8 quas hac hac. The only variant worth mentioning is the reworking ego solus Achillem which, according to Burman (1727, 879), is offered by “unus Mediceus”.

174

Commentary

288–295: Scilicet idcirco pro nato caerula mater ambitiosa suo fuit, ut caelestia dona, artis opus tantae, rudis et sine pectore miles       290 indueret! Neque enim clipei caelamina nouit, Oceanum et terras cumque alto sidera caelo Pleïadasque Hyadasque inmunemque aequoris Arcton diuersasque urbes nitidumque Orionis ensem: postulat ut capiat quae non intellegit arma!       295 • 293 pl(e)(i/y)adasque M2P2(p.c.) A3A4B42Be2FeGLr5Pr DsLr8Mo3(a.c.) Es4Es5, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, edd.  : pl(e)(i/y)ad(a/e)s P2(a.c.) Ω, Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493  : plyadas et(per comp.) Ld2  : pliadas atque P3 V16 BoEs3 Es3  : pleyadis Tr(p.c.) • (h)(y/i)ad(a/e)sque Ω, edd.  : (h)(y/i)ad(a/e)s B5BaFeH2L4LdLd2Lr4O3P3V4V6 Li3Mt3P10V16 B12BoEs3Vt Es3 P46P47  : hiadasque h’ L3  : iadasque simul Lr3  : atque hyadasque Tr  : hyadasque et P8  : et ydas So • 294–295 uncinis not. Huyck 1991, Tarrant 2004  : in u. 294 nitidumque … ensem damn. Lejay  : u. 295 del. Bentley; uncinis not. Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Simmons 1889, Edwards 1905, Goold 1984, Hill 2000; om. Polle 1888 • 294 diuersasque urbes Bo2(mg. u.l.) Ω, Plan., Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Riese 1872, Hardie 2015, edd.  : diuersosque orbes Bo(suprascr. celi circulos) Es4, edd. aliquot (uid. append.)  : diuersaque urbes T  : diuisasque urbes BaFe  : diuersasque nubes V30  : diuersas Chelas Sprengel  : diuersasque ursas Schenkl, Zingerle 1884  : diuersasque feras prop. Korn 1880(in notis), prob. Polle 1888  : diuersasque canes prop. Fuss, Korn 1880(in notis)  : diuersosque boues prop. Slater 1927 •

289: suo fuit: note that among the corruptions presented by the two words (uid. append.) P41 offers a reconstruction of the line: ambitiosa fuit, sic ut… (other examples of reconstruction in the same ms. can be seen at 183  f.; 378; 458). caelestia: the mss. are unanimous in this reading (cf. Hom. Il. 19.3: θεοῦ … δῶρα), but Heinsius (1659, 338) offers this testimony: “Vulcania dona Graeuianus pro diuersa lectione”. Although the “codex Joh. Georgii Graeuii, 400 annorum” which he himself collated in o (siglum S) is now assumed lost, its text coincides to a great extent with Gf7 (Guelferbytanus Bibl. Duc. 4463 [159 Gud. Lat. 4º], s. XIV, codex Reginas), also collated in o2 (siglum F). Now, in this ms. there is in fact a marginal note, in a different ink but perhaps by the same m.p., although it is not a u.l. but a gloss: “s. Vulcania quia Vulcanus celestis est”. For the caelestia dona, see Bömer 1982, 273; Huyck 1991, 174; for the insistence on the lexical family of caelum in these lines (caelo, caelestia dona, caerula mater), see Huyck 1991, 178; Hopkinson 2000, 142; Pavlock 2003, 149  f.; Hardie 2015, 255; for a possible etymological wordplay with caelamina (l. 291), uid. ad 110. 290: rudis et: for the reading rudisque which Langermann mistakenly attributes to the fragmentum Caesenas (Cs), see Rivero 2016, 389 n. 40. For the structure of the expression rudis et sine pectore miles, which is repeated in Ovid, see Bömer 1982, 273; Hopkinson 2000, 144 ad 292; Hardie 2015, 256.



Commentary

175

291: indueret: some mss. (uid. append.) offer the variant induerit, among them the codex Argentinensis (Burm. 1727, 880), destroyed by a fire in 1870, the text of which coincides to a great extent with that of F2Z (uid. ad 280). Traditionally this phrase has been taken as interrogative (indueret?). However, I believe that an exclamation is more in keeping with the openly ironic tone which scilicet gives it from the outset (cf. 5.22; Keene 1898, 79; Bömer 1982, 273; Hopkinson 2000, 142). neque enim clipei: note (uid. append.) the elegant inversion of B4: clipei nec enim. For the neque/nec alternation (cf. 270), uid. ad 127. nouit: against this majority reading (cf. epist. 6.83 [am. 1.8.5]: carmina nouit; 18.105; trist. 4.1.97) a small but considerable group of mss. (uid. append.) gives the form norit (cf. trist. 4.10.5; Pont. 1.2.71), which was adopted by Naugerius (1516, but not yet the Aldina of 1502) and after him by Heinsius, who adds to the sole express testimony of P2 that of “octo aut decem alii” (1659, 338). This reading found its way into some edd. down to Keene (1898) and was supported by Hellmuth (1883, 238) on the authority of T. However, whether we take norit as a fut. or as a subj., we will have to understand that Ulysses is insinuating that Aias will not understand / would not understand the scenes on the shield, which Aias must already have seen, as had the rest of the Greek generals. What is being denied here is the actual knowledge which Aias has of the subject matter engraved on it, i.  e. what is being claimed is his innate ignorance (see Huyck 1991, 175–8; Hopkinson 2000, 145  f. ad 295) and to this end the indicative is much more emphatic. For the alternation between these forms, cf. 808 and Verg. Aen. 4.423. Finally, it is preferable to place a comma after nouit (thus e.  g. Tarrant 2004), taking all that follows as being in apposition to caelamina, and not to omit the punctuation (thus e.  g. Anderson 1982), which would force caela­ mina to be interpreted as predicative. 293: here again we have a line full of coordinated Greek names, with the reappearance of the problems in the transmission of the conjunctions (cf. ad 257). Ovid works from the contamination of two clear models: on the one hand, Hom. Il. 18.486–9: Πληϊάδας θ’ Ὑάδας τε τό τε σθένος Ὠρίωνος / Ἄρκτόν θ’, … / … / οἴη δ’ ἄμμορός ἐστι λοετρῶν Ὠκεανοῖο (cf. Od. 5.271–5; Hes. op. 615); on the other, Verg. georg. 1.138: Pleïadas, Hyadas, claramque Lycaonis Arcton. In contrast with both, the majority of mss. (uid. app. et append.) have opted to omit the enclitic in the first case and include it in the second (i.  e. Pleïadas Hyadasque, or similar; rare are cases like P10: pleyadas. hyadas. [sim. P41] and even rarer cases like Fe: pliadasque hiadas; note the odd exceptional case such as that of Ld2: plyadas et hyadas). The early edd. maintained this majority tradition, but from Naugerius (1516) on they have without exception opted for polysyndeton based on the most obvious literary model, i.  e. Homer (see Huyck 1991, 178) and on that of Ovid himself (3.595): Taygetenque Hyadasque oculis Arctonque notaui. As for the second element in the line (cf. 726  f.; 2.171  f.; trist. 1.2.29; fast. 2.191  f.; see Simmons 1889, 112; Huyck 1991, 179  f.), the reading

176

Commentary

immunemque is the general one, but some mss. omit the enclitic (uid. append.) and the ed. Puteol. 1471 replaces it with et: Pleiadas hiadasq3 îmunê & ęquoris arcton. 294–295: here is a brief summary of the arguments of the critics: 1) in the conviction that the first part of l. 294 (diuersasque urbes) is authentic (most of the critics, in contrast, consider urbes to be a corrupt reading), Lejay rejects the second part as the result of interpolation; 2) Bentley rejects l. 295 as spurious but offers no arguments, and some edd. follow him; 3) Huyck is inclined to reject both lines as a block (followed in this by Tarrant) because they do not conform to his interpretative scheme, although his argument is plagued with explicit doubts, and he would be prepared to accept the authenticity of both lines provided that the variant diuersosque orbes were adopted, but the fact is that the sense he wishes to give orbes is far from being uncontrovertible. It is true that these lines may present difficulties in interpretation, but the same critics who question them actually demonstrate that there are sufficient elements in them to justify their presence, which moreover is constant in the mss. (with the above-mentioned exception of M and its apograph Lr27: uid. ad 276–343). For an analysis of all the proposals, see Rivero 2015b, 161-9. 294: diuersasque urbes: on the basis of arguments such as “Inter sidera nullae urbes” (Capoferreus 1659, s.p. [Burm. 1727, 1100]), or else that, if the reference is to the two cities Homer describes in extenso in his ekphrasis on Achilles’ shield (Il. 18.490–606), Aias would indeed be capable of recognizing them, many critics adopted the variant diuersosque orbes (uid. app.) “ut stellas innuat” (Heinsius 1758, 695), but this astronomical use of orbis presents no few problems. Other critics, unsatisfied with either reading, have thrown out different proposals for emendation. It seems clear to me that the malicious observation of Ulysses is aimed at claiming that Aias would be incapable of having a profound knowledge of the allegorical symbology of these cities: uid. ad 291 nouit and see Rivero 2015b, 163. nitidumque Orionis ensem: it was with regard to this hemistich that Lejay expressed his suspicions (1894, 71  f.): “On a essayé différentes corrections. Je crois plutôt que la fin est alterée. […] La fin du vers contenait sans doute l’indication des scènes pacifiques ou guerrières décrites par Homère; à une date ancienne, elle aura été interpolée d’après VIII, 207” (uid. ad 294  f.). For his interpretation, see Hopkinson 2000, 145 and Rivero 2015b, 161. 295: for rhetorical or literary interpretations (which of course do not prove the authenticity of the line), see Duc 1994; Papaioannou 2007, 198– 200; Hardie 2015, 257. intellegit: although a majority of mss. (uid. append.), as is habitually the case, give the form -igit, the form that should be kept is intellegit (TLL 7.1.2096.55–65).



177

Commentary

296–300: Quid quod me duri fugientem munera belli arguit incepto serum accessisse labori, nec se magnanimo maledicere sentit Achilli?: si simulasse uocas crimen, simulauimus ambo; si mora pro culpa est, ego sum maturior illo.    

300

296 quod me] memet V2, dub. Slater 1927 : quod ne Tu  : qui me Es5  : me quod F2  : quod Rd(a.c.) • 299 uocas] uocat P2(a.c.) A4(-as i.l. u.l. A42)CsO3O4P3V8 B8 Es2(p.c. a m.p.)Mt4(a.c.)Mt5 CvP41Ps, Plan., Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Riese 1872, Lejay 1894  : necas A2  : uocât B52(p.c.; uocas B5)  : uelis V5(uocas mg. u.l.)  : putas “Ox.” test. Burm. 1727 •

296: quod me: against this majority reading V2 offers the variant memet, which was to the liking of Slater (1927, ad loc.: “fortasse recte”): i.  e. Quid? Memet … Achilli? For the very Ovidian interrogative expression quid quod (cf. e.  g. 10.616–8 and see Bömer 1982, 275) and its meaning in this passage, cf. 223 and see ad 294  f. duri: as is frequently the case when this adj. appears, the odd ms. offers the variant dirus (uid. append.), which Magnus (1914, 494) also believes lies behind the translation (δεινοῦ) of Planudes: τὰ τοῦ δεινοῦ πολέμου δῶρα. Though possible, this is not necessarily so, since duri would also be open to a similar translation. For the expression durum bellum, cf. Pont. 1.8.6 (see Bömer 1982, 275). munera: P2 and a few recc. give the variant munia (the u.l. of Go2 could be read as such or else as numîa, i.  e. numina: cf. Ld), a form Ovid never uses, however, and which prompted Heinsius himself to state (1659, 338): “nil mutem temere. apud Lucretium fera moenera militiai. & moenera belli non uno loco”. Burman, on the other hand, expressed his sympathy for it “ut ad munia militaria adludat” (1727, I, 591 ad art. 1.691; cf. rem. 153); see Bömer 1982, 275; Hopkinson 2000, 146. For the etymological wordplay inmunem (l. 293) – fugientem munera pointed out by Huyck 1991, uid. ad 294  f. and cf. am. 2.14.1: inmunes belli … puellas; Verg. Aen. 12.539  f.: urbem / inmunem tanti belli. 297: accessisse: uid. ad 133  f. succedat … accessit. labori: the mss. GfLuM2N*P2S2T, as well as a significant number of recc., place a question mark at the end of the line, and this punctuation was followed by some edd. (including Heinsius) at least down to Baumgarten-Crusius (1834). However, it is preferable to postpone the end of the question as far as Achilli (l. 298), since the surprise implicit in the expression Quid quod affects both clauses equally and besides the reference is to the contradiction implicit in both. 299: si simulasse: among some of the corruptions or omissions (through haplography) of the conj. si (uid. append.) it is worth considering the reading of Bo2 CvPs (these last two mss. tending to coincide), in that it implies a

178

Commentary

reinterpretation of the line even though it is clearly the result of error: dissimulasse uocat(uocas Bo2) crimen: simulauimus ambo. For the model, see Hardie 2015, 257. uocas: as on other occasions in the course of the “Judgement of Arms”, the mss. oscillate between the forms of the 2nd and 3rd p. sing. (uid. ad 33). In this case the form uocat is only found in P2 (although there it was corrected to uocas) among mss. Γ, as well as among some recc. (uid. app.; the ms. which Heinsius 1659, 338, mentions as “unus meus” is probably O4), among them the antigraph of Planudes (καλεῖ), and was accepted by Heinsius (ibid.) “ut ad duces orationem conuertat”, who was followed by several edd. down to Lejay (1894). Baumgarten-Crusius, for instance, justified it in these terms (1834, 502): “recte quidem post uerba Postulat, Arguit, et ante at non Aiacis Ulixes, in quibus continuatur persona tertia”. It is true that this is a fleeting change, as the 2nd p. (uocas) is encapsulated in ll. 299  f., between the 3rd p. of sentit (298) and the reference uobis (302), which, although it may also include Aias, can be better understood as now referring (i.  e. from 301) to the duces. This isolation, however, is no problem, just the very opposite, as it fits in fully with previous cases like 47–9 or 80  f., and it is Ulysses’ counterweight to the direct address of Aias in l. 33, precisely the line which precedes the arguments countered by Ulysses here. 300: sum: it was probably the effective reference to a past moment contained in the expression ego sum maturior (Ulysses shuns the use of a verb and opts to describe himself, in order to compensate the term serum in Aias’ accusation: for Aias, see Bömer 1982, 275) that prompted Vollmer to suggest the change ego eram (Magnus 1914, 494 in app.), which is neither necessary nor in any case what strict logic would require here, i.  e. a pres. perf. (cf. Planudes: εἰ τὸ μελλῆσαι πλημμελείας ἐστίν, ἐγὼ θᾶττον ἐκείνου παρεγενόμην; cf. also the glosses of N2 or M2: ante ueni ad bellum quam achilles [ad troiam quam ille M22]). Simmons (1889, 113): “The tense has reference to the time of the discovery: ‘I prove to have arrived earlier.’”. 301–305: Me pia detinuit coniunx, pia mater Achillem, primaque sunt illis data tempora, cetera uobis. Haud timeo si iam nequeam defendere crimen cum tanto commune uiro: deprensus Vlixis ingenio tamen ille, at non Aiacis Vlixes.      

305

• 302 illis AP2(p.c.)S2 A2A4(p.c.)B2 (i.l. u.l.)B5GLr5MoO4 (p.c.)Pr B8Ds2 Ca2, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, edd., dub. Bersm. 1596  : aliis “Leidens.” test. Burm. 1727  : illi Ω, Plan., Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Bersm. 1596  : om. Es2 • 303 si … nequeam] ne grande queam dub. Heinsius 1659(in notis)  : ne iam nequeam coni. Bentley • 2

2



Commentary

179

302: illis: the vast majority of mss. offer the erroneous reading illi, no doubt on the assumption that Ulysses is still speaking pro domo sua and is using the demonstrative to refer to his pia coniunx (cf. e.  g. the supralineal gloss uxori mee in M22). It is clear, however, that with the previous line and its elaborate chiastic structure Ulysses is trying to present himself as associated to Achilles, and on the same level (see Hardie 2015, 257 ad 296–305), and this objective is consolidated in the following line with a reference to the parallel behaviour of the two men, who dedicated the earlier part of their lives to their loved ones and the rest to the Greeks as a whole (for the veiled humour of these two lines, see Bömer 1982, 275  f.; Hopkinson 2000, 146  f.). The pl. illis is transmitted by a small group of mss. (among them AP2S2: uid. app.) and was first published in the 1st Aldina (1502) and later by Naugerius (1516), with all later edd. following them (the variant aliis which Burm. 1727, 881 read in an unknown “Leidens.” would support their arguments). The sing. illi had appeared in edd. down to Bersman (1596), although in his marginal note he had shown sympathy for the pl., which he had found in Ds2. cetera: both the variant postera (P2) and proxima (V8) should be taken as glosses. uobis: the appearance of nobis in a large number of mss. (uid. append.) should be seen within the systematic alternation between both paradigms as a result of similar spellings, since a reference to a 1st p. pl. would be out of place here. 303: apart from the usual spelling or semantic variants of haut and si iam (uid. append.), some mss. offer the form timeam (so too Planudes: Οὐκ ἂν μὲν οὖν φοβοίμην, εἴγε μὴ δυναίμην ἀπολύσασθαι ἤδη τὸ ἔγκλημα) and an even greater number transmit nequeo, leaving us with the four combinations: timeo  … nequeam / timeam … nequeo / timeam … nequeam / timeo … nequeo. Least frequent among the edd. are those which contain the form timeam (cf. 1.175  f.: hic locus est quem … / haud timeam … dixisse): timeam … nequeam (Aler. 1471, Naug. 1516, Loers 1843) and timeam  … nequeo (Bothe 18182). The variation with the greatest weight in the mss. (timeo … nequeam) is likewise the most widely accepted by the edd., but a good number, again following the path marked out by Heinsius, published timeo … nequeo (although the reading was already present in Venet. 1472). Heinsius, however, was not particularly satisfied with the text and in his notes (1659, 338) he proposed the ingenious but unnecessary ne grande queam, “ut εἰρωνικῶς haec dicantur”. For his part, Bentley proposed to replace si with ne (i.  e. ne iam nequeam), no doubt in order to avoid the subordination timeo si (see Hedicke 1905, 32), although a similar proposal had already come from Heinsius himself in a marginal note written in o4, 332: “f. Haud timeo ne non nequeam”, the same place where he had put forward the conjecture mentioned above. Underlying these variants is the nature of the syntactic relation timeo si. Given that a completive subordination timeo si would certainly be unusual

180

Commentary

in Latin usus, some edd. have chosen to give the si clause a parenthetic character, extending it to the inf. defendere and making crimen depend directly on timeo, although implicitly also on defendere (Simmons 1889, 113: “defendere, ‘to repel’, crimen being under the double government of timeo and defendere”): haud timeo, si iam nequeam/nequeo defendere, crimen … This in turn requires si iam to be given an exclusively concessive force (Keene 1898, 81; Bömer 1982, 276). Although the proposal is in order, it is undoubtedly more the fruit of a grammarian’s zeal and it is simpler to understand the text in its literal lineality, i.  e. giving timeo a primary introductory sense (OLD s.u., 1, 1941) and the si clause a force halfway between conditional and concessive (lit. “I feel no fear, [not even] if I should be unable…”), for which the subj. nequeam is undoubtedly more appropriate. For defendere crimen, cf. 310 facinus defendere. crimen: the variant culpam of Mo (uid. append.) is a clear example of an intrusive gloss, as demonstrated by the presence of the adj. commune (l. 304) in the same manuscript. 304–305: the final Vlixis / … Vlixes give rise to the usual omissions through saut du même au même, which affect above all the second line (uid. append.). 304: Vlixis: in some mss. it appears in the nom. (uid. append.), no doubt because of the sequence deprensus V. and also under the pressure of the end of the following line. In opposition to this systematic gen. form in the mss., Heinsius (1659, 338  f.) proposed “Vlyssei, uel Vlyssi” based on the parallels of 13.712, 14.159 and 14.671, and in keeping with his proposal Achilli for ars 1.743 (see Heinsius 1758, I, 287; Bentley also seems to have proposed Vlixei: see Hedicke 1905, 32). However, in Ovid there is firm evidence of the form Vlixis (epist. 1.84): Penelope coniunx semper Vlixis ero, and the use of Vlixi might only be conceivable for 14.159: comes experientis Vlixi, as an imitation of Verg. Aen. 3.613: comes infelicis Vlixi. There is a good analysis of the question in Bömer 1982, 277, and uid. ad 55 Vlixem. 305: Aiacis: Burman (1727, 881) gives us this indirect information from Heinsius: “Non Aiacis.] Non illius Basil. quod placet Heinsio”. In fact, Heinsius wrote this note in o4, 332: “uel illius m” and it went no further. There is an error, incidentally, in this information, since the ms. which Heinsius collates there under the siglum m is Bs4, but the variant does not in fact appear there but in Bs3 (collated there with the siglum n), as a u.l. in this marginal note: “ł. at non illius ulixes est deprensus” (above illius, in turn, there appears aiacis as a u.l., a reading that also appears in the text). The only attraction of this variant would lie in the chiasm Vlixis … ille … illius Vlixes, but for that very reason the reader would take illius as referring to Achilles (thus ille) and not to Aias, its real referent.



181

Commentary

306–309: Neue in me stolidae conuicia fundere linguae admiremur eum: uobis quoque digna pudore obicit. an falso Palameden crimine turpe est accusasse mihi, uobis damnasse decorum? • 306 fundere] reddere L3Lr2 Ld3Lr3Ph2 Ld6(redere) CvLu2Ps, “quatuor alii” test. Burm. 1727, Lugd. 1546(mg.), Lugd. 1565(mg.)  : fondere BCs B8  : fōdere Calph. 1480  : findere L4(a.c.)  : frondere Mt  : fendere Mt4  : effundere Vd11 •

306: fundere: a small group of mss. (uid. app.) offers the variant reddere as more logical in a dialogue context, and the edd. Gryphianae (and thence Bersman) go so far as to record it in the margins. However, the verb fundere is absolutely appropriate for this context, as was clearly shown by Burman (1727, 519 ad 7.590). See also Bömer 1982, 277. 308–309: turpe est / … decorum: this is the majority reading of mss. and edd. (uid. append.), although some give the inverse reading turpe / … decorum est (among the edd., Heinsius 1659, without comment, and after him Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Merkel 1850, Polle 1888, H-K-E 1898, Goold 1984, R. de Verger 2005) and others even repeat the verbal form at the end of each line (ALr2LuM2 and some recc., and the edd. Venet. 1472, Accurs. 1475, Simmons 1889, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, van Proosdij 1951, H-K-E-A 1966, Fink 2007). I see no reason to replace the majority reading (and the repetition of est seems to me to be the worst option), especially as reasons of euphony advise against it (Bothe 1818, 132: “turpe est, quo recepto neque trochaeum extrema regione etiam huius uersus, sicut praecedentis, habebimus, et uitabitur uocum trium continuarum crimine turpe Accusasse ὁμοιοτέλευτον”; in similar terms, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, 503). This word order, moreover, makes a better contribution to the conformation of the chiasm turpe … accusasse mihi, uobis damnasse decorum (Simmons 1889, 113; Hopkinson 2000, 147). 310–312: Sed neque Naupliades facinus defendere tantum  tamque patens ualuit, nec uos audistis in illo crimina: uidistis, pretioque obiecta patebant.

310

• 310–311 defendere tantus / tamque potens ualuit def. Bothe 1818(in notis; dub. 18182 in app.); improb. Baumg.-Crus. 1834 • 312 pretioque] pretio Lu  : pretio quoque(per comp.) Mo(a.c.)  : precique Mo3  : pretio quae Aldina 1502, Argent. 1515, Bersm. 1596(pretioque mg. test. et prob.)  : praestoque coni. Merkel 1875, prob. Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Riese 1889, Simmons 1889, Lejay 1894, Edwards 1905, Hardie 2015, Holzberg 2017  : pretiumque Shackleton Bailey  : quid P10 a.c. n.l. •

310–312: the repetition patens … patebant and the constr. pretioque obiecta have aroused the suspicions of the edd. (Baumg.-Crus. 1834, 503: “Sed Ouidio

182

Commentary

uel placuit, uel excidit, emendaturo, si licuisset”). Bothe proposed in the app. of his edition (18182, 262) and defended in his Vindiciae (1818, 132  f.), on the famed excellence of Palamedes, the reading defendere tantus / tamque potens ualuit, to which Baumgarten-Crusius himself correctly responded (ibid.): “Quid ad rem ualere poterat splendor uiri et auctoritas, manifesto proditionis crimine?”. The majority reading pretioque obiecta patebant should be taken as “and the charges against him were clear for all to see from the bribe (i.  e. the gold ‘planted’ by Ulysses): OLD s.v. obiectum 1, with pretio causal ablative” (Hopkinson 2000, 148). I have found no ms. support for the reading pretio quae, incorporated into the 1st Aldina (1502) and kept by other edd. (e.  g. Argent. 1515, Bersm. 1596) down to Farnabius (Amstelodami 1630); in any case it does not affect us here. Against the vulgate, Merkel in his 2nd ed. (1875) proposed to read praestoque obiecta patebant (“ex Bentlei coni Merkel” states Magnus 1914, 495 in app., but I have found no trace of Bentley’s contribution), and this proposal was accepted by some edd. down to Edwards (1905; uid. app.) and recently by Hardie (and hence Holzberg 2017, 648), who also attributes it to Bentley (2015, 30 and 258). Merkel defends it in these terms (1875, XXXVII): “pretioque libri omnes, quod aptam structuram non habet. PRAESTO iunxerim cum obiecta, quem admodum praesto uideo, praesto adesse dici consueuit et uisum obiectum, species obiecta apud Ciceronem, ut iteretur, quod antecessit crimina uidistis, non facinus v. 310, sed criminatio, ut u. 60. durius paulo foret obiecta, ‘quae ei obieceram’, praesto patebant, ut legebatur apud Cic. Epp. fam. xiii 29 2 praesto fuit ac patuit” (although today the reading is praesto fuit et paruit). The conjecture praestoque is palaeographically impeccable (preſtoq3 > pretioq3) but it does not improve the text, since praesto patere is, after all, redundant, it is not documented in the classical texts and it does not solve the problem of the repetition patens … patebant. Nor do I find any greater advantages in the proposal per litteras from Shackleton Bailey to Tarrant (2004, 382 in app.): pretiumque. Perhaps we should look for a solution in the participle obiecta, which repeats the obicit of l. 308, and consider obruta (cf. Hyg. fab. 105.2: Vlixes autem clam noctu solus magnum pondus auri ubi tabernaculum Palamedis fuerat obruit; cf. ad 60), which would create an interesting oxymoron alongside patebant, but it seems to me that neither a dat. of purpose (pretioque) nor a predicate complement (pretiumque) would provide the sort of fluid expression to be expected in Ovid. Finally, Hopkinson defends the repetitions which prompted the suspicions (2000, 148): “patebant, after patens (311), emphasises by repetition the irrefutable nature of the evidence. obiecta proves false the charges (308 obicit) made by Ajax”.



183

Commentary

313–317: Nec Poeantiaden quod habet Vulcania Lemnos esse reus merui: factum defendite uestrum! (consensistis enim); nec me suasisse negabo     ut se subtraheret bellique uiaeque labori temptaretque feros requie lenire dolores.

315

• 314 factum] crimen Lr3, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Lugd. 1546(factum mg. et 1565 in textu), Bersm. 1596, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, def. Ciof. 1583  : uestrum A2  : sacrum Tu • 317 lenire] finire L3M2N2(i.l. u.l.)P2(lenire mg. u.l.) AbB3DeH3Ld3Lr3Mo(i.l. u.l.)OPh2V5Vd Ds2Ld6P10To FtRd Go2 Ca2, Plan., Lugd. 1546(mg.), “lib. Farn.” test. Ciof. 1583, prob. Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Lafaye 1930  : linire Lu  : temptare(uid.) P3(lenire suprascr.) •

314–315: factum … enim: it is obvious that in the expression of these two clauses there is parenthetic content. Ehwald (1898) and some edd. after him (uid. append.) took the parenthesis to affect the whole of Ulysses’ direct address to the judges and as a result they extended the parenthesis to both clauses. Although the punctuation is acceptable, it seems to stem from the premise that the two instances of nec (ll. 313–5) are correlated (in fact, there is no punctuation mark after the parenthesis), which is more questionable. For a start, the second nec clause (negabo) can also be understood as a direct address, since the necessary object of the verb is none other than uobis. In short, we do not have two equivalent statements here; rather, the second works as a restriction or partial concession to what is formulated in the first (“I do not deserve to have been accused of the banishment of Philoctetes, although I will not deny that I did persuade him to stay there”; cf. 10.25; trist. 2.1.29). It therefore seems preferable to restrict the parenthesis to consensistis enim, a clear justification of factum … uestrum. 314: factum: Lr3 (tertius Mediceus in the ed. by Heinsius) offers the variant crimen (uid. app.), adopted by the edd. of Accursius and Regius, the 1st Aldina (1502) and the Gryphiana of 1546 (which, however, has factum in the margin; the 1565 edition adopts factum), as well as by Bersman (1596) and Baumgarten-Crusius (1834). Ciofanus had defended it in these terms (1583, 243): “Ita legendum. Reddit autem rursus Aiacem iudicibus odiosum” (Baumg.-Crus. 1834, 503: “h. e. quod uobis crimini datur ab Aiace”). However, it is more likely that crimen, a concept on which Ulysses’ speech turns from l. 299, comes from a gloss on factum than viceversa. Note the inversion uestrum … factum in A2. 317: feros lenire dolores: influenced by labori in the previous line some mss. and the early edd. give the erroneous variant labores (uid. append.; cf. ars 2.490: feri requiem … doloris; Soph. Phil. 265  f.: ἀγρίᾳ νόσῳ). In turn, a good number of mss. transmit the variant finire (uid. app.; cf. 1.661; 6.272; Pont. 1.6.41; 4.11.13), which was accepted by Edwards (1905), Magnus (1914), Ehwald (1915) and Lafaye (1930), a surprising decision if we bear in mind that it is more logical to contemplate rest (requies, and cf. Soph. Phil.

184

Commentary

271–5 with Hopkinson 2000, 149) as a palliative (lenire) for pain (cf. 599: uulnera leni) than as a drastic remedy (finire), for which Ovid usually points to death itself (cf. passages cited supra, and some by other authors in Bömer 1982, 279). For lenire dolores, cf. Hor. epist. 1.1.34: hunc lenire dolorem. Cf. also ars 2.490: illa feri requiem sola doloris habent. 318–319: Paruit… et uiuit! Non haec sententia tantum fida, sed et felix, cum sit satis esse fidelem. • 318–382 desunt in T • 319 sed  … felix] sed est felix P2 A2A3B3B4BaCCsGgLr5MtN2O3O4PrV7 P5So P28 P41  : sed felix V3(a.c.) AbV4 B12 Es3  : sed infelix L3N*(corr. N2) B2(a.c.)H2(a.c.)LsP4Ph2 Es2Rd(p.c.) B14 P47, Venet. 1472  : et felix Lu(a.c. a m.p.)  : sit et felix Mt2  : sed et(per comp. uid.) infelix Rd(a.c.)  : est sed felix Lr22  : et sed felix V30, Aler. 1471 • satis Ω (uid. append.), def. Ciof. 1575, prob. Heinsius 1659, edd.  : facit AGfL3LuM2(p.c.)N*V2V3(satis i.l. u.l. V32) B2(a.c.)B3BaBe2C(a.c.)EFGgH2(satis i.l. H22)H3Ld(satis i.l. u.l.)Ld3(corr. Ld32)Lr3LsMoMtO42(i.l. u.l.)P4TrV5V8V9 GoLd6Li3Lr8(sit i.l. u.l. Lr82)Mt2P8ToV16 BoEs2RdTo2 AsB14Bo3Es4Es6F2Go2Lr22P38PsV30Vd11 P46P47Ld13, Plan., Aler. 1471, edd. aliquot (uid. append.)  : de A2 n.l. • fidelem] doloris Ld2(a.c. a m.p.)  : fideli dub. Heinsius 1659(in notis), improb. Baumg.-Crus. 1834 •

318: tantum: a group of mss. presents the variant tantum est (uid. append. and note, at 319, O3: est fida; B5: fida est; see also the reading of C Es4: non est sententia), accepted by some edd. down to Koch (1866), thus regularizing the pure nominal clause with the addition of a verbal form no doubt arising from interlinear glosses (uid. ad 319). Fluctuations in est at the end of the line are very common: cf. a clearly erroneous example at 377 (Lr8): quod sit sapienter agendum est. 319: fida sed et felix: ignoring banal errors, there are two main variants on this majority reading. On the one hand, a group of mss. and the ed. Venet. 1472 (coinciding once again with Ls B14) offer fida sed infelix, which is contrary to the sense and probably originates in an erroneous development of an abbreviation of et (uid. app. and cf. ad 857). Another group of mss. replaces et with est, either for the same graphic reason or in an attempt to regularize the pure nominal clause (uid. supra). Cf. e.  g. C: non est sententia tantum / fida, sed est felix. Finally, note how the copyist of Lr22 attempts to rework the constr. with respect to the reading of V30 and Aler. 1471 (fida et sed felix), as he replaces et with est: non haec sententia tantum / fida est: sed felix cum sit facit esse fidelem. sit: for the variant sic (uid. append.), uid. ad 332. satis esse fidelem: the mss. are divided equally between satis and facit, which are written almost identically (uid. app.). The form facit was duly challenged by Ciofanus (1575, 176): “Ineptissime ita legitur in impressis. Tu uero emenda, ut est in duobus Vatic. uno meo, & Caelest. Sed et felix, cum sit satis esse fidelem”.



185

Commentary

The first editor to incorporate the correct form into his text was, once again, Heinsius (1659, 339): “cum sit satis omnino rescribendum cum plurimis membranis”, though adding this proposal: “nisi malis cum sit satis esse fideli” (later accepted by Bentley: see Hedicke 1905, 32), based on the parallel (see 1758, 696 [Burm. 1727, 881]) of Sil. 16.492  f.: satis est huic esse priori, / huic sperare sat est fieri se posse priorem. He was also sympathetic to the correction fideli for epist. 14.64: Quo mihi commisso non licet esse piam/piae?, a passage for which he defended the variant piae (1658, 117–9). This proposal, however, was rejected by Baumgarten-Crusius, taking those very passages as a reference (1834, 503): “Non ualet attractio in sententia communi, at ualet, ubi ad personam refertur, ut l. c. Quo mihi commisso non licet esse piae? et Silii XVI, 49[2]. satis est huic esse priori”. The fact is that the complement of satis could never be sententia(e), but at most illi (sc. Poeantiadi): non haec sententia tantum fida (i.  e. fuit illi), sed et felix, cum sit satis (i.  e. illi eam) esse fidelem. For satis est with acc.+inf., cf. 6.502. 320–323: Quem quoniam uates delenda ad Pergama poscunt,  ne mandate mihi! Melius Telamonius ibit eloquioque uirum morbis iraque furentem molliet aut aliqua perducet callidus arte …

320

• 322 morbis] morbisque L3Lr2P2 B42H3Ld2Ld3Ph2V82(p.c.) Ld6To Ft(p.c.)Rd Lr22Lu2V30, Plan., Aler. 1471, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Lejay 1894, Edwards 1905, van Proosdij 1951  : morboque B4 Es2(p.c.)  : mobis Tu  : morbi P10(p.c.)  : morbis morbisque Ft(a.c.)  : morbo Go2  : deest in Ls •

322: morbis: a small but not inconsiderable group of mss. (uid. app.) offers the variant morbisque (morboque in B4 Es2), which would give an acceptable polysyndeton of the two ablatives qualifying furentem (and cf. 11.369: saeuit pariter rabieque fameque), as well as a succession of three -que in the same line, the first of them unrelated to the polysyndeton, an infrequent but by no means unknown structure in Ovid (cf. e.  g. l. 200; less frequent is the triple polysyndeton: cf. e.  g. epist. 10.63; am. 3.10.46; ars 3.383; met. 2.15 etc.; the appearance of four -que is exceptional: met. 2.354: perque gradus uterum pectusque umerosque manusque). The variant morbisque was published by Aler. 1471, the Gryphianae and Bersman, among the older editions, and by Riese, Korn, Zingerle, Lejay, Edwards and van Proosdij among the more recent. The appearance of these variants before a vowel is a regular phenomenon in the mss. Given that both readings are acceptable (see Magnus 1904, 58  f.), it seems prudent to maintain that with a stronger tradition. 323: aliqua: against this generalized reading Heinsius (1659, 339) argued: “scribendum alia arte. nam et eloquium ars est”, to which Burman (who did not incorporate the proposal into his text either) added (1727, 882) the insufficient parallel of ars 1.692: tu titulos alia Palladis arte petas (note, however,

186

Commentary

that N2 writes alia above arte). The reference by Ulysses is a generic one and could also include the eloquium, as what he means by his sarcasm is that Aias will manage to convince Philoctetes with some display of his ingenuity or ability (ars; “stratagem”: Simmons 1889, 114; “tact”: Keene 1898, 82; “deception”: Huyck 1991, 185; “trick”: Hopkinson 2000, 150; “furbizia”: Hardie 2015, 259; “Maior inuidia est in aliqua” is the reasonable reply to Heinsius from Baumg.-Crus. 1834, 504). For the phraseology, cf. also (infra) Verg. ecl. 6.60; [Caes.] Afr. 4.1. perducet: this is the reading of the vast majority of mss., and certainly all those in group Γ (there is no sign of producet in N2, as claimed by Anderson 1982, 308 in app.), but against this reading a group of recc. offers producet, adopted by Puteol. 1471, Accurs. 1475 and Bersm. 1596 among the first edd. and later incorporated by Heinsius and several edd. since then (uid. append.). The confusion of the prefixes per-/pro- is so systematic in the mss. that it cannot be put forward as backing for either of them (TLL 10.1282.8: [perducere] “confunditur saepe cum aliis compos., maxime cum producere”). Heinsius defended producet, paraphrasing it as “producet a latebris suis” (1659, 339; cf. Petr. 126.13), which might be supported by l. 47: siluestribus abditus antris. However, this is an excessively reductive vision of Philoctetes’ situation at Lemnos, since the abandonment (l. 46 expositum) of the hero is more to be imagined as a case of a life led in the open (ll. 52  f.). By contrast, perducere has the right specific sense of persuasion (and note the variant permulcet in Ds, probably a gloss), either “to induce [a person] to go (to a place, etc.)” or else “to bring over by persuasion or sim. means” (OLD s.u., 1d and 3, 1334; see also TLL 10.1284.26–42; 10.1286.39–1287.21). This was the argument appropriately used against producet by Baumgarten-Crusius (1834, 504), who adduced the parallels of am. 3.12.11: duce me perductus amator (with variants) and Verg. ecl. 6.60: perducant aliquae stabula ad Gortynia uaccae. Cf. also (with Huyck 1991, 184  f.) fast. 3.321: Iuppiter huc ueniet, ualida perductus ab arte; [Caes.] Afr. 4.1: si posset aliqua ratione perduci ad sanitatem. 324–327: Ante retro Simois fluet et sine frondibus Ide stabit et auxilium promittet Achaïa Troiae     quam cessante meo pro uestris pectore rebus Aiacis stolidi Danais sollertia prosit!

325

• 324 Simois  … sine] Simoisque fluet sine Lr3 Ld13, Puteol. 1471, Accurs. 1475, Aldina 1502  : simois fluet sine P38, Calph. 1474(corr. 1480) • 327 Danais … prosit] prosit sollertia uobis CPh2 •

324: sarcasm has given way to an energetic reaction on the part of Ulysses, who falls back on the also ironic device of the ἀδύνατα in ll. 324  f. (Simmons 1889, 114; Bömer 1982, 281; Huyck 1991, 185; Hill 2000, 147; Hardie 2015,



187

Commentary

260). These impossibilia are reduced to three clauses (fluet … stabit … promittet) joined by a triple et, although Lr3 and the excerpta Ld13 give the variant Simoisque fluet sine frondibus  …, a reading also found in Puteol. 1471, Accurs. 1475 and Aldina 1502 (the last two punctuate after fluet and stabit), although Regius 1493 had already restored the general reading. The same omission of the first et (other mss. give aut in its place: uid. append.) can be found in P38 and the ed. of Calph. 1474, which however has Simois and not Simoisque. frondibus: ignoring simple mechanical errors (uid. append.), it is worth noting that Burman (1727, 882) bears witness to the variant fontibus offered by “unus Heinsii”, with this timid and palinodic defence: “quod defendi quidem posse uideo ex iis, quae adnotantur ad lib. xi. 762 et iv. Fast. 249. sed τῷ stabit melius conueniet frondibus, quibus non minus Ide frequens fuit quam fontibus”. The passages adduced at 11.762 by Burman himself (1727, 803) are 2.218: prius creberrima fontibus, Ide, and 10.71: quos umida sustinet Ide, and 11.762 itself: umbrosa … sub Ida, for which Heinsius had apparently once proposed (“Coniecerat olim”) undosa, a conjecture rejected by Burman himself in light of the evidence of the characterization of mount Ida as wooded (cf. e.  g. Hom. Il. 21.449; Ou. met. 7.359; epist. 16.110; ars 1.289; Stat. silu. 3.4.12; see Díez 2014, 513  f.), thus corresponding to the meaning of its own name (Huyck 1991, 185). As regards the variants, fontibus is clearly facilior, as well as alluding to an impermanent quality of mount Ida (its abundance of springs) which might disappear in times of drought, whereas the ἀδύνατον demands an intrinsic and permanent condition: “frondibus carere nisi radicitus euersa non poterat” (Baumg.-Crus. 1834, 504). 327: Danais sollertia prosit: note the variant common to CPh2 (uid. app.): prosit sollertia uobis, of interest in that it adapts well to uestris (l. 326) and not necessarily incompatible with the apostrophe to Philoctetes which begins at 328 (sis). 328–331: Sis licet infestus sociis regique mihique, dure Philoctete, licet exsecrere meumque deuoueas sine fine caput cupiasque dolenti     me tibi forte dari nostrumque haurire cruorem,

330

• 329 dure] iure GfLr2LuM2(i.l. u.l.)P2(mg. u.l.) A2(uid.)B2B4(dure i.l. u.l. B42)DeHdLd(p.c.)Ld32(i.l. u.l.)Lr4Lr6(dure i.l. u.l. Lr62)MoO P10V16Vt Es5Lu2 P46  : dire V6, “tres” test. Burm. 1727  : duro Li3 Mt3  : duri V30 •

328: sociis regique mihique: for the usual alterations in the mss. (uid. append.) of these expressions, cf. ad 276. 329: dure Philoctete: although durus is an appropriate epithet for individuals submitted to great pressure (πολύτλας, πολυτλήμων), “durus wird Philok-

188

Commentary

tet nur hier genannt” (Bömer 1982, 282). This circumstance, however, does not explain as well as its graphic similarity, its complete contextual relevance and its recurrence in the Latin of Ovid the variant iure, which is transmitted by some mss. (among them GfLr2LuM2P2; uid. app.) and should not be rejected outright. It may be true that the explicit acceptance of behaviour that is iniustum with relation to Philoctetes might seem an excessive rhetorical concession on Ulysses’ part in that it would also affect the judges of the armorum iudicium (cf. sociis regique). See also Hardie (2015, 260): “Diversamente da Aiace quando con simpatia apostrofa Filottete a 45–9, l’apostrofe di Ulisse distanzia Filottete dalla comunità dei Greci”. 332–333: [utque tui mihi, sic fiat tibi copia nostri,] te tamen adgrediar mecumque reducere nitar, • 332–333 inu. ord. Lr23 B3 Mt5 Es4Es5Lu2, Regius 1493(recto ord. tantum in 1510), Jahn 1832(“ex auctoritate codd. Berol. [non sic B14] et unius Maff.”), Loers 1843, Lejay 1894  : Te tamen aggrediar: fiet tibi copia nostri deleto u. 332 prop. Bentley, Riese 1872, prob. Mendner  : te tamen aggrediar – sic fit tibi copia nostri – prop. Müller  : deleto u. 333 lac. stat. Ehwald, dub. prob. Tarrant 1987 • 332 hunc u. hab. Ω (in uno Vatic. defuisse test. Ciof. 1575)  : def. Bothe 1818  : pro parenth. def. Madvig  : delendum iudic. Muretus (test. et adsent. Ciof. 1575), Capof. 1659, Heinsius 1659  : uncinis not. Burm. 1727, alii (uid. append.)  : secl. Riese 1872, alii (uid. append.) • 333 hunc u. in textu hab. Ω, edd. (uid. append.)  : mg. sed eadem linea atque 332 N3V23 V52 To2 Bo3(a m.p.)  : mg. sed eadem linea atque 331 Lr23Lu3  : mg. sed post 332 incl. B14(a m.p.)  : mg. sed eadem linea atque 336 L42  : mg. P22 E2H32N22Ph2 Rd3  : ima pagina suppl. Mo2  : om. GfL3M2N*P2S2V2 EFGH3HdLr3Lr4Lr7Ls(qui tamen codex sinistro marg. caret; cf. B14 supra)MoN2 Li3 FtP28Rd F2PsVd11Z  : dub. retin. Tarrant 2004 • mecumque reducere nitar Ω, edd. (uid. append.)  : castrisque reducere nitar O Et, dub. Burm. 1727(in notis)  : nec inultus spero relinquar Lr23(mg.)V23(mg.) A3BaF2Gg(in textu)H2Mo2MtO42(mg. u.l.)P3(i.l. a m.p.)P4V6 Bs2Lr82(mg. pr. u.l.)P8V16 B12Es3 B14Bs7(a.c.)Es3Es4Lr22Lu2V30 Ca22(mg. u.l.), “in uno Maffei” test. Ciof. 1575, Aler. 1471  : nec inultus, spero, relinquam prop. Braune  : longe formidine(-inine a.c. A42) pulsa A A2A42(mg. pr. u.l.)CDeE2FeL42Ld3Lr53(p.c.)N22(mg.)O4PrTrV8 Bs2(a.c.)Bs3Bs4Lr82(mg. alt. u.l.)P5P10 Es22(mg. p.c.)Mt4Rd3 Bo3Bs7Go2 P46P47, Bothe 18182  : sol(l)erti(sollenti Es2) pectore fidus(fidu[ B) A42(mg. alt. u.l.)BV9Vd Es2, “sex” test. Heinsius 1659  : capto bene tempore tecum V52 To2 Bo  : uiolento(-e Lr6) uulnere tardum Gg(mg. pr. u.l. a m.p.)Lr6 P41 •

332–333: a problematic passage beyond a doubt (for an overview of the question, cf. Huyck 1991, 186–8). Of the two lines, it is the first which has aroused most suspicions among the edd., in spite of being transmitted by practically all the mss., unlike 333, which is omitted by several codices or added at a later stage, and is affected by a divergence in its second hemistich which makes it unique in this book as a whole (uid. app.). Nevertheless, being the apodosis of the whole concessive period preceding it, it is indispensable, which explains why no doubts have been expressed about it. After an analysis of all the ms. evidence and the different proposals for emendation and interpretation, I am inclined to think, like a significant



189

Commentary

number of scholars from Ciofanus (1575, 176) down to the present, that a copyist, inspired by the ampleness of Ovid’s subordination, added l. 332 “in the Ovidian style” (or else added it in the margin simply to show off his skills: cf. ad 294  f.). It is a line that is undoubtedly well camouflaged by its diction but it reveals its inauthenticity in its awkward syntax and its redundance in relation to the first hemistich of 331. As regards the second hemistich of 333, the same copyist probably continued to exercise his versifying talents by coming up with alternative endings for Ovid’s line, the first of which could well have been nec inultus spero relinquar, in that it mantains the balanced construction of the line and the homeoteleuton which mark the original, but introducing an undesirable reference to the “revenge of Ulysses”. The same copyist, or perhaps a later reader inspired by his example, added a semantic alternative with two formulations that are equally naïve, even coming from the mouth of the vain Ulysses: longe formidine pulsa – sollerti pectore fidus (cf. l. 327). The other formulations that appear in the app. and append., in short, are evidence of successive, less felicitous exercises and I think that the appearance of new variants in other, as yet uncollated mss. should not be ruled out. In short, the multiplicity of variants for this second part should not necessarily condemn all of them as inauthentic: that is to say, I see no elements of content, phraseology or style that make me suspicious of the expression mecumque reducere nitar. For a detailed analysis of the passage I refer the reader to Rivero 2015b, 169-75. 332: sic, fiat: alongside the variants sit and fit for sic, what is striking is the paradosis sit sic (fit sic in Mt3), which, together with a new variant sic for fiat, leaves us with the sequence sit sic sit (i.  e. utque tui mihi sit, sic sit tibi copia nostri). Slater (1927, ad loc.) reads it in the unidentified “Twisden alter” and I have found it in V4 and Bs4 (cf. Mt3: fit sic sit; Es5: sit sit; F2: sit sic fiat). Another, similar attempt to regularize the line can be seen in O3 Ca2(a.c.): utque tui mihi sit, fiat sic copia nostri. 334–338: tamque tuis potiar (faueat Fortuna) sagittis quam sum Dardanio, quem cepi, uate potitus,     quam responsa deum Troianaque fata retexi, quam rapui Phrygiae signum penetrale Mineruae hostibus e mediis: et se mihi comparat Aiax!

335

• 334 faueat] faueas Hd, “Bonon.” test. Burm. 1727 • 338 comparat Ω, Plan., edd.  : conferat L3M2(i.l. u.l.) CsH3Lr3OPh2Vd Bs4Ld6P10 FtRdVt, Lugd. 1546(mg.), “in meo antiq.” test. Ciof. 1575, “quinque alii” test. Heinsius 1659, prob. Vossius, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Simmons 1889, Edwards 1905, Goold 1984, Huyck 1991, R. de Verger 2005  : comparet B8(i.l. u.l. a m.p.)Ds2(a.c. a m.p.)Mt2 To2 Es5, “in uno Vatic.” test. Ciof. 1575, “duo” test. Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Weise 1845, Koch 1866  : comperat(ɔp - at e.  g. Mo) Bo2  : conperat

190

Commentary

uel conporat Lr2  : perat B5(a.c.)  : cōperat Mt4, Venet. 1472(cf. cōp - at Calph. 1480)  : compara P46(a.c.) •

334: faueat: the parenthetical expression faueat Fortuna (cf. 4.702: faueant modo numina), an example of “Kondizionalsatz ohne si” (Bömer 1982, 283; cf. the variants faueat modo in To and faueat si in Ps: uid. append.), with an apotropaic function, is well attested (cf. Manil. 1.114: faueat magno fortuna labori; Sen. epist. 76.30.4: fauente fortuna; Luc. 2.320: si fortuna fauebit), but the variant faueas which I have found in Hd and which was also read by Burman (1727, 882) in a “Bonon.”, is nonetheless interesting, although none of the Bononienses known today has this reading. 335: quem cepi: Bothe (1818, 133  f.) found this common paradosis redundant (“uatem Dardanium cepi, quem cepi”), therefore suggesting (though without incorporating it into his text) quum coepi, “h.e. cum decreui illo potiri” (for which he compares 9.115 and Cic. Ver. 2.2.93). However, the lexical variation has its importance here, for it is obvious that potitus refers to the potiar of the previous line and that the two are linked, in these peculiar minae in absentem, by the comparative correlation tam … quam: “I shall as surely, if only fortune favour me, make myself master of your arrows, as I did of the Dardanian seer whom I took captive” (Keene 1898, 84). uate: although this generalized reading presents no doubts, note the variant gnare of Ls B14 (uid. append.), which in Ls even has the synonymous gloss “i. docte” written above it, which Bothe found in the Berolinensis and explained (1818, 133) as no doubt coming from the corruption of quem cepi ego uate. 336–337: quam … quam: note the variant qui, again presented solely by Ls (because of a cut in the folio, only]ui can be read) and B14. 338: comparat: leaving aside the variant comperat, the result of an erroneous development of an abbreviation such as comp - at, the majority reading has two variants, which are equivalent in that both are subjunctives: conferat and comparet. The first is already present in L3 and as u.l. in M2, as well as in some recc. (uid. app.), was preferred by Vossius “cum 8 libris” (Bothe 1818, 175), and defended by Baumgarten-Crusius (1834, 505) with the parallel of l. 6: et mecum confertur Vlixes, even though the parallel, as far as the mood is concerned, is more of an argument against (thus H-K-E 1898, 407 [H-K-E-A 1966, 517]). However, this reading has continued to find acceptance in some edd. down to the present century. There is less ms. evidence for comparet, the reading adopted by some edd. between Burman 1727 (presenting no arguments) and Koch 1866 (uid. app.). However, the subjunctive is quite unnecessary, as is shown by a simple comparison with the already-mentioned previous expression of Aias: et mecum confertur Vlixes!, which this expression of Ulysses echoes in the form of a responsio with a suitable lexical variation. Here, as at l. 6, many edd. prefer an interrogative punctuation, but an exclamation again reflects better the irony it holds as colophon to all that Ulysses achieved for the Greeks (uid. ad 6; cf. e.  g. Planudes: Καὶ νῦν ὁ Αἴας ἑαυτὸν ἐμοὶ παραβάλλει!). For the



191

Commentary

expression (see OLD s.u. comparo2, 373), cf. am. 1.8.33: est etiam facies, quae se tibi comparet, illi. 339–345: Nempe capi Troiam prohibebant fata sine illo. fortis ubi est Aiax? ubi sunt ingentia magni       uerba uiri? cur hic metuis? cur audet Vlixes ire per excubias et se committere nocti perque feros enses non tantum moenia Troum uerum etiam summas arces intrare suaque eripere aede deam raptamque afferre per hostes?  

340

345

• 339 hunc u. susp. hab. Beller. 1806 • 341 metuis Ω, edd.  : metuit A2(uid.)BB42(-t suprascr.)B5BaCDrGgH3LdLd2N2O3O4P32(p.c.)V6V7V8Vd B8DsDs2Ld6P5SoTo(a.c.) Mt4(a.c.) Bo3P41Vd11, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, haud male  : metus Ph2(a.c.) Mt5  : metui aut V16 • 344 redeunt MN Lr27 • 345 raptamque Ω, Plan., Aler. 1471, edd.  : raptamue LuMNV2 A42(i.l. u.l.)Lr4 Lr8V16 BoP28 Bo3Go2Lr27P38, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475  : rapta ue Ld13  : raptam M2 AbMt To(raptamque p.c. To2) Z • a(d/f)ferre Ω, Puteol. 1471, edd.  : e(c/f)ferre N2(i.l. u.l.) H3Lr3O3O4Ph2V5(ecff-) B9Mo3Mt3P5To B12Es2Rd Lr22V30, Aler. 1471, alii (uid. append.)  : auferre C Mt4 F2 P46(auff-)P47, “sex” test. Heinsius 1659, prob. Regius 1493, Huyck 1991, Tarrant 2004  : aufere B5  : referre Cs Cv  : inferre “Moreti” test. Burm. 1727 •

339: Jahn (1832, 838) leaves us some information on the ed. by Bellerman (1806): “In ed. Belerm. annotatum est: ‘Versus suspectus. Nempe glossam prodit. Sententia inepta, loco alieno.’”. However, it is necessary for the normal flow of Ulysses’ words. Note the skilful reconstruction (apart from the initial inversion troiam capi, which the copyist was able to correct) offered by Ca2 (s. XIII) alone: Nempe capi troiam sine ipso fata uetabant, this last verb (cf. 3.548: fata uetabant) being one I have found again in Lr5, but as an unmetrical variant of prohibebant (uid. append.). illo: some mss. give the form illis (uid. append.), which Burman finds, among other mss. referred to here, in the unidentified “Francii et Moreti” (for Francius, uid. ad 17), and which he also approves of and incorporates into his text (1727, 883): “recte mea sententia, agit enim de Palladio, Heleno et c.”. This reading, which was not adopted by Walchius (1731), was kept only in the edd. of Gierig (1807), Bothe (18182) and Lemaire (1822). The reference, however, is only to the Palladium, as is recalled by the glosses in a good number of mss. (thus e.  g. N2). 340: ubi est: Burman (1727, 883) states that “unus Heinsii” contained the variant ubi es (uid. append.), which would bring forward to this line the switch to the 2nd p. we find in 341 (metuis; uid. infra). However, the reading would involve scanning ubi as an iambus against Ovidian usus and is at odds with the distancing implicit in the subsequent magni … uiri. Recall also that

192

Commentary

Ulysses’ question is a responsio to that of Aias in l. 92: ubi nunc facundus Vlixes? 341: uerba: in Cs the usual synonym (dicta) has slipped in, here breaking the alliteration uerba uiri which opens a line characterized by other binary elements such as the anaphora cur … cur and the variation in the positioning of the verbs (hic metuis / audet Vlixes). For their part, P3V7 stand apart from the rest in offering the variant facta, which is worth consideration although no better than the general reading (Hardie 2015, 261: “Dopo ingentia magni a fine verso, uerba (piuttosto che, per esempio, arma) è una sorpresa”). For ingentia uerba, cf. Sen. Polyb. (dial. 11) 11.6: quanto spiritu ingentibus intonueris uerbis (see Bömer 1982, 284  f.; Hardie 2015, 261  f.); cf. l. 222: magna loquenti. hic: against this form some mss. offer readings that are faciliores, such as hoc/haec, and the variant huic of V16 is of interest since, in combination with the variant metui aut, it presents us with this curious though preposterous conjecture: cur huic metui aut cur audet Vlixes… metuis: the mss. once again swing between the 2nd and 3rd p. sing. forms (uid. ad 33) and once more the brusque change to direct address seems the preferable option insofar as it is the lectio difficilior and yet the most widely attested in the mss. However, we cannot but observe that, on the one hand, hic metuit – audet Vlixes would be an acceptable chiasm contrasting the different ethos of the two heroes (thus Baumg.-Crus. 1834, 505) and, on the other, that, although it is difficilior, in some cases it is the 2nd p. form that is clearly arbitrary and erroneous (cf. e.  g. audes in Cs: uid. append.). The form metuis appeared in the first edd. until Regius (1493) adopted metuit, and this new form was kept until Bersman (1596), but the defence of metuis on the part of Heinsius (1659, 340: “metuis rectius plurimi ueteres”) meant that metuit would not be used again, with the sole exception of Baumgarten-Crusius (1834). This adverbial use of hic is rare in Ovid, but it is at least attested (epist. 20.1; Pont. 1.8.69: see Bömer 1982, 285). What is more, the direct apostrophe to Aias is particularly expressive in terms of contrast as it is combined with a self-reference to Ulysses in the 3rd p. (Bömer 1982, 285). 342: excubias: mss. Gf Ld3 and P8 (probably the “unus Heins.” cited by Burm. 1727, 883) give insidias, perhaps reflecting 2.78: per insidias iter est, as mentioned by Burman himself, defending in turn the appropriateness of excubias by means of a comparison with am. 1.9.27: custodum transire manus uigilumque cateruas (cf. 1.6.7: ille per excubias custodum leniter ire), although the reading actually defends itself by the very episode to which it refers. nocti: in opposition to this majority reading there are variants resulting from graphic errors (clearly the case of hosti in E) which also look like glosses because of their content (morti, neci: uid. append.). For the use of nocti in reply to the speech ofAias, cf. l. 15 (cf. also 243). 343: Troum: cf. l. 375. A small number of mss., the translation of Planudes (τὰ τείχη τῆς Τροίας) and some of the early edd. down to Bersman (uid. append.) give Troiae, a variant that is clearly facilior inasmuch as the clausula



Commentary

193

moenia Troiae was popularized for epic by Virgil (Aen. 5.811; 9.144; 11.288) and carried on by Ovid himself (11.199, 215; 12.587; 15.770) and the authors of the silver age (Sen. suas. 2.20.5; Stat. silu. 4.4.104; Val. Fl. 4.58; Sil. 13.61). 344: with this line the two most important mss. return on the scene: M (fol. 104v, running on from l. 275; logically, we also come back to Lr27) and N (l. 343 had closed fol. 162r, by the hand of N*, and 344  ff. continue on 165r, also following on directly from 275). Vid. ad 276–343. 345: raptamque: against this majority reading in mss. and edd., some important codices (LuMNV2 among them) give raptamue, and in their wake this reading was accepted by some of the early edd. (not so Aler. 1471: uid. app.). However, this is not one of those numerous cases in which we are left doubting whether the choice might have been influenced by the overwhelming competition of the copulative; rather, the two actions of the theft (eripere) and removal (afferre) of the Palladium are complementary and successive, never exclusive, and therefore the only possibility is raptamque. afferre: the mss. and edd. in general give the reading a(d/f)ferre, which also seems to be the one translated by Planudes: κἀκ τῆς οἰκείας ἁρπάζειν τὴν θεὸν καθιδρύσεως καὶ ἁρπαγεῖσαν διὰ τῶν ἐχθρῶν φέρειν. A very small group of mss. gives auferre (uid. app.), although Heinsius (1659, 340) reads it in “sex”. Given that he makes no mention of it in his notes, Slater’s information that Heinsius showed his preferences for it (1927, ad loc.: “malit Heinsius”) must come from one of the marginal notes in his collations. This reading was, however, adopted by Regius (1493) but before we find it published again we have to wait until Huyck, who adduces (1991, 190) the parallel of fast. 5.699  f.: abstulerant raptas Phoeben Phoebesque sororem / Tyndaridae fratres, and Tarrant 2004, who seconds the proposal (also Hardie 2015, 262, and Holzberg 2017, 650). Heinsius, however, had opted for the second most common variant: efferre, previously published by Aler. 1471, the edd. Gryphianae and Bersm. 1596, and after Heinsius by almost everyone (not so Jahn 1832) down to Bach 1836 (uid. append.). Finally, referre (Cs Cv) has a token presence, while inferre, the semantic equivalent of afferre, is only attested by Burman (1727, 883) in the codex “Moreti”. Obviously both auferre and efferre are appropriate for any robbery and more so for the theft of the Palladium (cf. 337: signum penetrale), and this is demonstrated by the above-mentioned parallel of fast. 5.699  f. and the others also cited by Huyck (1991, 189: Pl. Bac. 958; Cic. Mil. 32). Decisive, however, in this passage is the adverbial qualification per hostes, on which the emphasis of the exploit falls: what Ulysses extolls here of his own feat is not so much having removed the Palladium from the citadel of Troy (this has already been stated, precisely in the previous two infinitives, and specifically in the preverb of e-ripere, as in 337  f.: rapui … / hostibus e mediis), but having taken it as far as the Greek camp through the midst of the enemy (the objections of Huyck 1991, 189  f. are invalid), and this idea is expressed both by the φέρειν of Planudes and by the variants afferre, referre or inferre, among which we must logically opt for afferre (cf. e.  g.

194

Commentary

fast. 1.527  f.: iam pius Aeneas sacra et, sacra altera, patrem / adferet, with the same perspective of the objective, that is, towards the final destination for the removal). 346–349: Quae nisi fecissem, frustra Telamone creatus gestasset laeua taurorum tergora septem. Illa nocte mihi Troiae uictoria parta est: Pergama tum uici, cum uinci posse coëgi. • 348 parta] parata V2(uid., a.c.)V3  : pecta B5(a.c.)  : perta B52(p.c.)Hd  : partha C  : nostra O4(a.c. a m.p.)  : parte Tu Ds(a.c.)  : rapta P10  : pacta “Mediceus” test. et dub. Burm. 1727 • 349 tum P2(p.c.) Go, “Rhen.” test. Jahn 1832, ed. Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Gierig-Jahn 1823, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Weise 1845, Koch 1866, Huyck 1991, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004  : tunc Ω, edd.  : nunc Be2(per comp.) Li3 B12  : et Mt  : de B n.l. •

348: parta: apart from minor variants (uid. app.) this is the unanimous reading of mss. and edd., but Burman provides the testimony of a “Mediceus” for the variant pacta, expressing his sympathy for it in these terms (1727, 883): “non male. ut desponsatam laudem Cicero dixit de Harusp. Resp. 3. eadem diuersitas lib. xii. 293. & ita posset promissa laus exponi sup. vs. 248”. The text of Cic. (har. resp. 6) in fact says desponsam iam et destinatam laudem and in l. 248 we likewise defended the reading promissa against Heinsius’ change (uid. ad loc.). As regards 12.293, it is true that Bs6 (a. 1456) gives the variant pacta, but it seems to be another case of an isolated reading (Estévez per litt.). However, there can be no objection to parta (cf. e.  g. Epiced. Drusi 237; Sil. 10.573  f.: tibi gloria leto / iam parta insigni …; and see Hardie 2015, 262). For the rhetorical argument it implies (conclusio; cf. 171–8, 373  f.) and for the close phraseological similarity between this passage and Rhet. Her. 4.41 (Conclusio est, quae breui argumentatione ex iis, quae ante dicta sunt aut facta, conficit, quid necessario consequatur, hoc modo: ‘quodsi Danais datum erat oraculum non posse capi Troiam sine Philoctetae sagittis, haec nihil aliud autem fecerunt, nisi Alexandrum perculerunt, hunc extinguere, id nimirum capi fuit Troiam’), see Huyck 1991, 190  f. 349: tum: the reading of almost all the mss. is tunc (uid. app.; tunc, not tum, is the reading of B14, despite the claim by Jahn 1832, 838  f., and tunc is also the reading of Tu, which does not coincide with his “Rhen.”; similarly, tunc is the reading of Lu, pace Fabbri 1923, 146). Heinsius published tum but offered no reasons (“tacite”: Jahn ibid.) and his decision has been followed down to the present. Arguments for deciding between tum and tunc are slippery to say the least (uid. ad 195, 473, 960, and cf. e.  g. ad 368, where Gf gives an abbreviated tunc as a result of a faulty expansion of the abbreviation for tantum) but both the study by Courtney (2003) and the better-documented work of Gaertner



195

Commentary

(2007) coincide in pointing to Ovid’s preference for tum in the Metamorphoses (Gaertner 2007, 221), no doubt in the obvious wake of Virgil. Moreover, a certain tendency can be detected on the part of the copyists to substitute tunc for tum. 350–353: Desine Tydiden uultuque et murmure nobis     ostentare meum: pars est sua laudis in illo. Nec tu, cum socia clipeum pro classe tenebas, solus eras: tibi turba comes, mihi contigit unus.

350

• 351 pars … illo] pars et sua laudis in illis Heinsius 1659(in notis) • in illo] in illis C, Heinsius 1659(qui “unus Moret.” test.), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, prob. Bothe 1818  : îllo A3  : in ipso Lr5  : in illa De(a.c.)  : in illo est Vd  : et illi prop. Heinsius 1659(in notis), prob. Walch. 1731(in notis), Bothe 18182 : om. Lr7 • 352 cum … classe] pro socia clipeum cum classe H3 Lr22 •

350: uultuque: Heinsius read nuctu[que] as a marginal variant in a second hand in Ld7, a codex of very little value, which led him to suggest (b2, 360): “leg. nutuque”, without taking his proposal any further or even recording it in his published notes, although it was later referred to by both Burman (1727, 883) and Magnus (1914, 497 in app.). 351: pars est sua laudis in illo: Heinsius considered as many as three different texts for this hemistich. Based on the testimony of “unus Moret.”, in which he read in illis (a variant I have found only in C), he published pars est sua laudis in illis (i.  e. referring to the “exploits”) and was followed by some edd. down to Baumgarten-Crusius (1834; uid. app.), receiving the approval of Bothe (1818, 134): “melius Moreti unus: p. e. s. l. in illis, quia de pluribus ab Ulysse prudenter gestis uerba hic fiunt”. However, not satisfied with the text he had published, Heinsius left these two proposed emendations in his notes (1659, 340): “lege, pars et sua laudis in illis. uel pars est sua laudis et illi”. The first met with no response, but the second was applauded – although not published – by Walchius (1731, 945: “Optima lectio est”) and was published by Bothe (18182; 1818, 134: “Non male Heinsius: et illi, sicut uocularum et atque in compendia interdum miscentur”, although he goes on to approve of the vulgate in illo and even more, as we have seen, the variant in illis). For the constr. pars esse laudis in aliquo, cf. e.  g. am. 2.12.10: ex tot in Atridis pars quota laudis erat?; for the undertone of the Διομήδειος ἀνάγκη, see Huyck 1991, 191–3; Hardie 2015, 262  f.; see also Casali 2017, 155. 352: in contrast to the majority reading, ms. H3 (uid. app.) offers a correct variant (nec tu pro socia clipeum cum classe tenebas), of which we find incomplete traces in other mss. (uid. append.) which either give pro socia  … pro classe (CsLr5[a.c.]; and note V5, which has pro written above after cum) or else cum socia … cum classe (Ph2, a ms. whose text is close to that of H3). Sur-

196

Commentary

prisingly, ms. Lr22, which is always so close to V30 and Aler. 1471, coincides with H3 in this unique reading. Cf. Acc. arm. iud. 116 (Warmington): Vidi tegentem clipeo classem Doricam. 354–360: Qui nisi pugnacem sciret sapiente minorem esse nec indomitae deberi praemia dextrae,       ipse quoque haec peteret, peteret moderatior Aiax Eurypylusque ferox claroque Andraemone natus, nec minus Idomeneus patriaque creatus eadem Meriones, peteret maioris frater Atridae, quippe manu fortes, nec sunt tibi Marte secundi.     

355

360

• 356 peteret ] alter N(peteret i.l. u.l. N )  : om. Lr2(a.c.)M(mg. suppl. M2)V2(a.c. a m.p.) DeHd(a.c.)Ld(a.c.)LsMo(a.c.) P10 B14Go2  : quid B5 a.c. n.l. • 360 quippe animae fortes, tibi nec Mauorte secundae dub. Heinsius 1659(in notis) • manu … secundi] manus … secund(a)e MN(p.c., quid a.c. n.l.)V2(a.c.) Lr27  : manus … secundi M2 Bo3(a.c.)  : manu(deest in B) … secundus B(uid.)B5(a.c.)  : manus … secundo Mo(recte i.l. u.l.)  : manu … secudi P41  : manu … serui(per comp.) V30 • 2

2

356: haec: this obviously refers to arma (cf. Planudes: τὰ ὅπλα), and it is the reading of the vast majority of mss. (among them AGf(p.c.)Lr2LuM2P2S2, and the variant expeteret of P3 is no doubt derived from hec) as well as editors (uid. append.). By contrast, other mss. (among them L3MNV2 and, in a strange connection with the “Lactantians”, V3) opt for a generic hoc (equivalent to the id given by P41), already found in the ed. Venet. 1472 and taken up by Magnus (1914, 497: “de quo agitur sc”) and, on the sole authority of MN (see H-K-E-A 1966, 517), by Ehwald (not yet in 1898). peteret peteret: as is habitual in contexts of reduplication, the text presents problems of transmission, especially because of haplography (uid. app. et append.). In this passage, in addition, the first version of ms. N has the metrically problematic variant alter, clearly from a gloss on the phrase that closes the line. 359–361: the interpretation of the syntactic connection between these lines has led to different punctuations for the text. One of the most common models is already to be found in the ed. Gryphiana (Lugd. 1546, the first to devote attention to this question) and consists of having a strong punctuation after Atridae and enclosing in parentheses the expression nec sunt tibi Marte secundi, thus making quippe manu fortes depend on the phrase consiliis cessere meis. This was the punctuation followed by Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Weise 1845, Riese 1872, Lejay 1894 and more recently by Huyck 1991. Objection to this parenthesis was expressed as far back as Bothe, Jahn (1832, 839: “male in parenthesi posita sunt”) and Baumgarten-Crusius (1834, 506: “cum Bothio et Iahnio deleui signa parentheseos”). Bothe seems not to have taken this parenthesis as such but as a sign of seclusion (1818,



Commentary

197

134  f.): “Apage uncinas […] et sanum esse locum intelliges, cuius haec uidelicet sententia est: Quippe manu fortes illi cum sint, nec tibi (h. e. ne tibi quidem, qui sis optimus miles […]) bello cedunt, at mihi consilio”. The other most widely accepted punctuation pattern (followed by the majority of 19th-21st century edd.) is in fact a variation of the former, since although it removes the parenthesis it keeps a strong punctuation (full stop, colon or semicolon) after Atridae and a light one (comma) after secundi, therefore making l. 360 still dependent on cessere. However, there is no such cause-effect relationship between their being men brave in action (manu fortes) and their submission to the plans of Ulysses (consiliis cessere meis; note the revealing concessive cum which Bothe finds himself forced to introduce into his paraphrase: supra). Line 360 in fact offers a justification (quippe + adj.: see OLD s.u., 3–4, 1558) to explain the preceding conditional period: i.  e. ‘if Diomedes did not know that the prizes are not for the pugnaces but for the sapientes, he too would request the arms, as would the other Aias and Eurypylus, etc., as the brave men they are in action’ (cf. 12.622–5; Hom. Il. 7.161–9), to which is added the explicit observation, for the final humiliation of his opponent, that these are no lesser than he in matters of arms, the main mark of honour of Aias (Hopkinson 2000, 155; for the “brain vs brawn” opposition, Bömer 1982, 287; Huyck 1991, 195–7; Hopkinson 2000, 155 ad 160–9; Hardie 2015, 263  f.). The parenthesis is therefore not necessary or perhaps preferable in this case, but neither is it an aberration. One final solution is the one proposed by those (e.  g. Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004) who isolate l. 360 syntactically, a solution which does not seem to me to be recommendable in view of the presence of quippe. After the reference to the “intellectual” submission of the “brave”, Ulysses goes on to apply this same contrast to the specific case of Aias, with whom he compares himself in detail (ll. 360–8), so that it seems appropriate to place a colon after meis as an anticipation of this explanation. 359: peteret maioris frater Atridae: the copyist of M has banalized the expression with the reading peterent maioris fratris Atridae (uid. append.). 360: manu  … secundi: in another example of banalization the copyists of MNV2 (also M2 Mo and Bo3) have changed manu to manus (under the influence of the fortes sequence but perhaps also because of the diphthograph manuſfortes) and accordingly secundi to secundae (not so M2 Mo Bo3: uid. app.), on which the ending of the previous two lines may also have exerted an influence. This prompted Heinsius to venture in his notes this possible reworking of the complete line (1659, 340): quippe animae fortes, tibi nec Mauorte secundae. For the “abundant” expression manu fortes, see Bömer 1982, 288  f. nec: the variant non (uid. append.) illustrates once again the systematic alternating use of the two forms, although the conjunction is clearly preferable here. tibi: although the alternating use of the forms mihi/tibi is often the result of mechanical error (i.  e. an erroneous development of the abbreviations mi/ti), Burman showed some cautious sympathy for the variant mihi which

198

Commentary

he had found in Ld7Ld8 (uid. append.; 1727, 885): “Mihi marte secundi duo Leidenses. nescio an male, ut sit oppositio sequentium. qui mihi non cedunt uirtute bellica, sed prudentia”. This minority variant was already incorporated into the text by Merkel in his first edition (1850, 256), though with no explanation, and he has been followed only by Edwards (1905) and Goold (1984), who keeps Miller’s text and translation, which with its additions and omissions makes it clear how inappropriate this choice is (19212, 255): “But all these men, though stout of hand, fully my equals on the battlefield, have yielded to my superior intelligence”. As Hardie (2015, 264) observes, “l’accostamento meis. tibi a ponte di cesura […] introduce l’opposizione finale quintuplice di tu ed ego”. Note that the reading mihi of V30 appears as tibi in Lr22 and in Aler. 1471, which again seems to suggest a correction of V30 on the part of the editor and perhaps also the copyist of Lr22. 361–369: Consiliis cessere meis: tibi dextera bello utilis, ingenium est quod eget moderamine nostro; tu uires sine mente geris, mihi cura futuri; tu pugnare potes, pugnandi tempora mecum eligit Atrides; tu tantum corpore prodes,       nos animo; quantoque ratem qui temperat anteit remigis officium, quanto dux milite maior, tantum ego te supero. nec non in corpore nostro pectora sunt potiora manu: uigor omnis in illis.

365

• 368 tantum] tanto V2 B4Be2CDrLsMtO4(a.c.)Vd(p.c.) Cs2Ds2P8 B12BoTo2Vt B14CvEs6Ps Ca2, Plan., “in nonnullis” test. Naugerius(in notis), ed. Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Heinsius 1659(“multi ueteres”), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836  : tunc(per comp.) Gf • ego] om. V6 Ld6 O19 •

361: for the punctuation of this line, uid. supra ad 359–61. 362: nostro: ms. V3 seems to have an abbreviation of the form nostri, which Heinsius reflects thus in his notes (1659, 340): “nempe ingenii. quod placet”. This same reading was found by Jahn (1832, 840) in the “Rhen.”, but at least in Tu I am inclined to read nostro. The gen. form was incorporated by Burman into his first edition and by other edd. down to Baumgarten-Crusius (1834, 506: “longe uenustior”). In turn, other recc. (O4 may be the ms. referred to by Burm. 1727, 885 as “unus Heinsii”) offer the variant certo, although almost always as u.l. or else a.c. (uid. append.). Most likely this reading is not the result of a mistake but a correction or conjecture (Loers 1843, 493), in any case unwarranted. 363–370: the identical endings in nostro (and uestro) and the series of anaphorae of tu and quanto lead to the usual alterations to the text by saut du même au même (uid. append.).



Commentary

199

363: futuri: the usual alternation between the presence/absence of est at the end of the line again appears here, although in this case its presence is in the minority, albeit not so much as Burman believed (1727, 885: “Est abest fere omnibus scriptis”; uid. append.). Apart from its greater weight in the transmission, the pure noun clause seems to adapt better to the tone of the passage, in which another three are found (ll. 361  f., 367, 369). In addition – if statistics are of any significance here – Ovid uses the form futuri on as many as 15 occasions, and it always occupies absolute line-end. 364: after being interrupted at 9.252 (fol. 64v), the text of ms. Cs2 reappears here (fol. 103r), overlapping with that of Cs as far as l. 403 (see Rivero 2016). 365: prodes: the ed. Lugd. 1546 (not so that of 1565) and after it Bersm. 1596 feature in the margin a supposed variant polles, which I at least have not found (cf. proles in Li3). 367: quanto: note the variant quanto est, in which est seems to have originated in a grammatical note (uid. append. and cf. the variant of O3: quanto dux est); for quantum, uid. infra. 368: tantum: just as in the previous two lines there were variants like quantumque and quantum (uid. append.), so here V2 and some recc. offer the variant tanto, which seems to be what was translated by Planudes (τοσούτῳ) and read by both Naugerius (1754, 159: “in nonnullis”) and Heinsius (1659, 340: “multi ueteres”). This variant was incorporated into the text by the edd. Gryphianae, only noted in the margin by Bersman (1596) and published by Heinsius, who was followed by other edd. down to Bach (1836). Heinsius’ decision is surprising, however, in that he himself contrasts in the same note the parallel of Verg. Aen. 12.19  f.: o praestans animi iuuenis, quantum ipse feroci / uirtute exsuperas, tanto me impensius aequum est (also with the variant tantum in ms. n), which supports the variation. It is true that Ovid clearly leans towards the use of parallel constructions (epist. 5.25; 9.107; ars 2.737  f.; rem. 395  f.; met. 1.52  f.; 1.464  f.; 2.272–4: quanto … quanto … tanto; 3.44; 3.284  f.; 4.709; 8.583  f.; 8.695–7; 8.749  f. [see Burm. 1727, 614 ad loc.]; 11.354; 13.11  f.; 15.617  f.; fast. 4.917–9; 6.279; trist. 1.6.1–3: tantum  … tantum  … quantum; Pont. 2.4.21  f.; 3.9.23; 4.7.51; Ib. 253  f.), but the fact is that he has also left us with the odd example of variation (epist. 18.71–3): quantum, cum fulges radiis argentea puris, / concedunt flammis sidera cuncta tuis, / tanto formosis formosior omnibus illa est. In the words of Luck (2005, 215), “quanto … tanto apparently occurs more often in prose and colloquial verse (e.  g., Hor. serm. 2.4.85–6). We should probably keep tantum” (cf. also Hor. serm. 1.2.15; 1.8.17–19; 2.5.80; 2.7.18  f.; epist. 2.1.169  f.; 2.2.147  f.). ego: note the suppression of ego in some mss. (uid. app.) with a metrical result, in accordance once again with the relative instability of this pronoun in the mss.; for its position in the line, cf. 840.

200

Commentary

370–374: At uos, o proceres, uigili date praemia uestro     proque tot annorum cura quibus anxius egi hunc titulum meritis pensandum reddite nostris. Iam labor in fine est: obstantia fata remoui altaque posse capi faciendo Pergama cepi.

370

• 371 cura quibus L3MN(a.c.) Mo Lr27, prob. Merkel 1850, edd. post. (uid. append.)  : curis quibus LuM2(uid., a.c.)N(p.c. a m.p.)P2(a.c.)S2V2V3 A4(c. quas p.c.)AbB52(mg.; c. quas B5)G(uid.; c. quas p.c.)GgH3Lr3Lr7Mo(-ris i.l. u.l.)N2OP3(c. quas p.c. P32)P4Ph2TuV5Vd Ds2(c. quas p.c. Ds22)Lr8(quas i.l. u.l. Lr82)GoMt2Mt3To FtRd Bo3CvEs3Es4Es6F2Lr22Ps(quas mg. Ps2)V30, Aler. 1471, Bach 1836, dub. Bömer  : curis quos A Fe Ds, Regius 1493  : curis quas Lr2Lu2(i.l. u.l.)M2(p.c.)P2(p.c.)V32(i.l.) H2(p.c.; quid a.c. n.l.) B12(a.c.) Ω, Plan., Puteol. 1471, Burm. 1727, edd. ante 1850 (uid. append.)  : curas quibus Gf  : curis qua Es3  : curas quas B12(p.c.)  : causas quibus P41  : curis q[ Ls(sed cf. B14 c. quas)  : de P3 n.l.  : cura quos Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1713, Walch. 1739, Bothe 18182, Mitsch. 1819, Richter 1828  : cura quas Walch. 1714 et 1731 • 374 dub. damn. Tarrant •

370: at uos o proceres: this is the logical order, since the objective of the interjection is to praise the social standing of the judges as proceres (cf. 126, 382) in this opening of the peroratio (cf. Verg. Aen. 8.572: at uos, o superi; see Bömer 1982, 290; Hopkinson 2000, 156; Hardie 2015, 265). The order o uos (uid. append.) should be interpreted as one of the recurring alterations in which this interjection tends to appear in the mss. (cf. e.  g. Verg. Aen. 8.579; Claud. Get. 560). 371: cura quibus: a problematic passage as the mss. transmit several fully aceptable combinations. The expression cura quibus has the backing of the select group L3MN(a.c.) Mo Lr27, was chosen by Merkel right from his first edition (1850, 256) and has been kept by practically all editors since then. However, in ms. N the m.p. himself corrects cura to curis (in L3 a different hand had written an s above cura), and it is this expression (curis quibus) that has been transmitted by another important group of mss. from the earliest down (uid. app.), as well as the edd. Aler. 1471 and Bach 1836. In my view it is the least likely combination, clearly pointing to a morphological assimilation of words in contact, although it should be borne in mind that anxius + abl. is a constr. that is to be found in Ovid (9.275: longis anxia curis; see Bömer 1982, 291, who shows his sympathy towards this reading). Regius (1493) opts for the minority combination curis quos, which I have found only in A Fe and Ds (although this last ms. had perque before it was corrected), a reading which has in its favour the minimal syntactical complexity involved in linking the rel. pron. to annorum and not directly to curis, which is the case of the most widespread variant in the mss. and among the editors before Merkel (thus too Koch 1866): curis quas, also translated by Planudes: ἀντὶ τῶν ἐν τοῖς τοσούτοις ἐνιαυτοῖς φροντίδων, ἃς σὺν ὀδύνῃ διήνυσα. Finally, there remains the combination cura quos which Heinsius builds (1659, 340) on the independent support of M for cura and of “tres scripti”



Commentary

201

for quos (“uidelicet tot annos”), being followed in this venture by Burman in his 1st ed. (not so later in 1727), by Walchius in 1739 (in 1714 and 1731 there appeared the misprint cura quas), by Bothe (18182), by Mitscherlich at least in his 2nd ed. of 1819 and by Richter (1828). If we rule out curis quibus for the reason stated above and because curis could well come from a gloss on quibus (like the one that can be seen e.  g. in L3, which also adds ego above anxius and me above egi), we are left with cura quibus, curis quos and curis quas. Between cura and curis the sing. turns out to be difficilior in a context of plurals (tot annorum … quibus/quos/quas); between quas and quos, and given that the common expressions agere annos and agere curas do not allow us to discriminate in favour of one or the other, the latter seems less obvious because of the order of the elements, and this is equally applicable to quibus in the combination cura quibus (as it would also refer to annorum). Finally, between quos and quibus, the former offers a much more fluid expression but significantly it has little ms. backing, since it may well be a reaction of the copyist to the relative unexpectedness of quibus. There is no obstacle to this abl. form (pace Bömer 1982, 291) in the absolute use of egi, since this use is after all inherent to such a frequent verb and one so lacking in semantic precision, a use which not necessarily, or not only, should be taken in the sense of “to live” (“fere i. q. ‘uiuere’” Bömer ibid.: cf. Tac. Agr. 5.1: et anxius et intentus agere; Luc. 3.53  f.), but also with its more proper meaning of “to act” (cf. Huyck 1991, 199), which in the context here would be almost equivalent to “pugnare, summam belli administrare” (TLL 1.1389.60–76; cf. e.  g. Verg. Aen. 7.523  f.: non iam certamine agresti / stipitibus duris agitur sudibusue praeustis). And finally it can also be taken as having an object understood, in this case curam (TLL 1.1383.50–70; cf. e.  g. 9.107: curam de coniuge agentem with Bömer 1977, 305; epist. 16.302 with Burm. 1727, I, 237). In either case quibus should be taken as a temporal abl. (Simmons 1889, 115; Bömer 1982, 291; Hopkinson 2000, 156). 372: cf. CLE 423.5: hunc titulum meritis seruat tibi fama superstes. Cf. 192. 374: Tarrant showed a certain reserve concerning this line (2000, 438; 2004, 385 in app.: “fort. delendus”), which seems to derive from his comparison with l. 349. However, we are in the peroratio here and Ulysses must return to the arguments that are favourable to his cause and which he has been developing in the oratio, the main one of all perhaps being the fact that he laid the foundations without which the capture of Troy would not have been possible: obstantia fata remoui, a categorical statement which would seem excessively abrupt were it not opportunely inserted into this dicolon abundans in which Ulysses states explicitly, by way of syllogism, Pergama cepi. Precisely for this reason, moreover, the punctuation of some early edd. which was defended by Jahn seems inappropriate, i.  e. altaque posse capi faciendo Pergama, cepi (1832, 840): “Sic cum Ciof., Bth. et Bel. interpunxi. Vulgo distinguunt: Altaque, posse capi faciendo, P. cepi”. In any case, as can be seen, neither of the two different punctuations does honour to the forceful Latinity of a line which – precisely through the lack of punctuation – develops its

202

Commentary

full syntactical potential of relationship ἀπὸ κοινοῦ. A good interpretation of this verse can be found in Hardie 2015, 266. faciendo … cepi: the verbal baroqueness of the line gives rise to all sorts of readings, at times absurd, at others ingenious (cf. sapiendo … feci, in Lr7, the “Medic.” mentioned by Burm. 1727, 885). Be that as it may, this is one of those passages where the correct reading has not been transmitted by the mss. regarded as potissimi, i.  e. MN (cf. Magnus 1914, XVI). For the use of posse, cf. trist. 5.9.14: et facis accepto munere posse frui; Pont. 1.7.47: Nec uitam nec opes nec ademit posse reuerti. For facere with acc.+inf., cf. 7.690  f.: Hoc me … telum / flere facit facietque diu. 375–381: Per spes nunc socias casuraque moenia Troum       perque deos oro, quos hosti nuper ademi, per si quid superest quod sit sapienter agendum, si quid adhuc audax ex praecipitique petendum est, si Troiae fatis aliquid restare putatis, este mei memores! Aut, si mihi non datis arma,     huic date!”, et ostendit signum fatale Mineruae.

375

380

• 376 hunc u. om. GfV3 Es3 • 377–379 uncinis not. Tarrant (sed prob. Hardie 2015, Holzberg 2017) • 377 hunc u. om. Vt(mg. suppl. Vt2) • 378–379 suspectos Heinsio 1659 del. Bentley et Schrader  : uncinis not. Walch. 1731, Huyck 1991, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000  : def. Burm. 1727, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Helm • sic emend. Withof: siquid adhuc Calchas hac praecipit arte petendum, / si Troiae … putabit • 378 per si quid audendum est ex precipitique petendum P41 • audax] audex Ab(a.c.)  : audaci HdO4(audax i.l. u.l. a m.p.)  : audendum coni. Kenney (cf. P41 supra) • 379–380 inu. ord. Bo(a.c.)  : hos uu. uncinis not. Vossius • 379 uncinis not. Riese 1872, Merkel 1875, Lejay 1894, H-K-E 1898, Goold 1984  : secl. Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, Edwards 1905 •

375–381: the text corresponding to the final words of Ulysses has aroused a multitude of suspicions among the critics, once again stemming from an opinion expressed by Heinsius in his notes, as in his edition he kept the complete text. Heinsius’ objection centred on ll. 378  f. (1659, 340 ad 379): “Agnosco alienam denuo manum in hoc uersu. Posset tamen putatur legi. Praecedens etiam uersus est suspectus”. Working from this statement, some editors and scholars have rejected either l. 379 or 378  f., or even 377–9 (uid. app.). I believe that all these lines are Ovidian in view of their construction and also because they play an appropriate role in the development of the arguments in Ulysses’ peroratio, functioning as veiled warnings to the judges. For an analysis of all the proposals and my own interpretation, see Rivero 2017. 375–379: once again the repetitions at line-beginning and -ending lead to the corresponding omissions through saut du même au même (uid. app. et append.).



Commentary

203

375: spes nunc socias: Heinsius (1659, 340) finds the variant uos for nunc in “unus Moreti”, using the term “eleganter” in reference to it, and this backing was sufficient for Vossius (ap. Bothe 1818, 175) to accord it his approval. It was also to the liking of Baumgarten-Crusius, although he limited his approval to the notes (1834, 507): “iure placuit Heinsio et Vossio. sed nolui mutare nunc, quod in peroratione suum locum habet”. The reading nunc should be kept, as it provides full emphasis in the position it occupies, i.  e. qualifying socias (thus Huyck 1991, 200: “by the hopes which we now share”) and not oro (thus Hopkinson 2000, 157; Hardie 2015, 267): cf. Soph. Ph. 468: πρός νύν σε πατρός. For the expression per spes, cf. 14.704: per spes orauit alumnae; Verg. Aen. 6.364: per spes surgentis Iuli (Phaedr. app. 28.3; Sen. Med. 286, 478; Apul. met. 9.39.6). Troum: for the variant Troiae, uid. ad 343. 377: per si quid superest: cf. 7.854: per si quid merui de te bene; more examples from other authors in Bömer 1982, 292. For superest, cf. met. 2.300: si quid adhuc superest (Mart. 14.13.1). 378: petendum est: this is the majority reading and in this context it is clearly preferable (see Bothe 1818, 135: “ut quo euitetur horum uersuum ὁμοιοτέλευτον, quod etsi non insolens est, […], remouendum tamen, ubicunque fieri potest, recte existimant uiri docti”), even if Heinsius and, after him, other 18th-19th c. edd. chose to omit est (uid. append.). 382–383: Mota manus procerum est, et quid facundia posset re patuit, fortisque uiri tulit arma disertus. • 383 re M(tunc i.l. M2)N(tunc i.l. N2) A3(tunc i.l. u.l. A32)A4B22(i.l. u.l.)HdLr4Lr52(i.l. u.l.)MoN2OO3O42(i.l.)Vd(tunc mg. u.l. Vd2) Lr8(i.l. u.l. a m.p.)P10 P28Vt Bo3CvLr27Ps, Naug. 1516, Heinsius 1659(“multi ex melioribus”), edd.  : tunc Ω, Plan., Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Florent. 1522, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Koch 1866  : tum CCsH3Lr3 Ld6(p.c.; tunc a.c.)To, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Ciof. 1575, Bersm. 1596  : nunc Bo, Regius 1527(uitio preli: tunc in notis) •

382: mota manus procerum est: Hartman (1915, 257–9) argued, in my view wrongly, in favour of interpreting this phrase as “the elders moved their hands”, i.  e. “cast their vote”, with the idea that the generally accepted interpretation (“The group of elders was moved”) would be made redundant by the following statement. Without mentioning Hartman, Hardie (2015, 268) also comments on this possibility, without ruling it out. posset: another example of the systematic oscillation between the imperf. and pres. subj. forms (uid. append.). The past context (patuit) makes the majority form preferable, although Slater (1927, ad loc.) preferred possit on the sole authority of V2, Huyck (1991, 88) on that of N(a.c.)V2 and Breitenbach (1964, 1132) on that of N(a.c.)V2 and Mo. 383: re patuit: MN and a group of recc. offer this variant re (uid. app.),

204

Commentary

incorporated by Naugerius (1516) and later becoming standard in the edd. after being defended by Heinsius, with the sole exception of Loers (1843), Weise (1845) and Koch (1866). In contrast, the vast majority of mss. give tunc (with the expected variants tum and nunc), a reading which simply appears written above by other hands in MN, but not as u.l. Its origin may lie in a palaeographical confusion (Re/tc’), as already suggested by Bach (1836, 323). In any case, tunc is more banal (cf. Regius 1493, ad loc.: “Tunc patuit. Tunc … manifestum fuit”) and it is therefore surprising that Loers (1843, 494) can yet state: “Re […] mihi de glossa uidetur”. In the contrast established by these two lines between the orator and the warrior, between the man of words and the man of action, re is the counterpoint to facundia just as fortis is to disertus (Huyck 1991, 204; Hopkinson 2000, 159; Casamento 2003; Tola 2010; Río 2014, 216–9; Hardie 2015, 268). Heinsius (1659, 340) rightly defended this reading with the parallels of 3.368: reque minas firmat (see Suárez 2015, 284  f.); 9.126  f.: ultima dicta / re probat; fast. 4.323  f.: tu nostrae pignora uitae / re dabis, and even met. 14.385, a line with a problematic text. Compare also 569 (ex re) or am. 1.12.27 (Simmons 1889, 119). 384–390: Hectora qui solus, qui ferrum ignesque Iouemque sustinuit totiens, unam non sustinet iram,           inuictumque uirum uicit dolor. arripit ensem et: “meus hic certe est! an et hunc sibi poscet Vlixes? Hoc” ait “utendum est in me mihi, quique cruore saepe Phrygum maduit, domini nunc caede madebit, ne quisquam Aiacem possit superare nisi Aiax”.    

385

390

• 384–832 exstant in T • 385 sustinet Ω (uid. append.), von Albrecht 1994, edd.  : su(b)stulit L3Lr2LuMM2NP2S2TV2 AbB2B4B5CEFFeGL4Lr3Lr4Lr7MoN2OTuVd Cs2Lr8ToV16 BoBo2Cs3FtMt5P28RdVt AsBo3CvEs4Es6F2Go2Lr27Vd11Z Ca2, Plan., Anderson 1982  : om. Mt32(a.c.) • 387 et1] en B4(et mg. B42)B5Ld3V6 V16 Bo  : at Dr  : ac Gg • poscet Ω, Plan., Heinsius 1659(“multi ueteres”), edd. aliquot (uid. append.) : pocet B5  : posset A2Ld2MtV5 Rd  : poscit Lr2MM2N(a.c.)P2S2T A4AbB2CEFFeGGg(a.c.)HdL4Lr6Lr7MoN2OTrTuV42V9 Cs2Ds2GoSo(a.c.)P8P10 BoP28 Bo3CvEs6F2Lr22Lr27P38V30Vd11 P46Ca2P47, Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, edd.  : possit Ft, Calder. 1477  : poscat CsDr B8Ld6 Es5, “tres alii” test. Heinsius 1659  : de B n.l. •

384: in this line we recover the testimony of the important codex T, which continues uninterrupted as far as 832. qui ferrum ignesque Iouemque: instead of the correct qui ferrum some mss. offer the also metrical variant ferrumque, from l. 91. For ignesque/ ignemque, uid. ad 91. 385–387: sustinet … uicit … poscet: the mss. oscillate between these three verbal forms. The intervention of Ulysses now over, the poet goes on to



Commentary

205

describe the situation in the perf. (ll. 382  f.): mota … est, patuit, tulit (and for this reason I think that ostendit, l. 381, should also be regarded as perf.), but changes to the present to describe the reaction of Aias (ll. 386–8): arripit … ait, after which he returns to the perfect forms until the end of the episode (391–8): dixit … Now, of the three verbs under analysis here, the third is part of Aias’ direct address and should therefore be considered separately (uid. ad loc.). The first two, in turn, are not exactly at the level of arripit and ait in that they do not recount actions but describe the reaction in the mood of the character, and this can be done either with an atemporal present or else with the perf. which corresponds to the moment when this reaction took place, or else, as some editors would have it, by switching from one tense to the other. As regards the behaviour of the mss., sustinet/sustulit and uincit/uicit have roughly the same weight in the tradition (possibly with a preference for sustulit among those of group Γ) and a similar disparity can be found among editors for the choice of uincit/uicit, although not for the former pair, as they all opt for sustinet with the sole exception of Anderson (1982; von Albrecht 1994, 879 diverges explicitly from him). It might be thought that sustulit has been attracted by sustinuit in the same line, but for the same reason the present forms might be considered to have arisen under the pressure of arripit. Although this case offers no great certainties, I am inclined to think that the graphic similarity has had more weight than the pressure of sustinuit, and besides, the switch to the pres. in sustinet produces an expressive approximation to the action and serves to anticipate arripit, without of course forgetting the importance of keeping the same verbal root sustineo in the contrasting of the past and present behaviour of Aias. Add to this (with Bömer 1982, 294) that in Ovid’s day sustuli was now identified more with tollo than with suffero. The logical conclusion, then, is to consider that sustinuit has turned sustinet into sustulit and that the latter in turn has converted uincit into uicit. However, a slight resistence to using logic as an incontestable criterion in the interpretation of poetic texts makes me come down on the side of keeping the form uicit, as being difficilior, which leaves us this interwoven succession of perf. + pres. + perf. + pres. in two consecutive lines, as well as giving us the greater phonic influence of the oxymoron inuictum  … uicit. Compare also (with Huyck 1991, 205) this tragic fragment quoted by Cicero (Scaur. 3 [trag. inc. 56  f.]): “qui [sc. Aiax] tamen ipse ‘ignominiae dolore’ ut ait poëta ‘uictor insolens se uictum non potuit pati’”. Cf. also (with Hardie 2015, 268  f.) 12.608  f.: ille igitur tantorum uictor, Achille, / uictus es); Cic. leg. agr. 2.96: luxuries … Hannibalem … inuictum uoluptate uicit; Prop. 3.11.16: uicit uictorem candida forma uirum. 387: et1: the conj. seems appropriate to join arripit and ait, and therefore the interjection en of some recc. (uid. app.) must come from some interlinear note, which is only to be expected in this transition to direct speech.

206

Commentary

est an et hunc: the sequence of these four monosyllables, along with the abbreviation si for sibi, leads to the usual omissions and inversions of words (uid. append.). poscet: a very important group of mss. offers the pres. poscit (cf. possit in Ft), but another, no less important group, including the correction of N (contradicting the testimony of Heinsius 1659, 341 and others after him, who read poscat there), gives the fut. poscet (cf. pocet in B5 and posset in other mss.: uid. app.), which is the form translated by Planudes (ἢ καὶ τοῦτο ἑαυτῷ αἰτήσεται Ὀδυσσεύς;) and the one published by Heinsius and others down to Koch (1866). Finally, another small group of mss. offers the subj. poscat, the presence of which is better explained by poscet than poscit. In a passage where, as we have seen (uid. ad 385–7), the pressure exerted by perf. and pres. forms is so strong, the significant transmission of a fut. form probably points to its being genuine. Finally, Burman (1727, 886) reports that with regard to the variant possedit of the “tert. Medic.”, i.  e. Lr3 (uid. append.), “cogitabat Heinsius, an non, possedit Achilles legendum” (see o4, 334). 390: the usual appearance of nec rather than the correct ne here prompted some copyists to reconstruct the line, as in P10: nec quisquam Aiacem poterit superare nisi Aiax (uid. append.). 391–392: Dixit et in pectus tum demum uulnera passum qua patuit ferro letalem condidit ensem. • 391 demum] denique A4AbLd3 Lr22V30, Aler. 1471, Heinsius 1659(qui “pri. Moret. et alii quatuor” test.), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Bothe 18182, Richter 1828 : demque Mt • 392 † qua patuit ferro † not. Huyck 1991 • ferro] ferrum MN(ferro p.c.) Mo(-û suprascr.; ferro in textu)O Mt2V16(ferro a.c.) Vt Bo3CvEs6F2Lr27PsVd11Z, Merkel 1850, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, Lejay 1894, Edwards 1905, Goold 1984, von Albrecht 1994  : ferre Ld(a.c.)  : ferto Pr •

391: tum demum: this iunctura is found in only another three passages of Ovid (9.413; 11.263; fast. 4.615), always at line-beginning, while tum denique (a variant found in very few mss. and edd.: uid. app.) appears on as many as 16 occasions (“quomodo et alibi noster locutus” states Heinsius 1659, 341 in its defence), and on 5 in the same metrical position (4.519; 5.210 [tunc d. u.l.]; 7.857; 10.387, 664). However, in epist. 11.91(93) we find tunc demum in the same position as our passage: Exierat thalamo; tunc demum pectora plangi, and the variant tum is found there too (see Dörrie 1971, 154; for tunc in our passage, uid. append. et ad 349, and Gaertner 2007, 223). I believe that here we should keep the best-transmitted variant, which in addition mantains a rhythm identical to that of the previous line, with which it forms an undoubtedly important narrative unity. Loers, ever preoccupied with the weight of the manuscript tradition (although here he



Commentary

207

wrongly attributes denique to the “Berol.”, i.  e. B14), criticized Heinsius’ choice (1843, 494) in these terms: “quod tam parua auctoritate recipere non debebat Heinsius”. 392: the subordinate clause qua patuit ferro has caused unease among some critics, fuelled in addition by the variant ferrum transmitted by M and N(a.c.) among a small number of other mss. (uid. app.; not so T, which gives ferro; contra Magnus 1914, 499). The most extreme solution was that of Huyck, who obelized the text (1991, 89). However, his reasoning seems to stem from an unfounded doubt regarding tum demum uulnera passum, expressed with these words (1991, 207): “Why did the hero’s breast suffer wounds “only then”?”. In the first place, tum demum is not “only then” but “then at last”, and it is a clear reference to the criticism previously hurled by Ulysses in ll. 266  f. (At nihil impendit per tot Telamonius annos / sanguinis in socios, et habet sine uulnere corpus!), in which he passed off as cowardice what, according to a certain mythical tradition, was nothing other than the invulnerability of Aias (see Bömer 1982, 268; Huyck 1991, 168–70; Hopkinson 2000, 137  f. ad 267; Hardie 2015, 252 ad 266  f.). The breast of Aias is therefore finally going to suffer wounds because he is going to inflict them on himself, as he has just made clear in the previous line. The second doubt expressed by Huyck (1991, 207) refers to the qualification qua patuit ferro: “The most natural meaning of the words qua patuit ferro is “where it (i.  e., the pectus) was exposed to the sword” (Liv. 42.65.8 […])  , and that meaning is superfluous there: where else could the sword enter Ajax’s body but at the point at which his body was exposed to it?”. This meaning is indeed superfluous because that is not the meaning of the expression, and the reason for Huyck’s error is that he considers it untenable (p. 208) that ferrum can mean ferrum, i.  e. “iron”: “the metonymy ferrum = “sword” is so common that it seems impossible to maintain that distinction between ferro and the following ensem”. With these premises it is logical that problems of interpretation should arise. The idea was paraphrased in these terms by Regius (1493, ad loc.): “Quatenus patuit et cessit ferro”, an interpretation contested by Glareanus (Glar.-Long. 1570, 235  f.): “puto de armato Aiace hoc dictum, qui quaesierit locum depositis ab ea part[e] armis, qua munitissimi esse solebant, ut ferrum conderet”. Burman (1727, 886), for his part, defended the thesis of Regius: “id est, qua parte uulnus accipere poterat, reliquum enim corpus a uulneribus immune habebat”. However, Regius’ interpretation calls for a comment, which is that there is no reason why qua should be interpreted in the sense of quatenus (an analogous criticism is directed at Goold by Huyck 1991, 208), but – once more – in its own sense of “through where” (already so in Magnus 1894b, 790; the examples adduced in the opposite sense by Keene 1898, 87 are not valid). The difficulty is that, according to tradition, “Ajax was impervious to weapons except in one part of his chest, i.  e., the area around the armpit”

208

Commentary

(Huyck 1991, 207; see also Burm. 1727, 886; Hopkinson 2000, 160). That is, “Aias sank the lethal sword into his chest in the place where it was accessible to iron”, an interpretation which, as can be seen, does not necessarily exclude that of Glareanus either and which recalls at the same time one of the sources of the episode (Soph. Ai. 815  f.): ὁ μὲν σφαγεὺς ἕστηκεν ᾗ τομώτατος / γένοιτ᾽ ἄν (already indicated by Magnus 1894b, 790 n. 35; for the second part of the line Hopkinson 2000, 161 points in turn to the likely model of l. 658: κρύψω τόδ᾽ ἔγχος τοὐμόν, ἔχθιστον βελῶν). The sword was sunk in pectus not at the front but at one side. Seen in this light, it seems clear that ferrum is simply an error of some mss. in which the noun has been assimilated to letalem, and that there is no need to read this variant, along with Merkel and others (among them also von Albrecht 1994, 879, again diverging explicitly from Anderson), who connected qua patuit ferrum with uulnera passum by placing a comma after ferrum (and note that the primary text of mss. generally very close to M such as Mo and V16 are here aligned rather with the correction of N, while Bo3 remains faithful to M: uid. app.). Nor is there any need for the conjecture patitur with which Riese (1872, XXIV) timidly attempted to surmount the obstacle represented by patuit. Finally, I can find no trace of the gloss ad ferrum recipiendum which according to Slater (1927, ad loc.) should be written above ferro in H3 (nor is it in H2), or of the variant telo which he ascribes in the same place to the “Holkham.” (Holkham. 323 and 324 have ferro). 393–398: Nec ualuere manus infixum educere telum: expulit ipse cruor, rubefactaque sanguine tellus purpureum uiridi genuit de caespite florem     qui prius Oebalio fuerat de uulnere natus. Littera communis mediis pueroque uiroque inscripta est foliis: haec nominis, illa querellae.

395

• 393 telum Ω, Puteol. 1471, edd.  : ferrum AGfN2(ferrum ensem i.l.)S2V3 A2A3A4B4(telum mg. B42)BaBe2CDrGgH2HdLdLd2Lr5Lr6LsO3O4P3P4Ph2V4V5V7V8V9 Cs2Ld6Li3Mo3Mt2Mt3P5P10SoToV13 B12Es2McMt4Rd2(p.c.; telum Rd)To2 B14CvEs3Es5Go2Lr22P41PsV30 Ca2P47, in eisdem codd. test. Ciof. 1575, Aler. 1471, Regius 1493, prob. Loers 1843(in notis)  : fretum Mt  : ferû B32(mg. u.l.)  : de B n.l.  : nihil scr. Es3 • 394 rubefactaque … tellus] madefactaque  … tellus Mo3 To2  : madefactaque  … radix V16  : tabefactaque(rubefactaque 1713) … tellus Burm. 1727 •

393: ualuere: the variant uoluere is simply an erratum appearing in the odd manuscript (uid. append.) and even coming from Bentley’s hand when he cited this line ad Luc. 7.621 (Hedicke 1905, 32: “ut errore, opinor”). educere: some mss. give the simple verb ducere (uid. append. and cf. 169; 888), a reading which is found and also rightly rejected by Ciofanus (1575,



Commentary

209

177  f.; thus also Bersm. 1596, 520). Cf. Manil. 5.594: Gorgoneo tinctum defigens sanguine ferrum. telum: against this majority reading, accepted by the edd. in general, a large group of mss. offers the variant ferrum, published by Aler. 1471 and by Regius 1493 and approved in his notes by Loers (1843, 494: “genuinum uidetur”). Ovid uses telum in its general sense of “weapon” and not only in its more proper meaning of “projectile, throwing weapon”, and this term may therefore be used for a sword (cf. e.  g. ll. 435 ensem = 537telis; 455 ferrum = 458 telum [ferrum u.l.]; 8.440 ferro = 444 telum), although in our case the word falls suspiciously above the term tellus and in addition the infixum telum/ferrum is none other than the ensis conditus qua patuit ferro of the previous line (uid. ad loc.). In favour of ferrum could be adduced a passage such as (Tac. ann. 1.43.1): Cur enim primo contionis die ferrum illud, quod pectori meo infigere parabam, detraxistis, o improuidi amici? (cf. Manil. 5.594: supra). Clearly in favour of telum, however, is Rhet. Her. 1.18: Aiax in silua, postquam resciit quae fecisset per insaniam, gladio incubuit. Vlixes interuenit: occisum conspicatur, corpore telum cruentum educit (a passage already cited by Ciof. 1575, 178). Compare, in addition, this passage of Seneca, also referring to a small arm (Oed. 1036  f.): Vtrumne pectori infigam meo / telum an patenti conditum iugulo inprimam? There are clear echoes here of 13.458  f.: “nulla mora est; at tu iugulo uel pectore telum / conde meo”, iugulumque simul pectusque retexit, a passage already pointed to as a model for conditum by Häuptli (1983, II, 61; see also Jakobi 1988, 137–9). Now, if it is obvious that we must add to conditum the debts of pectori, telum and iugulo, in the case of patenti it might be thought that it is perhaps an echo of retexit, though it might more properly come from patuit in l. 392, and in the same way infigam is in debt to infixum in 393. Finally, we may compare fast. 2.837–9: Brutus adest  … / fixaque semanimi corpore tela rapit, / stillantemque tenens generoso sanguine cultrum …, and we should recall the imitation by Conradus de Mure (13th c.) in his Fabularius (l. 555): Nec ualuere manus infixum educere telum. 394: expulit ipse cruor: cf. 6.259: expulit hanc [sc. sagittam] sanguis; Luc. 3.590 (supra). rubefactaque sanguine tellus: leaving aside unmetrical variants such as tempefactaque or rubefacta (for the presence of the latter in Cs, see Rivero 2016, 389 n. 46), we should note the variant madefactaque of Mo3V16 To2, which may originate in a number of passages of Ovid (4.481; 5.76; 6.529; 12.301; cf. 8.401  f.) but which leads us in particular to 4.126: … madefactaque sanguine radix, with that same final noun that has also slipped into V16 (uid. app.). Burman (1727, 886) surprises us with the reading tabefactaque in his text (rubefactaque in 1713), but the fact that in his note he opens the lemma with rubefactaque and makes no reference to fixing the text makes me think of a lapsus calami rather than an actual conjecture. 395: uiridi genuit: a small group of mss. offers the reverse order, in a further example of inversion with a metrical result. The majority reading is clearly

210

Commentary

preferable, with its virtually silver-line arrangement and the significant juxtaposition purpureum uiridi. Cf. also, along with Ciofanus (1575, 178), the imitation by Ausonius in his Epitaph on Aias (epitaph. 3.5): iam dabo purpureum claro de sanguine florem. 399–401: Victor ad Hypsipyles patriam clarique Thoantis et ueterum terras infames caede uirorum       uela dat ut referat, Tirynthia tela, sagittas;

400

• 400–401 inu. ord. dub. Lemaire (infra) • 400 hunc u. om. P2(ima pag. post 402 scr. m.p. et post 399 loc.) Pr • transierat tandem portu uotoque potitus post u. 400 hab. codd. aliquot (uid. append.), Plan., Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1480, Lugd. 1546(cuneis not.), Lugd. 1565(cuneis not.), Bersm. 1596  : post 399 hab. N*(a.c.) Ld22(mg.)P43(mg.)Pr Es2  : post 398 hab. V6 : post 401 hab. B5 Cs2Lr8(a.c.) : om. Ω, edd.  : def. Helm  : post 401–400 (inu. ord.) dub. Lemaire 1822(in notis) • transierat] transiit et Ls B14  : tranxierat P32, Calph. 1480  : traniecit Cs2  : transiuit Es4  : transcierat P41 • portu uotoque] uoto portuque N* A3P4 V13 • portu] portus B4 : pelago P41 • uotoque] uotisque V24 : uoque C(a.c.)  : uotuque Fe  : ueloque Ld32  : uoto Re2 • potitus] potitur De •

399–401: the beginning of the new episode presents us with the problem of a line transmitted and omitted by the mss. in roughly equal proportions: transierat tandem portu uotoque potitus, which in turn presents variants in its transmission and some variation in its position (uid. app.). The line has been rejected as spurious by the vast majority of edd., but ex silentio. However, some arguments such as the syntactic construction of uela dare and transire in Ovid might argue in favour of its inclusion in the text, and the references to the uotum and to the sea (though admittedly by means of a clearly shocking allusion to the portus) would of course not sound out of place in the literary context. For a more detailed discussion of the passage, see Rivero 2016c. 400: et ueterum: some mss. have transmitted ad in various positions in this phrase (uid. append.). Thus, M offers the reading aduetere’, with a curved flourish above the final -e which should simply be taken as a nasal (i.  e. adueterem), although this tilde tends to be straight in this manuscript. It is certainly not a normal -s, as it has been taken by other critics (i.  e. adueteres: thus e.  g. Slater 1927, Ehwald 1915, Anderson 1982). That the form is not clear is demonstrated by the copyist of Lr27 himself, who failed to understand it and “corrected” it to aduertere. Following on from M is both the variant ad ueterum of MoN2 Ld6 (the “Voss.” cited by Burm. 1727, 888) Bo3Vd11 and the more euphonious and attractive et ueterum ad of Lr3 and Ds. In all cases, however, it would appear to be a grammatical gloss (thus e.  g. above terras in V2 or above ueterum in Cs2) introduced into the text with varying degrees of fortune. From this variant ad Heinsius, in one of his collations, suggested reading ac ueterum



211

Commentary

(b3, 363; though not so in his notes). Cf. Verg. Aen. 6.527: et famam exstingui ueterum sic posse malorum. For the end of the line, cf. 12.599. 401: Tirynthia tela: there is a much more expressive effect if this syntagm is taken as an instance of “inserted apposition” (Solodow 1986; Bömer 1982, 298; uid. ad 495), or here, rather, “advanced apposition”, than if the apposition is considered to be sagittas. It should therefore be printed between two commas and not with just one comma after tela, as some edd. do following Ehwald. Cf. e.  g. 495: tuum, mea uulnera, pectus; 2.515  f.: nuper honoratas summo, mea uulnera, caelo / uideritis stellas. 402–407: quae postquam ad Graios domino comitante reuexit imposita estque fero tandem manus ultima bello, Troia simul Priamusque cadunt; Priameïa coniunx perdidit infelix hominis post omnia formam       externasque nouo latratu terruit auras longus in angustum qua clauditur Hellespontus.

405

• 403 i(n/m)posita estque fero GfP2(p.c.)V2V3 A42(p.c.)AbBaBe2DrEGg(p.c.)HdL4LdLd3Lr6O3P4V4V6V9 P5V16 B12Es3Mt4P28To2 Cv(p.c.)Es3Es5Lr22Ps(p.c.)V30 Ca2(uid., p.c.), “alii” test. Heinsius 1659, Aler. 1471, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1565, Jahn 1832, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, van Proosdij 1951, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, dub. Slater 1927  : i(n/m)posita est sero A A22(sero i.l.)A3B2(p.c. a m.p.)CsGLd2Lr4Lr5OV8Vd GoLi3P8(tandem sero; uid. append.)P10SoV13(p.c.) Es2(tandem sero; uid. append.) Go2 P46, “Rhen.”(non sic Tu) test. Jahn 1832, Regius 1493, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1659(“cum … aliis non paucis”), edd. post. plerique (uid. append.)  : i(n/m)posita est s(a)euo P3, Weise 1845, Koch 1866, Breitenbach 1964  : imposita est ferro Mc(a.c.) P41  : imposita est celo A2  : imposita est capto(i.l. u.l.) Ld22  : Imposita et(uel ut) sero coni. Heinsius • 404–407 del. Bentley  : uncinis not. Bothe 18182, edd. aliquot (uid. append.)  : om. Polle 1888, Holzberg 2017  : def. Jahn 1832, Helm, Marahrens, Bömer, Stok • 407–408 hos uu. iungere prop. Mo9; sic quoque Puteol. 1471, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Weise 1845, qui post auras (u. 406) plene distinxerunt  : cum priore uersu iungendum cens. Bothe 1818, Boissonade •

402–404: among the numerous variants with which l. 403 has been transmitted (uid. app. et append.) we should take into consideration either those that do not contain a copulative conjunction: i.  e. imposita est sero / saeuo, and which therefore leave the apodosis of the subordinate time clause in this position (402 postquam), or else the variant that does contain it: i.  e. imposita estque fero, which correspondingly places the main clause in l. 404 and thus rules out the possibility, suggested by some critics, that this line is an interpolation (uid. ad 404–7). In addition, both constructions have their respective variants, some of them metrical, though unlikely (imposita est ferro / celo / capto), and others difficult or impossible to fit into the metrical scheme (imposita est fero; imposita est feroque; imposita estque sero / ferro; imposita

212

Commentary

est quae fero; impositaque fero est / fero / est sero / est fero) but which are the readings transmitted by numerous important mss. (uid. e.  g. impositaque fero est, which has surprisingly been kept in some edd.). As regards the valid variants, imposita est sero tandem (with the variation tandem sero in P8 Es2) is found in A and some recc. and was published by Regius 1493, Bersman 1596 (thereby departing from his usual practice of following the edd. Gryphianae), Heinsius 1659 and the vast majority of the later edd. I have found the reading imposita est saeuo tandem only in P3 (the alter Regius of Heinsius, the “unus meus” to which he is probably referring when he records this variant in b3, 363) and it appeared in the edd. of Weise 1845, Koch 1866 and Breitenbach 1964 with the backing of the suitable parallel of 6.464: aut rapere et saeuo raptam defendere bello. Finally, imposita estque fero has the support of GfP2V2V3 and a considerable number of recc. (the majority variant impositaque fero also seems to back it up) and it was adopted by Aler. 1471, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1565 (who corrects the reading impositaque fero est of 1546), Jahn 1832, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, van Proosdij 1951, H-K-E-A 1966 and Anderson 1982 (not so von Albrecht 1994, who opts for imposita est sero: see p. 879), as well as receiving the approval (“fortasse rectius”) of Slater (1927, ad loc.). Finally, it is difficult to know precisely what the reading of Planudes’ antigraph was for 403 (uid. infra), but we can be sure that it contained the copulative, which he translates (καὶ) to link this clause to the one in the previous line. As has been rightly stressed by some commentators (Simmons 1889, 120; Keene 1898, 88; Bömer 1977, 75 ad 8.200  f.; Hardie 2015, 272), this line contains echoes of Verg. Aen. 7.572  f. (see Horsfall 2000, 376 ad loc.): Nec minus interea extremam Saturnia bello / imponit regina manum, where the expression “est translatio a pictura, quam manus complet et ornat extrema” (Seru. ad loc.; cf. Ou. rem. 114). Ovid adapts the Virgilian expression, creating for the literary Latin texts the phrase ultima manus, which he uses in two passages previous to ours, namely epist. 16.117  f.: inposita est factae postquam manus ultima classi, / protinus Aegaeis ire lubebat aquis; and met. 8.200  f.: postquam manus ultima bello / imposita est, geminas opifex librauit in alas (cf. trist. 2.1.555  f.: coeptaque sunt nobis, quamuis manus ultima coeptis / defuit, in facies corpora uersa nouas; cf. Petron. 118.6.9 and, for the imitation of manum ultimam bello imponere, Vell. 2.33.1; 87.1; 88.1; 117.1). The expression therefore means “to add the final touches”, which in principle leaves both possibilities of syntactic organization still open: postquam sagittas reuexit, imposita est m. u. bello, or else postquam s. r. et est imposita m. u. bello, Troia simul Priamusque cadunt. In favour of this latter interpretation are the above-mentioned parallels of epist. 16.117  f. and met. 8.200  f., both significantly appearing in subordinate clauses with postquam, as well as the obvious harshness – if we accept ll. 404–7 as genuine – of the resulting asyndeton in the clauses imposita est m. u. bello. Troia s. P. cadunt, especially if we take into account the subsequent asyndeton in the Priameïa coniunx clause.



Commentary

213

It is also obvious that the relative hyperbaton of -que in imposita estque may have given rise to the other variants, which are analogous to those found e.  g. in 11.264 (exhibita estque; see Díez 2014, 196–201), 14.801 or 15.694 (see Magnus 1914, 570 and 612 respectively). Equally evident, however, is the attraction of the phrase sero … bello, which is so well adapted to this context (although Hopkinson 2000, 164 finds certain difficulties in it). If sero and fero are almost identical palaeographically, the third variant worth considering, s(a)euo, makes the choice no easier, as it may also have come about as a result of the graphic similarity or as a synonymous gloss on fero. The expression serum bellum has come down to us only in a fragment of Sallust (Hist. 2.38): serum enim bellum in angustiis futurum (Seru. ad Aen. 5.524 al.), although it is nonetheless fully appropriate in our passage. But the fact is that neither is the expression ferum bellum widely enough present in the Latin texts to make us think that it might have arisen here as a banalization. Moreover, the first author to use it is precisely Ovid (cf. Lucr. 1.29: fera moenera militiai), who has recourse to the form fera bella on as many as 15 occasions (e.  g. am. 2.6.25). The reading that can reasonably be reproduced for the antigraph of Planudes (uid. infra) makes the copulative coordination and the adj. sero compatible, but it is not backed by the mss. and it introduces a construction tamen sero that does not comfortably fit the syntax. Assessing the data as a whole, I am inclined to think that the genuine reading is imposita estque fero. 403: tandem: the version Planudes gives us of ll. 402–4 is as follows: Ἅπερ ἐπειδὴ πρὸς τοὺς Ἀχαιοὺς ἐπανήγαγε, συνεπομένου καὶ Φιλοκτήτου, καὶ βραδέως μέν, ὅμως δὲ τελευταία τῷ πολέμῳ χεὶρ ἐπετέθη, Τροία μὲν καὶ Πρίαμος ἅμα πεπτώκασιν· From this we can deduce that l. 403 contained: 1, the copulative (cf. καὶ [βραδέως]); 2, sero (which he interprets or translates using the adv. βραδέως); 3, tamen for tandem (cf. ὅμως). If the reading of this antigraph was metrically correct, we can reproduce it as: imposita estque tamen sero manus ultima bello (it was already taken this way by Slater 1927, ad loc.). With this reading the Byzantine monk was presumably forced to interpret tamen as being close in meaning to quamquam (see HS 496  f.). From this line on we no longer have the testimony of Cs and in its place have that of Cs2 (see Rivero 2016, 384–6). 404–407: these lines were marked as spurious by Bentley in his copies of the editions of Heinsius and Burman (although, perhaps as the result of an erratum, Hedicke 1905, 32, points to only 404–6 being affected). Since then a number of editors and critics have stuck to the same opinion down to our days. Bothe (1818, 135), for example, argues that we are dealing with another case of double composition, in which these 4 lines would have been the original, very short version, which Ovid would then have replaced by another longer and more detailed version, but that these original 4 lines were not deleted but remained there for want of revision, referring the reader to the well-known emendaturus si licuisset (an analogous conclusion in Due 1974, 155).

214

Commentary

More ruthless is Korn, who falls back on the criterion of authority and no longer recognizes their Ovidian origin (1880, 289): “adulterinos esse cognouit Bentley”. The criterion of authority was also followed by Zingerle (1884, XIX), adding to the list Korn himself and Merkel, who had chosen to publish the lines in square brackets in his 2nd ed. (1875), whereas in that of 1850 they were as yet unmarked. They also appeared within brackets in the school ed. by Magnus (Gotha 1892), although he removed them in his full edition of 1914. Simmons, generally faithful to the text of Haupt-Korn, also considers these lines, as well as 409–17, to have been interpolated (1889, 120  f.): “The death of Priam and the carrying away of the Trojan women are related twice, and the mention here of Hecuba’s metamorphosis anticipates the conclusion of the whole story. Haupt also remarks on the obscurities of expression, as in post omnia and tendebat, and on the want of connection between 407, 408, and 409, and between 414 and 415. The details also, which may have been derived from Virg. Aen. II. 403–6 and 515–7, and from Seneca, Troad. 1081, are foreign to the purpose of the narrative”. It would seem that Ehwald changed his mind, as he did accept the lines in 1915 even though in 1898 he had stated (H-K-E 1898, 407): “404–407 sind von R. Bentley mit Recht athetiert. Diese Verse sind nichts als eine poetische Inhaltsangabe des folgenden Stücks, die wie die Paraphrase des sog. Lactantius […] zwischen den Text hineingesetzt war und dann von einem Schreiber in den Text selbst genommen worden ist”. Mendner also (1939, 43 n. 139) subscribes to the idea of interpolation, on the basis of the phraseological echoes between 405 and 527 (“Die Wendung perdidit post omnia ist nach Vers 527 omnia perdidimus gemacht und steht in V. 405 ganz unverständlich”), between 406 and 7.362 and between 407 and 11.195. Breitenbach similarly argues that they feature an undesirable anticipation of the episode and metamorphosis of Hecuba, and adds that they could be an addition made necessary by the “false -que” inserted into 403 (1964, 1132): “Vl [Vielleicht] entstand die Interpolation nur dadurch, dass nach dem falschen -que, das 403 eingedrungen war, ein Nachsatz nötig wurde”. Among the editors it is not until Goold (1984; not so Miller 19212) that we find the lines within square brackets once again, and he would also be followed by Hill, who once more summarizes his suspicions by focusing on the unfortunate anticipation in the narrative and the argument (2000, 150) that “the phrase post omnia, ‘after all’ (405) is unintelligible in context.” Hopkinson also joins this group, although he does recognize some elements of quality in the lines (2000, 164): “Although these lines contain some choice vocabulary (406) and metrical effects (407 spondaic fifth foot), they certainly do not belong here: the anticipatory mention of Priam, whose fate is told again in line 409, is clumsy and pointless. Possibly they are an alternative draft; but it is more likely that they are an illustrative supplement quoted in the margin by a learned reader and subsequently incorporated into the text.” Finally, Tarrant, who had already pointed to these lines as being “suspect or interpolated” (2000, 437), stands by this



Commentary

215

view in his edition and places them in square brackets (2004, 386; Holzberg 2017, 654, omits them). Jahn (1832, 814) had already argued for the authenticity of the lines: “Male autem Bothius uss. 404–407 spurios esse censuit, neque intellexit poetam uersibus 399–407 summatim tantum ad transitum parandum narrare, quae post armorum iudicium facta sunt. In quibus cum etiam Hecubae transformationem commemorauisset, a uersu 405 uberius rem descripsit, sed ita, ut paucis etiam Troiae interitum attingeret, quasi de nouo rem exorsus esset”. Keene, too, who in principle follows the text of Haupt-Korn for his commentary, expressly diverges (1898, 10) in this respect and removes the brackets. A staunch defence is to be found in Helm (1901, 358  f.), reproduced fully here for its perceptiveness as far as these lines are concerned: “At omnia optime inter se conexa esse uidemus; nam quod dixit poeta sero ultimam manum bello impositam esse, id postulat ut breuis descriptio addatur qua Troia cadere dicatur; cum urbe uero artissime coniunctus est rex, sicut apud Homerum Z 448 sq., ut optime sequatur: Troia simul Priamusque cadunt; Priami denique commemoratio quid mirum quod grauius Hecubae fatum in memoriam redigit […] Neque in elocutione est quo offendaris.” To begin with the last point, there is indeed nothing in these lines that is alien to Ovidian diction, and to consider the obvious internal phraseological echoes proof of their spurious nature is, at the very least, a questionable form of reasoning (uid. infra; cf. Galasso 2000, 1459). The much-proclaimed rarity of the expression perdidit infelix hominis post omnia formam (correctly understood long ago, e.  g. in the marginal note of M22: i. post mortem omnium suorum effecta est canis; sim. Marahrens 1971, 234) could equally be applied to omnia perdidimus (l. 527), one of the most memorable moments of the whole book. Moreover, l. 406 might even be echoed in Iuu. 8.97: furor est post omnia perdere naulum, in [Quint.] Decl. 1.17.19: miser post omnia et lacrimas perdidit, nec dolentem adiuuant oculi, and even in Maxim. 2.39: sed solus miseris superest post omnia luctus: / quot bona tunc habui, tot modo damna fleo. Besides, comparison can be drawn with the expression of Tib. Claud. Don. ad Aen. 2.5  f.: [sc. Aeneas] post omnia perdita malis adhuc innumeris uexabatur (for post omnia, cf. also Cic. or. 122.15; Sen. contr. 7.1; suas. 1.1; Sen. epist. 119.8; Stat. Theb. 11.330; Macr. 5.11.25; 7.5.28). In turn, infelix joins together in the same misfortune Hecuba and her daughter Polyxena (l. 451; cf. 535) as well as her father Priam by means of an expression laden with irony, almost an antiphrasis (519  f.). Equally, the reference to Hecuba in the previous line as Priameïa coniunx is not only a symptomatic anticipation of 513  f. (Priameïa coniunx”, / postque tot amissos) but it also keeps up the tragic tone and announces, on the one hand (410  f.), the reference to Cassandra through the obvious parallel of Verg. Aen. 2.403  f.: ecce trahebatur passis Priameïa uirgo / crinibus a templo Cassandra (and cf. am. 1.9.37; ars 2.405), and on the other to Polyxena herself, to whom Virgil applies the same patronymic in an ironic apostrophe analogous to the one commented on above for Ovid’s Priam (Aen. 3.321–3): o felix una ante alias

216

Commentary

Priameïa uirgo, / hostilem ad tumulum Troiae sub moenibus altis / iussa mori (for anticipations of this type in Ovid, Magnus – 1914, 500 in app. ad 409–17 – adroitly compares 3.139  f. and 11.134  f.). Helm’s observation on the relevance of the joint mention of Troy and Priam with reference to a passage of the Iliad as emotive as the final dialogue between Hector and Andromache seems to me another of his most valuable contributions (6.448  f.): ἔσσεται ἦμαρ ὅτ᾽ ἄν ποτ᾽ ὀλώλῃ Ἴλιος ἱρὴ / καὶ Πρίαμος καὶ λαὸς ἐϋμμελίω Πριάμοιο, because in this way the expression Troia simul Priamusque cadunt, which some saw as too blunt, becomes a splendid responsio to the Homeric ὀλώλῃ Ἴλιος ἱρὴ / καὶ Πρίαμος and therefore sets a new emotional tone for the passage that opens with these lines, in which it is the very metamorphosis of Hecuba into a dog, over and above her objective misfortunes, which is presented by Ovid as an example of adversity (cf. 572–5; 620: Ergo aliis latrasse Dymantida flebile uisum est; see Stok 2008, 510  f.; Hardie 2015, 272  f.). Marahrens (1971, 232–7), after a careful analysis of the passage, which extends beyond the supposed interpolation of 409–17 (infra), also reaches the conclusion that the lines contain sufficient Ovidian elements to make the manuscript transmission incontestable, and even holds that to suppress them would be to introduce syntactic difficulties (more so in this case because she works from the reading imposita estque fero for 403: uid. ad 402  f.). Bömer, for his part (1982, 299  f.), also defends the text and issues a prudent warning against the temptation to eliminate any text that can be shown to be “dispensable”, and makes the stylistic point that 406  f. begin with an adj. and end with a noun, a recurring device in the met. (see 1982, 126 ad 12.369; also Hardie 2015, 273). In a study aimed precisely at identifying the enigmatic Maera of 7.362 with Hecuba, Stok denies on the one hand that the repetitions pointed to for ll. 405 and 407 are out of place (2008, 503 n. 4): “ma 13, 527 è detto da Ecuba poco prima di vedere il cadavere di Polidoro, e pare quindi rinvio interno del tutto plausibile, mentre 11, 195 è designazione corrente dell’Ellesponto, con una ripresa quindi poco significativa.” On the other hand, he notes that both the respective Euripidean models and the successive protagonists effectively demonstrate that Ovid has decided to endow his narrative with a criss-cross or alternating structure in ll. 404–575 (a thesis already defended in detail in Stok 1990), which “evidenzia il ruolo centrale assegnato alla vicenda direttamente connessa alla metamorfosi di Ecuba, quella di Polidoro; in essa i vv. 404–407 assolvono ad un ruolo introduttivo che dissolve, a mio parere, i sospetti che hanno suggerito l’espunzione”; finally, and as far as l. 406 and its possible origin in 7.362 is concerned, his identification of Maera with Hecuba by means of the model of Lyc. Alex. 330–4 (2008, 505) “spiegherebbe, ovviamente, la ripetizione 7, 357–362, che assumerebbe così il valore di un preciso rimando interno” (cf. 509: “La ripresa di 13, 406 (completata a 13, 571) avrebbe, di conseguenza, un preciso valore di richiamo”).



Commentary

217

In short, an analysis of the phraseological, literary and grammatical elements demonstrates that these lines are fully relevant, making it much simpler and reasonable to attribute them to Ovid than to the imitative skill of a learned reader (cf. 294  f.). 404: cadunt: the connection between simul and Troia and not Priamus leads to cases of reordering such as those of B4Pr (uid. append.): troia cadit priamusque simul (cf. B8: Troia cadunt p.s.). For the expression, see Hardie 2015, 272  f. Cf. also ad 435 cecidit. 406–408: the geographical reference contained in l. 407 could depend on terruit (406) or on ardebat (408). This latter option was chosen as early as Mo9 (s. XI2): “Videtur quod debeat sic distingui: Illion ardebat usque ad eam partem in qua helles pontus clauditur in angustum”, and this interpretation was followed, using strong punctuation after auras (406), in the ed. Puteol. 1471 (no strictly critical punctuation appears in the edd. Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502), in Naugerius (1516) and the Gryphianae, and by Heinsius and other edd. down to Weise 1845 (uid. app.). A pertinent objection to this interpretation was published by Bothe (1818, 135  f.: “Neque igitur plene distinguendum post auras, qui uulgaris error est, sed eo modo, quo in nostra editione fieri iussimus”) and Boissonade offered a geographical argument (ap. Lemaire 1822, V, 570  f. n. 4): “Vulgo sic distinguunt [sc. auras.]. Sed Ilium non fuit situm in Hellespontiaci freti angustiis, qui fuit Cynossematis situs. Distinctione mutata melior nunc est sententiarum ordo”. A comma after auras is the punctuation in the other editions. 406: externas … auras: a good number of mss. present the usual variation aures (uid. append. and cf. ad 12.56), favoured here by the context. Once again V2 coincides with N(p.c.), in this case in the reading urbes, which I have also found in V82(mg. u.l.) Mt4To2 and which Burman (1727, 889) also reads in “unus Medic.”. Also with a geographical reference, although clearly originating in 7.362 (et quos Maera nouo latratu terruit agros), I have found the variant agros in some mss. (with the corresponding masc. externosque, also incongruously present in Ab, which gives auras). To these must be added “unus Moreti”, again with the testimony of Burman (ibid.), a variant which was defended by Koch (1864, 343) on the basis of an over-rational premise (“aurae quomodo terreri possint nescio”), adding as a parallel l. 571 of our book. Finally, Burman (ibid.) leaves a vague testimony of the presence of the variant oras in two mss., following an equally vague reference in Heinsius (b3, 363), but I have been unable to find this variant in any codex. At most, this might be suspected to have been the reading of the antigraph of Planudes, who translates as χώρους ἀλλοτρίους. Even so, Bothe, who had found auras in his Berolinensis (B14), adopted oras in his text (as did Riese 1872, Simmons 1889 and van Proosdij 1951) on the basis of the following weak argument (1818, 135): “oras recte intellexit uetus possessor codicis, qui superscripsit contratas, h.e. contradas” (Hardie 2015, 273: “IX 19 externis … ab oris

218

Commentary

potrebbe aiutare a difendere oras qui”). For the auras/oras alternation, cf. ad 530 (also 5.511). For terruit auras, cf. (with Heinsius 1659, 341), fast. 1.567: fragor aethera terruit ipsum (and compare in turn – with Burm. 1727, 889 – Petr. 136: tremuit perterritus aether / planctibus insolitis, confusaque regia caeli [cf. also 121: iam fragor armorum trepidantes personat aures, where Burman defends auras]), and see Bömer 1976b, 304 ad 7.414. For externas “Thracian”, not Trojan women, should be understood, as a reference to yet another misfortune of Hecuba and the women of Troy: banishment. nouo: ms. Hd presents the unmetrical variant uano, on the basis of which Slater (1927, ad loc.) tentatively suggested uago. However, it seems more logical to consider uano just another example of mechanical error through the inversion of syllables. The adj. nouus “is used of a characteristic induced by sudden metamorphosis” (Simmons 1889, 121), as at 894: noua cornua. Cf. also 7.362 (supra); Sen. Ag. 706–8: Hecuba fatorum nouas / experta leges … / … latrauit. See Bömer 1982, 300. 407: qua clauditur Hellespontus: against this majority reading N offers us an interesting etymological reconstruction of the proper name: pontus qua clauditur elles (cf. e.  g. 11.195: pontum Nepheleidos Helles; epist. 19.123; fast. 4.903 [Prop. 2.22.5]; trist. 1.10.15; Cic. or. 163: Qua pontus Helles supera Tmolum ac Tauricos), and this unique reading finds support in the variant with inversion qua pontus attested in Gf and some recc., as well as secondarily in the many mss. where the name is written as two separate elements (uid. append.). In view of the lack of further evidence, however, it seems prudent to assume that these alterations are, on the one hand, the fruit of etymologizing recreations like those cited above (and like others which could be added) and that on the other they are attempts to avoid a spondaic ending (cf. qua clauditur undique pontus in Ld6), an ending which in any case adapts to the normal format for lines of this type (Keene 1898, 89; Bömer 1958, 85  f. ad fast. 2.43; Hardie 2015, 273): a tetrasyllabic word (preferably a Greek proper name) at the end of a phrase and with a dactyl in the 4th foot (cf. 684; 1.62). There are also models and parallels for it such as Catull. 64.358: quae passim rapido diffunditur Hellesponto; Ou. fast. 4.567: perque urbes Asiae longum petit Hellespontum; 6.341: ibat ut inciperet longi deus Hellesponti. Other spondaic lines in met.: 1.14, 62, 117, 732; 2.404; 3.184, 669; 5.165, 265; 6.69, 128, 247, 683; 7.114, 623; 8.23; 9.283; 11.456; 12.219, 456; 13.684. 408–411: Ilion ardebat, neque adhuc consederat ignis, exiguumque senis Priami Iouis ara cruorem combiberat; tractata comis antistita Phoebi     non profecturas tendebat ad aethera palmas;

410



Commentary

219

• 409–417 uncinis not. Merkel 1875(non sic 1850), Korn 1880, Simmons 1889  : om. Polle 1888  : def. Helm, Stok • 409–411 uncinis not. H-K-E 1898(non sic Ehwald 1915) • 410 ad tractaque obel. adhib. Magnus 1914 • tractata A4(i.l. p.c.; tractisque a.c.)DrF2(-ta i.l. u.l.)L4Lr4O4(i.l. a m.p.) Go P28 Z, test. Gifanius 1565, “Rhen.”(non Tu) test. Jahn 1832, Heinsius 1659(qui et “prim. Moret. Cantabrig. Oxon. et duo alii” test.), edd.  : tractaque codd. aliquot (uid. append.), Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, H-K-E 1898, def. Hellmuth  : et ctaque P2(uid., a.c.)  : tractamque C(tractisque p.c.) Ca2(tractisque p.c. Ca22)  : tactaque Li3  : tractisque Ω, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Ciof. 1575, Bersm. 1596, Anderson 1982  : tractis Bo  : tractatque M2(uid.)  : tractatisque Be2  : tracta atque H2(a.c.), coni. Vollmer, Ehwald 1915, van Proosdij 1951, H-K-E-A 1966, Segura 1983, Galasso 2000  : tractis atque H2(p.c.)  : raptata coni. Heinsius, Bentley, prob. Hopkinson 2000 •

409–417: following the other suspicions of interpolation in this part of the book (uid. ad 377–9, 404–7) some critics have considered all or some of these lines spurious, for example, Merkel, who in his first edition accepted the whole beginning of the new episode and in the second placed inside square brackets both 404–7 and 409–17, thus leaving the sequence imposita est sero tandem manus ultima bello. / Ilion ardebat, neque adhuc consederat ignis, / iamque uiam suadet boreas … Merkel was followed only by Korn (1880, 290: “cum Merkelio ut insiticios seclusi”, although Keene 1898, 10, distances himself) and by Simmons 1889 (uid. ad 404–7). Ehwald, for his part, who had previously accepted ll. 404–7 as genuine, initially limited his suspicions to ll. 409–11 (the death of Priam and the rape of Cassandra), although he accepted them in his editio maior (1915, 396 in app.: “olim deleui”). The arguments are in principle the same as for 404–7 (uid. ad loc.), although here there is an added sign of interpolation in the irrational lengthening in the reading tractaque (l. 410; so too F. Leo in Hermes 37, 1902, 44 n. 2). Now, this would likewise force us to seclude l. 403 because of the majority variant impositaque (uid. ad loc.; cf. e.  g. 9.718 formaque; 10.264 longaque). As Helm (1901, 361) quite rightly recalls, “quod metri ratio stare nequit corruptelae potius quam interpolationis testimonium est”. For the other variants transmitted, uid. infra. In his defence of the authenticity of the whole passage, Helm justifies these summary mentions of the fate of Priam and Cassandra as a necessary retractatio of the well-known Virgilian version in the second book of the Aeneid (1901, 359): “Quas res quin referret paene fieri non potuit, quia qui Vergilium legerant breuem earum rerum mentionem eum flagitabant” (a detailed analysis of this dependence, evidenced by Ovid’s reusing in the short space of ll. 409–17 elements from Verg. Aen. 2.365–558, can be found in Marahrens 1971, 236  f.; cf. also Bömer 1982, 301; Hill 2000, 150 ad 409  f. and 410  f.; Hardie 2015, 273–5). Helm also recalls (as had Baumg.-Crus. 1834, 509 before him, if not others) the obvious imitation of l. 409 by Seneca (Ag. 655–8): te, magne parens, flent Iliades. / Vidi, uidi senis in iugulo / telum Pyrrhi uix exiguo / sanguine tingui (with Tarrant 1976, 294 ad 657  f.; cf. met. 7.315: exiguo maculauit sanguine ferrum; Verg. Aen. 2.551: in multo lapsantem sanguine nati).

220

Commentary

Finally, a defence of the literary relevance of the passage from the Euripidean and Virgilian models can be seen in Stok 1990. 408: Ilion: for the variant Ilios transmitted only by Ld6 (the “Voss.” cited by Burm. 1727, 889) or ylios in Ds2(p.c.)So, see Burm. 1727, I, 9 ad epist. 1.48; Bömer 1982, 300. consederat ignis: cf. Verg. Aen. 2.624  f.: Tum uero omne mihi uisum considere in ignis / Ilium. 410: tractata: a very important group of mss. transmits the variant tractaque, which still makes its way into the early edd. and is obelized by Magnus 1914 (uid. app.). From the metrical problems of this variant some critics deduced that the line was spurious (uid. ad 409–17), although others such as Hellmuth (1880, 33) defended it on the grounds of comparison with 15.178 (uagā), where the edd. prefer uagans (see Bömer 1986, 305  f.). Most mss., however, give tractisque (i.  e. comis), which is probably an attempt to regularize the previous reading, and this variant was adopted by the edd. down to Bersman (1596) and only by Anderson (1982) in modern times (cf. fast. 4.238: tracta coma est; Sen. Phaedr. 731: crinis tractus). Vollmer conjectured tracta atque, with a hyperbaton of atque for which the only parallel adduced is that of ars 3.282: quaeritur atque illis (see Bömer 1982, 302, who errs in his reference to Luck 1961, 254 for more passages, since none appear there), a passage where today the edd. prefer aque (see e.  g. Ramírez de Verger 2003, 237). This is the reading of H2, which then changes to tractis atque. Vollmer’s conjecture was adopted by Ehwald in the conviction that a conjunction is required (1915, 517: “Die Kopula ist notwendig”) and other edd. followed him, among them Galasso, who diverges explicitly from Anderson (2000, CXX) and seems to adopt it more as a result of elimination of the others than out of clear conviction (2000, 1460): “Tractata, debolmente attestato, introdurrebbe un asindeto abbastanza duro”. Heinsius in his day also conjectured raptata (1659, 341: “Legebam olim”; cf. b3, 363: “Leg. raptata”) based on the parallel of 12.223: raptaturque comis per uim noua nupta prehensis, and this reading was also proposed by Bentley (Hedicke 1905, 32) and has recently been picked up on by Hopkinson (2000, 165  f.). However, most edd. today follow the variant read and finally published by Heinsius from 1652 on: tractata, transmitted in the text or as a correction in a number of recc. and previously attested by Gifanius when he cited this passage in his index to Lucretius (1565, 420 [= 1595, 443  f.]: “tractata comis antistita Phoebi / non profecturas &c.”) to illustrate, according to him, an equivalent meaning to dilaniari. Heinsius (1659, 341) duly defended it by comparing it to a passage of Pacuvius (trag. 351 R2 [Antiopa 18–20 Warmington]): Agite ite, euoluite rapite, coma / tractate per aspera saxa et humum, / scindite uestem ocius!, to which he added Enn. ann. 2.124: tractatus per aequora campi, and Lucr. 3.888  f.: morsuque ferarum / tractari. In addition, these passages might perhaps be complemented by Enn. trag. 73  f. (Paris to Hector): Quid ita cum tuo lacerato corpore / miser es, aut qui te sic respectantibus / tractauere nobis?



Commentary

221

The verb tracto, “intensif de trahere” (cf. Macr. exc. gramm. 651: see Ernout-Robin 1926, 138; cf. also Bailey 1947, 1142: “‘to be dragged about’, ‘mauled’, a real frequentative of trahi”) and therefore with a heavier charge of aggressiveness and even animal behaviour (Heinze 1897, 169: “‘hinund herzerren’ sehr anschaulich von den Thieren, die sich die Beute streitig machen”) is another of the variations Ovid creates from his clear Virgilian model (cf. trahebatur; Aen. 2.403–6): ecce trahebatur passis Priameïa uirgo / crinibus a templo Cassandra adytisque Mineruae / ad caelum tendens ardentia lumina frustra, / lumina, nam teneras arcebant uincula palmas, against the background of the Euripidean model (Tr. 70): Αἴας εἷλκε Κασάνδραν βίᾳ (see Stok 1990, 92 n. 29; Hopkinson 2000, 165 ad 410  f.; cf. 425 [Hecubam] Dulichiae traxere manus). Finally, it is not clear what exactly Planudes read in his antigraph: Καὶ ἡ τῷ Φοίβῳ κάτοχος Κασάνδρα, τῶν τριχῶν ἑλκομένη… antistita: most of the mss. and early edd. (with the exception of Aler. 1471) have the incorrect form antistia (uid. append.), which Regius alone adopts, both in the text and in the corresponding note, in his ed. of 1527, whereas in the previous and subsequent editions he opted for the correct form (TLL 2.186.22–32; OLD s.u., 143). Hardie (2015, 274) points to a precedent for the application of this rare word to Cassandra in Acc. Astyanax 153  f. (Warmington): Vtinam unicam mi antistitam Arquitenens suam / tutetur! 411: profecturas: the incorrect expansion of abbreviations leads to the usual variants (uid. append.), among which it is worth observing the unmetrical profuturas in that it once again illustrates the links between the witnesses. For the expression, cf. e.  g. 6.261  f.: Ilioneus non profectura precando / bracchia sustulerat (see Bömer 1982, 303). tendebat: the form of the verb in the imperfect was adduced by some critics as evidence of the corruption of the line (thus e.  g. H-K-E 1898, 407: “das ganz unerklärliche tendebat”). However, the gesture and the expression are clear, and the model is obvious (Verg. Aen. 2.405  f.): tendens … arcebant (supra). 412–414: Dardanidas matres patriorum signa deorum, dum licet, amplexas succensaque templa tenentes inuidiosa trahunt uictores praemia Grai; • 413 suc(c)ensaque] succensa Lu(a.c. a m.p.)  : accensaque M2  : succisaque S2(succensaque mg. a m.p.)  : successaque AbB4Hd(a.c.)  : succenssa Pr  : deest in Ls •

412: Dardanidas: as is usual with this form, the mss. present variants such as Dardanides and Dardanias (uid. append.; cf. Plan. Δαρδανίδας; cf. Hom. Il. 18.122, 339). For the episode, cf. Verg. Aen. 2.489  f.; 515–7. See Bömer 1982, 303; Hardie 2015, 274.

222

Commentary

413: succensaque: M2 gives the variant accensaque, which would appear to be facilior; S2 has succisaque in the text, probably a simple misreading, although the same m.p. writes the correct form in the margin. Cf. 865 for a similar oscillation. 415–417: mittitur Astyanax illis de turribus unde       pugnantem pro se proauitaque regna tuentem saepe uidere patrem monstratum a matre solebat.

415

• 415 de] e Ba • 416 tuentem] tenentem GfMN(a.c.) A4Ab(tuentem i.l. u.l. Ab2)C(a.c.)DrFeLr7Mo(tuentem i.l. Mo2)MtOO4(tuentem mg. O42)Vd(a.c.) Cs2DsLd6P10SoTo(a.c.) Es2Ft(a.c.)Mt4(a.c.) Bo3(a.c.)Lr27, “quinque alii” test. Burm. 1727, prob. Magnus 1914  : tuentes Pr  : ruentem P8  : tenentem tuentem F2(sine corr.) •

415: de turribus: in contrast to this majority reading, Ba (s. XIII1) gives e turribus, as at 8.40: turribus e summis … mittere corpus, and 8.250  f.: sacraque ex arce Mineruae / praecipitem misit, or as in Stat. silu. 2.1.145, in reference to the same episode: turribus e Phrygiis flesset missurus Vlixes, all of them being passages conditioned by the metre. Cf. also ad 438. For the background to the episode, see Bömer 1982, 304  f.; Jakobi 1988, 38  f.; Hill 2000, 151; Hopkinson 2000, 166  f.; Hardie 2015, 274  f. 416–417: mss. A2Ld2V8 and Bo2 reverse the order of these lines, leaving a text that is readable though by no means preferable. 416: tuentem: the alternation of this verb with the forms of teneo is systematic (cf. e.  g. medic. 2) and this is the case in our passage here (uid. app.), where in addition an influence may have been exerted by tenentes (l. 413). Magnus (1914, 500: “(cf 190) scripsi cum M μ ς”) surprisingly decided to keep the form tenentem on the basis of M Mo (N corrects this reading to tuentem) and a few recc. (incidentally, Ld6 is the “Voss. Leidens.” cited by Burm. 1727, 890: cf. b2, 362), and as a result of the comparison with l. 190, where the expression causam tenere stands up for itself (see Bömer 1982, 252; Huyck 1991, 146; Hopkinson 2000, 119; Hardie 2015, 243), whereas in our passage regna tenere would only be applicable to the king’s person (Helm 1915, 547) and tuentem evokes the form ἐρύετο of Hom. Il. 6.403: οἶος γὰρ ἐρύετο Ἴλιον Ἕκτωρ (see Hopkinson 2000, 167). Cf. also Sen. Tr. 1071–4: turre in hac blando sinu / fouens nepotem, cum metu uersos graui / Danaos fugaret Hector et ferro et face, / paterna puero bella monstrabat senex (Jakobi 1988, 38  f.). 418–423: Iamque uiam suadet Boreas flatuque secundo carbasa mota sonant. Iubet uti nauita uentis: “Troia, uale, rapimur!” clamant, dant oscula terrae  Troades et patriae fumantia tecta relinquunt.

420



Commentary

223

Vltima conscendit classem (miserabile uisu!) in mediis Hecube natorum inuenta sepulcris. • 419 uentis] uelis A42(mg. u.l.)B5L4OO3V6(a.c.)Vd Vt, Lugd. 1546(mg.), Lugd. 1565(mg.)  : uento B4  : remis Be2V8(uentis i.l. u.l. a m.p.)  : ponto Ds2 • 421 fumantia] flammantia “duo libri” test. et dub. prob. Burm. 1727 • 422 miserabile] mirabile GfM(a.c.) AbC(p.c.)MoMtN2V6 Cs2Ld6Lr8Mo3P5 P28 : mirabille Es2(miserabille p.c.)  : miserabili N(a.c.) •

418: suadet: ms. Ld2 (s. XIII1) presents the unique reading spondet, which Burman (1727, 890) thought “elegantius, quam ut a librario rudi proficisceretur”, although after defending it he concludes: “uulgata tamen defendi satis potest. sic Epist. vii. 55” (sc. ut pelago suadente etiam [uiam u.l.] retinacula soluas). However, the variant was adopted by Bothe (18182, 264), although no arguments were put forward. Cf. also 8.90: suasit amor facinus (cf. Tib. 2.4.25); 9.692: silentia suadet; fast. 2.635: suadebit nox umida somnos (cf. Verg. Aen. 2.9; 4.81). 419: mota: against this majority reading (cf. 11.474: mouerat aura rudentes), Heinsius (1659, 341) attests the singular variant tensa (O4), for which he compares epist. 10.30: uidi praecipiti carbasa tenta Noto; Val. Fl. 4.422: dixerat et placidi tendebant carbasa uenti; Verg. Aen. 3.268: tendunt uela Noti; 5.32  f.: uela secundi / intendunt Zephyri. iubet: some of the best mss. offer the readings iuuat/iuuet (uid. append.), most likely simple copying or dictation errors, although we should not forget the form iuuat in Sen. Ag. 435  f., a scene with close echoes to ours (see Tarrant 1976, 256 ad 431  ff.). uentis: some mss. give valid variants such as uento, remis, ponto or uelis (uid. app.). Cf. ad 422 classem. 420: dant: P2M2T and some recc. (uid. append.), among them probably also the antigraph of Planudes (καὶ διδόασι τῇ γῇ δῆτα φιλήματα), offer the reading dantque, another example of oscillation in the enclitic before a vowel. This reading was adopted by some of the early edd. and also by Heinsius (1659, 341: “ex scriptis”), and was kept for the following two centuries down to Koch (1866). However, the asyndeton is more expressive. The variant may originate in the Virgilian model (Aen. 2.490): amplexaeque tenent postis atque oscula figunt, and especially in 3.24  f.: Cadmus agit grates peregrinaeque oscula terrae / figit et ignotos montes agrosque salutat. 421: fumantia: cf. Verg. Aen. 3.3: omnis humo fumat Neptunia Troia. Burman (1727, 890  f.) attests “Flammantia duo libri”, although I have been unable to find this reading. He shows sympathy for it and adduces other passages where flammans alternates with fumans or flauens (cf. 848). 422: conscendit: for the usual oscillation in the paradigms of the compounds of scando (uid. append.), cf. ad 780. classem: once again (cf. ad 419 uentis) some valid variants slip into the text of a number of mss. (uid. append.), generally synonymous glosses: nauem and puppem might also have been an attempt to attenuate the contradiction between the singular nature of Hecuba and the plurality of the generic

224

Commentary

classem, a contradiction which in any case is already present in the preverb of conscendit (see Bömer 1982, 306; Hardie 2015, 276). miserabile: some mss. have the variant mirabile (uid. app.), in line with a frequent alternation (cf. e.  g. ad Verg. Aen. 9.465). The context here leaves no room for argument (see Hardie 2015, 276). 423: Hecube: the name of Hecuba is adapted in different ways by the Latin authors and the mss. present an openly unstable panorama. In our passage the vast majority of mss. have Hecube or equivalent forms, and this is also the form chosen by the bulk of the edd. (uid. append.). Some mss. and a few edd. opt for the Latin form Hecuba, which would imply a lengthening of the final open syllable. Finally, a number of edd. choose to transcribe the Greek form Hecabe. The first to declare his misgivings concerning the majority form was Bothe (1818, 136): “Quod uulgati libri habent, Hecube, nec graecum nec latinum est. Reponendum, ubi porrecta nominis syllaba extrema opus est, Hecabe”, and he adduced the parallel of Hyg. fab. 170: Hecabe Dryantem (but cf. the objection by Magnus 1894, 792 n. 37: “hier ist nicht von der bekannten Troerin, sondern von einer der Danaiden die rede”). Bothe’s arguments were previously contested by Baumgarten-Crusius (1834, 509): “Sed id sibi permisisse uidentur poetae Romani, ut Latinae formae Graecam terminationem darent” (in similar terms, Bach 1836, 326). The “macaronic Latin” argument was also used by those who defended the form Hecuba, who were also obliged to prove the appropriateness of the lengthening (see Bömer 2006, 307). Thus Loers (1843, 497): “Nam quod uulgo codices habent Hecube, uocem Latinam cum fine Graeco mihi persuadere non possum, a Nasone scriptam esse. Varietas orta uidetur eo, quod Hecuba ultimam habet breuem; sed breues syllabas, imprimis ultimam in tribracho in arsi produci, permulta exstant exempla. Conf. not. ad Trist. III, 15, 36. et ad Met. X, 98. I, 193. XIII, 257”. Riese (1872 XXIV [1889, XXV]), for his part, appealed to the authority of Lachmann, who justifies this type of lengthening and in Lucretius defends as a nominative (ambrosiā) what Marullus had conjectured to be an ablative, although it must be recalled that in the end he does not publish this form but the genitive ambrosiae (1882, 405–8 ad Lucr. 6.971; see Bailey 1947, 1700). Simmons, again sticking closely to the text of Korn, was the last editor to accept it, with the following reasons, taken in part from Lachmann (1889, 123): “Ovid generally retains the original long quantity of Greek nominatives feminine of 1st declension, as in Electra, Fast. IV. 177, Amalthea, ib. V. 155, Rhea, ib. IV. 201. Cf. Ter. Eun. 107, 707, Phor. 865, 1037.” Merkel, who in his first edition had adopted the spelling Hecabe for this line as well as for 549 and 556, conjectured Hecuba est here in his 2nd ed., secluded l. 549 and proposed Hecuba, et for 556, thus solving the problem of the lengthening but leaving in return an unacceptable asyndeton in our passage with the conscendit clause (1875, XXXVII): “libri est omittunt, uitio uetusto, quod redit infra 556, estque a barbaris illis in uersum suppositicium



Commentary

225

549 inlatum. ignoratum est frequentissimum illud hyperbaton, quo substantiuum prioris enunciati in proximum differtur, ut infra 426, 716” (plus another 18 passages from other books). His proposals have found no echo in other editions. A few pages were also devoted to this spelling by Magnus (1894, 791–3), whose argument can be resumed as follows: 1, Hecabe has no real support in the mss. (in this or in other passages of Latin literature); 2, an authentic form Hecabe might have been replaced by Hecuba, but hardly by the stranger Hecube; 3, the lengthening in the form Hecubā cannot be justified by the passages adduced by Loers nor by those adduced by Lachmann and Simmons, and he maintains that this form is a “tremendous error”; 4, (793 n. 41) he rejects Merkel’s conjectures for this passage and for l. 556; 5, he concludes that Hecuba is not even a corruption but rather a crude deformation of a variant Hecubae (i.  e. Hecube in accordance with the normal spelling in many mss.). In addition, in the app. to his edition (1914, 500) he added in defence of Hecube the parallels of Homer. 551: dumque preces Hecube supplex ad templa Mineruae, and 1016  f.: fundit miseranda querellas / infelix Hecube saeuisque arat unguibus ora. Bothe’s proposal Hecabe had been incorporated into the text not only by Merkel in his 1st ed. (1850) but by Siebelis-Polle 1880 (and Polle 1888) and after them by Keene (1898, 10), and this thesis received substantial recognition when it was defended by Housman, in his usual categorical tone (1910, 261 [1972, 835]): “[T]he Hecube, nom. and voc., which appears in so many editions at Ouid. met. XIII 422, 548, 555, Sen. Tro. 859, Ag. 648, Il. Lat. 551, 1017, has not even the MSS in its favour: the best of them everywhere except at Sen. Ag. 648 give Hecuba, and Bothe or Lucian Mueller has everywhere restored Hecabe, which the scribes changed to the more familiar Latin form because they, like Korn and Riese and Peiper and Richter and Leo, did not know that Hecuba is necessarily a tribrach”. As was only to be expected, Slater (1927) refused to join the group of the ignorant and adopted the form Hecabe, appealing to this end to the testimony of Planudes (ἡ Ἑκάβη), who logically could not have been expected to express himself in any other language but Greek. This same form Hecabe has been published, though with no fresh arguments, by Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000 (“Hecubē is a hybrid form, if it exists at all”), Tarrant 2004, and Ramírez de Verger 2005. However, on the very same page and just before the words cited above, Housman admitted the following: “There is no denying that the Latin poets created bastard forms by attaching Greek elements to native stems: the patronymics Scipiadas, Memmiadas, Apulidae, Tusculidae, Romulidae, are well known and authenticated, and Ovid thrice […] employs Appias, and once […] Tiberinides. But it is not the same thing to impose a Greek case-ending upon a word otherwise Latin”. Housman is right on this last point, just as it is also true that M gives hæcuba, but it is no less certain that the other mss. of group Γ present forms that relate back to Hecube, this being the best-attested

226

Commentary

form by far. Besides, neither is it exact to state that Hecuba is “a word otherwise Latin”. The ms. evidence does not support Hecabe, and not because they do not attest it but because, as Magnus pointed out, had this been the original reading it would have been replaced by Hecuba, but not by Hecube, and even less so on a wide scale. It does not seem aberrant that the same author who allows himself to create a word like Tiberinides (fast. 2.597: nymphae Tiberinides) should also permit himself the minor adaptation Hecube for a word which after all mantains its Greek root, and it is quite plausible that this paradosis should have been regularized against the metre as Hecuba by a number of copyists. 424–428: Prensantem tumulos atque ossibus oscula dantem Dulichiae traxere manus; tamen unius hausit     inque sinu cineres secum tulit Hectoris haustos; Hectoris in tumulo canum de uertice crinem (inferias inopes!), crinem lacrimasque reliquit.

425

• 425 traxere] rapuere De P46, “Medic. et quinque alii” test. Burm. 1727  : tranxere Mt • 427–428 cano de uertice raptum, / Inferias inopes, crinem, lacrimasque relinquit mallet Burm. 1727(in notis) • 427 canum] canuû B3(a.c.)  : cani B52(p.c.)  : darium Mt  : raptum Ds2(canum i.l. u.l. Ds22)Mo3  : cano coni. Burm. 1727(in notis)  : om. Be2(a.c.) • crinem] tractum A2  : crinemen Ab(a.c.)  : raptum Ab2(i.l. u.l.)Ld22(i.l. p.c.), “ex … quatuor aliis” test. Burm. 1727, prob. Bothe 18182, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, dub. Fabbri 1923(in app.)  : crimen Mt Es6Ps(a.c.)  : ductum Vd2(p.c.)  : crines P28 B14(a.c.)  : crinen V30, Aler. 1471 • 428 crinem] crimen M2 AbLr6(a.c.) B14F2, Venet. 1472  : crines Be2Lr3 Ft Es6  : cineres V5  : crinemque As  : raptum B8(eras.)  : ruptum B82(i.l. p.c.)  : crinen Ld6 V30, Aler. 1471 •

424: prensantem: against this majority reading a not inconsiderable group of mss. (uid. append.) gives the variant pressantem, probably originating in a passage with similar echoes in which the action represented is, however, different (8.539): post cinerem cineres haustos ad pectora pressant (and see 8.538– 41; Ovid uses the verb again only in 15.472: ubera dent saturae manibus pressanda capellae!). Other mss. give pulsantem, no doubt due to a mistake in the expansion of the abbreviation of the first syllable. Cf., with a similar structure, Verg. georg. 4.501: prensantem nequiquam umbras et multa uolentem (“empty embraces” in both cases: see Stok 1990, 94 n. 31). For the verb, see Bömer 1982, 306  f. tumulos: the second hand of N and the first of Ab (uid. append.) offer the variant titulos, which does not improve the text (Burm. 1727, 891) and repeats an alternation found in other passages (see Díez 2014, 296  f. ad 11.429, and cf. Heinsius 1758, 662). ossibus oscula dantem: in this expresion (“a grotesque progression from dant oscula terrae”), along with canum in 427, Hopkinson (2000, 167  f.) sees implicit allusions to the future metamorphosis of Hecuba into a dog. Even



Commentary

227

more subjective is the way it is seen by Hardie (2015, 277), for whom “l’effetto di os- os- accresce il senso perturbante di un contatto fisico”. 425: traxere: mss. De and P46 give the variant rapuere, to which Burman (1727, 891) adds “Medic. et quinque alii”, recalling in addition that “nec displicebat olim Heinsio” (cf. b3, 364). Cf. ad 410 tractata. For the verb, cf. Verg. Aen. 5.623  f.: ‘o miserae, quas non manus’ inquit ‘Achaica bello / tra­ xerit ad letum. 427–428: the repetition of crinem seems to have been felt to be awkward (e.  g. Baumg.-Crus. 1834, 509: “… in quo repetito non uideo quid placere possit”) and some mss. have handed down variants in both lines (uid. app.). Based on the reading raptum, which I have found for l. 427 in the second hands of AbLd2 (“ex Leidensi et quatuor aliis” states Burm. 1727, 891), and conjecturing cano for canum, Burman left this proposal in his notes, though it was not taken up by any other editor: cano de uertice raptum, / Inferias inopes, crinem, lacrimasque relinquit (in fact, and probably by mistake, he places a full stop after raptum, an error which still remains in 1789 and 1827). A proposal followed by Bothe (18182, with no arguments offered) and by Baumgarten-Crusius (1834) and for which sympathy was shown by Fabbri (1923, 147 in app.: “fortasse recte”) was canum de uertice raptum, already hesitantly approved by Heinsius in view of the ms. testimonies he had found (see b2, 336). Though without explicitly opting for it, Liberman too (2004, 85) sees in the first crinem “une faute par anticipation” and defends the need to adopt either raptum, comparing with 4.558: arreptum … crinem, or carptum based on comparison with Prop. 2.5.23: carpere crinis, or else demptum after comparing Ciris 281: dempsisse uertice crinem, and his reasoning was approved in all respects by Luck (2008, 16). There is a unique variant and procedure in Es5 (s. XV), which opts for the elimination of the word, not in 427 but 428: lachrymasque insana. Against these objections to the majority reading, Wills (1996, 67) had already listed this passage as an example of “resumption”, a type of repetition developed above all from Ovid on, in which the repeated words are usually separated, as here, by a parenthetic expression. Hopkinson, for his part (2000, 168), recalls: “Repetition is a characteristic of laments.” The repetition, in any case, is reinforced by that of hausit … haustos in 425  f. and that of Hectoris in 426  f. (Hardie 2015, 276  f.). The word raptum most probably comes from a gloss, as would appear to be indicated by its appearing as a variant both of canum and of crinem in l. 427, or again of crinem in 428, and this is also suggested by the presence of synonymous variants such as tractum, ductum or even ruptum (the last-mentioned being a variant of B82 recorded by Heinsius in b2, 336, and not his own conjecture, as claimed by Ehwald 1915, 397: uid. app.). It might also just be considered a recollection of the above-mentioned passage 4.558  f., adduced by Liberman and Luck, a passage which, with its comparable repetition, may serve precisely as support for crinem in our passage here: … ut arreptum laniabat uertice crinem, / duratos subito digitos in crine uideres.

228

Commentary

428: reliquit: the m.p. of M writes relinquunt, probably influenced by l. 421 (cf. relinqunt in T, and cf. Gg, which after this line begins to rewrite l. 422: uid. append.) but corrects it to reliquit (the copyist of Lr27 fails to understand the correction properly and writes reliqui), which is the majority reading (with the usual spelling variant reliquid in some mss., such as N) against the present relinquit(-d) transmitted by some mss. (among them Lr2M2V2) and adopted “tacite” by Heinsius and by other edd. after him down to Bach 1836. The perfect fits the context better (cf. 425  f.). 429–434: Est, ubi Troia fuit, Phrygiae contraria tellus Bistoniis habitata uiris. Polymestoris illic      430 regia diues erat, cui te commisit alendum clam, Polydore, pater Phrygiisque remouit ab aruis, consilium sapiens sceleris nisi praemia magnas adiecisset opes, animi inritamen auari. • 429 contraria] contermina Fe(mg. u.l. a m.p.) Bs4 P24(i.l. u.l.) Bs7(a.c.)  : contracia Lr3 • 432 aruis O3 Bo2Es2Mc Es6P41 Ca2, “quatuor” test. Burm. 1727, prob. Bothe 18182  : agris C  : armis Ω, edd.  : amis B5(a.c.)  : aurus Mt  : horis Mt2  : aris V10(uid.) • 433 consilium sapiens] utile consilium O4(sapiens supra consilium scr. m.p.) •

429: contraria: in geographical terms this is the appropriate adjective for the region of Thrace with respect to Troy (see Bömer 1982, 312), and not contermina, which is probably an erroneous expansion of an abbreviation. I have found it in some recc. (uid. app.) and according to Burman (1727, 891), it was also given by “Leidens. et quatuor alii” (the “Thuan.” he also mentions is P24, which gives contraria in its text). For the added implication of contraria as “ostile” and its Virgilian model (Aen. 1.13), see Hardie 2015, 278. 430: Polymestoris: for a defence of this spelling against Polymnestoris (which I have found only in Lr22V30 and the edd. Aler. 1471, Accurs. 1475, Aldina 1502 and the Gryphianae), see Heinsius 1659, 341  f.; Burm. 1727, 424 ad 6.468, 1727, 3, 311 ad fast. 5.9; Markland 1728, 205 ad Stat. sil. 4.3.59. 431–432: the omission of cui … pater as the result in Mt of saut du même au même implies in turn a reading of pater with the syllables inverted (erat-pater). 431: commisit alendum: cf. Verg. Aen. 3.49  f.: Hunc Polydorum auri quondam cum pondere magno / infelix Priamus furtim mandarat alendum; Claud. Hon. VI cos. 583: infantem genitor moriens commisit alendum; Pros. 1.140 (loc. dub.): infidis Laribus natam commisit alendam. For the construction, cf. ars 3.527: Dux bonus huic centum commisit uite regendos, and see Bömer 1982, 312  f. 432: pater: the variant caput in MN(a.c.) and Lr27 is again the result of a mistake through syllable inversion (uid. ad 431  f.).



229

Commentary

remouit: mss. A4LdO3(p.c.) present the attractive variant exemit, although the construction with ab seems strange (see TLL 5.2.1498.59–1499.7, 1499.51–1500.22; OLD s.u., esp. 5a, 644). O3(a.c.) has exegit, probably a gloss on remouit which in turn led to exemit. aruis: the general reading in mss. and edd. is armis and, leaving aside other variants, only some recc. offer aruis while C gives agris (uid. app.; the reading aris inV10 is not absolutely clear). On the basis of the “quatuor” attested by Burman (1727, 891), Bothe adopted aruis in his edition, adding the following reasons (1818, 136): “a Phrygum armis Phrygi nihil timendum erat. Recte igitur aruis libri quatuor, plane ut Euripides Hecub. 6: – ὑπεξέπεμψε Τρωικῆς χθονὸς”. Indeed, to this timely reference should be added this other allusion to the land in the same place (ll. 13  f.): ὃ καί με γῆς / ὑπεξέπεμψεν. This, and the fact that ab aruis is an expression first used by Ovid, makes it advisable to adopt this reading as opposed to the general ab armis. For further details, see Rivero 2017b, 323–5. 433: consilium sapiens: O4 offers the unique reading utile consilium, which is metrical although it probably originates in a gloss. magnas: in accordance with the frequent alterations at line-end, this adjective presents different forms in the mss. (uid. append.), some of which are also possible, though not preferable to the majority reading: magna (sc. praemia); magni (sc. sceleris). 434: animi: the reading of this word as an abbreviation in the antigraph no doubt lies behind the error in Mc (a. 1387), which gives cum et (cû 7). Even more surprising is the reading of P41 (s. XV): causam et, which gives the impression of having been taken from there, although I know of no relationship or special link between the two codices. inritamen: Bs7 (a. 1478) gives the variant irritamina, which Bach (1836, 327) compares to the ἐρεθίσματα of the translation of Planudes. The word is an Ovidian coining, and he uses it again, once in the singular (9.133): dat munus raptae uelut inritamen amoris, and once in the plural (12.103): cum sua terribili petit inritamina cornu. Cf. the unmetrical irritamenta of Es2, which probably comes from 1.140. 435–438: Vt cecidit fortuna Phrygum, capit impius ensem      rex Thracum iuguloque sui demisit alumni; et, tamquam tolli cum corpore crimina possent, exanimem scopulo subiectas misit in undas.

435

• 436 iuguloque] in iuguloque Lr2 L4Lr4 Ft  : iugulo Ba(a.c.)Lr6(a.c.)  : in iugulumque P8 • demisit LuNP2S2V2(i.l. u.l. a m.p.) B2FeH3Lr7MoOO43(mg.) DsGoLd6Lr82(mg. u.l.) Es4Es6RdTo2 Go2 Ca2, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, edd. (uid. append.)  : dimisit Lr2MM2T B3B4FLr3N2TuV8Vd Cs2Ds2P10To Ft Bo3Lr27Vd11, Accurs. 1475  : dimissit C  : in misit Mt  : defigit N(i.l. u.l. a m.p.)V2 A2A3A4AbB42(mg.)B5BaBe2DrEFGH2HdL4LdLd2Lr4Lr5Lr6O3O4P3V6V7V9 B8Go2(u.l.)Li3P5SoV16 BoCs3Es3Mt5P28 AsCvEs3P38Ps,

230

Commentary

Puteol. 1471, edd. (uid. append.), fort. recte  : designit P8  : defixit GfV3 B43(i.l.)GgLd3LsO42(i.l.)P4Ph2V4V5 Lr8Mo3Mt2 B12Bo2Es2McMt4 B14Es5Lr22P41V30, “sexdecim” test. Burm. 1727, Aler. 1471  : configit A  : diuisit dub. Heinsius • 438 scopulo Ω, Accurs. 1475, edd.  : e scopulo ALr2V2V3 A2A3Ab2(e suprascr.)Be2DrEGg(p.c.)H2HdLdLd2Lr4Lr6LsO4P4V4V5 B8GoLd6Li3Mo3Mt2Mt3P8ToV16 B12BoBo2Es2Es3To2 B14(scopulo p.c.)CvEs3Es4Es5Lr22P38P41PsV30 Ca22(p.c.), Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, edd. aliquot (uid. append.), fort. recte  : excopulo L3  : exscopulo(duo uerba Ph2 P5 Mt4) A4BaH3O3Ph2 P5 Mt4  : et escopulo Mc  : a scopulo Gf(scapulo a.c.) Ds2  : copulo Tu(scopulo p.c.) •

435: cecidit: the variant cessidit in Bs3 gave Bach the idea of proposing cessit in his notes (1836, 327) as a possible reading based on the parallels of Verg. Aen. 3.53: ille, ut opes fractae Teucrum et Fortuna recessit, and Flor. epit. 1.86.11: omnium fortuna cessit. However, the expression fortuna cadere belongs to popular language (cf. Pac. trag. 368: eo cadere Fortunam autumant; Verg. Aen. 9.282  f.: tantum fortuna secunda / haud aduersa cadat; Ou. Pont. 2.3.10: et cum fortuna statque caditque fides; Petr. 80.9: dum fortuna manet, uultum seruatis, amici; / cum cecidit, turpi uertitis ora fuga; cf. Apul. Socr. 4.6: fortuna caduca; Verg. georg. 4.209: stat fortuna domus) and Ovid might even have wanted to use the periphrasis cecidit fortuna Phrygum here to evoke once again the Homeric ὀλώλῃ Ἴλιος ἱρὴ (Il. 6.448; cf. ad 404–7) via the perfectly obvious Virgilian model (Aen. 3.1–3): Postquam … / … cecidit … superbum / Ilium (cf. also Eur. Hec. 21: ἐπεὶ δὲ Τροία … ἀπόλλυται; Ou. met. 12.20: Troia cadet). 435–436: some mss. (uid. append.) give variants such as inscius, the consequence of a clear error in the expansion of abbreviations, as well as caput instead of capit, for which Heinsius tentatively suggests in his notes (b3, 364): “forte caput impius ense Rex Th. iugulumque sui diuisit alumni”, but caput iugulumque diuidere is redundant. Of greater interest is the unique variant in Mt, in that it constitutes a reworking with no apparent motive: rex tracius ensem / impius accepit. 436: iuguloque sui demisit alumni: the mss. are evenly divided between demisit, dimisit, defigit and defixit (uid. app.; for Heinsius’ conjecture diuisit, uid. ad 435  f.). The form dimisit, published by Accurs. 1475, can be ruled out as inappropriate to the context, and it is simply the result of the systematic alternation between the preverbs de-/di- (TLL 5.1.488.41–42; Suárez 2015, 474 ad 3.695). The variant defigit has wide ms. support, was incorporated by some of the early edd. (uid. append.) and was subsequently reintroduced by Heinsius with scanty arguments (1659, 342: “malo cum uetustiorum plerisque”). He was followed by some 18th-19th c. edd. down to Koch (1866) and in recent times only by Hopkinson (2000, 60), who offers no reasoning for his decision. The construction of defigo has clear parallels in Ovid: am. 3.7.29: sagaue poenicea defixit nomina cera; met. 11.76: sic, ut quaeque solo defixa cohaeserat harum; fast. 3.753  f.: milia crabronum coëunt, et uertice nudo / spicula defigunt oraque sima notant. As for the variant defixit, which is also supported by the mss. and by Aler. 1471, it seems less appropriate to the context (cf. 435 capit).



Commentary

231

Finally, demisit has wide ms. support, was reintroduced by the 1st Aldina (1502) and Naugerius (1516) and subsequently by the edd. Gryphianae, Bersman and the majority of edd. since the 19th c. However, the more expected construction with this verb here would have been in + acc.: cf. Pl. merc. 613: demisisti gladium in iugulum; Ou. met. 4.119: demisit in ilia ferrum [cf. 12.440  f.]; 12.491  f. demisit in armos / ensem; Pont. 4.16.51: quid iuuat extinctos ferrum dimittere in artus? (cf. the variant in iugulumque in P8, though with the verb designit, which seems to be a corruption of defigit). In our passage iugulo leads to confusion, since the natural reaction in Latin would be to take it as a separative abl. (cf. e.  g. Verg. georg. 1.23: caelo demittitis imbrem; 4.542: sacrum iugulis demitte cruorem) and the construction with a locative abl. is un-Ovidian (TLL 5.1.489.8–9). Here it must of necessity be interpreted as a dative, to which end are adduced (cf. Keene 1898, 91; Bömer 1982, 313; see OLD s.u., 3c, 512) examples such as 3.694  f.: praecipitem, famuli, rapite hunc cruciataque diris / corpora tormentis Stygiae demittite nocti, where unlike in our passage the acc. is animate and the dat. inanimate; or 12.276–8: ferrum / … quod … / … faber … lacubus demittit, where both are inanimate; or else other examples analogous to the present case but which do not lead to this confusion: Sen. dial. 3.5.12: morbidis pecoribus, ne gregem polluant, ferrum demittimus; Tac. ann. 12.67: pinnam … ueneno inlitam faucibus eius demisisse creditur. The mss. Lr2 L4Lr4 Ft give in iuguloque, but demittere in + abl. is a construction alien to poetry (TLL 5.1.489.7–8) and here the preposition probably stems from a gloss such as the m.p. has written above in N. Finally, it must not be forgotten that the variant demisit may well originate in the misit of 438 (and cf. commisit in 431). Although these reasons lead me to prefer defigit, there is, however, a passage which forcefully supports demisit (epist. 14.5  f.): Quod manus extimuit iugulo demittere ferrum, / sum rea (here too with the variants demittere, committere and dimittere: see Dörrie 1971, 183; cf. also Val. Max. 9.9.2: superque exanime corpus eius iugulo suo gladium capulo tenus demisit). I am inclined to suspect that demisit in our passage may be a recollection of this other passage on the part of a copyist. Whatever the case, there is insufficient evidence to rule out the majority paradosis. 438: scopulo: a considerable number of mss. give the variant e(x) scopulo, which is printed from the early edd. and that of Heinsius down to Koch (1866; uid. app.). For their part, Accursius (1475), Aldina (1502) and Naugerius (1516) printed the prepositionless variant of the rest of the mss., and this has been the reading followed by the other edd. down to our day. The choice is no easy one: for one thing, it seems more logical to consider haplography than dittography (exanimê e), but the preposition might also originate in a grammatical note i.l., although it is also true that the most common annotation in these cases is a (thus e.  g. B2 Cs2, whence no doubt the variant a scopulo of Gf Ds2). For another thing, the literary model is of no help, as Ovid is following the version of Euripides, who stresses the direction of the movement but not its origin (Hec. 25–7): κτείνει με χρυσοῦ τὸν

232

Commentary

ταλαίπωρον χάριν / ξένος πατρῷος καὶ κτανὼν ἐς οἶδμ᾽ ἁλὸς / μεθῆχ᾽, ἵν᾽ αὐτὸς χρυσὸν ἐν δόμοις ἔχῃ. As for the construction, Ovid has already used the verb with the prep. de in a similar line (Hopkinson 2000, 169) and one that is very recent (415): mittitur Astyanax illis de turribus unde (cf. Catull. 17.23) and he uses it with e(x) in two passages (8.40  f.): turribus e summis in Cnosia mittere corpus / castra; 8.250  f.: Daedalus inuidit sacraque ex arce Mineruae / praecipitem misit, to which in turn must be added particularly close variations such as 8.594: propulit e scopulo periturae corpora natae, or 11.783  f.: dixit et e scopulo, quem rauca subederat unda, / se dedit in pontum. We also see it accompanied by ab in Ib. 499: Liuida se scopulis ut uirgo misit ab altis. But the fact is that he also uses the separative abl. in fast. 5.621  f.: uirgo simulacra uirorum / mittere roboreo scirpea ponte solet, and there is a significant parallel in Prop. 2.26.19: iamque ego conabar summo me mittere saxo (for the growth of the separative abl. from Virgil on, see Bömer 1982, 313). In view of the lack of stronger arguments I have kept the majority reading. in: in yet another example of the oscillation between the two prepositions, V30 diverges from the rest of the tradition in giving ad in place of in. Note that Lr22 and Aler. 1471 do give the correct in, which again suggests that both texts are later than the one in V30 (uid. ad 418), an idea that is reinforced immediately afterwards by the correction (Vt) of the first word of the narratio which follows this line in these documents (in the margin in the case of Lr22): Vt(De V30) Achillis umbra in lictore Thracio Agamemnoni apparuit tempus expectanti nauigandi petens ut ei polyxena mactaretur ut mortuus ea potiretur quam uiuens optaret (ut mortuus … optaret desunt in Lr22). But for this three-sided relationship, see the Introduction, 8 f. 439–440: Litore Threïcio classem religarat Atrides dum mare pacatum, dum uentus amicior esset. 

440

• 439 religarat] religabat A Ls Ds B14(a.c.)  : religauit Gf A2B2V7 Ds2Ld6Mt2 Bo2Es3  : relegarat B4 Lr8 Es2(a.c.)To2 Ca2(a.c.)  : religaret P28  : de Mt5 n.l. • Atrides] achilles B4(a.c.) Mt4(a.c.) • 440 pacatum] placatum Ab(p.c.)BaFeGLr6(p.c.)V9 DsLd8Mo3Mt2To(a.c.) RdTo2 Es5 Ca2, Hardie 2015, Holzberg 2017, def. Luck  : pacatum est Lr8 F2 •

439: cf. Hor. carm. 1.32.7  f.: siue iactatam religarat udo / litore nauim; Paul. Nol. 13.35: religaui litore classem (cf. Ou. met. 14.248, 445; Verg. Aen. 7.106). Note the recurring oscillation between religarat/-abat/-auit. 440: pacatum: this is the majority reading (for spelling variants, uid. append.), but a group of recc. gives placatum, a reading which, for Luck (2009, 111  f.), “seems to be the proper verb, especially when divine intervention is implied.” In his opinion the loss of the l came about “because of a false metrical doctrine” and he compares 11.432: aequora placet, and 15.723: aequore placato, both passages having the same alternating forms. The variant has



Commentary

233

been adopted by Hardie (2015, 40 and 279) and Holzberg (2017, 656). Here, however, pacatum makes better sense. Cf. epist. 10.65: ut rate felici pacata per aequora labar; Hor. carm. 4.5.19: pacatum … per mare; Sil. 14.318: pacatas … undas (Claud. carm. min. 2.3): see Díez 2014, 298  f. ad 11.432. amicior: a minority but not inconsiderable group of mss. (uid. append.) gives mitior (or micior), which here is clearly facilior. Heinsius (1758, 698) defends amicior “ex melioribus”, opportunely comparing trist. 1.5.17: si tamen haec nauis uento ferretur amico, and Sil. 17.209: non auras poscit amicas, to which can be added (with Bömer 1982, 314) Col. 1.5.4: aedificii frons auersa sit ab infestis eius regionis uentis et amicissimis aduersa (cf. Hor. epod. 10.9: sidus … amicum). For the oscillation between the two forms, cf. (with Viuianus 1522 ad loc.; Burm. 1727, 892) 15.443, trist. 3.5.41. 441–444: Hic subito, quantus cum uiueret esse solebat, exit humo late rupta similisque minanti temporis illius uultum referebat Achilles quo ferus iniusto petiit Agamemnona ferro, • 441 cum] dum L3Lr2N2(u.l.) DeDrH3Lr3V8 CvPs • 442 similisque minanti] similisque minaci Ld8, prob. Heinsius 1659(qui “Zulich.” test.), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834  : similemque minaci malit Heinsius(in notis) • 444 iniusto] inuito B22(i.l. u.l.)  : inuicto Dr(iniusto i.l. u.l. Dr2)Fe  : iniuste Es6F2Z  : in uiso Vd  : iniustum coni. Magnus, prob. Polle 1888, Riese 1889, Edwards 1905, R. de Verger 2005  : infesto mallet Slater 1927 (prob. Breitenbach 1964, Hopkinson 2000, Hardie 2015, Holzberg 2017) uel infausto •

441–444: note the great number of alterations in the order of these lines, for no apparent reason (uid. append.). 441: cum: L3Lr2N2 and some recc. (uid. app.) have the more regular dum, for which very reason it is probably the result of a gloss, unless it comes directly from the previous line. Cf. Suet. Dom. 12.2: confiscabantur alienissimae hereditates uel uno existente, qui diceret audisse se ex defuncto, cum uiueret, heredem sibi Caesarem esse; Don. ad Ter. Phorm. 367: IN VITA hoc est: cum uiueret et quoad uixit; Tib. Claud. Don. ad Verg. Aen. 6.221  f.: debuit ergo et in morte his uelari quas dilectas, cum uiueret, habuit (cf. ibid. ad 6.437). 442: late: although they are erroneous variants, note (uid. append.) the reading lapte, shared by N and Hd and which could in turn be the origin of rapide, in M (Lr27) and Vd11 (uid. ad 37). Cf. ad 472 (redimat ius triste sepulcri), 574 (sic omnes). similisque minanti: Heinsius found minaci in Ld8 and another, unidentified ms. (1659, 342: “unus Leid. et Zulich.”) and adopted it for his edition, being followed by some edd. down to Baumgarten-Crusius (1834; uid. app.). Heinsius does not explain his preference here, although he does do so in his

234

Commentary

note on b3, 364: the reason is a comparison with 1.91 (see 1659, 11), where he prefers uerba minacia to the general uerba minantia, and in the same note he adds: “malim similemque minaci”, a reading that did not end up either in his edition or the notes. Hopkinson (2000, 170): “This use of similis with a present participle is characteristic of Ovid: cf. 1.708, 2.501, 3.240, 7.785, 8.467–8 similis crudele minanti | uultus erat, etc.” (see also Suárez 2015, 208 ad 3.240); for the styleme, see Traina 1969. Cf. also Verg. Aen. 8.649: illum indignanti similem similemque minanti; Hor. serm. 2.5.92: multum similis metuenti. 444: iniusto: apart from erroneous variants (uid. append.), this majority reading has alternatives like inuicto, iniuste or inuito, as is systematic when n-i-u are in contact (uid. app.). The phrase iniusto ferro presents, in my opinion, no great difficulties, as we can see in the marginal gloss of B2, which explains the two readings of the ms.: “iniusto quia iniustum est ut miles regem interficiat, uel inuito: non enim hoc fecisset nisi amore coactus fuisset”. It also splendidly suits the character of Achilles as described by Horace (ars 122): iura neget sibi nata, nihil non arroget armis (see Simmons 1889, 125). Other editors, however, did feel uncomfortable with the reading, for example Magnus, who in his day (1887, 19  f.) conjectured iniustum (although in his edition of 1914 he kept iniusto), which Hopkinson (2000, 170) relates to Achilles’ allusion to the ὕβριν … Ἀγαμέμνονος in Hom. Il. 1.203, objecting that this reading “would present the action from Achilles’ perspective”. The conjecture iniustum was adopted by Polle (1888), Riese (1889), Edwards (1905) and Ramírez de Verger (2005). For his part, Slater (1927, ad loc.) proposed infesto or infausto. The former, which is clearly interesting, is based on a comparison with Catull. 64.355: Troiugenum infesto prosternet corpora ferro, and it has been adopted by Breitenbach (1964) and Hopkinson (2000, 170), who considers iniusto “very unlikely to be right” and believes that interpreting it as disobedience to the superior command of Agamemnon “brings an unwanted aspect to the story”, as well as by Hardie (2015, 280, and hence Holzberg 2017, 656), who adds the parallel of epist. 11.19: infestum, funebria munera, ferrum, and believes that “iniusto produce un giudizio che la scena omerica non autorizza.” Slater in turn conjectured infausto “ut ‘μῆνιν’ innueret ‘οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε’” (Hom. Il. 1.1  f.) and compared it with the variant infausta in 14.529, which references Verg. Aen. 11.347–51. petiit: for the preservation of the original length in petiīt, cf. 2.567; 9.612 (see Simmons 1889, 125  f.; Jackson Knight 1958, 108; Del Castillo 2009. See also Lachmann 1882, 206–10 ad Lucr. 3.1042 and cf. Munro 1893, 227  f.; Ernout-Robin 1926, 82 ad Lucr. 3.502; Bailey 1947, 1169; Rivero 1996, 84 n. 14 ad Ou. medic. 60; Liberman 2002, 353  f. n. 45 ad Val. Fl. 8.67 and 2017, 177 n. 1). Note the correction petiitque in P2 (uid. append.), aimed at avoiding the prosodic anomaly (see Suárez 2015, 382 ad 3.546). For comparable lengthenings, cf. 896, 913, 958.



235

Commentary

445–448: “immemores”que “mei disceditis,” inquit “Achiui,     obrutaque est mecum uirtutis gratia nostrae? Ne facite! utque meum non sit sine honore sepulcrum placet Achilleos mactata Polyxena manes!”.

445

• 446 gratia] gloria A A3B22(i.l. u.l.)E2(gratia uid. a.c.)H2LdLr3Lr4O4TrV9Vd Bs2 B12Ft Cv, Plan. • nostrae! dist. Goold 1984, R. de Verger 2005 • 447 non] ne “Malebat Broukhusius” test. Burm. 1727  : om. Gg(a.c.) Es3 • 448 mactata] intacta Ls B14(non corrupta suprascr. B142)  : macta B8(a.c.)Li3P10(a.c.) Es3 •

445: immemoresque: the variant immemoresne (V16 Bo) was accorded the comment “non male” by Burman (1727, 892). Baumgarten-Crusius (1834, 510) rightly replied: “Sed copula ad inquit pertinet”, referring to his note on 1.110 (p. 11) for other passages with a similar use of the copulative (for “-que Ovidianum” see Bömer 1982, 315; Hopkinson 2000, 170). 446: obrutaque: as is often the case, some mss. omit the enclitic (uid. append.). Note in S2 the unique variant with a metrical result: ablata, probably a copying error in an antigraph lacking the copulative, but also perhaps originally a gloss. For the syllepsis of this reading, see Hardie 2015, 281. est: as usual, some mss. omit this verbal form in mid-line (uid. append.). The mss. Mt3 (s. XIII) and Es3 (s. XIV) present it after mecum, producing an unnecessary lengthening of -quē. gratia: A and some recc. (uid. app.; “plurimi. ut saepe” states Burm. 1727, 892), to which should probably be added the antigraph of Planudes (ἡ δόξα τῆς ἀρετῆς ἐμαυτοῦ) have gloria, in line with the frequent alternation caused by confusion in the expansion of the abbreviations (see Bach 1836, 328; Díez 2014, 277 ad 11.390; Suárez 2015, 643 ad 3.654), and here a recollection of 13.96 may also have had an influence. For gratia with objective gen., cf. e.  g. 9.284 (with Bömer 1977, 367), Pont. 2.2.114: meriti gratia; Verg. Aen. 4.539: gratia facti. As Hardie (2015, 281) rightly recalls, “in Euripide, Hec. 384 il sacrificio di Polissena viene descritto come un atto di χάρις per Achille” (cf. ll. 383  f.: εἰ δὲ δεῖ τῷ Πηλέως / χάριν γενέσθαι παιδὶ). nostrae?: against the generalized use of the question mark by the edd., Goold (1984, following Miller 19212) preferred to take this clause as an exclamation, being followed in this only by Ramírez de Verger (2005, 1963). The interrogative seems to find support in the obvious model of Eur. Hec. 114  f.: Ποῖ δή, Δαναοί, τὸν ἐμὸν τύμβον / στέλλεσθ᾽ ἀγέραστον ἀφέντες; However, a more exclamatory tone can be found in the re-creation of Sen. Tr. 190–6 (Jakobi 1988, 23  f.). 447: in this line Planudes diverges somewhat from the majority reading: Οὐδὲ πρόνοιαν ποιεῖσθέ τινα, ὡς ἂν ὁ ἐμὸς τάφος μὴ εἴη ἀγέραστος; (cf. in append. minority variants such as nec and facitis, though not ut, which I have not found). The reason for the instability may be connected with the use of ut non in a final-consecutive sense (cf. 4.156  f.; see Simmons 1889, 126). Burman

236

Commentary

(1727, 892) gives this brief detail concerning non sit: “Malebat Broukhusius, ne sit”. 448: mactata: ms. Ls and its apograph B14 alone give the interesting variant intacta (uid. app.). Although palaeographically either of the two readings could have led to the other (cf. similarly the variant macta, half-way between the two), intacta has in its favour the fact that it could not have originated in a gloss, unlike mactata, and it also has the firm support of the expression κόρης ἀκραιφνὲς αἷμα in Eur. Hec. 537, as pointed out long ago by Bothe (1818, 136), although he did not adopt it: Eur. Hec. 536  f. (Neoptolemus addressing his father Achilles): ἐλθὲ δ᾽, ὡς πίῃς μέλαν / κόρης ἀκραιφνὲς αἷμ᾽, ὅ σοι δωρούμεθα. Ovid himself makes Polyxena return to this same point in 466  f.: ite procul, si iusta peto, tactuque uiriles / uirgineo remouete manus. However, mactata serves to bring together Polyxena and Iphigenia, both of them previously betrothed to Achilles, in that both are innocent victims of the Greek cause (see Segal 2003): cf. 185: natam mactare Dianae (Lucr. 1.99: hostia concideret mactatu maesta parentis); and besides, this reading is backed up by Seneca’s insistence on its applicability to the case of Polyxena throughout his Troades, in a clear imitation of the present passage: 195  f. (Achilles’ ghost speaking): desponsa nostris cineribus Polyxene / Pyrrhi manu mactetur et tumulum riget (see Keulen 2001, 188 ad 196); 246–8: Dubitatur et iam placita nunc subito improbas / Priamique natam Pelei nato ferum / mactare credis?; 360  f.: Dant fata Danais quo solent pretio uiam: / mactanda uirgo est Thessali busto ducis; 938–44: Vtinam iuberet me quoque interpres deum / abrumpere ense lucis inuisae moras / uel Achillis ante busta furibunda manu / occidere Pyrrhi, fata comitantem tua, / Polyxene miseranda, quam tradi sibi / cineremque Achilles ante mactari suum, / campo maritus ut sit Elysio, iubet; 1063  f.: Mactata uirgo est, missus e muris puer; / sed uterque letum mente generosa tulit. 449–452: Dixit et, immiti sociis parentibus umbrae, rapta sinu matris, quam iam prope sola fouebat,  fortis et infelix et plus quam femina uirgo ducitur ad tumulum diroque fit hostia busto.

450

• 451 fortis … infelix] fortis et infelis V3(a.c.) : fortis et imfelix V30 : tristis et infelix So : fortis et felix H2(infelix H22 p.c.) : fortiter infelix coni. Faber 1665  : fortis (at infelix) prop. Burm. 1727(in notis) • et2] heu prop. Bothe 1818 •

450: cf. CLE 397.1: rapta sinu matris iacet hic miserabilis infans. Note that some recc. banalize quam as quae and fouebat in different variants (uid. append.). Observe too that, against his usual practice, the copyist of L3 makes three mistakes in one single line. Cf. Eur. Hec. 141–3: ἥξει δ᾽ Ὀδυσεὺς ὅσον οὐκ ἤδη, / πῶλον ἀφέλξων σῶν ἀπὸ μαστῶν / ἔκ τε γεραιᾶς χερὸς ὁρμήσων, and see Hardie 2015, 281.



Commentary

237

451: fortis et infelix: some copyists and edd. seem to have felt uneasy with this paradoxical coordination (e.  g. Bothe 1818, 136: “adeo turbatur ordo ac series orationis, ut aut dormitasse Ouidius aut delirasse uideatur”), which in fact for that very reason is extremely expressive. The copyist of So (s. XIII2) gives us the interesting variant tristis, which elaborates on the elements of miseratio contained in the line (uid. infra). For his part, Faber (1665, 319  f.) holds that from the rhetorical point of view the adj. infelix “haud dubie cadit; et surgere tamen debuerat”. He therefore successfully preserves the paradox by means of the ingenious correction fortiter infelix, “ita ut uox dominans sit infelix”. In reference to Faber’s proposal, however, Burman stated (1727, 892): “omnis hic aestus facile componitur, si legamus fortis (at infelix)”, an excessively rational proposal which, in any case, he did not incorporate into his text. Bothe, for his part, was inclined to adjust the line by replacing the second et with the interjection heu! (cf. ad 50  f.), although he limited the proposal to his notes (1818, 136  f.). In turn, Baumgarten-Crusius (1834, 511) believed that the solution lay in removing the comma after fortis in order, he claimed, to hit upon the exact meaning: “fortis etiam infelix, s. etiam in tam misera conditione fortis”. Loers (1843, 498; “fortis pariter atque infelix, et utrumque quidem plus, quam femina”, an interpretation borrowed from Jahn 1832, 848) rightly refers the reader to 37  f.: donec sollertior isto / (et sibi inutilior) (uid. ad 38). The characterization of Polyxena is achieved, working from the phraseological model of Verg. Aen. 3.321 (o felix una ante alios Priameïa uirgo; uid. ad 452 and cf. ad 404–7), by means of variation and contrast: concerning her general status as uirgo and accordingly in reference to the topos of mors inmatura and therefore as an element aimed at miseratio, she is described successively (and with a tricolon in crescendo: Hopkinson 2000, 171) as fortis (an element of laudatio; cf. 488), as infelix (back to miseratio) and, again as laudatio, as behaving above her condition (plus quam femina), in accordance with the well-known topos of puer-senex that is so much in keeping with these martyrdom scenes (cf. Prud. perist. 14.2: fortis puellae, martyris inclitae [cf. 14.12], and see Rivero 2012, 277). Hopkinson (2000, 171) cites the relative affinity of the line with Eur. Hec. 612: παρθένον τ᾽ ἀπάρθενον. 452: diroque: as usual, some mss. present the variant duroque (uid. append.). For the sense of diro, cf. 453: crudelibus aris (with Bömer 1982, 317; cf. Luc. 3.404: diris altaribus; Claud. Eutr. 1.20: diras … aras). The model here is Verg. Aen. 3.322  f.: hostilem ad tumulum … / iussa mori. Markland (1728, 241  f. ad Stat. silu. 5.1.35) suggested changing diroque to Pthioque on the strength of a parallel with Prop. 2.13.38, although he immediately recalled: “Sed praecessit v. 448. Achilleos manes  : ut nihil mutandum”. Note that, although the ed. Calph. 1474 coincides faithfully, as usual, with the text of P38, that of 1480 tends to be in line with the text of Puteol. 1471 (cf. 114 metueris; 341 hoc; 717).

238

Commentary

453–456: Quae memor ipsa sui postquam crudelibus aris admota est sensitque sibi fera sacra parari, utque Neoptolemum stantem ferrumque tenentem  inque suo uidit figentem lumina uultu,

455

• 456 inque Ω (uid. append.), Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Heinsius 1659(“meliores”), edd. (uid. append.)  : utque Lr2LuMM2NP2S2T B2B5DrFeGL4Lr3Lr4Lr7MoN2OTrTuV6V8V9 Cs2GoLr8P8P10SoV16 BoCs3Es2FtMt5P28 AsBo3CvEs4Lr22Lr27P38V30Vd11 Ca2, Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, edd. aliquot (uid. append.) • suo] suos A2Mo Ld6 Ft Bo3CvPs • lumina uultu] lumine uultus M AbMo Bo3Lr27  : lumine uultu N(a.c.)  : lumina uultus A2B3 Ld6 Ft CvPs  : lumina uultum B5  : lumina tudit Es2(a.c.) •

454: sensitque: a small group of mss. (uid. append.) has sentitque, following the usual oscillation between the two forms, but the pres. here is at odds with the other verbs in this context. Among the edd. sentitque was published by Mitscherlich and Richter, possibly a simple erratum (thus Jahn 1832, 848), as seems to be indicated not only by the inappropriateness of the reading but by the fact that Baumgarten-Crusius did the same in 1824, correcting it in 1834 but offering no comment in their notes (p. 511). Cf. Lucr. 1.89  f.: et maestum simul ante aras adstare parentem / sensit (see Hardie 2015, 281). sibi fera sacra parari: variants such as fata and facta are simple misspellings, as is shown by the clear model of Verg. Aen. 2.132 (Sinon speaking): mihi sacra parari (see Bömer 1982, 317). Heinsius (b3, 366) finds the variant busta, clearly a gloss, in a Mediceus, which leads him to propose there an otiose iusta. 456: inque: mss. and edd. are equally divided between utque and inque (uid. app.). Although the anaphora of utque is an Ovidian device (8.835–7; 11.580; trist. 5.9.27–9; Pont. 2.8.12–15; 3.2.19–22; Ib. 313–5; 521–31) and he makes abundant use of figere + abl. (cf. e.  g. 541: aduersa figit modo lumina terra; epist. 21.242: lumina fixa tenens plena pudoris humo), the variation inque is clearly difficilior and also fully adapts to Ovidian usus: 4.141: gelidis in uultibus oscula figens; 7.87  f.: in uultu ueluti tum denique uiso / lumina fixa tenet; epist. 6.27: haesit in opposita lumina fixus humo; trist. 4.2.29: in humo lumen miserabile fixit (see also epist. 13.634: figitur in iusso nostra sagitta loco; met. 1.297: figitur in uiridi  … ancora prato; 1.472: hoc deus in nympha Peneide fixit; 3.84: figit … in acumine dentes; 4.196: uirgine figis in una; 5.173: lamina dissiluit dominique in gutture fixa est; 6.227  f.: medio … in pectore fixa / tela; 10.61: uultu … in uirgine fixo; 12.451: fixit in aduerso cornum sine cuspide uultu; fast. 3.442: in solida fixus Olympus humo; 3.697: gladios in principe fixos; 4.317  f.: uoltus in imagine diuae / figit; Ib. 543: Fixus et in duris carparis uiscera saxis; perhaps also Ib. 532: Haereat in fibris fixa sagitta tuis). suo uidit figentem lumina uultu: M and a group of related mss. (Mo Bo3Lr27, though not always Ab) invert the construction with the reading lumine uultus (i.  e. utque suo uidit figentem lumine uultus), but the poverty of expression prompts the copyist of Bo3 to improve it in turn with the variant



Commentary

239

suos (i.  e. utque suos uidit figentem lumine uultus; cf. inque suos uidit figentem lumina uultus in A2Ld6 Ps; Ld6 is most likely the “Voss.” read by Burm. 1727, 893). Ms. N, for its part, presents an initial reading lumine uultu, by assimilation of forms in contact, which may well lie behind the reading of M (cf. 442; uid. ad 471). For the expression figere lumina uultu in Ovid, uid. supra. 457–459: “utere iamdudum generoso sanguine,” dixit “nulla mora est; at tu iugulo uel pectore telum conde meo” iugulumque simul pectusque retexit. • 458 at V2(a.c.) Bs7, Heinsius 1659(“tres scripti cum uno Moreti”), edd. aliquot (uid. append.), def. Rappold, Helm  : ac dub. Helm.  : aut(aû AGf) V23(p.c.) Ω, Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, H-K-E 1898, edd.  : ait Es5  : quin Merkel 1875, Korn 1880, Siebelis-Polle 1880, Simmons 1889  : age Ehwald 1885, Polle 1888  : uel Riese 1872, Fink 2007 • at … pectore] aut tu iugulo aut tu pectore P41, dub. Heinsius(in notis) • 459–460 (iugulumque … uellet!) dist. et coni. H-K-E 1898, Ehwald 1915, van Proosdij 1951, H-K-E-A 1966  : (iugulumque … uellem!) perperam Segura 1983 • 459 iugulumque simul] simul et iugulum A4FH2LdO3O4  : iugulumque meum B4(a.c.)Lr6Mt  : iugulumque H3(a.c.)  : iuguloque simul Ds2(a.c.) •

457: sanguine: Planudes’ antigraph seems to have contained the variant semine: Χρῶ τῷ ἀνέκαθεν εὐγενεῖ”, φησι, “σπέρματι. Cf. 9.280: generoso semine. 458: at: practically all the mss. give aut, a reading also adopted by a large number of edd. from 1471 to Hopkinson 2000 (see Magnus 1887, 10; Bömer 1982, 318; Hopkinson 2000, 172). The variant at was in V2 and was corrected by a later hand; it is also the reading of Bs7 and received the approval of Heinsius (1659, 342): “rectius tres scripti cum uno Moreti”, being followed by a good number of edd., among them Merkel in his first ed. (1850), although he changed his mind in the second (1875, XXXVII: “aut tu M ut libri longe plurimi. at tu aliorum neque auctoritatem, neque, puto, locum habet”) and printed his conjecture quin, adopted only by Korn (1880), Siebelis-Polle (1880) and Simmons (1889), and defended by Keene (1898, 93). Ehwald originally conjectured age, being followed only by Polle (1888), but in 1898 he opted to place brackets around iugulumque … uellet (ll. 459  f.: uid. ad loc.), in the belief that in this way (see H-K-E 1898, 407) he was giving its precise meaning to the majority reading aut while also leaving room for l. 461, against the proposals to seclude it (uid. ad loc.; see Bömer 1982, 318). For his part, Riese (1872, XXIV) conjectured uel (i.  e. uel tu iugulo uel pectore), a proposal which has in its favour the insistence on the invitation to the double option for the moment of death, as is already to be found in the model of Eur. Hec. 563–5 (see Simmons 1889, 127; Bömer 1982, 318; Hopkinson 2000, 172; Mastellone 2004; Hardie 2015, 283): Ἰδού, τόδ᾽, εἰ μὲν στέρνον, ὦ νεανία, / παίειν προθυμῇ, παῖσον, εἰ δ᾽ ὑπ᾽ αὐχένα / χρῄζεις, πάρεστι λαιμὸς εὐτρεπὴς ὅδε.

240

Commentary

This same structure would feature in the text as proposed by Heinsius in an unpublished comment (b3, 366: “forte”; in his notes he does not return to the suggestion): aut tu iugulo aut tu pectore, and I have found this proposal as the reading in P41 (s. XV), a manuscript which contains a number of humanistic conjectures (uid. e.  g. ad 64, 113, 289, 532, 823). As regards at, Rappold (1881, 411) defended it on the grounds of the closeness of its form to the vulgate reading aut, an argument that cannot be used for uel or the other proposed conjectures (so also Helm 1901, 362 n. 2), and he recalls Ovid’s liking for the phrase at tu (32 examples, often accompanying a verb in the imperative: e.  g. 1.760  f.; in contrast there are no cases of aut tu). Finally, Rappold opportunely defends at in this context with its usual meaning in narrations (“for its part”): “Mit nulla mora est erklärt Polyxena, dass s i e bereit sei, und fordert nun den Neoptolemus auf, auch s e i n e r s e i t s zuzustossen” (a comparable defence can be found in Helm 1901, 362 n. 2: “etenim Cassandra nulla mora est inquit, quod interpretati sumus: ‘ego non moror’; cui sententiae recte opponitur altera qua Neoptolemus ipse ne cunctetur impellitur, id quod optime exprimitur uerbis: at tu eqs.”, and he even proposes the reading ac). For the simple disjunctive coordination iugulo uel pectore, cf. Luc. 7.670: iuguloque pati uel pectore letum. iugulo: for the variant in iugulo, cf. ad 436. telum: for the variant ferrum, uid. ad 393 telum. 459–460: for the proposal to add brackets to these lines, uid. infra. 460–461: “Scilicet haud ulli seruire Polyxena ferrem  aut per tale sacrum numen placabitis ullum.

460

• 460–461 inu. ord. OO3 Go B12(a.c.)Vt • delendos cens. Suchier, Hopkinson 2000(in notis)  : om. Polle 1888  : def. Helm  : tantum u. 461 uncinis not. Zingerle 1884, Simmons 1889, Tarrant 2000, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004 (secl. Holzberg 2017)  : post 464 hab. A4(a.c.)  : post 465 pro parenth. pos. Postgate  : post 468 pro parenth. malit Magnus 1914 • 460 hau(d/t)] aut M(a.c.)N(a.c.) B3B5Hd(a.c.)Lr7O3(a.c.)V6V7V9 Li3Mt2(a.c.)So Es2FtMt4(a.c.) Es3Es6P41, “Rhen.”(non sic Tu) test. Jahn 1832, Heinsius 1659(“cum multis”), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Merkel 1850, Koch 1866, Fabbri 1923  : aud Lr2(a.c.)Lu(a.c.) Ba(a.c.)H3(a.c.)N2 Bo(a.c.)Mt4(p.c.)  : huad V3 • post uellem interrog. signum pos. Merkel 1850 • 461 aut L3(a.c.)Lu(a.c.)V2V3 A3(haud p.c. A32)AbB3(a.c.)B5Be2CH3Hd(a.c.)Lr7N2O3(a.c.)P3V7V9Vd(a.c.) To(a.c.) Ft Es6Lr22V30, “Rhen.”(non sic Tu) test. Jahn 1832, Aler. 1471, Heinsius 1659(uid. supra), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Merkel 1850, Koch 1866, Fabbri 1923  : hau(d/t) Ω, Puteol. 1471, edd.  : at E  : hec G2(i.l. u.l.)  : aud Mt2  : om. Rd • post ullum interrog. signum pos. Merkel 1850 •

459–460: a considerable number of edd. place the comment iugulumque simul pectusque retexit in parentheses (correctly so, although the syntax makes the



Commentary

241

comment no more parenthetical here than the dixit in 457; for these parentheses in Ovid, see Bömer 1982, 239 ad 132  f.; Hill 2000, 152, with a list of examples; Hopkinson 2000, 184  f. ad 558–64). It is from here, and because of the problems of fitting in l. 461, that Ehwald comes up with the idea of extending the parenthesis to the end of the following line, accordingly changing uellem to uellet (H-K-E 1898, 407 [H-K-E-A 1966, 518]: “uellet schreibe ich nach eigener Vermutung”; a change mistakenly not made by Segura 1983) and thus interpreting l. 460 as an emphatic comment of the narrator after the valiant gesture of the maiden. Although the proposal is tempting, it would be difficult to explain the large-scale change in the mss. of uellet to uellem (see, contra, von Albrecht 1964, 38 and 110 n. 92). 460–461: the appearance of haud (or aut) in these two lines raises doubts among readers. Bömer (1982, 319), however, sees in the repetition of haud “Rhetorische Steigerung durch Anapher (…) und durch die besondere Stellung an Versanfang und Versschluss (…) und Fortsetzung der Anapher in 462  ff., mors … mors”. However, the repetition is not a smooth one, because the thoughts contained by the lines are not parallel. In reality the mss. as usual present the different forms haud-haut-aut-aud so that the choice between haud and aut lies more in the hands of the editor (uid. app.). Suchier (1859, 640) defended the seclusion of the two lines on the grounds that they ruin the expression and are unnecessary in the context, and that in addition they do not fit together well and neither do the second and l. 468. Recently Hopkinson, who prints only the second line in square brackets, extends his doubts to both in his notes (2000, 172  f.): “Line 461 has little relevance to the argument, and fits poorly with the rhetoric of voluntary death; it seems very likely that it should be deleted (…). Line 460, too, is suspect: the expression is flat, and scilicet, surprising in the mouth of Polyxena, is a word very commonly used by annotators to explain some aspect of the text.” Zingerle limited his doubts to l. 461, publishing it in square brackets (1884, XIX: “uncinis inclusi”), as was later done by Simmons (1889, 127), and recently by Tarrant (2000, 437, with no arguments), Hill (2000, 152  f.), Hopkinson 2000 and Tarrant 2004 (Hardie 2015, 283 ad 461: “la funzione di questo verso e dell’anafora a 460–1 haud ulli … / haud … ullum non è chiara”; Holzberg 2017, 658 omits the line). For his part, Helm (1901, 361–3; “bene” is the comment of Magnus 1914, 502 in app.) argues that the first of these lines has the function of toning down the challenge in Polyxena’s voice and adapting it to her condition of uirgo: “Sed ne mirum uideatur ut in uirgine, quod ipsa Neoptolemi crudelitatem incitat, se seruitutem reformidare dicit; qui uersus arte cum superioribus coniungendus est”. The following line, in turn, would then be a return to the consolatio: “Iam ad nouam sententiam animum conuertit qua se consoletur: se non modo liberam mansuram, sed etiam hostes minime ex nece sua fructum capturos esse”. Even so, he himself has to admit that there are certain limitations in this second line: “Est sane hic uersus in eorum numero quos si non emendaturus, attamen amplificaturus erat poeta, si licuisset”, as well as in his

242

Commentary

final assessment: “hoc unum uitii inesse in uersibus concedendum est quod sententias ceteroqui pulchras et orationis tenori aptas non satis copiose poeta explicuit”. Another proposal to emend the text consists in transposing l. 461, which Postgate (ap. Edwards 1905, 475) places after 465, taking it as parenthetic, and Magnus (1914, 502 in app.) prefers to place after 468, again as a parenthesis (Hardie 2015, 283 ad 461: “Una trasposizione dopo 465 o 468 non è persuasiva”; note that A4 transcribes it after 464). Transposition also seems to be the choice of Breitenbach (1964, 1132 in app.: “460  f. sind schlecht überliefert; […] man dachte auch daran, 461 zu versetzen”), although he does not state in which position and prints both lines in their traditional place (1964, 906). A large group of edd. between Heinsius and Fabbri has opted to publish both lines but as an aut … aut disjunction (uid. app.; Heinsius 1659, 342  f.; b2, 364: “sic legendum. male uulgo haud utroque loco, quod sensum non habet”), leaving an obscure statement which Bothe glosses somewhat forcedly, in my opinion (1818, 137): “Aut ferrem seruitutem, h e ignobilis et abiecti animi essem, ego, Polyxena, regis inclyti filia, aut acceptum erit hoc sacrum numini, cuicunque facitis; quod idem ac si dixisset: Gratum fuerit hoc sacrum deo illi, quisquis est, quia generosae sum indolis et impatiens seruitutis” (see also Magnus 1914, 502 in app.). Even worse is the solution proposed by Merkel, who adds to this text a question mark at the end of each line, perhaps to suggest a certain sarcasm on Polyxena’s tongue (cf. Loers 1843, 498  f.: Scripturam aut poscit natura sententiae, quae cum acerbitate dicta est, quo pertinet etiam illud scilicet”; see the gloss by Keene 1898, 93: “Would I, Polyxena, forsooth, consent to be a slave to anyone, or will you by such a sacrifice appease any deity?”). After an analysis of the evidence of the transmission and the proposals for emendation, I believe that: 1, the juxtaposition of the two lines with haud … haud is harsh and contrary to the logic of the speech; 2, their juxtaposition with aut … aut is scarcely comprehensible; 3, the elimination of one or both lines is an over-easy way to eliminate the problem and it suppresses a very effective iunctura which can hardly be explained as the result of interpolation, namely seruire Polyxena ferrem/uellem (uid. infra); neither does it explain how l. 461 might have originated; 4, the transposition of l. 461 is much more plausible, as being assimilated to l. 460 through haud or aut, and it would fit as a parenthesis after either l. 465 or 468. In any case, there remains the possibility of editing the text as Io. Andreas de Buxis did in his ed. princeps (Aler. 1471): scilicet haud … ferrem / aut … placabitis (the combination haud … aut is present in other mss., as can be deduced from the app., but cf. supra for the relative shortcomings of the ms. evidence in the case of words of this type). It can therefore be understood that in these lines Polyxena maintains the tone of intense determination, almost a challenging tone, of the previous lines, indicating to her slayer that he can choose where to put an end to her life (ll. 458  f.), because it is evident (scilicet) that she would not tolerate slavery (seruire Polyxena), to which she



Commentary

243

adds as an aside, but one still depending on scilicet haud (cf. e.  g. 5.22  f.: scilicet haud satis est, quod te spectante reuincta est / et nullam quod opem patruus sponsusue tulisti), the spiteful statement of l. 461 reminding them that the sacrifice would be in vain (indeed, the Greeks will neither manage to placate a numen effectively nor be freed from the misfortunes of the nostoi: cf. Eur. Hec. 538–41). 460: ferrem: mss. and edd. tend to favour uellem, although ferrem has not inconsiderable backing (uid. append.). Tarrant seems to have opted for ferrem at the last minute as his critical aparatus (2004, 388) still implies that he has chosen uellem for his edition, reserving for ferrem a “fortasse recte” (the mistake was already noted by Possanza 2005). The reading of Aler. 1471, ferrem, was clearly chosen by Heinsius (1659, 342: “bene”) and for this alternation Burman (1727, 893) makes a timely comparison with 11.447 (uult/ tulit; see Díez 2014, 304  f.) and above all offers the valuable phraseological parallel of epist. 5.12: seruus eras; seruo nubere nympha tuli! (note the final sequence, absolutely analogous to seruire Polyxena ferrem; cf. 1727, I, 57: “Ouidiana locutio, sed saepe a librariis expulsa”). In addition, ferrem sounds more emphatic (“grauius”, Loers 1843, 499) and more in line with the challenging tone of Polyxena the princess, and it could be an echo of the words of Andromache in Verg. Aen. 3. 326  f.: stirpis Achilleae fastus iuuenemque superbum / seruitio enixae tulimus, who contrasts her sorry condition with the fate of Polyxena, who was able to escape from slavery (ll. 321–3). Cf. Sen. Phaedr. 612: omne seruitium feram. For Polyxena’s insistence on her freedom and for the Euripidean model, see Simmons 1889, 127; Hill 2000, 152  f.; Hopkinson 2000, 172 ad 457–73; Hardie 2015, 282 ad 457–73 and 283  f. 461: for the problems of this line, uid. ad 460  f. Note the metrical variant inV8: haud per tale sacrum est ullum placcabile numen. sacrum: Regius (1493, ad loc.) would appear momentarily to have lost his concentration, since not content with publishing the unmetrical factum he adds in a note: “per talem [sic] factum. per meam caedem”. In 1526 he added to the note: “legitur et sacrum” and finally corrected the text in 1540. placabitis: Heinsius found the variant placabitur in Ld8 (see b2, 364) and promptly adopted it, being faithfully followed once again by some edd. down to Baumgarten-Crusius (1834; uid. append.). But this is a codex nihili and the reading seems to me to be gratuitous. 462–464: Mors tantum uellem matrem mea fallere posset (mater obest minuitque necis mihi gaudia), quamuis non mea mors illi uerum sua uita gemenda est. • 462 tantum] tandem Ds2  : tamen haec mallet Burm. 1727(in notis), prob. Bothe 1818(in notis) • 463 (mater … gaudia) pro parenth. habeo • 464 gemenda] cremanda M(a.c.)N(gemenda i.l. u.l. N2)  : tremenda M2(p.c.) Lr27, Merkel 1850, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, H-K-E-A 1966(gemenda

244

Commentary

1915), Goold 1984, R. de Verger 2005  : gerenda Be2(a.c. a m.p.)Lr5(gemenda mg. u.l. a m.rec.)  : lugenda Lr2(dolenda i.l. Lr22) H3 To FtMc CvP41  : merenda Fe(luenda i.l. Fe2)  : genmenda Lr7  : deest in Ls •

462: tantum: with good reason, and not without humour, Burman criticizes this line-beginning (1727, 893): “Languidi et simul durissimi hi numeri, tribus uocibus in mugientem illam literam m exeuntibus, et tribus itidem spondeis se subsequentibus”, accordingly suggesting non tamen haec, which is palaeographically close and undoubtedly more euphonious. Bothe (1818, 137  f.), however, while in agreement with Burman, reminds him of the three consecutive -m endings in l. 159 and in 12.187, and even the four in 14.34, and rightly compares analogous examples in Verg. georg. 4.501; Aen. 4.342, among others. In addition, the line presents numerous alterations with a metrical result, no doubt originating in identical word-endings. For example, BaMo have omitted matrem as a result of haplography, which was later corrected by the copyist of Ba, who, however, introduces the noun in the wrong place, this new order also being transmitted by other mss. of the period (uid. append.). The inversion mea matrem, found in some recc. and also read by Burman in a “Thuan.” (the “Voss.” is Ld6), is approved in the latter’s notes (1727, 893) for the reasons of euphony mentioned above, along with his emendation tamen haec. The same phonic effect leads to the inversion matrem mea uellem, which, according to Heinsius (b3, 366), is offered by “unus meus”. Finally, Bothe, with the justification of the essential instability of the mss. prints mors tantum posset uellem mea fallere matrem (see also 1818, 138), an unattested combination (cf. 805; 9.491; 10.355; 11.696  f.; 14.482). Perhaps Burman would have approved of the grammatical regularization carried out by the scribe of Ft: uellem matrem ut mea fallere posset, in that it attenuates the ending of matrem by synaloepha with ut. 463–464: among the different corruptions of the sequence necis mihi (uid. append.), note the (unmetrical) reconstruction by the copyist of O: minuitque meae mihi gaudia necis / nec … For the content of the line, cf. Eur. Hec. 377  f.; 433  f. (see Bömer 1982, 319). As far as the punctuation is concerned, I believe that mater … gaudia represents a parenthesis explaining the previous line. It can be observed that the clause quamuis … gemenda est is not notionally subordinated to mater obest minuitque mihi gaudia but to mors mea tantum fallere matrem uellem, i.  e. “I would like my mother not to know of my death, although (if truth be told) it is her life and not my death that warrants lamentation.” Between the two clauses, after line 462, which might be considered an entreaty or a sign of weaknesss (Bömer 1982, 319: “Polyxena sorgt sich um ihre Mutter”; for the motif, see Hardie 2015, 283  f.), there appears the once-again challenging clarification of the fortis uirgo (for the oxymoron necis gaudia, cf. Eur. Hec. 347: θανεῖν τε χρῄζουσ᾽; 358 θανεῖν ἐρᾶν; 548 ἑκοῦσα θνῄσκω; see Hardie 2015,



245

Commentary

284), in the manner of Prudentius’ later Christian heroines, such as Eulalia or Agnes (perist. 3.40: mortis amore, et passim; and 14.79  f. et passim). 464: mors: Lr22 (probably the “Medic. unus” cited by Burm. 1727, 893) V30 and Aler. 1471 give the interesting variant sors, although the opposition to sua uita makes mea mors preferable. gemenda: here is a new case of alliance in error between MN (uid. ad 95 uera), as both give cremanda although it is later corrected in M to tremenda (so too in Lr27), a reading that was followed by Merkel in line with his faithfulness to M and by other edd. down to the present (uid. app. and note how Ehwald changed his mind, giving gemenda in 1915), although the life of Hecuba can only be thought to merit pity (gemenda) and not fear (tremenda; cf. Eur. Hec. 211–5; 372–8, and see Bömer 1982, 319; Hopkinson 2000, 173). The other variants, whether metrical or not, should be taken as spelling errors (gerenda and probably also merenda, in turn glossed luenda) or else as glosses (lugenda, which for example appears as such i.l. in M22, or dolenda). 465–467a: Vos modo, ne Stygios adeam non libera manes,  ite procul, si iusta peto, tactuque uiriles uirgineo remouete manus!

465

• 466 ite Lu(i.l. u.l.)MN(este i.l. u.l. N3)V2(mg. u.l. a m.p. uel coaeua) MoO Lr8(este i.l. u.l. Lr82)V16 Bo3Lr27, “sex alii” test. Heinsius 1659, prob. Riese 1872, H-K-E 1898, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007; improb. Baumg.-Crus. 1834  : este Ω, Plan., Aler. 1471, edd.  : esse B14(este p.c.)P38, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474 •

465: Stygios: the mss. are unanimous regarding this adjective (uid. append.), although Slater (1927, ad loc.) considered the syntagm Stygios manes to be a way of expressing oneself “frigidiuscule” and suggested the possibility of reading Phrygiosque, i.  e. an adj. referring to people and not places, comparing l. 488 (Achilleos), 8.488 (fraterni), 14.105 (paternos), Stat. Theb. 12.771 (Argolici), and recalling a similar oscillation in Stat. silu. 3.3.193 (see Markland 1728, 84 and 286). Slater himself, however, had previously cited the parallel of 5.115  f.: Stygiis cane cetera (…) / manibus, and cf. Petr. 121.1.121: ad Stygios manes (see Bömer 1982, 320). Note too that Stygios manes reflects better the generic expression ἐν νεκροῖσι from the Euripidean model (Hec. 551  f.): ἐν νεκροῖσι γὰρ / δούλη κεκλῆσθαι βασιλὶς οὖσ᾽ αἰσχύνομαι. 466: ite procul: the vast majority of mss. and edd. have este procul (which is probably also what Planudes translates as πορρώτερον ἵστασθε), an expression used by Ovid elsewhere (10.300; am. 2.1.3; ars 1.31 [trist. 2.247]; 2.151) as well as by other authors before and after him (Verg. Aen. 6.258; Tib. 2.5.88; Val. Fl. 3.450; Mart. 14.164.2). Against this almost unanimous tradition (cf. the graphic corruption esse, and note once more the dependence between P38

246

Commentary

and Calph. 1474) a select group of mss. gives ite procul, a reading accepted by Riese and several other editors down to our day (uid. app.). This would be the only case of Ovid using this expression in the plural, although he does use it in the singular (2.464: i procul hinc; ars 3.505; rem. 214; cf. 10.341), but the plural appears in Prop. 4.6.9; Tib. 1.1.76; 2.4.15, 20; [Tib.] 3.4.3; 3.6.7, 52; Calp. 2.55 [96]; Stat. silu. 1.6.2; 3.3.13; Mart. 10.72.5; 14.47.1; Prud. Symm. 2.901. The contamination could therefore have originated in either direction, the Euripidean model (Hec. 546–54) would admit both expressions and both were also used by the Latin poets in the religious context of πρόρρησις (see Laguna 1992, 261 ad Stat. silu. 3.3.13; Navarro 1996, 266 ad [Tib.] 4.3; Rivero 1997, 1, 160  f. ad Prud. cath. 2.4; McKeown 1998, 5  f. ad Ou. am. 2.1.3; Maltby 2002, 149  f. ad Tib. 1.1.76; Fedeli 2015, 824 ad Prop. 4.6.9; see also Watt 1988, 176). Although I consider the variant este to be difficilior, it is no less true that the pressure of the other Ovidian passages would act against a genuine ite. Whatever the case I opt for ite because of the following conditional subordination (si iusta peto), a sequence in which I believe that Ovid is imitating Tibullus, the only other author to use it: 2.4.15: Ite procul, Musae, si non prodestis amanti; 2.4.20: Ite procul, Musae, si nihil ista ualent. iusta peto: a small group of mss. (uid. append.) offers the variant precor, originating in am. 1.3.1. Cf. 14.787: iusta petentem (Pl. Amph. 36; Cic. or. 1; Claud. Cons. Stil. 2.97; see Bömer 1982, 320). 467b-473:               acceptior illi (quisquis is est quem caede mea placare paratis) liber erit sanguis. Si quos tamen ultima nostri uerba mouent oris (Priami uos filia regis,       non captiua rogat), genetrici corpus inemptum reddite neue auro redimat ius triste sepulcri sed lacrimis (tum, cum poterat, redimebat et auro)”.

470

• 468 hunc u. pro parenth. hab. Mt2 • 470–471 (Priami … rogat) pro parenth. hab. Riese 1889, edd. aliquot (uid. append.)  : improb. Hendry • 470 uerba] uota “Politiano teste” test. Viuianus 1522, “tres nostri” test. et prob. Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Bothe 18182, Mitsch. 1819  : menbra A4(a.c.) • 471 non AM2(a.c.)NS2V2V3 A3B4GLdO43(i.l. u.l.)P4Ph2TrTu DsMt3 McRd Cv(a.c.)Go2Ps, Heinsius 1659(“cum Cantabrig.  … et sex aliis”), edd. (uid. append.)  : nunc Ω, Plan., Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, edd. (uid. append.)  : nec Es5, “fragmen. Boxhornii”(non sic O) test. Heinsius 1659  : hic(per comp.) Ca2(a.c.)  : de T n.l. •

468: the line is clearly parenthetic (it is already marked as such in Mt2: uid. app. et ad 470  f.) and with it Ovid introduces a variation on the Euripidean model, where, unlike here, Polyxena is fully aware of who her sacrifice is being offered to (see Simmons 1889, 128; Bömer 1982, 320; Hopkinson 2000, 173). Note the different alterations with a metrical result. The copyist of V7 no doubt found the two variants caede and morte in his antigraph and inte-



Commentary

247

grated them into one line: quem caede mea, quem morte. Of greater interest is the reading presented exclusively by Lr22V30 and Aler. 1471: quisquis is est, placare mea quem cede paratis. caede: a very large number of mss. offer the variant morte (uid. append.), which has not been followed by any of the editors as the fact that the word is more generic makes it facilior: cf. Catull. 64.368: alta Polyxenia madefient caede sepulcra (cf. Sen. Th. 1058  f.; Luc. 10.386; but cf. fast. 4.665). 469: erit: Heinsius (b3, 366) states that he has found erat in an “Ox.” (uid. append.), which leads him to propose eat in the same place, comparing epist. 3.146: est mihi qui fosso pectore sanguis eat. 470–471: the words of Polyxena are measured down to the smallest detail, hence the recurrence of a favourite device of Ovid’s: parenthesis (von Albrecht 1964; cf. 463). In this case it was Riese, in his 2nd ed. (1889), who placed brackets around the statement Priami … rogat, with which the girl proudly demands recognition of her status as regia uirgo in the middle of the entreaty to her slayers (cf. 460–2). Note that Polyxena employs the same expedient in 468 and 473, in the former case to maintain a somewhat scornful distance from the Greeks’ solemn preparations (cf. quisquis is est, and see Bömer 1982, 320; Hopkinson 2000, 173; Hardie 2015, 285); in the latter, to recall the wealth that once marked her parents’ dwelling place (see Bömer 1982, 321; Hill 2000, 153; Hopkinson 2000, 174). For his part, Hendry (1995–1996) proposed to remove these brackets and have the verb in the subj. (roget) followed by a colon, so that (p. 248) “she may well politely ask the soldiers to treat her as princess rather than prisoner”, understanding the passage in these terms: “if the soldiers are moved by her last words, let them show it by treating her as a princess.” Although Hardie (2015, 285) shows his sympathy for the proposal, I find no particular advantage in it and even less in the alternation of personal references between the protasis (nostri … oris) and the supposed apodosis (roget). 470: uerba: Viuianus (1522, ad loc.) offers testimony of the variant uota seen by Poliziano in one of his codices, and Heinsius adds that of another three mss. of his (1659, 343); on this authority Heinsius adopted the reading in his 1st ed. (1652) but was followed by very few edd. (uid. app.). Jahn (1832, 850) states that uota is also the reading of the “Berol.”, but B14 has uerba. Bach (1836, 329  f.) rightly considers uota “Hier zu feierlich und für die Sterbende nicht passend.” For the ultima uerba, see Bömer 1982, 320. 471: non: the choice between non and nunc is a difficult one. The great majority of mss. and many edd. of all periods have the variant nunc (uid. app.), in line with the frequent alternation between the two adverbs, reinforced here by the following initial c- (uid. e.  g. V3: noncaptiua). In this case, moreover, nunc has the strong support of Eur. Hec. 357: νῦν δ᾽ εἰμὶ δούλη, and 420: δούλη θανοῦμαι, πατρὸς οὖσ᾽ ἐλευθέρου, as well as the probable echo, already cited by Magnus (1914, 503), of Homer. 982: Priami nunc filius orat, where it is Hector who makes a similar request of Achilles regarding his future spoils.

248

Commentary

However, one of the characteristics of Ovid’s treatment of the episode is precisely Polyxena’s insistence on her freedom (uid. ad 460) and on maintaining at all times the proud tone which becomes her as regia uirgo and fortis uirgo (uid. ad 463  f., 470  f.; see Bach 1836, 330: “vergleicht man aber den Ton überhaupt, in welchem Ov. sie [sc. Polyxena] sprechen lässt, besonders Vs. 460”; Hopkinson 2000, 173  f.; Hardie 2015, 281  f.) and this precaution becomes particularly urgent when, as here, Polyxena stoops to make a request of her executors (this same consideration weakens the proposal nunc captiua as defended e.  g. by Loers 1843, 499: “ad conmouendam misericordiam addita uerba”; see Bömer 1982, 321). In any case, Euripides’ Polyxena also insists on preferring death to slavery (367  f.): οὐ δῆτ᾽: ἀφίημ᾽ ὀμμάτων ἐλευθέρων / φέγγος τόδ᾽, Ἅιδῃ προστιθεῖσ᾽ ἐμὸν δέμας; (550–2): ἐλευθέραν δέ μ᾽, ὡς ἐλευθέρα θάνω, / πρὸς θεῶν, μεθέντες κτείνατ᾽: ἐν νεκροῖσι γὰρ / δούλη κεκλῆσθαι βασιλὶς οὖσ᾽ αἰσχύνομαι (and cf. [Sen.] H. O. 107–11; see Hopkinson 2000, 172 ad 457–73 and 173 ad 465). Heinsius was the first to defend in these terms the variant non, which appears in a considerable number of mss. (uid. app.) and which he considered “longe elegantius” (1659, 343), glossing it as follows: “Moueant uos preces meae, non tanquam à captiua, sed à regis filia, profectae” (this is the preferable interpretation, rather than the one offered by Keene 1898, 94: “she is about to be freed by death”). Apart from the fact that the phrase nunc captiua undoubtedly makes full sense here, the copyists might also have been influenced by the following passage, although here it is Hecuba who applies the term to herself (Sen. Tr. 987–90): ad Vlixen uocor: / nunc uicta, nunc captiua, nunc cunctis mihi / obsessa uideor cladibus – domini pudet, / non seruitutis. Note also the variant nec, which I have found only in Es5 and which Heinsius (ibid.) claims to have found in the “fragmen. Boxhornii”, which should correspond to O, but in this ms. the reading is in fact an abbreviated nunc. And finally, it is unclear what the copyist of T meant to write, the reading there apparently being something like Nôc. inemptum: according to Paschalis (2003, 157) this adj. “recalls the Iliadic hapax ἀπριάτην” (1.99). 472: neue: as occurs systematically, variants such as neque or nec appear (uid. append.). For its construction with the subj. of prohibition, see Bömer 1982, 321; Hopkinson 2000, 174. redimat ius triste sepulcri: the loss of an -u- has led to the appearance of a reading redimatis triste in MN A2 (and Lr27). Over the reading redimatis triste sepulcri, found e.  g. in N(p.c.; the initial reading is sepulchris: cf. 7.206; 8.505; am. 1.8.17) and in A2, the copyist of M has attempted to “correct” the text by regularizing it with the reading sepulcrum (for a reconstruccion of the error in this and another passage of Ovid, see Luck 2009, 112; uid. ad 456, where N again presents a state of the text prior to M, and cf. also 442 late). 473: tum: against the systematic variant tunc (uid. append.) I keep tum here to avoid the unlikely sequence tunc-cum (for the avoidance of tunc before gutturals, see Courtney 2003, 238  f.; Gaertner 2007, 212–4).



249

Commentary

474–476: Dixerat. At populus lacrimas, quas illa tenebat, non tenet; ipse etiam, flens inuitusque, sacerdos  praebita coniecto rupit praecordia ferro.

475

• 474 at] et A A2BaDrHdLd2Lr5Lr6Vd Bo2Mc F2P38PsV30Vd11Z(at a.c.) Ca2, Plan., Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502  : aut Gg(a.c.)  : ad Tu  : de P4 n.l. •

474: At: as occurs systematically whenever at appears, some mss. have et, adopted by the early edd., though not by Aler. 1471, which even opportunely corrects V30 here and coincides with Lr22, just as it also corrects the form ille (uid. app. et append.). What it does share with both mss. is the inversion lacrimas populus. For the sequence dixerat at, cf. 2.40; 5.533; 10.356; trist. 3.11.51; Ib. 243. 475: flens inuitusque sacerdos: cf. Eur. Hec. 566: ὃ δ᾽ οὐ θέλων τε καὶ θέλων οἴκτῳ κόρης. 476: the line, which presents no significant variants (uid. append.; cf. 6.251; Tib. 1.1.63; Eur. Hec. 567), was cited by Gronouius (1662, 62). For coniecto, cf. 3.90 (with Suárez 2015, 85  f.); 7.338. 477–480: Illa super terram defecto poplite labens pertulit intrepidos ad fata nouissima uultus. Tunc quoque cura fuit partes uelare tegendas, cum caderet, castique decus seruare pudoris.    

480

• 479 uelare tegendas] celare pudendas “duo” test. Burm. 1727(uid. infra) • uelare] celare N(uid., a.c.)P2(uelare u.l.) N2 P41, “duo” test. Burm. 1727  : uellare Ft(a.c.)Rd  : uelara Vd11 • tegendas] pudendas N2(i.l. u.l.) B2DrHd2(i.l. p.c.) Bs4P5 B12 Es4, “duo” test. Burm. 1727  : regendas A2  : tegendos B5  : tegebas Mt(a.c.)  : uelandas N2  : uerendas Pr, “unus” test. Burm. 1727  : tegentes Ps • 480 cum] dum A3O3 BoP28 P41 •

477: defecto: aberrant spellings aside, the mss. transmit variants such as deflexo, deiecto, demisso and defesso (uid. append.), with deflexo being the most widely attested after the majority paradosis. In defence of defecto Baumgarten-Crusius (1834, 512) had already adduced the opportune parallel of 10.194  f.: sic uultus moriens iacet et defecta uigore / ipsa sibi est oneri ceruix umeroque recumbit, and that of Stat. Theb. 6.798: defectique ambo genibus, which is also valid although it has a different structure. Add (with Bömer 1982, 322) 5.96: sanguine defectos cecidit conlapsus in artus, and also Ven. Fort. Mart. 3.345: poplite defecto. The variant deflexo seems to be more suitable for a voluntary action, as in the Euripidean episode (cf. Hec. 561: καθεῖσα πρὸς γαῖαν γόνυ), than for the effect of blood being lost, for which defecto is clearly superior (cf. 9.154: uires defecto reddat amori). The other possible variants seem to be graphic

250

Commentary

deformations or synonymous glosses. Cf., also on the sacrifice of Polyxena, Catull. 64.369  f.: quae, uelut ancipiti succumbens uictima ferro, / proiciet truncum summisso poplite corpus (cf. also Lucr. 1.92; Verg. Aen. 12.926  f.). 478: intrepidos: the spelling in trepidos (and note, as another variant of it in turn, ut trepidos in C a.c.) is simply the result of a false wordbreak, which is very common in the mss., but it serves to alert us to the likely wordplay (i.  e. in trepidos uiros/hostes) sought by Ovid. 479: tunc: for the tum/tunc alternation, uid. ad 473. Perhaps the temporal precision of the reference here makes tunc preferable (see OLD s.u., 1989; Baumg.-Crus. 1834, 512: “Suo loco hic Tunc est in loci temporisque certa demonstratione”; Bömer 1969, 119 ad 1.339); in any case, this is the variant of practically all the mss. and most edd. (but cf. 571; for the relative frequence of tunc quoque in Ovid, see Gaertner 2007, 222). Cf. a passage with close echoes (fast. 2.833  f.): tunc(-m) quoque iam moriens ne non procumbat honeste / respicit: haec etiam cura cadentis erat (Eur. Hec. 568–70; Plin. epist. 4.11.9; Suet. Iul. 82.2; see Simmons 1889, 128  f. ; Bömer 1958, 137 ad fast. 2.833  f.; 1982, 322  f.; Hopkinson 2000, 174  f.). 480: cum: for the variant dum, cf. ad 441. 481–482: Troades excipiunt deploratosque recensent Priamidas et quot dederit domus una cruores; • 482 et  … cruores] dederitque domus quantum una cruoris prop. Heinsius(in notis) • et quot  … cruores M MoN2V5(uid.) Bo3Lr27Vd11, H-K-E 1898, Ehwald 1915, van Proosdij 1951, H-K-E-A 1966, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Tarrant 2004  : et quid … cruoris Ω, Plan., Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Heinsius 1659, edd., def. Burm. 1727  : ut quid … cruoris V6  : quicquid … cruoris P41  : et quod … cruoris Be2LsP3 Ds2V16, “Oxon.” test. Burm. 1727, prob. Merkel 1850, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, Edwards 1905, Fink 2007  : et quem … cruorem AM2P2S2T A4AbB2B4(mg.)GHdLdO3PrTrTuV7 B8(i.l. u.l. a m.p.)DsLr8Mo3P10(et quid  … cruoris u.l. P102) McMt4Rd Es4F2Go2Z Ca2(a.c.), “duodecim” test. Burm. 1727  : et quam  … cruoris A2B4(a.c.), “Moreti” test. Burm. 1727  : et quantum  … cruoris B3B4(p.c.), “Medic.” test. Burm. 1727  : quantum  … cruoris Bs4  : ut qui  … cruoris B5  : et qui  … cruoris P38  : et quem  … cruoris Lr6 P5 Ca2(p.c.)  : et quod … cruorem De  : et quot … cruoris L4  : et quam (quantum i.l. u.l. Ft2) … cruorem Ft  : et quid … cruorem “Rhen.”(non sic Tu) test. Jahn 1832  : et quos … cruores test. Viuianus 1522 •

481: Troades: for the spellings Troiades/-as etc. (uid. append.), cf. ad 421. deploratosque: the ending of Priamidas in 482 and an awareness of the implicit reference to Polyxena have probably led to the appearance of variants in the feminine (uid. append.). Note, however, the unique reading of Bs4, which from the variant deplorantesque (so too Ds2 and F2) invents a sequence recedunt / clamantes. 482: note the omission of this line in Lr22V30 and Aler. 1471 alone. The text thus configured is inferior but still readable.



Commentary

251

Priamidas: for the variant Priamides, cf. ad 293. For the unique variant clamantes, uid. ad 481. et quot dederit domus una cruores: the vast majority of mss. and edd. give et quid … cruoris, which Ehwald (H-K-E 1898, 407 [H-K-E-A 1966, 518]) regards as a corruption of quod … cruores (“aber wenigstens grammatisch korrekte Interpolation”) but Burman (1727, 894) had previously defended it, comparing Ter. Heaut. 247: portant quid rerum, and 458: quid uini. Loers also considered quid to be the genuine reading, describing the variants (1843, 500) as “merae interpretationes”. It is Rappold who can be credited with having intuitively surmised that the numeric element in domus una called for a contrast with cruores in the plural, which prompted him (1881, 411  f.) to propose et quot … cruores on the basis of what he thought at the time was the reading of M: et quot  … cruoris, although shortly afterwards (1881b, 807) he vindicated his proposal when he learned it had the complete backing of M. M and a group of related mss. does indeed give et quot … cruores, clearly the lectio difficilior, adopted by Ehwald and some other edd. down to Tarrant (uid. app.). It is true that this would be the only time Ovid used this plural (Hopkinson 2000, 175: “but Ovid nowhere uses the grandiose plural of cruor”), but the same could be said of the likely creator of this usage, Virgil, who also uses it in only one passage (Aen. 4.686  f.): semianimemque sinu germanam amplexa fouebat / cum gemitu atque atros siccabat ueste cruores. Again in only one passage, it is also attested in Horace (carm. 2.1.5): nondum expiatis uncta cruoribus. It was later imitated in the texts of the 1st-2nd centuries AD (see Pease 1967, 526; Austin 1955, 197  f.; Nisbet-Hubbard 1978, 14  f.). Magnus (1914, 503) adduces against it the parallels of 14.529  f.: multum … cruoris / … datur, and 15.423: tantum dare sanguinis, which in any case demonstrate what is already obvious, i.  e. that quid dederit … cruoris is an impeccable construction (see also Bömer 1982, 323). Less credibility can be attached to other transmitted variants such as et quem  … cruorem, et quos  … cruores, or et quod  … cruoris (“grammatisch unmöglich” is the perhaps excessively categorical opinion of Ehwald: 1898, 407 [1966, 518]), and neither is there an air of authenticity to the variant quantum, most likely a gloss (thus e.  g. i.l. in Bs2Bs3 Ca2), which in some mss. slips in accompanied by et, with the logical unmetrical results. Working from some of the variants he had found, Heinsius considered proposing (b3, 366: “Leg.”) dederitque domus quantum una cruoris, although he took his proposal no further. 483–487: teque gemunt, uirgo, teque, o modo regia coniunx, regia dicta parens, Asiae florentis imago, nunc etiam praedae mala sors, quam uictor Vlixes    485 esse suam nollet nisi quod tamen Hectora partu ediderat (dominum matri uix repperit Hector!).

252

Commentary

• 484 post hunc u. def. Lr5 • 485–487 susp. hab. Riese 1872 • 486–508 aegre leguntur in T • 487 ediderat Ω, Plan., edd. (uid. append.), dub. Tarrant 2004(in app.)  : ediderit A4(a.c.) Es4 Ca2, “nonnulli” test. Burm. 1727  : edidit B3  : perdiderit Rd  : edideras Heinsius 1659, edd. (uid. append.)  : edideris coni. Heinsius(in notis) • dominum matri] inu. ord. H3Lr3 To Mc P41  : matri B8(a.c.)  : dominum mater(per comp.) A2 •

483: teque o modo: the phrase presents the corruptions that tend to accompany both the enclitic and the interjection (uid. append.). Among them perhaps some attention should be paid to the reconstruction carried out in FH2: te quae modo. 484: although the ed. Aler. 1471 does not present strictly critical punctuation (uid. ad 406–8), in this case the editor seems to have been attempting to reflect a different interpretation of the text in punctuating after dicta (i.  e. regia dicta, parens … imago; so too Lr22). Cf. trist. 5.2.49: o decus, o patriae per te florentis imago. This is the last line contained in ms. Lr5. 485–487: Riese (1872, XXIV [1889, XXV]) displayed his doubts about these lines with this subjective line of argument: “satis frigidi; num spurii?”. No other editor has shared his suspicions. 485: praedae mala sors: mss. MtO4 Mc P41 diverge from the rest with the metrical inversion mala sors pr(a)ed(a)e. For the content, see Simmons 1889, 129; Keene 1898, 94; Hardie 2015, 287; and cf. Sen. Tr. 62: Mea sors timetur, sola sum Danais metus (see Fantham 1982, 219; Jakobi 1988, 19; Keulen 2001, 119  f.). 486–508: it is very difficult to read codex T in these lines, and practically impossible in some blocks such as 490–493 or 496–507. 486: nollet: the sense of the speech and the following restrictive expression nisi quod tamen (Bömer 1982, 324; Hopkinson 2000, 175) show that nollet is what is needed here (uid. supra). Some copyists failed to see this and from early times left us with variants such as mallet and uellet (uid. append.; cf. the marginal note in P23 itself: dominum matri. i. uix aliquis uolebat eam habere pro ancilla. nisi quia erat mater hectoris). partu: against this vulgate reading O (“fragm. Boxh.”) has partum, a reading Burman (1727, 894) explains “ut sit appositio”. Cf. 4.209  f.: quam formosissima partu / edidit Eurynome. 487: ediderat: leaving aside clearly minority variants, always in the 3rd p. sing. (ediderit, edidit, perdiderit: uid. app.), ediderat is the reading of all the mss. and a significant part of the edd. before and after Heinsius (uid. append.). In preference to it, Heinsius originally opted to propose edideris from the variant ediderit (b3, 366: “Ediderit IIII libri. Lego Edideris”) but he then changed his mind and printed edideras, offering no arguments (1659, 343: “Scribe Edideras. aliter libri”). The conjecture is clearly not “inanis” (thus Loers 1843, 500), since this form ties in well with the apostrophe in l. 483 (Baumg.-Crus. 1834, 513: “iure post teque, o modo regia coniux”). Bach also defended it with the same argument (1836, 331: “seit Heins. zwar nur



253

Commentary

als Conjectur, aber nothwendig”), adding that the change had probably been made by a scribe in the light of quam in 485, which seems to displace the reference to a 3rd person. The proposal has continued to attract supporters down to Tarrant himself, who, however, reserves a surprising “fort. recte” for the majority reading in his app. (2004, 389; so too Hopkinson 2000, 175: “[ediderat] may be right”). That Heinsius’ conjecture is possible does not mean that it is desirable, because between l. 483 and l. 487 something indeed seems to have changed in the monstrative references. The double apostrophe in fact serves as a transition between the protagonism of Polyxena until her death and that of Hecuba for the following episode. Hecuba’s change in fortune is first marked by the contrast (cf. Eur. Hec. 284  f. and see Bömer 1982, 323; Hopkinson 2000, 175) between her previous δόξα (ll. 483  f.) and her present one (485), the latter being developed by a subordinate relative clause which in effect now marks a distance with respect to the direct address, a distance evident in any case in l. 487 itself with the parenthetical exclamation and the reference matri, and then unquestionable in ll. 488–93, which are once more introduced by a rel. pron. (quae). dominum matri uix repperit: note (uid. append.) the metrical inversions matri dominum (H3Lr3 To Mc P41) and uix matri (Ld3 Cs2), as well as the variant inuenit (H2O4), clearly a synonymous gloss. Cf. fast. 5.200: sed generum matri repperit illa deum. For this “pointed sententia”, see Due 1974, 156; Hopkinson 2000, 175. 488–493: Quae corpus complexa animae tam fortis inane, quas totiens patriae dederat natisque uiroque, huic quoque dat lacrimas, lacrimas in uulnera fundit  osculaque ore tegit consuetaque pectora plangit, canitiemque suam concreto in sanguine uerrens plura quidem, sed et haec, laniato pectore dixit:

490

• 490 uulnera P2 B3HdLr4O B8Go BoMt4P28 Es4Vd11, Accurs. 1475, edd.  : uulnere Ω, Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474(uulneŕ), Naug. 1516, Bothe 18182, Bach 1836, Koch 1866, Magnus 1914, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Anderson 1982  : funere H3Ls B14  : nomine V16 • 492 concreto … uerrens] concretam sanguine uellens Postgate, prob. Goold 1984  : concretam sanguine uerrens R. de Verger 2005 • in] om. AP2S2 AbB2B3B5CP4(a.c. a m.p.)V5(a.c. a m.uid.p.)V6V7(a.c.)V8V9 Cs2DsMo3P10SoV16 Mt4 Ca2(a.c.), “nonnullis” test. Burm. 1727, Postgate, Goold 1984, R. de Verger 2005 •

488–536: on fol. 152r of ms. Es6 (s. XV) line 487 is followed by 537, which would seem to point to a two-page jump (verso + recto) in an antigraph with 24 lines per page. 488: corpus complexa animae: note the inversion with a metrical result offered by C: complexa animae corpus, thus duplicating the effect by means

254

Commentary

of significant juxtaposition: animae corpus  … fortis inane. The unmetrical variant amplexa (uid. append.) could come from 4.139, a passage with echoes close to ours (Hopkinson 2000, 176), although it may also be due to the usual oscillation between the two forms. For the phraseology, cf. 2.611: corpus inane animae (Prop. 3.18.32); 12.69: fortisque animae. Cf. Eur. Hec. 579  f.: τῇ περίσσ᾽ εὐκαρδίῳ / ψυχήν τ᾽ ἀρίστῃ. Cf. also 14.743  f.: accipit illa sinu complexaque frigida nati / membra sui; Verg. ecl. 5.22: cum complexa sui corpus miserabile nati, and see Hardie 2015, 287  f. 489–490: the possible but mistaken inversion of these two lines is interesting in that it groups together mss. H3P3. 489: as in the previous line, cases of inversion with a metrical result continue and multiply here (uid. append.): patriae totiens, dederat patriae or even patriae natis dederatque. 490: lacrimas, lacrimas: as usual the repetition leads to instability in the transmission. MN and only a few other mss. omit the noun once in haplology (but note P4, where the copyist has left a blank space for a second word; in N it is a third hand that supplies the word), and this same error is found in the ed. Venet. 1472. Other mss. must have encountered a similar situation in their antigraphs and the copyists have opted to fill in the gap, no doubt with a conjecture, as is the case of N2, which reads lacrimas pariterque, or Pr, which gives lacrimas gemitusque. Other mss. break the asyndeton with the variant lacrimas lacrimasque (cf. the unmetrical lacrimas lacrimas et in Ph2). uulnera: the vast majority of mss. and some edd. (most recently Anderson 1982, from whom von Albrecht 1994, 879, and Galasso 2000, CXX explicitly distance themselves) give the reading uulnere, but P2 and a handful of recc. have uulnera, the reading preferred long ago in Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, the Gryphianae and Bersm. 1596 (although he shows some sympathy for uulnere in a marginal note), and by the vast majority of edd. from Heinsius on (uid. app.). Burman (1727, 894) duly gives his support to uulnera, comparing 8.541: lacrimas in nomina fundunt, and epist. 11.125: uiue memor nostri, lacrimasque in uulnera funde, both with their corresponding variants (see also Bömer 1982, 325, who adds 2.626; 9.160; 12.469; 13.306). Loers prefers it for aesthetic reasons (1843, 500): “in uulnere, quod fere est, uultu ad uulnus admoto. Verum elegantius est in ipsa uulnera fundit”. Slater (1927, ad loc.) uses the term “sollemni errore” in reference to uulnere and compares l. 544, where the same alteration is found against the sense of the text. In contrast, Bach (1836, 331) defended uulnere as “gewählter und die innige Vermischung der Thränen mit der Wunde stärker bezeichnend als das herrschende uulnera, was aus dem untern pectora leicht entstehen konnte”. To support the construction fundo in + abl. he added the above-mentioned passage of epist. 11.125 and trist. 5.5.12: pio fusum stridat in igne merum, where in igne might instead depend on stridat (he also compares met. 3.172, where fundo is constructed with the abl. and no preposition). Magnus (1914, 504) puts forward an unfortunate argument: “unum uulnus est, cf 476 495 497,



Commentary

255

de in cf XIV 770 alia”, to which Helm (1915, 547) quite rightly replies that it could be a poetic plural, as is shown by the reference to the same wound as crudelia uulnera in l. 531 (and perhaps in part the same l. 495 adduced by Magnus). As regards 14.770  f. (inque figura / capta dei nymphe est), he likewise points out that it is not a passage where there is a possible choice between ablative and accusative. That Ovid is not averse from constructions with the ablative also seems to be indicated by l. 536: eiectum … in litore, where the mss. are unanimous (uid. ad loc.). 491: tegit: against this vulgate reading some mss. offer variants such as dedit (cf. Planudes: καὶ φιλήματα παρέχει τῷ στόματι), legit, gerit, regit and petit (and other, unmetrical ones like egit or tergit: uid. append.). Heinsius, who in his day (b3, 365) had already proposed “fort. terit” (I have found no trace of the reading serit which Heinsius is supposed to have recorded there, according to Magnus 1914, 504), printed legit but was followed only by Burman, Walchius and Bothe. Heinsius (1659, 343  f.) supported his decision with the parallels of Verg. Aen. 4.684  f.: extremus si quis super halitus errat, / ore legam, and Sen. H. O. 1342: spiritus fugiens meo legatur ore, which also seems to convince Luck (2005, 215), who sees no sense in tegit. Bach (1836, 331) argues on the other hand that legit would be appropriate in an amorous context, but this is refuted by the two passages cited. However, it is not the last breath of the dying person that Hecuba is “collecting” here, but oscula, a term clearly being used in its etymological sense as the diminutive of os (cf. 10.344 and see Simmons 1889, 130; Keene 1898, 95; Bömer 1982, 325; Hill 2000, 153; Hopkinson 2000, 176), in the manner of Virgil (Aen. 1.256): oscula libauit natae (see Rivero et alii 2009–2011, I, n. 119 ad loc.): with her own mouth Hecuba covers the little mouth of Polyxena, which lends an emotional charge to the passage in evoking once more the girl’s tender years, while conjuring up the image of a kiss (osculum) from a mother to her daughter (see Seru. ad Verg. Aen. 1.256). 492: concreto in sanguine uerrens: whatever the expression used by Ovid was, he seems to aim to evoke the physical prostration of Hecuba, as in the Euripidean model (Hec. 495  f.): αὐτὴ δὲ δούλη γραῦς ἄπαις ἐπὶ χθονὶ / κεῖται, κόνει φύρουσα δύστηνον κάρα (Keene 1898, 95; Bömer 1982, 325; Hopkinson 2000, 176). If in Euripides Hecuba covers her wretched head with dust, Ovid goes further and has her hair stained with the blood of her own daughter (for concreto, cf. 7.416). The problem is that uerro usually takes as its complement the surface (normally earth or water) which is being swept, plus an instrumental for the tool used. This led Postgate to postulate concretam sanguine uellens (cf. 14.201), thus evoking the habitual sorrowful gesture of pulling out one’s hair, and this proposal was introduced into the ed. of Edwards 1905 and later into that of Goold 1984 (not so in Miller 19212; Ramírez de Verger 2005 has concretam sanguine uerrens). However, that Ovid deliberately invented this “causative” use of uerro (see OLD s.u., 3c and 4, 2039) is shown by another passage of this same book (961): caesariemque meam, quam longa per aequora uerro.

256

Commentary

The surprising construction no doubt explains the other variants transmitted (uid. append.). As for the prep. in, omitted in several mss. and present in some as a gloss (e.  g. Cs2), it seems preferable to include it. 493: cf. fast. 4.689: is mihi multa quidem, sed et haec narrare solebat. For this formula for the opening and closing of speeches, see Hardie 2015, 288. 494–495: “Nata, tuae (quid enim superest?) dolor ultime matris, nata, iaces, uideoque tuum, mea uulnera, pectus.      

495

• 495 tuum mea uulnera pectus ALuP2(in textu)S2 A4Be2CEGGgLd2Ld3LsTrV8 B8Mo3Mt2P10So2(mg. u.l.) B14Es4Go2 Ca2, Regius 1493, edd. aliquot (uid. append.)  : tuum mea uulnera uulnus P2(u.l.) BaH2Ld22(i.l. u.l.) B82(mg. u.l.)So B12 P46Es7P47, Heinsius 1659(qui et “Polit. et octo alii” test.), edd. plerique (uid. append.), def. Solodow  : meum tua uulnera uulnus Lr22(uulnera i.l. u.l.) DrL42(uulnera mg. u.l.)Lr7N2O4P3P4Ph2Pr Ds2Ld6Li3Lr82(uulnus mg. u.l.) Cs3Es3Mt5To2 AsEs5P38Z Ld13, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Weise 1845, Koch 1866, Anderson 1982  : meum tua uulnera pectus L3(p.c.)MM2NV2V3 A3AbB2B3FH3LdLr3MoOO42(pectus mg.)TuV5Vd Cs2GoLr8Mt3To Bo2Es2McRd Bo3CvF2Lr22Lr27P41PsV30Vd11Z, Aler. 1471, Accurs. 1475, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Bersm. 1596  : alii alia (uid. append.)  : tuum mea funera funus dub. Heinsius 1659(in notis), prob. Bothe 18182, dub. Hopkinson 2000(in notis) •

494–526: the excerpta P47 (s. XIII) contain this text, to which the following heading is added: “In eodem questus hecube in morte filie sue polixene[polexene a.c.] quae a graios mactata est ad tumulum achillis”. However, ms. T, which has this folio cut into two pieces, does not contain ll. 494  f. 494: note that, although this line appears in M, it is omitted by the copyist of Lr27, probably due to saut du même au même. For the same reason, the copyist of Ps started writing l. 496 after this line (uid. append.). ultime: this reading, with the stronger support of the mss., is no doubt also the correct one. But a number of important mss. (uid. append.) give ultima, due to assimilation to nata (cf. spellings such as ultimę or ultimæ). Indeed, it seems, as already stated by Jahn (1832, 852, although he quoted an erroneous “Nate”), that this was also the reading of the antigraph of Planudes, who had to reconstruct the line in this way: Θύγατερ ὑστάτη τῆς σῆς μητρὸς (τίς γὰρ ὑπόλοιπός ἐστι πόνος)… (probably inventing a non-existent quis, which I have found only in B4). matris: a minimal number of mss. (uid. append.) offer the elegant dative matri, probably just a copying error or a recollection of Verg. Aen. 9.484: miserae data copia matri (uid. infra), or even of the echo we will find in l. 528, referring to Polydorus: proles gratissima matri (there with the variant matris too). Heinsius adopted this reading with no further argument (Loers 1843, 500: “temere recepit Heinsius”) and was followed by other edd. up to the present day. 495: this verse is inspired, on the one hand, by the lament of Euryalus’ mother (Verg. Aen. 9.485–7): heu, terra ignota canibus data [fort. date] praeda



Commentary

257

Latinis / alitibusque iaces! nec te tua funera mater / produxi pressiue oculos aut uulnera laui (see Rivero et alii 2009–2011, III, n. ad 9.480). But Virgil limits the expression to an apposition (tua funera) that corrects or restricts the preceding pronoun (te) by means of a significant juxtaposition. On the other hand, this verse also recalls Venus’ plea to Cupid in Aen. 1.664–6: “nate, meae uires, mea magna potentia, solus, / nate, patris summi qui tela Typhoëa temnis, / ad te confugio et supplex tua numina posco (cf. Catull. 64.215–7: see Wills 1996, 139). In a passage previous to this one, but with an analogous mourning context, Ovid goes a step further and creates an inserted or encapsulated apposition (cf. 401 and see Solodow 1986; Reed 2004, 189 ad 10.102), with two different nouns and with variation in the references of the possessives (10.196–8, Apollo lamenting the death of Hyacinthus): “laberis, Oebalide, prima fraudate iuuenta” / Phoebus ait, “uideoque tuum, mea crimina, uulnus. / tu dolor es facinusque meum… (here too with the variant uulnera for crimina: see Fàbregas 2016, 206  f. ad loc.). Even if they appear in different contexts, it is also necessary to recall here (along with Magnus 1904, 55  f.) the following two passages for their structural affinity (3.420): spectat humi positus geminum, sua lumina, sidus (again with the variants sidera and lumen and with instability in the possessive adj.: see Suárez 2015, 317–9); and epist. 11.19: num minus infestum, funebria munera, ferrum (more instances of “inserted apposition” in Ovid can be found in Solodow 1986, 141–6). These are, therefore, the elements upon which we must base our arguments for guessing what Ovid intended to say in the present passage, the mss. being strongly divided between the different combinations tuum/meum, tua/mea, uulnera/pectora and uulnus/pectus (uid. app. et append.). Discarding all of these and considering that uulnus recurs in l. 497, Heinsius (1659, 344) proposed tuum mea funera funus, adopted only by Bothe but approved by Hopkinson in his notes (2000, 177). The latter had, however, appositely recalled shortly before (176  f. ad 494–503, with references) that repetition is characteristic in contexts of ritual lament (see also Hardie 2015, 289). As for the transmitted variants, we must then decide whether the noun is repeated (and in this case only the iteration uulnera uulnus would be acceptable, since pectora pectus is excessively banal) or else it varies; and we must also decide the order of the possessives. To begin with the last point, I consider preferable the combination tuum mea, since the metaphoric reference – and hence the one intended to provoke surprise – corresponds to the inserted apposition, as is proved clearly by the passages quoted above, to which many others could be added (see Solodow 1986, 132  f.). As far as the noun is concerned, the only options which could have flowed from Ovid’s pen are, in my opinion, uulnera pectus or uulnera uulnus (Hecuba referring to her own breast makes little sense). The first one has the advantage of not being explicable as a contamination of 10.197: uideoque tuum, mea …, uulnus; it also fits in the framework of noun variation that is systematically observed in the instances of inserted apposition. This implies

258

Commentary

a twofold notional leap between the outer or objective expression and its inserted apposition, since the speaker is not only involved subjectively in the fate that has befallen her/his loved one (uideo tuum [=/ergo] mea), but she/he also interprets metaphorically, and gives a deeper meaning to, that objective reality: tuum uulnus = mea crimina, in Apollo’s self-incrimination; tuum pectus = mea uulnera, in the case of Hecuba, doomed to endure her pain longer than she herself expects at this moment (see Hopkinson 2000, 177 ad 494; cf. an analogous procedure in 2.515  f.: nuper honoratas summo, mea uulnera, caelo / uideritis stellas, and cf. l. 599: maternaque uulnera leni). Though it belongs to a different context, and is unlikely to be the origin of the corruption of our passage, we should recall the sequence uulnera uulnus in ars 1.166: et qui spectauit uulnera, uulnus habet. Finally, we should not forget glosses such as the one located in G2 above the reading pectus: uulneratum. Solodow (1986, 145) finally opts for tuum, mea uulnera, uulnus because “it is a distinctive mark of Ovid’s wit to juxtapose different senses of the same word”, a surprising reasoning, since in his rich list of examples there is no single case where the noun is repeated in polyptoton. 496–500: Et, ne perdiderim quemquam sine caede meorum, tu quoque uulnus habes. At te, quia femina, rebar a ferro tutam: cecidisti et femina ferro, totque tuos idem fratres, te perdidit idem, exitium Troiae nostrique orbator, Achilles.    

500

• 496–497 an ne perdiderim … / … habes? dub. Heinsius • 496 et Ω, Aler. 1471, edd., dub. Tarrant 2004(in app.)  : en perperam in Berneg. leg. et prob. Heinsius 1659, edd. aliquot (uid. append.)  : q3 V7  : om. C(a.c.) • 497 tu] en P2 • 499 idem fratres] inu. ord. A A2Ld3(p.c.)MtO Lr8Mo3Mt2Mt3So B12 Es5P41 Ca2  : idem est fratres Ld(a.c.)  : fratresque idem Ld3(a.c.)  : idem P5(a.c. a m.p.) •

496: et: Heinsius had duly recorded in his collation (o3, 355, b3, 365) the variant en of P2, not for this line but for the beginning (tu) of the next one. The variant could have a palaeographic origin, but it could also stem from one of the frequent glosses accompanying the pronoun tu. Nevertheless, Heinsius later mistook his own annotation (1659, 344: “En ne Bernegg. & placet”) and accordingly wrote en ne (he had also suggested an … habes? in b3, 365). As usual, Heinsius’ proposal was followed by a good number of edd. up to the present day, while others kept et, but both groups accepted Heinsius’ information without checking it. Only Tarrant (2004, 390) rightly attributes the reading to Heinsius and not to P2. 497: tu: for the variant en of P2, probably a gloss, uid. ad 496. 499: idem fratres: note (uid. app.) the metrical inversion (in turn, with the metrically correct variant fratresque) in Ld3.



Commentary

259

te perdidit: once again, the instability of the monosyllable gives rise to variants which are more or less aberrant (uid. append.). Note, in any case, that Lr22V30 and Aler. 1471 set themselves aside from the tradition once more, by offering the reading te et perdidit. 500: orbator: though the term is a hapax in the Latin texts of the classical period (see Bömer 1982, 327), its transmission offers hardly any variants (uid. append.). For the models for the line, see Hardie 2015, 290. 501–504: At postquam cecidit Paridis Phoebique sagittis: ‘nunc certe’ dixi ‘non est metuendus Achilles!’. Nunc quoque mi metuendus erat: cinis ipse sepulti in genus hoc saeuit, tumulo quoque sensimus hostem. • 501 cecidit Paridis] inu. ord. AM2 A4FH2LdO3 P8 Es5, Burm. 1727(rect. ord. 1713), Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836 • 503–505 cinis … fui laudat Sen. contr. 9.5.17 • 503 Nunc … metuendus] i.ras. scr. N(quid a.c. n.l.) • 504 s(a)euit] pugnat Sen. ibid.  : om. Rd  : sceuit Rd2(mg.) •

501–503: the repetition of line endings (500–2) and beginnings (502  f.) provokes the habitual omissions and alterations in the order of transmission of the text (uid. append.). Note that Aler. 1471 corrects the omission in Lr22 and V30, which seems to point to the ed. being later than both mss. (but, on this relationship, see Introduction, 8 f.). 501: cecidit Paridis: once again some mss. offer the reverse order, which in this case was adopted by Burman for his edition of 1727 (not in 1713), and by other edd. down to Bach (uid. app.). Burman was probably influenced by the judgement of Heinsius in b3, 365: “paridis cecidit. iv. libri. bene”. Paridis Phoebique: again some mss. transmit the reverse order (uid. append.), but this variation was only adopted by some of the early editions. 502–503: nunc … nunc: the anaphora must be kept, although some mss. offer the usual alternations (uid. ad 473, 485). 503–505: Seneca (contr. 9.5.17), criticizing Ovid’s rhetorical excesses, records this text: cum Polyxene esset abducta, ut ad tumulum Achillis immolaretur, Hecuba dicit: cinis ipse sepulti / in genus hoc pugnat. Poterat hoc contentus esse; adiecit: tumulo quoque sensimus hostem. Nec hoc contentus est; adiecit: Aeacidae fecunda fui. Aiebat autem Scaurus rem ueram: non minus magnam uirtutem esse scire dicere quam scire desinere (see Bömer 1982, 327  f.; Hopkinson 2000, 178). An analogous judgement, not without humour, in Gierig (1784, I, praef. VIII): “Acumen quaerit in repetitione eiusdem uerbi, quod praecessit. Neque dubium est, eum, ut ipse profitetur, multa resecturum et emendaturum fuisse, si ultimam limam operi adhibere licuisset, quamquam ei animus magis defuisse uidetur ad compescendam licentiam, quam iudicium”. For a defence of the Ovidian expression, see Hardie 2015, 291.

260

Commentary

ipse: as usual, we find the variant ille (uid. append.), although here the term Achilles, just above, may also have caused the change. Cf. Sen. Tr. 957: cinis ipse, and see Jakobi 1988, 35; Hardie 2015, 291. 504: saeuit: note Seneca’s misremembering of the text – he cites the passage with the verb pugnat (uid. ad 503–5), a form that is clearly inferior when applied to a character such as Achilles (see Hopkinson 2000, 178). 505–513: Aeacidae fecunda fui! Iacet Ilion ingens               euentuque graui finita est publica clades, sed finita tamen: soli mihi Pergama restant in cursuque meus dolor est. Modo maxima rerum, tot generis natisque potens nuribusque uiroque, nunc trahor exul, inops, tumulis auulsa meorum,     Penelopae munus, quae me data pensa trahentem matribus ostendens Ithacis: ‘haec Hectoris illa est clara parens, haec est’ dicet ‘Priameïa coniunx’.

505

510

• 506 post clades plene dist. Venet. 1472, Aldina 1502 • 507 sed] si P4(uid.)V4 Ds Es3 Es7, Heinsius 1659(qui “uno Medic.” test.), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834  : nec Ld2(sed i.l. u.l. Ld22), test. Fanensis 1508, “Calandrae excerpta” test. Heinsius 1659  : sit “Imo. cum Palatino”(non sic V3) test. D. Heinsius 1629, dub. Lemaire 1822(in notis) • tamen] clades Pr  : aliis(i.l. B122) coni. Schepperus • soli] uni Ld2 As, “tres” test. Burm. 1727 •

505: although it is an error, note that some important mss. offer a form in the acc. (A)eaciden that is thus linked to the end of the previous line (hostem). This in turn makes it necessary to punctuate after the patronymic and change fui to fuit, a verb that would therefore refer to Ilion along with iacet (uid. append.). In addition, we cannot know what Planudes read (or thought he read) in his antigraph instead of Aeacidae (perhaps inc(a)ede or inclade?), since he left us this odd version: Ὡς εὔπορος ἐν τοῖς κακοῖς γέγονα! For the expression, cf. Sen. Ag. 705–7: tot illa regum mater et regimen Phrygum, / fecunda in ignes Hecuba fatorum nouas / experta leges induit uultos feros (see Jakobi 1988, 150; Hardie 2015, 291). 506–507: clades: as early as in the edd. Venet. 1472 and Aldina 1502, we find a full stop after this noun, thus linking the part. finita of l. 507 to Pergama. This is probably due to an erroneous interpretation of sed, which some have related to restant (i.  e. “Troy has fallen, but the fallen Troy still exists only for me”), and hence probably the variant nec for sed, a reading attested by Giacomo Costanzi (Fanensis 1508, ad loc.: “Emendati codices … ut sit correctio”) and later by Heinsius (1659, 344) in the “Calandrae excerpta”. This restrictive or corrective force can also be seen in the other variant transmitted: si, which seems more like a misreading of the abbreviation of sed. The variant sit, which since at least as early as D. Heinsius 1629 has been



Commentary

261

assigned to the primus Palatinus, is not the reading of V3 or Hd, where sed in abbreviation is read. Also due to an alleged awkwardness in the expression of the verse, Schepper (1665, 342) conjectured aliis (this word appears written above by a second hand in B12) for tamen (cf. epist. 1.51: diruta sunt aliis, uni mihi Pergama restant, a passage he does not cite), arguing that with the adverb there is an “oppositio non satis ualida”. Bothe (1818, 139) rightly replies: “cum non uideret, istud aliis uerbo publica, et melius quidem, expressum esse”. To add more variants to a line which, in the end, turns out to be clear (Loers 1843, 501), a few mss. even offer uni instead of soli, a reading recalled from epist. 1.51 (supra). 508: nothing of special interest is offered by this line, except for the usual metrical inversions (uid. append.), the variant omnis for meus, or the banal maxima mater instead of the more abstract maxima rerum (cf. 12.502 with Bömer 1982, 162–5, and see also Simmons 1889, 131; Keene 1898, 96; Hardie 2015, 292). 510: tumulis: once more some mss. attempt to soften the  – desirable  – asyndeton through the insertion of -que (uid. append.). meorum: some copyists err in expanding the ligature, or else give deorum or uirorum (uid. append.). Note that once again Calph. 1474 coincides with P38, now in the error uirorum. 511: Penelopae: this is the majority reading of the mss., or else other forms ending in -(a)e, while there is less support for the endings in -es (uid. append.). It is difficult to know exactly which forms of the genitive were used by Ovid in each case (see Bömer 1982, 329; 2006, 308), though his general preference for the Greek declension of the name seems clear (cf. e.  g. epist. 1.1; 1.84; am. 1.8.47; 2.18.29; 3.4.23; ars 1.477; 2.355; 3.15; trist. 5.5.52). In our passage, though, I prefer to take the word as a dative depending on munus (cf. ars 1.378: haec dominae munus te parat, illa sibi; so Keene 1898, 96; Hopkinson 2000, 179; Holzberg 2017, 660  f.: “Geschenk für Penelope”), and thus I am inclined to write Penelopae (cf. Pont. 4.16.13: et qui Penelopae rescribere iussit Vlixem). For the line-ending, cf. epist. 3.75: data pensa trahemus; fast. 2.743: data pensa trahebant; trist. 4.1.13: data pensa trahentis. 514–520: Postque tot amissos tu nunc, quae sola leuabas 515 maternos luctus, hostilia busta piasti.             Inferias hosti peperi! Quo ferrea resto quidue moror? Quo me seruas, annosa senectus? Quid, di crudeles, nisi quo noua funera cernam, uiuacem differtis anum? Quis posse putaret felicem Priamum post diruta Pergama dici?     520

262

Commentary

• 517 annosa] animosa L4(a.c.)  : dam(p)nosa B14(mg.), test. Viuianus 1522, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Aldina 1502, Lugd. 1546(annosa mg.), Lugd. 1565, Ciof. 1575(qui tamen annosa “Veteres libri” test. et prob.), Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Weise 1845, Koch 1866, Hopkinson 2000, Hardie 2015, Holzberg 2017, dub. R. de Verger 2005(in notis) • 518 quo MN(uid., uel potius quoq3, a.c.)P2(p.c.)S2(uid., a.c.) C(a.c.)GL4Ld(p.c. uid.)Lr4Lr7MoN2OV5(p.c.)V7Vd(a.c.) DsL7P5(a.c.)P8V16 BoEs3(p.c.)FtRd2(p.c.)To2Vt AsBo3Lr22Lr27P38V30Vd11 P46P47Es7Ld13, “in quibusdam” test. Naug. 1516, “Polit. multique alii” test. Heinsius 1659, Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, edd. (uid. append.)  : quod A4(p.c.)B3B5C(p.c.)Ld3V6V8Vd2(p.c.) P52(p.c.)So Bo22(p.c., ut suprascr.)  : uti Ω (uid. append.), Naug. 1516, edd. (uid. append.)  : ut LuM2(a.c.)P2(a.c. et item i.l. u.l.)S2(p.c.)T Ph2TuV82(i.l.) B82(i.l. u.l.)Ds2Ld6P102(u.l.) Es3(uid., a.c.)McRd B14(p.c.)Es4Es5F2Go2P41Z  : nec Mt  : me ut Go  : quid(uid.) Bo2(a.c.)  : om. To •

514: postque tot amissos: the series of monosyllables and abbreviations gives rise to the predictable variants (uid. append.). Note that the copyist of Ld6 rewrites the line-beginning: proque tot amissis, and that of Gf does the same in mid-line, with a not unattractive proposal: tu quae modo. For post tot amissos, cf. 405 post omnia (uid. ad 404–7); fast. 2.621. 516: ferrea: Heinsius (1659, 344) attests the variant aenea in V8 and recalls Stat. Theb. 3.280  f.: aena precando / flectere corda paro. However, Ovid never uses that adj. in this figurative sense, whereas he is fond of using ferreus referring to the character of a person: 14.721: uincis enim, moriorque libens: age, ferrea, gaude!; epist. 10.107: praecordia ferrea (12.183); 17.136  f.: ferrea sim, si non hoc ego pectus amem. / ferrea, crede mihi, non sum; am. 1.14.28: capiti, ferrea, parce tuo! 517: annosa: Heinsius opted for damnosa, a variant that appears in the margin of B14, although he had found it only in previous edd. (uid. app.; 1659, 344: “reponendum ex antiquis editionibus”; see Jahn 1832, 854). He based himself on the parallel of trist. 3.7.35: damnosa senectus, to which could be added (so e.  g. Baumg.-Crus. 1834, 514; Ramírez de Verger 2005, 1963) Stat. silu. 1.4.7: damnosa … fila senectae (Markland 1728, 199, cites our passage with damnosa as an explanation for that of Statius). Heinsius’ proposal was followed by some edd. down to Koch (1866) and has recently been recovered, somewhat hesitantly, by Hopkinson 2000 (180: “This [i.  e. damnosa] seems a more powerful reading than annosa, though the latter may gain some support from anum in line 519”). It has also been considered by Ramírez de Verger (2005, 1963: “fort. recte”) and accepted by Hardie (2015, 293: “damnosa ha maggiore mordente di annosa”) and Holzberg (2017, 660). But here Hecuba, with this taedium uitae (Hardie, ibid.), does not lament the afflictions (damna) of old age but the very duration of her life, which has led her to witness so much misfortune (cf. 519; Lucr. 2.69  f.) with an already numb, hardened spirit (ferrea: see Hopkinson 2000, 180 ad loc.). Far from being tautological, the majority reading annosa “express[es] the idea of «very old age»” (Luck 2009, 112; cf. ars 1.14: annosum … senem; fast. 2.571: anus  … annosa). This reading is also endorsed by met. 7.237:



Commentary

263

annosae  … senectae and Mart. 1.105.3: annosa  … senecta, and partially by trist. 5.2.11: annosa uetustas (with Luck 1977, 285: cf. the reading of A4 Bo2), Manil. 1.115: annosa et molli contingat uita senecta, and Stat. silu. 4.3.163: annosa magis Appia senescat. 518: quid … quo: mss. and edd. are strongly split between the combinations quid … quo || quo … uti || quid … uti || quo … quo, to cite only the most likely ones (uid. app. et append.). As for the first word in the line, quo is the reading of most of the mss. (including Hd and Tu, against the testimony of Jahn 1832, 854 on “Myrt., Rhen.”, where he reads quid) and also the form that appears in the greatest number of edd. Heinsius, who had published quo in 1652, changed his mind in 1659, opting for quid with the annotation (1659, 344  f.) “multi … ex melioribus” (not unjustifiably). This, in turn, allowed him to opt for quo in the second part of the line instead of uti, as we shall see. The reading quid at line-beginning, however, has not been adopted by any editor after Koch (1866). As far as the second term is concerned, uti is perhaps the majority reading of the mss., but there is a strong division between uti and the variants quo, quod and the unmetrical ut, among others. The first edd. adopted the variant quo (i.  e. quo … quo), and Naugerius (1516) was the first to print uti, being followed by the edd. Gryphianae, Bersman, Heinsius in his first ed. (1652) and other edd. after H-K-E 1898. However, as already stated, Heinsius changed his mind in 1659 and preferred to edit the line with the sequence quid … quo (it must have been a last-minute decision, since his note still reads “scribendum forte”: 1659, 345). This convinced a good number of 18th-19th c. editors, though others kept the sequence quo  … quo, transmitted by some of the best mss. The sequence quid … quo seemed unacceptable to Magnus (1894b, 794), who defended uti, comparing Pont. 3.3.27: Quae tibi causa uiae, nisi uti mala nostra uideres, a passage to which can be added epist. 20.23: fraus mea quid petiit, nisi uti tibi iungerer, unum? or met. 10.20–2: non ut opaca uiderem / Tartara descendi, nec uti uillosa colubris / terna Medusaei uincirem guttura monstri. Undoubtedly, the sequence quo … quo, along with the two quo of ll. 516  f., cannot be accepted. Those who opt for it feel compelled, as usual, to accept other oddities in addition (Keene 1898, 96: “Observe two different meanings of quo in same line. Interrogative, ‘to what end’; and relative, ‘in order that.’”). It seems clear as well that Ovid is emphasizing the – vain – purpose or sense of Hecuba’s life, and he does so by using final quo (see Bömer 1982, 330; uid. ad 103) in alternation with other interrogative forms (quidue, l. 517; quis l. 519). The sequence quo  … uti fails to explain clearly the provenance of the unmetrical variant ut, which is unlikely to have originated as a gloss to uti, let alone to a genuine quo (a gloss, that is, that would have ultimately slipped into the text, being corrected later to the metrical uti). In ll. 516  f., in fact, Ovid has alternated purpose (quo ferrea resto), cause (quidue moror) and purpose again (quo me seruas). This sequence is broken in 518  f. with the double-purpose expression (quo … nisi uti … cernam / …

264

Commentary

differtis), particularly with the insertion of a clearly final subordinate clause (the differtis clause can be taken as causal, as can that of moror, but not so the cernam clause) introduced by a particle that is foreign to the context. See Luck 2005, 215. crudeles: note the misreading celestes offered again in isolation by Lr22V30 and Aler. 1471. 519: differtis: leaving aside other misspellings (among them defertis, in S2: uid. append.), note the variant seruatis, of Hd (Baumg.-Crus. 1834, 514: “manifesta est interpretatio”, and cf. 517; see Burm. 1727, 896). For the use of this verb with persons, cf. 12.76  f.: decimum dilatus in annum / Hector (see Simmons 1889, 133); for the possible etymological wordplay anum/annum, see Hopkinson 2000, 180. For the phraseology of 518  f., cf. Luc. 9.103  f. 521–522: Felix morte sua est: nec te, mea nata, peremptam aspicit et uitam pariter regnumque reliquit! • 521 est] om. A3Ld(a.c. a m.p.)O4Pr Mt4(i.l. Mt42) P41 Ca2(a.c.), Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836 • 522 uitam … regnumque] regnum(regum Ab) pariter uitamque AbFe  : uitam regnum pariterque Lr8  : uitam pariter patriamque P8 •

521: est: as is usual when metrics permit, est has been omitted by a small group of mss. (uid. app.; Jahn 1832, 854 attests the omission in Rhen. but Tu does contain the verb). Surprisingly, Heinsius (as early as 1652) opted to suppress the word without comment, perhaps prompted by the parallel of Verg. Aen. 11.159: felix morte tua neque in hunc seruata dolorem! (see Simmons 1889, 133; Bömer 1982, 331; Hopkinson 2000, 180  f.). The last editor to suppress the verb was Bach (1836), although Jahn (1832) had already restored it. 522: uitam pariter regnumque: again we find inversions with metrical result (uid. app.; cf. e.  g. 12.597). Note the proximity of the text of AbFe (in Fe regnum is transcribed in abbreviation as regñ: cf. regum in Ab). For the idea, cf. Sen. Tr. 156  f.: ‘Felix Priamus’ dicimus omnes: / secum excedens sua regna tulit (Jakobi 1988, 22). See also Hardie 2015, 294. reliquit: some recc. offer the predictable variant relinquit, no doubt through assimilation to aspicit (cf., conversely, aspexit in Lu2: uid. append.). Here we have a clear example of coordination of present and perfect tenses (“he is not seeing the death of his daughter, and left all at once his life and his reign”). 523–526: At, puto, funeribus donabere regia uirgo condeturque tuum monumentis corpus auitis… Non haec est fortuna domus: tibi munera matris  contingent fletus peregrinaeque haustus harenae.

525



Commentary

265

• 523 donabere MN MoO Go(dotabere u.l. Go2) Vt Go2 Lr27, prob. Magnus 1914, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, Segura 1983  : dotabere Ω, edd.  : dotabile Ab(dotabere p.c. Ab2)  : doctabere Gg Bo  : dotalem Mt  : dotabereis(uid.) Vd(a.c.) • 525 h(a)ec est] inu. ord. N A4B5CH2Ld3LsO4V6V7 DsMt3 B12Bo2 B14Es5F2Z P46, Bothe 18182  : haec Lr3(a.c.) Be2 P8So(est mg. add. So2) Mt5, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472  : tñ hec Cv •

523–524: the insert puto is a clear indication of the irony of Hecuba’s words in these two lines (cf. 3.266; am. 2.15.25 al.; see Bömer 1982, 331; Hopkinson 2000, 181), words that are to be refuted in the next two lines. In my opinion, a pause is a good way of indicating the transition between the two moments. Regius (1493), for his part, also tried to mark this shift by proposing an interrogative intonation in both sentences, and this has been accepted by both Lafaye (1930) and Breitenbach (1964) in their translations (see Bömer ibid.) and was recently proposed by Luck (2005b, 266). 523: donabere: the majority reading of mss. and edd. is dotabere, but some mss. (among them MN) have donabere (uid. app.; Planudes’ version seems to point to this reading too: Ἀλλ’ ἐνταφίοις, οἶμαι, τιμηθήσῃ, βασίλεια κόρη). Commentators, who here recognise the “motivo tragico delle nozze come funerali” (Hardie 2015, 294), recall the model of Verg. Aen. 7.318  f.: sanguine Troiano et Rutulo dotabere, uirgo, / et Bellona manet te pronuba. Bömer also cites (“ähnlich ironisch”) epist. 6.137  f.: Quid refert, scelerata piam si uincet et ipso / crimine dotata est emeruitque uirum?, and Hardie adds the parallel of A. Ag. 406: ἄγουσά τ᾽ ἀντίφερνον Ἰλίῳ φθορὰν (see Bömer 1982, 331; Bernardini Marzolla 1994, 656; Hopkinson 2000, 181; Hardie 2015, 294). What may not be taken into account is that in these passages (especially in the first two, as Aeschylus’ does not refer to a uirgo but to Helen) the irony is based on reality, since the uirgo can actually receive her dowry (this is also valid for the passage of Hos. Get. Med. [Anth. Lat. 17] 104, cited by Bömer, ibid.: o digno coniuncta uiro dotabere uirgo). Hecuba’s irony lies in supposing that her daughter can still receive a funeral (Bentley’s suggesting muneribus [uid. append.; see Hedicke 1905, 32] is banal with both verbs, as well as redundant: cf. 525) in accordance with her royal status (τιμηθήσῃ), as Hecuba herself denies later (525  f., and note munera), but to allude to the corpse’s dowry would plainly be a sign of bad taste, a motif of “funerali come nozze”, as it were. Of course, the passage of Virgil and the allusion to the uirgo have favoured the minimal change donabere > dotabere. Magnus (1914, 505) was the first to defend donabere, which he upheld with the parallels of epist. 11.99  f.: his mea muneribus, genitor, conubia donas? / Hac tua dote, pater, filia diues erit? and Sen. clem. 2.6.2: donabit lacrimis maternis filium. This last passage had been pointed out by Heinsius (1758, 699 [Burm. 1727, 896  f.]), who had defended dotabere by comparing it with Manil. 4.140: Taurus simplicibus dotabit rura colonis, where the same alternation is attested (see Housman 1920, 19). Yet, in any case, this parallel does not prove that dotabere is preferable in our passage. Moreover, it was Heinsius himself who left open the possibility of

266

Commentary

reading donabere: “si donabere leges, erit ut illud Sen. II de Clem. 6”. Finally, Paschalis (2003, 157  f.) discusses the suitability of dotabere because of its etymological connection with the name of Polydorus through δῶρα (dona, munera), but it is clear that to this end the variant donabere is even better. 525: we find again inversions in word order, omissions of monosyllables and reconstructions by the copyists such as non haec fortunata domus in V8 (cf. the unmetrical non haec fortuna est domus, in Mt5). 526: contingent: among other attested variants, usually wrongly expanded ligatures (uid. append.), Ls and its apograph B14 have the valid reading contigerint, which Burman (1727, 897) attests in “Basil.”, but which I was not able to find. Perhaps he is alluding to the variant contigerent, which is indeed in Bs2(a.c.). This reading of the Berolinensis (B14) was adopted by Bothe in his edition, with this justification in his Vindiciae (1818, 139): “quo numeri uersus eriguntur”. Bothe was rightly criticized by Baumgarten-Crusius (1834, 514): “de numero uersus magis sollicitus quam de sententiae ueritate”. 527–532: Omnia perdidimus. Superest, cur uiuere tempus in breue sustineam, proles gratissima matri, nunc solus, quondam minimus de stirpe uirili, has datus Ismario regi Polydorus in oras.       Quid moror interea crudelia uulnera lymphis abluere et sparsos immiti sanguine uultus?”.

530

• 532 i(m/n)miti] inson(p)ti BaBe2 P10, “unus meus” test. Heinsius 1659, dub. Hopkinson 2000(in notis)  : in uicti V6  : inimici Ld3  : inmixto B12  : inmixti Ft  : stillanti B8  : imani P41  : inmitti GfLu A2B3Ab2(mg. u.l.)GgL4Ld2Lr4Lr7O4V7Vd Ds2GoLi3McMt2 P28 Ca2(a.c.)  : immittere Ab(per comp.)  : in miti B5  : tuicoitus(uid.) C(a.c.) •

527: Bothe (18182, 267) places a question mark after perdidimus, thus ruining the devastating effect of this terrible two-word statement (uid. ad 404–7; cf. Pont. 4.16.49 and see Bömer 1982, 332  f.; Hardie 2015, 295). 528: matri: for the variant matris (uid. append.), uid. ad 494. 530: again we find the alternation between oras (horas in most of the mss.) and auras (uid. append.), and again contratas is written above, in this case above the reading of Ls: uid. ad 406 externas auras. 531: uulnera: for this poetic plural, uid. ad 490 uulnera. For the phraseology, cf. Verg. Aen. 4.683  f.: date, uulnera lymphis / abluam et… 532: et: note (uid. append.) that the copyist of Lr7 writes instead interea, from the previous line but, interestingly, this same reading can be found deleted instantly in M and N2. immiti: leaving aside the very frequent misspellings (uid. app.), note the variant insonti (insonpti in Be2) that I have found in three recc., also attested by Heinsius (1659, 345) in “unus meus”. Hopkinson (2000, 181) considers that this reading “may be right”, by comparing it with 563: sanguine sonti.



267

Commentary

Note too stillanti, also attested by Heinsius and transmitted by the codex Menardi (B8). Another somewhat interesting variant is i(n)mani, of P41, a ms. where we have already found variants which are the result of humanistic conjectures (uid. ad 458 at). For immiti sanguine, see Bömer 1982, 333  f. After this line V30 and Aler. 1471 (not so Lr22) again show a common narratio, and once more the editor corrects what he takes for errors in the antigraph: Vt(Vbi V30) hecuba post fletum ingentem Polixene(Poly- V30) extincte uiso polydori cadauere ultimo furore succensa(suce- V30) primum ad se Polymnestorem regem quasi ei thesaurum indicatura uocauit. & oculos eius digitis eruit. propter quod illam Thraces lapidibus insecuti sunt. quos ipsa fugiens in canem uersa pro humana uoce latrauit undique. 533–535: Dixit, et ad litus passu processit anili albentes lacerata comas: “Date, Troades, urnam!” dixerat infelix liquidas hauriret ut undas.      

535

• 534 lacerata] lacerat V2  : laceratque O4  : lacerate Ld(a.c.)  : laceta V5(a.c.)  : laniata Gf AbDrLd3 B8Bs2Bs4Cs2P10So Mc P41, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Weise 1845, Koch 1866 •

533–535: once again the similarity of line-beginnings and line-endings gives rise to the usual omissions through saut du même au même (uid. append.). 533: processit: probably a majority of mss. have the form procedit (cf. Planudes: πρόεισι), which was kept by some edd. down to Loers (uid. append.), who adopted it tentatively until more information from new collations was available (1843, 502). Bach (1836, 334) lists other passages of the poem where Ovid uses dixit et/-que + perf. (3.59  f., 474–6; 4.162  f.; 5.230; 8.511  f.; 13.391  f.; 14.113–5, 358–60) or else + pres. (7.488; 9.204  f., 630  f.; 13.449–52) and opts for the latter as imposing a faster rhythm (cf. 531: quid moror). He also believes that the perf. might come from an assimilation to dixit (an argument that should be valid for all the instances of this constr.). The Virgilian model (Aen. 4.641: sic ait. illa gradum studio celerabat anili) is of no help here (cf. the variants properabat and properauit). Though with some doubts, I keep the perf. because it fits more naturally with dixerat (l. 535) and lends greater eloquence to the shift to pres. in aspicit on the arrival of the new episode (l. 536). 534: lacerata: Gf and a small number of recc. transmit laniata (cf. 493), a verb that Ovid applies to hair in other passages (2.350; 4.558; 9.354). Heinsius adopted it from Bs2 “atque alii quatuor” (1659, 345), and he was followed by other edd. down to Koch (uid. app.). However, Ovid also uses lacerare: 11.726: ora, comas, uestem lacerat; 14.420: nec satis est nymphae flere et lacerare capillos, which, in any case, is a common expression: cf. Sen. Tr. 409: laceratis comas; Phaed. 731: lacerae comae; [Sen.] Oct. 328: laceratque

268

Commentary

comas; Colum. 10.70: lacerate comas; Homer. 29: dilaceratque comas; Flor. epit. 1.8.18:  laceris comis (cf., with other nouns in the same semantic field, Sen. Tr. 99  f., 800; Phaed. 826; dial. 2.11.2; Luc. 1.189; 9.57; 10.84; Stat. Theb. 3.680; 5.235; Sil. 4.774; 6.405; 6.560; Iuu. 6.490; Curt. 3.11.25; 10.5.19; Petr. 133.4; Apul. met. 4.23.10). See also Bömer 1982, 334. 536–544: Aspicit eiectum Polydori in litore corpus factaque Threiciis ingentia uulnera telis. Troades exclamant, obmutuit illa dolore et pariter uocem lacrimasque introrsus obortas deuorat ipse dolor, duroque simillima saxo       torpet et aduersa figit modo lumina terra, interdum tollit toruos ad sidera uultus, nunc positi spectat uultum, nunc uulnera nati (uulnera praecipue) seque armat et instruit ira.

540

• 539 uocem] uoces M Lr7Mo Ld Ld6 Ft Bo3Lr22Lr27V30, Aler. 1471, Merkel 1850, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, Edwards 1905, Fink 2007  : uocem uocem V6 • 542 tollit toruos N, “quatuor” test. Burm. 1727  : toruos tollit A3(t. extollit p.c. A32)Ph2 F2 Ca2  : toruos extollit Ω, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Lugd. 1546, Lugd.1565, Bersm. 1596, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Koch 1866, Anderson 1982, Tarrant 2004  : toruos sustollit M Mo N2 Lr22Lr27V30(subs-), Aler. 1471, Naug. 1516, Heinsius 1659, edd. (uid. append.)  : toruos attollit B4(ato-), “tres Heins.” test. Jahn 1832  : toruos extendit CO4O5  : toruos intendit “Oxon.” test. Heinsius 1659, “Vossian.” test. Burm. 1727 • 544–545 susp. hab. Tarrant 2004 • 544 ira] iram Lr2MN(a.c.)V23(p.c.) LsN2 B82(mg. u.l.; ira B8)Ld6 B14F2Lr27Lu2Ps, “Vatic.” test. et Burm. 1727(in notis), prob. H-K-E 1898, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, H-K-E-A 1966, Segura 1983  : arma Vd(ex itin. corr.) •

536: eiectum … in litore: note that the mss. are unanimous in the abl. litore, even though, as eicio is a verb of movement, an acc. could also be expected, as in Liu. 29.18.5: naues … in litora nostra eiectae sunt. However, Bach (1836, 334) reminds us that eicere is equivalent here to ponere, collocare, and recalls Caes. Gall. 5.10.2: prope omnes naues adflictas atque in litore eiectas esse. Indeed, in this passage a good number of edd. opt for the variant litus (see Kraner et alii 1967, 23  f., with further passages). As Bömer states (1982, 334  f.), when this verb refers to litus or similar nouns, the rule is in + acc., but other forms are possible (Prisc. gramm. 3.315.12): ‘eicitur in litus’ et ‘litore’ et ‘litori’ (cf. e.  g. Verg. Aen. 4.373: eiectum litore; see TLL 5.2.303.52–82; OLD s.u., 3, 596). Certainly, it cannot be affirmed that the phrase here depends on aspicit. At most, it could be understood as depending, through zeugma, on both verbal forms, although its position shows it to be more closely linked to eiectum. Most likely Ovid has consciously looked for variation here, and this should serve as a warning against possible temptation to regularize elsewhere (uid. ad 490 uulnera).



Commentary

269

537: telis: for this plural (uid. ad 393 telum), and its probable Virgilian echo, see Bömer 1982, 335; Hopkinson 2000, 182; Hardie 2015, 296; see also Paschalis 2003, 149  f., who proposes an etymological wordplay with Πολύδωρος as *Πολύδορος (cf. δόρυ). Cf. ad 523. 539–540: note that the excerpta coincide in transmitting both lines as a single one, in an attempt, as usual, to elicit the effect of a gnomic sentence: deuorat ipse dolor lacrimas introrsus obortas (uid. append.). 539: uocem: M and some close mss. have uoces (cf. ad 745), and this led some edd. to prefer this variant, which probably stems from obortas. In any case, reference is made to speech, not to words, as was rightly pointed out by Ehwald (1898, 408 [1966, 518]: “es kann sich doch nur um Sprechen überhaupt, nicht um einzelne Worte handeln”). lacrimasque: this is the correct form, but once more some mss. omit the enclitic particle, probably also recalling fast. 4.845  f.: haec ubi rex didicit, lacrimas introrsus obortas / deuorat (cf. also ad 539  f.). 541: aduersa  … terra: the constr. figere + abl. has caused discomfort to some copyists and given rise to variants. Ds and Bo2 opt for substituting in for et (marking the pause after torpet). More interestingly, the correcting hand in M and some recc. (uid. append.) offer a dative that I would accept (cf. e.  g. 3.24  f.: Cadmus agit grates peregrinaeque oscula terrae / figit), had Ovid not left us clear examples of this other constr. (cf. 125 oculos … tellure moratos). Furthermore, this is the majority reading in our passage: 9.83  f.: depressaque dura / cornua figit humo; fast. 2.648: et solida ramos figere pugnat humo. Cf. also (with Hopkinson 2000, 182) Verg. Aen. 6.469: illa solo fixos oculos auersa tenebat (1.482; Val. Fl. 7.104). 542: tollit toruos: the editors are divided between toruos sustollit (the majority), which is in turn the reading of M and a small number of recc., and toruos extollit (fewer edd.), which is the majority reading of the mss. (uid. app.). But Ovid does not use either extollo or sustollo in any other passage (and hence the defence of sustollit as “rarius uocabulum” loses force: Baumg.-Crus. 1834, 513; cf. Bach 1836, 335; cf. Hardie 2015, 297: “la lezione di M, sarebbe « uno fra i rari arcaismi ovidiani » (Due 1974, p. 192 nt. 100), il che suggerirebbe forse l’influsso di una tragedia latina”), and neither of the two verbs is ever used in classical literature referring to the face or the regard. The expression is obviously tollere uultus/oculos etc.: 1.86: iussit et erectos ad sidera tollere uultus; 731: tollens ad sidera uultus (fast. 2.75). Perhaps the perf. of this verb, sustulit, is the origin of the corruption in M (cf. e.  g. Verg. Aen. 2.153, with Casali 2017 ad loc.), just as the perf. extulit, of effero, is the origin of extollit (see Bömer 1982, 337). In this case, N’s is the only correct reading (Burman 1727, 898 adduces the testimony of another “quatuor” for tollit toruos ad sidera), and other recc. have the reverse, unmetrical sequence, toruos tollit. Perhaps the copyists tried to remedy the meter from an antigraph with this reading, using the majority variant extollit, or else sustollit. Note, finally, that Heinsius (1659, 345) attests the variant toruos intendit in

270

Commentary

an “Oxon.” and Burman (1727, 898) in a “Vossian.”, which could point to O5, but this ms. has toruos extendit, as does O4. As for sidera (cf. 1.86, 731 [fast. 2.75] supra; 2.487; 6.368; 9.175, 702  f.; trist. 1.11.21; [Ou.] Consol. 192), it is attested only in N CPh2 Es2(sci-) Ca2 (Burman 1727, 898 cited “quatuor”). The majority reading (uid. append.), though, is aethera, as required by the metre (cf. 411: tendebat ad aethera palmas; 3.404: inde manus aliquis despectus ad aethera tollens; fast. 4.315: ter caput inrorat, ter tollit in aethera palmas). 544–545: Tarrant expresses his doubts about these two lines with a surprising “fort. melius abessent” (2004, 392 in app.; Hardie 2015, 46 keeps the note in app. but does not address the matter in his comm.). He had not mentioned these lines, however, in Tarrant 1987 or 2000. 544: instruit ira: a small number of important mss. have the variant iram (not H3, pace Magnus 1914, 506), which Burman (1727, 898 in notis) considers “elegantius”, comparing Sen. dial. 3.13.3: uirtutem instruunt, Tac. ann. 2.74.2: crimina et accusationem … instruebant, and Iust. 9.8.9: instruere inter concordantes odia. Baumgarten-Crusius (1834, 513), who does not accept this variant, paraphrases it as “instrumenta irae parat”. Probably on the authority of M (which has just offered the obvious error uulnere) Ehwald and Magnus adopted it for their texts, and they were followed by other edd. (uid. app.). The fact, however, is that Ovid frequently uses the verb with an instrumental abl., leaving no room for doubt: e.  g. am. 1.1.12  f.: quis acuta cuspide Phoebum / instruat; epist. 7.188: instruis inpensa nostra sepulcra breui (see also epist. 9.117; 16.331, 366; met. 4.763; 6.591; 7.196, 725  f.; 8.572; 11.167; 15.479; fast. 2.318; trist. 2.1.268, 481, 529; Pont. 1.2.17). See Bömer 1982, 337. Note that Lr22 and Aler. 1471 reinstate the line, which is omitted in V30, just as they have avoided in the previous lines a number of errors present in V30 (uid. append.). 545–548: Qua simul exarsit, tamquam regina maneret,       ulcisci statuit poenaeque in imagine tota est; utque furit catulo lactente orbata leaena signaque nacta pedum sequitur quem non uidet hostem,

545

• 548 nacta pedum] nacta locum M Lr27  : nacta loco Bo  : nactum A4(a.c. a m.p.)  : pedum nacta Ld3  : na cta(p.c. i.ras.; quid a.c. n.l.) pedum(pedum p.c. i.ras.; quid a.c. –an locum?– n.l.) N, unde nancta pedum Lafaye 1930  : nata pedum V6 So(a.c.)To(a.c.) Es2To2, Accurs. 1475 • sequitur] insequitur Es4P38, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474 •

545–546: P3 and Cv alone share the fusion of both lines into just one through saut du même au même (uid. append.). 545: in imagine: the presence of this noun, especially when it is preceded by in, gives rise to the usual errors (uid. append.). For the expression, cf. 6.586.



271

Commentary

547: lactente: the mss. are equally divided between lactente and lactante (uid. append.). In this case it is lactente that fits the distinction made by Servius (ad georg. 1.315): sciendum inter lactantem et lactentem hoc interesse, quod lactans est quae lac praebet, lactens cui praebetur. It has been stated (Goold 1965, 70) that Ovid usually follows lactente, but the evidence of the mss. does not suggest a consistent practice. Furthermore, Servius’ general distinction is far from being self-evident or commonly accepted. A useful summary of the question can be found in Fàbregas 2016, 234–6 ad 10.227. 548: signaque nacta pedum: the text of the passage is clear (see Hill 2000, 155; Hopkinson 2000, 183; Hardie 2015, 299), but its transmission has experienced some difficulties. In N the part. nacta reads na cta, and we cannot guess with certainty what existed prior to the deletion. On this basis Lafaye opted to transcribe nancta. Pedum is also the reading of N over a previous deletion, which perhaps might have read locum, the strange reading transmitted solely by M (i.  e. with Lr27). Significantly, Bo, which has little affinity to the text of M, offers the ‘correction’ loco. sequitur: though with a correct and metrical result, the variant insequitur is probably a gloss (uid. app.). 549–553: sic Hecube, postquam cum luctu miscuit iram, non oblita animorum, annorum oblita suorum,     uadit ad artificem dirae, Polymestora, caedis colloquiumque petit: nam se monstrare relictum uelle latens illi, quod nato redderet, aurum.

550

• 549–550 uncinis not. Merkel 1875 • 549 cum … miscuit] luctu commiscuit Gf  : luctu permiscuit “unus Medic.” test. Burm. 1727 • 553 redderet] traderet Ld3 •

549–550: in his 2nd ed. (1875) Merkel enclosed these two lines in brackets, but he was followed only by Mendner (1939, 56  f.), who found in them sufficient faults in content and wording to consider them interpolated. His thesis was duly refuted by Marahrens (1971, 237–9: “Die Echtheit der Verse 549–550 ist weder formal und sprachlich noch vom Inhalt und von der Komposition her zu bestreiten”). See also Bömer 1982, 339; Hardie 2015, 299. 549: Hecube: for this name, uid. ad 423. cum luctu miscuit: Gf has the singular variant luctu commiscuit, with a verb that is used only once in Ovid (trist. 2.409: est et in obscenos commixta tragoedia risus), and dubiously at that, since some edd. prefer the variant deflexa (see Luck 1977, 139). Burman (1727, 898) attests luctu permiscuit in “unus Medic.”, another verb that Ovid uses only once, this time constructed with cum (14.802): sanguine cum soceri permiscuit inpius ensis. 550: non: for the systematic alternation of non/nunc, uid. append.

272

Commentary

oblita animorum, annorum oblita: Ovid’s wordplay (cf. 453) provokes the predictable copying errors and the insertion of a gloss (sed) into the text (uid. append.). For the wording of the line, see Simmons 1889, 135; Bömer 1982, 339; Hopkinson 2000, 183; Hardie 2015, 299. 551: Polymestora: for this name, uid. ad 430. Hopkinson 2000, 184: “artificem probably alludes to the etymology of Polymestor, whose name means ‘much-devising’.” 552: the section starting after petit is clearly in indirect speech (nam se … uelle), and its start must thus be marked with a colon (see Rubio 1972). Planudes misunderstands the passage and makes uelle depend on credidit: εἶσι πρὸς Πολυμήστορα τὸν τοῦ δεινοῦ φόνου δημιουργόν, καὶ εἰς κοινοὺς αὐτῷ λόγους ἐλθεῖν αἰτεῖ. Καὶ γὰρ ὑπέλαβεν ὁ Ὀδρύσιος ἐθέλειν αὐτὴν χρυσίον ὑπολειφθὲν αὐτῇ καὶ λανθάνον αὐτῷ δεῖξαι, ὅπερ ἂν ἀποδοίη τῷ τέκνῳ. 553: illi: the copyist of Gf – or of its antigraph – must have felt uneasy with the syntax of the indirect speech and therefore solved it with the ingenious conjecture fingit (uid. append.). quod: some copyists chose to highlight the element of purpose in the rel. clause quod … redderet, replacing the pronoun with the conj. quo (uid. append.). redderet: only Ld3 has the variant traderet, which is perhaps more logical than the majority reading but lacks any nuance to denote, as redderet does, that the gold will be given back to its legal owner (wrongly Bömer 1982, 339: “hier eindeutig i. q. ‘daret’”). 554–559: Credidit Odrysius praedaeque adductus amore in secreta uenit. Tum blando callidus ore:       “Tolle moras, Hecube,” dixit “da munera nato! Omne fore illius quod das, quod et ante dedisti, per superos iuro”. Spectat truculenta loquentem falsaque iurantem, tumidaque exaestuat ira.

555

• 554 adductus Polle  : fort. augentis legendum  : a(d/s)suetus Ω, edd.; obel. adhib. Tarrant 2004  : assetus Mt4(a.c.)  : assuetis V30, Aler. 1471  : accensus Magnus 1914(in notis), prob. Hill 2000, R. de Verger 2005 • assuetus amori uel allectus amore(allectus amore prob. Holzberg 2017) prop. Heinsius 1659(in notis) • 555 tum] ita P2  : dum T  : tunc Lu A2A4AbB3B4FeGg(p.c.)HdLsOV8V9Vd B8Ld6P5P8 Es2Mt4 B14Es6, Venet. 1472  : cum B5DrL4LdO3O4P4V6 Cs2Lr8P10So Mc Es4, Heinsius 1659(tum 1652), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836  : tu(uel tn) Gg(a.c.)  : nam B12 •

554: adductus: the general reading of mss. and edd. is a(s)suetus, but evidently the expression praedae assuetus amore sounds odd, and therefore different proposals for emendation have been made (uid. app.). Of all these, I prefer adductus amore, proposed by Polle (1888b, 270), because of its semantic and



273

Commentary

palaeographical proximity. For an analysis of the passage, see Rivero 2016b, 143–5, where I also suggest the possibility of reading augentis. 555: tum: apart from the habitual alternation tum/tunc, some recc. have the variant cum here, which was surprisingly adopted by Heinsius in 1659 (in 1652 he had tum): he marked a full stop after uenit, thus proposing to take cum as a preposition. This reading was accepted by some edd. down to Bach (uid. app.). 556: Hecube: recall (uid. ad 423) that in this line Merkel, in his 2nd ed. (1875, XXXVII: “inserui ET librorum scripturae”), tried to remedy the metrical problem of Hecuba by means of the harsh addition of et (I can make no sense of the reading Hecube, et in Fink 2007). 558: truculenta: despite the insistence of the commentators (Simmons 1889, 137; Bömer 1982, 341; Hopkinson 2000, 185) this adjective does not necessarily refer to Hecuba in the nominative. The fact that Polymestor speaks blando ore is no obstacle to his words being truculenta, precisely because he is callidus: i.  e., his hypocrisy depicts him as trux. At most, it will suffice to confirm that Ovid has left open this twofold reading, since in his public’s ears truculenta elicits both interpretations. 559: iurantem: the different singular variants offered by some recc. are simply graphic errors with a metrical result (uid. append.). tumidaque exaestuat: the sequence exes- has provoked a great deal of instability in the transmission of the verb (uid. append.). Note that the copyist of P41 once more (uid. ad 532 immiti) displays his talent in reconstructing the text of his antigraph: tumida tunc extuat. Cf. 6.623: tacitaque exaestuat ira (cf. 545: exarsit; 867: exaestuat). 560–561: Atque ita correpto captiuarum agmina matrum  inuocat et digitos in perfida lumina condit

560

• 560–561 fort. secludendi  : atque ita correptum captiuarum agmine matrum / inuolat Heinsius 1659 “cum primo Moreti” et aliis codicibus, prob. Burm. 1727, edd. aliquot (uid. append.)  : atque ita correpto captiuarum agmine matrum / inuolat Heinsius 1652, Lindemann 1856 • 560 hunc u. uncinis not. Hardie 2015, om. Holzberg 2017 • correpto Ω, edd.; uix sanum  : correpta N(a.c.) Ld(ira suprascr.)Lr3V7 Ca2(a.c.)  : corepta Vd  : correptum Lu2(mg.)M2(a.c.)S2T B42(mg.)Tu V16(-o i.l. u.l. V162) Rd Go2, Heinsius 1659, edd. aliquot (supra)  : correptô P2(p.c.; -o a.c.)  : corepto O3 Bo, Calph. 1480  : continuo Pr  : captiuo Go(a.c. a m.p.)  : corrupto Mo3  : correcto Mc • agmina] agmine L3LuN(uid., a.c.) A3(p.c.)AbF(-a u.l. F2)G(corr. G2)L4Lr4Lr7O3V5(uid., p.c.)V9Vd(a.c.) Bs4DsV16 P28 Bs7(i.l.)Es4Es5, “Rhen.”(non sic Tu) test. Jahn 1832, Heinsius 1659(qui et “septem alii” test.), edd. aliquot (supra)  : agmin[ Ls • 561 inuocat] inuolat A(a.c.)Lu DeF(inuocat i.l. u.l. F2)G(p.c.)L42(mg. u.l.)Ld22(i.l. u.l.)Lr4Mo2(i.l. u.l.)TuV5(a.c.)V9 DsV16 P28, Plan., Heinsius 1659(qui et “Calandr.  … et alii sex” test.), Hardie 2015, Holzberg 2017, edd. aliquot (supra)  : aduocat A2Vd Mt3  : conuocat A42(mg. u.l.)V4 P8 Es2  : inuicat Z(a.c.) •

274

Commentary

560–561: whether taken as an abl. absol. with no noun element (Keene 1898, 98; Bömer 1982, 341), or  – even better  – as a datiuus incommodi depending on both inuocat and condit (Simmons 1889, 137; Hopkinson 2000, 185; Hardie 2015, 300), correpto looks strange here. Equally unconvincing are inuocat, which Ovid always applies to gods, and inuolat, a verb not used by Ovid elsewhere. I therefore find the different proposals based on them unsatisfactory. I think that both lines are probably spurious, and thus the action is centred on Hecuba’s revenge (i.  e. exaestuat ira, / expellitque genis oculos). This avoids the unnecessary distraction of both the reference to the Trojan women, who have hardly any function in the Ovidian version, and the allusion to the mutilation (digitos in perfida lumina condit) which is dealt with again in the following line (562). For a detailed analysis of the passage, see Rivero 2016b, 145–7. 562–564: expellitque genis oculos (facit ira nocentem) immergitque manus, foedataque sanguine sonti, non lumen (neque enim superest), loca luminis haurit. • 562 expellitque MP2 B2Lr7MoN2O3Vd2(p.c.) Ld6 B122(i.l. u.l.; -pilatque B12) Bo3(a.c.)Lr22Lr27P38V30Vd11, Aler. 1471, Calph. 1474, edd. (uid. append.)  : expil(l)atque A42(mg. u.l.)Ld22(p.c.)Vd(a.c.) Go2(u.l.) Bo22(p.c.) Bo3(p.c.) Ω, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, edd. (uid. append.)  : expoliatque P2(mg. u.l.)S2 B42(mg.)DrG(i.l. u.l. a m.p.)Ld(i.l. u.l. a m.p.) Bs2(a.c.)D Bs7F2, in ii lib. test. Ciof. 1575, mg. test. Bersm. 1596, “alii” test. D. Heinsius 1629, prob. Heinsius 1659(qui “quatuor” test.), edd. pauci (uid. append.)  : alii alia (uid. append.) • nocentem] potentem GfLr22(mg. u.l.) B3BaBe2H3L42(mg. u.l.)Ld2Lr3MtPrV4V92(i.l. pr.u.l.) B8Lr8(nocentem i.l. u.l. Lr82)Mt3P5P8P10To(nocentem mg. u.l. To2)V162(i.l. alt.u.l.) B12Es2Es3(p.c., quid a.c. n.l.)McMt42(i.l.) Bs72Cv2(i.l. u.l.; nocentem Cv)Es3Es4F2Lu22(mg. u.l.)P41Ps2(i.l.)Z, “in meo antiquiore” test. Ciof. 1575, Heinsius 1659(qui et “multi alii” test.), edd. aliquot (uid. append.)  : ualentem P2(mg. u.l.) A2A4B44(i.l. u.l.)DeGg2(i.l. u.l.)HdL4LdLr4Lr6Ls2(ual[ i.l. u.l.)MoOO4Ph2(p.c.)TrV6V7V8V92(i.l. alt.u.l.)Vd(nocentem i.l. u.l. Vd2) Cs2DsDs2GoLd6Lr83(i.l. alt.u.l.)Mo3V162(i.l. pr.u.l.; nocentem V16) BoBo22(mg. u.l.; nocentem Bo2)Mt4P28 AsP38 Ca2, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, edd. plurimi (uid. append.)  : uolentem B5(nocentem mg. B52) Es6  : nocentes V45, mg. scr. Bersm. 1596  : nocetê O3  : noce[ Ls  : furentem coni. Breitenbach 1964  : quid a.c. P2(nocentem p.c.) Ph2 n.l.  : de Tu n.l. •

562: expellitque genis oculos: the great instability shown by the mss. in the previous two lines persists in this one (uid. app. et append.). As far as the verb is concerned, the mss. and edd. are divided mainly between expellit, expilat (the majority ms. reading) and ex(s)poliat; the form of the complements also varies accordingly (i.  e. genis oculos or genas oculis, apart from other clearly erroneous combinations). Neither expilat nor exspoliat is conceivable in Ovid, while the latter is, furthermore, symptomatically frequent in Christian texts probably familiar to the copyists (TLL 5.2.1702.50–1703.31; 5.2.1905.41–1908.47; Hopkinson 2000, 185).



Commentary

275

The constr. is clear: expellit oculos (cf. 6.617  f.: per uulnera mille / sontem animam expellam; 13.394: expulit [sc. telum] ipse cruor) + separative abl. genis (cf. 11.269: expulsumque domo patria). Cf. also Sen. Oed. 955: sedibus pulsi [sc. oculi] suis. A timid defence of effoditque can be found in Luck 2005, 216. A firm rejection of expellit and defence of expilat can be found as early as in the “eorum apologia quae fuerant a quibusdam reprehensa” that appears in the praefatio of the ed. of Regius 1526: “Expilatque genis oculos. Qui putant omnino expellit esse legendum ij mihi neque ueteris scripturae, neque naturae foemineae ullam habuisse rationem uidentur. Nam et in antiquis codicibus expilat scriptum est, quod quidem uerbum tam infirmitati foemineae conuenit, quam illud expellit repugnat. Acubus enim Hecuba polymestori oculos eruisse fertur. Quare expilat ut fuit ab Ouidio scriptum, ita prorsus est legendum”. Cf. Anderson (1982, 316 in app.), also defending expilatque: “metaphoram audacem puto retinendam”. nocentem: the mss. and edd. are again divided between nocentem, potentem, and ualentem (Planudes’ version: Δίδωσι μὲν οὖν αὐτῇ ῥώμην ὁ θυμός, would be valid for ualentem but also for potentem). The decision is not an easy one. Those who defend nocentem adduce the parallels of Sen. Phoen. 451  f.: Error inuitos adhuc / fecit nocentes (for more Ovidian echoes in this passage, see Bömer 1982, 342; Jakobi 1988, 43  f.), and  – even better  – Iuu. 6.647: quotiens facit ira nocentes. Heinsius (1659, 346) defends potentem (“recte”), comparing only other passages where this form competes with alternative variants (1658, 234 ad am. 2.2.30; H-K-E 1898, 252 add the uerba potentia of am. 3.11.31, although Ehwald 1915 opted for nocentem). For his part, Burman (1727, 899) defends ualentem in these terms: “nocentem glossatoris est, qui ualentem explicabat, ita uiribus ualentem, ut nocere posset”. Bothe adheres to this defence (1818, 140: “rectissime”) but surprisingly recalls 7.526, where he defends (1818, 72–4) causa potens (i.  e. not causa ualens) as against the general reading causa nocens. More solid grounds underlie Bach’s defence (1836, 337): he compares Sen. Tr. 672: dabit ira uires, thus taking uires to be Seneca’s variation on the Ovidian ualentem. Finally, Breitenbach was not fully persuaded by any of these variants and conjectured furentem, comparing 5.13  f.: quae te, germane, furentem / mens agit in facinus? (1964, 1132: “furentem würde dem Sinn entsprechen”). Bömer (1982, 342) appositely replies: “furens war Hecuba schon vorher” (l. 559). In my opinion, Burman’s reasoning would be valid if it were a matter of choosing between ualentem and potentem; of these two, potentem is the more questionable form, in that it is more generic. This does not, however, apply to nocentem, which adds a seme that is absent from the other two variants. The question, then, is which of Hecuba’s qualities Ovid is trying to highlight here: her strength and power, unusual for her sex and age, in a physical fight against a man; or else her rage – the particularly bloody way in which she decides to take revenge on Polymestor. Both possibilities are completely

276

Commentary

acceptable, but Euripides’ model, which makes no reference to the strength of the women but only to their number (Hec. 1167: πλήθει γυναικῶν), emphasizes instead Hecuba’s cruelty and capacity for harm (Hec. 1037; 1056–87; 1107–23; 1168–71), as can be seen in Agamemnon’s reaction (1118  f.): ἦ μέγαν χόλον / σοὶ καὶ τέκνοισιν εἶχεν ὅστις ἦν ἄρα; (1122  f.): τί φῄς; σὺ τοὔργον εἴργασαι τόδ᾽, ὡς λέγει; / σὺ τόλμαν, Ἑκάβη, τήνδ᾽ ἔτλης ἀμήχανον; For this reason, as well as because of its greater weight in the ms. transmission and the above-mentioned probable imitation by Juvenal, I opt for nocentem. Too problematic to be used as support is Pont. 1.8.19  f. (nec prius abscessit merita quam caede nocentum / [se nimis ulciscens, exstitit ipse nocens]), but it can, however, shed some light on the matter (see Bömer 1982, 342; Gaertner 2005, 440  f.). 563: immergitque: note the singular variant inuergitque (uid. append.), which shows once more the particular affinity between P38 and the ed. of Calph. 1474. manus: here is another sign of the instability of the mss. in the last few lines. At some moment in the textual transmission to which MN belong, the word oculos of l. 562 has slipped into the text of this line (thus still in N), forcing the omission of sanguine to adjust the metrics. In M or its antigraph the copyist has realized the syntactic unfeasibility of manus oculos and has repaired the text with the form oculis (or the source of the corruption might have been Luc. 6.541: immergitque manus oculis, with the variation oculos coming from l. 562 at a later point). As far as N is concerned, the m.p. (or a contemporary one) has recovered sanguine, though without deleting oculos. For its part, Bo3 offers a hybrid text here by including sanguine against the metre, as in N(p.c.), but with the variants oculis and sontis, as in M. A small number of recc. side clearly with M (uid. append.). But whatever the origin of the corruption, the resulting text is unacceptable because of the expression foedataque sonti, and even more so in view of foedataque, sontis (i.  e. sontis lumen/loca luminis). sonti: the majority of mss. have the variant sontis (cf. Planudes: τῷ τοῦ ἐξαγίστου αἵματι), which is more banal as it tries to avoid the hypallage (if sonti is not to be taken also as a dative with haurit), but it was recovered by Ehwald as a result of his adherence to M (uid. append.). Cf. 11.268: fraterno sanguine sontem (with variants: see Díez 2014, 202) and compare in turn, at line-ending, 6.311: cacumine montis (8.797); 12.337: acumine montis. 564: for the expression of the line, see Keene 1898, 98  f.; Slater 1927, ad loc.; Bömer 1982, 342; Hill 2000, 155; Hopkinson 2000, 185; Hardie 2015, 301. 565–571: Clade sui Thracum gens inritata tyranni        565 Troada telorum lapidumque incessere iactu coepit. At haec missum rauco cum murmure saxum



277

Commentary

morsibus insequitur rictuque in uerba parato latrauit conata loqui (locus extat et ex re nomen habet), ueterumque diu memor illa malorum  tum quoque Sithonios ululauit maesta per agros.

570

• 567 rauco  … murmure] cum rauco murmure L3Lr2M2 B3CH3Ld3Lr3OPh2Vd DsTo Vt CvLu2 Ca2  : rauco de murmure Dr  : rauco cum gutture(uid.) Mt4  : quid Es3 a.c. n.l. • 568 in MN(a.c.) A4B3FeHdL4LdLr4Lr6Lr7MoMtN2OTrV7V8V9Vd GoLd6P10SoV16 B12BoMt4P28Vt Bo3Lr22Lr27V30Vd11, Aler. 1471, Naug. 1516, Heinsius 1659, edd.  : ad N(p.c. a m.rec.)Lu2(i.l.) Ω, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Bach 1836  : om. Lu •

567: rauco cum murmure: L3Lr2M2 and some recc. (uid. app.) offer the habitual rearrangement cum rauco murmure (cf. ad 94 pro tot date). saxum: note the singular error iactum, coming from the previous line, a reading that is shared only by MN and Bo3Lr27Vd11 (uid. append.). 568: in: against this variant of MN (N’s correction coincides as usual with V2), of many recc. and most of the edd., the majority of mss. and some edd. down to Bach have ad (uid. app.), a form that is equally correct (TLL 10.1.430.71–76). See Bömer 1976b, 165 ad 6.613. 572–575: Illius Troasque suos hostesque Pelasgos, illius Fortuna deos quoque mouerat omnes, sic omnes, ut et ipsa Iouis coniunxque sororque euentus Hecubam meruisse negauerit illos.    

575

• 574 sic omnes] et homines MN(uel etsi omnes, a.c.) Lr27  : sic homines N2 Vd11  : sicut omnes Bo • ut] uti LuMM2S2 Lr7TrTu P28 Bo3F2Lr27Z  : om. B4(a.c. a m.p.)B5(ut mg. B52) • 575 negauerit] negauerat ALr2Lu(a.c.)M2NT(a.c.) B2B3B4Be2CDrF(negauerit i.l. u.l. F2)G(corr. G2)Hd(a.c.)L4LdLr4LsP3PrTrTuV7V8V9Vd Cs2Ld6P5P8(a.c.)SoTo Bo2Es2Rd B14CvEs6F2Lu2Ps Ca2(a.c.)  : nagauerit P4(a.c.)  : negauit Mc •

572: Troasque suos hostesque: V30 has the variant hostesque suos troasque, as against Lr22 and Aler. 1471, which have the correct reading. The variant itself has no other interest than its proximity to the also-erroneous reading of M(a.c.): troasque suos hostesque suos (uid. append. and cf. the reading hostesque suo of A3, corrected instantly). Pelasgos: M contains another error, since it brings here per agros from the previous line. For its part, N, before the correction to Pelasgos, displays the halfway variant pelagros (uid. append.). In S2 the gloss alienos has slipped into the text. 574: sic omnes: MN again share an almost exclusive error within a few lines. Here M has et homines, and N & homines, to be exact, though in the latter the initial reading may have been & si omnes. At a later point, the copyist writes a -c after what already appears as si (i.  e. & sicomnes) and marks & with

278

Commentary

slight lines that we must interpret as cancellations or deletions, though the sign remains quite visible. In any case, the origin of the corruption is once again clearer if we depart from this abbreviation in N (i.  e. & for S) than if we depart from M, which seems to show a later stage of the text (uid. ad 442 late). Once again, too, the early correction in N coincides with the paradosis of V2. Note finally that N2 and Vd11 are once more close to MN with their reading sic homines. ut et: leaving aside inversions or omissions that are habitual in these sequences of monosyllables (uid. append.), it is interesting to pay attention to the variant uti in some mss. (uid. app.). However, it does not seem genuine, as this form is never used by Ovid before a vowel (uid. ad 135 ut). 575: Hecubam: the mss. and edd. are even more unanimous in this form of the name in the acc. than in its previous occurrences in the nom. (uid. ad 549, 556). negauerit: a significant number of mss. have negauerat (uid. app.), in line with the habitual instability of this verbal forms. 576–582: Non uacat Aurorae, quamquam isdem fauerat armis, cladibus et casu Troiaeque Hecubaeque moueri. Cura deam propior luctusque domesticus angit Memnonis amissi, Phrygiis quem lutea campis uidit Achillea pereuntem cuspide mater;      580 uidit, et ille color quo matutina rubescunt tempora palluerat, latuitque in nubibus aether. • 580 uidit … mater] mater … uidit Ds2 • 581 color] rubor Lu2(i.l. u.l.)M N2 Bo3Lr22Lr27Vd11, “duo ex melioribus” test. Heinsius, “Berol.”(non sic B14) test. Jahn 1832, Aler. 1471, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, van Proosdij 1951, H-K-E-A 1966  : robur V30  : dolor B4(a.c.) P8(a.c.)  : calor(uid.) P4(a.c.)  : “ille dolor uel deus pr. Gron. leg. ille decor” Heinsius  : quid A a.c. (prim. –o- i.ras.) n.l. •

577: Hecubaeque: again the majority of mss. and edd. have this Latin form (uid. append.), although some edd. (e.  g. Bothe 1818, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005) still prefer the Greek form Hecabesque (uid. ad 575 Hecubam). 578: propior: the variant proprior (uid. append.) probably stems from a misreading of something such as propior, a spelling common to both forms, though more specifically reserved for proprior. For the expression, cf. Pont. 4.9.71: ab rerum cura propiore uacabit. For propior as a “technical term” appropriate to this context, see Hopkinson 2000, 187. Note the rewriting of the line in Mc and As: cura dicta prior (cf. 484). angit: the singular variant artat of Ls and B14 is simply a gloss; cogit, of Lr4, might also be the result of misreading. For the expression, see Bömer 1982, 350.



279

Commentary

579: lutea: the relative rarity of the adj. (see Simmons 1889, 139; Bömer 1982, 350; Hopkinson 2000, 187; Hardie 2015, 305) gives rise to the habitual deformations or insertions of glosses (uid. append.). 580: Ds2, one of Bersman’s mss., uniquely changes the order of the words uidit and mater, thus substituting an anadiplosis for the anaphora (Hardie 2015, 305: “l’iperbato pone mater con enfasi a fine verso a 580”). For the repetition of uidit, see Keene 1898, 100; Wills 1996, 176; Hardie (ibid.). 581: color: M and some related recc. have rubor (it is also written above in Lu2 as a u.l.), clearly stemming from rubescunt (cf. Lucr. 5.462: matutina rubent). This is also the reading of Aler. 1471, in accordance with Lr22, and as a correction of the paradosis robur in V30. Magnus (1914, 508) adopted it “cum M ccBerol et duobus Heinsianis”, and was followed by Ehwald (1915, not yet in 1898; uid. app.). In reality, Heinsius (b3, 369) attests the reading in “duo ex melioribus”, one of which could be M, and Magnus’ reference to the “Berol.” comes again from Jahn (1832, 859), although this is not the reading of B14. Magnus had defended this reading before (1904, 56) by comparing analogous repetitions in Ovid such as 1.386: pauido rogat ore pauetque; 6.46  f.: sed tamen erubuit, subitusque inuita notauit / ora rubor, and other less obvious passages, which were rejected by Helm (1915, 547  f.). Heinsius’ unpublished proposal (b3, 369) has an even weaker basis: “ille dolor uel deus pr. Gron. leg. ille decor”. In reality, the primus Gronouianus (B4) clearly has ipê dolor, and the same m.p. underlines both the adj. and the letters do, and writes ille co above. These letters co might have confused Heinsius, who perhaps took them for the abbreviation of deus, and hence his proposal decor. rubescunt: the ligature rubesc’t has been misread in some recc. as rubescit. Heinsius (b3, 369) records it in an “Oxon.” with the interpretation “ut sit Graecismus. uenuste”. 582: latuitque in: the sequence -que in gives rise to the predictable changes (uid. append.). Heinsius (b3, 369) records latuit sub (cf. Ld6) in the excerpta Langermanni. aether: Heinsius (o5, 341) states that “u.c. Reg.” has the variant Oete, which he relates to 11.383: rex iubet Oetaeus, with an analogous alternation (see Díez 2014, 274). The mss. are a long way from offering the correct orthographic form of the word aether (uid. append.), which in any case poses no doubts (see Hardie 2015, 305). 583–586: At non impositos supremis ignibus artus sustinuit spectare parens, sed crine soluto sicut erat, magni genibus procumbere non est     dedignata Iouis lacrimisque has addere uoces:

585

280

Commentary

• 586 lac(h)rimisque] lacrimasque T(a.c.) Gg(a.c.)  : lacrimis AbB4(a.c.)Be2V7(a.c.)V9 So Es6 : lacrimis et B4(p.c.)  : neque enim P10 •

584: parens: the singular variant pauens of P41 might be the result of misreading or else another conjecture by the copyist (uid. ad 532 immiti). Cf. Verg. Aen. 6.308 (georg. 4.477): impositique rogis iuuenes ante ora parentum. 585: sicut erat: Markland (1728, 99  f.) based himself on this passage (the mss. and edd. are unanimous) to propose the reading in Stat. silu. 2.3.33: sicut erat, cum ueste ruit (instead of sic tota cum ueste ruit: see Håkanson 1969, 69–71). For its use in this context, cf. 3.178 and 5.601 (see Simmons 1889, 140; Hardie 2015, 306). 586: lacrimisque has addere uoces: some mss. (uid. app. et append.) omit -que in synaloepha, and others (T B3Gg) assimilate the noun to the case of has (-asque), or even reconstruct the expression, as in O4: lacrimosasque addere uoces (for a weeping goddess, see Hardie 2015, 306). Greater instability is shown by the infinitive addere (probably because it is a unique expression): in De (it is probably also this reading that P22 changes into addere) the word appears as reddere (cf. Cic. diu. 1.13.11; Arat. frg. 3.4; Catull. 64.166; Varro At. carm. frg. 11.5; Verg. Aen. 1.409; 6.689; Ciris 255) and in some recc. as edere (cf. Lucr. 4.990; Val. Fl. 4.24). 587–590: “Omnibus inferior quas sustinet aureus aether (nam mihi sunt totum rarissima templa per orbem), diua tamen, ueni, non ut delubra diesque des mihi sacrificos caliturasque ignibus aras      

590

• 589–590 diesque  … sacrificos] deisque  … sacrificis MN(uid., a.c.) Lr27  : bouesque  … sacrificos B4(corr. B42)B52(mg.)ELr32(a m.rec.)Pr Es2(corr. Es22) Vd11, “quatuor alii” test. Heinsius 1659, “unus Farnab. cod.” test. Jahn 1832  : decusque(“prim. Moret.” test. Heinsius 1659) … sacrificum Ds  : decusque … sacrificis Bo  : popasque … sacrificos prop. Heinsius 1659(in notis)  : dapesque  … sacrificas uel focosque  … sacrificos dub. Burm. 1727(in notis)  : diesque … sacrifico P2(a.c.)  : diesque … sacrifices T Lr8  : diesque … sacros L4(a.c.)  : diesque  … sanctificos Mt  : diesque  … sacrificas P5  : quid pro diesque a.c. B12 n.l. • 589 ueni] uenio Gf A3B5(a.c.)DeDrF2(i.l. u.l.)Gg(infrascr. u.l. a m.p.)H22(suprascr. o)Hd(a.c.)L4Ld2Ld3Lr4Lr6Mo2(mg. u.l.)OO32(suprascr. o)O4V6V8Vd B8Bs2Bs3Cs2Go(p.c.)P5P8V16 Cs3Mt4Mt5P28Vt AsBs7 Ca2, “Berol.”(non sic B14) test. Jahn 1832, prob. Heinsius 1659(“meliores”), edd. aliquot (uid. append.)  : ueni o Mo(a.c.; ueni p.c.)  : om. B4(a.c.) •

587: quas: M (perhaps also N a.c., though this cannot be confirmed) has the erroneous quæ (uid. append.), which significantly appears in some recc. and in Aler. 1471. Other recc. have quos, which once made Heinsius propose (b3, 369): “leg. quot sustinet”. aureus aether: l. 582 also ends with aether, and this has led to variants such as aureus orbis (Go2 i.l. u.l., and cf. ebur in O a.c.) or axis, which I have found in Gf and O4 (the latter was cited by Heinsius in b3, 369) and which



Commentary

281

Burman (1727, 902) records “ex uno Argent.”. He shows sympathy for this reading because it avoids repetition, but this device abounds in Ovid; furthermore, we find it in these very lines in (584–7) sustinuit … sustinet (a likely instance of “semantisches Wortspiel”: see Schawaller 1987; for sustinet, cf. Pl. Poen. 90: quantum hominum terra sustinet; Sall. Iug. 14.2: homo omnium quos terra sustinet sceleratissumus; Sen. contr. 7.2.5: reum omnium quos terra sustinet nocentissimum). As far as the adj. is concerned, some copyists may have noted the oddity of the expression aureus aether, only attested in this passage, and thus some recc. have arduus, no doubt recalling Virgil (georg. 1.324: ruit arduus aether; Aen. 10.102: silet arduus aether) and Ovid himself (1.151: Neue foret terris securior arduus aether; Pont. 2.8.61  f.: Sic homines nouere deos, quos arduus aether / occulit). Cf. also Luc. 2.290; Stat. Theb. 9.30. The adj. aureus is not applied to the celestial vault anywhere else by Ovid; however, since the testimonies are unanimous, we can accept it as a singular use here, for the epithet is completely appropriate: cf. 10.448  f.: fugit aurea caelo / luna; fast. 1.473: aetherios … ignes (cf. Lucr. 6.205: color aureus ignis). Ovid may also be evoking the etymological connection between aurora and aureus as established by Varro (ling. 7.83): aurora dicitur ante solis ortum, ab eo quod ab igni solis tum aureo aër aurescit (see Maltby 1991, 68 s.u. aurora; Bömer 1982, 352; Hopkinson 2000, 188; Hardie 2015, 306  f.). 589–590: delubra diesque / des mihi sacrificos: perhaps the relative rarity of the adj. (cf. 15.483: sacrificos docuit ritus, and see Keene 1898, 101) and the fact that it is nowhere else applied to dies (Bömer 1982, 352) have given rise to some of the variants. M has deisque  … sacrificis (sacrificis seems to be the reading in N a.c. also; furthermore, it is not to be ruled out that the first reading was the nonsensical diesque … sacrificis). Other recc. have the reading – one which is more banal and spoils the alliteration of d- (Hardie 2015, 307)  – bouesque  … sacrificos (in Lr3 added by a much more recent hand). The first of Bersman’s mss., Ds, has decusque (a noun attested in the “prim. Moret.” by Heinsius 1659, 346) … sacrificum (cf. decusque … sacrificis in Bo). Finally, in B12 diesque is the correction of another reading, now illegible. Heinsius does not seem satisfied with diesque … sacrificos, and proposes (ibid.) popasque … sacrificos, comparing Prop. 4.3.62: succinctique calent ad noua lucra popae, and Auien. 36.12: admotum cultro comminus ire popae. Burman is no less inventive (1727, 902): “Forte scripserit, dapesque des mihi sacrificas. Ita dies & dapes confuderunt librarii apud Claudian. praef. in Nupt. Honor. 4. sed forte praestiterit, focos sacrificos. uel nihil mutare”. 589: diua tamen: the close connection between tamen and diua (not ueni) is more clearly expressed by placing a comma after tamen, as some edd. do. In this way it is made clear that diua is not an odd predicative, but an apposition to the implicit subject, like inferior (l. 587). ueni: Gf and several recc. have the variant uenio, which Heinsius recovers for his edition with the disputable argument (1659, 346) of “meliores” (in b3,

282

Commentary

369 he noted parallels such as epist. 7.103: uenio, uenio tibi debita coniunx, which he did not pass on to his published notes). Heinsius was followed by some edd. down to Merkel (1875, not in 1850) and Keene (1898, 10), who thus diverges from his reference ed. (Haupt-Korn, Berlin 1881). Although both forms are acceptable, note that in Mo the apparent o that appears – separated – after ueni is in fact a punctuation mark. non ut: note (uid. append.) the incorrect sequence ut non offered uniquely by M and Mo (even Lr27 corrects the reading of its antigraph). 590: caliturasque: leaving aside other misspellings (uid. append.) or conjectures (colendasque in P41: uid. ad 584), we must pay attention either to the variant calituras, which makes less sense here, or to the singular reading of Gf: caliturasue, no doubt to be preferred but lacking any support in the transmission, or else to the unmetrical variant of M2: caligantesque, the result of a correction on a previous caligxxxxq: in M (the copyist of Lr27 has read the correction as caligantemque). The variant of M is of interest inasmuch as the reading calig might indicate a (direct or – rather – intermediate) antigraph in Beneventan script (uid. ad 37), where the g-t confusion is easy (cf. in turn caligaturasque in Pr). For the wording of the line, cf. 12.152: calentibus aris; Pont. 3.3.90: omnis odoratis ignibus ara calet. 591–594: (si tamen aspicias quantum tibi femina praestem tum cum luce noua noctis confinia seruo, praemia danda putes; sed non ea cura neque hic est nunc status Aurorae, meritos ut poscat honores): • 591 tibi] uel Ca2  : orbi coni. Shackleton Bailey, fort. recte • femina] femina femina Lr8  : praeuia prop. Heinsius • 592 seruo] seruant L3(uid., a.c.)  : soluo Gf  : cerno Ls B14(seruo i.l. u.l. B142)  : seuo Es2  : presto Es4  : signo coni. Liberman, prob. Luck •

591: tibi: Ca2 has incorporated the gloss uel into the text. More interesting is Shackleton Bailey’s conjecture (1981, 336): “Aurora’s service is to the world rather than to Jupiter in particular. Read orbi?”. The reasoning is not decisive in itself, although Hardie (2015, 307) reinforces it when he reminds us that tibi “suona ironico” if we take into account am. 1.13.45  f., where Ovid alludes to Jupiter’s stratagem to avoid Aurora: ipse deum genitor, ne te tam saepe uideret, / commisit noctes in sua uota duas. The fact is that orbi would be a repetition of the term (more an argument in favour than against: uid. ad 587 aureus aether): whereas it is used in l. 588 with a negative nuance, here it would convey the positive perspective of Aurora’s dedication to the world as a whole. Apart from that, the conjecture is palaeographically impeccable if we think of an antigraph in Beneventan script (uid. ad 590). femina: it seems that Heinsius did not feel at ease with the expression tibi praestem, since he suggested (b3, 369) “f. praeuia” (i.  e. tibi praeuia praestem),



283

Commentary

an adj. to the liking of Ovid, and which has the partial backing of epist. 18.112: praeuius Aurorae Lucifer ortus erat (cf. Cic. carm. frg. 1.1  f.). Heinsius did not take his proposal any further; in any case, it makes no clear sense and creates an unpleasant sequence prae- … prae-. 592: seruo: not unjustifiably, Liberman expresses his suspicion (2004, 85): “Seruo […] ne semble pas donner une notation bien satisfaisante. Je suggère signo, «  quand je marque d’une lumière neuve les confins de la nuit  » (cf. 11,590, arcuato caelum curuamine signans [Iris]). Tarrant signale la variante signat (que Madvig retrouva par conjecture) à la place du problématique, pour ne pas dire impossible, seruat en 12,23, fit lapis (serpens) et seruat serpentis imagine saxum”. Luck (2008, 16) openly approves of this proposal, and he adds the comparison with Verg. Aen. 7.3  f.: et nunc seruat honos sedem tuus, ossaque nomen / Hesperia in magna, si qua est ea gloria, signat. Some support might even be found in the verb finit in epist. 16.202: extremum noctis quae dea finit iter. However, confinia seruare can make good sense as “to keep the boundaries/limits” (Hardie 2015, 307: “Ovidio sente molto il fascino dei confini e della loro trasgressione”): cf. Verg. Aen. 6.574  f.: cernis custodia qualis / uestibulo sedeat, facies quae limina seruet?; Ou. fast. 1.173: per me, qui limina seruo; met. 10.383: limen seruantis alumnae (Mart. 7.61.9; Sil. 13.539; 16.316). 593: neque: for the neque/nec alternation (uid. append.), uid. ad 127 neque. 595–599: Memnonis orba mei uenio, qui fortia frustra     pro patruo tulit arma suo primisque sub annis occidit a forti (sic uos uoluistis) Achille. Da, precor, huic aliquem, solacia mortis, honorem, summe deum rector, maternaque uulnera leni!”.

595

• 597 uos MN HdLr4Lr6(dij i.l. Lr62)Lr7MoN2 V16 BoFt B142(i.l.)Bo3Lr27Vd11, Heinsius 1659(qui et “Oxon. et decem alii ex melioribus” test.), edd.  : di(i) N2(i.l. ut gloss.) Ω, Plan., Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Ciof. 1575, Bersm. 1596, Bothe 18182, Jahn 1832  : dii uos Lu  : dum Es2 • uoluistis] statuistis S2 V8 Ld6P5, cf. 4.661  : noluistis Ds2 •

597: uos: once again, MN and a select number of recc. have the correct reading, uos, while the rest transmit in the text the gloss di, probably under the influence of 4.661: creuit in inmensum (sic, di, statuistis) et omne, based in turn on the model of Verg. Aen. 5.49  f.: iamque dies – nisi fallor – adest, quem semper acerbum, / semper honoratum (sic di uoluistis) habebo (cf. Gratt. 539; Stat. Theb. 5.501). The reading di makes good sense in those passages because the apostrophe is made by mortals, yet it would be out of place if uttered by Aurora. The same uos/di alternation is found in 1.2 (see Burm. 1727, 9 ad loc.). Again, the origin of the error can be traced to N: N2 has written ł quia above sic (i.  e. as

284

Commentary

a uaria lectio), and díí above uos (i.  e. as a gloss; cf. Lr62), which may have caused other copyists to err (cf. the unmetrical reading of Lu: dii uos). 600–603: Iuppiter annuerat, cum Memnonis arduus alto  corruit igne rogus nigrique uolumina fumi infecere diem, ueluti cum flumina nantes exhalant nebulas nec sol admittitur infra.

600

• 600–603 annuerat. … infra: dist. Jahn 1832, prob. Bach 1836, Korn 1880 • 602–603 flumine natae / exhalant nebulae coni. Bothe 1818  : flumine Nais / exhalat nebulas coni. Housman, prob. Goold 1984 • (ueluti … infra) pro parenth. hab. Magnus 1914, Fink 2007 • 602 om. MN(i.l. suppl. m.p.) Lr27 • flumina] flamina Lu(a.c.) B4(a.c.)Lr7, “Thuaneus”(non P28) test. Burm. 1727  : flumine L4(uid., a.c.)MtO(a.c.)O3(a.c.) BoP28(p.c.)Rd F2Z(a.c.), Bothe 1818, Housman, Goold 1984 (supra)  : farmina Cs3  : femina Mc  : quid B12 a.c. n.l. • nantes scripsi  : natas Ω, edd.  : notas Ba  : nigras Bs22(mg. u.l.)  : netas Bo2(a.c.)  : natos Li3  : uictas “Zulichem.2” test. Slater 1927  : latas dub. Burm. 1727(in notis), prob. von Albrecht 1994  : natae Bothe 1818 (supra)  : Nais Housman, Goold 1984 (supra)  : lentas Postgate, Edwards 1905, Hardie 2015, Holzberg 2017  : gratas Slater  : opacas uel uastas Shackleton Bailey  : caecas Harries  : densas Liberman et item R. de Verger  : inertes uel spissas dub. R. de Verger • 603 ex(h)alant] exalat M Lr27, Housman, Goold 1984 (supra)  : exalarat Rd  : deest in Ls • nebulas] tenebras Ab  : nebulae Bothe 1818 (supra) •

600–603: as against the general punctuation, Jahn preferred to isolate the annuerat clause, thus leaving the cum-clauses as subordinates to uolat and to the other verbs of ll. 604  f. (Jahn 1832, 860): “Sic interpunxi. Vulgo post annuerat colon et u. 603 post infra punctum ponunt”. His proposal was followed by Bach (1836) and Korn (1880). 601: uolumina: many mss. of group Γ and some recc. have uolumine (uid. append.), which Aler. 1471 printed along with Lr22V30, and which was recovered by Magnus (1914, 509) comparing 1.571, where fumus in the plural also appears (tenues agitantia fumos). The abl. was also kept by Ehwald (no earlier than 1915) and some of his most closely related edd. Although discussion of these variants is connected with the textual problem of the next two lines (uid. infra), the majority paradosis seems to find a clear backing, as stated by Bach (1836, 339), in the imitation by Luc. 3.503–5: lentas / ignis agit uires, taeda sed raptus ab omni / consequitur nigri spatiosa uolumina fumi. 602–603: the similarity of line-endings at 601  f. (and cf. the reading uolumina natas in P3 a.c.: uid. append.) caused the omission of l. 602 in MN, though in N the m.p. itself adds it interlinearly. The passage presents, furthermore, the extremely suspicious (as it is redundant with exhalant) natas of 602; many emendations have thus been proposed (uid. app.). For my part, I suggest nantes (cf. Lucr. 6.504  f.: umorem, ueluti pendentia uellera lanae, / cum supera magnum mare uenti nubila portant). For a detailed analysis, see Rivero 2016b, 147–50.



285

Commentary

603: infra: the variant intra of some mss. (uid. append.) is probably just a graphic error (for its part, the variant ultra could be either an error or a gloss). In any case, it is not preferable to infra. 604–606: Atra fauilla uolat glomerataque corpus in unum densetur faciemque capit sumitque calorem     atque animam ex igni (leuitas sua praebuit alas);

605

• 605 calorem A2A42(ca- i.l. u.l.)FHd Ld6V16(co- p.c.) Bo F2, “Rhen.”(non Tu: uid. infra) test. Jahn 1832, Heinsius 1659(qui et “Oxon. et quinque alii” test.), Galasso 2000, edd.  : colorem Ω, Plan., edd. aliquot (uid. append.)  : dolorem Ab  : cololorem Tu  : colores Es2 • 606 animam A3A42(i.l. u.l.)B2B3B4CH2Hd(-um a.c.)LdMtO4(sed u quoque suprascr. m.p.)V7Vd B8Ds2GoMo3P8(p.c.)P10(p.c.) Rd CvGo2Ps, “Dresd. [aîm hab. Dr], … Rhen.[non sic Tu]” test. Jahn 1832, Plan., Heinsius 1659(“rectius animam multi ueteres”), edd. : animum Ω, edd. uett. aliquot (uid. append.)  : auium Gf : amit’ Ld6  : de Lr3 n.l. : deest in Ls •

605: densetur: both Ovid’s own use (TLL 5.1.542.79–543.4; 544.44–9; cf. 14.369  f.: tum quoque cantato densetur carmine caelum / et nebulas exhalat humus) and the obvious Lucretian echoes of the passage (uid. supra, ad 602  f., and see Hardie 2015, 308) prompt the adoption here of the well-attested form densetur as against the majority densatur (uid. append.). Perhaps by mistake, Heinsius, who had densetur in 1652, opted for densatur in 1659, while in his notes (p. 346) he defends densetur. See Bach 1836, 340; Bömer 1982, 355  f. calorem: the minority reading must prevail (Lemaire 1822, 403: “Calor, uis uitalis; hinc cum anima coniungitur”). Among modern edd. only Anderson 1982 keeps the generalized colorem (Galasso 2000, “Avvertenza”, p. CXX, diverges overtly). 606: animam: as in the previous line, a reading with a weaker transmission (uid. app.) is clearly to be preferred. This time no editor after Bersman (1596) has accepted animum. 607–611: et primo similis uolucri, mox uera uolucris insonuit pennis, pariter sonuere sorores innumerae, quibus est eadem natalis origo, terque rogum lustrant et consonus exit in auras  ter plangor, quarto seducunt castra uolatu.

610

• 607 uera Ω, edd.  : prima Lu(uera i.l. u.l. a m.p. uel coaeua)MNP2(i.l. ut gloss.)S2T(uera i.l. u.l. T2) Tu Lr27  : uerba B5(a.c.)  : ue V5(a.c.)  : deinde B4(uera i.l. B42 et item mg. B43) • 611 plangor] plangit uel plangunt (per comp. sc. plangt’) Gf E  : plangunt Tu P41  : clangor A42(mg. u.l.)B4(a.c.)Hd(plangor uid. a.c.)Lr4Lr6Pr Bo, Plan. (κλαγγὴ), Heinsius 1659(qui “prim. Moret.  … Oxon. et alii quindecim” test.), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers

286

Commentary

1843, Merkel 1850, Koch 1866, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, Edwards 1905 : clamor Ba2(i.l. u.l.) V16 : langor V5(a.c.)  :  ]langor tantum legitur in Ls •

607: uera: here is another passage where MN (and note the significant agreement between “non-Lactantian” mss. such as LuP2S2T, as well as the equally notable disagreement by V2) offer the reading prima, erroneous in my opinion (see Magnus 1914, XVI). For uera as a “parola chiave” in contexts of equivocal visions, see Hardie 2015, 309. For the combination uolŭcri … uolúcris, see Bömer 1982, 356; Hopkinson 2000, 190; Hardie 2015, 309. 608: pennis: for the ambivalence of the spellings penna/pinna, see Schwind 1993; Gaertner 2005, 345 ad Pont. 1.5.72. 610: et consonus: a number of recc. offer the appealing variant et ter sonus (uid. append.), which merited the approval (in the margin) of Ciofanus (1575) and Bersman (1596), and the enthusiastic defence of Luck (2005, 216  f.): “Consonus, ‘in unison’ or ‘harmonious’ seems pointless or even contradictory in this context, but the ritual number three repeated three times makes good sense. […]ETTERSONVS may have lost ter because of the sequence of similar letters, and con was interpolated to save the metre. A second ter gives us an anaphora, ter… ter… ter, preparing quarto … volatu” (cf. 7.261: terque senem flamma, ter aqua, ter sulphure lustrat). Naugerius (1754, 159), for his part, attests “in nonnullis” the variant tum consonus. Finally, Magnus (1914, 509) attests ter consonus as a marginal reading in “edd Colon et Gryph” (not so in Lugd. 1546, 1565). 611: plangor: against this majority reading, and leaving aside its graphic deformations, some recc. have clangor in accordance with the habitual alternation of both terms (cf. e.  g. ad Verg. Aen. 2.487; 3.226; 4.668; 6.561; 12.607); clamor is also attested (uid. app.). Heinsius (1652) adopted clangor with the support of several mss. (1659, 346) and compared (1754, 701) 12.527  f.: Hanc ubi lustrantem leni sua castra uolatu / Mopsus et ingenti circum clangore [clamore u.l.] sonantem… This reading was adopted by some edd. down to Edwards (1905). Nevertheless, plangor fits very well in our context, because of both the reference to the flapping of wings and its connection to the mourning ritual, an ambivalence Ovid plays with at 2.583–5: pluma erat inque cutem radices egerat imas; / plangere nuda meis conabar pectora palmis, / sed neque iam palmas nec pectora nuda gerebam; 5.675  f.: dumque uolunt plangi, per bracchia mota leuatae / aëre pendebant; or at 14.580: ipsa suis deplangitur Ardea pennis (see Bömer 1982, 357; Hopkinson 2000, 190; Luck 2005, 217; Hardie 2015, 309). seducunt castra: the mss. present widespread variants. Against this majority reading of the mss. and edd., a significant number of mss. have succedunt astra (“etiam bene”, claims Heinsius 1659, 346, though it does not appear in any ed.). However we find plenty of variants for the verb (sedecunt, succendunt, secedunt, sededunt, deridunt, deducunt, fecerunt, secernunt, subducunt,



Commentary

287

this last variant also being attested by Heinsius in a now-lost Leidensis [b2, 368, sigl. G]), along with their corresponding combinations with both nouns (uid. append.). We must also add seducunt claustra, a variant that Heinsius (o4, 341, sigl. c) attests in O12. Some variants are clearly graphic deformations (e.  g.: fecerunt < secernunt; deridunt < diuidunt, attested as a gloss in mss. such as CH3). The parallels of Sil. 10.596: succedere muros, and Apul. met. 5.7: larem nostrum laetae succedite can be adduced (with Heinsius 1754, 701) in favour of succedunt astra, but the majority reading provides the precise nuance of division and hostility that is appropriate to the metamorphosis narrated. In this passage, the birds go on to split into two hostile flocks that destroy each other (cf. e.  g. epist. 19.142: seducit terras haec breuis unda duas; see Lemaire 1822, 404; Bach 1836, 340; Simmons 1889, 141; Keene 1898, 102; Bömer 1982, 357; Luck 2005, 216  f.). 612–616: Tum duo diuersa populi de parte feroces bella gerunt rostrisque et aduncis unguibus iras exercent alasque aduersaque pectora lassant, inferiaeque cadunt cineri cognata sepulto      615 corpora seque uiro forti meminere creatas. • 614 alasque] alas Gf B2(alasque a.c.)FLd3LsO3P3V6V9Vd B14(p.c.)Es4F2P38, Calph. 1474  : alias Bo2 B14(a.c.)  : iras Es5  : aliasque Mc(a.c.) V30, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472  : om. M2(a.c.) L4(mg. suppl. m.rec.) • lassant] iactant LuMN(a.c.) A2A42(mg. u.l.)DeHdL42(mg. u.l.)Ld(mg. u.l. a m.p.)Lr4Lr6(lassant mg. u.l. Lr62)Mo(a.c. et item mg. Mo2; lassant in textu p.c.)MtN2OV9(fatigant i.l. V92)Vd Ds2GoV16 BoMt4P28Vt Lr27Vd11 Ca2(a.c.), test. Viuianus (1522 ad loc.), “octodecim” test. Burm. 1727, prob. Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915(lassant 1898), van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Segura 1983  : pulsant Gf Es6, “duo” test. Burm. 1727  : laxant B4(lassant mg. B42)Ph2 AsF2(p.c.)Go2Z, “duo” test. Burm. 1727 •

612: tum: for the tum/tunc/cum alternation, uid. ad 473. For the ending of this line and the beginning of the next one, cf. 11.490  f. 613: rostrisque: a significant number of mss. have rostris, as per the habitual alternation, this time perhaps as a dissimilation of the sequence -que et. Other mss. omit et, as is so frequent in mid-line (and note how the copyist of Lu attempts to emend the line: bella gerunt rostrisque uncis et unguibus iras; uid. append.). 614: alasque: as in the previous line, some mss. omit -que with metrical result. aduersaque: among the different variants (uid. append.) we should consider auersaque because it is exclusive to Lr22V30 and Aler. 1471; it makes worse sense and must be explained within the habitual alternation of both forms (uid. ad 229 auersos). Also worthy of consideration is the singular variant exertaque in A (cf. Sen. H. O. 1669  f.).

288

Commentary

lassant: mss. such as LuMN(a.c.) and some recc. (uid. app.) have iactant, adopted by Magnus in his ed. (1914) and previously defended (1904, 56: “Die Vulgata ist nicht gerade unerträglich  … [a]ber der eigentlich bezeichnende Ausdruck für rasche, heftige Bewegungen wie hier ist vielmehr iactant”) with these parallels: 3.685  f.: lasciuaque iactant / corpora; 12.329: et quatit huc illuc labefactaque robora iactat; epist. 3.50: pectora iactantem sanguinolenta uirum; ars 2.61: Siue humiles propiore freto iactabimus alas. Magnus himself, however, adduces other passages that justify lassant: 1.308: in mare lassatis uolucris uaga decidit alis; 6.353: abluere hic artus lassataque membra parabam; fast. 4.297: sedula fune uiri contento bracchia lassant, to which can be added epist. 19.190: inicias umeris bracchia lassa meis. That the question is not completely clear is proved by Pont. 3.7.28: sua qui tumidis brachia iactat [lassat u.l.] aquis. This passage is cited by Magnus at the end of his note (1904, 56), probably in support of lassant, but some edd. prefer the variant iactat. As for pulsant, this is an obvious gloss (so e.  g. in Mt22, and cf. 12.329 or Pont. 3.7.28, with the same variation). It is not clear what Planudes’ διασπαράττουσι is translating: it seems to point either to uellunt or maybe uexant (cf. the variant laxant). Although Hopkinson admits that iactant is fully possible, he opts for lassant (2000, 191): “lassant better suits the gladiatorial imagery”. The reading lassant should be chosen here in view of the strength of its transmission, and also because iactant might be a recollection of the nearby passage, cited above, of 12.329: labefactaque robora iactat. 615: cineri cognata sepulto: leaving aside the banal error sepulcro (probably a graphic error, but possibly also because Memnon is not yet properly sepultus: see Bömer 1982, 358; Hopkinson 2000, 191; Hardie 2015, 310), a reading attested in A and a number of recc. (uid. append.), again we should consider the coincidence in error of N(a.c.) and M: generi cognata sepulcri (in N this reading a.c. is more from my own intuition than clear perception; cf. cineri … sepulcri in B12). In M a recent hand has written cineri and sepulto above, but probably after 1456, since the copyist of Lr27 writes generi … sepulchri (the same hand, however, writes parentali above l. 619, and Lr27 does include this correction, although it does not include moriture and more, also by the same hand). The variant omni (omî) of Dr clearly comes from an error in expanding the ligature cin’i/cinî. Heinsius (b3, 370) attests congesta (for more corruptions of cognata, uid. append.). 617–619: Praepetibus subitis nomen facit auctor, ab illo Memnonides dictae: cum sol duodena peregit signa, parentali moriturae more rebellant.



Commentary

289

• 617 nomen … auctor] facit au(c)tor nomen L3M2 DrH3L4Lr3OPh2V8Vd Lr8To Vt • 619 more S2(p.c.; quid a.c. n.l.) Ω, Plan., Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, edd. (uid. append.), “suspectum” iud. Anderson 1982(in app.)  : uoce M(more i.l. M2)M2(more i.l. u.l.)NT(more i.l. u.l. T2)V2V3 B52(p.c.)MoMtN2O3(more i.l. u.l.)Tu Mt2 Es2(p.c.) Lr27, prob. H-K-E 1898, edd. aliquot (uid. append.)  : morte L42(i.l. u.l.) Es4F2Z, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Ciof. 1575, Bersm. 1596  : iure Bs3(i.l. u.l.; more in textu)  : Marte coni. Heinsius 1659, prob. edd. aliquot (uid. append.)  : luce coni. Merkel 1875, prob. Polle 1888, Riese 1889  : caede dub. Slater 1927 •

617: nomen facit auctor: L3M2 and some recc. (uid. app.) display a different order with metrical result: facit auctor nomen. For the construction, cf. trist. 1.1.90: aequoreis nomina fecit aquis; for the reading dedit (uid. append.), which Burman (1727, 903) records in an “Argentin.” and I have found in F2Z, uid. ad 280. 619: moriturae: this is the majority reading, but Tr (ca. 1200) has periturae, which Heinsius (1652) accepted and attested in “tres scripti” (1659, 347), being followed by some edd. down to Koch (1866; uid. append.). Hopkinson (2000, 190) sees in moriturae “a further hint at the gladiatorial nature of the birds’ combat” (in similar terms H-K-E 1898, 256; Keene 1898, 102). parentali … more: for another coincidence in error (parenti alii) in MN, uid. ad 615. Most mss. and edd. from all periods have the noun more (uid. app.), but some mss. (among them codices as important as MM2NTV2V3) have uoce, a reading adopted by H-K-E 1898, Magnus 1914 and other later edd. (“destined to die with a cry such as was made by their parents”, in Hopkinson’s [2000, 191] paraphrase). The variant morte (the same alternation can be found in 637) is scarcely attested in the mss., but was adopted by edd. such as Naugerius 1516, the Gryphianae, Ciofanus 1575 or Bersman 1596, who base themselves on a comparison with am. 1.13.3  f.: ‘Quo properas, Aurora? mane!—sic Memnonis umbris / annua sollemni caede parentet auis! This passage suggested to Slater (1927, ad loc.) his timid proposal caede. The variant morte, in turn, gave Heinsius the idea of conjecturing Marte with this succinct reasoning (1659, 347): “alludit ad gladiatores in funeribus patriciis exhiberi solitos”. His proposal has been followed by some edd. up to the present day. From uoce Merkel in his 2nd ed. (1875, XXXVII) conjectured luce alluding to the parentales  … dies of fast. 2.548 (uid. fast. 2.543–8) and to Paus. perieg. 10.31.6: ἐν εἰρημέναις ἡμέραις. He was followed only by Polle (1888) and Riese (1889). The expression parentali more must be understood as “in the way of the homage to the dead [ancestors]” (i.  e. Parentalia): see Simmons 1889, 142  f.; Hardie 2015, 310  f. For an analysis of the different variants, see Hopkinson 2000, 191  f. rebellant: “renew the war”; see Bömer 1977, 297 ad 9.81; Hardie 2015, 311.

290

Commentary

620–622: Ergo aliis latrasse Dymantida flebile uisum:     luctibus est Aurora suis intenta piasque nunc quoque dat lacrimas et toto rorat in orbe.

620

• 620 uisum AGfL3LuM2NTV2V3 recc. (uid. append.), Aler. 1471, Heinsius 1659, edd. (uid. append.)  : uisum est Lr2MM22–3P2S2 recc. (uid. append.), Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, edd. (uid. append.) • 621 Aurora … intenta] intenta suis Aurora DeH2 Lr8Mo3 • 622 in orbe] in ore Pr  : in orbem Es4  : ab ore coni. Schepperus •

620: uisum: with all due caution, I opt to omit est (cf. 621 luctibus est) along with approximately half of the mss. and edd. (uid. app.), comparing ll. 10  f. (uid. ad loc.; cf. ad 100 nihil gestum est). 621: luctibus est Aurora suis intenta: note the change with metrical result found in DeH2 Lr8Mo3, a wording which keeps the braided structure: luc­ tibus est intenta suis Aurora. 622: in orbe: apart from the interesting variant totum rorat in orbem that I have found only in Es4 (a. 1402), we should remember Schepper’s proposal ab ore (1665, 343): “Quod propius tangit personam lugentis Aurorae”, which he justifies with the ore/orbe alternation in other passages such as 15.274. Cf. Germ. frg. 3.11: Lenius est librae signum; uix rorat in illo. For the probable etymological wordplay Aurora  – rorat and luctibus  – lux, see Bömer 1982, 360; Hopkinson 2000, 193; Hardie 2015, 311  f. (who also points to a possible recollection of l. 588: rarissima templa per orbem, through the etymological connection between ros and rarus). 623–625: Non tamen euersam Troiae cum moenibus esse spem quoque fata sinunt: sacra et, sacra altera, patrem fert umeris, uenerabile onus, Cythereïus heros      

625

• 624 sacra1] sacer A Lr7Pr Mo3(sacra i.l. u.l. Mo32) Cs3 P38, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Bersm. 1596(qui tamen mg. sacra test. et prob.)  : sacru(uid.) A4(a.c.)  : qui sacra De  : om. B3(mg. suppl. B32)O3(i.l. suppl. m.p.)V4(mg. suppl. V42) B8Ld6 Ft Es3 • et] om. Gf A4(i.l. suppl. A42)N2(i.l. suppl. N22)P41 • sacra2] sacram V2  : sacer A Rd  : sacraque Gf  : socia P41  : quid N a.c. n.l.  : om. N2(i.l. suppl. N22) Lr27 •

623: non: in line with the habitual alternation a good number of mss. have nec, which was accepted by Heinsius (1659, 347: “meliores”) and other edd. down to Koch (1866). Recently Ramírez de Verger (2005, 1963 in notis) has expressed his liking for it. However, the transition between episodes seems to call for something not quite so brusque and immediate as nec (but cf. 7.453). esse: of the three attested variants it is worth considering altis, not so much for its textual value (all three iuncturae recur in Latin texts) as because it points to some connection between H2Ld3.



291

Commentary

624: sacra et sacra: repetition gives rise to the predictable alterations, especially through omission of one of the two sacra (note that even the copyist of Lr27 has omitted the second sacra he found in M), but also through omission or displacement of et (uid. app. et append.). The use of ligatures provokes errors too, as in Hd, whose copyist does not notice (or see) the abbreviation of (a)cra and initially writes sed (i.  e. s 7) instead of sacra et. The same ligature is confused with that of -er too, giving rise to sacer instead of sacra. The fact is that the edd. Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472 and Calph. 1474 (once more in agreement with P38) accept sacer et sacra, a variant that is attested by Glareanus-Longolius (with no clear position on the question [1570, 236]: “Ego lectori diiudicandum relinquo”) and overtly condemned by Ciofanus (1575, 182): “Quidam temere hunc locum ausi sunt mutare: hoc uidelicet modo: sacer & sacra altera patrem. Primum contra omnium lib. uet. fidem: deinde nescierunt ita eum locutum esse alibi”. He then pertinently recalls fast. 1.527  f.: iam pius Aeneas sacra et, sacra altera, patrem / adferet, and 4.37  f.: hinc satus Aeneas; pietas spectata per ignes / sacra patremque umeris, altera sacra, tulit (see Doll 2000, 59  f.). Bersman (1596) still had sacer et sacra in his text, but attested sacra in the margin and approved of it by comparison with fast. 1.527. Cf. also 7.157: muneris auctorem secum, spolia altera, portans. patrem: for the singular variant templa of M (Lr27) and B12, cf. trist. 3.1.69: altera templa peto. 626–631: (de tantis opibus praedam pius eligit illam Ascaniumque suum) profugaque per aequora classe fertur ab Antandro scelerataque limina Thracum et Polydoreo manantem sanguine terram linquit, et utilibus uentis aestuque secundo     intrat Apollineam sociis comitantibus urbem.

630

• 626–627 (de  … suum) pro parenth. hab. Tarrant 2004, Hill 2000 • 628 limina Ω, Aler. 1471, Heinsius 1659, edd.  : li(t)tora GfLr2M2 A4B22(i.l. u.l.)B3B4(limina i.l. B42)B5(limina B52)DeFe2(mg. u.l.)H22(i.l. u.l.)HdL4Ld(limina i.l. u.l. Ld2)Lr4Lr6Lr7MtOO3O4P3V6V7V8(limina mg. u.l. V82)V9Vd B8Cs2Ds2Lr82(i.l. u.l.)Mo3Mt2Mt3(i.l. p.c.)P5P8P10SoV12 B12BoCs3(limina mg. u.l. a m.p.)Es2Mt4Mt5P28 AsCvEs5Es6Lu2P38 Ca2(a.c. et Ca22 mg. u.l.; limina p.c.), Puteol. 1471, edd. aliquot (uid. append.), mauult Loers 1843(in notis)  : lumina B2(limina p.c.)Ld2Ls(limina i.l. u.l. Ls2)V4 Ld6 McRd(a.c.) B14(limina i.l. u.l. B142), Plan.  : moenia Pr, “unus meus” test. Heinsius •

626–627: Tarrant (2004) was the first to mark the eligit clause as parenthetical, and his proposal was accepted by Hill (2000; he was informed of Tarrant’s proposal while writing his commentary), as well as by Hardie (2015) and Holzberg (2017). Certainly, the sequence fert … eligit … fertur seems to be a false one, because these verbs do not refer to actions that are on the same narrative level. The two forms of fero belong to the account of Aeneas’ depar-

292

Commentary

ture, while eligit is an aside intended to highlight the character’s pietas from his very first mention (for the episode of the choice of praeda, see Hopkinson 2000, 194; Hardie 2015, 315; Casali 2017, 19  f. and 331 ad 763–6). This false coordination has also given rise to the variant tantisque, which seems to have been present in Planudes’ antigraph (Κἀκ τῶν τοσούτων χρημάτων ὁ εὐσεβὴς ἓν ἐκλέγεται λάφυρον, καὶ τὸν αὐτοῦ παῖδα Ἀσκάνιον) and is reproduced by the edd. Gryphianae and Bersman (1596; Glar.-Long. 1570, 172v attests it in the margin). 626: pius: for the variant prius, uid. ad 578 propior. illam: some mss. and Planudes’ translation (supra) have unam (cf. Catull. 62.32: Hesperus e nobis, aequales, abstulit unam), which fits well in the partitive constr. (de tantis) but makes worse sense than the anaphoric illam. In most of the mss. where the variant unam appears, however, both readings are present (uid. append.). 628: ab Antandro: this reading is erroneously changed in M into ad Antandrum, and this is what Lr27 writes. For the place, close to Mount Ida, see Bömer 1982, 369; Hopkinson 2000, 194. limina: against this majority reading a good number of mss. have litora, in accordance with a recurring alternation (cf. e.  g. ad Verg. Aen. 8.555); litora was accepted by most of the first edd., by Weise (1845), and recently by Hopkinson (2000, 194  f.: “litora better suits the maritime context and provides a characteristic variation with terram (629)”) and Hardie (2015, 316), in both cases recalling the Virgilian model and its insistence on the term litus (Aen. 3.16, 21, 44). Loers, who systematically favoured the reading with the stronger ms. backing, opted for limina with this note (1843, 507): “… limina quod inuitus retinui; nam mihi uerum uidetur litora, quod certe elegantius h. l. est, et illi manantem terram conuenientius”. Though litora is irreproachable, it is worth remembering that Virgil is clearly hinting at the offence committed by Polymestor as hospes (Aen. 3.60  f.): omnibus idem animus: scelerata excedere terra, / linqui pollutum hospitium et dare classibus Austros. This twofold allusion, which could be considered both geographical and social (or, rather, ethical), is better expressed here by means of the sequence (ll. 628–30) limina Thracum / et … terram / linquit, than with the double – solely geographical – reference litora … / et … terram. The expression scelerata limina (cf. Verg. Aen. 6.563: sceleratum … limen) would then be Ovid’s rewriting of Virgil’s pollutum hospitium (a similar defence of limina in Casali 2007, 183 n. 6). Other less relevant variants (again within the habitual alternation of this kind of trisyllable in the 5th foot) are lumina (a deformation of limina transmitted by some recc. and translated by Planudes: τοὺς ἀλιτηρίους τῶν Θρᾳκῶν ὀφθαλμοὺς) and moenia, which I have found in Pr and Heinsius (b3, 370) attested in “unus meus”. 629: S2, B2 and Ld6 omit this line, without which the text still makes full sense. manantem sanguine terram: note the variant rorantem in B3, in line with the metaphor dear to Virgil (e.  g. Aen. 8.645: rorabant sanguine uepres) and



293

Commentary

his imitators. For Ovid’s expression, cf. Catull. 64.344: cum Phrygii Teucro manabunt sanguine campi (Culex 257, 306; Liu. 27.23.4; 40.39.9; Homer. 384, 482; Stat. Theb. 10.311  f.; Sil. 8.644  f.; Val. Max. 2.7.6). As regards the model of the passage, cf. Verg. Aen. 3.43  f.: cruor hic de stipite manat. / heu fuge crudelis terras (see Bömer 1982, 361–5; Casali 2007, 182–8). 630: linquit: for its systematic alternation with liquit, uid. append. 631: intrat: it was on this reading that Peerlkamp based for his brilliant conjecture egressique intramus at Verg. Aen. 3.79 (see Rivero et alii 2009– 2011, I, 107 ad loc.). sociis: V8 has the variant paucis, a recollection of 11.275: uenit et intrauit paucis comitantibus urbem (cf. the unmetrical intrauit of P41). 632–635: Hunc Anius (quo rege homines, antistite Phoebus rite colebatur) temploque domoque recepit urbemque ostendit delubraque nota duasque Latona quondam stirpes pariente retentas.    

635

• 632–633 quo … colebatur obel. adhib. Merkel 1875 • 632 antistite] quo antistite FL42(quo i.l. p.c.), “duo libri” test. Heinsius, dub. Baumg.-Crus. 1834(in notis), fort. recte  : et quo antistite Ab  : alii alia (uid. append.) • 635 retentas] rotundas Gf(a.c. a m.p.)  : creatas Lr22(i.l. u.l.) A4(retentas mg. u.l. A42)F(uid., a.c. a m.p.)DeHdLr4Lr6(retentas mg. u.l. a m.p.)P3 P10 B12, Lugd. 1546(mg.)  : receptas Ba(a.c. a m.p.)MtO3 Cs2Ds22(p.c.)  : retêptas A2B3  : retentes Be2 Li3So  : recentes Pr  : resûtas Ds2(a.c.)  : repostas P41  : retentos Ca2  : om. Es4(spatium uac. rel.) •

632–633: quo  … colebatur: in his 2nd ed. (1875, 272) Merkel marked this passage as suspicious, and in the app. he added (p. XXXVII): “corrupta puto. suspicabar quo rege FIDES, ant., quod in archetypo M scripturae genus uideretur fuisse, in quo hnes, cum lineola, non longe distaret a fides. similis sermonis argutia est XIV 109 ac passim” (note that the ligature hnes is assigned to the archetype, since M has the word in full). Neither his suspicion nor his conjecture have found any support. 632: quo rege homines, antistite Phoebus: the abl. absol. with no participle as well as the postponement of the verb to the next line have given rise to a variety of glosses, such as e.  g. existente (A2) or ente (M22 Bo22) written above rege, or else regebantur (N2P2[mg. a m.p.] Ba2) or colebantur (M22 Cv2) above homines. Likewise, above antistite in some mss. has been written et quo (L32 EHd2V82 Ds22Go2), or quo (Gf2Lr22M22N2P2[a m.p.] BaC2Vd B8Cs2), or anio (L42), or even quo existente (Ld22) and quo existente pontifice (P103). This is probably the origin of the unmetrical variant et quo antistite that we find in the text of Ab, and of the quo antistite (a metrical variant) I have found in FL42 (in the latter, quo is written above but a sign indicates that it must be included in the text, while in the Francofurtanus it is written in the

294

Commentary

text from the start) and that Heinsius (b3, 370) attests in “II libri” (F could be one of them). Though he did not go so far as to incorporate it into his text, Baumgarten-Crusius showed in his notes his sympathy for this reading, as well as for colebatur (1834, 519: “Scribendum uidetur seruatis utriusque lectionis uestigiis: quo rege homines, quo antistite Phoebus / rite colebatur”). The repetition is no doubt euphonic in that it reinforces the parallelism of abl. + nom., and it is by no means foreign to Ovid’s style (see Wills 1996, 87  f.). Furthermore, it is supported by the anaphora of the literary model for the passage (Verg. Aen. 3.80): rex Anius, rex idem hominum Phoebique sacerdos (for the word structure of both passages, see Hardie 2015, 316). Should the reading quo be genuine (in which case the erroneous hominesque in Mt might be an indirect testimony: uid. append.), then we should conclude it had been suppressed at a certain moment in its transmission and then restored inter lineas; this must have made a copyist take it as a grammatical gloss and not a correction (the proper semantic gloss is Anio, as in L42), thus keeping it out of the text. See also Casali 2007, 189–92. 633: colebatur: this is the majority – clearly difficilior – reading, but some mss. regularize the constr. with the pl. colebantur (“nach strenger Schulgrammatik”: Bömer 1982, 373, and see 1969, 108  f. ad 1.292), which was accepted by Heinsius (1659, 347) “cum sec. Vatic. [i.  e. V8, where the reading is corrected] & aliis quatuor”. He was followed by some edd. down to Baumgarten-Crusius, who, as we have seen (ad 632  f.), opts however in his notes for colebatur. Cf. (with Bach 1836, 341) 1.141  f.: iamque nocens ferrum ferroque nocentius aurum / prodierat. See Simmons 1889, 144  f.; Hardie 2015, 316. 634: ostendit: a clearly significant number of mss. and the ed. Aler. 1471 alone (uid. append.) have ostendens, which does not easily fit syntactically (due to the copulative -que) and probably stems from the frequent error in expanding the ligature of the desinence. Cf. 48, 512, 913. nota: if there is one particular characteristic of the sanctuary of Delos, it is its renown (Hardie 2015, 316  f.). Even so, Heinsius preferred the variant uota (an obvious instance of alternation between n-/u-) “cum prim. Bonon. [i.  e. Bo] & quatuor aliis” (1659, 347; see also p. 204 ad 8.152), recalling Hor. carm. 2.17.31: aedemque uotiuam. As usual, he was followed by some edd. down to Baumgarten-Crusius (uid. append.). 635: retentas: among the different variants (uid. app.), it is perhaps worth considering creatas, written above as a u.l. in Lr2 (yet not copied by Lu2). I think this is one more instance of syllable inversion. For the episode, cf. 6.335  f. and see Hopkinson 2000, 195  f.; Hardie 2015, 317. 636–639: Ture dato flammis uinoque in tura profuso caesarumque boum fibris de more crematis regia tecta petunt positique tapetibus altis munera cum liquido capiunt Cerealia Baccho.



Commentary

295

• 636 profuso] refuso L3M2T AbGH3L42(re- suprascr.)Ld3Lr3OV8Vd DsDs2Lr8To Vt Ca2, “nouem codices” test. Burm. 1727  : praefuso(per comp.) Lu  : profugo A4 • 637 c(a)esarumque] cesorumque AGfL3N2(o suprascr.)P2 A3(cesso-)A4(p.c.)H3HdLr3Lr6Lr7O3P3Ph2V7 B8DsLd6Li3Lr8P10To FtMt4 B14(p.c.)Es5Go2, Heinsius 1659(“meliores”), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731(caesa- 1739), Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843  : de Tu n.l. (sed caesorumque leg. Jahn 1832 in “Rhen.”)  : Caesarisque Z(a.c.) • 638 positique O4 V102(i.l. u.l.), Heinsius 1659, edd. aliquot (uid. append.)  : positisque Ω, Plan., Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, edd. (uid. append.), dub. Walch. 1731(in notis), prob. Lemaire 1822(in notis)  : positis DeV4(a.c.)V6 Es3(a.c.)Ft Es3Ps  : pramptisque Mt •

636: uinoque: note the exclusive reading of Ds2: et uino. in tura profuso: a small number of mss. have the variant in ture, following the habitual acc./abl. alternation in these cases (uid. ad 536). More frequent is refuso, transmitted at an early stage by L3M2T, in accordance with an alternation attested in other passages (11.657, with Díez 2014, 448  f.; Luc. 10.261). Here refuso poses no semantic or literary advantage over the majority reading. 637: caesarumque: a significant number of mss. have c(a)esorumque (uid. app.), which Heinsius adopts with a disputable argument (1659, 347: “meliores”) and this reading is kept in the text by others down to Loers, who defends it in this way (1843, 508): “non enim uaccae sed boues Deae mactabantur”. This objection would be of some weight if it were the only oddity, but the fact is that the very mention of animal sacrifice seems strange, according to the information provided as early as by G. Costanzi (Fanensis 1508, In met. 98v): “Atqui ad apollinis delii aram non sacrificabatur animatum”. He presented a more detailed reasoning elsewhere (Hec. LXXIV 55v56v) but had to accept that the reference appears here and at epist. 21.91–4: protinus egressae superis, quibus insula sacra est, / flaua salutatis tura merumque damus; / dumque parens aras uotiuo sanguine tingit, / sectaque fumosis ingerit exta focis… To these references we could add Ovid’s very model here (Verg. Aen. 3.118–20): sic fatus meritos aris mactauit honores, / taurum Neptuno, taurum tibi, pulcher Apollo, / nigram Hiemi pecudem, Zephyris felicibus albam. Although Virgil’s reference to two bulls in l. 119 could support caesorum boum, the widespread presence in the mss. of caesarum, the difficilior form, can in no way be mere chance, and it rather points to another case of uariatio on the part of Ovid vis-à-vis his model. crematis: some mss. have the nonsensical creatis (uid. append.), probably just an error stemming from abbreviations such as creâtis (so e.  g. Ds). Other recc. have litatis (the “duo Heins.” cited by Jahn 1832, 863, could be O4P3), a gloss or a recollection of 14.156: sacrisque ex more litatis, and Ciofanus’ Sulmonensis has resectis, which I have found as a correction in Es2 also. From these variants Heinsius made this timid proposal (b3, 371): “f. secatis”, but did not take it any further. The singular variant sagittis of C a.c., might come from rem. 699: more sagittas, or else from Sil. 14.397: de more sagittam.

296

Commentary

638: positique: against the majority positisque, among all the mss. that I have examined only O4 has the variant positique in the text (positi q3, but with no trace of deletion between the two elements). Heinsius (1659, 347) adopted it “cum Barberin. et uno meo” (the latter could be O4), but in the Barberinianus (V10) it is actually a different hand that writes the reading i.l. as a u.l. (Go2 clearly has positisque, pace Jahn 1832, 863). Heinsius supports his decision with epist. 19.158: ponuntur medio cur mea membra toro?, and Burman (1727, 906) adds a comparison with ars 1.231, where Heinsius and Burman himself solidly defend the variant positi (see 1727, I, 504 ad loc.), which is accepted in the standard modern edd. (see Hollis 1977, 83  f.; R. de Verger 2003, 163  f.). To these parallels, in turn, Bach (1836, 341) adds Varr. Menip. 212: cubo in Sardinianis tapetibus. Heinsius’ decision has been followed by some edd. up to the present (uid. append.), yet Walchius (1731, 955) indicated in his notes his liking for the majority reading (“non male”), and Lemaire goes so far as to condemn in the notes the reading he adopts in the text (1822, 407): “Regii codices habent positis quod rectum est; quamuis clar. Gierigius hunc locum cum uersu 543 conferri iubeat, non possum tamen positi hic interpretari, adcumbentes”. It is clear that positis might have stemmed from the assimilation to tapetibus altis, and also that the obvious Virgilian model backs the constr. of nom. + abl. (Aen. 9.325  f.): tapetibus altis / exstructus (see Hardie 2015, 317). To accept positis implies altis is to be taken as a prolepsis (Simmons 1889, 145; Keene 1898, 104), which does not sound convincing, or else that by these tapeta Ovid must be referring to the tablecloths (i.  e. = mensa: cf. e.  g. epist. 16.217 and see OLD s.u. pono, 5, 1401). Yet it seems clear that they refer here to the quilts of the triclinium (see Bömer 1982, 374): cf. e.  g. Stat. Theb. 1.516–9: uario strepit icta tumultu / regia: pars ostro tenues auroque sonantes / emunire toros alteque inferre tapetas, / pars teretes leuare manu ac disponere mensas. 640–642: Tum pius Anchises: “O Phoebi lecte sacerdos,     fallor an et natum, cum primum haec moenia uidi, bisque duas natas, quantum reminiscor, habebas?”.

640

• 642 natas quantum] natas tantum Mt Go  : tantum natas Es5  : nata quater Mc •

641: haec: for the omission of the deictic in some mss. (uid. append.), uid. ad 156 Pthiam haec Scyrumue ferantur. 642: quantum: note the rewriting in Mt and Go by means of substituting tantum for quantum (and note the reading tantum natas in Es5). For the model, cf. Verg. Aen. 3.107: si rite audita recordor (see Hopkinson 2000, 196  f.; Casali 2007, 192–7; Hardie 2015, 318).



Commentary

297

643–649: Huic Anius niueis circumdata tempora uittis concutiens et tristis ait: “Non falleris, heros maxime: uidisti natorum quinque parentem,      645 quem nunc (tanta homines rerum inconstantia uersat) paene uides orbum. Quod enim mihi filius absens auxilium, quem dicta suo de nomine tellus Andros habet pro patre locumque et regna tenentem? • 644 et] haec AbLr4 P5P10V16 Bo  : et haec Pr • 649 hunc u. pro susp. hab. Merkel 1850 • post habet leniter dist. edd.  : post patre dist. Jahn 1832  : post habet plene dist. Plan., dub. Jahn 1832(in notis) • pro  … tenentem Lu(p.c.)M2(omisso et)N(p.c. a m.rec.)P2(u.l. summa pag. a m.p.) A2(uid.)Lr3(uid.)Ls(post regna def.)Mo(teneret i.l. u.l.)N2(omisso et) Ds2(p.c.) Ω, edd.  : pro patre locumque et regna tenenti Ba, Plan.  : alii alia (uid. append.)  : pro patre locos et regna tenentem uel pro patre loci iam regna(uel sceptra) tenentem dub. Heinsius •

643: uittis: not one of the many variants in the line is really worth considering (uid. append.). Burman (1727, 906) attests: “in uno erat metis. forte pro mitris”, yet it is easier to explain it as a graphic deformation of uıctis (a frequent spelling in the mss.). 644: et: some mss. (uid. app.) have haec, in accordance with a frequent alternation between monosyllables usually transcribed in abbreviation. 645: uidisti natorum: a good number of recc. display the reverse order, which was adopted by Heinsius and other edd. down to Koch (1866; uid. append.). The stress of the caesura, however, must fall on verb, as rightly pointed out by Bach (1836, 343): “Dem uidisti gebührt die bedeutsamere Stellung, welche auch uides 647 verlangt”. 646: once more the excerpta set themselves aside from the rest of the tradition (uid. ad 539  f.) and display this line in this approximate form, more adapted to the structure of an independent sententia: heu heu quanta homines rerum inconstantia uersat/uertit (uid. append.). The other variants transmitted by the mss., especially those of homines and uersat, are mostly the result of wrongly expanded ligatures, or else of rewriting and adjusting the text. For the alternation uersat/uersa est, cf. ad 725 est uersa. 647–648: quod enim mihi filium absens / auxilium: against this majority reading Heinsius opted for quid … auxilii, which Baumgarten-Crusius (1834) was the last editor to adopt. The pron. quid is transmitted by some recc. and appears in the first edd. (uid. append.). Heinsius claimed to adopt the full expression quid enim auxilii (1659, 347) “cum Oxoniens.”, but I could not attest the genitive. In addition, most of the mss. transmit est, almost always after enim, but HdPr and Bo2 place it after auxilium. Curiously enough, the editors have been unanimous in omitting the verb. 649: establishing the text of this line does not seem to present great obstacles, as the unanimity of edd. proves (see Bömer 1982, 376), yet the mss. offer a chaotic panorama, no doubt partially due to the presence of monosyllables

298

Commentary

and to the variety of desinences and functions of the words that constitute it (uid. app. et append.). The first disagreement affects the punctuation and syntactic grouping. Most of the mss. and edd. coincide in closing the question of quod enim after tenentem, yet Planudes’ version makes a pause after habet (κατέχει) and translates the participle as referring to huic (l. 650), i.  e. tenenti (κατέχοντι); I have found this reading in Ba, and Heinsius (1659, 348) attested it in “tres” (remember that the initial reading of N is tenenenti: uid. append.): Τί γὰρ ἄν μοι καὶ βοήθημα ὁ υἱὸς ἀπὼν εἴη, ὃν ἡ πρὸς τῆς ἐκείνου προσηγορίας Ἄνδρος ὀνομασθεῖσα νῆσος κατέχει; Τούτῳ ἀντὶ τοῦ πατρὸς τήν τε χώραν καὶ τὴν βασιλείαν κατέχοντι οἰωνιστικὴν ὁ Δήλιος ἔδωκεν. The configuration of the text as translated by Planudes was applauded by Jahn, but he kept tenentem and made pro patre refer to habet and not to the participle (1832, 865): “Ego comma, quod uulgo post habet legitur, post patre posui. Forte tamen scribendum est: Andros habet: pro patre locumque et regna tenenti Delius a. d. huic, ut sententia sit: ‘etenim cum iam hic (in Delo) pro patre locum et regna teneret, Delius’ etc.”. Heinsius did not feel at ease with the text he himself was publishing (1659, 347  f.): “Numeri satis euincunt nihil hic Nasonianum esse. Scribe, locos & regna tenentem. ut apud Val. Flaccum libro v [685]. Victorque domos & regna tenebit. exaratum erat loquos. hinc natus est error. eius scripturae uestigia in membranis nonnullis etiamnum exstant. Posset & legi, loci jam regna tenentem, uel sceptra. ut [libro vi. 677] supra, Sceptra loci rerumque capit moderamen Erechtheus. nam locum quo regna prim. Gronov. locumque in regna alius. locum & regna duo. frag. Boxhornii, qui parte locum qui regna teneret. Bernegger. locus quo regna tenente. quomodo & Arondel. pro diuersa lectione, tres tenenti”. Whatever value his arguments and proposals may have, note that the alleged metrical anomaly remains intact with any of them (and note, incidentally, that Heinsius’ proposal is loci iam, not loci modo, as mistakenly stated by Slater 1927, ad loc.). Baumgarten-Crusius is surprised by Heinsius’ metrical objection (1834, 520: “Heinsius nescio quo iure offensus numeris coniecit…”), and defends the majority paradosis as a recollection of the Homeric δημόν τε πόλιν τε. Merkel also considered in his 1st ed. (1850, X) that this line could be one of the possible “supplementa” added by an interpolator, yet he did not overtly discard it: “minus aperta, sed tamen frigida et otiosa”. Finally, Magnus (1914, 511) registers in his app. Vollmer’s conjecture pro fratre (fratre is the reading of Gg: uid. append.), which he interprets as “meo sc, coll 661 664”. I do not see the advantage of this proposal.



299

Commentary

650–654: Delius augurium dedit huic, dedit altera Liber     femineae stirpi uoto maiora fideque munera, nam tactu natarum cuncta mearum in segetem laticesque meri †canaeque† Mineruae transformabantur, diuesque erat usus in illis.

650

• 651 stirpi] stirpe L3(a.c.) Ds(a.c.)  : sorti stirpique B42  : sorti Ld(stirpi i.l. u.l. Ld2) Bs2(stirpi i.l. u.l. a m.p.)Cs2, “Rhen.”(stirpi hab. Tu) test. Jahn 1832, Heinsius 1659(qui et “duo alii pro diuersa lectione” test.), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836  : stipi Ls(a.c.)  : stupri Rd  : stirpis Lr22(a.c.)V30 • 653 meri] meo ride M(a.c.)  : mori Mt  : merû Lr7O3, “Patau. et Moreti” test. Burm. 1727  : mei Dr(mî)V7 P5 Lu2  : om. Ab  : quid Mo a.c. n.l. • canaeque M(baca mg. M2) Lr27, Korn 1880, edd. aliquot (uid. append.)  : ba(c)c(h)amque Ω, edd. (uid. append.), dub. Riese 1889(in app.)  : baccasque Gf Bo22  : baccaque Bo2  : baceâque Ab  : bactoque Vd  : uaccamque Mc  : fort. donumque •

651: stirpi: the mss. are more or less unanimous in this reading, but Ld and Bs2Cs2 have sorti, a variant attested by Heinsius (1659, 348) in “duo alii pro diuersa lectione” (B42 has sorti stirpique). This variant was adopted by Heinsius with the parallels of 6.679  f.: quattuor ille quidem iuuenes totidemque crearat / femineae sortis, and 9.675  f.: quae uoueam, duo sunt: minimo ut releuere dolore, / utque marem parias: onerosior altera sors est (Burm. 1727, 907 adds menti / femineae at 10.244  f., where the variant sorti also appears), and was accepted by some edd. down to Bach (1836). It is evident that these passages can support the variant, yet they can also serve (especially the first one) to explain the origin of the corruption (so Loers 1843, 508). At l. 529 Ovid referred to Polydorus as minimus de stirpe uirili, and there are not enough grounds to question the term here (I find Bach’s judgement somewhat arbitrary [1836, 343]: “Die Vulg. stirpi trägt das Gepräge der Glosse”). 653: in segetem laticesque: this is by far the majority reading in mss., yet it was printed only by Jahn (1832), Loers (1843) and Koch (1866), the other edd. being unanimous in preferring the sing. laticemque. A strong reason for this decision must have been the authority of MN (not V2: uid. append.) and perhaps the echo of Verg. Aen. 1.686: regalis inter mensas laticemque Lyaeum (yet cf. latices … Lenaeos at georg. 3.509  f.). The alternation of the two desinences is a constant in the mss., and this noun is no exception (cf. e.  g. 3.171 with Suárez 2015, 152). Now, since both forms are fully acceptable and the plural is even preferred by the poets (certainly by Ovid), I do not see why we should not keep the majority reading. Furthermore, it provides an elegant variation with the preceding noun, in line with a practice familiar to Ovid (cf. ad 91 ignesque). For another thing, this poetic plural can be also understood as a proper plural if the reading canaeque (infra) is accepted, i.  e. as an allusion to the liquids of both wine and oil.

300

Commentary

canaeque: as against the majority bacamque, the only ms. to transmit canaeque is M (and its apograph Lr27). This variant was adopted by Korn (1880) and it has had ever-greater acceptance ever since (uid. append.). However, far from being a neat reading in M, it is the correction of a text that was corrupt due to a false wordbreak. Furthermore, its alleged change into bacamque cannot be properly accounted for, since bacamque clearly does not work as well here (as rightly stated by Magnus [1925, 136], “non in bacam, sed in laticem Mineruae = Öl wurde verwandelt”). If my reconstruction of the text structure and of the original reading of M is correct, the genuine Ovidian reading should be a noun in the acc. referring to oil (Prof. G. Liberman – per litteras – suggests su(c)cumque). I do not rule out the possibility of donumque, which would be an audacious remake of the Virgilian donum exitiale Mineruae (Aen. 2.31). For a detailed reasoning, see Rivero 2017b, 325–7. 655–659: Hoc ubi cognouit Troiae populator Atrides     (ne non ex aliqua uestram sensisse procellam nos quoque parte putes), armorum uiribus usus abstrahit inuitas gremio genitoris alantque imperat Argolicam caelesti munere classem.

655

• 659 classem] gentem AGfL3Lr22(mg. u.l.)N2(i.l. u.l.)P2V2V3 A2A3A4(classem mg. u.l. A42)AbB3B4BaBe2Dr2(i.l. u.l.)EFFe(mg. u.l. a m.p.)Gg(classem i.l. u.l.)H2H3Ld(classem i.l. u.l. Ld2)Ld2Ld3Lr3Lr42(mg. u.l.)Lr7LsMtOO3O4P3P4Ph2PrV4V5V6V8Vd2(p.c.) B8DsDs2Lr8(classem i.l. u.l. Lr82)Mo3Mt2Mt3P10SoSpTo B12Bo2(classem mg. u.l. Bo22)Cs3(classem mg. u.l. a m.p.)Es2Es3McMt4Mt5(classem mg. u.l. Mt52)To2 As(classem mg. u.l.)B14CvEs3Es4Es5Es6Lu22(mg. u.l.)P38P41Ps Ca2, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474(clasem[sic] 1480), Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Ciof. 1575(qui tamen classem in iii libris test. et prob.), Bersm. 1596(qui tamen mg. classem prob.), Weise 1845  : classem gentem Hd(sine correct.)  : terram “uet.” test. et improb. Gifanius 1565 •

656: MN (and Lr27) coincide once more in error, and once more N corrects it, coinciding in turn with V2 (uid. append.): ne nos exaliqua uestrum uenisse procellam. 656–657: the parenthesis (ne … putes), which is absolutely necessary (see Hardie 2015, 320), was marked as early as in the 1st Aldina (1502) and by Naugerius (1516). 659: classem: the mss. are strongly divided between this reading, attested and defended by Gifanius in his Index to Lucretius (1565, 312: “Classis”: “pro exercitu. ita usus uidetur & Ouid. 13. Metamorphos. alantque / imperat Argolicam celesti munere classê. sic legendum puto ex uet. cod. optimo. uulg. gentem”), and approved in their notes by both Ciofanus (1575) and Bersman (1596), and the more generic and literal gentem, which is present in mss. of



301

Commentary

all periods and was accepted by some of the early edd. as well as by Weise (1845; uid. app.). Gifanius also attests (1565, 312) the variant terram: “male, certe non tam recte”. 660–662: Effugiunt quo quaeque potest: Euboea duabus  et totidem natis Andros fraterna petita est. Miles adest et, ni dedantur, bella minatur.

660

• 661 et  … Andros] natabusque Andros totidem prop. Heinsius 1659(in notis) • 662 ni dedantur multi codd. (uid. append.), Plan., Aler. 1471, edd.  : ni reddantur Ω (uid. append.), Calph. 1480, Jahn 1832, Loers 1843  : ni retdantur Gf  : ni redantur B3L4(a.c. uid.), Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472  : alii alia (uid. append.) • minatur] minantur AbGH3N2O3V7Vd(a.c.) B8EtLr8(a.c.) P28Rd As(a.c.)P41Z •

660–661: some mss. of Priscian (7.11) contain these verses with the erroneous deabus and potita (see Viuianus 1522, ad loc.; Burm. 1727, 907; Magnus 1914, 512). 661: even though he printed the textus receptus, Heinsius in his notes (1659, 348) proposed to read thus: natabusque Andros totidem fraterna petita est (for the use of natis as feminine, see Bömer 1982, 378). 662: dedantur: this is the reading of a good number of mss. (and note that V3 joins the “Lactantians” here) and the one presumably translated by Planudes (εἰ μὴ ἐκδοθεῖεν αἱ κόραι). Another larger group along with the edd. of Calphurnius (1480, not that of 1474, where dedantur is printed), Jahn (1832) and Loers (1843) have the variant reddantur, a more common verb and one which is less appropriate in this context (cf. 664 dedidit). The copyist of V6 finds the haplography dentur and fills the metrical gap by adding sibi. minatur: the variant minantur of some recc. is an obvious assimilation to dedantur, so there is no need to think of a synesis of number as applied to the collective noun miles. 663–666: Victa metu pietas consortia corpora poenae dedidit. Et timido possis ignoscere fratri: non hic Aeneas, non qui defenderet Andron       Hector erat, per quos decimum durastis in annum.

665

• 663 pietas: consortia dist. Magnus 1914 • corpora] pectora AGfN2(i.l. u.l.)V2V3 A2A3A4(corpora i.l. u.l. A42)AbB3B4B5Be2DrEFFeGgH2L4LdLd2Ld3Lr6LsMtOO3O4P3P4Pr2V4V5(corpora i.l. u.l. V52)V6V7V8V9 B8Bs4Ld6Li3Mo3Mt2Mt3P5P8V16 B12Bo2Cs3(mg. u.l. a m.p.)Es2Es3Mt4Rd As(mg. u.l.)B14Bs7CvEs5Es6, “Rhen.[corpora hab. Tu]” test. Jahn 1832, Heinsius 1659(“multi ex melioribus”), edd. aliquot (uid. append.)  : om. Es3 • 664–666 (et … annum) pro parenth. hab. Magnus 1914 • 665 non2] nec Mt2 Es2 • 666 per quos Ω, multi edd. (uid. append.)  : per quem LuMM2(per quos p.c., suprascr. duos)-

302

Commentary

N(per quos mg. u.l. N3)V2(p.c., -em i.ras.; per quos i.l. V23) A2B22(i.l. u.l.)Fe(quos mg. u.l.)L4Lr3MoPr2V6V7 Lr82(i.l. u.l.) B122(quem i.l. u.l.)P28 Bo3(uid., a.c.)Lr22Lr27V30, Plan., “septem libri” test. Burm. 1727, Aler. 1471, Merkel 1875, edd. post. (uid. append.)  : pro quo L3  : quid V2 a.c. n.l. •

663–666: the punctuation of these lines is problematic. Magnus (1914, 512) argues that there must be a pause after pietas (as there is in some early mss.), thus making an implicit frater the subject of dedidit. To this end he compared am. 3.10.29: uictus amore pudor, where in any case no other punctuation is possible (other  – even closer  – passages, in Hardie 2015, 321). The proposal is not an absurd one, but it leaves a scarcely Ovidian sequence of rapid, short sentences. Magnus also considered this exculpation of Andros to be parenthetical (ll. 664–6): (et timido … durastis in annum). The exculpation is certainly a slight digression, yet this parenthesis is not acceptable because of the awkward resulting coordination dedidit … iamque parabantur … uincla. 663: corpora: a new instance of alternation of trisyllables in the 5th foot. The mss. are divided here between corpora and pectora (once more with a grouping of MN and N2V2). Heinsius (1659, 348) adopted pectora following “multi ex melioribus”, and was followed by other edd. down to Merkel (and hence down to Rösch-Fink in our time; Simmons, who follows the text of Merkel 1875, approves of corpora in his comm.: 1889, 147). Yet pectora poenae dedere is not appropriate for Anius’ daughters, since they were not to suffer that kind of sacrifice. In contrast, corpora here means “person” (cf. 615  f.), though perhaps with a nuance of slavery (so Hardie 2015, 321). For the origin of the variant, cf. 6.498: cognataque pectora supplex (Luc. 7.323; Stat. Theb. 2.637). poenae: in his 1st first ed. Merkel believed the text (1850, XIV: “remota glossa”) could be emended with the conjecture noxae. In his 2nd ed. (1875) he restored the majority paradosis. Incidentally, note that Planudes seems to translate paene: Ἡ δὲ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ φιλοστοργία ἡττηθεῖσα τοῦ δέους, ὀλίγου δεῖν, τὰ σύγγονα προδέδωκε σώματα. 664: dedidit et: the mss. multiply the variants for this line-beginning (uid. append.). As against dedidit (cf. 662), some have the more common  – and hence more suspicious – form dedit, and some repair the metrics by adding ut (i.  e. dedit et ut), a reading that was adopted by Heinsius, who nevertheless specifies (1659, 348) “Dedit, à Dedo” (cf. Baumg.-Crus. 1834, 521: “Offensi librarii uerbo Dedit, quod non uiderunt a Dedere deriuandum esse”). Other edd. down to Koch (1866) followed him. Another considerable number of mss. have tradidit et, rejected with good reason by edd.; other mss. contain reddidit et, which, even though it makes worse sense, was adopted by some early edd. as well as by Loers, recalling reddantur at l. 662 (1843, 509: “reddidit praetulimus propter illud reddantur”). Other variants, with a metrical result but not preferable, are dedit et in, dedidit ut, tradidit ut, dedit ut et, addidit et, et dedit et, and edidit et



303

Commentary

(Jahn 1832, 866, attests traditur et in “Duo Bersm.”, but it is certainly not the reading of DsDs2, where tradidit et is read). possis: we find again the systematic alternation with posses; this was adopted by some early edd. (not Aler. 1471, which edits possis with Lr22 as against V30), and by Jahn (1832, 866: “Vulgo”) and Loers, who thinks it fits better in the time frame (1843, 509): “de illo enim tempore loquitur. Qui sequitur uersus causam continet illius posses ignoscere”. Yet this does not seem to be the case, because, if the forgiveable action is past, forgiveness is present. Cf. 7.85: posses ignoscere amanti. 666: per quos: is Anius attributing the merit of the Trojans to both Aeneas and Hector or only to Hector? Taking into account that he is addressing Anchises and Aeneas specifically, the latter would hardly be delicate, to say the least (Hardie 2015, 321: “la variante quos potrebbe essere esatta, nel qual caso Anio vuole lusingare il suo ospite”). By attributing the merit to both, furthermore, he does not stray from the truth, which had been enshrined by the Virgilian Diomedes (Aen. 11.289  f.: Hectoris Aeneaeque manu uictoria Graium / haesit et in decimum uestigia rettulit annum), who in turn relied on Homer’s irrefutable dictum (Il. 17.513): Ἕκτωρ Αἰνείας θ’, οἳ Τρώων εἰσὶν ἄριστοι. per quos is the reading of most mss. and was adopted by nearly all edd. until Riese’s 1st ed. (1872). On the other hand, a minority of relevant mss. (uid. app.) have per quem, which was printed by Aler. 1471, by Merkel his 2nd ed. (1875), and by all edd. ever since. This reading, no doubt based on the reality of the Trojan deeds (see Rivero et alii 2009–2011, IV, 88 n. 112 ad Aen. 11.290), probably comes from Verg. Aen. 9.155: decimum quos distulit Hector in annum, words uttered not in vain by Turnus. Perhaps the copyist also had in mind the nearby passage of met. 12.76  f.: decimum dilatus in annum / Hector erat. We cannot know what the first reading of V2 was, since -em is written over the erased text; above this word, too, -quos has been written i.l. by a later hand. N, for its part, though reading quem, has an interlineal gloss which implies quos: “hos dico. s. eneā et hectorē” (in the margin, another more recent hand writes per quos as a u.l.). Note, finally, the appealing inversions decimum per quem/quos. 667- 674: Iamque parabantur captiuis uincla lacertis; illae tollentes etiamnum libera caelo bracchia: ‘Bacche pater, fer opem!’ dixere, tulitque muneris auctor opem (si miro perdere more       ferre uocatur opem), nec qua ratione figuram perdiderint potui scire aut nunc dicere possum. Summa mali nota est: pennas sumpsere tuaeque coniugis in uolucres, niueas abiere columbas”.

670

304

Commentary

• 668–669 libera  … / bra(c)chia] brachia  … / libera L3 A2A4H3Ld3Lr3OPh2V4Vd Bs3Bs4DsLd6Mt3To B12McVt Es3P41 • 674 in uolucres] in uolucrem HdL4Lr4Lr6(a.c.), Heinsius 1659(qui et “Oxon. … et tribus aliis” test.), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834 •

68–669: libera caelo / bracchia: a small number of mss. (uid. app.) have this enjambement with an inversion of words and metrical result: brac(c)hia caelo / libera. Note the unmetrical brachia libera of V5(a.c.) at l. 668. 668: tollentes: in the mss. Lu Fe P41 I have found the appealing attollentes, which is also attested by Bersman (1596, 536) in “lib. un.” (probably Fe: uid. infra). For tollo, cf. l. 542, and cf. 11.131  f.: ad caelumque manus et splendida bracchia tollens / ‘da ueniam, Lenaee pater! (see Díez 2014, 98  f.; Hardie 2015, 321). etiamnum: for the alternation etiamnum/etiamnunc, uid. ad 195. Bersman (1596, 536) records the variation etiam non in one ms., but DsDs2 have etiam nunc, so once again Fe coincides with Bersman’s information (uid. supra). 669–671: the form opem is repeated by Ovid in these three consecutive lines (see Bömer 1982, 379  f.; Hardie 2015, 322), and this gives rise to the predictable omissions through saut du même au même (uid. append.). 670–671: (si  … opem): as early as in the 1st Aldina (1502) this aside or correctio (Hardie 2015, 322) was taken as parenthetical, and this was followed by the ed. Gryphiana (Lugd. 1546), which is so meticulous in these respects. 672: aut nunc dicere possum: the habitual variants for aut recur here, as well as the usual alternations nunc/non and possum/-em/-im; for dicere/ discere, uid. append. ad 231. 674: in uolucres: some recc. have in uolucrem (inuolucrem is the spelling of HdL4Lr6), which Heinsius adopted by citing, among others, “Oxon. … et tribus aliis” (1659, 348). Some edd. kept it, down to Baumgarten-Crusius (1834). The reading does not lack appeal: it should be a generic allusion to “Venus’ bird”, and the plural might have stemmed from niueas … columbas. Yet Bach (1836, 345) thinks that columbas in apposition to a singular would be harsh, and he holds that -em has originated from ni- inmediately following. Finally, note the inversion niueas uolucres in So (and cf. Ba: in uolucres niueas omnes), which implies a syntactic readjustment in that it suppresses the apposition. 675–679: Talibus atque aliis postquam conuiuia dictis       implerunt, mensa somnum petiere remota, cumque die surgunt adeuntque oracula Phoebi, qui petere antiquam matrem cognataque iussit litora. Prosequitur rex et dat munus ituris:

675



Commentary

305

• 676 somnum petiere] somni meminere coni. Bothe 1818(in notis) • 678 antiquam  … iussit] antiquam iussit cognataque matrem Ld6 • antiquam … cognataque Gf(p.c.)P2(matrem cognataque p.c. i.ras.; quid a.c. n.l.) B3(cognata)B5(a.c., uid.)H22(p.c.)L4(antiqua p.c.)V42(p.c.) Ω, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, edd.  : antiquam cognataque V4  : antiqua(per comp.) cognataque(matrem i.l. Ab2) Ab  : antiquam terram cognataque Li3Lr8 Lr22V30, Aler. 1471  : antiquam terram cognataque mænia Es6  : antiquam matrem regnataque Pr  : antiquā cognaque menia T  : antiquam cognataque m(o)enia V3 Lr3N2Ph2Tu(a.c.)V5 Es2RdTo2 Bo3  : antiqua cognataque(cognotaque S2) m(o)enia AGfL3LuMM2NS2V2 H2H3Lr7Mo2(mg. u.l.)Tu(p.c.) ToV16 Mc Es4F2Go2Lr27P41Z  : antiqua menia cognataque B52(p.c.) • 679 li(t)tora Ω, edd.  : li(t)tore GfL3M2(-a a.c.)N(-a a.c.)S2V2(uid., a.c.)V3 H2(-a p.c.)H3L4(-a a.c.)Lr3Lr7 ToV16 Mc Bo3Es4P41  : moenia dub. Magnus 1914(in app.), dub. prob. Luck • post dat et ituris colon pos. Hardie 2015, Holzberg 2017 •

676: somnum petiere: since petere appears again at l. 678, Bothe made this timid proposal (1818, 140): “An fuit somni meminere?”. For repetition as a stylistic device in Ovid, uid. ad 669–71. 677: adeuntque: we find again the omission of -que in synaloepha (uid. append.), though it does not seem to make for a better text. The variant may also come from 15.631: Delphos adeunt, oracula Phoebi. 678–679: the mss. show a remarkable divergence and are split into large groups (which do not, however, enable us to establish clear connections or ‘families’). The largest group reads qui petere antiquam matrem cognataque iussit / litora (and note the interesting, yet useless, variations in B3: … cognata iussitque / litora, and Ld6: antiquam iussit cognataque matrem), an obvious echo of Apollo’s oracle in Virgil (Aen. 3.94–6): Dardanidae duri, quae uos a stirpe parentum / prima tulit tellus, eadem uos ubere laeto / accipiet reduces: antiquam exquirite matrem (for the model, see Bömer 1982, 381  f.). A variant of this is … antiquam terram etc., which I have found in Li3Lr8 Lr22V30 and Aler. 1471; it is probably a gloss, though an error through syllable inversion is not to be ruled out. Another variant of this reading is transmitted by Pr, where cognataque becomes the erroneous regnataque. Another significant number of mss. have qui petere antiqua(/-am) cognataque moenia iussit, which has in turn given rise to the variant litore in the following line (though not always in these same codices), on the understanding that there must be a pause after iussit and that litore refers to prosequitur. The corruption may have stemmed from the possible omission of matrem (so V4), which makes some copyists change antiquam into the metrically unlikely antiqua (and observe the half-way status of the reading of Ab; it is striking that Fabbri [1923, 150 in app.] could even show timid sympathies for this reading: “Nescio an scribendum sit…”: uid. append.). In this way, antiqua is coordinated with cognata, both as qualifiers of moenia, a noun that the copyists could have brought in from the same passage of Virgil (3.85: da propriam, Thymbraee, domum; da moenia fessis; 100: cuncti quae sint ea moenia quaerunt: based on this passage Magnus even suggest reading moenia instead of litora at 679: see 1914, 513 in app.). Luck (2005b, 266  f.) calls for more attention to be given to this proposal.

306

Commentary

In the early ms. S2, which has the variant with moenia, a second hand has written in the margin: “ut peterent antiquam matrem”. Finally, the variant suasit (uid. append.) must be understood as a misspelling of iussit, since it is at odds with Phoebus’ character. 679: versus the general punctuation, which makes munus either the object or the predicative of dat (see Bömer 1982, 382), Hardie marks munus ituris between commas (and hence Holzberg 2017, 672), i.  e. he takes it as an inner or embedded apposition, or schema Cornelianum, a device much to the liking of Ovid (uid. ad 495). Cf. however Verg. Aen. 7.243  f.: dat tibi … / munera (cf. 1.647  f.: munera … / ferre iubet). 680–682: Anchisae sceptrum, chlamydem pharetramque nepoti,  cratera Aeneae quem quondam miserat illi hospes ab Aoniis Therses Ismenius oris.

680

• 681 miserat] transtulit M Mo Ft Bo3Lr22Lr27V30, Aler. 1471, Merkel 1875(miserat 1850), Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, Fink 2007  : transtulerat Lu(a.c.)N(a.c. a m.p.) • 682 Ismenius] Minyeius dub. Heinsius 1659(in notis) •

680: Anchisae: some mss. vacillate over the desinence, sometimes due to a false wordbreak (uid. append.). For this desinence, see Housman (1910, 250 [1972, 827], though he mistakenly includes it among the cases of gen., not dat.). 681: cratera Aeneae, quem: the mss. vacillate over the desinence of the noun (uid. append.). The best-attested form is craterem, followed by crateram (also attested in his mss. by Gifanius 1565, 314, ad “Comites Heliconiadum”), yet Lr2NV2 and a small number of recc. have cratera, which was printed for the first time by Heinsius (1652), who has been followed by nearly all later editors. Heinsius (1659, 349) based his choice on the obvious Virgilian model (Aen. 5.535–8): ipsius Anchisae longaeui hoc munus habebis, / cratera impressum signis, quem Thracius olim / Anchisae genitori in magno munere Cisseus / ferre sui dederat monimentum et pignus amoris (see Hopkinson 2000, 200  f.; Galasso 2005, 217 n. 3; Hardie 2015, 323). With a similar syntactic structure, he added Aen. 9.266: cratera antiquum quem dat Sidonia Dido, as well as Ou. fast. 3.418, where current edd., however, prefer to read gratare (i.  e. as against cratera). The Greek declension of this noun, especially in the acc., is in fact much to the liking of Latin poets in general and of Ovid in particular (see Baumg.Crus. 1834, 521; Bach 1836, 345), who uses it again at 5.82, 8.679 and fast. 2.251. Furthermore, he does not use any other form for the acc. (see H-K-E-A 1966, 518). The form crateram seems to be a regularization of the Greek acc., and craterem, in turn, could be an emendation in light of the following



Commentary

307

masc. pron. quem (in most of the mss. that have crateram the reading quem is attested; thus probably in M2, which changes the previous quâ of M into quâe, and hence quem in Lr27). Be that as it may, craterem was the form of the early edd., and then only of Weise (1845) and Koch (1866) after Heinsius; crateram was adopted by Merkel (1850), who was followed by very few edd. down to Lejay (1894). Finally, Heinsius left open in his notes (1758, 703 [Burm. 1727, 909]) the possibility of reading creterra, based on the testimony of Nonius Marcellus (15.548M) for Cic. Arat. 34.219. miserat: the original reading of Lu and N is transtulerat, perhaps through dittography of the preceding -dam. This reading was changed in N by the same m.p. into miserat, as well as in Lu (seemingly by a different hand). In M(Lr27) and a few recc. (also in Aler. 1471 along with Lr22V30) the variant transtulit appears, which seems to be a metrical regularization of transtulerat (for the textual connection between M and N, uid. ad 471). It was adopted by Merkel in his 2nd ed. (1875) and by others up to the present. The repetition of miserat at l. 683 is more of a backing than a drawback (Hopkinson 2000, 201: “the pluperfect tense suits the context better, and the repetition in line 683 is more effective if the verb, too, is repeated”). For the pluperfect, cf. Verg. Aen. 5.538 (supra). 682–683: the repetition of Therses at the same metrical position gives rise to instability in the transmission, with the predictable omissions and displacements (uid. append.). 682: Aoniis: leaving aside misspellings, among which ioniis stands out (I did not find hispanis or hismanis, mentioned by Heinsius in b3, 344), it is worth considering the variant Haemoniis, transmitted under different forms (uid. append.) by some mss. and accepted by some early edd. down to Bersman (1596). Aonius means “Boeotian”, which fits in with the following reference to Thebes and the river Ismenus (see Simmons 1889, 149; Keene 1898, 107; Bömer 1982, 382  f.; Hill 2000, 160; Hopkinson 2000, 201; Galasso 2005, 218; Hardie 2015, 323). Ismenius: versus this majority reading (and its abundant misspellings: uid. append.), Heinsius (1659, 349) suggested: “forte Minyeius”, which makes less sense here (uid. supra). 683–684: Miserat hunc illi Therses, fabricauerat Alcon Hyleus et longo caelauerat argumento: • 684 hyleus E(nileus i.l. u.l.), prob. Merkel 1850, edd. post. plerique (uid. append.)  : hileus B2(nileus i.l. u.l. B22)Mt  : Hylicus dub. Hopkinson 2000  : nileus Ω, Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475  : nyleus Ld3Tr Ds2  : nileys Lr7  : nelius Ld2(nileus mg. u.l. Ld22)  : Nileos coni. Heinsius 1659(in notis)  : Myleus Ho2, Plan., Aldina 1502, edd. aliquot (uid. append.)  : Mileus G Es6Ho, “Dresd.”(non sic Dr) test. Jahn 1832, Regius 1493  : Myndius dub. Bergk  : Lindius [Lact.] narrat. fab. 13.5, test. Heinsius, dub. Bergk, prob.

308

Commentary

Hill 2000, Tarrant 2004, Holzberg 2017  : Lidius V16  : Ligdinus Ds  : †nileus† not. Hopkinson 2000, Hardie 2015 •

683: hunc: for the variant hanc, uid. ad 681 cratera Aeneae, quem. illi Therses: Lr2 (and a small number of recc.: uid. append.) has the reverse order and marks a pause after Therses, thus connecting illi with fabricauerat. Heinsius, who had found this proposal in seven of his mss. (b3, 344: “miserat hunc Therses. illi etc. pr. Gron. et VI alii. bene”), adopted it in 1652, but changed his mind in 1659. 684: Hyleus: the presence of a non-Latin proper name, this time an adj. of place, provokes the predictable problems in transmission. Mss. and edd. are divided here between Nileus (“of/from the Nile”), Hyleus (“of/from Hyle”, in Thessaly), Myleus (“of/from Myle”, in Thessaly or else in Sicily), and Lindius (“of/from Lindos”, in Rhodes). The majority reading in the mss. is nileus (with frequent glosses such as “a nilo dictus”, and with the variants nyleus, nileys and nelius), which, however, was only adopted by the early edd. down to Accurs. 1475. Based on it Heinsius proposed the unlikely Nileos (1659, 349): “Puto Nileos. nempe filius”. The mss. also transmit M(y/i)leus, a variant I have found only in G (s. XIIXIII) and three 15th c. mss.: Es6HoHo2 (it is not this but Nileus that is the reading of the “Sen. 2”, i.  e. Li3, pace Jahn 1832, 868, who attests this variant in the “Dresd.” as well, although Dr has nileus too). It must also have been the reading of Planudes’ antigraph (ὁ Μυλεὺς Ἄλκων). As for the “Holkham.” (Slater 1927, ad loc.), both are very late mss., Ho in particular being based on the 1493 ed. of Regius, one of the scholars who defend this reading, and therefore the testimony of the ms. lacks any authority. In fact, the first editor to defend this reading was Regius (1493), with this note: “Alcon Mileus. non milei filius  : sed a patria sic cognominatus. Mylæ namque nomen est duarum urbium quarum altera est in Sicilia altera in Thessalia. Duo autem fuerunt Alcones clari. Hic argentarius faber  : et alter Cretensis arte sagitandi [sic] insignis”. It was adopted by the 1st Aldina (1502), Naugerius (1516), and others down to Koch (1866). Baumgarten-Crusius (1834, 522) accepts the Thessalian identification of Mylae and defends the morphology of the adj. Μυλεύς, comparing Παταρεύς, or Πλαταιεύς (“Φλυεύς a Phlya, Βοεύς a Boeba” are added, though in defence of Hyleus, by Wilamowitz 1884, 3  f. [= Kleine Schriften, IV, 563]). For his part, Bach (1836, 346) does not rule out the reference being to the Sicilian Mylae, founded around one century after the fall of Troy, since similar anachronisms are present in epic and particularly in Virgil. Based on this reading Bergk (1884, 658) conjectured Myndius (“of/from Myndos”). The other variant of the mss. is Hyleus (so E; Hileus in B2Mt), which was adopted by Merkel (1850; and see 1875, XXXVII) and Riese (1872, XXIV: “Hyleus ab Hylis Boeotiae oppido”), and other edd. up to the present (see H-K-E 1898, 408 [H-K-E-A 1966, 518]; Magnus 1893, 634). Finally, the pseudo-Lactantian narratio (fab. 13.5: see Magnus 1914, 702; Slater 1927, ad



Commentary

309

loc.) leaves us this text: munera dant et accipiunt in quibus fuit crater aeneae datus. ab alcone lindio celatus (my textual notes: crater aenee] cratera enee N • alcone] alcione M a.c. • lindio MN V16  : lidio M p.c.  : lydio Vd11, Accurs. 1475. Remember that in N this narratio does not precede the episode but is written in the margin just at the beginning of Book 13: fol. 158v). V16 goes so far as to transfer the reading Lidius to Ovid’s text (cf. Ligdinus in Ds). Lindius was highlighted by Heinsius (o5, 344), approved by Bergk (ibid.), and edited by Hill (2000, 160: “the reading of most of the major manuscripts” [sic]) and by Tarrant (2004), based on Pliny’s information (34.141): hoc signum exstat hodie Rhodi. est in eadem urbe et ferreus Hercules, quem fecit Alcon laborum dei patientia inductus (“but that does not seem sufficient grounds for preferring Lindius here”, argues Hopkinson 2000, 201, with good reason, and so also Hardie 2015, 323; Galasso 2005, 219, in turn, thinks that Lindius “creerebbe però una totale sovrapponibilità tra l’artista storico e quello mitologico, e sembra perciò da scartare”). This is also the option of Holzberg (2017). Bömer (1982, 383) recalls that Hyle was the homeland of Tychius, the maker of the shield of Ajax (Hom. Il. 7.219–23), and that already in Antiquity there was the debate about whether he was a native of the Boeotian or the Lydian Hyle (see Kirk 1990, 264). He then concludes that Ovid is opting overtly for Boeotian origin by means of the cross-reference to the Ismenius (and cf. Aoniis  … ab oris: uid. supra) Therses, a character probably invented by Ovid himself (Hopkinson 2000, 201; Hardie 2015, 323). Hopkinson (2000, 201), however, raises this objection: “This is an attractive idea, but it is difficult to incorporate in the text, since the adjective from Hyle is Hylaeus (cf. 8.312), and the reading Hyleus must be wrong. Possibly Hylicus, a form attested by Stephanus of Byzantium (s.v. Ὕλη) should be read”. Shortly afterwards he states with good reason: “nileus makes no sense […]; probably lidius is the conjecture of a learned reader who knew of the ancient debate about Tychius”. Consequently, Hopkinson opts for writing this term between cruces (2000, 68), the same option adopted recently by Hardie (2015, 56 and 323), though with no fresh argument. Hylicus is an appealing proposal and is palaeographically irreproachable. But the fact is that the morphology of Hyleus is not problematic, as stated by Baumgarten-Crusius and Wilamowitz (supra). It is actually the first syllabe of the word that might be problematic, since Homer uses the name with a short first syllable in Il. 5.708 and 7.221 (see Galasso 2005, 219), although he also uses it with a long syllable in Il. 2.500. The variant Hyleus must be accepted on the grounds of the literary arguments presented and because it is supported by the majority reading itself, from which it differs only in the slightest variation, N/H. longo caelauerat argumento: what Planudes may have read in his antigraph is not clear (or else why he translated argumento as he did): μακρᾷ τέχνης ἀκριβείᾳ διέγλυψε. For the technical term argumentum in this context, see Hopkinson 2000, 202; Hardie 2015, 323.

310

Commentary

685–691: urbs erat et septem posses ostendere portas         (hae pro nomine erant et quae foret illa docebant); ante urbem exequiae tumulique ignesque rogique effusaeque comas et apertae pectora matres significant luctum; nymphae quoque flere uidentur siccatosque queri fontes (sine frondibus arbor       nuda riget, rodunt arentia saxa capellae).

685

690

• 687 ignesque] ignêsque Lu2  : urbesque “Medic.”, unde urnaeque dub. Heinsius  : om. Tu • rogique] gyroque M  : giroque Lr27  : piroque M2(mg.), unde pyraeque Merkel 1875, Polle 1888, H-K-E 1898, Ehwald 1915, van Proosdij 1951, H-K-E-A 1966  : rogi Mt  : regique Pr  : rogoque Ds2(a.c.)  : rogusque P41 • 688–689 inu. ord. S2 • 691 rodunt] lambunt A(p.c.)GfLr22(i.l. u.l.)N(p.c., lâb- i.ras.; rod- uid. a.c.; rodunt i.l. u.l. N2)V2V3 A2A3A4(p.c.; rodunt mg. u.l. A42)AbB5(p.c.)BaBe2CDr(p.c.)EFGgH2Lr62(i.l. u.l.)MtO3O4(rodunt i.l. u.l. O42)P3(lâbû a.c.)P4PrTrV5V7V9 B8Ds2Lr8Mo3Mt2P5P8SoSp(a.c. a m.p.)V16 BoCs3(mg. u.l. a m.p.)Es2McTo2 AsB14CvEs3Es5F2Lr22P38P41PsV30, Plan., Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, edd. aliquot (uid. append.)  : alii alia (uid. append.) •

685: note the inversions with metrical result posses septem (Ls B14) and portas ostendere posses (CN2Ph2), which in no way improve the text (Hardie 2015, 325: “Questo verso crea incertezza: sino alla parola finale ci potremmo aspettare colles, cioè Roma”). Heinsius (b3, 372) attests ualuas for portas in “duo libri”, one of which may be Ds2, one of Bersman’s mss. Note the variant passas of M(Lr27), probably just the effect of a misreading (uid. append.). 686: foret: observe the exclusive error of MN (and Lr27): ferat (uid. append.). The variants fore in (V7) and forat (Go) probably stem from spellings such as foræt (so e.  g. Ld) or for&. 687: ignesque: Heinsius (b3, 372) attests urbesque in a “Medic.”, and hence his (unpublished) proposal urnaeque. The expression ignesque rogique must be understood as a hendiadys (“flaming pyres”: Simmons 1889, 150; Hopkinson 2000, 202). rogique: in another instance of error through syllable inversion, M has gyroque (giroque in Lr27), and hence the piroque of M2 in the margin. Based on M, in turn, Merkel conjectured pyraeque in his 2nd ed. (1875, XXXVII  f.): “hoc putaui latere in scriptura M gyroque, nisi transpositae syllabae putandae sunt reliquorum omnium scripturae rogique. pyraeque sunt ix 231 xiv 90”. 688–689: S2 reverses the order of these lines (Mt had reversed 687–8), leaving an also readable text: ante urbem exequiae tumulique ignesque rogique / significant luctum; nymphae quoque flere uidentur / effusaeque comas et apertae pectora matres, / siccatosque queri fontes  … (compare as well the omission of 688 in O3Tr). 688: the presence of the acc. of respect (comas, pectora) gives rise to the predictable errors (uid. append.). I find unnecessary and grammatically harsh the conjecture et fusaeque (i.  e. et matres, fusaeque comas et apertae pectora,)



311

Commentary

presented by Bach (1819, 69) in his note to Tib. 1.6.40. He did not incorporate it into his text of Ovid (1836, 346). 690: arbor: a considerable number of mss. have arbos, a form hitherto unattested in Ovid’s text (cf. Baumg.-Crus. 1834, 522). For these alternations, uid. ad 96 honos; cf. 153. 691: rodunt: the mss. are more or less equally divided between rodunt and lambunt. The former is probably the original reading of N, later modified by the same m.p. into lâbunt (the infrequent nasal tilde is due to lack of space in the deletion), although N2 writes rodunt i.l. as a u.l. The reading lambunt appeared in the early edd. down to Bersman (1596), and then was edited only by Weise (1845); rodunt was recovered by Heinsius, who compares (1659, 349) fast. 1.357: rode, caper, uitem. However, what is in question is not whether the verb rodo can be used with goats as the subject, but whether it can be applied to the stones as the object. More meaningful from this perspective is this other passage (cited also by Heinsius in a longer version of his notes: 1758, 703 [Burm. 1727, 909]) of Avienus (descr. 1137  f.): glebas abrodunt more ferarum / ieiunas herbae nec amicas frugibus ullis. In order to suggest drought it is certainly much more dramatic to imagine the goats grazing on stones in search of remains of vegetation than to have them licking them, as they ordinarily do in order to provide themselves with salt for their organism. The reading lambunt, then, is probably the result of banalization when faced with an image that has been found odd or shocking. For the motif of the union of nature and mankind in affliction, see Bömer 1982, 386; Hopkinson 2000, 202; Hardie 2015, 325. 692–696: Ecce facit mediis natas Orione Thebis – hanc non femineum iugulo dare pectus aperto, illam demisso per fortia pectora telo – pro populo cecidisse suo pulchrisque per urbem     funeribus ferri celebrique in parte cremari;

695

• 692 ecce  … mediis] aere uides medio coni. Gronouius  : en fecit mediis coni. Vollmer • 693–694 pro parenth. habeo  : del. Bentley  : uncinis not. Hopkinson 2000 • 693 dare] claro V5  : per coni. Hardie 2015, haud male, prob. Liberman • pectus Ω, Plan., Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, edd. plerique (uid. append.)  : uulnus E, Merkel 1850, edd. post. plerique (uid. append.)  : corpus P2(pectus mg. u.l. P22) B8 • 694 demisso  … telo] demissa per fortia uulnera tela coni. Bentley, prob. Korn 1880, Simmons 1889, Edwards 1905  : demisso per inerti uulnera telo coni. Madvig  : demisso per inertia uulnere tela coni. Merkel 1875, prob. Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Riese 1889, Keene 1898 • per fortia pectora Ω, Plan., Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, edd. (uid. append.)  : per fortia uulnera AGfN(p.c.; ɔstātia supra fortia scr. N3)P2V2(pectora i.l. u.l. V23)V3 A3AbB2(pectora i.l. u.l. B22)FH2Ld2(pectora i.l. u.l. Ld22)Lr7N2O4(pectora i.l. O42)P3(cor supra uulnera scr. P32)Ph2V5V9 Bs2(pectora i.l. u.l.)Cs2Mt2 Es2FtTo2 Bo3Es6F2Vd11Z, “Berol.”(pectora hab. B14) test. Jahn 1832, Heinsius 1659, edd. aliquot (uid. append.), prob. Bentley  : per inertia uulnera M Mo Lr27, prob. Birt, Magnus 1914, edd. aliquot (uid. append.)  : alii alia (uid. append.)  : per Martia uulnera uel potius p. M. uiscera

312

Commentary

prop. Heinsius  : per inerti uulnera coni. Madvig  : per inertia uulnere coni. Merkel 1875  : per inertia uellera coni. Birt  : per inertia guttura coni. Bernardini Marzolla  : per inermia pectora prop. Galasso •

692–696: the general structure of these lines, which all the mss. transmit, has caused controversy and given rise to different textual proposals according to the available variants (uid. app. et append.; good summaries and analysis in Simmons 1889, 151  f.; Galasso 2000, 1480–2, and 2005, 217  f., 221–3; Hopkinson 2000, 32  f.; Hardie 2015, 323–5). I think that ll. 693  f. must be marked as parenthetical, as an aside where the two alternative forms of suicide (through incision into the neck or breast) chosen by the Coronides are expressed with syntactic variation, thus making pro populo cecidisse suo refer, as is only to be expected, to both natas. For a detailed analysis, see Rivero 2016d. 692: ecce facit mediis: the verbs referring to the crater and its donor or manufacturer were in the pluperfect (ll. 681, 683  f.), and then there was a shift to the imperfect in order to allude to the general content of the scene (ll. 685  f.), and to the present for its particular details (ll. 686–91). It is not surprising, then, that Ovid now uses a present to turn to the artist (facit: see Simmons 1889, 151), duly nuancing the verb by means of ecce so as to show that a solution is about to come for the devastation described above (Bömer 1982, 386; Galasso 2000, 1481; Hopkinson 2000, 202). The modification proposed by Vollmer and recorded by Magnus (1914, 514 in app.) is therefore unnecessary: en fecit mediis (cf. the unmetrical ecce fecit mediis of V30, duly corrected in Lr22 and Aler. 1471). Planudes’ translation (a rather paraphrastic one) is of no help: Ἐποίησε δ’ ὁ τεχνίτης ἐν μέσαις ταῖς Θήβαις καὶ τὰς Ἐχίονος παῖδας (ὁ τεχνίτης recalls glosses such as sculptor or Alcon written above in many mss.). However, Slater (1927, ad loc.) tried to reconstruct his antigraph as fecit et (uel fecerat) in mediis, through comparison with Verg. Aen. 8.628, 630 and 710. Gronouius’ proposal, also recorded by Magnus (ibid.), sounds even worse: aere uides medio. Furthermore, it leaves Thebis in an awkward position, whether taken as referring to natas or to the following infinitives (in any case, observe that Bs4 reads ecce uides mediis). Orione: only B2B4(a.c.) have a reading without ab (uid. append.; this is certainly not the reading of Bs7, as stated by Bach 1836, 346), although a different hand in B12 has written above “aɫ. ω” or perhaps “aɫ. oo”, which could perhaps be taken in the same way, i.  e. as an indication that the first Oin Orione must be long. Heinsius recovered the reading for his 2nd ed. (1659, 349: “Tolle τὸ ab cum uno Gronouii”), and it has been kept by all edd. ever since, with the exception of Jahn (1832) and Loers (1843). The latter obeys, as usual, the ms. evidence at his disposal and recalls the prosodic oscillation of that vowel within Ovid’s works (see Bömer 1982, 386 and 98 ad 12.262). Now, the habitual constr. in Ovid for the expression “son of X” is natus + abl. (cf. e.  g. l. 357: claroque Andraemone natus). Leaving aside openly erroneous variants, it is worth considering the reading ab echione, written above in



Commentary

313

V2 by a modern hand. This variant must have been in Planudes’ antigraph (τὰς Ἐχίονος παῖδας), and Regius adopted it for his text with this note in the margin: “Filias Echionis. Thebani”. Bersman recorded it (1596, 537: “lib. vn.”) and Glareanus expressed his liking for it (Glar.-Long. 1570, 236): “Quidam etiam ab Orione legunt pro ab Echione, sed magis placet Raphaelis lectio”. 693: hanc non: M (so Bo3Lr27 also) contains the variant agmen, which seems a (self-)dictation error (cf. 8 aglasse) but which was approved by Madvig (1873, 92), and initially by Birt (1878, 22), as well as by Magnus (1914, 514), who takes agmen femineum to be in apposition to natas. Slater (1927, ad loc.) compares the situation of Catull. 45.1, but there we are dealing with the rare proper name Acmen (more precisely, under the spelling ac men), not with a common noun such as agmen. In his 2nd ed. (1875) Merkel conjectured hac non, correlated with illac in the following line so as to refer to the different chiselled parts of the cup, these two being followed by a third scene introduced by tum in l. 697 (see 1875, XXXVIII). This twofold conjecture was adopted by some 19th c. edd., and by Goold (1984) and Bernardini Marzolla (1994). For more details, see Rivero 2016d, 87. dare: in order to make the inf. cecidisse duly refer to both natas (uid. supra, ad 692–6), Hardie (2015, 325) has cleverly proposed to change dare uulnus into per uulnus, so that in both cases the form of death would be expressed by means of abl. absolutes with parallel wordings (Liberman, per litteras, approves of this conjecture). With my own proposal for the passage these abl. absol. constructions are also kept (Galasso 2005, 222, on the other hand, interprets iugulo not as an abl. but as a dative: “infligge una ferita non da donna alla gola scoperta”). The second line has the subliminal meaning that the girl “faced a heroic death”, as implied by non femineum dare pectus (uid. infra). pectus: in his 1st ed. (1850) Merkel recovered the variant uulnus of the Erfurtensis (this part of Book 13 was copied by a more recent hand), and his proposal was adapted by Madvig and Birt to their respective textual proposals (uid. append.), being followed by most later editors. Yet I think that pectus makes even better sense (“to display a non-female heart”, i.  e. to give proof of manly bravery, in accordance with a fully Ovidian usage: see Bömer 1982, 386  f.). I am also convinced that uulnus is just one more instance of the systematic alternation of pectus-uulnus-corpus-tempus (cf. corpus in P2 and B8: uid. append.). Moreover, as opportunely recalled by Bömer (1982, 387), dare uulnus would properly mean “to wound someone” and not oneself (contra Bernardini Marzolla 1994, 656: “insensata la lezione dare pectus”). 694: illam: some scholars preferred the variant illas of M (and Lr27P41); Merkel in his 2nd ed. (1875) conjectured illac and was followed by some edd.; and Birt (1878, 23) went so far as to propose olim in his reconstruction of the passage. See Rivero 2016d, 88  f. demisso … telo: the variant dimisso has been adopted by very few edd. (uid. append.). For different proposals for emendation by Bentley, Madvig and Merkel (uid. app.), see Rivero 2016d, 87.

314

Commentary

per fortia pectora: versus this majority reading a good number of mss. transmit uulnera in accordance with the habitual alternation of these trisyllables. This reading was adopted by Heinsius (1652) and some edd. down to Anderson (1982). M (accompanied only by Mo and Lr27) is set apart in containing per inertia uulnera (it is not to be ruled out that inertia was the original reading of N also, before it was changed into fortia). This variant was adopted by Magnus and Ehwald and other edd. in their wake (uid. app.), and it was glossed by Magnus (1914, 514 in app.) as “uulnera inerti telo facta”, comparing 7.544: leto moriturus inerti (so also Simmons 1889, 151). The expression, however, is not attested elsewhere (iners pectus does appear in Ou. trist. 3.7.22: cf. Stat. Theb. 3.660; 3.384  f.), and would spoil the present praise of the bravery of the maidens, since the adj. “ha sempre solo un valore negativo” (Galasso 2005, 223). Galasso himself argues (ibid.), not without reason, that inertia could be considered the lectio difficilior from the semantic point of view (and hence more likely to be changed into fortia than the other way around), yet I suspect, considering the spelling of the word in N, that the variant may have stemmed from a simple misreading (fortia > îertia). Since inertia cannot be accepted due to its negative nuance, Galasso (ibid.) ventures to propose inermia as an adj. that is proper to maidens’ breasts. From the variant inertia, in turn, Heinsius (b3, 374) conceived the idea of proposing per Martia uulnera, or even better, per Martia uiscera, “ut ad originem Thebarum a Marte respiciat, unde et Pentheus proles Mauortia lib. iii. 531. et ibid. us. 32. Martius anguis” (Burm. 1727, 910). For his part, Bernardini Marzolla (1994, 656) proposes per inertia guttura considering the allusion to the neck (τὴν σφαγήν) by Anton. Lib. 25.3. Note, finally, the “inventive” variant in P10: per hiancia uulnera (Liberman – per litteras – had initially considered reading per hiantia guttura, but changed his mind in order to keep the reference to the maiden’s bravery). For other textual proposals (uid. app.), see Rivero 2016d, 87  f. telo: for the variant ferro, uid. ad 393 telum. 695: pulchrisque: the funerals are the Thebans’ public recognition of the heroic sacrifice of the saviour maidens, as a sort of hypallage for their pulchra mors (Hardie 2015, 326). I think this makes good sense (even if pulchrum funus is unparalleled: Bömer 1982, 387), yet the opinion of Lejay was as follows (1894, 72): “PULCHRASQUE, correction nécessitée par le sens”. For his part, Liberman (per litteras) finds pulchris funeribus as a sign of bad taste; he initially suggested pullisque (“with people dressed in black”), comparing 11.48, yet this detail is unlikely to be reflected in a vase, so he is also considering clarisque, recalling Persius’ (2.10) praeclarum funus. 696: parte: Hopkinson (2000, 203): “as a mark of honour their funeral pyres were built in the market-place, the most ‘frequented part’ of the town” (cf. Bömer 1982, 387, where some parallels are given, yet always with the adj. in the superlative). Liberman (per litteras) corrects and restricts Hopkinson’s interpretation: “in a part of the town which on this occasion became crowded”. To this end he compares Stat. silu. 1.2.232: et pars immensae



Commentary

315

gaudet celeberrima Romae (and see Liberman 2010, 100 ad loc.: “l’endroit où se rassemble la foule est, pour l’occasion, pars celeberrima Romae”). 697–699: tum de uirginea geminos exire fauilla, ne genus intereat, iuuenes quos fama Coronas nominat, et cineri materno ducere pompam. • 698 Coronas] coronos A(p.c.)L3LuM2N(-as a.c.)V23(i.l. u.l.) A4(p.c.)DrGH3Lr3Lr7V42V8 B8DsL7Li3V16 Es22(o suprascr.)Mt5RdTo2 Bo3Es4Es5, H-K-E 1898, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Segura 1983, von Albrecht 1994, Hopkinson 2000, Fink 2007, dub. Galasso  : colonos A(a.c.)  : coronis Lr2 Ph2(-as a.c.)V6 Lu2  : corona Lr8(p.c.)  : corones Bs4  : coronat A3(a.c.) Lr8(a.c.) P41  : coranos A4(a.c.)Ld  : cerastas B52(mg.)  : corondas Hd(a.c.)  : corindas Lr6(coronas i.l. u.l. Lr62)  : corondos P28  : de A2Mo n.l. •

697: tum: the adv. introduces the last scene chiselled in the cup (cf. l. 692: facit) and marks the transition to the miraculous birth of the Coronae. The same procedure is used by Virgil at Aen. 6.20 (see Bömer 1982, 388; Galasso 2005, 223). For the tum-tunc alternation (uid. append.), uid. ad 473. 698: iuuenes: Antoninus Liberalis (25) tells us that the episode of Orion’s daughters was narrated by both Nicander in his Heteroeumena and Corinna in her Veroia (see Galasso 2000, 1480  f.; Hopkinson 2000, 32–4; Hardie 2015, 323  f.). Yet, according to Nicander, both girls were transformed into comets (note the variant comites in Lr4), not into ‘young men’. Hermann Röhl (1875; I thank Prof. Liberman for this reference) tried to explain Ovid’s divergence by supposing that, instead of Nicander’s ἀστέρας, “Ovidius aber mochte in seinem exemplar den schreibfehler ἀνέρας vorfinden” (Röhl 1875, 634; see also Ehwald 1892, 13; Lejay 1894, 260 and 23  f.). But the variation can equally be understood as coming from Corinna, or else as an invention of Ovid himself (Hopkinson 2000, 33). The thesis of a wrong variant in Ovid’s copy of Nicander is explicitly rejected as unlikely by Galasso (2000, 1481), because it would imply that Ovid “avrebbe dovuto fraintendere tutto il contesto, tanto piú che si parlava specificamente di kometai”. Note, in any case, that it is the idea of Ovid’s close adherence to the – reconstructed (Ehwald 1892, 13) – text of Nicander that serves some scholars as the basis for establishing the text of ll. 692–6 (uid. supra). Coronas: “difficile la scelta tra il femminile Coronas e il maschile Coronos, anche se forse è preferibile la seconda soluzione” (Galasso 2005, 223). The choice is no doubt a difficult one, yet the sequence geminos  … iuuenes, favouring the form Coronos (H-K-E 1898, 408 [H-K-E-A 1966, 518  f.]), makes the feminine difficilior, a form that in the end refers to the Coronides (see Bömer 1982, 387  f.; Hill 2000, 160). However, Hopkinson (2000, 203) may be right in arguing that “the metamorphosis of sex is better signalled with a masculine ending” (see also ibid., 34).

316

Commentary

Hardie (2015, 326) combines both possibilities with this clever interpretation: “la sola menzione del loro nuovo nome, il quale, comparendo a fine verso, potrebbe essere accusativo di un femminile Coronae (con quantità lunga della a), o accusativo greco (quindi con a breve) del maschile Corones; tale ambiguità morfologica forse è deliberata in un racconto di metamorfosi transessuale” (note the variant corones in Bs4). 699: nominat: “malim nominet” (Heinsius 1659, 349). cineri materno: some mss. have the adj. maternam (uid. append.), but cf. 615 (see Hardie 2015, 326). 700–701: Hactenus antiquo signis fulgentibus aere,     summus inaurato crater erat asper acantho.

700

• 700 fulgentibus] ingentibus(uid.) Ld(a.c.)  : fugentibus Vd(a.c.)  : exstantibus Bs2(i.l. u.l.)Bs4Cs2, “unus Moreti” test. Heinsius 1659, coni. Bentley • 701 summus  … crater] crater inaurato summus N2 Vd11  : summus crater in aurato Lr7 •

700: fulgentibus: Bentley conjectured exstantibus (see Hedicke 1905, 32), a reading that Heinsius (1659, 349) attested in “duo Basil. et unus Moreti” and connected – not by way of establishing proof but perhaps just to show the possible origin of the variant – with 12.235  f.: forte fuit iuxta signis exstantibus asper / antiquus crater. aere: LuMN and some recc. (uid. append.) have auro, probably an error both graphic and semantic. 701: summus: here we find a new error of MN and others (uid. append.), which have summis (sc. signis). Note the inversion with metrical result crater inaurato summus in N2 Vd11. crater erat asper: the habitual instability erat-fuit, along with the relative prosodic oddity of cratēr and its graphic similarity with both asper and  – even more – erat (i.  e. crat’), have given rise to many errors in transmission (uid. append.). 702–704: Nec leuiora datis Troiani dona remittunt, dantque sacerdoti custodem turis acerram, dant pateram claramque auro gemmisque coronam. • 704 claramque  … coronam] gemmisque(gemmis Lr7) auro claramque coronam MN4 Lr7N2 Bo3Lr27Vd11  : coronam claramque auro gemisque Mo •

702: dona remittunt: Bo2 has munera mittunt, a variant probably stemming from a false wordbreak (cf. donare mituntur in Ld2: uid. append.), followed by an inversion of the vowels (na-re > ne-ra), although munera might also be a gloss.



317

Commentary

703–704: the similarity of line-beginnings gives rise to the predictable omissions and displacements (uid. append.). For the probable etymological wordplay dant-sacerdoti, see Hopkinson 2000, 204. 703: custodem: some mss. present erroneous desinences (uid. append.). Note the coincidence of M and Mt5 in the variant custodi, and compare their coincidence in summis (l. 701; cf. also in aurato). 704: M (in N this line was omitted and then copied by a much later hand) and a number of related recc. offer the erroneous – yet metrically correct – inversion dant pateram gemmis(que) auro claramque coronam (cf. Verg. Aen. 1.655: duplicem gemmis auroque coronam, and see Hopkinson 2000, 204). In the antigraph of Mo there must have been some sort of transposition, which the copyist of Mo was unable to emend (uid. app.). It was probably the asymmetrical use of -que  … -que in this line (uid. ad 653 canaeque with Rivero 2017b, 327) that has given rise to the erroneous claroque that is attested by Burman (1727, 912 and 864 ad 105) in a “Leidens.”. 705–708: Inde recordati Teucros a sanguine Teucri     ducere principium, Creten tenuere, locique ferre diu nequiere Iouem, centumque relictis urbibus Ausonios optant contingere portus.

705

• 706–707 locique / … diu] diuque / … loci Bo2 • 706 Creten Gf B42(p.c.)Ld3 Mo3 Bo2 Es6, prob. Heinsius 1659, edd. (uid. append.)  : cretam P3(uid.)P4(uid.) Ω, edd. (uid. append.)  : certo N(a.c.)  : certam N(p.c.; cretam i.l. N4) A4(cretam p.c.) Ft  : cretan V9  : cretham P5  : chretham P28  : creatam Calph. 1480 • 707 ferre … Iouem] ferre iouem nequiuere(nequiere A4  : nequire Vd) diu Lr2 A4Vd Ft Lu2 • Iouem] uouem L3(a.c.)  : luem M N2 V16 Lr27, test. Viuianus 1522, prob. Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565  : Iobem N(p.c.; quid a.c. n.l.; iouem N2 p.alt.c.)  : ioue V3  : solum V4  : c(o)elum(uid.) Mt3(iouem i.l. Mt32) •

706–707: locique / ferre diu: a new instance (I have found it only in Bo2) of enjambement with an inversion of words and metrical result: diuque / ferre loci. Note also the inversion with metrical result transmitted at l. 707 by Lr2 and some recc. (uid. app.). 706: Creten: as against the clear majority reading Cretam, adopted by edd. of all periods, a small number of mss. (not only Bo2, as stated by Bömer 1982, 390) have the Greek form (in reality they vacillate between Creten-CretemCretê), which was recovered by Heinsius for his 2nd ed. (1659, 349), based on the authority of Ld3 and Bo2. It has been accepted by many edd. ever since (uid. append.). Cretam has the strength of its transmission and the parallel of Verg. Aen. 3.129: hortantur socii Cretam proauosque petamus, as well as of Hor. epod. 9.29: aut ille centum nobilem Cretam urbibus, yet the fact is that Creten is the only form of the acc. admitted in Ovid’s work (epist. 17.163; rem. 773;

318

Commentary

met. 8.99, 183; 15.540; fast. 4.285). In all these passages this form is never metrically conditioned. Furthermore, in all of Ovid’s poems there are only two passages where he indisputably uses the Latin declension: ars 1.298: Quamuis sit mendax, Creta negare potest; fast. 3.81: Pallada Cecropidae, Minoïa Creta Dianam. More frequently he uses the Greek form, also indisputably: epist. 10.67: non ego te, Crete centum digesta per urbes; am. 3.10.19  f.: Cretes erunt testes —nec fingunt omnia Cretes. / Crete nutrito terra superba Ioue; 3.10.37: sola fuit Crete fecundo fertilis anno; met. 8.118: terrarum, nobis ut Crete sola pateret; 9.668: Iphide mutata Crete propiora tulisset; 15.540  f.: ora mihi Cretenque diu dubitauit habendam / traderet an Delon: Delo Creteque relictis… It is evident, on stylistic grounds, that in the last passage quoted Ovid has opted for the form Creten where Cretam would be possible. Although the conclusion is not an indisputable one, it seems reasonable to think that, unlike other authors, Ovid has always favoured the Greek form except in those two passages where the Latin declension was metrically convenient. It is therefore reasonable to keep the form Creten in all of the passages quoted, where Cretam would also be possible, as well as the Greek nom. forms in epist. 4.163: est mihi dotalis tellus Iouis insula, Crete; met. 9.735  f.: uellem nulla forem! ne non tamen omnia Crete / monstra ferat. tenuere: the variant tetigere of Mo (cf. 708 contingere) is appealing, and it is partially supported by the reading of M: tectique (no doubt stemming from locique). Yet it is probably a gloss (cf. petiuere in Mc). For the use of teneo as “set a course for”, cf. 3.689  f.: “excute” dicens / “corde metum Dianque tene!” (and see Keene 1898, 109). Bömer (1982, 390), though, opts for interpreting it as “to reach” (“denn sofort folgend heißt es, daß die Trojaner auf Creta das Klima nicht ertrugen”), a meaning which might be acceptable yet is not necessary, considering how rapidly the episode is dealt with (Hill 2000, 160; Hopkinson 2000, 204  f.; Hardie 2015, 326). 707: nequiere: a considerable number of mss. regularize into nequiuere, a form that is never used in classical Latin (uid. append.). Note that the form requiere in Lr22 and Aler. 1471 seems to be an attempt to emend the unmetrical require of V30. Iouem: “Iovem (Ω) in the sense of caelum, i. e. ‘climate’ or ‘weather’ must be right” (Luck 2005, 217; likewise the gloss aerem written above in many mss.), i.  e., as a reference to the well-known epidemic unleashed after the arrival of the Trojans in Crete (Verg. Aen. 3.121–46, and cf. l. 138: corrupto caeli tractu). To this end, Ovid takes advantage here of the connection between the island and Jupiter’s birth (so Heinsius 1659, 349  f., and cf. Burm. 1727, 913). However, M has luem (as do N2 V16), a reading that Luck (2009, 112) considers with good reason another instance of “missing letters” (and the initial I- has been reinterpreted as an l-). Yet it cannot be openly ruled out, since it denotes on an objective level the same phenomenon metonymically alluded to by Iouem, and, furthermore, because it is the same word used by



Commentary

319

Virgil in the above-mentioned episode (l. 139). This detail was already noted by Naugerius, who adopted the reading for his edition (1516, 16 [= 1754, 159]): “sic [sc. luem] in quibusdam, ut uirgiliano utatur uerbo, qui de eadem pestilentia arboribusque, satisque, lues, et letifer annus. in nonnullis tamen, Iouê, non luem”. The reading was adopted in the Gryphianae too, but Ciofanus (1575, 185) opted for Iouem. At any rate, note that the expression loci lues would sound pedestrian. Hopkinson (2000, 205), who sees in luem “a correction by a learned reader who remembered Virgil’s description” (cf. 294  f.; 684 Hyleus; 692–6), defends Iouem in these terms: “A reference to Jupiter is more effective, and equally allusive”. Doll (2000, 129  f.) opportunely recalls the probable influence of Apollonius, who also uses the name of the god to refer to the sky (2.1098, 1120). See also Bömer 1982, 390  f.; Hill 2000, 161; Casali 2007, 192–7; Hardie 2015, 326  f. Cf. Mart. 7.36.1: pluuias madidumque Iouem (with Galán 2002, 249). 708: optant: against this majority reading (for other variants, uid. append.), Heinsius (1659, 350) suggested: “properant puto”. But cf. e.  g. am. 3.2.30: optauit manibus sustinuisse suis; met. 5.558  f.: posse super fluctus alarum insistere remis / optastis. For optant, see Simmons 1889, 153  f.; Hopkinson 2000, 205. 709–710: Saeuit hiems iactatque uiros, Strophadumque receptos portubus infidis exterruit ales Aëllo.          710 • 710 infidis] insidiis O4 P8 Lr22V30, Aler. 1471, Walch. 1731  : fidis V5(a.c.)  : in fidis Pr Cs2 Lu2Ps, Puteol. 1471 : insuł Mo9  : inuisis Bo2  :  ]fidit tantum legitur in P3  : assiduis “Leidens.” test. Burm. 1727 •

710: portubus: this form is present in M and some recc., but a larger number of mss. have portibus (uid. append.), in line with a systematic alternation (“inter -ibus et -ubus uariant codd. passim inde a Cic.”: TLL 10.2.59.45–51) that even favours the form in -ibus (OLD s.u., 1408). In Ovid we find an abl. portibus at 11.474: portibus exierat, supported precisely by the m.p. of M, but in the other passages the edd. opt for portubus (epist. 16.127: Portubus egredior, with Michalopoulos 2006, 173; trist. 3.2.11; 3.12.38), our passage included. This makes me think that we should perhaps also write portubus at 11.474, where this is again the majority reading (see Magnus 1914, 430). Only the early edd. down to the 1st Aldina (1502; but not Aler. 1471, pace Magnus 1914, 515) preferred portibus in our passage, Naugerius (1516) being the first to opt for portubus. infidis: this reading offers no doubt (cf. Verg. Aen. 2.23: statio male fida carinis, and see Bömer 1982, 391; Hopkinson 2000, 206; Hardie 2015, 327), yet some recc. have variants that, even if they are metrically or semantically acceptable, are just the result of misreading (uid. app.).

320

Commentary

Aëllo: note the erroneous oello, where V2 exceptionally coincides with the reading of M and N a.c. (uid. ad 656, 663). 711–718: Et iam Dulichios portus Ithacamque Samonque Neritiasque domos, regnum fallacis Vlixis, praeter erant uecti. Certatam lite deorum Ambraciam uersique uident sub imagine saxum iudicis, Actiaco quae nunc ab Apolline nota est,     uocalemque sua terram Dodonida quercu Chaoniosque sinus, ubi nati rege Molosso impia subiectis fugere incendia pennis.

715

• 712 fal(l)acis] infelicis H2O4(fallacis i.l. O42) • 714 uersique] uersamque(uid.) A(a.c.)  : uersumque M2(û i.l.) Ld2(û i.l. u.l.) P5P10(a.c.) Es2(a.c.) Es6  : uerumque(per comp.) Lr7  : uisique Go(a.c. a m.p.) • 715 nota] dicta P2(nota mg. u.l.) B3BaFe(nota i.l. u.l. Fe2)MoPr B8(nota i.l. u.l. B82)Ds22(i.l. u.l.)V16 FtMt4 Es4P38, Calph. 1474  : mota Lr7  : nata MtV9 Lu2Vd11 • 718 i(m/n)pia] inita MN(a.c.) Mo(a.c. a m.p.) Bo3Lr27  : irrita coni. Heinsius 1659, prob. Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Merkel 1875, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Edwards 1905, dub. R. de Verger 2005  : purica V16 • subiectis] subuectis A Es3(a.c.), mauult Heinsius 1659(in notis)  : subrectis B8  : sub rectis V16(a.c.)  : subiectos P8(a.c.)  : subietis P10  : sub tectis Es4  : tam subitis coni. Ellis  : fort. suppositis  : succretis uel subnatis uel uix natis prop. Liberman •

711: Ithacamque: the Latin desinence is better attested in mss. and edd. (uid. append.). Tarrant (2004), for his part, printed Ithacenque probably comparing 14.169: hac mihi si potior domus est Ithaceque carina, to which we could add trist. 1.5.67: nec mihi Dulichium domus est Ithaceue Sameue. In his Index nominum (2004, 518), though, Tarrant records the name as “Ithaca uel -e insula”, which seems to indicate that at some moment he considered the possibility of keeping Ithacamque here, where it is metrically unforced. Luck (1977, 56 ad trist. 1.5.67) timidly proposes Ithacenque Samenque for our passage. The obvious Virgilian model provides no proof, since Ovid shows signs of simultaneously following and distancing himself from it (Aen. 3.270–3): iam medio apparet fluctu nemorosa Zacynthos / Dulichiumque Sameque et Neritos ardua saxis. / effugimus scopulos Ithacae, Laërtia regna, / et terram altricem saeui exsecramur Vlixi (cf. Sil. 15.303: nec portus Ithacae, Laërtia regna, Samenque). Samonque: most of the mss. have the ending -on, and a few give the Latin -um (adopted by some early edd.), but not one of those collated by me has the form -en, which Heinsius nevertheless preferred for his 2nd ed. (1659, 350: “Samenque uerius est”), even though in 1652 he had kept Samonque (uid. append.). In defence of Samenque Heinsius refers to his note on rem. 264 (1658, 444–7), but there he reproduces precisely our passage with this



Commentary

321

comment (p. 445): “ubi nihil necesse contra auctoritatem ueterum librorum Samenque reponi”, and compares with good reason Hom. Il. 2.634: οἵ τε Ζάκυνθον ἔχον ἠδ᾽ οἳ Σάμον ἀμφενέμοντο (he also deals with the different forms of the name used by Homer). Samenque had already been rejected by Glareanus (Glar.-Long. 1570, 236) on the authority of Strab. 10.2.10, according to whom the city received the name of Samos or Same indistinctly while the island of Cephallenia was more frequently called Samos. Recently Hopkinson (2000, 206), Hardie (2015, 327), and Holzberg (2017, 674) have recovered Samenque based on the Virgilian model quoted above, but this involves accepting that Ovid is imitating Virgil with no variation, which would be more than problematic, according to Ovidian practice (see also Keene 1898, 110; Bömer 1982, 392  f.; Hill 2000, 162; and specifically Casali 2004, 67–71). 712: Neritiasque: for the spelling of this toponym, see Heinsius 1658, 444–7 ad rem. 264; for the forms as transmitted, uid. append., and note again the habitual coincidences of M-Bo3, on the one hand, and Lr2-Lu2, on the other; for the meaning of the term and its model, see Simmons 1889, 154; Keene 1898, 110; Bömer 1982, 392. domos: this form has strong competition from the acc. domus in the ms. tradition (uid. append.). The latter was the form adopted by the ed. Venet. 1472 and then only by edd. later than Riese’s 1st ed. (1872). Although Ovid uses both declensions of this noun, this would be his only use of domus as an acc. pl. (see TLL 5.1952.52–1953.82). fallacis Vlixis: H2O4 have the reading infelicis Vlixis as a further recollection from Virgil (Aen. 3.613): sum patria ex Ithaca, comes infelicis Vlixi (cf. also 3.691). This adj. does not belong here: cf. Sacerd. 1, p. 463: Epitheton est dictio propriis adiecta nominibus … ut Larissaeus Achilles, pius Aeneas, fallax Vlixes, and see Bömer 1982, 393. For the gen. Vlixis, uid. ad 304. 713: praeter erant uecti: this correct form (spelt as praetererant in many mss.) alternates with praetereant/-eunt uecti (uid. append.): “The tmesis of praetervehor (apparently the only such case in Ovid) was not recognized” (Luck 2005, 217). According to Bömer (1982, 393), the verb appears “in der klassischen Dichtung nur hier und Verg. Aen. III 688” (uiuo praeteruehor ostia saxo). certatam lite deorum: lite is deformed into rite or even ritu in some mss., due to misspelling or through semantic pressure from deorum (uid. append., and see there the lemma of Mo9). The variant uirorum is just another instance of the alternation between deorum-meorum-uirorum at line-ending, yet some copyists mistakenly claimed this reference was not to the dispute between Apollo, Diana and Hercules (see Simmons 1889, 154; Keene 1898, 110; Hill 2000, 162; Hopkinson 2000, 206  f.; Casali 2004, 69; Hardie 2015, 327  f.; or cf. the old gloss in N: apollo et diana certauerunt de nomine ciuitatis), but to the decissive confrontation between two men: Augustus and Antony (cf. e.  g. M22: i. octauiani cesari(sic) et antonii quia ibi fecerunt bellum).

322

Commentary

714: uersique: a very small number of mss. (uid. app.) have the banal uersumque (sc. saxum) in reaction to the intricacy of the expression (Bömer 1982, 396: “versum iudicem, sub imagine […] saxi”). 715: M(Lr27) and N diverge from the rest by omitting this line. In N, however, the space for this verse was formerly occupied by a text that is now erased and illegible, since a much more recent hand wrote on it the text as generally transmitted (the m.p. had already written it below this line). iudicis: based on the alternation between this majority reading and indicis (uid. append.), Passerat (1608, 472 ad Prop. 3.11.41) opted with no further arguments for proposing uindicis (“Ego lego Vindicis”). For this “judge”, see Simmons 1889, 154; Hill 2000, 162; Hopkinson 2000, 207; Hardie 2015, 327  f. Actiaco: note that some mss. opt for a gen., clearly a lectio facilior, which joins this adj. to the preceding iudicis. nota est: a small number of mss. (and Calph. 1474 in accordance with P38) have dicta est, following a pattern that is familiar in the grammatical texts on etymology. Lines 758–87 are copied in Cs3 after this verse (uid. append.). The m.p. then cancelled them in the margin: “Vacat totum hoc per hoc signum designatum”. All this seems to indicate that the apograph ended a page (probably a recto) with l. 715 and the copyist of Cs3 has skipped a whole folio containing 21 lines per page. A similar – uncorrected – lacuna can be found in A2 after l. 717 (uid. append.). 716: the sequence of endings -em -a -am -a -u gives rise to the predictable errors (uid. append.). 717: among the abundant misspellings of Chaoniosque (uid. append.), note C(h)aontosque, which places the ed. of Calph. 1480 close to the text of Puteol. 1471, while that of 1474 coincides, as usual, with the text of P38. For the lacuna (ll. 718–809) in A2 after this line (uid. append.), uid. ad 857–918. 718: impia: MN Mo Bo3Lr27 have the variant inita (uid. app.), probably a copying error from an antigraph with the spelling inpia (to be found e.  g. in P2 and not a few recc.). Based on inita Heinsius (1659, 350) conjectured irrita (it is not irrita but Impia that is the reading of T, pace Riese 1889, XXX) comparing 14.539: inrita sacrilega iactas incendia dextra. This proposal was followed by some edd. down to Edwards (1905) and has been timidly supported recently by Ramírez de Verger in his notes (2005, 1963  f.). However, inrita lacks full sense in our passage (so Magnus 1894b, 795), whereas “Impia incendia illa dicuntur, ut ad piorum hominum exitium parata” (Baumg.Crus. 1834, 524  f.). For the episode of king Munichus, see Simmons 1889, 155; Keene 1898, 110; Hopkinson 2000, 207  f. subiectis: the participle is strange in reference to pennis, and it is of no use recalling (so Simmons 1889, 155) Verg. Aen. 2.235  f.: pedibusque rotarum / subiciunt lapsus, since the verb there is used in the proper sense. Not fully convincing either is the comparison (so Bömer 1982, 397) with met. 6.220:



323

Commentary

duraque mollierat subiectas ungula glaebas. Somewhat closer is the parallel (cited by Keene 1898, 110) of Luc. 7.574: ipse manu subicit gladios ac tela ministrat, but here too the action of the subject concords better with the lexeme of subicio. Simmons himself (ibid.) glosses the phrase as “on sudden (new-created) wings”, which proves that something is not right here (the same can be said of the paraphrasis “furnished with wings” by Hopkinson 2000, 208). Based on this idea R. Ellis made a proposal that was included in the commentary of Simmons: “I suspect a corruption: the obvious word is subitis. Perhaps tam fell out after -ta of irrita”. However, the meaning of tam is not satisfactory, serving rather as a necessary metric completion. I believe that suppositis, palaeographically close to the majority reading (supoîtis), would fit better due to both its own spatial meaning (cf. epist. 15.179: tu quoque, mollis Amor, pennas suppone cadenti) and its known proximity to the semantic field of substitution or supplanting (OLD s.u. suppono, 6–7, 1883  f.; cf. Verg. Aen. 6.24  f.: hic crudelis amor tauri suppostaque furto / Pasiphaë, or 7.282  f.: quos daedala Circe / supposita de matre nothos furata creauit, with Horsfall 2013, 94  f., and 2000, 202; Ou. met. 12.34: supposita fertur mutasse Mycenida cerua [trist. 4.4.67]). We could also take into account the variant of A and Es3, which Heinsius himself proposed in his notes (1659, 350): “malo etiam subuectis pennis. quanquam aliter libri” (the same subiecta-subuecta variation is to be found in 6.422), but I consider that it has defects which are similar to those of subiectis, as the meaning of subueho (“to convey upwards from below”: OLD s.u., 1854) cannot be adapted to the idea of the sprouting or emerging of wings, which is what Ovid has in mind here. Finally, Prof. Gauthier Liberman (per litteras) cleverly suggests subnatis, a word first attested in [Ou.] Hal. 90, which could have become corrupted due to its mere rarity, or else uix natis; he pertinently compares 11.732: percutiensque leuem modo natis äera pennis. He also proposes succretis, and to this end he compares 8.191: creuisse (sc. pennas). 719–721: Proxima Phaeacum felicibus obsita pomis rura petunt; Epiros ab his regnataque uati       Buthrotos Phrygio simulataque Troia tenetur.

720

• 720 rura] arua L3Lr2 B5CH3HdL4Ld3Lr3Lr4Lr6V4V7V8 DsLr8Mt3ToV16 B12BoEs3McMt4P28 As2(i.l. u.l.)Es3P41, fort. recte  : regna MtOO3(rura i.l. u.l. O32) Es5  : arma Lu2 • 721 tenetur] tenenetur Ld  : tuetur Cv(tenetur mg. u.l.)P41Ps  : tenentur Mc, Heinsius 1659(qui “unus Medic.” test.), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834 •

720: rura: a considerable number of mss. have arua. The two terms are almost identical in meaning and spelling (especially with a capital initial at line-be-

324

Commentary

ginning: A/R), and arua/rura petere is a common expression. As the episode deals with Aeneas and the Trojans, in favour of arua we could perhaps consider Dido’s well-known objection to Aeneas (Verg. Aen. 4.311  f.): quid, si non arua aliena domosque / ignotas peteres …? (cf. 8.551: dantur equi Teucris Tyrrhena petentibus arua). As it is also about the mythical people of the Phaeacians, the enigmatic arua sought by Horace (epod. 16.41  f.):  … arua beata / petamus, arua diuites et insulas, might also be in keeping with the sound of our passage (cf. felicibus-beata). However, Ovid’s allusion to the fertility of Alcinous’ gardens (felicibus obsita pomis) seems to be more in accordance with the more technical and less poetic rura. In turn, it fits better with the agricultural tone of the Lucretian model (5.1377  f.), as recalled by Hopkinson (2000, 208): omnia, quae pomis intersita dulcibus ornant / arbustisque tenent felicibus obsita circum (see also Hardie 2015, 328). 721: tenetur: Heinsius (1659, 350) attests in “unus Medic.” the variant tenentur that I have found only in Mc (a. 1387). He adopts it for his 2nd ed., being followed by some edd. down to Baumgarten-Crusius, who defends it as follows (1834, 525): “Ita Heinsius …, et iure, quum diuersa loca recenseantur”. It is obvious, though, that it is a facilior variant. 722–727: Inde futurorum certi, quae cuncta fideli Priamides Helenus monitu praedixerat, intrant Sicaniam. Tribus haec excurrit in aequora linguis, e quibus imbriferos est uersa Pachynos ad Austros,     mollibus expositum Zephyris Lilybaeon, ad Arctos aequoris expertes spectat Boreanque Peloros.

725

• 724 linguis] pennis M(linguis i.l. u.l. M2)N(linguis i.l. u.l. N2) Bo3Lr27, H-K-E 1898, edd. aliquot (uid. append.)  : linbis Lu(b supra g scripto u.l.)  : longis Be2(ex itin. corr.)  : quid Ft a.c. n.l. • 726 expositum Lr2(quid a.c. n.l.) Ω, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Galasso 2000, edd.  : oppositum A42(i.l. u.l.)B3BaCV8, coni. Housman, prob. Edwards 1905, Anderson 1982, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005  : impositum AGf(expositum p.c.)MNV2V3 AbB2B4(expositum B42)B5Be2DrEFeGgMoP3P4V5V7V9 Cs2Ds2Mt2 Bo2(expositum p.c.)Es2Mc(a.c.)To2 Bo3Es4Es5Es6Go2Lr22Lr27PsV30Vd11Z, Aler. 1471  : alii alia (uid. append.) • ad] at E, “Rhen.”(ad hab. Tu) test. Jahn 1832, dub. Heinsius 1659(in notis), prob. Burm. 1727, edd. aliquot (uid. append.)  : et B8, “fragmen. Moreti” test. Heinsius 1659  : om. MN(suppl. N2) Lr27  : ab Ab(ad i.l. u.l. Ab2)  : a Be2(a.c.) •

724: tribus haec excurrit: the mss. vacillate noticeably in this line. The adj. tribus does not appear in some of the most important mss. (LuMT; we cannot see what there was in M2N before correction), and haec precedes it in some important codices (uid. append.). In addition, Ovid never uses excurro elsewhere, and it appears as currit in N a.c. (in P3 also). This form seems to obey the metrical requirements, so perhaps we could try restoring N’s initial text



Commentary

325

as haec ternis currit (hec ternis can be found in GTu, and hec multis in Mo Es4; cf. terna … iuga in Auien. Perieg. 628, infra). Heinsius was not convinced either by the text as transmitted, where he believed that (1659, 350) “τὸ haec inepti glossatoris est figmentum”. Thus, he conjectured (though without incorporating the proposal into his text) trinis excurrit, comparing fast. 4.479  f.: iamque Peloriadem Lilybaeaque, iamque Pachynon / lustrarat, terrae cornua trina suae, where he defends trina as against prima through comparison with Auien., Perieg. 627  f. (also referring to Sicily): haec autem trinis laterum procursibus astat, / ternaque caeruleis longe iuga porrigit undis (cf. 473). The use of the distributive numeral instead of the cardinal would of course pose no problem, as seen above, but the fact is that Ovid uses the cardinal in another passage referring to the same land (fast. 4.419  f.): terra tribus scopulis uastum procurrit in aequor / Trinacris. Furthermore, although the poets carefully avoid excurro, this verb appears in the Moretum (18): quae bis in octonas excurrit pondere libras, though with a different meaning (OLD s.u., 4, 637). After this Ovidian passage (Bömer 1982, 399: “de terra, hier zum ersten Mal”) it is used again by Lucan and Silius in passages that are clearly inspired by ours: Luc. 4.405: qua maris Hadriaci longas ferit unda Salonas / et tepidum in molles Zephyros excurrit Iader (see also 6.273: sic pleno Padus ore tumens super aggere tutas / excurrit ripas et totos concutit agros; 8.539: perfida qua tellus Casiis excurrit harenis); Sil. 15.227  f.: sed gelidas a fronte sedet sublimis ad Arctos / urbs imposta iugo pronumque excurrit in aequor. If Ovid’s text were not genuine, then it must have become corrupt at a very early stage. Thus, in the absence of more solid arguments, it seems cautious to keep it as it is. Compare also Liu. 37.31.9, cited below. linguis: this majority reading and some misspellings of it are found along with the variants pennis/pinnis. As the latter appear, among others, in MN (but strangely not in V2), they were approved by some edd. from Merkel (1850) to our days (uid. app.), yet this reading is an obvious recollection of l. 718 (see e.  g. Merkel 1875, XXXVIII: “ita pridem e M dedi. linguis interpolati”). By contrast, linguis was supported by Heinsius (1659, 350; 1758, 704  f. [Burm. 1727, 914  f.]) based on parallels such as Luc. 2.614: Hesperiae tenuem producit in aequora linguam, or Pac. trag. 94 (Gell. 4.17.15): Idae promunturium, quoius lingua in altum proicit (also Prisc. perieg. 29 and Solin. 2). To these passages we could add e.  g. Liu. 37.31.9, with the same verb: inde lingua in altum mille passuum excurrens medium fere sinum uelut nota distinguit. Bömer reserves for linguis a “fortasse recte” (1982, 400). 725: est uersa: this is the initial reading of V2V3 and the correction or u.l. of GfLuNP2 (to omit many recc.) and was printed by Aler. 1471 and Naugerius (1516; Regius 1526 adopted it, as against uersa est in 1493), and most of the edd. ever since (uid. append.). Other readings with similar support are euersa, from GfLuMM2T and some recc. and rightly rejected by edd., and uersa est, from Lr2 and some recc. and accepted by most of the early edd. down to Bersman (1596), thus lengthening the -a- of Pachynos.

326

Commentary

The variant obuersa, certainly difficilior (Bach 1836, 349), is transmitted only by some recc. (cf. the unmetrical obuersat in Bo and obuersos in Rd), yet it was adopted by Heinsius (1652) and defended (1659, 350  f.) by comparison to fast. 5.381: Pelion Haemoniae mons est obuersus in Austros. Heinsius describes the term as “Nasoni familiare”, but the fact is that Ovid uses it again only at 12.467. Some edd. down to Koch (1866) followed Heinsius’ choice, which was also to the liking of Luck, according to Ramírez de Verger (2005, 1964). Pachynos: the clear preference for the desinence -os in the mss. is symptomatic (uid. append.). 726: expositum: the mss. have an obvious preference for this form or others with the same prefix, while a number of important mss. (among them codices such as AGf(a.c.)MNV2V3) have the hardly likely impositum, printed only by Aler. 1471 (uid. app. et append.). Housman (1890, 152 [1972, 171]), for his part, conjectured oppositum, although on the disputable basis that “‘expositum’ however has but poor MS authority, as both M and N have ‘impositum’”. He believes that the sequence oppo- led to the loss of the op- (as in N at 14.768), and that this gap was filled either with im-, from imbriferos (l. 725), or with ex-, from expertes (l. 727). Finally, he compares Catull. 26.1  f.: Furi, uillula uestra non ad Austri / flatus oppositast neque ad Fauoni. Housman’s proposal is supported only by A42B3BaCV8 and has been followed by some edd. down to our days. Of course, no one can claim that this proposal lacks a logical basis (see Bömer 1982, 400), as is usual in most of Housman’s proposals, yet I believe it is overrational. It is much easier to explain that expositum alternates with impositum in accordance with a habitual variation in the mss. (cf. e.  g. l. 933), and that in this case the variant oppositum has been added as a logical conjecture by some copyists. The reading expositum (“Lilybaeum, exposed to the Zephyrs”: cf. fast. 4.478: Zephyro semper apertus Eryx), accepted by most edd. (Galasso included, versus Anderson 1982: 2000, CXX), is supported by Ovid himself (fast. 4.563  f., and see Bömer 1958, 256  f.): Sunion expositum Piraeaque tuta recessu / linquit (cf., with Bach 1836, 350, Mela 2.5.3: omnis plaga austro atque africo exposita est; and, with Bömer 1982, 400, Plin. 17.187: [sc. agro] aestuoso uentisque exposito; 15.21). ad: based on the sole authority of ms. E some edd. from Burman to our days have accepted the variant at (for this and other variants, uid. app.), which has Arctos and Borean as the direct objects of spectat, a proposal which deserved the approval of Heinsius (1659, 351) in his notes, even if it is clearly facilior, particularly as far as the constr. of Borean is concerned. For spectare ad in Ovid, cf. 1.628: spectabat ad Io (1.767; Pont. 3.1.69); see also Bömer 1982, 400. Arctos: a small number of recc. have the form in the singular (though not all of them transmit the corresponding expertem at l. 727: uid. append.). This could be backed by Ovid’s frequent use (see Bach 1836, 350) and by the parallels of l. 293: inmunemque aequoris Arcton, and Ib. 474: liquidis quae



Commentary

327

caret Arctos aquis. The sing. was adopted by Heinsius in his 2nd ed. (1659) and by some edd. down to Merkel’s 1st ed. (1850). However, the clear majority transmission of the plural in spite of the precedent of l. 293 seems to support the idea that Ovid wishes to vary here. Compare, furthermore, 2.171  f.: tum primum radiis gelidi caluere Triones / et uetito frustra temptarunt aequore tingui. 727: expertes: for the variant expertem (sc. Arcton), uid. supra. Observe that Jahn (1832, 871) attests the sing. in the “Rhen.”, when the fact is that Tu omits this line (uid. ad 9 igitur fictis). For the expression, cf. Hor. serm. 2.8.15. Boreanque: although the majority form in the mss. is boream (or else boreâ, which we must interpret as equivalent: uid. append.), Housman (1910, 256–8 [1972, 832  f.]) presented solid proof that the Latin poets used the acc. -an for Greek nouns in -as. 728–729: Hac subeunt Teucri, et remis aestuque secundo sub noctem potitur Zanclaea classis harena. • 728 et Lr2MN FeHdLr4Lr6N2V7 P10V16 BoMt4P28 Bo3Lr22Lr27Lu2V30Vd11, Aler. 1471, Naug. 1516, edd.  : om. Ω, edd. aliquot (uid. append.) • remis] remisque B3Tu, Plan., “in duobus meis et Caelest.” test. Ciof. 1575, Heinsius 1659(qui “duo Mureti” test.), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834 • 729 Zancl(a)ea … (h)arena] zancleam … (h)arenam M Mo Lr27  : zamcleam(uid.) … arena N(a.c.); uid. append. •

728: hac: this variant is clearly difficilior than hanc (and even more so than haec). It is transmitted by a large number of important mss. (and observe the strange connections within L3Lu2MNV3) and was published by Aler. 1471, Heinsius in 1659 (still hanc in 1652) and by most of later edd. (uid. append.). To back this reading we might also recall (with Baumg.-Crus. 1834, 525  f.) the abl. of place-through-which (‘abl. uiae’ or ‘abl. prosecutiuus’) from the Virgilian model for this episode (Aen. 3.292  f.): litoraque Epiri legimus portuque subimus / Chaonio, as well as the parallel (with Bach 1836, 350) of Mela 2.79: cursu in meridiem abducto hac intrat (see also Bömer 1982, 400  f.). Among the other variants it is worth considering the aforementioned hanc, with strong ms. support but clearly facilior, which was adopted by most of the early edd. down to Bersman (1596) and, afterwards, by Weise (1845) and Koch (1866). Much more interesting is huc, which does not lack ms. support and has recently been defended by Hopkinson (2000, 209) with the argument that “the preceding lines are a description of the three corners of Sicily, not an itinerary”. He takes the verse to be an allusion to the arrival of the Trojans in Libya in Verg. Aen. 1.170–2: huc … Aeneas … / … subit, ac … / egressi optata potiuntur Troës harena (so also Hardie 2015, 329). The proposal is appealing and the parallel is clear, yet Ovid’s expression does not refer to the three corners of Sicily but only to the last one (Zan-

328

Commentary

claea  … harena), thereby highlighting the different route taken vis-à-vis Virgil, who had the Trojans approach Sicily from the south (see Simmons 1889, 157; Hopkinson 2000, 210; Hardie 2015, 329). Cape Pelorus, in turn, is necessarily linked in the collective imagination to the dangerous channel close to it, mentioned by Ovid, as was only to be expected, in the following lines: and for a channel there is nothing more appropriate than an ablatiuus prosecutiuus. Heinsius, for his part, went so far (b3, 375) as to suggest a dative (“leg. huic”), which I have found in A4, although he then opted not to reflect this proposal in his published notes. Teucri, et remis: working from the evidence of the mss. (uid. app.) the line can be constructed in three different ways: Teucri et remis / Teucri remis / Teucri remisque. From these, in turn, several syntactic structures can result (see also Jahn 1832, 872): et remis, a minority reading in the mss. but with the majority support of the edd., prompts the reader to link the instrumental remis aestuque with potitur (cf. 630  f.: et utilibus uentis aestuque secundo / intrat); remis, a widespread reading in the mss. which was approved by certain edd. down to the 19th c., can be interpreted both by linking remis with subeunt and aestu with potitur, or else, in asyndeton, by linking both instrumental ablatives with the former or with the latter; finally, remisque, a reading with very weak ms. support but which was adopted by Heinsius from 1652 and by other edd. down to Baumgarten-Crusius (1834), makes it possible to have both ablatives together referring either to the first verb (so e.  g. Planudes: Ἐνταῦθα κώπης εἰρεσίᾳ τε καὶ εὐφόροις ἀνέμοις οἱ Τεῦκροι κατάγονται) or else to the second one, as Heinsius himself does. For the reasons set out above regarding hac, I am inclined to think that hac subeunt denotes the route followed by the Trojans, so that the technical and temporal details are more clearly linked to the second sentence (i.  e. “by means of oars and a favourable current they are able to reach Messana by nightfall”: see Bömer 1982, 401, who unnecessarily understands aestu as uelo). The presence or absence of et can be explained in both ways, but in this case it seems more reasonable to think that its omission comes from an attempt to link remis with the first sentence, thus simplifying the syntax (though, as we have seen, in fact it makes it more confusing). Furthermore, this omission may be a graphic error in a conjunction that is systematically transcribed with a ligature (consider e.  g. the sequence -rj 7). For the stylistic interpretation of synaloepha before et (cf. also ll. 6, 41, 74, 79, 122, 277), see Führer 1991. 729: potitur Zanclaea classis harena: M has patitur zancleam classis harenâ. Above the a in patitur someone has written a faded o, but this was certainly not M2 (this seems backed by the fact that the copyist of Lr27 keeps patitur). As far as the acc. is concerned, the first reading of N might also have been zamcleam (the final -m being deleted later), but the same cannot be said of the noun, since the reading arena is clear (Mo gives the whole phrase in the acc. also: uid. app.).



329

Commentary

Be that as it may, this is the basis for Heinsius’ timidly proposing in his notes (1659, 351) potitur Zanclaeam … harenam, comparing fast. 3.21: Mars uidet hanc uisamque cupit potiturque cupita, where he prefers to read cupitam with certain mss. (see Bömer 1957, 136), or else by a comparison with met. 11.55: et Methymnaeae potiuntur litore Lesbi, where the minority variant litora is also attested (see Díez 2014, 35). Cf. 12.38: Phrygia potiuntur harena. For the misspellings of the toponym Zanclaea, due to misunderstanding of the z- (taken e.  g. as et, or else as s- or x-) or of the -cl- (taken e.  g. as -d- or as -al-), uid. append. 730–734: Scylla latus dextrum, laeuum irrequieta Charybdis  infestat. Vorat haec raptas reuomitque carinas; illa feris atram canibus succingitur aluum uirginis ora gerens et – si non omnia uates ficta reliquerunt – aliquo quoque tempore uirgo.

730

• 731 raptas] receptas Fe  : tractas So  : rates Mt4(naues suprascr. Mt42)  : sorptas Bs3, coni. Bentley  : raptat B12(a.c.) • 733 gerens] carens M(a.c.)  : canens Ge  : ferens LuN(p.c. i.ras.; quid a.c. –an carens?– n.l.)V2(gerens i.l. u.l. V23) CMoMtO3P3V6V8 Li3Lr8 Bo2(gerens u.l. Bo23)McTo2 Vd11 Mv7, “Caelest.” test. Ciof. 1575 • 734 ficta] uana N(ficta i.l. u.l. a m.p.) B4(ficta mg. B42)  : facta Fe(corr. Fe2) Lr8(ficta i.l. u.l. Lr82)  : falsa Bs3 • aliquo] alio H3Lr3V4 DsLd6Sp Lr22V30, “Medic. et quatuor alii” test. Burm. 1727, Aler. 1471, Bothe 18182  : ali Es3  : in alio Li3 •

731: infestat: a significant number of mss. have infestant, which was adopted by edd. of all periods (uid. append.). However, the sing. is difficilior and is backed by the Virgilian model (Aen. 3.420  f.): dextrum Scylla latus, laeuum implacata Charybdis / obsidet (for this dependency, see Bömer 1982, 401  f.; Hopkinson 2000, 210; Felgentreu 2002; Hardie 2015, 329). Cf. also am. 2.11.18: quas Scylla infestet, quasue Charybdis aquas. It is not clear why Heinsius adopted the plural. In his initial note (1659, 351) he said: “Infestant] Infestat ex castigatioribus multi”, which could be interpreted as a timid concession to the singular. However, in a subsequent publication (1754, 705 [Burm. 1727, 915]) he reverses the order of the variants (“Infestat] Infestant e. c. m.”). raptas: leaving aside some variants clearly stemming from glosses (uid. app.), Bs3 has sorptas, which was also conjectured by Bentley (Hedicke 1905, 32), but this form is rarely used (cf. Prisc. 9.492 GLK II). Cf. 7.65: Scylla rapax (epist. 12.123; Catull. 64.156; Culex 331; cf. Sen. Thy. 581). 733: uirginis ora gerens: M (and perhaps N) contains an original reading carens (and cf. canens in Ge, a ms. that coincides again with MN in the erroneous ore), which seems to be old as it points to an antigraph in capital letters. The copyist of M corrected it properly, but that of N opted for the synonym ferens, which is more generic and hence more likely to be an inva-

330

Commentary

sive term (cf. 739 repetens). This variant is also attested in LuV2 and some recc. (uid. app.). Cf. 4.134  f.: oraque buxo / pallidiora gerens; 2.585: pectora nuda gerebam; 5.553: cum uirginis ora geratis; 12.380  f.: tempora tecta gerebat / pelle lupi; Verg. Aen. 1.315: uirginis os habitumque gerens. For the model, see Hardie 2015, 330. In ms. Tu (s. XII) the m.p. copies up to gerens; the remainder of the ms., which goes only as far as 13.753, is copied by a different hand, which I call Tu*. 734: ficta: facta is an obvious graphic error; uana and falsa are obvious synonymic glosses (falsa as a marginal gloss can be found e.  g. in A42 or Fe: uid. app.). For the Virgilian model (Aen. 3.433–7), see Hopkinson 2000, 210; Hardie 2015, 330. aliquo: some recc. have the variant alio (uid. app.), which is probably just the result of a simple misreading reinforced by semantic appropriateness. It was printed by Aler. 1471 (in accordance with Lr22V30) and then only by Bothe with no comment (18182, 273; 1818, 141). For the “cacophony” -quo quo- (to be added to -la la- in 731, imitating the Virgilian model), see Bömer 1982, 38 ad 12.79. 735–739: Hanc multi petiere proci; quibus illa repulsis       ad pelagi Nymphas – pelagi gratissima Nymphis – ibat et elusos iuuenum narrabat amores. Quam, dum pectendos praebet Galatea capillos, talibus alloquitur repetens suspiria dictis:

735

• 738 quam] cui A(p.c.)Gf(p.c.)M A3A42(mg. u.l.)B4DeDrFe(i.l. u.l.)Gg(mg. u.l.)HdLd2(mg. corr. Ld22)Lr4Lr6MoN2PrTu*V6V7V9 B7Bs4(i.l. u.l.)Ds2(quam i.l. u.l. Ds22)P8 FtP28 B14Es6Lr27PsVd11, Naug. 1516, edd. aliquot (uid. append.), dub. Tarrant 2004(in app.)  : quoi Mv7  : Q legitur in T  : de Gf(a.c.) n.l.  : qui Mt  : deest in Ls • 739 repetens Ω, Aler. 1471, Heinsius 1659, edd. (uid. append.)  : repectens B7  : referens L3LuM(reff-)M2N(uid., a.c.; repetens p.c.)P2S2T AbB2(repetens i.l. u.l. B22)B42(mg.)GH3Lr3Lr7MoN2V4 Cs2DsLd6Lr8Mt3ToV16 B12Bo2(p.c.)Cs3Es3FtMcRd(refferrens, ut solet) AsBo3Es4F2Lr27P38P41Vd11, Plan., Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, edd. (uid. append.)  : ref- inchoauerat Tr(a.c.)  : nepotem Mt •

735: for the formulaic pattern of this verse, see Hopkinson 2000, 211; Hopman 2012, 236 n. 9 (with bibliography); Hardie 2015, 331. 736: the inversion Nymphas pelagi of some recc. does not improve the text, nor does the variant Nympha for Nymphis in M (Lr27) and Mo (uid. append.). Nor is there any improvement in suppressing the comma after Nymphas (so Ehwald), since it leads to the phrase pelagi gratissima Nymphis being interpreted as a predicative complement instead of an apposition. 738: quam: M and the corrections of AGf, as well as a considerable number of recc. (uid. app.), have the variant cui (sc. praebet), undoubtedly an appeal-



Commentary

331

ing one. It was adopted by Naugerius (1516) and other 16th c. edd., and was later recovered by Merkel (1850) and other edd. down to our days (cf. Tarrant 2004, 400 in app.: “fort. recte”). Ehwald (H-K-E 1898, 265) defended this variant through comparison with epist. 13.31: nec mihi pectendos cura est praebere capillos, but this passage is not supporting evidence since in it mihi refers rather to cura est. A stronger backing, in my opinion, is the parallel of 5.114  f. adduced by Magnus (1914, 516) in defence of quam: quem procul adstantem plectrumque imbelle tenentem / Pedasus [u.l. Paetalus] inridens ‘Stygiis cane cetera’ dixit, since it illustrates the use of the relative pronoun referring in traiectio to a verb in the following line. In any case, the traiectio results in quam being difficilior, and cui … praebet is probably an attempt to avoid this traiectio. pectendos: even if this word poses no problem (cf. epist. 13.31: supra; ars 3.235: pectendos coram praebere capillos), Heinsius initially proposed (b3, 376): “Leg. pexandos. Vid. lib. IV.454”, although he later (1758, 705 [Burm. 1727, 916]) nuanced his proposal with a “Forte pexandos”. At any rate, this verb is not used by Ovid, though Heinsius himself timidly proposes it at 4.454 (1659, 93): “an pexabant?”. 739: repetens: this is the reading transmitted by AGfLr2V3, by N(p.c.) and a large number of recc. (not by T, where referens is read, pace Magnus 1914, 516). Among the early edd. it appears only in Aler. 1471, and it is once more Heinsius (1652) who recovers it and persuades many later edd. (uid. append.). The other mss. have referens, the reading of the first edd. down to Bersman (1596), and it was adopted by Riese (1872, who prints repetens in 1889), Ehwald (repetens in 1898), Magnus and Anderson (Bömer 1982, 404, keeps a “fort. recte” for repetens). However, the expression is suspiria repetere, as proved by the parallels (cited by Bach 1836, 351) of 2.125: pectore sollicito repetens suspiria dixit (and see Bömer 1969, 272  f.), and [Tib.] 3.6.61: sollicitus repetam tota suspiria nocte (and see Navarro 1996, 522). The variant referens may have been “suggested to a scribe by the narrative context” (Hopkinson 2000, 211). For fero and its compounds as banal elements, uid. ad 733. 740–745: “Te tamen, o uirgo, genus haud immite uirorum          740 expetit, utque facis, potes his impune negare. At mihi, cui pater est Nereus, quam caerula Doris enixa est, quae sum turba quoque tuta sororum, non nisi per luctus licuit Cyclopis amorem effugere”, et lacrimae uocem impediere loquentis.     745 • 744 luctus] luctos T  : luctum P102(p.c.)  : fluctus Bs22(i.l. u.l.), Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807(qui tamen luctus prob. in notis), Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Weise 1845, Koch 1866 • 745 loquentis] loquentem Bs3(corr. Bs32)  : loquenti coni. Heinsius(in notis) •

332

Commentary

741: his impune negare: Burman (1727, 916) attests the variant en for his in “Sixi”. In principle this ms. is usually identified with B7, but in B7 the reading is hiis. Now, in the previous line of this same ms. enuirgo instead of o uirgo can be read, and hence probably the error. Burman himself next records the variant morari for negare (negari in many mss.: uid. append.), and adds: “sed tunc hos legendum esset”. 742: pater est Nereus: note the inversion with metrical result nereus pater est in P10So. 743: turba quoque tuta: in some recc. we find, along with other erroneous combinations, one more case of inversion with metrical result: quoque turba tuta (uid. append.). 744: luctus: in his 2nd ed. Heinsius changed this majority reading for the interlinear variant fluctus of Bs22, with no further argument (1659, 351): “Scribe fluctus. atque ita pro diuersa lectione prim. Basil.”. He was followed by other edd. down to Koch (1866; uid. app.). 745: uocem: for the variant uoces (uid. append.), which does not fit the metrics here, uid. ad 539. impediere: leaving aside other improbable (impleuere) or impossible variants (impedire), note the form tenuere transmitted by P5, whose copyist corrects it on the spot (uid. append.). Cf. 9.328  f.: lacrimaeque dolorque / impediunt prohibentque loqui; trist. 1.3.42 (Consol. Liu. 120): singultu medios impediente sonos. loquentis: Bs3 has loquentem, probably under the pressure of uocem and perhaps also of amorem, just above. However, the form is duly corrected. For his part, Heinsius in his notes (b3, 376) approved of the dative: “lego loquenti”, although he did not carry this proposal to his editions or published notes (cf. Baumg.-Crus. 1834, 527: “in eo, ut multis aliis locis, ingenio suo obsecutus est”, and see ad 892). 746–749: Quas ubi marmoreo detersit pollice uirgo et solata deam est, “refer, o carissima” dixit “neue tui causam tege – sic sum fida – doloris”. Nereis his contra resecuta Crataeide natam est: • 748 sic sum MN(sum tibi p.c.) Bo3Lr27, H-K-E 1898, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005  : sic sum tibi Vd11 contra metrum  : si sum LuM2P2S2T Ph2 Rd Go2  : si sum tibi Mo contra metrum  : sum tibi Ω, edd., dub. R. de Verger 2005(in notis)  : tibi sum Lr2(a.c.) CvLu2  : quia sum tibi Ls B14 contra metrum  : sum Mt  : sum cibi Mo3  : quid Ds2 a.c. (sum tibi p.c.) n.l.  : s. tibi(per comp.) supra fida scr. m.p. in T  : nam sum coni. Liberman •

746: ubi: the ligature ui is misunderstood and gives rise to the variant sibi; in other mss. this adv. of time is replaced by its gloss cum, and this in turn



Commentary

333

appears in certain mss. as dum, following the habitual alternation (uid. append.). 747: carissima: Lr2 and a large number of recc. introduce the variant gratissima from l. 736, and this leaked into the text of some of the earliest edd. (uid. append.). 748: sic sum: this reading is supported only by M (Lr27) and Bo3. Most probably it was also the first reading of N, whose copyist replaced it with sum tibi, the paradosis of AGfL3N(p.c.)V2V3 and virtually all the recc. as well as edd. of all periods (uid. app.; it is also the likely reading of Planudes’ antigraph: μηδέ μοι τὸ τῆς σῆς ὀδύνης αἴτιον κρύπτε. Καὶ γάρ εἰμί σοι πιστή: cf. the proposal nam sum by Liberman 2004, 89 n. 3). Halfway between are the unmetrical readings of two mss. which are close to the text of M, namely Vd11 (sic sum tibi) and Mo (si sum tibi). This latter reading is close, in turn, to the second-best attested variant: si sum, backed by no less than LuM2P2S2T and a few recc. and which has not been adopted by any editors (cf. other variants such as tibi sum, quia sum tibi, sum cibi, which seem to support sum tibi, or else simply sum, in Mt, which points to an indecision on the copyist’s part about the correct position of the word under discussion). Ehwald (H-K-E 1898, 266) preferred sic sum, with this paraphrase: “Ich bin so treu, dass du nichts zu verbergen brauchst”. He has been followed by other edd. down to our days (for the colloquial register of the expression, see Bömer 1982, 406; Hardie 2015, 336). The presence of this reading in MN no doubt had a strong influence on the editorial choice (see H-K-E 1898, 408), but it is no less true that we are dealing with a lectio difficilior, certainly at least vis-à-vis si sum, and it can be backed, furthermore, by the parallel of am. 3.7.70: sic sum pollicitis captus et ante tuis (cf. l. 62: sic est metuendus Vlixes). Although Ramírez de Verger (2005, 1964) writes sic sum, he expresses his timid liking of sum tibi through comparison with epist. 13.65: Hectora, quisquis is est, si sum tibi cara, caueto. However, this parallel would be valid both for sum tibi and si sum (incidentally, this conditional sentence no doubt fits better in Laodamia’s speech to Protesilaus – be it with the adj. cara or else with the late variant cura (see Dörrie 1971, 175) – than in Scylla’s to Galatea). Be that as it may, it seems reasonable to think that tibi is a gloss (like e.  g. in T above fida) that has leaked into the text against the metre (and hence the above-mentioned unmetrical readings), which made the copyists remove the genuine word before fida. This is certainly more logical than accepting that sic could have come from si, and that this, in turn, was a misreading of the ligature ti. Furthermore, both variants would have been relocated by the copyists starting from a hypothetical paradosis sum si, which is symptomathically not attested. See also Bömer 1982, 406. 749: resecuta Crataeide natam est: the widespread alteration of the mss. (uid. append.) can be explained for the habitual discomfort with a proper name such as Crataeide (cf. Hom. Od. 12.124  f.: Κράταιϊν, / μητέρα τῆς Σκύλλης; for its many variants, uid. append.), and a constr. such as Crataeide natam, and also for the rarity of the verb, which is attested in classical Latin

334

Commentary

only in three passages of Ovid (OLD s.u., 1628; 6.36: talibus obscuram resecuta est Pallada dictis [with Bömer 1976b, 18]; 8.863: his est resecuta rogantem), and two of Ausonius (epist. 26.68: nostras echo resecuta loquellas; epigr. 101.3: gemitum resecuta querellis). But the expression itself is clear. Note that the copyist of Lr22 leaves a blank after contra, perhaps because he rejected as erroneous the form recusata that he might have read in V30 (which Aler. 1471 does copy). See also Heinsius 1659, 351  f.; Bömer 1982, 406; Hopkinson 2000, 212; Hardie 2015, 336. I find no arguments to prefer, with Heinsius and other edd. down to Loers (1843), the omission of est. Nor is better attested the – metrically correct – variant est resecuta C. natam (cf. resecuta est t(h)etide natam, of V2, B52 and To2 – here against the metre, as the reading is gratheide). 750–754: “Acis erat Fauno nymphaque Symaethide cretus,  magna quidem patrisque sui matrisque uoluptas, nostra tamen maior, nam me sibi iunxerat uni; pulcher et octonis iterum natalibus actis signarat teneras dubia lanugine malas.

750

• 751 patrisque … matrisque] matrisque suę patrisque Lr2 Lu2  : patris erat hic matrisque V8(corr. V82)  : patrique suo matrique coni. Heinsius(in notis) : patris ille sui matrisque coni. Hilberg • 752 nam … iunxerat] sibi me coniunxerat Dr • 753 et] ut dub. Riese 1872 • 754 teneras dubia] inu. ord. V9 Bs3Ds2, prob. Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Merkel 1850, Polle 1888, Fink 2007  : teneras tenera coni. Magnus 1887  : quid Mv7 n.l. • dubia] molli M2(i.l. suppl.; omiserat M) Lr27(p.c.), Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Edwards 1905  : malli Lr27(a.c.)  : prima B4(dubia mg. B42)  : dubias Mt  : dibia B8  : tenera coni. Magnus (supra) •

750: some edd. starting with Heinsius (1659, not in 1652) put commas after erat and cretus, thus making us read Acis erat magna uoluptas. In my view this is artificial and erroneous: the first predicate must correspond to the introduction of the character through his filiation, and this is followed, in apposition, by a reference to his strong affective relationship to his parents. To omit both commas (so e.  g. Goold 1984, R. de Verger 2005) is an even worse solution, since it leaves a plainly obscure text. 751: patrisque sui matrisque: Lr2 and Lu2 present in isolation the inversion matrisque suae patrisque. At a certain moment (b3, 376) Heinsius proposed: “lego patrique suo matrique” (uid. ad 745 loquentis), though he never again dealt with this proposal. For his part, Hilberg (1896, 175) proposed to change patrisque into patris ille in order to avoid the lengthening of the first syllable (cf. 624). 752: nam me sibi iunxerat uni: leaving aside misspellings of the verb (uid. append., cf. ad 96, and note in app. the reading of Dr: sibi me coniunxerat, which seems to represent an earlier stage in transmission vis-à-vis the unmet-



335

Commentary

rical reading of V5), it is interesting to note the vacillation of the pers. pron. me sibi. This may be caused by the habitual instability of these forms, but in this case a further reason could be the discomfort proved by the copyists when faced with the relative hypallage of uni in Ovid’s expression, since, from a man’s point of view, one would rather expect nam se mihi iunxerat uni (so in a few recc. and only in Bothe 18182 among the edd.). The same spirit of emendation lies in variants such as ipse and unam instead of uni. Cf. in any case Verg. Aen. 4.28: primus qui me sibi iunxit. 753: the coordination of pulcher and the abl. absol. natalibus actis gives rise to new grammatical scruples, although it is clear that the verse characterizes Acis by means of a uariatio (cf. 378: audax ex praecipitique) as pulcher et iuuenis (cf. 2.497; 8.242  f.). Among the attempts to avoid the coordination it is worth remembering that of Bothe, who in his edition (18182) marked a full pause after pulcher, thus joining it in enjambement to the preceding statement (so also e.  g. Koch 1866), or else Riese’s timid proposal in the praefatio to his 1st ed. (1872, XXIV): “et] an, ut?”. After this verse ms. Tu (p. 91b) ends. Although Jahn’s references do not coincide with the text of this ms. on many occasions, at this point he affirms overtly (1832, 874): “In hoc uersu cod. Rhen. desinit” (uid. ad 727 expertes). 754: signarat: once more the syncopated form of the pluperfect alternates in mss. with the imperf.: signabat (uid. append.; Bömer 1982, 411). This line recalls Virgil’s depiction of Euryalus (Aen. 9.181): ora puer prima signans intonsa iuuenta, combined with that of Iolaus by Ovid himself (9.398): paene puer dubiaque tegens lanugine malas. Compare with all of them, in turn, CLE 2.1355.3: Ora puer dubiae signans lanugine uestis. teneras dubia: I have found the reverse order in V9 and Bs3Ds2 (this is certainly not the reading of B14, as Bach 1836, 352, seems to suggest). Heinsius adopted it in 1652 with no argument (he limits himself to attesting in b3, 376 this order in four mss.), and some edd. kept it down to our days (uid. app.). As M omits dubia and M2 wrote instead molli (accepted by certain edd.), Magnus in his notes (1914, 517 in app.) defended this reading of M2 as a gloss of the genuine reading, so he conjectured teneras tenera, as in Verg. ecl. 2.51: ipse ego cana legam tenera lanugine mala. To this end he had adduced (1887, 22  f.) many instances of this kind of repetition in Ovid. However, molli might not be a gloss but a recollection of Lucr. 5.889: molli uestit lanugine malas, and dubia is duly backed by the passages quoted above and by Martial’s imitation in 2.61.1: Cum tibi uernarent dubia lanugine malae. For models of the motif (Hom. Il. 24.348; Theocr. 11.9), see Bömer 1982, 411; Hill 2000, 165; Hopkinson 2000, 212; Hardie 2015, 337. 755–757: Hunc ego, me Cyclops nulla cum fine petebat.  En, si quaesieris odium Cyclopis amorne Acidis in nobis fuerit praesentior, edam:

755

336

Commentary

• 755 nulla A(uid., a.c.; -o p.c.)MN(-o p.c.) H22(uid., p.c.)Mo P5 Es2 Bo3Lr27Vd11, prob. Merkel 1850, edd. post. plerique (uid. append.)  : nullo Ω, Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, edd. (uid. append.) • 756 en M(nec i.l. u.l. M2) Mo Lr27(nec p.c.)Vd11, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Segura 1983, dub. Hopkinson 2000(in notis)  : nec Ω, edd.  : an Lu Bo3  : ne A(an suprascr.; nec a.c.)M2(a.c.) V5V9 Li3P10(a.c.)Sp Go2  : nam B22(i.l. u.l.) P8  : nunc B3V7 Es6, Vollmer  : haec B4B5L4(nec mg. u.l. L42)LsV6 Ft B14  : et GMo2(i.l. u.l.)O4(nec a.c. a m.p.)P32(nec cum lit. deleto)Ph2(nec a.c. a m.p.)V42(nec V4) B8Bs2(mg. u.l.)So Bo, prob. Griffin  : at Ds  : om. Mo3(nec suppl. m.p.) • 757 pr(a)esentior M(praestantior mg. u.l. M2)N(praestantior p.c. N2) Mo2(mg. u.l.) Mt3, Heinsius 1659, edd. post. plerique (uid. append.)  : praesentius M2(p.c.)  : pr(a)estantior Ω, Plan., Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, edd. (uid. append.)  : praestantius S2 B4(praestantior mg. B42)Ph2 Es5  : praestencior Be2  : ualentior De(u.l.) •

755: nulla cum fine: leaving aside the habitual regularization cum nullo (cf. e.  g. 46, 864), there is significance in the variant nulla attested in MN(a.c.) and perhaps in A(a.c.) (certainly not in M2, pace Magnus 1914, 517), as well as in a small number of recc. (uid. app.). It was adopted by Merkel from his 1st ed. (1850) and by most later edd. (uid. append.). It is no doubt a difficilior, not conditioned variant, and is backed (as already pointed out by H-K-E 1898, 267) by the parallel of am. 2.12.13: me duce ad hanc uoti finem, me milite ueni (with McKeown 1998, 270), and by its presence in poets such as Virgil and Horace (Bömer 1982, 412). 756: en: the majority reading of the mss. and edd. is nec, which is further backed by the variant h(a)ec and perhaps nunc (although the latter, as a gloss, would be closer to en). However, M(Lr27) Mo and Vd11 have en, supported by variants such as an or et (uid. ad 71, 155, 496). Finally, the variant ne backs both nec and en (uid. app.). The first editor to adopt en was Magnus (1914), followed by Ehwald in his editio maior (1915) and other edd. in their wake. Magnus had already defended this reading in a previous work (1904, 56  f.), where he rejected nec as a regularization and recalled that en recurs in Ovid at line-beginning and that at 5.518  f. it is also followed by a conditional clause. Yet we must first consider what the precise meaning of nec … edam might be. The verb should obviously be taken as subjunctive: “and I could not say” (cf. H-K-E 1898, 267: “ich vermag nicht zu sagen”), but this sense corresponds rather to dicere, usually accompanied by posse, as e.  g. in l. 672: aut nunc dicere possum (cf. e.  g. 10.562  f.: nec dicere posses, / laude pedum formaene bono praestantior esset; Pont. 3.3.49), or in the line that, in my opinion, has given rise to our variant nec (l. 823): nec, si forte roges, possim tibi dicere quot sint (note that here the expression nec possim tibi dicere… does make full sense). In our passage the declarative verb edam is in the future, and is reinforced by the interjection en (used by Ovid some 50 times), which is aimed at validating and reinforcing the assertion or evidence presented to the public, as Ovid does in some other passages (l. 264): aspicite en! (2.283: tostos en aspice crines; am. 1.8.31: en aspice!; Pont. 4.7.3: aspicis en praesens quali iaceamus in



337

Commentary

aruo; cf. fast. 5.459  f.); 15.776: en acui sceleratos cernitis enses; ars 2.599: En, iterum testor; 3.598: En, ego confiteor; fast. 3.352: en audi crastina (3.471  f.: en iterum, fluctus, similes audite querellas. / en iterum lacrimas accipe, harena, meas); Pont. 4.4.15: En ego laetarum uenio tibi nuntia rerum. Griffin did not like nec either, but he opted for et (1983, 196 n. 11): “this [sc. nec] does not yield the required sense. en is found in one good manuscript. Read et” (Bömer 2006, 315 commented on it: “So einfach ist das”). See also Hopkinson (2000, 212), who shows his liking for en, “though the interjection is a long way from its verb”. quaesieris: for the preservation of the original length in the last syllable, cf. 444 (petiit) and see Bömer 1982, 412. amorne: for the disjunctive (uid. append.), see Bömer 1982, 412. 757: praesentior: once again this minority variant must prevail against praestantior (uid. app.). Heinsius opted for praesentior in 1652 and defended it (1659, 352; and already in b3, 376) through comparison with 4.612: tanta est praesentia ueri, and epist. 16.273: o decus, o praesens geminorum gloria fratrum, as well as with two passages where the same alternation recurs: Cic. p. red. ad Quir. 15 (where the edd. prefer praestanti): T. Annius et P. Sestius praestanti in me beniuolentia et diuino studio exstiterunt, and Iuu. 3.18  f. (where praesentius is preferred): quanto praesentius esset / numen aquis. To these parallels Baumgarten-Crusius (1834, 527) added 3.658  f.: nec enim praesentior illo / est deus (and see H-K-E 1898, 151, ad loc.), and 15.622: praesentia numina uatum. Both forms are well attested in Ovid and their spellings are easily interchangeable (note the halfway variant of Be2: praestencior), but praesentior seems to be better adapted to the expression of inner feelings, as in our passage, while praestans tends to be used by Ovid to express physical or external excellence (cf., however, 3.54: et iaculum teloque animus praestantior omni). The variant praestantior might come from a passage we have quoted for the previous line (see en; 10.562  f.): nec dicere posses, / laude pedum formaene bono praestantior esset. 758–763: par utrumque fuit. Pro, quanta potentia regni est, Venus alma, tui! Nempe ille immitis et ipsis horrendus siluis et uisus ab hospite nullo       impune et magni cum dis contemptor Olympi, quid sit amor sentit nostrique cupidine captus uritur oblitus pecorum antrorumque suorum

760

• 758 utrumque] utrimque Bo Es3Z, Heinsius 1659(qui et “unus meus” test.), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, improb. Gierig 1807(in notis)  : uerumque Dr(a.c.)  : î utroque Mc  : uterque P41  : utrum Ps • 759 est] en Bs3(est mg. u.l.), “Argent.” test. Burm. 1727 • 762 nostrique Ω, Plan., Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, edd. (uid. append.), dub. Tarrant 2004(in app.)  : ualidaque M L42(mg. u.l.)MoN2 Bo3Lr27Vd11, prob. Riese 1872, edd. post. plerique (uid. append.)  :

338

Commentary

nostri Lr2(a.c.) B2(p.c.) Lu2 : nostris B2(a.c.)  : uterque Mt : nostro Vd(ex itin. corr.) : quoque nostri Mt3(uid.) •

758–787: the identical line-beginning (Acidis in) of ll. 757 and 787 leads to the omission of this whole section of text in Lr7 (s. XIII1). The omission occurs in the middle of a verso, so a loss of folios is to be ruled out. It is symptomatic that Cs3 (ca. 1381–1400), a ms. whose text tends to coincide with that of Lr7, transcribes these same lines after l. 715 and then copies them again in their correct position. Perhaps we could postulate for Cs3 an antigraph which would in turn be the apograph of Lr7: in this antigraph these 30 lines might have been copied at a later stage in the margins or in another position that might have provoked the first – erroneous – positioning in Cs3. 758: utrumque: as always happens when this word occurs (cf. l. 779 or Verg. Aen. 7.566; 11.524; 12.662 and see Rivero-Estévez 2009), some mss. have utrimque (uid. app.; certain mss. have the spelling utrunque). In his 2nd ed. (1659) Heinsius adopted utrimque on the sole testimony of Bo and another ms. (“unus meus”), comparing Stat. Theb. 10.11: par utrimque dolor. This parallel was duly refuted by Gierig (1807, 295; see also Bach 1836, 353): “Verum ibi sermo est de uno affectu, qui utrimque, utraque ex parte, par fuerit. Nunc autem uterque affectus in Galatea par fuisse notatur; itaque restituendum putaui utrumque”. For par utrumque, cf. Sen. dial. 3.10.3; for par utrimque, Liu. 21.29.3; 41.26.3; Flor. epit. 2.17.37. 760: siluis: the variant nymphis, attested by Heinsius (b3, 376) in the “fragm. Moreti”, is also registered by Burman (1727, 917) in the “quart. Palat.”, a ms. we must identify with V9 (uid. append.). 761: magni: Burman (1727, 917) attests magnis in “Cantab. et unus Heinsii”, the latter probably being P8. Burman does not discard this reading (“non temere repudiandum”) as it might be an allusion to the Dii Magni (see Rivero et alii 2009–2011, I, 102 n. 8 ad Verg. Aen. 3.12). A similar reasoning can be found in Baumgarten-Crusius (1834, 528). Cf. Bömer 1982, 413. Olympi: although the variant itself has no value, note that A and Gf share alûpni in isolation (uid. append.). 762: sentit: we find once more the constant alternation with the perf.: sensit, which has some considerable support here (uid. append.), although not so strong as that of sentit. The perf. was preferred by Riese (1872) and Ehwald based on the authority of MN (H-K-E 1898, 408; but the original reading in N was sentit), and was defended by Magnus (1904, 57  f.), who believes that the present is a grammatical regularization through the influence of uritur (l. 763; so also Bömer 1982, 413). I find no decisive arguments in favour of one or the other, yet I believe the present is to be preferred, because the action has shifted from the narrative of the episode in the past (ll. 750–8) to the timeless present of Venus’ absolute power, as an instance of which Polyphemus’ falling in love is in fact cited (ll. 758–63; cf. Theocr. 11.16 and see Hardie 2015, 337).



339

Commentary

nostrique: M and certain closely related mss. (uid. app.) have ualidaque, printed by Riese (1872) and most edd. thereafter (uid. append.). The reading of M has been supported by Tarrant (2004, 401 in app.) with the parallels of 7.9: concipit interea ualidos Aeetias ignes, and 14.352: ut primum ualido mentem conlegit ab aestu, both in amatory contexts (add ars 3.543: ualidoque perurimur aestu), although he immediately expresses a liking (“fort. recte”) for nostrique too. For his part, Hopkinson (2000, 213) considers ualidaque “the superior reading: the emphasis hereabouts is not on Galatea, but on the violence of Polyphemus’ passion. There may be a reference to Theocr. 11.11, where the Cyclops is said to love with ‘real madness’ (ὀρθαῖς μανίαις)”. Of course both readings make full sense and are supported by Ovidian usus (though the phrase ualida cupido does not recur elsewhere), since nostrique also has the syntactical and metrical support of fast. 6.119: uisaeque cupidine captus. In my view, the problem is that, at first sight, neither reading can be explained as the result of an error stemming from the other. However, once again things are clearer if we take the text of N as our starting-point (uid. ad 37; 442 late; 590; 802; 817; 853). There, the copyist first wrote (seemingly reading from a ligature) an erroneous utrique (cf. uterque in Mt), which in Beneventan script could equally be read as uarique. Furthermore, -ri- (rj) resembles the spelling of -li- (lj), and this leads us to a symptomatic ualique, which might – directly or indirectly – lie behind the variant in M. cupidine captus: although the variants pectus, tactus or raptus may make sense (not so clearly in the case of pectus), they are simply misspellings: cf. fast. 6.119 (supra); for the etymological wordplay between cupido and capere (cf. Prop. 1.1  f.), see Michalopoulos 2003, 171. See also Bömer 1982, 413  f.; Hopkinson 2000, 213; Hardie 2015, 338. 763: pecorum antrorumque: note the remakes we find in some recc., such as pecorum aruorumque, nemorum pecorumque or nemorum antrorumque (uid. append.). For the antra Cyclopum, see Bömer 1982, 414; Hopkinson 2000, 214. 764–769: (iamque tibi formae, iamque est tibi cura placendi, iam rigidos pectis rastris, Polypheme, capillos,     iam libet hirsutam tibi falce recidere barbam et spectare feros in aqua et componere uultus). Caedis amor feritasque sitisque immensa cruoris cessant, et tutae ueniunt abeuntque carinae.

765

• 767 aqua Ω (uid. append.), Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, edd.  : aquam AL3LuMNV2V3 recc. (uid. append.), Plan., Aler. 1471  : quid Gf a.c. (aqua p.c.) n.l. • 769 ueniunt abeuntque] abeunt ueniuntque Cs2 • ueniunt] ueniuntque Ld(p.c., q3 suprascr.) Rd Lr22, “Medic. et Bonon.” test. et prob. Burm. 1727(ueniunt 1713), Gierig 1807, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Merkel 1850, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888,

340

Commentary

Simmons 1889, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, van Proosdij 1951, Goold 1984, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007  : subeunt Mt3 •

764–766: the identical beginning of these lines gives rise to the habitual alterations in transmission (uid. append.). 764: tibi formae: be it due to the abrupt shift of addressee in this aside, or to the iambic structure of tibi (see Bömer 1982, 414; Hopkinson 2000, 214), or else to the habitual misreadings of the ligatures transcribing the pronouns, the fact is that the mss. have readings that are erroneous yet metrical (uid. append.). Cf. medic. 23: sit uobis cura placendi. 765: iam rigidos: the copyist of Mt has probably written iamque through the influence of the previous line (cf. P3 at l. 766), and this makes him change rigidos into tuos to fit the metre (uid. append.). 766: libet: leaving aside misreadings such as licet and iubet (uid. append.), Ds2 has placet (Burm. 1727, 918, attests it in “duo”), an obvious gloss (so e.  g. written above in V9). recidere: among the variants of this word, all of them erroneous (uid. append.), Burman (1727, 918) recalled reuellere in a “Gronou.”, a ms. that is probably to be identified with B2. 767: in aqua: once again the mss. alternate between the abl. (Gf(p.c.)Lr2M2P2S2T and most of the recc.: uid. append.) and the acc. (AL3LuMNV2V3 and several recc.), though in this case the edd. are unanimous in choosing the abl. (cf. l. 840; Verg. ecl. 2.25: nuper me in litore uidi), except for Aler. 1471, which once more shares the text of Lr22V30. 769: cessant: although the direct apostrophe to the Cyclops is over, the present tense from sentit (l. 762) is kept as a way of alluding to the new state of affairs. The variant cesserat of the odd ms. (uid. append. and cf. Planudes: ὑπελώφησαν) is just the misreading of a ligature (cessât), yet Bothe adopted it in his edition (18182) with this defence (1818, 141): “Cesserat, h. e. cessit”. For this use of the pluperfect he refers to his note on 2.301 (1818, 12  f.). ueniunt abeuntque: virtually all the mss. have this reading (including N, against the assertion of Magnus 1914, 518), and it even has the support of the variant abeunt ueniuntque in Cs2 (uid. app.). It is only in Ld and Rd (curiously accompanied by Lr22, which diverges here from V30 and Aler. 1471) that I find the variant ueniuntque, in accordance with the frequent alternation of -que before an initial vowel. Burman (1727, 918) adds the testimony of “Medic. [which could be Lr22] et Bonon.”. Burman himself, who in 1713 still kept ueniunt abeuntque, changed his mind in 1727 and approved (“bene”) of the polysyndeton, being followed by certain edd. down to our days. Magnus (1904, 58  f.), by contrast, does not take ueniuntque abeuntque for what he calls “eng verbundene Begriffe”: this is, at the very least, a debatable assertion, since the polysyndeton in this passage evokes perfectly the idea of permanent ship traffic as a result of Polyphemus’ having fallen in love. If there is one strong reason not to adopt this reading (otherwise unattested in Latin texts), it is not its constr. but the persever-



341

Commentary

ance of the mss. in transmitting ueniunt abeuntque. Cf. 12.53: ueniunt, leue uulgus, euntque. 770–773: Telemus interea Siculam delatus ad Aetnen,       Telemus Eurymides, quem nulla fefellerat ales, terribilem Polyphemon adit ‘lumen’que ‘quod unum fronte geris media, rapiet tibi’ dixit ‘Vlixes’.

770

• 770–771 Telemus scr. in V8 m. recentior erasa uet. lect. et item m.alt. scr. et mg. et in textu in Lr27 (= Lr27*); hanc lectionem hab. P38, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1486, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, edd.  : t(h)ele(ph/f)us (uel similia: uid. append.) Ω, Plan., Aler. 1471, Accurs. 1475 • 770 siculam … ad (a)et(h)n(e/a)(n/m) MS2 Hd(adthenam a.c.)L4Lr4Lr6MoN2O4 B12Mt4P28(etham a.c.) Vd11, Plan., Heinsius 1659(qui “decem” test.), edd. (uid. append.)  : siculam … in etnam(ethnam Fe) Gf2(i.l. u.l.) Ab2(i.l. u.l.)Fe, “unus Moreti” test. Burm. 1727  : Siculum … ad Aetnen Baumg.-Crus. 1834  : siculum … ad equor V2(i.ras., quid a.c. n.l.)  : siculum … in (a)equor N(p.c., in equor i.ras.; quid a.c. n.l.) Ω, edd. aliquot (uid. append.)  : siculam  … in equor B5(siculum p.c. B52)  : siculam  … in horam A4(-um … in equor i.l. u.l A42)AbBe2O3 •

770–771: Telemus: the mss. are almost unanimous in the reading Telephus, though under many misspellings (uid. append.). However, in V8 (s. XIII1; f. 110v) a hand from the 15th c. or later has erased in the paradosis Tele[]us and has written an m in the blank (where ph had probably stood earlier). The correction of the proper name (cf. Hom. Od. 9.509  f. [Τήλεμος Εὐρυμίδης, ὃς…]; Theocr. 6.23; Ou. Ib. 268: Telemus Eurymides) has usually been ascribed to Regius (so e.  g. Magnus 1914, 518), but it is certainly earlier than his 1493 edition. To begin with, this is the reading of the edd. Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474 and Accurs. 1486, as well as that of P38 (s. XV), and in Lr27 (a. 1456) it stands as a margin reading for l. 770 and as new text for l. 771 (remember that its antigraph, M, omits this line): this text has been added by a different, later hand, a hand that will make some other interlinear corrections between this line and l. 826. Now, since we cannot know for sure whether P38 is the antigraph or the apograph of the ed. of Calph. 1474 (uid. ad 225 facitis), the earliest datable testimony is that of the ed. princeps of Bologna. As for the late correction in V8, the same hand writes this text in the margin: “hic uates fuit optimus inter cyclopas[.] auctor est herodot’”, which is symptomatically close to the note in Regius’ ed. (1493, ad loc.): “Telephus interea. Telephus quidem legitur. Sed Telemus legendum esse facile ex Theocrito colligitur. Nam Telemus Eurymi : qui Polyphemo filius i n t e r C y c l o p a s u a t e s f u i t e g r e g i u s    prædixit omnia quæcumque ab Vlysse passus est”. We do not know who the author of the annotation in V8 is, yet at f. 133v there is a note of ownership from the 15th c. under the name of Marcellus Valentinus (see Buonocore 1994, 217).

342

Commentary

Be that as it may, whether it was Raphael Regius who made in V8 the correction and annotation that were later to appear in his edition (and other previous edd.), or whether he found them already written in the ms., the fact is that this reading was definitely adopted by all later edd., starting from the 1st Aldina (1502). Note, finally, that this reading is not in P39 (Paris. Lat. 8017, s. XV), a ms. I have not collated but which has a text that is very close to P38 and the ed. of Calph. 1474, according to prof. Fàbregas (per litt., and see Fàbregas 2016, xxxii). Once more we find inversions or omissions of lines due to their identical beginnings (l. 772 also starts with te-). In this case the omission of l. 771 affects very important mss. (uid. append.). 770: Siculam delatus ad Aetnen: the mss. are split between two main readings, each one having variants in turn (uid. app.). A small number of important mss. has Siculam … ad Aetnen(/-am), the reading that Planudes probably followed (πρὸς τὴν Σικελικὴν ἐνεχθεὶς Αἴτνην). It was recovered by Heinsius in 1652 and most later edd. (uid. append.). This reading has a minority variant with the prep. in instead of ad (cf. 3.690; trist. 1.2.79), which no editor adopted, and the variant Siculum … ad Aetnen, followed only by Baumgarten-Crusius as the result of a probable misinterpretation of the information provided by mss.; in fact, Heinsius (1659, 352) stated: “Siculam ad Aetnam decem. Siculam ad Aetnen S. Marci”, but the same note later (1758, 706 [Burm. 1727, 918]) reads thus: “Siculum ad Aetnam decem. …”; this is seemingly a misprint (at least I did not find it in Heinsius’ collations), but Baumgarten-Crusius sticks to it (1834, 528). Be that as it may, Burman (ibid.) recalls: “nec Siculum etiam temere reiiciendum, cum montium nomina saepe masculino genere ponantur”, yet he supports his assertion with the parallel of l. 868, where it is precisely translatam that is to be read (for other uses of the fem., cf. 9.165; 14.1, 188; 15.340; fast. 4.491; trist. 5.2.75; Ib. 283, 596; see also Bömer 1982, 416), even though a minority variant translatum occurs there too. Furthermore, it is just this feminine form that makes this reading difficilior and hence preferable as against the majority reading of the mss. (not so among the edd.), Siculum … in aequor (for this expression in hexameter-ending, cf. 11.488; Verg. Aen. 10.451; Sil. 13.157). This, in turn, has a variant ad aequor, only attested in V2, where this phrase is written over an erased and illegible text (note that the phrase in aequor is written over an erased and illegible text in N also). As far as the desinence of the mountain name is concerned, the mss. have mainly the Latin ending in its three occurrences in this book (868, 877), yet mss. such as M and Mo symptomatically transmit the  – odd  – Greek desinence, which Ovid seemingly reserves for the nom. and acc. at hexameter-ending (2.220; 13.868, 877; 14.1, 188; 15.340; fast. 4.491: see Bömer 1982, 446 ad 877). For the sense of delatus vis-à-vis the Homeric model, see Hopkinson 2000, 215.



343

Commentary

771: Eurymides: the patronymic presents no problem (uid. supra), yet once again variants arise (uid. append.). To calibrate the inaccuracy with which the copyists usually transcribe these Greek proper names, it is relevant to note that the same copyist in Cs3 once writes herranides and later (uid. ad 758–87) herramides. 774–777: Risit et ‘o uatum stolidissime, falleris:’ inquit ‘altera iam rapuit’. Sic frustra uera monentem     spernit, et aut gradiens ingenti litora passu degrauat aut fessus sub opaca reuertitur antra.

775

• 777 antra] umbra LuMN(a.c. a m.p. et item i.l. pr.u.l. N2) A32(mg. u.l.)B5L4(antra mg. u.l. L42)Lr4V6Vd Mt4(antra a.c.) Bo3Lr27(antra suprascr. Lr27*), “quinque libri” test. Burm. 1727  : antro N2(i.l. alt.u.l.)  : arista P10(a.c.)  : anstra P10(p.c.) Go •

774: stolidissime: the variant stultissime, attested by Burman (1727, 918) and which I found in Ph2 and P8, may be both a gloss and a misreading. I did not find in the mss. the other variant mentioned by Burman: celeberrime (uid. append.). 777: sub opaca reuertitur antra: Burman (1727, 918) attests sub opaca uertitur umbra in “quinque libri” (I found it in Lu V6Vd: uid. append.). In fact, umbra is the reading of LuM and was the initial reading of N, but the same copyist changed it into antra, yet a second hand writes again i.l. the variant umbra as a u.l. Finally, the same second hand records a second u.l.: opaco … antro, a reading that is not attested elsewhere and that is metrically unfeasible (as is umbra) unless we change the verb into uertitur. For these antra, uid. ad 763, and cf. Verg. Aen. 3.617–9: uasto Cyclopis in antro / … domus … / intus opaca, ingens. 778–781: Prominet in pontum cuneatus acumine longo collis: utrumque latus circumfluit aequoris unda. huc ferus ascendit Cyclops mediusque resedit     (lanigerae pecudes nullo ducente secutae).

780

• 779 (utrumque … unda) pro parenth. hab. Goold 1984 • utrumque] utrimque Ld(utrumque i.l. u.l.)V6  : utronque Ld6 • 780–781 mediusque resedit / lanigerae pecudis (pecudis iam Tr) coni. Luck • 780 mediusque Ω, edd.  : mediosque M(mediusque mg. u.l. M2) Mo(p.c.) Sp(a.c.) Lr27  : medioque Lr2M2(p.c.)P2(mediusque u.l.)S2 A4Be2GH2(mediusque a.c.)LdLd22(i.l. u.l.; mediusque Ld2)Ld3Lr4O4(mediusque a.c.)Vd Bs22Bs3GoV16 B12BoEs2Es3McMt4Vt Go2Lu2P41, “multi alii” test. Heinsius 1659, prob. Bothe 18182  : mediumque M2(a.c.)  : om. Mo(a.c.) • resedit Ω, edd.  : per ęstus M(resedit mg. u.l. M2) Mo Sp(uid., a.c.) Lr27  : refertur N(a.c. a m.p.)  : recedit Mt Lr22V30, Aler. 1471  : rescedit Mv7 • 781 pro parenth. habeo •

344

Commentary

778: in pontum: M, the original wording of N, and some of their closely related recc. such as Bo3Lr22V30 have in longum (cf. V8: in longo c. a. pontum), probably an error (cf. Theocr. 11.18: ἐς πόντον) like that of flumine for acumine (uid. infra). Once again the initial text of N coincides with that of M, and its correction with that of V2. cuneatus: in some recc. (uid. append.) we find curuatus, a gloss (so e.  g. in Ld22Mo2) or a misreading, or else a recollection of Verg. Aen. 3.533: portus ab euroo fluctu curuatus in arcum. Cf. 11.229: Est sinus Haemoniae curuos falcatus in arcus (epist. 2.131). For Ovid’s use here of the language of topographers, see Hardie 2015, 340. acumine: the same mss. that have in longum instead of in pontum (uid. supra) offer here the erroneous flumine. Cf. the gloss of Ld22: “acutus et curuatus et ad modum cunei dispositum”. Cf. Manil. 4.568: Vltimus in caudae Capricornus acumine summo. For Ovid’s use of this type of noun, see Simmons 1889, 161. 779: utrumque: for the variant utrimque (uid. app.), uid. ad 758. 780–781: the harsh asyndeton between these two lines (cf. Verg. Aen. 3.659  f., a passage which is in any case unfinished) has given rise to unease among readers since early times, and hence no doubt the instability in the transmission of mediusque resedit (uid. infra). Luck (1982, 60  f.) made an ingenious proposal (“eleganter”: Tarrant 2004, 402), which consists simply in reading pecudis for pecudes, through comparison with epist. 6.13: peruigilem spolium pecudis seruasse draconem (though the sing. makes full sense here, since it refers to a single animal), so that the genitive depends on medius (as at 8.182; in 2005b, 267, Luck adds 10.144 [infra], as well as 2.31, according to Heinsius’ proposal: loci medius), and he removed all punctuation after resedit. This proposal was criticized by Courtney (2011, 87), who believes that “Luck has clearly confused the feminine pecus, -udis, «livestock animal» with the neuter pecus, -oris, «flock»”. The fact is that the text can be read as it stands (cf. Lucr. 2.661; Verg. Aen. 3.642), provided that we take l. 781 as a parenthetical addition through which Ovid brings Polyphemus’ flock onto the stage while alluding to the shepherd’s inattention to it (cf. Theocr. 11.12  f.). Note that l. 782 opens with a pron. cui that can only refer to Cyclops, in l. 780. 780: huc ferus ascendit: as always happens when these adverbs occur (cf. ad 728 hac), variants that are faciliores, such as hunc or huic, proliferate (uid. append.). As far as the verb is concerned, it is worth noting accedit and accessit, yet these variants make poorer sense, since they do not extol Polyphemus’ high position on the top of the collis (cf. Theocr. 11.17  f.: καθεζόμενος δ᾽ ἐπὶ πέτρας / ὑψηλᾶς, and see Hardie 2015, 340). Furthermore, they may have been influenced by the well-known reasoning formula huc accedit… (e.  g. Lucr. 3.459). mediusque resedit: the mss. are split mainly between this majority reading and the adverbial variant medioque resedit (cf. mediumque in M2 a.c.), printed only by Bothe (18182; cf. 7.102  f.). However, instead of resedit we



Commentary

345

have per aestus in M (Lr27), Mo and perhaps Sp(a.c.), which in turn makes the adj. change into mediosque (the copyist of Mo writes it at a later stage). In N the reading mediusque is clear, yet resedit is the correction of something that could well have been refertur but which might have been read as perestus (uid. ad 778 in pontum). Heinsius states that mediosque per aestus is not to be ruled out (1659, 393: “non male”; 1758, 706), yet he defends mediusque resedit (which appears in the margin of M as a u.l. of M2) through comparison with Verg. georg. 4.436: consedit scopulo medius, and Calp. ecl. 6.33: candida qui medius cubat inter lilia. To these Bach (1836, 354) adds Verg. Aen. 7.169: solio medius consedit auito, and Bömer (1982, 417) recalls Ou. fast. 3.359: in solio medius consedit acerno, and met. 10.144: medius turbae uolucrumque sedebat (cf. also, with Hardie 2015, 340, 10.86–8: collis … / … / … qua postquam parte resedit). 781: secutae: the above-mentioned unease caused by this line (uid. ad 780  f.) makes certain copyists (uid. append.) regularize the sentence by means of forms such as sequuntur (cf. Verg. Aen. 3.660: lanigerae comitantur oues), or else by introducing sunt against the metre (this form is insistently supplied by the grammar glosses in mss. such as A2Lr22M22P22V23). For lanigerae, see Arens 1950, 250  f. 782–788: Cui postquam pinus baculi quae praebuit usum ante pedes posita est, antemnis apta ferendis, sumptaque harundinibus compacta est fistula centum, senserunt toti pastoria sibila montes,          785 senserunt undae. Latitans ego rupe meique Acidis in gremio residens procul auribus hausi talia dicta meis auditaque uerba notaui: • 788 dicta] uerba Gf P8 • uerba Ω, edd.  : mente Lr2M2(i.l. u.l.) A4B4(uerba mg. B42)HdL4(uerba i.l. u.l. L42)Ld22(i.l. u.l.)Lr4Lr6V6V8 B8Go(uerba mg. u.l. Go2) BoMt4P28Vt Lu2, test. Viuianus (1522, ad loc.), prob. Heinsius 1659(qui et “Oxon. … et complures alii” test.), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Merkel 1850, Koch 1866, Riese 1872, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004  : monte Vd  : dicta P8 •

782: baculi quae: note (uid. append.) that Aler. 1471 shares with some recc. the error baculiq;, which may come from the ligature of a – metrical, yet also erroneous – quoque such as the one we find in Lr22 (qo3); V30, however, has a crystal-clear que (i.  e. quae). 784: compacta est: some mss. have -que instead of est, either because of a misreading of the ligature or through the influence of sumptaque (uid. append.). Some codd. also offer synonyms such as congesta, composita (attested as a gloss i.l. e.  g. in V23) and coniuncta (attested in Bs2 and the “Argent.” by Heinsius in b3, 377). As Slater (1927, ad loc.) recalls, Heinsius proposed com-

346

Commentary

pactis in one of his collations (o5, 348), but without ever returning to it. For compingere in this context, Bömer (1982, 418) notes the parallels of Verg. ecl. 2.36: (infra), Calp. ecl. 1.17  f.: nec tibi defuerit mea fistula, quam mihi nuper / matura docilis compegit arundine Ladon, and even the relative parallel of met. 1.711  f.: atque ita disparibus calamis compagine cerae / inter se iunctis. centum: in what comes across as an excess of rationalism, not detecting Ovid’s bizarre hyperbole (see Simmons 1889, 161), Bentley wrote down in his edd. of Heinsius and Burman (see Hedicke 1905, 32) the proposal septem, in accordance with the usual structure of this instrument; cf. 2.682: alterius dispar septenis fistula cannis; Verg. ecl. 2.36  f.: est mihi disparibus septem compacta cicutis / fistula. 787: residens procul: the variant itself does not improve the text, yet note that Ba offers this wording: Acidis in gremio procul illinc auribus hausi (Ba2 writes residens above in gremio). 788: uerba: so nearly all the mss. and edd., but Lr2M2(u.l.) and certain recc. (uid. app.) have mente, a reading already mentioned by Viuianus (1522, ad loc.) and which was recovered by Heinsius in 1652 and defended (1758, 707) through comparison with fast. 5.10: silent aliae dictaque mente notant, and 3.178: memori pectore dicta nota. To these passages Bach (1836, 355) adds met. 9.778: memorique animo tua iussa notaui. Heinsius’ proposal was accepted by some edd. (see e.  g. Walch. 1731, 976 ad notaui: “id est memoria tradidi: Memoria pertinet ad mentem”) down to Riese’s 1st ed. (1872), and has been recovered in modern times only by Goold (1984), Hill (2000), Hopkinson (2000) and Tarrant (2004; Griffin 1983, 197 n. 16, defends it too, and it was also to the liking of Luck, according to Ramírez de Verger 2005, 1964). It has been defended recently by Hardie (2015, 341) based on arguments of style: “Il bilanciamento di auribus hausi e di mente notaui, a indicare le due fasi nella ricezione del canto, favorisce la lezione mente”. The most recent defence is that of Tarrant (2018, 29), again on style grounds, recalling Wills’ concept of ‘participial resumption’ (Wills 1996, 323–5, who does not quote this passage): “Ovid is extremely fond of a two-step arrangement in which an action is first described with a finite verb and then picked up with a participle”. The sequence auribus hausi / talia d i c t a meis auditaque u e r b a notaui is no doubt redundant. The copyist of P8 seemingly had the same feeling and, in order to solve the problem, has ingeniously reversed the order of the nouns: … talia uerba meis auditaque dicta notaui. In this way, it seems, he is attempting to keep the original value of dicta as a passive participle: “… and, once heard, I registered the words (uerba) that had been said” (cf. Pont. 3.5.7  f.: Legimus, … / dicta tibi pleno uerba diserta foro; Tib. 1.3.52: non dicta in sanctos inpia uerba deos). If we take it, then, as a redundant expression, it might be thought that the line-ending is a clear recollection of 3.369: ingeminat uoces auditaque uerba reportat, derived in turn from Verg. Aen. 2.115: haec tristia dicta reportat. Nevertheless, it seems that from early times Latin authors found some pleas-



Commentary

347

ure in using uerba and dicta simultaneously: Pl. asin. 524  f.: an tu tibi / uerba blanda esse aurum rere, dicta docta pro datis?; Lucr. 4.578  f.: ita colles collibus ipsi / uerba repulsantes iterabant dicta referri; Sil. 11.83–4: ut saeuo adflictus saxo spectante piaret / tristia dicta Ioue et lueret uerba impia leto? This practice is by no means foreign to Ovid himself: 1.656  f.: dicta refers, … / … ad mea uerba remugis; 8.133–5: ecquid ad aures / perueniunt mea dicta tuas, an inania uenti / uerba ferunt …?; fast. 2.845  f.: illa iacens ad uerba oculos sine lumine mouit, / uisaque concussa dicta probare coma; fast. 3.695  f.: inde ioci ueteres obscenaque dicta canuntur, / et iuuat hanc magno uerba dedisse deo; Ib. 87  f.: ut non mea dicta, sed illa / Pasiphaës generi uerba fuisse putet. Remember, finally, the following passage, which resembles ours so much so that it seems more prudent for us to keep the majority reading here: epist. 20.19  f.: tua uerba notauit / et uisa est mota dicta tulisse coma. 789–797: ‘Candidior folio niuei, Galatea, ligustri, floridior pratis, longa procerior alno,       790 splendidior uitro, tenero lasciuior haedo, leuior assiduo detritis aequore conchis, solibus hibernis, aestiua gratior umbra, nobilior palmis, platano conspectior alta, lucidior glacie, matura dulcior uua,      795 mollior et cycni plumis et lacte coacto, et, si non fugias, riguo formosior horto; • 790 pratis LuMN(prato i.l. u.l. N2)V2 FeMoN2 Ld6 Bo3Lr22Lr27V30, Aler. 1471, Heinsius 1659, edd. plerique (uid. append.)  : prato Ω, Plan., Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, edd. (uid. append.) : post to B5(prato mg. B52)  : patro F(prato p.c.) • 794 hunc u. delendum dub. put. Tarrant  : uncinis not. Hill 2000 • nobilior palmis Ls(pomis i.l. Ls2) B14(pomis i.l. B142), prob. Bothe 18182, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Luck  : nobilior palma coni. Siebelis, prob. Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Simmons 1889, Edwards 1905, Tarrant 2004  : nobilior pomis N(p.c., praeter m omnes litt. i.ras.; quid a.c. n.l.) Ω, Plan., Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, edd.  : nobilior forma M Bo3Lr27  : nobilior forda coni. Merkel 1850  : nobilior forma ac coni. Merkel 1875, prob. Polle 1888  : nobilior pênis Lu(ex itin. damn.) P5(p.c.; penio uel pemo a.c.)  : nobilior promis Mo(pomis p.c.)  : mobilior pomis N2 Li3  : mobilior dama coni. Madvig, prob. Goold 1984  : mobilior flamma dub. Ellis  : mobilior Fama dub. Slater  : nobilior pinu coni. Bentley  : nobilior farno coni. Polster • 797–798 susp. Slater, qui hunc textum dub. prop.: “et, si non fugias, eadem Galatea iuuencis / saeuior indomitis, riguo formosior horto” • 797 hunc u. damn. Riese 1889 •

789: folio niuei: P2 and B5Mt Lr8 have the habitual inversion with metrical result niuei folio, which was accepted by Heinsius in 1652 and by other edd. down to Baumgarten-Crusius (1834). Although Bothe does not adopt this variant (18182), he does criticize the majority reading for the resulting homoeoteleuton niuei … ligustri (uid. ad 375–81), and he adds (1818, 141): “Ob eandem causam et in proximis transposui uerba Splendidior uitro”.

348

Commentary

For etymological wordplay in this verse, see Bömer 1982, 420–2; Michalopoulos 2003, 169  f.; Hardie 2015, 343. 790: floridior pratis: the majority reading is prato, which was adopted by most of the early edd. but only by some edd. after Heinsius (for the sing./pl. alternation, cf. ad 799 unda, 807 uentis). Heinsius (1652) adopted pratis, the variant of LuMNV2 and certain closely related recc., which had already been printed by Aler. 1471 as it was the reading of Lr22V30. Most later edd. have kept it (uid. app. et append.). Although the sing. may be considered as an instance of ‘common error’ of a whole family of mss. (so e.  g. Tarrant 2004, xxiii), it is certainly not to be discarded outright: it would help to create, at the very beginning of the song, a cadence  – admittedly tiresome, and hence suited to the uncouth Polyphemus – of four consecutive lines with an -o ending before the penthemimeral. Yet this sing. may be the result of analogy with l. 924. The pl., in any case, seems difficilior. longa procerior alno: among the different variants transmitted for this hemistich (uid. append.), note the remake in Gg: longaque erectior alno (cf. e.  g. the gloss rectior above procerior in Gf2). 791: splendidior uitro: in order to adapt Ovid’s text to his own style preferences, Bothe (18182) reversed the order of these words (uid. ad 789). 792: leuior: a number of important mss. (uid. append.) have lenior, no doubt an inferior variant stemming from the constant u/n alternation in minuscule script. 794: apart from the textual problem presented by the paradosis nobilior pomis (see below), Tarrant (2000, 432  f.) believed that the expression platano conspectior alta was redundant in view of the preceding longa procerior alno (l. 790), and also made reference to “plane trees not being exceptional for their height” (which is not exact, at least as far as trees on the Mediterranean shores are concerned; in any case the plane tree is higher than the alder). Furthermore, he adds: “it is also worth noting that with 794 removed each half of Polyphemus’ litany (789–797, 799–807) contains seven lines of asyndetic epithets rounded off by a more elaborate final phrase beginning with et, si or et, quod; the second appearance of this coda-structure (805–807) is fittingly more ample than the first (three lines to one). It would be typical of Ovid’s wit to give this uncouth rustic’s song such a neatly symmetrical structure.” Consequently, he took the line to be spurious (2000, 437), a proposal that was already known to Hill, who approved of it in his commentary (2000, 166), and edited the line between square brackets. In Tarrant’s edition, however, his position was not so categorical, and he limited himself to note (2004, 402 in app.): “u. fort. delendus”. Two shortcomings can be identified in this proposal: first, the aesthetic argument does not seem to have sufficient weight to delete a line transmitted on a massive scale (cf. Hopkinson 2000, 219: “exact symmetry is not necessarily to be expected in passages such as this”), because it could be argued that, as the coda of the reproaches is longer than that of the compliments,



Commentary

349

the series of qualifiers itself can likewise be longer. Second, procerior and conspectior are not synonymous, nor is the same quality in Galatea being praised here. The adjective procerior is used to extol her height (cf. Catull. 86.1: Quintia formosast multis; mihi candida, longa), while conspectior rather alludes to the impression that her appearance conveys to those who gaze at her (“appealing, attractive”), in accordance with the familiar semantic nuance of this word (“i.q. conspicuus”: TLL 4.497.19–34; OLD s.u. conspectus1, 2, 418): 4.794–7: clarissima forma / multorumque fuit spes inuidiosa procorum / illa, nec in tota conspectior ulla capillis / pars fuit; 12.553: bis sex Nelidae fuimus, conspecta iuuentus (cf., still with the proper sense of the verb, yet in an erotic context, 6.455: non secus exarsit conspecta uirgine Tereus). nobilior palmis: the majority reading of the mss. (including the antigraph of Planudes: εὐγενεστέρα μήλων) and edd. is nobilior pomis. Other readings transmitted are nobilior palmis, nobilior forma, nobilior pennis, nobilior promis and mobilior pomis (uid. app.). Today’s taste might find the comparison nobilior pomis (“nobler than apples”) audacious and suggestive, but that would not be Ovidian aesthetics. Those who defend this reading (as e.  g. Magnus 1894, 795  f.; H-K-E 1898, 269) argue that this use of nobilis must be related to that of generosus in l. 818: generosa [sc. pruna] nouasque imitantia ceras, and they compare other passages such as 15.710: generosos palmite colles, and rem. 567  f.: generosae fertilis uuae / uinea (cf. epist. 6.113: si te nobilitas generosaque nomina tangunt). Yet we cannot forget that the two adjectives are not strictly synonymous when referring to a fruit, since generosus alludes to its pure, unmixed origin, while nobilis is usually employed for outstanding and unique specimens of fruits or other natural elements (see Bömer 1982, 423 and 430 to l. 418). In this second sense, it is necessary to remember that “excellence is not an attribute of all apples” (Hopkinson 2000, 219; observe that in l. 818 generosa is precisely a specification and is not therefore applicable to all pruna; note the superlatives in Quint. 5.11.4: Quod est pomum generosissimum? Nonne quod optimum?; see also Hardie 2015, 343). As a result the comparative expression is problematic. We might think that the difficulty of this passage lies precisely in the fact that Ovid could be playing with the different possible meanings of nobilis, i.  e., from its simple etymological sense of “known”, “familiar”, to those of “outstanding”, “noble”, “heroic”, “majestic”, thus forcing the reader to give the word a new, negative interpretation on the spot through a sort of ἀπροσδόκητον. Yet this parodic device (a wordplay close to a joke) would be inappropriate in the context, which is parodic by virtue of its globally excessive framework (Simmons 1889, 161; Davis 1981; Bömer 1982, 419  f.; Farrell 1992, 246; Barchiesi 2006, 416–8; Hardie 2015, 342), and perhaps also its rusticity (see Bömer 1982, 424, and Hardie 2015, 344 to l. 796), but not because of its particular details, since every comparison contains an obvious logic. Many editors have thus found the readings of the manuscripts unacceptable and have tried to emend the text. Bentley conjectured n. pinu (not n. primis, as is ascribed to him by mistake, e.  g. by H-K-E 1898, 408; see Hedicke

350

Commentary

1905, 32). More successful was Siebelis’ proposal (1868, 96): n. palma. This was accepted by Riese (1872, XXIV), Korn (1880), Zingerle (1884), Simmons (1889) and Edwards (1905), and has been recently recovered by Tarrant (2004). As M offers an unacceptable forma (the reading pomis in N is the correction of a previous word, of which only this -m- remains; this word probably ended in -j: i.  e., something like  ???m?i), Merkel in his first edition (1850) proposed a hideous n. forda (Madvig 1873, 92: “rarae est et omnia superantis prauitatis fordam bouem in nobilitatis comparatione ponere”), yet in 1875 he proposed the also unacceptable n. forma ac, with the following reasoning (p. XXXVIII): “particulam inserui; elisionis exempla sunt apud Vergilium, Horatium, i 539 587 iv 319 xiii 277 728 xiv 227 462. forma nominatiuum putauerim, sensu uocis, qui est iv 676 aut Prop. ii 5 28 Cynthia forma potens” (H-K-E 1898, 408: “unmöglich wegen der Unterbrechung der Symmetrie und wegen der Kopula”; this, however, is the reading adopted by Polle 1888, 95). In a fresh attempt to follow the wake of the reading of M, Polster (1897, 224) conjectured nobilior farno (i.  e., fraxino), a word alien to Ovid’s language. Madvig (1873, 92), for his part, proposed mobilior dama (note the variant mobilior pomis in N2 Li3), and this was accepted by Goold (1984), but Tarrant replied with good reason (2000, 433): “sed quis amator mobilitatem puellae fugientis umquam laudauit?” (he changes mobilitatem to uelocitatem in the apparatus of his edition: 2004, 402). Simmons, who, as we have seen, adopts like Riese the proposal made by Siebelis, reproduces in his commentary (1889, 162) Robert Ellis’ words and conjecture, based on Madvig’s proposal: “May not the very common confusion of fama flamma [at XIV. 726 Can.1 has flamma] point to the true reading? That is, flamma was first changed to fama, then to forma, the reading of M. ‘More nimble than flame.’”. Slater’s timid proposal fits in with this same line of thought (1927, ad loc.): mobilior Fama, in defence of which he compares the well-known Virgilian passage of Aen. 4.174–6 (cf. mobilitate uiget…). But neither does this sit easily in a catalogue of compliments, more because of mobilior than because of Fama. If we were to accept Siebelis’ conjecture, palma, it seems preferable to write palmis (as indicated by Magnus 1894, 795), attested in Ls and B14 and adopted, with the support of the latter, by Bothe (18182), Baumgarten-Crusius (1834) and Bach (1836). It has recently been defended by Luck (2009, 113) as another instance of a “missing letter” (pa(l)mis > pomis; we might also consider a phonetic mistake during the process of dictation: ˈpɑːmis). Bothe defends palmis (“rectissime”: 18182, 326; 1818, 141  f.) on the grounds of the a/o alternation in the mss. and comparing it with palmaque nobilis in Hor. carm. 1.1.5, to which Hardie (2015, 343) aptly adds the comparison of Nausicaa with a palm sprout as made by Odysseus in Od. 6.162–8 (see Nisbet-Hubbard 1970, 6, who gloss Horace’s use as ἀρίγνωτοϛ and compare Sen. Thy. 409  f.: celebrata iuueni stadia, per quae nobilis / palmam paterno non semel curru tuli; cf. Loers’ conservative reaction to Bothe’s thesis (1843,



Commentary

351

517): “Risum teneatis?”). Cf. also Phaedr. app. 21.1: equum … multis palmis nobilem (Iuu. 8.58–60). 796: cycni: most of the mss. have cigni and some of them (followed by several edd.) have cygni. Cf. ϰύϰνον (TLL 4.1584.72: “saepe scribitur cygnus, cignus”). 797: Hugo Magnus (1887, 29–31) took this line to be spurious because of both its structure and meaning, and he was followed by Riese in his 2nd ed. (1889). However, Magnus changed his mind later (1914, 519), accepting the verse in his edition and quoting to this end the explanation given by Hartman (1904, 391  f.): “uellem pluribus te laudare teque cum horto fertili comparare, sed eheu! fugis neque me audis’”. Tarrant (2000, 433 n. 14) nuances this, stating that si non fugias is equivalent to dummodo non fugias, since Galatea is hidden, not escaping from the Cyclops: although Tarrant’s point can be accepted, Polyphemus sings as an unrequited lover, and thus Galatea is ‘evasive’ (see Librán, “Rechazo”, in Moreno Soldevila 2011, 353–6, and cf. l. 807 fugacior aura, with Bömer 1982, 428; see also Hopkinson 2000, 219). Nor was this transition from love compliments to vituperation to the liking of Slater (1927, ad loc.), who proposed to read ll. 797  f. in this way: et, si non fugias, eadem Galatea iuuencis / saeuior indomitis, riguo formosior horto. I fail to see the advantage of this proposal. 798–807: saeuior indomitis, eadem Galatea, iuuencis, durior annosa quercu, fallacior undis, lentior et salicis uirgis et uitibus albis,          800 his immobilior scopulis, uiolentior amne, laudato pauone superbior, acrior igni, asperior tribulis, feta truculentior ursa, surdior aequoribus, calcato immitior hydro, et, quod praecipue uellem tibi demere possem,  805 non tantum ceruo claris latratibus acto, uerum etiam uentis uolucrique fugacior aura. • 804 om. MN(i.l. suppl. m.p.) Lr27 • calcato … hydro] calcata … hydra Gf V8 Sp P41 (uid. append.), “Medic. unus et tres alii” test. Burm. 1727 • 807 uentis] uento FeO3V4 •

798: note (uid. append.), incidentally, that after this line the copyist of B14 has taken as part of Ovid’s text what was nothing more than a gloss: hactenus ad laudem si concedat amorem. A second hand has realized it was an imperfect hexameter and has supplied ergo after laudem. 800: for the uitis alba, see Keene 1898, 116; Bömer 1982, 425  f.; Hopkinson 2000, 220; Hardie 2015, 345. 801: the line is quoted literally by Sen. ben. 7.23.1, yet some mss., according to Magnus (1914, 520: “libri fere omnes”), have amne hoc. The variant

352

Commentary

angue (uid. append.) in our passage is just a misspelling, repeated in the following line for igni. Burman (1727, 919) attests igne in “Gronou.”: this may be a ms. unknown to me, or else Burman might mistakenly be referring to the reading igni to be found in the margin of B42, but for the following line, not this one. 802: pauone: M (Lr27) and Bo3 have the absurd variant phitone (cf. medic. 33  f.: Laudatas homini uolucris Iunonia pennas / explicat, et forma multa superbit auis; ars 1.627). It is significant to compare the reading a.c. in NV2: paone; in Beneventan script this appears as pαone, which can equally be read as ptone. This could be further proof that the – immediate or mediate – antigraph of M was a ms. in Beneventan script (uid. ad 762 nostrique). 804: note that MN share the omission of this line; the m.p. of N has restored it i.l.; in V2 it stands in its proper position. 805: the second hemistich of this verse offers these main variants (uid. append.): uellem tibi demere possem – uellem tibi demere posse – uellem si demere possem – tibi uellem demere posse – tibi uellem demere possem – si possem demere uellem. To these we should add the unmetrical si possem tibi demere uellem, and the nonsensical ueloci demere uellem, which Burman (1727, 920) attests in a “Leidens.” I have not been able to find (it might be Ld11). As far as the conj. si is concerned, it may have stemmed from a misreading of the ligature of tibi (ti). More probably, though, it comes from an interlinear gloss (so e.  g. Lu) to remind the reader that the conjunction is missing in the constr. uellem … possem (HS 530–3). The variant posse could be a further example of a “missing letter” (Luck 2009, 113, and note the spelling possê in some mss.), or else another attempt to avoid subordination with no conjunction. The – amply attested – expression si possem demere uellem represents an attempt to regularize syntax and word order. Cf. l. 462: mors tantum uellem matrem mea fallere posset (with Simmons 1889, 127). Note that in Ab the line has been copied twice by the same hand: first as si possem demere uellem, and then as uellem tibi demere posse. 807: uentis: for the variant uento (uid. app.), uid. ad 790 floridior pratis. For the dicolon abundans, uid. ad 858. 808–814: At bene si noris, pigeat fugisse, morasque ipsa tuas damnes et me retinere labores. Sunt mihi, pars montis, uiuo pendentia saxo     antra, quibus nec sol medio sentitur in aestu nec sentitur hiems. Sunt poma grauantia ramos, sunt auro similes longis in uitibus uuae, sunt et purpureae: tibi et has seruamus et illas.

810



353

Commentary

• 808–809 pro parenth hab. Bothe 18182, Weise 1845, H-K-E 1898, Ehwald 1915, van Proosdij 1951, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Goold 1984 • morasque / … tuas] tuasque / … moras Gf H2O4 • 812 grauantia ramos] uirentia ramis Hd • 814 tibi … has] tibique has P4  : et tibi has Ds2 Bo2  : et tibi et has A3  : tibi has ALu A2B3B4Be2F(a.c.)GgH2HdL4LdLr4Lr6Lr7O4P3V5V6V8 Ld6Mt2P8Tb B12(a.c.)Mt4 AsEs6Go2P41 Mv7  : tibi et H3(corr. H33) •

808–809: Bothe (18182) printed both verses as parenthetical, and he was followed by Weise (1845). The same proposal was made later by Ehwald (H-K-E 1898, 408) but accepted by very few edd. (uid. app.). The thought contained in these lines is not parenthetical, yet it introduces (cf. l. 808 at) a new thematic section, since we proceed from the characterization of Galatea to the listing of Polyphemus’ properties (see Hardie 2015, 346), as a kind of rhetorical probatio. In any case, it is preferable to have a colon at the end of l. 809, as Bothe and Weise do, rather than mark a comma at the end of l. 807, as Ehwald does in order to link this verse to l. 810. morasque / ipsa tuas damnes: note the inversion of words with enjambement and metrical result tuasque / ipsa moras d., attested in Gf H2O4. 808: noris: for the habitual variants such as noras or moris (uid. append.), uid. ad 291 nouit. In our passage both forms may also be due to the influence of moras, in the same line. 811: nec sol medio: certain mss. have medio nec sol (uid. append.), which Burman (1727, 920) for some reason considers “mollius” (though he prints the majority order). The ms. So (s. XIII2) offers in isolation the variant non … non instead of nec … nec for this and the following line (cf. ad 45 non). 812: grauantia ramos: Hd (s. XII-XIII) offers in isolation the variant uirentia ramis, which does not suit the hyperbolic tone of Polyphemus as well. Cf. 15.76  f.: deducentia ramos / pondere poma suo. 813: note (uid. append.) that the copyist of M omits this verse through saut du même au même. It is supplied in the margin by a very recent hand, as is proved by the fact that the omission recurs in Lr27. The verse is adapted in an inscription from North Africa (CLE 2.468.5): et auro similes pendent in uitibus uuae (see Cugusi 1982, 90). Cf. also 15.77: tumidaeque in uitibus uuae. 814: tibi et has: the sequence of monosyllables (uid. ad 852), combined with the presence of three et in the same line, leads to the instability of the second et, the first one in the correlation. When it drops out, we are left with the syntactically unfeasible tibique has, or else with the unmetrical tibi has (uid. append.). 815–820: Ipsa tuis manibus siluestri nata sub umbra     mollia fraga leges, ipsa autumnalia corna prunaque, non solum nigro liuentia suco

815

354

Commentary

uerum etiam generosa nouasque imitantia ceras. Nec tibi castaneae me coniuge nec tibi deerunt arbutei fetus: omnis tibi seruiet arbor.      

820

• 820 arbutei] arborei L3 A4(arbutei mg. a m.p.)B3FGgH2H3Ld2(i.l. u.l.)Lr3LsO4(arbutei i.l. u.l. O42)P4PrV4(p.c.)V52(i.l. ut gloss.)V6V7V8 DsP5P10SoTbTo B12Ft B14Es3Es6 Mv7, in quibusdam codd. test. Ciof. 1575, Lugd. 1546(mg.), Lugd. 1565(mg.), prob. Gierig 1807, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828  : arbustei B5(uid., a.c.)  : arbori V4(a.c.)  : arbute V16(a.c.) •

815: siluestri nata: we find virtually irrelevant variants such as siluestria (sc. fraga), in P2(a.c.)T, or nota, in M, copied in Lr27 but corrected into nata by Lr27* (uid. append.). The expression siluestri … sub umbra does not recur elsewhere (“sonst nicht in der Klassischen Dichtung”, Bömer 1982, 430), but cf. am. 3.1.5: nemoralibus umbris, and see Hopkinson 2000, 222. 817: liuentia: N has an erroneous libentia (also visible in V2 a.c.) and another hand has written the correcting u above (uid. append. and cf. 4.715). M (along with Mo and Lr27) has labentia, which can be better explained through libentia than through liuentia (uid. ad 762 nostrique). Note the odd association of Mo3 and Lr22 in the variant lucentia. 818: nouasque: as usual before an initial vowel, some recc. have nouas (uid. append.), which does not make for a better text (cf. a similar case in 2.2: flammasque). 819: deerunt: for this form as disyllabic, cf. 1.77: deerat adhuc et quod dominari in cetera posset (with Bömer 1969, 43); Verg. georg. 2.200: non liquidi gregibus fontes, non gramina deerunt; Germ. frg. 4.67: non terris imbres, ponto non flamina deerunt. 820: arbutei: L3 and certain recc. (uid. app.) have arborei, no doubt stemming from 4.125 (inspired, in turn, by Verg. georg. 1.55): arborei fetus (in the same metrical position; cf. 10.665; 15.97). Gierig (1807, 299) adopted it based on the highly debatable argument “e pluribus Mss.” and through comparison with the following omnis tibi seruiet arbor (this should rather be an argument against its authenticity). Polyphemus is listing rustic vegetal delikatessen (see Hardie 2015, 347  f.), among which a generic arborei would be banal and redundant. This was adopted only by Lemaire (1822) and Richter (1828). Cf. also 1.104  f.: arbuteos fetus montanaque fraga legebant / cornaque … arbor: for the variant arbos (uid. append.), uid. ad 690. 821–826: Hoc pecus omne meum est; multae quoque uallibus errant, multas silua tegit, multae stabulantur in antris; nec, si forte roges, possim tibi dicere quot sint: pauperis est numerare pecus! De laudibus harum nil mihi credideris: praesens potes ipsa uidere         825 ut uix circueant distentum cruribus uber.



Commentary

355

• 821–822 multae … tegit omisisse Hd perperam ait Bothe • 822 stabulantur] clauduntur Bs2Cs2  : stabantur Calph. 1480 • 823 possim … sint] numerum tibi dicere possim P41  : tibi possum dicere quot sunt Ph2 • 825 nil] uix def. Liberman • 826 circueant] sustineant Gf(circueant i.l. u.l. Gf2) Be2LsP32(p.c.) B8(circueant a.c.)Bs3(circueant mg. u.l. Bs32)Mt2P5P8 B14 Mv7, Aldina 1502, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565(mg.), Ciof. 1575, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1659(“quinque scripti”), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Koch 1866, def. Liberman  : alii alia (uid. append.)  : circuagant dub. Heinsius 1659 •

821–841: Monteleone (1979) bases himself on these verses by Ovid in order to propose a new ordering for Virgil’s second eclogue; he inserts ll. 40–4 between 22 and 25, and ll. 23  f. between 33 and 34. 821–822: it is not true, as Bothe states (1818, 206, and after him Jahn 1832 and Baumg.-Crus. 1834), that Hd omits the text contained between multae and tegit. In this case it seems that the saut du même au même has taken place on Bothe’s part. 821: meum est: again est is omitted in some recc. (uid. append., and note that Bersman 1596 records the variant in the margin although Ds and Ds2 have meum est). multae quoque uallibus: as usual (cf. e.  g. 63, 130), some copyists confuse the ligatures of quoque and -que, leaving a variant such as multaeque in uallibus (note that other mss. also transmit in uallibus, but after quoque, and thus with an unmetrical result: uid. append.). 822: stabulantur: clauduntur in Bs2Cs2 is just a synonymous gloss with metrical result, or perhaps an attempt to replace stabulantur because of its unpoetic tone, although this verb had already been claimed for poetry by Virgil (Bömer 1982, 431). 823: nec, si forte roges: for this line-beginning, uid. ad 756 en. possim tibi dicere quot sint: we find again the habitual alternation between possim-possem-possum, though no neat grouping or “families” can be distinguished (uid. append.). The ed. Aler. 1471, Heinsius (1652) and the later edd. found possim to be the best form here, yet the other early edd. opted for the majority reading of the mss., possem. No editor has accepted possum, which is well attested too. As for the final verb, a significant number of mss. have sunt (uid. append.), usually abbreviated. This form was accepted down to Bersman (1596), with the exception of Naugerius (1516). The use of the indic. in interrog. clauses after expressions such as non posse dicere has a colloquial and exclamative tone (HS 5381), and in any case it is not attested in Ovid. Note that once more P41 reflects the fondness of its copyist for conjecture (uid. ad 458 at): numerum tibi dicere possim. 824: pauperis est numerare pecus: in view of the gnomic nature (Bömer 1982, 432) of this humorous expression (not for nothing does it appear in the excerpta P46L23O19P47), it was literally transcribed by Seneca (epist. 33.4). For the underlying etymological wordplay pecunia-pecus, see Hardie 2015, 349.

356

Commentary

825: nil: Liberman (2004, 86) proposes to read uix, even though this adverb recurs in the following line. Luck replies with good reason (2008, 16): “Nil does not need to be changed”. 826: circueant: the mss. are split mainly between circu(m)eant and sustineant. The latter is transmitted by Gf and a small number of recc.; it was accepted by the 1st Aldina (1502) as well as by the ed. Gryphiana of 1546, but appeared in the margin in that of 1565, where circumeant was printed (uid. app. et append.). The reading sustineant was approved by Ciofanus (1575), Bersman (1596), and Heinsius (1652; cf. 1659, 353: “quinque scripti, et nonnullae editiones. quod placet”) and was kept in certain edd. down to Koch (1866). This reading has recently been defended by Liberman (2004, 86) as “[l]e verbe qui convient”, through comparison with 10.193: nec se sustineant (referring to drooping flowers) and 13.528: cur uiuere tempus / in breue sustineam, but neither parallel offers clear proof. Luck (2008, 16) seems to agree with Liberman: “We owe to L. the rediscovery of sustineant” (unless he is approving of the rediscovery of a forgotten reading, not of the reading itself). I think the defence of sustineant is based on an excessively rationalist reasoning (it is true that sustineant “vient spontanément à l’esprit”, but because it is plainly predictable), and Liberman himself must accept that “[l]a faute circueant est difficile à expliquer”. He tries to explain it as the evolution (i.  e. misspelling) of a gloss – problematic in itself – coërceant. As far as the sense is concerned, Liberman seems not to have taken into account that one typical feature of goats and sheep before milking is the distortion of their hind legs, which open wide under the pressure of the udders (cf. Verg. ecl. 7.3 distentas lacte capellas). It is precisely this that Polyphemus is alluding to: the effect of the legs “surrounding” or “encompassing” the udders (cf. infra the variant contineant. This was pointed out as early as by Regius 1493: “Significat autem ingressum ouium magnitudine uberum impediri”, although in that ed. he still opts for the sing. circumeat, which he glosses with the impossible circumdet; it is more advisable to read his defence with circumeant in 1526, or, even better, in 1540, CXLVIIr, or Burm. 1727, 920; cf. also Golding’s translation, quoted by Simmons 1889, 164: “see how their udders ful do make them struddle”). As for the origin of the corruption, sustineant may have arisen as the more “logical” term, and hence the more banal, but it may even be the erroneous expanding of any of the numerous ligatures transmitted for circumeant: for example, it could come from c’cumeant, taking the tilde (which reads -irhere) with its usual value as -us-, and reading -cumeant as -tineant. The same spelling may lie in the origin of the variant contineant, which I have found in Ld3 and Heinsius (1659, 353) attested in “duo” (it appears as a gloss e.  g. in Ld22). Finally, Heinsius himself (ibid.) makes this proposal: “posset tamen et circuagant legi, quo uerbo Horatius est usus”. As far as the orthography is concerned, “scribitur in codd. modo circumire, modo circuire sine ulla certa, ut uidetur, auctorum distinguendi uoluntate” (TLL 3.1135.67  f.; see Bömer



Commentary

357

1969, 342 ad 2.402). For Ovid’s text most edd. opt for the forms without -m(see Goold 1965, 10 on ars 3.396). I think it must be kept here, in accordance with numerous mss. of all ages. cruribus: Bach, who printed sustineant (uid. supra), did not find himself at ease with an abl. cruribus that he interpreted as inter crura, and hence he conjectured in his notes (1836, 358) humoribus (i.  e. distentum humoribus uber), working from a hypothetical spelling ûoribus and through comparison with 15.79: lacteus umor, and Lucr. 1.258  f.: candens lacteus umor / uberibus manat distentis. 827–833: Sunt – fetura minor – tepidis in ouilibus agni, sunt quoque – par aetas – aliis in ouilibus haedi. Lac mihi semper adest niueum: pars inde bibenda seruatur, partem liquefacta coagula durant.      830 Nec tibi deliciae faciles uulgataque tantum munera contingent – dammae leporesque caperque, parue columbarum demptusue cacumine nidus –: • post 832 et usque ad 897 def. T • 833 –ue … –ue B2B3Lr62MoVd Ds(-que … –que p.c.)V16 BoVt Bo3Es4Vd11, Naug. 1516, Heinsius 1659, edd.  : –que … –que Ω, Plan., Jahn 1832, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Koch 1866, Fabbri 1923, Anderson 1982  : –ue … –que L3S2 B42(-ue i.l.; -que B4)FeGH3Ld3OPh2V4 Bs4GoTo P28Rd Lr22V30, Aler. 1471, Walch. 1739, Lafaye 1930  : –que  … –ue Lr2M2(p.c.) HdLr4Lr6Lr7 Ld7(p.c.)Mt3 AsLr27Lu2P38, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Weise 1845  : parua … –ue M(a.c.)  : -que … demptus Ab Ld7(a.c.) P41  : -ue … demptus Ft  : -ue … demptus de Bo2 • dem(p)tus-] domitus- MM2(a.c.)N(demptus i.l. u.l. N2)P2(mg. u.l.)S2 B42(mg.)Ph2 Rd Lr27(a.c.)  : dentus- BaGg  : deptus- Be2  : densus- De •

827–831: similarities in the line-beginnings and -endings of 827  f., and in the line-beginnings of 829 and 831 give rise, through saut du même au même, to the predictable omissions and even repetitions of verses (Hd repeats 828 with textual variants: cf. 771), and to the interchange of endings agni-haedi (uid. append.). A variant such as sunt mihi for sunt quoque in l. 828 may come either from mihi in the following line or, rather, from the gloss mihi that systematically appears above the forms sunt (see e.  g. V23). 832: caperque: the mss. and edd. have this majority reading, yet some recc. transmit caprique (already attested by Viuianus 1522, ad loc., and by Burman 1727, 920 in “unus Heinsii”); capr(a)eque is also found in mss. and edd. of all periods (uid. append.). Riese (1872, XXIV; 1889, XXVI) records this: “capreaeque Pollius”, yet the only evidence I have found is that in the ed. of Siebelis-Polle (1868, 98, or 1892, 97) caperque is read, and that only in the ed. of 1880 (p. 97) is capraeque (n.b., not capreaeque) read, with this note: “capra = capra fera, das Reh”. Finally, note that Heinsius opts for capraeque but in his notes recalls (1659, 353): “caperque ueteres plerique”.

358

Commentary

833–896: the text of ms. T is again incomplete, in missing these lines (cf. ad 126, 318). 833: parue … demptusue: this line is a good example of horizontal transmission. As for demptus, it is quite significant that the variant domitus, probably stemming from an existing or imagined *domtus (< demtus), is shared by MM2NP2S2 and the recc. B42Ph2 Rd Lr27 (uid. app.). There is less interest in the variants pars and per for par (uid. append.), yet the reading parua of M(a.c.), is more meaningful, as we shall see. As far as the enclitics are concerned, we find -ue … -ue in a few recc., in the edd. of Naugerius (1516) and Heinsius (1652), and in most of the later edd. The majority paradosis in the mss. is -que … -que (so AGfLuM2NP2V2V3 and most of the recc.), yet it was only accepted by some 19th c. edd., and by Fabbri (1923) and Anderson (1982) in the 20th c. The combinations -ue … -que and -que  … -ue have an equivalent ms. support, although the latter had a stronger presence among the early edd. Finally, the second enclitic is missing in Ab Ld7 Ft P41, and in Bo2 it has been replaced by an unmetrical de (uid. app.). The alternation of -que/-ue, mostly in favour of the former (yet cf. 857), is perfectly well known, so the mere recurrence of the – weaker – disjunctive in some mss. should be a warning about its possible authenticity. To begin with, in Polyphemus’ listing of five examples of uulgata munera or deliciae faciles, two groups can be distinguished, each in a different line: the first three examples (l. 832) are land vertebrates, while the latter two (l. 833) belong to the world of birds. It is logical, then, that, in addition to the change of verse, we find a change in the connectors, and this change is more to be expected in the first member of the second group (parue). The first member appears with -ue in L3S2, and in B2B3B42FeGH3Ld3Lr62MoOPh2V4Vd Bs4Ds(a.c.)GoToV16 BoBo2FtP28RdVt Bo3Es4Lr22V30Vd11, and is also supported by the initial reading of M: parua (unless we directly read parue, which is not to be ruled out). The second member appears with -ue in Lr2M (not in N, where both -que belong to the initial reading, as against the information given by some edd. at least as early as Ehwald 1915), and in B2B3HdLr4Lr6Lr7MoVd DsLd7Mt3V16 BoVt AsBo3Es4Lr27Lu2P38Vd11. In both members, therefore, there is enough ms. support to defend this -ue if required by the sense. The position where -ue seems most appropriate, as already stated, is at parue; the connection between par columbarum and nidus could be made by means of a copulative, to denote two successive allusions to birds, or else with a disjunctive, to mark the transition between the direct reference to animals (par columbarum) and the metonym of the nest. The second option seems obviously richer and subtler. Note, finally, that the sequence -que cacumine in the same metrical position recurs elsewhere in the Metamorphoses (8.257: altoque cacumine nidos; 4.255; 8.797; 9.389; 10.193; 15.396, 510), and in other authors (Luc. 1.551; Sil. 16.588), and this could have influenced the transmission of our passage.



359

Commentary

834–839: inueni geminos, qui tecum ludere possint, inter se similes, uix ut dinoscere possis,       uillosae catulos in summis montibus ursae. Inueni et dixi: ‘Dominae seruabimus istos’. Iam modo caeruleo nitidum caput exsere ponto, iam, Galatea, ueni, nec munera despice nostra!

835

• 835 uix … possis] et uix dignoscere quos sit dub. Heinsius 1659(in notis) • di(g)noscere] discernere B4Ld22(i.l. u.l.) Ld8 B12  : cognoscere C Mt3  : disuescere Mt  : disnoscere Vd  : disgnoscere Mo3(a.c.) • 836 in … montibus] summis in montibus DeFeLd2Mt Bs3Mt2 B12FtMcP28To2 Es4F2P41Z, Ciof. 1575  : insum mis(sic) montibus M Mo • 837 dixi dominae] inu. ord. Bs2Cs2 Bo2 Go2, “Berol.”(non sic B14) test. Jahn 1832, Burm. 1727, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836 • 838 nitidum] tidum Ba(a.c.)  : niueum B12, “Mediceus” test. Burm. 1727  : rutilum Bs3(nitidum i.l. u.l. Bs32)  : raucum Bs4  : glaucum dub. Heinsius •

834: possint: once again we find the possint-possent-possunt alternation (uid. append.), where possint is clearly to be preferred in this context of feasible contingency (cf. Catull. 2.9: tecum ludere sicut ipsa possem). For the coincidence of P38, Puteol. 1471 and Calph. 1474 in the erroneous possit, uid. ad 225 facitis. 835: uix ut dinoscere possis: leaving aside the different variants of uix ut and di(g)noscere (which may be of some interest, yet clearly not preferable; uid. app. et append.), note again the possis-posses alternation, and remember Heinsius’ ingenious and equally unnecessary proposal (1659, 353): “Forte et uix dignoscere quos sit. de quo Graecismo in scriptis Nasonianis pluribus alibi actum”. Heinsius was thus trying to avoid the repetition possint-possis (“possint praecesserat”), yet this is the actual guarantee of its authenticity (see Hopkinson 2000, 223  f.), as already stated by Bothe (1818, 142): “Elegans hoc [sc. Heinsii coniectura], sed eam ipsam ob causam alienum a Polyphemo, quem decent eiusmodi repetitiones” (cf. ll. 834 and 837: inueni [but see Hartman 1904, 392: “quorsum ista anaphora? Nihil in his uersibus inest quod illa apte illustretur”]; 838 and 839: iam, to cite just the nearest). For the spelling of di(g)noscere, a verb Ovid uses only here, cf. TLL 5.1.1219.26–28: “dign- saepius scribitur in codd. inde a VIII/IX saec., in uetustioribus ubique din- uno excepto loco”. 836: in summis montibus: some recc. (uid. app.) have summis in montibus in accordance with the usual partial anastrophe (cf. e.  g. 864 tanto pro corpore), and according to “Marx’s law” (see Bömer 1982, 435  f. and cf. Hor. ars 260: “old-fashioned order”, as stated by Rudd 1989, 193; for the shortcomings of this law, see Hellegouarc’h 1964, 106–13, and cf. e.  g. ll. 288, 365, 391). For another thing, the misspelling insum mis is interesting in that it illustrates the proximity of Mo to M. 837: dixi dominae: a very small number of recc. (uid. app.) have dominae dixi, which Burman adopts in 1727 (921; not in 1713) as “rectius”, based on

360

Commentary

Bs2 and Bo2 (in the latter, with et omitted: i.  e. inueni dominae dixi). He was followed down to Bach (1836). 838: iam modo: the repetition of iam … iam in anaphora can serve again as a clue to authenticity (uid. ad 835), as against tu modo, where tu must come from a note in the margin (so e.  g. in P2, but as a u.l.). Elsewhere this word leaks into the text replacing modo (i.  e. iam tu), and gives rise in turn to variants such as iam tum, and hence iam nunc (uid. append.). Finally, the variant iam mihi stems from an erroneous expansion of the ligature mo (> mi). For iam modo, see Bömer 1982, 436; Hardie 2015, 351. nitidum: in addition to the unsuitable niueum c., in a “Mediceus” (also in B12), and rutilum c. (cf. ad 5.440), in Bs3, Burman (1727, 921) attests raucum c. in Bs4, “forte pro, glaucum; ut olim Heinsius coniecerat. quod proprie marinae Deae conuenit”. Heinsius had indeed once made this proposal (b3, 378: “lego, glaucum”), yet he insisted no further, perhaps because it does not fit in well with caeruleo, as stated by Bach (1836, 359). exsere: M(Lr27) and Mo diverge again from the majority paradosis (uid. ad 836) with the variant exime, which Merkel alone adopted in his 2nd ed. (1875). Cf. 2.270  f.: ter Neptunus aquis cum toruo bracchia uultu / exserere ausus erat; fast. 1.300: exseruisse caput; 1.458: tollitur et patriis exserit ora uadis; trist. 3.12.12: exserit e tepida molle cacumen humo (cf. fast. 1.409; 2.154, 322). 840–845: Certe ego me noui liquidaeque in imagine uidi          840 nuper aquae, placuitque mihi mea forma uidenti. Aspice sim quantus: non est hoc corpore maior Iuppiter in caelo – nam uos narrare soletis nescio quem regnare Iouem –; coma plurima toruos prominet in uultus umerosque ut lucus obumbrat.     845 • 840 liquid(a)eque … (i/y)magine] liquidaque in (i/y)magine GfL3(a.c.)M2(a.c.)N(imagine i.l. u.l. a m.p.)S2V2V3 Be2EGP3P4TrV72(p.c.) Ds2(liquidaeque corr. Ds22)SpTo Es6Lr22, Aler. 1471, Lugd. 1565, Ciof. 1575, dub. Fabbri 1923  : liquid(a)eque (i/y)magine A(p.c.)Lu B4(a.c.)DeF(a.c.)Ld2Lr3Lr4(a.c.)MoV4(a.c.)Vd Mo3Mt2 BoBo2Es2Es3(a.c.)Mt5P28 Lr27  : alii alia (uid. append.) • 841 aqu(a)e] aqua AGfS2 AbB5GO3Ph2 P10 McMt4Rd Go2  : atre Gg(a.c.)  : om. N2(a.c.) • 843–844 (nam … Iouem) pro parenth. hab. Aldina 1502, edd. aliquot (uid. append.), prob. Slater 1927  : post c(a)elo et iouem iam dist. codd. plerique (uid. append.)  : post Iuppiter et iouem dist. AM V7 So Es2  : in caelo cum regnare coniungendum dub. Magnus 1914(in app.), prob. Slater 1927 • 843 caelo … uos] caelis, ubi uos dub. Heinsius •

840–841: liquidaeque in imagine uidi / nuper aquae: the sequence inimagine gives rise to the predictable misspellings through omission or addition of strokes (uid. app., cf. 76, and note e.  g. that Lr27 omits the prep. in that is found in M). For another thing, the obvious model of Verg. ecl. 2.25: nec sum adeo informis: nuper me in litore uidi, gives rise to the – itself habitual –



Commentary

361

graphic confusion in margine (Luck 2005b, 267, seems to take this model as support for reading in margine in our passage). According to the different readings – though not always in a congruent way – the mss. transmit mainly (I limit myself to the variants worth considering) liquidaque/liquidaeque in imagine and liquidaque/liquidoque/liquidaeque in margine (also correct yet uncalled-for is the liquidaque e margine of Ld3, probably the “Voss.” cited by Heinsius 1659, 353). The majority variant liquidaeque in imagine is, furthermore, clearly difficilior (cf. fast. 6.699  f.: uox placuit: faciem liquidis referentibus undis / uidi uirgineas intumuisse genas; Calp. ecl. 2.88  f.: Fontibus in liquidis quotiens me conspicor, ipse / admiror totiens). Among the edd. Fabbri alone (1923, 152 in app.) writes “fortasse recte” for liquidaque in imagine. This was the reading of Lr22 and Aler. 1471 (a correction of liquidamque in imagine in V30), and of the ed. Gryphiana of 1565 (perhaps a misprint, since the ed. of 1546 has the majority reading); liquidaque in imagine is also the reading of Ciofanus (1575, 186 ad 767). For a similar alternation, cf. 11.715  f.: in liquida … aqua (with Díez 2014, 480). 842: aspice sim quantus: leaving aside other orderings and variants (uid. append.), note that M(Lr27) and N set themselves apart once again with the erroneous aspicies quantum/-us. est hoc: for the reversal hoc est, cf. 525. 843–844: once more, failure to notice that the narrative contains a parenthetical aside gives rise to instability in the transmission. Here it is obvious that Polyphemus, after his irreverent mention of Jupiter (ll. 842  f.; cf. 2.62: quid Ioue maius habemus?), feels compelled to distance himself ironically from the rest (uos narrare soletis) as far as recognition of the reign of Olympus is concerned (see Hopkinson 2000, 224  f.; Hardie 2015, 352): this is clearly achieved through an explanatory (nam) parenthetical aside. This aside is so self-evident that most copyists of all ages (uid. append.) punctuate after caelo and Iouem. This was also seen by the editor of the 1st Aldina (1502), who was followed by Naugerius (1516), the edd. Gryphianae and Bersman (1596). This punctuation was only recovered by Riese (1872), and he was followed by Magnus (1914) and all later edd. except for Edwards (1905) and Goold (1984). An attempt to emend the text as a result of failure to notice the break is the variant quem for nam (in no less than MN Bo3 and Planudes’ antigraph: ὃν). Against this, Burman (1727, 921) timidly states his preference for quo, which at least avoids the redundancy quem … nescioquem … Iouem. Heinsius had proposed (b3, 379) Iuppiter in caelis, ubi uos…, but without publishing it. Finally, Magnus (1914, 522) suggests the possibility (approved by Slater 1927, ad loc.) of advancing the beginning of the parenthesis to in caelo (and note that AM and a few recc. punctuate after Iuppiter), through comparison with 9.669 and 11.162 for the postponement of nam, yet this hyperbaton would be discordant on the lips of Polyphemus.

362

Commentary

844: toruos: a gloss such as nostros has slipped into the text of some mss. (uid. append., and cf. nobis in B12). For his part, Burman, who kept toruos in his text, attests (1727, 921): “in codice Politiani et tribus aliis erat, fortes, quod placet. sic Ep. IV. 73. Quemque uocant alii uultum rigidumque trucemque, / Pro rigido, Phaedra iudice, fortis erat”. His reasoning is this: “Nescio an tam stolidum Cyclopa fingere liceat, ut toruos suos uultus Galateae, cui placere uolebat, iactaret”. However, Gierig (1807, 301) refuted it appropriately: “At toruus etiam bono sensu accipitur de uultu seuero, et nobilem quandam fiduciam prae se ferente. Ap. Horat. III od. 5, 44. Regulus uirilem Toruus humi ponit uultum. Toruos igitur uultus suos Cyclops ipse uocare poterat, cum non uenustatem, sed austeram quandam dignitatem sibi uindicaret. Etiam Virg. toruam frontem tribuit” (and see Nisbet-Rudd 2004, 93  f. ad Hor. carm. 3.5.43  f.; for Virgil, cf. Aen. 635  f.: telo lumen terebramus acuto / ingens quod torua solum sub fronte latebat). The variant fortes, then, is just a semantic gloss on toruos (cf. e.  g. uiriles in V92). Jahn (1832, 881, and so also Magnus 1914, 522 in app.) records the conjecture totos (cf. the variant tortos of M2 a.c.) by Harless (not included in Var. 1526, 361  f.). Finally, Planudes may not have felt at ease with the adj., since it does not appear in his translation: κόμη πλείστη τῷ προσώπῳ μοι ἐπικρέμαται. 845: prominet: imminet (uid. append.) does not improve the text. Cf. l. 778; 6.673: prominet inmodicum pro longa cuspide rostrum. Bömer 1982, 438: “prominere ist ein Ausdruck für eine überdimensionale Ausdehnung” (with examples; see also Hardie 2015, 352). humerosque: for the variant humeros (uid. append.), uid. ad 728 Teucri, et remis. ut lucus: Jahn (1832, 881) attests in lucus in “Cod. Bas.”, but I was unable to find it. Since Bs2 transmits in this line the exclusive variant inunbrat, I wonder whether he may have misunderstood one of his draft notes. 846–850: Nec, mea quod duris horrent densissima saetis corpora, turpe puta: turpis sine frondibus arbor, turpis equus, nisi colla iubae flauentia uelent; pluma tegit uolucres, ouibus sua lana decori est: barba uiros hirtaeque decent in corpore saetae.    

850

• 846–853 hos uu. scr. in V2 m. recentior (=V2 ) • 846–847(tantum 847 Be2De So  : tantum 846 Es3) post 853 hab. AL3M2S2V3 A2A3BaDrEFGgH2H3Ld2(suo loco mg. scr. m.p.)Ld3Lr3P3(corr. P32)V4V5 Li3Mt2(a.c.)P52(p.c.)SoSp(suo loco mg. scr. m.p.)TbTo Es2(a.c.)Rd Es4Ps(uid. infra)  : u. 846 post 845 et u. 847 post 853 hab. P5, sed u. 846 per signum inter 853 et 847 pos.  : u. 847 post 846 mg. iter. m.p. in So  : u. 846 post 849 hab. Es6  : hos uu. suo loco hab. Ps, sed eos post u. 853 iter. cum tribus uariat. (uid. infra) • 846 duris codd. (uid. append.), Aler. 1471, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Loers 1843, Weise 1845  : rigidis codd. (uid. append.), edd.  : digitis *



Commentary

363

C  : diris Mv7 • 847–848 … turpe est sine frondibus arbos, Turpe et equus dub. Heinsius 1659 • (turpis … uelent!) pro parenth. hab. Magnus 1914 • 849 om. MN(i.l. suppl. m.p.) Pr Lr27  : del. Merkel 1850, Korn 1880, Simmons 1889  : uncinis not. Zingerle 1884, Keene 1898, Edwards 1905  : def. Magnus, Marahrens •

846–853: something strange has happened in the transmission of these lines. In V2 after l. 845 another – quite different – hand has written down, in the regular text frame and without deleting anything (i.  e. the copyist wrote on a blank folio), ll. 846–853 in the correct order, and immediately afterwards the m.p. goes on to copy 854  ff. This would be merely anecdotal were it not for the fact that an important number of mss. of all ages (uid. app.) transmit ll. 846–847 after l. 853, where they clearly do not belong. The similarity between the endings of obumbrat and regnat does not suffice to explain what happened, so the only reason I would venture is that the lines could have been taken from a ms. due to their gnomic character. This could explain their odd transmission in V2, yet would not account for the reversal of 846  f. 846: nec mea: Heinsius (1652) opted for nec mihi, a variant he approves (“bene”) and attests in “unus medic. et ambros.” (b3, 379; Burm. 1727, 921). He was followed by some edd. down to Baumgarten-Crusius (1834). duris … saetis: the mss. are split in equal proportions between duris and rigidis, although the edd. have opted mainly for the latter (uid. app.). Planudes’ τραχείαις (θριξὶ πυκναῖς τε καὶ τραχείαις τοὐμὸν σῶμα πέφρικεν) is ambivalent, yet it seems to point rather to duris. The choice is difficult because neither expression is clearly present in Latin texts. The only parallel for rigidis appears in 8.428  f.: rigidis horrentia saetis / terga. Clear caveats are required, as it is a text that is problematic in itself (see Hall 1985, 415), in order to take into account [Claud.] carm. min. app. 2.109: horrebant rigidis nigrantia corpora saetis; this would also support rigidis in our passage through the use of corpora (i.  e. as against terga) and horrebant in a personal form (i.  e. as against horrentia). However, this line could equally be a remake of both Ovidian verses even if the author had read duris in the passage we are dealing with now (i.  e. he could have taken rigidis plus the pres. part. from 8.428, and corpora plus the personal form of horreo from 13.846). Furthermore, it could be the result of combining another passage of the same book, referring to a boar (8.285): et saetae similes rigidis hastilibus horrent (for the textual problems of this passage, see Magnus 1914, 299 and Tarrant 2004, 226). For another thing, duris is supported by a passage where Juvenal is portraying precisely an intractable fellow (Iuu. 2.11  f.): hispida membra quidem et durae per bracchia saetae / promittunt atrocem animum. In this context, I find it more reasonable to think that rigidis is a recollection of 8.428 (so Loers 1843, 520), which is furthermore strengthened by Galatea’s previous allusion to Polyphemus’ head of hair (n.  b., not to his body hair; l. 765: iam rigidos pectis rastris, Polypheme, capillos). It is more inappropriate to postulate a copyist inventing a variant (duris) in order to create an expression that

364

Commentary

is attested only once in all the Latin texts (and the possibility of a gloss would work in both directions). Note, in addition, that at l. 847 there is a variant dura for turpe that can only be explained through contamination with this verse (yet the fact is that it appears, among others, in Ph2, a ms. where rigidis is read). From a stylistic point of view, I think it is worth recalling Regius’ defence of duris (1493, ad loc.): “Hypallage est. Nam dura corpora densissimis setis intelliguntur horrere’”. 847–848: Ge (s. XIII) has the unmetrical turpe sine instead of turpis sine, and this prompted Heinsius to propose … turpe est sine frondibus arbos, / turpe et equus … based on the well-known parallel of am. 1.9.4: turpe senex miles, turpe senilis amor (1659, 354: “ita passim tersissimi scriptores”; and see Rivero 1998). Bothe accepted only a part of it (18182): turpe est sine frondibus arbos, / turpis equus… Cf. Theocr. 8.79  f.: τᾷ δρυῒ ταὶ βάλανοι κόσμος, τᾷ μαλίδι μᾶλα, / τᾷ βοῒ δ᾽ ἁ μόσχος, τῷ βουκόλῳ αἱ βόες αὐταί. For another thing, Magnus (1894, 197; 1914, 847) defends the whole text (turpis  … uelent!) as parenthetical, yet there would be no reason not to include the next two exempla also. 847: corpora: Bentley proposed pectora (Hedicke 1905, 32), perhaps recalling Verg. Aen. 8.266  f.: uultum uillosaque saetis / pectora. For the poetic plural corpora, see Bömer 1982, 438; Hardie 2015, 353. turpe: for the variant dura, uid. ad 846. arbor: for the arbor-arbos alternation, uid. ad 690. After this line, a new hand adds the following text in N: turpe pecus mutilum, nemus est absque arbore turpe / et sine crine caput, turpes sine frondibus herbe; this is a medieval remake of ars 3.249  f.: Turpe pecus mutilum, turpis sine gramine campus, / et sine fronde frutex, et sine crine caput. 848: flauentia: the different variants, whether metrical or not, stem from misspellings (uid. append.). For the suitability of flauentia, see Simmons 1889, 166; Bömer 1982, 439. 849: the line is omitted by M(Lr27) and N (also by Pr), although in N it is copied inter lineas by the m.  p. The omission in M was decisive for Merkel’s seclusion (1850), and he was followed by Korn (1880, 302 in app.: “quae insiticia esse intellexit Merkel”), and Simmons (1889), while Zingerle (1884), Keene (1898) and Edwards (1905) print the verse between brackets. Tarrant (2004, 404) prints the line normally, yet he had previously (2000, 438) expressed his doubts about this and the following verse. These doubts are still visible in his app.: “del. Merkel (cui si adsentias, etiam 850 delendum iudices)”. By contrast, the line was defended by Magnus (1894, 196  f.; in 1878, 96, though, he had considered it to be spurious). He pointed to the connection between decori est and decet (l. 850), and his defence was approved by Ehwald (1898, 408). More recently, Marahrens (1971, 239–41) has also defended its authenticity mainly on literary grounds, taking the three verbal expressions in 849  f. (tegit – decori est – decent) to be a counterbalance to the threefold



Commentary

365

turpe – turpis – turpis of the preceding lines. A final argument has recently been adduced by Hardie (2015, 353): “A favore del suo mantenimento sta l’idea di terminare il catalogo con l’animale cui Polifemo si sente più affezionato, come pure l’eco di decori in decet; cfr. VII 732–3 tu collige, qualis in illa, / Phoce, decor fuerit, quam sic dolor ipse decebat”. tegit: Riese timidly proposed to read here decet (1872, XXIV: “num decet?”), but Polyphemus’ reasoning actually bases the criterion of beauty (decorum) on the opposition between a “covered” and a “bare” body (see Marahrens 1971, 240 n. 2; Bömer 1982, 439 ad 847  f.). decori est: only Bothe (18182) among the edd. (uid. append.) adopted the – habitual – omission of est, here transmitted by a small number of recc. 851–853: Vnum est in media lumen mihi fronte, sed instar ingentis clipei. Quid, non haec omnia magnus Sol uidet e caelo? Soli tamen unicus orbis. • 852 magnus multi codd. (uid. append.), Plan., Aler. 1471, Burm. 1727, edd. plerique (uid. append.)  : magno M2(a.c.)N(p.c.) Ω, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, edd. (uid. append.)  : magna V4 Cs2 Es3 • 853 soli N FeVd Lr8Sp(-is p.c.)V16 BoFt(-is p.c.)P28Vt Vd11, “Berol.”(solis hab. B14) test. Jahn 1832, Heinsius 1659(qui “multi alii” test.), edd. plerique (uid. append.)  : solido M Mo Lr22Lr27(solis Lr27*)V30, Aler. 1471  : sol Mc  : solis Ω, Plan., Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Jahn 1832  : solus L3 O3 •

851–852: sed instar / ingentis clipei: cf. Cal. Dian. 52  f.: πᾶσι δ᾽ ὑπ᾽ ὀφρύν / φάεα μουνόγληνα σάκει ἴσα τετραβοείῳ; Verg. Aen. 3.637: Argolici clipei aut Phoebeae lampadis instar. For its use as applied to the sun, cf. 15.192: ipse dei clipeus; Enn. Iph. 188  f.: in altisono / caeli clipeo. Note (uid. append.) the amusing error sinistra for sed instar (i.  e. fronte sinistra), an instance of “interaction of more than one factor in the form and content of the text” (Tarrant 2016, 11). 852: quid non haec omnia magnus: once more the sequence of monosyllables causes instability in the text. Apart from the habitual non-num or haechoc confusions, it is worth considering remakes of the line such as quid enim non omnia magno (A3), quid non haec omnia magna (V4 after deleting sunt), or non haec sunt omnia magna (Es3), or even the reversal quid haec non (Lr3). But above all this, it is worth paying attention to the variant nonne attested in S2 Cs2V16, which, in any case, must have stemmed from a grammatical gloss, since “Lucr. und die Augusteer verwenden nonne nur in antekonsonantischer Stellung” (HS 4623). This variant may also have appeared through the influence of uidet in l. 853, as in the well-known formula nonne uides (HS 4622). magnus: the mss. are divided between this nom. (in Planudes also: ὁ μέγας ἥλιος) and the abl. magno, with even stronger support. The nom. appears in

366

Commentary

Aler. 1471, but the other edd. opted for the abl. down to Burman’s 1st ed. (1713); in his 2nd ed. (1727, 922), though, he defended the nom. by comparing other recurrences of the phrase magnus Sol, such as rem. 276: quod dea, quod magni filia Solis eram, or Val. Fl. 1.44 (8.282, 350, 458  f.) “et millies alii poëtae” (more passages in Bömer 1982, 440). Although a few later edd. kept the abl., most opted for the nom., which avoids a reference such as magno caelo, clearly inappropriate from the mouth of the ungodly Polyphemus (cf. 857); on the other hand, “magnus soll Polyphems Ähnlichkeit mit dem grossen Gotte betonen” (Polle 1888, 97; and observe that both Merkel and Korn exceptionally diverge from the text of M). 853: soli: N and a few mss. (among them V16 and Vd11, usually close to the text of MN) have soli, adopted by Heinsius 1652 (cf. l. 892) and nearly all edd. after him (uid. app.). The majority paradosis of the mss., however, is solis; it was accepted by the early edd. down to Bersman (1596), as well as by Jahn (1832), who was so often opposed to Heinsius’ proposals. To be more exact, in N solitamen is read, as a single word, and this is probably connected (uid. ad 762 nostrique) with the nonsensical reading solido of M(Lr27), Mo Lr22V30 (and hence Aler. 1471), which leads in turn to a no less absurd orbi. The dat. soli seems more appropriate for the pure nominal clause, and the gen. might have stemmed from the analogous polyptoton in 4.170: cepit amor Solem: Solis referemus amores. For the etymological wordplay sol … unicus (which would be reinforced here by the form of the dat. in that it is common to the paradigms of both sol and solus), see Matlby 1991, 572; Michalopoulos 2001, 160  f. (although he does not cite this passage). 854–858: Adde quod in uestro genitor meus aequore regnat: hunc tibi do socerum. Tantum miserere precesque     supplicis exaudi! Tibi enim succumbimus uni, quique Iouem et caelum sperno et penetrabile fulmen, Nerei, te uereor: tua fulmine saeuior ira est.

855

• 854 redit m.p. in V2(uid. ad 846) • 858 uereor AV3 A3A4(ueneror i.l. u.l. A42)AbB2B4(ueneror mg. B42)DeDrEFeHdL4LdLd3(ueneror i.l. u.l.)Lr4Lr6O3O4P3P4TrV9Vd B8(ueneror i.l. u.l.)Ds2E2GoMo3Mt3P8 Bo2Cs3Es2Es3Mt5 AsCvEs3Es4Es6Ps Mv7, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, edd. (uid. append.)  : ueneror Ω, Plan., Aler. 1471, Naug. 1516, edd. (uid. append.)  : uenero V30, Fabbri 1923 •

857–918: these lines are omitted by A2 in the transition from f. 131r to 131v; this would seem to indicate that the copyist has skipped one folio of the antigraph, and that it contained 31 ll. per page (A2 itself contains 32 ll. per page). As we noted ad 717, on f. 130v A2 also omits ll. 718–809 (i.  e. 810 is written immediately after 717), so we must deduce that this other lacuna corresponds to 3 pages in the antigraph.



Commentary

367

857: quique: MN and other closely related texts such as Bo3V30 and Aler. 1471 (uid. append.) have quiue, although this time the copulative is clearly to be preferred (uid. ad 833). Iouem et caelum sperno: there is no reason to suspect this majority reading, either in favour of Iouem sperno et caelum or – even less – of other variants containing the habitual omission of one of the two et (uid. append.; cf. e.  g. Ld6: quique etiam sperno celum penetrabile fulmen). Heinsius (1659, 354) attested caelos sperno in a “Cantabrigensis” (note the variant celo in Ds), and this led Bothe to print his own conjecture in coelo sperno, defending it (1818, 142) by means of the usual et/in alternation in the mss., as in l. 319 (“infelix pro et felix”). 858: uereor: the mss. and edd. are split in equal proportions between ueneror and uereor, although the former is better attested among the antiquiores. The declaration of love Nerei, te ueneror, which is doubly tender coming from a Cyclops’ mouth, has seduced many readers, who have seen in it a counterpoint of pious devotion in the impious Polyphemus (qui Iouem et caelum sperno); he would thus be making Galatea his puella diuina (see Martos, “Amada divina”, in Moreno Soldevila 2011, 32; cf. H-K-E-A 1966, 347: “ueneror steht hier im eigentlichen Sinn: göttlich verehren vgl. 14, 170”, but uereor in H-K-E 1898; see also Bömer 1982, 441, with references). This, in turn, would connect Ovid’s Polyphemus to that of Philoxenus (PMG 817), who dedicated a shrine to Galatea (see Hardie 2015, 354). With ueneror, however, tua fulmine saeuior ira est is out of context, as unsuitably juxtaposed. In fact, some early readers must have felt some unease with this variant, like the person who wrote the gloss “honoro et timeo” above ueneror in N. Yet the connotation of fear is absent from this verb, at least as used by Ovid, who always resorts to it with its proper meaning of “worship”, either referring to gods (epist. 2.17  f.: saepe deos supplex, ut tu, scelerate, ualeres, / cum prece turicremis sum uenerata sacris; cf. met. 5.27; 6.44, 203, 315; 10.271; 15.680; am. 2.9.54; fast. 3.85; trist. 4.1.49) or else to people or things (met. 14.170: si minus Aenean ueneror genitore; trist. 5.3.55: ueterum digne uenerer cum scripta uirorum; Pont. 1.2.49: uobiscum, quos sum ueneratus, amici; Pont. 1.7.7  f.: Di procul a cunctis qui te uenerantur amantque / huius notitiam gentis habere uelint). In all cases, however, it always conveys a positive affective connotation, though one which is never amatory or erotic, in spite of its etymological connection with Venus (in ars 2.307  f.: Ipsos concubitus, ipsum uenerere licebit / quod iuuat, where this etymological wordplay can actually be detected – see Janka 1997, 246  f. –, it does not refer explicitly to the beloved but to sex itself). It is obvious that the line is arranged rather as a dicolon abundans; incidentally, this feature can also be pointed to in the other two “storyline closures” that put an end to each section in Polyphemus’ speech: l. 807: uentis uolucrique fugacior aura; l. 839: iam, Galatea, ueni, nec munera despice nostra (the latter is a dicolon abundans in that one action, uenire, implies the other, non despicere). The context therefore requires a verb with the seme of “fearing”,

368

Commentary

and this is why uereor seems irreproachable, since it combines a fluid connection with ira and a significant contrast with sperno (Bach 1836, 360: “ein kräftiger Gegensatz von sperno”). Polyphemus actually fears Galatea’s wrath, as he then says (though without revealing when he has endured it). Holzberg (2017, 682  f.) adopts uereor (“ich… fürchte nur dich”), thus stepping away from Tarrant (2004) and Hardie (2015), although he forgets to record the divergence on p. 804. 859–861: Atque ego contemptus essem patientior huius, si fugeres omnes: sed cur Cyclope repulso       Acin amas praefersque meis complexibus Acin?

860

• 859 essem] te essem M Lr27(corr. Lr27*)  : fierem V4 Es3, “Mediceus unus” test. Burm. 1727  : huius Ds2Ld6 Bo2Rd  : om. Cs2(a.c. a m.p.) • huius] essem Ds(a.c. a m.p.)Ds2Ld6 Bo2Rd  : ista Mt3(a.c.) • 861 co(m/n)plexibus] amplexibus GfL3 B4(com- B42)CDrH3Ld2Ld3V4V8Vd Mt3P5P8To B12Bo Es3 Mv7, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Merkel 1850, Koch 1866, Riese 1872, Polle 1888  : complexebus Ld(a.c.)  : complessibus To2 •

859: essem patientior huius: the copyists of some recc. (uid. app.), perhaps in an attempt to avoid an ending with huius (for this, cf. e.  g. 19, 89, and cf. also 824 harum), or else searching for an ending with essem, as is frequent in Ovid, have written huius patientior essem (and note that Ds in fact reads essem p. essem before correcting into essem p. huius). Note also the singular error of M(Lr27): te essem; and the conjecture fierem, which I found only in V4 Es3 and Burman (1727, 922) attests in “Mediceus unus”. 860: sed cur: apart from other minor variants, frequent in every sequence of monosyllables, some recc. have sed me (an expository clause, not an interrogative one; uid. append.). However, me is just a gloss (like those written above ciclope e.  g. in A2N2V23). repulso: the variants relicto and remoto are probably glosses. For the use of repulsus in amatory contexts, cf. ll. 735, 967, and see Bömer 1982, 442; Librán, “Rechazo”, in Moreno Soldevila 2011, 353–6; Hardie 2015, 354. 861: Acin … Acin: in this context, where the only metrical desinence is -in, we can observe the arbitrary – sometimes contradictory – behaviour of many mss. (uid. append.). complexibus: a considerable number of mss. have amplexibus, which was adopted by the early edd. (except for Aler. 1471), and by Heinsius (1652) and other edd. until the end of the 19th c. (uid. app.). The choice is difficult, because the alternation depends very often on the copyist’s way of expanding the initial ligature (â / ĉ), and also because they are used as synonyms, though amplexus has a more restricted use and is a word favoured by poets (and par-



369

Commentary

ticularly by Ovid); furthermore, amplexus is often used as a sexual euphemism (“actus amplectendi, complexus. saepissime de concubitu”: TLL 1.1996.10–16, but cf. 3.2101.49 [complexus]: “actio complectendi, i. q. amplexus”). Nevertheless, it is by no means a clear-cut distinction, as is proved by many passages of Ovid himself, where complexus is used with this meaning (e.  g. am. 1.9.35: Hector ab Andromaches complexibus ibat ad arma; see Librán, “Abrazo”, in Moreno Soldevila 2011, 14–16). Hence, though somewhat hesitantly, I keep the majority variant. 862–864: Ille tamen placeatque sibi placeatque – licebit – (quod nollem!) Galatea, tibi: modo copia detur, sentiet esse mihi tanto pro corpore uires. • 862 tamen … sibi] sibi placeatque tamen O3 • placeatque … placeatque] placeat sibimet placeatue Lr2 Lu2  : placeat sibi nunc(i.l., deest in Ph2) placeatque Ph22  : pugnatque sibi placeatque V6 • 864 esse mihi Ω, edd.  : ipse mihi LuMN(a.c.) Ld6V16 BoFt Bo3Lr27Ps(a.c.)  : ipse meas Lr2M2(p.c.) B5HdL4Ld22(i.l. u.l.)Lr4Lr6MtV6V7 Mt3P5 Es3Mt4 Lu2, test. Viuianus (1522, ad loc.)  : esset mihi A4(a.c.)  : esse B3  : esse meas A42(mg.)Ls Vt B14  : quid V5 a.c. (mihi p.c.) n.l. • tanto pro] inu. ord. Gf B4CLd Mt3 B12Bo2Ft Es4 Mv7  : tanto B5  : in toto V6  : tantoque pro Mc •

862: some recc. offer different remakes of the verse, none of them better than the majority text (uid. app.). 863: nollem: Heinsius (1659, 354) attests the spelling nolem in “unus meus” (I found it only in Mt5), and hence proposes: “Lege nolim”. Bothe (18182) rightly printed Polyphemus’ intimate thought quod nollem as parenthetical, as a statement pronounced for himself. 864: sentiet: L3M2P2 and a few recc. have sentiat, which makes no better sense and seems influenced by copia in the preceding line (uid. append.). esse mihi: as against this majority reading of the mss. (unanimous among the edd.), certain important mss. (e.  g. Lr2LuMM2N) have ipse for esse (a frequent alternation due to a misreading of the abbreviations). However, noticing the odd resulting text (sentiet ipse mihi t. p. c. uires), some copyists attempted to correct it by changing mihi into meas. As a result of contamination, in turn, we find the odd variant esse meas (uid. app.). tanto pro corpore uires: for this partial anastrophe, cf. 836. 865–869: Viscera uiua traham diuulsaque membra per agros  perque tuas spargam (sic se tibi misceat!) undas. Vror enim, laesusque exaestuat acrior ignis, cumque suis uideor translatam uiribus Aetnen pectore ferre meo… nec tu, Galatea, moueris!’.

865

370

Commentary

• 865 diuulsaque Ω, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, edd., dub. Tarrant 2004(in app.)  : diuisaque Lr22(mg. u.l.)MN(-uulsaque i.l. u.l. N2)V2(-uulsaque i.l. u.l. a m.p. uel coaeua) A3HdMoN2 GoTo(-uulsaque p.c.)V16 Bo2(p.c.)Cs3Mt5P28 Bo3Lr22Lr27V30, Aler. 1471, Magnus 1914, edd. aliquot (uid. append.)  : alii alia (uid. append.) • 866 sic A(si p.c.)Gf2(c suprascr.)L3MN2(i.l. u.l.)P2(i.l. u.l.)S2V3(si p.c.) A42(i.l. u.l.)B3(uid.; si p.c.)B42(mg. u.l.)DrFGH2HdLdLr3LsO42(i.l. u.l.)P4V42(c suprascr.)V5(si p.c.)V9 Bs3(i.l.)DsDs2GoLi3P8 Bo22(si Bo2)Mc AsB14Bo3Bs7CvGo2Lr27P41PsVd11, Plan., test. Viuianus 1522, Heinsius 1659(qui “Cantabrig. alii multi” test.), edd. post.  : si Ω, edd. uett. (uid. append.) • 867 acrior Ω, edd. aliquot (uid. append.)  : agrior L3(acrior p.c.) Mt  : acrius GfM(agrius a.c.; cf. ad 802) B22(i.l. u.l.)MoN2 Mt4 Lr22Lr27V30Vd11, Aler. 1471, Naug. 1516, Heinsius 1659, edd.  : om. Fe  : quid P2 a.c. (acrior p.c.) n.l. •

865: diuulsaque: a considerable number of mss. have the variant diuisaque, printed by Aler. 1471 and recovered by Magnus (1914), who was followed by other edd. down to Tarrant; but Tarrant writes “fort. recte” referring to diuulsaque (2004, 405). The spelling of both is almost identical (diuisa – diułsa), yet Luck (2009, 113) explains it as another instance of “missing letter” starting from an antigraph in capital letters (one V has dropped out and L has been read as I). Very similar too is the spelling of another transmitted variant: diuersaque (diu’sa; cf. e.  g. the variant uiscia for uiscera in Ab: uid. append.). Both diuulsa and diuisa are valid for their meaning, yet diuello is no doubt more appropriate to denote “tear to pieces”, “quarter”. This is proved by Ovid himself in a passage quoted at least as early as by Bach (1836, 361; trist. 3.9.27  f.): atque ita diuellit diuulsaque membra per agros / dissipat (cf. Cic. Sull. 59; Sen. Phoen. 448; Ou. met. 11.38). In fact, the concise expression diuisa membra (“cut off limbs”) is unsatisfactory. It is true that we find the phrase in a passage with obvious analogies with ours (Trag. inc. frg. 167  f. [Cic. nat. deor. 3.67]): puerum interea obtruncat membraque articulatim diuidit / perque agros passim dispergit corpus, but here the verb is qualified by an adverb (the same is valid for Sen. Thy. 760  f.: ipse diuisum secat / in membra corpus). As Hopkinson (2000, 227) recalls, diuisa can also be supported by the Homeric model (Od. 9.291): τοὺς δὲ διὰ μελεϊστὶ ταμὼν ὡπλίσσατο δόρπον, yet here again we find the adverbial determiner (μελεϊστὶ). Hopkinson defends diuulsa as “a much stronger image”, and suggests that “diuisa is perhaps another example of ‘correction’ by a learned reader”. Hardie (2015, 355), on the other hand, keeps diuisaque with Tarrant 2004, and believes that this variant “mantiene l’assonanza con uires. / uiscera uiua (…), ed è forse incoraggiata da Od. IX 291”, yet he does not lose sight of the echo of trist. 3.9.27, which finds further support in l. 873. For a similar alternation, cf. 413. 866: sic: once again we find the sic-si alternation (cf. 748) and once more sic is difficilior. The mss. and early edd. tend to favour si (cf. e.  g. Regius 1493: “Si se tibi misceat. Si tecum coeat atque concumbat”), yet sic also has strong support (uid. app.); sic was aptly defended by Viuianus (1522, ad loc.): “sic, truculentius quod & planè Cyclopeum sonat”, and incorporated into his text by Heinsius (1652), although he made an improvement in 1659 by editing it



Commentary

371

“per parenthesin” (1659, 354); Polyphemus, in fact, is inserting here an ironic “optative parenthesis” (see Galán 2002, 481 ad Mart. 7.89.4). All edd. since Heinsius have adopted sic. 867: acrior: a small but authoritative number of mss. have the adv. acrius, which was adopted by Aler. 1471 and Naug. 1516 among the early edd., by Heinsius (1652) and by all later edd. except Magnus (1914) and Anderson (1982), who kept the majority acrior (uid. app.). The adjective, with its stylish predicative function, must have been paraphrased in the mss. with the corresponding adverb (Bömer 1982, 444: “Adjektiv statt Adverbium”), as pointed out by Magnus (1904, 59). This scholar also backed the use of the predicative with the parallels of 2.722  f.: quanto splendidior quam cetera sidera fulget / Lucifer; 7.747  f.: uiolentior ignis ad ossa / peruenit (with uiolentius as a u.l.: see Magnus 1914, 277); and rem. 651: torrens solet acrior ire (with a variant acrius: see Ramírez de Verger 2003, 300). In addition, Magnus recognises: “Ich habe überhaupt kein Beispiel für das Adv. acrius bei Ovid gefunden”. For another thing, as Hardie (2015, 356) states, in this comparative “in modo ironico c’è un eco delle comparazioni negative usate per Galatea. 802 acrior igne”, and this is more evident with the expression acrior ignis (even more so if we read acrior igni instead of a. igne at l. 802). All those who print acrius do so ex silentio (or, at most, adducing the parallel of 4.64: quoque magis tegitur, tectus magis aestuat ignis, which is valid yet not decisive for our purpose). Perhaps they are thereby trying to avoid the twofold qualification laesus … acrior, but this is no problem here since acrior has a predicative function. As for the exceptional expression laesus ignis, the reference to the ‘wound’ is “espressione normale in contesti amorosi […], qui trasferita con audacia a ignis” (Hardie 2015, 355  f.; see also Bömer 1982, 444; Librán, “Herida de amor”, in Moreno Soldevila 2011, 201  f.). 868: translatam: for the masc. translatum, uid. ad 770. Note the exceptional coincidence of Ph22 and Sp in the erroneous transactam (uid. append.). uiribus: leaving aside the erroneous montibus of P3, it is worth noticing the variant ignibus, by the m.p. of L3(p.c.) and which is present in at least three recc. (uid. append.). In Planudes’ translation (καί μοι δοκῶ τὴν Αἴτνην, αὐτῷ πυρὶ μετενεχθεῖσαν, ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ στέρνῳ φέρειν) it is not clear whether πυρὶ renders ignibus or is a paraphrastic way of translating uiribus. The variant may stem from either a misspelling, a gloss, or a recollection of 2.220: ardet in inmensum geminatis ignibus Aetne (with the same alternation: see Burm. 1727, 108 ad loc.). Simmons (1889, 167) had misgivings about uiribus: “uiribus, if it means the fires shut within Aetna, is unusual, not to say suspicious”, but cf. ars 2.439: leuis absumptis paulatim uiribus ignis (cf. 3.374; 15.350; Aetna 368; see Bömer 1982, 444). For his part, Heinsius in his notes (1659, 354; 1758, 707 [Burm. 1727, 922]) proposed to read rupibus, comparing 14.160: mediis qui(/ e) rupibus Aetnae, as well as Claud. gig. 66: Hic rotat Aemonium praeduris uiribus Oeten (where rupibus is u.l.). The same hexameter-ending recurs in Stat. Ach. 1.824: Siculae sub rupibus Aetnae, and Sil. 14.578: ardua rupibus Aetne. Burman replies

372

Commentary

with good reason (1727, 922): “Nihil mutandum” (Keene 1898, 119: “Aetna transferred thither with all its fiery strength”). Heinsius’ proposal was followed only by Bothe (18182, ex silentio). Aetnen: for the declension of the mountain name, uid. ad 770. 869: nec tu, Galatea, moueris!: the close of Polyphemus’ speech, with his heartbreaking lament, demands an exclamation. However, Fabbri preferred a question mark (so in certain mss. such as V3; 1923, 152): “… punctum interrogatiuum posui, quod animi motibus exprimendis prodesse uisum est”. I think the exclamative better befits Polyphemus’ ethos and his imminent violent reaction. 870–877: Talia nequiquam questus – nam cuncta uidebam –   surgit et, ut taurus uacca furibundus adempta, stare nequit siluaque et notis saltibus errat, cum ferus ignaros nec quicquam tale timentes me uidet atque Acin, ‘uideo’que exclamat ‘et ista ultima sit faciam Veneris concordia uestrae!’,     tantaque uox quantam Cyclops iratus habere debuit, illa fuit: clamore perhorruit Aetne.

870

875

• 872 saltibus] montibus AGfV2V3 A3A4AbBaBe2CDeDrEFGgH2LdLd2Ld3O4(saltibus i.l. u.l. O42)P3P4V5V82(mg. u.l.) B8Bs4Ds2GoLi3Lr8Mo3Mt2P5P8P10SoSp(saltibus a.c.)TbTo2(i.l. u.l.) Bo22(i.l. itemque mg. ab alia m. u.l.)Cs3Es2Es3McMt5To2 AsCv(saltibus i.l. uid.)Es6P41Ps Mv7, Puteol. 1471  : saltantibus A42(i.l. u.l.)  : in saltibus Mt  : in montibus Ls B14, Venet. 1472  : uallibus “Ambros.” test. Burm. 1727 • 875 Veneris] ueneri Hd, “Berol.”(ueneris hab. B14) test. Jahn 1832, Heinsius 1659(-is 1652), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, dub. R. de Verger 2005(in notis)  : uestrae(per comp.) P5(a.c.) : uehemens Es6 •

871: surgit et ut: some mss. offer the systematic instability in the transmission of two consecutive monosyllables. For his part, Vossius records in his note (ap. Bothe 1818, 175), with no argument whatsoever, the reading uti instead of et ut; this was approved by Baumgarten-Crusius in his notes (1834, 534): “Si uera haec est lectio [sc. surgit, et ut], comparatio ut taurus – ademta inseritu continuatae sententiae, et stare nequit et errat ad eundem Polyphemum pertinent. Sed potior Vossii fuit ratio, qui Surgit, uti scribens comparationem non interruptam narrationi subiecit”. Obviously, the clue to the simile lies in the fact that both Polyphemus and the bull share stare nequit and errat. To compare the two actions to the act of standing up (surgit) makes no sense (for the possible influence of Apollonius – 1.1265–72 – on this simile, see Doll 2000, 152  f.). taurus uacca: note the reversal uacca taurus shared by Lr2 O4 To, which strikingly does not appear in Lu2; this implies that the copyist of Lu2 had at this point another antigraph besides Lr2 (see Introduction, 8 n. 34).



373

Commentary

872: siluaque: neither siluisque nor siluis is better than the majority reading; in fact they seem to be a case of assimilation to the following plural (uid. append.). Bömer (1982, 445): “silua ist, mit Blick auf den Plural notis saltibus als genereller Singular zu verstehen (…); ebenso gehört notis ἀπὸ κοινοῦ”. saltibus: this majority reading is replaced in many mss. by the more generic montibus (uid. app.; cf. also Verg. ecl. 6.52: A! uirgo infelix, tu nunc in montibus erras; Aen. 3.644: infandi Cyclopes et altis montibus errant; Ou. ars 3.427; met. 7.746). Note that, starting from an unmetrical text like that of Ls and B14: siluaque et notis in montibus, the ed. Venet. 1472 readjusts the metrics thus: silua et notis in montibus. 873: cf. trist. 3.9.25: protinus ignari nec quicquam tale timentis (cf. 2.566; 8.440). 874: uideo’que exclamat: Bersman (1596, 546) attests the reading “Video exul m. sc.”. However, Ds has the majority reading, and Ds2 clearly has uideo exclamat. It must therefore be a mistake, or else he may be referring to a third, unidentified ms. 875: faciam: note the singular error facta (certain mss. have fatiam for faciam) of M(Lr27) and N, which is corrected in the latter (uid. append.). Heinsius proposed in his notes (1659, 354): “Scribe faxo, quod minantis est passim apud optimos quosque scriptores” (“Plurima ex aliis auctoribus exempla sunt in promtu”); he based his proposal on 3.271, 12.594, and Ib. 63 (for facito: “ut quidem ex uestigiis scriptorum codicum censeo esse reponendum”). No editor has followed him. Cf. 3.13: “moenia fac condas” (Bömer 1982, 445: “faciam mit Konjunktiv gehört nicht zur hohen Dichtersprache”). Veneris: Hd has ueneri (Jahn 1832, 883 also attests the “Berol.”, but B14 at least has ueneris); Heinsius adopted it for his 2nd ed. (cf. 892), and he was followed by some edd. down to Baumgarten-Crusius (1834). Recently Ramírez de Verger has shown his liking for this variant in his notes (2005, 1964). Aetne: for the declension of the name of the mountain, uid. ad 770. 878–881: Ast ego uicino pauefacta sub aequore mergor; terga fugae dederat conuersa Symaethius heros et ‘fer opem, Galatea, precor! mihi ferte, parentes’  dixerat ‘et uestris periturum admittite regnis!’.

880

• 880 et fer] effer M(uid., a.c.)V2 Lr7Mo2(mg. u.l.)N2O3(a.c.) Ft Bo3Vd11, “tres” test. Burm. 1727  : affer M(p.c.) DsMo3 Lr27(Ac i.l. Lr27* p.c.), prob. Merkel 1875(et fer 1850), Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, Edwards 1905  : confer A3 Bo2 Es6, “duo” test. Burm. 1727 • precor mi(c)hi] inu. ord. B5Ls Mt2 B14  : mihi mihi L3(p.c.) Gf8, prob. Heinsius 1659(in notis)  : mihi precor mihi L3(a.c.)  : precor modo(per comp.) To • mihi cum ferte coniunx. multi codd. (uid. append.), Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, H-K-E-A 1966(sed cum precor H-K-E 1898, Ehwald 1915)  : cum precor coniunx. GfMP2V3 A4AbEFeGH2LdMoP3V6V7 DsDs2P8P10Tb Mt5 AsBo3CvPs, Naug. 1516, Heinsius 1659, edd. •

374

Commentary

878: ast: the rarer ast competes with the more regular yet unmetrical at, and hence the banal yet metrical atque, as at l. 859 (uid. append.). Cf. 12.439 (Verg. Aen. 1.46; 7.308). uicino: the copyists of certain recc. (uid. append.) intensify the poetic tone with the variant caeruleo (cf. e.  g. Sil. 15.152: tum noua caeruleum descendit classis in aequor). sub aequore: all the mss. except Ld6 (and per aequora in Gf a.c.) have transmitted the noun in the abl.: cf. 948. 879: dederat: the pressure of the previous line has given rise to the erroneous dederam in M(Lr27) and Bo3. The copyist of M has attempted to adjust the syntax by punctuating after conuersa. 880: Merkel (1850, XI) refers to this verse as one of those which “rectius abessent”. et ‘fer opem: the change of poetic voice that takes place between et and fer, equivalent to the “-que Ovidianum” (cf. uideo’que in l. 874, and see Bömer 1982, 115 ad 12.321), has confused some copyists, who have written either effer (I think this is the reading of M a.c., not offer, as tentatively stated by Magnus 1914, 523, nor etfer, as he said in 1894b, 654), or else affer (and note that the correcting hand in Lr27* makes an interesting contribution by substituting ac fer for affer working from the reading of M p.c.), or even confer (uid. app.). As affer was the reading of M p.c., Merkel adopted it in his 2nd ed. (1875), and he was followed by other edd. down to Edwards (1905). However, this reading impoverishes the expression, because it juxtaposes dederat (l. 879) and dixerat (l. 881), and especially because it breaks the anaphora fer … ferte (as already noted by Magnus 1894b, 654). precor mihi: Heinsius (1659, 354) attests in Gf8 the variant Galatea mihi, mihi …, which I have also found in L3 (G. mihi precor mihi was the reading a.c.). He describes it with good reason as “uenuste” (for analogous repetitions, Slater 1927, ad loc. duly compares l. 356: peteret, peteret). However, I think that both this iteration and its – unmetrical – reversal in other mss. (uid. app.) are connnected rather with the uncertainty about the syntactic constr. of mihi (uid. infra). mihi: the boundary between the two clauses in the line can be marked either after precor or after mihi (as for the sense, the pron. obviously functions ἀπὸ κοινοῦ, so we could even consider the possibility of marking commas before and after mihi, as Bömer [1982, 447] does with no comment). The punctuation of the 1st Aldina (1502) is revealing yet unsuitable, since precor is printed between parentheses. It is also revealing that many copyists take the trouble to mark the limit of the sentence (be it through a punctuation mark or else by leaving a blank in the line); they tend to do so more frequently after precor, yet the difference is not significant (uid. app.). However, the edd. were unanimous from Heinsius on (though Naugerius had done so before him) in connecting mihi to the fer sentence (with the sole exception of H-K-E-A 1966, a strange decision, since in Ehwald’s previous edd. that



375

Commentary

was the punctuation adopted, and in 1966 no further comment or reasoning is added). The choice is difficult, yet I must confess I find that, if we make the pause coincide with the hephthemimeral caesura, the structure and rhythm of the line are more balanced than if it coincides with the bucolic diaeresis. Ovid frequently uses the expression fer opem: only twice with no other element (2.700; epist. 14.125); twice with just one further element (1.380: mersis fer opem; trist. 5.3.35: fer, bone Liber, opem); in all other passages, with the addition of two elements, usually a vocative, a uerbum dicendi, or else the wedge precor: 1.545: ‘fer, pater,’ inquit ‘opem; 3.719: ‘fer opem, matertera’ dixit; 5.618: ‘fer opem, deprendimur,’ inquam; 15.40: fer, precor’ inquit ‘opem!; Pont. 1.6.17: fer opem, precor, eminus unam. In some cases, the line consists of this ‘fourfold’ constr. plus a coda: 9.775: fer, precor,’ inquit ‘opem, nostroque medere timori!; 13.669: ‘Bacche pater, fer opem!’ dixere, tulitque (cf. fast. 5.249: ‘fer, precor, auxilium’ dixit, celabitur auctor’). These details confirm my subjective feeling that the sound of the verse is better thus: et ‘fer opem, Galatea, precor! mihi ferte, parentes’. 881: et: Vossius (ap. Bothe 1818, 175) records here aut, allegedly because he understands that … admittite cannot be taken as opem ferre (Baumg.Crus. 1834, 534: “Voss. ad marginem coni. Dixerat, aut uestris sequ., atque ita interpretatus est: Oder gönnt mir Verlornen ein Antheil eures Gebietes”). The correction is unnecessary, since the admittite clause is rather an example of the way in which this help can be given (cf. 1.545  f., with Magnus 1914, 523). Hopkinson (2000, 229): “his rescue is to be a watery one”. 882–886: Insequitur Cyclops partemque e monte reuulsam mittit, et extremus quamuis peruenit ad illum angulus †e saxo†, totum tamen obruit Acin. At nos – quod fieri solum per fata licebat –       fecimus ut uires adsumeret Acis auitas.

885

• 884 e saxo Ω, edd.; uix sanum  : ex saxo V2 B4Ba2(p.c.)CDeDrFGgO3V5V9(p.c. a m.p.) Cs2Li3P8 O102(i.l. p.c.) P41, prob. Ellis, Edwards 1905  : is motus M(p.c., -us i.ras.; quid a.c. n.l.) Lr27  : asaxo AbMoV9(a.c.) Ft  : a saxo Bs4 Es4  : exaxo B3  : exasto Ba(a.c.)  : est saxo Lr8 O10 Es6  : quid N a.c. (e saxo i.ras.) n.l.  : is montis Merkel 1850  : is molis Merkel 1875, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, H-K-E 1898, Keene 1898, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, van Proosdij 1951, H-K-E-A 1966, Fink 2007  : hic iactu Riese 1872(is i. dub. in notis)  : ex iactu Riese 1889  : exiguus Hellmuth •

882: e monte: GfLr2 and some recc. have a monte (uid. append.), and this reading was printed by Aler. 1471, as well as by Bothe (18182) with no comment. The verb reuello admits both prepositions, and Ovid also uses it with a(b): 4.152  f.: quique a me morte reuelli / heu sola poteras; 8.585: a siluis siluas et ab aruis arua reuelli; 9.86: truncaque a fronte reuellit; ars 2.100: a

376

Commentary

teneri fronte reuellit equi. Our reading, however, is supported by the parallel of 12.341: saxumque e monte reuulsum (cf. 5.39: qui postquam cecidit ferrumque ex osse reuulsum est). It does not seem so self-evident to me that Vibius Sequester (geogr. 18) was inspired by this passage (cf. Magnus 1914, 523; Anderson 1982, 326): Acis ex Aetna monte mari decurrit, ex huius ripis Polyphemus saxa in Ulixen egisse (iecisse Muncker) dicitur; in any case, his text is not significant for our purpose. What does seem evident is that e monte depends on reuulsam (cf. 12.341: saxumque e monte reuulsum; 14.181  f.: monte reuulsum / inmanem scopulum), not on partem (cf. l. 810), in spite of the models of Homer (Od. 9.481): ἀπορρήξας κορυφὴν ὄρεος μεγάλοιο, and Virgil (Aen. 10.128): haud partem exiguam montis, and the probable imitation by Silius (9.466  f.): hic dea conuulsam … partem / uicini montis (see Hardie 2015, 357). 884: angulus e saxo: M has the strange reading angulus is motus (M2 writes “s. angulus” above is motus), where the last -us is written over something erased and illegible; V2 and a number of recc. have ex saxo, and this spelling was approved by Ellis, who also found it written above in O102 as a correction of est saxo, with the very debatable argument that “[t]he word corrected, est, proves ex not e to be right” (ap. Simmons 1889, 167); this variant was adopted by Edwards (1905, 479; for ex saxo cf. e.  g. Vitr. 8.6.8, but for e saxo cf. e.  g. Cato orig. 2.16); in N the reading e saxo is written over a text that has been erased and which perhaps was once is motus, but this is impossible to assert today with a minimum of certainty (uid. app.). In his 1st ed. (1850) Merkel published his conjecture is montis (cf. 882), which was not followed by any ed.; in 1875 he opted for is molis based on ll. 887 and 890 (cf. 8.357: see Merkel 1875, XXXVIII), marking a comma after illum (l. 883); this conjecture has been adopted by Ehwald, Magnus and other edd. down to the present. Riese, for his part, had hic iactu in his 1st ed., although in his notes he left open the possibility of reading is iactu instead (1872, XXIV). In his 2nd ed. he changed his mind and argued (1889, XXVI) that the paradosis e saxo was the corruption of ex iactu through a spelling ʃacxo. Finally, Hellmuth (1880, 28  f.) begins by denouncing as unacceptable the expression angulus e saxo for angulus saxi, and then examines the shortcomings of the proposals by both Merkel and Riese, especially as far as the deictic and foric pronouns are concerned; he then proposes the appealing conjecture angulus exiguus, which sounds stylish thanks to the significant juxtaposition exiguus totum, which he backs with parallels such as 8.337 (longa paruae), 11.506 (inferno summum), or 12.495 (in hunc omnes unum). Furthermore, the adj. could recall the Virgilian model (Aen. 10.128): haud partem exiguam montis. As for the twofold modification of angulus, Hellmuth recalls that this is not a problem when one of the adjectives has a local value, to which end he compares 11.197  f.: dextera Sigei, Rhoetei laeua profundi / ara Panomphaeo uetus est sacrata Tonanti, and 15.443: externum patria contingat amicius aruum. From a palaeographic point of view, the conjecture is plausible as



Commentary

377

regards e saxo, although in an attempt to explain the reading of M, Hellmuth attributes the corruption to a repetition of the extremus from the previous line that presumably forced the copyists to reconstruct the text, with the copyist of M being the most ‘daring’ in this regard. However, this is no more than an admission on the part of the scholar that he does not know how the copyist in question could have written what he wrote. Yet Hellmuth’s proposal, which is more elegant than those of Merkel and Riese, suffers the drawback of redundancy, as the function of the expression extremus angulus is precisely that of indicating that what fell on Acis was but a tiny part  – an edge, a point – of the larger portion wrenched by Polyphemus from the mountainside. Even so, it is still obvious that e saxo is not really appropriate because, as Hellmuth pointed out, it should be the equivalent here of a simple genitive (“ungewöhnliche adnominale partitive e”, in the view of Bömer 1982, 448), which is unacceptable in Ovid’s Latin (uid. ad 882; nor does it make sense as a separative preposition or one dependent on peruenit or angulus). In addition, e saxo is a rare expression and one limited to prose with the sole exception of this passage, as well as being in suspicious proximity to e monte (l. 882). The syntagm e saxo could be a graphic deformation of the genuine reading, but it might also originate in a gloss on a part. such as excisus, exceptus, excussus or exsectus, i.  e. “a tip broken off from the edge (of the rock)”. Similarly, is motus could be a gloss on a part. agreeing in this case with the subject of obruit, such as eiectus (although for the meaning of “hurl violently” Ovid prefers eiectare: cf. 2.231; 5.353), exactus (see Bömer 1976, 214 and 265 ad 4.734 and 5.171), excussus (here in the sense of “thrown off”: cf. e.  g. Tac. hist. 4.23.3), exceptus (here, “received”) or inmissus. The reading of M (and perhaps, it should be recalled, of N a.c.) might also be a graphic deformation or else a gloss on a part. such as euoluens (cf. 12.519), inuolitans, intortus, or on an expression like in gyrum/-os, i.  e. “although turning round, the tip of the edge reaches him” (cf. e.  g. Verg. Aen. 7.378–81), which might have been suggested to Ovid by ἐπιδινήσας (“to swing round”: see Heubeck 1992, 41) in the same Homeric episode mentioned above (Od. 9.537  f.): αὐτὰρ ὅ γ᾽ ἐξαῦτις πολὺ μείζονα λᾶαν ἀείρας / ἧκ᾽ ἐπιδινήσας. This rotation of the rock thrown by Polyphemus would match the familiar drilling movement Odysseus and his men had used to dig the stake into his eye (Od. 9.383–6, with Heubeck 1992, 34 ad 382–90; Eur. Cicl. 460–3; Verg. Aen. 3.635). However, I can find no passage in or outwith the work of Ovid that is sufficiently clear backing for any of these proposals. Acin: Burman (1727, 923) attests the variant ictu in a “Medic.” and Bothe accepted it in his edition (18182) but without comment. The variant might be the result of a conjecture or a misreading of the gloss illum which appears above in many mss. (e.  g. B142) and which in N2 has slipped in as a u.l. 885: fieri solum: some mss. of all periods have the reverse order, which was adopted by Burman in his 2nd ed. (1727; Heinsius gives fieri solum in 1652

378

Commentary

and in 1659) and after him by some edd. (Merkel and Ehwald among others) down to our days (uid. append.). If the metrical scheme offered by the majority paradosis (SDSS) is in itself infrequent in the Metamorphoses (4,315 %), that of solum fieri (SSDS) is even more so (1,674 %): see Dee 2006, xx. 886: auitas: the similarity between the endings -uitas and -ultas may have given rise to the variant inultas transmitted by M(Lr27) and Vd11 (uid. append.) and it was probably also in N before being corrected (with, incidentally, a non-Beneventan initial a- similar to those of the scribe of M). 887–892: Puniceus de mole cruor manabat, et intra temporis exiguum rubor euanescere coepit fitque color primo turbati fluminis imbre purgaturque mora. Tum moles iacta dehiscit     uiuaque per rimas proceraque surgit harundo osque cauum saxi sonat exsultantibus undis;

890

• 890 iacta B2Ld Sp Rd, Plan., malit Glareanus, prob. Heinsius 1659(qui et “in … tribus” test.), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Jahn 1832, Weise 1845, Koch 1866, H-K-E 1898, Goold 1984  : tacta Ω, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, edd. plerique (uid. append.), suspectum hab. sed ed. Tarrant 2004, dub. prob. Lemaire 1822(in notis)  : tales Li3  : fracta ALu A43(mg.)Ba(p.c.)DeFe2(mg. u.l.)G3(mg., add. “i. aperta”)L4(tacta a.c.)LsN2TrVd(p.c., fort. a m.p.) B8Ds22(i.l. u.l.)P10So BoBo2Es22(p.c.)P28(p.c.) B14Es5 Mv7, “prim. Moret. et quindecim alii” test. Heinsius 1659, prob. Gierig 1807, edd. aliquot (uid. append.), dub. Tarrant 2004(in app.)  : facta G2(p.c.; tacta G) Ba(a.c.)  : fata Es3  : tracta FO3(per comp.)V42(r suprascr.)V5(tacta p.c.) O10(tacta p.c.)P28(a.c.), “in utroque meo, Urs. Farnes. et cod. Vatican.” test. Ciof. 1575, dub. Ellis  : tecta Lr3(tacta p.c.) Lr22V30, Aler. 1471, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Glar.-Long. 1570, Bersm. 1596  : tanta A3 To(tacta mg. u.l. To2)  : tota Ab(tacta i.l. u.l. Ab2), coni. Hardie, prob. Holzberg 2017  : acta Lr4Lr6(uid.)  : capta Vd(a.c.)  : rupta P41  : cuncta Bs4(tracta uel tincta i.l. u.l.)  : certa “in nonnullis” test. Heinsius 1659  : taetra Merkel 1875  : torta fort. legendum •

887–892: for the presence of these lines in Anth. Lat. 886, see Bömer 1982, 449. 887–888: the appearance of cruor and rubor in a similar position in consecutive lines leads to the habitual omission of two hemistichs in M(Lr27), N and Mo3 through saut du même au même (uid. append.). The copyists of MN, in turn, regularized the metre by replacing euanescere with uanescere (with the exception of the copyist of Mo3, who leaves the unmetrical p. de mole cruor euanescere c.). The copyist of N, however, did notice the error, restoring the omitted text between the lines and correcting the form euanescere. For the (e)uanescere alternation, cf. 169 (euertere); 393 (educere). intra / temporis exiguum: undoubtedly an odd expression (“a more exquisite equivalent of tempus exiguum”, according to Hopkinson 2000, 229), as we might instead have expected intra exiguum tempus (e.  g. Sen. contr. 1.praef.19; 9.praef.4; Sen. dial. 1.1.4; 6.7.2; 10.17.2; epist. 29.7; nat. 7.12.4; cf. Sen. nat. 7.22.1: intra exiguum momentum). There may be an allusion here to Hor.



Commentary

379

carm. 2.9.23  f.: i n t r a q u e p r a e s c r i p t u m Gelonos / e x i g u i s equitare campis (see Nisbet-Hubbard 1978, 150  f.), and cf. also 11.651: intraque morae breue tempus. For the substantivized use of exiguum + gen., cf. trist. 3.11.15: utque sit exiguum poenae; 5.2.20: exiguum pleno de mare demat aquae (see Bömer 1982, 449, with further passages constructed with or without the gen.). For the grammatical usage, cf. 909: in summum … montis. 887: de mole: although the reading raises no doubts, some important mss. banalize the expression with the absurd de more (Aler. 1471 corrects it with respect to Lr22V30). What is striking, however, is that this is the reading of Lu2, as the reading of Lr2 is not this but de mole (uid. ad 8 quas hac hac). The copyist of Lu2 may have made the same mistake as so many others or perhaps he took the reading from a different antigraph he might have been using for the purpose of comparison (uid. ad 871 taurus uacca). The ms. Hd, for its part, gives the equally banal de monte (“interpretem prodit”, as rightly stated by Baumg.-Crus. 1834, 534), yet Bothe opted for it (18182) because of the moles in 890 (1818, 142): “Sed hoc uocabulum [sc. moles] mox sequitur. Palat. monte, h. e. partem montis, quam iecit Cyclops: uid. 882”. 888: euanescere: for the variant uanescere, uid. ad 887  f. 890: iacta: the clear majority reading of the mss. is tacta, which has also been adopted in most edd. (uid. app.), including some of the earliest, and by Heinsius in his 1st ed. (1652), and in particular since Magnus recovered it with the questionable argument that it has a ‘magical touch’ (1914, 524: “a me sc, cf 652, 886, XI 308”; see also Bömer 1982, 449); in any case it would need a more explicit agent (Hill 2000, 168; Hopkinson 2000, 230; Hardie 2015, 358; all expressing doubts regarding the reading). The most recent ed. to keep it is Tarrant, although he expresses (2004, 406 in app.) his doubts about it and reveals his sympathy for fracta (“fort. recte”; the opposite stance can be seen in Lemaire 1822). Copyists and edd. have felt the need to gloss the part., a sure sign that they feel somewhat ill at ease with it. Thus, for instance, in N2 we find unda written above, in M22 we have a sanguine (sanguine in V92) and in Fe2 ab aqua; Regius does not specify the origin of the contact (1493, ad loc.): “Tum rupes percussa aperitur”. Another of the best-attested variants is fracta, which was not incorporated into his text but received the approval (“bene”) of Heinsius (1659, 354  f.) and was printed by Gierig (1807, 303), comparing 12.488: fractaque dissiluit percusso lammina callo, and Verg. georg. 4.410: in aquas tenues dilapsus abibit, although neither passage provides clear backing (cf. Luck 2009, 113). This reading has also been accepted by some edd. down to our own day. Bach (1836, 362) maintains that from it came tracta, in turn giving rise to tacta. The problem is that fracta dehiscit is a redundancy and almost tautological, revealing the spurious origin of fracta (cf. rupta in P41). Another interesting variant, the spelling closest to tacta, is iacta, which I have found only in B2Ld Sp Rd and Planudes must have found in his antigraph (βληθεῖσα). This reading was approved by Glareanus (Glar.-Long.

380

Commentary

1570, 228: “Omnes tacta legunt. At ego iacta malim. Intelligo enim saxum a Polyphemo iactum”; cf. Bersm. 1596, 547) and incorporated by Heinsius into his 2nd ed. from the gloss iactis in altum molibus (1659, 355), one that was clearly unnecessary in view of the simpler gloss by Glareanus (cf. also 884 e saxo). Among recent edd. only Goold (1984; as previously in Miller 19212) has accepted it. Much less plausible is the variant tracta (the stone was thrown, as stated in l. 883: mittit, not dragged; cf. also the variant acta), which Ciofanus (1575, 187) reads in several of his mss. and which received the timid approval of Ellis, who had found it in O10 (see Simmons 1889, 168). Other variants transmitted are tecta, tanta, facta, capta, tincta, cuncta and certa. Semantically close to tanta, and even more so to cuncta, is the variant tota, which I have found in A3 and To. It is recorded by Tarrant (2004, 406) as a proposal by Hardie (who himself, 2015, 72, records it in app., although he does not incorporate into his text or mention it in his comm.: p. 358) and it has recently been adopted by Holzberg (2017, 684). It is palaeographically feasible and also has the significant juxtaposition tota dehiscit in its favour. Most unfortunate, however, was Merkel’s proposal for his 2nd ed. (1875): taetra (in 1850 he had opted for fracta). The paradosis tacta might justify our suggesting torta (i.  e. torta > tarta > tacta), since the rock was thrown (cf. 4.709  f.: quantum Balearica torto / funda potest plumbo medii transmittere caeli; epist. 4.158: ueniant proaui fulmina torta manu), perhaps even in a spin (uid. ad 884 e saxo). In view of the shortcomings of tacta I hesitantly opt for iacta as the most likely variant, because of both its meaning and its spelling, the latter of which could have given rise to tacta and the other variants. dehiscit: for the prosody dӗhiscit, cf. 140 prŏauos (see Bach 1836, 363). 891: uiuaque: at a certain point (o5, 351) Heinsius suggested: “for. fuluaque”, although he never returned to this proposal. per rimas: almost all the variants (uid. append.) are the result of an erroneous expansion of the abbreviation of per. proceraque: this is the majority reading of the mss. and edd. (uid. append.). Against it some mss. give properataque, probably the result of a misreading or perhaps an echo of 15.748: resque domi gestae properataque gloria rerum, epist. 4.147: tolle moras tantum properataque foedera iunge, or Pont. 3.4.59: Dum uenit huc rumor properataque carmina fiunt. Jahn (1832, 884) attests this variant in “Twisd. 1, 2” and it is indeed in L7, though not in L6, which gives proceraque. The edd. who kept it in their text make reference to its appropriateness in a context of transformation, as is the case with the habitual adj. subitus: Regius (1493, ad loc.): “Properata quidem legitur sed procera hoc est recta et longa arundini magis conuenire uidetur. Tametsi properata. properanter ac festinanter nata intelligi possit”; Gierig (1807, 303): “pro proceraque tueor uulg. properataque, i. properanter nata, ut II ex P. XI, 1. properatum tempore breui opus. u. ad X, 31. Alibi fere subitus de corporibus transformatis. V, 560. subitis flauescere pennis. XI, 341. subitis pen-



381

Commentary

dentem sustulit alis”; Lemaire (1822, 426): “properata autem magis placet, propter subitam transformationem”; Baumgarten-Crusius (1834,  534  f.): “properata lectiore uoce arundo dicitur, quae mira celeritate accreuit” (and he compares 5.396; 9.587; 15.748). What cannot be accepted, however, is the argument of Fabbri (1923, 152): “proceraque ceteri: at, dum surgit, non potest harundo iam esse procera”. 892: saxi: this is the majority reading in the ms. paradosis and the unanimous reading of the edd. except for Aler. 1471, although a small but authoritative number of mss. (uid. append.) has saxis (thus N, which corrects it into saxi although saxis reappears in N2), probably the result of dittography (saxissonat), in a line marked by onomatopoeia by means of -s- and -x- (Bömer 1982, 450; Hardie 2015, 359). A small number of recc. has saxo, which is approved by Heinsius in his notes (b3, 381: “bene”), prompting Baumgarten-Crusius to state, not without a touch of humour (1834, 535): “quod non potuit non placere Heinsio datiuorum amantissimo” (cf. 745; 853; 875). Note the elegant variant resonat saxi that appears exclusively in Lr2 and Lu2. exsultantibus: M gives the erroneous exfluuitantibus (Lr27 ‘corrects’ it into exfluitantibus), which is also in Mo and is modified in Bo3 into et fluuitantibus; Lu aligns with this group in reading fluitantibus (uid. append.). Burman (1727, 924) attests the reading et fluctantibus in “Bonon. unus”, but I believe this is an approximate reference to the reading of Bo3 (BoBo2 give exultantibus). For the line-ending, cf. Ser. Samm. 449: igne lapis candens datur exultantibus undis. 893–897: miraque res, subito media tenus exstitit aluo incinctus iuuenis flexis noua cornua cannis, qui, nisi quod maior, quod toto caerulus ore,       Acis erat, et sic quoque erat tamen Acis in amnem uersus, et antiquum tenuerunt flumina nomen”.

895

• 896 Acis erat, sed sic quoque amans erat Acis in amnem coni. Waddel • et sic quoque N2(i.l. u.l.) Ω, Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1652, Anderson 1982, Hill 2000, Tarrant 2004, dub. Magnus 1914(in notis)  : sed sic quoque B2(a.c.)L42(u.l.; et sic q. L4)Lr7N2, prob. Heinsius 1659(qui “septem” test.), edd. (uid. append.)  : alii alia (uid. append.) • 897–968 redit T •

893: cf. 5.413; 14.59; fast. 2.145; 5.637. See Bömer 1982, 450; Hardie 2015, 359. 894: incinctus iuuenis flexis: here is an example of the transmission of a sound text unnecessarily complicated by successive errors. In his 1st ed. Regius (1493, ad loc.) recorded this proposal in the margin: “Incinctus iuuenis flexis. Sic quidem legitur. Sed inflexis forsitan et cinctus sic est legendum  : ut utrumque in alterius locum transferatur  : hoc modo. Inflexis iuuenis cinctus

382

Commentary

noua cornua cannis. Nam fluuiorum dii cornua habere finguntur  : quod boum similes esse dicuntur  : et propter strepitum et propter circumflexiones  : quas cornua uocant. Cincta autem cornua cannis idcirco habere finguntur  : quod fere in ripis fluminum arundines nascuntur” (this is probably the source of the unmetrical incinctus … inflexis which finds its way into the edd. of 1497 and 1498). In the following edd. (e.  g. 1510, 1526, 1540) he incorporated his proposal into the text, as was the subsequent intention of Micyllus, who follows in principle the text of the 2nd ed. of Regius (see Iglesias-Álvarez 2006, 125), as he published the same note (1543, 304), but has inflexus … cinctus, no doubt a slip on the part of the editor or printer (Bersm. 1596, 547, attests this reading in the margin of his ed., and not inflexus … flexus, as misstated by Jahn 1832, 884). Also probably erroneous is the reading inflexis … flexus attested in the margin of the ed. Lugd. 1546 and which Jahn (ibid.) records: “Margo Col.” (Magnus 1914, 524, attests the variant inflexis … flexis in a Cologne ed. of 1564, possibly another error on his part or else a mistake by Jahn). Leaving to one side the proposal by Regius and its deformations, Heinsius (1659, 355) attests for flexis the variants nexis, sexis (fexis as an erratum: cf. 1758, 708) and fletis (uid. append.), and feels confident enough to propose plexis, comparing Pl. Bacch. 70: corolla plectilis; Gell. 18.2.3: coronam e lauro plexam; and Apul. met. 6.1.3: uidet spicas frumentarias in aceruo et alias flexiles in corona, where Heinsius himself conjectures plexiles based on our passage (see Oudendorp 1786, 383; Pricaeus 1650, 294, in turn proposes plectiles; see also Heinsius 1661, 21 ad fast. 1.345). This proposal was adopted only by Bothe (18182). Finally, Heinsius himself (ibid.) attests the reading flexa … canna in “Arondel.”, but Ld gives flexis … cannis. For the constr. incinctus cornua, cf. 3.162: margine gramineo patulos incinctus hiatus (with Suárez 2015, 146); fast. 3.669: illa, leui mitra canos incincta capillos; 5.675: huc uenit incinctus tunica (tunicas u.l.) mercator. 895: ore: against the vast majority of mss. and all preceding edd., which have ore est, Merkel (1850) recovered the reading ore given by LuMNV2 and a small number of recc., being followed by all later edd. except Koch (1866: uid. append.). In this context of verbs in the past the variant ore is clearly preferable. 896: Acis erat, et sic quoque erat: the repetition of erat and the succession of two monosyllables (possibly three, as elision would also permit quoque to be one in this line), which furthermore are transcribed for the most part using ligatures, give rise to the usual instability in transmission (uid. ad 852). In this case, in addition, the majority paradosis: et sic quoque, implies a lengthening in the preceding erāt, which has also no doubt contributed to the proliferation of variants such as sic et quoque, sed sic quoque, quod sic quoque or sicut quoque (uid. append.). Continuing with the metrical variants, some share the replacement of quoque by an indefinite pronoun, but I believe this is the result of a simple misreading (cf. si quicquid, sic quicquid, sic quisquis, sed quicquid, this last approved by Vossius: see Bothe 1818, 175).



383

Commentary

The edd. have been divided between et sic quoque and sed sic quoque, although Heinsius (1659, 355) pointed to a likely corruption of the whole passage: “locus tamen de mendo suspectus” (so also Hopkinson 2000, 230). Both readings obviously make full sense, but the presence of tamen, with its adversative force, thereby casts suspicion on the appearance of sed, which already had against it the fact that it prevented the strange lengthening and that it is found only in a handful of recc. It was Heinsius who adopted it, in his 2nd ed., on the support of “septem” and since then it has been the reading of almost all edd. The reading et sic quoque, for its part, was followed by all edd. down to the 1st ed. of Heinsius (1652) and picked up again by Anderson (1982) and Tarrant (2004), although Magnus (1914, 524 in app.) had previously shown his sympathy for it (“fort recte”) through a comparison with analogous lengthenings such as 1.660, 3.184, 7.365 or 10.98 (see Bömer 1969, 498  f. ad 3.184; 1976b, 215 ad 7.61; 1980, 45 ad 10.98). In fact, not only is lengthening unexceptional in Ovid, but prosodic variation in gemination is a familiar device among the poets (see Wills 1996, 461–7), so much so that it makes this reading even more valuable (cf. also ad 444, 913, 958). Finally, Waddel, consciously or unconsciously feeling uncomfortable with the sequence sed … tamen, proposed this reading (1734, 120): Acis erat, sed sic quoque amans erat Acis in amnem, with the following argument: “Etiam postquam uersus est in amnem, perstitit in meo amore. Mutatio orta est ex transpositione amans erat, per Librarii incuriam in erat amans, quum autem sic non consisteret metrum, amans mutatum est in tamen”. 897: with this line ms. T once again comes into play and continues until the end of the book (uid. ad 833–86). 898–903: Desierat Galatea loqui, coetuque soluto discedunt placidisque natant Nereides undis. Scylla redit (neque enim medio se credere ponto  audet) et aut bibula sine uestibus errat harena aut, ubi lassata est, seductos nacta recessus gurgitis inclusa sua membra refrigerat unda.

900

• 899 placidisque … undis] placidasque … undas A4(undis i.l. u.l. A42) • natant … undis] natat Nereys in undis Bs3(natant nereydes undis mg. u.l. Bs32) • 900 neque … medio] medio neque enim Mt Bs4 • 902 seductos multi codd. (uid. append.), edd.  : seductaque multi codd. (uid. append.)  : alii alia (uid. append.) • 903 inclusa] inclusi P2(i.l. u.l. a m.p.)  : immensa(per comp.) B2  : in summa B4C  : in liquida A42(mg.; inclusa A4 a.c.)B5(corr. B52)L4V7, “unus Heinsii” test. Burm. 1727  : inclausa H3Lr3 P10  : in clara Lr7  : inclausa est P41  : medusa Lu2(inclusa Lu)  : infusa dub. Heinsius(in notis)  : î clusa V6  : in clusa Bo2  : quid To2 a.c. (an inclusi?) n.l. •

384

Commentary

899: placidisque natant Nereides undis: in addition to the misreading placidasque  … undas of A4 the reworking in Bs3 is striking: placidisque natat Nereys in undis (an unmetrical in undis also in Es4). 900: neque enim: for the variant nec e. (uid. append.), uid. ad 127 neque. Note the inversion with metrical result medio neque enim in Mt and Bs4. se credere: Burman (1727, 924) reads a variant succedere in “tert. Gronou.”, a ms. which should perhaps be identified with B2 (cf. ad 903), but there the copyist has actually written secedere and corrected it thus: se/credere. 901: bibula: Slater (1927, ad loc.) thinks that the reading in Planudes’ antigraph might have been sicca, since his translation has ἐπὶ τῆς ξηρᾶς ἄμμου. This could be the case, or it might instead be a paraphrastic translation by the Byzantine scholar (for his virtues and shortcomings as a translator of Ovid, see Fisher 2011, 36–40). For the adj., see Simmons 1889, 206 ad 14.368. For the possible etymological wordplay bibula  … harena (“quod aquam hauriat”: Maltby 1991, 269), see Hopkinson 2000, 231; Michalopoulos 2001, 87  f. 902: seductos: the mss. are equally divided between this reading and seductaque, which would have to be taken as referring to Scylla (cf. glosses such as ab aliis in M22, or seorsum ducta in V23). Between the two options, seductaque obviously seems to be conditioned syntactically by lassata and on a phonic level by nacta. All the edd. have opted for seductos. The variant secretos, in Ld3, is simply a gloss (it can be found as such written above e.  g. in Ld22O42V92). 903: gurgitis: Ovid has placed this word in a position that connects it ἀπὸ κοινοῦ with recessus in the previous line and with unda in the present one. There is therefore no call to introduce commas that would link it to only one of these nouns. inclusa: there are numerous variants in the mss. (uid. app.). It is curious that in Lu a second copyist has taken it upon himself to delete the correct reading and replace it with the unmetrical and absurd medusa. We should regard the following variants as conjectures: immensa (îmêsa), which Burman (1727, 925) records in “Gronou. tert.” but which I have found only in B2 (uid. ad 900 se credere; cf. Ib. 147; Sil. 6.523); in summa (î sûma), in B4C (cf. e.  g. 2.457 al.); and in liquida, in A42B5L4V7 (cf. e.  g. 1.95 al.). Presumably halfway between a conjecture and a misreading is in clara, in Lr7 (Heinsius’ septimus Mediceus), and it could be related to the spelling inclausa of H3Lr3 and P10 (cf. in clusa in V6 and inclausa est in P41), which seems to point to a proposal in clausa … unda (cf. Luc. 5.407). In a lengthy note (1758, 708  f. [Burm. 1727, 924  f.]) Heinsius demonstrates with the support of a number of passages that inclusa unda is used here “ut in lacubus domesticis et piscinis”, i.  e. to refer to an area of water separated from the open sea (cf. seductos recessus and 14.51, and see Hopkinson 2000, 231): Iuu. 12.75: tandem intrat positas inclusa per aequora moles; Auien. ora 542  f.: interque saxa immobilis gurges latet, / quiescit aequor, pelagus inclusum stupet (cf. orb. terr. 1171: stagni facies incisa quiescit, where Heinsius



385

Commentary

proposes inclusa); Rut. Nam. 1.379  f.: ludere lasciuos intra uiuaria pisces / gurgitis inclusi laxior unda sinit (cf. Col. 8.16.3: mox istam curam sequens aetas aboleuit, et lautitiae locupletium maria ipsa Neptunumque clauserunt; Mart. 12.31.5: quaeque natat clusis anguilla domestica lymphis; Auson. epist. 3.8: nutrit secretus conclusae uliginis umor). Heinsius himself, however, had previously (b3, 381) put forward this timid proposal: “f. infusa”. Finally, we should bear in mind the variant inclusi that the m.p. of P2 writes above as u.l. and which might also have been the original reading of To2, where the final -a is the result of a correction, this in the light of the above-cited passage of Rutilius Namatianus (see also Heinsius in b3, 381). 904–909: Ecce fretum scindens alti nouus incola ponti nuper in Euboica uersis Anthedone membris     Glaucus adest uisaeque cupidine uirginis haeret et, quaecumque putat fugientem posse morari, uerba refert; fugit illa tamen ueloxque timore peruenit in summum positi prope litora montis.

905

• 904 fretum scindens] freto stridens M L42(i.l. u.l.; fretum scindens L4)N2 Bo3Lr27, prob. Merkel 1850, edd. aliquot (uid. append.)  : fretum findens MtO4 To(corr. To2), Heinsius 1659(“ex duobus”), edd. aliquot (uid. append.)  : fretum stridens Lr22V30, “unus Medic. et unus Reg.” test. Heinsius 1659, Aler. 1471  : fretum stringens Ds Rd, dub. coni. Heinsius 1659(in notis), prob. Ellis, Edwards 1905, Goold 1984, R. de Verger 2005  : fretum radens dub. coni. Heinsius(in notis)  : alii alia (uid. append.) • 906 h(a)eret AMNV2 A4HdL4(ardet mg. u.l. L42)Lr6Mo(ardet mg. u.l. Mo2)N2 Vt Lr27, prob. Heinsius 1659(qui et “Oxon. et sex alii ex melioribus” test.), edd.  : ardet Ω, Plan., edd. aliquot (uid. append.)  : ardens L3N2(i.l. u.l.)V3 A3(ardet mg. u.l. A32)Ba(ardet a.c.)Be2CEFH2Ld3OO4(ardet mg. u.l. O42)PrV5V6V9(ardet p.c.) Mo3P5To Es2(a.c.) Es6Go2, “Cantabrig. … et alii decem” test. Heinsius 1659  : audet Lr7(ardet p.c.)  : quid Bo a.c. (ardet p.c.) n.l. •

904: fretum scindens: the majority of mss. and edd. opt for this reading, backed by the parallel of Luc. 6.400: prima fretum scindens Pagasaeo litore pinus, and by other uses of the verb in Ovid when applied to the opening up of waters, such as 11.463: aequalique ictu scindunt freta (with the variant findunt: see Díez 2014, 315); trist. 1.10.48: scindere Bistonias altera puppis aquas; 5.2.62: et Scythicum profuga scindere puppe fretum (cf. Claud. IV cos. Hon. 348: liquidos [sc. fluuios] tu scinde natatu; further passages containing this image with findere or sim., in Magnus 1894b, 796; see also Bömer 1982, 455; Hardie 2015, 362). Against this reading M and some recc. transmit freto stridens, which was approved by Merkel and by other edd. after him down to our own days (uid. app.; cf. Simmons 1889, 169: “The idea apparently is of the sea seething and hissing in his wake, freto indicating both the place of the motion and the cause of the sound. The expression may have been suggested by Virg. Aen.

386

Commentary

I. 102, stridens Aquilone procella”; Keene 1898, 121, with reference to Verg. georg. 4.262; H-K-E 1898, 274: “das Rauschen des Wassers”). On the basis of a very small number of recc. (1659, 355: “ex duobus”) Heinsius preferred fretum findens as early as in his 1st ed. (1652) but was followed by only a very few edd. down to Richter (1828). For his part, Ellis (ap. Simmons 1889, 169) cites the reading of O5 as confirmation of a conjecture by Heinsius. This ms. reads fretum (fetum in reality a.c.) cindens (with the first three letters written over something deleted and illegible) stringens (abbreviated as strîgñs), although this last word was later eliminated by means of underlining (Ellis: “Here as in many other cases the rejected reading of the scribe is the right one”). Now, the reading fretum stringens, which I have found in Ds and Rd, had already been conjectured by Heinsius (1659, 355; 1758, 709), comparing 4.562: aequora destringunt summis Ismenides alis, 11.733: stringebat summas ales miserabilis undas, and Claud. Stil. 2.273  f.: transuehitur Tuscos Appenninusque uolatu / stringitur (“pessime”, according to Gierig 1807, 304 in app.), and his proposal was accepted by Edwards (1905), Goold (1984; not so Miller 19212) and Ramírez de Verger (2005). Heinsius himself had made another timid proposal (b6, 225v): fretum radens, which he did not carry into his published notes. Both of these conjectures of Heinsius were ruled out by Baumgarten-Crusius (1834, 536) in the following terms: “utrumque improspero conatu, quum ea uerba superficiem tactam dicant, quod emergenti Deo non conuenit”. 905: uersis … membris: this is the reading of AGfP2S2 and most of the recc., as well as of all the edd. except Aler. 1471, an edition which, along with L3LuM2N(p.c.)T and an equally substantial number of recc., gives the opposite order: membris … uersis. M(Lr27) and V2 for their part have the absurd uestris … siluis, which to judge by the shape of what is deleted could likewise have been the original reading of N. With the exception of three passages (4.338: hospes” ait simulatque gradu discedere uerso; 14.549: robore mollito lignoque in corpora uerso; trist. 4.2.23: et cernet uultus aliis pro tempore uersos), Ovid always brings forward the part. uersus when it is accompanied by a noun: 1.425: plurima cultores uersis animalia glaebis; 8.813: egit in Haemoniam uersis sublimis habenis; epist. 16.89: Interea — credo uersis ad prospera fatis —; ars 1.330: Auroram uersis Phoebus adisset equis; fast. 1.369: decipiat ne te uersis tamen ille figuris (cf. also met. 2.698; 4.604; 7.385; 10.234; epist. 5.30  f.; 10.149; am. 2.1.26; fast. 5.497; Pont. 2.1.37). 906: haeret: the majority paradosis of the mss. is ardet, which was the reading of the editions down to the 1st ed. of Heinsius (1652). Other mss. have the part. ardens, which makes sense only if we read hic or haec (uid. infra) at the beginning of l. 907. But the fact is that AMNV2 and a few recc. give the variant haeret, clearly the difficilior, which Heinsius, on this basis and with further backing (1659, 355: “Oxon. et sex alii ex melioribus”), recovered for his 2nd ed. He was followed by all later edd. except Loers (1843,



Commentary

387

593: “quod [sc. haeret] cur elegantissimae uulgatae ardet praetulerit Heinsius non apparet”). Burman defends it (1727, 925: “praeferendum”) on the basis of comparison with am. 1.8.24: haesit et in uultu constitit usque tuo, a passage to which Gierig (1807, 304  f.) adds met. 2.409  f.: in uirgine Nonacrina / haesit et accepti caluere sub ossibus ignes. Other examples could be added in turn (e.  g. 3.418  f.; ars 3.543; Prop. 1.3.19; 2.3.2) to attest this amatory use of haerere, either in the sense of “to be pierced through”, “to lose mobility” when struck by Cupid’s arrow, or even with the meaning “to become a prisoner” (see Pichon 1902, 162  f.; Enk 1962, 55  f. ad Prop. 2.3.2; Bömer 1969, 343  f. ad met. 2.410 and 548 ad 3.395; McKeown 1989, 213  f. ad am. 1.8.24; Gibson 2003, 313 ad art. 3.543; Fedeli 2005, 124  f. ad Prop. 2.3.2; Traver, “Síntomas de amor: inmovilidad”, in Moreno Soldevila 2011, 401; Hardie 2015, 362). Note that mss. Ab and Gg coincide in having a lacuna just after this verse (uid. append.). 907–908: posse … / uerba: here we have another example of inversion with enjambement, in this case in Sp: uerba … / posse. 907: et: this, the majority paradosis, alternates with various monstrative forms, among which it is worth noting haec and hic both because of the support they have (uid. append.) and because they allow the variant ardens to be read in l. 906 (uid. supra). 910–915: Ante fretum est ingens, apicem collectus in unum,        910 longa sub arboribus conuexus in aequora uertex; constitit hic et tuta loco monstrumne deusne ille sit ignorat, admiraturque colorem caesariemque umeros subiectaque terga tegentem, ultimaque excipiat quod tortilis inguina piscis.       915 • 911 longa … arboribus] longa sine arboribus HdLr6 Bs3, “Oxon. et tres alii” test. et prob. Heinsius 1659(l. sub a. 1652), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Weise 1845, Zingerle 1884  : longus ab aequoribus coni. Merkel 1850, Korn 1880, Riese 1889(longa sub arboribus 1872), Simmons 1889, Bernardini Marzolla 1994  : longus ab arboribus coni. Suchier  : liber ab arboribus coni. Koch  : purus ab arboribus “olim (coll III 709) conieci” Magnus 1914 • in Lu2(i.l. u.l.)MN(ad p.c. N2)S2 FeL42(i.l. u.l.)MoN2O2(i.l.)Ph2 P10So Bo3Lr27, Naug. 1516, Merkel 1850, edd. post. plerique (uid. append.)  : ad Ω, Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, edd. (uid. append.)  : om. O • 913 ignorat admiraturque] ignorans admiratusque prop. Luck • ignorat Lr2 A4B4(corr. B42)B5HdL4LdLd22(i.l. u.l.)Ld3Lr4(p.c. uid.)Lr6O42(i.l. u.l.)P3V7V8(a.c. uid.)Vd(-ans a.c.) Cs2Go2(i.l. u.l.)Mt2Mt3P8SoV16 B12BoBo2Cs3Mt5P28RdTo2 Es6Lu2 Mv7, Puteol. 1471, Calph. 1474, Hardie 2015  : ignorans Ω, Aler. 1471, edd.  : ingnorans L3 To Mc(îg-)  : ignoras V8(p.c.) • 915 piscis] spinis Pr  : picis V6  : moli Mo3(corr. Mo32)  : pristis dub. coni. Heinsius(in notis) •

388

Commentary

910–911: “Topographical descriptions in ancient literature are often elaborate, and sometimes difficult to visualise” (Hopkinson 2000, 232). It is thus not surprising that the interpretation of this τοποθεσία has posed problems and hence given rise to variants in its transmission. What is certain is that Ovid gets his inspiration here from the description of this same place by Homer (Od. 12.73–84), combining it with Virgil’s description of the coasts of Carthage in Aen. 1.162–8 and 310  f. (Hopkinson, 2000, 232; Hardie 2015, 362). Focusing on the textual problems, for the expression longa sub arboribus Slater (1927, ad loc.) attributes to Planudes’ antigraph the text nubilus arboribus, comparing 14.514: in quibus antra uidet, quae, multa nubila silua. Yet the translation by Planudes seems only approximate: Ἔστι δὲ πρὸ τῆς θαλάσσης ὑπερμεγέθης κορυφή, εἰς μίαν ὀξύτητα συνηγμένη καὶ δένδρεσι συνηρεφής, ἐκφερομένη πρὸς τὰ μακρὰ κύματα (μακρὰ proves that he does in fact translate longa), so there is no need to consider this unattested variant. Heinsius, for his part, had found the variant longa sine arboribus in “Oxon. et tres alii” (uid. app.), and he adopted it for his second edition, comparing 8.789: sine fruge, sine arbore tellus, as well as 15.296  f.: sine ullis / arduus arboribus (see Heinsius 1659, 355; 1758, 709). It should therefore be understood that the spot was free of trees, thus facilitating the subsequent dialogue between Scylla and Glaucus (Gierig 1807, 305: “ita facilius in Glaucum despicere et cum eo colloqui poterat [sc. Scylla]”). This reading was followed by some editors down to Zingerle (1884). The same objective of removing the trees lies in the proposal by Koch (1864, 343  f.), who compares epist. 10.25  f.: Mons fuit; apparent frutices in uertice rari; / hinc scopulus raucis pendet adesus aquis. Koch had rejected Heinsius’ text because he did not feel at ease with its syntactic order, and conjectured instead liber ab arboribus on the grounds of comparison with fast. 5.707: liber ab arboribus locus est, apta area pugnae, and, secondarily, with met. 3.709: purus ab arboribus spectabilis undique campus, and it is precisely from this latter passage that Magnus conjectured purus ab arboribus (Magnus 1914, 525 in app.: “olim (coll III 709) conieci”). Both proposals had in turn taken the preposition ab from the conjecture that Merkel printed in his edition of 1850: longus ab aequoribus (I have found the variant aequoribus in De, and it can be compared with aruoribus in V2 a.c.). He justified the proposal in this way (1875, XXXVIIIf.): “scripsi LONGUS AB pro ga sub, uti xiv 145 in M est numero sub pro ros ut. longus uertex offensionem non habet: longum caelum est vi 64. nomina similiter geminantur viii 585: eadem prope τοποθεσία vii 779 viii 330” (and here is Keene’s translation of this text (1898, 121): “Facing the sea is a great peak tapering into one point, stretching far up from the sea and arching over the sea”). Merkel’s proposal had little success, yet it was partially defended by Suchier (1859, 640), who had reasonably rejected Heinsius’ text on the grounds that copyists would never have replaced the crystal-clear sine arboribus with the more obscure sub arboribus, and because he found the phrase longa …



Commentary

389

aequora “uneasy” (see below). In addition, he considered it unnecessary to change arboribus to aequoribus (this substitution was criticized by Koch as well [1864, 344]: “arborum notionem prorsus necessariam immerito sustulit”, and was considered “violent and improbable” by Ellis [ap. Simmons 1889, 170]). Consequently, Suchier proposed to read longus ab arboribus conuexus ad aequora uertex, with this paraphrasis, which I think makes the interpretation of the text somewhat violent: “der Berg dacht sich von den oben stehenden Bäumen allmählich (longus) nach dem Meere hin ab” (the expression longus ab is also the weakest point of the above-cited translation by Keene: “stretching far up from the sea”). Ellis, for his part, had supported the majority reading as “capable of a good sense” (ap. Simmons 1889, 169  f.): “a peak sloping down to a long stretch of sea water covered by trees”. Here is Hopkinson’s interpretation (2000, 231  f.): “[Standing] before the strait [of Messana] is a huge peak, gathering itself into a single summit and sloping, tree-clad, far into the sea”. Even though I am convinced that the best text at hand is the majority reading, it must be admitted that it presents at least two oddities that could have favoured the confusion: first, the noun uertex is modified by two juxtaposed adjectives formed by the prefix con-, a redundancy for which I can find no clear parallels; second, the phrase sub arboribus suffers from some lack of definition from the syntactic point of view: if we take it as depending on conuexus (as Hopkinson apparently does; this would itself be an odd construction in Latin), we should accept that this adjective is supporting two adverbial complements, since it also governs in aequora. Yet this wording would be scarcely acceptable and forces us to understand that this inaccessible peak (cf. Hom. Od. 12.77–9) has nonetheless a layer of woodland above. It thus seems preferable to consider sub arboribus to be dependent on longa in aequora (certainly in a somewhat relaxed manner, yet cf. 8.337: longa paruae sub harundine cannae), and this confirms that the adjective here is used, not in its proper denotative sense of “long sea”, but as a hypallage, i.  e., the rock penetrates into the sea a long stretch covered by trees (cf. the translation by Ellis, quoted above; see also Hardie 2015, 363). In any case, unlike Merkel and Suchier we must defend the expression longa in aequora, since Ovid was precisely the first author to use the phrase longum aequor (rem. 595: longum spectabat in aequor; met. 3.538: longa per aequora uecti; 13.961: quam longa per aequora uerro), which was later only rarely imitated (Homer. 181: longa quaterdenis sulcarunt (pulsarunt u.l.) aequora proris; Stat. Theb. 4.24: uiris longum super aequor ituris [5.484  f.; 6.799; 12.809]; Sil. 5.9: aequore longo; see also Bömer 1982, 456). Unlike Heinsius, Koch and Magnus, we must in turn defend the presence of trees in the spot (cf. Verg. Aen. 1.164  f.), because the comparison with l. 961 “potrebbe fornire un’associazione visiva fra Glauco, con la sua testa chiomata, il promontorio alberato e Polifemo con la sua «foresta» di capelli” (Hardie 2015, 363; note that the structure of the line loosely resembles Luc. 1.170: longa sub ignotis extendere rura colonis).

390

Commentary

910: ingens: although in his 1st ed. (1850) Merkel rightly punctuates with a comma after this adj., in 1875 he replaces it with a semi-colon, creating an anacoluthon. co(n/l)lectus: probably arising from a spelling côlectus, some mss. (among them some as important as L3MNS2T) give the variant coniectus (cf. e.  g. ĉiectus in T), in line with an alternation repeated in other passages (cf. e.  g. Verg. Aen. 12.862, and see Bach 1836, 364). This variant was kept in some of the early edd. (cf. e.  g. Regius 1493, ad loc.: “Coniectus. Coactus’”) down to Bersman (1596). Heinsius went so far as to suggest in his unpublished notes (b2, 380, or b3, 381): “f. congestus”, and in his published notes (1659, 355) he ventured the proposal cuneatus, comparing l. 778, but admitting finally that collectus is in itself irreproachable (Heinsius 1758, 709: “Sed collectus bene se habet”, but cf. Bömer 1982, 456), referring the reader to his note on Verg. Aen. 12.862 (see Burm. 1746, IV, 99  f.; see also Broukhusius 1708, 166 ad Tib. 1.9.14; Bach 1836, 364). For the strange variant telluris of the ed. Venet. 1472, cf. Verg. Aen. 1.34: Vix e conspectu Siculae telluris in altum. 911: conuexus: some mss. give the variant conuersus, which Heinsius (1758, 709 [Burm. 1727, 926]) compares with the image of epist. 5.61: Adspicit immensum moles natiua profundum. Ellis (ap. Simmons 1889, 169) attests connectus in a “Bod.”, but this is not the reading of any of those I have collated. in: this is the reading of Lu2MNS2 and a small number of recc. and, though it had already appeared in Naugerius (1516), it was recovered by Merkel for his 1st ed. (1850) and all other later edd. except Koch (1866). By contrast, N2 corrected it to ad (i.  e., before the correction the ms. gave in aequore), which is the reading of all the mss. and the other edd. (uid. app.). It is true that the structure conuexus ad is unprecedented in Latin, but it should also be borne in mind that conuexus in first appears precisely in this passage and is later used in only a few instances in Pliny the Elder, e.  g. 2.160: in illo caua in se conuexitas uergit; 2.107: Discessimus a terris oceanum spectantibus ad conuexas in nostra maria; 25.124: folia … conuexa … in terram (25.161). In any case, the idea of the peak penetrating the sea is more expressive with in. See also Bömer 1982, 457. aequora: Bernardini Marzolla (1994, 656) proposes to read this line: longus ab aequoribus conuexus in aethera uertex: “Poiché però conuexus indica se non erro direzione verso l’alto (XIV 154 conuexum per iter), ritengo che il finora intatto in aequora debba essere mutato in in aethera, e adduco a sostegno II 292 aequora decrescunt et ab aethere longius absunt”. 912: loco: being as inaccessible as it is, the peak offers the young Scylla safety when faced with the appearance of Glaucus. Against the unquestionable paradosis (cf. 8.368: despexitque loco tutus quem fugerat hostem), M(Lr27) and Bo3 have a strange tamen, perhaps a recollection of trist. 2.1.366: tuta tamen Sappho. It is impossible to verify the reading of N before correction by the m.p., but it clearly was not tamen (uid. append.).



Commentary

391

monstrumne deusne: for the predictable -ne/-ue alternation and the usual false wordbreaks, uid. append.; for the syntactic constr. (cf. e.  g. Verg. Aen. 1.308: hominesne feraene), see Bömer 1982, 457. 913: ignorat: in addition to the frequent oscillation in the mss. between personal verb forms and pres. part., the appearance of the variant ignorat in Lr2 and a considerable number of recc. as against the majority reading ignorans (uid. app.) could have been brought about as a result of the contrived displacement of the copulative -que from its logical position after colorem (i.  e. coloremque caesariemque) to the verb admiratur. Hardie (2015, 363), however, rightly maintains that there is no clear backing for this displacement (and uid. ad 257; there is certainly no validity in the parallel of 12.321 cited by Bömer 1982, 457) and he therefore defends ignorat, a reading that in turn might have been displaced as it involved a lengthening in arsis before the caesura (uid. ad 896). Luck (2005b, 267) attempted to get round the problem by proposing ignorans admiratusque, recalling that -tur in N is a corrected spelling, but the fact remains that the space deleted seems rather to suggest an original reading admiratumque and it does not seem possible that it could have been -tusque. Finally Bellido suggests (per litteras) the possibility of ignoratque, in correlation with admiraturque. 914: humeros: in a further misinterpretation of the complex syntax of the passage, some important mss. have humeris or the unmetrical humerosque (uid. append.). tegentem: although the variant gerentem is of no worth, it is significant that in this respect there is once again coincidence between mss. such as Rd and Es4, which also gave humeris. Written above as u.l., Mo has the variant terentem, which was once conjectured by Heinsius (b3, 381: “lego terentem”). For other banal variants, uid. append. 915: piscis: in his unpublished notes Heinsius suggested reading pistris (b3, 381: “forte inguina pristis”), comparing l. 963: cruraque pennigero curuata nouissima pisce, and 2.13: pisce uehi quaedam, passages for which, along with ours, Gronouius (1662, 78 [Obs. 1.18]) also conjectured pistre. Heinsius (1659, 356) later dropped this proposal, only to return to it later in the same terms (1758, 709 [Burm. 1727, 926]). Hopkinson (2000, 232) rejects this reading as an interpolation by a learned author and a recollection of Verg. Aen. 10.211 (frons hominem praefert, in pristim desinit aluus), mistakenly assuming it to be a variant transmitted by the mss. (with greater justification, in that it refers to Scylla, he could have cited Aen. 3.427: postrema immani corpore pistrix). Cf. 4.726  f.: qua tenuissima cauda / desinit in piscem (with Barchiesi-Rosati 2007, 342).

392

Commentary

916–921: Sensit et innitens quae stabat proxima moli “non ego prodigium, non sum fera belua, uirgo: sum deus” inquit “aquae, nec maius in aequore Proteus ius habet et Triton Athamantiadesque Palaemon. Ante tamen mortalis eram, sed, scilicet altis        920 debitus aequoribus, iam tum exercebar in illis. • 917 non2 AGfV3 A3BaBe2CDeDrEEsFH2HdLdLd2Ld3LsMtO3O4P3P4V5V6V9Vd B8Bs3Li3Mo3Mt2P5P8SoSpV16 Bo2(nec p.c.)Es2McMt4To2 B14CvEs6Go2Ps Mv7, Venet. 1472, Heinsius 1659(“meliores”), edd. aliquot (uid. append.)  : nec Ω, Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, edd. • 918 sum multi codd. (uid. append.), Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Weise 1845, Koch 1866  : sed Ω, Aler. 1471, edd.  : si B5 • (a)equore Ω, Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Heinsius 1652, edd. (uid. append.), malit Jahn(ap. Gierig 1823 in app.), prob. Loers 1843(in notis), dub. Magnus 1914(in notis)  : (a)equora Lr3 Gf8Vt, Heinsius 1659, edd. post. multi (uid. append.) • 920–921 sed … tum] sed – sic licet altis / deditus aequoribus – iam tum coni. Birt • 921 debitus coni. Bentley, prob. Riese 1872, edd. aliquot (uid. append.)  : deditus Ω, edd.  : editus Ft  : deditis Lr22V30, Aler. 1471  : creditus coni. Luck  : deest in Ls •

916: sensit: a further example of the continuous oscillation between the perf. and pres. forms of this verb (uid. append.). Heinsius, who still has sensit in 1652, later changes his mind (1659, 356) with the sole backing of “nonnulli” and is followed by a number of edd. down to Koch (1866). However, the change fails to improve the text and neither is it supported by the testimony of the mss. Note, in either case, the unexpected change of subject introduced by Ovid in this line, which was pointed to by the glosses of several mss. from early on (cf. also Planudes: ᾜσθετο τούτων ὁ Γλαῦκος). 917–918: non  … non  … / sum: in l. 917 the mss. are equally divided between non … nec and non … non, and the same goes for sed and sum in l. 918, although the mss. that have non … non do show a tendency to give sum (uid. app. et append.). With the exception of Venet. 1472, Heinsius (as early as in 1652) was the first to opt for non … non … / sum, adducing the debatable argument that non … non … appeared in the “meliores” (1659, 356) and failing to explain his preference for sum (“et deinde Sum Deus, non Sed”). His proposal was followed down to the ed. of Bach (1836; Weise 1845 and Koch 1866 give non … nec … / sum, as Calph. 1474 had done long before them). The other edd. have opted for non … nec … / sed. The choice is difficult, as in addition to the lack of agreement among the mss. there is no palaeographic criterion, the nec-non alternation being so systematic. Even so, I believe that the variant non … nec is more to be expected, a more logical coordination than the anaphora non  … non, which offers a more unhurried feel and is therefore more in accordance with the exordium of an erotic suasoria in which Glaucus’ most pressing need is to dispel the fear his appearance has aroused in the object of his desire.



Commentary

393

The appearance of nec may have been determined by its greater syntactic regularity, as mentioned above, and also by Ovid’s frequent use of the sequence non ego  … nec in the rest of his oeuvre and in particular in his love poetry, where it often has a persuasive tone as well: cf. epist. 20.25: non ego natura nec sum tam callidus usu (1.7  f.; 5.81; 7.165  f.; 8.67  f., 93  f.; 9.49  f.; 16.173  f.; am. 1.11.25  f.; ars 1.25  f., 51  f., 381  f.; rem. 699  f.; fast. 3.55  f.; trist. 2.1.563  f.; Pont. 3.4.57). But the fact is that Ovid, who is certainly not opposed to the anaphora non … non (7.545  f., 558; 9.752; 10.91, 172; am. 1.3.15; 2.11.11; trist. 3.3.9; Ib. 209) or even to triple anaphora (met. 11.600: non fera, non pecudes, non moti flamine rami, with the variant nec: see Díez 2014, 412) and who again has it on Glaucus’ lips in ll. 928  f. (there too with the non … nec variant), occasionally uses this same sequence with non ego (1.513): non ego sum pastor, non hic armenta gregesque (cf. am. 2.16.37  f.: non ego Paelignos uideor celebrare salubres, / non ego natalem, rura paterna, locum). The same uncertainty affects the choice between sed and sum, since each variant may stem from a misreading of the abbreviation for the other and each can be interpreted as having come from a gloss on the other. However, with the same purpose of persuasion sum deus seems preferable, as it sounds more emphatic in this absolute formulation at line-beginning, modified only by aquae after the parenthetic inquit (“‘I am a god’, he said, ‘of the water’”), thus contributing to the “proud claim to importance” which marks his whole address (Hopkinson 2000, 233; see also Fedeli 2015, 873  f. ad Prop. 4.6.60). An equally expressive use of the repetition of sum can be found in epist. 17.135: ergo ego sum uirtus, ego sum tibi nobile regnum; and in Pont. 1.2.33  f.: Ille ego sum lignum qui non admittar in ullum; / ille ego sum frustra qui lapis esse uelim. 918: in aequore: with the weak backing of Lr3 and Gf8 (add that of Vt) Heinsius decided in his 2nd ed. to publish the variant in aequora, comparing a very relevant passage also referring to Palaemon (Sen. Oed. 447  f.): ius habet in fluctus magni puer aduena ponti, / cognatus Bacchi, numen non uile: Palaemon. With regard to the structure, Heinsius refers to his own note (1658, 196  f.) on am. 1.1.5 (Quis tibi, saeue puer, dedit hoc in carmina iuris?), where he lists several examples of the constr. with the acc., working on the premise that “Habere ius in aliquem dicimur. in aliquo minus Latinum est” (see 1758, 109 [Burm. 1727, 926]; further examples with in + acc. in Bömer 1982, 458  f.; see also Jakobi 1988, 104). His proposal has been followed by numerous edd. down to our own days (uid. append.), although quite a few keep in aequore (in 1652 Heinsius himself had magis in aequore, with an adverb I have found only in So). Although Jahn kept in aequora in his 1832 ed., in his contributions to the apparatus by Gierig (1823, 341) he stated the following: “in aequore praeferre malim, maxime cum dictio ius habere in aliquem perquam usitata sit, ut facile a librariis inferri potuerit”. For his part, Loers, who keeps in aequora in the text (possibly by mistake), at the same time states the following in his notes

394

Commentary

(1843, 525): “Restitui in aequore, ut de regno et loco ubi imperium habeat, Glaucus dicat”. Finally, Magnus accords in aequore a “fort recte” in the apparatus to his ed. (1914, 525), comparing 3.622: pars hic mihi maxima iuris. This is a pertinent observation as it recalls the use of ius in the sense of “authority” (TLL 7.2.688.33–55; OLD s.u., 13, 986), an authority which can be enjoyed or exercised in a given physical or geographical ambit, as recalled by Loers (and even earlier by Baumg.-Crus. 1834, 536: “Non de ui sermo est, quam ille exerceat in mare, sed de regno, in quo habitat”; see also Bach 1836, 365), and as I believe Glaucus is claiming in our passage here. Though it is obvious that Seneca is imitating Ovid in the text cited, it should be borne in mind that his closest reference is fast. 6.546  f.: in portus nato ius erit omne tuo, / quem nos Portunum, sua lingua Palaemona dicet (see Boyle 2011, 219). Cf. also fast. 4.117  f.: quid quod ubique potens templisque frequentibus aucta, / urbe tamen nostra ius dea maius habet? For the alternation of acc. and abl. forms, uid. ad 767 and recall the systematic oscillations experienced in these forms by trisyllabic neutrals of the tempore/-a type. 919: et Triton Athamantiadesque Palaemon: in his 2nd ed. Heinsius stated emphatically in his notes (1659, 356; yet in his text he keeps the majority reading): “aut Triton quatuor libri cum editionibus nonnullis. bene. uulgo et Triton. et tum lege Athamantiadesue”, having found both disjunctive conjs. in the ed. Gryphiana of 1565 (the 1546 ed. has Athamantiadesne, I assume a simple typographical error) but not in any of the mss. (Bersman [1596, 549] attests “Athamantiadesue lib. un.”, but both Ds and Ds2 give -que: uid. append.). Bentley also suggested this reading (see Hedicke 1905, 32), which was the choice of Burman (1727) and some other edd. down to Baumgarten-Crusius (1834). The text undoubtedly sounds good but it lacks sufficient support in the ms. tradition (see Bach 1836, 365). 920–921: the expression scilicet altis deditus aequoribus does not make full sense in this context. The interpretation of scilicet as “erklärend” based on the parallel of l. 460 (thus Bömer 1982, 459, whose justification of deditus also seems unconvincing) is neither exact nor satisfactory, as here it would lack the element of irony or complicity that is characteristic of the term: Glaucus’ previous occupation is not necessarily evident to Scylla, and the sequence scilicet altis deditus aequoribus, iam tum exercebar in illis would be not only excessively long but simply redundant. To solve the problem Bentley (see Hedicke 1905, 32), in view of the customary d/b confusion, suggested the very slight change to debitus, which would have Glaucus ironically commenting on his being predestined (cf. l. 54; Prop. 1.6.17) for a marine environment. This proposal was adopted by Riese (1872, XXV: “corr. Bentl.”, though with an unnecessary parenthesis – scilicet  … aequoribus –) and other edd. down to Edwards (1905) and has been taken up again by Goold (1984), Hopkinson (2000, 233), Fink (2007, based, I assume, on Rösch 1952), and also Hardie (2015, 364: “esprime con eleganza la tendenza di Glauco a darsi importanza: la divinizzazione marina



395

Commentary

era il suo destino”; cf. Verg. Aen. 12.794  f.) and Holzberg (2017), all of whom thus diverge from Tarrant (2004). Riese’s text (with tantum for iam tum) was rejected by Birt, who attempted to resolve the incompatibility in scilicet deditus by the most complex (and, in my view, most unfortunate) route, i.  e. modifying scilicet (1878, 31): “Male aptum tantum; repone iam tum; repone etiam Deditus. Falsum enim potius scilicet inertissimum est. Haec tene: Ante tamen mortalis eram; sed – sic licet altis / Deditus aequoribus – iam tum exercebar in illis. Hoc est: licet nunc sic ut me uides, et immortalis et prodigii similis, deditus alto mari sim, tamen iam tum aequor temptaui”. Ellis, who had his doubts about Bentley’s proposal (“The conjecture cannot be thought certain”, ap. Simmons 1889, 171), did however show his sympathy for Birt’s, as he used it as a basis for proposing “Fortasse deditus” in the apparatus of his ed. of Ib. 30 (see Ellis 1881, 2). For his part, Luck (2009, 114; also 2005b, 267) believed that what was required here was not debitus but creditus, comparing l. 900 and other analogous uses of the verb credere, but in my opinion the connotation of risk inherent to all of them (see e.  g. Billerbeck 1999, 254 ad Sen. Her. f. 152) is at odds with our context. Whatever the case, it seems clear that iam tum (“gehört zum epischen Inventar”: Bömer 1982, 459, with examples) fits better than tantum in the logical sequence ante tamen mortalis eram, sed  … iam tum exercerbar [aequoribus], according to which Glaucus has changed his nature and station but not his physical environment, which has always been the sea. Obviously, this idea is even reinforced by adopting debitus and its above-mentioned cataphoric reference. The reading iam tum, which is found widely in the mss., was picked up again by Heinsius (as early as in 1652) after appearing in some early edd. and has been adopted by most later edd. (uid. append.). As regards the other edd., tantum was the choice of Weise (1845), Lindemann (1856, 250), Koch (1866), Ehwald (H-K-E 1898, 275: “nur, gehört zu in illis”) and Magnus (1914), and in his notes Baumgarten-Crusius revealed his relative sympathy for it (1834, 536: “nescio an potius sit”). 922–927: Nam modo ducebam ducentia retia pisces, nunc in mole sedens moderabar harundine linum. Sunt uiridi prato confinia litora, quorum altera pars undis, pars altera cingitur herbis       quas neque cornigerae morsu laesere iuuencae nec placidae carpsistis oues hirtaeue capellae.

925

• 922 ducebam Ω, edd.  : tendebam coni. Koch, prob. R. de Verger 2005  :  ]ebam tantum exstat in Ls  : om. Ld(a.c. a m.p.) • ducentia] suspectum hab. Reeve (ap. Tarrant 2004)  : ducedentia(uid.) V5(a.c.)  : capientia “duo Moreti” test. Heinsius 1659, coni. Risberg, prob. R. de Verger 2005  : cingentia uel claudentia prop. Waddel  : fallacia dub. Possanza • 925 obel. adhib.

396

Commentary

Merkel 1875 • Altera pars uiridis, pars altera tingitur undis coni. Baumg.-Crus. 1834(in notis)  : altera pars findit, pars altera finditur undis coni. Ellis •

922: ducebam ducentia: the repetition was not to the liking of Waddel (1734, 120): “Si satis congrue liceret dicere, retia ducere pisces, parum uenuste dictum uidetur ducebam ducentia. Forsan legend. cingentia, uel claudentia”. Nor did it appeal to Koch, who replaced the first term with tendebam (1864, 344), comparing the Ovidian use of the familiar expression – literal or figurative in an amatory context – retia tendere (4.513; 8.331; epist. 5.19; 20.45  f.; 21.206; am. 1.8.69; ars 1.45; rem. 202; and add met. 7.701). His proposal has been accepted only by Ramírez de Verger (2008, 810), who in his ed. (2005) had already also replaced ducentia with capientia (Reeve too had doubts about ducentia, as testified by Tarrant 2004, 407 in app.), a reading that appears in several mss., though as a gloss (Heinsius 1659, 356 attests it in “prim. Vatican. à manu secunda, et duo Moreti”, but in V52 the word is clearly a gloss, as in e.  g. Ls2 Bs22Sp2 and others), and which was conjectured by Risberg (1907, 144): “Alteram duarum syllabarum duc librarius per errorem iterasse uidetur. Potest Ouidius scripsisse capientia retia pisces”. Possanza (2005), for his part, suggests the possibility of reading fallacia based on a comparison with ars 2.189: fallacia retia. However, the reading tendebam capientia goes too far and fails to explain the origin of the universal ms. reading; as for the proposal tendebam ducentia, it is suspicious precisely because of the examples adduced to back it: the expression retia tendere is well established, both within and outside the work of Ovid, and we should only question its presence here if a repetition like ducebam ducentia were unthinkable in Ovid. However, this is not the case, but the very opposite (Hardie 2015, 364: “è uno degli stilemi preferiti da Ovidio”); what we have here is an example of what Wills (1996, 248–53) called “verb polyptoton” with “reversal”, i.  e. “when roles are reversed and the subject and object are united as actors and patients of the same verb” (our passage and other instances in Ovid, on p. 250). Cf. 59: finxit fictum (with Hopkinson 2000, 92); 386: inuictum  … uicit; 943: decerpsi decerpta; 966: dicentem dicturum. For the expression ducere pisces, cf. 3.586  f.: pauper et ipse fuit linoque solebat et hamis / decipere et calamo salientes ducere pisces (Mart. 1.55.9); epist. 19.13: nunc uolucrem laqueo, nunc piscem ducitis hamo (and see Bömer 1982, 460). 925: M(Lr27) and almost certainly N(a.c.) give in place of undis the nonsensical reading fundit, which clearly seems to stem from a dittograph (parʃʃundiʃ), as well as from fungitur undis (above fungitur M2 has utitur) at line-end (cf. fungitur herbis in Bo3V30 and Aler. 1471). From this reading Ellis (1882–1883, 30, and see Simmons 1889, 171) conjectured altera pars findit, pars altera finditur undis (“which would describe a part of the shore which ran out into the sea while the waves ran up on each side of it far into land”), in accordance with Ovid’s familiar combination of active and passive (2.781; 3.98; 8.724; 10.58, 141  f.; 11.442  f.; 14.81; 15.355).



397

Commentary

The proposal is no doubt an attractive one, but it isolates the relative clauses of the following two lines, which we would have to take as referring, not to the correct herbis, but to pars … pars, which makes no sense. On the variant uiridis for undis, which I have found in Lr8 and which Burman (1727, 926) attests in “Iunian. et duo alii” (I cannot make out the reading of Et as the page is too dark here), and on the variant tingitur which Burman himself attests in “unus” (the nearest I have found is tinguitur in Go), Baumgarten-Crusius (1834, 537) ventured this in his notes: “Fortasse scriptum fuit: Altera pars uiridis, pars altera tingitur undis, sed deterius”. Finally, Merkel, who in 1850 had kept the paradosis of the mss., marked the line as spurious in his 2nd ed. (1875) while printing it with the variant funditur herbis in light of the variant fungitur in M. The description of the spot as it has been transmitted presents no problems (see Bömer 1982, 461). 927: hirtaeue: most of the mss. symptomatically transmit this variant with the disjunctive, as against a small number that opt for the copulative (uid. append.), perhaps a recollection of Verg. georg. 3.287: lanigeros agitare greges hirtasque capellas. Cf. the same sequence neque … nec … -ue (in a passage similar in tone: 3.408  f.): quem neque pastores neque pastae monte capellae / contigerant aliudue pecus; 9.613  f.: neque enim est de tigride natus / nec rigidas silices solidumue in pectore ferrum. 928–934: Non apis inde tulit collectos sedula flores, non data sunt capiti genialia serta nec umquam falciferae secuere manus: ego primus in illo       caespite consedi dum lina madentia sicco, utque recenserem captiuos ordine pisces, insuper exposui quos aut in retia casus aut sua credulitas in aduncos egerat hamos.

930

• 928 hunc u. sic citat Priscianus 6.242: “Ouidius tamen nominatiuum ‘haec apis’ protulit in XIII metamorphoseon: Non apis inde tulit †hos sedula flores” • sedula Ω (uid. append.), Plan., Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, edd.  : semine L3MM2NP2TV2V3 A3B2B42(mg.)Be2CDrEH2L42(mg. u.l.)Ld2(cum lit. damn.)LsN2OO4(mg. u.l. a m.p.)P3P4Ph2PrV5 DsDs2Li3P5P10To Es2McRd B14CvGo2Lr27PsVd11, Venet. 1472, Lugd. 1546(mg.), Lugd. 1565(mg.), def. Ellis, Keene 1898, Magnus 1914(conlectos s.), Trepat-de Saav. 1932(conlectos s.), Anderson 1982(sed collectos sedula von Albrecht 1994, Galasso 2000, Scivoletto 2000)  : semina O5, test. Ellis, coni. H-K-E 1898, Ehwald 1915, H-K-E-A 1966, dub. Scivoletto 2000(in notis)  : cespite A4  : undique Fe  : femine coni. Merkel 1875, prob. Riese 1889, Lejay 1894 • 933 insuper exposui] diuersos posui coni. Koch  : quid P2 a.c. (insuper ex i.ras.) n.l. •

928: collectos sedula flores: the mss. are divided between two main readings: collectos sedula f. (the majority reading in mss. and edd. and supported by the citing in Prisc. 6.242) and collecto semine f. (with less extensive backing); there is much less basis for collectos semine f. and collectos semina f. (uid. app.). To

398

Commentary

begin with the last mentioned, Ellis (1882–1883, 30, and see Simmons 1889, 172) had already attested the variant semina in O5 (with sedula written in the margin by the same hand), although he finally opted for collecto semine: “The bee carries flowers of which it has gathered the seed; in other words, the pollen or collectum semen florum”. He was followed by Keene (1898: see 123  f.) and Anderson (1982; against him, von Albrecht 1994, 880; Galasso 2000, CXX and 1497; Scivoletto 2000, 37  f.). This same reading semina was conjectured by Ehwald (H-K-E 1898, 409): “semina habe ich nach eigener Vermutung eingesetzt. R. Merkel: femine gegen di Quantität; semine ist Korruptel, sedula nichts als Interpolation”; (ibid. 276): “flores collectos semina (= Blüthen, die ihren Blüthenstaub sammeln lassen) ist Erweiterung des Gebrauchs des Accusativs, den die Passiva, deren Thätigkeit das Subjekt an sich ausführen lässt, zu sich nehmen: vergl. Verg. ecl. 1, 53 saepes – florem depasta salicti. Paneg. in Mess. 172 tondetur seges maturos annua partus Ovid fast. 2, 704 hortus sectus humum Verg. Aen. 2, 273 per pedes traiectus lora tumentes”. The proposal is not unattractive and it was given timid approval by Scivoletto (2000, 38 in notis): “Se non si vuole accettare la lezione di Prisciano, l’unica emendazione valida sembra essere quella di Ehwald collectos semina flores in analogia a Verg. Buc. I, 53 […] e Ov. Fast. II 704 […]”. At any rate this reading is preferable to the combination collectos semine flores of a substantial number of mss., which was accepted by Magnus (1914, 526): “i e conlectum semen florum, ut sit semine abl lim” (Helm 1915, 548: “eine schnurrige Ausdrucksweise”; Scivoletto, ibid.: “forzata l’emendazione e la spiegazione del Magnus”), who informs us (ibid.) of his previous proposal: “confertos semine flores olim temptaui”. The reading conlectos semine flores was also adopted by Trepat-de Saavedra, although they took semine to mean “in the bud” (1932, 75: “les flors collides en poncella”). The reading collectos semina flores likewise seems preferable to collectos femine flores, Merkel’s proposal for his 2nd ed. (1875, XXXIX; in 1850 he had kept collectos sedula): “interpolatio manifestaria eius commatis, quod inde a codice L grassatur, et tamen hoc loco libros omnes Prisciani vi p. 242 iam insedit. de correctione minor haesitatio: Verg. Ge. iv 181 Crura thymo plenae, Plin. Nat. h. xi 21 quae flores comportant, prioribus pedibus femina onerant propter id natura scabra”. This unmetrical proposal of Merkel’s was followed by Riese in his 2nd ed. (1889, XXVI) and by Lejay (1894), who compares Pl. mil. 203: ecce auortit: nixus laeuo in femine habet laeuam manum, although here the ictus falls regularly on the tribrach femine (see also Bömer 1982, 462). But returning to the transmitted readings, in this passage we cannot refer to the common alternation between acc. and abl. forms in the fifth foot (uid. ad 918), as there is only one witness for semina, which means it must be taken with a good deal of caution. The reading collectos sedula flores has the drawback of presenting the picture of a bee collecting flowers (as opposed to pollen) from a meadow, but the fact is that all the mss. coincide on this point,



Commentary

399

as non apis inde tulit … flores is the reading common to all of them and we could only avoid this image by overrationally conjecturing collecto semina flore (i.  e. in hypallage and giving the part. the sense of libato flore). It is clear, then, that Ovid wants to depict the bee collecting flowers, possibly because “the ancients from Aristotle (553b27) on thought bees carried flowers which they used to construct their honeycombs” (Maltby 2002, 372 ad Tib. 2.1.49, with references; see also Hopkinson 2000, 234; Hardie 2015, 365). From this perspective the dilemma between sedula and semine is resolved in favour of the former, both because the noun semine in itself is much more frequent than sedula and because the corruption of sedula to semine is much more plausible in this context (i.  e. after collecto(s) and with apis as the subject) than vice versa. Besides, what is more natural to expect here is an adjective for apis (cf. ll. 926  f.), as pointed out as early as by Helm (1915, 548). But at the same time we cannot lose sight of the reason behind Priscian’s citing this line: “Ouidius tamen nominatiuum ‘haec apis’ protulit in XIII metamorphoseon: Non apis inde tulit †hos sedula flores”. That is, that Ovid has used a nom. apis, a striking choice either because it is being used in preference to apēs (TLL 2.235.32–41) or else because the form is simply unusual, for the fact is that before Ovid it had appeared only in a passage of Tibullus (already pointed to by Heinsius 1659, 356) that contains a symptomatic affinity with the one under discussion here (2.1.49  f.): Rure leuis uerno[s] f l o r e s a p i s ingerit alueo, / compleat ut dulci s e d u l a melle fauos (see also Maltby 2002, 373). 929: nec: this is clearly the majority form in the mss., as against neque, and it was virtually the unanimous choice of edd. down to Koch (1866), while, with the sole precedent of Aler. 1471, Merkel 1850 (probably under the pressure of the paradosis of M) opted for neque, attracting in his wake most of the edd. ever since (uid. append.). In spite of the uncertainty regarding the choice, I opt for nec as the majority reading and because it is in line with the arguments presented ad 127 (neque). The edd. as they stand today have no other passage in Ovid’s whole oeuvre with the sequence neque + vocalic u-. 930: primus in illo: Heinsius (1659, 356) states: “Puto ego pronus. aliter tamen libri”. Naturally, what Ovid is insisting on here is that the spot is virgin, untrodden (see Bömer 1982, 462; Hardie 2015, 364  f.). Alongside the previous proposal (b3, 382), Heinsius added the conjecture in udo caespite, which he later discarded. 931: consedi: along with the variants resulting from spelling mistakes (uid. append.), there is a striking conjecture in P28: dum sedeo, although it does not improve the text. madentia: the ed. Lugd. 1546 records in the margin the variant manantia, which makes no sense (uid. append.). Cf. 3.148: lina madent; fast. 6.239: lina madentia ducunt, and see Bömer 1982, 462. 933: insuper exposui: Koch (1864, 344) considers this reading not to make sense: “exposui non satis quadrat, cum pisces nec ad spectandum nec quasi sic-

400

Commentary

candi ad solem explicentur”; he also rejects insuper, because “deest res piscibus subiecta”. He consequently proposes diuersos posui. In fact, it can indeed be said of Glaucus that he exponit (i.  e. removes from the net and lays out on the ground) insuper (i.  e. on the caespes which he has just mentioned in l. 931). See also Bömer 1982, 463. 934–935: Mo again reveals its proximity to M (uid. ad 94 spem), in this instance by sharing the erroneous inversion in the order of these lines (uid. append.). 934: aduncos: while Haupt-Korn maintain this reading in their previous edd., that of 1881 has adunctos, with no further explanation. Simmons keeps it in his text, though he states in the introduction (1889, X): “For adunctos (so printed in Haupt) read aduncos”. Although the expression adunci hami does not appear elsewhere, the reference to the curved shape of the hook requires no justification (see Bömer 1982, 463 for a number of examples). 935–939: Res similis fictae (sed quid mihi fingere prodest?):     gramine contacto coepit mea praeda moueri et mutare latus terraque ut in aequore niti; dumque moror mirorque simul, fugit omnis in undas turba suas dominumque nouum litusque relinquunt.

935

• 937 mutare Lr2(a.c.)LuMNV2(a.c.) recc. multi (uid. append.), def. Heinsius 1659(qui et “Oxon. prim. Moret. … et duodecim alii” test.), edd. post. plerique  : motare Ω (uid. append.), Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1652, Weise 1845, Koch 1866  : mortale Ld3(a.c.) •

935: sed quid mihi fingere prodest: the sequence of monosyllables and the erroneous expansion of the abbreviations of the first three words give rise to different reworkings of the line, none of them preferable to the majority paradosis (uid. append.). This clause was rightly placed in parentheses at least from the 2nd ed. of Heinsius (1659) on. 936: gramine contacto: along with copying errors such as germine and contracto (uid. append.) Lr22 has transmitted to us as u.l. the variant gramineo tactu (cf. gramine contactu in Pr), which was incorporated into his ed. by Bothe (18182). 937: mutare latus: the tradition is divided between mutare, which has a solid backing in the mss. and is almost the unanimous reading from the 2nd ed. of Heinsius (1659) on, and motare, the majority reading in the mss., a constant in edd. down to Heinsius (1652) and later kept only by Weise (1845) and Koch (1866). In many mss. motare is glossed as “frequenter mouere” (thus also Regius 1493, ad loc.), which is in itself an early sign of the inappropriateness of this verb, following on immediately from moueri (Heinsius 1659, 356): “τὸ motare non placet, est enim idem quod moueri. idque prae-



Commentary

401

cesserat. Certe Florent. S. Marci, Neap. tert. et quart. Medic. Oxon. prim. Moret. Arond. et duodecim alii, mutare. nihil uerius”. The expression mutare latus is taken from Virgil (Aen. 3.581) and backed by other passages in Latin literature: see Rivero-Estévez 2010, 93  f., and see also Heinsius 1758, 710; Gron. 1662, 213–6 (Obs. 3.1); Burm. 1727, 926  f.; 1780, 314 ad Prop. 2.12.7; Bömer 1982, 464; Hardie 2015, 367. in aequore niti: some mss. again offer the variant aequora (uid. append.), in accordance with the usual alternation between abl. and acc. forms. In the case of N, in addition, this reading has no doubt in turn conditioned the appearance of miti for niti (M gives in aequore mitti), as also seems to be indicated by the gloss of N2: “ad nandum”. 938: moror mirorque: the paronomasia produces the predictable alterations in the text, though without affecting the definitive version (uid. append.). 939: nouum: some mss. give suum, probably because of the preceding suas (uid. append.). Note also the instability caused by the sequence dominumque … litusque. relinquunt: the systematic oscillation between the pres. and perf. endings of this verb is compounded here by the switch in person, as some mss. and even the odd ed. opt to regularize the grammar by means of forms in the sg. (uid. append.), even though the synesis of number turba … relinquunt, facilitated by the traiectio of the two words located at the opposite ends of the line, is clearly preferable (HS 4363–4371). 940–943: Obstipui dubitoque diu causamque requiro,        940 num deus hoc aliquis, num sucus fecerit herbae: ‘Quae’ tamen ‘has’ inquam ‘uires habet herba?’ manuque pabula decerpsi decerptaque dente momordi. • 940 o. subitaeque rei quae causa requiro uel (quod dub. prob. Slater 1927) o. dubiusque, fugae quae causa requiro dub. Heinsius 1659(in notis) • dubitoque multi codd. (uid. append.), Plan., Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, edd.  : dubito V6  : dubitansque Lu  : subitoque So  : dubitoue Mc2(p.c.)  : dubiusque multi codd. (uid. append.), Aler. 1471, Naug. 1516, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834  : dubioque A(a.c.)  : dubiisque Mo(uid., a.c.)  : dubiusue Mc(a.c.)  : dubius Ld6  : quid V5 a.c. n.l. • diu] fui L3Lr2N2(i.l. u.l.) A3FeH3Ld22(i.l. u.l.)Lr3Lr7MtN2OV4V9 Bs2Bs4Cs2GoP8To(diu i.l. To2)V13(diu i.l. u.l.) Vt Bs7Lu2, “in  … meis” test. Ciof. 1575, “decem alii” test. Heinsius 1659  : fui diu Ld6  : prius “duo” test. Heinsius 1659  : simul “unus Moreti” test. Heinsius 1659  : quid P2 V5 a.c. n.l. • causamque] qu(a)e causa A42(mg. u.l.)B2B3(p.c.)B5(causamque p.c. B52)HdL4Lr4Lr6V9 Mt3P5V16 B12Bo2(causamque mg. u.l. Bo22)P28 Mv7, Naug. 1516, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834  : quae causa sit B3(a.c.)  : carmenque(per comp.) Lr7  : casamque Ls(corr. Ls2)  : qu(a)e causam Bo • 942 ‘quae’ tamen ‘has’ dist. Bömer, Hopkinson 2000  : ‘quae tamen has’ edd. •

402

Commentary

940: obstipui: TLL 9.2.259.67–69: “in stirpe perf. praeualere uid., si codicibus et editoribus confidere licet, forma -stip-, in formis stirpis praes. numquam occurrens”. Even so, in our passage the vast majority of mss. and edd. have obstupui, a circumstance that is repeated in other places in Ovid’s works (cf. e.  g. 3.644 with Suárez 2015, 641; 10.580 with Fàbregas 2016, 438  f.; 12.18 with Estévez 2020). It was Riese (1872) who first printed obstipui and he was followed by later edd.: see Leumann 873; Fàbregas 2016 (ibid.). dubitoque diu causamque requiro: the readings of the mss., which are not always consistent in the text transmitted in each case, offer us these main variants for the first half (uid. app.): dubitoque diu, widely supported by the mss. and the majority choice of edd. of all periods; dubiusque diu, with even greater ms. backing but adopted only by Aler. 1471, Naug. 1516 and the edd. from Heinsius (1652) to Baumgarten-Crusius (1834), with the exception of Jahn (1832); dubiusque fui, which appears quite frequently in the mss. but was not adopted by any of the edd. because it clearly originated in a gloss on the obviously strange dubiusque (Loers 1843, 525: “quae sine dubitatione inuentio librariorum est”), its inclusion being further facilited by the graphic similarity of diu. For the second part the great majority of mss. and edd. give causamque, while some recc. have quae causa, a reading once again adopted by the same edd. who kept dubiusque, with the exception of Aler. 1471. Heinsius, however, was not satisfied with the text (1659, 357: “τὸ diu non placet”) and consequently proposed in the same notes: “Forte Obstupui, subitaeque rei quae causa requiro uel _____ dubiusque, fugae quae causa requiro”. The second of these was timidly approved by Slater (1927, ad loc.: “recte?”). Finally, note the unique reading of Lu: dubitansque, which would give an acceptable text if the reading quae causa were adopted instead of the one transmitted by the ms. itself: causamque. For dubitoque diu, cf. 8.443: haud patitur dubitare diu; for the model on which Ovid constructs his line, cf. Verg. Aen. 6.710: horrescit uisu subito causasque requirit, which makes it tempting to consider the correction: obstipui subito uisu causamque requiro. 941: num  … num: the mss. present the usual variants non or nunc, as a result of errors in the expansion of the ligatures, or else an … an, proceeding from a gloss that is widely present in the mss. at this passage (uid. append.). For the constr., see Bömer 1982, 464; Hopkinson 2000, 235. hoc: this reading, which Heinsius attributes to “castigatiores” (1659, 357), alternates with haec in a very small number of recc., but the pl. was incorporated into the text of some edd. down to Koch (1866): uid. append. 942: ‘quae’ tamen ‘has’: ms. Ld6 gives the variant quas tamen haec, which Heinsius (1659, 357) read in “primus Strozzae et quinque alii”, but Lr2 (as well as Lr6) gives quae tamen has. In addition, Heinsius cites “quas tamen haec, inquam”, and Lr2 gives quae tamen has dixi. Be that as it may, the variant of Ld6 was approved by Vossius, according to Magnus (1914, 527; there is no mention of this in Bothe 1818, 175).



403

Commentary

The text is equally acceptable with either syntactic configuration, and I therefore see no reason to change the practically unanimous tradition. As to the punctuation, Bömer (1982, 465) noted with reference to tamen: “es verbindet vielmehr requiro und inquam”, and for this reason the latter should be left outside the inverted commas, as is characteristic of the so-called “-que Ouidianum”. His proposal was followed by Hopkinson in his text (2000, 76), although he offers no comment on it. I believe Bömer is right, as tamen does in fact refer to Glaucus’ conclusion on the matter, as only in the previous line he was facing the dilemma of whether the prodigy was the work of a god or the effect of the grass, nevertheless coming down immediately on the side of this second hypothesis. 943: decerpsi decerpta: for the repetition with polyptoton, uid. ad 922; for the predictable variants with disc-, uid. append. 944–946: Vix bene combiberant ignotos guttura sucos, cum subito trepidare intus praecordia sensi       alteriusque rapi naturae pectus amore;

945

• 944 combiberant] cum biberant M(cf. tum in u. 945) V7(a.c.) So Lr27 Mv7  : combiberat V6  : biberant Mt2(a.c.) • 945 cum] tum L3Lr2MM2N(cum i.l. u.l. N2)P2(cum a.c.)S2TV2 B42(mg.)EFGL4MoN2 B8Lr8To Ft Bo3Lr27Lu2Vd11  : tunc Lu  : nec Ld6(cum p.c.) • intus] intu B3  : ratus Bs2(intus mg. u.l. Bs22), “alius” test. Heinsius  : situs Es2  : metu Es6, dub. Heinsius(in notis)  : mentit(uid.) Mo3(a.c.) •

944–945: the phrase uix bene as a subordinante time expression (cf. Span. “no bien”) is a creation of Ovid’s (see Simmons 1889, 172; Bömer 1982, 465; Hopkinson 2000, 235) and the novelty of it may have had an influence on the reinterpretation of the following verb as cum biberant (thus M and some recc.), which in turn leads to the logical variant tum in l. 945. This reading is also given by other mss. which nevertheless have conbiberant, thereby transmitting two independent clauses in juxtaposition. 945: trepidare intus: with no great conviction Heinsius (1754, 710) proposed: “forte, metu”, a reading I have found in Es6 but, I suspect, precisely as a gloss or banal term. For trepidare intus, reinforced here by praecordia, cf. Lucr. 2.965; Verg. Aen. 9.538; 12.589. praecordia: Burman (1727, 929) attests the variant mea pectora in “tert. Bonon.”, but BoBo2Bo3 give praecordia. 947–953: nec potui restare diu, ‘repetenda’que ‘numquam terra, uale!’ dixi corpusque sub aequore mersi. Di maris exceptum socio dignantur honore utque mihi quaecumque feram mortalia demant    

950

404

Commentary

Oceanum Tethynque rogant: ego lustror ab illis, et purgante nefas nouies mihi carmine dicto pectora fluminibus iubeor supponere centum. • 947 diu] om. T  : diui L4  : loco Lr3 Go2, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836 • 948 (a)equore S2T A3A4B3B5BaEsFeL4LdLr3Lr7LsMtO4Ph2V6V7V8Vd Cs2Ds(-a p.c.)GoLr8P5P8P10Sp B12Es2Mt5P28 B14Es5Es6F2P38, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Loers 1843  : aequoreo Li3  : (a)equora Ω, Aler. 1471, edd.  : quid N2 a.c. (-a p.c.) n.l. •

947: diu: instead of this practically unanimous reading Lr3 (and also Go2) gives loco, which, though clearly a gloss, Heinsius decided to incorporate into his 2nd ed. (1659, 357: “quod placet”). He was followed by other edd. down to Bach, who adduced (1836, 367) the parallels of 14.70: Scylla loco mansit, fast. 2.207: castra loco ponunt, and 243: Continuata loco tria sidera, which had previously been cited by Burman (1727, 820) apropos Langermannus’ conjecture relicta loco for 12.144. Here we might have expected diutius instead, but this a form Ovid does not use (see Bömer 1982, 466). 948: sub aequore: unlike in l. 878, where the mss. were virtually unanimous in the form aequore, here the majority have transmitted aequora, although the abl. form is still present in a good number of mss. (uid. app.). As so often is the case, it was Heinsius (1652) who changed the editorial tradition which had held until then, with this argument (1659, 357): “sub aequora, non aequore, castigatiores”, although it is significant that he later added this observation (1758, 710 [Burm. 1727, 929]): “Sub aequore tamen dixit supr. 878”. Even so, he has been followed by all later edd. except Loers, who, while recognizing that both constructions are valid, remained faithful to his habitual conservative spirit (1843, 525): “codicum et uett. editionum auctoritatem sequendam putaui”, and moreover he supports his decision by comparing l. 878 and 14.548: medioque sub aequore mergit. The fact is that with the noun aequor the only known iunctura before Ovid  – and even within his own work  – is mergere sub + abl.: Verg. Aen. 6.342: medioque sub aequore mersit (cf. Seru. ad loc.: “sub aequore mersit tmesis est: medio aequore submersit”); Tib. 2.5.80: prodigia indomitis merge sub aequoribus; Ou. met. 14.548 (supra); trist. 2.99: imoque sub aequore mergit (cf. ars 3.402: mersa sub aequoreis illa lateret aquis). The verb mergo also alternates this constr. with that of the simple abl. (11.795: quia mergitur illo; ars 1.410: tunc tener aequorea mergitur Haedus aqua; fast. 4.388: ensifer Orion aequore mersus erit; Verg. Aen. 6.348; Manil. 5.424; Luc. 3.531; Petr. 119.33; Val. Fl. 7.38; Sil. 6.681; 17.559; TLL 8.830.47–56; Bömer 1980, 413 ad 11.663). It is also true, however, that Ovid himself is the first Latin author to use – with a different verb – the phrase sub aequora, and he does so on two occasions (also alongside the variant aequore): (3.684) emerguntque iterum redeuntque sub aequora rursus (see Suárez 2015, 650); (14.601) tacito deferre sub



Commentary

405

aequora cursu (see Magnus 1914, 559). This Ovidian creation reappears in Lucan (3.749: alta sub aequora tendit) and even more forcefully in Flavian epic, with Silius Italicus making it a stylistic feature himself and using it on as many as three occasions with the verb mergo (Val. Fl. 2.608  f.): maestos tranquilla sub aequora uultus / cum gemitu tulit; 2.631  f.: longoque sub aequora dorso / litus agit; Sil. 4.299: inlisum accipiunt irata sub aequora montem; Sil. 4.79: quae mersa sub aequor; 597: fessumque sub aequora mersit; 16.98: cum mergunt plenas tumefacta sub aequora classes (for other analogous constructions with the same verb, all later than Ovid, see TLL 8.830.57–61). It can be observed that in 3.684 and 14.601 Ovid uses sub aequora with two different verbs of movement (redeunt, deferre), as a variation on models with the abl. such as Verg. Aen. 6.729: et quae marmoreo fert monstra sub aequore pontus, though in line with parallels such as Aen. 4.243: sub Tartara tristia mittit, among others (see Lamacchia 1974, 53–5). However, Ovid keeps the abl. with static verbs (e.  g. fast. 4.105): quodcumque sub aequore uiuit. It is this use of sub aequora with a verb of movement that is imitated by Lucan, Valerius Flaccus and Silius Italicus, although the last-mentioned extends it to mergo, perhaps by analogy with its use together with in + acc. (e.  g. fast. 2.78: in liquidas subito mersa notabit aquas), thus endowing the verb with a more dynamic notion, of displacement rather than vertical movement, as can be seen as early as in Germ. 22: pars mersa sub undas, or Homer. 778: Deiphobus ferit Ascalaphum mergitque sub umbras (cf. e.  g. [Sen.] H. O. 1927  f.; Stat. Theb. 5.634  f.; see also Lamacchia 1974, 56–60). The question, in short, is whether Ovid might have created this expression in the passage under discussion or whether it was an extension of it due to Silius. I opt for the latter, for two reasons: firstly, it seems scarcely credible that Ovid, who had already used mergo sub + abl. on two occasions (ars 3.402; met. 13.878), should have introduced this innovation here and returned to the acc. in the two passages where he uses mergo sub again (14.548; trist. 2.99); secondly, it does not seem logical for Ovid to vary the constr. in such a short space as between l. 878 and this passage, when both expressions denote exactly the same action (pace Bach 1836, 367), and this was probably the reason for the warning Heinsius added, possibly addressed to himself. Note, finally, that aequora reappears in the same position in l. 955. 949: exceptum: GfLr2M2 and a few recc. give the variant acceptum, which Burman (1727, 930) attested in “decem libri”. socio dignantur honore: C diverges from the rest of the tradition with this curious conjecture: non dedignantur. Note too that MN have solii for socio, although in N the reading was corrected (uid. append.). The expression socio honore must be taken as a case of hendiadys: “The honour of being their companion” (Keene 1898, 125; see also Bömer 1982, 466). 952: nouies: I keep this form as it is the virtually unanimous reading of the mss. (cf. also rem. 56; medic. 66), although it cannot be ruled out that the spelling nouiens might have been used in Metamorphoses as an archaizing detail of elevated register: see Fàbregas 2016, 272  f. ad 10.296.

406

Commentary

953: supponere: Burman (1727, 930) reports: “Lecto Basil. mox, iubeor summittere idem”. In l. 952 Bs4 does indeed have lecto for dicto, but the same ms. gives subponere with no variation. I have not found the variant submittere in any other Basel ms. or elsewhere, except in To2, and this is also the reading of Puteol. 1471 and Venet. 1472. 954–959: Nec mora, diuersis lapsi de partibus amnes totaque uertuntur supra caput aequora nostrum.  Hactenus acta tibi possum memoranda referre, hactenus et memini; nec mens mea cetera sensit. Quae postquam rediit, alium me corpore toto ac fueram nuper, neque eundem mente recepi:

955

• 954–955 hoc ordine hab. Ω, edd.  : inu. ord. Gf2(mg.)MM2N(a.c.)P2S2T B4(a.c.)GL42(p.c.)MoOPh2 Go FtRd Es4F2Lr27Vd11Z(a.c.)  : u. 955 om. Ba(corr. Ba2)  : u. 955 iuxta 953 mg. scr. L42 • 955 totaque] tectaque L3  : tortaque dub. Hopkinson 2000(in notis), haud male • uertuntur] uerterunt P2(mg. u.l.) B42(mg.)  : uerteruntur(per comp.) P2  : uerguntur Ld2(uertuntur i.l. u.l. Ld22), unde motaque uel potaque uerguntur dub. Heinsius 1659(in notis); uerguntur prob. Liberman, Luck • 956–957 de horum uu. ordine uid. append. • 958 quae postquam] quae fueram nuper Mt4(ex itin. corr.)  : utque animus uel mox ubi mens dub. Heinsius 1659(in notis) sc. deletis uu. 956–957 • rediit A2A32(mg.)DeHdLd3Lr6MoOO4 Bs22GoP10(p.c. a m.p.)Sp2(mg.) P28Vt Es4, test. Viuianus (1522), edd. plerique (uid. append.)  : redit MN(a.c.) Bo3Lr27  : redeunt Ω (uid. append.), Aler. 1471, edd. aliquot (uid. append.)  : alii alia (uid. append.) •

954–955: this is the order in which these lines have been transmitted by the vast majority of the mss. and the order adopted by all the edd. in line with the sense, but the opposite order has been transmitted by an important group of codices comprising none other than GfMM2NP2S2T as well as some recc. (uid. app.), although the reasons for this transposition are not at all clear. They may be related in turn to the instability of the following lines in the transmission: i.  e. the inversion might have been an attempt to connect l. 954 with l. 958 in the mss. that transmit ll. 956  f. after tras 959 (uid. infra). 954: diuersis lapsi de partibus amnes: leaving clearly erroneous variants to one side, an important number of mss. offer the reading lapsus … amnis (uid. append.), a sing. clashing with the very meaning of diuersis de partibus. Magnus (1914, 527 in app.) timidly defends lapsu (“lapsu … fort uerum est”) on the basis of a comparison with 8.160  f.: lumina flexu[/-um/-a] / ducit in errorem, a passage for which he himself (1914, 293) defends the variant flexu (at greater length in Magnus 1894b, 780  f.). As for the circumstantial qualification, I have found in To the variant fontibus, which was also attested by Ciofanus (1575, 187) “in antiquiore meo” (i.  e. in the ms. Jahn calls “Sulm. 1”) and adopted in 1652 by Heinsius, who also read it in “tres scripti” (1659, 357), although he was followed only down to Richter (1828). Ciofanus and Heinsius themselves also attest the variant



Commentary

407

montibus (Ciofanus in V13, but in fact the reading there is partibus, and montibus is a u.l. written i.l. by V132). This variant was conjectured by Wakefield (1813, I, 184) in his note on Lucr. 1.1084 on the grounds that the majority reading was consistently fontibus. The variant montibus may come from the well-known passage on the storm in Carthage (Verg. Aen. 4.164): ruunt de montibus amnes (cf. also Stat. Theb. 1.365; 8.460; Sil. 5.624; 11.466), and equally fontibus may originate in Manil. 2.51: et iam confusi manant de fontibus amnes (cf. also Stat. Theb. 2.24; 4.686, 823; Val. Fl. 1.692; 5.372; 7.391; Sil. 13.577), while the expression used by Ovid in this passage is unparalleled and for that very reason more plausible (see Bömer 1982, 468). For the habitual alternation between these nouns, see the comprehensive note by Burman (1727, 930). 955: totaque: Hopkinson (2000, 237) suggests that tortaque would reinforce the sense of uertuntur (uid. infra), comparing Pont. 4.10.48: crebro uertice tortus; Lucr. 1.293: uertice torto. To these passages could be added e.  g. Verg. georg. 4.529: spumantem undam sub uertice torsit; Aen. 1.117: torquet agens circum et rapidus uorat aequore uertex (with Servius’ comm.); Sil. 3.475: corpora multa uirum spumanti uertice torquens (cf. 9.286). uertuntur: Heinsius found the variant uerguntur in Ld2, which led him to propose (1659, 357): “Puto, Motaque uerguntur. uel Potaque” (in 1652 he printed totaque uerguntur, but in the 1659 text he left uertuntur: uid. infra, ad 956–9). This proposal of his has not been incorporated by any other editor, but uerguntur has been openly supported by Liberman (2004, 86), who compares 4.506  f., where a good number of edd. have accepted Graeuius’ proposal uergit against the paradosis uertit (see Magnus 1914, 151). Luck also thinks that uerguntur is “probably” the correct reading, and to this end he also reproduces an extensive note on the verb uergo which Liberman himself had sent to him privately (2008, 16  f.). As stated there, uerguntur “mérite à tout le moins d’être envisagée”, but uertuntur is in no way at odds with Ovid’s Latin (see Bömer 1982, 468) and neither is the nuance of uerguntur so clear and tested against Ovidian usus (cf. fast. 3.793) as to be accepted without reservation (for this verb, see also Heinsius 1661, 358  f. ad Pont. 1.9.54). Hopkinson (2000, 237): “uertuntur: as in a uertex, ‘a swirling mass of water’ (OLD S.V. 1a). The image would be intensified if tortaque were read for totaque” (uid. supra); Hardie (2015, 368): “qui i fiumi si riuniscono per formare un uertex che copre Glauco”. 956–959: the sequence of line-beginnings hactenus – hactenus (transmitted as actenus in many mss.) – ac – hanc (transcribed as Anc in a few mss.) in ll. 956  f. and 959  f. has given rise to the predictable displacements and omissions (uid. append.). In fact, ll. 956  f. appear after 959 in a very large number of mss. and this in turn has conditioned the verbal form of l. 958, which appears in the plural (redeunt, though also reddunt as a result of simple error) in order to make quae refer to aequora, in those cases where 958 immediately follows 955 (the last editor to choose this option being Loers: see 1843, 525 and Jahn 1832, 889  f.). This verb appears in the singular (rediit) if we take quae as refer-

408

Commentary

ring to mens, in accordance with the order followed by most of the edd. and which seems clearly preferable (cf. e.  g. 6.531; 9.583; 3.631). As before, another influence might well have been the lengthening, or rather the conservation of the original quantity of rediīt (uid. ad 444), which could lie behind these alterations. Heinsius, for his part, although he kept ll. 956  f. after 955 in both edd., as well as quae postquam rediit in 958, offered the following reconstruction of the text in his notes (1659, 357  f. ad 956): “tollendum esse opinor hunc et proxime sequentem uersum, et pro Quae postquam rediit, reponendum, Vtque animus rediit. […] nisi fortasse mauis, Mox, ubi mens rediit. ut lib. vi. Mox ubi mens rediit, passos laniata capillos. supra τὸ Vtque uel ubi scriptum erat postquam pro interpretatione. hic postea factum, Quae postquam, insertis duobus uersibus ualde frigidis ac ieiunis. qui in plerisque uetustiorum non hoc loco, sed paulo post, ante uersum, Hanc ego tum primum leguntur. iidem codices pro Quae postquam rediit agnoscunt, Quae postquam redeunt. uel reddunt. mendose, ad aequora referentes. Scribe igitur, Totaque uertuntur supra caput aequora nostrum. / Vtque animus rediit, alium me corpore toto, / Ac fueram nuper, nec eundem mente recepi. omissis duobus uersibus” (see also Heinsius 1658, 43  f. ad epist. 6.31). In this case I can only repeat the words of Burman (1727, 930): “Mihi nihil in duobus his uersibus occurrit, quod offendat” (cf. also Luck 2005, 217: “There is no need to delete the line”). 956: tibi: note the interesting unique variant mihi in V2, long ago attested by Poliziano in a “uetus codex”, as we are informed by Viuianus (1522 ad loc.). But cf. Verg. georg. 1.176: Possum multa tibi ueterum praecepta referre. memoranda: some recc. have the variant miranda, which was already known to Naugerius (1516, in notis; 1754, 159) and which Luck (2005, 217) believes “could be a deliberate change because of memini” (l. 957). For the etymological wordplay memoranda … memini … mens, see Michalopoulos 2001, 119  f. 957: et: this is the reading transmitted by the great majority of mss., but M and a few recc. gave h(a)ec instead, leading Merkel (1850) to adopt this variant, which has been followed by several edd. down to our own days (uid. append.). It seems to me that the copulative in hyperbaton to preserve the anaphora is more elegant and less prosaic than the mere repetition represented by the use of haec with anaphoric force; et links the possum and memini clauses but serves even more as a transition to the dicolon abundans that is in fact formed by the memini and sensit clauses. Tarrant (2004, 409 in app.) offers us this brief note on the word in question: “fort. nam Hardie” (so too in the app. in Hardie 2015, 76, although there is no mention of it in the comm.). As we have no more information and nam does not fit Ovid’s metre (Courtney 2011, 87), we will have to assume that Hardie’s proposal would have been Nam hactenus, but this leaves us in the same situation with respect to et-haec. Keeping haec, Watt (1995, 102) makes this proposal for the punctuation: “I should punctuate referre, / hactenus;



409

Commentary

haec memini. Just as hactenus in 957 repeats hactenus in 956, so haec repeats the hac element of hactenus”. sensit: once again we encounter the systematic sensit-sentit oscillation, although in the mss. the perf. form is in the clear majority here (with an almost unanimous majority among the edd.) and is clearly preferable in the context (uid. append.). 958: quae postquam: for the proposals utque animus or mox ubi mens of Heinsius, uid. supra, ad 956–9. rediit: this form is only attested by some recc., although it is true that the reading of MN(a.c.) is redit (also in Bo3Lr27). The form rediit is called for with ll. 956  f. in that position, making quae refer to mens. It was incorporated into the text by Naugerius (1516), the Gryphianae (1546, 1565) and the Basel ed. of 1580, as well as by Heinsius (already in 1652), and has been almost constant in later edd. However, the vast majority of mss. give redeunt (a substantial number give reddunt), linking this verb and quae to aequora (l. 955) in the absence of ll. 956  f. (uid. supra, ad 956–9). alium me corpore toto: note that mss. as authoritative as MNV2 present errors here such as actum, meo and totum (uid. append.). 959: ac: the gloss quam, written above in a host of mss. (among them V13, one of Ciofanus’Vaticani, but clearly as a gloss), slips as a variant into the text of Lr2V3 and numerous recc. (uid. append.). A possible influence is clearly that alius quam is more frequent in the works of Ovid himself (Bömer 1982, 468; Hopkinson 2000, 237). fueram nuper: S2 and A4Ld give nuper fueram, following the more frequent order in Ovid (cf. 1.688: fistula nuper erat; 2.534: quam tu nuper eras; 9.791: femina nuper eras; 10.522: nuper erat genitus; fast. 3.677: nuper erat dea facta). neque: within the systematic neque-nec alternation it is neque that is the majority form for this passage (uid. append.) and perhaps the one more to be expected before an initial vowel: uid ad 127 (nec) and 929. 960–963: hanc ego tum primum uiridem ferrugine barbam     caesariemque meam, quam longa per aequora uerro, ingentesque umeros et caerula bracchia uidi cruraque pennigero curuata nouissima pisce.

960

• 960 hanc] hac prop. Heinsius 1659(in notis)  : Anc L3(a.c.; cf. 959)  : om. Plan. • uiridem] uiridi MN(-em p.c.) A4(-em a.c.)Lr4Mo(-em i.l. u.l. Mo2)N2 SpV16 BoFtVt Lr27, Naug. 1516, Basil. 1580, Heinsius 1652, H-K-E 1898, Ehwald 1915, van Proosdij 1951, H-K-E-A 1966, dub. Magnus 1914(in app.) • 963 pennigero … pisce] pinnigera … priste coni. Gronouius •

960: hanc … uiridem … barbam: MN and some recc. have the variant uiridi (uid. app.), which seems a clear assimilation of words in contact (ferrugine)

410

Commentary

and an equally clear semantic regularization. This reading was followed only by Naugerius (1516) and Basil. (1580) until it was recovered by Heinsius for his 1st ed. (1652). After him it was taken up again by Ehwald with the support of M (1898, 409; 277: “uiridi ferrugine (abl. qual.), rostgrün, von grünem Metallglanz schimmernd; vgl. zu 2, 12 [sc. uirides … capillos]”) and Magnus accorded it a “fort recte” in his app. (1914, 528). In 1659, however, Heinsius decided to keep uiridem, though in his notes he suggested this intertwined word order (1659, 358): “Lego, Hac uiridem ferrugine barbam”. tum: most mss. give tunc, following the habitual oscillation between the two adverbs. With the sole exception of Aler. 1471, the edd. keep tum, although a preference for tunc was expressed in their notes by Bothe (1818, 143: “tunc, quod recipiendum sit ad uitandum ὁμοιοτέλευτον) and Baumgarten-Crusius (1834, 538: “tunc primum, quod mihi praeferendum uidetur”). Bothe’s justification aside, tunc would only be preferable here if we hold that in the Augustan period its deictic element -c still marks a higher level of precision in comparison with tum (OLD s.u., 1989). 961: uerro: some mss. present the variant uerto, a simple spelling error reinforced by the appearance of uertuntur in l. 955. It is difficult to explain what lies behind the variant mora of Pr, apart from the assimilation to the ending of aequora. 962: ingentesque: some recc. offer the variant ingentes, in accordance with the habitual oscillation before an initial vowel. This is one of the passages on which Markland (1728, 128) based his defence of ingentibus for gerentibus in Stat. silu. 3.1.36: instratumque umeris dimitte gerentibus hostem. caerula bracchia: B2G give the reverse order, which does not improve the sonority of the text. 963: pennigero … pisce: Gronouius (1862, 78) proposed to emend the text here to pinnigera … priste: uid. ad 915. For the iunctura, see Bömer 1982, 470; Hopkinson 2000, 237; Hardie 2015, 369. 964–968: Quid tamen haec species, quid dis placuisse marinis, quid iuuat esse deum, si tu non tangeris istis?”.       Talia dicentem, dicturum plura, reliquit Scylla deum: furit ille irritatusque repulsa prodigiosa petit Titanidos atria Circes.

965

• 966–967 … plura … / Scylla …] … scilla … / plura Ls B14 • 966 dicentem] dicentem et N(a.c.) A4BaLdLd2Ld3Lr7O32(et i.l.)P4Vd Go P41, Plan.  : dicantem Gf • reliquit] relinquit LuN2(n suprascr.) A4B3CLd2MtO3Ph2Vd Ld6Mo3P5 Es6 Mv7 • 967 damn. Merkel 1875 • deum] furens MN(uid., a.c.) MoN2 P28 Bo3Lr27, prob. Merkel 1875, Keene 1898  : timens dub. Magnus 1914(in app.)  : ferox coni. Bernardini Marzolla •

965: tangeris: Heinsius leaves us this unpublished testimony (b3, 382): “frangeris istis unus meus. bene” (see also Burm. 1727, I, 12 ad epist. 1.86).



Commentary

411

However, he was right not to take his proposal any further, as pointed out by Baumgarten-Crusius (1834, 539): “quae uox non conuenit amorem precanti”. For the meaning of tangeris (see Pichon 1902, 274  f.), cf. e.  g. 10.614: nec forma tangor (poteram tamen hac quoque tangi); ars 2.684: Hoc est cur pueri tangar amore minus (Pont. 1.10.31). 966–967: Ls and B14 again diverge from the rest in the inversion with enjambement of scilla … / plura. 966: dicentem dicturum: apart from the erroneous inversion of the terms in H3, there is some interest in the variant dicentem et dicturum transmitted by N(a.c.) and a small number of recc. (uid. app.), which might have been in Planudes’ antigraph (Τοιαῦτα δὴ λέγοντα καὶ πλείω λέγειν ἔτι μέλλοντα, ἡ Σκύλλα τὸν θεὸν καταλέλοιπεν). However, it is obvious that the expression produces more impact with the two participles juxtaposed in polyptoton, a very Ovidian styleme (uid. ad 922). For his part, Viuianus (1522, ad loc.) informs us: “dicentem dicturum & plura sic in ueteribus in nonnullis & coniunc. desyderatur”. I have not found this reading and do not know whether it was a simple transcription error on Viuianus’ part for dicentem et d. (but note ἔτι in Planudes’ text above). reliquit: this passage does not escape the systematic alternation of the pres. and perf. forms in this verbal root. Here the perf. is the majority reading (uid. app.) and it seems to be backed by the clear model of 1.525  f.: Plura locuturum timido Peneia cursu / fugit cumque ipso uerba imperfecta reliquit (for the links between the two passages, see Hopman 2012, 237; Hardie 2015, 369  f.). 967: deum: even though in his 2nd ed. Merkel marked the line as spurious, he opted at the same time for the minority variant furens, once again in the wake of M (uid. app.; Merkel 1875, XXXIX), but was followed only by Keene (1898, 126). Although the sequence furens furit would not be at all foreign to Ovid’s style, as we saw in the previous line, the repetition of the device in two consecutive verses would certainly be odd, and it is more plausible that Scylla should simply flee her suitor and not experience a ‘furious’ reaction. More credible, but in any case unnecessary, is the suggestion by Magnus (1914, 528 in app.): “Scylla timens temptare possis”. The variant furens looks more like the result of a dittography (furit furit) later adapted by a copyist to the syntax of the text. Hopkinson (2000, 238): “deum, echoing deum above (965), carries emphasis as final word of its sentence: he may have been a god, but she left him none the less”. For his part, Bernardini Marzolla (1994, 657) proposes Scylla ferox, and adduces the parallels of 14.377 ille ferox ipsamque precesque repellit, and 714  f. addit / uerba superba ferox. furit: Luck (1982, 61): “Read: fugit; there is a contradiction between furit and inritatus”. Although he does not cite it, this proposal may have a parallel in 1.525  f. (supra, ad 966). Here, however, it is Scylla who is fleeing, and the verb is not applicable to Glaucus (Hardie 2015, 370: “furit: come Polifemo (v. 871), furibundus dopo il suo vano tentativo di corte a Galatea”).

412

Commentary

irritatusque: the variant iratusque, which could obviously be a simple haplography but is also repeated as a gloss in many mss., in turn gives rise to variants attempting to adapt the metre (uid. append.). Of these, perhaps the most interesting is that of P10: hac iratusque repulsa.

Index of notable textual phenomena Alternation of ad/in: 39; 77; 181; 438; 568; 700; 911. Alternation of aliquo/alio et sim.: 241; 323; 734. Alternation of am-/com-: 488; 861 (cf. 578). Alternation of amanti/amandi et sim.: 116; 167; 442; 841. Alternation of arma/arua: 432. Alternation of at/et: 2; 38; 50; 80; 115; 202; 232; 387; 474; 496; 498; 567. Alternation of aut/at/ast et sim.: 61  f.; 80; 154; 202; 232; 458; 461; 672; 859; 878; 902; 919. Alternation of aut/haud: 63  f.; 233; 249; 303; 460  f.; 672; 740; 901  f. Alternation of bisyllables of the type uulnus-pectus-corpus-tempus: 78; 267; 536; 693. Alternation of clangor/plangor et sim.: 611. Alternation of cura/causa: 217. Alternation of d/b: 47; 54; 125; 236; 921. Alternation of d/p: 104. Alternation of de-/di-: 264; 436; 519; 694; 771; 943. Alternation of deorum-meorum-uirorum et sim.: 496; 570; 713; 740. Alternation of dum/cum: 220; 224; 441; 480; 738; 746; 931. Alternation of durus/dirus: 296; 329; 452. Alternation of en/et: 71; 155; 262; 387; 496; 756. Alternation of erat/erit/fuit et sim.: 198; 701. Alternation of esse/ipse: 58; 109; 142; 864. Alternation of ex-/in-: 726; 933. Alternation of exilium/exitium/auxilium: 61. Alternation of fundit/fudit et sim.: 86; 490. Alternation of gero/fero/peto et sim.: 733; 739; 914. Alternation of gratia/gloria: 96; 446. Alternation of ille/iste/ipse: 11  f.; 19; 37; 58; 72; 77; 79; 95; 101  f.; 105; 202; 237; 339; 351; 369; 474  f.; 503; 581; 759; 814; 825; 874; 883; 965. Alternation of lumina/limina/litora: 541; 628. Alternation of mos/mors et sim.: 619; 637. Alternation of ne/nec: 271; 390; 656; 698. Alternation of nec/neque: 107; 127; 145; 152; 166; 270; 291; 408; 593; 900; 929; 959. Alternation of nec/non: 10  f.; 13; 45; 67; 110; 152; 158; 263; 360; 471; 623; 665; 812; 819; 839; 846; 917; 928  f.; 947. Alternation of non/nos: 140. Alternation of non/num: 114; 158  f.; 852; 941. Alternation of non/nunc: 10; 131; 295; 375; 464  f.; 471; 485; 550; 594; 672. Alternation of nos/uos et sim.: 94 et passim. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110612493-004

414

Index of notable textual phenomena

Alternation of num/nunc: 40; 195; 231; 668; 941. Alternation of personal verb forms and pres. part.: 4; 48; 512; 634; 906; 913. Alternation of possem/possim/possum et sim.: 177; 382; 664; 672; 685; 805; 823; 834  f. Alternation of praesens/praestans et sim.: 757. Alternation of (pro)prius/(pro)pius et sim.: 69; 578; 626; 640. Alternation of sentit/sensit et sim.: 298; 454; 762; 916; 957. Alternation of si/sic: 62; 748; 866. Alternation of sim/sum et sim.: 161; 823; 842. Alternation of tempore/tempora et sim.: 64; 108; 206; 391; 456; 490; 560; 601; 637; 679; 724; 733; 847; 878; 912; 918; 928; 937; 948; 955 (cf. 29). Alternation of teneo/tueor et sim.: 416; 721. Alternation of trisyllables of the type uulnere-puluere-pectore: 86; 93; 117; 267; 457  f.; 490; 495; 531; 614; 628; 663; 679; 847. Alternation of tum/tunc: 349; 383; 391; 473; 555; 592; 614; 640; 697; 890; 921; 960. Alternation of -ue/-ne: 756; 912. Alternation of -ue/-que: 156; 214  f.; 227; 238; 282; 345; 472; 590; 711; 833; 857; 919; 927. Alternation of ut/in: 456; 871. Conjectures in mss.: 16; 35; 64; 103; 113; 122; 127; 183; 189; 213; 220; 252; 289; 341; 362; 394; 458; 490; 532; 553; 584; 590; 726; 731; 823; 859; 884; 903  f.; 914; 922; 931; 949; 954. Contamination between “Lactantian” and “non-Lactantian” mss.: see e.  g. 10; 77  f.; 140; 157; 184; 356; 607; 662. Dictation errors: 203; 272; 419; 693; 794. False wordbreaks: 71; 79; 98; 103  f.; 109; 238; 472; 478; 598; 643; 653; 662; 680; 702; 748; 836; 965. Instability as a result of hiatus: 257. Instability as a result of lengthening: 257; 403; 410; 423; 444; 446; 764; 896; 913; 958. Instability as a result of non-Latin proper names: 156; 173–6; 255–62; 293; 682; 684; 729; 749; 770  f.; 861; 868; 877. Instability as a result of repetition: 8; 43; 49; 103; 356; 490; 495; 624; 880; 896; 922; 938; 943; 966  f. Instability in forms with n-i-u in contact (et sim.): 58; 76; 88; 96; 212; 444; 550; 559; 643; 674; 715; 752; 758; 778  f.; 817; 840; 865; 903; 911; 945. Instability in the forms -arat/-abat/-auit et sim.: 7; 55; 106; 199; 247; 283; 291; 439; 681; 754; 808. Instability in the forms -erat/-erit et sim.: 291; 487; 526; 575. Instability in the paradigm of hic and of hic with forms like nunc/tunc etc.: 2; 76; 92; 103; 189  f.; 191; 203; 341; 356; 641; 644; 655; 683; 693; 724; 728; 755; 780f; 842; 852; 907; 912; 941; 957; 960. Instability in the paradigm of (re)linquo: 72; 428; 522; 630; 734; 939; 966. Instability in the paradigm of scando et sim.: 422; 780; 904. Instability in the paradigm of the relative et sim.: 20; 40; 42; 55; 58; 60; 95; 98; 103; 112  f.; 156; 177; 194; 210  f.; 895  f.; 935; 940–2. Instability in the preverbs pro-/prae-/per-: 59  f.; 106; 150; 233; 248; 323; 411; 478; 636; 845.



Index of notable textual phenomena

415

Instability of at at line-beginning: 50; 80; 115; 202; 239 (cf. 458). Instability of ego: 8; 11; 67; 368. Instability of est at line-ending: 10; 15; 96; 308  f.; 318; 363; 378; 403; 464; 546; 620; 646; 661; 715; 749; 760; 849; 858; 895. Instability of est in mid-line: 10; 67; 76; 100; 116; 119; 149; 173; 205; 237; 319; 367; 403; 446; 488; 521; 525; 647  f.; 673; 725  f.; 742  f.; 747; 749; 764; 783; 821; 847; 851; 902; 910. Instability of et in mid-line: 6; 41; 74; 79; 122; 163; 174; 223; 277; 498; 613; 624; 644; 728; 814; 857; 872; 883; 901; 966. Instability of imagine: 110; 216; 545; 840. Instability of monosyllables in contact: 20; 49–51; 79; 103; 192; 223; 387; 458; 493; 514; 557; 574; 814; 852; 860; 871; 896; 901; 935. Instability of monosyllables in synaloepha: 206  f.; 436; 438; 458; 492; 536; 546; 582; 632; 821; 840; 857; 859; 882. Instability of o: 370; 483. Instability of -que before initial vowel: 32; 41; 47; 53; 76; 150; 287; 293; 322; 420; 444; 483; 490; 510; 539; 586; 590; 613  f.; 626  f.; 677; 728; 769; 814; 818; 845; 872; 962. Instability of ut in synaloepha: see e.  g. 64; 192. Inversion of words with enjambement and metrical result: 64  f.; 146  f.; 435  f.; 668  f.; 706  f.; 808  f.; 907  f.; 966  f. Inversion of words with metrical result: 2; 5; 9; 26; 46; 59; 79; 83  f.; 91; 94; 102; 109; 112; 114  f.; 118; 151  f.; 158; 163; 187  f.; 201; 207; 211; 232; 244; 250  f.; 263; 275  f.; 282; 287; 291; 314; 328; 339; 352; 391  f.; 395; 403  f.; 407; 418; 437; 443; 454; 459; 462  f.; 468; 474; 485; 487–9; 498; 501; 508; 514; 522; 525; 549; 567; 580; 617; 621; 634; 641  f.; 645; 666; 674; 678; 680; 683; 685; 701; 704; 707; 736; 742  f.; 745; 751; 754  f.; 761; 765; 769; 789; 796; 800; 805; 811; 817; 823; 835–9; 842; 851  f.; 857; 859; 862; 864; 871; 885; 893; 900; 905; 924; 935; 959; 962. Links between Ba and G: see e.  g. 31; 117. Links between Cv and Ps: see e.  g. 161; 247; 299; 306; 323; 456; 492; 646; 672; 721; 736; 745; 892; 894; 896. Links between F2Ld11Z: 5; 12; 132; 160; 280. Links between Lr2 and Lu2: 8 et passim (see 222  f.; 635; 751; 892). But see 57; 871. Links between Lr6 and BoBo2 (dub.): 15. Links between Lr7 and Cs3 (dub.): see 758–87. Links between Lr22V30 and Aler. 1471: passim: see e.  g. 9; 52; 115; 464; 468; 474; 482; 499; 518; 678; 710; 849; 904; 925; but see 134; 360; 438; 749; 769; 921 (see also 2; 11; 15–18; 57; 77; 94; 113; 127; 182; 198; 200; 202; 220; 232; 258; 281; 294; 304; 306; 319; 329; 350; 352; 383; 411; 427  f.; 452; 460; 474; 489; 501  f.; 503; 511; 532; 544; 554; 572; 581; 614; 631; 651; 664; 692; 707; 747; 782; 808; 817; 840; 857  f.; 866; 868; 887). Links between Ls and B14: passim: see e.  g. 10; 20; 63; 90; 106; 155; 270; 335–7; 400b; 448; 578; 685; 748; 790  f.; 794; 850; 872; 885; 966  f. Links between LsB14 and Venet. 1472: 39; 63; 90; 159; 161; 298; 319; 872. Links between M and Lr27: passim (but see 53; 82; 121; 275). Links between MN and MoN2 V16 Bo3Lr22V30Vd11: 7; 11; 19; 40; 54  f.; 57; 59; 94; 100; 108; 110; 184; 221; 232; 234; 273; 392; 400; 456; 482; 532; 539; 563; 567  f.; 572; 574; 581; 587; 589; 597; 601; 614  f.; 666; 681; 683; 693  f.; 704; 707; 712; 718;

416

Index of notable textual phenomena

724; 736; 748; 755–7; 762; 778; 780; 790; 794; 802; 817; 838; 843; 853; 857; 880; 886–8; 892; 904; 906; 912; 925; 934  f.; 960. Links between M and N(a.c.) and between N(p.c.) and V2: 19; 37; 57; 92; 95; 100; 174; 234; 276–343; 406; 442; 456; 464; 472; 563; 568; 572; 574; 589  f.; 597; 602; 607; 615; 619; 653; 656; 663; 681; 701; 715; 724; 733; 748; 755; 757; 762; 777  f.; 802; 804; 817; 833; 843; 849; 853; 875; 886–8; 892; 911; 925; 949; 958; 960. But see 211; 710; 905. Links between M2 and T (dub.): see 235. Links between N2 and T13: see e.  g. 15; 32; 40; 47; 53–5. Links between P38 and Calph. 1474: passim: see 175; 206; 225; 272; 324; 452; 459; 510; 548; 563; 614; 624; 715; 770  f. Links between T7 and Cs (dub.): 146  f.; 230. Omission of hemistichs with metrical result: 67  f.; 268  f.; 670  f.; 887  f. (cf. 220  f.). Page jumping: 488–536; 715; 857–918. Saut du même au même: 1; 15–18; 25–7; 48  f.; 56  f.; 86; 134; 143; 210  f.; 220  f.; 268  f.; 304  f.; 363–70; 375–9; 431  f.; 494; 533–5; 545  f.; 602  f.; 669–71; 682  f.; 703  f.; 758–87; 764–6; 770  f.; 785  f.; 790  f.; 813  f.; 821  f.; 827–31; 887  f.; 956–9. Variants as a result of syllable inversion: 122; 125; 406; 432; 635; 678; 687; 702.

Appendix critica • 1 Consedere] concedere B2 T13  : conscedere O3  : considere Tu  : cum sedere Vd  : conscendere Es2 P46 : Non sedere Mo9 • et] at coni. Heinsius (b3, 350) • uulgi] uigili B14(a.c.) • stante] strante Pr • corona] coronat Ab(a.c.)  : corana P16(a.c.)  : coroa Mc(a.c.) • 2 ad hos] ad hoc De P5V16 P28, dub. Bothe 1818  : ad os MM23(mg. u.l.)T B42(mg.)B5Be2Fe2(mg. u.l.)Ld32(i.l. u.l.)MtO3(a.c.)P3(p.c.)Ph2(corr. Ph22) B8(a.c.)Lr8(corr. Lr82)Mt3P10(p.c.) Cs3(a.c.)Rd Lr27Es4 P47, Regius 1493(corr. 1497)  : et hos V30  : & ad hos Aler. 1471  : ab his dub. Heinsius 1659 • di ante clipei scr. Gg(a.c.) • clipei dominus] inu. ord. Cs • cl(i/y)p(p)ei] clipiei L4  : clipeo(uid.) Ld(a.c.) • dominus] om. O4(mg. suppl. m.p.) • septemplicis] septîplicis Be2  : seteplicis Bo  : setemplicis Ft  : septeplicis Lr27 • Aiax] aix L4 • clipei septemplicis aiax legitur in statio theb. quod aiax fecerat scutum suum de septem coriis Mo9 • 3–4 inu. ord. Es2 • 3 utque] ut Tu(a.c.)V5(a.c.) Lr8(a.c.)  : atque Accurs. 1475 • erat] era Ds(a.c.)  : om. L4 • impatiens] paciens Ld2(a.c.)O4(a.c.) • ir(a)e] ira As • Sigeia] segea L3(a.c.)  : segeia Gf BDrV6V7Vd Ft Ps  : segeta B5(mg. corr. B52)  : sigea Lr4 Es2Rd P41  : sygeya Ld3 Ld6P5  : sigeya SoV16 Es3 As  : sygeia Be2Fe Lr22P38  : segeya B3V9 P16  : segia Ld11 • toruo] torto M2(a.c.) Lu2  : torus Ld6 • 4 hunc u. secundum u. 3 eadem linea scr. Ft a m.p. • li(t)tora] lictera Mc • classemque] classesque B  : classem P8  : claxemque Ft • in litore] in litora M Ld B12(-e i.l. u.l.)T13 Lr27  : lictore V6 • uultu] ponti(uid.) Ab(uultu u.l. Ab2)  : credit Fe(uultu mg.)  : uultum P41  : om. A2(a.c.)  : quid N a.c. (-ltu i.ras.) n.l. • 5 hunc u. om. Tu(ima pag. suppl. m.p.) • agimus … Iuppiter] proh iupiter agimus F2Ld11(proch)Z • agimus] agmius Calph. 1474(corr. 1480)  : deest in Mt5 • pro(h)] proch B2(per comp.) Ds2(mg.)  : proht Dr(per comp.)  : pro haec Mt(per comp.)  : prho To2(p.c.) Bo • inquit] inquid P2V2 AbB2B4CLr5V9 B8Ds P47 • 6 ante] inter V5 • causam] causas B3  : clausam Vd11 • et … Vlixes] pro parenth. hab. Regius 1540 • et] om. Lr7V4V5 Ds2 Bo • confertur] contendit Ft, “unus Medic.” test. Burm. 1727, “Paris. 1, 2” test. Jahn 1832(sed confertur hab. P2 P4)  : confretur Tu • post Vlixes interrog. sign. pos. P2S2T A4B2B4CEFGGgHdL4Ld2Ld3MoOP4Ph2TrV4V5 GoV16 Es2Mt4Rd P46P47, Aler. 1471, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Weise 1845, Koch 1866, Korn 1880, Huyck 1991, dub. Tarrant 2004(in app.) • 7 at] ac Dr  : aut V7(a.c.)  : an Es4 • Hectoreis] equoreis P46(corr. P462)  : hectoreiis B  : hectoris Ds2(a.c.)  : hetoreis V16  : ethoreis Mc  : hectoriis Es2 • dubitauit] dubitabit M B3 Lr27  : dubitabat Mo Bo3  : dubitaui Bo2  : dubitat Ps • cedere] cędere S2  : sistere A4  : accedere Es2 • 8  ]classe fugaui tantum exstat in Mt5 • quas2] qua V2(a.c.) : et quas Lr2 Mt4 CvLu2  : quasq3 Mt P5 • hac classe] a classe Ω  : aglasse M(a.c.; cf. 802)  : om. Lr5(mg. suppl.)  : quid Rd a.c. n.l. • fugaui] uotaui A4  : remoui A42(i.l. p.c.)B4 B82(mg. u.l.), “duo alii” test. Burm. 1727 • 9 tutius] tutus B5(corr. B52)  : tutuis Ft • igitur fictis] inu. ord. Cs, “cod. Rhen.”(non Tu) test. Jahn 1832, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Baumg.-Crus. 1834 • igitur] ergo B4(igitur mg. B42)  : tantum Go2(i.l. u.l.)  : nobis O19  : certe P46(fol. 62v)CoEs7  : om. L23 • fictis … uerbis] uerbis contendere(ɔtdêd’e a.c. B2) fictis B2 O19 • fictis] factis B5(corr. B52) P41  : siccis Lr8(fictis i.l. u.l. Lr82)  : uictis Lr22V30, Aler. 1471 • contendere] cimtendere(sic) Vd  : et tendere P10(a.c.)  : cotepnere(sic) Mt4  : contêpnere To2 • • 10 pugnare] bellare Ld2, cf. ad epist. 13.69; Sil. 8.496  : pungnare Tu • manu] magnu Cs(a.c.)  : manu est(per comp.) Ps • post manu interrog. signum pos. Aldina 1502  : exclam. signum pos. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110612493-005

418

Appendix critica

Holzberg 2017 • sed nec] non est(per comp.) P16 • sed] sic Dr  : et(per comp.) V2 • nec] non BV9Vd  : nunc B5 • mihi] om. Fe(a.c.) • prom(p)tum] prom(p)tum est LuM2P2S2T B(uid.)CDeDrEFFeLr5MtTuV8V9Vd Lr8P5P8P10So2(ê mg. add., fort. ut gloss.) B12BoEs2Vt Bo3(p.c.)Es5Go2 P46P47  : rapta B5(corr. B52)  : promtu Lr2 B3 Lu2  : deest in Ls(sed -tum hab. B14) • 11 hunc u. om. Rd(mg. suppl. Rd2) • nec] non S22(i.l. u.l.)  : Hec T • facere] facile Bs4 • est isti] est illi A2AbB2B4(isti mg. B42)CsLd3Lr5(pro tu i.l.)Lr6V9Vd B8Lr82(illi i.l. u.l.)Mo3Mt3 B12Es3Mc Es3P41  : est aliquid Ls  : est hosti(hosti i.l. Mo a m.p.) Fe(isti mg. u.l. a m.p.)Lr7 Bs2Bs4P8  : illi adest A4  : isti est Ld2(a.c.)  : istum B5(a.c.)  : isti Tu  : lect. erasa in B14(sed cf. Ls; isti mg. a m.p.)  : deest in Mt5 • quantumque] quantum Lr3 Lr8(a.c. a m.p.)Ph2(quam-) AsCvEs5(a.c.)Lu2  : quamque Tu(a.c.)  : quantūcūq3(quātunc- Accurs. 1475) Es2, Accurs. 1475 contra metrum • feroci] ferocem M(a.c.) Lr27  : ferosci Ld2(a.c.)  : feroce Bo3(a.c.)  : fenaci Li3  : ueloci V30  : quid Mo a.c. n.l. • 12 inque … ualeo] inaciemque ualeo Ft  : Inualeoque acie Es6  : in ualeo(ualio Ld11) acie F2Ld11Z • acie] aciem(-ê A) A Mc Es5 • tantum] tantum quamque P3 • iste] ipse P2(iste i.l. u.l.)  : ille B2GgLd3Lr5O4P3V6 B8Ld7Ld8Mo3P5P16So Bo2Cs3Ft(a.c.) Es5P41 • 13 nec] non Lr5V7 B8P16(a.c.) • memoranda] moranda V3  : momoranda Ld3  : memorada(uid.) Lr6 • tamen] om. Lr2(suprascr. Lr22)  : uobis Ft • uobis mea] inu. ord. P4 • uobis] nobis V3 A2B Ld6 Mc Cv  : reor Ft(uerbum prox. u. iter.) • facta] fatea B5  : fata B12Es2Mc • pelasgi] pelagi Lr3 Ds2  : pelasgo Lr5(i.l. u.l.) • 14 hunc u. om. Ds(mg. suppl. Ds2) • esse] nota Lr5 • reor] feror(uid.) Ld3(a.c.) • (uidistis enim) pro parenth. hab. L3 Ld3 To Es2P38, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, R. de Verger 2005(qui colon postea adhib.) • uidistis] uidisti V2(a.c.) Mt2(a.c.) • enim] enimque V9(a.c.)  : eum Ld11 • narret] narrat Cs  : uarret Pr  : narre Ld11 • Vlixes] ultra B5(corr. B52) • 15–18 om. Gg(mg. suppl. a m.p.) V30(mg. suppl. V302) P46(suppl. P462)  : post 14 u. 19 hab. A3 • 15 teste gerit] iste geret B5(corr. B52) • gerit] gessit N2(a.c.) T13(a.c.)  : gerat Es5  : regit Go2(u.l.)  : erit Ld13  : quid Rd a.c. (ri p.c.) n.l. • nox] nos B5(corr. B52)  : uox Pr • conscia sola] inu. ord. Lr6 Bo(consia)Bo2(a.c.) • conscia] concia A4Tu(a.c.)  : cûscia Vd(p.c., cûsci a.c.)  : consia P10 • sola est] sola T(p.c., est eras.) MtPr  : nostra est Ds2(a.c.) • 16 pr(a)emia magna] inu. ord. Mt3  : proemia magna M  : prelia magna G  : om. Mt5 • fateor] reor Mo(a.c.) B12(a.c.) • sed demit] seddemit N  : sedemit M  : sed emit Lr27  : sed deum (s3 d’m) B3(a.c.)  : sed demê Es5 • honorem] honores Rd • 17–18 inu. ord. Pr • 17 (a)emulus] emissus B5(corr. B52)  : emolus Lu2 • Aiaci] iliaci Ab(a.c.)  : eiaci Tu  : aiacis T13  : aeaci Ld13 • non] nec P41 • est] om. O4(suprascr. O42) • tenuisse] tetigisse E(tenuisse i.l. u.l. E2)  : renuisse uel spreuisse prop. Heinsius(in notis) • superbum] superuum V2 • 18 sit licet] scilicet GfL3V2V3 H2HdLr7Ph2 Ds(corr. Ds2) Es3(uid. a.c.)Ft Bo3(corr. Bo32)Es3Es4Lr22V302, mg. test. Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, prob. Aler. 1471  : si licet N(p.c.; sit licet uid. a.c. i.ras.) To  : scit licet Ab As(a.c.)  : si net (uid.) Mt  : sed licet O3  : sic licet V6 Ds2 P38  : de Lr3 n.l.  : om. Mt5 • sit … ingens] hoc ingens scilicet L3 • hoc] hac Ld11  : hic Lu2(per comp.) • hoc ingens] ingensingens Tu • ingens] magnum B12(ingens i.l. u.l. B122) • quicquid] nunc quod Ld2(per comp., a.c.)  : quid F2 • sperauit] superauit A(a.c.)Gf A2Ab2(u suprascr.)B2(a.c.)Be2L4(sperauit u.l. L42)O(a.c.)O3(a.c.)P3(a.c.)Ph22PrTuV4(a.c.; sperauit item V42 mg. u.l.)V6V7Vd DsLd6Mo3Mt3P5 Es3(a.c.)FtMt4 Ld11Ps2(i.l.) P462Ld13  : superarum(per comp.) Ld6  : sperat Ps • Vlixes] ulixe N(a.c.)  : ulnes B5(mg. corr. B52)  : ulixex V6 • 19 iste] ipse AGfL3Lr2V3 A2A3A4AbBB3B4(iste mg. B42)B5BaBe2CsDrGgH2H3HdL4Ld2Lr3Lr4Lr5LsOO3O4P3P4Ph2PrTrV4V5V6V7V8V9 DsGoLr8Mo3Mt2Mt3P5P16ToV16 B12Bo2Cs3Es2Es3FtMcMt4Mt5To2 AsCvEs3Es4Es6F2Ld11Lu2P38P41Ps P47Ld13, “in quibusdam” test. Naug. 1516(in adnot.), Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Ciof. 1575, Bersm. 1596  : ille Vd • iam nunc] iam tunc AL3(uid., a.c.) B42(mg.)Lr5 Mo3  : nunc iam B4H3Ph2 So  : iam iam O  : iam non Ld3Vd • • 20 quod] quo MP2(a.c.) L4(a.c.)O Go2Lr27, “Rhen.”(quod hab. Tu) test. Jahn 1832, prob. Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Bach 1836, Koch 1866, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Riese 1889,



Appendix critica

419

Simmons 1889, Merkel 1890, Lejay 1894, Edwards 1905, Fink 2007, dub. Tarrant 2004(in app.)  : qui L3Lr2M2(p.c.) A2AbB3BaBe2CDeDrFLr4Lr6MtPrV5V6V7V8(quod mg. u.l. V82)Vd Ds2Ld6Lr8Mt2P5P10P16SoV16 B12Bo2(mg. u.l.)Bo2Cs3Es2FtMt4Mt5Rd B14Es5F2Lu2P38Vd11 Ld13, in utroque suo codice test. Ciof. 1575, “in multis” Heinsius 1659, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Bersm. 1596, Baumg.-Crus. 1834  : cui Ls  : sed Mo32(i.l. u.l.)  : quam P41  : om. P28 • cum uictus] ɔuictus AbLr5 P10P16(a.c.) Es5(sine comp.)  : cô uictus Ld3  : conuictus Ph2  : cum uinctus B5(uid. per comp.)O4(a.c.)  : cum A4(uictus mg. suppl. m.p.)  : quum uictus P38, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Lemaire 1822  : quom uictus Puteol. 1471, Calph. 1480 • erit] erût B(a.c.)  : eris Ld2(a.c.)  : erat Lr4(a.c.) • certasse] certase Lr3(a.c.)  : certare P16 • feretur] fatetur Lu(a.c. a m.p.)M2(mg.)M2(a.c.) Vd Lr8So(feretur mg. u.l. So2) FtRd(feretur i.l. u.l. Rd2) Es5(uid. a.c.)Lr27  : ferunt B  : foretur Hd  : feratur P10(a.c.)  : f[]tetur Es5(p.c.)  : quid P2 a.c. n.l. • 21 Atque] ast A4BaG(p.c.)Ld2Lr5O3 P8P10 CvPs P46P47, “quatuor” test. Heinsius 1659; cf. e.  g. 13.878  : atqui OLs  : at Ph2V5(a.c.)Vd Es2(a.c.) P41  : adque V6 • si uirtus] suit’ Ab(a.c.)  : si uictus Es6 • uirtus] quid P2 a.c. n.l. (-rtus i.ras.) • in me] in me in me Cs(a.c.)  : si me Mo3 • dubitabilis] dubitablis Gf  : dubitał Lu  : distabilis Mt • 22 nobilitate] nobitate A3(a.c.) • potens] petens Es3 • essem] esse F2 • creatus] catus(cf. e.  g. ceat’ AbL4) B5(a.c.)  : câtus B5(p.c.)  : creatu Mt  : creata Ld6 • 23 m(o)enia] memia Ld2(a.c.)  : media Tu  : noenia Ld13 • forti] forte Gf(a.c. uid.) • Troiana … cepit] sub hercule cepit troiana V6 • Troiana] troia O3(a.c.) Ps  : troiane Ld11  : troiañ Ld6  : troiâ Lu2 • Hercule] ercule T(sed cf. u. 52) HdLd V16  : ilice(uid.) B(ex itin. corr. cum lit. damn.)  : hectore Gg(a.c. a m.p.)Vd(mg. corr. m.p.) Ps  : om. P47(ex itin. corr.) • cepit] cępit LuM2NS2, Puteol. 1471  : coepit MTV3  : uicit Pr • 24 li(t)toraque] littora qui Gf  : littora Ld6 • intrauit] intraui B4(a.c.)  : intrant Mt  : intrat Ps  : interura P28 • Pagas(a)ea] pagaseia N  : pegasea Ω, Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Accurs. 1475  : pesea L3(a.c.)  : pegaseia M2(p.c.)  : pegasæa Hd  : pesgasea Lr4(p.c.)  : pegasia Tu P47  : pegesta Ld11 • Colcha] cholcha L3(p.c.)Lr2S2(a.c.) GL4Lr3N2 RdT13 Lu2Vd11  : cholca L3(a.c.)Lu BaELsO3PrVd DsTo  : olcha B5(a.c.)  : colca A A4AbB3CCsFeLd2Lr4Lr5O4P4Tu(p.c., quid a.c. n.l.)V5V8V9 Mt2So BoMcMt5To2 Ps P47  : cohlca Hd  : concha Ds2  : colla P46(a.c.) • carina] rapina A(a.c.) A4(a.c.)  : carine B5(a.c.)  : canina Vd(a.c.) • 25–27 (A)eac(h)us … (A)eac(h)on Ω, edd.  : Aeacos … Aeacon Hill 2000, Tarrant 2004, Holzberg 2017  : heac’ … heacô Ld6 • 25 hunc u. om. Lu(mg. suppl. Lu2) • Aeacus] Nā(nam Lr27) eacus M2(a eacus M) Lr27  : Aacus T(a.c.)  : Facus Ds • huic … est] pater huic est Ps • pater est] patiest Ba(a.c.)  : pater erat Mt5  : pater Es2 • iura] uita Ab(a.c.) • silentibus] sidentibus H3  : colentibus Lr8  : scilentibus Lr82(i.l. u.l.) Es2 • illic] umbris A2A3B2(i.l. u.l.)CGg(corr. Gg2)PrVd(p.c. a m.p.) Bs2DGoLd6 To2 Es4, “prim. Moret. … Oxon. aliique multi” test. Heinsius 1659  : istic Ab(illic mg. u.l. Ab2)  : inuida B5(corr. B52)  : illis T13 • 26 re(d)dit] reddidit Mt3 As • ubi] uix Pr  : om. Vt • (A)eoliden … Sisyphon] eolides … sisiphus(sisy- Lr2) L3Lr2 G V10 Rd Lu2, dub. Burm. 1727(in notis) • saxum graue] inu. ord. C Bs3 • graue Sisyphon] inu. ord. Mo9 • Sisyphon] sisiphon Ω  : sysiphon NS2 A2EN2  : sisifon A B2B4LdLr6 McTo2 P41  : sisi phon P2  : sysyphon T Ld3OTuV5 P5P16 Ft  : siphon Lr3(a.c.)  : sisiphû P4  : sysypon V6  : scisiphon Es2  : sisciphon Es6  : sisiphus L3 G Rd Lu2  : sisiphoo Lr27  : sisyphus Lr2 • urget] urguet H3Lr3N2, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Merkel 1850, Zingerle 1884, Lejay 1894, Edwards 1905 • 27 (A)eacon] Eacû Lr2 So Bo3Lu2  : Aeocen T  : Eacus Tu V30  : Facon Ds(eacon mg. Ds2)  : Eacun Lr8 • agnoscit] agnouit Gg2(mg. p.c.)Ld3LsV4V9 B8Ds2Mt3ToV16 B12Es3 B14P38 Ld13, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596 : agnotuit P46  : agno Mc(corr. Mc2) • sum(m)us] summos F2 • prolemque] prolem B3(a.c.)  : prolenque Hd  : prolememque Pr  : prolesque P28 • fatetur] fatentur Pr • 28 Iuppiter] om. Ld6 • esse] ipse B4(corr. B42) • suam] piam Bs3(suam u.l. Bs32) • 28 sic a] sia Vd11(a.c.)  : sic est ab V5 : sic ab Bs2, “Goth. 2 …, Rhen.” test. Jahn 1832(sed GoTu aioue hab.; “ed. princ.” quoque perperam test.), Heinsius 1659(qui perperam Hd test.), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Polle 1888, Riese 1889, Simmons 1889, Merkel 1890, Lejay

420

Appendix critica

1894, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Fink 2007 • tertius] territus(per comp.) Ds(a.c.)  : tracius T13  : trius Lu2  : titius Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472 • Aiax] aiax est(per comp.) O3Vd Ds • 29 nec] non Lr2 BB3B5Be2Lr5V4V8 Mo3Mt2Mt3So B12Mt4 Es3Lu2 P46 • tamen] mihi(per comp.) B14  : om. Lr4 • in] om. Lr4(a.c.) • prosit] proscit Hd(a.c.)  : propraesit(per comp.) Lr3 • Achiui] achiuis Es5 • • 30 si] sic N(a.c.) Es2(a.c.) V30 • cum magno] cum magna A2  : om. B5(mg. suppl. B52) • est] sit L3Lr2 CsH3Ph2 DsLd6To FtMcMt4 CvEs6F2Ld11Lu2P41Z, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596 • com(m)unis] conunis B5(a.c.)  : cummunis Tu  : cômin’ Mt4  : cômune Lu2 • Achille] Achilli Huyck 1991 • 31 fraterna] fraternaque Dr  : fraterno Lr7(a.c.)  : fratena Pr • peto] petam V2  : petat Lr7  : om. Mt4(a.c.) • quid] qui(per comp.) Dr Mc  : quis Ph2(a.c.) • cretus] crete BaG(o nate i.l.)  : nate Ba2(mg. u.l.)  : cercus Mt  : creatus N2(a.c.)  : certus O4(a.c.) P46(a.c.)  : fretus Ph22(p.c.)  : esset(per comp.) P10  : natus P102(u.l.)  : peto cretus P28 • 32–33 inu. ord. P3 • 32 Sisyphio] sisiphio Ω  : sysiphio GfLr2N V16 Ft Lu2  : sisifio A B4Lr6 So BoMc  : sisipho Lu V9(a.c.) Mt2 B12(a.c.) Es5F2  : sysypho T  : sisipheo AbH2N2 B12(p.c.)T13  : sysipheo Mo3  : sisipio B5V6V7  : sysiphyo E  : sisiphyo G  : sisyphyo L4  : siphio Lr3  : Syphio Ds2  : sysyphio Ld3OTuV5 Es3  : sysyphyo P5  : siscipho Es2 • furtisque] furtoque N(-isque i.l. u.l. N2) AbV9 O9, “quatuor libri” test. Burm. 1727  : furtis A A2A3A4Be2(futis a.c.)DeOO3 B8Ds2To O11O13  : fortisque V2(a.c.)  : fraudisque B5(corr. B52)  : et furto O18 (test. Heinsius)  : om. Mt4(a.c.) • et] etiam cum (per comp.) Ld6  : om. B12 • fraude] fraudis Ph2(a.c.) • illi] om. Ab • 33–34 inu. ord. A(a.c.) • 33 inseris] iusseris Gf(a.c.) A2(p.c.)  : iussis A2(a.c.)  : inserit A3ELd(a.c.)O3PrV6 E2GoLd6P8So Es3 Cv P47, “excerpta Langermanni, unus Voss. et unus meus” test. et prob. Heinsius 1659, “Rhen.”(inseris hab. Tu) test. Jahn 1832, “S. Gall.”(inseris hab. S2) test. Bach 1836, prob. Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731(sed inseris mauult in notis), Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Weise 1845, Koch 1866, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Riese 1889, Simmons 1889, Merkel 1890, Lejay 1894, Edwards 1905, Fink 2007  : per seris Mt  : nobis P5  : inferis Li3  : inseries Ld11  : In seris Regius 1493 • (A)eacidis] eacid P2(a.c.)  : (A)eacides V2(a.c.) AbB(a.c.)B5(a.c.)Lr7 P8To BoMt4T13 F2Ps Ld13, Accurs. 1475  : ead P5(ex itin. corr.)  : eacide P41 • alien(a)e] aliena Ld3Lr3  : alione Mt • nomina] nomnia B  : nomine H2(a.c.)N2(a.c.) • 34 an] at Es6Ps  : aut Vt P46(a.c.) • quod] quid Be2 Mt2 Es5  : quia(sic perperam leg. Magnus 1914 in G) Cs3(quod Cs32) • arma] armo Ld11 • prior] ueni Tu(sc. ueni … ueni)  : om. P5 • nulloque] nullo B3(corr. B32)DeMoP3(a.c.)V6 V16 Es2 Es4  : nullique Li3  : nullosque Walch. 1731(uitio preli) • indice] iudice FeLd(u.l.)Lr3(a.c.)Lr4O3PrV6 BoBo2(p.c.)McMt4 PsZ P46  : indece Tu(a.c.)  : iuudice Mo3(a.c.)  : uindice V5  : iuduce Bo2(a.c.) • 35 neganda] negamda O3  : neganda sunt B5 • mihi] om. Lr3 • potiorque] priorque Ld  : pocior Tu(a.c.)  : potior Ft • ille GfLr2LuM2N(a.c.) A4AbB(a.c.)Be2CCsDrL4Lr3Lr5N2O3 Ds22(i.l. p.c.)GoLd6Mt3P5P10So2(mg.) Es2Es3FtMt4T13Vt Es6F2Go2Ld11Lr22Lu2V30Vd11Z P46P47, edd.  : iste B8, “duo” test. Heinsius 1659  : illis N(p.c., -is i.ras.) Ω, Plan., Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, dub. Magnus 1914(in app.)  : illi To2, Regius 1540  : esse Lr7 Bo2Cs3Mt5 As  : uxor Ds2(a.c.)  : de P2 Es3 n.l. • 36 cepit] ceptis Cs3(ex itin. corr.)  : cedispit Mo3(a.c.)  : ceperit(per comp.) Mt5 • detrectauitque furore] decorauitque uidebitur illis B5 • detrectauitque] detractauitque AGfL3Lr2LuMNTV2 A2A4AbBB2B3(p.c.)B4BaBe2CDeDrFeH3HdL4(detrec- uid., a.c.)LdLd2Ld3Lr3Lr5Lr7LsMoMtOO3O4P3Ph2PrV6V7V8 B8Ds2Ld6Lr8Mo3P5P8P10P16SoTo(uel re-)V16 B12BoBo2Cs3Es2Es3FtMcMt4Mt5RdTo2 AsB14Bo3Es4Es6F2Ld11Lr27Lu2P38P41PsVd11Z P46Ld13, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474(corr. 1480), Accurs. 1475, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, Huyck 1991, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, R. de Verger 2005, Holzberg 2017  : deturpauitque N2(i.l. u.l.)  :



Appendix critica

421

detractatque B3(a.c.)  : detracteuitque B52(uid., mg.) • furore] furori A  : furorem B52(mg.) Cv(a.c.)  : furores Mt  : pudore V8 Ld6 • 37 militiam ficto] miliam ficto V2(a.c.)Tu  : miliam ficco B5(corr. B52)  : militiamq3 ficto B14(a.c.) • ficto] ficgto M  : fugit Lr27  : facto Mt3  : sicco Mt • donec] dolor B(a.c.)  : conec B5  : denec Mc • so(l)lertior] silencior Ds2(a.c.)  : solertio Mc • isto] illo AGf A3FeGg(a.c.)H2HdLr3Lr6MtOP4 B8  : ipso B2Mo(uid., a.c.) Es2(a.c.) P41 • 38 et] sed Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Merkel 1850, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, Lejay 1894, Edwards 1905, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Tarrant 2004, Fink 2007 • sibi] sed B4(a.c.) : sic P10  : tibi Es5  : om. P16 • inutilior] inutilior et B4 : inutior(uel mutior) Ba(a.c.)Tu(a.c.)  : utilior To(inutilior u.l. To2)  : in utilior Bo2 • timidi] ficti A2 • com(m)enta] rementa(per comp.) Pr  : cometa Es2  : commenda P46(a.c.) • retexit] retraxit Ld(a.c.) • 39 Naupliades] Nauphiades Lr2 : Nauphades(uid.) Lr6  : Haupliades T  : Nauplaades Hd(a.c.)  : Nau pilades L4  : palamedes Lr3  : nauphliades Mt2  : nauphiliades B14  : nauplides Es3(a.c.) : nam phiades Pr  : nampliades B8DsLd6P10  : nam pliades Mt4(a.c.) • animi] auium B • uitataque] uitaque V2(a.c.) Ps(a.c.)  : uittataque Lu(a.c.) E  : uictataque Bo2  : uinctata B5  : iurataque B2(p.c.; uitataque B a.c.)H32(i.l. u.l.) B8Go(a.c.)So P41, “Regius, Leid. et duo alii” test. Burm. 1727  : auctataque Mt  : ui tantaque Ls B14, Venet. 1472  : uitata V7(a.c.)  : inuitaque Ld6 P46P47, “duo alii” test. Burm. 1727  : in uitaque Mt4 • traxit] tranxit CsMt  : uenit P5  : duxit Go2 • sit(uid.) post traxit N(ex itin. eras.) • ad] in Gg(ad i.l. u.l. Gg2)O3 B8D Mc CvEs4Es5, Heinsius 1659(qui “sex alii” test.), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Merkel 1850, Riese 1872(ad 1889), Polle 1888, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007, dub. Bach 1836(in notis)  : eum ad P10 • arma] ara Mo(a.c.)  : armas(fort. ex interrog. signo perperam intellecto) T13 • • 40 optima] ultima De  : optimaque Mt5  : obtima Be2LdV6V7 Mt2P8 • nunc N(p.c. a m.p.) Ω, Plan., edd., dub. Magnus 1914(in app.), def. Luck  : num MN(a.c.) Be2(per comp. ñ)Mo Lr27, Merkel 1850, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, Lejay 1894, Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007  : non P46 • nunc sumat] summat nunc V6 • su(m)mat] sumet B2, def. Luck • noluit] uoluit Bo  : nouerit Es5 • 41 nos] nosque Ab • inhonorati] In honorati N(inhonorti uel inhonorai a.c.)V2 A3TuV4V5V6 B8DsV16 Bo2Es2 F2  : inhortati B B14(a.c.)  : inhornati Lr4V7 As  : inornati P41 • et donis] donisque Gf : donis BB5Ld3Lr3V6V7V9  : et domus T13 • patruelibus orbi] parentibus orbi A2(uid. a.c.) : patruolibus orbi Mt  : patruelibus ausi P5  : patruelis origo Ft • 42 obtulimus … nos] qui nos obtulimus P3 • obtulimus] optulimus L3Lr2LuMM2(p.c.)NP2V2 A2A4AbDrEFFeH3Ld(a.c.)Ld2Lr4MoMtN2O3O4Ph2TuV4V8V9 DsLd6P10 Mt4RdT13 Bo3Lr27Lu2Ps P46P47 : obtuilimus B5(a.c.)  : obstulimus CPr • quia nos] inu. ord. P8(a.c.)  : iter. Mo sed cum lit. damn. • quia] qui A Bs3 Vt, “ed. Rom.”(quia hab. Aler. 1471) test. Bach 1836, Heinsius 1659(qui “tres” test.), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834 : nam Bo(quia Bo2(i.l. u.l.)  : om. Mt • ad prima] prima B5 : ad priora A B52(mg.)  : a prima Ld6(a.c.) P46(a.c.)  : at prima Pr • pericula] pericla P2(a.c.) • simus] sumus M2(a.c.)P2(a.c.) A2CsFe(a.c.)L4(uid., a.c.)Lr7 B12(a.c.)Mt5RdT13 Es4(a.c. uid.)P41  : scimus A4  : pinus B5(a.c.) • 43 atque] autem(uel ante, sc. per comp.) Dr  : ac Lr5 : at Mo Mc(a.c.)Mt4(a.c.) Es4(a.c.)  : aut C Ps  : utque Li3 • utinam] ut Ld11 • aut1] ait Mt  : et(per comp.) ut Bo : om. A3Ld3P3 Ld6Mt3P16 CvPs P46, “Medic.” test. Burm. 1727, prob. Bothe 18182(qui falso sic leg. in B14) • uerus … ille] ille furor uerus Mt4 • uerus] ferus B5(a.c.)  : om. L4(suppl. L42) So  : uerus uerus Es2(a.c.)  : uer P28 • furor … aut] furor aut ille O(a.c.) • furor ille] inu. ord. H3 Mt3So Mt4  : furor illi B5P3, dub. Burm. 1727(in notis)  : furor Lr7 BoTo2 • aut2] ut N(a.c.)  : uir Ab(corr. Ab2)  : om. P3Pr • creditus] t’rit’ Gf  : credimus Ab(per comp.; creditus u.l. Ab2)  : cerenus B5(a.c.) • esset] ille Mt4(a.c.) • 44 nec] aut B12 • comes] comas B5 • hic] om. S2(sed i.l. suppl. S22) So  : huic A2  : nec(per

422

Appendix critica

comp.) Fe  : huc Lr5, Aldina 1502 • Phr(y/i)gias] frigias AGfM2 A3A4AbBB4BaCsGGgHdLr4Lr5Lr6Lr7MoOO3O4PrV4V5V6V9 Mt2P5SoToV16 BoMcMt4Mt5P28To2 P41Ps P46P47  : prigias S2 Ls B14  : phigias T(a.c.) A2(a.c.)L4(a.c.)Ph2(a.c.) Lr8  : fugias B5  : phrigiis Ld6  : frighias P16 • umquam] numquam(nô- CsLd3) A4(a.c.)CsDrGg(a.c.)Ld3Lr7MtN2(a.c.)V9 DsLd6 B12Es3Mc F2Ld11V30  : inquam O3 • uenisset] uocasset V5 • ad] ad ad Bo  : om. Es2(a.c.) • arces] aures V6  : oras Es3, “Balliol. et unus Heinsii” test. Burm. 1727 • 45 hortator] hectator B5(a.c.)  : hortatur F2  : ortator N2(a.c.)V5 McMt5Rd  : hortato To(a.c.)  : horator As  : orator Li3 • scelerum] scelium B3  : sceleris Lr5 Mc  : celerem Mt(a.c.)  : celerum Mt(p.c.) • non te] monte M(a.c.)  : nec Ld3 • non] nec A AbBCFeLd3MtP3 Ld6Mo3Mt3P16 B12 Lr22V30, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472  : sed non H2(uid.) • P(o)eantia] o peantia A Go2  : peontia Gf  : peontida M2  : peteia Ab(a.c.)  : peâteia Ab(p.c.)  : piantia B  : poeuntia B52(mg.)  : phęantia S2  : peancea Ld  : phoeancia Tu  : pheoantia Lr8  : petancia V6  : penâcia So  : penatia Ld11  : poentia Es2 Lr27  : peneica P41 • proles] ploles Lr5(a.c.) • 46 expositum] expositus Ab Mc • Lem(p)nos] lermos V6  : quid N B5 a.c. n.l. • nostro cum] cum nostro AbFFeMt To2  : uestro cum V6  : nostro B12(a.c.) • haberet] heberet V3(a.c.) • 47 nunc] nuc B5, Naug. 1516(a.c.)  : om. Es2 • ut] cum(per comp.) A4(a.c.) • memorant] nemorant B5 • siluestribus] siluantribus(uid.) M2(a.c.)  : siluestris B Lr8 Es3(uid., a.c.) P46(a.c.)  : siluestrisque Cs(a.c.)  : suluestribus V5(a.c.)  : siluribus To(a.c.) • abditus] additus A(uid.) AbLd(abd- u.l. Ld2)N2V7 P16 FtRdT13  : absditus P5  : abdictus To2(i.l.)  : om. To  : abdiditus Es2  : aditus B12 P46 • antris] austris B  : antrix B5  : astris Dr(a.c.) Go(a.c.) • 48 hunc u. om. Ph2(mg. suppl. Ph22) • saxa] sacra Ds2(a.c.) • moues] mouet V2(a.c.) Hd(a.c.)MtO3(a.c.)  : mouens BLr5Lr6 P41  : mouêt P47 • gemitu] om. P5(i.l. suppl.) • L(a)ert(h)iad(a)eque] Laertia(lertiaq3 a.c. uid.) dampna N(p.c.)  : iam laerciadęque S2  : laercideque Fe  : laertideque Gg  : laertiade F2  : mala laerciade Mt4(a.c.)  : larciadeque Cv(a.c.)  : laercidemque Es5  : lacerta deque Ld11 • precaris] imprecaris Fe(a.c.) P10  : precatus Mt  : precaras O4(a.c.)  : precantis P41 • 49 hunc u. om. L3N(mg. suppl. m.p.) A4(mg. suppl. A42)B5F(i.l. suppl. m. paulo recentior)G(mg. suppl. G2)Ld3O3P3(i.l. suppl. m.p.)Tu(mg. suppl. m.p.)V7(mg. suppl. V72) Bo2(mg. suppl. Bo22)Cs3(mg. suppl. Cs32)P28(hab. post u. 76) Cv(mg. suppl. m.p.)F2(mg. suppl. F22)Ld11PsVd11, Plan.  : hunc u. iter. HdLs(non uana precaris tantum exstat hoc in codice)  : hunc u. suo loco et iterum post 50 scr. V5(cum lit. alterum damn.) • meruit] merui Mt2(a.c.)  : metuit Z(a.c.) • quae2] om. P2(a.c.) Mo(mg. suppl. Mo2) Z, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1527  : cum Mt  : quia B12  : que ue To2 • non] om. Es2(a.c.) • uana] aduana Es2 • precaris] preceris V32(e i.l.) D BoPt3, Calph. 1474, Regius 1493, Heinsius 1659(qui et “pri. Moret.” test.), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Huyck 1991(uel potius precari, in notis), dub. Hopkinson 2000(in notis)  : proceris P38 • • 50 u. 49 post hunc u. iterum scr. V5(cum lit. damn.) • nunc] nuc Vd • ille] illa Ld Z  : αὐτὸς Plan.  : om. B4(a.c.) • eadem nobis] inu. ord. Rd • eadem] adem Ld2(a.c.)  : deadem(uid.) Mo(a.c.)  : idem P8 : quidem P41  : quid Lr8 a.c. n.l. • nobis] uobis Ab • post nobis nescioquid eras. B4 • iuratus] iuratur T  : miratus A3(a.c. a m.p.)  : inimicus B4(a.c.)  : iuratas B5(a.c.)  : uitatus Dr(a.c.) Ds(a.c.)  : iniuriatus Go2 • in] ad Ld6(ex itin. corr.) • arma] armis Lr3(a.c.)  : herba P16(arma u.l. P162)  : antra P41 • 51 una ducum] milicie Ld2(una ducum u.l. Ld22) • ducum] ducam Mt • successore] succesure B4(a.c.) • sagit(t)(a)e] sagipte Rd • 52 Herculis] Hercules N(a.c. uid.)  : heculis Vd(a.c.) • utuntur] inuadunt Ft(a.c.)  : ut utuntur Ft2(mg. p.c.)  : utantur dub. Bothe 1818, 128 • fractus] fracto A2  : frautus C  : factus Fe(a.c.)  : fructus Ld6  : fractis Lr22V30Z(p.c.), Aler. 1471 • morboque fameque] cf. Verg. georg. 4.318 • morboque] ferroque Ph2  : marboque V6  : morbisque P8 • fameque] famęque M2  : famæque T13 : fraudeque F2Ld11  : senecte Lr3  : saxaque Ld13 • 53 hunc u. om. Ld(mg. suppl. m.p.) • uelaturque … auibus rescr. i.ras. P8 a m.p.; quid a.c. n.l. • aliturque auibus] alitur auibusque O3  : auibusque alitur Pr Go • aliturque] alitusque MN(a.c.) B(per comp. alit’q3) Lr27  : aliturue Gf2(i.l. u.l.)V3 B52(i.l.)Be2P4 Mt2V16 Es2 Vd112(i.l. u.l.)  : aliterque T13To2  : aliterue P41  : aliturne Li3  : alit Mc  : aluiturque Venet. 1472 • auibus] alibus V3(a.c.)  : ambus Ld13 • uolu-



Appendix critica

423

cresque] uolucres Lr7 P16(a.c.)  : ulucresque O4(a.c.)  : uelucresque P4 • petendo] pectendo N2 P16  : patendo Ld6(a.c.)  : petendos P41  : om. T13 • 54–55 inu. ord. Vd(a.c.) • 54 exercet spicula] non esset piscula Mt  : exercet piscula Cs(per comp.)Vd : execet spicula Pr • spicula] specula Mo3(a.c.) • fatis] factis AbB(p.c.)V5V7(a.c.)  : fractis B(a.c.) • 55 uiuit] uidit V2(a.c.)  : uiuat To2 • quia] qui MtV8(a.c. a m.p.) P41  : quod(per comp.) B8  : om. Cv(a.c.) • comitauit M Ab2(i.l. u.l.)B2MoN2 P102(u.l.) T13 Lr27, Heinsius 1659, edd.  : comitatur Ω, Plan., Puteol. 1471, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596  : comitatus AN(-ur p.c.)V2V3 A3B5DeGgH2H3L4LdLd3Lr3Lr52(mg. u.l.)Lr7LsO3O4(a.c.)P3P4Ph2TrTu(-ur uid., p.c.)V5V7 Li3Lr8Mt2P162(mg. u.l.) FtMcP28 B14Bo3Lr22P41V30Vd11, “multi” test. Heinsius 1659, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Weise 1845, Koch 1866, dub. Fabbri 1923(in app.)  : comitatus est A42(i.l. u.l.) • Vlixem] ulixen MM2NTV2 recc. aliquot, “Rhen.”(-ê hab. Tu) test. Jahn 1832, Heinsius 1659(-yssen), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Merkel 1850, Koch 1866, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, Lejay 1894, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007; improb. Housman  : ulixem est A B5DeH2Lr52(mg. u.l.)O3P3TrV7, Venet. 1472  : ulixe est Ld  : ulixe Lr7 • 56–57 inu. ord. Bo3 • 56 et] om. Lr3O(a.c.) P41 • Palamedes] palimedes M2 AbB2Be2FG  : palemedes B3V6 P5  : paalamedes Cs  : palames L4(a.c.)  : palamades Ls B14 P47  : pelamedes Ld2(a.c.)Tu Mo9  : palameides Vd  : palamides P10(a.c.) Mt4  : pallamides P41 • esse] esset Cs(a.c.)Lr3(a.c.) • relictus] reductus P47 • 57 uiueret] uiueueret V6 • aut] at Pr  : ac Ds2  : aut i.l p.c. Mo2; quid Mo a.c. n.l. • certe letum] inu. ord. BaO P41 • certe] certû L3 V5 To Bo2Rd2(i.l. u.l.)To2 • letum] loetum L3LuM2TV3  : lętum S2  : laetum V3  : lectum Mt  : locum V30, Aler. 1471 • sine] si Li3 • crimine] cremine Mc  : om. Lu2 • 58 quem] quam MN(uid., a.c.) Hd(p.c.)Mt  : quæ V5(uid., a.c.) • conuicti] conuictum LuM2P2(-i a.c.)S2(p.c.)T B4F Go(-i i.l. u.l. Go2) Es5Ps, “tres alii” test. Burm. 1727  : coniuncti Lr2(a.c.) AbCLd2N2(a.c.)PrV9(a.c.) Ld6Mo3Mt2P8 Mt5Rd P38V30 P47Ld13, Puteol. 1471, Accurs. 1475, Calph. 1480(couiuncti 1474 uitio preli)  : conuincti Aldina 1502  : coniunctum S2(a.c.)  : ɔuîcti B3G2(-uincti i.l. p.c.)  : conuecti Be2(a.c.)  : c’ fricti L4(uid., p.c.; quid a.c. n.l.)  : conuictu Cv(a.c.)  : conficti(ɔficti iam a.c. G) uel contecti Schepperus, prob. Burm. 1727(in notis)  : commenti(comenti iam P41) mallet Slater 1927 • nimium] meuium B5(a.c.) • memor] om. P46(a.c.) • iste N(p.c., ist- i.ras.) Ω, edd.  : esse MM2N(uid., a.c.)T Tu Bo3Lr27  : ipse P2 EFFeGL4Ld2(a.c.)Lr3Lr7N2O3V4 Ld6Lr8P5 Go2  : ille GfLr2P22(i.l. u.l.)S2 B2B4DrLdLr4MtOP3V9 Ds2GoMt3P8P10So FtVt B14Es4Es5Es6Lu2  : ie CPr  : ante Mo3  : def. in P16 • furoris] doloris Dr  : futuris(per comp.) Mc • 59 prodere] perdere A3A4B5(corr. B52)CH3Lr5O4V6V7Vd B8Mo3 Ft P46  : prodedere Ld  : proderem P41 • Danaam finxit] finxit danaum O P10So • finxit] fixit CsMtV6Vd DsDs2  : ferit B5(a.c.)  : fines N2  : fincxit Lr7V5 Li3 Lu2  : quid Gf a.c. n.l. • fictumque] finctumque CsLr6(a.c.)Pr Li3Mo3Mt2(a.c.) Rd  : fictoque M2(a.c.)  : fictusque T(per comp.)  : uictumque Ld11  : fletumque Mt5 • probauit] pro­ babit A3(-auit u.l. A32) Ft  : proauit(per comp.) A4  : parabant B(uid.) • • 60 crimen] crimet Pr  : e crimen Vd  : crimine(per comp.) Ld3 Es2 • ostendit] hostendit O4V8 • pr(a)efoderat] profoderat M(a.c.) Li3 Es2  : praeâuiderat B(uid.)  : perfoderat B5CLd2V6V7Vd Ld6So FtMc Es4Es6F2  : praeferat Ds2(a.c.)  : praefoueat Mt4 • 61 aut exilio] auxilio N2(a.c.) • aut] uel A2  : at B5(a.c. a m.p.)  : ut Be2  : ait Pr • exilio] exitio M  : exillio T  : ex illo B  : auxilio O P5 • uires] uiris B5  : aures V5 • subduxit] subducit DeDrLr3Pr Bs3 P41  : sustraxit Ld3 Bs2(mg. u.l.) • 62 aut] uel A2  : at So(p.c.)  : a So(a.c.) • nece] necce(per comp. ncce) Cs  : neor Mt • sic1] si Ba(a.c.)O3(a.c.)Pr • pugnat] pugnet O3  : pungnat A4(pûg-)Tu  : pigeat Vd(mg. corr. Vd2) • sic2] sicut B • est] et Lu(a.c.) : om. AbV4 Es2 Es6 • metuendus] meduendus B2  : metuondus Mt  : timendus B12(mg. corr. B122) • Vlixes] achilles Be2(a.c.) Bs4(a.c.) • 63–64 inu. ord. Mt4(a.c.) • 63 eloquio] eliquio BLd(a.c.) • fidum quoque] fidum-

424

Appendix critica

que A3(a.c. a m.p.) • fidum] fide B5  : findum Mt • quoque] squoque Lr5(a.c.)  : que Es3  : sibi Bs4, prob. Burm. 1727(in notis) • Nestora uincat] nestor adumcat B • Nestora] nestera L3(a.c.)  : nectora B5(a.c.)Vd(a.c.)  : festora Ld11 • uincat] uuncat P2  : micat B5(a.c.)  : iungat Gg(a.c.)  : uincet Ls B14, Venet. 1472  : uincit V9(a.c.) Bs4 • 64 hunc u. mg. iuxta 63 hab. N2  : om. V7(mg. suppl. V72) • haud] non AV3 A2A3A4BBaDrGgH2HdLd3Lr6O3O4P3P4PrV4 GoLi3Lr8Mo3Mt2Mt3P5P16 B12Es2McMt4To2 CvEs3P38P41Ps, Puteol. 1471, Calph. 1474  : haut M2(a.c.)S2T AbB2B3B42(mg.)B5Be2CCsEFFeL4LdLd2Lr7LsOTuV8V9Vd B8Ds2Ld6P8P10So Ft Ld11 P46P47, H-K-E 1898, H-K-E-A 1966  : aut B4Mt Bo2(a.c.)Rd Lu2  : hanc V6 : at non Bs4  : de Gf To n.l. • tamen] inde test. Viuianus (1522, ad loc.) • ef(f)iciet] efficiat T V5(uid., a.c.) Ps  : efficies Ld2(a.c.)  : efficiest Mt  : effieciet P4  : effecit As  : effugiet Ds • desertum] deserunt P10(a.c.)  : desectum Mt5  : deserto P41  : desertam Walch. 1731(corr. 1739) • Nestora] nestera L3(a.c.)  : nestore MN2(p.c.; -ora a.c.) Bs4 Lr27P41  : nestrea Mt  : nestor P8  : nectora P28 • crimen] quid N a.c. n.l.  : nullum B4H2  : cremê Mc • 65 rear] rar Lr5(a.c.)  : reor BB5H3Ph2V7 Mt2 Ld11  : reat P38 • nullum] crimen B4H2  : in illum V6 • imploraret] inpleraret Ba(a.c.)  : inploret L4(a.c.) P46(a.c.)  : implorasset Lr5V8  : implorasse Mt  : inproperaret Ph2  : implorauit B82(i.l. u.l.)  : improraret Mt4(a.c.)  : implorat Ps • Vlixem] ulixen M2NP2TV2 GHd Cs3  : ulises Mt(a.c.) • 66 uulnere] uulnera M(a.c.)  : uulne Gf • tardus … fessusque] fessus … tardusque B4 • tardus] lesus Mt3 • equi] eques N(uid., a.c.)  : equo O3  : om. P16(a.c.) • fessusque] fessus Lr2(a.c.) Dr FtMt4  : fessisque Ph2  : fexusque B14Lu2 • senilibus] senibus Ld(a.c.)Mt  : selibus Ps • annis] armis Fe • 67–68 non haec … Tydides om. Ps(a.c. a m.p.) • 67 proditus] perditus Lr8(proditus u.l. Lr82)Mo3 Es3 • socio] sonno Ft • est] om. A Ld6 Bo3 • non h(a)ec] hec(h- ex n-) nec(p.c. i.ras.; quid a.c. n.l.) N  : nec hec CsV4 Mc  : non hoc B  : nûcû B5(corr. B52) • crimina] carmina Ld11 • 68 scit] sit Tu(a.c.) Es2FtMc • bene] om. F2 • s(a)epe uocatum] uocatum sepe Ft(a.c.) • uocatum] uocatur Mt  : uocatus Lr62(i.l. u.l.), “Medic.” test. Burm. 1727  : notatum Bs4, “Moret.” test. Burm. 1727 • 69 trepidoque] socioque B2(a.c.)  : tepidoque L4(a.c.) Mo3 F2(a.c.)  : tepidaque Ld11  : rapidoque Lr4(a.c.)  : trepido O(a.c.)V7 • fugam exprobrauit] fuga e. Lr7  : probrauit P47 • exprobrauit] exprobauit Gf(a.c.)N(a.c.) A2B3B4(corr. B42)B5CF(a.c.)GgLd2(a.c.)Lr4MoN2O(a.c.)Ph2Tu(a.c.)V5(a.c.)V6V7Vd Li3Mo3P10 Es2FtMt4Mt5 B14Es5Ld11Lu2P41V30, Segura 1983  : exprorare(per comp.) A4(a.c.)  : probauit Pr  : explorauit Bo2  : exprorauit Bo3(a.c.) : exprobrat Ps • amico] ulixi A42(i.l. u.l.)  : amicum Dr(p.c.) • • 70 superi] quid N a.c. n.l.; supe---ri p.c.  : superunt Mt  : superbi P46(a.c.) • mortalia] motalia Ds • post iustis interrog. signum pos. Aler. 1471 • 71 en eget] EN eget L3(p.c.)  : e neget Lr2Lu BFFeH3HdLd2Mo(a.c.)MtO4V5 DsP10V16(a.c.) P47  : et neget V2, “duo” test. Burm. 1727  : ñ eget O3  : enget Tu(a.c.)  : enneget V9(a.c.)  : En neget AbF Mo3So Es2  : an(a.c.) eget B8  : en aget P46(a.c.) • en … auxilio] en eget au(i.  e. pro aut) ilio A(a.c.)  : Neget auxilio L3(a.c.)  : et neget auxilium V2, “duo” test. Burm. 1727  : en neget auxilium AbF So • non tulit] inu. ord. Ps • utque] idque B5  : atque Mt2 • reliquit] reliquid NV2 Lr6V9 Ds2 Mt4  : relinquit BLd3MtV5 Mt3(a.c.) Es2 P46  : relîqid Ab • 72 sic] soc A  : si Lr8(a.c. a m.p.) • linquendus] liquendus(liqñd’ Gf Ds) GfLr2V3 HdPrV7V8(p.c.)Vd B8DsDs2P16 B12Vt(a.c.) Ld11Lu2P41V30  : linquemdus B  : linqundus Ld(a.c.)  : relinquendus A To  : reliquendus V8(a.c.)  : sequendus Mt  : loquendus Tu Ld6 • erat] eet B14  : om. N2(a.c.) Li3 • legem] leges P16 • dixerat] duxerat GfLu(corr. Lu2) A4B22(du i.l. u.l.)B5(a.c.)HdLdLr3Lr4Lr5O3PrV4V6V7(a.c.)V8Vd Mt2P16So Es3(a.c.)To2 Es3Es5  : fecerat ELd2O42(mg.) B8Ds  : fixerat Tu  : dederat P102(u.l.) Z  : dixera Ld11 • 73 conclamat] et clamat P4V6 • socios] socio To(a.c.) • adsum] assum AGfLuM2P2V3 A3A4B2Be2CsFGLdLd3Lr5MtOV4Vd DsDs2Lr8P5P16SoToV16 B12P28 CvEs4Es5Ps  : ad se V23(i.l. u.l.)  : adsumque Hd(a.c. uid.)  : aduersum Lr3(per comp.) P41  : asum Es2(a.c.)  : ad suum P47  : quid V2 a.c. n.l. • uideoque] uideo Ld6  : audeoque Ld11 • trementem] tremetem Cs  : timentem B5L4(corr. L42)V6V7V8 P5(a.c.)  : prementem Lr4(a.c.) • 74 pallentemque] pallantemque P2S2 CLd  : plangentemque De  : pellentemque Ld6  : pallentem Mt  : palentemque P8 • metu] meas A(uid.)  : meta B5(a.c.)  : metu & metu Es5



Appendix critica

425

• morte futura] morte figura A2(per comp.) Ds(a.c.)  : morte fuctura V5  : mortura V4(a.c.) • 75 op(p)osui] opposuique B5Lr4(a.c.) Ds2(p.c.) Bo3 • molem] nilem N2(a.c.)  : mollem CO4(a.c.)Mt2To(a.c.) P38, Calph. 1474(corr. 1480)  : mortem Vd11(a.c.) • texique] tegique Lr82(i.l. u.l.)  : traxique Bo2(u.l.) Bo3(p.c. a m.p.; texique uid., a.c.) • iacentem] latentem “tres libri” test. et prob. Burm. 1727(in notis)  : pauentem coni. Bergk • uu. 74–75 (pallentemque … mollem) post hunc u. iter. O4(sed cum lit. damn.) • 76 seruauique] seruaque B3(a.c.)  : suamque B4(a.c.; seruaui item mg. scr. B42)  : seruauitque V5(a.c.) • animam] animum E  : anîna Pr • minimum … hic] nimium est(om. a.c.) h’ C Ld6  : nimium est hic P3(minimum est u.l. P32) Bo2(a.c.)To2  : minimumque h’(om. a.c.) Dr  : minimumque est Lr7  : nimiumque hic Pr  : minimum est mihi V8  : minimumque hic V9  : minimum hic est P10  : minimium est hic P16  : minimae est hoc Heinsius 1659(“legebam olim” in notis scr., sed non in 1652) • minimum est] minimum A(est per comp. i.l.)P2 A2(est per comp. i.l.)AbB2(p.c.)B42(mg.)Be2O4(est per comp. a m.p.)V5(est mg. suppl. m.p. sed post hic loc.)  : nimium est Gf A32(i.l. u.l.)A4B3C(p.c.)GGg(a.c.)Lr3MtP3TuV7 Ld6P5 B12Bo2(a.c.)FtMt4To2 P38P41 Ld13, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493  : minuum B(uid., a.c.)  : nimiumque B4Lr5Pr  : nimium C(a.c.) So Mc  : minimumque est Lr7  : nimiumque est O3  : minimumque V9  : minimum ê H3 (pace Slater 1927) • hic] hęc M2  : haec(per comp. h’) AbDr(p.c. a m.p.) Ps  : hoc A3A4BB22(i.l. u.l.)B3B5BaCCsGH2(p.c.)H3Ld2Lr3MtOV6V7 B8Ld6Mo3Mt2P8V16 B12BoEs2(p.c.)McMt5 Es3Es4Es6F2Ld11P38 Ld13, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius(in notis), prob. Burm. 1727(sed hîc 1713), Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Merkel 1850, Koch 1866, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, Lejay 1894, Edwards 1905, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, Breitenbach 1964, Goold 1984, Huyck 1991(qui tamen hinc quam hic malle ait in app.), Hopkinson 2000(qui tamen hic dub. prob. in notis), Fink 2007  : mihi(per comp.) V8 Es5  : om. Dr(a.c.)Lr7O3 • laudis] laudes Lu(a.c.)  : laudi B5(uid., a.c.)  : laudas Ld6 • inertem] inhertê LuN B22(i.l. u.l.)BaBe2H3Lr3Lr4Ls Es2FtMt4(-em) B14Bo3Es6  : î hertê Lr2M2 B3 To2  : inh’tem C  : îhertê P3V7 B12Mc  : îh’tem Gf Lr7Vd Ds2P5 Lu2  : îh’te A2Ph2  : î heretê Ab  : îh’tê A3B5CsDrFeGgLd3O4 B8Ld6Mo3Mt2P16  : î h’tê B4Mt  : ih’tê Pr  : îhêrtê V6  : î hostê B2  : inh’tê Ld2 So  : in ertem Bo2  : inertis(îertis) P41 • u. 49 post hunc u. hab. P28 • 77 si] sed Es3 • perstas] perstat B(a.c.)CsLd3Pr  : sperstes (per comp.) O3  : praestas(per comp.) V6  : prestas P41 Ld13 • certare] cetare B5(a.c.)  : certhare Es2(a.c.) • redeamus] ueniamus O  : reddamus V5(a.c.) P41  : reddeamus Pr  : reamus Vd(a.c.)  : redamus Ld6 • in LuMN(ad p.c.)V2 B5BaL4LdLr4MoN2O3V6V7 Ds2GoV16 BoBo2P28 Bo3Es5Lr22Lr27, Aler. 1471, Heinsius 1659(“plerique meliores”), edd.  : ad T(uid.) Ω, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Weise 1845, Koch 1866  : at Ld11 • illum] ipsum L3 V5 Ld6Mt4 • 78 uulnusque] nubibusque B5  : nulnusque Ld13  : quid As a.c. n.l. • solitumque] sollicitumque Ft  : solidumque P46(a.c.), sic “Ed. Bersm.” test. Jahn 1832, sed nescio ubi • timorem] tumorem Ld6 • 79 post … late] postque late clipeum C • clipeumque … mecum] clipeum lateas mecum et Dr • cl(i/y)p(p)eumque] clipeum Lr2 CDrFeLsO(a.c.)V4(a.c.) Li3P16(corr. P162) Ft B14Es3Lu2 P46 • late] latem B5(a.c.)  : latû ac Vd  : lateque P16(a.c.)  : latet Ps • et] ne V4(damn. sed nihil suo loco scr.)  : om. Be2O4(a.c.)V6 P16 • mecum] metum Hd(a.c.) • contende] tende A4  : condere B(per comp. cond’e)  : contendere B5V7(a.c.)  : ɔtêne Mc  : constende Ld6(a.c.)  : contempne Mt4 • sub illo] subito V3(a.c. uid.)  : sub ipso Tu  : sub illi Ld11  : sub io P41 • • 80 eripui] exipui B(a.c.)  : erupui G(a.c.)  : erripui Bo3 • cui] tibi B4(corr. B42) • standi] stande B5(a.c.)  : stantim Gg(a.c.)  : stanti TuV5 • uulnera] corpora A2 • 81 dederant] dedemunt B5(corr. B52)  : dederat Pr V30  : deerant Es6 • nullo tardatus] inu. ord. O(a.c.)  : nullo tardus G(a.c.)Pr  : nullo tradatus Gg(a.c.)  : nullo tandatus O4(a.c.) • 82 Hector] hecter Ab(a.c.)  : Haector V3 Vd11(a.c.)  : Ethor Mc(ut solet) • deos] duos Ab(a.c.)Tu  : deus Z  : om. Vd(a.c.) •

426

Appendix critica

in] om. Ab(a.c.)  : et(per comp.) Pr • ducit] ducis N(a.c.)  : duit Ab(a.c.)  : dicit Mo(a.c.)  : mittit Mt3  : duxit Bo3 Ld13  : portat “Oxon.” test. Burm. 1727 • 83–84 terreris  … tantum] om. V6 • 83 quaque] quoque P2(uid. a.c.) L4  : qua B3(a.c.) • ante ruit nescio quid eras. Vd • non … tantum] si non tu tantum V2(a.c.)  : num tu tantum BLr5 : non tantum Ld(a.c.)Tu  : non tantum tu Lr7  : tu non tantum V6  : non tu Vd(a.c.)  : tantum non tu Es6  : non tu tamen P28 • terreris] t’rereris L3(a.c.)  : quid M a.c. n.l. (terr- i.ras.)  : teneris B(corr. B2)  : terroris Pr  : tereris Mc  : terretis Calder. 1477(uitio preli) • Vlixe] ulixes GfMM2(p.c.) A3AbLr6Pr Go2 • 84 sed] si(per comp.) Pr • fortes etiam] inu. ord. V4 Es3 Es3  : fortis etiam Ld3  : fortes ethiam Ph2(a.c.)  : fortes Li3 • post etiam interrog. signum pos. Calph. 1480 • tantum] nimum Pr • post tantum dist. Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472 • trahit] trait V2 BaGgLdTu(a.c.) Lr8 P28(a.c.) • ille timoris] inu. ord. De • 85–86 om. To(mg. suppl. To2) McMt4(mg. suppl. Mt42) • 85 hunc] huc P28 • ego] go Be2(a.c.) • sanguine(a)e] sanguineo Cs  : sanguine V4(a.c.) Rd • successu … ouantem] successe caedis ouantem L4(a.c.)  : sussesu cordis ornantem Mt • caedis] ordis B5(a.c.)  : sedis V4  : cedeis Ld6(a.c.)  : cede Rd • ouantem] auantem Pr  : ante Ld11 • 86–87 hos uu. om. B2(mg. suppl. m.p.) • 86 ingenti] In genti V2 • resupinum] supinum Vd  : rusupinum P28 • pondere] uulnere AGfLr2(i.l. u.l.)N2(i.l. u.l.)V2(pondere i.l. V23)V3(pondere i.l. u.l. a m.p.) A3BB2(pondere i.l. u.l.)BaBe2De(u.l.)DrGg(a.c.)H2(pondere i.l. u.l.)H3(i.l. u.l.)HdLd3LsO2(mg. u.l.)O4(pondere i.l.)P3P4PrV4 Li3Lr82(i.l. u.l.)P8 Es2(pondere mg. u.l. Es22)Mt42To2 B14P41 P46P47, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472  : puluere Et  : pectore Bs4  : pandere Ld11 • fudi] fodi Cs  : fundi Lr3 Bo2(a.c.)  : fondo Mt  : fondi Mt2  : uidi O2(u.l.)  : straui Bo2(u.l.)  : fudit P47(a.c.) • 87 hunc] huic P2(a.c.) P46(a.c.)  : nunc F  : huc P28 • ego] om. Ld6 • sanguinee post ego scr. V3(sed cum lit. damn.) • poscentem] poscenti F2  : posentem Mo(a.c.)  : pascentem Mt  : pocentem Ds2 • cum quo] conquo(cô quo Ld3) BLd3  : eê quo O(a.c.)  : cum te Mo3(a.c.) • concurreret] cû curretret(sic) V5  : cumcurreret P3Vd Lr8 Bo3  : concureret P8 Es2  : quid G a.c. n.l. • unus] unum N(uid.; corr. N2) B(a.c.) “Cantab. et Leidens.” test. Burm. 1727  : uis Gg(a.c. a m.p.) • 88 sustinui] sustimui Ab(a.c.)  : sustinuit Lr8(a.c.) • sortemque] sortem quia(per comp.) P16 • Achiui] acciui Ld • 89 hunc u. om. Mt5(mg. suppl. m.p.) • et] at C • uestr(a)e] uestri(per comp.) Dr  : nostrae(per comp. Es2Mc) Es2Mc Es5  : uestra Ld11 • ualuere] uoluere Gg • preces] preceps Ds(a.c.)P16(a.c.) • quaeritis] quaerimus B • huius] ymis Lr6(huius Lr62)  : hi’ Mt2  : ipsius Mt3(uid., a.c.) B12(huius mg. u.l. B122) • • 90 fortunam] fortune A4(a.c.)C  : fortuna Lu2 • pugn(a)e] fuge Lr2(ex itin. corr.)  : pugnam C  : pugnem Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472 • sum] suum B5(a.c.)  : om. Ld2(i.l. Ld2)Vd(mg. Vd2) Ld6Mo3Mt2(mg. Mt22)P5 Ft  : sim So • ab illo] ahille O3(a.c.) • 91 ferunt Troes] inu. ord. A(a.c.) • ferunt] ferû B5  : ferent P38, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475 • Troes] troades V6  : troies Be2C Ds  : throes V5  : trohes P16  : om. A4(mg. suppl. m.p.) • ferrumque ignesque] ignemque ferrumque V9  : ignem ferrumque P5 • ferrumque] ferumque B5 B12(a.c.)  : fereumque Hd  : ferrum Mt Mt4 Go2 • ignesque] ignisque N(-esque i.l. u.l. N2), Magnus 1914, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932  : ignemque GfLr2S2V2 A3A4AbBB2B3B5Be2CCsDrEFeGGg(p.c.)HdL4(p.c.)LdLd2Ld3Lr3Lr4Lr5Lr7MtOO3O4PrTrV6V7V8V9Vd DsGoLd6Mo3Mt3P10P16So B12BoBo2Cs3FtMt4Mt5 AsB14Es4Es6F2Ld11Lr22Lu2PsV30Z P46, Plan., “Maff. 1, 2” test. Jahn 1832, Aler. 1471, prob. Ciof. 1575(e codd. suis), Heinsius 1659(“multi ueteres”), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834(“ex optimis libris”), Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Merkel 1850, Polle 1888, Lejay 1894, Huyck 1991, Fink 2007  : q3 ignem L4(a.c.)  : igneque P8  : deest in Ls • Iouemque] iouem Tu  : ioueque P28 • 92 in Danaas] ad danaas Lr3  : indaas O(a.c.)  : et danaas Mo3  : inanaas P46(a.c.) • Danaas] danaos Mc  : daneas Mt4  : danas Bo3(a.c.) • classes] classesque Lr6  : naues P16 • ubi] nisi(per comp. ni) Pr  : ibi Ft • nunc GfLu(tunc p.c.)MN(tunc p.c.)V3 A3B2(uid., a.c.)B4GgL4Ld3N2P4V7 GoMo3 BoEs3(a.c.)Vt Cv(a.c.)Bo3Lr22Lr27PsV30Vd11, Aler. 1471, Heinsius 1659, edd.  : tunc Ω, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Weise 1845, Koch 1866  : om. Ld6  : de Ba n.l. •



Appendix critica

427

facundus] facondus Be2 P8 • Vlixes] ulixexs V5(a.c.) • 93 nempe] nampe A2(a.c.)  : nemphe A3(a.c.)  : nimpe B5(a.c.)  : nêppe Lr4  : ipse(per comp.) Ld3 • ego] om. Tu(a.c. a m.p.) • mille meo] inu. ord. Pr • mille] ille B(a.c.)H2(a.c.) • meo] om. Bo2(a.c.) • protexi] portexi V7(a.c.)  : protexit Es2(a.c.) • pectore] corpore GfN2(i.l. u.l.)V3 A2A3A4B4(pectore mg. B42)BaBe2DeDrGgH2HdLd(pectore i.l. Ld3)Lr5Lr6Lr7O4(pectore i.l. O42)P3P4PrV4 Ds2GoLi3Lr8Mo3Mt2P5So BoBo2Cs3Es3Mt4Mt5To2 AsB14CvEs3Es4Ps P46P47, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472  : pondere G  : pectora Es5  : littore P41  : deest in Ls(sed cf. B14) • pup(p)es] naues Gf CsGgPh2 To2  : rates Es2  : uires Mt5  : quid Ld6 a.c. n.l. • 94 uestri reditus] inu. ord. C • uestri] nostri ALu A4DeLd2Ld3O3O4PrV6V7 Lr8P5So B12McMt4Rd AsEs5Es6F2Ld11Lr22P41, Aler. 1471  : nostre V30 • reditus] redditus LsO4Pr So Mc B14, Accurs. 1475  : recditus V5 • date] data L4(a.c.) Es5  : arte Ds2(a.c.) • nauibus] puppibus A4  : uiribus Lr7  : manibus Ld11  : nanibus Calph. 1480 • arma] anima Pr  : una B8(ex itin. corr.) • 95 quod si] sed quod Pr  : quodque si Ds2 : et si B14  : qui si P47 • uera] uerba MN(uera i.l. u.l. N2)  : uer P2(a.c.)  : fata Fe(uera mg. u.l.)  : uestra(per comp.) V9(a.c.) • licet mihi] inu. ord. L4(a.c.)Ph2(a.c.) P16(a.c.) Es5 P47(a.c.)  : licet modo Vd • dicere] edere Es5 • qu(a)eritur] quaeritis MN(a.c.) Lr27  : querist Lr8(a.c.) • istis] illis A MtVd P41  : armis P16  : quid N a.c. n.l. (istis i.ras. p.c. a m.p.) • 96 quam mihi maior i.ras. N a m.p. (quid a.c. n.l.) • quam] qui M(quam i.l. u.l. M2)  : quaû Es2(a.c.) • honos] honor L3Lr2LuM2P2S2TV2 A3AbBB4CCsDrEFFeH3HdL4Lr3Lr4LsN2Ph2TuV5V6V7V8V9Vd B8DsGoLd6Lr8Mt2P5P8P10SoV16 B12(a.c.)BoFtP28To2 B14Es6F2Ld11Lu2  : enim B5(honos mg. B52)  : honus Pr P47(a.c.)  : ohonor To • coniunctaque] ɔiûcta(coniuncta Tu  : ɔiuncta V4) Gf Tu(a.c.)V4(a.c.) Mc(a.c.)  : ɔiuctaq3(cô iuctaq3 V5) MtV5  : ɔiunta Ft  : conuictaque(ɔuic- Cv) P4 Mt4 Cv  : cōuinctaque Aler. 1471 • 97 hunc u. om. P47 • atque] atqui N2  : adque V6 • armis] artus Li3 • non] nec B  : sic P41  : om. Li3 • petuntur] petitur A4(cum lit. damn.; mg. corr. A42)  : petantur Es6 • 98 conferat] confirat Ld(a.c.) • his] is B5  : om. B4O3(mg. scr. m.p.)  : hec Vd(a.c.)  : hic Mc Vd11 • Ithacus] itachus M(p.c.)NV2 B2Lr7MoO4 As(p.c.)F2Lr27  : itachum M(a.c.)  : ytachus N2 B12  : itacus Ω  : ytacus GfLr2 A2BB3CsEHdLd2O3V9 B8DsLr8P5P16 Es2Es3 Lu2P41  : hytacus Gg  : hitacus Cv  : ythacus GLd3 • Rhesum … Dolona] resû dolonaq3 cesos(îbellem i.l. a m.p. uel coaeua Gf) Gf C  : sum î bellumque corona Pr  : resumâ bellêq3 dolona Ld6 • R(h)esum] rhesumque M2 Ab(re-) Ds  : repsum P10  : cresum Lu2  : resus Mo9  : om. Mc(a.c.) • i(m/n)bellemque] uibellêq T  : ibellê Ab  : îbelliêq3 V7(a.c.)  : îbellem Ds2(a.c.)  : imbelleque Li3  : î belleque To2  : in bellumque P28  : inbellâque Ld11  : î bellemque Lu2  : imbellûque P46  : deest in Ls • Dolona] dod- primum tempt. sed ex itin. in do lona corr. N  : delona P2V2(a.c.) N2  : dololna T(p.c.)  : dolola T(a.c.)  : dolonâ B Cv  : dodloua Vd(a.c.)  : doloua Vd(p.c.)  : dona Fe(a.c. a m.p.)  : dolonta V9  : dolana Ds  : dodona V30 • 99 Priamidenque] priamidumque B  : priamiden P3  : priamidê Ld(a.c.)Vd(p.c.) B12(a.c.)  : priademque Lr7  : priamedemque Gg  : priamides Vd(a.c.)  : priamidamque P41  : primidemque P47(a.c.)  : Priami dêq3 Mo9 • (H)elenum] helenon Ls B14, Bothe 18182  : helemum B5(a.c.)  : elenenum Tu  : ellenum Es2  : helenumque P41 • cum] tum Mt  : om. Be2 • Pa(l)lade] pilade Hd2(i suprascr.)  : pallide V4(a.c.)  : pallada Ft  : pallede Mt4 • • 100 ni(c)hil1] mihi B(per comp.; nihil u.l. B2) Bo2(a.c.) • post nihil1 dist. Bothe 18182, Ehwald 1915, van Proosdij 1951, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, von Albrecht 1994, Galasso 2000, Scivoletto 2000 • ni(c)hil est] om. N(i.l. add N4)  : nil est BB4CsLd3  : nihil et(per comp.) L4Lr3  : nisi est Mt  : ni(c)hil A4(a.c.)Tu To BoEs2FtMc • Diomede] dimede N(a.c.) : dyomede Gf  : dedomede B  : dio mede B4  : remedio B5(a.c.)  : diomete Ps  : quid P2 a.c. n.l. • remoto] remotum M F P28 Lr27  : relicto N2(i.l. u.l.) A2Gg(remoto i.l. u.l. a m.p.)V4V9 P41  : remotos Ds  : remote Ld6  : reonto Bo • 101 semel] tamen GfN2(i.l. u.l.)P22(mg. u.l.) A2A32(i.l. u.l.)A4AbB2(i.l. a m.p.; semel in textu cum lit. damn.)B3B43(i.l.)B5(semel mg. B52)BaBe2CsDeDrEFeGH22(i.l. u.l.)H3Hd(p.c. i.l.; semel a.c.)LdLd2Lr5Lr6LsOO3O4(semel mg. u.l. O42)P42(p.c.)PrV6V8V9Vd B8Ds2GoMt3P5P8P10P16SoV16 Es22(p.c.)Mt4Vt AsB14Es6F2Ld11Go2Z P46P47, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472  : simul Lr7Ph2 Es4 • ista] illa Vd P16

428

Appendix critica

• meritis] mentis O4(a.c.) • tam uilibus] tamen ualibus Mt • tam] râ S2(a.c.)  : iâ G  : tâ tâ P16(a.c.) • arma] armis P8 Mc(a.c.) • 102 hunc u. om. Mo(mg. suppl. Mo2) • diuidite] diuite L3(a.c.) Ab(a.c.)BO4(a.c.)V4(a.c.) Ld6(a.c.) Ps  : quid N a.c. n.l.  : diudite V2(a.c.) • et] om. A Ba(uid.)Mo • pars … maior] pars et maior sit A  : maior pars sit Lu Ds2 Go2, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836  : pars maior N(sit i.l. N2) Be2V6 Ds  : pars sit melior P2, Bothe 18182(sed improb. 1818)  : pars sit To(a.c.) • pars] pax B(pars u.l. B2)  : par N2V5(a.c.) • maior Diomedis] diomedis(dyo- Ld2) maior EFeLd2Pr  : maior diomedius P28 • in] om. Tu(a.c.) • illis] illas L3(a.c.)  : istis Lr2  : deest in Ls • 103 quo … Ithaco] quid tamen hoc nato Ld11 • h(a)ec] hoc P28 Es6P41Z  : om. Lr8(suppl. m.p.) Mc(suppl. m.p.) • It(h)aco] ythaco Lr2 ELd3 Es3 Lu2  : itacho GfMM2NV2 B2Lr7MoV4 P28 AsLr27 P46  : ytaco A2BB3CsGGg(i- p.c.)Ld2Lr6LsO3 B8Ld6Lr8P5 Es2 B14  : ytacho N2 Ds2 B12 • qui clam] quidam V3 Ds(a.c.) To2 P47  : prosunt P4  : cedant Go  : qui clara Mo3 : merito P10 • qui … qui] qui tamquam Lu  : quâdâ quâ T  : qui prosunt Pr • inermis] In ermis L3Lr2T(p.c.)V2 A4V5V6V9 V16 F2Lu2  : inhermis(inherm[ Ls) Lu A2A3B2B3BaBe2CCsFeGgH3Ld2Ld3Lr7LsO3P3Ph2PrV8 B8Mt2P5P16So Mc As(a.c. uid.)B14Bo3  : î h’mis B4Vd  : in hermis Es2  : in armis T(a.c.) Mt Cs3(a.c.)  : inarmis O4(a.c.) P41  : inermi Ft, Aldina 1502 • 104–107 haud leguntur in To • 104 rem … furtis] remque gerit furtis Ds • furtis incautum] incaptum furtis Vd(a.c.)  : furtis incaptum Ld6 • furtis] furiis B42(mg.)  : fastis B52(mg.; furtis B5)  : furtas Hd(a.c.)  : fortis P41 • incautum] In cautum V2(ut solet) P16  : incaptum CsF(incautum u.l. F2)MtPrV6V7Vd Ld6  : incatum G(a.c.) Ft(a.c.)  : incertum Ph2  : incaute Ds(a.c.) • decipit] decidit B14 • 105 ipse] iste A2  : ille Cs  : deest in P16 • nitor] ntior B(a.c.)  : uitor V6 • claro … auro] clara … auro A4(a.c.)E(a.c.)  : fuluo … auro “prim. Moret.” test. Burm. 1727  : cono radiantis ab aureo coni. Faber, improb. Burm. 1727  : ferro radiantis et auro dub. Burm. 1727(in notis) • radiantis] pendentis Vd(corr. Vd2)  : radiatus Pr  : spledêtis(sic) supra radiantis mg. scr. Vd3 • ab auro] ab antro N(uid., a.c.)  : in auro Cs(ab i.l. u.l.)Ld2(ab i.l. u.l. Ld22)O4 Es2  : et auro Ge  : abaro Ft(a.c.) • 106 insidias] insidiis A4(a.c.)  : insidians V7(a.c.)  : indisidias V9(a.c.)  : insidiasque Vd • prodet] prodert Lr2(p.c.) : proderet Lr2(a.c.)  : prodes Ld2(a.c.)  : proderit Lr3 Lu2  : prodest BMtVd P28  : perdet Ls B14  : prebet Pr  : prodit P10, Eutych. • manifestabitque] manifestauitque V2 PrV6, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472  : manifestabatque A4(a.c.)Mo(a.c.)  : magnifestabitque Mt4(a.c.)  : mu scr. Cs3(ex itin. corr.) • 107–680 hab. Ca2 • 107 neque] nec V6 P41 • Dulic(h)ius] delichius V2(a.c.)  : dulichiis B4(a.c.)  : dulichilus C  : decliuis Pr  : dilicius V4(a.c.)  : ludichius V6  : dulcichius Es2  : dulchiuis P47(a.c.) • Achillis] achille Lr7  : achilli V30(a.c.)  : quid Mo a.c. n.l. • casside] asside S2(a.c.)  : conside B5(casside B52)  : uertice Fe(ex itin. corr.) P47  : cuspide Ld11 • uertex] urgeo P3(a.c. a m.p.) : uertens Pr  : uortex Mc • 108 pondera] ponderet T  : pondere Tu P47(a.c.) • tanta] tuta Hd  : tam N2(mg. corr. N22) • feret] ferat “Medic. melius” Burm. 1727 • nec] sed Lu(nec u.l. Lu2)MN(uid., a.c., n- et –c i.ras. p.c.)V2 AbB42(mg.; nec item mg. B43)EFO Ds(p.c.)P10(a.c.) P28Vt Lr22Lr27V30, Aler. 1471  : non B4  : et V42(i.l. p.c.) • non] haec B4(non mg. B42–3)  : tam P41 • (h)onerosa] honorosa L3(a.c.)  : honerata A(onerosa i.l. u.l. A2)  : honeresa B  : bonerosa Mt(a.c.)  : honesa Ft  : onerasa P28(a.c.)  : generosa “Oxon. Basil. et alius” test. et improb. Burm. 1727 • grauisque] grauis Ab Mt5  : grauisseque V5 • 109 Pel(l)ias] Delias T • (h)asta] hostia(uid.) Ab(a.c.)  : hastas Ld11 • potest] om. Mc • imbellibus] in bellibus TV2 PrV6 Es2P28  : in pellibus Tu  : imbecillibus F2(a.c.) • esse] ipse Be2(a.c.)  : acta N2 • lacertis] lacertes Mc(a.c.)  : lacentis P28 • • 110 nec] non Dr(per comp.)V9  : ne Li3 Mc • clipeus] clipeis S2  : lypeus P38 • uasti] uasta Lr3 V5(a.c.)  : magni Ft • imagine] imigine Mo(a.c.) : inimagine V5  : îmagine Mc • mundi] mondi CsLd3O3 Bs3B8Mo3 Rd  : mandi B5(mundi B52)  : mudi Ld11 • post hunc u. def. P16 • 111–115 om. Pr • 111 conueniet] conueniat B4(a.c.), “Medic.” test. Burm. 1727, Bothe 18182  : coueniet Lr6  : comueniet V5  : cumueniet P28  : cû ueniet Rd  : conuenit P41 • timid(a)e] tumide Ld6 Mt5  : timideque P47(a.c.) • nat(a)eque] nate B5Lr7O4(a.c.)V7(a.c.) P47(a.c.) • furta] futa Ld2(a.c.)  : frustra Lr4(ex itin. corr.)  : furtua Lr6(a.c.)  : ficta V6(a.c.)  : fruta Ds(a.c.)  :



Appendix critica

429

facta(per comp.) P10(a.c.) • 112 debilitaturum] debilitatorum V5  : debilaturum Ds  : debilitatû Ld6  : debilataturum Bo  : precipitatorum Es3 • quid te] te quid Gf B2B5V6V7 P41  : quod te FeMt Rd • petis] petit B(a.c.)Mt  : trahit P5 • improbe] inpie V5 • munus] minis Mc • 113 quod] quid M2V3 B5L4(quod mg. u.l. a m.p.)Ld(a.c.)Lr3Ls FtMt4 B14Bo3Ld11  : ad P28  : quo V30 • tibi] ubi Accurs. 1475 • si] sit Es2(a.c.)  : om. P46(a.c.) • populi] ppl’si B(a.c.) • donauerit] donauit P8  : donauerint P41 • error] herror N O4 Lu2(hêror)  : urror Mt • Achiui] achill inchoau. Vd sed ex itin. corr. • 114 cur1] cun Dr(a.c.)  : cui Walch. 1731(iam 1714; corr. 1739) • spolieris erit] spoliatus eris A2Vd  : spoliatus erit Ld3  : spoliaris erit Gf2(i.l. u.l.) A4(a.c.) : polieris erit E : spolueris erit Hd(a.c.) : splieris erit Ft(a.c.) : spolieri erit Lu2 • erit] quid P2 a.c. n.l. • non cur] nâ cur Lu V5  : non quod Gf  : cur B : cur non AbB4Be2C(corr. C2)FeO4P3(a.c. a m.p.)Vd  : non ut Lr5  : quid non Mt3(i.ras.) • ab hoste] aboste B5(a.c.) Mc • 115 qua] que T Ab(qua u.l. Ab2) • sola cunctos] inu. ord. B • sola] om. G(a.c. a m.p.)  : solum V9  : solas Es2(a.c.)  : quid O a.c. n.l.(an solus?) • cunctos] cuctos Mt2 • timidissime uincis] desunt in P38 • timidissime] timidissima Gf O4(a.c.) : timidisse Ab Ds(timidissime mg. Ds2) : timidissiem Calph. 1474(corr. 1480) • uincis] uicis Ld3 • 116 hunc u. om. A4(mg. suppl. m.p.) • tarda] tanta Ld11  : tarta V30 • tarda futura] tardata furta Lr8 • tibi] om. L3(ex itin. corr.) • gestamina] pestamina(uid.) Lr4  : gestamana V5(a.c.)  : testammina Li3  : gestissima P8 • tanta] tarda A(a.c.) V9 • tra(h)enti] trahendi BBe2G(a.c. a m.p.)Tu(p.c.; traendi a.c.) Ld6 P46(a.c.)  : ferenti Cs So  : gerenti P3(trahenti P32) • 117 adde … tuus] adde tuus L4(quod iste mg. suppl. m.p.)  : adde tuus quod iste Ls • adde quod] addeq3 Lr2 Pr  : adde qi O • iste] ista Pr • tuus] om. B2(a.c. a m.p.) • raro] rara BaGTu, Calph. 1474(corr. 1480)  : se uero Be2(p.c., quid a.c. n.l.)  : uiro Mt  : raræ P38 • 118 integer] quid P10 a.c. n.l. • iste post integer scr. Cs3(ex itin. cum lit. damn.) • est(per comp.) post clipeus iter. B3(a.c.) • nostro qui] sed meus Gf(per comp.)  : qui nostro B3V5  : noster(per comp.) qui AbO3 • fera post qui scr. B(ex itin. corr.) • tela] tele Tu  : tella Vd(a.c.) Es2Es3(a.c.) • ferendo] fenno Mc(p.c.)  : infenno(uid.) Mc(a.c.) • 119 mille] ·M· Fe • plagis] plaget P8(a.c.) : pelagis P10(a.c.) : quid P2 a.c. n.l. • nouus] nobis M Lr27  : om. Mt4(a.c.)  : quid B5 a.c. n.l. • est] om. O4(suprascr. O42) B14Vd11 • successor] successos L3 Ft(a.c.)  : succersor T  : sucessor V2(a.c.) Es2  : succensor Lr2(a.c.) Lr4  : sucêsor Mt4  : successus B4(-essor mg. B42)C(a.c.)  : successior B5(a.c.) • habendus] abendus L4 • • 120 uerbis … est] opus est uerbis Mt  : sit opus uerbis So  : uerbis opus Es4  : uerbis opus est opus est Ft  : uobis opus est Ca2(a.c.) • spectemur] spectemus A Ld6Mt3  : spectetur H3 Mt2  : specemur O3  : spetamur Mc(a.c.)  : spectamur Mc(p.c.) • agendo] agedo Mo  : agêno Mc • 121 hunc u. om. V7(suo loco u. 120 iter.; mg. u. 121 scr. m.p.)  : hunc u. mg. scr. Mt32 • uiri] uestri(per comp.) Ld(a.c.)  : michi Pr • medios] seuos Pr  : nostros(per comp.) P32(suprascr.)  : om. P3 Es3(mg. suppl. m.p.) • s post medios scr. N2(a.c.) • mit(t)antur] mittentur Gf  : imitantur P2(uid. a.c.) Mt4  : mituntur Vd  : mutantur Ds2 Lr27  : metantur Ld6(a.c.)  : ponantur V16  : mittamus Es6  : mittamur P41  : mictatur V30  : mittatur Aler. 1471 • 122 hunc u. om. A(mg. suppl. alia antiqua m.) • iubete] iuuete V2(a.c.)  : iubente(iubête Ab) AbMtV4(a.c.)V7(a.c.)  : iubeto Ds(a.c.)  : iube So(a.c.) Ft  : iubere Li3 • peti] petê Be2 : pete Es6  : pati Mt  : rapi Pr • referentem] referente Ft  : refferentem Es2Rd • ornate] hornate A2Fe(a.c.)V6 Mo3 Mc  : armate B4(corr. B43), “Moreti” test. Burm. 1727  : ornite V7(a.c.)  : ornata P28 • 123 finierat] inierat(inieratat Ld) LdLr7 spatio primae litt. relicto  : I nuerat Ab(a.c.)  : SI nuerat Ab(p.c.)  : funerat B5  : cum finierat De • satus] sactus Ld11  : om. A4(a.c. a m.p.) • uulgique] uolgique N(corr. N2)  : uulgusque T FG  : uulguque(per comp.) B3(a.c.)  : uulgoque Tu  : uulgi Li3  : quid P2 a.c. n.l. • uulgique secutum] secutum uulgique H3(a.c.) • secutum] sequutum V3 EH2Lr5P4V4 Lr8 Mt5To2 P41  : secutus Ab(per comp.; mg. corr. Ab2)Tu(per comp.)  : secutum est F  : sequtum GgLd2 GoP8 Rd • 124 ultima] utima T(a.c.) • murmur] mur L4(a.c.) • Laer(t/c)ius] lærceus L3  : lærteius A(p.c.)M(p.c.; laertius a.c.) EPh2 Es6F2  : lerteius A(a.c.)TV2V3 Be2H2H3Lr4N2P4V5 Ds  : lerceius M2 Li3  : lertheius LuP2S2 GLr3V4(lae- p.c.) Lr27  : lertheyus Z  : larceius Lr7  : larteius P10 Ld11  : lertius F(a.c.)  : laecius Ld2  : lertesius Tu  : laerceius Mt22(mg. u.l.)  : lelcheius Mt2  : laerchius Dr P46  : lahertius MoMt  : laherthius Bo  : lahercius Cv Ca2 •

430

Appendix critica

heros] eros B5 To(a.c.)  : herox CsDrL4(a.c.)MtVd B8Ld6P10 Mt4 • 125 a(d)stitit] abstitit Fe B14P41  : constitit Es2  : astit Es3 • atque] ante(per comp.) Be2  : hunc Mt  : adque V6 Ld6 Mt4 • oculos] ocel’os(occl’os e.  g. A3LsO32[p.c.]V6) Ab  : alios O3 • paulum] pallum L3(a.c.) Dr(a.c.)  : palum V2(a.c.) Ld2(a.c.)Vd(a.c.) V16(a.c.)  : parum Lr2 Lu2  : partum Mt  : pulum O4(a.c.)  : paulum in Ld6 • moratos] remotos A3G(a.c. a m.p.)Tu To2  : moratus CLd3Mo(a.c. a m.p.)P3(-os P32)Vd B8Ds Mt4 Bs7 Es7, “decem aliis” test. Burm. 1727  : morato Es3 • 126 proceres] proreces P47(a.c.) • ex(s)pectatoque] exspectacoque L4  : expetatoque P5(a.c.)  : expectatosque P5(p.c.)  : expectatque Es2(a.c.) P46(a.c.)  : expectaque To2(a.c.)  : ɔspectatoque Ld6  : expectato F2Ld11  : expectataque Puteol. 1471 • resoluit] resouit Mc • 127 hunc u. om. A4(mg. A42) • ora] ore P5 P47(a.c.)  : uerba Ca2 • sono] sona Mt  : sonos P5 • neque abest] atque aderat O • neque] nec AGfV3 A2A3BB2B3B4B5BaBe2CDeDrGgH2HdLdLd3Lr5Lr6LsO3O4P3P4PrV4V52(p.c.)V6V7V9 GoMo3Mt2Mt3P5P8So B12Es2Es3Mt4To2 B14CvEs3F2P41Ps P46P47Es7, Venet. 1472  : nec nec Li3  : de P2 n.l. • facundis] fecundis B5(a.c.)Lr4(a.c.)V5  : facundus Tu V30 • gratia] gloria(per comp.) Mc • 128 hunc u. om. Ps(summa pag. suppl. m.p.) • cum] non P46(a.c.) • uestris] nostris Gf(per comp.) Ld6  : nurîs N2 • ualuissent] daluissent Mt4(a.c.)  : ualuisset(per comp.) P28 • uota] nota Ld6 • 129 non] nec Pr(corr. Pr2) • ambiguus] ambigui L3(a.c.) : anbiguus CsHdLr5V6Vd  : ambuguus Ld2 • tanti] tanti est Ld6 • heres] heros LuM V5(p.c.; heres a.c.) So B122(mg. u.l.)Mt4 Lr27  : hęres M2  : eres N2(a.c.)  : error O2(mg. u.l.)  : heris To2  : quid P2 a.c. n.l. • • 130 tuque] teque A4(a.c.)  : atque B4(corr. B43)  : tûque L4  : tu quoque Mc • tuis] tu B4(a.c.)  : tutis Es2  : tuus Li3 • armis] om. B5(mg. suppl. B52) • nos te] nos Ab(a.c.)  : nô te V6  : nosque te Bo2(a.c.)  : te nos Ld6 Es3 Es3  : nos nos Ca2(a.c.) • poteremur] potiremur AGf(a.c. uid.)L3Lr2LuM2NS2V2(corr. V23)V3 BB3B4BaBe2CsDrEFFe(pote- i.l. u.l. a m.p.)GgH3HdL4LdLd2Ld3Lr3Lr4Lr6Lr7LsMo2(p.c.; pote- Mo)MtN2OO4P3P4Pr2(p.c.)TrTu(p.c.)V4V5V6V8Vd DsDs2GoLd6Lr8Mo3Mt2P5P10SoToV16 B12BoCs3(p.c.; pote- a.c.)Es3Mt4Mt5P28RdTo2 AsB14Bo3CvEs4Es5Es6F2Ld11Lr22Lr27Lu2PsV30Vd11 P46Ca2Ld13, Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493(corr. 1526), Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565  : peteremur P2  : potiremos Gf(p.c.)  : potiremus A2(per comp. –m’) Bo2  : petemur B5  : potiemur G FtMc P41  : potiret(uid.) Pr(a.c.)  : pociemus Es2(a.c.)  : pociemur Es2(p.c.)  : peteremus Tu(a.c.)  : potirimur P8  : pateremur P47(a.c.; pote- p.c.) • Achille] achilles N(-e i.l. u.l. N2)V2 De Ca22(p.c.; -e Ca2)  : acille B5(corr. B52)Ba(a.c.)  : acchille Ld • 131 quem … non] que … non N2 Es4 : qua qui tamen Mt • quoniam] quo M2(a.c.)  : quam Tu  : quia Cv  : om. Mt4(a.c.) • non] non est(per comp.) V5 To  : nunc Es5  : om. Ld6 • uobisque] nobisque A2B4 Li3So Mt4(a.c.)  : uobis Es2(a.c.) • negarunt] negare B5(uid., a.c.) • 132 fata] facta Ds2(a.c.) Rd • manuque simul] manuque Gf  : manu simul V2(a.c.) So  : simulque manu A2  : manuque sibi N2  : manusque simul Lugd. 1565(uitio preli; recte 1546) • ueluti] uelud Gf  : tanquam Es4  : om. B5(a.c.)P3(a.c.)P4(sed spatium uac. post lacrimantia ad uersum perficiendum reliq.) Cs3(mg. suppl. m.p.) • tersit] texit L3M(a.c.) L4(a.c.)MoTu P8 Vt Bo3Es6  : tesit N(a.c.)  : tergit F2Ld11Z, “tres antiqui” test. Heinsius 1659  : terit N2  : transit Vd(a.c.)  : terxit M(p.c.) Gg Ds2 Ft As(uid., a.c.)  : tersunt Lr27  : torsit Bo2  : lumina P3(a.c.)  : lumina tersit Cs3(a.c.)  : quid P2 a.c. n.l. • 133 lumina] flumina Mt  : lunam Pr • quis] quid Mt  : qui Pr • magno melius] inu. ord. GfV3 A2A3A4BB4BaBe2DeDrGgH2HdLdLd3Lr5Lr6LsO3O4P3P4PrV4 GoLi3Mo3Mt2Mt3P5 B12Es2Es3McMt4To2 B14CvEs3Lr22P41PsV30Z P46P47, Aler. 1471, Loers 1843  : magno melio Mt • magno] magno magno Mo(a.c.) • Achilli] achillis Ab Ld11(a.c.)  : achille Tu(a.c.)V7(a.c.) • 134 hunc u. om. BO3 • quam … accessit] quem quoniam (e u. 131) danais magnus succexit V30 • quam] et B4(corr. B42)  : qua Mt  : quoniam Aler. 1471 • quem … Danais] quem danais(-eis a.c. Cv  : -eus Ld11) magnus AGfV3 A2A3A4BaBe2DeDrFeGgH2HdLdLd3Lr3Lr6LsO4P3P4PrV4V6V7 GoLd6Li3Mo3Mt2Mt3P5 B12Es2Es3P28To2 B14CvEs3Es6F2Ld11Lr22PsZ P46P47, Aler. 1471, Loers 1843  : quem danais nobis B4(a.c.)  : danais quem magnus B5  : quem magnis danais Ds  : da post quem scr. Bo2(ex itin. corr.) • Achilles] achillis(per comp. achill’) Lr7 • 135 hunc u. post 130 hab.



Appendix critica

431

Mt • huic] hic V4(a.c.)  : hui V6 • ne … est] quid possit quid sit P41 • ne] non Lu(uid., p.c.) DrLr5P3V6 B8Mt2  : nec Mt4 : quid H3 a.c. n.l. • prosit] prosint Mo3(a.c.) • quod] quid P2 a.c. n.l. • ut est] inest Rd • ut] uti MN(a.c.)P2 A42(u.l.)B3L4LsMoTr V16 BoEs3 B14Bo3Lr27Vd11, Venet. 1472, prob. Merkel 1850, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, Lejay 1894, H-K-E 1898, Ehwald 1915, van Proosdij 1951, H-K-E-A 1966, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007  : nec Mt  : at O3  : ait Mo3 • est hebes] inu. ord. P8 • est] om. B2(a.c.)B3Ph2(a.c.) Ca2(a.c.)P47 • hebes esse] inu. ord. B5  : hebes ipse B42(ipse mg.)  : heres esse Ld6 • hebes] ebes Lr2 A4BLr3O(a.c.)O4V7V8Vd Es2(a.c.)Mt4To2 Lu2  : habes(per comp. hês) V30 • est(per comp.) mg. add. B • 136 mihi] modo(per comp.) e uersu priore Lr3  : om. P46(a.c.) • noceat] nonceat Go(a.c.) • uobis] nobis(uid.) A2 • semper Achiui] inu. ord. A4(a.c.)  : semper achini Pr • 137 profuit] quid Mo a.c. n.l. • meaque] mea Lr3 Es4 P46  : namque A4(corr. A42)  : mea quae Pr  : meaeque Ld13 • haec] om. B4DrVd(a.c.) V16(a.c.) BoFt F2Ld11Z  : usque ad  ]cundia def. Ls • facundia] sollertia B4(facundia mg. B42), prob. Vossius • qua] quas Ld13 • est] om. V6 • 138 quae nunc] quem(per comp.) Pr • qu(a)e] quid B3(a.c.)  : et Mt • nunc] modo(per comp.) Gf  : nunc nunc B(a.c.)  : nec Vd(a.c.)  : non Ld6 As(p.c.) • pro domino] domino L4(a.c.) • pro2] pûr Ld6 • uobis] nobis P10 Ft Ld11, Accurs. 1475  : om. Ld6 • s(a)epe] se Ft  : semper B14 • locuta] loquuta V3 BaH2 Mt5  : secuta De(a.c.)  : lucuta Ld(a.c.)  : loquta GgV4V6 Ld6 • est] om. Mt3 • 139 inuidia] inuidea Ld(p.c.) B8 Bo2(a.c.) P47(a.c.) • careat] caret To(a.c.)  : quid L3 a.c. n.l. • nec sua] inu. ord. M(mg. corr.)  : nec A4(a.c.)L4(a.c.)  : ne sua LdO3V6 Ca2 • recus(s)et] recusat Lr2 A4(a.c.)B3Ld(a.c.)Lr3 Mt3 Mc Lu2 P47  : recusit V6 • • 140 usque ad  ]ecimus def. Ls • nam] iam Dr  : at P46Es7 • et1] om. Es2 • proauos] prauos Pr  : prouos(per comp.) So(a.c.)  : proauus F2Ld11 • et2 … non] que nos non N2 • non] nos MM2N(a.c.)V2 AbB2EFLd2Lr6(non i.l. u.l.)V6V7(a.c.)V9 Lr8 Lr27Vd11 Ca2  : nec(per comp.) Gf  : nunc(per comp.) B4 Li3  : modo F2Ld11  : om. Lu2 • fecimus] utimus Mo3  : feceritis Es7 • 141 ea] enim Tu  : ego Mt5 • nostra] nostro Dr(a.c.) • uoco] uoca Pr Z(a.c.)  : uocem Mc  : om. P28(a.c.) • enim] ea L4(a.c.)  : hoc Mt4(a.c.)  : quid P3 a.c. n.l. • quia] qui(qui perperam leg. Fabbri 1923 in Lu Mo9) AbMt  : quod Lr22V30Z, Aler. 1471  : om. B3 • Aiax] ille P3 • 142 usque ad sanguinis def. Ls • esse … pronepos] quod iouis est pronepos Be2 Go • pronepos] promepos B5(a.c.)  : pronebos H3  : pro nepos Mt  : prones Vd(a.c.) • nostri … auctor scr. P22 i.ras. • nostri] nostre B5 • quoque] quodque Mt • auctor] autor A A4V8 : actor A2BB3(a.c.)B4B5(a.c.)BaCCsLd3Lr5BoBo2Cs3Es3(p.c. uid.)Mt5To2 AsP41V30   MtO3PrV6V7V9 B8GoMo3P5So Ca2(a.c.) • 143–144 hos uu. om. As(mg. suppl. As2) • 143 neque in his quisquam post gradus scr. O4 sed cum lit. damn. et ex itin. corr., etsi uu. 144–145 post u. 148 scr.  : Iupiter nec enim in hiis quidquam dampnatus et exul scr. Vd sed post Iupiter omnia cum lit. damn.; est post Iupiter scr. m.p. et mg. hoc reliquum u. add. • est] e Mt : et(per comp.) V6 • gradus] gramus B5  : casus Pr : quid A a.c. n.l. • nostri quoque(per comp.) e uersu priore scr. L4(ex itin. corr.) • distamus] gestamus Lu(corr. Lu2) • ab illo] ab ipso V16  : aillo Es2(a.c.) • 144 hunc u. post u. 148 scr. O4 • usque ad  ]crisius def. Ls • nam … est] Nâque lertes pater est mihi Lr3 • Laërtes … est] pater est laertes Ca2 • L(a)ertes] iartes M  : laerches C  : lertetes Lr7  : lahertes B8 Cv  : lehertes B12  : laiertes Mt4 : lertiades Lr27 • est] est et Lr8 • illi] illi est Mt  : illi laerthe Ld6 • 145 huic] hiis Dr  : huc So  : est (cf. u. 143) As(corr. As2) • neque … damnatus scr. P22 i.ras. • neque] nec A2(p.c.)B3H2H3Lr5Ph2PrV6V8V9Vd GoMo3Mt3P5To Ft Es5P41  : modo(per comp.) Ld6  : ne So  : deest in Ls • in his] in hiis (cf. e.  g. Liu. 30.40.9) Gf A2A4AbB2B2CsDrLr6 B8Ds2P5SoTo Es2 P41  : hiis Mt  : enim B(a.c.)  : in es B5(mg. corr. B52)  : rahis V6  : enim in hijs Mt4 • quisquam damnatus] inu. ord. Lr3 • quisquam] om. MN(a.c.) B5Mo(mg. Mo2) Lr27  : quicquam A4(a.c.)Vd(cf. quidq- in 143) Mo3 • dam(p)natus] dominatus M(a.c.) As(a.c.)Lr27  : domnatus M(p.c.)  : natus N2(a.c.)  : dagnatus V6 Mo3 • et exul] et esul Lr7  : om. H3(suppl. H32) • 146 hunc u. om. Ds(mg. suppl. Ds2) • est] esse Li3 • C(y/i)llenius] chyllenius E  : cilleneius Fe(a.c.)  : cilenius V6 BoBo2Mt5 • 147 nobilitas] nobisitas M(a.c.)  : progenies O4(nobilitas mg. u.l. O42) • est] om. Ba Ps •

432

Appendix critica

utroque] uteroque V5(a.c.)  : utr’que Ld6 • parente] parentem Li3  : om. T7 • 148–149 inu. ord. Mt • 148 neque] nec Mt P41 • generosior] genosior V6 Ft(a.c.) • ortu] orto P3 • uu. 144–145 post 148 hab. O4 • 149 nec] non Mt • quod] qui Es5 • pater] frater L3(per comp.) • est] om. V6 Mc • fraterni] fraternis Ab(a.c.) : fratreni Regius 1493(corr. 1497)  : quid P2 a.c. n.l. • sanguinis] sanguus V6 • insons] insors M(a.c.) : insomps A2B4 Ca2(-sôps) • • 150 proposita] propositaque Gf Ab Mt4(a.c.)  : pr(a)eposita A4BO3V7 Li3Mt2P8 Es2, Lugd. 1565(pro- 1546)  : perposita Z  : prolposita Cs3(a.c.)  : opposita P47 • arma peto] armata B12(a.c.) • arma] haec arma De • peto] rogo O(peto mg. u.l. O2) • meritis] meritisque AbO  : meritois Go(a.c.)  : metis Es2(a.c.) • expendite] expendete L3(a.c.) V5  : expandite A2B2(uid. a.c.)Vd  : i(m/n)pendite B5V6V9 P46P47  : extendite Gg  : expendere Tu  : expedite Ld6 Es2  : quid Mc a.c. (-ndite i.ras.) n.l. • causam] causem Ds(a.c.) • 151 quod] qui Es5 • fratres Telamon] inu. ord. Lr3 • fratres] fratri L3(uid., a.c.) : frater(per comp.) M Tu  : fratris(per comp.) T7 • Telamon Peleusque] inu. ord. BB4CsO4V6 Ld6So • fuerunt] fuere Ds F2Ld11Z, Venet. 1472  : feruntur Mt5  : feruntque Li3  : fluerunt Mc • 152 Aiacis] aiaci Vd So  : adiacis B5  : ad iacis Cv(a.c.) • meritum] merito F2Z • non … nec] non hic sit P41 • 153 uirtutis] uirtus A(mg. corr. A2) Mt4(uid. a.c.) P47(a.c.) • honor] honos P2V3 A2A4B2Be2FeGH2Ld3Lr6Lr7O3O4P3PrTrV4V5(a.c.)Vd GoLi3Mo3P8V16 B12Bo2Cs3Es2Es3Mt5To2 AsCvEs4Es5Es6F2Ld11PsZ P46P47, “Rhen.”(non sic Tu) test. Jahn 1832, prob. Heinsius 1659 “cum melioribus”, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Bach 1836, Koch 1866; improb. Bothe 1818, 130  : honus B  : ordo V6  : om. Ld(a.c.) • spoliis qu(a)eratur] spoliisq3 queratur B5(p.c.) Bo2  : spoliisq3 ueratur B5(a.c.) • spoliis] armis i.l. u.l. Mo2 • in istis] mistis P2(a.c.) Ld6 • in] ab A • istis] illis Ba B8  : hostis Vd(a.c.) • 154–165 om. Pr • 154 aut] ast B4(corr. B42)  : at B5(a.c.)O3P3V4V6V9 B8Ds2GoMt3 Mt4 Es3Lr22P41V30 Ca2, Aler. 1471 • si] sit Ld6 • proximitas] proximitasque Ab  : promixtas P41 • primusque] primisque Hd(a.c.)  : primus et O3  : proximusque Mt4(a.c)  : primûque P41 • requiritur] relinquitur Ab  : requaeritur B5 • heres] heros MN(uid., a.c.) N2(a.c.)V5(i.l. u.l.) Lr27  : haris Mc • uu. 4.199–203 post u. 154 hab. Ca2 • 155 est … est] et … et O3  : est … sed B8  : en … est “Oxon.” test. Heinsius 1659  : en … en dub. Heinsius 1659 • genitor Peleus] inu. ord. O3 • est Pyrrhus] pyrrus quoque N So(pi-)  : est quoque N2(est i.l. u.l.)  : sed pirrus B8  : qui est pyrrus Vt  : î est pirrhus F2 • Peleus … Pyrrhus] pirrus … peleus Mt • P(y/i)rr(h)us] purus V8 Ld6 B14  : pirhus Es4Es5 • filius] fuluis Lr7  : genitor N2(a.c.) • 156 quis] qui T7 • Pthiam] et iamque M Lr27  : phithiam N(i.l. p.c.) B2(p.c.)L42(p.c.) Lr8(-â) V30  : etiam N(a.c.)  : phichiam Gg B8  : pinthiam V2(a.c.; ad i.l. V23)  : pithiam LuP2V2(p.c.)V3 B2(a.c.)B52(mg.)FHdL4(a.c.)LdLr4LsMoN2P3P4V5 ToV16 Es3P28Rd B14Es6F2  : ptyam M2  : phitiam L3S2 A2A4CH3Lr6Mt Go BoBo2Cs3McTo2 AsEs4Es5 P47  : pitiam T7 Ps  : pytiam G(p.c.)  : phiteam Lr2 Ft Lu2  : phitean O  : phiceam V7  : phiciam A2(suprascr. p.c.) AbBB3B4(p.c.)Ba(p.c.)Be2DrFeLr32(p.c.)Lr5Lr7Ph2V6V8V9 DsMo3P8P102(p.c.) B12 P41 P46Ca22(p.c.)  : phytiam Gf Tr Mt5  : phyciâ Ld3  : ficiâ O42(mg. pr.u.l.)  : phicia Ld6  : phthiam Lr22P38Vd11  : phicium B5  : pithium Ld11  : phthium Ld13  : phaciam Ba(a.c.)  : pathiam O3  : pyam A3G(a.c.)  : phiam B4(a.c.)Lr3(a.c.) Ds2P10(a.c.)  : phyam Cs  : pythiamque Ld2(p.c.)  : phiciamue P5  : phthiam picchiam Mt2  : pichiam Es2  : thiciam O4  : thiam O42(mg. alt.u.l.)  : chiamue Vd  : siciam So  : sithiam Mt4  : praethitiam Bo3  : picyam Cv  : perichiam Ca2(a.c.)  : phthian “sec. Moret.” test. et prob. Heinsius 1659, Walch. 1731, Bothe 18182 • Pthiam … Scyrumue] phyam uesirumque Cs • Pthiam haec] phitiamue A2V8  : phiciam haec ue Ds  : quid eras. A n.l. • Pthiam … ferantur] phicium scirum ueferâtur B5(p.c.)  : phicium scirum ueteratur B5(a.c.)  : phitiâ h’ scirô ueferât’ P47 • Scyrumue] scirumue Lr2M(scrrumue uel potius ferrumue a.c., cf. ad 175)N(p.c. i.l.)P2(p.c.; quid a.c. n.l.)V2V3 B2B5BaCFGg(a.c.)H2HdL4Lr6P4V4(p.c.) GoLr8So McP28 Bo3Es6Ld11Lu2  : ferum N(uid., a.c.)  : schirumue H3Be2B52(mg.)Ld2(p.c.)V52(mg. u.l.)V7 To B12To2 F2  : schyrumue EMo(p.c.; scy- a.c.)  : scirrumue V9 Ps  : chyroue Gf  : chirumue A2B3Ld2(a.c.)Lr3LsO3V8 B14  : chironue Gg(p.c. a m.p.)Mt P46  : chyrumue Ds22(p.c.)  : ciromue A4(p.c. a m.p.)  : cironue Ab  : cirumue T7 Ca22(p.c.)  : cyrumue P5  :



Appendix critica

433

syrumue Lr4 Es5  : sirumue V4(a.c.)V5 P10 Ft  : siriamue Mt4  : siramue P41  : scironue Ph2 P47  : schironue Fe BoMt5  : scyronue As  : scytumue Tr(uid.)  : hescrumue Vd11  : elitumue Ca2(a.c.)  : scirumque AL3 B4DrLd Rd2(p.c.; quid a.c. n.l.)  : scironqueLr5(cironque a.c.)  : sc(h)yronque Cs32(h suprascr.) P38(scy-) Ld13(scy-)  : schironque N2 Bo22(p.c.)  : scyrûq ve Cv  : chyrumque(uid.) Ds2(a.c.)  : chirumque BO4Vd Mo3  : cirumque(uid.) A3(p.c.; quid a.c. n.l.)  : sirrumque B8  : tyrûque P3  : scuonque Bo2(a.c.)  : scytonque Cs3(a.c.)  : hehiamque Ld6  : cirum A4(a.c.)  : schironne Es2  : scyron(schyron p.c. a m.p.) syrumue Lu  : uesirumque Cs  : scih’rî ne V6  : scirumne Mt2 • ferantur] feruntur A2B(a.c.)  : referantur Ld(a.c.)  : ferebantur B8(a.c.)  : feratur Bo  : ferrantur Rd Bo3  : serantur Ld11 • 157 nec minus] non minus DrLr5 So, “cod. Bersm.”(non sic DsDs2) test. Jahn 1832  : non(per comp.) côminus B5(a.c., uid.)  : nec nimis Mc • isto Ω, Plan. (τούτου), edd.  : isti GfN(a.c.)GfS2 AbEFGL4Ld3Lr6Lr7LsN2O4Tr Go B14Es6Nr3 P46, Venet. 1472  : istic L3N(p.c.)V3 H2P4V4 Ds(a.c.) BoP28 P47  : illi AP2V2 B3CDrFeLdO Lr8V16 Lr22V30Vd11, “in uno Maffei” test. Ciof. 1575, “pri. Moreti et plurimi alii” test. Heinsius 1659, Aler. 1471  : illic M(uel potius illtc) Mo(a.c.)  : illo Lr4V8 B8Mt3So Bo3F2Z  : huic Mo(p.c. a m.p.)  : hic Es3  : iste Tu  : ipso B12  : quid Lu a.c. n.l. • T(h)eucer] thucer Ab  : tecum P10(uid., a.c.) • patruelis] puerilis Ab(mg. corr. Ab2)  : pati uelis Mo3 • Achilli] achillis A4AbH3Lr5 Cv  : origo Cs Bo2(a.c. a m.p.) • 158 num … tamen] non tamen ille petit FeHdLr5 Go  : nec tamen ille petit V16, “in uno Maffei” test. Ciof. 1575 • num1] nun V9 Rd  : nunc B5 Mt2  : an ec B2(p.c.)  : quae(per comp.) Ld2 • petit] petet L3 : petat T7V5 Rd • num si] si n(damn.) Hd  : si nô V9 • num2] ne C  : nam Ca2(a.c.)  : non haec Ld3(per comp.)  : nun Cs3Rd  : om. Ld11 • fer(uid.) post si scr. To sed ex itin. corr. • si petat] si petas Be2(a.c.)  : si petit Ld(a.c.)Ld3(a.c.)  : si petet Bs3(a.c.)Lr10Ps  : si petat non V7  : si peccate B5  : si peccat O4  : si pectat Es3(a.c.)  : si peccet Ft • auferat] auferet A2(e suprascr.) A42(i.l. u.l.)B22(e suprascr.)Gg(u.l. a m.p.)Ld2Ld3(mg. suppl. m.p.) Ld6P5P102(p.c.)So Es3Mt5 AsCvPs, Plan., “in uno meo” test. Ciof. 1575, “in uno Heinsii” test. Gierig 1823, prob. Bothe 18182  : afferat M2(p.c.) A2 B8Bs3(a.c.)Lr10  : alterat M2(uid., a.c.)  : aufferat BV6 Es2Rd  : aufera B5 P8(a.c.)  : afferet Bs3(p.c.) Ft : om. P2(mg. suppl. m.p.) Ld3(a.c.) • illa2 LuMS2V2 DrLr3MoMtN2T7TrV5 DsP5P8To Es3 Bo3Vd11 Ld13, Puteol. 1471, edd.  : ille2 BLs B14, Tarrant 2004, mallet Huyck 1991(in app.)  : arma N2(p.c.) Ld6(ama a.c.) Ω, Plan., in ii lib. mg. test. Bersm. 1596, Aler. 1471, Calph. 1474, Lugd. 1546(mg.), Lugd. 1565(mg.), Heinsius 1659(qui “plurimi ueteres” et “excerpta Calandrae” test.), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Koch 1866, dub. R. de Verger 2005(in notis)  : ipse B52(mg.)BaO4 To2 P41  : ipsa supra ipse scr. O42  : illi supra arma scr. A2  : quid N a.c. n.l. (sed fort. uerbum plane om.) • 159–160 inu. ord. B2 • 159 ergo] ego Calph. 1480 (uitio preli) • ergo operum] ergo operi(per comp.) Gg  : sic opem Mt • quoniam nudum] inu. ord. Ld(a.c.)Lr3 So Ca2  : nudum Cs(a.c.) • nudum] nondum AGf A3(ñ dû)A4(uid., a.c.)C(a.c.)H3(a.c.)Ld(a.c.)Ld3Mo2(i.l. u.l.)MtV6 Ds2(non dû)Lr8(nô dû)P8(ñdû) Es3(uid., a.c.)Mc(a.c.) CvGo2Lr22Ps(nô dû)V30, Aler. 1471  : nond’ B  : numdû Be2 Es6(p.c.)  : apertum Ls B14, Venet. 1472  : nundum(nûdû P4) P4Vd B8(nûd’) Vt Es6(a.c.), Calph. 1480  : nûdum V9  : nondum uel nundum O4(a.c.)  : nullum P5 Es2  : nitidum Es5  : iam dum mg. scr. Bersm. 1596 • • 160–194 om. Ph2(mg. suppl. Ph23) • 160 quidem] quod quod(per comp.) Be2  : tamen C • quam quae] quamquam(per comp.) Lu T7 Mt4 Vd11  : quam quod M(uid., a.c.) P10(a.c.) Vt  : quam si C(a.c.)  : quam cum Cs  : quam Ph23 Ds2  : quam nunc Ds  : quam q3 AbB To2(a.c.) Ps(a.c.)  : quam omnia Mt  : quam me Li3  : quam quo P10(p.c.) • comprendere] comprehendere(c’p’hen incoh. Lr4 sed cum lit. dam.) GfLr2MN A2A3Be2FeL4Lr6Lr7MoMtN2O3Ph23TuV7V9 DsDs2Mo3ToV16 BoBo2Es3FtMcMt4Mt5RdTo2 AsEs5Lr27P38  : compendere Ls(a.c.) So P28  : cumprendere(cūprēdere Calph. 1480) Vd, Calph. 1480  : contendere Li3Mt2  : comperendere(per comp. côp ~êdê) Es2  : conpredere V30 • dictis] uerbis Es6F2Ld11Z • 161 hunc u. om. V6 • in prom(p)tu] in promptum Cs Mt2V16  : in promtum Ab(per comp.)Ld(per comp.)N2(per comp.) Go2  : impromptum A3B5(a.c.)Lr4 So Bo As  : inpromptum(per comp.)

434

Appendix critica

Ba  : in prontum C  : inpromto T7  : Improntum Ft  : inpromtum P10(a.c.) Mt4P41  : in proptum Ca2(a.c.)  : impromptu B3HdL4V7Vd B8Ds2P8 Es3Mc Bo3Lr27Lu2 P46  : improntu Lr6Mo Ld6(p.c.)  : improtu Ld6(a.c.)  : imprôtu Es2  : inprontu To2  : in proptu Ca2(p.c.)  : Impromotu Accurs. 1475  : Impruptu Calph. 1480 • tamen(per comp.) ante rerum scr. Ds sed ex itin. corr. • rerum] uerum Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1480 • ordine] om. Mt5 • 162 pr(a)escia] pr(a)ecia A4AbLd(a.c.)T7V7Vd • uenturi] futuri M2 • genetrix Nereia] inu. ord. F2 • genetrix] genitrix AGfL3Lr2LuMM2NS2V2V3 A2A3A4AbBB2B3B4B5BaBe2CCsDrEFFeGGgH2H3HdL4LdLd2Ld3Lr3Lr4Lr6Lr7LsMoN2OO3O4P3P4T7TuV4V5V6V7V8V9Vd B8DsDs2GoLd6Lr8Mo3Mt2P5P8P10SoToV16 B12BoCs3Es3McMt4Mt5P28RdTo2 AsB14Bo3CvEs4Es5Es6F2Ld11Lr22Lr27Lu2P38PsV30Vd11 P46Ca2P47Ld13, Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1659, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Koch 1866  : genitris Bo(a.c.)  : genitis Es2 • Nereia leti] uentura uelei Ca2(a.c.) • Nereia] nereida GfLr2 BaEH3HdL4O4T7V4(a.c.)V5(a.c.)V8 B12Es3(a.c.)Rd B14Lu2V30  : nercieia B  : nereya Gg Ds  : neleya Cs  : nereyda Ld6Mo3Mt2 • leti] lęti MNP2S2  : loeti L3LuM2V3  : lecti Mt  : fati Vd(sed ex itin. corr.) To2 • 163 dis(s)imulat] dissimilat T7  : diximulat Mc • cultu (g)natum] inu. ord. A2A4CsH3LdO3T7V5 DsMo3Mt3To McRd Es5P41  : cultu letum B5 : cultu natam Mt : cultu gratum O4(natum O42)  : nati cultum Vd  : cultum natum Es6 • deceperat] detemperat(per comp.) A3(deceperat u.l. A32)  : deciperat(per comp.) Dr • 164–165 inu. ord. B4 • 164 Aiacem] adiacem B  : aicem Ld2(a.c.)  : aduertit P41 • sumpt(a)e] suspecte Mc • uestis] ueste A4  : dictis P28(ex itin. corr.) • 165 arma] ergo(per comp.) C • femineis] femineio Mc • animum] quem B5 • motura uirilem] matura uixilem B5(uirilem B52)  : motura uilem P5  : motatâ uirilem Ft  : mortua uirilem Ld13 • 166 mercibus] mersibus A3AbMt P8  : mentibus Pr P10(a.c.) • inserui] In serui V2(ut solet) P28  : et(per comp.) serui Ld2(a.c.)  : îseruit Ab(a.c.) • neque] nec A4CsH2LdLr5MtO3P3PrV5V9Vd P5 Es2 CvEs6P41Ps  : ne Mo3 • adhuc] aduc Gf To(a.c.)  : enim B5(adhuc B52)V6  : ad hûc O3 • proiecerat] progecerat N  : procerecerat(per comp.) Ab  : proicerat Lr4 Mc  : reiecerat Tr Es5, dub. Heinsius  : deiecerat V9, “duo libri; non male” test. Burm. 1727  : pcerat Ld6 • heros] eros N  : herox CsLr6MtO3Vd B8P10 • 167 uirgineos] femineos B5V7 Ca2  : uirgineosq3 Mc • habitus] habitos N2(a.c.)  : aditus V30  : arcus Ca2(a.c.) • cum] cui N(cum i.l. u.l. N2)  : om. Gf Ld2(a.c.)  : est(per comp.) Ab • parmam hastamque] palmamque Pr • parmam] parmamque Gf BP3T7  : palmam Vd P28Rd2(p.c.; palmam Rd)  : spermam(per comp.) Ld3(clipeum suprascr. m.rec.)  : parma Lr8  : parua P47 • hastamque] astamq3 Lr2 H2(a.c.)Lr6Lr7N2V5V6 Lr8To FtMt5Rd  : galcamque P5 : hastamue Es4 • tenenti] tetendi A(ego suprascr.) : tenêdi Gf : tuenti P41 • 168 nate] natæ V7 • tibi] ti M(a.c.) • tibi se] si te Ab  : tibi te Ld11 P46(a.c.)  : tibi semper P47(sed ex itin. corr.) • tibi … peritura] quid H3 a.c. n.l. • peritura] paritura Ld2(a.c.) • reseruant] reresuant Tu  : reseruat Mc  : reseruent Bo3 • 169 hunc u. om. Ld6 • Pergama … dubitas] quid dubitas pergama V6 • Pergama] pargma B  : perma Mo(a.c.)  : per Mt  : pergnama Ft(a.c.) • quid] qui Hd(a.c.) • dubitas] diuit- incoh. sed ex itin. corr. M  : dubites Lr8(a.c.) • ingentem euertere] ingēt’ere Mt • ingentem] tu îgêtê O4  : ignentem Mt4 • Troiam] terras A4(a.c.); cf. Verg. georg. 1.147 • • 170 iniecique] inecique M2(a.c.)  : ingecique Ld2 Ld6  : iniectique Lr8  : inmetique Es2  : ingentique Mt4 • manum] manus Gf CO4 P47  : animum(per comp.) Es2 • fortemque] forteque B5  : fortamque Ls  : foretque(uid.) As(a.c.) • ad fortia] ad pergama G(u.l. a m.p.) • 171 om. Ca2(suppl. m.p.) • ergo] pergo S2(a.c., ex u. 169)  : erga Ft • opera illius] inu. ord. Hd • illius] ipsius A4LdO3P3 Mo3  : om. To2 • sunt] sinit Es2 • ego] q3 Mc • Telephon] thelephon GfM2S2(p.c.) recc. pler.  : telamon A(telephon A2)  : telaphon BaCsE(a.c.)FV5  : thelaphon LdTu DsTo AsEs5F2Ld11  : thelefon O4 Mc Lr27Cv  : thelepon V6  : telophon Ph23 Es2  : telepon FtMt5  : telafon P41  : telefon Ps • hasta] asta Lr2 B5Lr5(p.c.)Lr6Lr7N2Ph23V5(a.c.)V6 To Mt5 Lu2  : astu(uid.) Es4 • 172 pugnantem] pugnatem A3  : pungnantem Tu  : pugnantemque Ld6 Ft  : pugnacem Mc • domui] domi Pr • uictum … refeci] nâ uictû orâtêq3 feci



Appendix critica

435

Ab • uictum orantemque] uictum horrentemque V23  : uinctum orrentemque Mc  : uinctum orantemque Pr  : uictumque orantemque A B3(oratêq3)B4Lr5LsPh23 Es2 B14  : orantem uictumque De  : uictum orentemque Be2  : uictum oranteque V6  : uictum ornantemque Fe(a.c.) Mt2 P47  : uictum oratemque To  : uictum flentemque Go  : metum orantemque P41 • refeci] refoui A2  : feci H3(a.c.)  : refici Lr4  : refecit(refec’) Ld6 • 173 hunc u. om. Vd(mg. suppl. m.p.) • quod] et Lr8 • quod  … est] quod cecidere meum tebe est Ft • cecidere] cedere L3(a.c.)  : occidere Mc  : cecide P28 • meum] mecum Mc(a.c.) • est] et(per comp.) Lr8(a.c.)  : om. Lr2(i.l. Lr22)Lu(i.l. Lu2) C(i.l. C2)O3(i.l. O32)V6Vd Bo2 Lu2 • me] mihi N(me i.l. u.l. N2)  : mea Lr8(a.c.)  : om. Rd(suppl. Rd2) • credite] credere Tu  : crete Mc • Lesbon] lespon M2(a.c.)S2(a.c.) G  : lepnon Tu  : delphon P8  : lebon Mt4(a.c.)  : lesbor P28  : lesbom P41(a.c.) • 174 Me crisem et tenedon me scillâ apollinis urbes Ca2 • me Tenedon] me tenedonq3 Lu  : Melenedon M Lr27  : me thenedon M2 A3AbFeGLdLd3Lr3P3 Mo3P5So Es6  : Metenedon NV3 BaF Ft  : me credite tenedon S2(a.c.)  : me tecedon(uid.) A4(a.c.)  : me teledon MoO3  : me tenendon Pr  : tenedon Lr8(a.c.)  : me temedon(th- p.c.) Ds2  : metemedon Es2  : me tenidon Ld11  : tetenedon P47(a.c.) • c(h)r(y/i)se(n/m)que et (s)c(i/y)lla(n/m) (cellan Lr4Lr6 P28 : chyllan P5) Ω, edd.  : criscenque et scillam B  : crisenque scillam B3  : crisenque P2(a.c.) B4(a.c.; et cillâ suprascr. B42)  : crisenque scillâ P2(p.c.)  : crisenque scyllam(cylla a.c.) V5  : crisenque et Bo2  : crisen Lr3  : crisen et scillam(-an Mt4 As) O4 Mt4 As  : crisen et cillam V9  : crisonque(a.c.) et cillam B2 Es4  : crisonque et scyllâ Ld3  : crisonque et scilla F  : crisephiamque M Mo(cry-) Bo3Lr27  : chrisen phthiamque N(a.c., phithiamque p.c.)  : c(h)risen cilla(n/m)que Lr2N2(i.l. u.l.)V2 Mo3 Lu2  : crisemque phiamque N2  : crisenque et phiciamque B8  : et post chri sêq3 eras. et nomen alterius urbis exhib. L4; mg. phiciamq3 (phiamq3 a.c.) scr. L42  : chrisen(chrisenque V162 p.c.) phyamque V16  : crisem cillamque To2  : phisciaque crisem Ds2  : crysenque(cri- Go) et scillen Be2 Go : crisenque et cillen Lr5Pr  : crissenque iolen C  : crisenque et iolan Ld  : crisenque et iollen O3  : crissamque et sicillam Cs  : crysâque et(om. a.c.) cillâ Ld2  : crisenque et siluam Ab  : crisemque et tellâ Bo  : crisenque et cilnan O  : crisenque et syllam F2  : crisenque et siciâ So  : crisenque et cilla Cs3 : crisenque et scilla Ps  : crisenque et sesillâ(sillâ p.c.) Es2  : chrisemque et cullatam B5  : crisenque et cillari Mt5  : crisemque et scillamque Ba  : citisenque et cillan H2  : cysenque et cillâ Hd  : tirsêque et cillâ V6  : cresemque et cillâ Ld6  : cresenque et cillam P41  : criscemque et scillari Go2  : crisenque et ciran P47 : cyrison et cyllan Ls  : cirison et cillam B14 • urbes] arces V5Vd  : urbem Es6 • 175 et] quod(per comp.) Ld6 • Scyrum] scrrum M(a.c., cf. ad 156) V7(a.c.)  : scirrum V7(p.c.) B8So Ft  : cirrum B3(a.c.)B4  : cirum A A4BB3(p.c.)CsDeT7 Ld6Mt2 P46  : cyrum N A2DrLd3Tu Ca2  : scirum V2 B5BaCFFeGg(a.c.)H2HdL4LdLsO4P4Ph23PrV4V5V9 GoLr8To Bo(a.c.)Es2P28Rd2(p.c.; quid a.c. n.l.) B14Bo3Es6Ld11PsVd11  : chyrum Gf Be2Ds2P5  : chirum AbLd2O3V8  : schirum Lu P10 B12Mt5 F2  : schyrum E Cs32(p.c.)  : pirum H3(uid.)P3  : sirum Bo(p.c.)  : cipraum Vd(a.c.)  : ciprum A3Vd(p.c.)  : chreum Mt4  : scrirum Lu2  : schoenum P38, Calph. 1474(schaenum 1480)  : scoenen Ld13  : scuren P41  : scytum Bo2Cs3(a.c.)  : sextum Mc  : chiron B2Gg(p.c.)Lr5  : scirom N2  : sciron P47  : scito V6  : schiron To2 • cepisse] coepisse MV3  : cępisse M2S2 • mea] mea et NV2 • concus(s)a] cûcussa O3  : cumcussa Ca2(a.c.) • putate] putares F(p.c., quid a.c. n.l.)  : putare To  : putatate Ld11 • 176 procubuisse] procuisse Hd  : concubuisse Lr5V6  : procubisse Ft(a.c.) • solo] sola Vd11 • Lyrnesia] lirnesia M(lrrnesia a.c.)NV2 H3(uid., a.c.)N2V4 V16(p.c.)  : linesia Bo3  : lernesia Ω  : lerneia AbCs  : lernesya EHdLd2Ld3  : lesnesya Mo3  : lenesia Ds2(a.c.)  : lernusia P10  : lyrneia Es6  : lyrnessia P38  : de Lr4 n.l. • m(o)enia dextra] inu. ord. Ld  : meonia dextra Mo(a.c.)  : menia dexa Tu  : menia destra Mc Es4P41 • 177 utque] ut quæ M  : atque A Mt5 Ld11 P47  : autque P10 • alios taceam] inu. ord. Lu(a.c.)  : alios tatiâ T7 • qui] quis AbLd3P3 Es5F2Ld11Go2Z P46P47  : quid Mt  : quodT7 • qui saeuum] qui seruû A4  : quiseû Ld(a.c.)  : qui seû Ld(p.c.)  : seuum(seruum a.c.) quis Ds  : quis euû As  : quis aeuum Vd11 • perdere] pendere M(a.c.)  : prodere(per comp.) A V6  : uincere Fe • dextra(ex 176) post perdere scr. B2(ex itin. corr.) • posset] possit LuN(a.c.)P2 EFGLd2(posset u.l. Ld22)Lr7MtO3Tu(p.c.) P8 Bo2Cs3Mt5 AsGo2Ld11  : posses P28, prob. Heinsius 1659(in notis)  : posse Es6 • 178 Hectora] hectorea To2 • nempe] nemphe

436

Appendix critica

A3(a.c.)  : namque T7  : nepe Ds2 • iacet] fuit O4(iacet mg. a m.p.) • Hector] heros A • 179 hunc u. om. Lr2(mg. suppl. m.p. uel coaeua) • illis h(a)ec] illisque B5  : illisque haec L4  : illius haec Mo(i.l. corr. m.p.; mg. corr. Mo2) Bo3  : pro illis haec Ps  : illic hec Ld11  : illis his Markland • est] om. O3V9(a.c.) • inuentus] iuuentus Pr  : inuectus Venet. 1472 • post inuentus aliquid eras. Lr5 • Achilles] achiuos B  : achillis B5  : ulixes scr. Lr4(ex itin. corr.) • • 180 uiuo] uni V6  : uino Li3  : uiuos Mc(a.c.) • dederam] om. Lr6(mg. suppl. m.p.)  : dexderam V5(a.c.) • post] om. B3(a.c.) • post fata] post facta M(a.c.), Venet. 1472  : post strata Ld6  : posfata Mt4(a.c.); cf. Mart. 11.67 • reposco] requiro A2B5Vd Ds2 Mt4 Ca2; cf. Verg. Aen. 2.506  : postposco(per comp.) O3 • 181 ut] et V6  : at Mt5 • unius] umeros(per comp.) uel uiuos Mo(a.c.)  : unus Pr, Walch. 1739 uitio preli (recte 1714 et 1731)  : illius Mo3(unius mg. u.l. Mo32) • Danaos] danatis Ld11 • omnes] aures A2; cf. e.  g. Verg. Aen. 2.81 al. • 182 Aulidaque] aulida A V8(a.c.) Ld6 P41  : allidaque AbB5V6  : aulidamque Lr7O3 Lr8(uid., a.c.)  : aulidaque et V9  : aulida eq3 Mt4 • Euboicam] eubolicam Be2 Rd Cv  : eboicam A4L4(a.c.)Tu(p.c.)V4(a.c.)  : euboycam GgLd2  : euboeam Lr3  : euboiam O3 P47  : ebocam Tu(a.c.)  : euboica V9  : eubocam Ca2 • complerunt] impleuerunt B P10  : implerunt P8 So Ca2(a.c.)  : plerunt A4(a.c.)  : cûplerunt Vd  : complerant V30  : complerent Lr22, Aler. 1471 • mille carinae] inu. ord. Lr2 • 183 ex(s)pectata] expectat A4(a.c.)  : Epectata V4 : et spectata V7 : expecta Vd(a.c.) Ld11 : expectanda Bs2  : et sperata P41 : Eapectata Calder. 1477 • diu] domini(per comp.) Mc(a.c.) • aut] haut Cs(p.c. a m.p.)Mt2  : ait L3(a.c.)  : aud Ph23(p.c.)  : ad aud Ph23(a.c.)  : om. B3(a.c.) • contraria] in contraria Es2 • classi] uenti P41  : classit Pr  : clasi Tu(p.c.)  : clusi Tu(a.c.)  : rati Mc  : classis P28(a.c.)  : classe Ld11 • 184–198 aegre leguntur in Lr4 • 184 flam(m)ina] flamen(uid.) S2  : flumina O3P3(fla- P32) Z(a.c.)  : falamina V5(a.c.) • dur(a)eque] doreque V3(a.c.)  : direque B2(p.c.)B5DrL4V6 Lr8(a.c.)Mo3 B12 Ca2, “quatuor libri” test. Burm. 1727, Bersm. 1596(-æq3)  : duraque To2  : dure P47 • iubent] iuuent M(a.c.)  : iube Mo(a.c.) • Agame(m/n/ø)nona] agamennone(-menone Es5) L3(per comp. a.c.) Es5  : agamânona Be2  : agamanona Mo3  : agamenoma B5(a.c.)  : agomemnona G  : agumemnona Ds  : agam’na Hd  : agamêna Ld3  : agamenoîa Mc(a.c.)  : agnomina Mt(per comp.)  : agameno Ft(a.c.) Ld11 • sortes] fortes M(s. homines suprascr. M2, cf. u. 84) B Lr8Mo3  : om. A4(mg. suppl. A42) • 185 immeritam] Îmeritas T7  : immemorem Vd11 • s(a)eu(a)e] sibi(per comp.) Ld6  : sceue B12(a.c.) • natam mactare] nata mactare V6 Es4  : natam mactara P28  : uatam nactare Calph. 1480 • 186 denegat] deneget Dr Ld6 • hoc] haec Vt  : om. Ft(a.c.) • diuisque] diuis A Be2Tu(a.c.)  : diuque P2(a.c.)  : diusque H3(a.c.) • irascitur] insatur Mt4(corr. Mt42) • ipsis] ipse So  : diuis Es4 • 187 hunc u. om. Ba(mg. suppl. Ba2) • in … est] pater tamen est in rege So • in rege] inre Ld(a.c.)  : in regem Li3 • tamen pater] inu. ord. Lr3 CV4Vd(a.c.)  : cum(per comp.) pater Dr • pater est] pater A(a.c.) V6 : est pater Lu Ld2 As(ex itin. corr.) • ego mite] inu. ord. P8 • mit(t)e] mire Lr62(u.l.) : deest in Ls  : quid P2 a.c. n.l.  : mite tenuiore atramento S2 a m.p. • parentis] parentes A2V5(a.c.)  : perenptis O3 • 188 hunc u. om. Ab(mg. suppl. m. recentior usque ad com[) • ingenium] ingenio B5(corr. B52) • uerbis] uerbis uerbis Mt4(a.c.) : uobis Es3 Ca2  : om. A4(mg. suppl. m.p.)  : quid P2 a.c. n.l. • ad] a P28(a.c.) • publica co(m)moda] inu. ord. A3(a.c.)CsEPrV7 GoSoV16 To2 Es4 Ca2 • publica] puplica AV2V3(a.c.) A3Ab2CsLd3Lr7MtO3P4Vd Ds2P5  : pulplica A4(a.c.)  : duplica B  : blubica B5  : pablica B52(mg.)  : pullica Tu  : pubica Mc • commoda] munera B14F2, dub. Bothe  : coumoda B  : conmoda Hd  : quomada Tu(a.c.)  : quomoda Tu(p.c.)V6  : deest in Ls (sed cf. B14) • uerti] misi Lr4 : conuerti Es4 : quid P2 Mt4(an duxi?) a.c. n.l. • 189 equidem] ego Ft • fateor] om. V4(mg. suppl. V42) • fassoque] fossos et(uid.) M(a.c.)  : fassosque Lr27  : faxoque N(corr. N2)V3(corr. V32) BoBo2(a.c.)Mc  : falsoque M2 AbBB5Pr Ds P28 Go2  : fasso O3(a.c.)  : faciamque P3(a.c. a m.p.)  : classem P4  : facxoque Ph23(a.c.)  : confesso So  : factoque V16  : quid P2 a.c. n.l. • ignoscat] igoscascat(sic) L4  : ignotat Mt  : ignos O3(a.c.)  : aînoscat P3(înoscat p.c.)  : ingnoscat Ld2V5 Es2  : ignoscite Ld3(corr. Ld32)  : ignoscit Lr8  : innoscat F  : ignoscet test. Viuianus (1522, ad loc.) • Atrides] ulixes Cv(ex itin. corr.)  : addes Ld11 •



Appendix critica

437

• 190 difficilem] diffilcilem Dr(a.c.)  : difficilemque Ld11(a.c.) • tenui] timidi B5(corr. B52)  : tenuit Es2(a.c.) • sub iniquo] subinico Ld  : sub mico Mc • iudice] radice B5(corr. B52)  : iudicæ Ld • 191 utilitas] hutilitas Lr7(a.c.) • populi] populique A4  : populis Cs • datique] dati Cs  : donatique T(a.c.)  : ducumque P10  : clarique B14  : datisque Ld11(a.c.) • 192 hunc u. om. A4(mg. suppl. m.p.) • sum(m)a] cura Ld2(summa mg. u.l. Ld22), “multi” test. Burm. 1727  : sua ma V5(a.c.) • mouet] monet Gf Ld2P3  : moui Lr8(a.c.)  : manet Ld11  : mouent Ca2(a.c.) • sceptri] ceptri A2GgLdT7Vd B8Mo3  : septri A3B Bo  : scripti Ab Es2  : scepri C  : scepta Bo2  : scepti Bo3(a.c.)  : sp post mouet scr. L3(cum lit. damn.) • laudem … penset] laudemque in sanguine pensat B52(mg.) • laudem ut] ut laudem A4(mg.)B2(p.c.; l. u. a.c.)  : laudemque Ab : laudemque ut G Mo3P8  : laudent Mt  : laudem et Ds2 • laudem] laude T Li3, Bersm. 1596  : laudemque P8  : laudet B5(corr. B52)  : laudum Cs  : laudes Es4 • cum sanguine] consanguine Be2GgHd  : ɔsanguine Lr5O4V4 P5 P28 • penset] pendet T(a.c.)  : pêsset B4(p.c.)L4 : posset B4(a.c.) P10(penset mg. u.l. P102)  : potest B5 : pensent Bo2  : pensat F2 : possent Mt  : peset V6  : pensans Es6  : poscat P41  : deest in Ls • 193 Mit(t)or] Autor Es5  : auctor Ps • et] om. N2(a.c.) Ds(a.c.) P47(a.c.) • matrem] patrem A2 • (h)ortanda] hos tanda M2(a.c.)  : horanda B4, Calph. 1480  : hordanda Mo(a.c.)  : horenda Tu  : horrenda P28 P46(a.c.)  : oranda Mo3(hortanda mg. u.l. Mo32) Lr22V30, “quatuor libri” test. Burm. 1727, Aler. 1471, Lugd. 1546(mg.) • sed] q3 Ab(a.c.) • a post sed scr. Es2(ex itin. corr.) • astu] hastu AN2(p.c.; astu N)S2(a.c.) AbB2B3CsDrH3(p.c.; astu a.c.)PrT7V4(p.c.; astu a.c.)V7V9 B8P5So Es2(p.c.)To2 Es6F2Lr27  : asta L3(a.c.)  : actu BBe2Hd(a.c. a m.p.)Ld  : austu Gg(a.c.)Lr6  : haustu Ld6Lr8Mt2 Es2(a.c.)Ft  : deest in Ls • 194 quo] quod L3Lr2M2N2(p.c.; quo N)S2T A2A3Ab(p.c.)B52(mg.)BaBe2CsDrFGH3(quo u.l. H32)Lr3Lr5Lr6Lr7LsN2OO3P3PrT7TuV5(a.c.)V6V7(a.c.)Vd DsP10To FtMcMt4(p.c.)P28RdVt B14Es4Es6F2Lr22Lu2P41V30Vd11Z P46, Aler. 1471  : sed quid De • si … isset] sitela(sitala V5 a.c.) monius isset T V5  : si telamoni iusisset Lr3  : si telamonimus s isset To • si] om. V2(i.l. V23) B5(mg. B52)O4(i.l. m.p.) • Telamonius] telamonus Ld6  : telamonis Ft  : Talamonius Koch 1866 • isset] esset Be2(per comp., sed ex itin. corr.) Mc • 195 redit Ph2(m.p.) • et post suis i.l. scr. B52 • essent etiamnum] etiam nunc essent O4V8  : etiam essent nunc Ds(a.c.) • essent] issent A Z • etiamnum] etiamnunc AGfL3Lr2LuM2N(p.c.; etiam num a.c.)P2S2TV2V3 A2A3A4AbBB2B3B4BaBe2CCsDrEFFeGGgH2H3HdL4LdLd2Ld3Lr3Lr4Lr5Lr6Lr7LsMo2(u.l.)MtN2OO3O4P3P4Ph2PrT7TrTuV4V5V6V7V8V9Vd B8DsDs2GoLr8Mo3Mt2Mt3P5P8P10SoToV16 B12BoBo2Cs3Es2Es3FtMt4Mt5RdTo2 AsB14Bo3CvEs4Es5Es6F2Lr22Lu2P41PsV30Vd11 P46Ca2P47Ld13, Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Jahn 1832, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Merkel 1850, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, Lejay 1894, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, H-K-E-A 1966, Goold 1984, R. de Verger 2005, Holzberg 2017  : et nunc B5  : et cum Ld6 • lint(h)ea] linea P2(a.c.)  : litea Pr  : carbasa BCs  : littora B5Ld3(lintea p.c. Ld32)Tu Ds(a.c.)  : linthie Mt  : lithea P8  : linthe To2  : linthia Es6 • uentis] uelis B P10 • 196 om. Rd(mg. suppl. Rd2) • et] ad L3(p.c. uid.; et uid. a.c.)Lr2 CsLr3Lr7 Lu2  : om. P10(a.c. a m.p.) • Iliacas] eliacas V2 V30  : ilias S2(a.c.)  : hyliacas Hd • audax] audanx O4(a.c.)  : audas Lr6(a.c.)  : auctor Vd(a.c. a m.p.) • orator] arator M(a.c.) Mo(a.c.)  : ortator V2 BB3B4CsV6V8(a.c.)Vd(p.c.) Ld6; cf. 193  : ortatur(per comp.) Pr  : hortator A2A4(orator u.l. A42)B5L4Lr5MtP3V7(p.c., -tur a.c.) DsSo Mc Es5Es6, “undecim libri” test. Burm. 1727  : otator Vd(a.c.)  : horator Fe2(p.c.) Li3 Lu2  : orabor Bo(corr. Bo2)  : tractator P41 • ad] in B8, “tres [libri]” test. Burm. 1727 • arces] esset(per comp.) Ld2(a.c.)  : ares Lr7  : aras O4(arces i.l. O43)  : artes V6 • 197 uisaque] ursaque B4  : uisa B5  : etiussa Ba  : uisa quae(per comp.) Pr • et] om. B4BaLdVd B8Ld6Mo3P8 • intrata  … altae] interea alte est Ft • intrata] orata LuMN(a.c.) Lr27  : intracta P2(a.c.) Lr7Pr To2  : in tota Mo(a.c.)  : uictata Mt  : intacta V5(a.c.) Es2(a.c.)  : intratura P47 • alt(a)e] alta Ab Z • mihi curia] menia Ca2(a.c.) • curia] cura Mt4(a.c.)  : om. Es2 • Troi(a)e] thoie B5(a.c.)  : troie est P47(a.c.) • 198 plenaque] plenaque et(per comp.) O4 • adhuc … illa] erat adhuc illa B4(a.c.)GgMtVd(a.c.) Es5P41Ps  : erat illa adhuc O3  : adhuc illa Fe P5(a.c. a m.p.) Bo  : illa erat Ca2(a.c.) • adhuc] ahuc M2(a.c.)  : aduc Ba(a.c.)Tu P10To(a.c.) Ca22(p.c.) • erat] fuit B  : erit Lr8(a.c.) • illa]

438

Appendix critica

ista Vd  : ille Pr  : om. Es2Ft  : illis Heinsius 1659(uitio preli; illa 1652) • uiris] ueis(uid.) Ba(a.c.)  : uitis C(a.c.)  : urus Es2  : iuris P28 • interritus] interitus Lr2(a.c.)T(uel -ntus) Be2H2(a.c.)Hd(a.c.)Ls(a.c.) BoEs2Es3(a.c.)Rd Es4P38P41V30 P46(a.c.), Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Calph. 1474  : non(per comp.) territus B4  : interrritus Ba  : intertus V4(a.c.)  : interius Mt3(in ras. uid.) Es3 P47(a.c.) • egi] om. B3(suppl. B32)  : agi B5(a.c.)  : egi/quâ Ft • 199 com(m)unis] cominus Hd(a.c.)  : cominis Hd(p.c.)  : comminus TuV5  : cummunis Ph2Vd(cum m.) • Graecia] gratia B(a.c.)V5(per comp. a.c.) B8(per comp.; g’cia i.l. a m.p.)Lr8(per comp.) Bo2Ft(per comp.) P41  : gracia Vd(a.c.)  : om. Lu(mg. suppl. m.p.)  : gretia(per comp. getia) V6  : curia Ld3 • • 200 ac(c)usoque] accessuq3 Gf(a.c.) : accersoque B2  : eacusoque B5  : asenssoque Mt  : acusioque Vd(a.c.)  : accuso Ft  : accusque P46(a.c.)  : quid N a.c. n.l. • Parin] parim MN A4BCCsDrFFeGgLdLd2Lr5Lr7LsPh2PrTrTuV4V8Vd B8DsLd6Lr8So BoBo2Cs3Es2(p.c.)McMt4Mt5To2 AsB14CvEs4Es5Es6Lr27P38P41PsV30 P46Ca2P47  : parû A2  : per uim Mt  : Parrin B3, Aler. 1471  : patrim Es2(a.c.)  : pari P28 • praedamque Helenamque] praedam helenamque Lu Ld3 F2P41  : helenam praedamque C  : helenamque praedamque P3(a.c.) • praedamque] praesensque Ba  : praedandamque Hd(a.c.)  : praedaque Pr • Helenamque] hælenamque M  : elenamque N Lr7 Bo  : helemamque V3(a.c.)  : Helenam Naug. 1516(a.c.) • reposco] refosco L3(a.c. uid.)  : repasco Pr  : repsco V5(a.c.)  : requiro Ca2 • 201 et moueo] accuso Ld2(a.c.)V4 • moueo Priamum] inu. ord. P2 • moueo] moneo AGfNV2V3 A2AbBe2GgH2L4LdLd3Lr3Lr4(uid.)Lr7O3P3P4V5V6V7V8V9Vd B8(p.c. a m.p.)Ds2Ld6Li3Mo3Mt2ToV16 B12BoEs2Es3FtMcMt4P28To2 Es5Es6F2P41PsZ, Plan., “Oxon. Cantabr. Bent. et uiginti alii” test. Burm. 1727  : priamo B8(a.c.)  : utrum B2B3Lr5 n.l. • Priamoque] priamo Lr7 So  : priamque Es2(a.c.) • Ant(h)enora] antera M2(a.c.)  : auctenora B5  : attenora Ld  : atenora Pr  : athenora Es2 • iunctum] uictum GfLr2(uid., a.c.) A2CsPr B122(mg. u.l.)Cs3Es2 V30 P47  : uûctû Lr7  : iûtû V6  : iunctoum Vd(a.c.)  : uîctum(uid.) Lu2 • 202 hunc u. om. V6 Lr22 • Paris] patris(per comp.) Pr • et1] ad B5  : at Bo2 • rapuere] rapiere Tu(a.c.) • sub illo] sub ipso AbLd3 To2  : fideles P3(a.c.) • 203 uix] uis V6 • tenuere] tenuerre Mo(a.c.)  : rapuere B14 • scis] sis B5 B14  : scis et Lr6 • hoc] o CsLr3(a.c.)V4V9 Li3Mt3P5 B12Es3, “Cant. … et duo alii” test. Heinsius 1659, Venet. 1472, prob. Vossius  : h(a)ec Lr2P2(p.c. a m.p.) N2 B8To(uid.) BoBo2Cs3McMt4Mt5Rd Es4Es6Lu2P38P41Ps Ca2Ld13, Puteol. 1471, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596  : sed(per comp.) C  : has T7 • Menelaë] menelahe M MoV5 Lr27  : menenalae Lu(a.c.)  : melelae T  : diomede Be2 Bo3(a.c.)  : menalae LdV7V8 Ld6, Hill 2000  : melanae Lr7  : meneale Pr  : menlae Tu(a.c.)  : menalere Ft • nefandas] nefanda MP2(a.c.) Lr7 Lr27 P46  : nephanda N(a.c.)  : nephandas N(p.c.) A2BDrLsV6V7 B8Mt2P5So B12Cs3Es2Mt4To2 Es6F2V30   : nefendas T  : nefundas Ab(a.c.)  : nefâd[ B4  : nefandos Be2(a.c.)  : nefamdis O3  : nefa[ tantum leg. in V3 • 204 primaque] prima qui B5  : prima quoque(per comp.) Cs(a.c.)  : primoque Ld6  : prima Es2 • nostri tecum] inu. ord. So  : nostri rerum A2  : uestri te Mt4(a.c.)  : uestri tecum Mt4(p.c.) • fuit] om. Ab(i.l. suppl. Ab2) • illa] ista V6 • 205 longa] lunga Cs  : loga Tu(a.c.)  : longua P3 Go • referre] refere AbV7 Bo2  : referare Mt • est] om. B3DeV6 Mt4(a.c.) • quae] qui B5 : q3 P28  : om. V9(suppl. V92) • consilioque] concilioque A3Pr  : consilique Cs(a.c.)  : conscilioque Hd(a.c. uid.)MoN2  : cûsilioq3 Vd  : consioque Es2(a.c.) • 206–207 inu. ord. Hd(ord. mg. restit. m.alt.) • 206–208 desunt in T7 propter imi folii scissuram • 206 feci] cepi A2 • spatiosi] spatio si N(a.c.)  : speaciosi T(a.c.)  : spacioso A2Hd So F2Z  : spatioso CP3  : speciosi Ds  : sapiosi Li3 • 207 primas] multa L3(ex itin. corr.)  : prima Mt • urbis … hostes] hostes … urbis V6 • urbis] uersi bis Vd(a.c.) • se m(o)enibus] senentibus Ab(corr. Ab2)  : se in menibus V9 Lr8 Bo  : se manibus Es2(a.c.) • hostes] hoste De(p.c.)  : orbes De(a.c.)  : actos P41 • 208–209 inu. ord. B4 • 208 continuere] contimuere BLs(a.c.) So  : conticuere EP3Vd • nec] donec Ld13 • aperti] operti V7(a.c.)  : aperta Es5 • Martis] mentis A3(mg. corr. A33) Ds2(mg. corr. Ds22)  : matis Ld2(a.c.)  : belli P8 Ps  : matrtis P28(a.c.) • 209 ulla] illa Ls Bo(ulla mg. u.l. Bo2) B14 P47 • fuit] fuut Ld • decimo demum] decimo domum(uid.) L4(a.c.)  : decimo decimo Mo(a.c.)  : decimo demo T7(a.c.) : demô decimo V6 : decimo tandem V7  : demum



Appendix critica

439

decimo Vd  : decimo deinde Mt Mo3 : decimo de muro Tu  : decimum tantum(per comp.) Ft • pugnauimus anno] pugnamus in anno Ld6Mo3 P41 • pugnauimus] pugnabimus M2(a.c.)T Lr3Tu(pungn-)  : pignauius B5(mg. corr. B52)  : pugnamus Mt Ld6Mo3 P41  : pugnauibus To • anno] ambo Gf Ds2(i.l. corr. Ds22)  : anbo Mt Ft(p.c. uid.; anno a.c.)  : in anno Ld6Mo3 P41  : âgno P10  : aeuo Es5Es6 • • 210 hunc u. om. Ds(mg. suppl. Ds2) • quid facis] Q Rd(corr. Rd2) • quid] qui C(a.c.)T7Vd Es4(a.c.) • facis] om. Mt4(i.l. suppl. Mt42) • interea] inter ea V3  : intererea(per comp.) Ld • qui] quae A2(per comp.) : quid DrMt Cv • nil] nichil Vd(a.c.) Es4(a.c.)  : non Li3 Es3 Es3  : nihil Regius 1493(corr. 1497)  : om. Ps  : quid Mo a.c. n.l. • nisi] neque(uid.) Mt4(a.c.)  : om. B3(a.c.) P47(a.c.) • pr(o)elia] praemia A2 • nosti] nostri Lr7, Regius 1526(corr. 1527 sed iterum 1540) • 211 om. MN(i.l. suppl. m.p.) F2Lr27Z(mg. suppl.) • quis tuus] qui suus Ab • quis] quid L4Ph2(a.c.)V6  : quit B5  : qui P8 Vd11 • tuus usus] inu. ord. B14 • usus erat] quid Mo a.c. n.l. • erat] erit Fe(erat i.l. u.l.)  : habet(per comp.) V6 • nam … mea] mea nam si De P46P47 • nam] qui P5 • mea facta] me facta V3(a.c.)  : facta mea Lu(a.c.) • facta] fata P2(a.c.)V2(a.c.) DeDr(a.c.) Bo2(a.c.)FtMt4(a.c.)P28 Es5Ps(facta mg. a m.p.) P46(a.c.)Ld13, Puteol. 1471 • requiris] requires Mo(a.c.) Ld7(a.c.) Go2  : requiras Et, “Leidensis” test. et prob. Burm. 1727 • 212 hostibus] hostisque Ps • insidior] obsidior Ph2(insidior mg. u.l. Ph22) • cingo] cigno L3(a.c.)M(a.c.) Lr7Pr To2(a.c.)  : cingor O(a.c.)T7(a.c.)  : cinguo P3  : tingo So : cingno Es6 • 213 consolor socios] consolor etiam(per comp. i.l.) socios S22  : consolor et socios Ls Rd2(et i.l.) B14  : consolor o socios Vd  : consulo sociis Es3  : consolor socii B5(corr. B52) • ut] ubi P3  : et Es6F2 • longi] longa P8 • 214 hunc u. scr. m.p. i.ras. in P10; quid a.c. n.l. • ferant] ferunt Tu • placida] placita B  : tacita P41  : placide P472(p.c.; -a P47) • doceo] om. Ba(a.c.) • quo] quod(per comp.) Ld6  : om. Pr • simus] simul M  : sumus Cs(a.c.) Li3 FtMt4  : scimus O3 • 215 mittor] mitor L3(a.c.) Ab2(i.l. u.l.)B3B4O4  : uictor Ab  : mitto Vd(a.c.)  : nitor P28 • quo] quos Ab(a.c.)  : quod O3 • postulat] postulet Lugd. 1546 • usus] susus Vd • quo postulat usus suppl. in T m.alt. i.ras.(quid a.c. n.l.) • 216 Iouis] moui B5(a.c.) • monitu] monitis B  : monitus B5(corr. B52) Lr8(a.c.)  : monito Ld(p.c.; -u a.c.)  : monitor Es3, “unus Medic.” test. Heinsius 1659 • deceptus] deieptus B5(corr. B52) • deceptus imagine somni suppl. in T m.alt. i.ras.(quid a.c. n.l.) • imagine] in agine M2 • som(p)ni] sonni GfP2 H3HdLr5  : sômi M2  : sumpni Vd B8Ds(sûni)  : summi Z  : sopni Ld3 FtMt4  : mundi Mt5 (cf. 110) • 217 rex] rer T • iubet] iud- tempt. V2(a.c.) • incepti] in cepti Mo9  : inceptam Bentley (“memoria lapsus” Hedicke 1905, 32)  : quid M a.c. n.l. • curam] causam A4 Mt4(per comp.) P41 Ca2, Venet. 1472  : curata T7  : curram Es6 • dimittere] deponere B3V6  : dittere To(a.c.)  : demittere Mc Es4P41 • 218 ille] ipse A Ab Lr8 Es2  : illa Venet. 1472 • potest] post Pr • potest auctore] inu. ord. F2 • au(c)tore] actore V2 A2AbB4B5CsLd3Lr5V6Vd B8  : aurore A  : amore A3(auctore i.l. a m.p.)  : actorem Pr  : auctorem P46(a.c.) • suam] suo S2 Fe B8 Ft Go2 Ca2  : suum B5CsPr • defendere] deffendere A2Be2Ld3 B8 • 219 sinat] sinax Pr • hoc] h(a)ec B3V4 Li3 Es3 Es6PsVd11, Venet. 1472  : om. Ld6(a.c.) • delendaque] celandaque A2  : dolendaque A4(a.c.)Ld2(a.c.) Ld6 Ft Es3  : delenda Hd(a.c.) Lr8 Cs3Es2Mt5  : dellendique Rd(a.c.)  : delendo Bo2 • Pergama] m(o)enia Gf A4LdLd2Lr5O3Vd Mo3  : proagima B5  : pagina(pagîa) Ds • poscat] poscit Ld2(a.c.)  : pascat Lr7  : quaerat P8  : potest(per comp.) Rd(a.c.) • • 220 quodque] quamque Lr5Mt : quod V9(corr. V92) Mt5  : quoque Rd(corr. Rd2) • potest] pu inchoau. Vd(ex itin. corr.)  : postest P10(a.c.) • pugnet] pugnat A3A4(p.c.)FeV9 B8 P47(a.c.)  : om. B5(mg. B52) • 220(antea 221) det Ω, Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Koch 1866, Riese 1872, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, van Proosdij 1951, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Hardie 2015, Holzberg 2017  : dat L3 Mo2T7 Ld6 Rd Vd11 P47, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Weise 1845, Merkel 1850, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, H-K-E-A 1966,

440

Appendix critica

Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, Breitenbach 1964, Goold 1984, Huyck 1991, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007  : dent Bo(a.c.)  : et det Lu(contra metrum)  : et(per comp.) P28 : de B n.l. • det quod] quo det A3  : datq3 P47 • quod] tot B5(a.c.)  : que(per comp.) Mt  : quid Fe2(uid., i.l.) T7(per comp.)  : om. Lr8(a.c. a m.p.) Vd11 • uaga] noua Mc P41 • sequatur] sequetur Ls : loquenti Vd(a.c.)  : sequantur uel sequamur prop. Heinsius (b3, 357) • 221 hunc u. om. Lr7 Bo3(mg. suppl. m.p.) • non] nû Lugd. 1565(uitio preli) • pe(uid.) ante capit scr. B(ex itin. corr.) • capit] parat Gf(capit i.l. u.l.)  : cepit Dr  : cupit P8  : captu Es2 : cadit Regius 1527(uitio preli) • 221(antea 220) cur2] dum Cs • non remoratur] nos solatur(sela- a.c. M) M(p.c.)N(uid., a.c.) Lr7 Lr27  : non solatur C Bo3  : non moretur Ab  : non rematur B  : non memoratur B5(a.c.)  : non remoretur Lr3 Be2V7 V30 • ituros] tutos B5(corr. mg. B52)  : in auros Li3  : uiros(uid.) Cs3(a.c.) • 222 hunc u. om. Gf Vd(mg. suppl. Vd2) • erat hoc] erat Lr2(a.c.) FePh2(a.c.)V8(a.c.) Li3 Lu2  : hoc(i.l.) erat Fe2  : hoc Hd(a.c.)Vd2(a.c.)  : hoc est Hd(p.c.)  : erit hoc Ld3  : esset(per comp.) B14 • hoc] om.: hic B, Venet. 1472 • nimium] munium B5  : murum Ld6 • numquam nisi] numquam mihi(mi) A3(a.c. a m.p.)O3T7 Li3Mt2 P46  : numquam si V30  : non qua ubi B5(a.c.) : cuiquam nisi Hd(p.c.) : non quam nisi Ld3Lr5MtV4 Mt5(nonquam)  : qui nisi Lr3 • magna loquenti] magneloquenti P47 • loquenti] loquendi Be2De(a.c.) P46(a.c.), Venet. 1472 : loquaci Es2(a.c.) : de B n.l. • 223–257 folium sinistro mg. usque ad prima singula uerba mutilum in T • 223 quid … et] quodquod et T  : quidquid et Be2T7 Rd  : quidque quod B5O3V4V6 Mt3 Es4  : quid quod CsN2(a.c.) B12(a.c.) P41  : quid et quod N2(p.c.)  : quid et Hd(a.c.), Puteol. 1471  : quidq3 & Es5 • puduitque] stupuique A2  : puduique L4  : ruduitque Ld6 • uidere] udere Lr2(a.c.)  : iure Lu2 • 224 cum] dum B3 • tu] tua Gf F2 • dares] daret(uid.) B(a.c.)  : dare Accurs. 1475(corr. 1489) • inhonestaque] inonestaque L3 V5  : In honestaque V2(ut solet) Bo2  : inhonestasque Es2(a.c.)  : quid Mt4 a.c. n.l. • uela] tela B4C  : bella Pr So Ld13, Puteol. 1471, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, improb. Regius 1493  : uera Simmons 1889(a.c.) • parares] pares M2(a.c.) V4(a.c.)  : pararet B(a.c.)  : parates Hd(a.c.) • 225–230 uix leguntur in To • 225 nec mora] non(per comp.) mora O3  : nemora Mc(a.c.) • uos] uors B5(a.c.)  : nos Pr, Plan. • dementia] dentia L3(a.c.)  : clementia Ds2(-cia) Rd • 226 concitat] conctat M2  : conscitat A3PrV9 So  : concit G(corr. G2)  : excitat Gg  : contitat Mo(a.c.) • captam] capta Es2 • Troiam] uitam Vd(a.c.); cf. Sil. 2.259, 17.265 • 227 quidue] quiddue V2(a.c.)  : quid M2 Lu2 P47(a.c.)  : quodue(per comp.) T7  : quidne Pr Ld6 • fertis decimo] inu. ord. Gf4(p.c.)  : decimo Gf4(a.c.) • nisi] ni A2  : non Vd(a.c.)  : nunc Bo(nisi i.l. u.l. Bo2)  : î P28 • anno] annis Mt • con mg. scr. alia m. in V3 • 228 talibus atque dolor ipse aliis disertum Ca2(a.c.) • atque aliis] auditis B4 • ip post aliis scr. Ab(ex itin. corr.)  : uerbis(per comp.) scr. Lr3(ex itin. corr.) • in qu(a)e] inq3 M DrO3PrVd Bo2P28Rd As(p.c.)Bo3Es5Lr27  : in quos Bs3(a.c.)  : in quo Mo3 Ps  : in quod P5  : inq3 inq3 Ft  : imq3 As(a.c.)  : in quem P46 • dolor] do Lr6(a.c.)  : om. Ba(a.c.) • ipse] ire “Arund.” (non sic Ld) test. Burm. 1727 • disertum] desertum M2(a.c.)S2(a.c.) AbBCsFe(a.c.)GgMo(a.c.)MtO4V5(a.c.)Vd(a.c.) Ld6(a.c.)Lr8(a.c.)Mt2P10 BoMc Lu2P41  : dissertum A3O(a.c.)  : fugatos Bs3(a.c.) • 229 usque ad classe def. Ls • auersos] aduersos Lr2 A2A3A4(a.c.)AbBB3B4B5CCsDeDrFe(a.c.)GgHdLdLd2Ld3Lr6Lr7N2O3O4(a.c.)P3Ph2PrV5V6V7V8(a.c.)Vd B8DsDs2GoLd6Li3Lr8Mo3Mt3P5P10So B12Bo2Cs3Es2Es3FtMcMt4 AsB14Bo3CvEs3Es4Es5Lu2P38(p.c.; adueros a.c.)PsV30 P46Ca2P47, improb. Bersm. 1596  : ad usus P41 • profuga] profugos P41 • de classe] de casse Ds(a.c.)  : quid N a.c. (decla__sse N p.c.) n.l. • • 230 conuocat] inuocat Ab(a.c.)  : cum uocat Vd  : qui(uid.) uocat P5  : concitat Gf4 • atrides] atridos T  : attrides Hd • socios] om. L4 • terrore pauentes] pauore timentes Cs(terrore i.l. a m.p.)  : terrore timentes T7  : quid Rd a.c. n.l. • terrore] pauore Cs(terrore i.l. a m.p.)  : paincoh. Dr(ex itin. corr.)  : terre L4(a.c.)  : terrere(per comp.) Lr7  : terore Rd2, Puteol. 1471 • pauentes] timentes CsT7  : pauendos Tu  : palentes Lr8 : paueres Mc • 231–232 inu. ord. B4 • 231 nec] et O3  : non(per comp.) Pr • T(h)elamoniades] thelemoniades L3 A3L4T7 Bo2  : telamonides AT Lr4Tu  : thelamoniade Dr  : thelamoiades F(a.c.)  : thelamonides Mt Ld6 Es5  : tela-



Appendix critica

441

lamoniades To  : talonionides Cs(tela- i.l. u.l. a m.p.)  : thelamoniadas Cs3(a.c.) • etiam nunc] etiamnum(et p.c., quid a.c. n.l.) N  : etiam non B5 Ld6 P28  : etiam tunc A B3Lr5V9 Ds2 Mc, dub. Glar.-Long. 1570  : etiam cum Lr8 • hiscere] iscere N(p.c.; hiscere a.c.)V3 B5H3(a.c.)LdLr3 To(a.c.) Bo3  : discere A(p.c.; hiscere a.c.) Pr  : hyscere Lr2 Lr7 Ds2 Cs3 Es6P41  : dicere B4(uid.) Es4  : insere Li3  : yscere Lu2 • qui(d/c)quam] quisquam Cs  : posset T7(a.c. a m.p.)  : quiquam Ph2(a.c.) Es6  : de V6 n.l. • 232 usque ad incessere def. Ls (sed audet et hab. B14) • audet at Jahn 1832, Merkel 1850, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Riese 1872, Simmons 1889, Lejay 1894, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Scivoletto 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007  : audeat Anderson 1982  : audet et AGfL3Lr2 A2A3BB3B4B52(p.c.)BaCsDrFeGgH3Ld22(et i.l.)Ld3Lr3Lr6MoO4P4Ph2PrT7V5(p.c.)V6V8V9 B8(i.l. u.l. a m.p.)DsLd6Li3Lr8Mt2Mt3P8P10SoToV162(et i.l.) Es2McMt4RdTo2 AsB14Bo3CvEs6F2Lr22Lu2P38Ps Ld13, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Koch 1866, Huyck 1991, Galasso 2000  : audit et Regius 1540 : audeat et Aler. 1471  : ausus at coni. Bentley  : ausit et Walch. 1714 et 1731  : ausit, at coni. Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1739, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828 • ausus erat] erat ausus N(p.c.; quid a.c. n.l.)  : usus erat MtV7  : ausus eram Ld3(a.c.)  : audet erat Li3 • reges … dictis] dictis … reges V7 • reges] regis Ab(a.c.)  : om. V5(mg. suppl. m.p.) • incessere] ɔcessere Ab  : lacessere Ls2(i.l. p.c.; incessere Ls) B14  : incesdere O4  : incescere B8 Bo2(p.c.)Cs3  : incesscere Lr8  : incendere V5  : nitescere F2 • dictis] belli V6 • 233 Thersites … haud] thersites quia iam haut per me Dr • T(h)ersites] Thesites N(a.c.)  : Ťsytes E  : tersides Lr2T Hd(a.c.)Ph2 Lu2  : thersithes G  : thersides Es6  : tersithes C  : eifites Mt  : tersinui Tu  : tersistes P46 • etiam … me] et iam per me B5(a.c.) Es2  : per me eciam Lr5  : etiam pro me Vd McTo2 P41 • haud] haut AGf(p.c.)M2P2(p.c.)S2T A2A4AbBB2B3B4Be2CCsDrEGg(i.l. p.c.)H22(p.c.)H32(i.l. p.c.)HdL4LdLd2Ld3Lr4Lr6Lr7OO3(p.c.)O4P3Ph2T7TuV4V6V8V9Vd(a.c.) B8DsDs2GoLd6Mo3Mt2P5P10So Mt4(a.c.) B14 P46Ca2P47, Goold 1984  : aut Gf(a.c.)P2(a.c.) H2(a.c.)MtO3(a.c.)Pr Li3Lr8(a.c.) BoEs2(a.c.)FtMcP28Rd : hana Gg(in textu a.c.)  : aud N2 Lr8(p.c.)  : non Vd2(i.l. p.c.)  : om. H3  : deest in Ls • impune] îpugne(imp- Vd) A2AbCCsVd Ld6Mo3 Ca2  : inpugne BPr Mt4P10 : in pugne MtV6 P28 : îpuri(uid.) O(a.c.) • proteruus AGfL3Lr2LuMM22NP2S2V2V3T A2A3A4AbB2B3B4B52(p.c.)BaBe2CDeDrE(mg. u.l. a m.p.)FFe(p.c. a m.p.)G(p.c. a m.p.)GgH2H3HdL4LdLd2Ld3Lr32(u i.l.)Lr4Lr6Lr7MoMtN2OO3O4(a.c.)P3(p.c.)P4Ph2(p.c.)TrV4V5V6(re uera protuus per comp.)V7(a.c.)V8V9Vd(p.c. a m.p.) B8DsDs2GoLr8Mt2P5P8P10SoToV16 Bo2Cs3Es2Es3FtMcMt4Mt5P28To2 AsBo3CvEs3Es4Es6F2Lr22Lu2P38P41PsV30Vd11 P46Ca2P47Ld13, Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Jahn 1832, Loers 1843, H-K-E 1898, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Hopkinson 2000 : proteruis Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Weise 1845, Merkel 1850, Koch 1866, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Simmons 1889, Lejay 1894, Edwards 1905, Goold 1984, Huyck 1991, Hill 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007 • 234–235 inu. ord. De • 234 erigor] errigor Lr2(a.c.) BoEs2Ft  : eriget Mt4 • et] ac Lr6 • trepidos ciues] inu. ord. P28  : tepidos ciues V4(a.c.)V5(a.c.)  : profugos ciues Pr  : trepidos ciuesque B14 • ex(h)ortor] exertor Ab  : exortator So • hostem LuMN B2MoN2 GoLr8 Bo3Lr22Lr27V30, Aler. 1471, Naug. 1516, mg. prob. Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1659, edd.  : hostes Ω, Plan., Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Jahn 1832, Weise 1845, Koch 1866 • 235 amissamque] admissamque BB4Gg(a.c.)Ld3MtO3V8(a.c.) Ld6P10 McMt4 B14P41 P46  : ammissamque Lr7 Li3  : amissaque P28  : promissamque P47 • mea] meam B4B5(a.c.)Lr3(uid.)PrTu(a.c.)

442

Appendix critica

FtMc As(a.c.)F2(a.c.)P38(a.c.) • uirtutem uoce] inu. ord. A3(a.c.)  : uocem uirtute Li3  : uirtute uoce Ft • 236 tempore] tempus Ld(tempore i.l. u.l.)O3 • ab] ad A2Ld(ab i.l. u.l.)MtO3 Mo3 Es2FtMt4(p.c.)Mt5 Es5  : ob Fe(a.c., uid.) P41 • quodcumque] qu(a)ecumque AGfM(p.c.)S2 T7  : quisque A2(per comp.)  : quoque Ab(per comp.)  : quicumque Gg(a.c.) P41  : quocumque So Rd(a.c.) Lr27  : quondamque Mt4  : quod cum Li3  : deest in Ls • potest] potes Ab • 237 fortiter] sortitur Ld6 • iste] ille T7Vd B8V16 Mt4(a.c.)  : deest in Ls • meum] mecum A2T7V4(a.c.)  : merum Pr • est] om. Lu(i.l. suppl. m.p.) C(a.c.)PrV6 Ld6Li3Lr8 McMt4(a.c.) F2 Ld13 • qui dantem] quid autem F(a.c.) • qui] quem LuV3(qui a.c.) A4(qui mg. u.l. A42)Fe(p.c.)HdLd3Lr4Lr6Mo2(mg.)OO3O4(a.c.)PrT7V8V9 B8Ds2So B12BoP28RdVt Es5 Ca2, Heinsius 1659(“meliores”), Burm. 1713(qui 1727), Walch. 1731  : quoque(per comp.) P10 • retraxi] retracsi Ab(uid., p.c.)  : refeci Ab(uid., a.c.)  : reduxi Et  : repressi Li3, “Cantab.” test. Burm. 1727  : retraxit P8(a.c.)  : refrixi B14(retraxi u.l. a m.p.) • 238 de] da Ab(a.c.)  : om. V16(a.c.), Puteol. 1471 • Danais] daneis L3(a.c.)  : danaiis M2 • quis] qui AbMt Ld13 : -ps Venet. 1472 uitio preli, sc. pro q-s • te] hunc Ld3  : quis Ca2(a.c.) • laudatue petitue] inu. ord. Es2  : laudat uepetitue Ba(a.c.)  : laudat uepetitque P47 • laudatue] laudat ne AbO(uid.)  : laudetue Ld(a.c.) F2  : laudat Mt5 Vd11  : laudat uel Bo3 • petitue] petatue Lu  : petisue Pr  : petitque F2 P47  : petetue Es6  : probetue O4(corr. O42)  : probatue B8(petitue i.l. u.l. B82), “alius” test. Burm. 1727 • 239–240 inu. ord. Hd(corr. Hd2) • 239 at] ad Ab(a.c.)Vd  : ac B5  : atque Pr  : sed Ab(i.l. u.l.)Lr5  : an B8  : et P8  : ut Mt5  : aut Lugd. 1565  : deest in T • sua] suam T(uid.) • Tydides] titides ALr2LuMNP2 A2A3A4AbBB2B3B4B5BaBe2CsDeDrFGGgH2H3L4Lr3Lr4Lr5Lr6Lr7MoN2OO4P3PrT7TrTuV4V5V6V7V8V9Vd B8GoLr8Mt2ToV16 BoBo2: tidides Cs3FtMcMt5P28RdTo2 AsB14Bo3CvEs4Es6F2Lr27Lu2P41PsVd11 P46Ca2P47   L3M2TV2 LdPh2 Mt4  : tytides GfS2V3 FeLd2Ld3O3 Ds2Mo3P5 Lr22P38 Ld13  : tytydes E  : tythides Hd  : tetides DsSo Es2  : thitides C Ld6 Es3  : tidites Es5  : deest in Ls  : de P4 n.l. • mecum] tecum B5 • com(m)unicat] quid L3 a.c. n.l. • acta] hasta Lu(a.c. a m.p.) : auerta Mt : actum Vd(a.c.)  : alta Rd(ex itin. corr.) • • 240 me] ore B14 • probat] probau Es2(ex itin. corr.) • socio] sano H2  : socios Tu(a.c.)  : scio Es4(a.c.) • semper confidit] inu. ord. Es6Z • confidit] commisit L4(confidit mg. u.l. L42)  : ofidit Bo3  : cum fidit Vd • 241 aliquid] aliquod M(a.c.)  : aliquit T B2LdPr  : ait P10(a.c.)  : aliud Bo  : aliquis Mc • Graiorum] graior B5Lr4  : grecorum A3G  : gragiorum HdV4(a.c.)Vd(a.c.)  : graciorum Ld  : gratiorum P28(a.c.)  : garaiorum Lu2(a.c.) • mil(l)ibus] millibus N  : militibus AbMo(a.c.)  : mibibus Ld6  : mibilus B14 • 242 a Diomede] andiomede Mt  : aut diomede Ps • nec … iubebat pro parenth. hab. Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Fink 2007 • nec] ne Es3(a.c.) • me sors] inu. ord. Ft • me] te Mt  : om. Mc • sors] scis Ab(sors i.l. u.l. Ab2)  : mors Li3 • ire] ista Gg  : om. Lu2(a.c.) • iubebat] uiuebat M(a.c.)  : uidebat V3 Ls Mt4 B14(a.c.)  : uolebat Mt Rd • 243–244 inu. ord. Lu2 • 243 tamen] tantum Mt5 • et spreto] expreto V2 Hd(corr. Hd2)  : et speto M2(a.c.) T7(a.c.)  : etiam(per comp.) praesto(per comp.) Ab  : et sumpto BH3LsVd FtTo2(a.c.) B14F2P41  : et(per comp.) pr(a)eto uel perto (per comp.) Gg(a.c.)  : et specto Pr, Plan.? (καὶ κατασκοπῶ)  : in spleto V6  : et spento P10(corr. P102)  : expleto V30  : aspreto Li3  : et sprepto(uid.) Es2(a.c.) • noctisque] noctis LuMN(corr. N2)S2 B3F(corr. F2)MoN2 Ld6Lr8 Bo2Cs3Ft Bo3Es5Go2Lr27P41Vd11 Ca2, Lugd. 1565  : noctis q3 q3 Ld2(a.c.)V6  : notisque Es2 • hostisque] hostis B5(p.c.)Ld2(a.c.)  : ostisque Ls(a.c.) • 244 hunc u. mg. scr. Es3 • ausum … nos] ausus idem quod nos et ausum eadem qui nos in b3 test. Heinsius  : ausurumque eadem in b3 Heinsium legisse test. Magnus 1914(492 in app.), quod nusquam inueni • eadem quae] tradere O3  : eademq3 P47 • eadem Ω, edd.  : etiam AGfL3Lu MN(eadem i.l. u.l. N2)TV2(eadem mg. u.l. V23)V3(eadem p.c.) B2(eadem p.c. B22)B3Be2Dr(mg. p.c.)EFFeGgH2(eadem mg. u.l. H22)Ld2LsMtOP3P4(eadem p.c. P42)Ph2TuV52(p.c.; eadem V5)Vd GoMt2So Vt B14Bo3Es3(i.l. u.l.)F2Lr22Lr27Z, Ehwald 1915, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982  : idem test. Heinsius(in notis) • qu(a)e] qua M(p.c.; quae a.c.) Lr27  : nunc N(que i.l. u.l. a m.p.)  : quam B4(a.c.)  : quod Pr, test. Heinsius(in notis)  : qui Tu, “unus” test.



Appendix critica

443

Heinsius 1659  : q3 P47 • quae nos] inu. ord. A  : quae uos Z Ca2 P46  : nobis dub. Heinsius 1659(in notis) • (ph/f)r(y/i)gia] phygia Lu(a.c.)  : phrrgia M(a.c.)  : prigia S2(a.c.)  : frigio A2  : phicia B  : sicia Be2(a.c.)  : phrigria Lr4  : phigia O4(a.c.)Ph2  : phriga Ds2 • Phrygia de] ghrigiade Li3 • Dolona] delona(uid.) V2(a.c.)  : dolosa P3(a.c.)Tu  : dolofia Li3 • 245 interimo] intimo BLr3(uid.)  : interrimo Bo3 • ante tamen] ante Mt2(a.c.)  : inu. ord. P41 • quam] quę V3(a.c.)  : quod(per comp.) Dr • cun(c)ta] per comp. ĉta V3, quod an pro certa interpretandum sit dub. Slater 1927  : concta Hd Es2(p.c.)  : conca Es2(a.c.) • fuc’e(uid.) post cuncta scr. N2(ex itin. damn.) • coëgi] peregi H2(coegi mg. u.l. H22) • 246 proderem cum didici quid fida mente precaret B5(a.c.) • prodere] dicere B  : prodedre Ba(a.c.)  : perdere T7(per comp.)Vd(a.c.) Mo3P8So(p.c.) Bo2Cs3(a.c.)  : prodedere P41 Ca2(a.c.)  : edere P47 • et] om. B3PrVd(a.c. a m.p.) So • edidici] edici N(a.c.)V2(a.c.) V5(a.c.) Mt2 As(p.c.)  : didici A(p.c.)GfLr2 A2B2(corr. B22)B5H3O3Ph2T7 Ld6Lr8P8To Mt4(a.c.)Rd CvEs5Lu2P41Ps  : edidicci A(a.c.)  : edidisci De  : addidici So  : ededici Pr P28  : edicii As(a.c.)  : quid S2 a.c. (an dedidici?) n.l. • quid] quod BL4Lr6Lr7N2TuVd Ld6 P41Vd11 • perfida] perfidia S2 Vd  : perfica B52(mg.)  : peruida L4(a.c.)  : perdia Mo3  : percida P8  : maxima “Oxon.” test. Burm. 1727 • pararet] parata A(a.c. uid.)  : paret O  : quid Mt3 n.l. • 247 cognoram] cognoueram A2(recte A)Lr2(a.c.)M Mo Li3Mt2 Ft CvLr27Lu2Ps  : cognoui A4LdO3(p.c.)P3  : cognaram Ab  : ognoui O3(a.c.)  : cognosco Pr  : commoram Ds2(corr. Ds22)  : cognomina Ds(-oîa) P41  : cognorant Lr22V30, Aler. 1471 • specularer] spocularer S2  : spectarer B5T7  : spicularer Ld Li3  : specularet Ds2(a.c.) Mc, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1480, Regius 1527(et 1540: ‘specularet[specularer 1493]: explorarem: inq-rerē’)  : spoliarer “Cantabrig.” test. Burm. 1727 • habebam] habam Ld(a.c.)  : hâbebâ Ds  : habendam Mt2(habebam mg. u.l. Mt22)  : hēbɐm Calph. 1480 • 248 hunc u. om. Ld2(mg. suppl. Ld22) • et] ut P47 • iam] tunc O4(iâ i.l. O42) • promissa] pr(a)emissa Lr2Lu A42(u.l.)B3(p.c.)BaEFeH3L4(p.c.)Lr3Lr4Lr5N2OPh2T7V4V82(p.c.) Ld6Lr8To B12BoRdTo2 Bo3Es3Es4Go2Lu2, Plan., Heinsius 1659(qui “pri. Moret. … et multi alii” test.), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731  : permissa Vd  : promisam P8  : promerita dub. prop. Heinsius  : praemessa dub. coni. Bothe • poteram] poterim Hill 2000(uitio preli) • cum laude] quid P10 a.c. n.l. • reuerti] reuerte V5 • 249 haud] haut AGfT A2A4Ab(p.c.)BB2B3B4B5Be2CCsDrEFFeH2HdL4Ld2Ld3Lr4Lr6(a.c.)LdLr7LsOO3O4P3Ph2(a.c.)PrT7TuV6V8V9Vd B8DsDs2Ld6Lr8(a.c.)Mo3Mt2P5So Mt4(a.c.)Rd B14 P46Ca2P47, Goold 1984  : aut Ab(a.c.)V7(a.c.) Es2(a.c.)  : at Li3 • contentus] contemptus Lr2 A2AbBB5CCsGgLd3O3O4P3Ph2V8(a.c.) B8Ds2(a.c.)GoLi3Mo3 Mt4 CvLu2  : conteptus Lr3PrV6Vd  : contemtus O  : quid P8 a.c. n.l. (contentus P82 i.ras.) • petii] poteram A3(petii mg. a m.p.)  : perii N2(a.c.)  : posco Lr6  : pocii V6  : specii Ld3  : peti Es4(a.c.) • tentoria] temptoria L3 A2AbB3B5BaBe2CGgHdLd2Ld3Lr3Lr4Lr6OO3O4P3Ph2PrVd GoLd6Mo3Mt2 RdTo2 B14F2Lr27Lu2 Ca2(a.c.)  : tenptoria Ds2(p.c.)  : contentoria(uid.) So(a.c.)  : tentetoria Mc  : tectoria P41 • R(h)esi] rehsi HdLd2Lr4 Ld6To  : rresi O(p.c.)  : rechsi P5(p.c.)  : regis Mo3P5(a.c.)  : regi Cs3(a.c.)  : rehesi As(p.c.)  : rehesii As(a.c.)  : reshi Ca2 • • 250 hunc u. om. V5(mg. suppl. m.p.) • inque] inquae A(per comp.) • ipsum … comitesque] ipsum castis comitesque Mo(a.c.)  : ipsum castris comitemque V9  : castris ipsum comitesque Gf DrGOV5 B8Mt3 B12  : castris ipsum comites O4  : castris ipsum sociosque P8  : ipsum castris ipsumque P5(a.c.)  : comites castris ipsumque P10So • peremi] perhemi To  : pereni Rd • 251–252 inu. ord. Pr • 251 atque] utque P47 • ita] itaque P47  : om. A(a.c.) • captiuo] captiuis L4N2  : captiuos Mt5(a.c.) • uictor uotisque] uotis(uocis V6) uictorque L3Lr2 B5CsL4Lr4V6 Ld6 BoFt Es6F2Lu2Z  : uicto uotisque So(a.c.)  : uictos uotisque Lugd. 1565(uitio preli) • uotisque] uobisque MN(uotisque i.l. u.l. N2) Lr27  : uotoque A2  : uotique Ld3(a.c.)  : uestisque Ph2 • potitus] petitus S2 L4(a.c.) Ca2  : potitur A(a.c.) Dr(corr. Dr2) : potimur Ls(a.c.) B14 : potuus Ls(p.c. per comp. potu’) : potiturus Mt  : perei(per comp.) scr. Ds(ex itin. corr.) • 252 ingredior] aggredior Cv • curru laetos] inu. ord. P8 • curru] curtu Mo(a.c.)  : cursum V9(a.c.)  : currus Mc Bo3(a.c.)P41 P46(a.c.) • l(a)etos] latos Gf A3(laetos i.l. u.l. a m.p.)  : lentos C(a.c.)  : lectos Mt Ps(a.c.) Ca2(a.c.)  : lethos V4  : ueros Bs4(laetos i.l.)  : om.

444

Appendix critica

Ft • imitante] inmitante Lr2T Mc Bo3  : inmittante Hd Ca2  : îmiectâte Mt  : imitantes Pr  : comitante B5V6 Lr8V16  : comitate Ft  : mutante Lr7  : tinitante Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472  : mitante Calph. 1480 • triumphos] trhiumphos P2  : trihumphos(per comp.) BL4N2 B12  : triumpho Mc P41  : triamphos Accurs. 1475(corr. Calder. 1477) • 253 cuius] cur Mt • poposcerat] poposscerat Gf2(recte Gf)  : poscerat N2(a.c.)  : proposcerat Ds2(corr. Ds22)  : poposcant Ld6  : poposerat Bo • hostis] hosti Lr2  : hostes L4 • 254 negate] negata A2  : negante B5Ld2(a.c.) Ds2(a.c.) Ft  : negare T7 P8  : quid V2 a.c. (-ate i.ras.) n.l. • benignior] benignor T  : begnior B4Mo  : benigninior Lr5  : benignirer Calph. 1480 • 255–256 inu. ord. V6 • 255 Lycii referam] referam(reff- Rd) licii(lit- Rd) T7 Rd • L(y/i)cii] pilii MN(licii i.l. u.l. a m.p.)V23(mg. u.l.) Lr4 Lr27  : lacii Gf  : litii Lr2Lu HdOV5 V16 Bo2Cs3McP28RdTo2 CvLu2Z P46Ca2P47  : lithii P2 Gg Vt  : lichii P5  : licei V6  : licie Es2 • Sarpedonis] serpedonis Ba(corr. Ba2)CH3T7(a.c.)V5(a.c.)V7 Go  : sarpendonis Hd(p.c.)  : sarpondonis Hd(a.c.)  : serpodonis V4 P46  : sapedonis V9  : sarpendinis Vd  : sarpedinis P47 • ferro] marte F, prob. Burm. 1727(in notis) • 256 deuastata] deuastato Ab(a.c.)  : deuastate Pr  : diuastata Es2 • meo] me P41 • cum multo] inu. ord. Pr Mc Es6Z • cum] essem(per comp. êê) Ab(ex itin. corr.)  : cô Ld3  : et(per comp.) Mt4  : quom Puteol. 1471, Calph. 1480 • multo] multi B5  : muto Tu(a.c.) • sanguine] sanuine Tu(a.c.) • fudi] fussi(uid.) V5(a.c.) • 257 Coeranon Iphitiden] Corea nymphitidê Mo3  : Coeran oniphitiden Bo • C(o)eranon] Ce—ra—non N  : ceramon L3 B32(p.c.)B4(p.c.)CsEFFeH3Ld2Ld3Lr3Ph2T7V5V7V9 DsDs2Ld6SoTo Mt4Rd Es6F2  : cenanon A2  : coeranû A3  : cermon B3(a.c.)  : ceromon B4(a.c.)  : cesamon C  : ceracon Dr  : cecanon Lr5  : cercanon Ps  : ceranû HdO  : coeramon L4  : eranon Lr4  : coera quod(per comp.) O3  : cenaron O4  : cereion P8  : caetaton Pr  : ceraunon V8  : centimô B12  : cenaton Vd  : cranon Go  : cera nê Es2  : Coeraonon Bo3(a.c.)  : Cereanon Cv(a.c.)  : Seramon Es5  : ceyaphon P41  : eras. in T • Iphitiden] yphyadê Gf Ld6(yphi-)  : iphiten M2 B22(i.l. u.l.)  : yphiten De Ca2(-em)  : yphitiden B12  : hiphitê So  : hiphitamen(-tñ) P8  : et phitiden(-em/-ê) A2A4P3V9 P5  : phitidê N2  : phithidê To  : et phitidon Ph2  : ephiten et O  : ephitiden P8 P28(-em)  : ýphidon Cs  : iphidem Be2 Pr(-en)  : yphiden Dr Ds2(-em) As  : et iphiden Es3  : yphisiden C  : hyphisiden Vd  : iphiteden H2(a.c.)  : yphytadê Ld2  : ithididê Lr3  : iphididem O3  : ypothidem F2  : eras. in T • Alastoraque] alestoraque Gf B3CsP3V5 Bo3(p.c.)  : alastora M2S2T DrH2Lr5(a.c.)V4 B8Ld6  : aletora NV2 V16(a.c.) Bo  : alethora De  : alestora A4CFe Mt4  : alastoramque Lr2 P5 GPr CvEs6Lu2Vd11 P47  : alet(h)oramque LuMP2 N2O Ft Bo3(a.c.)  : aietoramque Mo Lr27  : alestoramque LdVd  : alectoraque Hd  : alectoramque P28  : alastoroaque V3  : alastaraque B2  : alascoraque O4  : aletoraque B5(a.c.)Lr4 GoP8V16(p.c.) As  : alletoraque Ds2  : allethoraque P8  : alethoraque V6 Es3 Es5  : elastroraque A3  : alastroraque Ls Rd B14  : alapastorâque B  : alastorumque Gg(p.c.) Ds  : aletoremque P46  : alafforas F  : alatastaraque V9  : alee thoraque Lr6  : alachastraque Lr7  : halethoraque O3  : alastora quae(per comp.) que(per comp. q3)B4  : alethoraque forte(sic) L4  : lethoremque Mt  : calastora Tu  : aleoraque So  : altenoraque F2  : alacoraque Mc  : alostoraque P38  : alacoren atque P41  : alatora Ca2 • C(h)romiumque] eromûq3 Gf  : chocromumque(uid.) V2  : cronumque Lr2 A2A3BBaGHdLd3Lr3Lr52Lr6LsOP3TrV7V8Vd GoLd6Lr8Mo3Mt2P8 B12FtMc(p.c.)To2 B14CvEs6Lr22Lu2Mt5PsV30 P46Ca2  : crouumque Pr  : cronum B8  : chronumque L3LuMM2S2TV3 AbB42Be2H3MoO4Tu(p.c.) Ds P28 Bo3Es3Es4Lr27Vd11, Aler. 1471  : thronûque N2  : char—honiumque N  : donumque P2(cronum mg. u.l.)  : cromumque B2(a.c.)B3(a.c.)B4CsDeH2L4Ld2O3Ph2 So Mc(a.c.) P47  : chromumque T7  : ciromunque B32(p.c.)  : comunque B5(a.c.)  : croniumque EV4V5(chrp.c.) Rd  : thonumque C  : curinîque Dr  : oceonumque F  : chromîque Lr4 P8(in u. 258)  : crominque FeGgP4 As  : cromimque Bo2Cs3  : cronimque A4LdV9  : crotumque Ds2  : choremum Lr7  : h’enûque P5  : chonumque Tu(a.c.)  : conûque To  : tronumque Es2  : cremumque F2  : cominuuque Mt4  : chromisique Es3  : thoumque Es5  : cronubem P41  : om. V6 • 258 Alc(h)andrumque] Alcadrumque M V7 B8Ld6P5 As2(mg.)Lr27  : alcamdumque A2  : al­c(h)an­dumque Lr5(a.c.) V16(a.c.) Mc  : alerandrumque A4  : alcrandumque BLdOV4 Mt3  : altrandumque Bo  : ancandrumque A3  : alc(h)anorumque B22(p.c.; recte B2)CLr6V6 P8 As  : archanorumque Es3  : alcanarumque B5  : alclandrum Ba  : alclandrumque Ba2(p.c.)  : alchrandûque



Appendix critica

445

H3  : alconorumque Hd  : alcanorque Lr4  : aychandrumque Lr3V5  : alchamdrumque O3  : alchadrumque To  : alc(h)andrum Ph2Tu(a.c.) Ds(a.c.)  : alcanderque O4  : ascandrumque Ld3T7 FtRd Lu2  : alquadiumque V9  : leandrumque G  : aleandrumque DrV8 Es2 Es4, Venet. 1472  : Haloandrumque Lr22  : aloandrumque V30, Aler. 1471  : alcandorum alcandrium P38(a.c.)  : alandonque P41  : Alcandrum qu(a)e Puteol. 1471 • Haliumque] aliumque GfL3Lr2Lu(a.c.)MM2NP2(a.c.)V2V3 A2A3AbB2(a.c. uid.)B4BaBe2CsEFFeGgH2H3HdL4(a.c.)Ld(p.c.)Ld2Ld3(a.c.)Lr3Lr4Lr5Lr6LsN2P3P4Ph2TuV4V5V82(p.c.) DsLr8(corr. Lr82)Mt2P8ToV16(a.c.) B12Es3Mc Es6Lr27Lu2 Ca2, Venet. 1472  : alium BCDrOT7V8(a.c.)V9 So Es2Rd B14CvF2  : aleumque Pr  : altum B2(p.c.)  : altumque B3 Es4  : proaliumque B5V6  : halumque G  : alumque A4Ld(a.c.)O3 Ld6Mo3 P46P47  : ilumque O4  : aloumque V7(uid.) B8  : alym P5  : almumque P10  : alim Ft  : hyalumque Mt4  : alicumque P28  : alimque Ld3(p.c.)MoVd Bo3Vd11  : alinque Lr7  : aloin P41  : Heliumque Lugd. 1565(uitio preli)  : de T n.l. (euan.) • N(o/e)emonaque] noemoraque Lu  : noemaque M Lr27  : neomaque Mo  :  ]emonaque T(i.ras.)  : noemonaque et V2(uid.)  : nemonaque A3B4(p.c.)Be2CsDrFeGLr6Ph2V9 DsLd6Lr8P10SoTo B12Es2Es3Ft(p.c.)Mt5RdTo2 Lr22V30 Ca2, Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471  : nemeonaque B Mc P41  : nemoraque B2  : neomonaque A4(p.c.)V7 Mo3P5P8 Bo As  : nomonaque B4(a.c.)GgLd2 Mt2  : nemenoraque C  : noeminaque F  : nocemonaque Ld3  : nocino­ momique Mt  : noemononque B8  : nemeneaque Pr  : nereonaque Bo2Cs3  : neimenaque Es4  : memonaque Ls GoMt3 B14 P46, Venet. 1472  : memona P47  : menonaque Lr7 V16 Mt4  : noemonâ O2(p.c.; recte O)  : neomona A4(a.c.)O3  : noemona V6 Ds2(a.c.) Ps, Regius 1493(corr. 1510)  : nemona Ft(a.c.)  : noemana Es5  : anthemonaque F2  : de Vd n.l. • Prytaninque] pritanimque M A4Mo Cv(p.c.)Lr27Vd11  : pritanīque LuM2NP2S2 HdN2P4  : pritarumque V2 To2  : pritanumque Gf(per comp.)L3 A3B2(a.c.)OPh2V8 Mo3P10(in u. 257)So Es4 P46  : pyrûq3 Lr2 Lu2  : prytanâque T(uid.)  : pridanumque uel predanumque Cs(per comp. p’dañq3)  : pritaûque V7  : pritauiûque Lr8  : puttamonque V9  : parichnîque A2  : piritañque Ab  : piritâque Mt2  : pthañque Gg(a.c.)  : pirithañque Gg(p.c.)O4  : pirataque(uid.) Pr  : phiterumque B  : pritaniumque B22(p.c.) P41  : pritamumque Bo  : pytariumque Bo2  : pitariumque Cs3  : buranumque B3(a.c.)  : buraniumque B32(p.c.)  : bratamenque(uid.) B4  : primêque B5V6(pimêq3)  : et pritamen Ba  : piritatumque Be2  : brutumque C  : pyritanumque Dr  : prytanymque E  : piranumque F B12  : rithumque Fe  : pitanimque H2  : pilanûque H3  : primêque L4(a.c.)  : prithanîque G  : phrithanîque Ld  : phrytayûque Ld2  : phycanumque Ld3  : pyranûque Lr3 Ds  : pyramumque uel pyramenque (per comp.) Lr7  : pyramenque V162(i.l. u.l.)  : prynîque Lr4  : phrutanumque Lr5  : phrytamumque Lr6  : phritanumque Go  : pirumque Mt  : pitamumque LsT7 B14  : pitanumque Vd Ds2To Rd Ca2  : phitanûque P5 As  : protanâque Bo3  : phitamumque Es5  : phitarumque F2  : pritalîque O3  : phritamumque P3  : phitanimque Tu  : pythanimque Ld13  : pytanîque V4  : phyticanumque V5  : pytanumque Mt3  : pritamenque V16  : pritaminque Cv(a.c.)  : pritanuque B52(mg.)  : fricamque B8  : precautuque Es2  : pythanûque Es3  : pitanum Ft  : pitharumque Mt5  : phitemiumque Mt4  : pytaumque P28  : phitamque Es6  : pretomumque(uel pri-) Ld6  : pretanumque P8 Mc(uel pri-)  : prytanimque P38, Huyck 1991  : prytamimque Ps  : prithanumque Lr22  : prythanumque V30, Aler. 1471  : piratanumque P47  : pirtaniumque Puteol. 1471  : pirtanumque Venet. 1472  : piytanimque Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475  : prytaniûque Calph. 1480 • 259 hunc u. om. A4(mg. suppl. A42) B12 • exitioque] excicioque Gf B B8Mo3P5 Ca2  : exilioque AbLr5V5V6 P46  : excidioque G Es4, “Medic.” test. Burm. 1727  : excioque A42Ls(a.c.)  : exicio Lr7 Ft  : exidioque So  : exotioque P47 • dedi] de edi Vd(a.c.)  : om. P3(a.c.) • cum Chersidamante] ɔferi damante P10 • cum] con BO4(cô)  : est Mt4  : om. Ds • Chersidamante] pheridamante Lu(a.c.)MNP2 B5MoN2O3Tr GoV16 P28 Bo3Lr27P38Vd11 Ld13, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Bersm. 1596  : pheridamanta Ft  : feridamante HdLr6O Lr8P10 Bo P46P47  : feridamâne(sic) Vd  : phreridamante Lu(p.c.)  : feridomante A32(mg. u.l.)  : feridamente De  : chresidamanthe V2  : chresidamante Be2GgP4V4  : cresidamante GfS2T B2DrEFGLdO4PrTuV9 Es2Rd2(p.c.) F2Lr22V30, Aler. 1471  : cresidante A3  : cresydante Mo3  : cresi damante To2  : cresima dante V7  : cressidomante B  : cresidamanthe B4(p.c.)CP5  : cresidimanthe B4(a.c.)  : crisidamante

446

Appendix critica

Lr5  : cresidamanta Mt2  : cresanante V8  : credisamante Fe  : cresydamante Ld2  : resudamante L3(a.c.)  : residamante L3(p.c.)Lr2M2 B3Ba(p.c.)CsH2H3Ph2T7 Ld6To Bo2Cs3Mt4 CvLu2 Ca2, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472  : resi damante V3 Rd(a.c.)  : residamente A2  : resydamanthe Ld3  : residante Ls B14  : residoniante Mt  : residomante V5  : rhesidoante Es5  : rasi domante Lr3  : rasidomanta Ds  : rasidamante B8  : resiclamante Ba(a.c.)  : rhesitamante Mt5  : resi damanta Mc  : residamanta Ps  : resi donite P41  : peli damante A42  : persidamanthe P8  : phiridamante L4  : phiridimanta Lr4  : thersidamante Lr7  : chersidamente(uid.) Ds2  : deiamante P3  : fedamente So  : perydamanthe Es3  : perydamante As  : heresidamante Es4  : crescidamante Es6 • Thoona] thodana L3  : thodona H3Lr3Ph2V5(uid., a.c.) Ld6 F2  : todona Es6  : tedona Ds  : dodona CsT7 Rd(a.c. uid.)  : thoanta Lr2N Ld3Mt Bo3(a.c.)Lu2  : toana Gf LsV9 Rd2(p.c.) B14  : thoana Lu(a.c.) AbBe2GgL4P4V7 GoLr8Mt2P5 To2 Bo3(p.c.)  : toona P2 B42(i.l.)PrTuV4 P10So  : tohona Lr6  : thoamas A2  : toontha A3  : thoanque A42  : thoanna Mo3  : thoama To  : thoena B Es5  : thiona DeFe  : tiona Mt4  : theona A32(mg. u.l.)Dr P8 Es2(p.c.) Ca2  : thona Es2(a.c.)  : thorona Ld2(p.c.; thoona a.c.)  : thoramque B5  : thorena Mc  : throona Es4  : troana BaO4  : herohona O3  : toanta B4H2 Ft  : teanta B8(thoonta perperam leg. Burm. 1727, Jahn 1832)  : tohonta V16  : thoutuna(uid.) C(a.c.)  : thamoque V6  : chyrona Ds2  : coronem P41 • • 260 et] e CvEs5Ps • Charopem] charope M Es3(p.c.) Lr27  : charopê V3 N2P4 DsDs2To Bo3 Ld13  : caropem B4(p.c.)B5Tu B8 FtMt4 P46  : caropê A3HdLd3V6V7 Mt2P5So  : charopen V2 BaBe2GH3MoPh2V5V9 P8V162(p.c.) Bo2Cs32(h suprascr.)Es3(a.c.)RdTo2 AsCvPsVd11, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Heinsius 1659, Walch. 1731, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter : caropen L3Lr2LuP2 A4B2B3CDrEFH2LdLd2Lr4Lr61828, Loers 1843, Weise 1845   LsOO3O4P3PrT7V4V8 GoLd6 Cs3Es2Mt5 B14Es4Es5Es6F2Lu2 P47  : caraphê Gf  : chara­ pen Lr7  : carapem Ca2  : carapan P41  : charofen A2  : carophen AbFe  : scarapen B  : coropem B4(a.c.)  : carephon Lr3  : carepon P28  : carepê Mc  : ciropen Lr5  : cyropen Vd  : cerepen B12  : ceropen Mt3  : claropê Cs  : daropen V16(a.c.)  : doropen Bo  : thurepen Lr8  : triopem Lr22  : tryopen V30, Aler. 1471 • fatisque] factisque Lr2(a.c.)V3(a.c.) Lr7T7V7 Li3So2(p.c.; fatisque So) B12Ft AsLr22V30, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472  : factis A2  : fatis B5CsL4LsV6V9 B14  : fasque To(corr. To2) • immitibus  … actum] suis immitibus ammon Li3 • immitibus] in mitibus V4V6V9 So P28  : immittibus Gf ELd3O3 B8GoP5P8 Mt4  : înititibus B5(a.c.)  : inmictibus Mt  : minantibus Gg  : inmibus Vd(a.c.)  : mittibus Ld6  : imitantibus B12(a.c.)  : iniquis Es3  : inuitibus B14  : quid F a.c. n.l. • Ennomon actum] eunomonâtû O4 • E(n)nomon] eunomon P2 A4B2Ld V16 CvEs5Ps, Aldina 1502, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596  : ennenon S2  : eunomon uel ennomon Lr5  : onnomon T  : ennemon Gf  : enemon B3(p.c.)Be2V7 AsLr22V30, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472  : agnom’e A2  : ennoñ Ab  : homonon B  : enenemon B3(a.c.)  : âmonô B4  : ennoman B5(a.c.)  : ennoron Ba  : ernouon Pr  : eunemon Cs  : eunomin G  : ennomû Hd  : ennenoman L4  : enoman P46  : emonon DrLr3O Ds2P10  : emenon Mo3 P41  : enomen O3 Mt4  : emion V6  : certonon V9  : emomon So Bo  : eumenon Es2  : emonion Ft  : enconon P47  : euemon Ls B14  : euomon Vd  : amomon GgMt  : amemon P8 • actum] aotum(uid.) M2  : actum(p.c.; actum a.c. uid.) est B5  : auctum F2Z • 261 quique] Quæque GfM Lr27  : quinque E(quique i.l. u.l. E2)O BoTo2  : Q Es3  : quidque To B12(a.c.)  : orique Es3 • minus] manus M EO(a.c.) Ft(a.c.) Lr27  : minis Gg(a.c.)  : magis P5  : missus Mc • celebres] cebres P46(a.c.) • nostra] nostr(a)e Lr2Lu(uid.)M2(a.c.)N(p.c., quid a.c. n.l.; nostra i.l. u.l. N2)V2 B2(uid., a.c.)B4Gg(a.c.)Lr3O3T7(a.c.) P5 FtMc, Bersm. 1596  : nostram(per comp.) V3(a.c.) A2Hd  : nostraque F2 • sub] cum(per comp.) Fe • urbis] urbes G(a.c. a m.p.)L4Mt Cv(a.c.) • 262 procubuere] probuere L3(a.c.)  : procubere V5  : succubuere V8 • sunt … mihi] et sunt mihi Ld2O3 Bs3  : sunt mihi Cs  : mihi sunt et V9 P5  : sunt o mihi B4 Bs6  : sunt etiam mihi Mt • uulnera] munera Dr(uoln. suprascr. Dr2) • ciues] qiues Mt(a.c.)  : testes Fe(ciues i.l.)V9 B7, “unus Medic.” test. Heinsius 1659, qui sunt en mihi uulnera testes dub. prop. • 263–264 inu. ord. V5(a.c.) • 263 ipso] I Lr7  : ipsa F2 • pulc(h)ra] pulcha T  : luca pulcra B5(a.c.)  : pulchro Mt  : pulcro Tu  : loca Baumg.-Crus. 1834(uitio preli; recte 1824) • nec  … uerbis] uerbis nec credite (necredite Ld) uanis A4LdO3 • nec] non Gf(per comp.) Vd  : ne LdLs



Appendix critica

447

B14 • uanis … uerbis] uerbis … uanis A4H2LdO3P3  : nauis … uerbis Ab • credite] credere Tu  : cōdite Puteol. 1471 • 264 aspicite] conspicite A2  : aspice A4(a.c.)Hd(corr. Hd2) P38V30, Calph. 1474  : aspite Fe(a.c.)Lr4(a.c.) P47 • en] heu V5(a.c.)  : enq3 V9(a.c.)  : ea Ld6  : hen Mt4  : h’ Ca2 • uestemque] uesteque Gf  : uestenque Hd • manu diduxit] deduxitque manu Ft • deduxit Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Ciof. 1575, Jahn 1832, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, H-K-E 1898, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Segura 1983, Huyck 1991, R. de Verger 2005, Hardie 2015, Holzberg 2017  : diduxit Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Weise 1845, Merkel 1850, Koch 1866, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, Lejay 1894, Edwards 1905, Anderson 1982, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, Fink 2007 • haec sunt] inu. ord. Lr3  : hee sunt Fe(haec i.l. u.l. a m.p.) • post hunc u. ipso pulcra loco iter. P2 • 265–266 hos uu. una linea inter 264 et 267 add. in V2 m.p. • 265 pectora … exercita] uestris semper ait exercita pectora Ld2 • pectora] uulnera Ds • semper ait] inu. ord. Tr  : nuper ait Ld3 • uestris] uestri(per comp.) Lr7  : miser Mt : nostris B4MoT7 Ld6Lr8(a.c.) McRd • exercita] exercite L3(a.c. uid.) : excita Be2(a.c.) : exterrita Mt  : exercitata Cv(a.c.) • rebus] uestris(per comp.) Lr2(ex itin. corr.)  : curis A2B4(rebus mg. B42), “duo alii” test. Burm. 1727 • 266 at] et Lr8(at i.l. u.l. Lr82) P47 • impendit] in pendit A4V6  : expendit B72(mg.), “unus Heinsii” test. Burm. 1727  : impendet Bo2(a.c.) • per] qui(per comp.) Lr7 • tot] om. Ds(a.c.) • t(h)elamonius] telamonis T To(per comp. –oîs)  : thelamus L4(a.c.)  : thelamonil T7(a.c.)  : talamonius V6  : thelemonius V7 • annos] aiax A2 P47  : andos Lr7 • 267 sanguinis in] anguinis ut Lr7 • socios] socio B5(a.c.) • et … corpus] quid F a.c. n.l. • et] sed Lr4 • sine … corpus] sine uulnere pectus B3  : sine corpore uulnus B5(mg. corr. B52)  : sine sanguine corpus Ds2 • uulnere] uulnero E • 268 quid] quod T Tu  : qui V30, Aler. 1471 • hoc] hec H3(a.c.)O B8 FtMt4  : hic H3(p.c.) Es5  : his N2 • refert] referit(uid.) T  : referam Cs  : refere Lr5  : refer& Es5  : prodest B4DrPr Bs2Bs3Mt3 Ca2  : distat Mo3 • si] sed(per comp.) B  : quod(per comp.) Dr(i.l. corr.)  : quid Vd • pro classe] proclamasse N(a.c.)  : classe V4(a.c.) : de classe (cf. 229) Mt3, “Cantabr.” test. Burm. 1727 • pelasga] palasga(pæ- e.  g. Dr) L3(p.c.)  : palasgi L3(a.c. uid.)  : pelasgi Ba, “Argent. et quatuor Moreti” test. Burm. 1727 • 269 refert] fert Gf(a.c. a m.p.) • contra] intra B5 • contra … Iouemque] contra iouemque(iouem O a.c.) troesque(-asque Ld3O3) Ld3OO3  : si se pro classe pelasga P3 • Troasque] trohasque M(cf. ad 274) V8  : troiasque T A3BB3B5Be2DrFFeL4(a.c.)V5V6 Ds Es2Mc Ca2(a.c.)  : troiamque EG2(p.c.)Ld2(troasque i.l. u.l. Ld22) : troiesque CLs : troiemque Mt : troesque B4LdO Ld6 B14 : troas Tu • iouemque] ioas inchoau. L3(ex itin. corr.)  : diemque Ld2(iouemque i.l. u.l. Ld22)  : ioiemque Ls(a.c.) • • 270–374 om. Mc • 270–271 inu. ord. Pr • 270 confiteorque] consiteorque V2 Ld2  : confiteor Lr6O3 To • tulit] tuli Lr8(tulit i.l. u.l. Lr82) • neque enim] nec enim Gf B4Lr5O4V9Vd GoLd6Mo3P5So Es5P41  : neque HdLdO3Ph2(a.c.) Lr8 Mt4 P46(a.c.)  : sua nec P3  : non enim Lr22V30, Aler. 1471  : nunquam P46(num-)O19Es7 • ma post enim inchoau. Be2(ex itin. corr.) • benefacta] bene facta GfLuM2P2 B3B5GgL4Ld(a.c.)Lr3O4V4V9 Lr8 AsBo3Lu2, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Accurs. 1475, Calph. 1480, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Burm. 1727, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Weise 1845, Koch 1866, Riese 1872, Polle 1888, van Proosdij 1951  : benefacti Lr5  : bene befacta Mt4(a.c.) • maligne] benigne Ls B14 • 271 detrectare] detractare AGfL3Lr2LuMM2NS2V2 A2A3A4(detrec- A42)AbBB3B4B5Be2CDrEFeG(a.c.)Gg(a.c.)HdLdLd2Ld3Lr5Lr6Lr7MoO3O4(p.c.)Ph2PrV5V6V7V8V9Vd B8Ds(a.c.)Ld6Li3Lr8Mo3P5P8P10SoTo B12BoBo2Cs3Es3Mt4Mt5P28RdTo2 AsB14Bo3Es4Es6F2Go2Lr27Lu2P38P41PsVd11Z P46Ca2O19P47Ld13, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Merkel 1850, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, Lejay 1894, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007, Holz-

448

Appendix critica

berg 2017  : dextare uel dexterre Mt(per comp.)  : d tractare O4(a.c.)  : detræctare Ds  : detretare P46  : contrectare(per comp.) V4  : detrahere Ft • meum est] meum eum C(a.c.)  : uolo V6 • sed Ω, edd.  : modo L3Lr2M2P2S2T EFFeGLd2Ld3Lr3Lr7MtPh2TuV8 B8(i.l. u.l. a m.p.)Bs2DsP10 FtRd Bo3Bs7(i.l.)Es4Es6F2Go2Lr22Lu2P38V30Z P46Ca2P47Ld13, Plan., Aler. 1471, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Bothe 18182, Loers 1843, Riese 1889(sed 1872), fort. recte  : si B5Pr • ne] nec Lr2 BB32(mg.)C(a.c.)H3MtV6V7 B8(ne i.l. u.l. a m.p.)Bs2Bs4Li3Mo3Mt3SoV16 Bo Bo3Lr22Lu2V30Z, Aler. 1471, Heinsius 1659(ne 1652), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Bach 1836, Weise 1845, Koch 1866, Huyck 1991  : enim(per comp.) B4  : me Cs  : non Mt4  : om. B3(a.c.) • solus] solis Mt  : silas P10(solus mg. u.l. P102)  : sonus V30, Aler. 1471 • 272 occupet] occupat C(sed e suprascr.)Ph2V9(a.c.) B8(i.l. u.l. a m.p.)Ds(a.c.) Bo3(a.c.)PsZ  : occupæt Ds  : occipet A4(a.c.)  : decarpet Lr7 • atque AGfL3N(i.l. u.l. a m.p.)V2V3 A2(p.c.)A3A4AbBB3BaBe2CCsFeGgH2H3LdLd3Lr3Lr5Lr62(i.l. u.l.)MtP3P4Ph2PrV4V5V7V8Vd B8Ds2(a.c.)Ld6Lr8Mo3Mt2P5To B12Bo2Cs3Es2Es3(p.c.)FtMt4Mt5P28To2 AsEs3Es4Es5P38P41 Ld13, Plan., Puteol. 1471, Heinsius 1659, edd.  : aatque O4  : aut Lr2LuMM2NP2S2T A2(a.c.)B2B4B5DrEFGL4Ld2(i.l. u.l.)Ld2Lr4Lr7MoN2OO4TrTuV6 B8(i.l. u.l. a m.p.)DsDs22(p.c.)GoP10SoV16 BoRdVt Bo3CvEs6F2Lr22Lr27Lu2PsV30Vd11Z P46Ca2P47, Aler. 1471, Heinsius 1652, Anderson 1982, improb. Bersm. 1596  : acta HdLr6LsV9(facta i.l. V92) P8 B14(facta i.l. B142), “duo alii” test. Burm. 1727  : atque aut Mt3  : ast O3, dub. Slater 1927  : at Es3(a.c.) • aliquem] atque A2  : liquem Be2(a.c.)Mt • uobis … honorem] a uobis ferat unus(ipse i.l. S22) honorem S2 Dr  : uobis ferat unus honorem G  : nobis(uobis p.c. B42) quoque reddet onorem B4  : uobis reddat honorem Es2(a.c.)  : uobisque reddat honorem P38, Calph. 1474  : nobisque reddat honorem Puteol. 1471 • uobis] nobis Gf AbHdLr7LsMtO4PrV9Vd GoLd6Mo3Mt2P5P8P10 Bo2Cs3(a.c.)Mt5 B14Es5Ps Ld13, “in uno … Vatic. et uno meo” test. Ciof. 1575, Venet. 1472, Aldina 1502, Loers 1843 • red(d)at] reddit A4(a.c.)V9 Z  : reddet Bo  : cedat test. Heinsius 1659, Bentley • 273 re(p)pulit] rettulit M(reduxit i.l. M2) Hd(a.c.) Lr22Lr27(retu-)V30, “alii duo” test. Heinsius 1659, Aler. 1471  : rettudit dub. Heinsius 1659(in notis) • Actorides] astorides L3 CsLr3V5 To P41  : aetorides N2(p.c.)  : aucthorides(-ydes E) A3E  : auctorides Be2Ld2Ld3LsOO3(a.c.)O4TuV7 Es2(a.c.)GoP10Vt B14Bo3CvPs P46  : autorides Mt3  : actriorides Mt4(a.c.)  : attorides Lr7 Mt5 Es6Lr27  : hactorides Ds2  : hectoridê Ld6  : acorides Bo2  : artorides As • sub  … tutus] tutus sub imagine(y- Lr7) A2Lr7 • tutus] totus Ld(a.c.)Mt Z(a.c.)  : tectus Bs3(tutus i.l. u.l. a m.p.), dub. Bentley • Achillis] achille Es5 • 274 Troas] Trohas M(cf. ad 269)  : troias B5(a.c.)Be2L4V6V7  : troes Fe • ab] om. B3(a.c.)Lr3Mt  : ad Cs3(corr. Cs32)Ft • arsuris] assiriis MN(a.c.) Lr27  : asiriis O3(a.c.)  : aursuriis Mt  : arsurus V3(a.c.) • defensore] deffensore A2 Ld3  : defemtiore(uid.) V5(a.c.) • 275 ausum … Hectoreis] hectoreis(-thoreis V16) ausum DrLr4 V16  : hectoreis ausum etiam Lr2 Ft Lu2 • ausum] hausum M Lr27  : au Ld2(a.c.)  : aut Vt • etiam] et iam BoTo2  : etiam in O3 Mt42(p.c.)  : et(per comp.) V5V6 P28 P47  : est P10(a.c.)  : in Mt4  : om. P10(p.c.) • Hectoreis] hectoriis V30, Aler. 1471  : hectores Accurs. 1475  : mitoreis P8(a.c.) • solum] se Ft • concurrere] concurre M(a.c.) Lr3  : concurere Hd Bo2  : concondere Lr4  : îcurrere V8  : cûcurre Vd  : cûcurere Bo3  : occurrere Lr27  : contendere “tres” test. Burm. 1727 • 276 se pupat oblisque regessit ducisque meusque B5(mg. corr. B52) • post regisque def. Ls • putat] putet A4(putat i.l. u.l. A42) B12  : pupat B5 • oblitus regisque] oblitus regis Cs(p.c.)V6 Bo2  : oblitusque mei Cs(a.c.)  : oblitusque regis Vd11 • ducumque meique] meique ducisque GfN*V2 A4B52(mg.)BaBe2H3HdLdLr5O3O4P4V7Vd Mo3Mt2P5 To2 B14, Venet. 1472 : meique ducesque B • meique] mique Ld6  : meis P8 • 277 nonus] nouus A4BB4CLs(uid.) Mo3 To2 CvEs4Es5 P46, Lugd. 1565(nonus 1546)  : notus Go(p.c.; nonus a.c.)  : nomus P41 • in] et De • officio] offîcio Ld6 • et] om. Gf BaV6V7V9 P8 Ft P41Z Ld13  : est CLd3(per comp.)  : est et Lr5 Mo3P5 contra metrum • sortis] furtis(uid.) T  : fortis DrLr7 • 278 hunc u. om. Pr • sed] si V2(suprascr. queris uid.) • uestr(a)e] nostrae(per comp.) AbB3(uid.)HdV5 Mo3P8P10 BoEs2FtMt4 • fortissime] o fortissime Mt3  : seuissime P24 • 279 quis] quid “fragm. Moreti” test. Burm. 1727 • abit] habit L3(a.c.)Lr2 V6V7 Lr8 Lu2  : ait



Appendix critica

449

V2(a.c.) Ds2(a.c. a m.p.)So(a.c. a m.p.)  : abijt Es2Ft  : om. Ld2(i.l. Ld22) To(a.c.)  : euanid. in M2 • uiolatus] uiolentus CLr4  : uilatus Tu(a.c.)  : tardatus V6 • nullo] in illo Rd • • 280 quanto] quato V3(p.c.; quid a.c. n.l.)  : quantum A2B3DrO3Tu DsP5 B12 Es6F2PsZ P46, “Argent. et Thysii” test. Burm. 1727  : quanta Ld(a.c.)  : quando B82(i.l. u.l.)  : quanti Bs4 • cogor] cocgor M2  : cogo Lr7 • meminisse] memisse A3(a.c.)  : menisse P47(a.c.) • dolore] dolorem B3Dr P5 B12 F2PsZ, “Argent. et Thysii” test. Burm. 1727  : doloris Bs4 Es6  : deest in Ls • 281 temporis] temperit(per comp.) A3  : temporius B5  : tempore Hd(a.c.)Vd(a.c. a m.p.) • quo Graium] graium quo Ab • Graium] grauium B5(a.c. uid.) P46  : gramen Vd(a.c.) P28  : graiorum P10 Mt42  : cuctam Mt4(a.c.)  : guctam Mt4(p.c.)  : grais Lr22PsV30  : Graiis “unus Medic.” test. Burm. 1727, Aler. 1471 • murus] muris T : munus BGg(a.c.) Ld13; cf. Hom. 191 • Achilles] achillis AbLr3(a.c.) Z  : achillem O3 • 282 post lacrime def. Ls • procubuit] procubit Li3 • nec] ne Mt5 • me] ne Vt • 283 tardarunt] taradarunt A3(a.c.)  : tardauerunt B5 : tardarant ELd2Vd Ft P41 : tardabant V16 Bo  : tardauit Bo2Cs3  : tardarent Ca2(a.c.) • quin] quim Vd • humo] ego huc L4  : umo Tu  : ego Mt3  : humoue Mt4(a.c.)  : om. Ld6 • sublime referrem] sublimere ferrem N*(a.c.)  : sublime leuarem(eleuarem supra referrem scr. e.  g. L42) Hd P5(a.c.) : sublime refertam Mt  : sublime referem Ph2V7  : sublime referre Pr  : sublime refferrem Es2  : quid Mt4 a.c. n.l. • sublime] sulime B12(a.c.) • 284–285 inu. ord. V8 • 284 om. M2(mg. suppl. M22) • His1] hiis Gf A4B2CsFeGgLd2Lr6Lr7Vd B8Ds2Mo3P5 FtMt4 F2P41  : hunc A2(a.c.)  : in his Lr3  : om. Cv(a.c.)  : Nis Calph. 1480 • umeris1] habueris Es3 • (h)umeris … (h)umeris] om. Lu(i.l. suppl. Lu2) • his2] hiis Cs Gf A4AbB2B4DrGg(p.c.; his a.c.)Lr6Lr7 B8Ds2Li3Mo3P5 FtMt4 P41  : hunc A2(a.c.)  : is V5 • inquam] inquit L3(per comp.) Ba(p.c.)  : unquam Hd  : inquis L42(p.c.)  : in qua Li3  : numquid P10  : imquam Bo3 • ego] om. P46(a.c.) • Achillis] achilles B4(a.c.) • 285 arma] om. Lu(i.l. suppl. Lu2) • qu(a)e] qui Mt  : quem Es6 • nunc] om. Lr3 • quoque] quo P2  : ego Li3  : om. Bo(i.l. Bo3) • ferre] fere Bo2(a.c. a m.p.) • laboro] labooro B3  : recuso Es6  : laborem P41 • 286 sunt] sed Mt  : de Gf n.l. • mihi] om. Gg(a.c.) • qu(a)e] qui B5 • talia pondera] inu. ord. V6  : talia pondere T P47  : tali pondere Mt2  : tanta pondera P41 • uires] uiros Cs(a.c.)  : mores(uid.) B4(mg. corr. B42) • 287 est] estque Ph22(est Ph2) • animus] animis O4(a.c.) • certe uestros] inu. ord. Pr Ds B12 Lr22V30, “Rhen.”(non sic Tu) test. Jahn 1832, Aler. 1471, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836  : certe nostros Gf B4(a.c.)DrLr6O4(uid., a.c.) Ds2Ld6 BoEs2 Ca2(a.c.) • sensurus] sesurus Pr  : sensuros Ds(a.c.)  : censurus Et Z(a.c.) • honores] onores Tu • post hunc u. argumentum secundae fabulae inser. Bersm. 1596 • 288 scilicet] silicet Lr2 B3O Lr8 Bo3Lu2, Calph. 1480  : sillicet Es2 B14 • idcirco] incirco CsMo(a.c.) Cs2  : iccirco AL3 DrLr5 Ld6 Es2P28 P38 Ld13  : id circo T N2V5V6 To Cs3Rd Bo3Es5F2  : id circho Mt4  : icirco A4(a.c.)Ld2  : extincto Bs4  : quid Ls a.c. n.l.(]circo) • pro nato] prognato Lr6, Baumg.-Crus. 1834 • caerula] cenula Ld6  : cerulea Rd • 289 suo fuit] fuit Gf(corr. Gf2)  : fuit sic P41  : fuit suo EGg(a.c.)Ld2Lr3N2V5 Li3 Es3(a.c.)  : suo est Lr5(ex itin. corr.) • ut] et(per comp.) Dr  : ubi Mt • • 290 artis] arte Gf  : antis(uid.) Mt4(a.c.) • opus] dopus Vd11(a.c.) • opus tant(a)e] op tante Gf  : opus ante Li3  : opu stante Calph. 1480 • rudis] itidis Es2  : post pectore scr. O4(ex itin. corr.)  : om. Be2(mg. Be22) • sine] sum B5 • pectore] pondere B3(corr. B32) Ca2(corr. Ca22) • miles] nubes Ab(corr. Ab2)  : moles P41 • 291 indueret] induerit Tu Es6F2Z, “Argent.” test. Burm. 1727 : induerat Mo3(a.c. a m.p.)  : induret Mt P28 • neque … clipei] clipei nec enim B4 • neque enim] nec enim A2B4Ld3Lr5Mt(uid.)PrV9Vd GoMo3P5So Es5  : nec quae Hd  : neque L4(a.c.)Ph2(a.c.) • clipei] diue V2(suprascr. artis)  : om. Lr3(a.c.)P3(a.c. a m.p.)  : clepei Lr4(a.c.)V9 • c(a)elamina] celtanima B  : uelamina O3  : celemina Ld3(a.c.) • nouit] norit LuM2(p.c.)P2S2T B2De(a.c.)DrFGLr7N2Tu DsLi3P10So Es3(uid., p.c.)Vt Es4Es6F2Vd11 Ca2, Naug. 1516, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Weise 1845, Merkel 1850, Koch

450

Appendix critica

1866, Polle 1888, Keene 1898  : nouum V2(per comp.) Lr5  : norat BoEs3(a.c.)  : mouit P8 • 292 O(c)ceanum] occasum A  : occeanumque P41 • et terras] terras A3  : et terram O4  : et t’rias So  : terram P41 • cumque] cum Ph2  : et cum Mt3So • alto] atro Es5 • sidera c(a)elo] inu. ord. De  : sidera celi V8  : î sidera celo RdTo2 • 293–294 inu. ord. Pr • 293 Pleïadasque Hyadasque] pleidasque yasque yadas Vd • Pleïadasque] phiadasque Ab  : pleidasque V9  : pladas T(a.c.)  : piadas T(p.c.)  : pleyedas B  : peliadas Gg  : pleiadas et B12 • hyadasque] hiadasque N*(p.c.; hya.c.)P2S2TV2 A2A42(a suprascr.)B2B3Ld3(p.c.)P4V9 Ld6Mt2 Mt5To2 Bo3CvEs4Es5Es6Lr22PsVd11  : yadasque Gf Be2CsDrH3HdLsN2Ph2V7V8 Mo3To Mt4 B14(p.c.)Go2P41  : iadasque FLr5O4 Go FtP28Rd As  : hiadesque A4CMo  : hyadesque P38 Ld13  : hidasque Lr8  : idasque B8  : ydasque B14(a.c.)  : aidasque A3  : hyasque B  : ideasque B4(mg. corr.)  : hidriadasque Lu  : hyadas Ld2Lr4V4V6 P10 BoEs32(p.c.)Vt  : hiadas B5FeH2LdP3 B12 Es3 P46P47  : yadas BaL4 Li3V16 Es3  : iadas O3  : hiades Mt3  : hapdes Mt(uid.) • immunemque] îmunem Lu(a.c. a m.p.) A3 B8Mt2  : iuuenemque B  : inhumemque B5  : immunenq3 Hd  : in munemque B4V6  : îmunenêq3 Lr7  : innumêq3 V9  : îmunere Rd  : īmunē & Puteol. 1471 • aequoris] om. Pr • Arcton] trionem V2(ari- i.l. tempt. V23; arcton mg. scr. alia manus)  : arton N*(a.c.)P2(a.c.) BCCsV6 AsB14Es6 P47  : archton Lr2 Lr6 Lu2  : arthon A4AbDrHdLd3O3O4Vd Mo3P5So Cs32(n suprascr.)Es3Mt5 Es5  : acton L4(a.c.) Vd11  : archon Lr5  : althom B8  : arcthon Ld6 Bo2 P41  : arthos Cs3 • 294 diuersasque urbes] diuersosque orbes prob. Capof. 1659, Vossius, edd. Bothe 18182, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Riese 1889, Edwards 1905, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, dub. Bach 1836(in notis), Korn 1880(in notis), Zingerle 1884(in notis), von Albrecht 1994(in notis), Hardie 2015(in notis), def. Gnesotto, Polster, improb. Burm. 1727 • nitidumque Orionis] et nitidum orionis A4  : nitidum qu(a)e originis Ba(a.c.)  : nitidumq3 orionis Ba(p.c.)  : nudumque orionis Cs  : nitidum originis Ld  : nitidumque orihonis V5  : strictumque(per comp.) orionis V6  : nitidumque orioninis Vd  : uiridemque orionis Mt4  : nitidum quoque(per comp.) orionis P41 • 295 capiat] inpiat Ds2(capiat i.l. u.l. Ds22) • quae] quem(per comp.) Es2(a.c.) • non] nunc Mt  : nos(uid.) Pr • intellegit] intelligit GfLr2LuN*P2S2V2V3 A2A3A4AbBB2B3B4B5BaBe2CCsEFFeGGgH2H3HdL4LdLd2Ld3Lr3Lr4Lr5Lr6Lr7LsMoMtN2OO3O4(p.c.)P4Ph2PrTuV4V5V6V7V8V9Vd Ds2Ld6Lr8: inteligit Mt2SoV16 Es3FtMt5P28 AsB14Bo3CvEs4Es5Es6Lr22Lu2P38V30Vd11 Ld13   Mt4  : intelligat DrO4(a.c.) P5 B12 F2P41, “quatuor” test. Heinsius 1659 • 296–297 inu. ord. Lr8(a.c.) • 296 hunc u. noua pag. iter. So • quid] ad Mt  : qui Pr P46 • duri] om. Gf(a.c. a m.p.)  : dura O3  : du P10(a.c.)  : diri Vd11 • munera] munia P2 GLr6 DGo2(mg. u.l.)Ld6(a.c.), “alii quinque” test. Heinsius 1659, dub. Burm. 1727  : munea T(a.c.) : uulnera A2 B12 : nunera Ab : numina Ld(officia i.l. Ld2)  : tempora Mo Mt4 • 297 incepto] acepto Cs(incepto i.l. u.l. a m.p.)  : & cepto P41, “Leidensis” test. Burm. 1727  : intêpto P47  : quid Mt4 a.c. n.l. • serum] secum(per comp.) A3  : celum Mt : seruum O4(a.c.)  : fuerit(per comp. f’uit) Ds  : et serum Ft • accessisse] accesse M2(a.c.)  : accessi Cs  : adcessisse A2  : accessise HdLs(a.c.)  : acessisse Mo : accessesse P10(a.c.)  : accesisse Ft, Venet. 1472 : accessixe Lr7  : incessisse Dr(a.c.) Mt3  : accepisse Pr F2Z(a.c.) : accedisse Ca2(a.c.)  : quid N2 a.c. n.l. • labori] dolori L4(labori mg. u.l. L42)  : labore To2  : laborem Ca2(a.c.) • post labori interrog. sign. pos. GfLuM2N*P2S2T • 298 hunc u. om. Lr8(mg. suppl. Lr82) P46(i.l. suppl. P462) • nec] non(per comp.) AL3  : hec Mo(mg. u.l. a m.p.; nec in textu) • se] om. Mo(a.c.) • magnanimo] magnanimio T • maledicere sentit] inu. ord. N2 • maledicere] mala dicere Mo : maledissem Mt : maledidire Tu • sentit] sensit FeLsTuV9 B14Cv, Venet. 1472  : sempsit Vd  : temptat P41  : om. H3(i.l. suppl. H32) • achilli] achille S2(a.c.)  : om. Ld6 • 299 si simulasse] dissimulasse Bo2 CvPs • si] sed(per comp.) A2  : set A4(a.c.)  : et F2  : om. To Es2(a.c.) • simulasse] simulare B2Ld2O3 Mt3 B12, “quatuor” test. Burm. 1727 : simulate V4  : insimulasse Vt • simulauimus] si millauimus B5(a.c.)  : si milauimus B5(p.c.)  : simul tempt. Mt3(sed inde primam lect. restit.) • • 300 si] set A4(a.c.) • mora] mea Ld3(a.c.) • pro culpa] iter. Mo3 • culpa] cupa T(a.c.) • est] om. Ld6So • sum] eram Vollmer  : quid P10 a.c. n.l. • maturior] maturio B • 301 detinuit] detimuut B5  : detimuit OV6(de timuit) Lr8  : detenuit TuVd B12 • pater(per comp.)



Appendix critica

451

post coniunx scr. B4(ex itin. corr.) • Achillem] achilles Dr(a.c.) • 302 om. Bo2(mg. suppl. Bo22) • primaque] primaqu(a)e P47 • sunt] sint O  : sinit Es2  : quid Rd a.c. n.l. • illis data] inu. ord. O3 • data tempora] data tempera B5  : tempora datur Ld6 • cetera] postera P2(cetera mg. u.l.)  : proxima V8 • uobis] nobis GfL3LuN*(uobis i.l. N2)V2V3(uobis i.l. u.l. V32) A2A3BB2(uobis u.l.)B4(p.c.)B5BaBe2Cs(uid.)DeDrFGg(uobis i.l. u.l. a m.p.)H2HdLdLd22(i.l. u.l.)Ld3Lr4Lr6Lr7LsN2OO3P3P4Ph2TrV4V5V6V7V8Vd B8(p.c.)GoLd6Mt2Mt3P5P8P10V16 B12BoEs2Es3FtMt4P28 AsB14CvEs4F2Lr22PsV30Z Ca2P47, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472  : utrum in E n.l. • post u. 302 quasi uersum hoc hab. To: et quia ambo crimen simulauimus ego sum maturior illo • 303 haud] haut AGfLr2M2(p.c.)N*S2T A2A4AbBB2B3B4Be2CCsDrEGgH2HdLdLd2Ld3Lr6Lr7LsMtO(a.c.)O3O4Ph2PrTuV4V5(a.c.)V6V7V8V9Vd B8Ds2Ld6Lr8(a.c.)Mo3Mt2P5P10So FtMt4(a.c.) Bo3 P46Ca2P47, Goold 1984  : aud Mo(a.c.)N2(a.c.)  : aut Li3 Rd  : non Bs3(i.l. u.l.)  : nec P41 • timeo] timeam P2 A3BaBe2H2Lr5Lr7MtPr Bs4 Es2Li3 Bo3Es4Lr22V30Vd11, Plan., Aler. 1471, Naug. 1516, Bothe 18182, Loers 1843  : crimen V7  : om. P47 • si iam] suam A Ba(a.c.)O3O4P4V5 FtMt4(a.c.)Mt5(a.c.) Lu2  : sed si B5  : si quod De  : sed iam P3(corr. P32)  : suum P10(a.c.)  : si Vt F2  : iâsi V6 • nequeam defendere] defendere nequeo O4  : defendero non quia P41 • nequeam] nequeo A(uid., a.c.) A4(a.c.)AbB4CsDrFeLdLd3Lr3O3O4P3Ph2(a.c.)PrV8V9Vd Bs3Bs4(i.l. u.l.)Ds2GoLr8(a.c.)Mo3Mt2To(a.c.) B12Bo2P28Rd Es5Ps P46Ca2P47, Venet. 1472, Heinsius 1659(“nonnulli”), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Merkel 1850, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, Fink 2007  : nequam M2(a.c.) • crimen] culpam Mo(crimen i.l.)  : crinen MtO4 • 304–305 Vlixis / … Aiacis om. Es5 • 304 cum] con BO4(cô)  : I(uid.) L4(a.c.) • commune] communene C(a.c.)  : cummune TuVd • uiro] uire B5  : uiro. est Ph2  : uirum P28(a.c.) • deprensus] deprehensus T Lr3N2V5V7 P10 BoBo2Cs32(p.c.; recte Cs3)FtMt4Mt5 AsBo3P38 : depressus L4(a.c.) : comprensus(per comp.) Mt2  : deprexus Li3 • post deprensus dist. Lr22, Aler. 1471 • Vlixis] ulixes A C(a.c.)Cs(-is i.l. u.l. a m.p.)H2(a.c.)V5(a.c.)V6(a.c.) Ds(a.c.)Li3Lr8(a.c.)To(a.c.) Mt4(a.c.)Rd(a.c.) Cv(a.c.)Es5(-sses)Go2PsZ(a.c.) P47Ld13  : Vlyssei uel Vlyssi dub. Heinsius 1659(in notis) • 305–306 inu. ord. P28 • 305 hunc u. om. C(mg. suppl. C2)V7(mg. suppl. V72) Ds(mg. suppl. Ds2)P10 Es3(summa pag. ante u. 301 suppl. Es32) PsZ(mg. suppl. Z2) • tamen ille] tamen est B3 Mo3 Z : tantum ille Ph2 Lr22V30, Aler. 1471  : tamen et ille Mt  : tamen To : tamen ille est Vd Ds2 P38 Ca2, Calph. 1474  : tamen est ille Regius 1493 • at] aut O3V72(i.l.) : ad Tu : om. FtMt4 • non Aiacis] minacis Mt  : nom aiacis Ph2 • Aiacis] illius Bs3(mg. u.l.), dub. Heinsius  : uocis Ld6  : alacis Li3  : Aeacis Huyck 1991(uitio preli) • Vlixes] ulixis Fe(a.c.) B8(a.c.) Rd(a.c.)  : uxlixes V5(a.c.) • 306 in me] mine DsP10  : me V30 • stolid(a)e] stande A2  : stolida P41 • conuicia] ɔuîcia Ab  : comercia Lr7  : conuicae Tu • lingu(a)e] lenguę L3(a.c.)  : linge Ls  : ligue Tu(a.c.)  : lingua P41 • 307 admiremur] admiremuu H2(a.c.)  : ammiremur Lr7 DsDs2  : ammirremur P8  : admirentur Calder. 1477(uitio preli) • eum] enim A3FeMtVd • uobis … pudore] quid Rd a.c. n.l. • uobis] nobis GfL3 V6 Ld6 Es3 Es3 • digna pudore] inu. ord. B5  : digna pudoris Ab • 308 obicit] obiicit L3 Es3P28 Es4Es5Lr22P38PsV30 Ld13  : obhicit V5(a.c.)  : obbicit P41 • an] aut F(an i.l. u.l. F2)Ph2(a.c.) • falso] fessoWalch. 1731 • Palameden] pela- Lr2Tu  : pila- M2  : pali- F(p.c.)GL4V9 Ds  : pele- O  : pale- B8  : palle- So  : palame Gg(a.c.)  : palamedon Lr8  : palamiden P41 • turpe est Ω, edd. : turpe FeGGgLr6PrV6V8 Mt4P28Rd Vd11, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Merkel 1850, Polle 1888, H-K-E 1898, Goold 1984, R. de Verger 2005  : turbe Ab(corr. Ab2) : tulpe est F(p.c.) : est F(a.c.) • 309 accusasse] accusase V2(a.c.)  : accussasse Lr2 Ba(a.c.)CDrLd2Ld3Lr4(a.c.)Ph2V4V7Vd(p.c.) P28  : accusare A4(recte i.l. A42)Be2H2(a.c.)HdLdP3P4 Lr8P5 Es2Ft Es6F2Z  : acusasse Ls To  : accussase MoVd(a.c.)  : acussasse P10  : acensasse Ld6 • uobis] nobis Li3 B12 • damnasse decorum] inu. ord. C(a.c.) • dam(p)nasse] dapnasse LuV3 Lr7 Ld6 FtMt4  : donasse O3  : dagnasse V6  : damnare V16  : dannasse P38  : danasse Calph. 1480 • decorum Ω, edd. : decorum est ALr2LuM2 A2AbBB4CsDeDrELd2Ld3Lr3LsN2V4V7V9(p.c.)Vd B8GoLr8Mt2Mt3P5P8To B12Es3Vt B14CvEs3Go2Lu2P41Ps P46Ca2Ld13, Venet. 1472, Accurs.

452

Appendix critica

1475, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Merkel 1850, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, H-K-E 1898, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, van Proosdij 1951, H-K-E-A 1966, Goold 1984, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007  : decor est B3  : decori L4  : deorum est V9(a.c.)  : deorum Ds2(a.c. a m.p.) • • 310 obicit an falso pa ante hunc u. mg. scr. V33 • neque] nec P41 • Naupliades] nauphides Lr2 Lu2  : nauphiades Ab(p.c.) Mt2  : auphiades Ab(a.c.)  : daupliadas B5  : nupliades G(a.c.)  : napliades Gg(a.c.)  : naupliadas Mo(a.c.)  : depliades V6  : mâphiades Vd(a.c.)  : nauplides Es3(a.c.)  : nanpliades B8  : nampliades B14 • facinus] crimen N2(i.l. u.l.)  : facimus P47 • defendere] deffendere A2BLd2Lr5 P5  : deffandere Be2 • tantum] crimen B5  : notum To, “duo libri” test. Burm. 1727 • 311–318 ob homoeoteleuton om. P38 • 311 tamque] tumque Lr7  : iamque Mo(tamque mg. u.l. Mo2)O4P3V6  : nanque Bo  : tam Lu2  : terque P41 • patens] parcê A2  : parens Tu Li3P10  : om. Mt5 • ualuit] patuit C  : uoluit Li3  : ualui V30 • nec] non C • uos] om. B4(i.l. suppl. m.p.) • audistis] austis Mo(a.c.)  : auditis Mt5 • 312 uidistis] uidisti Tu B8 • obiecta patebant] inu. ord. N2(a.c.) • obiecta] abiecta T(a.c.)  : obiectata(per comp.) Dr  : obecta Lr5(a.c.)  : abiecto Ld6  : obita P10(a.c.) • patebant] petebant A2Dr(a.c.) Z(a.c.)  : patebunt Vd  : patebat Ds P41  : pendebant P10(mg. corr. P103) • 313 nec] ne Bo2(corr. Bo22)  : neque Rd • P(o)eantiaden] peantiden N*(a.c.) Cs(-ê)Tu  : peanciden(-ê Mo  : -em O3 Rd) Lr2 MoO3 Rd Lu2  : poeanciadam L4  : peâchiadem O4  : peanciadem P10  : petraciadê Ld6  : peantadê Es2(a.c.) • quod] que A(per comp.) Mt • habet] abet Tu  : iter. Es3 • Vulcania] uultania P2(a.c.) L4  : uulecania O4(a.c.)  : uulcaninia V7(a.c.) • Lem(p)nos] lennos AGfLuP2 A2A4(lênnos)B4BaCDrEGgH3L4Ld2Lr7LsO4PrV4V6 DsDs2Ld6So To2 CvP41Ps P46P47  : lêpnas Ab  : lenpnos V9  : tellus Lr3, “duo Medicei” test. Heinsius 1659  : lepnos Mt2 Mt4 • 314–398 hos uu. mutilos hab. B propter fol. (119) scissuram • 314–315 (factum … enim) pro parenth. hab. H-K-E 1898, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, van Proosdij 1951, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, Huyck 1991, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007 • 314 esse] essei C(a.c.)  : essesse Ft • reus] rex T(corr. T2)Vd(uid., a.c.) : reos B5Ld(a.c.) • merui] meriti Tu • defendite] deffendite A2Ld3Lr5 B8  : deffandite Be2  : defendere Mt2 V30Z(a.c.) • uestrum] factum(uid.) A2  : nostrum As • 315 consensistis] consentistis M2 P41  : confessistis(confesistis Ft) Ab(a.c.) Ft  : concensis[ B  : consessistis Fe(a.c.)  : consesistis To2  : consenssistis Ld(a.c.)Ld2(a.c.)Ph2Pr  : assensistis V8  : consedistis coni. Ciof. 1583 • enim] om. B5(i.l. B52)Ba(i.l. Ba2) • nec] ne B14(a.c.) • me] om. Bo • suasisse] suassisse Cs Lu CHd  : suaisisse Vd(a.c.)  : suasse Es2(a.c.) • 316 ut] quod(per comp.) So(ut i.l. So2) • se] me Pr  : om. A2A4(mg. A42)B5(i.l. B52) • subtraheret] substraeret Lu Cs  : sustraeret Dr  : subthraeret H3  : subtraeret LsPr Ld6 B14  : suptraheret V5  : sustraheret Ld3  : suttraheret P41  : sub(s)traerat Ba P10 • bellique] belloque M2(a.c.) Cs(a.c.)  : belli Lr2 Mt4 Lu2 • ui(a)eque] ueque Mt : meque To2 • labori] labore Bo • 317 tem(p)taretque] temptassetque B5(p.c.)  : temptauitque V6 • feros … dolores] feros … labores N*P2(p.c.)V2 CsE(recte i.l. u.l. E2)Mo(recte i.l. u.l. Mo2)O(recte i.l. u.l. O2)Pr P10So To2 Lr22V30, Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474  : fero … labore P2(a.c.)  : ferox(“Ox. et tres alii” test. Burm. 1727) … dolores HdLr6Ph2 P28 Ca2  : ferox … labores Go  : feros … leones As(a.c.) • requie … dolores] lenire dolores requie V6 • requie] regine Lu  : quid P3 a.c. n.l. • 318 paruit] partuit Mt  : quid As a.c. n.l. • et] et e Lr8(a.c.) • uiuit] uniû Ph2(a.c.)  : inniuit Vd(a.c.)  : uixit Segura 1983 • haec] est C Es4 • sententia] sñtâcia B4  : setencia Mo3  : semina(per comp. smîa) Mt4(recte i.l. Mt42) • tantum] tantum est Lr3V5 To Ld13, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Ciof. 1575, Bersm. 1596(qui tantum mg. test.), Weise 1845, Koch 1866  : tamen Pr • post 318 redit P38 • 319 fida] fida est B5  : est fida O3  : fidaque V4 Mt3 B12 Es3 • cum … satis] cirra facit A4(corr. A42)  : cum se facit C(corr. C2)  : me cum probet Vd • cum] uerum(per comp. uid.) Lr5(a.c. a m.p.) • sit] sic B3BaLd(sit i.l. u.l. a m.p.)Ld3P4Pr Ld6 Es2P28 Ps  : se C(corr. C2)  : fit Venet. 1472  : om. TuV7 • satis Lr2M2(a.c.)P2S2V32(i.l. u.l.) A3A42(mg.)AbB22(p.c.)B4B5C2(i.l. p.c.)CsDrFeGH22(i.l.)HdL4Ld(i.l. u.l.)Ld2Ld32(i.l. p.c.)Lr4Lr5Lr6Lr7Mo(i.l. u.l.)N2OO3O4P3Ph2PrTuV4V6V7 B8DsDs2Mo3Mt3P5P10So Bo2Cs3Es3-



Appendix critica

453

FtMt4Mt5P28Vt CvEs3Es5Lu2P41 Ca2  : facit Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596(satis mg. prob.) • esse] ipse P47  : sse Venet. 1472 • • 320 quem] que To2  : quam Lugd. 1565(quem 1546) • delenda] deflenda A4  : deffensa C  : delendaque Cs  : dolenda Ld2(a.c.) • poscunt] posscunt Hd  : poscit L4V4 • 321 ne] nec A2A3B3CLr3Lr6MtO4PrV6 Ds2So B12Mt4 Es3Es4  : non DrTu  : me P47 • mandate] madante Mt  : mandata Tu  : mandante P47 • melius] medius A2  : om. Mo(a.c.) • Telamonius] telamanius Cs(a.c.)  : thelamius Dr Lu2  : talamonius P8  : Telamonis Lugd. 1546(uitio preli) • ibit] abit V3(a.c.)  : ibis Pr  : ibat To2 • 322 eloquioque] eloquio q3 q3 Ld2(a.c.)  : eloquio Ft(a.c.) • uirum] urum P46(a.c.) • iraque] iramque Vd(a.c.)  : et ira Ps • furentem] fremêtem O4(furentem i.l. u.l. O42)Vd F2, “unus meus” test. Heinsius 1659  : feruentem V30  : ferentem P46(a.c.)  : fruētem Calph. 1480 • 323 molliet] molliat P2 : moliet Es2, Calph. 1480 • aut] atque Fe Lr5 : at Mt : deest in Ls • aliqua] aliquem Pr  : alia prop. Heinsius 1659(in notis); improb. Baumg.-Crus. 1834 • perducet] producet B4B52(p.c.)EF(a.c.)H3L4Ld3Lr3N2O3O4P3Ph2V6V9 Ds2Go Vt AsCvPsVd11 Ld13, Puteol. 1471, Accurs. 1475, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1659(qui et “pri. Moret. … Cantabrig. Oxon. … et alii duodecim” test.), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832(qui sic leg. in “Dresd.[non sic Dr], … Rhen.[non sic Tu]”), Bach 1836, Merkel 1850, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, Lejay 1894, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007 : producit B5(a.c.)  : permulcet Ds(perducet i.l. Ds2)  : perduocet B2(a.c.)  : preducet Regius 1493(perducet 1497)  :  ]cet Ls • callidus] calidus V2(a.c.) B3Pr To(a.c.) Es2(a.c.)FtMt4 F2, Calph. 1480  : callibus B5  : et(per comp.) callidus Ds • arte] artete V5(a.c.) • 324 Simois] symois GfM2S2V3 A2B4DrEGH3Ld2Lr4Lr6O3V4 Mo3P5 Ft AsCvEs4F2Z P47  : symoys Lr2 GgLd3V8 Ds2Lr8 Lu2  : symoy Li3  : simoius B5  : simeis Ba(a.c.)  : simoys B3Be2HdLdLr7N2V6 B8Mt2P10To Cs3Es3Mt5  : si mors Ld6  : symonis So • fluet] luet F(a.c.)  : fluat Hd  : fluit Ld(a.c.)V4 Es6 Ca2(a.c.)  : om. Mt4(mg. Mt42) • et sine] sine Lr3 P38 Ld13, Puteol. 1471, Calph. 1474(corr. 1480), Accurs. 1475, Aldina 1502  : aut sine Lr4V6 P10So Bo  : aut sum B5(mg. corr. B52)  : aut L4(a.c.) • sine] quid Mo a.c. n.l. • frondibus] frugibus C(corr. C2)  : flondibus Ld2V6  : montibus Es5  : fontibus “unus Heinsii” test. et dub. prob. Burm. 1727 • Ide] ida B3V8 Rd2(p.c.; ide Rd) CvPs  : yde B4CsDrFeGgLd3Lr6V9 B8Mo3Mt2SoTo B12BoEs3Mt5 Z Ca2  : îde Vd  : yda O4 P41  : igne Ld13 • 325 stabit] stabat Be2(a.c.)  : s stabit Pr • auxilium] axilium P10 • promit(t)et] promittit Ab(a.c.)Fe Rd P41  : permittet B5Lr3 Mo3 Es2Ft AsF2  : promittet et P28  : deest in Ls • Ac(h)a(i/y)a] achaica L3M2 BaHdV9 Mt3 FtRd  : acayca O : et atoya Mt : achaida Ds2(a.c.)  : achayda Ld6  : achania Es2(a.c.)  : achya Mt4(a.c.)  : de A2 n.l. • 326 hunc u. om. L4(mg. suppl. m. paulo recentior) • meo] om. Ph2(a.c.)  : quid V4 a.c. n.l. • uestris] uobis Gf(a.c. a m.p.) B52(mg.)  : nostris B4(uestris i.l. u.l.)Mt Ld6Mo3  : meis B5  : uestri(per comp.) C • pectore] corpore V8(pectore V82)  : pectora Mt4 • 327–328 Aiacis stolidi sociis regique mihique (sc. om. Danais … infestus) Ps(tantum u. 328 ima pag. scr. m.p.) • 327 Aiacis] aiatis V3(a.c.)  : achaicis O  : adiacis V6 • stolidi Danais] inu. ord. B3 Mo3  : solidis Danais P28 • Danais] planais Mo(a.c.)  : sociis O42(i.l. u.l.; cf. infra; danais O4) • sol(l)ertia] prudencia A4  : sententia Cs  : sollerrcia Ld(a.c.) • 328 sis] sit L3(a.c.) A3B5Cs(a.c.)Ld3(a.c.)Mt  : scis O3 : quid Mt4 a.c. n.l. • licet … sociis] infestus sociis licet O(a.c.) • infestus] infectus Cv • regi post infestus scr. P5(a.c.) • sociis] danais MtO4(sociis i.l. u.l. O42)  : sociisque V9 So • regique] regisque B5  : regitque Mt  : regnûque Es2(a.c.) • regique mi(c)hique] regique ducique Ab  : mihique regique De  : mihique ducique V9  : regi meique(michi suprascr. Ds2) Ds  : de A2 n.l. • 329 Philoctete] philotecte L3N* BaBe2CH2H3LdLr7V4V5  : philotete Lr2Lu(a.c. a m.p.)P2(a.c.) A2(uid.)A4AbBB2B3B4CsFeGgHdLr4OO3O4P4Ph2V7V8Vd B8Ds2Ld6Lr8Mo3Mt2P5SoTo BoCs3Es2Es3RdTo2 CvEs4Es6F2Go2Lu2P41PsZ P46Ca2P47  : philotote Dr  : filotete Lr5 V16 Bo2  : phylotete Gf Tr FtMt4(p.c.)Mt5  : philitotes

454

Appendix critica

B5  : phyloctecte E  : philoctethe G  : philotethe B12  : philotetes L4V6 B14  : phylotecte Lr3  : philotee Pr  : phyloteste Mt4(a.c.)  : phiolotete Mo  : filoctete N2  : phylothete Ld3  : philotecte As  : philothete A3Ld2V9 Es5  : philoctere Calph. 1480  : deest in Ls • licet … meumque] mee exercere Tu  : exacreris meque meumque P41 • ex(s)ecrere] execr[ B  : execere B4V9(p.c.)  : execrere(exerere a.c.) me Lr3  : exercere AGfL3(a.c.)V2 A4(a.c.)AbB2(a.c.)Be2CDr(a.c.)FG(a.c.)Gg(a.c.)Lr7MtO(a.c. fort. legendum)PrV5V7Vd(a.c.) Ld6Mt2To B12(recte mg. u.l. B122)Es2FtRd(a.c. fort. legendum)To2 AsBo3Es4Es5Go2Lr22V30Vd11 P46, Aler. 1471  : exercrere C(p.c. a m.p.) L4(uid., a.c.)  : execreuere F2(a.c.)  : execrerere Z  : exerere Mo(a.c.)O4(per comp. ex’ere)  : exercire O3  : exc’e’c’r’ere(sic) O42(infrascr.)  : execere V9(a.c.)  : erecere P10(a.c.)  : exhercere Mt4  : excrere Ps  : exterere P47  : exserere Walch. 1731  : quid A2Ld(a.c.) n.l. • meumque] meum est P10  : mecumque Es2(a.c.) • • 330 deuoueas] defoueas M2  : deuoueat B(a.c.)  : deuoues Pr  : deuoas Tu(a.c.)  : deuouas P47(a.c.)  : deuouea Calph. 1480  : deest in Ls • fine] sine V2 • caput] capud Gf A4CCsFGgL4Lr6O3Ph2PrV6 Ds2 Ca2 • cupiasque] cupias A4(a.c.)  : capiasque B4(a.c.) • dolenti] dolendi M2(a.c.)  : uolenti Dr Es2  : debenti P41 • 331 me … dari] forte me dari tibi Ph2(a.c.)  : me forte tibi dari Z • forte] sorte(uid.) Hd  : fore Lr3(a.c.)  : forti Ps • dari] dare Lr7(a.c.) • nostrumque] nostrum GfL4(a.c.)  : uestrumque Es2  : uiuumque P41 • haurire] aurire L3(a.c.)Lu(a.c.) Gg(a.c.)Lr6Ls Lr8V16 FtMt4Rd B14Bo3Es6  : exhaurire Gf  : haurare Mt  : hîcere Vd(corr. Vd2) • cruorem] cruerem Vd  : cuorem Bersm. 1596 • 332 hunc u. uncinis not. Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Vossius, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Merkel 1850, Keene 1898, Huyck 1991, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004  : secl. Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, Edwards 1905, von Albrecht 1994, Holzberg 2017 • tui] om. Ld2(a.c. a m.p.) • mihi sic] inu. ord. Ph2  : iuris P41 • sic] sit AM2(p.c.)P2S2 A4AbB4(sic B42)CCsFeL4LdLd2Lr4Lr7LsMo(sic mg. u.l. Mo2)MtO(p.c.)O3TuV7V9 B8Bs4DsLd6Li3Mt2P10 Mt4(a.c. uid.) B14Es5Go2Lr22PsV30 Ca2(a.c.), Aler. 1471, R. de Verger 2005, def. Madvig  : fit Dr Vt  : sit sic V4 Bs4 B12 F2  : fit sic Mt3  : om. O(a.c.)  : de A2 n.l. • fiat tibi] inu. ord. G P8 • fiat] sit V4 Bs4Mt3 B12(fiat mg. u.l. contra metrum B122) Es5  : fiat et Ds  : fiet Ld3  : om. Lr7 • tibi copia] copia V5(tibi mg. V52) Ft(a.c.) As  : sic copia O3 Ca2(a.c.)  : copia tibi Ft(p.c.) • nostri] nostris B5  : nostri et(per comp.) Lr4  : nostrum Regius 1493(nostri tantum in 1510) • 333 hunc u. in textu hab. V3(tantum te tamen aggrediar, eadem linea atque 332) A3A4B2B3B4BaBe2CCsDrF2(i.l.)FeGgH2LdLd2Ld3Lr5(te tamen agrediar lo[)OO3O4P3P4PrTuV4V6V7V8V9Vd B8DsDs2GoLd6Lr8Mo3Mt2Mt3P5P8P10SoV16(eadem linea atque 334) B12BoBo2Cs3Es2Es3Mt4Mt5To2 AsCvEs3Es4Es5Es6Lr22Lu2P38P41V30 P46Ca2P47Ld13, Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Accurs. 1475, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832(inu. ord.), Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Merkel 1850, Koch 1866, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, Lejay 1894, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, Huyck 1991, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007 • a(d/g/ø)grediar] egrediar B5  : anggrediar O4(a.c.)  : acgrediar Tu  : aggerediar P8(a.c.) • mecumque reducere nitar N3 A4B2B3B4Be2CsDrGg(mg. alt. u.l. a m.p.)H3LdLd2OO3P3Ph2V4V7 B8Bs2Bs3(i.l.)Ds2GoLd6Lr8Mo3Mt3So Bo2Cs3Mt5To2 AsCvEs5Es6P38 Ca2Ld13, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Ciof. 1575, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731(uncinis. not.), Gierig 1807, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828(uncinis not.), Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834(uncinis not.), Bach 1836(sed “Supplemente der Abschreiber” cens. in notis), Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Merkel 1850, Koch 1866, Korn 1880(uncinis not.), Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Lejay 1894, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983,



Appendix critica

455

Goold 1984, Huyck 1991, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007  : castrisque reducere nitar O Et, dub. Burm. 1727(in notis)  : mecum reducere nitar So  : mecumque reducere nitor V7  : mecumque reducere conar Es5  : mecumque reducere uitam Ca2(a.c.)  : mecumque reducere curem Ca22(p.c.)  : mecumque adducere nitar Lu3(mg.), Fabbri 1923(uncinis not.)  : mecum te ducere nitar P22 Tu  : mecum tecum ducere nitar Ab2(i.l. u.l.)  : te reducere nitar Ld32(i.l. u.l.)  : nec inultus(inuultus uid. a.c.) specto relinquar B5  : nec inultus forte relinquar(-am p.c. Ds) O43(i.l. u.l.) Ds  : sed(uid.) inultus spero relinquar Ba(p.c.)  : nec multus spero relinquar P4  : non inultus spero relinquar P8  : nec inultus spero relinqui Ca22  : longe formidine mersa P5, “in uno Vatic.” test. Ciof. 1575  : penitus formidine mersa Mt2  : longe formidine nitar Ph22  : sol(l)erti pectore fidens Ab • post u. 333 hunc u. add. Mt2: te tamen agrediar capto bene tempore tecum • 334 tamque] sicque Dr  : iamque Ps(a.c.) P47(p.c.)  : iam P47(a.c.) • tuis] tui Ls Li3 B14 • potiar] patiar Lu(a.c.) Lr3Lr7V9 Ld6 F2Lu2P38, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475  : pocior Li3 • faueat Fortuna] inu. ord. Lr3 • faueat] faueat modo To  : foueat Pr Es2 P46(a.c.)P47  : fauea Lu2  : faueat si Ps • sagit(t)is] sagitti P2(a.c.)  : sagiptis Mt4Rd B14  : superb scr. Lr8 sed ex itin. corr. • 335–336 inu. ord. Bo3 • 335 quam] sic(per comp.) Dr(a.c. a m.p.) • sum] cum P41 • Dardanio] dardanido A4  : drachonio B5(corr. B52)  : dardaneo P47 • quem cepi] quam cepi B5  : quum coepi coni. Bothe 1818 • uate] nate Hd(corr. Hd2)Pr  : gnare Ls B14(uate i.l. u.l. B142)  : nocte As(uate mg. u.l.) • potitus] petitus B5L4(a.c. uid.) • 336 quam] qui Ls(]ui) B14  : quam tamen(uid.) Mt  : quam nam(uid.) So(a.c.) • responsa] responsura Ab(a.c.)  : respûsa Vd • deum] domini B5 Vt • Troianaque fata] troiamque fata V6  : fataque troiana Dr  : troiana fata P47 • fata] facta Be2(per comp.)L4 P5V16(uel sacra, a.c.) BoEs2 P41 • retexi] rexi M2(a.c.) V5(a.c.)  : retraxi B4(mg. corr. B42)Ph2  : retexa B5(a.c.)  : recepi Bs3(retexi mg. u.l. Bs32) • 337 hunc u. om. O4(mg. suppl. m.p.) Lu2(mg. suppl. m.p.) • quam] qui Ls(]ui) B14 • rapui] rapiui uel rapuu M2  : rapie B5(corr. B52) • Phrygiae signum] inu. ord. V8V9 • (ph/f)r(y/i)gi(a)e] Phygie V3(a.c.)  : phigie Ph2(a.c.) V16 • penetrale Mineruae] penetur se murmure B5(a.c.) • penetrale] penitrale V3  : fatale A2 P5; cf. 381  : fata trale B2(a.c.)  : penerale Tu(a.c.) • Mineruae] dyanę Gf  : diane O3(a.c. a m.p.) • 338 hostibus] ostibus Hd(a.c.) Lr8(a.c.)  : postibus Lr4  : hastibus V9 • e] in(per comp.) Gf(uid.) O3  : et(per comp.) DrV7  : ex Ph2  : et e Ld6(a.c.)  : en P10(uid., a.c.) • et] sed Mt • post et nescio quid scr. L3(postea damn.) • se] om. B8(a.c.) • ɔ post se scr. Ab(ex itin. damn.) • mihi] modo Mt • 339 Nempe] nemphe A3(a.c.)  : nampe Be2  : nenpe Lr5 • capi Troiam] inu. ord. Ca2(a.c.) • capi] tibi L3  : cepi Fe(a.c.)  : capi capi V8(a.c.) • Troiam] om. Pr • prohibebant  … illo] sine ipso fata uetabant Ca2 • pro(h)ibebant] probabant A(uid., a.c.)  : uetabant Lr5  : prohibêt Lr7  : probibebent Es2(a.c.) • sine ante fata scr. Lr2(ex itin. corr.) • fata … illo] hoc sine fata So • fata sine] fatassine P28 • fata] facta Ab  : feta Mt • illo] sillo M2(a.c. uid.)  : illis E(illo i.l. u.l. E2)FN2Ph2(illo mg. u.l. Ph22) B7 Vt, Burm. 1727(qui et “Francii et Moreti” test.), Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822  : ipso Ls B14 Ca2 • • 340 fortis  … Aiax] fortis aiax ubi est CsH3Ph2  : fortis ubi aias est Go2 • fortis] hostis B2(a.c.) • ubi est] est ubi B5  : ubi F2 P47  : ubi es “unus Heinsii” test. Burm. 1727 • sunt] om. Lr4(mg. suppl. m. rec.) • 341 uerba] dicta Cs  : facta P3V7  : uerbera P46(a.c.) • uiri] ayacis Ld3(a.c.) • cur1] om. P2(mg. suppl.)  : curet B5 • hic] hoc Lr2 So Lu2, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1480  : huic V16  : h(a)ec FeG Es2Es3  : tu Es5  : om. V5 • cur2] aut cur V16 Bo • audet] audes Cs  : audit P41  : gaudet Calph. 1480 • 342–350 hos uu. om. Pr • 342 hunc u. om. Gg(mg. suppl. m.p.) • excubias] insidias Gf Ld3 P8 • et se] et cur To  : cur se Rd  : et P47(a.c.) • com(m)it(t)ere] commtere B5(a.c.)  : dimitere Dr(a.c. a m.p.)  : cummittere Vd • nocti] hosti E(nocti mg. u.l. E2)  : morti Ph22(mg. u.l.)  : neci Lr82(i.l. u.l.) • 343 Non i ante perque scr. P2(ex itin. corr.) • feros] ferox Lr6 • enses] consens B5(mg. corr. B52)  : hostes Ca2 • non] et Bo  : si Es2(a.c.)  : nec Gg V16 • tantum] tutum B52(mg.; tantum B5) • Troum] Troi(a)e Lr2 A42(mg.)B22(i.l. u.l.)B4(troum mg. u.l. B42)Be2C(p.c.)HdL4LdLd3Lr4Lr6MoO3V4V7Vd Mt2 FtMt4 Lu2P38 Ld13, Plan., Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474(rroie 1480), Accurs.

456

Appendix critica

1475, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546(Troum mg.), Lugd. 1565, Ciof. 1575(Troum test.), Bersm. 1596  : troium C(a.c.)FeLs DsGoLr8 Ps(a.c.) Ca2 • 344 hunc u. om. V5(mg. suppl V52) • uerum] uocum(uid.) Lr3  : herum Mt4 • etiam] et(per comp.) Be2 • summas] summos B5  : superas G • arces] acres M2(a.c.)  : arcem B5  : artes V6 Ld6  : acies Ds2 • intrare] matre B5 • suaque] suamque P41  : suasque P46 • 345 eripere … deam] aede deam eripere S2  : eripere ab ede deam B2 Mo3  : eripere deum ede B5  : eripere deam ede Lr4  : eripere ede suam L4(a.c.)  : ede eripere deam Ld6 • eripere] erripere Bo2Es2  : erripire Venet. 1472  : post eripere nescioquid eras. hab. Gg • (a)ede] ede B52(uid., quid a.c. n.l.) Ps2(i.l.)  : dee Ps  : om. Lr3(i.l. Lr32)  : aedē Calph. 1480 • deam] deum B5 Ca2(a.c.) • afferre] efferre Aler. 1471, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836 • hostes] hospes P2(a.c.)  : urbes Ab • 346 qu(a)e] quod(per comp.) Ba • fecissem] fecisses M(ex itin. corr.)  : fecisse B5  : sensis sem (sic) F2  : sensissem Z(a.c.) • frustra] frusta Accurs. 1475 • Telamone] telanone Hd(p.c.)  : telanene Hd(a.c.)  : thelemone Mo3  : thelamano P41 • creatus] cretus N2(a.c.)  : cratus B3(a.c.)  : reatus V16(a.c.) • 347 hunc u. om. Fe(mg. suppl. m.p.) • gestasset] gestaret B2O, “tres libri” test. Burm. 1727  : gessisset “duo” test. Burm. 1727 • laeua … septem] septem t. t. leua V6 • l(a)eua] leuia(sic) N2(i.l. u.l.)  : leue Ba  : loca Be2(ex itin. corr.) • taurorum] tarorum Cs  : thaurorum F2  : tauororum Ft • g post taurorum scr. Gf(ex itin. corr.) • tergora] stercora Mt  : corpora Ph2(ex itin. corr.) Ld6  : terrgora (per comp. t’rgora) V5(a.c.) • septem] sêptem V3  : vii M2 • 348 illa nocte] inu. ord. Ds2(a.c.) • illa] I illa A • nocte] om. Cs(a.c.) • nocte … uictoria] mihi nocte uictoria troie Cv • mihi Troiae] om. N2(mg. suppl. m.p.) • Troi(a)e] troiem B5  : nocte P8(cf. infra Vd) • nocte post troie scr. Vd(ex itin. corr.) • uictoria] uictora B5  : uictori Mo(corr. Mo2)  : uictorie Rd • est] esta Hd  : om. V6 • 349 uici] uinci P2(a.c.) B3(uîci)Cs P8(a.c.), Calph. 1480  : uidi Ld6  : uiri Mo3  : cepi Vd, Puteol. 1471(cępi), Venet. 1472 • cum uinci] tunc uinci A H3HdLr3Ph2 EtLd6Li3  : tum uinci A4 V16 P47  : ɔiūci Mt  : cunuinci Vd  : conuinci P10  : cum uicti Ft  : cum uincere(per comp. uince’) CvPs  : est uinci Ds2(a.c.) • uinci] uici N(a.c.) B5 Lu2 • coegi] cohegi To • • 350 desine] disine L3(a.c.)  : desinit Tu • Tydiden] Tydidem Ph2  : tididen M2V2 Ld(-ê) Lr22  : tytiden S2 FeGMo Mo3 Es3  : tytidê Lr2LuV3 Ld3Lr4O3V7 B12Vt Lu2P38  : tytidem Ld13  : titiden GfL3MNP2 A4DrFGg(a.c.)Lr7MtP3TrTuV4V5 Lr8(p.c.) Cs3Mt5 Bo3Lr27  : titidem A A2AbB2B3B4B5Be2CCsGg(p.c.)H2H3L4Lr3Lr5Lr6LsN2OO4P4V6V8V9Vd B8DsDs2GoLi3Mt2P5SoTo Bo2Es2FtP28RdTo2 AsB14CvEs4Es6F2P41PsZ P46Ca2P47  : thitidem BBa(-ê)Hd Ld6(-ê)Mt4  : tytyden ELd2(-ê)  : tithidê A3  : tithiden V16  : titidêque Lr8(a.c.)  : tiditen Es5  : tydide V30  : tididem Vd11 • uultuque] uoltuque N(a.c.)  : uultus P2(uid., a.c.)  : et uultuque De  : ultuque Ls(a.c.)  : uultu CsTu P41  : uultumque Bo2(a.c.)  : nuctu Ld72(mg.), unde Heinsius nutuque prop. • et] om. P3 Es2(a.c.)  : e V30, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472 • nobis] uerbis Mo3 • 351 ostentare] obstentare A2B4O3Vd(p.c.) B14 : ostemtare B5(a.c.) : ostenare Lr7(a.c.)  : ostendere Mt  : obstantare Vd(a.c.) • meum] meum est Gf(a.c.)  : diu O3  : deum Li3 • pars … sua] sua pars est Mt • est] om. Mo(corr. Mo2)O4(est supra pars scr. O42)Vd(i.l. suppl. Vd2) So  : quid B5 a.c. n.l. • sua] mea P8 • 352 nec] ne Mo3 • tu] tû Gf  : tua Ph2 • cum … clipeum] pro socia clipeum CsH3Lr5(ex itin. corr.) Lr22  : cum pro socia clipeum V5(p.c., pro i.l.)  : cum clipea socia(socium a.c.) B5(p.c.) • cum] cû cû Fe(a.c.)  : om. O3(a.c.)  : quid B5 a.c. n.l. • cum socia] cosocia Lu(i.l. corr. m.p.) • socia … tenebas] socio clipeum pro casse tenebas(-at a.c.) P28 • socia] socio Lr7Mo(i.l. u.l.)O3 P28 P41  : de P5 n.l. • clipeum] clpeum Ph2 • clipeum pro] om. Fe(a.c.) • pro classe] cû classe H3Ph2  : per classe B5  : pro casse Ds2 P28  : om. V5(mg. V52) • tenebas] tebas L4(a.c.)  : tulisti O42(i.l. u.l.)  : tenebat P28(a.c.) • 353 eras] erat A4B5(a.c.)LdOO3P3 P28Vt  : om. V7 • tibi turba] michi turba M Lr27  : turba tibi Ab(a.c.)O4  : et turba O3  : et turba tibi(per comp. i.l.) O32 • turba] tutela Vd(a.c.) • mihi] tibi M(per comp.) Lr27 • contigit] contitigit Cs • unus] uni’ Gf  : quid B5 a.c. n.l. • 354 qui] et Lr8(qui i.l. u.l. Lr82) • nisi] mihi(per comp. mi) Be2Cs(a.c. a m.p.) To  : non Ld  : nixi Es2  : si Lr27  : ni Ca2 • pugnacem] pugnantem A2CsMtV6Vd B8Mt2So BoEs2FtMt4 Es5F2Go2P41



Appendix critica

457

P46P47  : pugnassem A3BPh2  : de P5 n.l. • sciret] sciet B Ca2(a.c.)  : scit et Lr7 Lr8(sciret i.l. u.l. Lr82) • sapiente minorem] sapientemi norem N(a.c.) • sapiente] sapientie Rd(a.c.) • minorem] mnorem B5(a.c.) • 355–356 inu. ord. Z(a.c.) • 355 hunc u. om. F2(mg. suppl. m. recentior) Es6 • indomitae] indoite To(a.c.) • deberi] praeberi A(per comp.) V9  : celebrari Ft  : debere Cv(per comp.)Z • pr(a)emia] somnia M2(a.c.)  : praelia Lu2 • dextr(a)e] dicte B5(corr. B52)  : troie C  : destre P41 • 356 ipse] ipsa B52(mg.)  : ille Ds2 • quoque] om. B5(a.c.)H2(a.c.)O3 • haec peteret] expeteret P3 • h(a)ec Ω, Plan., edd.  : hoc L3MNV2V3 BB3DrGg(a.c.)H2HdLd3Lr7MoMtP4V4 DsDs2Mt3P10 BoBo3FtVt Es3Lr27Vd11, Venet. 1472, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966  : id P41  : om. Gf(a.c.) Lr3  : utrum in Be2O3Ph2V5 Ld6P5 (per comp.) incertum • peteret1] pateret P10(a.c.) • peteret peteret] peterq3 Mo(a.c.)  : peterq3 peteret Mo(p.c.)  : poterat poterat (per comp.) Lu2 • moderatior] moderatio A(a.c.) Ca2(a.c.)  : thelamonius Gf(moderatior i.l. Gf2)  : moderantior Lr2 B3B4O4PrV8Vd Ld6So FtMt4 Lu2P41, Venet. 1472  : moderanior B5(uid.)  : moderaor Ba(a.c.)  : modancior Ds  : moderator F(a.c.)  : mordacior Es2(a.c.)  : moderacius B8  : moderatius Z • 357 Eurypylusque] Eurypilusque V3 P5  : Euripiiusque M(a.c.)  : Euripilusque ALuM(p.c.)M2NP2S2V2 A3A4B2B3B4Be2C(p.c.)FFeGGgH2HdLdLr3Lr4Lr6Lr7LsMoN2OP3P4PrV6V8V9 Ds(p.c.)GoLd6Lr8Mt2SoToV16 BoBo2Cs3Es2Es3Mt4Mt5P28RdTo2 AsB14Bo3Es4Lr22Lr27Vd11  : eoripilusque Es6  : euriphilusque GfL3Lr2 AbCsLd2O3Ph2Vd B8Mo3P10 FtVt Es5F2Lu2Z Ca2  : eriphilusque B12  : guripilusque B5  : euripulusque Ba  : euripolusque Ds(a.c.)  : euripilique C(a.c.)  : eurupilusque Dr Vt  : euripalusque H3  : erupilusque L4  : euripillusque(uel potius euripithisque) Lr5  : eripilusque Tu Ds2 P46  : eurifilusque O4V4 CvP41  : euripulusque V5V7  : euryphylusque Ld3  : euryphilusque Ld13  : eurilusque Ps  : eutifilusque P47 • ferox] ferax Ab  : ferus LsO4 B14  : forox Mo(a.c.)  : feros Ph2 • claroque] claro Gf V9(corr. V92) B8(a.c.)  : claraque Mt  : caroque Ds2(a.c.)  : claros Venet. 1472  : quid P10 a.c. n.l. • Andr(a)emone] andromone Gf AbL4(a.c.)P3 So B12  : ademone Cs  : andromene FO4 Ds  : andremene Ca2  : andramone Mt4  : andemone A2(uid.) P10  : andromade Ld  : andromede A3A4OP4  : adromade O3  : andromane Pr  : antenore Ba(a.c.)  : andranore Ba2(p.c.)  : audemîe V6  : andremñ To2  : andromine Mt2  : quid As a.c. n.l. • natus] negus B5(corr. B52)  : quid As a.c. n.l. • uu. 358–516 desunt in Lu2 • 358 minus] om. Lr4 • Idomeneus] idoneus M DrLr7Ls(a.c.)Mo(mg.)Tu Es2(a.c.)Vt Lr27Z(a.c.) P46(a.c.)  : ydoneus Cs B14F2 P47  : idomenes P2 B5V6 Mt5  : idumeus Lr2 Lu2(imo folio post u. 357 scr. ‘nec minus idumeus’)  : ydomeneus Gf B4EGgL4Ld3Lr6Ph2V4V8Vd B8Ds2Li3Mo3To B12Es3 Es4P41Ps  : edomeneus AbB3  : idenomeus C  : idomenus O4(a.c.) P10(a.c.) P28  : et(per comp.) domeneus Mt4  : idomeus H3 Ft Bo3  : ydomeus V9 Ca2  : adoneus Ld  : ideus Mo(in textu)  : ydeus Ld6  : idumeneus O  : idromeneus Lr8(recte i.l. u.l. Lr82)  : ydumeneus Tr To2 Ps2(u suprascr.)  : ydomenus V7  : ydomenes(uid.) P5  : ydimoneus So  : ideneus Es6  : idumius Z(p.c.)  : ilioneus N2 Vd11  : ylioneus O3 • idomeneus patriaque] quid Lr5 a.c. n.l. • patriaque] patria H3O Rd(corr. Rd2) P41  : patrieque Ld6 Ld13(-aeque)  : pariterque Li3  : patrioque Lr8(a.c.) • eadem] eadam V9(a.c.)  : eandem Es2(a.c.) • 359 Meriones] Merionesque M(a.c.) Mo  : Merionis M2(a.c.) DrPr  : marionis B5  : merores Gg(a.c.)  : moriones Hd  : menones B3O3 Li3 Ft  : meorides Ph2  : muneraque P41  : Geriones P47 • peteret] peterent M Mo Lr27  : peteres Gf  : peterat V7  : expeteret P41  : peteret et Cv(a.c.)Ps • maioris frater] inu. ord. A4Pr • maioris] minoris Go2 • frater] fratris M Lr3(a.c.) Ds(a.c.) Bo(uid., a.c.) Lr27 Ca2(corr. Ca22)  : fratres Ab(corr. Ab2)  : fratre Vd(a.c.) • Atridae] atridem P8(a.c.) • • 360 fortes] forte B5(a.c.)  : fortis P41 • nec] non L3Lr2 H3Ph2 To Ft Ca2 • sunt] fe’c Es2  : om. Ft • tibi] mihi E(tibi i.l. u.l. E2)Vd(a.c.) Ld7Ld8V16 V30Vd11 Ca2(a.c.), dub. Burm. 1727(in notis), prob. Merkel 1850, Edwards 1905, Goold 1984  : om. B4(mg. B42) • Marte] mate O4(a.c.)  : morte Es2  : mare P46(a.c.) • 361 consiliis meis tibi dextera cessere bello Es5 • consiliis] consciliis Lr2 N2  : conssiliis Ab • cessere] cessare B5(a.c.)Ld(a.c.)O4(p.c.)  : cessate O4(a.c.)  : cesere Es2  : arma cessere De  : om. Es5 • dextera] destera P41 • bello] beello B3(a.c.)  : ferro Ds, improb. Bersm. 1596  : bello est B142  : bellis Ca2 • 362 ingenium] ingenio

458

Appendix critica

M2(a.c.)  : îgemiû Ab • est] est et Cv(a.c.)Ps  : om. B4Ph2PrV6 Es2 • quod] quae B5(a.c.) • eget] ego Ds  : aget Ld13 • moderamine] moderaminee P2(a.c.) • nostro] uestro V2  : nostri V3(uid.), prob. Heinsius 1659(in notis), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834  : certo B42(i.l. u.l.)Be2(mg. u.l. a m.p.)Gg(i.l. u.l.)O4(nostro mg. O42)Pr Bs3Mo3(nostro i.l. u.l. Mo32) Es7 Go2(a.c.) P46  : bello B8(ex itin. corr.)  : quid Cs3 a.c. n.l. • uu. 363–368 post 374 hab. F2 • 363 hunc u. om. Cs(summa pag., fol. 102v, scr. m.p.) • sine] si P46(a.c.) • mente] teste A2  : marte Ab(mente i.l. Ab2) Ld6 Ca2(a.c.) • geris mihi] quid P46 a.c. n.l. • geris] gerit Co(a.c.) • mihi] fuit(uid.) Lr3 : aut Co • futuri] futura V2(est suprascr. V23) P46  : futuri est Lr2 C(est add. p.c.)Lr5Lr7O3V7Vd(est p.c. additum uid.) B8Lr82(p.c.; futuri Lr8) Bo2Cs3Mt5 As(fuct- a.c.)Bs7P38P41Vd11 Ld13, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Weise 1845, Koch 1866  : futuris B5(a.c.)Ld3(a.c.)  : est futuri Ba  : fateri De(a.c.)  : futuris est Ld3(p.c.)  : de Tu n.l. • 364–365 conflatos hab. Ld2(corr. Ld22): tu pugnare potest, tu tantum corpore prodes • 364 redit Cs2(fol. 103r) • pugnare] pugnante Pr • potes] pugres Hd(a.c.) : potens Ft • tempora] pectora B5 : tempore Ld22(mg. a.c.) Co • 365 eligit] elegit Ab : eligat Ld6  : elligit Es2FtRd • Atrides] atrrades B5  : atride Es6 • tu tantum] inu. ord. B4 • corpore prodes] inu. ord. N2 : tempore(corpore mg. O2) prodes O  : corpore proles Li3  : corpore polles Lugd. 1546(polles mg.)  : de Tu n.l. • 366 nos] non Lr3(per comp.) Ds(a.c.)  : Hos Pr • quantoque] quantumque Gf B4(corr. B42)Ld3Tr P10So Z P46  : quanto qui Vd11(ui damn.) • ratem] radem B5  : râtê B52(mg.)  : rotam C(corr. C2)  : rudem V6  : om. A4(suppl. A42) • temperat] teperat V5  : tempora non Ds(a.c.) • anteit] ante it ALuNS2V2(a.c.)V3 A3A4B2B3B42(mg.)B5BaBe2CCsEFGGg(a.c.)H3HdL4LdLd2Ld3Lr3Lr4Lr5Lr6LsMoN2OO3O4Ph2V4V8Vd Cs2Ds2GoMt2P8SoToV16 B12Es3FtMt4Mt5 AsB14Bo3CvEs4Es6Lr27P38P41PsV30Vd11 P46Es7, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475  : anteat M(a.c.)  : ariste Mt  : armis Dr(a.c.)  : ante Dr(p.c.)PrV6 DsLd6P5(per comp. añ) Es2  : arc(uid.) Ca2(a.c.)  : de Tu n.l. • 367 hunc u. om. Li3(mg. suppl. m.p.) • officium] officio BaO4  : offium B14  : officium et P41 • quanto dux] quanto dux est(i.l., fort. ut gloss.) O3  : quanto est dux P41, Lugd. 1565(quantoque est dux Lugd. 1546 uitio preli), Bersm. 1596 • quanto] quantum Vd(a.c.) • maior] rhito Mt(a.c. uid.)  : de Tu n.l. • 368 hunc u. om. Lr2(mg. suppl. Lr23) Tu • supero] spero(per comp.) V5(a.c.) • non] om. Lu(i.l. suppl. m.p.) • non in] tamen De • in corpore] in pectore A3Fe(corpore i.l. u.l. Fe2)Lr3O42(pectore i.l. u.l.)Ph2 Go(corr. Go2)  : in corporare V6  : imcorpore Ft • u. 371 post hunc u. hab. V7, sed suo loco iterum scr. • 369–370 om. M2(mg. suppl. alia antiqua m. []igor omnis in euanid.]) Gg(mg. suppl. m.p.) • 369 pectora] e’ corpora B8 • potiora] potiunda P2(a.c.; pociora p.c. et mg.)  : potionda C  : porciora Mo Mo3  : peiora Pr Cs2  : meliora Ld2(i.l. u.l.)  : petiora P28 • uigor] uigor est Ph2 • omnis in illis] desunt in Ls • in illis] in illos M(a.c.)  : in illo est A2Mt  : in illo B5(corr. B52) P47  : in illa est P10  : istis Ca2(a.c.) • • 370 at uos] a tuos Ba • at] ast H3  : a Tu  : sed Es3  : aut Es6(a.c.) • uigili post at scr. Vd(ex itin. corr.) • uos o] o uos L3(a.c.)M H3Lr3Mo Lr27  : uos L4(a.c. a m.p.)  : nos o Ld6  : nos Lugd. 1546 • proceres] patres O • date] om. Es2(mg. suppl. m.p.) • pr(a)emia] munera P5(a.c.) • uestro] nostro AGf AbBe2MtO3V6Vd Ld6  : deest in Ls • 371–372 inu. ord. Vd • 371 proque] perque Gf A4(uid.)Be2CsE(p.c. uid.)Pr Ds(a.c.; pro[per comp.] erq3 p.c.) B12Rd Bo3  : pro O Cs2  : per P41 • tot] om. Lr4 • annorum] amorum A3  : armorum Ld2(annorum i.l. u.l. Ld22)V7Vd Ld6 P38, Puteol. 1471, Calph. 1474  : annarum Mt • cura quibus Merkel 1850, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, Lejay 1894, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, Huyck 1991, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007  : curis quas Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Burm. 1727, Gierig 1807, Lemaire



Appendix critica

459

1822, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Koch 1866 • anxius] axius Ld Es2 • egi] egit B5(a.c.) • 372 cf. CLE 423.5 • hunc] nunc Ld Ld3  : hunc et(per comp.) V7  : huc P28 • titulum] titilum M2  : utulum B5(a.c.) : tutulum L4(p.c.) : tumulum L4(uid., a.c.) : titulus Mt • meritis  … nostris] nostris meritis pensandum reddite B4 • meritis] menitis Lr27 • pensandum] pensendum A2(uid.)  : pessandum C(a.c.) • red(d)ite] credite G  : reddere Mo(a.c.) • nostris] nobis(uid.) A2(a.c.)  : uestris(per comp.) EMo(nostris mg. Mo2) B14  : uobis Ca2(corr. Ca22)  : deest in Ls(cf. B14) • 373 labor] libor N(a.c.)  : labor est V7 • in fine est] est in fine (infine So) V8 So  : in finê Pr • fine] finê M2(a.c. uid.) B5(a.c.)MtPr • est] om. V6V7 Li3 • obstantia] ostantia L3(a.c. a m.p.) Hd(a.c. a m.p.) P46  : obstanta V3(a.c.)  : obtestantia V5(a.c.) • fata] facta M(a.c.) B3(a.c.)Dr(a.c.) Mt B12Rd  : mota B5  : tata(uid.) L4(a.c.)  : forta Ld6 • remoui] remoueri Cv(a.c.) • 374 altaque] aptaque V6 P10 P41, “in uno meo et duobus Vatic.” test. Ciof. 1583 • posse capi] inu. ord. F2 • capi] rapi Mo(a.c.) O(a.c.) • faciendo … cepi] capiendo … feci MN(a.c.) Mo DsLd6 Bo3Lr27  : faciendo … feci N(p.c.)V2(cepi i.l. V23) B4(cepi mg. B42)Hd(feci mg. u.l. a m. uid. p.; cepi in textu)Lr4(feci mg. u.l. scr. Lr42)N2OV52(feci supra cepi scr.) Lr8(cepi i.l. u.l. Lr82)To FtMt4(cepi i.l. u.l. Mt42) P46(a.c. a m.p.)  : capienda … feci Ab  : capiendo(faciendo i.l. u.l.) … cepi Fe  : sapiendo … feci Lr7  : faciendaque … feci P41  : facienda … cepi P47  : patiendo menia feci Et  : faciendo[ Ls • faciendo] fe- primum tempt. M2(a.c.)  : faciemdo Vd • cepi] cępi L3LuP2S2  : coepi M2V3 V16 Vd11 Ld13 • post u. 374 uu. 363–368 scr. F2  : redit Mc • 375–376 inu. ord. Ps(a.c.) • 375 spes nunc] classes B8 • nunc] non(per comp.) Be2V6  : uos “unus Moreti” test. Heinsius 1659, prob. Vossius, Baumg.-Crus. 1834(in notis)  : quid Ca2 a.c. n.l. • socias] socios Ba(a.c.)O  : sacias Dr • casuraque] cassuraque A2CMt Ds2  : casuque A3(a.c.)  : casura B3(a.c.) • m(o)enia] pergama Ba • Troum] troie Lr2 A42(mg. u.l.)Be2(p.c. a m.p.)L4Lr4O3 Mt2 Ft, Plan., “in Caelest. et Vatic.” test. et prob. Ciof. 1575  : troium BaBe2(a.c.)Ld Go Ca2  : toruum P41  : quid Ab a.c. n.l.  : deest in Ls • 376–377 sic confl. Es6: perque deos oro quod sit sapienter agendum • 376 perque] per Ld2(a.c.) • post perque nescioquid eras. L3 • deos] deus F2 • quos  … nuper] quosti nuper Ld(ex itin. corr.) • quos] quod Ca2(a.c.)  : que Mt  : quas(per comp.) Pr • hosti] hoste F2  : hostes P47  : quid B5 a.c. n.l. • nuper] no per M2(a.c.)  : nenper Mt  : super Es2(a.c.) • ademi] adhemi A4O3 Ca2  : ademe Hd(a.c.)  : ad emi FeVd  : ademit Pr  : adem9 Ld6 • 377 per] et A3BaDeLr6Vd Mt2, Regius 1493(per tantum in 1510) • quid] quod Ds F2Z Ca2(a.c.) • superest] superum(per comp.) Gf(a.c.) • quod] quid M2 Gg(a.c.) Lr3Ph2(a.c.)  : quae B5 • sit] adest Mt  : om. Bo2(suppl. Bo22) • sapienter] parienter Mt • agendum] agendum est Lr8 • 378–382 hos uu. euanid. nouo atramento eodemque textu rescripsit manus altera in P4 • 378 hunc u. om. Li3(ima pag. suppl. Li32) • quid] quis V30 • adhuc] aduc Gf To(a.c.)  : adest A2 : adduc Tu  : adunc P10 • ex] et Lu(a.c. a m.p.) : est ex Mt : om. B4(a.c. a m.p.) • pr(a)ecipitique] praecipitaque B5  : praecipiti B3(a.c.)CsLr7 Ld6 Es3  : preciptuque Es2(a.c.)  : preciptique Es2(p.c.)  : precitique Rd  : difficilique Go(u.l.)Ld8, cf. trist. 5.14.42 • petendum est] petendum AGf(p.c. a m.p.)S2 B3FeGgLdLr3MtP3(uid.)PrV6V9Vd Ds2Go(a.c.)Mo3P10SoV16 Mt4 P41, prob. Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Loers 1843  : petundum Ca2  : praetendum est Ab  : timendum Gf(a.c.)  : ferendum Ld2(petendum est i.l. u.l. Ld22)  : cadendum est Lr4(petentum mg. u.l. Lr42)  : ferendum est Bs2Cs2 Es6 P47  : deest in Ls • 379 fatis] satis Li3 • aliquid] aliquis N(a.c.) Mt  : quid P10 a.c. n.l. • restare] cessare Gf(restare mg. Gf2)  : superesse A2B4Lr5 So  : sperare Ca2(a.c.)  : restate Es2 • putatis] putetis N(p.c., pute- i.ras.; quid a.c. n.l.; putatis i.l. u.l. N2)  : putatur dub. Heinsius 1659  : putabit coni. Withof (uid. app.) • • 380 este] esse Mt Li3, Puteol. 1471, Calph. 1480  : est Pr • mei] mihi N2(i.l. u.l.) O3 : mei mei A3(ex itin. corr.) Lr8  : meius(uid.) Es2(a.c.)  : quid Bo a.c. n.l. • aut] et Gf Ca2  : at B2Lr5, “unus Heins. eleganter” test. Burm. 1727 • si … non] mi non si P41 • non datis] tindatis Mt  : non satis To • arma] ait B5(arma mg. B52)  : om. C(i.l. suppl. m.p.)  : ama Lr4(a.c.) • 381 huic] H huic Ba(p.c.)  : H hunc Ba(a.c.) • signum fatale] inu. ord. P41  : signum mortale A4(a.c.)  : signum penetrale C, cf. 337  : signum fale Cs  : signum fatele H3Mo(a.c.)  : fatale O •

460

Appendix critica

382 mota] multa Hd(a.c.)  : tota V6 Mo3 Es4  : Ota P41 • procerum] iuuenum Es6 • est] om. A CLr3V6 Mt4 CvEs5Go2 • et] om. AbLr3 • quid] qui Pr  : quod Ds2 • facundia] fecundia P47 • posset] possit N(a.c.)V2 B5MoN2V6 Cs22(i.l. u.l.)Ld6P5 McRd Bo3Lr22P41V30Vd11 Ca2, Aler. 1471, prob. Slater 1927, Breitenbach 1964, Huyck 1991  : prosit Cs2  : poscet Es2  : de BLr3 n.l. • 383 re patuit] repetitur Ld(tunc patuit i.l. u.l. Ld2) • patuit] potuit V2(a.c.) Gg Li3 • uiri] om. Ld6 • uiri tulit] inu. ord. Ld3 • disertus] desertus V3(a.c.) Mc(a.c.) Ds2(a.c.) V30 P47(a.c.)  : sertus Dr(a.c.)  : om. A2 • 384–391 om. Pr • 384 Hectora] pectora B5  : hectore Hd(a.c.)  : hectorora Mo(a.c.) • aiax post Hectora scr. N(cum lit. damn.) • solus … ferrum] ferrum Gg(a.c.; solus ferrumque p.c.)  : ferrum qui solus V9(a.c.) • solus] totiens G(solus i.l. u.l. G2) B12(uid. ad 385)Ft  : totiens solus Bo2  : om. Gg(a.c.) • qui2 … Iouemque] ignem ferrumque iouemque Mt  : de B n.l. • qui ferrum] qui forum P2(a.c.)  : ferrumque B5DeEF2(p.c.)Gg(p.c.)L4Lr5Lr6OV6 GoLd6P8SoV16 B12P28  : ferrum A2CsLr4 Mt2(qui ferrum a.c.) BoEs2FtMt4(corr. Mt42)Vt  : ferumque F(a.c.)  : et ferrum V42(qui ferrum V4)  : qui ferreum A4(a.c.)  : quid Hd a.c. n.l. • ignesque] ignemque AGfLr2P2(i.l. a m.p.; ignesque in textu)V3 A2A3A4AbB3B4B5BaBe2CCsDeDrEFeGGgH2H3HdLdLd2Ld3Lr3Lr5Lr6LsO3O4P3P4Ph2TrV4V5V6V7V8V9Vd Ds2GoLi3Mo3Mt2Mt3P5P8P10SoToV16 B12BoEs2Es3FtMcMt4RdTo2 B14CvEs3Es5F2Lr22P41PsV30Z P46Ca2P47, Plan., Aler. 1471, Regius 1493, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1659(“meliores”), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Koch 1866, Merkel 1875, Polle 1888, Lejay 1894, Huyck 1991, Fink 2007 • Iouemque] iouem Rd Es3 • 385 hunc u. om. Mt3(mg. suppl. Mt32) • substinuit] sustunuit Ds(cf. u. 584)  : substituit P46 • totiens] solus B12 • sustinet AGfV3 A2A3A4B(uid.)B3BaBe2CsDrGgH2H3HdLdLd2Ld3Lr5Lr6LsO3O4P3P4Ph2V4V5V6V7V8V9 B8DsDs2GoLd6Mo3Mt2Mt32(p.c.)P5P8P10So B12Es2Es3McMt4To2 B14Es3Es5Lr22P38P41PsV30 P46P47 • iram] aram P2(a.c. uid.) • 386 inuictumque] inuinctumque AbHd(a.c.)Mt  : immotumque V6  : inuictum Ps • uirum] om. Es3 • uicit] uincit AGfLuM2TV3 A2AbB2B3B5BaBe2CCsDeDrFeGgL4(a.c.)Ld2Ld3Lr5Lr6LsP3P4Ph2TrTuV6V7V9Vd B8DsDs2Ld6Lr8Mo3Mt3P5P8P10 BoBo2Cs3Es2McMt4Mt5To2Vt AsB14Cv(p.c.)F2Go2P41PsZ P46P47, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Merkel 1850, Riese 1872(uicit 1889), Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, Breitenbach 1964, Huyck 1991, Hopkinson 2000, Fink 2007  : nunc(per comp. ñc) Lr7  : de B n.l. • arripit] accipit Gf A4CLdO3V8V9(p.c.)  : arripuit O  : aripit Cs So Bo P41 P46  : et accipit V9(a.c.) • ensem] essem Ab • 387–392 hos uu. om. V4(ima pag. suppl. m.alt.) • 387 meus … est] meus est certe hic A2  : meus hic est certe B3  : ait meus hic certe Ld6  : meus hic est Li3 • certe] ecce B12 • est] om. M2S2 Ld6 • an et] et an Cs(a.c.) Es6  : en et Ld3Vd  : an P3 Ld6 • et hunc] hunc L4(a.c.)P3 So Rd(a.c. a m.p.) Lr22P41V30, Aler. 1471  : et ad hunc Mc(a.c.)  : et adhuc P47(a.c.) • hunc sibi] istum Gf  : hunc mihi A2  : hunc Cs Ab  : sibi hunc Ld6 • sibi poscit] possedit(p’sedit) Lr3 • poscet AGfL3LuN(p.c.)V2V3 A3B3B4BaBe2Gg(p.c.)H2H3LdLd3Lr4Lr5LsO3O4P3P4Ph2V6V7V8Vd DsLi3Lr8Mo3Mt2Mt3P5So(p.c.)ToV16 B12Bo2Cs3Es2Es3McMt4Mt5To2Vt AsB14(posscet)Es3Es4P41Ps, Plan., Heinsius 1659(“multi ueteres”), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Weise 1845, Koch 1866 • Vlixes] achilles P4(uid.; corr. P42) • 388 hunc u. om. Ds2(mg. suppl. coaeua m.) • ait] om. C  : ut B12 : ait ait Cs3(a.c.) • utendum est] utendum G(a.c.)V6V8  : utandum Mt  : interdum est Bo2(a.c.) • in] om. Ld(a.c. a m.p.) • mihi quique] mequi q3 V5(a.c.)  : modo(per comp.) quique P5 • quique] quisque B2(a.c.) Li3 Cs3  : qi3 Mt2(qiq3 mg. Mt22) • quique cruore] curore quique H3(a.c.)  : quique cruoreque V7  : quid Ps a.c. n.l. • f post quique scr. A2(a.c.) • 389 hunc u. om. Ps(mg. suppl. Ps2) • s(a)epe] cede Mt • Phrygum] frigum AGfL3NP2V2 A2A3A4B3B4BaBe2CCsDrFeGGgHdL4LdLd2Lr3Lr4Lr5Lr6Lr7LsOO3O4Ph2V42V5V7V9Vd B8Cs2DsDs2GoLi3Mo3Mt2P5SoToV16 BoBo2Cs3FtMcMt4Mt5P28RdTo2Vt B14CvP41Ps2Z P46Ca2P47  : phrigum LuMM2S2 AbB2B5FH2H3N2TuV6V8 Ld6 B12Es3 AsBo3Es4Es6F2Lr27Vd11  : phrigium T  : frugum



Appendix critica

461

Mt Es2  : frygum Ld3 • maduit domini] inu. ord. Mt2  : maduit Li3 • c(a)ede] cedere Mt • madebit] mad[e] ebit P2  : madescet Lr7 Ft  : manebit Mo3(a.c.) • post hunc u. (fol. 157r) noua manus nouo atramento inc. in O3, quae uu. 388–389 denuo scr. et cum lit. damn. • • 390 hunc u. om. Mt Go(mg. suppl. Go2) • ne] nec AL3Lr2M2(p.c.) A2AbB3Be2CsE(ne i.l. u.l. E2)FeHdLr4Lr5Lr7OP4Ph2V6V7V8V9Vd Ds2Ld6Li3Mt2P10To B12Bo2Cs3Es3Mt5 AsB142(p.c.; ne B14)Es5Es6F2Go2P38P41PsVd11Z Ca2(a.c.), Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475  : non S22(i.l. u.l.) • quisquam Aiacem] quisquam nisi aiacem V8 • quisquam] quidquam Vd(a.c.) • Aiacem] aicem Ba • possit] posset Lu AbV42 B8Mt2 Rd(a.c.) Es5F2  : poscit S2  : nisi B5(possit mg. B52)  : possit sit Ld  : poterit V6 Mt3P10So B12Ft Go2 • nisi] ubi(ui) Ld2  : nixi Es2 • ip’m post nisi scr. Lr5(ex itin. damn.) • 391 in pectus] in uul incoh. P2(ex itin. corr.)  : impectus M Ld6 Ft Bo3  : inpetus Hd • tum demum] inu. ord. Vd • tum] tunc Lr2 A2A4AbB3B4BaDrGgH3HdLr4Lr5LsOO4P4Ph2TrTuV5V6V7Vd Ds2Lr82(i.l. u.l.)Mt2P5P8SoTo Es2FtMcMt4 B14Es5P41  : nunc P46 • uulnera] uolnera N(ut semper) : uulnere Lr7 P8 P41 • passum] possum Ab(a.c.)  : passim Ps • 392 qua] qui V52(i suprascr.) • patuit ferro] inu. ord. Go • patuit] potuit Ds2V16(patuit a.c.) Es2Mc Es3F2  : petuit V6  : patitur dub. Riese 1872(in notis) • leto tu post patuit scr. Lr5(ex itin. damn.) • l(o)etalem] latalem Lr4  : fatalem G, “Argent.” test. Burm. 1727 • condidit] credidit Ph2  : concidit To • ensem] êssê Ab • 393 ualuere] uoluere N2(i.l. u.l.) Gg(o suprascr.; ualuere in textu)  : maluere M2(uid., a.c.)  : ualere V5  : ualure Ft • infixum] calidum B4(infixum i.l. u.l. B42) • educere] eduere Ba(a.c.)  : eduxere Mt  : ducere O3(a.c.)Vd(a.c.), “in uno Vatic. et meo antiquiore, et Caelest.” test. et improb. Ciof. 1575, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, improb. Bersm. 1596  : adducere Es4 • 394 expulit] expalit(uid.) Fe(a.c.) • ipse cruor] om. Fe(mg. suppl. m. uid. p.) • ipse] ille M2 B2(corr. B22)OO3 Cs2 P41  : inde B4(ipse mg. B42)  : esse(per comp. êe) P8 • cruor] curor Tu(a.c.) • rubefactaque] rubefacta CsTu B12(a.c.) P47(a.c.), Regius 1493(corr. 1526)  : tempefactaque Mt • tellus] telum P8  : terra Ft; cf. 629 • post 394 uu. 14.523–15.157 hab. Vd (fol. 86r-89v); folio 90r redeunt 13.395 sqq. • 395 hunc u. secundum 396 mg. scr. alia antiqua m. in T • purpureum] purpereum N • uiridi genuit] inu. ord. GfS2 AbCsLd2 V16 Bo Ca2 • uiridi] uiride C(a.c.)  : uiri Hd(a.c.)  : uidit Rd(a.c.)  : uidi Ds P41 • genuit] gemuit Pr Ds2(a.c.) P38, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474  : gemina P8 • de c(a)espite] decepite M2(a.c.)  : despite Mo(a.c.)  : de cepite O  : deccespite V5(a.c.) • 396 Oebalio fuerat] affuerat ebano P41 • (O)ebalio] eubalio Cs Ds2Mo3  : abalio P46 • de] om. De • uulnere] uolnere N(ut semper)  : pectore B4(uulnere mg. et i.l. B42)  : sanguine B5CV6 P10SoV16 Bo, “septem” test. Burm. 1727  : cespite L4(a.c.) Ld6 F2Z, “duo” test. Burm. 1727  : uulnera Ld(a.c.; -eræ p.c.) Ds  : pelice Go(a.c. a m.p.)  : corpore Ds2, “unus” test. Burm. 1727 • 397 lit(t)era] littora G(a.c.; littera mg. a m.p.)Ld Cv(a.c.)F2 P46(a.c.) • communis] comminus Tu(a.c.; communus p.c.)  : cûmunis Vd  : conuersis P41 • mediis] foliis B52(p.c.; mediis uid. a.c.) Mc P41  : floris Ca2(corr. Ca22)  : medii F2  : modiis V6 • pueroque] paruoque A2  : purpureoque Mc(a.c.) • uiroque] uiroque iacento B5 • 398 hunc u. uerbatim laudat Mo9 • inscripta] insripta T(a.c.)  : inscriptae F2(a.c.)  : scripta P41 • est] om. AbLsPr B14F2 • foliis] mediis B52(p.c.; foliis uid. a.c.)  : foliis est F2  : in mediis P41 • fainâ post hec scr. Vd(ex itin. corr.) • illa] ya Es4 • querel(l)(a)e] quelele L4(a.c.) : querele(-a P41) est Be2Mt P41 • post u. 398 desinit B • 399–622 om. Lejay 1894 • 399 uictor] Ictor P41 • ad … patriam] ab … patria M Lr27Vd11 • ad] om. Ps • Hypsipyles] hypsipiles MN(a.c.) Lr27  : hy—siphiles N2(p.c.)  : hysiphiles BoEs3(p.c.) Es6  : ysiphiles AGfLr2LuV2 A3BaBe2FeH3Ld2Lr3Lr6OO4TrV4V8V9Vd Cs2Ds2GoLi3P10So B12Es3(a.c.)Mt4To2 F2P41Ps Mo9  : isiphiles P2(uxor iasonis mg. addito) AbB2B5H2GgLr4P4Ph2Pr B8Ld6Lr8Mt2 Mt5P28Rd Es5Lr22V30Z P46Ca2  : hipsiphiles M2(filiam –sic- toantis suprascr.)  : ysyphiles S2 P5  : hypsiphiles V3  : ipsiphiles L3T TuV7 Vd11  : ysiphilas A2  : hisiphiles A4B3FLdLr5O3P32(p.c.)V6 Bo2Cs3 AsEs4Go2  : ysifiles B4 Mo3  : yphiles CsDr  : hisypyles G  : hisiphyles Hd  : hisifiles Mc  : isyphiles L4 Cv  : hysipides Mo  : hipsipiles Mo2(mg.)  : hisipiles C  : ipsipiles N2 Bo3  : ipsyphiles Ds  : ysiphyles E ToV16  : hiphiles LsP3 B14  : hyphiles P8  : hysifiles V5  : hysyphiles Ld3 P38  : hiphisides

462

Appendix critica

Lr7  : ysciphiles Es2  : esiphiles Ft  : ypsiphiles Vt  : isip tantum exstat in Re • patriam] patriamque Es2(a.c.)Mc  : om. P2(mg. suppl.) • clarique] claeris B5(a.c.)  : claris B5(p.c.) • T(h)oantis] tohantis A Bo Ca2  : thoamtis B5  : thoanthis N2  : toantes P8  : tonantis Ph2(a.c.)V4(a.c.)V9 Cs2Ds2Mt2 Es2 Es6Ps  : teantis Mc • • 400 et ueterum] aduetere’ M  : ad ueterum MoN2 Ld6 Bo3Vd11  : et ueterum ad Lr3 Ds  : aduertere Lr27  : et ueteruû T  : et tantum B4(a.c.)  : et uentum B5(a.c.)  : ac ueterum prop. Heinsius • terras infames] quid N a.c. n.l. • terras] om. O(mg. suppl. m.p. uel coaeua)  : terram Es2(a.c.) • infames] infami Lr7 • c(a)ede] îcede Fe(a.c.) • post u. 400 transierat tandem portu uotoque potitus hab. A2(mg.)N*(i.l., p.c. a m.rec.)V24(mg.)V32(mg.) A3A4AbB2B3(mg.)B4BaBe2CDeFe(mg.)LdLd32(mg.)Lr6LsMtO42(mg.)P32(i.l.)TrV5(mg.)V7V9Vd B8Ds2GoLd6Lr8(p.c.)Mo3Mt2Mt32(mg.)P8Re2(mg.)SoTo(mg.)V13V16(iuxta u. 400) BoEs32(ima pag.)Mt5P28To2 AsB14CvEs4Es5(tantum hab. transierat)Es6P41Ps P46Ca2 • 401 uela] et uela V6  : uera(uid.) Vd(a.c.)  : uella Rd, Calph. 1480 • dat] dabat Lu TuVd(a.c.) • ut referat] om. Ba(a.c.) • ut] om. Tu • referat] refferat M V7 Rd  : fera B5  : referent Tu • Tirynthia] tyrinthia L3MT Be2DrH3Ld3Lr3Lr4Ph2 P8To Es4Lr27P38Vd11Z V45  : tyrîchia Cs(tyrin-)Ld2  : tirinthia Lr2LuP2(p.c.)V3 B2FLr7MoP3V4 DsLi3Lr8V16 BoBo2(a.c.)Cs3Mt5 CvEs6Lr22Ps  : tirin(t/c)ia ANP2 B4CLr5O4TuV6V8V9 Ld6Mt2So B12Bo22(p.c.)Es2(p.c.)FtMt4 As(p.c.)Bo3P41 P46  : thirinthia M22(est i.l.)S2V2(quid i.l. V23 n.l.) B5H2Lr6 Es3(a.c.)To2 As(ex itin. corr.)F2  : thyrintia Gf P5  : tirracia A2  : thirincia AbB3GgLdLs B14  : thirintia A4BaP4Vd Go Es3(p.c.)  : tyrincia EFeN2O3 Cs2P10Vt  : tirinthya G  : tyrintia A3HdO Mo3P28 Es5  : tirinchia L4Pr Ca2  : thyryntia V5  : tyrincya V7  : tirrinthia Rd  : tirimcia B8  : tyrrichia Ds2  : tirantia Es2(a.c.)  : thirintia Mc  : thirytia Calph. 1480 • tela] uela S2(a.c.)  : tella Es2Rd, Aler. 1471 • sagit(t)as] sagittis N(-as i.l. u.l. N2) V4 Mc(-ctis)  : sagitta P2(a.c.)  : sagiptas RdTo2 B14 • 402 ad Graios] ad graias P2(a.c.)V2(a.c.) To2(-yas)  : adagios B5(a.c.)  : ad gragios Hd  : ad Grecos Ls B14  : ad P3(a.c. a m.p.)  : ad graos Li3  : ad gayos So • ad … domino] ad domino P3  : domino proprio V4 Es3(uid., a.c.) Es3  : ad graos duo Li3  : ad dominos graios domino P41  : quid Lr5 a.c. n.l. • reuexit] reuixit V2 CsPr Ds(a.c.) Ft  : reduxit P2(reuexit mg. u.l.) Mo3  : reuexi B8  : reuertit Mt4(a.c.) • 403 i(n/m)positaque fero est L3Lr2LuMM2NS2T B3B4(p.c.)H3Lr3(p.c. uid.)Lr7MoMtN2Tu B8Bs2Bs4Ld6Lr8 Cs3FtMt5 AsBo3Es6F2(p.c.)Lr27P38Vd11Z(p.c.), Puteol. 1471, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Aldina 1502, Lugd. 1546, Ciof. 1575(qui “ita in meis” test.), Fabbri 1923, Segura 1983  : i(n/m)positaque fero B4(a.c.)Gg(p.c.)LsO4Ph2V7 DsTo Bo B14  : i(n/m)posita est quae(per comp.) fero B5Pr Ds2(a.c.) Cv(a.c.)Ps  : imposita est feroque Fe  : prositaque fero est Lr3(a.c.)  : I(n/m)positaque est fero Ds22(p.c.) Ca2  : imposita estque fereo uel ferro P2(a.c.)  : imposita estque ferro V5 Es4(a.c.)  : i(n/m)positaque ferro est Bo2Rd F2(a.c.)Z(a.c.), Venet. 1472  : inposita estque tandem Es2(p.c.)  : inposita est q tantum exstat in Re  : imposita est sero Regius 1493, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Merkel 1850, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, Goold 1984, von Albrecht 1994, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007  : imposita estque sero FH2 V13(a.c.)  : i(n/m)positaque est sero C Cs2Mo3Mt3, “in uno Vatic.” test. Ciof. 1575  : imposita est fero A4(a.c.) Mt2 Mc(p.c.), Regius 1510(fort. uitio preli)  : inposita est bello B2(a.c.) • fero] ferro P2(a.c., uel fereo) V5 Es4(a.c.)  : celo A2  : bello B2(a.c.)  : capto(i.l. u.l.) Ld22 • fero tandem] tandem sero P8 Es2 • tandem] tandem est P41  : tamen Plan.  : om. Rd • manus] om. B3(a.c. a m.p.) • ultima] îpia A3 • bello] telo So(ex itin. corr.)  : bello est Ds Vt • post 403 deficit Cs • 404–407 uncinis not. Bothe 18182, Merkel 1875(haud sic 1850), Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Riese 1889(haud sic 1872), Simmons 1889, Magnus 1892, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Breitenbach 1964, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, Fink 2007 • 404 Troia  … cadunt] troia cadit priamusque simul B4Pr  : Troia cadunt priamusque simul B8 • cadunt] cadit Lr2 AbB4EN2Pr P38, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474 • priamusque] priamus T  : priameque Rd(a.c.) • priameia] priameiaque Gf Ds Go2,



Appendix critica

463

“Dresd.” (sed non Dr) test. Jahn 1832, Lugd. 1546, Gierig 1807  : pyrameia T(uid.)  : priamenia(-nya V9) Be2V9(a.c.) Es2  : et priameia P5  : priamea Z • 405–406 inu. ord. V4 • 405 om. Es3(ima pag. suppl. Es32) Es3 • perdidit] edidit Ls B14 • hominis] omnis Pr  : coniunx Ds(ex itin. corr.)  : omnem P41 • formam] tergunt B5(formam mg. B52)  : forman Lr5 • 406 om. L4(mg. suppl. m.rec.) • externasque] externosque AbCO3V6 Ca2, “unus Moreti” test. Burm. 1727, def. Koch  : esternasque F  : hesternasque F2(p.c.)  : extremasque Es2  : eternosque F2 • nouo] uano H3, unde uago dub. Slater 1927 • latratu] latratum MtPr • terruit] corruit P41  : teruit Rd, Calph. 1474, Calder. 1477 • auras] aures AM2(-as i.l. u.l. M22)N(a.c.; -as i.l. u.l. N2)T(i.l. u.l. a m.p.; -as in textu)V23(i.l. u.l.)V3(-as i.l. u.l. V32) Be2(p.c.)DeDrEH2Ld3Lr6(-as Lr62)Lr7O4(-as O42)P3P4Ph2TrV4V9 GoLi3Lr8Mt2P10(a.c.) Bo Es3Es5Go2Ps P46  : urbes N(p.c.)V2 V82(mg. u.l.) Mt4To2, “unus Medic.” test. Burm. 1727  : agros CO3V6 Ca2, “unus Moreti” test. Burm. 1727, def. Koch  : omnes Be2(a.c.)  : oras Plan., “duo” test. Burm. 1727, prob. Bothe 18182, Riese 1872, Simmons 1889, van Proosdij 1951  : de Tu B12(auras p.c.) n.l. • 407 post angustum haud legitur Tu • []ongus qua(que a.c.) clauditur in angustum hellespontus Ld(ord. per signa restit.) • longus] longum Hd  : longius To P41 • angustum] augustum A Ab(p.c.)Lr4O3O4 Ld6Mo3P8 P41(a.c.) Ca2  : aug’ Ab(a.c.) • qua … (H)e(l)lespontus] pontus qua clauditur elles N  : qua pontus clauditur (H)elles Gf Lr6LsMt B8Cs2Mt2 Es3(a.c.) B14Lr22V30, “Palatinus” test. D. Heinsius 1629, “quinque libri” test. Burm. 1727, Aler. 1471 : qua(per comp.) ergo łauditur helespontus T  : hic clauditur hellespontus A2  : qua claditur hespontus Ld3  : qua clauditur undique pontus Ld6 • Hellespontus] (h)e(l)les pontus AMTV2V3 AbB3EGg(a.c.)Lr3Ph2(a.c.)L4MoV8 DsDs2Mo3P10So Bo3  : helle pontus V6  : heleles pontus V7(a.c.)  : hespontus Ld3  : hellepontus O  : hellesspontus F2  : ellespontos To2  : elelppontus As(he- p.c.)  : helesponthus Es4  : elespontis P41 • 408 hunc u. om. H3(i.l. suppl. m.p. uel coaeua) • Ilion] ylion GfLr2P2 A2AbB2GGgLd2Lr6Lr7N2O3O4PrV9Vd B8Cs2Ds2(a.c.)Li3Mo3P5 B12Bo2Cs3Es2Es3 AsF2P41 Ca2  : Illion Hd(a.c.)V5 Rd Bo3 Mo9  : ylyon Ld3  : ylios Ds2(p.c.)So  : Ilios Ld6 • neque] nec LuV2 B2B4BaBe2FeLr5LsMtPrV6V9Vd GoMo3P5 Bo2FtTo2 B14Go2P41Ps • adhuc] aduc O3 To(a.c.)  : enim V9 • consederat] consenderat Lr2(a.c.)  : consideret C(a.c.)  : considerat DeP3Pr Mo3P8  : conscenderat Venet. 1472 • ignis] ignes P8(a.c.) • 409 exiguumque] exiguum Lu • senis Priami] inu. ord. DeLr3  : quid Es2 a.c. n.l. • Priami Iouis] priamyonis Li3 • Priami] priamis N(a.c.) Mt  : priamus V2(a.c.)  : primi B3(a.c.) • Iouis] om. Lr3  : quid Mt3 a.c. n.l. • ara] ira Gf • cruorem] croorem S2(a.c.) • • 410 combiberat] obiectat Mt  : cum biberat Pr Ds P8  : cûbiberat Re Rd  : conbirat Tu(a.c.)  : conhiberat Es3 • tractata] tractaque ALr2(tractisque p.c.)MN(sic item i.l. N2; tractisque p.c.)P2(p.c.)S2TV3 A2B2(tractisque p.c.)B42(mg.)B5(tractisque p.c.)BaFFeLdLd3Lr6Lr7N2OP3TuV4 Lr8(tractisque a.c.)Mt3P10 B12(-is i.l. u.l. B122)Bo2Cs3Es3FtMt5RdTo2Vt AsBo3CvEs3Es6F2Go2Lr22Lr27PsV30 P46, “in uno Vatic. et Briantii et Ioannis libro, quem mihi dono dedit” test. Ciof. 1575 • comis] comes Z(a.c.) • ant(h)istita Lu2P2(p.c.) A2A3A4B22(mg. p.c.)B3B4(p.c.)B5(p.c.)CDeGg(p.c.)Ld2Lr3(a.c.)Ls2(p.c.)OV4(p.c.)V6V7V8V9Vd(p.c.) B8Cs2P5P104(mg.)So Mc(p.c.)Mt5Vt2(p.c.) Es3Es5Es6F2Lr22V30 P46Ca2, Aler. 1471, Regius 1493(sic quoque 1540), edd.  : ant(h)istia Ω, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Regius 1527  : anstitita Ab  : antificta Hd  : anstista Mt  : antistite N2  : antitistia Ph2  : hastia Pr  : anstiscia Vd(a.c.)  : anstistita Ld3  : anstigia Mc(a.c.)  : antistea P41 • 411 non] nec B4 Re • profecturas] profuturas M Lr8 Es2FtTo2 Bo3Lr22Lr27P41V30, Aler. 1471  : profecturus E  : praefecturas F2  : profacturas H2(a.c.)  : perfecturas Ld6 • tendebat ad] tendebad To(a.c.) • ad (a)et(h)era] adhethera HdV7  : ad hectera B14V30  : ad equora Lr3(ethera mg. u.l. Lr32) • ad] in A4 Ft • palmas] palpas Accurs. 1475 • 412–413 inu. ord. V2 • 412 Dardanidas] Dardanides L3Lr2(p.c.; -as a.c.)P2 B3CH2H3Lr3V9 Ds2To Ft, mg. test. Bersm. 1596  : darmanidas B5(mg. corr. B52)  : dardanias A A2A3A4(p.c.)AbB4Be2DrFFeGHdL4Lr4Lr6MtPrV8Vd P5P10 McMt4P28 CvLr22P41PsV30 P46Ca2, Aler. 1471  : dardanyas E(a.c.)  : dardanydas E(p.c.)  : dardandas Ls(a.c.)  : danaidas P3  : darda-

464

Appendix critica

nidis Rd • patriorum] patrionum M(a.c.)  : proporum B5(a.c.)  : primorum Bo2 F2 • signa] templa O3 • 413–414 inu. ord. P5(a.c.) • 413 om. A3(mg. suppl. A32) P46 • dum licet] dulicet V5 • amplexas] amuleras Dr(i.l. recte Dr2)  : amphexas O4(a.c.)  : amplâxas Mo3  : amplexos F2 • templa] tecta A32(mg.) • tenentes] om. T(sed suppl. alt. antiq. m.)  : tênetis Mc(a.c.) : tênetes Mc(p.c.) • 414 inuidiosa] inuidiosaque Ab  : insidiosa C  : inuidios L4(a.c.)  : inuiosa Vd(a.c.) • trahunt] traunt NV2 PrTu(a.c.)  : thrahunt Hd  : traherint Es3 • uictores] uactores Ab(a.c.)  : uictora Ld6  : uictore Mc(a.c.), Calph. 1480  : uictoris P10(uid., a.c.) • Grai(i)] gragi Gf(item mg. Gf2) O3V7V8Vd(p.c. a m.p.) Li3Mt2  : graiy B3Lr6  : grates Mt  : graui Lr7Vd(a.c.) To2  : greci Dr Es2  : graias(uid.) Mt4(a.c.) • 415 Astyanax] astianas AGfL3Lr2MNV2 A3A4AbB3B4B5BaBe2DrGgH2H3HdL4(p.c.)Ld3Lr3Lr4Lr53(p.c.)Lr6Lr7MoMtN2OO4P3P4PrTrV4(a.c.)V6V7V8V9 B8Cs2Ds2GoLd6Li3Lr8Mt2P10Re(p.c.)SoToV16 : astianax B12BoBo2Cs3Es2Es3FtMcMt4Mt5To2 AsB14Bo3CvEs5Go2Lr27PsVd11Z P46   LuM2P2S2T B2CFFeGLd2Lr5(a.c.)TuV4(p.c.)V5 Ds P28 Es4Lr22P41V30 Ca2  : astyanas V3 Mo3P5Vt  : astiaphas A2  : astinas Re(a.c.)  : asthianas F2  : astiganas L4  : hastianas LdPh2  : astineas O3  : ad stigias Vd  : astantes P8  : astionca Rd  : astinias Es6  : deest in Ls • illis] om. B4(mg. suppl. m.p.)  : illas illis Es2 • turribus] turibus O4 Bo3  : curribus PrV6 Lr27  : partibus V7 • unde] undæ M • 416–417 inu. ord. A2Ld2V8 Bo2 • 416 pugnantem] pugnamtem Be2Ph2  : pungnantem Tu  : unde(per comp. vñ) pugnantem P5  : pugnatem Ld6To • proauitaque] pro auitaque P41, Regius 1493(corr. 1497)  : pro uitaque Lr2(a.c.) B3(a.c.)  : pro auita AbMt To Mt4Rd  : proauita P10(recte mg. P104) BoEs2  : proauique Mo3  : deest in Ls • regna] regia P10(recte mg. P104) • 417 monstratum  … matre] matre monstrante A  : mostratum matre V7 So • monstratum] monstrum A3(a.c.)  : monstratumque O3 • 418 iamque] iam Ph2(a.c.)Vd(a.c.) Ld6(a.c.) • uiam] uid&(uid.) N(a.c.)  : uiamque suam P8 • suadet Boreas] inu. ord. M2 Ca2 • suadet] spondet Ld2(suadet i.l. u.l. Ld22), prob. Bothe 18182  : suade Mt  : suhadet Go • Boreas] borreas Bo3 • flatuque] flatu B5(a.c.)  : fatuque L4(a.c.)  : motuque O4(flatuque i.l. u.l. O42)  : aflatuque P8 • 419 carbasa] carbas V3  : carbosa Ld  : carbasia Pr • mota] meta B5(uid., a.c.)  : tensa O4  : om. To(mg. To2) • sonant] sonat Lr7 • clamant dantque oscula terre post sonant scr. Vd(a.c.) • iubet … uentis] u. 420 scr. Vd(a.c.) • iubet] iuuat M Lr27  : iuu& NV2(a.c.)  : uidet Ca2(a.c.) • uti] ubi B5(a.c.)Ba(a.c.)  : ita Vd(a.c.)  : dare Es5  : quid N a.c. n.l.  : om. Ld6 • nauita] nabita N(a.c.)  : nauta T(a.c.) Rd  : nouita V3 • • 420 uale] ualo P2(a.c.)  : uele Ba(a.c.) • rapimur clamant] inu. ord. Gf Fe • rapimur] rapidamur M(a.c.)  : rapiuntur Mo3 • clamant] calmant L4 : ɔclamant Bo2  : clamant iterum hoc uersu suo loco scr. Vd(a.c.; uid. ad 419) • dant] dantque P2(p.c.)M2T A4AbFeLdLr5TuV7V8Vd DsGoLi3Lr8 Cs3Es32(p.c.)Mt5 AsGo2P38 Ca2, Plan., Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Koch 1866 • terr(a)e] nate Gg(a.c.)  : terris P3 • 421–472 om. Pr • 421–422 sic confl. Lr7: Troades. conscendunt classem miserabile uisu • 421 hunc u. om. L4(mg. suppl. L42) • Troades] Troiades L3N2(i suprascr.)V3 A3A4AbB5BaBe2CFFeGgHdL42Ld2MtO3V5 Cs2DsDs2GoRe Es2McTo2 F2 Ca2  : troianides Ps • et] om. Lr4 • patri(a)e] patria Be2  : pariter(per comp.) O4 • tecta post patrie scr. Es2(ex itin. corr.) • relinquunt] relinqunt AGfM2V3(a.c.)T A2A3B2B3B4Be2DrEFeGGgL42Ld2Ld3Lr5Lr6LsOO4P4Ph2V4V6V7V8V9 B8Cs2DsDs2GoLd6Mt2P10SoToV16 Es2McP28 B14Ps P46Ca2   : relincunt AbO3  : reliqunt Tu Rd  : relinquit L3(a.c.) B5(recte mg. B52)Mt Es3(a.c. uid.) • 422 ultima] ultimas Re(a.c.) • conscendit classem] inu. ord. P41 • conscendit] concendit A A4(corr. A42)LdLd3O3O4TuVd2(p.c.) B8Cs2(a.c.)Mo3So Ca2  : ĉcendit T : ɔcendit A2G(a.c.) P5  : contendit Mt  : consendit Cs3Es2, Puteol. 1471  : conscendunt Lr7  : coscendit Mc  :  ]ndit Ls • classem] classes Lu Go2  : classe Es2  : puppi Ab  : puppem So : tali classem F2 : nauem Mt3P5 • 423 hecube AGfLuM2P2S2T(p.c.)V2V3 A3A4AbB2B52(mg.)CEFFeGH2HdLd2O3P3Ph2TrTuV4V6V7 DsGoP5P10So(a.c.) B12BoBo2Cs3Es2Es3Mt5 AsCvEs4P38, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd.



Appendix critica

465

1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Weise 1845, Koch 1866, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Fink 2007  : ecube L3Lr2T(a.c.) A2B3B4Be2DrGgLdLr3Lr4Lr5Lr6Mo(p.c.)OO4P4V5V9Vd B8Ds2Ld6P8To P41PsVd11Z P46  : excube N(a.c.)  : eccube N(p.c.) H3 Lr8  : eucube F2  : heccube FtMcMt4RdTo2  : hec cube Li3  : Hecabe Plan., Bothe 18182, Merkel 1850, Siebelis-Polle 1880, Polle 1888, Keene 1898, Slater 1927, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005, def. Housman  : hæcuba M  : hecuba L4Lr7LsN2V8 Cs2Mo3Mt2So2(p.c.)V16 P28(p.c.) Es5Es6Lr27V30 Ca2, Aler. 1471, Calder. 1477, Loers 1843, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Simmons 1889  : eccuba Ld3  : ecuba BaMo2(mg. u.l.) P28(a.c.) Lr22Ps2(a suprascr.)  : heccuba B14Bo3  : etubimus B5  : Hecuba est Merkel 1875 • natorum] natarum Gf Es6 • inuenta] îfusa Gf  : inuecta Lu  : iumenta Mt  : inunta V8(a.c.)  : iuncta Bo • sepulc(h)ris] columbis Fe(a.c.)  : sepulcrum Ps • 424 prensantem] pressantem ALuV23(p.c., res suprascr.) DrFH2Ld2Lr3MtOO4(a.c.)P3TuV4V6V9(p.c.) Cs2GoLd6Lr8SoTo(p.c.) Es3(a.c.)McVt Es3Go2PsP41 P46Ca2, “plurimi” test. Burm. 1727  : presantem N(a.c.)  : presâtem B3  : pre(per comp.) santê H3(a.c.) Re(a.c.)  : presentem Fe(a.c.)  : pulsantem GfV2(uid., a.c.) V5V7Vd(a.c.) To2(mg. u.l.) B14(prensantem i.l. u.l. B142), “Moreti” test. Burm. 1727  : prensentem A2  : plêsentê Be2  : pransantem C  : prausantem Mo3  : prenssantem Vd2(p.c.) O42(p.c.) Ca22(p.c.)  : pensantem DsMt2 Es2Ft  :  ]ntê Ls(cf. B14)  : praestantem Li3 • tumulos] titulos N2(i.l. u.l.) Ab(tumulos i.l. u.l. Ab2)  : timulos B5(a.c.)  : tumulis Ld(a.c.) • atque] adque Tu Ld6  : ac V9  : quid B4 a.c. n.l. • ossibus oscula] inu. ord. V8(a.c.) • 425 Dulic(h)i(a)e] dulitię Gf : dulchie Mt  : Dulinchie Cv(a.c.) • manus] rates M2(a.c.) • unius] usius B5  : humus P8 • hausit] ausit N(a.c.) A2(a.c.)B3B5Lr6 Lr8P8 Es2FtP28(a.c.)Rd Es6Vd11  : husit V3(a.c.)  : hauset V2(uid.)  : hausti Lr3  : hau[ Lr5 • 426 inque] hincque Mt • sinu] sinû Gf(uid.) B3N2V6  : sinus M2T B2(suos suprascr.)B4DrGGgLd3Tu B8Cs2 Es4Es6  : suum A2 P38, Puteol. 1471, Calph. 1474 • cineres] similes Gg(a.c.)  : cinerres V5(a.c.)  : cinares Ft • tulit] trahit Lr8(tulit i.l. u.l. Lr82) • Hectoris] equoris Ds2(corr. Ds22) • haustos] haustus T Bo2(a.c.)  : hastos Ld2(a.c.) Mc(a.c.)  : hausto P3  : def. Lr5  : austos B3(a.c.)Mo(a.c.) Lr8 Ft  : haustas Ds2(a.c.)  : austus Li3 • 427 Hectoris] Hoctoris Ld • in tumulo] in mulo O3(a.c.)  : in tumulos Be2(a.c.) Mt4  : in tumulum O4 • de uertice] diuercite Gf(uid.)  : deuertere Vd(a.c.) • uertice crinem] desunt in Lr5 • 428 inferias] inferos B5(uid.; recte mg. B52)  : inferiasque Fe  : imferias V30 • inopes] in opes HdMtV6 So P28 F2 Ca2  : inopem B5(recte B52)  : om. B2(a.c.) • crinem lacrimasque] lachrymasque insana Es5 • lacrimasque] lacrimâque A3  : lacrimas Tu  : lachrymaque Es6  : post lacri[ reliqua uerba desunt in Lr5 • reliquit] relinquunt M(a.c.)T(-qunt)  : reliqui Lr27  : relinquit Lr2M2V2(-id) A2AbB2(a.c.)B3(-id)Ld3OO4TuVd Bs3(a.c.)Bs4 FtMc(-id)To2(relîq-) Ps, Plan., Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836 • ultima conscendit post hunc u. scr. Gg(ex itin. corr.) • post hunc u. def. P46 • 429 Troia] troiax Lr7 • fuit] cadit L4(a.c.) • Phrygiae] phrig- uel frig- codd. plurimi, ut solent  : phrię M2(a.c.)  : danais B3(a.c.)  : phigie B5(a.c.)Ph2(a.c.) Bo2(a.c.)  : phirgie B5(p.c.)  : phrygye Ld3 • contraria tellus desunt in Lr5 • • 430 Bist(h)oniis] bistonis L3(a.c.) Li3P8  : bostoniis A4(a.c.)  : bystoniis Gf  : bistiniis Ca2(a.c.) • habitata] agitata Gf  : abitata Lr2 Ph2  : habitanda B52(p.c.; -ata B5) As Ca2  : habita H3(a.c.) Mt3 Cv • uiris] ueris Ba(a.c.) • Pol(y/i)mestoris] polimestolis N  : pôlmestoris Gf  : polistemoris Lr3  : polmestoris V8(a.c.)  : polinestoris Lu A4B2B4CDrGgLr5Ld2Ls(p.c.)OO3O4TuVd B8Cs2Ds2GoLd6Lr8(p.c.)Mo3P5So B12BoBo2Cs3Es3FtMt4Mt5 AsB14Es5F2P41, Venet. 1472  : polynestoris Ld3Tr(sed 551 polymest-), Puteol. 1471  : polinestori B3  : palimestoris Lr7  : palinestoris V9  : polymnestoris Lr22V30, edd. uet. quaedam • illic] illi P2(p.c.; illic a.c.)  : illa H3  : illuc V7  : illis P8  : illo P10(loco suprascr.) • 431–432 cui … pater] om. Mt • 431 diues] diues diues Hd(ex itin. corr.) • erat] erit B5(a.c.) • cui] cum P3(corr. P32) P8 • te] om. H3(a.c.) • commisit] dimisit AbO4  : commissit A3(a.c.) • alendum] alendeum Hd(a.c.) • 432

466

Appendix critica

Pol(y/i)dore] calidore B5  : palidore Ba(a.c.) Mc  : palidone B8  : o polydore Tu  : polodosie P8  : poridore Mt2 • pater] caput MN(a.c.) Lr27  : om. Mo(pater suppl. Mo2) • (ph/f)r(y/i)giisque] phrigisque L3(a.c.)  : prigiisque S2(a.c.) Ld2(a.c.) : frigieque A2  : frigiis B3(frigis a.c.)Lr3Lr7  : phrigrisque Tu  : phrigiis Vd(a.c.) Ld6 • remouit] exemit A4LdO3(p.c.)  : exegit O3(a.c.) • ab] om. Es2(a.c.) • 433 consilium] conscilium Lr2 Mo Es2  : consilii Lr5  : concilium Ft • sapiens] capiens L3V3(a.c.) AbH2(corr. H22)H3V52(p.c.; sapiens V5) To Ps(sapiens i.l. u.l. Ps2)  : utrum B2 n.l. • sceleris] scereris V2(a.c.)  : celeris Mt  : scelerum “Moreti unus” test. Burm. 1727 • nisi] non Mc  : in Es5  : om. Ld6(a.c.) • pr(a)emia] copia V6  : praeuia Cv(praemia mg. u.l.) • magnas] magnos Lr7(a.c.)  : magnis F2(a.c.)  : manas Tu(a.c.)  : magna V8, “duo Vaticani” test. Burm. 1727  : magni Ld6, “quinque” test. Burm. 1727 • 434 adiecisset] adiacisset A2B3(a.c.)Fe(a.c.)V6 B14  : adiesisset Mt  : aiecisset C  : abiecisset N2 • opes] opus Tu • animi] cû et Mc  : causam et P41  : auri Es3 • i(n/r)ritamen] irritamina Bs7 (cf. Plan.)  : irritamenta Es2(a.c.)  : irratamen A4(a.c.)  : iritamen Lr4 V16 Es3 P41, Calph. 1474, Regius 1493(corr. 1510; cf. ad uu. 565, 967)  : irritamur P8 • 435–436 caput impius ense / rex Thracum iugulumque sui diuisit alumni dub. Heinsius • capit impius ensem / rex Thracum] rex tracius ensem / impius accepit Mt • 435 cecidit] cecidi F(a.c.)  : cessidit Bs3(a.c.)  : cedit Accurs. 1475  : cessit dub. Bach 1836(in notis) • fortuna] fotuna C  : futuna Vd(a.c.)  : om. Ds2(a.c.) • (ph/f)r(y/i)gum] ducum B4  : uiri Lr6(a.c.)  : prigum Tu Rd  : frigii Ld6  : frugum Es2(a.c.) • capit impius] capit inscius Gf(a.c. a m.p.) B4(a.c.)V4(c. impius a.c.) So Ca2(a.c.)  : capit î ipi’ Ab  : capit ipius Ld  : capud(per comp.) impius B5 : caput impius V9(a.c.) Ft Bo3Ps(a.c.) • ensem] essem B5(per comp.; corr. B52) • 436 rex Thracum] Infectum B8(a.c.)  : nec tracum Bo2 • T(h)racum] trachum Lu(p.c.) BaEH2 P5 Vt  : troium P2(per comp.)  : traum A2  : traccum V7  : tractum Lr8  : aracum Li3  : trhacum V30 • sui] om. Mt Rd  : suum P28 • demisit Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Riese 1872, Merkel 1875, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007  : dimisit Accurs. 1475  : defigit Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Merkel 1850, Koch 1866, Hopkinson 2000  : defixit Aler. 1471 • alum(p)ni] alupni Lr5V6 FtRd  : alumno Mt(a.c.)  : alûnpni Ph2  : in aluum Bo • 437 hunc u. om. Es6 ob homoeoarchon • tamquam] tanquam tanquam Li3 • tolli … possent] possent cum corpore crimina tolli L4 Ca2 : tolli cum crimina corpore possent A4(p.c.)Lr3  : tolli cum crimine corpora possent Go  : tolli cum corpore possent Li3  : cum corpore tolli crimina possent To • tolli] tollit S2 : toli Ab  : om. A4(mg. supp. m.p.) • corpore] tenpore Ph2 • possent] posses S2(p.c.) : posset S2(a.c. uid.) Dr Mc  : possunt B12 • 438 om. L4(mg. suppl. L42) • exanimem] exanimen O4 Ft  : exanime Es5 • scopulo] e scopulo Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1659(“cum melioribus”), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Koch 1866 • subiectas] subiectos M(a.c.)  : supiectas Tu  : subiectasque Es3  : quid P10 a.c. n.l. • in] ad V30 • undas] udas Ld6 • 439–440 inu. ord. H3(a.c.) • 439 littore] litto B12(a.c.) • T(h)reicio] treiceo A(a.c.)  : trehicio FGgPh2  : treytio Tr  : treitio Lr8B14  : treycio Ld3 Es2  : treieo P8  : thraicio V2(a.c.) C  : traicio Lr2 A4B3B4Be2FeN2O3V7 Mt2 Cs3Mc CvEs4Go2  : thraitio Lu  : trahicio Lr6V6  : traiticio Ft  : traitio Mt4To2  : troyano P41  : Sigaeo tempt. Bentley (uid. Hedicke 1905, 32) • clas(s)em] claro Mt  : classes O3V8Vd  : classe Es4, Venet. 1472 • • 440 mare pacatum] marte peccatum B5(a.c.)  : mara(uid.) peccatum L4(a.c.) • mare] marte B5(a.c.)  : mara(uid.) L4(a.c.)  : matre Li3  : om. Ld2(i.l. suppl. Ld22) • pac(c)atum] pactatum B3Mt  : pachatum Bo  : precatum V6  : de Mt5 n.l. • dum2] quid P10 a.c. n.l. • uentus] uentis A4 Ft Lr22V30, Aler. 1471  : uentum Mt  : uetus Ds • amicior] mitior GfL3N2(i.l. u.l.) A32(i.l. p.c.)A4B2B3CDeH2H3LdLd3(mitt-)Lr3OV5 Cs2Ld6Lr8P5(mitt-)SoTo FtMt4(p.c.)To2



Appendix critica

467

AsF2Lr22P38V30 Ca2, Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Weise 1845, Koch 1866  : micior Gg(i.l. u.l. a m.p.)Ld2O3TuV6Vd P10 Cs3Mt2  : amitior Lu GLr7MoP3 BoBo2Mt4(a.c.)RdVt Z  : anicior A3(a.c.)  : amitcior Be2  : amiciore Ds(a.c.)  : amicio P8  : nontior Mt  : timior Aldina 1502  : om. Li3  : de Mt5 n.l. • post u. 440 uu. 442, 441 et iterum 441 hab. B5; 4412 eras. et sinistra mg. u. 449 suppl. B52 • 441–442 inu. ord. B5V7 • 441 hic] hîc Gf  : h’ic L3  : hinc Es4 • quantus] tantus Ld3  : qualis P41  : om. A4(mg. suppl. m.p.) • cum uiueret] conuiueret Hd  : cum de uiuere P10 • esse] ipse(per comp.) Ds • 442–443 inu. ord. Rd • 442 hunc u. om. Lr2(suppl. m.p. uel coaeua)  : post u. 444 hab. Ds2(a.c.) • humo] humero B5(a.c.)  : umo Tu(a.c.) • late rupta] rupta late AbB4  : quid B3 a.c. n.l. • late] rapide M Lr27Vd11  : lapte N(a.c.; la te p.c.) Hd(a.c.)  : male V4(a.c.) • rupta] copta Mt  : rupta est Mo3 • similisque] simulque Mt4(a.c.)  : quid B5 a.c. n.l. • minanti] roganti Be2(a.c. a m.p.)  : miminanti Ld  : minaci Ld8  : mittanti P8  : minat Mc • 443–444 sic confl. Ds2: temporis illius petiit agamemnona ferro / quo ferus iniusto uultum referebat achilles • 443 temporis] temporisis B5(a.c.) • uultum referebat] inu. ord. Ld3 • uultum] multum “fragm. Moreti” test. Burm. 1727 • referebat] ferrebat A4(a.c.)  : ferebat FeVd • 444 quo] qui M(p.c.; quo a.c.) Ld8 Lr27 • ferus] fetus Mc(a.c.)  : ferrus Rd(ut solet) • iniusto petiit] inu. ord. C(a.c.) • iniusto] in iusto ALr2M2 A4H3LdLd2(a.c.)Lr3Lr6LsMoV5V6 SoToV16(a.c.) P28 Bo3 Mo9  : in usto L3(a.c.) B5(per comp.)  : inuito B22(i.l. u.l.)  : inuicto Dr(iniusto i.l. u.l. Dr2)Fe  : in iuste F2  : iniuste Es6Z  : in uiso Vd • petiit] petit L3Lr2(a.c.)LuNV2V3(p.c.; petiit a.c.) B3B5CH3L4Lr3N2OP3 Cs2DsGoP10SoTo(a.c.)V16(a.c.) Es6  : petiitque P2(p.c.; petiit a.c.)  : pectit M2  : peciit B4Be2O3 Es4  : pecit(uid.) Ab(a.c.)  : petit hic V9  : petierat Es2(a.c.)  : petunt Calph. 1480 uitio preli • prosecute(uid.) post petit in textu sed eras. exhib. B5 • Agamemnona] agamennona MT BaFHdO4TuV4 Lr27  : agamem(sic) non a N  : agamenona Lr2LuP2 B3H3Lr6Lr7V6V7 SoToV16 B12BoBo2(p.c.)Cs3Es2Es3FtMcMt4(p.c.)Mt5P28Rd AsB14CvEs4Es5Es6F2P41  : agamonona B4  : agmenona B5  : agamênna Ld(a.c.)  : agam’no Lr4(a.c.)  : agam’anona Vd  : agumemnona Ds  : aganenona Ld6  : agamenonia Bo2(a.c.)To2  : agamenoma Mt4(a.c.)  : agamînona Venet. 1472  : Agamemnone Bersm. 1596 • ferro] telo O4  : fero Mo3 • 445–446 inu. ord. V7 • 445 immemoresque] immemorisque Lu(a.c.)  : immemores ne V16 Bo, “non male” iud. Burm. 1727  : immemoresuesque(sic) Ps • mei] nostri(per comp.) Es2 • disceditis] discedistis L3(a.c.)V3(a.c.)  : discedens P2  : discetis Ba(a.c.) Ps  : discedite Vd(a.c.) Ca2  : disseditis Bo2  : diceditis Es2(a.c.)  : disceptis Li3 • inquit] dixit Ca2 • Achiui] achilli Lr7 • post u. 445 u. 437 iter. P8 sed cum lit. damn. • 446 obrutaque] ablata S2  : obruta A3DrLr3Vd P8(a.c.) Ft Ca2(a.c.)  : obruptaque Ld2(a.c.)  : obrutane P8(p.c.) • est] om. Ab(a.c.)Lr3Lr7 Es3Ps • est mecum] mecum est Mt3 Es3  : est motum Ld6 • nostr(a)e] uestrae A(-tre)M(p.c.; nostrae a.c.) O3(-tre) So Lr27Ps(a.c. a m.p.)  : mee Mc(ex itin. corr.) • ferro post nostrae scr. B3(a.c.) • 447 ne] nec B3Lr7 Ca2  : non V6 Mo3 Es5 • facite] om. P10  : facitis P102 • utque] atque L3Lr2 Ld2(utque Ld22)H3(utque H32) Ft  : usque P2(p.c.; utque a.c.)  : utque utque Mc  : que Mt4(a.c.) • meum] mecum T Ab(a.c.)  : meum est Hd  : om. B3 Li3 • sit] sunt P10(corr. P102)  : om. A4(a.c.) Mc • sine] bene(bñ) P8  : om. Es4  : quid B5 a.c. n.l. • honore] hono Mo(a.c.) • sepulc(h)rum] sepucrum Ld(a.c.) Mc(a.c.) • 448 placet] placcet Gf A2B4Be2  : paccat Dr  : placet et Ds2  : placit Es2(a.c.) •Achil(l)eos] achilleidos B3 Cs2Mt3  : achilleios B4(a.c.)V5  : achilles Bo2(a.c.)  : achelaos(uid.) Ft • achel post achelaos iter. Ft(a.c.) • Pol(y/i)xena] proollixena(per comp. pro-) B5(a.c.)  : prolixena B5(p.c.)  : polissena A2FeLr5 Es5  : polisena Dr FtMt5RdTo2 P41  : polixea Hd(a.c.)  : polixia Lr7 Ca2(a.c.)  : pelixena Lr3  : polexena O3  : pollixena V5 B8 Es3 B14  : pollisena Mc  : polysena Mo3 Es6 • manes] mentes G(a.c. a m.p.) • 449 post 451 hab. V7 • 449 hunc u. om. B5(mg. ante 4412 suppl. B52)  : hunc u. post 451 hab. V7 • et immiti] om. Mc(a.c.; et immitis Mc2) • et] om. Tu(a.c. a m.p.) Mc(a.c.) • immiti … umbrae] sociis parentibus immiti umbrę L3(p.c.) • i(m/n)miti] i(m/n)mitti GfLu(a.c.) AbB3B52Ba(a.c.)Be2C(a.c.)FeGgH3(a.c.)Ld3Lr5Lr7LsO3V8Vd B8Ds2GoMo3Mt2P5 Bo2Mt5P28 Es5(a.c.)F2  : inmicti(in micti Es2) MtV7 Es2 B14  : in miti To2  : inuictis A2  : inmite L4  : i(m/n)mittis Mc2Rd Es3  : inuitis P41  : de T n.l. • sociis] sociisque V6Vd  : sociis sociis To(a.c.) • parentibus] patruelibus Lu(a.c.)  : parantibus

468

Appendix critica

A2  : parentebus Ds(a.c.) : parentibusq Ps  : parcentibus V30  : om. Ft(mg. u.l. suppl. m. recentior) • umbr(a)e] inbre Lr7  : umbra B14 • • 450 rapta] raptea Hd(a.c.)  : rata V16(a.c.) Mc • sinu] sui A2  : sinu est A3  : sum Lr7  : simul Tu  : sinux Mc : om. Es3 • matris] quid L3 a.c. n.l. • quam] quę E(quam i.l. u.l. E2)  : quae(per comp.) Be2V5(corr. V52)  : que Ca2  : quo Mt5 • iam] cum P8  : om. P2(mg. suppl.) • prope sola] inu. ord. B12(a.c.) • prope] propera T(per comp. uid.)  : probe Lr7(a.c.) • sola] sole L3(a.c.) P28  : om. Lr2(i.l. Lr22) • fouebat] fauebat L3 P8 Mc  : ferebat Dr Bs4(p.c.), “unus” test. Burm. 1727  : tenebat “alius” test. Burm. 1727 • 451 et2] om. Lr7 • plus quam] post quam (per comp.) A  : puliq3 Rd • femina] feminea Lr7 • uirgo] uirbo B4 • 452 tumulum] tumultum Mc • diroque] duroque A2AbDrV8Vd(a.c.) Mt2P5 Mc B14F2Lr22 Ca2, Puteol. 1471, Calph. 1480  : duro Dr  : dirorumque(uid.) Tu(a.c.)  : diraque Ld6  : dirique Ft  : Phthioque coni. et mox ipse reic. Marklandus • fit hostia] inu. ord. H2 • fit] sit B5Lr5MtV6  : om. To • hostia] ostia Lu(a.c.)P2(a.c.) Ld • 453 quae memor] quod memor B3(a.c.)  : i(m/n)memor Ba(quae mg. u.l. Ba2) B8(quae i.l. u.l. a m.p.)GoP5 Go2  : quae me Bo(a.c.)  : sed(quae Ca2) memor Ca22 • ipsa] ipse B5 • sui] fui Ds2(a.c.) Go2 • postquam] plusquam Gg(a.c.) • crudelibus] credelibus B4 • aris] armis De(aris mg. u.l. De2)O3(aris mg. u.l. O32) P8(a.c.) Rd : antis Mt • 454 hic u. fere deletus est in T propter folii scissuram • est] om. V6 Li3 • post admota est u. 455 scr. N2(sensitque … parari mg. suppl. m.p.) • sensitque] sentitque A A4H3 Ld6P8, Mitsch. 1819, Baumg.-Crus. 1824(corr. 1834), Richter 1828 • fera sacra] inu. ord. Bo2 • fera] sua B4  : seua Dr(a.c.)  : fata B5  : eam Mt  : ferra Rd(ut solet) • sacra] fata Gf B42(i.l. u.l.)Gg(i.l. u.l. a m.p.) Ds2(sacra i.l. u.l. Ds22), “nonnulli” test. Burm. 1727 : facta Ba(a.c.)  : bella Go(a.c.)  : sacres P10(a.c.)  : busta “unus Medic., fort. iusta” Heinsius • parari] paraui P8 • 455 hunc u. om. Vt • utque] uique Es2  : atque AsP41  : usque Mo9 • Neoptolemum] ne optolemum L3  : neoptolomum A(pirrum i.l. A2)GfLr2LuM22 A2A4B3B4Be2FeLr3Lr6Lr7LsP4TuV4V5V8V9 Cs2DsGoToV16 BoCs3Es3(p.c.)RdTo2 AsB14Bo3Es4Ps Mo9  : neotholomum AbGgLr4V7Vd Mo3P5  : neoptolamum B52(p.c.)  : neotulamum(-tu- uid.) B5(a.c.)  : neoptholemum F2V30Z  : neotolemum L4(a.c.)Ld2Lr5  : neoptholomum GO3Ph2Tr B8 P41  : neotolomum O4V6 Bo2McMt4(p.c.)  : neotholemum CLd3  : nectolomum So  : neuptolomum Es2  : neptolomum Ld6  : neptolemum Li3  : neoptolomô P8  : neptolimum Ft  : netolomum Mt4(a.c.)  : neoptelemum Cv • stantem] stantemque Bo  : instantem V30 • ferrumque] ferumque Hd(a.c.)Mo(a.c.) Es6  : ferrque To(a.c.)  : ferroque Rd P41 • tenentem] tenenentem L3(a.c.)  : parari(e priore u.) B3  : parantem B4(tenentem i.l. u.l. B42)V9, “tres alii” test. Burm. 1727  : parentum Mc  : parantum P41  : mouentem “Oxon.” test. Burm. 1727  : tenentes Venet. 1472  : quid Ba Es3 a.c. n.l. • 456 inque AGfL3N2(ītq3, suprascr. ī)V2V3 A2A3A4AbB3B4BaBe2CEFGgH2H3HdLdLd2Ld3Lr5Lr6LsO3O4P3P4Ph2V4V5V7Vd B8DsDs2Ld6Li3Mo3Mt2Mt3To B12Bo2Es3McMt4RdTo2 B14Es3Es5Es6F2Go2P41PsZ Ca22(mg. u.l.), Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Merkel 1850, Koch 1866, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, H-K-E-A 1966, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004  : utque Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1565(mg.), Bersm. 1596, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007 • uidit] uidi P3(corr. P32) • figentem] figûtê Gf  : fingentem Lr2 AbLd2(a.c.)Mo2(-n- suprascr.)Vd(a.c.) Lr8P8 B12Mt5 P41  : figientem N2(p.c.) P10(p.c.)  : fugientem L4Lr3N2(a.c.) P10(a.c.) Es2(a.c.) Ft(p.c.) Ca2(a.c.)  : fegentem(uid.) Ls(a.c.)  : fugentem Mt2(a.c.)  : fugiem Ft(a.c.) • 457 utere] uertere Lr7 Ca2(a.c.)  : utuere Mc • iamdudum] iam dudum AL3Lr2LuV2 A2A4B3B5Be2FFeGGgH3HdL4LdLd2Lr3Lr4Lr7LsN2OTuV4V6V7V8Vd B8DsDs2Ld6Lr8Mo3Mt2P10SoToV16(a.c.) B12BoBo2Cs3Es2Es3FtMt4P28RdTo2 AsB14Bo3CvEs4F2Lr27P41V30, Calph. 1480, Regius 1493(sed uno uerbo in notis sicut in 1510 et 1527) : dudum iam Mc  :



Appendix critica

469

iantandem Es5 • sanguine] semine Plan.(σπέρματι)  : sangune Venet. 1472 • dixit] uidit C(a.c.)  : duxit Lr7 • 458 (nulla … est) pro parenth. hab. H-K-E 1898, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, van Proosdij 1951, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983 • est] sit O3 • at] Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Weise 1845, Merkel 1850, Koch 1866, Zingerle 1884, Edwards 1905, Fabbri 1923, Breitenbach 1964, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005 • tu] in Lr5 Mt5  : tu in Es4  : ut Ca2(a.c.)  : om. A3A4(i.l. A42) Ds Es5 • uel] aut AV2(uid., a.c.) MtV9 Mt3 To2  : aut tu P41, dub. Heinsius  : om. B5(mg. B52)L4(a.c.) • pectore telum] pectore ferrum AGfV2(telum i.l. u.l. V22)V3 A2A3A4(telum i.l. u.l. A42)B3B52(mg.)BaBe2CEF(telum i.l. u.l. F2)GgH2HdLdLd2Lr5Lr6LsMtO3P3P4Ph2V4V5V9 Li3Lr8Mo3Mt2Mt3P5P8 B12Bo2Cs3(ferrum mg. u.l. a m.p.)Es2Es3McMt4To2 As(mg. u.l.)B14Es3Es5Es6Lr22P41PsV30, Aler. 1471  : tempere colum B5  : pectore Tu  : pectore telis Lr7  : pectore meo Ft  : corpore telum Ds2 • 459 conde] corde Lu(a.c.)  : crede Ds  : cû de Rd • meo] meum Lr7 F2  : telum Ft  : modo Es6P38, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475  : om. Rd • pectusque] pectus Lr4(a.c.) Es2(a.c.) : petitque Mt • retexit] retexi Tu : rexex inchoau. V5(ex itin. corr.) • • 460 scilicet] silicet B3Mo(a.c.) BoBo2 Bo3  : sceilicet Ld6  : sciiclet Ld13 • haud ulli] aurali Rd • ulli] nulli B3E(a.c.)V4(a.c.) Ca2(a.c.)  : uilli B5(a.c.)  : illi Ld2(a.c.)V9(a.c.) Bo2  : om. Gg(a.c.) • ulli seruire] ullis iure Be2 • seruire Polyxena] polixena seruere(per comp.) Lr7  : pollixena seruireque V7 • seruire] seruare(uid.) B5(a.c.)  : seuire Gg(a.c.) Rd • Pol(y/i)xena] polixina A P8  : polexena Ab  : polaxena Be2  : pollixena BaLr3V5V7Vd Ld6 Es3  : pollisena Go2B14  : polisena FtMcMt5RdTo2 P41  : polissena Es5  : polixera Li3  : deest in Ls • uidi post polixena scr. Vd11(ex itin. corr.) • ferrem AGfL3Lr2N2(i.l. u.l.)V2V3 A3AbB2B5(p.c.)BaBe2CFFeH2H3LdLr3Lr5MtO3O42(mg.)P4Ph2V4V5 Bs2Li3Lr8P10To Bo2Es3(uid., a.c.)Mc CvEs3Lr22PsZ, Aler. 1471, Heinsius 1659(qui et “Cantabrig.  … aliique plurimi” test.), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Koch 1866, Riese 1872, Tarrant 2004  : ferem F2  : ferar P41  : ferri V30  : uellem Gf2(i.l. u.l.)MNM2P2S2TV32(i.l. u.l.) A2A4Ab2(i.l. u.l.)B3B4Ba2(i.l. u.l.)C(i.l. p.c.)DrEF2(i.l. u.l.)GGgH22(mg. u.l.)HdLd2Ld3Lr6Lr7MoMtN2OO4P42(mg. u.l.)TuV6V7V8V9Vd B8Cs2DsDs2GoLd6Mo3Mt2P5P8P103(i.l.)SoV16 B12BoCs3Es2FtMc(mg. u.l.)Mt4Mt5P28RdTo2 AsB14Bo3Es4Es5Es6Lr27P38Vd11 Ca2Ld13, Plan., Puteol. 1471, Aldina 1502, edd.  : uellet H-K-E 1898, Ehwald 1915, van Proosdij 1951, H-K-E-A 1966  : quid B5 a.c. n.l.  : deest in Ls • 461 om. Cv(mg. suppl. m.p.) • per tale] tale per Lr3Lr6  : per talem Ld6(a.c.)  : per me tale Mt5  : pro tale P28  : per Rd • sacrum] om. Ls(a.c.) B14(a.c.)  : sacra Hd(a.c.)  : factum Regius 1493(sacrum corr. 1540) • numen  … ullum] nullam placabitis umbram Gg2(i.l. u.l.)  : est ullum placcabile numen V8 • numen] uel numen Z • plac(c)abitis] placabimus Ld22(i.l. u.l.)  : sacrabitis C  : per laterantis Mt(per comp.)  : placabitus Bo2(a.c.)  : placabitur Ld8, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834  : placa[ Ls • ullum] illud P3  : illum L3 Mt  : inquid C(a.c.)  : nullum V9(a.c.) • 462–463 propter folii scissuram desunt in T • 462 uellem … posset] matrem uellem mea fallere posset Ba(p.c.)FH2LdO3(p.c.)O4V8 Ca2  : uellem mea fallere posset Ba(a.c.)Mo(a.c.)  : uellem fallere posset Ls  : uellem matrem ut mea fallere posset Ft  : uellem mea matrem fallere posset Lr6Mt DsLd6, “Thuan.” test. et prob. Burm. 1727(in notis)  : uellem matrem me fallere posset Es2  : uellem matre mea fallere posset(-em a.c.) P28  : posset uellem mea fallere matrem Bothe 18182(def. 1818)  : matrem mea uellem fallere posset “unus Heinsii” test. Burm. 1727 • matrem mea] inu. ord. Lr6Mt DsLd6  : mea Mo(a.c.)  : matrem ut mea Ft  : matre mea P28  : matrem me Es2  : om. Ls • fallere] falle Calph. 1480 • posset] possit O3(a.c.)  : possem P28(a.c.) • 463 om. V2(mg. suppl. V23) Ca2(mg. suppl. Ca22) • mater] datus(per comp. dat’) Rd • obest] abest B5(a.c.)Be2DrHd(a.c.) P8 Mc P41  : obit C  : obem Calph. 1480 • minuitque] monuitque MN(a.c.)V23(a.c.) Ab2(a.c.) Lr27  : meru B8(ex itin. corr.)  : munitque Ld6 : timuitque Es2 • necis mihi] mihi necis B5(p.c.; michis a.c.)Gg(a.c.)L4  : necis mea Ld(a.c.) O3(mg.)  : mihi mea O3(necis

470

Appendix critica

mg. scr. m.p.)  : quibus mihi Mt  : meę mihi O  : mihi V4(necis mg. suppl. V42)  : necis Es4(a.c.)  : mihi nunc P41 • necis] nescis Ds2(a.c.)  : neces Mc(a.c.) • quamuis] quamuix GgPh2 B8  : quamuir Ld13  : necis O • 464 non … mors] non in memors Mt • non] nec O  : nunc Go2 • mea] ea Ft  : om. So • mors] mor Ph2(a.c.)  : sors Lr22V30, Aler. 1471 • illi] ille F2 • uerum] merum B5  : meum Li3  : om. P8 • sua uita] inu. ord. P28  : mea uita G Ds  : sua uota Vd(a.c.) • est] om. V6Vd B8P5 To2 • 465 Vos] Nos Ds  : Quos Es5 • modo] mihi Gg(a.c.)O  : om. Li3 • ne Stygios] uestigios Ab(ne stigios i.l. u.l. Ab2)Mt  : non stigios V6  : nestiages P8 • St(y/i)gios] stigia Ld(a.c.)  : stigias F2Ld3(sty-)  : stigiis Es2(a.c.)  : stigyos P41  : Phrygios dub. Slater 1927 • non ante adeam scr. B2(cum lit. damn.) • adeam] ad eam MtTu Rd • non libera] ne libera TuV7  : modo libera Dr(a.c.)  : nunc libera P8  : nisi libera Mo3 Es2  : non libere P28  : non liba(uid.) B52(p.c.)  : quid B5 a.c. n.l. • 466 procul] precor(per comp.) Dr(procul i.l. a m.p.) • si iusta] sinistra P8 • si] quia(per comp.) Mt4(quia per comp. supra si scr. Es32) • iusta] iuste Ab(a.c.) F2 • peto] precor Gf DeFeV8 Cs2, “tres libri” test. Burm. 1727 • tactuque] tactusque N(a.c.) Dr(a.c.)O3  : tauctuque Vd • 467 uirgineo] uirgineos N(a.c.) Mt  : uirginee O3 • remouete] remotete M2(a.c.)  : remoue Mo To(a.c.)  : remote O3  : remouere B5(per comp.)Tu Rd  : conmouete Mt(per comp.)  : de T n.l. • manus] magus P41  : quid N a.c. n.l. • acceptior] aceptior GgMt BoEs2  : accepior Li3  : apceptior P10 • 468 quisquis caede mea quoniam placare paratis Es5 • quisquis] quiquis Bo • is] om. Gf(a.c.)Lu(a.c.)V3(a.c.) V5 Mt2(a.c.)To Mc Cv  : his Lu2(mg.) Lr7Ls(a.c.)Ph2(a.c.)V6V7 Lr8  : hic O • est] om. M2(a.c.)  : eras. in Lu(mg. suppl. Lu2)  : es Es2Ft • quem … paratis] quem cede mea quem morte paratis V7  : placare mea quem cede paratis Lr22V30, Aler. 1471 • quem] qe Gf  : om. Mt4(suppl. Mt42) • c(a)ede] morte AGfLr22(i.l.)V2V3 A2A3A4(caede i.l. u.l. A42)BaBe2EFGgH2HdLdLd2Lr5Lr6LsO3O4(caede i.l. u.l. O43)P3P4Ph2V4V5V9 DsLd6Li3Mo3Mt2Mt3P5P8P10So B12Bo2Es2Es3McMt4To2 B14Es3Es6P41Ps • mea] om. Ld Es2 • placare paratis] paratis pacare P8(a.c.; pacare etiam p.c.) • placare] placcare A2B2B3B4  : paccare A3  : pacare P8  : quem morte V7  : plare To(a.c.)  : placere Calph. 1480 • paratis] paretis AbG(uid., a.c.)  : putatis F(paratis i.l. u.l. F2)Lr6N2(uid., a.c.)V4 Mt3 B12Es3Mt4 Es3  : deest in Ls • 469 erit] erat B5 Ds, “Ox.” test. Heinsius  : eat prop. Heinsius(in notis) • sanguis] sanguinis B3  : sangnis H3 • tamen] bene Z  : om. Lr2(a.c.) Lr3(a.c.)V7(a.c.) Cv(a.c.) • nostri] uestri(per comp.) Hd  : sanuis Tu  : tellus Vd(a.c.)  : nostra So(a.c.) • • 470–471 (Priami  … rogat) pro parenth. hab. Riese 1889, H-K-E 1898, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007 • 470 mouent] manent Ld3(a.c.) : monent H3 B8  : mouere Es6  : mouet P38, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475 • oris] oltis(uid.) V5(a.c.) • Priami] priamis Es2(a.c.) • uos] nunc(uid.) Hd • 471 non Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Merkel 1850, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Lafaye 1930, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, Anderson 1982, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005  : nunc GfL3Lr2LuMM2(p.c.)P2 A2(uid.)A4AbB2B3B5BaBe2CDeDrEFFeGgH2H3HdL4Ld2(i.l. u.l.)Ld2Ld3Lr3Lr4Lr5Lr6Lr7LsMoMtN2OO3O4P3P43(p.c.)V4V5V6V7V8V9Vd B8Cs2Ds2GoLd6Lr8Mo3Mt2P5P8P10SoToV16 B12BoBo2Cs3Es2Es3FtMt4Mt5P28To2 AsB14Bo3Cv(p.c.)Es3Es4Es6F2Lr22Lr27P38P41V30Vd11 Ca22(mg. p.c.)Ld13, Plan., Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Jahn 1832, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Koch 1866, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, H-K-E-A 1966, Segura 1983, Fink 2007, Hardie 2015, Holzberg 2017 • rogat] regat Mt  : roget prop. Hendry • gen(e/i)trici] genitricis Mc(a.c.) • corpus] corp’ corp V5(ex itin. corr.) • inemptum] ineptum MNT AbB3FLdLr7Ph2 Ds2Mo3Mt3 B12(inemp- mg. u.l. B122)BoBo2FtMcMt4Rd B14Bo3Es6Go2Lr27, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472  : in emptum V2(ut solet) Vd P10V16 P28 Es4  : in aptum B5  : imeptum Ld6  :



Appendix critica

471

ademptum P8 Ca2(a.c.) • 472 reddite neue] neue reditte B5 • red(d)ite] reddte M2(a.c.)  : redire Rd  : de T n.l. • neue] ne Lr2(a.c.) Es2 : neque Ld3  : noue Ld6  : nec So • auro] aurum Ca2(a.c.)  : om. Cs2(i.l. Cs22) • redimat … sepulcri] redimatis triste sepulchris N(a.c.)  : redimatis triste sepulchri A2  : redimatis triste sepulchrum M Lr27  : redimatur iure sepulcri Gf : redimatur(per comp.) triste sepulchri Es5  : ius redimat triste sepulcri So  : de T n.l. • redimat ius] redimauis Mc(a.c.) • redimat] redima B5(a.c.) Ds(a.c.)  : remat H3(a.c.)  : ridimat Bo  : om. N2(mg. suppl. m.p.) • sepulc(h)ri] sepulchris N(a.c.), Venet. 1472  : sepulchrum Gf(i.l. a m.p. uel coaeua; -i in textu)M Mo(-i i.l. u.l. Mo2) Lr27  : sepulti Ft • 473–475 fere euanidi sunt in T • 473 om. Mc  : redit Pr • sed] sed cum V9(a.c.)  : si(uid.) Pr • lacrimis … poterat] tunc cum poterat lacrimis F • tum] tunc AGfLr2LuMM2NP2S2V3 A2A3A4AbB2B3B4B5BaBe2CDrEFFeGGgH2HdL4LdLd2Ld3Lr3Lr4Lr5Lr6Lr7LsMoMtN2OO3O4P3P4Ph2PrTrTuV4V5V6V7V8V9Vd B8Cs2DsDs2GoLd6Lr8Mo3Mt2Mt3P5P8P10SoTo B12Bo2Cs3Es2Es3FtMt4Mt5P28RdTo2 AsB14Bo3CvEs4Es6Lr22Lr27P38P41PsV30 Ca2Ld13, Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Merkel 1850, Koch 1866, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, H-K-E 1898, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Fink 2007  : tamen(per comp.) Bo  : te Es5  : de P4 n.l. • cum poterat] côpoterat V3  : conpoterat Hd  : poterat Mt  : cum potuit P28  : cum potera V30  : quom poterat Puteol. 1471, Calph. 1480 • redimebat] ŕddimbat(redd- Accurs. 1475) Calder. 1477  : redīebat Regius 1493(ŕdīebat 1497 et 1498) • auro] uaro Tu(a.c.) • 474 hunc u. post u. 480 hab. Lu(mg. suppl. Lu2) • populus lacrimas] inu. ord. Mt Lr22V30, Aler. 1471 • populus] populis A2(per comp.)  : popolus Calder. 1477, Regius 1540  : populos P8(a.c.), Segura 1983(uitio preli) • quas] quos Es2 • illa] ipsa A2FH2(p.c.)Ld22(p.c.)O4V8 GoLi3P5To Bo2Mt4Vt Es6Go2, “quatuor scripti” test. Burm. 1727  : ipse H2(a.c.)Ld2(a.c.)  : ille Lr7Tu P8(p.c.) V30Z(a.c.)  : illo P8(a.c.) • tenebat] ferebat Dr(a.c. a m.p.)  : nebat Ld3(a.c. a m.p.) • 475 hunc u. post u. 477 scr. Ps(a.c.) • non tenet] cepit et L3 To  : non tenuit A  : non tremet B5  : tenet Lr3(a.c.)  : nec tenet Ds  : non tenuet Bersm. 1596 • ipse] ille B4(ipse mg. u.l. B42)  : om. Rd • etiam] tiam V3(a.c.)  : et(per comp.) Ca2(a.c.) • inuitusque] inuictusque L3(uid., a.c.) B3CGg(inuitusque i.l. u.l.)L4(uid. a.c.)MtVd Ld6 Bo2  : îuic’q3 B4  : ministratque A2  : inuitisque Mo(a.c.)  : inuirtusque Li3  : imritusque Es2  : quid P2 a.c. n.l. • 476 pr(a)ebita] preuita N(a.c.)  : predita B3 Bs4  : posita Be2  : prebuta L4(a.c.)  : mollia Pr  : de T n.l. • coniecto] coniecta L3(uid., a.c.) E(a.c.)Ld2(a.c.)V7 Rd : cuniecto Vd : cum ferro P5  : conscripto P10(coniecto ut gloss. P102)  : subiecto So  : traiecto Es3 • rupit] ruppit A2B5(a.c.)V6 : iupiter Mt : rapuit P41, “Thuaneus” test. Burm. 1727 • praecordia] praecordita P8 • ferro] telo V6 : ferre Li3  : duro P5 • 477 super … labens i.ras. scr. N(quid a.c. n.l.) • terram … labens] labens … terram Ld3 • super] supra Bo3 • terram] terras H3Lr3 To  : terramque V7 • defecto  … labens] labens defecto poplite E • defecto] deflexo ALu2(i.l.) A2A3B32(mg. p.c.)B4(defecto mg. u.l.)Be2HdLd2(p.alt.c.)Lr3Lr5O4PrTr B8Bs4DsLd6P10V13 Bo As(p.c.), dub. Ciof. 1575, “multi …, quos Heinsius uidit” test. Burm. 1727  : deflecxo Lr2  : defleto(uid.) T(a.c.)  : derecto B3(a.c.) : deflecto A4(defecto mg. A42)B5(a.c.)CLd2(a.c.)V5(a.c.) Mt2To B12(a.c.) As(a.c.)Bo3  : de flecto V6 : deiecto Mt  : de festo O3  : reflecto V7  : demisso Mo3So  : defesso “nonnulli” test. Burm. 1727  : deffcto Calph. 1480 • poplite] pollite M2(a.c.)  : poblite P2(p.c.; poplite a.c.)S2T B2GL4Lr4TuV4 Rd  : plopite Mt : popplite P10  : poplice So  : pollice Ft • labens] labent L3(a.c.) Lr4(a.c.)Mt : labans Be2O3 Ca2(a.c.)  : terram P5 • 478 pertulit] protulit Lr2(per comp.; per- mg. u.l. Lr22) Ba(per comp.)V9  : perculit Es2(p.c.)  : perculit et(per comp.) Es2(a.c.)  : pretulit Regius 1493(corr. 1497) • intrepidos] in trepidos TV2(ut solet) B3(uid.)DrFLr7MtO4 To P28, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474(dub., certe 1480), Calder. 1477  : ut trepidos C(a.c.) • ad fata] affata L3(a.c.) Ld2(a.c.)  : ad uerba Ab  : aut fata B5  : a fata F(a.c.)  : ad facta V7 Bo2  : in fata P5, “Medic. unus” test. Burm. 1727  : ad saxa Bs4(fata i.l.)  : aduata Rd • nouissima]

472

Appendix critica

nouissim N(a.c.) • uultus] bultus Ft  : ultus As • 479–481 om. B8(mg. suppl. m.p.) • 479 usque ad cura def. Lr5 • tunc Ω, edd.  : nunc “Moreti sec.” test. Burm. 1727  : tum T Lr22V30, Aler. 1471, Edwards 1905, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004  : cur Li3  : de T n.l. • quoque] sibi Lr3 • cura] cara Es6 • • 480 usque ad decus def. Lr5 • caderet] caderat Naug. 1516(a.c.) • castique] casuque Mo3  : casti & Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472 • decus] deus Rd  : om. L3(i.l. suppl. m.p. uel coaeua) • pudoris] pudorem C(a.c.) Bo  : decoris Lr42(mg. u.l.) • 481 usque ad deploratosque def. Lr5  : hunc u. om. Rd • Troades] Troiades GfV2(cf. ad 534) A2A3B5BaBe2FeHdL4Ld2LsMtPrV6 Cs2DsDs2GoV16 Es2(a.c.)McTo2 B14 Ca2  : toiades Bo  : troiadas A4(p.c.)  : Troadas A4(a.c.)Ld3Tu • excipiunt] exipiunt A3AbMt P8 : accipiunt FeO3 F2Z  : acipiunt B8(excipiunt i.l. B83) • deploratosque] deploratasque L3(a.c.)S2 L4 Es3Ps, Walch. 1731(uitio preli: cf. adnot. “qui interfecti & ideo deplorati fuerant”)  : deploratatasque Hd  : deplorandasque Gf  : deplorantesque Bs4Ds2(a.c.) F2  : deploratamque P10(a.c.)  : deploratos Es2(a.c.)  : deploratumque Ca2(a.c.) • recensent] recenset T P8  : recêssêt B3V6  : recenssent Ph2Pr  : recessent Hd(a.c.)Lr7 Es2, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472  : recensant Ld3  : recedunt Bs4(commemorant suprascr.) • 482 hunc u. om. Lr22V30, Aler. 1471  : domus una cruoris tantum exstant in Lr5 • Priamidas] priamides GfM2(a.c.)T(a.c.) FFeG(a i.l. scr. G2)HdO4TuV4 Cs2P10(a.c.) P28Rd Es3Ps  : clamantes Bs4(priamidas u.l.) • dederit] dederat Lr2 FeMtP3V9 Lr8Mo3P5 Mc P41  : dederint Pr  : dederît Mt2  : ederit Li3 • 483 usque ad o modo def. Lr5 • teque1] te Lr4V7  : te quoque(per comp.) O3 • gemunt] gemat A2  : gemuit Lr7 • uirgo] ligo Pr • teque o modo] te quoque modo Bo • teque2] te quae FH2 • o modo] modo N(a.c.) FH2 Ds2Ld6Li3 Es6  : amodo F2 • coniu(n)x] uirgo A2(a.c.) • 484 regia] regna Lr6 • dicta] facta Vd  : data Mo3 • post dicta dist. Aler. 1471 • Asi(a)e] asyę N V4  : asye Gf L4Ld2Lr7 B8Cs2Mo3P5 B12 P41  : asię L3LuS2V3 • hoc in uersu tantum imago legitur in Lr5, qui codex hic deficit • imago] ynmago Ft • 485 nunc] tunc B4(nunc mg. B42)  : non Mt • etiam] &tiam L3  : et(per comp.) Mt4  : om. Lr4(a.c.) • praedae … sors] mala sors prede MtO4 Mc P41 • praed(a)e] proede uel procide T(uid., per comp.)  : pede L4(a.c.) • quam] quia B5  : qua Ld6 • uictor Vlixes] inu. ord. B4 • 486 hunc u. om. Li3(mg. suppl. m.p.)  : usque ad hectora propter scissuram deficit T • esse] esset V7(a.c.) • suam] suet M2(a.c.) • nollet] mallet P2(no- i.l. u.l.)S2(p.c. a m.p.) G(corr. G2)  : uellet Mo(p.c. a m.p.)MtTu  : nolet B3 Mc(a.c.)Mt5 Z, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472 • nisi] ni Cv • quod] quo Gg(a.c.)  : quem Mt  : quid(per comp.) V6  : qui Es5 • tamen] tantum Ld3 Mt2(per comp. a.c.) BoMt5 Es3Es5Z • Hectora] ectora L3  : h’thora Gf • partu] partum O • 487 usque ad matri deficit T • ediderat Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Jahn 1832, Loers 1843, Riese 1872, H-K-E 1898, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007  : edideras Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Weise 1845, Merkel 1850, Koch 1866, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Riese 1889, Simmons 1889, Edwards 1905, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004 • ediderat(per comp.) post matri scr. Ds(ex itin. corr.) • matri uix] inu. ord. Ld3 Cs2 • rep(p)erit] inuenit H2O4  : cepera Mt  : repetit Ld6 AsGo2  : repulit Bo3(a.c.) • 488–536 desunt in Es6 • 488 usque ad  ]pus deficit T • quae] quod Mt4 • corpus … animae] complexa animae corpus C • corpus] om. N2(a.c.) • complexa animae] exanimę côplexa Lu(a.c.)  : complexa animae est P2 • complexa] plexa Ld2(a.c.)  : amplexa Cs2Mt3 Mt5 • animae tam] tamen Mt • tam] iam GH3Lr7 To  : tunc O4 P41  : om. Tu(a.c. a m.p.) • fortis] corpus Ca2(a.c.) • 489–490 inu. ord. H3P3 • 489 quas] quam Li3 • totiens patriae] inu. ord. V8 To2 • totiens] toties N(a.c.)  : tenês A2  : tosciens Ds(a.c.)  : de T n.l. • patriae dederat] inu. ord. B3Ld3N2 Mo3Mt3So Es4Lr22(a.c.) • patriae] patre Lr8  : patri Calph. 1480  : om. Ds(a.c.) • patriae … natisque] patriae natis dederatque Ft • natisque] natoque P8 V30 • uiroque] uirorum B5 : uirosque V6 •



Appendix critica

473

• 490–493 fere euanidi in T • 490 huic quoque] huicq3 Ld6 • huic] huc Lr8(a.c. a m.p.)  : huicque Z • dat lacrimas] inu. ord. Lr3 • dat] dant V9(a.c.)  : dabat F2  : om. O(a.c. a m.p.) • lacrimas lacrimas] lacrimas MN(corr. N3) Be2Mo(a.c. a m.p.)P4(sed spatium uac. relinquit)V6 Lr27, Venet. 1472  : lacrimas pariterque N2  : lacrimas lacrimasque B2GH22(q3 i.l.)HdLr6O3 Ld6P8P10So McMt4 P41 : lacrimasque Li3  : lacrimas lacrimas et Ph2  : lacrimas gemitusque Pr  : lacrimas lacrimis V7(a.c. a m.p.)  : lachrimâs lachrimas Accurs. 1475 • fundit] fudit L3Lr2 B5CFH3HdLd3Lr3OPh2Tu(a.c.)V7V8Vd Bo2(corr. Bo22)FtP28Vt F2  : fundat A(a.c.)  : om. Lr7 • 491 osculaque] oscula B3(a.c.) Bo • ore] ora M2(a.c.) DrLd(a.c.)Lr7 Es2(a.c.)FtMc, Accurs. 1475  : oræ Ld(p.c.)  : om. Tu • tegit] dedit B4(tegit mg. u.l. B42)O(tegit uid. a.c.) P41, Plan.  : legit HdL4(tegit mg. u.l. L42)Ld3Lr4(uid.)P3(corr. P32) Bs4GoP5 Mt4Vt, Heinsius 1659(qui et “Oxon.  … et quinque alii. cum Naugerii codicibus” test.), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Bothe 18182  : gerit Bo2(a.c.)  : regit B14(a.c.), “unus regius” test. Heinsius 1659  : petit De P28  : egit Bo, “duo” test. Heinsius 1659  : tergit Mc  : terit dub. Heinsius 1659(in notis) • consuetaque] consueta L4(a.c.) F2  : assuetaque V8 • pectora] corpora DrO • plangit] pangit V3(a.c.) Vd(a.c.) Cs3(a.c.)  : tangit A2Ld2(a.c.)Mt(p.c.)Ph2 Ds(a.c.)So RdTo2  : plagit Fe  : tangat Mt(a.c.)  • 492–493 inu. ord. V6 • 492 canitiemque] canciemque Be2(a.c.)  : Cani ciemq3 Regius 1497 et 1498 • concreto] cû crecto B3(a.c.)  : cûcreto B3(p.c.)  : concreta Ba(a.c.)  : concretoque MtO3Pr  : concretam Vd  : concerto Regius 1497 et 1498 • sanguine] uulnere B4(sanguine mg. u.l. B43) • uerrens] uersans A B22(i.l. u.l.)BaBe2DrF2(i.l. u.l.)Ld22(i.l. u.l.)Lr4Lr6P3V5V8Vd Bs2(u.l.)Bs4Cs2Li3Lr82(i.l. u.l.)So McMt4 CvEs4P41Ps, “septemdecim” test. Burm. 1727  : uertens GfLr22(i.l. u.l.) A4(uerrens mg. u.l. A42)B5CFG(a.c.)H2HdL4LdLr32(i.l. u.l.)Lr7(uid.; uerrens a.c.)N2(uid.)OO3O4(uerrens mg. O42)PrV4 B8Ds2(a.c.)Ld6Mo3P8 Es2 Go2, “sex” test. Burm. 1727, Venet. 1472, Regius 1493(uerrens 1526 et 1527)  : uersas A2  : uersens B4(uerrens mg. u.l. B43)  : regens Fe2(mg. u.l.)  : non fans Mt  : uersam P10(uerrens mg. p.c. P102)  : uerens Mt5  : uoluens Go Bs7, “unus” test. Burm. 1727  : uergens “duo” test. Burm. 1727 • 493 et] om. L3(i.l. suppl. m.rec.)MN(a.c.)V2(a.c.) B5Lr6MtOV6 Cs2Lr8To FtRd Bo3Lr27P41 • h(a)ec] hoc B3  : nec Rd • laniato] lacrimato B5  : leniato Vd  : laniando Es2 • pectore] corpore GO3O4Tu B14Es4(pectore i.l. u.l. Es42)  : pectora Ls • 494–526 hab. P47 • 494–495 desunt in T propter folii scissuram • inu. ord. Lr4(a.c.) • 494 om. Lr27 • nata] nate DsLr82(i.l. u.l.) P41 • quid] quod(per comp.) M  : quis B4(corr. B42) • superest dolor] inu. ord. A4(a.c.)Ab • superest] superem(per comp.) Dr(corr. Dr2)  : subest(per comp.) Ds2  : supeest Bo  : superes Es4  : supest Regius 1493(corr. 1497) • ultime] ultima MNP2(a.c.)M2(a.c.)S2 B4(p.c.)Lr7MtN2TuV5(uid., a.c.) P5 Es2Mt4(p.c.)Rd(a.c.)To2 Bo3Vd11, “octo” test. Heinsius  : ultimę Lr2 Lr3  : ultimæ FV7 P38, Venet. 1472  : uultime Vd(a.c.) • matris] matri P2(a.c.) O3(p.c.)Pr A6 Ca2(p.c.), Heinsius 1659(qui et “unus Patauianus”[non Pt3] test.), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Weise 1845, Merkel 1850, Koch 1866, Riese 1872, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, Fink 2007  : matrix Lr7 • post hunc u. et ne perdiderim scr. Ps(cum lit. damn.) • 495 uideoque] iudicioque Ds2(a.c.) • tuum mea uulnera pectus Regius 1493, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Heinsius 1652, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Segura 1983, Galasso 2000  : tuum mea uulnera uulnus Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Merkel 1850, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007  : meum mea uulnera uulnus A2 Es3  : meum tua pectora uulnus Lr2 A42(i.l. et mg. u.l.)Ab2(i.l. u.l.)B4DeFeHdL4Lr4Lr6V6V7V9 DsP5P8 BoBo22(mg. u.l.)P28 As(pectora mg. u.l.) : tuum mea pectora uulnus Gf Mt4, Plan.(τὸ τραῦμα τὸ σὸν ἐπὶ τῶν ἐμῶν στέρνων ὁρῶ)  : tuum mea pectora pectus Go2(u.l.)  : tuum tua uulnera pectus L3(a.c.)  : meum tua pectora pectus O3  : mea tua pectora(uulnera mg. B52) uulnus B5 V16  : mea tuum uulnera pectus V4  : mecum tu uulnera pectus Ft  : tuum supra meum et uulnus supra pectus scr. u.l. F2 • 496–507 fere euanidi in T • 496 hunc u. om. De, Puteol. 1471 • et] en Heinsius 1659, Burm.

474

Appendix critica

1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Merkel 1850, Riese 1872, Polle 1888, Breitenbach 1964, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007 • ne] om. V5(i.l. suppl. V52) • perdiderim] perdideram Be2(a.c.)B5(a.c.)  : perdiderit Rd(a.c.) • quemquam] quamquam L3(per comp.) B4V7(uid.)  : quenam A3  : quaequae(per comp.) V5(mg. corr.)  : nûc quâ Vd  : quemquem Ds2(per comp.) P47(a.c.)  : quid Bo2 a.c. n.l. • sine] sene L3  : om. Ab(a.c.)  : nisi Es2 • meorum] morum Ld(a.c. a m.p.)  : uirorum Lr3, Lugd. 1546(mg.) • post hunc u. (in calce fol. 94u) octo folia uu. 14.375–15.289 continentia hab. B4; uu. 497 et sqq. redeunt in fol. 103r • 497 habes] abes Ba(a.c.)  : habet(per comp.) C(a.c.) • at te] atte L3N Ba(a.c.)Gg(a.c.)N2(a.c.) Ds P28Rd(a.c.)  : ate B5P3(a.c. a m.p.) Es2(a.c.) Es4(a te)V30 Ca2(a.c.), Aler. 1471(a te), Segura 1983(a te, uitio preli)  : atq3 Dr(a.c. a m.p.)  : ad te Lr7  : quare Mt  : sed te Ld6  : at tu So  : et te P41  : an te Ps • quia] quae(per comp.) es F  : q3 Mt Ld6 : quâ Es5  : qui Calph. 1480 uitio preli  : om. Rd(mg. suppl. Rd2) • femina] uulnera Ld13 • rebar] cebar Mt  : rear O3(a.c.) • 498 a ferro] affecto Gf(a.c.)  : afferro V3  : aferto Mo(a.c.)  : affero O(a.c.)  : at ferro Rd(a.c.) • tutam cecidisti] inu. ord. Rd(a.c.) • tutam] uictam Ab(tutam i.l. u.l. Ab2)  : titâ Ld6  : esse tutam FtMc • cecidisti] cecidistisGf(a.c.) DsMt3  : cecisti B12(a.c.) • et] om. HdLr6Lr7O4V8 Mt4 P41Ps  : at Pr P5 • femina] om. Lr2(mg. suppl.) • ferro2] uirgo M2(ferro i.l. u.l.)  : et ferro Fe • 499 totque] totaque P47 • tuos] om. B3(a.c.) : tuus Ld(a.c.)  : tuos et P28 • te perdidit] qui perdidit S2  : quoque(per comp.) perdidit C  : tot perdidit Dr(a.c.)  : perdidit Es4(a.c.)  : deperdidit Mt4(a.c.)  : te et perdidit Lr22V30, Aler. 1471 • • 500 exitium] excicium A4O3 B8Cs2Ds(a.c.)P5  : exicicium V9  : exotium Mt  : excidium “duo libri” test. Burm. 1727 • Troi(a)e] troieque Lr7  : troe P47 • nostrique] nostri V4(a.c.) • orbator] orbatir Ld(a.c. a m.p.)  : orbatus Tu  : ortabor Mo3  : orbator orbator Bo • Achilles] ulixes C(a.c.)P5  : archilles Li3 • post 500 u. 503 hab. P41 • 501–502 om. Gf(mg. post u. 503 suppl. Gf3)L3(mg. suppl. m.p.) Lr22V30 • 501 at] ast V3  : atque Ab  : et C P46 • postquam] quamquam(per comp.) Bo2(postquam mg. u.l. Bo22) • cecidit] cedit P3(corr. m.p.)  : cecidi B5 • Paridis Ph(o)ebique] ph(o)ebi paridisque Cs3 P38 P46P47Es7, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474 • Phoebique] febique GgLr6 Mc Ps  : phebi Lr8(a.c.) • sagittis] sagitis P2  : sagitta Cs2  : sagiptis McRd(ut solet, a.c.)To2 B14(ut solet)  : sagictis Venet. 1472 • 502 hunc u. om. Fe(summa pag. suppl. m.rec.) • nunc] tum A  : tunc Gf3 B3B4CFGLdLr3Ls(p.c.)MtO3V9 Cs2Ds2Lr8Mo3Mt2SoV16 BoMc B14Go2  : nunc etiam A2(per comp.)  : hunc Ls(a.c.) • certe dixi] inu. ord. O3 • dixi] dixit Ds(per comp.)  : quid N a.c. n.l. • non] om. Lr7 • est] om. B3(a.c.)O4V6 Cv(a.c.) • metuendus] meuendus F(a.c.)  : metiendus(uid.) Ld(a.c.) • u. 501 post u. 502 iter. F2 • 503 nunc  … mi] nuncque mihi A4(a.c. uid.)B5H2LdLd3V6Vd Ds2 Ca2(a.c.)  : nunc mi quoque Lr3 : nunc quoque mei Lr7  : nunc etiam Pr  : nunc quoque mihi P10 Lr22, Aler. 1471  : nunc quoque Es2(a.c. a m.p.)Mc Es7 : nunc mi Mt5  : nunc quoque modo(per comp. i.l. u.l.) Cv • nunc] tunc O3, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Ciof. 1575, Bersm. 1596  : hunc Go  : tu Mo3 • mi] sic Lu  : om. V2(a.c.)V3 Lr6 Es2(a.c.)Mc Es7P41, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472  : nil B3Mt  : nunc V5 F2  : mihi Lr22, Aler. 1471 • erat] erit P2(a.c.) Cs3(erat a.c.) Es3  : eras O4(erat i.l. u.l. a m.p.) Mc  : est(per comp.) F2  : om. P46(a.c.)Es7 • cinis ipse] scinissille Ld(a.c.) • cinis] cuius L3  : cini B5(corr. B52)  : tuus F2  : sinis Mt • ipse] ille AGfN(mg. a m.p.; ipse in textu)V2V3 A2A3A4B52(mg.)BaBe2EFGgH2LdLd2Ld3Lr6LsO3O4P3P4Ph2V4V5Vd Mt2Mt3P5P8P10To B12Bo2Es2McMt4To2 B14CvP41Ps   : sepe B5 • sepulti] sepultus Lu B5(recte mg. B52)Lr7V9 GoLr8P5 Ca2  : sepult[i euanid.] M  : sepulc(h)ri A2AbBe2(a.c.)DrMo2(mg. u.l.)MtV5 DsP8To Mt4 P41  : sepulcro Cs2 • 504 hunc u. om. A2 • in genus] Ingenus AV3 A3A4B2B3B5BaFGgH2H3HdL4LdLd3Lr3Lr4Lr6Lr7LsMoPrV7V9Vd Ld6Mo3P10So Bo2Es22(p.c.)FtMt4RdTo2 AsF2Lr22Lr27V30 P46P47, Calph. 1480  : in gemitus Gf(per comp.)  : ingenuus E(a.c.)  : ingñs GO  : ingens Es2  : Ingeniis ed. Venet. 1472 • hoc] hic Ab Es5  : om. Ft(a.c.)  : quid Rd a.c. n.l. • tumulo quoque] tumuloque F2P41  : tumulo quo B5 • tumulo] tumulum V2(a.c.)  : tumulus Ps(uid. a.c.)  : timɫo Es7 • sensimus] sensemus S2(a.c.)  : sensius Lr7  : septimus Mt  : siue simus P10(a.c.)  : senssimus Pr  : saeuit in



Appendix critica

475

Et  : sensumus Calph. 1480 • hostem] ostem Lr7 • 505 hunc u. om. Pr •  ]n ingens tantum exstat in Ls • (A)eacid(a)e] (a)eaciden MM2N(a.c.)T H3N2V5(a.c.) Lr27  : eacidem V9(a.c.)  : bachide Gf(recte mg. Gf3)  : eacidis Lr6 • post Aeaciden dist. M • fecunda] foecunda V3 Es5  : secunda(per comp.) Ba(a.c.)  : feconda Be2  : fecumda Ld  : fecunda in partu V7  : facunda Ft • fui] fuit MN(uid., a.c.) C(a.c.)Dr(a.c.)MtV5(a.c.) Lr27 P47, Naug. 1516 • iacet] fuit “Boxhorn.”(non sic O) test. Jahn 1832 • Ilion] ilios Ld6  : ylios So • ingens] ignens L3  : iacens A(a.c., uid.)  : igens V4  : îgnês Mc • 506  ]blica clades tantum exstat in Ls • euentuque] euentumque Mc • est] om. H3Pr • publica] ultima A AbVd P10 P28  : puplica V3 A3A4Ld2(a.c.)Ld3Lr7MtTu(a.c.) Cs2P5 Rd  : pubila L4(a.c.)  : pubica L4(p.c. a m.p.) V30  : plubica V5 • clades] fides B5(corr. B52)  : cedes C(clades mg. u.l. C2) Ds2(i.l. u.l.)V16 Bo  : cades Ds2 • 507 hunc u. mg. scr. Mt3  :  ]gama restant tantum exstat in Ls • soli mihi] inu. ord. P10 • mi(c)hi] nichil Hd(a.c.)  : mihi soli B14 • restant] restat M2(a.c.)  : quid P10 a.c. n.l. • 508 quia maxima rerum tantum exstant in Ls • in cursuque … est] et meus incursu dolor est P46Es7P47 • in cursuque] Incursuque AL3Lr2Lu(a.c.)MM2NP2S2TV2V3 A3A4B3B5BaCDrEGGgH2H3HdL4LdLr3Lr4Lr6Lr7N2OP3Ph2PrTuV4V7V8V9 Ds2Ld6Li3Mo3Mt2P10SoTo BoBo2Cs3Es2FtMt4P28Rd2(p.c.) AsB14Es4Es5F2Lr27P38V30Z Ca2P47  : Incursusque F CvPs  : incursu Rd(a.c.) P46Es7 • meus dolor] inu. ord. G • meus] omnis A4 Ft(per comp.)  : meu B5 • est] om. AbV6 P10 Es2(a.c.) • modo] mihi(per comp.) C  : ego DrP3(corr. P32) Rd2(mg.)  : nec(per comp.) Ld3  : quia Ls B14  : mox P46  : om. P3 Mo3(i.l. Mo32) Rd • maxima rerum] maxima mater Gf  : maximater’ Ld(a.c.)  : maxime rerum H3 P10(a.c.) • 509  ]tens nuribusque uiroque tantum exstant in Ls • generis] om. Lr3(a.c.) : genitrix Lr7  : generis generis Tu • natisque] gnatisque M2N(a.c.)S2T B4GTu V16 Bo  : natique P2(a.c.) Pr Ds  : natique gnatisque Rd(a.c.) : notisque V6 • potens] meis(per comp.) C  : potes V6 • nuribusque] nuribus A B3 Ds2(a.c.)Ld6 Rd(a.c.)  : niribusque B4(a.c.) : muribus B5  : muribusque Lr4(uid.)Mt  : nubibusque Mc(a.c.)  : nuibusque(uid.) Mt4(a.c.)  : uiribusque Go2 • uiroque] uirorum Rd(a.c.) F2 • • 510–511 nunc trahor exul inobs que me data pensa trahentem A4(mg. corr. m.p.) • 510 nunc trahor] contrahor Bo2 • nunc] nuc Hd  : tunc Lr7 • trahor] traor V2V3(a.c.) Mo Mt4  : thraor H3  : trahir Tu(a.c.) • exul] esul To  : eul B14(a.c.)  : om. F(a.c. a m.p.) • inops] inobs A A4GgP4Tu(a.c.) DsSo  : in ops O4V6 P28 • tumulis] tumulisque Ld2 Lr8 Ft P46Es7P47, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1480  : th’mɫis Lr7  : tumulus(per comp.) Ds  : cumulus As  : quid N a.c. n.l. • auulsa] auolsa N(auulsa N2 p.c.), Lafaye 1930  : auusa Lr2(a.c.) O4(a.c.)  : euulsa A3A4LdO3Tu Mc P41  : ad uulsa B3  : amensa B5(corr. B52)  : aduulsa C(a.c.) FtMt4(p.c.)  : admissa Mt4(a.c.) • meorum Ω, Aler. 1471, edd.  : deorum A(meorum i.l. u.l. A2)MN(meorum i.l. u.l. N2)TV2(meorum i.l. u.l. V24)V3 Ab(meorum p.c. Ab2)Be2(meorum mg.)Lr7V5(meorum i.l. u.l. V52) Mt2(meorum u.l. Mt22)To2(mg. u.l.) Lr27Vd11  : uirorum Cs3 AsP38, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474  : de A2 n.l. • 511 Penelop(a)e Ω, Puteol. 1471, edd.  : Penelopę S2  : Penolope Lr2 GgO(a.c.)TuV8 DsTo B12BoBo2Mt4RdTo2 CvF2(p.c.) Ld13, Venet. 1472  : Penolpe F2(a.c.)  : Penelopes NV2 Ds2(p.c.)Ld6P32(-s suprascr.)V16(p.c.) B14Lr22 Ca2, “quindecim libri” test. Burm. 1727, Aler. 1471, Riese 1889(-ae 1872), Anderson 1982, Tarrant 2004  : Penolopes A4O3V6 Mt2So Es2Ft Es4  : deest in Ls • munus] minus Pr Rd  : manus Tu  : spalmis Ca2(a.c.) • qu(a)e] quem P28  : om. Ca2(a.c.) • me data] data S2(a.c. a m.p.) L4(a.c.) Lr8(corr. Lr82)  : tradita Es4  : mendata Rd(a.c.)  : me lata Walch. 1739(uitio preli) • trahentem] thraentem H3  : trabant(per comp.) Tu  : trahente Ld6  : traentem Es2(a.c.)  : trahemus(per comp.) Ca2(a.c.) • 512 matribus ostendens] inu. ord. Gf(a.c.) • matribus] matri Es2(a.c.)  : patribus P47 • (h)ostendens] ostendit A2  : ostundens Mt Mo3  : ostêdes Mc  : obstendens B14P41  : ostentans Tr  : tendens(uid.) P5  : trahentê(uid.) P46(a.c.) • Ithacis] ithachis M  : itacis ALr2M2V2  : ytacis Gf  : graecis(per comp. uid.) B4(Ithacis mg. B43)  : tracis Lr7 Cs3  : ieracis B14 • haec … est] est hectoris illa So • h(a)ec Hectoris] inu. ord. Tu(a.c.) • h(a)ec] haec haec (per comp.) P41  : om. Ab(a.c.)B3F(a.c. a m.p.)V5(a.c.) Es3(a.c. a m.p.) Es3  : quid Rd a.c. n.l. • est] om. V6 Ds2 • 513–514 inu. ord. Ca2(a.c.) • 513 clara] cara G Bo2 • parens] petens Ds2(a.c.) • h(a)ec … dicet] dicet haec est N2(p.c., dicet mg. scripto)O3 Mt3  : haec est N2(a.c.)-

476

Appendix critica

Tu(a.c. a m.p.) Ds2(dicet post priameia a.c.)Lr8(a.c. a m.p.)P5 Vd11 • est] et Mt  : om. Lr2 P4 • dicet] decet Es7 • Priameïa] primeia Lu(a.c.)M  : pameia(comp. sc. haud explicato) Mt Ld6(-eya)  : priameia dicet Ds2(a.c.)  : primameia To  : priamenia Es2  : priamea P41  : prianeia V6 • 514 postque tot] tot postquam P3  : tot post P32(p.c.)  : deest in Ls • postque] post quae B5  : perque V6 Mo3 Es2 P41  : proque Ld6  : postquam Bo Es3, Calder. 1477  : post Mc(a.c. a m.p.) • tot] om. G(a.c. a m.p.) Ds(a.c.)  : toto Es4(a.c.)  : quid Ld3 a.c. n.l. • amis(s)os] amissis Gf Ld6  : âmissis Ph2  : amissas B2Mt  : admissos Gg(a.c.) Lr8 B14  : aduersos P41  :  ]missos Ls • tu … quae] tu quae modo Gf  : tu quae nunc O3 Lr8  : tu nunc mihi Es5  : tu numquam(per comp.) Ca2(a.c.) • tu nunc] tu tot Fe, “Mediceus unus” test. Burm. 1727  : tunc O(a.c.)  : nunc tu Ld3  : tu tunc Go2  : quid Ph2 a.c. n.l. • leuabas] lebabas V2  : leuubas B5(a.c. uid.)  : lebas C(a.c.)  : leuabis V6 Es7(-ab’)  : leuauabas V9(a.c.) • 515 maternos] mater nos L3  : materios Gf(per comp. uid.)  : paternos P47 • luctus] uultus P5  : luctos Ps  : fletus Es7 • hostilia] hostia Mo(a.c.) Ds2(a.c.)  : hostiali Tu  : hostialia Es2 Vd11 • piasti] peasti Lr7  : parasti O3 Es5  : prasti V8  : om. Bo2(suppl. Bo22) • 516 hosti … quo] quid Es3 a.c. n.l. • hosti] hostis P2(a.c.) • hosti peperi] inu. ord. Mt3 • peperi] perperi(per comp. ~ p~ pi V3  : ~ pperi Ba) V3(a.c.) Ba(a.c.) • quo] que Mt  : quo ad O(a.c.)  : quid Be2FeP32(p.c.)V8 P5V12 BoBo2Es2 Es4 Ca2  : quoque(uid.) Rd(a.c.)  : quod Vt  : quod ad Vt2 • nunc ego post quo add. Es3 • ferrea] referea Ab(a.c.)  : ferea Ab(p.c.)Hd(a.c.)  : ferre Ld3(a.c.)  : aenea V8(ferrea i.l. V82) V12  : terrea Ld6  : fercula(uid.) Es2(a.c.) • 517–518 inu. ord. V8(corr. V82) • 517 redit Lu2 • hunc u. om. A3Ls B14(mg. supp. m.p.) • quidue moror] utue memor Lr7  : quid demoror O • quidue] quoue P2(p.c.; quidue a.c.)S2 B4  : quidne Ld6 • moror] memor Ab  : morer B4(a.c.)  : maior Pr  : mêor Ld13  : quid N a.c. (prim. o add.) i. ras. n.l. • quo] quid B4O3V9 Ca2(a.c.) • me] te P10  : quid B12 a.c. n.l. • me seruas] inu. ord. Mc • seruas] seuas Ld2(a.c.)  : seruat MtO3V6 • senectus] uetustas A4(senectus i.l. u.l. a m.p.) Bo2  : uetus Ab(per comp.) • 518 quid di] quod o Tu  : dii quid Ld6 • quid GfN(p.c.; quo a.c. et item i.l. u.l. N2)V2V3 A2A4AbB3B4(quo mg. B42)B52(p.c.)BaBe2EFeGgH2LdLd2Ld3(quo i.l. u.l.)Ls(re uera  ]id)O3P4V4V5V6V7V8V9 L7Ld6Li3Lr8Mt2Mt3SoTo B12Bo2Es3(uid., a.c.; quo p.c.)McMt4P28Rd(uid.)To2 B14Es3Es5P41Ps Ca2, Heinsius 1659(qui “multi  … ex melioribus” test.), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1739, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Koch 1866  : quo Ω, Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Heinsius 1652, edd.  : qui Walch. 1731(uitio preli) • crudeles] crudelis Ba(a.c.)  : cludeles Pr  : celestes Lr22V30, Aler. 1471 • nisi quo] ut ego Mo3 • nisi] mihi B5(corr. B52)  : ni Vd11 • quo Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Merkel 1850, Koch 1866, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, Edwards 1905  : uti AGfL3Lr2(pro ut suprascr. Lr22)M2(p.c.)N(p.c. i.ras.)V2V3 A2A3A4(a.c.)AbB2B4B52(mg.)BaBe2DrEFFeH2H3HdLd(a.c. uid.)Ld2Lr3Lr6LsO3O4P3P4PrV4V5(uid., a.c.)V9 B8Cs2DsLr8Mt2Mt3P10 B12Cs3Es2Mt4Mt5 B14(a.c.)CvEs3Lu2Ps Ca2, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1652, H-K-E 1898, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007 • noua] om. B2Dr(a.c.)  : uti Bo2  : nouo Es7 • funera] uulnera N2Vd Es3  : munera O3  : numera Rd  : quid Es3 a.c. n.l. • cernam] ceruam Ab(per comp.), Regius 1497 et 1498  : restant V6  : ceram P47(a.c.)  : suppl. m.alt. in Ls • 519 differtis] difertis GfV2 L4LsMoN2 Bo2(a.c.)Cs3Mt2 B14 Ca2(a.c.)  : defertis S2 A3LdLr3O3Vd P10 FtVt  : diffectis A4(a.c.)  : seruatis Hd  : dii fertis Mt • anum] auum O3Pr  : animam P10(anum u.l. P102)  : ânum Ft • quis] qui Tr • posse putaret] credere posset Ld3 • posse] posset B2(a.c.)Mo(a.c.) • putaret] putares Ab(a.c.)  : putarit V8  : putar Ca2 • • 520 felicem] edicê Be2 • Priamum] primū Venet. 1472 • diruta Pergama] Pergama diruta Lr4Mt Ld3 • diruta] dirruta A4(a.c.)Ab(a.c.)O3 B8  : dirupta Vd B12BoMt5To2, Venet.



Appendix critica

477

1472  : dyructa(-uta p.c.) Es2  : dira Mc  : dura P46(a.c.)  : om. Rd(a.c. a m.p.) • Pergama] menia AbPr  : pergama perga P3(ex itin. corr.) • 521 felix] felex Mo3 • morte] mortem P47(a.c.) • sua] quidem P46P47Es7 • nec] non B3(a.c.) B8  : ne C  : mea(per comp., uid.) Ds2(a.c.) • te  … nata] me natamue Es4 • te] non Ca2(a.c.) • mea] mera(uid.) B5(a.c.)  : o mea Es2 • nata] om. S2(mg. suppl. m.p.) Tu(i.l. suppl. m.p.)  : nate H2(a.c.)  : mata Es7 • perem(p)tam] pereptam B3Lr3  : peremptat B52(p.c., quid a.c. n.l.)  : perentem Mt  : parentem P10(a.c.) Bo2  : perempta Z • 522 aspicit] aspexit Lu2 • et] om. V6 • uitam] uicitam B2(a.c.)  : uictam V7(a.c.) • regnumque] regnum Ls(a.c.)  : regiumque V8 • reliquit] reliquid NP2T B2O3V9 Ds McMt4(a.c.)To2 Ca2P47  : relinquid V2  : relinquit AbB4Ld3LsMtO4Vd Mo3 B14F2Ps P46 • 523–524 post uirgo et auitis interrog. sign. pos. Regius 1493 • 523 hunc u. om. V8(mg. suppl. m.p.) • at] Há E  : et P46 • puto] puro Puteol. 1471 • funeribus] muneribus Mt22(mg. u.l.), Bentley • regia] troia Es5 • 524 condeturque] credeturque Ds  : condenturque V30, Aler. 1471 • tuum] meum L3(tuum i.l. u.l. L32)  : tui P10 • monumentis corpus] inu. ord. Ph2(a.c.) • auitis] aritis L3(uid., a.c.)  : amicis Gf MtP41 • 525 non] nunc(per comp.) H3 • haec  … domus] haec fortuna est Lr7 Cs3  : haec fortunata domus V8 • fortuna] fortuna est Mt5 • domus] domus est B5  : mihi Mt • tibi] sed(per comp.) Vd  : uel(per comp.) Es2 • munera] funera(per comp.) Ld2(munera i.l. u.l. Ld22)  : minima Ds2(a.c.) • 526 contingent] contiguent C  : contingit Gg(a.c.) Rd  : ɔontigent Hd  : contigerint Ls B14(contingent i.l. u.l. B142), Bothe 18182  : contigerent Bs2(contingent mg. u.l. a m.p.)Cs2  : contigent Mc  : continget Lr7Tu(a.c.)  : contigerit N2  : contingunt B4G Lu2, “Moreti” test. Burm. 1727  : contigerant Be2  : contigerat Bs7(a.c.)  : contigeret(per comp.) V9  : attingent Es2  : contingant “unus” test. Burm. 1727 • fletus] flectus CV6Vd Mo3 Ld13  : lacrimae Mt  : fletusque Mc • peregrin(a)eque] peregrin(a)e S2 Ab(a.c.)B4MtO(a.c.) Bs2  : perigrine B5  : peregi neque Ld6 • haustus] corpus Mt  : austus Lr8 Es2  : hastus Mo3(a.c.) Mc(a.c.) • post hunc u. desin. P47 • 527 omnia] omia S2 • perdidimus] perdimus OTu(a.c.)  : pedidimus Calph. 1474 • post perdidimus interrog. signum pos. Bothe 18182 • superest] super V4(a.c.) • cur] quid O4(cur mg. u.l. a m.p.)V7  : quid P3 a.c. n.l. • uiuere] uiueret(uid.) Lr3(a.c.)  : uiuire uel uuure Tu  : munere Vd(a.c.) • post uiuere interrog. signum pos. V2 • tempus] corpus Ld2(tempus p.c. Ld22) • 528 in breue] imbreue A B5 Ld6 Mt4 Lu2 Ca2(inb-)  : per breue De • matri] matris Ld(a.c.) Ds Es3 • 529 nunc solus] inu. ord. Lr3 Ds • nunc] nûc q B2(a.c.)  : nec Vd • quondam] condam O4V7 B8Cs2P5 Mt4 P41  : et quondam Ba  : quodam C, “Rhen.” (sed non Tu) test. Jahn 1832 • minimus] munus Es2 • de stirpe] desturpe A3  : distirpe B5(a.c.)  : de stirpp L4(a.c.)  : de stierpe B8(a.c.)  : destrepe Mc  : ex stirpe Bo3  : e stirpe Lr22V30, Aler. 1471 • • 530 has] hiis Gf  : his Lr3 Ld6Lr8  : ast P5(a.c.)  : hac P28 • datus] dat P41  : datas Tu Li3 • Ismario] Insmario P2  : hismario AGfL3Lr2Lu recc., Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475  : histmario H2  : hismaro Ph2(a.c.) • Pol(y/i)dorus] poliodorus M(a.c.)  : polidurus B5 • oras] horas AL3Lr2P2V2V3 recc., Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472  : horis Gf Lr3 Lr8  : horax Mt  : hinas Es2(a.c.)  : auras Mt5 B14(uid., a.c.) • 531 quid] cui Mt • moror] memor Ab Mc(a.c.)  : mor V6 • interea] in terra Vd(int’ra) Es3  : interrea Es2 • crudelia] cur delia B2(a.c.)  : qcrudelia Ld(a.c.)  : cludelia Lr3(a.c.)  : curelia Tu(a.c.)  : crudeli Calph. 1480(uitio preli)  : om. Trepat-de Saav. 1932(uitio preli) • uulnera] munera Lr2(uulnera i.l. u.l. Lr22) Lu2  : uulne Ba(a.c.)  : funera V4(per comp.) Rd • l(y/i)mphis] limphys T Ld3  : linphis Be2MtPh2V8 Ds2 F2  : lîfis Lr6  : lîffis Cs2  : telis P5(a.c.)  : nimphis Es2(a.c.) • 532 abluere] ablueret S2(temptasse uid., a.c.) O(a.c.) P5  : ablure Calph. 1480 • et] interea Lr7(interea ex u. 531 post abluere erasum exhib. M N2) • post abluere et uultus signum interrog. hab. V2 • sparsos] sep ~os Gf(a.c.)  : sp ~osGf(p.c.)  : persos Mt  : parsos Vd(a.c.)  : sp ~tos Ft  : sparssos Pr • sanguine] uulnere Z Ca2(a.c.) • uultus] ultus M Lr27 • 533–534 om. Ds2(mg. suppl. m.coaeua) • 533 ad litus] allitus Mc(a.c.) • lit(t)us] lictus MtV6 Ld3 Mt4  : lutus Ld6P5  : liitus Regius 1497 et 1498 • passu] pasu A3  : passus P5(a.c.) • processit] procedit AGfL3Lr2LuP2(uid., a.c. a m.p.)S2(a.c. a m.p.) A2A4AbB2B3(uid., a.c.)B4Ba(p.c.)Be2CFFeGgH2H3HdLr3Lr6Lr7LsN2O4Ph2TrV4V6V8V9Vd B8Bs2Cs2DsDs2GoLi3Lr8Mt3P8P10To B12Bo2Cs3Es2Es3McMt4Mt5

478

Appendix critica

AsB14Bs7Es3F2Lr22Lu2P38P41V30Vd11 Ca2, Plan., Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Gierig 1807, Lemaire 1822, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843  : procedet Ba  : properabat Dr  : procedat Mt  : protendit O3, “Moreti unus” test. Burm. 1727  : properauit “tres libri” test. Burm. 1727 • anili] anuli M2(a.c. uid.)  : hanili A2A3N2V8  : haneli O4  : anilli P10  : aneli Ca2(a.c.)  : annili F2  : om. Mt(sed spatium uac. reliquit) • passu post anili iter. prima manus in Be2 • 534 albentes] albantes Ld2(a.c.)  : abentes As(a.c.) • comas] comes Lr7 Ps(a.c.) • toia ante date scr. Ab(ex itin. corr.) • Troades] troiades AGfV2(ut solet, sed cf. 421, 538) A2(uid.)A3AbB52(p.c.)BaBe2CFeL4Ld2Lr4LsO4 B8Cs2DsGoV16 BoMcP28To2 B14F2 Ca2  : trodes T  : troadas A4(-es p.c. A42)Vd  : et troades B3  : troiaes B5(a.c.)  : troiadas Mt  : troidas Pr • urnam] unam B5(a.c.) P28  : urnas Ph2, mg. scr. Bersm. 1596  : urñas Vd  : ulnam B8 • 535 hunc u. om. Vd(mg. suppl Vd2) • dixerat] dixit et N(dixerat i.l. u.l. N2) V4(a.c.), cf. u. 533 • infelix] om. Lr4(mg. Lr42) • ut post liquidas scr. Es2(ex itin. corr.) • hauriret ut] inu. ord. Ft • hauriret] auriret LuM2(a.c.) B5(a.c.)F(corr. m.rec.)Lr7 Lr8P10 BoEs2Mc  : hariret N2(a.c.) : hauriet V16(a.c.) P28  : haurriret Calph. 1480 • ut undas] harenas Gg(a.c.) • ut] om. B3  : in(per comp.) O3 Rd Bo3(a.c.)  : nec(per comp.) Pr • undas] aquas Lr3(undas i.l. u.l.) • 536 aspicit] asspicit L4(a.c.) • eiectum Polydori] inu. ord. Lu • eiectum] erectum V2  : iniectum A2(uid.)Ld2 • Pol(y/i)dori] polidonri Ba(a.c.)  : polydore E(a.c.)  : polidari L4(a.c.)  : polidoris Tu  : pollidori Lr8  : polidorem Mc(a.c.) • in litore] uulnere Lr8(in litore i.l. u.l. Lr82) • corpus] pectus B8(ex itin. corr.) • 537 factaque] fataque Hd Mo3(facta i.l. Mo32)  : fractaque Mt2(a.c.) • T(h)reiciis] trahitiis Lr2 Mc Lu2  : threius T  : traiciis B2B3V7V8 Ds2Mo3 Mt4 B14F2  : tracitiis C  : treicidis Hd(a.c.), “mss. Gebhardi” test. Burm. 1727  : treiiciis Ld  : treiceis Lr3  : trahijcijs Lr6 P41  : theiciis Lr7  : theciciis Cs3(a.c.)  : trahiciis N2 To Cv  : triciis O(a.c.)  : tericiis O4  : treciis Cs2  : thraytiis V5  : trayciis Ld6  : treyciis So  : trehiciis Ba V16  : traciis Es2  : tiretijs Rd • ingentia] herencia Bs4(ingencia i.l. u.l.) • uulnera] uulnere Vd11 • 538–566 fere euanidi in Lr3 • 538 redit Es6 • hunc u. om. Es2(iuxta 537 mg. scr. m.p.) • Troades] Toades M2(a.c.)  : troiades Gf A2A3AbB5BaBe2CFeL4Lr4LsMtO3O4V6 B8(troy-)DsGo Mc B14 Ca2(a.c.)  : Roades Pr  : horades(uid.) Tu(a.c.) • exclamant] eclamant Mo3  : exclamat P28 • o(b/m)mutuit] obmututuit Ba  : omutuit Gg(a.c.)  : expalluit Ls B14  : obmutit Ft  : ɔmutuit Mt5  : obmotuit Lugd. 1565(recte 1546) • illa] pro H3(per comp.)  : ipsa dub. Slater 1927 • 539–540 deuorat ipse dolor lacrimas introrsus obortas(orbatas a.c. P46) laud. P46O19P47Es7 • 539 et] at Mt5  : er Aler. 1471 • lacrimasque] lacrimas Gf Be2TuV4V9 Mt2So Es3(uid., a.c.) B14(a.c.) P46O19P47Es7  : lacrimisque O3(a.c.), Venet. 1472(lachry-)  : pariterque V30 • introrsus] introsus B3(a.c.)C  : intorsus B5 Ld6Mo3Mt2(a.c.)  : î torsus V6  : introrsit Ds  : retrorsus Es2  : introssus Lu2 • obortas] abortas Lr2MV2(uid., a.c.) FFeGH3Lr3(uid.)Lr42(a suprascr.)Lr6Lr7MoN2V5V6 Cs2Ld6Li3Lr8SoTo Bo2Es2FtMt5 Bo3Cv(a.c.)Es3Es4Es6F2Lr27Lu2P38P41PsV30Z, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475(ab- Calder. 1477)  : ab ortas AL3 To To2  : ab hortas Ds  : ab hortus Mt  : obhortas P2(a.c.) Rd  : obortis Ba(a.c.)O3(a.c.)P3(a.c.)  : obiectas Mc(a.c.) • • 540 deuorat] deuocat N(a.c.)V2(a.c.)  : obruit Ld2(deuorat i.l. u.l. Ld22)  : deuora Mc  : reuocat P41 • ipse] ille O • duroque] doroque Ba(a.c.)  : claroque Fe(duroque mg. u.l. a m.p.)  : duro O4Tu  : duraque Mt5 • simil(l)ima saxo] simillimas axo H3 • saxo] buxo AbFe(mg. u.l.)V6  : saxco B3(a.c.) • 541 et] in Ds Bo2(et mg. u.l. Bo22) : om. P28 • infelix post et scr. Ld3(ex itin. corr.) • aduersa … terra] aduers(a)e … terr(a)e M2(p.c.) B5TuV6 Lr27, “unus Thuan. et unus meus” test. Heinsius 1659  : aduerse  … terra V5(a.c.)  : aduersa  … terram A22(m suprascr.)  : auersa … terra Gf FFe  : aduersa … terre Rd  : aduersa … terrea P41(a.c.)  : opposita … terra “in uno Heinsii” test. Burm. 1727 • figit modo] inu. ord. Es3 • figit] fugit Fe(a.c.) To(a.c.) As(a.c.)P38V30 • lumina] limina B5N2(a.c.)Pr • 542 interdum] indum T(a.c.) • toruos] mutos A2(uid.)  : toruus A4(a.c.)  : duros Bo2 • tollit toruos] toruos sustollit Aler. 1471, Naug. 1516, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Merkel 1850, Riese 1872, Korn



Appendix critica

479

1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007 • tollit … sidera] toruos ad ethera extollit Mc(a.c.) • sidera N CPh2 Es2(sci-) Ca2, “quatuor” test. Burm. 1727  : (a)et(h)era Ω  : ethaera M(ethara a.c.)  : hethera H3V5  : hetera V7  : hectera B14V30  : hectora Ds • 543 nunc] non Ds • positi] posito Ba(a.c.)  : ponti Lr7  : poniti Calph. 1480  : positis Ps  : quid Ca2 a.c. n.l. • spectat uultum] inu. ord. O3 • spectat] spectant Ab(mg. corr. Ab2) Es2  : pectas Mt  : quid Ds2 a.c. n.l. • uultum] uultus(per comp.) Gf P5  : uultuque F2  : om. Ca2(a.c.) • uultum  … uulnera] nunc uulnera uultum De(a.c.)  : uulnera uultum nunc P8(a.c.)  : uultum uulnera nunc P8(p.c.) • 544 hunc u. om. V30 • (uulnera praecipue) pro parenth. hab. Bothe 18182 • uulnera] uulnere M Lr27  : uulne Ba(a.c.) • armat et] om. M2(ex itin. i.l. suppl.) • armat] arma Ab(a.c.) Ds2(a.c.) • et … ira] iramque Ft • et] etiam(per comp.) Lu2 • instruit] î stuit Lu2 • 545–546 hos uu. sic conflau. P3(mg. suppl. P32) Cv: qua simul exarsit peneq3 î imagine tota est • 545 qua] quae Gf A2AbLs Ds2(qua i.l. u.l. Ds22) B14  : quam Pr • exarsit] exarxit Mo3  : simarsit Pr • tamquam] om. Ld6 • tamquam … maneret] poenaeque in imagine tota est P3(tamquam … maneret mg. suppl. P32) Cv • 546 ulcisci statuit] om. P3(mg. suppl. P32) Cv • ulcisci] ulscisci V3(a.c.) Ba  : uiscisa Mt  : ulcusi O3  : ulcisi Bo  : Vulcisci AsP41 • statuit] stuit Ba(a.c.)  : stutuit Fe  : tatuit Mt • p(o)en(a)eque] petique Es2(a.c.) • in (i/y)magine] imagine ALr2(corr. Lr22)Lu(a.c. a m.p.)N(a.c. a m.p.) A3(corr. A32)B3B4F(a.c.)H3Ld2(corr. Ld22)Lr4(a.c.)MoMtPh2(corr. Ph22)V6V7(corr. V72)V8(a.c.)  Li3Mo3P8To Bo2Mt4Mt5To2 Lu2  : îmagine Ab BoMc  : in magine L4  : in magîe Ca2  : immagine Tu : inmagine Ft  : in inimagine Gg  : in ymaginae Lu2(a.c.)  : agmine P41 • tota est] tota B4Ls Mo3 B14  : depsa V6  : fuit supra tota scr. m.rec. in Ls B14 • 547 utque] Vutque O4(a.c.) • furit] fuit A2Lr7 Ld6 Es5  : frit S2  : ferit B2(a.c.)  : sunt O(a.c., uid.)  : fit P10(corr. P102)  : fruit Rd  : quid As a.c. n.l. • catulo] catuloque V6 • lactente] lactante AM2N(a.c.)P2T A2A3A4(a.c.)B4B5DeDrGgHdL4Ld3(p.c.)Lr42(p.c.)Lr6OO3O4P4PrTuV5V6V7V9(a.c.)Vd DsGo(a.c.)Lr8Mo3P8SoTo Es2(a.c.)To2 Es5P41PsZ Ca2  : latente V2(a.c.) McMt4(a.c.)Rd  : lactñte Gf  : lactâtê Ab  : lactent Ft  : latrâte Mt2  : lacerante Bo2  : lactete Calph. 1480 • orbata] obata A(a.c.)  : orbante O(a.c.) : orba Es2FtMc  : orbate P28 • le(a)ena] leaenae M(a.c.)  : leene Lr2(a.c. uid.)V7(a.c.)  : leona Mt4 • 548 signaque] N scr. Vd(ex itin. corr.)  : stagnaque P41 • non uidet] uiderat AbFe(a.c.)  : non uidit N(a.c.) Lr6Lr7 Mt5 F2V30Z, Aler. 1471  : nunc(per comp.) uidet Ds  : om. Pr • 549 Hecube] uid. ad 423 • luctu] uultu Mt • • 550 non] nunc AbVd Ld6 Rd • oblita … oblita] orbata … orbata C(corr. C2) • oblita1] ablita Ab  : om. Ld3  : oblit post oblita iter. P5(ex itin. corr.) • animorum] amorum Es3(uid.) Es3 • animorum annorum] annorum annorum B4  : animorum B5(a.c.)  : annorum animorum De  : animorum sed annorum V4  : animorum annorum sed Ld6 Es6  : quid Mo a.c. n.l. • annorum] annorum non B14 • suorum] seuorum L4(a.c.) • 551 uadit] uenit Lr3  : uidit Lu2 Ca2(a.c.) • ad] om. Es3(a.c.) • dir(a)e] dyrę N  : dux Be2(corr. Be22)  : dare Mt  : dure Pr  : diro Ds • Pol(y/i)mestora] polinestora L3(p.c.) A2A4AbB2B3B4CDrFeGgLd2Ld3Ls(p.c.)O3O4PrTuV7(p.c.)V8V9Vd B8Ds2GoLd6Mo3P5P10So B12BoBo2Cs3Es2Es3FtMcMt4Mt5 AsB14Es5F2P41Ps Ca2(p.c.)  : polenestora L3(a.c.)  : palenestora Ca2(a.c.)  : palimestora A  : polimestore Gf(-a corr. i.l. m.p.)  : polymora M2(a.c.)  : polimesto S2(ra i.l. ex itin. suppl. m.p.)  : polisnestora Rd  : polymnestora Lr22V30 • c(a)edis] cladis B3 • 552 conloquiumque petit] colloquiumqetit L4(a.c.) • co(n/l)loquiumque] colloquium M L4(a.c.) Ld6  : colliquiumque Rd • petit] peti B3(a.c.) • nam] iam Pr • mo(n)strare] monstare B5  : monstra Hd(a.c.) • relictum] reliquit(per comp.) Dr(a.c.)  : relictam Es5(a.c.) • 553 illi] fingit Gf  : ille Be2  : om. Ls B14 • quod] cur N2(i.l. u.l.)  : quo M2(a.c.)T Gg(a.c.)  : quoque(per comp. qo3) Tu  : qui B12(quod i.l. u.l. B122) • nato] natû M2(a.c.)T B5(-um)Tu  : natto Calph. 1480 • aurum] ausim A4(a.c.)  : illi(iterum) aurum Li3(contra metrum) • 554 credidit] credit Pr As  : creditur Vd  : crederet Mt4 • Odr(y/i)sius] acrisius Gf V6  : othrisius Lu2(i.l. u.l.) EH2L4(a.c.)Lr4V7 Lr8P5 BoCs3Es3(a.c.)Mt4Vt  : o(t/c)risius A2A4(iter. a.c.)B3B4BaCDrGg(p.c.)H3HdLd-

480

Appendix critica

Ld2Lr6LsOO4P32(p.c.)V4V5V9Vd B8Ds2Mo3Mt2P8P10So B12Es3(p.c.)McMt5To2 AsB14CvEs5P41Ps Ca2  : odricius Ab  : othiris uis B5(a.c.)  : odrius B52(mg.)  : otrisus Pr  : odrosius F2  : etirius Mt  : Otrysius Tr Bo2  : odrysyius Tu  : othrysius Ld3  : odrixius Ft  : occisus Es6 • pr(a)ed(a)eque] pradeque T  : pedeque Es6  : prædæ Accurs. 1475 • 555 in secreta] Inserta Puteol. 1471 • secreta] secrea M2  : secura Ab(a.c.) • blando] blandus Tu(o suprascr. Tu2) • callidus] calidus B3B5HdPrV6 To(a.c.) Es2Mt4Rd • 556 hunc u. om. Vt(mg. suppl. Vt2) • tolle] pelle B3 • moras Hecube] haec(per comp. h’) moras Fe(a.c.; moras hecuba p.c. Fe2) • moras] metus A A3, “Leid. et duo alii” test. Burm. 1727  : moram Ds2  : minas “Moreti” test. Burm. 1727 • Hecube dixit] inu. ord. Es5(a.c.) • Hecube] hecuba LuMM2N2(i.l. u.l.)P2S2 AbB2Fe2GL4N2P3Tu V16 Bo Bo3Es4Lr27P41Vd11Z Ca2, Loers 1843, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Simmons 1889, Edwards 1905, R. de Verger 2005  : he[ T  : hechube(-a p.c.) B4  : hecubæ C  : ecuba DeLdLr3Lr4V9 P10So  : eucuba F2  : eccuba Lr6(a.c.)  : heccuba Lr6(p.c.)Ls McMt4 B14  : hecubas P28  : Hecuba, et coni. Merkel 1875  : Hecube, et Fink 2007 • 557 omne] omîe A2  : omîa F2  : omen P41Vd(a.c.), Calph. 1480 • fore] foret B5  : fere Lr7  : forê Ld6 • illius … et] illi quod et Ls  : illi quod das et quod Ls2(i.l. das et quod2)  : illius quicquid et B14 • illius] illis Lr7 • das] a das Vd(a.c.) • quod et] quodque Lr2 Cs2P8 B12(p.c.)Es2 CvF2Lu2Z  : modo et Ba  : et quod C Fe Mt3 B12Mt5, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472  : quod L4(a.c.)Mt Vt  : et quod et O3  : et Vd Lr8(a.c.) P41 • dedisti] tulisti E • 558 per  … iuro] uiro per superos V6 • superos] superas Ab(a.c.)Dr • iuro] uiro M Hd(a.c.)V6 Ld6  : coniuro Gf(per comp.)  : oro De(a.c.) Mt3 • spectat] pectat Mt • truculenta] trunculenta Lr2  : truculeta Ld6  : truculata P5  : ruculenta P10(a.c.)  : truculentem P28 • loquentem] cruorem Gf(mg. corr. Gf3) • 559 falsaque] fassaque Hd(a.c.) • iurantem] narrantem De  : mirantem Ds2  : querentem P41 • tumidaque] timidaque A(a.c.)Lu(a.c.) MtO4(recte i.l. O42)V6Vd Cs2 Mt4  : tacitaque A2 P5  : tumida H3Lr7  : tumida tunc P41  : tumidoque Ft(p.c.; tumido a.c.) • ex(a)estuat] ex extuat M2(a.c.)  : exaestua Lr22  : ex estuat Mt Es6V30  : extuat Ls(extua[) Li3To(p.c.) BoMcMt4 B14P41  : estuat V6 Mt3Rd Es3  : exexestuat V5  : exeucia Vd(a.c.)  : exestuit Go(a.c.)  : extumat To(a.c.) • ira] hora Gg(a.c.) • • 560–561 atque ita correptum captiuarum agmine matrum / inuolat Heinsius 1659, prob. Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Koch 1866 • 560 atque] at M Ld2(corr. Ld22) Lr27  : adque Ld6 • ita] om. Lu(ex itin. corr. m.p.) H3(suppl. H32)N2(suppl. N22) To Mt4(suppl. Mt42)  : haec A2  : ira V7 • captiuarum] captauarum L3(a.c.)  : captiuorum Lr2(a.c.) L4(a.c.) Li3  : capuarum Tu(a.c.)  : capitiuarum Calph. 1480 • matrum] matê Dr  : irarum O4(p.c.)  : urarum O4  : natorum Ps(a.c. a m.p.) • 561 hunc u. om. O3(mg. suppl. m.p.) • digitos] digitis N(uid.; -os i.l. u.l. N2)  : digidos P8  : dicitos Bo • in perfida] inperfida V3 BaFHdL4Ld Ds2  : imperfida B5Vd  : îperfida Be2Lr4Pr Cs2  : inperida O4 • perfida lumina] inu. ord. A2 • condit] uertit Hd Cs3(ex itin. corr.); cf. 5.545  : cundit Vd(ut solet) • 562 expellitque Aler. 1471, Calph. 1474, Naug. 1516, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Simmons 1889, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, Fink 2007  : expilatque Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Ciof. 1575(ex antiquiore suo), Bersm. 1596, Jahn 1832, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Merkel 1850, Polle 1888, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, Anderson 1982, R. de Verger 2005  : expoliatque Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Koch 1866  : explicat atque Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472  : Expellitq3 atq3 Calph. 1480  : explilatque Rd  : expulsitque Mt  : expułatque Be2  : expilitque Ld2(expilatque Ld22)  : expellatque Lr62(i.l.; expilatque Lr6)  : explicatque Pr  : exploratque Bo2(a.c.) P41  : extrahitque Gf2(i.l.) Fe(i.l. a m.p.) Bo B142(i.l.)  : extrait C(i.l.) Ca2(mg.)  : extraxitque A3A4AbB4F2(p.c.)LdV9 B8Bs2Bs3Bs4GoLr82(i.l. u.l.) P28, “decem alii” test. Heinsius 1659  : extraxit F(a.c.) • genis oculos] inu. ord. Es2 • genis] genas S2 B42(uid., p.c.)Ld(u.l.)P3(corr. P32) D Es5Es6, Heinsius 1659, Burm.



Appendix critica

481

1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834  : gemis B5(a.c.)  : gemens Mt  : generas P3  : genus Ld6 Bo2(a.c.) V45 • oculos] oculis S2 Dr(a.c.)Ld(u.l.)P3(corr. P32) D Es5Go2, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834  : oculosque Mt • ira] illa Vd(a.c.) • nocentem] potentem Heinsius 1659, Walch. 1731, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, H-K-E 1898(nocentem Ehwald 1915), Edwards 1905, Fabbri 1923, Goold 1984, Hopkinson 2000, R. de Verger 2005  : ualentem Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546(nocentem mg.), Lugd. 1565, Ciof. 1575, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1652, Burm. 1727, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Merkel 1850, Koch 1866, Riese 1872, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, Fink 2007 • 563 immergitque] iniungitque Vd(a.c.)  : hec mergitque P10  : inuergitque P38, Calph. 1474 • manus] manus oculis M Hd(a.c.)Lr4Lr6MoN2 P8To(corr. To2) Bo Bo3Lr27  : manus oculos N  : genas Ab • (f/ph)(o)edataque] foedatas Lu(p.c. a m.p.; -ataque a.c.)P2(p.c.; -ataque uid. a.c.) Tu  : fedata Es6 • sanguine] om. MN(i.l. suppl. m.p.) Hd(i.l. Hd2)Lr4Lr6(mg. Lr62)Mo(mg. Mo2)N2(i.l. N22) P8To(mg. To2) Lr27  : lumina V9 Rd • sonti] sontis Lr22(-i Lr2)MP2(p.c.) A3A42(mg. u.l.)B3B5DeFeGH3HdL4Ld(i.l. u.l.)Ld2Lr62(p.c.)Lr7MoN2OTuV6V7V8V9Vd(a.c.) DsGoLd6Mo3Mt2Mt3P5P8So B12BoCs3Es2Es3FtMcMt5To2Vt AsB14Bo3CvEs6F2Go2Lr22Lr27Lu2P41V30Vd11 Ca22(mg.), Plan., Aler. 1471, H-K-E 1898, Ehwald 1915, van Proosdij 1951, H-K-E-A 1966, Segura 1983  : frontis Gg2(i.l. u.l.)  : sûtis Ab B8(suprascr. nocentis)  : sôpti B4Ld3 Ca2  : sumptis Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472  : so[ Ls  : mater P28 • 564 non] iam To  : nec B12(non i.l. u.l. B122) • lumen] lumine Es2 Ps(a.c.) • neque … superest] superest neque enim Ds2 • neque] nec V9 Mo3  : sed P5(a.c.) • enim] om. Ft Cv(a.c.) • superest loca] super loca est N2(p.pr.c., quid a.c. n.l.; superest loca p.alt.c.)  : spê loca & Lu2(a.c.)  : super loca Ca2(a.c.) • superest] om. A4(a.c. a m.p.) • haurit] hauriut uel hauruit M(a.c.)  : aurit B5(a.c.)Mo(a.c.) Lr8 Ft  : hausit L4(p.c.) Mo3 Es6  : hasit L4(a.c.)  : auree Tu  : hauserit V5 • 565 clade] colade Ld6  : Lade P41 • sui] sua Tu Cv Ca2(a.c.)  : fui Ld6  : tû Mo3 : om. Es2(a.c.) • T(h)racum] tractum V7(a.c.)V9(a.c.)Vd(a.c.) • gens] genus Bo • inritata] irrita H3Lr3Mo(a.c.)Mt To Rd  : irritatata O4  : iritata Es2, Calph. 1474, Regius 1493(corr. 1497; cf. ad uu. 434, 967)  : irratata Ps(a.c.) • t(y/i)ranni] tyramni Es2 Lr27  : tirranni Rd  : tyrâpni Lr6  : tirâpni To2  : dolore V6 • 566 Troada] Troiada GfV3 AbB2B5(a.c.)BaBe2CDrFeHdL4LsMtO3PrV6V7 DsGoMo3 B12Mc B14  : Troades M2(uid., a.c.)  : torada Tu  : troyada Ld3  : Troade Ft(a.c.)  : Troadas Z  : de T n.l. • telorum] thelorum Hd  : celorum Mt  : tellorum Es2Rd • lapidumque] pidumque A(a.c. a m.p.)  : lapidum GgH3  : lapidumue N2 Es42(-ue suprascr.)  : lapididumque Mc  : lapiduq3 V30, Aler. 1471 • incessere] incesc’re A(ɔmou’e suprascr.) Cs2  : excessere Ld6  : uicescere Bo  : incre primum tempt. sed ex itinere corr. M2  : incesse Lr8(a.c.)  : incedere Es6  : lacessere N3(mg. u.l.), “unus Ambros. et Heinsii” test. Burm. 1727 • iactu] motu L3(iactu mg. u.l. L32)Lr2  : metu Lu2  : iactû Ab  : iactus Ds  : tinctu Bo2  : lactu Accurs. 1475 • 567 hunc u. om. N2(mg. suppl. N22) • c(o)epit] capit To2 • at] ad N(a.c.) L4(uid., a.c.)V6 Bo2P28Rd F2Z(a.c.), Walch. 1739(recte 1714, 1731)  : atque C Es2Ft Go2  : et Ld3 B8 • haec missum] setmissum Vd • h(a)ec] hoc Tu Mc Es6 • missum rauco] inu. ord. Ld • missum] immissum Lr2 CvLu2  : miserum A4(a.c.)  : om. Ls B14 • rauco] rapto V6  : rauca Go(a.c. a m.p.)  : raro P8 • saxum] iactum MN(saxum i.l. u.l. N3) Bo3(saxum i.l. u.l.)Lr27Vd11  : de Tu n.l. • 568 hunc u. om. B12(mg. suppl. m.p.) • morsibus insequitur] insequitur morsi et (per comp. morsi7, sc. b omisso) Gf • morsibus] mollibus Vd  : morsilibus Mt4(a.c.) • insequitur] in sequitur Vd • rictuque] rituque B4(a.c.)CGgLd3Lr7Mo(p.c.; rictuque a.c.)MtPrVd Mo3 Es2(a.c.) Es5Es6  : ictuque V7  : rictu Mc • in uerba] aduersa Ph2 Cv • parato] palato L3(a.c.)  : peracto Ab Mt42(p.c.; parato per comp. Mt4)  : per alto Mt • 569 latrauit] latrarat Vd(corr. Vd2 suprascr. uit)  : laetrauit Ds2(a.c.) • conata] conataque V2(a.c.)  : cognata Be2 Mo3 • locus] canis Ph2(canis mg. Ph22) Mt3 Es3, “Medic. et Moreti” test. Burm. 1727  : loq’ Vd  : cus(per comp.) Pr • ex(s)tat] estat Ft Es4 • et] om. Ft • ex re] ecce Pr  : exte P5(ex itin. corr.)P8 : erre Rd •

482

Appendix critica

• 570 habet] om. V2(a.c.) C(a.c.)O3(a.c.) : habes Mt  : habet est (per comp.) Mo3  : habebat Ciof. 1575 • ueterumque] uenturaque L3(comp. sc. perperam explic.)  : ueterorumque(per comp.) A4(a.c.)  : ueteremque B5(per comp.)  : ueterum Vt • diu … illa] memor fuit illa Mt4 • diu] om. Ld(i.l. Ld2)V6 • illa] ille L3(a.c.)  : om. Mc(a.c.) • malorum] malarum Ab(uid.) : deorum B5(corr. B52) : malorum est Mt Ld6  : meorum Vd(recte i.l. Vd2)  : laborum P10  : dierum Es5 • 571 tum] tunc AGfLr2Lu A2A3A4AbB3B4B5HdL4Ld22(p.c.; tum Ld2)Ld3Lr6LsMtO4PrV4V6V7V9Vd B8Cs2Ds2Mt3P5P8P10SoV16 B12BoBo2Es2FtMcMt4P28 B14Lu2P41  : nunc B2GgP4 Mt2 Es6  : cum F2 : tu Rd Vd11 • Sithonios] scithonios L3(a.c.) : scythonios Es5  : sythonios GfM2  : sythonicos Mo3  : sithonos T  : sitonios A2Be2LdV4V6V8Vd Bo2(a.c.)McRdTo2 Es6F2 Ca2 : sinthonios P3  : sithonias B5V7  : sistonios C  : sidonios FMt  : sithosuos Mo(a.c.) • ululauit] ululat Ps • m(a)esta] mestu P28  : mestaque Es6 • agros] auras V7 • u. 565 post hunc u. iter. Bo22 • 572 hunc u. om. N(mg. suppl. m.p.) Pr Cs2 Es5 • illius] illiusque V7 To • Troasque] troiasque GfV3 B5BaBe2HdL4Lr3O4V6  : troiesque C  : troadesque Lr3 Bo2  : toro acque N2(a.c.)  : throasque V4  : troesque V9 Ca2  : troiadasque Ds  : trohasque McMt4  : troyadesque Es2  : hostesque V30 • suos] suas V7 So  : simul suos P28 • hostesque] hostesque suos M(a.c.)  : hostesque suo A3(ex itin. corr.)  : hostisque Ft  : troasque V30  : hortosque Bach 1836 • Pelasgos] per agros (ex 571) MP22(u.l.) Tu Lr27  : pelagros N(a.c.)  : alienos S2  : parasgos(uid.) T(a.c.)  : pelascos A3  : pelasgros B5(a.c.)  : pelagos Mo(a.c.) Ds2Mo3(a.c.) Ca2  : palasgos V6  : pelasos B8 • 573 fortuna] fortunasque Ft  : forruna Regius 1493(corr. 1497) • deos] tuos Vd(ex itin. corr.)  : suos Ft(deos mg. u.l. Ft2) • quoque mouerat] quo mouerat B4(a.c.)  : quoque nouerat Mt  : cômouerat P41 • omnes] oîs Mc • 574 ut et] et ut L4 B8Li3 • et] om. Lr2 B3B5F(a.c. a m.p.)Lr3Ls(a.c. a m.p.)MtO4(a.c. a m.p.)Vd So Ft Lu2 • ipsa] ipse M2(a.c.)T(a.c.) Tu • Iouis] ionis Lu(uid., a.c. a m.p.) • coniu(n)xque] coniunxquoque L4(a.c.)  : coniunx Es4 • sororque] solorque Ds  : sorores P10(a.c.)  : sororis P10(p.c.) • 575 euentus] Feuêtus Ds • (H)ecubam] ehecubâ Fe(a.c.)  : ecubat Pr  : eucubam F2  : eccubam H3 Ft B14  : hebam Ld2(a.c.)  : ethecubâ As(a.c.)  : heccubam Cs2 Es3(a.c.)McMt4RdTo2  : hecubê Mo3 • meruisse] meruere Mo(a.c.) • illos] istos Gf Tr Ds(illos i.l. Ds2)  : illo Ab  : ipsos V8 So • 576 non] nec A2Ld2  : In Ab(uid., a.c.) • uacat] uacui M(uid., a.c.)  : uaccat A3  : uocat AbPr Ld6P10 • Auror(a)e] armonię Gf(aurore i.l. u.l. a m.p.)  : haurorę Ph2 • quamquam … armis] quamquam ipsam isdem fauet oris P10 • quamquam] quamuis Mt  : quamquod Ld6  : quamquam et in Es2 • isdem] hisdem L3(p.c.)M2(p.c.)N(p.c.)V2 A2B4BaBe2EGgH3HdL4Ld2Ld3MtN2O(a.c.)P4V4V8 Ds2(p.c. a m.p.)Mt3P8 B12Bo2Es2To2Vt Bo3Es3Es5Lr22V30Vd11, Aler. 1471  : iste T  : iisdem V16 Cs3Es3(p.c.)Mt5 AsEs4P38, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596  : hiisdem B2Lr7 B8P5 Es3(a.c.)Ft  : mihi(per comp.) C  : istis Rd • fauerat] fauerit AbMoV8Vd Ld6Mo3V102(i.l. u.l.), “unus Ambros.” test. Burm. 1727  : fouerat B5  : fuerat Pr  : faueat(cf. faueât e.  g. Lr7 F2) Tu, Regius 1493  : uenerat Ps(fauerat mg. a m.p.) • armis] armos L3  : annis M(a.c.)N(a.c.) Ft • 577 cladibus] casibus B5(a.c.)V6  : claudibus Ds2  : clodibus Ld6  : classibus Mc • to post et scr. B2(a.c.) • et casu] et casum M Lr27  : ob casum G • casu Troi(a)eque] troie casuque V9 • Troiaeque Hecubaeque] heccubeque troieque Mc • Troi(a)eque] thoieque M(a.c.)  : troie A4(a.c.)MtO(a.c.) Es3(a.c.) AsEs6  : casuque V9 • troięque iter. M2(cum lit. damn.) • (H)ecub(a)eque] hecabeque De  : eucubeque F2  : eccubę H3  : hecube V5  : heccubeque Cs2 Es3(a.c.)FtMc(p.c.)Mt4RdTo2 B14  : eccubeque To Lu2  : heccube Mc(a.c.)  : hecubesque “unus Heinsii” test. Burm. 1727 • moueri] mouere M Lr27Lu2(a.c.)  : uideri Es2(ex itin. corr.) • 578 cura] curam Mt • deam] deum B4(a.c.)O3 Bo2  : dicta Mc As • propior] proprior Lr2MNV3 B3B5CGH3Ld2(i.l. u.l.)Lr7PrVd Lr8P10V16 FtP28To2 P41 Ca2  : prior Lr3(uid.)V7 Mc As  : propiorque Es6 • luctusque] luctus Lr3 Ds Es6 • domesticus] domestica H3  : miserrimus Mt  : domesticos Bo • angit] artat Ls B14  : cogit Lr4  : agit Mo(a.c.)  : augit V6 • 579 Memnonis] Mennonis LuP2V3 A2B2B3B5BaDrEFGH2H3L4LdLr3Lr4Lr6Lr7LsN2OO4Ph2PrTuV4V6V8Vd Ds2Ld6Li3 P28Vt Bo3Es5Es6F2PsZ  : Menonis Lr2 Hd Cs2So B12Bo2Cs3Es2Es3FtMcMt4Mt5To2 AsB14CvEs4Lu2 Ca2  : Memmonis M2(a.c.)  : Memonis Be2 Bo, Calph. 1480  : Lênonis Rd  : Meonis P41 • amissi] amisi M2 Mc(a.c.) Bo2  : admissi B4(a.c.)Gg(a.c.)-



Appendix critica

483

H3Ld3 B14 Ca2(a.c.)  : âmissi Be2FeLr6  : ammissi Es6 • Phrygiis  … lutea] quem lutea phrigiis P8(a.c.) • Phrygiis quem] quem phigiis(frigiis Mt4) Gf(ord. rest. Gf2) Mt4(ex itin. corr.)  : phrygiis Mo(a.c.) P38  : prigiisq3 quem Rd(a.c.)  : phrigiis Lu2 • Phr(y/i)giis] phrigis L3(a.c.)  : frigiis A A2B4GGgHdLr3Lr6LsO4(-ii a.c.)PrV6V7V8Vd Cs2DsDs2Ld6Mt2P5So BoBo2Cs3McMt4P28To2 B14CvF2P41Ps  : prigiis C Rd  : phigiis Gf  : frigeis B8  : frigiisque Es2  : frigii Lr7 Mt5  : phrigiis S2 p.c.; quid a.c. n.l. • quem] que Mt : qui Ld6  : om. Mo(a.c.) Lu2P38, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474 • lut(t)ea] litora S22(p.c.; quid a.c. n.l.)  : litea V3(a.c.) Rd  : lintea Mo(a.c.)  : luctea A2A4(a.c.)AbO3V6 Ld6So Bo V30  : lucthea Mt  : luthea O42(p.c.; -tea a.c.) B8Ds2 Bo2 Es5  : cerula P32(i.ras.; quid a.c. n.l.)  : lute V7  : rosea Ds  : littera P28  : cerula Es6, “unus Regius” test. Burm. 1727 • campis] quamuis B5(a.c.)  : siluis P28 • • 580 om. Gg(mg. suppl. m.p.) • uidit] uidit et Ab  : vdit F • Achil(l)ea] achllea V2(a.c.)  : achillei A2  : achilleida B3  : achilleo F2  : achilleia Lr4V4 B14(acch-)CvPs • pereuntem] pareuntem Aler. 1471 • mater] hasta Mt(a.c.) • 581 uidit] uenit O2(mg. u.l.) • ille] ipse B4(a.c.)Mt • quo] qua F2 • matutina] matuna Tu • rubescunt] rubuscunt A  : rubescit A2 Es5, “Oxon.” test. Heinsius  : rubescut V6  : rubescant Es2(a.c.) • 582 tempora palluerat] palluerat tenqu N2 • palluerat] palluerant Ab2(p.c.; -at Ab)Pr : palluerit Mt  : pallauerat Rd • latuitque in] latuitque Lr2(a.c.) Ft Lu2  : latuit in M2 B3  : lutibusque in B5(corr. B52)  : latitque in Ba(a.c.)  : latuit quae Ps : latuitque sub Ld6  : latuit sub “Exc. Langerm.” test. Heinsius • nubibus] muneris B5(corr. B52)  : milibus V6 • (a)et(h)er] ethes Es2(a.c.)  : hecter B14(ut semper)  : aer Mc P41  : Oete in uet. cod. Reg. test. Heinsius • 583 at] ante Hd(ex itin. corr.) • impositos] inapositos V5  : suppositos Mt3 • sup(p)remis] supp’ssis Hd  : suprimis Calph. 1480 • artus] arctus B3 AsP41, Venet. 1472  : arcus L4 • 584–595 desunt in Lr3(mg. suppl. Lr32) • 584 sustinuit spectare] inu. ord. E(a.c.) • sustinuit] sustunuit Ds(cf. u. 385) • parens] om. B5 : pares Mt  : mater Es5 : pauens P41 • sed] et Pr • 585 magni genibus] inu. ord. Ds2 • magni] magno B5(a.c.) : magnis Mt  : magnibus V5 • genibus] pedibus Gf : îgenibus Mt • procumbere] succumbere Ab  : concumbere Bo • non] om. Mt2 • 585–586 non est / … Iouis] iouis / … non est N2 • 586 dedignata] indignata Gf • Iouis] om. Ba(i.l. Ba2) • lacrimisque has] lacrimas quorum(uid.) B3  : lacrimosasque O4  : lacrimisque as P3(a.c.)Tu  : lacrimisque his B5  : lacrimisque V5(a.c. a m.p.) Lr8 • addere] edere A2B4CPh2Pr B8Ds Bo2Es2, “quinque libri” test. Burm. 1727 : reddere De  : adere Hd(a.c.)MoV6  : quid P2 a.c. n.l. • uoces] noctes Lr6(a.c.) • 587 inferior] imferio V30 • quas] quæ M Vt Bo3(a.c.)Go2Lr22Lr27V30, Aler. 1471  : quos Lr6PrTr Mc  : quam Li3  : quid N a.c. (-as i.ras.) n.l.  : quot prop. Heinsius(in notis)  : de T n.l. • sustinet] sustinet et Lr7 • aureus] arurus P2(uid.)  : arduus B4FeGgLdLr32 B8Bs2(a.c.)Bs3Bs4Go(aureus i.l. u.l. Go2)Mt3P5So P28 Go2(aureus mg. u.l. Go22) Ca2, “plurimi” test. Burm. 1727  : de T n.l. • (a)et(h)er] axis Gf O4, “ex uno Argent.” test. et prob. Burm. 1727(in notis), Bothe 18182  : ebur O(a.c.)  : orbis Go2(i.l. u.l.) • 588 sunt] insunt Mc  : om. Tu(a.c. a m.p.) • templa] dempla T(a.c.) • orbem] habebat B5(mg. corr. B52) • 589 diua tamen] inu. ord. Ds2(a.c.) • diua] diu V5(a.c.) • refero post tamen scr. Hd(ex itin. corr.) • ueni] uenio Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Merkel 1875(non sic 1850), Polle 1888, Keene 1898 • non ut] ut non M Mo • delubra] delubraque P2(a.c.)  : delibra Mo(a.c.)  : dulubra V4(a.c.) • • 590 des] da Ab(uid.)  : det Pr  : D Tu • caliturasque] caligantesque M2(p.c.; calig__q: tantum legitur a.c.)  : caligantemque Lr27  : caligaturasque Pr  : caliturasue Gf  : calituras Lr2 Be2Lr7MtV8(p.c.; caliturasque V82) Ld6So Es2(a.c.)Ft Lu2Ps  : cariturasque B4(a.c.)Vd Ds2  : calturas V8(a.c.)  : caluturasque Ds  : cauturasque Mo3  : coliturasque De  : culturasque P8  : colendasque P41 • ignibus] ignabus Lr4(a.c.) • ag post ignibus V5(ex itin. corr.) • aras] arcas G(a.c.)  : atras H3  : arans Mt • 591 si] sed V6 • aspicias] aspicies Lr8 Mc Es6 Ca2(a.c.) • praestem] pestem MtO4(a.c.)  : pareor N2(a.c.)  : praesum Ft  : perstem Es6 • 592 tum … luce] tûc luce Lr6(a.c.)  : tum luce Ld6 • tum] tunc GfLu A2A3AbB3B4CGgH3HdLdLd2(p.c.)Lr7LsMtOO3O4PrV6V7V8V9Vd Ds2Lr82(i.l. u.l.)Mt2P5P8P10SoTo B12Bo2Cs3Es2McMt4Mt5To2

484

Appendix critica

AsB14Es4P41V30  : et Mo32(i.l. u.l.) • cum luce] cu luce V3  : ɔluce A2Ab  : conluce Hd  : et luce P10(cum luce P102)  : cum lucet Mc  : quum luce P38 • noua] noui Mt • noctis … seruo] seruo … noctis V2 To2 • confinia] conubia N(confinia i.l. u.l. N3) • 593 danda] magna Mt3  : dâna Mc • putes] putas B4 • sed … cura] si(uel sed) neta cura T • non] non est BaMt • ea] haec “Medic.” test. Burm. 1727 • cura] curo Ds  : causa Es6, “alter Medic.”(sed non Lr8) test. Burm. 1727  : quid B5C a.c. n.l. • neque hic] inu. ord. F2  : ac neque hic To2  : neque Ca2(nec hic p.c.) • neque] nec GfLr2 B3B4(neque B42)CH3Ld(a.c.)Ld3Lr6O3Ph2V7V8Vd B8DsGoMo3P5 Cs3Es2FtMt4Rd CvEs5Es6Lu2Ps Ca2(p.c.)  : non B5V6 Mt2  : q3 G(a.c.) • hic] hec A2B5Lr7 Cv(a.c.)  : om. Ca2(a.c.) • 594 nunc] non T DrV6 : nun Ld(a.c.)  : nec O • Auror(a)e] anime Dr(recte i.l. Dr2)  : aurores Vd(a.c.) • meritos] merito Lr32 V30  : meritis V16 • ut] ubi Cs3(a.c.) As  : u Cs3(p.c.)  : sibi “Argent.” test. Burm. 1727, cf. 387, Verg. Aen. 11.219 • 595 Memnonis] Memnocis Mo(a.c.)  : Lenonis Rd  : Meonis P41 • mei] mea T(a.c.) • uenio] ueni O3(a.c.)  : nemo Mt4  : om. P3(a.c.)  : quid So a.c. n.l. • fortia] forti Mo(a.c.) • 596 patruo] patrio B5Gg(a.c.)MtV5V9(a.c.)  : patuo Mo(a.c.)  : patulo Ds2(a.c.)  : patria B12Es2(a.c.) • tulit] dedit Vd • suo] sua B12Es2(a.c.) • annis] annas B5(a.c.)  : armis AbL4MtO3PrV6V8 Bs3(annis i.l. u.l.)Mo3So McRd Es6P41V30, “Vatican. … et duo Moreti” test. Burm. 1727 • 597 redit Lr3 • occidit] concidit “tres libri” test. Burm. 1727 • forti] fortis B2(a.c.)  : magno “Moreti” test. Burm. 1727, Bentley (memoriae lapsu) ad Hor. carm. 1.21.31 • sic] quia N2(i.l. u.l.) • Achille] achilli F2 • 598  ]cia mortis honorem tantum exstat in Ls • da precor] deprecor Lu Gg(a.c.) • precor] procul M Mo(precor i.l. u.l. et item mg. Mo2)Tr • aliquem] aliquā Calph. 1480 • sola(c/t)ia] solancia V2(a.c.)  : salatia Ca2(a.c.) • mortis] motis Ld6  : mentis “Moreti” test. Burm. 1727  : moris “Oxon.” test. Burm. 1727 • honorem] onorem Lr2(a.c.) • 599 uulnera leni tantum exstat in Ls • summe] om. As(a.c.) • deum rector] inu. ord. V7 • deum] om. N2(i.l. suppl. N22) • maternaque] materna M2(a.c.) Mt2  : materque V3(a.c.)  : aliquam quoque Bs3(maternaque mg. a m.p.) • uulnera] pectora A4B4BaBe2DrMtPrV8 Ps, “tres libri” test. Burm. 1727  : munera B5(uid., a.c.), “unus” test. Burm. 1727  : numina V16 • leni] leui Bs3(leni mg. a m.p.)Ds  : leua P41 • • 600 annuerat] ânuuerat Mc  : deest in Ls • cum] tunc Ld2(cum i.l. u.l. Ld22) Gg  : tum Es4 • Memnonis] paunonis Ds2(a.c.) • arduus] aduus M2(a.c.)  : ardius S2(a.c.)  : ardus F(a.c.) • alto] esto Mc • 601 corruit] corriguit Li3 • igne] ingne Mc • rogus] rogo Vd(a.c.) • uolumina Ω, Puteol. 1471, edd.  : uolumine A(uid.; -a uid. p.c.)Lu(uid., a.c.)MM2(corr. M22)N(a.c.)S2T B2(a.c.)B4(p.c.)Mo(-ina i.l. u.l.)MtO BoVt Bo3F2Lr22Lr27V30Vd11, “in Moreti et septem aliis” test. Burm. 1727, Aler. 1471, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915(-a 1898), Fabbri 1923, van Proosdij 1951, H-K-E-A 1966, Segura 1983  : nolamina Gf Ds2(a.c.)  : uelamina A4(uolumina mg. u.l. A42)  : uolamina B5Ph2 Go2  : nolumina Ds2(p.c.)  : uelumina Cs3  : uolammina Ft  : uolantia Rd • fumi] natas P3(ex itin. corr.)  : frigus B5(corr. B52)  : uultmi Hd(a.c.)  : flumi Mt4(a.c.)  : nimbi Es5 • 602 ueluti] uelut L3 Z • cum flumina] confulmina Hd(a.c.)  : conflumina Hd(p.c.) P10  : quum flumina Es5P38  : dum flumina Ls B14 • post 602 u. 611 hab. Hd • 603 nec] cum B4(a.c.)  : et Cs3 • sol] solæ M(a.c.) Mt Ds • a(d/m)mittitur] amit(t)itur ALr2M AbBaC(a.c.)F(p.c.)GgHd(corr. Hd2)Lr3(uid.)Lr4(corr. Lr42)O3O4(adm- a.c.)Pr Ds2(a.c.)Ld6Mo3Mt2(a.c.)P5(a.c.) Mc(corr. Mc2) Lu2  : ad mititur V6  : adimitur Ft  : dimittitur Ds • infra] intra A(uid., a.c.)Gf B2(p.c.; infra a.c.)Gg Cs2 Es5  : îfla B52(mg.)  : mera Mt  : ultra Ph2(infra mg. u.l. Ph22)V6 • 604 atra] antra Ds2 • uolat] uocat Ab(a.c.)  : uola B3(a.c.)  : uolant B5Ph2(-ât)  : deest in Ls • glomerataque] glomerata A  : glomeraque S2(a.c.) H3(a.c.)  : glomeratque Z(a.c.) • 605–606 sic conflau. Gg(corr. Gg2): densatur faciemque capit leuitas sua praebuit alas • 605 densetur MN(uid., a.c. a m.rec.)S2TV3 Lr6(-atur Lr62)MoN2Tu(p.c.) Go(-atur Go2 p.c.) Bo Lr27, mg. test. (“u.l. Giphan.”) Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1652(prob. Heinsius 1659 in notis), Merkel 1850, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de



Appendix critica

485

Verger 2005, Fink 2007  : densatur Ω, Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Koch 1866  : densentur M2(-atur p.c.)  : dempsatur A2CLd2  : donsantur Rd  : densantur P41  : denserunt Tu(a.c.)  : denserat Mc  : de Lr3 n.l.  : deest in Ls • ca post denseturque scr. Lr6(ex itin. corr.) • faciemque capit] capiemque facit B5(mg. corr. B52) • faciemque] finemque Lu(i.l. corr. Lu2)  : faciem F2 • capit] capud Lr7  : caput Rd  : rapit B12Mt4 V26  : facit B5(a.c.; supra)  : om. Fe(a.c.) • sumitque] sûmitque L3 AbB3V8 Ld6Lr8Mt2 Cs3FtMc AsLu2P41  : sumit V4(a.c.) • calorem] colorem Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Anderson 1982 • 606 atque] adq3 Tu DsLd6  : ast P10  : at To(a.c.)  : estque Ca2(a.c.) • ex ante animum scr. Lu(ex itin. damn.) • animam] animum Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596 • ex igni] exigui Rd Z(a.c.)  : exigue Es6 • igni] igne Lr2N(p.c.) A3AbB3B5Be2Gg2H3HdL4(p.c.)Ld3Lr4Lr6(p.c.)LsOO4(i suprascr. m.p.)P32(p.c.; igni P3)P4PrV5(a.c.)V7V8Vd(a.c.) B8(p.c.)Cs2Ds2Lr8(p.c.) B12(a.c.)FtMcTo2 B14Lu2P41Z(p.c.)  : de T n.l.  : pro igne mg. scr. B42O(a m.p., uid.) • leuitas] capit. leuitas P4  : lenitas Lr7 • sua] suas T • alas] om. T • 607 et] ex Mo(a.c.) Cs2  : om. Ds(a.c.) • primo] primos M(a.c.)  : de T n.l. • similis uolucri] inu. ord. Ls(]cri similis) DsMo3 B14 • similis] similes A2(a.c.)  : facilis B2(p.c.)  : cilis B2(a.c.)  : simulis B5 • mox] mox deinde Es4 • 608 insonuit] intonuit S2  : de T n.l.  : deest in Ls • pennis] pinnis N(pe- N2) • pariter] om. Ld • sonuere sorores] inu. ord. Ld3(a.c.) • sorores] per auras P22(i.l.) G(sorores mg. u.l. G3); cf. 5.294  : uolucres Mo3(sorores i.l. a m.p.) • 609 innumer(a)e] in munerę L3(a.c.)  : innumer N(a.c.)  : in numere V2(a.c.)  : innumę V3(a.c.)  : immunem A2  : innumeres B5(a.c.)  : in num’ies V6  : innuere V5 F2  : in numerum mg. test. Bersm. 1596  :   ]me uel  ]ine(uid.) tantum legitur in Ls • est] om. Tu(a.c.), Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472 • eadem natalis] inu. ord. A3(a.c.) Es6 • eadem] ea Ab • natalis] nalis Lr8(a.c.) Bo3(a.c.) • • 610 terque] cumque N(uid., a.c.) P5(a.c.)  : teque Li3  : ter Bo3  : quid B14 a.c. n.l. • rogum] locum HdP3(uid., a.c.)  : regum Lr4(a.c.) • lustrant] lustrans V30 • et] om. O  : tunc Mt3 B12  : cum Ft  : tum “in nonnullis” test. Naug. 1516 • consonus] cum(utrum c’ an potius t’ hab. A4 dubium) sonus A2C(a.c.)ELsOP3Ph2Tr DsP8 B14Es6Go2P41  : sonus A  : ter sonus AbC(p.c.)DrO3(terque uid. a.c.)Ph22(mg.)V8 B8 Bo2(corr. Bo22)Es2Es3 Ca2, “in uno meo” test. et non damn. Ciof. 1575, “non male” iud. Bersm. 1596, prob. Luck  : ter consonus in edd. test. Magnus 1914  : quid Ld2 a.c. n.l. • exit] uenit O • auras] aures Ld(a.c.) • 611 hunc u. post 602 hab. Hd • ter plangor] tum plangor T  : tûc langor A2  : fit plangor Mt  : et plangor B8P5(a.c.) • quarto] quato L3(a.c.) : quartoque B4  : quatuor Li3  : et quarto Ft • seducunt castra] succedunt astra L3N(p.c.; seducunt uid. a.c. et item bis N2 i.l. u.l.)V2V3 A2A3(seducunt castra i.l. u.l. A32)B52(p.c.; seducunt castra B5)Be2LdLr7O3(p.c.; seducunt castra a.c.)O4(seducunt castra i.l. a m.p.)P3V4V5V7(p.c.) Bs2Cs2Ds2Mt2To Mt4 Es6, “Cantabrig. … et septem alii” test. Heinsius 1659(“etiam bene”)  : sederunt(uid.) castra S2(a.c.; -ducunt mg. S22)  : succedunt castra DeV7(a.c.)V8 DsLd6Mo3Mt3 B12Es2 P41, “octo” test. Burm. 1727  : sedecunt castra A  : succendunt castra Gf  : succendunt astra A4  : seducunt astra B2(a.c.)DrLd22(astra mg. u.l.)Ld3(castra i.l. u.l. Ld32)Lr6(corr. Lr62)V6 Lr82(astra i.l. u.l.)  : seducunt casta P28  : secedunt castra B3H3(seducunt mg. u.l. H32)Ls2(secedunt i.l. u.l.) Li3 Mc(p.c.), “Reg. 1” test. Jahn 1832 : sededunt astra C  : sec(c)edunt astra Ds22(i.l. u.l.) McRd Es3  : deridunt(i.l. alt. u.l.) astra Ds22  : deducunt astra B4(a.c.)  : deducunt castra H2Vd  : fecerunt castra GgP4  : secernunt castra V82(infrascr. u.l.), “tres” test. Heinsius 1659  : subducunt castra To2  : seducunt claustra O12  : de Lr3 n.l. • uolatu] uolatû V7 • 612 tum] ter Gf : tunc Lr2Lu A2A4AbB3B4CGgHdLdLd22(p.c.)LsMtOO4PrV6V7Vd Lr8Mt2P5P8So Es2Mt4 B14Es6Lu2P38 Ca2, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596  : cum P41  : at Ds2 • diuersa] diuersi McRd P41 • parte] gente

486

Appendix critica

A2B3C : forte Mt • feroces] fetores Mt  : teroces Ld6 • 613 gerunt] gerrit Rd • rostrisque] rostris GfLr2 B2B3B4Be2CDeDrHdLdLd3Lr4Lr6Mo(p.c.)MtOO3Ph2TuV6V8V9Vd B8Cs2DsLr8Mt3P5P8V16  B12BoFtMt4P28RdVt Lu2  : nostrisque Calder. 1477 • et] om. L3Lu A2L4Ld2LsO4(a.c.) Ds2Mo3 Bo2(suppl. Bo22) B14Es6F2P41(a.c.)V30Z : de Lr3 n.l. • aduncis unguibus] adunguibus Lr3(a.c.) • aduncis] adunci Gf(a.c.)  : uncis et Lu  : adunctis Ab  : aduncibus B5(a.c.)  : adauncis Hd : adunsis Mt  : adhuncis So • ante unguibus nescio quid eras. Lu • unguibus] ungibus S2 N2 : ûgnibus Mc  : cornibus Dr  : ignibus Mt  : dentibus GoV16(unguibus mg. a m.p.) • iras] iram Tu  : ori Mt3(iras i.l. Mt32) • 614 exercent] exercet B5  : exercentque L4V7 F2  : eexecent Tu(a.c.) : exc’cent Cs2P5 • aduersaque] exertaque A  : ad diuersaque Gf  : diuersaque B2(p.c.)Vd  : aduersa et B3  : et aduersa Dr  : aduersa H3Lr7Mt FtMt4Rd Es6  : auersaque Lr22V30, Aler. 1471  : diuersa Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472  : quid V8 a.c. n.l. • pectora] tempora M Lr27  : timpora L42(mg. u.l.)N2 • 615 inferi(a)eque] infeieque Ld(a.c.)  : infecieque Es2  : inferique Bo3(a.c.)  : inferreque(inferrieque e.  g. Rd) Es6 • cadunt] cedunt Es3 • cineri … sepulto] generi cognata sepulcri M(cineri … sepulto i.l. M2)N(uid., a.c.) Lr27(-chri)  : generi cognata sepulto Vd11  : cineri cognata sepulcro A(a.c.) A2Ld3Ph2(a.c.)V6V7(a.c.)Vd(a.c.) Ds2(a.c.)So(a.c.) BoTo2 F2(-chro)Ps  : cineri cognata in sepulcro Mt(a.c.)  : cineri cognata sepulcri B12  : celi conata sepulcro De  : cineri cognataque sepulcri Pr  : cineri et cognata sepulto Ds  : cineri uitiata sepulcro Ca2(a.c.) • cineri] omni(per comp.) Dr(cineri i.l. Dr2)  : ceneri L4(a.c.)  : cineneri P3(a.c.) • cognata] ɔnata B2L4V6 Rd  : ɔuata B4(a.c.)  : cônata A H2  : conata O(a.c.) Ds22(p.c.; cognata Ds2)  : cogata O4(a.c.)  : cum nata So  : cognota Mt5  : congesta “Langerm.” test. Heinsius • 616 corpora seque ob scissuram desunt in T • corpora] corporea B5(a.c.) • seque] se Mc(a.c.) • uiro forti] uite forte A  : mea forti Ld6 • meminere] memiere L4(a.c.)  : miminere V4(a.c.) • creatas] creatos S2 Vt  : cantas B5(per comp. a.c.)  : creatis A2A4(a.c.)Lr4(a.c.)Mt  : creato O(a.c.)  : cretas Cv • 617 pr(a)epetibus] praebetibus M(a.c.)  : prae pedibus Gf(a.c.)  : pro(per comp.) petibus M2(prae- per comp. u.l.)  : prepositis V2(a.c.)  : predas To(praepetibus mg. u.l. To2)  : prebus Mc(a.c.)  : prae(per comp.) pretibus B14  : quid N a.c. (-etibu- i.ras.) n.l., an prepositis? (cf. V2) • subitis] auibus To  : subditis P28 • nomen] nonmen M2(per comp.) • facit] fecit Fe So  : dedit F2Z, “Argentin.” test. Burm. 1727  : faciat Mt  : cum Li3  : fat Ps • auctor] actor A2B3B4B5CGgLd2(auctor i.l. u.l. Ld22)Ld3MtPrV6 Ld6Mo3Mt3P8(auctor a.c.)So Mt4 Es5 Ca2(a.c.)  : autor L3M2 A4H3V8 Cs2 BoBo2Cs3Es3(p.c.)Mc(a.c.)Mt5To2 AsV30  : auto Lr6(a.c.) • ab illo] ab ipso Ab  : albo L4(a.c.)  : ab illa Tu • 618 Memnonides] mennones Lr2 Tu(p.c.) Lu2  : mennonides LuS2  : memnodies T  : memonides B5(a.c.)Vd  : mennodes Tu(a.c.)  : menonides Be2G Cs2DsToV16 Bo2Cs3Es2Es3FtMt4To2 B14Es4Es5P41 Ca2  : meonides Ph2  : demonides Rd  : Momnonides Regius 1493 • cum sol] cum Gf(uid.)  : dum sol Gf2  : cum sors A3 • duodena] duo dena Lr2S2(a.c.)V3 BaG AsEs5  : duobena A2  : duo dina B5  : dudena Lr6(a.c.) • peregit] pererrat A  : perigit B5 • 619 signa] singna Ld2 • parentali] parenti alii M(parentali i.l. M2)N(corr. m.rec.)  : parentale Ab(a.c.)  : parentelle V6 • moritur(a)e] moritura M(moriture i.l. M2)N(a.c. a m.p.) Lr27  : môtane P41  : morite Tu  : periturae Tr, Heinsius 1659(qui “tres scripti” test.), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Weise 1845, Koch 1866 • more Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, prob. D. Heinsius, Jahn 1832, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Simmons 1889, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005  : uoce H-K-E 1898, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Hopkinson 2000  : Marte coni. Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Weise 1845, Merkel 1850, Koch 1866, Riese 1872, Fink 2007 • rebellant] repugnant B3CMt  : rebellent Gg(a.c.) • • 620 “Deest hic uersus in Francof. et multis aliis” test. Burm. 1727(sed hab. F et F2) • ergo] atque Ab • aliis] om. Lr3 • latrasse] latitasse A2  : lastrasse C(a.c.) • Dymantida  … uisum] uisum dimantida flebile Fe • D(y/i)mantida] dimanthida V2 Ld2LsO3P4 DsP5



Appendix critica

487

B14Lr22V30  : dymanthida V3 Be2 Mo3 Es5  : dumanthida To2  : dimentida A2  : damantida A4(a.c.)  : dimantyda H3  : damatida V4  : minantida V6  : dimantia V8(a.c.)Vd(a.c.) Cv(dimantida mg. u.l.)Ps  : diamantida V9(p.c.; quid a.c. n.l.)  : dimathida Ld6  : dimancida RdVt • flebile] fleblile V5(a.c.)  : fletus Mt3 • uisum] risum B5  : uirum Bo • uisum A3A4B5CDrEFFeH2H3HdL4LdLd3Lr3LsN2OO3O4Ph2PrTrTuV4V5V6 GoSoV16 BoBo22(p.c.)Es3Rd AsB14Bo3CvEs5F2Lr22PsV30Vd11, Aler. 1471, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Merkel 1850, Koch 1866, Polle 1888, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, Breitenbach 1964, Fink 2007  : uisum est A2A32AbB2B3B4BaBe2C2GGgLd2Lr4Lr7MoP3P4Ph22V7V8V9Vd B8Cs2DsDs2Ld6Li3Lr8Mo3Mt2Mt3P5P8P10To B12Bo2(a.c.)Cs3Es2FtMcMt4Mt5P28To2 Es3Es4Es6Lr27Lu2P38P41 Ca2, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Simmons 1889, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, van Proosdij 1951, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005 • 621–622 inu. ord. Ld6(a.c.) • 621 luctibus] lucibus V2  : fluctibus Lr7Pr  : lustibus Ds(a.c.)  : ructibus P41 • est] om. LuM(a.c.) Ls(a.c.)V7(a.c.) Lr27  : et Segura 1983(uitio preli) • Aurora] aurore Mt5 • suis] suos A4(a.c.)  : sue Es3 • intenta] intentaque A2  : incepta Mt  : inuenta O3V6(î uenta)  : intentus Pr  : ɔtenta Bo2(uid., a.c.)Rd  : intentia Es2(a.c.) • piasque] suasque A  : suisque Mt • 622 hunc u. nouo fol. iter. V7 cum uariat. • Nunc quoque] Tuncq3 Pr • dat] dant Mt2(a.c. uid.) V16 • lacrimas] lacrias M2(a.c.)  : lacrimis Ds2(a.c.) • et] cum A2B4  : sed V7(alt. lect.) • toto … orbe] totum rorat in orbem Es4 • toto] tota Ba(a.c.)  : tot Pr  : tortor Es2  : totum Es4 • rorat] rotat O(rorat i.l. u.l. O2) Mc Mt5  : ronat(uid.) O4(a.c.) • 623 redit Lejay 1894 • non] nec GfNV2V3 A3A4AbB5BaBe2DeDrEFFeH2L4LdLd2LsMtO3P3P4V4V5V6V7 Li3Mo3Mt2Mt3P10 B12Bo2Es2To2 B14CvEs3Es6F2PsZ, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Weise 1845, Koch 1866, dub. R. de Verger 2005(in notis)  : nunc(per comp.) C  : ne Gg(a.c.) • tamen] non Pr • euersam] euersa V3  : emersam Z(a.c.) • Troi(a)e] troiam Gf(per comp.) Lr7V9  : troiei Ba(a.c.) • cum moenibus] cômenibus P10 • cum] et Mt • esse] urbem Dr  : urbis F  : altis H2(esse mg. H22)Ld3 • 624 spem … sinunt] fata sinunt quoque spem B4 • spem quoque] spemq3 P38, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474 • spem] quid N a.c. n.l. • fata] facta M Lr27  : om. Mt • sinunt] sint P28  : ferunt Es5 • sacra et] sed Hd(per comp., a.c. a m.p.)  : et sacra Mt2 • altera] altaria Tu(a.c.) • patrem] templa M B12(patrem i.l. B122) Lr27  : partem B52(p.c.)Hd(patrem mg. Hd2)V4(a.c. a m.p.)  : patre Ld6  : parte P28  : quid N a.c. n.l.  : om. V9(suppl. V92) • 625 fert] fret Ba • uenerabile (h)onus] uenerabi leonus M(a.c.)  : uenabile honus Pr • C(y/i)thereius] cithareius Lr2N(suprascr. qui fuit filius cithare, i. uenus)V2 A4GgH3Lr6Lr7 Lr8To Mt5To2 Es4Es6Lu2  : cithereiais M  : cythareius Lr3 B12, Venet. 1472  : citareius Mt4  : cytherius S2T Tu(p.c.)V4 Bo(a.c.)  : citherius A3H2P3V6 Rd  : cyterius Tu(a.c.)  : cythereus V3(a.c.)  : cytereus L4  : cithereus B5  : citereus Es2  : citharius Ld  : cithareus Ds  : citareus Ft P41  : citareyus Ld6  : cithererius P8  : citeris V7  : cithereicius Ab  : chicerius B4  : sinthesis Mt  : thyrŷthius Ld3  : citereius A B3FPrV9 Li3 Cv  : chitereius Gf O4  : chithereius Lu P5  : cytereius Ph2  : chithereyus B8  : cithereyus So  : citereyus Mt2 • heros] heres A(uid.)  : herox Ld2Lr6MtVd B8P10 • 626 de] da Mc(a.c.) • tantis] cunctis(cunt- a.c.) A4  : cantis Mo9  : tantisque Plan., Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596(mg. tantis test.) • opibus] operibus(per comp.) P5  : om. Ph2(a.c.) • pr(a)edam] praedam praedam V4(a.c.)  : om. Es3(mg. suppl. m.p.) • pius] prius Lr4(a.c.)Ph2(a.c.)Vd Mt5 Ca2(a.c.)  : peius Lr7  : om. Lu(i.l. suppl. Lu2) • eligit] eligut L3(a.c.)  : elegit Lr2 PrV5 Lu2Ps  : elligit To BoBo2Cs3Es2Rd  : excipit “Palatin. sec.” test. et dub. Burm. 1727(sed Hd eligit hab.) • illam] unam N2(i.l. u.l.) B3B4(illam i.l. B42)Be2(ex itin. corr.)CFeN2 Bs22(mg. u.l.)V12 Ca2(a.c.), Plan., “duo alii” test. Heinsius 1659  : unam illam (unam illam G) P28 • 627 Asc(h)aniumque] Ascanniumque Lr2  : ascanumque Pr • suum] sunt B3 • profugaque] progugaque A4(a.c.)  : pro fuga Es2(a.c.)  : profuga Mc • per] om. Ds2(suppl. Ds22) • (a)e­-

488

Appendix critica

quora] equore Gg(a.c.) • 628 fertur] quid N a.c. (an fertis?) n.l. • ab Antandro] ad Antandrum M2(p.c.) Lr27 • ab] om. O3(a.c.) • Antandro] atandro L3(a.c.) P4 Ds2Mo3  : antrando Lr2LuM2NV3 Lr3Lr6N2OPh2V7(a.c.)V93(mg.) Cs3Es2FtRdTo2 CvLu2Ps  : anthandro P2 G2(mg. p.c.)O4 So  : antando S2(a.c.) Be2V5 P10(a.c.)To  : antarido A2  : atando B3  : antrodo B5  : antundro AbB52(mg.)  : antondro V6  : andrando Ld(a.c.)  : andrandro Ld(p.c.; antandro mg. u.l. Ld2)  : antrandro B4V4  : aandro G(a.c.)  : enandro Lr7  : euandro V9  : attrando Ls  : actrando B14  : atrando O3 Mt4  : antranto Pr  : artandro P3V7(p.c.)  : antemdro Ld6  : anthrado Vd  : ut andro Ds  : achando P5  : antadro Ld2 Mt5  : anthando P8  : antrantro P28  : athandro As  : attandro Es6  : quid V2 a.c. n.l. • scelerataque] celerataque Gf B8  : scelerateque L4(a.c.)  : sceleraque LdV5  : scelerarata Gg(a.c.)  : scelararata ad Gg(p.c.)  : scelerata ad P4  : scelerata Ld2(a.c.) Ds2(a.c.)  : scelerata in P3 • limina] littora Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Weise 1845, Hopkinson 2000, Hardie 2015 • T(h)racum] tractum AbVd(a.c.) Es2Ft(uid.)  : trachum A3H2Hd Mc  : thracunt Mt • 629 hunc u. om. S2 B2(mg. suppl. m.p. uel coaeua) Ld6 • et] a Gg(a.c.)  : e P10  : ac Bothe 18182 • Pol(y/i)doreo] pollidoreo Ph2  : pallidoreo Mc  : polidorio V5V6  : polidoneo Ds  : polidore tuo Bs2Mt3  : poliodorio Ft  : polidereo B4(a.c.) P28  : polidorus Rd(a.c.)  : polidoro Mt5  : pollidereo Mo9 • manantem] manentem L3(a.c.)V3 A4(a.c.)Ld(a.c.) B8 RdTo2  : rorantem B3  : manante Pr • terram] troiam B4(a.c.)  : terras P28(a.c. a m.p.) • • 630–631 sic confl. Ld2: linquit et utilibus sociis comitantibus urbem; corr. i.l. Ld22 • 630 linquit] linquid V2(ut solet) B3LsO3V9Vd  : liquit CFeLr4Lr6Lr7P3 Ds2Lr8P8V16 B12BoCs3FtMt4Mt5P28 AsEs4, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Regius 1493  : intrant A2(p.c.)  : intrauit A2(a.c.)  : Inquit Bo2(a.c.) • uentis] uestis V3(uid., a.c.)  : uenstis Ca2(a.c.)  : uenitis Ab(a.c.)  : uentus Hd(a.c.) Rd(a.c.)  : uentisque Mo3 • (a)estuque] flatuque B4  : estoque L4(a.c.)  : actuque V4 Es3  : extuque To2 • secundo] cundoque Pr • 631 intrat] ierat Lr2(a.c.) Lu2  : iantrat B5H2(uid., a.c.)  : intrauit P41 • A(p)pol(l)ineam] apollineo Mt • sociis] paucis V8(sociis i.l. V82) • comitantibus] comittatibus Ph2  : comitatibus V30, “Oxon. et duo alii” test. Heinsius 1659, Aler. 1471 • urbem] umbram Es2(ex itin. corr.) • 632 hunc] nunc M(a.c.) F2  : huîc Ph2  : hic P10  : huc P28 • Anius] anus V2(a.c.) L4(a.c.)Lr7 Bo2(a.c.) V30 Ca2(a.c.)  : anmus(an-mɔ) B3  : hanius GO3  : animus(per comp. ai’) Gg(a.c.)  : atuus P10(anius u.l. P102)  : annius SoTo Mc P41  : auius B5Pr Ft  : impius Mt • quo rege] correge Vd(a.c.) • quo] uo Pr  : quoq3 Es6 • homines] lacrimes B5(recte mg. B52)  : homines q3 Mt  : fides dub. Merkel 1875(in notis) • antistite] antistide M2  : et antistite B3  : anstistite Lr4  : anstite Mt  : antiste Tu(p.c.; recte a.c.) Ds(a.c. a m.p.) Es3  : anstitite PrVd  : anthiste Es2 • Ph(o)ebus] peleus Mt  : ph(o)ebi Lr3(uid.)O4 Mt3 • 633–635 hos uu. ima pagina duobus lineis suppl. in V16 m.rec. • 633 rite] rire Lu(a.c.)  : rure A2  : ricte V7(a.c.)  : arte Ld6 • colebatur] colebantur Gf B3Ba(a.c.)V7V8(a.c.) Ds2, Heinsius 1659(“cum … aliis quatuor”), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834  : celebratur Es3(a.c.) Es6 • temploque] templo Lu Dr • recepit] recepta A2 • 634 urbemque ostendit] ostendensque urbem F2Z • urbemque] urbem H3 To • ostendit] ostendens Lu(host-)MM2N(a.c.)T B2DeFeHdLr4Lr6Lr7MoN2OP3TuV5(-ens i.l. a m.p.; -it in textu)Vd Cs2GoLd6P5 Cs3Mt4Mt5P28RdVt Bo3Lr22Lr27V30Vd11, Aler. 1471  : quid P2 a.c. (-it i.ras.) n.l. • delubraque] dulubraque Ld  : debubraque Mt4(a.c.) • nota] notaque M2(a.c.) F2  : nata Ld(a.c.) B8(a.c.)  : uota PrV6 BoVt Es5Go2, “Dresd.”(nota hab. Dr) test. Jahn 1832, Heinsius 1659(qui et “quatuor aliis” test.), Burm. 1727, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834 • duasque] duosque B5Lr7 Cs3  : deasque O3(duasque i.l. u.l. O32)  : duoque V6  : duas Li3 • 635 hunc u. om. V7(mg. suppl. V72) • Latona] latone A(corr. A2) Lr6  : latotona Lr7  : Lotona O • quondam] om. M2(a.c.)  : ɔdâ Gf Ld2(-am)O4(-am) Mo3P5To  : condam C P41  : qondam ex qvndam Mo9 • stirpes] stipes Gf A4(a.c.)OPrV9(p.c.) B8(a.c.)Mt2 Vt Ca2(a.c.)  : bases Gf(i.l. u.l. a m.p.)  : stirpe Es5P41  : uirgas V6 • pariente] parente A2Mt  : parientes B14(a.c.) • 636 dato flam(m)is] inu. ord. A3(a.c.) • flammis] fammis Aler. 1471 • uinoque] humoque B5(a.c.)  : fumoque V6  : et uino Ds2 • t(h)ura] thure H3(a.c.)



Appendix critica

489

F2Mt5Z Ca2  : ture DePr • 637 boum] bouem Ab(boum i.l. u.l. Ab2)  : bouit B5  : bonum V16(a.c.) • fibris] cicifibris P8(a.c.) • more] morte S2 B5L4(a.c.)Pr P41 • crematis] creatis M22(i.l. u.l.)S2 A4(a.c.)B4(a.c.)Be2(a.c.)O3(a.c.)V4(a.c.) P5(a.c.) Es2(a.c.)P28(a.c.) Es4(a.c.)  : crematus B5(a.c.) P8  : cremantis Hd(a.c.)  : sagittis C(crematis p.c. C2)  : litatis O4(crematis i.l. u.l. a m.p.)P3 Bs3P10, “duo Heins.” test. Jahn 1832  : resectis Es2(p.c.), “in uno meo” test. Ciof. 1575  : secatis dub. Heinsius  : quid M2 a.c. (crem i.ras.) n.l. • 638 tecta] tracta Mc  : tacta Calph. 1480 • petunt] pectunt V6(a.c.)  : patent Mt3  : cremunt Go2(ex itin. corr.) • positique Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Riese 1872, Lejay 1894, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, Goold 1984, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005  : positisque Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Jahn 1832, Merkel 1850, Koch 1866, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Hill 2000, Fink 2007 • tapetibus] tapaltibus C(a.c.)  : tapatibus Ca2(a.c.)  : tapitibus Mt  : tepetibus V6  : capetibus P10(a.c.)  : quid B5 a.c. n.l. • altis] albis B5(a.c.)DeHd(a.c.)L4Lr6Ph2(a.c. uid.) P103(u.l.) Mt4  : aptis A42(mg. u.l.)  : altes P8(a.c.) • 639 munera] mumera M2(a.c.) • capiunt] sumunt Gf P8 F2Z  : cappunt B5  : rapiunt V6  : carpunt Es3 • Cerealia] ceralia N(a.c.) Mo3  : cere alia V3 Lr4  : celealia Ls(a.c.)  : cerealea Es2 • Bac(c)(h)o] bello L4(ex itin. corr.)  : boco P10(a.c.) • • 640 tum] tunc AGfLr2LuMT A2A4AbB3B4B5BaCHdL4LdLd2Lr4Lr62(c suprascr.)LsMoMtOO3V6V7Vd Ds2Mt2P5P8P10SoV16 Es2FtMcMt4 B14Bo3Es6Lr22Lr27Lu2P38P41V30, Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Edwards 1905  : tu Gg  : cum P4  : de Tu n.l. • pius] prius O Cs3 Ca2, “quatuor” test. Burm. 1727  : pater Bo2(pius mg. u.l. Bo22), “Leidens.” test. Burm. 1727 • Anchises] Anchise Go2 • o Ph(o)ebi] phebi Lr3  : ephebi Lr4(a.c.)  : o phebe Es2(a.c.)Mc(a.c.) B14  : o febe Ps(a.c.)  : o phei V16(a.c.) • lecte] lector Ba(a.c.)  : electe G Mo3 Cv(i.l. u.l.)Es5  : lete Lr7 Ld8 Mt4(a.c.)  : lacte Mc(lecte u.l. Mc2) • 641–658 euanid. aegre leguntur in T • 641 fallor an] falleran(uid.) Ds2(a.c.)  : fallo an Ld6 • an et] et an CFMt V16  : et Fe(a.c.)  : en(uid.) et L4(a.c.)  : an Gg(a.c.) So Cv(a.c.)  : an est Mt3  : de Tu n.l. • natum] notum Hd • cum] est B5(p.c. per comp.)  : tunc So • primum] primo O4 • h(a)ec m(o)enia] hemenia Ba(a.c.)  : hermenia P10(a.c.) • h(a)ec] om. AbB2(a.c.)B3 V30 • m(o)enia] menenia Aler. 1471 • 642 bisque] hiisque Li3 • duas] qua Calph. 1480 • reminiscor] remiscar F2  : remiscor Lr6  : reminiscar Tu  : reminudor V6 • habebas] habenas V4(a.c.) • 643 hunc u. om. Bo • huic] hunc A3(huic mg. u.l. A32)  : Tunc Ca2 • Anius] annis Lr2(a.c.) Lu2  : auius Ft  : hanius G  : annius Hd(a.c.) So P41 • niueis] niues B5(a.c.)  : niuessi C(a.c.)  : niueueis Ca2(a.c.)  : uîcis Mt  : mireis V6  : uitreis Bs2(niueis i.l. u.l.)  : iuuenis As(a.c.)Es6  : om. Mo(a.c.) • circumdata] circonda Be2  : uelatus Lr8 • tempora] timpora GfLr2NS2 A4(a.c.)B4Be2EGH22(p.c.; te- a.c.)LdLr4Lr7LsN2O3V5Vd Li3Lr8 Mt2Rd B14Bo3Lu2  : menia Cs3  : om. Ab • r post timpora scr. V5(ex itin. corr.) • uittis] uitis L3(p.c.)M(a.c.) A2B3B5(p.c.)Be2GgL4Ld2(i.l. u.l.)LsMtVd Ds2 Es2(a.c.)Mt5Rd Es6  : uictis L3(a.c.)P2 A4LdLd2Ld3Lr6P4V6 Li3SoTo Es3FtMt4 B14Lr22Lu2P41  : uittas Dr(a.c.)  : uitus G(a.c. a m.p.)  : canis Hd B12  : uidi PrTu  : uîtis V7  : metis “in uno” test. Burm. 1727(“forte pro mitris”) • 644 concutiens et] concuciensque B8 • concutiens] cûcuciens L4  : concupiens Pr • tristis ait] inu. ord. Mo3 • tristis] strictis Vd(a.c.) • ait] erat Pr  : atque Ld6 • non] nec Lr8 • falleris] est fallabilis Vd(a.c.)  : fallerlis(per comp. fall’lis) Vd(p.c., extremo l haud damnato) • heros] herox MtVd • 645–968 exstant in Sp • 645 uidisti … parentem] uidisti quinque parentem natorum Lr8  : natorum quinque uidisti parentem B12(a.c.) • uidisti natorum] inu. ord. A2A4B3B4B5FGgH2HdL4LdMtO4P4PrV6V7Vd Cs2Ds2Li3Mt3P8 Es3 Es3Z, “Berol.”(non sic B14) test. Jahn 1832, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828,

490

Appendix critica

Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Weise 1845, Koch 1866  : de Tu n.l. (sed natorum uidisti in “Rhen.” leg. Jahn 1832) • uidisti] uidistis G Cs2Ds Ft • natorum] natoreum Dr(a.c.) • quinque] ·v· L4 B8 Es2  : quemque P41  : quique(per comp. qiq3) V6  : quiue(uid.) Ld3  : quippe P28 • 646 heu (heu heu O19  : heheu P47  : eheu Es7) quanta homines rerum(om. Co) inconstantia(-cia O19) uersat(uertit O19) P46O19P47CoEs7 • quem nunc] heu heu O19  : heheu P47  : eheu Es7  : heu P46Co • quem] quam N(a.c.)  : quem quam P10(a.c.)  : que B5 Ft • nunc] nô P5 Mc  : nuc Bo  : non Es6  : ne Es5 • nunc tanta] tamen(per comp.) unc(i.ras.; quid a.c. n.l.) M  : tamen(per comp.) et spatium uac. Lr27 • tanta] quanta P46O19P47CoEs7  : data B5  : om. B3(a.c.) • homines] hominis L3S2(a.c. a m.p.)V3 AbFH2(corr. H22)H3Ld(corr. Ld2)Lr7O3P4(uid.)Ph2(a.c.)V4(a.c.) DsTo Rd Cv(a.c.)Es5Ps  : hominem EFeLd2V6 P5 F2Z, “quatuor” test. Burm. 1727  : fides L4(a.c. a m.p.) • rerum] re Mc(a.c.)  : om. A4(mg. A42)Ab Ld6 Bo2(corr. Bo22) Co • inconstantia] In constantia P2V2 AbLr4Lr7 Cs2So(-cia) Bo2P28 F2  : î constanti Mt  : incûstantia P4  : instantia V4(corr. V42)  : ɔstancia V7(a.c.)  : deest in Ls  : īconstentia Calph. 1480 • uersat] uersa est L3V3 AbH2H3Lr7 To Es5  : mittat A4(a.c. a m.p.)  : ûsât B5  : uersa Mt Ps(p.c.)  : seruat V9 Es2(corr. Es22), “tres” test. Burm. 1727  : uertit Vd O19  : uexat Bs3(a.c.)  : rerum Ps(a.c. a m.p.)  : deest in Ls • 647 p(a)ene] poene M Vd11 • orbum] uerbum(per comp.) V5(ex itin. corr.)  : uiduatum(uiduum perperam test. Burm. 1727) B7(orbum i.l. B72)  : horbum Ds  : orbê Lu2(p.c.)  : orbes Lu2(a.c.) • quod] quid A2A4B4EGGgH2H3Ld3Ld7LsN2OPr DsSpV16 Bo2 P38, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Heinsius 1659(“nonnulli”), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834(improb. in notis)  : sed P41  : et quod Vd11  : de Tu n.l. (sed quid in “Rhen.” leg. Jahn 1832) • enim GfMN(enim est p.c.)P2(enim est p.c. a m.p.) AbB3B4CFeHdLd(a.c.)Lr6Lr7MoO4PrTuV52(mg. p.c.)V6 DsGoLd6Mo3Mt3SoTo B12Bo2Cs3FtMt4Mt5 AsBo3Es5Lr22Lr27P38V30 Ca2, edd.  : enim est Ω  : non est Mt : om. V5  : quid V2 a.c. (enim est i.ras.) n.l.  : de A2Lr3 n.l. • mihi] om. GgMtN2 • absens] unus A4(a.c. a m.p.)  : abscens Es2 • 648 hunc u. om. Go2 • auxilium] auxilium est HdPr Bo2  : axilium V4(a.c.)  : auxilii Heinsius 1659(“cum Oxoniens.”), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834  : de Tu n.l. (sed auxilii in “Rhen.” leg. Jahn 1832) • quem] quae B5 To(a.c.)  : q3 Ds2(corr. Ds22) • suo] tenet A2 • 649 Andros habet] om. A4(mg. suppl. m.p.) • Andros] andrus Rd • habet] habes Mt  : om. V2(a.c. a m.p.) • pro … tenentem] quod patre locum quod regna teneret Lu(uid., a.c.)M Lr27  : quid parte locum quid regna tenetque O  : pro patre(parte a.c.) locus me regna tenente O(mg. a m.p. uel coaeua)  : pro patre locus quo regna tenente P2S2(tente a.c.)T(uid.) Ld(mg. u.l. a p.uid.m.)Tu(uid.) Rd  : pro parte(patre p.c.) locum quo regna tenente B4  : pro parte locumque regna tenenenti(sic) N(a.c.)  : pro patre locum qu(a)e regna tenentem Ca2  : pro patre locumque et regna tenente V7  : pro patre locum regnumque tuentem(tenentem Ld3) FLd3  : quod locumque pro patre et regna tenentem Ds2(a.c.)  : pro parte locum quoque regna tenentem Vd11  : quod parte locum quod regna tenetque Vt  : patre locumque regna tenente Mc • patre] parte N B4L4Lr3(uid.)O B7(a.c.) Vt Es4P41Vd11, Accurs. 1475  : fratre Gg(in textu; patre i.l. u.l.) • locumque] locum LuM B4FLd3OO3Vd Mt3 Vt Lr27PsVd11 Ca2  : locuque P28 • et] om. M2N(a.c.) FLd3N2(a.c.) B7 Mc Ca2  : quod LuM Vt Lr27  : quid O  : me O(mg.)  : quo P2S2T B4Ld(mg.)Tu Rd  : quoque Vd11  : in “unus Heins.” test. Jahn 1832 • tenentem] tenenenti N(a.c.; tenenentem p.c.)  : tenenti Ba, “tres” test. Heinsius  : tenente P2S2T B4Ld(mg.)O(mg.)TuV7 McRd  : tuentem F Lr82(i.l. u.l.)  : teneret LuM Lr27  : tenetque O Vt • • 650 Delius] Delibus T  : Delios Ds(a.c.) • augurium] augmentum Ca2(corr. Ca22) • dedit huic] dederat Gf  : huic O4(a.c.) Rd  : huic dedit et P10  : det huic Ps  : dedit hunc Ca2(a.c.) • dedit2 … Liber] liber altera dedit Ca2(a.c.) • dedit2] det Ps  : om. Ba(suppl. Ba2) • Liber] libris V30, Aler. 1471 • 651 hunc u. om. B4(mg. suppl. B42)C(i.l. suppl. C2) • femine(a)e] feminei A4 Ds Z  : femine Ba Mt2 • uoto] uata(uid.) S2(a.c.)  : uota O3Pr DsLi3V16(a.c.) Cs3 F2Z • maiora] maiore A4(a.c.) • fideque] fidei L3(uid., a.c.)  : fidêque Mc • 652 munera] mucra Lr2(a.c.)  : munenera Ba(a.c.) • nam tactu] natarû Lr8(a.c.)  : in tactu Ld6  : tactu As(a.c.) •



Appendix critica

491

nam … natarum] natarum nam tactu B3V8 • nam] nac(uid.) N(a.c.) • tactu] tractu Ls(a.c.) Ft  : statu Mo3 • natarum] natorum N(uid., a.c.) A3 Ld6(a.c.) Ft • mearum] meorum A3B5  : uiamque Mt • 653 in segetem] insegentem Ba  : ingetem So(a.c.) • segetem] segetes A2A4B3B4CLdLr6(a.c.)P4V6V8 P8Sp(a.c.), “septem alii” test. Burm. 1727 • laticemque … Mineruae] laticesque meri bachamque meri Mineruae Li3 • laticesque GfL3Lr2M2P2S2TV2V3 A3A4AbB2B4B5BaBe2CDeDrEGGgH3HdL4(p.c.)LdLd2Ld3Lr3Lr4Lr6LsOO3P3P4Ph2PrTuV4V5V6V8V9Vd B8DsGoLi3Lr8Mo3Mt2P5P8SpV16 B12Bo2Es2Es32(p.c.)McMt4P28RdTo2Vt B14CvEs4Es5F2Go2Lu2P41PsZ Mo9, Jahn 1832, Loers 1843, Koch 1866  : laticemque ALuMN A2B3FFeH2Lr7MoMtN2O4TrV7 Cs2Ds2 P10(leti-)So BoCs3FtMt5Pt3 AsBo3Es6Lr22Lr27P38V30Vd11 Ca2, edd.  : latices L4(a.c.) Mt3To Es3(laticesque Es32) Es3  : latice Ld6 • canaeque Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Riese 1889, Simmons 1889, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005  : bacamque Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Merkel 1850, Koch 1866, Riese 1872, Lejay 1894, Fabbri 1923, van Proosdij 1951, Fink 2007  : καὶ ἐλάαν Plan. • 654 transformabantur] transformabât Ab  : transformabuntur B5F  : îformabantur Fe  : transfomabantur L4  : tranformabantur Lr3(uid.)Pr Mt4  : transformantur V7  : transforbantur B8(a.c.)  : transformabantus V30 • diuesque] diues V3 O3(corr. O32)V9 B12 Es5  : diuersusque(uid.) Lr3 • erat usus] inu. ord. Lr3 Bo2 Ps • erat] ereat P10(a.c.)  : om. Gf Ld3To • usus] ususus Ba  : illus Es5 • 655 hoc] hic A3  : h(a)ec B4BaCFeLdLr7V9 GoLd6Lr8P10 BoBo22(p.c.; hoc Bo2)Cs3Es3Mt4Mt5 B14Es5Es6P41Ps  : huc(uid.) B5(a.c.)  : hunc(per comp.) Ds • ubi] qui Mt  : fuit Mo3(corr. Mo32)  : ut So • cognouit] conouit S2(a.c.)  : cognoui B5  : ɔgnouit A  : ɔnouit B2O3  : ɔgnouit L4V7 Sp  : ɔnou’ V6  : cognot Ps • populator] populatur Lu(a.c.) • Atrides] achilles A B5(a.c.)G(atrides mg. u.l. G2)O4(atrides mg. u.l. O42)P3 Rd(ex itin. corr.) Ps2(i.l. u.l.) : atridies B5(p.c.)  : atride Mt5  : de Tu n.l. • 656 ne non] non tum Ca2(a.c.) • ne] neue B5  : nec A2A3C(ne a.c.)DeLd3Lr4(a.c.)Lr6MtO3O4PrV6V7V8(a.c.) Ds2Mt3P10(a.c.)So Bo2(a.c. a m.p.)Mt4  : ut G2(i.l. u.l.)  : non Ca2(a.c.)  : nae Puteol. 1471 • non] nos Gf(a.c.)M Go Lr27  : tû Ca2(a.c.)  : om. B5 • ex] e Go  : sub Mo3(a.c. a m.p.) • aliqua] aqua V2(a.c.)  : aliquo Go2 • uestram] nostra A  : uestra Vd(a.c.)  : uestrum MN(a.c.) Lr27  : nostram B4(a.c.)  : uramê Rd • sensisse] uenisse MN(a.c.) Lr27  : sensisse mg. scr. T p.c.; quid praeter -isse in textu a.c. n.l.  : senssisse Lu B4Lr4 : cencisse Mt(uid.) • 657 nos quoque] nosq3 O  : nos qua Sp • nos] non Vd  : nosce Es2(a.c.) • parte] forte B4(parte i.l. u.l. B42) • parte putes] pateputes L4(a.c.) • putes] pupes B5  : quid N a.c. (-es i.ras.) n.l. • armorum] amorum F(a.c.) Mo3  : anorum Rd • uiribus] uribus F(a.c.)  : uisibus P28  : uatibus Es5 • usus] usos M Lr27  : ausus Lr7 • 658 abstra(h)it] astrait P2(a.c.) GgMt : abstahit N2(a.c.)  : atrahit Ph2 Mo3 Ca2  : attrahit Sp  : adstrahit V5  : astrahit Ld3 P5 B14  : abtrait Pr  : abtrahit B8  : abstulit So, “Moreti” test. Burm. 1727  : has trahit Ds2 • inuitas] In uitas V2 B3Mt SoTo Bo3Es4F2Lu2  : in uictas V6 • gremio] gemio B5(a.c.)Hd(a.c.)  : grenitoris G(ex itin. corr.)  : g’eemio L4 • genitoris alantque] alendum genitoris V6 • genitoris] genitricis Es4 • alantque] inalant Lu2(alantque Lu)  : om. Ab  : ut alant H3Ph2 To P41  : alatque Lr7  : et alantque Vd  : alentque Sp  : aliq3 Es5  : quid P10 a.c. n.l. • 659 i(m/n)perat] impera Mc  : in pater Rd  : imperant Z(a.c.) • Argolicam] agricolam Ld3 P41  : arcolicam Rd • c(a)elesti] scelesti A  : diuino “duo” test. Burm. 1727 • munere] numine Ab Mo3 Mt4, “unus” test. Burm. 1727 • • 660 effugiunt] et(per comp.) fugiunt P5 • quo quaeque] quoque A(a.c.) A2AbB3Tu(p.c.; recte a.c.)  : quocumque V2(a.c.) Vd(a.c.) Cv(-cunque)  : quo que Mt5  : quoque quae B5  : qua quaeque Ld(quo i.l. u.l. Ld2) Es6(queq3) B8(a.c.)  : quoquoque Mt2  : qoueq3 Mc(a.c. ; queq3 p.c.)  : quid O3 Bo2 a.c. n.l. • potest] potet Ab  : patest Tu(a.c.) • Euboea] euolia MN(uid.,

492

Appendix critica

a.c.) Lr27  : ebolia Bo3(a.c.)  : euobia Mo(euboea mg. Mo2)  : euboa GfN(p.c.)S2 B4DrFe(p.c.; recte a.c.)V8(a.c.) Ld6 B12(a.c.) F2  : euboica Ab(a.c.)L4MtP3 BoEs2FtMc Es6P41  : euboia A3A4B2H2(a.c.)LdO4Tu(a.c.) Cs2 Es5  : euboya Ld2(p.c.)Ld3  : euboca B3  : eubeia H2(p.c.)  : eboea Ls B14  : eubohea O3  : euoboea Pr  : heubea Vd  : eboia Tu(p.c.)  : euboyca Ld2(a.c.) So  : euboycaque Mo3  : eubai Cs3  : euldea Mt5 • duabus] duobus So(p.c.; duabus a.c.) P28(a.c.) V30, “Moreti et quinque alii” test. Burm. 1727  : deabus Priscianus • 661 totidem] totodem V5 • natis] nauis L3(a.c.) : natos Tu(a.c.) • Andros] quid B5 a.c. n.l. • fraterna petita] inu. ord. L4(a.c.) • fraterna] paterna De • petita] potita Lr4, Prisc.  : petitam Calph. 1480 • est] om. V6 Ds2(a.c.) • 662 miles] milex Lr7 To2 • adest] est B5(a.c.) • et ni] nisi(per comp. ni) et Ds2(a.c.) : tu ni B5 • ni dedantur Gf2(i.l. u.l.)MNV2V3 A3A42(i.l. u.l.)BaCDeEFFe2(i.l. u.l.)GgHd(a.c.)Lr4(nide dantur)MoO4PrTrV4V5(p.c.; quid a.c. n.l.)V92(i.l. u.l.)Vd(nide dantur, a.c.) Mt3P8Sp B12Es3Rd Bo3Es3Lr22Lr27P38V30Vd11  : uidebantur B5  : ni de rectanitur N2  : inde dantur O3  : ni dedatur P4  : ni dentur sibi V6  : ni reddantur AL3Lr2LuM2(i.l. u.l.)M2N2(i.l. u.l.)P2S2T A2A32(i.l. u.l.)A4AbB2B4C2(p.c.)DrFeGGg(i.l. u.l.)H2H3Hd(p.c.)L4(p.c.)Ld2(p.c.)Ld2Ld3Lr3Lr6Lr7LsOO42(i.l.)P3Ph2TuV5(red i.l. a m.p.)V7V8V9Vd2(p.c.) B8Cs2DsDs2GoLd6Li3Lr8Mo3Mt2P5SoSp2(i.l. u.l.)ToV16 BoBo2Cs3FtMcMt4Mt5P28To2 AsB14Bo3(mg. u.l.)CvEs4Es5Es6F2Go2Lu2P41PsZ Ca2  : nirerdantur P10  : ni reddentur Be2  : de reddantur Ld(a.c.)  : ne credantur Mt  : reddantur Es2 • bella] bellat Pr • 663–677 om. Pr(663–672 mg. duobus atramentis – uicta … parabantur nigro atram., captiuis  … possum rubro  – suppl. Pr2–3) • 663 uicta metu] atque me(a)e M(i.l. corr. M2)N(uid., a.c. a m.p.) Lr27  : uicta memet(uid.) Hd(a.c.) • uicta] uirta M2  : uictu H2(a.c.)  : uitta Mo3 • pietas] picas L4(a.c.) • consortia] corsortia M  : consocia(-tia L4) F(a.c.)L4(a.c.)  : cum sortia P3  : cunsorcia Vd(ut solet)  : tunc fortia B12(mg. corr. B122) • corpora] pectora Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Merkel 1850, Koch 1866, Riese 1872(corpora 1889), Polle 1888, Simmons 1889(corpora prob. in notis), Fink 2007 • p(o)en(a)e] penne B5 Rd(pêne)  : pugne Dr  : paene Plan.  : noxae Merkel 1850(poenae 1875) • 664 dedidit et] dedit et N(-di- mg. add. N2) N2 Bs22(dedidit et Bs2) B12 Bo3, “duo alii” test. Heinsius 1659  : dedimit et V2  : dedit et ut LuM2T Fe E2Gf7(dedidit et et edidit et mg. uu.ll.) Rd Go2, Heinsius 1659(qui “uno meo” test.), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Weise 1845, Koch 1866  : dedit et in Li3  : dedit et ubi P10(dedidit et P102 p.c.)  : dedidit ut Go Vt  : tradidit et Lr2P2(p.c.; quid a.c. n.l.)S2 B4C(dedidit a.c.)GHd(dedidit et a.c.)Lr6O3Ph2Tu DsDs2Sp Bo2Mt4P28 CvEs4Lu2Ps, “uiginti et unus” test. Burm. 1727  : reddidit et GfN3V23 A2A4(dedidit mg. u.l. A42)B52(p.c.)Be2H22(mg. u.l.; dedidit H2)H3(p.c.)L4Ld(dedidit i.l. u.l.)Ld3LsO42(i.l.; dedidit O4)V8V9 B84(mg. u.l.)Ld6Lr8(dedidit i.l. u.l.)Mo3(dedidit mg. Mo32)SoToV16 B122(mg.)BoCs3(dedidit mg. u.l. a m.p.)FtMcMt5To2 As(p.c.)B14Es5P38P41, “octodecim” test. Burm. 1727, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Lugd. 1546(dedidit mg.), Lugd. 1565(mg.), Bersm. 1596(dedidit mg.), Loers 1843  : redidit et AL3(uid., dedidit et p.c.) Dr2(dedidit et Dr)H3(a.c.)Lr7V5(a.c.) Mt2 Es2(a.c.)Es3(p.c., quid a.c. n.l.) Es6  : tradidit et ut B3 : tradidit ut Ca2  : dedit ut et B5(uid., a.c.) : reddit et As(a.c.)F2Z : addidit et Lr3 : et dedit et V7  : redidit et ut Es2(p.c.)  : edidit et Bs3(dedidit i.l. u.l. Bs32)Gf7(mg. u.l.) test. Burm. 1727, “a sec. m. Dresd.” (non sic Dr2: uid. supra) test. Jahn 1832  : traditur et “Duo Bersm.” test. Jahn 1832 • timido] tumido Gf Vd Mt2(a.c.)  : dimido T  : nitido Ab • possis] posses L3Lr2V23(p.c. uid.) A4B3B5(a.c.)CDeDrGH3HdL4Ld3Lr3Lr4Lr6Lr7Ph2(a.c. uid.)Pr2V6V7V8V9 Cs2DsLd6Mt3P5P8ToV16 B12Bo22(p.c.; possis Bo2)Cs3FtMt4Mt5P28 AsCvEs4Lu2P38PsV30, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Jahn 1832, Loers 1843  : poscis S2  : postis Rd  : possit Vd(a.c.)  : poscit Es3 • ignoscere] ingnoscere Hd  : ignosces re (uid.) L4(a.c.)  : înoscere Pr2  : cognoscere V30 • fratri] patri Gf  : fratrem Gf2(i.l.)  : futuri Es2(a.c.) • 665 hunc u. om. V6 • non1  … qui] non eneas non hic qui Ps • hic] om. A2  : hec Ld(a.c.)  : hec uel hoc Mt4(a.c.) • (A)eneas] heneas Lr2 Ld(a.c.)-



Appendix critica

493

V7  : enneas A4(a.c.)  : peneas B5 • defenderet Andron] defendere posset P5 • def(f)enderet] defenderat A3AbCDrFe(a.c.) Ds Mc AsP41  : defenderit Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472 • Andron] adron L3(a.c.)  : amori B5(a.c.)  : endron Be2  : andros Tu  : andrum Cs2  : andon P10(a.c.) • 666 Hector] hectora T • erat] adest Ld2 Ft • per … decimum] decimum per quos Fe(mg. u.l.)Lr6 Bs2Cs2 Mt4, “Palat. et duo alii” test. Burm. 1727  : decimum per quem Fe • per quos Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Merkel 1850, Koch 1866, Riese 1872  : per quem Aler. 1471, Merkel 1875, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Riese 1889, Simmons 1889, Lejay 1894, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007 • per quos iter. Lu2(ex itin. corr.) • durastis] duratis L3 B5(a.c.)Ph2  : om. B12(suppl. B122) • in annum] in anû Ab  : inanû Hd(a.c.)  : insanû Hd(p.c.) • 667 iamque] namque Be2  : iam Ft P41  : tamque V16 • parabantur] parantur H3  : parapantur Vd(a.c.)  : parabatur Mc • captiuis] captis Bs4(captiuis i.l. u.l.) • uincla] uincula Aler. 1471 • 668 ill(a)e] ipsae(per comp.) Ft  : ille q3 To2 • tol(l)entes] attollentes Lu Fe P41  : tendentes Bs4Go  : tollens P8 Rd • etiamnum Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, edd.  : etiam nunc Ω, Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Korn 1880, Riese 1889(-um 1872), Lejay 1894, Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Breitenbach 1964, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000  : etiam iam (per comp.) A3  : etiam non(nunc i.l. u.l. Fe2) Fe  : etiam et nunc (per comp.) Ld2(a.c.)  : tunc etiam B7(a.c.)  : etiam tunc B7(p.c.) • libera] sidera T  : brachia libera V5(a.c.) • 669–670 dixere … opem] om. L3  : dixere sorores. Liber opemque tulit si mi. mg. scr. in L3 alia antiqua manus • 669 brac(c)hia] blachia L3(a.c.) • fer] sunt(per comp.) B8(ex itin. corr.)  : om. Es4 • dixere] dicere Mt  : duxere Li3 • tulitque] tulit Ab  : tulique Bo3(a.c.)  : tulutque P41 • • 670–671 si … opem] om. S2V2(a.c. a m.p.) B2(mg. suppl. m.p.)Be2GHd(mg. suppl. Hd2)N2 B8(mg. suppl. B82)B7(a.c.)Cs2 Ft Z • 670 muneris] munis P28  : mumeris Aler. 1471  : Nuneris Calph. 1480 • au(c)tor] actor A2CDrLd2MtV6V7 B8(auctor a.c.)Bs3(a.c.)Bs4GoMo3P5So Es5 Ca2(a.c.)  : om. Ld6 • opem] epem Calph. 1480 • si … more] si mira perdere morte Lu  : si perdere miro more V8(a.c.)  : simuto perdere more Lr7  : si multo(miro i.l. u.l.) perdere more Bs4  : sinistro perdere more Li3 • si] sed(per comp.) Vd(a.c.) Es2 • miro] muto Lr7  : moro O3(a.c.) • more] miro M Lr27  : more est Bo2(a.c.)  : in hore Es2(a.c.) • 671 hunc u. mg. secundum 670 scr. Lr22(a m.coaeua)V2(a m.p.) • ferre] fere F(a.c.) To  : ferro Mc • uocatur] uocatis Hd2(mg.) Mt4  : uocator P41  : uocetur “Oxon.” test. Burm. 1727 • opem] opes Rd  : om. L4(i.l. suppl. L42) • nec] ne O(a.c.)P4 Ld6Li3 B14(a.c.)  : nen V7 • qua] quo B5(a.c.) • figuram] figura Gg • 672 perdiderint] perdiderant Dr Li3 Cs3(a.c.) Ca2  : perdiderunt MtN2Ph2(p.c.) B14(a.c.)  : perdiderim Ph2(a.c.)  : perdiderat Lr8  : perdiderit Bo2 • potui  … possum] mali notas pennas sumpsere tueque B7(corr. B72)  : nec qua ratione figuram iter. Bo2 • potui scire] inu. ord. Es4 • potui] potuit B5  : poteram F2 • scire] cire L4 • aut … possum] nec nunc quoque possum Es4 • aut] om. B5  : et Dr(per comp.) P10 CvPs  : haut V8  : ac Ds2  : aud Lr8(p.c., non suprascr.; aut a.c.)  : haud Es3Mt5 Lu2  : at Es5 • nunc] non Gf(a.c.)Lu C2(i.l.)DrH2Lr7O3P3V6 B8Ds2Ld6Li3Mo3Mt2P5P10Sp B12Es22(i.l. p.c.) CvEs5Es6Ps Ca2, Plan. : om. T A4(a.c. a m.p.)C  : nomen(per comp. nom’) A3  : nunc tibi B4 : tibi F2Z, “Thysii” test. Burm. 1727 : ne nunc Lr4(per comp.)  : nisi Mt • dicere] discere Bs2Bs4DsSpV16, “tres alii” test. Burm. 1727 • possum] possem L3 : possim A2(uid.)A4(possum mg. A42)Mt B7Ld6 Es5, “Berol., Rhen.”(possum hab. Tu B14) test. Jahn 1832, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828  : possunt Go2 • 673 hunc u. om. Lr8(mg. suppl. m.p.) Es3 • summa mali] sûmali V3(a.c.) Fe(a.c.) • summa] om. B7 • nota] nata Ab B8(uid.)  : mota P8(a.c.)  : tota Lugd. 1546 • est] et B8  : om. B4LsMtV6 B14 •

494

Appendix critica

pennas] pinnas N(a.c.)  : pennes Mo(a.c.)  : peneis Li3  : penitus Rd • sum(p)sere] sumpstere Lr8 • tu(a)eque] tuique Gf  : eruesque(uid.) B52(p.c., quid a.c. n.l.)  : sueque P5(a.c.)  : s tue q3 Lu2  : quid Ca2 a.c. n.l. • 674 coniugis] contigis V8(a.c.)  : coniuges Sp(a.c.) Rd(a.c.) • in] et P5(a.c.)  : om. B5(a.c.) • uolucres niueas] inu. ord. So  : niueas omnes(per comp.) Ba • niueas] uineas B3(uid.)B5  : multas Lugd. 1546(mg.; niueas in textu) • abiere] abere V3  : adiere A3  : habiere B3 Lu2  : abire Ld  : habuere(per comp.) Ca2(abiere mg. p.c. Ca22) • columbas] colunbas A4(a.c.)Be2Hd  : columpnas Vd • 675 Talibus] Alibus P41 • atque] adque Lr7Tu  : at Vd(a.c.)  : om. V8(a.c.) • conuiuia] communia C Ds2(a.c.), Accurs. 1475  : conuiuia uel comunia P41 • 676 implerunt] implerant(uid.) A(a.c.)  : impleuerunt P10  : impleret Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472  : impler’t L3  : impler’ LuV3 • mensa somnum] inu. ord. A2B4 • mensa] mensis Ld22(-a Ld2)  : mensaque Lr3 Mt2  : mesam Rd  : mersa P38, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474 • som(p)num] sonnum P2 B5L4 Lr8  : sûñ Ab  : sopnum Dr FtMt4  : sûpnum Vd B8(-û)Mo3(-û)  : sômmnû V16 • petiere] petierer P10 • remota] remo ta V2(p.c.; remotata uid., a.c.)  : semota uel semora P2  : relicta A3  : remotis Ld2  : petita V16(remota i.l. u.l. V162) • 677 hunc u. om. Ft • cumque] inque Ab  : tumque P41 • die] due Ab(die i.l. u.l. Ab2)  : dies B5 • surgunt] sugunt V2(a.c.) • adeuntque] adeunt AGfT A3B5BaBe2EGH3Lr3LsPh2(-untque Ph22)TuV6V9 DsLr82(i.l. u.l.)Sp Es3(-untque a.c.) B14Bo3Es4  : ad heuntque Mt  : adeunque Mo(a.c.) • oracula] ocula Ld2(a.c.) • 678–679 … antiqua cognataque moenia iussit. / Litore prosequitur  … dub. Fabbri 1923(in app.) • 678 qui] quā(uid.) T(a.c.)  : quos Tu  : et(per comp.) Ds2(a.c.) • petere] petiere Ab(petere i.l. u.l. Ab2)V5(a.c.)  : om. A3(suppl. A32) • cognataque iussit] cognata iussitque B3 • cognataque] cognaque T G(a.c. a m.p.)  : ɔnataque B2V6  : ɔgnataque B4V7 B14  : conataque Ds2, Calph. 1480 • iussit] suasit HdLr6O4(iussit i.l. u.l. O42) Mt4, “Medic.” test. Burm. 1727 : iuxiit B5(a.c.)  : issit Ld2(a.c.)  : iuxit To  : iubsit Rd • 679 prosequitur] persequitur(fort. in V72 p.c. legendum) B5V6 Ds Cs3Mt5Rd, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472  : progreditur F2Z, “Argent. et Thysii” test. Burm. 1727 • rex] om. Ld(a.c. a m.p.) • et] om. HdLd2 Es2(a.c.) • dat] das Mt  : donat O3 • munus] minus Lu2 • ituris] itaris L3(uid. a.c.)  : iturus HdLr7  : itures Tu  : ituri Lu2 • • 680–681 inu. ord. B3(a.c.) • 680 Anchis(a)e sceptrum] anchisses ceptrum Ab  : anchissem sceptrum Ds2(a.c.)  : anchisen sceptrum V30(a.c.) • sceptrum] septrum A3 V16 Es2Rd Es4  : sceptros(uid.) B52(p.c.)  : scepto(uid.) B5(a.c.)  : ceptrum AbB3Ba(a.c.)GgL4V4V7 B8  : sceprum C • chlamydem pharetramque] paleptram clamidemque Pr • c(h)lam(y/i)dem] clamidemque S2 L4Lr4Lr7Pr P8  : clādem T  : clamidaem Lu2(a.c.) • pharetramque] faretram quae(per comp.) A  : paleptram Pr  : faretratamque Mc • 681 hunc u. om. O3(mg. suppl. m.p.)  : ab hoc u. def. Ca2 • cratera Lr2NV2 Lr7O3Ph22(mg.)V7(p.c.) B8 Vt Lu2Z(p.c.), “in uno meo, & Vatic.” test. et prob. Ciof. 1575, “Berol.[non sic B14], … Rhen.[non sic Tu]” test. Jahn 1832, Heinsius 1659(qui et “quinque alii” test.), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Korn 1880, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007   : crathera Dr(p.c.)  : crateram MM2P2S2T B3B4B5F(a.c.)FeGHdLd(i.l. u.l.)Lr4Lr6MoN2P4Ph2PrTrTuV6V7(a.c.)V8V9 GoP8Sp FtRd Lr27Vd11Z(a.c.), in suis codd. test. Gifanius 1565, “multi” test. Heinsius 1659, prob. Merkel 1850, Riese 1872, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, Lejay 1894  : cratheram Dr(a.c.) F2  : craterem AGfL3LuN2(i.l. u.l.)V2(uid., a.c.)V3 A2A3A4Ab2(i.l. u.l.)B2BaBe2EF(p.c. a m.p.)GgH2H3LdLd2Ld3Lr3LsOO4P3V4V5 Cs2DsDs2Ld6Lr8Mo3Mt2Mt3P5P10SoToV16 BoBo2Cs3Es2Es3(-therem a.c.)McMt4(p.c.)Mt5P28To2 AsB14Bo3CvEs3Es4Es5Es6Lr22P38PsV30, Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Ciof. 1575(qui tamen cratera mauult), Bersm. 1596, Weise 1845, Koch 1866  : cratherem B12Es3(-terem p.c.)  : interea Ab(uid.)  : cratheramque C(a.c.)  : cratheremque C(p.c.)  : crateramque L4  : crateremque Vd  : carterem Mt  : claterem



Appendix critica

495

Mt4(a.c.) P41  : cratere Li3  : crateream Calph. 1480  : creterram dub. Heinsius(in notis) • (A)ene(a)e] eneâe Go(a.c.) • quem] quam M(a.c.; quem M2) MoPh2(a.c.)Tu FtRd Es6, prob. Merkel 1850, Riese 1872, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, Lejay 1894  : quae V5(a.c.) Vd11  : om. Mt4 • quondam] condam B5CLd3O4V6 Bo2Es2 P41  : quodam Es4F2  : quondum “codd. Gifan.” test. Jahn 1832 • illi] olim Vd(illi mg. u.l.) • 682–683 Ismenius … Therses om. N(i.l. suppl. m.p.) V4V6 • 682 hunc u. om. Es2(mg. suppl. m.p. uel coaeua) • hospes] ospes P2(a.c.)  : hopes Ls(a.c.) • aoniis AL3Lu(p.c.)N(p.c.)V3 A3A4B2BaEFFe2(p.c.)GgH2H3HdL4LdLd22(i.l. alt. u.l.)LsO3P3P4Ph2PrV4V6V9 B8DsDs2GoLd6Li3Lr8(p.c.)Mo3(p.c. a m.p.)Mt2P5Sp(p.c.)ToV16 BoBo22(p. alt. c.)Es2Es3FtMt4To2Vt AsB14Es3Es5Es6F2Go2Lr22V30Z, “in meo antiquiore et duobus Vaticanis” test. Ciof. 1575, in pluribus mg. test. Bersm. 1596, “Dresd.[non sic Dr], … Rhen.[non sic Tu]” test. Jahn 1832, Aler. 1471, Regius 1493, Naug. 1516, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Merkel 1850, Koch 1866, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, Lejay 1894, Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007  : ioniis MM2N(a.c.)P2S2TV2 Lr7MoTuV5 Cs3Mt5Rd Bo3Es4Lr27Vd11, “in altero meo” test. Ciof. 1575, “tres alii” test. Heinsius 1659  : hemoniis Gf A2(uid.)B3O4V8 So B12Bo22(p. pr. c.)Gf7 P41, Ciof. 1575(Hae-)  : emoniis B4Be22(i.l. p.c.)Ld22(mg. u.l.)Ld3N2Vd Bo2, “nonnulli” test. Heinsius 1659  : aemoniis P38, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Aldina 1502, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596  : hemonis C  : hemomis Mt  : eoneis Lr2 Lu2  : oniis Lu(a.c.) O Mo3(a.c.)  : ausoniis AbLd22(i.l. pr. u.l.) Ps  : annoniis B5  : eoniis Be2(a.c.)Dr(p.c.)Fe(a.c.) Cs2 Mc Cv  : enoniis Dr(a.c.)  : yoniis G Sp(a.c.)  : atinis Ld2  : ooniis Lr3  : adoniis Lr4  : idoniis P10(a.c.)  : achiuis Lr6  : aonis V7  : iaoniis Lr8(a.c.)  : anonis Mt3  : asoniis P8 P28 • T(h)erses] serses A4  : terres Mt(ut semper)  : thersis O(a.c.)  : hunc therses Bo2  : illi therses Rd  : trerses Z  : Thersea Walch. 1731(corr. 1739) • Ismenius oris] fabricauerat alcon N(ex itin. corr. m.p.) V4 • (h)(i/y)smenius] ismeius L3(a.c.)  : isenius O4(a.c.)  : yzmeneus M Lr27  : hismeneus Mo So  : ismeneus Vd Bo3  : imenius P2(a.c.) AbF(a.c.)  : hismeneius B4 B12  : meneius Ph2  : ismeneius Mt5  : ystmenius E  : histmenius H2  : ulmenius Lr6  : armenius N2  : ysmonius Sp  : ismonius B8  : isinenius Ds  : hymenius Ds2  : hymeneius P8 Bo2  : himeneius Mc  : ymeneius Gf7  : fabricauerat V3(a.c.) • (h)oris] heros M2(a.c.)  : horos Mc(horis p.c.) • 683 hunc u. om. V9(mg. suppl. m.p.) • Miserat … T(h)erses] i.l. suppl. in N a m.p.  : desunt in V4 • hunc] hanc M(a.c.)P2(a.c.) MoPh2 Ft Bo3Lr22V30, in suis codd. test. Gifanius 1565, Aler. 1471, Merkel 1850, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, Lejay 1894  : hûic Vd  : hoc Rd • illi Therses] inu. ord. Lr2 A2B4H2MtO4 Bo2 B142(p.c.)Lu2, Heinsius 1652(qui post Therses dist.)  : therses(trerses Z) istum F2Z  : therses quem Lr7N2 • illi] om. A4(a.c.)Lr7LsN2 Ds(a.c.)Mt3 B14(a.c.)F2Z • T(h)erses] therse M Lr27  : Theses T(a.c. a m.p.) Mo(a.c. a m.p.)Tu(a.c. a m.p.)  : terres Mt  : sertes Mo3  : trerses Z • fabricauerat] sacrificauerat T (a.c.)  : sacricauerat T(p.c.)  : frabricauerat Tu Mt4(a.c.)  : fabicau’t Ab • Alcon] auto Lu(a.c. a m.p.)  : alo Ab  : alchon LdLd3V9 DsP5  : eltan F2(a.c.)  : alto Mt  : altô So  : arcon O4  : illum P3  : quid B5 a.c. n.l. • 684 Hyleus Merkel 1850, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, Lejay 1894, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007  : Myleus Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Koch 1866 • longo] longuo GgP3  : lûgo Vd  : longno Mc  : largo Mo3 • c(a)elauerat] celeu’ant B3  : celeuerat Lr6(a.c.) Ds  : celauerit Lr7  : fabricauerat Mt3 • argumento] argui uento Mt • 685 urbs erat] urbs urbe F  : urbêq3 H2 • urbs] urs S2(a.c.) AbTr(uid.)  : urbis Ld2(a.c.) Li3  : ubrs V5  : uerbis P10 • et] ut B5  : om. B3, Accurs. 1475 • septem posses] inu.

496

Appendix critica

ord. Ls B14 • septem]  .vii. M2 A3A4FeL4Ld2V9 Ds2(-em i.l.) Rd • posses  … portas] portas … posses CN2Ph2 • posses] possas M(a.c.)  : posset Mt Mo3  : eras. in Es3 • o(b)stendere] ascendere “Thysii” test. Burm. 1727  : offendere “Oxoniens.” test. Burm. 1727 • portas] passas M Lr27  : cruores B5(mg. corr. B52)  : portus V7  : ualuas Ds2(portas i.l. u.l. Ds22), “duo libri” test. Heinsius • 686 h(a)e(e)] E V7(a.c.) • erant] erat Tu • et  … docebant] et quae fortuna docebat mg. u.l. Mo2 • et quae] atq3 O4(a.c.)  : at quae O4(p.c.) • et] om. V5(a.c.) V16(a.c.) • quae] quoque(per comp.) Es2 • foret] ferat MN Lr27  : fore in V7  : forat Go(a.c.), Calph. 1480 • illa] illæ M  : om. N2(i.l. suppl. N22) • docebant] docebat MN(a.c.) Lr7Mo2(mg.)MtPr Bo Lr27P41  : docebas B5(a.c.)  : dicebant H3 Mt5  : dolebant Lr3 • 687 urbem] ubi B5(corr. B52) • exequi(a)e] esequie Mt4(p.c.)  : elequie Mt4(a.c.) • tumulique] tumuli Lu O3 Mo3 P28  : tumilique T : stumulique Vd(a.c.)  : tumulique et Ds  : tum lique V16(a.c.)  : tumulumque Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472 • 687–688 inu. ord. Mt • 688 hunc u. om. O3(mg. suppl. m.p.)Tr • ef(f)us(a)eque] offenseque A4(effuseque i.l. u.l. A42)  : effuse V6 F2  : effusique O(a.c.)  : et fusaeque coni. Bach ad Tib. 1.6.40 • comas] comis M2T(uid.) Tu Cs2 Rd : comes Lr6(a.c.) P8(a.c.)  : come Pr • et] om. Ab • apert(a)e pectora] aperto pectore Gf  : aperto pectora B2(a.c.)  : apertae per hectora Li3  : opertae(per comp.) pectora Ft  : aperte pectore Ds2  : aparte pectora Rd P41  : apartae pectora Accurs. 1475 • 689 significant] significicant V4  : signarant “Medic.” test. Burm. 1727 • luctum] luctus B3B4LdPr B8Cs2Ld6, “Oxon. et tredecim alii” test. Burm. 1727  : lutum V16(a.c.) • nymphae quoque] nimpheq3 Ds B12 • n(y/i)mph(a)e] nymphes M2(a.c.)T  : niphe V6  : nimfe Sp  : ninpheq3 Ft • flere] om. Es2(mg. suppl. m.p.) • • 690 sic(c)atosque … fontes] siccatos quaereri fontes A  : siccato querri fonte Rd  : siccatosque pueri fontes Mt5  : siccatosque querit fontes Mo9  : deest in Ls • sic(c)atosque] siccatos A Lr7Tu(a.c.)  : signatosque Ds2(a.c.)  : siccato Rd • fontes] frontes F2  : om. Ld(a.c.) • sine] siue B5 Mt5  : sum Pr • frondibus] flondibus V2(a.c. uid.) V6 : frondribus T : frundibus Regius 1493(corr. 1497) • arbor] arbos L3M2S2T B3B42(i.l. u.l.)Fe(p.c.)GH3HdL4(p. pr. c.; arbor p.alt.c.)Lr3Lr6(arbor i.l. Lr62)TrV4V6V7(p.c.)V8Vd Cs2DsGoLr8P10SoToV16 B12BoEs3Mt4P28RdVt Es5F2Z, “Rhen.[arbor hab. Tu]” test. Jahn 1832, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834(sed arbor prob. in notis), Bach 1836  : arboribus Fe(a.c.)  : artos L4(a.c.) • 691 nuda] nulla O • riget] piget Gg(a.c.)  : patet Gg(p.c.)  : rigeget Vd(a.c.)  : rigent Be2(a.c.)Pr Lr22(a.c.)  : rigēt Venet. 1472 • rodunt] lambunt Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546(rodunt mg.), Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Weise 1845  : lanbunt A(a.c.) V6  : lambant A4(a.c.)Dr(a.c.)  : lambiunt B5(a.c.)  : lambum Es6  : roduntque T  : trahunt(uid.) P10(a.c.)  : deest in Ls(sed lambunt B14) • arentia] harencia A  : herentia Lr2 Lu2  : harentia Fe  : ardentia S2  : amentia(uid. per comp.) C  : autumnalia(per comp.) uel animalia Dr(a.c. a m.p.)  : areencia O3  : lambentia Es2(a.c.)  : arrentia Es2(mg. p.c.), Puteol. 1471  : horrentia P41 • capell(a)e] capille M(a.c.) P41 • 692 facit] fecit V30, Plan. (Ἐποίησε δ’ ὁ τεχνίτης)  : uides Bs4 • mediis] medeis Mo(a.c.) • natas] post Thebis scr. V2(a.c.; cf. Mt infra)  : natus B52(mg.)  : nata Bo  : nathas Lu2  : om. T (cf. V2) • orione  : ab orione GfLr2Lu(p.c.)N(p.c.)P2V2V3 A2(uid.)A3A4(p.c.)AbB3B42(p.c.)B5CDeDrEFFeH22(p.c.)H3HdLd2(i.l. u.l.)Ld2Ld3Lr4Lr6Lr7MoMtN2O4(p.c.)P32(p.c.)P4PrTrV4V6V8V9Vd(p.c.) B8Cs2DsGoLd6Lr8Mt2Mt3P5SoSpToV16 B12BoBo2Cs3Es2(p.c.)Es3Mc(p.c.)Mt4Mt5P28To2 AsBo3Bs6Bs7CvEs3Es4Es5Es6F2P38P41PsVd11, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Ciof. 1575, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1652, Jahn 1832, Loers 1843  : ab horione P10(p.c.) Lu2  : aborigine AL3Lu(aborione p.c.)MM2(a.c.)N(aborione p.c.)S2T B52(mg.)BaBe2GH2Ld(a.c.)Lr3O4P3Ph2TuV5(p.c.)Vd(a.c.) Bs3Bs4Ds2Li3P8P10(a.c.)To2(p.c.) Es2(a.c.)Rd Go2Lr22Lr27V30, “quidam uet.” test. Ciof. 1575, “multi” test. Heinsius 1659, Aler. 1471  : aborigene M2(p.c.)  : aborrigine FtMc(a.c.)  : ab echione V24(i.l.), Plan., Regius 1493, prob. Glareanus  : aboriore L4(a.c.)  : abosiore L4(p.c.)  : aberigone Ls Bs2 B14  : aborgone O(a.c.)  :



Appendix critica

497

aborigone Ld(p.c.)O(p.c.)O3 Vt(a.c.)  : ab orugine V5(a.c.)  : ab airone A4(a.c.)  : ab arione GgV7  : obdrionie Mo3 • T(h)ebis] thebas M Lr3(a.c.) Bo2(a.c.) Lr27P41(ce-, a.c.)  : natas Mt(a.c.; cf. V2 supra)  : post natas scr. B3(a.c.)  : tedas Pr  : cebis P41(p.c.) • 693 hanc non] agmen M Bo3(hanc non i.l.)Lr27, prob. Madvig, Birt, Magnus 1914  : hanc nunc B3B5V6 Mt2  : hanc in Sp  : hanc nam F2  : has non P41  : haut non P5  : haec non Vd11  : hanc non in Mo9  : Alcon coni. Birt, prob. Slater coll. Plan.  : hac non coni. Merkel 1875, prob. Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Riese 1889, Keene 1898, Goold 1984, Bernardini Marzolla 1994  : deest in Ls • hanc] quid Ph2 a.c. n.l. • femineum] femineo Ph2(a.c. uid.)Tu(a.c.) P5 • iugulo] iugolo Ft  : gladio Rd • pectus Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Koch 1866, Magnus 1914, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, Anderson 1982  : uulnus Merkel 1850, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, Lejay 1894, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Ehwald 1915, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, Bernardini Marzolla 1994, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, von Albrecht 1994, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007, prob. Madvig, Birt, Liberman • aperto] apertum Mc(-o a.c. uid.)  : om. L4 • 694 illam] illas M Lr27P41, prob. Madvig, Birt, Magnus 1914  : illa Rd  : illis “Argent.” test. Burm. 1727  : illac coni. Merkel 1875, prob. Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Riese 1889, Keene 1898, Goold 1984, Bernardini Marzolla 1994  : olim coni. Birt  : deest in Ls • demisso] dimisso M B4CLr7MoN2OTrV8 Cs2Lr8P10Sp Bo2Mc Bo3Lr27, Heinsius 1659(“nonnulli”), Walch. 1731, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, prob. Birt  : de misso AbH2L4(a.c.)  : demiss Tu  : permisso Ph2  : demisse Li3  : demissa coni. Bentley, prob. Korn 1880, Simmons 1889, Edwards 1905  : deest in Ls • per fortia pectora Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Jahn 1832, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Koch 1866, Korn 1880, Lejay 1894, Edwards 1905, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, von Albrecht 1994, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007  : per fortia uulnera Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Anderson 1982  : per inertia uulnera Magnus 1914, H-K-E 1898, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Segura 1983  : per pectora fortia C  : per socia(fortia p.c.) pectora Tu  : per hiancia uulnera P10(per fortia pectora mg. P102)  : pereuntia pereuntia (sic iter.) uulnera Lu  : per fortia corpora P32(uid. supra)  :  ]tia pectora uulnera(hoc cum lit. damn.) Ls  : quid N a.c. (fortia i.ras.) n.l. • telo] ferro GfL3N2(i.l. u.l.) H3Ld3Lr3V4Vd DsLd6Mt3To B12Bo2 Es3, Lugd. 1546(mg.)  : celo Lr8(p.c.)  : telā coni. Bentley, prob. Korn 1880, Simmons 1889, Edwards 1905  : tela coni. Merkel 1875, prob. Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Riese 1889, Keene 1898 • 695 pro] a C  : et(per comp.) O4  : quod V7(pro i.l. V72)  : om. Lu2 • cecidisse] tedisse Mt • pulc(h)risque] pulchraque Mt  : pulchrasque coni. Lejay 1894 • per] om. Bo • urbem] orbem Lr2(a.c.) L4(a.c.)MtTu(a.c.) Sp Rd  : urbes Lr3V4 Ds Es3  : urbēs(sic) Venet. 1472 • 696 funeribus] funibus Ab  : funeribusque L4  : funeneribus Ld6 • ferri] sceleris O(ferri mg. u.l. O2)  : efferri V8(a.c.)  : feri Lu2  : om. Ld6 • celebrique … cremari] celeri in marte cruori B5(mg. corr. B52) • celebrique] celebrisque N(a.c.)  : celebri T  : celeri B5  : cerebrique Ld6 • parte] monte N2(i.l. u.l.) Lr8  : marte Ab(parte i.l. u.l.)  : aperte(per comp.) Ds2(a.c.) • cremari] cremare Mt3(uid., a.c.) • 697 tum] tunc GfL3Lu A2A4B3B4B5HdLd22(i.l. u.l.)MtO4(tum a.c.)P3V6V7Vd Bs4Ds2Mt2P5P8Sp B12Es2McMt4 B14Es5Es6P41  : cum Ld2 So  : dum Li3  : tumque Mo3  : de T n.l.  : deest in Ls • de] nunc(per comp.) Rd • uirginea] uirgenea S2 V4  : uirginibus Fe(a.c.)  : funerea “Palat. sec.” (sed non sic Hd) test. Burm. 1727 • geminos] umeos B5(mg. corr. B52)  : geminis Gg(a.c.)  : genimios Ld2(a.c.)  : geminas Mo(p.c.) F2 • 698 ne] nec(per comp.) V6 So  : non Vd(corr. Vd2) Li3  : in P41  : nae Puteol. 1471  : quid M B14 a.c. n.l. • genus] gens Be2 • intereat] interea M(a.c.)N(a.c.)  : interimat(per comp.) Fe(a.c.) • iuuenes] comites Lr4(iuuenes mg. u.l. Lr42) • quos] quas B4(a.c.)Fe • 699 nominat] nouerat Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472  : nominet malit Heinsius • et] om. Es2 • cineri materno]

498

Appendix critica

genere maternam MN(a.c., uid.) Lr27  : generi materno N2  : cineri maternam P10(a.c.)V16 Bo • cineri] cinere M2(uid., a.c.) Ld2(a.c.)  : quoniam(per comp.) Ds2(a.c.)  : cinerem Ld6 • materno] maternam “Oxon. et unus Arg.” test. Burm. 1727, “et alter Twisd.” test. Jahn 1832 • ducere] discere M2(a.c.) • pompam] pompas BaDeDrGgP4  : formam Fe(pompam mg. u.l.) Bs4  : pumpam V4 • • 700 Hactenus] Actenus Lr2 B4(recte mg. B42)BaH2(a.c.)V7 B14Lu2P41  : Ac tenus Mo9  : Actinus Ld  :  ]tenus Ls • antiquo] antico Ld(p.c.) Mc  : antiqo(uid.) Ld(a.c.) • signis] singuis Ab • (a)ere] auro LuMN(i.ras., quid a.c. n.l.; ere i.l. u.l. N2) B4DeMoN2 V162(mg. u.l.) Lr27Vd11, “quatuor scripti” test. Burm. 1727  : here B3V5  : ore B5  : de T n.l. • 701 summus] summis AMN(uid., a.c.) Sp(a.c.) Mt5 F2Lr27P41  : sumus B5 Rd • inaurato] in aurato MTV2 A2A4AbB2(a.c.)B3B5FeGgH3Ld2(a.c.)Lr3Lr4Lr7MoMtO3O4PrV4V6Vd B8Cs2DsLr8Mt2P5SpTo BoBo2Cs3Es2Es3Mt5P28RdTo2 B14Bo3CvEs4Es6F2Lr27Lu2P41Ps, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Bersm. 1596  : quid N (inaur- i.ras.) a.c. n.l. • crater erat] erat fuit S2  : craterque erat Lr2 B4H3L4Lr3 Li3Lr8To2(p.c.) Lu2  : crater fuit A4GPh22(p.c.; quid a.c. n.l.)V9 DsP8SoSp Mt4 Es6  : crather eat O4(a.c.)  : crater P3(erat suppl. P32)  : erant fuit Pr  : erant erat Ft  : crater erat et Mt5 • crater] crather CO4 F2 • facit post crater hab. P5(ex itin. corr.)  : asp hab. Rd(ex itin. corr.) • erat asper] inu. ord. V4(a.c.) • asper acantho] aspera cancho Mt  : asperto(per comp.) Ld6  : asper ab hanto Pr • asper] quid B5 a.c. n.l.  : om. V16(a.c. a m.p.) • acantho] achanto L3Lr2Lu2(p.c.)MNP2S2  : achantho V2  : acanto AGfLu(a.c.) CV7V8Vd BoBo2Mt5RdTo2 P41  : achasto B5  : de T n.l. • 702 hunc u. om. B4(mg. suppl. m.p.) Li3(mg. suppl. m.p.) • nec] non A2Ls B14 • Troiani] troiam Lr7  : troia Cv(a.c.) • dona] bona Es2(a.c.) • dona remittunt] donare mituntur Ld2(a.c.)  : munera mittunt Bo2 • 703 dantque] dant B3(a.c.)Lr7  : datque Mt5 • sacerdoti] sacerti C(a.c.)  : quid(an –em?) P3 a.c. n.l. • custodem] custodi M(a.c.) Mt5  : custodes N(a.c., uid.)  : custodi& Ba(a.c.)  : custode P28 • turis] thuris AGfL3Lr2LuM2N2P2S2V2 O4(p.c.) Sp(turis a.c.)  : turris Mt Mt2To(a.c.) Rd(ut solet) P41  : thurris O4(a.c.) • acerram] acerrae M(uid., a.c.)  : acerrê Es6  : acertam S2(a.c. a m.p.)  : acernam AbMo2(i.l.) Cs2 FtTo2 P41  : acceram B5(a.c.)  : accerram B5(p.c.)O3 Bo  : achereram Ld2(a.c.)  : aceram Pr B12(a.c.) • 704 om. N(i.l. suppl. N4) Pr Sp(mg. suppl. m.p.) • dant] dantque M(a.c.)N4(a.c.)  : dat Mt5 • pateram claramque] claram pateramque Gg • pateram] patheram N4 A2 Cs2V16 Es3 AsEs4  : paterê F  : poteram L4(a.c.)  : pateramque Es2  : quid B5 a.c. n.l. • claramque] clarumque B5  : claram O3  : clauramque Ds2(a.c.)  : claroque “Leidens.” test. Burm. 1727 • auro] auram B5  : aro V5(a.c.) • gem(m)isque] geminisque T Lu2  : gemmis B3(a.c.)L4(a.c.)Ld(a.c.)Lr7  : gêmque To(a.c.)  : de Tu n.l. • coronam] conam G(a.c. a m.p.)  : cononam L4(a.c.)  : quoronam Ld  : coronat Mt(a.c.) • 705–731 om. Polle 1888 • 705–916 om. Lejay 1894 • 705 recordati] recordanti Sp(a.c.)  : recordatos Ft(a.c.) • Teucros … Teucri] ueros … teucros Lr7Vd(a.c.)  : teucris … teucris Mt  : teucips … tecri Li3  : thenes  … teucri P10 • T(h)eucros] teuchros(teuchos a.c.) B5  : teuos Gg(a.c.)  : ueros Lr7Vd(a.c.)  : teucris Mt  : treucos Ds  : teucips Li3  : thenes P10  : teuros Pr • T(h)eucri] tecri L3(a.c.) Li3  : theuchri Lu  : teuchri B5Hd  : teucros Lr7Vd(a.c.)  : teucris Mt  : thecri V7(a.c.)  : reucri Regius 1493(uitio preli, corr. 1497) • a] de Mt • 706 ducere] dicere Ps • principium] princium Mc(a.c.) • Creten Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Merkel 1850, Koch 1866, Edwards 1905, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007  : Cretam Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Ciof. 1575, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1652, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Simmons 1889, H-K-E 1898, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983 • tenuere] tectique M Lr27  : tetigere Mo  : tellure Es2  : petiuere Mc • locique] diuque(uid.) Bo2  : fretumque Ds2 • 707 hunc u. om. Lu(mg. suppl. Lu2) • nequiere] nequiuere Lr2Lu2N(nequi—uere i.ras. p.c.; quid a.c. n.l.)P2V2(a.c.) A3B5(p.c., quid a.c. n.l.)BaC(a.c.)E(a.c.)FeLr7LsV4V6V7V8



Appendix critica

499

GoLr8Mo3P8To B12Es3(a.c.)FtMt4 B14Bo3CvEs5P41Ps  : nequere T Lr3 Ld6 Mc  : nequire L4MtVd  : require V30  : requiere Li3 Lr22, Aler. 1471  : ne quiere Calder. 1477 • diu] diuque V5  : loci(uid.) Bo2 • centumque] ceterumque Lr8  : centum Ft  :  .c.q3 V9 • relictis] quid N a.c. (an reliquiis?) n.l. • 708 urbibus] uiribus Lu2 • Ausonios] autsonios Ba(a.c.)  : ansonios V6 • optant] obtant V2 A2V4 Cs2 Vt  : gaudent(g ante optant scr. Lu2 sed ex itin. corr.) Gf  : optent Ld6  : optat Mc  : aptant “sex” test. Heinsius 1659  : properant dub. Heinsius 1659 • contingere] contigere Mc • portus] corpus V3(a.c.) : tauros Ld6 : portâ Ps • 709 s(a)euit] saeuis Mt  : sunt V30 • hiem(p)s] hyemps Gf  : hyens HdV6 : hiens Vd : hyeps V5  : yêps Lr6N2 To  : yems Mt2So(p.c.) Bo3P41  : yemis(uid.) So(a.c.)  : hoîes Ps(a.c.) • iactatque] iactantque Mt  : iactaque Ba(a.c.)O4(a.c.) • Strophadumque] stro phadumque N  : trophadumque V3 Ba(corr. Ba2)ELd3LsO3P3PrVd B8Ds2(p.c.)Mt2P5P8SoSp Es2 B14Es4   : strophadum B3Ph2  : strophidumque B5(a.c.)  : stophadumque B4B52(p.c.)G(corr. G2)V5  : strofadumque BoMc  : trophidumque Ds2(a.c.)  : stapadumque C  : trohadumque Li3  : strophadeque P41 • receptos] receptus N(a.c.)P2(p.c.)T(a.c.) Pr  : receptu P2(a.c.)  : receptis A4(a.c.)  : receptes B3(uid. a.c.)Lr6  : retentas Mt(uid.)  : retentos Vd P5(receptos mg. u.l.)  : reptos V4(a.c.)  : relictis Li3  : recepto Bo, Venet. 1472  : recepit Ft • • 710 portubus] portibus AL3Lr2LuM2NP2S2TV2V3 A2A3B3B4B5BaBe2CDrEFFeGGgH2H3HdL4LdLd2Ld3Lr3Lr4LsMtOO3P4Ph2PrTrTuV4V5V6V7V8V9Vd Cs2Ds(a.c. a m.p.)Ds2GoLd6Li3Lr8Mt2P5P8P10SpTo B12BoBo2Es2Es3McP28Vt B14CvEs5Es6F2Go2Lu2P38P41PsZ Mo9, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502  : montibus Gf  : pontibus A4(a.c.)  : potibus Ft  : partibus Rd • post infidis unum uerbum scr. N sed postea eras. • exterruit] exterrruit(per comp.) Ba  : exteruit O3 BoRd, Puteol. 1471, Calph. 1474  : extruit V6 • ales] alles N2(a.c.)  : aeles B12(a.c.) • Ael(l)o] oello MN(a.c.)V2 Lr27  : aullo Ld2(a.c.)  : ad ello Mt  : aellos V7(a.c.)  : asello Ds2(a.c.)  : ahelo Lr22V30, Aler. 1471 • 711 et] ut FtMt4 • Dulic(h)ios] dulichicos T  : duichios B3(a.c.)  : dulchios Mt  : diluchios Vd Z  : dulichyacos Ld3 • Ithacamque LuMNP2V2 B52(mg.)BaBe2DeDrGLr4MoP3P4TuV5V6(-tâq3) Cs2GoLr8Mt2P8 BoP28To2 B14Bo3CvEs52(p.c.): itacamque P38V30, edd.  : caramque A  : ytacamque Gf Lr6O3O4 DsDs2To Mc F2   L3Lr2M2S2 A2A4(p.c.)CH3Lr7PrV7V9Vd B8P102(p.c.) Bo2Cs3Es2Mt5Rd AsEs5Lr27Lu2  : itachamque T(iti-)V3 A3B2EH2L4LdN2OPh2V8 Mt4 Es4Vd11  : itamamque A4(a.c.)  : trachamque Ab  : itacumque B3F Ps  : tectumque P10  : ytacumque Ld6  : ithacumque Es6  : itacôque B4  : imatamque B5  : ythacamque HdLd2Ld3TrV4 P5 Es3 Z  : ysacâq; Lr3  : ithachamque Ls  : ytachasque Gg(a.c.)  : ytachamque Gg(p.c.) SoSpV16 Ft  : itachamue B12  : ythacomque Go2  : hitacâque Mo3  : uticamque P41  : hi tamque V45  : Ithacenque Tarrant 2004, def. Luck • Samonque] Samumque AGf A2A3AbB3BaDeGgLr7P4V9 P8P10So Cs3Mt5Rd AsEs5F2P38, Puteol. 1471, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596  : samosque B4  : somumque B5(samonque mg. B52)  : simonque Tu  : samonue B12  : semonque Es6  : samô V6  : somonque P41  : Samomque B8Go Z  : sanumque Ps  : Samenque Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Weise 1845, Hopkinson 2000, Hardie 2015, Holzberg 2017, improb. Glareanus coll. Strab. 10.2.10 • 712 hunc u. om. Ld3 • Neritiasque] nereidas M Lr27  : nereidasque Bo3  : nariciasque AL3P2V2V3 A4(p.c.)AbB3(p.c., quid a.c. n.l.)B4B5Be2DrEFGGgH2L4LdLd2Lr3Lr4LsO4P4V6V7V8 B8DsDs2Li3Mt2P5P8SoSpToV16 B12BoBo2Cs3Mt5P28 AsCvEs4Es5F2Go2(p.c.)Lr22P41 V45  : nericiasque M2S2T BaPrTu Cs2Ld6 Vt   : narichiasque Gf Fe2MtV9 Mo3  : naritiasque Lr2(p.c.) A2H3HdLr6OPh2TrV5 Go Es2Es3(p.c.)FtMcMt4To2 Es6P38PsV30Vd11Z, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475  : naritias Lr2(a.c.) Lu2  : naricasque A3  : naricidasque A4(a.c.)Lr7N2  : nariciamque B2  : nerichiasque Fe  : narritiasque C Es3(a.c.), Puteol. 1471, Calph. 1480  : narriciasque O3Vd B14  : narraciasque V4  : nariachasque Lr8  : nereiasque P10  : haritiasque Rd  : nariacasque Go2(a.c.) • domos] domus ALr2LuMM2(per comp.)N(-os i.l. u.l. N2)TV2V3 B42(mg.)B52(p.c.)Be2DrGgH2Lr4LsMo(-os mg. Mo2)N2P4Ph2Tu-

500

Appendix critica

V4V5V6 B8DsLi3Sp(-os a.c.) To2 B14Bo3CvGo2Lu2PsVd11, Venet. 1472, Riese 1872, Merkel 1875, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Simmons 1889, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007  : domum B2 • regnum] tectum P10  : regû V45 • Vlixis] ulixes Ls(a.c.) P10(a.c.) Mc(a.c.)  : Vlixi Lr22(-ssi)V30, Aler. 1471  : Ulyssei Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546(-yssis mg.), Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1659, Walch. 1731  : Ulyxei Ciof. 1575(qui sic Priscianum dixisse meminit), Burm. 1727, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Bach 1836, Weise 1845  : Vlixei Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Loers 1843, Koch 1866 • 713–714 inu. ord. Lr8 • 713 pr(a)eter erant] pr(a)etereant LuM2(a.c.)TV2(a.c.) A3B5V7 Ps  : pr(a)etereunt GfLr2M2(p.c.)P2S2 A4B3Be2CDeDrFGGg(i.l. u.l.)Ld22(i.l. u.l.)Ld3Lr4Lr7MtN2OO3Ph22(mg. u.l.)PrTrV8Vd B8DsGoLd6Lr8Mt2Mt3P8P10SoSpV16 B12BoCs3Es2Es3(p.c., quid a.c. n.l.)FtMt5P28RdTo2 AsCvEs4Es5Es6F2Lr20Lr22Lu2P38V30, Plan., test. Viuianus (1522, ad loc.), “alii quidam” test. Ciof. 1575(“male”), Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474(preter erant 1480), Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1565(mg.), Bersm. 1596  : pretererunt H22(i.l. p.c.)Ld2(i.l. p.c.)Lr62(mg. u.l.)  : praeterereunt(per comp. p’t’ereunt) L4  : praeterunt V6(per comp.) Cs2Ds2(per comp.) Go2  : pretedunt(uid.) Ph2(p.c.; quid a.c. n.l.)  : preteunt V9  : preterierant Fe(a.c.)Mo2(i suprascr.)  : praeterreant(per comp.) Tu  : propter erant “Mediceus chartaceus”(sed non sic Lr20) test. Heinsius 1659  : Pætererant Accurs. 1475  : praeter enant Lugd. 1565  : de P3 n.l. • uecti] uentis De  : uicti Es2(a.c.)  : uenti Lu2 • certatam] certamen Ab(certatam mg. u.l. Ab2)Mt  : certatê Be2(a.c.)  : et certatam Ls B14  : certatim Ld6  : certantem Mt4  : certata Li3 Mc P41  : certataque Bo  : quid N a.c. n.l. • lite] rite MN(uid., a.c.)P2(i.l. u.l.)S2T V23(i.l. u.l.) G2(i.l. u.l.)Ld2(i.l. u.l.)Ls2(i.l. u.l.)Tu Ft Lr27  : rite uel potius sate M2(a.c.)  : ritu P2(i.l. alt.u.l.)  : litte Dr B8  : lege Fe(a.c.)  : lute Ld6  : quid O4 a.c. n.l. • deorum] uirorum G2(i.l. u.l.)Ld2(i.l. u.l.)O42(i.l. u.l.)  : decorum Pr • post hunc u. hoc hab. P10: Quam post ea fecit appellari meopolis augustus; deinde u. 713 iter. • Ambrachiam ertatam(uel cytatam) ritu deorum  … uel alio modo certata lite deorum ad u. 714 scr. Mo9 • 714 Ambrac(h)iam] Ambachiam A3 P10  : Ambrachyam ELd3  : Anbrachiam GgL4Lr4 Ds P28  : ambrachia Pr  : Amprachiam Tu(a.c.)  : Ambrachian V5  : ambrachiamque P8(a.c.)  : Erribrochiam Mc  : Ac inbrachiam Mt4(a.c.)  : Ambrachicam Cv(a.c.)  : Ambrachium Es6  : Ambrathiam P41 • uident] uidi B5  : om. Ld6 • saxum] soccum Hd(a.c.) • 715 om. MN(sed bis suppleuerunt m.p. [i.l. post u.] et item suo loco [quid ante scr. fuerit n.l.] manus multo recentior [sed alia ac quae u. 704 scr.]) Lr27 • iudicis] Indicis B2E(uid.)FePr Mt2(uid.)Sp Es4Es5, “nonnulli” test. Burm. 1727  : uindicis Passeratius • Actiaco quae] aciaciq3 P10(corr. P102) • Actiaco] acciaci P2S2 AbB4(-ati)G(act-)Ld(act-)Lr4LsTu Vt Mo9  : actyaci O3  : athyaci Ds2(a.c.)  : astiaci Es2  : ariaci Mc  : amaci B14  : attiaco N et N5 Lr6PrVd  : acciaco Gf(p.c.)L3LuM2TV2(p.c.) FFeGg2(i.l. p.c.)HdLr3O4 DsGoLr8 Ft Es5Lr22Vd11Z  : ac ciaco V2(a.c.)  : aciaco Gf(a.c.) Lr7N2V4  : atiaco V9 B12Cs3 As(p.c., quid a.c. n.l.)  : atyaco B8  : auctiaco A2  : achiaco A3  : antiaco B3C  : astiaco B5(a.c.) Mo3  : athiaco B52(p.c.) Mt5  : actiacho Dr  : autiaco V5  : acaico Gg(a.c.)  : achaico V6  : astayco V7  : ancyaco Ld3  : arthiaco P5  : archiaco Es4  : athyaco Ds2(p.c.)  : antiquo Ld6  : atyaco SoSp  : achiacho V16  : adiaco Mt4  : acthiaco P41  : actiacon V30 • quae] om. So(a.c.) • nunc] om. To2 • ab] om. AV3(a.c.) B5(a.c.)H3Lr3 Ds Es3Mc • Ap(p)ol(l)ine] apollice Pr • est] om. O4PrV6Vd • uu. 758–787post hunc u. scr. Cs3, sed cum linea not. m.p. et mg. add.: “Vacat totum hoc per hoc signum designatum” • 716 uocalemque] uocaleque Ld6  : uolêq3 Mo9 • sua … Dodonida] terram dodonida sua V6 • sua] suam MN(uid., a.c.) B5Hd B8(a.c.)Ds Es2(a.c.) CvEs3Lr27 • terram] ter terram (per comp.) Be2  : terra Ps • Dodonida] dodonia GfL3S2(a.c.)TV2(a.c.) B2(a.c.)Gg(a.c.)L4(p.c.)P3(a.c.)Vd Cs2SoSp Es2Ft Cv(dodonida i.l.)Es6Go2Z  : didonida A Pr DsTo(dodonida i.l. u.l. To2)  : quid M2 a.c. n.l.  : dedonida P2(a.c.) H2(p.c.) Mt5  : donidoda Be2  : dedoida H2(a.c.)  : dodonica H3Tu Es5Vd11  : dodoneia L4(a.c.)  : dodanida Ld2 B8 Ps  : dodonnida Ph2(a.c.)  : didoniaque V5  : didonia Mc  : dodotuda Mo9  : dordonida Puteol. 1471  : Dodorida Lugd.



Appendix critica

501

1565(uitio preli) • quercu] quercû M Lr27(-um)  : quercii Calph. 1480 • 717 C(h)aoniosque] cauniosque A(cao- a.c.)  : chaoniusque P10(a.c.) F2Lu2  : cahoniosque H2 Vt  : Gaoniosque L4  : Chanioque V5  : chaniosque To(a.c.)  : Chahoniosque Cs3  : Eaoniosque Es6  : Chaoniasque(Ca- P41) Mc(a.c.) P41  : Chaeniosq; Mo9(chaonium et chaonia in explicat.)  : Chaomosque Aler. 1471  : Chaontosque Puteol. 1471  : Caontos que Calph. 1480(Chaoniosq3 1474) • sinus] simus B4  : finas Lr7 • ubi] om. Sp • nati] nate Ba Mc P41  : nata Rd • Molos(s)o] molopsso N(p.c., quid a.c. n.l.)  : molopso Lr3Lr4V4V5 Ds Es3(a.c.)To2 V30  : moleso Es2  : molopsos Mo9 • post u. 717 uu. 810 sqq. sine lacuna hab. A2 • 718 fugere … pennis] pennis fugere incendia Pr • fugere] fugiere B5(a.c.)GL4 Bo Go2, Regius 1493  : fugierunt Lr4  : figure Bs3(a.c.)  : fugerre Bo2  : fugentia Es2 • incendia] ingentia MN(uid., a.c.) Bo3(-cia)Lr27  : agmina Lr4  : per aera Ld3  : impendia V30  : morodia Bs4  : incenda Calph. 1474 • pennis] pinnis N(a.c.)  : flammis P8  : peenis Lu2(a.c.) • 719–720 inu. ord. Mc(a.c.) • 719 hunc u. om. O3(mg. suppl. m.p.) P5 Mt4(mg. suppl. Mt42) • Ph(a)eacum] phecum A3(a.c.)  : phacum L4 • felicibus] filicibus Ld(a.c.)  : felici Mo3 • obsita] oblita To  : obsida Es6 • pomis] pennis B5MtO3 McMt42(a.c.)  : ponnis(uid.) V7(a.c.)  : pômis Mt2 • • 720 Ep(h)iros] euritos LuMP2S2T N2 Ld6 Rd Bo3(a.c.)F2Lr27  : eurithos G(a.c.)  : eurythos Ds  : eritos Ld2(i.l. u.l.)  : euricos Tu  : epyros Lr2Lu2(i.l.)M2(p.c.) BaBe2EFeGgH3Ld3Lr3 Li3Lr8 Bo2FtP28 Lr22Lu2V30  : ephyros Ds2  : epyron Dr  : epirus B8  : eupiros P10  : epirhos Es4Es5  : yfiros Mc  : Epeiros Lugd. 1565  : ephyrosque Gf  : ephirosque O4  : epyrosque P8  : epithos De  : zephiros V2(p.pr.c.)  : cypros et P5  : epirros Mo9  : quid M2 a.c. n.l. • Epiros … his] ephiros(epiros Pr) et ab hiis(his PrV9) AbPrV9  : ab his epithos De • ab his] ubi OP3(a.c.) Vt  : his B5L4(a.c.)  : habis Ba(a.c.)  : abis Tu P28(p.c.)  : abit P28(a.c.)  : om. P2(a.c.) To2 Mo9 • hi(i)s] iis Es5 • regnataque uati] regnator euntis M(regnataque uati mg. u.l. M2)N(uid., a.c.) Lr27  : regnata uati L3(a.c. a m.uid.p.) AbB5(corr. B52)Dr  : regnata uatique A3P3(corr. P32)  : regnata uate Fe(a.c.)  : regnatque uati Ld3(a.c.) Es2  : regnataque nati Ld6 P10(uid.) B12  : regnataque uatis P28(a.c.)  : regnat atq3 uati Mo9 • uati] patri De  : nati L4 Ld6P10(uid.) Es4Ps  : uoti Mo(a.c.)  : uate V16 To2  : dati Mt4(a.c.)  : uatis P28(a.c.) As(a.c.) • 721–729 om. Pr • 721 hunc u. om. A3(mg. suppl. m.p.) • but(h)rotos M22(mg. u.l.) B52(p.c.)DrEH2MoP4 GoP8 Es3Es4Lr22P38  : bithro tos N(p.c. i.ras.; quid a.c. n.l.) C(uno uerbo)  : bitrotos GfL3Lr2 A4AbB2B3FeGgH3Lr7O4Ph2V8 Lr8Mt2ToV16 B12BoCs3FtMt5 AsBo3Lu2Z  : butrocos V4  : buthrocos Mt3  : bytrodoos V7  : bystrotos Mo3  : bisroti A(bitroditos i.l. u.l. A2)  : birotas Lu(a.c.)  : birotos Lu2(p.c.)  : butropus S2  : bruto post M2(mg. u.l.)P2TV2 B4Mo2(mg.)Tu Rd Vd11  : brito post Ps  : brutotos M2(insula suprascr. M22) V5  : uoto post M Lr27  : bitrothos V3  : bithotos B5(a.c.)  : citros post Be2  : bithretos De  : buthoos F  : butro post(uid.) G(a.c.)  : brithotos(uid.) G2(mg.)  : buthrotis Hd  : bristocos L4  : butroton Ld  : bis trotos Lr3  : bis tortos Mc  : buthrotas Lr4(p.c.)  : buthotas Lr4(a.c.)  : bythroos Lr6  : britotos LsN2 B14Cv  : birrothos P3  : butiros B8  : bittos Cs2  : buthroium Ds  : butrocum P10  : bitronos Sp  : brittotos Es3  : en uothos Mt  : buthroos O P28Vt  : birothos O3  : britotes A3  : britotros V6  : britrotos To2  : brotheos V9  : hytroos Vd  : buthyros Ld3  : auctosus P5  : buthorchos So  : butrothos Bo2  : butrohos Es2  : brutrotos Mt4  : butrodos Ds2 Es5  : bixtorios Ld6  : bithodos Es6  : bitrotas F2  : brithintidos Go2  : butronos P41  : butrutos V30  : s. butro Mo9(bruto in explic.) • Phr(y/i)gio] frigio Lr2  : frigrio T  : phigio B3F(a.c.)V7(a.c.)  : phrygia De  : prigeo L4(a.c.)  : phrigeo L4(p.c.)  : prigio Ld(a.c.)  : phrigia Lr6  : phygio V5  : phigrio V7(p.c.) • simulataque] dimulataque Ab  : stimulata Fe(a.c.)  : simulata Hd(a.c.)  : simul actaque V6  : simulactaque Bo2(a.c.)  : quid M2 a.c. n.l. • Troia] terra Es6 • 722 futurorum] futurum T(a.c.) • certi quae] certi(an incerti Lu a.c.?) quoque Lu(a.c. per comp. uid.) Mt(per comp.)  : certiqi Tu  : certiq3 Mo3P8 Es2Mc(a.c.)Rd, Venet. 1472 • cun(c)ta] concta Hd(a.c.) Es2  : cucnta V7  : cunq3 Cv • fideli] fidei Z • 723 Priamides] priamidus B5 • (H)elenus] helenes C(a.c.)  : henus O4(a.c.)  : heleneus P10  : quid T a.c. n.l. • monitu] monita Fe(a.c.)  : momitu Ld2(a.c.) • praedixerat] praeduxerat Mc  : praedixerat et As(a.c.)  : predxierat Aler. 1471 • intrant] intrans N Rd  : intrat S2(a.c.) Ds Es6 • 724 Sic(c)aniam] sic aiax Mt  : Sicania Mo3  : Siconiam Rd • tribus h(a)ec] haec LuM(mg. corr. M2)-

502

Appendix critica

T  : haec tribus P2 Lr7Mo(p.c.)  : haec ternis GTu  : haec multis Mo(a.c.) Es4  : prae tribus haec H2  : tribus hoc Es6  : tribusque haec Go2  : tribus Rd  : quid M2(unum tantum uerbum uid.)N a.c. n.l.  : trinis coni. Heinsius 1659(in notis) • tribus] tibus B4(a.c.) • excurrit] currit N(a.c.) P3(corr. P32)  : extendis Mt  : occurrit Tu  : excurret Ld6  : concurit B12  : scurrit Lu2  : om. A3(mg. suppl. A32) • in] om. Ld6 P41 • aequora] equore M2N AbB3B4(a.c.)TuV9 Ds Es4Lu2 • linguis] pennis H-K-E 1898, Ehwald 1915, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, H-K-E-A 1966, Segura 1983  : pinnis Bo P41, Merkel 1850, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Riese 1889(linguis 1872), Simmons 1889, Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Fabbri 1923, Breitenbach 1964, Anderson 1982, Fink 2007  : lignis Ds Bo(mg. u.l. a m.p.)Mc  : lingnis Es6  : liguis Tu(a.c.)  : lîgîs V6  : linquis Lugd. 1546(uitio preli) • 725 hunc u. om. Mt • e] ex A DrL4O4 GoLi3 Es5  : in B5 • imbriferos] umbriferos M2(un- uid. a.c.) AbLr3 Li3  : umbriferas F2  : imbriferis H3(a.c.)  : imbriferes C(a.c.)  : ebriferos Vd(a.c.)  : imberiferos Lr8(a.c.)  : ymbriferos O3 Ds2 B12  : hymbriferos Es5V30 • est uersa] euersa Gf(est uersa mg. u.l. Gf2)Lu(corr. Lu2)MM2T DrLdLr3Mo2(mg.)N2P3(a.c. a m.p.)TuV4 Cs2Li3Lr8(a.c. a m.p.) B12Es2(uid., a.c.) Bo3CvEs4F2Go2Lr27Ps  : uersa P2(a.c.) Mt2(est mg. scr. m.p.)So Z  : est uers(sic) Ds2(a.c.)  : uersa est Lr2 A4B4B5CFHdL4Ld2Lr4Lr6Lr7O4V7V8V9 Cs3Es3Mt4Mt5 AsLu2P38, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493(corr. 1526), Aldina 1502, Bersm. 1596  : uersat N(uid., a.c.) FeOO3Vd Bs2GoMt3P10 Bo2(a.c.)Vt  : aduersa(uid.) Gf2(mg. alt.u.l.)  : obuersa B2Ld3Mo B8Bs3(p.c.) P28, Heinsius 1659(“ex duobus Thuan. et aliis quinque”), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836,Weise 1845, Koch 1866, def. Luck  : obuersat Bo  : obuersos Rd  : est uersus Ls B14  : conuersa Fe(mg. u.l.)G Ds Ft(p.c.)Mc  : uersus Ph2(p.c.)  : euersus Ph2(a.c.)  : ensa est Ld6  : conuer Ft(a.c.)  : uersus est P41 • Pach(y/i)nos] pachinnos N(p.c.)V23V3 BaFe(mg. u.l.)Ld(-us u.l. Ld2)O4P3P4 Ld6Lr8Mt2P5P8 B122(i.l. u.l.)Cs3Es2Es3 As(pacch-)  : pachinus Lr2M2(per comp., cf. 727)N(a.c.) : pacînos Gf(a.c.)  : pacînus AbCFGHdLr4Lr6Lr7O3V4Vd GoP10So P28 Es6Lr22Lu2   Gf(p.c.)  : bachinos S2  : bachios T  : phacinus B3  : pâchînos B4Dr  : pulchinnos B5  : bachînus L4(fort. –os a.c.)  : pachonos Lr3  : bachios Tu  : phachînos V6  : pachynus Ld3 P38  : pachinnus A4FeLsPh2V8V9 B8Cs2Ds2 B12BoMc P41  : panchinos Mo3  : pacchinius B14 • ad austros] ad arctos Fe(mg. corr. Fe2)  : ad haustros Hd(adhaustros)O3 Cs3Es3 P41  : haustros Bo  : adustros Tu(a.c.)  : ad astros V7  : ab austros Ab(a.c.)  : in austros Mo3  : ad astra Lr8(ex itin. corr.)  : adustis F2  : quid Gf a.c. n.l. • 726–727 inu. ord. V5(a.c.) • 726 hunc u. om. Li3 • expositum] expositum est N2O4 Ld6Sp  : impositum est A3H2V6  : impositus Mo3 Mc2(p.c.)  : est positum Lu2(p.c.; expositum Lu) Ph2(a.c.)  : est positus Ph2(p.c. a m.p.)  : est expositum P10  : expositus Ld2Tr B8(p.c.; quid a.c. n.l.)Mt3V16 B12 Es3(p.c.)  : expositis Mt P8 Es3  : exposita So  : exposita est G Mt4  : expesitus P41 • Zeph(y/i)ris] zepheris H3 F2  : zeferis P10  : zephirus Mt B12(a.c.)  : uentis O3  : zephiros Ph2(a.c.)  : hephiris V7  : zefiris V8 Cv  : çephiris Lr8  : zepheros P8(a.c.)  : lepheris Rd  : cephiris P41 • Lil(y/i)b(a)eon] liliueon M Lr27  : lelibeon AS2 Vd Cs2  : lilibenon B4  : libeon Ls Mt2(a.c.) Bo B14F2  : lylibeon Ld2O3  : lilibeus Ph2(a.c.)TrV4 B8(p.c.)P5 P41  : lylibeus Mo3  : lilibeos DsSo B12(p.c.)Bo2(uid., a.c.)McMt4  : libeus B12(a.c.)  : libeos Ft • ad] at dub. Heinsius 1659, prob. Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Merkel 1850, Riese 1872, Simmons 1889, H-K-E 1898, Fink 2007 • Ar(c)t(h)os] arcton HdV4 Bs4Ds B12, “Rhen.”(arctos hab. Tu) test. Jahn 1832, prob. Heinsius 1659(qui “Oxon. et quinque alii” test.; -os 1652), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Merkel 1850  : archton Lr6  : arton Es3Mt4  : arcus A4  : artus Rd  : arcos L4(a.c.)  : artchos V6 • 727 hunc u. om. Tu • (a)equoris] equores B2(a.c.)  : exquoris L4  : equoribus O  : equoreis Lr8 • expertes spectat] expertus spectat MN(a.c.) Lr27  : expertem spectat HdLr6V4 Ds B12Es3 Es5, prob. Heinsius 1659(qui “Oxon. et quinque alii” test.; -es 1652), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Merkel 1850  : expertem expectat Es3  : expertos spectabat Lr3  : expertes spectant F Ft Ps  : expertos spectant Mc • expertes] expertos A Lr3 Mc  : expartes Es2 P41 • Boreanque]



Appendix critica

503

boreamque MNV3 A4B5DrGgLdLd2Lr7O4Ph2V9Vd B8Cs2DsDs2Lr8Mo3P10SpV16 BoBo2Es2FtMt5P28To2 AsB14Bo3Es6F2Lr27P38P41V30Vd11  : per comp. -ā scr. AGfL3Lr2LuM2P2(uid.)TV2 A3AbB2B3B4BaBe2CEFFeGH3HdL4Ld3(borere- a.c.)Lr4Lr6LsMoN2OO3P4TrV4V6V7V8 GoMt2P5P8SoTo B12Mt4(p.c.)Rd CvEs4Es5Lr22Lu2Ps  : q3 Ld6  : borreâque Es3Mc  : boreasque Mt4(a.c.)  : boriamq3 Calder. 1477 • Peloros] pelorus Gf(per comp. pelor’)Lr2M22(-os M2)N(a.c.)P2(-os a.c.) A3A4B4B5(a.c.)BaCDrEFeGGg(a.c.)HdL4(uid., a.c.)LdLd3Lr4Lr6Lr7O4Ph2TrV4V7V8V9 B8Cs2Ds2GoMo3P5P8P10SoSpV16 B12Bo2Cs3Es3(-os a.c.)Mt4Mt5P28Vt AsB14(-os a.c.)Es4Es6F2Lr22Lu2P38P41V30  : peloras Ab  : peleorus B3(a.c.)  : pelerus Be2  : pelores Ls  : poloris Mt  : peloris Ld6  : polorus Vd  : poloros Z(a.c.)  : ad pelorus Ds  : pelorû Es2, mg. test. Bersm. 1596 • 728 hunc u. om. Sp(mg. suppl. m.p.) • hac L3Lu2(i.l. u.l.)MNV3 A42(mg. u.l.)B4Be2C(a.c.)EGgH2L4Ld3O3P3P4V4V6V8 Bs32DsLr82(i.l. u.l.)Mt2 B12Bo2(a.c.)Es2Mc(p.c.) Es3Lr22Lr27V30Vd11 Mo9, “Rhen.”(sed hec hab. Tu) test. Jahn 1832, Aler. 1471, Heinsius 1659, edd.  : hanc ALr2M2(p.c.)S2V2 A3B2B3BaC(p.c.)DrGH3Ld(i.l. u.l.)Ld2Lr7Ph2­ V5V7Vd Bs2(mg. u.l.)Ld6Mo3Mt3P5SoSp Bo22(p.c.)Cs3Es3FtMc(a.c.)Mt5To2 AsBo3CvEs5Es6Lu2P38Ps, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1652, Weise 1845, Koch 1866  : h(a)ec P2(per comp.)T B52(p.c., quid a.c. n.l.)Lr3N2Tu Es4F2Z, “tres” test. Heinsius 1659  : huc Gf(uid.)P2(u.l. mg.) FeHdLdLr4LsMoO4 Bs2Cs2GoV16 BoP28RdVt B14, “Oxon.  … aliique decem” test. Heinsius 1659, prob. Hopkinson 2000  : hunc Lu AbFLr6V9 Ds2P8To Mt4 P41, “septem” test. Heinsius 1659, dub. Fabbri 1923(in app.)  : huic A4, def. Heinsius(in notis)  : hic O Lr8, “quatuor” test. Heinsius 1659  : haut B8  : huuc P10 • subeunt] equoris L4(corr. L42)  : subiint Ld2(corr. Ld22)  : suberant Lr3V4(a.c.)  : subent Tu(a.c.)  : suberunt Ld6(a.c.)  : subeant Es3 • Teucri] teuri B5(a.c.)  : tiucri Tu(a.c.)  : teucrique B8  : treucri Ds(teucri a.c.)  : teneri Ld6 • et] om. Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Weise 1845, Koch 1866 • (a)estuque] ęstu M2(a.c.)  : estu Tu  : extuque Bo  : exituque Es6 : uentoque Mc P41 • 729 hunc u. om. Ab • sub noctem] sub nocte L3(a.c.) Lr8 McRd V30  : subnocte Aler. 1471 • potitur] patitur M Gg(a.c.) Lr27  : ponitur Ft  : portû Mc  : petitur Lu2 • Zancl(a)ea] zancleam M Mo Lr27  : zâmclea L3  : zamclea N(-am uid. a.c.)  : zauclea V6  : zanchea V2 OP3 Ft Bo3(a.c.)   : zandea GfLr2S2T B42(mg.)B52(p.c.)BaGH3HdLdLr6N2O3O4Tu2(uid., p.c.)V4(p.c.)V5V7V9 Cs2DsGoMo3Mt2SpTo P28Vt AsCvLu2PsV30Vd11  : zandaea Go  : zanelea Lu(corr. Lu2) B4 Mt5  : zandrea A3V4(a.c.)  : zanthea FeVd Es6  : zancea Ds2(a.c.)  : zanaea P8  : zaudea P10  : zanchlea Bo3(p.c.)  : gandea A  : câdea Bo(mg. u.l. a m.p.)  : canalea Gg(corr. Gg2)  : çanclea Lr8  : çeclea Mc  : sandea Lr7 Z  : xanclea Lr4  : ceneia B8  : cumea P41  : antea B5(a.c.)  : anclea Ld6  : andea Li3 Bo2(uid., a.c.)  : handea Tu  : et anthea Es2  : et andea Rd  : et anclea B14  : et anchlea Go2 • classis] clasis V3 B3(a.c.) Ds2 • • 730 Sc(y/i)lla] silla L3Lr2 GH3Lr3Lr7V4 Lr8To Bo2FtMt5 Bo3Es4Lu2  : sylla MoO3 B12 Mv7  : cilla A4  : sclla Tu(a.c.) • dextrum laeuum] inu. ord. V9 • dextrum] destrum Lr7 Mc Es4P41  : dextros Ps • l(a)euum] leua T  : leuumque B4 Mc  : leum G • inrequieta] in requieta Lr7 Ds Rd Cv  : inrequietum Tu  : implicata Es3  : implacata “Medic. unus” test. Heinsius (“forte pro impacata”); cf. Verg. Aen. 3.420  : inrequiera Calph. 1480  : om. Mt5 • C(h)ar(y/i)bdis] caripdis BaTu Ld6 As(a.c.)  : carimbdis V9  : carebdî Ds • 731 hunc u. om. O3(mg. suppl. m.p.) • infestat] infestant GfLuL3M2S2TV3 A3A4AbBe2DrEFGH2L4LdLd2(a.c.)Lr3(a.c.)Lr7LsOO4Ph2TuV4V5V9 DsDs2GoMo3Mt2(uid., a.c.)P8SpTo Bo2(a.c.)Cs3Es2RdVt B14Es3Es5Lr22P38P41PsV30, Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Merkel 1850, Koch 1866, Fink 2007  : infestas Mt • uorat haec] uorantque Es2  : uoratque Es6 • uorat] norat Pr  : uocat Bo2(a.c., et mg. u.l. Bo22) Bo3(a.c.)  :

504

Appendix critica

uorant Rd • haec] illa Mt4 • reuomitque] remouitque MN(a.c.) AbFH2OO3V7V9(a.c.) B7V16(a.c.) RdVt(a.c.) Lr27, Walch. 1731(corr. 1739)  : remouetque P2(reuomitque mg. u.l.)T V6 To2  : remouet M2(corr. M22)  : remotque Ps  : uomitque B4(corr. B42) Es4(a.c.)  : reuouitque Pr Bo3F2  : reuomit H3 B8(a.c.)  : remomitque L4(a.c.)  : reuometque Tu  : euomitque Ld3  : reuomuntque Es2  : rem uid. incoh. Vd(ex itin. corr.) • carinas] uotis Pr • post carinas interrog. signum pos. Burm. 1713(an uitio preli?) • 732 illa] scilla V7(illa i.l. u.l. V72) P5  : scylla Ld3, Polle 1888 • feris] ferus B5  : ferum De  : rescit Gg(a.c.) • atram canibus] inu. ord. Mo3 Rd • atram] trâ L3( superiectam L32)  : antram A4(a.c.) Es2  : atrum MtV5(a.c.) B12Mt4  : actam To2  : imam Bs3(mg. u.l.) • canibus succingitur] inu. ord. P5(a.c.)  : succingit canibus Lr2 Lu2 • su(c/b)cingitur] succingit Lr2 Lu2  : subcinditur O3P3(succ-)  : sucingitur V6 Bo • aluum] ab dim Mt  : allium P8  : alnum Cs3 • 733–753 post gerens (733) desinit m.p. in Tu; reliquos uu. scr. Tu* • 733 ora] ore MN(a.c.) Ge Lr27  : apta Mt • et] om. A4(a.c.) Es3 • si non] sine Li3 Mc(a.c.) • si] om. Ab(a.c.) • omnia uates] inu. ord. Mt3 • 734 reliquerunt] relinquerunt AM2 B3(a.c.)B5(a.c.)H2(a.c.)MtO4PrV6 Es2 • quoque] tum B12  : om. Es2 • tempore] tempora Ld(a.c.) P8Sp • 735 hunc u. iter. Es5 • hanc] han Ld(a.c.) • multi  … proci] peciere proci multi O3 • petiere] petieret(uid.) Vd • proci] uiri P3 Sp B12 Es6  : quid Bo2 a.c. n.l. • quibus] quis B4(a.c.) • repulsis] repullis Ab  : relictis Ds Mc P41 • illa repulsis ob paginae ras. i.l. scr. V3 • 736 ad] at Rd • pelagi Nymphas] inu. ord. Dr CvPs • pelagi1] pelasgi L4  : pelagis Pr • n(y/i)mphas] nimphos B5  : limphas P10 • pelagi2] palagi B2Ld • gratissima] notissima Mt3(a.c.) • Nymphis] nympha M Mo Lr27  : ninfis ob paginae ras. mg. add. V32 • 737 hunc u. om. Mt • elusos] delusos Ab(a.c.)  : eliesos Be2  : elisos Gg(a.c.)Vd Ds2(a.c.) Es2  : exclusos V6  : eleusos B7(a.c.)  : illusos B8  : expulsos V16  : ellusos Bo2Cs3Ft  : ellisos Rd  : eulsos P41  : deest in Ls • iuuenum] iuuenô V9  : hominum Ds • narrabat] iactabat Hd(p.c.)  : narabat Bo3 • amores] amares V3 • 738 quam dum] dudum P3(corr. P32) • quam] cui Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Ciof. 1575, Bersm. 1596, Merkel 1850, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Riese 1889(quam 1872), Simmons 1889, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Ehwald 1915, van Proosdij 1951, H-K-E-A 1966, Goold 1984, R. de Verger 2005 • dum] cum P2  : de Bs3(a.c.) • pectendos] plectendos A(a.c.)  : plectendas Lr7  : pettendos M  : petendos V3(a.c.) B5O3 Ld6Mo3To(a.c.) Bo2(a.c.)  : spectandos OVd V10(a.c.) Bs7(cum lit. damn.), Lugd. 1546(mg.)  : spectendos B7(a.c.)V10(p.c.)  : pectandos Pr, Calph. 1480  : pexandos prop. Heinsius(in notis) • pr(a)ebet] praeber Ab(a.c.)  : praebea Pr • Galat(h)ea] galeatea Sp(a.c.) • capillos] capil[ V3 • 739 talibus] tallibus Lr2 Ld2V7V8 Mo3To Mv7 • a(d/l)loquitur] aloquitur Hd(a.c.)Ld3OVd Ld6 Bo  : adloquimur Mt  : alloquens Es3 • dictis post alloquitur scr. B2(a.c.) • repetens Aler. 1471, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Merkel 1850, Koch 1866, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Riese 1889, Simmons 1889, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, van Proosdij 1951, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005  : referens Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Ciof. 1575, Bersm. 1596, Riese 1872, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Fink 2007 • suspiria] suspiriaq3 Mt • dictis] dixit Ld2(corr. Ld22); cf. 2.125 • • 740 Te] me Ld2(a.c.)  : Ne P4  : E P41 • tamen] non S2  : quoque B4(tamen B42) • o uirgo] enrigo B7 • genus] gentes Vd(a.c.)  : genus genus Ft • haud] haut AGfM2S2T A3A4B2B3B4B5Be2CDrGgH2Hd(p.c.)L4LdLd2Ld3Lr6Lr7LsOO3O42(p.c.)P32Ph2PrTu*V4V6V8V9Vd B7B8Cs2Ds2EtGoLd6Lr8(a.c.)Mo3Mt2P5So2(p.c.)Sp Mt4(a.c.)Rd, H-K-E-A 1966, Goold 1984  : aud Lr2(a.c.) H3(a.c.)N2  : aut AbHd(a.c.)O4(a.c.)V7 Li3So(a.c.) Es2FtMc(a.c.) Es4  : est P3  : o Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472 • i(m/n)mite] inmitte AbB4B5BaBe2FeGgHd(a.c.)Ld3O3O4P4Ph2(a.c.)V7(p.c.) GoMt2P5P8 Mt4(a.c.)P28Rd  : imitte Pr  : immitte V8  : mitte V7(a.c.) • uirorum] deorum Mt3(a.c.) • 741 expetit] te cupis Dr  : expectit Ph2 • utque] utique V3 • facis] facies Lr7  : facit Mt • potes his] inu. ord. B3 • potes] om. Ld3 • hi(i)s] hic G(a.c.)  :



Appendix critica

505

en “Sixi” test. Burm. 1727  : om. V16(a.c.) Bo • i(m/n)pune] î pugne V6V7(a.c.)Vd  : inpugne B8Ds2Mo3 • negare] negari Lu2(p.c.)V2 A42(mg. u.l.)B3B5GgHdLd3Lr4Lr6OO3O4(p.c.)P4PrV4V6V7V8 B72(u.l. a.c.)B8EtGoLd6Lr8Mo3Mt2Mt3So B12BoBo2(a.c.)Cs3Mt4Mt5P28Vt Es3Es6Ps  : negar Ba  : negere Be2(p.c.)  : loquentis B7(a.c.)  : morari “unus” test. Burm. 1727 • 742–745 om. B7(mg. suppl. m.p.) • 742 at] ast To • cui] cum S2  : tibi Mt • pater … Nereus] nereus pater est P10So • est] om. A PrVd(a.c.) Ft Ps • quam] cui Gf(ex itin. corr.) B4  : quem S2 A3B2(a.c.)V4 Mo3 Ft Es5  : qua Li3 • c(a)erula] credula Bo3(a.c.)  : cedula Bo3(p.c.) • Doris] cecis B52(mg.)  : doris doris Lr7(a.c.)  : mater Bo22(doris mg. u.l.; quid eras. Bo2 a.c. n.l.)  : doloris Rd(ex itin. corr.) • 743 enixa est] enixa A  : exnisa(uid.) est L3  : enisa(enixa p.alt.c. L32) est L32(p.p.c.) Mc  : enixa est et B3  : est mater B4(enixa est mg. B42) • quae] quam Rd • sum] sine B5(p.c. uid.)  : sub Ds  : sunt P41  : om. V7(a.c.) Es3 • turba … tuta] quoque turba tuta DrLdLsP4V4 B7Mt3 Es2Es3Mc B14Es3  : quoque tuta turba Cs2  : turba turta quoque V7  : turba quoque Mv7 • quoque] queq3 V5(a.c.) • tuta] cuncta Mt • sororum] suorum L4(corr. L42) Rd  : sorororum N2 • 744 hunc u. om. Pr • non nisi] non mihi Gf Es4  : nam P3(corr. P32) • non] nec C  : nom Ft • C(y/i)clopis] cliclopis N Lr6(a.c.)  : tyclopis V3(uid.)  : cicropis V6V7 Ld6  : cydopis Venet. 1472 • amorem] amarem Gg(a.c.) • 745 hunc u. om. O3(mg. suppl. m.p.) • lacrimae uocem] inu. ord. CvPs • uocem] uoces Mo3 • impediere] impleuere Lr3V4 Mt3 B12Es3 Es3  : impedire L3(a.c.)Lu(a.c.) Lr7PrV5(a.c.) Ds2(a.c.)So Lr22P41V30, Aler. 1471  : tenuere P5(ex itin. corr.) • 746 quas] quis B5Ld(a.c.)  : qua Mt • ubi] cum S2  : sibi Mt P10(ubi u.l. P102)  : dum V4 Bo22(p.c.) Es3 • marmoreo] marmareo T Ph2  : marmoreos P28(a.c.) • detersit] deteresit N(p.c.)  : detexit P2(a.c.)  : decessit Ph2(a.c.)  : decerpsit Et Lr27  : detesto Mt  : deduxit Mt4  : detrusit P41 • pol(l)ice] pellice F2  : pollicice L4  : polli Mo(a.c.) • 747 solata] solita Ba(a.c.)  : sola Ld6 • deam] dea B5EH3Lr7 Li3 Bo2(p.c.) Mv7  : dietâ(uid.) Bo2(a.c.)  : deam deam Es2(a.c.)  : deum Rd • est] esse(per comp.) M(a.c.)  : om. A MtV6V9 Ds2 Mt4 • conatur(uid.) per comp. supra est scr. S22 • refer o] refer M(p.c.) B5 Lr27  : refert M(a.c.) Bo2(a.c.)  : refero Gf(a.c.) Mt  : o Mo(a.c. a m.p.)  : reffero Es2Rd  : refert o Ft  : de Tu* n.l. • c(h)arissima] gratissima Lr2 B3B4(carissima mg. B42)CHd(a.c.)Ld3Lr4Lr6O4V8 B8DsEtP8 BoMt4P28 Lu2P38, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502  : clarissima OV4(p.c.) Ld6 Es2 Vd11, “Iunian.[non sic Et] et tres alii” test. Burm. 1727  : carissime V30  : de Tu* n.l. • 748 hunc u. om. L4(mg. scr. coaeua m.) • neue tui] ne uetui O, Calph. 1480  : neu tui Pr • tui] tuam L3 Lr7  : tuae M(uel -â, a.c.) Bo3  : tamen(per comp.) Ls B14  : om. B5 • causam … sum] desunt in Tu* propter foramen • causam] culpam V4(causam V42) Mt3 B12(causam i.l. u.l. B122) Es3 • tege] ege Ft • fida] causa(per comp.) Mt Mt2(ex itin. corr.)  : fide Bo2(a.c.) • doloris] sorori MN(uid., a.c.) O Bo3Lr27  : soro C(a.c.)  : sororis Vd(a.c.) Mt3(a.c.)  : dolori Vd11  : s post fida scr. Mt4(ex itin. damn.) • 749 Nereis] Nereiis Mt4(a.c.) • his contra] contra is B5  : excontra Gg  : circum(per comp.) Lr3  : his(i.l.) circum Lr32 • hi(i)s] is Sp Mc  : hic Walch. 1731  : ab is Z(a.c.)  : om. Ld3 • contra] qua Mt  : econtra Lr8  : cûtra Vd(ut solet) • resecuta … est] resecuta … nata est L3 B5Ph2 Es6  : resecuta  … nata M(natam est a.c.)T Rd Lr27  : resecuta(resecutâ Lu2) est  … natam Lr2M2V2 B52(mg.) To2 Lu2  : est resecuta … natam AbTrV9 B8Cs2 Es4  : resecuta … natam B2B3B4BaFeLd2MtOPrV8Vd GoLr8Mt2SoSp B12FtMt4 F2Vd11, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843  : resecutaque tetide natam Mc  : secuta gratheyde natam Mo3  : est resequutaque tracide natus P41  : recusata … natam est Li3 V30, Aler. 1471  : desunt in Lr22 • resecuta] resequta V3 P3V4(a.c.)  : resuquta A4(a.c.)  : resequuta A4(p.c.)H2V4(p.c.)  : recusata Li3 V30, Aler. 1471  : secuta M2(a.c.) O3(a.c.) Mo3  : est resequutaque P41  : quid N a.c. n.l. (re- i.ras.) • Crataeide] grat(h)eide Ω  : gratheude L3M2(p.c.)  : grathetide M2(uid., a.c.) Tr  : gratetide V8  : gratheyde Ph2 Mo3  : grateyde So  : graceyde B8  : gratheidæ B4Ba  : gratheride Vd  : gracheide Es5  : gateide Bo2(a.c.)  : grateida A MtPr Mt4 V30  : gratheida V9 Mt5  : grathedida Ab  : grathide Lr3  : gratide H3  : grachide Mv7  : gradetide Lr6  : grâteida V7  : grathayde Ld3V4  : garautide O4  : garantide B12  : galantide B3GgLdLd22(i.l. p.u.l.)P4Ph22(mg. u.l.) Lr8Mt2Sp Es6  : galatide Ls B14  : galatheide Ld22(i.l. alt.u.l.)  : glatacide B5  :

506

Appendix critica

glareyde Es2  : thetide V2  : tetide B52 Mc  : teide Li3  : tracide P41  : natheide To  : quid N a.c. n.l. (gra- i.ras.) • natam] notam Hd(a.c.)  : nimpham Ab(natam i.l. u.l. Ab2)  : grat natam To  : nata L3M(p.c.)N(a.c.)T B5Ph2 Rd Es6Lr27  : natta B5  : natus P41 • • 750–751 inu. ord. V6 • 750 hunc u. om. B2(mg. suppl. coaeua m.) • Ac(h)is] accis A4(a.c.)  : alcis C  : anchis Ld2(a.c.)  : actis V7Vd  : athis V9 P5 • erat] ait Vd • Fauno nymphaque] nîpha Gf(a.c.)  : fauno nympha(nîpha B8Cs2) E B8Cs2  : fauno nimpheque Ld(a.c.) • Fauno] fauuo V6  : faño Ld3  : phauno Es6 • nymphaque] nimphique Ld2(a.c.)  : nimphamque Ds(a.c.)  : niphaque Ld6 • Symaethide cretus] semeia discretus Mt • Sym(a)ethide] simetide L3Lr2 Mc(p.c.)  : simethide LuMP2TV3 recc.  : sumethide N(p.c., quid a.c. n.l.) P8  : simechide GfV2  : simenide A  : symethede M2(a.c.)  : semetide S2 B4(simethide mg. B42)L4LsV42(p.c.)V6V7V8V9 Lr8 B12Es2(si- p.c.) B14  : sinethide Be2  : simhetide H2  : simetride Ld Mt5 Es5  : simecride Rd  : timetide O  : semethide G  : semetidæ H3  : semetide P41  : semethyde Mo3  : scymetide Ph2  : simitide(uid.) Tu* Vt  : si me tetide Mc(a.c.)  : semide V4(a.c.)  : semeide Vd(a.c.)  : semeride Vd(p.c.)  : semechide Ds2(si- p.c.) Es4  : crebenide Ft(symethide mg. u.l.)  : Simœtite Walch. 1731 • cretus] cetus S2(a.c.)  : natus B22(mg.; cretus i.l. u.l.)BaFH2Ls2(mg. u.l.)O4 Mo3  : crectus Ls(a.c.)  : creatus(ut glossema mg. scr. e.  g. Ld22V5) P28 • 751 magna] mangna Mt4 • sui] fui M(p.c.) Ab Mo3Lr27  : fuit M(a.c.) Ft Lr22Lr27(a.c.)P41V30, Aler. 1471  : suę Lr2 • uoluptas] uoluntas A B3FLr3O(uoluptas mg. u.l. O2)V6 As(a.c.)  : uolutas Ld2(a.c.)  : uolutat Vd  : uolûptas Ph2 Mt4 • 752 hunc u. om. Bo • tamen] quidem Cs3(a.c.) • me sibi] se tibi B5  : sibi N2 B12(a.c.) Es3  : se mihiTrV4(sibi uid., a.c.) Bo2(uid., a.c.), “tres libri” test. Burm. 1727, prob. Bothe 18182  : me Ft • sibi iunxerat] subuincerat Mt  : uîserat Ft • iunxerat] uinxerat M L4Vd(a.c.) Bo2  : iuncxerat P2 Lr6  : coniunxerat DrV5  : iuxerat uel uixerat Lr8  : îuexat(uid.) Cs2  : iunxerunt Rd • uni] ipse V6  : unam P28 • 753 pulc(h)er] purcher Gg • octonis] octauis F(a.c.)  : actonis G(a.c.)  : octo V5(a.c. a m.p.)  : otonis Es2(a.c.)P28  : ottonis Lr22(a.c.)  : octenis Lu2Ps  : ostonis Calph. 1480  : quid Bo2 a.c. n.l. • iterum] circum Es5  : uerum Ps • natalibus] natabus V4(a.c.)  : nactalibus Lr7V5(uid. a.c.) To Es2 • actis] actus N(ille erat suprascr. N2; actis mg. u.l. N2) A3  : actibus Hd(a.c.)  : auctus Bs22(mg. u.l.)  : auctis Bs22(mg. alt.u.l.)  : actes Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472 • post 753 desin. Tu • 754 signarat] signabat AGf(sîg-)N(-arat uid., a.c., -b- i.ras.)V2V3 A3A4(-arat i.l. u.l. A42)B3B4B52(mg.)BaBe2DeDrEFGgH2LdLd2LsMtO3O4P3P4PrV5V8 B8Ds2Ld6Li3Mo3Mt2P8P10SoSp BoCs3(ex itin. corr.)McTo2 B14CvEs5Es6F2P41PsZ, Plan.  : signorauit B5  : signarat a Lr3  : signauerat V7  : quid Mv7 n.l. • teneras] tenues C(teneras i.l. u.l.)  : tenebras G(a.c.)  : teneros Pr  : teners V4(tene__s a.c.) • lanugine] lamigine Ab  : labigine Mt  : lanigine Mo3  : lanugene Bo2(a.c.)  : quid B5 a.c. n.l. • 755 hunc] hunc mihimet(uid.) B2  : nunc B5  : hanc Mo3  : huc P28 • me] quae B5  : te Ds2(me Ds22)Li3  : om. H3N2(i.l. N22) As(a.c. a m.p.) • me Cyclops] meci clops Ba(a.c.)V5(p.c.)  : quid V5 a.c. n.l. • C(y/i)clops] clops L3(a.c.)  : ciclobs H3  : cilops Ld(a.c.)  : cilpes(uid.) P3  : ciclopes P32(p.c.)  : cyclpos Ph2  : cyplos Ds2  : cychlos P5  : ciclopos Ft  : ciclopis Ps(a.c.) • nulla cum] cum nullo GgLsP4 Mt2 Bo2 B14  : nullo sine So  : nullo Es3(a.c.) • nulla Merkel 1850, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007  : nullo Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Koch 1866, Riese 1889, van Proosdij 1951 • cum fine] côfine H3(a.c.)  : sine fine So  : cû fratre(per comp.) Mc(a.c.) • petebat] petebâ B3Lr4P3  : patebat Gg  : placebat Mt  : tenebat B14 • 756 si] nisi Pr  : tu P4 F2Z • quaesieris] quesierit Mt  : quesiueris To • odium … amorne] odium ne ciclopis odium ue F2  : aut odium cyclopus amorne P5 • odium] hodium B3 • C(y/i)clopis] ciclops M(a.c.) • amorne] amores M(uid., a.c.)  : amorue GfM2(a.c.) A4B2B3B4(corr. B42)B5Be2CDrF(a.c.)FeH2Ld2Lr7Ls(uid.)N2O3O4P3PrV6Vd B8Ld6Lr8P8SoSpToV16



Appendix critica

507

Cs3Es2FtMcMt5 CvEs3Es6Lu2P41, Naug. 1516, Bersm. 1596  : utrum in OV5(a.c.) n.l.: amore S2(mg. u.l. a m.p.) Mo3 Lr27(a.c.)  : amor Ds(p.c.; quid a.c. n.l.)  : quid N a.c. (amorne i.ras.) n.l. • 757 Ac(c)idis] anois Dr  : accidit Lr7 Rd(a.c.) V30 • in] in o B2(a.c.)  : an B4 • nobis] uobis C Ft • fuerit] fuerat FeV5V7V8Vd  : furit Bo2Ft Mv7(a.c.) • praesentior Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Weise 1845, Merkel 1850, Koch 1866, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, van Proosdij 1951, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007  : praestantior Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Jahn 1832, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, Breitenbach 1964 • edam] ed’ei(uid.) Gf(a.c.)  : eadem B5 V30 • 758–787 om. Lr7 propter homoeoarchon  : hos uu., post 715 perperam scriptos, hic iter. Cs3 • 758 par] par et B5V6V7  : inter Pr • fuit post par scr. Cs3(in uersu suo loco scripto) sed ex itin. cum lit. corr. • fuit pro] prohibet De • pro(h)] phro A4  : pro non Mt  : post Pr  : proht B8  : prohc Ds  : proch Sp V30  : prho Bo • quanta] tanta Gf(a.c.)Lu(a.c.) V9  : quanto Bothe 18182 • potentia] potencia AGfV2 Ds2(p.c. a m.p.)  : potencior Ds2(a.c.)  : licentia Gg Mt4 • regni] magni A4(a.c.)  : fati Ld3  : môdi Ld32(i.l. u.l.) • 759 alma] o alma Hd  : alta Bo2(a.c.)  : om. B12(a.c. a m.p.) • post tui interrog. signum pos. Aler. 1471 • nempe] nampe Be2  : nêpte G  : mempe Regius 1493 • ille] est V4  : ipse Lr22V30, Aler. 1471  : om. Ld2V6 • i(m/n)mitis] inmi tis V2(a.c.)  : îmittis Lu Be2GgLd3V8 Mt2 : inmittis T Ph2(a.c.)  : immittis O42(p.c.)  : mittis O4(a.c.)  : îuitis Ab : sonctis Mt • et] om. Ft(a.c.) • ipsis] ipsi P2(a.c.)  : illis FeLr3 P10So • • 760 horrendus] horrendu P2(a.c.)  : orrendus F(a.c.) Lr8  : horendus N2Ph2 To2  : hortendus V5 • siluis] filiis V5(a.c.)  : nymphis V9(nin-; siluis i.l. u.l. V93), “fragm. Moreti” test. Heinsius • et … nullo] nulloque ab hospite uisus Go2 • et] om. Cv(a.c.) • uisus] usus N(a.c.)  : uissus M2(a.c.) O3 To2(a.c.) • hospite] hospete Gf  : ospite Ba(a.c.)V5 • nullo] nullo est N Ph2 Cs2  : nulluo Vd(a.c.) • 761 i(m/n)pune] inpene A4(a.c.)  : inpugne B5V6V7 Ds2(î pugne)P10  : impugne CMtVd B8Mo3 • et] om. V6V7 • magni … dis] cum diis magni P5 • magni] magnis P8, dub. Burm. 1727(in notis), Baumg.-Crus. 1834(in notis)  : mag(sic) To(a.c.) • cum dis] cundis P28 • cum] est Dr • contemptor] conte’ntor V2  : ĉtentor S2  : et(per comp.) têptor Ab  : et(per comp.) Rd  : temptator V8(corr. V82)  : cōptor Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472 • Ol(y/i)mpi] alûpni A(corr. A2)Gf(olimpi i.l. Gf2)  : olimphi A3B3B5LsPrV7 • 762 quid] quis Mo3 • sit amor] siamar Ba(a.c.) • sit post amor iter. Ab(ex itin. corr.) • sentit nostrique] sensitque nostri Lr2(a.c.) Lu2 • sentit Ω, edd.  : sentis Es6  : sensit Lr2MM2N(sentit a.c. a m.p. et item i.l. u.l. N2)P2(sentit a.c.)S2 A4B4B5BaDr2(sentit Dr)FeL4Ld2(i.l. u.l.)Ld3Lr4Lr6MoMtN2Ph2V5V6V7V8Vd Mo3 Mt4 Bo3CvLr27Lu2, Plan., Riese 1872, H-K-E 1898, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983  : de T n.l. • nostrique Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Merkel 1850, Koch 1866, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Anderson 1982, Hill 2000, R. de Verger 2005  : ualidaque Riese 1872, Merkel 1875, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, Fink 2007 • cupidine captus] quoque captus amore B2 • cupidine] cupide O : cupidite(uid.) V5(a.c.) • captus] pectus S2 : tactus GgLr4 Cs2 To2 Es4, “alii” test. Burm. 1727, prob. Bothe 18182  : raptus “quidam” test. Burm. 1727 • 763 uritur] urit Lr8(uritur i.l. u.l. Lr82)  : urritur Es2 • oblitus] oblictus B8  : oblitis Calph. 1480 • pecorum antrorumque] pecorum armentorumque Gf Fe : pecorum aruorumque Ab : nemorum pecorumque Mt3  : nemorum antrorumque Go2  : pecoris antrorumque P10So  :

508

Appendix critica

pectorum antrorumque To  • pecorum] pecorumque B3  : peccorum A3BaFeHdLs(a.c.)  : pecorum et Lu2 • antrorumque] atrorumque Ds  : anstrorumque Go • 764 iamque1] iam V5 Mc  : iamque est Trepat-de Saav. 1932(lapsu calami) • tibi form(a)e] meae(per comp.) formae A  : mihi(per comp.) forme A3  : tue forme P3(a.c.)  : tibi magne Vd(a.c.)  : tibi fame Vd2(mg. p.c.)  : tibi fome G(a.c. a m.p.)  : sibi forme Ld6  : tibi est formae Li3 B12 Mv7 • iamque2] que A(a.c.)  : iam Lr2 A3 Cv(a.c.)Lu2  : iam quod Ph2(a.c.) • est tibi] inu. ord. Hd To2 P41  : tibi FP3(p.c.)V6 B12FtRd Es3  : adest tibi Bo3  : om. P3(tantum tibi suppl. p.c. a m.p.) • cura] curan Hd(a.c.)  : cû Ld6  : forma Mt3(cura i.l. Mt32) • placendi] placandi Es3Ps(a.c.) • 765–766 hos uu. om. Li3(ima pag. suppl. Li32)  : inu. ord. V7 • 765 hunc u. hunc u. om. T(ima pag. suppl. alia antiqua manus) • iam … rastris] iamque tuos rastis petis Mt • rigidos pectis] inu. ord. B2Fe Bo • rigidos] ridos T(a.c.) • pectis rastris] inu. ord. LdMt(supra)N2 • pectis] petis F(a.c.)Mt Ld6 Rd  : pectus Mc(a.c.) • rastris] rostris Ld  : rastis Mt  : rastros Ft • Pol(y/i)pheme] poliphoeme M(sic 772)  : ponipheme Ab  : poliphem B3(a.c.)  : popheme B4  : opolipheme C  : poliphemo De  : pollifeme Ph2  : polifene Ld6 • capillos] capillis Lr3(a.c.) • 766 hunc u. om. Pr B12(mg. suppl. m.p.) • iam] iamque P3 • libet] licet N G2(i.l. u.l.)MtV9(placet i.l.)  : libet libet L4(a.c.) Es2(a.c.)  : iubet Rd  : placet Ds2, “duo” test. Burm. 1727 • (h)irsutam] hirsitam B5  : hyrsutam B52(mg.)GgLr3 Bo2 F2Lr27  : yrsutam Lr6N2  : hisurtam Mt  : isurtam Vd  : hisrutam Ds2 • tibi falce] tibi false Ph2  : tibi farte Vd  : falcem Ft  : sibi falce Rd  : cum falce Ld7 Go2 • recidere] residere N(a.c.)  : recindere A A4B3B4CDeDrGgO3O4TrV6V7V8V9Vd B8Cs2Ds2Ld7Mo3P8So Mt4 As(a.c.)Ps  : rescindere Gf A3AbBaFeLd2Ls Mt2P5 Bo2 B14Es5F2 Mv7  : resindere Mc  : reɔdere Ld6  : recundere P41  : resides Rd  : reuellere B2  : cecidere F(a.c.)  : erecundam Mt • 767 et spectare] expectare Rd • et1] q3 V7 • feros] feras B2(a.c.)Dr(a.c.) F2  : foros Mo(a.c.) • in … uultus] uultusque componere in undam Mt3(p.c.) • aqua Gf(p.c.)Lr2M2P2S2T A3A4B2B3B4B5BaDrFGH2HdLdLr4Lr6MoO3Ph2V6V7V8V9Vd B8DsDs2GoLd6Mt2Mt3P8P10SoSpV16 Bo2Cs3Es3McMt4Mt5P28RdTo2 AsCvEs3Es4Es5F2Lu2P38P41Ps Mv7  : aquam AL3LuMNV2V3 AbBe2CDeEFeGgH3L4Ld2Ld3Lr3LsMtN2OO4P3P4PrV4V5 Cs2Lr8Mo3P5To B12BoEs2Ft B14Bo3Es6Go2Lr22Lr27V30Vd11 • et2] om. P2(a.c.) A4B3(a.c.)B5V6V7 SoSp • componere] compone Ba(a.c.) • uultus] uultus est Be2  : uulnus Pr • 768 feritasque] ferisque H3  : firitasque Ld(a.c.)  : feritas O4Pr • sitisque … cruoris] cruoris(coris a.c.) îmêsa sitisq3 F2Z • sitisque] sitis L3 MtOO3(a.c.)Pr Ld6 Es2(a.c.)McMt4 P41 Mv7, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472  : sitis sitisque Cs3(contra metrum, in uersu suo loco scripto: uid. ad 758–787)  : om. B2(mg. suppl. m.p.) • immensa] om. B4(a.c.) P8  : quid P10 a.c. n.l. • cruoris] cruore Mt • 769 hunc u. om. Sp(mg. suppl. m.p.) • cessant] cesserat C Mo3, “Medic. unus” test. Burm. 1727  : cessat V5 To Mc • et] om. O Mt4(a.c.) • tut(a)e] ture H3  : om. O3(mg. suppl. m.p.) • abeuntque] habeuntque A B3V6 Ld6 Lu2  : abeuntue Es4  : abiuntque A4(a.c.)  : adeuntque Bo2  : aberitque Mc • • 770–771 inu. ord. Lr2(a.c.) FLd(a.c.) • Telemus] telephus AGfL3Lr2LuMNS2TV2V3 A3A4B4Be2DeEH3Lr3Lr4Lr6MoMtN2P4Ph2PrTrV5V7V8(a.c.)V9 B8GoLd6Lr8SoSp BoEs2Mt5RdVt CvEs3Es4F2Go2Lr22Lu2Vd11Z Mv7, Plan. (Τήλεφος), Accurs. 1475  : Thelephus(sacerdos suprascr. M22) M2P2 AbB2CDrFGgH2L4Ld2Ld3LsOP3V4Vd Ds2Mo3P5P8 B12Bo2Cs3Es3 B14Es5Es6PsV30  : telaphus B3 Mt3 As(p.c.)  : telephus(sic To[p.c., tephus a.c.]V16[p.c., -pus a.c.]) … thelephus B5GO3 ToV16 P28  : telephus … telaphus Ba To2  : thelefus … telefus Fe  : Thelephus … Telephus HdO42 DsMt2P10  : Thelephus … Thelaphus Ld  : Thelaphus … Thelaphus V6  : telepus … telepus Ft  : Telefus … Thelephus Mc  : Thelephus … thelepus Mt4  : Thelaphus … Telaphus As(a.c.)  : Telaphus … Thelaphus Bo3  : Telofus … Telofus P41  : Thelephus … Thelefus Aler. 1471 • 770–774 ima pagina tribus lineis scr. V16 • 770 hunc u. om. H2O3(mg. suppl. m.p.)Ph2(mg. suppl. Ph23) Cs2Ds(mg. suppl. m.p. uel coaeua) • interea] in terra Lr2  : interrea Hd • Siculam … ad Aetnen(/-am) Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Bach 1836, Merkel 1850, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930,



Appendix critica

509

van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007  : Siculum … in aequor Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Koch 1866 • siculum] sicolum Mt  : sciculum V5 Mc  : syculum Ld3  : siclû So  : sicula P28 • delatus] dilatus A B5(corr. B52)Ld Lu2  : scelatus Mt  : delapsus P10  : dilapsus So  : delauis Calph. 1480 • 771 hunc u. om. MN(i.l. suppl. m.p.) O4(mg. O42)Pr V16(mg. V162) Lr27(mg. Lr27*) • Telemus] Thelaphus LdV6 Bo3  : telaphus Ba To2  : thelephus P2 CDrFGGgLd2O3P3(thephus a.c.) Ds2Mo3P8To B12Bo2Cs3Mc B14Es5PsV30   : telefus Fe  : telephus O42P4Ph2V8(a.c.)V9 B8DsGoLd6P10Sp BoRd Cv Mv7  : telophus Cs2  : thelepus Mt4 • Eurymides] erimedes L3 B42(mg.)Vd  : eridines N Mc(a.c.)  : euridimes AV2V3 A3A4B2(p.c.)Be2EFH2LdLd2LsO42P3P4V9 Mo3Mt2P8V162 B14Es6  : heuridimes To2  : eurimides Lr2M2(p.c.)P2 B2(a.c.)B3B4H3Lr6MoN2V6V8 Lr8 Es3Mt4P28Rd AsBo3CvEs4Lu2 Mv7  : eurimedes GfM2(a.c.): S2 AbB5FeGgL4Ld(i.l. u.l.)Lr3Lr4OPh2V4V5V7 DsGoTo BoBo2Vt F2Lr22P41V30Z   eurymedes Ld3 Lr27*(mg.)  : eurimetes Cs2  : eumerides Lu C  : eumenides Ld6  : eurumedes T  : eridimes Ba P10So  : eurudimes Dr  : euritidis De  : euritides Ds2  : eurimines G  : eurimenes Sp  : eurythides Es5  : erudes Hd(a.c.)  : erumides Hd(p.c.)  : eurinides O3 Ft Vd11  : eucrimedes B8  : erurimedes Li3  : herranides Cs3  : herramides Cs3(in uersu sua sede iterato)  : euridines P5 B12Es2Mc(p.c.)  : heurimodes Mt5  : euridemes Ps  : Eyrumidesvan Proosdij 1951(uitio preli) • quem] quam Es6 • nulla] om. Lr8(mg. suppl. m.p.)  : ulla F2 • fefel(l)erat] refellerat Be2  : fefellerit Vd  : fefellit Ld6  : feuellerat Rd • ales] etas Be2  : ades V5(a.c.)  : arte Rd(a.c.)  : auis Bo3  : quid ante ales ex itin. corr. P3 n.l. • 772 terribilem] terribelem M2(a.c.)  : terribilemque B4(a.c.)  : therribilem C  : terribilê et Dr(a.c.)  : teribilem O3 BoEs2Rd • Pol(y/i)phemon] poliphemû GfLr2(a.c.) N2V7 F2(-um)  : polifemû Mc  : poliplemon Lu(a.c.)  : polimphemon Bo3(a.c.)  : pomifemon Pr  : polipemon Ft  : polephemenon Rd  : poliphemenon B14  : polephomon P41 • adit] addit Ls(a.c.)N2(a.c.) Rd  : abit Es2(a.c.)  : om. Gg(a.c.)O3(i.l. O32)Pr Bo • lumenque] lumen V4(corr. V42) • quod] om. AbB2(a.c.)P4(a.c.) • unum] unum est A  : unde Pr • 773 fronte] fronto Ld  : frûte Vd • media] mea Be2(a.c.) • rapiet … Vlixes] ulixes rapiet tibi dixit B3(a.c.) • rapiet] rapiat P10 • dixit] dixet Ft(a.c.) • u. 776 post hunc u. hab. O4(a.c.) • 774 hunc u. denuo in noua pagina scr. V16 • risit … uatum] fronte geris media B5(cum lit. damn.; mg. corr. B52) • risit] rixit Hd(a.c.) Bo2 • o uatum] uatum Ls B14(a.c.) : ouantum N2  : ornatum O : o uatu Tr  : o uates V6V8 • stolidissime falleris] inu. ord. N2(a.c.) • stolidissime] stolidissima De  : stollidissime Fe Mt4P28 AsEs5  : stultissime Ph2 P8, “Moreti et duo alii” test. Burm. 1727  : celeberrime “Medic. Ambr. et Politiani” test. Burm. 1727 • falleris] fallerit P3  : fallis Mt • inquit] inquid TV2 AbLsO3V9Vd Ds Mt4 B14  : inquis Mt • 775 rapuit] patet(per comp.) Pr  : parapuit V5(a.c.) • sic] sed(per comp.) Mt2 • frustra] om. Ab  : frusta B3(a.c.) Ft • uera] uerba N(uera i.l. u.l. N2) O  : om. V5(a.c.) • monentem] mouentem A Dr(uid.)PrV6Vd DsSoSp FtMt5 Es3Es4PsVd11(a.c.)  : monuentem B8  : monente Li3  : loquentem Lr8(sed ex itin. corr.) BoBo2(monentem mg. u.l. Bo22)  : manentem Ds2, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472(corr. 1474)  : monetem Gg • 776 hunc u. post u. 773 hab. O4(a.c.) • et] om. Mt4(a.c.) • aut] o Dr(a.c.)  : ut O(aut mg. u.l. O2)  : haut Ld3 P8  : ad Pr  : aud Lr8(p.c.) • gradiens] gradus N(a.c.)  : gradines Es4  : g adiens Lr27 : gradies Calph. 1480 • ingenti] iugendi V5(a.c.) • passu] pasu A3  : om. Es2 • 777 aut] aud Lr8(p.c.; pro non i.l. Lr82) • fessus] fessis Fe(a.c.)  : fessos Lr4(a.c.) Ps  : fusus V16  : fexus To2 • opaca] opaco N2(i.l. u.l.)  : eppaca B5  : obpaca N2  : opacca Vd Mo3  : opacaca Ld3  : opa[_]ca So(p.c., quid a.c. n.l.)  : ocpaca B14  : arta Li3 • reuertitur] uertitur Lu V6Vd(corr. Vd2) Vt, “quinque libri” test. Burm. 1727  : reconditur V9, “Moreti” test. Burm. 1727 • 778 prominet] prorminet Ba(a.c.) Es2(a.c.)  : Imminet F2Z : âminet Mt  : eminet V6 : perminet P28(a.c.)  : pronum et Rd  : Rominet P41 • in pontum] in longum MN(a.c.) Bo3Lr22Lr27V30, “Medic. … duo alii” test. Burm. 1727, Aler. 1471  : in longo V8  : inponto A4  : inpositum V5  : impontum Gg Es2  : impromtum Ds(a.c.)  : in puntum P10(a.c.) • r ante cuneatus scr. Fe(a.c.) • cuneatus] curuatus A4(corr. A42)B2 Ld6 Bo2, “septem libri” test. Burm. 1727  : circumdatus uel cimentus (per comp.) Pr • ac(c)umine]

510

Appendix critica

flumine MN(a.c.) Bo3Lr27(acumine suprascr. Lr27*)  : in acumine Lr3  : aculmine P10(a.c.)  : agmine Mt5 • longo] longo est(uid.) N(a.c.)  : pontum V8 • 779 collis] mollis Pr • latus] om. L4(mg. suppl. L42) • circumfluit] circumfluat Ba(a.c.)  : circumfluet Es2 • • 780 huc] hunc AN(huc i.l. u.l. N2)V2 A3B3Be2C(collem suprascr.)DrFFeLd22(i.l. u.l.)MtO42(huc O4)V7 Ds2Mo3P5P10SoSp B12Bo2 Bo3CvEs5Go2Lr22PsV30 Mv7, “alii decem” test. Heinsius 1659, “plures” test. Burm. 1727, Aler. 1471  : hun A4(huc p.c.)  : huic Ab • ferus] tamen(per comp.) B12  : ferrus F2(a.c.) • ascendit] accendit A Ld(ascendit Ld2)Lr3(ascendit Lr32)P3 Mt2 Bo2 Es6  : acendit Ba(ascendit p.c. Ba2)  : accędit V3  : accedit Be2EGgH2Ld2(ascendit i.l. u.l. Ld22)LsO4P4V5V9 Ds2Go Cs3Es2Mt5To2 AsB14, “decem” test. Burm. 1727  : assedit O42(i.l. u.l.)  : accessit “unus” test. Burm. 1727 • C(y/i)clops] cicops Gf(a.c.)  : cyclos G(a.c.)  : ciclopsque Mo(a.c.)  : ciclos Mt5  : ciclopos Bo3(a.c.) • 781 hunc u. om. Pr • laniger(a)e] lanugerę M2(a.c.)  : lanugê Ab  : linigereque To  : lanifere To2 • pecudes] peciades Ab  : peccudes Ls  : pecudis Tr  : pedites(uid.) Es2(a.c.) • nullo] et nullo De  : nulla Sp  : mille uel nulle F2  : mille Z  : nulle Ld(a.c.) • ducente] ducentem F2Z  : cogente Mt3  : ductore P5 • secut(a)e] sequt(ę/e) V3(ut solet) A4Gg(p.c.)P3V4 Sp  : sequut(ę/e) BaH2 B12Mt5To2 Es6  : decute Ab  : secute sunt B3(a.c.)B5O42(secute O4)V6 DsP5(a.c.)  : seqête Gg(a.c.)  : sequentes De  : secuntur V7(secute a.c.) To  : sequuntur P41 • 782 cui] qui Be2(corr. Be22) : cuius V16(a.c.)  : quoi Mv7(ut semper) • pinus] pinum P3 • baculi … usum] quae praebuit usum baculi P3 • baculi] baculû Lu2(uid., a.c.)  : om. P3(a.c.) • qu(a)e] q3(sc. baculiq3) H3Pr So(a.c.) Mc(a.c.)P28To2, Aler. 1471  : quoque(per comp.) Lr22  : quem B3 Es3Lu2 • pr(a)ebuit] buit V5(a.c.)  : praebeat Ft • usum] usus B3 • 783 pedes] pedem Mc F2P41Z, “Argent. et Thysii” test. Burm. 1727  : om. Mt2(mg. suppl. Mt22) • posita est] posita O3(a.c.)PrVd Mt4(a.c.)  : iacuit V6 (cf. 11.13) • ante(m/n)(p)nis] aptêpnis Ab  : antepnis Ba  : auptênis C  : aptem Dr(a.c.)  : âptenis Dr(p.c.)  : anptênis Ld6  : auten-nis F  : atenis Gg(a.c.)  : antenis V6V7 Mt4  : apertunnis Pr  : autêpnis V8  : autempnis Sp  : antemus Hd  : antenius Mt • apta] acta V6 BoMcMt4 P41 • ferendis] ferendus Hd(a.c.) • apta ferendis suprascr. ob paginae ras. V3 • 784 sumptaque] sumpta S2(a.c.) Mt2  : suptaque V5V6  : sectaque Ds2(sumptaque i.l. u.l. Ds22) • compacta est] compactaque DeDrGO3P3 Es6  : compacta Pr  : conpicta est Ld6  : coniacta est Be2(a.c.)  : coniecta est Mt2  : congesta est Mt22(mg. u.l.)  : conspecta est Sp(a.c.)  : composita est Es2  : cû pacta est Rd  : coniunctaque Bs2, “Argent.” test. Heinsius  : compactis dub. Heinsius • centum] ·c· Fe  : septem Bentley • 785 hunc u. om. Lr2(mg. suppl. antiqua m.)T H2V6 Li3(mg. suppl. m.p.) Vd11 • senserunt] sumpsumpserunt(sic) O(mg. corr.)  : sense[ V3 ob paginae ras. • toti] cunti Pr  : om. P5 • pastoria] postoria M(uid., a.c.) P3 Mc  : patoria N(a.c.)  : pastoralia A3Ba(a.c.)DeFeLs(pastoria a.c.) Cs3Mt5To2 B14 • sola post pastoria scr. Ds2(ex itin. corr.) • sibila] sibilia B12(a.c.)  : fibila Mo3  : quid B14 a.c. n.l. • montes] montis N(a.c.), Trepat-de Saav. 1932(uitio preli)  : motes Mc • 786 hunc u. om. Ld3(mg. suppl. m.p. uel coaeua)O3(mg. suppl. coaeua m.)Pr P10(mg. suppl. P102) • senserunt] sumpserunt O(mg. corr.)  : senserunt hec Mc • latitans] latitantis Ba(a.c.)O(a.c.)  : latitens Ld3 • rupe] rerupe V5(a.c.)  : ripe Lr8(a.c.)  : ruspe Mo3 • meique] meoque Ds2  : om. Rd • 787–788 inu. ord. Lr2(a.c.) • 787 Ac(c)idis] acidi Be2  : om. O3(mg. suppl. coaeua m.) • in gremio] ingenio Lr2(a.c.) V5(a.c.)V6(a.c.)  : ingenuo A3(a.c.)B3(a.c.)  : in medio Mt • residens] resides Pr  : om. Ba(supra ingremio scr. Ba2)Lr3 • procul] procul illinc Ba • auribus] hauribus V6V7 Mt4(a.c.) • hausi] ausi Lr2N(a.c.)Lr2P2(a.c.) Lr6(a.c.)O4(a.c.)Ph2 Ds2(a.c.)Lr8 BoBo2McRd Lr27(h suprascr. Lr27*)  : ausit B5  : hasit Pr • 788 redit Lr7 (uid. ad 758) • talia] talilia L3(uid., a.c.)  : talibus B5  : tali Mo(a.c.) • auditaque] audita Ft • notaui] notati L3(uid., a.c.)  : nataui M(a.c.)  : notani F • u. 791 post hunc u. hab. Vd • 789 candidior] candior Ld(a.c.)Lr4N2(a.c.)  : candidor V5 Mc • folio niuei] inu. ord. P2 B5Mt Lr8, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834 • folio] quid N a.c. (an stolido?) n.l.  : filio Ab(a.c.) Rd • niuei] niueo N(a.c.)P2(uid., a.c.) Ld6 • Galat(h)ea] galethea Lr3  : galantea Es6(a.c.) • ligustri] lugustri B3L4Pr Mo3 Mc(a.c.)  : lustri B5(corr. B52)  : liguster Mt  : liligustri O3  : locusti V6  : ligusti P41 •



Appendix critica

511

• 790–791 inu. ord. Ls B14 • 790 floridior] frondidior Es2, “Medic.” test. Burm. 1727 • pratis Aler. 1471, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727(“meliores”), Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Merkel 1850, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007  : prato Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Jahn 1832, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Koch 1866 • longa] longaque BaDeGgHd(a.c.)Ld2V7Vd To B12Bo2  : longuaque Mt  : et longa Mt3  : longoque V6  : longo A4(a.c.) Ds P38 U3, Puteol. 1471, Calph. 1474 • procerior] erectior Gg  : procereor Ld  : porrectior Pt3 U3  : procerrior Cs3 • alno] aluo Lr7O4(uid., a.c. a m.p.)Pr Ds(a.c.)Sp FtMt4 P38, Puteol. 1471, Calph. 1474  : anno V6  : de Mt5 n.l. • 791–792 inu. ord. Lr4 • 791 splendidior uitro] candidior folio O3  : splendidiorque auro Et  : uitro splendidior Bothe 18182 • splendidior] splendior L3(corr. L32) HdLd3Ph2  : spendidior S2 A4Lr4 P8(a.c.)  : spledidior Vd  : splendidiorque Et • uitro] utro G(a.c.)Gg(a.c.)  : auro Et  : prato Ft • tenero] teneror Mo3(a.c.) • lasciuior] laciuior A(a.c.)Lu(a.c.)M2(a.c.) A4L4(a.c.)O3V7 Ds  : lascinior V6  : lauisciuior Sp  : lasciuor B12(a.c.)  : laxiuior Ft  : lasiuior Bo2, Calph. 1480  : lassiuior To2 • (h)(a)edo] agno Gf V6  : hedros Gg(a.c.)  : de Mt5 n.l. • 792 hunc u. om. Pr P10(i.l. suppl. P102) Sp(mg. suppl. m.p.) • leuior] lenior AL3V2 B2B3B4L4(a.c.)Ld(leuior i.l. u.l.)Ld3Lr3LsOP3TrV6V7V8Vd B8Cs2DsLd6Mt2P5P8P102SoSpTo BoBo2Cs3Es2McMt4Mt5To2 AsB14Cv(a.c.)Es6Z U3  : lecuior V5(a.c.)  : lentior Ds2(a.c.)  : lenibus Ft  : lodior P41  : planior “unus” test. Burm. 1727 (ut gloss. e.  g. A2Lu2S22 B42)  : leuiorne an lenior in Gf Dr n.l. • a(d/s)siduo] asiduo A Bo  : assiduis Lr7  : assiduor Mo3(a.c.)  : assudus P102  : assueto Mv7, “Polit.” test. Burm. 1727 • detritis] de tritis V2(a.c.) Ld(p.c.)Lr6Lr7O3O4(a.c.)V4 Bo P38  : districtis A Go2  : de tri Ld(a.c.)  : decretis B4(mg. corr. B42) : detrictis CDrLd3V7 P5 P102So Mt5  : de trictis Vd  : detretis Mt  : destrictis V6  : calcatis B8  : contritis Go  : de To n.l. • (a)equore] aequora M(a.c.)  : equoris Ba(a.c.)  : in equore Ld3 Mv7 • conchis] concis Gf  : chonchis AbB4GL4N2 Ds2 P41 : côhis Mo  : chochis O3  : cûchis Vd  : cûcis Mo3  : de Mt5 n.l. • 793 solibus] sobus Ld(a.c.) • hibernis] hebernis Ba(a.c.)  : hisbernis Mo3  : aestiuis Li3(ex itin. corr.) • (a)estiua] estiuaque EO32  : egra inch. Ld2(ex itin. corr.; estior p.pr.c.; estiua Ld22 p.alt.c.)  : hestiua Mt4  : extiua Bo P41 • gratior] gracior M2V2  : gradior Ab  : grandior Fe(a.c.)  : decencior O3 • umbra] unda N2(i.l. u.l.) Es4(umbra Es42)  : aura Ld(umbra i.l. u.l.)Ld3(umbra i.l. u.l.)Pr Ds2(umbra i.l. u.l. Ds22), “quinque alii” test. Heinsius 1659  : unbra Mo3  : de Mt5 n.l. • 794–795 inu. ord. Ab • 794 platano] platono A L4(a.c.)  : plantano V3(a.c.)  : platana Ab(a.c.)Lr7  : moatana(uid.) Gg(a.c.)  : platauo V6  : plantano Ds2  : platamo Es6(a.c.)  : platanus Mv7 • conspectior] conspetior Mo V16(a.c.)  : ɔplendior Mt  : speciosior “unus Patauinus” (sed non Pt3) test. Burm. 1727 • alta] alto Dr  : unda Vd(corr. Vd2) • 795 lucidior] lucidiordior To(a.c.) • glacie] gratie F(glacie i.l. F2)V6 • matura] mactura Hd(a.c.)  : natura O3 Ft • dulcior] ducior L3(a.c.)  : gratior P8 • uua] uba N(a.c.)  : una Ab Ft  : ulla O3  : de Mt5 n.l. • 796 et1] om. As(a.c.) • cycni plumis] inu. ord. GgP3(a.c.)P4 Mt2Tb • c(y/i)(c/g)ni] singui Ab(a.c.)  : cynni Ph2  : signi Vd(a.c.) • plumis] pomis Ft(a.c.; plomis p.c.) • esa post plumis scr. Ab(ex itin. corr.) • et2] et et Sp(a.c.) • lacte] lacta Goold 1984(uitio preli) • coacto] coactis L3(a.c.)  : choacto A4  : coato Ab  : cohacto BoEs2(a.c.) Es6  : coasto Lu2  : de Mt5 n.l. • 797 et] at O3 • non] non tamen B5  : me O3 • fugias] fugias me B3(a.c.) • riguo] nouo A(a.c.)  : rigido Pr Ft  : ruguo V5(a.c.)  : reguo Mo3(a.c.) • formosior] florentior Bs7(formosior i.l. Bs72) • (h)orto] octo Ab(purpura suprascr. Ab2)  : auro B5  : ortho Ld2Ld3  : alto P28(a.c.)  : horto es(ex gloss. sc.) Ds  : ortu Rd • 798 s(a)euior] senior V6 Ld6 • indomitis] in domitis V2(a.c.) DrLs P28 • eadem] eadâ B4 • Galat(h)ea] galethea B3Lr3  : glatia B5  : galetea V7 • iuuencis] ligustris Gg • post 798 hoc glossema quasi uersum hab. B14: hactenus ad laudem ergo(sic B142 p.c.; om. B14) si concedat amorem • 799 hunc u. iter. Hd • durior] durum Rd • quercu] qêquu V5  : querqu V7 • fallacior] fallatior LuP2V3  : fallaciorque F2 • undis] unda DeV9 •

512

Appendix critica

• 800 lentior] lætior M(lentior corr. M2)  : letior Lr27(lêtior corr. Lr27*)  : leuior P41 • et1] om. V4 • salicis uirgis] inu. ord. B2(a.c.) • salicis] salcis Mc(a.c.)  : salicicis Venet. 1472 • et uitibus] iuncibus P41 • uitibus] uittibus Be2O4V9 Cs2 Ps  : uictibus MtV6  : uirtutibus Ld6  : bitibus Ft  : mitibus Mt4(a.c.) • albis] altis A Ld(uid. a.c.) B8(albis i.l. u.l.), “Oxon. et alii” test. Heinsius(“male”)  : abis F2(a.c.) • 801 hunc u. aegre legitur in To • i(m/n)mobilior] immouilior V2 • scopulis] populis Lu(a.c.) L4(a.c.)  : scopulos Mt • post scopulis interrog. signum pos. Aler. 1471 • uiolentior] uiolencor B2(a.c.)  : uelocior Ld2(uiolentior i.l. u.l. Ld22)  : uiblecior V6  : uilencior Ds2(a.c.)  : et uiolentior P41  : uolentior Calph. 1480 • amne] angue Gf(mg.)N3(i.l. u.l.) B22(mg. u.l.)CLd22(i.l. u.l.)Ld32(i.l. u.l.)Lr3O3O42(i.l. u.l.)Ph2(uid., p.c.)V4(amne mg. u.l. V42)Vd B8(amne i.l. u.l. B82)Bs3Bs4DsLd6Mo3Mt2Mt3SoTb Es3 U3(mg. u.l.), “aliquot alii” test. Burm. 1727  : ursa Be2  : igne “Gronou.” test. Burm. 1727  : idris O43(mg. u.l.)  : âne Lr2V2 FeGgP3P4 McRd Bo3 U3  : anne Gf(a.c.)P2 B3B5FL4(a.c.)Ld2Ld3Lr4LsO4Ph2(a.c.)Pr Ds2Lr8P5P10 To2  : ampne Lr6 • 802 laudato] laudata L3(a.c.) O3 Sp • pauone] phitone M(pauone mg. u.l. a m.p.) Bo3(pauone p.c.)Lr27(au suprascr. Lr27*)  : paone N(a.c.)V2(a.c.)  : pauorone V5(a.c.)  : panone Ld6 • superbior] superior T Hd(a.c.)  : superbbior Ab(a.c.) • acrior] agrior M(a.c., cf. 8, 867)  : aicor Ba(a.c.)  : acrio Ld  : et acrior Lr7  : atrior Li3 • igni Ω, edd.  : igne P2(-i p.c.) O42(mg. u.l.)Ph2(-i a.c.)V9(-i p.c.) Sp(-i p.c.) B14(-i a.c.), Tarrant 2004  : angue B4(igni mg. B42)Pr P8  : igue B5  : de To n.l. • 803 asperior] aspicior Vd(a.c.)  : hasperior P41 • tribulis] tribolis N(a.c.) • f(o)eta] et feta Lr2 Lu2  : fera A4(a.c. a m.p.) P41Z  : fetas F  : seua Mt  : freta Pr  : fata Vd(a.c.) • truculentior] ferocior B8 • ursa] unda Mc • 804–808 aegre leguntur in T propter folii flexuras • 804 surdior] surdidior P2(a.c.) Mv7, Puteol. 1471  : sordior V9  : sudior Mo3 • (a)equoribus] aquatibus B5(a.c. uid.)  : aquoribus B52(p.c.) • calcato] calcata Gf(-o i.l. u.l. Gf2) Lr4(a.c.)V8 Sp Mc(a.c.) P41  : calto M2(a.c.)  : galeato Lu(calcato i.l. u.l. Lu2) • immitior] mitior Gg(a.c.)  : s(a)euior Mt3  : îmitio V30 • (h)(y/i)dro] ydra Gf(ydro i.l. Gf2) Sp  : idra B5(uid., a.c.)V8 P41  : hidra Gg(a.c.)  : ybra Mt  : angue Ld3  : ido P10(a.c.)  : de To n.l. • 805 hunc u. iter. Ab sed cum uaria lectione • et … praecipue] quod que es precipue P41 • et] nec M(p.c.; nonne suprascr.) Lr27(et suprascr. Lr27*)  : neque M(a.c.)  : om. B5 • uellem  … possem] uellem tibi demere posse M2P2 Ab(u.l.)B42(mg.)Lr6 Bs2Cs2Ds2Ld7V16 FtRd Bs7(p.c.)Es4Lr27*(p.c.)Vd11  : uellem si demere possem NV2 B3FeV8 Ld6Sp Bo2  : tibi uellem demere posse Lr2 Lu2  : tibi uellem demere possem Lr4  : si possem demere uellem AGf(uellem … possem mg. u.l. Gf2)L3V3 A3A42(mg. p.c.; uellem … possem a.c.)AbB5BaBe2CDe(de more pro demere)DrEFGgH2H3HdL4LdLd2Ld3Lr3Lr7LsMo2(mg. u.l.)MtOO4P3P4PrTrV4V5(de me reuellem a.c.)V6V7V9 B8Bs3Bs4DsGoLd8Lr8Mo3Mt2Mt3P5P8P10SoTbTo B12Cs3Es2Es3McMt4Mt5P28To2 AsB14CvEs3Es6Lr22P38P41PsV30 U3Mv7, Plan., Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Loers 1843, Weise 1845  : si possem tibi demere uellem Es5  : ueloci demere uellem “Leidens.” test. Burm. 1727 • 806 non tantum] uerum etiam P5(a.c.) • tantum] dn scr. Ab(ex itin. corr.)  : tamen B5  : tanto Lu2(a.c.) • ceruo] certo Sp(ex itin. corr.)  : curuo Es6V30  : om. V4(a.c.) • claris] claro C  : claros Mt  : caris O4(a.c.)  : ueris Cs2  : hilaris Es6 • latratibus acto] uolucrique fugacior aura Mo(a.c. a m.p.) • latratibus] lactratibus Lr4(a.c.)  : lateratibus Mt  : latrautibus Vd  : lactrantibus Es2(a.c.)  : latrantibus Naug. 1516(a.c.) • acto] actis Ab  : actor P8(a.c.)  : apto Mc  : atro Mv7(a.c.) • 807 etiam] quam Dr • uolucrique] uolucri Li3 Ft F2  : claraque P10(uolucrique u.l. P103) • fugacior] uelacior Ds(a.c.)  : uelocior Mo3  : fugâtior Mt4(a.c.)  : fugacio Be2(a.c.) • aura] umbra P5(a.c.) • 808 at … si] at sibe inchoau. M2(cum lit. corr.)  : at si bene L4 • at] et B4(at mg. B42)Lr6O V30 • noris] noras V6 P5(uid., a.c.)  : moris As • pigeat] pigeatque LuM2(pigeat a.c.) Go2  : pigueat Hd(a.c.)  : pudeat Tr  : puneas(uid.) Sp(ex itin. corr.) • fugisse] fugisque B5 • morasque] morasse Ba(a.c.) • 809 hunc u. om. Pr • tuas] tua T • dam(p)nes] dampnas P2(-es p.c.) Hd(a.c.)  : dapnes B4  : dagnes V6 • et] etiam(per comp.) Fe • retinere] reticere O(a.c.)  : retine P41 • labores] mores B5(corr. B52) • post hunc u. redit A2 (uid. post 717) •



Appendix critica

513

• 810 mihi … montis] montis mihi pars Ph2 • mihi] om. H2(mg. suppl. m.p.)Hd(pars in partes corr. Hd2, metri sc. causa) • pars] -pars Ds  : om. T • montis] monitis T  : montes Es2  : mentis Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472  : quid H3 a.c. n.l. • uiuo] uno B5  : uino Ds  : et uiuo As • pendentia] pentia Hd(a.c.)  : petentia Ld6  : pendenti Sp(a.c.)  : pênêtia Mc • saxo] saxa V4(a.c.) • 811–812 om. Pr • 811 antra] anstra Vd Go  : atra Es4 • quibus] simul Lr8(quibus i.l. u.l. Lr82) • nec … medio] medio nec sol A2A4AbMt Sp Es2(p.c.)P28 Es5  : non sol medio So B12  : medio sol Es2(a.c.) • sentitur] sentur F2  : se sentit O3(p.c.; quid post sentit eras. n.l.)  : sentitor V30, Aler. 1471 • (a)estu] extu As(p.c., quid a.c. n.l.) • 812–813 hos uu. om. H2(mg. suppl. m.alt.) • 812 nec] nen E(a.c.)  : non So • sunt] et(per comp.) B4 • poma] pom S2  : prima Li3 • grauantia] grauatia T(a.c.)  : grauantida P8(a.c.)  : gratia Mc(a.c.) • ramos] raros Gg(a.c.)L4(a.c.) • 813 om. M(mg. suppl. m. multo recentior = M*) Lr27 • auro] quid N a.c. i.ras. n.l. • longis] longuis A3 Go  : longe O3(a.c.)  : lungis Vd • in uitibus] mihi uitibus Ds2Ld7 Pt3  : et in utibus B5  : mutibus Ls(a.c. a m.p.) • uu(a)e] unde Vd(a.c.)  : ulue P5(a.c.) • 814 om. V2(iuxta 813 mg. scr. m.p. uel coaeua) • sunt] sun Hd(a.c.) • et1] om. B3(a.c.)B5  : sibi Mt • purpure(a)e] pupuree A4(a.c.)  : purpure(per comp.) B4  : purperee BaHd(a.c.)V7(a.c.)  : puree Ld(a.c.) • seruamus] seruemus L3(a.c.)  : sermus Ld(a.c.)  : seruauimus B14Es6 • illas] ipsas De • 815 ipsa] ipse B5 • tuis] suis Mc  : om. B4(a.c.) • manibus] om. P5 • siluestri] siluestria P2(a.c.)T  : siuestri M2(a.c.)  : siluestra L4(a.c.)  : siluestris Vd(a.c.) • nata] nota M Lr27(a suprascr. Lr27*) • 816 g post mollia scr. Vd(ex itin. corr.) • fraga] fragra Ld6 • ipsa] simul F  : ipsaque L4Vd  : ipsa et As • autum(p)nalia] auttumnalia T Ds  : aprônalia A2  : auptûnalia A3V8Vd  : auturernalia B2(a.c.)  : aut(ut a.c.) uernalia Ba  : autûnialia B52(p.c., quid a.c. n.l.)  : autûpnialia Fe(a.c.)  : auptônalia Dr P5  : atôpnalia Gg  : atûpnalia Pr  : autumalia H3  : autonnalia HdL4(corr. L42)Ld2Ls Go(autô-) B14  : autûpnia B8  : atumnalia Mt To(a.c.)  : auctumpnalia V4  : auctûnalia Es3(a.c.)  : auctumnalia Bach 1836, Koch 1866  : autunanalia V5  : autôpnalia Ld3 Mo3  : ante(per comp.) uernalia Ft  : autunalia V6 So Bo2 Vd11  : nautumnalia Calder. 1477  : quid N a.c. (au- i.ras.) n.l.  : de P4 n.l. • corna] poma Lr3  : cornu Li3  : corua P28 • 817 prunaque] primaque B5(a.c.)Lr3LsV5(a.c.)V9(a.c.)Vd(a.c.) Mo3(leges i.l. Mo32)So(a.c.) To2 V30  : prumaque L4(a.c.) So(p.c.)  : pruma O3(corr. O32)  : plunaque V6  : prianaque Ps(a.c.) • solum] solis Sp(ex itin. corr.) • nigro … suco] succo … nigro C • nigro] nigra H3  : niueo Ld6 • liuentia] labentia M Mo Lr27(iu suprascr. Lr27*)  : libentia N(corr. N2)V2(a.c.)  : piuentia(uid.) Hd(a.c.)  : luuentia V5  : flauentia Mt4  : lucentia Mo3 Lr22, “pr. Moreti et duo alii” test. Burm. 1727 • 818 hunc u. om. Vd(mg. suppl. m.p.) • generosa] generosoa Ab(a.c.)  : genenorosa B4 • nouasque] nouas B4(corr. B42)Be2O3P3Ph2V6V9 So BoBo2(corr. Bo22)  : nouamque B5(a.c.) • imitan(t/c)ia] nimitancia B5  : inmitantia Hd Ds2(cia)  : îmitâtia Lr6 Mc As • ceras] causas Vd  : cenas Ds2(corr. Ds22)  : formas P3(a.c. a m.p.) B14(ceras i.l. u.l. B142) • 819 nec … nec] non … nec Mo3  : non … non Es6 • tibi1] tibi eo P41 • castane(a)e me] castane mee Ls(a.c.)  : castenee V6 Ld6 • me coniuge] mecū(-cum Lr27) iuge M Lr27(con suprascr. Lr27*) • nec tibi2] om. Es2(mg. suppl. Es22) • deerunt] dererunt(per comp.) Lr4  : derût V8  : derunt Polle 1888  : dederunt Mt4(a.c.)  : deorum Es3  : redeunt Ps • • 820 f(o)etus] fructus Ld3 • seruiet arbor] cernat artheon Mt • seruiet] seruiat A B4(a.c.)  : seruet V6 • arbor] arbos AV3 B2B3BaBe2C(uid.)EGH3HdL4Lr6OP3PrTrV5V6V7V8 B8Cs2GoSpV16 B12BoEs2Mt4P28Rd Es4, Aldina 1502, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Merkel 1850(-or 1875), Koch 1866, Korn 1880, Riese 1889(-or 1872) • 821 pecus] pectus V6 • omne … est] meum est omne F(a.c.) • est] om. B4(a.c.) B8P5 Es2P28 Es5, mg. test. Bersm. 1596 • mult(a)e quoque] monte quoque Ab  : multeq3 in CFeLd3P3 Ds Lr22V30, “Medic.” test. Burm. 1727, Aler. 1471  : multeq3 Mo3  : multae quo Pr  : quoque multe Es6 • uallibus] in collibus uel in tallibus Mt  : et uallibus Lr3  : in uallibus O3 P5 P41 • errant] errent A3  : erant B3(a.c.)Pr Rd • 822 hunc u. post 824 hab. B3(a.c.) • multas] multa B5(a.c.), Lugd.

514

Appendix critica

1565(uitio preli, -as 1546) • silua] siluas Ba(a.c.)Hd(a.c.)O(a.c.)  : sillua V7 • tegit] tenet Cs2  : regis Li3 • antris] austris P10  : anstris Go(ut solet) • 823 nec] non(per comp.) Ds2  : et Ld3  : ne P3 • si forte] si fortes L3(a.c.)  : forte si V4 Es3  : si for Mo(a.c.) • roges] reges Lu(uid., a.c.) B5Pr : rges Ld(a.c.) : teges Mt  : rogas V8  : fores Ds(ex itin. corr.)  : quid Ph2 a.c. n.l. • possim MV3 A3B4B52(p.c.)Be2DrEFGgMoMtN2O4P3P4PrV5Vd B8GoLi3P5 Es2Es3McMt4 AsCvEs5Lr22Lr27P41V30 Mv7, Aler. 1471, Heinsius 1659(“ex melioribus”), edd.  : possint Bo3  : possem L3Lr2LuM2NS2V2T A4B2B3B5GH3HdL4LdLr4Lr6OTrV4V6V7V9 DsDs2Ld6Lr8Mt3SpToV16 BoBo2Cs3FtMt5P28To2 Es3Es4F2Lu2P38Vd11, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, : possum AGfP2 A2AbBaCFeH2Ld2Ld3Lr3Lr7LsO3Ph2V8 Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596   Cs2Mo3Mt2P10SoP8Tb B12Rd B14Es6Ps • tibi dicere] dicere Hd(a.c.)  : numerareque Bo2  : tibi ducere B5(a.c.) • quot] quod T L4(quot mg. u.l. L42) P28, Regius 1493(corr. 1497)  : que To • sint] sunt AGfL3Lr2M2(a.c.)N2(i.l. u.l.)S2 A2A4AbB3B4BaCDrFFeGGgH3L4LdLd3Lr3Lr4Lr7(uid.)LsMtOO3O4P3P4Ph2PrTrV4V7V8V9 B8Cs2DsDs2Mo3Mt2Mt3SoSpToV16 B12BoCs3Es2FtMcMt4Mt5Rd AsCvEs3Es6F2Lr22Lu2P38PsV30Z, Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596 • 824 pauperis est] pauperis A(a.c.)  : pauperies N(a.c.)  : praperas Mt  : quid B5O3 a.c. n.l. • numerare] numerasse Lr3  : munerare V6 Mo3 Rd  : numerale Ds(a.c.)  : numera Es7(a.c.) • pecus] greges Ls B14  : corpus Mo3(a.c. a m.p.) • de] da Ab(a.c.)  : tibi(per comp.) B3 • harum] horum Gf B2(harum a.c.)B3B4CV4V9  : murum B5(corr. B52)  : aurum P10(a.c.) • 825 mihi] tibi O(a.c.) • credideris] credidere B5(uid., a.c.) • praesens] etiam sensus Mt  : sed praesens O(a.c.)  : praeses Mt2 • potes ipsa] inu. ord. Lr3 • potes] potens L3(a.c.)M(a.c.)  : om. Mt2(a.c.) • ipsa] ipse V4(a.c.) Es2, Calph. 1480 • uidere] notare Pr  : uideret V16(a.c.) • 826 hunc u. om. Mt • ut] et Gg(a.c.)Ld2(a.c.) Ps(et) • uix] uice Rd • circueant] circumeant A(circueant p.c.)Lr2MN2(circu eant N)P2S2TV2V3 A3AbEHdMoN2OPh2PrV5V8 Cs2Lr8 Es2Es3Mt5Rd AsEs5Lr27(circueant Lr27*)Lu2P38PsVd11, in duobus suis test. Ciof. 1575, Calph. 1474(circueant 1480), Accurs. 1475, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546(mg.), Lugd. 1565, Regius 1526, Merkel 1850, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000  : circueunt Lu B4BaC Mc Es6  : circumeunt B42(mg.) F2Z  : circumeat B2Lr6Lr7, Regius 1493  : circuia B5  : circueat B52(mg.)  : circuerant Mt4  : circundant Gg(circueant p.c.)  : contineant Ld3, “duo” test. Heinsius 1659 • distentum] distentis Gf(-um i.l. u.l. Gf2)  : distrancû A2  : distractum A42(mg. u.l.)  : distinctum N2V8 Ft  : digestum P3(a.c.)  : distenstum P32(p.c.)  : distenctum To2  : distentet P10(a.c.) • cruribus] in cruribus B4De  : curribus B5(corr. B52)Pr Rd  : cruriribus Ba  : crubus E(a.c.)  : cruoribus Ls(a.c.)  : humoribus dub. Bach 1836 • uber] ether P2(a.c.)  : urb’ A2  : urber Dr  : iber B5(corr. B52)  : iuber uel uiber Rd • 827 f(o)etura] futura L3(a.c.) L4(a.c.) V30  : mihi cura O3  : fortuna Mc(a.c.)  : factura P41 • tepidis] trepidis B2(a.c.)B3(tep-a.c.)B5(a.c.)Lr7PrV9Vd, “prior Gron.[sed non sic B4] et tres alii” test. Burm. 1727  : tepidisque L4V7  : teneris O3  : tpidis To(a.c.)  : tipidis Bo • in ouilibus] ouilibus L4(î suprascr. L42)Lr3(uid.)V7 : mouilibus Ls(a.c.)  : monilibus Ld6  : inouili Mo(a.c.)  : in ouibus H3(a.c.) Mt2(a.c.) Es6Ps(a.c.)  : in collibus Mt  : î nouilibus V6  : in caulis P41 • agni] hedi A4(edi a.c.)O4 Mo3(edi; agni p.c. Mo32)P10  : angni Ld2 • 828 hunc u. om. MN(i.l. suppl. m.p.) A4(mg. suppl. m.p. uel coaeua)B4(mg. suppl. B43)Gg(mg. suppl. Gg2) Mo3(mg. Mo32)P10(i.l. suppl. P103) Lr27(mg. suppl. Lr27*)  : hunc u. iter. Hd(cum uaria lectione) • sunt quoque] sunt mihi AbP3 P8V16 Bo Es6, “Moret. prim. et duo alii” test. Burm. 1727  : sût q3 V7  : deest in Ls • par (a)etas] parietas Ph2 Sp(uid., a.c.)  : pars aetas Lr27*(a.c.)  : aetas P28 • aliis] mediis F  : alii Hd(pr.lect.; aliis alt.lect.)Ph2 To  : alis Ld(a.c.) • in ouilibus] nouilibus A4(mg.)  : monilibus Be2V6V7  : inouili Mo(a.c.)  : ouilibus Ph2  : in ouibus Ds2 As(a.c.) • (h)(a/o)edi] agni Hd(pr.lect.; hedi alt.lect.)O4 P10  : hedis P28(a.c.) • 829 lac] hac B5Mt  : las Calph. 1480 • mihi semper] inu. ord. Vd(a.c.) • semper] super Mt  : om. V4(i.l. suppl. V42) Cs2 • adest] idem V4(corr. V42) Es3  : inest V9  : adem Calph. 1480 • niueum] iuuenum



Appendix critica

515

P2(uid., a.c.) Mt  : meum Pr  : uineum V6  : mulctum P41  : niuium Ps • inde] tñ P2(uid.; inde mg. u.l.)  : uide T  : unde Mv7 • bibenda] libenda S2(uid., a.c.) B8(i.l. u.l. a m.p.)  : bebenda B5(a.c.)  : bibendo Vd11 • • 830 om. M(mg. suppl. m.p.) • seruatur] seruiatur(uid.) V2(a.c.)  : seruat & Mo3 • partem] partî Gf  : parte H3 To  : pertem Ld  : et(per comp.) Sp  : patrem V45 • coa post partem scr. Lr3(ex itin. corr.) • coagula] coagola M  : coagût B5(corr. B52)  : coacula Vd • durant] seruant CMtO4 B12  : durat V45 • 831 nec] ne Ds • tibi] mihi(per comp.) S2 B3Hd DsMt2  : deest in Ls • delici(a)e] deliciei B2(a.c.)  : diui(t/c)ie B5L4V6V7(delicie i.l. u.l. V72), “Patauin.[sed non Pt3] et unus Heinsii” test. Burm. 1727  : dilicie Vd • faciles] facies Gg(a.c.)Ld2(a.c.) Ds(a.c.)  : fallaces Vd(a.c.) • uulgataque] nec uulgataque De  : uulgata que V4(a.c.; uulgata q3 p.c.)  : fugataque Rd • tantum] tanta Ld6  : nondum Bs3(tantum i.l. u.l.) • 832 munera] munerat Vd  : om. E(a.c.) • contingent] contingunt Gf B4 Go2  : ɔtigit’ A2  : continguent C  : contigent HdLr7 Cs2 Es3Mc  : contignent Mt4  : contigerent Es6 • da(m)m(a)e] damne M(a.c.) B52(p.c.)Lr7(dâne)Vd Lr27  : damnae Trepat-de Saav. 1932  : dames V2  : dâpme A(a.c.) B3P4 Mo3  : dâpne Ld6  : dampne L4  : come Mt • leporesque] laporesque A  : lepores leporesque Li3  : lepores Z • caperque] capr(a)eque LuP2 A2A4V9 Sp B12BoBo2Cs3Mt5 F2P38, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Koch 1866, Siebelis-Polle 1880(caperque 1888), Fabbri 1923, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, Segura 1983  : capreeque A3  : capreęq; Es5  : caprique CFeLr7O3O4(caperque mg. u.l. O43)Vd B8 B14, test. Viuianus (1522, ad loc.), “unus Heinsii” test. Burm. 1727  : aperque Ph2 • 833 par-] pars- DrV9 Ld7To  : per- Es2, Calph. 1480 • columbarum] columb P10(a.c.)  : columbas Rd • cacumine] acumine Be2GV9  : ab arbore N2  : occumine Rd  : in acumine P41 • nidus] natos B5(corr. B52)  : nidos Pr  : ramus Ds(nidus mg. u.l. Ds2)  : nudus Cs3(a.c.)  : rñdês Rd • 834–835 inu. ord. Mt3 Rd • 834–836 post 829 hab. Sp(a.c.) • 834 geminos] catulos V4 Es3 • qui] quod Ph2 • tecum] pocum B5(corr. B52) • ludere] lidere V3(a.c.) • possint] possent LuV2(a.c.) A2B2B3CE(a.c.)Ld3MtV5(a.c.)V7 Ld6 Es4 Go2  : possunt AL3Lr2M2P2S2 A4AbB5FeGH3HdL4Lr3(uid.)Lr4Lr6O3Ph2(-int a.c.)TrV4V6V8V9 B8Cs2Ds2Li3Lr8Mo3Mt2Mt3Sp(a.c.)To(a.c.)V16 B12BoFtMt4P28Rd Es3Lu2P41Vd11, Plan., Accurs. 1475, Aldina 1502, Weise 1845  : possit P38, Puteol. 1471, Calph. 1474 • 835 hunc u. om. V5(mg. suppl. m.p.) • sunt i.ras. ante inter exhib. Mt3 • inter se] inter Ld8 • uix ut] inu. ord. DeLd2 P8So Es4, “quinque” test. Heinsius 1659  : uix et(per comp.) O3  : uix V5(a.c.) P10  : quod uix V9  : quos uix Cs2P103(p.c.)  : uix tu Ld6  : uix non B3(p.c.; fort. ut a.c.) • possis] posses N(-is a.c.)V2(a.c.) B3B5Be2CDeDrL4Ld3Lr3(a.c., uid.)O3V6V7 Cs2Mt2Sp McMt4To2 F2P41Z  : possent Mt  : posset Mo3  : poscis Ph2  : posis L3 • post 835 uu. 788–789 add. Es3 • post 835 uu. 14.462–547 et inde uu. 13.922 sqq. hab. P38 (fol. 147v-fol. 149r) • 836 uil(l)os(a)e] uinose Vd(a.c.)  : uillos Mt2 • catulos … montibus] in summis catulos in montibus Ph2 • catulos] catulos catulos V4(a.c.)  : geminos V42(i.l. p.c.)  : catatulos As(a.c.) • 837 hunc u. om. Pr • inueni et] inueniens M(a.c.) Lr27(corr. Lr27*)  : inueniet O4  : inueni Bo2  : inueni ti B5 • domin(a)e] dominos(uid.) As(a.c.) • seruabimus] seruauimus Ph2  : seuabimus Vd(a.c.)  : seruiabimus P10 • 838 iam  … nitidum] iam nitidum modo ceruleo Ft • iam modo] iam tu A(p.c.)GfP2(mg. u.l.)V23(i.l. u.l.) A3AbB52(mg.; iam modo B5)EFeGgLd2O3P3P4V5 Bs3P10Sp To2  : iam tum A(a.c.)V3  : tu modo G Es4  : iam nunc A4BaH2LdLsO4V9 Ds2 Es2 B14Es5, “unus” test. Burm. 1727  : iam mihi Lr6O Bs4, “quinque” test. Burm. 1727  : iamq3 Mo3  : nam modo Ld8To  : iam mudum(uid.) Mt4(a.c.) • c(a)eruleo] ceruleos A2  : ceruleum Sp  : cel’uleo Mo3  : cerulio V16 • caput] capud Gf A4AbCL4Lr6O3PrV8 B8Cs2DsDs2 Es2 Ps  : cacad inchoau. Ab(ex itin. corr.)  : om. V5(suppl. V52) • ex(s)ere] exime Lu2(i.l. u.l.)M(tolle suprascr.) Mo Lr27(er suprascr. Lr27*), Merkel 1875(exsere 1850)  : exesere B3(a.c.)  : exue Vd  : extrahe Et  : esere P41 • 839 hunc u. om. Ba(i.l. suppl. Ba2) • Galat(h)ea] galeata S2  : galethea Lr3(ut semper)  : galeatea V5(a.c.) • nec munera] inu. ord. Ps • nec] ne L3 Mt  : non Be2

516

Appendix critica

• munera despice] inu. ord. CMt  : munia despice B3(a.c.)  : munere despice Mo3, Heinsius 1652(corr. 1659)  : munera dispice Lr2 Lu2 • • 840 certe] certa A2(a.c.)  : carte Lr7 • noui] nouit B5  : moui Lr7Vd(a.c.) As(a.c.) • liquid(a)eque  … (i/y)magine] liquidaque (i/y)magine A(a.c.) P8 Mt4 Ps(margine mg. u.l. Ps2), Venet. 1472  : liquidaque îmagine Rd  : liquidamque(uid.) in imagine H2  : liquidamque(uid.) in margine L3(p.c.)  : liquidaque in margine N(p.c. a m.p.) A2A42(-aq3 suprascr.)V7 Cv  : liquidoque in margine N(a.c.) P10 Es3  : liquid(a)eque in margine Lr2(p.c.; quid a.c. n.l. sed inima­ gine legerim) A4AbB5CFe(imagine mg. Fe2)Ld(a.c.)Ld22(i.l. u.l.)MtOV6V9 GoP5 Lu2P41 Mv7  : liquideque inimargine B42(p.c.)H3  : liquideque inmagine L4Ld(inmagîe p.c.)  : liqui­ deque îmagîe Ds  : liquideque îmagine Mc  : liquidaque e margine Ld3  : liquida quod in margine Ph2  : liquidique in imagine Li3  : liquideque imargine Ft  : liquidam in imagine V30 • 841 nuper] super Mo3 • placuitque] placuit Sp  : placatque Mc • mihi] om. Es2 • mea] om. B3(a.c.)  : noua Ds • uidenti] uidendi S2(a.c.) V5(a.c.) Ds(a.c.) Mc(a.c.) Ps  : uidisti Vd(a.c.)  : uideri Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472 • 842 aspice … quantus] aspicies quantum M Lr27(corr. Lr27*) : aspicies quantus N(a.c.)  : aspice quantus sim Be2 Ld6  : aspice si quantus MtN2(a.c.) FtMc  : aspice quantus ego O3 • sim] sum A4AbBa(a.c.)Ld3LsMoVd Mo3P5 B12Bo2Mt4 B14P41 Mv7  : sunt B5(uid.)  : si N2(a.c.) • quantus] cantus F(a.c.) • non est] ñtus B5(corr. B52) • non] neque L3(uid., p.c.) • est hoc] inu. ord. A4B4FH3HdLr3Lr6O4V4 Es3  : est V2(a.c.) : est hic Lu(a.c.) Mt4  : est me Be2 Li3  : est hec Lr22V30, Aler. 1471  : quid B3 a.c. n.l. • 843–844 (nam  … Iouem) pro parenth. hab. Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Riese 1872, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007  : post c(a)elo et iouem dist. GfL3Lr2LuM2NP2S2V2V3 A2A3A4AbB2B3B4B5BaBe2CDrEFFeGGgH2H3HdL4LdLd2Ld3Lr3Lr4Lr6Lr7LsMoN2OO3O4P3P4Ph2TrV4V5V6V8V9Vd B8Cs2DsDs2GoLd6Lr8Mo3Mt2P5P8SpTo B12BoBo2Cs3Es3McMt4Mt5P28To2 AsB14Bo3CvEs4Es5Es6Lr22Lu2P41PsVd11 Mv7 • 843 nam] quem MN(nam mg. u.l. a m.p. et item i.l. u.l. N2) Bo3Lr27, “alius” test. Burm. 1727, Plan.  : iam Ft  : quo mallet Burm. 1727 • narrare] narare BoEs2 • 844 nescioquem] necio(sic) quem A  : nessioquem Mt  : nescio quaê Mv7 • regnare] narrare Gg(a.c.) Es3 P28  : rgnare Hd(a.c.)  : regrare Mo(a.c.) • Iouem] maniiouem Mo3(a.c.) • coma] com N(a.c.) • toruos] tortos M2(a.c.)  : torbos N(a.c.)  : uestros C(uid., toruos i.l.)  : nostros HdMt, “in uno Regio et Oxon.” test. Burm. 1727  : nobis B12  : fortes “in codice Politiani et tribus aliis” test. et prob. Burm. 1727, prob. Bothe 18182  : totos Harlesium coniecisse test. Jahn 1832  : om. Plan. • 845 prominet] imminet Lr2 B5L4Lr4O3O4(imi- a.c.)V6V7V9 Bs3(prominet i.l. u.l.)Mt2P5P8V16 B12BoMt4 Lu2, “Cantabr. et Balliol. et multi alii” test. Burm. 1727  : permanet Mo3 • in uultus] multus V6 • (h)umerosque] humeros AM2 Ab Mc Bs7  : humeroque A4  : humerusque Ld(a.c.) • ut] illa Go2 • lucus] eras. in O(mg. denuo suppl. m. recentior)  : littus O(mg. a m.p.)  : lutus V6Vd  : uitis V8 V12  : luca To2  : om. Bs3(a.c.) • obumbrat] oberrat E(obumbrat i.l. u.l. E2)  : obumbret O3(i.l. u.l.; -at in textu)  : inunbrat Bs2  : obrûbrat Rd  : obumbra Lr27(a.c.) • 846 nec] non A3V5 • mea] me Sp  : mihi Heinsius 1659(qui “unus medic. et ambr.” test. in b3, 379), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834 • quod] cum B4(corr. B42)  : quæ Es5  : quid N a.c. n.l. • duris AGfL3M2P2S2V3 A2A3B2B3B4BaBe2DeDrEFGGgH2H3Ld2Ld3Lr3LsMtOO4P3P4PrV4V5V9 B8Cs2Ds2Mo3Mt2P5P8P10SoSpTbTo Es2Es3(uid., a.c.)FtMcMt4RdTo2 B14Es3Es4Es5Es6F2Lr22P41Ps(in u. post 853 iterato)V30Vd11, “Myrt.”(rigidis hab. Hd) test. Jahn 1832  : rigidis Lr2LuMNV2* A4AbB5FeHdL4LdLd22(i.l. u.l.)Lr4Lr6Lr7MoN2O3O42(i.l. u.l.)Ph2V6V7V8Vd DsGoLd6Lr8Mt3V16 B12BoBo2Cs3Es3(p.c.)Mt5P28 AsBo3CvGo2Lr27Lu2Ps(suo loco) • horrent] om. L4(mg. suppl. L42)  : orrent Lr3(a.c.) Lr8  : horsent Ds2(a.c.)  : orret Bo • densissima] depsissima CV6  : densississima Lr6(a.c.)  : dempsissima O3  : denssisima Ld3  : dentissima Lr8 • s(a)etis] siluis H2(corr. H22) Lu2(a.c.)  : sentis Mt(a.c.)V4(uid. a.c.)  : cetis P8  : e(uid.) setis To



Appendix critica

517

• muris(incertum an pro rigidis uel pro setis) mg. scr. B52 • 847–850 fere euanidi sunt in Mv7 • 847 corpora] corpore L3(a.c.) Ft(uid., a.c.) Ps(in u. post 853 iterato)  : pectora Bentley • turpe] dura L3(uid., a.c.)M2P2S2 B42(mg.)GPh2 Sp Rd  : feda Es4 • puta] putes Dr  : pirra Ld6 • turpis sine] turpissime Lu(a.c.)  : turpe sine A(a.c.) Ge  : turpe est Bothe 18182 • sine] sum Es6  : sine sine P47 • frondibus] flondibus V6  : frundibus B8 : frontibus Ps(in u. post 853 iterato) • arbor] arbos B3BaFHdL4Lr4Lr6V6V7V8 DsSpV16 B12BoP28 Es4Es5F2Z P47, Lugd. 1565, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Koch 1866  : est arbos B5  : arbor est Vd B8Ld6 • post 847 mg. hoc hab. N4: turpe pecus mutilum, nemus est absque arbore turpe / et sine crine caput, turpes sine frondibus herbe • 848–849 ante hos uu. deus in nomine tuo mg. scr. V32 • 848 turpis] topis H3(a.c.) • equus] equos Pr  : equs B8Ld6Mo3Sp Rd  : esus Ds2(a.c.) • nisi] ni S2 Dr CvEs6Ps  : siñ Lr8(a.c.)  : sine V30 • colla] calla P47(a.c.) • iub(a)e] turpe B5(corr. B52)  : uibe Aler. 1471 • flauentia] fauentia L3(a.c.) B3(a.c.)Ld2(a.c.) P10(a.c.) Rd(ex itin. corr.)  : fluitantia A3 Es4(a.c.)  : fallantia Gg(a.c.)  : flauancia Ds2  : ualentia Ft  : pflauentia P28(a.c.)  : flammantia Ld7, “Florent.” test. Burm. 1727  : pauentia Walch. 1731(corr. 1739) • uelent] uolent B5  : uelant Ld(a.c.)MtV7V9(corr. V92) Ld6Mt2 B12, “quatuor libri” test. Burm. 1727  : ualent Lr6(a.c.) Ft  : uellent V5(a.c.) To(a.c.) McMt4(a.c.)Rd(ut solet) As(a.c.)Es6  : uelet Hd2 • 849 pluma] plurima H3(a.c.)V5(uid., a.c.) Es2(a.c.)  : puma Lr6 • tegit] tetigit Mc  : teget Lr22V30, Aler. 1471  : decet dub. Riese 1872 • ouibus … lana] auibus  … pluma ELd2(a.c.)  : sua lana ouibus Lr3  : ouibus sua sua lana Hd2(a.c.)  : ouibus sua lena P10(a.c.) • ouibus] oui Hd • decori est] decorie S2(a.c.) F(a.c.)  : decorice S2(p.c.)  : decori B3CFeMtN2V6V7 SoSp Es7, “tres” test. Burm. 1727, “Berol.”(non sic B14) test. Jahn 1832, prob. Bothe 18182  : decora est AbVd(-ori est p.c.) B8(i.l. u.l.; -ori est in textu)P10 P41  : decorum B5 Ds2  : decorum est B52 Ds22Ld7 Rd(per comp.) • • 850 barba … decent] barba decet uiros hirteque Ls B14 • post decent desin. P47 • uiros] uiris L23 • (h)(i/y)rt(a)eque] hirterque B3(a.c.)  : hyrsuteque Lr3  : hitreque Es2 • decent] placent C(a.c.)  : decet Mc Hd2 • in corpore] incopore(per comp.) Mo • s(a)et(a)e] sete sete Lr7  : uires V6 Lr8(a.c.) • 851 unum] Vunum A4(a.c.)  : una Lr7 • est] om. Lr2(i.l. supra lumen et sed suppl. Lr22) GgO3(a.c.)Ph2V6 Mo3 Lu2 • in … fronte] lumen media mihi fronte A • media] medias(uid.) B5(a.c.)  : medio Gg Sp Mc • lumen mihi] inu. ord. V6 Cs2 • lumen] limen Es2  : om. P2(a.c.) • mihi] om. Lr4(mg. suppl. Lr42) • sed instar] sinistra M Lr27(sed instar suprascr. Lr27*)  : quid N a.c. n.l. • instar] instrar V5(a.c.)  : istar Mc • 852 ingentis] incentis Mt : unius P10 • clipei] clippei M(ut solet)  : cliplei Ld2  : ciclopei Lr3(a.c.) • quid … magnus] quid enim non omnia magno A3  : quid non haec sunt(cum lit. damn.) omnia magna V4  : non haec sunt omnia magna Es3 • quid] qui Ft • non haec] inu. ord. Lr3  : nec V5(a.c.) • non] nonne S2 Cs2V16 : numquid Gf  : nû B4(corr. B42)N2 Go Es2To2, Venet. 1472 • haec omnia] homîa Ld6 • h(a)ec] et Gf  : hoc M(a.c.) B3Hd(a.c.) Mv7  : hic V8  : om. A3 Es3(a.c.) • omnia] quid L3 a.c. n.l. • magnus Lr2MM2(p.c.)N(uid., a.c.)S2 A4AbB2B4(-o B42)B5(-o B52)FeHdL4LdLr4Lr6Lr7MoN2O3V7V9Vd Bs2(a.c.)Bs3Bs4DsGoP102 Bo22(mg. u.l.)Cs3(-o mg. u.l. a m.p.)Mt4P28Vt Bo3Lr22Lr27(o suprascr. Lr27*)Lu2V30, “Berol.”(magno hab. B14) test. Jahn 1832, Aler. 1471, Burm. 1727, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Riese 1872, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007  : magno Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1713, Walch. 1731, Mitsch. 1819, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Weise 1845, Merkel 1850, Koch 1866, Korn 1880, Simmons 1889, Fabbri 1923 • 853 sol uidet] soliudet B5 • sol] sol ol Es2(a.c.) • uidet] uidit Mt5 • e c(a)elo] in c(a)elo Ab(a.c.)B3(uid., a.c.)Vd DsEt Vt  : ex celo Mt5  : excelso P41 • soli Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus.

518

Appendix critica

1834, Bach 1836, Weise 1845, Merkel 1850, Koch 1866, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007 • tamen] om. As(a.c.) • orbis] orbi M Mo Lr22(ur- scr. sed ex itin. corr.)Lr27(orbis Lr27*)V30, Aler. 1471  : orb’ est Lr7  : est orbis Ls • 854 adde] atde P10 • in uestro] om. O(mg. suppl. m.p.)  : quid Hd a.c. n.l. • in] et(per comp.) V9 Mt2  : om. A4(a.c.) • uestro] nostro L3(a.c.) EL4(a.c. uid.)Lr7Ph2 Cs2 B12FtMc Es6, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474  : de N2O3 ambiguum  : noster(per comp.) B4 • meus] deus B4(a.c.)  : om. H3 • (a)equore] in equore Es2(a.c.) • regnat] regat L3(a.c.)  : regnant N(uid., a.c.) • 855 hunc] nunc M Lr27(h suprascr. Lr27*)  : huc V6 P28  : huic P5 • tibi … socerum] tibi meruerim Vd  : tibi socerum Vd2(p.c.)  : socerum tibi do Mc P41 • socerum] secerum To2 • miserere] misere p Dr(a.c.)  : miscere O4(corr. O42) Rd  : misereque P3(a.c.)  : mei miserere Ft • precesque] pre(per comp.) cepsq3 Rd • 856 sup(p)licis] simplicis Gf V8 : suplices Bo  : quid N a.c. n.l. • tibi] om. Trepat-de Saav. 1932(uitio preli) • enim] om. H3(i.l. suppl. H32), Segura 1983(uitio preli)  : n Ft  : cum Es3 • post 856 uu. 919 sqq. sine lacuna hab. A2 • 857 quique] quiue MN Lr4 Bo3V30, Aler. 1471  : quidque B3  : quippe Mo  : quodque Ph2 Ft  : cuique Mo3 • Iouem  … sperno] Iouem superno L3(a.c.)  : Iouem sperno cum ipso L3(p.c.)  : Iouem sperno et celum H3Ld3Lr3V4V5 Cs2To Es3P41  : etiam sperno celum Ld6  : Iouem sperno celum Mc  : Iouem et celo sperno Ds  : Iouem in coelo sperno Bothe 18182 • Iouem] celum O(a.c.)  : om. P3 Es6 • et1] om. V16(a.c.) • caelum] caelos “Cantabrigensis” test. Heinsius 1659 • sperno] superno L3(a.c.) Hd(uid., a.c.)Mt Es2(a.c.) • et2] qui Ls B14  : om. Ld6Mo3To • penetrabile] penitrabile V3 (cf. 337) • fulmen] flumen Lr4V5 Li3 Es2  : lumen Mt  : flulmen Regius 1493(corr. 1497) • 858 Nerei] nererei B5(a.c.)V5(a.c.)  : Nerea Ds  : Nenei Ps(a.c.)  : quid V7 a.c. n.l. • te ueneror] et teneror Mt  : ueneror te V5 • uereor Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Lugd. 1546(ueneror mg.), Lugd. 1565, Ciof. 1575(qui ueneror“in duobus meis et Caelest.” test.), Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Merkel 1850, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Goold 1984, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007, Holzberg 2017  : ueneror Aler. 1471, Naug. 1516, Jahn 1832, Koch 1866, Lejay 1894, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, van Proosdij 1968, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004 • tua … est] maior tua fulmine ira est Vd • fulmine] fulminæ L3 Ba(-ę)Ls F2  : flumine Lr2(a.c.) V5 Li3  : fiulmine A4(a.c.)  : fulmê Ab(ex itin. corr.)  : fulmina B5Ld(a.c.) • s(a)euior] maior Vd  : sauior P10  : om. Ft sed spatium uacuum reliquit • ira est] illa Pr • est] om. B3B4(a.c.)PrV6 B8Mt2Sp • 859 atque] at Mo3 McMt5 • ego] ita O3(a.c. a m.p.)  : om. B2(a.c.)De • contemptus] conteptus V6  : contentus BaFeLr6Lr7V7Vd(conttentus a.c.) Ds2(corr. Ds22)P5So Mt4 AsGo2Lr27, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472  : cô êptus Mo(a.c.)  : ĉentus Ph2(corr. Ph22)  : contemptor P41 • patientior] patentior L3(a.c.)  : patior A4(a.c.)V4(a.c.)  : paciencia V6  : patientio P41 • • 860 fugeres] fugiês B3  : fugens B5(a.c.)  : fugeres res Sp(a.c.) • omnes] om. B4(a.c.) • sed cur] sed cor L3(a.c.)  : sed me A4(cur i.l. u.l. A42)AbLd(cur i.l. u.l. Ld2)  : si cur B5 To  : cur tu Mt3  : ut cur Ft  : sed V3(a.c.) Ph2(a.c.) P8(cur mg. suppl. m.p.), Venet. 1472 • Cyclope] cidoppe L3(-clope p.c.)  : cyclopi M2(-e a.c.) • repulso] relicto A3O42(mg. u.l.) Bs2(repulso mg. alt.u.l. Bs22)Cs2  : remoto A42(mg. u.l.)AbB4(repulso mg. B42)DrMtO42(mg. u.l.) Bs22(mg. p.u.l.), “quinque” test. Burm. 1727  : quid Ph2 a.c. n.l. • 861 Ac(c)in1] Acim A B3(a.c.)B4MtO4V7 Cs2Mt2So Mt5To2 Es5  : Athyn P5  : Atim Ft  : Achim Mv7 • praefersque] praefresque Hd  : preferensque Lr7  : perfersque O4  : praeferesque Pr  : praeferque V5(a.c.)  : confersque B12(prae- i.l.)  : profersque Mo3 • meis] suis B5Be2(meis Be22)  : mihi O3 • Ac(c)in2] unum B4(corr. B42)  : huius Lr4  : a(c/t)im MtV7 Cs2GoMt2So Bo2Es2(p.c.)Mt5Vt Es4  : acta Sp(a.c.)  : actim Es2(a.c.)  : Achim Mv7 • 862 tamen] tibi B3(tamen a.c. uid.)  : quidem G Sp  :



Appendix critica

519

tantum Rd • placeatque1] placuitque B2  : placeat L4(a.c.)P3Ph2 SoSp(a.c.) P41 Mv7(uid.)  : placeat et Es6  : placetque Lr4(uid.) Mc  : complaceatque V5(a.c.) : placeat quoque Bo2(a.c.) • sibi] tibi L3(a.c.) P41 • placeatque2] placeatque sibi Lr6(a.c.)  : placetque Mc • 863 nollem] nollent(uel -em) M(a.c.)  : nollet M(p.c.) Lr27  : non(per comp.) Ld6  : nolem Mt5, “unus meus” test. Heinsius 1659  : nolim prop. Heinsius 1659(in notis) • Galat(h)ea] galethea V3  : palatea B5(corr. B52)  : galletea V7  : galetea P10 • tibi … copia] modo copia Gg(a.c.)  : modo mihi copia Gg(p.c.) • tibi] mihi Vt(p.c.)  : om. GgL4(a.c.) • modo copia] inu. ord. Vd(a.c.) • modo] mihi Ab B8 • copia detur] inu. ord. A4 • copia] copi P3(a.c.)  : copio P41(a.c.) • 864 sentiet] sentiat L3M2P2 B4H3OV4 Sp  : sentient Dr  : senticet G(a.c.)  : sentit Ld6  : senti--& N(p.c.; sentic & uel sentie & a.c.) • corpore] corporo V3(a.c.)  : crimine Lr3 • 865 uiscera] uiscia Ab(a.c.)  : uixera Hd(a.c.)  : uincera Mt  : uncera Ld6  : uinera uel uiuera(per comp.) P5 • uiua] om. S2(mg. suppl. m.p.)  : uisa Cs2 • traham] thraham E(a.c.)  : trahi Lr7 • diuulsaque] diuisaque Aler. 1471, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915(-uulsaque H-K-E 1898), Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Hill 2000, Tarrant 2004  : diusaque Bo  : diuulsa Es2  : diuersa A(a.c.) L4(a.c.)V7(a.c.)  : diuersaque A(p.c.; -uulsaque i.l. u.l. A2) L4(p.c.; -uulsaque mg. u.l. L42)Lr7V7(p.c.; -uulsaque i.l. u.l. V72) Tb  : dimissaque B3V6 Mv7(-isaque)  : ditasque B5(-uulsaque B52)  : diuulgaque Ds • membra … agros] per agros membra V5 • membra] uiua V4 Es3 • 866 hunc u. om. Polle 1888 • tuas] tuos A4(a.c.)  : uias Cs3 • spargam] sprargam L3(a.c.)  : pargam Mt  : sp - agam Ld2  : spergam F2Lr22, Aler. 1471  : quid B5 a.c. n.l. • sic … tibi] se si mihi(tibi i.l. u.l. Ld22) Ld2  : si te tibi P10 • sic] si Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596 • se] te Ph2(a.c.)V4(a.c.) P10 • tibi] mihi Lr2 Ld2(tibi i.l. u.l. Ld22)Ld3Lr7Tr P5Tb B12Bo2(corr. Bo22)Mt4 Lu2  : sibi Lr27(a.c. a m.p.)  : om. Dr(a.c. a m.p.) Ps(suppl. Ps2) • misceat] miscere L4(a.c.)  : miscat O4(a.c.) • undas] undis(uid.) H3(a.c.) • 867 s post enim scr. Vd(a.c.) • l(a)esusque] lususque B52(p.c.)  : lesus Be2V7  : lexusque To2  : lęsusque iter. M2(cum lit. damn.) • exaestuat acrior] inu. ord. Ld3  : acrius exestuat N2 • ex(a)estuat] ex estuat Lr2M2V2(a.c.) G  : ex hestuatP2  : estuat B4GgLsPh2(a.c.)Vd(corr. Vd2) P5(a.c.) FtRd(a.c.) Es3  : extuat V6 BoEs2Mc AsB14P41 • acrior Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Magnus 1914, Anderson 1982 • ignis] ingis Aler. 1471 • 868 suis] om. Ft • uideor] uidear M Ft Lr27(o suprascr. Lr27*)  : quid Mc post uide a.c. n.l. • translatam] translatum N(a.c.) Bo3, “Cantabr.” test. Burm. 1727, Baumg.-Crus. 1834  : transierant Ph2(a.c.)  : transactam Ph22(p.c.) Sp  : translatamque Pr  : translatis Es2  : translata V30  : conflatam “Palatin.” test. Burm. 1727 • uiribus] montibus P3  : ignibus L3(p.c. a m.p.) Fe2(mg.; uiribus Fe)V82(mg. u.l.) Go(u.l.), cf. Plan.  : rupibus prop. Heinsius 1659(in notis), prob. Bothe 18182 • Aetnen] (a)ethnam GfL3Lr2LuMM2NP2(p.c.)S2V3 A3A4B2B3B4B5BaBe2CDrEFFeGH2H3HdL4Ld2Ld3Lr3Lr4Lr6Lr7LsMoMtN2OO3O4P3P4TrV4V5V7V8V9 B8Cs2DsDs2GoLd6Lr8Mo3Mt2P5P8SoSpTbToV16 B12BoBo2Cs3Es2Es3Mt4Mt5RdTo2 AsB14Bo3CvEs4Es6F2Lr27Lu2P41Ps Mv7   : etnam AP2(a.c.)V2 DeLd V30  : oethnam Ab(a.c.)  : arethnâ Ld2(a.c.)  : enhnam Gg  : entham Ph2  : h’nâ Pr  : enham V6  : ehtrnam Vd  : etuam P10(ehtnam mg. P103)  : ehnam FtP28  : ethenam Mc  : aetnam Es5Lr22Vd11 • 869 ferre meo] inu. ord. H2(a.c.) • ferre] ferte L4O4 Lr27(corr. Lr27*)  : fere Ld(a.c.)Lr3(a.c.) • meo] modo Es6 • nec] ne V5 • tu] mi Li3  : om. B4(a.c.) Z • Galatea] galetia Ls(a.c.)  : galathe Ph2(a.c.) • moueris] moreris Lr7  : moraris Et • post moueris interrog. signum pos. V3, Fabbri 1923 • • 870–875 propter homoeoarchon om. Cs3(ima pag. suppl. m.p.) • 870 hunc u. om. Lu(mg. suppl. coaeua m.) • Talia] alia Ld3  : Alia P41 • nequiquam] necquicquam P2 AbB2B5Be2FeLdLd3LsP2PrV6V7V8 B8Cs2Ds2Lr8Mt2Sp Bo(-dquam)Es2Mt4 B14CvEs6 Mv7   : nequicquam AGfL3Lr2LuM(a.c.)M2(recte a.c.)S2V3 A3A4B3B4BaCDrEFGGgH2H3L4Ld2Lr3Lr4Lr6Lr7MoN2O3O4P3P4Ph2V4V9Vd DsGoLd6Mt3P5P8SoTbToV16 B12Bo2Cs3Es3FtMcMt5To2 AsBo3Es4Es5F2Lr22Lr27Lu2P41PsV30Vd11  : quicquam Hd

520

Appendix critica

• questus] fatus B3 • cun(c)ta] tecta L4  : certa(per comp.) Lr7  : tota Mt  : cucta Es2  : concta Calder. 1477 • uidebam] uidebant Segura 1983(uitio preli) • 871 surgit] surgit surgit Hd(a.c.) • et ut] et V2(a.c.) B12(a.c.) Ps  : ut Ps(mg. u.l.)  : et at B5(corr. B52)  : et in Mo3  : uti coni. Vossius, prob. Baumg.-Crus. 1834(in notis) • taurus uacca] inu. ord. Lr2 O4 To • taurus] turus O4(a.c.)  : thaurus F2 • uac(c)a] bacca N2(suprascr. b)V2 • adempta] empta Be2(a.c.)  : abempta L4  : ad enpta MtVd  : adepta V6 Ds2Ld6Mt2 Lu2  : aempta To • 872 stare] sare Es4 • nequit siluaque] silua nequit Gg(a.c.) • siluaque] silua B3Mt, Venet. 1472  : siluisque Lr7 Ds2(sill-)Tb Cs3Mt5 As, Puteol. 1471, Calph. 1474  : siluis Mv7  : seluaque Ls(a.c.) • et notis] ignotis Ld6 • et] om. Be2Hd(a.c.)MtVd Es6 • notis saltibus] montibus anxius V9 • notis] noctis N(uid., a.c.) V6 Mc  : notos Ba(a.c.)  : noctisque Mt  : nouis Mt5 • errat] errant O4(a.c.)  : herrat V6  : erat Rd • 873 cum] tum F2Z • ferus ignaros] feros ignarus B5 • ignaros] ignoros S2(a.c.)  : ignotos De(a.c.) Cs2  : ignarus L4(a.c.)Ld(a.c.) Lr8(a.c.)  : îgnaros Mc  : ignøaros P41 • nec qui(d/c)quam] nequicquam L3(a.c.)Lr2(a.c.) A4(a.c.)AbB4(a.c.)DrE(a.c.)F(a.c.)Gg(a.c.)L4(p.c.)Lr3Lr7(duo uerba)O4P3 DsLi3SoSp(duo uerba)Tb Bo22(p.c.)Es2(p.c.)FtMcMt5To2 Bo3(duo uerba)F2Vd11Z  : nequiquam V6 Bo2  : nec quiquam Ld6Mo3  : nequidquam Vd(a.c.) • tale] om. To(mg. suppl. m.p.) • timentes] tumentes M(a.c.) Mt  : uidentes V30  : timente Jahn 1832(uitio preli) • 874 uidet] uident Lr27 • atque] adque Ld6  : om. Mo(a.c.) • Acin] cin B5(a.c.)  : aciem Ds(a.c.)  : acim A A4AbGgPh2 Cs2(acc-)Sp Bo2(-ym)Cs3Es2Mt5 B14Es4P41 • uideoque] uideque M2(a.c.)  : uidetque Es3  : uid’oque Gf  : uideo atque A4(aque a.c.) Rd  : uideo Ds2 Ft(a.c.)  : uideo exul “m. sc.” (sed non sic DsDs2) test. Bersm. 1596 • exclamat] extlat A4(a.c.) • et] ut V2 • ista] ipsa(per comp.) V6 • 875 ultima] ultimo Ld6 • sit] sic P41 • faciam Veneris] inu. ord. Ba • faciam] facta MN(uid., a.c.) Lr27  : faciem Ld2(a.c.), Calph. 1480, Walch. 1731(corr. 1739)  : faxo Heinsius 1659(in notis) • concordia] concondie Ft(a.c.)  : concordie Lr3(uid., a.c.) Ft(p.c.)  : corcordia Puteol. 1471 • uestr(a)e] nostre Fe(per comp.)Mt Ld6(per comp.) Bo  : uite P5(a.c.) • 876 tantaque] tanta AbP3(corr. P32) • uox] nox B4(a.c.)Dr  : uos Es2Ft(a.c.)  : om. Ld2(a.c.) • quantam Cyclops] ciclops quantamque Ld6 • quantam] quantamque Lu Ld6 Go2  : quantum Lr3Lr7Pr Bo P41Vd11 : quanta FtTo2 AsEs6 • Cyclops] ciclos A3(a.c.)  : cyclos Be2G(a.c.)  : cyclopê Ph2(a.c.)  : ciclopis V6 • iratus] ignitus Lr3 • habere] abere M(a.c.) P10(a.c.)  : amore V6 • 877 illa] ista A Ds  : illa illa V7 • fuit] fugit L3(a.c.) Es2(a.c.)  : fui B5(a.c.)  : om. Sp(a.c.) • perhorruit Aetne] sub equore mergor Pr • per(h)orruit] perhoruit FLd2 Es2  : per oruit Rd  : subhorruit Bs4  : om. Ld6 • (A)etne] ethna AGfL3Lr2M(-e a.c.)S2V2 A3A4AbB2B4B52(mg.)BaBe2CDrFFeGH3HdL4(-e a.c.)Ld2(-e a.c.)Ld3Lr3Lr6Lr7LsMo2(mg. u.l.; -e Mo)N2(-e a.c.)OO3O4P4Ph2TrV4V5V8V9Vd Cs2Ds2GoLd6Lr8Mo3Mt2P5P8P10SoSpTbTo B12BoBo2Cs3Es2Es3Mt4Mt5RdTo2 AsB14Bo3CvEs4Es6F2Lr27Lu2Ps  : etna N2(i.l. u.l.; ętne N)P2(-e p.c.) Ld V30Vd11  : ęthna Lu  : æthna M2 Mv7  : ęthan V3  : ethnâ B8  : hethna B3H2 P41  : ethin B5  : ethena Mc  : ætna Es5Lr22, Aldina 1502, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Weise 1845, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, van Proosdij 1951  : ether P3  : êna Gg  : enhê V6  : hêna V7  : ehna Ft • 878 Ast] At P2 PrVd B8Ld6Mo3 Bo2Mc P41, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472  : atque Lr6LsMt B14Ps, “quinque” test. Burm. 1727  : sed P32(u.l.)  : astque P8  : adest Rd • uicino] ceruleo A4(i.l. u.l.)B5L4V6 Li3, “unus Heinsii” test. Burm. 1727  : uicina Ld6  : om. De • pauefacta] patefacta V7  : stupefacta Mt3 • sub … mergor] per aequora mergar Gf(a.c.)  : sub equore mersi Ba  : sub equora mergor Ld6  : sub equore mergo To2  : sub equore mergar F2  : sub equore iungor Es6 • 879 terga] terra H2(a.c.) • fug(a)e] fige B5(a.c.)  : duce Pr  : om. Fe(suppl. Fe2) • dederat] dederam M(post conuersa dist.) Bo3Lr27(t i.l. Lr27* p.c.)  : dederant Vd(a.c.) Ft  : dedera[ Hd • conuersa] auersa P3  : conusa(per comp. ɔusa) V6  : cûuersa Vd(ut solet)  : quid Mo a.c. n.l. • S(y/i)m(a)et(h)ius] symetheus Ph2  : si metuis L3  : simetidus Lr2 Lu2  : simecidus M2(simetius a.c.)  : semetius S2 GH3  : simetheus Ab  : simechius B2BaDrN2PrV6Vd Cs3To2  : symechius Cv  : simecius B3 Es2  : sinethius Be2 Mt4  : simethehus Gg  : sinetheus Lr7  : tirincius B4  : simetheius FLr4  : semethius Hd  : themetius B12  : simethidus Ld(p.c.)  : simethus Ld(a.c.)  : symeius Ld2  : mimechius O3  : symecius V16  : simetrius B8 Mt5P28 Es5  : simathius Ds2  : semecius Es4  : simechi Es6  : semessius Mc  : semesius P41 • hero(s/x)] oris B5(corr. B52)  : eros F  : horas Ft •



Appendix critica

521

• 880 Galat(h)ea] galetea N(praeter consuet.) • precor] precco Pr • mihi cum ferte coniunx. ALr2LuNS2 A3B2Be2CDrFH3L4Ld2Ld3Lr4Lr6LsN2O3O4Ph2V4V8Vd B8Cs2GoLd6P5SoV16 B12BoBo2Es2McMt4P28To2 B14Es4Es5Lr22Lu2 Mv7 • ferte] ferre Lr7Pr • parentes] paretes Pr • 881–891 om. Pr • 881 et] aut coni. Vossius • uestris] uerbis L4(a.c.)  : nostris Ld6 • periturum] peritura Mc • admit(t)ite] aduertite A(a.c.)Lu(admitte i.l. u.l. a m.p.) Cs2  : amittite Ba(a.c.)  : admittor(uid.) Hd  : admittere Mt(per comp.) Mc(p.c.) V30  : mittite V8(corr. V82)  : amictere Mc(a.c.)  : admite B5(a.c.) • regnis] regnus B5(a.c.)  : nostris Mt(a.c.) • 882 insequitur] insequar Es2  : insequiturque Es6 • C(y/i)clops] cidops L3(a.c.)  : cilops Fe  : cyclosp Hd  : cliclops Ds • partemque] partem et Es2 • e] a GfLr2 A4B4BaCGLr4V9 B8Cs2P8(amôntes)P10SoTb Bo2 Es5Lr22Lu2V30, “nouem libri” test. Burm. 1727, Aler. 1471, Bothe 18182  : in Ab  : de(uid.) Hd  : o(sc. omonte) Mo(a.c. a m.p.)  : ex P41 • 883 et] in V4  : at “duo” test. Burm. 1727 • extremus quamuis] inu. ord. Mt3  : extremus(-is a.c.) quamuix Gg  : extremis que uix V4 • extremus] extremis Gg(a.c.)N2(a.c.)V4 Rd P41  : externus F2 • quamuis peruenit] inu. ord. Mo(a.c.) • peruenit] prouenit P41 : peruet Ps • illum] omnes C(illum i.l.)  : acin Ld(illum i.l. u.l.)  : ipsum TrV6 • 884 angulus] angule Mt • totum tamen] inu. ord. A3(a.c.) • totum] tantum B5 • tamen] non Ft  : cacumen Mt5 • obruit] horruit Lr2 Es6Lu2  : orruit Lu(a.c.)  : eduit Mt  : obrruit V6 • Acin] illum N2(i.l. u.l.) O3(i.l. ·i· achin)  : actin Vd  : ictu “Medic.” test. Burm. 1727, prob. Bothe 18182 • 885 at] ad B5 P28  : et Gg Mv7 • nos quod] inu. ord. Ba(a.c.)V4 Es3  : quod post at scr. As(ex itin. corr.)  : nos quo Lr2(a.c.) N2(a.c.) Mv7  : nos quae P5  : nos qui Es5 • fatû post quod scr. A(ex itin. corr.) • fieri solum] inu. ord. GfLr2S2 B2HdLr4Lr6Tr DsMo3Mt3V16 B12Es2Mt4P28 F2Lu2Z, Burm. 1727(fieri solum 1713), Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Merkel 1850, Koch 1866, Polle 1888, Ehwald 1915 (fieri solum H-K-E 1898), van Proosdij 1951, Segura 1983, Fink 2007  : fieri nobis Ls B14  : fi’ solum P5  : fieri id solum Ft  : ferri solum P41 • per] om. A(i.l. suppl. A2)  : post S2(a.c.) B4CV9 F2Z • fata] facta Ab Rd • licebat] licebant Ld2(a.c.)  : silebat Ld6  : sinebat Mt3(a.c.) • 886 fecimus assumeret tantum scr. Es5 • a(d/s)sumeret] assummeret Ph2  : asummerat Cs2  : sumeret Es2(a.c.)  : asumeret Ld Mc AsLr27  : assumere Accurs. 1475(corr. Calder. 1477) • auitas] inultas MN(uid., a.c.)V3(uid., a.c.) Lr27Vd11  : auictas(uid.) Hd  : in undas Lr4Lr6Mo(i.l. u.l.; auitas in textu) Et Mt4, “Oxon. … et Moreti” test. Burm. 1727  : amicas Mt  : in undis “duo” test. Burm. 1727 • 887–888 manabat … rubor om. MN(i.l. suppl. m.p.) Mo3(corr. Mo32) Lr27 • 887 puniceus] purpureus H2O4(puniceus i.l. u.l. O42)  : punicius Ld  : puniceo Mc • mole] more MN(mole i.l. u.l. N2)P2(a.c. a m.p.)V2(mole i.l. u.l. V23) B22(i.l. u.l.)EGgLr3Lr4Lr6O3P3V9 B8(a.c.)Go(a.c.)Mo3 Vt Lr22Lr27Lu2Ps(mole mg.)Vd11, Lugd. 1546(mg.), “decem” test. Burm. 1727  : monte Hd, prob. Bothe 18182  : molle P32(p.c.) B12Rd Es6, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472 • cruor] color O3(a.c.) • manabat] manebat L3(a.c.) Ph2 B8 Ft • et intra] in antra S2(uid., a.c.)  : et infra V7 Ld6 Lr22(a.c.)V30, “sex” test. Burm. 1727, Aler. 1471  : et intrat Ds(a.c.)  : et intera (per comp.) Rd  : et instar “Vatic.” test. Burm. 1727 • 888 temporis] temperis B5 • exiguum] ex A3(a.c.)  : eiguum Ld(a.c.)  : eguum Es2(a.c.) • rubor] robur Ph2(rubor mg. u.l. Ph22) To2 Es3 • euanescere] uanescere MN(a.c.) Lr27  : euascere B5(a.c.)  : emanescere Dr(a.c.) • c(o)epit] fe- incoh. Dr(ex itin. corr.)  : sentit Ld6 • 889 fitque] fit V6 Cv(a.c.) • color] colo Lr22(a.c.)V30, Aler. 1471 • primo] pruno Rd  : primi Cv • turbati] turbato P2(uid., a.c.) • fluminis] fulminis B5 Mc(a.c.)Mt4(a.c.) • imbre] inbre Ba  : ymbre Ld3O3V4(p.c.)V82(mg. u.l.) To Z  : ymbe V4(ymbre p.c.; imbre i.l. u.l. V42)  : hymbre Es5V30  : umbre V6 Mc B14  : instar V8 • • 890 purgaturque] turbaturque B5V6V7  : pugnaturque V30  : pargaturque Burm. 1713(uitio preli; corr. 1727) • mora] moras M Lr27 • tum] tunc ALr2Lu A4AbB3B4(tum mg. B42)B5BaGgHdLdLd2LsOO3O4V4V6V7Vd Cs2Ds2Ld6Mo3Mt2Mt3P5P8P10SoV16 Es2FtMcMt4 B14Lu2P41  : cum CFLd3MtV9 B8Lr8  : tamen P2(per comp. tñ, a.c.) Es6  : nunc Mv7 • moles tacta] inu. ord. V5 • moles] mollis MN(uid., a.c.) Lr27  : mole A Rd  : mola Mc(a.c.) • iacta] tacta Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502,

522

Appendix critica

Naug. 1516, Ciof. 1575, Heinsius 1652, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915(iacta H-K-E 1898), Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, R. de Verger 2005, Tarrant 2004  : fracta Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Merkel 1850, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, Edwards 1905, Fabbri 1923, Fink 2007 • de(h)iscit] dehiscat Lu(a.c.)  : deiecit B3(a.c.)  : deicit B3(p.c.)Mt  : dîscit B4  : deisciti O4  : diescit B8  : dehiscunt F2  : dihiscit O3  : quid Lr2(sed cf. Lu2)N(-it i.ras.) a.c. n.l. • 891 uiuaque] uiuaueque L3(a.c.)  : paruaque G(uiuaque uid. a.c.)  : uiua Es2(a.c.)  : uinaque Mc  : fuluaque dub. Heinsius • per rimas] per ripas B4(recte mg. B42)  : primas F(a.c.)  : per primas Lr7 Ft Vd11  : per limas L6  : perrinas Es6  : perimas B14V30(a.c.)  : rimas Ps • proceraque] properataque Lu(a.c.)MN(a.c.)S2 BaGL42(mg. u.l.)Ld2(i.l. u.l.)MoN2Ph2 DsDs2L7 B122(i.l. u.l.) Bo3Es4F2Lr27Vd11, test. Viuianus (1522, ad loc.), Calph. 1474(proceraque corr. 1480), Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Gierig 1807, Lemaire 1822, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Fabbri 1923  : procerrraque V5  : proceratque Rd  : properata Es6  : procera eque P41  : quid M2P2 a.c. n.l. • surgit] resurgit V7 • 892 osque] hosque B5 Mc  : ossa F2 • cauum] canum L3(a.c.) MtPr Bo2Mc(uid., a.c.)  : caui Cs2  : cauumque F2 • saxi sonat] resonat saxi Lr2 Lu2 • saxi Ω, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, edd.  : saxis GfMM2(saxi p.c.)N(saxi p.c.; sed saxis restit. N2)V2V3 FGgMoP4V5 B8DsDs2(saxi p.c.) Mt42(p.c.) Bo3Es5(saxi p.c.): saxo Lr22Lr27V30, Plan., “Cantab. et quatuor alii” test. Burm. 1727, Aler. 1471   A4AbLd(saxi i.l. u.l. Ld2)OO3Vd EtP5Vt Cv(saxi i.l. u.l. a m.p.)Ps(saxi i.l. u.l. Ps2), “placebat Heinsio” test. Burm. 1727  : saxe B5 • sonat] tonat Dr  : fugit Lr3  : resonat Lr2 Cv(a.c.)Lu2 • ex(s)ultantibus] exfluuitantibus M Mo(exultantibus i.l. u.l.)  : exfluitantibus Lr27  : et fluuitantibus Bo3  : fluitantibus Lu(exultantibus i.l. u.l. a m.p.)  : ex ultantibus M2 V5  : exulantibus H3  : exululatibus Mc • undis] undas L4(a.c.)O3(a.c.)  : quid Ba a.c. n.l. • 893 miraque] mirraque Gg(a.c.)Lr7 • res] om. Ab(suppl. Ab2)F(suppl. F2)O3(suppl. m.p.)  : rex B5 • subito] subita Ft • media] medio Ld2(a.c.)  : midia Pr Ds • ex(s)titit] astitit Gf2(i.l. u.l.) Gg, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474  : astititit Lr7  : excita Mt  : eminet FeO3  : extulit Es2  : excutit Rd  : exit ab Es4  : exuit Es6 • 894 incinctus … flexis] inflexis … cinctus prop. Regius 1493(in notis, unde incinctus iuuenis inflexis contra metrum 1497 et 1498 in textu subrepsit), ed. 1510, 1526, 1540  : inflexus  … cinctus Micyl. 1543(uitio preli)  : inflexis  … flexus Lugd. 1546(mg.; incinctus … flexis in textu) • incinctus] incinctur re uera per comp. A  : accinctus A4(-ntus; inc- mg. u.l. A42)AbFeLd(acc- i.l. u.l. Ld2)Vd Mo3 Vt  : incintus F(a.c.)H3Lr4Lr6V6 B8To P41  : incigtus G(a.c.)  : inuictus P4  : praecinctus V9  : succintus Cs2  : imcinctus F2 • post incinctus spat. trium uerborum capacem eras. V4 • flexis] flexus A4(-is a.c.) CvPs, Lugd. 1546(mg.; -is in textu)  : nexis “unus Medic.” test. Heinsius 1659  : sexis “alius” test. Heinsius 1659  : fletis “Cantabrig.” test. Heinsius 1659  : plexis prop. Heinsius 1659(in notis), prob. Bothe 18182 • noua cornua] modo cornua S2  : in(in supra noua scr. M2) noua cornua De  : noua tempora P5 • cornua] conua F(a.c.)  : corna Ft • cannis] canis M Pr Lr27 • flexa  … canna in “Arondel.” (sed non sic Ld) test. Heinsius 1659 • 895–898 hos uu. media pagina tribus lineis scr. V16 • 895 qui] et C(a.c.) Lr8(qui i.l. u.l. Lr82)  : quid O32(qui O3 a.c.)P3PrV4(a.c.) Mc P41  : quae(per comp.) V6  : quem Vd(a.c.)  : quin Es2(a.c.) • nisi] neque MN(uid., -isi i.ras., a.c. a m.p.) Lr27  : om. Ld6 • quod … quod] quod … et A4  : quod … quo Hd(a.c.)  : qui  … quod Lr7  : quem  … quod Cs3(a.c.)  : quid  … quis Mt • maior] magior M2(p.c.)  : magis M2(a.c.)  : maior est P10So • erat post maior scr. N2(ex itin. corr.) • toto] tanto Fe(a.c.)Gg(a.c.)V9(corr. V92)  : toto est Ld6 • c(a)erulus] cętulus M2(uid., a.c.)  : ceruleus B5Ld3 Li3Lr82(cerulus Lr8 a.c.)Mt2 F2Z  : ceruleo Mc  : caerulis Go2 • ore LuMN(ore est p.c. a m.p.)V2 FeLr3O3PrV6Vd Ld6 Lr27, Merkel 1850, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007  : ore est Ω, Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596,



Appendix critica

523

Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Koch 1866  : orbe est B4(ore est mg. B42)O4(ore est p.c.)Ph2 • 896–897 inu. ord. Pr • 896 hunc u. om. Lr8(mg. suppl. Lr82) • erat … erat] erat quoque erat et sic P3 • erat1] om. Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472 • post erat1 unum uerbum eras. exhib. L3 • et sic quoque] sed sic quoque Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Merkel 1850, Koch 1866, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, Hopkinson 2000, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007  : quod sic quoque M Mo Ds P28 Lr27  : quod sit quoque(quod uid., a.c.) N  : et sic quamquam H2  : et sic quicquid Ba(et sic quoque a.c.) Ld6  : sic et quoque Be2DrGLd2(u.l.)Lr4Lr6Ph2 Bo CvP41Ps, “sex alii” test. Heinsius 1659  : sic est quoque nunc O4V4  : si quicquid B22(p.c.) B8(p.c.)  : sic quicquid AbFFeLdV9Vd B8(a.c.)Ds2GoP8P10To Ft, “Cantabrig. Oxon. prim. Moreti aliique multi” test. Heinsius 1659  : sic quisquis P5Sp  : sic quicquam Es6  : sic qui quid Vt  : etsi quoque B5  : sic quoque A4HdGg Cs2Mt3So B12 Es5  : sicut quoque Tr  : is quoque Es2(et sic q. a.c.)  : sed quicquid Ld22(i.l. u.l.; et sic quoque Ld2)O3P32(p.c.) Mv7, “nonnulli” test. Heinsius 1659, prob. Vossius “cum multis”  : sid(sic) quidqui(per comp. qidqi) V6  : qui sic q3 Ls B14  : quid P2 a.c. (et sic q. p.c. i.ras.) n.l. • quoque] quod N(uid., a.c.)  : quicque P22(i.l. u.l.)  : quisque B5 • tamen] om. A(i.l. A2) A4(i.l. A42)  : tunc Mt  : tener P10 • in amnem] inanem N(corr. N2) Be2Pr Ds(a.c.) Es6 Mv7(a.c.)  : in annem AbB3B4B5CFGgL4Ld3Lr4LsO4(a.c.)Vd Ds2Lr82P5 Mt4To2  : in anne Rd  : in ampnem Lr6  : in amnen Ld6  : in amnem est Es4 • 897 hunc u. om. L4(mg. suppl. L42) • uersus et] uersus : uersus est et Fe  : uertitur Ba • antiquum] antiqum A4(a.c.)DrGgLd2PrV8 Ld(a.c.)   B8Cs2Ld6Mo3Sp Mc  : anticum FeLdO3 P8  : antiqm Ps • tenuerunt] teniuerunt B3(a.c.)  : tenuere B8  : quid O4 a.c. n.l. • flumina] fulmina A4(mg. corr. A43)  : nomina Vd  : equora V16 • nomen] numen Es6  : om. T • 898–916 om. Polle 1888 • 898 Desierat] desieat G(a.c.) : desiderat V9(a.c.)  : esierat Ld3 Lr7  : Esierat P41  • Galat(h)ea] galethea V3 Lr3 • c(o)etuque] centuque Pr • 899 discedunt] disceduntque L3(a.c.)  : descendunt A Tr Ps, “duo libri” test. Burm. 1727  : discedit Fe  : dissedunt Mt Bo2Cs3  : discendunt P41 • placidisque] placidique Lr8(a.c.) • natant] natent C(a.c.)  : notant Pr Mc(a.c.)  : narrant Rd : nutant Walch. 1731(uitio preli) • Nere(i/y)des] nereidis B5 Mt5Rd P41  : Nereids Naug. 1516 • undis] undes AL3(a.c.)  : undas A4Lr3(a.c.)  : in undis Es4 • • 900 Sc(y/i)lla] silla Lr8To B12FtMt5  : scille Ds2(a.c.)  : sylla Mv7 • redit] reddit H2(a.c.)Ls(a.c.)Pr Mc(a.c.)  : rddit Ld6  : redijt Ft • neque … se] neque se medio Ph2  : neque enim se Ps • neque] nec B4DrGLr7V8V9 GoP5 Es3P41 Mv7 • se post enim scr. B5(a.c.)Vd(a.c.) • medio] a medio B5  : om. Ps • se credere] secedere B2(a.c.)  : se cedere Ls B14  : se crede Mc Ps(crede mg. u.l.)  : se reddere Ps  : succedere “tert. Gronou.” test. Burm. 1727  : quid B12 a.c. n.l. • ponto] celo Ds(a.c.) • 901 audet] audat Calph. 1480 • et] om. B5V5(a.c.) Es2 • aut] aud’ Ab(a.c.)  : cum(per comp.) Gg(a.c.)  : ut Gg(p.c. uid.) To, Glar.-Long. 1541  : haud Rd  : om. O3(i.l. O32) • bibula] lassa Bs4 • errat] erat B5(a.c.)Lr4(a.c.) Ld6To(a.c.) Es2 V30, Aler. 1471  : exit Ld2, “unus Leid.” test. Burm. 1727  : om. Lr3(i.l. Lr32) • 902 aut] haut Lr2(a.c.)  : ast Be2  : at Li3 • ubi … est] lassata ubi est Ph2 • ubi] om. Gf(a.c. a m.p.) Ld(a.c. a m.p.)  : uultu Mt  : nisi PrVd(ex itin. corr.)  : tibi Mt5 V30 • lassata  … seductos] seducta est lassataque V9(a.c.)  : seductos est lassataque V9(p.c.) • lassata est] lassata PrV6Vd  : lassatas Ft(a.c.)  : laxata est Rd As(lassata est a.c.)  : sublata est Ps(mg. corr. Ps2) • seductos AGf(p.c.)N3(p.c.)P2 A4AbB22(i.l. u.l.)B3B4B52(p.c.)BaBe2CDrF2(i.l. u.l.)Gg(p.c.)H2H3HdL42(p.c.)LdLd22(i.l.)Lr62(p.c.)Lr7LsOO3P3P43(p.c.)PrV4V6V8Vd B8Ds2Ld6Lr8Mt3P8P10(p.c.)Sp B122(p.c.)Bo2Cs3Es2Es3Mc(p.c.)Mt4Mt5P28To2 AsB14Bo3Cv(p.c.)Es4Es5Lr22P41V30 Mv7  : Gf(a.c. uid.)L3LuMM2N(a.c.)P2(i.l. u.l. a m.p.)S2TV2V3 A3B2B5(a.c.)EFeGGg(a.c.)L4(a.c.)Ld(i.l. u.l. a m.p.)Ld2Lr4Lr6(a.c.)MoO4(a.c.)P4Ph2(a.c.)TrV5 Cs2DsP5P10(a.c.)SoTo2(p.c.)V16

524

Appendix critica

B12RdVt Cv(a.c.)Lr27PsVd11, “Ox. Cant. et plurimi alii” test. Burm. 1727  : seductosque Lr2 Lr3MtN2O4(p.c.)Ph2(p.c.)V7 Mt2 Bo Es3Es6Lu2  : seducta F(uid.) Go(uid.)To  : secretos Ld3  : sedutos Mo3  : lassataque V9  : subductos Ft  : seductas(uid.) Mc(a.c.)  : seductus F2 • nacta] nata N(corr. N3) Lr3MtV6, Calder. 1477  : macta B5(a.c.) • recessus] recesses T(a.c.)  : recensus Ph2(a.c.)  : rcessus F(a.c.)  : recesus Hd(a.c.) • 903 gurgitis] gugitis F(a.c.)  : gurgis Mt • refrigerat] refrixerat B3  : effigera B5(a.c.)  : effigerat B5(p.c.)  : reffligerat B52(mg.)  : refrigit Mt Ld6  : refuderat V9(refrigerat a.c.)  : quid L3 a.c. n.l. • unda] unbra Mt(a.c.)V6  : in unda Mv7 • 904 fretum scindens] freto stridens Merkel 1850, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Simmons 1889, H-K-E 1898, Ehwald 1915, Miller 1921, van Proosdij 1951, H-K-E-A 1966, Segura 1983, Fink 2007  : fretum findens Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828  : fretum fringes(uid.) N(a.c.)  : spetum scindens T  : fretum sengens(uid.) B2(a.c.)  : fretum cindens Ba(a.c.)CLdO3 Bo2(a.c.)  : fretum scindent Lr7  : fretum scandens(i.l. u.l.) Mo2(f. scindens Mo)  : fretum sindens Mc  : fretum tundens Bs7  : fretum(fetum a.c.) cindens(quid a.c. –cin i.ras. – n.l.) stringens(postea damn.) O5  : quid Lr2P2 a.c. n.l. • fretum] frettum Mt4 • nouus] nobus V2  : in nuus Vd(a.c.)  : noîs Ld6 • ponti] montis O3(a.c.) • 905–906 inu. ord. GgLsP4 Li3 B12(a.c.) • 905 hunc u. om. V3 H2(mg. suppl. H22) • nuper] om. Plan. • in] et(per comp.) Pr • Euboica] eboica A4Ba(a.c.)  : euboicam V30 • uersis … membris] membris … uersis L3LuM2N(p.c.)T Ab(uersus a.c.)GgH3Lr3Lr7LsMtOO3P4Ph2V4V5V6Vd(sed m ante uersis scr. a.c.) DsDs2Ld6Li3Lr8Mt2P10SoSpTo Es3McRdVt B14Bo3CvEs3Es6F2Go2Lr22P41PsV30Z, Aler. 1471  : uestris(membris mg. u.l. V23) … siluis MN(a.c., uid.)V2 Lr27  : membris … mensus(per comp.) C • Ant(h)edone] antedona A Ld(a.c.)  : andedone M2T B42(mg.)  : antidone Ab  : in antidone B5  : a atenodade ide Gg(a.c. a m.p.)  : athedone Lr3V5  : anteodone Ph2  : amindone Pr  : antenode V6  : antêne Mc(a.c.)  : anthidone P28 • 906 Glaucus] claucus S2T O3  : Glacus Ld  : Clamis Mt  : Gaucus Pr • cupidine] cupidinis Gg(a.c.) Li3  : cupine H3(a.c.) • uirginis] om. G Bo2(mg. Bo22) • haeret] ardet Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1652, Loers 1843 • post u. 906 desin. Ab(propter exscissum folium 86; inde a fol. 87 uu. XIV 20 sqq. leguntur)Gg(propter exscissum folium 51; inde a fol. 52 uu. XIV 29 sqq. leguntur) • 907–908 posse … / uerba] uerba … / posse Sp • 907 et] haec L3V3 BaEFH2OLd3MtV5V6 Mo3To  : h’ et Pr  : hic AN2(i.l. u.l.)V2 A3E(i.l.)Ld2Ls Bo22(mg. u.l.)Cs3(mg. u.l. a m.p.)To2 B14  : his P4, Lugd. 1546(mg.)  : hanc Mt3  : huic Es6  : de Be2 n.l.  : quid Mt2 a.c. n.l. • qu(a)ecumque] quacumque M(a.c.)B5  : querqûque Ld6  : quencunque Es5  : quantumque Lr27 • putat] uidet A3 • morari] moueri Fe(morari i.l. u.l. a m.p.) Rd  : mouere V4  : porari Mo3(p.c. a m.p.)  : moneri P10  : moraris B12(a.c.) • 908 refert] refer Lr8  : om. O3(supra fugit scr. O32, quae manus tamen fugit cum lit. perperam damn.) • tamen] om. A3 • ueloxque timore om. V3(suppl. m. recentior) • timore] furore A3 • 909 in] ad B5 • sum(m)um] siruû V6  : sûmo Mc P41 • positi] om. L4(i.l. L42)  : poni Lr7  : ponti Ph2(a.c.)  : posita Mt3(uid.)  : prositi Lr27 • prope] quoque(per comp.) Dr • lit(t)ora] litera Rd • montis] ponti C(corr. C2)Lr7  : pêq O3(corr. O32)  : quid Lr2 O4 a.c. n.l. • • 910–911 inu. ord. Lr8(a.c.) • 910 hunc u. om. Vd(mg. suppl. p. uel coaeua m.) • fretum] fretrum Rd • est; dist. Merkel 1875(est, 1850) • est] om. PrV6 Bo • ingens] ignes V5  : îgnês Mc  : magais(uid.) B8(a.c.) • apicem] apicecem B8(a.c.) • col(l)ectus] coniectus L3MN(a.c.)S2T B2B4H3Lr3Lr7MtN2OV5 To Bo2Cs3Mt5RdVt As(p.c.)Es3Es5Lr27Vd11, Puteol. 1471, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Bersm. 1596  : confectus Ph2(corr. Ph22)  : collecta Dr(a.c.)  : coniunctus(per comp.) P28  : conictus As(a.c.)  : collatus “unus meus” test. Heinsius 1659  : congestus dub. Heinsius(in notis)  : telluris ed. Venet. 1472  : cuneatus dub. Heinsius 1659(in notis)  : quid P2 a.c. (collectus in i.ras.) n.l. • unum] unam Vd • 911 longa] longua Ld3 Go  : lûga B8 • arboribus] aruoribus V2(a.c.)  : aequoribus De • conuexus] conuersus GfLr2 B4(ima pag. corr. B42)B5(mg. corr. B52)CDrLd3Lr7 Ds2Ld6Li3Mo3So Es2McTo2 Es4Lu2P41  : conexus Lu(corr. Lu2) Ft  : connexus B12 Z  : cû uexus V3  : conuexsus



Appendix critica

525

Hd  : comuexus L4  : conuessus B14  : conuer- inch. A(ex itin. corr.) • in Naug. 1516, Merkel 1850, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Simmons 1889, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, Bernardini Marzolla 1994, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007  : ad Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Koch 1866 • (a)equora] ęquore N(a.c. a m.p.)  : (a)ethera A(a.c. a m.p.)Lu(aequora i.l. u.l. Lu2) GHdMt, Bernardini Marzolla • 912 constitit] constat L3  : constit S2(a.c.) • hic] hoc Rd Es6 Mv7  : om. Mc Z • et] om. B5 • loco] tamen M Bo3Lr27  : loce Be2  : locum C  : loca V6  : quid N i.ras. a.c. n.l. • monstrum] ministrum Lr7  : in mostrum B14  : om. Ls(mg. suppl.) Ds • monstrumne deusne] monstrumue deusue AGf A4B3B4CDrFeH3O3PrV9Vd B8Ds2Ld6Mt2P8P10SoSp Cs3FtMc Es6P41Ps Mv7  : monstrum medeusne B5(a.c.)  : monstrumne deusue Be2V4 Es5  : ministrumue deusue Lr7 • 913 ille] iste B8  : illa Mc P41 • sit] fugit. sit Lr7 (cf. 908, 967)  : sic Mt5 • a(d/m)miraturque] admicaturque Ld2(a.c. a m.p.)  : admiranturque V6  : admireturque Ld6(p.c.; quid a.c. n.l.)  : admiraturque ad Ps  : quid N i.ras. a.c. – an admiratumque? – n.l. • colorem] calorem Es2(a.c.) Ps(a.c.) • 914 c(a)esariemque (h)umeros] ille sit ignorat B5(corr. B52) • c(a)esariemque] cesariem Mc(a.c.) • (h)umeros] humeris Gf(a.c.)M Mo(-os mg. u.l.) Rd Es4Lr27  : humerosque N2(-os a.c.)O4  : om. Fe(suppl. Fe2) • subiectaque] subitaque Lr6(a.c.), Venet. 1472 • terga] colla O4 Mt3, “Moreti” test. Burm. 1727  : erga Go  : membraque O3  : membra “tres” test. Burm. 1727 • tegentem] gerentem MN(a.c.) C Rd Es4Lr27  : regentem B5Lr7  : tenentem Ld6, “duo” test. Burm. 1727  : terentem Mo2(i.l. u.l.), coni. Heinsius(in notis)  : rigentem Es3, “alius” test. Burm. 1727  : iacentem P10(tegentem mg. P102), “unus” test. Burm. 1727 • post hunc u. desin. Es3, redit Es • 915 ultimaque] ultima quaeque Hd(a.c.)  : ultima qu(a)e V9(corr. V92) Bo3 • excipiat] excepiat L3(a.c.)  : accipiat Gf Pr  : exipiat Mt  : excepit P4  : excipit Mt2 • quod] ut Lr7  : q3 (accipiatq3) Pr  : quam Mc  : qui B14(quod a.c.)Es5 • tortilis] tortolis L3(a.c.)M(a.c.)  : titolis B5(corr. B52)  : fortis Pr • inguina] ingina Mo3(e u. 916 omisso)  : iguina To2  : in inguina B14 • 916 hunc u. om. Ds(mg. suppl. m.p.)Mo3(mg. Mo32) • sensit] sentit A Es6, Heinsius 1659(“nonnulli”), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Weise 1845, Koch 1866  : stabat L4(sensit mg. u.l. L42)  : Ensit P41 • innitens] iniectens(uid.) H2  : innictens Cs3  : inmittens Lr7 Ld6  : inmitens V5(a.c.)  : immitens B14(a.c.)  : inde nitens Es2  : inuidens Mt4(a.c.)  : enitens Ds2 • stabat] stabit Es2 • proxima] proxime Fe(a.c.) • moli] CLd2(a.c.)  : muri(uid.) Ld  : rupi Bs2(i.l., moli in textu)  : mole B8(-i i.l. u.l.)  : monti Li3 • 917 redit Lejay 1894 • prodigium] sum pastor Bs4 (cf. 1.513) • non2 Venet. 1472, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836 • sum] om. A4(a.c.) Ft Lu2 • fera] uera T F2  : ferra Lr8 Rd • bel(l)ua] bestia A  : bella F2(a.c.) • uirgo] uigo A(a.c.)  : ponti(ponte i.ras. ante uirgo hab. Mt3) B12  : urago P28  : Glaucus Polle 1888 • 918 sum AGf(i.l. p.c.)V2V3 A3A4(sed i.l. u.l. A42)BaBe2CDeEEsFH2LdLd2(sed i.l. u.l. Ld22)Ld3LsO4P3P4V5V6 Ds2Ld7(sed i.l. u.l.)Li3Lr8Mo3Mt2To2(sed To a.c.)V16 Cs3Es2Gf8Mt5To2 AsB14Es5Es6 Mv7, “Dresd.”(sed hab. Dr) test. Jahn 1832, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Weise 1845, Koch 1866 • sum deus] dixit Gf(a.c. a m.p.) • aquae] om. Es2(a.c.) • nec maius] inu. ord. Bs3 Bo2 • nec] ne Lu2  : non Ls B14, Venet. 1472 • maius] om. M Lr8(suppl. Lr82) Lr27  : magnus Fe(a.c.)G(corr. G2) Mt5  : magis So(a.c.), Heinsius 1652  : maior Z(a.c.) • (a)equore Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1652, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Weise 1845, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983  : (a)equora Heinsius

526

Appendix critica

1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Loers 1843(in textu), Merkel 1850, Koch 1866, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, Lejay 1894, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007 • Prot(h)eus] protheus atque M2 Lr27  : proteseus V5(a.c.) • 919 redit codex A2(uid. ad 856) • et] aut Fe(i.l. p.c. a m. uid. p.) Bo2 P41, Puteol. 1471, Calph. 1474, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, prob. Heinsius 1659(in notis), Bentley, ed. Burm. 1727, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Koch 1866  : at Pr • Triton] teton V7(a.c.)  : titon P8  : trito Mc  : trithon Mo3 Mv7 • Athamantiadesque] Athamantiadesue Lugd. 1565(-ne 1546, uitio preli, ut mihi uid.), prob. Heinsius 1659(in notis), Bentley, ed. Burm. 1727, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.-Crus. 1834  : ad amantiadesque (uno uerbo A4 Cv) L3 A4(p.c.) Cv  : admantiadesque A4(a.c. a m.p.)  : thaamâciadesque Ds2(athamâciadesque p.c.)  : ad thamanciadesque To  : adamanciadesque(-tiadesque Ps) Mt2 Ps  : athamanthiadesque A A3H2Ls  : athamanchyadesque Gf  : athamantiadêque Ld6  : achamantiadesque Lr2 N2(p.c.)  : athamanciadesque V2 B5V4 Sp Bo3  : athamancia desque V6  : athamenthiadesque A2  : atamanthidesque Be2  : athamantidesque ELd2(a.c.)O4 P8 Bo2Mt5 P41  : athatiadesque H3(a.c.)  : athamatiadesque H3(p.c.)  : athemantiadesque Hd  : atamanciadesque B4  : athemanchiadesque Ba(athm- a.c.)  : atamanthiadesque L4(-thidesque a.c.)  : acamantidesque Ld(a.c.)  : atamantiadesque Ld(p.c.)Pr  : abamanciadesque N2(a.c.)  : atamantidosque O3  : athamathidesque B8  : athamîciadosque P10  : et themacidesque Mc  : thaumantiadesque Go2  : athamantiades Lr6(a.c.) V16(a.c.) • Pal(a)emon] phemon B5(phalemon mg. B52)  : palamon HdV4(a.c.)  : pelemon Lr6(a.c.)Vd(a.c.) Ps  : pelamon P10  : palesmon Ph2  : palemom Ft • • 920 tamen] om. Be2 • mortalis] modo talis Mt • eram] enim Dr • scilicet altis] sol atritis A2  : nunc licet altis P41 • scilicet] silicet Lr6 Bs3(a.c.)DsLr8P10 McMt4 • altis] altus Mo(a.c.)V7(a.c.)  : alti Segura 1983(uitio preli) • 921 debitus coni. Bentley, prob. Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, Edwards 1905, Goold 1984, Hopkinson 2000, Fink 2007, Hardie 2015, Holzberg 2017 • (a)equoribus] equoreis A3Lr3Lr6(a.c.) P41  : equoris Sp  : equoreus Mc • iam … exercebar] atque extenuabar Bs4 • iam tum GfNV2V3 A4(p.c.)Be2DrEFL4LsO4P3P4V7 B8P5V16 BoBo2Cs3McP28To2 AsB14CvGo2P41Ps, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Heinsius 1659(“ex castigatioribus magno numero”), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Merkel 1850, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Riese 1889, Simmons 1889, Lejay 1894, Edwards 1905, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, Breitenbach 1964, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007  : î tû Go  : tantum AL3Lr2LuMM2P2S2TV23(mg. u.l.) A2B2B42(mg.)B5CFeGH2H3Lr3(uid., p.c.)Lr4Lr6Lr7MoMtN2OO3Ph2TrV4V5V8V9Vd Bs3(p.c.)Cs2DsLd6Lr8SoSpTo B12Es3FtRd Bo3Es4F2Lr22Lr27Lu2V30Vd11 Mv7, Plan., Aler. 1471, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Weise 1845, Lindemann 1856, Koch 1866, Riese 1872, H-K-E 1898, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, van Proosdij 1951, H-K-E-A 1966, dub. Baumg.-Crus. 1834(in notis)  : iam cum Mt5 Es5  : iam tunc A3B3B4(p.c.)B52(mg.)HdLd2Ld3 Ds2Mo3Mt2P8 Es2Mt4  : iam nunc P10  : non(per comp.) B4(a.c.)  : tunc iam Ba  : iamque A4(uid., a.c.)LdPr  : nam tantum (per comp.) V6  : tamen Bs3(a.c.)Go  : iam tantum Es6 • exercebar] exercercebat(per comp.) B4(a.c.)  : exerceba B5(-ar a.c. et mg. B52)  : exercebat F(a.c.)Lr7Vd(a.c.) Ds Mt4(a.c.)  : execebar O3(a.c.)  : excercebar(per comp.) O4  : excebar Rd • 922 redit P38 • nam] iam O3Vd • retia] rectia B4  : rethia Be2DrLd2Ld3Ph22(p.c.) B8So Mt4  : rcia L4(a.c.)  : rescia Bs3(a.c.) • pisces] pices V6 • 923 nunc] nec Rd  : Hunc P38, Calph. 1474 • in mole] immole M  : inmola Ld(a.c.) • mole] mode Ds(a.c.)  : rupe Bs3 • sedens] sodens Mt • moderabar] moderebar N(a.c.) Ld(a.c.)  : modebar M2(a.c.)  : moderar O3(ex itin. corr.)  : moderabam To2  : moderabat P38 • linum] lina Gf(linum mg. u.l.) Bo2  : lignum A2C Ld6  : linim Mt  : limen Pr  : om. V6 • 924 sunt] stant V6 Mc(corr. Mc2) P41 • uiridi prato] inu. ord.



Appendix critica

527

Ds • uiridi] uiri N(a.c.)  : uirido A4(a.c.) • prato] creto(uid.) A  : pecto B5  : pato G(a.c.)  : îprato Mc • littora] littera Rd • quorum] quondam Lu(a.c.) • 925 undis] fundit MN(a.c.) Lr27  : herbis Ph2  : uiridis Lr8, “Iunian.[sed quid Et n.l.] et duo alii” test. Burm. 1727 • pars2] om. Rd • cingitur herbis] fungitur undis M(utitur i.l. M2)N(uid., a.c.) Lr27  : cingitur undis A(a.c. a m.p.) B12(herbis mg. a m.p.) Cv(a.c. a m.p.)  : scingitur undis Ph2  : scingitur herbis P10  : fungitur herbis Bo3(cingitur i.l. u.l. Bo32)Lr22V30, Aler. 1471  : cinguntur(uid.) herbis Mo(a.c.)  : funditur herbis Merkel 1875 • cingitur] cigitur Mc  : tinguitur Go  : tingitur “unus” test. Burm. 1727  : clauditur “Moreti” test. Burm. 1727 • herbis] erbis Lr3Ls(a.c.) • 926 quas] quos N(a.c.) • neque] nec Gf A3Lr3Lr7 P41  : neue B14  : om. T • corniger(a)e] corniere L4(a.c.)  : om. Ft(a.c.)  : cornigenae P38, Calph. 1474 • morsu] tractu A3 • l(a)esere] tetigere Dr  : legere Li3 • iuuenc(a)e] uiuente V6  : uiuente uel iuuente Lr7  : puello Mt  : capelle Go(a.c.) • 927 placid(a)e] placida B5  : pacide Pr • carpsistis] lesistis B4(mg. corr. B42)CDe(uid.)  : caprsistis P2(a.c.; cf. ad 943)  : carpsitis Ba(corr. Ba2)V9 Ps  : carsistis G(corr. G2)Lr7 Ld6P10  : caripsistis H2(a.c.)  : capsistis A3(a.c.)Mo(a.c.)O4(a.c.) V16(a.c.)  : cabsistis Pr • oues] om. Pr • hirtaeue] hirt(a)eque Gf(-ue i.l. u.l. Gf2)Lu(uid., a.c.)M2(-ue i.l. u.l. M22) A2A3B2(-ue i.l. u.l. B22)B3BaDrFeG(-ue i.l. u.l. G2)MtOV9 B8Ld6Mo3(-ue i.l. a m.p.)Mt3P8 Cs3Mc Es5F2Lr22P38P41V30, Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Calph. 1474  : hyrsuteue Lr3 • capell(a)e] caprine Mt(uid.)  : capellee Vd(a.c.)  : iuuence Go(a.c.) • 928 om. Gf(mg. suppl. Gf2) • non] nec FeLr6MtV4(non p.c. V42)  : num Ph2(a.c.) • apis] apes B5(a.c.)Ph2 Mt3  : lapis Mt • inde] et inde B5 • tulit] tu tulit Be2(a.c.) • col(l)ectos] collecto L3 B2(-os i.l. u.l. B22)B3(-os p.c. B32)N2OO4(mg. u.l. a m.p.)P3 O5(-os p.c.)To, Lugd. 1546(mg.), Micyl. 1563(mg.), Lugd. 1565(mg.), def. Ellis, Keene 1898, Anderson 1982  : ɔcollectos O3  : confertos tempt. Magnus • sedula AGf2Lr2LuM22(i.l. u.l.)N2(i.l. u.l.)P2(mg. u.l.)S2V23(mg.) A2A4(p.c.)B22(i.l. u.l.)B3B4B5BaEsFFe2(i.l. u.l.)GH22(i.l. u.l.)H3HdL4LdLd2(i.l. p.c. a p. uid. m.)Ld3Lr3Lr4Lr6Lr7MoMtO3O4V4V6V7V8V9Vd B8Cs2GoLd6Lr8Mo3Mt2Mt3O5(mg.)P8P102(i.l.)SoSpV16 B12BoBo2Cs3Es3FtMc2(mg. u.l.)Mt4Mt5P28To2 AsB142(i.l. u.l.)Bo3Cv(mg. u.l.)Es4Es5Es6F2Lr22Lu2P38P41V30 Mv7 • 929 hunc u. om. Vt(mg. suppl. m.p.) • non] nec B5CEsHdL4Lr4Lr6MtV7V8 DsMt3SpV16 BoMt4P28 • data] lata V7 • sunt] sum V7(a.c.)  : om. H3(a.c.)Lr4(a.c.) • capiti] capitis B5(a.c.)  : om. Ld6 • genialia] genalia B3(a.c.)V5(a.c.) Sp  : genealia Ds  : genitalia F2Z  : gēmalia H3, Puteol. 1471, Calph. 1480  : gemalia Ls(a.c.)Pr  : genualia Mt Mv7  : quid To a.c. n.l.  : geniala Lugd. 1565(uitio preli) • serta] certa MtPr • nec N(p.c.)T(uid.) Ω, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832, Baumg.Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Koch 1866  : neque MN(a.c.)V2 HdLr6MoN2 V16 P28 Bo3Lr22Lr27V30, Aler. 1471, Merkel 1850, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Simmons 1889, Lejay 1894, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964 H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007 • umquam] numquam Mt  : inquam Es2 • • 930 falcifer(a)e] falcigere A4(-fere i.l. u.l. A42)Ld  : fallcitere Hd(a.c.)  : falsi fere Mt  : falsifere Ph2(a.c.)  : falsigere Ft • secuere] secure B3(a.c.)O4(a.c.)V7(a.c.) Ld6P8V16(a.c.) Es3(a.c.)  : seuere B5 Bo3(a.c.)  : secura Ld(a.c.)  : seruere Mc  : om. V8(supp. V82) • manus] mamus P41 • ego] ego ego Sp(a.c.)  : tunc Ds2  : en P41 • primus] primo Rd  : pronus dub. Heinsius 1659(in notis) • illo] isto mg. test. Bersm. 1596(illo DsDs2) • 931 c(a)espite] littore P5(a.c. a m.p.)  : cespide Es6 • consedi] concedi B4(a.c.), Lugd. 1565  : cûsedi Vd(ut solet)  : cû sedi Rd(ut solet)  : conscendi Go2  : dum sedeo P28 • dum] qû S2(p.c.) • lina] ligna A2  : linna B4  : luna Lr7 • madentia] mandentia Ba(a.c.)  : manantia Lugd. 1546(mg.) • 932 utque] cumque B5  : usque Mc(a.c.) • recenserem] recensere B3  : recencerem Mt  : recesserem O3  : recesseram Pr  : recêsserê V6  : rescenserem V7  : recensentem Vd(ex itin. corr.)  : recensebam P10(-erem mg. P102)  : rencenserem Naug. 1516 • captiuos] cap uos B5(a.c.)  : capturos Es6 • 933 insuper]

528

Appendix critica

Inper Mc  : desuper “Moret. et Ambros.” test. Burm. 1727 • exposui] exposuit V2(a.c.) Ld6  : i(m/n)posui B4CEsHdLd2(ex- i.l. Ld22)Lr6O4P3PrVd Mo3Mt3 B12Bo2(ex- p.c.)Mt4, “plurimi” test. Burm. 1727  : quid Gf a.c. n.l. • aut] ut S2(a.c.)  : ante Lr7(per comp.)Mt  : om. Es4 Ps(a.c. a m.p.) • in retia] inertia Mc Ps(recte mg. Ps2)  : inhertia B14 • casus] captos M2(p.c. i.ras.; casus M a.c. uid.) Lr27 • 934–935 inu. ord. M Mo(a.c.) Lr27 • 934 sua] om. B4(a.c.) • credulitas] crudelitas B5G(a.c.)H3Ld3O4(a.c.)PrV7 Es2Es3(a.c.)McRd CvPs • in] om. Lr3 • aduncos] quid M2 a.c. (ad uncos p.c.) n.l.  : adhuncos A2Lr7V8 DsSo  : adunco Mt5  : aducos Es6  : adunctos Haupt-Korn 1881, Simmons 1889(sed respuit in notis) • egerat] egerit M2 A4(a.c.) B12  : cogerat F2  : erat Hd(a.c.)  : heserat V7(egerat mg. u.l. V72)Vd  : exegerat Mt2 • 935 res] resque P10(a.c.) • est post res scr. N2 Lr8 • similis fictae] inu. ord. Ft  : simile facte Es6 • similis] similes V3(a.c.) B5  : siɫes B2  : similis est Ld6  : simile Es6 • fict(a)e] auctę M2(a.c.)  : ficte est Ld2  : ficto M22(uid. i.l. u.l.)V3(-e uid. a.c.)  : facte Es6 • sed … prodest] siquid mihi fingere prodest Lr7Ph2  : siquid mihi fungere prodest O3  : sed michi quid fingere prodest Es3(a.c.)  : sed fingere quid mihi prodest Mv7 • sed] om. P10(i.l. P102) • quid mihi] mi quid Es2  : quod mihi B5  : quid modo Lugd. 1546(mg.) • mihi fingere] om. Ft • fingere] fingire S2  : fungere V3(a.c.) O3  : fundere B5  : findere Mt  : figere Mc • prodest] potest Mt5 Ps(a.c.) • 936 gramine contacto] gramineo tactu Lr22(i.l. u.l.), Bothe 18182  : germine contracto P41 • contacto] contracto S2(a.c.) B52O4V6 Mt2(a.c.) P28 Bo3(a.c.)Lr22P38P41V30, Aler. 1471, Calph. 1474(corr. 1480), Accurs. 1475  : contento(per comp.) Fe(contacto mg. Fe2)  : contactu Pr  : contacte Es2  : contactos Mc(a.c.)  : cû tacto Rd(ut solet)  : conctacto B14  : cotacto Es6 • pr(a)eda] turba A2(a.c.)A3 V16 Bo  : predia F2 • moueri] mouere LuM2(a.c.) Ph2 Vt CvPs  : uideri Ft(moueri mg. u.l. Ft2) • 937 et] eras. B5 • mutare latus] mota relatus Lr6  : muta relatus V5(a.c.) • mutare Lr2(a.c.)LuMNV2(a.c.) A3A4(a.c.)B3(a.c.)BaEsLdLd2(a.c.)Lr3Lr4Lr7LsMoN2(p.c.)OPrV4(p.c.)V5V6V7(p.c.)V8 Mt2ToV16(uid., a.c.) BoBo2(a.c.)Es2(a.c.)McMt5To2 B14Bo3F2Go2Lr27P41Vd11 Mv7  : motare AGfL3Lr2(p.c.)Lu2(i.l. u.l.)M2P2S2TV2(p.c., i. mouere i.l. V23)V3 A2A4(p.c. a m.p.)B2B32(p.c.)B4B5Be2CDeDrEFFeGH2H3HdL4Ld22(p.c.)Ld32(i.l. p.c.)Lr6MtN2(a.c.)O3O4P3P4Ph2TrV4(a.c.)V7(a.c.)V9Vd B8Cs2DsDs2GoLd6Lr8Mo3Mt3P5P8P10SoSpV16(p.c.) B12Bo2(i.l. u.l.)Bo2(p.c.)Cs3Es2(p.c.)Es3FtMt4P28Rd AsCvEs4Es5Es6Lr22Lu2P38PsV30 • terraque] terr(a)eque N(a.c.) B4(corr. B42) Es2, Bersm. 1596  : terramque B3(a.c.)  : totaque C(a.c.)  : terra Mc(a.c.)  : cæteraque Es6 • ut] om. Gf(a.c.)N(a.c.) B5Vd Mt4(i.l. Mt42)  : uti P28 • in] om. O So • (a)equore] aequora N V6 Ld6 Es3 Es6  : equoræ Lr2 • niti] mitti M Lr27  : miti N(a.c.) Vd(a.c.) Es2(a.c.)  : nito B5  : uidi O3(p.c.; uiti uid. a.c.) • 938–939 inu. ord. Ls B14 • 938 dumque] dum F2 • moror … fugit] mororque simul piscis fugit Lr8(a.c.)  : mororque simul fugit Ld6 • moror] miror N(a.c.) E(a.c.) Ds2(a.c.) • mirorque] mororque Lr2(a.c.)N(a.c.) Rd V30  : miror Lu(a.c.) Ld(a.c.)V5  : miroque B3(a.c.)  : minorque Ba(a.c.)  : mutatque(uid.) Hd  : q3 Ld6  : nitorque Mt2  : mirrorque P8 • omnis] om. O3(i.l. O32) • undas] undis Ba(a.c.) • 939 suas] suum Ba  : sua Vd  : suos Ft • dominumque … litusque] dominumque dedit niouum B5(a.c.) : dominumque dedit nouum litusque B52(p.c.) : littusque nouum dominumque Mt • dominumque] denique V6  : dominum Lr8 • nouum] suum Gf(nouum i.l. u.l. Gf2) V4 Ld6Mt2 Es2P28, “quatuor libri” test. Burm. 1727  : nouumque Pr • li(c/t)tusque] luctusque Ld6 • relinquunt] reliquit AL3 FeH3Lr3OPrV7 B8GoSo Es3, “octo” test. Burm. 1727  : relinquit M2(-qunt a.c.)N2(i.l. u.l.) A2B5(uid., a.c.)EL4Ld2LsMtO3(-qunt p.c.)O4P4Ph2 Ld6Mt2To Ft Lr22V30, “octodecim” test. Burm. 1727, Aler. 1471, Loers 1843  : relinquid Mc  : reliquid B3B4  : relinquut Es4  : requirunt Cs3  : reuoluunt Ld8  : quid As a.c. n.l.  : relinqunt Lr2LuM2(a.c.)TV2 A3A4B5(p.c.)Be2DrFGLd3Lr7MoO3(p.c.)O42(mg. u.l.)V4V6V8V9 Cs2DsDs2Lr8P5P8P10SpV16 P28Rd B14Bo3, Puteol. 1471 • • 940 obstipui MN(a.c.) H3(a.c.)Hd(a.c.) B8, Riese 1872, Merkel 1875, edd. post.  : obstupui N(p.c.) H32(p.c.)Hd2(p.c.) Ω, Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Ciof. 1575, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Richter 1828, Jahn 1832,



Appendix critica

529

Baumg.-Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Merkel 1850, Koch 1866  : ostupui L4Mt  : obstupuit Ld6 • dubitoque A(p.c.)GfLu(i.l. u.l. a m.p.)N(p.c.)P2(p.c.)V2V3 A2A4B3B4B52(p.c.)BaBe2CDrEEsFH2LdLd2Ld3LsO32O4P3P4PrV5(p.c.)V7V8Vd B8Bs3Ds2Li3Lr8Mo3Mt2P10Sp Cs3Es2Es3Mt4Mt5To2 AsB14CvEs5Es6P38PsVd11  : dubiusque Gf2(i.l. u.l.)L3Lr2MM2N(uid., a.c., et item i.l. u.l. N2)P2(uid., a.c.)S2T A3A42(mg. u.l.)B2B5(a.c.)FeGH3HdL4Ld22(i.l. u.l.)Lr3Lr4Lr6Lr7Mo(p.c.)MtN2OO3(a.c.)Ph2V4V9 Bs2Bs4Cs2DsGoMt3P5P8ToV13V16 B12BoBo2FtP28Rd Bo3Bs7Es4F2Go2Lr22Lr27Lu2P41V30Z Mv7, “in … meis” test. Ciof. 1575 • requiro] reli inchoau. Gf(ex itin. corr.)  : requiris Ds2  : quid P2 a.c. (-quiro i.ras.) n.l.  : requirro Es2(a.c.) • 941–945 om. Pr (num … cum) • 941 num … num] nunc … nunc Gf P8  : num … non P2(a.c.) A2 Sp(a.c.)  : an(sic i.l. u.l. Ld22) … an B3P42(u.l.) Ds2(num  … num i.l. u.l. Ds22)Ld6Mo3So Es6  : non  … non B4(corr. B42)Be2(per comp.)C(per comp.)Hd(per comp. a.c.)Ld2(numquid  … numquid i.l.)Ld3MtO3P4(per comp.)V6V9Vd Mt3 Bo2(a.c.)Mc(num … num i.l. u.l. Mc2)Vt Mv7  : ne … nec B5  : nunc(a.c.) … num Ba  : num … an Es Sp(p.c.) B12  : non … num V7, Puteol. 1471  : an … uel P5  : non … mei Rd  : num … nunc P41 • hoc] os B5  : h(a)ec V5(uid.) Mc(p.c.) P38, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Weise 1845, Koch 1866  : hos V7  : hoc hic Sp(a.c.)  : hic Rd P41  : om. Mc(a.c.) • aliquis] animus Mo3(aque i.l. Mo32) • suc(c)us] secus Ld(a.c.)  : siccus P38 • fecerit] fecerat BaV9(a.c.)Vd Ds2 Bo2Mc Z(a.c.)  : fertilis P41 • 942 quae … has] queue … has Ld  : quas … haec Ld6, “quinque alii” test. Heinsius 1659(qui perperam “primus Strozzae” [Lr2] test.), “JHVoss” test. Magnus 1914  : quae … hoc Bo2(a.c.)  : que … hec Rd • has] hos T B5(a.c.) • inquam] inquit L3(a.c.) O3(a.c.)  : dixi L3(p.c.)Lr2 Bo2 Lu2  : om. Ld(i.l. Ld2) • habet] abi B5  : habes V30, Aler. 1471 • herba] herbas Rd(a.c.) • manuque] marisque S2(uid., a.c. a m.p.)  : manusque Rd  : manu Es2 • 943 pabula decerpsi] pabulade cerpsi Ld  : papula(sic) de cerpsi Rd • decerpsi] deceprsi P2(cf. ad 927)S2(p.c.)  : decepsi Lr2(a.c.)S2(a.c.) A3(a.c.)B5(a.c.)Be2(a.c.)P3V5(a.c.)  : decersi Ls  : decrerpsi(uid.) O4(a.c.)  : detersi V6  : descerpsi Ds  : deserti Mo3(a.c. a m.p.)  : discerpsi P8P10So  : deserpsi Bo • decerptaque] decertaque L3(a.c.) Hd(a.c.)OP4V6 Lr8  : decerpta(decerta So) Ld2(a.c.) So  : discerptaque AM N2 P8  : discertaque Bo3(p.c.) Lr27  : discetaque Bo3(a.c.)  : deceptaque Lu(a.c.)P2(a.c.)S2(a.c.) B5Lr4 Ft  : de cerptaque T(a.c.)  : decreptaque G(a.c. a m.p.)  : decepta Ld(a.c.)  : deserptaque Fe  : desertaque Mt  : dicerptaque O3 Vt(p.c.)  : direptaque Rd  : diceptaque Vt(a.c.) • dente] denta Mc  : ore De(a.c.)  : quid B5 a.c. n.l. • momordi] mordi N2(a.c.) • 944 uix  … combiberant] uix combiberant Ph2  : uix biberant Mt2(a.c.) • uix] uis Rd • bene] et Gf(bene i.l. u.l. Gf2)  : om. Ph2 Mt2(a.c.) • ignotos] ignaros Lu Lr7, “duo Medicei” test. Burm. 1727  : ignot Ba(a.c.) • suc(c)os] socos Ds2 • 945 trepidare intus] inu. ord. Lr3 • trepidare] trebidare Ld(a.c.) • pr(a)ecordia] prcordia Ld  : mea pectora “tert. Bonon.” test. Burm. 1727 • 946 alteriusque] alterriusque Ph2 • rapi] peti B4(rapi mg. B42)  : capi Ld6 • natur(a)e] capturae M Lr27 • 947–948 inu. ord. Mt • 947 nec] non Gf Lr7O4PrV8 B8Ds2So • potui] potu Es6 • restare] stare N(a.c.)  : testare Gf(a.c.)  : spectare P2  : rectare Hd  : perstare Mt • repetendaque] repetenda S2(a.c.) Ft  : rependaque C(a.c.) Mt2(a.c.)  : repetitaque(uid.) P10(a.c.) • numquam] unquam A To  : nonquam Mt5  : nuncquam P41 • 948 terra] terraque B3Hd(a.c.) Mc • dixi] dixit Mo3 • corpusque] corpus H3V5 • mersi] merci Mt  : misi O42(mg. u.l.) P41 • 949 di(i)] diii Ld(-ii p.c.)  : hii Mt  : diis PrVd  : dum Vd11(-ii p.c.) • exceptum] acceptum GfLr2M2(i.l. u.l.) B4Lr4 P8 Ft Lu2, “decem libri” test. Burm. 1727  : exeptum L3(a.c.) Mt • socio dignantur] non dedignantur C • socio] solii MN(a.c., -cio i.ras.) Lr27  : socii Ph2  : saxo Mt3(uid.) • dignantur] dignatur Gf(uid., a.c.)T Vd  : dignatus Pr • honore] amore P28(a.c.) • • 950 et quaecumque feram mortalia corpora demant Ds2 • utque] ut B5 Rd  : ut qu(a)e(uid.) B12(a.c.) • mihi] om. M2(a.c.) • quaecumque] queq3 Es2(a.c.)  : quocumque Z(a.c.) • feram] geram B2B3B4(feram mg. B42)Pr Cs2  : ferant P4Vd Rd F2  : forent O P41  : fero P3V8(-am a.c.) B8Ld6  : om. Es3(a.c. a m.p.) • demant] demâtm Ld  : ferant Sp(a.c.) • 951 Oc(c)eanum] Ocenum T  : occceanum P3  : Occeanumque Ft  : Ceanum Calph. 1480  : Oceanumq3 Regius

530

Appendix critica

1493 • Tethynque rogant] inu. ord. Ft • Tethynque] tethymque P38Vd11  : thetynque Lu  : thetimque M B5CH2Lr4Lr7LsMtN2OO4Ph2V8V9 Bo2Cs3Es2Mt4Mt5P10Sp(p.c.) CvEs4Es5F2Lr27Lu2P41  : thetimqueque A2  : thetim Es6  : thetinque M2NS2TV2V3 B3BaDrFeGHdLd2O3P3P4V5 Cs2DsDs2GoLr8Mo3P5P8ToV16 Bo  : thetīque GfL3Lr2P2 A3B2B4BaBe2DrFeGH3Ld2Lr3Lr6MoP3P4TrV6V7Vd Cs2DsDs2GoLr8Mo3P5P8To B12 AsBo3  : tetîque A Rd  : tetimque Pr SoSp(a.c.) Mc Ps  : thetymque EFLd3  : thethîque L4Ld(-imque) B8(-inque) P28(-inque)To2(-imque) Mv7(-imque)  : tethimque A4 Es3 B14  : techimque V4  : tect’que Ld6  : tethîque Mt2  : tetinque Ft • rogant] regant B5 • lustror … illis] lustorabilis Hd(a.c.) • lustror] lustor A3V8 Bo3(a.c.)  : luctor O3(a.c.)  : purgor B8(mg. u.l. a m.p.) • 952 hunc u. post 954 pos. Ps(a.c. a m.p.) • et purgante] Expurgante Lu DrV4(a.c.)V8 Lr8P10SoSp Es3P28 CvPs, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472  : Expugnante Rd • purgante] pugnante V5(a.c.) Es2  : purgare Bs4  : pugante Mc  : purgate Es5 • nefas] nephas AGfN A2A4B3Be2Lr6Lr7O4V7V8Vd B8DsDs2GoLd6Mt2P5P10V16 B12Es2FtMcTo2 Es6F2 Mv7, Puteol. 1471 • carmine] crimine(per comp.) Ld2 Ld6 • dicto] lecto B8(mg. u.l. a m.p.)Bs4 • 953 hunc u. om. Sp(mg. suppl. m.p.) • pectora] pectore Mt • fluminibus] fulminibus Hd  : flumibus Venet. 1472 • iubeor] uideor Fe(iubeor i.l. u.l. Fe2) Mc P41  : rubeor MtV5  : iubeo V4(a.c.) Es6P38  : iubent Vd(-eor a.c.) • su(p/b)ponere] sub ponere P2T A4  : sub pondere Mc(a.c.)  : suponere FeV6  : submittere To2, “Basil.” test. Burm. 1727, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472 • 954 nec] ne V6 • mora] mora est(per comp.) V3 • diuersis … amnes] dilapsi diuersis de partibus amnes(amnrs a.c.) Ld • diuersis] diuersi A2N2(a.c.) B122(i.l. u.l.)  : diuesis Ds2(a.c.) • lapsi] lapsu dub. Magnus 1914(in app.) • lapsi … amnes] lapsus … amnis ALr2N(-i … –es i.l. u.l. N2)S2V2V3 B3B5Be2EsFH2HdLr4Lr6Lr7LsO3(a.c.)O4P3P4Ph2(a.c.)TrV7V9 Mt2Mt3V16 B12(lapsi … amnes i.l. u.l. B122)Mt4(p.c.)Rd B14Es6Go2Lu2  : lapus … annis sic Mo3  : lapsus(uid. Gf) … amnes Gf(a.c.) Mt4(a.c.)P28  : lapsi sunt  … amnes N2(contra metrum)  : lapsis … amnis Pr  : lapsi de fontibus amnes To, “in antiquiore meo” test. Ciof. 1575, “Berol.”(partibus hab. B14) test. Jahn 1832, prob. Heinsius 1659(qui “tres scripti” test.), Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Bothe 18182, Richter 1828  : lapsi de montibus amnes V132(montibus i.l. u.l.; partibus V13), “duo” test. Heinsius 1659, prob. Wakefield • lapsi] lassi V6  : lapsis Mo(a.c.) Ds(a.c.)P5(a.c.)P8 • amnes] annes A2B4Ld3MtV6Vd B8Lr8 B122Ft  : amnrs Ld(a.c.)  : amnis Trepat-de Saav. 1932(uitio preli)  : annis Lr2 B3B5Be2HdLr4Ls(a.c.)O4V7 BoRd Es6Lu2  : âpnis Lr6  : amis O3(ames p.c.) • 955 hunc u. om. Ba(i.l. suppl. Ba2)  : post 956 hab. L4(cum lit. damn. et mg. iuxta 953 scr. L42) • supra] super A3Mt Mc Es6P41  : circa(per comp.) O4 • aequora nostrum] inu. ord. Es(a.c.) • aequora] aequore Dr(a.c.)Pr Es2(a.c.) • nostrum] uestrum(per comp.) F(a.c.) Ds2 • 956–957 et 959–968 ab initio mutili sunt in Lu2 (sed cf. Lr2) • 956–957 hos uu. post 959 hab. AGf(a.c.)Lr22(mg. corr.)LuP2(a.c.)V2V3 A3A4B22(mg. corr., sed recte hab. B2)B3B4B5BaBe2CDr(tantum u. 956)EEsFFeH2H3L4(uid. infra)LdLd2Lr4Lr7LsMtO3P3P4PrTrV5V6V7V8V9(tantum u. 956)Vd B8Cs2DsDs2Lr8Mo3Mt2P5P8P10SoToV16 B12BoBo2(tantum u. 957)Cs3Es2McMt5To2 AsB14CvEs5Es6Lr22Lu2P38P41PsV30 Mv7, Plan., Puteol. 1471, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Bersm. 1596, Jahn 1832, Loers 1843  : u. 956 om. N(sed i.l. post 959 suppl. m.p.) V7(sed mg. ante 957 suppl. V72) Rd  : u. 957 om. DrV6(qui codex suo loco actenus acta tibi possum memoranda iter. sine damn.)V9(mg. suppl. m.p. uel coaeua) Ld6(sua uice u. 960 hab., quem iterum post 959 scr.)  : 956–957 inu. ord. hab. P3V4(a.c.)  : uu. 959, 956, 955, 957 hab. L4  : 956–957 delendos cens. Heinsius 1659(in notis) • 956 hactenus] hactenus licet(per comp.) Vd • acta] lacta uel Iacta Fe(a.c.) • tibi possum] inu. ord. P28 • tibi] michi V2, ex uet. cod. Politianus (test. Viuianus 1522) • possum] om. Lr8(mg. suppl. m.p.) • memoranda] miranda A42(p.c.)HdL4Lr4Lr6 Lr82(i.l. u.l.) B12Es2(memoranda a.c.)Ft, test. Naug. 1516(in notis), “multi” test. Burm. 1727  : moranda A4(a.c.)  : memorata Pr  : memorande Vd(a.c.)  : memorando Ds • referre] refere B4(a.c.)V5Vd  : referrem Li3 • 957 et] haec M L4(et p.c. L42)MoN2Vd(p.c.) Bo3Lr27Vd11, prob. Merkel 1850, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Lejay 1894, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breiten-



Appendix critica

531

bach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007  : hac Vd(a.c.)  : om. Z • memini] menimi P2  : mimini Loers 1843 • nec] non B4 • mens mea] inu. ord. Es  : mea Lr7V5(mens mg. suppl. m.p.)  : amens mea V30  : mens Puteol. 1471 • cetera] cetea Ld(a.c.) • sensit Ω, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, edd.  : sentit GfMN(sensit i.l. u.l. N2)V2V3 EsL42(mg. u.l.)Ld2LsMoN2O3P4PrV5V9(mg.) DsLi3Mo3Mt2V16 BoBo2Es2McTo2 As(uid.; sensit p.c.)B14Bo3Es6Lr22Lr27Lu2V30, Plan., Aler. 1471  : sensi T2(p.c.)  : nouit V4 • 958–959 hos uu. suo loco scr. G sed cum lit. damn. G2 et mg. ante 956 rescr. • 958 quae] qui N2  : quod Ds2(a.c.) • rediit Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Basil. 1580, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Weise 1845, Merkel 1850, Koch 1866, Riese 1872, Korn 1880, Zingerle 1884, Polle 1888, Lejay 1894, H-K-E 1898, Edwards 1905, Magnus 1914, Ehwald 1915, Fabbri 1923, Lafaye 1930, Trepat-de Saav. 1932, van Proosdij 1951, Breitenbach 1964, H-K-E-A 1966, Anderson 1982, Segura 1983, Goold 1984, Hill 2000, Hopkinson 2000, Tarrant 2004, R. de Verger 2005, Fink 2007  : redeunt AGf(p.c.)L3Lr2LuV2V3 A3A4B2B3B4BaBe2CDrEEsFFeG2H2H3Ld2Lr4Lr7N2(a.c. uid.)O3P3P4PrTrV4V5V6V7V8V9Vd B8DsDs2Lr8Mo3Mt2Mt3P5P8P10(a.c. et item P105 p.alt.c.)SoSpToV16(a.c.) B12BoBo2Cs3Es2Es3FtMt4Mt5 AsB14CvEs5Es6F2Lr22Lu2P38PsV30Vd11 Mv7, test. Viuianus 1522, in omnibus codd. test. Ciof. 1575, Aler. 1471, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Bersm. 1596, Jahn 1832, Loers 1843  : reddeunt Mc  : reddunt Gf(a.c.)M2N(-dunt i.ras. p.c.)P2S2T B5GLdLr3LsMtN2(p.c.)Ph2 Cs2V16(p.c.) B122(p.c.)RdTo2 P41, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Lugd. 1546(mg.)  : redunt L4 Ld6 • alium] actum MN(a.c., -li- i.ras.) Lr27 • me] meo M Lr27  : ne (sc. aliumne) S2(a.c.)  : cum V6  : deûne Bo • corpore] corpora H2(a.c.)  : copore Mo(a.c.)  : pectore V9  : corporo Es4 • toto] totum N(a.c.)V2 • 959 hunc u. om. De • ac] quam Lr2V3 B22(i.l. u.l.)B32(mg. u.l.)B4(ac mg. B42)B5CG2(i.l. u.l.)HdLd3Lr4Lr6O4(a.c. a m.p.)PrV6V7V8V9Vd B8DsDs2Ld6Mo3Mt3P10SoSp(ac mg. Sp2) B12Bo2­ Es3FtMt4, “unus liber meus et duo Vatic.” test. Ciof. 1575 : aut Es6  : deest in Lu2 • fueram nuper] inu. ord. S2 A4Ld • fueram] fuerat MN(a.c.) Lr27  : fuerim Vd • alium(ex u. 958) post nuper scr. B2(ex itin. corr.) • neque] nec AGf A3B2B4EG2(neque G)Ld2OP3PrTrV9Vd GoMo3P5P10SoSp Mt4 P38P41Ps, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, Regius 1493, Aldina 1502, Naug. 1516, Lugd. 1546, Lugd. 1565, Bersm. 1596, Heinsius 1659, Burm. 1727, Walch. 1731, Gierig 1807, Bothe 18182, Lemaire 1822, Richter 1828, Baumg.Crus. 1834, Bach 1836, Loers 1843, Weise 1845, Koch 1866  : om. V6 Ft • eundem] tandem(i.l. u.l.) M22  : eundum A4(a.c.)  : eadem B5N2 Mc P41  : me eundem Be2 Ld32(p.c.)  : eumdere(per comp.) Gf  : eumdê Dr  : eumdem Lr7 • mente] om. B3(a.c.) Mc • recepi] recepit(uid.) B5(a.c.)  : recepei Ld2  : recepit me N2(contra metrum)  : repi V4(a.c.) • • 960 hunc u. om. Fe(mg. suppl. Fe2) • ego] om. To • tum  … barbam] ubi(per comp. ui) idem barbam ferrugine prima B4 • tum] tunc GfLuM2NP2S2V3 A2A3A4B3B43(mg.)B5BaBe2EFFe2GH2HdL4LdLd2Ld3Lr6Lr7LsMtOO3P3P4PrTrV5V6V8V9 Cs2DsDs2GoLi3Lr8Mo3Mt2P5P8P10So B12Bo2Cs3Es2McMt4Mt5To2Vt AsB14CvEs4Es5Es6F2Lr22PsV30Z Mv7, Aler. 1471, def. Bothe 1818(in notis), Baumg.-Crus. 1834(in notis)  : nunc B42 Sp  : dum Vd  : cum B8 • primum] prime Mc  : prima P41 • de post uiridê C(a.c.) • ferrugine] ferugine A4B5(corr. B52)N2Ph2V7 Lr8ToV16(a.c.) Bo2McMt5RdTo2 B14Es4Es5P41  : lanugine Dr  : ferrigine B8  : rubigine F2 • barbam] barba Ld6(suo loco; -am pr.lect. pro u. 957)  : herbam Pr • 961 c(a)esariemque] cesariem que Ba(a.c.)  : cesarieque Pr • meam] manu Ld2(a.c.)  : meamq3 meam V6 • quam longa] longaq3 Ps • quam] qui V2  : quae Mo2(mg. u.l.)  : cum Ld6  : om. Ft • longa] longam Lu Pr Mc F2  : longo V4(a.c.)  : longaq3 Ft • per] per egi Lu2(ex itin. corr.) • uerro] uerto A(a.c.)L3(a.c.)P2(a.c. uid.)V2(uerro i.l. u.l. V23) A2A3(uid.)B42(i.l.)F(uerro i.l. u.l. a m.p.)O4(uerro i.l.)Ph2V5(uerro i.l. u.l. V52) B8SoTo Mt5To2 Es6P41 Mv7, Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472  : uexo B4(uerro mg. B43)  : ferro G(a.c. a m.p.)  : uero V6  : mora Pr  : nostro Ds2(corr. Ds22)  : uectus Ld6  : fero Ft  : uertor P28 Z(a.c.)  : uereo Calph. 1480  : quid N a.c. (-rro i.ras.) n.l. • 962 ingentesque] ingentes OO4V5(a.c.)V9 DsGoLr8So Vt P38,

532

Appendix critica

Puteol. 1471, Venet. 1472, Calph. 1474 • (h)umeros] animos Mt • caerula bracchia] inu. ord. B2G • brac(c)hia] barchia B8 • uidi] udi S2(a.c.) • 963 cruraque] curaque Es2 • pennigero Ω, Aler. 1471, Venet. 1472, Tarrant 2004(pin- Hardie 2015)  : pennifero A(a.c.) Ba Es2(a.c.)  : pinnigero L3(pen- p.c.)Lr2N(pen- p.c.)V2(pen- a.c.) A2A3A4(pen- a.c.)B3B4B52(pen- B5)C(pini-)DrFe(pîg’o a.c.)H22(pen- H2)H3LdLd2Ld3P3P4Ph2V7V8V9Vd(p.c.) B8Cs2Ds2GoLd6Lr8P5SoSp Bo2(pini-)Cs3Es3FtMc(pen- p.c.)Mt4To2 AsCvEs5Es6Lu2P38Ps Mv7, Calph. 1474, Accurs. 1475, edd.  : pinnifero A(p.c.) Ds  : punigero Mt  : spumigero Mo3  : pumigero P8  : pignigero O4V6 P10  : premigero Vd(a.c.)  : primigero Basil. 1580  : pānigero Puteol. 1471 • curuata] curbata N(a.c.)  : curnata V3(cur nata a.c.)  : curuataque Mt2 • nouissima] nouissime H3  : per equora Ft • pisce] pissce O3(a.c.) • 964–968 om. Polle 1888, Lejay 1894 • 964 hunc u. om. P28(litteris minutioribus mg. iuxta u. 963 scr. m.p.) • quid] quod Lr8(quid i.l. u.l. Lr82) • quid … species] quid mihi haec species Ls  : quid haec tamen est species Mt • species] specus E  : spes Mt4Rd Ps  : spês Regius 1493(ut per comp. mss. plurimi) • quid2] quod Rd • dis … marinis] displicuisse marinis A3 Rd  : displacuisse marinis V9(a.c.)  : displicuisse mariti B2(a.c.)  : marinis diis placuisse O4 • di(i)s] om. A4(a.c.) • placuisse] placuisset H2(a.c.) • marinis] armis Lr6(a.c.) • 965 iuuat … deum] tamen haec species Fe(corr. Fe2) • iuuat] mg. P2(p.c.; quid suo loco a.c. n.l.) • esse] om. B3(a.c.) • si tu] tu si Ds2 • tu non] nôtu H3  : tu V4(a.c.)  : tu nonque Pr  : tu no V30 • tangeris] tangneres Mc  : tagneris Mt4(ut solet)  : frangeris “unus meus. bene” test. Heinsius(in notis)  : tageris Aler. 1471 • istis] illis Mt  : istum P28 • 966 dicentem dicturum] inu. ord. H3 • dicturum] dictura O(a.c.)  : dicturus Li3 • reliquit] reliquid T B4N2V9 Lr8 Es2Mc  : relinquid O3 • 967 om. B2(mg. suppl. alia m.) • furit] fuerit Ls(a.c.)  : finierat Ls2(mg.) B14  : furrit Rd(ut solet) • ille] illa P38  : om. FeO3 • i(r/n)ritatusque] iratusque Lu(a.c.) A3Lr3LsOP4Pr Es2Rd B14  : ire(uel ira) itatusque M2(a.c.)  : irritatus B3(a.c.)B5(a.c.)V6  : hac iratusque P10  : iritatusq3 To(uid.) P41, Calph. 1474, Regius 1493(cf. ad uu. 434, 565) • repulsa] repusa V2  : dolore B4(repulsa mg. a m.p.)  : repulso B5(a.c.)  : repulasa(per comp.) P10 • 968 prodigiosa] prodiosa H3(a.c.)  : progdigiosa Es2(a.c.) • t(h)(i/y)t(h)an(n)idos] tytanidas M2(a.c.) P4  : titanides L4 Lr27  : tithanides So  : titânides Ft  : tatynides V4  : tyrannidos P8  : titanidis Mt2, Hill 2000 • atria] antra Mo2(i.l. u.l.)  : equora B12 • Circes] circe M2  : cyces S2(a.c.)  : cyrces S2(p.c.)V3  : dices Ba(a.c. a m.p.)  : circos Lr27 •