Reviewed by John Jacobs, The Montclair Kimberley Academy (jjacobs@mka.org)
N.B. Supplements to this review are posted in the comments to the BMCR blog. Modern study of the Punica begins with the rediscovery of the epic by Poggio Bracciolini during the Council of Constance in 1417, followed relatively soon thereafter by the publication of the editio princeps (more accurately, two editiones principes) in Rome in 1471 and by the appearance of the first printed commentary, by Pietro Marso, in Venice in 1483. Pietro Marso was not, however, the first to comment on the Punica. Rather, as Marso himself explains in his dedicatory letter to Virginius Ursinus, he owed a great debt to a trio of predecessors at the Studium Urbis in Rome: Pietro Odo da Montopoli, Giulio Pomponio Leto, and, most importantly, Domizio Calderini, whose own commentary never made it into print. Now, half a millennium after Marso's work was last published, Calderini finally gets his due, as Muecke, in the publication of the book under review, brings to completion an imposing project, begun by Dunston over half a century ago, by collating and editing not the (lost) commentary itself but the evidence for it preserved in the lecture notes recorded in the margins of five copies of the 1471 edition produced by Pomponio Leto, as well as in the margins of the Casanatense MS (Σ). The result is a book which marks a major milestone in several respects and which, one hopes, will lead to the publication of the remaining extant marginalia on the Punica. The volume itself consists of the usual parts, including a preface (pp. 9-10) with an account of the discovery of Houghton Inc. 3431 (A) at Harvard, an introduction (pp. 13-65), a table of sigla and abbreviations (pp. 67-73), a life of Silius found only in Houghton Inc. 3431 (pp. 75-6), the text itself book-by-book (pp. 77-830), an extensive if incomplete bibliography (pp. 831-44), and a series of eight indices (pp. 845-958). The introduction comprises three sections, 'Domizio Calderini and his commentary on Silius Italicus' (pp. 13- 25), 'The witnesses, their nature and their relationships' (pp. 25-39), and 'The sources' (pp. 39-63, including a list of unidentified sources in n. 114, on which see below), as well as a brief explanatory 'Note on the edition' (pp. 63-65, with 'Stamp. Ross. 1446' for 'Stamp. Ross. 1146' on p. 65) in which Muecke explains how she and, before her, Dunston grappled with the many challenges posed by the material to be edited. The physical book itself is not especially sturdy: the glue along the spine of my copy has already given way, and the cover for such a hefty tome perhaps ought to have been hard rather than soft. Nevertheless, even at the understandably high price, the volume is worth every penny. In the compass of this brief review, I will focus on the many textual problems which, ultimately, render the edition less authoritative and less reliable than it might otherwise have been: this is an especially important point given the difficulty of the material to be edited and the corresponding need for accuracy and consistency.1 In the 'Note on the edition' (pp. 63-5), Muecke makes her position clear: 'In this edition our [i.e., Muecke and Dunston's] purpose has been to present the raw materials of Calderini's commentary on Silius Italicus as they have been transmitted by the students, not to reconstruct the finished version that Calderini might have produced had he revised his lecture notes' (p. 63). Muecke goes on to explain what implications this approach has had for the presentation of the text, the modernization of the orthography, and the use of both the apparatus criticus and the apparatus fontium to mark any divergences between the text reported in the lecture notes and that reported in the modern editions for the various authors cited. Furthermore, throughout the book, Muecke quotes from the commentary of Pietro Marso, given its close connection with the work of Calderini. Accordingly, the errors in question fall into three categories: errors in Latin, in Greek, and in the citation of passages from Marso. The errors in Latin include, first and foremost, orthographical issues like capitalization, corrupt or inferior spellings, and outright mistakes.2 The variant forms of sequor and auctor well illustrate the pervasive nature of this problem. In the case of forms of the verb sequor, Muecke generally adopts the standard Classical orthography, but there are a number of exceptions, especially in the present indicative and the perfect participle.3 In the case of forms of the noun auctor, Muecke again generally adopts the standard Classical orthography, but here there are even more exceptions, as well as some inconsistencies. 4 The handling of numbers, whether written out in full or not, also involves several slips. The errors in morphology and syntax far outnumber these (admittedly, minor) errors in orthography and encompass everything from simple inflectional mistakes in the various declensions and conjugations (at least some of which may be classed as orthographical errors rather than morphosyntactical errors) to more serious problems of clause and sentence structure.5 The errors in Greek include orthographical issues similar to those seen in the Latin, as well as a number of slips in the marking of breath and accent. At times, the etymological links between the Greek and the Latin are not made explicit enough.6 Beyond that, there are a few passages which call for more extended comment. In II 445, we read fistula dicitur thissao inflo instead of the expected phissao (~ φυσάω) probably because the initial phi was misread as a theta. Later, in XIII 588, we read Cocyti θ gigis frater instead of the expected et probably because of another misread theta: read Cotti et Gigis frater here, cf. I 435, esp. Cottos for coctus, the reading in AF, and Giges for gigas, also the reading in AF. In II 89, Muecke, following the Guarino-Tiphernas Latin translation of Strabo, fails to correct the note fuit item tertius Mopsus filius Tiresiae vatis, which arises from a misinterpretation of Μαντοῦς (= Manto, daughter of T(e)iresias) as a form of μάντις (= prophet, i.e., vatis) in the Latin translation of Str. 9.5.22 οὐκ ἀπὸ Μόψου τοῦ Μαντοῦς τῆς Τειρεσίου ~ non a filio Teiresiae Mopso vate. In V 580, Muecke seems to overlook the possible etymological link between indagator / intagator (sic) and ἑρμενεύς, despite the inferior Erinius for Herminius in the lemma. Finally, in XII 340, there may be another possible etymological link, with λαμβάνω (~ capio), in the note dictum delubrum a deo capiendo quemadmodum candelabrum a candela capienda. The errors in the citation of passages from Marso, as well as in the citation of passages both from other ancient authors and from Calderini's own commentaries on other ancient authors, constitute, by far, the most serious challenge to the integrity of the text.7 Here too, there are a few passages which call for extended comment. In VIII 604, in a citation from Marso ad XII 215, Muecke reads Prentelia (sic), even though the reading appears quite clearly to be Prentesia, i.e., Brentesia, cf. Brentesia in Pomponio Leto ad Verg. Aen. I 244, cited by Muecke herself later in the same paragraph. (For the alternate forms Brentesia / Prentesia, cf. Spoletum [> It. Spoleto], in a citation from Marso ad VIII 460 / Spoletium). In XV 170, in a citation from Marso ad loc., Muecke reads rararim (?), even though the reading appears quite clearly to be tararim: read taranim, i.e., Taranim, cf. Luc. 1.446 (Taranis). Beyond these errors in Latin, in Greek, and in the citation of passages from Marso (at least some of which, admittedly, may not be true errors, but instead examples of the more flexible Latinity of the Renaissance), there are errors and significant omissions in the citation of both the ancient authors and modern scholarship (in general, more use of the subsequent commentary tradition could have been made throughout the volume). Altogether, despite the difficulty of the material to be edited, the level of editorial control is not as consistently high as it could have and perhaps should have been.8 Nevertheless, all of this in no way detracts from the quality of Calderini's work or diminishes the inherent importance and interest of his (lost) commentary, and so I would like to conclude this review with three notes which illustrate this point.9 II init.: like many scholars since him, Calderini attempted to find a ratio for the 17 books of the Punica in the 17 years of the Second Punic War (presumably, from the fall of Saguntum in 218 B.C. to the battle of Zama in 202 B.C., counting inclusively): Calderini returns to this idea later, towards the end of the commentary, in his note on XVII 385. I would only add to this bit of numerology (and the 'modern' aversion to the practice is not an argument against its 'validity' in the ancient world) that Carthage was said to have burnt for 17 days at its fall in 146 B.C. (Flor. 1.31.18 = 2.15.18 and Oros. 4.23.5), a coincidence (?) which lends support for a reading of the Punica as a telescopic presentation of all three Punic wars as one. VIII 143: the teacher Calderini, and not the student Marso, can now rightfully assert and defend his claim to be the first scholar to note the now famous lacuna at this point in the manuscripts. XIV 598: in a note on the narrative of the plague during the siege of Syracuse, Calderini offers an extraordinarily 'modern' comment about Silius' intertextual engagement with Lucretius and Vergil, but then, shortly thereafter, completely misses the patently Vergilian echo in XIV 673 (!). This volume represents a monumental achievement, despite the editorial issues discussed above, and the interweaving of lemmata, Calderini's commentary (i.e., notes recorded by his students), and Muecke and Dunston's further remarks offers visual evidence of the ongoing 'conversation' about the Punica across the centuries. Moreoever, the more recent spate of publications on Silius, including a number of commentaries on single books, makes this the perfect time for a more sustained and thoughtful engagement with the earlier commentary tradition. To that end, I would like to conclude by repeating Ernesti's plea for an edition of Marso's commentary which is based on all four recensions of the text and, ideally, offered in a searchable electronic format.
Notes:
1. See also the review by Johann Ramminger in RR. Roma nel Rinascimento (2011), available online from Ramminger's own website.
2. Details in the comments to the BMCR blog post.
3. Read sequuntur for secuntur (VIII 390, 412, 483, 515-18, 568, and 588), est secutus for est sequtus (I 513) and secuti sunt for sequti sunt (III 608); cf. V 624 est secutus, the reading in F, for (est?) sequutus, the reading in B, as well as secuti for sequuti (XI 20) and secutus for sequutus (XII 91). Read also esset consecutus for esset consequutus (XI 532-3), as well as locutus est for loquutus est (IX 251).
4. Read auctor for autor (I 662, II 60, VII 74, VIII 568, VIII 573, X 508, XI 58, XI 311, XI 380, XI 431, XII 342, and XVI 25), auctores for autores (IV 487, X 173, X 321, XI 2, XII 396, XIII 425 [bis], and XVII 417), auctorem for autorem (VII 634, IX 57, and XVI 273), auctorum for autorum (IV 487, X 503, and XIV 37), and auctore for autore (V 466, VI 628, VII 107, VII 171, VII 418 [bis], VIII 573, VIII 580, VIII 593-4, IX 57, IX 306, IX 372, IX 471, X 165, X 173, X 255, X 484, X 492, X 580, XI 10, XI 250-1, XI 278, XIII 94, XIII 445-6, and XVI 583): read also auctoritate for autoritate (XII 364). The inconsistency here lies in the fact that Muecke 'corrects' auctore Plinio, the reading in A, to autore Plinio in VII 171, but later corrects autore Homero, the reading in BF, to auctore Homero in VII 276-7: the first is not a 'correction' at all, but the second is and, furthermore, would seem to suggest that Muecke at least intended to adopt the standard Classical orthography throughout.
5. For a list of errors in Latin numbers, inflection and syntax see the blog comments.
6. For a list of errors in the Greek see the blog comments.
7. For a list of citation errors see the blog comments.
8. For a list of errors in citation of authors and other editorial slips see the blog comments.
9. I believe that I have identified the sources for two of the unidentified (?) passages listed in n. 114 on p. 39: in I 277, read Crysaum (i.e., Chrysaor, father of Geryon) for Cryscum (cf. IV 151), and add D.S. 4.17.2, 18.2 for an explicit reference to the three sons of Chrysaor (cf. Just. 44.4.16, Isid. Orig. 11.3.28, and Vat. Myth. I.68); and, in V 581, add Ov. Met 13.904-68 for an implicit reference (perhaps?) to Glaucus as the piscationis inventor in the claim ego primus (13.930), cf. Glaucus in deum marinum (the title given to the myth in the Narrationes fabularum Ovidianarum) ~ Glaucus … in deum marinum (V 581), along with Vat. Myth. I.3, 99; II.168-9; and III.11.8.
Posts
note a1:
ReplyDeleteMuecke uses the 1493 edition for the text of these citations. Unfortunately, while I have been able to obtain digital reproductions of the other three editions (1483, 1492, and 1512), I have not, thus far, been able to obtain a digital reproduction of the 1493 edition. Considering the relative stability of the text across the editions to which I do have access, I do not believe that I have committed any blunders in this review, but, without the 1493 edition, I cannot be certain.
note a2:
ReplyDeleteRead Nova for nova (I 3 m. d.) and Equi for equi and Aequos for aequos (VIII 489, cf. Equo Falisco and Equm Faliscum (sic) elsewhere in the same note), cf. the inconsistent use of capitalization in titles, e.g., in naturali historia (V 59) ~ in secundo Naturalis Historiae (V 611).
note a3:
ReplyDeleteRead adhibet for adibet (I 97, cf. I 429-30), extispicina erat (or extispicia erant) (?) for extipicina erant (I 101-2, cf. III 345), abstinentia for astinentia (I 243), adhibitis for adibitis (I 429-30, cf. I 97 and I 429-30 adhibebant), patriciae for patritiae (II 668, cf. IV 324 patriciae), lacrimandi for lagrimandi (III 74), extispicinam for extipicinam and extispicium for extipicium (III 345, cf. I 101-2), coeant for coheant (IV 314, cf. VIII 455), absconditus for asconditus (IV 380), mercennarii for mercendarii (V 195-7), Timoclis for Timocleis (V 463, cf. Stat.comm. II 7.59 Timoclis cited elsewhere in the same note), necromantiam for negromantiam (V 466, cf. XII 120), Tiberio for Tyberio (V 466, cf. V 565 Tiberii for Tyberii, the reading in AF!), promulgaretur for promulcaretur (VII 504), consecratio for consacratio (VIII 143, cf. VIII 362 consecravit and consecratum), Tatii for Tacii (VIII 361), Caucaseae for Caucasee (VIII 414-15), delicias for delitias (VIII 422), traicitur for trahicitur (VIII 455, cf. IV 314), subsidia for sussidia (VIII 491), Capy for Capi (VIII 544, cf. IX 75 Capy, the reading in F, for capi, the reading in BE, and XI 174 Capy, the reading in F, for Capi, the reading in B, as well as XI 29-30, XI 179, and XI 297), imber for hymber (IX 311), arci for arqui (IX 471, cf. arcum, the reading in BD, for arquum, the reading in F, elsewhere in the same note), exstinguuntur for estinguntur (X 153), aes for es (X 209 bis), Capy for Capi (XI 29-30, cf. VIII 544), praetore for pretore (XI 78-9), Capys for Capis (XI 179, cf. VIII 544), Capym for Capim and Capyis for Capis (XI 297, cf. VIII 544), caeli for coeli (XII 21), tus, the reading in F, for thus, the reading in B (XII 422, cf. X 76!), mactantur for mattantur (XIII 429 [et alibi: I failed to collect all of the others], cf. mactari and mactetur elsewhere in the same note), otium for ocium (XIII 515, cf. XV 57), conubium for connubium (XIII 589), otio for ocio (XV 57, cf. XIII 515), Cn. for Gn. (XVII 8). Note also Carthaginienses for Carthaginenses (IV 371), Carthaginiensibus for Carthaginensibus (VI 653-4), Carthaginiensium for Carthaginensium (VI 658), Carthaginienses for Carthaginenses (VI 697), Carthaginienses for Cartaginienses (XIII 620), and Carthaginiensium for Carthaginensium (XIII 731), despite the statement on pp. 63-64 about “silently alter[ing]” the forms in question.
note a4:
ReplyDeleteRead vinaria for viniaria (I 83), vehuntur for vehunter (I 215, cf. XIII 472), appellabatur for apellabatur (I 365), divulgaretur for devulgaretur (I 485), rettulit for retulit (I 625), Eurystheum for Eursystheum (II 475-8), strategemate for stratagemate (II 701-2), difficillimi for dificillimi (III 345, cf. III 468), difficillimus for dificillimus (III 468, cf. III 345), oppressisset for oppressiset (IV 39), tributariam for tributiariam (IV 130, cf. IV 473 tributariam), dabantur for dababantur (IV 547), Opem Consivam for Opem Consiviam (IV 670), crepusculum for crespusculum (V 27), vates (?) for rates (V 59), Halicarnasseus for Halicarnassseus (V 82), Peloponnesius for Peloponesius (VI 91, cf. XV 310), pauperrimos for pauperimos (VIII 2), opulentissimum for opulentissimim (VIII 564), dictae for dictaea (VIII 566), Lugdunense for Lugdunsense (VIII 569), Peucetia for Peucutia (VIII 573), Brundusini for Brundisini (VIII 574), item for idem (VIII 592), decemviris for demviris (IX 57), Helenas for Helenas (X 11, cf. Helene elsewhere in the same note), Georgicis for Georgis (X 12), Callaico, the reading in F, for Calaico (X 118, cf. Calleci [read Callaeci] elsewhere in the same note), praecipitium for praecipetium (XI 103), emittebantur for emmittebantur (XII 337), antequam for antequem (XII 505), vaticinabatur for vaticanabatur (XIII 401), dicuntur for dicunter (XIII 472, cf. I 215), Liternum for Linternum (XIII 515), severissime for severisssime (XIII 845), illic for illlic (XIV 657), auderet for audereret (XV init.), Ligusticum for Ligustricum (XV 165, cf. Ampel. 7.3), Tarraco for Taraco (XV 176), and Peloponnesi for Peloponnessi (XV 310, cf. VI 91). Note also the freak intrusion of a Greek epsilon in II 160 Ptolεmei and VIII 414-15 Ptolεmeum.
note b1:
ReplyDeleteRead XXVI or xxvi for XX6 (?) (I 61, cf. I 187 xxvii), novem for nonum (I 118), trium pedum or tribus pedibus for trium pedibus (I 353), quinquaginta for quinginta (III 256, cf. III 396), quinquaginta for quiquaginta (III 396, cf. III 256), tredecim for tresdecim (VI 181, cf. tredecim, the reading in F!), quadringentis for quadrigentis (VII 275), and septingentae for septingenta (XIV 354-5).
note b2:
ReplyDeleteRead Phrygiam for Phrygium (I 43), spoliorum opimorum for spoliarum opimarum (I 133), mari for mare (I 194), Britanni for Britannii and commentariis for commentaribus (I 224), nobili for nobile (I 231), fratre for frater (I 290), munus gladiatorium for munus gladiatorum and noctem for noctum (?) (I 356), iniustum for iniustus (I 539), Acrisioneos for Acrisioneis (I 661), urbem for urbe (II 19), civitates for civitatis (II 62), honestatem for honestate (II 63), funebres for funestes (?) (II 267), perniciem for pernicium (II 288), Cereri for Cereris (II 587, cf. III 609 Iovi Conservatori), omnis for omnes (?) (III 29), Naturali for Naturalis (III 130), alas for ales (III 524), Capitolino for Capitolini (III 587), Capitolino for Capitolio (III 617), Capitolium for Capitolinum (IV 150-1, cf. Capitolium elsewhere in the same note), vestes for vestis (IV 155 m. s.), lacum for lacus (IV 220), Virgilianus for Virgilianum (IV 258), Curiatios for Curiatos (IV 355), ligna for ligne (IV 487), Syracusarum or Syracusanorum for Syracusanarum (V 489-90), antiquissimos for antiquissimas (VI 91), Ausonios for Ausonias (VI 244, cf. Italos and Troianos elsewhere in the same note), quinquatribus or quinquatrubus for quinquatriis (VI 598), sententiae for sententii (VI 658), Fabius Buteo for Fabio Buteo and senatorum for senatum (VII 504), Tyri for Tyrii (VII 634), sententia for sententiam (VIII 60), sculptoribus for sculptores (VIII 230, cf. app. crit., as well as opificibus elsewhere in the same note), crudele for crudelis (VIII 362), Latinam for Latinum (sc. viam) (VIII 377, cf. X 33!), fluvium for fluviam (VIII 398), alteram for altera (VIII 413, cf. alteram elsewhere in the same note), Minervae for Minerva (VIII 524), Claudii for Claudi (VIII 527), Baiis for Bais (VIII 538-9), mediam for medium (IX 234), Capitolio for Capitolia (IX 415), altitudinem for attitudine (?) (X 549), magnae for magni (XI 20, cf. XI 18 magnae!), Gigantas for Gigantes (XII 143, cf. the lemma), qui or quorum for qm (?) (XII 159), aure for aurem (XII 231), Autololas for Autololes (XIII 145, cf. the lemma), Homerum for Homerus (XIII 623), nostrum for nostro (?) (XIV 54), dimensione for dimentione (XIV 72, cf. XIV 233 dimensione!), templo for temple (XIV 203), ritu for rite (XIV 260), Pollucis for Pollucem (XV 83), and fugientis for fugientem (XVII 644).
note b3:
ReplyDeleteRead moriatur for moritur (I 83), pertranseunt for pertransiunt (I 97), inspiciebantur for inspiciabantur (I 101-2), fatum erat for fatatum erat (?) (I 118), vergentia for vergantia (I 233), fiebat for fiebant and feriret for ferirent (I 365), habebant for habebent (I 431), dicunt for dicuntur (I 638), lacessebant for lacessibant (I 664), sufficiat for sufficeat (II 499-500), ulcisci for ulciscari (II 530), interfecit for interfeci (III 41-2), appellabatur for appellabantur (III 42), <conditae> for <conditas> (III 364-5), appellatum est or appellata est for appellatus est (III 711), intermiscuit for intermictit (?) (IV 60), venerunt for venerant (?) (IV 225), eripuerunt for eriperent (?) (IV 275), lacessens for lacessans (IV 498), fusi fuerunt, the reading in B, for fusi fuerant, the reading in AF (V 134, cf. I 45 fugati fuerunt and I 47 fusi et caesi fuerunt, allata, the reading in A, for ablata, the reading in BF (VI 4, cf. allata in the passage from Marsus ad loc. cited by Muecke!), captos for captas (VI 688), disceptabant for disceptebant and remeabant for †remebantur† (?) (VIII 2), appellatam fuisse for appellatum fuisse (VIII 413), erant for erat (VIII 461), dividebantur for dividebatur (VIII 509-10), collocetur for collocitur (VIII 562), coniciebant for coniecebant (VIII 641), approbassent for approbasset (IX 2), addat, the reading in F, for addet, the reading in BE, deiciebantur for deicebantur and dictam for dictum (X 360), iniceret for inieceret (X 542, cf. X 555 iniceret!), praetexebatur for praetexabatur (X 647), vulneratus est, the reading in D, for fuit vulernatus, the reading in BEF (?) (XI 147-8), debebat, the reading in D, for debebatur, the reading in BF (?) (XI 288), prostratos for prostratas (XII 143, cf. the lemma), dictus for dictum (XII 155, cf. XII 156 conditus), tracti or tractae for tractum (?) (XII 182), impetrare for impetrari (XII 431), deposuit or deposivit (sic) for deposivit (XIII 860, cf. XIII 615 concubuit ~ concubivit (sic), condita est for conditum est (XIV 206), and inici for iniici and correpta sint for correpta sit (XVII 87).
note b4:
ReplyDeleteRead nobile fide, nobilis fidei, or nobili fide for nobilis fide (I 332-3), non solum … sed etiam for non solos … sed etiam (I 514), dictos esse for dixisse (II 3, cf. appellatos esse elsewhere in the same note), beati perfecti for perfecti beati (II 616), infaustum Romano nomini for infaustum Romano nomine, the reading in AF (VIII, cf. infaustum Romani nomini, the reading in B, and infaustum Romanis, the reading in C), Anco Martio or Anco Marcio (cf. Marco, the reading in F) for Anco Marte (VIII 362-3, cf. Anco Martio in the passage from Marsus ad loc. cited by Muecke!), caedes opimae dicuntur or caedes opima dicitur for caedes opimae dicitur (IX 430), elephanti, the reading in E, or in elephanto, the reading in DF, for elephantis (IX 628), aggere for agger and terram congestam for tumulum congestum (?) (X 92), scenici ludi istrionici dicuntur for scenici ludus istrionicae dicuntur (sic!) (XI 429), and unde for inde (?) (XV 70). Delete the extraneous “a”s between nomen and duxerunt (X 261) and between dictum est and non conveniens (XVI 636-8). I cannot construe alterum qui ab dentem habebat mutilatum (IV 599) or Italiae finis conditum ab Etolis (VIII 574) as Latin, nor do I recognize the form affuturanda (sic) (XVII 8: form of sum?).
note c:
ReplyDeleteRead Clot(h)o (~ Κλωθώ / κλώθω) for clot(h)o (V 404) and Faeton and Phaeton (~ φαέθω) for faeton and phaeton (VI 3); read also andreia (~ ἀνδρ(ε)ία) for †inorei (?) (I 88), melissa (~ μέλισσα) for mellissa (II 218), dibaphes (~ διβαφής) or dibaphos (~ δίβαφος) for dibapha (?) (IV 324), stenius (~ σθένιος) for stenus (?) (IV 343), codion (~ κῴδιον) for codon (?) (VIII 493, cf. Ar. Eq. 400 and Ra. 1478 ~ “Aristofanes utitur (?)”!), and proboscis (~ προβοσκίς) for promuscis (IX 628, cf. Skt. hastin = “elephant” [lit., “that which has a hand”]).
Read καὶ for καί (I 74), διὰ for διά (I 429-30), λειμῶνι for λείμονι (II 86), Ιουγούρθαν with the acute accent on the upsilon instead of the rho (II 165), νεὼς for νεώς (II 194), ἀοργησία for ἀογησία (II 489), φαίνεται for φάινεται (III 22-3), ὃς for ὅς (III 38), Ἐνυώ for ενυω (IV 439, cf. X 202!), φασιν for φᾶσιν (V 463), χρῖσος for χρισος (X 93), εὐγενεῖς for εὐγενεὶς (XII 216), and ἓξ for eξ (with a rough breathing and a grave accent on the Roman letter “e” – cf. above).
[[17]] Explain chyrome ~ κείρομαι (II 93, cf. I 365 aptome ~ ἅπτομαι), nemo ~ νέμω (II 441, cf. III 288 and XII 562), thyo ~ θύω and tino ~ τίνω (II 530), chaero ~ χαίρω (III 299, cf. V 17, VI 338, VIII 472, IX 251, and XIII 571), Chryxos ~ χρυσός (IV 151), exomides / exonides ~ ἐξωμίς and chirodota and chirotata ~ χειρόδοτος (IV 155, cf. XI 40-1), stenos ~ σθένος (IV 343), Eumacus (bis) (read Eumachus) ~ εὔμαχος and Clitias / Clicias ~ κλυτός (IV 371), Trachinia ~ τραχύς (IV 532), cere ~ χαῖρε (V 17, cf. III 299), Xerolibye ~ ξηρός (VI 144-5), Coton ~ κώθων (VI 357, cf. XII 438-9), Cleadas ~ κλέος (VII 637), Caieta ~ καιάδας (VIII 529, cf. IX 75 app. crit.), Ceraunia ~ κεραυνός (VIII 631), acontius ~ ἀκοντίας, xiphius ~ ξιφίας, pitheus ~ πιθίας (πιθεύς), ceratius ~ κερατίας, and hippeus ~ ἱππίας (ἱππεύς) (VIII 636), novum ~ νέος and robur ~ ἀλκή (IX 226, cf. IX 363), varis ~ βᾶρις (IX 251), Aparchias ~ ἀπαρκίας (see LSJ s.v. ἀπαρκτίας) (IX 493), Morpheus (~Μορφεύς) ~ μορφή (X 346-7), chirodoce / chirodote ~ χειρόδοτος (XI 40-1, cf. IV 155), anaglipta ~ ἀνάγλυπτος / ἀνάγλυφος and cataglipta ~ κατάγλυπτος / κατάγλυφος (XI 278), and Nomades ~ νέμω / νομός (XII 562, cf. II 441 and III 288).
note d1:
ReplyDeleteRead habitabant for habitabunt (II 397), Cersilao for cersilao and Batti for batti (III 250-1: otherwise, retain the capitalization as it appears in Marso), Flaminiam for Flamineam (IV 643), inde manus potest appellari feretrum for inde manu potest appellari [portari legendum] feretrum (V 167-8, i.e., delete the unnecessary “correction” of appellari), depectunt for depectant (VI 4), pictor templi, CCCCL for CCCL, Plinii for Pli., and debemus for debeamus (VI 655), Formiani for Formianai (VII 275), Catyllus for Catillus and Catyllo for Catillo (VIII 364), inferum for in ferum (VIII 382: the hypen is simply missing in Marso), qui for quae, aegregie for egregie, and edificiis for aedificiis (VIII 460), impressus for pressus and aequosque for aequos (VIII 489), Aeetae for Aeaetae, suctu for suctum, magicem for magicen, and Thessalicus for Thessalius (VIII 498), nauium for naulum (VIII 532, cf. navibus in Calderini!), nanque for namque (IX 209-10), autores for auctores (X 503: cf. above!), poetas for poeta (XII 91), et for and (XII 212), Odissea for Odissia, verbis: for verbis, and vivus: for vivus (XIII 613), Lilybei for Lilibei (XIV 75), deletum for deleti and Syllano for Sullano (XIV 409), and passi fuerant for passi fuerunt (XVII 326).
Read immensum for immensam (VI 222: Sen. Med. 686-687), Λατῖνον for Λατίνον (VI 628: D.H. 1.43.1), caelatam for celatam and increscentis for increscrescentis (VII 120: Plin. ed. Rom.1 17.37, cf. caelatam and increscentis in Calderini!), ἐλάστρεον ἔνθα καὶ ἔνθα for ἐλάστερον ἔνθα κὰι ἔνθα (VII 120: Hom. Il. 18.543), prope for probe (VIII 289-90: Liv. 22.35.3), οὐκ for οὺκ and καταπλῆγα for καταπλήγα (VIII 289-90: Plut. Fab. 14.3), μέντοι with the acute accent on the epsilon instead of the nu (VIII 362-3: Str. 5.3.5), aggerat for aggregat (?) (VIII 362-3: Guarino-Tiphernas translation of Str. 5.3.5), ipse for ipsi (VIII 370: Plin. HN 36.116, cf. ipse elsewhere in the same note), Tarracinam for Taracinam (?) (VIII 382: Fest. p. 194 M), CCCCXL for CCCCLX (VIII 390: Plin. HN 3.58, cf. CCCCXL elsewhere in the same note), Λευκανοί for Λευκάνοι (VIII 422: Str. 5.3.1), τῆς for τὴς and αἱροῦσι for αἱρῶσι (VIII 472: D.H. 1.20.4), M et CC for M and CC (IX 17: Liv. ed. Rom.1 22.41.2), μηνίων for μηνιῶν and παρεσκεύασε for παρεσκευάσε (IX 63-4: Σ Lycophron 384), ἀπαγγέλλω for ἀπαγγελλω (IX 471: Eustathius ad Hom. Od. 18.6), πρὸς for πρὸϛ (i.e., sigma for stigma) (XIII 765: Str. 15.1.27), ὑπὸ for ὑπο (XIV 198: Thuc. 6.5.3), τοὺς for τοὺϛ (i.e., sigma for stigma) (XV 91: Str. 14.1.23), omnes eo loco aut ab radicibus subruunt aut accidunt arbores for omnes eo loco aut ab radicibus aut accidunt arbores (XV 502: Caes. BG 6.27.5), Ἱέμψας for Ἱεμψὰϛ (i.e., sigma for stigma) (XVI 461: D.C. 41.41.2 [not 41.41.1]: the actual reading is Ἱέμψου), Κίρκαιον for Κίρκηαιον (XVII 416: D.S. 4.45.5), and inficiunt for inficiiunt (XVII 416: Caes. BG 5.14.3).
note d2:
ReplyDeleteRead filias for filios (?) (V 353: Mart.comm. XI 60.6), discedens for discendens (VII 418: Stat.comm. III 5.100, cf. discessisse in Calderini!), templo Fortunae for templa Fortunae (VIII 364-5: Stat.comm. I 3.80), diximus for diximis (VIII 364-5: Prop.comm. … (sic)), Fortuna for Fortunae (VIII 364-5: Mart.comm. V 1.3), et for and (IX 45: Stat.comm. IV 6.70), proceri uniones for proceres uniones (XII 231: Juv.comm. VI 459), and legebatur for legabatur (XII 486-7: Stat.comm. IV 4.85): read also et for and (XII 543: Pomponio Leto ad Verg. Aen. VI 778).
note e1:
ReplyDeleteV 311: read “Apollodorus” (cf. 3.5.5) for “Apollonius” (?); VIII 417: read Isidorus (cf. Orig. 10.266 ex Serv. ad Verg. Aen. 7.713) for Festus (?), cf. Jean Holzworth, “Hugutio’s Derivationes and Arnulfus’ commentary on Ovid’s Fasti,” TAPhA 73 (1942), 259-276, 276 and Jennifer L. Ferriss-Hill, “Virgil’s program of Sabellic etymologizing and the construction of Italic identity,” TAPhA 141.2 (2011), 265-284, 270, 272-274; XI 374-5: Muecke wrongly criticizes Calderini for citing Pliny as a source (Plinius probat); see HN 33.20, where he does, indeed, refer to “the spoils of Cannae” (p. 637) and note neque enim aliter potuissent trimodia anulorum illa Carthaginem ab Hannibale mitti (in Pliny) ~ neque tres modii anulorum potuissent colligi ex strage Cannensi nisi omnes pariter eos gestassent (XI 532-3, a parallel not remarked on by Muecke); and XIV 197: in the citation from Mart.comm. VII 24.5, perhaps Calderini was (mis)remembering a (nonexistent) reference to the Palici in Plut. Cons. Ap. 14 (?).
I 73: Mackie’s article appeared in CJ, not CR; III 384: add a reference to Leonard A. Curchin, “The Sarmatian walls of Uxama (Sil. Ital. Punica 3,384-386),” Mnemosyne 4th ser. 50.2 (1997), 209-212; and XIII 473-4: the first mention of the canes sepulchrales I know of appears in Aegidius Maserius, Argonauticon libri octo (Paris, 1519), ad 6.109 tumulis (Fo. LXXXII), cf. Arnold Stein, “Joseph Hall’s imitation of Juvenal,” ModLangRev 43.3 (1948), 315-322, 316.
note e2:
ReplyDeleteI 315: read amentatis (why the sic?); I 391: read militum (why the sic?); IV 344: compare the treatment of altis / altibus between the text and the app. crit. with the treatment of Gallibus / Gallis in IV 190; V 72: read temporum (why the obelisks?); V 72: the final word of the note is diurna or divina, cf. the app. crit.; V 162: read Polyidus, not Polyidum (?); VI 339: read alterius, not alius, as the genitive singular of alius; VI 653-4: read vidisse for uidisse, cf. se vidisse Livius testatur in the citation from Marso ad loc. (why the consonantal “u”?); VIII 31: read inter lineas for intra lineas (?); VIII 39: read “Jupiter Indiges” for “Iovis Indigetis” (why the genitive?); VIII 361: read cum paginae parte inferiore for cum paginae parte inferiori, cf. VIII 390 (read in parte superiore for in parte superiori elsewhere in the same note) and VIII 483, as well as VIII 424 (with the correct reading); VIII 364: read alterius for alius; VIII 366: read “implication” for “inference”; VIII 390: the crossreference should be to IV 532, not IV 352; VIII 393: “There are three Italian names with somewhat similar names”; VIII 596: read magnae for magna, cf. the text of the note; IX 75: read nulla loca nomen sortitum fuisse tradit (reading sortita for sortitum) for nulla loca formavisse nomen tradit, cf. the text of the note; IX 271: read “Liv. XXII 45.8” for “Liv. XII 45.8”; IX 469: BE reported as the only two sources for the note in the app. crit., but BEF reported as the three sources in the subsequent commentary; X 492: read prodit for prodidit (?); XI 473: read “written” for “writtem”; XI 607: read viginti for uiginti; XII 403: “in the margin is a marginal annotation”; XIII 589: read solvisset for soluisset; XIII 593: read accipitur for adcipitur (why the unassimilated consonantal cluster?); XV 35: read qui etiam habent for qui etiam habet; XV 78-9: refer(r)etur (why the parentheses, since the pluperfect subjunctive, not the future indicative, is needed here?); XV 773: read sagittiferi for sagittiriferi in the lemma; and XVI 428: footnote “a” does not exist (cf. the note by Muecke, however). Beyond these errors in the body of the text, the “Index nominum antiquorum et rerum notabiliarum” (sic) in the table of contents, which then becomes the “Index nominum antiquorum et rerum notabiliorum” in the running header, should be either the “Index nominum antiquorum et rerum notabiliorum” (with the comparative adjective) or else the “Index nominum antiquorum et rerum notabilium” (with the positive adjective) everywhere.