Abstract
One conjecture is proposed on the text of Varro’s Bellum Sequanicum (23 B = 106 H = 1 C), dulci … sapore for dulcis … saporis, and a handful of variant readings are reconsidered in a fragment of the Chorographia (13 B = 112 H = 17 C = 16 M).
Keywords:
The fragments of Varro Atacinus are not quite so badly transmitted as those of certain other poets, but a handful of corrupt passages they do contain, some of which, had we the rest of their context, would probably emend themselves. In the following notes I purpose to examine two such fragments, one in Varro’s Bellum Sequanicum (23 Blänsdorf = 106 Hollis = 1 Courtney), the other in his Chorographia (13 Blänsdorf = 112 Hollis = 17 Courtney = 16 Morel). I give for the former passage the text and apparatus of Blänsdorf, Büchner, and Morel (Citation2011, 240), and for the latter the text of Hollis (Citation2007, 167–168) with an apparatus composite of both. Translations are my own.
P. Terentius Varro Atacinus, Bellum Sequanicum (23 Blänsdorf = 106 Hollis = 1 Courtney):
leuis unda or dulcis unda? dulcis saporis or leuis saporis? Says Courtney (Citation1993, 238): “The line shows the conformation favoured at this time, verb, two adjectives and two nouns, the latter arranged abBA.” But to compose lines of the shape abBA was only a tendency, not a rule. It can hardly be relied upon here as a sure guide to the syntax, not least because the neoteric poets just as frequently arranged their nouns and epithets in the order abAB: Cinna 2 B lucida quom fulgent alti carchesia mali, 3 B atque anquina regat stabilem fortissima cursum, Caluus 11 B cum grauis ingenti coniuere pupula somno, Catul. 64.1 Peliaco quondam prognatae uertice pinus. Only S. Hoffer (Citation2007, 309), in his disquisition upon the use of “double hyperbaton” in Latin poetry, seems to appreciate the difficulty of the double agreement: “deinde ubi pellicuit dulcis leuis unda saporis is unusually ambiguous, perhaps a sign of the early experimental period of this style”. Experimentalism will not do for an explanation. If the contiguous juxtaposition of two epithets with identical endings, such that either epithet could be construed with either noun, was “experimental”, it was an experimental failure. The degree of grammatical ambiguity inherent to dulcis leuis unda saporis finds no parallel in the poetry of later authors.
Aesthetical considerations do not much help to explain or resolve the difficulty. At least I can discern no obvious play in the interchangeability of the epithets, which seems rather a fault than a trick of style. L. Alfonsi (Citation1945, 77–78) considered the sibilance of dulcis leuis unda saporis as an example of Ennian-style consonance, whereby the repetition of -s apparently conveyed “il senso di levità dell’onda”. That is not all fancy: the Roman poets certainly did use sibilance when describing rivers (cf. e.g. Tib. 1.7.13–14 an te, Cydne, canam, tractis qui leniter undis/caeruleus placidis per uada serpis aquis). But I am not convinced that Varro would have here sacrificed grammatical perspicuity for the sake of an effect which he could have achieved by other means.
Clearer sense and syntax may be gained by supposing that Varro wrote not dulcis … saporis, genitive of quality, but rather dulci … sapore, instrumental ablative: “Thereupon, when the light water enticed with its sweet flavour … ” The error dulcis for dulci would be one of anticipation before leuis, the error saporis for sapore either a Perseverationsfehler also due to leuis or a corrective interpolation consequent to dulci becoming dulcis. For pellicio with an instrumental ablative, see Stewart, TLL 10.1.998.46–10.1.998.47, and compare Cic. De or. 243 multo maiorem partem sententiarum sale tuo et lepore et politissimis facetiis pellexisti and Clu. 13.2 animum adulescentis, nondum consilio ac ratione firmatum, pellexit eis omnibus rebus quibus illa aetas capi ac deleniri potest. For sapore employed as an instrumental ablative, compare Lucr. DRN 2.400–401 ferique/centauri foedo pertorquent ora sapore. Let it not be said that the circumstance of this line’s being a fragment determines against emendation: there is no construction conceivable which could follow this verse and justify the ambiguity or render an ablative ungrammatical.Footnote1
P. Terentius Varro Atacinus, Chorographia (13 Blänsdorf = 17 Courtney = 112 Hollis = 16 Morel):
1 ut Hollis, coll. Ov., Met. 1.45–7: at Isid. : a Salom. : et Beda | aetherius AMS, Fontaine : aetheriis V : aetheriis PEKL || 2 hiemes Isid. : hiemis Salom. || 4 quas Grialus : qua Scaliger : quam codd. | ualido] calido Scaliger : rabido Baehrens | numquam] non iam D. A. Russell | ut] uis La Bigne : uia Lunelli : rota Scaliger : iubar Courtney | auferat] ferueat Traglia post Scaliger : adserat Salom. : atterat Wuellner : efferat Buechner : hauriat Nisbet : torreat Hollis | quas ictus … uerberat Capponi | igne uel ignem codd. Isid. : ignes Salom.
As the celestial sphere is girt by five zones and winters blast the lowest zones and heat the middle zone, so are the lands between the furthest zones and the middle zone inhabited, which the < … > of the sun never < … > with its powerful fire.
Verse 4 has yet to be printed as it was written, though all the materials for an accurate reconstruction are to hand. Modern editions differ thus:
qua solis ualido numquam uis ferueat igne (Blansdörf)
quas solis ualido numquam †ut auferat† igne (Hollis)
quas solis ualido †numquam ut† auferat igne (Courtney)
inde duas porro prope partis feruidus ardor
assiduusque geli casus mortalibus aufert.
Acknowledgements
I am much indebted to Egil Kraggerud and Monika Asztalos for their comments and criticisms of this paper.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1 If an instrumental ablative were to follow in the next verse, dulci … sapore would be ablative of quality.
2 Hollis (Citation2007, 186). His parallels for the comparison invoked by ut (esp. Ov. Met. 1.45–7) are fully convincing.
3 Unless we write super ingerit ictus, comparing Luc. 8.645 ingeris ictus and App. Verg. Moretum 43, 97 super ingerit. ortus is so mistaken at Tib. 1.1.27, where Bentley’s ictus must be read.
References
- Alfonsi, L. 1945. Poetae novi. Storia di un movimento poetico. Como: Carlo Marzorati.
- Blänsdorf, J., K. Büchner, and W. Morel, eds. 2011. Fragmenta poetarum Latinorum epicorum et lyricorum: praeter Enni annales et Ciceronis Germanicique Aratea. Berlin: De Gruyter.
- Büchner, C. 1982. Fragmenta poetarum Latinorum epicorum et lyricorum praeter Ennium et Lucilium post W. Morel ed. Leipzig: Teubner.
- Courtney, E. 1993. The Fragmentary Latin Poets, Edited with Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Hoffer, S. 2007. “The Use of Adjective Interlacing (Double Hyperbaton) in Latin Poetry.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 103: 299–340.
- Hollis, A. S. 2007. Fragments of Roman Poetry, c.60 BC–AD 20. Oxford: Oxford University Press.