Makowski, John F

Name not available

A Note on Lucan 8.860-1

Loyola eCommons

Loyola University ChicagoLoyola eCommonsClassical Studies: Faculty Publications and OtherWorks Faculty Publications1975A Note on Lucan 8.860-1John F. MakowskiLoyola University Chicago, jmakow1@luc.eduThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in ClassicalStudies: Faculty Publications and Other Works by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contactecommons@luc.edu.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.© 1975 The University of Chicago Press.Recommended CitationMakowski, JF. "A Note on Lucan 8.860-1". Classical Philology 70(3), 204-206.204 NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS making prerogatives of the senate and to enact in its despite, by a coalition of dissen- tient elements and a measure of forceful intimidation, significant political change. The course of Sulpicius' confrontations with the conservative nobilitas exemplified the many serious threats to internal stability endemic in the Late Republic. It dramatized the anomalous character of the republican system, which tolerated a wide gap between the letter and spirit of the constitution, and which made possible anarchic conflicts between the well-established, long-accepted conventional power of the senate and the latent legal power of magistrates and people. It dramatized the class tensions and social unrest which had emerged in the latter half of the second century and had destroyed the cohesiveness on which the working of sena- torial auctoritas was founded, making possible the assemblage of powerful coalitions of the disenchanted. It dramatized the disastrous consequences of the tradition of political violence which had been fostered by the nobilitas itself and which was inevitably growing in intensity as divisions sharpened. But above all it dramatized the dangerous tendency of idealistic and self-willed nobiles, however firmly attached to the traditionalists, to resort, when affronted or impeded by their fellow oligarchs, to the explosive weapons of demagoguery and to an extremism charac- teristic of embittered defectors. This tendency was partly the result of the individualism of Roman politicians, who were seldom willing to subordinate personal goals and dignitas to the interests and objectives of any group, but it was also a product of angry impatience with the unrelenting and myopic conserva- tism of the great bulk of the nobilitas and with the pragmatic, utilitarian mentality which directed its efforts to preserve the status quo. The oligarchy of the Late Republic failed to make room for the aristocratic idealists and reformists "qui veram gloriam iniustae potentiae anteponerent"; it ignored both their ideals and their sensibilities, and it thereby encouraged repeated outbreaks of the most bitter and divisive form of political confrontation-a trial of strength between former friends and political allies. These various political ills, long untended and aggravated by successive domestic crises, combined in 88 through the agency of Sul- picius, who was intent on exploiting to extreme limits every weakness of the repub- lican system, to drag the state into calamitous civil war and to set a pattern of unrestricted force which finally resulted in the collapse of the respublica. THOMAS N. MITCHELL SWARTHMORE COLLEGE A NOTE ON LUCAN 8. 860-61 As it now stands in current editions of Lucan, the sentence contained in 8. 860-61 makes little or no sense. In dealing with it editors have resorted to emendation and various manipulations of punctuation, while commentators and translators have un- successfully attempted to wrench some meaning out of it.' Two versions of these lines have gained overwhelming acceptance by editors of Lucan. The first reads es of manuscript U and takes Fortuna as vocative. Thus Hosius and Bourgery: "nunc es pro 1. Editions and translations cited are: A. Bourgery and M. Ponchont, Tome II, Livres 6-10 (Paris, 1929). J. D. Duff (London, 1928). C. M. Francken (Leyden, 1896). R. Graves (Harmondsworth, 1957). C. E. Haskins (London, 1887). numine summo / hoc tumulo, Fortuna, iacens." The other version-and indeed the more popular of the two-reads est with manuscripts ZMPGV and understands Fortuna as the nominative subject of the verb: "nunc est pro numine summo / hoc tumulo Fortuna iacens." So Weber, Haskins, Postgate, Housman, and Duff-except that Weber inserts a comma after summo and Postgate one after iacens. Whether one reads es or est, however, the meaning of both texts is practically the same: C. Hosius (Leipzig, 1892). A. E. Housman (Oxford, 1926). F. Oudendorp (Leyden, 1728). J. P. Postgate, Book 8 (Cam- bridge, 1917). C. F. Weber (Leipzig, 1821). This content downloaded from 147.126.10.37 on Mon, 13 Oct 2014 14:41:37 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsNOTES AND DISCUSSIONS 205 Fortune is said to be a supreme deity lying in the tomb. Now, since Pompey has just been buried in that tomb, the statement that Fortune lies there also is rather odd and requires clarification. Grotius' explanation, adopted by Haskins, Housman, and others, is: "Fortuna quodam modo cum ipso Pompeio sepulta, cui semper adfuerat." Presumably, the goddess of luck has died along with her favorite and now the two of them share a single grave. Haskins in a note admits that this interpretation is harsh, but sees no way out of the difficulty, given the present text. Postgate takes the whole phrase to mean "he whose portion it is to lie in so poor a grave." Such an elaborate periphrasis, however, is too artificial even for Lucan and represents a usage of Fortuna un- paralleled elsewhere in the poem. Housman, too, seems somewhat unsure of the sentence's exact meaning. After citing the explanation of Grotius, he adds: "maioris numinis instar habere ait cum Pompeio iacentem Fortunam quam cum staret; quae quam uera sit sententia, ne quaeramus." The single certitude that Housman is prepared to offer is the assurance that Pompey is in no way to be identified as the summum numen: "Pompeium ipsum pro summo numine esse, quod quidam dici uolunt, nimis apertum esset mendacium." Translators of Lucan, however, even when they use Housman's text, cannot help but express the identity of Pompey, Fortuna, and the summum numen which is implicit in the above version of the sentence. Graves's translation of the sentence ignores alto- gether the phrase pro numine summo and equates the dead man with the goddess of luck: "There lies Pompey, Fortune incar- nate." Duff, who renders the lines "Fortune, lying in this tomb, is now at last a supreme deity," explains that "Fortune is here identified with her favourite, Pompey." The statement implies, however, that Fortune became the supreme godhead only with the death of Pompey. Some earlier editors of Lucan felt uneasy about forcing such a multiplicity of identities into a single phrase and attempted to solve the difficulty through emendation. Ouden- dorp's version of the lines is: "at nunc pro numine summo / hoc tumulo, Fortuna, iacens." Francken rightly refused to accept the equation of Pompey with Fortune which he said could be achieved only incredibili artificio. His emended text reads: "nunc es [sc. Pompei] pro numine summo. / Hoc tumulo, Fortuna, iaces." This, however, is really no improvement, since it only says that Fortune is buried in the company of Pompey rather than in the person of Pompey. The truth is that Fortune is not buried in the tomb in any way. The source of this misunderstanding is that editors have failed to read these lines in the context of the whole passage and have overlooked a very simple matter of punctuation. First of all, from the context it should be clear that Pompey and only Pompey can be the summum numen of line 860. A careful reading of the passage will show that almost every detail in it implies the divinity of the man buried in the tomb. At line 841 Lucan speaks of his shade as worthy of worship, sacris dignam umbram. Later he says that some day, when Rome is beset by some great natural disaster, she will find her salvation only when the supreme pontiff brings back the ashes contained in this tomb (846-50). Even now travelers will pause to worship at this sepulchre and give it preference over the altar of Casian Jupiter (851-58). This stone beaten by the Libyan sea is said to be more august than the altars set up by the victorious Caesar (860-62). The closing lines of the book draw a comparison between Magnus buried in Egypt and Jupiter buried in Crete (869-72). This theme of deification continues on into Book 9, whose opening lines describe the apotheosis of the dead man's spirit as it flies heavenward and finally settles in the breasts of Brutus and Cato (1-18). In short, everything both before and after lines 860-61 indicates that Pompey must be the summum numen. The subject of the verb est, then, cannot be Fortuna, but Pompey understood. What Housman termed a nimis apertum mendacium is the truth after all. This content downloaded from 147.126.10.37 on Mon, 13 Oct 2014 14:41:37 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions206 NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS Given that Pompey is the subject of the verb, the function and case of Fortuna become readily apparent. The word is in the vocative case and should have commas on either side of it. Thus, the correct reading of the sentence must be: "nunc est pro numine summo / hoc tumulo, Fortuna, iacens." It is somewhat remarkable that so many editors of Lucan should have missed this simple solution of adopting Housman's text and Hosius' punctuation. The above text accords well with the superior manuscripts which read est and affords an interpretation which is compatible with certain themes in the epic. For while there is no thematic warrant for the joint burial of Fortuna and Pompey, there is ample precedent for the poet's direct address to Fortuna at this point in the poem. Throughout the Bellum civile and especially in Book 8 there is a close connection between the goddess of luck and her former favorite Pompey. For example: "hac facie, Fortuna, tibi, Romana placebas" (8. 686); "hac Fortuna fide Magni tam prospera fata / pertulit" (701-702); "semel inpulit illum / dilata Fortuna manu" (707-708). Especially remarkable is the frequency with which the poet refers to Fortuna throughout the burial sequence. To begin with, Lucan prefaces the entire passage with the state- ment that the funeral was the doing of Fortune (712-14): ante tamen Pharias victor quam tangat harenas Pompeio raptim tumulum Fortuna paravit, ne iaceat nullo vel ne meliore sepulchro. When Cordus prays for some sort of tomb in which to bury the remains of Pompey, the object of his prayer significantly is Fortuna (729-30): "non pretiosa petit cumulato ture sepulchra / Pompeius, Fortuna, tuus." After the completion of the pitiable funeral rites, the poet directs against the goddess of chance a bitterly ironic reproach (792-95): placet, hoc, Fortuna, sepulchrum dicere Pompei, quo condi maluit illum quam terra caruisse socer? The poet has made it clear that it is Fortune who gave Pompey his tomb. And it is she whom he confronts in lines 860-61 with the declaration that Pompey is now at last the supreme deity. No, Fortune is not buried in the tomb; it is only editors who have put her there, and it is time she were exhumed. JOHN F. MAKOWSKI OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY BEDE'S DE ORTHOGRAPHIA IN CODEX VAT. OTTOB. LAT. 687 According to E. Dekkers1 and M. Mani- tius,2 there are very few manuscripts of Bede's De orthographia. Their listing of manuscripts, along with those of M. L. W. Laistner,3 Charles H. Beeson, and H. Keil,5 does not include a sizable fragment contained in Codex Vat. Ottob. lat. 687 (34v-36v, saec. iXex). The selection is headed "Incipit Liber Hortographia Bedae Pres- biteri," and extends through the entry Balvae, id est thyrae. This manuscript deserves 1. E. Dekkers, "Clavis patrum latinorum," Sacris Erudiri, III (Steenbruge, 1951; rev. 1961), Item 1566. 2. M. Manitius, Gesch. der lat. Lit. des Mittelalters, I (Munich, 1911), 75-76. 3. M. L. W. Laistner and H. H. King, A Hand List of Bede Manuscripts (Ithaca, N.Y., 1943), pp. 137-38. attention in the constructing of a critical edition of the text. I propose to add its evidence, under the siglum 0, to the apparatus with which Keil equipped his edition: Codex Parisinus 7530, saec. viii (P); Codex Montepessulanus H 306, saec. ix (M); Codex Leidensis bibliothecae publicae 122, saec. x (L); and "lectio vulgata exemplaribus olim impressis propagata" (s). Codex Vat. Ottob. lat. 687 is a parchment manuscript of forty-one folios,6 containing 4. C. H. Beeson, "The Manuscripts of Bede," CP, XLII (1947), 73-87. 5. H. Keil (ed.), Grammatici Latini: Scriptores de ortho- graphia, VII (Leipzig, 1880), 261 ff. 6. Foliated 1-39. There are two unnumbered leaves, one following fol. 6 and a second following fol. 12. This content downloaded from 147.126.10.37 on Mon, 13 Oct 2014 14:41:37 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A Note on Lucan 8.860-1

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Name not available

Loyola eCommons