culici statuit et distichon fecit. In view of all this it seems quite certain that the passage beginning Deinde Catalepton and ending with the quotation from the Culex must be an addition. Perhaps the remarks on the Ballista distich and on the Aetna which precede and follow this passage are from the same source.18 In §§ 37-38, after the list of Vergil's heirs ending with the names of Varius and Tucca, we read: qui eius Aeneida post obitum iussu Caesaris emendaverunt, de qua re Sulpicii Carthaginiensis extant huiusmodi versus: Iusserat haec rapidis aboleri carmina flammis Vergilius, Phrygium quae cecinere ducem. Tucca vetat Variusque; simul tu maxime Caesar non sinis et Latiae consulis historiae. Infelix gemino cecidit prope Pergamon igni, et paene est alio Troia cremata rogo. This is immediately followed in §§ 39-41 by a more detailed account of Vergil's desire to destroy the Aeneid and its preservation by Varius: Egerat cum Vario, priusquam Italia decederet, ut, si quid sibi accidisset, Aeneida combureret; at is facturum se pernegarat. Igitur in extrema valetudine assidue scrinia desideravit, crematurus ipse; verum nemine offerente nihil quidem nominatim de ea cavit. Ceterum eidem Vario ac simul Tuccae scripta sua sub ea condicione legavit, ne quid ederent, quod non a se editum esset. Edidit autem auctore Augusto Varius, sed summatim emendata, ut qui versus etiam imperfectos, si qui erant, reliquerit. We have here two accounts of the same events, accounts which differ in one important detail. According to the first, Varius and Tucca edit the Aeneid; according to the second, Varius alone. I have not been able to find in Suetonius similar inconsistent accounts except where the writer clearly tells us that he is presenting the views of several different 18 F. Leo, Culex (Berlin, 1891), p. 17, would condemn only the argument of the Culex. authorities. It therefore seems very probable that one of these versions is an addition, and there is strong evidence against the authenticity of the first version. Suetonius nowhere quotes a contemporary by name, and this Sulpicius lived from about 75 to about 150 A.D.19 The verb extant,20 moreover, is not a natural one for a contemporary of Sulpicius to use. Finally the word huiusmodi with which these lines are introduced is not found in Suetonius. The fact that these lines which I condemn give the common version, namely that Tucca and Varius jointly edited the Aeneid,21 after Vergil had bequeathed it to the flames, is also against them. It is much more probable that Donatus, or some other, added this story to the one told by Suetonius, than that, finding the generally accepted version, he should contradict it with another. As a last bit of evidence, when Jerome under the year 17 wrote: Varius et Tucca qui Aeneidum postea libros emendarunt sub lege ea ut nihil adderent, he seems to have had before him: Ceterum eidem Vario ac simul Tuccae scripta sua sub ea condicione legavit, ne quid ederent, quod non a se editum esset. Edidit autem auctore Augusto Varius, sed summatim emendata, ut qui versus etiam imperfectos, si qui erant, reliquerit, and to have given Tucca joint credit for the emendation because he has just been mentioned as joint heir. If, as I suggest, we omit qui eius Aeneida post obitum iussu Caesaris emendaverunt, de qua re Sulpicii Carthaginiensis extant huiusmodi versus and the verses themselves, the passage reads without a break and presents no difficulties.22 19 See J. W. Beck, Sulpicius Apollinaris (Groningae, 1884), pp. 4 ff. The question of the actual origin of the lines need not concern us; the essential fact is that they are here quoted under the name of Sulpicius. 20 The verb extare with the meaning 'be extant' is used by Suetonius 20 times. In Vesp. 22 it is used of certain expressions of Vespasian who had been dead 40 years when the Caesars were published; elsewhere it is always of matters much older, e.g. the letters of Augustus, Aug. 85, 2 and Hor. 1, 2. 21 Cf. Pliny, H. N. vII, 114; the Vita Vergiliana ascribed to Probus, given in Brummer, op. cit. p. 73 (where the first four of the lines beginning Iusserat haec are quoted as from Servius Varus); Servius, ad Aen. 11, 567, iv, 436, etc. 22 For further discussion of this passage, perhaps the most disputed in the Life, consult the following: J. W. Beck, "Ad Vergilii Vitam Suetonianam," Three passages of varying length remain. After saying that rumor connected the name of Plotia Leria with that of the poet, the Life continues in § 10: Sed Asconius Pedianus adfirmat ipsam postea narrare solitam, invitatum quidem a Vario ad communionem sui, verum pertinacissime recusasse. In §§ 28 and 29 we learn that the poet read with sweetness and wonderful charm, ac Seneca tradidit Iulium Montanum poetam solitum dicere, involaturum se Vergilio quaedam, si et vocem posset et os et hypocrisin; eosdem enim versus ipso pronuntiante bene sonare, sine illo inanes esse mutosque. In § 34 we read: Erotem librarium et libertum eius exactae iam senectutis tradunt referre solitum quondam eum in recitando duos dimidiatos versus complesse ex tempore. Nam cum hactenus haberet 'Misenum Aeoliden,' adiecisse: 'quo non praestantior alter;' idem huic 'aere ciere viros,' simili calore iactatum subiunxisse: 'Martemque accendere cantu,' statimque sibi imperasse, ut utrumque in volumini adscriberet. Each of these three passages is introduced by virtually the same expression, 'So and so says that so and so was accustomed to say.' The closest parallel we can find in Suetonius is in Jul. 86, 2, where the author is discussing Caesar's attitude before his murder. Here the editors fill a lacuna and give us something like this: <dicere> solitum ferunt: non tam sua quam rei publicae interesse, uti salvus esset. This is not exactly parallel to the passages from the Life since it is Caesar himself whom Suetonius is quoting, and the fact that Caesar said this habitually is itself important.23 The condition of N. Jahrb. f. Phil. u. Päd. cxxxin (1886), 502-509; Koertge, op. cit. p. 225; E. Norden, "De Vitis Vergilianis," Rh. Mus. LXI (1906), 166-177; and the notes on this passage in E. Diehl, Die Vitae Vergilianae u. ihre Antiken Quellen (Bohn, 1911). My conclusions agree in general with those of Koertge and Norden. ... 23 A similar phrase is found in Tac. Agr. 4: Memoria teneo solitum ipsum narrare se prima in iuventa. . . This is parallel to the passage from the Jul. in that the habitual words of Agricola himself are quoted. There is no other occurrence of the phrase in Tacitus, and none in the younger Pliny. the manuscripts leaves the passage a little doubtful in any case. However this may be, it is remarkable to find within the space of three pages a circumlocution three times repeated which Suetonius does not use more than once in all the rest of his extant works. Non-Suetonian words and usages found in the passages which are cited need not detain us since they may be due to the authority quoted rather than to the one quoting them, but two points in the introductory phrases merit attention. Affirmare (§ 10) is found often in Suetonius, but only once in citing authority, and the tense of tradidit (§ 29) is contrary to Suetonian use. This evidence taken as a whole seems to furnish sufficient grounds for believing that these three passages do not represent the words of Suetonius. Whether they are additions of Donatus or some other, or simply slight variations of the original as written by Suetonius, I see no way of determining. VIII. The So-called Emphatic Position of the Runover Word in the Homeric Hexameter SAMUEL ELIOT BASSETT UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT The ancient Greeks did not recognize emphatic position. In modern times the view has generally prevailed that in the Greek sentence there are two positions of emphasis, the beginning and the end. Goodell, in 1890,1 was alone in holding that only the position near the beginning of the unit of thought carried emphasis. His arguments were not widely accepted, in fact, for some years they seem to have been ignored, but recent investigators are coming, wholly or in part, to his conclusions.2 The modern theory of emphasis has been extended to include the metrical arrangement of words in verse, especially in the epic hexameter and the iambic trimeter, and by analogy the beginning and the end of the line have been regarded as emphatic positions.3 Seymour, who thought that the caesura in the third foot of the Homeric hexameter was treated similarly to the end of the verse, cited many examples to show that the word before this caesura was emphatic. Professor Scott later pointed out a large number of verses which proved the contrary. His conclusion was that there was not always a pause at the caesura in the third foot; neither he nor Seymour 5 1 T. A. P. A. xxi, 5-47. 2 W. E. Berry, Studies in Greek Word-Order Based upon the Laws of Plato, University of Chicago Abstracts of Theses, Humanistic Series, 1, 275; H. Ammann, Untersuchung zur homerische Wortfolge und Satzstruktur, 1 (1922), p. 11 ff. W. R. Roberts, Dionysius of Halicarnassus on Literary Style (1910), p. 18, n. 3, accepts Goodell's theory in general, yet recognizes emphasis at the end of a clause (pp. 22-25). Goodell (op. cit. p. 6), following Lewis Campbell (Class. Rev. Iv, 301), held that only the beginning of the line carries emphasis. Harv. Stud. III, 91 ff. Cf. F. L. Clark, Class. Journ. IX, 61 ff. |