« PreviousContinue »
15. we shall bring it to pass that we win distinction for ourselves,
especially since we see that the historians are regarded with wonder. For this, then, Homer has been honored by all men both in his life and death. Let us then give him these thanks for the 20. amusement of the contest itself; and the rest of his poetry let us hand down through memory's kinship for the common possession of the Hellenes, to those who wish to indulge their love of the beautiful.
2. None of the sources uses éoxedíaσav in this connection. The word is of special interest since Alkidamas is known to have laid much stress on improvisation. See especially his extant speech περὶ τῶν τοὺς γραπτούς λόγους γραφόντων ἢ περὶ σοφιστῶν, Ι. Bekker, Orat. Attici, v, pp. 673-679, and F. Blass, Antiphon, pp. 193-205; J. Vahlen, op. cit. 513 Gesammelte Schriften, p. 139; F. Blass, Att. Bered. 112, p. 349; F. Nietzsche, op. cit. Rh. Mus. XXVIII (1873), 220; F. Brzoska, Real-Enc. 1, 1534; A. Gercke, "Die alte réxvη дηтoρɩký und ihre Gegner," Hermes, XXXII (1897), 359 ff.; H. L. Brown, Extemporary Speech in Antiquity, Menasha, Wis. 1914, pp. 27-43.
2. ἔλαβον is in both instances an uncorrected slip for ἕλομεν, probably caused by the scribe's thinking of the explanation in line 6. The riddle propounded by the fishermen appears, with variations in the forms of the pronouns, in Proculi Chrest. (Allen, op. cit. p. 100, 18); Vit. Plut. (242, 67); Vit. IV (246, 22); v (249, 42); VI (253, 61); Suidas (266, 206). Tzetzes (255, 662) varies the language: οὓς εἷλον οὐκ ἔχουσιν, ἔχουσι δ ̓ οὕς περ εἷλον. It is as old as Herakleitos (Diels, 56): οἱ ἄνθρωποι πρὸς τὴν γνῶσιν τῶν φανερῶν παραπλησίως Ὁμήρωι, ὃς ἐγένετο τῶν Ἑλλήνων σοφώτερος πάντων. ἐκεῖνόν τε γὰρ παῖδες φθεῖρας κατακτείνοντες ἐξηπάτησαν εἰπόντες· ὅσα εἴδομεν καὶ ἐλάβομεν, ταῦτα ἀπολείπομεν, ὅσα δὲ οὔτε εἴδομεν οὔτ ̓ ἐλάβομεν, ταῦτα φέρομεν. It is even illustrated in a Pompeian wall-painting, of which Kaibel (Epigrammata Graeca, no. 1105) remarks: "sedet senex meditabundus (OMHPOΣ nomen adscriptum), ex quo duo homines piscatores (AAEIZ adpictum) sciscitantur quae infra scripta sunt: [ὅσσ ̓ ἕλομεν, λ]ιπόμεσθα, ὅσσ ̓ οὐκ [λ]ο[μ]εν [φερόμ]εσθα... Inscriptio codicum confirmat lectionem öo' oux." Cf. A. Ludwich, "Homerische Gelegenheitsdichtungen," Rh. Mus. LXXI (1916), 222; E. Rohde," Zur Chrono
logie des griechischen Litteraturgeschichte,” Rh. Mus. xxxVI (1881), 566.
3 ff. This passage is nearly identical in thought and language with Certamen, 238, 327 ff. and proves conclusively that the author of the Certamen had Alkidamas before him when he made his compilation. I quote it here in full to show the relationship: εἰπόντων δὲ ἐκείνων ὅσσ ̓ ἕλομεν λιπόμεσθα, ὅσ ̓ οὐχ ἕλομεν φερόμεσθα, οὐ νοήσας τὸ λεχθὲν ἤρετο αὐτοὺς ὅ τι λέγοιεν. οἱ δέ φασιν ἐν ἁλείᾳ μὲν ἀγρεῦσαι μηδέν, ἐφθειρίσθαι δέ, καὶ τῶν φθειρῶν οὓς ἔλαβον καταλιπεῖν, οὓς δὲ οὐκ ἔλαβον ἐν τοῖς ἱματίοις φέρειν. ἀναμνησθεὶς δὲ τοῦ μαντείου ὅτι τὸ τέλος αὐτοῦ ἥκοι τοῦ βίου, ποιεῖ τὸ τοῦ τάφου αὑτοῦ ἐπίγραμμα. ἀναχωρῶν δὲ ἐκεῖθεν, ὄντος πηλοῦ ὀλισθὼν καὶ πεσὼν ἐπὶ τὴν πλευράν, τριταῖος ὥς φασι τελευτᾷ· καὶ ἐτάφη ἐν Ἴῳ. ἔστι δὲ τὸ ἐπίγραμμα τόδε· The Certamen closes with the quotation of the epigram. The other versions, while preserving the content more or less completely, differ in varying degree from it and from each other; cf. Proc. Chrest. (100, 13 ff.); Vit. Herod. (215, 500 ff.); Plut. Vit. (242, 64 ff.); Vit. Iv (246, 17 ff.); v (249, 36 ff.); vi (253, 57 ff.); Tzetzes (255, 660). The relationship of the Lives is treated by Allen, Homer, Origins, pp. 30-33.
5. The scribe may have written ανειαν.
5. οἰχόμενοι does not appear in any of the accounts and is uncertain, but it satisfies the requirements of the lacunae and gives the necessary contrast to καθήμενοι. I owe the reading to Professor Hunt.
7. καταλίποιεν should have been καταλιπεῖν but the error is easily accounted for.
8. The reading τοῖς τρίβωσιν occurs only here in this connection; Plut. Vit. (242, 69) and Vit. v (250, 46) have ἐν τῇ ἐσθῆτι, Vit. Herod. (216, 503), ἐς οἴκους and Suidas (267, 211), εἰς οἶκον.
8. ενθ(?). The e is certain, the horizontal stroke showing clearly under the microscope. The vestiges of the final letter seem to be the cross-stroke and part of the loop of a theta. συναποφ. is palaeographically impossible, and there is too much room for εναποφ. I have printed ενθ in default of a more convincing word.
9. The prophecy is referred to both here and in the Certamen as if it were well known but it appears explicitly only in Proc. Chrest. (100, 7 ff.); Plut. Vit. (241, 45), and Tzetzes (255, 652), who presents it in a more concise form than the others: ἦν προχρησθὲν θανεῖν αὐτὸν ὅταν ἠρωτημένος οὐ δυνηθῇ τὸ αἴνιγμα ἐκεῖνο ἐπιλῦσαι. 10. ἐποίει might have been written.
11. The form iepǹv appears in Vit. Herod. (216, 515), which also reads κάλυψεν for the usual καλύπτει. The former is, however, a constant variant in all the MSS. The epigram closes the account in the Certamen; see further Plut. Vit. (242, 73-74); Vit. Iv (246, 24-25); v (250, 51–52);. vi (253, 63-64); and Suidas (259, 54-55; 267, 220-221), who cites Kallimachos as authority for attributing it to the people of Ios. Compare also Anth. P. VII, 3 with Stadtmueller's note, vol. 11, p. 6.
12. In ȧvdpwv the d is written above the without deletion of the latter.
13. The final v of ȧvaxwpŵv is added above.
13. παληοῦ is an error for πηλοῦ; this detail of the story is found only in Cert. (238, 334) and Tzetzes (255, 664). This coincidence serves to strengthen so far as it goes the theory of Blass, op. cit. p. 349, that Tzetzes used Alkidamas directly.
15 ff. This passage appears in none of the sources; its style is not unlike that of Alkidamas as we know it from other accounts, and its rejection by the grammarian who compiled the Certamen shows not only that he abbreviated his source when he wished but also that he possessed some critical ability.
15. The reading is clear but the thought is obscure or at best awkwardly expressed. There may be a scribal error of some sort in ποιήσομεν.
16. ὁρῶν is probably an error for ὁρῶντες.
17. The views of the "historians" may be found in Vita, VI. 21. ȧyxιOTEías. The second letter must, it seems to me, have been y rather than 7 but there is doubtless room for conjecture. 22. I owe iλokaλeîv to Professor Hunt.
23. The word πapadŵμev(?) ends the text; the rest of the line is blank.
24. 'Aλкidάμаvтos is a certain restoration.
25. The title Tερì 'Оμýрov is of interest because it establishes the form used in the account of Alkidamas which, as Nietzsche held, doubtless formed part of the Movσetov. The title of the fourteenth century MS. is the cumbersome περὶ Ὁμήρου καὶ Ἡσιόδου καὶ τοῦ γένους καὶ ἀγῶνος αὐτῶν. This, as Busse pointed out (op. cit. p. 108), is a general indication of its contents rather than a title proper; the latter was probably missing in the MS. from which the fourteenth century Laurentianus was copied. "Wahrscheinlich hat ausser dem Namen des Verfassers oder besser Kompilators nichts weiter als yévos 'Oun pov gestanden." Nietzsche (Rh. Mus. XXVIII (1873), 239) has shown that it was Stephanus who abbreviated the MS. title into Ὁμήρου καὶ Ἡσιόδου ἀγών, Homeri et Hesiodi Certamen, from whom the current form is derived.
IX.-Horace and the Scriptus Quaestorius 1
BY PROFESSOR CHARLES BREWSTER RANDOLPH
One can not examine many of the sketches of Horace's life which have appeared during the last two centuries without running across the statement that upon his return to Rome after the defeat at Philippi he bought a position as clerk, or secretary, in the office of the quaestors.2 However, Horace's biographers are by no means unanimous as regards this statement. Some make it guardedly; others omit any reference to it; indeed, there is a rather remarkable diversity of statement about the matter. It is the purpose of this paper to examine the evidence regarding Horace's connection with this post, with especial reference to the assertion that he obtained it by purchase.
It is a commonplace that our best source of information about Horace's life is his own writings. Nothing in the writings gives us any sure reason for believing that he ever held the position. Indeed, there is just one passage in Horace which seems to connect him in any way with the scribes. In Sat. II, 6, 36 f. we read:
1 The writer desires to express his indebtedness and gratitude to the Widener Library of Harvard University, where much of this investigation was done; to Mr. W. B. Briggs, of that library, and to Dr. Louis N. Wilson and Miss Edith M. Baker, of the Library of Clark University, for many helpful courtesies; to Mr. J. C. M. Hanson, of the Libraries of the University of Chicago, for securing photostatic reprints of pages from Nannius's Miscellanea; to Mr. C. P. Merlino, Instructor in Romance Languages at Harvard, and Professor Philip H. Churchman, of Clark, for information about the history of comparo in the Romance languages; and to Professor Alfred L. P. Dennis, of Clark, for the reference to Biddulph's book on Lord Cardwell.
2 See also two of the latest papers on Horace: Dessau, Anatolian Studies presented to Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, 1923, p. 137: "Dieser (sc. Horaz) hat, nach der Angabe seines zuverlässigen Biographen . . sich in diese Körperschaft eingekauft"; Miss Taylor, A. J. P. XLVI (1925), 165: "The office of quaestor's scribe, which he bought with the remains of his patrimony," etc.
De re communi scribae magna atque nova te
"The scribes wanted you not to forget, Quintus, to come around 3 today about a new and important matter of common interest." There is certainly nothing here which proves that Horace had or had had any official connection with them. Communi may very properly refer to interests which Horace had in common with the scribes; but on the other hand the scribes may very well have had communes res that did not concern Horace at all, and they may have sought to arouse his interest in one of these matters on this occasion because of his influence with Maecenas and Augustus.5 The word may also be interpreted as meaning “of general concern," i.e., a matter of public interest. Furthermore, it is to be noted that Horace gives this request as one of the aliena negotia that engage him when he goes forth for his day in Rome. Would it not seem strange that a matter of interest to him as a member of the order of scribes should be classed as "other people's business"? The re- in reverti has been thought significant by some: Horace is to come back "to the quaestor's office, in the Forum, which he had just left," or "to the meeting-place to which he used to come when he was an active member of the organization." 8 However, re- in composition may convey the idea of doing something in response to an obligation, so that the meaning here may be “don't forget to appear duly," "don't forget to do your duty and appear." And even if this re- does mean "back," this does not prove that Horace had previously visited the place referred to as a scribe; he might very well have attended previous 3 I do not consider it necessary to translate re- "back" in this place. See below.
Cf. Torrentius, de Horatii Vita ac Scriptis, in his edition of 1608; Orelli, I1 (1886), p. xxi.
5 Franke, Fasti Horatiani (1839), p. 32 f.
6 Sat. 11, 6, 33.
7 Rolfe, ad loc.
8 Morris, ad loc.
Bennett on Carm. 1, 9, 6; cf. also Kiessling's note.