tyrrell - anthology of latin poetry.pdf
Post on 16-Dec-2015
Embed Size (px)
BOUGHT WITH THE INCOMEFROM THE
SAGE.ENDOWMENT FUNDTHE GIFT OP
M^ Cornell UniversityWB Library
The original of tliis bool< is intine Cornell University Library.
There are no known copyright restrictions inthe United States on the use of the text.
PA 612l5?7T9""""'"** '"'""'
3 1924 026 493 969
ANTHOLOGY OF LATIN POETEY
EGBERT YELVERTON TYEEELL, Litt.D.FELLOW AND PUBLIC ORATOR, TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN
UOK. LIIT.D. CANTAB., D.C.L. OXON , LL.D. EDIN.
MACMILLAN AND CO., LimitedNEW YORK : THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
This collection of specimens of Latin poetry is intended tobe a companion volume to the Eight Lectures given inAmerica in 1893, and subsequently published (Houghtonand Mifflin, Boston ; Macmillan, London) under the title ofLatin Poetry in 1895. I have called the collection LatinAnthology, as the most convenient title available ; but that isnot really the most accurate description which could begiven of the contents or the aim of the volume. Ananthology ought to contain only exquisite models of poeticcomposition. Now this collection aims at providing character-istic specimens of Latin poetry. Therefore, while thespecimens of the work of the great masters will be verybeautiful and also characteristic of their genius, the inferiorartists will be found to exhibit the invariable signs of minorpoetry, exaggeration, unreal sentiment, forcible-feeble diction,
and ineffectual (sometimes almost ludicrously ineiTectual)struggles to achieve the grand manner. This point of view hasbeen put forward and illustrated in dealing with some of theearly writers in Latin Poetry. It is dwelt upon in the notes
to this volume in commenting on the specimens taken fromManilius and Grattius, who are not, I think, mentioned at allin Latin Poetry. Even in the case of the great poets like
Lucretius, Statins, and Lucan, I have thought it better topresent, among the more beautiful examples of their genius,also those which better illustrate their attitude towards their
vi LATIN ANTHOLOGY
art, and their peculiar place among the poets. Thus itseemed better to give, beside the sublime passages ofLucretius, some which dealt technically with his not veryattractive subject; and the temperament of Statius couldnot have been so well understood, if I had not includedexamples of one or two of his failures to achieve the sustained
splendour of the Horatian lyric. In a word, I have kept
before my mind the endeavour to illustrate to some extentthe weakness as well as the strength of the poets who arenot in the first flight, and to point out characteristic blemishesin the notes. In the case of the very great poets I mayhave been guided in my choice by other considerations.For instance, I suppose there is hardly an ode written byHorace which would not grace any treasury of Latin verse
so perfect is the execution of every one of them, in spite of
the lack of genuine feeling commented on in Latin Poetry.In the embarras de richesse I have been guided by a wish toillustrate the great variety of his lyric measures. Similarly
in my selections from Juvenal I have sometimes been in-fluenced by a desire to draw the attention of my readers toa beautiful emendation like Trmlio for miilto in CCLXXXVT 148or miniis for miris in ccxc 70. It is hoped that the exquisitePemgiliwm Veneris (ccxciii) is here presented with moreattention to the text and fuller explanation of the meaningthan have been hitherto accorded to it in Latin anthologiespublished in England.
As regards the commentary, in the case of the authorsuniversally read and copiously edited and commentedon, I have supplied no notes at all, except where I haveintroduced a reading which has not yet found its way intoschool editions. In dealing with those authors who havenot been largely explained in English, I have aimed at givingsuch notes as would not be deemed superfluous by a teacherin the higher forms of a public school. No doubt I have not
always carried out my plan perfectly. Probably I havesometimes given a superfluous note, and perhaps I havesometimes failed to supply needful comment. I have studiedbrevity in my notes, which are strictly subservient to thetext, and do not aim at conveying any higher instruction.In the selections from the more ancient writers I havelargely used Dr. Merry's very excellent and scholarly littlebook Fragments of Eoman Poetry, as well as Dr. Words-worth's larger work Fragments and Specimens of Early Latin.My method of dealing with the plays of Plautus is explainedin the note on Li, and a similar note on ccliv will guidethose who desire fuller comment on the Epigrams of Martial.I have often used the notes of Dr. Finder in his Less KnownLatin Poets (Oxford, 1869), and in other cases the source ofmy information is indicated in the notes themselves.
The orthography will, I hope, at least not mislead. Itrust I have not admitted anywhere forms like caelum, coena,which point to an erroneous etymology, nor monstrousforms like quum. I have not banished v or U from my text,though I do not admit j or /. In the case of mm I haveprinted uo, or have changed the form of the word, givingecus, relincunt, secuntur, metuont, for equus, relingimnt, sequuntur,
metuunt. When I have given suos tuos for suus twus, I havecalled attention to the case in the note when it seemed thatthe form might lead to misapprehension. As regards -is for-es in accus. plur. I have given the forms in -is in the pre-
Ovidian poets only. In the rest I have kept the conveniently
distinctive -es. I would justify this proceeding by the follow-ing extract from Prof. Lindsay's Short Historical Latin Grammar(Oxford, 1895), p. 55: "The accus. plur. was formed byadding -ns to the stem. Latin consonantal stems show -esfrom -ens, Latin I-stems show -is' from -ins, e.g. reges, turris.By the end of the Republic and the beginning of the Empirethis distinction came to be lost sight of, and tnrres, partes.
viii LATIN ANTHOLOGY
and the like were allowed instead of tmrls, partis." Butthe practice of the MSS. is very far from anything likeuniformity, some showing -es quite early, and others -is tilllate in the Empire. If, therefore, I have inadvertently
violated my own principle in any case, my text will in onesense be more classicalit will be more like a MS. Thesame must be my excuse for sometimes observing and some-times neglecting assimilation in preps, in composition, e.g.
colligo and conligo. The MSS. have no uniform practice.For statistics of the use of -is and -es in accus. plur. see NewFormenlehre, i.^ pp. 245 ff., especially 252-258.
The great kindness of my friend Sir K C. Jebb, M.P.,Eegius Professor of Greek in Cambridge, has permitted meto embellish my notes with some of his exquisite translationsfrom Lucan, Statins, Silius Italicus, and Ausonius.
Chronological order has been observed except in the caseof Plautus and Terence, whom I have displaced in conformitywith Latin Poetry, and Nemesianus, for a reason stated inthe note on ccxxxi.
PEE-HELLENIC LATIN POETEY
1. Cum^ tonas, Leucdsie,|pra^ tet tremdnti
cam6 tibi ciinei I dfetumum tondront.
CARMEN FRATRUM ARVALIUM
2. Ends, Lasds, iuvdte, (ter)neve Me rue Mdrmar sins
|inciirrere in pl^ores. (ter)
satiir fu, fdre Mars, lijmdn sali sta bdrber, (ter)semunis alternei
|^dvocdpit c6nctos. (ter)
ends Marmdr iuvdto. (ter)triiimpe. (quinquies)
APPIUS CLAUDIUS CAECUS (fl. 300 b.c.)
1. Est linus quisque fdber | ipse sua^ fortiinae.
2. ludicis est aequi dnimi | edmpotem ^sse,ne quid frudis parid,t | ferdcia struprique
3. Postrdmus dicas, primus | tdceas y^-^^
INCEETI AUCTOEIS VATICINIUM
4. Romfee, aqu^m AlMnam | c^ve lacii ten^ricave in mar^ manure | fliimind sinds suo.emissa agrds rigd,bis
exstingues : tiim tu insiste|aiidax hdstium miiris.
rnemdr quam p^r tot dnnos|dbsid^s lirbem,
ex ei tibi his fd,tis | mine datdm victdriam,duello perKoto ddnum
|portato dmplum victor
ad meA tempU, sacrdque|pdtria qudrum cilra est
omissa, ut adsoldt, I enddstaurdta fdcito.
1. Corndlids Lucius|Scipio Barbdtus,
Gnaivdd patrd prognd,tus| fdrtis vir sapi^nsque,
quoiiis formd, virtutei|
parisuma fdit,consdl censdr aidilis
|quei fuit apM vos,
Taurdsid Oisaiina|SAmnid cdpit
subigit omnd Loucdnam|dpsid^sque abdoiioit.
2. Hone oino ploirumd|cosdntidnt Eomdne
duondro dptumd| fuise vird virdro
iilids Barbiticonsdl censdr aidilis
|hie fudt apdd vos.
hee c^pit Odrsica Aleridque| Tirbe pugndndod,
ded^t Tdmpestd,tebus| aide mdretod vdtam.
3. Quei ipioe insigne Didlis | fid,minis gesisteimors pdrf^cit tiia ut
|dssent dmni^ brdvia,
honds famd, virtiisque|gldria dtque ingdnium
quibiis sei in Idnga licuis|dt tibe litier vita,facild facteis superAses
quard lubdns te in grdmiu,|Scipid, rdcipit
teni, Publi, progndtum|Pdblio, Corndli.
4. Magnd sapidntia|multdsque virtdtes
aetite qudm pdrva|pdsiddt hoc sAxsum,
quoiei vitA defdcit I ndn honds hondre.
is hlc sitds quel ndnquam | victus 6st virtdtei.annds gnatus viginti is | Diteist manddtus,ne quairatis hon6re