AL 914.67-8

[falmouth]

OK, one last point: this would be a clincher if right... so bear with
me!

Non locus invidiae, quamvis vicinus abunde
Et pecus, et messes, mustaque haberet ager.
[Gallus] 67-8

Compare
ελλετε Βασκανιης ολοον γενος¨ αυθι δε τεχνηι
κρινετε] μη σχοινωι Περσιδι την σοφιην.
Call. Aet. Fr. 1.17-8

"invidia" is how other Latin poets translate Callimachus' Βασκανια:
cf. in particular, Geo. 3.37 together with Thomas' commentary and
article.

Here we have it in the same case and occupying exactly the same
metrical position as 'invidiae'.

What is the neighbouring field with [Gallus] is talking about:
presumably those of Parthia which are the reason why he is at war -
cf. the Persian measuring rod of Call. Aet. Fr. 1.18.

Too speculative? Look again at [Gallus] 67: surely "-cinus abunde*" is
meant to render "genos authide" in Callimachus - the position and
quantities may have changed but the sound echo is unmistakeable.
(vicinus itself is a decent enough attempt at rendering the sound of
'baskania' as well.

In [Gallus] 68, one might even see "messes mustaque" as rendering "μη
σχοινωι" as if it were "mes- [kai] oinoi".

NB a clincher so far as rejecting the late forger hypothesis since
Aet. Fr. 1 only turns up papyri.

[au...@gellius.demon.co.uk]

For the sedes compare Martial 9. 97, opdd lines 'rumpitur invidia'; it's a very natural place to put the word, and the sound echoes requirte the ear of faith:

/ki:nus abunde:/ ~ /genos aut'ide/

/wi:ki:nus/ ~ /baskaniε:s/

Nor does the crasis of kai oinos involve a chi.

Yes, it is true the Aitia were not known in the Renaissance, but ellete Baskanihs oloon genos wasm from Eusstathius' commentary on Homer. Not that I am admitting there is any connection between the two passages.

adria...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> OK, one last point: this would be a clincher if right... so bear with
> me!
>
> Non locus invidiae, quamvis vicinus abunde
> Et pecus, et messes, mustaque haberet ager.
> [Gallus] 67-8
>
> Compare

> åëëåôå Âáóêáíéçò ïëïïí ãåíï=
> ò¨ áõèé äå ôå÷íçé
> êñéíåôå] ìç ó÷ïéíùé Ðåñóéäé=
> ôçí óïöéçí.
> Call. Aet. Fr. 1.17-8
>
> "invidia" is how other Latin poets translate Callimachus' Âáóêá=
> íéá:

> cf. in particular, Geo. 3.37 together with Thomas' commentary and
> article.
>
> Here we have it in the same case and occupying exactly the same
> metrical position as 'invidiae'.
>
> What is the neighbouring field with [Gallus] is talking about:
> presumably those of Parthia which are the reason why he is at war -
> cf. the Persian measuring rod of Call. Aet. Fr. 1.18.
>
> Too speculative? Look again at [Gallus] 67: surely "-cinus abunde*" is
> meant to render "genos authide" in Callimachus - the position and
> quantities may have changed but the sound echo is unmistakeable.
> (vicinus itself is a decent enough attempt at rendering the sound of
> 'baskania' as well.
>

> In [Gallus] 68, one might even see "messes mustaque" as rendering "ìç
> ó÷ïéíùé" as if it were "mes- [kai] oinoi".

[falmouth]

I don't have access to a proper text of the Aetia at the moment, but
presumably Eustathius only went up to "ελλετε Βασκανιης ολοον γενος"
which would not meet the point.

[Gallus] also renders Callimachus repeated imperatives -ete; -ete
(there must have been such) with the repeated -cus -cus (*l*ocus for
e*ll*ete).

[Gallus] 68 "et mes" renders "ετε] μη σ" of Callimachus; and his
"musta" stands for Callimachus' "-οινωι" (was the point I was
making).

"cinus abunde" as to "genos authide" speaks for itself.

There are other places to put "invidia".

[NB that if the supplement krinete is wrong, then "et pecus" might do
some work as well].

> > Aet. Fr. 1 only turns up papyri.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[falmouth]

What is not rendered from Call. is the "ολοον". But cf. the last word
of the preceding line in [Gallus]: "olus".

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Leofranc Holford-Strevens]

Sorry, all this is clutching at straws; there is nothing here that a Latin
poet could not have done for himself without reference to Callimachus.

Leofranc Holford-Strevens
67 St Bernard's Road
Oxford
usque adeone
OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
alter?

tel. +44 (0) 1865 552808 (home)/353865 (work) fax +44 (0) 1865 512237

[falmouth]

I personally find this parallel quite compelling - as compelling as
the instances where [Gallus] goes to [Oppian] or Alexander Aetolus,
which we seem to agree about. Most elements of Call. Fr. 1.17-8 seem
to be reproduced, too many, other things being equal, to be readily
dismissed as coincidental. It is the mainly the consequences which
give serious pause.

Can you help me on something different? Could one predict what text(s)
of Vergil a renaissance forger would have available to him - we would
be talking about say the 1580s? Would a well-read forger have access
to all the variant readings of the main manuscripts. The particular
lines I have in mind are

O niveas luces, o tempora dulcia! vere
aurea Saturni saecla fuere senis. (75-6)

Where a forger clearly must have read 'fuere' at the end of Aen. 8.324

aurea quae perhibent illo sub rege fuere
saecula:

"fuere" is the reading of M and R, but P reads "fuerunt".

I am wondering whether any conclusions can be drawn from that: (i) if
'fuerunt' is the correct reading then one would have to reject the
possibility that Vergil imitates [Gallus], it being too coincidental
that Vergil wrote 'fuerunt' and then 'fuere' entered into the
tradition - much easier to suppose that [Gallus] imitated a wrong
variant reading; but (ii) if texts of Vergil in c.1580 tended
(wrongly) towards 'fuerunt', this would be evidence tending against
the renaissance forger hypothesis.

My understanding is that 'fuere' is likely the correct reading, and I
would suspect that one could not say with any degree of conviction
that a renaissance forger did not have available a text of Vergil
reading 'fuere' - the contrary is likely, so this point is probably a
dead end - although I suppose one might say [Gallus] forger was lucky
to plump on the correct reading.

Am I right that "saecla" rather than "saecula" is the more archaic
form?






On 13 Oct, 18:21, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"

[Leofranc Holford-Strevens]

Renaissance scholars would probably not have had access to the MS variants,
nor do I know offhand which the current reading of Aen. 8. 324 was (though
it is very easy to find out), but even if it was fuerunt, any schoolboy
could have substituted fuere if the metre required it, and likewise saecla
for saecula; so far as poetry is concerned either form is equally
legitimate. Romans used fuerunt in normal prose, fuere when they wished for
a touch of arcjhaism, but in verse either form was acceptable; they used
saecula in formal prose, saecla in everyday speech, but again admitted
either in verse. So no argument against (nor indeed for) forgery.

[falmouth]

On Call. Fr. 1.17-8 could one complete line 18 as follows:

ελλετε Βασκανιης ολοον γενος¨ αυθι δε τεχνηι

πῆξετε] μη σχοινωι Περσιδι την σοφιην.

The metaphor being astronomocial - you will not fix (as one would
stars) sophia by the Persian chain but by techne?

Is πῆξετε a correct form, on the basis of πῆξω at Il. 22.283?

I have not been able to find out whether κρινετε] has any particular
attraction other than that it fits and makes sense.

I will treat any reply as without prejudice to your disbelief that the
lines in question have anything to do with each other...!


On Oct 13, 10:45 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"

[au...@gellius.demon.co.uk]

1. πήξετε (proparoxytone not propeeispomenon) is future imperative; the imperative you would need is πήγνυτε.
2. 'Fixed stars' is a Latin metaphopr not a Greek one; the Greeks said 'non-nwandering', ἀπλανῆ.
3. I do not understand the application of the metaphor anyway.
4. I can attach no meaning to πήγνυτε, whereas ÎºÏ Î¹Î½ÎµÏ„Îµ] ma\kes perfect sesne.
Conclusiin: it just won't do.

adria...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> On Call. Fr. 1.17-8 could one complete line 18 as follows:
>

> ελλετε Βασκαν=
> ιης ολοον γενο=
> ς¨ αυθι δε τεχν=
> ηι
> πῆξετε] μη σχο=
> ινωι Î ÎµÏ ÏƒÎ¹Î´Î¹ Ï„=
> ην σοφιην.

>
> The metaphor being astronomocial - you will not fix (as one would
> stars) sophia by the Persian chain but by techne?
>

> Is πῆξετε a correct form, on the basis of =
> πῆξω at Il. 22.283?
>
> I have not been able to find out whether ÎºÏ Î¹Î½ÎµÏ=
> „ε] has any particular

> attraction other than that it fits and makes sense.
>
> I will treat any reply as without prejudice to your disbelief that the
> lines in question have anything to do with each other...!
>
>

> On Oct 13, 10:45Â pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Renaissance scholars would probably not have had access to the MS variant=
> s,
> > nor do I know offhand which the current reading of Aen. 8. 324 was (thoug=

> h
> > it is very easy to find out), but even if it was fuerunt, any schoolboy

> > could have substituted fuere if the metre required it, and likewise saecl=

> a
> > for saecula; so far as poetry is concerned either form is equally

> > legitimate. Romans used fuerunt in normal prose, fuere when they wished f=

> or
> > a touch of arcjhaism, but in verse either form was acceptable; they used
> > saecula in formal prose, saecla in everyday speech, but again admitted
> > either in verse. So no argument against (nor indeed for) forgery.
> >
> > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > Oxford

> > usque  adeone
> > OX2 6EJ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â =
> Â Â scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > alter?
> >
> > tel. +44 (0) 1865 552808 (home)/353865 (work) Â fax +44 (0) 1865 5122=

> 37
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> > To: "Mantovano" <mant...@googlegroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 10:21 PM
> > Subject: VIRGIL: Re: AL 914.67-8
> >
> > I personally find this parallel quite compelling - as compelling as
> > the instances where [Gallus] goes to [Oppian] or Alexander Aetolus,
> > which we seem to agree about. Most elements of Call. Fr. 1.17-8 seem
> > to be reproduced, too many, other things being equal, to be readily
> > dismissed as coincidental. It is the mainly the consequences which
> > give serious pause.
> >
> > Can you help me on something different? Could one predict what text(s)
> > of Vergil a renaissance forger would have available to him - we would
> > be talking about say the 1580s? Would a well-read forger have access
> > to all the variant readings of the main manuscripts. The particular
> > lines I have in mind are
> >
> > O niveas luces, o tempora dulcia! vere

> > Â aurea Saturni saecla fuere senis. (75-6)

> >
> > Where a forger clearly must have read 'fuere' at the end of Aen. 8.324
> >
> > aurea quae perhibent illo sub rege fuere
> > saecula:
> >
> > "fuere" is the reading of M and R, but P reads "fuerunt".
> >
> > I am wondering whether any conclusions can be drawn from that: (i) if
> > 'fuerunt' is the correct reading then one would have to reject the
> > possibility that Vergil imitates [Gallus], it being too coincidental
> > that Vergil wrote 'fuerunt' and then 'fuere' entered into the
> > tradition - much easier to suppose that [Gallus] imitated a wrong
> > variant reading; but (ii) if texts of Vergil in c.1580 tended
> > (wrongly) towards 'fuerunt', this would be evidence tending against
> > the renaissance forger hypothesis.
> >
> > My understanding is that 'fuere' is likely the correct reading, and I
> > would suspect that one could not say with any degree of conviction
> > that a renaissance forger did not have available a text of Vergil
> > reading 'fuere' - the contrary is likely, so this point is probably a
> > dead end - although I suppose one might say [Gallus] forger was lucky
> > to plump on the correct reading.
> >
> > Am I right that "saecla" rather than "saecula" is the more archaic
> > form?
> >
> > On 13 Oct, 18:21, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> > <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> > > Sorry, all this is clutching at straws; there is nothing here that a La=

> tin
> > > poet could not have done for himself without reference to Callimachus.
> >
> > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > > Oxford
> > > usque adeone
> > > OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > > alter?
> >
> > > tel. +44 (0) 1865 552808 (home)/353865 (work) fax +44 (0) 1865 512237
> >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> > > To: "Mantovano" <mant...@googlegroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 3:40 PM
> > > Subject: VIRGIL: Re: AL 914.67-8
> >

> > > What is not rendered from Call. is the "ολοον"=
> .. But cf. the last word

> > > of the preceding line in [Gallus]: "olus".
> >
> > > On Oct 13, 3:21 pm, falmouth <adrianj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > I don't have access to a proper text of the Aetia at the moment, but

> > > > presumably Eustathius only went up to "ελλετ=
> ε Βασκανιης ολ=
> οον γενος"

> > > > which would not meet the point.
> >
> > > > [Gallus] also renders Callimachus repeated imperatives -ete; -ete
> > > > (there must have been such) with the repeated -cus -cus (*l*ocus for
> > > > e*ll*ete).
> >

> > > > [Gallus] 68 "et mes" renders "ετε] μη σ=
> " of Callimachus; and his
> > > > "musta" stands for Callimachus' "-οινωι" (wa=

> s the point I was
> > > > making).
> >
> > > > "cinus abunde" as to "genos authide" speaks for itself.
> >
> > > > There are other places to put "invidia".
> >
> > > > [NB that if the supplement krinete is wrong, then "et pecus" might do
> > > > some work as well].
> >
> > > > On Oct 13, 3:06 pm, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:
> >
> > > > > For the sedes compare Martial 9. 97, opdd lines 'rumpitur invidia';
> > > > > it's
> > > > > a very natural place to put the word, and the sound echoes requirte
> > > > > the
> > > > > ear of faith:
> >
> > > > > /ki:nus abunde:/ ~ /genos aut'ide/
> >
> > > > > /wi:ki:nus/ ~ /baskani&#949;:s/
> >
> > > > > Nor does the crasis of kai oinos involve a chi.
> >
> > > > > Yes, it is true the Aitia were not known in the Renaissance, but
> > > > > ellete

> > > > > Baskanihs oloon genos wasm from Eusstathius' commentary on Homer. N=
> ot
> > > > > that I am admitting there is any connection between the two passage=

> s.
> >
> > > > > adrianj...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > > > OK, one last point: this would be a clincher if right... so bear
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > me!
> >
> > > > > > Non locus invidiae, quamvis vicinus abunde
> > > > > > Et pecus, et messes, mustaque haberet ager.
> > > > > > [Gallus] 67-8
> >
> > > > > > Compare

> > > > > > åëëåôå ÂáóêÃ=
> ¡Ã­Ã©Ã§Ã² ïëïïí ãåÃ=
> ­Ã¯=
> > > > > > ò¨ áõèé äå ôå=
> ÷íçé
> > > > > > êñéíåôå] ìç ó=
> ÷ïéíùé à åñóéä=
> é=
> > > > > > ôçí óïöéçí.
> > > > > > Call. Aet. Fr. 1.17-8
> >
> > > > > > "invidia" is how other Latin poets translate Callimachus' Â=
> áóêá=
> > > > > > íéá:

> > > > > > cf. in particular, Geo. 3.37 together with Thomas' commentary and
> > > > > > article.
> >
> > > > > > Here we have it in the same case and occupying exactly the same
> > > > > > metrical position as 'invidiae'.
> >
> > > > > > What is the neighbouring field with [Gallus] is talking about:

> > > > > > presumably those of Parthia which are the reason why he is at war=

> -
> > > > > > cf. the Persian measuring rod of Call. Aet. Fr. 1.18.
> >

> > > > > > Too speculative? Look again at [Gallus] 67: surely "-cinus abunde=

> *"
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > meant to render "genos authide" in Callimachus - the position and
> > > > > > quantities may have changed but the sound echo is unmistakeable.

> > > > > > (vicinus itself is a decent enough attempt at rendering the sound=

> of
> > > > > > 'baskania' as well.
> >
> > > > > > In [Gallus] 68, one might even see "messes mustaque" as rendering

> > > > > > "ìç
> > > > > > ó÷ïéíùé" as if it were "mes- [=
> kai] oinoi".
> >
> > > > > > NB a clincher so far as rejecting the late forger hypothesis sinc=

[falmouth]

For some reason your Greek font comes out as gobbledegook on my screen
- this is a computer problem as opposed to my Greek coming out as
gobbledegook on your screen from misplaced enthusiasm and getting
things wrong! Could you repeat point 1 in English characters for me?

What I had in mind was

IV. metaph., fix, “ὅρους τοῖς βαρβάροις” Lycurg.73, cf. Aristopho
9.7 : Astrol., fix, determine a nativity, Sch. Ptol.Tetr.103 :—Med.,
ὄφρα ἐν φρασὶ πάξαιθ᾽, ὅπως . . that he might keep it fixed in his
heart, Pi.N.3.62 ; establish, “χορούς” Him.Or.16.6 :— Pass. and intr.
pf., to be irrevocably fixed, established, “εἷς ὅρος ἡμῖν παγήσεται”
Th.4.92 ; πῆγμα (Aurat. for πῆμα）“ γενναίως παγέν” A.Ag. 1198; “κακῶς
παγέντας ὅρκους” E.IA395 ; “ὀρθὰς παγείσας φρένας” Carc. 6.2 ; “μὴ γὰρ
ὡς θεῷ νομίζετ᾽ ἐκείνῳ τὰ παρόντα πεπηγέναι πράγματα ἀθάνατα” D.4.8 ;
“τὰ καλῶς πεπηγότα τῇ φύσει” Id.25.90. (Cf. Lat. pango.）

Not long after the Aetia, Eratosthenes would measure the circumference
of the earth by astronomical calculations rather than physical
measurements - this is the sort of thing I thought might be in play,
where technei in its fullest sense really is in opposition to
schoinoi. In the Greek the "technei" is more properly the means of
measurement rather than the extent of the thing measured? i.e. Call.
says "[judge/measure] wisdom not with the schoinos but using your
techne" rather than "judge wisdom not through the schoinos but by how
much techne there is". The picture of the schoinos that I have in mind
is a rope where at least one end would be fixed to the ground - i.e.
much like a surveyor would peg out and measure a boundary these days.

πηξετε] μη σχοινωι Περσιδι την σοφιην.

would otherwise be an attractively balanced pentameter (i.e. the two
halfs echo each other) if it were not nonsense.

On Oct 14, 2:51 pm, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:
> 1. à €á½µÎ¾Îµà „Îµ (proparoxytone not propeeispomenon) is future imperative; the imperative you would need is à €á½µÎ³Î½à …à „Îµ.
> 2. 'Fixed stars' is a Latin metaphopr not a Greek one; the Greeks said 'non-nwandering', á¼€à €Î»Î±Î½á¿†.

> 3. I do not understand the application of the metaphor anyway.

> 4. I can attach no meaning to à €á½µÎ³Î½à …à „Îµ, whereas 뼈  ÃŽÂ¹ÃŽÂ½ÃŽÂµÃ „ε] ma\kes perfect sesne.

> Conclusiin: it just won't do.
>
>
>
> adrianj...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > On Call. Fr. 1.17-8 could one complete line 18 as follows:
>

> > ÎµÎ»Î»Îµà „Îµ Î’Î±à ƒÎºÎ±Î½=
> > Î¹Î·à ‚ ολοον γενο=
> > à ‚Â¨ Î±à …Î¸Î¹ δε à „Îµà ‡Î½=
> > ηι
> >    Ã €á¿†Î¾Îµà „ε] μη à ƒà ‡Î¿=
> > Î¹Î½à ‰Î¹ ÃŽ 뵈  Ã ƒÎ¹Î´Î¹ à „=
> > ην à ƒÎ¿à †Î¹Î·Î½.

>
> > The metaphor being astronomocial - you will not fix (as one would
> > stars) sophia by the Persian chain but by techne?
>

> > Is à €á¿†Î¾Îµà „Îµ a correct form, on the basis of =
> > à €á¿†Î¾à ‰ at Il. 22.283?
>
> > I have not been able to find out whether 뼈  ÃŽÂ¹ÃŽÂ½ÃŽÂµÃ =
> > „ε] has any particular

> > attraction other than that it fits and makes sense.
>
> > I will treat any reply as without prejudice to your disbelief that the
> > lines in question have anything to do with each other...!
>

> > On Oct 13, 10:45Â pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"

> > <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Renaissance scholars would probably not have had access to the MS variant=
> > s,
> > > nor do I know offhand which the current reading of Aen. 8. 324 was (thoug=
> > h
> > > it is very easy to find out), but even if it was fuerunt, any schoolboy
> > > could have substituted fuere if the metre required it, and likewise saecl=
> > a
> > > for saecula; so far as poetry is concerned either form is equally
> > > legitimate. Romans used fuerunt in normal prose, fuere when they wished f=
> > or
> > > a touch of arcjhaism, but in verse either form was acceptable; they used
> > > saecula in formal prose, saecla in everyday speech, but again admitted
> > > either in verse. So no argument against (nor indeed for) forgery.
>
> > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > > Oxford

> > > usque  adeone
> > > OX2 6EJ   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  =
> >   Ã‚  scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > > alter?
>
> > > tel. +44 (0) 1865 552808 (home)/353865 (work) Â fax +44 (0) 1865 5122=

> > 37
>
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> > > To: "Mantovano" <mant...@googlegroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 10:21 PM
> > > Subject: VIRGIL: Re: AL 914.67-8
>
> > > I personally find this parallel quite compelling - as compelling as
> > > the instances where [Gallus] goes to [Oppian] or Alexander Aetolus,
> > > which we seem to agree about. Most elements of Call. Fr. 1.17-8 seem
> > > to be reproduced, too many, other things being equal, to be readily
> > > dismissed as coincidental. It is the mainly the consequences which
> > > give serious pause.
>
> > > Can you help me on something different? Could one predict what text(s)
> > > of Vergil a renaissance forger would have available to him - we would
> > > be talking about say the 1580s? Would a well-read forger have access
> > > to all the variant readings of the main manuscripts. The particular
> > > lines I have in mind are
>
> > > O niveas luces, o tempora dulcia! vere

> > > Â  aurea Saturni saecla fuere senis. (75-6)

> > > > What is not rendered from Call. is the "ολοον"=

> > .. But cf. the last word
> > > > of the preceding line in [Gallus]: "olus".
>
> > > > On Oct 13, 3:21 pm, falmouth <adrianj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I don't have access to a proper text of the Aetia at the moment, but

> > > > > presumably Eustathius only went up to "ÎµÎ»Î»Îµà „=
> > ε Î’Î±à ƒÎºÎ±Î½Î¹Î·à ‚ ολ=
> > οον Î³ÎµÎ½Î¿à ‚"

> > > > > which would not meet the point.
>
> > > > > [Gallus] also renders Callimachus repeated imperatives -ete; -ete
> > > > > (there must have been such) with the repeated -cus -cus (*l*ocus for
> > > > > e*ll*ete).
>

> > > > > [Gallus] 68 "et mes" renders "Îµà „Îµ] μη à ƒ=
> > " of Callimachus; and his
> > > > > "musta" stands for Callimachus' "-Î¿Î¹Î½à ‰Î¹" (wa=

> > > > > > > åëëåôå ÂáóêÃ=
> > ¡Ã­Ã©Ã§Ã² ïëïïí ãåÃ=
> > ­Ã¯=
> > > > > > > ò¨ áõèé äå ôå=
> > ÷íçé
> > > > > > > êñéíåôå] ìç ó=
> > ÷ïéíùé à åñóéä=
> > é=
> > > > > > > ôçí óïöéçí.
> > > > > > > Call. Aet. Fr. 1.17-8
>
> > > > > > > "invidia" is how other Latin poets translate Callimachus' Â=
> > áóêá=
> > > > > > > íéá:

> > > > > > > cf. in particular, Geo. 3.37 together with Thomas' commentary and
> > > > > > > article.
>
> > > > > > > Here we have it in the same case and occupying exactly the same
> > > > > > > metrical position as 'invidiae'.
>
> > > > > > > What is the neighbouring field with [Gallus] is talking about:
> > > > > > > presumably those of Parthia which are the reason why he is at war=
> >  -
> > > > > > > cf. the Persian measuring rod of Call. Aet. Fr. 1.18.
>
> > > > > > > Too speculative? Look again at [Gallus] 67: surely
>

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[au...@gellius.demon.co.uk]

Phxete (proparoxytone not pro-properispomenon) is the future indicative; the imperative you need is phgnute (proparoxytone).
But even with your explanation I just son't but it at all; and even if a Greek could have understood it, which I doubt, it would be enturely the wrong sense; judge a work by its art and not its length is precisely the Calimacheaan principle.

adria...@googlemail.com wrote:
> For some reason your Greek font comes out as gobbledegook on my screen
> - this is a computer problem as opposed to my Greek coming out as
> gobbledegook on your screen from misplaced enthusiasm and getting
> things wrong! Could you repeat point 1 in English characters for me?
>
> What I had in mind was
>

> IV. metaph., fix, â€œá½…Ï Î¿Ï…Ï‚ τοῖς Î²Î±Ï Î²á½±Ï Î¿Î¹Ï‚â€ Lycurg.73, cf. Aristopho
> 9.7 : Astrol., fix, determine a nativity, Sch. Ptol.Tetr.103 :—Med.,
> á½„Ï†Ï Î± ἠν Ï†Ï Î±Ïƒá½¶ πάξαιθ᾽, ὅπως . . that he might keep it fixed in his
> heart, Pi.N.3.62 ; establish, â€œÏ‡Î¿Ï Î¿á½»Ï‚â€ Him.Or.16.6 :— Pass. and intr.
> pf., to be irrevocably fixed, established, “εἷς á½…Ï Î¿Ï‚ ἡμῖν παγήσεταιâ€
> Th.4.92 ; πῆγμα (Aurat. for πῆμα）“ γενναίως παγέν†A.Ag. 1198; “κακῶς
> παγέντας á½…Ï ÎºÎ¿Ï…Ï‚â€ E.IA395 ; â€œá½€Ï Î¸á½°Ï‚ παγείσας Ï†Ï á½³Î½Î±Ï‚â€ Carc. 6.2 ; “μὴ γὰÏ
> ὡς θεῷ νομίζετ᾽ ἠκείνῳ Ï„á½° Ï€Î±Ï á½¹Î½Ï„Î± πεπηγέναι Ï€Ï á½±Î³Î¼Î±Ï„Î± ἀθάνατα†D.4.8 ;
> “τὰ καλῶς πεπηγότα τῇ φύσει†Id.25.90. (Cf. Lat. pango.）

>
> Not long after the Aetia, Eratosthenes would measure the circumference
> of the earth by astronomical calculations rather than physical
> measurements - this is the sort of thing I thought might be in play,
> where technei in its fullest sense really is in opposition to
> schoinoi. In the Greek the "technei" is more properly the means of
> measurement rather than the extent of the thing measured? i.e. Call.
> says "[judge/measure] wisdom not with the schoinos but using your
> techne" rather than "judge wisdom not through the schoinos but by how
> much techne there is". The picture of the schoinos that I have in mind
> is a rope where at least one end would be fixed to the ground - i.e.
> much like a surveyor would peg out and measure a boundary these days.
>

> πηξετε] μη σχοινωι Î ÎµÏ ÏƒÎ¹Î´Î¹ την σοφιην.

>
> would otherwise be an attractively balanced pentameter (i.e. the two
> halfs echo each other) if it were not nonsense.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> On Oct 14, 2:51Â pm, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > 1. à €á½µÎ¾Îµà „Îµ (proparoxytone not propeeispomenon) is future imperative; the imperative you would need is à €á½µÎ³Î½à …à „Îµ.
> > 2. 'Fixed stars' is a Latin metaphopr not a Greek one; the Greeks said 'non-nwandering', á¼€à €Î»Î±Î½á¿†.

> > 3. I do not understand the application of the metaphor anyway.

> > 4. I can attach no meaning to à €á½µÎ³Î½à …à „Îµ, whereas 뼈  ÃŽÂ¹ÃŽÂ½ÃŽÂµÃ „ε] makes perfect sesne.

> > Conclusiin: it just won't do.
> >
> >
> >
> > adrianj...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >
> > > On Call. Fr. 1.17-8 could one complete line 18 as follows:
> >

> > > ÎµÎ»Î»Îµà „Îµ Î’Î±à ƒÎºÎ±Î½=
> > > Î¹Î·à ‚ ολοον γενο=
> > > à ‚Â¨ Î±à …Î¸Î¹ δε à „Îµà ‡Î½=
> > > ηι
> > >   Ã €á¿†Î¾Îµà „ε] μη à ƒà ‡Î¿=
> > > Î¹Î½à ‰Î¹ ÃŽ 뵈  Ã ƒÎ¹Î´Î¹ à „=
> > > ην à ƒÎ¿à †Î¹Î·Î½.

> >
> > > The metaphor being astronomocial - you will not fix (as one would
> > > stars) sophia by the Persian chain but by techne?
> >

> > > Is à €á¿†Î¾Îµà „Îµ a correct form, on the basis of =
> > > à €á¿†Î¾à ‰ at Il. 22.283?
> >
> > > I have not been able to find out whether 뼈  ÃŽÂ¹ÃŽÂ½ÃŽÂµÃ =
> > > „ε] has any particular

> > > attraction other than that it fits and makes sense.
> >
> > > I will treat any reply as without prejudice to your disbelief that the
> > > lines in question have anything to do with each other...!
> >

> > > On Oct 13, 10:45Â pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"

> > > <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > Renaissance scholars would probably not have had access to the MS variant=
> > > s,
> > > > nor do I know offhand which the current reading of Aen. 8. 324 was (thoug=
> > > h
> > > > it is very easy to find out), but even if it was fuerunt, any schoolboy
> > > > could have substituted fuere if the metre required it, and likewise saecl=
> > > a
> > > > for saecula; so far as poetry is concerned either form is equally
> > > > legitimate. Romans used fuerunt in normal prose, fuere when they wished f=
> > > or
> > > > a touch of arcjhaism, but in verse either form was acceptable; they used
> > > > saecula in formal prose, saecla in everyday speech, but again admitted
> > > > either in verse. So no argument against (nor indeed for) forgery.
> >
> > > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > > > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > > > Oxford

> > > > usque  adeone
> > > > OX2 6EJ   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  =
> > >   Ã‚  scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > > > alter?
> >
> > > > tel. +44 (0) 1865 552808 (home)/353865 (work) Â fax +44 (0) 1865 5122=

> > > 37
> >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> > > > To: "Mantovano" <mant...@googlegroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 10:21 PM
> > > > Subject: VIRGIL: Re: AL 914.67-8
> >
> > > > I personally find this parallel quite compelling - as compelling as
> > > > the instances where [Gallus] goes to [Oppian] or Alexander Aetolus,
> > > > which we seem to agree about. Most elements of Call. Fr. 1.17-8 seem
> > > > to be reproduced, too many, other things being equal, to be readily
> > > > dismissed as coincidental. It is the mainly the consequences which
> > > > give serious pause.
> >
> > > > Can you help me on something different? Could one predict what text(s)
> > > > of Vergil a renaissance forger would have available to him - we would
> > > > be talking about say the 1580s? Would a well-read forger have access
> > > > to all the variant readings of the main manuscripts. The particular
> > > > lines I have in mind are
> >
> > > > O niveas luces, o tempora dulcia! vere

> > > > Â  aurea Saturni saecla fuere senis. (75-6)

> > > > > What is not rendered from Call. is the "ολοον"=

> > > .. But cf. the last word
> > > > > of the preceding line in [Gallus]: "olus".
> >
> > > > > On Oct 13, 3:21 pm, falmouth <adrianj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I don't have access to a proper text of the Aetia at the moment, but

> > > > > > presumably Eustathius only went up to "ÎµÎ»Î»Îµà „=
> > > ε Î’Î±à ƒÎºÎ±Î½Î¹Î·à ‚ ολ=
> > > οον Î³ÎµÎ½Î¿à ‚"

> > > > > > which would not meet the point.
> >
> > > > > > [Gallus] also renders Callimachus repeated imperatives -ete; -ete
> > > > > > (there must have been such) with the repeated -cus -cus (*l*ocus for
> > > > > > e*ll*ete).
> >

> > > > > > [Gallus] 68 "et mes" renders "Îµà „Îµ] μη à ƒ=
> > > " of Callimachus; and his
> > > > > > "musta" stands for Callimachus' "-Î¿Î¹Î½à ‰Î¹" (wa=

> > > > > > > > åëëåôå ÂáóêÃ=
> > > ¡Ã­Ã©Ã§Ã² ïëïïí ãåÃ=
> > > ­Ã¯=
> > > > > > > > ò¨ áõèé äå ôå=
> > > ÷íçé
> > > > > > > > êñéíåôå] ìç ó=
> > > ÷ïéíùé à åñóéä=
> > > é=
> > > > > > > > ôçí óïöéçí.
> > > > > > > > Call. Aet. Fr. 1.17-8
> >
> > > > > > > > "invidia" is how other Latin poets translate Callimachus' Â=
> > > áóêá=
> > > > > > > > íéá:

> > > > > > > > cf. in particular, Geo. 3.37 together with Thomas' commentary and
> > > > > > > > article.
> >
> > > > > > > > Here we have it in the same case and occupying exactly the same
> > > > > > > > metrical position as 'invidiae'.
> >
> > > > > > > > What is the neighbouring field with [Gallus] is talking about:
> > > > > > > > presumably those of Parthia which are the reason why he is at war=

> > > Â -

> > > > > > > > cf. the Persian measuring rod of Call. Aet. Fr. 1.18.
> >
> > > > > > > > Too speculative? Look again at [Gallus] 67: surely
> >
> > ...
> >

> > read more »- Hide quoted text -

[falmouth]

Even with "krinete", does the Greek not imply 'judge a work using
*your* head not *your* measuring tape" i.e. he's having a go at
critics not poets? I don't think adding the suggested metaphor would
change the sense massively, it would just imply 'proper criticism' as
to 'Telchinic criticism' is the same as '[sophisticated] astronomy
(that which we sophisticated Ptolemaic Alexandrians get up to)' to
'[basic] land-surveying (which others are stuck with)'.

On Oct 14, 4:15 pm, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:
> Phxete (proparoxytone not pro-properispomenon) is the future indicative; the imperative you need is phgnute (proparoxytone).
> But even with your explanation I just son't but it at all; and even if a Greek could have understood it, which I doubt, it would be enturely the wrong sense; judge a work by its art and not its length is precisely the Calimacheaan principle.
>
>
>
> adrianj...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > For some reason your Greek font comes out as gobbledegook on my screen
> > - this is a computer problem as opposed to my Greek coming out as
> > gobbledegook on your screen from misplaced enthusiasm and getting
> > things wrong! Could you repeat point 1 in English characters for me?
>
> > What I had in mind was
>

> > IV. metaph., fix, “ὅà  ÃŽÂ¿Ã …à ‚ à „Î¿á¿–à ‚ βαà  ÃŽÂ²Ã¡Â½Â±Ã  ÃŽÂ¿ÃŽÂ¹Ã ‚† Lycurg.73, cf. Aristopho
> > 9.7 : Astrol., fix, determine a nativity, Sch. Ptol.Tetr.103 : Med.,
> > á½„à †à  ÃŽÂ± á¼ ν à †à  ÃŽÂ±Ã ƒá½¶ à €á½±Î¾Î±Î¹Î¸á¾½, á½…à €à ‰à ‚ . . that he might keep it fixed in his
> > heart, Pi.N.3.62 ; establish, â€œà ‡Î¿à  ÃŽÂ¿Ã¡Â½Â»Ã ‚† Him.Or.16.6 :  Pass. and intr.
> > pf., to be irrevocably fixed, established, â€œÎµá¼·à ‚ á½…à  ÃŽÂ¿Ã ‚ ἡμῖν à €Î±Î³á½µà ƒÎµà „Î±Î¹â€
> > Th.4.92 ; à €á¿†Î³Î¼Î± (Aurat. for à €á¿†Î¼Î±ï¼‰â€œ Î³ÎµÎ½Î½Î±á½·à ‰à ‚ à €Î±Î³á½³Î½â€  A.Ag. 1198; â€œÎºÎ±Îºá¿¶à ‚
> > à €Î±Î³á½³Î½à „Î±à ‚ á½…à  ÃŽÂºÃŽÂ¿Ã …à ‚â€  E.IA395 ; “ὀà  ÃŽÂ¸Ã¡Â½Â°Ã ‚ à €Î±Î³Îµá½·à ƒÎ±à ‚ à †à  Ã¡Â½Â³ÃŽÂ½ÃŽÂ±Ã ‚† Carc. 6.2 ; “μὴ γὰà  
> > á½¡à ‚ θεῷ Î½Î¿Î¼á½·Î¶Îµà „á¾½ á¼ κείνῳ à „á½° à €Î±à  Ã¡Â½Â¹ÃŽÂ½Ã „α à €Îµà €Î·Î³á½³Î½Î±Î¹ à €à  Ã¡Â½Â±ÃŽÂ³ÃŽÂ¼ÃŽÂ±Ã „α á¼€Î¸á½±Î½Î±à „Î±â€  D.4.8 ;
> > â€œà „á½° ÎºÎ±Î»á¿¶à ‚ à €Îµà €Î·Î³á½¹à „Î± à „á¿‡ à †á½»à ƒÎµÎ¹â€  Id.25.90. (Cf. Lat. pango.）

>
> > Not long after the Aetia, Eratosthenes would measure the circumference
> > of the earth by astronomical calculations rather than physical
> > measurements - this is the sort of thing I thought might be in play,
> > where technei in its fullest sense really is in opposition to
> > schoinoi. In the Greek the "technei" is more properly the means of
> > measurement rather than the extent of the thing measured? i.e. Call.
> > says "[judge/measure] wisdom not with the schoinos but using your
> > techne" rather than "judge wisdom not through the schoinos but by how
> > much techne there is". The picture of the schoinos that I have in mind
> > is a rope where at least one end would be fixed to the ground - i.e.
> > much like a surveyor would peg out and measure a boundary these days.
>

> > à €Î·Î¾Îµà „Îµ] μη à ƒà ‡Î¿Î¹Î½à ‰Î¹ ÃŽ 뵈  Ã ƒÎ¹Î´Î¹ à „Î·Î½ à ƒÎ¿à †Î¹Î·Î½.

>
> > would otherwise be an attractively balanced pentameter (i.e. the two
> > halfs echo each other) if it were not nonsense.
>

> > On Oct 14, 2:51Â pm, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > > 1. à €á½µÎ¾Îµ­ÃƒÆ’ „ε (proparoxytone not propeeispomenon) is future imperative; the imperative you would need is à €á½µÎ³Î½­ÃƒÆ’ …à „ε.
> > > 2. 'Fixed stars' is a Latin metaphopr not a Greek one; the Greeks said 'non-nwandering', ἀà €Î»Î±Î½áíƒâ€šÃ‚¿Ã¢â‚¬Â .

> > > 3. I do not understand the application of the metaphor anyway.

> > > 4. I can attach no meaning to à €á½µÎ³Î½­ÃƒÆ’ …à „ε, whereas κà  ινεà „ε] makes perfect sesne.

> > > Conclusiin: it just won't do.
>
> > > adrianj...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Call. Fr. 1.17-8 could one complete line 18 as follows:
>

> > > > ÎµÎ»Î»Îµà „Îµ Î’Î±à ƒÎºÎ±Î½=
> > > > ιηà ‚ ολοοÃŭ½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚½ γενο=
> > > > à ‚Â¨ Î±à …Î¸Î¹ δε à „Îµà ‡Î½=
> > > > ηι
> > > >   Ã‚ à €á¿â€Â ξεà „ε] μη à ƒà ‡Î¿=
> > > > Î¹Î½à ‰Î¹ ÃŽ 뵈  Ã ƒÎ¹Î´Î¹ à „=
> > > > ην à ƒÎ¿à †Î¹Î·Î½.

>
> > > > The metaphor being astronomocial - you will not fix (as one would
> > > > stars) sophia by the Persian chain but by techne?
>

> > > > Is à €á¿†Î¾Îµà „Îµ a correct form, on the basis of =
> > > > à €á¿†Î¾à ‰ at Il. 22.283?
>
> > > > I have not been able to find out whether κà Â
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Leofranc Holford-Strevens]

No, it doesn't; and even if it did, krinete would be more plauible than
phgnute.

Leofranc Holford-Strevens
67 St Bernard's Road
Oxford
usque adeone
OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
alter?

tel. +44 (0) 1865 552808 (home)/353865 (work) fax +44 (0) 1865 512237
----- Original Message -----

From: "falmouth" <adria...@googlemail.com>
To: "Mantovano" <mant...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 5:48 PM
Subject: VIRGIL: Re: AL 914.67-8

[falmouth]

For stars being 'fixed' in Greek:

Αὐτὸς γὰρ τά γε σήματ' ἐν οὐρανῶι ἐστήριξεν,
ἄστρα διακρίνας
Arat. Phaen. 10-1 (ἐστήριξεν - make fast, prop, fix; presumably Aratus
is here etymologising ἀστήρ)
(a prominent passage of a poem which Callimachus admired and read
carefully - Call. Ep. 27 - Call. presumably conceived of Aratus as an
ally in the literary debate which informs the Aetia preface)

I appreciate I'd be on safer ground if I had any evidence that phgnumi
was used as a termus technicus in astrology or of 'sophia' being
conceived of as a constellation - which I don't, but perhaps phgnute
is not wholly inconceivable, even if krinete or something else is to
be preferred. On the pattern of other "For me A, not B"s in the Aetia
preface one might expect a metaphor linking A and B (and indeed the A
and B referring to particular poems).

On Oct 14, 6:19 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"

[falmouth]

I mean astronomy not astrology...(!)

[Leofranc Holford-Strevens]

I hadn't realized you had acrually meant the image to be astronomical (don't
worrry about astronomy/astrology, they were synonyms in thsoe days), rather
than somehow parallel, but it doesn't work. And Callimachus does not go in
for convolutions of thought, rather for rare words and little-known myths;
if we had his text whole and the entire Alexandrian Library searchable,
therre would be no difficulty in understanding him. (So too with Horace, if
we could read everything he had read; so not with Vergil or Propertius.)

Leofranc Holford-Strevens
67 St Bernard's Road
Oxford
usque adeone
OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
alter?

tel. +44 (0) 1865 552808 (home)/353865 (work) fax +44 (0) 1865 512237
----- Original Message -----

From: "falmouth" <adria...@googlemail.com>
To: "Mantovano" <mant...@googlegroups.com>