AL 916.8 and Ciris 185-6
92 views
Skip to first unread message
falmouth
Feb 9, 2012, 6:53:00 AM2/9/12
to mant...@googlegroups.com
1. There is a relationship of influence (direct or indirect) between AL 916.8 and Ciris
E Bereniceo detonsum vertice crinem
(AL 916.8)
ut patris, a demens, crinem de uertice †serum
furtiue arguto detonsum mitteret hosti.
(Ciris 185-6)
The exact form ‘detonsum’ is uniquely found at Ciris 185 in extant classical poetry[1]. Thus, if the relationship is indirect, both poets have access to a source which is not extant. This conclusion is made inevitable by the other repeated elements ‘crinem’; ‘vertice’ in the same sedes; ‘detonsum’ being in the same sedes, immediately preceded by an adjective ending ‘-o’.
2. AL 916.8 makes perfect sense; Ciris 185-6 as transmitted does not. The muddle that is Ciris 185-6[2] would be easily explained if that poet were unsuccessfully adapting a hexameter which finished:
. . . . detonsum vertice crinem
One notes in particular that not only is the clausula ‘vertice crinem’ common in poetry[3], but it is one which appears elsewhere in the Ciris at lines 122 and 281 (each concerning Nisus’ coloured lock):
et roseus medio surgebat uertice crinis
(Ciris 122)
'purpureum patris dempsissem uertice crinem'
(Ciris 281, Scylla speaking)[4]
Related too, seems to be Ciris 501 (of the transformed Nisus)
puniceam concussit apex in uertice cristam
(Ciris 501)
Each of these lines is nearly a ‘golden line’ (i.e. of the shape ‘a b [verb] B A) of the sort particularly favoured by the neoterics. The impression is reinforced that each of these lines in the Ciris reflects an original neoteric line of the form ‘. . . . . [verb] vertice crinem’.
One might also see traces of the same hypothetical source line in Ovid Met. 8.8-10
Alcathoi, quam Nisus habet, cui splendidus ostro
inter honoratos medioque in vertice canos
crinis inhaerebat, magni fiducia regni.
(Ov. Met. 8.8-10)
3. Returning to the verb ‘detonsum’, one notes, with an important qualification, its particular suitability to the Scylla myth. It is peculiarly suitable since ‘tondeo’ etymologises ‘Ciris’, through the Greek ‘κειρω = I cut’[5]. This is an etymology which the Ciris poet elsewhere makes both implicit and explicit reference to:
purpureumque parat rursus tondere capillum
(Ciris 382)
facti de nomine Ciris
(Ciris 488 – explicit reference to the etymology without giving it)
and to which Ovid makes explicit reference:
Ciris et a tonso est hoc nomen adepta capillo.
(Ov. Met. 8.151)
Importantly[6], too, Propertius had previously made an implicit reference to such an etymology:
tuque, o, Minoa venumdata, Scylla, figura
tondes purpurea regna paterna coma.
(Prop. 3.19.21-2)
Vergil at Geo. 1.406 and 1.409 seems also to refer to the etymology with ‘secat’ (these lines appearing identically at Ciris 538 and 541)[7].
The important qualification is that each of these three etymologising references uses the verb ‘tondeo’ not the compound form ‘detondeo’. This is appropriate, given that the Greek ‘κειρω’ is a simple form. The compound form would obscure the etymologising play[8].
4. Returning to [Gallus], ‘E Bereniceo detonsum vertice crinem’ the word ‘detonsum’, at first blush, is not so appropriate to the context of Berenice’s lock as it is to Nisus’, given the discussion of the etymological function of ‘tondeo’ in Latin treatments of the Scylla myth. As has been remarked already, the compound is rare. However, Hyginus’ account of Berenice’s lock is extremely thought-provoking, since he uses exactly the compound 'detondo' in the context of Berenice's lock:
‘… quas crines Berenices esse Conon Samius mathematicus et Callimachus dicit. Cum Ptolomaeus Berenicen Ptolomaei et Arsino<e>s filiam sororem suam duxisset uxorem, et paucis post diebus Asiam obpugnatum profectus esset, uouisse Berenicen, si uictor Ptolomaeus redisset, se crinem *detonsuram*; quo uoto damnatam crinem in Veneris Arsinoes Zephyritidis posuisse templo, eumque postero die non conparuisse. Quod factum cum rex aegre ferret, ut ante diximus, Conon mathematicus cupiens inire gratiam regis, dixit crinem inter sidera uideri conlocatum et quasdam uacuas a figura septem stellas ostendit, quas esse fingeret crinem.’.
(Hyginus 2.24.8-20)
5. Ellis on Catullus 66 (p. 312) cites in Nonnus’ Συναγωγη ιστοριων, an account of Berenice’s lock which is close to Hyginus’. He uses the word ‘αποκειρασα’ of Berenice having cut off her lock (cf. κειρω – tondeo as already discussed)[9]. That part of Callimachus Fr. 110 Pf. which contained the lock’s account of Berenice’s promise does not survive; the corresponding part of Catullus 66 does not suggest the use of the verb αποκειρω although given the latitude which Catullus allows himself, it does not exclude this:
quis te mutavit tantus deus? an quod amantes
non longe a caro corpore abesse volunt?
atque ibi me cunctis pro dulci coniuge divis
non sine taurino sanguine pollicita es,
si reditum tetulisset. is haud in tempore longo 35
captam Asiam Aegypti finibus addiderat.
quis ego pro factis caelesti reddita coetu
pristina vota novo munere dissoluo.
(Cat. 66.31-38)
6. Some conclusions:
6.1 The Ciris poet is imitating some neoteric treatment of the Scylla myth at lines 185-6 (also at 122, 281, 501). His lines 185-6 are not original (they do not make sense; the variations of this line further hint at an original; little in the Ciris is original). What the Ciris poet imitates is probably also imitated at Ov. Met. 8.9-10;
6.2 What the Ciris poet imitates at 185-6 is likely to include a line ending ‘[verb] vertice crinem’ (cf. 122, 281, 501);
6.3 The Ciris poet’s ‘detonsum’ is apt for the Scylla myth but not unqualifiedly so. ‘tondeo’ accommodates the allusion to the etymology Ciris / κειρω, but the compound ‘detonsum’ seems unnecessary. Elsewhere, the Ciris-poet, Propertius and Ovid simply use ‘tondeo’; the Ciris-poet and Vergil use ‘secat’. No other poet uses the compound ‘detondeo’ of Scylla.
6.4 It is inconceivable that the apparent relationship between Ciris 185-6 and [Gallus] is coincidence, given the uniqueness of the form ‘detonsum’; the comparative rarity of the word, itself, and the other shared elements ‘vertice’ and ‘crinem’.
6.5 [Gallus] makes sense where Ciris 185-6 does not.
6.6 ‘Detondeo’ is apt for the myth of Berenice’s lock given Hyginus. ‘Detondeo’ there, one would expect either to reflect a Latin poetic treatment of Berenice's lock or be prompted by something in Callimachus.
6.7 If [Gallus] is a forger, he must have (not satisfied by imitating Catullus 66 alone) taken his ‘detondeo’ from Hyginus, but also have remembered Ciris 185-6 and have seen the opportunity to tidy up Ciris 185-6 by rearranging the elements ‘detonsum’, ‘vertice’ and ‘crinem’. By tidying up Ciris 185-6, in particular, by putting ‘vertice crinem’ at the end of the line, he seems to have stumbled upon the likely construction of the Ciris-poet’s model (for the Ciris-poet surely had one).
[A point in passing, perhaps of more interest to the Vergilians here! The possibility strikes me that the extreme patterning at Geo. 1. (somewhat uncharacteristic of Vergil – cf. Thomas ad loc.) may derive from Callimachus’ himself. In particular, the repeated ‘Κ]εῖριν … Κ]εῖριν’ would be cleverly represented by Vergil’s repeated ‘secat… secat’ (i.e. Vergil’s etymology for Κ]εῖριν)].
]..[
]ρπον δαυ[
]ο̣ἰωνὸς ἀν' ἐ[
Κ]εῖριν φῆ π̣ρ̣[
5 ]ν ῥ̣έξειν α.[
]..εμάτη̣[
]τε̣λεσο̣[
].τ̣τω δ' ἦλθ[
Κ]εῖριν ἰδε.[
10 ]..ι̣.[
Call. Aet. Fr. 113 Pf.
apparet liquido sublimis in aere Nisus,
et pro purpureo poenas dat Scylla capillo: 405
quacumque illa leuem fugiens secat aethera pennis,
ecce inimicus atrox magno stridore per auras
insequitur Nisus; qua se fert Nisus ad auras,
illa leuem fugiens raptim secat aethera pennis.
Geo. 1.404-409
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] The compound ‘detondeo’ is rare. Ov. Fast. 3.237 and Pers. Sat. 4.38 are the only other instances of the past participle as a central molossus.
[2] Cf. Lyne ad loc.
[3] I have found Cat. 64.350; Verg. A. 4.698; Manil. Astr. 1.835 (a shooting star); Ov. Met. 4.558; 13.430; Mart. Ep. 1.31.1; Stat. Theb. 1.90; 6.607; 8.344; Lucan BC 1.188; Val. Flacc. Arg. 1.412; Sil. Pun. 3.284 as well as the two instances in the Ciris.
[4] Particularly striking is the relationship between this line and the muddled Ciris 185
'purpureum patris dempsissem uertice crinem' (Ciris 281)
‘ut patris, a demens, crinem de uertice †serum’ (Ciris 185)
[5] Schol. Bern. ad Ecl. 6.74 gives ‘tonsilla’ as the Latin for ‘ciris’: ‘in avem, quae ‘ciris’ dicitur, Latine vero ‘tonsilla’, conversa est.’.
[6] ‘Importantly’, since this tends to demonstrate that the etymologizing play was already current in Latin poetry.
[7] Vergil’s glancing reference (without naming the Ciris-bird at all) again suggests that the etymologizing play was already current, as does his use of the word ‘seco’ where the other Latin poets referred to use ‘tondeo’.
[8] Callimachus seems to have mentioned the Scylla myth more than once: Aet. Fr. 113 Pf. and Hec. Fr. 288 Pf. = 90 Hollis. The latter refers to a different etymology. The former is extremely fragmentary but the repeated ‘K]ειριν’ may suggest that the κειρω etymology is in play. Hesychius’ ‘κειρει – τεμνει, κατεσθιει’; ‘κειρις – ορνεον. ιεραξ. οι δε αλκυονα’ may reflect Callimachus (‘κειρει – τεμνει, κατεσθιει’ the first meaning is apt of Scylla cutting off Nisus’ lock, the second of the Nisus, transformed into a predatory bird). Nonnus Dionysiaca 25.148-175 is likely to echo some Hellenistic Greek treatment, possibly Callimachus’ or possibly Parthenius' (or possibly both). Interesting in the context of the present discussion is Nonnus Dion. 25.162 ‘ἥλικα πορφυρέης ἀπεκείρατο βότρυν ἐθείρης’, noting first the use of the compound‘ἀπεκείρατο’ and, second, the resemblance of this line to the lines collected from the Ciris: (‘πορφυρέης’ ~ purpureus; ‘βότρυν’ ~ ‘crinis’ and the structure of Nonnus’ line is similar to a Latin golden line). Nonnus Dion. 25.164 ‘βόστρυχον ἀμήσασα πολισσούχοιο καρήνου’ appears to derive from Callimachus Hec. Fr. 288 Pf. = 90 Hollis. It is not likely that Nonnus went to Latin poets nor, in my view, that the Ciris poet went directly to Greek poets (not even Parthenius, pace the view of most who have looked at the Ciris). Rather any resemblance between the Ciris and Nonnus is more likely to reflect a neoteric Latin poet imitating a Hellenistic Greek poet (Nonnus imitating the Hellenistic poet directly; the Ciris poet imitating a neoteric Latin poet’s adaptation of the Hellenistic poet).
[9] Homer also uses αποκειρω of Achilles cutting off his lock as a dedication to Patroclus corpse: ‘στὰς ἀπάνευθε πυρῆς ξανθὴν ἀπεκείρατο χαίτην’. This lock had been promised as a dedication to the river Spercheus on Achilles’ return home. The circumstances of Berenice’s promise are not dissimilar and one could easily imagine Callimachus wishing to allude to the Iliad in the Berenice episode. I note again Nonnus 25.162 use of the exact same form ‘ἥλικα πορφυρέης ἀπεκείρατο βότρυν ἐθείρης’.
E Bereniceo detonsum vertice crinem
(AL 916.8)
ut patris, a demens, crinem de uertice †serum
furtiue arguto detonsum mitteret hosti.
(Ciris 185-6)
The exact form ‘detonsum’ is uniquely found at Ciris 185 in extant classical poetry[1]. Thus, if the relationship is indirect, both poets have access to a source which is not extant. This conclusion is made inevitable by the other repeated elements ‘crinem’; ‘vertice’ in the same sedes; ‘detonsum’ being in the same sedes, immediately preceded by an adjective ending ‘-o’.
2. AL 916.8 makes perfect sense; Ciris 185-6 as transmitted does not. The muddle that is Ciris 185-6[2] would be easily explained if that poet were unsuccessfully adapting a hexameter which finished:
. . . . detonsum vertice crinem
One notes in particular that not only is the clausula ‘vertice crinem’ common in poetry[3], but it is one which appears elsewhere in the Ciris at lines 122 and 281 (each concerning Nisus’ coloured lock):
et roseus medio surgebat uertice crinis
(Ciris 122)
'purpureum patris dempsissem uertice crinem'
(Ciris 281, Scylla speaking)[4]
Related too, seems to be Ciris 501 (of the transformed Nisus)
puniceam concussit apex in uertice cristam
(Ciris 501)
Each of these lines is nearly a ‘golden line’ (i.e. of the shape ‘a b [verb] B A) of the sort particularly favoured by the neoterics. The impression is reinforced that each of these lines in the Ciris reflects an original neoteric line of the form ‘. . . . . [verb] vertice crinem’.
One might also see traces of the same hypothetical source line in Ovid Met. 8.8-10
Alcathoi, quam Nisus habet, cui splendidus ostro
inter honoratos medioque in vertice canos
crinis inhaerebat, magni fiducia regni.
(Ov. Met. 8.8-10)
3. Returning to the verb ‘detonsum’, one notes, with an important qualification, its particular suitability to the Scylla myth. It is peculiarly suitable since ‘tondeo’ etymologises ‘Ciris’, through the Greek ‘κειρω = I cut’[5]. This is an etymology which the Ciris poet elsewhere makes both implicit and explicit reference to:
purpureumque parat rursus tondere capillum
(Ciris 382)
facti de nomine Ciris
(Ciris 488 – explicit reference to the etymology without giving it)
and to which Ovid makes explicit reference:
Ciris et a tonso est hoc nomen adepta capillo.
(Ov. Met. 8.151)
Importantly[6], too, Propertius had previously made an implicit reference to such an etymology:
tuque, o, Minoa venumdata, Scylla, figura
tondes purpurea regna paterna coma.
(Prop. 3.19.21-2)
Vergil at Geo. 1.406 and 1.409 seems also to refer to the etymology with ‘secat’ (these lines appearing identically at Ciris 538 and 541)[7].
The important qualification is that each of these three etymologising references uses the verb ‘tondeo’ not the compound form ‘detondeo’. This is appropriate, given that the Greek ‘κειρω’ is a simple form. The compound form would obscure the etymologising play[8].
4. Returning to [Gallus], ‘E Bereniceo detonsum vertice crinem’ the word ‘detonsum’, at first blush, is not so appropriate to the context of Berenice’s lock as it is to Nisus’, given the discussion of the etymological function of ‘tondeo’ in Latin treatments of the Scylla myth. As has been remarked already, the compound is rare. However, Hyginus’ account of Berenice’s lock is extremely thought-provoking, since he uses exactly the compound 'detondo' in the context of Berenice's lock:
‘… quas crines Berenices esse Conon Samius mathematicus et Callimachus dicit. Cum Ptolomaeus Berenicen Ptolomaei et Arsino<e>s filiam sororem suam duxisset uxorem, et paucis post diebus Asiam obpugnatum profectus esset, uouisse Berenicen, si uictor Ptolomaeus redisset, se crinem *detonsuram*; quo uoto damnatam crinem in Veneris Arsinoes Zephyritidis posuisse templo, eumque postero die non conparuisse. Quod factum cum rex aegre ferret, ut ante diximus, Conon mathematicus cupiens inire gratiam regis, dixit crinem inter sidera uideri conlocatum et quasdam uacuas a figura septem stellas ostendit, quas esse fingeret crinem.’.
(Hyginus 2.24.8-20)
5. Ellis on Catullus 66 (p. 312) cites in Nonnus’ Συναγωγη ιστοριων, an account of Berenice’s lock which is close to Hyginus’. He uses the word ‘αποκειρασα’ of Berenice having cut off her lock (cf. κειρω – tondeo as already discussed)[9]. That part of Callimachus Fr. 110 Pf. which contained the lock’s account of Berenice’s promise does not survive; the corresponding part of Catullus 66 does not suggest the use of the verb αποκειρω although given the latitude which Catullus allows himself, it does not exclude this:
quis te mutavit tantus deus? an quod amantes
non longe a caro corpore abesse volunt?
atque ibi me cunctis pro dulci coniuge divis
non sine taurino sanguine pollicita es,
si reditum tetulisset. is haud in tempore longo 35
captam Asiam Aegypti finibus addiderat.
quis ego pro factis caelesti reddita coetu
pristina vota novo munere dissoluo.
(Cat. 66.31-38)
6. Some conclusions:
6.1 The Ciris poet is imitating some neoteric treatment of the Scylla myth at lines 185-6 (also at 122, 281, 501). His lines 185-6 are not original (they do not make sense; the variations of this line further hint at an original; little in the Ciris is original). What the Ciris poet imitates is probably also imitated at Ov. Met. 8.9-10;
6.2 What the Ciris poet imitates at 185-6 is likely to include a line ending ‘[verb] vertice crinem’ (cf. 122, 281, 501);
6.3 The Ciris poet’s ‘detonsum’ is apt for the Scylla myth but not unqualifiedly so. ‘tondeo’ accommodates the allusion to the etymology Ciris / κειρω, but the compound ‘detonsum’ seems unnecessary. Elsewhere, the Ciris-poet, Propertius and Ovid simply use ‘tondeo’; the Ciris-poet and Vergil use ‘secat’. No other poet uses the compound ‘detondeo’ of Scylla.
6.4 It is inconceivable that the apparent relationship between Ciris 185-6 and [Gallus] is coincidence, given the uniqueness of the form ‘detonsum’; the comparative rarity of the word, itself, and the other shared elements ‘vertice’ and ‘crinem’.
6.5 [Gallus] makes sense where Ciris 185-6 does not.
6.6 ‘Detondeo’ is apt for the myth of Berenice’s lock given Hyginus. ‘Detondeo’ there, one would expect either to reflect a Latin poetic treatment of Berenice's lock or be prompted by something in Callimachus.
6.7 If [Gallus] is a forger, he must have (not satisfied by imitating Catullus 66 alone) taken his ‘detondeo’ from Hyginus, but also have remembered Ciris 185-6 and have seen the opportunity to tidy up Ciris 185-6 by rearranging the elements ‘detonsum’, ‘vertice’ and ‘crinem’. By tidying up Ciris 185-6, in particular, by putting ‘vertice crinem’ at the end of the line, he seems to have stumbled upon the likely construction of the Ciris-poet’s model (for the Ciris-poet surely had one).
[A point in passing, perhaps of more interest to the Vergilians here! The possibility strikes me that the extreme patterning at Geo. 1. (somewhat uncharacteristic of Vergil – cf. Thomas ad loc.) may derive from Callimachus’ himself. In particular, the repeated ‘Κ]εῖριν … Κ]εῖριν’ would be cleverly represented by Vergil’s repeated ‘secat… secat’ (i.e. Vergil’s etymology for Κ]εῖριν)].
]..[
]ρπον δαυ[
]ο̣ἰωνὸς ἀν' ἐ[
Κ]εῖριν φῆ π̣ρ̣[
5 ]ν ῥ̣έξειν α.[
]..εμάτη̣[
]τε̣λεσο̣[
].τ̣τω δ' ἦλθ[
Κ]εῖριν ἰδε.[
10 ]..ι̣.[
Call. Aet. Fr. 113 Pf.
apparet liquido sublimis in aere Nisus,
et pro purpureo poenas dat Scylla capillo: 405
quacumque illa leuem fugiens secat aethera pennis,
ecce inimicus atrox magno stridore per auras
insequitur Nisus; qua se fert Nisus ad auras,
illa leuem fugiens raptim secat aethera pennis.
Geo. 1.404-409
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] The compound ‘detondeo’ is rare. Ov. Fast. 3.237 and Pers. Sat. 4.38 are the only other instances of the past participle as a central molossus.
[2] Cf. Lyne ad loc.
[3] I have found Cat. 64.350; Verg. A. 4.698; Manil. Astr. 1.835 (a shooting star); Ov. Met. 4.558; 13.430; Mart. Ep. 1.31.1; Stat. Theb. 1.90; 6.607; 8.344; Lucan BC 1.188; Val. Flacc. Arg. 1.412; Sil. Pun. 3.284 as well as the two instances in the Ciris.
[4] Particularly striking is the relationship between this line and the muddled Ciris 185
'purpureum patris dempsissem uertice crinem' (Ciris 281)
‘ut patris, a demens, crinem de uertice †serum’ (Ciris 185)
[5] Schol. Bern. ad Ecl. 6.74 gives ‘tonsilla’ as the Latin for ‘ciris’: ‘in avem, quae ‘ciris’ dicitur, Latine vero ‘tonsilla’, conversa est.’.
[6] ‘Importantly’, since this tends to demonstrate that the etymologizing play was already current in Latin poetry.
[7] Vergil’s glancing reference (without naming the Ciris-bird at all) again suggests that the etymologizing play was already current, as does his use of the word ‘seco’ where the other Latin poets referred to use ‘tondeo’.
[8] Callimachus seems to have mentioned the Scylla myth more than once: Aet. Fr. 113 Pf. and Hec. Fr. 288 Pf. = 90 Hollis. The latter refers to a different etymology. The former is extremely fragmentary but the repeated ‘K]ειριν’ may suggest that the κειρω etymology is in play. Hesychius’ ‘κειρει – τεμνει, κατεσθιει’; ‘κειρις – ορνεον. ιεραξ. οι δε αλκυονα’ may reflect Callimachus (‘κειρει – τεμνει, κατεσθιει’ the first meaning is apt of Scylla cutting off Nisus’ lock, the second of the Nisus, transformed into a predatory bird). Nonnus Dionysiaca 25.148-175 is likely to echo some Hellenistic Greek treatment, possibly Callimachus’ or possibly Parthenius' (or possibly both). Interesting in the context of the present discussion is Nonnus Dion. 25.162 ‘ἥλικα πορφυρέης ἀπεκείρατο βότρυν ἐθείρης’, noting first the use of the compound‘ἀπεκείρατο’ and, second, the resemblance of this line to the lines collected from the Ciris: (‘πορφυρέης’ ~ purpureus; ‘βότρυν’ ~ ‘crinis’ and the structure of Nonnus’ line is similar to a Latin golden line). Nonnus Dion. 25.164 ‘βόστρυχον ἀμήσασα πολισσούχοιο καρήνου’ appears to derive from Callimachus Hec. Fr. 288 Pf. = 90 Hollis. It is not likely that Nonnus went to Latin poets nor, in my view, that the Ciris poet went directly to Greek poets (not even Parthenius, pace the view of most who have looked at the Ciris). Rather any resemblance between the Ciris and Nonnus is more likely to reflect a neoteric Latin poet imitating a Hellenistic Greek poet (Nonnus imitating the Hellenistic poet directly; the Ciris poet imitating a neoteric Latin poet’s adaptation of the Hellenistic poet).
[9] Homer also uses αποκειρω of Achilles cutting off his lock as a dedication to Patroclus corpse: ‘στὰς ἀπάνευθε πυρῆς ξανθὴν ἀπεκείρατο χαίτην’. This lock had been promised as a dedication to the river Spercheus on Achilles’ return home. The circumstances of Berenice’s promise are not dissimilar and one could easily imagine Callimachus wishing to allude to the Iliad in the Berenice episode. I note again Nonnus 25.162 use of the exact same form ‘ἥλικα πορφυρέης ἀπεκείρατο βότρυν ἐθείρης’.
Bill Walderman
Feb 10, 2012, 6:07:01 PM2/10/12
to Mantovano
Even though detonsum may not show up very often in Latin verse, isn't
detondeo a word a Latin poet would use to denote cutting off a lock of
hair from someone's head? The word detonsum may be rare in Latin
verse just because I don't think there are all that many people in the
surviving corpus of Latin poetry--apart from Nisus and Berenice--who
get locks of hair cut off. If you specify the body part from which
the lock is cut, it strikes me that you would probably use a form of
detondeo rather than tondeo. And of course the body part goes in the
ablative, and uertice is the natural word because it's easier to fit
into hexameter than capite. So I'm not sure that the collacation of
crinem+detonsum+uertice in the same vicinity would necessarily imply a
relationship.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
detondeo a word a Latin poet would use to denote cutting off a lock of
hair from someone's head? The word detonsum may be rare in Latin
verse just because I don't think there are all that many people in the
surviving corpus of Latin poetry--apart from Nisus and Berenice--who
get locks of hair cut off. If you specify the body part from which
the lock is cut, it strikes me that you would probably use a form of
detondeo rather than tondeo. And of course the body part goes in the
ablative, and uertice is the natural word because it's easier to fit
into hexameter than capite. So I'm not sure that the collacation of
crinem+detonsum+uertice in the same vicinity would necessarily imply a
relationship.
falmouth
Feb 12, 2012, 6:21:08 AM2/12/12
to mant...@googlegroups.com
(1) Another one to add to that list of 'hair-cutting-offs' would be Dido at Aen. 4.698ff (which includes one of the instances of the clausula 'vertice crinem' in the list in my first post).
nondum illi flauum Proserpina *uertice crinem*
*abstulerat* Stygioque caput damnauerat Orco.
ergo Iris croceis per caelum roscida pennis 700
mille trahens uarios aduerso sole colores
deuolat et supra caput astitit. 'hunc ego Diti
sacrum iussa fero teque isto corpore soluo':
sic ait et dextra crinem *secat*, omnis et una
dilapsus calor atque in uentos uita recessit.
Interestingly for my purposes, Lyne 'Vergil's Aeneid, Subversion by intertextuality' = 'Collected Papers' (2007) 170ff at esp. 171 sees an allusion here to Berenice. His point would be reinforced if Vergil knew a line ending 'vertice crinem' dealing with Berenice (there is not one in Catullus 66).
(2) I agree 'vertice' is very natural for 'head' (and it's of course the word Catullus famously used of Berenice's head: 'tuo de vertice cessi'; and further 'Bereniceo vertice at Cat. 66.8 is obviously sufficient to explain its presence at AL916; and, further, this position in the hexameter is very natural. I don't, however, think 'tondeo' or 'detondeo' is that obvious a word to use in poetry for the cutting off of hair: after all it's not one used by Catullus. The impression I get is that one might naturally use 'tondeo' of and beards, but not (women's) hair. So, although I agree with the thrust of your points, I do maintain that the resemblance between AL916.8 and Ciris 185-6 cannot be coincidental.
(3) But the really interesting point here is not just the coincidence between AL916.8 and Ciris 185-6, where all we are arguing about is a question of degree of coincidence. Rather the point is that AL 916.8 looks very much like what one glimpses through the muddle which is at Ciris 185-6, a muddle which is highly likely (for this is the Ciris poet's usual method) to result from the recombination of a (neoteric) model [1].
(4) So the point seems to me to be very much like 'captare soporem' AL 914.93 ~ Ciris 343: a near unique phrase, making sense in [Gallus] but nonsense in the Ciris; similarly: AL 914.2 'signa referre Iovi' ~ Eleg. Maec. 90: a half-pentameter, perfect sense in [Gallus], but difficult (at least) in Eleg. Maec.
(5) I referred to the possibility that 'detonsum' might reflect Callimachus using a part of 'αποκειρω' by reference to, in particular, Nonnus. Here is the relevant part of Nonnus (i.e. that corresponding to Catullus 66.31-8): Nonnus’ Συναγωγη ιστοριων – 'ηυξατο, οτι ει υποστρεψει ατρωτος των πλοκαμων εαυτης αποκαρμα αναθησει αναθημα εν τῳ ιερῳ. και ανεθηκεν η Βερονικη τον πλοκαμον αποκειρασα τον εαυτης υποστρεψαντος του Πτολεμαιου. Κονων δε τις ην αστρονομος επι των αυτης χρονων ο προς κολακειαν αυτης φησιν οτι οι θεοι τον πλοκαμον τουτον εν αστροις ανεθηκαν.'. I got excited about 'αποκειρασα' but what is more striking is the fantastically rare word 'αποκαρμα' i.e. a noun formed from αποκειρω. LSJ has no entry for αποκαρμα, but defines καρμα as 'κάρμα , ατος, τό, (κείρω) A. wool shorn off, Hsch.; cream skimmed off, Id.'. According to Schmidt's edition of Hesychius (I haven't checked Latte), the entry for καρμα (nothing for αποκαρμα) appears as follows: 'καρμα: γλευκος. το πρωτον αποθλιβομενον δια των χειρων. και κορευμα' (Hesychius). So, a word which would be especially apt of Berenice's lock as a 'first-offering' (cf. γλευκος) and ambiguous with her virginity [2] (cf. 'κορευμα'). If '[απο]καρμα' appeared in Callimachus (and where one finds such rarities in epitomisers this is a natural suspicion) , one would suspect that it was in the line translated by Cat. 66.38 'pristina vota novo munere dissoluo.'.
(6) So much for AL 916.8. AL 916.12-3 is also fascinating:
Quum quatit, et caudam Junonius explicat ales,
Mille oculos, gemmas mille decenter habet.
The poet is obviously referring to the peacock 'Iunonius... ales', and referencing the episode in the Io myth whereby the eyes of the slain Argus become the markings on the peacock's feathers (that this episode is in play, is indicated not only by 'Iunonius' (referring to Argus as Juno's agent), but also by 'mille oculos'; moreover, by the fact that there seem to be a series of three references to metamorphoses myths here: Berenice's lock; Callisto; Argus). Of course a forger would get the necessary information re Argus from e.g. Ovid, but someone enthusing about the possibility that this is not a forgery, would see a reference to Catullus balanced by a reference to Calvus' Io (and a reference to a neoteric treatment of Callisto in between - cf. Hollis adesp. sel. Fr. 238 and 239). With that in mind (on the hazardous assumption that anyone is interested in indulging me...), I offer the question - 'how many eyes did Argus have?'.
[1] I am not beholden to the suggestion that AL916 is the Ciris' model: an alternative (in some ways more attractive) is that AL916 knows the Ciris' model.
[2] Here one cannot ignore the lines of Catullus 66 - apparently - not reflecting Callimachus - i.e. the nuptial rite at Cat. 66.79-88. I have wondered whether the solution to that chestnut could be that in Callimachus, the rite was referred to in the question/prompt which *preceded* Fr. 110 Pf. which would not have made a particularly effective introduction to a stand-alone piece, but Catullus had to explain this somewhere (I don't think that such a suggestion is necessarily precluded by the fact that Fr. 110.1 Pf. is the line cited by the diegesis).
nondum illi flauum Proserpina *uertice crinem*
*abstulerat* Stygioque caput damnauerat Orco.
ergo Iris croceis per caelum roscida pennis 700
mille trahens uarios aduerso sole colores
deuolat et supra caput astitit. 'hunc ego Diti
sacrum iussa fero teque isto corpore soluo':
sic ait et dextra crinem *secat*, omnis et una
dilapsus calor atque in uentos uita recessit.
Interestingly for my purposes, Lyne 'Vergil's Aeneid, Subversion by intertextuality' = 'Collected Papers' (2007) 170ff at esp. 171 sees an allusion here to Berenice. His point would be reinforced if Vergil knew a line ending 'vertice crinem' dealing with Berenice (there is not one in Catullus 66).
(2) I agree 'vertice' is very natural for 'head' (and it's of course the word Catullus famously used of Berenice's head: 'tuo de vertice cessi'; and further 'Bereniceo vertice at Cat. 66.8 is obviously sufficient to explain its presence at AL916; and, further, this position in the hexameter is very natural. I don't, however, think 'tondeo' or 'detondeo' is that obvious a word to use in poetry for the cutting off of hair: after all it's not one used by Catullus. The impression I get is that one might naturally use 'tondeo' of and beards, but not (women's) hair. So, although I agree with the thrust of your points, I do maintain that the resemblance between AL916.8 and Ciris 185-6 cannot be coincidental.
(3) But the really interesting point here is not just the coincidence between AL916.8 and Ciris 185-6, where all we are arguing about is a question of degree of coincidence. Rather the point is that AL 916.8 looks very much like what one glimpses through the muddle which is at Ciris 185-6, a muddle which is highly likely (for this is the Ciris poet's usual method) to result from the recombination of a (neoteric) model [1].
(4) So the point seems to me to be very much like 'captare soporem' AL 914.93 ~ Ciris 343: a near unique phrase, making sense in [Gallus] but nonsense in the Ciris; similarly: AL 914.2 'signa referre Iovi' ~ Eleg. Maec. 90: a half-pentameter, perfect sense in [Gallus], but difficult (at least) in Eleg. Maec.
(5) I referred to the possibility that 'detonsum' might reflect Callimachus using a part of 'αποκειρω' by reference to, in particular, Nonnus. Here is the relevant part of Nonnus (i.e. that corresponding to Catullus 66.31-8): Nonnus’ Συναγωγη ιστοριων – 'ηυξατο, οτι ει υποστρεψει ατρωτος των πλοκαμων εαυτης αποκαρμα αναθησει αναθημα εν τῳ ιερῳ. και ανεθηκεν η Βερονικη τον πλοκαμον αποκειρασα τον εαυτης υποστρεψαντος του Πτολεμαιου. Κονων δε τις ην αστρονομος επι των αυτης χρονων ο προς κολακειαν αυτης φησιν οτι οι θεοι τον πλοκαμον τουτον εν αστροις ανεθηκαν.'. I got excited about 'αποκειρασα' but what is more striking is the fantastically rare word 'αποκαρμα' i.e. a noun formed from αποκειρω. LSJ has no entry for αποκαρμα, but defines καρμα as 'κάρμα , ατος, τό, (κείρω) A. wool shorn off, Hsch.; cream skimmed off, Id.'. According to Schmidt's edition of Hesychius (I haven't checked Latte), the entry for καρμα (nothing for αποκαρμα) appears as follows: 'καρμα: γλευκος. το πρωτον αποθλιβομενον δια των χειρων. και κορευμα' (Hesychius). So, a word which would be especially apt of Berenice's lock as a 'first-offering' (cf. γλευκος) and ambiguous with her virginity [2] (cf. 'κορευμα'). If '[απο]καρμα' appeared in Callimachus (and where one finds such rarities in epitomisers this is a natural suspicion) , one would suspect that it was in the line translated by Cat. 66.38 'pristina vota novo munere dissoluo.'.
(6) So much for AL 916.8. AL 916.12-3 is also fascinating:
Quum quatit, et caudam Junonius explicat ales,
Mille oculos, gemmas mille decenter habet.
The poet is obviously referring to the peacock 'Iunonius... ales', and referencing the episode in the Io myth whereby the eyes of the slain Argus become the markings on the peacock's feathers (that this episode is in play, is indicated not only by 'Iunonius' (referring to Argus as Juno's agent), but also by 'mille oculos'; moreover, by the fact that there seem to be a series of three references to metamorphoses myths here: Berenice's lock; Callisto; Argus). Of course a forger would get the necessary information re Argus from e.g. Ovid, but someone enthusing about the possibility that this is not a forgery, would see a reference to Catullus balanced by a reference to Calvus' Io (and a reference to a neoteric treatment of Callisto in between - cf. Hollis adesp. sel. Fr. 238 and 239). With that in mind (on the hazardous assumption that anyone is interested in indulging me...), I offer the question - 'how many eyes did Argus have?'.
[1] I am not beholden to the suggestion that AL916 is the Ciris' model: an alternative (in some ways more attractive) is that AL916 knows the Ciris' model.
[2] Here one cannot ignore the lines of Catullus 66 - apparently - not reflecting Callimachus - i.e. the nuptial rite at Cat. 66.79-88. I have wondered whether the solution to that chestnut could be that in Callimachus, the rite was referred to in the question/prompt which *preceded* Fr. 110 Pf. which would not have made a particularly effective introduction to a stand-alone piece, but Catullus had to explain this somewhere (I don't think that such a suggestion is necessarily precluded by the fact that Fr. 110.1 Pf. is the line cited by the diegesis).
Yvan Nadeau
Feb 12, 2012, 7:08:16 AM2/12/12
to mant...@googlegroups.com
You might find something relevant in Jeffrey Wills, "Divided Allusion:
Virgil and the Coma Berenices" in HSPh 98, 1988, p. 277-305.
yn
Yvan Nadeau
yvann...@btinternet.com
3/13 Forrest Hill
EDINBURGH EH1 2QL
0131-225-8240
http://www.shca.ed.ac.uk/staff/hon_fellows/ynadeau/index.html
Virgil and the Coma Berenices" in HSPh 98, 1988, p. 277-305.
yn
Yvan Nadeau
yvann...@btinternet.com
3/13 Forrest Hill
EDINBURGH EH1 2QL
0131-225-8240
http://www.shca.ed.ac.uk/staff/hon_fellows/ynadeau/index.html
falmouth
Feb 12, 2012, 8:00:19 AM2/12/12
to mant...@googlegroups.com
Thanks, Yvan, I will read that article - I know from your article (1989) 'Aristaeus: Augustus: Berenice: Aeneas' Mnemosyne 42 pp. 97-101' that you too see that Callimachus' Berenice is important for Vergil's Dido.
falmouth
Feb 12, 2012, 8:01:15 AM2/12/12
to mant...@googlegroups.com
Btw, at (2) of my second post I meant to write 'The impression I get is that one might naturally use 'tondeo' of *sheep* and beards, but not (women's) hair.'
Leofranc Holford-Strevens
Feb 12, 2012, 9:42:02 AM2/12/12
to mant...@googlegroups.com
But then this isn't exactly a normal ladies' hairdresser job.
falmouth
Feb 12, 2012, 10:57:01 AM2/12/12
to mant...@googlegroups.com
Indeed, but the point I was rebutting was the suggestion that this was an obvious word to use - i.e. to point to the singularity of the context, seems to me to count *against* the suggestion that it would be the first word which a poet dealing with 'tricho-tomy' of whatever sort might use.
Leofranc Holford-Strevens
Feb 12, 2012, 11:15:23 AM2/12/12
to mant...@googlegroups.com
I took you to be saying that (de)tondeo wasn't the obvious word to use of a
woman's hair; that is to say, your reasoning was: if a poet wished to
describe a woman having her hair dressed, this is not the first word he
would use. My point is that since the poet is not describing a woman having
her hair dressed, nothing can be inferred about the use of the verb; when
the antecedent is denied, the consequent is neither proved nor refuted. For
my money it *it* the obvious word, as being specific to the cutting of hair
(or wool);; of course seco is available, but that is a general term
available whatever is being cut.
woman's hair; that is to say, your reasoning was: if a poet wished to
describe a woman having her hair dressed, this is not the first word he
would use. My point is that since the poet is not describing a woman having
her hair dressed, nothing can be inferred about the use of the verb; when
the antecedent is denied, the consequent is neither proved nor refuted. For
my money it *it* the obvious word, as being specific to the cutting of hair
(or wool);; of course seco is available, but that is a general term
available whatever is being cut.
Yvan Nadeau
Feb 12, 2012, 8:36:10 AM2/12/12
to mant...@googlegroups.com
My first notice of the link Berenice/Dido (just in case you have not
come across it is
"Caesaries
Berenices - or the hair of the god”, Latomus,
41(1982)101-103
yn
yn
Yvan Nadeau yvann...@btinternet.com 3/13 Forrest Hill EDINBURGH EH1 2QL 0131-225-8240 http://www.shca.ed.ac.uk/staff/hon_fellows/ynadeau/index.html
falmouth
Feb 12, 2012, 12:11:37 PM2/12/12
to mant...@googlegroups.com
OK, I see and your point is taken.
So you would deny *any* relationship (or at least, I suppose, any necessary relationship) between
E Berenice*o detonsum* *vertice* *crinem*
(AL 916.8)
ut patris, a demens, *crinem* de *uertice* †serum
furtiue argut*o detonsum* mitteret hosti.
(Ciris 185-6)
and would seek a different solution to the muddle which is Ciris 185-6 (or, at least, maintain that the solution to that muddle is a wholly independent question)? This seems to me to be an extreme reaction given that there is the 'captare soporem' phrase which also seems to bear some relationship to the Ciris. I.e. I would have thought the natural reaction to these two points together would be that the forger knows and makes use of the Ciris, but presumably the resistance to that suggestion is the recognition that the lines make less sense in the Ciris?
(by the way, I'm not meaning to suggest that you're obliged to take any position, other than the eminently sane one which you've adopted generally re these poems...!)
I'm also interested in your reaction - if you have one - to the similarity: AL 914.2 'signa referre Iovi' ~ Eleg. Maec. 90 (these are *uniquely* identical half-pentameters), but again near-nonsense in what one would imagine to be the 'source'.
So you would deny *any* relationship (or at least, I suppose, any necessary relationship) between
E Berenice*o detonsum* *vertice* *crinem*
(AL 916.8)
ut patris, a demens, *crinem* de *uertice* †serum
furtiue argut*o detonsum* mitteret hosti.
(Ciris 185-6)
and would seek a different solution to the muddle which is Ciris 185-6 (or, at least, maintain that the solution to that muddle is a wholly independent question)? This seems to me to be an extreme reaction given that there is the 'captare soporem' phrase which also seems to bear some relationship to the Ciris. I.e. I would have thought the natural reaction to these two points together would be that the forger knows and makes use of the Ciris, but presumably the resistance to that suggestion is the recognition that the lines make less sense in the Ciris?
(by the way, I'm not meaning to suggest that you're obliged to take any position, other than the eminently sane one which you've adopted generally re these poems...!)
I'm also interested in your reaction - if you have one - to the similarity: AL 914.2 'signa referre Iovi' ~ Eleg. Maec. 90 (these are *uniquely* identical half-pentameters), but again near-nonsense in what one would imagine to be the 'source'.
Leofranc Holford-Strevens
Feb 12, 2012, 12:39:57 PM2/12/12
to mant...@googlegroups.com
The forger did not need to make sense of what he found in the Ciris, only to
pick out words that did make sense and combine them more neatly (and 'e
Bereniceo uertice' was to hand in Catullus 66. 8), nor did it matter that on
close examination signa referre Ioui did not make sense in the Maecenas
elegy, only that he could make use of it--that is if he found it there; have
you checked Cinquecento editions to make sure they did not print the
humanistic emendation uina?. On the other hand, if you want the AL poet to
be Gallus, then either the elegist was so keen on copying him that he
permitted himself to write nonsense, or the text is corrupt, and borrowing
could have extended only to referre Ioui was borrowed, which is a
collocation that might have occurred to anyone.
pick out words that did make sense and combine them more neatly (and 'e
Bereniceo uertice' was to hand in Catullus 66. 8), nor did it matter that on
close examination signa referre Ioui did not make sense in the Maecenas
elegy, only that he could make use of it--that is if he found it there; have
you checked Cinquecento editions to make sure they did not print the
humanistic emendation uina?. On the other hand, if you want the AL poet to
be Gallus, then either the elegist was so keen on copying him that he
permitted himself to write nonsense, or the text is corrupt, and borrowing
could have extended only to referre Ioui was borrowed, which is a
collocation that might have occurred to anyone.
falmouth
Feb 14, 2012, 9:59:20 AM2/14/12
to mant...@googlegroups.com
Thanks, and no I haven't managed to check what might have been printed in the 1500s - I would be interested, but it's beyond my immediate resources.
I suppose (coincidentally congruent independent composition aside) if 'vina' was printed that might be some evidence against forgery, for one would have to account for the coincidence that 'signa referre Iovi' appears only in AL916 and a text not (readily) available to the forger.
But equally, if 'signa' was printed and is not a correct reading (but how to resolve that?), that would be powerful evidence of forgery.
It's hard to give up on 'signa' at Eleg. Maec. given 'aquilas' in Eleg. Maec. 89 and Ganymede being Jupiter's 'signifer', but I don't have any particular solution to the sense of 89-90.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages