Ner(e)ine Galatea (Ecl. 7.37)
16 views
Skip to first unread message
falmouth
Jul 28, 2009, 10:15:33 AM7/28/09
to Mantovano
1. Ecl. 7.37
“Nerine Galatea, thymo mihi dulcior Hyblae”
2. “Nerine” as both Coleman and Clausen point out is both a rare
epithet and unusually formed.
3. Catullus 64.28 apparently has “tene Thetis tenuit pulcherrima
Nereine?”[1]. This accords with “Nereine” at Opp. Hal. 1.386; Quint.
Smyrn. 3.125, 596; 4.128, which, as Clausen on Ecl. 7.37 notes,
doubtless reflects a Hellenistic precedent. To Clausen’s note,
however, one should add that there is an entry for “Nereine” in the
Suda, which Hollis attributes by application of (an extension of)
Hecker’s law to Callimachus’ Hecale[2].
4. Mentioned by Coleman, but not Clausen, is that Vergil revisits the
question of the ‘correct’ epithet to describe a daughter of Nereus, he
comes up with an even more rare construction “qualis Nereia Doto / et
Galatea secant spumantem pectore pontum.” (Aen. 9.101-2). Tib.
1.5.45-6, on the other hand, has the more conventional formulation
“Nereis... Thetis” (cf. very regularly, the plural ‘Nereides’).
5. Schol. Veron. on Ecl. 7.37 (not mentioned by either Clausen or
Coleman), so far as it can be read, comments: “Galatea, Nerei filia, a
Polyphemo cyclope adamata complexum eius evitans in mare se
praecipitavit ut ...... alii Corneli epitheton. Dicit Nerine, ut
declararet, Siculam esse Galateam. Nerine Galatea ... nam oceanina.”.
6. Here, I think, “alii Corneli epitheton” should be taken to mean
that an earlier commentator identified “Nerine” as an epithet used by
Cornelius Gallus. The identification of Cornelius Gallus solely as
‘Cornelius’ can be paralleled elsewhere in the Vergilian commentary
tradition. Servius on Ecl. 6. refers to “sicut ex oratione Cornelii in
Alfenum ostenditur: Cum iussus tria millia passus a muro in diversa
relinquere, ut octingentos passus aquae, quae circumdata est,
admetireris, relinquistis.”, where Cornelius must be intended to
identify Cornelius Gallus, who was known by the commentary tradition
to be involved in the land confiscations, together with Alfenus Varus.
Servius on Aen. 7.455 comments “exarsit in iras: communis sermo habet
'ardeo in illa re' sed figuratius 'ardeo in illam rem' dicimus. et est
specialis Cornelii elocutio.”[3].
7. One can, perhaps, suggest a plausible context for Cornelius Gallus’
suggested use of this epithet. Prop. 1.8a is generally thought to be
modelled on a Gallan propemptikon for Lycoris which is alluded to by
Vergil at Ecl. 10.46-9[4]: this is where the Servian comment to the
effect that Vergil’s lines are taken from Gallus appears; compare
especially Ecl. 10.49-50 with Prop. 1.8a.7-8. Prop. 1.8a in turn
influences Ov. Am. 2.11. It would be surprising if Ovid did not also
look to the Gallan original. Not only do both poems mention Galatea,
but they share exactly a half-pentameter: “sit Galatea tuae” (Prop.
1.8a.18 ~ Ov. Am. 2.11.34). The context is a wish that Galatea may be
favourable to the journey, playing off, it seems, the etymological
connection felt between Galatea and Greek ‘galene’ (calmness at sea)
[5]. It is plausible that Gallus too will have expressed such a wish,
referring to Galatea, describing her with the epithet “Nerine”[6].
This suggestion receives incidental support from the fact that in the
next pentameter after Ovid’s mention of “Galatea”, Ovid refers to
“Nereidesque deae Nereidumque pater.”.
8. Finally, on the difference between “Nereine” and “Nerine”: the
orthography of Gallus Fr. 2 Courtney suggests that Gallus will have
written “Nereine” even if he intended it to be read “Nerine”: that is,
Gallus may have intended “Nereine” (as per Catullus 64.28) with, in
principle, four long syllables but three long syllables by contraction
of “e i” to “ei”. rather than having formed “Nerine” from “Ner-“ +
“ine” (cf. Coleman ad 7.37 – “it is just possible that Vergil wrote
Nereine with contraction of “e i” to “ei””)?
[1] “Nereine” Haupt’s emendation for “nectine”. This reading is
fortified by Tib. 1.5.45-6 “Nereis... Thetis”.
[2] The attribution to Callimachus is probably correct, but as Hollis
himself notes, there are unattributed poetical glosses in the Suda
which appear to derive from other works of Callimachus, in particular,
Nonakrine appears to come from the Aetia. It is not easy to find an
obvious context for “Nereine” in Callimachus’ Hecale. In the context
of the present discussion, it should perhaps be noted that Callimachus
wrote a poem entitled Galatea of which precious little is known. Could
Nereine/Nerine have come from that poem? Could it even have been the
first word of that poem: cf. ‘Aktaie’ as a learned epithet to
introduce the Hecale (which could explain its apparent familiarity in
the Suda even though Callimachus’ Galatea doubtless became obscure at
a relatively early stage)?
[3] Cairns (2006) 101-2 identifies this “Cornelii” as Cornelius Gallus
and thereby postulates that Gallus influenced Culex 409; Ov. Met.
5.41; and Mart. Spect. 9.43 (to which, add, perhaps, Sil. Pun. 9.525
“succendit in iras” if not directly from Vergil). Cairns does not
mention Schol. Veron. on Ecl. 7.37.
[4] Gallus will also have no doubt been influenced by both Parthenius’
and CInna’s propemptika.
[5] Morgan (1977) 75 note 11 comments “such an appeal to Galatea is
found in no other extant Latin propemptikon”.
[6] Cf. Ecl. 10.48 “A, te ne frigora laedant!” for apparent
confirmation that Gallus was concerned that Lycoris should not come to
harm even though she is apparently leaving him.
“Nerine Galatea, thymo mihi dulcior Hyblae”
2. “Nerine” as both Coleman and Clausen point out is both a rare
epithet and unusually formed.
3. Catullus 64.28 apparently has “tene Thetis tenuit pulcherrima
Nereine?”[1]. This accords with “Nereine” at Opp. Hal. 1.386; Quint.
Smyrn. 3.125, 596; 4.128, which, as Clausen on Ecl. 7.37 notes,
doubtless reflects a Hellenistic precedent. To Clausen’s note,
however, one should add that there is an entry for “Nereine” in the
Suda, which Hollis attributes by application of (an extension of)
Hecker’s law to Callimachus’ Hecale[2].
4. Mentioned by Coleman, but not Clausen, is that Vergil revisits the
question of the ‘correct’ epithet to describe a daughter of Nereus, he
comes up with an even more rare construction “qualis Nereia Doto / et
Galatea secant spumantem pectore pontum.” (Aen. 9.101-2). Tib.
1.5.45-6, on the other hand, has the more conventional formulation
“Nereis... Thetis” (cf. very regularly, the plural ‘Nereides’).
5. Schol. Veron. on Ecl. 7.37 (not mentioned by either Clausen or
Coleman), so far as it can be read, comments: “Galatea, Nerei filia, a
Polyphemo cyclope adamata complexum eius evitans in mare se
praecipitavit ut ...... alii Corneli epitheton. Dicit Nerine, ut
declararet, Siculam esse Galateam. Nerine Galatea ... nam oceanina.”.
6. Here, I think, “alii Corneli epitheton” should be taken to mean
that an earlier commentator identified “Nerine” as an epithet used by
Cornelius Gallus. The identification of Cornelius Gallus solely as
‘Cornelius’ can be paralleled elsewhere in the Vergilian commentary
tradition. Servius on Ecl. 6. refers to “sicut ex oratione Cornelii in
Alfenum ostenditur: Cum iussus tria millia passus a muro in diversa
relinquere, ut octingentos passus aquae, quae circumdata est,
admetireris, relinquistis.”, where Cornelius must be intended to
identify Cornelius Gallus, who was known by the commentary tradition
to be involved in the land confiscations, together with Alfenus Varus.
Servius on Aen. 7.455 comments “exarsit in iras: communis sermo habet
'ardeo in illa re' sed figuratius 'ardeo in illam rem' dicimus. et est
specialis Cornelii elocutio.”[3].
7. One can, perhaps, suggest a plausible context for Cornelius Gallus’
suggested use of this epithet. Prop. 1.8a is generally thought to be
modelled on a Gallan propemptikon for Lycoris which is alluded to by
Vergil at Ecl. 10.46-9[4]: this is where the Servian comment to the
effect that Vergil’s lines are taken from Gallus appears; compare
especially Ecl. 10.49-50 with Prop. 1.8a.7-8. Prop. 1.8a in turn
influences Ov. Am. 2.11. It would be surprising if Ovid did not also
look to the Gallan original. Not only do both poems mention Galatea,
but they share exactly a half-pentameter: “sit Galatea tuae” (Prop.
1.8a.18 ~ Ov. Am. 2.11.34). The context is a wish that Galatea may be
favourable to the journey, playing off, it seems, the etymological
connection felt between Galatea and Greek ‘galene’ (calmness at sea)
[5]. It is plausible that Gallus too will have expressed such a wish,
referring to Galatea, describing her with the epithet “Nerine”[6].
This suggestion receives incidental support from the fact that in the
next pentameter after Ovid’s mention of “Galatea”, Ovid refers to
“Nereidesque deae Nereidumque pater.”.
8. Finally, on the difference between “Nereine” and “Nerine”: the
orthography of Gallus Fr. 2 Courtney suggests that Gallus will have
written “Nereine” even if he intended it to be read “Nerine”: that is,
Gallus may have intended “Nereine” (as per Catullus 64.28) with, in
principle, four long syllables but three long syllables by contraction
of “e i” to “ei”. rather than having formed “Nerine” from “Ner-“ +
“ine” (cf. Coleman ad 7.37 – “it is just possible that Vergil wrote
Nereine with contraction of “e i” to “ei””)?
[1] “Nereine” Haupt’s emendation for “nectine”. This reading is
fortified by Tib. 1.5.45-6 “Nereis... Thetis”.
[2] The attribution to Callimachus is probably correct, but as Hollis
himself notes, there are unattributed poetical glosses in the Suda
which appear to derive from other works of Callimachus, in particular,
Nonakrine appears to come from the Aetia. It is not easy to find an
obvious context for “Nereine” in Callimachus’ Hecale. In the context
of the present discussion, it should perhaps be noted that Callimachus
wrote a poem entitled Galatea of which precious little is known. Could
Nereine/Nerine have come from that poem? Could it even have been the
first word of that poem: cf. ‘Aktaie’ as a learned epithet to
introduce the Hecale (which could explain its apparent familiarity in
the Suda even though Callimachus’ Galatea doubtless became obscure at
a relatively early stage)?
[3] Cairns (2006) 101-2 identifies this “Cornelii” as Cornelius Gallus
and thereby postulates that Gallus influenced Culex 409; Ov. Met.
5.41; and Mart. Spect. 9.43 (to which, add, perhaps, Sil. Pun. 9.525
“succendit in iras” if not directly from Vergil). Cairns does not
mention Schol. Veron. on Ecl. 7.37.
[4] Gallus will also have no doubt been influenced by both Parthenius’
and CInna’s propemptika.
[5] Morgan (1977) 75 note 11 comments “such an appeal to Galatea is
found in no other extant Latin propemptikon”.
[6] Cf. Ecl. 10.48 “A, te ne frigora laedant!” for apparent
confirmation that Gallus was concerned that Lycoris should not come to
harm even though she is apparently leaving him.
Leofranc Holford-Strevens
Jul 28, 2009, 2:36:59 PM7/28/09
to mant...@googlegroups.com
Contraction of eta and long iota is out of the question in Greek; for Latin,
contraction of long e + long i to long i is rather hard to swallow as a
phonetic development in a markedly literary word, even though it occurred in
the genitive singular of the fifth declension (diel/dii); From the Greek
point of view, Ner(e)ine as three long syllables is simply an error; the
question is whether, as Clausen suggests, it is an error that a Hellenistic
poet might have made, or only a Roman, since whatever sentimental
classicists used to say Romans were by no means perfect in their Greek.
Either way, we have to accept that Nerine is Ner+ine, for which there might
have been Hellenistic precedent, even if as you suggest the long I was
miswritten EI; neither Greeks nor Romans no longer knew which long I sounds
were correctly written EI and which weren't..
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
contraction of long e + long i to long i is rather hard to swallow as a
phonetic development in a markedly literary word, even though it occurred in
the genitive singular of the fifth declension (diel/dii); From the Greek
point of view, Ner(e)ine as three long syllables is simply an error; the
question is whether, as Clausen suggests, it is an error that a Hellenistic
poet might have made, or only a Roman, since whatever sentimental
classicists used to say Romans were by no means perfect in their Greek.
Either way, we have to accept that Nerine is Ner+ine, for which there might
have been Hellenistic precedent, even if as you suggest the long I was
miswritten EI; neither Greeks nor Romans no longer knew which long I sounds
were correctly written EI and which weren't..
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
Jul 29, 2009, 9:21:23 AM7/29/09
to Mantovano
Thanks, as always, Leofranc.
Is the position this:
(1) If, but only if, Nerine appeared in Greek like that would one have
to assume that it was formed "Ner + ine"
[Is it inevitable in Greek that in forming Nere + ine, the second e
would be an eta?]
(2) If it only appeared as such in Latin, the Latin poet's thinking
might have been either "Ner + ine" or "Nere + ine" with contraction
albeit that latter possibility would be surprising (but perhaps
prompted by e.g. Nerei (- v - contracted to - - ; e.g. Verg. Aen.
3.383? (I realise that that is a contraction which is much easier)).
I tend to think that the fact that the Suda (=Callimachus?), Oppian
and Quintus Smyrnaeus are all consistent with Nereine perhaps
indicates that this was the only form to be found in Hellenistic
poetry. I also get the vague impression that Vergil knows exactly what
he's doing in such matters - i.e. that where the form is surprising
he's engaging with 'mistakes' that others have made - here the fact
the identification of Gallus as the probable source would confirm
that. Is that your impression as well?
Is it at all conceivable that Gallus could have thought of (and have
written) Nereine (- - - or even - v v -) as 'Nere (short -e) + i
(whether long or short) ne', by mistaken analogy with Nereis/Nereides,
a mistake which Vergil 'rescued' him from by writing 'Nerine' (i.e. to
suggest two longs contracted) but which Ovid mercilessly pointed out
in his own imitation "Nereidesque deae Nereidumque pater." - the
second Nereidum insistently guaranteeing that 'ei' it is to be read as
a 'v v' (but, sotto voce, only in Nereides not Nereine).
I have also wondered whether Vergil's "Oceanitides" at Geo. 4.342
(nowhere in Gr. as daughters of Ocean) could be making a related point
- Callimachus only has "Oceaninai" (Hymn 3.13), could Vergil again be
gently poking fun at the way Gallus formed his patronymics, perhaps
specifically the one in question? (assuming that this catalogue has
something to do with Gallus, as e.g. Thomas suggests).
The other completely unrelated point that struck me is the sort of
source that is suggested by the similarity between Serv. on Aen 7.455
and Schol. Veron. on Ecl. 7.37, presumably not the same source as
other references to Gallus in Servius etc. (because of the reference
only to Cornelius), a source which must have had actual knowledge of
Gallus' poetry, and is confined to word-glosses - query whether it may
have had an existence independent of the commentary on Vergil (cf.
where did Quintilian get his information that either Labienus or
Cornelius Gallus wrote "bracae" in a speech against Pollio). Also,
where does Serv. ad Ecl. 9.10, which must be from a relatively early
source, fit into that (the only other place where Gallus is just
Cornelius)?
On Jul 28, 7:36 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> harm even though she is apparently leaving him.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Is the position this:
(1) If, but only if, Nerine appeared in Greek like that would one have
to assume that it was formed "Ner + ine"
[Is it inevitable in Greek that in forming Nere + ine, the second e
would be an eta?]
(2) If it only appeared as such in Latin, the Latin poet's thinking
might have been either "Ner + ine" or "Nere + ine" with contraction
albeit that latter possibility would be surprising (but perhaps
prompted by e.g. Nerei (- v - contracted to - - ; e.g. Verg. Aen.
3.383? (I realise that that is a contraction which is much easier)).
I tend to think that the fact that the Suda (=Callimachus?), Oppian
and Quintus Smyrnaeus are all consistent with Nereine perhaps
indicates that this was the only form to be found in Hellenistic
poetry. I also get the vague impression that Vergil knows exactly what
he's doing in such matters - i.e. that where the form is surprising
he's engaging with 'mistakes' that others have made - here the fact
the identification of Gallus as the probable source would confirm
that. Is that your impression as well?
Is it at all conceivable that Gallus could have thought of (and have
written) Nereine (- - - or even - v v -) as 'Nere (short -e) + i
(whether long or short) ne', by mistaken analogy with Nereis/Nereides,
a mistake which Vergil 'rescued' him from by writing 'Nerine' (i.e. to
suggest two longs contracted) but which Ovid mercilessly pointed out
in his own imitation "Nereidesque deae Nereidumque pater." - the
second Nereidum insistently guaranteeing that 'ei' it is to be read as
a 'v v' (but, sotto voce, only in Nereides not Nereine).
I have also wondered whether Vergil's "Oceanitides" at Geo. 4.342
(nowhere in Gr. as daughters of Ocean) could be making a related point
- Callimachus only has "Oceaninai" (Hymn 3.13), could Vergil again be
gently poking fun at the way Gallus formed his patronymics, perhaps
specifically the one in question? (assuming that this catalogue has
something to do with Gallus, as e.g. Thomas suggests).
The other completely unrelated point that struck me is the sort of
source that is suggested by the similarity between Serv. on Aen 7.455
and Schol. Veron. on Ecl. 7.37, presumably not the same source as
other references to Gallus in Servius etc. (because of the reference
only to Cornelius), a source which must have had actual knowledge of
Gallus' poetry, and is confined to word-glosses - query whether it may
have had an existence independent of the commentary on Vergil (cf.
where did Quintilian get his information that either Labienus or
Cornelius Gallus wrote "bracae" in a speech against Pollio). Also,
where does Serv. ad Ecl. 9.10, which must be from a relatively early
source, fit into that (the only other place where Gallus is just
Cornelius)?
On Jul 28, 7:36 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
>
> - Show quoted text -
au...@gellius.demon.co.uk
Jul 29, 2009, 10:13:27 AM7/29/09
to mant...@googlegroups.com, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk
>Is the position this:
>(1) If, but only if, Nerine appeared in Greek like that would one have >to assume that it was formed "Ner + ine"
Yes.
>(1) If, but only if, Nerine appeared in Greek like that would one have >to assume that it was formed "Ner + ine"
>[Is it inevitable in Greek that in forming Nere + ine, the second e >would be an eta?]
>(2) If it only appeared as such in Latin, the Latin poet's thinking >might have been either "Ner + ine" or "Nere + ine" with contraction >albeit that latter possibility would be surprising (but perhaps >prompted by e.g. Nerei (- v - contracted to - - ; e.g. Verg. Aen.
>3.383
>? (I realise that that is a contraction which is much easier)).
Nereidum 3. 74 is easily enough scanned as – v v -; in any case epsilon + short i is a normal Attic contraction, as in Atreides > Latin Atrides.
>I tend to think that the fact that the Suda (=Callimachus?), Oppian >and Quintus Smyrnaeus are all consistent with Nereine perhaps >indicates that this was the only form to be found in Hellenistic >poetry.
>I also get the vague impression that Vergil knows exactly what he's >doing in such matters - i.e. that where the form is surprising he's >engaging with 'mistakes' that others have made - here the fact the >identification of Gallus as the probable source would confirm that. Is >that your impression as well?
>Is it at all conceivable that Gallus could have thought of (and have
>written) Nereine (- - - or even - v v -) as 'Nere (short -e) + i >(whether long or short) ne', by mistaken analogy with Nereis/Nereides,
>a mistake which Vergil 'rescued' him from by writing 'Nerine' (i.e. to >suggest two longs contracted)
>I have also wondered whether Vergil's "Oceanitides" at Geo. 4.342 >(nowhere in Gr. as daughters of Ocean)
could be making a related point
>- Callimachus only has "Oceaninai" (Hymn 3.13), could Vergil again be >gently poking fun at the way Gallus formed his patronymics, perhaps >specifically the one in question? (assuming that this catalogue has >something to do with Gallus, as e.g. Thomas suggests).
Well, possibly, but Vergil could err, e.g. over Niphates.
>- Callimachus only has "Oceaninai" (Hymn 3.13), could Vergil again be >gently poking fun at the way Gallus formed his patronymics, perhaps >specifically the one in question? (assuming that this catalogue has >something to do with Gallus, as e.g. Thomas suggests).
As to sources of scholia, goodness knows; but Quintilian, I take it, read lots of speeches we don’t know; they were after all in his line of business.
> in,
> > contraction of long e + long i to long i is rather hard to swallow as a
> > phonetic development in a markedly literary word, even though it occurred=
> > contraction of long e + long i to long i is rather hard to swallow as a
> in
> > the genitive singular of the fifth declension (diel/dii); From the Greek
> > point of view, Ner(e)ine as three long syllables is simply an error; the
> > question is whether, as Clausen suggests, it is an error that a Hellenist=
> > the genitive singular of the fifth declension (diel/dii); From the Greek
> > point of view, Ner(e)ine as three long syllables is simply an error; the
> ic
> > poet might have made, or only a Roman, since whatever sentimental
> > classicists used to say Romans were by no means perfect in their Greek.
> > Either way, we have to accept that Nerine is Ner+ine, for which there mig=
> > poet might have made, or only a Roman, since whatever sentimental
> > classicists used to say Romans were by no means perfect in their Greek.
> ht
> > have been Hellenistic precedent, even if as you suggest the long I was
> > miswritten EI; neither Greeks nor Romans no longer knew which long I soun=
> > have been Hellenistic precedent, even if as you suggest the long I was
> ds
> > were correctly written EI and which weren't..
> >
> > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > Oxford
> > usque adeone
> > OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est,=
> > were correctly written EI and which weren't..
> >
> > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > Oxford
> > usque adeone
> 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, July 28, 2009 3:15 PM
> > Subject: VIRGIL: Ner(e)ine Galatea (Ecl. 7.37)
> >
> > 1. Ecl. 7.37
> > “Nerine Galatea, thymo mihi dulcior Hyblae”
> > 2. “Nerine” as both Coleman and Clausen point out is both a rare
> > epithet and unusually formed.
> > 3. Catullus 64.28 apparently has “tene Thetis tenuit pulcherrima
> > Nereine?”[1]. This accords with “Nereine” at Opp. Hal. 1.386; Quint=
> > 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, July 28, 2009 3:15 PM
> > Subject: VIRGIL: Ner(e)ine Galatea (Ecl. 7.37)
> >
> > 1. Ecl. 7.37
> > “Nerine Galatea, thymo mihi dulcior Hyblae”
> > 2. “Nerine” as both Coleman and Clausen point out is both a rare
> > epithet and unusually formed.
> > 3. Catullus 64.28 apparently has “tene Thetis tenuit pulcherrima
> ..
> > Smyrn. 3.125, 596; 4.128, which, as Clausen on Ecl. 7.37 notes,
> > doubtless reflects a Hellenistic precedent. To Clausen’s note,
> > however, one should add that there is an entry for “Nereine” in the
> > Suda, which Hollis attributes by application of (an extension of)
> > Hecker’s law to Callimachus’ Hecale[2].
> > 4. Mentioned by Coleman, but not Clausen, is that Vergil revisits the
> > question of the ‘correct’ epithet to describe a daughter of Nereus, h=
> > doubtless reflects a Hellenistic precedent. To Clausen’s note,
> > however, one should add that there is an entry for “Nereine” in the
> > Suda, which Hollis attributes by application of (an extension of)
> > Hecker’s law to Callimachus’ Hecale[2].
> > 4. Mentioned by Coleman, but not Clausen, is that Vergil revisits the
> t is,
> > Gallus may have intended “Nereine” (as per Catullus 64.28) with, in
> > principle, four long syllables but three long syllables by contraction
> > of “e i” to “ei”. rather than having formed “Nerine” from “=
> > Gallus may have intended “Nereine” (as per Catullus 64.28) with, in
> > principle, four long syllables but three long syllables by contraction
> Ner-“ +
> > “ine” (cf. Coleman ad 7.37 – “it is just possible that Vergil wro=
> te
> > Nereine with contraction of “e i” to “ei””)?
> >
> > [1] “Nereine” Haupt’s emendation for “nectine”. This reading is
> > fortified by Tib. 1.5.45-6 “Nereis... Thetis”.
> > [2] The attribution to Callimachus is probably correct, but as Hollis
> > himself notes, there are unattributed poetical glosses in the Suda
> > which appear to derive from other works of Callimachus, in particular,
> > Nonakrine appears to come from the Aetia. It is not easy to find an
> > obvious context for “Nereine” in Callimachus’ Hecale. In the contex=
> > Nereine with contraction of “e i” to “ei””)?
> >
> > [1] “Nereine” Haupt’s emendation for “nectine”. This reading is
> > fortified by Tib. 1.5.45-6 “Nereis... Thetis”.
> > [2] The attribution to Callimachus is probably correct, but as Hollis
> > himself notes, there are unattributed poetical glosses in the Suda
> > which appear to derive from other works of Callimachus, in particular,
> > Nonakrine appears to come from the Aetia. It is not easy to find an
> t
> > of the present discussion, it should perhaps be noted that Callimachus
> > wrote a poem entitled Galatea of which precious little is known. Could
> > Nereine/Nerine have come from that poem? Could it even have been the
> > first word of that poem: cf. ‘Aktaie’ as a learned epithet to
> > introduce the Hecale (which could explain its apparent familiarity in
> > the Suda even though Callimachus’ Galatea doubtless became obscure at
> > a relatively early stage)?
> > [3] Cairns (2006) 101-2 identifies this “Cornelii” as Cornelius Gallu=
> > of the present discussion, it should perhaps be noted that Callimachus
> > wrote a poem entitled Galatea of which precious little is known. Could
> > Nereine/Nerine have come from that poem? Could it even have been the
> > first word of that poem: cf. ‘Aktaie’ as a learned epithet to
> > introduce the Hecale (which could explain its apparent familiarity in
> > the Suda even though Callimachus’ Galatea doubtless became obscure at
> > a relatively early stage)?
falmouth
Jul 29, 2009, 11:47:40 AM7/29/09
to Mantovano
Thanks again.
The Aeneid reference should have been to 8.383
"arma rogo, genetrix nato. te filia Nerei"
(incidentally another way of saying daughter of Nereus).
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
The Aeneid reference should have been to 8.383
"arma rogo, genetrix nato. te filia Nerei"
(incidentally another way of saying daughter of Nereus).
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
au...@gellius.demon.co.uk
Jul 29, 2009, 12:12:15 PM7/29/09
to mant...@googlegroups.com, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk
Nereus has been Latinized as a second-declension trisyllable, declined accordingly as in PAcuvius: Nerei repandirostrum incuruiceruicum pecus. but Vergil has subjected Berei to synizesis to make it scan. He can ger away with that in Latin just as he can make alueo a spondee; it cannot justify Ner(e)ine in a Greek word shown by its ending to be unassimilated.
adria...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> Thanks again.
>
> The Aeneid reference should have been to 8.383
>
> "arma rogo, genetrix nato. te filia Nerei"
>
> (incidentally another way of saying daughter of Nereus).
>
>
>
> On Jul 29, 3:13 pm, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > >Is the position this:
> > >(1) If, but only if, Nerine appeared in Greek like that would one have >=
> ht have been either "Ner + ine" or "Nere + ine" with contraction >albeit th=
> at latter possibility would be surprising (but perhaps >prompted by e.g. Ne=
> nd Quintus Smyrnaeus are all consistent with Nereine perhaps >indicates tha=
> ng in such matters - i.e. that where the form is surprising he's >engaging =
> with 'mistakes' that others have made - here the fact the >identification o=
> f Gallus as the probable source would confirm that. Is >that your impressio=
> mn 3.13), could Vergil again be >gently poking fun at the way Gallus formed=
> his patronymics, perhaps >specifically the one in question? (assuming that=
> lots of speeches we don’t know; they were after all in his line of busin=
> > > > Contraction of eta and long iota is out of the question in Greek; for=
> Lat=
> > > in,
> > > > contraction of long e + long i to long i is rather hard to swallow as=
> a
> > > > phonetic development in a markedly literary word, even though it occu=
> rred=
> > > in
> > > > the genitive singular of the fifth declension (diel/dii); From the Gr=
> eek
> > > > point of view, Ner(e)ine as three long syllables is simply an error; =
> the
> > > > question is whether, as Clausen suggests, it is an error that a Helle=
> k.
> > > > Either way, we have to accept that Nerine is Ner+ine, for which there=
> mig=
> > > ht
> > > > have been Hellenistic precedent, even if as you suggest the long I wa=
> s
> > > > miswritten EI; neither Greeks nor Romans no longer knew which long I =
> s, h=
> > > e
> > > > comes up with an even more rare construction “qualis Nereia Doto / =
> ”.
> > > > 6. Here, I think, “alii Corneli epitheton” should be taken to mea=
> n
> > > > that an earlier commentator identified “Nerine” as an epithet use=
> ry
> > > > tradition. Servius on Ecl. 6. refers to “sicut ex oratione Cornelii=
> ..
> > > > Servius on Aen. 7.455 comments “exarsit in iras: communis sermo hab=
> et
> > > > 'ardeo in illa re' sed figuratius 'ardeo in illam rem' dicimus. et es=
adria...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> Thanks again.
>
> The Aeneid reference should have been to 8.383
>
> "arma rogo, genetrix nato. te filia Nerei"
>
> (incidentally another way of saying daughter of Nereus).
>
>
>
> On Jul 29, 3:13 pm, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > >Is the position this:
> to assume that it was formed "Ner + ine"
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > >[Is it inevitable in Greek that in forming Nere + ine, the second e >wou=
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> ld be an eta?]
> >
> > No, but neither epsilon nor eta would contract with _long_ iota.
> >
> > >(2) If it only appeared as such in Latin, the Latin poet's thinking >mig=
> >
> > No, but neither epsilon nor eta would contract with _long_ iota.
> >
> ht have been either "Ner + ine" or "Nere + ine" with contraction >albeit th=
> at latter possibility would be surprising (but perhaps >prompted by e.g. Ne=
> rei (- v - contracted to - - ; e.g. Verg. Aen.
> > >3.383
> >
> > longa procul longis uia diuidit inuia terris?
> >
> > >? (I realise that that is a contraction which is much easier)).
> >
> > Nereidum 3. 74 is easily enough scanned as – v v -; in any case epsilon=
> > >3.383
> >
> > longa procul longis uia diuidit inuia terris?
> >
> > >? (I realise that that is a contraction which is much easier)).
> >
> + short i is a normal Attic contraction, as in Atreides > Latin Atrides.
> >
> > >I tend to think that the fact that the Suda (=Callimachus?), Oppian >a=
> >
> nd Quintus Smyrnaeus are all consistent with Nereine perhaps >indicates tha=
> t this was the only form to be found in Hellenistic >poetry.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > >I also get the vague impression that Vergil knows exactly what he's >doi=
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> ng in such matters - i.e. that where the form is surprising he's >engaging =
> with 'mistakes' that others have made - here the fact the >identification o=
> f Gallus as the probable source would confirm that. Is >that your impressio=
> n as well?
> >
> > So what intermediary did he get Inarime < ein Arimhi from?
> >
> > >Is it at all conceivable that Gallus could have thought of (and have
> > >written) Nereine (- - - or even - v v -) as 'Nere (short -e) + i >(wheth=
> >
> > So what intermediary did he get Inarime < ein Arimhi from?
> >
> > >Is it at all conceivable that Gallus could have thought of (and have
> er long or short) ne', by mistaken analogy with Nereis/Nereides,
> >
> > Only if he did not realize the iota had to be long.
> >
> > >a mistake which Vergil 'rescued' him from by writing 'Nerine' (i.e. to >=
> >
> > Only if he did not realize the iota had to be long.
> >
> suggest two longs contracted)
> >
> > Only if Vergil did not realize that wasn’t on.
> >
> > >I have also wondered whether Vergil's "Oceanitides" at Geo. 4.342 >(nowh=
> >
> > Only if Vergil did not realize that wasn’t on.
> >
> ere in Gr. as daughters of Ocean)
> >
> > Indeed it should be ‘having to do with Ocean’
> > could be making a related point>- Callimachus only has "Oceaninai" (Hy=
> >
> > Indeed it should be ‘having to do with Ocean’
> mn 3.13), could Vergil again be >gently poking fun at the way Gallus formed=
> his patronymics, perhaps >specifically the one in question? (assuming that=
> this catalogue has >something to do with Gallus, as e.g. Thomas suggests).
> >
> > Well, possibly, but Vergil could err, e.g. over Niphates.
> >
> > As to sources of scholia, goodness knows; but Quintilian, I take it, read=
> >
> > Well, possibly, but Vergil could err, e.g. over Niphates.
> >
> lots of speeches we don’t know; they were after all in his line of busin=
> Lat=
> > > in,
> > > > contraction of long e + long i to long i is rather hard to swallow as=
> a
> > > > phonetic development in a markedly literary word, even though it occu=
> rred=
> > > in
> > > > the genitive singular of the fifth declension (diel/dii); From the Gr=
> eek
> > > > point of view, Ner(e)ine as three long syllables is simply an error; =
> the
> > > > question is whether, as Clausen suggests, it is an error that a Helle=
> nist=
> > > ic
> > > > poet might have made, or only a Roman, since whatever sentimental
> > > > classicists used to say Romans were by no means perfect in their Gree=
> > > ic
> > > > poet might have made, or only a Roman, since whatever sentimental
> k.
> > > > Either way, we have to accept that Nerine is Ner+ine, for which there=
> mig=
> > > ht
> > > > have been Hellenistic precedent, even if as you suggest the long I wa=
> s
> > > > miswritten EI; neither Greeks nor Romans no longer knew which long I =
> soun=
> > > ds
> > > > were correctly written EI and which weren't..
> >
> > > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > > > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > > > Oxford
> > > > usque adeone
> > > > OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil =
> > > ds
> > > > were correctly written EI and which weren't..
> >
> > > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > > > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > > > Oxford
> > > > usque adeone
> est,=
> > > nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > > > alter?
> >
> > > > tel. +44 (0) 1865 552808 (home)/353865 (work) fax +44 (0) 1865 512=
> > > nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > > > alter?
> >
> 237
> >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> > > > To: "Mantovano" <mant...@googlegroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 3:15 PM
> > > > Subject: VIRGIL: Ner(e)ine Galatea (Ecl. 7.37)
> >
> > > > 1. Ecl. 7.37
> > > > “Nerine Galatea, thymo mihi dulcior Hyblae”
> > > > 2. “Nerine” as both Coleman and Clausen point out is both a rare
> > > > epithet and unusually formed.
> > > > 3. Catullus 64.28 apparently has “tene Thetis tenuit pulcherrima
> > > > Nereine?”[1]. This accords with “Nereine” at Opp. Hal. 1.386; Q=
> >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> > > > To: "Mantovano" <mant...@googlegroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 3:15 PM
> > > > Subject: VIRGIL: Ner(e)ine Galatea (Ecl. 7.37)
> >
> > > > 1. Ecl. 7.37
> > > > “Nerine Galatea, thymo mihi dulcior Hyblae”
> > > > 2. “Nerine” as both Coleman and Clausen point out is both a rare
> > > > epithet and unusually formed.
> > > > 3. Catullus 64.28 apparently has “tene Thetis tenuit pulcherrima
> uint=
> > > ..
> > > > Smyrn. 3.125, 596; 4.128, which, as Clausen on Ecl. 7.37 notes,
> > > > doubtless reflects a Hellenistic precedent. To Clausen’s note,
> > > > however, one should add that there is an entry for “Nereine” in t=
> > > ..
> > > > Smyrn. 3.125, 596; 4.128, which, as Clausen on Ecl. 7.37 notes,
> > > > doubtless reflects a Hellenistic precedent. To Clausen’s note,
> he
> > > > Suda, which Hollis attributes by application of (an extension of)
> > > > Hecker’s law to Callimachus’ Hecale[2].
> > > > 4. Mentioned by Coleman, but not Clausen, is that Vergil revisits the
> > > > question of the ‘correct’ epithet to describe a daughter of Nereu=
> > > > Suda, which Hollis attributes by application of (an extension of)
> > > > Hecker’s law to Callimachus’ Hecale[2].
> > > > 4. Mentioned by Coleman, but not Clausen, is that Vergil revisits the
> s, h=
> > > e
> > > > comes up with an even more rare construction “qualis Nereia Doto / =
> et
> > > > Galatea secant spumantem pectore pontum.” (Aen. 9.101-2). Tib.
> > > > 1.5.45-6, on the other hand, has the more conventional formulation
> > > > “Nereis... Thetis” (cf. very regularly, the plural ‘Nereides’=
> > > > Galatea secant spumantem pectore pontum.” (Aen. 9.101-2). Tib.
> > > > 1.5.45-6, on the other hand, has the more conventional formulation
> ).
> > > > 5. Schol. Veron. on Ecl. 7.37 (not mentioned by either Clausen or
> > > > Coleman), so far as it can be read, comments: “Galatea, Nerei filia=
> > > > 5. Schol. Veron. on Ecl. 7.37 (not mentioned by either Clausen or
> , a
> > > > Polyphemo cyclope adamata complexum eius evitans in mare se
> > > > praecipitavit ut ...... alii Corneli epitheton. Dicit Nerine, ut
> > > > declararet, Siculam esse Galateam. Nerine Galatea ... nam oceanina.=
> > > > Polyphemo cyclope adamata complexum eius evitans in mare se
> > > > praecipitavit ut ...... alii Corneli epitheton. Dicit Nerine, ut
> ”.
> > > > 6. Here, I think, “alii Corneli epitheton” should be taken to mea=
> n
> > > > that an earlier commentator identified “Nerine” as an epithet use=
> d by
> > > > Cornelius Gallus. The identification of Cornelius Gallus solely as
> > > > ‘Cornelius’ can be paralleled elsewhere in the Vergilian commenta=
> > > > Cornelius Gallus. The identification of Cornelius Gallus solely as
> ry
> > > > tradition. Servius on Ecl. 6. refers to “sicut ex oratione Cornelii=
> in
> > > > Alfenum ostenditur: Cum iussus tria millia passus a muro in diversa
> > > > relinquere, ut octingentos passus aquae, quae circumdata est,
> > > > admetireris, relinquistis.”, where Cornelius must be intended to
> > > > identify Cornelius Gallus, who was known by the commentary tradition
> > > > to be involved in the land confiscations, together with Alfenus Varus=
> > > > Alfenum ostenditur: Cum iussus tria millia passus a muro in diversa
> > > > relinquere, ut octingentos passus aquae, quae circumdata est,
> > > > admetireris, relinquistis.”, where Cornelius must be intended to
> > > > identify Cornelius Gallus, who was known by the commentary tradition
> ..
> > > > Servius on Aen. 7.455 comments “exarsit in iras: communis sermo hab=
> et
> > > > 'ardeo in illa re' sed figuratius 'ardeo in illam rem' dicimus. et es=
> t
> > > > specialis Cornelii elocutio.”[3].
> > > > 7. One can, perhaps, suggest a plausible context for Cornelius Gallus=
> > > > specialis Cornelii elocutio.”[3].
falmouth
Jul 30, 2009, 10:08:32 AM7/30/09
to Mantovano
On Vergil's Niphaten, it is not clear (is it?) that he was in error -
"pulsumque Niphaten" could be either river or mountain. In support of
the contention that V. conceives of it correctly as mountain:
1. The point that rivers are often personified as conquered (e.g.
hiding their heads, mourning, their flow cowed - but where elsewhere
'turned back in flight') especially in the context of descriptions of
triumphs is not really of much weight, since there would also have
been placards depicting mountains as well as rivers, and, query, some
visual way of showing their subjection - cf. e.g. Ov. AA. 1.219-222
Atque aliqua ex illis cum regum nomina quaeret,
Quae loca, *qui montes*, quaeve ferantur aquae, 220
Omnia responde, nec tantum siqua rogabit;
Et quae nescieris, ut bene nota refer.
2. Verg. Geo. 3.26ff has battle scenes, victorious arms, (conquered?)
river, (conquered/victorious?) rostra, (conquered) cities, (conquered)
Niphates, and (captured?) Parthian: with Niphates as mountain, you
have all the trappings of a triumph singly listed; with Niphates as
river, you have river twice, and no mountain, which would be
relatively artless. More embarrassingly, one would then have a
contrast between the routed Niphates and the Nile which seems to still
be "undantem bello', when V. hardly wants to imply anything other than
victory over the Nile.
3. A very tenuous point: Ov. Met. 10.77 has "se recipit Rhodopen
pulsumque aquilonibus Haemum.": apart from Stat. Silv. 5.3.2 this is
the only other use of the exact form 'pulsumque' in poetry; I don't
see any particular connection between Ov. Met. 10.77 and Geo. 3.30,
but perhaps Ovid had Geo. 3.30 in mind with his use of 'pulsumque'
applied to *Mount* Haemus suggesting that he thought of Vergil's
'pulsumque Niphaten' as a mountain (as later authors plainly did not).
Ovid of course is explicit as to what 'pulsumque' means in his
sentence with the addition of 'Aquilonibus' (with a faint hint of
'aquilae'?).
4. Cannot, then, 'pulsumque Niphaten' simply mean 'Niphates, beaten
(down)' or 'Niphates, trampled over', or even 'Niphates (the mountain)
put to flight'?
"pulsumque Niphaten" could be either river or mountain. In support of
the contention that V. conceives of it correctly as mountain:
1. The point that rivers are often personified as conquered (e.g.
hiding their heads, mourning, their flow cowed - but where elsewhere
'turned back in flight') especially in the context of descriptions of
triumphs is not really of much weight, since there would also have
been placards depicting mountains as well as rivers, and, query, some
visual way of showing their subjection - cf. e.g. Ov. AA. 1.219-222
Atque aliqua ex illis cum regum nomina quaeret,
Quae loca, *qui montes*, quaeve ferantur aquae, 220
Omnia responde, nec tantum siqua rogabit;
Et quae nescieris, ut bene nota refer.
2. Verg. Geo. 3.26ff has battle scenes, victorious arms, (conquered?)
river, (conquered/victorious?) rostra, (conquered) cities, (conquered)
Niphates, and (captured?) Parthian: with Niphates as mountain, you
have all the trappings of a triumph singly listed; with Niphates as
river, you have river twice, and no mountain, which would be
relatively artless. More embarrassingly, one would then have a
contrast between the routed Niphates and the Nile which seems to still
be "undantem bello', when V. hardly wants to imply anything other than
victory over the Nile.
3. A very tenuous point: Ov. Met. 10.77 has "se recipit Rhodopen
pulsumque aquilonibus Haemum.": apart from Stat. Silv. 5.3.2 this is
the only other use of the exact form 'pulsumque' in poetry; I don't
see any particular connection between Ov. Met. 10.77 and Geo. 3.30,
but perhaps Ovid had Geo. 3.30 in mind with his use of 'pulsumque'
applied to *Mount* Haemus suggesting that he thought of Vergil's
'pulsumque Niphaten' as a mountain (as later authors plainly did not).
Ovid of course is explicit as to what 'pulsumque' means in his
sentence with the addition of 'Aquilonibus' (with a faint hint of
'aquilae'?).
4. Cannot, then, 'pulsumque Niphaten' simply mean 'Niphates, beaten
(down)' or 'Niphates, trampled over', or even 'Niphates (the mountain)
put to flight'?
au...@gellius.demon.co.uk
Jul 30, 2009, 10:34:27 AM7/30/09
to mant...@googlegroups.com, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk
A mountain put to flight would be even more miraculous than a river so treated,, extravagant even in that over-the-top panegyric; if bearable at all, which I doubt, it would have to form a climax, not be thrown casually into the mix. Otherwuse, pulsum will not do by itself without a hint of by whom or what? I see no reason to doubt the common;y held view that Horace's rigidum Niphaten at Odes 2. 9. 20 (), in a context of praises to Augustus that includes a river tamed, is meant to correct Vergil.
> > Nereus has been Latinized as a second-declension trisyllable, declined ac=
> cordingly as in PAcuvius: Nerei repandirostrum incuruiceruicum pecus. but V=
> ergil has subjected Berei to synizesis to make it scan. He can ger away wit=
> h that in Latin just as he can make alueo a spondee; it cannot justify Ner(=
> >mig=
> > > ht have been either "Ner + ine" or "Nere + ine" with contraction >albei=
> t th=
> > > at latter possibility would be surprising (but perhaps >prompted by e.g=
> .. Ne=
> ilon=
> > > + short i is a normal Attic contraction, as in Atreides > Latin Atri=
> des.
> >
> > > > >I tend to think that the fact that the Suda (=Callimachus?), Oppia=
> n >a=
> > > nd Quintus Smyrnaeus are all consistent with Nereine perhaps >indicates=
> >doi=
> > > ng in such matters - i.e. that where the form is surprising he's >engag=
> ing =
> > > with 'mistakes' that others have made - here the fact the >identificati=
> on o=
> > > f Gallus as the probable source would confirm that. Is >that your impre=
> ave
> > > > >written) Nereine (- - - or even - v v -) as 'Nere (short -e) + i >(w=
> (Hy=
> > > mn 3.13), could Vergil again be >gently poking fun at the way Gallus fo=
> rmed=
> > > his patronymics, perhaps >specifically the one in question? (assumin=
> g that=
> > > this catalogue has >something to do with Gallus, as e.g. Thomas sugg=
> read=
> > > lots of speeches we don’t know; they were after all in his line of=
> ..
> >
> > > > > I tend to think that the fact that the Suda (=Callimachus?), Oppi=
> es,
> > > > > a mistake which Vergil 'rescued' him from by writing 'Nerine' (i.e.=
> to
> > > > > suggest two longs contracted) but which Ovid mercilessly pointed ou=
> int
> > > > > - Callimachus only has "Oceaninai" (Hymn 3.13), could Vergil again =
> e
> > > > > only to Cornelius), a source which must have had actual knowledge o=
> f
> > > > > Gallus' poetry, and is confined to word-glosses - query whether it =
> for=
> > > Lat=
> > > > > in,
> > > > > > contraction of long e + long i to long i is rather hard to swallo=
> w as=
> > > a
> > > > > > phonetic development in a markedly literary word, even though it =
> occu=
> > > rred=
> > > > > in
> > > > > > the genitive singular of the fifth declension (diel/dii); From th=
> e Gr=
> > > eek
> > > > > > point of view, Ner(e)ine as three long syllables is simply an err=
> or; =
> > > the
> > > > > > question is whether, as Clausen suggests, it is an error that a H=
> Gree=
> > > k.
> > > > > > Either way, we have to accept that Nerine is Ner+ine, for which t=
> here=
> > > mig=
> > > > > ht
> > > > > > have been Hellenistic precedent, even if as you suggest the long =
> I wa=
> > > s
> > > > > > miswritten EI; neither Greeks nor Romans no longer knew which lon=
> a
> > > > > > Nereine?”[1]. This accords with “Nereine” at Opp. Hal. 1.38=
> the
> > > > > > question of the ‘correct’ epithet to describe a daughter of N=
> ereu=
> > > s, h=
> > > > > e
> > > > > > comes up with an even more rare construction “qualis Nereia Dot=
> n
> > > > > > “Nereis... Thetis” (cf. very regularly, the plural ‘Nereide=
> cordingly as in PAcuvius: Nerei repandirostrum incuruiceruicum pecus. but V=
> ergil has subjected Berei to synizesis to make it scan. He can ger away wit=
> h that in Latin just as he can make alueo a spondee; it cannot justify Ner(=
> e)ine in a Greek word shown by its ending to be unassimilated.
> >
> >
> >
> > adrianj...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks again.
> >
> > > The Aeneid reference should have been to 8.383
> >
> > > "arma rogo, genetrix nato. te filia Nerei"
> >
> > > (incidentally another way of saying daughter of Nereus).
> >
> > > On Jul 29, 3:13 pm, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > > > >Is the position this:
> > > > >(1) If, but only if, Nerine appeared in Greek like that would one ha=
> >
> >
> >
> > adrianj...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks again.
> >
> > > The Aeneid reference should have been to 8.383
> >
> > > "arma rogo, genetrix nato. te filia Nerei"
> >
> > > (incidentally another way of saying daughter of Nereus).
> >
> > > On Jul 29, 3:13 pm, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > > > >Is the position this:
> ve >=
> > > to assume that it was formed "Ner + ine"
> >
> > > > Yes.
> >
> > > > >[Is it inevitable in Greek that in forming Nere + ine, the second e =
> > > to assume that it was formed "Ner + ine"
> >
> > > > Yes.
> >
> >wou=
> > > ld be an eta?]
> >
> > > > No, but neither epsilon nor eta would contract with _long_ iota.
> >
> > > > >(2) If it only appeared as such in Latin, the Latin poet's thinking =
> > > ld be an eta?]
> >
> > > > No, but neither epsilon nor eta would contract with _long_ iota.
> >
> >mig=
> > > ht have been either "Ner + ine" or "Nere + ine" with contraction >albei=
> t th=
> > > at latter possibility would be surprising (but perhaps >prompted by e.g=
> .. Ne=
> > > rei (- v - contracted to - - ; e.g. Verg. Aen.
> > > > >3.383
> >
> > > > longa procul longis uia diuidit inuia terris?
> >
> > > > >? (I realise that that is a contraction which is much easier)).
> >
> > > > Nereidum 3. 74 is easily enough scanned as – v v -; in any case eps=
> > > > >3.383
> >
> > > > longa procul longis uia diuidit inuia terris?
> >
> > > > >? (I realise that that is a contraction which is much easier)).
> >
> ilon=
> > > + short i is a normal Attic contraction, as in Atreides > Latin Atri=
> des.
> >
> > > > >I tend to think that the fact that the Suda (=Callimachus?), Oppia=
> n >a=
> > > nd Quintus Smyrnaeus are all consistent with Nereine perhaps >indicates=
> tha=
> > > t this was the only form to be found in Hellenistic >poetry.
> >
> > > > Agreed.
> >
> > > > >I also get the vague impression that Vergil knows exactly what he's =
> > > t this was the only form to be found in Hellenistic >poetry.
> >
> > > > Agreed.
> >
> >doi=
> > > ng in such matters - i.e. that where the form is surprising he's >engag=
> ing =
> > > with 'mistakes' that others have made - here the fact the >identificati=
> on o=
> > > f Gallus as the probable source would confirm that. Is >that your impre=
> ssio=
> > > n as well?
> >
> > > > So what intermediary did he get Inarime < ein Arimhi from?
> >
> > > > >Is it at all conceivable that Gallus could have thought of (and h=
> > > n as well?
> >
> > > > So what intermediary did he get Inarime < ein Arimhi from?
> >
> ave
> > > > >written) Nereine (- - - or even - v v -) as 'Nere (short -e) + i >(w=
> heth=
> > > er long or short) ne', by mistaken analogy with Nereis/Nereides,
> >
> > > > Only if he did not realize the iota had to be long.
> >
> > > > >a mistake which Vergil 'rescued' him from by writing 'Nerine' (i.e. =
> > > er long or short) ne', by mistaken analogy with Nereis/Nereides,
> >
> > > > Only if he did not realize the iota had to be long.
> >
> to >=
> > > suggest two longs contracted)
> >
> > > > Only if Vergil did not realize that wasn’t on.
> >
> > > > >I have also wondered whether Vergil's "Oceanitides" at Geo. 4.342 >(=
> > > suggest two longs contracted)
> >
> > > > Only if Vergil did not realize that wasn’t on.
> >
> nowh=
> > > ere in Gr. as daughters of Ocean)
> >
> > > > Indeed it should be ‘having to do with Ocean’
> > > > could be making a related point>- Callimachus only has "Oceaninai"=
> > > ere in Gr. as daughters of Ocean)
> >
> > > > Indeed it should be ‘having to do with Ocean’
> (Hy=
> > > mn 3.13), could Vergil again be >gently poking fun at the way Gallus fo=
> rmed=
> > > his patronymics, perhaps >specifically the one in question? (assumin=
> g that=
> > > this catalogue has >something to do with Gallus, as e.g. Thomas sugg=
> ests).
> >
> > > > Well, possibly, but Vergil could err, e.g. over Niphates.
> >
> > > > As to sources of scholia, goodness knows; but Quintilian, I take it, =
> >
> > > > Well, possibly, but Vergil could err, e.g. over Niphates.
> >
> read=
> > > lots of speeches we don’t know; they were after all in his line of=
> busin=
> > > ess.
> >
> > > > adrianj...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > > Thanks, as always, Leofranc.
> >
> > > > > Is the position this:
> >
> > > > > (1) If, but only if, Nerine appeared in Greek like that would one h=
> > > ess.
> >
> > > > adrianj...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > > Thanks, as always, Leofranc.
> >
> > > > > Is the position this:
> >
> ave
> > > > > to assume that it was formed "Ner + ine"
> > > > > [Is it inevitable in Greek that in forming Nere + ine, the second e
> > > > > would be an eta?]
> > > > > (2) If it only appeared as such in Latin, the Latin poet's thinking
> > > > > might have been either "Ner + ine" or "Nere + ine" with contraction
> > > > > albeit that latter possibility would be surprising (but perhaps
> > > > > prompted by e.g. Nerei (- v - contracted to - - ; e.g. Verg. Aen.
> > > > > 3.383? (I realise that that is a contraction which is much easier))=
> > > > > to assume that it was formed "Ner + ine"
> > > > > [Is it inevitable in Greek that in forming Nere + ine, the second e
> > > > > would be an eta?]
> > > > > (2) If it only appeared as such in Latin, the Latin poet's thinking
> > > > > might have been either "Ner + ine" or "Nere + ine" with contraction
> > > > > albeit that latter possibility would be surprising (but perhaps
> > > > > prompted by e.g. Nerei (- v - contracted to - - ; e.g. Verg. Aen.
> ..
> >
> > > > > I tend to think that the fact that the Suda (=Callimachus?), Oppi=
> an
> > > > > and Quintus Smyrnaeus are all consistent with Nereine perhaps
> > > > > indicates that this was the only form to be found in Hellenistic
> > > > > poetry. I also get the vague impression that Vergil knows exactly w=
> > > > > and Quintus Smyrnaeus are all consistent with Nereine perhaps
> > > > > indicates that this was the only form to be found in Hellenistic
> hat
> > > > > he's doing in such matters - i.e. that where the form is surprising
> > > > > he's engaging with 'mistakes' that others have made - here the fact
> > > > > the identification of Gallus as the probable source would confirm
> > > > > that. Is that your impression as well?
> >
> > > > > Is it at all conceivable that Gallus could have thought of (and =
> > > > > he's doing in such matters - i.e. that where the form is surprising
> > > > > he's engaging with 'mistakes' that others have made - here the fact
> > > > > the identification of Gallus as the probable source would confirm
> > > > > that. Is that your impression as well?
> >
> have
> > > > > written) Nereine (- - - or even - v v -) as 'Nere (short -e) + i
> > > > > (whether long or short) ne', by mistaken analogy with Nereis/Nereid=
> > > > > written) Nereine (- - - or even - v v -) as 'Nere (short -e) + i
> es,
> > > > > a mistake which Vergil 'rescued' him from by writing 'Nerine' (i.e.=
> to
> > > > > suggest two longs contracted) but which Ovid mercilessly pointed ou=
> t
> > > > > in his own imitation "Nereidesque deae Nereidumque pater." - the
> > > > > second Nereidum insistently guaranteeing that 'ei' it is to be read=
> > > > > in his own imitation "Nereidesque deae Nereidumque pater." - the
> as
> > > > > a 'v v' (but, sotto voce, only in Nereides not Nereine).
> >
> > > > > I have also wondered whether Vergil's "Oceanitides" at Geo. 4.342
> > > > > (nowhere in Gr. as daughters of Ocean) could be making a related po=
> > > > > a 'v v' (but, sotto voce, only in Nereides not Nereine).
> >
> > > > > I have also wondered whether Vergil's "Oceanitides" at Geo. 4.342
> int
> > > > > - Callimachus only has "Oceaninai" (Hymn 3.13), could Vergil again =
> be
> > > > > gently poking fun at the way Gallus formed his patronymics, perhaps
> > > > > specifically the one in question? (assuming that this catalogue has
> > > > > something to do with Gallus, as e.g. Thomas suggests).
> >
> > > > > The other completely unrelated point that struck me is the sort of
> > > > > source that is suggested by the similarity between Serv. on Aen 7.4=
> > > > > gently poking fun at the way Gallus formed his patronymics, perhaps
> > > > > specifically the one in question? (assuming that this catalogue has
> > > > > something to do with Gallus, as e.g. Thomas suggests).
> >
> > > > > The other completely unrelated point that struck me is the sort of
> 55
> > > > > and Schol. Veron. on Ecl. 7.37, presumably not the same source as
> > > > > other references to Gallus in Servius etc. (because of the referenc=
> > > > > and Schol. Veron. on Ecl. 7.37, presumably not the same source as
> e
> > > > > only to Cornelius), a source which must have had actual knowledge o=
> f
> > > > > Gallus' poetry, and is confined to word-glosses - query whether it =
> may
> > > > > have had an existence independent of the commentary on Vergil (cf.
> > > > > where did Quintilian get his information that either Labienus or
> > > > > Cornelius Gallus wrote "bracae" in a speech against Pollio). Also,
> > > > > where does Serv. ad Ecl. 9.10, which must be from a relatively earl=
> > > > > have had an existence independent of the commentary on Vergil (cf.
> > > > > where did Quintilian get his information that either Labienus or
> > > > > Cornelius Gallus wrote "bracae" in a speech against Pollio). Also,
> y
> > > > > source, fit into that (the only other place where Gallus is just
> > > > > Cornelius)?
> >
> > > > > On Jul 28, 7:36 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> > > > > <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > > Contraction of eta and long iota is out of the question in Greek;=
> > > > > source, fit into that (the only other place where Gallus is just
> > > > > Cornelius)?
> >
> > > > > On Jul 28, 7:36 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> > > > > <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> for=
> > > Lat=
> > > > > in,
> > > > > > contraction of long e + long i to long i is rather hard to swallo=
> w as=
> > > a
> > > > > > phonetic development in a markedly literary word, even though it =
> occu=
> > > rred=
> > > > > in
> > > > > > the genitive singular of the fifth declension (diel/dii); From th=
> e Gr=
> > > eek
> > > > > > point of view, Ner(e)ine as three long syllables is simply an err=
> or; =
> > > the
> > > > > > question is whether, as Clausen suggests, it is an error that a H=
> elle=
> > > nist=
> > > > > ic
> > > > > > poet might have made, or only a Roman, since whatever sentimental
> > > > > > classicists used to say Romans were by no means perfect in their =
> > > nist=
> > > > > ic
> > > > > > poet might have made, or only a Roman, since whatever sentimental
> Gree=
> > > k.
> > > > > > Either way, we have to accept that Nerine is Ner+ine, for which t=
> here=
> > > mig=
> > > > > ht
> > > > > > have been Hellenistic precedent, even if as you suggest the long =
> I wa=
> > > s
> > > > > > miswritten EI; neither Greeks nor Romans no longer knew which lon=
> g I =
> > > soun=
> > > > > ds
> > > > > > were correctly written EI and which weren't..
> >
> > > > > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > > > > > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > > > > > Oxford
> > > > > > usque adeone
> > > > > > OX2 6EJ scire MEVM ni=
> > > soun=
> > > > > ds
> > > > > > were correctly written EI and which weren't..
> >
> > > > > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > > > > > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > > > > > Oxford
> > > > > > usque adeone
> hil =
> > > est,=
> > > > > nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > > > > > alter?
> >
> > > > > > tel. +44 (0) 1865 552808 (home)/353865 (work) fax +44 (0) 1865=
> > > est,=
> > > > > nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > > > > > alter?
> >
> 512=
> > > 237
> >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > > To: "Mantovano" <mant...@googlegroups.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 3:15 PM
> > > > > > Subject: VIRGIL: Ner(e)ine Galatea (Ecl. 7.37)
> >
> > > > > > 1. Ecl. 7.37
> > > > > > “Nerine Galatea, thymo mihi dulcior Hyblae”
> > > > > > 2. “Nerine” as both Coleman and Clausen point out is both a r=
> > > 237
> >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > > To: "Mantovano" <mant...@googlegroups.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 3:15 PM
> > > > > > Subject: VIRGIL: Ner(e)ine Galatea (Ecl. 7.37)
> >
> > > > > > 1. Ecl. 7.37
> > > > > > “Nerine Galatea, thymo mihi dulcior Hyblae”
> are
> > > > > > epithet and unusually formed.
> > > > > > 3. Catullus 64.28 apparently has “tene Thetis tenuit pulcherrim=
> > > > > > epithet and unusually formed.
> a
> > > > > > Nereine?”[1]. This accords with “Nereine” at Opp. Hal. 1.38=
> 6; Q=
> > > uint=
> > > > > ..
> > > > > > Smyrn. 3.125, 596; 4.128, which, as Clausen on Ecl. 7.37 notes,
> > > > > > doubtless reflects a Hellenistic precedent. To Clausen’s note,
> > > > > > however, one should add that there is an entry for “Nereine” =
> > > uint=
> > > > > ..
> > > > > > Smyrn. 3.125, 596; 4.128, which, as Clausen on Ecl. 7.37 notes,
> > > > > > doubtless reflects a Hellenistic precedent. To Clausen’s note,
> in t=
> > > he
> > > > > > Suda, which Hollis attributes by application of (an extension of)
> > > > > > Hecker’s law to Callimachus’ Hecale[2].
> > > > > > 4. Mentioned by Coleman, but not Clausen, is that Vergil revisits=
> > > he
> > > > > > Suda, which Hollis attributes by application of (an extension of)
> > > > > > Hecker’s law to Callimachus’ Hecale[2].
> the
> > > > > > question of the ‘correct’ epithet to describe a daughter of N=
> ereu=
> > > s, h=
> > > > > e
> > > > > > comes up with an even more rare construction “qualis Nereia Dot=
> o / =
> > > et
> > > > > > Galatea secant spumantem pectore pontum.” (Aen. 9.101-2). Tib.
> > > > > > 1.5.45-6, on the other hand, has the more conventional formulatio=
> > > et
> > > > > > Galatea secant spumantem pectore pontum.” (Aen. 9.101-2). Tib.
> n
> > > > > > “Nereis... Thetis” (cf. very regularly, the plural ‘Nereide=
> s’=
> > > ).
> > > > > > 5. Schol. Veron. on Ecl. 7.37 (not mentioned by either Clausen or
> > > > > > Coleman), so far as it can be read, comments: “Galatea, Nerei f=
> > > ).
> > > > > > 5. Schol. Veron. on Ecl. 7.37 (not mentioned by either Clausen or
> ilia=
> > > , a
> > > > > > Polyphemo cyclope adamata complexum eius evitans in mare se
> > > > > > praecipitavit ut ...... alii Corneli epitheton. Dicit Nerine, ut
> > > > > > declararet, Siculam esse Galateam. Nerine Galatea ... nam oceanin=
> > > , a
> > > > > > Polyphemo cyclope adamata complexum eius evitans in mare se
> > > > > > praecipitavit ut ...... alii Corneli epitheton. Dicit Nerine, ut
falmouth
Jul 30, 2009, 12:51:39 PM7/30/09
to Mantovano
On a sidenote (I hope not too obsessional...), I do think that all
these descriptiones / praedictiones triumphorum (e.g. Prop. 3.4; Geo.
3; Hor. Odes 2.9; Aen. 8; Ov. AA. 1.177ff; Ov. Fast. 5.545ff; Ov. Tr.
4.2 - in the case of Prop. 3.4 and Ov. AA 1.177ff this is virtually
provable, and Cairns has already made the case) relate back to Gallus'
prediction of a mega-triumph for Julius Caesar: that campaign-(not)-to-
be was described in Plutarch as
"Caesar's many successes, however, did not divert his natural spirit
of enterprise and ambition to the enjoyment of what he had laboriously
achieved, but served as fuel and incentive for future achievements,
and begat in him plans for greater deeds and a passion for fresh
glory, as though he had used up what he already had. What he felt was
therefore nothing else than emulation of himself, as if he had been
another man, and a sort of rivalry between what he had done and what
he purposed to do. For he planned and prepared to make an expedition
against the Parthians; and after subduing these and marching around
the Euxine by way of Hyrcania, the Caspian sea, and the Caucasus, to
invade Scythia; and after overrunning the countries bordering on
Germany and Germany itself, to come back by way of Gaul to Italy, and
so to complete this circuit of his empire, which would then be bounded
on all sides by the ocean. During this expedition, moreover, he
intended to dig through the isthmus of Corinth, and had already put
Anienus in charge of this work; he intended also to divert the Tiber
just below the city into a deep channel, give it a bend towards
Circeium, and make it empty into the sea at Terracina, thus contriving
for merchantmen a safe as well as an easy passage to Rome; and besides
this, to convert marshes about Pomentinum and Setia into a plain which
many thousands of men could cultivate; and further, to build moles
which should barricade the sea where it was nearest to Rome, to clear
away the hidden dangers on the shore of Ostia, and then construct
harbours and roadsteads sufficient for the great fleets that would
visit them. And all these things were in preparation.".
This explains awkward geographical details in the predictions /
descriptions of Augustus Caesar's triumphs, in particular, the
tendentious/opportunistic suggestion that he has been *conquering* the
East in 30BC (Parthians, Euphrates and the Tigris) but also surprising
references to Scythia and Germany.
So in, Hor. Odes 2.9, the emphasis on "*nova* cantemus *Augusti*
tropaea Caesaris" - (I note that Cairns has suggested that Gallus'
actual words were 'bina... tropaea' without reference to this
passage); the problems that N&H have in providing an appropriate
imagined date for this poem (must be between 27BC and say 23BC, but
the only major campaign then is Spain of which no mention is made);
the reference to the Geloni (Scythians).
Cf. in Geo. 3 especially
et duo rapta manu diuerso ex hoste tropaea
bisque triumphatas utroque ab litore gentis.
with the latter line Julius Caesar's intention "so to complete this
circuit of his empire, which would then be bounded on all sides by the
ocean." - but how do these lines describe comfortably Octavian's
success in the civil war? (cf. also the reference to the Britons at
Geo. 3.25 - Julius' success not Octavian's).
Cf. in Aen. 8 - again, the Geloni and the reference to Germany
(Rhenus).
Those lines from Ovid which I quoted above
Atque aliqua ex illis cum regum nomina quaeret,
Quae loca, *qui montes*, quaeve ferantur aquae,
220
Omnia responde, nec tantum siqua rogabit;
Et quae nescieris, ut bene nota refer.
may, I think, be making a metapoetic point - is he saying that his
predecessor [viz. Gallus] bandied about the names of exotic rivers and
mountains all around the world, with, perhaps, not too much regard to
detail (NB the same scene - lover + mistress reading titulos appears
in Prop. 3.4)?
these descriptiones / praedictiones triumphorum (e.g. Prop. 3.4; Geo.
3; Hor. Odes 2.9; Aen. 8; Ov. AA. 1.177ff; Ov. Fast. 5.545ff; Ov. Tr.
4.2 - in the case of Prop. 3.4 and Ov. AA 1.177ff this is virtually
provable, and Cairns has already made the case) relate back to Gallus'
prediction of a mega-triumph for Julius Caesar: that campaign-(not)-to-
be was described in Plutarch as
"Caesar's many successes, however, did not divert his natural spirit
of enterprise and ambition to the enjoyment of what he had laboriously
achieved, but served as fuel and incentive for future achievements,
and begat in him plans for greater deeds and a passion for fresh
glory, as though he had used up what he already had. What he felt was
therefore nothing else than emulation of himself, as if he had been
another man, and a sort of rivalry between what he had done and what
he purposed to do. For he planned and prepared to make an expedition
against the Parthians; and after subduing these and marching around
the Euxine by way of Hyrcania, the Caspian sea, and the Caucasus, to
invade Scythia; and after overrunning the countries bordering on
Germany and Germany itself, to come back by way of Gaul to Italy, and
so to complete this circuit of his empire, which would then be bounded
on all sides by the ocean. During this expedition, moreover, he
intended to dig through the isthmus of Corinth, and had already put
Anienus in charge of this work; he intended also to divert the Tiber
just below the city into a deep channel, give it a bend towards
Circeium, and make it empty into the sea at Terracina, thus contriving
for merchantmen a safe as well as an easy passage to Rome; and besides
this, to convert marshes about Pomentinum and Setia into a plain which
many thousands of men could cultivate; and further, to build moles
which should barricade the sea where it was nearest to Rome, to clear
away the hidden dangers on the shore of Ostia, and then construct
harbours and roadsteads sufficient for the great fleets that would
visit them. And all these things were in preparation.".
This explains awkward geographical details in the predictions /
descriptions of Augustus Caesar's triumphs, in particular, the
tendentious/opportunistic suggestion that he has been *conquering* the
East in 30BC (Parthians, Euphrates and the Tigris) but also surprising
references to Scythia and Germany.
So in, Hor. Odes 2.9, the emphasis on "*nova* cantemus *Augusti*
tropaea Caesaris" - (I note that Cairns has suggested that Gallus'
actual words were 'bina... tropaea' without reference to this
passage); the problems that N&H have in providing an appropriate
imagined date for this poem (must be between 27BC and say 23BC, but
the only major campaign then is Spain of which no mention is made);
the reference to the Geloni (Scythians).
Cf. in Geo. 3 especially
et duo rapta manu diuerso ex hoste tropaea
bisque triumphatas utroque ab litore gentis.
with the latter line Julius Caesar's intention "so to complete this
circuit of his empire, which would then be bounded on all sides by the
ocean." - but how do these lines describe comfortably Octavian's
success in the civil war? (cf. also the reference to the Britons at
Geo. 3.25 - Julius' success not Octavian's).
Cf. in Aen. 8 - again, the Geloni and the reference to Germany
(Rhenus).
Those lines from Ovid which I quoted above
Atque aliqua ex illis cum regum nomina quaeret,
Quae loca, *qui montes*, quaeve ferantur aquae,
220
Omnia responde, nec tantum siqua rogabit;
Et quae nescieris, ut bene nota refer.
predecessor [viz. Gallus] bandied about the names of exotic rivers and
mountains all around the world, with, perhaps, not too much regard to
detail (NB the same scene - lover + mistress reading titulos appears
in Prop. 3.4)?
falmouth
Aug 1, 2009, 4:49:49 AM8/1/09
to Mantovano
<It is not easy to find an obvious context for “Nereine” in
Callimachus’ Hecale>
Shortly before (or even in) Fr. 47 Hollis is a possibility, I see now
Callimachus’ Hecale>
(?Hecale's husband drowns at sea).
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages