No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Huemer's text:
The confusion of the MSS is well justified; something has gone very wrong here. Even if ‘horrendis... profundis’ could be plausibly construed, the repetition ‘horrendis... horrendi’ is impossibly clumsy, and it seems obvious that one or the other does not belong here. I suggest that the interloper is the ‘horrendis’ of line 286, which probably derives from a simple eye-skip to ‘;horrendi.sociis’ below. The likely corollary is that the correct reading at the end of the line is ‘profundi’, later altered in an attempt to accommodate the intrusive ‘horrendis’. This approach would seem to be confirmed by the frequency of the clausula ‘stagna profundi’ in the Latin hexameter (cf. Lucan 2.571, 8.853, 9.305, Sil. 7.282, 378, 10.590, Avien. Arat. 991, Claud. 8.596, Coripp. Ioh. 6.23).
1 Alternatively, one might hypothesize a supralinear correction of ‘horrendi’ in 287 to ‘horrendis’, which was then mistakenly absorbed into the line above.
2 In all these cases, admittedly, ‘profundi’ is the substantive (= ‘maris,’ ‘aquae’).
3 Juvencus does use ‘pater’ alone in this sense (e.g. at 1.365), so that an epithet is not absolutely demanded.
4 For the separation of 7 lsquo;quas’ and ‘aeternas’ cf. e.g. 1.35 ‘ego quern Dominus... ante suos vultus voluit parere minis trwri’.
5 Jiilicher A., Itala I2 (Berlin, 1972); sim. Vulgate.
6 I am grateful to Dr Heyworth, and to my colleagues Drs Nigel Holmes and Manfred Flieger, for comments on earlier drafts.