G. P. GOOLD
T HOSE WHO in these days address themselves to the study of the Astronomica of Marcus Manilius probably do so more out of interest in the scholarship which has accumulated around the text than in the text itself. To some this will seem a foolish and tasteless avocation, for the
astrological poet has secured-as he would doubtless himself aver-a remembrance among posterity far in excess of his deserts. But it is a fact that two of the greatest intellects (the two greatest, one might claim) that ever busied themselves with antiquity put forth their concentrated powers upon editions of this puny and frivolous writer, as did also a third
scholar of exceptional talent. And on this account Manilian studies may justly continue to attract the attention of disinterested lovers of learning.
It is hardly adverse criticism to say of A. E. Housman that he is not
the equal of Scaliger or Bentley, for these are giants possessing in scholar-
ship a stature which measures up to Newton’s in science. Housman was, however, one of the most considerable scholars of our century, and the
many Rhadamanthine pronouncements of this enfant terrible of textual criticism were such as rarely to admit reasonable grounds for appeal, still less encourage hope that judgement would be reversed.
Housman’s preoccupation with Manilius dates from about 1897, the year of publication of Postgate’s Silva Maniliana. Four years earlier
Robinson Ellis’s collation of the new-found Matritensis had been published by instalments in the Classical Review, and had doubtless received from Housman some cursory study at least in the very same
year. But we can be pretty sure that his full energies were expended on Manilius only after the completion of his dazzling papers on the Heroides (CR 11 [1897]), the composition of which followed immediately upon the
appearance of A Shopshire Lad. The publication of his emendations of Book 1 in 1898 in the Journai of Phiiology indicates both that these emendations were of recent date and (since there had been no supporting
argument or explanation) that fuller treatment was to come later, whether in an edition or-as had happened in the case of Propertius-an extensive treatise. In publishing at once he was simply actuated by the desire of
putting his conjectures on record at the earliest date. The same reason accounts for the publication in 1900 of conjectures in Book 5. No doubt Housman read the Astronomica through in the original order first, but it
is interesting to note that after intensive study of Book 1 he passed to the comparatively non-technical Book 5. The technical books, 2-4, provided in the next two or three years enough corrections for the
emendator to be eager to have them on record, and consequently they
93
94 THE PHOENIX
were included in the 1903 edition of Book 1. Gow (8&lc& p.19) and Garrod (CR 27 [I9131 135a), both misled by Man.1 p.lxxiii, lines 25-7,
have initiated the belief that Housman had not at the time of publica-
tion in 1903 formed the intention of editing the complete poem. This is quite false, and capable of refutation from that very book, cf., p. lxxiii, lines 12, 31, 36; notes to verses 76, 24.5 (p.23, lines 36f. of commentary),
to go no farther. In his first volume Housman reviews the list of Manilius’ previous
editors provocatively and severely, but not inaccurately. A newcomer to
the author might imagine that the eulogy of Bentley suffered from extravagance, especially in the comparison with Scaliger (“at the side of
Bentley no more than a marvellous boy”), of whom Pattison could say -confident that every reader of the De Emendatione Temporum would
agree-that his was “the most richly-stored intellect which ever spent
itself in acquiring knowledge.” And even after several years’ work on the
poet Garrod was hotly indignant that anyone could consider Scaliger’s primacy in Manilian criticism to be challenged by Bentley “so much inferior in knowledge, in patience, in circumspection, and in the faculty
of grasping a whole” (edn Book 2, p. lxxxii). Yet Housman is right, and Garrod wrong. It is true that Scaliger’s work is a complete commentary, and Bentley’s is not; but the latter’s edition aspired only to original
criticism, i.e., such notes as would correct the work of previous editors, including Scaliger. Whether Bentley was less erudite than Scaliger is a question almost as much beyond Garrod’s competence to determine as
beyond mine. On the second score the plain fact is that both men were remarkably swift, trenchant, and independent thinkers; patience was in neither a conspicuous virtue. But in circumspection and comprehension,
Bentley is so far superior that only a prejudiced arbiter could possibly maintain otherwise. Where Scaliger errs, as he does at 2.7f. (Troy and
Odysseus were the themes of Homer: patria quae h-a petentemldum dabat eripuit-so the manuscripts), he errs because when he is puzzled he is no better than the rest of us: on this passage after a fantastic explana- tion a dozen lines long he proudly says “L$is negat haec cohaerere?” Where Bentley errs, as he also does at 2.7f., he is still the first of scholars: Repone-he orders-: “patriam cui Graecia, septem/dum daJat, eripuit,” i.e., the Greeks deprived Homer of his native city by giving him seven.
Even here Bentley is in a sense right, since he has restored the true meaning; but palaeographical considerations led Housman later to the clearly correct patriam cui turba petentum etc., with the same sense
(“the host of rivals for his native city left Homer with none”). Bentley’s Manilius, more perhaps than any other of his works, justifies the quip of the contemporary wit: “One may learn more from Bentley when he is wrong, than from Barnes when he is right.” The consequence was that every serious effort to improve the text of Manilius was necessarily a
ADVERSARIA MANILIANA 95
reaction against Bentley. Ellis’s AToctes Munilianue (1891) was the most
sustained attack, though it proved a signal failure. Housman is, of course, a valiant and powerful upholder of Bentley’s
principles of criticism, but in the event his edition-whilst accepting
much from Bentley-kept up a continual attack upon Bentley’s corrections and interpretations. Ironically enough, he is even (uninten- tionally) unfair to Bentley on occasion. What, I wonder, would have
been his comment, had it been Ellis and not himself who at 1.761 (addendum) robbed Bentley of credit for adducing Nemes.Bzz.l.40?
Often Housman’s criticism is successful, as at 5.689 where his detonsu, and not Bentley’s seposta, is the origin of the meaningless sed nota of the manuscripts. But there are several other truces in Manilius where
Housman has firmly shut his eyes to the hcida tela diei which have emanated from his illustrious predecessor. One is inclined to suspect that Housman’s achievements, like those of Lachmann and Madvig, rely less
upon that felicity of instinct which he praised in Heinsius and recognized in Arthur Palmer than upon “the perfection,” as he terms it, “of
intellectual power.” As a result he sometimes presses logic beyond what is reasonable: his transposition at 2.684ff. is an appalling error of
judgement. It is a pity that Housman chose to write his commentary in Latin. NO
doubt an apparatus criticus extended so as to become a commentary may we11 find itself written in Latin; and no one will wish to suggest that a scholar of Housman’s genius may not legitimately claim the privilege
of disputing with the greatest scholars of the past in the universal language of learning. But I imagine that others besides myself have privately con- sidered that the Manilius would have been a richer masterpiece and a
more impressive monument, had it been written throughout in Housman’s superb and exquisite English. His Latin, if I am any judge, not infre- quently wants vigour and elegance and even lucidity; and it compares
unfavourably, not merely with Scaliger’s and Bentley’s, whose spontan- eous Latin is stamped with the simplicity of power and greatness, but also with that of the despised Ellis.
The series of notes on Manilius which this article (concerned primarily
with Book 1) introduces contains, as the nature of the case demands, mostly adverse criticisms of Housman’s Manilius, But the reader will
bear in mind that for every disagreement now recorded there is a score or more of Housman’s emendations or interpretations meriting unstinted
applause. The number of his probably true emendations (some of them, like his 1930 transposition of 1.80.5-8, indicative of the most penetrating intellect) runs into three figures- an astounding amount for a twentieth- century scholar in an author so worked over. In what follows, I shall of course premise that readers have access to Housman’s Manilius. And if,
as I hope, my opinions lead them to open and browse through the pages
96 THE PHOENIX
of that magnificent work, then the most important of my aims will have been achieved; and these adversaria, which appear by design in the
centenary year of A. E. Housman’s birth, will the more easily be recognized as a commemorative tribute from an ardent as well as critical admirer of his scholarship.
Let us proceed at once to the cardinal manuscripts of Manilius, about which there still remains something to say. Housman’s last word on the
subject is to be found in the preface to his fifth volume. However, though he triumphantly established his main propositions, his chief purpose was the refutation of rival theories, and the pleasant duty of castigation
distracted his attention from a number of significant details. His opinions (5, pp.xviii ff.) about the ancestral manuscript whose pages we can reconstruct I have already endeavoured to correct and elaborate in
RhA497 [1954] 359 ff., whither I refer the interested. His stemma codicum (ed.min. p.ix) can now be superseded by the accompanying diagram. Let it be borne in mind that pen. is now lost and is known only through Gronovius’s imperfect collation.
Now, it is obvious that, of two hypotheses adequately accounting for the same evidence, the simpler is to be preferred to the more complicated. We shall not postulate more manuscripts than we need to. Accordingly we shall not postulate with Housman his needless manuscripts b (between
M and the archetype), g (between G and a), or d (between Ven. and a). He assumed the existence of b (5, p.ix) to account for the range of difference between M and L, which Thielscher had absurdly supposed to be apographs of the same manuscript. However, the derivation of L from
the intervening a is adequate explanation of the differences involved; and it is known on other grounds that the manuscript discovered by Poggio (from which M was copied) was exceedingly old. Moreover, some
erroneous readings shared by L and M are so nonsensical and were so exposed to further corruption or interpolation (e.g., 2.358 diuiaque, 361 paedafe$) that the relationship of these manuscripts must be fairly
close. There is likewise no reason to suppose that either G or Yen. was
ADVERSARIA A4ANZLZANA 97
not directly derived from a. The onus of proof is upon those who interpose such additional manuscripts.
A more important question is why there is so often a split between the
evidence of LM and GLz: Housman seems to have found the solution (5, p.xvi) though he unaccountably declined to elaborate it. The phenomena which I am about to explain are, as Housman saw, paralleled
in the textual tradition of Catullus (see Phoenix 12 [1958] 9Sff.). The dotted lines in the diagram represent an interlinear tradition which is best illustrated in respect of a. It will become apparent that M and L
copied with reasonable fidelity only the linear text of their exemplars; that G and Ven. made choice between the linear text and interlinear variants; and that lections denoted by L2 were taken from the interlinear variants of a by a second scribe. Four examples will illustrate the nature of a’s text.
4.164 (rejec#it) 4.591 (Efmu) (a’) it (4 e
(0) reflecte (u) urus
(L*) reflectit (L*) eurus
Notice that L has reproduced the linear text, L2 (presumably the super-
visor of the scribe L) the interlinear text, and that G has (here with significant error) made his own interpretation of both. The origin of G’s mistakes suggests a similar origin for such variants as 1.88 itiner GL,
inter M (Bentley’s note in support of iter in, Yen., is final).
5.101 (?mtundu) 3.395 (prti)
(L) conand! 12) cananda (L) par< 1 ‘(G) parte
(L*) canenda (F’en) canenda (L*) parati (Vm) parte
Notice that at 5.101 L2J’eu. have independently ‘corrected’ cananda, as GVen. have independently ‘corrected’ the ablative parti at 3.395.
The last example has wider implications, for here M has para, and consequently para must have been the reading of the archetype. But
where did the ti of a2 come from ? The true reading parti (old form of the ablative) was at some stage of the tradition miscopied as para (for the common confusion of ti and a, see Housman ad ~oc.); the mistake was
immediately recognized, it would seem, and ti written over the incorrect a: thus the source of the corruption is explained. Had the interlinear variant been merely a conjecture, it would quite certainly have been te, giving parte, the usual form of the ablative. Evidently the variant existed
between the lines of the archetype P.
98 THE PHOENIX
Thus wherever dissension arises between LM and GLz, we may say that LM reproduces the linear text of P; and that GL2 reproduces an
interlinear variant from the manuscript a, which variant may or may not reproduce an interlinear variant in P. It is manifest that a2 is occasionally simply a false conjecture originating with the scribe, e.g.,
3.292 cadendi M (and therefore P), miscopied by a as canendi (hence GL canendi); a2, however, saw that something was wrong and conjectured oriendi (hence L2 and a variant in G oriendi, which cannot possibly have
come from P); it is to be observed that the canendi of Yen. must be conjectural.
An interesting change of parties produces some twenty examples of a division between L2M (nearly always right) and GL: here a miscopied the text of his exemplar and then corrected his error, e.g., 1. 470 conditur M (and P); a copied this carelessly, intending to write Sditur, but in fact writing coditur (interpreted as ceditur, or rather caeditur, by GL); he endeavoured to right his mistake, however, with an interlinear correction
conditur, hence conditur L2. Mention must also be made of a rarer but more significant phenomenon.
Sometimes it is practically certain that an interlinear variant already
existed in P. When the scribe of a reached such a passage, he made (as G and Pen. were later to make) his own choice, and often chose the variant, P*: as an afterthought he sometimes added as a variant the original linear reading. Hence, at 1. 423 where P had something like eguitioue, and P2 had dubitauit (a metrical gloss), M copied what he could make out of P,
whereas a, who was baffled by eguitioue but understood dubitauit, transcribed the latter. At 2.39 the agreement of GM makes it clear that the linear reading of P was the corrupt pecorum ritus: however an alter-
native ritus pecorum stood in the margin or interlinear spaces of P (this
reading, being unmetrical into the bargain, is less likely to be an inter- polation than a genuine relic of the true reading: from it, indeed, Bentley restored ritus pastorurn); the variant P2 was hence copied straight into a (thence into LVen. as well), but P’s linear reading was kept as a variant (and preferred by G). At 5. 545 P read solaque in, and so did M and a
(and consequently L): in the margin of P, however, was a note (P2) that in was spurious; this note was reproduced in a (i.e., a2), and G heeding this reads soiaque, which, being meaningless in the context, can be no
conjecture. Housman (5, p. xvi) is reduced to the unlikely explanation that L and M, elsewhere such virtuous abstainers from interpolation, have here by a strange coincidence alike succumbed to temptation, and
-stranger still-hit independently on the same false conjecture. It follows that a judicious examination of variants often enables us to
reconstruct the appearance of the archetype, and sometimes even its
parent, the Antiquissimus. At 4. 653 this manuscript had ORE, but the oblique lower stroke of the R curved back a trifle, thus making the letter
ADVERSARIA MANILIANA 99
look at first sight more like B. The scribe of the archetype consequently
copied it in his haste as obe: but in a trite he realized his mistake and added
r above the b. As a result, M has obe, whilst a (and so GL) has o&e. Here Bentley restored ore, which Housman high-handedly brushes aside.
More than once in Manilius such interlinear variants and annotations
have caused the expulsion or obliteration from the text of genuine parts of the original fabric. In these cases, alas, a true restoration is hard to find; and, even when found, it has to fight for recognition. Illustration
fitly brings me to the first passage I wish to discuss from Book 1.
211 haec aeterna manet diuisque simillima forma,
cui neque principium est usquam net finis in ipsa,
sed similis toto ore . . . perque omnia par est.
sic tellus glomerata manet mundumque figurat.
The shape of a sphere is eternal, the perfect image of the gods: nowhere in it is there
beginning or end, but it is like. . . over all its surface and identical at every point. So too
the earth is rounded and reflects the shape of the heavens.
The progress of error is instructive. Tellus was first miscopied as stelh; whereupon gzomerata, bereft of its noun, was referred to omnia. The next stage of corruption was the accommodation of the verbs of the last line to the plural number; and in the manuscript wherein the alteration was made the insertion of manent obliterated a word in verse 213:
sed similis totore manent perque omnia par est
sic stellis glomerata manet mundumque figurat3gurant . . . . . . . . . . . .
With the inevitable reshuffle of manent and manet and the suppression of figurat, the lines so stand in our manuscripts. Bentley saw at a glance that
manet . . . manet . . . manent was impossible, correctly expelled the
intruder, and-one of his best conjectures-divined the missing word:
sed simih toto ore sibi . . . “but it is like unto itself over all its surface.”
Bentley does not bother to cite any parallel, but d., Hesiod Theog. 127,
Parmenidesfr. 8. 49 and 8. 57 Diels, and especially Empedocles fr. 29 Diels &V& UC#IUQJOS &JV KCL~ m!w~o&v &OS 2aw& Ping&, followed by
Housman, denies that ore could mean super-tie (van Wageningen’s examples from Ovid are pathetically irrelevant) and proposes o&e. This is not an absurd conjecture: but it makes Manilius say in effect orbis toto orbe sibi simih est, which I find harder to swallow than the ore indicated by the manuscripts. As for Housman’s 1932 proposal similis torno remeat (he doubtless had in mind Plato Tim. 33B and pseudo-Aristotle de mtuzdo 39lb), this is invalidated by the inappropriate idea of motion which it
introduces. This type of error, obliteration by dittography (cf., 224 and Housman
adZoc.), is not to be confused with corruption of a word through similarity
1 0 0 T H E P H O E N I X
t o a w o r d i m m e d i a t e l y a b o v e o r b e l o w i n a d j a c e n t l i n e s . T h i s t y p e o f m i s t a k e i s s e e n a t 4 7 0 t u r n h m i n a ( c o r r u p t e d i n G L t o c u m / u n a f r o m t h e
l i n e a b o v e ) , a n d a l s o a t P r o p e r t i u s 1 . 8 . 1 3 - 2 0 ( A r c h i b a l d W . A l l e n ’ s t r a n s p o s i t i o n o f 1 3 f . a f t e r 1 8 C P 4 3 [ I 9 5 0 1 3 7 s o l v e s s o m a n y d i f f i c u l t i e s t h a t i t m u s t b e c o n s i d e r e d c o r r e c t ) .
1 3 . . . a t q u e e g o n o n u i d e a m t a l e s s u b s i d e r e u e n t o s ,
1 4 c u m t i b i p r o u e c t a s a u f e r e t u n d a r a t e s , 1 9 u t t e f e l i c i p o s t u i c t u C e r a u n i a r e m 0
2 0 a c c i p i a t p l a c i d i s O r i c o s a e q u o r i b u s .
H e r e p o s t u i c t a ( H e i n s i u s ) w a s c o r r u p t e d t o p r a e u e c t a u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f p r o u e c t a s i n t h e p r e v i o u s v e r s e .
T h e c o r r e c t i o n o f v e r s e 2 1 3 i s n o t t h e o n l y e m e n d a t i o n o f B e n t l e y ’ s t o
w h i c h H o u s m a n d o e s l e s s t h a n j u s t i c e . T h e f o l l o w i n g , t o g o n o f a r t h e r t h a n t h e f i r s t b o o k o f t h e A s t r o n o m i c a , a l l m e r i t a p l a c e i n t h e t e x t : 1 7 4 C Z N Y U J ; 4 0 3 d i s c u n t ( t h e s a m e c o r r u p t i o n o c c u r s a t P r o p . 1 . 4 . 1 4 w h e r e e d i t o r s a n d
c o m m e n t a t o r s h a v e y e t t o a c k n o w l e d g e H e i n s i u s ’ d i s c e r e a s t h e t r u e
r e a d i n g ) ; 4 7 1 s i n e n o m i n e t & a ( c f . , 5 . 7 3 7 ; H o u s m a n h a s a r i v a l c o n - j e c t u r e o f a r r e s t i n g b r i l l i a n c e , b u t i t i s n o t f r o m t h e p e n o f M a n i l i u s ) ; 7 2 4 s e g m i n a ; 7 4 6 f r a g m i n a ( I d o n o t u n d e r s t a n d w h y t h i s w a s d r o p p e d f r o m t h e t e x t o f t h e e d i t i o m i n o r : i t i s q u i t e c e r t a i n , a s i s H o u s m a n ’ s o w n f l u i t a u i t n a @ a g a a t 5 . 5 4 2 ) ; 7 9 0 n e f a n d i ; 8 1 5 n a t o s q u e . A n d t h e r e a r e
s t i l l m o r e , l i k e 2 8 5 s o l i d u s . . . a x i s , 3 1 1 g e h , 6 3 7 n a m s e u q u i s , 7 9 5 f a s c e s ( f o r c a e h m ) , 8 7 3 s a e p e l a t e n t - 1 a m n o t e x h a u s t i n g t h e l i s t - , w h i c h m u s t b e c o n s i d e r e d t o h o l d t h e f i e l d .
c9 2 2 1
2 2 4
2 2 7
2 3 0
t e t e s t e m d a t , l u n a , s u i g l o m e r a m i n i s o r b i s ,
q u a e c u m m e r s a n i g r i s p e r n o c t e m d e f i c i s u m b r i s n o n o m n i s p a r i t e r c o n f u n d i s s i d e r e g e n t e s ,
s e d p r i u s e o a e q u a e r u n t t u a l u m i n a t e r r a e ,
s e r a q u e i n e x t r e m i s q u a t i u n t u r g e n t i b u s a e r a .
q u o d s i p l a n a f o r e t t e l l u s , s e m e l o r t a p e r o m n e m d e f i c e r e s p a r i t e r t o t i m i s e r a b i l i s o r b i .
s e d q u i a p e r t e r e t e m d e d u c t a e s t t e r r a t u m o r e m ,
h i s m o d o , p o s t i l l i s a p p a r e t D e l i a t e r r i s . . .
E a r t h c a l l s t h e m o o n t o t e s t i f y t o i t s r o u n d n e s s . W h e n a t n i g h t t h e m o o n s u f f e r s e c l i p s e
a n d i s p l u n g e d i n t o u t t e r d a r k n e s s , t h e p l a n e t d o e s n o t m y s t i f y a l l n a t i o n s a t t h e s a m e
t i m e , b u t f i r s t t h e l a n d s o f t h e o r i e n t m i s s i t s l i g h t a n d o n l y l a t e r i s t h e b r a s s c l a s h e d i n
j u r t h c s t l a n d s . I f t h e e a r t h w e r e f l a t , t h e m o o n w o u l d r i s e o n c e o n l y f o r t h e w h o l e w o r l d a n d i t s e c l i p s e w o u l d b e l a m e n t e d b y e v e r y b o d y a l i k e . B u t s i n c e t h e s h a p e o f t h e e a r t h
f o l l o w s a s m o o t h c u r v e , t h e m o o n a p p e a r s t o t h e s e l a n d s f i r s t , a n d t h e n t o t h o s e . . .
O n e s u r e t h i n g w h i c h e m e r g e s f r o m t h i s p a s s a g e i s o u r p o e t ’ s i m p e r f e c t
g r a s p o f h i s s u b j e c t . H o u s m a n g i v e s r e f e r e n c e s t o s i m i l a r n e b u l o u s e x e g e s i s i n S t r a b o , P l i n y , C l e o m e d e s , a n d T h e o n , a n d d o e s h i s b e s t t o d r a w a
ADVERSARIA MANILIANA 101
sensible argument out of the Latin. But it needs to be remarked that the
obvious reason why lunar eclipses should be adduced to prove the earth’s
roundness is that, when the moon is partially hidden by the earth’s shadow falling upon its face, the outline of that shadow is seen quite plainly to be round. So Aristotle de caelo 2. 297b. Even today, when we
have aerial photography, this still remains by far the most impressive demonstration of the earth’s rotundity.
The chief problem concerns 22Sf.:
225 post media subiecta polo quaecumque coluntur,
226 ultima ad hesperios infectis uolueris alis.
“then all the regions situated beneath the middle of the sky, last it revolves with darkened wings to the peoples of the west.” I do not see how we can do aught but accede to Bentley’s deletion of these barbarous
lines. In 225 the neuter subiecta ought to be feminine, and media polo is not beyond criticism. Housman acknowledges Bentley’s list of faults in 226, but his attempt to emend the verse (turn uice ad hesperios infecti uoZueris axis “then under the motion of its darkened car it revolves to the peoples of the west”) is grotesque and unconvincing.
Why was the interpolation made? Because, I think, prius . . . sera . . .
was not felt to be a complete antithesis. One has to admit that verse 227 is rather condensed (the clashing of cymbals brings apotropaic help to
the moon in eclipse, see for example Friedlsnder on Juvenal 6. 441, Enk on Propertius 1. 1. 19, Gow on Theocritus 2. 36). However, a single antithesis between east and west, cf., 231 his . . . iZ/is . . ., is adequate.
Bentley, offended by the iteration of gentibus in 227, alters it tojnibus -perhaps without need, though, since one would expect in . . .Jnibus or ab . . . gentibus, I should not be surprised if he were right. The point must
remain uncertain. Yet about the corruption of extremis there can be no two opinions. With 22.5f. imputed to medieval interpolation, one need
not hesitate to restore
seraque in ?ztvperik quatiuntur gentibus aera,
“and only later is the brass clashed in western lands.” Compare 637f.
seu quis eoos/seu petit hesperios.
(3) 236
eminet, austrinis pars est habitabilis oris
sub pedibusque iacet nostris supraque uidetur
ipsa sibi fallente solo decliuia longa
et pariter surgente uia pariterque cadente.
hanc ubi ad occasus nostros sol aspicit ortus,
illic orta dies sopitas excitat urbes
et cum lute refert operum uadimonia terris.
102 THE PHOENIX
About the earth dwell the countless tribes of man, beast, and fowl of the air. One region
which they inhabit is situated high up in the north, another in southern climes; the latter
lies beneath our feet, but imagines that it is the upper side of the globe because the
ground conceals its gradual curvature and the surface of the earth rises and falls at the
same time. When at our occident the dawning sun looks upon this region, there the
dawning day is awakening cities from sleep and is bringing to men with daylight the
appointed round of work.
I p a s s o v e r t h e g e o g r a p h i c a l f a l l a c y , w h i c h H o u s m a n e x p o s e s i n h i s n o t e o n 1 . 2 4 6 ( p . 2 4 , l i n e s 5 - 9 o f c o m m e n t a r y ) .
I n 2 4 2 o u u s c a n s c a r c e l y b e c o r r e c t : i f y o u w a n t t o e x p r e s s t h e m e a n i n g
“ W h e n t h e s u n s e t s h e r e , i t r i s e s t h e r e , ” t h e o n e t h i n g y o u m u s t a v o i d s a y i n g i s ‘ W h e n t h e r i s i n g s u n s e t s h e r e , i t r i s e s t h e r e . ” A l t h o u g h
H o u s m a n ’ s n e a t a c t u s ( “ w h e n d r i v e n t o o u r o c c i d e n t t h e s u n . . .“) d o e s n o t i n v o l v e m u c h c h a n g e , t h a t c h a n g e i s i m p r o b a b l e . M o r e o v e r , t h e e m p h a s i s p l a c e d u p o n t h e s u n ’ s j o u r n e y t o t h e w e s t i s u n n e c e s s a r y . I
r a t h e r t h i n k t h e p o e t w r o t e
/ras ubi ab occasu nom-0 sol aspicit ora$
“ w h e n f r o m o u r o c c i d e n t t h e s u n l o o k s u p o n t h o s e r e g i o n s : ” i f o r a _ r w e r e
c o r r u p t e d t h r o u g h o r i i 3 t o o r t u s , t h e f u r t h e r a l t e r a t i o n o f h a s w o u l d b e c o m p u l s o r y ; n o s t r o o n l y n e e d e d t o p i c k u p a n s f r o m s o 1 t o c a u s e c o r r u p - t i o n t o b o t h i t s n o u n a n d p r e p o s i t i o n . T h e c o r r e c t i o n a b o c c a s u n o s t r o i s S c a l i g e r ’ s .
A s i m i l a r e r r o r o c c u r r e d i n 1 7 5 :
173 quod ni librato penderet pondere tellus,
non ageret currus, mundi subeuntibus astris,
175 Phoebus ab occasu et numquam remearet ad ortus,
lunaue submerses regeret per inania cursus,
net matutinis fulgeret Lucifer horis,
Hesperos emenso dederat qui lumen Olympo.
If the earth were not poised in space, the sun would not drive its chariotjrom me west as
the stars of heaven appeared, and would never return to the orient; nor would the moon
pursue her course in space below the horizon, nor at the hour of dawn would shine the
Morning Star, which earlier as the Star of Eve had sent forth its light after traversing
the heavens.
P e r h a p s I o u g h t t o o b s e r v e t h a t i n t h e s e n o t e s I o f t e n i n c o r p o r a t e t h e e m e n d a t i o n s o f o t h e r s w i t h o u t d i s c u s s i o n , e i t h e r b e c a u s e t h e e m e n d a t i o n i s u n i v e r s a l l y a c c e p t e d ( l i k e S c a l i g e r ’ s i m m e r s u m f o r i m m e n s u m in 8 3 0
b e l o w ) o r b e c a u s e t h e i s s u e i s i r r e l e v a n t t o m y a r g u m e n t ( a s i s t h e c a s e w i t h B e n t l e y ’ s c u v u s f o r c w s u s i n 1 7 4 a b o v e ) : i n a l l s u c h c a s e s t h e e m e n -
d a t i o n w i l l b e f o u n d m e n t i o n e d i n H o u s m a n ’ s e d i t i o n . I n 1 7 5 B e n t l e y ’ s n e c e s s a r y c o r r e c t i o n a 8 o c c a s u f o r a d o c c a s u m i s
w r o n g l y r e j e c t e d b y H o u s m a n , w h o w a n t s t o e x t r a c t t h e f o l l o w i n g m e a n - i n g ( e x c e l l e n t i n i t s e l f ) : “ I f t h e e a r t h w e r e n o t p o i s e d i n s p a c e , t h e s t a r s w o u l d n o t g o b e n e a t h t h e e a r t h b y d a y ( w h i l e t h e s u n r e v o h e d f r o m e a s t
A D V E R S A R I A M A N I L I A N A 1 0 3
t o w e s t ) n o r w o u l d t h e s u n g o b e n e a t h t h e e a r t h b y n i g h t . ” I m a y i n s t a n c e t h i s a s a n o t h e r e r r o r a r i s i n g f r o m a m i s p l a c e d z e a l f o r s y m m e t r i c a l a r g u m e n t : n o i n s t i n c t i v e f e e l i n g f o r L a t i n h a s p r e v e n t e d H o u s m a n f r o m
c o n s t r u i n g a n a b l a t i v e a b s o l u t e a s t h e m a i n c l a u s e a n d t u r n i n g t h e m a i n c l a u s e i n t o a n a b l a t i v e a b s o l u t e . A f t e r t h i s , i t i s h a r d l y w o r t h a m e n t i o n
t h a t o n H o u s m a n ’ s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h e r e o u g h t t o b e a s e c o n d a b l a t i v e a b s o l u t e o r i t s e q u i v a l e n t m e a n i n g “ b y n i g h t . ” P o s s i b l y H o u s m a n w a s
l e d a s t r a y b y s u h e u n t i b u s w h i c h m e a n s “ a p p e a r i n g ” h e r e j u s t a s i t d o e s a t 5 . 2 5 1 . F i n a l l y , t h e r e a r e a l a r g e n u m b e r o f u n d e n i a b l y s p u r i o u s v e r s e s
i n M a n i l i u s , a n d I g i v e w i t h o u t c o m m e n t B e n t l e y ’ s c h i e f r e a s o n s f o r c o n s i d e r i n g 1 7 6 t o b e o n e o f t h e m : “ C u m a d d i t p e r i n a n i a , i d s u m i t q u o d
p r o b a t u r u s e s t , i n f r a t e r r a m i n a n i a p e r u i a q u e s p a t i a d a r i . d e i n d e L u c i j e r a t q u e i d e m H e s p e r o s , s o l i s p e r p e t u u s c o m e s , m a l e p e r h u n t u e r s u m a P h o e b o d i s i u n g i t u r . ”
I n m y f i r s t d r a f t I h e r e r e f e r r e d t o O v i d & l e t . 5 . 4 4 4 f . ( C e r e s ’ s e a r c h f o r t h e l o s t P r o s e r p i n e ) :
rursus ubi alma dies hebetarat sidera, natam
4 4 5 solis ab occasu solis quaerebat ad ortus,
A n d , n o t i n g t h e r e a d i n g o f N ( s o Z i s a d o c c a s u s s o Z i s q u a e r e b a t a d o r t u s ) , I a t t e m p t e d t o s u p p o r t H e i n s i u s ’ s a d o c c a s u s . . . a b o r t u . P r o f e s s o r R . J . G e t t y , h o w e v e r , b y w h o s e e x p e r t s c r u t i n y a n d h e l p f u l s u g g e s t i o n s t h i s
a r t i c l e h a s b e e n g r e a t l y i m p r o v e d , r i g h t l y p o i n t s o u t t h a t t h e t e x t i s s o u n d a n d m e a n s ‘ W h e n b o u n t e o u s d a y h a d o n c e m o r e d i m m e d t h e s t a r s ,
s h e w a s t o b e f o u n d s t i l l m o v i n g e a s t w a r d s i n s e a r c h o f h e r d a u g h t e r , ” i m p l y i n g t h a t s h e m o v e d f r o m w e s t t o e a s t d u r i n g t h e n i g h t s o a s t o s h o r t e n t h e h o u r s o f d a r k n e s s a n d h a s t e n t h e d a w n .
( 4 1 3 3 7
3 4 0
inposuit, formae pretium, qua cepit amantem,
cum deus in niueum descendit uersus olorem
tergaque fidenti subiecit plumea Ledae.
nunc quoque diductas uolitat stellatus in alas.
IIard by is the place allotted to the Swan, which Jove himself placed in the skies as a
reward for the shape under which he secured the object of his love, when disguised as a
snow-white swan he swooped down to earth and in feathered form approached the un-
suspecting Leda. Its outspread wings figured by stars, the swan flies even yet.
S o I i n t e r p r e t w i t h B e n t l e y ( a t M a n . 5 . 2 4 ) . C y c n u s s t e l l a t u s i n a l a s d i d u c t a s , w h i c h H o u s m a n f e i g n s n o t t o u n d e r s t a n d , i s a s c l e a r a n d n a t u r a l a s G a h ’ a d i u i s a i n p a r t e s t r e s , a n d m e a n s s t e l a t u s i t a u t a Z a e $ a n t d i d u c t a e ( i . e . , s t e l l i s i t a o r n a t u s u t a Z a s $ g u r e n t d i d u c t a s ) : s e e E r a t o s t h e n e s C a t . 2 5 , H y g i n u s P o e t . A s t r o D o m . 3 . 7 , a n d s c h o l . G e r m . A - a t . p p . 8 5 , 2 3 6 B r e y s i g , w h o t e l l u s t h a t t h e r e a r e f i v e s t a r s i n e a c h w i n g , w i t h o n l y o n e a p i e c e f o r h e a d , n e c k , b o d y , a n d t a i l .
104 THE PHOENIX
H o u s m a n j o i n s d i d u c t a s u o l i t a t i n a Z a s , w h i c h h e s e e k s t o e x p l a i n a s g o o d M a n i l i a n L a t i n f o r “ f l i e s w i t h o u t s p r e a d w i n g s ” ( b u t h o w e l s e d o e s a b i r d f l y ? ) . Y e t e v e n i f w e s w a l l o w t h i s ( a n d i t i s s w a l l o w i n g a l o t ) , i t i s
d i f f i c u l t t o u n d e r s t a n d w h a t a p r e d i c a t i v e s t e / Z a t u s i s d o i n g o n i t s o w n ( f o r n u n c q u o q u e m u s t b e t a k e n w i t h u o / i t a t . ) W h e t h e r i t m e a n + ~ r ~ p ~ p k v o s o r K a r q u r e p l u p k v o s , a n i s o l a t e d s t e h ’ a t u s w o u l d b e h e r e c o m p l e t e l y o t i o s e
a n d n o m o r e a p p l i c a b l e t o C y g n u s t h a n a n y o t h e r c o n s t e l l a t i o n . A n i m p a r - t i a l j u d g e i s b o u n d t o p r e f e r B e n t l e y ’ s a s t h e m o r e p r o b a b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . H o w i r o n i c a l i t i s t h a t B r e i t e r a n d v a n W a g e n i n g e n , w h o s o o f t e n d i s -
r e g a r d o r r e j e c t H o u s m a n ’ s m o s t c o m p e l l i n g p r o p o s a l s , s h o u l d a d d t o t h e i r m a n y c r i m e s b y f o l l o w i n g h i m h e r e !
B e n t l e y ’ s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f 2 4 $ g u r i s ( “ i d e s t , s u i s c i r c u l i s e t d i a g r a m - m a t i s ” ) i s j u s t l y u p h e l d a g a i n s t H o u s m a n ’ s b y W a s z i n k , S I F C ( 1 9 5 6 ) 5 8 9 f . , t h o u g h I a m u n a b l e t o a c c e p t a n y o t h e r o f t h e D u t c h s c h o l a r ’ s
c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o t h e s t u d y o f M a n i l i u s I ( a l s o i n Ut P i c t u r a P o e s i s 2 0 4 f f . a n d M n e r n . [ I 9 5 6 1 2 4 l f f . ) , w h i c h a r e m a r k e d b y e x t r a o r d i n a r y c o n s e r - v a t i s m . A t v e r s e 1 1 , f o r e x a m p l e , a c r i t i c i s f a c e d w i t h a c h o i c e b e t w e e n t w o c o u r s e s . E i t h e r h e k e e p s t h e t e x t i a m p r o p i u s q u e f a u e t m u n d u s s c r u t a n t i h s i p s u m ( w h i c h c o m p e l s h i m n o t o n l y t o a c c e p t H o u s m a n ’ s s t r a n g e l i n k i n g o f p r o p i u s a n d f a u e t b u t a l s o t o s h u t h i s e y e s t o t h e p o s i t i o n o f - q u e ) o r h e a c c e p t s B e n t l e y ’ s l i n k i n g o f p r o p i u s a n d s c r u t a n t i b u s ( w h i c h c o m p l e s h i m t o a l t e r t h e t e x t ) : W a s z i n k k e e p s t h e t e x t a n d a c c e p t s B e n t l e y ’ s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . M a n i l i u s ’ s w o r d s a r e r e s t o r e d b y B e n t l e y i a m q u e f a u e t m u n d u s p r o p i u s s c r u t a n t i b u s i p s u m , “ h e a v e n n o w s m i l e s o n t h o s e w h o s t u d y i t w i t h c l o s e a t t e n t i o n ” ( h e r e b y t h e o d d l y p l a c e d - q u e f i n d s i t s e l f i n t h e r i g h t p o s i t i o n ) . A s f o r t h e a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e p o e t
w i s h e d t o a v o i d t h e e n d i n g - u s i n t h r e e c o n s e c u t i v e w o r d s , i t w a s o p e n t o h i m t o w r i t e i a m m u n d u s q u e f a u e t p r o p i u s , w i t h o n l y q u e u n u s u a l l y p l a c e d . I n p a r t i c u l a r I s h o u l d d e f e n d a g a i n s t W a s z i n k H o u s m a n ’ s 1 4 5
p u g n a i n g e n i i s , a n d 2 7 7 f . m u t a n t . . . s i t u m , t w o c e r t a i n e m e n d a t i o n s o f t h e h i g h e s t e x c e l l e n c e .
375 quaeque inter gelidum Capricorni sidus et axe
imo subnixum uertuntur lumina mundum . . .
And the constellations situated between Capricorn’s cold tropic and that part of heaven
which is supported by the lower pole . . .
H o u s m a n ( 1 , p . l x x i i i ) i s i n d i g n a n t t h a t c o r r e c t i o n o f t h e m a n u s c r i p t s ’
i n t r a t o i n t e r w a s n o t m a d e b e f o r e . B u t t h e r e v e r s e c o r r u p t i o n h a s s t i l l t o b e r e m o v e d f r o m e d i t i o n s o f P l i n y a t N a t . H i s t . 2 . 6 7 s o l d e i n d e m e d i o f e r t u r i n t e r ( s o t h e m s s : r e a d i n t r a ) d u a s p a r t e s j e x u o s o d r a c o n u m m e a t u i n a e q u a h s , i . e . , t h e s u n ’ s d e v i a t i o n f r o m t h e e c l i p t i c l i e s w i t h i n a r a n g e o f
t w o d e g r e e s . S t u d e n t s o f a s t r o n o m y w i l l b e s u r p r i s e d t o l e a r n t h i s , s e e i n g t h a t t h e e c l i p t i c i s b y d e f i n i t i o n t h e p a t h o f t h e s u n ; b u t , t o s a v e s p a c e , I
ADVERSARIA MANILIANA 105
refer them for an explanation of the matter to Dreyer, Planetary Systems 94 (followed closely by Heath, Aristarchus 198ff.). This conjecture was made by Dr. J. A. Willis in 1951, though he never published it. The
absurdity of inter is well brought out by the Loeb mistranslation. The wordsflexuoso draconum meatu have often made me wonder what
induced Pliny to use (quite irrelevantly) this picturesque phrase. Getty
now makes the attractive suggestion that the encyclopaedist may have had at the back of his mind a verbal recollection of that passage in
Georgics 1 where, after speaking of the sun’s course through the zodiac, Vergil refers to the constellation Draco in these words (224) : maxumus hit flexu sinuoso elabitur Anguis.
The passage of Pliny was corrupted at a very early date, and seems to have been left undisturbed in the ages of faith, when there were worse things to fear than Housmannian wrath at slovenly use of inter and intra. Bede, de nat. rer. 16 (PLM 90, p. 23lb), has copied the sentence word for word from Pliny, and so has schol. Germ. A-at. p. 232, 5 ed. Breysig; and it would appear that their mss of Pliny had inter. Similarly Johannes
Scotus in that impressive assemblage of misinformation, Comm. in Mart. Cap., p. 173,3Off. ed.Lutz: duas enim medias partes so/urn modo latitudinis signlyeri so/ lustrat net eas aequaliter sed more draconis inter i//as duas medias, id estjexuoso cursu. The correct use of inter in this context is to be seen in Martianus Capella (not elsewhere, it must be said, the world’s most lucid exegete) 8. 868, ipsam soZarem lineam, quam mediam inter senas utriusque lateris partes esse monstraui (no nonsense about flexuosi cursus).
420
425
430
Ara nitet sac&s, uastos cum Terra Gigantas
in caelum furibunda tulit. turn di quoque magnos
quaesiuere deos; eguit Ioue Iuppiter ipse,
quod poterat non posse timens, cum surgere terram
cerneret, ut uerti naturam crederet omnem,
montibus atque altis adgestos crescere mantes,
et iam uicinos fugientia sidera colles
arma inportantis et rupta matre creates
discordes uultum permixtaque corpora partus.
necdum hostiferum sibi quemquam numina norant
siqua forent maiora suis. tune Iuppiter Arae
sidera constituit . . .
Next in heaven is heaven’s own shrine, the Altar, which blazes in triumph, fulfilling the
vows made when Earth in madness bore forth the monstrous Giants against the skies.
Then even the gods felt the need of mighty gods; even Jove looked for help from another
Jove, fearing that he had lost his power. He saw the ground soaring as though all nature
were overturned; peaks piled on lofty peaks he saw arise; he saw the stars retreating
from heights which brought ever nearer hostile arms and sons of a mother torn apart,
hideous creatures of unnatural face and shape. Nor as yet did they know anyone . . . to
themselves . . . whether there were powers greater than their own. Then Jupiter created
the constellation of the Altar . . .
106 THE PHOENIX
I confine discussion to the corrupt 430, of which I have printed the
manuscript text. There is no word hostzyerum, and this-coupled with the impermissible hiatus-locates the source of corruption. But first let us look at the whole passage. The construction is: turn di quaesiuere, Iuppiter egut’t, necdum . . . norant, tune Iuppiter constituit. Bentley alters norant to norat (SC. Iuppiter); but this can hardly be right since Iuppiter is the expressed subject of the next sentence. Balance indicates that the subject
of norant is di (and van Wageningen in his commentary tells us that we must so supply di). Scaliger had conjectured necdum pestzyerum sibi quemquam numina norant “nor as yet had the gods known anyone who
could bring destruction upon them. . . . ” But, says Housman, no one ever did; therefore pestzyerum must be wrong. This is to go too fast. Dum is the offending word, importing the alien idea “yet”; dum is the word which must be altered, and so altered as to bring in the required di (or as it was spelt in medieval times dii). Clearly, dum is none other than dii m-. Remembering that r is frequently corrupted to s, and that the aspirate is
as frequently added as subtracted, we may restore mortzyerum as the next word; that is to say, net dii mortzyerum was misread as necdum ostzyerum, and the latter word given an aspirate to make it look like Latin. It would seem that Manilius wrote:
~UX di mort#er-urn sibi quemquam uut numina norant
siqua forent maiora As.
Nor did the gods know whether anyone had the power to inflict death upon them or
whether forces existed greater than their own.
The addition of aut is due to Jacob, and is probably one of those correc- tions Housman had in mind when he penned the second footnote on page xviii of his fifth volume: once made, it looks easy; but in fact it is
rather hard to find. It reminds me of a passage in Johnson’s Lives of the Poets, where the received text is indubitably corrupt and the author’s original wording yet to be recovered. Halfway through his essay on Gray,
Johnson turns to criticism of that writer’s muse and presently considers On a F’avourite Cat, Drowned in a Tub of GoZdJshes, the first stanza of which may be recalled for the reader’s convenience:
‘Twas on a lofty vase’s side,
Where China’s gayest art had dyed
The azure flowers that blow,
Demurest of the tabby kind,
The pensive Selima reclined,
Gazed on the lake below.
Our texts of Johnson read thus: “The poem on the Cat was doubtless by its author considered as a trifle, but it is not a happy trifle. In the first
stanza the azure flowers that How shew resolutely a rhyme is sometimes made when it cannot easily be found.” Though I puzzled hard over this
ADVERSARIA A4ANILIANA 107
passage it was only after some minutes (and a good deal of Socratic questioning by the excellent Willis) that I arrived at the latter’s correction
“shew JZOW resolutely.” We subsequently discovered that Willis had been anticipated in this conjecture (1949, I believe), for the Everyman edition has it, and it is mentioned in another edition no longer within my reach.
I suggest, however, that we go just a little farther and make the verb agree with its subject, and at once provide a reasonable cause for the omission. W&L shows how resolutely Gray sometimes made a rhyme when it could not easily be found? Not azure flowers, or any flowers. It was the passage “the azureJ0wer.i that blow,” and grammar demands that such a
composite subject (being equivalent to a noun clause) govern a singular verb. Johnson wrote: “ In the first stanza the azureflowers that blow shews how resolutely. . . . ” Possibly the compositor mistook the sequence s/zews/zow for two variant spellings of the verb “shew,” and deliberately
omitted the last four letters.
(71 431 432
438
440
sidera constituit, quae nunc quoque maxima fulget. turn Notius Piscis uenti de nomine dictus exurgit de parte noti. cui iuncta feruntur flexa per ingentis stellarurn Flumina gyros: alterius capiti coniungit Aquarius undas,
44IA alter ab exserto pede profluit Orionis 442 amnis; et in medium coeunt et sidera miscent.
433 quae propter Cetos conuoluens squamea terga
434 orbibus insurgit tortis et fluctuat aluo,
436 qualis ad expositae faturn Cepheidos undis
437 expulit adueniens ultra sua litora pontum.
tune Iuppiter Arae
438- 42 post 432 transposuit Garrod (Cz 2 [1908] 130), item Naiden et Householder
(CT’ 37 [1944] 187ff.)
43.5 intentans similem morsum iam iamque tenenti deleuit Bentley
Then Jupiter created the constellation of the Altar, which of all altars shines brightest
even now. The Southern Fish next rises in the quarter of the wind after which it is named.
To the fish are joined the Rivers which meander along great starry curves: Aquarius
adds his waters to the source of the one stream, whilst the otherflows jrom Orion’s
outthrust joot; they meet each other and blend their stars together. Close to the rivers
Cetus undulates his scaly body and rises aloft upon a spiral of coils; it beats the waters
with just such an underbelly as, moving in to destroy the exposed Andromeda, caused a
tidal wave to drive back the sea beyond its shores.
So the passage must be restored. Housman’s text and interpretation are to be corrected in the following respects.
Garrod’s transposition is necessary on two distinct grounds. First, according to the received text (433 quam proper) Manilius makes the
egregious mistake of placing Cetus beside Ara. Secondly, though the poet has elsewhere enumerated the constellations in a consistent order
108 THE PHOENIX
according to their location (herein deserting Aratus’s PIzaenome?za for the IJagoge of Geminus), the manuscripts make him act with extra-
ordinary confusion in detailing the southern signs. These two defects are repaired by the transposition, which must therefore be regarded as certain. Moreover, there is a further consideration. On folio 10 (11)
verso of the Antiquissimus the transposed lines came at the bottom of the page, where they were evidently placed upon their omission after verse 432. It is not to be forgotten that in 432 the manuscripts have, not
fulget, butfulgent: the scribe’s eye slipped from -ent at the end of 432 to -enl at the end of 442, and the verses were thus omitted.
Though it is a trivial mistake, Housman would, I am sure, be angry if we failed to correct his misconstruction (ed.min. p 176) steZlarum@mina (note well that he has silently dropped the capital letter of his earlier edition) : the genitive depends on gyros. Our not very learned Marcus, as his taskmaster points out, has misinterpreted Aratus Phaen. 365 & Zv kkw+~~vo~, which refers to the bonds linking the zodiacal
Fishes. Literally out of his depth, he has joined two unconnected con-
stellations, Eridanus and Aqua Aquarii, into a single sign which he calls “Flumina,” cf., 5. 14. As a result neither of the “rivers” counts for
Manilius as a full constellation on its own (read amnis not Amnis in 1. 442). i%mina, therefore, being a proper noun, can hardly take a genitive of material especially as gyros at hand has much more need of one.
The fact that Manilius regards Aqua Aquarii as belonging to a different constellation from Aquarius damns in my opinion Housman’sper1z.& Vnda at 2. 542 (pro&it Vrna Bentley).
@I 461
quidquid subduxit flammis, natura pepercit
subcubituraoneri, formas distinguere tantum
creduntur: satis est si se non omnia celant.
If the full form of every constellation were figured in flame, the heavens would be
unable to endure the intensity of the conflagration. By reducing the amount of fire,
nature has avoided a burden beneath which she would collapse. She is satisfied with
merely indicating the forms of the constellations and depicting them by certain stars.
The shapes are denoted by an outline, along which star is linked with star; the centre
parts are to be inferred from the edges, and the rear parts from the front; it is enough if
the constellations are not wholly invisible.
The corrections proposed seem to me to obscure rather than clarify
the meaning, which I have attempted to bring out in the rendering given above: it is only fair to emphasize that Manilius has no easy task here in
putting his argument into language of any kind. Housman’s tentative
ADYERSARIA MANILIANA 109
suggestion that a verse has dropped out after 464 was based on the possibility that the relevant page of the reconstructible Antiquissimus has here one line unaccounted for: it is demonstrated in RhM 97 (19S4)
362 that no such possibility exists. Against the proposals of Shackleton Bailey and A. Y. Campbell (C$ n.s. 6 [19.56] 81, 7 [19.57] 186) it is enough to point out that respondent is defended by 2. 414 and that in uhima summis the antithesis is between “front” (surface) and “rear” (depth), not between upper and lower limbs.
Housman’s retention of disiungere is surprising: in 464 the word tantum proves that disiungere is wrong (“merely to disjoin” destroys the logic) and that the early correction distieguere (cf., Aratus Phaen. 381 &a
u~/A&oLU’; Man. 1. 322) is right. It happens even to Housman that some strange blindness at times prevents him seeing what is plain to lesser men; and he occasionally champions some manifest absurdity with
an obtuseness which he found cruel words to rebuke in others. Within the first book one finds 96Jnemque manumque (modumque is obviously right, cf., Lucr.2. 92, Varro ap. Non. p. 211, 13: after the verb imponere the
phrase manum uhimam means “final touch,” the noun manum if anything “initial touch,” and jinemque manumque the nonsensical “final and initial touch”); 245 somnosque in membra 1ocamus (Housman’s interpreta-
tion provides him with an excuse for a long erudite note Lachmanni more, which he declined to forego by reading the certain uocamus); 789 cerlan-
tesque Deci (to Bentley’s and Lachmann’s notes supporting certantes Decii add Housman’s own arguments on 4. 776, p. xxixf. of his first volume, which he has here unseasonably forgotten).
Even so, it is risky to disagree with Housman’s considered judgement. Shackleton Bailey has amassed (Propertiana p. 317) over a score of quotations in an endeavour to prove that Manilius called the sign Leo
rapidus at 2. 211 and 550 (rabidique Leonis Scaliger, Bentley, Housman). The quotations provide the irrelevant information that Cancer, Sirius, SOZ, aestus, etc. are rapidus. To decide whether Leo is rapidus or rabidus for Manilius is not hard, and in fact we have a hot tip straight from the horse’s mouth. At 4. 176 the poet asks .$uis dubitet uasti quae sit natura Leonis? And proceeds in the ensuing passage to place the correctness of
rabidus beyond contention.
515 omnia mortali mutantur lcge creata, net se cognoscunt terrae uertentibus annis exutas uariam faciem per saecula gentes.
Little progress has been made in settling this crux since Scaliger, whose
text (with a stop after exutas, and uariant for uariam) may be rendered: “Everything born to a mortal existence is subject to change; the earth does not notice that it is despoiled by the passage of the years, and
1 1 0 T H E P H O E N I X
nations change its appearance from age to age.” However, the necessary insertion of a conjunction, and the reference offaciem back to terrae, show that something is wrong.
Here Housman has thrown both Shackleton Bailey and Campbell (locAt.) off the right track with his uariantque uicem (“change their ways”). Manilius does not use kern with an idea of plurality, only
&es. See 2. 468, 3. 640, 4. 320 inque uicem (“respectively,” “in turn”), 3.493 primam kern (“the first portion”); and 1. 637 mutat uices, 3. 524 uices ageret, 3. 649 conuertit . . . uices, and also uices at I. 6.5, 110; 2. 219; 3.32, etc. But the argument here does not touch on the “ways of nations”: the poet’s point is that, whereas the appearance of the heavens remains the same for ever, the face of the earth changes from one generation to another.
If one word in this passage is certain, it isfaciem (cj., Ovid &-s Am.
3. 508 cognoscat faciem vix satis &a suam). The word importing the discordant notion is gentes, which only in 1932 aroused Housman’s suspicions. His alteration of it to agentes is ingenious, but he was still
unable to part with his -que uicem ( he resorts to this word several times in emending Manilius, never successfully). More likely Manilius wrote:
net s e c o g n o s c u n t t e r r a e u e r t e n t i b u s a n n i s
e x u t a s u a r i a m f a c i e m p e r s a e c u l a j c r r e .
T h e e a r t h d o e s n o t n o t i c e t h a t , e v e r d e s p o i l e d b y t h e p a s s a g e o f t h e y e a r s , i t b e a r s a n
a p p e a r a n c e w h i c h i s p e r p e t u a l l y c h a n g i n g .
Gentes was written in the margin as a gloss on terrae (see Housman on
1. 224), and was inevitably absorbed into the text when ferre was corrupted through ferrae to terrae.
At verse 601 sewantis (nom. plur.) is a mistake for sewantes ( a s
Housman admits it may be), possibly caused by diuisos in the next verse; and the other Manilian instances of a third declension nominative plural in -is have each some plausible explanation as errors. At 1. 804 similis was perhaps induced by the sight of ilis in the line above; 3. 617
natales was corrupted into -is by someone who thought pueri w a s the subject and his sex . . . nataZes accusative of extent (and if such a person
thought he was making the construction clearer for his readers, he may well be responsible for many of the accusatives in -is which Housman
carefully lists on pp. 16Sff. of his fifth volume [1937], pp. 103ff. of the second edition [1930]); 5. 143 sequaces was altered to -is (i.e., a false
.
ADVERSARIA MANILIANA 111
and in his commentary on Lucretius (pp. _56f., on 1. 808) Lachmann has
compiled a large but even so incomplete list. Nevertheless, in writers later than Vergil nominatives in -in are few and suspicious: Lachmann’s gathering from Propertius (2. 9. 27jentis, 2. 31. 8 artijcis-construable
as a genitive-, and 4. 9. 8. incoZumis) is doubtless as spurious as Housman’s Juvenalian triad (2. 111, 13. 224, 14. 330).
The much interpolated mss of Propertius show how precarious it is to
base on mediaeval mss theories of archaic orthography. Housman elicits from TarpeZZae (F, 4. 4. 1) an original Tarpeiiae (for which spelling see his
article CR 5 [1891] 296ff. and the second edition of his JuvenaZ [1931] p. xxiii, note), but in this instance it is more likely that Tarpeiae was first corrupted to TarpeZae (in fact the spelling of N, the best ms), and
then, to show the length of the vowel, the Z was doubled. Further examples of this practice are to be found in the manuscript tradition of Propertius, e.g., at 3. 6. 22 noZo was altered to noZZo to show the length of the vowel
(and later-not unnaturally-miscorrected to u.uZZo); similarly at 1. 7. 16 noZZim is a mediaeval spelling for noZim (cf., Juvenal 6. 213 noZZet a future indicative, so P, the best ms), and here and there we find the same gemina-
tion of other consonants, I. 3. 6 Appidano for Api-, and 1. 2. 1 uitta (A) for vita, 4. 8. 28 muZtato (that is muttato) for mutate.
723 an coeat mundus, duplicisque extrcma caucrnae
conueniant caelique oras et scgmina iungant;
725 perque ipsos fiat nexus manifesta cicatrix
fusuram faciens mundi; stipatus et orbis
aeriam in nebulam c/at-a compagine uersus
in cuneos alti cogat fundamina caeli.
Possibly the skies are coming together, and the bases of two vaults meet here and join
the edges of celestial segments. Out of the connection is created a conspicuous scar which
effects the welding of the firmament. Transformed by its . . . structure into etherial mist,
the compressed seam causes the foundations of high heaven to harden into a solid joint.
This is the second of Manilius’s seven explanations of the Milky Way, and corresponds to the theory attributed to Diodorus Alexandrinus by
Macrobius Comm. Somn. Scip. 1. 15. 5. The passage is unnecessarily verbose, and I should not care to claim for my literal translation more than a general correctness. The chief textual problem is to discover the
word underlying the corrupt cZara. Housman has unfortunately gone right off the rails here. Bentley’s crassa (“thick”) undoubtedly supplies the right sense, but is unlikely to have been so corrupted. I suggest that
cZara is a careless attempt to correct cZera, which is but a hair’s breadth removed from d?sa, i.e. den$a (“its dense structure”). This, certainly, is the true word, and is proved by the phrase rara . . . compagine (719) occurring in the contrasting theory (that the Milky Way is a crack in the sky where two hemispheres are coming apart).
112 THE PHOENIX
et tam parua forent accensis tempora flammis,
alter nocte dies esset, caelumque rediret
830 inmersum, et somno totum deprenderet orbem.
If the advent of comets were not immediately followed by their disappearance, and the
duration of their blaze of flame were not so short, a second daytime would exist by night,
and the submerged heaven would return to find everyone asleep.
The subject of the first clause is cometae (826), which I have translated literally as “comets”; the poet means of course “shooting stars,” but has confused the two kinds of star in this passage.
In his e&Xo minor of 1932 Housman acquiesced in the construction somno deprendere “to find asleep,” though thirty years before he had
rightly insisted that a participle was necessary. And sure enough the participle is at hand in inmersum: indeed Fayus had long ago corrected the punctuation by placing the comma after redb-et. Divested of its stolen
epithet, caelum is now unmasked as the villain of the piece, for what word Manilius wrote in its place is fairly obvious from a consideration of the context: “a second daytime would exist by night, and.. . would return to
find everyone fast asleep.” There is only one insertion which will fit the gap: the sun. What the poet wrote was:
alter nocte dies esset, Phoebwque rediret,
inmersum et somno totum deprenderet orbem.
Pizoebzu is more than forty times used by Manilius as a synonym for SOL, and et is postponed as it is below in 846, whilst palaeographically the
corruptionjebus to celum is neither great nor improbable. Housman is right, but captious, to say that totum orbem is not strictly correct, since only a single hemisphere is referred to: the words are used exactly as the French tout le monde.
NOTICE OF CHANGE OF FEES
At the annual meeting of the Classical Association of Canada in June, 1959, a motion was passed to increase fees for membership and subscrip-
tions to The Phoenix as follows:
(1) ordinary membership $6.00 (Canada), $6.2.5 (other countries) (2) sustaining membership $15.00 (3) student membership $2.00 (Canada), $2.2.5 (other countries)