m s the ‘vandal’ epigram - uni.hi.is¦dal.pdf · ffilologia germanica.indd 191ilologia...

MAGNS SNDAL

THE VANDAL EPIGRAM

The paper deals with a Latin epigram, Inter eils goticum etc., often referred to as the Gothic epigram. It contains some Germanic words that have generally been con-sidered to be Gothic but here the view is taken that they are of a Vandal origin. In the first section of the paper the manuscript tradition of the epigram, its origin and editions are overviewed. In the second section the interpretations, so far, of the Ger-manic words are discussed and a new interpretation is proposed. Then the metre and the possible occasion of the epigram are also dealt with. At the end the main conclu-sions are summarized.

0. Introduction

This paper deals with a Latin epigram, often referred to as the Gothic epigram (in German, das gotische Epigramm). It contains five Germanic words that have generally been considered to be Gothic. The first section of the paper is an overview of the manuscript tradition, the origin and the edi-tions of the epigram. The second section gives an overview of the interpreta-tions, so far, of the Germanic words and a new interpretation is proposed; the metre and the possible occasion of the epigram are also discussed. The third section summarizes the main conclusions.1

1. Manuscript tradition, origin and editions

1.1. The manuscripts

The epigram is preserved in one vellum manuscript, the so-called Codex Salmasianus. Several copies have been made of parts of this manuscript, espe-

1 The first version of this paper was read at a conference, Uppruni oranna, held in the memory of Jrundur Hilmarsson in Reykjavk on 25 November 2006. I wish to thank the reviewers of the journal for their useful comments.

Filologia germanica.indd 191Filologia germanica.indd 191 13/05/2009 14.12.2513/05/2009 14.12.25

192 MAGNS SNDAL

cially during the seventeenth century. The following is an overview of these manuscripts.

The Codex Salmasianus is named after its owner, Claude de Saumaise (Claudius Salmasius, 1588-1653). It is now in the Bibliothque nationale de France in Paris: Codex Parisinus Latinus 10318. In his editions of the Latin anthology, Riese2 has given this manuscript the siglum A but here the abbre-viation Salm. will be used. The manuscript was believed to be from the sev-enth century,3 or possibly the beginning of the eighth century.4 However, now it is thought to be from c. 800; i.e. from the end of the eighth, beginning of the ninth5 or, most likely, from the first years of the ninth century and undoubt-edly written in Italy.6 Indeed, it had been previously maintained that the man-uscript was from the ninth century7 but this was then rejected.8

The first 11 quaterniones or 176 pages are missing from Salm. It is an uncial codex with scriptio continua but points are used now and then to

2 Alexander Riese (ed.), Anthologia Latina sive poesis Latinae svpplementvm I: Carmina in codicibvs scripta, recensvit Alexander Riese, fascicvlvs I: Libri Salmasiani aliorvmqve carmina, editio altera denvo recognita, Lipsiae 1894, p. xii.

3 Lucian Mller, Sammelsurien LII, Jahrbcher fr classische Philologie 13 (1867), p. 803. Baehrens (ed.), Poetae Latini minores, recensuit et emendavit Aemilius Baehrens, IV, Lipsiae 1882, p. 4. Ludwig Traube, Zur lateinischen Anthologie. I. ber Gedichte des Codex Salmasianus, in Kleine Schriften, hrsg. von Samuel Brandt, Mnchen 1920, p. 51.

4 Fr. Dbner, [Review of Meyers] Anthologia veterum Latinorum epigrammatum et poe-matum. [], Zeitschrift fr die Alterthumswissenschaft 4 (1837), p. 7. Riese (ed.), Anthologia , editio altera, p. xiii. H. Omont, Anthologie de potes latins dite de Saumaise. Reproduc-tion rduite du manuscrit en onciale, latin 10318, de la Bibliothque nationale, Paris 1903, p. 3. Cecil Clementi (ed.), Pervigilium Veneris / The Vigil of Venus, edited with facsimiles of the Codex Salmasianus and Codex Thuaneus, an introduction, translation, apparatus criticus, and explanatory notes by Cecil Clementi, Oxford / London 1911, p. 5. Morris Rosenblum, Luxo-rius. A Latin poet among the Vandals, together with text of the poems and an English transla-tion, New York / London 1961, p. 97.

5 Bernhard Bischoff, Panorama der Handschriftenberlieferung aus der Zeit Karls des Grossen, in Karl der Grosse: Lebenswerk und Nachleben II. Das geistige Leben, hrsg. von B. Bischoff, Dsseldorf 1965, p. 249. Maddalena Spallone, Il Par. lat. 10318 (Salmasiano): dal manoscritto alto-medievale ad una raccolta enciclopedica tardo-antica, Italia medioevale e umanistica 25 (1982), p. 51.

6 Paolo Radiciotti, Problemi di datazione di codici in onciale (Par. lat. 10593, CLM 6224, Par. lat. 10318), Archivio della Societ romana di storia patria 116 (1993), p. 62.

7 Armand dAvezac, Mmoire sur thicus et sur les ouvrages cosmographiques intituls de ce nom, Mmoires prsents par divers savants lAcadmie des inscriptions et belles-lettres. Premire srie, sujets divers drudition, II (1852), p. 306, fn. 1.

8 Mller, Sammelsurien LII, p. 803.


THE VANDAL EPIGRAM 193

mark caesura, phrases, etc.9 Traube thinks the scribes Latin was not very good:10

Seine Kenntnisse im Lateinischen waren gering, aber gerade ausreichend, ihm, der von dem Inhalt des Abzuschreibenden wenig genug verstand, allerlei gelufigere Wortbilder vorzuzaubern. Er war ein rechter Halbgebildeter und, phi-lologisch betrachtet, ein arger Interpolator.

The manuscript contains a collection of Latin poetry, put together in North Africa at about the time when the Vandal state there was defeated (534).11 A facsimile of the entire manuscript has been published.12 It is in black and white but titles are said to be red with the initials in many colours. The first letter of every other line is in red.13 The epigram under discussion is on p. 141 in the manuscript. A diplomatic version runs:

DECONUIUIS BARBARISI NTEREILSGOTICUM SCAPIAMATZIA IADRINCAN NONAUDITQUISQU DIGNOSEDICEREUERSOSCALLIOPEM ADIDOTREPIDATSEIUNGEREBACCO NEPEDIBUSNONSTETEBRIAMUSA SUIS

In the second line the m of quisquam is written with a nasal stroke. The space after the m in the third line is evident but it is in a strange place. Here there is no word break so, if this space is not intentional, perhaps the space in the title, the two spaces in the first line and the one in the fourth are uninten-tional too. All these spaces are of similar width. With the word breaks insert-ed, the text of the epigram is as follows:

De conuiuis barbarisInter eils goticum scapia matzia ia drincannon audit quisquam dignos edicere uersos

9 Baehrens (ed.), Poetae , p. 4. Riese (ed.), Anthologia , editio altera, p. xiii.10 Traube, Zur lateinischen Anthologie , p. 51.11 Rosenblum, Luxorius , pp. 27-30. Alfred J. Baumgartner, Untersuchungen zur Anthol-

ogie des Codex Salmasianus, Baden 1981, p, 7. N. M. Kay, Epigrams from the Anthologia Latina. Text, translation and commentary, London 2006, pp. 5-13.

12 Omont, Anthologie de potes 13 Riese (ed.), Anthologia , editio altera, p. xiii. Rosenblum, Luxorius , p. 97.


194 MAGNS SNDAL

Calliope madido trepidat se iungere Baccone pedibus non stet ebria Musa suis

Translation:

On foreign guests.Among the Gothic eils scapia matzia ia drincanNo one ventures to recite decent verses.Calliope hurries to depart from the wet Bacchus,So it does not happen that a drunken muse doesnt stand on her feet.

In the manuscript someone has written an e above the i in audit and a u above the o in uersos in the second line to change these words into audet and uersus.

As the scribe confuses i ~ e and u ~ o in several instances,14 it is taken for granted that audit here stands for audet, as the syntax excludes the verb audio. The sense of audet in this case is is able to, can. Two Latin dictionaries15 point to a passage in Lucretius, 6. 1070 (6. 1072 in recent editions),16 where audent actually has the sense of possunt: Vitigeni latices in aquai fontibus audent Misceri, cum pix nequeat gravis et leve olivom. It is best translated as: Vine borne juices are able to mix with spring waters, though heavy pitch and light oil can not. By the use of audeo, this becomes a personification; the vine-borne juices dare, venture, but the sense that they are able to, while the other liquids mentioned are not, is evident. Mamann, indeed, appears to have this sense in mind when he writes that the author of the epigram zu keinem gedichte kommen knne because of the carousing Goths.17

The form versos must be acc. pl. of versus whether it is taken to be a scrib-al error or simply formed according to the second declension.

14 Riese (ed.), Anthologia , editio altera, pp. xlii-xliii. Rosenblum, Luxorius , p. 102. Spallone, Il Par. lat. 10318 (Salmasiano): , pp. 62-63.

15 Pll rnason, Ny Latinsk Ordbog, til Brug for den studerende Ungdom. Efter de vigtig-ste Kilder og Hielpemidler, [], ordnet og udg. av Paul Arnesen, Kjbenhavn 1848, p. 322. Egidio Forcellini, Totius Latinitatis lexicon opera et studio Aegidii Forcellini [] novo ordine digestum amplissime auctum atque emendatum cura et studio Vincentii De-Vit, I, Prati 1858-1860, p. 477.

16 Lucretius, De rerum natura. 3rd ed., London 1966.17 H. F. Mamann, Gotthica minora. 8. Ein gothisches Epigramm, Zeitschrift fr deut-

sches Alterthum 1 (1841), p. 379.



In the translation of the second half of the epigram it should be noted that the meaning depart for iungere is found in Souters glossary.18 Mamann apparently had this meaning in mind when he wrote that dichtkunst (Cal-liope) fliehe erschrocken vor den hyperborischen Bacchusshnen.19 The same sense is implicit in van Heltens translation, which, though, is a little complicated:20

die muse scheut die gesellschaft des sich betrinkenden Bacchus, dieweil sie frchtet, infolge eines bei solchem zechgelage bekommenen rausches nicht mehr auf den fssen stehen bez. das richtige versmass innehalten zu knnen

In the third line, it would also be possible to read seiungere disunite, dis-join, separate, divide, and not to divide it into se and iungere as is done in all the copies and editions. In Salm. there is nothing to indicate two words rather than one. The sense of the last two lines here is thought to be that Calliope flees from Bacchus in order not to become drunk. In this way the second half of the epigram makes sense in connection with the first half. The reason why it is impossible to recite dignified verses is the departure of the muse.21

There exist some late copies of Salm.22 Four of them may be said to be rel-evant as the epigram is found in them, but they have no independent textual value. Here the text of the epigram in these copies will be dealt with shortly.

The oldest copy is Parisinus Latinus 17904 in the Bibliothque nationale, written before the year 1626. It was made by Franois Juret (Franciscus Iure-

18 Alexander Souter, A Glossary of Later Latin, Oxford 1949, p. 223.19 Mamann, Gotthica minora. , p. 379.20 W. van Helten, Zu Anthologia Latina ed. Riese no. 285 und 285a (de conviviis barba-

ris), Beitrge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 29 (1904), p. 343.21 Grabows translation of the second half is complicated and avoids the double negation

(August Grabow, Ein gotisches Epigramm, in Viro illustrissimo atque doctissimo Augusto Stinner gymnasii regii Oppoliensis directori emerito [], Oppolii 1880, p. xxxiii.): Auch Calliope zagt in des schlemmenden Bacchus Gesellschaft, Trunken als Muse! nicht mehr fest af den Fsen zu stehn. The same applies to Leos translation (Friedrich Leo, Venan-tius Fortunatus, der letzte rmische Dichter, Deutsche Rundschau 32 (1882), pp. 416, fn. 1): Denn Calliope zagt, mit Bacchus, dem trunkenen, zu zechen, Frchtet im Rausche nicht mehr fest auf den Fen zu stehn. Here trepidat is translated twice, first as zagt and then as frchtet. Nevertheless, it is clear in both translations that no one dares to recite ready made poetry because the muse is afraid of becoming drunk, not because she has left.

22 Riese (ed.), Anthologia , editio altera, p. xii, fn. Rosenblum, Luxorius , pp. 99-101. Mller, Sammelsurien LII, p. 802. Kay, Epigrams , p. 14.


196 MAGNS SNDAL

tus 1552-1626). The epigram is on fol. 37r, evidently written after Salm., but with word breaks in lines 2-4. The first line runs: Intereilsgoticum scapiamat-zia iadringan. This is the same text as in Salm., except for the scribal error dringan for drincan. The conjectures audet and versus are made in the second line without comment. The points after madido in the third line and stet in the fourth line are not copied, but instead there are points at the end of the second and fourth lines.

The second copy comes from Nicolaus van Heins (Nicolaas Heinsius 1620-1681). It was written between 1631 and 1649, and is now a part of Heid. HS. 46 in the Universittsbibliothek Heidelberg. It came there from Amsterdam. The epigram is on fol. 56v, evidently written after Salm. but with word breaks in lines 2-4. The first line originally ran: Intereilsgoticum scapiamatzia iadringan. Then scapiamatzia was divided into skapia matzia with a diagonal stroke, which is clearly set later. Also, dringan has been changed to drincan by crossing out the g and writing a c above. This scribal error suggests rela-tions with Parisinus Latinus 17904.

In the second line the i in audit and the o in versos are underlined and e u is written in the left margin to change these words into audet and versus; cf. the correction in Salm. and the conjectures in Par. Lat. 17904 mentioned above.

The third line has Baccho instead of Bacco. The points after madido and stet in the third and fourth lines are not present, but a period is added at the end.

The third copy is VLO 16 in the collection of Isaac Vossius (1618-1689) in the Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden. This is a careful copy from the seven-teenth century, made in France (Paris?). The epigram is on fol. 106r, evident-ly written after Salm. but with word breaks. The first line runs: Intereils goti-cum scapia matzia iadrincan, so goticum has been separated from intereils, but iadrincan is written as one word as in other copies. In the second line, versos has been changed to versus by setting three dots under the o and writ-ing a u above it. The third line has Calliopem adido so the curious space in Salm. has been kept. On the other hand, the points in the third and fourth lines have not been copied.

Then there is the fourth copy. In the editions of the epigram collection, readings from a manuscript called Schedae Divionenses are very often used. Burman, the first editor of the Latin anthology (1759 and 1773), especial-ly was inclined to use these sheets from Dijon. In Rieses editions23 they are given the siglum but here they will be called the Schedae. Since 1867

23 Riese (ed.), Anthologia , editio altera, p. xxxii.



they have been in the Universittsbibliothek Heidelberg, a part of the previ-ously mentioned manuscript Heid. HS. 46. The Schedae are written by an unknown scholar between 1661 and 1756, containing copies from Salm., i.e. copies of poems in the manuscript not present in printed anthologies of the time. Riese also thinks the Schedae were written direct from Salm. He bases this assumption on the fact that the title of the Schedae, Epigrammata | anti-qua | ex | Codice Divionensi | decripta, is written by Burmans hand. This Codex Divionenis must be the Codex Salmasianus, then being in Dijon24. Other scholars, on the other hand, say the Schedae were copied from a copy of Salm., but they do not produce any evidence for this.25 It, though, must be based on Dbner.26 He says he saw the Schedae Divionenses auf der kniglichen Bibliothek. These sheets, he says, are from the sixteenth cen-tury, which means that these are not the same sheets that are now a part of Heid. HS. 46; instead, the Schedae in Heidelberg must be a copy of the sheets auf der kniglichen Bibliothek. Thus, according to Dbner, read-ings thought to be peculiar to the Schedae are found in an older manuscript, and it is barely likely that two copyists had independently read the Germanic words wrongly in exactly the same way, and made exactly the same emenda-tions to the Latin text.

Mamann writes that he asked Dbner to check the epigram in both man-uscripts in Paris; one of them is the Codex Salmasianus but the other one Mamann calls cod. 2..27 Here there are two interesting things. First, Ma-mann does not use the label Schedae Divionenses so most likely Dbner did not use it in their correspondence. Second, all the readings Mamann quotes from cod. 2. are identical to the Schedae (with one minor exception, see below) but they cannot have been taken directly from there. But what manuscript is hidden behind the label cod. 2.? Apart from Parisinus Latinus 17904, there appears to be no other copy in Paris, but the peculiar readings of the Schedae cannot have their origin there. If it is taken for granted that by der kniglichen Bibliothek Dbner meant the Bibliothque nationale in Paris he possibly somehow mistook Parisinus Latinus 17904 for being the Schedae Divionenses.

24 Alexander Riese, Zur lateinischen Anthologie, Jahrbcher fr classische Philologie 14 (1868), pp. 698-701.

25 Mller, Sammelsurien LII, pp. 802-803. Baehrens (ed.), Poetae , p. 5. Rosenblum, Luxorius , p. 99. Kay, Epigrams , p. 14.

26 Dbner, [Review of Mayers] Anthologia , p. 8.27 Mamann, Gotthica minora. , p. 379.


198 MAGNS SNDAL

The Schedae contain many emendations (often the same emendation as Saumaise had made in the original). Some of these are considered to be good, but the manuscript has, in fact, no independent value, cf. Mller:28

dasz die lesarten des Divionensis oft besser sind, erklrt sich eben daraus, dasz der redactor, der ihn zusammenstellte, mehr von latein und logik verstand als jen-er obscure mnch, der vor tausend jahren den archetypus schrieb. [] der Divion-ensis ist eben weiter nichts als ein mundgerecht gemachter Salmasianus []

Hence the Latin text in the Schedae is considered better than in Salm., and the epigram is almost always printed with most of these readings. It should be borne in mind that these are, indeed, conjectures rather than readings proper. Therefore it is somewhat strange how tenacious these conjectures have been in the editions and among those who have tried to explain the Gothic of the epigram. On the other hand, the form of some of the Germanic words are somewhat mutilated in the Schedae. The epigram is written on fol. 99v and numbered 88. Here is an overview of the peculiarities in the Schedae.

The title has conviviis instead of convivis.The first line runs: inter citz Gothicum, scapia madria, jadrincam. Here

the Latin has gothicum instead of goticum and, as mentioned, the Germanic is different from Salm. A long stroke above citz is apparently done by the first scribe. Also, the words citz and madria are underlined and the follow-ing notes are found in the left margin: al. cod. eils | al. matzia. This is done by a different hand. The error citz is not easily explained but it must be a misreading of eils, but neither Salm. nor Par. Lat. 17904 suggest such a reading. Perhaps the tz of matzia somehow initiated the tz of citz. On the other hand, madria is caused by the roving of the scribes eyes towards dr in drincan. The r in madria seems to have been changed to z so the outcome is madzia. This appears to be done by the first scribe. The spaces before and after citz are slightly wider than other word breaks. The same applies to the spaces before and after scapia madria. The commas are in the middle of the spaces. At the end of the line, jadrincam is written in one word instead of iadrincan in Salm. Mamann gives ia drincam as the reading of cod. 2..29 That is almost identical to iadrincam in the printed editions of Burman and Meyer (see below, 1.3).

28 Mller, Sammelsurien LII, p. 802.29 Mamann, Gotthica minora. , p. 379, fn. 4.



The second line has audet educere versus which is a conjecture for audit edicere versos in Salm.; audet and versus are reminiscent of the cor-rections in Salm., cf. also the other copies, but educere is new. There is no comment on these conjectures in the manuscript.

The third line has Baccho instead of Bacco in Salm. There is no punctua-tion mark after madido, cf. the point in Salm., but in the fourth line there is a comma after stet, cf. the point there in Salm. Finally, a full point is added at the end.

The consequences of these conjectures are that now the title translates as On foreign feasts and all the editors choose that version (cf. 1.3). The inter-preters of the Gothic words, others than Mamann, Grabow and Scardigli, do not mention the title. Indeed, Grabow thinks that only conviviis is a pos-sible reading as this is all about carousing but not table companions.30 Never-theless, the plural convivia can mean company at a table, guests and is then equivalent to convivae.31 Because of educere in the second line its content now becomes no one dares to compose decent verses.

The first two copies at least, and even the third one, are older than the Sche-dae. They are not quoted in the critical apparatus of the editions since they do not have an independent value, but that is true of the Schedae also. Some more manuscripts, containing copies of parts of the Salm., are mentioned,32 but, to my knowledge, the epigram is not found in them.33

1.2. The place of origin of the epigram

In Burmans edition of the anthology (cf. 1.3), Gerard Meerman has writ-ten an explanation of our epigram below the line. There he points out that

30 Grabow, Ein gotisches Epigramm, p. xxx.31 Ch. T. Lewis / Ch. Short, A Latin Dictionary. Founded on Andrews edition of Freunds

Latin Dictionary, Oxford 1958, p. 462.32 Riese (ed.), Anthologia , editio altera, p. xii, fn. 1. Mller, Sammelsurien LII, p. 802.

I have not been able to locate one copy, a codex Burmannianus that Mller says he inspected but does not mention where.

33 Here I want to thank the following people who gave information about the manuscripts and assisted me in obtaining photocopies of the epigram: Marie-Hlne Tesnire and Marie-Franoise Damongeot at the Bibliothque nationale de France in Paris, Walter Hmmerle at the Universittsbibliothek Heidelberg, Jan Cramer at the Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden, Klaas van der Hoek at the Universiteitsbibliotheek Amsterdam, and Ad Leerintveld at the Koninklijke Bibliotheek in the Hague.


200 MAGNS SNDAL

the Germanic in the epigram must be Vandal.34 He refers to what Procop-ius (3.2.5) writes about the language of the [Ostro]goths, Vandals, Visigoths and Gepides: , , (For they are all of the Arian faith, and have one language called Gothic).35 More than 90 years later, te Winkel maintained that the Ger-manic in the epigram would be Vandal rather than Gothic. He says this was pointed out to him by a friend who he does not mention by name.36 Mller also argues in favour of this view; the main argument being that the epigram col-lection in Salm. apart from a few verses by classical authors is from North Africa and the last years of the Vandal state there. One should not, he says, be deceived by the word goticum, as ancient authors often used the Goths to rep-resent all the Germanic tribes.37 Rosenblum and Bonfante express the same view. The latter says he has this proposal from a colleague, Fr. Della Corte.38 Most recently, Scardigli upholds this view.39

Thus, already in the first edition of the Latin anthology, where the epigram was first printed, it was maintained that the Germanic words in it were Vandal. This has been ignored or neglected by most of those who have tried to explain the Gothic in the epigram. None of them rejects this view explicitly; they sim-ply assume something else. Mamann talks about its author as Italianer,40 and Dietrich writes that the Germanic words therein are independent evidence about the Gothic spoken in Italy.41 Neither of them, nor Grimm, mentions Rome as the place of origin of the epigram, as can be inferred from Ebbinghaus.42 Most of the

34 [Pieter] Burman (ed.), Anthologia vetervm Latinorvm epigrammatvm et pomatvm, sive catalecta potarvm Latinorvm in VI. libros digesta. [], cvra Petri Bvrmanni Secvndi, qui perpetuas Adnotationes adjecit, II, Amstelaedami 1773, pp. 449-452.

35 Procopius, in six volumes, II: History of the Wars, Books III and IV, London 1916, pp. 10 and 11.

36 L. A. te Winkel, De dialecten en de vocaalspelling, De Taalgids 6 (1864), p. 187.37 Lucian Mller, Sammelsurien XXVIII, Jahrbcher fr classische Philologie 13

(1867), pp. 484-485.38 Rosenblum, Luxorius , p. 26. Giuliano Bonfante, Latini e Germani in Italia, terza ed.

rived. e aggiorn., Brescia 1965, p. 17, fn. 9.39 Piergiuseppe Scardigli, Die Goten. Sprache und Kultur, Mnchen 1973, p. 200. Pier-

giuseppe Scardigli, Das sogennante gotische Epigramm, Beitrge zur Geschichte der deut-schen Sprache und Literatur 96 (1974), pp. 17-32.

40 Mamann, Gotthica minora. , p. 381.41 Franz Dietrich, Ueber die Aussprache des Gothischen waehrend der Zeit seines Beste-

hens. Eine sprachgeschichtliche Abhandlung nebst einem kritischen Anhang ueber die Namen des Jornandes, Marburg 1862, p, 25.

42 Ernst A. Ebbinghaus, Inter eils goticum . For E. A. Philippson on his ninetieth



scholars dealing with the epigram appear to assume this that the epigram was composed in Italy while the Goths ruled there, or at the beginning of the sixth century. The drawback of this assumption is that in the epigram there is clearly a diphthong in eils, a word corresponding to Go. hails. At that time Ostrogothic ai was a monophthong. Because of this, Ebbinghaus moves the place of origin to the eastern regions of the Roman Empire and its age to the second century. According to him, it is older than the monophthongization of Gothic ai.43

However, exactly this preservation of a diphthong in eils can point to the Vandals, because, as appears from Wredes study,44 the Vandal preserved the diphthong in contrast to Gothic. Although Wrede later refers to the preserva-tion of the diphthong in Vandal, he does not give arguments for why the epi-gram could not be of Vandal origin, but maintains that it must be Visigothic, from the time of Alaric, or the beginning of the fifth century.45 Krause takes up this view46 and Wolfram has taken it from him, but although he also refers to Scardiglis paper, he does not mention the possible origin of the epigram among the Vandals.47

The Germanic words will be dealt with in section 2.2. Yet it should be said that several things point to their Vandal origin, nothing points directly to the contrary. It is unknown when the epigram was composed, but perhaps it is safe to assume that it is not much older than the collection in Codex Sal-masianus, or from the beginning of the sixth century.

1.3. Editions

The epigram was first printed in the second volume of Burmans anthol-ogy of 1773,48 on pp. 449-451, in the part entitled Anthologiae veterum Lati-

birthday, General Linguistics 30 (1990), p. 77. Ernst A. Ebbinghaus, Gotica. Kleine Schriften zur gotischen Philologie, hrsg. von P. Scardigli und W. Meid, Innsbruck 2003, p. 178.

43 Ibid., p. 77 and p. 179.44 Ferdinand Wrede, ber die Sprache der Wandalen. Ein Beitrag zur germanischen

Namen- und Dialektforschung, Strassburg / London 1886, pp. 95-99.45 Ferdinand Wrede, ber die Sprache der Ostgoten in Italien, Strassburg 1891, pp. 140-

141.46 Wolfgang Krause, Handbuch des Gotischen, 3., neubearb. Aufl., Mnchen 1968, pp.

21-22.47 Herwig Wolfram, History of the Goths. New and completely revised from the second

German edition, Berkeley 1987, pp. 210 and 462-463.48 Burman (ed.), Anthologia


202 MAGNS SNDAL

norum epigrammatum et pomatum liber qvintus. In qvo miscellanea. It is numbered CLXI. The text is as follows:

DE CONVIVIIS BARBARIS.Inter citz Gothicum capia matzia iadrincamNon audet quiquam dignos educere verus.Calliope madido trepidat e jungere Baccho,Ne pedibus non tet ebria Mua uis.

The reason why the epigram is printed on three pages is the very long foot-note by Gerard Meerman, mentioned above. Indeed, the footnote continues to p. 452.49 In the beginning, the footnote states that the text of the Schedae is used. Still, the punctuation is not kept, matzia printed instead of madria (or madzia) and iadrincam at the end of the first line instead of jadrincam. Dif-ferent readings in Salm. are mentioned, other than Bacco in the third line. For Meermans explanation of the Germanic words, see 2.1.

Then the epigram was printed in the second volume of Meyers edition of 1835,50 on p. 70, in the part entitled Anthologiae Latinae tomus secundus, hav-ing the number 1092. The text is identical to Burmans text with the exception that scapiamatzia is printed as one word. The result is the text of the Schedae with matzia instead of madria (in the notes wrongly said to be the reading of Salm.). The readings drincan and Bacco in Salm. are not mentioned. The apparatus, where other readings in Salm. are mentioned, is in the first volume, on pp. 51-52, in the part entitled Annotationes ad tomum secundum Antholo-giae Latinae. Here Meyer presents, in addition to Meermans, also Ettmllers attempt at explaining the Germanic words in the epigram, see 2.1.

In Rieses first edition of 1869 the epigram is printed on p. 187, with the number 285.51 The Latin is very much in accordance with the Schedae, apart from goticum in the first line and edicere in the second line. Also, the orthog-raphy is more like Salm., i.e. the use of i and u instead of j and v. The Ger-manic words are printed according to Salm., with word breaks: Inter eils goti-cum scapia matzia ia drincan. In the apparatus, different readings in the two

49 On Meermans part in Burmans work, see Rosenblum, Luxorius , p. 105 and fn. 29.50 [Heinrich Meyer (ed.)] Anthologia veterum Latinorum epigrammatum et poematum.

Editionem Burmannianam digessit et auxit Henricus Meyerus Turicensis, I-II, Lipsiae 1835.51 Alexander Riese (ed.), Anthologia Latina sive poesis Latinae svpplementvm I: Carmina

in codicibvs scripta, recensvit Alexander Riese, fascicvlvs I: Libri Salmasiani aliorvmqve carmina, Lipsiae 1869.



manuscripts, Salm. (A) and the Schedae (), are listed. However, the reading Gothicum in the first line in the Schedae is missing. Mamanns explana-tion of the Germanic words is given,52 cf. 2.1, but the proposals of Grimm, Dietrich and te Winkel are not mentioned, nor Meermans and Ettmllers earlier attempts. Mllers idea that the third and fourth line form a separate epigram is mentioned along with his proposal to change ebria into sobria in the fourth line.53

In Baehrenss edition of 1882 the epigram is printed on p. 363, numbered 439.54 The text is almost identical to Rieses text apart from educere in the second line. The apparatus appears to be influenced by Riese, as the reading Gothicum in the first line in the Schedae is also missing here. Mamanns explanation of the Germanic words is referred to, but e.g. the then recent pro-posal of Grabow is not mentioned. An empty line is set between the second and third line according to Mllers idea that the last two lines are, indeed, a separate epigram. His proposal of changing ebria into sobria in the fourth line is also mentioned.

In Rieses second edition of 1894 the epigram is found on p. 221 and has been divided into two, numbered 285 and 285a.55 In fact, this is the same text as in 1869. Although Mamanns explanation of the Germanic words is still the only one mentioned, some minor changes have been made to the critical apparatus. To edicere in the second line the reading educere in the Schedae is given, but now recte? has been added after it. To ebria in the fourth line, Peipers proposed conjecture debria has been added.56

The latest edition is Baileys from 1982.57 Here the epigram is printed on pp. 201 and 202; it has been divided completely in two and the parts are numbered 279 and 280. The text is that of Riese. The critical apparatus is also based on Riese. Still, the reading convivis, which Salm. has in the title, has been lost. The reading Gothicum in the first line in the Schedae is not mentioned. Mamanns interpretation of the Germanic words is repeated, but more recent proposals are ignored. To edicere the note reads: educere schaed. : anne ded-? This is presumably a suggestion to change it to deduc-

52 Mamann, Gotthica minora. .53 Mller, Sammelsurien XXVIII, p. 484.54 Baehrens (ed.), Poetae 55 Riese (ed.), Anthologia , editio altera.56 Rudolf Peiper, ebrius debrius, Jahrbcher fr classische Philologie 19 (1873), p. 340.57 Bailey (ed.), Anthologia Latina I: Carmina in codicibus scripta, recensuit D. R. Shackle-

ton Bailey, fasc. 1: Libri Salmasiani aliorumque carmina, Stvtgardiae 1982.


204 MAGNS SNDAL

ere. The reading Bacco in Salm. in the third line is missing, but otherwise the notes to the third and fourth lines are in accordance with Riese. Exact ref-erences are not given for Mllers and Peipers proposed conjectures sobria and debria instead of ebria in the last line no more than in Rieses and Baehrenss apparatus.

Three points are highlighted by this overview: First, the origin of the epi-gram among the Vandals soon fell into oblivion and later attempts to restore this view have not survived. Second, the conjectures in the Schedae Divi-onenses are generally accepted; to be precise, the more recent editions do not accept Gothicum in the first line, and, judging from the apparatus, Riese finds it tempting to accept educere in the second line. Third, concerning the Germanic words in the epigram, Riese, Baehrens and Bailey only mention Mamanns interpretation so they, apparently, did not bother to check whether other proposals had been made.

2. Interpretations of the epigram

In this section the main proposals to explain the Gothic words in the epigram will be overviewed in 2.1. A new interpretation is argued for in 2.2. Many conjectures have been underpinned by referring to the metre; hence the metre will be dealt with in 2.3. It should also be borne in mind that the author of the epigram is most probably not the author of the Gothic words. They are something he has heard and has forced into the hexameter. For him it was even better that the barbaric language sounded harsh. A possible occasion of the epigram is sketched in 2.4.

2.1. The explanations of the Germanic words

As mentioned above (1.2), Meerman points to the origin of the epigram among the Vandals, but in his explanation of the Germanic words he frequent-ly refers to Gothic. His conclusion is as follows:58

Inter ciz Gothicum, cpe-mtzim, wina-drinkmAmong a Gothic kiss, mutton eating, [and] wine drinking etc.

58 Burman (ed.), Anthologia , 449-452.



Here it is suggested that citz should be read cisz kiss (connected to Go. kukjan to kiss?); also that scapia is of the same origin as OE scep, scp, OS scp, OHG scf, scp sheep. Instead of iadrincam, Meerman conjectures winadrincam, but the stem vowel of wina- must be short because of the metre. The forms matziam and drinkam should be taken as a Latinized acc. sg., gov-erned by inter.

In his apparatus Meyer mentions two attempts to explain the Gothic of the epigram. The first one is Meermans explanation just mentioned (to which Meyer adds a German translation: bey Gothischem Kuss, Hammelbraten und Weintrinken wagt keiner ein ernstes Lied zu singen). The second explana-tion (actually two possibilities with several conjectures) he owes to Ludwig Ettmller. It was presumably transmitted by personal communication as they both lived in Zrich:59

nter | k st g th |cum sk ft|j n m t|j n h | dr gk n nte r | k st g th |cu m sk p n | eu k m t|j n h | dr gk ninter victum Gothicum parandum, etiam edendum et bibendum.While the Goths prepare their board, its also eaten and drunk

Here citz is interpreted as kust food, board but no account is made of the form euk in the second version of the explanation. Probably, it is meant to correspond to the Gothic conjunction auk for and given the meaning also (under the influence of German auch?). It is noteworthy that the infinitive dri-gkan is chosen, in contrast to the Schedae and Meyers text. Then, it is odd to have the j non-syllabic medially but syllabic initially.

Although Mamanns attempt to explain the Gothic in the epigram is not the first, it is the first attempt cited, as Meermans and Ettmllers proposals were not long-lived. Mamann mentions them in a footnote where he rejects their attempt to hammer some sense into the form citz in the Schedae.60

As mentioned above (1.1), Mamann asked Friedrich Dbner in Paris to check the text of the epigram in both the manuscripts there; one of them is Codex Salmasianus but the other he calls cod. 2..61 Mamanns version of the first line is: Inter eils Goticum scapiamatziaiadrincan. Otherwise his text of the epigram is identical to Burmans and Meyers text. The readings con-

59 Meyer, Anthologia , I, pp. 51-52.60 Mamann, Gotthica minora. , p. 381.61 Ibid., p. 379.


206 MAGNS SNDAL

viviis in the title, audet, educere and versus in the second line, and Baccho in the third are said to be taken from cod. 2.. The first line there runs, he says: inter citz gothicum scapia madria ia drincam. All this, except for ia drincam instead of jadrincam, is in accordance with the Schedae but cannot be taken directly from there, as described in 1.1.

The first Gothic word is eils. Here Mamann refers to the adj. Go. hails, cf. Mark 15:18 hails, iudan Iudaie! hail, you king of the Jews, and John 19:3 hails, iudans Iudaie! hail, king of the Jews, where hails in both instances translates the Greek imperative rejoice.62 The word is related to OI heill, OHG heil, etc. This explanation has been generally accepted with one exception.

In what follows, Mamann indeed gives four possible Gothicized versions (with variants).63 They are repeated below with English translations:

1. Hails! skapja(nd) matja(n) ja(h) drigkan! Hail! They obtain [something] to eat and drink!2. Hails! skapja! matja(m) ja(h) drigkam! Hail! Waiter! Lets eat and drink!3. Hails! skap ja(h) matja(n) ja(h) drigkan! Ave, amice! procura, praebe et cibum et potum! Hail, friend! Prepare/Offer both to eat and drink!4. Hails! Skap (procura or poculum)! ja(h) matja(m) ja(h) drigkam! Hail! Prepare/Goblet! We both eat and drink!

However, Mamann rejects the first proposal and apparently does not like the second. Yet, a word like *skapja waiter is well formed. Truly, it is not preserved in Gothic but could be related to the verb gaskapjan* create and compared to nouns like fiskja fisherman, timrja carpenter. This will be dealt with more extensively later on. Mamann appears to prefer the third possibility, which he gives a Latin translation. Nevertheless, the imperative *skap points to a verb *skapan, as the imperative of *skapjan would be *ska-pei. The verbs matjan eat (on the tz in matzia, see 2.2) and drigkan drink are often attested in the Gothic corpus (Mamann translates them with Latin nouns, and adds amice). Here jah jah means both and. As for the fourth proposal it should be pointed out that there is no evidence for a noun *skap

62 Ibid., p. 381.63 Ibid., pp. 282-283.



beaker, goblet in Gothic. As already mentioned, Mamanns explanation of the Gothic is the only one mentioned in the more recent editions of the anthology. Riese actually gives the three latter possibilities, which are repeat-ed by Bailey, while Baehrens makes do with the reference (cf. 1.3).64

In a footnote, Mamann explains how the Gothic could be made to fol-low the hexameter. The addition of sijais is necessary and the first line would divide in feet in the following way: Inter | hils (si | jis!) gothi | cum skap jah | matjan jah | drigkan. The last jah has lost the h but preserved the shortness in the metre and therefore the same must be assumed in skap ja matjan.65

Mamann prints the second half of the epigram but does not discuss it or question its authenticity.

Grimm only prints the first half of the epigram.66 The first line runs, inter eils goticum scapiamatziaia drincan, but the second line he has the same as Mamann, i.e. with the conjectures of the Schedae. Grimm says that das gothische scheint ganz in ordnung und nur einen schwierigen ausdruck zu enthalten, and should be read: inter hails gothicum skapjam atzja jah drig-kam. The only difficult word is atzja. It is the acc. pl. of the otherwise unat-tested neuter noun *atsi poculum or, im fall einer elision des M von skap-jam, zu setzen atazja.67 But *atsi, *atazi correspond to OHG azasi, OS atasi instrument. Grimm gives a Latin translation: paremus pocula et bibamus. Then, the meaning of the whole is: Hail! Lets get goblets and drink!

Grimm mentions that matzia could be acc. sg. of a feminine noun *matja, or acc. pl. of a neuter noun *mati. He finds this improbable because the mean-ing would be the same as in Go. mats food.

Nevertheless, Grimm had some doubts about this interpretation. In the third edition he has added a footnote:68 nach Dbners vergleichung hat die handschrift: Inter eils goticum scapia matzia iadrincan. This is actually the text of Salm. with word breaks. It must be remembered that Mamann printed scapiamatziaiadrincan and one has to presume that according to Dbners information, this is the reading in Salm. Mamann mentions that cod. 2. has

64 Riese (ed.), Anthologia , p. 187. Riese (ed.), Anthologia , editio altera, p. 221. Bailey (ed.), Anthologia , p. 201. Baehrens (ed.), Poetae , p. 363.

65 Mamann, Gotthica minora. , p. 384, fn. 1.66 Jacob Grimm, Geschichte der deutschen Sprache, I, Leipzig 1848, pp. 454-455. [Zweite

Aufl. 1853 / Dritte Aufl. 1868 / Vierte Aufl. 1880, pp. 318-319.]67 Here there is something spooky in Grimms text. An elision of m from scapiamatzia

would produce scapiaatzia, not scapiatazia.68 Grimm, Geschichte der deutschen Sprache I, dritte Aufl., p. 318.


208 MAGNS SNDAL

scapia madria ia drincam that should also be according to Dbners infor-mation. Grimm, on the other hand, mentions no manuscripts with name or number, nor does he mention that his Latin text is not in accordance with the text in the oldest manuscript. Grimms footnote can only be thus understood, that according to Dbners information, there are some kind of word breaks in Salm. as shown above. Therefore, the division skapjam atzja would not be in accordance with the manuscript. This discrepancy in Mamanns and Grimms reference to Dbner is an unsolved riddle. Or is this Grimms inter-pretation of what Mamann reports after Dbner?

Grimm mentions Mamanns paper but does not discuss his proposals, and he has nothing to say about the metre. He does not print or discuss the second half of the epigram, although he mentions its content briefly.

Dietrich has taken note of Grimms footnote when he prints the first line of the epigram: Inter eils Goticum, scapia matzia iadrincan. He says this is in accordance with the oldest manuscript. He prints the second line after the Schedae, just as Mamann and Grimm, but without any comment. His expla-nation is, in content, the same as Mamanns third proposal but he interprets the Gothic slightly differently: inter (h)eils goticum, scap ja matja ja drin-can. Heil! Schaffe zu essen und zu trinken! (Hail! Offer both to eat and drink!) Gothicized, this would be: Hails! Skapei jah matjan jah drigkan! Here scapia is divided into the imperative skapei and the conjunction jah. Then, matja is an infinitive with an elided n. Dietrich mentions that one has to read scp i even though it does not conform to Gothic quantity. It is a draw-back that in jah jah the first has to be long but the second short to conform to the metre.69 Dietrich does not mention the second half.

Te Winkel does not mention Mamanns and Grimms attempts at explain-ing the Gothic in the epigram, but it is uncertain whether his paper is young-er than Dietrichs booklet.70 According to te Winkel the first line runs: Inter eils goticum scapi ia matzia ia drincan. The second line here is also printed with the conjectures of the Schedae. Apparently, he believes the manuscript has scapi ia. He interprets this as an imperative just as Dietrich does, but he explains what follows differently. Gothicized, the Germanic in the first line would be: Heils! Skapei jah matja jah drigkan (or drigkam). Heil! Schaf ook spijs en drinken (or laat ons drinken). (Hail! Offer both food and to drink (or

69 Dietrich, Ueber die Aussprache des Gothischen , pp. 25-27.70 L. A. te Winkel, Eenige grammatische hoofdstellingen, De Taalgids 4 (1862), pp. 297-

298.



lets drink)!) But with the second possibility the first jah becomes strange. For te Winkel matja is acc. sg. of the fem. noun *mati food, which is other-wise unknown (and impossible unless the stem vowel is considered to be long; if it is short the nominative should also be *matja, cf. Grimm). He believes drincan is either infinitive or 1p. pl., but he does not mention the conjecture drincam in the Schedae.

Vinckers mentions Grimm and Dietrich but he prints the epigram in the same way as te Winkel.71 What is new is that he maintains that the ei in eils is disyllabic as in classical Latin metre. Thus, the first line is divided into feet in the following way: ntr |ls gt|cm sc|p i | mtz i i | drncm. Hence, this is not a new explanation of the content of the Gothic which remains the same as proposed by Dietrich and te Winkel. Vinckers does not explain why he prints matz ia ia, but he mentions that the second part of the first line is based on conjectures.

Te Winkel reacts the same year.72 Now he prints the epigram the same as Grimm and says this is in accordance with the manuscript of the anthology. He mentions a possible explanation that is almost the same as Grimms but rejects it along with his own.73 To have this conform to a correct hexameter he believes that eils was originally repeated, i.e.: ntr | Hils! Gt|cm, Hils! | Skpjm | mtzj j | drnkn. Hoezee! hoezee! Laten we eten en drinken doen aanrukken. (Hail! Hail! Lets carry on eating and drinking.) Appar-ently, he considers matzia as a verb in the infinitive with an elided n just as Dietrich did.

Neither Winkel nor Vinckers mention the second half of the epigram.Grabow prints the same text of the epigram as Mamann with the excep-

tion that he has edicere in the second line instead of educere.74 He does not mention the latter reading, not even when he rejects that the meaning of the line is niemand wagt es, wrdige Werse zu machen.75 He also prints the sec-ond half of the epigram and considers it original. Grabow mentions the differ-ent readings in the Gothic but not in the Latin (except the reading convivis in the title).76 He mentions only Mamanns paper but makes no reference to

71 J. Beckering Vinckers, Een orthographische e-legie, of Dr. L. A. te Winkels e-spelling en uitspraak der gotische AI, [], Kampen 1864, 34-37.

72 Te Winkel, De dialecten, pp. 182-188.73 Ibid., pp. 185-186.74 Grabow, Ein gotisches Epigramm, p. xxii.75 Ibid., p. xxxii.76 Ibid., pp. xxix-xxx.


210 MAGNS SNDAL

Grimms and Dietrichs (or te Winkels) explanations. His conclusion is the same as Dietrichs (as pointed out by Lichtenstein).77 He normalizes the first line in the following way: Inter hails goticum skapei jam matjan jad drigkan and in a Latinized form divided into feet: Inter | eils goti|cum sca|pi ja | matja ja | drincan. Heil! schaff (bring her) sowohl zu essen als auch zu trinken. (Hail! Offer both to eat and to drink.). Grabow thinks, cf. Dietrich, that the final nasal in matjan was elided because of the metre to get a short syllable (but, apparently, it was a correct hexameter in Gothic ears, as the Goths based the metre on stress, not quantity).78 The final consonant in jad did not get to the authors ear as the Gothic soldiers were in all probability drowsy on this occasion. As jam had more stress, its vowel was taken as long, but the jad was without stress and taken as short.79 The stem vowel of scapi was stressed and therefore taken as long, but the final vowel was lost by the clumsiness of some scribe. All this is rather speculative.

Luft rejects Mamanns, Grimms, Dietrichs and Grabows interpreta-tions because he thinks they do not conform to the metre.80 To get this right he makes rather extensive conjectures. He prints the first two lines as Mamann, except he has versos at the end of the second line but he does not mention dif-ferent readings in the Latin.

Luft thinks that a correct Latin version of the first line was: inter geils Goticum scapi i ia gamatzia ia drinca[n], but with the Germanic words Gothicized: inter gails Goticum skapei ei jah gamatjam jah drigkam. lustig! schaffe, dass wir essen und trinken mgen. (Blithe! Offer so we can eat and drink.) For the 1.p. pl. Luft refers to Mamanns proposals but he does not mention the reading drincam in the Schedae. He thinks that *geils is neces-sary to get a spondee in the beginning, because h does not make a position, but the word is formed from the Gothic verb gailjan* delight. He maintains that the nasals are neutral to the metre in the first line but not in the second. However, all these manipulations are questionable.81 It should be mentioned

77 Franz Lichtenstein, [Review:] Viro illustrissimo atque doctissimo Augusto Stinner [], Anzeiger fr deutsches Alterthum und deutsche Litteratur 6 (1880), p. 374.

78 Grabow, Ein gotisches Epigramm, pp. xxvi-xxvii.79 Each of these forms is attested only once in the Gothic corpus, more precisely in the

Codex Ambrosianus A, jad du 2Cor 2:16, and jam mundo Phil 3:17.80 W. Luft, Zum gotischen Epigramm, Anzeiger fr deutsches Altertum und deutsche

Litteratur 23 (1897), p. 392.81 Cf. H. Mller, Zum gotischen Epigramm, Anzeiger fr deutsches Altertum und deut-

sche Litteratur 25 (1899), p. 104.



that in the Gothic corpus, ei after an imperative is only attested with the verb saian see in the sense take care, i.e. sai(i) ei see that (e.g. Mt 8:4, Mk 1:44). Luft does not mention the second half of the epigram.

Mllers interpretation was first published by Leo but has missed Lufts attention. Leo prints the first line thus: Inter heils goticum scapiam mat-ian iah drincan. The remaining three lines he has the same as Grabow, i.e. with edicere in the second line.82

Here the conjectures are made that an m is added in skapiam and an n in matian. The Gothic is translated: Heil! schafft her zu essen, zu trinken! Leo mentions that the line is spondaic but does not scansion it completely, just maintains that die auslautenden consonanten mit den folgenden anlau-ten berall positionslnge bilden. That gives: Inter | heils goti|cum scap|jam mat|jan jah | drincan. Leo keeps the second half with translation (cf. 1.1, fn. 21) and says the last line contains a metrical error as stet is short.

Mller clarifies the matter on the occasion of Lufts paper and, indeed, his paper is mainly a criticism of Lufts explanation.83 Mllers interpreta-tion, on the other hand, has gained general acceptance and is often given when the epigram is quoted.84 It is translated: Hail! Lets get [something] to eat and drink!.

Van Helten gives a short overview of previous interpretations although he does not mention the oldest two and rejects them all. With his interpre-tation the first line runs: Inter he|ils goti|cum scapi| mati|am j | drincam.85 The rest he has the same as Grabow. He does not give a German translation of the whole, but the content is: Hail! Waiter! Lets eat and drink!.

In fact, this is the same conclusion as in Mamanns second proposal (cf. above), although van Helten does not explicitly mention it.86 The only differ-ence is that here eils is considered disyllabic. This was previously suggest-ed by Vinckers but immediately rejected by Winkel, as mentioned above.87 Nevertheless, several scholars have accepted this view, most recently Ebbing-

82 Leo, Venantius Fortunatus, , p. 416 fn.83 Mller, Zum gotischen Epigramm, pp. 103-104.84 E.g.: Heinrich Hempel, Gotisches Elementarbuch. Grammatik, Texte mit berset-

zung und Erluterungen, vierte, umgearb. Aufl., Berlin 1966, p. 161; Krause, Handbuch des Gotischen, p. 21.

85 Van Helten, Zu Anthologia Latina , p. 342.86 Ibid., p. 339.87 Wilhelm Streitberg, Gotisches Elementarbuch, 5. und 6. neubearb. Aufl., Heidelberg

1920, p. 37-38, credits Sievers with this view but without further reference.


212 MAGNS SNDAL

haus.88 Van Helten thinks scapia corresponds to Go. *skapja. (It is Lehmanns misunderstanding that van Helten suggests a vocative skapi + jah).89 It is not derived from the verb skapjan*, but an unattested noun, *skap cask, wine-jar, cf. OS skap vessel and skapward waiter. The word is thus comparable to Go. aurtja, fiskja, haurnja, skattja, etc. The final long a in skapj could be influenced by the nom. sg. of Greek names used in Latin poetry. Next, van Helten suggests that matjam jah drigkam could be der anfang oder refrain eines blichen trinkliedes, but he admits that these forms have little support by the manuscripts.90 Van Helten almost takes the first line at face value. In the scansion of the Germanic words, i is syllabic twice and non-syllabic once, just as it would be if this were Latin.

In his book, Scardigli translates the Vandal in the epigram into German: Heil! Schenkkellner, essen und trinken! (Hail! Waiter, [we shall] eat and drink!)91 He takes scapia as a noun in the vocative. This idea is also men-tioned by Mamann and preferred by van Helten.

In the paper devoted to the epigram, Scardigli takes up the epigram directly from Riese along with the apparatus. He prints the two parts separately as he has drawn the conclusion that they did not form a whole originally.92 Here, he puts forth the view that the Germanic words are indeed Gothic words (except perhaps eils) that the author has picked up from texts read at church meals.93 However, eils is most probably the greeting used by the guests at meals, and as mentioned, hails is attested in the Gothic Bible. Scapia creator would be in Go. *skapja, (cf. the verb gaskapjan*) and could be taken from the credo where it, presumably, translated opifex or factor (creator and maker). The words matzia ia drincan correspond to the Gothic pair matjan jah drigkan which is relatively frequent in the Gothic Bible.94 Scardiglis conclusion could be summarized as: heil; Schpfer; essen und trinken (hail; creator; eat and drink). Thus, these are disjointed, religious words, not something the Van-dals cried out at their taverns.

88 Ebbinghaus, Inter eils goticum , p. 75. [Ebbinghaus, Gotica, p. 176].89 Winfred P. Lehmann, A Gothic Etymological Dictionary. Based on the third edition

of Vergleichendes Wrterbuch der gotischen Sprache by Sigmund Feist, Leiden 1986, 298 [S35].

90 Van Helten, Zu Anthologia Latina , p. 342.91 Scardigli, Die Goten, p. 200 and fn. 81; cf. also pp. 172 and 260.92 Scardigli, Das sogennante gotische Epigramm.93 Ibid., p. 26.94 Ibid., pp. 20-21.



Huld prints the first half of the epigram after Riese, although with macrons over the long vowels in the second line.95 He rejects Mllers and Scardiglis explanations, but his knowledge of the latter is apparently based on the defect exposition of Lehmann96 rather than directly on Scardiglis paper. Therefore, he misses what Scardigli says about the origin of the epi-gram among the Vandals.

Huld discusses the metre at some length and thinks that all attempts to get the first line to conform to the hexameter have failed. He rejects a disyllabic ei in eils because such diphthongs are not found in Germanic languages (but that is, of course, not implicit in van Heltens idea).97 The conclusion is that this is an iambic hexameter with a dactyl in the second foot, frequently used by comic playwrights. Huld thinks that by this the poet is offering a deliberate contrast between the barbarity of the Gothic verse with the Latin elegance demonstrated by the regular dactylic hexameter of the second line.98

The first line he normalizes in the following way: Inter [h]eils goticum skapjam atzja ja[h] drincan Hail, let us prepare food and drink. He divides skapjam atzja as Grimm did but in atzja Huld sees an acc. pl. of a neuter noun that in Gothic would have been *ati, the same word as Icel. ti food (mostly for animals). The drawback of this is, that the third principal part of the Gothic verb itan eat has , 3.p. pl. etun, and Hulds attempt to get this to conform is not convincing. He creates a new East-Germanic dialect, North-Gothic spoken by Gepid and Burgundian speakers, where Proto-Germanic *// developed to as in West- and North-Germanic.99 However, it appears far-fetched to postulate a new dialect, based on the interpretation of scapia-matzia and a few names. In Vandal, this has remained or changed to i.100

Noteworthy is Hulds explanation of the last Germanic word, drincan; that it is acc. sg. of a week masculine noun, Go. *drigka drink, cf. OE drinca.101

The epigram is now and then cited or referred to in connection with Roman-Germanic contact. Here, only two instances will be mentioned.

95 Martin E. Huld, The Gothic Epigram in the Anthologia Latina and the Development of PG * in East Germanic Dialectology, Michigan Germanic Studies 16 (1990), p. 120.

96 Lehmann, A Gothic Etymological Dictionary, p. 298 [S35].97 Huld, The Gothic Epigram , p. 120.98 Ibid., p. 122.99 Ibid., p. 125.100 Wrede, ber die Sprache der Wandalen, p. 91.101 Huld, The Gothic Epigram , p. 124.


214 MAGNS SNDAL

Kroes takes up the first half of the epigram, although he admits it belongs to Latin but not Gothic poetry. Here, the first line runs: Inter eils goticum ska-pia mazia ja drinkan. The second line has audet and versus. Then he says:102

Wir lernen daraus zunchst, da die Goten Heil riefen. Die weiteren vier Worte will von Scheffel bersetzen Schafft eine Ma zu trinken her; besser ist wohl schpfen, essen und trinken.

This turned out to be a reference to a comic verse by Joseph Victor von Scheffel.103 The Gothic words are put into the mouth of Theodoric the Great:

[]Schafft eine Maas zu trinken her!Skapia maziaia d r inkan!

The verse has actually Maas but not Ma. In an endnote, von Scheffel refers to Mamann for explanation. Kroes has copied the typographical error mazia from von Scheffels original but he changes maziaia to mazia ja. In fact, Scheffels version is more like Grimms original version, scapiamatziaia drincan, than Mamanns version, and the translation appears to be influ-enced by Grimm too. Kroes does not explain why his translation is better than Scheffels, or why he cites only this interpretation of the epigram.

Wrenn104 also takes up the first two lines of the epigram after Wrede.105 He gives the following translation: While the Goths are saluting each other with healths, they make poetry, eat and drink: no one dare to recite worthy verses. Here scapia is given the meaning they make poetry and that must be Wrenns own idea as Wrede offers no translation.

102 H. W. J. Kroes, Gotische Dichtung, Neophilologus 42 (1958), p. 32.103 [Joseph Victor von Scheffel], Das Grosse Fass zu Heidelberg, der XXIV. Versammlung

deutscher Philologen und Schulmaenner zum 27. September 1865, Heidelberg 1865. This booklet does not have Scheffels name on it, but the poem is included in his collection Gaud-eamus!, first printed in 1868 and often since reprinted (see Bibliography below).

104 C. L. Wrenn, A Study of Old English Literature, London et al. l. 1967, p. 75.105 Ferdinand Wrede, Stamm-Heynes Ulfilas, oder die uns erhaltenen Denkmler der goti-

schen Sprache. Text, Grammatik, Wrterbuch. Dreizehnte und vierzehnte Aufl., Paderborn 1920, p. xvii.



2.2. A new solution

In fact, it was Scardigli who urged me to write a paper on the epigram and when I looked at the Vandal words in it, there seemed to be a solution to the riddle without any conjecture of the text. It can be interpreted as shown below. Here there is also a Gothicized version but it should be stressed that most of the words do not correspond to words found in the extant Gothic corpus, so it is far from certain that they were found in Gothic. On the other hand, they existed in Vandal:

eils! scapia! matzia ia drincan!Hails! *Skapja! *Matja jah *drigkan!Hail! Waiter! Food and drink!

The Vandals were simply calling to the waiter orders of food and drink. Then, when I started to read the literature on the epigram, I found that this was all already there, just not all at once.

Thus, eils hail is a greeting corresponding to Go. hails as in nearly all other interpretations.

The next word, scapia, is a masc. noun in the voc. sg. This possibility was mentioned already by Mamann and later preferrerd by van Helten and then Scardigli, as mentioned above. The meaning is waiter or innkeeper. In Gothic this would be *skapja. The word is not attested in Gothic but would be of the same root as gaskapjan* create, as already mentioned several times. Meid thinks that originally such words were derived from nouns, e.g. Go. fiskja* fisherman from fisks* fish, liugnja liar from liugn lie.106 Later, they were derived as nomina agentis from verbs, because words as e.g. haurn-ja* horn player are semantically connected to both haurn horn and haurn-jan* blow a horn. Therefore scapia could be derived from the verb *skapjan or an unattested noun, e.g. *skap vessel, as van Helten suggested.

The form matzia food is an acc. pl. of a word that in Gothic would have the nom. sg. *mati, i.e. neuter ja-stem. It would correspond to -meti in Icel. grnmeti vegetables etc. The meaning was not necessarily the same as in Go. mats food as Grimm thought, but he mentions this possibility and, indeed, also te Winkel. It is more probable that the meaning was something

106 W. Meid / H. Krahe, Germanische Sprachwissenschaft III. Wortbildungslehre, von Wolfgang Meid, Berlin 1967, pp. 97-98.


216 MAGNS SNDAL

like course, dish, meal; ready made food in a restaurant and the plural could reflect that such food most often consisted of more than one ingredient. It is also possible, though, as has been mentioned, that the word is acc. sg. of a feminine noun that in Gothic would have been *matja.

Then ia and is a conjunction, corresponding to Go. jah.Finally, drincan drink is acc. sg. of a weak masculine noun that in Goth-

ic would have been *drigka, as also Huld suggested. The meaning was not necessarily a drink in general but rather a measured amount of drink, served in a restaurant.

It should be mentioned that the absence of h in eils and ia implies nothing. Wrede writes about the use of h in Vandal names:107 ganz schwankend wird es im Anlaut und Inlaut (fr den Auslaut fehlen wand. Belege) bald geschrie-ben, bald weggelassen. However, he thinks that alliterating pairs such as Hnarx and Hildirx indicate that h was preserved in Vandal. Therefore, it is doubtful that eils and ia show that h had disappeared from these Vandal words which correspond to Go. hails and jah. The only certain thing here is, that the ear of the poet, who composed the epigram, did not catch the h.

It is probable that a Latin pronunciation is reflected in matzia, i.e affrica-tion of t before j, but in Wredes work no data are found to support such a change in Vandal. For comparison Go. kawtsjo < Lat. cautio, and laiktsjo/laiktjo < Lat. lectio, can be mentioned, but here the loans witness Latin pro-nunciation. Binnig maintains that the spelling matzia must reflect the pronun-ciation [matzia], i.e. the author wrote what he heard.108 The poet was, presum-ably, not a phonetician, so it is hardly certain that the spelling tz represents a voiceless, alveolar stop followed by a voiced, alveolar sibilant. Perhaps an unvoiced fricative in matja, i.e. [mata] or [mata], was sufficient to suggest a sibilant and trigger the spelling matzia.

The form eils preserves the nom. sg. m. ending -s. According to Wrede, the Vandal names show that the ending of the nom. sg. was preserved after a velar, -rx (Go. -reiks), but deleted after a dental of any type, -rth, -mth (Go. -res, -mos).109 There are no examples of labials. The form eils suggests that this rule did not apply to adjectives.

107 Wrede, ber die Sprache der Wandalen, p. 107.108 Wolfgang Binnig, Gotisches Elementarbuch, 5., vll. neubearb. Aufl. der frheren

Darstellung von Heinrich Hempel, Berlin / New York 1999, p. 138.109 Wrede, ber die Sprache der Wandalen, pp. 105-106, 109.



The form scapia compares to the name Stutja (if it is Vandal)110 and drinca compares to names such as Tata and Pinta. Therefore, there is nothing in the corpus of names that contradicts the suggestion that these are weak masculine nouns. This means that if scapia corresponds to Go. *skapja, then matzia can correspond to Go. *matja, whether that form is acc. pl. n. or acc. sg. f.

To conclude, there is nothing in the form of these words contradicting the little we know about Vandal morphology.

2.3. The metre

All interpreters but Grimm say something about the metre. Conjectures are often justified thus, that they are necessary to get a correct hexameter. However, it is natural to scansion the first line of the epigram in the same way as van Helten does. It is then taken at face value as if it were all Latin, i.e. the i in scapia and matzia is syllabic as it is in Calliope and ebria, but non-syllabic in ia as in iungere. The whole epigram is then scansioned as follows:

ntr |ls gt|cm scp| mtz| i | drncnnn au |dt qus|qum dg|ns |dcr | vrss.Cll|p md|d trp|dt s | ingr | Bccn pd|bs nn | stt || br | ms s|s.

Hence, the first line is spondaic with a dactyl in the fourth foot.111Here, eils is disyllabic (as suggested by Vinckers and van Helten). Thereby

it is not claimed that the diphthong was disyllabic in Vandal, only that it was treated that way by the poet as a Latin ei. The words scapia and matzia are similar. In Vandal the final vowel was most probably short but in the epigram it is long. Perhaps the Vandals extended the final vowel when they shouted to the waiter, skapjaaaa! Hence the poet found it justifiable to treat the last syllable as long. It is, of course, possible that he understood some Vandal or, at least, that someone taught him the form and meaning of these particular words.

In the last line it appears not to be necessary to change ebria to sobria or debria (as suggested by Mller and Peiper respectively, cf. fns 53 and 56

110 Ibid., p. 88.111 It would, perhaps, be possible also to treat an i in front of a vowel always as a non-

syllabic: ntr |ls gt|cm scp|i mtz|i i | drncn. Here, there would be two spondees before the one in the fifth foot and it is questionable to give the i a different value in the Vandal words than in the Latin.


218 MAGNS SNDAL

above). Originally the e in stet was long and therefore could be used as such in poetry, so called diastole.112

2.4. The occasion of the epigram

Some of those who have written about the epigram have suggested ideas about how or on what occasion it was composed. Here, this will be dealt with briefly.

Meerman thinks the poet conjoins Venus, Ceres and Bacchus. He is taking part in a barbaric feast, kissed by a sweet, Gothic maiden, eating mutton, and, after several gulps of wine, he is not in a state to compose poetry.113

Mamann thinks the epigram was composed by an attic room poet who had difficulty composing because of the carousing Goths in the pub beneath the room.114 Some scholars accept this or something similar115 although others do not discuss it at all (i.e. Grimm and Huld).

Grabow reject this idea.116 Composing poetry in an attic room is not con-nected to any risk; edicere means to recite, not to compose (he missed the fact that Mamann used the reading educere) and the continuation supposes being together with drunken barbarians. He thinks the Goths invited the poet to recite dignified (Latin) poems at their party, but then he did not get silence because those who were not interested in this entertainment were always cry-ing hail and cheers or shouting orders to the waiter. This evoked old memories with the poet of similar unpleasant occasions. Some scholars have accept-ed this explanation117 and one assumes the poet was really saying that under Gothic rule, the poetry has a hard time.118

Van Helten rejects both these explanations.119 He thinks the author imag-ines a poet who is afraid of disgracing himself and his art by reading his poet-ry among carousing Goths. To support this view he refers to a description,

112 W. G. Hale / C. D. Buck, A Latin Grammar, Alabama 1903, p. 351. Charles E. Bennett, New Latin Grammar, 3rd ed., Boston 1918, p. 244.

113 Burman (ed.), Anthologia , p. 452.114 Mamann, Gotthica minora. , p. 379.115 Dietrich, Ueber die Aussprache des Gothischen , p. 26. Te Winkel, Eenige gramma-

tische hoofdstellingen, p. 297. Luft, Zum gotischen Epigramm, p. 392.116 Grabow, Ein gotisches Epigramm, pp. xxxi-xxxiii.117 Lichtenstein, [Review of] Viro illustrissimo [], p. 374. Leo, Venantius Fortunatus,

, p. 416 fn.118 Mller, Zum gotischen Epigramm, p. 104.119 Van Helten, Zu Anthologia Latina , pp. 341-343.



given by Fortunatus in the preface to his poetry collection, of the behaviour of the Germanic barbarians:120

ut inter illos egomet non musicus poeta, sed muricus deroso flore carminis poema non canerem, sed garrirem, quo residentes auditores inter acernea pocula salute bibentes insana Baccho iudice debaccharent.

In fact, Leo had already noted this and that was the reason why he dis-cussed the epigram in his paper on Fortunatus he felt both were related in a sense. Leo translates a longer passage from Fortunatuss preface, but his Ger-man translation of the quotation above is as follows:121

So hab ich unter jenen nicht als Musen-, nein als Musedichter die Blthe des Liedes abgenagt und meine Gedichte nicht gesungen, sondern hergeleiert, wh-rend die Zuhrer bei hlzernen Bechern dasaen und sich den Heiltrank bietend so unmig zechten, da selbst der Zechergott Bacchus es fr Tollheit erklrt haben wrde.

Scardigli rejects explanations of this kind. He thinks the drinking and eating of the Vandals could not impress the poet, and the Vandal debauch-ery could not disturb him so much as to block his composing. Nor could the sounds of the barbarian language hurt his ears so much. He asks why innocent drink orders of the Vandals should hinder him in reading his poetry. But in all these cases one could reply: Why not? Do we really know?

Scardigli assumes that although Procopiuss (cf. 1.2) words should not be taken literally to mean that all the East-Germanic tribes spoke the same lan-guage at this time, their languages were similar enough that the Vandals could use the Gothic Bible translation and their church language was presumably Gothic. He finds it most probable that the author of the epigram attended a religious meal. All the Germanic words in the epigram could be taken from church or biblical language. The poet was a good Catholic; therefore he mis-trusted the Gothic biblical language and missed the reading of dignos versus, i.e. reading from the Vulgate.122

120 Fortunatus, Venenanti Honori Clementiani Fortvnati presbyteri Italici opera poeti-ca, recensvit et emendavit Fridericvs Leo, in Monvmenta Germaniae historica, avctorvm antiqvissimorvm tomi IV pars prior, Berolini 1881, p. 2.

121 Leo, Venantius Fortunatus, , p. 416.122 Scardigli, Das sogennante gotische Epigramm, pp. 19-27.


220 MAGNS SNDAL

We have no evidence to show these hypotheses to be entirely wrong. Nevertheless, it should be borne in mind that the data say nothing about the occasion of the epigram. For this we have to infer from its content and its title. The title is De convivis barbaris or about foreign guests (or table mates) and it provides a full meaning and full sense as it stands. Of course, convivis could be an error for conviviis but such a conjecture is far from necessary. Grabow insists on this and, in a way, Scardiglis hypothesis rests on it. He thinks the epigram is a description of Vandal church meals but not of the behaviour of the guests attending them, except that they greeted each other with eils.

The first part of the epigram says that among Gothic Eils! Scapia! Matzia ia drincan! no one is ready to recite dignified verses. The simplest explana-tion is that the table mates, mentioned in the title, were sitting in a restau-rant and constantly shouting these words so there was no peace for poetry reading. The second half says that the muse of epic poetry, Calliope, flees from this carousing because she will not become drunk and unsteady on her (metrical) feet. And where there is no Muse, it is unwise to recite poetry. Therefore, the second part is connected to the first part. Although one can say that the first part makes full sense without the second, the second part does not without the first, unless the second half is intended to say what Calliope always does when she meets Bacchus. The second half is therefore unlikely to be an independent epigram originally, although it may have been taken from its original context and attached to this first part. That hypoth-esis, though, is only necessary if it is assumed with Scardigli that the verses mentioned in the second line are biblical verses but not poetic verses. Never-theless, it should be stressed that there is no direct evidence showing that the two parts were not tied together originally.

The simplest assumption is that the author had himself tried with lim-ited success to recite poetry among drunken Vandals, had witnessed such an attempt, or had been told about one. He composed the epigram about this and, although it is presented as a general truth, most likely he had a certain incident in mind. He is not making fun of Vandal poetry but only saying that dignified verses cannot been read while they are always ordering food and drink because Calliope flees from there. This is indeed all we can say with some certainty about the occasion of the epigram.



3. Conclusions

The Germanic words in the epigram are Vandal and it is possible to explain them without any conjecture as eils! scapia! matzia ia drincan! Hail! Waiter! Food and drink! Then there is only one conjecture necessary in the Latin part of the text (audet for audit). It has not been sufficiently argued for that the two halves of the epigram did not form a whole in the beginning. The epigram describes everyday experience that someone was disturbed by carousing guests in a tavern.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Armand dAVEZAC, Mmoire sur thicus et sur les ouvrages cosmographiques intituls de ce nom, Mmoires prsents par divers savants lAcadmie des inscriptions et belles-lettres. Premire srie, sujets divers drudition, II (1852), pp. 230-551.

[Emil] BAEHRENS (ed.), Poetae Latini minores, recensuit et emendavit Aemilius Baeh-rens, IV, Lipsiae 1882.

D. R. Shackleton BAILEY (ed.), Anthologia Latina I: Carmina in codicibus scripta, recensuit D. R. Shackleton Bailey, fasc. 1: Libri Salmasiani aliorumque carmina, Stvtgardiae 1982.

Alfred J. BAUMGARTNER, Untersuchungen zur Anthologie des Codex Salmasianus, Baden 1981.

Charles E. BENNETT, New Latin Grammar, 3rd ed., Boston 1918.Wolfgang BINNIG, Gotisches Elementarbuch, 5., vll. neubearb. Aufl. der frheren

Darstellung von Heinrich Hempel, Berlin / New York 1999.Bernhard BISCHOFF, Panorama der Handschriftenberlieferung aus der Zeit Karls

des Grossen, in Karl der Grosse: Lebenswerk und Nachleben II. Das geistige Leben, hrsg. von B. Bischoff, Dsseldorf 1965, pp. 233254.

Giuliano BONFANTE, Latini e Germani in Italia, terza ed. rived. e aggiorn., Brescia 1965.

[Pieter] BURMAN (ed.), Anthologia vetervm Latinorvm epigrammatvm et pomatvm, sive catalecta potarvm Latinorvm in VI. libros digesta. [], cvra Petri Bvrman-ni Secvndi, qui perpetuas Adnotationes adjecit, II, Amstelaedami 1773 [I, 1759].

Cecil CLEMENTI (ed.), Pervigilium Veneris. The Vigil of Venus. Edited with fac-similes of the Codex Salmasianus and Codex Thuaneus, an introduction, trans-lation, apparatus criticus, and explanatory notes by Cecil Clementi, Oxford / London 1911.


222 MAGNS SNDAL

Franz DIETRICH, Ueber die Aussprache des Gothischen waehrend der Zeit seines Bestehens. Eine sprachgeschichtliche Abhandlung nebst einem kritischen Anhang ueber die Namen des Jornandes, Marburg 1862.

Fr. DBNER, [Review of Meyers] Anthologia veterum Latinorum epigrammatum et poematum. [], Zeitschrift fr die Alterthumswissenschaft 4 (1837), pp. 5-42.

Ernst A. EBBINGHAUS, Inter eils goticum . For E. A. Philippson on his ninetieth birthday, General Linguistics 30 (1990), pp. 75-78. (Repr. in Ebbinghaus, Gotica, pp. 176-179).

Ernst A. EBBINGHAUS, Gotica. Kleine Schriften zur gotischen Philologie, hrsg. von P. Scardigli und W. Meid, Innsbruck 2003.

[Egidio] FORCELLINI, Totius Latinitatis lexicon opera et studio Aegidii Forcellini [] novo ordine digestum amplissime auctum atque emendatum cura et studio Vin-centii De-Vit, I, Prati 1858-1860.

FORTUNATUS, Venenanti Honori Clementiani Fortvnati presbyteri Italici opera poet-ica, recensvit et emendavit Fridericvs Leo, in Monvmenta Germaniae historica, avctorvm antiqvissimorvm tomi IV pars prior, Berolini 1881.

August GRABOW,Ein gotisches Epigramm, in Viro illustrissimo atque doctissimo Augusto Stinner gymnasii regii Oppoliensis directori emerito [], Oppolii 1880, pp. xxi-xxxiii.

Jacob GRIMM, Geschichte der deutschen Sprache, I, Leipzig 1848. [Zweite Aufl. 1853, Dritte Aufl. 1868, Vierte Aufl. 1880].

W. G. HALE / C. D. BUCK, A Latin Grammar, Alabama 1903.W. van HELTEN, Zu Anthologia Latina ed. Riese no. 285 und 285a (de conviviis bar-

baris), Beitrge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 29 (1904), pp. 339-343.

Heinrich HEMPEL, Gotisches Elementarbuch. Grammatik, Texte mit bersetzung und Erluterungen, vierte, umgearb. Aufl., Berlin 1966.

Martin E. HULD, The Gothic Epigram in the Anthologia Latina and the Develop-ment of PG * in East Germanic Dialectology, Michigan Germanic Studies 16 (1990), pp. 120-127.

N. M. KAY, Epigrams from the Anthologia Latina. Text, translation and commentary, London 2006.

Wolfgang KRAUSE, Handbuch des Gotischen, 3., neubearb. Aufl., Mnchen 1968.H. W. J. KROES, Gotische Dichtung, Neophilologus 42 (1958), pp. 31-38.Winfred P. LEHMANN, A Gothic Etymological Dictionary. Based on the third edition of

Vergleichendes Wrterbuch der gotischen Sprache by Sigmund Feist, Leiden 1986.Friedrich LEO, Venantius Fortunatus, der letzte rmische Dichter, Deutsche Rund-

schau 32 (1882), pp. 414-426.



Ch. T. LEWIS / Ch. SHORT, A Latin Dictionary. Founded on Andrews edition of Fre-unds Latin Dictionary, Oxford 1958.

Franz LICHTENSTEIN, [Review:] Viro illustrissimo atque doctissimo Augusto Stin-ner [], Anzeiger fr deutsches Alterthum und deutsche Litteratur 6 (1880), pp. 373-374.

LUCRETIUS, De rerum natura. 3rd ed., London 1966.W. LUFT, Zum gotischen Epigramm, Anzeiger fr deutsches Altertum und deutsche

Litteratur 23 (1897), pp. 392-394.W. MEID / H. KRAHE, Germanische Sprachwissenschaft III. Wortbildungslehre, von

Wolfgang Meid, Berlin 1967.H. F. MASSMANN, Gotthica minora. 8. Ein gothisches Epigramm, Zeitschrift fr

deutsches Alterthum 1 (1841), pp. 379-384.[Heinrich MEYER (ed.)] Anthologia veterum Latinorum epigrammatum et poematum.

Editionem Burmannianam digessit et auxit Henricus Meyerus Turicensis, I-II, Lipsiae 1835.

H. MLLER, Zum gotischen Epigramm, Anzeiger fr deutsches Altertum und deutsche Litteratur 25 (1899), pp. 103-104.

Lucian MLLER, Sammelsurien XXVIII, Jahrbcher fr classische Philologie 13 (1867), pp. 483-485 (Neue Jahrbcher fr Philologie und Paedagogik, 95).

Lucian MLLER, Sammelsurien LII, Jahrbcher fr classische Philologie 13 (1867), pp. 799-804 (Neue Jahrbcher fr Philologie und Paedagogik, 95).

H. OMONT, Anthologie de potes latins dite de Saumaise. Reproduction rduite du manuscrit en onciale, latin 10318, de la Bibliothque nationale, Paris 1903.

PLL rnason, Ny Latinsk Ordbog, til Brug for den studerende Ungdom. Efter de vigtigste Kilder og Hielpemidler, [], samlet, ordnet og udg. av Paul Arnesen, Kjbenhavn 1848.

Rudolf PEIPER, ebrius debrius, Jahrbcher fr classische Philologie 19 (1873), p. 340 (Neue Jahrbcher fr Philologie und Paedagogik, 107).

PROCOPIUS, in six volumes, II: History of the Wars, Books III and IV, London 1916.Paolo RADICIOTTI, Problemi di datazione di codici in onciale (Par. lat. 10593, CLM

6224, Par. lat. 10318), Archivio della Societ romana di storia patria 116 (1993), pp. 53-63.

Alexander RIESE, Zur lateinischen Anthologie, Jahrbcher fr classische Philolo-gie 14 (1868), pp. 698-710 (Neue Jahrbcher fr Philologie und Paedagogik, 97).

Alexander RIESE (ed.), Anthologia Latina sive poesis Latinae svpplementvm I: Carmi-na in codicibvs scripta, recensvit Alexander Riese, fascicvlvs I: Libri Salmasiani aliorvmqve carmina, Lipsiae 1869.

Alexander RIESE (ed.), Anthologia Latina sive poesis Latinae svpplementvm I: Carmi-


224 MAGNS SNDAL

na in codicibvs scripta, recensvit Alexander Riese, fascicvlvs I: Libri Salmasiani aliorvmqve carmina, editio altera denvo recognita, Lipsiae 1894.

Morris ROSENBLUM, Luxorius. A Latin poet among the Vandals, together with text of the poems and an English translation, New York / London 1961.

Piergiuseppe SCARDIGLI, Die Goten. Sprache und Kultur, Mnchen 1973.Piergiuseppe SCARDIGLI, Das sogennante gotische Epigramm, Beitrge zur

Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 96 (1974), pp. 17-32.[Joseph Victor von SCHEFFEL], Das Grosse Fass zu Heidelberg, der XXIV. Versam-

mlung deutscher Philologen und Schulmaenner zum 27. September 1865, Heidel-berg 1865.

Joseph Victor [von] SCHEFFEL, Gaudeamus! Lieder aus dem Engeren und Weiteren, Stuttgart 1868.

Alexander SOUTER, A Glossary of Later Latin, Oxford 1949.Maddalena SPALLONE, Il Par. lat. 10318 (Salmasiano): dal manoscritto alto-mediev-

ale ad una raccolta enciclopedica tardo-antica, Italia medioevale e umanistica 25 (1982), pp. 1-71.

Wilhelm STREITBERG, Gotisches Elementarbuch, 5. und 6. neubearb. Aufl., Heidel-berg 1920.

Ludwig TRAUBE, Zur lateinischen Anthologie. I. ber Gedichte des Codex Sal-masianus, in Kleine Schriften, hrsg. von Samuel Brandt, Mnchen 1920, pp. 51-59. (= Vorlesungen und Abhandlungen III. Philologus 54 (1895), pp. 124-134).

J. Beckering VINCKERS, Een orthographische e-legie, of Dr. L. A. te Winkels e-spell-ing en uitspraak der gotische AI, [], Kampen 1864.

L. A. te WINKEL, Eenige grammatische hoofdstellingen, De Taalgids 4 (1862), pp. 289-306.

L. A. te WINKEL, De dialecten en de vocaalspelling, De Taalgids 6 (1864), pp. 153-197.

Herwig WOLFRAM, History of the Goths. New and completely revised from the second German edition, Berkeley 1987.

Ferdinand WREDE, ber die Sprache der Wandalen. Ein Beitrag zur germanischen Namen- und Dialektforschung, Strassburg / London 1886.

Ferdinand WREDE, ber die Sprache der Ostgoten in Italien, Strassburg 1891.Ferdinand WREDE, Stamm-Heynes Ulfilas, oder die uns erhaltenen Denkmler der

gotischen Sprache. Text, Grammatik, Wrterbuch. Dreizehnte und vierzehnte Aufl., Paderborn 1920.

C. L. WRENN, A Study of Old English Literature, London et al. l. 1967.


m s the ‘vandal’ epigram - uni.hi.is¦dal.pdf · ffilologia germanica.indd 191ilologia...

Documents