BIBLIOGRAPHICAL AND OTHER STUDIES ON THE PERVIGILIUM VENERIS ^ COMPILED FROM RESEARCH IN THE LIBRARY OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM BY CECIL CLEMENTI, M.A. LATE DEMY OF MAGDALEN COLLEGE, OXFORI> ASSISTANT COLONIAL dECBETAHY, HONGKONG OXFORD B. H. BLACKWELL, BROAD STREET LONDON : HUMPHREY MILFORD OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, AMEN CORNER, E.G. NEW YORK, TORONTO, MELBOURNE, & BOMBAY BIBLIOGRAPHICAL AND OTHER STUDIES ON THE PERVIGILIUM VENERIS COMPILED FROM RESEARCH IN THE LIBRARY OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM BY CECIL CLEMENTI, M.A. LATE DEMY OF MAGDALEN COLLEGE, OXFORD ASSISTANT COLONIAL SECRETARY, HONGKONG OXFORD B. H. BLACK WELL, BROAD STREET LONDON: HUMPHREY MILFORD OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, AMEN CORNER, E.C. NEW YORK, TORONTO, MELBOURNE, & BOMBAY 1913 OXFORD: HORACE HART PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY m It appears from a passage in the Aclagki of Desiderius Erasmus (a. d. 1467- 1536), the second edition of which was printed at Venice in 1508/ that Aldo Manuzio," his publisher, had recently shown him the MS., found in a veiy ancient French library, of a Carmen de Vere, ascribed by the copyist to Catullus. The fact that Manuzio showed his discovery to Erasmus leads De la Monnoye^ to conjecture that in 1504 Jacopo Sannazaro * had, on his 1 Erasmi Roterodami Adagioruni Chiliades tres ac Centuriae fere totidem : Aid. Studiosis. S. : Aldus, 1508 [Brit. Mus. No. 634. 1. 2]. See folio 94, chilias I, 820, where Erasmus, illustrating the proverb Amyclas Perdidit Silentium, writes : — ' Meminit de Amy- clarum silentio Silius Italicus — quasqxe ever'ere silentia Amyclae. Meminit et Catullus nisi fallit inscriptio carminis DE VERE, quod nuper nobis Aldus Manutius meus exhibuit, in antiquissima quadam Galliae bibliotheca repertum, Sic Amyclas, dum tacebant, perdidit silentium.'' The first edition of the Adagia was published at Paris in 1.500. There is no copy of it at the British Museum, but I have ascertained from Mr. G. Vine, sub- librarian of the John Rylands Library at Manchester, where there is a copy, that the first edition, which is quite a small volume containing only about 800 proverbs, does not include the proverb Amyclas perdidit silentium. Presumably, therefore, it was between the years 1.500 and 1508 that Manuzio showed the MS. in question to Erasmus. ' The editor of the famous Aldine editions of Greek and Roman classics. He lived A. D. 1449-1515. His original name was Teobaldo Manucci (also written Manuzzi). Erasmus was living at Venice as the guest of Manuzio when he produced in 150S the second edition of the Adagia. ^ Menagiana, vol. iii, pp. 12-15 (ijV/e infra under the year 1716). The passage in question reads : — 'Erasme, au proverbe Amyclas perdidit silentium, est le premier qui ait fait mention de cette pi6ce attribuee, dit-il, ii Catulle dans le manuscrit qu'il en vit chez Aide Manuce. Comme c'est dans une ancienne Bibliotheque de France qu'elle avoit ete trouvt^e, j'ai opinion qu'en 1504 Sannazar, ii son retour de ce pais-la, pouvoit bien Ten avoir rapportee avec d'autres manuscrits curieux qu'il y avoit decouverts, tels que les fragments des Halieutiques d'Ovide, les Cyn^getiques de Gratius et de Nemesianus, I'ltineraire de Rutilius, et peut-etre quolques autros.' * An Italian poet ; a. d. 1458-1530 (or 1532). S 4 PERVIGILIUM VENEEIS return from France, brought with him this MS. as well as certain other curious codices, which he had discovered there, such as the fragments of Ovid's HalieuUca, the Cynegetica of Gratius and Nemesianus, and the Itinerary of Eutilius. But all we know for a fact is that Erasmus quotes from the poem in question one line, and one only, in the following form : — Sic Amyclas, dum tacebant, perdidit silentium. Neither of the two extant codices of the Pervigilium Veneris contains the line in precisely this form : for the Codex Salmasianus (hereinafter referred to as S) ^ reads in its ninety-second line : — sic amiclas cum taceret perdedit silentium, and the Codex TJmaneiis (hereinafter referred to as T) " has as its ninety-first line : — sic amidas cum taceret perdidit silentium. Either, therefore, Erasmus had before him some MS. other than S or T, or else he himself somewhat arbitrarily altered cum taceret into dum tacebant, or perhaps, having seen S or T (probably the former as it does not miswrite the name Amiclas), he quoted the line incorrectly from memory. The fiict that the MS., which Erasmus saw, ascribed the poem to Catullus would appear, as the poem is not so ascribed by S or T, to support the theory that the Codex discovered in the ancient French library was neither S nor T, but some other MS. since lost. Against tliis argument Jo. Christian Wernsdoi'f ' contends that in T the Epithalamium of Caius Valerius Catullus Veronensis precedes the Pervigilium by a short interval only, and that for this reason Erasmus ascribed the poem to Catullus, although he had before him no other MS. than T. But I find it difficult to believe that so sound a scholar as Erasmus would have attributed the quotation in question to ^ For a further account of this MS. see pp. 7-8 infra. " For a further account of this MS, see pp. 6-7 and note 13 infra. '' Poetae Latini Minores, vol. iii, pp. 423-88 and 535-42 {vide infra under the year 1782). The passage referred to reads : — ' Catulli Veronensis hoc esse Aldus Manutius, Erasmus et Meursius existimarunt, quae opinio inde orta videtur, quod in Pithoei votustissimo codice non longo intervallo praecedebat Epithalamium C. Val. Catulli, Et quum Aldi Manutii exemplar, quod ille Catullo tribuisse dicitur, in antiquissimaGalliae bibliothoca roportum sit, suspicor hoc ex eodem codice, quern postea Pithoeus vidit, descriptum fuisso.' BIBLIOGRAPHICAL STUDIES 5 Catullus, adding nisi falUt itiscriptio carminis, if the MS. before him had not expressly ascribed the poem to Catullus. Indeed, so far from attributing the poem to Catullus, Erasmus appears to have doubted whether the MS. was not at fault in its ascription of the work to that author. It should also be noted that T reads amidas cum taceref, not Ami/das dum tacebant, and I cannot think that Erasmus would, without mentioning the fact, have made so considerable an alteration in the text. Still less am I disposed to believe that Erasmus would have trusted to his memoi-y in such a matter. Moreover, the Pervigilium is next mentioned in 1545 by Giglio Gregorio Gii-aldi of Ferrara (a. d. 1479-1552), who says: — 'Aldum Manutium memini dicere, se CatuUi potima habere quod VEK inscribitur. Idem et Erasmus fatetur: necdum tamen mihi videre contigit.'- Thus apparently Manuzio as well as Erasmus had noticed that the Codex in question ascribed the poem to Catullus : and neither of these eminent scholars refei'red to the poem as Pervigilium Veneris, which title occurs both in S and T. Erasmus spoke of it as Carmen de Vere, and Manuzio described it as poema quod VER inscribitur. It, therefore, seems certain that in their MS. the opening line of the poem was not the refrain, as in S and T, but the Hne Uer nouum, uer iam canorum, &c. ; and I would in passing note this as a further confirmation of the conjecture that the refrain should be omitted from the beginning of the poem.^ On the whole, therefore, [a) because the penultimate line of the poem as quoted by Erasmus differs from that line as written in S and T ; (&) because S and T do not ascribe the poem to Catullus ; (c) because the poem in S and T is expressly entitled Pervigilium Veneris, which cannot have been the case in the MS. which Erasmus and Manuzio saw ; and finally {d) because the poem in S and T begins with the refrain and not with the line Uer nouum, &c., I conclude with some confidence that Manuzio and Erasmus had before them a MS. (other than S or T) which has since been lost. ' Historiae poetanim tarn Graecorum quam Latinonim Dialog! decern, quibus scripta ot vitae eorum sic exprimuntur, ut ea perdiscere cupientibus, minimum iam laboris esse quoat : Lilio Gregorio Gyraldo Ferrariensi auctore : cum indice locupletissimo : Basileae, 1545 [Brit. Mas. No. 1161. b. 2]. See book x, p. 1089. '•' At pp. 9-10 of my edition (see the year 1912 infra). 6 PERVIGILIUM VENERIS Joseph Justus Scaliger '" is the next scholar who mentions the Pervigilium. He suggested, in 1577," that the authoi* of the Carmen de Vere, referred to by Erasmus, was not C. Val. Catullus Veronensis, but a certain Catullus Urbicarius Mimographus, mentioned by Juvenal and Martial.'^ It was in the same year that Pierre Pithou (Petrus Pithoeus or Pythoeus ; A. d. 1539-96) discovered the poem in the Codex Thiianeus,^' from which he prepared the first printed text of the Pervigilium Veneris}*" This edition was printed towards the close of 1577 in small 4to size (230 x160 mm.) on two sheets, making four pages in all. On pages 1-3 the Pervigilium itself is printed and on page 4 the verses known as Floridi de qualitate vitae, which form Nos. 245-52 in Alexander Kiese's Anthologia LatinaP The text is a faith- ful transcript of the Codex Thuaneus (now No. 8071 in the National Library at Paris) and is preceded by the following preface, dated Jan. 1, 1578 : — Lectori. Qui mos veteribus cum desperatos ante ianuas coUocarent, ut vel extremum spiritum redderent terrae, vel possent a transeuntibus forte curari ; idem mihi consilium fuit in disponendis huius poematis, sane antiqui, sive Catulli, sive alterius sit, reliquiis ; quarum ego salutem commendatam cupio vel Medicorum pueris, dum qua fide a nobis exhibentur de vetus- 10 The family name was deUa Scala, or de I'Escale : the father Julius Caesar Scaliger lived A. D. 1484-1558 and the son Joseph Justus Scaliger lived a. d. 1540- 1G09. " losephi Scaligeri lul. Caes. fili Castigationes in Catullum, Tihullum, Proi^ertium : Lutetiae, apud Mamcrtum Patissouium, in officina Hob. Stephani ; 1577 [Brit. Mus. No. 1002. b. 5]. At p. 4 Scaliger writes : — ' Id tantum dicam ; Urbicariuni et Mimographum poetam huic nostro cognomine fuiase : cuius mcminit luvenalis, Et fortasse is fuit auctor carminis DE VERE, ex quo hoc citat Erasmus : — Sic Annjdas, di/m tacebant, perdidit silentium.' " Juv. Sat. viii. 186 and xiii. 11] ; Martial v. 30. 3. 1^ So called because on its second folio are inscribed the words ' lac. Aug. Thuanj ', indicating that it once belonged to Jacques Auguste do Thou (a. d. 1553-1617), owner of the famous librajy, known as Biblioiheca Thuanca, at Paris. The Pen-igiliion is written on folio 52sqq. in this MS., and a facsimile of the pages in question will bo found in my edition of the poem. '■• Sec Revue dc Philohgie ix, pp. 124-6 (under the year 1885 infra). II. Omont was tlio scholar who rediscovered this editio princeps of the poem. 1' Vol. i (see also under the year 1869 infra). BIBLIOGRAPHICAL STUDIES 7 tissimo, sed unico exemplari. eadem. ut par est, ab omnibus ti-actentur. Kl. Ian. cioiJLXxviii. Pithou sent copies of this booklet to Joseph Justus Scaliger, to Jan van der Does, the Elder (Janus Dousa, pater ; a.d. 1545-1604), and to Joest Lips (Justus Lipsius ; a. d. 1547-1606). Scaliger returned his copy some time later to Pithou api^roving a certain number of the conjectured emenda- tions, which Pithou had printed in the margin of his text, and suggesting to him certain others. This copy of the cditio princeps, with Scaliger's comments, is now bound up in vol. 395 (fols. 68-9) of the ' Collection Dupuy ' in the National Library at Paris. ^^^ It is interesting to note that, at the head of his comments on the text, Scaliger somewhat modified his opinion as to the authorship of the poem, saying : — ' Poeta iste floruit post Antoninorum tempora, quod facile ex charactere deprehenditur ; et, si vei'um auguror, post Constantinum ; quibus temporibus non temere alio quam trochaico metro scribebant. Non alias crebrior eius metri usus.' We learn from Achille Esta90 (Achilles Statius ; a. d. 1524-81) that only three or four copies of Pithou's editio prince2>s were printed.'" All of them, except the one now preserved at Paris, appear to have been lost. Esta^o himself could not procure a printed copy, but obtained in 1578 a transcript for his own use, and this MS. copy, together with the marginal annotations of Esta90, is now preserved as MS. B, 106 in the Vallicellana Library. We do not know what became of the printed copy of the editio princeps sent by Pithou to Jan van der Does ; but it seems probable that this scholar also i« Scaliger wrote to Pithou from Poitiers on June 2, 1578 : ' Je ne sai si vous aves rec^eu la response que je vous feis touchant lePenigiUum Vmeris. Je la baillai a M" Henri Simon, qui a est6 receveur des fortifications '. , . . Also on June 29, 1578, he wrote in a postscript : — ' Je vous envoie ee que j'ai cotte sur le Pei-vigilmm Veneris et ce que m'en semble, mais ne prencs pas mon avis tanquam Hvpias So^as. Je I'ai faict pour vous obeir '. . . . (Collection Dupuy, vol. 496, fols. 178 and 180). 1^ See Reiue de Philologie ix, pp. 124-6 (under the year 1885 i)ifra). E. Chatelain was the scholar who first drew attention to the MS. of Esta90 on the Pervigilium. Estaco writes: — ' Mons. Pythoeus n'ha fatti stampare 3 o 4 solasse. Non n'ho potuto haver in stampa, ma I'ho trascritto come elle sta.' Esta90 must have received this copy early in 1578, for the letter addressed to Pinelli, which follows in the MS., is dated 'S eid. April 1578'. 8 PEEVIGILIUM VENERIS returned his copy to Pithou with suggested emendations, one of which (that on line 22) has survived. Here T reads ip iussit mane tuae, for which Van der Does proposed ipsa iussit mane ut udae, a brilliant correction which was accepted by Joest Lips as well as by Pithou.'* From the copy of the Pervigilium which Pithou had sent him, Joest Lips prepared and published at Antwerp in 1580 an elaborate edition of the poem,'^ the first generally accessible to the scholastic world. In his introduction Lips wrote : — 'Carmen vulgabo, quod clarissimus I. C. Petrus Pythoeus munus mihi misit ; sed carmen non visum antea, non lectum ; et cui merito praefabor, favete Unguis. Kepperit vir doctissimus et diligentissimus hai-um rerum, in vetusto eoque unico exemplari ; et inde qua fide ille transcripsit, eadem inseram his libris ; sine fraude quidem ; quia ista quasi adoptio, volente amico nostro est, immo iussu. Carmen sic habet — '. Then follows the text faithfully copied from the eclitio princeps. Incidentally we learn from a note of Lips on line 17 that another scholar Janus Lernutius'° had hazarded a conjectural emendation of that line. I cannot, however, find any further contribution to the subject by Lernutius. Seven years later, in 1587, Pithou himself published at Paris for the scholastic world at large an edition of the Pervigilium, based on T, under the heading Yeterum Quorundam Poctarmn Errones Venerii ; "' and in the follow- " Lips says : — ' Douza, inquam, legebat — mane ut udae virgines mdant rosae : rectissime ' ; loc.cit. in note 19 infra ; and Pithou comments on this: — 'Placet coniectura : oa Lipsii et Dousae est ' ; loc. cit. in note 21 infra. 1' lusti Lipsii Electorum Liber I : in quo, praeter censuras, varii prisci ritus : Antver- piae, ex officina Christophori Plantini, architypographi regii : 1580 [Brit. Mus. No. 590. b. 8]. Chapter v at pp. 35-46 of this work is entitled ' Carmen poetae veteris non antea visum : de scriptore quaesitum : multa in eo emendata et illustrata ', and contains an introduction, text of the Pervigilium, and notes thereon. 20 Lips writes : — ' Lernutius noster, decadivo ponde)-e,' i. e. as an emendation of de cadH pondere the reading of T in line 17 of the Pervigilium. This conjecture is, however, certainly wrong. 2' Petronii Arbitri Satyricon : adiecta sunt veterum quorundam poetarum earmina non dissimilis argumenti : ex quibus non nulla emendatius, alia nunc primum eduntur : cum notis doctorum virorum : Lutetiae, apud Mamertum Patissonium, typographum regium : 1687 [Brit. Mus. No. 686. d. 7]. This work contains at pp. 146-9, under the BIBLIOGRAPHICAL STUDIES 9 ing year Jan van der Does, the Younger (Janus Dousa, filius ; a.d. 1571-97), edited the poem in connection with his work on Catullus, Tibullus, and Propertius. I have been unable to find a copy of the first edition of this book at the British Museum, where there is, however, a copy of the second edition, published in 1592." The editions of Van der Does are chiefly notable for the attempt made by him to foist upon the scholastic world, by way of a coarse practical joke, a bogus and obscene Pervigilium Veneris, of whose existence in some French library he would have us believe that a noble and learned youth Hieronymus Grostotius Listaeus had informed him, and from which Listaeus had quoted the only four lines which he knew by heart, the first line being the refrain. For the moment scholars were heading ' Veterum Quorundam Poetarum Errones Venerii ', the text of the Pervigilium from T and an unsigned preface by Pithou, whose notes on the poem are at pp. 111-16. " (a) Catullus, Tibullus, Propertius, iampridem viri docti iudicio castigati et nunc denuo recogniti ac variis lectionibus et notis illustrati a lano Dousa Filio : accessit Pervigilium Veneris : Lugduni Bat. ; ex officina Plantiniana : apud Franciscum Raphe- lengiiim ; 1592 [Brit. Mus. No. 165. k. 24]. Text of Pervigilium at pp. 258-61. (6) Bound in same volume are :— ' lani Dousae Filii in Catullum, Tibullum, Propertium coniectanea et notae, in quibus et aliorum scriptorum loci varii explicantur aut corriguntur. Item lani Dousae Patris in Propertium paralipomena : Lugd. Batavorum, ex officina Plantiniana, apud Franciscum Raphelengium : 1592. This book contains at pp. 142-6 a reprint of the Electa I, cap. 5, of Joest Lips : cf. note 19 supra ; and at pp. 123-4 the younger Dousa himself writes in cap. 15 of his Coniectanea et Notae in librum Sexi. Properiii :— ' Sequitur Pervigilium Veneris, quod colophonem et fastigium imponat his Notis. In quo tantum pauca et levia monebo post accuratissimam castigationem clarissimi Lipsii, quod ante- quam faciam non abs re videor facturus, si Fragmentum nondum editum ex altero quodam Pervigilio Veneris elegantissimo, sed nimis Latino, hie apponam, quod a nobili ac docto adolescente Hieronymo Grostotio Listaeo integrum aliubi in Gallia extare comperi. Caetenim is hos quatuor tantum versus in memoria habebat, quod nobis recitavit. Eorum intercalare erat primum trochaicum : — Nemo tentis mentulis det, nemo nervis otiuni. Ecce passeres salaces, ecce rauci turtures, Hac super virente myrto nos amoris admonent Cum puellis dulce inii-e vesticontubernium. Nemo tentis, &c. Vocem vesdcontuberniiwi etiam Petronius utitur, e! quid agebas,inquit,frater sanctissime ? quid vesticontubtmium facis? Hoc quid sit explicat Epigrammatarius Graecus :— j)Su 5e «oI dnorav Kpvifip fiia T0V5 w Venus he notes ^^: — "Omnium a. elegantissime auctor delicati illius Pervigilii.' This apparently refers to lines 9-11 of the Pervigilium, which commence in T with the words tunc quiuore de superhuc and were amended by Jan van der Does, with whom Lips agrees, to read tunc cruore de su2)erno, a correction afterwards confirmed by the discovery of S. Lastly in a note on the word scintillat in the same passage ^^ Von Barth says : — " Ihidmi, p. 160. ^" Poetarum Veteruni Ecclesiasticorum Opera Clu-istiana, ct operum reliquiae atquc fragmenta ; thesaurus catholicae et orthodoxae ecclesiae, et antiquitatis reiigiosae, ad utilitatem iuventutis scholasticae : collectus, emendatus, digestus, et commentario quoque cxpositus, diligentia et studio Goorgii Fabricii Cliemniccnsis : cum privilegio Caesareo ad sexennium : Basiliae per lohannem Oporinum : 1564 [Brit. Mus. No. 655. b. 20]: with a dedicatory epistle dated xiii Cal. Mart, anno a nato Christo, Dei et virgiuis filio, 1562. 21 Loc. cit. at note 28, p. 363, commenting on the lines — Tunc Jlorent siluae, viridisque renascifur anmcs Tunc Venus et calidi scintillat J'enor Amoris. 33 Loc. cit. at note 28, p. 863. «« Ibidetn, p. 367. 14 PERVIGILIUM VENERIS 'Pari elegantia amoris oculos in vere agnoscit Pervigilii scriptor.' Now, at line 23, T actually reads deque amoris oculis, a palpable error for osculis, the reading of S ; but Lips retains oculis in his text without comment. Further than this, Von Earth quotes no less than ten lines from the Pervigilium. He says ^* : — (a) * Quam mentem Veneris nomine insignit et nimis moUibus ver- siculis decantat Auctor Pervigilii Veneris delicatissimi : — Ipsa venas atque mentem permeante spiritu Intus occultis gubernat procreatrix viribus, Perque coelum i>erque terras perque pontum subditum Pervium sui tenorem seminali tramite Imbuit, iussitque mundum nosse nascendi vias.' These lines follow word for word the text of Joest Lips, (h) ' Auctor Pervigilii Veneris ; Imhuit iussitque mundum nosse nascendi vias,' '^ thus again quoting line 67. (c) * Auctor Pervigilii Veneris quod edidit in lucem lust. Lipsius Electorum I. cap v Ecce iam super genestas explicant agni laius. Distinctio hie vulgo mendosa, facilis correctu.' " Here both MSS. read cxpVicat uonii latus, and Earth expref sly informs us that he has adopted the emendation suggested by Lips, (d) ' Pervigilii scriptor : — Cras erit qui primus aether copulavit nuptias, Ut parens totis crearet vernis annum nubibus, In sinum maritus imber fluxus almae coniugis Ut foetus immixtus omnes aleret magno corpore. Quem in animadversis belle emendabimus.'" Here again Earth quotes the text of T, as emended by Lips ; but in 1624, when writing his Adversaria,^^ after quoting the same lines in the same form, he adds : — ' Qui versus etiamnum mendosi quoque sunt ; non huius loci opem poscentes. Hoc monere tamen de universo carmine volumus ; scriptum nos exemplar habere ubi Senecae '^ Loc. cit. at note 27, p. 241. 35 Loc. cit at note 28, p. 232. 3« Ihidem, p. 312. " Ihifhm, p. 187. ^' Casp. Barthi Adveisarioruni C'ommentaiiorum Libri LX : Francot'uiti, typis Weclio- lianis, apud Danielem ot Davidem Aubrios et Clementem Schleichium : 1624 [Brit. Mus. No. 71. f. 9] : see lib. xvi, caj). 6, at vol. i, p. 832. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL STUDIES 15 adscribitur expresse ; et observasse versum fere integrum Fulgentianum, qui extat I. Mythologiarum."' Finally at page 1999 of the Adrersana his last word on the subject is : — * Auctor Pervigilii Veneris, nee Catullus, nee Urbicarius, forte Seneca.' *° These remarks of Earth have led some scholars to assume that he had before him a MS., other than T or S, which has since been lost. Doubtless this was so ; but I feel confident that the MS. of Earth was only a compara- tively modern transcript of the Pervigilium, bused upon the text of T as emended by Joest Lips, such (for instance) as the transcript which Esta^o made for his own use. My reasons for this conclusion are {a) the fact that the lines of the Pervigilium quoted, or alluded to, by Earth follow verhatim the text of T, as emended by Lips ; and {b) that Earth has himself stated that the various component parts of his MS. were written at different dates (one as late as 1424) and in different inks, and had been bound into one volume ' by a recent hand '. As regards the heading in which (It is said) the poem was ascribed to Seneca, I would draw attention to Earth's statements that the words of the title were 'carie confectae': that, in addition to other miscellaneous works, his MS. contained ' Senecae epistolas in Locos Communes redactas ' : and that, in spite of the superscription, Earth appears to have doubted whether Seneca was the author — in 1624 he will only say that ' perhaps Seneca was the author '. I am, therefore, inclined to believe that in Earth's MS. the Pervigilium was immediately preceded by a work of Seneca, to which the copyist appended some such words as explicit Senecae liber, and that these words were so mutilated as to appear to be prefixed to the Pervigilium, rather than appended to the work of Seneca. Meanwhile in 1613 Joannes Weitzius had published at Frankfurt an annotated edition of the Pervigilium Veneris by itself, and the same scholar published at Leyden in 1618 a further edition of the same work among his Catalecta Poetarum Vetenim.*^ Neither of these editions can be found in the ^' This had already been pointed out by Wouwer : see p. 11 supra. ^^ Loc. cit. at note 38 s^(pra ; lib. xliv, cap. 7, at vol. ii, p. 1999. " Wernsdorf, loc. cif. in note 7 supra, at p. 453 writes : — ' Separ.atim Pervigilium cum notis suis edidit lo. Weitzius, Francof. 1613, in 4. Idem Pervigilium deinceps comparavit inter Catalecta Poetarum veterum, Petronio editionis Prellonianae, Lugd. 1018." 16 PERVIGILIUM VENERIS library of the British Museum, ^'^ where there are, however, copies of the editions of the Permgilium published by Georgius Erhardus *^ at Frankfurt in 1621 *^ and by Jo. Petrus Lotichius, Med. D., at Frankfurt am Main in 1629.'''^ Hitherto all editions had been based solely upon T ; but a new chapter in the history of the poem opens in 1620 with the researches of the famous French scholar, Claude de Saumaise (Claudius Salmasius ; a.d. 1588-1658), who then first mentions his intention of editing the Pervigilium, saying with reference to line 46 : — * Sic tigla pro vigilia, unde /3tyXat Graecis barbaris : inde et verbum xjerviglare apud auctorem Pervigilii Veneris : De tenente iota nox est peruiglanda canticis. Ita enim in optimo et vetustissimo libro scriptum reperimus, cuius libri oj^e, nos propediem illud poema auctius emendatiusque dabimus '.^^ This MS. is now known as the Codex Salmasianus (No. 10318 in the National Library at Paris), the name of Saumaise being wi*itten in the margin at the head of the first page, thus — * CI; Salmasij -v '. A facsimile of *2 But see loe. cit. at note 51 infra, pp. 201-12. *^ Pseudonym of Michael Caspar Lundoi'p. ** T. Petroni Arbitri Satyricon cum Petroniorum fragmentis nunc iterum limatum et auctum : accesserunt seorsim doctorum annotationes, scholia, observationes, coniecturae, emendationes, notae, variae lectiones, coniectanea, praecidanea, spicilegia, animadversiones, racemationes, symbolae, cum quinque in eadem indicibus locupletissimis : Francofurti, in officina Wecheliana, apud Danielem et Davidem Aubrios et Clementem Schleichium : 1621 [Brit. Mus. No. 1079. 1. 9]. Text of Pervigilium at pp. 234-8. " T. Petroni Arbitri Satyricon, super profligatis Neronianae tempestatis moribus : com- mentariis, sive excursibus medico-philosophicis, itemque notis universalibus et perpetuis recens adornatum : in quibus difficilima quaeque loca, atque a variis interpretibus partim studio praetermissa, partim nequaquam tentata, adamussim explicantur, illustranturque : editio nova et locupletissima, tam medicis, poetis, quam philosophis, historicis, oratoribus, antiquariis, philologis, criticis ac politicis utilis ac necessaria. Accessit ad mantissam sylloge clariss. aliquot interpretum, quorum in Petronium castigationes huc-usque nondum editae, noviter recensente lo. Petro Lotichio, Med. D., eiusdemquo in Academia Rintelana P. P. ; Francofurti ad Moenum, typis exscribebat Wolfgangus Hofmannus, sumptibus Lucae lennisi ; 1629 [Brit. Mus. No. 834. k. 5]. Text of Pervigilium at pp. 91-3. ** Historiae Augustae Scriptores VI ; Aelius Spartianus, lulius Capitolinus, Aelius Lampridius, Vulcatius Gallicanus, Trebellius Pollio, Flauius Vopiscus ; Claudius Salmasius ex veteribus libris recensuit, et librum adiecit notarum ac emendationum, quibus adiunctae sunt notae ac emendationes Isaaci Casaubon iam antea editae : Parisiis, 1620 ; cum privi- legio regis [Brit. Mus. No. 681. i. 5]. The preface by Saumaise to this book is dated Pr. Id. Aug. 1619. See Part II, p. 303, in the commentary on Trebellius Pollio. BTBLIOG"RAPHICAL STUDIES 17 the whole codex "» has been published in 1903 under the title — 'Bibliotheque Nationale : d^partement des manuscrits : Anthologie de Pofetes Latins dit© de Saumaise : reproduction r^duite du manuscrit en onciale, Latin 10318, de la Biblioth6que Nationale ; Paris, Imprimerie Berthaud Frferes, 31 Rue de Bellefond' [Brit. Mus. Facsimile No. 30] ; and a printed edition of the codex was published by Alexander Riese in 1869.*^ Saumaise tells us that this MS. was given him by Jean Lacurne, bailli d'Arnai ]e Duc,^' probably at some date between 1609 and 1620," and from it he quotes in 1629 four more lines of the Pervigilium^^ It was not, however, until 1637 that Saumaise carried out ** " A facsimile of the pages of this codex, on which the Pervigilium is written, will be found in my edition of the poem (see the year 1912 infra). " Loc. cit. in note 15 supra. *^ Riese at /oc.ctMnnote 15 s!1. By Francesco Cassoli (Modena). 1794. With Latin elegiac poets, by C. G. Lenz (Brunswick). 1795. By N. N. (Floriano Caldani) at Padova. 1797. By Saverio de Rogati (nel Parnaso del Rubbi ; Venezia). 1798. • Catullus translated in English verse ' (at pp. 188-207) ; vide sux)ra. 38. PERVIGILIUM VENERIS 1809. Chateaubriand, ' Les Martyrs ' : first edition (see under the year 1810 supra). 1810. With Catullus, &c. (Halle). 1812. French verse translation by Charles Louis Mollevaut. 1812. Incerti auctoris Pervigilium Veneris, commentario perpetuo illu- stratum, prooemio et lectionis varietate instructum. Dissertatio philologica, quam, consentiente amplissimo philosophorum ordine pro facultate legendi die XXI Martii 1812, publice defendet Ernestus Conr. Fridericus Schulze, doctor philosophicae ; Gottingae, typis I. C. Baier, typogr. Acad. 1816. ' Die Nachtfeier der Venus, lateinisch u. deutsch mit Anmerkungen ' by Ernst Anton Ludwig Moebius (Soest). 1825. Text with Danish translation by Simon S0rensen Meisling (Copen- hagen). 1829. Examina Gymnasii Cliviensis vi et vii ante Idus Septembres 1829 publice indicit Fridericus Antonius Eigler, scholae director. Insunt annota- tiones maximam partem criticae in poetas Latinos, qui minores vocantur : Appendix syllogen continens animadversionum in librum Manethonis Apotelesm. secundum : denique annales scholae : Cliviae, ex oificina Kochiana. (Contains the notes of Eigler and of Carl August Moritz Axt on the Pervigilium.) 1830. Hermann Paldamus ' in scriptione invitatoria ad examen solemne Gryphiswaldiae ' : Greifswaldischer Schulprogramm von Michaelis 1830 (Greifsw.). 1832. G. Bernhardy (Berlin. Jahrb. Juli 1832) in a review of Orelli's PJMedrus propounds the theory that the Pervigilium is a translation from a Greek original. 1839. Pervig. Ven. c. lect. var. ed. Heinrich Carl Abraham Eichstaedt (Jena), 1859. Viro summo Friderico Theophilo Welcker diem sollemnem xvi m. Octobris gratulatur Theodorus Bergk: inest commentatio de Pervigilio Veneris: Halae (formis Hendeliis) ; 22 pages in all. Lucian Midler {si(2)ra, year 1801) says that this pamphlet, so far as he knows, ' nicht in den Buchhandel gekommen ist.' BIBLIOGRAPHICAL STUDIES 39 1868. By Giuseppe Raffaelli (nella atrenna della Gioventli ; Firenze). 1867. By 0. Jacobi (London). 1871. By Ugo Antonio Amico (Palermo) ; 16 pp. 187L By Giosuti Carducci at p. 125 of his Canto di Pnmavera in his poetioal works (Firenze, Barbt>ra). 1884. By Anton Giulio Barrili in ' Cronaca Bizantina, vol. vi, N. 7, 1st April 1884.' 1901. Verse translation by Laiu-ence Hay ward. To the above list I may add that Danchet in his opera Ar6tliuse appears to have translated into French verse the refrain of the Pervigilium ; that there are French translations by Pezay (? Alexandre Frederic Jacques Masson, Marquis de Pezay) and by Le Noble (? Eustache le Noble de Tenneli^re, Baron de Saint-George) ; that the emendation detinenda in line 46 is attributed to Heinsius, and the emendation sinne uestem in line 52 to Crusius. I have not, however, as yet been able to verify these references ; and I should be grateful to any scholar who can assist me to find the works in question, II Mine is the fifth attempt which has been made to find strophic corre- spondence in the Penigilium Veneris. The first was that of F. C. Gobbel in 1858, the second that of F. Biicheler in 1859, the third that of T. Bergk '"' in October of the same year, and the fourth that of J. W, Mackail in 1888.^ The following is a summarized comparison of these five rearrangements, the lines being numbered throughout as in the Codex Salmasianus : — "3 Bergk's work is known to me only through the criticism of it by Lucian Mflller in 1861 ; the work itself appears not to have been issued to the book trade. ^0 For Mackail's work on the Pervigilium^ see bibliography under the years 1888, 1909, 1910, 1911, 1912. 40 PERVIGILIUM VENERIS Clementi. [1 Refrain] 2-7 6 8 Refrain — 59-62 4 (Refrain) 9-11, 63-67 8 68 Refrain 13-18 6 (Refrain) 19-26 8 27 Refrain 28-85 8. 36 Refrain 37-39, 58 4 (Refrain) 40-47 8 48 Refrain 49-56 8 57 Refrain 69-70, 73-74, 6 71-72 75 Refrain 76-79 4 80 Refrain 81-88 (Refrain) — 89-92 4 93 Refrain Odhbel 1 Refrain 2-7 6- 8 Refrain 13-17, 19, 18 7- (Refrain) 20-21,23-24,22,25-26 7- 27 Refrain 28, 31, 29-30, 32-35 8- 36 Refrain 37-39, 58, 40-47 12- 48 Refrain 49-56 8- 57 Refrain 59-62, 9-11, 63-67 12- 68 Refrain 69-74 6- 75 Refrain — 76-79 4- 80 Refrain 81-88 (Refrain) 89-92 4- 93 Refrain Biicheler. 1 Refrain 2-7 6- 8 Refrain 59-61, [62], 9-11 6- 12 Refrain 63-67 5 68 Refrain 69-71, [72], 73-74 5 75 Refrain 76-79 4^ 80 Refrain 13-16 4- (Refrain) 17-21 5- (Refrain) 22-26 5- 27 Refrain — 28-35 8 36 Refrain 37-39, 58, 40-47 12- 48 Refrain 49-56 8-1 57 Reft-ain 81-92 1 93 Refrain BIBLIOGRAPHICAL STUDIES 41 Bergk. 1 Refrain 2-7 8 Refrain lacuna, 9-11 12 Refrain lacuna, 58-67 68 Refrain 69-73, lacuna, 74 75 Refrain 76-79, lacuna 80 Refrain 13-26 27 Refrain 37, lacuna, 38-47 48 Refrain 49-56 57 Refrain 28-35 36 Refrain 81-92 93 Refrain S + (?)8-ll- 10 + ^?)1 = 11- 6 + (?)l=.7- 4 + (?j3=7- 14- ll + (?) 3 = 14_ 8_ 8 12 MackaQ. 1-4 (Refrain) 5, 6, lacuna, 7 3 + 1 - 8 Refrain 59,9-11 12 Refrain 13-16 (Refrain) 17-21 (Refrain) 19, lacuna, 22 2 + 2- (Refrain) 23-26 27 Refrain 28-31 (Refrain) 32-35 36 Refrain 37-39, 58 (Refrain) 40-43 (Refrain) 44-47 48 Refrain 49-52 (Refrain) 53-56 57 Refrain 60-62, lacuna 3 + 1 (Refrain) 63-64, 69, 72 (Refrain) 66, 65, lacuna, 67 3 + 1 68 Refrain 70-71, 73-74 75 Refrain 76-79 80 Refrain 81-84 (Refrain) 85-88 (Refrain) 89-92 93 Refrain 4; 4 4 4 4 4 4. 4 4 4 4 :i 42 PERVIGILIUM VENERIS A glance will show that the rearrangements by Gobbel, Bergk, and Biicheler are far less symmetrical than mine, and that the simplest strophic system is the one proposed by Professor Mackail, who shapes the poem into 22 stanzas of four lines each. Transposition has been forced on all five editors by the impossibility of explaining time in line 9. Moreover, four editors (Mackail being the exception) agi'ee that it is not possible to allow lines 63 sqq. to stand in the place assigned to them by the codices, the difficulty of explaining ipsa in line 63 being otherwise insunnountable. Gobbel, Biicheler, and I agree in grouping together lines 59-62, 9-11, and 63-7 ; but Gobbel places them as his seventh stanza, whereas in Biicheler's rearrangement and mine they occupy the second and third stanzas. Finally four editors (Bergk being this time the exception) transpose line 58 to follow line 39, and Bergk himself avoids transposition only by supposing a lacuna before line 58. My rearrangement only postulates transposition in these three places, and the insertion of the refrain four times. I think, therefore, I may fairly claim that it is not only symmetrical in form and in thought, but also that it resorts to transposition only where the sequence of lines in MSS. is unin- telligible. I may add that I stumbled quite accidentally upon my strophic reconstruction, when, as the result of much study, I was satisfied that the best place for lines 59-62 was after line 8, for lines 63-7 after line 11, and for line 58 after line 39. Having written out the poem in this order, I suddenly saw in it the outline of strophic and antistrophic correspondence, and realized that the insertion of the refrain four times (after lines 18, 58, 62, and 88) would complete the design. It should be noticed that both Gobbel and Mackail agree with me in inserting the refrain after line 88 ; Mackail also inserts it (as I have done) after lines 58 and 62, and Gobbel after line 18. With regard to the other four strophic rearrangements, of which Mackail's is the most interesting, I would only remark that — (a) Gobbel, in order to obtain second and third stanzas of 7 lines each, is obliged to invert the order of lines 18 and 19. No other editor has done this and such transposition is not required by the meaning. GObbel inserts the refrain twice and makes several minor transpositions which are not dependent BIBLIOGRAPHICAL STUDIES 43 on his strophic rearrangement ; but the main objection to his scheme is that the strophic correspondence achieved is very confused and unsymmetrical. (b) Bergk supposes five lacunae of l(i lines in all, makes numerous trans- positions which are not forced upon him l)y difficulties of interpretation, and even so produces a poem of most ungainly structure. (c) Bucheler, without sufficient reason, rejects two lines (62 and 72) and transposes unnecessarily the whole passage 63-80 to precede line 13. He inserts the refrain twice (after lines 16 and 21) in places where it seems to be inappropriate. The resulting structure is not very sj'mmetrical, though less disjointed than the rearrangements by Gobbel and Bergk. {d) I have stated at length in pp. x-xv of the preface to my edition of the Pervigilium the reasons which led me to dissent from Professor Mackail's rearrangement. I would only add that it is difficult to understand how an arrangement in short 4-line stanzas, divided by the refrain, could have been so hopelessly obliterated that only one such stanza is preserved by the MSS. The strikingly symmetrical character of the structure would (I am inclined to think) have forced itself upon the attention of copyists and thereby have caused its preservation. Ill For the sake of completeness I add a note in tabular form on eleven other editions of the Pervigilium which, although they do not rearrange the poem strophically, yet postulate certain transpositions of its lines. The editions selected are those of A. Rivinus in 1644, N. E. Sanadon in 1728, J. Bouhier in 1737, F. Noel in 1803, G. H. Heidtmami in 1842, the anonymous Leipzig edition of 1852, 0. Midler in 1855, A. Eiese in 1869, E. Bahrens in 1882, G. Piazza in 1889, and S. G. Owen in 1893. 44 PERVIGILIUM VENERIS Rivinus. Sanadon. J. Bouhier F. Nod. G. H. Htidimann. [1 Refrain] 1 Refrain A. Pervigiliun 1 Refrain 1 Refrain 2-4 3 2-7 6 Primum 2-7 6 2-7 6 (Refrain) 5-7 3 8 Refrain 1 Refrain 8 Refrain 8 Refrain 8 Refrain 9-11 3 58-62 5 9-11 3 13-26 14 9-11 12 Refrain 3 12 Refrain (Refrain) 12 Refrain 27 Refrain 23-24, 13 3 13-16, [17-1 76-79 4 13-18,20-21 8 28-35 8 (Refrain) 14-16 (Refrain) 3 21], 22-23, f 6 [24-26] J 27 Refrain 80 Refrain 63-67 5 (Refrain) 22-26, 19 6 36 Refrain 37-47 11 17-18, 58 3 68 Refrain 27 Refrain 48 Refrain (Refrain) 28-35 8 69-74 6 28-35 8 49-56 8 19-21 3 36 Refrain (Refrain) 37-47 11 75 Refrain 36 Refrain 57 Refrain 22, 25-26 3 37-44 8 lacuna, 58-) 27 Refrain 48 Refrain B. Pervigiliim 62, 9-11, 1 13(?) 63-7 1 28-31 4 49-56 8 Secundum (Refrain) (Refrain) 32-35 4 57 Refrain (Refrain) 45-47 3 68 Refrain 36 Refrain 58-67 10 2-4, 9-11 6 48 Refrain 69-74 6 37-39, [40], 41 4 68 Refrain 8 Refi-ain 49-56 8 75 Refrain (Refrain) 5-7. 13, 22,1 57 Refrain 42-44 (Refrain) 3 69-74 6 75 Refrain 14-18, 20- 21, 25-26 14 58-67 10 76-79 4 80 Refrain 45-47 3 *" 7 •^^ / 68 Refrain 48 Refrain 76-79 4 27 Refrain 69-74 6 81-92 12 49, 51-2 3 80 Refrain 19, 23-24 3 93 Refrain (Refrain) 50, 53-56 5 81-92 12 (Refrain) 75 Refrain 76-79 4 57 Refrain 93 Refrain 28-36 8 59-62 4 36 Refrain SO Refrain (Refrain) 82, 81, 83,) 63-67 5 37-47 11 85,84,86- 12 68 Refrain 48 Refrain 92 ) 69-71 3 49-56 8 93 Refrain (Refrain) 72-74 3 57 Refrain 75 Refrain 81, 83, 82,) 76-79 4 85, 84, 86- . 10 80 Refrain 82, 81, 83 8 90, [91-92] (Refrain) 93 Refrain 84-88 5 (Refrain) 89-92 4 93 Refrain 28 stanzas : ] L04 10 stanzas : 8j Parti: 4 stanzas: 12 stanzas : 95 9 stanzas : 92 (,?; lines in all. lines in all. 25 linos in all. linos in all. lines in all. Part II : 7 aU zas : 68 lines n- in Refrain line 12 all. excised. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL STUDIES 45 Leipzig edition of 1852. 1 Refrain 2-7 6 8 Refrain 13-17, 19, \ 18, 20-21, L^ 123-24, 22, f * 25-26 ) 27 Refrain 28, 81, 29-1 81, 29-) , 32-35, ^ 9 36 Refrain 37-39, 58, ) 1^ 48 Refrain 49-55 7 57 Refrain 59-62, 9-),o 11, 63-67 \ ^'^ 68 Refrain 69-74 6 75 Refrain 76-79 4 80 Refrain 81-92 12 93 Refrain 9 stanzas : 92 lines in all. 0. Midler. 1 Refrain 2-7 6 8 Refrain 59-62,9-11 7 12 Refrain 13-26 14 27 Refrain 28-35 8 36 Refrain 37-39, 58, 40-47 12 Refi'ain line 12 excised. 48 Refrain 49-56 8 57 Refrain 63-67 5 68 Refrain 69-74 6 75 Refrain 76-79 4 80 Refrain 81-92 12 93 Refrain 10 stanzas : 93 lines in all. 14 lacuna, 37-47 A. Ricsc. 1 Refrain 2-4,68,5-7 8 Refrain 13-16,18, 17, 19-2t) 27 Refrain 28,31,29, 30, 32-35 36 Refrain 12(?) 48 Refrain 49-56 8 57 Refrain 59-62, 9-11 7 12 Refrain 63-67 5 68 Refrain 69-71, 74, X 73 (2nd half), 72,1 7 73 (1st half) J 75 Refrain 76-79 4 80 Refrain 81-83, , lacuna, [ 13(?) 84-92 .' 93 Refrain 10 stanzas : 96 (?) lines iu all. E. Biihrens. 1 Refrain 2-7 6 8 Refrain 28. 31-33, ^ 29-30,34- [ 8 35 > 36 Refrain 37-47 11 48 Refrain 49-56 8 57 Refrain 58, lacu- ■|9J) na, 59- G2, 9-11 12 Refrain 13-26 14 27 Refrain 63-67 5 68 Refrain 69-70, 73- ) „ 74, 71-72 I ** 75 Refrain 76-79 4 80 Refrain 81-83,85, ) .J, 84, 86-92 \ ^" 93 Refrain 10 stanzas : 94 (?) lines in all. G. Piazza. [1 Refrain] 2-7 6 8 Refrain 59-61, [62],) ,. 9-11 \ ' 12 Refrain 63-67 5 68 Refrain 69-74 6 75 Refrain 76-79 4 80 Refrain 13-21 9 (Refrain) 22-26 5 27 Refrain 28-35 8 36 Refrain 37-39, 58, 40-47 12 48 Refrain 49-56 8 57 Refrain 81-92 12 93 Refrain 11 stanzas: 92 lines in all. S. G. Owe)'. 1 Refrain 2-7 6 8 Refrain 9-11 3 12 Refrain 13-26 1 i 27 Refrain 28-35 8 36 Refrain 37-39, 58 40-47 12 48 Refrain 49-56 57 Refrain 59-67 68 Refrain 09-70, 73- 74, 71-72 75 Refrain 76-79 4 80 Refrain 81-92 12 93 Refrain 10 stanzas : 93 lines in all. 46 PERVIGILIUM VENERIS There could be no better illustration of the difficulty of the problems presented by the Pervigilium Veneris than the diversity of suggested rearrange- ments shown in the above table, varying from that of S. Gr. Owen, who contents himself with transposing line 58 and altering the order of lines in the eighth stanza, to the attempt of J. Bouhier to divide the poem into two separate parts, composed as he thinks at different epochs. Detailed comment on each of the conjectured reconstructions of the Pervigilium is not, I think, required. IV Almost as numerous and diverse as the proposed rearrangements of the poem have been the attempts to designate its date and authorship. A summary of the principal suggestions made will not perhaps be without interest, and they may conveniently be grouped under four headings, viz. those professing to find a clue to the authorship in the MSS. ; those which find traces of the date of the poem in its text ; and those which would date the poem either from apparent imitations in other writers, or lastly from internal evidence afforded by its style. (i) The MSS. really give little help. The heading in S. iticipii per Uirgilium Veneris and the note appended in T. explicit per Uirgilium Veneris are obvious blunders by ignorant copyists, who may have thought that Virgil was the author, but whose opinions on such a point are entirely worthless. Manuzio and Erasmus had apparently seen a MS. (since lost) in which the Pervigilium was ascribed to a Catullus, whom they believed to be Caius Valerius Catullus Veronensis, whereas Scaliger tentatively suggested that Catullus Urbicarius Mimographus" was meant. The former lived from 87 to 54 B.C., and the latter should probably be assigned to the period A.D. 37-68. Erasmus, however, seems to have doubted whether his MS. was correct in ascribing the poem to Catullus ; and indeed the style of the Pervigilium, which plainly does not belong to the classical period, precludes a date in the first century either before or after Christ. This fact is fatal "* Juvenal viii. 186 clamosum ageres ui 2}hasma CatulU ; Juvenal xiii. Ill urbani qucdeni fugiiivus scurra CatuUi ; Martial v. 30. Sfacundi scena CatulU ; TertuU. adv. Valentin. 14 nulltim CatuUi Laureolum/uerit exerdtata. SeeTeuffel and Schwabe § 286, 1. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL STUDIES 47 also to the suggestion made l)y Von Bartli that Lucius Annaeus Seneca, who lived A. D. 37-65, wrote the PcrriijiliHm ; and I have endeavoured to show how Von Barth may have misread the inscription in the (now non-extant) Codex Martisimr(ika. Gustav Sarpe in 1819 suggested that the Seneca in question was, not L. Annaeus Seneca, but a certain Thomas Seneca Gamers, who lived at the beginning of the fifteenth centurj' a. d." But this conjecture is negatived by the fact that the Codex Sahnasianus cannot be dated later than the eighth century a. d. More recently, in 1855, Otto Miiller endeavoured to prove that Publius Annius Florus, who lived in the time of Hadrian (a.d. 117-38) wi-ote the Pervigilium as well as the lines headed Flori (T has Floridi) de qicalitate litae, which are contained in S and T. His argument is ingenious, but unconvincing. Ai'guing on somewhat similar lines Schrijver had suggested that Luxorius, a poet who lived in Africa under the Vandal king Thrasamund (a.d. 49(5-523), and whose writings are contained in S and T, was probably the author of the Pervigilium. (ii) The argmnents derived from the text are based upon two passages, viz. (a) line 90 Quando fiam iiti chclidon id tacere desinam, and {h) line 74 Bomoli matrem crearet et nepotem Caesarem. (a) Wernsdorf has drawn attention to an epitaph, included by Gruter in his Corpus Inscriptionum, p. 1114, n. 3, which reads as follows: — L. VIBIVS. AVG. LIB. FLORVS. FECIT. VIBIAE, CHELIDONI. CONIVGI. SVAE. CARISSIMAE. B. M. ET. SIBI. &c. From this inscription he argues that the Pervigilium was written by Vibius Florus in collaboration with his wife Vibia Chelidon, and that in line 90 of *' Sarpe (see year 1819 of bibliography) writes : — ' lUud autem procerum carmen : eras amet, qui numqitam amavit, cet., cuius fragmentum codex Martisburgensis adscribit Senecae (vid. Bartli. ad Claudian. p. 147 ed. pr. et adverss. xvi. 6 et xliv. 7) referendum erit, exceptis tamen primis versibus, numero xxii, ad Thomam Senecam Camertem. Quern virum seculo p. Clir. xv ineunte vixisse, egregie domonstrat, quo ornamentum in hac academia litterae nostrae nunquam viderunt praestantius, Immanuel G. Huschkius in praef. ad TibuU. p. 15. — De isto pervigilio Veneris ita sentient! non irascentur Manes Buherii et Sanadonis.' 48 PERVIGILIUM VENERIS the poem Vibius pays a compliment to his wife at his own expense — ' When shall I be as talkative as my wife ? ! ' But apart from the outrage on taste, nothing is known of any poet called Vibius Florus. (6) Two theories have been based on line 74 ; the first involves amend- ment of the text, and the second does not. a. Lips proposed to read : — proque prole posterum Eomoli, patrem [both MSS. have matreni] crearet et nepotem Caesarem : and he commented: — 'Pater Caesar, Divus lulius est; nepos. Augustus.' He then attributed the work to the end of the reign of Augustus. But, in the first place, the style of the poem precludes so early a date ; and, in the second place, it by no means follows that a poem, in which such passing mention is made of Julius Caesar and Augustus, must have been composed during the lifetime of the latter. )8. An anonymous German scholar writing in 1872 over the initials * G. F.' proposes to retain line 74 unaltered and refers the words Romoli matreni *auf die mit dem Griechen Orestes vermahlte, aber aus italischer familie stammende mutter des Romulus Augustulus und dessen vorganger Julius Nepos. Sonach ware das gedicht im marz 476 verfaszt, als Romulus eben auf den thron erhoben war, wahrend der aus Ravenna entflohene, vom byzantinischen hofe noch als rechtmassiger kaiser betrachtete Nepos in seinem furstentum Dalmatien lebte. Bezeichnend fiir eine zeit, wo der westromische thron binnen 22 jahren von 9 kaisern besetzt war, triigt der dichter beiden parteien rechnung. Dasz die Veneralia damals wirklich gefeiert worden seien, ist wohl nicht anzunehmen : bestanden auch damals noch heidnische gebrauche, wie zb. die erst 20 jahre spater von pabst Gelasius abgeschaft'ten Lupercalia, so spricht doch schon der umstand, dasz der dichter ein solches fest gar nicht erwahnt, sondern die feier als eine in ausschlieszlich gottlichem kreise vor sich gehende darstellt, filr die annahme einer poetischen fiction, wie ja auch der gleichzeitige Sidonius Apollinaris die heidnische mythologie zur verzierung seiner gedichte benutzte. Dasz das Pcnigilimn wenigstens keine festode war, sondern rein subjectiver gefiihlsausdruck, geht aus den schluszversen deutlich hervor.' This is a most ingenious conjecture, for it BIBLIOGRAPHICAL STUDIES 49 assigns a good meaning to lines 71-5 as they stand in the MSS/' Otherwise the sequence of thought in that passage is very confused. I may add that I have dealt at pp. 44-G of my edition with such chrono- logical evidence as can l^e extracted from the mention of Hybla in the Perm/ilium. (iii) In 1606 Wouwer pointed out that lines 19-20 of the Pervigilium, which read : — En ! pudorem florulentae prodiderunt purpurae. Humor ille, quern serenis astra rorant noctibus, Mane, * surgentes ; S 16 tuiTitis/or umentes ; T 29 comis for comes ; T 40 dicer& for deceret. In line 29 both S and T read et for it ; and in S 62 and T 61 omnis stands for omnes. i for u : S 59 niptias for nuptias ; T 50 annis/or annus. ofor u : S 19 purpore/or purpurae ; S 24 purporis for purpuris ; S 32 nudos for nudus ; S 51 annos for annus ; S 54 locus for lucos ; S 59 copolauit for copulauit ; S 86 popoli for populi ; T 28 loco for luco ; T 33 neo for neu ; T 53 locos for lucos ; S 64 gobernat for gubernat. In S 74 and T 73 romoli stands for Romuli. u for o : S 18 urbe for orbe ; S 42 chorus for choros ; S 51 totus for totos ; S 54 locus for lucos ; T 71 Eumuleas for Eomuleas ; T 81 cumiugali for coniugali. i for y: S 6 mirteo for myrteo ; S 31 nimfe for nymphae ; S 51 and 52 and T 50 and 51 hibla for Hybla ; S 28 and T 28 nimfas for nymphas ; S 85 quinni and T 84 cigni for cygni. o for c : S 58 duoad for ducat ; T 9 tuno for tunc. h for u: S 1 amabit for amauit; S 14 and T 14 faboni for fauoni. dfor t: S 58 duoad /or ducat ; S 63 adq;/c»" atque ; T 16 relin- quid/or relinquit ; T 39 incruendum /or iucruentum. gfor c : S 6 gaza and T 6 gazas for casas ; S 58 and T 57 rigentibus for recentibus ; S 79 deli- gatis for delicatis. r for b : S 50 and T 49 adsederunt for adsidebunt. f for ph : S 91 and T 90 foebus for Phoebus ; S 28 and T 28 nimfas for nymphas. e for e, (ae) : S 10 and T 10 cerulas for caerulas ; S 33 and T 33 lederet for laederet ; S 59 ether for aether ; T 22 rose for rosae. s for r : S 73 samnes for Eamnes ; T 43 mysteas for myrteas. z for s : S 6 gaza and T 6 gazas for casas. qu for c : S 85 quinni for cygni ; T 9 quiuore for cruore. B. Letters ivronrjly omitted, m : S 19 pudore/or pudorem ; T 11 dione/o>' Dionem. n: S 92 and T 91 taceret/or tacerent ; T 72 rames yb>- Rauines. s : S 6 gaza for casas ; S 39 tragib; for stragibus (haplographic error) ; S 44 myrteo for myrteas ; S 49 hyblei for hyblaeis ; S 58 umbra for umbras ; S 70 ipa/or ipsa; S 77natu/or natus; T 21 pajjilla/or papillas (haplographic erroi-) ; T 23 oculis for osculis ; T latino for latinos. c : S 64 and T 63 ocultis /or occultis. a: S 17 micanat and T 17 mecanat /or micant. t : S 18 sustiue /or sustinet ; T 81 tuus /or tutus. h : S 7 and T 7 trono BTRLIOGRAPHICAL STUDIES 53 for throno; T 48 yl)leisyc»' Hyblaeis ; T 41 h in chores inserted by aflertlumght ; S 45 baccus and T 44 baccas for Bacchus. C. Ldtcrs wrongly inserted, n : S 31 inte for ite ; T 8 quinq; for quiqiie ; T 85 ndsonant for adsonat. r : S (in title) and T (in postscript) peruirgilium for peruigilium ; T 62 uernas /or uenas. t: S 10 turaentis and T 16 tunitis /or umentes(dittographic error) : S51 fuudat /or funde ; 8 21 tumenti for umenti (dittographic error) ; T 23 detq; for deque ; T 60 alma& for almae ; S 62 alteret/o>' aleret ; T 89 tacer& /or tacere. D. Other miscellaneous errors. S 17 and T 17 et ; probably en is tJie correct reading. S 19 and T 19 in ; probably en is the correct reading. S 23 and T 23 prius ; a x)roper name, perhaps Paphies, is the correct reading. S 35 and T 35 inennis ; probably in armis is the correct reading. S 42 and T 41 leriatis ; x)robably feriuntes is the correct reading. S 50 and T 49 presens ; probably praeses is the correct reading. S 54 qu^ and T 53 q;/or quaeque ; also montes (from S 53 montiu and T 52 raontium) for fontes. S 62 flatus and T 61 fletus /or fetus. S 81 and T 80 super . . . explicat aonii for subter . . . explicant tauri. S 90 ut c^lidon and T 89 ut celidon for uti celidon. V. Mistakes peculiar to S. A. Letters confused, o for as : 44 myrteo for myrteas. b for n : 9 superbo /or superno. cforg: 46 peruiclanda/orperuiglanda. n/org: 85 quinni for cygni. 9, for (1) e : 62 flatus for fetus ; 90 celidon for celidon; (2)oe: 82 f^dere /or foedere. as /or ae: 17 lacrimas /or lacrimae. B. Letters lorongly inserted, m : 38 unam for una ; 65 quern (twice) for que ; 78 sinu for sinu. s : (1) dittographic, 7 t'ultas for fulta ; 35 sidem for idem ; 87 mussico for musico ; 88 queris for queri ; (2) non-dittographic, 15 and 72 ipsas /or ipsa. 1 : 55 adtullit/)r adtulit. C. Otiicr miscellaneous errors. 32 e for est. 45 potearu for poetai'um. 51 the word flores is entirely omitted. 64 procreatis for procreatrix. 66 tendere for tenorem. 89 quan for quando. vi. Mistakes peculiar to T. A. Letters confused. Hybr(l)i: 13 gemmas /or gemmis ; 14 sparitu /b>" 54 PERVIGILIUM VENERIS spiritu ; 54 alitas/or alitis ; (2) u : 44 baccas and deas /or Bacchus and deus ; (3) e: 75 facundat /or fecundat ; 86 putas /or putes. u for (1) a : 17 lucrinie for lacrimae ; (2) b : 9 glouo /or globo ; 10 uipedes /or bipedes ; 71 sauniis/)r Sabinis ; 82 ualantu for balantum. e for (1) a : 83 canores for canoras ; (2) u: nubent for nubunt ; 5 amorem for amorum ; (3) oe : 81 federe for foedere. 9 /or a: 85 puell^ /or puella. i/orr: 9 quiuore /or cruore. uc/oro: 9 superhuc /or superno. us /or ac: 23 fusta /or facta. c/or (1) d : 50 quicquid for quidquid ; (2) s : 66 nosce for nosse. d for (1) n : 32 durus /or nudus ; (2) cl : 91 amidas /or Amyclas. h/o>' n : 9 superhuc for superno. 11 /or d : 55 nullo /or nudo. m/or (1) n: 81 cumiugali /or con iugali ; (2) in: 71 saumis /or Sabinis. n /or (l)m: 4 conam /or comam ; 39 nanus for nemus ; 90 musan for musam ; (2) bi : 26 pudent for pudebit. nx for ra : 20 astnx for astra. p for b : 85 supter for subter. r for d : 32 durus for nudus. t for r : 55 amoti for amori. B. Letter lorongly omitted, r : 33 acu for arcu. C. Letters wrongly inserted, c : 68 necpotes for nepotes. d : 33 digne for igne (dittographic). u : 15 urgu& for urget. g : 57 uergentes for uirentes. D. Other miscellaneous errors. 1 eras misplaced in the line. The line S 40 entirely omitted. 9 de inserted ; perhaps dittographic from pre- ceding re. 3 amarores /or amores. 36 qui /or quique. 22 ip/or ipsa. 60 fluctus for fluxit. 79 amat for amauit. 82 gregu for greges. 87 Eet /or et. 89 faciam /or fiam. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY, BERKELEY THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW Books not returned on time are subject to a fine of 50c per volume after the third day overdue, increasing to $1.00 per volume after the sixth day. Books not in demand may be renewed if application is made before expiration of loan period^ _== AUG 17 1982 30Apr'57- RECD LD ^^^^ -^sO^ .:\\ ^ vfl v?^^^- ,-,3-SP^^ 75m-8,'81 iUHKELfYLlB_RARIfS CD526Di^i^