Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

Problems in Statius "Thebaid" VII-X Author(s): P. T. Eden Reviewed work(s): Source: Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, Vol. 47, Fasc.

2 (Apr., 1994), pp. 233-235 Published by: BRILL Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4432352 . Accessed: 26/04/2012 07:00
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Mnemosyne.

http://www.jstor.org

MISCELLANEA

233

5.497 manus hue appulsa tacentem 497 nam me praedonum abri pit et uestras famulam transmittit in oras. 497 latentem Baehrens et Phillimore: licentum dub. Garrod Hypsipyle explains to the Argives how she comes to be in their territory. Tacentem has justly aroused suspicion because there seems to have been no to have remained silent while being special reason for Hypsipyle abducted. Latentem suites the situation much better. But the verb which the MSS usually confuse with tacere is tacere (in one or more MSS at and iacentem, 77i.10.97, G?.10.321, G?.10.428, G?.12.67, 77i.12.729), 7?.11.18-19 'prostrate, cowering' (cf. especially templisque iacentia surguntlagmina) would be very apt for a woman who has just described herself as exanimis (493): it deserves adoption. Oxford, Forest Hill P.T. Eden

* I am grateful to Dr. J.B. Hall for his comments on an earlier draft of these Thebaid papers.

PROBLEMS (7.423;

IN STATIUS 9.19; 9.769;

THEBAID 9.807;

VII-X

8.268;

10.216)

7.423 haec audit Pelopea phalanx, sed bellicus ardor consiliis obstat diuum prohibetque timeri. 423 The Argive troops advance, too belligerent to heed the fearsome omens. With this (apparently paradosis we have to understand Conunanimous) silia from consiliis as subject o? timeri, which is awkward and questionable. At Th. 12.352 timeri, which is undoubtedly wrong, is offered by all the and which is MSS, teneri, major undoubtedly right, is offered only by codd. dett. Here too teneri would be preferable: 'and forbids it (the Pelopean phalanx) to be restrained by them (the divine counsels)'. 8.268 sic ubi per fluctus uno ratis obruta somno conticuit pacique maris secura iuuentus 268 mandauere animas, solus stat puppe magister deus qui nauigat alno. peruigil inscriptaque 268 pacique Postgate: tantique ??: fideique Imhof Adrastus keeps solitary vigil while his men sleep, like a helmsman on a ship at night. Mandauere animas badly needs a dative to complete its sense. Klotz suggested that somno 267 (ablative) might be made to do double duty. Garrod promoted Postgate's pacique to the text. But the original reading may have disappeared through the dittography of a single letter,

Mnemosyne, Vol. XLVII,

Fase. 2 (1994), ? E. J. Brill, Leiden

234

MISCELLANEA

268 conticuit, tantoque mari secura iuuentus mandauere animas, The sense of securas is often completed with a genitive {secura maris occurs at 7?.9.335) and that may have generated the error here, as it apparently did at Ach. 1.684 it pelago {PQ1: pelagi EK) secura ratis. 9.19 et nunc ille iacet (pulchra o solacia leti!) ore tenens hostile caput, dulcique nefandus 19 immoritur tabo; nos ferrum immite facesque, illis nuda odia et feritas iam non eget armis. 19 inmite ?: mite ?: nunc ferrum mite Peyraredus: non ferrum mite facesque? Koestlin canmonstrous Eteocles stirs up his troops by dilating on Tydeus' it is not possible to supnibalism. In line 19 the paradosis is indefensible; But the remedy is simple: ply pro telis habemus as its defenders recommend. for nos read non. 'They do not have cruel steel and firebrands, they have unarmed hatred and their savagery no longer needs weapons'. The logical between the three clauses is now perfectiy clear. interconnection 9.769 figitur ile Lamus, flet saucius inguina Lygdus, perfossus telo niueam gemis, Aeole, frontem. te praeceps Euboea tulit, te candida Thisbe 769 miserat, hune uirides non excipietis Amyclae, 769 Erythrae Koestlin wreaks havoc among the allies of Thebes. They cannot Parthenopaeus have included anyone from Amyclae in pro-Argive Laconia, and this of the corruption are we is the clearest warning given perhaps passage which may underlie seemingly healthy passages of the Thebaid. Erythrae, of occurs at T'A.7.265 in Phorbas' Catalogue by Koestlin, proposed here occurs Theban Allies. I believe that the place-name corrupted at Th.7.272 quos pinigeris Mycalesos in agris, slightly later in the Catalogue, and that here we should read 769 miserat, hune uiridis non excipiet Mycalesos will not greet this man' {uiridis being pointful in Mycalesos '...green reference to the evergreen pines). Anagrammatism played its part in the of mycale- to amycle: cf. Ach ?. 344 therapnis ?: pharetris ??\ corruption intracia M for Trachinia. Silu.3.5.57 9.807 acrior hoc iuuenem stricto mucrone petebat cum se medio Latonia campo Amphion, 807 iecit et ante oculos omnis stetit obuia uultu. from Diana materialises on the field of battle to dissuade Parthenopaeus To do this she further fighting when he is being attacked by Amphion. and guardian close comrade the shape of Parthenopaeus' assumed Dorceus (808-11). But why did she bother to disguise herself at all if she

MISCELLANEA

235

had just stood full-face in her own guise 'before all eyes' (807) including, I propose those of Parthenopaeus? presumably, 807 iecit et ante oculos comitis stetit obuia uultu '...and stood before his (Parthenopaeus') eyes, confronting him, with the was (852-3 iamque miser features of his comrade' as Dorceus pre-eminently raros comit?s uerumque uidebat/Dorcea). Vultu 807 seems guaranteed by uultu 811, otherwise cultu might be considered (cf. the comparable situation at 7%. 11.477, and, for the confusion, Ovid Amores 3.6.47 cultu Pss\ uultu ?). 10.216 ecqui aderunt, quos ingenti se attollere fama non pige?t, dum fata sinunt? 216 The seer Thiodamas, inspired by a vision of Amphiaraus, urges the Argive chieftains to attack. The context requires him to say that he anticipates that they will all be eager to seize the opportunity to win glory. But the received text makes him say exactly the opposite: 'Will there be with immense any present, who would not be irked to exalt themselves fame, while the fates allow?' Whether or not it owes its origin to no-ctis below, non makes no sense with pigeat: substitute nunc. The immediately heroic ethos compelled chieftains to seek glory, so 215-6 must be a rhetorical for question {ecqui aderunt? = nulli aderunt, ut opinor), not a request information. Oxford, Forest Hill P.T. Eden

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen