Aeneid - Book XI
- Thread starter AoM
- Start date
Horsfall on his own again (with only one other commentator). Unsurprisingly, I had sided with Horsfall, but with McGill adding yet another vote to the majority...
spem si quam ascitis Aetolum habuistis in armis,
ponite. spes sibi quisque; sed haec quam angusta videtis.
cetera qua rerum iaceant perculsa ruina,
ante oculos interque manus sunt omnia vestras.
His complete note:
haec quam angusta There exists an almost total accord among commentators—or at least among those who deign to consider the words—to take these words as fem. sing., in agreement with spes. Perret, however, prefers (as I had myself suspected) neut. plur., haec angusta parallel to cetera . . . perculsa and thematically comparable to 304, 311. Spes angusta seems not to be a standard description (Hey, TLL 2.63.59) and the issue is initially not perspicuous, though a first glimmer of sense appears when we realise that haec shows Lat. pointing; the recent battles have left Latin manpower straitened, angusta (cf. res angusta domi!). V. has indeed some striking changes of subject (7.211, 241), but does not write to set puzzles, no more than Hor. does. Explicit indications present in the text are provokingly abundant, but, it may have been thought, inconclusive (in that both sed and cetera point to changes of direction, the latter in evident contrast to haec). Perret understandably prints a comma at the end of 309 but the full stop in other edd. has no sacred authority; no more, though, does the colon after 310 ruina in Perret (a comma in other edd.). The eye that faces (or ear that hears) this text for the first time (or pretends to; cf. my remarks in Studi Tardoantichi 9 ( 1990 [in fact, 2000!]), 18ff. for this method applied at Hor.C. 4.4.13ff.) will naturally pause after both ponite and (though not necessarily for as long) quisque; thereafter an honest perplexity may be forgiven, indeed commended. However, given the evident balance (and one well enough attested: cf. Lucr.l.402f., Ov.Met.l3.957, Trist.4.3.27) of haec and cetera (reinforced as it is by the further balance angusta::perculsa), it is very much easier to supply sint with haec quam angusta and omnia could then just as naturally (if not rather more so) take up both haec and cetera as cetera alone. In that case, haec . . . angusta are perforce neut. plur..
spem si quam ascitis Aetolum habuistis in armis,
ponite. spes sibi quisque; sed haec quam angusta videtis.
cetera qua rerum iaceant perculsa ruina,
ante oculos interque manus sunt omnia vestras.
His complete note:
haec quam angusta There exists an almost total accord among commentators—or at least among those who deign to consider the words—to take these words as fem. sing., in agreement with spes. Perret, however, prefers (as I had myself suspected) neut. plur., haec angusta parallel to cetera . . . perculsa and thematically comparable to 304, 311. Spes angusta seems not to be a standard description (Hey, TLL 2.63.59) and the issue is initially not perspicuous, though a first glimmer of sense appears when we realise that haec shows Lat. pointing; the recent battles have left Latin manpower straitened, angusta (cf. res angusta domi!). V. has indeed some striking changes of subject (7.211, 241), but does not write to set puzzles, no more than Hor. does. Explicit indications present in the text are provokingly abundant, but, it may have been thought, inconclusive (in that both sed and cetera point to changes of direction, the latter in evident contrast to haec). Perret understandably prints a comma at the end of 309 but the full stop in other edd. has no sacred authority; no more, though, does the colon after 310 ruina in Perret (a comma in other edd.). The eye that faces (or ear that hears) this text for the first time (or pretends to; cf. my remarks in Studi Tardoantichi 9 ( 1990 [in fact, 2000!]), 18ff. for this method applied at Hor.C. 4.4.13ff.) will naturally pause after both ponite and (though not necessarily for as long) quisque; thereafter an honest perplexity may be forgiven, indeed commended. However, given the evident balance (and one well enough attested: cf. Lucr.l.402f., Ov.Met.l3.957, Trist.4.3.27) of haec and cetera (reinforced as it is by the further balance angusta::perculsa), it is very much easier to supply sint with haec quam angusta and omnia could then just as naturally (if not rather more so) take up both haec and cetera as cetera alone. In that case, haec . . . angusta are perforce neut. plur..
I'm unsure, but maybe slightly lean towards it being neuter plural (I wonder if Vergil might've preferred a Greek-style anticipatory accusative, hanc quam angusta videtis, were it feminine singular; for the construction cf. a sentence like Cicero's nosti Marcellum quam tardus sit. But that's not conclusive, since a nominative placed before the clause-introducing word is still perfectly fine word order). Regardless, I don't think the structure of the cetera...vestras sentence allows for one to take omnia as haec + cetera.
For Camilla's death:
iamque vale. simul his dictis linquebat habenas
ad terram non sponte fluens. tum frigida toto
paulatim exsoluit se corpore, lentaque colla
et captum leto posuit caput, arma relinquens
iamque vale. simul his dictis linquebat habenas
ad terram non sponte fluens. tum frigida toto
paulatim exsoluit se corpore, lentaque colla
et captum leto posuit caput, arma relinquunt
McGill supports the former, Horsfall the latter.
McGill: "There seems to be an echo of linquebat harenas at 827; the dying Camilla first drags the reins and then, at the moment she dies, leaves behind her arms. linquebat and relinquens, with Camilla as the subject, thus provides a frame for 827-30."
Horsfall: "It becomes clearer that V. really is likelier to have written relinquunt, since (i), the sequence of ideas suggests strongly that 'arms abandon C.' is preferable; she struggles against her weakness, slips from her horse, and naturally, is abandoned by strength, by life itself,—and so too, but last of all, being as she is (Pascoli), by her arms. (ii) the hypallage is extremely attractive, difficult and Virgilian, to be considered as another instance of the sort of inversion of 'normal' subj. and obj. discussed by Görler, Vergilius Suppl.2 (1982), 67f.. (iii) it is easy to imagine that a difficult reading (but one known to Probus) such as relinquunt might have been changed into relinquit/relinquens, not least so soon after 827 linquebat habenas, but much harder to see why Probus, faced by relinquit/relinquens, should have felt any need to conjecture."
I'll probably just stay with the difficilior, but definitely another thing to consider.
iamque vale. simul his dictis linquebat habenas
ad terram non sponte fluens. tum frigida toto
paulatim exsoluit se corpore, lentaque colla
et captum leto posuit caput, arma relinquens
iamque vale. simul his dictis linquebat habenas
ad terram non sponte fluens. tum frigida toto
paulatim exsoluit se corpore, lentaque colla
et captum leto posuit caput, arma relinquunt
McGill supports the former, Horsfall the latter.
McGill: "There seems to be an echo of linquebat harenas at 827; the dying Camilla first drags the reins and then, at the moment she dies, leaves behind her arms. linquebat and relinquens, with Camilla as the subject, thus provides a frame for 827-30."
Horsfall: "It becomes clearer that V. really is likelier to have written relinquunt, since (i), the sequence of ideas suggests strongly that 'arms abandon C.' is preferable; she struggles against her weakness, slips from her horse, and naturally, is abandoned by strength, by life itself,—and so too, but last of all, being as she is (Pascoli), by her arms. (ii) the hypallage is extremely attractive, difficult and Virgilian, to be considered as another instance of the sort of inversion of 'normal' subj. and obj. discussed by Görler, Vergilius Suppl.2 (1982), 67f.. (iii) it is easy to imagine that a difficult reading (but one known to Probus) such as relinquunt might have been changed into relinquit/relinquens, not least so soon after 827 linquebat habenas, but much harder to see why Probus, faced by relinquit/relinquens, should have felt any need to conjecture."
I'll probably just stay with the difficilior, but definitely another thing to consider.
I think you kind of need the last line:
iamque vale.' simul his dictis linquebat habenas
ad terram non sponte fluens. tum frigida toto
paulatim exsoluit se corpore, lentaque colla
et captum leto posuit caput, arma relinqu(ens/unt),
vitaque cum gemitu fugit indignata sub umbras.
If arma relinquunt were the very end of the sentence, it would sound far too harsh, but the existence of another clause with another change in subject makes it a little more possible. I still think the lack of explicit object is a little too harsh, but it's possible, and I'm not sure how relinquunt would've come into being otherwise.
iamque vale.' simul his dictis linquebat habenas
ad terram non sponte fluens. tum frigida toto
paulatim exsoluit se corpore, lentaque colla
et captum leto posuit caput, arma relinqu(ens/unt),
vitaque cum gemitu fugit indignata sub umbras.
If arma relinquunt were the very end of the sentence, it would sound far too harsh, but the existence of another clause with another change in subject makes it a little more possible. I still think the lack of explicit object is a little too harsh, but it's possible, and I'm not sure how relinquunt would've come into being otherwise.
An enallage, or hypallage as they call it, is nothing particularly special in poetry. It's a regular tool a poet may or may not use, and it's nothing that is confined to Virgil.
The rest of the text is some sort of ex-post explanation that does not even appreciate the source text ... with the exception of the comment that relinquunt is obviously the more difficult reading.
Stylistically speaking, it feels extremely unusual to finish a sentence or an idea with such an abrupt and incomplete change of subject 4 lines into an ample description that coherently uses the 3rd person singular — and I am not really aware of that being Virgilian or of Virgil doing that on a regular basis ... or if he ever does that at all in any other passage; and I'm not sure which purpose it would serve here. I'm easy to convince if you happen to know a parallel passage, though.
The additional line is also a copy of the very last line in the Aeneid ... it makes be wonder if that was one of the passages that were intended to be revised later; but that's pure speculation.
For the sake of clarity: I have nothing against the reading relinquunt. I just think that if you want to defend that reading, you should at least acknowledge that it sounds rather unusual and harsh (and possibly defend it on that very ground), rather than claiming that it only makes sense and sounds typically Virgilian.
The rest of the text is some sort of ex-post explanation that does not even appreciate the source text ... with the exception of the comment that relinquunt is obviously the more difficult reading.
Stylistically speaking, it feels extremely unusual to finish a sentence or an idea with such an abrupt and incomplete change of subject 4 lines into an ample description that coherently uses the 3rd person singular — and I am not really aware of that being Virgilian or of Virgil doing that on a regular basis ... or if he ever does that at all in any other passage; and I'm not sure which purpose it would serve here. I'm easy to convince if you happen to know a parallel passage, though.
It makes a bit more sense with the additional line thrown in, as that would at least indicate that the subject was intended to change. I still think the change is rather harsh and abrupt, and not really something Virgil is known for.
The additional line is also a copy of the very last line in the Aeneid ... it makes be wonder if that was one of the passages that were intended to be revised later; but that's pure speculation.
For the sake of clarity: I have nothing against the reading relinquunt. I just think that if you want to defend that reading, you should at least acknowledge that it sounds rather unusual and harsh (and possibly defend it on that very ground), rather than claiming that it only makes sense and sounds typically Virgilian.
Last edited: