Vahlen's Ennius 9781463222321

Citation preview

Vahlen's Ennius

A n a l e c t a Gorgiana

361 Series Editor George Anton Kiraz

Analecta Gorgiana is a collection of long essays and

short

monographs which are consistently cited by modern scholars but previously difficult to find because of their original appearance in obscure publications. Carefully selected by a team of scholars based on their relevance to modern scholarship, these essays can now be fully utili2ed by scholars and proudly owned by libraries.

Vahlen's Ennius

Charles Knapp

l gorgia? press 2009

Gorgias Press LLC, 180 Centennial Ave., Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2009 by Gorgias Press LLC Originally published in All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2009

1

ISBN 978-1-60724-648-0

ISSN 1935-6854

Extract from The ^American Journal of Philology 32 (1911)

Printed in the LTnited States of America

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

VOL. X X X I I , i.

PHILOLOGY WHOLE NO. 125.

I.—VAHLEN'S

ENNIUS.1

On September 27 last Johannes Vahlen celebrated his eightieth birthday. In Germany a committee of his " Freunde, Schiller und V e r e h r e r " had been formed to do him honor, and had invited the lovers of the Classics everywhere to contribute to a fund to aid in this purpose. I had long planned to discuss at least a part of the second edition of Vahlen's Ennius, but divers things had postponed the realization of the project. I hope that the timeliness of the present examination, if I may intrude a word borrowed from journalism within the precincts of classical scholarship, will offset the long gap between the appearance of the book and the present review. Besides, most of the topics treated in this paper are of perennial interest to the serious student of things Roman. 2 In 1854 Vahlen, then twenty-four years old, issued a collection of the fragments of Ennius; in 1903, aetate provecius, he set forth the ripe results of nearly half a century of further study of the same author. It goes without saying that the new edition does not merely expand the old : it is essentially a different book. 8 1 E n n i a n a e Poesis R e l i q u i a e . L e i p z i g : B . G. T e u b n e r (1903).

Iteratis curis recensuit I o h a n n e s Pp. c c x x i v + 306. 16 marks.

Vahlen.

2 I know of no searching review of the book in E n g l i s h or German. Skutsch's article on E n n i u s in P a u l y - W i s s o w a 5, 2589-2628 has V a h l e n ' s book ever in mind ; the present paper, however, does not cross that article at many points, and even in those is wholly independent thereof. 3 A most excellent w a y of realizing how far apart the two editions are is to compare the Index Sermonis of the new with the I n d e x V e r b o r u m of the old ;

one sees thus how w i d e l y V a h l e n ' s later groupings of the fragments differ at times from his earlier combinations. T h e changes in his views concerning the groupings involved great changes in the Prolegomena of the later book.

2

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

In 1854 Vahlen could write justly enough in his Praefatio that there was then " vix ulla editio Ennii quae desiderio paullo severiori satis facere p o s s i t " . Only thrice before that year had scholars attempted to edit all the Ennian fragments together. In 1564 the Stephani had brought out a collection of fragments of Ennius, Pacuvius, Accius, etc., etc. In 1590 Hieronymus Columna published the fragments of Ennius by themselves. T h e work showed industry, knowledge of Ennius's language, and skill in the interpretation of individual lines. But inevitably, in the absence of the proper subsidia (see below), the text was often defective. Finally, Columna made no attempt to combine the fragments into coherent groups of verses, a grievous shortcoming, to Vahlen's mind. In 1707 Hessel brought out a Variorum revision and amplification of Columna's edition. O f these works, as of the labors of various scholars on parts of Ennius, Vahlen wrote in the original book, pages v - v i i ; he speaks of them at greater length in the later work, c x x x i - c x x x v . Especially interesting in the latter account is what is said ( c x x x i v ) of the stimulus given to Ennian studies by Ritschl; surely pardonable to a s e n e x saepissime a viris laudandis laudatus is the reproduction of the praise heaped by the Senate of the University of Bonn on Vahlen's studies in the Annales of Ennius (1852) presented in competition for a prize which, at Ritschl's suggestion, the University had offered for work in Ennius. In 1852 came, also, Ribbeck's Fragmenta Tragicorum Romariorum. Such was the material bearing directly on Ennius, meager enough, certainly, available to Vahlen in 1854. H e was further handicapped by the lack of suitable editions of a host of authors with whom his Ennian studies forced him to deal. Since 1854 Vahlen himself has repeatedly written on the fragments of Ennius (see the list on page c x x x v i ) . In 1884 L . Müller published his Einleitung in das Studium der römischen Poesie; in 1885 he brought out his Q. Ennii Carminum Reliquiae. O f these w o r k s Vahlen has no high opinion, an estimate with which, so far as the treatment of the text is concerned, I have some s y m p a t h y ; in other respects Vahlen, I think, undervalues Miiller's work. In 1897 Ribbeck's book reached a third edition. A s the result of these and many other works there was an ever increasing mass of material bearing directly on Ennius; of all this notice is taken, so far as one man could have taken it in one book, in the work before us.

VAHLEN'S

ENNIUS.

3

Again, in 1854, as already said, Vahlen had not at his command trustworthy printed editions of books indispensable to the critical student of Ennius. 1 Of great importance, then, for his later work were the labors, after 1854, of divers scholars on the Grammatici Latini, Festus, Gellius, Macrobius, Nonius, Servius, etc., a y e on the text of Cicero himself. 2 In 1854 Vahlen carried a heavy burden well-nigh alone; in his advancing years he might have felt that the very subsidia which from one point of view rendered his continuing labors on Ennius easier and his results surer were, by their very multiplicity and complexity, too huge a task for any single man. Y e t he persevered and gave us such a presentation of Ennius's life and works, of the part he has played in the intellectual consciousness of the race from his own day to modern times, of the labors of a host of scholars on this striking personality as only one possessed of splendid powers of body and mind alike, of unflagging devotion, of dauntless courage in a huge task could have produced. Here, surely, is matter to stir the pulse. Again, the reading of Vahlen's account of studies in Ennius by himself and other scholars and of the subsidia of the later book gives one a very real and fascinating history of three score important years in classical scholarship. It is hard to realize to-day how little in some respects the scholars of sixty years ago had at command ; Vahlen's narrative brings this home with striking force; it makes us realize, also, how prolific of vital work the last six or seven decades have been. Finally, Vahlen's narrative helps us to appreciate the importance of work on the fragments of early Latin literature. It is easy to think of such work as unimportant, as inevitably dryasdust; yet constructive labors in this field demand, beside other powers, fine imaginative insight controlled by sound logical sense. T h e work of Ribbeck and Vahlen on the fragments of early Latin made clear the imperative need of authoritative editions of a host of authors who had theretofore lain more or less without the ken of classical scholars. Hence the fruit of Vahlen's labors of a lifetime on Ennius are to be sought not merely in the fine volume before us, but also in the great host of studies on those Latin authors whose names recur so frequently in the testimonia of his Ennius. 1

S e e the first e d i t i o n , v i i ff., the later, c x x x v i i .

• S e e the l a t e r e d i t i o n , c x x x v i i i - c x l i u .

4

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

Space does not permit me to compare, or rather to contrast, the two editions throughout. T o what I have said on this point (page i ) I may add a detail or two. T h e 332 pages of the first edition have been expanded into 530 larger pages in the second ; xciv pages of Prolegomena have become c c x x i v ; the 238 pages devoted to text and notes, the Index Verborum, and two short special Indexes have been enlarged to 306 pages of similar matter. T h e Prolegomena of the original book consisted almost wholly of Quaestiones Ennianae, in eight chapters, dealing with the contents of the various books and justifying the assignment of fragments to certain places. In the new book the title Quaestiones Ennianae is dropped, but the same general matters are treated in Part I I of the Prolegomena, called D e L i b r i s Ennianis ; a new section entitled Historia Ennii is prefixed to this (for its contents see below, pages 5 - 1 4 ) . T h e old book showed the Latin text of the fragments, testimonia and notes on the same page ; the new book retains this arrangement. A more detailed statement of the contents of the new edition is as follows : ( 1 ) a Praefatio, pages iii-ccxxiv; (2) the text of the Annales, with full citations of the ancient passages in which the fragments have been preserved, and brief notes, 1 - 1 1 7 ; (3) the text, etc., of the Scenica, 1 1 8 - 2 0 3 ; (4) the text, etc., of the Saturae, 2 0 4 - 2 1 1 ; (5) the text, etc., o f V a r i a (Scipio, Epigrammata, Sota, Protrepticus, Hedyphagetica, Epicharmus, Euhemerus), 2 1 2 - 2 2 9 ; (6) text, etc., of Incerta, 2 3 0 - 2 3 9 ; (7) Versus falsi ex Pauli Merulae fontibus ducti, 240-242; (8) Index Testium, 2 4 3 - 2 5 6 ; (9) Index Sermonis, 257-299; ( 1 0 ) Addenda et Corrigenda, 300-306. There is, however, no Index R e r u m , a lack to be regretted in view of the wide array of topics covered by the Praefatio. 1 T h e massive Praefatio falls into two parts. In one the author 1 C r o s s - r e f e r e n c e s , too, are none too p l e n t i f u l . T o be sure the titles at the tops of the p a g e s of the P r a e f a t i o aid the r e a d e r in finding t o p i c s , b u t often c r o s s - r e f e r e n c e s w o u l d g r e a t l y h e l p the busy s t u d e n t , e. g., on iv to c x c v i c x c v i i ; on xii, bottom, to l v i ; on xiii (to e x p l a i n l , s u o loco e x p o n a m " ) ; on x v i (to e x p l a i n " v i d i m u s v i c t o r i a m . . . secutum " a n d " p l a n e ut N a e v i u m C i c e r o t e s t a t u r " ) ; on x x i , first l i n e ; on x x v i i (to e x p l a i n " S e d de ea re . . . a g e t u r " ) ; x x v i i (to e x p l a i n the first f u l l p a r a g r a p h , end, a r e f e r e n c e to p a g e 4 3 m i g h t w e l l b e a d d e d ) ; so on p a g e 43 a r e f e r e n c e b a c k to x x v i i w o u l d be u s e f u l . On l x x x v i w e n e e d , s u r e l y , a r e f e r e n c e to the m a s t e r l y discussion of G e l l i u s 2. 29 on ccxi if. I miss the h e l p i n g r e f e r e n c e s in these a n d other p l a c e s a l l the more b e c a u s e this sort of a i d is often g i v e n .

VAHLEN'S

EN NWS.

S

aims to give a complete "historiam Ennii ab ipsius initiis usque ad hunc librum editum " (iii); in the other he deals with Ennius's writings. T h e earlier part occupies pages iii-cxliv and contains, aside from a brief discussion of Ennius's life (iii-xix), an examination or at least a reference to nearly everything worth mentioning that was said about Ennius down to the time of Isidorus. T h e r e is also a brief indication of comment on him in the Middle A g e s and later. A good bibliography of Ennius could be constructed from these pages. If the book contained nothing but this, its author would have deserved supremely well of Latin literature; it is of immense value, in these crowded days, to have a piece of work done so well and accurately that no one will need to do it again. T h o u g h Vahlen is professedly concerned only with Ennius, there is an array of important observations about many other ancient writers whom he considers in his study of the numerous sources of our knowledge of Ennius. With some, perhaps many, of these observations other scholars will not be in full sympathy, but they will none the less learn much, not only in the domain of fact and inference, but, more important still, in the sphere of method. Let us analyze now in detail the Historia Ennii (iiiff.). A t once, after testimonia de nominibus Ennii have been cited, we come upon most interesting matter. That Ennius talked of himself in his Saturae one fragment at least makes plain. This, cited twice by Nonius from Ennius, Saturae I I I , is thus given by Vahlen on page 205 E n n i poeta s a l v e , qui mortalibus versus propinas

flammeos

medullitus.

Whether, as Vahlen thinks, some one is (apostrophizing or) addressing the poet, or, as I would suggest as also possible, the poet is apostrophizing himself, we have the poet's personality injected into the Saturae. If the words numquam poetor nisi podager (Sat. 64 2 ), cited by Priscianus merely as from Ennius, are rightly assigned by Vahlen and Miiller (73) to the Saturae, we have the same phenomenon a second time. On this basis our author writes ^ S o also M i i l l e r g i v e s it, Q. E n n i C a r m i n u m R e l i q u i a e , 74 (cited h e r e a f t e r m e r e l y as Miiller). M e r r i l l , F r a g m e n t s of R o m a n S a t i r e , p. 7, prints a b o v e this f r a g m e n t the f o l l o w i n g w o r d s : " A c o n v e r s a t i o n opens b e t w e e n the p o e t and a reader " . 2

1 cite E n n i u s n o r m a l l y by V a h l e n ' s titles a n d v e r s e - n u m b e r i n g .

6

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

(iii): " p r o b a b i l e est eum plura de vita sua ac moribus perstrinxisse " . Parallel is the famous epitaph said to have been written b y Ennius in his old a g e for his own b u s t : A s p i c i t e , o cives, senis E n n i imaginis formam, etc. 1

N e x t V a h l e n cites Gellius's statement ( 1 7 . 21. 43) that V a r r o in primo de poetis libro g a v e the year of Ennius's birth, with the farther memorandum that eum ( = Ennium), cum septimum et s e x a g e s i m u m annum haberet, duodecimum A n n a l e m scripsisse idque ipsum Ennium in e o d e m libro dicere. H e thinks that V a r r o undoubtedly noted what Ennius had said concerning himself in his writings, because ( 1 ) V a r r o was to later writers their chief authority concerning Ennius, (2), according to Gellius, V a r r o cited concerning Naevius also what Naevius had said about himself. N o w , in 1886, in his U e b e r die Annalen des Ennius, 10 ff., V a h l e n had held that Annales 12 was l a r g e l y autobiographical in character and had in consequence assigned to that b o o k , without warranty from ancient testimonia, various extant fragments bearing on Ennius's life and personality. T h e argument for this procedure is summed u p on p a g e s c x c v i - c x c v i i of our Praefatio, as follows. In 6. r. 23 Macrobius cites the famous unus h o m o nobis cunctando restituit rem

from Ennius A n n a l e s 12 (says Vahlen). 2 If I understand V a h l e n rightly, he lays much stress here on nobis as proving that again in B o o k 12 Ennius was s p e a k i n g of himself. But two remarks at least are pertinent. First, there is no sure proof that this passage b e l o n g s to 12 at all; see below, footnote 2. S e c o n d l y , how precarious Vahlen's reasoning is m a y be seen b y considering V e r g i l ' s 1

V a h l e n has no doubt, here or on x v i i , that E n n i u s wrote this epitaph.

But L . M u l l e r , P h i l o l o g u s 43. 104, refuses to b e l i e v e that E n n i u s wrote these verses.

I n his edition of the f r a g m e n t s (page 153, u n d e r testimonium xlvii)

he assigns them to O c t a v i u s L a m p a d i o or Q. V a r g u n t e i u s ; see further his note on this passage on pages 247-248.

S c h a n z 3 , too, is s c e p t i c a l : see viii.

1. I , page 122 (s. v. E p i g r a m m e ) , and page 1 1 2 (under 1).

D o u g a n , on C i c e r o

T u s c . I. 34, is d i s i n c l i n e d to interpret senis as d e n o t i n g actual old age. 2 E y s s e n h a r d t ( T e u b n e r text, 1868), g i v e s this as from B o o k 12, a f t e r P. V a h l e n , p a g e 66, says the Salisb. M S g i v e s v i i , not xii. this passage in B o o k 8.

M u l l e r , 36, had put

VAHLEN'S

use of this v e r y A n c h i s e s say

passage.

7

ENNIUS.

In A e n e i d 6. 845-846 he

makes

tu M a x i m u s i l l e es unus qui nobis c u n c t a n d o restituii rem.

S u p p o s e we had of V e r g i l only fragments : how wide of the m a r k we should be should we infer that in A e n e i d 6 V e r g i l had written definitely of himself! T h e nobis of the Ennian fragment has no compelling suggestion of the sort V a h l e n found in it, admitting that it does indeed b e l o n g to Annales 12. If, then, we would k e e p our feet on the g r o u n d , we have in Gellius alone, if a n y w h e r e , categoric proof that Ennius introduced biographical material in A n n a l e s 1 2 ; V a h l e n ' s ' C o m b i n a t i o n ' is no more successful than such Combinationen are wont to be. 1 H a v i n g concluded, h o w e v e r , that in A n n a l e s 12 Ennius had written of F a b i u s and of himself, V a h l e n constructs (cxcvii) a theory of the contents of that b o o k which shall explain the incorporation therein of these two t h e m e s ; he holds that the b o o k was a terminal b o o k , closing one edition of the Annales. 2 In such a b o o k , indeed, Ennius might have talked at will of himself and of his times, ranging widely over as many y e a r s and naming as many heroes as he saw fit. O n the basis of this argument, precarious enough, surely, V a h l e n puts in B o o k 12, beside other things, the following : (1) a verse praising M ' . Curius ; (2) the famous w o r d s in which Ennius compares himself in his old a g e to a retired race horse ; 3 1

S k u t s c h , 2608,1 find, h a d anticipated my arguments, in part only, h o w e v e r .

I find, too, that he had a n t i c i p a t e d my own b e l i e f that the reading xii in G e l l i u s 1 7 . 21. 43 cannot possibly be right (numerals are notoriously liable to error in our M S S ) . 2Miiller,

Q u i n t u s E n n i u s , 128 ff., argued that there w e r e four editions of the

A n n a l e s , one of six b o o k s , one of fifteen, one of sixteen, one of

eighteen.

T e u f f e l - S c h w a b e (I cite W a r r ' s translation, 1891), § 1 0 1 . 3, had a theory of successive editions (" in series of six r e s p e c t i v e l y of three b o o k s [?] " , a sent e n c e w h i c h is gibberish as it stands : I t a k e it to be meant for " in six series of three b o o k s each "), w h i c h m a d e 12 a terminal book.

S c h a n z 3 , V I I I . 1. 1,

§ 1 1 7 , discusses " D i e successive E n t s t e h u n g d e r A n n a l e n " ; he, too, m a k e s 12 a t e r m i n a l b o o k , a p p a r e n t l y led to do so b y V a h l e n ' s arguments.

Skutsch

2607, 2610, holds different and safer views. 3

See C i c e r o C a t o M a i o r 14 : S i c u t fortis ecus, spatio qui saepe supremo vicit O l u m p i a , nunc senio confectus quiescit.

I have l o n g felt that quiesco w o u l d be a better reading, better b y far ; see the

8

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

(3) another verse of Ennius about himself, N o s sumus R o m a n i qui fuimus ante R u d i n i ,

which he had formerly set in Book 18. But none of these passages is assigned by any ancient authority to a specific book. In so far as B o o k 12 contained talk by Ennius about himself, continues Vahlen, it was the prototype of Horace E p p . 1. 20. 19 cum tibi sol tepidus, etc. A l l this is wonderfully ingenious, especially the comparison of Book 12 and Horace Epistle 1. 20 (I may add that, were it possible to prove the justice of this comparison, we should have Horace turning in the epilogue of his first book of Epistles to Ennius as his exemplar in expressing his sense of his own achievements exactly as he had done in the epilogue to Carmina I—III). But Vahlen has not demonstrated the truth of his comparison ; indeed, in the present state of our knowledge, such proof is impossible. 1 L e t us consider the matter further. If we are to find support, with Vahlen and Bailey, for Vahlen's view of Annales 12 in the definite " a s s i g n a t i o n " (Bailey) of certain fragments to that book (I have already denied that such " assignation " is ancient), what are we to say of the very definite ascription b y Gellius 12. 4. I ff. to Book V I I of the famous passage in which Ennius describes a quidarn amicus Servili, with the further positive assertion (§ 5) that L. Aelium Stilonem dicere solitum ferunt Q. Ennium de semet ipso haec scripsisse picturamque istam morum et ingenii ipsius Q. Ennii factam esse? W e may indeed with Vahlen (p. 43) dismiss Gellius's testimony by saying that it merely shows " q u a m creduli fuerint aut arguti vel Varronis context. T h i s emendation must surely have m a d e its way into print somew h e r e , though I h a v e not seen it m e n t i o n e d . It had occurred i n d e p e n d e n t l y , I may add, to my c o l l e a g u e Professor E a r l e . 1 Mr. C y r i l B a i l e y , h o w e v e r , in T h e C l a s s i c a l R e v i e w 18. 170, is i n c l i n e d to a c c e p t V a h l e n ' s c o m b i n a t i o n . Müller, Quintus E n n i u s , 125, has some sound remarks (unfortunately marred by personalities) on the difficulty of grouping at all the extant verses of the A n n a l e s . F o r some a d m i r a b l e c o m m e n t s on this g e n e r a l subject, with demonstration of the f u t i l i t y of certain efforts of this sort in connection with G r e e k comedy (the fragments of Cratinus), see pages 32-33 of A d d r e s s e s and E s s a y s by the late Professor M o r r i s H i c k e y Morgan.

VAHLEN'S

9

ENNIUS.

aetate p r i s c o r u m p o e t a r u m interpretes but s u c h assertion is not p r o o f , a n d is of a p i e c e with that c u r i o u s t e n d e n c y w h i c h s c h o l a r s h a v e l o n g s h o w n to cite G e l l i u s with r e v e r e n c e w h e n he s u p p o r t s their theories a n d to w a v e him a s i d e w h e n he is a s t u m b l i n g b l o c k to their c o m b i n a t i o n s . B u t if G e l l i u s is to be set aside h e r e , then his no m o r e precise or positive statement a b o u t B o o k 12 in 17. 21. 43 must also be d i s c a r d e d and V a h l e n ' s a r g u m e n t a b o u t B o o k 12, so l a b o r i o u s l y c o n s t r u c t e d , is w h o l l y without foundation. M y o w n view is this. E n n i u s , a s t r o n g and vital p e r s o n a l i t y , a man c o n s c i o u s of his p o w e r s a n d of his mission, g i v e n to the e x p r e s s i o n o f his literary self-consciousness, was l i k e l y to s p e a k of h i m s e l f a n y w h e r e in his writings, m u c h as t w o k i n d r e d spirits of later times, L u c i l i u s a n d H o r a c e , m o r e than o n c e s p o k e of t h e m s e l v e s . W e h a v e p o s i t i v e e v i d e n c e , not y e t d i s p r o v e d and n o t to be set a s i d e b y any ipse dixit, that he d i d so in two different b o o k s o f t h e A n n a l e s . 2 T i l l that e v i d e n c e is d i s p r o v e d , a n y a t t e m p t to g r o u p in a s i n g l e b o o k a n y l a r g e collection of a u t o b i o g r a p h i c a l allusions is f o r e d o o m e d to lailure. 3 N e x t V a h l e n discusses the y e a r of E n n i u s ' s b i r t h ( v - v i ) , the y e a r o f his d e a t h ( v i - v i i ) , 4 his birthplace ( v i i - i x ) . A l l ancient 1

Sellar, R o m a n P o e t s of the R e p u b l i c , 72-74, R i b b e c k , R ö m i s c h e D i c h t u n g ,

I. 38-39, D u f f , A L i t e r a r y H i s t o r y of R o m e , J40, find no trouble in a c c e p t i n g G e l l i u s ' s statement. commit himself. 2

M ü l l e r , i g i , Quintus E n n i u s , 6 8 - 7 0 , w o u l d not definitely

S c h a n z 3 , V I I I . 1 . 1 , § 36, A, is sceptical.

S c h a n z , page n o

(s. v. Biographisches), s p e a k s s i m i l a r l y , though

with

m u c h less detail. 3Such

an attempt is m i s t a k e n , I t h i n k , in another w a y ; it i n v o l v e s the

assumption, by i m p l i c a t i o n at least, that each book

was an artistic w h o l e ,

from w h i c h matter not strictly g e r m a n e to the theme i m m e d i a t e l y in h a n d w a s excluded.

W e do not b y any m e a n s k n o w that such an assumption is

well-founded. 4

V a h l e n m a k e s no c o m m e n t here or e l s e w h e r e (e. g., on page 210) on the

cause of E n n i u s ' s d e a t h . cites a verse

Jerome says he d i e d articulari

morbo.

Priscianus

from E n n i u s h i m s e l f ( V a h l e n , Sat. 64) w h i c h some regard as

b e a r i n g on this m a t t e r : N u m q u a m poetor nisi < s i > podager.

By this verse

m a n y scholars have b e e n reminded of H o r a c e E p p . 1. 19. 7 : E n n i u s ipse pater numquam nisi potus ad arma prosiluit d i c e n d a . N o w to m e nothing can be clearer than that the H o r a t i a n passage as a w h o l e (l—18) is not to b e t a k e n too seriously. S c h a n z , h o w e v e r (p. n o ) , treats it with desperate seriousness. H e regards the famous passage from the A n n a l e s preserved b y G e l l i u s 12. 4 (see above, p a g e 8) as indeed a " C h a r a k t e r b i l d "

IO

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

testimony, right and wrong both, is considered. T h e implications of the last-named theme, however, are not followed up. O f what nationality was E n n i u s ? W h a t of the bearing of the G r e e k character of Apulia (Messapia) on Ennius's career? what of the tria corda matter, so lightly disposed of on p a g e iv ? in what order did Ennius master the three l a n g u a g e s he k n e w and what is the significance of that order? perhaps no positive answer to these questions can be given, but t h e y should at least be asked. 1 V a h l e n would like to trace to Ennius himself the story g i v e n by Nepos, Cato i. 4, that C a t o as quaestor brought Ennius to R o m e from S a r d i n i a ; Ennius, he thinks, might h a v e mentioned the fact at the end of Annales 12 (as in E p p . 1. 20 Horace menof E n n i u s , drawn, however, by A e l i u s S t i l o , not b y E n n i u s himself, as G e l l i u s avers. H e then proceeds ; " N u r ein Z u g ist v e r g e s s e n , den uns H o r a z aufb e w a h r t hat, dass nämlich E n n i u s den B e c h e r l i e b t e und d e n s e l b e n gern leerte, ehe er zur A r b e i t schritt. E n n i u s starb im Jahre 169 am P o d a g r a " . M ü l l e r , too (Quintus E n n i u s , 67), takes H o r a c e literally and traces E n n i u s ' s gout to his love of strong drink. S o , too, S k u t s c h , 2592, w h o suggests that H o r a c e drew his information about E n n i u s in this connection from E n n i u s ' s o w n Saturae. So again T y r r e l l , A n t h o l o g y of L a t i n Poetry, p. 206 (note on x i v , 7 ) ; he is similarly over-sober in his L a t i n P o e t r y , 188, 195. Sellar, R o m a n Poets of the R e p u b l i c , 72, wrote more w i s e l y of H o r a c e ' s " humorous exaggeration . So, too, Müller, Quintus E n n i u s , 108, forgetting w h a t he had written on page 67 o f the same b o o k , as g i v e n already in this note, saw the truth in part, though he mixed absurdity with the truth, in describing E n n i u s ' s verse cited above " a l s eine, natürlich scherzhafte, E n t s c h u l d i g u n g , dass der D i c h t e r , auch n a c h d e m er römischer B ü r g e r g e w o r d e n , doch nicht abstehe V e r s e zu m a c h e n " . I note that E n n i u s , in the verse in question, says nothing himself about d r i n k i n g . E v e n in ancient days, w e may now b e l i e v e , g o u t and high l i v i n g or much d r i n k i n g did not necessarily stand in causal s e q u e n c e . I cannot h e l p w o n d e r i n g that no G e r m a n scholar has attempted as y e t , in the spirit of L e o ' s efforts to explain away in his Plautinische F o r s c h u n g e n the traditional accounts of the lives of N a e v i u s and Plautus as due in part to efforts to g a i n analogues to traditional accounts of G r e e k writers, to show that the reference to E n n i u s ' s g o u t b y J e r o m e is b a s e d m e r e l y on the H o r a t i a n passage and this in turn on an importation into E n n i u s ' s life of notorious traits of Cratinus, of w h o m H o r a c e is t h i n k i n g so much in the w h o l e passage. 1 F o r discussions o f them see R i b b e c k , R ö m i s c h e T r a g ö d i e , 7 7 ; M ü l l e r , Quintus E n n i u s , 6 2 ; Duff, A L i t e r a r y History of R o m e , 1 3 6 ; S c h a n z 3 , pp. 109-110, I I I (under rf), and, best of a l l , Skutsch, 2589-2590. X may cite here a remark o f M r . B a i l e y c o n c e r n i n g the book u n d e r r e v i e w ( T h e C l a s s i c a l R e v i e w 18. 169): " L i t t l e w i l l be found in the w a y of c o m m e n t on the s t y l e and thought or historical accuracy of E n n i u s ; but almost every p o s s i b l e detail, on w h i c h such comment may be based " .

VAHLEN'S

ENNIUS.

II

tioned his own campaigning). But he admits that this is speculation and that there are difficulties in Nepos's story. On page x Vahlen takes up the ancient tale that Ennius lived on the Aventine, in poverty, with but one ancilla. The story is found only in Jerome, but from Jerome, says Vahlen, we get back to Suetonius, Nepos, Cicero, Varro, and thence to autobiographical matter by Ennius himself (though for autobiographical matter on this point, whose existence is hinted at rather than asserted, no evidence at all is given, aside from a reiteration ol the belief (see above, p. 6) that Varro was familiar with all the autobiographical matter in Ennius). If now, he continues, we recall what Festus says (492. 22 Th.) about the grant of the aedes Minervae as a meeting place for scribae and histriones, we understand why tradition made Ennius live on the Aventine. Jerome's story Vahlen refers to Ennius's early years in Rome, when he gained his living by teaching. 1 He remembers that Cicero says in Cato Maior 14 that Ennius was poor in his old age, but, following again his more or less eclectic policy with respect to the sources, he is disinclined to accept Cicero's testimony. The tradition about the ancilla he traces to the story in Cicero D e Oratore 2. 276 concerning Nasica, Ennius and an ancilla; the story may have been told, he thinks, by Ennius himself " i n satura aut nescio quo carmine". Having but one slave (or but few slaves), he says, was a " vulgare indicium paupert a t i s " ; he compares Seneca ad Helviam 12. 4 unum fuisse Homero servum, tres Platoni, nullum Zenoni satis constat, and Terence Haut. 2g3. 2 1

So Schanz, p. n o ; cf. Skutsch, 2590. I may add Horace Serm. 1 . 3. n - 1 2 (about Herraogenes Tigellius) and Serm. 1 . 6, 1 1 6 (about himself). In 1895 Leo, Plautinische Forschungen, 67, anticipated part o f V a h l e n ' s present criticism of this story. Schanz, § 36, q, is not convinced by L e o and Vahlen. I may note that there is nothing whatever in Cicero D e Oratore 2. 276 to show that Ennius was then poor ; not more than one ancilla could well have figured in such a tale, however many slaves Ennius might have had. T h e argument from Festus's reference to the aedes Minervae is inconclusive; we might fairly urge that one seeking to live by literature at all would naturally fix his abode in the vicinity of the meeting place of the poets. Schanz, too, § 36, y, doubts the statement in Cicero Cato Maior 1 4 ; I need not say, however, that poverty in old age is not incompatible with happier circumstances in earlier days. Ennius outlived his friend Scipio by many years, as Vahlen notes in another connection. If Ennius was poor at any time during his life at Rome, it was, I think, either in 2

12

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

Next Ennius's friendship with Scipio is considered (xii-xiii). Then Vahlen notes that, though Ennius praises Cato, he cannot have been intimate with the censor (in spite of Cicero Cato Maior 1 0 ) ; they were too much unlike and Cato was the enemy of Ennius's friend Scipio. He thinks, further, that Cato's criticism of Fulvius because he took Ennius with him on his campaign to Aetolia is evidence that Cato was not especially friendly, to say the least, to Ennius. But this inference is not inevitable; it is likely enough that Cato's game was Fulvius rather than Ennius (cf. Cicero Tusc. i . 2). Cato's criticism of Fulvius, continues Vahlen, proves that Ennius did not go with Fulvius to fight, for to that Cato could not have taken exception. Hence, in using militarat, in Brutus 79, of Ennius's activities in Aetolia, Cicero was much less exact than he was in Pro Archia 1 1 about Archias (xix, note 2). 1 Finally, Vahlen approves Ribbeck's suggestion that Ennius's Ambracia dealt with the capture of the city of that name by Fulvius, though, he admits, nothing in the few fragments of the piece proves this. He does not notice Miiller's suggestion (Quintus Ennius, 6 1 ; cf. Mommsen, R . G. i 8 . 801) that Ennius took the praenomen Quintus to please the son of Fulvius, to whom he owed citizenship. Our author holds (xvi) that Ennius spent all his years at R o m e in writing. W e can seldom tell, however, in what order he produced his works. The Scipio, it is reasonable to suppose, came shortly after the battle of Z a m a ; a so the Ambracia would have come most fittingly immediately after Fulvius's triumph in 187. According to Varro ap. Gell. 17. 2 1 . 43 Ennius was writing Annales 12 in 172. 3 From all this Vahlen concluded in 1886 h i s first d a y s t h e r e , b e f o r e h e h a d w o n p o w e r f u l p a t r o n s , or in h i s last d a y s , w h e n t h o s e p a t r o n s w e r e d e a d . ( P r o f e s s o r S i h l e r , in h i s p a p e r o n T h e C o l l e g i u m P o e t a r u m a t R o m e , A . J . P. X X V I 4 ff., e m p h a s i z e s t h e p o v e r t y of p o e t a e a n d s c r i b a e ) . F r o m t h e f a c t t h a t E n n i u s g o t c i t i z e n s h i p f r o m t h e son of F u l v i u s , o n e m a y , p e r h a p s , c o n c l u d e t h a t E n n i u s o u t l i v e d a n o t h e r p a t r o n of h i s m i d d l e l i f e , t h e e l d e r F u l v i u s . S k u t s c h , 2590, t h i n k s t h e s e s t o r i e s of E n n i u s ' s p o v e r t y m a y w e l l g o b a c k t o a u t o b i o g r a p h i c a l p a s s a g e s in E n n i u s ' s writings. l

A u r e l i u s V i c t o r D e V i r . 111. 52 w a s m u c h m o r e e x a c t . O n t h e g e n e r a l p o i n t s i n v o l v e d see Miiller, Q u i n t u s E n n i u s , 6 6 ; S c h a n z , p. n o ; S k u t s c h 2591. I m a y a d d t h a t a t t h e t i m e of F u l v i u s ' s c a m p a i g n E n n i u s w a s fifty y e a r s o l d , a n d so b e y o n d t h e n o r m a l fighting a g e . s

S k u t s c h , 2599, is less p r e c i s e ; h e m e r e l y says t h e S c i p i o m u s t h a v e p r e -

ceded the Annales. 3 B u t see a b o v e , p a g e 7, e s p e c i a l l y n o t e 1.

VAHLEN'S

ENNI US.

13

that Ennius did not begin his Annales till 184, and that he was busy on them till he died (as Naevius wrote his Bellum Punicum in his old age : Cicero Cato Maior 50). Vahlen adds now that in Annales I X Ennius praises the Consul Cethegus in terms which imply that Cethegus belonged to a period earlier by twenty-five years, more or less, than the time of writing. Cethegus was consul in 194. It may perhaps be captious to note that twenty five years would bring Book 9 down to 169, a period three years later than that so often insisted on by our author for Book 12. In Book 12, continues Vahlen, Ennius confesses that he is o l d ; again, in the first line of his famous epitaph, which contains a direct reference to the Annales, he describes himself as senex. I fail to see the force of this last point. If we accept the epitaph as by Ennius himself (see above, page 6, note 1), it still need not per se prove at all that the Annales and the epitaph were contemporaneous. In writing his epitaph in advanced a g e a man might look back over many years to work done long before. Before 184, says Vahlen, Ennius devoted himself to play writing, because thus he could most readily have earned a living. Here several things, it seems to me, are ignored. W h a t of the evidence that Ennius was a teacher? W h e n was this teaching done? It is surely not likely to have been done after he became a figure of consequence in the national literature. Further, was there really a good chance of supporting one's self by writing p l a y s ? 1 Not many plays, surely, can have been brought out by one man in any one year (the days of the ludi were not so numerous in Ennius's time) ; the stress laid on the sum, small enough in itself, won by Terence through his Eunucbus shows that the normal payments to playwrights cannot have been large. Still, as Ribbeck notes in his Römische Tragödie, 78, the years following the close of the Second Punic W a r were very favorable to the drama. W e may note also that Livius Andronicus's first play(s) followed the close of the First Punic W a r , and that the statement commonly made that concentric sets of seats (gradus) in the theater date from 146 B. C. rests on no better foundation than the inference that the period of rejoicing over the fall of Corinth and C a r t h a g e would naturally have set up conditions equally or even more favorable to the production of plays. 1 1 admit that similar queries may w e l l be put c o n c e r n i n g the possibility of supporting one's self by t e a c h i n g in E n n i u s ' s time.

14

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

Finally, although Ennius never stopped writing plays (witness his T h y e s t e s in his last year), Vahlen thinks he produced most of his dramas before he began to write the Annales. O n pages x v i i i - x i x Vahlen rejects the ancient story, found in varying forms in several writers, that the bust of Ennius stood on Scipio's tomb, by the latter's orders. H e rejects it on the grounds, first, that the authors who first mention it do not speak categorically (cf. putatur in Cicero Pro Archia 22, and dicuntur in L i v y 38. 56. 4), and, secondly, that Ennius died some eighteen years after Scipio. 1 T h e latter argument is inconclusive. Scipio, not being able to foresee how long Ennius would outlive him, might well enough (why may not the reviewer too indulge in speculation ?) have asked that some memorial of his friendship with Ennius be placed on his t o m b ; it is not too hard to believe that even eighteen years after his death his wish—had he expressed such a wish—still carried weight with his family, a family rather tenacious of memories and customs. However, Vahlen thinks that the whole tale arose merely from the fact that Ennius was a contemporary of Scipio and had praised him ; he believes rather, on the basis of a different story in Jerome, that Ennius's body was burned on the Janiculum and that his bones were sent to Rudiae. On these same pages reference is made to the intimacy of Ennius and Caecilius. Here ends the Vita Enni. Vahlen turns now to consider in great detail the attitude of other writers toward Ennius. H o w far do other writers cite him ? In what way d o they cite him ? W h a t is the value of their citations ? W h a t light do they throw on the esteem in which Ennius was held? How far do they help us to reconstruct his works or to form a conception of their arguments? T h e s e and allied questions Vahlen has ever in mind ( x i x - c x x x i ) . 2 It is probable, he thinks, that Ennius knew neither Livius Andronicus nor Naevius ( x i x - x x ) . T h e r e is no sure evidence that Livius was alive after 207, the year of his poem in honor of J u n o ; Naevius lived on after 204, but away from R o m e . Y e a r s after Naevius's death, when Ennius had got round to describing the First Punic W a r , he wrote harshly of Naevius, to the wrath of Cicero (Brutus 75), but he had then an axe to grind, in that he was seeking to show the vast distance between the rude Satur1Cf.

S k u t s c h , 2590-2591.

2

C f . S k u t s c h , 2613 ff.

VAHLEN'S

ENNIUS.

15

nians of L i v i u s and N a e v i u s and his own hexameters, 1 at or.ce more ambitious in effort and m o r e polished in fact. Cicero, 1. c., charges that Ennius after all borrowed from Naevius. T h e fragments show no clear light on this point. We must, h o w e v e r , bear in mind ( x x ) that both N a e v i u s and E n n i u s b e g a n with A e n e a s and that Ennius treated this part of his t h e m e " non parce " ; certain things (see V a h l e n on A n n . 3 5 - 5 1 , in the testimonia) m a k e it l i k e l y that, had we both poets com1 1 insert here a note I h a v e l o n g had in m i n d to w r i t e . Ribbeck, Tragicorum R o m a n o r u m F r a g m e n t a 8 , p. 5, g i v e s at the e n d of his collection of the f r a g m e n t s of L i v i u s A n d r o n i c u s four verses w h i c h T e r e n t i a n u s Maurus cites as from L i v i u s ille v e t u s G r a i o c o g n o m i n e . O f these verses the first and the third are hexameters, the second and the fourth miari. Marius V i c t o r i n u s supports T e r e n t i a n u s . In his edition of the F r a g m e n t a R i b b e c k does not seem to doubt this testimony. In his c o m m e n t s on the lines he does i n d e e d say, as his last w o r d , this: " L a e v i o tribuit S c a l i g e r : c f . m e a hist. trag. R o m . , p. 34 a d n . " ; but the footnote in question contains no r e f e r e n c e to S c a l i g e r . I n his R ö m i s c h e T r a g ö d i e , p a g e 34, text, he discusses our verses in his treatment of L i v i u s A n d r o n i c u s ; here there are notes of s c e p t i c i s m , as f o l l o w s : " A u c h die I n o des L i v i u s A n d r o n i c u s , wenn es ein solches Stück gab, muss diesen Stoff b e h a n d e l t h a b e n " . In a footnote to the clause I have I t a l i c i z e d , R i b b e c k holds that w e must forever remain uncertain on that point because L a e v i u s too wrote an I n o . T o this he adds nothing b e y o n d the statem e n t that the verses under discussion are " in offenbar modernisirter F o r m " . T e u f f e l ( § § 1 3 . 5 ; 94. 5) and C r u t t w e l l (p. 38) b e l i e v e d u n r e s e r v e d l y that A n d r o n i c u s wrote these l i n e s

It has l o n g s e e m e d to m e , i n d e p e n d e n t l y of the attitude of others, that these lines have the a p p e a r a n c e of b e i n g late productions. It is hard to b e l i e v e that L i v i u s could have p r o d u c e d v e r s e s as smooth as these or i n d e e d that he attempted such a metrical tour de force at all. A l l the arguments by various scholars to the effect that the acrostic argumenta to the p l a y s of Plautus must, on grounds of form alone, be a s s i g n e d to a relatively late and sophisticated age apply, mutandis mutatis, to our verses. N o w , a poet L a e v i u s flourished about 64 B. c . H e is constantly c o n f o u n d e d by the a n c i e n t s " w i t h L i v i u s , N a e v i u s , L e p i d u s , L a e v i n u s , e v e n w i t h Pacuv i u s " ( T e u f f e l , § 1 5 0 . 4 ; S c h a n z , V I I I . 1. 2, § 9 1 ) . It is k n o w n that this L a e v i u s used a w i d e v a r i e t y of meters, a m o n g w h i c h T e u f f e l , 1. c., names iambic dimeters, trochaics, scazons, anapaests, hexameters, p h a l a e c i a n s , etc. (cf. Schanz, 1. c., p. 34). It w o u l d appear, also, that he wrote a w o r k c a l l e d I n o . It seems to me a l t o g e t h e r p r o b a b l e that the verses in R i b b e c k , cited as from an I n o of L i v i u s , are to be ascribed rather to L a e v i u s . I m a y add that odorisequus, found in the fourth of the verses u n d e r discussion, is precisely the sort of c o m p o u n d that L a e v i u s affected (see G e l l i u s 19. 7. 2 ff. ; S c h a n z , p. 37). N o m a r k e d c o m p o u n d s occur in i n d i s p u t a b l e f r a g m e n t s of L i v i u s . I find now that others have lately questioned the L i v i a n authorship of these v e r s e s ; see Duff, A L i t e r a r y H i s t o r y of R o m e , 125, n. 2.

i6

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

plete, we should find more evidence of borrowing by the later writer. I may add that everything we know about the methods of work of Latin writers lends credibility to any statement made in ancient times that Ennius borrowed, w h e r e opportunity offered, from his predecessor. P l a u t u s a n d Ennius lived in R o m e contemporaneously for over twenty years. Y e t of their relations nothing is known. T h e Prologue of the Poenulus does indeed contain a reference to the Achilles Aristarchi (of Ennius), but that gives no hint of personal relations between the two men, even if this prologue is really Plautine. 1 One thing the allusion does p r o v e ; by the time this prologue was written Ennius's fame was s e c u r e : the spectators know whose play is meant, though the author is not named. Vahlen believes that he detects certain similarities in language between Plautus and Ennius (xxi, bottom) 2 . 1

O n this point V a h l e n has no doubts (cf. x x i : " P l a u t i n u m enim h u n c pro-

logum esse non est quod d u b i t e t u r " ) ; P l a u t i n e scholars, h o w e v e r , h a v e h e l d on v a r i o u s g r o u n d s

doubts

of its authenticity, at least in p a r t : cf. e. g . ,

P a l m e r , A m p h i t r u o , pp. 1 2 7 - 1 2 8 (by i m p l i c a t i o n , in w h a t is said a b o u t seats in the theater), M o r r i s on C a p t i v i 68, p. 8, a n d in particular P a r e r g a 2 x 9 - 2 2 0 , 225.

fixed

Ritschl,

I f e e l sorry to b e o b l i g e d to record that V a h l e n ' s pro-

nouncements on moot matters outside of problems c o n n e c t e d w i t h E n n i u s are more than once m e r e o b i t e r dicta, b e s e t b y the f a t a l i t y w h i c h so often o v e r w h e l m s the obiter dicta of the b e n c h .

S e e b e l o w , p. 2 3 , n. 2.

S t i l l more

s t r i k i n g is the w a y in w h i c h in two lines (ccxiv) he disposes of the d r a m a t i c S a t u r a ; see m y c o m m e n t s in A . J . P. X X I X 468-469. 2

V a h l e n adds ; " nec dubito quin aliorum d i l i g e n t i a plura i n v e n t u r a sit, s e d

ne ea quidem est q u o d a l t e r a m s u m p s i s s e ab altero quam utrumque ex comm u n i sermonis usu p r o m p s i s s e m a l i m u s " .

C e r t a i n l y the s i m i l a r i t i e s noted

by V a h l e n h i m s e l f are, as he a d m i t s , without s i g n i f i c a n c e . I hope that an i n v e s t i g a t i o n w h i c h I h a v e on hand at present, i n v o l v i n g a search for R e f e r e n c e s to P a i n t i n g a n d L i t e r a t u r e in Plautus and T e r e n c e , w i l l throw brighter light on this subject.

F o r the present I content m y s e l f with

a s k i n g the r e a d e r to compare that most b r i l l i a n t of a l l the parodies in P l a u t u s , B a c c h i d e s 9 2 5 - 9 7 8 , with E n n i u s S e e n . 92 f f . ; e s p e c i a l l y let him put P l a u t u s 933 O T r o i a , o p a t r i a , o P e r g a m u m , o P r i a m e periisti s e n e x side b y side with E n n i u s 92 f f . : O pater, o patria, o P r i a m i d o m u s , etc. M y i n v e s t i g a t i o n w i l l show c l e a r l y , temporary a n d e a r l i e r t r a g e d y w e l l , he c a n h a r d l y h a v e l e f t E n n i u s , the out of h i s k e n . S e e P r o c e e d i n g s of

I c a n see a l r e a d y , that P l a u t u s k n e w cona n d that he girds at it from time to time ; most s u c c e s s f u l w r i t e r of t r a g e d y thus f a r , the A m e r i c a n P h i l o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n 4 1 .

VAHLEN'S

ENNIUS.

17

Caecilius and Ennius were intimates (xvii, xviii). Pacuvius, says Vahlen (xxii-xxiii), for many years "picturam e x e r c u i t " ; he waspersenex when he began to compose tragedies. Having cited the well-known verses, P a c v i discipulus dicor, porro is fuit E n n i , E n n i u s Musarum, P o m p i l i u s clueor,

Vahlen writes thus (xxiv): " Sed is qui se Pacuvii (Pacvi) discipulum dicit, si Pacuvium Ennii discipulum voluit ea mente qua Ennium Musarum, non est profecto quod Pacuvium vivo Ennio et eo docente tragicam artem didicisse statuamus". This, I confess, I do not understand. He notes further that in later days Pacuvius was believed to have outshone Ennius, " nec solum in tragoedia ". H e proceeds immediately to cite allusions to Pacuvius's Saturae; the juxtaposition seems to imply that he would have us feel that Pacuvius surpassed Ennius in this field too. But the references cited by him surely give no color at all to such a view. Nor is the view favored by the fact that Pacuvius's Saturae have completely disappeared. Of writers who were not Ennius's contemporaries Terence is the first to mention him ; in Andria 18 ff. he names Ennius as one of those whose use of contaminatio justified his own practice in that regard. T h e circumstances under which Terence wrote this passage preclude the possibility of doubting his testimony. Yet, Vahlen maintains (xxiv), in the extant fragments of Ennius there is no hint of contaminatio. T h e claim made by some that there are traces of contamination in the Iphigenia Vahlen refuses to admit. 1 It is seldom that Terence seems to have Ennius in mind, says note that, in spite of T e r e n c e ' s own admission that he c o n t a m i n a t e d , modern scholarship has failed to a d d e v i d e n c e s of this process from his complete plays.

T h i s , let me remark in passing, is the finest possible tribute

to his c o n s u m m a t e art. in E n n i u s ' s fragments

T h e a b s e n c e of a n y real e v i d e n c e of contamination

was to be e x p e c t e d , in v i e w of the nature of the frag-

ments, the mode of their preservation, and the fact that they w e r e cited by a n c i e n t writers c o m m o n l y to prove isolated points, not to throw general l i g h t on E n n i u s ' s w r i t i n g s in the large. to warn us how hesitant w e should

T h e w h o l e m a t t e r may serve once again be to m a k e general

declarations

c e r n i n g a writer on the basis of f r a g m e n t s only of his w o r k . p. 8 , n . I .

2

con-

See above,

l8

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

Vahlen. He asks us, however, to compare Syrus's words in Adelphoe 386 ff. istuc est s a p e r e , non quod ante pedes modost v i d e r e , s e d etiam i l i a quae f u t u r a sunt prospicere,

with a verse in the Iphigenia (Seen. 244): Quod est ante p e d e s n e m o spectat, caeli s c r u t a n t u r p l a g a s .

He notes that Donatus ad loc. declares that hoc sumpsit poeta de illo in physicum pervulgato ancillae dicto, and then cites the Ennius verse. I would suggest that perhaps rather both authors are drawing on a proverbial expression, similar in spirit to the parable of the mote and the beam. Again, in Eunuchus 590 A t quem d e u m ! qui t e m p l a c a e l i summa sonitu c o n c u t i l !

Donatus saw parodia de Ennio ; in Seen. 380 we have qui t e m p l a c a e l i s u m m a sonitu concutit.

In his Praefatio xxiv Vahlen thinks that "Terentius . . . hunc versum ita affert . . . ut se uti alieno versu indicare videatur " (something I myself quite fail to see); in the testimonium to Ennius's verse, however (p. 192), he says " Ennii versus fueritne talis qualem Terentius posuit dubium reddit Donati adnotatio ". But it was natural for poet after poet to refer to Jupiter's thunder, and it would have been difficult to make the references much unlike. Finally, says our author, Phormio 339-340 is surely an imitation of the six verses which he has included, though very doubtfully, in the fragments of the Saturae (Book 6, vss. 1 4 - 1 9 ) . 1 Vahlen writes next of Vargunteius's efforts to make Ennius's Annales better known by reading them publicly certis diebus, and then quotes (xxvi) Fronto's statement that L . Caelius Antipater < E n n i u m > aemulatus est. From this he infers ( 1 ) that Caelius read Ennius diligently, and (2) that since Cicero declares (De L e g g . 1. 6, De Orat. 2. 54) that Caelius paid some heed to ' T h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e f e r r e d to a b o v e , on p a g e 1 6 , n. 2, has a l r e a d y shown c l e a r l y that T e r e n c e offers f a r less m a t e r i a l in that c o n n e c t i o n than P l a u t u s ; w e m a y f e e l certain that his c o n s u m m a t e sense of art p r e v e n t e d him f r o m i n t r o d u c i n g m a t t e r w h i c h might s e e m e x t r a n e o u s . I m a y r e f e r to my observ a t i o n s on the c a r e w i t h w h i c h T e r e n c e confines his g e o g r a p h i c a l r e f e r e n c e s to strictly G r e e k g e o g r a p h y , m a d e in my p a p e r on T r a v e l in A n c i e n t T i m e s as seen in P l a u t u s a n d T e r e n c e , C l a s s i c a l P h i l o l o g y , 2. 5, n. 2.

VAHLEN'S

ENNIUS.

19

style, " in ea re ad Ennii exemplum se composuisse " . Y e t , he argues, we must not read too much into Fronto's utterance; he is thinking primarily of the right choice of words. 1 Hence Vahlen differs from those who, because L i v y used Caelius as one of his authorities for the Hannibalic W a r , whenever they see in L i v y " colore quodam poetico distincta " , ascribe these things at once to Caelius, as imitator Ennii, and feel that in this way they are increasing our store of fragments of Ennius. 2 I must pass over Vahlen's discussion of the relation of Aelius Stilo (xxvii), Lucilius (xxvii ff.), and Lucretius ( x x x ) to Ennius. W e turn rather to two men, contemporaries, who have done most to preserve Ennius's verses, Varro and Cicero. V a r r o couples Ennius and Homer more than once ; he refers to Ennius even in his D e R e Rustica. In his Saturae he cited him, probably, not seldom (xxxi), a significant fact, because V a r r o wished his Saturae to be generally u s e d ; his citation ot Ennius's verses without indication of authorship proves how well and widely Ennius's writings were known. A richer source, however, of verses of Ennius is the D e Lingua Latina, especially Books 5 - 7 , which deal with usus sermonis; even more fruitful is B o o k 8, which sets forth " propria poetarum in significandis locis ac temporibus consuetudo". But helpful as V a r r o is, he has his defects; he does not cite exactly with the name of the work and the number of the book whence the fragment comes ; he writes rather as " homo doctus . . . doctis hominibus ex immensa copia eruditionis semper affluentis" (xxxii). Again, at times at least he is not verbally accurate (we can check some of his citations by appeal to works surviving intact). So, ¡hen, he never names the A n n a l e s ; of course he never ascribes a fragment to a specific book of the Annales. T h e tragedies he does at times name (xxxi, x x x i v ) ; sometimes he cites, not a play, but the name of a character in a play ( x x x v ) . A l l this renders it extremely difficult to assign to their proper places the fragments of Ennius preserved for us by Varro. Cicero ( x x x i x ff.) " singulari favore prosecutus est Ennium, cuius memoria dici non potest quantum debeat Ciceroni". T o ' I n a footnote V a h l e n declares that he f a i l s to find r e s e m b l a n c e s b e t w e e n the f r a g m e n t s of C a e l i u s a n d those of E n n i u s . C f . S k u t s c h , 2 6 1 8 . " V a h l e n d e c l a r e s he w i l l d i s c u s s this point l a t e r w h e n he c o m e s to L i v y . I s h a l l m e r e l y s a y , t h e r e f o r e , here that I a g r e e h e a r t i l y with his p o s i t i o n . See b e l o w , p a g e 24.

20

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

him (and, I may add, to Gellius) we owe the long continuous passages. Again, Cicero's quotations deal mainly with matters and thoughts, not with syllables and forms; thus he indicates the connection, the context of the passages he cites, helping us to get an idea often of the argument, and, in the case of plays, even of the action. Now, says Vahlen, Cicero was an orator heard by many, a writer who desired to be read by many. Hence his citations of Ennius prove that Ennius was a popular poet (his tragedies, we may remember, were still often seen in Cicero's time : xlix) ; he was reminding " h o m i n e s liberaliter instituti" of facts and thoughts perfectly familiar to them from their own reading and from their own witnessing of plays. Turning now to details Vahlen notes that there are not many citations from Ennius in Cicero's Orations. A t once I pause to ask how this fact fits in with Vahlen's contention, just set forth, that Ennius was a well-known, much read and popular poet. There are indeed, as Vahlen reminds us, notable references to Ennius in the Pro Archia ( x x x i x - x l ) . But the Pro Archia, I would ask the reader to remember, was unique; it was addressed, not to the many, but to a small group of iudices, picked men, with a presiding officer whose culture is dwelt upon; yet even to these men Cicero is apologetic throughout with respect to culture and pure literature. W e may recall with profit the fact that Cicero adopts varying tones about certain subjects, according as he talks to the populace in the open air or to the few in the Senate. In Pro Murena 30 he refers to Ennius, without naming h i m ; but here again, I ask the reader to note, he is addressing a j u r y . A g a i n , here, as elsewhere, Cicero converts to his own uses what Ennius had said, " ut appareat quantum Cicero ab auditorum intellegentia exspectaret " (xli). A n examination of the Index Testium on pages 244 if. fails to show any citations by Cicero from Ennius in the Catiline Orations or in the Manilian L a w , orations specifically addressed to the people. W e may surmise, also, that on the whole some citations from the poets in Orations were added in that revision which, as we know, Cicero gave to his speeches before they were published. It would seem to me, then, that so far as citations from Ennius in the Orations go, they prove clearly that Cicero himself knew Ennius well and that in his opinion the sort of men who served as iudices also knew the poet, but they do not prove that Ennius was known to the many .

VAHLEN'S

ENNIUS.

21

O f Cicero's rhetorical writings the D e O r a t o r e — t h e most elaborate of them all, I may note—shows many citations from Ennius, especially in B o o k 3. T h e plan of the work m a k e s these in general short pieces; Cicero takes for granted his reader's k n o w l e d g e of the rest (xlii-xliii). Similar are the citations in the O r a t o r ; there are also here some general judgments of the poet, and a comparison of him with Homer. T h e Brutus gives us important fragmenta Enniana. A l l this rather confirms, I think, what I said above about the absence of citations from Ennius in the Orations; when Cicero is writing elaborately, to the few who have leisure to read as often as they will what he has said, his citations are far more numerous than they are when he is talking to the populace which must take in at a single hearing all that the orator says. 1 T h e philosophical w o r k s give us " i m m e n s a copia . . . testimon i o r u m " (xlviff.). T h e Annales Cicero very seldom names, " quotquot versus citavit qui non possunt nisi in Annalibus locum habuisse ". H e names Ennius, occasionally the character whom the poet had represented as speaking, sometimes verses alone without name of poet or work, " t a m e n non dubius haec recte ab lis quibus vult intelligi". " Poetam appellat, nusquam poema, sed loquitur ut de re nota decerptis admonendi causa paucis particulis versuum ne inter se quidem connexorum " (xlvii). 2 Cicero's philosophical works, without exception, yield fragments of Ennius, but the Tusculans contribute most; in the Tusculans, by the way, he justifies, by contemporary G r e e k usage, the introduction of verses into philosophical discussions. These citations come particularly from the tragedies; for a list of tragedies cited by Cicero see page 1.® Many verses, plainly tragic, are quoted without assignment to definite plays. But, says Vahlen, it was not necessary for him to name the plays " q u a s nemo erat quin de scena cognitas haberet". H e often names 1 N e t t l e s h i p , L e c t u r e s and E s s a y s , S e c o n d Series, 105, 109, has w e l l pointed out how the f a c t that C a e s a r and C i c e r o both were at b o t t o m orators by training, s e e k i n g to convey instantaneously their message to people's ears, accounts for certain characteristics of their style, e. g., the fact that their periods are far less intricate than those of L i v y , w h o wrote for readers. 2 T h e longest surviving f r a g m e n t s of the A n n a l e s w e o w e to D e D i v i n a t i o n e 1 ; both are cited merely as apud Ennium. 3Holden,

in his note on C i c e r o D e Officiis I. 1 1 4 (1. 15), had g i v e n a good

list of t r a g e d i e s of E n n i u s cited by Cicero.

22

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

rather the character whose words he is quoting. A g a i n , he does not always quote the exact words (1, liii). 1 In Cicero's Epistles there is little of Ennius, though he is once named, " sed quae sunt aperiunt quam familiaris fuerit Ciceroni 1 P a g e s x l v i i i - x l i x b r i n g up a matter w h i c h has l o n g interested m e . Two p a s s a g e s are cited there, one f r o m D e F i n i b u s I . 4, the other f r o m A c a d é m i c a I . 1 0 , in w h i c h C i c e r o e x p r e s s e s s o m e w h a t d i f f e r e n t ideas c o n c e r n i n g the w a y in w h i c h E n n i u s , P a c u v i u s and A c c i u s r e n d e r e d their G r e e k o r i g i n a l s . In the f o r m e r he i m p l i e s that they wrote f a b e l l a s ad v e r b u m e G r a e c i s e x p r e s s a s , in the latter he s a y s they non v e r b a sed v i m G r a e c o r u m e x p r e s s e r u n t p o e t a r u m .

V a h l e n does not discuss these p a s s a g e s . I cannot r e f r a i n from setting forth my own opinion that a comparison of the f r a g m e n t s of E n n i u s , at least, with their G r e e k o r i g i n a l s , w i l l show that C i c e r o ' s words in the A c a d é m i c a are much n e a r e r the truth. T h e m a t t e r is no mere a c a d e m i c question ; a m a n ' s attitude t o w a r d it m a y a f f e c t d e e p l y his v i e w of certain very i m p o r t a n t questions. F o r e x a m p l e , P r o f e s s o r M . L . E a r l e , in an article entitled S t u d i e s in S o p h o c l e s ' s T r a c h i n i a n s ( T r a n s a c t i o n s of the A m e r i c a n P h i l o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , 3 3 . 2 1 - 2 9 ) , c o n s i d e r e d at length C i c e r o ' s translation in T u s c . 2. 2 0 - 2 2 of S o p h o c l e s ' s T r a c h i n i a n s 1 0 4 6 - 1 1 0 2 . P r o f e s s o r E a r l e throughout tacitly a s s u m e s that C i c e r o was s e e k i n g to translate as l i t e r a l l y as possible (as litera l l y as h i s k n o w l e d g e of G r e e k m a d e p o s s i b l e ) , a n d so sought to d e t e r m i n e the p r o b a b l e G r e e k o r i g i n a l of C i c e r o ' s r e n d e r i n g a n d c o m p a r e d or contrasted the r e a d i n g s thus i n f e r r e d with the textus receptus of S o p h o c l e s . T h i s p r o c e d u r e w a s , to my m i n d , quite u n j u s t i f i a b l e . T h e theory that C i c e r o w a s tryi n g to translate as c l o s e l y as p o s s i b l e is not the only c o n c e i v a b l e e x p l a n a t i o n of the d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n the L a t i n v e r s i o n a n d the G r e e k o r i g i n a l ; those d i f f e r e n c e s can b e e x p l a i n e d p e r f e c t l y w e l l on a n o t h e r theory, to wit, that C i c e r o w a s , in the l a n g u a g e of the A c a d é m i c a , s e e k i n g to express non v e r b a s e d v i s S o p h o c l i s . T h e latter theory, in itself more n a t u r a l , is m a d e f a r more p r o b a b l e w h e n w e r e c a l l , w h a t P r o f e s s o r E a r l e does not note at all as a f a c t o r in the p r o b l e m , that C i c e r o w a s t r a n s l a t i n g i a m b i c trimeters in one l a n g u a g e into i a m b i c s e n a r i i in another quite different l a n g u a g e . N o one w o u l d h o l d P r o f e s s o r E a r l e ' s attitude in c o n n e c t i o n with an E n g l i s h h e x a m e t e r translat i o n , s a y , of the A e n e i d . I am m y s e l f thoroughly c o n v i n c e d that the A c a d é m i c a p a s s a g e g i v e s the truth,; in D e F i n i b u s , 1. c., C i c e r o h e l d a b r i e f , with h i m s e l f as c l i e n t , b e s e t b y a c h a r g e to w h i c h he w a s a l w a y s e x t r e m e l y sensitive (see D r . R e i d ' s a d m i r a b l e discussion of C i c e r o a s M a n of L e t t e r s a n d S t u d e n t of P h i l o s o p h y , in his l a r g e r edition of the A c a d é m i c a , p a g e s 1 - 1 0 ) . I n the case of E n n i u s , to a p p l y to our g e n e r a l subject the f o r e g o i n g r e m a r k s , there is c l e a r proof that, though he often enough misunderstood the G r e e k (but h a v e not f a r more l e a r n e d G r e e k scholars since his d a y , with f a r b e t t e r s u b s i d i a at their c o m m a n d , done this?), he o f t e n d e p a r t e d d e l i b e r a t e l y f r o m his o r i g i n a l s . I cite at present but one a u t h o r i t y — a disinterested o n e — o n this p o i n t ; see M a c k a i l ' s r e m a r k s in his L a t i n L i t e r a t u r e , p . 8, on E n n i u s ' s I p h i g e n i a at A u l i s .

VAHLEN'S

ENNIUS.

23

Ennii poesis et quam non ignota iis ad quos scribit. Utitur enim Ennianis ut suae orationi leporis aliquid et facetiarum impertiat, quod placere possit iis quibuscum c o m m u n i c a t " (liv). I note once again, however, that Cicero's correspondents were, in general, men who stood out from the common throng. W e have come by this time to the A u g u s t a n A g e (lvff.). In the last half century B. C. Ennius was less highly esteemed than he had been by Cicero. Still, A u g u s t u s , in a letter to Tiberius ( S u e t . T i b . 2 1 ; see Vahlen lvi), applied to Tiberius, in slightly modified form, a famous verse of Ennius, writing: U n u s homo nobis v i g i l a n d o restituit rem. 1

V e r g i l was deeply indebted to Ennius, if Macrobius and S e r vius are to be believed (see below, pages 3 2 - 3 4 ) . H o r a c e ' s pronouncements on Ennius vary ; in at least one place, h o w e v e r ( S e r m . 1 . 4 . 60 ff.), he s p e a k s of him with marked respect.® Occasionally, s a y s V a h l e n , we can see traces of Ennius's verses in Horace. Still, of infelicities in Ennius H o r a c e s p e a k s in S e r m . 1. 10. 57 f f 3 . In H o r a c e ' s time the battle between the advocates of the older and those of the newer literature was o n 1 ; the extravagant praise bestowed by some on Ennius Horace vigorously opposed in E p p . 2. 1. 50 ff. But this v e r y p a s s a g e and A r s Poetica 258 testify to Ennius's v o g u e ; the latter also proves that Ennius's tragedies were still seen on the stage. On page lx there is a brief treatment of Ovid's attitude toward E n n i u s ; though he criticises the older poet as lacking in art, he none the less testifies to his vogue. T h e n , in a v e r y interesting 1 S k u t s c h , 2 6 1 6 , e m p h a s i z i n g the e x t e n t to w h i c h V e r g i l i m i t a t e d E n n i u s , holds that p r e c i s e l y this f a c t , in v i e w of the success of the A e n e i d , " am m e i s t e n dazu b e i g e t r a g e n hat, dass die N a c h f o l g e n d e n e., the literary artists of the l a t e r t i m e > m e h r und mehr G e s c h m a c k u n d I n t e r e s s e an E . verloren ". 2 V a h l e n cites also C a r m . 4. 8. 1 7 - 2 0 , as e v i d e n c e of H o r a c e ' s respect f o r E n n i u s . N e i t h e r here nor on p a g e x i i , w h e r e he h a d a l r e a d y cited these v e r s e s , does he g i v e any hint that h e questions the authenticity of this O d e i n w h o l e or in p a r t . S e e a b o v e , p . 1 6 , n. 1 .

" A n i m a d v e r s i o n upon E n n i u s ' s i n f e l i c i t i e s a n d reproduction of some of h i s p h r a s e s or verses are of course not i n c o m p a t i b l e . I f w e n e e d proof on this p o i n t , w e m a y r e c a l l that, spite of h i s w o r d s in S e r m . 1 . 1 0 . 1 6 - 1 9 , H o r a c e d i d r e p r o d u c e bits of C a t u l l u s . 4 S e e a l s o m y p a p e r on A r c h a i s m in A u l u s G e l l i u s , in C l a s s i c a l S t u d i e s in H o n o u r of H e n r y D r i s l e r , 1 3 5 .

24

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

part of the Praefatio (lxiff.), Vahlen considers the relation of L i v y to Ennius. Interwoven with this discussion is a further treatment of Ovid's relation to our poet. T h e s e themes Vahlen interlaces " ob necessitatem quam ambo (i. e. L i v y and O v i d ) cum Ennio habuisse creduntur ". L i v y 1 mentions Ennius but twice. In 38. 56. 4 he refers to the statue in Scipionum monumento said to have been that of the poet. In 30. 26. 9, in relating the death of Q. Fabius Maximus, he says of him, nihil certius est quam unum hominem nobis cunctando rem restituisse, sicut Ennius ait. A s Vahlen notes, the well-known verse L i v y need not have derived directly from the Annales, particularly since " eum solutis numeris affert ". Verses of Ennius L i v y does at times adapt to his own purposes. But Vahlen refuses to follow those who see (as H u g saw) whole verses transplanted bodily b y L i v y into his own work. L i v y knew too well, says Vahlen, the dicta of the rhetoricians— e. g. Cicero—against the presence of complete verses in prose writings.® Nor will Vahlen accept Ehwald's view that " vestigia quaedam non solum orationis sed etiam metrorum Ennianorum " are to be discovered in L i v y . Ehwald compared certain verses in Ovid de excessu Romuli with utterances of L i v y on the same theme, found them, he maintained, alike, and concluded that the likeness meant that both authors had imitated Ennius (lxii). B y another path scholars have sought to find vestigia Enniana in L i v y , ascribing to Ennius's influence " q u a e numerosi quid habent aut colore poetico distincta s u n t " . Caelius Antipater, according to Cicero, had paid some heed to style (see above, p a g e 18); hence these critics have held that passages in L i v y that are rhythmical or poetic in coloring come ultimately from Ennius, not directly, but through Caelius. Indeed, cries Vahlen, to hear these critics talk, one would almost fancy that Caelius had written of the Hannibalic W a r in v e r s e ! (Ixiii). N o w , if L i v y did not use Caelius as his sole authority—and we know he did n o t — w h y should we ascribe to Caelius alone " quaecumque numerosi quid habere viderentur in his libris Livianis" ? i S e e Skutsch, 2618. 2 Y e t there are verses and parts of verses in L i v y , verses consciously m a d e or unconsciously allowed b y h i m , a t h i n g worse than an intentional quotation or unconscious r e m i n i s c e n c e .

VAHLEN'S

ENNI US.

25

All this leads Vahlen naturally to consider (lxiv) certain views put forth by Wolfflin (Rh. Mus. 50 (1895). x 5 2 ) anc * the latter's pupil, Mr. S. G. Stacey (Archiv 10. 17 if.). Wolfflin, he says, " non sanae cupiditati versus Ennii ex Livio recuperandi sua auctoritate novum fervorem addidit" ; struck by the non-prose word-order in Livy 9. 41. 18 et sicubi est certamen, scutis magis quam gladiis geritur res, and remembering that Ennius had written p e l l i t u r e m e d i o s a p i e n t i a , vi g e r i t u r res,

he concluded that Livy had derived a fragment of a hexameter {geritiir res) from Ennius. To this Vahlen objects as follows: (1) if we pronounce rightly (geritur re's), we have no dactylic swing at all; (2) there are many parallels in Livy to the word-order which caught Wolfflin's eye; indeed, the postposition of res is a Livian fad. Wolfflin's view was adopted and expanded by his pupil, Mr. Stacey (lxiv). In his doctoral dissertation Mr. Stacey laid stress on the " Livianae orationis poeticus c o l o r " ; finding a certain mode of expression both in Livy and in the fragments of Ennius, or in Livy and in some of the other poets, especially Vergil (imitator Ennianus), he held that these modes of expression were originated by Ennius. Such argument, says Vahlen, is fallacious. W e need first of all, he continues, to compare Livy with Livy himself, with the utmost care and acumen ; only thus shall we be able to determine just what is Livian, just what is foreign to his style (the brief discussion above of the erroneous stress laid by Wolfflin on the occurrence of geritur res as a terminal phrase in Livy will show what Vahlen means here). Again, to infer from two known facts a third wwknown fact or idea is a procedure which is " seminator . . . multorum inanium et incredibilium " : why, pray, does it follow that, merely because Livy and Vergil have a given expression, both derived it from Ennius? 1 1 1 f e a r that V a h l e n is h e r e not quite j u s t . W o l f f l i n a n d S t a c e y r e m i n d us c a r e f u l l y of V e r g i l ' s i n d e b t e d n e s s to E n n i u s ; this m a k e s their line of study f a r less p a l p a b l y a b s u r d than V a h l e n r e p r e s e n t s it to be. I t h a p p e n s that the y e a r w h i c h saw the p u b l i c a t i o n of the b o o k u n d e r r e v i e w w i t n e s s e d the i s s u a n c e b y the same p u b l i s h e r s of N o r d e n ' s m o n u m e n t a l edition of A e n e i d V I . N o r d e n w a s s t r o n g l y d i s p o s e d to a c c e p t the v i e w s of W o l f f l i n and S t a c e y ; he r e p e a t e d l y m e n t i o n s M r . S t a c e y ' s p a p e r with c o m m e n d a t i o n . In m y r e v i e w of N o r d e n ' s b o o k ( A . J . P . X X V I I 7 1 - 8 3 ) I d i s c u s s e d this w h o l e m a t t e r ( p a g e s 7 6 - 7 7 ) . I w a s at that time not f a m i l i a r with V a h l e n ' s v i e w s ,

26

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

Verrius Flaccus's relation to Ennius is now considered (lxv fF.). He " non exiguam partem Ennii carminibus tribuit ". T o dogmatize here is difficult, since we have to deal now, not with Verrius's work itself, but with epitomes of it made by two men living in widely sundered periods. Yet Vahlen is convinced that Verrius read and excerpted Ennius for himself. T o Festus go back many verses of the Annales and of some tragedies (lxvi). The Annales are cited by books, and always—save once—in the order of the books 1 (cf. e. g., 172. 1 Ennius libro V I . . . et libro X V I ; 194. 14 Ennius in libro II . . . ; item in libro V . . . ; item in libro V I I I . The exception is 220. 25 Ennius libro X V I . . . et in libro VIII). 2 W e may assume, says Vahlen, that Verrius himself had cited the Annales in this way. Further, in Festus the tragedies are cited by their names, after the Annales, but in no settled order. Only twelve or thirteen in all are cited; the total number of quotations is not large. Again, whether he quotes from the Annales or from the plays, Festus usually cites "singulos versus . . . , plenos illos quidem numeris, sed sententia saepe non absoluta " (lxvii) ; fifty times, more or less, he quotes thus from the Annales. Often what he quotes is but a dependent clause. His method of quotation from the tragedies is the same (lxix). Yet, complains Vahlen, rightly, such passages have been repeatedly ' emended ', with consequent misinterpretation.® as outlined above. But a careful consideration of the points at issue had left me decidedly sceptical, on grounds differing from those advanced by Vahlen. Skutsch, 2616, however, is much impressed by Norden's efforts to extract fresh bits of Ennius from Vergil (he does not mention Wolfflin or Stacey). But his enthusiasm here is in large degree nullified (though he does not realize this) by a remark made in 2615, to the effect that certain phrases in Catullus 64 cannot be taken as evidence of Ennian influence on Catullus because such phrases " haben jetzt die romische Poesie so durchsetzt, dass der Ennianische Ursprung vergessen i s t " . These words give pretty clearly the argument in my review of Norden's book referred to in the text above. ' T h i s agrees, I may note, with Nonius Marcellus's usual method of citation ; see my review of Marx's edition of Lucilius, A. J . P. X X I X 478-482, especially 481, and the references there to Lindsay's Nonius Marcellus's Dictionary of Republican Latin. * I t would be easy to suggest that in Festus V I I I is an error for X V I I I . 3 Nonius Marcellus, too, cites in this fashion ; see, e. g., Lindsay's edition of Nonius (1903), I. xxxviii-xxxix, and my review of Norden's Aeneid V I in A . J . P. X X V I I 77.

VAHLEN'S

ENNIUS.

27

Assuming now, as Vahlen does, with good reason, I think, that these modes of citation were copied by Festus from Verrius, we shall see that Verrius's way of citing Ennius was widely different from Cicero's or Varro's ; see above, pages 1 9 - 2 3 . T h e later scholar, we see, was far more exact (more modern, if you will, in his exactness) not merely than the litterateur Cicero, but than the doctissimus Romanorum himself. Paulus Diaconus uses a very different method. He names Ennius often, but nowhere does he give the title of a tragedy or the number of the book from which he is quoting. When he gives verses not found in Festus he often combines with them explanatory glosses (lxxi). In one passage (Praef. to Book 9. 16) Vitruvius speaks reverently of Ennius. Valerius Maximus, Phaedrus, Velleius show no particular knowledge of the poet (lxxii, lxxiii). B y Nero's time Ennius's fame had waned so much that Seneca makes light of him in various places (but then, let us note with Vahlen, he held Cicero in no great esteem), and Persius laughs at him (lxxiii-lxxv). Pliny the Elder gives us some new fragments (lxxvi). Silius Italicus admired Ennius greatly ( l x x v i : see 12. 393 fr.); Statius, too, valued him (lxxvii). But Martial (the apostle of the passing moment, I might call him) naturally held him rather cheap (5. 10. 7, 1 1 . 9 0 . 5). Quintilian's famous judgment of Ennius in 10. x. 88 contains a mixture of " veneratio " and " despicientia " (cf. 1. 8. 8, 10). 1 H e cites verses or parts of verses from the Annales not infrequently ; commonly, however, these are known to us from other sources. Besides, he usually does not name the Annales or even Ennius himself. T h e tragedies he very seldom cites. In one place, however (9. 3. 26), he gives us valuable information concerning the theme of one of Ennius's Saturae ( l x x v i i i - l x x i x ) . After Quintilian's time Ennius's fame steadily diminished. In the age of the Antonines, however, given as it was to archaism, his memory was inevitably revived (Ixxx). In Fronto, Gellius and Apuleius we have many passages of importance from him. In Fronto's letters and those of the Caesars to him Ennius frequently appears (lxxxi-lxxxiii). Gellius shows the greatest 1 Cf. Skutsch, 2 6 1 8 : " Die Verstösse gegen seine Lektüre bei Martial . . . und bei Quintilian . . . sind wohl bessere Zeichen der Zeit als die Imitationen bei Silius und S t a t i u s " .

28

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

reverence for him, and cites him repeatedly, giving important additions to our stock of fragments. 1 Being a painstaking grammarian Gellius, usually, in citing the Annales, gives the b o o k ; at the least he tells us that he is citing from the Annales. T h e tragedies, too, he cites often, and accurately, giving regularly the name of the play involved. Finally, in 2. 29, " D e saturis Ennianis egregie meritus e s t " (lxxxiii-lxxxvi). T h i s last matter Vahlen discusses in detail on pages ccxi-ccxiii, a passage which is, to my mind, in some respects the finest in all this splendid book. Vahlen may well point with pride to the fact that he was the first to see that here w e have in very deed and truth genuine fragments of Ennius (see his first edition, l x x x i x f f . ) . In sections 3 - 1 6 Gellius is giving what seems to be a prose version, ostensibly his own, of a fable of A e s o p about an avicula cassita (cf. the comment in §§ 1 - 2 , 1 7 - 1 9 ) . Then, in § 20, he a d d s : Hunc Aesopi apologum Q. Ennius in satiris scite admodum et venuste versibus quadratis composuit. Quorum duo postremi isti sunt, quos habere cordi et memoriae operae pretium esse hercle puto (then follow two verses in trochaic tetrameters). T h e r e is nothing, then, in the whole chapter that would naturally lead one to suppose that Gellius had Bnnius's verse-translation of the Greek before him in § § 3 - 1 6 ; indeed, all the implications of the chapter lead away from such a conclusion. It would be easy to charge Gellius with disingenuousness; at the least he has stated the facts carelessly, for, as Vahlen noted, fifty years ago, we have in § § 3 - 1 6 not merely " c o l o r quidam antiquitatis ", in the form of archaisms of vocabulary, forms, and syntax, but no small number of parts of trochaic verses can be detected in Gellius's words as they stand, and others can be got by slight transpositions of words. Hence Vahlen concluded in his first edition that " (Gellius) non tarn ex A e s o p o sua convertisse quam Ennii carmen secutus contexuisse sermonem videtur " . Vahlen g a v e examples both of these archaisms and of these verse-parts in his first edition; in the later book he strengthens his case by further citations along these lines. N o w , in 1894, I published in Classical Studies in Honour ot Henry Drisler, 126-171, a paper entitled Archaism in A u l u s Gellius. I was at that time not familiar at all with Vahlen's 1

S e e my discussion of G e l l i u s ' s attitude toward E n n i u s , in C l a s s i c a l Studies

in H o n o u r of H e n r y D r i s l e r (1894), 1 3 2 - 1 3 3 .

VAHLEN'S

29

ENNIUS.

Ennius, and so was quite unaware of what he had said about Gellius 2. 29. But I could not fail to note that there were numerous archaisms in this short chapter. In a footnote I g i v e references to places in my paper in which I discussed archaisms in this chapter. 1 T o this phase of Gellius's words no one could 1

See D r i s l e r Studies, 143-144, s. v. crastini;

s. v.fervit\

159, s. v. necessum\

144, s. v. luci (frimo

166, s. v. nidulari.

temferi

luci);

in § 1 1

146,

should

p r o b a b l y be a d d e d . Some archaisms of syntax occur in the chapter (matters of s y n t a x were not h a n d l e d in the paper to w h i c h I h a v e referred). In § 6 w e have durn . . . iret cibum pullis

quaesitum.

T h e r e seems s o m e

warranty for regarding the use of the first supine with a direct object as in G e l l i u s ' s time an archaism (see Schmalz, 4 page 465; D r a e g e r 2. 857-865, especially

§608).

O t h e r e x a m p l e s , some of them striking, in G e l l i u s are

3. 13. 2 ; 6. 3. 7, 44 (in this chapter G e l l i u s has b e f o r e him, d i r e c t l y or indir e c t l y , a s p e e c h of C a t o C e n s o r ) ; q. 15. 3 ; (10. 6. 2); 10. 19. 3 ; 12. 1 . 2 , 9 ; 14. 6. 1, 5 ; 16. 5. 9 ; 16. 1 1 . 6 ; 18. 5. 3.

F o r e x a m p l e s of the supine w i t h o u t

an o b j e c t in G e l l i u s see 6. 14. 8; 12. 13. 3.

It is to be noted, h o w e v e r , that

R o d o l f F r o b e n i u s , in a dissertation on D i e S y n t a x des E n n i u s ( N o r d l i n g e n , B e c k , 1910), page 67, finds only three examples of this u s a g e (supine w i t h object) in E n n i u s : our passage, and A n n . (272), 348. Schmalz, page

565, § 3 2 5 , holds

that, a f t e r

the classical

causal, a d v e r s a t i v e , and concessive appears e x c l u s i v e l y with till w e come

to C o m m o d i a n u s (so too D r a e g e r 2. 680).

period,

cum

the i n d i c a t i v e

Yet

it is to

me

v e r y difficult to see, n a t u r a l l y , a n y t h i n g but causal f o r c e (assuming that a cum-clause

e v e r has causal force) in G e l l .

2. 29. 1 A e s o p u s . . . sapiens

existimatus est, cum . . . praecepit et c e n s u i t ; 6. 3. 25 dignus . . . laude est cum . . . i n g e n u e ac religiose dicere visus est . . . quod sentiebat et . . .

flexit

et transtulit (in this chapter, w e noted above, G e l l i u s had C a t o C e n s o r b e f o r e him) ; 1 1 . 8. 4 N e tu . . . nimium nugator es cum maluisti culpam deprecari quam

culpa

vacare;

12. 12.

4 aKoivovojj-oi homines

estis

cum

ignoratis.

C o n s i d e r i n g Gellius's d e l i b e r a t e use of archaisms it seems to m e not w o r t h w h i l e to seek to explain a w a y the apparent causal force in these e x a m p l e s (this could be done in 2. 29. i , b u t in the other e x a m p l e s the tense in the main clause m a k e s this difficult indeed). In § 8 w e have these words : Haec ubi ille dixit

et discessit.

Schmalz, p a g e

497, § 2 4 4 , characterizes such sentences w i t h atque as " ausschliesslich plautinisch mit N a c h a h m u n g b e i G e l l i u s " .

C o m p a r e G e l l i u s 17. 20. 4 H a e c v e r b a

ubi lecta sunt atque ibi T a u r u s mihi inquit.

F o r e x a m p l e s in Plautus see

L o d g e , L e x i c o n P l a u t i n u m , s. v. atque 16, p a g e 179. show only atque;

T h e Plautine examples

G e l l i u s has one e x a m p l e each of atque and et.

In § 7 w e h a v e fac amicos eas et roges. V a h l e n ' s note, p a g e 208.

T h e word-order is n o t e w o r t h y : see

T h e nearest parallels are T e r e n c e A d . 917 tu illas

abi et traduce, and Plautus A m . 32 propterea pacem a d v e n i o et ad v o s a d f e r o (but here the text is disputed).

Phrases i n v o l v i n g a form of ire f o l l o w e d b y et

a n d a form of another v e r b occur several

times at least in G e l l i u s , e. g .

2. 29. 1 1 quin potius imus et oramus ; 14. 2 2 3 ; 20. 10. 5.

T h e usage is

30

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

be blind. I saw also clearly enough that in reality throughout this chapter Gellius had had before him Ennius (see page 144, s. v. crastini). But, as said above, it had been reserved for Vahlen to detect in Gellius parts of Ennius's verses, by the simple process of reading Gellius aloud. Without a change of a letter, said Vahlen, we get trochaic rhythm in the following: " et manus iam postulate;1 messim hanc nobis ddiuvent\ statim dicto oboediant; it dies et amici niilli eunt; fiet nunc dubio procul; non metetur neque necessumst hodie uti vos auferam ". B y slight emendations he derived the following: " vos modo hoc advertite\ si quid dicetur denuo ; lit iam, statim properet in que aliiim sese asportet locum, alia ". O n these phrases I desire to make one comment. Vahlen twice holds that the a in statim was long in Ennius. In a footnote to ccxii he refers to his note on Aiac. 1 ( = Seen. 17). T h e r e he cites Nonius 393. 13 statim producta prima syllaba a stando perseveranter et aequaliter significat (quotations follow from Plautus, Terence, Ennius, Afranius). V a h l e n then a d d s : " D e prosodia vocis, non de significatione, Nonius videtur falli: cf. Ritschelius opp. iv, pp. 274 s q q . " But if Nonius was wrong about the prosody, two o f V a h l e n ' s examples cited above cease to be perfect verses or parts of verses. 2 But, under the circumstances, we should not expect throughout perfect verses or parts of verses. I am not quite sure, even after repeated reading o f V a h l e n ' s discussion, whether he regarded his list of verse-parts in our Gellius passage as complete. However, I shall add some others which I seem to have detected: Avicula est parva, nomen est cassita ; f ilium, aduleschitem.; operamque mutudm dent (though here word-accent and ictus less clearly coincide); H&ec ubi ille common in P l a u t u s : see L o d g e , L e x i c o n P l a u t i n u m , under ec(ire), B , 2 (entire), p. 503; also ibid., 3 (entire), pp. 503-504, w h e r e w e have examples of ire f o l l o w e d by atque or que and the forms of another v e r b ; p. 528, under /?, p. 529 under 1

In passing

I w i s h to compare with the E n n i a n - G e l l i a n phrase in § 7,

videsne . . . haec ematuruisse et manus iam postulare, L u c a n 1. 28-29, horrida quod dumis multosque inarata per a n n o s / H e s p e r i a est desuntque manus centibus arvis . . .

pos-

5 O n statim see Palmer on Plaut. A m . 239 ; Mttller, 224. N e i t h e r from the two p l a c e s in Plautus w h e r e the word occurs (Am. 239, 276) nor from T e r e n c e Ph. 790 can it be shown positively that the a is long. L i n d s a y , h o w e v e r , T h e L a t i n L a n g u a g e , page 556, a c c e p t s " O . L a t i n statim ".

VAHLEN'S

EN NI US.

31

dixit et discèssil ; ddminus (inquiunf) misit qui amicos rogét, uh luce oriènte/ véniant et metànt (read qui amicos : defectiv e verses, to be sure, but still the trochaic swing is m a r k e d ) ; màgnam partem céssaiores stint ; quin pótìus imus et cognatos àdfinesque nóstros oramus ; hòc puliipavefàcti matri 7iiintiant ; sine metu ac sine cura sint ; fruménlum nosmeiipsi manibus no'stris eras metémus ; tempus èst cedendi et àbeundi ; {fiet nunc dubioprocul) /quod futurum dixit. All these additional examples are won without alteration of the text. T o Apuleius alone we owe our k n o w l e d g e of the H e d y p h a getica, as well as the distich (Ann. 6 2 - 6 3 ) which gives the names of the twelve g o d s . H e cites also a verse of the T h y e s t e s and words of Iphigenia. It appears, then, that he knew the Annales and the t r a g e d i e s ; indeed, says V a h l e n , we may readily believe that he " suam orationem colore Enniano d i s t i n x i s s e " . A f t e r the time of Gellius and A p u l e i u s Ennius was for a season forgotten, but from the age of Constantine to the end of the reign of Theodosius 1 , an a g e of grammarians and of " artium scriptores " , he is often mentioned, especially by Nonius Mareellus ( l x x x i x f f . ) . Nonius gives us very much from the older writers in general, but " praeter ceteros Ennii carminibus praecipuam et fructuosam operam d e d i t " . F r o m him we derive many new fragments ; usually he cites full verses, " nonnumquam sententias plenius quam opus erat perscribens . . . " H e gives alto, in citing, not merely the poet's name, but the title of the play or the book of the Annales or the Saturae from which he is quoting. S o m e t i m e s he uses a quotation from Ennius under different lemmata ; on the other hand he often fails to employ in his treatment of a given word an Ennius e x a m p l e of whose existence we have k n o w l e d g e now from other sources. T h e long and intricate discussion of these and kindred points is summed up on x c v , with the following results. T o Nonius alone we owe most ot our k n o w l e d g e of the Saturae ; from him alone we gain what we have of the A m b r a c i a and of the comedies Pancratiastes and Cupuncula. H e was ignorant of the E u h e m e r u s and of the H e d y p h a g e t i c a , perhaps also of the Sota. Of the tragedies he does not use the A l e x a n d e r and the Iphigenia ; in general, however, he used the tragedies more than he did the Annales (contrast the practice of F e s t u s : see above, p. 26). H e derived much of his material from the grammarians, particularly Festus and Gellius, perhaps also V a r r ò ; " tamen nihil futilius est ( d e

32

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

Ennio loquor) quam credere velle Nonium ad grammaticos et huius generis scriptores potissimum excerpendos se dedisse. Qui si hoc volebat, de Ennii Alexandro et Iphigenia multa discere ex Festo, de Iphigenia multa ex Gellio potuit . . . Quodsi qui tamen affirmare malent Nonium maximam partem glossarum cum exemplis ex nescio quibus glossariis abstulisse, nonne mirum esset, non alios quoque grammaticos sive priores Nonio sive posteriores eosdem fontes adiisse ex iisque hausisse ? Quod quia factum non esse apparet, maneat hoc Nonium Ennii carmina et libros studiose pertractasse, hoc est ad eum modum quem veteres omnino huic rei operam dare consuerunt 'V This discussion and this summary throw interesting light on the much vexed question of Nonius's sources. Nonius's immediate successors give us little of Ennius, however ; Donatus is more fruitful than they (xcvi), but less so than Nonius. Servius again is " unus de locupletissimis de Ennio auctoribus " , though even he passed over much that he might have used from Ennius (cii-ciii) ; further, " ubi Ennius memoratur, non semper primo quo poterat loco, nedum omnibus quibus poterat aut debebat afferri ". In his commentary on the Aeneid, which he wrote first, says Vahlen, he cites many verses note briefly that to some of these questions L i n d s a y , Nonius Marcellus' Dictionary of Republican Latin, returns a different answer. On page 7 (first full paragraph) and repeatedly in the nutes,pages 1 0 fif., he suggests that readers of Nonius, recalling a quotation from an earlier passage in Nonius, entered it later, where, using the same lemma, the lexicographer supplemented his previous treatment of a word. On page 1 0 1 Lindsay agrees with Vahlen in general concerning Nonius's methods of work, holding that " Nonius himself read through the texts or at least the marginal annotations of the t e x t s " . Nevertheless he implies, what he nowhere, so far as I have noticed, specifically says, that Nonius owed his quotations from Ennius rather to glossaries or to otner authors—e. g. Gellius—than to firsthand study of Ennius himself. H e credits Nonius with possessing but a single volume of Ennius, containing the Hectoris L y t r a and the Telephus, in that order, and perhaps other p l a y s ; see pages 8, 1 1 6 . In his text-edition of Nonius, 3. 941-943, he gives a long list of passages quoted by Nonius from Ennius. There is one unfortunate result of all this, in that we have in Nonius no long sequences of citations from Ennius, such as we have from other authors, e. g., Plautus, given in strict accordance with the numerical order of the citations in their original setting (see Lindsay, op. cit., passim, but especially pages 35-36, 88 ff.; see also above, page 26, n. 1). T h e editor of the fragments of Ennius is thus deprived of what might have been a very real help ; see again my review of Marx's Lucilius, A. J . P. X X V I I I 481-482.

VAHLEN'S

ENNIUS.

33

from the A n n a l e s ; once only he names the Annales, once only he a d d s the number of the b o o k ; elsewhere he g i v e s merely the poet's name, using various methods of citation. H e does not cite freely from the p l a y s ; once he names the Iphigenia, but c o m m o n l y he merely attaches the poet's name to his citation. O f most importance, h o w e v e r , in S e r v i u s for our purposes are rather " (quae) q u a e d a m generatim afferunt ad res ab E n n i o compositas pertinentia " (civ). T h i s sentence V a h l e n explains t h u s : " D i c o talia: A e n . I. 20 ' a u d i e r a t ' a l o v e aut a fatis . . . et perite ' a u d i e r a t ' : in Ennio enim inducitur Iuppiter promittens R o m a n i s excidium Carthaginis . . . V e r s u s Ennii non attulit, sed significat quid actum sit apud Ennium in concilio deorum, quaeque ibi Iuppiter promiserit, ea vult Iunonem Vergilianam audivisse . . . ". S o again in his note on A e n . 1. 281 " ne nunc quidem versum Ennii afferre voluit, sed sententiam indicare, quae fortasse pluribus verbis exposita erat. V i d e m u s S e r v i u m attendere si quid est in Ennii annalibus quod convertere ad interpretandam Vergilii compositionem l i c e a t " . " E a q u e omnia quae huius generis sunt unius Servii beneficio nituntur ". M o r e examples of all this follow on c i v - c v . Most of the h e x a m e t e r s cited b y Servius in notes on the A e n e i d as from Ennius are unknown from other s o u r c e s ; many of these, again, come from Daniel's Servius. N o t full verses are cited, but full thoughts, whether these take less or more than one verse. T h o u g h Servius errs at times in his citations of Plautus, T e r e n c e , etc., V a h l e n thinks he is generally right in his quotations from Ennius ( c v - c v i ) . O n p a g e s cvi-cviii V a h l e n discusses in detail certain modes of citation, apparently, from Ennius in the notes on the A e n e i d , which, if not rightly understood, will greatly mislead the student. T h e commentary on the E c l o g u e s gives us just two " fr j s t u l a Enniana ", of two w o r d s each, whose place in Ennius cannot b e determined. T h e notes on the G e o r g i c s are richer in Enniana ; the m o d e of citation, again, from the Annales differs from that used in the commentary on the A e n e i d , for here, t h o u g h s o m e verses are cited merely by Ennius's name, most are referred to a definite b o o k ( c i x - c x ) . Citations from the p l a y s are v e r y rare in this c o m m e n t a r y . O n p a g e s cx—cxiii V a h l e n discusses the Enniana to be tound in the S c h o l i a V e r g i l i a n a (Bernensia and Veronensia) and in the 3

34

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

Commentary on the Eclogues and the Georgics ascribed to M . Valerius Probus. This brings us to Macrobius (cxiii ff.). Once again Ennius is falling into disfavor, for in Sat. i. 4. 17, Servius, about to cite him, says, by way of preface, Ennius, nisi cui videtur inter nostrae aetatis politiores munditias respuendus (cf. 6. 3. 9 ; 6. 9. 9). In the first books of the Saturnalia we have but a few citations from Ennius, widely scattered; " a sexto autem Saturnalium libro totum diika