No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Notes on Eugenius of Toledo*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
Eug. carm. 70 (Vollmer)
At the end of line 3, all the extant manuscripts offer -melos. This has been accepted by the editors without discussion. But is it plausible to accept camels in this bucolic landscape?
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1999
Footnotes
*
It is a pleasure to thank Professor James Diggle and Professor Michael D. Reeve for helpful criticisms and comments on this paper. I am also grateful to Dr Stephen Heyworth and Dr Charles Burnett for suggestions which improved the overall presentation.
References
1 Vollmer, F., Fl. Merobaudis reliquiae, Blossii Aemilii Dracontii carmina, Eugenii Toletani episcopi carmina et epistulae, MGH, AA 14 (Berlin, 1905), p. 262.Google Scholar This is the standard edition, from which I take the sigla of manuscripts. The poem is to be found in the more important manuscripts of Eugenius: F, P, R, C, T, and M. It occurs also in Paris, BN lat. 13029, added to the margin of f. 28v together with Eug. 38, a volume from the middle of the ninth century, written in France (it comes from Corbie), containing Smaragdus of Saint-Mihiel's Liber in partibus Donati; Silos, BA fragm. visig 18, dated to the end of the tenth century, which comprises an anthology of Eugenius ( Díaz Y Díaz, M. C., Libros y Librerías en la Rioja altomedieval [Logroño, 1979]Google Scholar). C bears in the margin in figura temesis. It is not implausible that John, to whom this poem is addressed, might be Braulion's brother and bishop of Zaragoza during 619–31 (Ildeph. Tol. uir. 5, ed. Codoñer [Salamanca, 1972]; García Moreno, L. A., Prosopografia del Reino Visigodo de Toledo [Salamanca, 1974]Google Scholar, no. 590). He is probably the same John who is remembered in poem 21 (see below). If this is true, we may infer that this poem was written before 631, probably during Eugenius’ stay in Zaragoza.
2 On tmesis in Latin poetry, see Müller, L., De re metrica (Leipzig, 1894, repr. Hildesheim, 1967), pp. 457ff.Google Scholar (Eugenius' poem is mentioned on p. 458); in medieval poetry, see Norberg, D., Introduction à I'étude de la versification latine médiévale (Stockholm, 1958), pp. 58–9.Google Scholar Tmetic composition was dealt with by Virgil, the Grammarian, epit. 10, ed. G., Polara and L., Caruso (Napoli, 1979), pp. 128–45.Google Scholar The examples provided are always short (two or four verses) and sometimes most extraordinary (for instance, epit. 10.5.3: ‘hostes proponunt, o ciues, da dextras uestro / uersa iure re uice gubernante fato’; 10.5.4: ‘omne uisum ab homine cu delectabile / natura stigante pi ipsi indita, / ex qui non potest tur cupidine carere’; 10.6.1: ‘fortis ensem Aeneas / forti portabat in nu / pelta fidens ma tuta tela uirum uincebat’ (i.e. manu). In another case, the first syllables of each verse produce ‘laudabilis’ (10.5.4).
3 Poems 5 and 7, ed. in Díaz Y Díaz, M. C., Anecdota Wisigothica I (Salamanca, 1958), pp. 89–116.Google Scholar
4 -Julian, Ps., ars gramm., ed. Maestre Yenes, M. A. H. (Toledo, 1973), p. 211.240Google Scholar: ‘Item: “O io uersiculos nexos quia despicis ANNES”pro “Ioannes”’.
5 This is the first reason given by ‘Aeneas’ at the beginning of the chapter ‘De scinderatione fonorum’ (epit. 10.1): ‘Aeneas… “o fili”, inquit, “ob tres causas fona finduntur: prima est ut sagacitatem discentium nostrorum in inquirendis atque inueniendis hiis quae obscura sunt approbemus; secunda est propter decorem aedificationemque eloquentiae; tertia ne mystica quaeque, et quae solis gnaris pandi debent…”.’
6 Aus. epist. 15.36–8 Green: ‘uilla lvcani mox potieris ACO. / Rescisso disces componere nomine uersum;/ Lucili uatis sic imitator eris’. The fact is that, as far as we can see, Lucilius offers very few tmeses, and of a very common type (basically, in compound words); for instance, conque… tubernalem (fr. 1137 Marx), cited by Consentius, G. L., V, p. 391.1–2 K.
7 Porphyrion, ad. Hor. epist. 2.2.93–4, on the division of circumspectemus (ed. A. Holder [Innsbruck, 1894, repr. Hildesheim, 1967]): ‘una pars orationis est diuisa in duos uersus Lucii more et antiquorum’. See Brink, C. O., Epistles. Book II (Cambridge, 1982), p. 321 Google Scholar; Green, R. P. H., The Works of Ausonius (Oxford, 1991), p. 636.Google Scholar
8 Verg. ecl. 7.36 (also georg. 3.62); Calp. Sic. 2.47, 5.38.
9 Verg. ecl. 1.76.
10 Calp. Sic. 2.2; also Verg. georg. 3.287. In late poetry, e.g. Aus. epigr. 80.2 Green; Drac. laud, dei 2.455; Coripp. lust. 4.199. As a noun, it is not uncommon: TLL, s.v. 930.55–65; Verg. Aen. 7.93; Juvenc. 4.266.
11 Sidonius Apollinaris, carm. 4.1 ‘Tityrus ut quondam patulae sub tegmine fagi’; Hosidius Geta, Medea 1.131; Versus ad gratiam domini (AL 719a R); Damasus (?), carm. 2.1 Ferrua: ‘Tityre, tu fido recubans sub tegmine Christi’; Mavortius' Indicium Paridis (AL 10.2 R) ‘forte recensebat numerum sub tegmine fagi’.
12 Lucr. 5.939; Ov. met. 12.328. The noun form (glandifera, ae) is not found elsewhere in poetry, but occurs sometimes in Pliny (see TLL s.v. ‘glandifer’, 2029.17–26).
13 Verg. georg. 1.219; Ov. met. 5.486; fast. 1.693. In late poetry, e.g. Juvenc. 1.377, 2.805; Prud. ham. 218; c. Symm. 2.939; Ven. Fort. carm. 2.9.63. The word occurs also in the biblical texts: Genesis 30.14; Exodus 34.22; Judges 15.1.
14 See, however, Verg. ecl. 10.19 (also georg. 2.520). Porcellus occurs only in Phaedrus and AL 230.2 R.
15 Ven. Fort. Vita S. Radegundis, 51. The topos is found in Calp. Sic. 2.5, 4.168, 5.57; Nemes. 1.87.
16 Word position evokes the poetical tradition. For instance, litore is in a conventional position: cf. Mastandrea, P., De fine versus. Repertorio di clausole ricorrenti nella poesia dattilica latina (Hildesheim/Zürich/New York, 1993), pp. 449–55Google Scholar; on pocula, see ibid., p. 670; on carmine, pp. 103–9.
17 This is the case for the other occurrence of the word in Eugenius: a didactic poem on the ‘voices of the animals’ (41.3 quod bos mugitu fingit blateratque camelus).
18 Professor Reeve reminds me that in the textual tradition of Culex, camelo (-ae) at verse 1 appears as a corruption of camenae in some late manuscripts (Walther, Initia, 17414, from Paris lat. 8027, f. 6; see the edition of E. Giomini [Firenze, 1962], p. 5).
19 Prise. G.L. II, p. 14.19 K.
20 Díaz Y Díaz, M. C., Códices visigóticos en la Monarquia Leonesa (León, 1983), pp. 257–68.Google Scholar
21 Described in Díaz Y Díaz, M. C., Manuscritos visigóticos del sur de la Peninsula. Ensayo de distributión regional (Sevilla, 1995), pp. 130–4.Google Scholar
22 On Ordoño, see Quintana Prieto, A., El obispado de Astorga en el siglo XI (Astorga, 1977), pp. 255–341.Google Scholar
23 See Díaz, Díaz Y (n. 20), pp. 308–9. The prologi were published in id., Archivos Leoneses 8 (1954), 228–34.Google Scholar
24 On León AC 22, see Díaz y Díaz (n. 20), pp. 55–88; id. (n. 21), pp. 69–77. The central part, in which Eugenius' poems are to be found (they occur on f. 30v-32v), was produced in Córdoba around a.d. 820–35; at the end of the ninth century it was moved to León by a certain ‘Samuel’, and at the beginning of the tenth century it was already in the monastery of Abellar, where it remained until the beginning of the twelfth century, when it was moved to the Cathedral of León.
25 Díaz y Díaz (n. 3), pp. 117–22 (a study published before the rediscovery of the stone); also id. (n. 20), p. 267, n. 32. I am deeply grateful to Professor Díaz y Díaz for having shared his notes with me.
26 The lower left part of the stone, corresponding to lines 10–14 of Ordoño's epitaph, is a little damaged, but apparently this did not affect the text of the inscription.
27 Considering the number of missing letters and the text in the manuscripts, it is very likely that there was something like Or<donius doctrina> pollens.
28 Possibly, Flórez's text derives not directly from the inscription itself, but from a late sixteenth- or early seventeenth-century copy in vellum which was on a wall of the church of St Martha (see Quintana Prieto [n. 22], pp. 325–6).
29 I may add that the number of letters erased by the lower hole at the right margin of the epigraphic text corresponds precisely to the number of letters given in the text of the manuscript. For the upper hole, it is difficult to make an accurate calculation since the words are not written horizontally.
30 See also Paul. Nola, carm. 18.456–7 ‘dempsisti causam lacrimarum, tolle modo orta/ uulnera de lacrimis’.
31 Another possible explanation is that the agent wrote nonqvvm, misreading the Visigothic a; and when he realized his mistake, an a was added to the first u. This, however, seems more unlikely because of the height of the ‘VV’. Probably the second ‘V’ was not erased since that would totally destroy the layout he had so carefully arranged. One should note that in line 4, the engraver added in the left margin intulit, which had been forgotten.
32 For dando in poetry, see Ven. Fort. carm. 3.9.60, 3.14.20, 7.14.25, 8.3.298, 8.12.8. In the context of ‘richness’, see Ov. trist. 5.14.11: non ego diuitias dando tibi plwa dedissem; Pont. 2.8.7: non mihi diuitias dando maiora dedisses; Commod. instr. 2.14.24: in dando diuitias uestras ostendite totas.
33 Sen. Phoen. 297: breuiter ut dicam; Mart. 12.22.2.
34 See also Prud. perist. 10.545; Ven. Fort. carm. 8.5.3,9.11.6.
35 On this issue, see Heyworth, S. J., ‘Dividing poems’, in O., Pecere and Reeve, M. D. (edd.), Formative Stages of Classical Traditions: Latin Texts from Antiquity to the Renaissance (Spoleto, 1995), pp. 117–48.Google Scholar
36 See, for instance, poems 5,13,19, 35, and 101.
37 This polymetric structure reminds us of Paulinus of Nola's carm. 21. The first section in dactylic hexameters is followed by a second in iambic trimeters, after which there is a section in elegiacs and one in dactylic hexameters. The way Paulinus links the sections is not very different from Eugenius. At the end of the first section, we find ‘iamque intertextis elegus succedat iambis/ sit caput herous fundamentumque libello’ (21.103–4); at the beginning of section 4, we have expressions similar to Eugenius’ (21.344; 346): ‘nunc ad te, uenerande parens, aeterne patrone,/ …gratificas uerso referam sermone loquellas’. See also Paul. Nola 10.15–17. Paulinus, was known in Visigothic Spain: Hydatius, chron. Olimp. 301, ed. Burgess, (Oxford, 1993), p. 88 Google Scholar; Isid. orig. 9.2.90–1 ~ Paul. Nola 17.17; 250–2; see Diaz Y Diaz, M. C., ‘La transmisión de los textos antiguos en la Península Ibérica en los siglos VII-XI’, in XXIIa Settimana di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi sull Alto Medioevo (Spoleto, 1975), p. 150 Google Scholar; Messina, N., ‘Le citazioni classiche nelle Etymologiae di Isidore di Siviglia’, Archivos Leoneses 34 (1980), 224.Google Scholar Vollmer suggests a parallel in Eugenius precisely with carm. 21 (compare Eug. 23.5 uirtutum gemmis et morumflore uenusta with Paul. 21.75–6 uirtutum uarias ut uiua monilia gemmasl… gestant), but it seems rather superficial, for it is a conventional association (Prud. psych. 911: uirtutum gemmas; Jer. epist. 64.22.1: gemmis floribusque uirtutum).
38 It should be noted that Vollmer's apparatus is inaccurate. I have added Reims BM 431, f. 168v (Re) datable to the late twelfth century, which derives from a model close to T. B (Bern 36) is omitted as it is a copy of C. In the manuscripts of Eugenius, there is no parallel for a marginal ‘comment’ of this kind.
39 Eugenius is cited sixteen times. Only two quotations are slightly divergent from what we find in the surviving manuscripts: Eug. 13.1 ue mihi ue misero ~ Ps.-Jul., ed. Maestre Yenes, pp. 129.48–9 hei mihi misero; -Jul, Ps.., De partibus orationis, ed. L., Munzi, Ann. 1st. Univ. Or. Napoli 2–3 (1980–1981)Google Scholar, 183.5, quotes Eug. 55.1 in a version divergent from that in M, which is found in Vat. lat. 5330.
40 Ps.-Julian reproduced verbatim the definition and the two examples given by Donatus, ars G.L. IV, p. 396.12 K and supplemented them with three additional examples; the last one is sat, found in Isidore who presents no exemplification (orig. 1.35.3: apocope abscisio define, ut ‘sat’ pro ‘satis’).
41 Sat with the meaning of ‘very’ is found elsewhere in Eugenius: 9.1 ‘incolit hoc templum sat felix turba piorum’ (cf. CLE 1085.4); 89.7. In the case the line should be emended, I am tempted to suggest effingas ut which would produce an acceptable meaning: ‘with the result that you may produce poems inspired by, or worthy of, God…’. Then the corruption would have occurred very early in the textual tradition.
42 Professor Diggle reminds me also of Juv. 3.207 diuina… carmina and Hor. ars 416 mira poemata. Diuina poemata occurs twice in Venantius Fortunatus, an influential poet in Visigothic literature (carm. 2.9.19, 8.3.7).
43 The term rancidulum is used by medieval poets, possibly imitating Eugenius: Albarus of Cordoba, carm. 4.22, ed. J., Gil, Corpus scriptorum muzarabicorum I (Madrid, 1973), p. 346 Google Scholar: ‘sic rancide sanna[s]/ … pangit’; perhaps also Engelmodus, carm. 1.13 (MGH Poetae III, p. 55) ‘nee non rancidulam resones cum pene querelam’ (Engelmodus might echo another line of Eugenius: carm. 1.114 [MGH Poetae III, p. 58] ~ Eug. 97.19).
44 Mart. Cap. nupt. 5.566, verse 8. Eugenius' line was imitated by Albarus of Cordoba (10.29, ed. Gil, I, p. 355).
45 Isid. carm. 10.1. See Beeson, C., Isidor-Studien (Munchen, 1913), p. 161 Google Scholar; Ortega, A., Helmantica 12 (1961), 279.Google Scholar The final line of poem 10 quotes the final line of Persius’ first satire (uers. Isid. 10.10 ~ Pers. 1.134). For a list of quotations of Persius in Isidore's Etymologies, see Messina (n. 37), n. 53. Vollmer suggested another echo in Eugenius, also from satire 1: Eug. 33.17 porrige dulcisonas attentis auribus escas ~ Pers. 1.22 tun, uetule, auriculis alienis colligis escas.
46 Ps.-Eug. 27 ~ Pers. 4.23–4; Ps.-Eug. 28 ~ Pers. 4.13.
47 Díaz y Díaz (n. 37), pp. 136–42; Fontaine, J., Isidore de Séville et la culture classique dans I'Espagne Wisigotique II (Paris, 1983), pp. 742–62.Google Scholar The grammatical examples from Persius found in Ps.-Julian's ars come from Isidore's Etymologies: Pers. 3.11 in Ps.-Jul., ed. Maestre Yenes, p. 205.76, derives from orig. 1.37.7 (also found in ‘Isidorus Iunior’, ed. U., Schindel, Die lateinischen Figurenlehren des 5. bis 7. Jahrhunderts und Donats Vergilkommentar [Göttingen, 1975], p. 223.390Google Scholar); Pers. 3.84 and 5.79–81 in Ps.-Jul., p. 201.145–8, are found in orig. 1.36.17 (the last one is also in ‘Isid. Iunior’, p. 215.225).
48 In this letter addressed to Furia, Jerome uses Pers. 1.32–3 and 35 to caricature nurses. In this way, he tries to comfort Furia, who has recently become a widow, because she will never have children. The fact that Persius' lines are out of context and far from the original sense suggests that, in Jerome's day, they constituted a popular quotation. For Jerome as a source of classical quotations in Spain, see Madoz, J., ‘Fuentes jeronimianas en el epistolario de S. Braulio de Zaragoza’, Gregorianum 20 (1939), 407–22;Google Scholar id., Epistolario de Braulio de Zaragoza (Madrid, 1941), pp. 57ff.; id., ‘Citas e reminiscencias clásicas en los Padres españoles’, Sacris Erudiri 5 (1953), 105–132; Díaz Y Díaz, M. C., De Isidoro al siglo XI. Ocho estudios sobre la vida literaria peninsular (Barcelona, 1976), p. 31.Google Scholar Terrero, L. Riesco suggests that one expression in Braulion might have been modelled on this very same epistle of Jerome (Epistolario de San Braulio [Sevilla, 1975], p. 170 Google Scholar: Braul. epist. 44.83 ~ Jer. epist. 54.18; see also Jer. epist. 3.6).
49 Albarus of Cordoba quotes Pers. 1.33 and 35 in a dispute on religious subjects (ed. Gil, I, p. 257): ‘Set dicis: numquid tu maiores domos Ihesu tuo facis quam illi diis suis fecerunt, quum minus ex his ita sue delubris defleat causa: Ei mici, iam uideo subitis lapsura ruinisl condita fana diu templi quoque nobilis edem? Pro quod nos ista subiungimus: Rancidolum quiddam ualba de nare locutusl prestrepis ac tenero supplantas uerba palato’. The citation derives perhaps from Jerome, a very influential model in Albarus' epistles (cf. Madoz, J., ‘Fuentes jeronimianas en el Epistolario de Albaro de Cordoba’, RET 4 [1944], 211–27Google Scholar [the problem I present here is not considered]).
50 C. Ioh. 4 (‘rugata fronte et obliquis oculis despicis?’: cf. Eugenius' first verse ‘obliquo memet uisu qui figis, ocelle?'); in psalm. 2.17; in Zach. 2.7; in Eph. 2.525; ad Tit. col. 601, 1; epist. 117.9, 125.18. As a sign of great inner pain motivating repentance, it is to be found, in the same metrical position, in a poem popular in Visigothic authors and possibly well known to Eugenius: Verecundus, satisfact. 4: ‘pectore conpuncto, rugata fronte rigare?’ (with commentary by M. G. Bianco [Napoli, 1984], pp. 86–7).