No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Some Notes on the Text of Seneca's Dialogues
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
1. 4. 9. Fugite delicias, fugite enervantem felicitatem, qua animi permadescunt et, nisi aliquid intervenit quod humanae sortis admoneat, †velut perpetua ebrietate sopitif†.
Although it is possible to produce a tolerable sentence by deleting et after permadescunt, it is generally agreed that a verb is missing in the last clause. Koch suggested <iacent> sopiti, Gertz sopiti <torpenty<, Feldmann sopiuntur, but the excellent clausula suggests that the end of the sentence should not be tampered with. Others rightly insert their supplement after admoneat: manent Hermes, vivunt Schultess, languent Viansino. One would hesitate to add to the growing clutter of suggestions, did not one of Seneca's favourite verbs seem to meet all requirements, namely marcent. Cf. ben. 4. 6. 3 ‘quies in qua putrescis ac marces’; 4. 13. 1 ‘vobis voluptas est… securitatem sopitis simillimam adpetere e t … animi marcentis oblectare torporem’; dial. 1. 3. 10 ‘hunc voluptatibus marcidumet felicitate nimia laborantem’; 9. 2. 6; 10. 2. 2; epist. 74. 1; 89. 18 et al.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1974
References
page 269 note 1 ‘Kritische Studien zu den ldeinerer Schriften des Philosophen Seneca’, Sitzungs. ber. d. Akad. d. Win. in Wien, cxviii. 1 (1889), 28.Google Scholar
page 269 note 2 Ambrosianus C go inf., of the eleventh century. These notes are based on a view of the manuscript tradition which I presented in an earlier article, C.Q. N.s. xviii (1968), 355–72.Google Scholar
page 269 note 3 C.Q. rt.s. xx (1970), 357.Google Scholar
page 270 note 1 M. D. Reeve has argued strongly for the deletion of quod ad aes exit (C.R. N.s. xx [1970], 135). This is part of a wider question, but his argument that this is an unexampled use of exire will not hold water. Indeed, it is such idiomatic Latin that I should be reluctant to assign it to a glossator.Google Scholar
page 270 note 2 Adversaria critica, ii (Copenhagen, 1873), 398.
page 270 note 3 an detrahant was rightly defended by J. D. Duff (L. Annaei Senecae dialogorum libri X, XI, XII [Cambridge, 1915], 123), but with a reference to Cat. 17. 22 ‘ipse qui sit, utrum sit an non sit, id quoque nescit’; this is obviously not a valid parallel.
page 271 note 1 Cic. Leg. I. 25, Tusc. 2. 54.
page 271 note 2 Cf. epist. 74. 45 ‘similia naufragis pati’; dial. 9. 12. 3.
page 271 note 3 Gertz's emendation of senatu similis to senates similis at 9. 5. I should therefore be rejected.
page 271 note 4 Studia critica in L. Annaei Senecae dialogos (Copenhagen, 1874), 114.
page 272 note 1 Deletion had occurred to Schultess, but he preferred to emend inter to nitor, Annaeana studia (Hamburg, 1888), 48.
page 272 note 2 Gnomon, xxxvi (1964), 684–5. aequom salvo is his neat rectification of the much emended aequo maluo of A.Google Scholar
page 272 note 3 T.L.L. vii. i. 1839. 39ff., where this example is listed among the dubia vel falsa. cit aut cir A1: cir C, cur PQ: circi A5 γGoogle Scholar
page 273 note 1 Livy 24. 39. 2, Cic. Phil. II. 30.
page 273 note 2 Cf. epist. 24. 8.
page 274 note 1 ‘Quid porro? nonne nunc quoque, etiam si parum sentitis, turbo quidam animos vestros rotat et involvit, fugientes petentesque eadem et nunc in sublime adlevatos mine in infima adlisos?’
page 274 note 2 Pohlenz, M., N.A.G. iv (1941), 76 (= Kl. Schr. i. 405 f.), who does concede the possibility of some small loss.Google Scholar
page 274 note 3 K. Abel, Bauformen in Senecas Dialogen (Heidelberg, 1967), 173.
page 274 note 4 Such as circumagere (cf. epist. 83. 21, nat. 7. 10. 3).
page 274 note 5 Epist. 48. 6.
page 275 note 1 Recommended by F. Ageno (R.I.G.I. vi [1922], 33), adopted by Waltz and (with the unnecessary incorporation of et from some recentiores) Viansino.
page 275 note 2 Cf. epist. 88. 9, 95. 55, 114. 15, dial. 9. 8. I.
page 275 note 3 Cf. epist. 24. 6, 66. 19, 87. 5, 88. 14.
page 275 note 4 J. D. Duff, op. cit. 282.
page 275 note 5 e.g. epist. 35. 2, 78. 27, 98. II.
page 275 note 6 It is also possible that cepisses or percepisses originally stood after recessisses but then dropped out of the text by homoeoteleuton; in that case tulisses would be a stopgap.