In this article, I propose to examine some passages of the Bellum ciuile for which the examination of evidence from the indirect tradition and, particularly, of quotations from Lucan can enrich the discussion about establishing the text of the poem and can sometimes lead us to adopt a different text from that of the edition by D.R. Shackleton Bailey.Footnote 1
As a foreword, it is necessary to clarify a few points of methodology specific to working with indirect tradition and quotations. First, philologists approach the materials of the indirect tradition in different ways. G. Pascucci considers that ‘la tradizione indiretta appare, in generale, meno affidabile di quella diretta’,Footnote 2 while R.J. Tarrant refers to it as ‘a form of evidence that is important for editing classical texts’.Footnote 3 P. Chiesa defends an intermediate point of view, when he writes that both the indirect and the direct traditions must be used with great caution.Footnote 4 These statements reveal how necessary it is for an editor to take into account the indirect tradition, as I propose to do in order to establish Lucan's text. However, we do need to consider the methodological implications of using quotations with regard to the textual variants they can convey.
The main aspect we have to take into account when studying new readings in quotations is related to the autonomy of the quotations. The quoted passages are, in fact, separated from their context, and this has consequences for the variant readings they contain. The fact that the quotations have been isolated from their original text sometimes leads to the appearance of new readings that are obviously wrong when they are reinserted into Lucan's text. Lactantius Placidus’ commentary on Statius’ Thebaid provides excellent illustrations of such a phenomenon:
Lactant. Plac. Theb. 1.479–80: VENTIS VT DECERTATA RESIDVNT AEQVORA parenthesis per similitudinem. Lucanus: ‘sed ut timidus Boreas post flamina uentus rauca gemit’.
‘WHEN THE SEA OVER WHICH THE WINDS HAVE FOUGHT CALMS DOWN’ a parenthesis for comparison. Lucan: ‘but as the timid wind Boreas moans after raucous breaths’.
In this example, the quotation from Luc. 5.217–18 contains three variant readings: timidus/tumidus, Boreae/Boreas and uentus/pontus. On the one hand, there is little doubt that the text quoted by Lactantius Placidus is faulty. Boreas is never referred to as timidus in extant Latin literature. The nominative phrase Boreas … uentus creates an unusual disjunction,Footnote 5 and the syntax of the sentence is slightly flawed since post should refer to an external action that causes moaning, which is not the case with the new readings in the quotation. On the other hand, the qualities of the traditional text are obvious. The evocation of a sea swollen (tumidus … pontus) by the wind is common,Footnote 6 and the explicit attachment of the name of the wind to the mention of its breath corresponds to the expected syntax of the sentence. Finally, it is easier to explain the appearance of these variant readings by considering that the traditional text is the original text: timidus is a form of trivialization,Footnote 7 which substitutes a common term for a more refined one. Boreas has become a nominative by attraction to the case of the adjective that precedes it. uentus can be considered as a gloss on Boreas that has been inserted in the text instead of pontus. All these reasons make it very likely that the quotation in Lactantius Placidus represents an incorrect state of the text. Even if none of the readings in the quotation improves the traditional text, it should be stressed that the quoted passage displays an internal coherence, which, however, is different from that intended by Lucan. The adjective timidus can be used to describe a moan,Footnote 8 and the action of the moan linked to the wind resonates with the mention of its hoarse breath.Footnote 9 The display of consistency in a quoted passage can also be seen from a metrical point of view elsewhere in Lactantius Placidus’ commentary.Footnote 10 Because quoting consists of extracting a fragment from its context, the latter develops a certain form of autonomy. This autonomy is certainly defined in relation to the host text, since the quotation appears as an exogenous text, but the autonomy also develops in relation to the original text. Because the fragment is isolated within a new context, it can evolve and contain new features which give it a more satisfactory internal logic (semantic, syntactical or metrical). For this reason, particular care should be taken when studying the variant readings present in the quotations from Lucan. Studying the initial context of the quotation as well as the context of the host text makes it possible to identify the potential influence of the latter on the fragment and to avoid considering a new element that comes from the manuscript tradition of the quoting author as a traditional element of the Bellum ciuile.
To complete our presentation of the characteristics to be taken into account in a study of the new features attested in the indirect tradition of the Bellum ciuile, we wish to present a specific case-study which Servius gives us as an example when he quotes Luc. 9.11–12 in two notes, whose text we will compare with the text of the edition by D.R. Shackleton Bailey:
Serv. Aen. 4.358: MANIFESTO IN LVMINE aut claro: aut in nimbo, cuius maius est lumen. Sic Lucanus ‘postquam se lumine uero impleuit’.
‘IN THE TRUE LIGHT’ or in the bright light: or in a cloud, whose light is stronger. Thus Lucan: ‘after he was filled with the true light’.
Serv. Aen. 6.640: LARGIOR HIC CAMPOS AETHER non nostro largior, sed quam est in cetera inferorum parte. aut re uera largior, si lunarem intellegis circulum: nam, ut supra diximus, campi Elysii aut apud inferos sunt, aut in insulis fortunatis, aut in lunari circulo: Lucanus ‘illic postquam se lumine uero induit’.
‘HERE A MORE GENEROUS AETHER … THE PLAINS’ not more generous than ours but than the aether which is in the other part of the underworld. Or else it is really more generous if we identify it with the lunar circle, for, as we have said above, the Elysian Fields are either in the underworld or in the Isles of the Blest or in the lunar circle; Lucan: ‘there, after he was clothed with the true light’
… There, after he filled himself with the true light and after he gazed at the wandering stars and at the stars fixed to the vault of the heavens, he saw the depth of the night that covered our day …
The text of Lucan quoted by Servius differs in the two notes. In the note on Aen. 4.358, Servius quotes the text with the verb impleuit, which is the most common reading in Servius’ manuscripts.Footnote 11 However, when he comments on Aen. 6.640, Servius uses the verb induit.Footnote 12 Thus, in the first case Servius seems to be quoting a text that conforms to the text of the manuscripts of the Bellum ciuile, in which the most common reading is impleuit,Footnote 13 whereas in the second note a new reading has been integrated in the quotation. How can we interpret this internal disagreement within the Servian comments on Lucan's text? Should we consider that the presence of the traditional reading in one of the two notes indicates that Servius was aware of this reading and that, consequently, the new reading is nothing more than a variant that appeared during the copying of Servius’ commentaries? The manuscript tradition of the two notes suggests that the existence of different verbs at the end of the Lucan quotation is quite old. Since Virgil's commentator does not rely on this verbal form in either note, it is impossible for us to know for sure whether Servius was aware of the former reading rather than of the latter, or even whether it was he who, through a mistake, was the origin of both readings. Such a case, though rare,Footnote 14 has the merit of warning us about the reliability of the variants that can be identified in a quotation.
We therefore propose here a discussion of some passages of the Bellum ciuile where the examination of the indirect tradition offers a new perspective on the traditional text.
1. LUC. 1.607
A variant reading in Luc. 1.607 can be found in the Scholia uestustiora to Juvenal:
Schol. Iuu. 6.587: FVLGVRA CONDIT condi fulgura dicuntur, quotienscumque pontifex dispersos ignes in unum redi<g>it et quadam tacita ignorata prece locum adgestione consecrat. Sic Lucanus ‘et tacito cum murmure condit datque locis nomen’.
‘HE BURIES THE LIGHTNING’ the lightning is said to be buried, whenever the priest gathers scattered fires into one pile and consecrates, through the act of gathering, a place with some silent and unknown prayer. Thus Lucan: ‘and he buries it with a secret whisper and gives the places a name’.
And as they go round the city, which stretches out in long and winding folds, Arruns collects the scattered fires of lightning, buries them underground with an afflicted whisper, and gives the places sanctity.
We will not discuss at length the reading nomen for numen, which is also attested in the manuscript tradition of the Bellum ciuile,Footnote 15 but we will focus on the new reading tacito, which is unique to the indirect tradition. Let us just point out, with regard to nomen, that in Rome there are names for places struck by lightning (puteal or bidental if the place is consecrated by the sacrifice of a sheep), but it is not so much the attribution of the name that is important in Lucan's verses as the associated sacred ritual.Footnote 16 Conversely, there are literary parallels to the attribution of numen to a place as a result of a religious ritual.Footnote 17 The reading numen is, therefore, preferable to the reading found in the scholia to Juvenal.
The matter is more complex with regard to the reading tacito. It appears only in the scholia to Juvenal, whereas the direct tradition of the Bellum ciuile unanimously gives the reading maesto. Note that the new feature tacito is linked to the core of the quotation. The scholiast explains that the prayer which accompanies the burial of the lightning is quadam tacita ignorata prece. This new reading is opposed to the traditional text, which seems to me problematic. P. RocheFootnote 18 defends the textus receptus by arguing that the expression maesto cum murmure is a uariatio around a common sequence in epic poetry, which he illustrates with passages where other adjectives are used with murmur: magno (Verg. Aen. 1.55), uasto (Verg. Aen. 1.245), nullo (Ov. Met. 7.186), rauco (Ov. Met. 7.186), etc. However, this list highlights above all that there is no comparable occurrence of the iunctura given by the manuscripts of the Bellum ciuile.Footnote 19 R. BentleyFootnote 20 suggested correcting the traditional text with the conjecture magno. First, let us point out that the adjective maestus, when related to a noun evoking speech, is used to describe the pain of the speaker.Footnote 21 However, this notion has no place at this stage of the text. Arruns performs the ritual ceremony of conjuring up prodigies linked to the burial of the lightning.Footnote 22 It is only after he has performed a sacrifice that he will realize the failure of this ritual and express his emotion.Footnote 23 Moreover, the term murmur refers here to the prayer the officiant recites to bury the lightning.Footnote 24 In this very particular ritual, ‘the priest is as if mute for the rest of the Romans’.Footnote 25 The adjective tacito is quite appropriate for murmur in this context.Footnote 26 It allows the poet to describe exactly how the prayer could be perceived by the audience. Such precision seems welcome in a passage where Lucan rigorously recalls the different stages of the ritual of atonement.Footnote 27 The adjective tacitus can also be used to refer to a word in a sacred context,Footnote 28 and it then takes on the meaning of ‘concealed, secret’.Footnote 29 Moreover, Lucan uses the word murmur twice more in similar contexts, whether to speak of an indistinct sound (non claro murmure, ‘an indistinct whisper’, 1.352) or to link the noun murmur with the verb tacere (mediusque tacet sine murmure pontus, ‘the middle of the sea stays silent without a whisper’, 1.260). Finally, the appearance of the new reading maesto can be explained by the correction of a scribe who did not understand the phrase tacitum murmur and replaced it with a plainer term, a word that occurs near murmur in Luc. 5.192.Footnote 30 We therefore suggest adopting the variant tacito reported by Juvenal's scholiast.
2. LUC. 3.537
The manuscript tradition of Servius’ commentaries contains a noteworthy variant reading in the quotation of Luc. 3.537:
Serv. Aen. 10.207: CENTENAQVE ARBORE non ait remis, sed arboribus, ad exprimendam nauis magnitudinem, quae plures habuit remorum ordines: unde ait Lucanus ‘et summis longe ferit aequora remis’.
‘WITH A HUNDRED TREES’ he does not say ‘with oars’ but ‘with trees’, to emphasize the size of the boat, which had quite a few rows of oars. This is why Lucan says ‘and it strikes the sea far out with the top end of its oars’.
But the flagship of Brutus, which dominates all of them, is pushed by a set of six rows of oars, it advances its mass out to sea, and reaches far out to sea with the top end of its oars.
All the manuscripts of the Bellum ciuile read petit at 3.537. Servius’ editors, on the contrary, disagree on the text of the quotation. C.E. Murgia prints petit, which appears in MS F alone—a version of Servius auctus split into two manuscriptsFootnote 31—while H. Hagen and G. Thilo choose the variant reading ferit, found in all the witnesses of the Servius text to which the editors refer with the siglum Σ.Footnote 32 For this reason, it seems better to follow, on this point, the text established by H. Hagen and G. Thilo, since it seems closer to the text of Servius. The lexical variant reading in Servius offers an interesting alternative to the traditional reading petit. We should note first that the two readings are metrically equivalent and that we must therefore find other approaches in our attempt to evaluate them. On the one hand, the reading ferit restores a common image in epic poetry, with the notion of blows given to the waves with regard to the course of a ship.Footnote 33 It could be objected that, whenever this image is invoked by a poet, the subject of the verb ferire is always animate, whether it be the socii in Virgil or Jason (dux) in Statius. The example taken from Book 4 of the Bellum ciuile nuances this, since it is the term remigium that serves as the subject of ferit.Footnote 34 This word is, in fact, ambiguous and can designate either an object, the row of oars, or, by metonymy, the oarsmen.Footnote 35 On the other hand, the reading petit produces a rich meaning for the passage. Indeed, the poet wants to emphasize the impressive size of Brutus’ ship, which he has described as celsior at 3.535. The size of the ship is evoked by two elements concerning the oars: not only the number of rowers (uerberibus senis) but also the length of the oars. The latter is indicated by the adjective summis, which implies that only the ends of the oars can touch the water, and by the adverb longe, which explicitly refers to the length of the oars. This adverb, which relates to the verbal action, goes better with petere than with ferire. Both readings thus produce an interesting meaning for Luc. 3.357. However, ferit, which uses a more elaborate and rarer image, could be considered as a form of lectio difficilior compared to petit, which is a minimizing explanation. Moreover, the adverb longe is sufficient to emphasize the considerable size of the flagship, without the need for the verb petit. Finally, the violence evoked by ferit is echoed in the expression excussis … tonsis used by Lucan a few verses later (3.539), concerning the ships taking part in this naval battle. It is, therefore, possible to adopt the reading ferit or, at least, to mention it in the apparatus criticus.
3. LUC. 4.133
Servius quotes Luc. 4.133 as follows:
Serv. Aen. 4.72: NESCIVS aut nescius quod ferierit: aut ignoratus et latens; non qui ceruam nesciret. et rara sunt uerba, quae per contrarium significant: nam cum ‘uector’ sit proprie qui uehit, inuenimus etiam eum uectorem dici qui uehitur, ut Lucanus ‘uectoris patiens tumidum supernatat amnem’.Footnote 36
‘NOT KNOWING’ either not knowing what to strike, or ignored and hiding; and not the kind of person who would not know the hind. And there are very few words which signify both one thing and its opposite. For while uector is properly said of someone who transports, we also find that uector is called a person who is being transported, as Lucan has: ‘capable of carrying a passenger, it floats on the surface of the swollen river’.
And as soon as the Sicoris has taken possession of its banks and abandoned the plains, first, wet and white willow sticks are woven into a small skiff, which, covered with the skin of slaughtered bull and capable of carrying a passenger, springs to the surface of the swollen river.’
Most manuscripts of the Bellum ciuile have the reading superemicat (written either as one or as two words) at 4.133. Only MSS V and A show the correction superenatat, which is also found in the Supplementum adnotationum super Lucanum.Footnote 37 All the witnesses of Servius, on the other hand, give the reading supernatat. This reading is obviously wrong: it has a second-paeon metrical form, which is incompatible with the presence of the long final syllable of tumidum immediately before. It must therefore be considered that the form supernatat, found in Servius, is a deformation of the variant superenatat, which fits perfectly into Lucan's hexameter.
The debate on the passage is not new, and we shall begin by recalling the main choices made by editors and their arguments.Footnote 38 Most recent editors adopt super emicat—this is the case of A.E. Housman, D.R. Shackleton Bailey and G. LuckFootnote 39—or superemicat (R. Badalì followed by P. Esposito). A. Bourgery, on the other hand, prints supereminat, but this is most likely a misprint since there is no indication of the provenance of this reading in the apparatus criticus, which suggests that the printed text is the reading of all the manuscripts. While there seems to be an agreement among editors to support the traditional reading, superenatat—which had been adopted by older editors, such as F. Oudendorp, P. Burman and C.M. FranckenFootnote 40—was defended by N. Hecquet-Noti in the early 2000s. The latter highlights, first, the rarity of the forms superemicat and superenatat in extant literary texts and proposes to base her analysis on the relevance of the meaning in Lucan's epic. In contrast to emicare, which is never used to describe the behaviour of a boat on the water,Footnote 41 enatare seems more precise and has parallel uses to the meaning it would have in our passage.Footnote 42 Above all, the existence of a parallel in Avitus of Vienne,Footnote 43 who was inspired by Lucan, confirms, in the opinion of N. Hecquet-Noti, the superiority of superenatat. N. Hecquet-Noti's reasoning is convincing. The following arguments should be added. First, the variant superenatat, because it more specifically evokes navigation, provides a better counterpart to the comparison which immediately follows the description of the boats made by Caesar's troops and in which the verb nauigat is found.Footnote 44 Finally, P. Asso's rebuttal that superenatat is a neologismFootnote 45 does not constitute a sufficient argument.Footnote 46 One can easily accept this linguistic originality in Lucan's poem, knowing that superenatare is formed in a way that is completely in accordance with usage, as proven by the attested existence, elsewhere, of the verb superemicare.Footnote 47 It, therefore, seems preferable to adopt the reading superenatat, a trace of which can be found in the corrupted form supernatat reported by Servius in a gloss to the Aeneid.Footnote 48
4. LUC. 5.428
Isidore of Seville uses a new reading in Luc. 5.428 when he quotes the text of this verse about the siparum:
Isid. Etym. 19.3.4: siparum genus ueli unum pedem habens, quo iuuari nauigia solent in nauigatione quotiens uis uenti languescit. de quo Lucanus: ‘summaque tendens sipara uelorum perituras colligit auras’; quod ex separatione existimant nominatum.
The siparum (‘topgallant sail’) is a type of sail that is one foot long, by which ships are usually helped to sail whenever the strength of the wind weakens. Lucan says about this: ‘and spreading the high topgallant sails hoisted above the rest of the canopy he gathered the breeze that would have perished’; it is thought that the siparum takes its name from the fact that it creates a separation.
Phoebus was sinking beneath the sea, the first stars of the sky had come out and the moon had already created her own shadows when they cast loose the ships all together, and the ropes loosened all the folds of the sails, and the sailor, at the end of the yards, tilted the sails with the left sheet and, unfurling the high topgallant sails hoisted above the rest of the canopy, he gathered the breeze that would have perished.
Isidore of Seville quotes Luc. 5.428 with the participle tendens, which is absent from the manuscript tradition of the Bellum ciuile. The majority of Lucan's witnesses have the reading pandens, while the first hand of MSS Z and P writes pendens. This last reading, obviously wrong because it produces a unsatisfactory meaning, remains interesting because it could be considered as an intermediate stage between the two readings pandens and tendens, two verbs that are sometimes interchangeable in manuscripts.Footnote 49 The traditional text relies on a common Latin idiom, where pandere receives, as an object complement, a noun referring to a sail,Footnote 50 either to designate in the literal sense this action in a shipFootnote 51 or to express, in the figurative sense, the simple fact of leaving quickly.Footnote 52 The verb tendere also produces a very satisfactory meaning, since it is frequently used to describe sailors’ action on sails, notably in the Bellum ciuile.Footnote 53 If we examine more precisely the verbs used to indicate the action undergone by the siparum, we find that it is never associated with either pandere or tendere. There is, however, a passage in Seneca where the author uses intendere in relation to the siparum.Footnote 54 Similarly, Epictetus writes ἐπαίρεις τοὺς σιφάρους, thus using a turn of phrase which in Latin would be rendered with the verb intendere.Footnote 55 Both Lucan's usage, when referring to sails, and these passages from Seneca and Epictetus argue for the form tendens. The reading transmitted by Isidore of Seville thus deserves editorial consideration.
5. LUC. 7.362
Priscian uses a new reading that is pertinent to the core of the quotation when he quotes Luc. 7.361–2:
Prisc. Inst. 8.40 = Gramm. Lat. 2.476.13–477.9 Hertz: in ‘eo’ i antecedente unum inuenitur, ‘cieo’. unde Virgilius in I: ‘bella cient primaque uetant consistere terra’. idem in VI: ‘aere ciere uiros Martemque accendere cantu’. inuenitur tamen hoc idem etiam in ‘io’ desinens quartae coniugationis. unde Statius in IIII Thebaidos: ‘suus excit in arma antiquam Tiryntha deus’. Lucanus in II: ‘nunc urbes excite feras, date gentibus arma’. Lucretius: ‘aurarum cimus ad ortus’. Liuius in CXVIII: ‘aduersus interfectores Gai Caesaris ultoribus manum conparans concibat’. praeteritum eius tam in ‘ui’ quam in ‘ii’ desinit, ‘ciui’ uel ‘cii’. Lucanus in VII: ‘quantas in proelia numquam conciuere manus’. Vergilius in V: ‘famaque finitimos et clari nomen Acestae excierat’.
There is only one verb ending in eo preceded by i, cieo. Hence, Virgil in Book 1: ‘they stir up war and forbid us to stop on the first land’; the same author in Book 6: ‘agitate men with the trumpet and animate Mars with his song’. However, this same verb is also found with an ending in io, of the fourth conjugation. Hence Statius, in Book 4 of the Thebaid: ‘his god calls to arms ancient Tiryns’. Lucan in Book 2: ‘now arouse wild cities, give weapons to the people’. Lucretius: ‘we incite the birth of the breeze’. Livy in Book 118: ‘he aroused, by getting them together, the troop of avengers against the murderers of Gaius Caesar’. Its perfect tense ends in both ui and ii, for example ciui or cii. Lucan in Book 7: ‘they mobilized an unprecedented number of troops for the battle’. Virgil in Book 5: ‘the news and the name of the illustrious Acestes had attracted the neighbouring people’.
Nations from the far East and countless cities gathered and mobilized so large troops for the battle as were never mobilized before.
Priscian uses the reading conciuere, which is found in all the manuscripts used by M. Hertz for his edition of Priscian's Ars.Footnote 56 The Bellum ciuile manuscripts unanimously transmit the reading exciuere. In the examples he gives, Priscian presents both some forms derived from the simple verb and other forms derived from its compounds, yet it is not possible to identify a logic behind the choice of one or the other. We, therefore, have no reason from Priscian's text to question the reading conciuere that the grammarian uses in his quotation from the Bellum ciuile. The verb excieo/excio is the verb Lucan uses mainly to signify the call to arms,Footnote 57 while the verb concieo/concio is more rarely used in such a context by the poet.Footnote 58 The difference between the two verbs, from a semantic point of view, lies in their prefixes: exciuere emphasizes the emergence of the troops from the cities from which they originate,Footnote 59 while conciuere focusses on the notion of gathering the soldiers, who are mobilized at the same time.Footnote 60 From this point of view, the reading conveyed by Priscian's quotation may appear preferable in a context where the poet insists on the number of troops engaged in the battle of Pharsalus (innumerae urbes, quantas … manus) and would thus provide a welcome parallel to the first part of the sentence (gentes … coactae). It should be noted, however, that this notion of gathering is not entirely absent from the verb excieo/excio: thus, Lucan uses it at 3.290–1 when he counts Pompey's allies.Footnote 61 In short, the new reading in the quotation cited by Priscian gives a satisfactory meaning and is, in my view, of comparable value to that of the traditional text; therefore, it should, at least, be mentioned in the apparatus criticus of every edition of Lucan's poem.
