v. 33. post hunc magni delator amici, Et cito rapturus de nobilitate comesa Quod superest. Ruperti explains the "magnus amicus" to be the emperor to whom the informer carried his accusation. Thus the "accuser of a great friend" means, "him who carries an accusation against another to his great friend." Heinrich simply observes the accuser of his own friend, who is called great in respect of his position, wealth, and influence,' and who being great in this sense would be a richer booty for an informer. Ruperti after giving his own explanation adds, 'unless you would prefer this,' and then he gives the right explanation. Heinrich has a good note in which he shews that these informers who were so abundant, especially under Domitian, acted upon the provisions of the Lex Majestatis; and he gives references to several modern writers by whom this subject is explained. Information of this kind is seldom given by Ruperti, and is not given in the present instance. v. 34. quem Massa timet, quem munere palpat Carus, et a trepido Thymele summissa Latino? Heinrich observes, that there have been many explanations of the second line, but that it is not possible to give a true explanation without reading ut for et. Ruperti is as blind as his predecessors, and Achaintre also understands nothing.' According to Heinrich ut indicates a comparison: whom Carus coaxes with presents as Thymele does her husband when sent for that pur pose by Latinus all in alarm.' He shews that Latinus and Thymele were a well-known Mimus and Mima, and that the allusion is to a theatrical representation, the subject of which was a staple article at Rome—a fool who is a cuckold, his young wife, her lover, and a slave. Latinus plays the lover, and Thymele the wife. On one occasion they are near being surprized by the jealous husband, and the lover is hid in a chest. (See Juvenal, vi. 44.) He trembles for his life, but the wife coaxes and cajoles her husband, and the danger is averted. The word "summissa" signifies that the wife is commissioned by the lover to appease the husband's anger. This explanation is ingenious, and is adopted by Ruperti from the Commentaries on Juvenal, three in number, which Heinrich published while he was at Kiel; but this verse requires further consideration2. 2 Madvig observes (Opuscul. Academ. p. 46) on v. 35, "locus, in quo dissenti endum mihi est ab homine clarissimo, Heinrichio." v. 36. Quum te summoveant, qui testamenta merentur Unciolam Proculeius habet, sed Gillo deuncem. Summoveant "justa hereditate" says Ruperti; on which Heinrich says elend' (sorry, pitiful); and so it is. This interpretation represents the "te," the honest man as entering into competition for a testamentary gift with those scoundrels who get a rich woman's property by gratifying her lust. It is properly explained by Heinrich thus: fellows who become rich by these discreditable means, elbow and push out of the way the honest man: they are carried through the streets in litters, and their big porters unceremoniously shove every body out of the path. one. "Optima summi Nunc via processus." According to Ruperti, 'now the easiest way to supreme felicity, unless you prefer to consider that it refers to the consulship, the highest dignity.' As usual, Ruperti wavers between the wrong explanation and the right "Processus" is a technical word (Dig. 24. tit. 1. s. 41), and signifies, "access to the highest honour," the first step to which in these degenerate times was to grow rich. The note of Heinrich is good and complete. (See Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, Donatio inter Virum et Uxorem). "Unciolam Proculeius habet, sed Gillo deuncem." Ruperti, in his Commentaries says, 'ex unciola, cui ne hæc quidem tota:' on which Heinrich remarks, 'consequently less than an uncia; and that is nothing, &c.' The remark of Ruperti is very trivial, and hardly deserves notice except as a sample of his want of critical judgment. Gillo had eleven twelfths of the inheritance; Proculeius, a less favoured lover, one twelfth; a poor uncia, an unciola. Ruperti in the short notes placed under the text in his second edition appears to have discovered that he had made a mistake. v. 55. Quum leno accipiat mochi bona, si capiendi Jus nullum uxori. This is rightly explained in Ruperti, who copies the note of Heinrich, which was published in 1806. The commentators have blundered about the passage, which does not refer to the edict of Domitian about feminæ probrose, but to the Lex Voconia, which was passed about B. c. 169. This law forbade a woman to be made heres ex asse: the subsequent Lex Julia Papia Poppaa gave women this privilege if they had a certain number of children. A man who was the father of one child, could take as universal heir. Accordingly, the satirist says, that if the wife is under a legal incapacity to take an inheritance, the husband may be able to take it; and, to win the favour of the adulterer, he winks at his amours with his wife, in the hope of being made his heir. The explanation of Heinrich is perfectly satisfactory. (See Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, Voconia Lex). v. 58. Quum fas esse putet curam spectare cohortis, The ordinary editions place the stop after "Flaminiam," and read "puer Automedon nam lora tenebat." Heinrich observes, that the poet combined the sarcastic epithet "Automedon" 'with the holding of the reins'. He adds, that "nam" cannot come after the second word of a proposition, but that it may come after the first word, as it sometimes does in Horace. 66 Ipse lacernatæ quum se jactaret amicæ." The following is the note of Ruperti on this line: 'Jactare se amicæ, quod jam Casaub. ad. Pers. Iv. 15, monuit, est fere Græcum ὡραίζεσθαι et καλλωπίζεσθαι, vel translatum a pavonibus, qui, quum picta pandunt spectacula cauda collumque incurvant, creduntur jactare se feminis easque voce sua ad Venerem tum illicere. Conf. ad Liv. iii. I. note 3. Britann. et alii jactare se alicui dici putant pro, se ipsum illi dare, ingerere, insinuare, adeoque h. 1. per multa lasciviæ blandimenta comitari amicam et sæpe osculari vel amplecti.' This is not exactly what Casaubon says, whose remark terminates with the words 'jactare se femines: the rest is derived from some lines of Gregorius of Nazianzus, whom Casaubon quotes. Now it is not consistent with the idiom of the Latin language, to take "se jactare" in any other sense than that of recommending oneself, making a display of one's courage, skill, and so forth; (vantarsi, gloriarsi, Facciol. Lex v. Jactare), and this is the sense in the passage of Juvenal, as Heinrich shews. But, in order to shew the full meaning of this passage, it is necessary to give it with Madvig's punctuation, (Opuscul. Academ. p. 33). Quum fas esse putet curam spectare cohortis, Heinrich's punctuation is, -dum pervolat axe citato Flaminiam puer: Automedon nam lora tenebat, This last line is generally supposed to refer to Nero's scandalous commerce with Sporus; but, as Heinrich observes, if there is no difficulty as to the matter of the chariot, there is a difficulty as to the word "lacernatæ," for in the story, as told by Suetonius, (Nero. c. 28) and Dion Cassius (LXIII. 12, 13), Sporus appears dressed as a woman, whereas, here the person is represented in male attire, or as wearing the lacerna. Besides this, Sporus was carried about by Nero in a lectica; and, as Madvig observes, to explain “jactare se alicui" by 'amatorias delicias agere, ut interpretantur, neque est, neque eæ aptæ admodum ad axem citatum.' Though Heinrich, as already observed, rejects the ordinary interpretation of "quum se jactaret," he still thinks that Nero is meant by "Ipse." The youth who spent his money on horses and chariots, is represented, according to Heinrich, as the charioteer of Nero, as driving the chariot while Nero shews himself off, that is, is speaking of his great exploits to his "lacernata amica," whom Heinrich still considers to be 'die geliebte in der lacerna, die schöne mit dem bart,' though he does not admit that the description suits Sporus. But this is hardly consistent with his own explanation, and Madvig's is the only admissible interpretation-he, the young charioteer, and the Automedon, is driving along the Flaminia to shew off in the presence of his mistress "lacernata." Ipse is the Automedon. Heinrich's illustration of "quum se jactaret amicæ," derived from the story of L. Quinctius Flamininus, as told by Livy (XXXIX. 42. 43), is far fetched; ingenious, but very improbable. It may appear a small matter to spend so many words on the explanation of one short passage, but the wrong interpretation of any passage of an author is generally owing to a vicious method, as in this instance, where the critics have attempted to deduce the author's meaning from what he does not say, instead of from what he does say. As to the reading "curam spectare," Heinrich remarks that the common reading "sperare" is only a gloss of the true reading "spectare," which two Copenhagen MSS. have. v. 63. Nonne libet medio ceras implere capaces Here again the interpreters are at fault. Ruperti says, that "medio quadrivio" refers to the abundant material for satire which a man will see in the public places. Other explanations have been given; but the explanation of Heinrich is the only one that suits the context. "Medio quadrivio" means 'on the spot,' 'without delay'; the satirist, it is true, sees the objects of his just indignation when he goes abroad, but he cannot wait till he gets home; his anger is roused, and he would vent it in writing on the spot. v. 67. Signator falso, qui se lautum atque beatum Exiguis tabulis et gemma fecerat uda; says, Heinrich that with the word "falso" we must suppose 'signo' understood. The pointing of Ruperti is, "Signator, falso qui se lautum atque beatum," &c., but, as Heinrich remarks, this is a false connection. Juvenal does not mean to say, that the man has made himself rich by forging a brief will, which disposes of all the alleged testator's property in a few words; but, he means to say, that the man is a will-forger, and by a few words has contrived to get an estate. The charge of forging is in the word "falso:" the ease with which he has managed the affair is expressed by the words "exiguis tabulis” and "gemma uda." A rogue who forges a will, gets what he wants with little trouble: the shorter the will, the better for his purpose; he gives himself all, and that does not require many words. It would be enough for him to write "Titius heres esto" (Gaius, II. 117). The absurdity of Ruperti's interpretation will be apparent if we consider that a testator who wished to give all his property to any person, could effect his purpose by half a dozen words: therefore the expression "exiguæ tabulæ," a brief testament in itself, conveys no notion of any imputation on him who is made heres. The imputation is in the word "falso,” a technical term well known to the Romans: the ease with which the offence is perpetrated is in the words "exiguis tabulis." But it is usual with Ruperti to misunderstand the meaning of his author. 66 There is a difficulty about the word "falso." Madvig, who does not altogether reject Ruperti's punctuation, explains it in a way which may be admitted. He says we may take 'falso" to express, first, the general character of the man's act, and “ exiguis tabulis," &c. to refer to the means; but he admits that " signator" will then stand disjointed from the context; and this is an objection to this punctuation, for "signator" alone is one who puts his "signum" to an instrument, which an honest man does more frequently than a rogue. He suggests that Juvenal may have written "signato falso." |