[ ]. . . . . tandem fecerunt c[ar]mina Musae
(Gallus Fr. 2.6)
Leaving aside what the traces might or might not show, am I right that one
could complete the line (1) 'Pierides tandem fecerunt carmina Musae' or (2)
'Pieriae tandem fecerunt carmina Musae' or even (3) 'Pieridae tandem
fecerunt carmina Musae'? Cf. in particular, Ecl. 10.70-2, among other
reasons for the suggestion. The latter two forms seem to be legitimated by
Cic. ND 3.54 ‘[sc. Musae] quas Pieridas et Pierias solent poetae appellare’
(interestingly, roughly contemporaneous with Gallus Fr. 2.2-5 if that refers
to Caesar's Parthian expedition).
Anderson, Nisbet and Parsons said ‘The sense suggests some possible
patterns. (i) an epithet for *carmina*. Any such epithet will end in a short
*a*; therefore something else would have to stand between it and *tandem*.
Patterns: *dulcia iam, blanda mihi*. (ii) An epithet for *Musae*. Any such
epithet will end in *–ae *or –*es*. Patterns: *Castaliae, Aonides*; *haec
Latiae, haec dulces*, etc. (iii) A series of short words like *en mihi iam*
.’. *tandem*), although there is a lot of it. Another way is to take it as
part of a superscript letter’).
Could the stray traces even be explicable by one form of the Pierian Muses
being corrected supralineally to another - e.g. 'PIERIDES' with the 'ES'
crossed out and 'AE' written above?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Mantovano" group. To post, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe,
send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit
http://groups.google.com/group/mantovano?hl=en
