Amm. 20.8.3–4, Quid Claudius Iulianus, a militibus Augustus appellatus, Constantio II binis litteris ad posteritatem adtentior scripserit

IF 0.2 0 CLASSICS
Gualtherius Calboli
{"title":"Amm. 20.8.3–4, Quid Claudius Iulianus, a militibus Augustus appellatus, Constantio II binis litteris ad posteritatem adtentior scripserit","authors":"Gualtherius Calboli","doi":"10.1515/joll-2022-2014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract I took into account an Ammianus passage, namely 20,8,3–4, where the text edited by all modern scholars has been marked with two crosses to show that the text is not sure. As a matter of fact in every modern edition we read: [Iulianus] quamquam non †repugnanter, tamen nec adrogantibus uerbis, quicquam scripsit, ne uideretur subito †repugnasse. Here the adverb tamen causes problems, because the reader expects to find quamquam non repugnanter, nec adrogantibus uerbis, quicquam scripsit without tamen. A solution is to place tamen after uerbis as Pighi and Seyfarth did to substitute quamquam non repugnanter, tamen nec adrogantibus uerbis, quicquam scripsit with quamquam non repugnanter, nec adrogantibus uerbis, tamen quicquam scripsit. But such a solution is too arbitrary. Another solution was proposed by Petschening, i.e. to replace non repugnanter with non repurganter. But the difference between non repugnanter and non repurganter was too reduced and a similar difficulty occurred also with repurganter. However, I considered more attentive the reading of the manuscript Fuldensis, the father of all manuscripts which transmitted Ammianus’ text, and found that the word tamen, which caused the problem, did not exist and was produced by modern editors from the following reading: repugnant certant Vm1 repugnanter tamen m2 (V = Fuldensis). Here certant seems to have been introduced in order to explain the infrequent word repugnanter: repugnant certant of the first hand of V. The word certant was a gloss, and the reading of the second hand of V was produced by dividing and eliminating certant, the gloss, in this way: repugnan terr̭ tanῑ, where cer (of cer tant ) was read ter, considering the great similarity of c and t in Carolingian script, and added to repugnant/. This produced repugnanter and what remained of certant (cer tant ) was read tam which for its part was considered an abbreviation of tamen. On the other hand, I found in Ammianus some other examples of this behaviour employed by the librari, e.g. 22,8,29 Sauromatae, per quos amnes fluunt perpetui // Clark Rolfe Selem Seyfarth Fontaine Viansino per quosdam esfluit Vm1 per quosđ/ amnes fluunt Vm3. In this case quosđ/ am and the letter n added over and es from es fluunt has produced amnes, with the letter d deleted and another n placed over, thus arriving finally at the expression: per quos (i.e. Sarmatas) amnes fluunt perpetui: per quosđ am n es fluu n t per petui Vm3. A clear example how the librari of V worked.","PeriodicalId":29862,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Latin Linguistics","volume":"21 1","pages":"187 - 198"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Latin Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/joll-2022-2014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"CLASSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract I took into account an Ammianus passage, namely 20,8,3–4, where the text edited by all modern scholars has been marked with two crosses to show that the text is not sure. As a matter of fact in every modern edition we read: [Iulianus] quamquam non †repugnanter, tamen nec adrogantibus uerbis, quicquam scripsit, ne uideretur subito †repugnasse. Here the adverb tamen causes problems, because the reader expects to find quamquam non repugnanter, nec adrogantibus uerbis, quicquam scripsit without tamen. A solution is to place tamen after uerbis as Pighi and Seyfarth did to substitute quamquam non repugnanter, tamen nec adrogantibus uerbis, quicquam scripsit with quamquam non repugnanter, nec adrogantibus uerbis, tamen quicquam scripsit. But such a solution is too arbitrary. Another solution was proposed by Petschening, i.e. to replace non repugnanter with non repurganter. But the difference between non repugnanter and non repurganter was too reduced and a similar difficulty occurred also with repurganter. However, I considered more attentive the reading of the manuscript Fuldensis, the father of all manuscripts which transmitted Ammianus’ text, and found that the word tamen, which caused the problem, did not exist and was produced by modern editors from the following reading: repugnant certant Vm1 repugnanter tamen m2 (V = Fuldensis). Here certant seems to have been introduced in order to explain the infrequent word repugnanter: repugnant certant of the first hand of V. The word certant was a gloss, and the reading of the second hand of V was produced by dividing and eliminating certant, the gloss, in this way: repugnan terr̭ tanῑ, where cer (of cer tant ) was read ter, considering the great similarity of c and t in Carolingian script, and added to repugnant/. This produced repugnanter and what remained of certant (cer tant ) was read tam which for its part was considered an abbreviation of tamen. On the other hand, I found in Ammianus some other examples of this behaviour employed by the librari, e.g. 22,8,29 Sauromatae, per quos amnes fluunt perpetui // Clark Rolfe Selem Seyfarth Fontaine Viansino per quosdam esfluit Vm1 per quosđ/ amnes fluunt Vm3. In this case quosđ/ am and the letter n added over and es from es fluunt has produced amnes, with the letter d deleted and another n placed over, thus arriving finally at the expression: per quos (i.e. Sarmatas) amnes fluunt perpetui: per quosđ am n es fluu n t per petui Vm3. A clear example how the librari of V worked.
摘要我考虑了Ammianus的一段话,即20,8,3–4,其中所有现代学者编辑的文本都用两个十字架标记,以表明文本不确定。事实上,在每一个现代版本中,我们都读到:[Iulianus]quamquam non†repgnanter,tamen nec adrogantibus uerbis,quicquam scrippit,ne uideretur subito†repignasse。在这里,副词tamen会引起问题,因为读者希望找到quamquam non-regnanter、nec-adrogantibus uerbis、quicquam scrippit without tamen。一个解决方案是将tamen放在uerbis之后,就像Pighi和Seyfarth所做的那样,用quamquam non-regnanter代替quamquam-nec adrogantibus uerbis,用quacquam-non-regnant代替quicquam-scrippit,nec-adrogantibus-urbis,tamen quicquam scrippit。但这样的解决方案过于武断。Petschening提出了另一种解决方案,即用非重组器取代非重组器。但非厌恶者和非厌恶者之间的差异太小了,厌恶者也出现了类似的困难。然而,我考虑更仔细地阅读手稿Fuldensis,他是传播Ammianus文本的所有手稿之父,并发现造成这个问题的单词tamen并不存在,而是由现代编辑根据以下阅读产生的:令人反感的certant Vm1令人反感的tamen m2(V=Fuldensi)。这里引入certant似乎是为了解释不常见的单词repignanter:V的第一手的令人反感的certant。certant这个词是一种光泽,而V的第二手的阅读是通过划分和消除certant,这种光泽产生的:repignan terr̭tanῑ, 其中cer(属于cer tant)读作ter,考虑到c和t在加洛林文字中的巨大相似性,并加上了令人反感的/。这引起了反感,剩下的certant(cer tant)被读作tam,就其本身而言,它被认为是tamen的缩写。另一方面,我在Ammianus中发现了图书馆采用的其他一些这种行为的例子,例如22,8,29 Sauromae,per quos amnes fluunt perpetui//Clark Rolfe Selem Seyfarth Fontaine Viansino per quosdam esfluit Vm1 per quos dj/amnes fluunt Vm3。在这种情况下,quosř/am和从es fluunt加上的字母n产生了amnes,字母d被删除,另一个n被放在上面,从而最终得到了表达式:per quos(即Sarmatas)amnes fluunt peretui:per quosŞam n es fluu n t per petui Vm3。V的librari是如何工作的一个清晰的例子。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
50.00%
发文量
5
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信