MAGNÚS SNÆDAL THE VANDAL EPIGRAM

Transcription

1 MAGNÚS SNÆDAL THE VANDAL EPIGRAM The paper deals with a Latin epigram, Inter eils goticum etc., often referred to as the Gothic epigram. It contains some Germanic words that have generally been considered to be Gothic but here the view is taken that they are of a Vandal origin. In the first section of the paper the manuscript tradition of the epigram, its origin and editions are overviewed. In the second section the interpretations, so far, of the Germanic words are discussed and a new interpretation is proposed. Then the metre and the possible occasion of the epigram are also dealt with. At the end the main conclusions are summarized. 0. Introduction This paper deals with a Latin epigram, often referred to as the Gothic epigram (in German, das gotische Epigramm). It contains five Germanic words that have generally been considered to be Gothic. The first section of the paper is an overview of the manuscript tradition, the origin and the editions of the epigram. The second section gives an overview of the interpretations, so far, of the Germanic words and a new interpretation is proposed; the metre and the possible occasion of the epigram are also discussed. The third section summarizes the main conclusions Manuscript tradition, origin and editions 1.1. The manuscripts The epigram is preserved in one vellum manuscript, the so-called Codex Salmasianus. Several copies have been made of parts of this manuscript, espe- 1 The first version of this paper was read at a conference, Uppruni orðanna, held in the memory of Jörundur Hilmarsson in Reykjavík on 25 November I wish to thank the reviewers of the journal for their useful comments. Filologia germanica.indd /05/

2 192 MAGNÚS SNÆDAL cially during the seventeenth century. The following is an overview of these manuscripts. The Codex Salmasianus is named after its owner, Claude de Saumaise (Claudius Salmasius, ). It is now in the Bibliothèque nationale de France in Paris: Codex Parisinus Latinus In his editions of the Latin anthology, Riese 2 has given this manuscript the siglum A but here the abbreviation Salm. will be used. The manuscript was believed to be from the seventh century, 3 or possibly the beginning of the eighth century. 4 However, now it is thought to be from c. 800; i.e. from the end of the eighth, beginning of the ninth 5 or, most likely, from the first years of the ninth century and undoubtedly written in Italy. 6 Indeed, it had been previously maintained that the manuscript was from the ninth century 7 but this was then rejected. 8 The first 11 quaterniones or 176 pages are missing from Salm. It is an uncial codex with scriptio continua but points are used now and then to 2 Alexander Riese (ed.), Anthologia Latina sive poesis Latinae svpplementvm I: Carmina in codicibvs scripta, recensvit Alexander Riese, fascicvlvs I: Libri Salmasiani aliorvmqve carmina, editio altera denvo recognita, Lipsiae 1894, p. xii. 3 Lucian Müller, Sammelsurien LII, Jahrbücher für classische Philologie 13 (1867), p Baehrens (ed.), Poetae Latini minores, recensuit et emendavit Aemilius Baehrens, IV, Lipsiae 1882, p. 4. Ludwig Traube, Zur lateinischen Anthologie. I. Über Gedichte des Codex Salmasianus, in Kleine Schriften, hrsg. von Samuel Brandt, München 1920, p Fr. Dübner, [Review of Meyer s] Anthologia veterum Latinorum epigrammatum et poematum. [ ], Zeitschrift für die Alterthumswissenschaft 4 (1837), p. 7. Riese (ed.), Anthologia, editio altera, p. xiii. H. Omont, Anthologie de poètes latins dite de Saumaise. Reproduction réduite du manuscrit en onciale, latin 10318, de la Bibliothèque nationale, Paris 1903, p. 3. Cecil Clementi (ed.), Pervigilium Veneris / The Vigil of Venus, edited with facsimiles of the Codex Salmasianus and Codex Thuaneus, an introduction, translation, apparatus criticus, and explanatory notes by Cecil Clementi, Oxford / London 1911, p. 5. Morris Rosenblum, Luxorius. A Latin poet among the Vandals, together with text of the poems and an English translation, New York / London 1961, p Bernhard Bischoff, Panorama der Handschriftenüberlieferung aus der Zeit Karls des Grossen, in Karl der Grosse: Lebenswerk und Nachleben II. Das geistige Leben, hrsg. von B. Bischoff, Düsseldorf 1965, p Maddalena Spallone, Il Par. lat (Salmasiano): dal manoscritto alto-medievale ad una raccolta enciclopedica tardo-antica, Italia medioevale e umanistica 25 (1982), p Paolo Radiciotti, Problemi di datazione di codici in onciale (Par. lat , CLM 6224, Par. lat ), Archivio della Società romana di storia patria 116 (1993), p Armand d Avezac, Mémoire sur Éthicus et sur les ouvrages cosmographiques intitulés de ce nom, Mémoires présentés par divers savants à l Académie des inscriptions et belleslettres. Première série, sujets divers d érudition, II (1852), p. 306, fn Müller, Sammelsurien LII, p Filologia germanica.indd /05/

3 THE VANDAL EPIGRAM 193 mark caesura, phrases, etc. 9 Traube thinks the scribe s Latin was not very good: 10 Seine Kenntnisse im Lateinischen waren gering, aber gerade ausreichend, ihm, der von dem Inhalt des Abzuschreibenden wenig genug verstand, allerlei geläufigere Wortbilder vorzuzaubern. Er war ein rechter Halbgebildeter und, philologisch betrachtet, ein arger Interpolator. The manuscript contains a collection of Latin poetry, put together in North Africa at about the time when the Vandal state there was defeated (534). 11 A facsimile of the entire manuscript has been published. 12 It is in black and white but titles are said to be red with the initials in many colours. The first letter of every other line is in red. 13 The epigram under discussion is on p. 141 in the manuscript. A diplomatic version runs: DECONUIUIS BARBARIS I NTEREILSGOTICUM SCAPIAMATZIA IADRINCAN NONAUDITQUISQUÃ DIGNOSEDICEREUERSOS CALLIOPEM ADIDO TREPIDATSEIUNGEREBACCO NEPEDIBUSNONSTET EBRIAMUSA SUIS In the second line the m of quisquam is written with a nasal stroke. The space after the m in the third line is evident but it is in a strange place. Here there is no word break so, if this space is not intentional, perhaps the space in the title, the two spaces in the first line and the one in the fourth are unintentional too. All these spaces are of similar width. With the word breaks inserted, the text of the epigram is as follows: De conuiuis barbaris Inter eils goticum scapia matzia ia drincan non audit quisquam dignos edicere uersos 9 Baehrens (ed.), Poetae, p. 4. Riese (ed.), Anthologia, editio altera, p. xiii. 10 Traube, Zur lateinischen Anthologie, p Rosenblum, Luxorius, pp Alfred J. Baumgartner, Untersuchungen zur Anthologie des Codex Salmasianus, Baden 1981, p, 7. N. M. Kay, Epigrams from the Anthologia Latina. Text, translation and commentary, London 2006, pp Omont, Anthologie de poètes 13 Riese (ed.), Anthologia, editio altera, p. xiii. Rosenblum, Luxorius, p. 97. Filologia germanica.indd /05/

4 194 MAGNÚS SNÆDAL Calliope madido trepidat se iungere Bacco ne pedibus non stet ebria Musa suis Translation: On foreign guests. Among the Gothic eils scapia matzia ia drincan No one ventures to recite decent verses. Calliope hurries to depart from the wet Bacchus, So it does not happen that a drunken muse doesn t stand on her feet. In the manuscript someone has written an e above the i in audit and a u above the o in uersos in the second line to change these words into audet and uersus. As the scribe confuses i ~ e and u ~ o in several instances, 14 it is taken for granted that audit here stands for audet, as the syntax excludes the verb audio. The sense of audet in this case is is able to, can. Two Latin dictionaries 15 point to a passage in Lucretius, ( in recent editions), 16 where audent actually has the sense of possunt: Vitigeni latices in aquai fontibus audent Misceri, cum pix nequeat gravis et leve olivom. It is best translated as: Vine borne juices are able to mix with spring waters, though heavy pitch and light oil can not. By the use of audeo, this becomes a personification; the vine-borne juices dare, venture, but the sense that they are able to, while the other liquids mentioned are not, is evident. Maßmann, indeed, appears to have this sense in mind when he writes that the author of the epigram zu keinem gedichte kommen könne because of the carousing Goths. 17 The form versos must be acc. pl. of versus whether it is taken to be a scribal error or simply formed according to the second declension. 14 Riese (ed.), Anthologia, editio altera, pp. xlii-xliii. Rosenblum, Luxorius, p Spallone, Il Par. lat (Salmasiano):, pp Páll Árnason, Ny Latinsk Ordbog, til Brug for den studerende Ungdom. Efter de vigtigste Kilder og Hielpemidler, [ ], ordnet og udg. av Paul Arnesen, Kjøbenhavn 1848, p Egidio Forcellini, Totius Latinitatis lexicon opera et studio Aegidii Forcellini [ ] novo ordine digestum amplissime auctum atque emendatum cura et studio Vincentii De-Vit, I, Prati , p Lucretius, De rerum natura. 3rd ed., London H. F. Maßmann, Gotthica minora. 8. Ein gothisches Epigramm, Zeitschrift für deutsches Alterthum 1 (1841), p Filologia germanica.indd /05/

5 THE VANDAL EPIGRAM 195 In the translation of the second half of the epigram it should be noted that the meaning depart for iungere is found in Souter s glossary. 18 Maßmann apparently had this meaning in mind when he wrote that dichtkunst (Calliope) fliehe erschrocken vor den hyperboräischen Bacchussöhnen. 19 The same sense is implicit in van Helten s translation, which, though, is a little complicated: 20 die muse scheut die gesellschaft des sich betrinkenden Bacchus, dieweil sie fürchtet, infolge eines bei solchem zechgelage bekommenen rausches nicht mehr auf den füssen stehen bez. das richtige versmass innehalten zu können In the third line, it would also be possible to read seiungere disunite, disjoin, separate, divide, and not to divide it into se and iungere as is done in all the copies and editions. In Salm. there is nothing to indicate two words rather than one. The sense of the last two lines here is thought to be that Calliope flees from Bacchus in order not to become drunk. In this way the second half of the epigram makes sense in connection with the first half. The reason why it is impossible to recite dignified verses is the departure of the muse. 21 There exist some late copies of Salm. 22 Four of them may be said to be relevant as the epigram is found in them, but they have no independent textual value. Here the text of the epigram in these copies will be dealt with shortly. The oldest copy is Parisinus Latinus in the Bibliothèque nationale, written before the year It was made by François Juret (Franciscus Iure- 18 Alexander Souter, A Glossary of Later Latin, Oxford 1949, p Maßmann, Gotthica minora., p W. van Helten, Zu Anthologia Latina ed. Riese no. 285 und 285a (de conviviis barbaris), Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 29 (1904), p Grabow s translation of the second half is complicated and avoids the double negation (August Grabow, Ein gotisches Epigramm, in Viro illustrissimo atque doctissimo Augusto Stinner gymnasii regii Oppoliensis directori emerito [ ], Oppolii 1880, p. xxxiii.): Auch Calliope zagt in des schlemmenden Bacchus Gesellschaft, Trunken als Muse! nicht mehr fest af den Füſsen zu stehn. The same applies to Leo s translation (Friedrich Leo, Venantius Fortunatus, der letzte römische Dichter, Deutsche Rundschau 32 (1882), pp. 416, fn. 1): Denn Calliope zagt, mit Bacchus, dem trunkenen, zu zechen, Fürchtet im Rausche nicht mehr fest auf den Füßen zu stehn. Here trepidat is translated twice, first as zagt and then as fürchtet. Nevertheless, it is clear in both translations that no one dares to recite ready made poetry because the muse is afraid of becoming drunk, not because she has left. 22 Riese (ed.), Anthologia, editio altera, p. xii, fn. Rosenblum, Luxorius, pp Müller, Sammelsurien LII, p Kay, Epigrams, p. 14. Filologia germanica.indd /05/

6 196 MAGNÚS SNÆDAL tus ). The epigram is on fol. 37r, evidently written after Salm., but with word breaks in lines 2-4. The first line runs: Intereilsgoticum scapiamatzia iadringan. This is the same text as in Salm., except for the scribal error dringan for drincan. The conjectures audet and versus are made in the second line without comment. The points after madido in the third line and stet in the fourth line are not copied, but instead there are points at the end of the second and fourth lines. The second copy comes from Nicolaus van Heins (Nicolaas Heinsius ). It was written between 1631 and 1649, and is now a part of Heid. HS. 46 in the Universitätsbibliothek Heidelberg. It came there from Amsterdam. The epigram is on fol. 56v, evidently written after Salm. but with word breaks in lines 2-4. The first line originally ran: Intereilsgoticum scapiamatzia iadringan. Then scapiamatzia was divided into skapia matzia with a diagonal stroke, which is clearly set later. Also, dringan has been changed to drincan by crossing out the g and writing a c above. This scribal error suggests relations with Parisinus Latinus In the second line the i in audit and the o in versos are underlined and e u is written in the left margin to change these words into audet and versus; cf. the correction in Salm. and the conjectures in Par. Lat mentioned above. The third line has Baccho instead of Bacco. The points after madido and stet in the third and fourth lines are not present, but a period is added at the end. The third copy is VLO 16 in the collection of Isaac Vossius ( ) in the Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden. This is a careful copy from the seventeenth century, made in France (Paris?). The epigram is on fol. 106r, evidently written after Salm. but with word breaks. The first line runs: Intereils goticum scapia matzia iadrincan, so goticum has been separated from intereils, but iadrincan is written as one word as in other copies. In the second line, versos has been changed to versus by setting three dots under the o and writing a u above it. The third line has Calliopem adido so the curious space in Salm. has been kept. On the other hand, the points in the third and fourth lines have not been copied. Then there is the fourth copy. In the editions of the epigram collection, readings from a manuscript called Schedae Divionenses are very often used. Burman, the first editor of the Latin anthology (1759 and 1773), especially was inclined to use these sheets from Dijon. In Riese s editions 23 they are given the siglum α but here they will be called the Schedae. Since Riese (ed.), Anthologia, editio altera, p. xxxii. Filologia germanica.indd /05/

7 THE VANDAL EPIGRAM 197 they have been in the Universitätsbibliothek Heidelberg, a part of the previously mentioned manuscript Heid. HS. 46. The Schedae are written by an unknown scholar between 1661 and 1756, containing copies from Salm., i.e. copies of poems in the manuscript not present in printed anthologies of the time. Riese also thinks the Schedae were written direct from Salm. He bases this assumption on the fact that the title of the Schedae, Epigrammata antiqua ex Codice Divionensi deſcripta, is written by Burman s hand. This Codex Divionenis must be the Codex Salmasianus, then being in Dijon 24. Other scholars, on the other hand, say the Schedae were copied from a copy of Salm., but they do not produce any evidence for this. 25 It, though, must be based on Dübner. 26 He says he saw the Schedae Divionenses auf der königlichen Bibliothek. These sheets, he says, are from the sixteenth century, which means that these are not the same sheets that are now a part of Heid. HS. 46; instead, the Schedae in Heidelberg must be a copy of the sheets auf der königlichen Bibliothek. Thus, according to Dübner, readings thought to be peculiar to the Schedae are found in an older manuscript, and it is barely likely that two copyists had independently read the Germanic words wrongly in exactly the same way, and made exactly the same emendations to the Latin text. Maßmann writes that he asked Dübner to check the epigram in both manuscripts in Paris; one of them is the Codex Salmasianus but the other one Maßmann calls cod Here there are two interesting things. First, Maßmann does not use the label Schedae Divionenses so most likely Dübner did not use it in their correspondence. Second, all the readings Maßmann quotes from cod. 2. are identical to the Schedae (with one minor exception, see below) but they cannot have been taken directly from there. But what manuscript is hidden behind the label cod. 2.? Apart from Parisinus Latinus 17904, there appears to be no other copy in Paris, but the peculiar readings of the Schedae cannot have their origin there. If it is taken for granted that by der königlichen Bibliothek Dübner meant the Bibliothèque nationale in Paris he possibly somehow mistook Parisinus Latinus for being the Schedae Divionenses. 24 Alexander Riese, Zur lateinischen Anthologie, Jahrbücher für classische Philologie 14 (1868), pp Müller, Sammelsurien LII, pp Baehrens (ed.), Poetae, p. 5. Rosenblum, Luxorius, p. 99. Kay, Epigrams, p Dübner, [Review of Mayer s] Anthologia, p Maßmann, Gotthica minora., p Filologia germanica.indd /05/

8 198 MAGNÚS SNÆDAL The Schedae contain many emendations (often the same emendation as Saumaise had made in the original). Some of these are considered to be good, but the manuscript has, in fact, no independent value, cf. Müller: 28 dasz die lesarten des Divionensis oft besser sind, erklärt sich eben daraus, dasz der redactor, der ihn zusammenstellte, mehr von latein und logik verstand als jener obscure mönch, der vor tausend jahren den archetypus schrieb. [ ] der Divionensis ist eben weiter nichts als ein mundgerecht gemachter Salmasianus [ ] Hence the Latin text in the Schedae is considered better than in Salm., and the epigram is almost always printed with most of these readings. It should be borne in mind that these are, indeed, conjectures rather than readings proper. Therefore it is somewhat strange how tenacious these conjectures have been in the editions and among those who have tried to explain the Gothic of the epigram. On the other hand, the form of some of the Germanic words are somewhat mutilated in the Schedae. The epigram is written on fol. 99v and numbered 88. Here is an overview of the peculiarities in the Schedae. The title has conviviis instead of convivis. The first line runs: inter citz Gothicum, scapia madria, jadrincam. Here the Latin has gothicum instead of goticum and, as mentioned, the Germanic is different from Salm. A long stroke above citz is apparently done by the first scribe. Also, the words citz and madria are underlined and the following notes are found in the left margin: al. cod. eils al. matzia. This is done by a different hand. The error citz is not easily explained but it must be a misreading of eils, but neither Salm. nor Par. Lat suggest such a reading. Perhaps the tz of matzia somehow initiated the tz of citz. On the other hand, madria is caused by the roving of the scribe s eyes towards dr in drincan. The r in madria seems to have been changed to z so the outcome is madzia. This appears to be done by the first scribe. The spaces before and after citz are slightly wider than other word breaks. The same applies to the spaces before and after scapia madria. The commas are in the middle of the spaces. At the end of the line, jadrincam is written in one word instead of iadrincan in Salm. Maßmann gives ia drincam as the reading of cod That is almost identical to iadrincam in the printed editions of Burman and Meyer (see below, 1.3). 28 Müller, Sammelsurien LII, p Maßmann, Gotthica minora., p. 379, fn. 4. Filologia germanica.indd /05/

9 THE VANDAL EPIGRAM 199 The second line has audet educere versus which is a conjecture for audit edicere versos in Salm.; audet and versus are reminiscent of the corrections in Salm., cf. also the other copies, but educere is new. There is no comment on these conjectures in the manuscript. The third line has Baccho instead of Bacco in Salm. There is no punctuation mark after madido, cf. the point in Salm., but in the fourth line there is a comma after stet, cf. the point there in Salm. Finally, a full point is added at the end. The consequences of these conjectures are that now the title translates as On foreign feasts and all the editors choose that version (cf. 1.3). The interpreters of the Gothic words, others than Maßmann, Grabow and Scardigli, do not mention the title. Indeed, Grabow thinks that only conviviis is a possible reading as this is all about carousing but not table companions. 30 Nevertheless, the plural convivia can mean company at a table, guests and is then equivalent to convivae. 31 Because of educere in the second line its content now becomes no one dares to compose decent verses. The first two copies at least, and even the third one, are older than the Schedae. They are not quoted in the critical apparatus of the editions since they do not have an independent value, but that is true of the Schedae also. Some more manuscripts, containing copies of parts of the Salm., are mentioned, 32 but, to my knowledge, the epigram is not found in them The place of origin of the epigram In Burman s edition of the anthology (cf. 1.3), Gerard Meerman has written an explanation of our epigram below the line. There he points out that 30 Grabow, Ein gotisches Epigramm, p. xxx. 31 Ch. T. Lewis / Ch. Short, A Latin Dictionary. Founded on Andrews edition of Freund s Latin Dictionary, Oxford 1958, p Riese (ed.), Anthologia, editio altera, p. xii, fn. 1. Müller, Sammelsurien LII, p I have not been able to locate one copy, a codex Burmannianus that Müller says he inspected but does not mention where. 33 Here I want to thank the following people who gave information about the manuscripts and assisted me in obtaining photocopies of the epigram: Marie-Hélène Tesnière and Marie- Françoise Damongeot at the Bibliothèque nationale de France in Paris, Walter Hämmerle at the Universitätsbibliothek Heidelberg, Jan Cramer at the Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden, Klaas van der Hoek at the Universiteitsbibliotheek Amsterdam, and Ad Leerintveld at the Koninklijke Bibliotheek in the Hague. Filologia germanica.indd /05/

10 200 MAGNÚS SNÆDAL the Germanic in the epigram must be Vandal. 34 He refers to what Procopius (3.2.5) writes about the language of the [Ostro]goths, Vandals, Visigoths and Gepides: τῆς γὰρ Ἀρείου δόξης εἰσὶν ἅπαντες, φωνὴ τε αὐτοῖς ἐστι μία, Γοτθικὴ λεγομένη ( For they are all of the Arian faith, and have one language called Gothic ). 35 More than 90 years later, te Winkel maintained that the Germanic in the epigram would be Vandal rather than Gothic. He says this was pointed out to him by a friend who he does not mention by name. 36 Müller also argues in favour of this view; the main argument being that the epigram collection in Salm. apart from a few verses by classical authors is from North Africa and the last years of the Vandal state there. One should not, he says, be deceived by the word goticum, as ancient authors often used the Goths to represent all the Germanic tribes. 37 Rosenblum and Bonfante express the same view. The latter says he has this proposal from a colleague, Fr. Della Corte. 38 Most recently, Scardigli upholds this view. 39 Thus, already in the first edition of the Latin anthology, where the epigram was first printed, it was maintained that the Germanic words in it were Vandal. This has been ignored or neglected by most of those who have tried to explain the Gothic in the epigram. None of them rejects this view explicitly; they simply assume something else. Maßmann talks about its author as Italianer, 40 and Dietrich writes that the Germanic words therein are independent evidence about the Gothic spoken in Italy. 41 Neither of them, nor Grimm, mentions Rome as the place of origin of the epigram, as can be inferred from Ebbinghaus. 42 Most of the 34 [Pieter] Burman (ed.), Anthologia vetervm Latinorvm epigrammatvm et poëmatvm, sive catalecta poëtarvm Latinorvm in VI. libros digesta. [ ], cvra Petri Bvrmanni Secvndi, qui perpetuas Adnotationes adjecit, II, Amstelaedami 1773, pp Procopius, in six volumes, II: History of the Wars, Books III and IV, London 1916, pp. 10 and L. A. te Winkel, De dialecten en de vocaalspelling, De Taalgids 6 (1864), p Lucian Müller, Sammelsurien XXVIII, Jahrbücher für classische Philologie 13 (1867), pp Rosenblum, Luxorius, p. 26. Giuliano Bonfante, Latini e Germani in Italia, terza ed. rived. e aggiorn., Brescia 1965, p. 17, fn Piergiuseppe Scardigli, Die Goten. Sprache und Kultur, München 1973, p Piergiuseppe Scardigli, Das sogennante gotische Epigramm, Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 96 (1974), pp Maßmann, Gotthica minora., p Franz Dietrich, Ueber die Aussprache des Gothischen waehrend der Zeit seines Bestehens. Eine sprachgeschichtliche Abhandlung nebst einem kritischen Anhang ueber die Namen des Jornandes, Marburg 1862, p, Ernst A. Ebbinghaus, Inter eils goticum. For E. A. Philippson on his ninetieth Filologia germanica.indd /05/

11 THE VANDAL EPIGRAM 201 scholars dealing with the epigram appear to assume this that the epigram was composed in Italy while the Goths ruled there, or at the beginning of the sixth century. The drawback of this assumption is that in the epigram there is clearly a diphthong in eils, a word corresponding to Go. hails. At that time Ostrogothic ai was a monophthong. Because of this, Ebbinghaus moves the place of origin to the eastern regions of the Roman Empire and its age to the second century. According to him, it is older than the monophthongization of Gothic ai. 43 However, exactly this preservation of a diphthong in eils can point to the Vandals, because, as appears from Wrede s study, 44 the Vandal preserved the diphthong in contrast to Gothic. Although Wrede later refers to the preservation of the diphthong in Vandal, he does not give arguments for why the epigram could not be of Vandal origin, but maintains that it must be Visigothic, from the time of Alaric, or the beginning of the fifth century. 45 Krause takes up this view 46 and Wolfram has taken it from him, but although he also refers to Scardigli s paper, he does not mention the possible origin of the epigram among the Vandals. 47 The Germanic words will be dealt with in section 2.2. Yet it should be said that several things point to their Vandal origin, nothing points directly to the contrary. It is unknown when the epigram was composed, but perhaps it is safe to assume that it is not much older than the collection in Codex Salmasianus, or from the beginning of the sixth century Editions The epigram was first printed in the second volume of Burman s anthology of 1773, 48 on pp , in the part entitled Anthologiae veterum Latibirthday, General Linguistics 30 (1990), p. 77. Ernst A. Ebbinghaus, Gotica. Kleine Schriften zur gotischen Philologie, hrsg. von P. Scardigli und W. Meid, Innsbruck 2003, p Ibid., p. 77 and p Ferdinand Wrede, Über die Sprache der Wandalen. Ein Beitrag zur germanischen Namen- und Dialektforschung, Strassburg / London 1886, pp Ferdinand Wrede, Über die Sprache der Ostgoten in Italien, Strassburg 1891, pp Wolfgang Krause, Handbuch des Gotischen, 3., neubearb. Aufl., München 1968, pp Herwig Wolfram, History of the Goths. New and completely revised from the second German edition, Berkeley 1987, pp. 210 and Burman (ed.), Anthologia Filologia germanica.indd /05/

12 202 MAGNÚS SNÆDAL norum epigrammatum et poëmatum liber qvintus. In qvo miscellanea. It is numbered CLXI. The text is as follows: DE CONVIVIIS BARBARIS. Inter citz Gothicum ſcapia matzia iadrincam Non audet quiſquam dignos educere verſus. Calliope madido trepidat ſe jungere Baccho, Ne pedibus non ſtet ebria Muſa ſuis. The reason why the epigram is printed on three pages is the very long footnote by Gerard Meerman, mentioned above. Indeed, the footnote continues to p In the beginning, the footnote states that the text of the Schedae is used. Still, the punctuation is not kept, matzia printed instead of madria (or madzia) and iadrincam at the end of the first line instead of jadrincam. Different readings in Salm. are mentioned, other than Bacco in the third line. For Meerman s explanation of the Germanic words, see 2.1. Then the epigram was printed in the second volume of Meyer s edition of 1835, 50 on p. 70, in the part entitled Anthologiae Latinae tomus secundus, having the number The text is identical to Burman s text with the exception that scapiamatzia is printed as one word. The result is the text of the Schedae with matzia instead of madria (in the notes wrongly said to be the reading of Salm.). The readings drincan and Bacco in Salm. are not mentioned. The apparatus, where other readings in Salm. are mentioned, is in the first volume, on pp , in the part entitled Annotationes ad tomum secundum Anthologiae Latinae. Here Meyer presents, in addition to Meerman s, also Ettmüller s attempt at explaining the Germanic words in the epigram, see 2.1. In Riese s first edition of 1869 the epigram is printed on p. 187, with the number The Latin is very much in accordance with the Schedae, apart from goticum in the first line and edicere in the second line. Also, the orthography is more like Salm., i.e. the use of i and u instead of j and v. The Germanic words are printed according to Salm., with word breaks: Inter eils goticum scapia matzia ia drincan. In the apparatus, different readings in the two 49 On Meerman s part in Burman s work, see Rosenblum, Luxorius, p. 105 and fn [Heinrich Meyer (ed.)] Anthologia veterum Latinorum epigrammatum et poematum. Editionem Burmannianam digessit et auxit Henricus Meyerus Turicensis, I-II, Lipsiae Alexander Riese (ed.), Anthologia Latina sive poesis Latinae svpplementvm I: Carmina in codicibvs scripta, recensvit Alexander Riese, fascicvlvs I: Libri Salmasiani aliorvmqve carmina, Lipsiae Filologia germanica.indd /05/

13 THE VANDAL EPIGRAM 203 manuscripts, Salm. (A) and the Schedae (α), are listed. However, the reading Gothicum in the first line in the Schedae is missing. Maßmann s explanation of the Germanic words is given, 52 cf. 2.1, but the proposals of Grimm, Dietrich and te Winkel are not mentioned, nor Meerman s and Ettmüller s earlier attempts. Müller s idea that the third and fourth line form a separate epigram is mentioned along with his proposal to change ebria into sobria in the fourth line. 53 In Baehrens s edition of 1882 the epigram is printed on p. 363, numbered The text is almost identical to Riese s text apart from educere in the second line. The apparatus appears to be influenced by Riese, as the reading Gothicum in the first line in the Schedae is also missing here. Maßmann s explanation of the Germanic words is referred to, but e.g. the then recent proposal of Grabow is not mentioned. An empty line is set between the second and third line according to Müller s idea that the last two lines are, indeed, a separate epigram. His proposal of changing ebria into sobria in the fourth line is also mentioned. In Riese s second edition of 1894 the epigram is found on p. 221 and has been divided into two, numbered 285 and 285 a. 55 In fact, this is the same text as in Although Maßmann s explanation of the Germanic words is still the only one mentioned, some minor changes have been made to the critical apparatus. To edicere in the second line the reading educere in the Schedae is given, but now recte? has been added after it. To ebria in the fourth line, Peiper s proposed conjecture debria has been added. 56 The latest edition is Bailey s from Here the epigram is printed on pp. 201 and 202; it has been divided completely in two and the parts are numbered 279 and 280. The text is that of Riese. The critical apparatus is also based on Riese. Still, the reading convivis, which Salm. has in the title, has been lost. The reading Gothicum in the first line in the Schedae is not mentioned. Maßmann s interpretation of the Germanic words is repeated, but more recent proposals are ignored. To edicere the note reads: educere schaed. : anne ded-? This is presumably a suggestion to change it to deduc- 52 Maßmann, Gotthica minora.. 53 Müller, Sammelsurien XXVIII, p Baehrens (ed.), Poetae 55 Riese (ed.), Anthologia, editio altera. 56 Rudolf Peiper, ebrius debrius, Jahrbücher für classische Philologie 19 (1873), p Bailey (ed.), Anthologia Latina I: Carmina in codicibus scripta, recensuit D. R. Shackleton Bailey, fasc. 1: Libri Salmasiani aliorumque carmina, Stvtgardiae Filologia germanica.indd /05/

14 204 MAGNÚS SNÆDAL ere. The reading Bacco in Salm. in the third line is missing, but otherwise the notes to the third and fourth lines are in accordance with Riese. Exact references are not given for Müller s and Peiper s proposed conjectures sobria and debria instead of ebria in the last line no more than in Riese s and Baehrens s apparatus. Three points are highlighted by this overview: First, the origin of the epigram among the Vandals soon fell into oblivion and later attempts to restore this view have not survived. Second, the conjectures in the Schedae Divionenses are generally accepted; to be precise, the more recent editions do not accept Gothicum in the first line, and, judging from the apparatus, Riese finds it tempting to accept educere in the second line. Third, concerning the Germanic words in the epigram, Riese, Baehrens and Bailey only mention Maßmann s interpretation so they, apparently, did not bother to check whether other proposals had been made. 2. Interpretations of the epigram In this section the main proposals to explain the Gothic words in the epigram will be overviewed in 2.1. A new interpretation is argued for in 2.2. Many conjectures have been underpinned by referring to the metre; hence the metre will be dealt with in 2.3. It should also be borne in mind that the author of the epigram is most probably not the author of the Gothic words. They are something he has heard and has forced into the hexameter. For him it was even better that the barbaric language sounded harsh. A possible occasion of the epigram is sketched in The explanations of the Germanic words As mentioned above (1.2), Meerman points to the origin of the epigram among the Vandals, but in his explanation of the Germanic words he frequently refers to Gothic. His conclusion is as follows: 58 Inter ciſz Gothicum, ſcăpĭāe-mătziām, wina-drinkām Among a Gothic kiss, mutton eating, [and] wine drinking etc. 58 Burman (ed.), Anthologia, Filologia germanica.indd /05/

15 THE VANDAL EPIGRAM 205 Here it is suggested that citz should be read cisz kiss (connected to Go. kukjan to kiss?); also that scapia is of the same origin as OE sceāp, scēp, OS scāp, OHG scāf, scāp sheep. Instead of iadrincam, Meerman conjectures winadrincam, but the stem vowel of wina- must be short because of the metre. The forms matziam and drinkam should be taken as a Latinized acc. sg., governed by inter. In his apparatus Meyer mentions two attempts to explain the Gothic of the epigram. The first one is Meerman s explanation just mentioned (to which Meyer adds a German translation: bey Gothischem Kuss, Hammelbraten und Weintrinken wagt keiner ein ernstes Lied zu singen ). The second explanation (actually two possibilities with several conjectures) he owes to Ludwig Ettmüller. It was presumably transmitted by personal communication as they both lived in Zürich: 59 īnte r kūst gŏthĭ cŭ m skāft jān māt jān ȷ ă h drīgkā n īnte r kū st gŏ thĭ cŭ m skă p ă n e u k mā t jān ȷ ă h drī gkā n inter victum Gothicum parandum, etiam edendum et bibendum. While the Goths prepare their board, it s also eaten and drunk Here citz is interpreted as kust food, board but no account is made of the form euk in the second version of the explanation. Probably, it is meant to correspond to the Gothic conjunction auk for and given the meaning also (under the influence of German auch?). It is noteworthy that the infinitive drigkan is chosen, in contrast to the Schedae and Meyer s text. Then, it is odd to have the j non-syllabic medially but syllabic initially. Although Maßmann s attempt to explain the Gothic in the epigram is not the first, it is the first attempt cited, as Meerman s and Ettmüller s proposals were not long-lived. Maßmann mentions them in a footnote where he rejects their attempt to hammer some sense into the form citz in the Schedae. 60 As mentioned above (1.1), Maßmann asked Friedrich Dübner in Paris to check the text of the epigram in both the manuscripts there; one of them is Codex Salmasianus but the other he calls cod Maßmann s version of the first line is: Inter eils Goticum scapiamatziaiadrincan. Otherwise his text of the epigram is identical to Burman s and Meyer s text. The readings con- 59 Meyer, Anthologia, I, pp Maßmann, Gotthica minora., p Ibid., p Filologia germanica.indd /05/

16 206 MAGNÚS SNÆDAL viviis in the title, audet, educere and versus in the second line, and Baccho in the third are said to be taken from cod. 2.. The first line there runs, he says: inter citz gothicum scapia madria ia drincam. All this, except for ia drincam instead of jadrincam, is in accordance with the Schedae but cannot be taken directly from there, as described in 1.1. The first Gothic word is eils. Here Maßmann refers to the adj. Go. hails, cf. Mark 15:18 hails, þiudan Iudaie! hail, you king of the Jews, and John 19:3 hails, þiudans Iudaie! hail, king of the Jews, where hails in both instances translates the Greek imperative χαῖρε rejoice. 62 The word is related to OI heill, OHG heil, etc. This explanation has been generally accepted with one exception. In what follows, Maßmann indeed gives four possible Gothicized versions (with variants). 63 They are repeated below with English translations: 1. Hails! skapja(nd) matja(n) ja(h) drigkan! Hail! They obtain [something] to eat and drink! 2. Hails! skapja! matja(m) ja(h) drigkam! Hail! Waiter! Let s eat and drink! 3. Hails! skap ja(h) matja(n) ja(h) drigkan! Ave, amice! procura, praebe et cibum et potum! Hail, friend! Prepare/Offer both to eat and drink! 4. Hails! Skap (procura or poculum)! ja(h) matja(m) ja(h) drigkam! Hail! Prepare/Goblet! We both eat and drink! However, Maßmann rejects the first proposal and apparently does not like the second. Yet, a word like *skapja waiter is well formed. Truly, it is not preserved in Gothic but could be related to the verb gaskapjan* create and compared to nouns like fiskja fisherman, timrja carpenter. This will be dealt with more extensively later on. Maßmann appears to prefer the third possibility, which he gives a Latin translation. Nevertheless, the imperative *skap points to a verb *skapan, as the imperative of *skapjan would be *skapei. The verbs matjan eat (on the tz in matzia, see 2.2) and drigkan drink are often attested in the Gothic corpus (Maßmann translates them with Latin nouns, and adds amice). Here jah jah means both and. As for the fourth proposal it should be pointed out that there is no evidence for a noun *skap 62 Ibid., p Ibid., pp Filologia germanica.indd /05/

17 THE VANDAL EPIGRAM 207 beaker, goblet in Gothic. As already mentioned, Maßmann s explanation of the Gothic is the only one mentioned in the more recent editions of the anthology. Riese actually gives the three latter possibilities, which are repeated by Bailey, while Baehrens makes do with the reference (cf. 1.3). 64 In a footnote, Maßmann explains how the Gothic could be made to follow the hexameter. The addition of sijais is necessary and the first line would divide in feet in the following way: Inter háils (si jáis!) gothi cum skap jah matjan jah drigkan. The last jah has lost the h but preserved the shortness in the metre and therefore the same must be assumed in skap ja matjan. 65 Maßmann prints the second half of the epigram but does not discuss it or question its authenticity. Grimm only prints the first half of the epigram. 66 The first line runs, inter eils goticum scapiamatziaia drincan, but the second line he has the same as Maßmann, i.e. with the conjectures of the Schedae. Grimm says that das gothische scheint ganz in ordnung und nur einen schwierigen ausdruck zu enthalten, and should be read: inter hails gothicum skapjam atzja jah drigkam. The only difficult word is atzja. It is the acc. pl. of the otherwise unattested neuter noun *atsi poculum or, im fall einer elision des M von skapjam, zu setzen atazja. 67 But *atsi, *atazi correspond to OHG azasi, OS atasi instrument. Grimm gives a Latin translation: paremus pocula et bibamus. Then, the meaning of the whole is: Hail! Let s get goblets and drink! Grimm mentions that matzia could be acc. sg. of a feminine noun *matja, or acc. pl. of a neuter noun *mati. He finds this improbable because the meaning would be the same as in Go. mats food. Nevertheless, Grimm had some doubts about this interpretation. In the third edition he has added a footnote: 68 nach Dübners vergleichung hat die handschrift: Inter eils goticum scapia matzia iadrincan. This is actually the text of Salm. with word breaks. It must be remembered that Maßmann printed scapiamatziaiadrincan and one has to presume that according to Dübner s information, this is the reading in Salm. Maßmann mentions that cod. 2. has 64 Riese (ed.), Anthologia, p Riese (ed.), Anthologia, editio altera, p Bailey (ed.), Anthologia, p Baehrens (ed.), Poetae, p Maßmann, Gotthica minora., p. 384, fn Jacob Grimm, Geschichte der deutschen Sprache, I, Leipzig 1848, pp [Zweite Aufl / Dritte Aufl / Vierte Aufl. 1880, pp ] 67 Here there is something spooky in Grimm s text. An elision of m from scapiamatzia would produce scapiaatzia, not scapiatazia. 68 Grimm, Geschichte der deutschen Sprache I, dritte Aufl., p Filologia germanica.indd /05/

18 208 MAGNÚS SNÆDAL scapia madria ia drincam that should also be according to Dübner s information. Grimm, on the other hand, mentions no manuscripts with name or number, nor does he mention that his Latin text is not in accordance with the text in the oldest manuscript. Grimm s footnote can only be thus understood, that according to Dübner s information, there are some kind of word breaks in Salm. as shown above. Therefore, the division skapjam atzja would not be in accordance with the manuscript. This discrepancy in Maßmann s and Grimm s reference to Dübner is an unsolved riddle. Or is this Grimm s interpretation of what Maßmann reports after Dübner? Grimm mentions Maßmann s paper but does not discuss his proposals, and he has nothing to say about the metre. He does not print or discuss the second half of the epigram, although he mentions its content briefly. Dietrich has taken note of Grimm s footnote when he prints the first line of the epigram: Inter eils Goticum, scapia matzia iadrincan. He says this is in accordance with the oldest manuscript. He prints the second line after the Schedae, just as Maßmann and Grimm, but without any comment. His explanation is, in content, the same as Maßmann s third proposal but he interprets the Gothic slightly differently: inter (h)eils goticum, scapî ja matja ja drincan. Heil! Schaffe zu essen und zu trinken! ( Hail! Offer both to eat and drink! ) Gothicized, this would be: Hails! Skapei jah matjan jah drigkan! Here scapia is divided into the imperative skapei and the conjunction jah. Then, matja is an infinitive with an elided n. Dietrich mentions that one has to read scāpī iā even though it does not conform to Gothic quantity. It is a drawback that in jah jah the first has to be long but the second short to conform to the metre. 69 Dietrich does not mention the second half. Te Winkel does not mention Maßmann s and Grimm s attempts at explaining the Gothic in the epigram, but it is uncertain whether his paper is younger than Dietrich s booklet. 70 According to te Winkel the first line runs: Inter eils goticum scapi ia matzia ia drincan. The second line here is also printed with the conjectures of the Schedae. Apparently, he believes the manuscript has scapi ia. He interprets this as an imperative just as Dietrich does, but he explains what follows differently. Gothicized, the Germanic in the first line would be: Heils! Skapei jah matja jah drigkan (or drigkam). Heil! Schaf ook spijs en drinken (or laat ons drinken). ( Hail! Offer both food and to drink (or 69 Dietrich, Ueber die Aussprache des Gothischen, pp L. A. te Winkel, Eenige grammatische hoofdstellingen, De Taalgids 4 (1862), pp Filologia germanica.indd /05/

19 THE VANDAL EPIGRAM 209 let s drink)! ) But with the second possibility the first jah becomes strange. For te Winkel matja is acc. sg. of the fem. noun *mati food, which is otherwise unknown (and impossible unless the stem vowel is considered to be long; if it is short the nominative should also be *matja, cf. Grimm). He believes drincan is either infinitive or 1p. pl., but he does not mention the conjecture drincam in the Schedae. Vinckers mentions Grimm and Dietrich but he prints the epigram in the same way as te Winkel. 71 What is new is that he maintains that the ei in eils is disyllabic as in classical Latin metre. Thus, the first line is divided into feet in the following way: Īntĕr ĕ īls gŏtĭ cūm scā pī iā mātz iă iă drīncăm. Hence, this is not a new explanation of the content of the Gothic which remains the same as proposed by Dietrich and te Winkel. Vinckers does not explain why he prints matz ia ia, but he mentions that the second part of the first line is based on conjectures. Te Winkel reacts the same year. 72 Now he prints the epigram the same as Grimm and says this is in accordance with the manuscript of the anthology. He mentions a possible explanation that is almost the same as Grimm s but rejects it along with his own. 73 To have this conform to a correct hexameter he believes that eils was originally repeated, i.e.: Īntēr Hāils! Gŏtĭ cūm, Hāils! Skāpjām mātzjă jă drīnkăn. Hoezee! hoezee! Laten we eten en drinken doen aanrukken. ( Hail! Hail! Let s carry on eating and drinking. ) Apparently, he considers matzia as a verb in the infinitive with an elided n just as Dietrich did. Neither Winkel nor Vinckers mention the second half of the epigram. Grabow prints the same text of the epigram as Maßmann with the exception that he has edicere in the second line instead of educere. 74 He does not mention the latter reading, not even when he rejects that the meaning of the line is niemand wagt es, würdige Werse zu machen. 75 He also prints the second half of the epigram and considers it original. Grabow mentions the different readings in the Gothic but not in the Latin (except the reading convivis in the title). 76 He mentions only Maßmann s paper but makes no reference to 71 J. Beckering Vinckers, Een orthographische e-legie, of Dr. L. A. te Winkel s e-spelling en uitspraak der gotische AI, [ ], Kampen 1864, Te Winkel, De dialecten, pp Ibid., pp Grabow, Ein gotisches Epigramm, p. xxii. 75 Ibid., p. xxxii. 76 Ibid., pp. xxix-xxx. Filologia germanica.indd /05/

20 210 MAGNÚS SNÆDAL Grimm s and Dietrich s (or te Winkel s) explanations. His conclusion is the same as Dietrich s (as pointed out by Lichtenstein). 77 He normalizes the first line in the following way: Inter hails goticum skapei jam matjan jad drigkan and in a Latinized form divided into feet: Inter eils goti cum sca pi ja matja ja drincan. Heil! schaff (bring her) sowohl zu essen als auch zu trinken. ( Hail! Offer both to eat and to drink. ). Grabow thinks, cf. Dietrich, that the final nasal in matjan was elided because of the metre to get a short syllable (but, apparently, it was a correct hexameter in Gothic ears, as the Goths based the metre on stress, not quantity). 78 The final consonant in jad did not get to the author s ear as the Gothic soldiers were in all probability drowsy on this occasion. As jam had more stress, its vowel was taken as long, but the jad was without stress and taken as short. 79 The stem vowel of scapi was stressed and therefore taken as long, but the final vowel was lost by the clumsiness of some scribe. All this is rather speculative. Luft rejects Maßmann s, Grimm s, Dietrich s and Grabow s interpretations because he thinks they do not conform to the metre. 80 To get this right he makes rather extensive conjectures. He prints the first two lines as Maßmann, except he has versos at the end of the second line but he does not mention different readings in the Latin. Luft thinks that a correct Latin version of the first line was: inter geils Goticum scapi i ia gamatzia ia drinca[n], but with the Germanic words Gothicized: inter gails Goticum skapei ei jah gamatjam jah drigkam. lustig! schaffe, dass wir essen und trinken mögen. ( Blithe! Offer so we can eat and drink. ) For the 1.p. pl. Luft refers to Maßmann s proposals but he does not mention the reading drincam in the Schedae. He thinks that *geils is necessary to get a spondee in the beginning, because h does not make a position, but the word is formed from the Gothic verb gailjan* delight. He maintains that the nasals are neutral to the metre in the first line but not in the second. However, all these manipulations are questionable. 81 It should be mentioned 77 Franz Lichtenstein, [Review:] Viro illustrissimo atque doctissimo Augusto Stinner [ ], Anzeiger für deutsches Alterthum und deutsche Litteratur 6 (1880), p Grabow, Ein gotisches Epigramm, pp. xxvi-xxvii. 79 Each of these forms is attested only once in the Gothic corpus, more precisely in the Codex Ambrosianus A, jad du 2Cor 2:16, and jam mundoþ Phil 3: W. Luft, Zum gotischen Epigramm, Anzeiger für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Litteratur 23 (1897), p Cf. H. Möller, Zum gotischen Epigramm, Anzeiger für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Litteratur 25 (1899), p Filologia germanica.indd /05/