No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Attamen and Ovid Her. I 2
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
What the nineteenth century knew of attamen or at tamen it did not learn from dictionaries. The two last revisions of Forcellini, Corradini's and De-Vit's, provided eight examples between them, of which three were false. Klotz added one, Georges two, Smith two: one of these five was false, and two more lie under much suspicion. Freund gave no instance whatsoever. In preparing his first volume, which appeared in 1834, he turned, like a good compiler, to the first volume of Hand's Tursellinus, published in 1829. What he found there, on p. 450, was ‘de at tamen uide in tamen’; so he sat down quickly and wrote ‘attamen adv., s. tamen’. But Hand's Tursellinus, which never reached tamen, had proceeded no further than multum when Freund in 1840 produced the last volume of his dictionary; so he did not redeem his promise, and when you got there the cupboard was bare. This perfidy was faithfully imitated by the English and American dictionaries of Andrews, White and Riddle, Lewis and Short. To all intents and purposes one was left to depend on one's own reading and on the observations of Madvig at Cic. de fin. pp. 286 and 425 and opusc. I p. 491.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1922
References
page 88 note 1 A column and a half of the thes. ling. Lat., chosen at random, will generally contain a good many errors, and this specimen is no exception to the rule. Val. Fl. II 151 and Cic. Font. 37 should be subtracted, for there the MS readings are respectively ac tamen, which is right, and at de, which points rather to at certe. Germ. phaen, 626 should be added, for it is peculiar. In Ciris 74 the best MS, not alone, gives ast tamen, and Heinsius restored has. In Ouid. met. X 724 all good MSS have et or est; in Sil. VII 114 the MSS are divided between at and et. If Pers. V 159 is cited, where P has at and α has et, II 48 should be cited also, where at is in α and et in P; but probably et tamen is right in both verses. The statement at p. 1010 45 sq. that the MSS give attamen in Cic. de fin. II 85 is not true, whereas it would be true ofde or. I 241, which is not mentioned; and p. 1010 57 sq. ‘attamen (Madvig, tamen codd.)’ is the contrary of the fact. At p. 1010 39 the reference ‘634’ should be 637; p. 1011 I ‘2, 79’ should be simply 79; p. 1011 20 ‘1, 459’ should be 2, 459
page 88 note 2 But the blind affection with which so many scribes and editors persisted in substituting attamen for ac tamen and et tamen is not even now extinct. So late as 1908 I notice Mr P. H. Damsté in Mnemos. 36 p. 207 corrupting Tib. III 4 11 in the old fashion; and the particle is a great favourite with young German scholars in their doctoral dissertations, where they use it as equivalent to uerum enimuero.
page 89 note 1 Similar omissions on his part, which I will here make good, are the following, p. 109 15 = Quint, inst. VIII 3 29. p. 109 18 (p. 112 15 and 19, p. 640 9) = Ouid. art. I 8. p. 136 27 = Hor. epod. 25. p. 137 29 = Verg. catal. 13 16. p. 1396 = Hor. epod. 2 34. p. 149 4 = Verg. Aen. IX 525.
page 90 note 1 His motive in most of these changes is metrical, but in negotio for negotiis p. 137 10 and apparently in dedit for procul p. 117 15 and p. 125 it is syntactical. In recuruo for canoro p. 122 32 and p. 125 23 he is following Terentianus Maurus 1855, and the object of this change may be seen in Ter. Maur. 1912 sq. and p, 125 25.