Ausonius, Par. praef. uers. 15-18 and Martial VI 28.10

Emerita, Revista de Lingüística y Filología Clásica LXXXVII 2, 2019, pp. 341-362 ISSN 0013-6662 https://doi.org/10.3989/emerita.2019.16.1916 Copyright: © 2019 CSIC. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License In the first section of this paper, the interpretations of Ausonius’ passage by Green (1991) and Lolli (1997) are subjected to criticism; the traditional view on praeter iustum is reinforced, and further linguistic and poetic aspects of this expression are explored. In the second section, it is investigated how alternative approaches to Ausonius’ locus, such as that of Green or Barth’s attempted emendation of iustum > nostrum (1624), are conse quential to the comparison of Par. praef. uers. 18 with Martial’s VI 28.10 as printed by all editors (qui fles talia, nil fleas uiator); it is then argued that the traditional text and interpretation of Ausonius’ line and a revised text of Martial (either qui fles, talia nil fleas, uiator, as punctuated by Salanitro, or qui fles, tale nihil fleas, uiator, as I have suggested elsewhere) are mutually consistent and provide philological support for each other (§§ 2-3). Key words: Ausonius; Martial; textual criticism; funerary poetry; «quid pro quo motif»; «normal» and untimely deaths; punctuation. En la primera sección de este trabajo se someten a crítica las interpretaciones del pasaje de Ausonio pro puestas por Green (1991) y Lolli (1997) y se re fuer za la interpretación tradicional de praeter ius tum, al tiempo que se analizan otros aspectos de esta expresión. En § 2 se investiga cómo lecturas al ternativas del pasaje de Ausonio, como la de fendida por Green o la conjetura de Barth a iustum (codd.) > nostrum (1624), son consecuentes con el co tejo de Mart. VI 28.10, paralelo citado por esos es tudiosos según el texto de todas las ediciones antiguas y modernas (qui fles talia, nil fleas, uia tor). Se razona que el texto e inter pre tación tradi cio na les de Ausonio y un texto repuntuado de Mar cial (qui fles, talia nil fleas, uiator, según pro puesta de Salanitro, 1996 / qui fles, tale nihil fleas uiator, se gún propuesta propia) son mutua mente cohe ren tes y se prestan apoyo filológico recíproco (§§ 2-3). Palabras clave: Ausonio; Marcial; crítica textual; poesía funeraria; «motivo del quid pro quo»; muertes ‘normales’ y muertes prematuras; puntuación. Ausonius, Par. praef. uers. 15-18 and Martial VI 28.10* Daniel López-Cañete Quiles Universidad de Sevilla dlopezcanet[email protected]s ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7564-6349 Ausonio, Par. praef. uers. 15-18 y Marcial VI 28.10 * I wish to thank Juan Gil, Bartolomé Pozuelo and the conscientious but anonymous reviewers for their alert reading and stimulating criticism; my warmest gratitude also goes to Daniel Lawrence, John Lawrence and Mary Kearns for their patience and help in greatly improving the English text. 342 DANIEL LÓPEZ-CAÑETE QUILES Emerita LXXXVII 2, 2019, pp. 341-362 ISSN 0013-6662 https://doi.org/10.3989/emerita.2019.16.1916 Cómo citar este artículo / Citation: López-Cañete Quiles, Daniel 2019: «Ausonius, Par. praef. uers. 15-18 and Martial, VI 28.10», Emerita 87 (2), pp. 341-362. 1. Ausonius, Par. praef. uers. 15-18 at tu, quicumque es, lector, qui fata meorum 15 dignaris maestis conmemorare elegis, inconcussa tuae percurras tempora uitae et praeter iustum funera nulla fleas1. 18 iustum codd.: nostrum Barthius But you, my reader, whosoe’er you be, who deign to recall in these sad plaints the deaths of those I loved, may you pass your span of life without a shock, and never have to mourn a death save in the course of nature. (transl. Evelyn–White) There has been some interesting debate about iustum in line 18 of Ausonius’ poem. And, as I believe, there is still room for a contribution to this matter. The referential meaning of this adjective in its context will be addressed first while discussing previous interpretations; later below in this section, I will briefly deal with morphosyntactic aspects of praeter iustum, as well as with possible semantic complexities of the same construction. Most modern translations (e.g. Pastorino 1971, p. 403: «non dover mai piangere altro che morti normali»; Dräger 2012, p. 93: « ...und mögest –außer ein gerechtfertigtes– keine Leichenbegängnisse beweinen!2) reflect the same basic notion as Élie Vinet’s gloss (= praeter funus senile)3: that is, ‘may you 1 For Ausonius, the edition followed throughout in this paper is Prete 1978. 2 Cf. his note on line 1 iusto funere (p. 433): «gemeint sind ‘normale’ Tode (d. h. im Alter [vgl. 9, 1], als Gegensatz zu ante tempus, ‘vor der Zeit’)», and his note on line 18 praeter iustum: «ringkompositorische Aufnahme von 1» (p. 436). 3 Vinet 1590, ad loc. (this edition has no proper pagination); cf. Gronovius 1637, p. 338 (citing Ausonius’ line): «Natura et pietas iniustas se dant, cum pie quis luget iniustum funus, male iudicantibus fatis»; Bolt 1766, p. 37 (see nn. 9-10, 13 and 25 in this paper); Evelyn-White 1919, p. 59: «and never have to mourn a death save in the course of nature»; Erasmo 2008, p. 186: «may you pass the span of your life unharmed and may you never mourn a death unless it is natural». For other translations, see nn. 16 and 18 in this paper. In their remarks AUSONIUS, PAR. PRAEF. UERS. 15-18 AND MARTIAL VI 28.10 343 Emerita LXXXVII 2, 2019, pp. 341-362 ISSN 0013-6662 https://doi.org/10.3989/emerita.2019.16.1916 never have to weep for untimely deaths in your family’. This interpretation of the concept behind iustum, which I will here refer to as ‘traditional’, is also found in M. Lolli’s commentary on Parentalia, yet not regarding line 18 of the verse preface but rather a previous occurrence of the same adjective at the beginning of the same poem (lines 1-2): Nomina carorum iam condita funere iusto / fleta prius lacrimis, nunc memorabo modis; on this passage, Lolli writes: «I decessi che subentrano al momento devuto, ai quali Ausonio referisce l’espressione funus iustum, si contrapongono a quelli avvenuti ante tempus» (1997, p. 52); in my opinion, this interpretation is surely correct, although the parallels adduced by Lolli in support of it seem beside the point, as they do not refer to deaths occurring in the due course of nature, i.e. ‘timely deaths’, but to the funeral tribute legitimately owed to the departed4. On the other hand, in his note on the very line under discussion, Lolli 1997, p. 57 comments: v. 18 praeter iustum: scil. funus. La chiusa, che riecheggia nel lessico il distico iniziale, augura al lettore (chiamato in causa al v. 15) di no disperarsi di una morte che non sia per lui quella prevista, ma ad attegiarsi piuttosto come fece Giulio Ausonio nell’ imminenza della sua dipartita: inter maerentes, sed non ego maestus, amicos / dispositis iacui funeris arbitriis (Epic. 59-60). on this passage, Consolino 1977, p. 110, Gärtner 2006, pp. 88-90 do not concern themselves with the question here discussed. 4 Auson., Par. XXX 11 annua ... iusta; Cic., Prou. XLV casum illum meum funus esse rei publicae, sed funus iustum et indictum; Lucan., IX 54 ostenditque rogum non iusti flamma sepulchri; 233-235 perierunt tempora uitae: / mors eat in tutum, iustas sibi nostra senectus / prospiciat flammas; Stat., Theb. IX 564 iustos dum reddimus ignes. At any rate, this meaning is compatible with the other (see n. 3); Ausonius may be playing on both; see §1.2. Brief attention should be paid to Par. XXX 11 annua nunc maestis ferimus tibi iusta querellis (cited by Lolli; see above in this note and n. 22). On account of ferimus, it may be wondered whether Ausonius is playing upon an ancient pseudo-etymology of feralia as recorded by Ovid at Fast. II 569: hanc, quia iusta ferunt, dixere Feralia lucem (notice this poet’s willingness to ignore the original prosody of Fēralia in order to provide a match with fĕro). While Dolansky 2011, pp. 143-144, n. 68. connects Par. XXX 11 with this Ovidian passage, she does not take notice of ferimus or of its possible etymological hint in this context; for echoes of Ovid’s Fasti in the poetry of Ausonius, see Green 1977, pp. 443, 444, 449; for Ausonius’ interest in etymological word-play, see Nugent 1990, p. 36; Pappas 2016, p. 33. For Latin and Greek parallels of iustus in connection with ‘timely, natural deaths’, see § 1.2 and n. 9. 344 DANIEL LÓPEZ-CAÑETE QUILES Emerita LXXXVII 2, 2019, pp. 341-362 ISSN 0013-6662 https://doi.org/10.3989/emerita.2019.16.1916 Lolli’s translation runs along similar lines: «... tu posse percorrere senza turbamento gli attimi della tua esistenza senza dover piangere nessuna morte che non sia per te quella prescritta» (1997, p. 51; see n. 6). In other words: according to this scholar, praeter iustum points to the funus of the lector himself, with the poet wishing him not to expect in his lifetime (tempora uitae) any funeral experience beyond that of his own death. Far from being original, this interpretation (comparison with Epic. 59 included: see § 1.1) continues down a path pioneered by R. H. P. Green5: praeter iustum: based on Mart. 6.28.10 qui fles talia, nil fleas, uiator, but with extra point. The meaning is not, as generally understood, ‘normal deaths’ – which might be both numerous and distressing– but the reader’s own. The concept of witnessing one’s own funeral or death is of course not flippant as it is in Sen. Apocol. 12, nor is there a hint of a belief in awareness of this world after death, which is rare in these poems. If the point is pressed, one can mourn or otherwise react to one’s own death in anticipation, as A.’s father did (Epiced. 59), albeit without sorrow. In his commentary on Ausonius’ oeuvre, P. Dräger has taken particular notice of Green’s thesis, though summarily rejecting it as «[n]icht nachvollziehbar»6; pace Green and Lolli, I concur. Several points can be made in corroboration of Dräger’s verdict: 1.1. In regard to Epic. 59-60 inter maerentes, sed non ego maestus, amicos / dispositis iacui funeris arbitriis, cited by Lolli as well as Green, this alleged parallel may be thought ultimately to militate against the very interpretation it is invoked to validate, namely that iustum points to the reader’s own death as witnessed by him- / herself. Green seems to acknowledge that the lector, as opposed to Ausonius’ father, would thus be meant by implication to react «with sorrow» to his / her own death in anticipation. But if anything, Ausonius would have urged the lector to act precisely as his own father did –i.e., to not yield to sadness in the face of death, cf. non ego maestus–; entreating 5 Green 1991, p. 302. Although Lolli 1997, p. 57 does not quote Green in his note on line 18, he acknowledges his general debt to Green’s work elsewhere in his commentary on Parentalia. 6 Dräger 2012, p. 436; Lolli’s rendering of praeter iustum in line 18 («nessuna morte che non sia per te quella prescritta», as opposed to his gloss on iusto funere in line 1: «I decessi che subentrano al momento devuto»; see above) is assessed by Dräger in no more flattering terms («besonders abschreckend»: p. 433). AUSONIUS, PAR. PRAEF. UERS. 15-18 AND MARTIAL VI 28.10 345 Emerita LXXXVII 2, 2019, pp. 341-362 ISSN 0013-6662 https://doi.org/10.3989/emerita.2019.16.1916 him to do exactly the opposite seems beneath the dignity of both the reader and the author himself. Lolli avoids this problem by observing that the lector is actually exhorted to behave as Iulius Antonius did «nell’ imminenza della sua dipartita». I honestly wonder how this meaning can possibly be attached to the line under discussion if the construction at play is praeter iustum (funus; which is probably not, cf. § 1.4), meaning the reader’s death: fleas still expresses an injunction to weep (as it happens, praeter iustum ... fleas may indeed be understood simulta neously as an equivalent of plus iusto ... fleas, thus expressing an injunction not to weep beyond due measure, but this possibility is not contemplated in Lolli’s commentary; see § 1.4). 1.2. In his note on Par. IX 1-2, Green writes in regards with iusto funere: «this here denotes a natural death after a full life, and not, as usual, burial rites: cf. Par., praef. B. I 18». I here give the whole passage including the two following lines for context7: Hactenus ut caros, ita iusto funere fletos functa piis cecinit nenia nostra modis. nunc dolor atque cruces nec contrectabile fulmen, coniugis ereptae mors memoranda mihi. That the expression in question does carry the meaning ascribed to it by Green is confirmed by the antithesis hactenus ... iusto funere / nunc ... coniugi ereptae8. However, two nuances may be introduced: – While it is true that iustus frequently denotes funerary tributes (see n. 4), the same adjective and synonymous expressions are employed just as often in references to ‘natural deaths after a full life’. This usage reflects a cliché of common thought that also recurs in sepulchral contexts dealing with untimely deaths: namely, that a mors immatura subverts the law of life and is therefore inherently unnatural and ‘unfair’9, whereas a death in due time is 7 As noted by Green 1991, p. 313; cf. Evelyn-White 1919, p. 71: «Those who, though dear, were mourned but in the course of nature». 8 For Sabina’s premature death, cf. Par. IX 25 septenos quater impletura Decembres. 9 Bolt 1766, pp. 36-38 got the point rightly (see next note); among other parallels, he compared Auson., Epit. VII, and XXXIV. Cf. Martín Valls 1971, pp. 425-429, lines 1-3 (as in the ensuing examples, I respect the original orthography of this text as printed by their editors) hordine si iusto placuisset currere fatis, / hic non debuit mori an(norum) XX, / set potius ante pater et mater debuerunt esse sepulti; CLE 1001.3-4 quod quaeritis, id repetitum 346 DANIEL LÓPEZ-CAÑETE QUILES Emerita LXXXVII 2, 2019, pp. 341-362 ISSN 0013-6662 https://doi.org/10.3989/emerita.2019.16.1916 in accordance with the iustus ordo of things. As in Par. IX 1 iusto funere and line 1 of the verse preface (condita funere iusto; see above with n. 4), this meaning of the adjective must be present also in the discussed line 1810; with Green and Holli’s interpretation, the latter line would absurdly imply that, aside from one’s own death, any other kind of funus is iniustum (cf. § 1.3). – It is difficult to see why, in the contexts of praef. uers. 1 and IX 1, ius- to funere may not point, in addition to ‘natural deaths’, to the funeral offerings and ceremonies justly owed to the departed (see n. 4); as a matter of fact, in condita funere iusto the verb in participial form is commonly used in references to burials11. Both ideas seem perfectly compatible in these two / apstulit iniustus creditor ante diem; 1060.1-2 Condidit hic miseri mater duo funera pa[rtus] / Ossaque non iustis intulit exequiis; 2127.5-6 si semper iusto decurr[eret ordine fatum], / ossa forent matris ia[m tumulata prius]; ThlL VII 1, col. 719.35ff.; for the use of aequum, fas / par est, decet or debuit, cf. some of the previous examples and CLE 93.2 nec licitum est misera sorte me ut aequum fuit / meis referre lacrimulam parentibus; 167 Quot par parenti fue[r]at facere filius, / mors immatura fe[cit] mater faceret filio; 173 quod parenti facere debuit filia, / id immature filiae fecit pater; 176 Oppia Calasiane mater feci filiae meae, / quod aequum fuerat hoc faceret mih[i; 376.3-4 fas erat ut potius natus pia funera nobis / penderet; 456.5 aequius is[te l]apis compecteret ossa paterna; 473.1 patribus ablatus inique; 556.2; 819 Debuit hic ante miseros sepelire parentes; 882.2 aequius iste lapis patris super ossibus esset; 1156.1 Aequius hunc fuerat titulum me ponere matri; Cic., Lael. XV fuerat aequius, ut prius introieram, sic prius exire de uita; cf. SEG XXX 266.7-8 εἰ γὰρ ἦν θέμις / θνῆσκον γονῆ]ες, οἱ νέοι δ᾽ ἔθαπτ[ον ἄν; E., Supp. 174-175 ἀλλ᾽ ὡς νεκροὺς θάψωσιν, ἃς αὐτὰς ἐχρῆν / κείνων ταφείσας χερσὶν ὡραίων τυχεῖν; Lier 1903, pp. 457-458; Tolman 1910, pp. 30-32; Lattimore 1962, p. 187: «one of the most common [sc. modes of lamentation for those who died young] is the lament that a parent is forced to bury a child who should by rights have buried him» (emphasis mine). Associated with this notion of ‘injustice’ is the idea that the ἄωρος is deprived of the share of life legitimately apportioned to him by nature: cf. the expressions suum diem obire, sua morte, used for non-premature or non-violent deaths and see Vrugt-Lentz 1962, p. 68. See further in nn. 10 and 12. 10 Cf. Bolt 1766, p. 37: «Dein uouet, ut nulla nisi eorum funera, qui euntibus ordine fatis moriuntur, fleat; unde iusta dicuntur talia funera. Vide Gronou. ad Stat. V. Silu. III. Cap. 49, p. 337 et seq. et sic Ausonius ipse Carm. IX Parent. Hactenus ut caros, ita iusto funere fletos, / functa piis cecinit nenia nostra modis. Iusto funere fletos patrem, matrem, auunculos, aliosque maiores natu». Cf. Epit. VII 5 sed iustius ille superstes; XXXIV 3-6 (quoted by Bolt 1766, pp. 37-38; see previous note); Ecl. IV 1-2 Ter binos deciesque nouem super exit in annos / iusta senescentum quos implet uita uirorum. 11 Cf. Auson., Epit. V 1; VI 1; XIV 2, etc.; CLE 699.2 tuosq. in hoc loco in pace condidit artus; 1466.1 haec est quam coniux condidit atque [pater]; 1992.4 quem ipse condidi terra; see Colafrancesco and Massaro 1986, pp. 144-145; ThlL IV, cols. 150.84-151.57; OLD s.u. 4. AUSONIUS, PAR. PRAEF. UERS. 15-18 AND MARTIAL VI 28.10 347 Emerita LXXXVII 2, 2019, pp. 341-362 ISSN 0013-6662 https://doi.org/10.3989/emerita.2019.16.1916 passages, and Ausonius may conceivably be playing on both. On the contrary, a reference to funeral tributes seems out of place in et praeter iustum, funera nulla fleas; however, a double entendre of a different sort is perhaps achieved as well by means of the same adjective (see § 1.3). 1.3. Green’s understanding that iustum refers to the reader’s (presumably natural, timely) death seems to be based on inconcussa percurras tempora uitae, with the given that encounters with ‘regular’ deaths are both frequent and distressing in their own right. This explanation results in certain difficulties. First, younger lectores of line 18 would thus be expected not to ever have to mourn deaths of elder relatives, e. g. their parents; this is a strange thing to even suggest in a book called Parentalia. To press the point further: in order to be able to fulfill the poet’s alleged wish, the same readers would be required to die before their parents (cf. n. 34). Since this is one of the defining traits of a mors immatura, this interpretation involves, rather shockingly, that the poet would have chosen to call iustum an event which, in accordance with the logic and the rhetoric of funerary discourse, would be ultimately iniustum (see § 1.2). Again, the fair order of things and the natural span of a lifetime are ideas connoted by the adjective in praef. uers. 18; in line 17, inconcussa ... percurras tempora uitae underpins the point, as it expresses the poet’s hope that readers go through their lives «unshaken» by the cataclysm of a mors immatura in their families12. 1.4. A brief, further word about the grammar and semantics of praeter iustum may be in order. The traditional interpretation of this sequence is correct, as far as semantics is concerned, but perhaps not in regard to morphosyntax. As seen above, the adjective is generally understood as pairing 12 Cf. Evelyn-White’s translation (quoted above): «without a shock»; cf. Auson., Epit. XXXIV iam que diu monumenta uacant sitque ista querella / longior et ueniat ordine quisque suo, / nascendi qui lege datus, placidumque per aeuum / condatur, natu qui prior, ille prior (compare placidum aeuum and inconcussa tempora; for parallels of ordine suo, nascendi lege, see n. 9); Stat., Silu. V 1.142 florebant hilares inconcussique penates (in an epicedion on the death of Priscilla, the wife of «young» Abascantus: cf. line 10 laudati iuuenis rarissima coniunx); for a different interpretation of Ausonius’ inconcussa ... tempora, see Lolli 1997, p. 56. As reminded above, a mors immatura represents a «dislocation of the natural and proper order of life» (Lattimore 1962, p. 187); for the expression ordine turbato in connection to this epitaphic theme, see Hernández Pérez 2001, p. 5; cf. n. 9 in this paper. 348 DANIEL LÓPEZ-CAÑETE QUILES Emerita LXXXVII 2, 2019, pp. 341-362 ISSN 0013-6662 https://doi.org/10.3989/emerita.2019.16.1916 with elliptical funus (cf. line 1 funere iusto; Par. IX 1 iusto funere)13. This can hardly be the construction at play here, keeping in mind that the reader is supposed to eventually mourn more than one death of elder relatives and that, accordingly, praeter iusta would be expected instead (cf. again Pastorino 1971, p. 403: «non dover mai piangere altro che morti normali»). I believe we are dealing with the singular neuter, nominalized form of the adjective. With praeter meaning ‘aside from’, ‘out of line with’ or even ‘against’14 (sc. ‘what is in accordance with the law of life’), this construction may here have the same referential meaning as hypothetical praeter iusta funera, but its more abstract, generic quality perhaps provides a touch of euphemistic obliqueness (it is the mortality of the readers’ relatives that is thereby conceded). This grammatical analysis is preferable for another reason. Lucr. IV 1241 et liquido praeter iustum tenuique uicissim is the only instance previously recorded of this construction in literary texts; it is explained as a variation on the idiom plus iusto: ‘beyond what is right’ (Brown 1987, p. 347), i.e. ‘beyond due measure’. It may well be thought that Ausonius is following Lucretius’ lead15; in fact, some translators –though very rarely, to my knowledge– understand praeter iustum in this mode16. Nonetheless, just as iusto funere in line 1 allows for an amphibological reading –‘fair death’ / ‘funeral tribute’; see n. 4 and § 1.2–, it may be suggested that et praeter iustum funera nulla fleas encloses another double entendre: i.e., in addition to the topos that non-premature deaths are ‘fair’ deaths (as in the traditional interpretation), this line may also simultaneously pick up a common epitaphic theme, defined by J. Gómez Pallarès as «el [tópico] de pedir que no se derrame ni una lágrima más de lo imprescindible»17. One may thus wonder whether the poet 13 Cf. Vinet 1590 ad loc: «praeter funus senile»; Green 1991, p. 302; Lolli 1997, p. 57 (see further in n. 3); Bolt 1766, p. 17 (see n. 10); Dräger 2012, p. 436. 14 For praeter = contra in similar contexts, cf. Plaut. Bacch. 418 praeter aequom ne quid delinquat; Ter. Hec. 226 praeter aequum atque aetatem meam (Eugraph. 223 contra quam iustum esset); ThlL X 2, col. 998.2-22; OLD s.u. 3. 15 Mention of this passage from Lucretius is absent from all commentaries on Parentalia known to me. For echoes from Lucretius in the poetry of Ausonius, cf. u.g. Epigr. LII 2, LXXVII 1-2 (Kay 2001, p. 20). Epit. XI 3; Ecl. IV 5; cf. Green 1991, pp. 370, 374, 440-441 (see further on p. 779). 16 Cf. Pelttari 2014, p. 68: «And weep at no funerals beyond what is right»; see n. 18. 17 Gómez Pallarès 1992, p. 215, and n. 24. Cf. also CLE 389.6 [nec mea plus i]usto sit mors tibi [causa doloris], and contrast 337.4 (an epitaph of a puer) at mihi plus misero quam AUSONIUS, PAR. PRAEF. UERS. 15-18 AND MARTIAL VI 28.10 349 Emerita LXXXVII 2, 2019, pp. 341-362 ISSN 0013-6662 https://doi.org/10.3989/emerita.2019.16.1916 chose praeter iustum (instead of praeter iusta funera) also because of the aforementioned ambiguity18; a pun on these two meanings would seek symmetry with an analogous amphibology of iusto in line 119, while endowing the final line with a perhaps fitting touch of epigrammatic wit20. As has been shown, reading this passage against the tradition of funeral discourse does more than serve to reinforce (if only on a semantic level) the traditional interpretation of the discussed adjective; in the process, additional information may be gained regarding the construction praeter iustum (on a grammatical, semantic and poetic level), and a better understanding of inconcussa may ensue. However, this method, an obvious course to follow in view of the genre and subject matter of Parentalia (see n. 20), does not exhaust the discussion of the passage and its literary background. The controversy concerning praeter iustum has a larger scope, as well as a longer history, on account of Martial’s VI 28.10. We shall now turn our attention to this side of the question. 2. Martial’s VI 28.10 and praeter iustum in Ausonius Libertus Melioris ille notus, tota qui cecidit dolente Roma, cari deliciae breues patroni, hoc sub marmore Glaucias humatus iuncto Flaminiae iacet sepulcro: 5 castus moribus, integer pudore, decet, inde dolet; for the noli dolere topos; cf. Lier 1903, pp. 571-572; Kassel 1958, pp. 70-71; Lattimore 1962, pp. 217-220; Hernández Pérez 2001, pp. 84-86. For the general sentiment, cf. CLE 1309. 1-2 siste gradum, fugiat quamuis breuis hora, uiator, / sic fati nullus te dolor exanimet. 18 Alvar Ezquerra’s rendering may be well said to include both notions (1990, p. 224): «y no tengas que llorar, más allá de lo justo, muerte ninguna»; cf. Combeaud 2010, p. 127: «et plus qu’il ne se doit, ne pleurer point de deuil». 19 For another «ringkompositorische Aufnahme» of the beginning (Dräger 2012, p. 436), cf. 2 memorabo ~ 16 commemorare. 20 On the connections of Parentalia with the genre of funerary epigram, see Alvar Ezquerra 1990, p. 219; Lolli 1997, p. 21; for influences from related genres, see Alvar Ezquerra 1990, ibid.; Lolli 1997, pp. 26-29; Combeaud 2010, p. 673; Moreno Soldevila 2019, p. 140 (additionally, see this article for the influence of love elegy on Parentalia). 356 DANIEL LÓPEZ-CAÑETE QUILES Emerita LXXXVII 2, 2019, pp. 341-362 ISSN 0013-6662 https://doi.org/10.3989/emerita.2019.16.1916 ing– a sense pause after fles is recommendable from a poetical viewpoint, as it arguably enriches the closure of this poem with a possible double entendre, thereby enhancing its epigrammatic quality44. Either by following my proposed text or Salanitro’s –provided that we are ready to assent to the construction talia nil fleas–, this punctuation has implications for the study of Ausonius’ line that are not difficult to see. According to Green, as we saw, the wish expressed by the poet in imitation of Martial excludes all forms of funeral distress for the addressee, with the exception of the latter’s own death; it may then be said that Green’s interpretation is, to some extent, based on the assumption that the second half of Ausonius’ pentameter (funera nulla fleas) imitates a verse by Martial in which only nil goes with fleas while talia goes with qui fles: namely, the vulgate text of VI 28.10; as much can be said, for that matter, in regard to Barth’s textual conjecture: et praeter nostrum (~ qui fles talia, sc. Glaucias’ death), funera nulla fleas (~ nil fleas, uiator). Conversely, a repunctuated version of Martial’s line shows more than one similarity with that of Ausonius as we understand it. A symmetrical quid pro quo exchange would be at work in both texts: in return for sympathy towards iusta funera, readers of Ausonius’ are hoped to never grieve praeter iustum; in reward for tears shed when passing by Glaucias’ tomb, uiatores would be meant to never have to weep for a death like that of Glaucias; the events memorialized in each poem are different in kind (it is for dead elder people that Ausonius, unlike Martial, invites our reverence), but in both cases the wish expressed by the speaker would focus equally on warding off a mors immatura on the part of the 44 Depriving qui fles of an accusative (see n. 37) has the additional advantage of affording a salutary ambiguity. With the text thus printed, the whole wish expressed by the speaker (‘passer-by who grieve, may you not have to grieve for anything like this’) may be not only read as expressing gratitude for sympathetic uiatores («quid pro quo motif»), but also as conveying that already mourn-stricken uiatores who read Glaucias’ epitaph (fles would point to their own grief, caused by whatever personal reasons) may feel comforted, in comparison, not to have gone through such an agonizing experience as Glaucias’ patron: thus understood, the line would emphasize the unique pitifulness of the puer’s death; for the sentiment, cf. CLE 988: Coniuge si qua caret fratremque miserruma, si qua / flet raptum et natum perdidit a gremio, / hunc titulum aspiciat: funus non quaeret in isto / quo dolet et flebit tot mea damna magis; CIL III 6155 uiator, resiste et lege, nihil ultra crudelius h(oc?) m(onumento?) c(ernere?) p(otes? (Mommsen’s reconstruction). Being possible as it is only with qui fles (and no accusative), this amphibology would add a welcome touch of cleverness to the closure of Martial’s epigram and therewith an additional argument for placing the comma after fles. AUSONIUS, PAR. PRAEF. UERS. 15-18 AND MARTIAL VI 28.10 357 Emerita LXXXVII 2, 2019, pp. 341-362 ISSN 0013-6662 https://doi.org/10.3989/emerita.2019.16.1916 reader. Also likely significant are the similar ways in which similar meaning is organized and expressed: the subjunctive fleas is constructed with a direct object partially expressed by a negative indefinite pronoun nulla funera / ni(hi)l, and a comparison is established between those deaths which will hopefully be averted (‘no bereavements’ / ‘nothing’) and the specific mournful events which are referenced in the poem (‘in line with this’, tale or talia / ‘out of line with iustum’; cf. line 1 nomina carorum iam condita funere iusto). Lastly, double meanings may be another shared feature (praeter iustum = iniuste, sc. funera iniusta / plus iusto; qui fles = ‘you who weep out of sympathy’ / ‘you who are yourself in mourning’; see n. 44). In other words: if the critical comma is placed after fles, the concluding line of VI 28 provides a neat model for a correct reading of Par. praef. uers. 18. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that, if the same comma is placed after talia instead, the previous set of neat correspondences disappears: contrast ‘to weep for nothing at all’ (nil fleas, uiator), with ‘to weep for nothing praeter iustum’; in other words: a repunctuated text of VI 28.10 makes for a far better match for Ausonius’ line than the vulgate text of Martial’s epigram. These are facts, I believe, that are beyond contention; an attempt at establishing their significance will occupy the following, final reflections. 3. How did Ausonius read Martial’s VI 28.10? (by way of conclusion) To the best of my knowledge, Ausonius is not mentioned by commentators on VI 28.10, not even by Salanitro in her argument for repunctuating the text of this passage. As noted above (§ 2), Ausonius’ epigram LXII is proof of this poet’s interest in Martial’s epigram on Glaucias, which makes it all the more likely that Par. praef. uers. 18 was influenced by the same poetic model. This holds true regardless of how we choose to print the first half of Martial’s hendecasyllable: the resemblances between the sequences nulla funera fleas and nil / nihil fleas, both featuring in funeral poems and in the closural positions of them, are inescapable and significant (cf. n. 22). What text was available to Ausonius’ eyes in the first half of the hendecasyllable, and how he read it, may be two separate questions given our uncertainty concerning the ancient use of punctuation marks45. It is contended by some 45 On this question, see e.g. Townend 1969; Geymonat 1985; Feeney 2011; Parkes 2016, pp. 9-13; contrast Wingo 1972; Habinek 1985, pp. 42-88. 358 DANIEL LÓPEZ-CAÑETE QUILES Emerita LXXXVII 2, 2019, pp. 341-362 ISSN 0013-6662 https://doi.org/10.3989/emerita.2019.16.1916 that in the days of poets like Vergil or Martial «la punteggiatura era completamente omessa nel momento in cui il testo del poeta era dettato ai librarii» (Geymonat, 1985, p. 998), and that «it was up to the individual reader to mark up a text if he wanted to, relying on his own interpretation of what it meant and how it run» (Feeney 2011, pp. 47-58). Likewise, it has been asserted that «there is little evidence before the sixth century that guides to phrasing –punctuation– originated with the author», with St. Jerome being «one of the first Latin writers» who proceeded this way (Parkes 2016, pp. 9; 15)46. It is surely true that no regular system of punctuation like those used in our era was operative in editions of books from the time of Martial or Ausonius. However, it is also known that Roman authors had long had graphic marks at their disposal in order to set off clauses and sense units within periods for the sake of clarity. I believe Martial might have felt the need to protect the meaning of VI 28.10 from misunderstanding, and to accordingly use an explicit sign of sense pause after fles for disambiguation (perhaps a uirgula)47; of course, it is anyone’s guess if such was the text in the copy of Martial’s book VI used by Ausonius around two centuries after its first edition. If so, there would be no need to further discuss how Ausonius’ line, as we understand it, was influenced by Martial’s. On the other hand, it may be interesting to briefly speculate on how the Gallic poet would have read the sequence qui fles talia nil fleas uiator, with no uirgula at all 48: if Par. praef. uers. 18, as we understand it, was actually written in imitation of that sequence, then Ausonius may well be thought to have read Martial’s text by inserting a sense pause after fleas, and not talia (i. e., as defended in this paper)49. Thus, whether with 46 Cf. Wingo 1972; Habinek 1985, pp. 42-88. 47 See my discussion in López-Cañete Quiles, forthcoming. 48 For the sake of simplicity, we will momentarily set aside the alternative text tale nihil (see n. 51). 49 Cf. Parkes 2016, p. 10: «If authors supplied punctuation to a text it was as readers not writers». For Ausonius’ awareness of the importance of sense pauses in reading, cf. his own advice to his grandson (Protr. II 2.47-50): tu flexu et acumine uocis / innumeros numeros doctis accentibus effer / adfectusque impone legens. distinctio sensum / auget et ignauis dant interualla uigorem; Ausonius’ distinctio is translated as «phrasing» by Parkes 2016, p. 10; «‘Punctuation’ [or perhaps ‘phrasing’]», according to Cameron 2011, p. 485. AUSONIUS, PAR. PRAEF. UERS. 15-18 AND MARTIAL VI 28.10 359 Emerita LXXXVII 2, 2019, pp. 341-362 ISSN 0013-6662 https://doi.org/10.3989/emerita.2019.16.1916 a previously punctuated text or otherwise, it seems clear that such a rendering of VI 28.10 may have made perfect sense to Ausonius50. This is obviously not proof per se that Martial actually meant his verse to be read in this fashion. However, there are other reasons for contending that this was the original reading of VI 28.10 (cf. § 2); and conversely, an understanding of Par. praef. uers. 18 as an allusion to mortes immaturae can be corroborated independently of the way we approach its poetic model (cf. § 1). As a result, it is hopefully not a case of circular reasoning to say that, in view of their mutual consistency (cf. § 2), both positions may be considered as complementary. I am thus inclined to conclude that, in writing Par. praef. uers. 18 the way he did, its author echoes the clause distribution of VI 28.10 –and the sentence meaning attached to it– as arguably conceived by its own author. In defying the general consensus on Ausonius’ passage, scholars such as Green or Barth have sought support in the traditional text of Martial. The reverse seems a more correct approach, and a more rewarding one at that; it is the editorial revision of Martial’s text, in tandem with an adherence to traditional views on Ausonius’ praeter iustum (concerning text and semantics, not grammar, cf. § 1.4), that may help settle the questions discussed regarding each separate passage51. Bibliography Alvar Ezquerra, A. 1990: Décimo Magno Ausonio, Obras. Traducción, introducción y notas, Madrid. Asso, P. 2010: «Queer consolation: Melior’s dead boy in Statius Silvae 2.1», AJPh 131, pp. 663-697. Barth, C. von 1624: Aduersariorum commentariorum libri LX, Frankfurt. Bolt, H. 1766: Silua critica in qua compluria auctorum ueterum, Ausonii praesertim, loca, uel emendantur uel uindicantur. Accedit eiusdem Silua poetica, Haarlem. 50 At least, as far as clause distribution is concerned (on the syntactic implausibility of talia nil fleas, see § 2; cf. nn. 38-40). It is also worth noticing that, even if the reading in Ausonius’ copy had been qui fles talia, nil fleas, uiator, as in the vulgate text, this author may still be thought to have «edited» the text of Martial, if only for his own personal use. 51 As for the two textual alternatives here considered, the evidence provided by Ausonius’ line is, I believe, not conclusive: the plural in funera nulla (fleas) agrees with talia (nil fleas), while tale nihil fleas seems more consistent with Martial’s usage (see above and nn. 42-43) and is (perhaps) mirrored by the singular neuter iustum (on which, see above § 1.4). 360 DANIEL LÓPEZ-CAÑETE QUILES Emerita LXXXVII 2, 2019, pp. 341-362 ISSN 0013-6662 https://doi.org/10.3989/emerita.2019.16.1916 Brown, R. D. 1987: Lucretius on Love and Sex. A Commentary on De Rerum Natura IV, 1030-1287 with Prolegomena, Text and Translation, Leiden, New York, Copenhague, Cologne. Cameron, A. 2011: The Last Pagans of Rome, Oxford. CLE: Anthologia Latina II. Carmina Latina epigraphica conlegit Franciscus Buecheler, I-II, Stuttgart, 1982 (reprint of Leipzig 1887). Colafrancesco, P. and Massaro, M. 1986: Concordanze dei Carmina Latina Epigraphica, Bari. Collesson, V. 1739: M. Valerii Martialis epigrammatum libros XV interpretatione et notis illustrauit Vincentius Colleso, J. C., Paris. Combeaud, B. 2010: D. M. Ausonii Burdigalensis opuscula omnia. Ausone de Bordeaux. Oeuvres complètes, Bourdeaux. Consolino, F. E. 1977: «Al limite della tarda Antichità: I “Parentalia” di Ausonio», Studi Classici e Orientali 26, pp. 105-127. Dolansky, F. 2011: «Honouring the Family Dead on the Parentalia: Ceremony, Spectacle, and Memory», Phoenix 65, 1/2, pp. 125-157. Dräger, P. 2012: Decimus Magnus Ausonius, Sämtliche Werke, Bd 1: (Auto-)Biographische Werke. Herausgegeben, übersetzt und kommentiert von P. D. Trier. Erasmo, M. 2008: Reading Death in Ancient Rome, Columbus. Evelyn-White, H. G. 1919: Ausonius. With an English Translation, vol. I, London - New York. Feeney, D. 2011: «Hic finis fandi: On the Absence of Punctuation for the Endings (and Beginnings) of Speeches in Latin Poetic Texts», Materiali e discussioni per l’analisi dei testi classici 66, pp. 45-91. Fleury, J. 1730: D. Magni Ausonii Burdigalensis Opera. Interpretatione et notis illustrauit Julianus Floridus, Paris. Gärtner, T. 2006: «Kritische Bemerkungen zu Gedichten des Ausonius», Faventia 28, 1/2, pp. 79-97. Geymonat, M. 1985: «Interpunzione», in Enciclopedia Virgiliana, II, Roma, pp. 998-1000. Gómez Pallarès, J. 1992: «Poetas latinos como “escritores” de CLE», CFC (L) 2, pp. 201-230. Green, R. P. H. 1977: «Ausonius’ Use of the Classical Latin Poets: Some New Examples and Observations», CQ 27. 2, pp. 441-452. Green, R. P. H. 1991: The Works of Ausonius, Oxford. Green, R. P. H. 1999: Ausonii opera, Oxford. Grewing, F. 1997: Martial, Buch VI (Ein Kommentar), Göttingen. Gronovius, J. F. 1637: Iohannis Frederici Gronouii In P. Papinii Statii Siluarum libros V Diatribe ad Th. Graswinckelium equitem & JC, The Hague. Habinek, T. N. 1985: The Colometry of Latin Prose, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London. AUSONIUS, PAR. PRAEF. UERS. 15-18 AND MARTIAL VI 28.10 361 Emerita LXXXVII 2, 2019, pp. 341-362 ISSN 0013-6662 https://doi.org/10.3989/emerita.2019.16.1916 Hernández Pérez, R. 2001: Poesía latina sepulcral de la Hispania Romana. Estudio de los tópicos y sus formulaciones, Valencia. Kassel, R. 1958: Untersuchungen zur griechischen und römischen Konsolationsliteratur, Munich. Kay, N. G. 2001: Ausonius, Epigrams. Text with Introduction and Commentary, London. Kühner, R. and Stegmann, C. 1966: Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache, Bd. II, Hannover (reprint of Hannover, 1912). Lattimore, R. 1962: Themes in Greek and Roman Epitaphs, Urbana. Lemaire, N. E. 1825: M. V. Martialis Epigrammata ad codices Parisinos accurate recensita ... illustrauerunt quinque Parisiensis Academiae professores, Paris. Lier, B. 1903: «Topica carminum sepulcralium Latinorum», Philologus 62, pp. 445- 477. Lolli, M. 1997: D. M. Ausonius, Parentalia. Introduzione, testo, traduzione e commento, Brussels. López-Cañete Quiles, D., forthcoming: «On the text of Martial, 6.28.10». Martín Valls, R. 1971: «Inscripción romana del Bercial, Alcolea de Tajo (Toledo)», BSAA 37, pp. 425-429. Nugent, S. G. 1990: «Ausonius’ “late-antique” poetics and “post-modern” literary theory», Ramus 19, pp. 26-50. Pappas, V. 2016: «Ausonius’ Caesares», CFC (L) 36.1, pp. 27-40. Parkes, M. B. 2016: Pause and Effect. An Introduction to the History of Punctuation in the West, London and New York (=1992). Pastorino, A. 1971: Opere di Decimo Magno Ausonio, Turin. Peek, W. 1955: Griechische Vers-Inschriften, I: Grabepigramme, Berlin. Peiper, R. 1886: Decimi Magni Ausonii Burdigalensis opuscula recensuit R. P., Leipzig. Pelttari, A. 2014: The Space That Remains: Reading Latin Poetry in Late Antiquity, Ithaca and London. Prete, S. 1978: Decimi Magni Ausonii Burdigalensis opuscula, Leipzig. Salanitro, M. 1996: «L’augurio di una lapide al uiator (Mart. VI 28)», A&R 41, pp. 9-15. Schenkl, C. 1883: D. Magni Ausonii opuscula, Leipzig. Schmoock, R. 1911: De M. Valeri Martialis epigrammatis sepulchralibus et dedicatoriis, Diss., Weida. Shackleton Bailey, D. R. 1990: Martialis Epigrammata. Edidit D. R. S. B., Stuttgart. Shackleton Bailey, D. R. 1993: Martial. Epigrams. Edited and translated by D. R. S. B., Cambridge, Mass. - London, vol. II. Tollius, J. 1671: Ausoni Opera, Iacobus Tollius M. D. recensuit, Amsterdam. 362 DANIEL LÓPEZ-CAÑETE QUILES Emerita LXXXVII 2, 2019, pp. 341-362 ISSN 0013-6662 https://doi.org/10.3989/emerita.2019.16.1916 Tolman, J. A. Jr. 1910: A Study of the Sepulchral Inscriptions in Buecheler’s “Carmina Epigraphica Latina”, Chicago. Townend, G. B. 1969: «Some Problems of Punctuation in the Latin Hexameter», CQ 19.2, pp. 330-344. Valpy, A. J. 1823: D. Magni Ausonii Burdigalensis opera omnia ex editione Bipontina, London. Vinet, É. 1590: Ausonii Burdigalensis uiri consularis, omnia, quae adhuc in ueteribus bibliothecis inueniri potuerunt ... illustrata per E. Vinetum Santonem [et al.], Bordeaux. Vrugt-Lentz, J. T. 1960: Mors immatura, Groningen. Wingo, E. O. 1972: Latin Punctuation in the Classical Age, The Hague-Paris. Fecha de recepción de la primera versión del artículo: 26/04/2019 Fecha de aceptación: 14/05/2019 Fecha de recepción de la versión definitiva: 15/07/2019