Codex Walgreenensis (Chicago) 2
[Ed.: This is the second portion of text released from the sequestered community of brilliant, young scholars who have come to be known as “The Chicago Project.” The lead editor and commentator is still beyond definitive identification. Fragmentary Poets do have one well placed source in The Chicago Project. He can only confirm that an unusually high proportion of Diet Coke is consumed there relative to other fine soft beverages. Fear not, gentle reader. We will know more soon. For the moment, please find useful the below.]
Codex Walgreenensis (Chicago) 2
carmina de factis hominum diuomque poeta
primus Homerus enim talia composuit.
quid me profecta iuuat haec legere alta puella,
et tantos uersus mente tenere mea,
an quid eos laete recitare in limine amatae,
si non ianua tum discere Homerica uult?
cura mihi non est nunc sed prius officium egi;
nemo operam melius me dedit †ipso† avidam.
1. Text
This portion may or may not be subsequent to the previously released portion of WC, as this text has come to be represented in conspectus siglorum of textual edition being furiously reedited around the globe. Cf. previously deposited portion on WC n.1.
2. Language and Prosody
The language appears to be Latin. Due to the alternate, but not severe, indentation, it is the resolved and practiced opinion of this commentator that the meter is likely to be possibly elegiac couplets, again. The monosyllabic termination of uult suggests feeble authorship.
3. Authorship
Hasn’t Faber, or pseudo-Faber, received enough for his fifteen minutes?
4. Materia
A predictable return to the limen puellae and to the hackneyed epic v. elegy debate. Though here, that debate rises to a level of internal discourse demanding posited (re)affirmation in the ever-inwardly-expanding web of self-conscious meta-verbal intramissions. [Ed.: Some still call this programmatic poetry.]
5. Commentary
1 (9) hominum diuomque: cf. Lucretius 1.1 Aeneadum genetrix hominum diuuomque uoluptas. Why would the poet allude to this, unless the goal is to introduce further archaism when the subject is epic? And why this line? Elegy requires no dedication, except perhaps to the puella. But the reference is clearly to Venus, which draws immediately contrasting comparison to Homer and his material. Perhaps this is a less capable attempt to recreate the timelessly elegiac trope of casting players representing the two disparate genres. Ovid clearly perfected this in Amores 3.1, which suggests that Faber was composing earlier, or in an egocentric stupor.
3 (11) quid me…iuvat: cf. Propertius 1.2.1, 3 (…6) Faber continues in the uniquely Propertian tradition of using harsh, abrupt questions to redirect the reader.
Alta puella: This does not occur as a description of a poet’s puella. Perhaps the reading should be longa or recta, cf. Catullus 86. The condition of the text makes it impossible to discern whether this is a recensio or a prima primarum, and thus the nature of the reading.
5 (13) quid: cf. 3 (11)
6 (14) ianua: An allusion to the paraklausithyron. Thanks goodness that this is only an allusion. Or is that an illusion?
8 (16) ipso: without another noun or pronoun, this is ill-informed. Faber is clearly not a native speaker of Latin. Oh, wait. Maybe the ipso agrees with me. Nevermind.
Codex Walgreenensis (Chicago) 2
carmina de factis hominum diuomque poeta
primus Homerus enim talia composuit.
quid me profecta iuuat haec legere alta puella,
et tantos uersus mente tenere mea,
an quid eos laete recitare in limine amatae,
si non ianua tum discere Homerica uult?
cura mihi non est nunc sed prius officium egi;
nemo operam melius me dedit †ipso† avidam.
1. Text
This portion may or may not be subsequent to the previously released portion of WC, as this text has come to be represented in conspectus siglorum of textual edition being furiously reedited around the globe. Cf. previously deposited portion on WC n.1.
2. Language and Prosody
The language appears to be Latin. Due to the alternate, but not severe, indentation, it is the resolved and practiced opinion of this commentator that the meter is likely to be possibly elegiac couplets, again. The monosyllabic termination of uult suggests feeble authorship.
3. Authorship
Hasn’t Faber, or pseudo-Faber, received enough for his fifteen minutes?
4. Materia
A predictable return to the limen puellae and to the hackneyed epic v. elegy debate. Though here, that debate rises to a level of internal discourse demanding posited (re)affirmation in the ever-inwardly-expanding web of self-conscious meta-verbal intramissions. [Ed.: Some still call this programmatic poetry.]
5. Commentary
1 (9) hominum diuomque: cf. Lucretius 1.1 Aeneadum genetrix hominum diuuomque uoluptas. Why would the poet allude to this, unless the goal is to introduce further archaism when the subject is epic? And why this line? Elegy requires no dedication, except perhaps to the puella. But the reference is clearly to Venus, which draws immediately contrasting comparison to Homer and his material. Perhaps this is a less capable attempt to recreate the timelessly elegiac trope of casting players representing the two disparate genres. Ovid clearly perfected this in Amores 3.1, which suggests that Faber was composing earlier, or in an egocentric stupor.
3 (11) quid me…iuvat: cf. Propertius 1.2.1, 3 (…6) Faber continues in the uniquely Propertian tradition of using harsh, abrupt questions to redirect the reader.
Alta puella: This does not occur as a description of a poet’s puella. Perhaps the reading should be longa or recta, cf. Catullus 86. The condition of the text makes it impossible to discern whether this is a recensio or a prima primarum, and thus the nature of the reading.
5 (13) quid: cf. 3 (11)
6 (14) ianua: An allusion to the paraklausithyron. Thanks goodness that this is only an allusion. Or is that an illusion?
8 (16) ipso: without another noun or pronoun, this is ill-informed. Faber is clearly not a native speaker of Latin. Oh, wait. Maybe the ipso agrees with me. Nevermind.
posted by App Crit at Sunday, May 07, 2006
2 Comments:
Wait, ipso? Are you sure that's not in a different fragment?
Ed.: Fragmentary Poets are grateful for the keen and critical eye of M. le Mad Latinist. Not only was the ipso missing from the first publication of this fragment, but careful readers will also note that the hemistich does not resolve without it.
Though Fragmentary Poets assume responsibility for all errors and omissions, we wish to point out that this was not our fault whatsoever and that we assume no responsibility for it. We blame instead the caffeine-fed zeal rumoured to be the nectar of that windowless pinnacle of palaeographical genious, The Chicago Project, such as it is.
Post a Comment
<< Home