Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-grvzd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-20T14:52:35.742Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Notes on Pelagonius*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

J. N. Adams
J. N. Adams
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The text of the fourth-century veterinary writer Pelagonius, recently edited for the first time this century and greatly improved by K.-D. Fischer, poses many problems for an editor. The Latinity of Pelagonius himself in the epistles which precede various chapters is awkward and difficult to understand. Much of the rest of the work is a compilation, not all of it Pelagonius' own work, based on a variety of sources from the magical to the scientific. The work survives largely in a single manuscript, codex Riccardianus 1179, a. 1485 (R). In this paper I pass over intractable questions of spelling and concentrate on more substantial problems of text and interpretation, some of which concern punctuation.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , December 1990 , pp. 523 - 534
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Pelagonii Ars Veterinaria (Leipzig, 1980)Google Scholar. The work was previously edited in the Teubner series by Ihm, M., Pelagonii Artis Veterinariae quae extant (Leipzig, 1892)Google Scholar. In the 1920s and 1930s Karl Hoppe published extensively on Pelagonius and his text. Two of his papers referred to in this article are: ‘Die Commenta artis medicinae veterinariae des Pelagonius’, Veterinärhistorisches Jahrbuch 3 (1927), 189–219Google Scholar (separately published: Abhandlungen aus der Geschichte der Veterinär-Medizin, Heft 14, Leipzig, 1927)Google Scholar; ‘Kritische und exegetische Nachlese zu Ihms Pelagonius I’, Veterinarhistorisches Jahrbuch 5 (1929), 1–32Google Scholar (separately published: Abhandlungen aus der Geschichte der Veterinar-Medizin, Heft 19, Leipzig, 1929)Google Scholar.

2 See in general Fischer's preface; also id. ‘Pelagonius on horse medicine’, Papers of the Liverpool Latin Seminar Third Volume 1981, ed. F. Cairns (ARCA Classical and Medieval Texts, Papers and Monographs 7, Liverpool), 285–303. Cf. Herzog, R. – Schmidt, P. L., Handbuch der lateinischen Literatur der Antike v (Munich, 1989), pp. 80ffGoogle Scholar.

3 See his note, p. 153.

4 ‘Nachlese I’, 23. On the sense of fauilla, see TLL, s.v.

5 For ‘burning and reducing to ashes’, see e.g. Marc. 27.102 ‘combusta et in cinerem redacta’, 34.80 ‘combures et in cinerem rediges’.

6 An alternative solution, as Professor Jocelyn points out to me, would be to delete in, though in that case the two clauses would not be as clearly linked as they would be by inde.

7 TLL iii. 1072.64ff. (under in cinerem, in cineres) cites nothing comparable.

8 For redigo, soluo, dissoluo et al. used in conjunction within cinerem, see TLL, loc. cit.

9 See Svennung, J., Compositiones Lucenses: Studien zum Inhalt, zur Textkritik und Sprache (Uppsala Universitets Arsskrift 1941: 5), pp. 140f.Google Scholar.

10 See e.g. Ahlquist, H., Studien zur spatlateinischen Mulomedicina Chironis (Uppsala, 1909), p. 36Google Scholar, Svennung, , Untersuchungen zu Palladius und zur lateinischen Fach und Volkssprache (Lund, 1935), pp. 226ffGoogle Scholar.

11 For perfrico+double accusative, see Ahlquist, , loc. cit., Lofstedt, E., Vermischte Studien zur lateinischen Sprachkunde und Syntax (Lund, 1936), p. 147Google Scholar.

12 On which see now Helttula, Anne, Studies on the Latin Accusative Absolute (Helsinki, 1987), especially pp. 79ffGoogle Scholar.

13 See Hoppe, , ‘Commenta’, § VIGoogle Scholar.

14 Pelagonius and the Mulomedicina disagree in the type of oleum to be used. This is one of various minor discrepancies between the two works (cf. uiridem and tepefacto, both of which are only in Pelagonius) which suggest that they are independent of each other.

15 Spero here as elsewhere in Pelagonius = ‘think’: cf. 139, 210.1.

16 Note West, G. (ed.), Black's Veterinary Dictionary 15 (London, 1985), 798Google Scholar ‘… muscles of the quarters can be felt…hard and board-like.’

17 ‘Nachlese I’, 31.

18 See Ihm, , p. 161 ‘supple accidit vel simile verbum’Google Scholar, and Hoppe, loc. tit.

19 I am punctuates ‘quod et nunc quibus membra…’, but the problem of nunc remains.

20 The symptoms of strophus are described (e.g.) at Mul. Chir. 221. Inability to walk is not among them. The animal runs, rolls (uolutare), paws the ground, and keeps on lying down then getting up again quickly.

21 Malitia is vague, = ‘badness, vice, fault’, for which sense see OLD s.v., b (cf. Plaut, . Aul. 215Google Scholar ‘te ciuem sine mala omni malitia / semper sum arbitratus’).

22 The use of ciuiliter here is puzzling. I tentatively follow TLL iii. 1219.36, where it is stated that ‘videtur voluisse evitare “vulgo”’.

23 For ex superfluo in this type of context (of saying something needlessly), see Pompeius, , GL v. 237.10fGoogle Scholar. ‘qua ratione hoc dixit noli putare ex superfluo hoc eumfecisse’.

24 See further TLL vi. 2.1799.4ff., 1801.45ff. Note Col. 6.36.3 (generositas, used in reference to an admissarius).

25 On this subject, see particularly Björck, G.. Zum Corpus Hippiatricorum Graecorum. Beitrdge zur antiken Tierheilkunde (Uppsala Universitets Årsskrift, 1932: 5), pp. 85fGoogle Scholar.

26 For nee = non immediately following a relative, see e.g. Per. Aeth. 20.6 ‘itaque Deo iubente sic euenit, ut ad diem, quern nee sperabam, ibi uenirem.’

27 See Mørland, H., Die lateinischen Oribasiusübersetzungen (Oslo, 1932), pp. 66fGoogle Scholar. for examples from the translations of Oribasius of masculine nominatives stercus, ulcus and uulnus. For opus as a masculine, see CIL xi. 5265.10; corpus seems to be attested only in the nominative as a masculine: TLL iv. 999.19ff. For pec turn, see CIL xi. 3571 ‘reposita est super pectum abunculo suo in pace’.

28 See Mørland, p. 67. Stercoram at Mul. Chir. 506 can be disregarded here. The neuter plural stercora favoured by the author (see Oder's index s.v. p. 434) has clearly been re-interpreted as a feminine singular.

29 See Väänänen, V., Introduction au latin vulgaire 3 (Paris, 1981), p. 117Google Scholar.

30 See Bonnet, M., Le latin de Gregoire de Tours (Paris, 1890), p. 348Google Scholar.

31 See Onnerfors, A., Physica Plinii Bambergensis (Hildesheim, 1975), ad locGoogle Scholar.

32 See Adams, J. N., The Text and Language of a Vulgar Latin Chronicle (Anonymus Valesianus II) (Institute of Classical Studies, Bulletin Supplement No. 36, London, 1976), p. 90Google Scholar.

33 ‘Nachlese I’, 19.

34 Insania and μαν⋯α regularly correspond to each other (TLL vii. 1. 1826.62ff.).

35 A medical or veterinary writer, whose whole work deals with the condition of an aeger, can leave the subject unexpressed and the reader will know that he is talking of the patient: e.g. Cels. 3.15.6 ‘sed haec facile ualidiores faciunt: si inbecillitas occupauit, pro exercitatione gestatio est; si ne hanc quidem sustinet…’ In veterinary Latin the reader may be left to deduce that the subject of a verb is the horse (e.g. Pel. 50.1 habuerit, 294 complicabit, al., 295 slet, 297 perfricetur, 304 reicerit). See in general De Meo, C., Lingue tecniche del latino (Bologna, 1983), p. 36Google Scholar.

36 For in insaniam conuerti TLL vii. 1.1827.4f. cites Itala, Act. 26.24 (cod. h).

37 See the passages collected by Oder, , Mul. Chir. index p. 300Google Scholar.

38 Untersuchungen zu Palladius, p. 401.

39 In ‘Pelagonius, Eumelus and a Lost Latin Veterinary Writer’, Centre Jean Palerne, Mémoires V, Textes Médicaux Latins Antiques (Saint-Étienne, 1984), p. 10 with n. 16Google Scholar.

40 See Adams, , op. cit. (n. 39), pp. 8ffGoogle Scholar.