Plautus: Capt. 463 — Quis miserrimus est? *
(Studi italiani di filologia classica, Quarta Serie, 5 (2007): pp. 117-120)
1. Status quaestionis
The verse Capt. 463 is at the beginning of a monologue in which Ergasilus, the parasitus, complains of his miserable life [1]:
Miser homo est, qui ipse sibi quod edit quaerit et id aegre inuenit, 461
Sed ille est miserior, qui et aegre quaerit et nihil inuenit.
Ille miserrimust, qui, cum † esse cupit, quod edit non habet. 463
[…]
The v. 463 is corrupt not only for its metre but also for its meaning, because, as E. Cocchia has observed, “alla forma grammaticale più intensa delsuperlativo miserrumus non corrisponde nessun maggiore svolgimento nel pensiero, essendo il quod edit non habet niente più che una circollocuzione [sic] di nihil inuenit [2]. In the past numerous scholars have proposed a variety of corrections or conjectural integrations, for example:
cupit esse Guietus, Bothius; esse cupiat Bentleius; cupit, <id> Lindemannus;
cupiit Bothius; cupidust Fleckeisenus; ei lubuito lubitumst Muellerus; cupit,
<tum> Niemeyerus, etc.
The integration tum has been accepted by F. Leo, W. M. Lindsay, C. Pascal, P. Nixon, G. Augello, E. Paratore, etc.; less fortunate are the other suggestions. But all of these emendations, as judged by F. Schoell, “uersum fulciunt, non sententiam” [3]. Schoell himself proposed substituting serupit for esse cupit [4]. L. Havet, on his part, corrected cupit in callet, interpreting the vv. 462-463 as follows: “mais plus malheureux est celui qui peine à chercher et ne trouve rien, et malheureux entre tous est l’expert en mangeaille à qui la mangeaille fait défaut” [5].
2. A new conjectural correction
The Plautine manuscripts agree with each other on esse cupit; it is edit (B D E) that has a variant edat(O J F): the error might hide under edit, which no one has suspected yet. We propose correcting – very lightly – edit in cepit, scanning the v. 463 as follows:
Īllĕ mĭ|sērrĭ|mūst, quī, | c(um) ēssĕ || cŭpĭt, quōd | cēpīt | nōn hăbēt
Correcting edit in cepit, we could translate the vv. 461-463 in this way: “It’s sad when man has to spend his time looking for his food and has hard work finding it. It’s sadder, though, when he has hard work looking for it and doesn’t find it. But it’s saddest of all that, when a man desires to eat, he has no more what he has captured” [6]. So there obviously is a “maggiore svolgimento nel pensiero” which corresponds to the “forma grammaticale più intensa del superlativo miserrumus”.
The verb capio is used frequently by Plautus; in Captiui 17 verses contain this word (including uncertain readings and conjectures): Arg. 1, Arg. 4, Arg. 8, 25, 27, 31, 94, 157, 256, 262, 330, 653, 685, 718, 722, 803, 856; the form cepit is found in the following verses: Amph. Arg. i. 3, 108; Mil. 120; Pseud. 401; Truc. 144 [7].
Cupit and cepit constitute a paronomasia.
It is explainable the corruption from cepit to edit: the fall of the letter c may have been caused by a material deterioration in the archetype; the confusion between the upper case P e D is not absolutely impossible; besides, the near presence of quod edit in the v. 461 may have made a “contribution” – perhaps the greater one – to the genesis of the error.
3. Quis miserrimus est?
But, according to Ergasilus, who is the most miserable? Himself?
Cocchia considered the v. 463 interpolated not only for the problems of its metre and meaning, but also because this verse “spezza quella contrapposizione tra miser e miserior, che è espressa dal sed del v. 462”. Furthermore, because “se il parassita poteva ben dolersi di non aver trovato ciò che desiderava, non poteva lagnarsi addirittura di non aver che mangiare” [8]. With these same arguments we would like to prove, on the contrary, the authenticity of the v. 463: if with the vv. 461-462 Ergasilus complains of his own life, with the v. 463 he probably makes an ironic reference to someone else on stage.
To whom? To Hegio.
Let’s take a look at what has happened before Ergasilus’monologue in question (act III, scene I): Hegio, after the capture of Philopolemus, has purchased some enemy priso-ners, among them Philocrates, in order to save his son’s life; but Philocrates, thanks to the “sacrifice” of Tyndarus, escaped from the Hegio’s hands (act II, scene III) – it is worth noting that the monologue of Ergasilus succeeds immediately the escape of Philocrates –. The whole matter may have a culinary meaning in the mouth of the parasite, professional gourmand: Philocrates is the “cibus” captus by Hegio [9], for satisfying not the stomach, but the heart, that is to say, the paternal love of the senex; however, when Hegio desires to exchange Philocrates for his son (esse cupit), the precious “cibus” will have disappeared – the poor old man will discover later the two prisoners’ deceit (act III, scene IV) –. Before the escape of Philocrates, Ergasilus has already called Hegio as miser senex: Aegre est mi hunc facere quaestum carcerarium / Propter sui gnati miseriam miserum senem (vv. 129-130); for the parasite, who could be even more miserable than Hegio, who has captured the “cibus”, but only to lose it afterwards?
In effect, the miser senex pronounces himself miser up to eight times, in the vv. 503, 504, 641, 757, 806, 858, 993, 994, and one time miseria, in the v. 924: [Ioui disque…] Quomque ex miseriis plurimis me exemerunt. The vv. 757-763, among others, make a summary of his tragic life, un sorrowful cry from the depths of his heart:
Satis sum semel deceptus. Speraui miser
Ex seruitute me exemisse filium;
Ea spes elapsa est. Perdidi unum filium,
Puerum quadrimum quem mihi seruos serpuit,
Neque eum seruom umquam repperi neque filium.
Maior potitus hostium est. Quod hoc est scelus?
Quasi in orbitatem liberos produxerim.
In conclusion, we say that, after the escape of Philocrates, Hegio homo miserrimus est, qui, cum esse cupit, quod cepit non habet.
Works cited:
Cocchia 1886 = E. Cocchia (ed.), I Captiui di M. Accio Plauto, Torino.
Ernout 1932-1961 = A. Ernout (ed), Plaute. Comédies, Paris.
Havet 1932 = L. Havet (ed.), Plaute. Les Prisonniers, Paris.
Lodge 1904-1933 = G. Lodge, Lexicon Plautinum, Lipsiae.
Nixon 1916-1938 = P. Nixon (ed.), Plautus, London-Cambridge (Mass.) (reprinted 1959-1963).
Schoell 1887 = F. Schoell (ed.), T. Macci Plauti Captiui, Lipsiae.
Notes:
* I am most grateful tothe Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana for having permitted me to consult the two Plautine manuscripts B and D. I would like to dedicate this modest contribution to Prof. Zhang Guan-Yao (张冠尧教授), my first Latin professor at Peking University.
[1] The Latin text follows the edition of Ernout1932-1961.
[2] Cocchia 1886: 50.
[3] Schoell 1887: 118.
[4] Cf. Schoell: 42, 118.
[5] Havet 1932: 63.
[6] The translation of the vv. 461-462 is Nixon’s (cf. Nixon 1916-1938: i, 505).
[7] Cf. Lodge 1904-1933: i, 233-236.
[8] Cocchia 1886: 50.
[9] For Ergasilus, looking for food is just like hunting (cf. vv. 85-87).
Li Song-Yang
1. Status quaestionis
The verse Capt. 463 is at the beginning of a monologue in which Ergasilus, the parasitus, complains of his miserable life [1]:
Miser homo est, qui ipse sibi quod edit quaerit et id aegre inuenit, 461
Sed ille est miserior, qui et aegre quaerit et nihil inuenit.
Ille miserrimust, qui, cum † esse cupit, quod edit non habet. 463
[…]
The v. 463 is corrupt not only for its metre but also for its meaning, because, as E. Cocchia has observed, “alla forma grammaticale più intensa delsuperlativo miserrumus non corrisponde nessun maggiore svolgimento nel pensiero, essendo il quod edit non habet niente più che una circollocuzione [sic] di nihil inuenit [2]. In the past numerous scholars have proposed a variety of corrections or conjectural integrations, for example:
cupit esse Guietus, Bothius; esse cupiat Bentleius; cupit, <id> Lindemannus;
cupiit Bothius; cupidust Fleckeisenus; ei lubuito lubitumst Muellerus; cupit,
<tum> Niemeyerus, etc.
The integration tum has been accepted by F. Leo, W. M. Lindsay, C. Pascal, P. Nixon, G. Augello, E. Paratore, etc.; less fortunate are the other suggestions. But all of these emendations, as judged by F. Schoell, “uersum fulciunt, non sententiam” [3]. Schoell himself proposed substituting serupit for esse cupit [4]. L. Havet, on his part, corrected cupit in callet, interpreting the vv. 462-463 as follows: “mais plus malheureux est celui qui peine à chercher et ne trouve rien, et malheureux entre tous est l’expert en mangeaille à qui la mangeaille fait défaut” [5].
2. A new conjectural correction
The Plautine manuscripts agree with each other on esse cupit; it is edit (B D E) that has a variant edat(O J F): the error might hide under edit, which no one has suspected yet. We propose correcting – very lightly – edit in cepit, scanning the v. 463 as follows:
Īllĕ mĭ|sērrĭ|mūst, quī, | c(um) ēssĕ || cŭpĭt, quōd | cēpīt | nōn hăbēt
Correcting edit in cepit, we could translate the vv. 461-463 in this way: “It’s sad when man has to spend his time looking for his food and has hard work finding it. It’s sadder, though, when he has hard work looking for it and doesn’t find it. But it’s saddest of all that, when a man desires to eat, he has no more what he has captured” [6]. So there obviously is a “maggiore svolgimento nel pensiero” which corresponds to the “forma grammaticale più intensa del superlativo miserrumus”.
The verb capio is used frequently by Plautus; in Captiui 17 verses contain this word (including uncertain readings and conjectures): Arg. 1, Arg. 4, Arg. 8, 25, 27, 31, 94, 157, 256, 262, 330, 653, 685, 718, 722, 803, 856; the form cepit is found in the following verses: Amph. Arg. i. 3, 108; Mil. 120; Pseud. 401; Truc. 144 [7].
Cupit and cepit constitute a paronomasia.
It is explainable the corruption from cepit to edit: the fall of the letter c may have been caused by a material deterioration in the archetype; the confusion between the upper case P e D is not absolutely impossible; besides, the near presence of quod edit in the v. 461 may have made a “contribution” – perhaps the greater one – to the genesis of the error.
3. Quis miserrimus est?
But, according to Ergasilus, who is the most miserable? Himself?
Cocchia considered the v. 463 interpolated not only for the problems of its metre and meaning, but also because this verse “spezza quella contrapposizione tra miser e miserior, che è espressa dal sed del v. 462”. Furthermore, because “se il parassita poteva ben dolersi di non aver trovato ciò che desiderava, non poteva lagnarsi addirittura di non aver che mangiare” [8]. With these same arguments we would like to prove, on the contrary, the authenticity of the v. 463: if with the vv. 461-462 Ergasilus complains of his own life, with the v. 463 he probably makes an ironic reference to someone else on stage.
To whom? To Hegio.
Let’s take a look at what has happened before Ergasilus’monologue in question (act III, scene I): Hegio, after the capture of Philopolemus, has purchased some enemy priso-ners, among them Philocrates, in order to save his son’s life; but Philocrates, thanks to the “sacrifice” of Tyndarus, escaped from the Hegio’s hands (act II, scene III) – it is worth noting that the monologue of Ergasilus succeeds immediately the escape of Philocrates –. The whole matter may have a culinary meaning in the mouth of the parasite, professional gourmand: Philocrates is the “cibus” captus by Hegio [9], for satisfying not the stomach, but the heart, that is to say, the paternal love of the senex; however, when Hegio desires to exchange Philocrates for his son (esse cupit), the precious “cibus” will have disappeared – the poor old man will discover later the two prisoners’ deceit (act III, scene IV) –. Before the escape of Philocrates, Ergasilus has already called Hegio as miser senex: Aegre est mi hunc facere quaestum carcerarium / Propter sui gnati miseriam miserum senem (vv. 129-130); for the parasite, who could be even more miserable than Hegio, who has captured the “cibus”, but only to lose it afterwards?
In effect, the miser senex pronounces himself miser up to eight times, in the vv. 503, 504, 641, 757, 806, 858, 993, 994, and one time miseria, in the v. 924: [Ioui disque…] Quomque ex miseriis plurimis me exemerunt. The vv. 757-763, among others, make a summary of his tragic life, un sorrowful cry from the depths of his heart:
Satis sum semel deceptus. Speraui miser
Ex seruitute me exemisse filium;
Ea spes elapsa est. Perdidi unum filium,
Puerum quadrimum quem mihi seruos serpuit,
Neque eum seruom umquam repperi neque filium.
Maior potitus hostium est. Quod hoc est scelus?
Quasi in orbitatem liberos produxerim.
In conclusion, we say that, after the escape of Philocrates, Hegio homo miserrimus est, qui, cum esse cupit, quod cepit non habet.
Works cited:
Cocchia 1886 = E. Cocchia (ed.), I Captiui di M. Accio Plauto, Torino.
Ernout 1932-1961 = A. Ernout (ed), Plaute. Comédies, Paris.
Havet 1932 = L. Havet (ed.), Plaute. Les Prisonniers, Paris.
Lodge 1904-1933 = G. Lodge, Lexicon Plautinum, Lipsiae.
Nixon 1916-1938 = P. Nixon (ed.), Plautus, London-Cambridge (Mass.) (reprinted 1959-1963).
Schoell 1887 = F. Schoell (ed.), T. Macci Plauti Captiui, Lipsiae.
Notes:
* I am most grateful tothe Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana for having permitted me to consult the two Plautine manuscripts B and D. I would like to dedicate this modest contribution to Prof. Zhang Guan-Yao (张冠尧教授), my first Latin professor at Peking University.
[1] The Latin text follows the edition of Ernout1932-1961.
[2] Cocchia 1886: 50.
[3] Schoell 1887: 118.
[4] Cf. Schoell: 42, 118.
[5] Havet 1932: 63.
[6] The translation of the vv. 461-462 is Nixon’s (cf. Nixon 1916-1938: i, 505).
[7] Cf. Lodge 1904-1933: i, 233-236.
[8] Cocchia 1886: 50.
[9] For Ergasilus, looking for food is just like hunting (cf. vv. 85-87).
Li Song-Yang