Michael Gilleland at Laudator Temporis Acti posts about a striking example of ancient macaronic poetry:
Inter ‘eils’ Goticum ‘scapia matzia ia drincan’
non audet quisquam dignos edicere versus.
It’s quoted from D.R. Shackleton Bailey, ed., Anthologia Latina, I: Carmina in Codicibus Scripta, Fasc. 1: Libri Salmasiani Aliorumque Carmina (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1982), p. 201 (number 279), where it’s titled “De conviviis barbaris” [On barbarian banquets]. In Bailey, it’s followed by this (number 280):
Calliope madido trepidat se iungere Baccho,
ne pedibus non stet ebria Musa suis.
Gilleland then cites Magnús Snædal’s excellent article “The ‘Vandal’ Epigram” (Filologia Germanica/Germanic Philology 1 [2009]: 181-213), which concludes that the Germanic words are Vandal rather than (as often previously thought) Gothic and that the verses were probably composed around the beginning of the sixth century; Snædal “regards 279-280 as one poem and translates the Latin thus (at 184)”:
On foreign guests.
Among the Gothic ‘eils scapia matzia ia drincan’
No one ventures to recite decent verses.
Calliope hurries to depart from the wet Bacchus,
So it does not happen that a drunken muse doesn’t stand on her feet.
He adds:
The simplest assumption is that the author had himself tried — with limited success — to recite poetry among drunken Vandals, had witnessed such an attempt, or had been told about one. He composed the epigram about this and, although it is presented as a general truth, most likely he had a certain incident in mind. He is not making fun of Vandal poetry but only saying that dignified verses cannot been [sic, i.e. be] read while they are always ordering food and drink because Calliope flees from there. This is indeed all we can say with some certainty about the occasion of the epigram.
I refer you to Snædal for pretty much everything you could want to know about these verses, and to Gilleland for further conjectures and notes; what puzzles me is Snædal’s assumption that the verses form a single poem. The first two lines (number 279) are a pair of dactylic hexameters, while the second (number 280) comprise a line of dactylic hexameter followed by one in dactylic pentameter — in other words, a standard elegiac couplet. I do not recall ever seeing those two forms combined (a number of hexameters followed by a line of pentameter), so I am dubious about the assumption. But then my understanding of late classical Latin verse is exiguous to say the very least, so I am probably wrong. Anybody know about this stuff?
Recent Comments