MAGNÚS SNÆDAL
THE ‘VANDAL’ EPIGRAM
The paper deals with a Latin epigram, Inter eils goticum etc., often referred to as the
‘Gothic’ epigram. It contains some Germanic words that have generally been considered to be Gothic but here the view is taken that they are of a Vandal origin. In
the first section of the paper the manuscript tradition of the epigram, its origin and
editions are overviewed. In the second section the interpretations, so far, of the Germanic words are discussed and a new interpretation is proposed. Then the metre and
the possible occasion of the epigram are also dealt with. At the end the main conclusions are summarized.
0. Introduction
This paper deals with a Latin epigram, often referred to as the ‘Gothic’
epigram (in German, das ‘gotische’ Epigramm). It contains five Germanic
words that have generally been considered to be Gothic. The first section of
the paper is an overview of the manuscript tradition, the origin and the editions of the epigram. The second section gives an overview of the interpretations, so far, of the Germanic words and a new interpretation is proposed; the
metre and the possible occasion of the epigram are also discussed. The third
section summarizes the main conclusions.1
1. Manuscript tradition, origin and editions
1.1. The manuscripts
The epigram is preserved in one vellum manuscript, the so-called Codex
Salmasianus. Several copies have been made of parts of this manuscript, espe1
The first version of this paper was read at a conference, ‘Uppruni orðanna’, held in the
memory of Jörundur Hilmarsson in Reykjavík on 25 November 2006. I wish to thank the
reviewers of the journal for their useful comments.
Filologia germanica.indd 191
13/05/2009 14.12.25
192
MAGNÚS SNÆDAL
cially during the seventeenth century. The following is an overview of these
manuscripts.
The Codex Salmasianus is named after its owner, Claude de Saumaise
(Claudius Salmasius, 1588-1653). It is now in the Bibliothèque nationale de
France in Paris: Codex Parisinus Latinus 10318. In his editions of the Latin
anthology, Riese2 has given this manuscript the siglum A but here the abbreviation Salm. will be used. The manuscript was believed to be from the seventh century,3 or possibly the beginning of the eighth century.4 However, now
it is thought to be from c. 800; i.e. from the end of the eighth, beginning of the
ninth5 or, most likely, from the first years of the ninth century and undoubtedly written in Italy.6 Indeed, it had been previously maintained that the manuscript was from the ninth century7 but this was then rejected.8
The first 11 quaterniones or 176 pages are missing from Salm. It is an
uncial codex with scriptio continua but points are used now and then to
2
Alexander Riese (ed.), Anthologia Latina sive poesis Latinae svpplementvm I: Carmina
in codicibvs scripta, recensvit Alexander Riese, fascicvlvs I: Libri Salmasiani aliorvmqve
carmina, editio altera denvo recognita, Lipsiae 1894, p. xii.
3
Lucian Müller, “Sammelsurien LII”, Jahrbücher für classische Philologie 13 (1867), p.
803. Baehrens (ed.), Poetae Latini minores, recensuit et emendavit Aemilius Baehrens, IV,
Lipsiae 1882, p. 4. Ludwig Traube, “Zur lateinischen Anthologie. I. Über Gedichte des Codex
Salmasianus”, in Kleine Schriften, hrsg. von Samuel Brandt, München 1920, p. 51.
4
Fr. Dübner, [Review of Meyer’s] “Anthologia veterum Latinorum epigrammatum et poematum. […]”, Zeitschrift für die Alterthumswissenschaft 4 (1837), p. 7. Riese (ed.), Anthologia
…, editio altera, p. xiii. H. Omont, Anthologie de poètes latins dite de Saumaise. Reproduction réduite du manuscrit en onciale, latin 10318, de la Bibliothèque nationale, Paris 1903, p.
3. Cecil Clementi (ed.), Pervigilium Veneris / The Vigil of Venus, edited with facsimiles of the
Codex Salmasianus and Codex Thuaneus, an introduction, translation, apparatus criticus, and
explanatory notes by Cecil Clementi, Oxford / London 1911, p. 5. Morris Rosenblum, Luxorius. A Latin poet among the Vandals, together with text of the poems and an English translation, New York / London 1961, p. 97.
5
Bernhard Bischoff, “Panorama der Handschriftenüberlieferung aus der Zeit Karls des
Grossen”, in Karl der Grosse: Lebenswerk und Nachleben II. Das geistige Leben, hrsg. von
B. Bischoff, Düsseldorf 1965, p. 249. Maddalena Spallone, “Il Par. lat. 10318 (Salmasiano): dal
manoscritto alto-medievale ad una raccolta enciclopedica tardo-antica”, Italia medioevale e
umanistica 25 (1982), p. 51.
6
Paolo Radiciotti, “Problemi di datazione di codici in onciale (Par. lat. 10593, CLM 6224,
Par. lat. 10318)”, Archivio della Società romana di storia patria 116 (1993), p. 62.
7
Armand d’Avezac, “Mémoire sur Éthicus et sur les ouvrages cosmographiques intitulés
de ce nom”, Mémoires présentés par divers savants à l’Académie des inscriptions et belleslettres. Première série, sujets divers d’érudition, II (1852), p. 306, fn. 1.
8
Müller, “Sammelsurien LII”, p. 803.
Filologia germanica.indd 192
13/05/2009 14.12.25
THE ‘VANDAL’ EPIGRAM
193
mark caesura, phrases, etc.9 Traube thinks the scribe’s Latin was not very
good:10
Seine Kenntnisse im Lateinischen waren gering, aber gerade ausreichend,
ihm, der von dem Inhalt des Abzuschreibenden wenig genug verstand, allerlei
geläufigere Wortbilder vorzuzaubern. Er war ein rechter Halbgebildeter und, philologisch betrachtet, ein arger Interpolator.
The manuscript contains a collection of Latin poetry, put together in North
Africa at about the time when the Vandal state there was defeated (534).11
A facsimile of the entire manuscript has been published.12 It is in black and
white but titles are said to be red with the initials in many colours. The first
letter of every other line is in red.13 The epigram under discussion is on p. 141
in the manuscript. A diplomatic version runs:
DECONUIUIS BARBARIS
I NTEREILSGOTICUM SCAPIAMATZIA IADRINCAN
NONAUDITQUISQUÃ DIGNOSEDICEREUERSOS
CALLIOPEM ADIDO·TREPIDATSEIUNGEREBACCO
NEPEDIBUSNONSTET·EBRIAMUSA SUIS
In the second line the m of quisquam is written with a nasal stroke. The
space after the m in the third line is evident but it is in a strange place. Here
there is no word break so, if this space is not intentional, perhaps the space in
the title, the two spaces in the first line and the one in the fourth are unintentional too. All these spaces are of similar width. With the word breaks inserted, the text of the epigram is as follows:
De conuiuis barbaris
Inter eils goticum scapia matzia ia drincan
non audit quisquam dignos edicere uersos
Baehrens (ed.), Poetae …, p. 4. Riese (ed.), Anthologia …, editio altera, p. xiii.
Traube, “Zur lateinischen Anthologie …”, p. 51.
11
Rosenblum, Luxorius …, pp. 27-30. Alfred J. Baumgartner, Untersuchungen zur Anthologie des Codex Salmasianus, Baden 1981, p, 7. N. M. Kay, Epigrams from the Anthologia
Latina. Text, translation and commentary, London 2006, pp. 5-13.
12
Omont, Anthologie de poètes …
13
Riese (ed.), Anthologia …, editio altera, p. xiii. Rosenblum, Luxorius …, p. 97.
9
10
Filologia germanica.indd 193
13/05/2009 14.12.25
194
MAGNÚS SNÆDAL
Calliope madido· trepidat se iungere Bacco
ne pedibus non stet· ebria Musa suis
Translation:
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.
In the manuscript someone has written an e above the i in audit and a u
above the o in uersos in the second line to change these words into audet
and uersus.
As the scribe confuses i ~ e and u ~ o in several instances,14 it is taken for
granted that audit here stands for audet, as the syntax excludes the verb audio.
The sense of audet in this case is ‘is able to, can’. Two Latin dictionaries15
point to a passage in Lucretius, 6. 1070 (6. 1072 in recent editions),16 where
audent actually has the sense of possunt: “Vitigeni latices in aquai fontibus
audent Misceri, cum pix nequeat gravis et leve olivom.” It is best translated
as: ‘Vine borne juices are able to mix with spring waters, though heavy pitch
and light oil can not.’ By the use of audeo, this becomes a personification; the
vine-borne juices ‘dare, venture’, but the sense that they are able to, while the
other liquids mentioned are not, is evident. Maßmann, indeed, appears to have
this sense in mind when he writes that the author of the epigram “zu keinem
gedichte kommen könne” because of the carousing Goths.17
The form versos must be acc. pl. of versus whether it is taken to be a scribal error or simply formed according to the second declension.
14
Riese (ed.), Anthologia …, editio altera, pp. xlii-xliii. Rosenblum, Luxorius …, p. 102.
Spallone, “Il Par. lat. 10318 (Salmasiano): …”, pp. 62-63.
15
Páll Árnason, Ny Latinsk Ordbog, til Brug for den studerende Ungdom. Efter de vigtigste Kilder og Hielpemidler, […], ordnet og udg. av Paul Arnesen, Kjøbenhavn 1848, p. 322.
Egidio Forcellini, Totius Latinitatis lexicon opera et studio Aegidii Forcellini […] novo ordine
digestum amplissime auctum atque emendatum cura et studio Vincentii De-Vit, I, Prati 18581860, p. 477.
16
Lucretius, De rerum natura. 3rd ed., London 1966.
17
H. F. Maßmann, “Gotthica minora. 8. Ein gothisches Epigramm”, Zeitschrift für deutsches Alterthum 1 (1841), p. 379.
Filologia germanica.indd 194
13/05/2009 14.12.25
THE ‘VANDAL’ EPIGRAM
195
In the translation of the second half of the epigram it should be noted that
the meaning ‘depart’ for iungere is found in Souter’s glossary.18 Maßmann
apparently had this meaning in mind when he wrote that “dichtkunst (Calliope) fliehe erschrocken vor den hyperboräischen Bacchussöhnen”.19 The
same sense is implicit in van Helten’s translation, which, though, is a little
complicated:20
die muse scheut die gesellschaft des sich betrinkenden Bacchus, dieweil sie
fürchtet, infolge eines bei solchem zechgelage bekommenen rausches nicht mehr
auf den füssen stehen bez. das richtige versmass innehalten zu können
In the third line, it would also be possible to read seiungere ‘disunite, disjoin, separate, divide’, and not to divide it into se and iungere as is done in all
the copies and editions. In Salm. there is nothing to indicate two words rather
than one. The sense of the last two lines here is thought to be that Calliope
flees from Bacchus in order not to become drunk. In this way the second half
of the epigram makes sense in connection with the first half. The reason why
it is impossible to recite dignified verses is the departure of the muse.21
There exist some late copies of Salm.22 Four of them may be said to be relevant as the epigram is found in them, but they have no independent textual
value. Here the text of the epigram in these copies will be dealt with shortly.
The oldest copy is Parisinus Latinus 17904 in the Bibliothèque nationale,
written before the year 1626. It was made by François Juret (Franciscus IureAlexander Souter, A Glossary of Later Latin, Oxford 1949, p. 223.
Maßmann, “Gotthica minora. …”, p. 379.
20
W. van Helten, “Zu Anthologia Latina ed. Riese no. 285 und 285a (de conviviis barbaris)”, Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 29 (1904), p. 343.
21
Grabow’s translation of the second half is complicated and avoids the double negation
(August Grabow, “Ein gotisches Epigramm”, in Viro illustrissimo atque doctissimo Augusto
Stinner gymnasii regii Oppoliensis directori emerito […], Oppolii 1880, p. xxxiii.): “Auch
Calliope zagt in des schlemmenden Bacchus Gesellschaft, Trunken – als Muse! – nicht mehr
fest af den Füſsen zu stehn”. The same applies to Leo’s translation (Friedrich Leo, “Venantius Fortunatus, der letzte römische Dichter”, Deutsche Rundschau 32 (1882), pp. 416, fn. 1):
“Denn Calliope zagt, mit Bacchus, dem trunkenen, zu zechen, Fürchtet im Rausche nicht
mehr fest auf den Füßen zu stehn”. Here trepidat is translated twice, first as zagt and then as
fürchtet. Nevertheless, it is clear in both translations that no one dares to recite ready made
poetry because the muse is afraid of becoming drunk, not because she has left.
22
Riese (ed.), Anthologia …, editio altera, p. xii, fn. Rosenblum, Luxorius …, pp. 99-101.
Müller, “Sammelsurien LII”, p. 802. Kay, Epigrams …, p. 14.
18
19
Filologia germanica.indd 195
13/05/2009 14.12.25
196
MAGNÚS SNÆDAL
tus 1552-1626). The epigram is on fol. 37r, evidently written after Salm., but
with word breaks in lines 2-4. The first line runs: Intereilsgoticum scapiamatzia iadringan. This is the same text as in Salm., except for the scribal error
dringan for drincan. The conjectures audet and versus are made in the second
line without comment. The points after madido in the third line and stet in the
fourth line are not copied, but instead there are points at the end of the second
and fourth lines.
The second copy comes from Nicolaus van Heins (Nicolaas Heinsius 16201681). It was written between 1631 and 1649, and is now a part of Heid. HS.
46 in the Universitätsbibliothek Heidelberg. It came there from Amsterdam.
The epigram is on fol. 56v, evidently written after Salm. but with word breaks
in lines 2-4. The first line originally ran: Intereilsgoticum scapiamatzia
iadringan. Then scapiamatzia was divided into skapia matzia with a diagonal
stroke, which is clearly set later. Also, dringan has been changed to drincan
by crossing out the g and writing a c above. This scribal error suggests relations with Parisinus Latinus 17904.
In the second line the i in audit and the o in versos are underlined and e u is
written in the left margin to change these words into audet and versus; cf. the
correction in Salm. and the conjectures in Par. Lat. 17904 mentioned above.
The third line has Baccho instead of Bacco. The points after madido and stet
in the third and fourth lines are not present, but a period is added at the end.
The third copy is VLO 16 in the collection of Isaac Vossius (1618-1689)
in the Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden. This is a careful copy from the seventeenth century, made in France (Paris?). The epigram is on fol. 106r, evidently written after Salm. but with word breaks. The first line runs: Intereils goticum scapia matzia iadrincan, so goticum has been separated from intereils,
but iadrincan is written as one word as in other copies. In the second line,
versos has been changed to versus by setting three dots under the o and writing a u above it. The third line has Calliopem adido so the curious space in
Salm. has been kept. On the other hand, the points in the third and fourth
lines have not been copied.
Then there is the fourth copy. In the editions of the epigram collection,
readings from a manuscript called Schedae Divionenses are very often used.
Burman, the first editor of the Latin anthology (1759 and 1773), especially was inclined to use these ‘sheets from Dijon’. In Riese’s editions23 they
are given the siglum α but here they will be called the Schedae. Since 1867
23
Filologia germanica.indd 196
Riese (ed.), Anthologia …, editio altera, p. xxxii.
13/05/2009 14.12.25
THE ‘VANDAL’ EPIGRAM
197
they have been in the Universitätsbibliothek Heidelberg, a part of the previously mentioned manuscript Heid. HS. 46. The Schedae are written by an
unknown scholar between 1661 and 1756, containing copies from Salm., i.e.
copies of poems in the manuscript not present in printed anthologies of the
time. Riese also thinks the Schedae were written direct from Salm. He bases
this assumption on the fact that the title of the Schedae, ‘Epigrammata | antiqua | ex | Codice Divionensi | deſcripta’, is written by Burman’s hand. This
Codex Divionenis must be the Codex Salmasianus, then being in Dijon 24.
Other scholars, on the other hand, say the Schedae were copied from a copy
of Salm., but they do not produce any evidence for this.25 It, though, must
be based on Dübner.26 He says he saw the Schedae Divionenses “auf der
königlichen Bibliothek”. These ‘sheets’, he says, are from the sixteenth century, which means that these are not the same ‘sheets’ that are now a part
of Heid. HS. 46; instead, the Schedae in Heidelberg must be a copy of the
‘sheets’ “auf der königlichen Bibliothek”. Thus, according to Dübner, readings thought to be peculiar to the Schedae are found in an older manuscript,
and it is barely likely that two copyists had independently read the Germanic
words wrongly in exactly the same way, and made exactly the same emendations to the Latin text.
Maßmann writes that he asked Dübner to check the epigram in both manuscripts in Paris; one of them is the Codex Salmasianus but the other one
Maßmann calls ‘cod. 2.’.27 Here there are two interesting things. First, Maßmann does not use the label Schedae Divionenses so most likely Dübner
did not use it in their correspondence. Second, all the readings Maßmann
quotes from ‘cod. 2.’ are identical to the Schedae (with one minor exception,
see below) but they cannot have been taken directly from there. But what
manuscript is hidden behind the label ‘cod. 2.’? Apart from Parisinus Latinus
17904, there appears to be no other copy in Paris, but the peculiar readings
of the Schedae cannot have their origin there. If it is taken for granted that
by “der königlichen Bibliothek” Dübner meant the Bibliothèque nationale in
Paris he possibly somehow mistook Parisinus Latinus 17904 for being the
Schedae Divionenses.
24
Alexander Riese, “Zur lateinischen Anthologie”, Jahrbücher für classische Philologie
14 (1868), pp. 698-701.
25
Müller, “Sammelsurien LII”, pp. 802-803. Baehrens (ed.), Poetae …, p. 5. Rosenblum,
Luxorius …, p. 99. Kay, Epigrams …, p. 14.
26
Dübner, [Review of Mayer’s] “Anthologia …”, p. 8.
27
Maßmann, “Gotthica minora. …”, p. 379.
Filologia germanica.indd 197
13/05/2009 14.12.26
198
MAGNÚS SNÆDAL
The Schedae contain many emendations (often the same emendation as
Saumaise had made in the original). Some of these are considered to be good,
but the manuscript has, in fact, no independent value, cf. Müller:28
dasz die lesarten des Divionensis oft besser sind, erklärt sich eben daraus, dasz
der redactor, der ihn zusammenstellte, mehr von latein und logik verstand als jener obscure mönch, der vor tausend jahren den archetypus schrieb. […] der Divionensis ist eben weiter nichts als ein mundgerecht gemachter Salmasianus […]
Hence the Latin text in the Schedae is considered better than in Salm., and
the epigram is almost always printed with most of these readings. It should be
borne in mind that these are, indeed, conjectures rather than readings proper.
Therefore it is somewhat strange how tenacious these conjectures have been
in the editions and among those who have tried to explain the ‘Gothic’ of the
epigram. On the other hand, the form of some of the Germanic words are
somewhat mutilated in the Schedae. The epigram is written on fol. 99v and
numbered 88. Here is an overview of the peculiarities in the Schedae.
The title has conviviis instead of convivis.
The first line runs: inter citz Gothicum, scapia madria, jadrincam. Here
the Latin has gothicum instead of goticum and, as mentioned, the Germanic
is different from Salm. A long stroke above citz is apparently done by the
first scribe. Also, the words citz and madria are underlined and the following notes are found in the left margin: “al. cod. eils | al. matzia”. This is
done by a different hand. The error citz is not easily explained but it must
be a misreading of eils, but neither Salm. nor Par. Lat. 17904 suggest such
a reading. Perhaps the tz of matzia somehow initiated the tz of citz. On the
other hand, madria is caused by the roving of the scribe’s eyes towards dr in
drincan. The r in madria seems to have been changed to z so the outcome is
madzia. This appears to be done by the first scribe. The spaces before and
after citz are slightly wider than other word breaks. The same applies to the
spaces before and after scapia madria. The commas are in the middle of the
spaces. At the end of the line, jadrincam is written in one word instead of
iadrincan in Salm. Maßmann gives ia drincam as the reading of ‘cod. 2.’.29
That is almost identical to iadrincam in the printed editions of Burman and
Meyer (see below, 1.3).
28
29
Filologia germanica.indd 198
Müller, “Sammelsurien LII”, p. 802.
Maßmann, “Gotthica minora. …”, p. 379, fn. 4.
13/05/2009 14.12.26
THE ‘VANDAL’ EPIGRAM
199
The second line has audet … educere versus which is a conjecture for
audit … edicere versos in Salm.; audet and versus are reminiscent of the corrections in Salm., cf. also the other copies, but educere is new. There is no
comment on these conjectures in the manuscript.
The third line has Baccho instead of Bacco in Salm. There is no punctuation mark after madido, cf. the point in Salm., but in the fourth line there is
a comma after stet, cf. the point there in Salm. Finally, a full point is added
at the end.
The consequences of these conjectures are that now the title translates as
‘On foreign feasts’ and all the editors choose that version (cf. 1.3). The interpreters of the ‘Gothic’ words, others than Maßmann, Grabow and Scardigli,
do not mention the title. Indeed, Grabow thinks that only conviviis is a possible reading as this is all about carousing but not table companions.30 Nevertheless, the plural convivia can mean ‘company at a table, guests’ and is then
equivalent to convivae.31 Because of educere in the second line its content
now becomes ‘no one dares to compose decent verses’.
The first two copies at least, and even the third one, are older than the Schedae. They are not quoted in the critical apparatus of the editions since they do
not have an independent value, but that is true of the Schedae also. Some more
manuscripts, containing copies of parts of the Salm., are mentioned,32 but, to
my knowledge, the epigram is not found in them.33
1.2. The place of origin of the epigram
In Burman’s edition of the anthology (cf. 1.3), Gerard Meerman has written an explanation of our epigram below the line. There he points out that
Grabow, “Ein gotisches Epigramm”, p. xxx.
Ch. T. Lewis / Ch. Short, A Latin Dictionary. Founded on Andrews’ edition of Freund’s
Latin Dictionary, Oxford 1958, p. 462.
32
Riese (ed.), Anthologia …, editio altera, p. xii, fn. 1. Müller, “Sammelsurien LII”, p. 802.
I have not been able to locate one copy, a ‘codex Burmannianus’ that Müller says he inspected
but does not mention where.
33
Here I want to thank the following people who gave information about the manuscripts
and assisted me in obtaining photocopies of the epigram: Marie-Hélène Tesnière and MarieFrançoise Damongeot at the Bibliothèque nationale de France in Paris, Walter Hämmerle at
the Universitätsbibliothek Heidelberg, Jan Cramer at the Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden,
Klaas van der Hoek at the Universiteitsbibliotheek Amsterdam, and Ad Leerintveld at the
Koninklijke Bibliotheek in the Hague.
30
31
Filologia germanica.indd 199
13/05/2009 14.12.26
200
MAGNÚS SNÆDAL
the Germanic in the epigram must be Vandal.34 He refers to what Procopius (3.2.5) writes about the language of the [Ostro]goths, Vandals, Visigoths
and Gepides: “τῆς γὰρ Ἀρείου δόξης εἰσὶν ἅπαντες, φωνὴ τε αὐτοῖς ἐστι μία,
Γοτθικὴ λεγομένη” (‘For they are all of the Arian faith, and have one language
called Gothic’).35 More than 90 years later, te Winkel maintained that the Germanic in the epigram would be Vandal rather than Gothic. He says this was
pointed out to him by a friend who he does not mention by name.36 Müller also
argues in favour of this view; the main argument being that the epigram collection in Salm. – apart from a few verses by classical authors – is from North
Africa and the last years of the Vandal state there. One should not, he says, be
deceived by the word goticum, as ancient authors often used the Goths to represent all the Germanic tribes.37 Rosenblum and Bonfante express the same
view. The latter says he has this proposal from a colleague, Fr. Della Corte.38
Most recently, Scardigli upholds this view.39
Thus, already in the first edition of the Latin anthology, where the epigram
was first printed, it was maintained that the Germanic words in it were Vandal.
This has been ignored or neglected by most of those who have tried to explain
the ‘Gothic’ in the epigram. None of them rejects this view explicitly; they simply assume something else. Maßmann talks about its author as ‘Italianer’,40 and
Dietrich writes that the Germanic words therein are independent evidence about
the Gothic spoken in Italy.41 Neither of them, nor Grimm, mentions Rome as the
place of origin of the epigram, as can be inferred from Ebbinghaus.42 Most of the
34
[Pieter] Burman (ed.), Anthologia vetervm Latinorvm epigrammatvm et poëmatvm, sive
catalecta poëtarvm Latinorvm in VI. libros digesta. […], cvra Petri Bvrmanni Secvndi, qui
perpetuas Adnotationes adjecit, II, Amstelaedami 1773, pp. 449-452.
35
Procopius, in six volumes, II: History of the Wars, Books III and IV, London 1916, pp.
10 and 11.
36
L. A. te Winkel, “De dialecten en de vocaalspelling”, De Taalgids 6 (1864), p. 187.
37
Lucian Müller, “Sammelsurien XXVIII”, Jahrbücher für classische Philologie 13
(1867), pp. 484-485.
38
Rosenblum, Luxorius …, p. 26. Giuliano Bonfante, Latini e Germani in Italia, terza ed.
rived. e aggiorn., Brescia 1965, p. 17, fn. 9.
39
Piergiuseppe Scardigli, Die Goten. Sprache und Kultur, München 1973, p. 200. Piergiuseppe Scardigli, “Das sogennante gotische Epigramm”, Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 96 (1974), pp. 17-32.
40
Maßmann, “Gotthica minora. …”, p. 381.
41
Franz Dietrich, Ueber die Aussprache des Gothischen waehrend der Zeit seines Bestehens. Eine sprachgeschichtliche Abhandlung nebst einem kritischen Anhang ueber die Namen
des Jornandes, Marburg 1862, p, 25.
42
Ernst A. Ebbinghaus, “‘Inter eils goticum …’”. For E. A. Philippson on his ninetieth
Filologia germanica.indd 200
13/05/2009 14.12.26
THE ‘VANDAL’ EPIGRAM
201
scholars dealing with the epigram appear to assume this – that the epigram was
composed in Italy while the Goths ruled there, or at the beginning of the sixth
century. The drawback of this assumption is that in the epigram there is clearly
a diphthong in eils, a word corresponding to Go. hails. At that time Ostrogothic
ai was a monophthong. Because of this, Ebbinghaus moves the place of origin
to the eastern regions of the Roman Empire and its age to the second century.
According to him, it is older than the monophthongization of Gothic ai.43
However, exactly this preservation of a diphthong in eils can point to the
Vandals, because, as appears from Wrede’s study,44 the Vandal preserved the
diphthong in contrast to Gothic. Although Wrede later refers to the preservation of the diphthong in Vandal, he does not give arguments for why the epigram could not be of Vandal origin, but maintains that it must be Visigothic,
from the time of Alaric, or the beginning of the fifth century.45 Krause takes
up this view46 and Wolfram has taken it from him, but although he also refers
to Scardigli’s paper, he does not mention the possible origin of the epigram
among the Vandals.47
The Germanic words will be dealt with in section 2.2. Yet it should be
said that several things point to their Vandal origin, nothing points directly
to the contrary. It is unknown when the epigram was composed, but perhaps
it is safe to assume that it is not much older than the collection in Codex Salmasianus, or from the beginning of the sixth century.
1.3. Editions
The epigram was first printed in the second volume of Burman’s anthology of 1773,48 on pp. 449-451, in the part entitled ‘Anthologiae veterum Lati-
birthday, General Linguistics 30 (1990), p. 77. Ernst A. Ebbinghaus, Gotica. Kleine Schriften
zur gotischen Philologie, hrsg. von P. Scardigli und W. Meid, Innsbruck 2003, p. 178.
43
Ibid., p. 77 and p. 179.
44
Ferdinand Wrede, Über die Sprache der Wandalen. Ein Beitrag zur germanischen
Namen- und Dialektforschung, Strassburg / London 1886, pp. 95-99.
45
Ferdinand Wrede, Über die Sprache der Ostgoten in Italien, Strassburg 1891, pp. 140141.
46
Wolfgang Krause, Handbuch des Gotischen, 3., neubearb. Aufl., München 1968, pp.
21-22.
47
Herwig Wolfram, History of the Goths. New and completely revised from the second
German edition, Berkeley 1987, pp. 210 and 462-463.
48
Burman (ed.), Anthologia …
Filologia germanica.indd 201
13/05/2009 14.12.26
202
MAGNÚS SNÆDAL
norum epigrammatum et poëmatum liber qvintus. In qvo miscellanea.’ It is
numbered CLXI. The text is as follows:
DE CONVIVIIS BARBARIS.
Inter citz Gothicum ſcapia matzia iadrincam
Non audet quiſquam dignos educere verſus.
Calliope madido trepidat ſe jungere Baccho,
Ne pedibus non ſtet ebria Muſa ſuis.
The reason why the epigram is printed on three pages is the very long footnote by Gerard Meerman, mentioned above. Indeed, the footnote continues
to p. 452.49 In the beginning, the footnote states that the text of the Schedae is
used. Still, the punctuation is not kept, matzia printed instead of madria (or
madzia) and iadrincam at the end of the first line instead of jadrincam. Different readings in Salm. are mentioned, other than Bacco in the third line. For
Meerman’s explanation of the Germanic words, see 2.1.
Then the epigram was printed in the second volume of Meyer’s edition of
1835,50 on p. 70, in the part entitled ‘Anthologiae Latinae tomus secundus’, having the number 1092. The text is identical to Burman’s text with the exception
that scapiamatzia is printed as one word. The result is the text of the Schedae
with matzia instead of madria (in the notes wrongly said to be the reading
of Salm.). The readings drincan and Bacco in Salm. are not mentioned. The
apparatus, where other readings in Salm. are mentioned, is in the first volume,
on pp. 51-52, in the part entitled ‘Annotationes ad tomum secundum Anthologiae Latinae’. Here Meyer presents, in addition to Meerman’s, also Ettmüller’s
attempt at explaining the Germanic words in the epigram, see 2.1.
In Riese’s first edition of 1869 the epigram is printed on p. 187, with the
number 285.51 The Latin is very much in accordance with the Schedae, apart
from goticum in the first line and edicere in the second line. Also, the orthography is more like Salm., i.e. the use of i and u instead of j and v. The Germanic words are printed according to Salm., with word breaks: Inter eils goticum scapia matzia ia drincan. In the apparatus, different readings in the two
On Meerman’s part in Burman’s work, see Rosenblum, Luxorius …, p. 105 and fn. 29.
[Heinrich Meyer (ed.)] Anthologia veterum Latinorum epigrammatum et poematum.
Editionem Burmannianam digessit et auxit Henricus Meyerus Turicensis, I-II, Lipsiae 1835.
51
Alexander Riese (ed.), Anthologia Latina sive poesis Latinae svpplementvm I: Carmina
in codicibvs scripta, recensvit Alexander Riese, fascicvlvs I: Libri Salmasiani aliorvmqve
carmina, Lipsiae 1869.
49
50
Filologia germanica.indd 202
13/05/2009 14.12.26
THE ‘VANDAL’ EPIGRAM
203
manuscripts, Salm. (A) and the Schedae (α), are listed. However, the reading
Gothicum in the first line in the Schedae is missing. Maßmann’s explanation of the Germanic words is given,52 cf. 2.1, but the proposals of Grimm,
Dietrich and te Winkel are not mentioned, nor Meerman’s and Ettmüller’s
earlier attempts. Müller’s idea that the third and fourth line form a separate
epigram is mentioned along with his proposal to change ebria into sobria in
the fourth line.53
In Baehrens’s edition of 1882 the epigram is printed on p. 363, numbered
439.54 The text is almost identical to Riese’s text apart from educere in the
second line. The apparatus appears to be influenced by Riese, as the reading
Gothicum in the first line in the Schedae is also missing here. Maßmann’s
explanation of the Germanic words is referred to, but e.g. the then recent proposal of Grabow is not mentioned. An empty line is set between the second
and third line according to Müller’s idea that the last two lines are, indeed,
a separate epigram. His proposal of changing ebria into sobria in the fourth
line is also mentioned.
In Riese’s second edition of 1894 the epigram is found on p. 221 and has
been divided into two, numbered 285 and 285a.55 In fact, this is the same text
as in 1869. Although Maßmann’s explanation of the Germanic words is still
the only one mentioned, some minor changes have been made to the critical
apparatus. To edicere in the second line the reading educere in the Schedae
is given, but now ‘recte?’ has been added after it. To ebria in the fourth line,
Peiper’s proposed conjecture debria has been added.56
The latest edition is Bailey’s from 1982.57 Here the epigram is printed
on pp. 201 and 202; it has been divided completely in two and the parts are
numbered 279 and 280. The text is that of Riese. The critical apparatus is
also based on Riese. Still, the reading convivis, which Salm. has in the title,
has been lost. The reading Gothicum in the first line in the Schedae is not
mentioned. Maßmann’s interpretation of the Germanic words is repeated,
but more recent proposals are ignored. To edicere the note reads: “educere
schaed. : anne ded-?” This is presumably a suggestion to change it to deducMaßmann, “Gotthica minora. …”.
Müller, “Sammelsurien XXVIII”, p. 484.
54
Baehrens (ed.), Poetae …
55
Riese (ed.), Anthologia …, editio altera.
56
Rudolf Peiper, “ebrius debrius”, Jahrbücher für classische Philologie 19 (1873), p. 340.
57
Bailey (ed.), Anthologia Latina I: Carmina in codicibus scripta, recensuit D. R. Shackleton Bailey, fasc. 1: Libri Salmasiani aliorumque carmina, Stvtgardiae 1982.
52
53
Filologia germanica.indd 203
13/05/2009 14.12.26
204
MAGNÚS SNÆDAL
ere. The reading Bacco in Salm. in the third line is missing, but otherwise
the notes to the third and fourth lines are in accordance with Riese. Exact references are not given for Müller’s and Peiper’s proposed conjectures sobria
and debria instead of ebria in the last line – no more than in Riese’s and
Baehrens’s apparatus.
Three points are highlighted by this overview: First, the origin of the epigram among the Vandals soon fell into oblivion and later attempts to restore
this view have not survived. Second, the conjectures in the Schedae Divionenses are generally accepted; to be precise, the more recent editions do
not accept Gothicum in the first line, and, judging from the apparatus, Riese
finds it tempting to accept educere in the second line. Third, concerning the
Germanic words in the epigram, Riese, Baehrens and Bailey only mention
Maßmann’s interpretation so they, apparently, did not bother to check whether
other proposals had been made.
2. Interpretations of the epigram
In this section the main proposals to explain the ‘Gothic’ words in the
epigram will be overviewed in 2.1. A new interpretation is argued for in 2.2.
Many conjectures have been underpinned by referring to the metre; hence the
metre will be dealt with in 2.3. It should also be borne in mind that the author
of the epigram is most probably not the author of the ‘Gothic’ words. They
are something he has heard and has forced into the hexameter. For him it was
even better that the barbaric language sounded harsh. A possible occasion of
the epigram is sketched in 2.4.
2.1. The explanations of the Germanic words
As mentioned above (1.2), Meerman points to the origin of the epigram
among the Vandals, but in his explanation of the Germanic words he frequently refers to Gothic. His conclusion is as follows:58
Inter ciſz Gothicum, ſcăpĭāe-mătziām, wina-drinkām
‘Among a Gothic kiss, mutton eating, [and] wine drinking’ etc.
58
Filologia germanica.indd 204
Burman (ed.), Anthologia …, 449-452.
13/05/2009 14.12.26
THE ‘VANDAL’ EPIGRAM
205
Here it is suggested that citz should be read cisz ‘kiss’ (connected to Go.
kukjan ‘to kiss’?); also that scapia is of the same origin as OE sceāp, scēp, OS
scāp, OHG scāf, scāp ‘sheep’. Instead of iadrincam, Meerman conjectures
winadrincam, but the stem vowel of wina- must be short because of the metre.
The forms matziam and drinkam should be taken as a Latinized acc. sg., governed by inter.
In his apparatus Meyer mentions two attempts to explain the ‘Gothic’ of
the epigram. The first one is Meerman’s explanation just mentioned (to which
Meyer adds a German translation: ‘bey Gothischem Kuss, Hammelbraten und
Weintrinken wagt keiner ein ernstes Lied zu singen’). The second explanation (actually two possibilities with several conjectures) he owes to Ludwig
Ettmüller. It was presumably transmitted by personal communication as they
both lived in Zürich:59
īntĕ̄ r | kūst gŏthĭ|cŭ̄ m skāft|jān māt|jān ȷ̆ ăh | drīgkān
īntĕ ̄ r | kūst gŏthĭ|cŭ ̄ m skăpăn | e̅ u̅ k māt|jān ȷ̆ ăh | drīgkān
inter victum Gothicum parandum, etiam edendum et bibendum.
‘While the Goths prepare their board, it’s also eaten and drunk’
Here citz is interpreted as kust ‘food, board’ but no account is made of the
form euk in the second version of the explanation. Probably, it is meant to
correspond to the Gothic conjunction auk ‘for’ and given the meaning ‘also’
(under the influence of German auch?). It is noteworthy that the infinitive drigkan is chosen, in contrast to the Schedae and Meyer’s text. Then, it is odd to
have the j non-syllabic medially but syllabic initially.
Although Maßmann’s attempt to explain the ‘Gothic’ in the epigram is not
the first, it is the first attempt cited, as Meerman’s and Ettmüller’s proposals
were not long-lived. Maßmann mentions them in a footnote where he rejects
their attempt to hammer some sense into the form citz in the Schedae.60
As mentioned above (1.1), Maßmann asked Friedrich Dübner in Paris to
check the text of the epigram in both the manuscripts there; one of them is
Codex Salmasianus but the other he calls ‘cod. 2.’.61 Maßmann’s version of
the first line is: Inter eils Goticum scapiamatziaiadrincan. Otherwise his text
of the epigram is identical to Burman’s and Meyer’s text. The readings conMeyer, Anthologia …, I, pp. 51-52.
Maßmann, “Gotthica minora. …”, p. 381.
61
Ibid., p. 379.
59
60
Filologia germanica.indd 205
13/05/2009 14.12.26
206
MAGNÚS SNÆDAL
viviis in the title, audet, educere and versus in the second line, and Baccho in
the third are said to be taken from ‘cod. 2.’. The first line there runs, he says:
inter citz gothicum scapia madria ia drincam. All this, except for ia drincam
instead of jadrincam, is in accordance with the Schedae but cannot be taken
directly from there, as described in 1.1.
The first ‘Gothic’ word is eils. Here Maßmann refers to the adj. Go. hails,
cf. Mark 15:18 hails, þiudan Iudaie! ‘hail, you king of the Jews’, and John 19:3
hails, þiudans Iudaie! ‘hail, king of the Jews’, where hails in both instances
translates the Greek imperative χαῖρε ‘rejoice’.62 The word is related to OI
heill, OHG heil, etc. This explanation has been generally accepted with one
exception.
In what follows, Maßmann indeed gives four possible Gothicized versions
(with variants).63 They are repeated below with English translations:
1. Hails! skapja(nd) matja(n) ja(h) drigkan!
‘Hail! They obtain [something] to eat and drink!’
2. Hails! skapja! matja(m) ja(h) drigkam!
‘Hail! Waiter! Let’s eat and drink!’
3. Hails! skap ja(h) matja(n) ja(h) drigkan!
Ave, amice! procura, praebe et cibum et potum!
‘Hail, friend! Prepare/Offer both to eat and drink!’
4. Hails! Skap (procura or poculum)! ja(h) matja(m) ja(h) drigkam!
‘Hail! Prepare/Goblet! We both eat and drink!’
However, Maßmann rejects the first proposal and apparently does not like
the second. Yet, a word like *skapja ‘waiter’ is well formed. Truly, it is not
preserved in Gothic but could be related to the verb gaskapjan* ‘create’ and
compared to nouns like fiskja ‘fisherman’, timrja ‘carpenter’. This will be
dealt with more extensively later on. Maßmann appears to prefer the third
possibility, which he gives a Latin translation. Nevertheless, the imperative
*skap points to a verb *skapan, as the imperative of *skapjan would be *skapei. The verbs matjan ‘eat’ (on the tz in matzia, see 2.2) and drigkan ‘drink’
are often attested in the Gothic corpus (Maßmann translates them with Latin
nouns, and adds amice). Here jah … jah means ‘both … and’. As for the fourth
proposal it should be pointed out that there is no evidence for a noun *skap
62
63
Filologia germanica.indd 206
Ibid., p. 381.
Ibid., pp. 282-283.
13/05/2009 14.12.26
THE ‘VANDAL’ EPIGRAM
207
‘beaker, goblet’ in Gothic. As already mentioned, Maßmann’s explanation
of the ‘Gothic’ is the only one mentioned in the more recent editions of the
anthology. Riese actually gives the three latter possibilities, which are repeated by Bailey, while Baehrens makes do with the reference (cf. 1.3).64
In a footnote, Maßmann explains how the ‘Gothic’ could be made to follow the hexameter. The addition of sijais is necessary and the first line would
divide in feet in the following way: Inter | háils (si | jáis!) gothi | cum skap jah
| matjan jah | drigkan. The last jah has lost the h but preserved the shortness in
the metre and therefore the same must be assumed in skap ja matjan.65
Maßmann prints the second half of the epigram but does not discuss it or
question its authenticity.
Grimm only prints the first half of the epigram.66 The first line runs, inter
eils goticum scapiamatziaia drincan, but the second line he has the same as
Maßmann, i.e. with the conjectures of the Schedae. Grimm says that “das
gothische scheint ganz in ordnung und nur einen schwierigen ausdruck zu
enthalten”, and should be read: inter hails gothicum skapjam atzja jah drigkam. The only difficult word is atzja. It is the acc. pl. of the otherwise unattested neuter noun *atsi ‘poculum’ or, “im fall einer elision des M von skapjam, zu setzen atazja.”67 But *atsi, *atazi correspond to OHG azasi, OS atasi
‘instrument’. Grimm gives a Latin translation: ‘paremus pocula et bibamus’.
Then, the meaning of the whole is: ‘Hail! Let’s get goblets and drink!’
Grimm mentions that matzia could be acc. sg. of a feminine noun *matja,
or acc. pl. of a neuter noun *mati. He finds this improbable because the meaning would be the same as in Go. mats ‘food’.
Nevertheless, Grimm had some doubts about this interpretation. In the
third edition he has added a footnote:68 “nach Dübners vergleichung hat die
handschrift: Inter eils goticum scapia matzia iadrincan.” This is actually the
text of Salm. with word breaks. It must be remembered that Maßmann printed
scapiamatziaiadrincan and one has to presume that according to Dübner’s
information, this is the reading in Salm. Maßmann mentions that ‘cod. 2.’ has
Riese (ed.), Anthologia …, p. 187. Riese (ed.), Anthologia …, editio altera, p. 221. Bailey
(ed.), Anthologia …, p. 201. Baehrens (ed.), Poetae …, p. 363.
65
Maßmann, “Gotthica minora. …”, p. 384, fn. 1.
66
Jacob Grimm, Geschichte der deutschen Sprache, I, Leipzig 1848, pp. 454-455. [Zweite
Aufl. 1853 / Dritte Aufl. 1868 / Vierte Aufl. 1880, pp. 318-319.]
67
Here there is something spooky in Grimm’s text. An elision of m from scapiamatzia
would produce scapiaatzia, not scapiatazia.
68
Grimm, Geschichte der deutschen Sprache I, dritte Aufl., p. 318.
64
Filologia germanica.indd 207
13/05/2009 14.12.26
208
MAGNÚS SNÆDAL
scapia madria ia drincam that should also be according to Dübner’s information. Grimm, on the other hand, mentions no manuscripts with name or
number, nor does he mention that his Latin text is not in accordance with the
text in the oldest manuscript. Grimm’s footnote can only be thus understood,
that according to Dübner’s information, there are some kind of word breaks
in Salm. as shown above. Therefore, the division skapjam atzja would not
be in accordance with the manuscript. This discrepancy in Maßmann’s and
Grimm’s reference to Dübner is an unsolved riddle. Or is this Grimm’s interpretation of what Maßmann reports after Dübner?
Grimm mentions Maßmann’s paper but does not discuss his proposals, and
he has nothing to say about the metre. He does not print or discuss the second
half of the epigram, although he mentions its content briefly.
Dietrich has taken note of Grimm’s footnote when he prints the first line
of the epigram: Inter eils Goticum, scapia matzia iadrincan. He says this is
in accordance with the oldest manuscript. He prints the second line after the
Schedae, just as Maßmann and Grimm, but without any comment. His explanation is, in content, the same as Maßmann’s third proposal but he interprets
the ‘Gothic’ slightly differently: inter (h)eils goticum, scapî ja matja’ ja drincan. ‘Heil! Schaffe zu essen und zu trinken!’ (‘Hail! Offer both to eat and
drink!’) Gothicized, this would be: Hails! Skapei jah matjan jah drigkan!
Here scapia is divided into the imperative skapei and the conjunction jah.
Then, matja is an infinitive with an elided n. Dietrich mentions that one has to
read scāpī iā even though it does not conform to Gothic quantity. It is a drawback that in jah … jah the first has to be long but the second short to conform
to the metre.69 Dietrich does not mention the second half.
Te Winkel does not mention Maßmann’s and Grimm’s attempts at explaining the ‘Gothic’ in the epigram, but it is uncertain whether his paper is younger than Dietrich’s booklet.70 According to te Winkel the first line runs: Inter
eils goticum scapi ia matzia ia drincan. The second line here is also printed
with the conjectures of the Schedae. Apparently, he believes the manuscript
has scapi ia. He interprets this as an imperative just as Dietrich does, but he
explains what follows differently. Gothicized, the Germanic in the first line
would be: Heils! Skapei jah matja jah drigkan (or drigkam). ‘Heil! Schaf ook
spijs en drinken (or laat ons drinken).’ (‘Hail! Offer both food and to drink (or
69
70
Dietrich, Ueber die Aussprache des Gothischen …, pp. 25-27.
L. A. te Winkel, “Eenige grammatische hoofdstellingen”, De Taalgids 4 (1862), pp. 297-
298.
Filologia germanica.indd 208
13/05/2009 14.12.27
THE ‘VANDAL’ EPIGRAM
209
let’s drink)!’) But with the second possibility the first jah becomes strange.
For te Winkel matja is acc. sg. of the fem. noun *mati ‘food’, which is otherwise unknown (and impossible unless the stem vowel is considered to be long;
if it is short the nominative should also be *matja, cf. Grimm). He believes
drincan is either infinitive or 1p. pl., but he does not mention the conjecture
drincam in the Schedae.
Vinckers mentions Grimm and Dietrich but he prints the epigram in the
same way as te Winkel.71 What is new is that he maintains that the ei in eils is
disyllabic as in classical Latin metre. Thus, the first line is divided into feet in
the following way: Īntĕr ĕ|īls gŏtĭ|cūm scā|pī iā | mātz iă iă | drīncăm. Hence,
this is not a new explanation of the content of the ‘Gothic’ which remains the
same as proposed by Dietrich and te Winkel. Vinckers does not explain why
he prints matz ia ia, but he mentions that the second part of the first line is
based on conjectures.
Te Winkel reacts the same year.72 Now he prints the epigram the same as
Grimm and says this is in accordance with the manuscript of the anthology.
He mentions a possible explanation that is almost the same as Grimm’s but
rejects it along with his own.73 To have this conform to a correct hexameter he
believes that eils was originally repeated, i.e.: Īntēr | Hāils! Gŏtĭ|cūm, Hāils!
| Skāpjām | mātzjă jă | drīnkăn. ‘Hoezee! hoezee! Laten we eten en drinken
doen aanrukken.’ (‘Hail! Hail! Let’s carry on eating and drinking.’) Apparently, he considers matzia as a verb in the infinitive with an elided n just as
Dietrich did.
Neither Winkel nor Vinckers mention the second half of the epigram.
Grabow prints the same text of the epigram as Maßmann with the exception that he has edicere in the second line instead of educere.74 He does not
mention the latter reading, not even when he rejects that the meaning of the
line is ‘niemand wagt es, würdige Werse zu machen’.75 He also prints the second half of the epigram and considers it original. Grabow mentions the different readings in the ‘Gothic’ but not in the Latin (except the reading convivis
in the title).76 He mentions only Maßmann’s paper but makes no reference to
71
J. Beckering Vinckers, Een orthographische e-legie, of Dr. L. A. te Winkel’s e-spelling
en uitspraak der gotische AI, […], Kampen 1864, 34-37.
72
Te Winkel, “De dialecten…”, pp. 182-188.
73
Ibid., pp. 185-186.
74
Grabow, “Ein gotisches Epigramm”, p. xxii.
75
Ibid., p. xxxii.
76
Ibid., pp. xxix-xxx.
Filologia germanica.indd 209
13/05/2009 14.12.27
210
MAGNÚS SNÆDAL
Grimm’s and Dietrich’s (or te Winkel’s) explanations. His conclusion is the
same as Dietrich’s (as pointed out by Lichtenstein).77 He normalizes the first
line in the following way: Inter hails goticum skapei jam matjan jad drigkan –
and in a Latinized form divided into feet: Inter | eils goti|cum sca|pi ja | matja
ja | drincan. ‘Heil! schaff (bring her) sowohl zu essen als auch zu trinken.’
(‘Hail! Offer both to eat and to drink.’). Grabow thinks, cf. Dietrich, that the
final nasal in matjan was elided because of the metre to get a short syllable
(but, apparently, it was a correct hexameter in Gothic ears, as the Goths based
the metre on stress, not quantity).78 The final consonant in jad did not get to
the author’s ear as the Gothic soldiers were in all probability drowsy on this
occasion. As jam had more stress, its vowel was taken as long, but the jad was
without stress and taken as short.79 The stem vowel of scapi was stressed and
therefore taken as long, but the final vowel was lost by the clumsiness of some
scribe. All this is rather speculative.
Luft rejects Maßmann’s, Grimm’s, Dietrich’s and Grabow’s interpretations because he thinks they do not conform to the metre.80 To get this right he
makes rather extensive conjectures. He prints the first two lines as Maßmann,
except he has versos at the end of the second line but he does not mention different readings in the Latin.
Luft thinks that a correct Latin version of the first line was: inter geils
Goticum scapi i ia gamatzia ia drinca[n], but with the Germanic words
Gothicized: inter gails Goticum skapei ei jah gamatjam jah drigkam. ‘lustig!
schaffe, dass wir essen und trinken mögen.’ (‘Blithe! Offer so we can eat and
drink.’) For the 1.p. pl. Luft refers to Maßmann’s proposals but he does not
mention the reading drincam in the Schedae. He thinks that *geils is necessary to get a spondee in the beginning, because h does not make a position,
but the word is formed from the Gothic verb gailjan* ‘delight’. He maintains
that the nasals are neutral to the metre in the first line but not in the second.
However, all these manipulations are questionable.81 It should be mentioned
Franz Lichtenstein, [Review:] “Viro illustrissimo atque doctissimo Augusto Stinner
[…]”, Anzeiger für deutsches Alterthum und deutsche Litteratur 6 (1880), p. 374.
78
Grabow, “Ein gotisches Epigramm”, pp. xxvi-xxvii.
79
Each of these forms is attested only once in the Gothic corpus, more precisely in the
Codex Ambrosianus A, jad du 2Cor 2:16, and jam mundoþ Phil 3:17.
80
W. Luft, “Zum ‘gotischen Epigramm’”, Anzeiger für deutsches Altertum und deutsche
Litteratur 23 (1897), p. 392.
81
Cf. H. Möller, “Zum gotischen Epigramm”, Anzeiger für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Litteratur 25 (1899), p. 104.
77
Filologia germanica.indd 210
13/05/2009 14.12.27
THE ‘VANDAL’ EPIGRAM
211
that in the Gothic corpus, ei after an imperative is only attested with the verb
saiƕan ‘see’ in the sense ‘take care’, i.e. saiƕ(iþ) ei ‘see that’ (e.g. Mt 8:4, Mk
1:44). Luft does not mention the second half of the epigram.
Möller’s interpretation was first published by Leo but has missed Luft’s
attention. Leo prints the first line thus: Inter „heils“ goticum „scapiam matian iah drincan“. The remaining three lines he has the same as Grabow, i.e.
with edicere in the second line.82
Here the conjectures are made that an m is added in skapiam and an n in
matian. The ‘Gothic’ is translated: ‘Heil! schafft her zu essen, zu trinken!’
Leo mentions that the line is spondaic but does not scansion it completely,
just maintains that “die auslautenden consonanten mit den folgenden anlauten überall positionslänge bilden”. That gives: Inter | heils goti|cum scap|jam
mat|jan jah | drincan. Leo keeps the second half with translation (cf. 1.1, fn.
21) and says the last line contains a metrical error as stet is short.
Möller clarifies the matter on the occasion of Luft’s paper and, indeed,
his paper is mainly a criticism of Luft’s explanation.83 Möller’s interpretation, on the other hand, has gained general acceptance and is often given
when the epigram is quoted.84 It is translated: ‘Hail! Let’s get [something] to
eat and drink!’.
Van Helten gives a short overview of previous interpretations – although
he does not mention the oldest two – and rejects them all. With his interpretation the first line runs: Inter he|ils goti|cum scapi|ā mati|am jā | drincam.85
The rest he has the same as Grabow. He does not give a German translation of
the whole, but the content is: ‘Hail! Waiter! Let’s eat and drink!’.
In fact, this is the same conclusion as in Maßmann’s second proposal (cf.
above), although van Helten does not explicitly mention it.86 The only difference is that here eils is considered disyllabic. This was previously suggested by Vinckers but immediately rejected by Winkel, as mentioned above.87
Nevertheless, several scholars have accepted this view, most recently EbbingLeo, “Venantius Fortunatus, …”, p. 416 fn.
Möller, “Zum gotischen Epigramm”, pp. 103-104.
84
E.g.: Heinrich Hempel, Gotisches Elementarbuch. Grammatik, Texte mit Übersetzung und Erläuterungen, vierte, umgearb. Aufl., Berlin 1966, p. 161; Krause, Handbuch des
Gotischen, p. 21.
85
Van Helten, “Zu Anthologia Latina …”, p. 342.
86
Ibid., p. 339.
87
Wilhelm Streitberg, Gotisches Elementarbuch, 5. und 6. neubearb. Aufl., Heidelberg
1920, p. 37-38, credits Sievers with this view but without further reference.
82
83
Filologia germanica.indd 211
13/05/2009 14.12.27
212
MAGNÚS SNÆDAL
haus.88 Van Helten thinks scapia corresponds to Go. *skapja. (It is Lehmann’s
misunderstanding that van Helten suggests a vocative skapi + jah).89 It is not
derived from the verb skapjan*, but an unattested noun, *skap ‘cask, winejar’, cf. OS skap ‘vessel’ and skapward ‘waiter’. The word is thus comparable
to Go. aurtja, fiskja, haurnja, skattja, etc. The final long a in skapjā could be
influenced by the nom. sg. of Greek names used in Latin poetry. Next, van
Helten suggests that matjam jah drigkam could be “der anfang oder refrain
eines üblichen trinkliedes”, but he admits that these forms have little support
by the manuscripts.90 Van Helten almost takes the first line at face value. In
the scansion of the Germanic words, i is syllabic twice and non-syllabic once,
just as it would be if this were Latin.
In his book, Scardigli translates the Vandal in the epigram into German:
‘Heil! Schenkkellner, essen und trinken!’ (‘Hail! Waiter, [we shall] eat and
drink!’)91 He takes scapia as a noun in the vocative. This idea is also mentioned by Maßmann and preferred by van Helten.
In the paper devoted to the epigram, Scardigli takes up the epigram directly
from Riese along with the apparatus. He prints the two parts separately as he
has drawn the conclusion that they did not form a whole originally.92 Here, he
puts forth the view that the Germanic words are indeed Gothic words (except
perhaps eils) that the author has picked up from texts read at church meals.93
However, eils is most probably the greeting used by the guests at meals, and
as mentioned, hails is attested in the Gothic Bible. Scapia ‘creator’ would be
in Go. *skapja, (cf. the verb gaskapjan*) and could be taken from the credo
where it, presumably, translated opifex or factor (‘creator’ and ‘maker’). The
words matzia ia drincan correspond to the Gothic pair matjan jah drigkan
which is relatively frequent in the Gothic Bible.94 Scardigli’s conclusion could
be summarized as: ‘heil; Schöpfer; essen und trinken’ (‘hail; creator; eat and
drink’). Thus, these are disjointed, religious words, not something the Vandals cried out at their taverns.
Ebbinghaus, “‘Inter eils goticum …’”, p. 75. [Ebbinghaus, Gotica, p. 176].
Winfred P. Lehmann, A Gothic Etymological Dictionary. Based on the third edition
of Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der gotischen Sprache by Sigmund Feist, Leiden 1986, 298
[S35].
90
Van Helten, “Zu Anthologia Latina …”, p. 342.
91
Scardigli, Die Goten, p. 200 and fn. 81; cf. also pp. 172 and 260.
92
Scardigli, “Das sogennante gotische Epigramm”.
93
Ibid., p. 26.
94
Ibid., pp. 20-21.
88
89
Filologia germanica.indd 212
13/05/2009 14.12.27
THE ‘VANDAL’ EPIGRAM
213
Huld prints the first half of the epigram after Riese, although with
macrons over the long vowels in the second line.95 He rejects Möller’s and
Scardigli’s explanations, but his knowledge of the latter is apparently based
on the defect exposition of Lehmann96 rather than directly on Scardigli’s
paper. Therefore, he misses what Scardigli says about the origin of the epigram among the Vandals.
Huld discusses the metre at some length and thinks that all attempts to get
the first line to conform to the hexameter have failed. He rejects a disyllabic ei
in eils because such diphthongs are not found in Germanic languages (but that
is, of course, not implicit in van Helten’s idea).97 The conclusion is that this
is an iambic hexameter with a dactyl in the second foot, frequently used by
comic playwrights. Huld thinks that by this “the poet is offering a deliberate
contrast between the ‘barbarity’ of the Gothic verse with the Latin elegance
demonstrated by the regular dactylic hexameter of the second line”.98
The first line he normalizes in the following way: Inter [h]eils goticum
skapjam atzja ja[h] drincan ‘Hail, let us prepare food and drink’. He divides
skapjam atzja – as Grimm did – but in atzja Huld sees an acc. pl. of a neuter
noun that in Gothic would have been *ati, the same word as Icel. æti ‘food
(mostly for animals)’. The drawback of this is, that the third principal part of
the Gothic verb itan ‘eat’ has ē, 3.p. pl. etun, and Huld’s attempt to get this to
conform is not convincing. He creates a new East-Germanic dialect, NorthGothic spoken by Gepid and Burgundian speakers, where Proto-Germanic
*/ǣ/ developed to ā as in West- and North-Germanic.99 However, it appears
far-fetched to postulate a new dialect, based on the interpretation of scapiamatzia and a few names. In Vandal, this ē has remained or changed to i.100
Noteworthy is Huld’s explanation of the last Germanic word, drincan; that
it is acc. sg. of a week masculine noun, Go. *drigka ‘drink’, cf. OE drinca.101
The epigram is now and then cited or referred to in connection with RomanGermanic contact. Here, only two instances will be mentioned.
Martin E. Huld, “The ‘Gothic’ Epigram in the Anthologia Latina and the Development
of PG *ǣ in East Germanic Dialectology”, Michigan Germanic Studies 16 (1990), p. 120.
96
Lehmann, A Gothic Etymological Dictionary, p. 298 [S35].
97
Huld, “The ‘Gothic’ Epigram …”, p. 120.
98
Ibid., p. 122.
99
Ibid., p. 125.
100
Wrede, Über die Sprache der Wandalen, p. 91.
101
Huld, “The ‘Gothic’ Epigram …”, p. 124.
95
Filologia germanica.indd 213
13/05/2009 14.12.27
214
MAGNÚS SNÆDAL
Kroes takes up the first half of the epigram, although he admits it belongs
to Latin but not Gothic poetry. Here, the first line runs: Inter eils goticum skapia mazia ja drinkan. The second line has audet and versus. Then he says:102
Wir lernen daraus zunächst, daß die Goten „Heil“ riefen. Die weiteren vier
Worte will von Scheffel übersetzen „Schafft eine Maß zu trinken her“; besser ist
wohl „schöpfen, essen und trinken“.
This turned out to be a reference to a comic verse by Joseph Victor von
Scheffel.103 The ‘Gothic’ words are put into the mouth of Theodoric the
Great:
[…]
„Schafft eine Maas zu trinken her!
Sk apia ma z iaia d r i n k a n“!
The verse has actually Maas but not Maß. In an endnote, von Scheffel
refers to Maßmann for explanation. Kroes has copied the typographical error
mazia from von Scheffel’s original but he changes maziaia to mazia ja. In
fact, Scheffel’s version is more like Grimm’s original version, scapiamatziaia
drincan, than Maßmann’s version, and the translation appears to be influenced by Grimm too. Kroes does not explain why his translation is better than
Scheffel’s, or why he cites only this interpretation of the epigram.
Wrenn104 also takes up the first two lines of the epigram after Wrede.105
He gives the following translation: ‘While the Goths are saluting each other
with healths, they make poetry, eat and drink: no one dare to recite worthy
verses.’ Here scapia is given the meaning ‘they make poetry’ and that must be
Wrenn’s own idea as Wrede offers no translation.
H. W. J. Kroes, “Gotische Dichtung”, Neophilologus 42 (1958), p. 32.
[Joseph Victor von Scheffel], Das Grosse Fass zu Heidelberg, der XXIV. Versammlung
deutscher Philologen und Schulmaenner zum 27. September 1865, Heidelberg 1865. This
booklet does not have Scheffel’s name on it, but the poem is included in his collection Gaudeamus!, first printed in 1868 and often since reprinted (see ‘Bibliography’ below).
104
C. L. Wrenn, A Study of Old English Literature, London et al. l. 1967, p. 75.
105
Ferdinand Wrede, Stamm-Heyne’s Ulfilas, oder die uns erhaltenen Denkmäler der gotischen Sprache. Text, Grammatik, Wörterbuch. Dreizehnte und vierzehnte Aufl., Paderborn
1920, p. xvii.
102
103
Filologia germanica.indd 214
13/05/2009 14.12.27
THE ‘VANDAL’ EPIGRAM
215
2.2. A new solution
In fact, it was Scardigli who urged me to write a paper on the epigram and
when I looked at the Vandal words in it, there seemed to be a solution to the
riddle without any conjecture of the text. It can be interpreted as shown below.
Here there is also a Gothicized version but it should be stressed that most of
the words do not correspond to words found in the extant Gothic corpus, so
it is far from certain that they were found in Gothic. On the other hand, they
existed in Vandal:
eils! scapia! matzia ia drincan!
Hails! *Skapja! *Matja jah *drigkan!
‘Hail! Waiter! Food and drink!’
The Vandals were simply calling to the waiter orders of food and drink.
Then, when I started to read the literature on the epigram, I found that this
was all already there, just not all at once.
Thus, eils ‘hail’ is a greeting corresponding to Go. hails as in nearly all
other interpretations.
The next word, scapia, is a masc. noun in the voc. sg. This possibility
was mentioned already by Maßmann and later preferrerd by van Helten and
then Scardigli, as mentioned above. The meaning is ‘waiter’ or ‘innkeeper’. In
Gothic this would be *skapja. The word is not attested in Gothic but would be
of the same root as gaskapjan* ‘create’, as already mentioned several times.
Meid thinks that originally such words were derived from nouns, e.g. Go.
fiskja* ‘fisherman’ from fisks* ‘fish’, liugnja ‘liar’ from liugn ‘lie’.106 Later,
they were derived as nomina agentis from verbs, because words as e.g. haurnja* ‘horn player’ are semantically connected to both haurn ‘horn’ and haurnjan* ‘blow a horn’. Therefore scapia could be derived from the verb *skapjan
or an unattested noun, e.g. *skap ‘vessel’, as van Helten suggested.
The form matzia ‘food’ is an acc. pl. of a word that in Gothic would have
the nom. sg. *mati, i.e. neuter ja-stem. It would correspond to -meti in Icel.
grænmeti ‘vegetables’ etc. The meaning was not necessarily the same as
in Go. mats ‘food’ as Grimm thought, but he mentions this possibility and,
indeed, also te Winkel. It is more probable that the meaning was something
106
W. Meid / H. Krahe, Germanische Sprachwissenschaft III. Wortbildungslehre, von
Wolfgang Meid, Berlin 1967, pp. 97-98.
Filologia germanica.indd 215
13/05/2009 14.12.27
216
MAGNÚS SNÆDAL
like ‘course, dish, meal; ready made food in a restaurant’ and the plural could
reflect that such food most often consisted of more than one ingredient. It is
also possible, though, as has been mentioned, that the word is acc. sg. of a
feminine noun that in Gothic would have been *matja.
Then ia ‘and’ is a conjunction, corresponding to Go. jah.
Finally, drincan ‘drink’ is acc. sg. of a weak masculine noun that in Gothic would have been *drigka, as also Huld suggested. The meaning was not
necessarily a drink in general but rather a measured amount of drink, served
in a restaurant.
It should be mentioned that the absence of h in eils and ia implies nothing.
Wrede writes about the use of h in Vandal names:107 “ganz schwankend wird
es im Anlaut und Inlaut (für den Auslaut fehlen wand. Belege) bald geschrieben, bald weggelassen”. However, he thinks that alliterating pairs such as
Hûnarîx and Hildirîx indicate that h was preserved in Vandal. Therefore, it is
doubtful that eils and ia show that h had disappeared from these Vandal words
which correspond to Go. hails and jah. The only certain thing here is, that the
ear of the poet, who composed the epigram, did not catch the h.
It is probable that a Latin pronunciation is reflected in matzia, i.e affrication of t before j, but in Wrede’s work no data are found to support such a
change in Vandal. For comparison Go. kawtsjo < Lat. cautio, and laiktsjo/
laiktjo < Lat. lectio, can be mentioned, but here the loans witness Latin pronunciation. Binnig maintains that the spelling matzia must reflect the pronunciation [matzia], i.e. the author wrote what he heard.108 The poet was, presumably, not a phonetician, so it is hardly certain that the spelling tz represents
a voiceless, alveolar stop followed by a voiced, alveolar sibilant. Perhaps an
unvoiced fricative in matja, i.e. [matça] or [matɕa], was sufficient to suggest a
sibilant and trigger the spelling matzia.
The form eils preserves the nom. sg. m. ending -s. According to Wrede,
the Vandal names show that the ending of the nom. sg. was preserved after a
velar, -rîx (Go. -reiks), but deleted after a dental of any type, -rîth, -mûth (Go.
-reþs, -moþs).109 There are no examples of labials. The form eils suggests that
this rule did not apply to adjectives.
Wrede, Über die Sprache der Wandalen, p. 107.
Wolfgang Binnig, Gotisches Elementarbuch, 5., völl. neubearb. Aufl. der früheren
Darstellung von Heinrich Hempel, Berlin / New York 1999, p. 138.
109
Wrede, Über die Sprache der Wandalen, pp. 105-106, 109.
107
108
Filologia germanica.indd 216
13/05/2009 14.12.27
THE ‘VANDAL’ EPIGRAM
217
The form scapia compares to the name Stutja (if it is Vandal)110 and drinca
compares to names such as Tata and Pinta. Therefore, there is nothing in the
corpus of names that contradicts the suggestion that these are weak masculine
nouns. This means that if scapia corresponds to Go. *skapja, then matzia can
correspond to Go. *matja, whether that form is acc. pl. n. or acc. sg. f.
To conclude, there is nothing in the form of these words contradicting the
little we know about Vandal morphology.
2.3. The metre
All interpreters but Grimm say something about the metre. Conjectures
are often justified thus, that they are necessary to get a correct hexameter.
However, it is natural to scansion the first line of the epigram in the same way
as van Helten does. It is then taken at face value as if it were all Latin, i.e. the i
in scapia and matzia is syllabic as it is in Calliope and ebria, but non-syllabic
in ia as in iungere. The whole epigram is then scansioned as follows:
īntĕr ĕ|īls gŏtĭ|cūm scăpĭ|ā mătzĭ|ā iā | drīncăn
nōn a̅ u̅ |dēt quīs|quām dīg|nōs ē|dīcĕrĕ | vērsōs.
Cāllĭŏ|pē mădĭ|dō trĕpĭ|dāt sē | iūngĕrĕ | Bāccō
nē pĕdĭ|būs nōn | stēt || ēbrĭă | mūsă sŭ|īs.
Hence, the first line is spondaic with a dactyl in the fourth foot.111
Here, eils is disyllabic (as suggested by Vinckers and van Helten). Thereby
it is not claimed that the diphthong was disyllabic in Vandal, only that it was
treated that way by the poet – as a Latin ei. The words scapia and matzia are
similar. In Vandal the final vowel was most probably short but in the epigram it
is long. Perhaps the Vandals extended the final vowel when they shouted to the
waiter, skapjaaaa! Hence the poet found it justifiable to treat the last syllable as
long. It is, of course, possible that he understood some Vandal or, at least, that
someone taught him the form and meaning of these particular words.
In the last line it appears not to be necessary to change ebria to sobria
or debria (as suggested by Müller and Peiper respectively, cf. fns 53 and 56
Ibid., p. 88.
It would, perhaps, be possible also to treat an i in front of a vowel always as a nonsyllabic: īntĕr ĕ|īls gŏtĭ|cūm scāp|iā mātz|iā iā | drīncăn. Here, there would be two spondees
before the one in the fifth foot and it is questionable to give the i a different value in the Vandal
words than in the Latin.
110
111
Filologia germanica.indd 217
13/05/2009 14.12.27
218
MAGNÚS SNÆDAL
above). Originally the e in stet was long and therefore could be used as such in
poetry, so called diastole.112
2.4. The occasion of the epigram
Some of those who have written about the epigram have suggested ideas
about how or on what occasion it was composed. Here, this will be dealt with
briefly.
Meerman thinks the poet conjoins Venus, Ceres and Bacchus. He is taking
part in a barbaric feast, kissed by a sweet, Gothic maiden, eating mutton, and,
after several gulps of wine, he is not in a state to compose poetry.113
Maßmann thinks the epigram was composed by an attic room poet who
had difficulty composing because of the carousing Goths in the pub beneath
the room.114 Some scholars accept this or something similar115 although others
do not discuss it at all (i.e. Grimm and Huld).
Grabow reject this idea.116 Composing poetry in an attic room is not connected to any risk; edicere means to recite, not to compose (he missed the
fact that Maßmann used the reading educere) and the continuation supposes
being together with drunken barbarians. He thinks the Goths invited the poet
to recite dignified (Latin) poems at their party, but then he did not get silence
because those who were not interested in this entertainment were always crying hail and cheers or shouting orders to the waiter. This evoked old memories
with the poet of similar unpleasant occasions. Some scholars have accepted this explanation117 and one assumes the poet was really saying that under
Gothic rule, the poetry has a hard time.118
Van Helten rejects both these explanations.119 He thinks the author imagines a poet who is afraid of disgracing himself and his art by reading his poetry among carousing Goths. To support this view he refers to a description,
112
W. G. Hale / C. D. Buck, A Latin Grammar, Alabama 1903, p. 351. Charles E. Bennett,
New Latin Grammar, 3rd ed., Boston 1918, p. 244.
113
Burman (ed.), Anthologia …, p. 452.
114
Maßmann, “Gotthica minora. …”, p. 379.
115
Dietrich, Ueber die Aussprache des Gothischen …, p. 26. Te Winkel, “Eenige grammatische hoofdstellingen”, p. 297. Luft, “Zum ‘gotischen Epigramm’”, p. 392.
116
Grabow, “Ein gotisches Epigramm”, pp. xxxi-xxxiii.
117
Lichtenstein, [Review of] “Viro illustrissimo […]”, p. 374. Leo, “Venantius Fortunatus,
…”, p. 416 fn.
118
Möller, “Zum gotischen Epigramm”, p. 104.
119
Van Helten, “Zu Anthologia Latina …”, pp. 341-343.
Filologia germanica.indd 218
13/05/2009 14.12.28
THE ‘VANDAL’ EPIGRAM
219
given by Fortunatus in the preface to his poetry collection, of the behaviour of
the Germanic barbarians:120
ut inter illos egomet non musicus poeta, sed muricus deroso flore carminis
poema non canerem, sed garrirem, quo residentes auditores inter acernea pocula
salute bibentes insana Baccho iudice debaccharent.
In fact, Leo had already noted this and that was the reason why he discussed the epigram in his paper on Fortunatus – he felt both were related in a
sense. Leo translates a longer passage from Fortunatus’s preface, but his German translation of the quotation above is as follows:121
So hab’ ich unter jenen nicht als Musen-, nein als Mäusedichter die Blüthe des
Liedes abgenagt und meine Gedichte nicht gesungen, sondern hergeleiert, während die Zuhörer bei hölzernen Bechern dasaßen und sich den Heiltrank bietend
so unmäßig zechten, daß selbst der Zechergott Bacchus es für Tollheit erklärt
haben würde.
Scardigli rejects explanations of this kind. He thinks the drinking and
eating of the Vandals could not impress the poet, and the Vandal debauchery could not disturb him so much as to block his composing. Nor could the
sounds of the barbarian language hurt his ears so much. He asks why innocent
drink orders of the Vandals should hinder him in reading his poetry. But in all
these cases one could reply: Why not? Do we really know?
Scardigli assumes that although Procopius’s (cf. 1.2) words should not be
taken literally to mean that all the East-Germanic tribes spoke the same language at this time, their languages were similar enough that the Vandals could
use the Gothic Bible translation and their church language was presumably
Gothic. He finds it most probable that the author of the epigram attended a
religious meal. All the Germanic words in the epigram could be taken from
church or biblical language. The poet was a good Catholic; therefore he mistrusted the Gothic biblical language and missed the reading of dignos versus,
i.e. reading from the Vulgate.122
Fortunatus, “Venenanti Honori Clementiani Fortvnati presbyteri Italici opera poetica”, recensvit et emendavit Fridericvs Leo, in Monvmenta Germaniae historica, avctorvm
antiqvissimorvm tomi IV pars prior, Berolini 1881, p. 2.
121
Leo, “Venantius Fortunatus, …”, p. 416.
122
Scardigli, “Das sogennante gotische Epigramm”, pp. 19-27.
120
Filologia germanica.indd 219
13/05/2009 14.12.28
220
MAGNÚS SNÆDAL
We have no evidence to show these hypotheses to be entirely wrong.
Nevertheless, it should be borne in mind that the data say nothing about
the occasion of the epigram. For this we have to infer from its content and
its title. The title is De convivis barbaris or ‘about foreign guests (or table
mates)’ and it provides a full meaning and full sense as it stands. Of course,
convivis could be an error for conviviis but such a conjecture is far from
necessary. Grabow insists on this and, in a way, Scardigli’s hypothesis rests
on it. He thinks the epigram is a description of Vandal church meals but not
of the behaviour of the guests attending them, except that they greeted each
other with eils.
The first part of the epigram says that among Gothic Eils! Scapia! Matzia
ia drincan! no one is ready to recite dignified verses. The simplest explanation is that the table mates, mentioned in the title, were sitting in a restaurant and constantly shouting these words so there was no peace for poetry
reading. The second half says that the muse of epic poetry, Calliope, flees
from this carousing because she will not become drunk and unsteady on
her (metrical) feet. And where there is no Muse, it is unwise to recite poetry.
Therefore, the second part is connected to the first part. Although one can
say that the first part makes full sense without the second, the second part
does not without the first, unless the second half is intended to say what
Calliope always does when she meets Bacchus. The second half is therefore
unlikely to be an independent epigram originally, although it may have been
taken from its original context and attached to this first part. That hypothesis, though, is only necessary if it is assumed with Scardigli that the verses
mentioned in the second line are biblical verses but not poetic verses. Nevertheless, it should be stressed that there is no direct evidence showing that the
two parts were not tied together originally.
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 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.
Filologia germanica.indd 220
13/05/2009 14.12.28
THE ‘VANDAL’ EPIGRAM
221
3. Conclusions
The Germanic words in the epigram are Vandal and it is possible to explain
them without any conjecture as eils! scapia! matzia ia drincan! ‘Hail! Waiter!
Food and drink!’ Then there is only one conjecture necessary in the Latin part
of the text (audet for audit). It has not been sufficiently argued for that the two
halves of the epigram did not form a whole in the beginning. The epigram
describes everyday experience – that someone was disturbed by carousing
guests in a tavern.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Armand d’AVEZAC, “Mémoire sur Éthicus et sur les ouvrages cosmographiques intitulés
de ce nom”, Mémoires présentés par divers savants à l’Académie des inscriptions et
belles-lettres. Première série, sujets divers d’érudition, II (1852), pp. 230-551.
[Emil] BAEHRENS (ed.), Poetae Latini minores, recensuit et emendavit Aemilius Baehrens, IV, Lipsiae 1882.
D. R. Shackleton BAILEY (ed.), Anthologia Latina I: Carmina in codicibus scripta,
recensuit D. R. Shackleton Bailey, fasc. 1: Libri Salmasiani aliorumque carmina,
Stvtgardiae 1982.
Alfred J. BAUMGARTNER, Untersuchungen zur Anthologie des Codex Salmasianus,
Baden 1981.
Charles E. BENNETT, New Latin Grammar, 3rd ed., Boston 1918.
Wolfgang BINNIG, Gotisches Elementarbuch, 5., völl. neubearb. Aufl. der früheren
Darstellung von Heinrich Hempel, Berlin / New York 1999.
Bernhard BISCHOFF, “Panorama der Handschriftenüberlieferung aus der Zeit Karls
des Grossen”, in Karl der Grosse: Lebenswerk und Nachleben II. Das geistige
Leben, hrsg. von B. Bischoff, Düsseldorf 1965, pp. 233–254.
Giuliano BONFANTE, Latini e Germani in Italia, terza ed. rived. e aggiorn., Brescia
1965.
[Pieter] BURMAN (ed.), Anthologia vetervm Latinorvm epigrammatvm et poëmatvm,
sive catalecta poëtarvm Latinorvm in VI. libros digesta. […], cvra Petri Bvrmanni Secvndi, qui perpetuas Adnotationes adjecit, II, Amstelaedami 1773 [I, 1759].
Cecil CLEMENTI (ed.), Pervigilium Veneris. The Vigil of Venus. Edited with facsimiles of the Codex Salmasianus and Codex Thuaneus, an introduction, translation, apparatus criticus, and explanatory notes by Cecil Clementi, Oxford /
London 1911.
Filologia germanica.indd 221
13/05/2009 14.12.28
222
MAGNÚS SNÆDAL
Franz DIETRICH, Ueber die Aussprache des Gothischen waehrend der Zeit seines
Bestehens. Eine sprachgeschichtliche Abhandlung nebst einem kritischen Anhang
ueber die Namen des Jornandes, Marburg 1862.
Fr. DÜBNER, [Review of Meyer’s] “Anthologia veterum Latinorum epigrammatum et
poematum. […]”, Zeitschrift für die Alterthumswissenschaft 4 (1837), pp. 5-42.
Ernst A. EBBINGHAUS, “‘Inter eils goticum …’”. For E. A. Philippson on his ninetieth
birthday, General Linguistics 30 (1990), pp. 75-78. (Repr. in Ebbinghaus, Gotica,
pp. 176-179).
Ernst A. EBBINGHAUS, Gotica. Kleine Schriften zur gotischen Philologie, hrsg. von P.
Scardigli und W. Meid, Innsbruck 2003.
[Egidio] FORCELLINI, Totius Latinitatis lexicon opera et studio Aegidii Forcellini […]
novo ordine digestum amplissime auctum atque emendatum cura et studio Vincentii De-Vit, I, Prati 1858-1860.
FORTUNATUS, “Venenanti Honori Clementiani Fortvnati presbyteri Italici opera poetica”, recensvit et emendavit Fridericvs Leo, in Monvmenta Germaniae historica,
avctorvm antiqvissimorvm tomi IV pars prior, Berolini 1881.
August GRABOW,“Ein gotisches Epigramm”, in Viro illustrissimo atque doctissimo
Augusto Stinner gymnasii regii Oppoliensis directori emerito […], Oppolii 1880,
pp. xxi-xxxiii.
Jacob GRIMM, Geschichte der deutschen Sprache, I, Leipzig 1848. [Zweite Aufl.
1853, Dritte Aufl. 1868, Vierte Aufl. 1880].
W. G. HALE / C. D. BUCK, A Latin Grammar, Alabama 1903.
W. van HELTEN, “Zu Anthologia Latina ed. Riese no. 285 und 285a (de conviviis barbaris)”, Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 29 (1904),
pp. 339-343.
Heinrich HEMPEL, Gotisches Elementarbuch. Grammatik, Texte mit Übersetzung
und Erläuterungen, vierte, umgearb. Aufl., Berlin 1966.
Martin E. HULD, “The ‘Gothic’ Epigram in the Anthologia Latina and the Development of PG *ǣ in East Germanic Dialectology”, Michigan Germanic Studies 16
(1990), pp. 120-127.
N. M. K AY, Epigrams from the Anthologia Latina. Text, translation and commentary,
London 2006.
Wolfgang K RAUSE, Handbuch des Gotischen, 3., neubearb. Aufl., München 1968.
H. W. J. K ROES, “Gotische Dichtung”, Neophilologus 42 (1958), pp. 31-38.
Winfred P. LEHMANN, A Gothic Etymological Dictionary. Based on the third edition of
Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der gotischen Sprache by Sigmund Feist, Leiden 1986.
Friedrich LEO, “Venantius Fortunatus, der letzte römische Dichter”, Deutsche Rundschau 32 (1882), pp. 414-426.
Filologia germanica.indd 222
13/05/2009 14.12.28
THE ‘VANDAL’ EPIGRAM
223
Ch. T. LEWIS / Ch. SHORT, A Latin Dictionary. Founded on Andrews’ edition of Freund’s Latin Dictionary, Oxford 1958.
Franz LICHTENSTEIN, [Review:] “Viro illustrissimo atque doctissimo Augusto Stinner […]”, Anzeiger für deutsches Alterthum und deutsche Litteratur 6 (1880), pp.
373-374.
LUCRETIUS, De rerum natura. 3rd ed., London 1966.
W. LUFT, “Zum ‘gotischen Epigramm’”, Anzeiger für deutsches Altertum und deutsche
Litteratur 23 (1897), pp. 392-394.
W. MEID / H. K RAHE, Germanische Sprachwissenschaft III. Wortbildungslehre, von
Wolfgang Meid, Berlin 1967.
H. F. MASSMANN, “Gotthica minora. 8. Ein gothisches Epigramm”, Zeitschrift für
deutsches Alterthum 1 (1841), pp. 379-384.
[Heinrich MEYER (ed.)] Anthologia veterum Latinorum epigrammatum et poematum.
Editionem Burmannianam digessit et auxit Henricus Meyerus Turicensis, I-II,
Lipsiae 1835.
H. MÖLLER, “Zum gotischen Epigramm”, Anzeiger für deutsches Altertum und
deutsche Litteratur 25 (1899), pp. 103-104.
Lucian MÜLLER, “Sammelsurien XXVIII”, Jahrbücher für classische Philologie 13
(1867), pp. 483-485 (Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie und Paedagogik, 95).
Lucian MÜLLER, “Sammelsurien LII”, Jahrbücher für classische Philologie 13 (1867),
pp. 799-804 (Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie und Paedagogik, 95).
H. OMONT, Anthologie de poètes latins dite de Saumaise. Reproduction réduite du
manuscrit en onciale, latin 10318, de la Bibliothèque nationale, Paris 1903.
PÁLL Árnason, Ny Latinsk Ordbog, til Brug for den studerende Ungdom. Efter de
vigtigste Kilder og Hielpemidler, […], samlet, ordnet og udg. av Paul Arnesen,
Kjøbenhavn 1848.
Rudolf PEIPER, “ebrius debrius”, Jahrbücher für classische Philologie 19 (1873), p.
340 (Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie und Paedagogik, 107).
PROCOPIUS, in six volumes, II: History of the Wars, Books III and IV, London 1916.
Paolo R ADICIOTTI, “Problemi di datazione di codici in onciale (Par. lat. 10593, CLM
6224, Par. lat. 10318)”, Archivio della Società romana di storia patria 116 (1993),
pp. 53-63.
Alexander R IESE, “Zur lateinischen Anthologie”, Jahrbücher für classische Philologie 14 (1868), pp. 698-710 (Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie und Paedagogik, 97).
Alexander R IESE (ed.), Anthologia Latina sive poesis Latinae svpplementvm I: Carmina in codicibvs scripta, recensvit Alexander Riese, fascicvlvs I: Libri Salmasiani
aliorvmqve carmina, Lipsiae 1869.
Alexander R IESE (ed.), Anthologia Latina sive poesis Latinae svpplementvm I: Carmi-
Filologia germanica.indd 223
13/05/2009 14.12.28
224
MAGNÚS SNÆDAL
na in codicibvs scripta, recensvit Alexander Riese, fascicvlvs I: Libri Salmasiani
aliorvmqve carmina, editio altera denvo recognita, Lipsiae 1894.
Morris ROSENBLUM, Luxorius. A Latin poet among the Vandals, together with text of
the poems and an English translation, New York / London 1961.
Piergiuseppe SCARDIGLI, Die Goten. Sprache und Kultur, München 1973.
Piergiuseppe SCARDIGLI, “Das sogennante gotische Epigramm”, Beiträge zur
Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 96 (1974), pp. 17-32.
[Joseph Victor von SCHEFFEL], Das Grosse Fass zu Heidelberg, der XXIV. Versammlung deutscher Philologen und Schulmaenner zum 27. September 1865, Heidelberg 1865.
Joseph Victor [von] SCHEFFEL, Gaudeamus! Lieder aus dem Engeren und Weiteren,
Stuttgart 1868.
Alexander SOUTER, A Glossary of Later Latin, Oxford 1949.
Maddalena SPALLONE, “Il Par. lat. 10318 (Salmasiano): dal manoscritto alto-medievale ad una raccolta enciclopedica tardo-antica”, Italia medioevale e umanistica 25
(1982), pp. 1-71.
Wilhelm STREITBERG, Gotisches Elementarbuch, 5. und 6. neubearb. Aufl., Heidelberg 1920.
Ludwig TRAUBE, “Zur lateinischen Anthologie. I. Über Gedichte des Codex Salmasianus”, in Kleine Schriften, hrsg. von Samuel Brandt, München 1920, pp.
51-59. (= Vorlesungen und Abhandlungen III. Philologus 54 (1895), pp. 124-134).
J. Beckering VINCKERS, Een orthographische e-legie, of Dr. L. A. te Winkel’s e-spelling en uitspraak der gotische AI, […], Kampen 1864.
L. A. te WINKEL, “Eenige grammatische hoofdstellingen”, De Taalgids 4 (1862), pp.
289-306.
L. A. te WINKEL, “De dialecten en de vocaalspelling”, De Taalgids 6 (1864), pp. 153197.
Herwig WOLFRAM, History of the Goths. New and completely revised from the second
German edition, Berkeley 1987.
Ferdinand WREDE, Über die Sprache der Wandalen. Ein Beitrag zur germanischen
Namen- und Dialektforschung, Strassburg / London 1886.
Ferdinand WREDE, Über die Sprache der Ostgoten in Italien, Strassburg 1891.
Ferdinand WREDE, Stamm-Heyne’s Ulfilas, oder die uns erhaltenen Denkmäler der
gotischen Sprache. Text, Grammatik, Wörterbuch. Dreizehnte und vierzehnte
Aufl., Paderborn 1920.
C. L. WRENN, A Study of Old English Literature, London et al. l. 1967.
Filologia germanica.indd 224
13/05/2009 14.12.28