Epigramma

EPIGRAM OF COELIUS SEDULIUS These teachings of eternal life which I have written, I ask, O Christ, that you make them remain in my heart: So that, seeking what pleases you, with you as the doer, I may, with you as guide, O Christ, attain the joys of the heavens. SCHOLIA This epigram exists in Vatican manuscript 1, and in the Aldine edition immediately after the elegy and before the hymn "A solis," in Royal manuscript 5 after this hymn, where it is inscribed "Sedulii epigramma." In the Ascensian edition it is placed between the Paschal Poem and the hymn. It was also brought forth by Barthius from his codex in book 10, chapter 9 of his Adversaria, and by Usserius in his British Antiquities, chapter 16; in a certain ancient manuscript it was found by Poelman, described by Fabricius in his corpus of Christian poets on page 662, and also printed by the Scottish editor. Heinsius found the same epigram in the codex of Nansius. Barthius, in the cited passage, says: "This little epigram is not unworthy of Sedulius, especially since his character shines forth from it in that he seeks sharpness in the small words te, tua, tete, tibi: which kind of wordplay this swan of Christ loves with a certain honesty." Goldastus in his Biblical Manual calls it the "Oration of Sedulius" and describes it after the elegy. There are only four verses of the epigram, as it exists in others; but in the Royal manuscript others are added, which I judge to be by the scribe Matthias, son of Adam Sculterus, mansionary in the church of Cracow.

Thus the epigram proceeds continuously: The poem has an end, and I do not seek laurel wreaths.—You, Mary, be the reward of my labor.—I, slow, to traverse the vast sea of your praises—I have begun with a small hand, serene Virgin.—You provide an example imitable by learned others,—That they may strive to add more to my beginnings:—And with false Jove and savage Juno left behind,—Let them begin to celebrate you as a true goddess.—Now where you sit as great queen, blessed ruler of men,—At the right of your Son, full of your own beauty.—Who with God the Father, living through all ages,—Reigns together with the Holy Spirit: amen. In the verse "Now," where "Now" is obscurely written, and in the verse "Who with," etc., not everything is sufficiently clear. The first distich "The poem has an end," etc.; it is found in other places of the same codex. In the pentameter, "Let them begin to celebrate you as a true goddess," it will rightly displease that the Virgin Mother of God is called a true goddess. Lamindus Pritanius, or by his true name Ludovicus Muratorius, in the work *Della regolata divozione* teaches that the faithful should be warned that Mary is not God; against whom Benedictus Plazza, in part *Vindicat. devotion.*, chapter 1, argues that this warning is given superfluously, or even insultingly, since there is no faithful person who believes or says that Mary is God.

It is certain, however, that some have rather incautiously called the most blessed Virgin Mary a goddess: for, to pass over the anonymous author of this epigram and the heretic Apollinaris, who in his poem even called her a goddess, the verse of Justus Lipsius is well known: “If the Hallensian goddess had conceived vows,” which Lipsius, as Raynaud observes, wrote, driven by the necessity of meter, and his authority, though supreme in refined literature, is of no moment in theological matters. The same Raynaud denies that Peter Damian used the term “goddess” for the Mother of God in his eulogies, as some had asserted; but he doubts whether Leo X, or rather Giovanni de’ Medici, in letters written in his name, called Mary a goddess, for he found nothing of the sort, although some have affirmed that this is the case. Jacob Balde, in his Epode 115, errs in much the same way as Lipsius: “The Virgin, surrounded by the cloak of the serene sun, — She pressed the sun with her heels, — Her mouth and shoulders like a goddess; and how great an august majesty she can display.

The codex of Nansius has *placeant*; others have *placeant*; and Aldus, to whom Arntzenius assigns *placeat*. Our manuscripts, with Aldus favoring *tete*, resist the meter. In the Vatican manuscript, it was previously *tete fatente*, which is worse; it was then corrected to *favente* with the gloss *concedente*. Cappusotus in the Ascensian edition, and Barthius from his own manuscript, have *tete fautore*. Fabricius, from conjecture, I think, has *tete formante*. Scotus the editor emended to *tete faciente*, which Usserius noted in the margin as a variant reading, and Burmannus, the uncle of Secundus, approves, citing Heinsius on Ovid, I p. 39, and Metamorphoses VIII, v. 251. This reading is elegant; for *facias* precedes; and it seems to be the true one, since *faciente* could easily have been changed to *favente* by scribes. Goldastus published *tete manente*, which suits neither meter nor sense. It follows that, now that the true poems of Sedulius have been described, I should add appendices: in the first of these, I will ascribe verses that have been falsely attributed to Sedulius by some; in the remaining ones, I will collect those things that I have judged can pertain to his praises or to illustrating his works. To the Virgilian cento in the first appendix, I will subjoin the verses of Virgil collected by Martenius and collated again by me, from which the cento is composed. But why a cento of this kind should not be placed among the poems of Sedulius, I have discussed in the Prolegomena, number following, against Martenius, who thought he detected in that cento-poem the same style as in the Paschal Poem of Sedulius.