Male infibulation / [Eric John Dingwall].

  • Dingwall, Eric John.
Date:
1925
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Male infibulation / [Eric John Dingwall]. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    24/164 (page 10)
    gives for this rendering is that of the commentator Domitian, who, he says, declares that the word signifies the addition of another and heavier ring. He does not quote the passage, but I find that in the 1480 edition the note runs thus, “ Befibulavit: idest maiore fibula cinxit crescente penne.”1 The reason why certain commen¬ tators have adopted this rendering is fairly obvious. The epigram speaks of a young rake, who has just been freed from the tutelage of his guardian, and whose excitement is such that his sexual ardour has to be restrained by the addition of an even heavier check than that which he is already wearing. It is true that in one sense the theory is decidedly attractive, but it can I think hardly be maintained both on philological and other grounds, especially as this rendering is not accepted, as far as I can trace, by any of the distinguished commentators who have dealt with it.2 Thus Freund and Scheller give as a meaning “ wieder aufschnallen, aufhefteln,” whilst Thomas Farnaby, who was one of the most pro¬ minent classical scholars of his time, and whose editions were extremely popular in the seventeenth century, explains the word by saying, “ Fibulam solvit et sus¬ tain.” The ingenious Schurig also approves of this translation writing thus :—“ Nonnulli ita in juventute infibulati aetate provectiores iterum fibula liberantur; quod refibulare dicebatur, juxta eundem Martialem.”3 1 This edition (Venetiis, 1480) contains the text together with the commentary of Calderinus. It has no pagination but the reference will be found at sig. riiii. 2 Pierrugues translates the word by Fibulam restituere, reporter (Glossarium eroticum linguae latinae, Parisiis, 1826), p. 218, and is followed by Rambach (Thesaurus eroticus linguae latinae, Ed. C. Rambach, Stuttgartiae, 1833, p. 259), but they give no authority and generally speaking both of these glossaries should be used with caution. Similarly John Davenport translates the word in the sense of “ to have the damage repaired ” (Aphrodisiacs and Anti-aphrodisiacs, London, 1869, p. 142), but his reputation as a scholar is not supported, as far as I can see, in the quality of his work. De Pauw, on the other hand, adopts the correct rendering (Recherches philosophigues sur les Amdricains, 2 vols., Berlin, 1768-69, vol. II, p. 144). * M. Schurig, Spermatologia (Francofurti a/M., 1720), p. 549.