Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:07:22.902Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Leyden Manuscript of Tacitus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

R.H. Martin
R.H. Martin
Affiliation:
The University of Leeds
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

From the beginning of the seventeenth century it has generally been held that the second Medicean is the parent of all the other extant manuscripts. In two articles C. W. Mendell has demonstrated that Leidensis B.P.L. 16. B is the manuscript once owned by Rudolphus Agricola (d. 1485) and later by Th. Ryck, whose edition (Lugd. Batav. 1687) makes frequent allusion to its readings. Mendell's attempt to show further that L (= Leidensis) represents a tradition independent of the Medicean has found little support until recently, when E. Koestermann, in the course of preparing the latest Teubner edition of Annals (1960) and Histories (1961) became convinced from his own study of L that Mendell's view—in spite of some arguments of dubious validity—was essentially correct. In an article in Philologus (civ [i960], 92–115) and in the preface to his edition of Histories Koestermann has marshalled the arguments which he believes prove L's independence of the Medicean line of descent. Since the new valuation that Koestermann puts upon L has produced a drastic revision of both text and apparatus criticus in his new editions, it may be worth while to examine the evidence that Koestermann adduces in support of his belief in L's independence.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , May 1964 , pp. 109 - 119
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1964

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 109 note 1 Mendell, C. W. and Ives, S. A., ‘Ryck': Manuscript of Tacitus’, A. J.Ph. lxxii (1951) 337–45;Google ScholarMendell, C. W., ‘Leidensis B. P. L 16. B’, A. J.Ph. lxxv (1954), 250–70.Google Scholar Much of the substance of these articles is repeatec by Mendell in his book, Tacitus, The Mar and His Work (Yale University Press, 1957) pp. 325–44.Google Scholar In the same work (pp. 294–324) Mendell gives a detailed account of all tht manuscripts referred to above.

page 109 note 2 For the manner in which Lipsius camt to know of some of its readings, and for the influence of the manuscript on Nicolaus Heinsius and Ernesti see the above-mentioned articles by Mendell.

page 109 note 3 These have met with a varied reception. Among those (the majority) who are unable to accept Koestermann's hypothesis the severest criticism is perhaps that of Heubner, H. (Gnomon xxxiv [1962], 163)Google Scholar, who, speaking of the 1961 edition of Histories, concludes that ‘seine Ausgabe unzuverlässig ist und ein baldiger Wiederabdruck der Auflage von 1957 wiinschenswert erscheint’.

page 111 note 1 Mendell, , op. cit., pp. 329 ff.Google Scholar See also Allen, W. jr, Yale Class. Stud. vi (1939), 29 ff.Google Scholar

page 111 note 2 Mendell, (A.J.Ph. lxii [1951], 343) notes that the paper has a watermark attested only between 1475 and 1481.Google Scholar

page 111 note 3 It is just possible that it is later than the first edition of Puteolanus. This volume, printed at Milan by Antonius Zarotus, is dated by the British Museum catalogue on typographical grounds to 1487, but Reichling in the supplement to Hain-Copinger quotes a dated example of 1475. The earlier date must, I suspect, be regarded as doubtful.

page 112 note 1 Vaticani 1863, 1874, 1958, 2965; Harleianus; Collegii Iesu (Oxoniensis); Bodleianus (= Auct. F. 2. 24); Regius Parisiensis; Corbinelli (no longer extant according to Mendell, , op. cit., p. 323Google Scholar); Institutionis Oratorii Iesu (destroyed in the French Revolution, according to Mendell); Farnesianus (= Neapolitanus iv. C. 21); Guelferbytanus (= Gudianus 118); Budensis (= Yalensis 1); Agricolae (= Leidensis B.P.L. 16. B). Ruperti also frequently quotes the readings of die editio princeps (Spirensis), of both Puteolanus's editions (the latter 1497 —the first dated edition of Tacitus), and of Rhenanus's editions of 1519, 1533, and 1544 (the first of these is now generally known as Frobenius's edition; Rhenanus was responsible in it for editing the Germania).

page 112 note 2 Ann. 11. 8. 2 properaberat M1: praeparaberat M: praeparauerat L; 11. 27 trado M1: tradam ML; 12. 40. 1 compositi set M1: campositi uel ML; 13. 9. 3 coniunxi M1: coniunxit ML; 13. 11. 2 demotum M1: remotum ML; 13. 14. 3 burrus ML: rursus burrns ML; 13. 17. 3 detinere M1: relinere ML; 12. 33 ordouicas M1: ordolicas M: ordelucas L; 13. 32. 2 uarus M1: uarius ML; 13. 45. 3 rufri M1: rufi M: ruffi L; 15. 56. 4 glitium M1: glicium ML; 15. 66. 1 faeninus M1: scaeninus M.: sceuinus L; 16. 28. 1 paconium M1: ragonium ML; 16. 9. 2 remittere M1: permittere ML. The two cases where M1 has the inferior reading (12. 40. 1; 15. 66. 1) are discussed below.

page 113 note 1 In four cases (13. 9. 3; 13. 17. 3; 15. 56. 4; 16. 28. 1) L has the same reading as M; at 12. 33 the way to L's distorted ordelucas may be via ‘Ordolucas MSS. Guelf. Gud. ed. Put. 1.2.’ (Ruperti).

page 113 note 2 Twice wrongly given as compositis in Philologus civ [1960], 96; correct in Koestermann's apparatus criticus.Google Scholar

page 113 note 3 L in fact reads umidium, not ummidium; so it has the erroneous form of the nomen, as have Guelf. Bodl. Harl. The otiose t probably originates in dittography—the previous word ends -et. There seems little doubt that M's tummidium is the ultimate source of all the other readings.

page 113 note 4 12. 40. 2 e Brigantum, 13. 22. 1 Faenio, 13. 32. 2 Plautio, 13. 56. 2 Tencterum, 14. 32. 3 Petilio, 15. 57. 1 Epicharin, 15. 72. 1 Turpiliano, 16. 12. 2 Iunium.

page 114 note 1 Lindsay, W.M. in his Notae Latinae (Cambridge, 1915) notesGoogle Scholar ‘The syllabic suspension spc ‘sp(e)-c(ies)’ occurs in mediaeval lists of ancient Notae; but the word is never abbreviated, so far as I know, in MSS. of our period (sc. 700–850) except perhaps capriciously in its technical sense in works on Logic’. And in A Supplement to Notae Latinae (Abbreviations in Latin MSS of 850 to 1050 A.D.) Doris Bains gives no example of species or spes. Cappelli's Dizionario di abbreviature latine gives a number of abbreviations in which confusion is possible between some form of species and some form of spes, but the earliest date he gives for such an abbreviation is ‘ (species) xii s.’ and it is worth pointing out that die abbreviation that gives the specific confusion in question (specie/spent) is fpē, dated to the fifteenth century.

page 114 note 2 Possible, but not probable; abbreviations of secundum before the thirteenth century generally have an unmistakable letter ‘d’ as well as the initial ‘s’.

page 114 note 3 See also Ruperti on Hist. 1. 51. 4 ‘vocabulorum super et secundum permutatio frequens est et e compendio scripturae nata. Sic [Hist.] 4. 53. 8 et al.’

page 114 note 4 So 16. 24. 2 claritudinem M: claritatem L—but claritatem also ‘MS. Corb. et ed. Spir.’ 12. 17. 3 auxiliarium (Lipsius): consiliarium M: consularium L. ‘Pessime consularium MSS. Vatt. Oxonn. Bud. a m. pr. Reg. Agr. et primae edd.’

page 115 note 1 ‘adu pr. formidinem mollitus MSS. Reg. a m. pr. Bodl. Bud. edd. Put. i. 2. sqq. … adu. pr. formidinem molitus MSS. Reg. a m. sec. Harl. Ies. Guelf. Agr. edd. Spir. …’ Similarly 15. 53. 2 audientiae M (audentiae uulgo): audaciae L, but also ‘MSS. Harl. Bodl. Ies. Guelf. edd. Put. 1. 2 … MSS. Farn. Corb.’

page 115 note 2 Of the examples quoted from Annals, impensa L (12. 41. 3 infensa M) is not only in the editio princeps but also, according to Ruysschaert, in AOF. 14. 8. 2 refractaque L (retractaque M) is the textus receptus (already in Puteolanus); 14. 11. 1 optata L is found also in (at least) ‘MS. Vat.’ 14. 32. 2 impedientibus M: inoboedientibus L —but the latter is the reading also of ‘MSS. Reg. Corb. ed. Spir.’

page 116 note 1 See the illuminating note in Ruperti on Hist. 1. 12. 3 which discloses a number of variants introducing odium / odio and diuerterant.

page 116 note 2 No more convincing seem the examples collected on pp. xiv and xv of the preface to Histories. These examples of alternative synonyms in M and L can be paralleled time and time again by a comparison of M with other recentiores. Parallels to L's readings either in other fifteenth-century manuscripts or in the editio Spirensis can be found in Ruperti's notes for over half the examples listed by Koestermann. Three examples may be given-4. 34. 1 circumiri M: circumueniri L; ‘circuiri MS. Bud. circumueniri MSS. Reg. Agr. (= L) ed. Spir.’; 4. 81. 1 celts estfauor M: caelitum fauor L; ‘coelestis fauor edd. Rhen. 2. 3 … celis est fauor MSS. Flor. (teste Furia) et Bud. iisdem literis, sed perperam transpositis. coelitis fauor MS. Corb. celis fauor MS. Reg. coeli fauor MSS. Bodl. Guelf. edd. Spir… ’. In view of the other variants at this point I find it hard to credit L with preserving an i ependent tradition of the uera lectio. 5. 19. 2 abacto amne M: moto amne L; ‘abacto sive ab acto amne MSS. Flor. (test. Vict.) Harl. Bodl. Ies. Guelf. Bud. edd. Put. 1. Rhen. 2. 3. sqq. ab amoto amne MS. Reg. et ed. Spir. amoto amne MS. Agr. ablato amne edd. Put. 2. Ber. Rhen. 1. 'Again L's reading seems to be completely derivative.

page 116 note 3 As far as the incomplete record of the readings of other recentiores will allow one to judge.

page 116 note 4 From Koestermann's apparatus there would appear to be a third and even more remarkable one—2. 1. 2 fortuita L (Grotius): fortuna cett. codd. But a microfilm of L shows clearly (as Giarratano recorded) that L has fortuna with the other manuscripts. There are other places too where Koestermann's account of L is inaccurate. It is unfortunate that some of these are instances where, if his account were correct, L would be alone in giving the reading, e.g. Ann. 14. 31.4 ‘arx L’ (according to K.): ara externe (in fact); Hist. 1. 62. 3 ‘leui L (Acid.)’: almost certainly leui; 2. 16. 1 ‘in summam L in marg., Rhen.’: rather ī sûma; 2. 17. 1 Ttaliam L (Rhen.)': definitely italia; 2. 24. 2 ‘Castorum L (Alciatus)’: actually castrorum.

page 117 note 1 Ruperti ascribes it to Rhenanus with the words ‘felici vel casu vel emendatione’, and the same error occurred and was emended at an early date in Hist. 4. 29. 2.

page 117 note 2 Giarratano notes that the final -e is by the second hand; whether this corrects an original -i or (as frequently elsewhere) merely overwrites a faded -e I cannot say from the microfilm. It may (or may not) be significant that the preceding usu was omitted and is inserted (? by m. 1) above the line.

page 117 note 3 I have omitted the following cases from Hist. 1–8. I domino L (dono Put.), since Giarratano (pref. p. x) makes it clear that dono is not unique; 62. 3 leni, as my reading of L is leui 78. 1 ostentui, since in addition to L and Rhen. it is found, ace. to Ruperti, in ‘MSS. Reg. Corb. Bud. Guelf. ed. Spir.’; 85. 3 dicenti L, since Ruperti quotes Wissowa as noting it also from ‘MS. Vindob. sive Sambuc’

page 118 note 1 Thus Ruperti's note on Hist. 2. 98. 1 (quoted above as one of the most striking of L's readings), while detracting nothing from the excellence of the reading, strongly suggests that L has emended correctly where other manuscripts have made less successful attempts: ‘suomet astu MS. Agr. et edd. Lips. sqq. ex emend. Ferretti … suomet statu MSS. Corb. Harl. Bodl. Ies. Bud. Guelf. et edd. ante Lips.’

page 118 note 2 See especially the preface of Mynors's, R. A. B.edition (Oxford, 1958).Google Scholar

page 119 note 1 Interesting because it will either have disclosed an anonymous emendator of some good sense and occasional brilliance, or have established the existence of a protracted post-Medicean tradition borrowing both good tnd bad from other recentiores (or their ources) but not communicating in turn its own excellences to them.