\
%
THE DESCENT
OF
MANUSCRIPTS
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
LONDON EDINBURGH GLASGOW NEW YORK
TORONTO MELBOURNE CAPE TOWN BOMBAY
HUMPHREY MILFORD
PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY
less
THE DESCENT
OF
MANUSCRIPTS
BY
A. C. CLARK
CORPUS PROFESSOR OF LATIN IN THE UNIVERSITY
OF OXFORD
OXFORD '
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
1918
PR
41
4-5
^*,r<r^w««*'--t
PREFACE
Tins work has been in type for some lime, but its appearance
has been delayed by the great European war, which has disorganized
industry and extinguished interest in philological studies. It seems
hopeless to wait for more favourable times, so it is now published
under very unpropitious circumstances.
The book was not constructed according to a definite plan, but
took shape gradually in the course of a protracted inquiry. It
may, therefore, be well to indicate the order in which it was
composed. The method which I have employed was based upon
a study of Cicero's Philippics, and the chapter in which I treat
them was more or less completed before I proceeded to other
writings. I went on to other speeches of Cicero, chiefly the Verrines
and the collection of orations post rcdittivi. Sec, found in Paris. 7794,
also to the corpus of philosophical works {Nat. D., &c.) discussed
in Chapter X, and Asconius, together with the pseudo-Asconius.
While my work upon these was in an inchoate condition, it was
broken off (in 1913) by an incursion into a different field.^ On my
return to my former studies, I completed the chapters which I had
begun, and extended my inquiries to the Ciceronian palimpsests.
At this period I became interested in omission marks, and found
a rich store of material in old Latin MSS., chiefly patristic, in
which passages added by the corrector are accompanied by
symbols denoting previous omission. I have dealt wiih a selection
of these in Chapter III. The chapters upon the MSS. of Plato
and the Paris MS. of Demosthenes were added after the rest of
the work had been for some time in print, since it seemed well
to exemplify the application of the method to Greek authors.
* The Primitive Text of the Gospels and Acts, Oxford, 1914. d. Journal of Theological
Stitdies , Jan, 1915, pp. 225-40 (an answer to objections).
vi PREFACE
The inquiry has developed as I went on, and fresh material has
continually accumulated. Since I wished to keep this volume within
bounds, I have not included in it references to other MSS., some
of which are very instructive, which I have used since Chapter III
was written, or certain studies which I have sketched in the case
of other classical authors. The method is equally applicable to
all ancient prose-texts for which we have good MSS., and the
material is therefore inexhaustible.
The general object of this book is to show how internal evi-
dence furnished by MSS. can be utilized to cast light upon the
filiation of codices, and in some cases upon the archetype from which
they are derived ; also to apply such knowledge to the criticism
and emendation of the text.
The argument rests mainly upon two principles, viz.:
(i) the regularity of writing in ancient MSS., which, as a rule,
contain a similar, or even the same, number of letters to a line.
For proof of this I refer to pp. 9-18.
(2) the frequency of line-omissions in MSS.
It is always easy to omit, when one is making a copy. Some-
times there is no reason at all for the omission beyond human
frailty. Most frequently there is a contributory cause, viz. ojLiotorrjy
(p. i). This is often assisted by line division. Sometimes lines
are omitted without any other cause than line division. The most
instructive cases are where the sense is destroyed by the omission,
or where a word is actually bisected (pp. 3-4).
1 have illustrated this process (pp. 18-24) from W, a fifteenth
century MS. of Cicero's speeches, which is derived, probably through
an intermediate copy, from 2, a MS. written in the same century.
I have noticed 10 cases, where W omits complete lines of 2, in
three of which a word has been bisected ; and •^'^ cases, where the
scribe has passed from a certain point in one line to the same,
or nearly the same, point in a line below. It would appear that
the second process is the easier of the two, and it is probable
that most omissions took place in this way.^
2 is written in irregular script, with a quantity of abbreviations.
' In the course of this work, when I attempt to rearrange the model, I place the
omitted passages in complete lines. This is merely for purposes of convenience.
PREFACE vii
The number of letters, however, contained by the omitted lines,
shows a well-marked average. Thus, there are 15 examples of
47-9 letters. In an ancient MS. the uniformity would have been
much greater.
In default of the model from which the copy is taken valuable
evidence is sometimes supplied by MSS. which possess marginal
supplements ticketed with omission labels. Here a numeration
of the letters in the supplements gives unequivocal evidence of
line-omission. Some simple examples where very few figures are
involved will be found collected on pp. 37-8. Thus, Harl. 3063
has only two such additions, one of which contains 66 and the
other 132 letters. As a rule, we find more than one unit, testifying
to the presence of more than one ancestor, with corresponding
bulges in the curve of omissions.
We have now a method which can be used where we possess
MSS. belonging to different families. One of the chief problems in
textual criticism is caused by the presence in some MSS. of passages
not found in others which possess a better reputation. The general
tendency of editors has been to throw in their lot with what they
term ' the best MS.', and to regard with great suspicion all
passages not found in it. Some go so far as to tar with the
same brush passages omitted by the first hand in the ' best ' MS.,
or the only MS. Thus Halm regarded as interpolations the addi-
tions of the second hand in the palimpsest of Cicero's de Re
Publica. Some editors occasionally admit passages necessary to
the sense, especially if their omission can be defended by o/ioioV?;?,
but reject others which are not absolutely necessary, though the
omission can be explained in the same way. It is, I think, un-
likely that an interpolator would have been so cunning as to
conceal his inventions by a device intended to show that their
omission was palaeographically possible. Other passages not
defended by ofioiorr/s met with a short shrift. The first duty of
the critic was to prune the text, and the fatal maxim brevier
lectio potior still holds sway.
In these cases of doubt an arithmetical test is of great value.
If the suspected passages are due to interpolation, then we should
expect them to be of unequal length, and to show no relation to
viii PREFACE
each other. If, however, we find a well-marked unit, or units, rising
by multiples at regular intervals, there must be a cause, and the
obvious cause is to be found in line-omission. To any one who
fights against arithmetic I can only say a-nXrjpov o-ol irpos KtvTpa
The method which I have followed is to tabulate the omissions
of a particular MS., to arrange them in order of magnitude and to
let them tell their own story. There is a constant feature in all
such tabulations which I have conducted, viz. that the figures
become more and more striking as they increase in size. It is
common to find that the largest figures form a series of multiples,
closely correlated with each other. The reason is that single lines
difter in length, some being abnormally long or short. If, however,
we take a sufficient number the average appears and becomes more
and more constant.
The large numbers are of special importance, where the unit is
small, as in the case of MSS. written in narrow columns. Here
we may detect a unit or even a multiple of a unit, but as the
numbers rise they may be explained as multiples of any unit. If,
however, the largest numbers are exact, or almost exact multiples
of each other, and looking backwards we find a series of correlated
numbers which support each other and form part of a scheme, we
can work back from the larger multiples to the smaller and from
them to the unit (p. 40).
In order to guard against a misconception which I find it hard
to remove, I must point out with some emphasis that this method
does not attempt to explain all omissions, but only those which
are due to the lineation of an ancestor. There must always be
omissions due to chance, especially if ojxolottjs is present. These
it is impossible to control, and they do not affect the argu-
ment. We can only tell from the figures where a line has been
skipped.
There are also other sources of evidence, e.g. the dittography
(p. 6). Here also the tendency is for the scribe to write twice a
line or more. Thus, in Burn. 340 out of nine omissions seven
contain 27-9 letters: there is also one dittography which consists
of 56 letters (p. ^^^). Dittographies must therefore be tabulated
together with omissions. Frequently we find contiguous omissions,
PREFACE ix
or an omission followed shortly afterwards by a dittography of
similar length. In such cases it is easy to write out the whole
passage as it appeared in the model (p. 37, S:c.).
Much convincing evidence is given by transpositions. When wc
compare the length of the passages which have changed places, it
is a common experience to find that one is a multiple of the other,
or that both are multiples of a unit for which there is other
evidence. The reason for the inversion is therefore obvious. For
a large succession of transpositions I would refer to the chapter on
the Pseudo-Asconius.
The most interesting evidence is given by variants, frequently
corruptions, which have got into the text (p. 49). These have a
tendency to invade the text at regular intervals, i.e. at a distance
of a line or several lines from the passage to which they refer.
The testimony of papyri and palimpsests shows that diiplices Icc-
iiones, or doublets, go back to a very ancient date. Sometimes
they are corruptions or voces ni/iili, which were recorded in the
margin. In some cases we find a doublet embedded in the text at
a considerable distance from the variant for which it is an alterna-
tive. Here it is probable that it has been entered in the wrong
column, or on the wrong page or folio of an ancestor. It is there-
fore important to tabulate and compare the distances between the
two passages. The results are sometimes very surprising. Thus
in Phil. xiv. 13, where a variant has found its way into the text
from § 15, the intermediate space consists of 951 letters: \x\PhiL ii.
106, where the MSS. have a I'ox iiihili (variously corrupted) which
I take to be a doublet for a word in § 104, the intermediate space
consists of 953 letters (pp. 199-201).
I desire to call particular attention to some singular evidence
which throws light upon the formation of ' shorter ' texts. I refer
first to the abridgements which I have pointed out in the Berne
Horace, and particularly to the version which it gives of Sat. i. 3.
75~i25 (pp. 30-1). Here the abbreviator has reduced 51 lines to 23
by the simple expedient of striking out lines regardless of the sense,
on one occasion 14 consecutive lines. His method is like that of
a modern schoolboy who tries to cheat when he has been set to
copy out a long imposition. He does not, however, endeavour to
' botch ' the sense by consequential alterations, such as arc often
X PREFACE
found (p. 123) where a passage has been doctored after an omis-
sion.^
I come next to a singular series of omissions found in an abridged
text of Cic. Fain. vi. 9 § i-io § 6, which is given by a palimpsest
leaf (pp. 147-53). Here there is a striking numerical relation
between the portions excised by the abbreviator and those which
he retained. The first passages which I examined yield the fol-
lowing figures: 94, 187, 284 (94x3 = 283), and similar relations
exist throughout. I see no explanation except that the abbre-
viator struck out lines of his copy. Some of the excisions are
self-contained. In others the sense is vitally affected by the omis-
sion, but the passage can be construed without any doctoring.
Thus in 10. i he retains Hague, the first word in a sentence, leaves
out the rest of the sentence, which contains names and details,
and goes on with the next. The most interesting case is in § a
of the same letter, where after a long cut, which appears to repre-
sent a passage of 23 lines in his model, he disguises his handiwork
by inserting nihil erit saltern.
A minor example is to be found in the pseudo-Platonic "Opot as
given by Par. 1807 {A). Here we have a series of excisions which
exhibit numerical relations with the passages retained. Thus, one
of the excisions which consists of 57 letters is preceded by a
retained passage of iii letters, and followed by one of 578 (p. 395)'
More curious evidence is furnished by a remarkable series of
obelizations in Demosthenes, Midias, found in three MSS. The
^ A good example is to be found in the MSS. of Juvenal vi. 346-S. I quote Professor
Housman, p. xxix :
• We now know that at some remote epoch twenty-nine verses were omitted after vi. 365,
and left this headless sequel,
consilia et veteres quaecumque monetis amici,
" pone seram, cohibe." sed quis custodiet ipsos
custodes, qui nunc lascivae furta puellae
hac mercede silent? crimen commune tacetur,
prospicit hoc prudens, et ab illis incipit uxor.
In our MSS. these lines have been battered into the following shape :
audio quid veteres olim moneatis amici,
" pone seram, cohibe." sed quis custodiet ipsos
custodes? cauta est et ab illis incipit uxor
and have been transported to a new station between 345 and 349 in the vain hope of pro-
viding them with an appropriate context.'
PREFACE xi"
first obelized passage consists of 54 letters, and the next of 107.
Shortly afterwards two obelized passages both contain 110 letters
(pp. 441-2). There is a constant relation between the excisions
and the portions retained. Thus one obelized passage (§§ 21 7-1 S)
and one intermediate block (§^ 98-9) both consist of 507 letters.
These figures seem to shew that the author of the obelizations,
who, as W. Christ says, ' was no Aristarchus ', pursued the easy
method of striking out lines in his copy.
This reference to Aristarchus induces me to mention a curious
passage in Homer, //. xviii. 603-6 :
jroXXos 6' ifXfpi'xuTa \op6i> ir€pu<TTaS ofjuXns
Ttpnofid'oi' fifTa 6( cr(f)iv (peXnfTn 6fios aotfios
<f)Of)fu((ov' 8o»d> de Kv,iicrTriTrjiJf kot' uvtovs
/xoXTT^r (^ap\ovroi Hlvtvov Kara fifcraovs
The words /ixcra 6«' . . . (f>opiJLiCoi>v are not found in any MSS, or
scholia. They are also absent from the Harris papyrus and
B. M. 127. They are read by editors since Wolf, on the authority
of Athen. 181 b-d, who ascribes the shorter version to Aristarchus,
and accuses him of cutting down the text (fTrire/iaji; to. 7roa;/xaTa
Toi' rpoTTov TovTov). It is to bc noticed that without the missing
words f^apxozTos- ^ (i.e. aoibov) is very awkward.
The facts to which I have drawn notice are of importance in con-
nexion with the shorter text of the Acts and the longer version, for
which our chief authority is the codex Bezae. My excuse for
mentioning this subject here is that it happens to be the part of
my previous work to which I attach most importance, and that it
has been passed over by my critics in significant silence. I there-
fore draw attention to it in the hope of eliciting an answer. My
contention is that the oldest Greek MSS. B and S^ — together with
those of later date, apart from some insignificant exceptions — are
derived from a MS. arranged in cola and commata resembling those
found in the codex Bezac (D).
My argument is founded in the first place upon omissions. I have
put together 41 cases where Bi^ &c. omit passages which occupy
lines in D. To illustrate the character of these omissions I lake
Acts i. 5. Here D gives, with support from the versions :
v^ir df tv TTci ayiut ^aTrTiadrjatadai
Kui o /ifXXcrat Xafifiavttv
• So Athenaeus; our MSSJ. have ((apx^vrts, so Ot/. iv. 17-8.
xii PREFACE
ov fieTa TToXXa? ravras r}fJ.fpas
tmS TtjS ITfVTTJKOaTrjS
Bi^ &c. omit lines 2 and 4.
In another block of 20 cases the construction in Bt^ &c. seems
to have been botched after an omission. I instance as an example,
ii. ^y. D gives, with the Syriac (Harkl. ing)'.
Tore Trnvres ot avveXdovres
Kai aKovcravTts Karevvyrjaav ttj Kap^ia
Bi^ &c. give :
aKovarnvTfS 8e Kartwyrjaav rrjv Kapbiav
In Other cases, no explanation is possible except that of bold
abridgement, apart from line-omission.
Formerly I spoke of abridgement with caution, and only in con-
nexion with the longer cuts, since it did not occur to me that an
abbreviator would deliberately reduce his text by the excision of
lines. I therefore treated all the omissions of Bi^ &c. as due to
accident. In view of the new evidence as to the methods of abbre-
viators, I now think that many of them may have been deliberate.
This removes certain difficulties, since it seemed strange that
a copyist should be so careless.
The instances which I gave were collected from the notes in
Souter's edition. Since then I have noticed 14 other cases, not
mentioned in his notes, in which passages omitted by B^ &c. form
lines in D. 1 mention the following as specimens : ^
ii. 37 : Ti ovv noir](Top.(V nv^pa nSeX^ot
Bi^ &c. omit the second line.
XV. 23 : ypn^nvres (ttkttoXtjv 8ia xeipos avTwv
TTfpifxovcraf rade D
B^ &c. omit the second line.
* The other cases are v. 21 eyfpOfPre^ to Tipoji, vi. i ev tt) Siatcoviq twv 'E0paia)v, vii, 34
KOI (icpwpiv avTuv kv ttj dpL/xq], 26 Kal fiStv avrovs dSiKOvvras, 37 avrov aKovaeaOe, x. 33
TTapa/caKa/v tKOiiv Trpos ^/xa?, xii. 21 KaTaWaytvTos 6e avrov tois Tvpiois, xiii. 4I Kai
iaiyqaav, xvi. 19 ^s ti^ov Si' avr^s, 38 to. prjdiVTa irpbs tovs arparriyoiis. All these
occupy single lines in I), of very various length. Also, in xiii. 33 I) has a passage of
five lines, ahijaai nap' ipLoii , . . tjj: yijs, not found in BH &c.
PREFACR xiii
38 : Tov anodTrffraiTn mr avruv ano nnfi(f)i'\int
Kai fiT) avvfXfioina f<r to epyov
/>t^ &c. omit the third line.
I have also observed two more cases in which the text as found
in B^ seems to have been mended after an omission, viz. :
ii. I : <cnc tytvtrn tv mis rjfifpais (Ktivait
TOv (TVisnXrjpovcrdni rqu rjfjitpnv
Tt]S 7r€tn-r]K0<TTrjs D
/>S &c. give :
Kax. fV TO) avfjLTrXrjpoiadai rqv rjfifpaf rrjs TJfirnjKnaT^ii
xii. 23 : Kai KnTO^ns ann rov ^TjfjuiTns
ytvo/iefoi (TKtoXrjKO^paTOi D
B^ Sec. give :
Kdi yffofxfvas (rKoiXtjKo^paTOs
If this new evidence is taken into account, we have 55 cases
where lines of D appear to have been omitted by Bi^ &c., and
22 where, after an omission, the text has been slightly doctored. It
will be seen therefore that my case is even stronger than I had
supposed.
I now address a few words to those who may care to make trial
of the method which I have employed. I venture to suggest that
the student before trying his hand upon an author should select
a MS. possessing a number of marginal additions prefaced by
omission marks, and treat it in the manner set forth in Chapter III.
It is best to choose a patristic MS. since, so far as my experience
goes, these are richest in such marginalia. It is highly probable
that in the great libraries of Europe there are many MSS. more
suitable for this purpose than any of those which I have employed.
The task is an easy one, since the additions and alterations of
the corrector are obvious. The student will have some exciting
moments. It is quite likely that the two first additions which he
notes will prove to be of the same length, or that one will be
twice the length of the other. As a rule he will get upon the
track in the course of ten minutes. If he finds a ' telescoped *
passage (p. 3), he has a sure clue. When the tabulation is complete,
the large figures are likely to be of great interest.
xiv PREFACE
After this preparation the method may be applied to a classical
author. It will be well to select one for whom we have MSS.
belonging to more than one family and of considerable antiquity.
The inquiry is more difficult if the MSS. belong to a single family,
or if there is only one MS., especially if this MS. is late. It is
possible to elicit much information from corruptions of various
kinds, particularly from dittographies (p. 159), but we are without
the more cogent evidence furnished by the omissions of the various
families.
It is best to analyse the MSS. singly, beginning with the one to
which special importance is attached by critics. The student
should abstain from guesses about the archetype until he has put
together his results in the case of the various MSS. and the groups
and families into which they fall. It is probable that several
intermediate MSS. intervene between any particular MS. and the
archetype. The possibility that a MS. is derived from a model
very like itself must always be borne in mind.
It is necessary to be cautious and to avoid hasty conclusions.
Figures are curious things and the limits of coincidence are large.
It is only when we have a large number of facts all tending in the
same direction that chance becomes unlikely or impossible.
I have to thank various friends for generous help which I have
received from them. Dr. S. G. de Vries, whose kindness I have had
to acknowledge on various occasions, lent to the Bodleian Library
for my use the two chief MSS. for the philosophical corpus {Nat. D.,
&c.), both of which belong to Leiden. Monsieur L. Dorez, of the
Bibliotheque Nationale, verified for me a large number of passages
in Paris. 14749, where I suspected that lines had been omitted by
IV, supplying me with the abbreviations used. Professor U. von
Wilamowitz-Moellendorfif obtained for me (in 1913) photographs of
the Berlin leaves containing portions of Cicero, /»r^ Plancio. Mr,
Percy Simpson furnished me with a number of parallels in English
literature for omissions similar to those which occur in classical
texts. The Rev. H. M. Bannister verified for me various passages
in Vatican MSS., and when in Oxford frequently advised me upon
points of palaeography.
CONTHNTS
CHAP
I.
II.
HI.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.
XIII.
Omissions in Manuscripts ....
Omission Marks, etc
The Evidence of Marginalia
Primasius on the Apocalypse (Douce 140)
Ciceronian Palimpsests. ....
Cicero, Philippics
Verrines
Oratt. Post Reditum (Sen., Ouir., Dom., Har
Resp.), pro Sestio, in Vatinium, pro Caelio
DE Provinciis Consularibus, pro Balbo
Pro Fonteio, pro Flacco, pro Cluentio, pro
MiLONE, in Catilinam, Caesarianae
De Natura Deorum, de Divinatione, Timaeus,
DE Fato, Topica, Paradoxa, Lucullus, de
Legibus
asconius and pseudo-asconius .
The Manuscripts of Plato .
The Paris Manuscript of Demosthenes
Addenda
INDEXES
I. General Index
II. List of Manuscripts . . . .
III. List of Names and Places .
IV. List of Chief Passages referred to
PAGE
I
53
104
124
162
212
266
281
324
364
41K
447
455
457
460
46^
CHAPTER I
OMISSIONS IN MANUSCRIPTS
There are certain forms of error to which all copyists are liable.
The most fertile and insidiousof these is generally known as omissio
ex homoeoteleuto. The eye of the writer wanders from a particular
word, or portion of a word, to a similar word, or portion of a word,
elsewhere in the context, with the result that the intervening words
are omitted. I take as an example
Thuc. iv. 39 f" TTJ vijffa) €iTo\iopKTjdrj<rav ano Trjs vavfi.n)(ias f^fXP* ''''1^ '•' "''H "^"'y-
In an Oxyrhynchus papyrus (no. i6), written in the first century A. D.,
the words (TTo\LopKi]6j]crai' . . . (v rf/ vi](T(o were omitted by the writer.
They are added at the top of the page with reference marks, viz.
KCLTM at the top of the page and avay above the place in the text where
the insertion is to be made.
Frequently the similarity comes at the beginning, not at the end,
e. g. Cicero, pro Caelio, § 27 :
qui in hortis fuerit, qui unguenta sumpserit, qui Baias viderit.
The first clause, qui in hortis fuerit^ which has been preserved b>'
Donatus, is omitted by our MSS.
In such cases homoeoteleiiton is a misnomer, and some critics use
the term homoeoarcton. I prefer to use the single word o/iotoV'jj for
all such cases of ' skipping ', and denote this by the symbol 6/z.
A French phrase is saiit du inane an vieme}
The ravages of 6/i. are widespread and in some cases difficult to
control. Frequently, however, there is a contributory cause, viz.
the coincidence of 6yi. with line division. I illustrate by an example
furnished to me by Dr. Wickham Legg. Recently he had occasion
to quote in a work of his own a passage from R. C. Trench's Sacred
Latin Poetry, which is printed thus:
The book, which is rather
scarce, was till very lately of absolute necessity for the
student of the Christian hymnology, above all for the
student of Adam of S* Victor's hymns.
L. Havet, Manuel de critique verbaU, p. 130.
•«'» B
2 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
When revising his proofs, he found that he had omi'tted 1. 3, student
of the . . . /or the. The error was due to homoeoarcton as well as
homoeoteletiton.
I have myself not infrequently fallen into the same trap. On one
occasion I was engaged in copying out a long passage, previously
unpublished, in Acardus (Achard d'Arrouaise) de Templo Salamonis'^
from an Oxford MS. (Bodl. 603), in which the following lines occur :
labiumque singulorum ut repandi lilii
mare quoque fecit unum cuius luter fusilis
erat et in altum denis tendebatur cubitis
trium unciarum erat grossitudo labii
5 labiumque eius quasi calicis uel lilii
On comparing my proofs with the MS., I found that I had omitted
11. 2-5, having passed from labiumque . . . lilii in 1. i to the same
words in 1. 5.
So also, when copying out for this work a passage of Primasius,
which in Douce 140, cent, vii/viii, is written thus :
sicut mosi di
cit ego sum qui sum sic dicis filiis israhel qui est misit
me ad uos et tu uero idem ipse es et per malachiam
ego sum dns deus
I found that I had written :
sicut mosi dicit ego sum dns deus {om. 7ned.)
Here the saut du meine art meme, viz. from ego sum to ego smn,
does not exactly correspond to the line division, but very nearly so.
This is a very instructive error.
I owe to the kindness of Mr. Percy Simpson the following
examples from English literature.
Chaucer, Shipman's Tale {Canterbury Tales, B. 1374-80):
And if myn housbonde eek it myghte espye
I were but lost and therfore I you preye
[Lene me this somme, or ellis moot I deye.
Daun John, I seye, lene me thise hundred frankes :
Pardee, I wol nat faille you my thankes,
If that you list to doon that I you praye.]
For at a certeyn day I wol you paye
Harl. 7334 omits the bracketed lines (6/ji.).
1 Revue de V Orient latin, xii, pp. 263-74.
OMISSIONS IX MANUSCRIPTS 3
Shakespeare, Troilus and Cressida, II. iii. The First Foh'o has:
Ther. He declin the whole question : Agamemnon commands Achilles,
Achilles is my Lord, I am Patroclus Knower, and Patroclus is a foole.
[Piitro. You rascall.
T/ier. Peace, foole, I have not done.
Achil, He is a priuiledg'd man, proceede, Thersites.
Ther. Agamemnon is a foole, Achilles is a foole, Thersites is a foole and as
aforesaid, Patroclus is a foole.]
The 1609 Quarto omits the bracketed h'nes (''m-)-
Hamlet, V. i. The First Folio has :
Clo. He was the first that ever bore Amies.
Other. [Why he had none.
Clo. What, ar't a Heathen ? how dost thou understand the Scripture ? the
Scripture sayes, Adam dig'd ; could hee digge without Armes.'] He put another
question to thee.
The 1604 Quarto omits the bracketed passage (o/a.).
Hamlet, V. i. The First Folio has :
This fellow might be in's time a gpreat buyer of Land, with his Statutes, his
Recognizances, his Fines, his double Vouchers, his Recoueries : [Is this the fine
of his Fines, and the recouery of his Recoueries,] to haue his fine Pate full of
fine Dirt?
The 1604 Quarto omits the bracketed passage (o/x.).
These instances will suffice to show the danger of omission due to
OM- which threatens every copyist, even if he is writing what he
understands. It must be remembered that many of the scribes by
whom Latin texts have been transmitted were very ignorant, and
unable to grasp the sense of what they were writing. It is, therefore,
not to be wondered at if they were often helpless victims to b\i.
I now proceed to consider further the phenomena of line omission.
In some cases there is an obvious rent in the text. This is most
noticeable when a word has been cut in two in consequence of an
omission. I use the term ' telescoped ' of such passages, e.g. :
Harl. 2686, f. 55'. Here the first hand gives :
inuicg se humogore temperat
A second hand adds, after hiimo :
-re siccitate calore et fri-
A previous MS. appears to have had :
humo
re siccitate calore et fri
gore
B 2
4 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
The scribe omitted a line. Here there is no ofi.
Laud. Misc. 134, f. 8o\ The first hand gives:
consuetu omnes
A second hand adds after consuetu :
dine uetus testamentum et lex pphetae
The model must have had :
consuetu
dine uetus testamentum lex et pphetae
omnes
Harl. 3012, f. 44. The first hand gives:
ecce aperti sunt caeli et uidit spm di descendentem sicut colummeus dilectus in
quo mihi complacui.
A second hand adds, with reference mark for insertion after
colum- :
ba ueniente sup se et ecce uox de caelis dicens hie e filius
The model must have had :
ecce aperti sunt caeli et uidit spm di descendentem sicut colum
ba ueniente sup se et ecce uox de caelis dicens hie e filius
meus dilectus in quo mihi complacui.
I mention as an ilkistration of these telescoped lines a paragraph
which appeared in the Globe of May i, 19 14, viz. :
That speculators who dabble in oil shares, and
particularly in those of companies possessing
individual propositions as distinct from the
shares of trust companies, undertake consider-
5 had further advanced to '970. The directors ex-
of this has just been provided by the Egyptian
group.
Shortly afterwards we read :
telegram received from Gemsah stated that the
specific gravity of the oil yielded by Well 13
had further advanced to 970. The directors ex-
plained.
Here it is obvious that a line has dropped out after consider-.
The loss was repaired in a later edition, in which 11. 4-7 appeared
correctly, viz. :
shares of trust companies undertake consider-
able risks is well known. A striking example
of this has just been provided by the Egyptian
group.
OMISSIONS IN MANUSCRIPTS 5
The missing line was expelled by a corrected version ('970 for
970) of a line which occurs later on loco suo. The confusion was
due to 6\x. (viz. example and explained).
In other cases the sense is mangled, although the words are intact.
Thus, the Globe of August 3, 1915, gave the following:
The IVess Bureau announces : —
General Sir Ian Hamilton reports on
August 2 that on the right of the
position held by the Australian and the
was carried out against a network of
Turkish trenches, which were about
to threaten the safety of an advanced
post called ' Tasmania Post '.
Here there is a lacuna at the end of 1. 4. The report, as given in
other journals, after and the adds, New Zealand Corps a successful
attack. Here a complete line has fallen out.
I would here quote M. Havet, who says:
' Quand un MS. omet de suite plusieurs mots sans qu'ils forment
ensemble une unite de sens et sans qu'il y ait saut du meme au
m^me, il est a presumer que la suite de mots en question formait
une ligne du modele.'^
In the following examples, I arrange, for the sake of brevity, the
passage as I conceive it to have stood in the model, enclosing in
brackets the line omitted by m. 1.
Harl. 3034, f. ^C^ :
non enim inquit est tibi pars neque
[sors in sermone hoc separans eum]
ab eis
Brit. Mus. 21215. f. 20^-
per hoc xps e
[ds anima rationalis el caro qua veritate]
recognita
Laud. Misc. 92, f 129':
si per se ipsum quasi fidelium
[coniugum commixtione duce rationc consideret ct culpabilis usus]
non in coniugali ccubitu
' Manuel, ]>. 200.
6 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
Laud. Misc. 139, f. 11^:
de hac aqua uiua dare mihi non potes
[quoniam hauritorium non habes, forte aliuin]
fontem promittis
Laud. Misc. 256, f. 8t^ :
p speluncis
[et lenis nidos et catulos LXX transtulerunt]
in ceteris ide sensus est
Laud. Misc. 275, f. 12^":
in
[cottidiana urbis sollempnitate]
laborantibus pauca loquenda sunt
Laud. Misc. 45^, f. 166'-:
et eum qui orbem terrae
[extenta manu quatiebat nunc lepusculi alicuius]
aut ranae timiditatem adtractum latitare
In order to avoid misunderstanding, I would here state that the
length of line, which I ascribe to the model in these examples, is
inferred from a number of similar omissions in the same MS.
I now proceed to consider the opposite phenomenon to omission,
viz. repetition, or dittography. A dittography, like an omission, may
be due purely to chance, especially when one word or two or three
only are repeated. Longer dittographies are .generally due to line
division, frequently aided by 0//. Repetitions of a line are not
uncommon in newspapers. Thus, in the Glode of July 9, 1915,
I noticed among the Stop Press Telegrams :
The " Echo de Paris " publishes a
message from Cettinje announcing the
message from Cettinje announcing the
appointment as Governor of Scutari of
Bojo Petrovitch.
The same journal contained a more complicated error in its issue
of April 20, 1914, viz. :
Plans are reported to be quite ready for a
seizure of strategic points and a complete
blockade of the two coasts. A very powerful
forces, and a direct appeal from Huerta to
5 within thirty or so hours.
OMISSIOXS IN MANUSCRIPTS 7
Federal hopes seem to be that the interven-
tion will be followed by a fusion of Mexican
forces, and a direct appeal from Huerta to
9 Carranza is reported.
Here I. 4 is a dittography of 1. 8, which has taken the place of
a missing line. A later edition contained the correct version, viz. :
A very powerful
force will be concentrated on the scene
within thirty or so hours.
The corruption in 1. 4 is due to 6fx. {force and forces).
Prof. Skeat has pointed out an interesting dittography in Thomas
Usk's Testavient of Love, iii. 4:
But thilke to wilne nedeful is, for impossible to him it is oon thing and the
same to wilne and not to wilne (Skeat).
The first edition (Thynne's) has :
but thilke to wylne nedeful is for impossyble
to him it is one thing and the same to wylne
he may not wylne [but thilk to wylne nedeful
is for impossyble to him it is one thyng and
the same to wylne and not to wylne]
I have enclosed in brackets the repeated words.
Dittographies are especially frequent in MSS. written in very
narrow columns. I would refer to my analysis of the palimpsest
containing Cicero, de Re Publica^ and to that of the Scholiasta
Bobiensis. Copyists seem to have found these short lines very
confusing. As a typical example of dittography, due partly to line
division and partly to b\i.., I would quote an instance from Burn.
340 (Brit. Mus.), f. 27^
The model, as is shown by other evidence, had
considerantes
quae per spm scripta sunt et spiri
talibus spiritalia comparantes
The first hand in Burn. 340 wrote twice the words qjiae per . . .
cotnparantes. The scribe looked back from comparantes to con-
siderantes and he repeated the intervening passage.
Before I go further, I would point out the great importance of
line omission as a clue to parentage. When we are dealing with
two allied MSS. we may often suspect that one is derived from the
other, but it is difficult to prove the point, unless we find that
« DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
a passage omitted by one MS. occupies a complete line in the other.
If the line is very short, the occurrence may be due to accident.
If, however, the line is fairly long, the hypothesis of accident be-
comes unlikely. If the same phenomenon occurs more than once,
the proof is complete. This test is of special value when both
MSS. appear to be of the same age. I take as an example two
tenth-century MSS., which contain Cicero's de Natura Deorum,
viz. Leid. Voss., Fol. 86 {B)^ and Flor. Marc. 257 {F). Schwenke
has shown that F is derived from B. The proof is furnished by the
fact that on two occasions F omits lines o{ B: viz.
N.D.\.i%. Bhcis:
qui hac ratione
philosophentur ii nihil habeant quod sequantur. Dictum est omnino
de hac re alio loco
F omits philosophentur . . . omnino. Here there is no 6/u. to assist
the omission.
.V.Z>. ii. 81. 5 has:
pos-
sent et ex sese similia sui gignere. Sunt autem qui omnia naturae nomine appel-
lent ut Epicurus
F has possent ut Epicurus otn. med. Here the writer passed from
one line to the text, the mistake being due to b\x. F, therefore, is
no longer quoted as an authority, but is merged in B.
When we are dealing with fifteenth-century MSS., where the
pedigree is often mixed, this test is of special value. Thus a British
Museum MS. of the Verrines, Harl. 2687, appears to be derived
from a Florentine MS., Laur. XLVIII. 39, known as Lag. 29, since
in Verr. v. 168 it omits the words
crucem tollerentur. Sed quid ego de Gauio ? quasi tu Gauio tum fueris
which form a complete line in Lag. 29.
The same test shows that another Florentine MS., Laur.
XLVIII. 24 (Lag. 24), is descended from different ancestors in the
speeches in Rullum and in Pisonem. The decisive passages are
RtilL ii. 86 :
altera Roma quaeretur. In id oppidum homines nefarii rem publicam uestram
This passage, which is omitted by Lag. 24, forms a complete line in
another Florentine MS., Conv. Soppr. 13 (Lag. 39).
OMISSIONS IN MANUSCRIPTS 9
Pis. I :
mentis est hie in fraudem homines impulit hie eos quibus est ignotus
This passage, which is omitted by the first hand in Lag. 24, forms
a complete line in Laur. XLVIII. 13 (Lag. 13).
I would draw particular attention to certain excerpts from the
Verrines which are found in a British Mus. MS., Harl. 2682,
cent, xi (//), formerly belonging to Cologne Cathedral, and a MS.
from Erfurt, cent, xii/xiii (E), now at Berlin. On two occasions E
omits lines of H.
The first case occurs on f. 162' of H ( Ven-. iv. 63). Here H has
libeDtissimc dedit. Mittit etiam trullam gemmea rogatum uellc se eain diligentius considerare,
ca quoq' ei mittitur. Nunc reliquu iud' adlendiie.
E omits viitiit . . . mittitur. The copyist looked forward from
dedit to 7iunc in the following hne.
The other case occurs on f. 164'^ of H {Verr. iv. no). I here
write out three lines as given in the MS., numbering the letters.
j) corpore phorrescam. Venit enim mihi fani loci religionis illius in raente uersaiit ante ocnlos omnia
s
i) dies ille cum ego henna uenissem presto mihi sacerdotes ceteris cnm infiili ac Hbenis fueFt contio
1) conuentusq; ciuiS in quo ego cum loquerer tanti gemitus fletusq' fiebant ut acerbissimus tola urbe
E omits dies . . . contio (82). The previous passage, mittit . . .
mittitur, contains 79 letters. The passages, therefore, are almost
equal in length.
A page of// (f. 150') will be found in facsimile in my collations
from this MS.' It is written in a fairly regular hand with a number
of abbreviations.
The contents of the page (^6 lines) are as follows: 86, 81, 85, 83,
80, 86, 85, 83, 77, 79, 7«, 81, 84, 85, 86, 85, 83, 86, 83, 85, 82, 85, 79,
80, 81, 76,79,82,75, 83, 78, 80,73,75,75,76 = 2920.
The average here for a line is 81 (81 x 36 = 2916).
Since I made this calculation, I have noticed that Dr. Purser, who
collated // for the Letters ad Familiares, says of them that the)-
are written in lines which contain about 82 letters.^ The agreement
between his calculation and mine is somewhat striking.
We now have an arithmetical equivalent for a line of //, viz. about
81 letters. It follows that in a MS. copied from //, if the scribe
omitted two lines, the passage would be likely to consist of about
» Anecdot. Oxon. Part VII (1893). « R. Irish Acad., 1885, p. 366.
lo DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
162 letters, and that if he omitted three lines the passage would
probably contain about 243 letters, and so on. Unfortunately H is
oTrats, except in the excerpts from the Verrines, so these figures
cannot actually be produced.
Let us now invert this process and suppose that we are dealing
with three passages omitted by an important MS., or by the first
hand in an important MS., the genuineness of which has been sus-
pected. If, on counting the letters, we found that they consisted of
81, 162, 243 letters, or of numbers closely resembling these, we should
be justified in concluding that they represented lines of a previous
MS.
I have selected a MS. written in long lines for this preliminary
demonstration of the method which I have followed in these pages,
since, where the unit is so large, the argument may be stated simply.
The theory, however, is the same, whatever the unit may be.
I would now point out that single lines in H vary a good deal in
content, viz. from 73 (one example) to 86 (four examples). The
average 81 emerges when we take '^6 lines, some of which are
exceptionally large, while others are exceptionally short. It follows
that if a MS. copied from H omitted e.g. 10 lines, the contents of
those 10 lines would be likely to exhibit a multiple of 81, rather
than of the exceptional numbers. If the passage omitted were e.g.
20 lines, the average would appear still more unmistakably.
This fact accounts for the importance of the large numbers to which
attention will be called in the course of this discussion.
I now pass to more ancient documents. Before minuscule came
into use, i.e. roughly speaking before the eighth century A. D., MSS.
were written in capitals or uncials, without any division between the
words. It is, therefore, likely that the content of lines would be
more stable than in a minuscule MS., where the words are separated.
Also, the lines were generally very much shorter in length and very
narrow columns were often employed. There is, therefore, less
scope for accident than in long lines of e. g. 80 letters. Further,
whereas in //"there are a number of contractions, which introduce an
element of complication, in very ancient MSS. there were hardly any
contractions, apart from certain recognized abbreviations, in Greek
theological texts for nomina sacra, and in Latin MSS. for official
titles. We can, therefore, take an ordinary printed text and arrange
OMISSIONS IN MANUSCRIPTS ii
it with some certainty as it would be written in the second or third
century A.D.
Since this principle that the contents of lines in ancient MSS.,
apart from certain disturbing causes, which will be dealt with later
on, were very uniform, is the foundation of much of the reasoning
to be found in this work, I propose to illustrate it by a number of
examples. My excuse for so doing must be that there is not in
existence, so far as I know, any similar collection of evidence. In
several cases I give statistics concerning the number of letters in
columns, pages, and folios of MSS. It was the rule ' in ancient
MSS. for every page to contain the same number of lines. It follows,
therefore, that the contents of columns, pages, and folios constantly
agree, like the smaller units of which they are composed.
Since we have no Latin documents which approach in antiquity
some of the Greek papyri, I select as my first example a Greek
papyrus written in the third century B.C.
Hibeh 26, 'PjjTopiK?; irpoy 'A\€^avbpoi'. I take 20 lines from col. x.
Here and elsewhere I use, for the sake of convenience, minuscules
instead of capitals, and separate the words. I retain orthographical
peculiarities.
(niKtia-dai rifuttpias rotr napa (26)
^aivovaip ravra )(pT] kui tois tv (26)
Ttoi TToXepui TfXdTqaaai Ta(f>riv (26)
8r)fj.o(riov \u^ptov €y KnXox irpo rrjs (27)
5 itnXtai a(\)(»pi.a6ai KaiToi iracriv av (28)
Ttoi/ fwf Tijirjcraai tis Tpo(f)>]v 8iHoi'ai (29)
Toj/i fitp ovi> (V rats fit]fj.oKpaTiais (27)
vofKov ToiavTTji' 8(1 Tr)v 6(<Tiv (24)
TTOKKrOai' TTfpi 8( Tcts o\iyap\ias (28)
10 Tas fifv apxm 8(1 rovi vofiovs (24)
Karavffxtiv t^ itrou iraai ron rrjs (27)
noXiTdcii (x(T()(ox!<TLV Toi'rwf (25)
8 fivni rai irKfiarmi KXijpaiTat (25)
Tus 8< fifyiaras KfW<f>(ua^ \/^»j(^a)i (26)
15 fitd op«ci)i/ Kui n\(i(TTr]S oKpi^d (26)
as 8iay^r](f)i(TTas 8fi 8f km rns ^r] (26)
^las (V ran ii\iyap)(^iats fJ.(yi (25)
(7T(if (7riK<i(T0ai TOis v^pi^ovaiv (28)
-TtvaS TdV n'oXlTO)!' (ITlXtipOVCTll' (^j)
20 TO yap n\T]6os ov\ ovtw tuv ap (23)
523
' I" or exceptions see p. 46.
12
DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
The figures are thus distributed
(23) I
(24) 2
(25) 3
(26j 6
(27) 4
(28) 3
(29) I
The curve bulges at 26, and this is the average for the 20 lines
(26 X 20 = 520).
The oldest documents which we have in Latin are palimpsests of
the fourth and fifth centuries A. D. The examples which I take are
from Ciceronian palimpsests.
Cicero, de Re Publica, cent, iv, Vat. 5751 (C).
A transcript of this important palimpsest has been published by
Van Buren, from which I quote. It is written in two columns, with
15 lines to the page. I take as a specimen p. 34 {Rep. iii. 7) :
col. I
niam id est 1
(10)
rerum natu
(9)
ra longe ma
(9)
ximi consili
(II)
5 constituere
(II)
earn remp. quae
(II)
possit esse diii
(13)
lurna si sin
(10)
gulos nume
(9)
10 remus in sT
(9)
gulas quanta
(II)
iam reperia
(10)
tur uiroru
(9)
excellentiu
(II)
15 multitudo
(9)
col. 2
si aut italiae
(12)
latium aut eius
(13)
dem sabina
(9)
aut bolsca
(9)
gentem si sa
(10)
nium si etru
(10)
riam si mag
(9)
nam illam
(8)
graeciam c6
(10)
lustriare ani
(12)
moue tueri
(9)
mus si deinde
(II)
assurios si
(10)
persas si poe
(II)
nos si haec
(9)
152 152
Here the lines vary in content from 8-13, but the total is the same
in both columns.
The columns vary slightly in breadth, but similar agreements
between the contents of two columns in the same page are frequent,
e.g.:
col. I
143
167
152
164
146
157
P-36
51
80
92
129
205
col. 2
146
169
151
163
144
154
OMISSIONS IN MANUSCRIPTS i;^
I tabulated the contents of 20 pages in this MS., which I chose
as examples of different formation. Single columns vary from
135 to 174 letters. The total number of letters in 20 pages is 61 12,
divided between the two columns, thus :
Col. I = 3057.
Col. 2 = 3055.
This is an interesting example of the way in which the average
asserts itself. I may add that it is not usual for two (or three)
columns to be so similar. As a rule one column tends to ' squeeze '
a second column, and when three columns arc employed one of
them generally suffers.
The total 6112 = 20 pages of two columns, i.e. 40 columns. If
we divide 61 12 by 40, we obtain as average 153 nearly (153 x 40 =
6120). The average number of letters to a line over 20 pages is io-2.
I next take a palimpsest, also written in very narrow columns,
but with three columns to the page (24 lines to the page), viz. :
Ambros. R. 57 sup., cent, v (x-l).
This MS. contains Cicero, pro Scauro, pro Ttillio. A facsimile
has been published by Peyron. I have counted the letters in 10
pages, choosing those in which the text was perfect, or nearly so,
and found the totals to be as follows :
p. 15 = 836
16 ± 833
17 = 843
21 = 843
22 = 828
25 = S40
26 = 834
31 = 833
32 = 894
39 = 852
8436
The average for a page is 843. It is to]^be noticed that the figure
843 occurs twice. There are also two examples of 833, reinforced
by one of 834. The contents of p. 32 are exceptionally large.
I add the contents of the columns in the two cases of 833 and
843 letters:
col. I col. 2 col. 3
p. 16 292 270 271 = 833
31 273 285 275 = 833
17 286 281 276 = 843
21 284 277 282 = 843
14 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
Here again considerable variety appears in the unit, but the totals
ooincide.
The totals for the lo pages are :
col. I = 2835, avg. 283
2 = 2773, avg. 277
3 = 2828, avg. 282.
The general average for a line is nearly 12 letters (12 x 24 = 288).
I now take a palimpsest written in two columns, but with rather
longer lines, viz. :
Taur. A. ii. 2*, cent, iv (T).
This is not now extant, having been burnt in the fire at the Turin
Library. It also contained Cic. pro Scaur 0^ pro Tullio, together with
other fragments. Peyron has published a facsimile of T'for Xh^ pro
Scauro and pro Tullio, together with A. It had 21 lines to the page.
The contents of 10 pages in Peyron's transcript are as follows :
col. I col. 2
13
379
404
=
783
14
368
m
=
745
19
361
370
:=
731
20
m
393
=
770
23
397
390
=
787
24
358
388
=
746
27
374
380
=
754
28
371
384
=
755
41
374
388
=
762
42
357
367
=r
724
3716 3841 = 7557
Here the averages are: col. i = 371, col. 2 = 384. It is to be
noticed that 371 occurs once in col. i, and that there are two
examples of 374. Also, that in col. 2 there is one case of 384, and
two of 388.
The average number of letters to the line is a little over 18 for
col. 2, and a little less than 18 for col. i (18 x ai =378).
The largest Ciceronian palimpsest is Vat. Reg. 2077 (F), con-
taining portions of the Verrines^ cent. iv. Of this we have loi folios
written in two columns, with 20 lines to the page and 18-19 letters
to the line. I postpone discussion of V at this moment, since
I describe it fully elsewhere.^ I merely remark that throughout
the Verrines 'CcvQ. average contents of a page in F correspond with
great regularity to 35 lines of Teubner text.
1 pp. 212-26.
OMISSIONS IN MANUSCRIPTS 15
The examples which I have hitherto given from Latin MSS. are
written in columns. This, however, was not the only method of
writing. We also find MSS. at the same date written in long lines,
i. e. across the page. Thus T, in addition to the fragments written
in columns {Scaur., TulL, &c.), also contains two leaves obtained by
Peyron from other sources. One of these contains a fragment of
the Verrines written across the page with an average of 20 letters to
the line. The other contains a fragment of Cicero's Letters ad
Faniiliares, written in long lines with an average of 37 letters to the
line.
As a specimen of writing in this formation, I will take :
Berol. Pap. 13229, cent, v.
This consists of two parchment leaves, containing Cicero, pro
Plancio, §§ 27-8, 46-7. There are 17 lines to the page. The first
leaf is perfect, except for some lacunae, the other is mutilated ; but
its contents can be inferred. The leaves were noticed by M. Seymour
de Ricci in the Berlin Library ; and I quote from his transcript.^
I have not thought it necessary to mark the few lacunae. The verso
off. I contains §§ 27-8.
primum macedonia sic diligit hunc (29)
ut indicant hi qui principes ciuitatu (32)
suarum cum miss! sint in aliam (25)
causam tamen huius repentino (25)
5 periculo commoti huic adsident pro (30)
hoc laborant huic si praesto fue (27)
rint gratius se ciuitatibus suis fa (30)
cturos putant quam si legationem (28)
suam et mandata confecerint. (24)
10 L. uero apuleius tanti facit ut mo (27)
rem ilium maiorum praescribit (26)
in parentum loco quaestorib. suis (28)
praetores esse oportere ofificiis (29)
benebolentiaq. superarit. (22)
1 5 Tr. pi. fuit non fortasse tam uchemens (30)
quam isti quos tu lure laudas set (27)
certe taliis quales si omnes semper (30)
469
' Melanges Chate/ain, pp. 442-7.
i6 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
The average number of letters to the h'ne is nearly 28 (38 x 17 =
476). It is to be noticed that 11. 9 and 14, which come at the end
of paragraphs, are exceptionally short.
I now take two very important MSS. of Livy, viz. Vindobon. 15,
cent. V, and Paris 5730, cod. Putemii, cent. v/vi. The Vienna MS.
has been reproduced in facsimile by Messrs. Sijthoff (Leiden), and the
Paris MS. (reduced) by the authorities of the Biblioth^que Nationale.
The Vindobonensis ( V) contains Livy xli-xlv. It is written in
long lines, with 29 lines to the page. I took at haphazard fif. 127^^
and 128' for examination.
As it would occupy much space to copy out the contents, I give
the figures for the two pages.
f. 127^ = 27, 28, 27, 28, 27, 30, 30, 28, 27, 29, 27, 29, 28, 30, 31, 26, 30, 27, 27,
28, 28, 26, 27, 26, 23, 28, 25, 25, 28
= 800
f. 128^ = 29, 25, 27, 31, 28, 26, 30, 30, 26, 27, 28, 28, 28, 27, 27, 28, 31, 29, 28,
29, 28, 27, 29, 27, 28, 26, 29, 24, 29
= 809
The average content of a line is nearly 28 (28 x 29 = 812).
The 58 lines are thus distributed :
23 1 ex.
24 I ex.
25 3 exx.
26 6 exx.
27 14 exx.
It will be seen that out of 58 lines 30 consist of 27-8 letters.
The Puteanens is written in two columns, with 26 lines to the
page. I selected f. 13 for examination. The contents are as follows :
recto, col. I = 17, 18, 16, 16, 16, 19, 16, 18, 18, 16, 16, 17, 16, 16, 14, 17, 17,
15, 16, 13, 18, 17, 18, 17, 19, 18
= 434
col. 2 = 18, 18, 16, 17, 16, 20, 16, 17, 16, 19, 17, 18, 15, 17, 17, 17, 16,
16, 18, 15, 17, 16, 17, 16, 16, 15
= 436
verso, col. I = 16, 18, 14, 18, 16, 17, 14, ^S; i9, i5j i5. i9. U. i7, 15. 20, 16,
18, 16, 16, 16, 16, 18, 17, 17, 16
= 428
col. 2 = 18, 16, 17, 15, 16, 16, 16, 16, 15, 18, 16, 16, 14, 13, 16, 17, 16,
14, 17, 18, 16, 18, 17. 18, 15, 19
= 423
28
16 exx.
29
8 exx.
30
6 exx.
31
3 exx.
17
22 exx.
l8
19 exx.
19
6 exx.
20
2 exx.
OMISSION OF MANUSCRIPTS 17
The average content of a column for this folio is 430, and the
average content of a line is 16^ letters (16^ x 26 = 429).
The 104 lines arc thus distributed:
13 2 exx.
14 6 exx.
15 II exx.
16 36 e.xx.
Out of 104 lines, 53 consist of 16-17 letters.
I now pass to the end of the eighth century and take the first
quaternion of
Basil. S. Petri H. 25 (V).
The MS. is written throughout in three columns, with 30 lines to
the page. In the first quaternion, which contains part of Cic. /«
Piso/icm, the script is semi-uncial. The rest of the MS., which
contains the speeches pro Flacco,pro Fonteio (both fragmentary), and
Philippics, is written in ninth-century minuscule.
Chatelain (PI. xxvi) has a facsimile of f. 3', and I possess a photo-
graph of 4''. The contents of these pages as written are :
col. I col. 2 col. 3
f- s"" = 509 498 471 = 1478
f. 4'- = 534 46S 436 = 1438
If we take the whole quaternion, allowing the usual official
abbreviations, the totals for the three columns are :
col. I = 8642
col. 2 = 8321
col. 3 = 8184
The average contents of a line are, in col. i, 18 ; in col. 2 a little
over 17 ; and in col. 3, 17. The tendency of col. i to ' squeeze' the
others is to be noticed.
There are some interesting coincidences in the first quaternion,e.g.:
col. I col. 2 col. 3
F = 546 481 511 = 1538
2' = 529 495 514 = 153S
2^ = 531 515 488 = 1534
In the later Philippics two passages (xii. 12-23, xiii. i-io) have
changed places owing to the dislocation of folios in an ancestor.
The contents of the two blocks, if we allow the ordinary ofiicial
abbreviations, are :
xii. 12-23 = 5828 letters
xiii. i-io = 5S26 letters
ies3 C
i8 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
1 now pass on to the fifteenth century and select a MS. written
in France, probably about 1400 A. D., viz. :
Paris. 14749, olim S. Viciot'is (2).
This is written in more than one hand. The earliest part of the
MS. is written in a large, clumsy hand : the later part in smaller
and more cursive characters. Neither hand has any pretence to
neatness or uniformity. The interest of the MS. lies in the fact
that part of it is derived from a very ancient MS. belonging to the
Abbey of Cluni, no. 496 in the twelfth-century catalogue,^ which
contained Cicero pro Milone, pro Sex. Roscio, pro Murena, pro
Clnentio, pro Caelio. The extant MSS. of the /r*? Sex. Roscio and
pro Murena are all derived from Clun. 496, which came into the
hands of Poggio in 141 4 and was by him sent to Italy, where it
subsequently disappeared. The writer of S copied from it the
speeches /ri? Sex. Roscio and pro Murena, while in the other speeches
which it contained he extracted from it marginalia and supplements,
taking his text from a more legible MS.
In a work which I have published upon this MS.^ I have given
a reproduction of a page which contains Cic. pro Caelio, §§ 43-7-
The contents of this, as written, are: 50, 51, 49, 54, 52, 51, ^6, 49,
51, 52, ss, 47, 49, 50, 51, 51, 52, 52, 52, 54, 58, ss, 51, 52> 49. 52, 54,
52, 52, 54, 49. 52, 54. 52, 54, 55> 5^ = 1923-
2 contains 37 lines to the page. The average number of letters
to the line, therefore, is, in this page, 52 (37x52 = 1924). The
script turns out to be more regular than might have been supposed.
The interest of 2 for the purposes of this discussion lies in the
fact that it is a parent. Its offspring is a Wolfenbiittel MS. 205
( W), the readings of which have been published by Wrampelmeyer.
We can therefore learn from 2 and W what actually happened when
a copy of 2 was made.
Here, and elsewhere, I mark with an asterisk omissions not helped
by ofx. and with double asterisks telescoped passages.
W omits the following complete lines of 2. I add the number of
letters.
^ Manitius, Philologisches ans alien Bibliotkekskatalogen, p. 15.
2 The Veins Cluniacensis of Poggio, Oxford, 1905,
OMISSIONS IN MANUSCRIPTS 19
(45) Doin. 116:
homo religiosiis cum edis meas idem emeret et uenderet
(47) Sest. 27 : ^
* cu hoc satis eet signi ee impbQ qui mutata ueste no eet hac
(48) J///r. 6 :
* dignitas in sumo piculo ciuium postulabat. Quod si turn cum
(48) Mur. 79 :
*♦ magni interest iud. id qd ego multis repugnantibus aegi at-
(48) Dom. 72 :
* poena dapnati. Vtrii igit' pcco meo nome subeo an re iudicata
(49) y^it- 1 9-*
*» -nique cogitaris. Est enim res ei'modi ut si tibi modo in mente
(501 Mur. 30 :
* bon^ horridus miles amatur uestru uero studium totum iacet
(51) Balb. 29 :
i
coniucta ita m maxime comunione beneficiojj. pmio^. ciuitatis
(52) Mur. 5 :
* michimet ipi ia pride tuleri de ciuium piculis defendendis no
(52) Balb. 53 :
** -ma uirtute et dignitate nepotes T. ct C. coponios nostis damnato
It is to be noticed that there are three examples of 4H, also two
of 52, the number which came out as the average for Cad. 43-7.
In the following cases W passes from one line of 2 to another :
(41) Dom. 120 :
et [TR. PL. idem ee potest. M. drusus ille clarissimus
uir] TR. PL. pontifex fuit
(42) Sest. 144:
tum ei' filium oculis lacrimatibus [me intuente uideo
milone uindicem ure Hbertatis] custode salutis mee subsidiii
(43) Mur. 60 :
asperior et durior qua aut ueritas aut natura [patitur. Et quo
niam non est nobis hec oracio habenda] aut in Tperita multitudine
(43) Sest. 46 :
suspicione piculi sui no defenderet. [AHi uet'e odio bonof-Q
incitarentur, alii inuideret,] alii obtestare sibi me arbitret'
(44) Sest. 95 :
* etiam diem [dixit et accusauit de ui milone. Xeque hie tamen
nulla] umquam iniuria adduc'et" ut eii tali uirtute tantaque firmi
tate
(44) Sest. 141 :
* ♦exemplis iracundiae leui[tatisq3 popularis tame sua R.
P. illam defenderiit quid] nos tandem facere debemus, primum
C a
ao DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
This is a very remarkable case :
(45) Rose. Am. loi :
uideremus nisi ipsos caecos redderet cupiditas et auaritia [et
audacia. Alter ex ipa caede uolucrem nuncium ameria] ad sociuni
(45) Vat. 41 :
eo que [tu unu improbiore ee qua te numqua soles con
i
fiteri alt'] tuis consiliis illo tame adiuuante qro q possis
(46) Rose. Am. 120:
defectus iniquom est at ne quaeritur. [Sex. enim roscius reus
est neq5 enim cum de hoc quaeritur] uos enim dominos esse
(46) Sull. 82 : * loqui
tur neq5 [cui'qa ornaenta oratiois desiderat potest quisqa
dice'] umquam meliores
(47) Quir. 23 : pecu
i
nia debita ppt'ea qd pecunia qui retinet no dissoluit [q reddidit no het
-^ i ^^
gram et qui retulit het et q het desoluit] quappt' memoria uri
(47) Dom. 90 :
* facinorosis ex egentib' congregata. Ilia [fuit pulcritudo populi
R. ilia forma qua in campo uidisti] tia cia etia tibi cont" senat' tocius
(47) Har. Resp. 43 :
* foedere impbando senat' seueritas dolori et timori [fuit»
Itaq5 res illu forte et clarQ uiriTi a grauitate patrij] desiste
re coegit
(48) Rose. Am. 147 :
* possis nisi hoc [indignij putas quod uestitum sedere in iudi
cio uides quern] tu e patrimonio tamqm a naufragio nu
dum
(48) Mu7'. 29 : non po
tuerint. [Sic nonnullos uidem^ qui oratores euadere non potue
rint] ad iuris studiu deuenire
(49) Rose. Am. 56 :
accusatores multos esse in ciuitate utile est [ut me
tu contineatur audacia. Verum tame hoc ita est utile ut] ne plane il
ludamur
(49) Quir. 8 :
pulcro quide se a me ee seiunctij [p me psente senatus hominuqj
pterea XX mil. ueste mutauerijt] p eo absente unius squalore sor
desque uidistis
(49) SuU. 48 :
uelis ac defendere que uelis [Imo seruit' est non dic'e in quern
uelis et defendere que uelis] At si considerare cepis utru
OMISSIONS IN MANUSCRIPTS 21
(50) Pomp. 62 :
priuatu pro consule. [L. philippus dixisse dicit* no se illu sua
sententia ^ consule] 33 pro consulib' mittere
(50) Vat. 2,7 :
sit amecia ut in ipfi petitione gladiatores [audeas dare
nunc que putes illi' tui certissinii gladiatoris] similem
(51) Quir.S: .
i desi
» derium mei [lacmeqj pueriles. Aut itinerib3 necessariis aut magna
parte] lectis ac tenebris
(51) Do»i. 95 :
i o
* fugisse. ad id qd m crimine dabat". Non m [pccm no erat sj
erat res post nates holes pulcherrima iudiciii] populi ptimuis
se
(52) Rose. A/)i. ^g: inter
fuisse [nihil autem umquam debuit cupiditates porro quae possijt
esse] in eo
(52) Ciu/. 63 :
* impetrauisset. S3 quid ego de dignitate isto^. testiu loquor [uirtu
tern eo'4. diligentiaq3 cognoscite. In balneis delituerut] testes egre
gios
{S3) Rose. Am. g2: multi
titudine occiderit. Ac non hoc quaeratur eum qui [romae sit occi
sus. Vtrum ueri similius sit ab eo esse occisum qui] assiduus eo tern
pore
(53) Rose. Atn. ICO :
* multas esse infamius [palmas, hanc primam esse tame lemniscatam
quae romae deferatur]. Nullum modum esse hominis occidendi
(54) Pomp. 7 :
et ita regnat ut se no poto [neque capadocie latebris occultare uelit
sed emge patrio regno] atq3 in uris uectigalib' hoc est in asie luce uer
sari
(55) Scst. 135:
no tarn admiror qd mea lege [contepnet hominis inimici
qua qd se statuit omino consulare lege] nuUam putare an
(56) Cciel. 56 :
herenniC dicere [audistis uerbo se molestu no futuru fuisse
i
caelio n iteru eade de re] suo familiar! absolute noni hie detu
lisset
(94) Sest. 109:
i
ilia ruina rei p. dicet se lege tulisse [Quis est q secu cont~ me
ferebat" inisse suflfragiu confiteat*. Qu. aUt de me eode ex S. C.
comiciis centuriatis ferebatur] Quis est qui non pfiteat^ se adfu
isse
22
DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
To these is to be added a case of dittography :
(49) Mur. 86 : Quae cum ita sint iud.
primum rei p. cum qua nulla [res cuiqm pocior debet esse uos p
mea summa et uobis cognita] in re p. diligentia
The words res . . . cognita are written twice in W. The scribe
looked back from cognita to nulla (ofji.).
I would also illustrate a frequent cause of corruption from Rose.
Am. 45. Here 2 has :
haec tu non intelligis sed usqj eo quid arguas non habes ut non
modo tibi contra nos dicendum putes uerQ etiam contra rerum
W after eo has quid putes arguas. The writer dropped a line and
then discovered his error.
If we put these figures together, their distribution is as follows :
(41) I ex. {Dojn. 120)
(42) I ex. {Sesi. 144)
(43) 2 exx. {Mttr. 60, Sest. 46) :
(44) 2 exx. {Sest. 95, 141)
(45) 3 exx. {Rose. Am. loi, Dom. 116, Vat. 41)
(46) 2 exx. {Rose. Am. 120, Sull. 82)
(47) 4 exx. {Qiiir. 23, Dom. 90, Har. Resp. 43, Sest. 27)
(48) 5 exx. {Rose. Am. 147, Mtir. 6, 29, 79, Dom. 72)
(49) 5 exx. {Rose. Am. 56, Mur. 86, Quir. 8, St<tt. 48, Vat. 19)
(50) 3 exx. {Pomp. 62, Mur. 30, Vat. S7)
(51) 3 exx. {Quir. 8, Rati. 29, Dom. 95)
(52) 4 exx. {Rose. Am. 39, Mur. 5, CaeJ. 63, Bald. 53)
(53) 2 exx. (/?^jc. .(4w. 92, 100)
(54) I ex. {Pomp. 7) ; ,
(55) I ex. {Sest. 135)
(56) I ex. {Caet. 56)
(94) I ex. {Sest. 109)
Here we have to notice the pronounced bulge in the curve at
47-9 (14 exx.), together with the largest number, 94. There is
also a minor bulge at 5a (4 exx.). It is interesting to observe
that the average for a line of 2 in Cael. 43-7 (cf. p. 18) is 52. I would
also remark that out of 40 cases where a single line has been
omitted, 33 range from 44-53. If we consider the irregularity of
the script in 2, this is a striking result. It cannot be doubted that
if the model of IV had been an ancient MS. written in capitals, the
similarity between its omissions would have been even greater.
These examples are taken from ff. 1-168. After this point the
hand changes and becomes more cursive. I have noticed the follow-
OMISSIONS IN MANUSCRIPTS 23
ing cases of omission in IV, due to the fact that the copyist passed
from one line of ^il to another :
(58) Quinct.-jZ'.
etem cu artifex eiusmodi sit ut solus [dignus uideatur ee qui in scena spec
letur tfi uir eiusmodi est ut solus] dignus uideat^ qui eo non accedat
(123) C///. 63 :
exitus illi' iudicii futur' esset, uerisimili' tii eet eQ [poti' corrupisse qui me
tuisset ne ipe condempnaret~ q ille qui uerit' eet ne alt' absoluetur. Deinde
cu eet nemini dubiu q iudical necesse esset eu certe] poti' qui sibi aliqua
(132) C/«. 88:
tra inuidiam his iudicibus freta miserit. Verutn multa ista iudicia [que sunt ego
enl me ad oniia confirmaui et sic paraui ut docerem que fSa postea iudicia de illo
iudicio dicerentur ptim ruine similiora aut tempestati q iudicio] et disceptatoni
There is a noticeable difference between this list and the first, in
which omissions of whole lines were given. In the first list only
two cases out of ten were due to 6/^. In the second 6/x. is present in
24 cases out of '^^'i^. It appears to follow that where o\i. is present,
it is more likely than not that a writer has passed from one line to
another, and that where it is absent, or where the passage is tele-
scoped, it is probable that the writer has skipped complete lines.
On the other hand, the telescoped passage. Best. 141 (44), shows
that it was possible for a scribe to jump from one line to another in
a very unaccountable way.
We have seen that W omits a line, or lines, of 2 on 43 occasions
in all. I may add that W has a large number of further omissions,
which I have not attempted to deal with, since they find no
explanation in 2. Many of them are short passages, and the loss is
without doubt frequently due to chance or the carelessness of the
transcriber, assisted by 6^. Also, there is reason to believe that an
intermediate MS. intervened between 2 and W. If so, it is likely
that many of the unexplained omissions represent lines of this
intervening ancestor.
I have said elsewhere,^ ' A text is like a traveller who goes from
one inn to another, losing an article of luggage at each halt.' In
the case of certain speeches contained by 2, it would be possible to
extend the inquiry further than I have done. I refer to the sylloge
contained in Paris. 7794 (P), cent, iv, viz. post rcdituvi, Sesi., Vat.,
Cael., Prov. Cons., Balb. I had previously remarked that in these
^ Journal of Theological Studies, xvi (1915), p. 233-
34 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
speeches 2 is derived from P. Peterson has shown that 2 is not
a direct copy, but that it has been taken from Bern. 136 {B), cent.
xii, which is itself copied from P} It would be interesting to trace
the transmission of the text from P to W, through -Sand 2. It has
not, however, been possible for me to do this at the present time.
The only other case in which I have myself collated two MSS.,
one of which is certainly derived from the other, concerns Asconius
and the pseudo-Asconius. The MSS. in question are
Pistoriensis, Forteguerri 37 (5)
Paris. 7833 ((t).
The first of these is the most authoritative MS. of Asconius. It is
a copy made by Sozomenus, a friend of Poggio, at Constance in I4I7«
The second is derived from it, but is not a direct copy, being drawn
from an intermediate MS., which had received a number of correc-
tions taken from the Poggian family.
At first sight S would seem a most unpromising MS. for the
purposes of this inquiry, since it is written in a semi-cursive hand
with no pretence to regularity. The results, however, are more
satisfactory than could have been expected.
The references which I give are to Stangl's Cicei'onis Oratio7ium
Scholiast ae (19 12).
There are three occasions on which o- omits complete lines of 5.
The first does not concern us here, since it is not a line of the text,
but a title, written in capitals, viz. :
24. 1-2. ENARRATIO CIRCA VER. PRIM. XXXX
The other two are :
(40) 65. 12 : cum peregvino negauit se iudicio aequo certare
{n^ 203. 16: sunt accusare atque ille GN. pompeius propiora
exempla et magis similia posteriora ponenda
There are nine cases in which the writer has passed from one line
of 5 to the next, viz. :
(33) 212, 2 : nonis Augustis [et comitia
consularia fuerut Vl fel. Augu.] nee multo post
(35) 247. 8 : conficeret [quo modo ergo
dicit uerrem tabulas non hfe] sed aliquo
* Class. Quarterly, iv (1910), p. 168.
OMISSIONS IN MANUSCRIPTS 25
38) 187. 1 8 -20: de
fensioej [et inire defensioem uult esse no accii
satioe5] saepe
200. 23-4 : uel gestum [quartvim
quern sit habiturus duos dixit quo quo] quartum
232. 29-30 : * si quam diem [illi i pniittendo elegerat ego T
accusando non] eflfugissem
240. 19-20 : postea pcreare [uideant si in promptu e res
inuestigent qua no] uideant
(39) 221. 9-10 : patrocinium [meruerit aut assentatione aliqua
defendendi] meruerit
(42) 255. 22-3 : accusatus est [a cluentio reiectioe utrimqj
fca subsortitus est] in eorum
(43) 225. 25-6 : intelligi conuenit [ibi enim reie
ctio iudicum ubi et retentio continet'"] in reiectioe
There are also two dittograpliies, viz. :
(36) 213. lo-ii : nome est propriuj romula
i
[nome tribus ablatiui casus ut sit ex romula] tb'
The words nome . . . ex romula arc written twice. The writer
looked back to romula in 1. i and repeated the intervening passage.
(71) 231. 12-14: dabat quod significabat [no liquere unde
ampliatio nascebat" iudicari dici siTia absolu
tionis hoc significat] id quod sequitur.
The writer looked back from significat to significabat and repeated
the passage.
If we put together these figures we have :
(33)
I ex.
(40)
I ex.
(35)
I ex.
(42)
I ex.
(36)
I ex.
(43)
I ex.
(38)
4 exx.
(71)
I ex.
(39)
I ex.
(n)
I ex.
The bulge in the curve at 38 is noticeable, also the relation of 77,
the largest number, to 38. There is also a relation between 71, the
next largest number, and 36.
The results in the case of S and o- are very similar to those
observed in that of 2 and W. They are striking, because in both
cases the parent MS. is written in an irregular minuscule.
So far I have dealt with the relation of two existing MSS., both
written in the fifteenth century, to their existing ancestors, also
36 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
written in the same century. It is obvious that several ancestors
must have intervened between a MS, of this period and the distant
archetype. It is to be remembered that a text ran the same risks
on each occasion when it was transcribed, since all copyists were
subject to the same infirmities. Let us suppose an archetype
written in about 28 letters to the line, succeeded by a MS. with
about ^^ letters to the line, and again by one with about 45. It
seems probable that on each occasion a certain percentage of the
omissions would show the units 28, ^^, 45, or multiples of these
units.
It is manifest that in course of time the losses thus sustained
would become considerable. There was, however, a restraining
influence, that of the corrector, who took the place of the modern
proof reader. When a MS, was written, it was generally, though by
no means always, read by a corrector, who compared it with the
model, or possibly with other MSS. One of his chief duties was to
repair omissions, and this we find him doing in papyri, palimpsests,
and MSS. of all periods. The additions which he makes are
frequently accompanied by omission-marks, which show that the
passages had been left out by the first hand. In several MSS.
there are references to other MSS. from which losses have been
repaired. In this way the marginalia may take us back to a previous
stage in the transmission of the text. We should, therefore, expect
to find in them the operation of more than one unit.
In this connexion it is to be noticed that it is frequent to find the
same additions in the margin of various MSS. belonging to the same
family. In this case they are traditional variants taken from
another family. This is notably the case with four tenth-century
MSS. of Cicero, de Senectute {ALPV). A scribe sometimes incor-
porated a supplement and sometimes reproduced it in the margin,
without any apparent reason. Sometimes we find an entire col-
lection of marginalia, including notes of all kinds, in two or more
MSS. I would give as an example Paris. 14749 (2) and Vat. Palat.
1820 (/>) in the Planciana and other speeches.
So far I have considered omissions due to accident. I now come
to another cause, viz. deliberate abridgement. In order to illustrate
this, I will turn to an author whose text is well attested, viz. Horace.
The particular MS. is :
OMISSIONS IN MANUSCRIPTS 27
Bern. 353, cent. i*x (B).
B was written by an Irish scribe, apparently in the North of Italy.'
It has been reproduced in the Leiden series of facsimiles with a very
valuable preface by H. Hagen, who describes it as ' ojhuuivi quot-
quot exsiant Horatii libroruin fere vetiisttssi}!i!is '. It is the only
ninth-century MS. in Vollmcr's class i, though there are three ninth-
century MSS. in his class ii. It will be seen, therefore, that it has
great claims to respect.
B has a number of omissions which appear to be involuntary.
I mention these first. Some are due to 0//., viz. :
Carm. iv. 2. 32-3 : carmina fingo
[concines maiore poeta plectro]
Carm. iv. 13. 1-2 : audivere, Lyce, [di mea vota, di
audivere Lyce] fis anus et tamen
Epod. xvi. 51-2 : nee vespertinus circumgemit ursus ovile
[nee intumeseit alta viperis humus]
Sat. I. I. 78-9 : [ne te compilent fugientes, hoc iuvat horum]
semper ego optarim p:iuperrimus esse bonorum
Sat. I. 3. 9-10 : nil aequale homini fuit illi : saepe velut qui
[currebat fugiens hostem. persaepe velut qui]
Sat. i. 3. 51-5 : postulat ut videatur : at est truculentior atque
[plus aequo liber : simplex fortisque habeatur
caldior est : acris inter numeretur : opinor,
haec res et iungit, iunctos et servat amieos.
at nos virtutes ipsas invertimus atque]
Sat. i. 3. 75-80 : peecatis veniam poseentem reddere rursus.
[denique, quatenus excidi penitus vitium irae,
cetera item nequeunt stultis haerentia, cur non
ponderibus modulisque suis ratio utitur ae res
ut quaeque est, ita suppliciis delieta coereet ?
si quis eum servum, patinam qui tollere iussus]
To these should probably be added
Carm. iii. 4. 17-20 : ut tuto ab atris corpore viperis
dormirem et ursis, ut premerer sacra
lauroque conlataque myrto
non sine dis animosus infans
The next stanza begins with vester, which in B is written iir.
Probably the writer passed from ut to ur.
In other cases there is no o^i., but the scribe appears to have
omitted lines by accident, viz. :
• Cf. Lindsay, Kotae Latinae, p. 44S. The MS. is connected with the circle of Sedulius.
28
DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
Carm. i. lo. 14 : Uio dives Priamus relicto
Cami. i. 17. 15-16 : manabit ad plenum benigno
ruris honorum opulenta cornu
aut versis animosum eqiiis
Parthum dicere nee quae nihil attinent
hie vivum mihi caespitem, hie
bimi cum patera meri
gaudes apricos necte flores
necte meo Lamiae coronam
maturior vis, quid moror altera
nee earus aeque nee superstes
integer ? ille dies utramque
ducet ruinam. non ego perfidum
ut cumque mecum vos eritis, libens
vim temperatam di quoque provehunt
in maius, idem odere vires
omne nefas animo moventes
si pugnat extricata densis
cerva plagis, erit ille fortis
qui perfidis se credidit hostibus
et Marte Poenos proteret altero
minusve languet fascinum
sic placet ? an melius quis habet suadere ? secunda
ratem occupare quid moramur alite ?
sed iuremus in haec : simul imis saxa renarint
vadis levata, ne redire sit nefas
maius peccatum est : paulum deliquit amicus
quod nisi concedas, habeare insuavis, acerbus
aut positum ante mea quia pullum in parte catini
iungere si velit et varias inducere plumas
dignam lege regi : lex est accepta, chorusque
Carm, i. 19. 11- 13
Carm. i. 19. 15 :
Carm. i. 26. 7-8 :
Carm. ii. 1 7. 6-9 :
Carm, ,iii. 4. 29 :
Carm. iii. 4. 66-8
Carm. iii. 5. 31-4
Epod. viii. 18:
Epod. xvi. 23-6 :
Sat. i. 3. 84-5
Sat. i. 3. 92 :
Ars Poet. 2 :
Ars Poet. 283 :
B contains various transpositions, viz. :
Carm. iii. 15. 15-16 are given thus :
(16) nee poti vetulam faece tenus cadi
(15) nee flos purpureus rosae
Ars Poet. 424-5. The order in B is :
(425) noscere mendacem verumque beatus amicum
(424) litibus implicitum mirabor si sciet inter
In Epod. xvi, line 32 is placed after 39. The order, therefore, is
(39) vos quibus est virtus, muliebrem tollite luctum
(32) adulteretur et columba miluo
(40) Etrusca praeter et volate litora
OMISSIONS IX MANUSCRIPTS 39
The effect is somewhat curious, since nonsense is produced.
I have noticed an occasion where B corrects a mistake in the
making, viz. :
Carw. Saec. 55 : iam Scythae responsa petunt superb!
The writer originally went on to 1. 57 (o/ix.) :
iam Fides et Pax et Honor Pudorque
omitting 11. ^^-(). He then struck out the line, and went on
correctly with 1. ^^. The correction shows that some at least of the
writer's omissions were involuntary.
I now come to the evidence for design, as apart from accident.
The order in B is curious. First comes a short selection from the
Odes and Epodes, also the Carmen Seiectilare, then the writer goes
back to the poems previously omitted. Thus he had previously
given Epod. xvii. 53-81 (p. 345 of the facsimile), and afterwards
(p. 364) has 1-80. On p. 345 Epod. xii ceases at 1. 6, and on p. 363
it is given in full.
In a large number of cases the writer omits the end of the poem,
in some cases the greater part of the poem, entering in the marg. rt
(= reliqua), or et rt. This happens on the following occasions :
Carm. i. 16. 15-28; 29. 7-16.
ii. 7. 19-28 ; 15. 12-20.
iii. 2. 17-32; 6. 15-48; 16.29-44; 22.5-8 J- 23. 12-20 ;
24. 30-64.
iv. 2. 41-60 {rt is here omitted) ; 14. 5-52.
Epod. i. I. 9-34; 3. 9-22 ; 9. 13-38 ; II. 13-28.
^at' >• 3- 135-42.
Ars Poet. 441-76 {rt omitted).
On several occasions there are minor cuts, just before the writer
breaks off and adds rt . It is probable that these also are
intentional.
Carm. ii. 15. 8-11 are given thus:
fertilibus domino priori
non ita romuli praescriptum et intonsi catonis //
Here 11. 9-10:
turn spissa ramis laurea fer\idos
excludet ictus
have disappeared before non ita Romuli.
DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
iii. 2. 5-13. vitamgne . . . caedcs. These two stanzas are omitted,
the next stanza is spared, then comes rl.
iii. 6. 11-13. nostros. . . . seditionibiis. These lines are omitted
just before the final cut. The poem ends in the following manner :
10 inauspicatos contudit impetus
14 delevit urbem Dacus et Aethiops rt
iii. t6. 6-44. B has :
6 custodem pavidum luppiter et Venus
28 magnas inter opes inops rt
This is a very singular case.
iv. 9. 37-46. B has :
37 vindex avarae fraudis
41 iudex honestum praetulit utili
46 recte beatum rectius occupat
The rest of the poem is not omitted.
There is a remarkable series of omissions in Sat. i. 3, viz. 76-80,
84-5, 9a, 95-100, 1 1 1-24. I have already mentioned 6/x. as a
cause for the omission of 76-80, and suggested that the omissions
of 84-5 and 92 may be due to accident. No such explanation can
be given for the long cuts 95-100 and 11 1-24. As -5 breaks off
with rl after 134, it would seem that the writer was getting
impatient.
I add the passage as given by ^ :
75 peccatis veniam poscentem reddere rursus
8 1 semesos pisces tepidumque ligurrierit ius
in cruce suffigat, Labeone insanior inter
83 sanos dicatur, quanto hoc furiosius atque
86 odisti et fugis ut Rusonem debitor aeris
qui nisi cum tristes misero venere kalendae
mercedem aut nummos unde unde extricat amaras
porrecto iugulo historias captivus ut audit
comminxit lectum potus mensave catillum
91 Evandri manibus tritum deiecit ob banc rem
93 sustulit esuriens minus hoc iucundus amicus
94 sit mihi ? quid faciam si furtum fecerit aut si
loi unguibus et pugnis dein fustibus atque ita porro
pugnabant armis quae post fabricaverat usus,
donee verba quibus voces sensusque notarent
nominaque invenere : dehinc absistere bello,
oppida coeperunt munire et ponere leges
ne quis fur esset neu latro neu quis adulter
OMISSIONS IN MANUSCRIPTS 31
nam fuit ante Helenam cunniis taeterrima belli
causa sod ignotis pericrunt mortibus illi
quos venerem incertam rapientes more ferarum
1 10 viribus editior caedebat ut in grege taurus
125 et sutor bonus et solus formosus et est rex
It will be seen that the sense is wholly destroyed by the omissions.
It is difficult to discover any principles upon which the writer of B
acted in his abridgements. That he was not influenced by delicacy
will be seen from the passages retained in Sat. i. 3. 75-125. Also,
it is noticeable that while on p. 345 Epod. xii ends at 1. 6 {rt), on
p. 2fi}, it is given in full, this being the only case except Epod. xvii.
i-(So, where such an omission is repaired.
He cannot have been influenced by religious considerations, since
he leaves out, e.g., the magnificent passage upon virtus in iii. 2. 17-32.
His excisions show a total want of taste, since he mutilates some of
the finest poems, e.g. iv. 14, in which he leaves out 5-52, an
unusually large cut. The hypothesis of dishonesty would explain
some of the long cuts in the middle of a poem, but the question
arises, why did he indicate his omissions at the ends of poems by
rt ? In any case B is very interesting as a clear example of
deliberate abridgement, and it throws much light upon some similar
cases which will be pointed out in the course of this work.
CHAPTER II
OMISSION MARKS, ETC.
In the previous chapter I have given examples of h'ne omission
in the case of two MSS. ( IV and a), derived from two other MSS.
(2 and vS") now extant. I now turn to another source from which
valuable information can be gained.
Most MSS. contain much evidence concerning their ancestry
v/hich can be collected by any one who will take the trouble to turn
over their pages. I refer in the first place to erasures where the
writer has corrected some error due to mechanical causes, and to
dittographies which have been struck out. Also, in many MSS.
there are a number of additions made by a second hand, generally
introduced by omission marks.
It occurred to me that it might be worth while to make a system-
atic examination of such additions in a few ancient MSS., in order
to see if they showed the operation of a unit, or more than one unit.
If so, the conclusion would seem to follow that the unit or units
represent lines of one or more ancestors. I soon found that the
inquiry was fruitful, and I was encouraged to conduct it on a large
scale. I therefore looked through all the Latin MSS. (over loo in
number) prior to the tenth century which I could find in the Bodleian
Library and in the British Museum ; also a few of later date. I am
aware that better and more interesting examples than many of the
MSS. which I have used might be furnished by the great continental
libraries, but the times at which I write are not favourable to travel,
and I wished to get this work off my hands as soon as possible.
I have, therefore, contented myself with the evidence furnished by
two English libraries. I venture to think that the phenomena which
I have observed in the MSS. which I have used will be found to be
normal in MSS, generally.
The MSS. which I have examined differ greatly in regard to
marginalia. Some possess few or none. Thus I found none io
OMISSION MARKS, ETC. 33
Had. 2664, cent, x/xi (Quintilian), or in Harl. 2767, cent, ix/x
(Vitruvius), and only three in Harl. 2672,^ cent, x (Livy). Speaking
generally, I should say that classical MSS. of the Caroline and post-
Caroline period are not a good hunting-ground for such evidence.
On the other hand theological MSS. at all periods arc much more
instructive, and sometimes present a veritable einbarras de richcsses.
One particular collection I found to be of extraordinary interest.
This consists of MSS. from the Irish foundation of St. Kilian at
Wurzburg, given to the University of Oxford by Archbishop Laud.
Most of these now form part of Laud Misc., in the Bodleian Library.
The method which I have followed is to copy out all the additions
made, either by the scribe himself, or by a second hand, to register
dittographies in the same way, to collect any other evidence in the
shape of corruptions which seemed due to the lineation of the
model, or of previous ancestors, and to tabulate the figures in order
of magnitude. The figures then tell their own story. It would be
possible for me to put the results in a more striking way, if I were
to ignore those omissions which are due to mere chance and only
confuse the issue. I think it best, however, to present the reader
with all the evidence, and therefore include much superfluous
matter.
The theory is that a certain percentage, in some cases a very
large percentage, of omissions is due to the lineation of the model,
or of a previous MS. What this percentage is can only be deter-
mined by the figures. I have said elsewhere:^
* My contention is not that all omissions are to be explained in
the same way. Chance is always an important factor, and any
omission of any length may be due to o/iok't?;?' (i.e. without line
division). ' What I maintain is that a certain proportion of omissions
is due to a definite cause, viz. the loss of lines in a previous MS.,
and that where the curve of variations shows recurring bulges, as
we rise from multiple to multiple of the unit, while the larger
numbers are correlated and support each other, we arc justified in
considering that something more than blind chance is at work.*
Before I go further, I will say a few words about omission marks.
• According to Conway and Walters, Harl. 3673 omits freely, generally on account of
ofi. (Praef. p. xxv.) These omissions were not repaired by a corrector.
"^ Journal of Theological Studies, xvi (1915), p. 235.
I6SS D
34 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
The best discussion of these is to be found in a paper recently
published by Prof. Lindsay.^
Sometimes a mere signe de renvoi, e. g. ;, -x, — , is used. As
a rule, however, the letter h (= hie) is employed, either by itself or
in combination with another letter, in order to arrest the attention
of the reader. Lindsay observes that hie, in full, occurs in this
sense in Paris. 8084, Prudentius, cent. vi. I have noticed in a dic-
tionary of Tironian notes, Brit. Mus. 21 164, cent, x, f. 11'', that h is
given as the sign for ]iie.
The letter generally combined with h is d (= deest). Other
combinations are 7is {■= hie supple), ^ {= hie pone), fit {= hie lege).
We also find fih, where the h appears to be doubled for the sake of
emphasis.
A rarer sign is h. ;;2., which apparently = hie minus. Other signs
are sr (= S7iper), or d^ (= dimissjun). In Harl. 5792, cent, vii, I have
noticed deletum where lacunae occur.
The usual method is to employ a pair of signs, e.g. fid in the text
and dh in the margin (or elsewhere) before the addition. Lindsay
points out that some of these signs are peculiar to certain seriptoria.
Thus fit is specially characteristic of Lorsch.
These symbols are frequently received into the text of MSS.^
In this case they bear witness to a previous stage, when an omitted
passage was placed in the margin with a label attached to show its
status. When it was taken back into the text the ticket was not
removed. Thus I have noticed in Douce 140, cent, vii/viii, three
passages in the text (one of them loeo alieno) , which are preceded
and followed by omission marks (cf. p. 108). In the PJiilippies V has
received fis into the text in i. 11, and fi. m. in v. 4. On both occa-
sions the insertion has been made in the wrong place. One of the
most curious of such insertions is :
Lucr. iii. 4 : ficta pedum pono pressis vestigia sign is
The Vienna fragment, cent, ix (Chatelain, PI. Ix), has :
ficta pedum pono presis uestigia signi hds
Chatelain thinks that s was originally omitted. It seems more
' Revue des Bihliotheques, 1914.
* For corruptions due to such insertions cf. W. C. F. Walters in Class. Rev. xvii (1903),
p. 162, on 'Some symbols of omissions in Livian MSS'
OMISSION MARKS, ETC. 35
probable that the whole line was omitted, and that //rf was intro-
duced before -s.
I will here mention another critical sign which is very common
in MSS., viz. ^ {= require). This occurs in a seventh century MS.
of Orosius (Steffens, PL 26). In Laud. Misc. 120, cent, ix, I have
noticed it nine times on one page. Its meaning is explained by
Ekkehart, who wrote in the eleventh century :
ego quidem corrigere per me, exemplar aliud non habens, si poteram, temptavi.
Ergo, ubi minus potui, ^ litteram apposui.^
It is also found in the forms Req (Laud. Lat. 117) and Rq (Brit.
Mus. 21215). In C\c. pro Miloiie, where Harl. 2682 omits §§ 18-37,
it has received into the text the critical mark RQ. So in Cic. Phil.
vii. II, where V has a curious dislocation, there is a mysterious A' in
the text, which I take for this symbol.
Sometimes J^ is combined with other critical signs, e.g. t ( = uel)
or Z {= C'r«0) ^ sign used to show the existence of some difficulty.
Thus Laud. Misc. 126, cent, viii, a MS. in which Z is frequently
used, has ZI^ (f. 79') and J^tZ (f. 77'). Another sign used like I^
is Q (= quaere). This occurs in Bern. 366, Valerius Maximus,
cent, ix (Steffens, PI. 60). In a Milan MS., Ambros. C. 29
infr., cent, x (Cic. in Catil. etc.), I have noticed it used as
frequently as seven times on a page. In Harl. 2736, cent, x
(Cic. in Catil., etc.), it is often combined with t. Onions has
remarked that in Harl. 2719, cent, ix/x, Nonius, which is derived
from a Florentine MS. (Laur. xlviii. i), cent, ix, the adscript q found
in the margin of Laur. xlviii. i is on two occasions received into
the text (corrupted to quae).
I have selected for publication the results at which I arrived in
the case of certain MSS. I fear that I may be criticized for including
so many, but my difficulty has been to exclude many more which
possess great interest. However, as I do not wish to weary the
reader, I have had to steel my heart.
The following instances, taken from two MSS. which I have not
included, are interesting as illustrating mechanical error:
' E. Diimmler, Ekkchart IV. vcn St. Galleii, in ZeitSihrift fiir deutsches Altertum,
neue Folge, ii (1869), p. 21.
D3
36 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
Laud. Misc. 271, cent, ix, Gregory on St. Luke.
On f. 47'' the first two lines are :
pedes eius et unguento unguebat, uidens autem pharisaeus qui
uocauerat eum ait intra se dicens.
It is frequent to find in MSS. that an illiterate scribbler copies
the first line at the top of the page or the last line at the bottom.
Here there is at the top of the page a rough scrawl.
pedes eius et unguento unguebat, uidens autem phariseus qui pedes
et unguento unguebat uocauerat eum ait intra se dicens.
Here we see a blunder in the making. The writer, after copying
1. Impedes eiiis . . . pharisaevs qui, instead of going on to tiocaiierat
eum, looked back to 1. i and repeated pedes . . . itjiguebai, omitting
eius. He then detected his error and went on with 1. 2.
Laud. Misc. 139, cent, ix, St. Augustine on St. John.
The model from which this was copied did not contain Sermons
xvii, xviii. Consequently the scribe, after finishing Sermon xvi,
went on with Sermon xix on the same page. Subsequently the
missing Sermons xvii, xviii were inserted. They are written in
a different hand and form two quaternions. The result of this
insertion was to separate the end of Sermon xvi by two quaternions
from the rest of the Sermon. To remedy this a fly-leaf was inserted
before the two quaternions, containing the end of Sermon xvi, to
come immediately after the previous part.
The fly-leaf was copied from the leaf (f. 39') on which the end of
Sermon xvi is given, and followed by Sermon xix. On f. 39"^ we
find the following passage :
iste qui dicit mater sion factus est in ea homo fac
tus est in ea, nam ds erat antea et homo factus est
in earn. Qui homo factus est in ea, ipse fundavit
On the fly-sheet (f. 22) we find :
iste qui dicit mater sion factus est in ea. Homo factus est in ea
Qui homo factus est in ea, ipse fundavit 0711. ined.
Here the writer has passed from in ea in 1. 2 to in ea in 1. 3.
It happens not infrequently that omissions of equal length occur
in close proximity to each other. Thus Laud. Misc. 139, f. 145^
has at the top of the page :
.d. In errore arrianorum alius quidem pater est alius filius (48)
OMISSION MARKS, ETC. 37
There is a corresponding .tt. over the place where the insertion is
to be made.
At the foot of the page we have :
tt. sabellianus, cu aut audit unii, abscedat arrianus confusus (48)
There is a corresponding Ti. over the place where the insertion is
to be made.
The intervening passage as written in Laud. Misc. 139 consists
of 238 letters (48 x 5 = 240).
We can now with certainty arrange the text as it stood in the
model,^ viz. :
ipse est pat qui filius
in errore arrianonim alius quidem pater est alius filius (48)
sed apud arrianos ipse filius n solum alius sed etiam ali (47)
ud. Tu in medium quid, exclusisti sabellianum, exclude et ar (48)
5 rianum. Pat pater est filius filius est, alius non aliud quia (49)
ego et pat inquit unu sumus. Sicut etiam hesterno die quan (47)
tum potui commendaui. Cum audit sumus abscedat confusus (47)
sabellianus cii aiit audit unu abscedat arrianus confusus (48)
The omissions of 11. 2 and 8 are both due to oju.
Similar information is yielded by the combination of dittographies
with omissions. I take as an example :
Laud. Misc. 252 (Jerome's Letters), cent. ix/x.
In this MS. there are no less than eight omissions of 45 letters,
besides a number of very similar length. On p. 218 we find an
omission of 45 letters, also a dittography of 90 letters. The inter-
vening passage, as written in the MS., consists of 1175 letters.
Here 45 x 26 = 1 170. We may, therefore, conclude that it occupied
26 lines in the model.
Sometimes the additions of the second hand show traces of one
unit only. In this case we are without doubt concerned with lines
of the model.
Thus in Harl. 3063, a MS. containing 192 folios, there are two
additions, and two only. As written in the MS. one consists of 66
letters and the other of 132 (66 x 2 = 132).
In Brit. Mus. 11 878 there are only three additions, the figures for
which are 41, 45, 176 (44 X4 = 176).
> I .ascribe to the model the abbreviations which occur in Laud. Misc. 1 39.
38 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
Burn. 340, a seventh century MS., furnishes us with ten figures.
Seven of these contain 27-9 letters, while four out of the seven
contain the same number, 29. The largest number furnished by
a dittography is ^6 (28 x 2 = ^6). There remain two numbers, viz.
25 and 41. The first of these probably represents a short line, while
41 has nothing to do with the lineation, but it is due to accident
assisted by ojx.
These simple cases are not common. As a rule we find more
than one unit. I take as an example :
Laud. Misc. 148, cent, ix, Jerome, on Prophets.
Here, after a few short omissions, due to accident, we have the
following series, without any intermediate figures :
36,41,48, 72 dis, 81, 82, 97.
Here 36 x 2 = 72, 41 x 2 = 82, 48 x 2 = 96.
The natural explanation here is that 48 and 97 represent lines of
the model, while 41 and 81-2, ^6 and 72 represent lost lines of
previous ancestors, which have been recovered by collation with
another MS.
To illustrate this remark I would call attention to :
Laud. Misc. 134, cent, ix, Augustine, dc Spiritu.
In the marginalia there is a notable bulge at 27-31 (16 examples).
This appears to be the predominant unit, which represents a line of
the model. There are also 10 omissions of 21-5 letters, together
with one dittography of 2 1 letters and another of 24.
On f. 92"^ we find in the text :
non crimen primi hominis transisse in genus humanum h dicunt
In the margin is placed ^, to mark the corruption. A second hand
adds for insertion after hinnanum
neq. p came qua nuqua fuisse (23)
Here the model of Laud. Misc. 134 appears to have had h above
the line, to mark an omission already made. The omission, there-
fore, goes back to a previous stage.
I would call attention to the difference in the phenomena when
two MSS. have been bound up together in one volume. Thus Laud.
Misc. 134, the MS. which I have just mentioned, consists of two
OMISSIOxN MARKS. ETC. 39
parts. I have already shown that in Part II, Augustine de Spiritu,
the model seems to have had 27-31 letters to the line. Part I,
Augustine in Rovi., consists of 14 folios only. There arc here
seven additions made by the second hand. Three out of these
contain the same number of letters, viz. 73, while three others
contain 76-8. We, therefore, find ourselves in a new world.
There arc two features which are prominent in these lists and in
all similar investigations which I have made, viz. :
(i) There is considerable variety in the smaller numbers, and, if
we were wholly dependent upon them, it would in many cases be
difficult to draw conclusions with any certainty.
{2) The larger numbers are usually decisive. They rise gradually
from multiple to multiple of a particular figure and thus reveal the
unit. They exhibit numerical relations to each other and show the
operation of a common cause.
I take as an example :
Laud. Misc. 121, cent, ix, St. Augustine, dc docirina C/iristiafta.
Here I have noted 51 additions of the second hand with omission
marks, also two dittographies, ranging from 14 to 85 letters. The
five largest omissions exhibit the following figures :
101, 102, 224, 399.425-
Here 25x4= 100, 25 x 9 = 225, 25 x 16 = 400, 25X 17 = 425.
In one passage, f. 50', the MS. has a senseless repetition or anti-
cipation of a passage which occurs shortly afterwards. The writer
appears to have looked forward. The intermediate words, as
written in the MS., consist of 653 letters. Here 25 x 26 = 650.
If now we look at the smaller figures, we find :
21-9, 17 examples (including two dittographies); also, two cor-
ruptions which point to a line of 26 letters.
50-2, two examples.
75, one example.
We now have the series : 21-9, 50-2, 75, 101-2, 224, 399,425, 653.
The superior regularity of the large figures is due to the fact that
the average asserts itself and becomes dominant.
This is a typical case, for which a very large number of parallels
will be found, both in the analysis of these marginalia and scattered
throughout this volume.
40 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
The large figures are of special importance where we are dealing
with a very small unit, e.g. lo-ii, especially when there is con-
siderable variety in the unit. I can give no better example than
the MS. of the Gospels known as Syr.^*°* This is a Syriac transla-
tion, in which the Greek text is rendered very literally. When
5y.j.8in. omits, which it does with the utmost freedom, we can infer
what the Greek words which were omitted were. The smaller
omissions present what I call ^ a ' welter of confusion ', the only point
which is clear being that the predominant unit is lo-ii. As the
figures become larger they begin to group themselves. The five
largest are 83, 12H, 133, 167, 262.
Here 83 x 2=166, 132 x 2 = 264. Also, 128 is very near to 132.
If we look back, we find three omissions of 41 letters, one of them
a ' telescoped ' passage, which are in relation to 83 ; also one of 6^,
which is in relation to 128-32.
Thus, while Chaos seems to reign in the smaller figures, this is
replaced by Cosmos in the larger. As the figures increase, the
burden of proof passes away from the small unit and resides in the
correlation of the large numbers, not on the fact that they may be
explained as multiples of the small unit.
I have made a somewhat elaborate study of one MS., viz. Douce
140, Primasius, cent, vii/viii. I was led to do this by the fact that
this MS. contains a good deal of material hitherto unpublished.
Migne's text is extensively mutilated, and the Bale text, which is
much more complete, also omits a number of passages found in this
MS. (D). Thus Migne gives a short text, the Bale edition
a longer text, and D one that is longer still. It cannot be doubted
that D is the most faithful witness. If so, its evidence throws much
light upon the development of abbreviated texts. The portions of
text omitted by Migne, or by the Bale edition, or by both, show
some singular numerical relations which point to the omission of
lines and folios in an archetype. Also, there are places where some
doctoring seems to have taken place after omission.
I have included in my list one MS., of which my knowledge is
gained from a transcript, not from personal collation, viz. the codex
Rehdigeramis^ containing the Old Latin Gospels. This MS. is of
' Primitive Text of the Gospels and Acts, p. 38.
OMISSION MARKS, ETC. 41
special interest, since, as is shown by the editor, II. J. Vogels, it
was copied from its model line by line and page by page. Such
a method was admirably suited to prevent omissions. In spite,
however, of all precautions, the writer could not escape from human
infirmities. From time to time he left something out, and rather
than add anything in the margin, he erased six or seven lines of
text and rewrote the passage. On one occasion he repeated an
entire page. He then rubbed this out and wrote the correct passage
on the palimpsest. The MS., however, has a number of additions
made by a second hand, which appear to represent omissions made
by an ancestor of similar formation. On one occasion (f. 252), two
columns of 20 lines, the same number as those found in the
Rehdigcranus itself, are added in the margin with omission marks.
The possibility that a MS. is a reproduction, more or less exact,
of its model must always be borne in mind. M. Havet says:^ —
' Parfois deux copies d'un meme modele ont des pages qui coincident
exactement.' He refers to two MSS. of Plautus, Palat. (Heidel-
berg.) 1613 and Vat. 3H70, both belonging to the eleventh century,
in which Merc. 1-43 occupies exactly one page (Chatelain, PI. iv,
I and 2) ; also to two MSS. of Horace, Harl. 2688 and 2725, both
belonging to the tenth century, in which Epod. xvii. 74 • . . Carm.
Saec. 1-17 occupy a page (Chatelain, Ixxxiii, Ixxxviii). As I have
myself examined the two MSS. of Horace, I mu.st remark that this
is the only such coincidence. Harl. 2688 (d) generally has 28 lines
to a page, while Harl. 2725 (6) generally has 27. The coincidence
is made possible by the fact that d here has three lines for the title
to the Carmen, while h has two. Also 8 is the parent of d, a fact
which has escaped collators, not a gemellus. This is proved by an
omission of d in f. 32', 1. 22. Here after Epp. i. i. 102 {nee mcdici
credis nee curatoris egere) d goes on with i. 18. 47, omitting
860 lines. The lacuna is noted by a later hand. In 8 i. i. 102
comes at the end of a gathering (f 83^). The reason for the
omission in d is therefore obvious. The parent MS. has 54 lines to
a folio. It appears, therefore, that d has omitted two quaternions
of 8 (54 X 16 = 864).
In various MSS. which I have used I have noticed indications
' Manuel, p. iy2.
42 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
that the writer was trying to reproduce the formation of his model.
The symptoms to which I refer are :
(i) Words or portions of words are added at the foot of the page
immediately after the last line, or, conversely, part of the last
line is left blank. Both phenomena are common in Douce 140
(Primasius).
(2) The writer spaces out his words, so as to fill more room than
they would naturally do. This practice is frequent in MSS. at the
end of a quaternion, where the scribe wished to fill up the space
allotted to him, e.g. in Laud. Misc. 120, 451 ; Brit. Mus. Arundel
129 :^so also we find blank spaces at the end of several quaternions,
e.g. in Laud. Misc. 135. Sometimes, however, spacing out is to be
observed within the quaternion where there is no explanation except
that the writer was trying to preserve the pagination of his model.
In Brit. Mus., Cotton, Vesp. B. vi, I have noticed spacing in close
proximity to omissions (e.g. ff. 44', 58'', 60').
(3) The most significant evidence is given Tby passages marked
for insertion at the end of a line, or the end of a page. Thus Laud.
Misc. 452 on two occasions has added by a second hand at the foot
of a page a complete line of similar length, one of them being
a telescoped passage, viz. :
lepus quo reducit rumigatione et ungulam non diuidit inmundu hoc no (57)
[bis et erinacius quia reducit rumigationem et ungula et inmundu hoc uo] (59)
bis et sues et cetera.
Here 1. 2 is written at the foot of f. 223^ underneath 1. i, which is
the last on the page. The conclusion seems to be that the scribe
was reproducing the lineation, but not the pagination of his model.
In the same MS. (f. 255'') a marginal addition in the middle of
the page is marked for insertion at the end of a line.
Similar phenomena are to be observed in Cotton, Vesp. B. vi
(ff. 3«^ 5^n-
Sometimes we find a complete line written twice by the first
hand, e.g. in Laud. Misc. 139 (f. iii'), the first hand wrote : —
creden
do amare, credendo diligere, credendo in eum ire
do amare, credendo diligere, credendo in eum ire
OMISSION MARKS, ETC. 43
The inference appears to be that the words formed a line in the
model.
In Douce 140 (f. 33') the last two lines of the page were written
thus by the first hand :
optionem dicimus et nomen ciuitatis dr mei
tionein dicimus et nomcn ciuitatis di mei
Probably here the dittoi^raphy already existed in the model, this
being copied from a MS. which had :
op
tionem dicimus et nomen ciuitatis dl mei
Even when there is no attempt to reproduce the lineation or the
pagination of the model, it is frequently clear that the formation of
the model was very similar to that of the copy. I would invite
attention to my anal}'sis of the corruptions in the palimpsest of
Cicero, de Re Publica.
We must not suppose that violent changes in formation took
place on every occasion when a text was transcribed. It was far
easier for a copyist to reproduce the method of writing, whether in
columns or in long lines, which he found in his model, and it is
probable that in many cases there were several intervening copies
which did not greatly differ from each other.
I now venture to say a few words about the length of lines in
difterent MSS. It is not long ago since Birt, following up the
stichometrical speculations of Graux, spoke of a ' normal line ' in
papyri, consisting of 35-7 letters. I do not propose to discuss on
this occasion the views of Graux and others, which I mention with
respect. I am, however, concerned with facts, not with theories,
and I can only say that subsequent discovery does not support the
doctrine of a normal line.
I have made some examination of the classical and theological
fragments published by Messrs. Grenfell and Hunt, whether from
papyrus rolls or books written on papyrus or vellum. These are of
all sorts and sizes, and the only conclusion one can draw is that
any shape is permissible.
The supposed 'normal line' is found, but cannot be called
common. I have noticed as specimens :
Ox. 418. Scholia on Iliad i, cent. i/ii.
880. Thucydides v, cent. ii.
44 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
Also, two Latin texts, viz. :
Ox. 668. Epitome of Livy, cent, iii/iv.
884. Sallust, Catiline, cent, v (papyrus book).
The most frequent sizes appeared to me to be 16-19, 24-5,
37-9 letters. I mention a few well-known papyri as specimens of
these favourite formations,
(i) 16-19 :
Ox. I. Sayings of Jesus, cent, ii/iii (papyrus book).
225. Thucydides ii, cent. i.
228. Plato, Laches, cent. ii.
844. Isocrates, Panegyi'ic, cent. ii.
(2) 24-5 :
Grk. Pap. ii. 9. Demosthenes, Fals. Leg., cent. i/ii.
Ox. 19. Herodotus, cent, ii/iii.
208. St. John's Gospel, cent, iii (papyrus book).
231. Demosthenes,^/^ Corona, cent. i/ii.
(3) 27-9:
Ox. 2. St, Matthew, cent, iii (papyrus book).
221. Scholia on Iliad \, cent. ii.
843. Plato, Symposium, cent. iii.
1087. Scholia on Iliad, cent, i B.C.
As specimens of intermediate sizes I may cite :
(21) Ox. 16 and 696. Thucydides iv, cent. i.
(26) Hibeh 26. 'P7?7opiKi/ irpo? 'Ake^avbpov, cent, iii B.C.
Some of these documents are written in very narrow columns
(9-12 letters), e.g. :
Ox. 883. Demosthenes, in Aristocratem, cent. iii.
1084. Hellanicus, cent. ii.
1093. Demosthenes, i7i Boeotnm, cent. ii.
1 1 76. Satyrus, Life of Enripides, cent. ii.
1 182. Demosthenes, dc Falsa Leg., cent. ii.
1364. Antipho, cent. iii.
1375. Herodotus vii, cent. ii.
Among larger sizes than those previously mentioned are :
(38-40) Ox. 842. Hellenica, cent. ii.
(41-3) Ox. 459. Demosthenes, in Aristocratem, cent, iii
(papyrus book).
697. Xenophon, Cyropaedia, cent, iii (papyrus
book).
OMISSION MARKS, ETC. 45
Sometimes exceptionally long lines are used, e. g. :
(60-70) Ox. 1086. Scholia on Iliad ii, cent, i B.C.
(70-80) Ox. 1097 and 1251. C\CQvo,pro Lege Manilia,in Ver-
r cm, pro Caelio, cent. v.
In Latin both systems of writing, viz. in columns or in long lines,
were used, apparently at the same date. The arrangement by
columns seems to have been preferred, if wc may judge from the
specimens which have come down to us.
Latin scribes appear to have had a liking for very narrow columns
(lo-ii letters), such as are used in the palimpsest of the de Re
Publica and the Ambrosian palimpsest of Cicero, pro Scaiiro, etc.
These narrow columns are especially frequent in MSS. of the Old
Latin Gospels, e.g. the Vercellensis, cent, iv ; Palatimis, cent, v;
Veronensis, cent, v, vii. They are also employed in the oldest MS.
of the Latin Pentateuch, Lugd. 54, cent. vi.
As specimens of larger columns we may take the Turin palim-
psest of Cicero, pro Scauro, &c. (avg. 18 letters), the Vatican
palimpsest of the Verrines (avg. 18-19), and the palimpsest of the
Scholiasta Bobiensis (avg. 16).
For the use of long lines at the same period we may notice the
leaf from the Verrines which Peyron has bound up in Taur. A. ii.
2* with the fragments of Cicero, pro Scauro, etc. This is generally
ascribed to the fourth century, but Chatelain thinks that it may
belong to the third century. The same volume contains a leaf
taken from a MS. of Cicero's Letters ad Familiar es, which has an
average of 37 letters to the line, but the date of this seems doubtful.
I have already mentioned the vellum leaf discovered by De Ricci
(Cic. pro Plancio), cent, v, which contains an average of 28 letters
to the line; also the Oxyrhynchus fragments of Cicero {Verr.,pro
Lege Manilia, CacL), in which the lines are abnormally long. As
an example of a complete MS. written in long lines in the fourth
century, we may take the Vienna Livy (avg. 27 letters to a line).
MSS. also vary greatly with regard to the number of lines to
a page. The most common numbers are 25-30, but wc find all
sorts of variation. As examples of short pages I quote :
Harl. 5041 (Theological Tracts), cent, vii, 14 lines.
Laud. Lat. 22 (Maccabees), cent, viii/ix, 16 lines.
Voss. O. 79 (Cic. de Sen.), cent, ix, 18 lines.
46 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
It will be remembered that the palimpsest of the de Re Puhlica
contains 15 lines to the page, and Ricci's fragment of the pro Plancio
has 17.
As examples of long pages we may take :
Laud Misc. 464 (Authpertus), cent, ix, 36 lines (two cols.)
Paris. 7794 (Cic. post rcditum, etc.), cent, ix, 36-43 lines (two
cols.).
Laud. Misc. 132 (St. Augustine), cent, ix/x, 39 lines (two cols.).
Bodl. 318 (Bede), cent, ix, 40 lines.
Brit. Mus. Add. 11 875 (St, Augustine), cent, ix/x, 43 lines (two
cols.).
Toletanus 15.8 (Isidorus), cent, viii/ix, 47-60 lines (two cols.).
It is to be noted that some very early MSS. were extremely bulky.
Thus the Ptitemieus of Livy (Par. 5730), cent, vi, which is now in-
complete, contains nearly ^^ quaternions. So Harl. 1775 (Gospels),
cent, vii, contains 57 quaternions. Some interesting evidence is
given by the signatures in various palimpsests. Thus the palimpsest
of the Verrines (V) has at v. 120 the signature Q. XXXXII. When
complete it must have consisted of about 45 quaternions. The
palimpsest of Fronto, according to Niebuhr, contained over 42
quaternions, while that of the ScJioliasta Bobiensis^ which on p. 189
in Ambros. E. 147 sup. has the signature Q. LXX, is said by
Hildebrand to have contained, when perfect, 73 quaternions. The
palimpsest of the de Re Publica has at iii. 48 the signature Q. XLI.
If it contained all six books of the treatise, it must have rivalled,
or surpassed, the ScJioliasta Bobiensis in size.
In the preceding pages I have shown that it is possible to base
arguments upon the general uniformity which is to be observed in
the content of lines, pages, folios, and quaternions. I now point out
some circumstances which may disturb such calculations.
Some MSS. are not written in lines of the same length, but in
coviniata or cola, i.e. sense-lines of various length. This is the method
employed in the codex Bezae of the Gospels and Acts. Here we
get such CTTtxot as (Acts ii. 21)
Kot eorai rrny oy av eTTiKoKfarjTai to oyo/ia tov kv
(Tdidrjafrai
In the case of a MS. copied from a model in this formation we
OMISSION MARKS, ETC. 47
cannot expect to find any numerical relation in the omissions.
Sometimes, however, we find among the marginalia additions in
which the an'^oi are reproduced as written in the model. I take as
an example Harl. 1775 (Gospels), cent. vii. This on f. 399'' has :
non moses dedit uobis
panem de caelo hs
At the top of the page is :
sed pater nieus dat uobis pauem
panem de caelo hd
The model must have had :
non moses dedit uobis
panem de caelo
sed pater meus dat uobis
panem de caelo
The scribe originally made a slip and then corrected himself, so
as to retain the arrangement which he found in his model.
In classical MSS. we sometimes find an arrangement by para-
graphs. I have alread)' referred to occasional short lines in various
palimpsests and early MSS. due to this cause. In r'(Cic. Philippics,
etc.) wc find occasional paragraphs, especially in Phil. ii. While an
arrangement by paragraphs simplifies omission, the occasional short
lines disturb, though often very slightly, the minute correspondence
which would otherwise exist.
Various small accidents may occur. Thus omissions, dittographies,
supralineal insertions are sufficient to prevent exact correspondence
in content. Sometimes we find a flaw in the parchment, with the
result that a piece is cut out or left unused. For the same reason
pages or folios are left blank. I have noticed examples of this in
Harl. 1775, 2736, Brit. Mus. 11878, Cotton Vesp. A. i, Laud Misc.
139, 148. According to Mai, there are a number of blank pages
in the palimpsest of the Verrincs. If his statement is correct, these
pages generally form the verso of the last folio in a quarternion,
or the recto of the first page in a new gathering. In this case no
defect in the parchment is to be observed.
A writer sometimes expands or contracts his hand. Thus in
Laud. Misc. 252 I have observed six omissions of 45 letters in
33 pages, while the number 45 does not occur among the omissions
48 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
in the next 105 pages. The obvious explanation is that the
writing in the model was less regular after this point. The tendency
is for the scribe to compress his script towards the end of his work.
A striking example is to be found in V {Philippics^ etc.). In the
later Philippics the average number of letters to the line in this MS.
rises from 17-18 to 24-5. In the Holkham MS. of the Verrines
{C) the script contracts slightly after f. 34, and there is an extra
line to the page. I would call attention to some suggestions which
I have made concerning the archetype of C'xcqvo, de Natura Deorumy
etc. (p. 337). The evidence here seems to show that the scribe con-
tracted his script considerably at the end of the MS. when he was
writing the de Legibus.
Many MSS. were the work of several scribes.^ In such cases the
length of a line varies somewhat in different quaternions. Some-
times a new writer introduces variety not only in the character of
the hand, but also in the number of lines to a page, e.g. in Douce
140 (Primasius).
A further point relates to the gatherings. The arrangement by
quaternions is normal, but other gatherings are also employed. Thus
in Harl. 3034 I have noticed the following consecutive gatherings :
8 ff., 4 ff., 8 ff., 6 ff., 8 ff., 8 ff., 5 ff., 9 ff., 9 ff.
If Mai's account is to be trusted, the palimpsest of the Verrines
appears to have had a number of gatherings which consisted of ten
folios, with a blank page at the beginning and end.
There is also a disturbing influence to which I refer frequently
throughout this work, viz. that in MSS. written in columns it is
normal for one column to be slightly ' squeezed ' by the other (or
others, if three columns are used). As a rule it is the left-hand
column which is a little broader than the right, but to this there are
exceptions.
It will be seen that there are various circumstances which may
interfere with the general uniformity which I have pointed out, and
derange calculations based upon this principle. The possibility,
' In Vat. Reg. 762 (Livy) seven scribes, all monks of St. Martin at Tours, have signed
the portions of the MS. for which they v^ere responsible. Cf. Shipley's paper, Class.
Quart, iv (1910), pp. 277-81, In Brit. Mus. Arundel 129 (Isidorus) I have noticed the
signatures Ebo, Sigebolt, Heicil, and in Harl. 5642 (Glossary) Ripoinus, Oilnand, Vniniger.
Cf. Steffens, PI. 50.
OMISSION MARKS, ETC. 49
however, of such accidents in no way affects the validity of the
evidence given by minute numerical agreements unaffected by such
accidents.
I conclude this chapter with a few remarks upon a subject to
which I frequently refer, viz. the phenomena of insertion alieno loco.
When a passage has once been omitted, there is always a danger
that it may be inserted into the text elsewhere.^ I take an example
from a papyrus, Ox. 323, cent, iii {Iliad v). The first hand omitted
1.75:
The corrector inserted it after 1. 83, in a similar context.
Sometimes it is not easy to distinguish a correction from the
text. Thus, in the cod. Bobiensis {k) of the old Latin Gospels,
cent, v, some passages which had been omitted by the scribe are
added at the foot of the page after the last line in a similar script,
and are only to be distinguished from the text by the omission
symbol {lis) which follows them. Sometimes the reference marks
over the text, where the insertion is to be made, are hard to find.
Thus in Laud. Misc. 464 (Authpertus) the only reference mark
is •//., and in Harl. 208 (Alcuin) the only symbols are r or u. These
are much less easy to follow than Ti, hd', ^ &c.
For a simple case of insertion in the wrong place I take an
example from Cic. de Sen. 60. Here Simbeck says :
* voluej-unt om. P\ add. m. i una linea infra.'
I have noticed in Laud. Misc. 256 (Jerome) three passages where
a subsequent writer might be misled :
f. 12^ : siro quo LXX transtulerunt in ^clesia dni
These words arc added by the corrector at the top of the page with
an omission mark. Their proper place is in 1. 20, after /;/ coetu
doinini. There is, however, no reference mark here.
f. 24'' : ibi non erit et ubi iactatis uaticinium pphetale
These words are added in the margin, two lines below the reference
mark h (over the text).
' Cf. Havet, Mitmicl, pp. 367-74. Conway and Walters {Class, Quart. 191 1, p. 9)
remark, ' When these words once got into tlie margin, heaven help them.'
less K
50 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
f. 59^. In the margin an omission mark is entered, but there is
no insertion.
For frequent insertions in the wrong place I would mention Laud.
Misc. 456 (excerpts from Gregory on Job), cent. ix/x. In this MS.
a second hand makes a number of additions to the excerpts, pre-
faced by M (sometimes combined with h). These additions are
often entered for insertion in the wrong place. I take as an
example :
f. 94^^ : minime sperat. Seqf. Numquid clamore ei' audiet ds quu uenerit sup eu
angustia ? Clamorem ei' angustiae tempr dns non audiet
The second hand adds, with a reference mark after angitstia in 1. 2 :
scriptu naq est qd em uidet quis quid sperat. Idcirco
ergo ypocrita ad etna pmia p spe minime tendit'
q5 qd alio qugrendu fuerat hie se tenere
gloriatur.
The passage should come after sperat in 1. i.
A more striking example is to be found in Laud. Lat. 117
(Servius), cent. x/xi. The first hand omits, with four of Thilo's
MSS. {ARSH), in the note of Servius on Aeit. vi. 72, the passage :
reversa est et tantumdem poposcit, item tertio aliis tribus incensis (o/x.)
There is a reference mark (^) in the margin between two lines of
the note on 1. 64. The missing passage is added in the margin of
the note on 1. 66. The note on 1. 72, to which it really belongs,
comes 18 lines further on in the text.
In MSS. written in columns there were great possibilities of con-
fusion, since notes and various readings were frequently written
between the columns. Thus in Brit. Mus. 11875 (St. Augustine),
cent, ix/x, various readings are sometimes placed in their proper
margin and sometimes between the two columns. Professor Lindsay
has drawn my attention to a Bodleian MS. (Ambrose), no. 206,
cent, xii, written in two columns. In this, as a rule, the marginalia
on the recto are on the right margin, while those on the verso are
on the left margin, to whichever column they belong. There are,
however, exceptions, e.g. on f. ^6"^ there are two variants on the
right margin also. I quote a i&v^ examples of these marginalia,
giving the parallel lines in the two columns :
OMISSION MARKS, ETC. 51
f. 37':
cinctos cet'asq: gemmas fulgere et procera sit spaciis nee onerosa
o
existimas choruscare indices al parietib: Lacunarib: qq: com
barum emicare gram mendandis
In the right margin, adjacent to col. 2, is the note :
indices uocat quosdam lapides qui de india feruntur
It really belongs to col. 1.
f. 49" :
i
utrum consulti' euolasse an uti alti' g et inusitati' in tali genere
liber ura in retia sim relapsus scriptionis. sermo nf canorus
nee uereor ne fastidium nobis resonet ac resultet
In the left margin, adjacent to col. i, is the variant:
Aliter Aui' et inusitat'
itali giiis auib: sermo
resonet ac resulte}.
It really belongs to col. 2.
e
al. politia in illis enim deuotio qdam et orns uoluntaria sorte transcribi
militia naturalis in nob coacta antiqua hoc rei public^ munus
atq: seruilis qua uiro pprio et et instar liber§ ciuitatis est. Sic
i
uoluntario usu. Grues in nocte a pncipio accepta a natura ex
soUicita exercent custodia. Dis emplo auium policia homines
positos exercere
Here politia in the margin of 1. i, col. i, is a variant for policia in
1. 5 of col. 2.
Sometimes a variant is embedded in the text at a considerable
distance from its doublet. I take as an example :
Laud. Misc. 252, pp. 26-7.
On p. 27, 11. 4-6, we have :
qua ob rem
obtestor beatitudine tuam p cruci fixum mundi salutem p homo usia
trinitatem
Here homo usia = Jioviojtsiam (ofioovatov).
On p. 26, 1. 6, we find :
quid ue
neni in sillabis homousion trjnjtatem latet clamamus si quis tres
E 2
52 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
Here homotision tri7iit<itein is a variant for homo iisid on p. 27.
In the case of such roving variants there are two possible explana-
tions, viz. (i) that a variant was entered at the top or the foot of
the page and incorporated in the text at that point, or (2) that it
was entered by error on the wrong page or folio. M. Havet
remarks : ^ ' Un correcteur, se trompant de page, execute sur telle
page, au bout d'une ligne, ce qu'il doit executer a la meme place,
egalement en bout de ligne, sur la page voisine.'
Such variants may therefore throw light upon the pagination of
a previous MS. It is dangerous to draw an inference from an
isolated case, but, if two occur, each at the same distance from the
doublet, we may conclude with certainty in favour of the second
explanation. I would call attention in particular to Phil. ii. 106,
xiv. 13 (pp. 200-1). In the first place, a variant for victims in § 104,
and in the second a variant for impettts in § 15, has found its way
into the text. The intervening words consist in PJiil. ii. 104-6 of 953
letters and in xiv. 13-15 of 951. This minute agreement cannot
be due to chance. We may therefore conclude that in both cases
a variant was entered on the wrong folio of the archetype.
» Manuel^ P- 375-
CHAPTER III
THE EVIDENCE OF MARGINALIA
Harl. ^c6^. cent, ix
Thcodoriis of Mopsycstia on the Epistles to the Galatiaiis and
Philemon.
In this MS. there are only two occasions where omissions of the
first scribe have been supplied by the corrector, with omission
marks (^), viz. :
(66) 56'' : eo qd necdu reb: ipsis in illis sumus sed inter! credim: de illis pro-
missione uo
(132) 78'' : quale e illud qd dix pelegit nos adhuc etia et affectu de reb: hui'
modi implens ostendit. Na qd dix in caritate 7 secundu bonu placitu
uoluntatis sue hgc ostendit.
Here 66 x 2 = 132.
Both omissions are due to 6/x. It is noticeable that both supple-
ments contain many abbreviations, so the exact correspondence is
very remarkable.
Brit. Mus. Add. 11878, cent, vii (Merovingian script).
Gregory on Job (Migne, vol. 76).
The omission symbols are /rcf over the text and hs at the foot of
the page. Three passages have been added by the corrector, viz. :
(41) 68' (Migne, 297 a):
uirtute accenditur nee tamen in summa scientiae
(45) 58^(M'ffne, 287CJ:
ab homine non poterat ds ergo homo factus est ut uideri
(176) 67' (Migne, 295 B-C) :
et iudicati sunt mortui ex his quae scripta erant in libris quia in ostensa
uita iustorum quasi in expansione librorum legunt bonum quod agere
ipsi noluerunt atque ex eorum qui fecenint comparatione damnantur.
Here 176 = 44X 4.
All three omissions are due to 6/x.
54 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
Brit. Mus., Burney 340, cent, vii (Corbie).
This MS., written in uncials (fif. 1-60), contains Origen's Homilies
on Numbers, xv-xix (about Balaam), Migne, xii, pp. 683 C-'jiS K.
I would recommend this MS. to any one who wishes to test the
method which I have employed. Ff. 1-27 contain some additions
and corrections which I will take in the order in which they come,
giving references to Migne's text. I call the MS. B.
5"^ : potest ergo dici veni maledic mihi lacob et veni supermaledic niihi Israel
(Migne, 686 a).
B^ wrote : potest ergo dici tieni maledic mihi Israel, omitting Jacob
et ueiii supermaledic mihi (27). B^ adds the omitted words partly
above the lines and partly in ras.
ib. : tunc non solum maledictis ab inimico sed et supermaledictis.
B^ omitted ab inimico scd et supermaledictis (29). The words are
added at the foot of the page. The omission symbol dr {desuper)
is placed over the text, and at the foot of the page is dh before the
addition and siir (i.e. super) after it.^
6"" : Graeci sermonis rationem, vim verbi ostendere ex praepositionis (prono-
minis B) augmento cupientes (Migne, 686 c).
B^ omitted vim verbi ostendere ex pronominis (29). B^ rewrote
the passage {in ras. and above the line).
9"^ : et credidit Abraham deo et reputatum est illi ad iustitiam (Migne, 688 c).
B^ omitted et reputatum est illi ad iustitiam (29). B'^ adds the
words in an extra line (above the text).
li'": igitur Balach rex veluti attonitus et percussus ex iis quae contra spem
dici videbat a Balaam (Migne, 690 b).
B^ omitted rex veluti attonitus et percussus (29), having passed
from rex to ex. B- adds rex at the end of the line, and inserts an
extra line containing veluti . . . percussus.
\<^ \ quia neque proprie bonum dici potest quod aliquando a malo venit neque
proprie malum quod aliquando a Deo descendit (Migne, 696 b).
^ The use of this sign is said by Lindsay to be Spanish. It is employed regularly in the
Toledo MS. of Isidorns. Cf. Beer's preface to the facsimile (p. xxi).
THE EVIDENCE OE MARGINALIA 55
B^ omitted a nialo vcnit Jiequc propriae {sic) maluvi quod aliquando
(41). B^ inserts an extra line.
zV : vel pecudum vel fibranim motus aut sortium secundum ea signa quae
docuerunt iidem daemones (Migne, 698 a).
B^ omitted motus ant sortium scamdnvi ca (25). B"^ adds the
words at the foot of the page with omission marks, viz, dr above
the text and s (= super) at the foot.
27^ : in Spiritu Sancto considerantes quae per Spirituin scripta sunt et spirita-
libus spiritalia comparantes (Migne, 702 b).
The words quae per spiii scripta sunt . . . comparantes (56) were
written twice by B^ (corr. BT-). The dittography is due to b[i..
The corrections cease after f. 27. I made a hasty collation of the
remaining folios with Migne's text and found that B has omitted two
passages, viz. :
34'- (Migne, 712 a):
caveamus ne propter (per opera et B) actus nostros Christi nomen
blasphemetur sed magis id agamus ut . . . mereamur.
B omits xpi nomen blasphemetur sed magis (28). Here there is
no u/x.
39«- (Migne, 7050):
ut evidentius elucesceret qui sunt oculi qui claudantur et qui sunt oculi
qui revelentur.
B omits qui claudantur et qui sunt oculi {I'j).
I now put together the figures in order of magnitude and leave
them to tell their story.
(25) 21"^: * motus aut sortium secundum ea
(27) S"" : lacob et ueni supermaledic mihi
39'" : qui claudantur et qui sunt oculi
(28) 34'' : * xpi nomen blasphemetur sed magis
{29) S"" : ab inimico sed et supermaledictis
6'' : uim uerbi ostendere ex pronominis
9' : » et reputatum est illi ad iustitiam
1 1"" : rex ueluti attonitus et percussus
(41) 19^ : a malo . . . aliquando
(56) 27^ : quae per spm . . . comparantes
Here, out of 10 cases, four contain the same number of letters (29),
while seven contain 27-9. The dittography of 56 = 28 x 2. The
56 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
omission of 25 letters rpay represent a short line. Only one case
remains recalcitrant (41), and here o\j.. is present.
This is a very remarkable result.
Two of the omissions, viz. :
lacob et ueni supermaledic mihi (27)
ab inimico sed et supermaledictis (29)
occur on the same page (5'"), in immediate proximity to each other.
The intervening passage Israel . . . vialedictis is written thus in B :
israhel per quod (14)
ostenditur idcirco sermo repetitus (31)
ut ampliore ui et maiore intentione (30)
maledictionem in israhel quam in iacob (33)
5 balaac uideatur exposcere donee (28)
enim quis tantum iacob est hoc est (28)
in actibus soUim et operibus positus (31)
inferioribus maledictionibus (27)
inpiignatur ubi autem profecerit (28)
TO et interiorem hominem ad uidendum (29)
dm reuelato mentis oculo exacuere (29)
et prouocare iam coeperit tunc non (29)
solum maledictis (15)
This gives a total of 352 letters, i.e. I3 lines in the model (29 X 12
= 348). We can now reconstitute the whole passage as it stood in
the model :
potest ergo dici ueni maledic mihi (29)
iacob et ueni supermaledic mihi (27)
israhel per quod ostenditur idcirco (31)
sermo repetitus ut ampliore ui et ma (30)
5 iore intentione maledictionem in (29)
israhel quam in iacob balaac uidea (29)
tur exposcere donee enim quis tantum (31)
iacob est hoc est in actibus solum et (30)
operibus positus inferioribus ma (29)
10 ledictionibus impugnatur ubi au (28)
tern profecerit et interiorem homi (29)
nem ad uidendum dm reuelato mentis (29)
oculo exacuere et prouocare iam (27)
coeperit tunc non solum maledictis (30)
15 ab inimico sed et supermaledictis (29)
B omits 1. 2 and 1. 15, the omission in each case being assisted
by 6/x.
THE EVIDENCE OF MARGINALIA 57
It is to be noticed that the formation of B itself is ahnost pre-
cisely the same as that of the model. Thus, if we take the eleven
complete lines (2-12) as written in Z>, the total {3323 (29 X 11 = 319).
Laud. Misc. 148, cent. ix.
Jcrovic on Minor Prophets.
(9) 133': pericuHs
(16) 31' : diabolu ee t denione
132'^: *certu quid nouimus
170': ancille u6 niniuen
(22) 104'' : in ebreo p hereditate gath
203" : die dns exercituu et p leui
(24) 15"^ : uincula corpore non uruntur
(25) 124'' : et bruto et cassio aug'to eodem
(2S) US'": erit diuisione et tenebrae er uob.
(36) 3"" : » et tradidit dns in manG ei' ioachim rege iuda
e
(41) S' : dicem' in Dseqntib' qm qui usq: ad anii pmu cyri regis
(48) 2'' : pnotauimus significantes ea^ i hebraico n habcri ct miror
(72) 45": * Claudius annis xili mensibus viii nero annis xill principatum
romani apicis obsedit
l6r : * nee erit ulla anima quf fi paueat ad iudiciu di ciTi astra quoq; n
munda it in conspectu eius
o
(81) 126'': *iudicab* illos u ut Tpios et negatores ii iudicabit s; arguet odem-
pnatos. Semp inuidis respondemus.
162" : LXX. et in diluuio transeunte consummatione faciet consurgentes et
inimicos ei' psequent tenebrf
(97) 127'' : ad quam uenturus est inquid diTs et potestas prima et regnum quare
nunc merore contraheris aut quare cognouisti mala bis scr.
(875) 182": * colligentiij sed statim in os deuorantis cadent. H§c dicta sint
napT)<Ppaa-TiKos iuxta LXX intptes semel eni propositii in nobis e et
uulgata editione sequi ne aliqua sardanapallo rephendi occasione
pbuisse uideamur ceterii ii satis mihi uidetur congruere exemplii euer-
sionis nineue cum hliis lot qui uocantur ammon. primii eni ammon dr
sed h ammon deinde amman qu^ nunc uocatur filadelfia ii est sita sup
flumina nee opes illius de mari congregantur quippe qu§ meditcrranea
sit nee aqu§ sunt muri eius nee habet aethiopia et §giptij et africa et
libes federates cum haec omnia et iuxta potentiam et iuxta exemplum
et iuxta scriptione loci et regionis et amicaru gentiu magis alexandrig
coaptanda sint et numqua potentissima ciuita^ niniue minori filadelfi?
comparata audiret ait ppheta numquid melior e. Cui aute dr numquid
melior es ostenditur minor ee ea cui comparaturet ii debere ea indigne
facere si apta sit cCi maior et firmior et potentior tam natura loci qua
5« DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
uiris fortib: ab code sit hoste superata quia uero niniuen et mundii istum
interptati sumus
I would also draw attention to the following corruption (f. 82^) :
et quia consuetudinis est
ere uestimenta
ut in tristibus atq: aduersis scindatis uestibus qd et pontifex
- ad diii saluatoris crimen augendum in euangelio fecisse
memoratur et paulum et bamaban audientes uerba blaSphe
mi§ legim' perpetrasse. Idcirco ego pcipio uobis ut nequaqua
scindatis uestimenta
Here the eye of the scribe appears to have been caught by scin-
datis further on. The passage sciudere vestimenta . . . nequaqua
consists of 175 letters.
The striking point in these figures is that there are two examples
of 72 and two of 81-2. This is extremely significant. Also, we have
one example of 36 and one of 41. Further it will be noticed that
48 X 2 = 96, cf. 97.
The two largest figures are exact multiples of 35 {'^^^-S — ^15->
35 X 25 = 875). They appear to be in relation to 36 and the two
examples of 72.
The conclusion is that three units are to be observed here, viz. 36,
41, 48. I abstain from drawing any further conclusion as to whether
they represent successive ancestors. The difference between '^6 and
41 is not great.
Laud. Misc. 121, cent, ix (Wiirzburg).
St. Angnstine, de doctrina Christiana.
The MS. (Z) contains references to MSS. with which it was
collated, e.g. f. 9"^ alius sic, ali?is sic t, 13'^' aliter.
The usual omission mark is ti, but others are frequent, e. g.
•X-, ; , -r . Many additions are entered over the line without any
sign. The longest passage (425) is added on a fly-leaf.
The following is a complete list of omissions and dittographies :
si tamen et causa
cor quippe carneia
et qsi nauigatione
ut ex tota mente tua
in quantum peccator
et ambiguitatibus
* magnu bonus et arduii
et semitas quas n nor
(14)
5^
(15)
52'-
(16)
6^
ii--
II*'
is--
(17)
3^'
50^
THE EVIDENCE OF MARGINALIA
59
51"
(22) 5'
(19) 15' : jipt illud id qd ferimur
40' : qui enl sequit' litteni
61' : in bonis quae rependit
(20) 7'' : » qua se insinuet auribus
(21) 19' : » quo cogitat de iudicio di
49"' : in scripturis canonicis
et mandabo uos ex omnibus
quo modo aute a me dictCi est
non contemptibilit uiuit
potius qua dicat eloquent
(23) 57"^ : muititudo eloquentium sed
Cf. 5iS^', where 23 letters have been erased.
(24) 15': * sed tamen ut dicere coeperam
65*^ : fecit p hunc ipsum prophetam
(27) 13*' : not) sed utitur na si neq; fruitur
^^'' : et rursus alio modo ipsi n dicunt
(28) so"" : * debuit appellare non enim reuera
72' : portat integritas scTtas portat
(29) 5'' : partim eis quae ad corporis sensum
63' : ubi non ipse sed motus quod dicuntur bis scr.
64'' : sit ut sciant sed ut agant qd agendu
(31) 50' : * sicut sponso imposuit mihi mitram et
(32) 39'' : et xpm non condemnaturum electos suos
77' : aufer uerbu autem di n est ab eis aiienii
(33) 22'' : alius aut ait et came tua ne despexeris
55'' : et modus pferendo quae intellecta sunt
(36) 29' : et quia diuersa consensio e diuersa mouent
(38) 41": p ipsa re sequi cui significandae inslitutum
(39) 13' • nos uero inuice nn miseremur ut illo pfruamur
(41) 6'' : at uero ipsa sapientia nee fuit umquam insipiens
8'' : et quae ligaret in terra ligata essent et in caelo
(42) 55'' : de pferendo pauca dicemus ut si fieri potuerit uno
(44) 30'' : quorum partim supflua luxuriosaque instituta sunt
(45) 48' : puidit, na quid in diuinis eloquiis largius et uberius
68"' : • facta est lex non infirmata ad euacuandas pmissiones
(49) 67'' : neque enl parua est iustitia qua pfecto et in parua pecunia
(50) 24' : inspecta atq: discussa tantum absit falsitas na codicibus
(52) 6'' : quantalibet luce pfulgeat quantaiibet magnitudine pmineat
30'' : s; aut transacta teporib' aut diuinit' instituta inuestigando
(57) 46'' : • et quia non potuit non orbitatem doluit in eius interitu sed nouerat
(58) 16'' : et si sperando diligimus quo ndu puenimus quanto magis cu puene-
rimus
ZT * et laetitiam deinde consequenter adnectit ut ostendat purgationem
(69) 13'' : sed nescio quomodo etiam nostra fit consequens cQ earn misericordiam
quam facimus
6o DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
(75) 52^' : adiuncta etia pterita et nox in cuius parte ultima resurrexit nisi totus
dies accipiatur
(85) 75^ '• in quocumque istorum trium genere dicere ad persuasionem finis 3lu
id qd intenderis psuadere dicendo
(loi) 3'' : cur ipse alius affectat exponere ac non potius eos remittit do ut ipsi
quoq: ii p homine sed illo intus docente intellegant
(102) ^^'^ : errore illius cii quo agit quae tamen ad hoc inferunt" a bono et docto
homine ut in his erubescens ille cuius errore consecunt"
(225) 2" : legens non intellegebat ad quern apostolii n angeltj misit instruendu
nee ei p angelQ id qd h intellegebat et positu aut diuinitus in mente
sine hominis ministerio reuelatil est sed potius suggestione diuina
missus est ad eu seditq: cu eo Philippus qui nouerat Esaia ppheta
(399) 67'' : * et fraudatis et hoc aput fratres. an nescitis quia in lustris regnu
di n haereditabunt. quid est qd sic indignatur apostolus sic corripit sic
expbrat sic increpat sic minatur. quid est qd sui animi affectii tarn
crebra et aspera uocis mutatione testat". quid est postremo qd de
rebus minimis tarn grandit dicit'. tantum ne de illo negotia saecularia
meruerunt, absit sed hoc fecit ppt iustitia caritate pietate quae nulla
sobria mente dubitante etia in rebus quamlibet paruulis magna sunt.
(425) 38'' : discutienda atque soluenda ut aute signis ambiguis non decipiatur
quantum p nos instrui potest, fieri h' potest ut istas uias quas ostendere
uolum' taqua pueriles 1 magnitudine ingenii 1 maioris inluminationis
claritate derideat, sed tamen ut coeperam dicere quantu p nos instrui
ualet qui eo loco animi est ut per nos instrui ualeat. sciat ambiguita-
tem scripturae aut in uerbis propriis ee aut in translatis quae genera in
secundo libro demonstrauimus sed cum uerba propria faciunt ambigui-
tate scripturarum.
To these omissions may be added some significant corruptions, viz.:
uituperatur
(26) 67" : docetur temperate cum aliquid docetur
This indicates in the model :
docetur temperate cum aliquid (26)
uituperatur
68'' : repromissione abrahae autem per repromissionem donauit ds
This indicates :
promissione abrahae autem per (26)
repromissionem donauit ds
o
(56) 64^ : eloquium agitur neque hoc attenditur ut uel ipsa uel ipsum delectet
eloquium
This indicates :
eloquio agitur neque hoc attendi (28)
tur ut uel ipsa uel ipsum delectet (28)
eloquium
THE EVIDENCE OF MARGINALIA 6i
The eye of the writer was cauglit by cloqiiiuvi further on.
(125) 41'': quia pximi spitalibus fuerunt ipsi enim temporalibus et carnalibus
notis atque signis quamuis quomodo spitaliter essent intellegenda
nescirent quia
Here quia has been repeated from five lines above (5 x 25 = 125).
I reserve for the moment a more complicated case.
Here, as usual, the shorter omissions are very indecisive. For
light we must turn to the longest, viz. : loi, 102, 225, 399, 425.
The first two, ici and 102, are practically identical, while 399 is
at most 1COX4. If we subtract 399 from 425, the result is 26,
I now draw attention to the following multiples :
25 X 4 = ICO, 25 X 9 = 225, 25 X 16 = 400, 25 X 1 7 = 425.
The same unit appears in other omissions, viz. 25 x 5 = 125 (41''),
25 X 3 = 75 (52'), 25 X 2 = 50 (24'), cf. 52 (6"-, 30').
It will be seen that there are 15 omissions of 21-9 letters, also
a dittography of 29 letters. Also, there are two corruptions (67'',
68'') which point to a line of 26. The conclusion is that single lines
differed a good deal in length. The average asserts itself in the
longer passages.
It is probable that more than one ancestor is responsible for
omissions. Thus the only one of the longer omissions not accounted
for is 85 (75'). There is a relation between 85 and 41-5 (six cases),
and again between 41-5 and 20-2 (seven cases). The probability,
therefore, is that there is in the background an ancestor with shorter
lines, i.e. with an average of 20-2 letters.
I now proceed to mention the more complicated case of corruption
to which I referred previously.
50^ Here L has :
sed dicendu
fuit de dni corpore uero atque pmixto [bonorum et malorum] aut
quic
uero atque simulato. T quod aliud quia non solum in aeternil uerii etifi
nunc hypocript§ non cum illo ee dicendi sunt, quamuis in eius esse
n
5 uideatur eccta unde poterit ista regula et sic apellari ut diceretur
de pmixta aecclesia quae regula intellectorem uigilantem requi
rit quando scriptura cum ad alios iam loquatur tamquam ad eos
ipsos ad quos loquebatur uidetur loqui uel de ipsis cum de aliis iam
loquatur tamquam unum sit utrorumque corpus ppter tempo
10 ralium commixtionem et communionem sacramentoru ad hoc per
tinet in cantico canticorum fusca sum et speciosa ut tabernacula cue
62 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
dar speciosa sum ut pellas salamonis. non enim ait fusca fui ut
i
tabernacula caedar et speciosa sum ut pellas salamonis sed utrij
que esse se dixit ppter temporalem unitatem. Intra unum rete
15 piscium bonorum et malorum
Here the words bonorum et malorum in 1. i, which I have enclosed
in brackets, are an insertion from 1. 15, where they occur in their
proper place. This is the sort of mistake which appears to throw
light upon the pagination of an ancestor. The natural explanation
is that the scribe * looked forward ' and inserted something which
caught his eye on the next page at the same place.
The intermediate passage aut vero . • . rete piscium, as written in
Z, contains ()'^'>, letters. This appears to represent 36 lines of the
model (26 X 25 = 650).
We are now in a position to arrange a page of the model, viz. :
aut uero atque simulate 1 quia (25)
aliud quia non solum in aeternu (26)
uerQ etia nunc hypocriptg non (25)
cum illo ee dicendi sunt quam (24)
5 uis in eius esse uideantur ec- (24)
cla unde poterit ista regula et (26)
sic apellari ut diceretur de (24)
pmixta aecclesia quae regula (25)
intellectorem uigilantem re (25)
10 quirit quando scriptura cum ad (26)
alios iam loquatur tamquam ad (25)
eos ipsos ad quos loquebatur ui (26)
detur loqui uel de ipsis cum de (25)
aliis iam loquatur tamquam unum (27)
15 sit utrorumque corpus ppter (24)
temporalium commixtionem et (25)
communionem sacramentoru ad (25)
hoc pertinet in cantico canti (25)
corum fusca sum et speciosa ut (25)
20 tabernacula caedar speciosa (25)
sum ut pellas salamonis non enim (27)
ait fusca fui ut tabernacula (24)
caedar et speciosa sum ut pel (24)
las salamonis sed utruque esse (26)
25 se dixit ppter temporalem uni (25)
tatem intra unum rete piscium (25)
653
THE EVIDENCK OF MARGINALIA 63
Laud. Misc. 134, cent, ix (Wiiizburg).
Augustine, Ep. ad Rom., de spiritu et littcra.
This IMS. consists of two parts, the first of which, ff. 1-14, con-
tains Ep. ad Rom., and the second (ff. 1 j-no) the treatise De spiritu
et littera ad Marcellinum.
Its interest resides in the fact that the passages omitted by the
first hand are wholly different in the two parts. Part I is derived
from a MS. written in long lines, and Part II from one written
in short lines. The usual omission sign in both parts is Ti : in
Part II X and ; are also frequent.
(A) Part I.
(72) a"" : * non eas qu§ populo li^breoruni s diuinitus credit^, satis oportune
mihi uidet' adiungere
3'' : * di in uirtute secund! spni saficationis factus est ergo ex semine
dauid, id est filius dd
lo*": quia non ignorantiae tempore peccatum est et aliam caiisam ee cCi
dr ppterea non ignosci
(76) 14^ : non potest recte intellegi nisi ut factis dicere intellegatur, non eni
hoc in spu s'cb dicere
(77) F : * iustificati deinceps iuste uiuere inciperent, hoc ergo docere intendit
apTs omnib; uenisse
(78) il': tamquam si diceret leiiiter emendatus ad ueniam ptinebit in eo enim
quod dictum est uapulabit.
(257) 4'': ex resurrectione eni ceterorCi mortuorii n est pdistinatus quos non
pcessit ad gloria uitae acternae n utiq: secuturos quo ad penas suas
impii resurrecturi sunt, ergo ille tamqua filius di unigenitus etia primo-
genitus ex mortuis pdistinatus est ex resurrectione mortuoru. quoru
mortuoru. nisi tfiu xpi dm nn
(399) 12'': acceperit ppter quorunda posteriorem puectum \ miserabile negle-
gentia et tamen illud sacrificium de quo loquebatur id est holocaustum
dm quod tunc p uno quoque offertur quodam modo cumeius nomine in
babtizando signatur iteru si peccauerit offerri non potest. Non enim
possunt denuo babtizari qui semel babtizati sunt quamuis etiam post
babtismum per igoiorantiam ueritatis peccauerint ita fit ut quoniam sine
babtismo nemo recte dicitur accepisse scientiam ueritatis bis set:
Here, out of eight omissions, six consist of 72-8 letters, and no less
than three exhibit the same figure, 72. The dittography of 399
letters seems to represent five lines of the model (78 x j = 390).
64
DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
There are fewer abbreviations used in the text than in the supple-
ments, hence the unit (78) is a little higher than the average.
The remaining omission of 257 letters seems due to accident {6[x.).
Part II.
De spiritu et litter a ad Marcellimnn {Letters).
iam ii sit gratia
nisi quia lucrum
legis sed factores
sed ei cui redditur
p liberQ arbitrium
P lege ii iustificati
aut gratias egerunt
ii secundu testamentu
apparuit t ut audiretur
ds dat ut p se ipso habeat
uocauit ut iustificaret
ubi aQ abundauit delictQ
ds sit ipse quern diligunt
uel in ipso corde aliquid bis scr.
nee tamen cupimus omne quod
* neq. p came qua nuqua fuisse
quis aijt ambulat secundu spni
non sunt itaq: filii liberae
uult potius ad nos pertinere bis scr.
porro aut si \\ gratis mortuus e
* non soliTi actus et euenta uerum
Abrahae aQt per promissionem
* eadem gratia p spni scrn unde dicit
uetere a quo necesse est hominem
* diaboli pcipites ire psuadeant
tribuunt cia sit nostrae naturae
p que sunt omnia in quo sunt omnia
uoluntas dl quae ut fiat in nobis
legis n impleri secundu iustitia
* et hoc quid est nisi peccatum, unde
et pelaiani laudando se occultant
liberum arbitrium, sic enim uolunt
non litigant ut nijquam intellegant
Abrah§ dict§ sunt pmissiones de quo
non enim ipse pmittit et alius fecit. After this the first hand adds
non enim ipse proniittit
(31) 39'" : sibi congrua hoc e in iustificatione
(13)
90V
(14)
104"^
(16)
35^
69^^
105'*^
(17)
221'
23V
(18)
30'"
(20)
38'-
74'-
(21)
i8i-
19^
34^
47'-:
(23)
72^
92^
(24)
75T
ib.
78^
(25)
38^:
68^
78>-
(27)
80V
81^
88"-:
89^
98^^
lOI^
(28)
85^
93^
(29)
91V
95'-:
(30)
75''
80^
Ci
'-11^
(32) 47'
8o^
84'
(33) 18-
(35) 104''
(39) 30""
73'
(48) 98^
(54) 76'
(57) 92'
THE EVIDENCE OF MARGINALIA 65
* hie uobis pcipit' iustitia cu dicitur
uel linguam alicui quae dicenda n cent
* * -dine uetus testamentum lex et pphetae
* si non in dm fidem rectam et catholicam
necessaria medicina et hoc factum est
orationibus nns sed qd petamus a do ut
intrasse in genus humanu et p unij homine
* ne gratiam dl qua iustificamur n gratis
* eoru hie in pcepto curanda est actio illic
in facie xpi ihu haec est scientia gloriae eius
et a dnb responsio linguae quia homo pparat cor
quapropter et in babtismate dimittuntur cuncta peccata.
quale peccatum sit sicut apostolus cu dicitur si non exprimatur
et din creatorem credite et corporum quia non potest ee templQ
sps sTi
(58) 2S'- quamuis utriq: horii preferendus sit qui et habet et nouit a quo
habeat
(61) 36'": alit aijt scificetur nomen tuO, nam illud ideo quia ipse illos fecit ee
scbs
(64) 31^: * congruebant talia contineat pcepta iustitiae qualia nunc quoq:
obseruare
18S) 92'': aduersus eos isti non solum ueram sed et ipsam et animam nulla
peccati macula respersam fuisse defendunt
(100) 89'': quod uero et ipsis quamuis iustis et do placentibus ppitiatione dm
fuisse dicimus necessariam aduersCi est pelaianis
(156) 3P' : * scriptae in cordibus nisi praesentia sps set qui est digitus di quo
presente difunditur caritas in cordibus iiris quae plenitude est legis et
finis praecepti. nam quia ueteris testamenti
These words are added by m. 2 in lac. In the margin is written
Ouere in aliis codicib;
(235) SS': sed habitet in me peccatum id repetiuit inculcans tamquam tardissi-
mos de somno excitans. inuenio ergo inquid mihi uolenti facere bonum
quo mihi malum adiacet. ilia ergo bonum uolenti facere adiacet autem
malum ex concupiscentia cui non consentit qui dicit iam non ego operor
illud bis scr.
Here the most noticeable point is the bulge in the curve of omissions
at 27 and again at 32. It is to be observed that one omission of 32
is a ' telescoped " passage. The dittographies of 21 and 24 should
also be noticed.
The omission on 92"" (23) requires especial attention. The passage
as printed by Migne is :
non crimen primi hominis transisse in genus humanum neque per camem
quam numquam fuisse dicunt
16J3 F
66 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
For this the MS. (L) gives :
non crimen primi hominis transisse in genus humanum h dicunt.
In the margin is ^ {= require). A second hand supplies the
omission (23) in the margin.
Here ^, the sign of omission, has been received into the text.
This postulates a previous stage, when k was written above the line
to signify that something was lost. The original loss, therefore,
goes back beyond the model. We may, therefore, recognize inai-4
traces of a previous ancestor.
The telescoped passage 80"^ indicates in a previous MS. :
legendi consuetu
dine uetus testamentum lex et pphetae (32)
omnes qui usque ad iohannem propheta
L^ gives legendi consuetu omnes, etc., med. om.
It must remain doubtful whether the six omissions of 37 letters
point to another intermediary MS., or, as I think more likely, one
column in the model was slightly ' squeezed ' by the other.
With regard to the larger numbers we may notice the relation of
"^35 to 58 (58 X4 = 232), while 100 + 56 (cf. 92'') = 156. The unit
here seems to be 28-9.
Laud. Misc. 252.
Jerome, Letters, cent. ix/x.
In this MS. the numeration is given by pages, except in a few
cases where the marking is by folios.
alium fuisse mundum
et flos de radice eius
* animaduerte quid dicat
* negotii cardo uersatur
* referant egressus est aia
52 : * compellit me tua dilectio
*p quibrlibet tribulantib:
86 : inanis est praedicatio nra
pater quo modo cognoscitur
sed gaudeas quod talem habueris
primum spire solus nra obmutuit
nisi sexus meus et hoc nuqua obicit'
aut fi fictij ut fingatur impellitur
qui simul mecil dukes capiebas cibos
(17) p.
231
(18) p.
194
(20) p.
95
p-
190
(21) p.
137
(22) p.
52
(23) p.
60
P-
86
P-
235
(27) p.
100
P-
161
(29) p.
222
ib.
(31) p.
72
THE EVIDKXCK OF MARGINALIA
^7
(32)
P-
62
P-
136
P-
221
(36)
P-
163
P-
213
P-
229
(37)
P-
202
(38)
P-
23
P-
67
P-
102
P-
128
P-
146
(39)
p.
75
P-
220
(40)
P-
172
P-
T> i
(41)
P-
189
f.
196^
(42)
P-
23
P-
128
P-
192
(44)
P-
196
(45)
P-
47
P-
57
P-
59
P-
61
P-
77
P-
80
P-
218
P-
235
(46)
P-
185
<47)
P-
III
(51)
f.
[67'-
'55i f-
P-
(58) p.
(67) p.
(761 p.
(78) p.
dispensatores domoru alienaru atque
spolioru et habrahae dederit decimas
dicatur qd minime luceat et parce ab eo
sed iustificati estis sed sTificati estis
flores et gemmas artificis manu non textas
niundos ee contendunt et iteru triplex ergo
» fugerat quondam et ionas animosus propheta
ita inteptatus e obsecro dne libera animfi niea
mansionCi mysteria continent deuterononiium
uigilans in pcando lacrimas do non hominibus
qui temporum scripsit historiam et theodori
quantum acciperis uestiaris quod acciperis
* laudant hoc philosophi et caelum usque ferunt
* aut corrigendum putauerint aut non diuinitus
ad altare aut ira pmanente sine causa optulimus
aput triueris manu mea ipse descripserii aequae
» interrogare eos qui malitiam prudentiam uocant
ch
filio saar nee sepultus est in sychem sed in ebron
quod nos corrupte ppter ignorantiam diciin' osanna
et eustachii antioceni et athanasii alexandrini
» tu q:re sententias dies me deficiet si omniu qui ad
* quando necesse habuit et esuriuit ipse et socii eius
» quo hierusalem celeste uir fortis coronatus incedes
* qui te in omnibus quae sea sunt docuit. Illud etiam dice
atq: diuitiis simplex nos delectat historia cum auro
» et dum delicias sectamur a regno caelorum retrahimur
torqueri alios necari alios absorbi fluctibus alios
potest enim fieri ut tibi uideatur aliud quam ueritas
» ne doctrinae auctoritas cassis operibus destruatur
contendet ut dicat et in cognitione filii patrem esse
* ♦quf fuit unius uiri uxor in bonis operibus habens testi-
o
ecdesias frequentius ceperit lectitari quod a grecis
ab omnibus inmunditiis iJns. Dabo uobis cor nouum et spm
nouum
196^: sepelieruntq: in ea sarram uxorem suam atq: in eodem libro
postea
224 : satis habeo si splendore morQ eius et inbecillitas oculoru meorij
179: conpellaris simulabitur mariti infirmitas et qd te moritura facere
189: » qua cuncta loquitur et impunitate qua sibi licere omnia putat.
Me quoque apud uos
194: P quo in code loco LXX transtulerunt quia paruulus e israhel et
dilexi eu et ex egipto uocaui
114: legi esse subicctos ut p utrarumque psona et paulus recte rephen-
deret eos qui ege seruarent
F 2
68 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
(90) p. 218: significant et eclesia xil apostolorij qui ad prg dicatione missi sunt
nomina continentes uel litera et spm bis scr.
The striking feature here is the bulge in the curve at 45 (eight
examples).
The example of 46 is interesting. Here an ancestor appears to
have had :
non minus annorum Ix
quf fuit unius uiri uxor in bonis operibus habens testi (46)
monium
The writer of the present MS. (Z) wrote non minus annorum Ix
monium : then he deleted monium and added the passage at the top
of the page.
The example of 42 (p. 193) is also interesting. Here an ancestor
seems to have had :
alii sillibas aucupentur, alii litteras
tu q:re sententias dies me deficiet si omniCi qui ad (42)
sensum interptati sunt testimonia replicavero
L^ omits line 2, destroying the sense.
The largest number, 90, is exactly 45 x 2. Here we have a ditto-
graphy of two lines in the model. This occurs on the same page
(p. 218) as an omission of 45 letters. The intervening passage
between the dittography and the omission, as written in L, contains
1,174 letters. Here 45x26= 1,170. It appears that the inter-
mediate words occupied 26 lines in the model. I therefore recon-
stitute it thus :
significant et eclesia xil apostoloril qui ad prgdica (45)
tione missi sunt nomina continentes uel litera et spm (45)
in quibus tenentur legis uniuersa mysteria. In dextra (45)
sps in leua littera e p litteras ad uerba descendimus p (45)
5 uerbum uenimus ad sensum qua pulcher ordo et ex ipso ha (45)
bitu sacramenta demonstrans in humeris opera sunt in (45)
pectore ratio unde et pectusculum condunt sacerdotes (46)
hoc au rationale duplex e aptij et absconditii simplex (44)
et mistycu xil in se lapides habens et llil ordines quos (46)
10 lliior ' puto ee uirtutes prudentia fortitudine iusti (45)
tia temperantia quae sibi haerent inuicem et dum mutuo (46)
miscentur duodenariu numerQ efficiunt uel quattuor e (46)
uangelia quae in apocalipsi discribuntur plena oculis (47)
or
^ Probably the model had iin . Cf. 1. 14.
THE EVIDENCE OF MARGINALIA 69
et dnl luce radiantia mundum inluminant in uno llllor (45)
15 et in quattuor singula unde et aeacucie et aacia ^ ide doc (45)
trina et ueritas in pectore sacerdotis e cum eni indu (44)
tus quis fuerit ueste multiplici consequens e ueritate (47)
quil corde retinet sermone proferre et ob id in rationa {45)
li ueritas est ide scientia ut nouerit quae docenda (43)
20 sint et manifestatio atque doctrina ut possit instru (45)
ere alios quod mente concepit ubi sunt qui innocentia (45)
sacerdotis dicunt posse sufficere uetus lex nou§ con (45)
gruit id ipsum moyses quod apostolus ille sacerdotis (45)
scientia ornat in uestibus iste timotheu et titii instru (47)
i5 it disciplinis sed et ipse uestimentoril ordo pcipuus. (45)
legamus leuiticQ non prius rationale et sic sup hume (44)
nUe sed ante sup humerale et deinceps rationale. A man (45)
datis tuis intellexi prius faciamus et sic doceamus (44)
ne doctrinae auctoritas cassis operibus destruatur (45)
II. 1-3 bis scr. L} : 1. 29 oin. L}.
It is to be noticed that six out of the eight omissions of 45 letters
occur on pp. 47-80. After this point 45 does not occur until p. 218,
though we have a telescoped passage of 46 on p. 185. The con-
clusion appears to be that after the fifth quaternion (p. 80) the hand
changed. As there is only one omission of 47 letters, while there
are fifteen of 38-44 letters (eleven after p. 80), it is probable that
the script became larger. There is an instructive case on p. 128,
where an omission of 38 letters is followed by one of 42. The
intervening passage, as written in L, contains 20 J letters (40x5
= 200). This suggests the following distribution :
exstant et iulii africani libri
qui temporum scripsit historiam et theodori (38)
qui postea gregorius appellatus e uiri apostoli (41)
corum signorum atque uirtutum et dionisii ale (39)
5 xandrini epi anatolii quoque laudicen? ecclesi (41)
ae sacerdotis nee non presbiterorum panfili py (40)
eri luciani malcyonis eusebii cesariensis epi (40)
et eustachii antioceni et athanasii alexandrini (42)
L} omits 11. 2 and 8.
If this suspicion is correct, the two largest omissions, 76-8 letters,
may each represent two lines written in a larger hand. It is to be
noticed that there are seven examples of 38-9 (four after p. 80).
1 _
SjyXoxTis et h>J\Bua (Migne, 22, § 370).
70 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
The question may now be asked whether these figures (38-45)
represent a unit or multiples of a unit. There is something to be
said in favour of the second explanation. It is to be noticed that
several omissions of 20-3 letters are not due to 6/x., also that 45 +
21 = 66 (cf. 67, p. 189), It is tempting to arrange the figures thus :
20-3, 40-6, 67, 90.
On the other hand, I am struck by the great number of omissions
of 40-5 letters ( 1 6 cases). Generally, the unit is predominant and
multiples are less frequent. I, therefore, incline to consider that we
are dealing with the unit and to look on the omission of 67 letters
as due to chance, or to some other ancestor.
There is an important passage which shows the existence of
a smaller unit, probably representing a line in a previous MS. I refer
to p. 222, where an omission of 29 letters is shortly afterwards
followed by another of the same number. The intervening passage,
as written in L, contains 335 letters. Here 29 x 8 = 232. This
suggests the following distribution in a previous ancestor :
nisi sexus meus et hoc nuqua obicif (29)
nisi cum hierosolima paula profici (30)
scitur. esto crediderunt mentienti (30)
cur non credunt neganti idem e homo (29)
5 ipse qui fuerit fatetur insonte qui (30)
dudu noxiu loquebatur et certe ueri (30)
tate magis exprimunt tormenta qua (29)
risus nisi quod facilius creditur (29)
quod aut fictum Hbenter auditur (28)
10 aut h fictii ut fingatur impelhtur (29)
L^ omits 11. I and 10 (6//.).
It is to be noticed that there are four examples of 31-2 letters.
It is possible that 67 is to be taken in connexion with a unit of 29-32
in a previous MS.
Laud. Misc. 92, cent, viii/ix (Wiirzburg).
Ftdgcntms.
Omissions are often introduced by hp, also by Jid and h.
There is an interesting note on 47^, where various heretical objec-
tions are stated without an answer, viz. :
^. Hie requirat lector I^ dihgenter. aut rectu n est aut intellegi \\ potest
THE EVIDENCE OF MARGINALIA
71
Shortly afterwards the whole passage is written out correctly with
the answers, as in Migne, Ixv, p. 206.
Omissions.
nunc autem necdum uidemus omnia subiecta ei
quae ds non sit aut altera lucem pt sapientiam
sed qui seminat in spni et de spu metat uita aet'na
non tamen in illo eet extra illu n intra illii eet
exterius est. quo arrianos uerbum quod apud dm est.
cii ergo non dixerit xps tristis sum usq: ad mortem
et ieiunabat uidit omnibus dieb: uiduitatis su§
humanum assignant et animam denegant in sola came
sicut ioliannes p opere iustitiae iustitia aute dixit
occidi pmisit, ipse dignatus est mori. sic in eo quod in eo
ex hoc iam filius subiciat ambob: et saltim sic paraclytus
quia reuera si localis non inmensus, si mutabilis non est ds
debita sic infirmitatem camis usus excipiat coniugalis
erit excepta diuinitus qug particeps passionum generibus
et alio loco scire etia supeminente scientif caritatem xpi
* sic et xps non semet ipsG clarificauit ut pontifex fieret sed
sic nemo potest habere ueram gloria nisi fuerit glorificatus
qui seruiunt mihi exultabunt in laetitia, uos aute clamabitis
»et filiu demonstrauit ubi se ad imana et iam in nouissimo maris
hoc itaq: spiritalis ^dificalio corporis 3cpi q: fit in caritate
* nee deputes posse deficere si te ille dignatus fuerit custodird"
* coniugum commixtione duce ratione consideret et culpabilis usus
ad spiritalia recurrere et scaru coniugatarum cogitationem magis
uelle nuUatenus poterit propt quod beatus apOts non solu bona
opera
(67) 12'' : oi>era bona p quib: glorificabunt' iusti sic credenda sint pdistinata
diuinitus
(80) loi'": ac ne quis eo'4. qui spm scm in more patre filioq : constituunt hie ubi
dictu e sps di habitat in uobis
(86) 144' : tesaurizate aij uobis in cflo ubi neq: erugo neq; tinea exterminat et
ubi fures n etfodiunt nee furantur
(90) 5'': malo pdistinationem ter elegisse diceres, ipse edocens aieba. ad
poenam debitam. non ad malum faciendu posse (m. 2 in lac.)
(96) 143': teneas in corde diuitias. non eni illi soli peccant qui pro diuitiis quas
habent aliquas gestam in corde iactantiam
To these may be added the following corruption :
unum
(51) 61'': surnus agnoscatur non aliud ee quam pater est et in eo quod dixit
sumus agnoscatur.
{i7)
\6<^
(3S)
59'
(39)
22^
39"
(40
41'
ii6>"
141'
(43)
76-
(45)
s--
(46)
125^
(49)
60^
68^
133"
(SO)
113'
127^
(51)
76'
(52)
13^
19'
gS--
(54)
34^
144"
(56)
129'
(57)
149"
(58)
167'
72 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
This points to the following arrangement in the model :
unum agnoscatur non aliud ee quam pater est et in eo quod dixit
sumus agnoscatur
The striking points here are the bulges in the curve at 41, 49, 53.
It will be noticed that there are nine examples of 49-52, reinforced
by the corruption on 61^^. These appear to represent a line of the
model.
On the other hand the larger numbers 80, 86, 90 seem to be in
relation to 41-5 (five cases). These probably represent lines of a
previous ancestor.
The largest omission, 96, seems connected with the three cases of
49, i.e. with the model.
It is to be noticed that all the omissions of this MS. are due to
oju. except 76' (51), 98'- (52), 144^ (54), 129^' (56). In 129^ the model
seems to have had :
igitur si per se ipsam quasi fidelium
coniugum commixtione duce ratione consideret et culpabilis usus (56)
non in coniugali ccubitu sed in concubentiia repperiebatur excessu
U- omits 1. 2, destroying the sense.
Laud. Misc. 120,^ cent, ix (Wurzburg).
Angus ti7te, de Civitate Dei.
This MS. {L) has received much attention in the way of critical
notes. The symbol I^ (= require) is very frequent. Thus it occurs
nine times on f. 155'' and eight times on f. 156''. It contains refer-
ences to other MSS., viz. 13"^ siciit in alio codice, \6^ alter codex
aliter hahet. The usual omission mark is %, but ^and Tifi are also
used.
Omissions.
(16) 31^ : insani secarentur
(17) 100^: alteri non obueniat
102'^ : ♦temporib: diuersis
158'' : magna qd cibii pariat
(19) 52"^: troiana amasse romana
(20) ^<^ : asscanii posteris nisi
1 Cf. Pal. Soc, ser. ii, plates 67, 68.
THE EVIDENCE OF MARGINALIA
73
128^
149^
15S'
(21)
22''
48-
US'-
(22^
•35^
135^
143^
153"
158^
159^
(23)
6^
88"-
127'"
144^
(=4)
S6>-
87^^
143^
125)
23^
i6r
(26)
133^
(27)
17^
26'-
So'
120^
131'
161"
(29)
sr
78'
(33)
37"
(39)
21'
(4o)
101"'
(44)
15'
(45)
143'"
(46)
15'
(48)
43^
(49)
5^
6'
(54)
97r
(61)
17'
(79)
quando agant quid agant
statuendi stabiliendi
•quod se apud dea iactare
cur no tunc potissimu fit
laudandis decus latet et
•uolens bonus uideri qd n e
non tamen oriTs natura ds est
inpbare banc non audebant
et sentimus sensificator
♦pater eet et ioui regnanti
non ta dcf mult^ qua nomina
• ♦mulierumq- uerecundia con-
ille mirabilit temperauit
»non enim malignis demonib;
♦contra quos iam quinque prf [in. 2 in lac.)
dea minerua et oscurata est
cu a suis partib: non colatur
h
et suis contemtorib: aereat
sicut en! quf ratiocinantur
istaru occursu est imminenti
♦ratione ilia orium deorii quib;
ut non sint statuae delubrorum
♦extendere ut ex hoc nullum etiam
luxuria tlueretis nee contriti
suoij. sic incipit principle reru
in quib: sibi displicet qua in ea
♦ubi est nisi in urbe, qui theatrum
♦mortuos et ad daemones pessimos
siue quandoq: alba euersa fuerant
♦sibi sufficientem carissimu suis
hoc sane utilius feliciusq: successit
inrapturij atq: necaturum se fluuiii piecerunt
uaniloquia conuincantur, quid idem ipsi quorum
perdita quocirca proposito animi pmanente p qd etia
ianus aditum et quasi ianuam semini confert selectus
♦atq: in se ppetret peccatum proprium ne in eo ppetretur
sentirentur atque dicerentur quis non istorij ea xpianis
♦ferire uel captiuare non ausi sunt sed uergilius poetarum
unde captiuandi ulli nee a crudelib: hostibus abducerent.
♦contra uetustatem tanti possit erroris. profecto et unum dm a quo
a semet ipso dilector accepit quando quidem scriptCi est diliges
proximij
17^: sicut falsum testimoniu cii uetaret, falsum inquit testimoniu non
dices aduersus proximu tuum
74 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
(io8) 72*: *postea cinna cu mario tij uero clarissimis uiris interfectis lumina
ciuitatis extincta sunt, ultus e eius uictorig crudelitatem
(no) 63'": nam et idem brutus consangineus tarquinii fuisse pibetur sed con-
do
latinu uidelicet similitu nominis pressit qui etiam tarquinius
(271) 961': ut sibi sui liberi supstites cent, supstitiosi sint appellati. quis non
. intellegat eil conari dum consuetudinem ciuitatis timet, religionem
laudare maiorum eaque a superstitione uelle seiungere, sed quomodo id
possit non inuenire. si eni a maioribus illi sunt appellati supstitiosi qui
totos dies precabantur et immolabant.
(406) 8'^ : *ad quam consequendam si nollent ee socii ferrentur et diligerentur
inimici, quia donee uiuunt semp incertum est utrum uoluntatem sint in
melius mutaturi. qua in re noi? utiq: parem sed longe grauiorem
habent causa quibus p propheta dicit\ ille quide in suo peccato
morietur, sanguine aiit ei de manu speculatoris requira. ad hoc enim
speculatores, hoc e populoij. ppositi constituti sunt in aeclesiis ut ii
parcant obiurgando peccata. nee ideotam ab huius modi culpa penitus
alienus est qui licet (w. 2 in lac).
To these I would add the following corruption.
(138) 148^ Here Z gives:
a
quam ille q: fit quappter si ad ianum ptinent initia
e
factoij. non ido priora sunt efficientib: causis quas io
ui tribuunt. sicut enim nihil fit ita nihil inco
atur ut fiat quarn ilia q: fecit.
Here quam ilia q: fecit is a v. 1. for quam ilk q: fit, which has
found its way into the text later on {quam ille q: fit . . . lit fiat
= i3«).
In this MS. the bulges in the curve come at 22-3 (10 examples),
and at 27 (six examples).
The telescoped passage 159' (23) is interesting: the model seems
to have had :
item
que de mollibus eidem matri
magn§ contra omnem uirorum
mulierumq- uerecundia con
5 secratis
L^ omits 1. 4, thereby producing nonsense.
It will be noticed that there are seven examples of 40-9,
corresponding to this unit.
On the other hand the larger figures show that the other unit, 27,
THE EVIDENCE OF MARGINALIA 75
plays the predominant part. I give the following multiples, with
references to the actual figures in the tabulation.
27 X : = 54 (97')-
27 X3 = 81. Cf. 79 (17').
27X 4 = 108 (72^). Cf. no (6^'}.
27x5=135- Cf. 138 (148-).
27 X 10 = 270. Cf. 271 (96').
27 X 15 = 405. Cf. 406 (8'').
The conclusion, therefore, is that 27 represents the average length
of line in the model and 22-3 that in a previous ancestor.
Laud. Misc. 452, cent, ix/x (Lorsch).
This volume contains two MSS. bound up together. Both of
them have the library mark of Lorsch (codex dc monasterio Sci
Nazarii). The first MS., ff. 1-191, contains works of Chrysostom,
the second, ff. 192 277, has Origen on Leviticus.
The evidence furnished by omissions, &c., differs in the case of
the two parts, as in Laud. Misc. 134. The second part is the more
interesting, but I add omissions of the first MS. for the sake of
completeness.
Part I. Chrysostom.
diuites epulantes
et iniuria patiuntur
neq: amicus neq: frat
sedes iudicantes duodecl
sed et mortis tollerantia
quii uulnerib: sanitas animg
anima aut n possunt occidere
quare iudaei pacem non habent
et exacerbauerat qui tecit eu
si eniin hoc fecero mors inihi est bis scr,
non sub tali condicione posito
claustra nobis ualida quamvis
et gaudiiJ quod quidem maximij lucrum
si ait ex fructib' eo'^. agnoscetis eos
in corporib: tanta est differentia
in nube leui et quia pater sed et in urbe
corpora patietur sed incorruptibilia
arbitrio sollicitudo nobis imminerei
(16;
151-
(18)
US'-
172^
(22)
51'
i6p-
(24)
173'
184^
(25)
75^'
175^'
(26)
39"
57"-
iii'^
(30)
Si^
163^
183^
(32)
68^
(33)
179^
182'-
76 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
(35) 103^: et habitauit in nobis uerbu caro factu est
(40) 61"^: cri)x scutu ppetuu crux insensatorum sapientia
79'" : tribuit enim ds petentib: se quo quis desiderat
85^ : de terra carnem fecerit quo modo neruos quo modo
168^ : neq: in furore quod est absq: uenia corripiatur
(41) 116': *extenta manu quatiebat nunc lepusculi alicuius
(42) 163'^: sed in hoc gaudete quia nomina uestra scripta sunt
(44) lag"" ; terrarum morib: de quib : dicit ds quia in saturitate
(45) igo"" : ista pellatur quia ilia bona quae egimus et emendatio
(51) 104'^: n mireris me tangere quern in sepulchro queris noli me tangere
(55) 190^- immo uero etiam illud addo quia si quis parua n contemnat et
minima
(58) i88>' : *apparente sibi eadem monetur, tunc uero instantius perunguentes
eum
(64) 93^ ' capituli in alio propheta melius dicitur et ipse dicit euangelista
iste est
(79) 121'*' : et discite a me quia mitis sum et humilis corde et inuenietis requiem
animabus uis iugia eni meum
(108) i66>" : et iam si trahat aliquis corpus etiam si propellat' talis erit beatus
paulus qui in tantum absens erat ab his inter quos conseruari
Here we have to note the relation of 108 to ^^, also of 79 to 40
(four examples), and of 64 to 32. It is probable that more than one
unit is present in these figures.
The most striking bulge is at 40, while there are eight examples
of 40-5. I have also noticed the following corruption :
mutatur
f. 56"^ : nox sicut dies inluminabitur, infidelibus autem et dies nocte inluminabjtur.
This suggests in the model :
nox sicut dies
inluminabitur infidelibus autem et dies nocte (40)
inutatur
The most interesting omission is that of 41 letters on f. 116% since
it destroys the sense. The model seems to have had :
et eum qui orbem terrae
extenta manu quatiebat nunc lepusculi alicuius (41)
aut ranae timiditatem adtractum latitare
I have treated 40-5 as a unit, since these numbers occur so
frequently, while short omissions are rare. I have done so with
some hesitation on account of two corruptions, which may possess
significance, viz. :
ex uirtutibus suis
f. 183^: ex uirtutibus suis tamen alias tibi decus eius conabor
THE EVIDENXK OF MARGINALIA 77
This suggests in a previous MS. :
tamen alias tibi decus eius (23)
ex uirtutibus suis
f. 85^: neminem debere desperare salutem quia naturalis malignitas non est
liberi quippe nos arbitri creauit ds ut uoluntate nostra cum adiutorio
di quod uolumus faciamus. Si publicanus es, potes fieri euangelista.
Si blasphemus es, potes fieri anemine djsperare debere apostolus
Here the words neviincm debere desperare = 1% letters, while the whole
passage neminevi . . . fieri — 198 (22 x 9 = 198). This suggests :
neminem debere desperare (22)
salutem quia naturalis ma (22)
lignitas non est liberi quip (24)
pe nos arbitri creauit ds (21)
5 ut uoluntate nostra cum (20)
adiutorio di quod uolumus (22)
faciamus si publicanus es (22)
potes fieri euangelista si (23)
blasphemus es potes fieri (22)
10 apostolus.
The words a 7iemvie disperare debere look like a variant for 1. i,
which has got into the text after 1. 9.
Part II. Origen on Leviticus.
(l8) 205'': siclo aut qualicumq:
(24) 255'': separate a terrenis actibus his scr.
(45) 242"" : nunc pili nominantur iubeatur abicere peccator enim
(52) 217'': aeg>'ptius enim tertia generatione intrabit in ecclesiam dni
(54) 276'' : ♦et nati aspidum uolantium qui portabant super asinos et camelos
(56) 273'': *»numquid hec apostolus de terra hac dixit, sed nee accepit terra
bene-
(58) 245'' : a populo uero munera iubentur ofierri aries a principib: et hirci duo
(59) 233^': »»-bis et erinacius quia reducit rumigationem et ungula et inmundii
hoc uo-
(60) 255^: *tu ergo qui hec audis, cui lex diuina recitatur, quern ipsius etiam
dl sermo
(62) 249' : achab ilium impiissimu de quo dicit drTs uidisti quo modo conpunctQ
est cor
(64) 201^: *et consumat te et quinquaginta tuos, uis autem audire de ouibus di
dicitur per
(68) 221'": contingantur aliam in eis qui edit cames sacrificii inmundus sit et
inmunditia
78 dp:scent of manuscripts
(75) 216'" : difficile esse ad intellectum illud enim quod edendum dicit ad pecca-
tum referri uidetur
(80) 206^^ : si ergo ipsius saluatoris uoce didicimus quia uerba quae loquutus est
apostolis sps et uite est.
Here there are two telescoped passages, viz. 56 and 59. The first
is not striking, since benedictiones might be taken as two words.
The second, however, in which vobis is divided at the beginning
and end of the line, is very remarkable. Also, the omitted passage
comes after the last line of the page. The same phenomenon is to
be observed on f. 201', where 64 letters are added : while on f. 355'
a passage of 60 letters is marked for insertion at the end of a line.
The explanation appears to be that the scribe copied his model
line by line, but that the number of lines in a page was not the same.
In order to make the point clear, I write out the passages as they
are given in the MS. (Z), merely inserting the line which has been
added by the second hand.
'^2^'S'^ 234^- :
lepus quo reducit rumigatione et ungulam non diuidit inmundu hoc uo (57)
[bis et erinacius quia reducit rumigationem et ungula et inmundCi hoc uo^ (59)
bis et sues et cetera
20i^ 202 ^ :
[et consumat te et quinquaginta tuos uis autem audire de ouibus di dicitur per] (64)
prophetam
In both cases the omitted passage is entered as an extra line after
the last line (1. 30) of the page. It is to be noticed that the first
lines of 202"" are written over an erasure.
255^ If we add the line inserted by the second hand, the passage
runs as follows :
de talibus ipsi enim sentire et uidere possunt quam sibi elegerint partem (62)
[tu ergo qui hec audis cui lex diuina recitatur quem ipsius etiam dl sermo] (60)
conuenit dicens sci stote quia ego scs su dns ds uester. Sapienter intellege (63)
The same explanation appears to apply to some other passages, viz.:
f. 221':
causas hie legislator exposuit unam ne carnes sacrificiorum aliqua inmun (63)
dicia eius in ipso sit tertiam quod et si carnes mund^ sint et ipse qui edit mun (64)
dus sit
The corrector adds contingantiir . . . et hwiundicia before eius.
This implies in the model :
causas hie legislator exposuit unam ne carnes sacrificiorum aliqua inmun (63)
dicia [contingantur, aliam in eis qui edit carnes sacrificii inmundus sit et inmun (68)
THE EVIDENCE OF MARGINALIA 79
dicia] eius in ipso sit, tertiam quod et si carnes mnndj sint et ipse qui edit mun (64)
dus sit
f. 249^ :
corn
gere uias suas cogitet et obliuisci praeterita et praeparare se ad futura saltim secun (73)
dnm achab sed in his omnib: quid de illis dicam qui nee audiunt auribus haec nee {6^)
The first line here is exceptionally long. The second hand adds
ac/iad . . . cor. This seems to imply :
gere uias suas eogitet et obliuisci praeterita et praeparare se ad futura saltim secun (,73)
dnm [achab ilium impiissimQ de quo dicit diiS uidisti quomodo compunctu est (62)
cor"', achab sed in his omnib: quid de illis dicam qui nee audiunt auribus haec nee (65)
It appears, therefore, that all the omissions between 59 and 68 are
to be explained in this way.
Those of 75 and 80 do not admit of such an explanation, since
they are preceded by lines of 62 and 6^ letters respectively. They
are, therefore, due to chance assisted by 6/x.
For the sake of completeness I now take the cases of 52-8 letters.
(52) 21 7^ The line before this contains 70 letters and the next
contains 64. It is highly improbable that one of 52 would come
between these.
(54) 276^ Here L gives (sine seusu) :
prophetico spti de bestiis loquitur, in tribulatione quidem et angustia. leo (63)
et catulus leonis inde diuitias suas ad gentem que non proderit eis (56)
L^ adds after inde the omitted passage :
et nati aspidum uolantium qui portabant super asinos et camelos. (54)
Here the words ef cattilns . . . cis form the last line of the page.
This line is obviously rather short. I should hesitate to ascribe to
the model another short line before it.
(56) 273^ L has :
benedictiones a do. Quj autem protulerit spinas et tribulos reproba est et male (66)
dicto proxima cuius finis ad exnstionem. Dictiones a do cum imbres bibcrit et (64)
fmctu produxerit sed neq: si spinas ac tribulos post pluuiam protulerit conse (67)
qnitur
L^ adds after cxjistioiietn the missing passage :
numquid hec apostolus de terra hac dixit sed nee accepit terra bene- (56)
Here there are various points to notice, viz. :
(i) The passage is telescoped ;
(2) It is not likely that a line of ^6 letters came among lines of
66, 64, 67 ;
8o DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
(3) The capital letter in Dictioties is a further corruption after the
omission of bene.
The conclusion appears to be that we have now got back to
a previous MS., in which the words were arranged thus :
benedictiones a do quae autem protulerit spinas et tri
bulos reproba est et maledicto proxima cuius finis ad exustionem (55)
numquid hec apostolus de terra hac dixit sed nee accepit terra bene (56)
dictiones a do cum imbres biberit et fructii produxerit
(58) 245"- L has :
animal aries est quod in ouibus sine dubio praetiosus est a populo nnus qui demit (67)
i
titur in heremum qui et pompeius nominator et unus quae dno offertur. Si esset (64)
The omitted passage, which is added by Z^ before a popido, is not
likely to have formed a line in the model between lines of 67 and 64.
It may, however, have formed a line in the previous MS.
L therefore seems to have been copied line for line from a model
with 60-70 letters to the line. Behind the model there is a previous
MS. with 50-60 letters to the line. The interesting point is that the
formation of L itself enables us to distinguish omissions made by
L from those previously made by the model.
Laud. Misc. 464, cent, ix (St. Denis).
Authpertus on the Apocalypse.
The writer Ambrosius Authpertus (or Authbertus) is said to have
died in a.d, 778. If so, the MS. appears to have been written within
a hundred years after the work was composed. It is written in an
Irish hand and once belonged to St. Denis. The only sign used to
mark omissions is •//. . There are two columns to the page.
Omissions.
uigore capitis sui
qd xps n resurrexit
tolle regnum peccato
carnis neq: et uoluntate
et patientia tua ministeriii
oculis uero carnis humanitate
*quid aute p hoc dictii insinuare
*aliud significet qua qd enarrare
♦etia quando patiendi tempus minime
(16)
71':
i86i-:
(18)
199^:
(21)
6F:
(24)
es"-:
(26)
n':
75':
(28)
r-^
(30)
180^:
THE EVIDENCE OF MARGINALIA 8i
(31) 164'' : *in hac uita mortali uisibilis p came
(32) Si"": ♦sed occisione illius uituli saginati
105^^: indicia legentib: dare ut intra ipsos
I22'': intellegitur aut ubi tilius et sps scs
(33) 15^': quod si amplexiis destitutae n abnueris
(34) 88^: qui nisi desup acceperit n habet quod det
(35' 5"^ • **-de psonas pleriiq: non ad se sed sibi inuice
71^: nolite condemnare et non condemnabimini
(42) iS"" : grando et carbones ignis p fulgore nubis transier'
(43* 55"^ • ipse enl dixit omnes qui pie uolunt uiuere in xpo ihii
(44) I'" : cum in hac sententia audiat non ee a clamore cessandu
(47) 70'' : alia uero uitf pagend^ et quide prgcepta uit§ figurande
(49) 32'': eade designatur ecclesia ct sicut in simili filio hominis
(57) 62'': candido annon ipsii caritatis uestimenti qd constat ex lapide
mundo
(66) 78^: et cora angelis ei' et qui me negauerit cora hominib; negabo et
ego corii patre meo
(69) 93^': in uera carne ueraciter p nob mortuum in uera carne ueraciter a
mortuis suscitatum
loi^: alas de se reddunt tamquii scilicet duodecim pinnata animalia in
uiginti quattuor
(71) 115^: sic eiusde operationis suma in istis septe excellentissimis munerib ;
psignabatur
(84) 190'': in fortitudine diuine uirtutis excreuit paulo attestante qui ait et s
crucifixus e ex infirmitate
(971 32'': ipsa inueniuntur candelabra, una itaq: e xpi ecclesi^q: psona qu§
et in septe candelabris et in simili filio hominis
(124) 46'^: regula tenere profitentur quanti pseudoapostoli inuenirentur,
tentarentur dico, de ea fide interrogarentur, occultus si quidem intra
sinum fidei
(168) 122"": quem dicunt homines esse filiii hominis et illi responderunt alii
iohanne baptista, alii autem heliii, alii uero hieroniam aut unii ex pro-
phetis, quinam illi essent quos talia interrogaret aperuit dicens.
Here the most striking case is the telescoped passage, 5^ The
model seems to have had :
idem iohannes eas
de psonas pleriiq: non ad se sed sibi inuice (35)
coUuquentes introducat
The scribe omitted 1. 2.
Next in significance to this are those passages where there is no
6hoi6ti]s. It is to be noticed that there are onlj' five of these, and
that all of tiiem are omissions of 26-32 letters.
The three omissions of 66—9 letters (two examples of 69) corre-
1«S3 Q
S2 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
spond to the omissions of 32-4 letters. The same unit appears in
97 and 124.
On the other hand 168 is in manifest relation to 84, corresponding
to which we have three examples of 42-4 and two examples of 20-4.
As usual, there is variety in the short passages, and it is impossible
to say whether such numbers as 26-8 represent short lines of the
model or long lines of a previous ancestor.
Laud. Misc. 132 (Eberbach).
5a Azignstine, Psalms, cent. ix/x.
This MS. (Z) is written in two columns with 39 lines to the page
and an average of about 32 letters to the line. The usual signs for
omissions are Ti and fut.
Omissions and Dittographies.
quantum sibi iunguntur
ii aute sit ipso locus dno
*ad barbam qui pertineant
si Sep flebunt ualde miseri
sed monemus ne mundu ametis
na et in turba est unus sed una cum bis scr.
immo laudandi xpni a xpo prohibeas
uident et audiunt oculi et aures et
nisi enim in te non fiat quod quaeris
tunc autem uidebimus facie ad faciem
ascendit ascensiones inquit in corde bis scr.
auxiliu eni nfm a dno q^ fecit celu et terra
quis unus homo diffusus est usque ad fines terrae
unde abundant nam nisi abundarent supbi n essent
et moto pede cecidit et de angelo factus e diabolus
sed nondu e ille castus pmanens in saeculu saeculi
in OS intrat aliquid quid uoluit dfis dicere non quod
numquid illi qui uoluerunt facere speluca latronum
de torrente inquit in uia bibit propterea exaltauit caput
sicut dicit apostolus et pax xpi quae pcellit omne intellectum
ceciderunt illi de quib: psiiserunt et inuoluerunt eos qui de se
praesumserunt
quid est sup numeru. non solu illi qui crediderunt qui ptinent ad
numerij scorQ sed et sup numerii
sed nondij e ille castus pmanens in saeculu saeculi in quo e castus.
ia iterij aliquid interrogo quod uosmet ipsos interrogetis (w. 2 in ras.)
(20)
49':
63>-:
(21)
73':
(23)
5'
ir:
(27)
71':
(28)
2^:
(29)
ir-
(30)
63^-:
(31)
22^ ;
(32)
4^:
(34)
6^-:
(41)
i8i-
22»";
(42)
61-:
44':
(43)
34'
(44)
56'
(49)
25V
(53)
64'
(66)
68^
(78)
P'
47^'
Til
(104)
111
44'
THE EVIDENCE OF MARGINALIA 83
The omission of 78 letters requires some comment. The first
hand wrote :
intrarunt multi iusti sed plures iniqui et ptulerunt iustum quos quando
in ecclesia. numquid
These words also contain 78 letters.
He then struck out what he had written and rewrote the whole
passage (78 + 78 = 156).
The three largest numbers therefore are : 78, 104, 156.
Here 78 + 26= 104 and 104 + 52 = 156. The same unit, 26,
appears in all three cases. It is to be noticed that there is an
omission of 53 letters, also three cases of 27—9. We have, there-
fore, the following sequence : 27-9, ^^, 78, 104, 156.
There is also evidence for two other units, viz. :
(i) There is a notable bulge in the curve at 41-4 (six examples),
with which we may connect 20-3 (five examples) ;
(2) The dittography of 32 letters on f. 4"^ is very significant. It
is not a case of simple repetition, but comes after the intervening
words :
si ergo ascendit in corde non ascendit (32)
This indicates in a previous MS. :
ascendit ascensiones inquit in corde (32)
si ergo ascendit in corde non ascendit (32)
The omission of 66 letters (68^) may be explained as three lines of
22, or more probably two lines of ^^.
There is, therefore, evidence for three units in the figures, viz.
20-3, 26, 32. It is to be observed that in L itself the average
number of letters to a line is 32. We may, therefore, with confi-
dence ascribe the unit 32 to the model.
Laud. Misc. 124, cent, ix (Wiirzburg;.
Augustine on St. John.
Omissions.
(22) 6': nunc qd sequitur uideamus
(25) 66'' : querentibus respondentibus
88^: seruabat quos in nomine filii
99"^ : quando pala fuerat locuturus
(26) 119'': et eu plus a quo minus diligitur
G 2
(27)
221'
(29)
88^
(30)
6^
96^
lii^"
(31)
5"
(32)
48'
(33)
13^
6F
(34)
20^
43^
(35)
20i"
(36)
17^
95^
117^
{^7)
91V
(4o)
33"
(45)
1041- :
(66)
9-
84 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
abiit cu pfecto nos ipsos pparet
intellegimus homine in eo qd rogat
sed angelo^. et dns non tantu ipsorum
notum faciam sine fine regnantibus
qd fuerat ablatus de monumento quani
quid est ego dormio et cor meu uigilat
nondum in satietate et ipso desiderio
quam mercedem significam redemptoris
et tamqua ipsa sit iustitia n uidere xpm
sed in domo patris mansiones multae sunt
nemo autem potest desperare qui diligit
sapientior alius alio iustior alius alio
quia ex isto uetere induit nos homine nouum
qd ibi iam esset de nobis autem uelle se dixt
uel adquirendi cupiditate non oboediendi
quia unius substantiae nos et ipsi non sumus
exaudiuit de dilectione atque manifestatione
id est ut iudicio ac potestate psidis crucifigeretur
qui accipit si que misero accipit. tantQ et filius distat a patre,
quauis dixerit
(121) 106"^: et tamen si uoluntates si insidias si operam si traditione postremo
si extorquentes clamores eorum cogitemus magis utiq: iudei cruci-
fixer iKm
(126) 103'": in mentem illi uenisse continue consuetudine rudeorii qua solet eis
dimitti unii in pascha et ideo non expectauit ut responderet ei ilT§ quid
est ueritas
(160) 72'^ : et sps scs de patrepcedit, pater autem nee natus est de alio nee proce-
dit nee ideo sane aliqua disparilitas in summa ilia trinitate cogitationi
occurrat humanae, nam et filius ei de quo natus est
The last case requires some explanation. The first hand (Z ^)
inserts the words out of place, viz. after sine initio, instead of before
et sfs scs ei. They must have been in the margin of the model, i.e.
they were omitted by a previous MS. I write out the passage as
given by Z ^ :
et sps scs ei de quo pcedit aequalis est, quid aute illic intersit inter procedere
et nasci, et longum est quaerendo disserere et temerariia cu disserueris definire
quia hoc et mentis utciiq: comprehendere et si quid forte mens inde conpre-
henderit linguf difficillimii est explicare, quantuslibet psit doctor, quantulibet
adsit auditor, non ergo loquetur a semet ipso quia non est a semet ipso, sed
quaecumque audiet loquetur ab illo audiet a quo pcedit. audire illi scire est. scire
uero esse, sicut superius disputatum est. quia ergo n est a semet ipso, sed ab illo a quo
pcedit. a quo illi est essentia, ab illo est scientia ab illo igitur audientia. quod nihil
est aliud qua scientia, nee moueat quod uerburn futurum temporis positij est. non
THE EVIDENCE OF MARGINALIA 85
cnim dictu est quaecuq: audiuit aut quaeciiq: audit sed qu^cuq: audiet et loquetur
ilia quippc audientia sempit'na est quia sempiterna scientia. in eo aute qd
sepitemu est sine initio [et sps scs de patre pcedit, pater autem nee natus est de
alio nee pcedit nee ideo sane aliqua disparilitas in summa ilia trinitate cogitationi
occurrat humanae nam et filius ei de quo natus est] et sine fine.
The intermediate passage ct sfs scs ci . . . sine initio should
represent lines of the model. It consists of 751 letters.
The omissions of 66, 121, 126 furnish an obvious sequence. Also,
there are nine cases of 30-34. Here, therefore, there is clearly
a unit. As this is about the average length of a line in Z,, it
appears that the model was very similar to Z. It is interesting to
observe the relation of 126 to 751 (126x6 = 756). L^ seems to
have inserted the marginal supplement twenty-four lines further on,
probably on the next page.
It is tempting to connect the omission of 160 letters by a pre-
vious MS. with those of 40 and 45, but the evidence is too slight to
justify a conclusion.
Laud. Misc. 427, cent, ix (Lorsch).
Homilies {Pseudo-Bede).
The ordinary sign for omissions is Ti, not fit, the sign specially
affected by Lorsch scribes.
Omissions.
*sed pmanens aeterna puenire digni effieiamu
♦qua tamen iustitia dii humanu careret genus misit ds
et spiritui qui loquebat' in eo quia armis iustitiae
nouerimus no eos magnitudine uirtutis suae posset
♦eece nune tepus acceptabile, eeee nune dies salutis
inter cetera hortatur dieens, sunt deniq: mulieres
diTo do nfo ihu xpo et tales nos bonis optribus exibeamus
et diuinae cosors factus nature caue in uetere malitia
totum bonu habet quia ds ipse est caritas quern qui habet
»ne fidueia habeamus et splendore terrestriii aedifieiorum
iustitia in peetore renis et cordis inuocat dm ut ipse reddat
sint diuersa passuri tormenta ita et iusti p qualitate meritorum
p baptismij ergo peccata omnia dimittuntur et regni caelestis aditus
aperitur
(68) 54'' : hodie crux fi.\a est et demones dispsi sunt, hodie crux fixa est et
mors subuersa est
(38)
4':
(43)
r-
Z^:
24^:
25':
37':
(46)
44':
8^:
19':
(50)
36':
(51)
sr:
(55)
132'":
(66)
r-
86 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
(78) S2^ : uerum corpus hominis et uera demonstrat anima in ipso qui sciebat
humana ferre infirmitatem
(107) 38^^: et seruit cii filiis suis slue in lege litterae siue etiam in camali
opera in ecclesia commorantes ilia aiit quae sursu e hierusale
(117) 78"^: manifesta enim praedicatio est unius deitatis uniusque substantiae
patris et filii et sps sci qui sua potestate diis ds singulis quibus qua i>is
scr.
(132) 2'^: xps XII misit aplos inter numerositate omniu gentiQ euangelizare
regnu di ut de illis psalmista ait, in omni t'ra exiit sonus eoru et in fines
orb te"^" uerba eorum
The dittography of 117 letters does not take place immediately,
but after an interval of 20 lines. It is due to 6/x., viz. the recurrence
of the words operattir untis atq: idem sps.
I transcribe the passage as given in the MS. {L):
dicendo enim semp idem om
nia se dicere de spii sco declarat. haec autem omnia ope
ratur unus atq: idem sps. manifesta enim praedicatio est
unius deitatis uniusque substantiae patris et filii et sps scT
5 qui sua potestate diis ds singulis quibus qua pro ut uult gra
tiarum dona largitur unicuique autem datur manifes
tatio sps ad utilitatem, ut appareat ilium spni sclh ac
cepisse, ut increduli credant et credentes firmentur
alii aute datur p spm, sermo sapientiae. sapientiae ser
10 mo est sapienter et aperte et rationabiliter loqui et pos
se disserere uel docere qu§ nouerit. sane qui ex dono
habet sapientia sine suo conatu loquitur et labore et ne
mo illi potest resistere. sequitur. alii autem sermo sci
entiae, secundum eundem spm, ut sciat legis mysteria
15 explanare et de praeteritis etiam futura cognoscere.
alteri fides, in eodem spu, quia alii ueraciter atque
perspicatior intellectus datur ad fidem. alii gra
tia sanitatum in uno spu, per ipsum datur spni scm
ut curare possit aegrotos, alii prophetatio, ut futura
20 praedicat, alii discretio spirituum, ut qualis quis spu
ueniat uel loquatur intellegat, alii genera linguarum
ut multis ac diuersis Unguis ualeat loqui, alii interpretatio
sermonum, ut quod alii diuersis locuuntur {ex loquuntur) Unguis
is per donum scT sps poterit interpretari aliis ad notitiam
25 haec autem omnia operatur unus atque idem sps. manifesta
enim praedicatjo est unius deitatis uniusque substantiae patris
et filii et sps sci qui sua potestate dns ds singulis quibus qua
The block of text, 11. "^-2^ manifesta enim . . . nnns atqjie idem
sfs, consists of 1,019 letters.
THE EVIDENCE OF MARGINALIA 87
I have only noticed seventeen omissions in this MS. (L). Among
these there are five cases of 43 and three of 46 letters. We have
therefore eight cases of 43-6. This is an unusually high proportion,
and this unit is beyond question. The average number of letters in
a line of L is about 45. It appears, therefore, that it was preceded
by a model very similar to itself.
The other omissions are also interesting. They exhibit two
clearly-marked sequences, viz. :
50, 51, 55, 107
66, 68, 131.
The first of these shows a unit which differs but little from that
previously observed, and probably means nothing except that the
scribe contracted his hand, or was succeeded b)' a new writer. It
is to be noticed that 1019, the block of text before the dittography
vianifesta . . . qua, seems to take its place in this series.
The second sequence cannot be explained in this way. As there
is no evidence for a unit of 33-4, it is possible that the model was
preceded by a MS. written in longer lines than itself.
Laud. Misc. 256, cent, ix (Wurzburg).
jferoine on Minor PropJicts.
This MS. is of considerable interest from a palaeographical point
of view. The first part (ff". 1-54) is written by an Irish scribe, then
comes a German hand, and after this ordinary Caroline script.
Various arbitrary signs are used for omissions in addition to fi. On
f. 103'', where a long passage has been omitted, there is a note:
hue usq: errauit scriptor, dehttc sequittir expositio prophetalis ordinem suunu
Omissions.
(17) 46^^: pro peccato anim§ m?
(18) 6^^: et non solu nascenlur
(19) 113^: iudam conculcauerint
144'' : omnis eius solemnitas
(201 2^^ : Czechia in patris achaz
68'': iilciscens dns cij furore
(24) 72*^: quinta a consurgentib: illi
88 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
133^ : regia et alter iesus de tribu
148^ : cu mitteretis incipselen. XX
(33) 25^ : di sed iudices et sacerdotes et pphetas
(34) 25"^ : *et cum dicatur ad scbs gratis accepistis
(35) 12^: siro quo LXX transtulerunt in ^clesia dm
(37) 18'': corrupti estis ut sit ordo ppter immundicia
81"^: *et lenis nidos et catulos LXX transtulerunt
(40) 12^" : et de conditione humana posse accipi ut dl ad ada
{41) 24'" : ibi non erit et ubi iactatis uaticinium pphetale
(42) 20^^ : quam in ueteri testamento ubicunq: sine augmento
136^': quo paup e et in ipso habet spe sed et hoc eis accidit
(43) 41'^ : nemo potest resistere in iumentis et catulo leonis
143'': scripturarii de quibus dicitur eloquia diii eloquia
(45) 5^' et fundamenta eius reuelabo et omnia sculptilia eius
(48) 59'^ : *in hominib: et de mari usq: ad mare et de monte usq: ad monte
(57) 45^ : et quanta uobis bona fecerim et mea in uos misericordiii cogno-
scetis
(63) IV '• pater mundat ut fructii magis adferat quod aut in me manet et
fructij n adferat.
(64) 4^' : **-relinquat eos na et de aptis egrediebatur sermo dm ad audientes
et tamen non
(69) 11"^: iterum secQdu littera ut uel x trib. accipiamus in samaria uel in
commune omne isrl
116'": si ergo hieriisolima in qua crucifixus est uocatur spiritaliter so-
doma et egyptus
(83) 32"^ : *ita et discipulis suis donat ut ipsi quoque lumen uocentur mundi
dicitque ad eos, uos estis lux mundi
(87) 1091' : facta est cum festinatione et non solum illius sed cunctis terrae
iudae habitatoribus in consumatione
(332) 102'^ : *et sensus et ipsam anima quae debet ee hospitiG regis et iuxta
superiorem expositione indumenta quoq: aliena et omnia quae secuntur
referamus ad unum quemque credentium, qui cum debuerant induti
esse xpo et semp uersari intrinsecus uariis se peccatorum operuerunt
uestimentis et egressi de ecclesia, id est congregatione scoij. pro uirtutib:
inpleuerunt templum corporis sui iniquitate et dolo
This long omission coincides with a change of hand at the end of
a quaternion. The new writer seems to have begun at the wrong
place. It is here that the marginal note quoted above occurs. The
omission has been repaired by two supplements, viz. ei sensus . . .
uariis se (203) at the foot of 102^, and peccatorum . . . et dolo (139)
at the top of 103^
Here the first point which meets the eye is the manifest relation
of the largest figures, 83, 87, '^'^'2, (83 x 4 = '^'^1). In the descending
THE EVIDENCE OF MARGINALIA
89
scale we have 63-9 four cases, including two of 69, and eight cases
of 40-7. The omissions of 20-4 are only five in number, but it
is noticeable that there are three cases of 24.
I must add that the examples of 63-9 admit of a rival explana-
tion, viz. that they are multiples of another unit shown by the five
omissions of 33-7.
I have marked 4' as a telescoped passage,
lines it would run :
de
relinquat eos na et de aplis
egrediebatur sermo dni
ad audientes et tamen non
relinquebat eos
The MS. has derclinquebat eos med. om.
If arranged in three
(23'
(20)
(21)
Laud. Misc. 417 (Lorsch), ctnt. x.
Jerome on Jeremiah.
The usual sign for omissions in this MS., as in others connected
with Lorsch, is fit.
Omissions and dittographies.
et ipsius sed nee hoc habetur bis scr.
hoc est nebeim, LXX pseudopphetas
pulchraeq: posuit consolata sunt
♦dereliqui hereditate mefi, reliquit aute
siue tempestas egreditur a siimmitatibus
immolarent et omnis prauf superstitionis
ds pater est, fecit autem in fortitudine sua
non exaudiam preces eonim et si obtulerint
et iterum haec dicit dfTs sup domu regis iuda
et populo eius et uiuetis, quare moriemini, tu
quod si dixisset, poterat et pseudopropheta
in gladio filii eorum et filiae eorum inorientur
siue docuerunt enim linguam suam loqui mendacium
et delet§ sunt q^ non habent habitatorem diii dicente
siue quia faciam a facie malitiae filiae populi mei
hoc diis loquitur non propheta qd uisitet sup semeiam
*et hue illucque circumspice et ui le ubi non fomicatione
oblitus est mei, sequitur enim, quia oblitus est mei populus meus
•fuit qui ioas post interfectionem gotholiae imperiu tradidit
(24)
133'
(28)
135'
(29)
5^
(34)
I26''
(35)
125'
(36)
40'
52'
70'
103^
(37)
134'
136^
(40)
58-
(42)
46^
(43)
9'
46-
(44)
144'
(48)
15'-
(53)
88'
144'-
90 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
(60) 136^ : babilone, hie aute e contrario etiam ea qu^ translata fuerant re-
ferenda
(67) 64^: et dicent ad te, numquid ignoramus quod omnis laguncula siue
uter impleatur uino
(72) 54' : referamus tempora quado tabernacula diii subuertuntur et omnis
habitatio ecclesiae
(90) 69'' : et onagri steterunt in rupibus, traxerunt uentum quasi dracones,
defecerunt oculi eorum quia non erat herba bis scr.
(157) 32'': pressius hoc legendum est iuxta hebraicum et cum inquit tanta
fecerint, numquid confusi sunt? numquid erubuerunt in scelerib: suis>
quin potius auxere contemptu et erubescere nescierunt.
To these may be added the following corruptions :
22"^ : in praesenterntiarum quid significet ignoro et aquila autem
This indicates :
in praesen
tiarum quid significet ignoro et aquila au (36)
tern
ig'" : si abstuleris quando ergo oftendicula tua a facie mea non commo-
ueberis. quando ergo mouemur
This indicates :
si abstuleris
offendicula tua a facie mea non commoueberis (38)
quando ergo mouemur
sum
140^: promiserat sed hortatur eos ad preces ut quod promiserat
This indicates :
pro
miserat sed hortatur eos ad preces ut quod pro (38)
missum
140': in ezechiel ppheta testatur scribens contra eos quib: hieremias
quoq: pr^cepit non credendum necdQ autem eo tempore quo haec
epistula dirigebatur hiezeciel propheta
Here the words ppheta testatur . . . hiezeciel — 1 24 letters.
The most striking point in these figures is that 36 occurs four
times. For 34-7 there are eight examples. We have also one of 72.
Here clearly is one unit.
Also, there are six cases of 40-8, including two cases of 43.
One case, 15' (48), may be mentioned since there is no 6/x. and the
omission destroys the sense. A previous MS., probably the imme-
diate ancestpr, seems to have had :
THE EVIDENXE OF MARGINy\LIA 91
leua oculos tuos o hienisalem
et hue illucque circumspice et uide ubi non fornicatione (48)
prostrata sis
Corresponding to 40-8, we have 90 (i.e. 45 x 2). The longest
omission, 157, may be connected with the two omissions of 53 letters.
It would seem likely that the lines of the model varied in length.
Laud. Misc. 433, cent, ix (Lorsch).
Taios excerpts from Gregory.
This MS. is written in two columns. Omissions are sometimes
rectified by the usual symbols, Jit, fnt^ but some passages have been
rewritten. It is clear that the model closely resembled it in forma-
tion. This is shown by various corruptions in the MS. {L), e. g. :
(20) 163'' : stultam sapientiam deserant
em
et sapientiam dl stultitiam
This indicates in the model :
stultam sapien
tiam deserant et sapien (20)
tern di stultitiam
(21) 64'': archano
est iudaico cordis infixus
iudaico
ex populo uel gentili
archano est
cordis infixus ex populo (21)
iudaico uel gentili
(43) cS"": uocarentur
quia p uitae meritum ad caelestia
uerunt
propinquarentur
uoca
rentur quia p uitae meri (20)
turn ad caelestia propinqua (23)
uerunt
The writer looked back to 1. 2 {-rentur).
(71) 54'': eamque
fideliter inherendo circum (24)
dant. tot nunc quasi uestibus (24)
sea aeclesia induitur. Quot (23)
V
fideliter
9a DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
So L. The order in the model may have been the same.
(93) 7 1'" ' necesse est
igitur ut qui ad officium p
dicationis studio non recedunt
uectes esse
ad hoc namque necesse in circu
lis arc§ semper iubentur
The second hand adds M excubant a sacre lectionis^ to be inserted
before studio,
.'. necesse est igitur ut qui ad (23)
officium pdicationis excu (23)
bant a sacre lectionis studio (25)
non recedant ad hoc namque (22)
uectes esse
The scribe responsible for most of L writes in a neat hand. After
153'' his work is shared by a new writer, who uses a larger and more
clumsy script. On two occasions the change of scribe led to the
loss of a line, viz. :
f- 155 (Migne 76, § 123):
quia dum caro in delectatione rapitur etiam sua rectitudine spiritus in-
firmatus inclinatur. Requisitus Adam confiteri culpam noluit.
Here 155^ col. 2, ends with :
quia dia caro in delectatione
rapitur etiii sua rectitudi
A new hand begins on the verso :
requisitus adam confiteri
culpam noluit.
Thus omitting a line :
-ne sps infirmatus inclinatur (25)
This is added at the foot of 155"", but without -ne.
f. 159^ The clumsy writer ends in col. i, 1. 20, with :
pondus habent ad quod
The neater hand goes on-wWh pe7isant proximo ad dandum, omitting
an intermediate Mn^ pensant sibi aliiid ad guod^ which is added by
a corrector. The model seems to have had :
pondus habent ad quod (18)
pensant sibi aliud ad quod (22)
pensant proximo ad dandum (22)
THE EVIDENCE OF MARGINALIA
93
The appearance of the passages written in the rougher hand
indicates that the writer was reproducing closely the formation of
the model. Thus f. 154', col. i, is spaced out in a curious manner,
and on several occasions an extra half- line is added at the end of
a page.
I now tabulate the omissions of in. i.
(16)
25^
(17)
71"
171^
(18)
24^
72r
75'
132-
(19)
US'-
121^
(20)
36-
48V
56-
(21)
!!'•
74'-
(22)
93"
95'
159'
(23)
29^
7V
71"
163'-
(24)
86^
(25)
42'-
155""
(27)
119^'
(29)
49^
(31)
54'
(34)
44'
134'
IBS'-
(39)
152-
(40)
84-
(61)
53'
(94)
id est transiluru e
♦speciosum appareat
*si terrore di ad nitem
*dT et hominu remoueri
namq: et hoc quaestio
officiiint quod aliis
simul et reuelatione
quatenus os discretum
quid per culpa fecimus
cernimus clausis nihil
dicitur quando amplius
scriptum e qui producit
alteri fides in eodem spu
amore se nesciunt libere
ex parte constructa sit et
pueritia ad adulescentia.
pensant sibi aliud ad quod
gignitur et p amore proximi
excubant a sacre lectionis
omni poscenti uos rationem
♦huius sCTi quia multimodis
*nuUius uos esse monstratis
uenit reus fratemo sanguine
**-ne sps infirmatus inclinatur
conuenit sed adhuc se perfecte
loquuntur magnis ut tarn in quib;da
dicitur sic indurhtum sunt ecclesiae
iusti requiescerent et in inferioribus
iam se obtinuisse c; concupierat exultat
iniquitas namq: in funiculis uanitatis
et quasi gubernator amisso claui in medio mari
pietatis gratia benigni iustitiae seueritate
quod erat in maxillas populorO canticum erit uobis frenii quippe
erroris
71^: quorum uidelicet terror ac tremor quia esse sup animalia terrae
pcipitur profecto esse sup homines prohibetur
94 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
With these omissions should be combined the corruptions before
mentioned. The corruption on 71^', after an interval of 93 letters,
is interesting in connexion with the omission of 94, especially as it
occurs on the same folio. Also on this folio (71') we have an
omission of 23 letters. We are therefore entitled to explain 93-4
as 23x4 (=92). The general phenomena here are such as we
should expect when the columns in the model were of unequal
length, as is also the case in L.
I now draw attention to a passage on lo*' :
ds iacob. Unde paulus apostolus nolens
nuncupatimim dl nomen ab essentia
li discernere ait quorum patres
et ex quibus xps secundum came
qui est sup omnia ds benedictus in se
cula. Nuncupatiuus autem ds inter
omnia, essentialis au ds sup omnia
Paulus apostolus ut ostenderet xpm
naturaliter dm non hunc dm tantu mo
do sed dm sup omnia memorauit quia
et iustus quilibet ds e sed int omia quia nun
cupatiue ds xps autem ds est
All the passage after ds iacob is written in a contracted hand, and
occupies 12 lines instead of nine. There is, however, no erasure,
and the verso begins :
super omnia quia naturaliter ds
The inference is that the exemplar had in the margin a passage
previously omitted, and that the scribe wished to incorporate it,
while beginning the verso with super omnia.
If so, the error must be due to the repetition of super omnia.
Probably the model had in the margin :
sup omnia memorauit quia et iustus quilibet ds e sed int omia quia
nuncupative ds xps autem ds est (80)
In another passage, f. 171'", a passage of some length is written
upon an erasure, and it overflows into five long lines at the foot of
the page. There are three consecutive passages which begin with
Omnis hypocrita, and the natural inference is that the scribe passed
from one to another of them and then rewrote the whole. These
passages are :
THE EVIDENCE OF MARGINALIA 95
(161) omnis hypocrita cum iniquus sit dici scs ab hominib; non ptimescit,
etiam si iniquu se tacita cogitatione rephendit. Tam du sepius scm
audire se coeperit hoc qd de se intrinsecus tenebat amittit
(185) omnis hypocrita dii cor exterius fundit. quia libent foris falsum de se
testimoniu reddit, quale se intus habeat non requirit, unde fit ut uacue
laudis foiTita etiam cum defuerint quaerat et oblitus qd est appetit uideri
qd n est
(391) cm hypocritae du iustos se ante humana indicia simulant ad actiones s|
laudib; dignas intuentiii oculis ostendunt. occulta di iustitia agitur ut
quo nituntur foras alios fallere, eo de se intus etiam ipsi falluntur. quib:
bene p ppheta dicitur, Redite puaricatores ad cor. si enim ad cor re-
dirent, p exteriores attestationes se uerba n funderent. laus psentis sell
iustos cruciat, simulatores exaltat, sed iustos dii cruciat purgat, simula-
tores du laetincat repbos monstrat
These larger figures seem to reveal behind the model a previous
MS. of similar formation. We have to notice the relation between
80, 161, 391 (80 X 5 = 400). Also, if we subtract 161 from i 85, the
result is 24.
Brit. Mus., Egerton 2831, cent, viii ix {Old French).
Jerome on Isaiah.
The MS. is written in two columns, except in one quaternion (fif.
56-63), which is in long lines, though written by the same scribe.
Oviissions.
*q: de D expcrierat reperiuntur
dni et quasi diadema regni in manu
sabbatu ne polluat illud custodiens
tuine despicies domesticos seminis
*per patriarchas moysen et pfetas sed
cum uideretis ait signii filii hominis quod
49'' : *translationem ueteris instrument! Dcussa
*et uita est et scs precatur non ueniet mihi pes
de quibus aedificat xps aeclesiam super terram
ut aperiat intellegentiam illius, idcirco enim uallis achor
*de qua et paulus apostolus loquebatur, induite uos armatur.l di
et gloriam quam accipit is per cuius opera ds glorificatur in gentibu.s
comeduntet rursuquaretacuistisimpietateet iniquitatiseiusfrumetu
102'': id est gregis dm sm autem hie angelum debemus intcllegere qui
ductor fuit.
(26)
50"-:
(28)
93"
(31)
43'":
63^
101'
(36)
42^
(37)
49'
(38)
107^
(40)
3.r
(51)
117'
(52)
ig^
(59)
29'"
(62)
60'
96 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
To these must be added the following dittography :
(159) 73^ '• propterea recessit iudiciu ab eis et non adprehendit eos iustitia.
Cum expectarent lucem factae sunt eis tenebrae praestulantes earn in
tenebris ambulabunt, palpabunt quasi caeci parietem.
This passage, which occurs shortly before, is repeated before
propheta in the s,e.x\\.encQ, mirorgue ctir LXX quasi propheta. The
dittography is due to q[i. {propterea and propJieta).
The striking feature in these figures is the relation of 31 (three
cases) to 62 (two cases). It cannot be doubted that 31 represents
a line in an ancestor.
The examples of 51 and 52 are also highly suggestive in view of
those of 26 and 28.
Also the four cases of 36-9, two of which cannot be explained by
6//., are very significant. It is to be noticed that after 39 the next
figure is 51.
The probability, therefore, is that here there are three units,
representing lines in three previous MSS., viz. 26, 31, 36-9.
The dittography may be explained as 31x5=155, or 26x6 =
156. Since 31 is the predominant unit, the first explanation is more
probable.
The singular point is that the lines in the MS. are shorter than
any of these figures, the average in those which I glanced at being
22-4 letters. This is contrary to the usual result of such an analysis.
We generally find evidence of shorter lines in previous MSS. The
sohition appears to be provided by ff. 56-63, where long lines are
used. Apparently the scribe was working with a model written in
long lines, which he put into two columns, except in the eighth
quaternion. Behind the model there were previous ancestors in
long lines. (Cf. p. 341.)
Breslau R. 169, cent, vii/viii (Uncial).
Gospels {Old Latin).
My knowledge of this MS., generally known as cod. Rehdigeranus,
is derived from the transcript published by H. J. Vogels, with an
excellent introduction (Namur, 1913). It now consists of 296 folios,
but originally contained at least 45 quaternions. The MS. {R) is
written in two columns, with 20 lines to the page arranged in para-
graphs. Vogels says : ^ Die Zahl der 07 if die Zeile entfallenden
Buchstaben ist wegen der sticJiischen Schreibnng sehr verschieden
THE EVIDENCE OF MARGINALIA 97
iind sc/nuankt zwiscJien 3 und 17.' The contents of sonic columns
which I had occasion to count are :
f. 15, col. 2 = 240.
f. 183, col. 2 = 23S.
f. 207'', col. I = 243.
col. 2 = 257.
f. 268, col. I = 255.
It will be seen, therefore, that in spite of irregularities the contents
of the columns are fairly uniform and yield an average of about 13
letters to a line.
The special interest of R lies in the fact that it is an exact copy
of its model, line by line and page by page. Vogels points out
various proofs of this. The most striking fact is that on f. 308' the
scribe originally repeated what he had written on 207'', dividing the
lines exactly as before. Haase says : ' invent antea per crrorem
totam paginam versi folii 207 servatis lineis eisdem scriptam iterum
fitisse.' The scribe then rubbed out what he had written and
substituted the correct passage.
On one occasion, f. 183', the first line of col. 2 was left vacant,
apparently by accident. The result is that the lines become longer
at the end of the page, so that the next page may begin at the
proper place.
There are also indications which show that sometimes at least
the scribe worked simultaneously on both columns, instead of first
completing one column. Thus on one occasion, f. 70^ he began too
high up in both columns and then erased what he had written,
rewriting it lower down. Other evidence is given by the colour of
the ink. Thus f. 238^, lines 1-9 in col. i and i-io in col. 2 are in
ordinary ink, but the rest of both columns is written in unusually
dark ink. So on f. 194'' the scribe wrote lines i-io in col. i and
1-13 in col. 2 with the same pen, while the rest of both columns is
written with a fresh one.
It is, therefore, clear that the line divisions in R were also found
in the model. We can, therefore, check all the blunders of the
writer. I give one example :
f. 26 : nunc regnum
caelorum
For caelornm the scribe originally wrote caeluc, his eye having been
caught by mnic in the previous line.
16S3 II
98 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
This method of copying both columns together was well calculated
to prevent omissions, but these occurred from time to time. On
such occasions the practice of the scribe was to erase what he had
written and to rewrite the whole passage. Thus on f. 193 seven
lines are rewritten because the words propter me had been omitted.
Haase says : * maluit librarius tot lineas delere et iterum scribere
quam duas voces omissas vel in margine vel inter lineas adicere.'
Other examples are :
(10) f. 131 : timebant enim
eum quoniam
uniuersa turba
admirabatur.
The scribe omitted 1. 1 and then rewrote 11. 3-4.
f. 1 78 : omnis iudea et
hierusalem
et maritima
et trans fretum et
5 tyri et sidonis
The scribe omitted 1. 3 and then rewrote 11. 3-5.
(13) f. 162 : inluminare his
qui in tenebris
et umbra mor
tis sedent ad di
5 rigendos pedes
The scribe omitted 1. 2 and then rewrote 11. 2-5.
(33) f. 219: minimo et in maiore fidelis est et qui in om. R^.
The most interesting error is f. 268 (John vi. 24) :
Voluerunt ergo ubi manducaue
accipere eum in runt panem
naui et statim quern benedi
fuit nauis ad ter xerat dns
5 ram in qua ibant 5 altera die turba
altera die turba qttae stabat trans
quae stabat trans
mare uiderunt
quoniam naui
10 cula alia non
erat ibi nisi una
THE EVIDENCE OF MARGINALIA 99
et quia non fue
rat simul cum
discipulis siiis
15 ihs in nauem
sed soli discipu
li eius alius uero
superuenerunt
naues a teberia
20 de iuxta locQ
Here the writer has glanced back from col. 3, I. 5, to col. i, 1. 6.
He then struck out the passage repeated by error and rewrote
correctly.
R appears to have inherited certain errors from its model, e. g. :
f. 2, uidens auttm is written twice, both at the end of col. i and
at the top of col. 2. I assign this error to a predecessor, since the
passage is not rewritten, as is the case when a blunder has been
made by R^.
f. jy (Matt. XXV. 35) : hospes eram et
collegistis me
infirmus et 11 i
sitastis me
5 in carcere et ue
nistis ad me
Tunc responde
bunt ei iusti
dicentes
10 dne quando te
uidimus esurie
tem et pauimus
sitientem et de
dimus tibi potu
15 niidus et ope
rujstis me
So R^ '. lines 15-16 are here out of place. They should come
after 1. 2, where they are added by a corrector.
Also, the second hand has supplied a considerable number of
omissions. These cannot represent errors of R^, since, if so, the
pagination o{ R would have differed from that of the model. They
are, therefore, passages omitted by an ancestor and supplied by R^
from another MS.
H 2
loo DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
They vary in character. Sometimes the sense is spoilt by the
omission, e.g. :
f. 248 (Luke xxiv. 21) : et nunc tertia
dies est hodie
quod haec omnia
mulieres quaedam
5 ex nostris ter
ruerunt nos
So R^ : m. 2 supplies facta sunt sed et after 1. 3.
The majority, however, are passages which are self-contained, e.g. :
f. 280 (John ix. 37) : qui
tecum loquitur
ipse est et pro
cedens adorauit
5 eum
So R^ : m. 2 supplies at ille ait, credo, due after est in 1. 3.
A striking example is :
f. 241 (Luke xxii. 62) : et egressus foras petrus fleuit amare.
These omissions of self-contained clauses are important in view
of an objection raised to my analysis of variants in the Gospels,
viz. that scribes would not be likely to omit complete nOtka}
I would draw particular attention to
f. aoo (Luke x. 38). Here R'^ gives :
et mulier quaeda
martha nomine
et maria quae
etiam sedens
secus pedes dm
Here et in 1. 3 is a conjecture, introduced after the omission of
excepit ilium in domu sua et huic erat soror nomine {add. ni. 2)
after 1. 2, in order to distinguish Mary from Martha. It is struck
out by m. 2.
I now give a complete list of these omissions, marking with a cross
those which form separate clauses :
(10) f. 61 : et abierunt
(11) f. 168 : qui fuit maat
f. 284 : duob: diebus
(12) f. 169: qui fuit melea
X 280 : et dixit ei itTS
^ Jojtntal of Theological Studies xvi (1915), p. 233.
THE EVIDENCE OF MARGINALIA
lOI
(14) f. 248
f. 284
(16) f. 169
(17) f. 85
f. 251
f. 280
(19) f. 277
f. 282
(26) f. 1 68
(28) f. 270
(30) f. 272
(32) f' 241
(33) f. 274
(41) f. 200
(43) f- 265
(45) f- 223
(46) f. 212
(48) f. 276
(52) f. 293
(57) f. 269
* facta sunt sed et
discipulis suis
qui fuit zorobabel. {/^'^ gives zorabababel. If so, = 18)
et farisei ad pilatu
quid dicis de te ipso
+ at ille ait credo dne
opera eius qui misit me
sed ego pono ea a me ipso
qui fuit matthiae, qui fuit amos
+ ego non ascendo ad diem festu istu
hie est uere propheta, alii dicebant
+ et egressus foras petrus fleuit amarc
+ ego de supernis su. Vos de mundo hoc estis
excepit iUu in domu sua et huic erat soror nomine
+ et scio quia uerii est testimoniQ quod perhibet de me
edebant et bibebant emebant et uindebant plantabant
+ ueru tamen oportit me odie et eras et sequenti ' ambulare
mihi. Qui est ex do uerba di audit, propterea uos non auditis
+ si ds clarificatus est in eo et ds elarificauit eu in semetipso
+ nemo enim in occulto quid faeit et q:rit ipse in pala esse si hfc
faeis.
(79) f. 228: dtie mna tua fecit quinq: mnas et huic ait et tu esto supra quinq:
ciuitates et alter uenit dicens
(92) f. 257 : erat aute et iohannis baptizans in enon iuxta salini quia aqu^
mult^ erant illic et ueniebant et baptizabantur
(140) f. 246: et dies erat parasceues et sabbatu inluciseebat. Subseeutae aute
mulieres quae eu ipso uenerant de galilea uiderunt monumentii et que-
admodum positum erat corpus eius
(203) f. 15: et non cecidit, fundata enim erat supra p>etram, Et omnis qui
audit uerba mea haec et non facit ea similis erit uiro stulto qui §difieauit
domum suam super arena. Et discendit pluuia et uenerunt flumina et
flauerunt uenti et inruerunt in domum illam.
Here the phenomena are normal. The shorter omissions exhibit
great variety, then they arrange themselves as multiples of 10-11.
Thus we have :
30-33, three exx.
41-6, four exx.
52-7, two exx.
It is probable that a considerable proportion of these omissions
represents lines in an ancestor.
The longest and most interesting addition of the second hand is
* The Vulgate has seqtunti die. Possibly die has been omitted here.
T02 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
on f. 252 (John i. 29). Here two columns of 20 lines, containing
respectively 223 and 264 letters, are added in the margins, with
omission marks (tp and lid) :
hie est de et ego nescieba
quo dixi pos me eu sed qui misit
uenit uir qui me baptizare
ante me fac in aqua ille mihi
5 tus est quia 5 dixit super que
prior me erat uideris spm des
et ego nescie cendentem et
bam eum sed manente super eu
ut manifesta hie est qui bapti
10 retur iW prop 10 zat in spu sco
terea ueni ego et ego uidi et tes
in aqua bapti timoniu perhibui
zans et tes quia hie est filius di
timonium peri altera die iteru
1 5 buit Johannes di 1 5 stabat iohannes
cens quia uidi et ex diseipulis
spm discenden eius duo. Et respi
te quasi colij ciens iRTn ambu
bam de caelo et lantern dicit
20 mansit super eu 20 ecce agnus df
The previous folio in R (and therefore in its model) ends with
mundi. The omission therefore is due to the fact that the writer
passed from mundi to di. Are we therefore to say that R^ omitted
a page of his model ? The contents, viz. col. i = 223, col. 2 = 265
(average = 243), agree very well with the contents of a page in R.
Thus 207"^, col. I, contains exactly 243 letters. Also, it is to be
noticed that there are 20 lines to the column in the supplement, as
in R. On the other hand it is difficult to see why the scribe did
not deal with his omission in the same way as on f. 208^^, viz. by
striking out the passage which he had repeated and turning the leaf
into a palimpsest. He must have perceived at once that his recto
(or verso) no longer corresponded with that of his model. We must
therefore consider the possibility that the page was omitted by the
writer of a previous ancestor who was not so conscientious or eager
to repair his omissions as the writer of R. I may here repeat what
I have said elsewhere, when speaking of the Gospels ^ : ' I do not
^ Primilive Text, p. 57.
THE EVIDENCE OF MARGINALIA 103
suggest that all the omissions in any of the important MSS. are due
to the negligence of a single scribe. It is more probable that they
represent the sum-total of omissions made by a series of ancestors
written in columns of similar breadth.'
I conclude with a brief note upon the omissions in the genealogy
(Luke iii. 23 sqq.). Nothing can be simpler than the omissions of
J^, viz. :
25 qui fuit matthiae, qui fuit amos
26 qui fuit maat
27 qui fuit zorobabel
30 qui fuit melea
All these are due to 6fi. They seem peculiar to R, and no one
attaches the smallest importance to them. We must, however,
recollect that all scribes were subject to the same infirmities and
that such omissions were possible at all times. I do not propose to
enter into the ve.xed question of the genealogies in Matt, i and
Luke iii, complicated as it is by the division into three periods of
fourteen generations, found in Matt. i. 17. I would merely refer to
Matt. i. 8. Here the ordinary reading is :
Here three ancestors are left out, viz. Ahaziah, Joash.and Amaziah.
Jehoram is called the father of Uzziah (or Azariah), his great-great-
grandson !
^'=, Dint., EtJi., and other sources give :
'layph/x Si ('ytwrjat tov OxQ^iav, OxoO'^r ^^ (yivvqcrtv rov lotas, 'luar ii
iyfvvqaf rov 'Afiaaiav, 'Afiacrins fi^ (yiwrfcrtv rov O^inv
The hypothesis of omission here is more simple than that of
interpolation.
CHAPTER IV
Douce 140, circa 700.
Primasius on the Apocalypse.
Traube says of this MS. {D) that it was ' probably written in
S.W. England, perhaps in the seventh century '} If this date is
correct, it would appear to be the oldest authority for the writer.
The commentary of Primasius was used by Bede, and most of the
MSS. come from monasteries founded by Anglo-Saxon or Irish
monks. It is, therefore, only natural that a valuable copy should
be found in England.
The other MSS. mentioned by Haussleiter are :
A — Karlsruhe ccxii, cent, viii, from Reichenau.
C = Paris. 21H5, cent, x, from Corbie.
F = Cassel, MS. Theol. fol. 24, cent, ix, from Fulda.
G = Paris. 13390, cent, ix, from Corbie.
The last of these MSS. has some extensive lacunae and must be
derived from a mutilated ancestor.
Haussleiter was only concerned with the text of the Apocalypse,
as quoted by Primasius, not with the commentary. He was furnished
for these quotations with a collation of D by Dr. Sanday. For the
text of the commentary we must go elsewhere.
According to Haussleiter, two editiones principes appeared in the
same year (1544) at Bale and Paris. The Bale edition was founded
on a Murbach MS., which agreed closely with A. The Paris edition
appears to have been drawn from some MS. resembling G. Hauss-
leiter considers it to be the fount of the vulgata, as published in
successive editions of La Eigne 's Magna Bibliotheca Patrnm
(Cologne, 1618), also in Migne's Patrologia Latina, vol. 68 (Paris,
1866).
The Bale edition is a scholarly production and gives a readable
text. It is somewhat singular that it has never been reprinted,
^ Nomina Sacra, p. 33.
PRIMASIUS ON TlIK APOCALYPSE 105
while its rival, which omits long passages, without signifying
H lacuna, and is full of gross errors, has passed through successive
editions.
As a specimen of the lacunae I would refer to
ed. Bas. i S^ : serpentum morsu typice sanabatiir et his similia quae si ad
litterarum discussa tractaniur liidicra pro tempore putabuntur
Five pages further on comes :
Ille est quod in titulo psalmi tricensimi tertii dicitur psalmus ipsi David
commutavit vultutn
Migne (823 B) here gives :
serpentium morsu liberavit typice mutavit David vultum med. om.
Dr. Sanday says of D ' textus non liabct lacunas '. He does not,
however, indicate that D contains considerable blocks of text
omitted by ed. Bas. as well as by Migne, which, so far as I know,
have not yet been printed. While, therefore, €d. Bas. gives a longer
text than Migne, D gives one which is longer still.
As D possesses great interest from many points of view, I add
some further details.
In its present condition it has lost various folios, viz. seven ff. after
f. 65 ; one folio + an entire quaternion after f. 83 ; one after f. 103 ;
one + a quaternion after f. 136, and one after f. 144. The last folio
(f. 148) is lost, but the contents are supplied on an extra leaf by
a recent hand. A folio has been cut out after f. 118, but nothing is
here lost. F. 75 is written on thin parchment, in a different hand
from ff. 74 and 76, though of contemporary date. It is in a different
formation from the rest of D, and appears to have been inserted to
remedy an omission.
The number of lines to a page varies from 25-30, the normal
number being 26. The change from one size to another sometimes
corresponds with the beginning of a fresh quaternion written by
a different scribe, but there is sometimes variety in pages of the
same quaternion and even on the recto and verso of the same leaf.
Thus 74'' has 28 and 74"^ 27 lines. The inserted leaf, f. 75, has ex-
ceptionally only 24 lines. This irregularity seems to characterize
MSS. of Primasius. Thus Haussleiter says that in A the lines vary
from 21-6, and notices pages of 27, 30, and 36 lines in F.
The number of letters in a line also varies. I had occasion to
io6
DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
copy out some sixteen pages of D, where it contains long passages
omitted by Migne, or Migne + ed. Bas., and to count the number
of letters. The figures are interesting since, although they vary
greatly, viz. from 884 to 1108, it will be seen that certain sizes tend
to reappear. I give them in order of magnitude, adding in brackets
the number of lines to the page and the average number of letters
to the line :
(S84)
76-
(26)
(913)
76'-
(26)
ir
(26)
(917)
74-^
(27)
(931)
IZ'^
(26)
(950)
74'-
(28)
(954)
73^
(28)
(959)
ir
(26)
(983)
23^
(27)
(1002)
16^
(27)
(105U
36>-
(27)
(1073)
96^
(28)
(1095)
36-
(27)
(1096)
95'
(28)
(1106)
^e^"
(28)
(1 108)
95""
(28)
avg. 34
[ avg. 35
avg. 34
avg. 36
avg. 34
avg. 34
avg. 37
avg. 36^-
avg. 37
avg. 39
avg. 38J
avg. 40
avg. 39
avg. 39^
avg. 39i
Here we have to notice that 913 occurs twice, also that there is a
case of 917 : afterwards we have the sequence 950, 954, 959, and
again 1095, lOQ^j and 1 106, 1108. The general average for the
16 pages is 1002 letters to a page and 37 to a line. It is to be
noticed that f. 16^ contains the exact figure 1002.
The contents of the inserted folio (75) are, recto = 690, verso =
663, which gives an average of 28 letters to a line (24 lines to
a page).
The appearance of D suggests that, at any rate in some quater-
nions, the scribes reproduced the pagination, though not the
distribution of lines found in the model. Thus words are often
added at the foot of the page, e. g. 134'' /// uinei tanto eius impetu,
140'' de uno fnndamento xpb, while still more frequently part of the
last line in a page is left blank, e.g. 56^, 57'', 58. On 38^" the last
line has been left blank after arenae has been erased, 38'^ begins with
arenae and lines 1-3 are spaced out. There is an interesting ditto-
graphy on f. 23'". Here D^ gave :
PR I MAS I us ON THE APOCALYPSE 107
optionem dicimus et nomen ciiiitatis di mei
tionem dicimus et nomen ciuitatis di mei
The second line was then erased. The inference is that the model
had:
op
tionem dicimus et nomen ciuitatis di mei
It would, therefore, appear probable that in the model the lines
were a little shorter than in D (p. 43). The writers of D, or some
of them, preserved the pagination, but not the lineation : hence the
irregularities to which I have called attention arose.
The insular abbreviation for autcvi (Ir) is not employed except
where there was reason for compression. I have only noticed it in
the last line of a page where the script is contracted {']^^ 77^ 132^'),
or where a correction is made in the margin (H6''), or an omission
is entered in the text /// ras. (145'').
Nomina sacra are generally abbreviated. Thus ds, dm, xps, sfs,
scs are normal. There are, however, irregularities. Thus on f. 95'
we find xfi de xfo in xfb cuui xfo post xpTn per cristmii propter
cristtim. So also on occasions the first hand wrote deus or doniinus
in full, and the abbreviations were inserted by a second hand. Such
lapses were clearly considered to savour of profanity : thus on f. 87"",
where douiini occurs in the text, a large h in blacker ink is written
in the margin to call attention to the offence.
Various critical marks are found, e. g. z (= C^/tci) is frequent. On
f. 9' ^(? = diviissum) is added in the margin to mark a corruption
in the text, arcanis (m^) for arcam (m'^). This appears to be the
same symbol as that which is frequently employed in the two Leiden
MSS., A and B, which contain the de Natura Deoruvt, etc. (p. 328).
On f. Si"", where the first hand gives quiac for quia^ the corrector
adds 9 in the margin. On f. 66', where potcstas has been omitted,
a later hand adds /nt potestas.
Quotations from the text of the Apocalypse were originally intro-
duced by y (? = ypucPfTai): a second hand has generally combined
with this K (= KdfMfvov) '. The symbol y, or yy, is regularly used to
mark quotations in Brit. Mus. 31031, cent, viii (e. g. f. 29^' nine
times). Haussleiter mentions that K is used in F to introduce the
' This symbol is frequently used in Greek MSS., cf. p. 41 8. In Latin MSS. Ar( = Kaput)
w.ns often used to mark paragraphs, cf. pp. 221, 318.
io8 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
lemmata. I would here mentton a curious blunder in the vulgata,
which seems due to a misunderstanding of this symbol.
ed. Bas. f 7'^ : accipite sapientiam sicut aurum et scientiam sicut argentum
electum. So also D.
For electum La Eigne gives H eliinet, and in the margin >| emite.
Migne (812 c) prints sicut argentum Kelimet \Kemite\
There are various indications which show that a number of
ancestors have intervened between D and the autograph of Primasius,
written in the sixth century. Thus on three occasions omission
symbols are embedded in the text. One of these is a short passage,
viz. :
f. 112^ (Migne, 900 c : ed. Bas. G 7'') :
malls nequior septempliclter imieniatur
^ ut et quod dicimus planius delucescat inten
turn decet esse lectorem^
The natural conclusion is that the words ut ct . . . lectorem (57) were
omitted by one ancestor, put into the margin of another with the
symbols 3 and ^, and received into the text of another, with the
omission labels still attached to them.
The other passages are longer, viz. :
8' (Migne, 779 D : ed. Bas. c 5^) :
^ smirna canticum . . . congruit dno'*
145^ (Migne, 932 D : ed. Bas. O 3^) :
h nam ut eiusdem . . . probitas memoratur +
The first of these is of special interest, since it is omitted both by
Migne and by ed. Bas., while in D it has been inserted in the wrong
place. The order of the Churches is Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamus,
Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea. Consequently, the inter-
pretation of Smyrna should come before that of Pergamus, while in
D it comes in the middle of the section about Pergamus, and is
there introduced in the middle of a sentence, viz. after utique in the
sentence :
discernenda utique fuerat htimilitas.
Various attempts were made to remedy the dislocation by the
use of letters, A and B : also by numerals. Thus D^ wrote B pergama
and afterwards asmirna (i. e. A smirna) : then B and a- were struck
out, and -III-, -II- entered in their place, also I in the previous page,
PRIMASIUS ON THE APOCALYPSE 109
referring to Ephesus. Finally, -b- was added in the margin, referring
to Pergama, and a- also in the margin before Sviyryia.
Here the passage must have been omitted by one ancestor, added
in another at the top or foot of the page with omission marks,
received into another in the wrong place, in another B must have
been placed before Pergavia and A before Smyrna. There must,
therefore, have been at least three intermediate MSS. between D
and the archetype.
It is, therefore, clear that the text has passed through several
halting-houses before it came to D. The problems involved are,
therefore, by no means simple.
Omissions and dittographies o{ D^ or D :
(24) f. 135^ (Migne, 916 c) :
et quae solueris super terra om. Z?'
(25) f. 8' (Migne, 799 d):
tenentis fidem in aliis autem bis scr.
(32) f. 146' (Migne, 933 a):
et uerbum erat apud dm et ds erat uerbum om. D, ed. Bas.
(34) f. 23'- (Migne, 811 c) :
-tionem dicimus et nomen ciuitatis di mei bis scr.
<36) f. 37" (Migne, 823 c) :
*et indignos uos iudicastis aeternae uitae om. D. ed. Bas.
(52) f. 85' (Migne, 879 a):
•illis inimicus suu dare dicitur thronu quos maxime possidens om. D^
(60) f. Se' (Migne, 879 D):
quando dignitatem ei specialiter debitam sibi ausus fuerit assignare
cm. D
f. 146':
•beati qui lauerunt stolas suas ut sit potestas eorum super lignum uitae
ofn. D\ This comes in a passage omitted by Migne, 933 a, also by ed.
Bas. Q 3^.
(65) f. I04'' (Migne, 894 B):
naturali errore praebente ac lutulentis desideriis implicatae adiecerunt
bis scr. D
f. 140'' (Migne, 927 d) :
duodeci portas singula ex singulis margaritis. Quod de uno fundamento
xpb est om. D^. The scribe first omitted the words and went on to
duodecim apostolis agni satis superque iavi, he then erased this and
rewrote the whole passage, partly in ras. and partly in an extra line at
the top of 140'.
(245) f. 139^ (Migne, 926 B) :
mensura hominis quae est angeli, angelum hie aeclesia saepe poni
no DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
aperta locorum frequentia protestatur et quonia ex hominib: con-
quisita constat aeclesia et Cristi promissionibus sublimata angelorum
aequalitatem sperat eiusque omnis intentio eorum societati suspirat
propterea dicit bis scr.
To these may be added a passage where an error in D throws
h'ght on its past history.
f. 19^ (Migne, 807 B). D has :
aeclesia inluminata monetur non
a se lumen habere sed ueri luminis participatio
ne radiari meruisse apertius demonstratur
talibus etiam dicitur fuistis aliquando tenebrae
nunc autem lux in dno et angelo aeclesiae quae
est inluminata tyatirae.
Here inluminata is a repetition due to 6/x. The words inluminata
monetur . . . aeclesiae quae est consist of 181 letters.
The first point to notice in these figures is that the numbers 60
and 65 occur twice. Also, there seems to be a relation between
them and other numbers, viz. 32-4, 181, 245.
We can now reconstitute the passage as it seems to have stood in
a previous MS., viz. :
aeclesia
inluminata monetur non a se lumen ha (30)
here sed ueri luminis participatio {30)
ne radiari meruisse apertius demon (30)
stratur talibus etiam dicitur fui (29)
stis aliquando tenebrae nunc autem (30)
lux in diTo et angelo aeclesiae quae est (32)
tyatirae
The only figures in the list which do not admit of this explana-
tion are 24, 25, 52. These may be due to chance, but the relation
of 24-5 to 52 is to be noted.
In addition to these omissions and dittographies there is a passage
which is out of place in D, viz. :
(805) fif. SQ'-SQ^ (Migne, 823 D-824 B ; ed. Bas. i S'-k i) :
(39'') sextus sane modus quo uterque xpi di
noscatur aduentus id est quae ad primum quae
loca referenda sint ad secundum aliud est enim
uenturum {in fine pag^
(39'') cognoscere aliud primum a secundo secernere pri
PRIMASIUS ON THK APOCALVrSI-: iii
mus sibi humiliationis uendicat loca sicuti est quod
moysis dicit prophetam nobis suscitabit dns ex
fratribus uestris sicut me ilium audietis, itemque
posthaec in terris uisus est et cum hominibus conuer
satus est, et iterum non est species ei neque decor
et uidemus eum et non erat aspectus, dispectu
et nouissimum uirorum, uirum dolorum, et post
paulolum, languores nostros ipse tulit et cetera,
et iterum sicut agnus ad occisionem ducitur et
c
sicut ouis quoram tondente se sine uoce sic non ape
riet OS suum, de secundo autem aduentu legimus.
ds manefestus ueniet ds noster et non silebit et
aspicient ad te quern confixerunt. malachias quoque
dicit accedam ad uos in iudicio et ero testis uelox
super maleficos et adulteris et periuris et qui
caluraniantur mercidem mercinnaris et cetera.
This passage is placed by D after seniicndiim (Migne, 825 D ; ed.
Bas. K 3^).
{A) Migne (with G) omits three large blocks of text found in ed.
Bas. and D, viz. :
<i) if. 35'-37'' (ed. Bas. i s""-;^ : om. Migne 823 B, after typice) :
♦sanabatur et his . . . David quando com-
(2) ff. IJi'-l^^ (ed. Bas. s 6''-t 6': om. Migne 859 B, after revelaretur) :
♦quarto enim . . . aculeis et omnis
Kl) ff- 95'"-97'' (c<i- ^*s. C 8''-D 4'' : om. Migne 887 B, after de virginibus) :
♦nullum est . . . dicitur evangelium
The length of these passages as expressed in lines of ed. Bas. is as
follows :
(i) =85 lines. To this, however, has to be added two passages
found in D, but omitted by ed. Bas., viz. :
36^ : in quibus . . . comprehendi (276 letters)
37'': et abissus . . . eius (36 letters)
i.e. 312 letters. The average content of a line in ed. Bas. is 28 letters,
so the total passage, as given by D, would fill 85+11 lines = 96.
(2) This passage includes the inserted leaf, f. 75. It, therefore,
falls into three parts, viz. :
(a) ff. 73^-74' (ed. Bas. s 6''-8') : quarto enim . . . propinquantes
(d) f. 75 (ed. Bas. s 8'-t 1') : in arboribus . . . fictum
{() ff. 76''-78^ (ed. Bas. t l^-e"") : Et datum . . . et omnis
112 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
Here (a) = 98 lines, ed. Bas.
0) = 49 „ „ „
(c) = 189 „ „ „
The exact correspondence of 49 and 98 shows conclusively that
f. 75 represents a leaf of an ancestor. It is to be noticed that (c) is
a little shorter than would be expected (47 x 4 = 188). There must
have been some slight irregularity here.
(3) =180 lines, ed. Bas.
I now arrange these figures in order of magnitude :
(49) f. 75 = one folio.
(96) ff. 35V-37"- I
(98) ff. 73V-74V [ = two fohos.
(180) ff. 95-97; I = four folios.
(189) ff. 76'--78^-f
I now proceed to consider the number of letters in these passages,
as written in D :
f- 75 = 1353-
ff. 35'^-37'' = 2662.
ff- 73'-74^ = 2752.
ff. 95---97' = 4858.
ff. 76'--78^ = 5262.
Here we may take 1353 as an example of a normal folio ; or take
the average between 1353 and 2662 (= 49 and 98 lines in ed. Bas),
in which case we get as result 1338 ; or we may take the average of
all the figures, viz. 1302.
We may say, therefore, with some confidence that this ancestor
contained 1302 to 1353 letters to the folio, i. e. 651-76 to the page.
If so, a page corresponded to about 18 lines of D, and about 24^
lines in the Bale edition.
In addition to these long passages where folios have been lost,
I have noticed the following short omissions, all of which are assisted
by ofjL. :
(24) 56"^ (ed. Bas. n 5^ : om. Migne, 838 b) :
et pro domino mori meruerunt
(35) 23^ (ed« Bas. f 4^; om. Migne, 81 1 b) :
in ipsorum loco gentes saluari probantur
(40) 41'" (ed. Bas. k 5^ : om. Migne, 827 a) :
spm seruitutis iterum in timore sed accepistis
PRIMASIUS OX THE APOCALYPSE 113
(53) eF (ed. Bas. K 5'' : cm. Migne, 842 B) :
et quatemitatis conternatae ut quater tcrni decus dipundius.
It is probable that there arc many others.
{B) The Bale edition omits the following passages which arc found
in D and Migne :
(27) 67' (Migne, 853 D, ed. Bas. r 3'-) :
qui (quia Migne) seruire memoratur in tcniplo
(417) 57'' (Migne, 839 d: ed. Bas. n7^):
♦concussi ab ecclesia diuelluntur, propri§
autem aceruis fici fnictib: comparantur
siue pro infidelitate quam conuersi in arcQ
prauum relicta malunt fide repetere
siue propter immaturitatem temporis
per quam contigit ut cum felicem
aeclesia eoru concipiendo quaesierit ortum
infelici tamen euentu flebilem de eis patiatur
aborsus, ^et caelum recessit ut liber cum euolui
tur. recte caelum id est aeclesiam ut euolutu
et non inuolutum librum insinuat recessisse
quidquid enim fuerit inuolutum.
The following omission of ed. Bas., reported by Hausslciter, occurs
in a passage where D has been mutilated, viz.:
(27) Migne, 865 B : ed. Bas. x 2'' :
statim repletus est venter meus
I add the following passage where D gives correctly a longer
reading, while Migne and ed. Bas. have different omissions :
f. 39'' (Migne, 823 D : ed. Bas. i S"") :
aliud est enim uenturum agnoscere, aliud primum a secundo secernere D
(28) aliud primum a secundo secernere oin. ed. Bas.
(42) aliud est cemere med. om. Migne.
(C) I now come to passages omitted both by ed. Bas. and by
Migne, but found in D. These, so far as I know, are at present
unpublished. Two of them, viz. 37' (36) and 36'" (276), belong to
a passage which is wholly omitted by Migne (and G), viz. :
35^-37'': sanabatur et his . . . David quando com-
The Bale edition contains the passage, except for these two
omissions, while G seems to be descended from a mutilated
ancestor.
less I
114 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
(28) 128' (Migne, 912 a': ed. Bas. L 1'^, after exhaurienda peccaia) :
in suis autem membris frequenter D\ om. cett.
(33) 41^ (Migne, 827 a: ed. Bas. k s"", 2S\.tx gloria dei):
*iustificati gratis per gratiam ipsius D : om. cett.
(36) yj'' (ed. Bas. i 7^, after adoratur in tribiis) :
et abissus sicut uestimentum amictus eius D : om. ed. Bas. {def. Migne)
(63) 82"^ (Migne, 862 B : ed. Bas. u 4'', aiitrfumo et sulpure) :
ab his trib: pla
gis occisa est tertia pars hominum de igni et fu
mo et sulpure D : om. cett.
(97) 55^^ (Migne, 838 a : ed. Bas. n 4'", after chrisma baptismatis) :
quod aperte in
euangelio dfis dicit pater quos dedisti mihi
costudiui et nemo ex eis peribit nisi filius per
ditionis D : om. cett.
{127) 23^" (Migne, 811 B : ed. Bas. f 4'', after in genere) :
*ueru
quia cuius uult miseretur quos sub alis suis sal
uandos congregare uoluerit congregat potens
est enim ds inquid apostholus iterum inserere
illos D : om. cett.
(174) 44"^ (Migne, 829 D : ed. Bas. 1 4*", a.h&r praedicanttir) :
♦ipse scilicet qui de patre
coeternus inuisibiliter genitus de matre
mirabiliter nasci uoluit moriturus atque hgc
p spm scm de caelo missum aeclesiae reuelauit
quam sibi sponsam misericorditer adquisiuit D : om. cett.
(276) 36^ (ed. Bas. i 6'^, after in Christo et in ecclesia) :
*in quibus utrumque docet impleri cum
et terrenae hierusalem filios seruire dicit et abra
hae experto claruit temtata deuotio et de con
iugio loquens manente cristi aeclesiae quae mysti
rio dixit neque enim quisquam carnem suam odio ha
buit sed nutret et fouet earn sicut et cristus aecle
siam ut utraque his ostenderit comprghendi D'. om. ed. Bas. {def.
Migne)
(303) 54' (Migne, 837 A : ed. Bas. n 2^, after sunt pretio) :
*portio sane hereditatis
cristi quae in electorum plenitudine com
mendatur non inaniter hie tritici nomine
figuratur se enim diis in euangelio desig
nabat dicens nisi granum tritici cadens
in terra mortuum fuerit ipsum solum ma
net si autem mortuum fuerit multum fruc
PRIMASIUS ON THE APOCALYPSE 115
turn affert quod .1 parte potiore inferio
ra qiioqiie aeclesiae membra in ordei menti
one cognosce D : om. cett.
(336) 107' (Migne, 897 a: ed. Bas. F 7^, after vcritatem) :
♦iam quippe ante
quam septem fialarum faceret mentio
nem de scoriim persona et dignitate pr§
miserat quod cantarent canticum mo
si serui di et canticum agni dicentis
magna et mirabilia sunt opera tua
dornine omnipotens uel cetera nam
et lenteamina eis mundae * Candida
zonasque aureas scbrum pectoribus
adesse praemisit, in quorum compara
tione ranarum respuenda feculentia
paruolis etia monstraretur D : om. ceti.
(438) 8^' (Migne, 779 D : ed. Bas. c 5') :
Here D has : d
utique
*smima canticum eorum cum hoc consequen
ter libro canticum moysi serui di dictum et in
aliis nouerimus generaliter frequentatu
diuinae laudis canticum Sanctis praecipue
deputati sicuti est cantare dno canticum
nouum laus eius in aeciesia scorum et exulta
te iusti in dno rectos decet conlaudatio
in hoc etiam nomine quod interpretatum
dicitur canticum eorum hoc nos conuenit
intellegere quod eorum placeat canticum
do quibus sequentia concinunt demonstra
tur quia rectos decet conlaudatio quo
rum laus congruit dfio ^ fuerat 4iumilitas.
This passage, which is omitted in Migne and ed. Bas., is inserted
in the wrong place in Z>, viz. in the middle of the sentence utique
fuerat humilitas. It ought to come earlier, viz. before Pergama
interpretatum dicitur (a few lines above).
The passage Pergaina to utique is written thus in D :
^ pergama inter
praetatum dicitur diuidenti cornua eorum
V
uel dissiccnti ballem : in sermone porro qui ad
eius angelum fecit duas hominum species demon
strauit in ipso tenentis fidem in aliis autern te
' munda et /«. 2,
I 2
ii6 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
nentis fidem in aliis autem tenentium doctri
ar
nam nicolait,um nee inmerito inter iustorum
et peccatorum cornua quod idem nomen resonat
diuidit nisi ut sicut legimus cornua peccatorum
confringantur et exaltentur cornua iusti
V
et dissicenti ballem discernenda utique.
This gives a total of ^66 letters, if we exclude the dittography m
aliis autem tenentis jidcin (35). This may, however, be inherited
from a previous MS., in which case the total becomes 391.
(496) 1 8'" (Migne, 807 b: ed. Bas. e 4^, after Veritas non est) :
sicut in singulis aeclesiis commonet
totum ut unitatis nexam uinculo significet uniuer
sam sic in ea conlatam donorum suorum declarat
largitatem ad hoc enim inluminatam maluit
erudiri ut ex suo primum nomine gratia se preuenta
agnoscens tamquam misericordiam consecuta ^ ali
is quoque consulat a laqueis zizabil protinus retra
hendis quando quidem nee ipsi dicit fuisse parcen
dum cum ergo aeclesia inluminata monetur non
a se lumen habere sed ueri luminis participatio
ne radiari meruisse apertius demonstratur
talibus etiam dicitur, fuistis aliquando tenebrae
nunc autem lux in dno
In 1. I Z) has iiii before sicut.
After dnb comes :
K et angelo aeclesiae quae
est inluminata ecclesiae
The numeral iiii ought to come here, not before siatt. There
has, therefore, been some previous dislocation.
(930) 91'', 92!' (Migne, 884 c : ed. Bas. C 3^", after insinuettir asperitas) :
aliter in sex dieb: omnia dm opera
perfecisse diuina testatur auctoritas, ide
namque numerus suis constare partib: inue
nitur, id est sexta sui parte, tertia et dimedia
unum enim et duo et trea sex faciunt et quia
eorum quae in sex dieb: perfecta sunt finis prae
dicetur adfuturus et dicet in melius transfe
renda ignis tamen ardore, a beato petro ele
menta resoluenda dicuntur, non incongrue pu
to a sexto numero usque ad huius summam
numeri tamquam conditoruni terminum sig
PRIMASIUS OX THE APOCALYPSE 117
nificando finalem increscere et desiturum
eo usq: uenire futuramq: meliorationem
circa ipsius temporis suppletionem hoc nume
ro designari nam et a senario sexagenarius
surgit sicut a denario centenarius quasi quad
ratus qui ut solidetur ad mille usq: peruenit
sicut sexagenarius ad sexcentos et ut sibi initia
cum fine concordent adiecit subinde ipsum
senarium ut essent sexcenti sexaginta sex
ni
sic namque dicit uenit dies dornini ut fur per
quam caeli ardentes soluentur et elementa ig
nis ardore coquentur ad meliorationem autem
dicit, nouos uero caelos et terram nouam secun
dum promissa ipsius expectamus in quibus ius
titia inhabitat
(1084) I45''-I46'^ (Migne, 932 D : ed. Bas. Q 3^, after mattifestet) :
h na
ut eiusdem cum patre et filio doceatur
essentiae, et idem filii qui et patris
esse sps declaretur profundioris adhuc
m
mystirii secreta cognosce, deum sane abra
hae et totam nos debere accipere trinitate no
uimus si tr huic nomini sempitemam uerita
tern adiungas personarum profecto pro
prietates induces ut di abrahae nomine
solius patris uideatur significari persona
sicut et ille in danihele locus insinuat ubi
dicet et antiquus dierum sedit id est pater
sempitema autem ueritas filius indubi
tanter agnoscitur qui dicit, ego sum uia
ueritas et uita, uerum ne sancii sps omis
sa putetur esse persona ipsa eiusdem nu
meri redintegratione patri et filio ut
uere amborum sps conuenienter occurrit
quid ei '^ profunda solus agnoscit apostholo
dicente sps autem omnia scrutatur etia
profunda di ut autem fili quoque sps demon
stretur subiunxit si quis autem spin xpi
non habet hie non est eius quod ergo de nu
maris promisimus impleamus hoc modo
vim V LXX CC I II C I 1 XL VIII I V X Mil X LXX
eeOC ABPAAMH A-EI AlO
* qui di tn. 2,
ii8 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
cc I xxx vim VIII ' V X I
C A A H e E I A quod cum grae
cis litteris per numeros duxeris promis-
sam eiusdem numeri summam profecto
< - V c X cc
repperies quam in perjstera fl E P I C
CCC V C I
T E P A id est columba docuimus subsum
mari in cuius specie scm sprh specialiter
legimus discendisse <) post fidem morum
probitas memoratur "•"
At the foot of the page is written :
t> beati qui lauerunt stolas suas ut sit potestas eorum super lignum uitae (60)
(1968) l6'-l7'' (Migne, 806 c: ed. Bas. e 2^, after inquit omnes) :
aliter dies decim to
turn huius uitae cognoscendum puto corricolij
in quo fidelibus trina non potest deesse temta
tio, ubi temtatio est uita hominis super terra
quamdiu diebus praetermeantibus et reme
antibus septim omne tempus uitae praeteri
tis euoluetur quam temtationem dno quoque
nostro tamquam capiti aeclesiae ihu xpo
diabolus permissus legitur intulisse haec
nihilominus aeclesiae xpi sub figurata perso
na mulieris agonis pugna spiritalis indicitur
ubi dns serpenti dicit inimicitias ponam inter te
16^^ et mulierem ilia tuum obseruabit capud et tu
insidiaberis calcaneo eius, in hoc igitur saeculo
quod septim dierum mobilitate peragetur eui
denter agnoscitur uariis temtationibus xpi
aeclesiam subiacere quae potissimum in his tri
bus uitiis obtenent principatum in adpetitu car
nalium uoluptatum et efrenata prohibitae
superfluetatis ingluuiae unde in pane dno inimi
cus niteba||tur inludere tamquam secundo adg
CO quod inde primum mortis pocolum propinaue
rit quando uetita homini gustare persuasit
ut gastrimargiae primum reddens uitio cap
tiuatum ceteris deinde carnalibus desideriis
tenerit obnoxium alio autem priuatae gloriae
elatione temtatur ? pulsare permittetur
cum de pinna templi eum hortaretur iactari
praecipitem testimonium subrogans Psalmi di
LXX
1 This is an error for IX. ' So £> here : on the previous folio D has n.
PRIMASIUS ON THE APOCALYPSE 119
centis quoniam angelis suis mandauit de te et
cetera, sicut primo homini decipiendo sugesse
rat dicens eretis sicut dii scientcs bonum et
malum ut in concessae diuinitatis adpe||titu
deiecisset incautum, tertia uero temtatio
audactcr infertur in qua regnorum gloria
terrenorum et saecularium pompa diuilia
rum significatur da||mnanda cupiditas hac
ergo trina temtatione uitae huius tern
poribus quae diebus septim uoluuntur
17' adplecita dinarius numerus adimpletur prop
ter quod ita dicitur habebis tribulationem die
rum decim sequitur denique esto fidelis usque ad
mortem quod omni ecclesiae intellogi conuenit
dictum nam et apostholus huius docens intelli
gentiae formam cum de adam loqueretur et
diceret adam non est seductus, mulier autem
seducta facta est in praeuaricatione ad fi
guratam mox locutionem transiens aeclesi
am demonstrauit dicens, salua autem erit
per filiorum generationem si permanserit in
fide et dilectione et sanctificatione cum subri
etate haec autem non mulieri mortuae sed xpi
euidenter aeclesiae conuenire nuUus ignorat.
This long passage, preserved by D only, is given by it in the
wrong place, viz. after omncs in the sentence (Migne, 806 c : ed.
Bas. e 2^) :
perdidisti inquit omnes qui fomicantur abs te.
It would give a good sense if placed before esto fidelis (Migne,
805 D : ed. Bas. e i^).
The passages omitted by Migne and ed. Bas. do not afford an
obvious clue, such as is furnished by the three large lacunae in
Migne. I therefore submit a general list of all the passages referred
to in the course of this discussion, in the hope that they may throw
some light upon the transmission of the text. It must be borne in
mind that there are several ancestors between D and the archetype :
also that some of the omissions may be due purely to chance,
assisted by o\x.
(24) 56^ : et . . . maluerunt D, ed. Bas. : om. Migne
135' : et . . . terram om. Z>'
(25) 8^ : tenentis . . . autem bis scr. D
I
130
DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
(27) 67^ : qui
templo D, Migne : om. ed. Bas.
Migne, 865 B : statim . . . meus Migne : om. ed. Bas. {defic. D)
(28) 39'^: aliud . . . secernere Z?: om. ed. Bas.
128^ : in . . . frequenter D : om. Migne, ed. Bas.
(32) 146'*^: et , . . verbum Migne: om. D, ed. Bas.
(33)
(34)
(35)
(36)
41^^
23'"
231-
41^-
39^
1 461"
(63) 82^
(65) 104^
I40»'
(40)
(42)
(52)
(53)
(57)
(60)
(97)
(127)
(174)
(181)
(245)
(276)
(303)
(336)
(417)
(438)
(496)
(806)
(930)
(1084)
(1353)
(1968)
55''
231-
44V
1 9V
139'"
36^
54'-
107"^
57^
i8i-:
39'':
91'^:
145^
75 :
l6i-
iustificati . . . ipsius om. Migne
-tionem . . . mei bis scr. D
in ipsorum . . . probantur om. Migne
et abyssus . . . eius om. Migne
et indignos . . . vitae Migne : om. D, ed. Bas.
spni . . . accepistis om. Migne
enim . . . secundo se- o;h. Mis'ne
^ ut et
quando .
beati . . .
ab his . .
naturali .
duodecim
illis . . . possidens om. D^
et quaternitatis . • . dipundius om. Migne
. lectorem'i (i, e. omitted by ancestor of Z>)
. assignare om. D
vitae om. D^
. sulpure D : ojn. Migne, ed. Bas.
, . adiecerunt bis scr. D
. . . Christo est om. D^
quod aperte . . . perditionis D'. om. Migne, ed. Bas.
verum . . . illos D : am. Migne, ed. Bas.
ipse . . . adquisivit D: om. Migne, ed. Bas.
inluminata repeated in D
mensura . . . dicit bis scr. D
in quibus . . . coaiprehendi D : om. ed. Bas. {defic. Migne)
portio . . . cognosce D : ow. Migne, ed. Bas.
iam quippe . . . monstraretur D : om. Migne, ed. Bas.
concussi . . . involutum om. ed. Bas.
Smyrna . . . congruit domino D : om. Migne, ed. Bas. (out of
place in D)
sicut ... in domino D : om. Migne, ed. Bas.
sextus . . . cetera : out of place in D
aliter . . . inhabitat D : om. Migne, ed. Bas.
: nam ut . . . memoratur D : om. Migne, ed. Bas.
in arboribus . . . fictum om. Migne
: aliter . . . ignorat D : om. Migne, ed. Bas. (out of place in D)
(2662) 35'*'-7'' : sanabatur . . . quando com- om. Migne
(2752) 73^-4'^ : quarto enim . . . propinquantes om. Migne
(4858) 95'^,-7^' : nullum est . . . evangelium om. Migne
(5262) 73"^-8'^: quarto enim . . . omms om. A/ igne
I take the large numbers first.
(i) I have already dealt with 1353, 2663, 3752, 4858, 5262.
Their equivalents in lines of the Bale edition are 49, 96, 98^ 180,
PRIMASIUS ON THE APOCALYPSE lai
189. They must represent i, 2, 2, 4, 4 folios in one and the same
ancestor. These omissions are pecuh'ar to Migne (and G).
It is probable that some of the smaller numbers represent lines of
the same ancestor. Thus 806 x 6 = 4S06, cf. 4858. So also there
appears to be a relation between 417 and 806.
(2) The largest number among the passages preserved by i?only
is 1968. If this is divided by 4, the result is 492, cf. 496 (f. 18'^). If
492 is divided by 2, the result is 246, which is almost the exact
length of the dittography (245) in D on f. I39'"-
This dittograph}' is unlike the others found in /). Whereas they
have been erased, or partially so, it is enclosed in a rectangle by
the first hand. It is, therefore, antecedently not improbable that it
was already present in the model.
This series 245, 496, 1968 does not seem to be connected with the
previous series 417, 806, 1353, 2662, 3752, 4858, 5262. It would
therefore appear to represent lines in another ancestor.
In all probability the other passages preserved by /) only belong
to this second series.
It is to be recollected that some of these passages occur in the
wrong place in D, viz. 438 (8"), 806 (39'"), 1968 (16''). Also, two of
them, viz. 438 (8'') and 1088 (145'^), preserve in D omission labels
which show that they were at one time omitted by an ancestor of D.
The probability, therefore, is that the omissions of ed. Bas. + Migne
go back to a further stage in the tradition than those of Mignc only.
It is tempting to suppose that 930 represents a folio in this more
remote ancestor, and that 1968 represents two folios. The corre-
spondence is not so exact as could be wished, but there is a possible
explanation, viz. that the number of lines in a page of this ancestor
varied as is the case with D and other MSS. of Primasius.
(3) If we look at the smaller numbers, we observe two units, viz.
27-8, followed by 54-7 and 32-3 followed by 60-5, 97, 127. We
cannot be sure whether these are separate units or whether they are
the limits of variation in the same MS. It will be seen that the
larger figures ascend by what I may call a tricesimal system. Thus
31 X 16 = 496 (18'), 3[ X 26 = 806 (39'), 31 X 30 = 930 (91'j. The
fact that these successive numbers are exact multiples of the same
unit is very remarkable. This tricesimal system seems to pervade
the figures from whatever source they are drawn. Thus 32x3 = 96,
laa DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
cf. 97 ; 32x4 = 138, cf. 128; 30x6 = 180, cf. 181 ; 30 x 8 = 240,
cf. 245 ; 31 X 9 = 279, cf. 276 ; 30 X 10 = 300, cf. 303 ; 30 x 11 =
33O' cf. 336 ; 30 X 14 = 420, cf. 4^7-
I can only conclude that the content of a line was much the same
in more than one ancestor, though the number of lines in a page
varied.
I conclude by drawing attention to passages where the text in
Migne or Migne + ed. Bas. appears to have been doctored after an
omission. Thus in the long omission mentioned at the beginning of
this discussion the loss of two folios containing the passage sanabatur
. . . quando com- left the reading :
serpentum morsu typice mutavit vultum.
For this Migne (823 b) has :
serpentium morsu liberavit, typice mutavit David vultum.
So in the second large lacuna the omission of the passage nullum
est evangelinm, due to the loss of four folios, left the reading :
praeceptum domini de virginibus praedicare
For this Migne (887 r.) has :
praeceptum domini non habeo de virginibus praedicare
I have noticed a similar attempt to doctor a short omission, viz. :
f. 41'" (Migne, 827 a : ed. Bas. k s'^) -
sic apostholus utruraque discernit
cum dicit non enim accepistis spm seruitutis
iterum in timore sed accepistis spni
adoptionis filiorum
So D and ed. Bas. The reference is to Rom. viii. 15 :
ov yap (\(i0(Te irvfvfia 8ov\(ias nd^iv (Is cfx'ijioi', tiXX (XaQere Trvfvfia vlodeaias.
Migne gives :
sic apostolus utrumque discernit cum dicit, vos enim accepistis spiritum adoptionis
filiorum
Here vos is a conjecture for non after the omission of spn servitutis
. . . accepistis.
I came across one passage where Migne + ed. Bas. have an abridged
text, viz. :
PRIMASIUS ON THE APOCALYPSE 123
54^ {Mi^ne, ^yj C : ed. Bas. n 3'") :
quae una in tribus
quartis constare nuntiatur siue quia in
trina unitate credit siue quod trium professi
onum ordinibus grata uarietate distin
guitur uirginum uiduarum et coniugum, in
quibus nunc tribus quartis dari praedicet po
testatem banc dixit aeclesiam quae et una
est et ex tribus quartis quadrata stabilita
te consistet cum ad unum capud reperitur
trina professio superaedificata inquid super
fundamentum apostholorum et propheta
rum, ipso summo angulari lapide xpo ihu, banc
uariis praedicet malorum cladib: exercen
dam a gentilitate simulata fraternita
te et beret ica prauitate.
For this Migne and ed. Bas. give :
In qua nunc quartam dari praedixit potestatem. Hanc dicit ecclesiam qua ex
parte consistit variis malorum gladiis exercendam
This abridgement seems to be an attempt to make a sense out of
a mutilated text.
CHAPTER V
CICERONIAN PALIMPSESTS
de Re Puhlica (Vat. 5751).
A TRANSCRIPT of this famous palimpsest (C), together with an
able introduction dealing with orthographical peculiarities, has been
published by A. W. VanBuren in the Supplementary Papers of the
American School in Rome, vol. ii (1908). The reproduction of the
MS. in facsimile, which was undertaken by the Vatican Library
some years ago, has not yet appeared. For practical purposes Van
Buren's transcript is more helpful than a facsimile, since it can be
read rapidly. The MS. is interesting not only on account of its
date (cent, iv), but also because it is written in very narrow columns.
It contains unmistakable evidence of having been copied from a
model in very similar formation, and throws much light upon the
errors which a scribe was likely to make when writing such very
short lines. Since there is reason to believe that MSS. in very
narrow columns have played an important part in the transmission
of texts, this palimpsest deserves attentive study.
C is written in two columns with 15 lines to the page.
The columns vary a good deal in content. I took the trouble to
count the letters in some 20 pages, selecting in the first place some
in which there were very few corrections and abbreviations, and
secondly others which appeared to contain considerably less than
the pages which I first selected. The results were as follows.
I give the numbers of the pages from Van Buren's transcript:
Col. I
Col. 2
Total
p. 24
152
152
304
p. 29
151
143
294
P-3I
144
153
297
P-36
143
146
289
p. 50
159
153
312
p. 51
167
169
336
CICERONIAN PALIMPSESTS 135
Col. I Col. 2 Total
p. 62
151
145
296
P- 79
151
165
316
p. 80
152
151
303
p. 81
147
156
303
p. 92
164
163
327
P-93
153
157
310
p. 112
151
135
286
p. 129
146
144
290
p. 142
154
147
301
P- 143
150
146
296
p. 152
166
174
340
P- >53
151
160
311
p. 205
157
154
311
p. 256
148
142
290
3057 3055 61 12
The average for these 20 pages works out at 305I for a page,
152^^ for a column, and io|- for a line.
It will be seen that the content of these columns varies from 135
to 174. The interesting point is that the same size recurs so fre-
quently. Thus there are six examples of 151, three of 152, three
of 153, and two of 154. So also there are three of 146 and two of
147. In the same way two pages contain 296 letters, two 303, and
two 311. The scribe appears to adopt in some columns a unit of
9-10 letters and in others one of lo-ii, and to maintain this unit
throughout the column. Consequently, certain sizes, such as those
which I have quoted, appear frequently, while others are not
found.
The reader will observe the singular fact that the total for the two
columns in these 20 pages is almost identical (3057 and 3055).
A full account of the abbreviations is given by Van Buren. The
chief are b- — -bus and q- = que. Both of these are optional and
most frequent at the end of a line. The abbreviations res p., p.r.,
cons, (sing.), cos. (plur.), tr. pi. are normal, but we find rcruin publi-
carum (several cases), rebus publicis, populi r. (pp. 38, 278), consul
(pp. 60, 83), consulcs (p. 186), tribuuis plebis (p. 192). The abbre-
viation mag. (= magistratus) occurs on p. 119, and s.c. {— scnatus
consultum) on p. 12. The praenomina are generally abbreviated,
but we find Scrvius (p. 250), Spurius (p. 30 bis, p. 210), Quintus
126 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
(p. 210), and Tiberius (p. 213). Numerals are sometimes written in
figures, more frequently in full, and often both methods are combined.
b
The confusion between b and v is complete, e.g. 14 uelubis
u u u b u
(= beluis), 24 bolscam, 27 bellet, 38 bouisse, 55 prouabiles, 57 iobis,
u b b u u b
77 bis, 91 siui, 123 lauorib-, 151 pribatum, 172 insitiba, 175 inuecillis,
b u u
uelli, 193 probabisse, laudabisse, &c.
Corrections are generally made by striking out letters or by supra-
lineal dots. In order to simplify the work of the printers I have
not attempted to reproduce the corrections, but use the familiar
method of dots under the line for corrections of all kinds.
There is abundant evidence that the model of C contained a large
number of alternative readings. I have noticed the following cases :
se int
7 secututus segutus,^ 9 non posset,^ 13 erant, 42 habererent, ^^ ex
per
perpoliti (i.e. expoliti), 71 consiliao, 82 aut aput, 87 cultums, 93
s sub s
assiduurnos, loi plebie, 120 sublata perta (i.e. perlata), 124 et si,
rum a
134 rebrum (i. e. reb.), 186 senatus enatus,^ ib. anni annuam, 196 pro-
s u
geniae, 217 etsse (i.e. et se), 229 perubreuiter (i.e. perbreuiter), 234
appellabitur, 237 consilio que quae, 278 ac uetus ac uetusta.
Most of these are due to the correction of blunders in a previous
ancestor. Others look like traditional variants, e. g. : 52 ut rhodii
s corni sex a
ut rhodii ut athenienses, 94 litjcinibus, 108 et suffrages, 168 ullae . . ,
it d mill f c
peruerterunt, 271 potentatus, 261 conuenit.
Omissions of m. i.
(8) p. 195 (i. 38) : * turn demum
(9) p. 102 (i. 63): **nam dictat- W
(10) p. 5 (ii. 56) : obtinendam
(11) p. 30 (ii. 48): liberata iam*^)
O3) P' 83 (i. 10): fuissem consul
' This is wrongly quoted as an example of dittography by some writers.
2 Immediately afterwards the passage is repeated by error. On the second occasion C
gives non posset set.
3 The corruption sanatus for senatus is common in C, e.g. pp. 46, 186, 191, 192, 237,
241, 281. Cf. Dom. 24 (saenatu P).
CICKRONIAN PALIMPSESTS 127
p. 72 (i. 25): intermenstnio
(24) p. 265 (i. 60) : earn consilio sedari uolebat
(27) p. 217 (ii. 31): ** isqiie de imperio suo exemplo pom- ^*^'
p. 255 (ii. 45): ipse poenam sceleris sui summam (<*'
(32) p. 106 (i. 43) : servitutis si Athenienses quibiisdam <*'
(33) p. 182 (i. 31) : quo modo duo soles visi sint non quaerit.
(34) p. 8 (ii. 58) : imperium tr. pi. sic illi contra vim regiam (*">
(38) p. 268 (i. 61) : ** -co quid domi pluresne praesunt negotiis tuis f»>
(50) p. 228 (ii. 9) : Thraciam, Italiam, Sicilian!, Africam praeter unam Magne-
siam.'
There are two other cases where it is not clear what the omission
is, viz. :
p. 108 (ii. 39). C^ adds above the line :
habeat quib* cent, quattor centuriis
The reading seems uncertain and the abbreviations cause some
difficulty, since we cannot be sure what was in the model,
p. 70 (ii. 28) :
regem istum Xumam Pythagorae ipsius discipulum aut certe Pythago-
reum fuisse.
Chas :
regem istum
numam py
thagoraene ip
J sius discipulum aut cer
Ite pythagoreum fuisse
The last two lines are written in a compressed hand and the page
has an extra line. The presumption is that O omitted ipsuis dis-
cipulum aut certc pythagoreum (6^.), and that the passage was then
rewritten. If so, 35 letters were omitted by O.
I now add a few remarks on some of the omissions included in
the table given above.
{a) p. 102:
indicat nam dictator.
O gave :
indicator med. out.
Probably the model had :
indicat nam
dictator
* The omission mark > is used in the margin to denote where the omission occurred,
also at the foot of the page, where the supplement is given.
ia8 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
The scribe passed from the first to the second Hne.
{b) p. 30 :
qui etiam liberata iam civitate
C^ gave :
qui
etiam ciui
tate
lis indicates in the model :
"
qui et
iam liberata
(n)
iam ciuitate
(II)
{c) p. 217:
comitiis curiatis creavit, isque de imperio suo exemplo Pompili populum
consuluit.
gave :
commit
tis curiatis
craeui pilipo
pulum con
suluit.
C^ inserts t over i in cracni, strikes out pilipo, inserts po before
-pulum, and adds in an extra line :
isq« de imperio suo exemplo pompili.
The model here may be arranged either in two or three lines.
I incline to three in view of the telescoped passage of nine letters,
p. 102. If so, we may arrange :
creauit
isque de im
perio suo ex
emplo pom
5 pili populum
consuluit
C^ passed from 1. i to 1. 5.
{d) p. 255 :
et cum metueret ipse poenam sceleris sui summam, metui se volebat.
C^ gave :
et cum
metueret u
tui se uolebat
CICERONIAN PALIMPSKSTS rzq
Van Huren says that u in I. z is erased.
C^ adds ipse po€ nam sceLris siii su)nnid above the line and me-
before -tui. I suspect that // is a relic of nu-. It may, however,
be meaningless, in which case the omission was ipse . . . siimviani
me-. If so, the total of letters is 29, and the passage is telescoped.
{e) C- adds :
seruitutis si athenienses quib-da.
If we takx the abbreviations into account, the total is reduced
to 30.
(/) p. 8 (and p. 191) :
ut contra consulare imperium tr. pi., sic illi contra vim regium constituti
C^ gave :
lit
contra con
sularem cons
tituti
C' struck out -sularem and inserted :
sulare imperium tr. pi. sic illi contra vim regiam
Here consiilarcm may be a blunder for -lare^ and I have treated
the passage accordingly. It is, however, possible that m is the
last letter of regiam. The model may have had :
tra consulare
imperium tr.
pi. sic illi con
tra uiin regiam
constituti
If so, the passage has been telescoped and the omission is one of
33 letters.
{g) p. 268 :
ut uni dicto audiens esset. Ouippe vilico. Quid domi ? plurcsnc
praesunt ncgotiis tuis ? Immo vero unus inquit
O appears to have written :
uni dicto au
diens esset
quippe uili t
immo uero
unus inquit.
C- added -co above the line after ///// and apparently -uis after /.
I30
DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
He then struck out tuis and immo vero and rewrote the passage. Mai
gives praesunt negotiis tuis, but -sunt is not legible. Van Buren
gives as the addition of C^ :
quid domi pluresne prae
egot is tuis immo uero
but says in a note that negotiis tuis seems to have been written (by
C^). It is possible that tuis after vili may have been written by m. i.
If so, the omission was one of -co quid . . . negotiis (34).
I will here mention an omission of Nonius, viz. i. 16, et in Siciliatn
(13). In Cthe passage is written thus :
p. 34 : post in ita
Ham et in sici
liam conten
disse
It would seem likely that there was a similar arrangement in the
MS. of Nonius. I do not wish to suggest any connexion between
Cand Nonius, as the material is so scanty. It may, however, be
worth mentioning that in
i. 70 : expositaque ad exemplum nostra re p.
(7 and Nonius both have the corruption nostrae ret p.
(8) p.
97 (J.
15)
(10) p.
257 (i.
68)
(15) p.
117 (i.
52)
(18) p.
140 (i.
27)
(19) P-
59 (i-
23)
P-
283 (ii
.24)
(21) p.
253 (i
65)
(22) p.
94 (ii-
40)
P-
153 (i-
58)
(30) p.
189 (ii
51)
(31) P-
88 (ii.
27)
(36) p.
266 (i.
60)
(37) p.
9(ii.
70)
(41) P-
290 (i
i. 5)
49) P-
85 (i.
II)
Dittographies.
sole quod
vel in agris
nulli cupiditati '
numquam se plus agere^
diligebam et in primis
qualiscumque is foret
ac totam rem p. substravit
et is valebit in sufifragio
gentem ingenia quaerimus
hoc regiae civitatis everterit sit.
-discenda quaeque observanda essent
-fectum nihil vero inquit magis ergo non pro-
sine iniuria non posset hoc verissimum esse
-que facillimum ut in agrum Rutulorum aboriginum
cogantur cum quod est multo proclivius nulla necessitate
' This passage is not repeated immediately, but after 53 letters.
•' This passage is not repeated immediately, but after qtiavi nihil cum ageret (18).
CICERONIAN PALIMPSESTS
131
(57) P" ^50 ('• 64)- eadem voluntas in eorum posteris si regum similitudo per-
mansisset
(741 p. 170 (i. 49): teneri potest cum par non sit condicio civiiim si enim pecu-
nias aequari non placet si inge- ^ {in fine p(ij^.)
Simple conuptioiis.
p. 26 (ii. 69). C has :
sic ex sum
mis et infimis
et mediis et
interiectis
p, 169 (i. 49). Chas :
cum lex sit
ciuilis sit
p. 198 (i. 18). Chas:
quaes!
erat ex me
scipio ex me
p. 88 (ii. 26). (Thas:
et cupi
ditate et bella
di
p. 243 (i. 65). C has :
autem
f mare uUum
aut flamam
et mediis
interiectis
cum lex
sit ciuilis
quaesierat
ex me scipio
et cupiditate
bellandi
(8)
(10)
(10)
(12)
autem
mare ullum aut (12)
flammam
The scribe began to yiv'\t^ Jlanimam from the next line,
p. 2c6 (iii. 13). Chas :
ut cali .'• calida et (8)
da et frigida frigida et (9)
et camara amara
The scribe repeated c from calida.
p. 220 (ii. 35). (Thas :
legem
tulit princi /. legem tulit (loj
pio legem principio (9)
tulit
The writer has repeated 1. 1 after 1. 2.
^ The dittography is not immediate, but comes after 197 letters; cf. p. ij.v
K 2
132
DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
p. 46 (u. 43). Chas
ut spartae ly
curgi legib.
lit spartae iy
curgi legib.
(II)
(II)
ut et sit aliquod et sit aliquod
Here «/ is contrary to the sense [qiiamvis in ea sit et senatus . . .
et sit aliquod etiam popiili ius). It is to be noticed that here the
lines of C seem to coincide with those of the model,
p. 288 (ii. 4). C has :
ut bene meri
ti de reb. com
munib. ut
The writer looked forward two lines,
pp. 221,294 (i. 35). Chas:
bene meriti de (12)
reb. communib. (13)
ut
sit
sit in illo gene
in illo gene
(10)
re melior ego
re melior ego
(II)
cum mihi sit
cum mihi sit
(10)
jn unum opus
unum
The writer looked back three lines.
pp. 130,41 (ii. 60). Chas:
post res
post
multis dice
ea XX. ex eo
(8)
djs ea XX. ex
quod 1. papi
(9)
eo quod 1. pa
rius p. pina
(9)
pirius p. pina
rius censo
(9)
rius censo
res multis
res multis
dicendis
dicendis
The writer looked forward four lines.
To these may be added :
p. 10 (ii. 70). C has :
finis
disputandi
in eum dise
putandi fac
tus est
disputandi
in eum diem
factus est
(10)
(9)
Here the writer when he had written di- in I. 2 went back to
-spntandi in the previous line. He then changed dis to die.
CTCER(»XIA\ PALIMPSESTS 133
p. 16 (ii. 4j). 6 has :
adque circu
itum a primo
discite adq.
cognoscere
ad
Probabl)- here there were two variants, viz. cognosceri'? If so, que
has been introduced from two h'nes above,
p. 270 (i. 19). C has :
omnis
OS
que auidae
omnis sapic
tiae
Here a^'Uos seems to liave been assimilated in case to sapientiac
while omnis has been repeated,
p. 266 (i. 60) :
nihil isto ani
mo nihij itao
ani mo ani
hil ita anima
to homine
miserius du
cerem
The writer, after writinj^ ita, seems to have added -o from animo
in the previous line. There is a further confusion between nihil
and ani-.
The following passages exhibit larger figures :
p. 272 (ii. 14). (Thas :
patres populfi
que et suo et ( 10)
nihil isto
(9)
animo nihil
(10)
ita animato
(10)
homine mise
(10)
rius ducerem
(II)
tanti noni et
do)
liicumonis
(9)
c|ui romiili
(9)
socius in sabi
(12)
que no
Here que come;; from 1. 2. C seems to reproduce the line division
of the model. If we credit the model with the same errors, viz. tanti
( = Tati) and -ine s. !., the words que et . . . sabi- consist of 50 letters.
^ Cr. Cic. Mil. 38 ailcognovisset E.
134 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
p. 117 (i. 52). C\\a.s :
>P
se nuUi cupi
ditati cum quas
ad res ciuis ins
tituit et uocat
eas omnis co
plexus est in uj
la cupiditati
ipse
The words c?/m qiias . . . complexes est, as written, consist of
53 letters. The error is due to the recurrence of ipse. Possibly in
nlla cupiditati is a variant, which has been inserted in the wrong
place.
pp. 157-8 (ii. 5). (7 has:
ad spem diutur
nitatis conde
rentur adq. 1
perii primum
quod essent
urbes mariti
mae non so
lum multis
periculis oppo
sitae sed etia
caecitatis
Here caecitatis is an error for caecis, due to -tatis in 1. a. The
words -tatis . . . caeci-, if written as in C, consist of 100 letters,
p. 72 (i. 25). Chas :
certo illut
tempore fieri
et necessario
cum tota se
luna sub or
bem solis sub
iecisset itaq.
etsi non om
ni intermens
true tamen
id fieri non
posse nisi cer
to tempore
CICERONIAN PALIMPSESTS
135
Here ccrto has been repeated from 1. 1. The intervening words
certo . . . nisi as written consist of 124 letters.
p. 170 (i. 49). I here give both columns as they appear in C :
debent esse
eorum inter
se qui sunt ci
ues in eadem
5 rep. quid est
lum lus aute
legis aequale
quo iure so
cietas ciuiu
5 teneri potest
cum par no
sit condicio
ciuium si eni
pecunias ae
10 quari non
placet si inge
nia omnifi
paria esse no
possunt iura
rs certe paria
enim ciuitas
nisi iuris so
cietas ciuiu
teneri potest
10 cum par non
sit condicio
cjyium si eni
pecunjas ae
quari non
15 placet si in^e
We here observe that in I. y of col. 2 the writer went back to 1. 5
in col. 1 and proceeded to repeat the passage. There is here
a lacuna in (Tdue to the loss of folios, so we cannot be sure how
much more was repeated. The passage teneri potest (col. 1, I. 5)
. . . -cietas civiuni (col. 2, 1. 8) consists, as written, of 197 letters. It
may be noted that the dittography of seven lines contains 73 letters
(74, if enim in full).
p. 67 (ii. 20). Here again I give both columns. Before col. i
should come imrnor- (p. 30a).
talitate credi
turn cum ia
inueterata
uita hominu
5 ac tractata
esset et cogni
ta sed pro
fecto tanta
fuit in eo uis
10 ingenii atq.
uirtutis ut id
de romulo
proculo iulio
homini agraes
r
15 ti cederetur
quod multis
iam ante sae
clis nuUo alio
de mortalita
5 te homines
credidissent
136 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
Here the error in col. 2, 1. 4, mortalitatc for inortali, is due to the
occurrence of immortalitate in col. i, 1. i. We may compare the
similar blunder caccitatis for caccis (p. 158). The passage -tate
creditum (col. i. 1. \) . . . dc mortali (col. 2, 1. 4) consists, as written,
of 197 letters (I include the letter r sup. lin. in col. i, 1. 15).
Here we have a very remarkable coincidence, viz. that in these
two passages, where there is a repetition after a considerable interval,
the intervening words in each case consist of 197 letters.
It appears to be highly probable that 197 represents a column of
the model, and that the scribe looked back from one column to
another. (Cf p. 52.) If so, the model would appear to have had
19-20 lines to the page. i. e. 4-5 more than C.
It is interesting to put together the largest figures which have
emerged in the course of this analysis, viz. :
85 : dittography
omission
repetition (que)
repetition
dittography
dittography
repetition (-tatis)
repetition (certo)
intervening space
intervening space
On p. 170 I have included both the dittography of 74 letters and
the intervenii^g space (197).
The interesting points here are the three examples of 49-50 and
their connexion with 100 and the two examples of 197.
I add a few suggestions on textual points.
i. 22 : Hanc sphaeram Gallus cum moveret, fiebat ut soli luna totidem conversio-
nibus in acre illo quot diebus in ipso caelo succederet, ex quo et in
[caelo] sphaera soils fieret eadem ilia defectio et incideret luna turn in
earn nietani
Caelo here was struck out by Heinrich and Dobree. The model
may have had
in ipso
caelo succede (12)
ret ex quo et in (12)
sphaera
(49; p-
<^5
(50) p-
228
(52) p.
272
p-
117
(57) p.
150
(74) p.
170
(100) p.
157
(124) p.
72
(197) P-
67
P-
170
CICERONIAN PALIMPSESTS 137
i. zS : ()uis enini putare vere potest plus egisse Dionysium turn cum omnia
moliendo eripuerit civibus suis libertatem quam eius civem Archimedem,
cum istam sphaeiam, nihil cum agere videretur, [de qua modo dicebaturj
effecerit ?
So Heinrich and others. Stcinacker proposed to place the
bracketed words before //i/ii/. An ancestor may have had :
de qua modo (9)
dicebatur (9)
nihil cum age (ll)
re uideretur (II)
i. 49 : multo iam id in regnis minus quorum, ut ait Ennius, nulla [regni] sancta
societas nee tides est.
' vf/ quoiiidm ' (i. e. for quonnn) ' scribendum videtur, vel in sequent!
versu omittenda vox regni' (Mai).
The model may have had
regnis minus (il)
quorum ut ait (ll)
ennius nulla (I I)
sancta
Regni may be a repetition from regnis, or a variant which has got
into the wrong place.
i. 67 : Ex quo tit ut etiam servi se liberius gerant, uxores eodem iure sint quo
viri inque tanta libertate canes etiam et equi, aselli denique liberi sic
incurrant ut iis de via decedendum sit.
So Madvig : C adds sint before sic incurrant. I am inclined to
place liberi sint (10) before aselli tlenique (13). The model may
have had
canes
etiam et equi
liberi sint no)
aselli deniq. (12)
sic incurrant
For the sense cf. Deiot. 34 ' et quem no.s liberi in summa populi
Romani libertate nati '.
i. 71 : Tum Laelius : 'Tuum vero', inquit, ' Scipio, ac debitum quidem munus'.
So Halm : C has tnuni for debitum. I am not satisfied with the
emendation, but tunvi may have been repeated from the context
138 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
and taken the place of debittim or some other word. The model
may have had, e. g.,
tuum uero in (10)
quit scipio ac (12)
debitum
ii. 30 : multa intelleges etiam aliunde sumpta meliora apud nos [multoj esse facta
So Halm : Chas (p. 40)
aliunde su
ta meliora aput
multo
nos esse fac
ta
I am inclined to think that O- has inserted multo in the wrong
line, i. e. that it should come before meliora in 1. 2.
Taur. A II. 2*, cent. iv.
In this volume Peyron has united palimpsest leaves containing
fragments of Cicero. Most of these are similar in appearance and
may have come from one MS., viz. :
(i) Quinct. 3 ff., Caec. 5 ff., Pomp. \ f., Chi. 12 fif., Cael. 4 ff.,
Pis. 8 ff., Mil. 5 ff., Tull. 8 fif., Scaur. 5 fif,, hi Cloditim i f.
There are also two stray leaves, viz. :
(2) Verr. i f (3) Ad Fam. i f.
These are fragments of other MSS.
I take first the leaves which are similar in point of formation.
They are written in two columns with 21 lines to the page. The
average number of letters to the line is 18.
The contents of the first two folios of the pro Quinctio are as
follows, if expressed in lines of the Teubner text :
Fol. i = §§ 50-53 sed bonorum . . . tu te conlegis- = 37^^ lines
Fol. ii = §§ 66-70 -sentem sine . . . renoua- = 2)1 >>
The verso of f. iii is illegible. The recto contains
§§ 92-93 minas quas . . . officium = 18^ lines.
If we allow 18^ lines for the verso, we may ascribe to it
§§ 93-94 fidem . . . tanta potest.
I now combine those parts of the speech which have been lost
with those which survived, marking the latter with an asterisk.
= 152?
= I
= 4
= i7
= 284
= 8
= 37
= 46
= I
CICERONIAN PALIMPSESTS 139
1-50: quaeres . . . cohonestandas = 526^ lines = I4fr.
(37|x 14 = 525)
'50-53 : sed bonorum . . . tu te collegis-
53-66 : -ses non . . . Quinctium ab-
(37ix4 = 150)
•66-70 : -sentem sine . . . commemorando renova-
70-92 : -re cuius . . . illorum
(37 X 8 = 296)
*92-93 : minas quas . . . tanta potest
95-enci: iniseruin est . . , prosequatur
It is to be noted that there is a lacuna in § 85 after /loc dico.
Apparently about 12 lines of Tcubner text are here lost. (284+ 12
= 296.) At the end of the speech there must have been a blank
space.
I now give in a combined form the results in the other speeches :
Ceiec. 1-6: si quantum . . . disceptatore do- = 77i lines = 2 ff.
*6-9: -mestico diiudicatur . . . atrocitatem nostram = 39
9-13 : reprehendere . . . haec auctio
* 1 3-16: hereditaria . . . Aebuti-
16-38: -us quo testimonio . . . non perspicu-
(36 X 8 = 2S8)
*38-4i : -um est ad . . . hoc interdicto
41-47: Aebutius non . . . quisquani post
•47-50 : hac possessionis . . . qui se prae-
50-62 : -cipitatos ex . . . implorare pos-
(38x4 = 152)
•62-65 • "Ses quod homines . . . obtempera-
65-end : -ri non oportere . . . indicetis
(39X 13 = 507)
Here the end of the speech appears to have coincided with the
end of a page.
Pomp. 1-40: quamquam mihi . . . quae ceteri = 503 lines = 13 ff.
'40-43 : tollenda esse . . . quo honiine
43-end: vos id quod . . . oportere
Clu. '1-7 : animadverti . . . iudicium
7-18: quod in . . . nupcr Larino
•18-24: huius opprimendi . . . ac minis
24-32 : insequi . . . sustulisset
(38x3 = 114)
'32-38: quanto . . . constituunt
38-74: atque ille . . . Habitus pa-
(37X 14 = 518)
= 39
=
I
= 39
:=
I
= 36^
=
1
= 282
^
8
= n
=
I
= n\
=
2
= 38^
=
I
= iS2i
=
4
= 39
=
I
= 506
=
13
= 35
= I
= 361
= 10
= 75^
lines
= 2 ff.
= 147
= 4
= 76
= 2
= 115^
= 3
= 75
^=
= 5i7i
= 14
I40 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
Clu. *74-78 : -tiebatur . . . nonnullis sus- = 68 lines = 2 ff.
78-92 : -picio . . . aliquid de Clu- = 179 = 5
(35^5 = 175)
*92-94 : -entio . . . Fausto tamen = y]\ — i
94-101 : illi indices . . , viri boni = 'j'^^ = 2
*ioi-i03: suscepta . . . iudicio mul- =35 = i
103-129 : -ta est ab . . . civem sine = 350 = 10
* 1 29-1 3 1 : ignominia . . . probavisse = 35^ = 1
131-145 : -res enim . . . causam si- = 213^ = 6
(35x6= 210)
*145-I47: -ne lege . . . praescripto = 35^ = i
147-end: fieri . . . veritati =759 =20
{nl X 20 = 750)
Caeh 1-38: si quis . . . fama quotus = 520 lines — 14 ft".
(yjy. 14 = 518)
*38-42 : quisque est . . . ciiram rei =72 =2
The second folio here has lost a few lines, but it is not clear from
Peyron's account what the mutilation is.
42-54: domesticae . . . illius stu- = 151-^ lines = 4 ff.
(38x4 = 152)
*54-56; -dis illis . . . futurum Caelio =37 = I
56-66 : fuisse nisi ... in causa nul- = 187 = 5
(37x5 = i85j
*66-69 : -lus exitus . . . miramur si il- =38 =1
69-end : -lam comnienticiam . . . capietis = 147^ = 4
(37 X 4 = 148)
Here again the end of the speech seems to coincide with the end
of a folio.
Pis. 1-17: iamne vides . . . tyrannus omit- = 224 lines = 6 ff.
(38 X 6 = 228)
* 1 7-23: -to enim . . . aut te =79 =2
23-33: fuisti Romae . . . omnes exsecra- =157 =4
*33 36: -rentur male . . . esse visam = 4o| = i
36-47: nullis consiliis . . . Macedoni- = 160 =4
*47-5o: -am in quam . . . ille si non = 42^ = i
50-61: acerrime fureret . . . nummus in =157 =4
*6i-64 : -terea, mi Caesar . . . inflixerint = 4o| = i
(The passage -niam. qtiidein . . . inflixerint has been cut out.)
*64-67 : num etiam . . . quicquam praeter = 4of = i
(The folio ends at autem noliie, but I have added the amount which has been
cut out.)
67-75: libidines . . . deberem = 119I =3
CICERONIAN Py\LIMPSl<:STS
141
*75 79' quorum quidein . . . in\ itavit roga- = 42 lines =-- 1 f.
(The words CaesareDt . . . togti- liave been cut out.)
'79-82 : -vit non sum . . . monies rese- =41 =1
82 end : -dissent amnes . . . viderem =270 =7
(40 X 7 = 280J
In this speech the unit is higher than previously, v i/„ about 40.
There appears to have been a blank space of 10 or more lines
at the end.
Mil. 1 -29 : etsi vereor .
*29- 32 : sunt partim
32-33 : etsi boni . .
'34-36 : fiierit occidi
36- 72 : -tura ipsius
*72-75 : amplecti plebem
75-86 : -niam quantam
* 86-88 : bonae deae
1S8-92: cum solebat
92-95 '• -sa extra . .
95-end: ingratis civibus . . . elegit =124 =3
Here the unit is much the same as in the in Pisonein. A notice-
able exception is §§ 32-33 = 34. Peyron has shown that the
missing leaf must have contained more than is found in the
extant I\1SS. (p. 292).
Tull. 1-3: ante sic . . . consului. Pri- = i f.
The leaf has been mutilated.
7-ii: pecuniae paret . . . datum esset =36' lines
24-28 : turbarunt. Audite . . . malo eius er- = 35
2S-32: -go addit . . . nocte sine = 39^
32-36: vi sine . . . solum igitur =35?
37-41 : ego intellego . . . dedit de cete- = 36^
41 46: -ris damnis . . . nimiamque hominum = 36'^
. partim occisi
= 363
lines
= 9ff.
. . personis valeat
= 40^,
= I
non debeo
= 34
= 1
. . iain ilium na-
= 392-
. . quia nimis
= 402^
= 10
m ... si sibi pecu-
= 41
= 1
i . . , sacrarium
= 159
= 4
. . circumscripsisstt
ne = 40.^
= I
. . multa de cau-
= 39^
= I
enim negat
= 42^
= I
47-51 : boni debent . . . fugit ma-
53 56: tamen verum . . . potest ut eum
Scaur. 2 -J \ -tis suae . . . etiam facilius
18-23: quoniam habet . . . genus primum
23-28: ut inquisitum . . . odium popu-
31-36: aut eius qui . . . detraxcrint
46-50: -tuisse tempio . . . incendio di-
The leaf has been mutilated.
The signature vim is found on the verso of the fourth folio of this speech,
after detraxerint (§ 36).
in Clod. 19-24: lego quam . . . tamen ex = 37 lines = i f.
= 37
= 37
= ^6^.
= 36^.
= 36^.
= 37
Quinct.
=
1074*
29
Caec.
=
1320
35
Pomp.
=
899
24
Clu,
=
2793
76
Gael.
=
1152I
31
Pis.
=
1414
36
Mil.
=
1326
l^
Tull.
=
293I
8
Scaur.
=
146^
4
Clod.
=
37
I
14a DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
The following conspectus may be of interest. I give the contents
of the ]\IS. when perfect, except in the case of Ttill.., Scaur., and in
Clodium, omitting Qtiinct. 95-end, where there was a vacant space,
and two mutilated leaves in Tttll. and Scaur.
Teubner lines folios avg. for f.
37 {37 X 29 = 1073)
38 (38x35 = 1330)
3>7\ (37^x24 = 900)
37 (37x76 =2812)
2>7 (37x31 = 1147)
39 (39x36 = 1404)
40 (40x33 = 1320)
37 (37x8 = 296)
36I (36^x4 = 146)
37
It will be seen that the average is remarkably constant except in
Pis. and Mil., where there is a slight rise. It is very probable that,
with the possible exception of Pis. and Mil., the speeches were
united in one MS. It is also quite likely that towards the end of
the MS. the scribe slightly contracted his hand. I have already
noticed the quaternion mark villi at Scaur. '^6.
The MS. {T) does not contain much evidence concerning its past
history.
There are some interesting corruptions in the pro Ttillio, which
deserve attention, viz. :
§ 36 : bona me hercule. Si hoc solum
T has :
hoc solum bona me her
cule si hoc solum
This indicates in a previous MS.:
bona me hercule si {15)
hoc solum
§ 53 : tamen per vim factum esset, tamen in eo ipso loco qui tuus asset, non modo
servos
¥oY per vim T has verum. The passage is written thus:
tamen uerum factum
esset non modo seruos
tamen in eo ipso loco qui
tuus esset non modo ser
uos
CICERONIAN PALIMPSESTS 143
This indicates (after faction) :
esset
tamen in eo ipso lo (15)
CO qui tuns esset (14)
non modo senios
The repetition of non modo servos is due to o/x.
§ 33 • ^'go non in ""a re sola, quod mihi satis est,neque in universa re solum scd
T has :
ego non in una re sola
quod mihi satis est neq.
in uniuersa re solum
quod mihi satis est sed
This indicates :
re sola
quod mihi satis est (16)
neque in uniuersa (15 1
re solum sed
The writer looked back from re solum to re sola and repeated
a line before he saw his mistake. He then went on at the right
place, but did not correct the error.
§ 49 : at primum istae ipsae leges quas recitas, ut mittam cetera, significant
quam noluerint maiores nostri, nisi cum pemecesse esset, hominem
occidi. Ista lex sacrata est.
T repeats privmm before ista lex. This indicates :
primum istae ip (13)
sae leges quas re (14)
citas ut mittam ce (15)
tera significant (15)
quam noluerint ma (15)
iores nostri nisi (15)
cum pemecesse es (15)
set hominem occidi (16)
ista lex
The writer looked back from ista lex to istae ipsae leges.
§§ 29, 30: satis est planum facere, vel se a me ipso vi deiectum esse vel me con-
silium inisse ut vi deicerelur. Plus igitur datur Claudio, cum ita inter-
dicitur, unde dolo malo meo vi deiectus sit, quam si daretur, unde a me
vi deiectus esset. Nam in hoc posteriorc, nisi ipse egomet deiecissem,
vincerem sponsionem : in illo priore, ubi dolus malus additur, sive
consilium inissem, sive ipse deiecissem.
144 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
Here the scribe made two errors, which he then corrected, viz. :
(i) For wide dolo malo meo he wrote imde a me from the imme-
diate context.
(2) After writing sive consilium inissem, he looked bade to 7ne
consilium inissc, and repeated ut vi deiceretiir. He then struck this
out and substituted sive ipse deiecissem above the line.
I suggest the following distribution of the passage in the model :
consilium inisse (15)
ut ui deiceretiir (14)
plus igitur datur (15)
claudio cum ita in (15)
5 terdicitur unde do (16)
lo mnlo meo ui deiec (16)
tus sit quam si da (14)
retur unde a me ui (14)
deiectus esset nam (16)
10 in hoc posteriore (15)
nisi ipse egomet de (16)
iecissem uincerem (16)
sponsionem in illo (16)
priore ubi dolus ma (16)
15 lus additur siue (14)
consilium inissem (16)
When the writer came to 1. 5, he looked forward from unde after
-tur to unde in 1. 8 after -tnr. After copying 1, 16, he looked back
to 1. 1 and repeated 1. 3.
The words consilium inisse . . . additur sive consist of 228 letters
(i^x 15 = 225). It is quite likely that they occupied a column in
the model. If so, the writer looked back from the top of col. 2 to
the top of col. I.
The evidence seems to show that in the pro TulUo the model of
T was written in lines with an average of 15 letters.
It is somewhat singular that these instructive errors are confined
to the pro Tullio. In the other speeches there is a dearth of such
evidence.
I have shown that the folios combined by Peyron in T may have
come from the same MS., though I make certain reservations in the
case of the iji Pisonem and pro Milone. It does not, however, follow
that the contents of this MS. were derived from one ancestor.
CICERONIAN PALIMPSESTS 145
The following omissions may be noticed :
(11) Quinct. 53: adfinitatis ^w/. T
{12) Clu. 130: a tr. seditioso ont. T
Pis. 33 : profectionis ovi. T
{14) Clu. 129: et turpitudinem t'?;/. T
Cael. 55 : percipite atqiie ovi, T
(19) Clu. 37 : Asuviuin appellat ipse om. T^
The last of these is interesting. We have already seen that the
average number of letters in a line of T is 18. The suspicion,
therefore, arises that in the pro Clncntio, at any rate, it may have
been copied from a model very similar to itself.
To these, probably, should be added :
(19) /"/j. 48 : partim permutationes
(23) 21 : et flagitiorum impunitate
In the first of these most MSS. give :
cum partim eius praedae profundae libidines devorassent, partim nova
quaedam et inaudita luxuries, partim etiam in illis locis ubi omnia diri-
puit emptiones, partim permutationes ad hunc Tusculani (-num) montem
exstruendum
Here [' (Bas. Vat. H. 2j), cent, viii, has :
tim etiam in illis lo
cis ubi omnia diripu
it emptiones partim
mutationes ad hunc
^yx^culani \\ \\ \\ \\ \\
montem exstruen
dum
The words italicized are written /;/ rasiira, also there is an
erasure after Tusciila?ii. It appears probable that F' wrote
emptiones ad hunc, omitting partim pcrmittationcs (o/ui.). The cor-
rector then struck out ad hunc and rewrote the passage in ras. and
above the line.
As omissions are very frequent in sentences where partim . . .
partim occurs, I am now inclined to think that the words partim
permutationes represent a genuine tradition. Havet ingeniously
corrects to partim mutuationes}
' Manuel, p. 58.
146 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
In the second passage, § 21, the later MSS. have :
ex omni scelerum importunitate et flagitiorum impunitate.
The omission by T of the last three words seems due to b\i. If
this view is correct, the relation of Pis. 48 to Clu. 37 is to be
noted. There are also some transposition variants which may be
added, viz.:
Caec. 41 : est periculosum T\ periculosum est cett.
Pis. 49: pretio mei capitis TV: mei capitis pretio ^i?//.
Mil. 75: exstruere aedificium T: aedificium exstruere ^r^//.
Cael. 39 : Fabricios fuisse arbitror Camillos T: fuisse arbitror Camillos Fabricios
cett.
Pis. 22: in quo cum ilium saltatorium versaret orbem, ne turn quidem T\ in
quo ne tum quidem cum ilium saltatorium versaret orbem cett.
The theory of these transposition variants will be found discussed
in detail further on (pp. 255-8). Here I will only remark that such
a case as Caec. 41 indicates in a previous MS.
mg. est periculosum (n)
So we may explain the variants in Cael. 39, Pis. 22 as due to
in quo
fuisse arbi (10) cum ilium sal (11)
7«^. fabricios tror camillos (12) tatorium uer (11)
sed mg. ne tum quidem saret orbem (10)
I now turn to the two leaves from the Verrines and the Epp. ad
Familiares.
The first of these was taken from a MS. of Cyprian, formerly
belonging to Bobbio. It has been mutilated, 13 lines only having
been preserved. The recto contained :
Verr. i. 44 : -que iter fecit . . . magistratum Sicyonium
After this the portion of the page which was cut away contained :
44-5 : nummos poposcit . . . semivivum.
The part of the verso which was preserved contained :
45 : reliquit . . . participem C. Verr-
The rest of the page was cut away.
This leaf, which Chatelain ascribes, though doubtfully, to the
third century, was written not in columns, but in long lines. They
vary a good deal in length, since paragraphs are used, and blank
CICERONIAN PALniPSESTS 147
spaces are left at the end of a paragraph. The contents of the
1 3 lines preserved are as follows :
recto. 24, 23, 22, 9, 22, 17, 23, 21, 22, 23, 22, 13, 2C = 261.
verso. 8, 24, 24, 21, 20, 25, 12, 23, 22. 21, 23, 23, 22 = 268.
The lost portion of the recto contained 294 letters (nummos . . .
umiinx'um). The leaf, therefore, when intact must have had
27-8 lines.
The interest of t^e leaf lies in the fact that it preserves a passage
omitted in most MSS., viz. :
§ 45 : dictum est hoc . . . aestimatum.
The other leaf contained
Ad Fam. vi. 9. i-io. 6: hunc a puero . . . etiam poliiceri.
The verso was deciphered by P. Kriiger, after Peyron had pro-
nounced it to be illegible.*
The leaf is written in long lines with 27 lines to the page. One
line on the recto is occupied by the title to vi. 10, viz. CICERO
TREBONIO SAL. DIC. There are, therefore, 26 lines of text, as
compared with the verso.
The contents are :
recto (26 lines) = 967 letters.
verso (27 lines) = 1000 letters.
The average length of a line is 37 letters (37 x 26 = 96a,
37x27 = 999).
This leaf is extremelv interesting. Whereas it is usual to find in
palimpsests passages omitted in later MSS., this fragment has a series
of omissions. Also, there are indications that the text was doctored
in places after omission.
Peyron, therefore, suggested that the fragment belonged to a
shorter version of the Letters made by an epitomalor who selected
those passages which seemed interesting to him. This theorj- has
been adopted by subsequent writers, and Kriiger suggests that this
epitome may have been made by Pronto, who speaks of making
excerpts from Cicero's letters.
In order to put the facts before the eyes of the reader, I write
out the contents of the recto :
hunc a puero quod et spem magnam mihi adfere
bat summae probitatis summaeq. eloquentiae
' Hermei, t ;iS7i>, pp. 146-^
L 2
i4« DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
et uiuebat mecum coniunctissimae n solum
amicitiae ofificiis sed etiam studiis communib.
5 semper dilexi nullo ut cum homine coniuncti
us uiuerem uides relicum esse ut cum cogno
rim quid tu et de bonorum fortuna et de reip.
calamitatib. sentias nihil a te petam nisi ut ad ea
uoluntatem quam tua sponte erga caecinam
lo habiturus es tantus cumulus accedat comme
datione mea quanti me a te fieri intellego
CICERO TREBONIO SAL. DIC.
Ego quanti te faciam semperq. fecerim quantiq.
me a te fieri intellexerim sum mihi ipse testis
15 nam et consilium tuum uel casus potius diutius
in armis ciuilibus commorandi semper mihi mag
no dolori fuit et hie euentus quod tardius qua
est aecum et quam ego uellem reciperas fortu
nam et dignitatem tuam mihi fi minori curae
20 est quam tibi semper fuerunt casus mei itaq.
si auctoritate et gratia tantum possem quantum
in ea r.p. de qua ita meritus sum posse deberem
tu quoq. esses qui fuisti cum omni gradu amplis
simo dignus tum certe ordinis tui facile princeps
25 sed quoniam eodem tempore eademq. de causa
nostrum uterq. cecidit nihil erit saltem quod
fi pro te mihi susceptum maximum semper ac
The other MSS. here contain certain passages omitted by the
palimpsest (7"), viz. :
1. 6, after viverem :
nihil attinet me plura scribere, quam mihi necesse sit eius salutem et
fortunas quibuscumque rebus possim tueri ad<f. codd.
1.7, after cognorim :
pluribus rebus add. codd.
1. \\ , 2S\t.x intellego :
hoc mihi gratius facere nihil potes. uale. add. codd.
1. 20, after it ague :
et Postumuleno et Sestio et saepissime Attico nostro proximeque Theudae,
liberto tuo, totum me patefeci et haec eis singulis saepe dixi, quacumque
re possem, me tibi et liberis tuis satis facere cupere, idque tu ad tuos velim
scribas, haec quidem certe quae in potestate mea sunt ut operam consilium
rem fidem meam sibi ad omnes res paratam putent. add. codd.
. 26, after cecidit, in place of the words 7ii/ii/ erit saltem :
CICERONIAN PALIMPSESTS 149
tibi et ilia polliceor quae supra scrips!, quae sunt adhuc inea, et ea quae
praeterea videor mihi ex aliqua parte retinere tamquam ex reliquiis
pristinae dignitatis: neque enim ipse Caesar, ut multis rebus intellegere
potui, est alienus a nobis et onines fere familiarissimi eius casu devincti
niagnis meis veteribus officiis me diligenter observant et colunt. Itaque
si qui mihi erit aditus de tuis fortunis, id est de tua incolumitate, in qua
sunt omnia, agendi, quod quidem cotidie magis ex eorum sermonibus
adducor ut sperem agam, per me ipse et moliar. Singula p'rsequi non est
necesse, universuni studium meum et benevolentiam ad te defero. Sed
magni mea interest hoc tuos omnis scire, quod tuis litteris fieri potest ut
intellegant, omnia Ciceronis patere Trebiano. Hoc eo pertinet ut nihil
existiment esse tam difficile, add. codd.
It is clear that the words ;////// erit saltern are an attempt to mend
the passage after this long omission or excision.
The verso of T differs notably from the recto, in that there is only
one omission. This occurs in 1. 10 after versatuvi. I therefore give
the first ten lines only :
iucundum futurum sit antea misissem ad te
litteras si genus scribendi inuenirem tali enim
tempore aut consolari amicorum est aut polli
ceri consolatione n utebar quod ex multis au
diebam quam fortiter sapienterq. ferres in
iuriam temporum quamq. te uehementer con
solarentur conscientia factorum et consilio
rum tuorum quod quidem si facis magnum
fructum studiorum optimorum capis in quib.
te semper scio esse uersatum simul et illud tibi
Here the other MSS. add, after versatuin :
idque ut facias etiam atque etiam te hortor.
There is no possible explanation except that of deliberate abridge-
ment. The method followed is somewhat odd. Thus the passage
omitted on recto, I. 6, is not self-contained, but requires vides to
complete the construction. In 1. 20 the abbreviator takes itaque,
which is the first word in a sentence, and then performs a large cut.
The attempt to botch the construction after the long omission in
1. 26 is very impudent.
Krijger calls attention to a statement of Pronto, who says (ii.
5. 107, ed. Niebuhr) :
memini me excerpsisse ex Ciceronis epistulis ea dumtaxat quibus inesset
aliqua de eloquentia vel philosophia vel de re publica disputatio, praeterea
si quid eleganli aut verbo notabili dictum viderelur, excerpsi
150 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
It occurred to me as possible that the abbreviator went on the
method of cutting out lines in his model, and making small altera-
tions from time to time where the wound in the text was left
manifest. I noticed at once a very singular circumstance, viz. nihil
attinct . . . tucri, the first passage omitted = 94 letters; also the block
of text which comes between the omission oi pluribus rebus and hoc
mihi . . . vale, viz. quid tu et . . . intellego, as printed by Mendelsohn,
consists of 187 letters. That which is omitted in 1. 30 after itaque,
viz. et PosUmiuleno . . . putcnt, consists of 284 letters. Here we
have the sequence :
94.
187(94x2 = 188).
284 (94 X 3 = 282)
This is somewhat astonishing. Of course, 94 cannot be the unit.
The model is not likely to have had longer lines than T, which has
an average of 37 to the line.
I now exhibit the whole passage, marking with an asterisk those
portions which are found in T. Those not marked are supplied
from the other MSS.
There are certain differences in reading between 7" and the other
MSS. As I do not wish to assist my argument by picking and
choosing, I give the readings of T throughout, though by so doing
the figure 187, given above, is reduced to 183 (reading sentias for
sentires, and es for esses, with T). I assume only the ordinary official
abbreviations [res p. &c.), since we cannot tell if there were any
sporadic abbreviations, e. g. Q. {= que), -5. (= bus), in those portions
of the model which were omitted by the maker of the abridged
text.
I begin with 1. 6 of the recto, where the first omission occurs :
nihil attinet . . . possim tueri = 94
* vides relicum esse ut cum cognorim = 29
pluribus rebus = 13
* quid tu et . . . fieri intellego =183
hoc mihi . . . potes. Vale ^ = 34
* ego quanti . . . mei itaque = 310
et Postumuleno . . . paratam putent = 284
* si auctoritate . . . uterque cecidit =217
tibi et ilia . . . tarn difficile = 676
1 If the abbreviation F. (= Vale) was used, this = 31. Cf. Schmitz, Commentarii
Notariim Tironianitn, PI. 64,
CICERONIAN PALIMPSESTS 151
• quod non pro . . . esse versatum ' = 399
idque ut . . . te hortor = 36
I now place these figures in numerical order :
13
94
310
29
183
399
34(31)
217
676
36
284
Here 31x3 = 93, 31x6=186, 31x7 = 217, 31x9 = 279,
31 X 10 = 310, 31 X 13 = 403, 31x22 = 682.
Only one number is recalcitrant to this explanation, viz. 13.
This comes between 29 and 183. The probability, therefore, is that
the words pluribus rebus were already omitted by the model. If so,
the whole passage from vidcs rclicum . . .fieri tiitcllcgo forms one
block (29+ 183 = 212). The similarity of 212 to 217 is to be noted.
The unit is represented by 29, 34 (31), and 36. The last passage
is rather long. It is to be noticed, however, that -que and atqne
both occur in it. If Q. was used for -que, the total would be reduced
to 32. The length, therefore, is more apparent than real.
I now venture to write out the passage, as I conceive it to have
stood in the model of T, enclosing in brackets the portions omitted
by T. I begin with 1. 6 of the recto :
uiuerem
Inihil attinet me plura scribere quam (31)
mihi necesse sit eius salutem et fortu (32)
nas quibuscunque rebus possim tueri] (31)
uides relicum esse* ut cum cognorim (29)
quid tu et de bonorum fortuna et de rei (31)
p. calamitatibus sentias^ nihil a te pe (31)
tam nisi ut ad earn uoluntatem quam tua (31)
sponte erga caecinam habiturus es* (29)
tantus cumulus accedat commendati (30)
one mea quanti me a te fieri intellego {31)
[hoc mihi gratius facere nihil potes. uale] (34)
CICERO TREBONIO S.\L. DlC.
* I here read, with T, suscepium maximum semper or itcun.ium Jutuitim sit. The
other MSS. give suscfptum iiuundiim sit futunon. Krtigcr thinks that the words maximum
semper ac are part of the botching. Isince, however, they do not help out the consli action,
it seems to be more probable that they were present in the model of T.
' est cett. ' sentires cett. * esses cett.
^52
DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
ego quanti te faciam semperque fece (30)
rim quantiqiie^ me a te fieri intellexe (31)
rim sum mihi ipse testis nam et consili (32)
um tuum uel casus potius diutius in ar (31)
mis ciuilibus commorandi semper mihi (32)
magno dolori fuit et hie euentus quod (31)
tardius quam est aecum et quam ego uel (31)
lem reciperas fortunam et dignitatem (32)
tuam mihi non minori curae est quam (29)
tibi semper fuerunt casus mei itaque (31)
[et postumuleno et sestio et saepissime (33)
attico nostro proximeque theudae li (31)
berto tuo totum me patefeci et haec eis (32)
singulis saepe dixi quacunque re pos (31)
sem me tibi et liberis tuis satis face (31)
re cupere idque tu ad tuos uelim scri (30)
bas haec quidem certe quae in potestate {^^)
mea sunt ut operam consilium rem fidem (32)
mcam sibi ad omnis res paratam putent] (31)
si auctoritate et gratia tantum pos (30)
sem quantum in ea re p. de qua ita meritus (32)
sum posse deberem tu quoque esses* qui (31)
fuisti cum omni gradu amplissimo dig (31)
nus^ tum certe ordinis tui facile prin (31)
ceps sed quoniam eodem tempore eadem (31)
que de causa nostrum uterque cecidit (31)
[tibi et ilia polliceor quae supra (28)
scrips! si quae sunt adhuc mea et ea quae (33)
praeterea uideor mihi ex aliqua parte {32)
retinere tamquam ex reliquiis pris (30)
tinae dignitatis neque enim ipse cae (31)
sar ut multis rebus intellegere po (29)
tui est alienus a nobis et omnes fere (30)
familiarissimi eius casu deuincti (30)
magnis meis ueteribus officiis me di (31)
lififenter obseruant et colunt itaque (31)
si qui mihi erit aditus de tuis fortu (30)
nis id est de tua incolumitate in qua (30)
sunt omnia agendi quod quidem cotidie {32)
magis ex eorum sermonibus adducor ut (31)
sperem again per me ipse et moliar singu (32)
la persequi non est necesse uniuersum (32)
studium meum et beneuolentiam ad te (30)
om. -que cett.
is esses ceti.
dignissimus ceii.
CICERONIAN PALIMPSESTS 153
defero sed magni mea interest hoc tii (30)
OS omnis scire quod tuis littcris fi (30)
eri potest ut intellegant omnia cice (31 )
ronis patere trebiano hoc eo perlinet (32)
lit nihil existiment esse tarn difficile] (33)
quod non pro te mihi susceptum inaxi (29)
mum semper ac' iucundum futurum sit ' an (31 )
tea misissem ad te litteras si genus (30)
scribendi inuenirem tali enim tempo (31)
re aut consolari amicorum est aut pol (31)
liceri consolatione non utebar quod (31)
ex multis audiebam quam fortiter sa (30)
pienterque ferres iniuriam temporum (32)
quamque te uehementer consolaretur (31)
conscientia factorum et consiliorum (32)
tuorum quod quidem si facis magnum (29)
fructuni studioruni optimorum capis (30)
in quibus te semper scio esse uersatum (32)
[idque ut facias etiam atque etiam te hortor] (36)
The last line becomes normal, if we attribute to the model :
idq. ut facias etiam atq. etiam te hortor (32)
Ambros. R. 57 sup., cent, v (A)
This palimpsest comes from Bobbio. It is written in three
columns, with 24 lines to the page and an average of nearly 12 letters
to the line. The contents of A are :
pro Scauro 6 flf.
pro Tullio 4 ft".
pro Flcicco I f.
pro Caelio I f.
I have already (p. 13) given figures to show the regularity of
writing in this MS. As expressed in Teubner lines, the contents of
the folios in the/rt? Scauro and pro Tttllio are as follows. I omit
one folio, containing Tiill. 8-14, since it has been badly mutilated :
Scaur. 8-13: te dixi . . . flagitio defor- = 39l
13-19: -matos habetis . . . disputem quid = 40J-
19-25:
non habuisti .
. . atque iniurias
= 39^.
29-34 :
-litu Aetnam .
. . quam ob rem
= Ao}
34-40 :
se consule . .
. hoc perfugi-
= 41
40-45 :
-um dolori . .
. Scipionum int-
= 41^
maximutn semper ac oni. celt, ' sit futurum celt.
154 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
Tull. 4-8: ore putavit . . . facere cumque — ^^\
8-14: ea consuetudo ... P. Fabius nu- = 39
The folio contained more than this, but has been damaged in § 1 1 after datum
esset.
18-23: -mine eius . . . amici incomm- =41
There can be no doubt that these leaves are taken from the same
MS. The single leaf of the/r^ Flacco is in similar formation, three
columns, with 24 lines to the page. The lines, however, are slightly
shorter. The first column on the recto and the third column on the
verso are imperfect, having lost 11 lines. The 13 lines which
remain in both cases contain 145 letters (13x11 = 143). If we
allow II letters for each of the lost lines (11 x 11 = 121), the total
for each of the mutilated columns is 266. The total contents of the
folio, after this addition, are as follows :
Col. I Col. 2 Col. 3
recto 266 264 266 = 796] _
verso 266 249 266 = 781)
The average length of line for the whole folio is 1 1 letters, nearly
(144x11 = 1584).
This compares with an average of 844 letters to a page (i. e. 1688
to a folio) in the pro Semiro and pro Ttillio. As expressed in
Teubner lines, if we make allowance for the lost lines, the equiva-
lent is 37f. It is, therefore, possible that this leaf comes from
another source.
The leaf from the/r^ Caelio is said to contain :
§§ 7i~75 • C. Aeserni . . . et infelici
A photograph is given by Chatelain (PI. xxix), but he describes
the leaf as malJietireusement presque illisible, and so I find it. The
passage in question = 46^ lines of Teubner text. The difference
between this and the preceding figures, viz. 39-41^ for Xhepro Scmiro
and pro Tiillio, and 37I for the single leaf of the pro Flacco, seems
to show that this was taken from a separate MS.
In the pro Scauro, A on two occasions omits words found in
T, viz. :
(9) § 23 : ac facetum
(11) §24: et discendam
These omissions suggest that A is derived from a MS. very like
itself. If so, we may explain a corruption in
CICERONIAN PALIMPSKSTS 155
Scaur. 34 : qui sive patricius sive plebeius esset — nondum eniin certum con-
stituerat — cum hoc sibi contentionem fore putabat.
So T and Asconius, except that Asconius has coiistiititiiui crat
and cion iilo.
A has :
Qui siue patrici
us siue plebeius
esset non enim
certum consti
tuerat cum hoc
sibi certum c6
tentionem fo
re putabat
Here ccriinn is repeated from the context before con- (ofj..).
The model may have had :
enim
certum con (9)
stituerat (9)
cum hoc sibi (10)
contentionem
In Scaur. 43, -r4, our sole authority, gives :
qua re cum integri nihil fuerit in hac gente plena, quam valde earn
putamus tot transfusionibus coacuisse ?
The reference is to the mixed descent of the Sardinians. I have
inserted pestilcntiae before plena. If so, we may attribute to the
model :
in hac gente
pestilcntiae (12)
plena
I recently noticed an interesting parallel in Fam.\\\. 24 i. Here
Cicero, speaking of the Sardinian Tigellius, calls him houiincvi
pcstilcntiorctn patria sua.
I finally record certain transposition variants in A and the other
MSS. which seem to go back to an ancestor in narrow columns, viz. :
Scaur. 23 : iacere fundamentum A : fundamentum iacere T
32 : in gratiam reditum A : reditum in gratiam 7'
Cac/. 71: crimen quaestionis y42 : quaestionis crimen i^^//.
disciplinae dedita Al : dedita disciplinis ce//.
stiidiis aequalium A2 : aequaiium studiis ce^/.
These arc the only instances which I have noticed, and their
similarity is remarkable.
156 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
I reserve the palimpsest of the Verrines (Vat. Reg. 2077) for
treatment together with the MSS. of these speeches.
Vat. 5750.
Scholiasta Bobiensis.
The remains of the Scholiasta Bobiensis have been preserved in
two paHmpsests, viz. Vat. 5750, Ambros. E. 147 sup.
The first of these has been reproduced in facsimile. The upper
writing contains the Acts of the Council of Calchedon and Letters
of Leo the Great. Underneath are Fronto, the Scholiasta and
various other works.
The scholia are written in two columns, with 25 lines to the page
and an average of 16 letters to the line. There are a large number
of quaternion markings on the leaves, e.g. Q Ixx on p. 189 of
Ambr. E. 147, and Hildebrand says that, when perfect, the volume
contained 73 quaternions. It must, therefore, have been very bulky.
There is one passage where words omitted by the first hand are
added at the foot of the page, with omission symbols. This is
Vat. 1 5 : servasse enim de caelo tunc videntur Domitius Calv inus et O. Ancharius
et C. Fannius : [ius] autem non erat aliquid cum populo agi eo tempore
quo de caelo servaretur.
Here ius or fas is supplied by editors.
The MS. (Q has, after videntur}
domitius caluinus et
q. ancharius et c. quid
cum populo agi eo tern
pore
C^ puts hd over r., and at the foot adds :
(22) fannius autem non erat ali hs
Hildebrand considers that this represents a line of the model,
' lineam cuius oblitus erat librarius . . . addidit '. If so, it is to be
noted that the line in the model was longer than in the copy, which,
although possible, is not usual.
C contains a large amount of evidence in the shape of repetitions
and dittographies, which seem to indicate that the unit was 11-12
' Cf. p. 27 of facsimile.
k
CICERONIAN PALIMPSESTS 157
letters. If so, the passage omitted by C^ in Vat. 15 represents not
one line, but two. The instances which I have noted are as follows.
The references are to the pages and lines of the Teubner text.
I take first simple dittographies, viz. :
(12) 135. 5 : cum inrisione dis sir.
(49) 91. 4 : tamen statim cum ipso corpore alii vero interiecto quodam it's scr.
(64) 95. 20: Claudia de bonis Ptolomaei publicandis M. Cato ut consenserit in
legal ionem bis scr.
Here 1 2 x 4 = 48, 12 x 5 = 60.
I take next repetitions of a short word, or part of a word, after
an interval, viz. :
(13) 141. 15 : fuisse repeated 7A\.tr fuisse denique
(15) 142. 29 : Ciceronis repeated after Ciceronis ipsttes
(21) 136. 3 : contra repeated after contra dicente scilicet
(25) 74. 8 : su repeated after supra in itlarum qtiaestionum
This indicates in the model :
supra in ilia (l l)
rum quaestionum (14)
In other cases the passage repeated is longer, viz. :
147- I :
creber fuisti ut haec immodica
C repeats crcbcr fiiisti (12) after ivimodica. This indicates:
creber fuisti (12)
ut haec immodica (14)
125.27:
comparandum ut apud iudices editicios
C^ repeats comparandum (11) after editicios. This indicates:
comparandum (11)
ut apud iudi (lo)
ces editicios (12)
80. 10:
hoc ratiocinationibus validis implet subncctens ad hunc modum, nam
quid de Cyro nuntiaret ?
O repeats hoc ratiocinationibus (20) after nuntiaret. This
indicates :
hoc ratioci (lo)
nationibus (10)
ualidis implet (13)
158 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
subnectens (10)
ad hunc modum (ll)
nam quid de cy (11)
ro nuntiaret (11)
105. 25 :
dicit ducentos bestiarios, id est venatores, sine dubio volens intellegi
omnem
C^ repeats dicit ducentos bestiarios (23) after omnem. This
indicates :
dicit ducentos (13)
bestiarios (10)
id est uena (9)
tores sine du (ll)
bio uolens in (11)
tellegi omnem (12)
125. 21 :
Cn. Plancio dixit qui reus de sodaliciis petitus est lege Licinia quam M.
Licinius Crassus
C^ repeats Cn. Plancio . . . sodaliciis (33) after Crassus. This
indicates :
cn. plancio di (11)
xit qui reus de (12)
sodaliciis (10)
petitus est (10)
lege licini (10)
a quam m. lici (10)
nius crassus (11)
damnorum quibus fuerant hostili incursione vexati, adfuit igitur Caesar
causae publicanorum eorumque desideriis
C^ repeats quibus . . . Caesar (54) after eorum. This indicates :
damnorum
quibus fuerant (13)
hostili in (9)
cursione ue (10)
xati adfuit (10)
igitur caesat (12)
causae publi (11)
canorum eorum (12)
que desideri (11)
is
CICERONIAN PALIMPSESTS 159
The writer's eye passed from cortim to dainnorum. He discovered
his error after writing five lines, and then stopped before completing
the dittography. An attempt at correction has been made by
commas above the line, but the first of these is put in the wrong
place, viz. after Jiostili instead of after conon.
This interesting series of corruptions shows how, when we have
only one MS. of an author, the dittography may step into the place
of the omission, and yield valuable information.
I now come to the upper writing, viz. the letters of Leo the Great
and the Acts of the Council of Calchedon. Here also the first
writer omitted passages which are added by a corrector with
omission marks {/id and /is).
Leo Magnus (Migue, vol. liv).
(31) p. 34(Migne, 777 b) :
misericordiae di ad satisfactionem
(32) p. 42 (805 B) :
ut creator intellegatur non valebunt
(50) p. 43 (807 A) :
unus ihs xps et unus di hominisque sit filius si caro et anima
(124) p. 49(7890):
et quidquid nostris temporib: contra impiignatores catholicae ueritatis
industria sacerdotalis obtinuit ad uestram maxime gloriam redundabit.
Here 31x4= 124. The omission of 50 letters seems due to chance,
assisted by oy..
Conciliuvi Cak/icdonis (Mansi, vi, vii).
(16) p. 130 (Mansi, vi. 618 a) :
*interloquutus sum
(28) p. 1 10 (vi. 590 c):
inimicos tiauiani foris miitite
(32) p. 143 (vi. 634 A):
teneant quae in nicea constituta sunt
(41) p. 90 (vii. 471 A):
dignitate persistere, mortem uero came gustare
(58) p. 13 (vi. 542 A):
in nouissimis autem dieb. eundem propter nos et propter ni^m salutem
i6o DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
(63) p. 205 (vi. 715 D):
quae dicta sunt a sets patrib. in nicea uel in ephesum congregatis et
omnib.
(65) p. 82 (vii. 459 d):
et homo factus est quod discindit quidem spont[anea] uoluntate incar-
natus est
(72) p. 258 (vi. 786 b) :
non dixit nobis hominibus et ubi uultis iuro quia dixerat consubstantialis
matri est
(79) P- 98 (vi. 570 B) :
paulo mariamme secundae syriae eusebio seleucoboli eutychiano epyfa-
niae secundae syriae
(84) p. 102 (vi. 578 b) :
heliodori epi amathuntis et proecii epi arsinoe epafrodito agii et didimi
lapitii dionisio diac agu
I also noticed an addition above the line without an omission
mark, viz. :
(29) p. 98 (vi. 570 B) :
tiranno germanicopolis isauriae
Here we have two sequences, viz. :
38-29, 58, 84.
16,33,63-65.
A possible explanation seems to be that the MS. is descended
from an ancestor written in double columns, one of which contained
an average of 14 and the other an average of 16 letters.^
If so, the following multiples account for all the numbers:
14x3 = 38, 14x3=43, 14x4 = 56, 14x5 = 70, 14x6=84,
16 X 3 = 33, 16 X 4 = 64, 16 X 5 = 80.
There is also a very curious dittography of unusual length.
On p. 336 a second hand has added at the top of the page :
hie pertransi usque ubi adnotatiotie7n iiidis quia reiterata est scribtura.
Mansi, vi. 759 D, has :
Macedonius vir spectabilis, tribunus, notarius et referendarius dixit : Eutyches
reverendissimus archimandrita
Also, 763 C :
Macedonius spectabilis tribunus, notarius et referendarius dixit : Piissimus
dominus noster.
* I offer this suggestion with considerable reserve, since the evidence in the shape of
short omissions is scanty.
CICERONIAN PALIMPSESTS i6i
The writer of this MS., when copyini^ the last passage, after
having got so far as Macedo)iius us {= vir spectabilis) tribunus
notariits et refere/idariuSy looked back to the previous passage and
went on with Eiityches reii archinuxndrita.
He then rewrote the whole passage from 759 D to 762 c without
discovering his error.
I -.43 M
CHAPTER VI
CICERO, PHILIPPICS
The chief MS. for Cicero's Philippics is Bas. Vat. H. 35 ( V). In
its present state this consists of So foHos, which are distributed thus :
I'^-S^ : in Pisonem^ §§ 33-74.
9'^-! I'': pro Flacco, §§ 39-54.
iiv_j^v. py^ Fonteio, §§ 11-49.
i8''-8o^: Philippics, i-xiii. 10.
V has suffered various mutilations. A quaternion has been lost
before Pis. '^'^, and four quaternions, as is shown by subsequent
signatures, have perished after Pis. 74. It follows, therefore, that f. 9,
on which Place. 39 begins, was originally f. 49 in V, when complete-
There is no loss between the/r<7 Fonteio and Philippics.
Place. 54 ends on f. 11'*', col. 3, 1. 30, and is followed without
a break by the extant fragment of the: pro Fonteio. The title Pro
Fonteio is written at the top of the page above the fragment of the
pro Flacco, while the fragment of the pro Fonteio has no title.
A late hand (cent, xvi) has corrected Pro Fonteio to Pro Val. Flacco,
and inserted Pro Fonteio in the margin of f. 11, col. 3, 1. 3o. It
appears that the two speeches were confused, owing to a dislocation
of folios in an ancestor, assisted by the similarity of the subject
matter. In the case of the pro Fonteio we may be sure that the
fragment preserved represents folios of the ancestor : in that of the
pro Flacco we have no such guarantee, since we cannot tell what
came before f. 9.
In this connexion the exccrpta Cnsana are of considerable interest.
They are contained in a MS. belonging to the Hospital at Cues,
cod. C 14, cent. xii. They consist of extracts from Cic. in Pisonem,
pro Fonteio, pro Flacco, Philippics, also from some non-Ciceronian
works. The MS. from which they are drawn appears to have contained
the same speeches as V. Also the readings of Cits, show striking
agreements with V in the Philippics, as against all other MSS. In
the pro Fonteio and pro Flacco the excerpts preserve a number of
CICKRO, PHILIPPICS 163
passages not known from any other source. The inference is that
they come from parts of these speeches which, when V was perfect,
were contained in the missing leaves before Flacc. 39. The
interesting point is that in Cus. extracts from the pro Fonteio
precede and follow those from the pro Flacco. If we combine this
evidence with the title PRO KONTElo given to the fragment of the
pro Flacco in V, the conclusion that the two speeches were mixed
up seems to follow.
The quaternion which contains Pis. 33-74 corresponds to 598
lines of Teubner text. This gives an average of about 75 Teubner
lines to a folio of V. The previous part of the speech, §§ 1-32, as
given in the other MSS., occupies only 445 lines. This would only
suffice for about six folios of V (75 x 6 = 450). It follows, therefore,
that V at one time contained the equivalent to about 150 Teubner
lines more than now appears in our texts. As a matter of fact the
beginning of the speech is defective, and various Cusan excerpts, as
well as quotations of Asconius and other authorities, are placed
here by editors.
The rest of the in Pisonem^ §§ 74-end, occupies 445 lines in the
Teubner text. This would suffice to cover six folios of V (75 x 6
= 450). We may, therefore, infer that in F, when complete, the
Pisoniana occupied ff. 1-22, and that the missing folios, 23-48,
were occupied by portions of the/r^ Fouteio and pro Flacco.
F is a composite MS. The first quaternion is written in a semi-
uncial hand of the eighth century : the rest of the MS. is written in
Caroline minuscule, and belongs to the ninth century. We cannot
tell whether the lost quaternions were written in semiuncial or in
minuscule. It would appear probable that the rest of the Pisoniana
was written by the same scribe as §§ 33-74-
In spite of its composite character, / ' exhibits the same formation
throughout, being written in three columns with 30 lines to the page.
This is a fact which calls for particular notice.
The use of three columns is a mark of antiquity. We are told
by various authorities that a tricolumnar arrangement was not
employed by scribes after the sixth century, except in certain
ecclesiastical works, e. g. Psalters and Bibles. Three columns are
used in Laud. Lat. 33 (Psalter from St. Kilian's), cent, x, and in
Harl. .5786 (Psalter), cent, xii, also in Brit. Mus. 24142 (Bible of
M 2
i64 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
Theodulphus), cent, "ix, while a Paris Psalter, Nouv. Acq. 2195,
cent, xii, is written in four columns. In the case of other works,
three columns are rare after the sixth century. The British Museum
possesses an example in Egerton 1934, Isidorus, cent, viii/ix.
Traube says kurz ist die Reihe der dreispaltigen Klassiker} He
mentions, in addition to F, a ninth-century palimpsest of Quin-
tilian's Declamationes (Paris. 7900 a). I have published a Bodleian
leaf (Laud. Lat. 29) of the ninth century containing a fragment
of Cic. Tusc. (iv. 114-20), written in three columns.- F, however,
seems to be the only more or less complete MS. now extant of a
classical author written at this date (cent, viii/ix) in this formation.^
It was the opinion of Traube that the writer of V was imitating
the formation of an ancient model {einen viel dlteren Codex in der
Schrift und vielleicht attcJi sonst iti der Eijirichtimg nnr nachahmt),
and the correctness of this diagnosis seems obvious. It is also prima
facie probable that such imitation could take place more than once.
This consideration seems to explain the composite character of V.
Let us suppose that an ancient MS. in three columns was repro-
duced more than once in the same formation. One of these copies,
made in the eighth century, became the model for another copy,
made in the ninth. By some accident a part of the model was
bound up with the new copy.
If this conjecture is well founded, it is worth while to examine
ff. 1-8 with some care. The methods of the writer responsible for
the rest of V can be controlled, if we actually possess a quaternion
of his model.
The contents of folios 1-8 are as follows :
I' (§§ 32-4) : col. I tamen misericordia . . . sapienti op-, col. 2 -tabilius . . .
post obitum, col. 3 occasumque , . , servandi
i^ (§§ 34~7) • '^c^' I causa Romam , . , fratrem, col. 1 inimici mei , . . vestro-
rum, col. 3 propinquorum . . . conscripserat.
2^' (§§ 37-40) : col. I aerarium , , . attingitur ut, col. 2 semper , . . afflixeras,
col, 3 quern deleveras ... an so-
2'^ (§§ 40-2) : col. I -ciorum direptio . . . auderet, col. 2 a senatu . . . lacera-
tione quam, col. 3 afficior . . . esse umquam.
3"^ (§§ 42-4) : col. I vir bonus . , . saepe feci, col. 2 in quo , . . quae cruces,
col. 3 esse duos . . . litterae
1 Pal. Forschtmgen, iv, p. 28. ^ Melanges Chatelain, pp. 169-73.
' Giiarino's ancient MS. of Pliny's letters, now lost, was written in three columns. Cf.
Sabbadini Codici posseduti etc, da Giiarino, p. 60.
CICHKO, PHILIPPICS 165
3* (§§ 44-7) : col. 1 recitatac . . . se civein, col. 2 esse meminerit ... in scena,
col. 3 videtis . . . reliquisse
4'' (§§ 47-50) : col. I mitto de . . . praeda quam ex, col. 2 fortunis . . . tantos
ha-, col. 3 -beret . . . gravissiniae sunt
4' (§§ 50-2): col. I furore . . . vetarent, col. 2 sed quoniam . . . immoitali-,
col. 3 -urn festi . . . expilaras
5"^ (§§ 52-5): col. I quam inccnderas . . . Macedonia, col. 2 nobilis ... a
porta, col. 3 cum lictoribus . . . Macedonicus
5' (§§ 55-7) • '■''^- 1 iniperator . . . pestis, col. 2 o labes . . . ctiam recu-, col. 3
-santem . . . cumque omnium
6'"(§§ 57-9): col. I tuorum ... a senatu, col. 2 P. Servili . . . cupiditate, col. 3
iusti et . . . facies fidem
6' (§§ 59-62): col. 1 scilicet cum . . . Macedonicam, tW, 2 lauream . . . manu,
col. 3 perfricans . . . a'.teri ilium
;'■ (§§ 62-5) : col. 1 honorem collega . . . ferreum, col. 2 senatus . . . nominis
sui, col. 3 videre . . . philosophi
7V (§§ 65-S) : col. I manus tibi . . . scitote esse, col. 2 luxuriosius ... in lectis,
col. 3 saepe plures . . . ut prorsus.
S"" (§§ 68-71): <('/. I una viveret . . . distinguere, col. 2 et dividere . . . assen-,
col. 3 -tatorem et . . . qui scripsit
8" (§§ 71-4): col. I detrahi nihil . . . versus ln\, col. 2 nimis negare ... nee
arma, col. 3 scutum aut . . . oratione hoc.
The contents, if we allow the usual official abbreviation.s, are as
follows :
Col. I Col. 2 Col. 3 Total
1'
546
481
511
=
1538
1'
509
528
537
=
1574
or
529
495
514
=
1538
oV
531
515
488
=
1534
3^
516
505
476
=
1497
3'
483
508
450
=
I44I
4^
537
489
446
=
1472
4'
506
477
467
^
1450
5'
506
450
520
=
1476
S"
538
494
499
=
1531
6'
528
536
548
=
1612
6'
584
561
530
=
1675
r
601
564
547
=:
I7I2
r
546
561
524
=
I63I
Z'
593
581
562
=
1736
8'
589
576
565
=
1730
8642 8321 8184 = 25147
i66 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
This gives an average content of about 3,144 letters to a folio,
1,572 to a page, 524 to a column, and 17^ to a line.
It is to be noticed that col. i tends to squeeze cols. 3 and 3,
especially 3. The averages are : col. i = 540, col. 2 = 520, and
col- 3 = 511' The average numbers of letters to the line are, in
col, 1,18; in col. 2, 17^ ; in col. 3, 17.
As actually written in V, the number of letters is slightly less.
Chatelain (PI. 26) has a reproduction of f. 3'", and I possess a photo-
graph of f. 4'^. These give the following results :
Col. I Col. 2 Col. 3
3' 509 498 471 = 1478
4'" 534 468 436 = 1438
i.e. ^;^ letters less than if only official abbreviations are allowed. If
we extend this allowance to the other leaves, which have not been
reproduced, we shall have to deduct 424 letters from the total.
This would yield about 3,090 for a folio, 1,545 for a page, 515 for
a column, and 17 for a line.
The hypothesis which I have advanced appears to receive con-
firmation from a passage in P/tz/. xi, §§ 18 and 20, viz. :
§ 18 : Ita populus Romanus consul! potius Crasso quam privato Africano bellum
gerendum dedit.
§ 20 : Otioso vero et nihil agenti privato, obsecro te, L. Caesar, cum peritissimo
homine*mihi res est, quando imperium senatus dedit?
After this comes :
sed de hoc quidem hactenus . . . consul designatus.
In § 18 V^ adds after the first dedit the passage sed de hoc . . .
designatus, which should come after the second. The words are
then struck out by the original scribe, and occur in § 20 in their
proper place.
It is to be noticed that the passage as given by FMn § 18 is
grossly corrupt, while in § 20 it is fairly correct. I add the two
versions side by side, marking the first A, and the second B.
(A) bellum (B) senatus dedit
gerendQ dedit. Sed de hoc di sed de hoc quidem actenus
quidem actenus ne refragari ho ne refragari homini ami
mini aceme optime frito amicissi cissimo ac de me optima
5 mo uidear et si quis potest refra 5 merito uidear si quis si quis
gari non modo non petenti uerba potest refragrari non mode
CICERO, PHILIPPICS 167
etiain recusati. ilia uero hie non petenti iierum etiam recu
aliena consulii dignitate alie santi. ilia uero p. c.
natcm doru graiiitates senten aliena consulii dignitate
10 tiae tot COS. dolabellae psequen 10 aliena teporum grauitate
di causa si et suria sortiantur sententia est ut consul dolabellae
dicfi curi nutili. Rp. sed prius persequendi ( ansa asiii et suri
quii turpe cosue pete cum cos. de am sorliant. dica cur inutile
signatus republicae sed prius qua turpe
15 consulibus sit uidellll
Cum consul designatus
The corruption of A may be seen from e. g. 1. 4, aceme optime
frito (where the confusion of F and E goes back to a MS. in rustic
capitals) ; 1. 6, ticrba etiain recusati; 1. 8, alienatem doru graiiitates \
1. xi, curi nutili, &c. It is to be noticed that the words ac de me
optime merito (18), or acevie optime frito (16), are out of place in A.
Apparently they had been omitted and were then inserted too soon.
The natural inference is that A represents an alternative version
for B, probably an older version, which \ ' inserted after the first
dedit in § 18. The error would be simplified, if dedit in §§ 18 and
20 occupied the same place on two pages (cf. p. 52).
If so, we should expect the intervening passage, viz. :
§§ 18-20: De Cn. Pompeii imperiis . . . senatus dedit,
to represent a page of the model from which V was copied.
This passage, if we allow the official abbreviations, consists of 1.584
letters. If we suppose that the model, like F, was written in three
columns with 30 lines to the page, this gives us 528 letters to
a column and \']\ letters to a line. We have previously found that
in ff. 1-8 the averages were 1,572 to a page, 524 to a column, and
17^ to a line. The correspondence could hardly be more exact.
I. therefore, regard the hypothesis as verified.
I have previously pointed out that in A the words aceme optime
frito (16) are out of place. It is interesting to notice that in § 20
V goes on :
obsidea
tur cu in eo liberando salus sit
posita rei public^ sed priusquam
turpe
Here the words sed priusqiiam turpe (17) have been repeated b\'
V^ from four lines above.
i68 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
Apart from the first quaternion, V is written in Caroline minus-
cule. The script varies a good deal in character. In the first
Philippics it is large, and the lines contain little more than is the
case in fif. i-8. In Phil. ii. there are some very short lines, e. g. of
15-16 letters. The hand, however, gradually contracts, and towards
the end of the MS. this contraction becomes very marked. This
may be illustrated by the following figures :
Col. I
Col. 2
Col. 3 Total
37^
597
516
512 = 1625
38'
559
519
563 = 164 1
60^
628
566
593 = 1787
62^
698
597
583 = 1878
78-
669
657
667 = 1993
79'
764
661
690 = 21 1 5
8o'-
810
686
743 = 2239
These exhibit a rise in the average content of a line from 18 up
to nearly 25. It will be noticed that col. i is generally broader than
the others.
These figures represent the number of letters actually written in
pages of which I possess photographs. If only official abbreviations
were allowed, the totals would be larger, particularly towards the
end of the MS.
I think it probable that the text of the Philippics, as given in V,
was transmitted through more than one intermediate ancestor
written in three columns. Since, however, it is impossible to
distinguish between these, I shall use the letter U to denote both
the model and its tricolumnar ancestor or ancestors.
The interest of V is due to its freedom from sophistication.
Although written in a Caroline hand, it shows no trace of Caroline
learning. The scribe was an ignoramus, who wrote without under-
standing and reproduced nonsense with fidelity. The result is that
K gives a more faithful text than is found in any other MS. of
Cicero's orations, all of which have passed through the hands
of Caroline revisers. It gives precious information concerning the
state of the documents before they were emended by ninth-century
scholars.
I proceed, therefore, to give some further account of V.
(i) Orthography.
An initial i is common before s, e. g. isceleratorum (ii, ao), iscio
CICERO, PHILIPPICS 169
(ii.41), istatim (11.44), ispecies (ii. 68), ispem (ii. 77), iscorta (ii. 105) ;
so also before other words, e.g. inefarios (i. 5).
Occasionally a and e are prefixed to words, e.g. adefendetur
(i. 19), apotius (i. 20), afiliam (ii. 99), asuscepimus (x. 14), acuius
(xi. 6), csentirc (ii. 24), enemo (ii. 36), euxoris (iii. 4), eprodideritis
(X. 7).
The spelling qunvi is frequent, e. g. v. 36, 47, 48.
There is complete confusion between b and v. The corrector
was as uncertain on this point as the scribe ; thus viii. 6 :
verba nee bellica] iienia nee bellica F' : benia nee uelliea F*.
Vowels are frequently confused ; thus c is written for a, e. g. ii. 78
ajtdecem, viii. i"] feveo; or for i, e.g. vii. \() perspecua, xi. 13 rcdicn-
bnn, ib. 18 eta\ so a for /, e.g. daripcre, xi. 4, and for e^ e.g.
xii. 13 comcodcrc (= concedere).
Letters are often omitted, e. g. i. 31 Dola = Dolabclla, ii. 37 mnens
= manens, 61 near = negare, and still more frequently transposed,
e. g. ii. 40 agntmento = argtimento, 48 su aegra = sua erga, 49
gatria = gratia, 56 de ea ealgelevi — dc ale a lege, v. 14 thaheniensunn
— Atheniejtsium, 29 sifisi = nisi, 46 sjinia = siiam.
(2) Abbreviations.
A vertical stroke is frequently used for -jh final, also for other
abbreviations, e.g. elarissimoru hominii (viii 7), cii uifius (u. 106),
firis bellii fix. 4), na cii (ib,), dsederit = obsederit (vii. 15) ; also for
a transposition mark, i. 24 aes — eas.
Praenomina and official abbreviations have a tendency to dis-
appear. Thus Marcus is nearly always written for M., so populus
Romanus and res piiblica for /. R. and r.p (cf. Halm on vi. 16).
Various errors show that the full forms are recent, e.g. v. 28
marcus antoni, viii. 21 domitius bruti, 27 ex domitio bruti exercitu
(cf. xi. 17 at quo domiti = ad quod), xi. 20 populoque romanum,
xii. 20 populi romano, v. 21 populo romano ; so xii. 20 populo
romano = praetores (PR.).
The abbreviation P.C. is found from time to time, e.g. x. 8,
xii. 19, so c. 11. — clarissimus vir} e. g. ix. 3 ; so xi. 6 ere = civiuvi
Rotnanoruvi . Cf i. 20 itid. V^ : indices V^.
Among rarer abbreviations may be mentioned xi. 20 senatui dico
populoque Romano] senatui I. populoque romanum V, where / appears
' Cf. xiii. 5c u. c. in /J = viri rlarisHmi.
17© DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
to stand (or d (^ dico), v. 39 sapientia etiam, where etiam appears
to represent et mm, 1. e. et niisericordia.
(3) Double readings.
These are very frequent, e.g. 1. 7 ueritus, uertus, 17 multais, ii. 8
ipsuo, 33 coniunctionise, 43 quods, 45 confirmauiat, 50 alienis alieni,
86 uixereas, 99 frequentissimeo, 104 hastaea, 114 mortaH inmortali,
116 magmultis, iii. i postulabatuit, 7 commodoa, 12 consiHum
oiudicat, 16 traxit tarxerat, 19 pertitnenat, 22 intellegitat, 36 pate-
faciunt fecerunt, iv. 5 possiumus, ix. 6 uestraea, xi. 12 nequec.
Some strange corruptions are due to various readings, which have
been introduced in the wrong place, e. g. ii. 39 plena curae. Here
a
V gives plena curae. There appears to have been a variant plana.
V^ inserts a above 7i instead of above e. So i. 13 editors read with V
fuerit ille Brntits, while L. is added before Brutus by D. As
a matter of fact V has brutus. Here ui — Lu. (i.e. Lucius), which
has been inserted out of place.
(4) Critical signs.
The omission mark hs (= hie supple) has been incorporated in the
text i. II. The rare symbol h.m. {— kic minus) is used in the
margin in v. 4 h.m. quarn senatus, si quidein legioncs, and is incor-
porated in the text vii. 6 h.m. pagaie. Marginal supplements are
frequently introduced by h. In vii. w ad bellum proficiscerentur,
quod ' erat helium V inserts R. before proficiscerentur. Here R.
= require, a critical note due to the fact that after q?^od there is a
r
long insertion taken from § 6. In ii. no iox cessas F gives caesas,
which seems to be a misinterpretation of the same sign. In this
connexion I would mention a mistake made by the second hand at
the end of viii. Here V^ gives the subscriptio M. Ttilli Ciceronis
P hilippicarum liber viii explicit ; V^ inserts after Ciceronis the sign
d (= deest), and adds below d FELIX NAVIGAT. This appears to
=feliciter; it will be noticed that the insertion is out of place.
The writer of V was capable of anything. Among the more
remarkable corruptions may be mentioned ii. 69 ille vir, patres
conscripti, sicuti scitis, cum foris clarui] illeur po. scutis scitet cu
floris clarus V. 86 ut facile servires a nobis] ut facilies aruspres
a nouis V. vi. 17 Quirites] quosplus V. vii. 10 pecunias] pepo V^.
cicp:ro, philippics 171
viii. 13 honesta] omncista V. x. 17 omnia verentur] omni haberentur
V. xi. 2 nostris] contris F. 2(^.9 quo maior vis est] quomairuissest V.
No glimmer of intelligence is seen except when a little knowledge
of ecclesiastical Latin leads him astray/ e.g. :
xiii. 6 : seiungamus tamen] seiungamus amen l^
V. 34 : auctoritatemque vestram] auctoritatemque bestiaram V
The first hand made a few corrections. Thus i. 8 seiiatmn fre-
qucntcm appears to be inserted by him, possibly also § 12 midicnti-
hus cum fabris se, § 18 nempe. He corrects in § 21 popular^s to
popular/s, and in § 27 oporteb^t to oporteb/t by means of / longa
inserted through e and a. The repeated passage in xi. 18 is struck
out by the first hand. A note on ii. 24 Nota Prise, (i.e. Priscian,
viii, 27 and 42) appears to have been in the model.
Various correctors have been at work. The earliest uses blacker
ink and writes a somewhat clumsy hand. On various occasions he
struck out the readinsr of the scribe and rewrote the word. Thus in
ii. 50 V^ seems to have written omnium vialortim repcrietis, omit-
ting principium natum (after malorum). The corrector, instead of
making a marginal addition, rewrote the passage. So i. 2 -ris
comnuntaris rcperiebatur sjimma. ii. ^"3, S7iblatum circumscripUis :
also single words written in ras., e. g. ii. 62 tradcre. 95 sententia.
He also adds words, e. g. i. 6 tiviebant (over caverant). ii. i L. before
Catiliua, P. before Clodius. § 3 cum omnes. § 'jo st {= est) after
opera tua. Two hands seem to belong to the tenth century. One
writer, who uses an * open ' a, is responsible for various supplements,
e. g. ii. 79 qui tum . . . in Dolabclla. vii. 3 -7ie sic . . . ncquam est.
§ -25 plena discordiarum. ix. 2 quam in Ser. Sulpicio re-, ib. non
morbus . . . retardauit. x. 5 nisi . . . nossem. § 20 libertate
fugienda. § 23 scnatus libcrtatem. xi. 5 atquc laniatum. xiii. 2
hominum . . . potuissct. § 5 quas in eos. The other adds i. 7 nee
ita . . . proieetus. \ \\ de hestcrna . . . erat causae cur, and possibly
§ 30 urhe . . . liberata.
Other additions seem due to a corrector of the eleventh century,
e. g i. 27 quam . . . habui. § 29 qui . . . earissimus. ii. 118 con-
tevipsi . . . tuos. ib.adeptus . . . unum ut. iii. 15 no7t . . . Arici7ium.
§ 23 subito.
' For a similar substitatioQ in /, cf. xiii. 1 8 ad cculum ( = caedeni) optimi cuiusquf.
172 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
A still later corrector, probably belonging to the twelfth century,
is responsible for vii. 5 aetate illiiis . . . scd etiam^ also for a note on
the dislocation after xi. 17, viz. Transi ad istani notam % abhinc
usque ad scqnentcvi notam \j/ ex xii libro scias. (Cf. p. 194.)
All other MSS. of the Philippics, if written before about 1430,
belong to a family known as D. Shortly before this date V was
collated by Poggio, and supplements taken from it were incor-
porated in various MSS. These, however, do not concern us.
The D family all exhibit the same omissions. The chief of
these are :
ii. 93-6: sunt ea quidem . . . acta defendimus
V. 31-vi. 18: -onem nullam . . . interfui nuUam
X. 8-10: populiis Romanus . . . Italia omnis in-
The length of these in lines of the Teubner text is as follows :
ii. 93-6 = 34 lines
V. 31-vi. 18 = 527 lines
X. 8-10 = 33 lines
Here it is to be noticed that '>,'>, x 16 -- 528. The conclusion is
that 33-4 = a folio, and that in v. 31-vi. 18 two quaternions have
been lost. I must point out that something should be added to 527
for the siibscriptio to Phil, v and the title to Phil. vi.
I cannot give the number of letters in v. 31-vi. 18, since the
passage is too long. If we allow the usual official abbreviations,
the totals for ii. 93-6 and x. 8-10 are 1.423 and 1,419 respectively.
It cannot be doubted that these omissions go b ick to one MS.
The next point to consider is the relation of D to V.
It must be premised that some of the D family are little inferior
to V in antiquity, also that several of the D readings are supported
by ancient quotations, e.g. by Aulus Gcllius. Such agreements,
however, do not prove that the D family in its present form goes
back to so distant a period, but merely that in the time of Aulus
Gellius there were ancient variants, such as we find in the de Re
Pnblica palimpsest and in the Greek papyri. There is, however, no
reason to doubt that the D text with its characteristic dislocations
may go back to a very early date.
It is generally agreed that V and D both go back to the same
archetype.^ This is shown hy proprii errorc jcommon to them, e.g. :
1 Cf. Lutz, Quaes/. Crit. in Philippicas, p. 26.
CICERO. PHILIPPICS
17.^
i. 5 sui similibus] siiis similibus 21 at res popiilaris] ad res populares
iii. 3 ne optantibus quidem] nee optantibiis quidem v. 10 eae] ae /': a /:
oeae s : hae /' viii. 28 usi] i F/: hi />: si <'.r sed s: otii. n. ix. 15 grati
simiis] gratissimus xi. 6 cuius] acuius ib. efficta] effecta 19 committis]
comitiis xii. 22 exitum] exitus
Also, they frequently have the same gloss, though in a different
place, e. g. :
ii. 69 conclavibus popinae] conclavibus popinae triclinis V: tricliniis popinae P
For further information concerning the past history of V and D
we must turn to the omissions. I therefore give a complete list, so
as to provide the reader with all the data. Where the omission
may be explained by 6/:xotoV?;9 of any kind I affix no mark, where
there is no such explanation I affix an asterisk, and where the
passage has been telescoped I use two asterisks.
I take, first, omissions of For of V^ :
atque laniatum om. V^
fidelissiinorum o'n. V^
primo quoque die om. V
♦qiiam diligi malis on. V
et fortissimorum om. V^
*operis subsicivis otii. V
*induxit ut peteret otn. V
senatum frequentem om. F' [suppl. m. i)
gravitatis aiterum om. F'
turpius vidi nullum om. V
**-quando rem p. M. Antoni om. V
plena discordiarum om. V^
homines agrestes si om. V
libertate fugienda om. F'
senatus libertatem om. F'
quid multa .' attuierat om. V^
♦qui es mihi carissimus om. V^
*Seio et Tironi Numisio om. V
non sit tumultus autem om. V
**quam in Ser. Sulpicio re- om. V^
patres conscripti sic om. F'
♦quam in re p. semper habui om. K'
♦audientibus cum fabris se om. V^
•rem illam referri malebam om. V
♦sublatum circumscriptus om. F'
neque maiores natu monendo om. V
officina agrorum oppidorum om. V
(13,1
XI. 5
<I4)
iv. 6
^'iii. 11
(15)
••33
V. 24
(16)
ii. 20
79
fi7)
1.8
ii. 24
76
ii. 118
vii. 25
viii. 9
X. 20
23
(18)
ii. 116
(19)
i. 29
ii. 8
viii. 3
ix. 2
3
(20)
i. 27
(22)
i. 12
ii. 49
53
(23)
ii. 52
f24)
'i-35
174 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
iii, 25 : nullam se habere provinciam om. V^
(25) ii. 72 : ego leges perniciosas rogavi om. V
iii. 1 5 : non contemnit is qui Aricinum om. V^
xi. 13: quorum alter commentatus est om. V
* quid fuit causae cur in Africam om. V
xiii. 5 : *per deos immortales, quas in eos om. V^
** nee ita multum provectus reiect- o/n. V^
quam senatus si quideni legiones om. V^
** nisi paruerit huic ordini quid re- oin. V
legio fregit IV ' afflixit sic a suis otn. V^
** -cear in quo ne si dissensero quidem a om. V
** contempsi Catilinae gladios non per- om. V
non morbus ingravescens retardavit om. V^
*urbe incendio et caedis metu liberata om. V^
cuius sanguinem non bibere censetis, in om. V
hominum in re p. sanitas remanere potuisset om. V^
* irritatum Antonium non oportuit nequam est om. V^
«adeptussum quasquegessi. Duomodohaecopto,unum ut<?w. V^
qui turn est impulsus inductus elusus. Qua in re quanta fuerit
uterque vestrum perfidia in Dolabcllam om. V^
M. Antoni ... die hesterno om. V^
**-te usus consuetude . . . dico sed om. V
The words are omitted loco sito and inserted subsequently in § II.
Here various points attract attention, viz. :
(i) The numerous omissions of 17 letters. These appear to
represent lines of U.
(2) Among them is a telescoped passage, ii. 118. There is also
a telescoped passage of 19 letters, ix. 2. With an average of 17,
variations from 15 to 19 are to be expected.
(3) There are also telescoped passages of 27, 28, 30, and 31
letters.
(4) The number 28 appears in the three largest omissions, viz. :
28 X 3 = 84, 28 X 4 = 1 1 2, 28 X ID = 280.
The question arises whether 37-31 represent a new unit or two
.shorter lines. Two lines of 17 letters should contain about 34
letters, but it might be held that we are here concerned with a more
remote ancestor written in narrower columns. If so, however, we
should expect to find more omissions below 17. For further light
we must turn to D.
^ I write IV, since Roman numerals seem to have been used in the archetype. Cf.
Halm on iii. 39, v. 53, xi. 37.
(26)
ii. 71:
xiii. 5 :
(27)
i. 7:
V. 4:
(28)
vii. 14:
(29)
X. 21 :
^30)
xii. 16:
(31)
ii. 118:
ix. 2:
(32)
i. 30:
(33)
xi. 10:
(36)
xiii. 2 :
(37)
vii. 3 :
(43)
ii. 119:
(84)
ii. 79:
(112)
i. II :
(280)
vii. 6 :
CICERO, PHILIPPICS
ns
Omissions of D :
deserti inquam
Martia et leyio
sive siiniilabat
"praeter ceteros
et severissimum
*qiiod maximum est
leges im'ioneret
•fuisse fautorem
propter eximiam
» timeam et cogitem
quae cogitabantur
et tu acta Caesaris
quam Punico tertio
* nullae respondebat
C. Caesarem. Imperium C.
* cum omnia inetu tenerentur
ad nostrum civem mittimus
fecerit, hunc praedae causa
* nisi quod erat notum omnibus
multo postea gravius urguebamur
si accipiendam, cur non rogamur si
**habebat possessor quantum relique-
**esse Catilinae gloriari solet scele-
»urbe incendio et caedis metu liberata
Brutorum genus et nomen ad libertatem P. R.
firmissimam oppugnarit, imperatorem P. R.
*si quis eorum qui cum M. Antonio sunt fecerit
in te sordidum, nihil humile cognovi. Quamquam
tum sibi non banc quam nunc male tuetur, sed M. Pisonis domum
ubi habitaret legerat
solum sed etiam amentiae. Quod enim verbum in istis litteris
non est plenum humanitatis
* sed hoc idcirco commemoratum a te puto ut^ te infimo ordini
commendares, cum omnes recordarcntur libertini gcnerum et
liberos tuos nepotes O. Fadi, libertini hominis, fuisse
(1419) X. 8-10: ** populus Romanus . . . omnis in-
(1423) ii. 93-6: » sunt ea . . . defendimus
Also, the long passage v. 31-vi. 18.
Here we have two telescoped lines of 30 and 31 letters. It will
also be noticed that there are two omissions of 28.
I have already referred to the long omissions in x. 8-10, ii. 93-6,
* V has «/'/. Halm reads uti.
(13)
viii. 22
xi. 20
xiii. 2
{14)
i. 30
V. 3
13
vii. 2
6
xi. 1 1
115)
V. 29
(16)
ii. 105
viii. 28
xi. 17
(17)
'■ 3
(18)
xi. 20
(22)
ii. 64
v. 27
(23)
vii. 18
(34)
i. 2
(.28)
vii. 14
xii. 16
(30)
v. 20
(31)
iv. 15
(32)
i. 30
(34)
iv. 7
vii. 15
(36)
viii. 33
(38)
i-33
(67)
ii. 62
(73)
ii. 9
(143»
i'-3
176 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
V. 31-vi. 18 as corresponding to ^^, 34, and 537 lines of Teubner
text (p. 172).
The omission of 143 letters admits of more tlian one explanation.
The figure is almost twice the one which precedes it, 73, which may
= 36x2, or 24x3, On the other hand 28x5 = 140. It seems
rather to be connected with the figures which follow, viz. i;4i9 and
J[=4a3-
The question now arises whether the telescoped passages of 30
and 31 in D are to be connected with those of 27, 28, 30, and 31
in V.
There are two passages in which omissions of V and D occur in
close proximity, viz. :
vii. 14: **nisi paruerit huic ordini quid re- (28) om. V
ib. : multo postea gravius urguebamur ' (28) om. D
The intervening letters number 368 (28 x 13 = 364).
Here we seem to be on the track of the common ancestor (P),
which appears to have had :
paratum ill! exitium
nisi paruerit huic ordini quid re (28)
fert tamen opinio est grauis mis (27)
SOS enim legates omnes uident decre (30)
5 ti nostri non omnes uerba nouerunt (29)
retinenda est igitur nobis con (26)
stantia grauitas perseuerantia (28)
repetenda uetus ilia seueritas si (29)
quidem auctoritas senatus decus (28)
10 honestatem laudem dignitatemque (29)
desiderat quibus rebus hie ordo ca (29)
ruit nimium diu sed erat tunc excu (28)
satio oppressis misera ilia quidem (30)
sed tamen iusta nunc nulla est li (27)
15 berati regio dominatu uidebamur (28)
multo postea grauius urguebamur (28)
armis domesticis.
1. 2 07n. V 1. 1 6 om. D (ofi.)
xii. 16: si accipiendam cur non rogamur si (28) om. D (suo loco)
ib. : ** -cear in quo ne si dissensero quidem a (30) om. V
In this case the writer seems to have passed from -cear to ceteris
in the line below.
^ So V, not urge-.
CICERO, THILIPPICS 177
P seems to have had :
si accipiendam cur non rogamur si (28)
postulandam quid timemus in hac (27)
ego legatione sim aut ad id consili (29)
um admiscear in quo ne si dissense (28)
5 ro quidem a ceteris
1, I om. D {suo loco) 11. 4-5 admisceteris {med. om.) V
Interesting evidence is also afforded by ii. 93-6 sunt ea . . . de-
fetidimus.
Here D omits the whole passage, going on immediately to § 97 :
Quid ego de commentariis infinitis, quid de innumerabilibus chirographis
loquar ?
V in § 97 has :
Quid ego de commentariis
infinitis quid de innu
merabilibus cyrographis
loquar
but in § 93, before siint ea, inserts :
Quid ego de comenta
ris caesaris infinites
quidennumerabilibus
cyrigraphis caesaris lo
quar.
This looks like a corrupt version of the passage, which has been
inserted a folio too soon (cf. p. 166 on xi. 18-20) in an ancestor
of V\ If we suppose that there was a loose folio in P here, the
addition of the variant in Fand the omission of the leaf by D are at
once explicable.
There are other proofs which will be mentioned later on in the
discussion. The evidence already adduced seems to show that V
and D are derived from a common ancestor with an average line of
about 28 letters. This ancestor must be prior to the parent of V first
arranged in three columns.
Here I would call attention to de Ricci's fragment of the pro
Plancio, cent, v, to which reference has already been made. This
exhibits with exactitude the formation revealed by this analysis, viz.
28 letters to the line.
Before I discuss further the relation of V and D to P, it will be
best to clear the way by dealing with some corruptions peculiar to
1«3J N
178 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
V, which appear to have been inherited from one or more ancestors
in three columns ( [/). Most of them are simple cases, e. g. repetitions
from the context and variants which have got into the wrong place.
I give first the reading of V, and then that which I attribute to [/.
The passages are arranged in order of length.
ii. 68. Fhas: os impurissimum ostenim
portumnissimum dere
[/{}): OS
impurissimum osten (17) m^. importunissimum
dere
viii. 9. f^has: inuitus
dico ha sed dicendum est ista
caesaris
UO) : inuitus dico
sed dicendum est ista (18) »ig. ha
caesaris
Halm says ' apparet correctionem /la, quae post dico legitur, ex
margine in alienum locum illatum esse.'
ii. 69. Fhas: pro conclavibus popinae triclinis
U{?): pro
conclauibus popinae (18) Mg. triclinis
, viii. 7. V has : ut clarissimi
1
morii hominu clarudeissi
ma p oeniretur necem
i/(?): ut
clarissimorum hominu (19)
crudelissimam poeni (18)
retur necem
The writer of V looked back from 1. 2 to 1. i and conflated the
two adjectives.
iii. 31. V has : imperator quas effecerit
strages imperatori ubicuq:
posuit uestigium
I/O): imperator w^. imperatori
quas effecerit strages (20)
ubicumque
ii. 74. y has : dicebatur esse
cum inte inuehens sic
CICKRO, PHILIPPICS 179
ad quo caesar in senatu
in
aperte inte inte uehens
qviaestus est
^/(?) : dicebatur esse cum
sica de quo caesar in (17)
senatu aperte in te (16) mj^. in ic inuehens
uehens
iii. 17. ^' has : copellat edicto nescenti
tamen s commendationem
esse con pellationem a
i/(?): edicto nescit tamen
commendationem es (16)
se compellationem a (16) im^. a suani
\x\ V s and a are additions by the second hand. This is a remark-
able instance of a phenomenon not infrequent in F, viz. that a word
is bisected and the disiecta membra are scattered.
xi. I. I^has: enim quam arma coepert
a in hiis qui contra patria
is scelerata arma coeperunt
inesset immanitas.
Here arma cocper is a v. I. for arma coeperunt, which has got
into the text between qtiam and ia, i. e. quanta.
[/{}) : enim quan
ta in hiis qui contra (17)
patriam iscelerata (17)
arma coeperunt w/^'. arma coeper.
V. 24. y^ gives : circumsedem utinam
nia firmissimam et splen
didissimam populi roma
ni coloniam.
U(}): mutinam
firmissimam et splen (18)
didissimam P. R. colo (16)
niam
The copyist looked forward two lines.
viii. 22, Fhas: mihi quidem amis
si sunt nullum quauis de
illo ad quern missi sunt be
ne existiment
N 2
i8o DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
U {:) : mihi quidem
nullum quamuis de il (17)
lo ad quem missi sunt (17) fng. amissi sunt
iii. 21. VhdLS : nee poterat aliter xi. aliteri de
aduersaris iudicari ducibus si
igur Caesar hostis.
Here aliteri is a duplex lectio for aliter, and igur a slip for igitur.
For Caesar the reading of D is C. Caesar, and I take .ci. in 1. i to
represent C.
U i^): aliter w^. aliteri
de aduersaris iudica (18)
ri ducibus, si igitur (17)
»ig. A C. A Caesar hostis
ii. 75. i^has : cum
peterent armis ii quo
rum erant legibus est
in rebus iniquissimis
rum erant legibus quid
potest esse equi
Here est (I, 3) == etsi.
{/{I): cum
peterent armis ii quo
rum erant legibus est (18)
in rebus iniquissimis (19)
quid potest esse aequi
V repeats riwi erant legibus after iniquissimis,
I would here mention a dittography of 37 letters in V, viz. :
ii. 115 : ne metus quidem a foedissimis factis potest bis scr.
This seems to represent two lines of U.
ii. 54. V has : consules ex italiae
expul imperi populi
ni cum
rorna sos que iis CN.
pompeium quod imperi
decus ac lumen fuit.
Here imperi populi roma is a v. I. for imperi in 1. 4, which has been
sandwiched between the two parts of expulsos.
U (?) : ex italia expul
sos cumque iis CN (14)
pompeium quod imperi (18) w^'-. imperi populi
decus ac lumen fuit roma
CICERO, PHILIPPICS i8t
iii. 8. I^has: neque enim tarquinio
expulso maioribus nfis
tarn fuit optata libertas
quam est depluso main
ribus nfis tam antonio
retinenda
£/(?) : neque enim
tarquinio expulso
maioribus nfis tam (l6)
fuit optata liber (15)
tas quam est depulso (17)
antonio retinenda
The repetition of maiorilnis nostris ia>u is due to ofx. (expjtiso . . .
dfpu/so).
ji. 39. Here [/ seems to have had :
quid
de me senserit sciunt (i8)
qui eum de pharsalia (17)
fuga paphum persecu (17)
ti sunt numquam ab eo (17)
mentio de me
V has qiad mc?it de vie senserit. The writer looked forward five
lines, the error being due to b\L. {de me).
vi. 3. V has : discessio facta non
esset tamen praeter pau
cos homines omnes mihi
adsensuri uiderentnr
5 nil hodiemo autem dies
non est pene
scio quaeis obiectarem
missior senatus fuit.
Here non est in 1. 6 is a v. I. for non esset (1. i), which has been sand-
wiched between s and pe^ i.e. spe. (The passage as printed by
editors is spe nescio qua eis obiecta rentissior.)
£/(?): discessio facta
non esset tamen prae (17) mg. non est
ter paucos omnes mihi (18)
adsensuri uiderentur (19)
hodierno autem dies (17)
pene scio quaeis obiec
ta remissior
iSz DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
ii. 30. y has : ergo ego isceleratus
appelloratho quern tu
suspicatum aliquid sus
picaris ille qui stillante
5 prae se pugionem tulit is
autenoris causa nomi
natur.
Here wc have to notice the corruptions appellor atJio ( = appellor a te)
in 1. 2 and autenoris {=a tc Jioiioris) in 1. 6.
U {}) : ergo ego isce
leratus appellor a te (18)
quern tu suspicatum ali (19)
quid suspicaris ille (18)
5 qui stillante prae se (18)
pugionem tulit is a te a (18) wi,"-. ^ ho
noris causa nominatur
The marginal addition /u)- was added to a te in 1. 2 instead of to a te
in 1. 6.
ix. 3. /'has: nisi seruilio cui
respondendum putare qui
hunc honore statue nemi
ni tribuendii censuit nisi ei
p. qui ferro esset
Halm says " videtur hoc p ad Servilio pertinere et ex margine falso
loco hie suppletum esse '. For cui in 1. i editors read elarissimo
I'iro (i.e. e. u.)
U{1): nisi jug. p.
seruilio cui responden (20)
dum putare qui hunc ho (18)
nore statue nemini tri (19)
5 buendu censuit nisi ei {19)
qui ferro esset
Here/) was inserted after nisi ei in I. 5 instead of after )iisi in 1. i.
ii. 58. ^'has: uehebatur
in essedo TR. pi. litores lau
reati antecedebant inte
quos aperta lectica mima
portabatur in esse dot
R. pi. lictores laureati
CICERO, PHILIPPICS i^
antecedebant inter quos q*
ex oppidis
Here the corruption is due to the variants /;/ essedo tr. pi. and in esse
dot R. pi.
U (?) : uehebatur
mg. in esse in essedo TR. PL. lie (15)
dot R. pi. tores laureati an (15)
tecedebant inter (15)
quos aperta lecti (15)
ca mima portabatur (i6)
quam ex oppidis .
The variant was inserted zh&r porta bat7ir, and the words lictorcs . . .
inter quos were repeated.
ii. 56 : Hominem omnium nequissimum] F inserts in eodem vero before horninem.
Halm says ' aberravit scriba ad v. 23 '.
t/(?): homine omniu nequis (17)
simii qui non dubitaret (19)
uel in foro alea ludere (19)
lege quae est de alea (17)
condemnatij qui in inte (19)
gru restituit is non a (18)
pertissime studiu su (18)
um ipse profitetur (16)
In eodem uero
The scribe looked forward nine lines.
ix. 4. V has : nemo rumaxitne
q« ut nepotens re^js antiochi ejus
qui cij maioribus nrjs bejiu gesserat
uirtutem non honorabat.
At ea fuit legatio octaui in qua
periculi suspicio non subesset na
cu esset missus a senatu ad animos
regum respiciendos iiberorum
q- populoru maximeq- ut nepote
regis antiochi eius qui cum ma
ioribus nfis bellum gesserat
classes habere
Here the words struck out after ne7no occur subsequently suo loco.
U (?) : nemo
uirtutem non honora (17^
bat at ea fuit legatio (18)
t84 descent of MANUSCRIPTS
octaui in qua pericu (17)
5 li suspicio non subes (18)
set nam cum esset mis (17)
sus a senatu ad animos (18)
regum respiciendos (17)
liberorumque populo (18)
10 ru maximeq- ut nepote (17)
regis antiochi eius (17)
qui cum maioribus nos (18)
tris bellii gesserat (17)
The.writer of Fomitted lines 2-9 ; then, after copying lines 10-13,
he discovered his mistake and rewrote the whole passage.
The two most singular combinations of variants are in :
(a) viii. 5: D. Brutus oppugnatur: non est bellum. Mutina obsidetur: ne hoc
quidem bellum est.
Fhas : domitius brutus oppug
natur. non est bellum. mutine
dominaretur seturna opside
turne hoc quidem bellu est
Halm says ' quid lateat plane ignoratur. Vide tamen ne verba
inepta ex loco inferiore p. 1329. 9 hue invecta sint.' The reference
is to § 7 :
rursus cum Mario et Carbone Sulla, ne dominarentur indigni
Halm does not attempt to explain seturna. Miiller (with Leh-
mann) reads Mutina vetus et firma colonia obsidetur, a very bold
alteration.
It is to be noticed that in § 7 F reads dominarentur correctly,
while in § 5 it has dominaretur. The natural inference is that a v. I.
has migrated from the margin in § 7 to the text in § 5. With regard
to the strange word seturna^ I would point out that V has incorrectly
Mutine for Mutina. It looks as if -na, a correction, had been con-
flated with the termination of obsidetur. If so, U may have had :
mutine obsidetur ne mg. na
hoc quidem
the correction being placed over the wrong -ne.
Since I shall have to refer subsequently to this passage, I will
here mention that the intervening words between Mutina and domi-
narentur occupy 27^ lines of Teubner text and consist of 1,166
letters (i. e. allowing official abbreviations).
CICERO, PHILIPPICS 185
(b) vi. 10.
Here we are wholly dependent on J\ which gives :
ris quamtius plancius
uidete qimn decertum est
ut ^ercitum citr^flu
men rvjbicone;3ft qui fi
5 nis est gaUi^e educeret
dum ne,{Jropius urbem
remain duce^ta milia
admoueret huKVjdenun
fialioni ille pareaV^tum
I o exiluerit adulescens no
bilis
12 Plancum qui
The words uidete qiian dccertuin est ha\e been inserted by m. 1
either in a lacuna or over an erasure. The passage which has been
struck out, /// cxercitiim . . . pareat, comes from § 5, where V has :
flu
ante decretum est ut exercitum citra me (rubiconem adtf. w vig.) qui finis
cc
est Galliae educeret dum ne plus urbem Roman mil. admoueret huic de-
nuntiationi ille pareat
In § 10 decertum est obviously = deei'ctiivi est. The words 7iidete
qua}i are omitted by editors without comment.
With regard to iddete quan, it is to be remembered that in § -,
decretum is preceded by ante. I recognize the two parts of this,
viz. au- -te, in -te an-. These have been combined with uide and
qu-. What do these stand for ? The answer must, I think, be
quidem. If so, quidem is out of place. A proper place for it would
be after Plancuvi in 1. 12, viz. ' Plancum quidem, qui . . . ita maestus
rediit ut retractus non reversus videretur, sic contemnit tamquam si
ilii aqua et igni interdictum sit'. In my edition of 1900 I had
proposed to insert quidem at this place.
As there arc several variants between the passages in §§ 5 and 10,
it seems probable that an alternative version was by error copied
on the wrong folio of an ancestor, not necessarily the immediate
model. This suggestion will be discussed later on. Here I will
only mention that the intervening passage, viz. §§ 5-10 ille se fluvio
. . . quam T. Plancus occupies 54^^ hnes of Teubner text.
I now turn to P. the common ancestor of V and D. I will first
i86 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
repeat the telescoped passages in V and D which bear witness to
it, viz. :
(27) i. 7 : nee ita multiim provectus reiect- o»i. V^
(28) vii. 14 : nisi paruerit huic ordini quid re- otn. V
(30) V. 20 ; habebat possessor quantum relique- otn. D
xii. 16 : -cear in quo ne si dissensero quidem a om, V
(31) ii. 118: contempsi Catilinae gladios non per- om. V^
iv. 15 : esse Catilinae gloriari solet scele- ovi. D
The regularity with which 28 appears as the unit in the larger
omissions and corruptions suggests that some lines were shorter^
e. g. i^-(>. We may, therefore, not unreasonably suppose that the
following omissions may represent single lines of P.
(25) ii. 72 : ego leges perniciosas rogavi om. V
iii. 15 : non contemnit is qui Aricinum om. V^
xi. 13 : quorum alter commentatus est om. V
(26) ii. 71 : *quid fuit causae cur in Africam om. V
xiii. 5 : *per deos immortales quas in eos om. V^
(27) V. 4: quam senatus si quidem legiones 07n. V^
(28) vii. 14: multo postea gravius urguebamur om. D
xii. 16: si accipiendam, cur non rogamur si om. D
(29) X. 21 : legio fregit iv afflixit sic a suis otn. V^
(31) ix. 2 : non morbus ingravescens retardavit ^ 07n. V^
In the last passage Halm records V"^ as adding cum after retar-
davit, but this is not supported by my notes.
The most interesting of these passages is v. 4. Here V gives :
honestiora decreta
esse legiones h decie
uerunt senatum de
fendere
and in the margin :
h m. qua senatus si quidem legiones
Here h. m. (= hie minus) is a rare omission-symbol, which occurs
elsewhere in F, viz. vii. 6 (cf. p. 34).
As a matter of fact what V^ has omitted here is legiommi quam
• Halm says ' 7ion morbus iugravescens retardavit citm, quae V^ om., supplevit m. 2 '.
According to my notes, V has :
fi raorb' (w. 2, .vw/. Hn.)
non asperitatis uiarumq. jam
ingrauescens retardauit (w. 2, sup. Hn.)
, ad congressum conloquiuq. ei',
i. e. cum is not added by V^.
CICERO. PHILIPPICS 187
senatHs si quidem, not q7^avl scnatus si quidtvi Ugioncs. Also, the
omission-symbol is out of place. It should come after esse.
It will be convenient to put together at this point some passages
where variants of F or D appear to be due to their derivation from
an ancestor written in lines of this length.
ii. 85 : unus inventus es qui cum auctor regni esses eumque quern collegam
habebas dominum habere velles
Here regni is added by D after collcgain.
P (?) : cum auctor
regni esses eumque quern collegam (28)
habebas
Rcg7ii was repeated from the previous line.
§ no: An supplicationes addendo diem contaminari passus es, pulvinaria
noluisti ?
So /? : V adds contami7iari after pulvinaria.
P (?) : addendo diem
contaminari passus es, puluinaria (29)
noluisti
Here the same explanation applies.
§ 115 : non intellegis qui isto modo iudicia non timeat, ei quid timendum sit
Here F"has:
non intel
e
legeris qui isto modo iudi
cia non timeat et quid ti
mendum sit
In D ei is added after intellegis, while ct (i. e. ei) is omitted before
quid.
P (?) : non intellegis
qui isto modo iudicia non timeat a (27) mg. ei
iii. 36 : sunt impii cives, sed pro caritate rei publicae nimium muiti, contra
multitudinem bene sentientium admodum pauci
So V. : sed ovi. D.
The proper place for sed is before cojitra.
P (?) : sunt impii ciues
pro caritate rei p. nimium multi (26) mg. sed
contra multitudinem
i88 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
iv. 4 : quod autem praesidium erat salutis libertatisque vestrae, si C. Caesaris
fortissimorum sui patris militum exercitus non fuisset ?
So V: suique D.
Here -^ue may = Qtdrites (0, which has got into the wrong
place. It would come in admirably after vestrae.
P (?) : libertatisque uestrae tng. Q.
si C. Caesaris fortissimorum sui (27)
patris militum
vii. 4 : aduersarium multitudinis temeritati haec fecit aduersatum praeclarissi-
ma causa popularem V
aduersatum multitudinis temeritati haec fecit praeclarissima causa popu-
larem D
P (?) : aduersarium mg^. aduersatum
multitudinis temeritati haec fecit (31)
praeclarissima causa popularem
viii. 32 : diutiusque seruitutem perpessi quani captiui frugi et diligentes solent D
V adds serrd after captiui.
P (?) : diutiusque
seruitutem perpessi quam captiui (29)
frugi et diligentes solent
V repeats send from the previous line.
ix. 2 : cumque iam ad congressum colloquiumque eius peruenisset ad quern erat
missus in ipsa cura ac meditatione obeundi sui muneris excessit e uita D
V has : ad congressu conloquiilq- ei'
in ipsa cura ac mediaue p
uenisset ad que erat missus
in ipsa cura ac meditatio
ne
P (?) : peruenisset ad quern erat missus (27) tng. in ipsa cura
in ipsa cura ac meditatione ac mediaue
ib. § 4 : quorum statuae steterunt usque ad meam memoriam in rostris V
In D the words m rostris come before steterunt.
/*(?): quorum statuae
» steterunt usque ad meam memoriam (28) mg. in rostris.
xi, 26: non ut ex ea acie respectum haberemus, sed ut ipsa acies subsidium
haberet transmarinimi D {defic. V)
Editors mark ea as corrupt : it would come better before ipsa.
CICKRO. PHILIPPICS j«9
P (?) : non ut ex
acie respectiim haberenius sed ut (27) mg. ea
ipsa acies subsidium haberet
We also find multiples of 28, e. g. :
(rt) 28 X 2 = 56.
V. 30: quo die primum convocati sumus, cum designati consules non adessent,
ieci sententia mea maximo vestro consensu fundamenla rei publicae
So D and edd. : 1 ' has :
con
uocati sumus oxa designati
consules non adessent ieci
sententia mea maximo
liro consensu adfuissem
cum fundamenta reipub
licae
Halm says of adfuissem cum ' manifcstum est glossema, saltem
nescimus quid lateat '. The words appear to stand for adfui ipse
cum, the error being due to the vulgar spelling isse for ipse.
The sense required is adfui ipse cum designati consules non
adessent. Cf. Sull. 81 non adfuit alio in iudicio cum adessent ceteri;
Phil. i. 36 cum adesse ipsis propter vim armorum non licebat,
aderant tamen ; iii. 19 edixit ut adesset scnatus . . . eo die ipse
non adfuit, &c., &c.
The words adfui ipse or adfui ipse cum appear to have been first
omitted and then inserted in the margin of P, e, g. :
conuocati sumus mg. adfuissem cum
designati cos. non adessent ieci sen (30)
tentia mea maximo uestro consensu (29)
fundamenta rei p.
ix. 14: sed statuae intereunt tempestate vi vetustate, sepuicrorum autem sancti-
tas in ipso solo est quod nulla vi moveri ncque deleri potest
The first vi is omitted by F' : V"^ gives uel, while in D we have
the variants •//•, -ui-, ui. There seem to have been duplices lectiones,
viz. ui and uel.
P (?) : tempestate
uetustate sepuicrorum autem sane (29)
titas in ipso solo est quod nulla ui (29) >iig. uel
moueri
X. 15 : etsi est enim Brutorum commune factum et laudis societas aequa, Deci-
I90 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
nio tamen iratiores erant qui id factum dolebant, quo minus ab eo rem
illam dicebant fieri debuisse.
Here eo seems to be required with iratiores^ to correspond with quo
minus (Naugerius).
V has CO before Bmtoriim. This may be a corruption for eo,
which has got out of place.
P (?) : etsi est enim
brutorum commune factum et lau (26)
dis societas aequa decimo tamen (27) mg. eo
iratiores
{h) a8 X 3 = 84.
To this I should refer the omission of V in ii. 79 :
qui turn est impulsus inductus elusus. Qua in re quanta fuerit uterque
vestrum perfidia in Dolabellam (84).
Before I had recollated F, I had arranged the reading of its
ancestor thus :
nihil queror de dolabella
qui turn est impulsus indictus elu (28)
sus qua in re quanta fuerit uterque (29)
uestrum perfidia in dolabellam (27)
I afterwards found that V"^ arranges the supplement at the foot
of the page in three lines, thus :
qui tii est impulsus inductus elusus
qua in re quam fuerit utterq;
uestrum perfidia in dolabella
The coincidence in the arrangement is striking.
There is an interesting dislocation in ii. 27. I write the passage
as I imagine it to have stood in /* :
Cn. domitium non patris interitus (28)
c. u. non auunculi mors non spoliatio (29)
dignitatis ad reciperandam liber (29)
tatem sed mea auctoritas excitauit (30)
5 an C. trebonio ego persuasi cui ne (27)
suadere quidem ausus essem quo et (28)
iam maiorem ei res p. gratiam debet (28)
I write c. u. (= clarissimi uiri) in 1. 2, since this seems to have been
used in the archetype (cf. ix. 5 ad V^ : c. u. V^ : aim t : om. cett).
CICERO, PHILIPPICS 191
Here lines 5-7 an C. . . . debet (83) are placed before lines i -4
Cn. domitium . . . cxcitaiiit (116) in V.
ii. 94. Here V, our sole authority [dcfic. D), gives:
quidquam aequi
boni imperauit aput
mortuum factu e grat
compellerat hospite
i praesens computarat
pecuniam impetrarat
Here it is usual to read impetravit in 1. 2 and imperarat in 1. 6 (so
Poggio). It seems more likely that impetrarat is a v. I. {ox imperavit
(or impetravit)^ which has got into the wrong place.
P (?): quidquam aequi boni
imperauit aput mortuum factus (26) mg. impetrarat
est gratus compellarat hospitem (28)
praesens computarat pecuniam (26)
For gratus, in all probability, .^r/z/wjw^ (Ubaldinus) should be read.
xiv. 14 : quemquamne fuisse tarn sceleratum qui hoc fingeret, tarn furiosum qui
crederet ? Unde igitur ista suspicio vel potius unde iste sermo ? Cum,
ut scitis, hoc triduo vel quadriduo
Here, (or fur ios?/m, /, the best member of /) {dcfic. V), gives //^ff.
Later on, / inserts fusum (so h, susum) after triduo vel. This
appears to be a variant {ox furiosum, which has got into the wrong
place.
/' (?) : tam sceleratum qui hoc fingeret, tam
fuit qui crederet unde igitur is (27) vig. fusum
ta suspicio uel potius unde iste (27)
sermo cum ut scitis hoc triduo uel (28)
c|uadriduo
xiii. 19: coque ipso die innumerabilia senatus consulta fecit quae quidem omnia
citius delata quam scripta sunt (87)
These words present great difficulty in their present context, since
Cicero is speaking of Antony's headlong flight from Rome. Possibly
there has been a dislocation of three lines in P. The passage would
come in suitably after pollicerctur (supr.).
[c) 28 X 4 — 112,
i. 1 1 : priusquam de re publica dicere incipio, pauca querar de hesterna M. Antoni
injuria, cui sum amicus, idque me non nullo eius officio debere esse
19a DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
prae me semper tiili. Quid tandem erat causae cur in senatum hesterno
die tarn acerbe cogerer D
priusquam de re publica dicere incipio pauca quaerar hs de hesterna in
senatum tarn acerbe cogerer {med. om.) V
Here ks, the common symbol for an omission, has got into the
text. V^ supplies at the foot of the page the ordinary reading, as
given by D. Halm, however, points out that the collocation of
words at the end of the sentence must have been different in the
ancestor of V, viz, cur die hesterno in senatum, not C7ir in senatum
hesterno die. The omission is due to 6/i.
P (?) : de hesterna
M. antoni iniuria cui sum amicus id (28)
que me non nullo eius officio debe (28)
re esse prae me semper tuli quid tan (29)
5 dem erat causae cur die hesterno (27)
in senatum tam acerbe cogerer
There are here three stages in the process of corruption, viz. :
(i) lines 3-5 were omitted ;
{%) the correction with the sign hs was written in the margin ;
(3) it was inserted in the text in the wrong place, viz. before de
hesterna, instead of after these words.
It is therefore likely that the original omission goes back to P.
(d) 38x5 = 140.
ii. 3 : sed hoc idcirco commemoratum a te puto, ut te infimo ordini commen-
dares, cum omnes recordarentur libertini generum et liberos tuos
nepotes (2- Fadi, libertini hominis, fuisse (143) om. D
\ am inclined to refer this omission of D back to P. The relation
of this, the largest omission of D (apart from the three large lacunae)
to 280, the longest omission of V (vii. 6), should be noticed.
We may also compare :
i. 36 : populi quidem Romani iudicia multa ambo habetis quibus vos non satis
moveri permoleste fero
Here vos non is a correction made by Poggio. V has nobis without
non^ while both words are omitted by D.
Shortly afterwards, for quid duobiis tribunis pi. qiti vobis adver-
santur, V gives :
qud ii. T.R. P. quiuobis
uo^ aduersantur
^ Halm erroneously quotes V as reading vobis nott.
CICKRO. PHILIPPICS 193
Here uo may = vos, a correction for vobis after quibus, which got
into the text of / ' after the second vobis^ while D omitted the
corruption. The words vobis satis . . . tr. pi. qui = 140 letters.
P{?): quibus
nobis satis moueri permoleste fe (28) f/tj^. iios
ro quid enim gladiatoribus clamo (28)
res innumerabilium civiium quid (27)
populi uersus quid pompei statuae (29)
plausus infiniti quid .ii. tr. pi. qui (28)
uobis aduersantur
(r) 28 X 10 = 280.
vii. 6: usus, consuetudo . . . esse dico sed om. V.
For the sake of clearness I write the passage as I conceive it to
have stood in P :
ab ineunte illius aeta
te usus consuetudo studiorum eti (28)
am honestissimorum societas simi (29)
litudoque deuinxit eiusdemque (27)
5 cura incredibilis in asperrimis (28)
belli ciuilis periculis perspec (28)
ta docuit non modo salutis sed eti (28)
am dignitatis meae fuisse fauto (27)
rem tamen eundem ut dixi nisi talis (29)
10 cons, esset negare esse cons, aude (27)
rem idem non modo cons, esse dico sed (29) = 280
memoria mea praestantissimum
For this ]' gives :
ab ineunte illius
h. m. pagate memoria mea
praestantissimum
Here //. ;//. is the omission mark, previousl)' noted on v. 4 (see p. 186).
I would suggest ih^xpag. = pagina. If so, the passage should contain
a clue to the pagination of some intermediate ancestor. It is to be
observed that the omission mark is again out of place. It should
come before memoria.
/'.therefore, has here omitted lines 2-1 1 oi P. A later hand
(cent, xii) has added at the foot of the page the passage as found in
D, viz. 1. I aetate illius, 6-7 pcrspexi non modo, 1. 11 sed ctiam. This
supplement is obviously drawn from a different source.
i«sj o
194 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
The missing passage occurs later on in the text of F, § it rt'^
bellumproficiscerentiir q7wd erat belhtvi between qi/od and erat bellinn.
'Before proficiscerenttir Fhas the letter .R., for which Halm conjec-
tured Roma. I interpret it as ^ (i. e. require), a critical mark which
has got into the text. As given by Fin § n, the passage runs as
follows :
ad bellum .R.
proficiscerentur quod [te
usus consLietudo studio
rum societas similitudoq.
deuinxit eiusdemq. cura
\' r
incredibilis in asperum
is belli ciuilis periculis p
specta docuit non niodo sa
lutis sed etiam dignitatis
meae fuisse factore tanien
eundem ut dixi nisi talis
esset consul negare esse
consulem auderem idem
non modo consulem esse
dico sed] erat bellu
The natural inference here is that ten lines of P were originally
omitted and subsequently entered on the wrong page of an inter-
mediate MS. I will, therefore, mention that the intervening passage,
viz. §§ 6-1 1 memoria viea . . .proficiscerentur quod = 54^- lines of
Teubner text, and contains 2,270 letters.
So far we have been concerned with the number of letters in
a line of P. The next point to inquire into is the number of lines
to a page. Here we have two clues, viz. {a) the dislocations in V
after xi. 17 (cf. p. 172) and (/;) the mutilations in D.
The first point to consider is whether these represent leaves of the
same MS., or whether they are separate phenomena. The first
hypothesis has the merit of simplicity, since then one explanation,
viz. that of loose leaves in P^ will apply. The evidence is as follows.
I take {a) first.
The displaced blocks are
xii. 12-23: -sumus iudicare . . . nee corpo-
;iiii. i-io: a principio . . . rem acerbam
The first of these occupies 140 lines of Teubner text and the
CICERO, piiiLirncs 19;,
second 139I. Their respective content in letters is 5,828 and 5,826.
They are, therefore, identical.
If we divide 5,826 by 28, the result is 208 (28x208 = 5824).
This gives a very satisfactory solution, viz. that four folios, i.e. eight
pages of 26 lines (8x26 = 20H) have been displaced. If so, the
average content of a folio was 1,456 letters.
The lacunae in D at ii. 93-6, x. 8-10 correspond to 34 and 33
lines of Teubner. As given in ]', the passages contain respectively
1,423 and 1,419 letters. They are, therefore, some 33-7 letters
short of 1.456.
Here it must be remembered that, whereas in xii. 12-23, xiii. i-io
we have the evidence of both / ' and D, in ii. 93-6 and x. 8-10 we
have that of J 'only. It is possible, therefore, that V may have
omitted a few words in each case. On the whole, I am inclined to
refer both the dislocations of /' and the omissions of D to the
.same cause.
So far I have dealt with U , the immediate ancestor of F, and /*,
the common ancestor of U and D. I have already said that 6^^ is a
composite term, since there must have been intermediate ancestors
in three columns. Their existence is shown by such complicated
errors, as e. g. i. 11 lis de hesterna and vii. 6 //. vi. pagate. I do not
pretend to disentangle the complicated skein, but would only
indicate three passages already discussed, which seem to throw
light on the pagination of some intermediate MS. These are:
viii. 5 : dominaretur seturna [ex § 7)
vi. 10: videte quan decertuin . . . ille pareat {ex\ 5)
vii. 11: -te usus . . . dico sed {ex § 6)
It is to be noted that the intermediate passages between vi.
5-10, viz. illc se fljivio . . . quam T. Plaucus, and vii. 6~ii, viz.
viemoria vica . . . proficiscercntur quod occup)- respectively 54^ and
54I lines of Teubner text. Also, in viii. ^-"j the intermediate
passage, viz. obsidctur . . . Srd/a >ie, occupies 27I lines of Teubner.
The relation between 27^, 54^, and 54^ is very significant. The
content of the intermediate passages as given in letters is 1,166 (viii.
5-7), 2,236 (vi. 5-10). and 2.270 (vii. 6-11). There does not seem
to be any connexion between these and the other figures which
I have discussed.
So far we have been enabled by the help of J^ and D to reconsti-
2
196 . DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
tute their common ancestor {P). It remains to ask, if P contains
any evidence which casts light on its antecedents.
There is, I think, considerable evidence to show that P was
derived from an ancestor very similar to itself, so far as the length
of line is concerned. I will call this ancestor Q.
I would draw attention to the following corruptions, some of
which are rather complicated :
iii. 12 : cum autem omnis servitus est (est omn. ser. V) misera, turn vero
intolerabilis est servire impure
So VD : except c {mtolerabile si) : most editors adopt intolerabile
est, a conjecture of Poggio. The construction cum . . . est is very
odd ; we should expect cum . . . sit. The corruption intolerabilis
seems due to the corruption intolerabile si, which is preserved by c,
where si may stand either for st (i. e. est) or for sit.
This points to an original reading:
cum autem omnis seruitus sit
misera tum uero intolerabile est (28) mg. si
viii. 30: summa laus consularium vigilare, cogitare, adesse animo, semper aliquid
pro re publica aut cogitare aut facere aut dicere.
So V: aut cogitare om. D.
* ut saepe in V factum invenimus, ex proxime sequentibus verbum a scriba
praeceptum est, quod deinde in codd. dett. a suo loco detrusum est' Halm.
Here the proper place for cogitare is before aut facere, where it is
omitted m D ; in both V and /?, however, it is found before adesse.
The mistake, therefore, must be prior to P. It is possible either
that aut cogitare was added in the margin of Q or that cogitare was
a variant for aut cogitare. The words :
adesse animo, semper aliquid pro re p. = 30 letters.
I now turn to a very puzzling passage, v. 13.
Here Fhas:
qui
bus rebus tanta pecunia
unam in domo coacerua
ta est ut si hoc genus pane
5 in unum redigatur non
sit pecunia rei publicae
defutura
Penc in 1. 4 is omitted by D : it may be a senseless variant for
CICERO, PHILIPPICS 197
pecunia in line 2 or 6. The emendations pecuniae and rapinae
have been suggested.
The reading of I' seems to show that there was a confusion
between una in douio {D) and nnavi in donmut (Garatoni). If so,
ununi may be a variant which had got into the wrong place. This
mistake must have been already present in P. If unum is struck out
we are left with in redigatur. This indicates a very simple correction,
viz. iiire redigatur, which produces an excellent rhythm for the colon,
while all the other emendations give the hexameter ending.
I therefore suggest that Q had :
una in mg. unum
domo coaceruata est ut si hoc genus in (31)
redigatur
The existence of this more remote ancestor throws light upon the
mysterious passage i. 30 nrbe incendio et caedis metu liberata (32),
which rests on the authority of f- only {oni. V^D). It may
represent a line of Q. As written by V", it is nrbe incendio et tedis
Dietu liberat (30). We may also notice that in v. ^'>^^ where there is
a lacuna in I' {defic. D), Garatoni's supplement auctoritatem secuti
liber t ate tn P. R. = 30 letters.
iv. 13: banc retinetc, quacso, quam vobis tamquam hereditatem maiores vestri
reliquerunt. Quamquam alia omnia falsa, incerta sint, caduca, mobilia :
virtus est una altissimis defixa radicibus
So V: some members of D give Qiiirites qnacso quani, others
quaeso qr. p. r. quam. The confusion between Quiritcs (Q) and
quam is constant.
The subjunctive sint is unusual with quamquam {sunt D). Madvig
strikes out quamquatn, while Halm reads namcum with P. R. MUller.
The variants point to an original reading :
banc retinete quaeso
qui ' quam uobis tamquam beredita (27) mg. quamquam
tern maiores uestri reliquerunt (27)
alia omnia falsa
xi. 7: est enim sapientis quicquid bomini accidere possit, id praemeditari feren-
dum modice esse, si evenerit. Maioris omnino est consili providerc
ne quid tale accidat, animi non minoris fortiter ferre, si evenerit VD
The first si evenerit, which has been struck out by various editors,
is defended by the clausula, the second can be removed without
* = Quirilei.
198 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
injury to the rhythm (Zielinski). The repetition may be due to the
following arrangement in Q :
si eueneiit maioris omnino est con (29)
sili prouidere ne quid tale accidat (30)
animi non minoris fortiter ferre (28)
i. 31 : quanto metu veterani, quanta sollicitudine civitas turn a te liberata est
The veterans were not in any danger, but they were a menace to
the republican party. Various emendations have been made. The
best sense is given by senatus (Ernesti), but there is no similarity
between this word and veterani}
As a matter of fact the reading is somewhat doubtful. I noticed
in V that the first hand wrote veteranis. In D besides ueterani
I find itcteri, iieter, ueterd". The reading, therefore, is doubtful. In
view of preceding passages, we are led to ask if some corruption
has been introduced from the context. Shortly above we have the
passage (§ 30) se beneficio noiio mevioriam ueteris doloris abiccissc.
Such variants as tictere, ueteres are common, e. g. in the pah"m-
psest of the dc Re Publica, p. 228, col. 2 (Van Buren). It occurred
to me that the various corruptions here might be variants for the
preceding ueteris in § 30. The words ueteris . . . inctu consist of
300 letters (28 x 11 = 308). This indicates the following arrange-
ment in Q. I postulate some original error, e.g. ueteres for ueteris.
memoriam
ueteris doloris abiecisse hanc (27)
tu P. dolabella magno loquor cum (26)
dolore hanc tu inquam potuisti ae (28)
quo animo tantam dignitatem de (26)
ponere tu autem M. antoni absentem (28)
enim appello unum ilium diem quo (27)
in aede telluris senatus fuit non (28)
omnibus his mensibus quibus te qui (29)
dam multum a me dissentientes be (27)
atum putant anteponis quae fuit (27)
oratio de concordia quanto metu (27)
xi. 14 : T. Annium Cimbrum, Lysidici filium, Lysidicum ipsum Graeco verbo,
quoniam omnia iura dissolvit.
Graeco uerbo V\ in Graeco uerbo Z>, del. Manutius
The gloss here must have been present in P.
Shortly afterwards for gravem (§ 15) V has a singular corruption,
' Senatus may have dropped out after metu.
CICERO, PHILIPPICS 199
viz. grccaticm. This seems due to a survival of the original gloss,
viz. grace, ox grcc, which was afterwards expanded into Graeco uerbo
and received into the text. Cf. Nat. D. i. 85 sententiis qtias appel-
latis Kvpiaj l6^a<;. Here Harl. 2622 has GR in the margin, while C
gives sententiis GR quas appellatis cyrias doxas.
Here the intervening words quoniam omnia . . . dixit enitn scverani
consist of 395 letters (2(S x 14 = 392). This indicates the following
distribution in Q :
lysidicum ipsum ing. grec.
quoniam omnia iura dissoluit nisi (29)
forte lure germauum cimber occidit (30)
cum banc et huius generis copiam (27)
tantam babeat antonius quod see (27)
lus omittet cum dolabella tantis (28)
se obstrinxerit parricidiis nequa (30)
quam pari latronum manu et copia (27)
quapropter iit inuitus saepe dis (27)
sensi a O. fulio ita sum eius senten (28)
tiae libenter assensus ex quo iu {27)
dicare debetis me non cum homine so (29)
lere sed cum causa dissidere itaque (30)
non adsenlior solum sed etiam gra (28)
tias ago fufio dixit enim seueram (28J
grauem re p. dignam sententiam
The gloss gree. was combined with granein.
I now come to two very singular cases :
ii. 106. V has: incredibile dictum sed cu
uinus inter omnia consta
bat neminem esse resalu
tatum
P"or the corrupt words en uinns we find in D other corruptions,
viz. et sermuleinus, et simul unn cinns, sitnnl. Madvig conjectured
sum vieinns.
It cannot, I think, be doubted that Madvig was on the right track,
but his correction gives a strange sense, viz. ' it is an astonishing
story, but I am a neighbour.' We should expect, ' but I heard it
from neighbours.'
It occurred to me that eu ninns might stand not for sn)n nicinus but
for uinus. In view of previous experience I looked to see if vicinus
is found in the context. In § 104 wc have quivis amicus, vicinus,
procurator arcebit.
200 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
The words vicinus hospes . . . dictum sed consist of 953 letters
(28 X 34 = 952).
xiv. 13. Here we have D only, as V has been mutilated. I will
give the reading of /, viz. :
etiam in eos qui omnis suas curas in rei publicae salute defigunt impetus
crimen quaeretur ?
The other members of D add invidia after crimen^ and the
omission of this word by t seems due to accident.
The important point is that for impetus {bt) we have the variants
impeius {s) and in peius {cett.). As impetus is here corrupt, we have
to seek for an explanation in the context. The word occurs in § 15 :
tum in me impetus conductorum hominum quasi in tyrannum parabatur
The hypothesis presents itself that in § 15 there was a variant
impeius which has got into the text in § 13.
The intervening words, viz. crimen invidia . . . in me impetus,
consist of 951 letters. The agreement between 953 and 951 is most
remarkable. The natural explanation is that both here and in
ii. 104-6 a variant has been entered by error on the wrong folio.
If so, Q contained 34 lines to a folio, i.e. 17 to a page.
I have previously remarked that de Ricci's fragment of the pro
Plancio contains an average of 27-8 letters to the line. It also has
17 lines to the page. The formation of Q, therefore, as revealed by
this analysis, appears to have been identical with that of this
fragment.
De Ricci's fragment contains on the recto 444 letters, but there
are two short lines, viz. one of 19 letters, and one, at the end of
a paragraph, of 4 letters only. The verso, which has only one short
line, of 22 letters, contains 474 letters. If we take 474 as normal
and multiply by 2, the result is 948.
I think it worth while to write out these two passages as I con-
ceive them to have stood in Q.
ii. 104-6 :
ci uinus uicinus hospes procurator arce (27) madebant parietes ingenui pueri (28)
bit at quam multos dies in ea uilla (28) cum meritoriis scorta inter matres (30)
turpissime es perbacchatus ab ho (28) faniilias uersabantur casino salu (29)
ra tertia bibebatur ludebatur uo (28) tatum ueniebant aquino interamna (29)
5 mebatur o tecta ipsa misera quam (27) admissus est nemo lure id quidem in (29)
dispari domino quamquam quo modo (28) homiiie enim turpissimo obsolefi (28)
iste dominus sed tamen quam ab dis (28) ebant dignitatis insignia cum in (28)
pari tenebantur studiorum enim su (29) de romam proficiscens ad aquinum (28)
cici:ro, philippics
lOI
orum M. uaiio uoluit illuci non libi (iS)
lo dinum deuersorium quae in ilia uil (29)
la antea dicel)antur quae cngita (^7)
bantur quae litteris mandabaiitur (29)
iura P. R. monimcnta maiorum omnis (27)
sapicntiae ratio oinnisque doctri (29)
15 nae at uero te iiiquilino non enim do (29)
mino p>ersonabant omnia uocibus (27)
cbriorum natabant paaimenta uino (29)
= 477
xiv. 13-15 :
crimen inuidia quaeretur scitis (28)
enim per hos dies creberrimum h\ (27^
isse scrmonem me parilibus qui di (28)
es hodie est cum fascibus descen (27)
5 surum in aliquem credo hoc gladia (28)
torem aut latronem aut caiilinam (28)
esse consulatum ' non in eum qui ne (27)
quid tale in re p. fieri posset etTe (28)
cerit an ut ego qui catilinam haec (28)
10 molientem sustulerim eiierterim (28)
afflixerim ipse extiterim- repen (28)
te catilina quibus auspiciis istos (30)
fasces augur acciperem quatenus (28)
haberem cui traderem quemquamne (28)
15 fuisse tarn sceleratum qui hoc fin (28)
geret tarn furiosum qui crederet un (29)
deigitur ista suspicio uel potius (29)
= 477
accederet obuiara ei processit ut
est frequens municipium magna sa
ne multiludo at isle optrta lecti
ca latus per oppidum est ut mortu
us stulte aquinates scd tamen in
uia habitabant quid anaj,'nini qui
cum essent dcuii descendeiunt
ut istum tamquam si esset cons, sa
lutarent incredibile dictum sed
(28)
(28)
(28)
(27)
(27)
(38)
(26)
(37)
(28)
= 476
(=»7)
(28)
(27)
(28)
unde iste sermo cum ut scitis hoc
triduo uel quadriduo tristis a nui
tina fania manaret inllali laeti
tia atque insolentia impii ciues
unum se in locum ad illam curiam ui' (28)
ris potius suis quam rei p. infeli (27)
cem congregabant ibi cum consilia (29)
inirent de caede nostra partiren (28)
turque inter se qui capitolium qui (29)
hostia qui urbis portas occupa (26)
rent ad me concnrsum futurum ciui (28)
tatis putabant quod ut cum iniiidi (28)
a mea fieret et cum nitae etiam pe (27)
riculo faniam istam fascinm dissi (aS)
pauerunt fasces ipsi ad me delatu (28)
ri fuerunt quod cum esset quasi mea (29)
uoluntatc factum turn in me impetus (29)
= 474
impetus
I now turn to the D family. Various MSS. belonging to D were
used by Halm, the most important of which is :
/ = Tegernseensis, now Monacensis 18787, cent. x/xi.
In my edition of 1900 I also used :
c = Paris. 5802, cent, xiii, 6602, cent, xiii, Berol. Phil, 201, cent. xii.
;/ = Voss. Lat. O. 2, cent. x.
/ = Brit. Mus. Regius 15 A. .\iv. cent. xi.
Since then I have collated various other I\ISS., the most
important of which is :
s = Vatic. 3228, cent. x.
The MSS. which I term c contain P/ii/. i -iv only. They agree
with the readings quoted by Ferrarius from his codex Colotianus,
a MS. belonging to A. Colocci. I term the gvoup /ami/ta Colotiana.
In Phil, i-iv c frequently agrees with V as against the other
so ;.
- so coiid.
bO /.
ao2 DESCENT OE MANUSCRIPTS
members of D. An interesting feature in this group of MSS. is
that they are derived from an ancestor written in insular script.
This is shown by the corruptions for mitetn, due to misunder-
standing of the insular sign h. In the two Paris MSS. aiitem is
continually corrupted to Jioc, haec, hiiius, or confused with ejiiin (4+).
In the Berlin MS., wherever the first hand gives /r, a corrector adds
4+ above it, and then above this writes enini in fuU.^
Vat. 3228 (j-) is the MS. which Eerrarius calls codex Scalae. It
occupies the next place in the Vatican library to another MS. used
by Eerrarius, Vat. 3227, which he termed his Langobardiciis^
a twelfth-century MS. It is singular that s should have remained
neglected until now, since Vat. 3227 {y), which is inferior to it in
age and value, was collated in Phil, xiv by E. Ereiburg for Halm.
Though inferior to t in value, s is equal or superior to it in
antiquity. The script of s varies in character. It is mainly
Caroline, but in places the scribe seems to be imitating an old
Erench model. A number of critical marks are used, the most
frequent being r (= require), which is sometimes combined with
t or at, e.g. :
viii. 28 : usi] sed s\ sup. Un. f T si
xii. 27 : tuti] ut s: mg. f aT si hie
The omission signs are fid, fifi.
There are great similarities between s and t, e.g. :
t cu jjsens
i. 10 : praesentes] praesentes dixit pro populo praesentes / : sequens dixit pro
populo praesentes s
X. 15: Brutorum commune factum et laudis societas aequa, Decimo tamen
iratiores V: Brutorum actiones st {nied. om.)
xi. 13 : emptor tamen in ea auctione] emptoriaamenea auctione /: emptori kk s
There is no doubt that the form of the text found in / is prior to
that of s. On the other hand s appears to be an ancestor of /.
On various occasions marginal notes in s have been incorporated
in the text by /. Thus xiii. 8 s has :
pignorib.
magnis multisq: jtin^ribus ni. lepidu r. p. obligatu tenet, siima nobi
ei'
Bonitas. M. leji. litas omis honor -^ amplissimu sacerdotiu. plurima urbis ornain
ta
^ Class. Rev., xiv (1900;, p. 41.
CICERO, I'lIILIPPICS 203
Here / has :
plurinia bonitas M. lepidi urbis ornamenta
Other cases are xi. 8 crudcHtas Dolabcllac^ 33 laiis Deiotari regis.
Also variants in s are conflated by /, e.g. :
i. 21 : populi Romani] publicae rei s^ sup. lin. populi roinani : populi romani
plubice rei /
ii. 59 : tu quaesisti] tu que sis te s, sup. lin. t dedisti : T dedisti turn que siste /
In the following case a conjecture in s is adopted by /:
X. 14 : Italia] fatalia s, sup.lin. puto Italia: puto Italia /
The strongest evidence is yielded by an omission of /, viz. :
vii. I : parvis de rebus sed fortasse necessariis consuliniur, patres conscripti
otn. I
In s after the end of Phil, vi the words PARVIS DE REBVS are
written at the end of a line in capitals, while the rest of the
passage {sed . . . consulinmr p. f.) is entered in minuscule in the
blank part of the line before PARVIS. Here the scribe of / seems to
have left out a line.
I did not notice in my examination of s, which was somewhat
hurried, any other omission of a line by /, except possibly iii. 24.
Here s has :
legione quarta niente cecidit et fugere festinans s. c. de sup
plicatione p discessionem fecit
/ omits quarta . . . supplicationc (o/x.) :
Also, ii. 54 : O miserum te si haec intellegis, miseriorein bi non intellegis hoc
litteris mandari, hoc memoriae prodi
Here s omits miserioreui . . . intellegis, while / omits the entire
passage. In s prodi comes exactly under eonstitisse (in the middle
of a line), this being the word which precedes O miserum.
On the other hand / is not a direct copy of s. The omissions of
/ are very frequent and exhibit regular units. I did not, however,
find any explanation of them in s, except in the few cases I have
mentioned. Also / has some large omissions. The two chief
cases are :
viii. 9-15 : illud est . . . ego Calilinani
ix. 8-14: sarciamus . . . quidem nostri
Here viii. 9-15 = 76 lines of Teubner text, while ix. S-14 = 77^.
It is clear that folios of an ancestor have changed places.
204 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
There is a shorter omission, which has been repaired by a fly-
sheet, viz. :
ii. 108-10: memineramus . . . ignores.
This = ^^ Teubner lines. There is no connexion between this and
the preceding figures.
There is also a long dislocation, viz. :
ill. 3-18 : quo enim . , . imitari velit.
This is placed after i v. 15 iiidiistria inferior.
Here iii. 3-18 = 210 Teubner lines. Here 30 x 7 = 210,
There appears to be a connexion between this and ii. 108-10.
The probability is that the omission in ii. T08-10, which is supplied
on the fly-sheet, represents a page or folio in the model of /, while
the omissions in viii. 9-15, ix. 8-14 represent similar divisions in
a more remote ancestor. In neither case does s throw any light.
We must, therefore, allow two intermediate ancestors between
s and /.
This conclusion is interesting, since / is not much later than s. It
shows how frequently MSS. were copied at this period, and how
careful we must be before saying that one MS. is a direct copy of
another.
It would be in some ways not without interest to trace the
pedigree of the MSS. which compose the D group, but the practical
results would be small, since they are all derived from one fountain-
head and that less pure than V. I have not, therefore, thought it
worth while to pursue the inquiry, except in the case of /, which,
where V is not extant, is our most valuable MS.
The contents of / are : Philippics, pro lege Manilia, pro M Hone ^ pro
Sulla, pro Plancio, pro Caecina, pro Marcello.
It is written in long lines, with an average of about 75 letters to
the line, without allowance for abbreviations. A plate is given by
Chatelain (PI. xxvii. i).
In the Philippics the omissions of / recorded by Halm are as
follows :
(il)xiii, 32: *subornastis
(12) ii. 34: *hoc consilium
iii. 35 : *nostis amicos
viii. 4 : *auctoritatem
(14) xiii. 30: in praetereundo
CICKRO, PHILIPPICS ZO-,
(15) xiii. 46: Brutum obsideant
(19) xii. 29 : •♦credunt improbis cred-'
(21) ix. 6 : ♦»-que coniugis diligentia
(22) xi. 27' ••-audio ego etiam veteranos
(26) viii. I : filio fecit et ut luctu sororis
(28) ii. 105 : omnia vocibus ebriorum natabant
(42) X. 15 : •♦commune factum et laudis societas aequa D. tamen ir-'^
iii. 6 : *quod profecto non fecisset, si eum cons, iadicasset
(45) xiv. 20: principem revocandae libertatis fuisse me ex Kal. Ian.
(56) xiv. 1 : »quam avidissime civitas exspectat allala, laetitia frui satis est
(59) ii. 82 : vocatur, renuntiatur : deinde, ut adsolet, sufifragia : turn secunda
classis
(66) xiii. 32 : natus hostis Antonius qui tanto opere earn civitatem oderit quam
scit huic rei p.
44 : quamquam enim prima praesidia utiliora rei p. sint, tamen e.\-
trerna sunt gratiora
(68) viii. 15 : •aliquod potius quam totum corpus intereat, sic in rei p. corpore,
ut totum salvum sit
(74) xiii. 24 : ♦*ut faciebas, cum in gremiis mimarum mentum mentemque de-
poneres. Et te, o puer— Puerum appell-
(76) x. 14: maximeque noster est Ilrutus semperque noster cum sua excel-
lentissima virtute rei p. natus
(77) iii. 39 : *legio Martia Albae constiterit in municipio fidelissimo et
fortissimo seseque ad senatus
(78) iii. II : neglectisque sacrihciis sollemnibus ante luccm vota ea quae
numquam solveret nuncupavit ^
viii. 33: dignum esse videatur uti C. Pansa A. Hirtius cons, aaue* si iis
videbitur de eius honore praemiove
(79) i. 18: »ecquid est quod tani proprie dici possit actum eius qui togatus
in re p. cum potestate imperioque
(84) i. 17: 'quae tamen multo plura illo mortuo reperta sunt quam a vivo
beneficia per omnes annos tributa et data
(86) ii. 25 : cuius autem qui in eo numero fuisset nomen est occultatum ?
occultatum dico ? Cuius non statim divulgatum ?
(89) V. 20: suum in ilia gladiatoria pugna multum profuderat. Hie pecunias
vestras aestimabat, possessiones notabat
(91) X. 26 : *si qua opus sit quae publica sit et exigi possit, utatur. exigat,
pecuniasque a quibus videatur, ad rem militarem
' Here other M.SS. have sed credunt improH<:, trcdiint turhulciitis : t gives sed ut ttir-
hnlenlis [tned. om.\. I t.ike ut to represent -ut, i. e. the last syllable in credunt.
* For iratiores t has actiones. This appears to be a correction lor -atiorts.
' For this passage t has the single word vota. This seems to have been inserted by
conjecture. I, therefore, treat the passage as a single omission.
* = alter antbovc. So V here and v. 53, and Vt in ix. 16,
2o6 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
(loi) xiii, 24: *ornatuiTi sed ilia ornamenta in virtute et industria posita lucent.
Tu vero qui te ab eodem Caesare ornatum negare non poles
(l 16) xiii. 46: *quid de Pansa et Hirtio loquar? Caesar, singuiari pietate
adulescens, poteritne se tenere quin D. Bruti sanguine poenas patrias
persequatur ?
(160) viii. 30: *nam illud quidem non adducor ut credam esse quosdam qui
invideant alicuius constantiae, qui labori eius, qui eius perpetuam in re
p. adiuvanda voluntatem et senatui et P. R. probari moleste ferant
This list is unusually interesting. In the first place we have to
notice the three telescoped passages of 19-22 letters, and the tele-
scoped passage of 42 letters. Here a unit emerges which cannot be
denied.
The next point which we have to notice is the telescoped passage
of 74 letters in xiii. 24. There is no connexion between this and
the previous passages. Also, we must observe the unusually large
number of omissions ranging from 74-9 letters, viz, six examples, two
of which contain the same number (78).
These facts are interesting, since this is about the content of a line
in /, apart from abbreviations. If these were not employed, a line
in / would contain somewhat more. The suspicion arises that /
was copied from a MS. very like itself and that these omissions
represent lines in the model. If so, we should expect to find
similar phenomena elsewhere in the MS. I, therefore, give a list
of all omissions over 70 letters elsewhere in the MS. as recorded
by editors :
(70) Mil. 21 : amicos meos neque enim hoc cogitavit vir iustissimus neque in
bonis viris legendis
(71) Plane. 76: oppugnator, ut inimici mei putarant, sed etiam defensor fuisset,
huius in periculo non
{•]"]) Plane. 72 : *familiaritatis, vicinitatis, patris amicitiae, quae si non essent,
vererer, credo, ne turpiter
(81) Caec. 88 : restitues, sive ex hoc loco deiecisti, restitue in hunc locum : sive
ab hoc loco, restitue in eum locum
Plane. 62 : **magistratus quasi rei p. vilicos in quibus si qua praeterea est
ars, facile patitur, sin minus, virtu-
(87) Mil. 12 : **amentiam perditorum. Hanc vero quaestionem, etsi non est
iniqua, numquam tamen senatus constituendam pu-
(152) Caee. 91 : ostendo si sine armatis coactisve hominibus deiectus quispiam
sit, eum qui fateatur se deiecisse, vincere sponsionem, si ostendat eum
non possedisse. Neque deiici nisi qui possideat
CICERO. PJIILIPriCS 207
To these may be added a dittography :
(80) Suli. 34 : pro salute rei p. suscepi atque gessi. L. ille Torquatus, cum
esset meus contubernalis in consulatu bis scr.
The significance of these fifjures will be seen when I mention that
apart from Mil. 50, where an omission of 55 letters is shared by E,
the only omissions of 50-70 letters in / recorded by editors are
Plauc. 67 rebus . . , valid t ( ",7) and Caec. 34 ^sed ideo . . . alieiium (67).
In this list it is to be noticed that there are two telescoped passages ;
also that the number Si occurs twice.
I now proceed to combine the evidence, affixing asterisks to the
telescoped passages :
(70) Mil. 21 (80) SuU. 34
(71) Plane. 76 (81) Caec. 88, * Plane. 62
(74) *Phil. xiii. 24 (84) Phil. i. 17
(76) Phil. X. 14 (86) Phil. ii. 25
(■]•]) Plane. 72, Phil. iii. 39 {2,^) *Mil. 12
(78) Phil. iii. II. viii. 33 (152) Caee. 91
(79) Phil. i. 18 (160) Phil. viii. 30
The favourite numbers are 77-Si. There is considerable irregularity
among the other numbers, due, in all probability, to the use of
abbreviations in the model. The relation of the largest number, 160,
to the dittography of 80, and the two cases of Si, one of which is
telescoped, is to be noted.
In view of the cumulative evidence I have no doubt that these
omissions represent lines in the model of /.
So far two units are yielded by the omissions, viz. 19-22 and 77-81.
It is obvious that some of the larger omissions, e.g. 101 and 115,
may be multiples of the small unit. I hesitate to say more, since
101 and 1 15 may be connected with 56 and 59. and these again with
26 and 28. If so, there may be another intermediate ancestor or
these omissions may go back to an earlier stage.
The following corruptions in / may be taken in connexion with
the ancestor in lines of 19-22 letters :
ii. 18 : vitricum tuum fuisse in tanto scelere fatebare
In t fuisse comes A\.q.x Jatcbare. This suggests the arrangement :
uitricum tuum mg. fuisse
in tanto scelere fatebare (2 2)
xi. 6 : ille pervenisse videtur quoad progredi potuerit
2o8 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
In / the words pervenisse videtur come after potuerit. This suggests :
ille mg. peruenisse iiidetur
quoad progredi potuerit (21)
xiii. 42 : mihi quidem constat nee meam contumeliam
After meam t repeats qiiidem. This suggests :
mihi
quidem constat nee meam (20)
contumeliam
I now turn to s and ;/. They are closely connected with each
other, also with a (Bamberg. M. iv. 5), cent, xiii, a MS. used by
Halm.
The following dittographies are interesting :
(27) V. 13 : quis nouit aut quis nosse potuit bis scr. s.
(28) ii. 67 : tarn distantibus in locis positas bis scr. s.
(38) iii. 13 : potestatem nobis de tota re p. fecisse dicendi bis scr. s.
viii. 5 : enim tempus nondum uenerat belli aiit (so sn) gerendi bis scr. sn.
In the margin of .<• is r (= require).
(52) X. 14 : nee hoc cadere uerbum in tantam uirtutis praestantiam potest bis
scr. 71.
(73) xii. 3 : quod uidebam equidem, sed quasi per caliginem : praestrinxerat
aciem animi D. Bruti salus bis scr. s.
Here there are two series, viz. :
27, 28, 52
38 {bis), 7Z
The first of these dittographies is instructive. The repetition takes
place after the intervening words nam Lysiaden Atheniensem (22).
It seems likely that these words were inserted in the margin, after
previous omission, and that the scribe when inserting them lost his
place and wrote a line of his model twice.
In iii. 13 also the dittography is not immediate, but comes after
aim enim . . . praesidio {'>,']). Here it is clear that the intermediate
ancestor had :
potestatem nobis de tota re p. fecisse dicendi (38)
cum enim tuto senatum haberi sine praesidio (37)
In viii. 5 the dittography is a little complicated. The passage as
given by other members of Z? is :
decernendi enim tempus nondum venerat : belli autem gerendi tempus si
praetermisisset
CICERO, PHILIPPICS 209
In sn we find :
decemendi enim tcmpus nondum uenerat belli aiit gerendi enjm tempus non-
dum uenerat belli aCit gerendi tempus si praetermisisset
This indicates :
decemendi enim tempus nondum uenerat belli (38)
aut gerendi tempus si praetermisisset
The writer looked back from -cndi to -endi and repeated enivi . . .
de/h', before he realized his error.
In connexion with the dittographies of 27, 28, 52 letters the
following omissions are interesting :
(29) vii. 27 : *bellum indixerit sed uos moneo PRT s- in mg.
xiv. 18 : sententiis vinci non possum bonis ovi. s
Cf. xiv. 33 : neque oblivione eorum qui nunc sunt nee reticentia posterorum
Here s^ repeats eorum iox posterorum. Tliis suggests :
eorum qui nunc sunt nee reticentia (29)
posterorum
There is an interesting dislocation in xi. 9, which may be due to
this ancestor. Here we have :
nam quo maior vis est animi quam corporis, hoc sunt graviora ea quae con-
cipiuntur animo quam ilia quae corpore
Here snl and Halm's MS. a omit the words quam corporis . . .
animo (50) in their proper place and insert them later on after sine
Trcbotiii maxima contumclia. The intervening passage quam ilia
. . . contumclia consists of 450 letters. Here 50 x 9 = 450. We may-
compare the following omissions :
(25; ii. 54: miseriorem si non intellegis otn. s
(50) iii. 2 : fuissent eo die quo primum ex urbe fugit Antonius, aut eae non
oin. s
In connexion with the dittographiesof 38 and 73 letters I mention
the following omissions :
(35) xi. 27 : iam nobis notus esset exercitus alterius om. j'
(36) X. 7 : eos qui diadema imposuerint conservandos om. s
xii. 18 : sic me iniquum eierabant, de me querebantur ofn. sn
1391 viii. 8 : et discordia civium sed in maxima consensione orn. s^
(76) xiii. 47 : bene me novit, quod venias, proposito praesertim exemplo Dola-
bellae. Sanctiore erunt, credo om, s
It is probable that s and n contain much further evidence, but my
USS p
2IO DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
inspection of s was hurried, while at the time when I used n my
attention was not directed to such points and my notes are
defective.
I now come to c, the familia Colotiana (p. 20i). In this I have
only noticed two omissions common to the family, viz. :
(68) i. 24 : civitas data non solum singulis sed nationibus et provinciis uni-
versis a mortuo
(173) iii. 27 : etenim in contione dixerat se custodem fore urbis, usque ad Kal.
Martias ad urbem exercitum habiturum. O praeclarum custodem
ovium, ut aiunt, lupum. Custosne urbis an direptor et vexator esset
Antonius. Et quidem
The unit here appears to be 34 (34 x 2 = 68, 34 x 5 = 1 70).
There are also two omissions, not shared by Berol. Phil, aoi,
which throw light upon a common ancestor of the two Paris. MSS.,
viz. :
(83) ii. 84 : *fecit. Quae potest esse turpitudinis tantae defensio? Cupioaudire
ut videam ubi rhetoris sit tanta om. Par. 6602 (;;/. i)
iii. 16 : atque optimae pater M. Atius Balbus, in primis honestus, prae-
torius fuit : tuae coniugis, bonae feminae om. Par. 5802, 6602
These are the only two cases which I have noted, and their agree-
ment is remarkable.
I now sum up the results indicated by this analysis. We have
seen that the D family is derived from the same archetype as F, i. e.
a MS. with an average of about 38 letters to a line. The telescoped
passages, v. 30 and iv. 15, bear witness to this stage, and probably
other omissions (vii. 14, xii. 16) go back to this ancestor. The most
authoritative member of D is t. In this we find clear indications of
an ancestor with 19-33 letters to the line, the evidence being given
by three telescoped passages of this length (ix. 6, xi. ^']^ xii. 39),
also one of 43 letters (x. 15).
In s and n there are indications of an immediate ancestor with an
average of 37-8 letters to the line, preceded by one with an average
of 37-9. There is slighter evidence (v. 13), which may show that
this was preceded by a MS. with an average of 33 letters to the
line. This, it is to be noticed, is the length of a line in the ancestor
oi t.
It seems likely that this MS. in 19-33 letters was the common
CICERO, PHILIPPICS 211
ancestor of D. If so, we may refer to it the following omissions
ofZ):
(22) ii. 64 : «cum omnia metu tenerentur
V. 27 : ad nostrum civem mittimus
(23) vii. 18 : fecerit, hunc praedae causa
(24) i. 2 : »nisi quod erat notum omnibus
If in the last passage we wnitomnib., the number is reduced to 22.
I pass over the higher numbers, in which more than one explana-
tion is possible. Such an ancestor would, without doubt, be written
in two columns.
p a
CHAPTER VII
VERRINES
The well-known palimpsest of the Verrines, Va.t. Reg. 2077 (V),
is ascribed to the fourth century. It is written in two columns,
with 20 lines to the page.
Chatelain (PI. 32) gives a facsimile of f. 88', containing Verr. ii.
113-15, de pjiblico . . . flagitioruni. The contents of this, as written,
are col. i = 378, col. ii = 371 letters, total = 749. In col. ii
there is one exceptionally short line of seven letters at the end of
a paragraph. We learn from Mai, who records the contents of the
various pages, that the verso of f 88 contains §§ 115-16, crudelita-
iisqiic . . . lion de Sthe-. This passage, as printed, consists of 719
letters, but probably, as written, there would be a few abbreviations.-
It contains, therefore, a little less than the recto.
The total contents of the folio are 749 + 719 = 1468. The average
number of letters to the line is 19 for the recto and 18 for the verso.
As expressed in Teubner lines the contents are recto = 18, verso
= 17, total = 35.
Fin its present form consists of loi ff. It possesses various
quaternion markings, the last of which, Q. xxxxii, occurs at v. i 20.
When complete it must have contained at least 45 quaternions. In
view of these signatures I endeavoured to reconstitute the MS. in
its original form. I found at once that the unit of '>,^ Teubner lines
to a folio is remarkably constant. On the other hand the investiga-
tion is made difificult by various circumstances.
The scribe who superimposed the second work (Prosper's con-
tinuation of Jerome) upon the Verrincs took scattered leaves at
random from a heap. Thus f. i of the palimpsest, as it now stands,
contains Verr. v. 70-1, and f 2 contains i. 106-7. Also many
folios are legible on one side only. Mai frequently remarks of
a page non legit iir or ob litter ata est, ox funditiis eluta. In such cases
editors give, as contained in V, only what is printed by Mai, without
VERRINES 213
mentioning the illegible page. Since, however, it is very incon-
venient to deal with occasional pages among the folios, I have in
such cases allowed 17^ lines for the illegible page. A more serious
complication is caused by the fact that a number of pages in Fwere
left blank by the writer of the Vcrrincs. On this subject Mai is
quite explicit, and not infrequently points out that there is no gap,
but that after a blank recto or verso the text is resumed without any
lacuna. He says (p. 402) :
Cur autem Verrinarum amanuensis reliquerit has aliasque paginas vacuas
divinare vix queo. Dicerem ob membranarum asperitatem nisi hae mihi lacves
esse viderentur : id quod tamen postea a rescribente fortasse curatum est.
As I have not myself seen ]\ I can only quote this statement.
In the following tabulation I combine the portions of the speech
surviving in [' with those which have been lost, marking the first
with an asterisk and adding the folios of the MS. in its present form
on which ihey are found. Where a page is illegible, I allow 17^
lines for its contents. In such cases the content which I ascribe to
the folio will differ by this amount from that usually ascribed
to V. Where Mai states that a page is blank, I record the fact.
The first passage preserved by V \s i. 105-14. The previous part
of the .'speech, viz. Verr. i-105, which is lost, = 1,392 Teubner
lines. I will merely remark that 35x40= 1400. Allowance has
to be made for the title. The rest of ]^err. i is distributed as
follows :
Teub. lines
*I05-II4 = ff. 19 (19^ blank), 2, 5, 11 docet . . . satis = 121^
114-119 est ostendere . . . iniuriae = 71
'119-130 = ff. 14, 4, 7, 22 (22^ blank), 89 (89'' blank), videbantur . . .
locavissent = 140^
135-136 neque potuissent . . . dominata est = 71
* 137-139 = f. 79 venit ad . . . deferre = 35J
139-142 tamen de . . . consuetudo in = 35 J
'142-148 = fif. loi, 96 bonis . . . c.vistimalionem con- = 715-
148-150 -tempserit . . . Haboni = 36-J
* 1 50- 1 53 = f. 86 tabulae . . . illorum = 33^
153-158 solitudo . . . sodalem suum = 72
'158-end = f. 92 O. Curtium . . . subsortiebatur = 4*
Here only the first and the last figures call for comment. As f. 19''
is blank, 121^ = 3 ff.-l- 1 page. If wc add 17I for the blank page,
the result is 139 (35 x 4 = 140). As there are two blank pages in the
ai4 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
next passage, 119-30, the number comes out right. With regard
to the last passage, Mai nowhere else mentions f. 9a, and Verr. ii
begins on f. 97. The inference, therefore, is that the rest of the
recto and the whole of the verso were blank.
If we add 17^ to 121^ and leave out of sight f. 92 (4-^), the total
for 20 ff. is 707 {-^^ X 20 = 700).
Verrine ii falls into the following parts :
*l-3 = f. 97 {verso illeg.) multa . . . pulcherrimis (?) = 34
3-21 exornavit . . . Erycinae esse =212
*2i-24 = f. 100 {recto illeg.) multatum (?)... Venerius ho- = 35^
24-32 -mo qui e . . . civi =115
*32-35 = f. 49 {verso illeg.) Romano . . . vestis = 37
35-40 pretiosorum . . . iudicii = 73
*4o-43 = f. 56 {recto illeg.) metus (?)... hereditas = 36f
43-52 ea quae . . . videamur =141
*52-68 = ff. 52, 90, 84, 81, 91, 53 (521" illeg.) nam me (?)... innocens = 213
68-83 ^t quod . . . studiose ut = 2o8|
*83-87 = f. 95 dixi . , . putant = 34
87-100 artificio . . . postremo me =174
*lco-io2 = f. 93 ipsum apud . . . Romae cum ac- = 34
102-113 -tares . . . sacro nihil = 141
*II3-Ii6 = f. 88 de publico . . . non de Sthe- = 35
116-119 -ni bonis . . . remque hanc = 35^
*II9-I2l = f. 82 (r^r/^ illeg.) totam (?) . . . dandarum = 36|-
121- 124 ab senatu . . . erat legibus = 36^
* 124-127 = f. 80 ut is . . . erat ut = 35
127-138 quot essent . . . magistratus = 141J
*I38-I40 = f. 85 adepti . . . iudicent = 34^
140-142 si tibi . . . statuarum = 35
*I42-I45 = f. 83 {7)erso illeg.) nomine . . . considerate (?) = 35
145-152 Syracusana . . . possit quem = 105^
* 1 52-1 56 = ff. 50, 55 voles . . . vobis = 70^^
156-166 planissimeque . . . togatorum enim = 139!^
*l66-i69 = f. 51 causa . . . posset = 36^
169-188 ego mea . . . arator = 244^
*l88-i9i = f. 54 an pecuarius . . . dilucide quod = 35
191-end copiose . . . existimarentur = 24I
Here there appears to have been a vacant space at the end of the
speech. Allowance must be made for the subscriptio.
I add the following multiples of '^^ :
35>^S = 105.35x4= 140,35x5 = 175=35x6 = 210,
35 X 7 = 245.
It will be seen that all the numbers here are quite normal, except
VERRINES 215
115 (§§ 24-32), where the unit rises to 38. The writer appears to
have contracted his hand very slightly here and in the following
folio (= S7).
Verriiie iii.
*iii. 1-3 = f. 87 omnes etiam . . . teneremus (?), 7/^rj<» illeg. = 34J
3-20 numquam . . . tradidit = 2124
*2o-29 = ff. 94, 61, 57, 63 ut neque . . . neque tamen = 142.^
30-40 ulluni . . . amentissime = 140^-
•40-47 = ff. 58, 64, 60 (verso blank), 31 {recto blank) vendidisti . . .
annonae cari- = 109
47-52 non vererere . . . diripi = 74
'52-62 = ff. 25, 34, 39, 32 profecto . . . convivio = 144
62-66 cum interea . . . fugitivorum = 72
'66-70 = ff. 26 {recto blank), 40 {recto blank), 35 insolentia . . .
virgis le =7'^
70-74 ad necem . . . fidelitate = 68|-
'74-78 = ff. 30, 27 tantus dolor . . . ventum = 66 j
7S-S3 est coguntur . . . quae cum •= 6i\
♦83-88 = ff. 38, 33 (33'' illeg.) de populi . . . magnis (.') = 68
88-12S decumis ut . . . sapientiaque = 604S
'128-130 = f. 44 {recto illeg.) opus (?) . . . decumani = 37
130-137 palam et . . . suam sibi = Iio
'138-144 = ff. 66, 69 totam . . . aratorum = 74^-
144-151 fugae . . . emere = I lo
*I52-I57 = ff. 45 [verso blank), 48 {recto blank), 43, 42 tenetur . . .
videtis ut = I '3
157-168 moneat . . . fecit umquam = 152
'168-177 = ff. 47, 46, 41, 65 quis denique . . . vidimus = 148^-
177-182 huic ab . . . labefactari atque = 75^
* 182-186 = ff. 68, 67 oppugnari . . . praedonum = 70
186-190 incendiis . . . innocentissimos = 75^
•190-196 = ff. 70, 78 meminimus . . . hoc quid = 75^
196-199 est venit . . . nummos vero = 4oiJ
•199-209 = ff 74, 59, 62, 75 ut det . . . auctoritas = 144
209-212 et tanta . . . provinciam = 38.V
•212-214 = ff. 71 {recto blank), 72 {recto blank) adflictam ... in illo = 36^
214-220 laudis , . . severitas iudicis = 70
•220-225 = ff 76, 73 quotus erit . . . tanti = 85
225-228 ut homines . . . pati = 43^
*228-end = f. 77 nullo modo . . . revertantur = 6^
In connexion with the end of Vcrr. iii we must take the beginning
of Verr. iv. The first extract given by Mai is § 6, liospes essei, &c.
This comes on the verso of f. 36, the recto oi which is illegible. If we
2i6 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
allow 17^ lines for the redo, the verso wiW begin with § 5, verttin tit.
The previous sections 1-4 occupy 54 lines of Teubner, i.e. i folio +
I page. Probably 77"^ and the recto of another folio were blank.
The character of the script seems to vary more in Verr. iii than
elsewhere. In §§ 70-88 the unit sinks to 33-4 lines, then it rises to
37 in §§ 128-82 (37x3= III, 37x4= 148). There are three
exceptional figures, viz.40| (§§ 196-9), 43I (§§ 225-8), 85 (§§ 220-5).
The first of these contains a dialogue, which is spaced out by Miiller,
so its length is somewhat less than it appears. For the other two
there is no such explanation, and, as 85 = two existing folios, it is
clear that the writer contracted his hand here, with the result that
for these two folios and the one which came after them the unit
becomes 43.
The large figure 604I (§§ 88-128) presents some difficulty, since
it comes between the smaller unit, 33-4, which is clearly visible in
§§ 70-88, and a larger unit, 37, which is equally visible after § 128.
I, therefore, leave it for the moment, merely remarking that "^^ x 17
= 595.
There is a great gap in Verrines iv-v, extending from iv. 19-v. 70.
The distribution of these speeches is as follows :
iv. 1-4 venio . . . attigit = 54
*5-i9 = ff. 36 [redo illeg.), 28, 98, 99, 29, 2)7 verum (?) . . . onerariam = 208^
19-v. 70 iiavem maximam . . . homines maxime = 3001
*v. 70-72 = f. I {recfo illeg.) mediterraneos (?)... crudelissimoque = 35
72-80 cruciatu . . . provinciae praesi- = 109
'"80-85 = ff. 12, 13 -dio verum . . . inter tu- = yzh
85-94 -am libidinem ... ex Timarchide = 106
*94~99 = ff- 8 {recto blank), 24 {redo blank), 23 sagum . . . aratorum- = 71
99-104 -ne liberos ... in eum disso- = 69-^
* 104-109 -lutus qui . . . reliquisses = 70^
109-114 filium tecum . . . quia legatus = T^
*II4-I36 = ff. 18, 17, 21, 3, 9, 16, 6, 20 isto praetore . . . cum tibi = 292
136-end maritimum . . . necesse sit = 763-0
Here the large figure, 3,001, comes out very satisfactorily (35x86
= 3010). We cannot expect so much accuracy in the case of 763^,
since it includes the end of the Verrines, but here also the unit
works well (35 x 22 = 770).
Verr. iv, v together occupy 4,935^ lines of Teubner text, = 140 ff.
+ 1 page. The extra page comes at the beginning of Verr. iv.
VERRINES 217
where either the beginning of the speech was on the verso of f. 77 or
there were two blank pages.
If we subtract \']\ lines for the odd page, the result is 4,918 lines
for 140 folios. Here again the unit 35 holds good (35 x 140 = 4900).
In the preceding tables I have noted 2H cases of single folios.
Out of these 25 contain 33-7 lines of Teubner. The others are 38^
(iii. 209-12), 4o| (iii. 196-9), 43^ (iii. 225-8). The last is highly
exceptional.
There are 25 examples of two folios. Out of these 19 contain
70-5 lines. There are five examples of 66^-9^. and one exceptional
case of 85 (iii. 220), which comes just before the exceptional unit 43^.
For three folios there are eight examples ranging from 105^-15.
For four folios there are 1 2 examples. Of these ten contain 139-44
lines. The others are 148^ (iii. 168-77), and 152 (iii. 157-68).
There are five examples of six folios (35x6 = 210), for which
the numbers are :
(208^) ii. 68-83, i^- 5-19
(212) ii. 3-21, iii. 3-20
(213) ii. 52-68
The remaining numbers are :
174 (35>=5 = 175)
244^ (35 >= 7 = 245)
292 (35 X 8 = 2S0)
604 1
763^ (35 X 22 = 770)
1392 (35>^4o= 1400)
3001 (35 X 86 = 3010)
I have left blank here the somewhat puzzling figure 604^, where
there is some uncertainty as to the unit. We may explain it as
35x17 = 595, which is sufficiently near, or it may represent 18
folios of a smaller unit (33^ x 18 = 603). If we take the preceding
number 292 and multiply by 2. the result is 584. If we subtract
17^ from 604I, the result is 587. The probable solution, therefore,
is that 604^ = 16 folios +a page, i. e. one side of a folio in V was
blank. This is an interesting example of the way in which the
large figures hang together and explain each other.
I now return to the contents of Vcrrine iii. The whole speech,
if we exclude §§ 228-end, occupies 3,376 lines of Teubner. This
aiS
DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
corresponds to 92 folios of V+i page. If we deduct 18 for the
extra page, the result is 3358-^-92. This gives an average of exactly
^6^ for this speech, as against ;^^ elsewhere.
The whole of Verrines i-v, if we exclude the short folios at the
end of i, ii, iii, amounts to the following total :
i. 1-158 = 2c8l lines = 59^^ folios
ii. 1-191 = 2545 „ = 72 „
iii. 1-228 = 3375
iv-v = 4935
= 92I
12936 364I
The general average for a folio is ^sh (35^ ^ 3^4i = 12939I). ^^ ^^
somewhat remarkable to find such regularity in the case of so large
a MS.
I now proceed to consider the quaternion marks in V. There are
eight of these, viz. at :
iii. 46 (f. 60^)
67 (f. 26^)
88 (f. 33')
153 (f. 48')
175 (f. 41')
213 (f. 72')
V. 94 (f. 24^)
120 (f. 17V)
Q. xxi, after arationes sed etiam
Q. xxii, after deaauas ei guetn
Q. xxiii, after iia inagnis
Q. xxvi, after inquam Metellum
Q. xxvii, after ges^a esse indices
Q. xxviiii, after sociorum sahdein
Q. xxxxi, after provincia vertim
Q. xxxxii, after aiM Tlinarchidc
I will take first a case about which there is no trouble, viz. iii.
175-213, cogjioscite et ex . . . sociorum sdhitein.
This passage should occupy QQ. xxviii, xxix.
thus :
It is distributed
*I75~7 (f- 65) : cognoscite
177-82: huic ab aerario .
. vidimus
labefactari atque
*i82-6 (ff. 68, 67): oppugnari . . . praedonum
186-90: incendiis . . . innocentissimos
*i9o-6 (ff. 70, 78) : meminimus . . . hoc quid
196-9: est. Venit . . . nummos vero
♦199-209 (ff. 74, 59, 62, 75) : ut det .
209-12: et tanta . . . tu provinciam
*2i2-i3 (f. 71, recto blank) : adflictam
35 lines = I f .
70
= 75l
= 40?
auctoritas =144
. salutem = 1 8
= 2ff.
= 2 „
= 2 „
= 2 „
= If.
= 4ff.
= If.
= I ,,
16
Here there is no irregularity, except that f. yV is blank.
anae cari-
= 17 lines
= I folio
= 74 „
onvivio
= 144 „
= 4 „
= 72 „
^^ - M
quern
= 177} „
= I „
VERRINES 219
Elsewhere there are difficulties, I take first the content of
Q. xxii.
Mai states on iii. 46, arationes sed etiatn sedes :
' Q. xxi in calce p. vacuae 120 (= f. 60^). Ergo p. 61 (= f. 31'') incipit Q. xxii '
(i.e. with seat's).
He also reports Q. xxii as coming at § 67 (on f. 26'') after decumas
ei quern.
The intervening space is distributed thus :
*46-7 (f. 31, recto blank): sedes . . . ai
47-52 : -tatem non vererere . . . diripi
•52-62 (flf. 25, 34, 39, 32): profecto . . .
62-6 : cum interea . . . fugitivorum
*66-S ( f. 26, recto blank) : insolenlia . .
10
Here the gathering consists of 10 folios, with two blank pages.
The next signature, Q. xxiii, comes at § 88 (on f. 33^) after ita
)nagnis. The intervening space is distributed thus :
*68-7o (ff. 40, recto blank, 35) : ad modum . . . virgis te = 54j- lines = 2 folios
70-4 : ad necem . . . fidelitate
*74-8 (ff. 30, 27) : tantus . . . ventum
78-83 : est coguntur . . . quae cum
'83-8 (ff. 38, 33) : de populi . . . magnis
10
Here again we have 10 folios, with one blank page.
The next signature, Q. xxvi, comes at § 153 (f- 48^), after inquatn
Metellutn. Here we have to account for QQ. xxiv, xxv, xxvi. The
intervening space is distributed thus :
88-128: decumis . . . sapientiaque = 604 lines = 17 folios
I have already discussed this passage and given
reasons for supposing that one page was blank.
•128-30 (f. 44): opus est . . . decumani
130-7: palam et . . . suam sibi
•138-44 (ff. 66, 69) : tolam iniquam . . . aratorum
144-51: fugae, calamitates . . . voluerit emere
•152-3 (f. 45, wrjo blank): tenetur . . . Metellum
27
The probability is that there were other blank pages.
= 68?.
>>
= 2
>>
= 66J
)j
= 2
>>
= 68|
))
= 2
>»
= 68
)>
^ 2
11
= 37
—
I
= no
=
3
= 74^
=
2
= no
=
3
= 19
=
1
230 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
The next signature, Q. xxvii, comes at § 175 (f. 41'^), after esse,
indices. The intervening space is distributed thus :
*i53-7 (ff. 48, recto blank, 43, 42) : sed hoc . , . videtis ut = 94 lines = 3 folios
157-68: moneat Apronium . . . fecit umquani = 152 ,, =4 ,,
*i68-75 (ff- 47? 46, 41) : quis denique . . . esse iudices = Ii3f „ =3 „
10
Here again we have 10 folios, with one blank page.
I have already dealt with the next signature, Q. xxix, which
occurs at § 213, sociorum salutem. Here we have the normal number
of 16 folios for two quaternions, one page being blank.
The next signature, Q. xxxxi, comes at v. 94 (f. 24"^), z.i\.^x proviucia
verum. The intei'vening space is dijtributed thus :
*iii. 213-14 (f. 72, recto blank) : multa contra ... in illo =
214-20: laudis causam . . . severitas iudicis =
*220-5 (ff. 76, 73) : quotus erit . . . aestimavit tanti =
225-8 : ut homines . . . quae pati =
*228-end (f. ']']) : nuUo modo . . . revertantur =
The rest of this folio appears to have been blank.
iv. 1-4 : venio nunc . . . attigit =
There must have been a blank page here.
*5-i9 (ff. 36, 28, 98, 99, 37) : verum ut . . . onerariam =
19-V. 70: navem maximam . . . homines maxime — -
*v. 70-2 (f. l): mediterraneos . . . crudelissimoque =
72-80 : cruciatu dicam . . . provinciae praesi- =
*8o-5 (ff. 12, 13) : -dio verum . . . inter tu- =
85-94 : -am libidinem ... ex Timarchide —
*94 (f. 8, recto blank) : sagum sumit . . . provincia verum =
III
Here we have iii folios to represent the twelve gatherings xxx-
xli. The probability is that there were a number of blank pages in
the long gap iv. 19-v. 70.
The last signature is at v. 120 (f. 17^), after ^z/w Timarchide. The
intervening space is distributed thus :
*94-9 (ff. 24, recto blank, 23) : etiam hac . . . aratorum =53 lines - 2 folios
99-104: -ne liberos ... in eum disso- = 69^^ „ =2 „
*i04-9 (ff. 10, 15): -lutus qui . . . reliquisses = 7o| „
109-14 : filium tecum . . . quia legatus = Ti »
* 1 14-20 (ff. 18, 17): isto praetore . . . cum Timarchide = 68^ „
18^
lines
=
1
folio
70
>j
=
2
55
S5
55
=
•^
55
All
55
=
I
55
6f
55
=
1
55
54
55
==
2
>5
2oZ\
55
=
6
55
001
55
=
86
55
35
55
=
I
55
109
55
=
3
55
^^\
55
=
55
106
5)
=
3
55
I8J
55
=
I
55
•" 55
- 15
= 2 .,
Here again we have 10 folios, with one blank page.
10
VERRINKS 221
V, like the palimpsest of the c/e Re Publica, contains a number of
double readings. I instance the following :
sis
i. Ill in isdem causam sis (= causam), ii. 84 facile tacite, 100 quod cum,
143 et eamque, 154 enim nimirum, 169 apud aduersus, iii. 70 aduersums, 155
primum plurimum, v. 72 sua uoluntateme, 83 autem aut, I07 possetuit, 120 in
e carcere, 129 sororesque uxoresque, 135 subito suppeditatam, 136 possets
In iii. 77 V\\2iS peruagaiutn etperunlgatum, where other MSS. have
penmlgatmn only. Since elsewhere (iii. 129, \v. 64) peruagattim 3ind
pernulgatuvi are variants, it appears probable that here two readings
have been combined. In v. 72 supponere coepit cives Romanos
quos in carcerem antea coniecerat V adds centos after quos. This
appears to be a corruption for c. r^\ i.e. cives Roviaiws. The
abbreviation c.r. is frequently found in the MSS. and was doubtless
used in the archetype. In § 73 V has ameonis for Romanis. This
seems due to R"""^'"^-
The spelling saenatus { = senati(s), which is frequent in the dc Re
Publica palimpsest, occurs in V, in iii. 170. It is to be noted that
the abbreviation R = recita is normal in V. On one occasion, v. 126,
we find KP = caput.
With regard to the character of the text found in F, different
views have been held. Meusel, in a well-known dissertation, has
attempted to show that it is inferior to that of i? (= Paris. 7774^),
but his arguments are based upon a misconception. He ignores the
fact that y? is a MS. of the Caroline period, which has undergone
revision. F, on the other hand, teems with obvious corruptions.
It is easy to show that A' is more ' correct ' ; its ' correctness', how-
ever, does not prove its fides. Peterson says, ' Meusel's laborious
enumeration of differences between V and R in the minutiae of
spelling, &c., has tended to obscure the real issue as to the compara-
tive value of V where it differs vitally from the other MSS.' ^ He
points out elsewhere- that Ouintilian, in his quotations from Verr.
v. 1 17-18, 'seems to have had the Vp tradition before him throughout
the passage'. The most striking case is in § 118, where we have
the following variants :
cibum vestitumque Quintii. ix. 4. 71 : tibi cibum vestitumque V'. cibum tibi
A", cett.
1 The Vatican Codex of Cicero's Vcrrines, Am. J. Ph., xxvi, p. 409.
^ V'ariants in Cicero s V'errines, Am. J. Ph., xxviii, p. 133,
222
DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
Peterson's general conclusion is that ' the common text from which
the various MSS. have been derived is to be found in its most
ancient form in V, and this verdict appears to me in every way
rational.
I now proceed to consider the antecedents of V in the usual way.
Omissions of V:
(9)
(lO)
V, 72
83
98
116
iii. 22
45
156
171
V, 81
(11) iii. 171
(12) ii. 63
iii. 172
186
V. 71
133
(14) iii. 228
(16) i. 121
iii. 56
(17) iii. 52
53
(20) ii. 167
(22) iii. 56
156
(24) i. 158
(26) i. 106
(31) iii. 85
(44) iii. 200
(222) V. 131
capitibus (om. V^)
ubi legati
portusque
Cleomenes
cogitate ac {0)
et iniuriis {O)
ludibundos
ac rationem
exceptione
suum probare {p)
alia Panhormi {O^)
**-lia frumentum
nobilissimos {O)
et flagitaret
ornatarumque
non pertulerunt
et iniquitatem turn
non quantum vellet [om. V^)
ac locupletissimos {p)
ac diligentissimos
aut quo modo existiment
honestissimae civitatis
ludibundi quae volebatis
*erepta esset facultas eorum
*cum intellegam legem Voconiam
*R, testimonium publicum Liparensium
addite nunc eodem istius edicta instituta iniurias
2 : * te illo tempore ipso superioribusque diebus omnibus in litore
cum mulierculis perpotasse dico : harum rerum omnium auctores te-
stesque produco. Num tibi insultare in calamitate, num intercludere
perfugia fortunae, num casus bellicos exprobrare aut obicere videor
The most significant of these omissions is the telescoped passage
iii. 172. Here a previous MS. seems to have had :
in sici
lia frumentum (12)
aut
V has in sici aut (med. om.).
VERRINES 223
It is interesting to notice that Mai explains the omission as due
to the loss of a h'ne. He says :
* cod. t'n Ski aut. Amanuensis enim praetermisit versiculum '
The omission in v. 8i is also interesting. Here a previous MS.
seems to have had :
et
si recte sine
exceptione (lo)
dixeram
The omission o{ exceptione is due to 6/x.
Most of the omissions consist of 9-12 letters (15 exx.). Multiples
of this unit appear in 20-4 (4 exx.). 31, 44. It is to be noticed that
the largest figure, 222, is almost exactly a multiple of the next
largest, 44 (44x5 = 220).
There is also some significant evidence furnished by corruptions,
e.g.:
(11) ii. 64 : epistulas complures attulerat, in his unam domo
V^ has at before domo. This seems to indicate :
complu
res attulerat
in his unam do (11)
mo
The copyist looked up to the preceding line and wrote -at for do,
(11) iii. 77 : mulieris spoliatum iri, licit!
¥ or liciti V \\2ls policiti. This indicates :
mulieris
^ poliatum iri (ll)
liciti
(11) iii. 175 : nihil fictum, nihil ad tempus
V inserts a te htiort fictum. This indicates :
nihil
fictum nihil (11)
ad lempus
A te appears to be an anticipation of ad te-. The error is due to 6^.
* I assume an omission of s- after -ri%.
324 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
(12) iii. 183 : eorum hominum fidei tabulae . . . committuntur
V repeats hominum ^.h^v fidei. This indicates :
eorum
hominum fidei (12)
tabulae
(12) V. 133 : dicit sese in terram esse egressum]
For sese V has esse. This indicates :
dicit
sese in terram (12)
esse egressum
(19) V. 98 : quae est urbs Syracusis suo nomine ac moenibus, quo in loco
V has suo for quo. This indicates :
Syracusis
suo nomine (9)
ac moenibus (10)
quo in loco
The mistake is due to o/x.
(21) ii. 155: quo confugies ? ubinitere? modo . . . abalienasti
V repeats q7io before modo. This indicates :
quo confugi (10)
es ubi nitere (11)
modo
(21) V. 126: nemo istorum dissimulat, nemo laborat
Here V has eistoruin and elaborat. The corruptions seem due to
the variant enemo (bis) for nemo. Cf. Phil. ii. ofi nemo] enemo V :
so also ii. 34 esentire V, iii. 4 euxoris V, x. 7 eprodideritis V. If so,
a previous MS. may have had :
mg. e nemo
istorum dis (10)
mg.& simulat nemo (11)
laborat
VERRINES 225
(22) V. 121 ; quin ita calarnitatem illam putaret illorum ut fortunam tanien
non alienam . . . arbitraretur
Here F repeats /w/^rr/ before tavicn. This indicates:
illam
putaret illoi^ (12)
ut fortunain (ic)
tamen
The repetition is due to o\i.
(30) ii. I : suscepi enim causam totius ordinis, suscepi causam rei publicae
F repeats enim in the second clause after suscepi. This indicates :
suscepi
enim causam
(10)
totius ordi
(10)
nis suscepi
(10)
causam
(40) V. 130: satis illorum voluntati qui a me hoc petiverunt factum esse
arbitrabor
HtXQ. V rcpea.ts satis before fac/um. This indicates :
satis illo (9)
rum uolunta (10)
ti qui a me hoc (il)
petiuerunt (10)
factum
(62) iii. 171 : quod omnis frumenti copia decumarum nomine penes istum
esset redacta, solitum esse istum pecuniam cogere.
V gives quod omnis fricmenti pecunia dccumanonim, &c. Here
decumanorum is a slip for decumarmn, while pecnnia looks like
a variant {ox pecnniam, which has got into the wrong place. This
may indicate :
frumenti
copia decu (9)
marum nomine (li)
penes istum (10)
esset redac (10)
ta solitum es (11)
»z^. pecunia se istum pecu (11)
niam cogere
The variant may have been transferred through 6/x. {decu-, pecu-).
1»M Q
aa6 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
(8i) iii. 69: summittebat iste Timarchidem qui moneret eos, si saperent,
ut transigerent. Pernegabant. Quid ergo ? In singulos HS quinqua-
genis milibus damnari niavultis
V inserts septti before mavultis. This corruption may be due to
a conflation of two variants, viz. sep- for sap{ere}ii), and iu for tit.
This indicates :
ing. sep si saperent (10)
mg. tu ut transige (10)
rent pernega (11)
•' bant quid er (10)
go in singu (9)
los HS quin (9)
quagenis mili (12)
bus damnari (10)
mauultis
To these I would add :
ii. 116: ardebat amore illius hospitae propter quam hospiti iura violarat.
Hoc non solum sciri verum etiam commemorari semper volebat. Ita-
que ex ilia ipsa re quam accusante Agathino gesserat Veneri potissi-
mum deberi praemium statuit
Here for Veneri potissimtiin V gives hostissimtan Veneri. The
corruption hostissiimim appears to be a conflation of hos- from
hospitae^ or hospiti with \j>o\tissimum. Apparently the writer looked
back. The variety in the collocation may indicate a previous
omission oi potissimmn (10).
I would call attention to the fact that the long omission of 322
letters is not explained by o\x. It seems not unlikely that the scribe
skipped a column in his model. If so, this would seem to have
contained 20 or 21 lines to the page.
Before I proceed to the minuscule MSS., I must mention that the
Turin palimpsest A. ii. 2 contained a single leaf from a MS. of the
Verrines. The interest of the leaf is due to the fact that it contains
a passage found in p, but omitted by Z>4', viz. :
(54) i. 45 : dictum est hoc in Cn. Dolabellae iudicio. Dictum ? etiam
aestimatum
The omission is due to b\i.
I also mention here, for the sake of completeness, a fragment from
a papyrus book, containing Verr. \. 60-1, published in Papiri Greci
e Latini (pp. 43-7), cent. vi. This is written in lines averaging 36
letters to the line. It does not throw any light upon the text.
VERRINES 327
I now turn to A' = Paris. 7774 A, cent. ix. This MS. is written
in two columns, with 21 lines to a page. The contents of a page
(f. 80') reproduced by Chatelain (PI. 31) are:
Col. i = 517 letters, avg. 24^ to line.
„ ii = 464 „ „ 32
Another page (f. 92") is reproduced by E. Thomas in his edition
of Verr. iv, v. In this :
Col. i = 498 letters.
„ ii = 454 M
In both pages col. ii contains less than col. 1.
Various indications show that R is not far removed from a MS.
written in capitals. Thus we find in it stray capitals,^ e. g. :
iv. 67 : querimonia. M = querimoniam
74 : L. N. suls = in suis
81 : de L. N. dc = deinde
97 : fano P = fanorum
The confusion of B and F, due to the similarity of these letters
in capitals, may be illustrated by:
iv. 52 electus = fletus ; v. 27 rosae artus = rosa fartus ; 72 forum = eorum ;
177 prima faccionis = primae actionis.
Whereas V has a number of doublets in its text, only a few
survive in R. I have noticed :
a
iv. 95 : praetorisa (= praetoris)
sse
v. 126: peruenire se (= peruenire)
140: in ad corpora
It is probable that m rred in the model, but were removed
by Caroline revisers.
A' in its present form contains Verr. iv-v only. t has, however,
been mutilated, as is manifest from the signature Q. xxxv. which
occurs on f. 80^ (Chatelain, PI. 31). E. Thomas has pointed out
that 200 folios must have perished before Verr. iv, and that
300 folios would exactly suffice for the previous speeches.-
' These stray capitals are found in the same places in .S", also in Ilarl. 2682 (//), which
has excerpts from JVrr. iii, iv. If 5 and //are not flerived from /", all three M.SS. must
have been drawn from a common ancestor written in minuscules.
' Reviu de Philologie, 1885, p. 167. The same conclusion was reached independently
by Peterson.
Q3
aa8
DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
R is not alone, but belongs to a family in which it is the chief
member. Some members of the group seem to be derived from R ;
others may be drawn from a gemellus. Peterson has drawn
particular attention to
6" = Paris, 7775, cent, xiii (mutilated).
D= Paris. 7833, cent. xv.
He considers D to have been derived from S, before 5 was
mutilated, and 5 to be derived from a gemellus of R, which
contained all the Verrines. It is, I think, not impossible that the
parent of 6" was R itself before it was mutilated. In any case
5 and D appear to give the R tradition where R is no longer
extant. As S, in addition to Very, iv and v, only contains
a fragment (i. 90-1 11), D is of real importance for the previous
speeches.
Omissions of ^ + dittography :
(9)
V. 132 :
*religione
V. 42 :
praedonum
61:
*civitatum
(10)
iv. 66 :
*rex ad istum
103 :
reponendos
V. 40 :
imperium ac
56:
**litterae re-
(II)
V. 118:
vestitumque
(12)
iv. 23 :
aedificandam
25:
et amplissima
80:
monumentorum
140:
conservandis
V. 81 :
iam continues
95:
stupri plenus
133:
hoc Hennenses
(13)
iv. 6:
atque amicorum
144:
adulteriisque
(14)
V. 71:
remouerat atque
76:
quisquam omnium
174:
quae ad iudicium
(15)
V. 180:
senectutem summa
(17)
V. 47:
princeps civitatis
(19)
V. 102 :
id facere desistant et
152 :
et animo aequo videmus
(21)
V. 75.
nulla esset hie defensio
(22)
V. 154:
partim in vinclis necatos
(23)
V. 133 :
feriri debere (oportere V) non
ego metum
VERRINES 229
(24) iv. 54 : atque hac tota de re audistis
(28) V. 172: vestram severitatem desiderant
(29) V. 51 : tot annos post iure imperii nostri
{}^) V, 125 : et ex complexu matris ereptus innocens
(40) iv. 143 : *Peducaeo. Dicit qui primi suaserint. Decemitur
V, 66 : victoria dulcius, nullum est autem testimonium
(44) V, 136 : tu in iudicium archipiratam domo producere ausus es
(46) iv. 70 : Antiochum regem Syracusis : se illud scire ad istum esse
(50) iv. 142 : *sese antea cum audissent ei negotium facessitum cumque eum
(tuit/. m. 2 in lac.)
(83) v. 110: ♦est destitutus. Quid erat autem quod quisquam diceret aut
defenderet. Cleomenem nominare non licet {add. vi. 2 in lac.) '
(102) iv. 35 : quod verbo transigere possum. Ede mihi scriptum quid argenti
in provincia Sicilia pararis, unde quidque aut quanti emeris.
(124) iv. 27 : peripetasmata. Ouaesivi an misisset : respondit id quod necesse
erat, scilicet dicto audientem fuisse PR.: misisse. Rogavi, pervenis-
sentne Agrigentum.
(215) V. 187 : quarum sacra, sicut opiniones hominum ac religiones ferunt, longe
maximis atque occultissimis caerimoniis continentur, a quibus initia
vitue atque victus, monim, legum, mansuetudinis, humanitatis homini-
bus et civitatibus data ac dispertita esse dicuntur bis scr. {e coll. men)
(318) iv. 151: ♦reliquerat, ademisset. Ac videte hominis impudentiam atque
arrogantiam, iud., qui non solum Verria haec turpia ac ridicula ex
Heraclii pecunia constituerit, verum etiam Marcellia tolli imperarit, ut
ei sacra facerent quotannis cuius opera omnium annorum sacra deosque
patrios amiserant ; eius autem familiae dies festos tollerent, per quam
ceteros quoque festos dies recuperarent.
This passage comes at the end of iv, after the words calamitoso
dies. Hahn says :
* calamitoso dies R, in quibus verbis in cod. folium desinit, ut reliqua verba
desiderentur. Nee tamen videtur folium in cod. excidisse.'
There is also a long omission, viz. :
v. 162-71 : »se commemoratione . . . amicos nostrae civitatis
The omitted passage occupies 141 1 lines in the Teubner text.
Here several folios of an ancestor must have been lost.
Before I go further I would refer to some remarks of Peterson
concerning ' lacunae occurring in the X family ', i. e. in A', S, D, &c.^
' This reading, which is not mentioned by Halm, is taken from my own collation.
' Journal of Philology, xxx, p. 1 74.
330 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
He says, ' Where these are found in D, it is probable that they had
already existed in S^ of which Z> is a copy ; they may, in fact,
be traceable to the lost archetype of R and S.^ He refers to six
omissions in iv-v, found in the preceding list, viz. v. 152 (19), v. 154
(23), V. 136 (44), iv. 142 (50), iv. '>,^ (102), iv. 27 (124), which are
common to the family. He also quotes a similar lacuna found in D
and its allies in Div. 65-6, where, in the absence of R, D becomes
the chief representative of the family. The omitted passage is :
(317) dubitare quisquam potest quin honestius sit eorum causa apud quos quae-
stor fueris quam eum cuius quaestor fueris accusare. Clarissimi viri
nostrae civitatis temporibus optimis hoc sibi amplissimum pulcherri-
mumque ducebant, ab hospitibus clientibusque suis, ab exteris nationi-
bus, quae in amicitiam P. R. dicionemque essent, iniurias propulsare
eorumque fortunas defendere
The agreement between 317 and 318 (iv. 151) is so striking that
Peterson's diagnosis of D appears to be verified. It is also interest-
ing to notice that 102 (iv. 35) + 215 (v. 187) = 317. This is a very
singular fact.
I now turn to the shorter omissions. There is one telescoped
passage, viz. v. 56. Here editors read with Zumpt :
litterae reruni decretarum
R has eum decretarum, so also 5. This appears to indicate in
the common ancestor :
litterae re (10)
rum
After omission of a line, -rum was changed to eum.
In this connexion I may mention :
V. 61 : testimonia civitatum
Here RS have testimonium, without civitatum. This may
indicate :
testimonia (10)
ciuitatum (9)
There are also some interesting corruptions which may go back
to this early stage, viz. :
iv. 88 : innocentem in hominem.
VERRINES 231
in
R has tHfioccfitctn in Iioviincvi. This indicates :
innocentem (10)
in hominem
V. 1 60: se Syracusis in lautumiis fuisse.
R has lautumisse for laittumiis. This indicates :
se Syracusis (11)
in lautumis (10)
fuisse
I would also mention, with some doubt :
V. 93 : non enim sicut erat anpcr consuetude praedonum adventum signi-
ficabat ignis.
So R^, jiJipcr (for anper) R"^ ; antea p. It is possible that anper is
a conflation of aii (= ante) and per, a variant iox prae- (cf. v. 108
perditum edd. ; praeditum codd.). If so, the corruption may go
back to
sicut erat aii
consuetudo (lo)
mg. per praedonum
The short omissions of R are curiously like those of V. Thus
I have noted 15 omissions of 9-13 letters in V, and oddly enough
15 similar omissions in R. So V and R both have four omissions
of 20-4, Fhas one of 31, and A' one of ■^■^, while both VR have
one of 44- The evidence seems to suggest that both MSS.go back
to an ancestor, not necessarily the same, written in lines of 9-12
letters.
It is necessary, when dealing with the longer omissions of/?, to
speak with caution, since it is highly improbable that R was copied
directly from a MS. written in such narrow columns. It is likely
that more than one intermediary ancestor has intervened. The
following corruption is significant :
V. 173: sed mehercule vestra reique publicae causa, iudices, nolo in hoc
delecto consilio tantum fiagiti esje commissum, nolo eos iudices,
quos ego probarim
R inserts quos ego probarim (15) after causa iud., as well as in the
232 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
proper place. The words nolo in . . . eos iud. consist of 60 letters
(15 X 4 = 60). This suggests in an intermediate MS. :
causa iud.
nolo in hoc delecto (16)
consilio tantum (14)
flagiti esse com (14)
missum nolo eos iud. (16)
quos ego probarim
With this we may connect :
V. 94 : verum habita est a multitudine ratio temporis, habita tumultus, habita
etiam dignitatis
So F, edd. ; R^ after habita ctiain, repeats tumultus habita (14).
An ancestor may have had :
temporis habi
ta tumultus habita (16)
etiam dignitatis
The scribe, after writing etiam, looked back to the previous line.
The evidence is somewhat meagre, since R is, on the whole, care-
fully written, and its text has been purified of those errors which
are especially useful for the purposes of this inquiry. It is, however,
interesting to notice some singular points of resemblance in the chief
corruptions which it contains, viz. :
(53) V. 18. Here R gives:
servos quos ipse de consilio belli faciendi causa consensisse iudicavit,
eos sine consili sententia . . . liberavit.
\np we find cum for ^Z^, before consilio, which is obviously a correction.
Lambinus more plausibly reads de consilii sententia . . . sine consilio
. . . liberavit. E. Thomas remarks ^sententia a dO etre transpose.'
Since the transposition is shared by/, it probably goes back to
a remote ancestor. We may, therefore, arrange thus, postulating
an original omission o^ sententia (9) :
mg. sententia de consili
belli facien (11)
di causa con (10)
sensisse iudi (12)
cauit eos si (10)
ne consilio (10) = 53
(56) V. 20 : si maxime in culpa fuerit Apollonius, tamen in hominem hone-
stissimae civitatis honestissimum tarn graviter animadverti causa in-
dicia non oportuisse
VERRINKS 233
R has maxi'jfiae after Jiouestissiviac. Thomas remarks, ' le moi
a du ctre transpose de la ligne prccedcnte.' The words viaxivie
. . . honestissiinae consist of 56 letters. The resemblance to the
previous passage is striking. I, therefore, venture to arrange as
follows, supposing maxiinae to be a variant for viaxiiue, which has
got out of place in R :
si
ifig. maximae maxime in cul ( 1 1 )
pa fuerit apol (12)
lonius tamen (li)
in hominem ho (11)
nestissimae u 1) = 56
ciuitatis
(103) V. 140: nullum fuit omnino civitatis isto praetore in hoc genere dis-
crimen. Itaque iam consuetudine ad corpora civium Romanorum
etiam sine istius nutu ferebatur manus ipsa lictoris. Num potes hoc
negare ?
For negare R has genere^ the mistake being due to the occurrence
of Jioc before genere and negare.
The abbreviation C. R. for civts Romanus is frequent in the MSS.,
e.g. V. 72, c.r. = cives Roviani F, ib. centos = c. ;-'•' (cf. p. 221),
73 civem Romanuvi R : c.r. b, and must be ascribed to the
archetype.
The words genere . . .potes hoc consist of 103 letters. This is
interesting in view of the omission by A' of 102 letters in iv. 35.
Also, there seems to be a relation between 103 and 53 in v. 18.
The reason for the error becomes apparent if we arrange the
passage thus :
hoc
genere dis (9)
crimen itaque (12)
iam consuetu ( n)
dine ad corpo (i i)
ra c. r. etiam (9)
sine istius (lo)
nutu fereba (10)
tur manus ip ( 10)
sa lictoris (10)
num potes hoc (11) = 103
negare
334 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
(154) V, 152-3: tantum sibi auctoritatis in re publica suscepit ut . . . iis
omnibus mortem acerbam crudelemque proponeret, si fortuna eos ad
aliquam partem Siciliae detulisset. Ad Cn. Pompeium, clarissimum
virum et fortissimum, permulti occiso Perperna ex illo Sertoriano
numero militum confugerunt.
For^;ir illo R has the corruption ex ^Hs illo ; also, dSiev suscepit 7it . . .
R has /lis for iis. It would appear that is (i. e, iis) and /lis are
variants, and that is has got into the wrong place. The words iis
omnibus . . . Perperna ex consist of 154 letters.
(156) V. 1S6: mater Idaea, quam ... sic spoliatam reliquit ut nunc nomen
modo Africani et vestigia violatae religionis maneant, monumenta
victoriae fanique ornamenta non exstent : vosque omnium rerum
forensium, consiliorum maximorum, legum iudiciorumque arbitri et
testes
Here for legum R has reliquum. The eye of the copyist seems
to have fallen on reliquit after spoliatam. Or, reliquum may be
a variant for reliquit^ which has got into the wrong place.
These figures, ^-i,, 56, 103, 154, 156, hang together in a singular
way. They become still more significant if combined with some
evidence previously considered, viz. the omission of 102 letters by
R in iv. 35, and of 318 letters (159 x 2 = 318) in iv. 151. Also, we
have the omission of 317 letters by Z), the representative of/?, in
Div, 6^-6. Further, we have the interesting fact that the omis-
sion of 102 letters by R in iv. 35 + the dittography of 215 letters
in V. 187 = 317. The numbers 154-156 appear to be connected
with 317-18.
The conclusion seems to follow that 154-156 represents a column
in the ultimate ancestor of R, and that the corruptions in v. 186,
153, are due to the fact that a variant has got into the wrong
column.
It is interesting to observe that the palimpsest of the de Re Publica
has columns of exactly this size. I have noticed the following
examples :
(154) pp. 142, col. i ; 205, col. ii
(156) p. 81, col. ii
(157) PP- 93» CO'- ii; 205, col. i
(159) p. 50, col. i
VERRINES
335
In Older to illustrate the point I write
col. ii, side by side with Verr. v. 186, put
out de Re Publica, p. Si,
into similar formation :
de Re Publ.y p. 81,
col. ii
tasse set a uita
(13)
hominum ab
(9)
horrentem
(9)
et a maionb.
(10)
5 reliqui disse
(12)
ruerunt sine
(II)
ullo certo ex
(II)
emphiri for
(10)
maque reip.
(9)
10 de generibus
(II)
et de rat ion i
(11)
bus ciuitatu
(II)
tu mihi uide
(10)
ris utrumq.
(9)
1 5 facturus es
(10)
10
Verr. v.
186
reliquit ut
(10)
nunc nomen
(9)
modo africa
(10)
ni et uestigia
(12)
uiolatae re
(10)
ligionis ma
(ID)
neant menu
(9)
menta uicto
(10)
riae fanique
(II)
ornamenta non
(12)
exstent uos
(10)
que omnium
re
(ID
rum forensi
(10)
um consilio
(10)
rum maximorum
(12)
156 156
The next column in the ultimate ancestor of R began with lcgiu)i,
^ox \\\\\q\\ rcliqjtuni has been substituted. (Cf. p. 136.) There is,
therefore, good ground for believing that R is derived from a MS.
which in point of formation was a gcvielhis of the de Re Publica
palimpsest.
If this analysis is sound, it follows that R has omitted a page of
its ancestor at the end of Verr. iv. This may be due to accident,
or there may have been a blank page after Verr. iv, in which case
a folio was lost.
I abstain from any speculations concerning the large lacuna in
V. 162-71, since this may be due to an intermediate ancestor.
C = Holkham 387, cent. ix.
This MS. was formerly no. 498 in the Cluni catalogue,^ where it
is described as containing ' Cicero in Catillina et idem pro Quinto
Ligario et pro rege Dciotaro et de publicis litteris et de actionc
idemque in Verrinis '. The portion of it which still exists contains
parts of the Catilinarians, pro Ligario, pro rege Deiotaro, and Verr.
* Delisle, Cabinet des MSS., ii. 478.
336
DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
ii. I, distributed among 39 folios. It is written in double columns,
with 24 lines to the page in fif. 1-33 and 25 in ff. 34-9. I have
counted the letters in the following pages :
Col. I
Col. 2
[Cat.) r
528
555 =
1083, avg. 22|
{Lig.) ig'^
601
595 =
1 1 96, avg. 25
( Verr.) aS''
652
602 =
1254, avg. 26
( Verr.) -iH^
11^
693 =
1424, avg. 28i
In the last passage there are 25 lines to the page.
It will be seen that the script gradually contracts in the course
of the work.
The 39 folios fall into the following blocks. I add the number of
lines which they occupy in the Teubner text :
(i) f. I. Cat. i. 1-5: quousque . . . pridem = 60.
(2) ff. 2-8. Cat. i. 17-ii. II : viderem . . . quacunque = 371. The subscrip-
tion to i and the title to ii must also be taken into account.
(3) fif. 9-12. Cat. ii. 15-iii. I : ne mihi . . . resti- = 209 + subscription + title.
(4) ff. 13-15. Cat. iii. 9-19: regem huius . . . urbis atque = 1 68.
(5) f. 16. Cat. iii. 23-6: ac miserrimo . . . fortuna = 54.
(6) ff. 17-18. Cat. iv. 8-15 : constituta esse . . . studio = 119.
(7) ff. 19-20. Lig. 18-28 : hoc victore . . . sed turn = 115.
(8) f. 21, Lig. 2,%-Deiot. 6: si illi . . . disceptante = 52 + subscription to Li^.
and title to Deiot.
(9) ff. 22-7. Deiot. 15-43: finitimi . . . tuae = 35 1| + subscription.
(10) ff. 28-33. Verr. ii. 1-30: multa . . . cohorte = 360 + title.
(11) f. 34. Verr.\\.i\i-\'] : magnificentissime . . . cupidissimumque = 7o|.
(12) ff. 35-9. Verr. ii. 157-83: iam dudum . . . manifestum = 334.
Four quaternion marks preserve a record of the original foliation,
viz. on fol. 4 ^. i, on f. II ^. ii, on f. 16 ^. iii, on f. 34 q. x. In the
last case two or more letters have been erased after x. It is, how-
ever, common in MSS. to find quaternion marks tampered with
after a loss of leaves, and the erasure after x. may represent a
correction which has subsequently been struck out, like so many
other corrections in C. If the signature is correct, f. 34 must have
been f 80 when C was complete.
The content of these leaves is much the same until we come to
f. 34. Thus:
(i) f. I = 60.
(2) ff. 2-8 =371-^7, avg. 53. The subscription and title must be taken into
account.
VERRINES 237
(3) ff- 9-^2 = 2094-4, avg. 52} + subscription and title.
(4) ff. 13-15 = 168-7-3, avg. 56.
(5) f- 16=54.
(6) ff. 17-18 = 1 19-^2, avg. 59^.
(7) ff. 19-20 = Ii5-r2, avg. 57^.
(8) f. 21 = 52 + subscription and title.
(9) ff. 22-7 = 351^4-6, avg, 58^ + subscription.
(10) ff. 28-33 = 360-7-6, avg. 60 -f- title.
(11) f. 34 = 7of.
(12) ff. 35-9 = 334-^5. avg. 67 (nearly).
If we take those blocks where we have not to make allowances
for a subscription or title, the averages for folios 1-28 works out
at 57-
I now take those parts ot the speeches which have been lost, viz. :
Cat. i. 5-17 : factum . . . offensum = 159^, i.e. 3 ff., avg. 53.
ii. 11-15: ratione . . . timeo = 56, i.e. i folio.
iii. 1-9: -tutam ... ad quern = 106, i.e. 2 ff., avg. 53.
19-23: imperii occasum . . . crudelissimo = 57, i.e. i folio.
26-iv. 8 : atque condicio . . . impiis = 165, i.e. 3 ff., avg. 55.
iv. 15-end: qua virtute . . . possit =145) . ,_ ,_, ,
^ o^ f = 331, i-e. 6 ff., avg. 5S-f sub-
Lig. I-18 : novum . . . quamquam = 186 )
scription to Cat. iv and title of Lig.
28-38: sero erat . . . admonebo = 116, i.e. 2 ff., avg. 58.
Deiot. 6-15 : te quantam . . . multi erant — 114, i.e. 2 ff., avg, 57.
Verr. ii. 30-I12 : cognoscere . . . amplissime = 1 106, i.e. 18 ff., avg. 6li.
The average for the last passage is higher than for the preceding
speeches, but agrees closely with the passage which comes before
it, viz. 360-^6 = 60 ( + title).
The rest of Verr. ii comes after f. 34, where the lines are longer
and there is an extra line to the page, with the result that the unit
rises to 7 1 .
Verr. ii. 1 17-57 : cognosce . . . cupierint = 570, i.e. 8 ff., avg. 71 1.
183-end: erit de . . . revertuntur = 3520, i.e. 50 ff., avg. 70^ (nearly).
It thus appears that 96 leaves of C have perished.
The quaternion markings on ff. 4, 11, 16 show that there was
a blank leaf at the beginning of C. This is most easily seen from
the signature q. iii on f. 16, containing Cat. iii. 23-6 ac miserruno
. . . fortutia, since this is a separate fragment, while q. i and q. ii
come each in the middle of a block. The contents of C up to and
238 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
including Cat. iii. 33-6 were as follows. I mark with an asterisk
those leaves which are still extant :
*i. 1-5 = I f.
5-17 = 3 ff.
*i7-ii. II = 7 ff.
ii. 11-15 = I f.
*i5-iii. I = 4 ff. J
iii. 1-9 = 2 ff. '
*9-i9 = 3 ff-
19-23 = I f.
♦23-6 = I f.
23 \
An extra leaf is required to make the signature q. iii correct. ,
The total content of the MS., therefore, apart from the question *
of further loss after the Catilinariae, was 1+39 + 96 = 136, i.e. 17
quaternions.
I now come to the signature q. x on f. 34 ( Verr. ii. 1 12-17).
We have found that Cat. i. i-iii. 26 occupied 24 ff. After this
point, up to and including f. 34, we have :
Cat. iii. 26-iv. 8
= 3ff.
*iv. 8-15 = 2 ff.
1 5-end
Lig. I- 1 8
= 6ff
*i8-28 = 2 ff.
28-38 = 2 ff.
*lZ- Deiot. 6 = I f.
Deiot. 6-15 = 2 ff.
*i5-43 = 6 ff.
Verr. ii. 1-30 = 6 ff.
30-112 =18 ff.
*II2-I7
= I f .
49
Here 24 + 49 = !?>• ^^ ^^e, therefore, 7 ff. short, if Verr.
ii. 112— 17 is to be on f. 80.
In view of the relation of C \.o other MSS. which contain the/r^
Marcello as well as the pro Ligario and pro rege Deiotaro^ the
question whether C originally contained the pro Marcello is one of
considerable importance. It remains, therefore, to see whether the
pro Marcello will fit into the gap.
VERRINES 239
The pro Marccllo occupies 359 lines in the Teubner text, to which
an addition has to be made for the title and subscription, also for
a possible blank space. If we divide 359 by 7, the result is 51^.
If we allow 12 lines extra, a very moderate estimate, we have 371,
which, divided by 7, gives 53. The conclusion is that the pro
Marcello would suffice to make the signature q. x to f. 34 correct.
The probability, therefore, is that 6" originally contained the ^r^
Marcello, but that this was lost before the twelfth century, when
the old Cluni catalogue was made. This supposition would account
for the silence of the catalogue concerning the/r^ Marcello, also for
the attempt to correct the signature q. x.
If this view is correct, the total contents of Cup to Verr. ii. 117
were ten quaternions, i.e. Ho fif.
After this we have :
Verr. ii. 117-57 = 8 ff.
* 157-83 = 5 ff-
183-end =50 ff.
63
This gives a total of 143 ft", for the contents of C before it was
mutilated. As 144 ff. = 18 quaternions, there must have been one
folio or a portion of one folio blank at the end of the volume.
The contents of C, when intact, appear to have been distributed
thus :
f. I blank
*f. 2 Cat. i. 1-5
ff. 3-5 5-17
ff. 6-12 17-ii. II
f. 13 ii. 11-15
*ff. 14-17 15-iii. I
ff. 18-19 "'• 1-9
ff. 20-2 9-19
f. 23 19-23
* f. 24 (q, ill) 23-6
ff. 25-7 26-iv. 8
♦ff. 28-9 iv. 8-15
ff. 30-42 IS end + Marc. + /J^. 1-18
ff. 43-4 Lii^r, 18-28
ff. 45-6 28-38
* f. 47 iZ-Dciot. 6
ff. 48-9 Detoi, 6-\s
240
DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
* ff. 50-5 Deiot. 1 5-43
*ff. 56-61 F«rrr, ii. 1-30
ff. 62-79 30-112
^{. 80 (q. x) 112-17
ff. 81-8 117-57
*ff. 89-93 157-83
ff. 94-143 183-end
I now proceed to discuss tlie antecedents of C {c) in the
Verrines (c = variants quoted from C before it was mutilated).
I give first a list of omissions. It is to be noticed that in three
cases (ii. 32, 26, 27) the missing passage is added by the second
hand. There is also one dittography.
HS CCC milia cm. C
est quantum om. C
** daret satis- om. C
nullius vim om. C
abstinentes ^w. c
deterrime et om. c
ex aere facta 07n. c
hereditatem on. c
quam multi et 07ii. c
tantis opibus 0111. C
nihil ex sacro o;n. C
ab aratoribus 07n. C
quid sociorum ovi. C
male gestarum o/u, c
legati laedant 07ti. C
ac pudentissimi on. C
familiaritatem o?n. C
summa parsimonia o/u. L
sive pecuariorum om. C
atque obsecraret om, c
causas satis iustas bis scr.
Verres cognoscebat om. C^
licebat Venerem quod om. C
et in iudiciis maxime 0}n. c
* quid sibi esset faciendum om. c
adlatarum libris Romae in litterarum on. c
* sed ad communem litium aestimationem venisse om. c
nostram venissent numquam postea deficerent, pleraeque autem et
maxime inlustres in amicitia 07n. C
(82) ii. 24 : satisne vobis magnam pecuniam Venerius homo qui e Chelidonis
sinu in provinciam profectus esset ojn. C in lac.
(ID)
ii. 26
165
176-7
179
(II)
ii. 28
40
50
54
156
(12)
ii. II
113
168
176
186
(13)
ii. 114
(14)
ii. 23
169
(15)
ii.7
17
42
(17)
ii. 13
26
(18)
ii. 22
40
(22)
ii. 70
(32)iii. 167
(39)
ii. 45
(80)
ii. 2 : 1
VERRINES 241
(88) ii. 23 : dixit hoc idem M. LuciiUus se de his Dionis incommodis pro hospitio
quod sibi cum eo esset iam ante cognosse otn. C in lac.
(93) ii. 27 : nocens adducetur qui ista defensione non possit uti : etenim cum
Verres utatur, quis erit umquam posthac reus tam om. C
This omission requires some explanation. In C nocens is added
in the margin immediately after quis reus tam, which comes at the
end of the line. After nocens there is an omission mark, and at the
foot of the page is added in smaller characters, addiicetur . . . reus
tavi.
In O, a MS. to be discussed shortly, the text has
quis reus tam nocens . . , posthac reus tam
but in the margin the words tam cojivictus (12) are added before
tam nocens, and MUUer, with most editors, accepts the addition.
Peterson thinks that it comes from
i. ID : reus tam nocens, tam perditus, tam convictus.
To me the parallel passage appears to support tam convictus. If
we add these words, the total here omitted by the scribe = 105
letters.
The first point to notice here is the large number of small
omissions, 10-12 letters (14 examples). I have marked one of these
as a telescoped passage, viz. :
ii. 176-7 : niisisse 1. Canuleium qui in portu operas daret. Satisne magnum
crimen hoc videtur.
Here C ?Sx.^x portu gives operas nc magnum, &c. {mcd. om.).
The number of short omissions in Cand the other chief MSS. of
the Verrines justifies the assumption that this goes back to a MS.
which had :
operas
daret satis (10)
ne
There are clear indications of an intermediate MS., which may
have been the model. In addition to the long passage in i. 10 there
are two marginal additions, viz. :
(17) ii. 22 : licebat uenere quod
26 : uerres cognoscebat
As written in the MS. ii. 22 is of exactly the same length as ii. 26.
1«83 R
342
DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
There is also one dittography, viz, :
(17) ii. 13: causas satis iustas bis scr.
I notice also that in § 177, after iiiris iurandi, Peterson mentions
an erasure ' sedecim fere litterarum '. This was most probably
another dittography.
The only other marginal addition is in ii. 27. It is most natural
to connect this with ii. 23, 36. If we take this as 93 letters, there
is no explanation except 6/ix. If, however, we add tarn convictus,
the total is 105, which yields a satisfactory result (17x6 = 103).
The other large omissions, 80, 82, 88, are strikingly similar. The
first of these is peculiar to {7, the missing words having been
recovered in O ; the other two are shared by O. The probability
is that all three represent lines in the same MS.
The passages omitted in ii. 33 and 34 are represented in C by two
lacunae which occur on the same page, 32^
In col. i lines 7-10 are left blank. In col. ii the first hand
wrote :
in hoc crimine eripuit non is
tius innocentia sed legis excep
tio
He left the rest of 1. 3 blank, also 11. 4-6. A second hand completed
1. 3 by adding in darker ink :
K. TESTIMONIV IVCVLLI CHIOREDIONIS = recita testimonium
LucuUi, Chlori, Dionis.
The correspondence between 88 and 82 suggests that the columns
of the model were damaged at the same place. The omissions, there-
fore, seem not to go back to the remote ancestor revealed by the
short omissions, but to represent lines either in the model or in an
intermediate MS. It is quite possible that the model of Cwas
written in longer lines than those formed by an average of 1 7 letters.
Since, however, this is the only other unit disclosed by the omissions,
I venture to arrange ii. 33 and 34 on the hypothesis that this is the
ancestor concerned.
col. i
col. ii
dixit hoc idem M. lucul
(18)
satisne nobis magnam
(18)
lus se de his dionis
(16)
pecuniam uenerius
(16)
incommodis pro hospi
(18)
homo qui e chelido
(15)
VERRINES
243
col i
col. ii
tio quod sibi cum eo es
(18)
nis sinu in prouinci
(17)
5 set iam ante cognosse
(18)
5
am prefect us esset
(16)
quid lucuUus qui turn
(18)
in macedonia fuit me
(17)
lius haec cognouit
'16)
quara tu hortensi qui
^17)
10 romae fuisti ad quern
17)
dio confugit qui de
'16)
dionis iniuriis gra
17)
uissime per litteras
[18)
cum uerre questus es
17)
15 noua tibi haec sunt in 1
18)
opinata nunc primum 1
17)
aures hoc tuae crimen
:i8)
accipiunt nihil ex di
;i8)
one nihil ex socru tua
18)
20 femina primaria ser I
17)
uilia uetere dionis 1
17)
hospita audisti non 1
17)
ne multa mei testes 1
16)
quae tu scis nesciunt 1
18)
25 nonne te mihi testem in 1
19)
hoc crimine eripuit 1
17)
non istius innocenti 1
18)
a sed legis exceptio 1
17)
C omits 11. 1-5, dixit hoc . . .
cognosse
(88)
and satisne . . . esset
(82),
leaving a lacuna in both places.
References to official documents are frequently omitted by the
MSS., and I am inclined to think that they must have been often
written in the margin. In this case it is to be noticed that the
words
R TESTIMONIV IVCVLLI CHIOREDIONIS
are written in capitals.
I have, therefore, not included them in this reconstruction.
I would draw attention to the following corruptions :
ii. 10 : quae non postulata, sed in istum crimina viderentur esse.
In C quae is repeated above the line after crimina. This may be
due to the following arrangement in a previous MS. :
quae non postulata (16)
sed in istum crimina (17)
uiderentur esse
R 2
344 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
ii. 22. Here Chas :
qui ery
cum montem obtinebat petit nae
uius turpio quidam istius excur
sor et emissarius homo omnium
5 ex illo conuentu quadruplatoria
deterrimus a sacerdote PR. con
demnatus iniuriarum etenim
erat eiusmodi causa ut ipse ery
cum quaereret.
Here erycmn in 11. 8-9 is an error for cum, introduced from crycuni
in 11. 1-2. The error may be explained by the following arrange-
ment in a previous MS. :
qui
erycum montem obtine (18)
bat petit naeuius tur (18)
pic quidam istius ex (17)
cursor et emissarius (18)
homo omnium ex illo con (19)
uentu quadruplatorum (19)
deterrimus a sacerdo (18)
te PR. condemnatus iniu (19)
riarum etenim erat ei (18)
us modi causa ut ipse (17)
cum quaereret
Flor. Bad. 2618 (79), cent. xv.
This MS, ((9), also known as Lag. 42, from Lagomarsini, a learned
Jesuit who collated the Florentine MSS. of Cicero, is of great
importance for Verr. ii, iii, in spite of its late date, since it represents
the tradition of C, where this is defective.
It is bound up with another MS. which contains the Invectives
ascribed to Cicero and Sallust, the Catilinariae and Caesarianae,
also sundry humanistic works, e.g. a poem of Petrarch on Coluccio
and epigrams on Dante and other distinguished Florentines. O con-
tains all the Verrines, but its appearance suggests that Verr. ii, iii,
which are in a fairly good hand, resembling that of Wolfenbiittel
305 (p. 18), are taken from a separate source. The rest of the MS.,
which is vulgar in character, is written in a very illegible cursive. On
the first page there is a partially erased library mark iste liber
estWWWWW.
VERRINES 245
The connexion between C and O is of the closest character.
I illustrate by a single example :
ii. 163 : dilexerit ea.
For ea C has F. A.,^ while O has /. a. This proprius error is due
to the confusion of F and E, which is frequent in capital script. As
i
a rule O follows the second hand in C, e.g. ii. 9 iniuris C: iniuriis
0\ sometimes, however, it adopts the reading of O, e.g. ii. i
venerit OO : veniret C^. In a considerable number of cases where
O has a variant, a correction in C has been erased and cannot
now be read. The regularity with which this phenomenon occurs
shows that the erased correction must have been similar to the
reading of O.
Peterson holds that 6> is a direct copy of C. I cannot follow him
here. What appears to me a fatal difficulty is that C omits a passage
which is found in O, viz. :
(80) ii. 2 : nostram venissent numquam postea deficerent, pleraeque autem
et maxime illustres in amicitia.
In the model of O these words must have been added in the margin,
or elsewhere.
A further objection is that, according to Peterson's statement, with
which I agree, the erasures in C took place at an early date. They
cannot, therefore, have been legible in the fifteenth century when O
was written. I therefore conclude that there was an intermediate
ancestor between C and O.
I now give a list of omissions in (9, marking the agreement of C,
where the MS. is extant, or of f, where we have quotations from
sixteenth-century scholars. The present contents of C, it is to be
remembered, are ii. 1-30, 113-17, 157-^3.
I would mention that O was recollated for Miiller by A. Reififer-
scheid, who corrected a number of misstatements made by previous
collators. It is therefore necessary to consult his notes as well as
the collation and supplement (pp. 451-60) in Baiter-Halm.
(9) ii. 49 : summa cura
ib. : • suae famae
145 : * ut putetis
ill. 13 : civitates
> Peterson quotes the rcaditii^ of C as E. A. NVhen, however, I recently recollated the
MS., I had no doubt that it has F. A.
246
DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
(10)
'II)
(12)
(13)
iii. 138
154
ii. 45
86
137
165
179
iii. 47
125
156
187
188
ii. 26
28
31
39
40
50
ib.
54
152
156
iii. 133
144
204
ii. 62
63
"3
168
176
iii. I
30
64
97
178
186
220
226
ii. 57
74
114
iii. 26
132
* senatores
invenimus
* hereditate
* recuperare
* XXXIX milia
est quantum (Q
nullius vim (C)
* vehementer
familiarem
et contemni
* in contione
iste hordei
* HS cccc milia (C)
* abstinentes {c)
* eiusdem modi
quis vestrum
deterrime et (t)
Syracusanos
ex acre facta
* hereditatem [c)
rogato et eum
quam multi et yc)
* satis facere
* ea dictitare
sad ita fieri
* in provinciam *
alia Panhormi
nihil ex sacro (C)
ab aratoribus (C)
quid sociorum (C)
continentiae {c)
ac turpissimo
* esse versatum
et fortissimo
Carbonem et in
male gestarum (t)
eripiendarum
* et si aratorum
* qua in re ipsius
non solum mente
legati laedant (Q
* professionem R.
ignorabas haec
^ For in provinciam has hinc.
which has been received into the text.
This may possibly represent an omission mark fi
VERRINES
247
iii. 169
(14)
ii. 23
53
57
150
iii. 60
190
(15)
ii. 17
42
iii. 60
75
92
(16)
ii. 50
78
97
iii. 128
168
172
217
(17)
iii. 151
(18)
ii. 40
83
(19)
iii. 3
(20)
iii. 211
224
CI
'. iii. 24
(21)
ii.76
iii. 131
(22)
ii. 38
70
iii. 215
(23)
iii. 205
207
(24)
iii. 59
208
(25)
ii. 63
80
iii. 133
157
(26)
iii. 204
(27)
iii. 79
83
179
(28)
iii. 109
iii. 125
* fenore accepto
ac pudentissimi (C)
nisi ei venisset
ob tuum decretum
» datur id accipio
summa industria
ac difificillima
sive pecuariorum
atque obsecraret (c)
asservatum neque
hominum summorum
contra omnia iura
Syracusanis locum
et trades cui uoles
neque humanitatis
epistula L. Metelli
et recte non putant
* quod numquam antea
improbe factum est
quod iam addixisses
et in iudiciis maxime (t)
sed etiam habitasset
atque eloquentissimo
* ratione innumerabilem
vestro, minore periculo
idem habuit in edicto se i>ts scr.
minus ad vitae discrimen
»* terror in auribus animis-
ab institutis superiorum
* quid tibi esset faciendum (t )
tempore magnum videretur
non ex iure non ex aequitate
neque tarn longinquus neque
mitto vincla, mitto carcerem
publice testimonium dicere
gerere quam istius praeturam
iuratus dicit pecuniam datam
non perseveras, non perquiris
» ea monet alienum hominem quae
» bonis everii aratores et id non
atque hoc agebat in cubiculo, iud.
* lex decumis vendundis C. Verre PR. {(uid. in. I in mg.)
in medimnum iterum P. R. a quo HS. xxi
** quod ipsi Leontini publice non sa-^
tamen incolumis numerus manebat
^ Cf. Miillex, p. Ixxv.
248 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
(30) ii. I : enim causam totius ordinis suscepi
iii. 96 : senatorem ut hoc amplissimum nomen (t?)
190: * secuti sunt avariores magistratus
226 : atque opportunissimam provinciam
(31) ii. 139: retinere si salvus ipse in provincia
iii. 161 : non modo tibi voluptati sed etiam qui
(32) iii. 167 : allatarum libris Romae in litterarum (6)
223: hoc ad commodum senatorium pertinere
(34) iii 228 : etiamne frumentum pro empto gratis dare
(35) iii. 117: * C. Norbani decumae venditae agri Leontini
202 : est pecunia, Verres, una qua frumentum tibi
(36) iii, 74 : * R., Htterae publicae, testimonium publicum
123 : se lege Hieronica vendidisse quid scribit
(39) ii. 45 : * sed ad communem litium aestimationem v^enisse (c)
iii. 164: pecuniam domum tuam avertisse. Etenim sic banc
(40) iii. 114: quaterna etiam quina exigerentur, multis autem*
(41) iii. 128: in reliquum tamen tempus vectigalibus prospexi
(45) iii. 116: CCXVI quanti decumae venierunt, reliqua sunt tritici
(48) iii. 167 : * Htterae missae P. Vettii, P. Servilii, C. Antistii magistrorum
iii. 124: *ut aratores qui reliqui erant quam plurimum sererent qui
(54) iii. 85 : testimonium publicum. Quo modo solutum sit ex litteris publicis
126: * tamen pro eo ut temporis difificultas aratorumque penuria tulit
(57) ii. 21 : quid? tum nemo molestus Dioni fuerat ? Non plus quam Liguri
C. Sacerdote
(58) iii. 148: atque aliorum quidem agrorum pro portione magno decumas
vendidisse
(60) ii. 55 : antequam mentio denique controversiae facta esset ulla, discessisset
(69) iii. 220 : aequitatis et legis transieritis, scitote vos nullum ceteris in aesti-
mando finem
(82) ii. 24 : * satisne vobis magnam pecuniam Venerius homo qui e Chelidonis
sinu in provinciam profectus esset (C)
(88) ii. 23 : * dixit hoc idem M. Lucullus, se de his Dionis incommodis pro
hospitio quod sibi cum eo esset iam ante cognosse (C)
iii. 99 : * tabulae Thermitanorum et testimonium. Imacharensis iam omni
frumento ablato, iam omnibus iniuriis tuis
We have here to notice :
(i) The large number of small omissions, viz. :
(9) 6 exx. (11) 13 exx.
(lo) 10 exx. (12) 13 exx.
Six of these occur in the sections preserved in C, and in all cases C
agrees with O. Also we have six agreements of cO, where C is no
longer extant. The probability, therefore, is that a large majority
^ Cf. Miiller, p. Ixxvi.
VERRINES 349
of these short omissions were already present in C, and were inherited
by C from a remote ancestor. O, therefore, exhibits the same
phenomenon as VCR, viz. a striking number of short omissions.
(2) O also agrees with C, in the larger omissions, viz, {>^i) ii. 24,
and (88) ii. 23. Also, it has an omission of 88 letters in iii. 99,
which in all probability goes back to C. Further, it is to be noticed
that the passage omitted by C in ii. 2 nostrani . . . avticiiia, but
found in O, consists of 80 letters.
The agreement of CO, therefore, apart from ii. 2, where O has
recovered — through a corrector — a passage lost by (7, is complete.
We have next to consider the telescoped passages, iii. 131 and
109. I do not attach much importance to :
iii. 131 : cum tui nominis terror in auribus animisque aratorum versaretur
where O gives
cum tui nominis que aratorum versaretur ined. om. (21)
since que might easily be detached from aniniis.
The other example is more striking, viz. :
iii. 109 : propter hanc causam quod ipsi Leontini non sane multum
Here, according to Reifferscheid's collation, O has :
propter hanc causam ne multum [tned. om.)
This indicates in a previous MS. :
propter hanc causa
quod ipsi leontini publice non sa (28)
ne multum
The omission is assisted by 0/1,
The question now arises as to whether any omissions of O repre-
sent lines in C This is a subject which has been already raised by
Peterson, who has pointed out that various omissions of O are ' of
the average length of a line in O The instances which he gives
are to be found in the preceding list, viz. :
(21) iii. 131 (28) iii. 109, 125
(25) iii. 133, 157 (30) iii. 190, 226
(26) iii. 204
He does not give the number of letters, but speaks generally of
average length.
1 Clasi Rev., xvi (1902), pp. 40^-3 ;/. Phil., xxx, p. 195.
25° DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
It is of interest here to consider more closely the formation of C.
I have already (p. I'^S) given the figures for two pages of C, viz.
28' and 37'". In the first of these, which contains the beginning of
Verr. ii, the average number of letters to the line is 36.
The separate figures are :
(col. i) 26, 28, 29, 30, 29, 26, 28, 30, 26, 28, 23, 28, 25, 28, 26, 28, 26, 31, 27, 25,
24, 26, 25, 30
(col. ii) 24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 21, 27, 25, 23, 23, 24, 24, 26, 24, 25, 23, 26, 22, 24, 25,
23, 28, 29, 27
F. 37'" contains ii. 166-9. This comes after a slight contraction
in the hand has set in. The figures are :
(col. i) 28, 28, 28, 31, 29, 30, 30, 30, 27, 33, 27, 30, 3i> 28, 29, 29, 30, 30, 28, 32,
31, 29, 30, 25, 28
(col. ii) 31, 25, 27, 27, 28, 24, 28, 29, 25, 25, 29, 30, 27, 28, 30, 28, 29, 27, 29, 25,
29, 27, 30, 29, 27
The average for the page is 28|.
The extreme limits of variation are, on f. 28'", 21 (one ex.) — 31
(one ex.), and, on f. 37"^, 24 (one ex.) — 33 (one ex.). I do not wish
to avail myself of exceptionally short or long lines, but would merely
remark that if O is derived from C, we should expect to find a bulge
in the curve of omissions at 25-30. As a matter of fact we find no
less than 14 examples, one of which is a telescoped passage.
We also find five examples of 54-60 letters, which may well
represent 27-30 x 2.
Only one of the omissions of 25-30 letters occurs in those sections
for which we now possess C, viz. :
(30) ii. I : enim causam totius ordinis suscepi
The passage is written thus in C:
amplexus animo
sum aliquanto amplius suscepi (26)
enim causam totius ordinis susce (28)
pi causam
Here it is not an exact line of C, which is omitted by O, but it is
easy to see how a scribe after writing suscepi might pass on to
causam after the second suscepi. I may illustrate from my own
experience in connexion with this particular passage.
When I was counting the figures for this column, I found that
VERRINES 251
I was a line shori. I discovered on examination that I had omitted
the line cnim . . . s//sce-, having fallen a victim to oix.
It may now be asked if there arc any traces of an intermediate
MS. between C and O. If we look at the list of omissions we find,
after the four omissions of 30 letters, nine omissions of 31-6 letters.
I would not lay much stress on two of these, iii. 117 and iii. 74, since
these are titles of documents, which may have been transmitted in
the margin.
It is, I think, somewhat remarkable that the bulge in the curve is so
prominent at the figure 30. Many lines of this length are found in C
on ff. 28' and 37'', but the averages for these pages are 26 and 28^.
I would suggest that C was followed by a MS. very like C, but with
slightly longer lines. If so, this MS. may have contributed to the
omissions of 30 letters and be responsible for some of those which
follow (31-6).
In conclusion, I would draw attention to two corruptions in (9, one
of which is striking, viz. :
(151) ii. 151 : concedas, quod tibi honestissimum est, aratores tibi ad statnam
honoris tui causa voluntate sua contulisse. Da mihi hoc, iatn tibi maxi-
niam partem defensionis praecideris, non enim poteris aratores tibi iratos
esse atque inimicos dicere.
O has Jionestis for iratos. Muller says ' aberratum videtur esse ad
lioncs tissimu in . '
We may attribute the following distribution, either to C or to the
intervening MS. ;
quod tibi
honestissimum est aratores tibi ad (30)
statuam honoris tui causa uolunta (29)
te sua contulisse. Da mihi hoc iam tibi (31)
maximam partem defensionis praeci (30)
deris non enim poteris aratores tibi (31)
iratos esse
The error is due to o/n.
The other case is :
(93) ii. 181 : quod in publicanorum causis vel plurimum aetatis meae versor
vehementerque ilium ordinem observe, satis commode mihi videor
eonim consuetudinem , . . cognosse.
O has cons for causis. The analogy of the preceding passage
252 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
suggests that the writer looked forward to coits\tietiidinent\. If so,
a previous MS. may have had :
publicanorum
causis uel plurimum aetatis meae uer (31)
sor uehementerque ilium ordinem ob (30)
seruo satis commode mihi uideor eorum (32)
consuetudinem.
Paris. 7776 (/), cent. xi.
This MS. is written in long lines with 27 lines to the page, and
an average of about 62 letters to the line. \X.s fides is inferior to
that of C{0) and R, but on one occasion, at least, it preserves
a passage omitted by other MSS., viz. :
(12) i. 130: * sic abusus est/ : om. cett.
This may well have formed a line in the common archetype. While
the first-class MSS. contain only portions of the Verrines, the
whole corpus is found in/.
A number of additions are made by the second hand. Some of
these are placed in the margin, others are entered in a lacuna left
by the first writer. The second class differs from the first in that
there is no numerical relation between the additions and b\i. is hardly
ever present. It follows that they have nothing to do with the
lineation of ancestors, but are merely passages which were illegible
in the model. I therefore confine myself to the marginalia.
The following passages are added by/^ in ing. (or sup. liii.) :
(10) ii. 61 : occasionem
* et domestico
et recte non putant {om. O)
quod iste iussisset
neque committebant
et ita tamen mutandam
hoc quamquam denique
* non id solum quaeritur
* stragulae quod fuerit
talis viros quo dolore
emerat. Hie est Docimus
sed nunc demum tenetur
quam diu fuit designatus
* cupias tibi licere, atqui
(II)
iii. 63
(16)
iii. 168
(17)
i. 74
ii. 192
(18),
Div.2S
iii. 184
(19)
i. 8
28
137
iii. 79
177
(=1)
i. 119
iii. 222
VERRINES 253
(22) ii. 93 : si tantulum morae fuisset
iii. 210: • et iudicia severa fiebant
(23) i. 158 : curando ne litura appareat {add. m. i)
iv. 8 : nihil cuiquam relinqueret
(26) iv. 150: negare non poterunt fruinentum
(31) ii. 108 : ut sibi ipse peracutus esse videatur
iii. 12: • ac sustinemur. Haec causa tripertita
iv. 18 : ecqui pudor est, ecqua religio, Verres
(33) ii. 180: quaeram decretumne sit. Cum id invenero
(34) Div.Z: vim gravitatemque requirit. ludiciorum
iv. 52 : scuta si quando conquiruntur a privatis
53 : • obscurissime per magistratum solebant
(38) i. 27 : Hortensi quod saepe experti in dicendo sumus
(39) V. 70 : a navigando rebusque marilimis remotissimos
(45) iv. 86: praeditum divaricari ac deligari iubet. Quo cruciatu
(51) i. 16: non quantam habere poteram istorum studio quos iste vexarat
(71) i. 12: confessum esse duces praedonum a se securi non esse percussos,
se iam turn esse veritum
(73) iii. 62 : quid est, LoUi, inquit, tu nisi malo coactus recte facere nescis.
Homo quid ageret, taceret
To these must be added omissions of />, which have not been
supplied by the corrector, viz. :
(24) i. 87 : -nio quod in Hispania est ad Si-
(25) iv. 134: adductam civitatem et pretio
(34) iii. 41 : et iis tacitus os tuum praebere malueris
(88) iii. 140: vituperationem,dictitarat homoimprobus atque impurus, Apronius,
socium esse PR., venerat res in iudicium
I have not included in this list omissions which/ shares with most
other MSS , e.g.
(9) ii. 29 : et honesti CO, om. p, cett.
(10) iii. 158 : in aratorem cO, om. p, cett.
174 : Siciliense cO, oiii.p, cett.
(11) iii. 137 : tenco inquam cO, om. p, celt.
(12) ii. 188 : an negotiator cO, om. p, cett.
These appear to go back to an earlier stage in the tradition. When
we are dealing with a comparatively late and sophisticated MS., such
as/, we must expect to find the skein somewhat tangled.
The omissions of />' differ from those which we have hitherto
considered in the case of VRCO, in that only two of them are of
lo-ii letters. One of them is a remarkable case, viz. ii. 61. Here
Miiller, followed by Peterson, reads with VOp^ :
iste amplam nactus
254 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
explaining amplam as = ' handle ', from Servius on Aen. vii. 796,
who explains the name Labicus as ' a-nb rrj^ Xa^rjs quam Latine
amplam vocamus '. The word is used in a literal sense by Am mi-
anus xxi. 2, I, ampla remafiserat sola quam retinens valida manu
stringebat. Muller confesses ' voc. ampla iam Ciceronis aetate in usu
fuisse mirum videtur.'
Here p^ adds occasionem (10), while some inferior MSS. give
occasionem calumniae, a reading which is printed by editors before
Muller and gives an excellent sense.
I find it very difficult to believe that Cicero used this strange
word. In view of i. 130, where/ preserves the words sic ahisiis est
(12), I prefer to consider occasionem as a line of the distant arche-
type, which has been preserved as a variant by /^. If so, the
archetype had :
iste amplam
occasionem (10)
The omission is due to 6/1.
There is a curious error in /, which may go back to an early
stage, viz. :
V. 141 : reciperatores se de cohorte sua dicebat daturum
Here p inserts sed ego before reciperatores. Peterson points out
that this is a variant for se de co-. This indicates in a previous MS.
the arrangement :
reciperatores (13)
mg. sed ego se de cohorte
The variant was inserted a line higher up.
The noticeable points in the omissions of /^ (and p) are :
(1) The telescoped passage i. 87. This must represent a line, or
two lines of an ancestor. I formerly ^ adopted the second explana-
tion, but now prefer the first, since there are so few omissions of
10-12 letters in the list. I therefore ascribe to an intermediate
ancestor the reading :
usque ab dia
nio quod in hispania est ad si (24)
nopam
(2) There are two striking bulges in the curve of omissions, viz.
at 19 {5exx.) and 34 (3exx.). It is difficult to draw any conclusion
^ Ptimith'e Text, p. 3.
VERRINES 255
concerning the first of these. They may throw h'ght on a separate
ancestor, but they may be connected with the same MS. as that
revealed by the telescoped passage. The omissions of 34 are more
remarkable, especially as they are preceded by three of 31 and one
of 33, and followed by one of 38 and one of 39.
It is not likely that/, which contains an average of over 60 letters
to the line, was copied directly from a MS. with e.g. 24 letters (or
less) to the line. On the other hand, it is quite possible that its
model may have contained about 34 letters to the line. This unit,
therefore, seems very suitable.
Here some light is to be derived from the fact that two omissions
of 34 letters are in close proximity to each other, viz. :
iv. 52 : scuta si quando conquiruntur a privatis
53 : obscurissime per magistratum solebant
The intervening passage consists of 384 letters, which appears to
represent 11 lines of the model (35 x 11 = 385). I therefore venture
to arrange the model thus :
scuta si quando conquiruntur a priuatis (34)
in hello ac tumultu tamen homines inuiti (34)
dant etsi ad salutem communem dari senti (34)
unt ne quern putetis sine maximo dolore argen (37)
5 turn caelatum domo quod alter eriperet pro (35)
tulisse omnia deferuntur cibyratae fra (34)
tres uocantur pauca improbant quae proba (35)
rant iis crustae aut emblemata detraheban (36)
tur sic haluntini excussis deliciis cum ar (36)
10 gento puro domum reuertuntur quod umquam (35)
iud. huiusce euerriculum ulla in prouin (33)
cia fuit auertere aliquid de publico quam (35)
obscurissime per magistratum solebant (34)
The writer of/> omitted 11. i and 13.
The last point which I have to notice is the similarity between
the two large omissions, viz. 71 and 73. These admit of more than
one explanation, viz. 24 x 3 = 72, or 36 x 2 = 72.
I now proceed to consider a subject to which attention has been
called by Peterson in a valuable paper upon ' Transposition Variants
in the Verrtnes '.^ In this he points out the large number of cases in
which the collocation of words differs in various MSS., and suggests
' Am. J. Phil., xxviii. 2.
256
DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
two explanations, viz. (i) that the variety is due to omission
followed by insertion in the wrong place, (3) that the scribes altered
the order on subjective grounds, e.g. to produce rhythms. I do not
believe in the second explanation, since scribes were far too ignorant
to think of such considerations. His first suggestion, however,
entirely accords with my own observations both in the Verrines and
elsewhere.
I add a list of those passages which appear to me instructive :
1. 114
125
151
ii. 7
15
17
26
36
54
56
60
64
70
72
n
85
94
131
155
156
163
168
181
191
iii. 3
14
23
26
28
29
32
33
40
42
44
iniquissimi hominis V \ hominis iniquissimi cett.
non dicam pecuniam V: pecuniam non dicam cett.
praetextatum venisse V\ venisse praetextatum cett.
vos propinquos CO : propinquos vos cett.
negotiantur in Sicilia CO : in Sicilia negotiantur cett.
in re umquam ulla CO : uUa in re umquam cett.
obtinebant causas CO : causas obtinebant cett.
ex testamento negent O : negent ex testamento cett.
amicorum suorum V : amicorum ^(9 : suorum amicorum rf^//.
male acceptos ab se V: ab se male acceptos cett.
eius existimatione O: existimatione eius V, cett.
mecum decedere VO : decedere mecuni cett.
iudicium dimittitur Op : dimittitur iudicium cett.
antea adfuerant O : adfuerant antea cett.
si ex hoc iudicio O : ex hoc iudicio si cett.
iste cupiditate VO : cupiditate iste cett.
pronuntiat de sella ac tribunal! O : de sella ac tribunali pronuntiat cett.
isto PR. in Sicilia Op: in Sicilia isto PR. cett.
laudarent publice V\ publice laudarent cett.
necessario tibi O : tibi necessario cett.
Centuripinos reponere CO : reponere Centuripinos cett.
tu auctoritate VCO : auctoritate tu /, cett.
videbitis teneri CO : teneri videbitis cett.
litteras primas V: primas litteras cett.
consilio confirmato O : confirmato consilio cett.
sapientiam maiorum C: maiorum sapientiam cett.
saltare in convivio O : in convivio saltare cett.
rusticarum rerum O : rerum rusticarum cett.
aiebat omnis esse V: esse aiebat omnis esse O : omnis dicebat esse;!5
decumanum putatis O : putatis decumanum cett.
in octuplum daturum O : daturum in octuplum cett.
mentionem iudicii O : iudicii mentionem cett.
decumas vendidisti cO : vendidisti decumas V, cett.
pro his decumis pecunia VO: pecunia pro his decumis cett.
civitates Siciliae V : Siciliae civitates cett.
VERRINES 257
48 : frumentariae rei O : rei frumentariae cett.
51 : ilia locatione O'. locatione ilia cett.
55 : se accepturum V'O : accepturum se cett.
58 : iniurias eorum V: eorum iniurias cett.
63 : contumeliis iniuriisque O: iniuriis contumeliisque cetf.
65 : fortunarum tuarum O : tuarum fortunaruin cett.
66: tractatae quern ad modum V: quern ad modum tractatae cett.
67 : praesertim magno O : magno praesertiin cett.
70 : tamen in consilio O : in consilio tamen cett.
75 : lucri dare t'\ O : ei lucro dare cett.
97 : arationes haberet O : haberet arationes cett.
99 : esse videatur praeda O : praeda esse videatur cett.
104 : in Sicilia nullum O : nullum in Sicilia cett.
124 : perditamque provinciam miseram O: provinciam miseram perditamque
cett.
1 56 : domestica coniectura O : coniectura domestica F, cett.
157 : socium in decumis O: in decumis socium cett.
167 : litteras in Siciliam O: in Sicilian! litteras cett.
168: usura publicanos VO : publicanos usura tv/A
171 : Timarchidi et Volcatio F: Volcatio Timarchidi cett.
182 : pecuniam civitatibus V: civitatibus pecuniam cett.
184 : moleste ferunt esse V: esse moleste ferunt cett.
esse aliquos ibi I'l ibi esse aliquos cett.
terdecies uno nomine yO : uno nomine terdecies cett.
190 : ad portandum loca cO : loca ad portandum cett.
217 : vestram defensionem O : defensionem vestram cett.
V. 72 : involutis e carcere capitibus F: capitibus obvolutis e carcere cett.
82 : vir Cleomenes F: Cleomenes vir cett.
97 : parvis myoparonibus F: myoparonibus parvis cett.
108 : catenis aspiciunt F: aspiciunt catenis cett.
121 : neque illis neque tibi V : neque tibi neque illis A" : neque tibi <tett.
126 : non aurum non argentum F: non argentum non aurum cett.
132: calamitates quidem F: quidem calamitatis ct"//.
186: praesidium propugnaculumque F; propugnaculum praesidiumque tv//.
The absence of instances from iv is due to the fact that only
a small part of this speech in preserved in J', and that in a some-
what illegible condition, while CcO only contained ii and iii.
Several of these transpositions are due to simple inversion of
words similar in length. This is easy at all times, but especially
so when very narrow columns were used. Thus in iii. i,;6, if
a MS. had
coniectura (10)
domestica (9)
it is easy to see how the words would come to be inverted.
icsj S
25H DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
In most cases, however, the variety seems due to a previous
omission. Peterson mentions an interesting example^
ii. 153: iniurias acceperit
Here p^ omits iniurias, which was added above by the corrector.
Another MS. which is derived from it {q) has in consequence
acceperit iniurias.
In several cases the previous omission is manifest, e. g. :
iii. 124 : provinciatn miseram perditamque offendisti
O gives perditamque provinciam miseram. It is clear here that
perditamque (ii) was first omitted and then added in the margin of
a subsequent MS., which had :
provinciam miseram (17)
vig. perditamque offendisti
iii. 99 : praeda esse videatur
O has esse videatur praeda. Peterson ^ calls this a ' scholarly
correction made by the copyist of {?'. As the collocation in O is
a violation of Cicero's favourite rhythm, I prefer to explain it as
a mechanical error going back to a MS. which had :
vtg. praeda esse uideatur (12)
I would call attention to two cases where evidence of the omis-
sion survives, viz. :
ii. 54 : amicorum suorum V\ amicorum cO : suorum amicorum dett.
V. 121 : neque illis neque tibi V : neque tibi dett. : neque tibi neque illis R.
In view of these facts the bulk of these variants carry their inter-
pretation on their face. I take as typical examples :
iii. 48 : frumentariae rei O : rei frumentariae ceit.
55 : se accepturum VO : accepturum se cett.
These clearly go back to :
mg. rei frumentariae (12)
ing. se accepturum (10)
These transposition variants register the formation of intermediate
MSS. as well as of the distant ancestor. I take as an example the
reading of O in ii. 94, which seems due to :
mg. pronuntiat de sella ac tribunali (18)
The similarity of this passage to iii. 134 should be noted.
' Avi. J. Phil., xxTi. 4, p. 422. * Ifjid., xxviii. 2, p. 144.
VERRINES
259
I now put together in a tabulated form the chief contributions of
the principal MSS. to the text of these speeches. Where /^is not
quoted, it is deficient :
(9)
(10)
(II)
11. 29
ill. 48
74
i. 107
143
ii. 61
66
ill. 74
158
174
ii. 86
(12)
111. 29
137
iv. 32
V. 97
118
i. 130
ii. 86
102
188
iii. 179
V. 46
Si
95
iii. 16
199
iv. 6
iii. 66
220
ii. 135
iii. 52
64
200
iii. 48
161
ii. 130
135
167
(21) iii. 205
(22) i. 146
(24) ii. 175
(13)
(14)
(17)
(18)
(20)
el honesti CO : offi. ceit.
bene de re p. cO : om. cett.
civitales I 'O : cm. cett.
* reprehendi /': out. cett.
addiderunt /': oin. cett.
occasionem /* : orn. V, cett.
* ad praesens V : om. cett.
iniuriis et V: om. cett.
* in aratorem cO : am. cett.
Siciliense cO : o/n. cett.
* et sua sponte /': om. cett.
ac multo plus VcO : om. cett.
teneo inquam cO : om. cett.
* poposcerant R : om. ph
Syracusanum (-norum R) VR : otn, cett.
vestitumque V, Quint il. : om. cett.
* sic abusus est p : om. cett.
et aequitatem ]'0: om. cett.
* omatissimus \'0 : om. cett.
an negotiator cO : om. cett.
* per triennium cO : om. cett.
turpe numquam R : om. cett.
iam continues V : om. cett.
stupri plenus F: om. cett.
et clarissimos cO : om. cett.
quos non exarat (-ararat I') VCO : om. cett.
atque amicorum /': om. cett.
* rex fugitivorum cO : om. cett.
denis non licere VcO: om. cett.
omnium necessarios cO : om. cett.
ac locupletissimos f (? : om. V cett.
in tanta impudentia cO : om. cett.
ex vestris impensis V: om. cett.
in tanta improbitate cO : om. cett.
ad tua flagitia neque cO: om. cett.
qui consequitur mensem cO : om. cett.
quid cuique accidisset cO : om. cett.
aut quo modo existiment CO: om. l', cett.
non ex eo quod oportuerit cO : om. cett.
facito. Quid est sue cuique V : om. ceit.
iudicio condemnarunt horum CO : om. cett.
S Z
26o DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
iii. 70 : atque adeo cum damnatus eris V: om. cett.
(25) iii, 171 : cum suum frumentum {om. cO) probasset VcO'. om. cett.
(33) V. 125 : et ex complexu matris ereptus innocens Vp: om. R, alii
(34) Div. 8 : vim gravitatemque requirit. ludiciorum /^ : om. Dp^, alii
(40) i. 9 : cum praedonum duces accepta pecunia dimiserit^: om. Z?*
(53) iii. 221 : aestimare. Permissum est : stultissimus quisque posthac minimo
VO : 0711. cett.
(54) •• 45 '• dictum est hoc in Cn. Dolabellae iudicio. Dictum ? etiam aestima-
tum T {= pal. Taur.),p: om. cett.
(56) ii. 162 : decreta Centuripinorum quae de statuis erant facta non toUuntur
CO : om. cett.
(58) iii. 148 : atque aliorum quidem agrorum pro portione magno decumas vendi-
disse c : 07n. cett.
(63) ii, no: quem hominem absentem de litteris corruptis causa incognita con-
demnasti cO : om. cett.
Two passages which I have included in this list require some
comment, viz, ii. 66, 85.
In ii. 66 the reading of the other MSS. is :
iste poenis compromissisque interpositis HS cccc extorquenda curavit
V has ad praesens after iste. The phrase hi praesens is used by
Cicero in Cat. i. 22, while ad praesens occurs in Tac, Pliny, Sueto-
nius. Whether we read ad or in here, the words give a good sense,
i. e. as a ' bird in the hand ', or as an instalment, apart from future
exactions. We may compare :
ii. 54 : qui statim quod praesens esset (so O, praesensisset F, cett^ iubet
cuidam amicorum suorum numerari HS LXXX
I therefore incline to look on ad {in) praesens as genuine here,
though possibly out of place. The words might come in better
before extorqnejida.
ii. 86. Here the other MSS, give:
Scipio, qui hoc dignum populo Romano arbitraretur, bello confecto socios
sua per nostram victoriam recuperare. Siculis omnibus Karthagine
capta quae potuit restituenda curavit
For sua V has et sua sponie. It seems to me more probable that
siia sponte is a genuine fragment which is out of place in F, than
that it is due to invention. The words would give an excellent
sense if used of Scipio. I should prefer to insert them after recu-
VERRINES 261
perarc, regarding ^/ as a repetition of -c, or as due to a variant
recupcraret.
The converging evidence so far considered shows that the MSS.
of the J 'errines are drawn from ancestors, or from one ancestor,
written in very narrow columns similar to those found in the
pRlimpsest o( the de Re Piid/ica. The final question now remains
whether we are deah'ng with a single archetype. This can only be
proved hy proprii errorcs, or minute flaws, pervading all the MSS.
I take first the other MSS., apart from F, since the case of V is
not so clear.
We have to notice in the first place certain lacunae. I give the
passages, enclosing in brackets the additions which have been
made by editors, to my mind necessarily :
A. P. i. I : opinio . . . quae non modo [apud nos sed] apud exteras nafiones
omnium sermone percrebruit
I here adopt the supplement which Peterson takes from Harl. 5428,
a MS. written in A. D. 1470. Other editors supply in different ways,
iii. 93 : pro decuma, cum pulsatus a Venerio esset, decidit HS xvi et
[medimnis] DCLIIII
113: quod si fieri non poterat ut plus quam x medimna ex iugero exararent,
medimnum [autem] ex iugero decumano dari oportebaf, cum ager, id
quod perraro evenit, cum decumo extulisset, quae erat ratio decu-
manis
iv. 133: nulla umquam civitas tota Asia et Graecia signum ullum, tabulam
pictam [uUamJ, ullum denique ornamentum urbis sua voluntate cuiquam
vendidit
V. 12: atque haec sicubi [facta sunt], ita facta sunt ut homines . . . leva-
rentur
Here iia is preserved by/, but omitted by R.
141 : cogere eum coepit, cum ageret nemo, [nemo] postularet, sponsionem
. . . facere
The following minute flaws are significant :
Div. i. I ■- defenderim . . . laeserim] defenderem . . . laeserim codd.
50 : ad columnam Maeniam] a columna aenea {vel simil.) codd.
Verr. i- 35 : relictionem] reiectionem codd.
104 : P. Annius] C. Annius codd. The praenomen is given as P. in i. 107,
ii. 21.
141 : vafrum] fabrum (= favrum) pscudo-Ascon. : verum p : tectum cett.
ii. 17 : si cuiquam] sive cuiquam codd.
175 : venient . . . dicent] veniunt (-iant) . . . dicent codd.
a6a DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
iii. 96 : senatorem] senatoriim codd.
iv. 12 : iuvat] iuvant codd. {V illegible)
38 : versatae] versata codd.
' 46 : peraeque] per ea quae codd.
97 : grandis simili in] grandissimi hii in (t>el slinil.) codd.
128 : parinum codd. : varie emendatmn.
V. 15 : Imacharensi] macharensi codd,
27 : astro] austro codd.
81 : cupiditatem] cupiditate codd. {V)
I also draw attention to the following corruptions :
A. P. 26: in eo esse haec commoda : primum M. Metellum amicissimum,
deinde Hortensium cos. non solum sed etiam Q. Metellum
Here Hortensium is out of place. The simplest method of
treatment is to place the word after solum (so MUlIer). This
suggests in a common ancestor :
deinde
cos non solum (11)
Hortensium (10)
sed
jii. 67 : homines et satis fortes et plane frugi
So F, except that it has sed plane for et plane. The other MSS.
repeat satis before //rt«^. This may indicate in a common ancestor ;
et
satis fortes et (13)
plane
iv. 144: atque etiam hoc me docent eiusmodi senatus consultum fecisse
laudationis ut omnes intellegere possent non laudationem sed potius
irrisionem esse illam
So R, sese fecisse landationes p. Various methods have here been
adopted by editors. I look on laudationis (-es) as a variant for
laudationem, which has got into the wrong place. If so, a common
ancestor may have had :
fecisse
ut omnes in (9)
tellegere (9)
possent non (10)
;;«^. laudationes laudationem (11)
sed
The insertion of sese in / seems due to correction. It is more
I
VERRINES 263
probable that the original reading was /fcissc se. If so, this may be
added to the minute flaws.
V. 56 : lilterae return decretariiin
I have already referred to this passage (p. 230). RS give cum
dccreUxrum, which indicates in a common ancestor:
litterae re (10)
rum decretal;. (ii)
Here />o, obviously by conjecture, give ct lerinn dccrctaruui
tritici empti.
To these should probably be added :
iii. 117: ccxvi decumas agri Leontini vendidisti ; si ex lege, niagno ; si
ut lex esset libido tua, parvo ; si ut quae dimidiae essent decumae
vocarentur, parvo vendidisti
Madvig here strikes out parvo after tua, as introduced from parvo
before ve/ididisti.
The cumulative evidence appears to prove definitely the common
origin of all MSS. except V. It is to be noticed that V is deficient
in all the passages previously considered except iii. 67, iv. 12, v. 81.
The evidence concerning V is much more scanty. In one place
it shares what appears to be a lacuna with all other MSS., viz. :
ii. 167 : an hoc dicere audebis utrum de te aratores, [utruni negotiatores],
utrum denique Siculi universi bene existiment
The words utrum uegotiatores were introduced by Garatoni from
i^" 168, rt^ negotiator ibus, ab aratoribus, a comuiuni Siciliac . . .
aratorum, ncgotiatorum, Siculorumque omnium testimonia. It is
difficult to suppose that something has not dropped out in view of
denique. If so, this lacuna, common to V, cett., is very significant.
Other points of contact are :
ii. 54 : praesens esset O : praesensisset F, cett. Here the reading of O may
be due to a correction,
iii. 60 : a Q. ApronioJ quo Apronio V : atque Apronio cett.
V. 94 : acta commemorabatur] acta commemorabantur V, celt.
108: perditum] praeditum V, cett.
I would call attention to :
ii. 121 : quicumque senator voluerat fieri, quamvis puer, quamvis indignus
quamvis ex eo loco ex quo non liceret, si is pretio apud istum idoneus
(so c: idoneus et V: fieret idoneus/) vinceret, factum esse semper
264 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
Editors generally read idoneos, with Garatoni. I incline to
consider idorieus a variant for indignus, due to the confusion of O
and 6 {D) in uncials. In Livy xxxi. 3 the Vienna MS. has inoindigna-
reniur for indignarentur, and Heraeus remarks ' in archetype fuit
inoignarentur.' It is possible that the archetype of V cett.
here had :
quamuis
mg. inoignus indignus qua
uis ex eo loco
quo non lice
ret si is pre
tio apud istu
uinceret
I conclude by drawing notice to two passages, viz. :
iii. 74 : iniuriis et incommodis civitates
Here the tradition is as follows :
iniuriis et V: otn. cett.
civitates VO : om. cett.
This suggests in the archetype :
iniuriis et
(10)
incommodis
(10)
ciuitates
(9)
In another place (v. 81), a passage found in V only, viz, iam
continiios (12), is followed shortly afterwards by a word exceptione
(10), omitted by V only. The intermediate passage, PR. P.R. . , .
sine, consists of 133 letters. This suggests the following distribu-
tion :
dies aestiuos (12)
iam continues (12)
pr. p. r. custos (10)
defensorque (il)
5 provinciae (10)
sic uixit ut (10)
muliebria (9)
cotidie con (10)
uiuia essent (11)
10 uir accumbe (10)
ret nemo prae (11)
ter ipsum et (10)
15
VERRINES
praetextatum
(12)
filium etsi
(lO)
recte sine
(9)
exceptione
(lO)
26'
V omits 1. 1 6, while 1. 2 is omitted by the other MSS., both
omissions being due to o\j..
It appears, therefore, that there are some grounds for referring V
to the same ancestor, though on this subject I speak with reserve.
\
CHAPTER VIII
ORATT. POST REDITUM (SEN., OUIR., DOM., HAR.
RESP.), PRO SESTIO, IN VATINIUM, PRO CAELIO,
DE PROVINCIIS CONSULARIBUS, PRO BALBO
This collection is contained in
Paris. 7794, cent, ix (P).
There are also some later MSS., the most important of which
seem to be
Gemblacensis 5345, cent, xii (G).
Erfurtensis, now Berol. 25a, cent, xii/xiii {£).
Harleianus 4937, cent, xii (//").
The relation of these MSS. to /* is a matter of controversy.
Halm held that they are derived from P, which, therefore, is to
be considered the sole fount of information, while Klotz has recently
argued in favour of the view that they are drawn from an inde-
pendent copy of the archetype,^
Fresh information has recently come to light concerning one
speech in this sylloge, viz. the Cacliana. For this we also have
22 = marginalia in Paris. 14749, taken from Clun. 496 at the begin-
ning of the fifteenth century.
A considerable portion of the speech is contained in an Oxy-
rhynchus papyrus, no. 1251, cent. v.
Madvig showed that P was the best MS. then known for the pro
Caelio and the other speeches which it contains. He made a number
of brilliant corrections based on P^ as opposed to the later MSS.
He also drew attention to certain passages, generally printed, which
were not found either in P or in any other MS. then known,
although they occur in a late fifteenth-century MS., Monacensis
^ Rhein. Mus. Ixvii (191 2), pp. 358-90.
ORATT. POST REDITUM. ETC. 267
i.')7.34 (^)^ afterwards used by Halm. These he denounced as
Italian interpolations. The chief passage is in C(7c/. 24, where after
Titus Caiusquc the vuIgate had :
Cop>onii qui ex omnibus uiaxime Dionis mortem doluerunt
Madvig said :
'confiteor me nescire unde homo audacissimus qui ineunte seculo xvi post
primas editiones cum codd. conspirantes haec ita interpolavit, ut vulgo eduntur,
Coponios illos fuisse rescierit, de quo neminem interpretum ne verbo quidem
admonere video. Edendus est igitur necessario locus hoc tristi aspectu ; Titus
Caiusque •• t omni cum doctrina homo atque humanitatis.^
In another passage, Cad. 50, where the vulgate had ct Iniic ct
ceteris magnavi ad se defendendiim faciiltatcm dabit, while PGE,
etc., have et huic dcfendendum facultatcm dabit^he calls the addition
intcrpolationem ineptissivtam et soloccavi.
One of these supplements deserves especial attention, viz. :
Cael. 49 : ut non solum meretrix [sed etiam proterva meretrixj procaxque
videatur
The words give an admirable sense and are defended by 6^.
Halm continued in the same track, but went further. While
Madvig banished the ' Italian interpolations', Halm threw doubts
upon the additions made by P-. There are a large number of
these throughout these speeches. Except in the case of the de Prov.
Cons.y where he stayed his hand. Halm tarred them all with the
same brush. He thus reached the result beloved by some critics,
viz. that safety was only to be found in the first hand of the ' best '
MS. It is only fair to add that Halm's method was not adopted
by subsequent scholars, notably by Hertz, Muiler, and more recently
Peterson.
When the marginalia in 2 came to light, they confirmed some
25 conjectures made by various scholars. Madvig took the lion's
share in these, with no less than six successful emendations. Three
of these, which are consecutive in Madvig's dissertation, occur
in a single page of -, one of them being an insertion of three
words e cotii. (Cael. 4,5). While, however, 2 indicates Madvig's
extraordinary skill as an emender, it shows that in one important
respect he was wholly wrong. The passages which he attributed to
Italian conjecture occur in I side by side with his own emendations.
268 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
They are, therefore, brought back from the fifteenth century to the
eighth. So also the additions of P^ rejected by Halm, are con-
firmed en bloc by 2, though sometimes given in a more correct
version.
The testimony of the papyrus is of exceptional interest. Its
agreements are about equally distributed between 2 and P. Among
its agreements with P is one which gives a reading clearly inferior,
viz. :
§ 2)1 '• dissice 2 {Ptiteanns) : disce Ox. 1251, P cett.
This is a good example of an ancient corruption.
On three occasions Ox. agrees with GE or P^GE against P or
/*S vix. :
§ 35 acta Ox. GE : actas /': § 35 efifregit Ox. P^GE : et fregit P^ : § 45 dispute
Ox.P'^GE: disputato /■' : disputavi 2.
There is one noteworthy agreement with E, viz. :
§ 30 deprecari vacationem P ; deprecationem G : de praevaricatione Ox. E.
For the purposes of this discussion the three most important
passages are :
Gael. 29 : et copiose Ox. 2 : otn. PGE
Gael. 35 : facis, quae dicis, quae insimulas, quae moliris, quae arguis Ox. 2 : om.
P^ in lac. : facis, quae dicis, quae in sororem tuam moliris, quae argu-
menta P'^GE. Halm says of this ' supplement ' found in P^GE : ' Hoc
ipsum supplementum homines Itali, ut est in cod. S, sic emendate
conati sunt si ea quae [facis, quae dicis, quae insimulas, quae moliris,
quae arguis\ quo panno intolerabili etiam nunc editiones foedatae sunt '
Gael. 49 : ut non solum meretrix sed etiam proterva meretrix procaxque videatur ^
The papyrus is here much mutilated, but the editors, arguing
from the space between letters which have been preserved, say ' the
agreement of the papyrus in adding scd etiam . . . meretrix after
7ion solum meretrix seems probable.'
These are the only cases where the papyrus contains passages
disputed on the ground of omission by P or P^, and on all occasions
its evidence is in their favour.
I now proceed to say a few words about P.
/* is a large MS. written in two columns. The number of lines
' Halm says ' lectio non ex cod. aliquo integriore deducta est, sed pro supplemento
prudenlis alicuius Itali habenda.'
ORATT. POST REDITUM, ETC. 269
to the page varies. In a page reproduced by Chatclain (PI. xxiii)
there are 37 lines in each column. I noticed that f. iH' has 37 lines
in col. I and 36 in col. 2, while f. 18^ has 36 lines in col. i and 3S
in col. 2. The recto of f. 20 has 40 lines in both columns, and the
verso has 43 lines in both columns. There is also considerable
variety in the content of lines. The average appears to be about
34 letters.
When turning over the leaves oi P 1 noticed several ditto-
graphics, viz. :
(30) Dom. 100: video me plane ac sentio restitutum
(31) Sest. 55 : dicam immo vero etiam approbantibus
(32) Quir. 21 : invidos virtuti et gloriae serviendo
(34) Prov. Cons. 20 : videmus et vere ut dicam paene confectum
Sest. 18 : equites R. minabatur senatui venditabat
{35) Sest. 6 : optimis factus esset, reliquis honoribus
(37) Cael. 61 : si apud Caelium mulieris servus visus esset
Vat. 6 : vivendo consecutum esse quae tu impudenter
The evidence furnished by these eight dittographies, all of which
consist of 30-7 letters, suggests that this was the length of a line
in the model. If so, this was a MS. very much like P in formation.
One of the dittographies requires some explanation, viz. :
Sest. 6 : cum tr. pi. primus inter homines nobilissimos temporibus optimis
factus esset, reliquis honoribus non tarn uti voliiit quam dignus videri
After nobilissimos P has :
temporibus
s
optumis facturn esset rejiqujs horninibus
optuniis tacturn esset rejjquis
horninjbus opturnis tacturn esset reliquis
honoribus
The model seems to have had :
optumis factus esset reliquis hominibus
with a marginal variant :
optumis tacturn esset reliquis honoribus.
In connexion with these dittographies I would mention the
following omissions of P' :
(30) Quir. 6: aut Metellarum liberi pro Q. Metelli
Sest. 107: sententiam eius auctoritate neque
(32) Cael. 72 : et cum vestra auctoritate coniunctuin
270 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
The probability is that these also represent lines in the model.
I abstain for the present from discussing possible multiples.
The majority of the additions made by P^ exhibit a smaller unit,
viz. 21-4. The conclusion which I reached at the commencement
of this inquiry was that this unit represents a line in a previous MS.,
coming before the model, in which the columns varied slightly in
breadth. I afterwards read a paper by A. Klotz, in which I find
a notable anticipation of the method which I have followed.^
Klotz is arguing that GE are derived not from P, but from
a common archetype, which had about 22 letters to a line. He
refers to :
Cael. 38 : filii causa est expeditissima. Quid enim esset in quo se non facile
defenderet ? Nihil iam in istam mulierem dico, sed si esset aliqua
dissimilis istius
Here G^ omits Ji/it . . . defenderet (65), while E omits se iion . . .
aliqua (64). This indicates in the archetype :
filii causa est expeditis (22)
sima quid enim esset in quo (22)
se non facile defenderet (21)
nihil iam in istam mulie (20)
rem dico sed si esset aliqua (23)
G^ omits 11. 1-3, while E omits 11. '^-^.
Klotz points out that the ancestor thus revealed is not P, which
is written in longer lines. He also holds that it must have been
written in insular script on account of the corruptions for autem (hr)
which occur in 6^£".^
I had myself accepted the usual theory that GE are derived
from P, and was somewhat incredulous at first about Klotz's
conclusion. More recently, after further analysis, I am convinced
that he is right, and I regard GE as drawn from an independent
copy of the archetype. The point is of some importance, since, if
GE are not derived from P, their omissions must be considered
together with those of P :
I therefore proceed to deal with this point first.
There is a dislocation in ih^pro Caelio which is common to PGE,
viz. §§ 17-27 aecommodavistis . . . conviviuin come after §§ 27-36
re)inerit . . . timiditatem. The error is rectified in P by a corrector,
' Rhein. Mns. Ixvii (1912), p. 368.
- Halm on Vat. 41; cf. Sest. 21.
ORATT. POST RKDITL'M, ETC. 271
who at § 27 inserts in the margin the note hie rcpcte quod dimisisti.
In Harl. 4927 (//) the two passages are given in their proper order.
The length of these passages in Tcubner lines is as follows :
§§ 17-27 = 137 lines.
§§ 27-36 = 130 lines.
It cannot be doubted that the dislocation is due to the transpos-
ition of folios in a previous MS., although the agreement is not so
close as is usually the case. It is to be noticed that P has
a considerable omission in § 24. It is possible that there was here
some irregularity in the archetype, e.g. something may have been
written in the margin.
I now come to a dislocation peculiar to GE, viz. :
liar. Resp. 46: quid enim facial aliiid ? illos homines sapientissimos gravlssi-
niosque miror, primum quod quemquam clarum hominem atque optima
de re p. (110)
These words are omitted suo loco by GE and inserted subse-
quently in § 50 :
etiamne in sinu atque in deliciis quidem optimi viri viperam illam venenatam
ac pestiferam habere potuerunt ?
Here they come after viperam illam, destroying the sense. The
natural inference in such a case is that an omitted passage has been
accidentally inserted on the wrong page or folio. The intervening
passage, viz. §^ 4*5-50, saepe vierititvi . . . viperam illam, occupies
64 lines of Teubner text. The relation of 64 to 130 [Gael. 27-36)
is striking.
To these I add a minor transposition common to PGE, viz. :
J/nr. Resp. 18: sed quoniam mea causa expedita est, videamus nunc quid
haruspices dicant. Ego enim fateor me et magniiudine ostenti et
gravitate responsi et una atque constant! haruspicum voce^ vehementer
esse commotum
This passage is omitted loco suo by PGE and inserted in § 17
before qnaviquam si me. The intervening passage, §§ 17-18, quam-
quam si me . . . respondeat admoueri., occupies 16^ lines of Tcubner
text.
I now arrange these transpositions in order of length :
Har. Resp. 17-18 = \6\ lines.
46-50 = 64
Cael. 27-36 = 130
' So edtl., o>ti. (Oxid.
»
272 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
The relation of these figures to each other is very significant. It
is to be noticed that one of them (64) is pecuh'ar to GE, while the
other two are common to PGE. The inference appears to be
that P and GE are descended from the same archetype, but that
GE are not copied from P.
There is also some other evidence. In Vat. 4-5 editors print :
renovatus ille tuus in to **** veterem meum amicum.
Here there is a lacuna after in to-.
It is always likely that a new speech began at the top of a page.
I thought it worth while, therefore, to count the number of lines in
§§ 1-4, si tantum . . . tmts in to-.
The passage occupies 48 Teubner lines. Here also we find the
same unit (16x3 = 48).
There remains one other indication, which I think worth men-
tioning, though without the same confidence. We have seen that
there is a lacuna in Vat. § 4. Shortly afterwards we have in § 6
sangninem principum civitatis exsorbere. Halm notes :
' prin P in extreme versu, quattuor litterae deletae sunt, hinc voc. in cod.
Bern, et aliis omnino deest.'
Peterson says that H \v2iS principum. I do not find the readings
of GE expressly recorded.
The occurrence of this flaw shortly after the lacuna in § 4 is
suggestive. It is possible that the word principum came at some
division of the archetype, e. g. at the foot of a page. As a matter
of fact, §§ ^-6^ veterem ineiim . . .principum, occupy 32I lines of
Teubner. This is a very singular agreement. If we accept this
last case, which I mention with considerable reserve, we have the
following figures : i6f , 32^, 48, 64, 130.
The most natural interpretation to put on them is, that 16 = a
column, 32 = a page, 64 = a folio, and 130 = two folios in the
archetype.
As I have also taken the trouble to count the letters in the
passages discussed, I add these results also :
Har. Resp. 17-18 = 686 letters.
Vat. 5-6 = 1324 „
Vat. 1-4 = 2019 „
Har. Resp. 46-50 = 2737 „
Gael. 27-36 = 5506 „
ORATT. POST REDITUM, ETC. 273
If we take 686 letters as representing a column and divide by 22,
we get as a result 31 lines to a page (22x31 = 682). I assume
that the archetype was written in two columns.
After this preliminary discussion I proceed to consider the
omissions of the various MSS.
VVc have already seen that the model of ^^^ was a MS. very like
itself. There is, therefore, an intermediate ancestor between P and
the archetype. It is priuui facie possible that one or more inter-
mediate ancestor has intervened between GE and the archetype.
We must, therefore, expect to find more than one unit in the
omissions.
I now give a complete list of omissions and dittographies, apart
from those which have been already mentioned (in P) :
(14) //ar. Resp. 5 : odio dignitatis om. P
51 : quam in universe om. P^
(15) Cael. 24 : »Caelio existimet om. GE
Proi'. Cons. 6 : »sed quia nunc sine om. P^
(16) Sest. 118: aut non exprimeret om. /"
(17) Dom. 86: et M. Furius Camillus om. P^
Sest. 132 : »*hominem et a caede ab- om. /"
(18) Sest. 100: res p. quam defenditur om. G
110: iuvabant anagnostae <?///. /*^
Vat. 18 : ♦asset etiain turn in re p. om. GE
(19) Dotn. 132 : quodam atque inaudito om. P^
Har. Resp. 26 : istius modi patruus is om. /"*
Cael. 50 : *et ceteris magnam ad se 2 : om. PGE
Prov. Cons. 29 : »*-que illarum humanitas om. P^
(20) Dom. 17 : ♦*meo consilio auctorita- om. /^'
Sest. 48: laudis partim vitandae om. P^
(21) Quir. 9: auctores hortatoresque om. GE
Sest. 129 : de caelo servaret ne quis om. G
Cael. 66 : cur non comprehenderint om. P
Vat. 12 : terreres conscendentes om. /"
28 : «» inimico suo contionem re- om. /"
(22) Sest. 17 : si ora ipsa oculis vestris om. G^
S7 : honorem istum consecutus om. /"
Cael, 3 : splendidus ipse aut parum om. G
(23) Dom. 97 : quibus aequo animo carerem om. G
132 : »tamen institute ceterorum om. /"
Sest. 58 : huius imperii Mithridatem 6^ : om. PE, cett.
id. : a se regem quam constrictum di's scr. P
Cael. 8 : atque etiam isti dignitati om. P
U33 X
374 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
Vai. l6 : quos privates esse dicebas om. P^
(24) Cael. 49 : sed etiam proterva meretrix 2 : om. PGE
Prov. Cons. 36 : *disciplinaque maiorum quam om. GE
(25) Vat. 36; sibi P. R. appetivit qui numquam om. P^
(27) Sen. I : *qua nihil potest esse iucundius om. /"
(28) Sen. 23 : *amicitias igni perspectas tuear 07n. G
(33) Har. Resp. 26 : istius modi Megalesia fecit pater tuus om. G
(38) Cael. 52 : quam ad rem aurum turn iret an non dixerit. Si non om. P^
(41) Sen. 2: ne aperte incommoda patriae lugeretis ediceret om. P^
(43) Balb. 47 : quoniam re non potest ut conspiciatis eum mentibus bis scr. P
(46) Cael. 24 : ♦Coponii qui ex omnibus maxime Dionis mortem doluerunt 2 :
om. PGE
(48) Cael. 35 : *facis, quae dicis, quae insimulas, quae moliris, quae arguis
2. pap. Ox. 1 25 1, et sic fere P'^GE : om. P^
(49) Vat. 10 : atque infimo conferam de te ipso homine et arrogantissimo om. P^
Balb. 31 : *iuris habeat necesse est ne quis invitus civitate mutetur om. P^
(55) ^^^- 7 '• ctsi ego te perditorem et vexatorem rei p. fero, tu me conserva-
torem bis scr. P
(63) Qtiir. 23 : qui reddidit non habet, gratiam et qui rettulit habet et qui habet
dissolvit om. P {add. m. rec.)
(64) Har. Resp. 47 : Caesaris in quo fallebat sed eum nemo redarguebat nisi
eum inquam exercitum om. P^
Cael.^^Z: *se non facile defenderet. Nihil iam in istam mulierem dico,
sed si esset aliqua om. E
(65) Cael. 38: *filii causa est expeditissima. Quid enim esset in quo se non
facile defenderet om. G^
(66) Cael. 2 : cui utrum vellet liceret nee cum descendisset quicquam habiturum
spei fuisse om. G
(79) Cael. 67 : *conspectus, lux denique longe alia est solis ac lychnorum.
Quam ob rem excutiemus omnes istorum om. E
(81) Sest. 131 : legatorum undique missorum celebrabantur, ad urbem accessus
incredibili hominum multitudine om. G
(83) Sest. 93 : amplectatur, qui bonis viris deserviat, qui solidam laudem
veramque quaerat. Cum dicat duo ilia rei p. om. P^
(89) Cael. 58 : servos familiares esse dominae sciebat. Sin ei tanta consuetudo
quanta a vobis inducitur non erat, quae cum om. E
(95) Prov. Cons. 35 : nondum satis fecerit et malit tamen tardius ad suorum
laborum fructus pervenire quam non explere susceptum rei p. om, P^
(103) Balb. 8 : *sic agere iud. non esse fas dubitari quin quod Cn. Pompeium
fecisse constet, id non solum decuisse sed etiam debuisse fateamur om.
P^ {\i indices, — \oj)
(106) Balb. 7 : huius crimen ? Minime, nisi honos ignominia putanda est.
Cuius igitur ? Re vera nullius, actione accusatoris eius unius qui
donavit om. E
Cael. 24 : *qui cum doctrinae studio atque humanitatis, turn etiam hospitio
ORAir. POSl RKDITUM, KTC. 2
/J
Dionis tenebantur. Habitabat apud Titum, ut audistis, Dio : erat ci
2. sic fere I'-'CE : ovi. P'
(ill; Har. Resp. 46 : quid enim facial aliud ? illos homines sapientissimos gra-
vissimosque miror, primum quod quemquam darum hominem atque
optinie de re p. om. GE (suo loco)
(132) riicV, 38 : »se nulla cupiditate inductum de via decessisse. Quid signi ?
nulli sumptus, nulla iactura, nulla versura. At fuit fania. Quotas
quisque istam eiTugero potest in tarn o/n. P^
I give this passage as written by P'^. The Turin palimpsest {T)
adds est qui before istam and i) Vidds praesertijn before cffitgcre.
(152) This figure represents the total omission of P and P' in Cael. 24, viz.
Coponii . . . iioluerunt (46) cm. P + qui cum . . . erat ei (106) om. P^
(159) Ciiil. 16: et de criminibus istis sodalium ac sequestrium, quoniam hue
incidi, similiter respondendum putem. Numquam enim tarn Caelius
ainens fuisset ut, si se isto infinito ambitu commaculasset, ambitus
om. <JE
(30s) In addition to the previous omission of 159 letters in Cael. 16, E also
omits :
alterum accusaret, neque eius facti in altero suspicionem quaereret
cuius ipse sibi perpetuam licentiam optaret, nee si sibi semel pericuium
ambitus subeundum puturet, ipse (146).
Halm says that E omits 'usque ad ipse, v. 11', i.e. before sibi
perpetuaui. According, however, to Wunder's collation of E, it
omits down to putaret ipse.
Here 159 + 146 = 305.
In this list there are four telescoped passages, all of them peculiar
to P^ : viz. Sest. 132 (17), Prov. Cons. 29 (19), J?om. J 7 (20), Vat.
28 (21). The bulges in the curve of omissions are at 21 (5 examples)
and 23 (5 omissions and one dittography). There is a marked
similarity between the omissions of PGE. Thus among the omis-
sions of 21 letters, one is peculiar to G, one is shared by GE, and
three, one of which is a telescoped passage, are peculiar to P.
The most interesting of the shorter omissions are Cael. 50, where
iS preserves 19 letters omitted by PGE, and Sest. 5S, where G
preserves 23 letters omitted by other MSS. {sil. '^).
These figures point to an archetype written in two columns, one
of which was slightly narrower than the other.
There are six omissions of 41-9 letters, the most important
being Cael. 24, where 1' preserves 46 letters omitted by PGE. It
can hardly be doubted that PGE have here omitted two lines of the
T 2
•:i.']6 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
archetype. Probably several of the other omissions are due to
the same cause.
The omissions of ()'>, and 64 letters by P in Quir. 33, Har. Resp.
47 may be explained as representing either three lines of the arche-
type or two lines of the immediate model. There is not, however,
any similar doubt in Cael. 38, where G^ omits 6^ and E omits 64
letters. Here both MSS. omit se non facile defend ere t {21), whWe
G^ omits 44 letters before these words and E omits 43 letters after
them. Here the unit 21-a is clearly visible.
The following multiples of 22 throw light upon the higher
numbers :
22X 4 = 88 22X 7 = 154
22x5 = 110 22x14 = 308
22X6 = 132
For 110 we may compare iii {Har. Resp. 46), also 106 [Balb. 7,
Cael. 24) : 132 is found in Cael. 38, while for 154 we may compare
152 in Cael. 25. For 88 we may compare 89 [Cael. 58), and for 308
we have 305 in Cael. 16. The relation of 152 to 305 is to be noticed.
As the numbers grow large the average asserts itself and becomes
unmistakable.
Some of these passages are not far removed from each other. In
such cases further evidence is yielded by the intervening words.
A simple instance is Cael. 2-3. Here G has two omissions, viz. in
§ 2 ctii . . . fuisse (66), and in § 3 splendidus . . . partmi (22). The
intermediate passage nisi alicniiis . . . ant parnm consists of 534
letters (22 x 24 = 528).
We may compare Sest. 58. Here all MSS. except G omit Jiuins
imperii Mithridatem (23), while the words a se regent qiiani con-
strictnm (23) are written twice in P. The average here appears to
be 23. The intervening passage pnlsum Poiito . . . constitntum
consists of 342 letters (23 x 15 = 345). We may, therefore, arrange
thus:
huius imperii mithridatem (23)
pulsum ponto opibus suis re (23)
gnoque defendit et ab L. lucul (24)
lo summo uiro atque impera (22)
5 tore pulsus animo tamen hos (23)
tili cum reliquis suis copi (23)
is in pristina mente mansit (23)
ORATT. rOST REDITUM, ETC. 277
hiinc CN. pompeiiis cum in siiis (23)
castris siippliceni abiectiim (24)
10 uidisset erexit atqiie in (21)
signe regium quod ille de suo {24)
capite abiecerat reposuit (23)
et certis rebus imperatis (22)
regnare iussit nee minus et (23)
15 sibi et huic imperio glori (22)
osum putauit constitutum (22)
a se regem quam constrictum (23)
]. I G, om. cett. 1. 17 bis scr. P
Balb. 7-8. Here E omits 106 letters in § 7, while P^ omits 103
in § H. The intervening passage qui si additciiis . . . tnmc cuncter
consists of 440 letters (22 x 20 = 440). I should mention that the
word indices occurs once in the passage omitted by P^ and once in
the intermediate passage. If this is written in full, the totals are
107 and 444.
Certain corruptions may also be noticed :
(21) Balb. 37 : potest esse uUa denique maiestas
GE \idMQ. potestasiox maiestas. This seems due to the arrangement :
potest esse ulla denique (21)
maiestas
The writer looked back \.o potest in the previous line and combined
it with the end of maiestas.
(25) Sest. 42 : non mihi vestrum studium sed meum prope vestro defuisse
/^ has :
non michi uestru studium sed
rneuin prope uestru studium sed meum prope
uestro defuisse
This indicates :
non mihi uestrum
studium sed meum prope uestro (25)
defuisse
When the writer got to vestro he looked back to vestrum and
repeated the intervening words.
(42) Vat. 26 : ecquosnam alios posset nominate? Inculcarisne ut C. Pisonem,
generum meum, nominarel
in
G inserts inconculcarisne (i. e. conculcarisne) after nominaret. This
278 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
looks like a variant which has got into the wrong place. If so,
a previous MS. seems to have had :
nominare
mg. inconculcarisne inculcarisne ut C. pisonem (22)
generum meum nominaret (20)
(87) Sest. 58 : cum Armeniorum rege Tigrane grave bellum diuturnumque gessi-
mus, cum ille iniuriis in socios nostros inferendis bello prope nos laces-
sisset. Hie et ipse per se vehemens fuit.
P after bellmn adds qiit per ipsi, which Halm emends to njtper ipsi.
1 incline to think that ant per ipsi is a variant for ct ipse per. If so,
the archetype may have had :
graue bellum
diuturnumque gessimus cum (23)
ille iniuriis in socios (20)
nostros inferendis bello (22)
prope nos lacessisset hie (22)
mg. aut per ipsi et ipse per se
(169) Cael. 42 : ergo haec deserta via et inculta atque interclusa iam frondibus
et virgultis relinquatur: detur aliqui ludus aetati, sit adulescentia
liberior : non omnia voluptatibus denegentur, non semper superet vera
ilia et derecta ratio.
2 repeats via et after derecta (oju.). The intermediate words via et
. . . derecta contain 169 letters. The relation of 169 to 87, 42, 2i
suggests that the archetype may have had :
deserta
uia et inculta atque inter (22)
clusa iam frondibus et uir (22)
gultis relinquatur detur (22)
aliqui ludus aetati sit (20)
adulescentia liberior (20)
non omnia uoluptatibus (20)
denegentur non semper su (21)
peret uera ilia et derecta (22)
ratio
There are certain corruptions common to all our MSS., which
appear to have been already present in what I have called the
archetype. I would call attention to two passages omitted by the
MSS. and preserved elsewhere, viz. :
(17) Cael. I'j : qui in hortis fuerit Donatus : om. codd.
(37) Sest. 8 : P. Sestius cum esset cum collega meo senserit Schol. Bob. : om.
codd.
uKAiT. POST REDITUM, ETC. 279
These omissions suggest a line of 17-18 letters in a previous MS.
We may compare :
(17) Har. Resp. 23: si terram non temiit aiit tensam si iorum omisit aut si
aedilis verbo aut simpuvio aberravit
So the MSS. It is clear that terram is a variant for tensam. Editors
read :
si tensam non tenuit, si Iorum omisit
This suggests in a previous ]\IS. the arrangement :
si
;;/^. tensam terram non tenuit si (17)
Iorum
The insertion of aut is a further corruption.
(36) Dotn. 24 : quas C. Gracchus . . . ut necesse esset qiiotannis constitui per
senatum decreta lege sanxit, eas lege Sempronia per senatum decretas
rescidisti
So the MSS, Editors cut out decreta before lege. Halm says :
' aberraverat scilicet librarii oculus a priore v. senatum ad postcrius.'
This suggests the following arrangement :
per senatum
lege sanxit eas lege (17)
sempronia per senatum (i<))
decretas
(50) Stst. 85 : divini hominis, dicam enim quod sentio et quod mecum senliunt
omnes, divini.
Various emendations have been made. Mommsen removes divini
before hominis. If this is right, a previous MS. may have had :
hominis dicam enim (16)
quod sentio et quod me (18)
cum sentiunt omnes (16)
diiiini
I now recall attention to Har. Resp. iH.
Here the words sed quoniam . . . esse commotum are out of place
in all our MSS. The transposition, therefore, seems prior to the
common ancestor.
The missing passage is inserted higher up in § 17. The distance
between this and the proper place is equivalent to \6\ Teubner
lines. I have already shown (p. 272) that 16 Teubner lines is the unit
which represents a column in the common ancestor. The conclusion
28o DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
follows that the passage was omitted by the common ancestor, and
inserted at the top of a column instead of at the foot. If so, it may-
represent lines in a previous MS.
The passage in question, as given by the MSS., consists of i66
letters, but voce^ which is supplied by editors after haruspicum, has
clearly dropped out. If we add voce, the total is 170. This would
exactly =10 lines of 17 letters.
I conclude with a reference to a locus vcxatissimus, viz. :
Sest. no: nihil saneatf (sane atte G) iuvabant anagnostae '
In § III we have :
illo ore inimicos est meos saviatus
I suggest that saneat§ = sauiaf e, i. e. saviatus est, a variant for est
. . . saviatus.
The intermediate passage hivabant anagnostae . . . est meos
consists of 576 letters (17 x 34 = 57H).
I now recall attention for a moment to the four telescoped
passages in P, consisting of 17, 19, 20, 21 letters. The first of these
is a little shorter than the normal content in the archetype (20-3
letters). It may, of course, represent a short line, but it is possible
that the omission took place at a previous stage in the transmission.
CHAPTER IX
PRO FONTEIO, PRO FLACCO, PRO CLUENTIO, PRO
MILONE, IN CATILINAM, CAESARIANAE
OUK knowledge of the pro Fojiteio is derived from two sources,
viz. :
(1) Three leaves in a palimpsest, Vat. Palat. xxiv, which contains:
§§ 1-2 : oportuisse . . . Aquiliense por-
§ 3 : -cite . . , area e ra-
§§ 4-5 : deorum . . . qualis
The contents of these leaves correspond to 22^, 22-4, 22^ lines of
Teubner text.
(2) Basil. Vat. H. 25 ( F), fif. ir-i;^
This contains the body of the speech, as now known to us, viz. :
§§ 11-49: hoc praetore . . . valuisse videantur.
I have already pointed out (p. 163) that other portions of the speech
must have come in V before the fragment of the pro Flacco
(§§ 39-54); also that Fo7it. 11-49 niust represent a certain number
of folios in a previous MS. These sections occupy 542 lines of
Teubner text.
For \\\Q. pro Flacco wc arc mainly dependent on fifteenth-century
MSS. They are clearly descended from a single ancestor, which
appears to be connected with France. The chief representative of
the family is Paris. 14749 (-). In all these MSS. there are lacunae
at §§ 5. 47. and 75-
Our other sources are :
Ambr. R. 57 sup. {A).
This palimpsest contains a single leaf, reproduced in facsimile by
Peyron. It is generally termed the Milan fragment. It supplies
a passage not found in any other MS., which is placed by editors in
the lacuna after § 5.
282 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
Basil. Vat. H. 25 ( V), ff. 9^-1 r. This contains :
§§ 39~54 • litterarum si . . . est egentium.
V here has a passage, §§ 47-53 P^cimiani Fnfiis . . . in re sit, which
is omitted by 2 cett.
To these must be added t\ie fragmeittnm P eutingeriamim. This
was printed in the ed. Crat. (1528) by the well-known scholar,
Conrad Peutinger, of Augsburg (1465-1547), who states that he
obtained it from Rorarius of Frejus. His words are :
* Cum superioribus diebus Hieronymus Rorarius Foroiuliensis, non vulgaris
eruditionis, apud nos in prandio fuisset et nomismata sua vetusta nobis osten-
disset, dedit etiam versus octo vel paulo plus supra quinquaginta, quibus oratio
haec Ciceroniana pro Flacco hactenus formis excusa deficiebat, quos addere
curavimus.'
This supplement fills the gap in 2 cett. at § 75, by inserting :
§§ 75^83 : primum ut in . . . esse caetera
The fate of Peutinger's fragment is wrapped in mystery. Other
scholars, notably H. Stephanus, professed to have a codex for
§§ 75-83, which did not entirely agree with that of Peutinger, but
their statements are regarded with incredulity. Our sole authority
appears to be the edition of Cratander. I may add that the frag-
ment, which is very corrupt, is clearly genuine.
The question now arises whether there is any connexion between
the two lacunae, viz. at § 47 and § 75.
The length in Teubner lines of the passages omitted by 2 cett. is
as follows :
§§ 47~53 • pecuniam Fufiis ... in re sit = 93-2- lines.
§§ 75"83 : primum ut in . . . esse caetera = 91^ lines.
The agreement is striking. In order to obtain further light, it is
necessary to consider the intervening block of text between the two
lacunae, viz. :
§§ 53~75 • "^ quam ob . . . Castricium mortuum.
This occupies 276^ lines of Teubner text. We have now the
series :
§§ 47-53 = 93^ lines.
§§ 53-75 = 276^
§§ 75-83 =9^1
Here 92 X3 = 276.
PRO FONTEIO, PRO FLACCO, ETC. 2S3
The significance of these figures cannot be disputed. The
natural and simple solution is that 91^-93-1 represents a folio in an
ancestor, and that on two occasions a folio has been lost. The unit
is a large one, and its size suggests that the ancestor in question
was not of great antiquity.
I now turn to the lacuna in § 5. If this was due to loss of leaves
in the same ancestor, we should expect §§ 6-47 htinc igittir vinan
. . . respondit se ovinnn to show a multiple of 91^935. If. however,
the lacuna there had already taken place, then we should expect
^§ 1-47 to show the operation of this unit, that is, if the speech, as
is generally the case, began at the top of a page.
Here §§ 6-47 = 591-^ Teubner lines. The unit docs not here
work (92 to 94 X 6 = 552 to 564).
§§ 1-47 = 663. This gives a better result (94 x 7 = 658).
The conclusion, therefore, is that the lacuna at § 5 goes back to
a previous stage in the history of the text.
So far we are on firm ground. I now come to a very curious
point. The fragment of the pro Flacco, preserved by V, begins on
f. 9"" of that MS. in its present condition at the top of the page,
after the loss of four quaternions, with § 39 litterarnm si. It ends
on f. 11^, col. 2, 1. 20, and is immediately succeeded by the fragment
of the Fonteiana, without break or title. The portion of the Fon-
teiana preserved by V {\\ 11-49) occupies 542 lines of Teubner
text. It must clearly represent folios of a previous MS.
I now turn to that part of the/rt? Flacco which comes before § 39
litterarnm si. We know that there is a lacuna at § 5, but we do
not know if V contained here anything more than the fifteenth-
century MSS. As given by them, the contents of §§ 1-39 {Cum in
maximis . . . et corruptaritm) are as follows :
§§ 1-5 = 7-\ lines.
§§ 6-59 -- 469^, „
542
It is to be noticed that this is the exact length of the Foniciana,
as preserved in V.
This is a very surprising result. It may, of course, be due to acci-
dent, but the chances against such an accident are enormous. The
natural inference seems to be that in an ancestor of V both Flacc.
284 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
1-39 and Font. 11-49 formed blocks of text which occupied the
same number of folios. If so, this ancestor already had the lacuna
at §5-
It seems odd that § 39 litterarinn si, which comes immediately
after the 543 lines of Teubner text contained in §§ 1-39 {Cum in . . .
et corriiptariini), should occur at the top of a page in F, but, as we
cannot tell what the lost leaves contained, we are necessarily in the
dark. The evidence seems to show that the speeches pro Flacco
and pro Fonteio were dislocated and confused.
For the convenience of the reader I add that the whole of the
fragment of the pro Flacco contained in F, viz. §§ 39-54 litteraruui
si . . . est egentijim, occupies 224 lines of Teubner text.
If the theory that §§ 39-54 represent a block of text in an ancestor
is well grounded, then 224, as well as 542, must represent a number
of folios in that ancestor. Both figures may be explained as multi-
ples of 45 (45 X 5 = 225, 45 X 12 = 540).
The evidence appears to show that the lacuna at § 5 is very
ancient. The Milan fragment seems to belong to this part of the
speech ; also certain passages quoted by the Scholiasta Bobicnsis.
pro Chicntio.
Our knowledge of the speech pro Cliicntio is derived from two
sources, viz. :
M = Laur. li. 10, cent. xi.
2 = Paris. 14749 (marginalia and supplements).
M contains Varro de lingua Latina and the Auctor ad Herenni?im ,
in addition to the Clnetitiana. It is written in the Beneventan
.script, apparently at Monte Cassino. It is said to belong to the
end of the eleventh century. If so, it was probably written shortly
after the abbacy of Desiderius (1058-87).^
M is descended from a mutilated MS. with lacunae at §§ 102, 127,
149, 176. It has also lost the end of the speech, which terminates
abruptly at the end of a page (f. 49^^), with the words atqne his rebns
(§ 192)-
The lacunae which occur in the body of the speech are also found
^ E. A. Loew, The Beneventan Script, pp. ii, 17, 70.
PRO FONTEIO, PRO FLACCO, ETC. 285
in a number of later MSS. (ju), which appear to be derived from M.
These MSS. also have lost the end of the speech, but many of tliem
end a few lines further on in tlie same section at the words ant ne
forte ma-. The natural inference is that the ancestor of M also
ended here, and that AI has been mutilated after f. 49'.
Paris. 14749 is itself copied in this speech from an ordinary MS.
of the /I family. It contains, however, a quantity of marginalia,
four supplements inserted on fly-leaves, while the end of the speech,
after § 192 aut ne forte via-^ is added by the writer of the supple-
ments.
The marginalia and supplements were taken from the old Cluni
MS., no 496, before this came into the hands of Poggio. It was
from this source that the portions of the speech omitted by M^i
were recovered.
I now give the length of the Cluni supplements expressed in
Teubner lines :
§§ 102-107 '■ in 'ot^ • • • omamenta = 840 lines.
§§ 127-132 : subscripserunt quis . . . standum = 880 „
§§ 149-154: dicenda est . . . accusatur =90 „
§§ 176-182 : queindam quasi . . . honestissi- = 89 ,,
The intervening blocks of text preserved by M\i show the operation
of the same unit, viz. :
§§ 107-127 : non quaerunt . . . de iudicio corrupto = 259 lines
§§ 132-149: non putavit . . . haec causa sola =269 „
§§ 154-176: quae turn . . . medico Stratonem = 270 ,,
Here the two last figures are practically identical, while the first
exhibits a rather smaller unit (86x3 = 258). It is to be noticed
that there is a similar reduction in the Cluni supplement which
immediately precedes this block, viz. §^ 102-7 = '^a\- There is
known to be a lacuna in ^ 103 where editors supply a few words
after ob rem iudicaudam. The correspondence of 84^ with 259 shows
that the loss here is not great.
It has already been shown that the common ancestor of M\i must
have ended at § 192 ant ne forte ma-, not a few lines higher in the
same section where AT itself ends at the foot of a page. We .should
therefore expect §§ 182-92 -viornin scnteiitia . . . ne forte ma- to
exhibit some relation to the unit previously disclosed. This passage
occupies 131 lines in the Teubner text. Here 88 + 44 = ^S^-
286 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
The question now arises whether 88 represents a folio or two
folios. The first explanation seems most probable, since it does not
seem likely that two folios would be omitted on four separate
occasions. If so, §§ 183-92 must represent a folio and a page. It
is simple to suppose that the speech was damaged towards the end,
and that the verso of a folio was illegible.
I now exhibit the whole of the speech down to § 192, marking
with an asterisk the portions omitted by J/// :
§§ 1-102 = 1372 (85 X 16 = 1360)
*§§ 102-107 = 84^
§§107-127= 259 (86x3 = 258)
*§§ 127-132 = 88i
§§132-149= 269 (90x3=270)
*§§ 149-154= 90
§§154-176= 270 (90x3 = 270)
*§§ 176-182 = 89
§§182-192= 131 (88 + 44=132)
It is to be noticed that §§ 1-102 appear to have occupied two
quaternions. The missing folios were ff. 17, 21, 25, 29. The
remainder of the speech §§ 192-202 occupies 142 lines of Teubner
text, which represents, roughly speaking, one folio + a page in the
ancestor of M.
It now remains to ask if there is any evidence to show the length
of line in this ancestor.
Apart from four doubtful passages where M omits one or two
words found in 2, viz. § 47 comparatur, § 116 maiestatis, § 94 illi
indices, § 86 habcbat sinmliates, the only cases which I have noticed
are :
(55) § 136 : rogaretur, aliam non diceret atque ei dixerunt quorum sententiis
(56) § 141 : Albanum poscebat, in Tiburti cum adsedissemus ego et Brutus
filius ^
(67) § 107 : M. luventius Pedo fuit ex vetere ilia iudicum disciplina, quails
L. Caulius Mergus
Here -^ gives indicium (68), and 2- iiidiciortim (70).
(93) § 57 : nisi forte hoc causae est quod medici nihil praeter artificium, oratores
etiam auctoritatem praestare debent
The coincidence between ^^ and 56 is striking, and suggests that
the passages represent lines in the model of M .
^ So 2. Cicero, de Oratoic ii. 224, lias in Tibitrti forte adscdinnis ego et Br-uttis filius.
PRO FONTEIO, PRO FLACCO, ETC. 2S7
I have counted the letters in §§ 149-54(90 hues), a passage which
I selected on account of its relation to §§ 154-7'^ (270 lines), and
find the total to be 3,7^0. This is an exact multiple of 54(54 x 70).
If then ^§ 149-54 represent a folio in the model of M, it seems to
have contained 35 lines to a page, with an average of 54 letters to
the line. This appears to be a very probable formation.
I may add that J/ is written in long lines with about 70 letters
to the line.
It may be worth while to add here some evidence concerning the
model from which the text in Paris. 14749 (o-), as distinguished
from the marginalia and supplements {1), was copied.
The omissions of o- are as follows : ^
(38) § 191 : sed etiam cogitavit quibus eum rebus armaret
(73) § 55 • *venenuni id quod Habito daretur esse quaesituni ? Quae porro
tenuissinia suspicio coUata
(75) §72: 'ex eius sermnne speculae degustarat. Unus et alter dies inter-
cesserat cum res parum certa
§ 190 : »illa sibi ad contirmandas inimicitias adfinitatis coniunctiones pignori
lore putavit
(78) § 172 : est usus, potius etiam simultas. Eine igitur quem sibi offensorem
{sic), Oppianico familiarissimum
(81 ) § 175 : 'ibi primum in morbum incidit ac satis vehementer diuque egrotavit
cum esset una Sassia et Statio
The fact that two passages of 75 letters are omitted is very
striking. Also, the omissions of 73, 78, 81 letters are very similar.
I am inclined to think that the model of a- contained 70-80 letters
to the line, in which case it was very much like J\r. It is to be
noticed that there is an omission of 38 letters, and it is tempting to
take this as the unit. It is not, however, likely that two lines would
be omitted on five occasions and a single line only once.
We have now to ask if there is any evidence as to the length of
a line in the Cluni MS. itself.
It is interesting to notice that the writer of the supplements which
have been stitched into the MS., in order to repair the omissions of
M^i at ^§ 102, 127, 149, 176, appears on various occasions to have
begun or ended at the wrong place. I will take the passages in
order.
' I give the passages as added b) the second hand in a.
388 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
§§ 103-7. Mix here give :
quod nos (§ 102) non quaerunt (§ 107) om. med.
The writer of the supplement, after adding the missing passage,
viz. in tota causa . . . verboruni ornainenta, instead of stopping at
71011 q7iaer7mt, went on with a passage ah'eady contained by o-, viz. :
or
qualis uir M. luuentius pede fait ex uetere ilia iudicium disciplina, qualis
L. caulius mergus, M. basilus, C. Laudinus qui omnes in iudiciis publicis iam
turn florente (138)
§§137-33. i^juhave:
de iudicio corrupto (§ 127) non putavit (§ 132) ovi. vied.
The writer of the supplement here should have begun with sub-
scripserint quis est after corriipto. Instead of doing so, however, he
began too soon, in § 136 after causa cognita statuisse, and repeated
a long passage already found in the text of o-, written thus:
dicent. Quod si ita fecissent, tamen id non ita fixum esse deberet ut con-
uelli non liceret. Non utar exemplorum copia, quae summa est, non rem
ueterem, non hominem potentem aliquem aut gratiosum proferam. Nuper
hominem tenuem, scribam aedilitium, Decimum Macrinium cum defendissem
aput M. lunium O. Puplicium pretores et M. Pretorium C. Flaminium
aediles curules, persuasi ut scribam iurati legerent eum quern eidem isti
censores aerarium reliquisse subscripserunt. Cum enim in hominem nulla
culpa inueniretur, quid ille meruisset, non quid de eo statutum esset,
querendum esse dixerunt. Nam hec quidem quae de iudicio corrupto (513)
After this the supplement proper begins with subscripserint quis
est. This is a very remarkable repetition. We cannot but suspect
that the writer, instead of beginning at a particular place in one
column, began at the same place in another.
At the end of this supplement the writer did not stop at
opinione standum (§ 132), but went on with a passage already found
in the text (o-), viz. :
quid est quam ob rem quisquam (24)
§§ 149-54. M\). have :
causa sola (§ 149) Habitus accusatur (§ 154) om. 7ned.
The supplement here begins, not with dicenda est, which should
come after sola, but with non enini niihi hec causa sola (33), a passage
already written in the text of o-.
PRO FONTEIO. PRO FLACCO. ETC. 289
§§ 176-82. J/ has: medico Str atone m (§ 176) mornm scntentia
(§ 182) 01) I. uied.
Here moruui is a relic of Jionestissimoruvi. It would appear that
the model of M had viroruui honcstissimoruui^ not honestissiinorum
virortDit.
The supplement begins correctly, but instead of stopping at
lionestissimoruui virorinn, goes on with sentcntia constitiitinn esse
(24), a passage already given by a,
I now put together the figures for these repetitions, viz. :
(23) § 149: non . . . sola
(24) § 132 : quid . . . quisquam
§ 182 : sententia . . . esse
(138) § 107: quails . . . florente
(511) § 126: dicent . . . comipto
Here 23 x 6 = 138, 23 x 22 = 506.
There is other evidence furnished by corruptions in the speeches
pro Sex. Roscio and pro Murena, which were copied directly from
Clun. 496.
Rose. 72 : ita moriuntur ut eorum ossa terra non tangat, ita iactantur fluctibus ut
numquam abluantur.
2 has : ita moriuntur ut eorum ossa terra non tangat ita iactantur [ut eorum ossa
terra non tangat, ita iactantur] fluctibus ut numquam abluantur.
This suggests in the exemplar :
ita moriuntur
ut eorum ossa terra non tangat (25)
ita iactantur
The writer looked back from iactantur to moriuntur , and he
repeated the intervening passage.
§ loi : eiusmodi ut libentibus animis ad eius testimonium vestrum ius iurandum
accommodetis
S has: eiusmodi ut libentibus animis ad eius [modi ut libentius animis ad eius]
testimonium etc.
This seems to indicate :
eius
modi ut libentibus animis ad (24)
eius testimonium
The writer looked back from eius to eius.
Mtir. 86 : confectus morbo, lacrimis ac maerore perditus
IS3S U
290 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
2^ has a lacuna of 22 letters between confectus and perditus. The
second hand adds in the margin :
lacrimis ac memore perditus (24)
This may represent a line of the exemplar.
The earliest Italian copy of which we know is Laur. 48. 10 (/4).
This was written by Joh. Arretinus, a Florentine calligrapher, in
1416, immediately after the arrival of Clun. 496 in Italy. I have
only noticed one omission of any importance in A, viz. Rose. 106 :
ac se in Chrysogoni fidem et clieiitelam contulerimt (44). It is possible
that this represents two lines of the model.
A ends suddenly at Rose. 106:
homines sapientes et ista aucto-
The rest of § 106, viz. :
-ritate et potestate praeditos ... ex animis amittimus
consists of 534 letters (allowing for official abbreviations).
The similarity of this omission to the repetition of 511 letters by
the French writer of the supplement at Clu, 127 is striking.
We know from the evidence of F. Barbaro that the Cluniacensis
was extremely illegible, and it is possible that Joh. Arretinus gave
up the end of the speech in despair. It must have been deciphered
soon afterwards, since it appears in another MS. (Perusinus E.']i),
which was written in the following year.
There is other evidence which may be used in this matter, viz.
that given by the excerpts of Bartolommeo (Laur. liv. 5). I have
noted in my published collation of these where in his excerpt he omits
something. The evidence has to be used with caution, since he
may have purposely omitted something which did not interest him.
I attach no importance to some short omissions, viz. :
(13) Clu. 30: huiusce causae
(14) Rose. 21 : vel nobilissima
(15) Che. 18: nihil mali timuit
(16) Miir. 19 : ius civile didicit
(17) Mtir. 68 : consulatum petenti
The other cases are :
(19) Chi. 41 : qui gener eius fuisset
(22) Mil. 54 : uter nihil mali cogitaret
(23) Clu. 8 : *sicut facere instituistis
^ Veius Cluniacensis of Poggio, p. vi.
PRO FONTEIO, PRO FLACCO, ETC. 291
(24) Clu. 40 : «simul atque introductus est
(26) Cael. 12 : *sicuti meminisse vos arbitror
Mur. 70: si interdiim ad forum deducimur
(34) Rose. 31 : *quae ad causam pertinere arbitror omnia
(38) Chi. 41 : •cum id multis locis fecisset post mortem eius
(46) Mur. 17 : ♦qui non modo Curiis, Catonibus, Pompeiis, antiquis illis
(48) Mur. 5 : *ipsi iam pridem tulerim de civium periculis defendendis.
The two last of these omissions are most important, since they
destroy the sense of the passage. Also Miir. 1 7 contains informa-
tion which Bartolommeo would find interesting. The relation of
46-8 to 22-4 is to be noticed.
It is to be observed that the cases of 19 and 38 occur in the
same section of the pro Clneiitio. They are only separated by the
words digito Icgata dclevit et (21). This is a somewhat remarkable
fact, which seems to suggest that Clun. 496 had :
qui gener eius fuisset (19)
digito legata deleuit et (21)
cum id multis locis fe (18)
cisset post mortem eius (20)
If SO, the breadth of the columns must have varied in places, as the
rest of the evidence is in favour of a larger unit.
I have noticed a corruption in B, to which I should attach more
importance than to the omissions, except Miir. 5 and 17, viz. :
Clu. 36 : ratio excogitata Larini est, res translata Romam (Romae IB),
B has excogitata for translata. This should indicate in the MS.
before Bartolommeo :
ratio
excogitata larini est res (22)
translata
His eye was caught by the beginning of the previous line (6;x.).
The combined evidence, therefore, appears to converge in one
direction.
pro Milonc.
Our authorities for the pro Milone are :
Taur. A. ii. 2*, cent. iv. This palimpsest has already been
described (p. 138). In this speech it is called P by editors, in order
to distinguish it from the Tegernseensis [T). Five leaves have been
preserved containing §§ 29-32, 34-6, 72-5, 86-8, 92-5.
U 2
292 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
Paris. 14749 (2), marginalia taken from Clun. 496. These are
reinforced by excerpts made from the Cluniacensis by Bartolommeo
da Montepolitiano [B), who was with Poggio at the time of the
discovery.
Had. 2683 {H), cent, xi. The readings of this MS., which
formerly belonged to Cologne Cathedral, generally agree with 25.
Tegernseensis (7^), cent, xi, now Monacensis 18787.
Erfurtensis {E), cent, xli/xiii, now Berol. Lat. Fol. 252.
There are also a number of Italian MSS., the oldest of which is
Laur. S. Crucis. xxiii, Sin. 3 {a), cent. xiv. This is copied from
a MS. which belonged to Lapo da Castiglioncho, a friend of
Petrarch.
There is a long lacuna in H, extending from § 18, cruentata, to
§ 37 iP^^^^ i^^-' As the marginalia in 2 stop at § 18 and begin again
^'^k 'M^ while Bartolommeo made no excerpts for the intermediate
sections, it is clear that the lacuna was shared by Clun. 496. In H
It is indicated by the critical sign RQ {= require), which has been
received into the text before criientata.
Within this long lacuna there is a minor lacuna common to all
the MSS. except the palimpsest, viz. :
§ 34 : -fuerit occidi . . . qui sibi solutam.
This passage begins at the top of col. i in the second folio of P and
ends in 1. 2 of the second column. A facsimile of the leaf is griven
by Peyron.^ There is a lacuna between -fuerit occidi and § '3)2)'>
which in TEa^ &c., ends with certe 11011 dcbeo.
There is a missing leaf of P between that which contains §§ 29-
32, and the one which begins with/^/^TzV occidi. Peyron pointed out
that this missing leaf contained more than is given by the other MSS.,
viz. § 32, etsi boni . . . 33, non debeo. He estimated the amount lost
as about equal to five lines of the edition (ed. Pat. 1754) employed
by him. The contents of the five folios of P which were preserved
occupy respectively 40^, 39I, 40^, 42^ lines of Teubner, and the
intervening blocks of the speech show the operation of a similar
unit. Here, however, TE cett. {defic. 1H) only contain enough to
fill 34 lines of Teubner text. If we take 39^-42^ as the limits of
variation for a folio of P, it follows that the missing leaf must have
^ Ciccronis oratioman fragmenta, pp. 221-2.
PRO FONTEIO, PRO FLACCO, ETC. 293
contained from 5|-8| more lines of Teubner text than is given by
TE cett.
Peyron filled the manifest lacuna before -fuerit by inserting
aitdistis, iudices, quantum Clodi before it. He also inserted higher
up in the same section after dcfcrrc posses two fragments quoted by
Quintil. ix. 2. 54 and the Scholiasta Bobicnsis, p. 176, ed. Hildcbrand.
It seems arbitrary to assume two lacunae, when one is manifest,
and Peyron's additions disturb the construction. It is now recognized
that they come not from the written speech, but from that actually
delivered, which, as Asconius tells us, was extant in his time, having
been taken down by the shorthand writers.
I now proceed to consider the long lacuna characteristic of the
Cluniacensis and H. It is natural to connect this with the shorter
lacuna in TE cett. If this is so, it follows that in the common
ancestor of our MSS., apart from P, the whole passage omitted
by 1H formed a certain number of folios, and that a folio ended
at ^ "i^t non debeo.
The first point, therefore, to ask is if there is any relation between
the passages omitted by ^H, but found in TE, before and after dcbeo.
The results as expressed in Teubner lines are :
§§ 18-33 • cruentata . . . non debeo = 210 lines
§§ 34-37 : P- Clodi . . . -terfici = 42 „
Here 42 x 5 = 210. So far we have no information as to whether
the unit is 42 or 21.
The question now comes as to what has been lost by TE cett.
after debeo. In the first place we have the passage preserved by P
only, viz. :
§ 34 : -fuerit occidi . . . qui sibi solutam.
This occupies 11 lines of Teubner text. To this we have to add
the lost passage after debeo, the existence of which is inferred by
Peyron from P. We have seen that this must have contained from
5^-8^ lines of Teubner text. If we take the largest figure we
have now 1 1 +8^ = 19^. There is no relation between this and 42,
but it is only i^ lines short of 21.
It is to be remembered that for § 34, -fuerit . . . stbi so/iitam, we
have the evidence of P only, and it is possible that P may have
omitted something which was preserved by the ancestor of the other
294 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
MSS. A place where the grammar appears to halt is after admitteret
in the sentence :
Quid Milonis intererat interfici Clodium ? quid erat cur Milo non dicam
admitteret, sad optaret ?
It seems probable that the unit is 21, not 42. If so, TE cett. omit
one folio of the common ancestor after § 2^'^, while 2//" omit
I04- 1 +2 = 13 ff.
It now remains to estimate the number of letters contained by
a page of the common ancestor of ^HTE, &c.
§§ 34-7? P- Clodi . . . -terfici, if we allow for a few official abbrevia-
tions, contain 1,748 letters. If these sections represent two folios,
we have the following figures :
874 letters = one folio
437 letters = one page.
If the MS. was written in two columns, this gives 218 letters to
the column. Such a MS. is likely to have been of great antiquity.
I have so far restricted myself to the mutilations in the text of
the speeches pro Fonteio, pj'o Flacco, pro Cluentio, and pro Milone.
I now mention some other points of interest connected with these
orations.
The first point concerns the other contents of V, apart from the
Philippics, viz. in Pisoftem, pro Fonteio, pro Flacco. The internal
evidence in their case shows different results from those furnished
by the Philippics.
I take first the Pisoniana. In this Fomits the following passages
found in the other MSS. :
(11) §43: conscientia
§ 46 : constitutas
§ 49 : periculoque
(33) § 55 • admoniti at rogati. Togulae lictoribus
To these should possibly be added :
(12) § 33 : in provinciam V^ : otn. V^, cett.
In this connexion a variant furnished by the cxcerpta Cusana deserves
mention.
§ 60 : quid tandem habet iste currus, quid vincti ante currum duces ?
Here Cits, has triuviphalis (11) before currus.
PRO FONTEIO, PRO FLACCO, ETC. 295
It is interesting to compare with these two other passages where
the later MSS. omit passages contained b)' F, viz. :
(11) § 70 : omnia stupra
(12) §48: cum iam egeret
In the second case V is supported by the Turin palimpsest (7^).'
The conclusion suggested by these omissions is that all our MSS.,
including F, are derived from an archetype containing about 11
letters to a line.
I have not included in this list a passage which needs some
explanation, \iz. •^ 48. Here the later MSS. give :
cum partim eius praedae profundae libidines devorassent, partim nova quae-
dam et inaudita luxuries, partim etiam in illis locis ubi omnia diripuit
emptiones, partim pemiutationes ad hunc Tusculanum (-ni TV) montem
exstruendum.
partim permutationes (19) om. T.
In V partim after emptiones is written in rasura^ while in the next
line the last four letters of Tuseulafii have been corrected in darker
ink and the rest of the line is left blank. A second, but contem-
porary hand, has inserted above Tnsculani in darker ink an additional
line, vmtatioiies ad Jitinc {}(>)• The natural interpretation is that the
first hand wrote emptiones ad hunc Tuseiilamim, and that the corrector
erased hiinc^ over which he wrote partim. He then added mutatiottes
hune above the line and altered Tjisculamim to Tuscuhvii. It is to
be noticed that in the first quaternion of F the average content of
a line in col. 3 is 17 letters. It is therefore possible that F^ omitted
a line of an ancestor written in the same formation, the mistake
being due to 0/1.
Omissions are especially frequent in the case of repetitions such as
partim . . .partim (e.g. Rn/l. ii. 36), and the omission by TV^ seems
due to accident. M. Havet very ingeniously emends to partim
mutnatiofies.^
In this connexion I would mention another passage :
§ 21 : ex omni scelerum importunitate et flagitiorum impunitate conceptum.
So the later MSS. T omits et flagitiorum impimitate (23). V is not
^ This is generally called P by editors in this speech.
* Manuel de critique verbale, § 220.
296 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
extant for this portion of the speech. T may have omitted two lines
of the archetype, the omission being due to oju,.
The following variety in collocation is interesting :
§ 70 : omnia cenariim conviviorumque genera
So V: the later MSS. have genera conviviortim. It seems likely that
co7tviviortim was omitted (ojoi.) and inserted after genera, -que being
omitted. This passage comes immediately after omnia stupra (so
V'. om. cett.). The archetype may have had :
omnia stupra (11)
omnia cenarum (12)
conuiuiorum (11)
que genera
I have noticed other transposition variants which point in the
same direction, viz. :
§ 47 : sanctissimo et gravissimo V: gravissimo et sanctissimo celi.
Here e\\.her sanctissimo (11) or gravissimo (10) appears to have been
inserted in the wrong place after omission.
§ 70 : non ut improbum, non ut audacem, non ut impurum V
non ut impurum, non ut improbum, non ut audacem cetL
The variants appear to go back to an ancestor which had :
non ut improbum (13)
non ut audacem (12)
non ut impurum (12)
§ 64 : infimo ac despicatissimo sis antelaturus V
es infimo ac despicatissimo antelaturus cett.
Here sis is a mistake for es. Apparently es was omitted and sis
inserted by conjecture. It is to be noticed that the words infimo ac
despicatissimo consist of 23 letters (= 2 lines).
§ 65 : ne acclametur times ? Ne id quidem est curare philosophi. Manus
tibi ne adferantur ?
So V\ the other MSS. place times after adferantnr. The words
ne id . . . adferantur contain 50 letters.
The following corruptions are interesting :
§ 70 ; ceteris studiis quae fere Epicureos neglegere dicunt V
studiis quae fere ceteros Epicureos neglegere dicunt cett.
Here ceteros appears to be a variant for ceteris, which has got into
PRO FONTKIO, PRO FLACCO. KTC. 297
the text later on in the sentence. The words ceteris . . .fere contain
22 letters. The archetype may have had :
rug. ceteros ceteris studi (12)
is quae fere (10)
Epicureos
§ 57 : ut levitatis est inanem aucupari rumorem et omnis umbras etiani
falsae gloriae consectari, sic est levis animi lucem splendoremque
fugientis iustam gloriam . . . repudiare.
So V: the other ]\ISS. place levis after animi. The word is struck
out by editors with Lambinus. It looks like a variant for levitatis,
which has got into the wrong place. The words levitatis . . . sic est
consist of 80 letters.
§ 72 : non ilia tibi, inquit, invidia nocuit sed versus tui. Nimis magna
poena te consule constituta est sive malo poetae sive libero. Scripsisti
enim, cedant arma togae.
So V: the other MSS. add versus after scripsisti cniin. This looks
like an addition from versus tui. The words versus tui . . . scripsisti
enivi^ if we write cons, for consule, consist of 81 letters. The agree-
ment with § 57 is to be noticed.
The general conclusion is that, apart from § 48, where T may
have omitted a line of a predecessor very like itself, the internal
evidence is in favour of referring both /'and the other MSS. to an
archetype written in lines of about 11 letters.
In the case of the pro Fonteio there is little evidence, since we
are wholly dependent on /'. The following corruptions of Fseem
to point to a similar conclusion :
§ 32 : omnes [in] equites R. qui in ilia prouincia fuerunt V
This suggests in a previous MS. :
omnes
equites R. qui (I i)
in ilia
The scribe looked forward to the next line.
§ 25 : fuit, fuit illis iudicibus divinum ac singulare iudicium, consilium, qui
se non solum de reo [iudicium] sed etiam de accusatore, dc teste iudi-
care arbitrabantur V
Here editors read indices for iudicium, after singulare. The word
has been repeated by error after reo. Probably there were variants,
i. e. iudicium and indices, in the model.
298 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
The words iiidiciwn {mdices) . . . de reo consist of 0^'^ (34) letters.
The writer appears to have looked back three lines.
§ 23 : de clarissimis [dubitandum] nostrae ciuitatis uiris dubitandum non
putauerunt V
YiQxe dtibitaudtim (10) is repeated before nostrae civitatis vir is (21).
This suggests in a previous MS. :
nostrae ciui (11)
talis uiris (10)
dubitandum (10)
I would call attention to the following insertions made by editors
where V has lost a word :
(10) § 17 : victoribus suppl. Niebuhr
(11) § 42 : fortissimis suppl. Orelli
I now come to the p7'o Flacco. Very little internal evidence is
yielded by V. I have noticed the following corruptions :
§ 40 : cum tabulae illae ipsae, cuicuimodi sunt, proferuntur.
So editors with Schiitz. For anciiimodi V^ gives hidusmodi {in
rasnra), while 2, &c., have cninsccmodi. It is to be observed that
V inserts ciii before C7im. This looks like part of cnicui-, which has
got into the wrong place. On the analogy of the iji Pisonem and
pro Fonteio we may suppose that V in this speech also was derived
from a similar, or the same, ancestor. If so, this may have had :
cum tabulae (10)
illae ipsae (10)
}iig. cui cuimodi
§ 46 : civem suum, cui debebat esse notissimus, percussit. Eius enim fide
sumpsit a Fufiis
For suimi V has S7mic. The corruption sum for sunm is found else-
where in V. The addition of -e, however, is odd. It is to be noticed
that V gives Jides iox fide. In view of the parallel corruptions which
V displays in the Philippics^ it occurs to me that the e of sume
e
represents a correction of fides (i. e. fides). The words cui . . .fides
consist of 46 letters. A previous MS. may have had :
ciuem sum
cui debebat es (12)
se notissimus (12)
percussit ei (11)
us enim fides (11) mg: e
PRO FOxXTEIO, PRO FLACCO, ETC. 299
I have not observed any certain case where J' omits. There is,
however, one doubtful one, which is worth mentioning, viz. :
§ 47 : habebat enim rhetor iste discipulos quosdam locupletis, quos dimidio
redderet stultiores quam acceperat
So Fand Arusianus (cent, iv-v A.D.). The other MSS. add:
ubi nihil possent (-int) discere nisi ignorantiam litterarum.
This addition is generally regarded as an interpolation. It is to be
noticed that the clausula is excellent, but this may be due to
accident.
The ScJioliasta Bobiensis, after quoting in his lemma habebat . . .
acceperat, adds the following scholium :
inludit personae rhetoris imperiti, hanc eruditionem discipuloium fuisse in
eius schola dicens ut in ea nihil disceretur praeter ignorantiam litterarum
It appears to me that this note implies the presence of the incrimi-
nated words in the text before the scholiast. It is to be noticed
that he uses the word dicens, not significans, or iniiuens.
The passage in question consists of 46 letters (cf. the corruption
in § 4.6, sttvic), which would suffice for four lines of the previous MS.
If it is genuine, ubi seems to be a corruption for cum.
I now turn to 2 and allied MSS. I have noticed the following
omissions :
(15) § 72 : et lectissimorum
(^7) § 36 : nuilam constantiam
(18) § 18 : imperio fuerit summo {adii. in. 2)
§ 44 : et conficientissima
(56) § 75 : ipsi quidem dicunt. Vellem tantum habere me otii, ut possem
recitare
(72) § 105 : ♦est, nos qui iam progressi sumushunc exitum nostrae temeritatis
feremus. Sin hoc animo {add. m. 2)
(79) ib.: quid sentiatis. Huic, huic misero puero vestroac liberorum vestrorum
supplici, iud., hoc iudicio
In this family the speech pro Quinctio is closely connected with the
pro Flacco. In 2 these two speeches, also the pro Cluentio, are
written in a different hand, with longer lines than those employed
in the previous part of the MS. It is therefore worth while to
compare the omissions of 2, &c., in the pro Quinctio. I have
noticed the following cases :
(18) § 73 : et complures fuerunt
(23) § 33 : is posteriore loco diceret
300 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
{37) § 10 • atque obsecrat ut multis iniuriis iactatam
(56) § 85 : eum qui non latitaret, cui Romae domus uxor liberi procurator esset
{77) § 44 : * quod peto, satis det. Actum iam potest esse, C. Aquili ; iam tu
potes liberatus discedere molestia (aM. m. 2).
(79) § 85 : ita possideto ut Ouinctio vis ne adferatur. Quid ? tu id quem ad
modum observas ? Mitto illud dicere (add. m. 2).
(85) § 92 : nos nostram perfacile cuivis probaturos statuebamus ; quod vitae ratio
cum ratione vitae decerneret
(167) § S3 : aut ad eorum aliquem qui consuluntur concurrisses ? Cum ius amici-
tiae societatis adfinitatis ageretur, cum officii rationem atque existima-
tionis duci conveniret, eo tempore tu non modo ad C. Aquilium
The relation between 85 and 167 deserves especial notice. In
both speeches the occurrence of omissions of 70-80 letters is
remarkable, especially those of 77 and 79 letters in Qtnnct. 85
and 44. It is especially significant that in three cases, Flacc. 7a,
Qiiinct. 44, 85, the passage omitted is added in the margin. The
inference is that the writer omitted lines of his model. As in these
speeches 21 contains 70-80 letters to a line, it would appear that it
was copied from a MS. very similar to itself.
Further evidence is to be obtained from Xh^ pro Cliientio. I have
already given a list of the passages omitted by the first hand in this
MS. (p. 287). Apart from one shorter omission, we find the following
figures: ^% 75 {bis), 78, 81.
I now combine these omissions in the three speeches :
(72) Flacc. 105 {add. m. 2)
(73) Clu. 55 {add. ni. 2)
(75) Chi. 72 {add. m. 2)
190 {add. m. 2)
{77) Qidnct. 44 {add. m. 2)
(78) Clu. 172 {add. m. 2)
(79) Quinct. 85 {add. in. 2), Flacc. 105
(81) Clu. 175 {add. 7)1. 2)
(85) Quinct. 92
(167) Quinct. 53
There is no reason to suppose that the parent of the 2 family was
a MS. of any antiquity. There can be no doubt that a number of
abbreviations were employed in it. The general agreement, there-
fore, between these passages, when written in full, is striking.
It will be noticed that two of these omissions occur in immediate
proximity to each other, viz. in Flacc. 105. The intervening words
PRO FONTEIO, PRO FLACCO. ETC. 301
here consLst of 44 letters. This is at first sight puzzhng, but it is
only necessary to write out the passage in order to see the solution.
The parent MS. seems to have had :
est nos qui iam progress! sumus luinc cxitum nostrae temeritatis feremus sin hoc animo (72)
quam plurimos esse uullis declarabitis hoc iudicio quid sentiatis hnic huic misero puero (76)
uestro ac liberorum uestrorum supplici iud. hoc iudicio uiuendi praecepta dabitis
}S omits 1. I, without o\x., and in 11. 2-3 writes dcclarabitis hoc
iudicio uiuendi praecepta dabitis med. om. (6/i.).
The corrector repaired the first omission, but did not notice the
second.
One further point deserves mention. It is to be observed that
both in the/;'6? Flacco2iVi<\ in \.\\^ pro Quinctio there is an omission of
^6 letters, coming before the longer omissions with which I have
just dealt. This may be due to mere coincidence, but it is also
possible that 56 = a line in a previous ancestor. The second view
acquires considerable probability from :
Quinct. 85 : ita possideto ut Quinctio vis ne adferatur. Quid ? tu id quern
ad modum observas? Mitto illud dicere, eum qui non latitaret, cui
Romae domus, uxor, liberi, procurator esset, eum qui etc.
The whole of this passage was omitted by -^ The corrector added
in the margin :
ita possideto . . . dicere (79)
but did not add
eum qui . . . esset (56)
The inference appears to be that the words cum qui . . . cssct were
already absent from the model.
I now return to the Cluniacensis. I have already collected evidence,
chiefly based on the errors committed by the writer who inserted
supplements in the pro Clueutio, io show that this was written in lines
averaging 23-4 letters. I have noticed indications which seem to
show that it was derived from an ancestor very like itself. In the
Clucntiana this ancestor seems to be the parent of all the MSS.
I quote the following cases :
Clu. 72 : queritur se ab Oppianico destitutum et qui esset totus ex fraude et
mendacio factus quique ea vitia quae ab natura habebat etiam artificio
malitiae condivisset, puichre adseverat sese ab Oppianico destitutum
So M\i. : as no variant is quoted in 2, it is probable that Clun. had
303 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
the same reading. Peterson strikes out qiieritur se . . . destituUmi.
It appears probable that the words se . . . destittitmn (after queritur)
are a repetition from the context (after adsevevat).
The words in question consist of 23 letters, and the intervening
passage, ct qui . . . adseverat se-, consists of 139 letters. Here
33 X 6 = 138. This suggests the following arrangement in the
common ancestor :
queritur
et qui esset totus ex fraude (23)
et mendacio factus quique ea (24)
uitia quae ab natura habebat (24)
etiam studio atque artifi (22)
cio quodam malitiae condi (22)
uisset pulchre adseuerat se (24)
se ab oppianico destitutum (23)
§ 84. The reading of Mix here is :
istam conciliationem gratiae Staienus turn recenti re cum faucibus preme-
retur excogitavit sive ut homines tum loquebantur a P. Cethego admonitus
istam dedit conciliationis et gratiae fabulam.
Two variants are quoted in S, viz. conciliatiojiis gratiam at the
beginning of the sentence and iutro to be inserted before dedit.
The passage is undoubtedly corrupt, apart from the repetition
conciliationem gratiae {conciliationis gratiam) and conciliatiotiis et
gratiae. An insertion which appears necessary is that of est (Kayser)
after adnionitjis. At the beginning of the sentence ita, a word fre-
quently confused with ista, seems to be required for istam. I pre-
viously considered intro in 2 to stand for idtro and inserted sive
nltro before excogitavit. I now incline to think that intro = intro,
and that dedit should be emended to dnxit (i. e. istam introduxit
fabidani).
The simplest explanation of the repetition is that a variant for
conciliationis et gratiae has got into the context higher up. This
suggests the following arrangement. I ignore the emendations
which have been proposed, but add intro from 21 :
istam
staienus tum recenti re cum (23)
faucibus premeretur exco (22)
gitauit sine ut homines tum (23)
loquebantur a P. cethego ad (22)
PRO FONTEIO, PRO FLACCO, ETC. 303
monitus istam iutro dedit (22)
m^. conciliationis conciliationis et gratiae (23)
gratiam fabulam
The similarity between this passage and § ']Z should be noticed.
In § 72 the passage ct qui . . . adscuerat se- consists of 139 letters.
Here the words Stairnus . . .gratiae consist of 135. If wc admit
est after advionitus, the total would be 138.
I would also compare :
§ 137: ut id quod senatus decreverat ad illud invidiae praesens incendium
restinguendum, id postea referendum ad populum non arbitrarentur.
So M\i. : no variant is quoted from ^, though in so small a point the
argument from silence does not prove much.
Peterson strikes out id after ret. It seems more likely that id has
been repeated hz^oxQ postea. If so, an ancestor may have had :
ut
id quod senatus decreuerat (23)
ad illud inuidiae praesens (23)
incendium restinguendum (22)
postea
The scribe looked back three lines.
I add one more passage which occurs in one of the lacunae, where
we have not the evidence of M\x :
§ 153 : huiusce modi quaestionibus in iudicium vocarentur. Tunc (tum edd.)
C. Flavius Pusio, Cn. Titinius, C. Maecenas, ilia robora P. R. ceterique
eiusce modi ordinis.
So - and the Italian copies. Editors read ciiisdcju ordinis with
Klotz. It seems probable that -cc modi has been repeated from the
context. An ancestor of - (and probably of J/j may have had:
huius
ce modi quaestionibus in iudi (25)
cium uocarentur tunc C. flauius (26)
pusio Cn. titinius C. maecenas (24)
ilia robora P. R. ceterique eius (25)
ordinis
The writer looked back from eius to huius.
I now call attention to the following passages in \.\\c pro Murcua:
§ 58 : saepe hoc maiores natu dicere audivi, banc accusatoris eximiam vim,
dignitatem, plurimum L. Cottae profuisse.
304 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
So 2 and all Italian copies with any claim to authority. Some
late MSS. insert et after vim, while the editio Romana omits vim.
It occurs to me that vim is a repetition from -vi in aitdivi. If so,
a previous MS. may have had :
audi
\\\ banc accusatoris eximiam (24)
dignitatem
§ 65 :, Nihil ignoveris. Immo aliquid, non omnia. Immo gratiae confeceris.
Immo resistito gratiae.
So the MSS., except Lag. 9, which has 7iihil omnino for immo
before gratiae. Editors read here nihil, and afterwards causa feceris
for confeceris. A previous MS. may have had :
nihil gratiae confeceris (22)
immo resistito gratiae
If we credit it with causa feceris, the content of the line would be
24 letters.
§ 67 : si mercede conducti obviam candidatis issent, si conduct! sectarentur
So 2 : for conducti, after viereede, the Italian copies have corrupii.
Neither word is necessary, as is shown by § 70, at sectabantur multi.
Doce mercede. It seems probable that conducti was inserted from
the context. An ancestor may have had :
si mercede
obuiam candidatis issent si (24)
conducti sectarentur
Before I quit this part of the subject I would refer to two passages
in the Chtentiana, where there are indications of a remote ancestor
written in narrow columns, viz. :
§ 176 : cum essent animi servorum et spe et metu temptati ut abquid in
quaestione dicerent, tamen, ut arbitror, auctoritate advocatorum et vi
tormentorum adducti in veritate manserunt.
This passage occurs in one of the lacunae, so we have not the
evidence of M[x. The statement that the slaves stuck to the truth
on account of the cruelty of the torture is manifestly absurd, and the
words were struck out by Halm and others. It has occurred to me
as more probable that they should be transposed, i. e. after et spe et
metu, and I observe from Orelli's note that this suggestion was
previously made by Scheller.
PRO FONTEIO, PRO FLACCO, ETC. 305
The words ct vi tormentorum consist of 15 letters, while the
passage tonptaii . . . advocatoriim contains 74 letters. Here 15 x 5
= 'lii. This suggests the arrangement :
et spe et metu
et ui tormentorum
(15)
temptati ut all
(13)
quid in quaestione
(16)
dicerent tamen ut
(15)
arbitror auctori
(15)
tate aduocatorum
(15)
adducti
§ 130 : iudicia cum equestri ordine communicata, ut viderentur per hominum
idoneorum ignominiam sua auctoritaie ilia iudicia [cum equestri ordine]
reprehendisse
So 2 and the Italian copies. The passage occurs in one of the
lacunae, so we have not the evidence of J/ju.
The Turin palimpsest omxts, ann equestri ordine after indicia, also
ilia before it.
Apart from other possible corruptions, it is clear that the words
citm eqncstri ordine (17) are repeated from the context. The inter-
vening passage comninnicata . . , ilia indicia consists of 77 letters.
This suggests the distribution :
iudicia
cum equestri ordine
(17)
communicata ut ui
(15)
derentur per homi
(15)
num idoneorum igno
(16)
miniam sua auctori
(16)
tate ilia iudicia
(15)
reprehendisse
The writer looked back from indicia to indicia, and repeated a line.
The remaining speech with which I have dealt in this chapter is
Xhe pro Milonc. I have found it somewhat barren of results for the
purposes of this inquiry.
There is nothing to notice in the leaves of the Turin palimpsest
except two transposition variants, viz. :
§ 74 : exstruere aedificium P : aedificium exstruere ce//.
§ 31 : non illud iam in iudicium venit P : illud iam in judicium venit non cet/.
Here aedificium =10. illnd . . . venit = 23. I merely mention
1033 X
3o6 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
these on account of certain other transposition variants in this
speech.
There remain 'S.HTEa.
I take first a and the dett. generally.
Apart from certain omissions which they share with T or TE,
they have the following which are peculiar to them :
(15) § 36 : iudiciumne timui {om. a in lac.)
(20) § 61 : commisit neque senatui
(23) § 48: sed Milonem appropinquare
(30) § 44 : vos potestis dubitare quid fecerit
(57) § 12 : propter magna in r. p. merita mediocris in bonis causis auctoritas aut
(80) § 79 : * aut ipsum ab inferis excitare, utrum putatis potius facturum fuisse ?
Etiam si propter amicitiam
(246) § 78 : nihil eorum vos visuros fuisse. In spem maximam et, quern ad modum
confido, verissimam sumus adducti, hunc ipsum annum, hoc summo viro
cons., compressa hominum Hcentia, cupiditatibus fractis, legibus et iudi-
ciis constitutis, salutarem civitati fore. Num quis igitur est tam demens
qui hoc P. Clodio vivo
The relation between 80 and 246 is to be noticed.
I now take T, marking agreements with E and 8 (i. e. a, ceti.) :
(10) §38: * agnovisset
§ 102 : a quibus non (E)
§ 104 : non debitas
fll) §28: numquam fere
§ 30: etiam beluis {E8)
(13) § 105: et fortissimum (8)
(19) § 31 • ^^ hoc igitur latum est
(55) §5°- noctu occidisset. Insidioso et pleno latronum in loco occidisset (£"6)
(70) § 21 : amicos meos. Neque enim hoc cogitavit vir iustissimus neque in
bonis viris legendis
(87) § 13 •' ** amentiam perditorum. Hanc vero quaestionem etsi non est ini-
qua numquam tamen senatus constituendam pu-
It is to be noticed that the longest passage is telescoped. 7" itself
is written in long lines with a number of abbreviations, and lines of
80 or more letters, if written in full without abbreviations, are
common. I have noticed in the Philippics three omissions of 84-9
letters, also six of 74-9, one of which (xiii. 34) is a telescoped
passage. There is also an omission of 77 letters in Plane. 72, and
one of 152 in Caec. 91. The probability, therefore, is that in Mil. 13
T has omitted a line of its model.
PRO FONTEIO. PRO FLACCO, ETC. 307
Three omissions of T are common to E, the chief being in § 50
{b^' No evidence in the shape of special omissions is furnished
\iy E.
I now turn to H and the Cluniacensis. The closeness of their
connexion may be seen from :
§ 8 : aut C. Marius
Here H omits aut C. 2 inserts //. «? as a variant from Clun. This
shows either that Clun. had in the margin Jut aut C, or that hd had
been received into the text.
In connexion with this I would mention :
§ 67 : armata est.
For est 2 has stint^ while H has swtt R. Here R = require.
There is a point of contact between Clun., //, and E^ in that all
three contain a mediaeval argument to the speech. This is given
by i in a fly-sheet at the beginning of the MS., by H after the
speech de Iviperio Cn. Pofufei, and by E before the pro Milone. It
is to be noted that E generally reproduces the readings of the second
hand in H.
There are a number of agreements between the text of //, or //"+
Clun., and that of Asconius and the Scholiasta Bobiensis, the most
striking being in § 46, where //, with Asconius, omits cuius . . . et
Roviae.
^ does not give any direct evidence as to omissions in Clun., but
some is provided by the excerpts of Bartolommeo, which in this
speech are unusually copious.
1 now give a list of omissions in //, adding agreements or dis-
agreements of ^. Where B is not mentioned, the passage does not
occur in the excerpts :
(11) § 57 : occideritne om. H
§ 105 : illam beatam ovi. BH
(12) § 86: sine lamentis om. BH
(13) § 42 : fabulam falsam B, cett. : om. If
(14) § 48: non id nuntiasse om. H
§ 67 : si Miionem times vm. H
('5) § 79 : * haec est quaestio ' om. H
' This is very doubtful. H has nempc . de interitu P. Clodi : T£S have nem/e haec est
quaestio de hileritu P. Clodi. H seems to preserve the earliest form of a gloss.
X 2
30cS DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
(30) § 4 : de bonis et fortibus viris, si umquam oin. BH
(33) § 9^ • sustinetis furias insepulti ? nisi vero on. H
I have not included in this list :
(63) § 46 : cuius iam pridem testimonio Clodius eadem hora Interamnae
fuerat et Romae
Here the omission is shared by Asconius in his lemma, while in his
scholutm he gives the information contained in these words. The
frequency of the agreements between H and Asconius seems to show
that the passage is an insertion.
There is only one passage which seems to throw any real light
upon the relations of Clun., //, TEh, viz. :
§50: noctuoccidisset. Insidiosoet plenolatronum in locooccidisset. Nemo
ei neganti non credidisset.
So 2, H repeats nemo . . . credidisset before insidioso, while TEh
omit noctii occidisset . . . loco occidisset. Of this omission Richter
said, * es scheint eine Zeile in der gemeinsamen Quelle von TE n. a.
iibersprnngcn zn scin '.
Here the words nocfu occidisset . . . loco occidisset consist of ^^
letters, while the words nemo . . . credidisset consist of 27 letters.
This is a striking fact and suggests in a previous MS. the arrange-
ment :
noctu occidisset insidioso et (26)
pleno latronum in loco occidisset (29)
nemo ei neganti non credidisset (27)
Here TEh omit 1. 3, while the writer of H, passing from occidisset
to occidisset, has inserted the line out of place, as well as loco sno.
In connexion with this I would mention a passage which occurs
shortly above (§ 47). Here the MSS. give :
lacent suis testibus, hi qui Clodium negant eo die Romam nisi de Cyro
audisset fuisse rediturum
Here Garatoni struck out Jii, while RicJitcr reads eis. I formerly
struck out the whole clause as a scholium, but now feel doubts in
view of the excellent clausula.
We have seen that various critical signs occur in the MSS., viz. hd
in 2 (§ 8), RQ mH {\\ 8), also Km H (§ 67). In E the lacuna after
debeo (§ ■}y'^ is marked by dee above the line. I, therefore, suggest
that here /// may stand for /i, the ordinary sign for omission. The
PRO FONTEIO, PRO FLACCO. ETC. 309
words in question qui . . . rcdititrjivi consist of 59 letters, which is
very like the omission of 55 letters by TEh in § 50.
There is another passage in which a notorious corruption may be
due to a similar cause, vi/.. :
§ 66 : cum tamen si metuitur etiam nunc Milo
Man)' emendations have been made, into which I need not now
enter. I would refer to Mur. 51. Here 2 has:
partim . . . quia nihil timebant, partim quia timebant. Cue
In the margin is : al. que iicl cur. The Italian copies have cum, cur,
qui, etc. These appear to me various corruptions for q or que
(= quaere).^ Probably timebatit after quia has been substituted for
o]n}iia.
It is possible that cu)n here is due to a similar misunderstanding.
If so, I would emend tanicn si to tauwtsi. The paragraph would
then end thus :
tametsi metuitur etiam nunc Milo
It is to be noticed that the words consist of 2H letters. It is possible
that a line was omitted and q was written in the margin to mark
the corruption. For this suggestion I would refer to :
Dotn. 30 : idemque cum dixisset, turn etiam pro salute mea populum Roma-
num obsecravit
ITalm marks a lacuna between idcmquc and dixisset, saying V/^;;/
supra versum a vetere manu P habet atque videntur plura verba
cxcidisse '. I do not agree with Halm's theory of the additions
made in P, but the grammar seems odd. We should expect ideviquc
cum dixit, turn ctiavi. It is possible that cum here is a corrup-
tion of ^. In this case its position above the line would be
natural.
I conclude this chapter by putting together some facts concerning
the Catilinariac and Cacsariauac{pro Marccllo. pro Ligario, prorege
Deiotaro), The speeches were much read during the middle ages,
as is shown by the large number of MSS. The criticism of the two
groups is closely connected. They are generally found together,
and in both there are three families of MSS., which Nohl, who is
followed by recent editors, distinguishes as a, ,i, y.
• The coiruptions que, quae, cur, found in the MSS. of l.ucrclius at vi. S40, after
a lacuna, are probably due to this symbol.
3IO DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
Three members of a contain both Catilinariae and Caesarianae,
viz. :
C = Clun. 498, now Holkham. 387, cent. ix.
A = Ambros. C. 29 infr., cent. x.
V = Vossianus, Lat. O. 2, cent. xi.
To these must be added in the Catilinarians :
a = Laur. xlv, cent. xiii.
Also, in the Caesarimiac :
H = Harl. 2682, cent. xi.
In this MS. there are two copies of these speeches. The second
belongs to a, and the first to y. H also contains the Catilinarians ,
but in these speeches its recension is mixed and I term it h.
The general superiority of the a group cannot be doubted, although
occasional contributions are made by the other groups. Thus, to
take a clear case :
Cat. ii. 27 : conivere possum y, Schol. Gronov., Probtis, Sacerdos : consiilere
sibi possunt <j/3
Here the true reading is preserved by y only.
H. Reeder ^ has examined the quotations of Quintilian and the
grammarians in order to fix by their aid the respective antiquity of
a, /3, y in the Caesarianae. His conclusion is that the a text is in
the main that used by Quintilian. He says :
' Quintiliani temporibus unam tantum recensionem praesto fuisse neque proba-
bile esse alteram tunc exstitisse supra intelleximus.'
Priscian (cent, vi) generally agrees with a, but on three occasions
with /3. Among earlier writers he finds one agreement with /3 in
Sacerdos, cent, iii {Lig. 21, doini) and one in Diomedes, cent, iv
{Lig. 10, acuit). He therefore pronounces this family to be satis
vetnsia. He finds no support for y in the ancient quotations and
declares it to be unworthy of notice.
The line of argument which he adopts seems to me vitiated by
the fact that very ancient MSS. contain double readings which
represent traditional variants. Thus on Oxyrhynchus 16, cent, i,
Thuc. iv. 36-41, the editors remark :
'The text is rendered particularly interesting by the presence of a considerable
number of double readings. Of these the majority are certainly by the original
^ De codicibus in Ciceronis orationibiis Caesarianis recte aestiviandis. Jena, 1906.
PRO FOXTEIO, PRO FLACCO, ETC. 311
scribe, and may be explained either as traditional variae lectiones, or — though
perhaps less probably — as the result of the use of more than one MS. by the
copyist, who was careful in cases of disagreement to record alternatives.'
Ox. 1017, cent, ii/iii, Plato, Phacdrus, also contains a number of
double readings, one of which supports a conjecture of Heindorf,
while others appear in later MSS.
The evidence of the papyri is seldom in favour of one group of
MSS. exclusively. I take as a typical example Ox. 463, cent, ii/iii,
Xenophon, Anabasis. The editors remark :
'The peculiarity of the papyrus lies in the fact that it combines lections
characteristic of both classes of MSS. Thus, while agreeing in several cases
with the superior family against the inferior, it shows six instances of agreement
with the inferior class against the superior where the latter is clearly wrong.'
The eclectic character of the papyri is also pointed out elsewhere,
e.g. on Ox. 84:^, Plato, Symposium^ cent, ii/iii ; H44, Isocrates, cent,
ii/iii; and especially 1251, Cicero, /;y? Caclio. Of this it is said :
' Its salient characteristic is its heterogeneousness. While sharing not seldom
the excellences of 2, it has side by side with these a number of distinctive P
readings, some good, some bad, and occasionally carries back to the fifth century
the tradition of still later authorities. The high antiquity of the bulk of the
variants is the chief lesson of the papyrus.'
I have already called attention to the variants found in the palim-
psest of the dc Re Publica and the strange conflations of different
readings, e. g. quods and ncqmx, given by V in the Philippics.
I do not, therefore, think that the agreements of Sacerdos and
Diomedes with fi on two occasions prove anything more than that
these were ancient variants. I conceive the u text both here and in
the Catilinarians to be on the whole that of Cicero, but I am willing
to suppose that /3 and y occasionally preserve the true reading.
As examples where (iy or y must be taken into account, I would
give :
Marc. 2 : conservatam ac restitutam /3y : conservatam a
Omissions of this kind are so frequent in the best MSS. that I now
incline to follow /3y.
Lig. 14 : cave credas, cave ignoscas, cave . . . te misereat y: cave ignoscas,
cave . . . te misereat a^
Here again the explanation of omission through i\).. seems most
likely.
312
DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
A peculiarly instructive case is :
Cat. ii. 29 : urbem pulcherrimam florentissimam potentissitnamque y : urbem
pulcherrimam florentissimamque A Va(3
When C, the most important member of a, came to light, it was
found to agree with y, not with the other members of a.
I now turn to a. The following omissions are common to -<4 F in
the Catilinariaiis and A VH in the Caesarianae. The portions of
these speeches extant in Care: Cat. \. 1-5, 17-ii. 11, 15-11'' i,9-I9j
23-6, iv. 8-15 ; Lig. 18-28, 38 — Deiot. 6, Deiot. 15-43.
Where we have the evidence oi C\ use the symbol Co. \
* nutu atque Ca
aliquando a
praecipue a
est factum a (factum C)
* contra rem p. a
* diligenter Ca
domesticos Ca
* si id feceris Ca
nihil moliris a
* esse fateatur Ca
et contemptam a
studio virtute a
conservatam ac a
et quam manifesta a
intus insidiae sunt Ca
artium atque optimarum a
amicitias res rationes Ca
conflagrare sed in hac urbe Ca
solus inquam es, C. Caesar, cuius in Ca
minueretur hie ad evertenda fundamenta rei p. Ca
ad obsidendum stuprum verum etiam ad facinus obeundum,
vigilare non solum Ca
In this list the noteworthy point is the number of small omissions
(9-12 letters), which reminds us of similar phenomena to be observed
in the MSS. of the Verrincs.
We have also omissions peculiar to one or more members of the
family, viz. :
C^ omits :
(15) Cat. ii. 25 : pudicitia illinc
(23) Deiot, 42 : cum e balineo exisses tecum
(56) Cat. i. 23 : vix feram sermones hominum, vix molem istius invidiae, si in
exilium
(9)
Cat. iii. 18
Marc. II
Lig. 28
Deiot. 18
(10)
Cat. i. 7
27
Deiot. 5
(II)
Cat. i. 23
(12)
Cat. i. 15
ii. 9
iv. 20
(13)
Cat. iv. 18
Marc. 2
(15)
Cat. iii. 3
(17)
Cat. ii. 1 1
(20)
Lig. 12
Deiot. 27
(23)
Cat. iii. 25
(27)
Deiot. 34
(38)
Cat. iv. 13
(62)
Cat. i. 26
PRO FOXTEIO, PRO FLACCO, ETC. 313
CA omit :
(10) Cat. iv. 10: ct corporis
(12) Deioi.iZ: turn non diibito
(17) Deiot. 25 : tibi porro inimicus
A or AH ovc(\\. :
(12) Ca/. iv. 7 : et miseriarum //
(18) Lig. 29 : persequamini si rei p. A
(20) Marc. 25 : si tibi soli viveres aut AH
Li^- 13 : et nos iacentis ad pedes A (not //)
(38) Cat. i. 32 : tantam in nobis consiilibus^ fore diligentiam A'^
(113) Ca/. iii.27: mentes enim hominum audacissimonim sceleratae ac nefariae
ne vobis nocere possent ego providi, ne mihi noceant vestrum est pro-
videre A
C is defective in all of these cases, except Cat. i. 32, where it does
not share the omission of A"^.
V omits :
(9) C<z/. iii. 28 : in nobis is
(16) Cat.\\\.i\ : *a nefariis civibus
(17) Cat. iv. 18 : vobis aras Penatium
(18) Cat. iii. 2 : restinximus idemque
(26) Cat. i. 19 : et ad vindicandum fortissimiim
(42) Cat. i. 16 : assedisti partem istam subselliorum nudam atque
(46) Cat. i. 17 : tarn graviter atque ofifensiim viderem, carere me aspectu
(152) Cat. i. 13 : num dubitas id me imperante facere quod iam tua sponte
faciebas ? Exire ex urbe iubet cons, hostem. Interrogas me, num in
exsilium ? Non iubeo, sed, si me consulis, suadeo. Quid est enim,
Catilina
There is only one omission peculiar to H, viz. :
(10) Deiot. 33 : verberatos
I add one long omission of a, reported by Halm.
(117) Cat.W. i<j: arbitrantur. Ouibus hoc praecipiendum videtur,unum scilicet
et idem quod reliquis omnibus, ut desperent id quod conantur se conse-
qui posse.
This is interesting in view of the omission of 113 letters by A in
iii. 27, but in all probability the pedigree of a. is somewhat tangled.
The omissions of a and of the MSS. which comjjosc the family do
' I here write consiilibus in full, since it is so given by C as well aa by A*. If
cons.,= 32.
314 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
not give much information. For further h'ght we must go to an
interesting corruption which pervades the family :
Cat. iii. 25 : atque illae tamen omnes dissensiones erant eius modi quae non
ad delendam sed ad commutandam rem p. pertinerent : non illi nullam
esse rem p. sed in ea quae esset se esse principes, neque banc urbem
conflagrare sed se in hac urbe florere voluerunt.
The simplest form of the corruption seems to be given by F, which
after prmcipcs has neque hanc nvbeni non florere voluerunt {ined.
om.). This indicates the following arrangement in a previous MS. :
principes
neque hanc urbem conflagrare (25)
sed se in hac urbe florere (21)
uoluerunt.
F omits -flagrarc sed se in hac urbe (32), with the consequential
change oi con- to non,
C has :
non illi nullam esse rem p. sed
in ea quae esset se esse principes
neque hanc urbem florere
se uoluerunt.
Here the words conflagrare sed in hac urbe (23) are omitted, and
se is placed before voluerunt, where it spoils the rhythm.
A gives the whole passage thus :
atque ille [sic] tamen omnes dissensiones erant eiusmodi florere si uoluerunt
quae non ad delendam sed ad commutandam rem p. pertinerent, Non illi
nullam esse rem p. sed in ea quae esset se esse principes neque hanc urbem.
Here we notice :
(i) that A, like C, omits conflagrare . . . 2irbe ;
(3) that the model oi A, like C, placed se before voluerunt;
(3) that in A the words florere se{si) voluerunt ozcwx out of place.
Apparently, they were in the margin of the model.
The last mistake should throw light on the model of ^, as dis-
tinguished from the common ancestor of the family.
a has, aSiQr principes,
conflagrare sed se in hac urbe neque hanc urbem florere uoluerunt.
Here the omitted words have been inserted before neque hanc ur-
bem, instead of after urbem.
PRO FONTKIO. PRO FLACCO, ETC. 315
With this I would compare another passage:
Cat. i. II : magna dis immortalibus habenda est atque huic ipsi lovi Statori
. . . gratia, quod banc tarn taetram, tani horribilem tamque infestam
rei p. pestem totiens iam effugimus.
Here A inserts tcrribilcm after gratia, while V has terribilcvt for
horribilem. C is here mutilated.
The common ancestor of the group seems to have had :
gratia
quod banc tarn taetram tarn (21)
m^. terribilem horribilem
The variant has got into A in the wrong place and supplanted
horribilevi in f.
These corruptions seem to show that the common ancestor of the
group was written in lines of 21-3 letters. We may therefore
attribute to this ancestor the following omissions of a, or members
of a:
(20) Lig. 12: artium atque optimarum om. a {defic. C)
13 : et nos iacentis ad pedes om. A {defic, C)
Deiot. 27 : amicitias res rationes om. Ca
(23) Deiot. 42 : cum e balineo exisses tecum otn. C^
as well as that of 23 in Cat. iii. 25.
I now return to the .special corruption of A in Cat. iii. 25. Here
the wox^sflorere se (si) volnerunt are out of place. The intervening
passage consists of 114 letters. This is interesting in view of the
fact that the two longest omissions of A sol., apart from the other
members of the group, contain 38 and 113 letters (38x3 = ii4)-
1, therefore, arrange the model oi A thus :
eiusmodi
quae non ad delendam sed ad commutandam rem p. (37)
pertinerent, non illi nuUam esse rem p. sed in ea (39)
Mg. florere si quae esset se esse principes neque banc urbem (38^
uoluerunt.
The marginal addition has got into the text three lines higher up.
I have not attempted to analyse /3 and y with the same care.
I have, however, made some observations upon three MSS. in the
Catilinarians which may be of interest. These are :
h = Harl. 2682, cent. xi.
/ = Monac. 19472, cent. xi.
u = Bruxell. 10060, cent. xi.
3i6 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
These have the following omissions.
I take first h :
(32) iii. 13 : * inter sese aspiciebant ut non' ab a1iis {om. m. i)
(33) ii- 5 • ilium esse nobis quam hos qui exercitum (pm. m. i)
iii. 4 : cum oculis maleficium ipsum videretis
(47) iv. 3 : peste pereamus. Oua re patres c. incumbite ad salutem rei p.
{otn. m. i)
I retain the official abbreviations, as given by in. 2.
(53) iv- 17- quaestus frequentia civium sustentatur, alitur otio, quorum si
Halm quotes from / :
(33) iv- 12 : virginum atque puerorum ac vexationem
(46) iv. 5 : deinde quod P. Lentulum se abdicare praetura coegistis
(47) ii. 15 : sed cum sint homines qui ilium cum profectus sit eiectum
iii. 6 : ipsi comprehensi ad me, cum iam dilucesceret, deducuntur.
(54) iv. 13 : * poenae crudeles in patriam quam ne severitate animadversionis
Also, from ti :
(31) i. 29 : virtute partam gloriam, non invidiam (p7)i. m. i)
iii. 19 : * cum et simulacra deorum depulsa sunt
(46) iv. 29 : ad modum iam antea vestra tecta vigiliis custodiisque
(53) iv- 9 • * sed tamen meorum periculorum rationes utilitas rei p. vindicat^
(64) iv. 8 : ** -re. Adiungit gravem poenam municipiis si quis eorum vincula
ruperit, horribi-
The last case is very interesting, since the passage is mutilated at
both ends. In view of the two omissions of 31, we may take 64 as
32 X 2. If so, the arrangement in a previous MS. must have been :
recusa
re adiungit grauem poenam municipiis (32)
si quis eorum uincula ruperit horribi (32J
les
These are, I think, the only omissions recorded from tti by Halm.
I now proceed to combine the evidence furnished by htu :
(31) i. 29 ovi. lis : iii. 19 out. u
(32) iii. 13 om. h}-
(33) ii. 5 om. h^ : iii. 4 om. h: iv. 12 om. t
(46) iv. 5 om. t '. iv. 29 om. t
(47) iv. 3 om. h
(53) iv. 9 om. u: iv. 17 om. h^
{54) iv. 13 om. t
(64) iv. 8 om. t
1 So IC- : non iam cctl. ' So the MSS. for vincat.
PRO FONTEIO, PRO FLACCO, ETC. 317
Mere we have six examples of 31-3, together with one of 64,
three examples of 46-7, three of 53-4, and nothing else.
More than one explanation can be offered, viz. (1) that the unit is
16 (16 X i = 32, 16 X 3 = 48, 16x4 = '^4)- If so, we should expect
examples of the unit as well as of the multiples. (2) that the figures
refer to lines of different ancestors, viz. 31-3, 4<^-7) 53- The last
two sets of figures might well refer to the same MS.
There must clearly be some close connexion between /////. The
curious fact is that A, though its text is mixed, inclines to a, while
/ and tt are prominent members of y, containing the best variants
preserved by that group.
I would here mention :
CtU. ill. 20: fore ut ea consilia quae clam essent inita contra salutem iirbis
atque imperii inlustrarentur ut a senatu populoque Romano perspici
possent. Atque illud signum collocanduni consules ill! locaverunt.
Halm proposes to insert ita before inlustrarentur. The word occurs
in u before collocanduni, also in another, and more ancient, member
of y, viz. Laur. L. 45 (.r), cent. x. The words inhisirareniur . . .
sigfium consist of 64 letters. This suggests in the common ancestor
of ux the following arrangement :
atque imperii
mg. ita inlustrarentur ut a senatu populoque (32)
R. perspici possent atque illud signum (32)
collocandum
If so, ita, which appears to be genuine, was inserted two lines lower
down.
I now call attention to two places where the /3 text appears to be
clearly right, viz. :
Cat. iv. 22 : hostes alienigenae aut oppressi serviunt aut recepti in amicitiam
beneficio se obligatos putant.
So i3 : in amicitiam (11) om. ay.
Cat. iv. 12 : qui non dolore et (ac 0) cruciatu nocentis suum doiorem crucia-
tumque lenierit.
So most members of ,i : dolore . . . suum (28) 0)>i. ay.
The question now comes whether all our MSS. are to be referred
back to a single archetype. There are a number of errors which
are common either to all MSS. or to all e.xcept one, generally a late
3i8 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
MS., into which a correction seems to have been inserted by-
conjecture.
A striking case is :
Crt/. iii. 25: atque illae tamen omnes dissensiones erant eius modi . . . atque
illae tamen omnes dissensiones, quarum.
So all MSS. except x (Laur. L. 45), which omits tamen omnes in
the first sentence. It seems impossible that Cicero can have
repeated himself in this manner. Norden has recently in a very
interesting paper suggested that Cicero intended to strike out one
of the doublets, but that his correction was disregarded by the
copyist.^ I offer another explanation which will be found shortly.
Cat. ii. 4 : Tongilium mihi eduxit quem amare in praetexta calumnia coeperat.
So all MSS. except i (a member of ^), which omits calumnia. It is
possible that calnmnia is the note of a reader. I have suggested
that it may be a corruption from K = Kaput., which occurs in the
a family at i. 26. I have since noticed in Paris. 21242 the reading
itt praetexta alumnia, which may support this view.
Cat. iv. 8 : multas uno dolore animi atque corporis et omnis scelerum poenas
ademisset.
So the MSS. : a word seems to be omitted after corporis, e.g.
aerumnas (Halm) or miser ias.
In the same speech, § 11, we have the following variants: exsol-
vitis /3// : defendetis ly : eripiam i, while the a family omit. The
conclusion is that the variants are conjectures to replace the lost
word.
§ 14 : omnes adsunt omnium ordinum homines, omnium denique aetatum.
Putsche supplies omnium generum (13) after homines. The insertion
seems necessary in view of denique.
§ 9 : sed tamen meorum periculorum rationes utilitas rei publicae vincat.
So the Schol. Gron. : all MSS. have vindicat.
Lig. 13 : quodne nos domi petimus precibus ac lacrimis.
So all MSS. except cod. (?) GriLteri, which omits domi. The word
cannot be right, since Cicero is speaking of the present appeal in the
senate house, not of that previously made domi.
§ 14 : id a te in foro oppugnari et in tali miseria multorum perfngium miseri-
cordiae tollere.
^ Aus Ciceros Werkstatt, pp. 6-10 {A'onigl. Preuss. Akad., 1913, i).
PRO FOXTEIO, PRO FLACCO, ETC. 319
So all MSS. The combination of passive and active cannot be
right.
Other examples are :
Cat. i. 13 : infamiae (variously emended)
33: omnibus] ominibus eiU. (l dt-t.)
ii. 5 : ex Gallicanis] prae Gallicanis edd.
8 : ne ullo] ne ullo quidem edd. (i det.)
20 : insperatis] in insperatis edd.
iii. 9 : fastis aji : libris y] fatis edd.
14: Manlium] Annium f(/(/.
iv. 12 : quam] non quam edd. (numquam Lactantius)
17 : nisi] immo edd. (2 dett.)
Marc. 2 : et mihi et meae] et mihi meae edd.
3 : in omnibus] omnibus edd.
12 : adepta] adempta edd. recc.
Lig. 13 : ignoscat] ignoscatur edd.
34 : non noverit] noverit edd.
These errors are strongly in favour of descent from one archetype.
There are various circumstances which suggest that this archetype
was written in very narrow columns, such as those used in the de Re
Publica palimpsest.
I have already called attention to the number of small omissions
characteristic of a, viz. 11 cases of 9-12 letters.
It is to be noticed that whenever /3 or y contribute something of
their own, the addition consists of about this number of letters.
The most striking case is :
Cat. iv. 22 : in amicitiam (li) ^: om. ay
The chief additions of y are :
Marc. 2 : cum viderem (10)
8 : tanta copia (10)
Lig. 14: cave ignoscas (12)
The theory that in certain cases ,3 or y have preserved lines of the
archetype seems to be the simplest solution.
I would draw particular attention to Putsche's insertion o( omnium
gcnerum (13) in Cat. iv. 14. This may represent a lost line of the
archetype. I may also refer to a conjecture of my own in iv. 13 :
cum sororis suae, feminae lectissimae, virum . . . vita privandum esse dixit,
cum avum suum iussu consulis interfectum filiumque eius impuberem lega-
tum a patre missum in carcere necatum esse dixit.
320 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
The statement required is not that they were executed, but that
they were rightly executed. I, therefore, proposed to insert e re p,
iiecatos (ii) after necatum.
I now draw attention to some corruptions :
Cat. ii. 5 : ego ilium exercitum prae Gallicanis legionibus . . . contemno.
The MSS. have ex, which cannot be right, for prae. The error
may point to the arrangement :
ilium
exercitum (9)
prae
The writer repeated ex from exercitum.
Cat. iv. 9 : meorum periculorum rationes utilitas rei p. vincat. Habemus
enim a Caesare, sicut ipsius dignitas . . . postulabat.
For vincat the MSS. have vindicat. Here -di- may be introduced
from dignitas. The words -cat. Habetmis . . . ipsius consist of
'y^o, letters. The archetype may have had :
uin
cat habemus e (11)
nim a caesare (11)
sicut ipsius (11)
dignitas
The writer looked forward from 1. 2 to 1. 5.
Cat.\. 13 : quae nota domesticae turpitudinis non inusta vitae tuae est?
quod privatarum rerum dedecus non haeret infamiae ?
So the MSS. The usual correction is haeret infama. It appears
to me likely that infamiae is a variant for turpitudinis^ which has
got into the wrong place. The words turpitudinis . . . haeret consist
of 68 letters. The relation of 68 to '>,'>, in the previous passage is to
be noted.
I abstain from further guesses, and conclude by calling attention
to three remarkable agreements, which seem to throw light upon
some deep-seated corruptions. Two of them concern passages
which have already been referred to, viz. :
Cat. iii. 25 : atque illae tamen omnes dissensiones.
These words occur at the beginning of two sentences, separated by
an intermediate sentence {non tlli . . . voluertmt). In my edition I
have struck out atque illae tamen omnes (20) at the beginning of
PRO FONTEIO, PRO FLACCO, ETC. 331
the first sentence. The intervening words between the first and the
second occasion where the passage is found, viz. dissctisioncs . . .
voliterunt, consist of 1 80 letters.
Lig. 13 : quod nos [domi] petimus.
So the MSS. Shortly afterwards comes (§ 14) :
si cum hoc domi faceremus, quod et fecimus, et, ut spero, non frustra fecimus,
tu repente inruisses.
Domi before petimus seems to have been introduced from § 14.
The intermediate words consist of 182 letters.
Deiot. 24 : addit etiam illud equites non optimos misisse [ueteris] credo,
Caesar, nihil ad tuum equitatum.
So a/3 : vcteris out. y, edd.
In view of previous experiences, it struck me that w/^f/w might be
a variant which had got into the wrong place.
In § 23 we have :
non quaero quam veri simile sit.
For vcri simile sit we have the following variants in a :
uerisiles it C: ueris si lesit //: simile sit ueri A.
The corruption tieris in //is especially noticeable ; ueri is given by
A, but the order has been changed. I think it probable that ueteris
is a variant for ueris or ueri.
The words veri siviile . . . optimos misisse consist of 358 letters.
If we compare these three passages we have the remarkable
sequence :
Cat. iii. 25 = 180
I'k- 13 = 182
Deiot. 24 •= 358
The inference which these figures suggest is that 180 represents
a column in the archetype, and that the scribe has looked forward
a column on two occasions, and two columns (i.e. a page) on another
occasion. In order to make this clear, I write out the passages as
I conceive them to have stood in the archetype :
16S3
323
DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
(i) Cat. iii. 35 :
10
15
dissensiones
(12)
atque illae
(10)
erant eius
(9)
tamen omnes
(10)
modi quae non
(II)
dissensiones
(12)
ad delendam
(10)
sed ad commu
(10)
tandam rem p.
(10)
pertinerent
(II)
non illi nul
(10)
lam esse rem p.
(II)
sed in ea quae
(II)
esset se esse
(II)
principes ne
(II)
que banc urbem
(12)
conflagrate
(II)
sed se in hac
(10)
urbe florere
(11)
uoluerunt
(9)
180
The writer began to c^py col.
to 6/x.
2 before col. i. The error was due
(10)
(a) Lig.
13:
petimus pre
(10)
domi facere
cibus lacri
(10)
mus
mis strati ad
(II)
pedes non tam
(II)
-
5
nostrae cau
sae fidentes
quam huius hu
manitati id
ne impetremus
(10)
(II)
(II)
(10)
(12)
10
oppugnabis
et in nostrum
fletum irrum
pes et nos ia
centes ad pe
(10)
(II)
(II)
(ID)
(10)
15
des supplicum
uoce prohibe
bis si cum hoc
(12)
(II)
(II)
182
PRO
FONTEIO,
PRO
FLACCO, ETC.
^'^?,
(3) Dciot. 33-4 :
mg. ueteris
ueri simile
(10)
sam illam uic
(II)
sit aut habu
(10)
tam esse ne
(9)
isse regeiii
(9)
sciebat an cae
(12)
quos mitteret
(12)
cilium istum
(II)
5
aut eos quos
(10)
5
magnum homi
(10)
misisset non
(II)
nem putabat
(10)
paruisse aut
(II)
quern profecto
(12)
qui dicto au
(10)
is qui optime
(II)
dientes in
(9)
nostros homi
(II)
10
tanta re non
(10)
10
nes nouit uel
(II)
fuissent eos
(II)
quia non nos
(10)
uinctos poti
(II)
set uel si nos
(II)
us quam neca
(10)
set contemne
(II)
tos sed tamen
(II)
ret addit eti
(II)
15
cum ad caeci
(10)
15
am illud equi
(II)
Hum mitte
(9)
tes non opti
(10)
k
bat utrum cau
(II)
mos misisse
(10)
175
The next page would begin with :
credo, caesar
nihil ad tuum
equitatum.
The variant ueteris found its way into the text before credo.
182
Y 2
CHAPTER X
DE NATURA DEORUM, DE DIVINATIONE, TIMAEUS,
DE FATO, TOPICA, PARADOXA, LUCULLUS, DE
LEGIBUS
Schwenke says of this collection : ^
* Omnis memoria librorum de Nattira Deorum ducitur a corpore operum
Ciceronianorum maximam partem physicorum, quod olim integros libros de
Natiira Deorum, de Divinatione, Tiinaeiini, de Fato, Topica, Paradoxa, Lucid-
lum, de Legibus continebat. Eius corporis exstabat, ni fallor, in Gallia, exemplar
iam minusculis litteris exaratum, quaternionibus non paucis singulisque mem-
branis amissis mutiliim, aliis suo loco motis perturbatum : ex hoc et ii codices
fluxerunt qui quantum illius corporis restabat totum continent et ii qui libros de
Natiira Deorum aut solos aut cum aliis paucioribus atque selectis coniunctos
exhibent.'
He enumerates the following MSS. :
A = Leid. Voss. fol. 84, cent, ix/x (Chat. PL 38 a). Of this MS.
he says :
* Oriundus est codex A sine dubio e Gallia, monasterio aut ecclesiae ubi
servabatur donatus a Rodulfo quodam episcopo, cuius sedem propter nominis
frequentiam definire non potui.'
B = Leid. Voss. fol. 86, cent, x (Chat. PI. 39). Schwenke
says of B :
' Servabatur et hie procul dubio in Gallia, ut videtur, in eadem bibliotheca
atque cod. A.'
C=Leid. Heins. 118, cent, xi (Chat. PI. 38). C is written in
Beneventan script. It appears to be a copy made for Desiderius,
Abbot of Monte Cassino (io58-87).2
F = Flor. Marc. 357,[cent. x (Chat. PI. 37). F formerly belonged
to the cathedral of" Strassburg, to which it was given by Bishop
Werinharius (1001-29).
^ Class. Rev. iv (1890), p. 347.
- Loew, The Beneventan Script, p. 81.
DE NATURA DEORUM, ETC. 325
J/= Monaccnsis 528, cent. xi.
P = Vat. Palatinus 1519, cent, xi (Chat. PI. 40).
V — Vindobonensis 189, cent, ix/x (Chat. 38).
A photographic facsimile of 6^ was pubh'shed by Messrs. Sijthoff
of Leiden, in 1912, and one of A appeared in the same series in
1915.^ Both of these have introductions by O. Plasberg.
The dates which I have given are those of Schwenke. Those of
Chatelain are much the same except in the case of P, which he
assigns to the ninth century. I recently asked the Rev. H. M.
Bannister to look at the MS. in the Vatican library. He, after
consultation with other experts, pronounced in favour of Schwenke's
date.
It will be observed that Schwenke claims French provenance for
A and B, as well as for the archetype. In view of his suggestion,
the following entry in the twelfth-century catalogue of Bee - is
interesting :
no. 77 : Tullius de natura deorum libri iii, de divinatione libri ii, Timaeus Platonis
ab eo translatus et de fato liber i, ad Ortensium liber i et de legibus
libri iii ^
We find among the books of Richard de Fournival in the
thirteenth century :
no. 73 : M. T. C. liber de natura deorum
74 : eiusdem liber de divinatione et de fato casus
75 : eiusdem liber Achademicarum disputationum. Item eiusdem liber de
universalitate qui vocatur Thimeus TuUii. Eiusdem liber ad Horten-
sium qui inscribitur Luculus et interdum Hortensius.''
These are the only references to such a corpus in the mediaeval
catalogues.
This list of MSS. must be reduced by the elimination of F and
J/. Schwenke says that F was copied from B in the dc Nattira
Dcorinn. The proof for this statement is that on two occasions
F omits a line of B (cf. p. 7). He also says that F was copied in
the rest of its contents from A. His reason for making this state-
ment appears to be that the other treatises are given in the order
' This chapter was written before the publication of A.
• Le Bec-Hellouin, near Pont-Audemer, in Normandy.
^ Manitins, Philologisckes aus alLn Bibliothekskatalogitt, p. i6.
« lb., p. 17.
326 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
found in A, while in B there are extensive dislocations. He
considers J/ to be a mixed MS., derived from F, or sl gemelhis, but
corrected from A, or a copy o^ A.
We are thus left with ABCP V as our authorities.
A and B contain the entire corpus. In A the order is Nat, D.,
Div., Tim., Fat., Top., Parad., LticnlL, Leg., and there can be no
doubt that this was the order in the archetype. The dislocations in
B will be described shortly. P and V are much mutilated.
Schwenke holds that V once contained all the corpus except the
Topica. It now contains Nat. D. ii. 16-86, 92-156,111. 156-end ;
Div. i-ii. 14, ii. 48-142, 148-end ; Timaetis, Fat., Parad., Luctdl.
1-104.
P contains N.D. i. 27-75, "• i'^-58> ^?r^'> 162-end, iii. 6-end ;
Div. i. 1-51, 57-93> 100— ii. 150 (end).
C contains N. D., Div., Leg. It resembles A more closely than B
and is inferior in value to AB.
It is indubitable that all our MSS. are descended from one arche-
type, which I will term Q. This is shown by certain lacunae, viz. :
N. D. iii. 13 : ego autem a re rationes ***
So ACV^ : BV^ add' reqiiiro. If this supplement is right,^ only
one word is missing.
ib. 6^. Editors mark a lacuna before and after videamus ea . . .
fateare. Sed
Div. \. 132: praeclare tu quidem inquam paratus ***
The end of the book is lost.
The Timaetis is fragmentary. There is a lacuna after § 2 in per-
contatione consumpsimus , another after § 28 intellege^itia co7ttinentitr,
a third after § 48 modo hue modo illuc, and after § 52 muiiere neque
dabitnr the rest of the treatise is lost.
The^^ Faio is in a similar condition. The beginning and the end
are lost. There is a lacuna at the end of § 4, after considamus
hie # -Jt -Jf , and probably another, though only of a few words, after
§ 45 ab his fatttm abcsse.
The Paradoxa have a lacuna in § 27 after the words sed dementem
insanire.
^ It is possible that require is a correction founded on the critical note R {= require).
DE NATURA DEORUM, ETC. 327
In the dc Legibus there are clearly lacunae at :
ii. 53 : sitque ea non ***
iii. 17 : convertem lex in omnis est ***
Editors also mark losses, possibly of a few words, at i. 31, 2,^, 39,
57; ii. 28.
There is one large transposition found in all the MSS. This is
in N.D. ii. 16, after quui potius dixcris qnam deuvi. This passage
is succeeded by §§ 86-156 ex sese perfectiorcs . . . quae cuvi maxima,
then comes the missing block of text, §§ 16-86 ctcnim si di . . .
fcraut aliqtiid.
Here §§ 16-86 = 864 lines of Tcubner text, while §§ 86-156
= 882 lines. The obvious inference is that quaternions of Q have
changed places.
In the Timacus AD (not V) have a common dislocation, viz.
§§ 38-43 sed quia . . . aptissimiis and §§ 44-8 sed aim . . . modoilhic
have changed places. Here §§ 3^-43 = 52 lines of Tcubner text
and ^§ 44-8 = 54 lines. It is to be noticed that 54X 16 = 864
(A". D. 16-86). It would, therefore, appear that 52-4 form a unit.
If this represents a folio, then in the Timacus two folios have changed
places, while in N. D. two blocks, each consisting of two quaternions,
have been transposed.
It will be noticed that N. D. ii. 86-156 is slightly longer than
ii. 16-86, viz. 882 lines. Here \^y.^r^= 880. We must, therefore,
also recognize 55 as a unit.
There is also a point common to A and B, viz. that the original
scribe omitted Top. 1-3 vtaiores res . . . etiam suavitate and §§ 28-72
divisiomim auiem . . . possivius hie. The loss was repaired in B by the
insertion of a fly-sheet containing §§ 1-3 and of three extra folios
containing §§ 28-72. Pluygers had the temerity to remove these
supplements from B and to insert them in A, where they are now
found.
It may be remarked that this surgical operation was uncalled for.
E^ on f. 105 v., after writing Top. 28 edietis magis-, left the rest of
the line blank. He then went on with §§ 73-4 ergo argtimciita . . .
turn a corporibus. This passage has been struck out by a corrector
and rewritten loco suo after § 72, partly on the third of the inserted
folios and partly at the top of the next page. The supplements,
therefore, belong to B, not to A.
328 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
The important point is that both A^ and B'^ omitted the two
passages. Their length in Teubner lines is as follows :
§§ 1-3 = 27 lines.
§§ 28-72 = 430
Here 37 x 2 = 54. Cf. Twi. 44-8 (54) and 38-43 (52) ; also
54 X 8 = 432. The relation of this figure to N.D. 18-86 (864) is to
be noted.
Lastly, I would call attention to N.D. i. 1-2. Here A and C^
omit essedebeat . . . dinumerare seiitentias. The passage = 13^ lines
of Teubner text. We now have the following sequence :
(13I) N. D. i. 1-2
(27) Top. 1-3
(52) Tim. 38-43
(54) Tim. 44-48
(430) Top. 28-72
(864) A': D. ii. 16-86
(882) A^.Z>.ii. 86-156.
The inference which I draw is that 133^ = a column of Q, ay = a
page, 52-4 = a folio, 430 = a quaternion, 864-82 = two quaternions.
The reason why I take 52-4 to represent a folio will appear
shortly.
I have put these striking results at the beginning of this inquiry
in order to supply the reader with a clue. I will now ask him to
follow me in patience through a somewhat tangled maze.
Before I go further it will be convenient to put together some
tachygraphic symbols which occur in A. These are ^^', h ^'^, 'if H,
which stand for dimissiim, hie dimissiun, dimissiLin hie. For the
use of diniissmn to indicate losses in the text cf. p. 32. The places
where notes of this kind are found are :
N. D. iii. 13 (f. 29'') : ego autem a te rationes *** Secuntur
So edd. {ratio7zes rcq7iiro B: A^ has recuntur iox sccuniiir). A has in
the margin R, also (erased) h c)".
A^. D. iii. 65 (f. 33"^) : efificiam profecto ut fateare. Sed ***
A has in the margin h T.
Div. i. 51 (f. 42^^) : exercitum obsidione liberavit.
In y4 liberavit is added above the line after obsidione and U preceded
by a rude m is added above the line before obsidione.
DE NATURA DEORUM, ETC. 329
Div. ii. 46 (f. 56''): signum lovis biennio post quam erat locatum in Capitolio
conlocabatur.
A has in the margin ^^ h, with a note of reference to Capitolio.
There is no lacuna here. Shortly above A^ omits :
unde fulmen venerit, quo concesserit, quid significet autem nulla ratio docet
It seems probable that 2>^ h refers to this omission, and has been
put in the wrong place.
Div. ii, 62 (f. 58''): C. Gracchus ad M. Pomponium scripsit duobus anguibus
domi conprehensis haruspices a patre convocatos
A Dig. has c)^ h, with a reference mark to convocatos. Here again
there is no lacuna. Shortly before in the passage :
nihil habendum esse quod fieri posset ostentum
B^ and F^ omit ostentum, for which V^ gives portentuvi. I can
only conjecture that c)^ V refers to this omission, and that the note
is out of place.
Fat. 46 (f. 75'') : ab iis fatum abesse ♦** Hoc modo banc causam disceptari
oportet.
A vig. has h c»~, with a reference mark after oportet. Here it is
clear that the note has got out of place.
Fat. 48 (f. Tj'') : omnibus naturaliter *»*
Immediately after this comes :
Top. 4 : non potui igitur
A nig. has h ^^' a te n pottii. The reference here is to the lost ending
of the dc Fato and Top. 1-3.
Top. 28 (f. 78'') : auctoritate edictis magis-
This is followed by § 73 ergo arguvicntatio. A mg. has h <)^ The
reference is to the loss of §§ 28-72.
Leg. iii. 20 (f. 118'") : C. vero Gracchi tribunatus iis sicis quas ipse se proiecisse
in forum dixit.
//
So edd. : for iis sicis A has inscitiis. A mg. has cxcidiis, with the
note c)", which here merely indicates a corruption.^
* This note dimissum to mark a corruption may be the sonrce of the variants in Sex.
Hose. 1 1 , where 2 gives omnes hanc quaestionan te praetore matti/cstis vialeficiis cotidiano-
330 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
The fact that in Div. ii. 46, 62, Fat. 46 these notes are out of
place shows that they must have been inherited from a predecessor.
I add a few words concerning the marks for the quaternions in A :
Quaternions i-iii are marked simply.
Quaternions iv-vi are marked R after the numeral, e. g. iv R.
The next quire consists of six folios only.
Quaternion viii is marked simply.
Quaternions ix-xiv have two sets of signatures. On f. 70^' there
is (i) viiii, and (2) Q ; on f. 79^ (1) x, (2) Q. iii ; on f. 90'' (i) xi,
(2) Q. iiii ; on f. 98^ (i) xii, (2) Q. v ; on f. ic6^ (i) xiii (erased),
(2) Q. vi. The next quaternion is not signed (possibly the signa-
ture has been erased). It is followed by six folios, without signature.
Chatelain says :
' Un premier copiste du nom de Ji. a execute les cahiers i-vii ; un autre les
cahiers viii-xv (qui portent aussi la numerotation i-viii, sauf dans les endroits ou
la reliure I'a fait disparaitre).'
It is obvious that the gatherings were at one time bound up differ-
ently. I take R to be the common critical sign to indicate doubt
{rcq?nrc), not the name of the copyist.'^
I now go on to B, in which we have a complicated series of dis-
locations. In order to explain these clearly, I must practise a
certain amount of repetition.
It is clear that B is derived from the same archetype as A, but
after the leaves of the archetype had been greatly disarranged.
While B agrees with all other MSS. in transposing N.D. ii. 16-86
and 86-156, also with A in transposing Ti7n. 38-43 and 44-58, and
in omitting Top. 1-3 and 28-72, it has a large number of fresh
dislocations.
We have already seen that the order in Q was: Nat. D., Div.,
Tim., Fat., Top., Parad., Liicidl., Leg. The evidence of B com-
bined with that previously given shows that the corpus was broken
up into the following sections :
que sanguine dimissui {al. dimissius) sperant futuram. The Scholiasta Gronovianus
here has the strange note :
Dimissd] Id est prae contevipto relido habitoriim (? =abiturum).
These scholia are of uncertain date and seem to be the work of three or four authors.
They have been preserved in a Leiden MS., Voss. Q. 138, cent. x.
^ Plasberg explains j'? as = recognovi.
DE NATURA DEORUM, ETC. 33^
(1) A'. D. i. 1-64 : cum multae . . . impurus fuisset
(2) i. 64-91 : nonne igitur . . . cognationes
(3) i. 91-ii. 16: agnoscerem . . . quam deiim
(4) ii. 16-86 : etenim si di . . . ferant aliquid
(5) ii. 86-156: ex sese . . . cum maxima
(6) ii. 156-iii end: largitate fundit . . . esse propensior
Div. i. i-ii. 127 : vetus opinio . . , quam dereclo
Since these are given by B in the same order, as in (j, I treat them
as one block.
(7) Div. ii. 127-end : deus si quidem . . . surreximus
(8) Tim. 1-38 : multa sunt . . . confirmatur
(9) 38-43 : quia de suis . . . aptissimus
(10) 44-48 : sed cum duplex . . . modo illuc
(11) Tim. 49-end: sed si in . . . neque dabitur |
Fat. 1-4: quia pertinet . . . considamus hie]
Here again the order of the archetype is preserved, so the two
passages form one block.
(12) Fat. 5-41 : quorum in . . . diceremiis et cum
(13) /wz/. 41-48: eae causae . . . naturaliter \
Top. 4-28: non potui . . . edictis magis-l
Here again the two passages form one block. Between them inter-
vened the following passage, viz. :
(14) Top. 1-3 : maiores . . . suavitate
This, as previously pointed out, was omitted by A^ and B^.
(15) TV*/. 28-72 : divisionum . . . possimus hie
(16) Top. 72-end : ergo argumentatio . . . debita accedere
Parad. 1-37 : animadverti . . . dignum Aetionis
Here again the passages were contiguous in Q.
(17) Farad. 37-end: tabula te . . . existimandi sunt !
Luculi. 1-2: magnum ingenium . . . tali ingenio I
This also is one block.
(18) Luculi. 2-13 : praeditus Lucullus . . . et P. Scaevo-
(19) Luculi. 13-end: -lam aiunt Ti. Graccho . . . descendimus)
Leg^. i. 1-21 : lucus quidem . . . condiscipulorum I
Here also is one block.
(20) Leg. i. 2i-ii. 4: ne quis exaudiat . . . studiose eorum
(21) ii. 4-13 : etiam sepulcra ... si latrones
(22) ii. 13-iii. 38 : aliquas concessu . . . video legem
(23) iii. 38-42 : antiquastis sine . . . qui permovet
(24) 42-48 : cum agi nihil . . . religione.
33'i DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
In B these sections succeed each other in the following order.
I give in brackets the order which they occupied in Q.
(I
(7
(3
(5
(4
(6
(13
(i6
(IS
(17
(19:
(12
(21
(20
(8'
(10
(9:
(II
(2
(22
(24
(23
A^. Z?. i. 1-64
Div. ii. 127-end
A'i D. i. 91-ii. 16
ii. 86-156
ii. 16-86
ii. 156-iii end + Dt'v. i. i-ii. 127
Fat. 4 1 -end + Top. 4-28
Top. 72-end + Farad. 1-37
Lucull. 2-13
Parad. 2,7-Gndi + Lucull. 1-2
Lucull. i3-end + Z^_^. i. 1-21
7^2/. 5-41
Z^^. ii. 4-13
Leg. \. 2i-ii. 4
Zi'w. i.-38
7>'w. 44-48
Tim. 38-43
7/w. 49-end + /'rt/. 1-4
.V. D. i. 64-91
Z^^. ii. 13-iii. 38
Leg. iii. 42-48
Leg. iii. 38-42
The last passage, Leg. iii. 38-42, came at the end of B. The last
page has been torn out and so the passage as given in B is not
complete. It ends at § 40 fit ambitione.
To these are to be added :
(14) Top. 1-3 : inserted on fly-leaf
(15) Top. 22,-72: inserted on three additional folios.
B contains a number of notes, some of them tachygraphic, referring
to these losses and dislocations. They are interesting as specimens
of mediaeval criticism. I take them in the order in which they
occur in the MS. Sometimes there are two or three notes on the
same passage :
f, 10"^, N. D. i. 64: tam impurus imssti + Div. ii. 127 : deus si quidem
(1) Quod hie sequitur in libro Thimei repperies assignatum
(2) Hie interpositum est de secundo libro divinationis, quod illic in extremi-
tate deest et notatum est asterisco JjC- quemadmodum et hie qui liber
secundus post iii folia terminatur ut in margine scriptum -=-
(3) Recipe hie quod reperies infra folio xxi a fine libri citra ad signum 0+0
DE NATURA DEORUM, ETC. 333
f. 14'", Z>/7'. ii. 150: nihil potest + TV. D. i. 91 : agnoscerem non
(1) •!• ee iucundiiis. Ou^ cij cent dicta surreximus. M. TVL. CICERONIS
DE DIVINATIONE LfB SECT3s EXPL
(2) iterum incipit de natura deorum
f. 46'", A^. D. iii. 13 : rationes require secuntur
So ^ : in the margin is |- y, as in ^.
f. 53'', X. D. iii. 65 : ut fateare sed
Here hie dimissu is written in full, so also hie pvuitatu ?, with tachy-
graphical equivalents for both. Here again cf. A.
f. 102"^, Div. ii. 127: quam derecto + i^a/. 41 : eae causae
Ouod hie sequitur requiritur in primo libro de natura deorum sub asterisco
adnotatum
f. 103'", Fat. 48 : omnibus naturaliter + Top. 4 : non potui
(1) 'b" {— dimissum)
(2) Hie deest finis huius libri quem invenies quaternione xxi folio secundo •)S
f. II4^ Parad. 37
B has : si in amplissima familia natus sit appellandum puto atque ut in
magna familia stultorum sunt alii lautiores ut sibi uidentur serui
In the margin is V (5^.
f. 114^, Parad. 37: dignum actionis {sic)-V Lucidl. 2 : praeditus Lucullus
(i) hie interpositum est, ut videtur, de libro achademico
(2) ordo verus orationis post duo folia repraesentatur
f. 116'^, Lucull. 13 : et P. Seaevo- + /^rtr</</. 37: tabula te
(ij quod hie sequitur in libro Lueulli redditur suo textui
(2) redditur hie textus superiori orationi
f. IIQ', Lucull. 2 : tali ingenio + Z«f////. 13 : -lam aiunt
Hie intennissum est sed redditur in libro Paradoxae
f. 147^, Leg. i. 21 : condiscipulorum + ^a/. 5 : quorum in aliis
(1) hie quod in libro Timei sequitur
(2) falsa est haee notula quoniam quae secuntur ad librum de divinatione
pertinent, non ad Timaeum. Quod qui utrumque legerit verum in-
veniet. TEGAXO correxit.
Tegano, however, was wrong, as well as his predecessor.^
f. 154'', Fat. 41 : dieeremus ut eum + Ze;^. ii. 4 : ut cum
Ab eo loco quo superius de corpora Timei interpositum est usque hue per-
venit, quod usque sequitur in fine est libri secundi de divinatione
usque quo de topicis incipit loqui
* Cf. Pertz, vol. ix, p. 219. Taginns, Abbot of Benedictbeuem, is said to have been
made Archbishop of Mainz. Pertz discredits this statement, but thinks that he may have
been made Archbishop of Magdeburg in IC04.
334 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
f. 155"^, Leg. ii. 13: quam non latores [sic] -V Leg. i. 21 : ne quis exaudiat
(1) hie usque quod sequitur abhinc xx foliis pertransitis suo loco reddentur
(2) hie sequitur ordo primi libri de legibus qui in isto libro superius incipit
sed pluribus interpositis hie tandem consequentia redditur pertingens
usque ad finem libri
f. 163"^, I^eg. ii. 4 : studioseque eorum+ Tim. i : multa sunt a
Quod hie sequitur numeratis retro x foliis repperitur
f. 169'', Tim. 38 : eonfirmatur+ Tim. 44: sed cum duplex
(i) dee
(2) quod dee verso folio invenies -X-
f. 169'^, Tim. 48 : modo hue modo illue4- Tim. 38 : quia de suis
f. 171^, Fat. 4 : eonsidamus hie + A''. D. \. 64 : nonne igitur tarn
(1) abhinc retroversus xxiii foliis sequitur de eiusdem corpore orationis sed
omissis in medio pluribus
(2) hie interpositum est quod in primo libro de natura deorum dimissum est
ubi de secundo libro divinationis est interpositum
(3) istud est de primo libro de natura deorum in folio x et durat iiii folia
usque ad signum o~o o
f. 175"^, N. D. i. 91 : cognationes + Z^^. ii. 13 : aliquas eoneessu
A superiori exordio interpositioni usque hue de primo libro naturae deorum
f. 182'^, Leg. iii. 38 : video legem + Z^,^. iii. 42 : cum agi nihil
Quod sequi debet verso folio sequenti oecurrit
f. 192^^, Leg. iii. 48 : de religione + Z^^. iii. 38: antiquastis
Hie redditur quod superius dimissum est.
It will be noticed that B has tachygraphic notes on N. D. iii. 13 and
6^, Fat. 48, similar to those found in A at the same place. It is very-
probable that the attempts to correct the dislocations in B were made
with the assistance of A.
I now exhibit the various sections of the corpus in order of magni-
tude. T give the number of lines occupied by the passages in the
Teubner text.
(27) Top.\-z
(52) Tim. 38-43
(54) Tim. 44-48
(65) Leg. iii. 38-42
(70) Leg. iii. 42-48
(100) Tim. ^^-Fat. 4
(129) Leg. ii. 4-13
(198) Lucull. 2-13
(205) Farad. 2J-Luaill. 2
(257) Fat. d,\-Top. 28
(305) Div. ii. 127-150
DE NATURA DEORUM, ETC. 335
(321) A\ D. i. 64-91
(40S) Tim. i. 38
(430) T0P.2B-72
(494) Fat. 5-41
(600) Leg. i. 21-ii. 4
(604) N. D. i. 91-ii. 16
'655) Top. -ji-Parad. yj
(760) N. D. 1-64
(864) N. D. ii. 16-86
(882) A^.Z>.ii. 86-156
(121 7) Leg. ii, 13-iii. 38
(2379) Lucull. x^-Leg. i. 21
(4721) N. D. ii. is6-Biv. ii. 127
With the exception of 6^, 70, and 129, all of which belong to the
c/c Lcgibus, these figures hang together in a remarkable way. The
unit is given by 52-4 and the higher numbers rise by multiples of
about 50. Thus ioc+105 = 205, 305 + 103 = 408, 655 + 105 =
760, 760 + 104= 864. The relation of 430 to 864 and of 604 to
1 217 is very striking. The largest block 4721 is a little more than
twice 2379.
I now take the blocks singly as they occurred in Q :
(1) JVat. D. \. 1-64 = 760
54x14 = 756
It would appear that the title did not take up much room.
(2) N. D. i. 64-91 = 321
54 X 6 = 324
(3) N. D. i. 91-ii. 16 = 604
Here allowance has to be made for the subscription to bk. i and the
title to bk. ii. I postpone for a moment the consideration of this
figure, merely remarking that 55 x 1 1 = 605, and 50 x I2 = 600.
(4) A^. D. ii. 16-86 = 864
54X 16 = 864
(5) X.D. ii. 86-156 = 882
55x 16 = 880
It is here obvious that two blocks, each consisting of two quaternions,
have changed place. We must, therefore, recognize 55 as a unit.
N.D. ii. 16-156, therefore, represents four quaternions of Q. If so,
we should expect blocks 1-3 to coincide with the division by qua-
ternions. Here (1) and (2) = 14 + 6. If we take (3) as 50 x 12,
this gives a total of 32 folios, i. e. four quaternions.
^2>^ DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
(6) N. D. ii. \t,6-Di%'. ii. 127 = 4721
54X 88 = 4752
This large block seems to have formed 11 quaternions in Q. It will
be remembered that there are lacunae at A^. D. iii. 13 and 6^. These
may have been already present in Q or so short as not to affect the
reckoning.
(7) Div. ii. 127-end = 305
51x6 = 306
Here allowance has to be made for the subscription, also for a
possible blank space as the end of the work came at, or towards,
the end of a folio.
(8) Timaeus 1-38 = 408
51x8 = 408
Here also the title must be taken into consideration.
(9) Thnaeus 38-43 = 52
(10) Timaeus 44-48 = 54
(11) Timaeus \()-Fat. 4 = 100 {Tim. 49-end = 46 : Fat. 1-4 = 54)
We must make allowance for a possible subscription to the Tiinacits
and the title to the de Fato.
(12) Fat. 5-41 = 494
This is a little short of the normal equivalent for ten folios.
(13) Fat. 41-48 (end) + 71?/. 4-28 = 257
51x5 = 255
(14) Top. 1-3 = 27
This must, of course, have come between Fat. 48 and Top. 4. If
54 = a folio, then 27 must equal a page. The question, therefore,
arises hbw a page came to be omitted by A and B^. It is to be
remembered that the end of the de Fato is lost. The most probable
suggestion is that a dislocated folio contained this on one side and
Top. 1-3 on the other. The corrector of B used this for the fly-
sheet containing Top. 1-3, but did not make a copy of the other side
containing the end of the de Fato. It may have had no subscription,
in which case he would not be able to identify the work to which it
belonged. If so, blocks 13 and 14 would = 255 + 37 + 27 = 309,
i. e. six folios.
(15) Top. 28-72 = 430
54x8 =432
DE NATURA DEORUM, ETC. 337
This quaternion must have been missing, but was afterwards utilized
by B^ for the three extra leaves inserted in that MS.
(16) Top. -jz-Parad. 27 = 655
54X 12 = 648
(17) Piirad. 2-j-Lucull. 2 = 205
51x4 = 204
Allowance must be made for the subscription and title.
(18) Lucull. 2-13 = 198
This is a little short of the normal content for four folios.
(19) Lucull. \^-Leg. i. 21 = 2379
(20) Leg.'\.2\-\\. ^ = 600
(21) Leg. ii. 4-13 = 129
(22) Leg. ii. 13-iii, 38 =1217
(23) Leg. iii. 38-42 = 65
(24) Leg. iii. 42 8 =70
I take these six blocks tosrether. It is to be noted that 6 k. 7o. and
'to
J. /^.
129 are recalcitrant to the explanation which applies elsewhere.
The relation of 129 to 65 suggests that another unit is here at work.
Also, 121 7 appears to be in relation to 600.
The natural explanation is that towards the end of the MS. the
writer contracted his hand, with the result that the unit has risen
from 50-4 to 65-70. Such a contraction is very frequent in MSS.,
e. g. in V at the end of the Pliilippics (p. 168). I therefore incline to
explain the figures as follows :
65, 70 = if.
129 = 2 ff.
600 = 10 ff.
1 2 1 7 = 20 ff.
With regard to the large block 2379, it is interesting to notice that
it seems to be in relation to the largest block 4721 (2379x2 =
4758). It is, therefore, probable that the contraction took place
after this point. If so, 54 x 44 = 2376.
I have already pointed out lacunae in the works contained in this
corpus. The chief gaps are in the Timacus and the de Fato. These
may be accounted for in two ways, viz. either that the loss is prior
to Q, or that folios of Q itself have perished.
This question can be settled in the case of the Timacus by com-
163S z
338 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
parison with the original Greek. The key is given by the two
passages which have changed places in A and B, viz. :
(52) §§ 38-43 : quia de suis . . . aptissimum
(54) §§ 44~8 : sed iam duplex . . . modo illuc
The first is a translation of :
40 E-41 E: (OS oiKeln . . . 6iO(jf^i(jTaTOv
and the second of :
41 E-43 B: bnT\T]S 8e ov<Tr]s . . . Kai iravrr)
Cicero's translation is fairly literal, as may be seen from the
edition of his version by Plasberg; who prints the Latin rendering
interlineally with the Greek above it.
In Stallbaum^s text, 40 E-41 E = 46 lines.
41 E-43 B = 49 lines.
We thus find that 52-4 lines of Latin in the Teubner text corre-
spond to 46-9 lines of Greek in Stallbaum's text.
I now take the lacuna in Cicero's version at § 28, Here the words
sed intellegentia contineniiir are followed in the MSS. by ins natiira
converteret and a lacuna is marked by editors. Plato's equivalents
are 37 C vov^ €Tn(TTrifj.r] re e^ avdyKr]s aTroreXetrai and 38 C daripov
TTcpiohos ijeiv. It follows that ins is part o{ altcrins (Oarepov).
The passage of Plato for which there is no Latin rendering is
37 C-38 C TovT(i> be €v w . . . Trept^opa? a? r). This in Stallbaum's
text = 46 lines. This is exactly the same number of lines as that
occupied by 40 E-41 E, which in Cicero's version = 52 lines of
Teubner, i.e. one folio of Q.
It follows that Cicero's rendering of ^y C-38 c, now lost, which
= 46 lines in Stallbaum, should also = 52 lines of Teubner, i.e.
one folio of Q.
We are now in a position to compare the original with the frag-
ments of the translation.
(l) Cicero begins with a short introduction, §§ 1-2, for which there is no equiva-
lent in Plato. This is followed by a lacuna. His version then begins
at § 3, quid est quod.
This is a translation of 27 D ea-riv ovv 8^. Thus we have no equiva-
lent for 17 A els, bvo, rpety ... 27 D hhei^aip.ii]v.
This passage occupies 417 lines in Stallbaum. We have already
DE NATURA DEORUM, ETC. 339
found that 46 lines of Stallbaum correspond to a folio of Q. It is
therefore interesting to notice that 46 x 9 = 414. It therefore
appears that after Cicero's brief introduction, which in Q belonged
to the previous block, nine folios have been lost.
(2) 27 D-37 C: (OTiv olv 81) . . . f I nuayKt]{ dnoTfXurai = (Cic.) Tt'rn. 3-28: quid
est quod . . . intellegentia continentur
Here the Greek = 27S lines of Stallbaum. Here the same unit
appears (46 x 6 = 276).
The Latin equivalent is 292 lines of Teubner, This is less than
might have been anticipated. In view of the figures for the Greek
it would appear that six folios of Q have been lost. If so, the script
must have been a little larger at this point.
(3) 37 C-38 c : TovTu 8f fv (o . . . TTf fncf)opas as t) = 46 lines of Stallbaum.
I have already discussed this passage.
(4) 38 C— 40 E : 0nT(pov7rfpio8os . . . anobd^fav Xfyovcnv, aW = (^C'lC.) Ti>ii. 29-
38 : -ius natura . . . confirmatur.
= 96^ lines of Stallbaum. Here 48 x 2 = 96. For the unit cf.
41 E-43 B (49). The Latin equivalent here is 100 lines of Teubner.
(5) 40 E-41 E : if otKcta . . . Qioaf^iaraTov = (Cic.) 7Vw. 38-43: quia de suis
. . . aptissimum = 46 lines, Stallbaum.
(6) 41 E-43 B' ^mXqs 8' (ivarji . . . kqi ndin-Tj = (Cic.) Tim. 44-8: scd cum
duplex . . . modo illuc = 49 lines, Stallbaum.
I have already discussed these two passages.
(7) 43 B-46 A : Kara roi/f (^ . . . hos re av = 161 lines, Stallbaum.
Here the unit shrinks. If Cicero's version covered four folios of Qy
as seems likely, he must have expanded somewhat.
(8) 46 A-47 B : nfp\ rrjv Xtio'rijra . . . 8o)pq6iv (k dfa>v = (Cic.) Tim. 49-52 : sed
f si in . . . neque dabitur = 44 lines, Stallbaum.
Cicero's Timaens in its present form ends here. This last portion
formed in Q one block with Fat. 1-4. While Fat. 1-4. = 54 lines
in Teubner, the normal amount for a folio, 77;;/. 49-52, which
must also have formed a folio = 46 lines only. There must have
been some irregularity here.
(9) 47 B-92 B (end) : Xf-yw bq tovto . . . fxovoytvijs uv = 1862 lines, Stallbaum.
If we employ the usual unit 46, this corresponds roughly to about
40 folios (46 x 40 = 1 840), i. e. 5 quaternions have been lost.
z 2
340
DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
It appears, therefore, that the mutilations in Cicero's Timaeus are
due to the loss of folios in Q. When perfect it seems to have
occupied 6^ folios, i. e. eight quaternions and one folio, thus distri-
buted. I mark with an asterisk those parts of Cicero's version now
extant :
17 A-27 D correspond to 9 folios of Q
*27 D-37 c „ 6
37 c-38 c „ I
*38 c-40 E „ 2
*40E-4I E. „ I „ „
*4IE-43B „ I „ „
43B-46A „ 4 „ „
*46 A-47 B „ I „ „
47 B-92 B ,,40 „ „
Out of 6^ folios only 1 1 have survived.
The other work in the corpus which has suffered from extensive
mutilation is the^*? Fato. This has lost both beginning and end and
also has a lacuna at § 4, probably also another at § 45. If we leave
out of consideration for the moment these and other lacunae, also
Top. 1-3, the contents of Q seem to have been as follows :
N. D. i. i-ii. 156 =32 ff.
N. D. ii. \s(>-Div. ii. 127 = 88
Dtv. ii. 127-end
= 6
Timaeus
= 65
Fat. 1-4
= I
5-41
= 10
/^\-Top. 28
= 5
Top. 28-72
= 8
72-Parad. 27
= 12
Parad. 27-Lttaill.
= 4
Lucull. 2-13
= 4
\l-Leg. i. 21
= 44
Leg. i. 2i-iii. 48 (end)
= 34
313
To this must be added one folio for Top. 1-3 and the missing end
of the de Fato ; also allowance must be made for the various lacunae.
In all probability Q contained not less than 40 quaternions (= 320 ff.),
very possibly more.
I now proceed to discuss the content of a folio in Q.
DE NATURA DEORUM, ETC. 341
Here we must go for information to :
Tim. 38-43 : quia de suis . . . aptissimum = 52 lines, Teubner
44-8 : sed iam duplex . . . modo illuc = 54 ,, ,,
Fat. 1-4 : quia pertinet . . . considamus hie = 54 ,, „
The last passage is preceded and followed by a lacuna. It therefore
represents a folio of Q.
The contents of these three passages in letters arc:
Tifn. 38-43 = 2189
44-8 = 2362
Fat. 1-4 = 2271
If we take the average for the three passages, the result is 2274.
This would give us 1137 for a page and 568 for a column, if it was
written in two columns.
I now turn to :
Top. 1-3 : maiores nos . . . suavitate = 27 lines, Teubner.
I have previously given my reasons for taking this to represent a
page of Q. The passage consists of 1149 letters. This is fairly
close to 1 137.
I have already called attention to :
N.D. i. 1-2 : esse debeat . . . sententias =173 lines, Teubner.
This passage is omitted by AC^, but found in B. It consists of 5 58
letters. This again is very near to the average previously arrived
at, 568. I am, therefore, inclined to think that AC^ here omitted
a column of Q.
It now remains to inquire the length of a line in Q. I have already
suggested that it was written in columns. The formation of the
principal MSS. is as follows. A is written in long lines, which
frequently consist of some 80 letters. Several leaves, however, of
the rt'r Dtvinatio/ic, in which there are long quotations from poetry,
are written in two columns, this arrangement being adopted for the
intermediate portions of prose, as well as for the quotations. This
looks like a survival from a more ancient formation (cf. p. 96). B is
written throughout in long lines with an average of about 50 letters.
Fand P are written in double columns.
I now proceed to consider the internal evidence furnished by the
principal IMSS.
A has been carefully corrected, as will be seen from the following
342
DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
list of additions made by A^, where yi^ omits. I have included with
them one passage, Top. 28, which is not supplied by A"^ :
(12) Ttffi. 44
(13) N.D.I 120
(14) N.n.l 72
Le£:. i. 35
(15) Biv. ii. 93
(ly) N.D. ii. 10
Div. ii. 80
(18) Z>/i;. ii. 103
(19) N.D. iii. 4
Top. 90
Leg. i. 49
(20) Div. i. 123
ii. 38
(21) Lucull. 93
99
(22) N.D. ii. 72
/v?/. 8
Lucull. 24
Z^"^. i. 45
(24) Fat. 30
(26)iV.Z>.ii. 107
Liicull. 1 2
(29) Tt*/. 28
Lucull. 67
(30) Z^/V. i. 67
(31) A^.Z>. i. 120
(32) A^.Z*. ii.87
Div. ii. 55
Fat. 12
(33) A^.Z). iii. 5
Z>/V. ii. 38
Lucull. 122
(34) Z'aA 34
(35) Top. 84
7/>«. 30
Z^^. ii. 24
(40) Lucull. 62
Leg. iii. 31
luste vixerit
quam Democrito
ex Lycio nihil ne
et beniuolentia
hoc modo illo modo
* commemorare possum
deinde inventionem
est igitur divinatio
causa quam refellendi
et institute et natura
quoi referant gratiam
quaesivisse quid esset
exta esse quaha cuique
te paucorum neque primum
esse alia non probabilia
diligenter retractarent
tecum quam cum alio Idibus
si se ignorabit sapientia
ingenia iuvenum non ita at
medicum sive non adhibueris
revolvens sese conficiensque
disserentem et item Antiochum
** -tratuum more aequitate consistat (mn. A)
* haec primum conclusio quam habeat
* est ut vaticinari furor vera soleat
** -tate rerum tum principia mentis quae
ad usum meliores potuerint esse neque
** -res causas rerum non quaerere tu vates ^
oriente canicula natum esse et Fabium
fundamenta iecisse nostrae civitatis
vestem autem deus potest non inpertire
* ut videamus terra penitusne defixa sit
antecedat id ei causa sit sed quod cuique
quale quid sit aut simpliciter quaeritur
tardiusque maiorem celeriusque minorem
impie commissum est quod expiari poterit
* assensione omnem et motum animorum et rationem
eorum libidines nisi illi ipsi qui eas frangere
1 ^1 has :
magna stultitia e earu reiu deos
facere effecto boeotios credis thebaide uidisse ex galloru gallinaceoru cantu uictoriam esse
thebanorum.
DE NATURA DEORUM, ETC. 343
(50) Lucull. 106: meminit Sciron Epicuri dogmata. Vera igitur i'.Ia sunt omnia
(53) Tim. 3 : et interit nee umquam esse vere potest. Omne autem quod
gignitur
(54) Div. i. 60 : agrestis immanitas cum sit inmoderato obstup>efacta potu
atque
(56) Fat. 16: medii inter se dividuntur, possum dicere si in sphaera maximi
orbes
(59) Leg. i. 20: nobis omnis est disputatio explicanda rectissime et quidem ista
duce
(65) Dill. ii. 45 : unde fulmen venerit, quo concesserit, quid significet autem nulla
ratio docet
(77) Div. ii. 48 : Praxitelia capita. Ilia enim ipsa efificiuntur detractione neque
quicquam illud adfertur a
(7S) Lucull. 99 : * quae percipi possint,aIia quae percipi non possint. In altero
autem alia visa esse probabilia
(83) Div. i. 34 : persecuntur veteres obser\-atione didicerunt. Carent autem
arte ii qui non ratione aut coniectura.
To these must be added the following dittography :
(44) A''. D. i. 123 : dixerit invidiae detestandae gratia dixisse neque bis scr.
In this list there are three telescoped passages of 29, 31, 32 letters.
The first of these is otnitted by B^ as well as by A. It seems clear
that 29-32 is the average length of line in a common ancestor. It
is to be noticed that omissions of 29 {Lucull. 67), 30 [Div. i. 67),
^^ {Lucull. 122) are not due to 6pi. like most of the other omissions.
I would draw special attention to one of the telescoped passages :
N.D. i. 120: censet imagines divinitate praeditas inesse in universitate
rerum, turn principia mentis quae sint in eodem universo deos esse dicit.
For this A has :
censet imagines diuinitatc praeditas inesse in uniuersi sunt in eodem nniucrso deos
esse jn unjuersjtatf dicit
In the margin is :
tate rerum tCi principia mentes quae sunt
There is a reference mark for insertion after wiivcrsi. A previous
MS. seems to have had :
inesse in uniuersi
tate rerum turn principia mentis quae (31)
sunt in eodem uniuerso deos esse
Here 1. 2 was omitted. I take in universitate to be a correction for
344 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
in tmiversi, which made its way into the text. If so, an intermediary
MS. may have had :
in uniuersi mg, in uniuersitate
sunt in eodem uniuerso deos esse (27)
The variant was received into the text a h'ne further down. Subse-
quently the missing words were recovered by A^ from another source.
The following corruptions are interesting :
Div. i. 58 : praedictum est fore eos eventus rerum dictum est A
This suggests in an ancestor :
prae
dictum est fore eos euentus rerum (28)
N. D. i. 24 : quodque in nostro corpore molestum sit, cur hoc idem non
habeatur molestum [cur] in deo ? A.
This indicates :
molestum sit
cur hoc idem non habeatur molestum (29)
in deo
A^Z>. ii. 123: cum parva squilla quasi societatem coit comparand! cibi ;
itaque cum pisciculi parvi in concham hiantem innataverunt.
For pisciculi A \\diS pisciili^ and inserts piscictili before parva sqtiilla.
This indicates :
cum
parua squilla quasi societatem (27)
coit comparand! cibi itaque cum (27)
7ng. pisciculi pisculi parui
There are also two longer passages, viz. :
(94) N. D. iii. 24 : eorumque certis temporibus vel accessus vel recessus sine
deo fieri non possunt. Vide, quaeso, si omnis motus omniaque quae
certis temporibus ordinem suum conservant.
A^ repeats vel accessus before ordinem. This indicates :
eorumque certis temporibus
uel accessus uel recessus sine deo fi (31)
eri non possunt uide quaeso si omnis mo (32)
tus omniaque quae certis temporibus (31)
ordinem suum conseruant
(124) Div. ii. 13 : divinationem esse earum rerum praedictionem et praesensionem
quae essent fortuitae. Primum eodem revolveris. Nam et medici et
gubernatoris et imperatoris praesensio est rerum fortuitarum.
A"^ re^e-A.X.s praedictionem before fortuitarum. This indicates:
I
DE NATURA DEORUM, ETC. 345
re mm
praedictionem et praesensionem quae (32)
essent fortuitae primum eodem reuol (31)
ueris nam et medici et gubernatoris (30)
et imperatoris praesensio est rerum (31)
fortuitarum
Special interest attaches to the telescoped passage Top. 28, -tratnuuL
more aequitatc cousistat (29), since it comes between two blocks of
text, viz. Top. 4-2S and 28-72, and is also omitted by B.
With this omission is to be coupled a curious repetition, or antici-
pation, in ii. 16, where the large dislocation in all MSS. takes place.
Here A before going on with § 86, ex scse pcrfectiores, inserts from
largitate fundit, ea ferarumne an hominum causa gignere videtur (54)
There seems to be a relation between these two passages.
B.
Omissions of B^ (except where otherwise noted)
(11) N.D. i. 94
ii. 64
86
128
(14; x\.D. i. 2
(15) N.D.Vu.e^
(16) A^.Aii. 142
(17) A^.Z). iii.34
id.
(18) A^.Z?. ii.64
(19) N.D. i. 90
ii. 140
Div. ii. 87
Lucull. 22
(20) Div. i. 61
ii. 51
(21) N.D. ii. 74
Div. ii. 90
Parad. 30
(24) N. D. i, 86
Dir>. ii. 66
(25) A'.Z>. iii. 32
Di2>. ii. II
Lucull. 99
verendum est
maximus quia
sicut membra
ad perpctuam
atque moueantur
di discere possim
** -cos oculos fecit et
innumerabilia sunt
ut voluptas ut dolor
divum hunc perhibeto
si quidem aeterni sunt
sed quasi spectatores
ergo hoc divinationis
ennoeas enim notitias
* sedata atque restincta
dicam an hominem, si deum
» Ariopagi sic cum dicimus
natura et ad quam quisque
potes autem esse tu civis
an si quod sit id esse mortale
sed ut in cunis fuerit anguis
est et quod est contra naturam
utendum pecunia quern ad modiim
alia quae percipi non possint
346 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
(28) Parad. 25 : quicquid non oportet scelus esse
Leg. ii. 49 : pecuniae capiat aut si maior pars
(29) Top. 28 : ** -tratuum more aequitate consistat
(31) N.D. ii. 50 : turn defectibus in initia recurrendo ^
(33) Div. i. 21 : atque una fixi ac signati temporis hora
i. 35 : aut eandem gentem in fulgoribus errare
(34) Lucull. 6 : * enitimur gloriam vero non modo non minui
(35) Fat. 17 : quod non necesse fuerit et quicquid fieri
iij) ^-D. ii. 61 : * inest maior aliqua sic appellatur ut ea ipsa
(38) Fat. 36 : non possit an eius modi cum quo effici aliquid
(39) Tim. 3 : quod adfert opinionem sensus rationis expers {otn. B,
not £^)
(41) yV.Z?. iii. 87 : * lovemque optimum et maximum ob eas res appellant
Dz'v. ii. 150 : * esse iucundius. Quae cum essent dicta, surreximus
(43) N.D. ii. 18 : a terra sumpsimus, aliud ab umore, aliud ab igni, aliud
(44) N.D. iii. 87 : * salvos incolumes opulentos copiosos neque Herculi
(45) A'. Z?. ii. 7 : * Mopsum, Tiresiam, Amphiaraum, Calchantem, Helenum
quos'^
Div. ii. 19 : . * locus est divinationi quae a te fortuitarum rerum est
(46) N.D.'i. 51 : nihil enim agit, nullis occupationibus est implicatus
Tim. 23 : eadem parte praestantem extremis eademquesuperatam^^/jj'f?-.^
(48) N.D. i. 95 : immortalisque sit. Quid autem obstat quo minus sit beatus
Div. i. 14 : vocibus instat et adsiduas iacit ore querelas cum primum
(49) N.D.ni.So: ** Reguli corpus est praebitum. Cur Africanum domestic!
pari-
(51) Leg. i. 54 : bonum esse decreverint, hie nisi quod honestum esset, putarit
(52) Div. i. 130 : * extiterit pingue et concretum esse caelum ut eius adspiratio
(58) A.Z>. iii. 69: **esse ratione nee vero scaena solum referta est his sceleri-
bus sed mul- *
(61) Div. ii. 83 : et eius verbum aliquod apte ceciderit ad id quod ages aut
cogitabis ea res dis scr.
Top. 9 : de quo disseritur, tum definitio adhibetur, quae quasi in-
volutam evolvit
(65) N.D. iii. 32: **ullo sensu iucunda accipere non accipere contraria. Si
igitur voluptatis sen-
(67) N.D. iii. 29: ad accipiendam vim externam et ferundam paratum est.
Mortale igitur omne animal
(395) ^- D. ii. 16 : Chrysippus quidem . . . quam deum
^ These words omitted loco sua are inserted immediately afterwards.
^ This passage, which is omitted loco suo, is inserted in § 8 Siiier paruissent,
3 The dittography of this passage is corrupt, so also that in Div. ii. 83. Cf. Top. 14.
Possibly two variants have been combined.
* Schwenke reports B as omitting ratione . . . multo. According to my collation B^
wrote summato {pm. med.) for summa esse . , . nntlto. B"^ adds esse over the erased letters
'to (after sumnia).
DE NATURA DEORUM, ETC. 347
The following case requires explanation :
Top. 14: si ita Fabiae pecunia legata est a viro, si ei viro mater familias
esset, si ea in manum non convenerat
/}' has : si ita fabiae pecunia • in manum non convenerat
B mg. adds : p. e. cum non iam legata est a uiro si ei uiro mater familias
esset, si ea in (</<?/.) gf
Here p. c. cum non iam — pccuniam. A has pecunia p c cum non
iavi. The dittography therefore was present in the archetype. If
so, B omits 53 letters. This agreement is a striking example of the
close connexion between A and B.
Here there are several telescoped passages, viz. :
16 {X.D. ii. 142) 58 (.V. D. iii. 69)
29 (7b/. 28) 65 (.V. Z;. iii. 32)
49 (A'. D. iii. 80)
The most striking point here is the relation of 58 to 29. This is all
the more significant because the words :
-tratuum more aequitate consistat (29)
form a connecting link between two blocks of text, the second of
which, Top. 28-72, was omitted by A and B^. It would appear that
they formed a line in some ancestor.
I cannot attach any importance to 16 {N.D. ii. 142) in spite of
the fact that 16x3 =48, and 16 x 4 = 64. There is no trace of so
small a unit in the omissions either of i? or of any other MS. in the
case of this corpus. I must, therefore, look upon this omission as
a proprius error due to chance.
There remain the figures 49 and d^, which admit of more than
one explanation, which, therefore, I reserve for the moment.
I would call especial attention to :
A'. D. ii. 50 : neque solum eius species ac forma mutatur turn crescendo turn
defectibus in initia recurrendo sed etiam rcgio, quae turn est aquilenta
tum 1 australis. In lunae quoque cursu est et brumae quaedam et solstitii
similitude
.5 has:
neque solum
eius species ac forma mutatur tum crescendo sed etiam regio quae tum est a
quilenta aut australis in lunae quoque cursu turn defectibus jn jnicia recurren
est {in ras. ex do) et brumae quaedam
The corrector inserts the words iutn . . . recurrendo (31) in their
proper place after crescendo.
' So editors with v, aut celt.
348 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
Here the intervening passage, scd ctiam regio . . . qiwqiie cursu,
consists of 63 letters. This suggests the following arrangement in
a predecessor :
turn crescendo
turn defectibus in initia recurrendo (31)
sed etiam regio quae turn est aquilenta (32)
aut australis in lunae quoque cursu (30)
est et
In connexion with this I would take another passage :
N. D. \. 6: desertaeque disciplinae et iam pridem relictae patrocinium nec-
opinatum a nobis esse susceptum. Nos enim nee subito coepimus philo-
sophari nee mediocrem a primo tempore aetatis in eo studio operam
curamque eonsumpsimus
^has:
desert^que discipline copinaturn rnediocrern a
prirno tempore aetatis et iam pridem relict^ patrocinium
necopinatum a nobis esse susceptum. nos autem nee subito cepimus phi
losophari nee mediocrema primo tempore aetatis in eo studio operam
curamque eonsumpsimus
Here the words ct iam pridem . . . philosophari nee = 99 letters.
It is to be observed that the obelized passage in B consists of two
parts, viz. (1) eopinattim, (2) mediocrem . . . aetatis. The error is,
therefore, complicated. The simplest solution seems to be that the
words medioerein . . . aetatis (29) were in the margin of a MS.
written thus :
discipline
et iam pridem relietf patrocinium ne (31)
copinatum a nobis esse susceptum nos au (33)
tem nee subito cepimus philosophari nee (34) mg. mediocrem a primo
tempore aetatis
The scribe was puzzled by 6//., viz. -;/^, ne^ nee. He first skipped a
line and wrote eopinatiwt, then he inserted the marginal addition
meant to come after nee in 1. 4.
The comparison of these figures with those previously obtained
by the analysis of ^, and especially with the repetition oivelaecessns
after an interval of 94 letters in N. D. iii. 24, and that of praedic-
tiones after an interval of 123 letters in Div. ii. 13, suggests that at
the back of A and B there is a MS. with an average of 31 letters to
the line.
I now return to the other telescoped passages, viz. 49 {N. D. iii.
DE NATURA DEORUM, ETC. 349
80) and 65 {N.D. iii. 32). Here it is necessary to walk warily,
since there are several possibilities. It is possible to look on them
as multiples of a smaller unit, e. g. 23-5. When, however, we are
dealing with a MS. in long lines like B, there is always the possibility
that the immediate model was a MS. much like itself. If so, 49
would be a very suitable length for a line in the model, while 65 can
be explained as 32 + y^. Thus :
Div. ii. 150 (end) : mihi vero, inquit ille, nihil potest esse iucundius. Quae
cum essent dicta surreximus.
B^ after Jiihil potest goes on immediately with the block, N.D.
i. 91-ii. i6,agnosccrem iion invitus, &c., which comes here in this MS.
R^ adds in the margin esse iucundius . . . stcrrexitnus (41).
There is a very interesting passage in N.D. ii. 7 :
Quod si ea ficta credimus licentia fabularum, Mopsum, Tiresiam, Amphia-
raum, Calchantem, Helenum, quos tanien augures ne ipsae quidem fabulae
adscivissent
B^ omitted Mopsuvi . . . quos (45) suo loco and inserted the words
subsequently in § 8 after qiii religionibus paruissent. The inter-
mediate passage, viz. tanien augures . . .paruissent, consists of 650
letters. This is the sort of error which may throw light upon the
pagination of an ancestor.
It is to be noted that, out of ten omissions of 41-9 letters, six
cases, including the telescoped passage (A^. D. iii. 80), are not due
to 6/i. This is a larger proportion than elsewhere.
On the whole, the evidence inclines me to think that we are here
on the track of an immediate ancestor in longer lines.
It is to be observed that the longest omission of B, 395, appears to
be in relation to the two which precede it, 65 and 67 (66 x 6 = 396).
The passage is one which demands special mention, since it is in the
troubled zone, ii. 15-16, where the first great dislocation took place.
B^ reads as follows :
muho ma
gis in tantis motionib; tantisq: uicissitudinib; ta multarum rerum at
que tantarum ordinationibus in quib; nihil umquam inniensa et infi
nita uetustas mentita sit statuat necesse est ab aliqua mente tantos natu
r§ motus gubernari ex sese perfectiores
Here ex sese perfectiores is the beginning of the dislocated block,
ii. 86-156. B^ has omitted {a.(ter gudernari) :
Chrysippus quidem quamquam est acerrimo ingenio, tamen ea dicit ut ab
350 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
ipsa natura didicisse non ut ipse repperisse videatur. Si enim, inquit, est
aliquid in rerum natura quod hominis mens quod ratio quod vis quod
potestas humana efficere non possit, est certe id quod illud efficit homine
melius : atqui res caelestes omnesque eae quarum est ordo sempiternus ab
homine confici non possunt : est igitur id a quo ilia conficiuntur homine
mehus. Id autem quid potius dixeris quam deum ? (39S)
The missing passage, together with :
tarn multarum rerum atque tantarum ordinibus in quibus nihil umquam
immensa et infinita uetustas mentita sit statuat necesse est ab aliqua mente
tantos naturae motus gubernari (149)
occurs later on in B, after the end of §§ 86-156, before the next
block, ii. 16-86, etenim si di . . . fcrant aliquid, to which they
belong.
In the present passage the words Chrysippus . . .quam deum have
been added at the foot of the page, but subsequently erased. Also,
a corrector has struck out in the text the words tarn multarum . . .
gubernari.
It is to be remembered that the writer of A after ii. 16, dixeris
qjiam deum, inserts ii. 156 :
largitate fundit, ea ferarumne an hominum causa gignere videtur? (54)
and then goes on with §§ 86-156,
I am not clear what conclusion is to be drawn from these errors,
but would merely point out that the omission of 395 letters here by
B may =12 lines of 33 (= 396).
V.
Whereas in A and B nearly all omissions have been remedied by
the corrector, in F a number have not been rectified.
(11) N. D.\\. ^2: et religioso i?;;z. V^
Div. i. 95 : et discrimen <?;«. V
105 : aut scientia om. V
(13) Parad. 10 : * ii qui banc rem p. om. V
(14) N.D. ii. 58 : vel providentia om. V^
72 : ex intellegendo om. V^
(15) N.D. iii. 21 : quid dicis melius om. V^
(19) Fat. 18 : id enim fore diceretur om. V^
Lucull. 20 : qui doleat et inter eum om. V^
(20) N. D. ii. 103 : cum sole turn degrediens o7n. V^
(23) Lucicll. 67 : percipi ab iis quae possint om. V
DE NATURA DEORUM, ETC. 351
(24) A^. D. ii. 72 : tamquam legendo delegendis om. V^
Div. ii. 129 : nisi sapientem divinuin esse om. V
Lucull. 9 : quam apud Catulum fuissemus om. F'
(25) Fat, 8 : in campo ambulemus tecum quam om. V
(26) N.D. ii. 52 : duodecim signorum orbem annis om. T'
83 : nobiscuni videt, nobiscum audit 07n. F'
Fat. 30: adversarium sive non habuerit om. V^
Tim. 8 : et me qui disseram hominem esse om. V
(27) Lucull. 19: aut deducimus multaque facimus om. V
{28) Tim. 38 : **quamquam nee argumentis nee rati- om. V
(37) N.D. iii. 64: disputemus dicaliusu ignais immortalibus om. V^
(38) Div. ii. 98 : * non in hominibus solum verum in bestiis etiam om. V^
(41) Fat. 38 : non falsum esse aut quod falsum non est qui potest om. F*
(44) Lucull. 91 : quasi disceptatricem et iudicem. Cuius veri et falsi om. V*
(44) Div. i. 125 : praedictum praesensumque ut cum evenerit ita cadat om. V^
(corr. m. i in r>ig.)
(47) N.D. iii. 29 : si omne animal tale est, immortale nullum est. Ergo itidem
om. V
(49) Fat. 35 : utinam ne in Pelio nata uUa umquam esset arbor etiam supra
om. V
(52) A'. D. iii. 36 : nisi ignem probabilius enim videtur tale quiddam esse animum
om. Fi
(56) Fat. 4 : volo. An mihi, inquam, potest quicquam esse molestum quod tibi
gratum o?n. V
(59) Fat. 27 : ne ilia quidem eversa vera est haec enuntiatio, cepit Numantiam
Scipio om. V^
(64) Fat. 33 : quocirca si Stoicis qui omnia fato fieri dicunt consentaneum est
huius modi om. V^
(66) Di7'. ii. 103 : hoc quoque est concedendum. At quod omne est, id non
cemitur ex alio extrinsecus om. V
Here the telescoped passage, Tim. 38, is of special interest. An
ancestor must have had
fidem non habere
quamquam nee argumentis nee rati (28)
onibus certis
V gives /idem non habere onibus certis {vied. om.).
It is to be noticed that there is an omission of .56 letters in Fat. 4 ;
also that neither here nor in Fat. 4 does V"^ supply the omission.
There is a good deal of evidence for a shorter unit. Thus we
have four cases of 26 and three of 24, to which 52, 49, 47 appear to
correspond. It is to be noticed that the omission of 45 in Div. i.
125 is supplied by the first hand. V is written in double columns
with an average of 28-30 letters. It is more likely that its model
^^■^
DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
was in some such formation, possibly in somewhat larger letters,
than that it was in long lines. If so, the scribe may here have
missed two lines of his model.
C.
Omissions of C, or C^ :
(12) iV.Aii. 58
(13) N.D. ii. 142
(14) N.D. iii. 33
(15) N.D. ii. 146
prudentia vel ovt. C
* si quid noceret ovi. C^
et quod ea sentit otn. C
et parte tangendi ovi. C
* atque ut animi item om. C
modici turn recessus om. C
nisi eadem docuisset ojn. C
-dem caperent quantum om. C
* primus miles fiat bono om. C
auspicia patrum sunto om. C^
nee intellegi quicquam om. C
nisi in eo qui didicerit om. C^
cum sole turn degrediens om. C
nulla perennia servantur om. C^
flammeae quocirca terrae otn. C
alvi dentisque evolsionem om. C
ignoremusque vim sermonis om. C
contemplandum et imitandum om. C
alias esse cornibus armatas om. C
Lacedaemonem Atheniensium om. C
me non profiteer secutum esse om. C
censeret cum ille quiescendum om. C
atque in amnes mare influxerit om. C
tantum laborare. Quorum igitur causa om. C
esse ponit ab bisque principium motus om. C
argumentari soleo, perspicuitas enim om. C
mea Tertia, quid tristis es? Mi pater, inquit om. C
* in quo inerant sortes collocavissent simia otn. C
eos opiniones esse de bestiis quibusdam quam apud ottt. C
nubium magnitudinem ventorumque vim cognovissent om. C
quodque undique aptum atque perfectum expletumque sit
philosophorum disputationem interpretarentur tacere prae-
staret philosophis quam iis qui se otti. C
(451) N.D. iii. 58-9: teniae pater Upis . . . natum accepimus <?;«. C
(558) N. D. i. 1-2 : esse debeat . . . dinumerare sententias otn. C^
To these should be added a dittography :
(37) N. D, iii. 36 : quod si ignis ex sese animal est nulla se alia bis scrt
(16)
N.D.
i. 96
(17)
N. D.
ii. 49
(18)
Div. i
. 116
Leg.
ii. 52
(19)
Div. i
. 102
Leg.
iii. 9
(20)
N.D.
«-43
98
ii
. 103
(22)
N.D
ii. 9
118
(23)
N. D. iii. 57
Leg.
ii. 8
(24)
N.D.
ii. 37
121
154
(25)
N.D.
i. 12
(26)
Div.
i. 77
1^
(31)
133
(32)
N.D.
i, 32
iii. 8
(35)
Div. i
. 103
(37)
Div.
i. 76
(42)
N.D.
i. 81
(44)
N.D.
li. 95
(47)
N.D.
ii- 37
otn
C
(81)
N. D. iii. ']^
DE NATURA DEORUM, ETC. 353
I have hesitated to mark Leg. ii. 53 (iS) as a telescoped passage.
Here the other IMSS. give :
eos qui tantumdem caperent quantum omnes heredes
C has cos qui tantiim ovvtcs hcrcdcs {med. ovi.). Here the omission
seems due to o^i.
The omissions of Care not so instructive as those of A and B. It
will be seen that nearly all are due to 6/u.
There is little trace of the ancestor in 29-32 letters which wc have
observed in the case of AB, though the three omissions of 32 letters
may be thus explained.
The interesting point is that C seems to have passed through an
ancestor written in shorter lines. Thus, in ii. 37 wc have an omission
of 24 letters in close proximity to one of 47. The intervening words
contain 297 letters (24 x 12 = 288). I write out the passage as it
appears to have stood in this ancestor :
cui nihil absit
quodque undique aptum atque (24)
perfectum expletumque sit (23)
omnibus suis numeris et parti (25)
5 bus scite enim chrysippus ut (24)
clipei causa inuolucrum uagi (25)
nam autem gladii sic praeter (24)
mundum cetera omnia alioium cau (27)
sa esse generata ut eas fruges (25)
10 atque fructus quos terra gig (24)
nit animanlium causa animan (24)
tes autem hominum ut equum ue (24)
hendi causa arandi bouem uenan (26)
di et custodiendi canem ipse (24)
15 autem homo ortus est ad mundum (25)
contemplanduin et imitandum (24)
(7 has omitted lines 2-3 and 16, the omission in each case being due
to 6/x.
I would also call attention to an interesting corruption :
A'.D. i. 85 : sententiis quas appellatis Kvpiat bo^ai (cyrias doxas codd.)
(T adds GR. (= Graeaun) before quas. This indicates:
sententiis
quas appellatis cyrias doxas (25) uig. GR.
i«5s A a
354 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
This gloss is found in the margin of Harl. 2622, which has
senten
gf. ciis quas appellatis cyrias doxas haec iit opinor
In view of this evidence it is interesting to notice that 451 =
81x5 + 46. There seems to be a relation between these figures.
The largest omission (558) is shared by A, and goes back to an
earlier stage in the tradition,
P.
There is little to be learnt from P, and I only give its omissions
for the sake of completeness. None of them have been supplied by
a second hand.
(12) N. p. iii. 88: ac potestatem
(15) N. D. ii. 128 : et ad procreandum
(25) N. D. iii. 14 : quis cornicis cantum notavit
(28) A". D, iii. 120: *atque ita se erigiint ut animantes
(32) A'. D. ii. 122: parlim unguium tenacitate arripiunt
(40) A". D. iii. 91 : portenta enim ab utrisque et prodigia dicuntur
(50) A^. D. ii. 112 : *cuius propter laevum genu Vergilias tenui cum luce videbis
(94) A'. D. iii. 24 : vel accessus vel recessus sine deo fieri non possunt. Vide,
quaeso, si omnis motus omniaque quae certis temporibus
The following repetition is recorded :
A'. D. iii. 14 : dicatis omnia, quod autem semper ex omni aeternitate verum
fuerit, id esse fatum [dicatis]
Here dicatis . . . fatJim = 66.
This corruption, in connexion with ii. 122 (32), may possibly
indicate a line of 32-3 letters in an ancestor.
I now proceed to consider the light which these lists throw upon
the common archetype. The chief evidence is given by the tele-
scoped passages in ABV. I have given reasons for thinking that
one of these, N. D. iii. 80, where B omits 49 letters, may represent
a line in the model of ^. Apart from this, we have the following
cases :
(28) Tim, 38: **quamquam nee argumentis nee rati- 0111. V
(29) Top. 28 : **-tratuum more aequitate consistat ofit. AB^
(31) A^. D. i. 120 : **-tate rerum, tum principia mentis quae om. A^
(32) Div. ii. 55 : **-res causas rerum non quaerere tu vates ^w. A^
DE NATURA DEORUM, ETC. 355
(59) N. D. iii. 69 : ♦♦esse ratione nee vero scaena solum referta est his sceleri-
bus sed mult- o/n. B^
(65) X. D. iii. 32: ♦♦ullo sensu iucunda accipere, non accipere contraria. Si
igitur voluptatis sen- om. B^
Next to these the most significant passage is N.D. ii. 16, where
A inserts from § 156.
(54) largitate fundit, ea ferarumne an hominum causa gignere vidctur?
The natural interpretation to put on these figures is that Q was
written in two columns, and had an average of 28-9 lines in one
column and 31-2 in another.
In such a MS. there would be abnormally short and long lines.
For this reason special interest attaches to a passage preserved by
r^ only, viz. :
(24) LucuU. log: si quicquam comprendi ^ posse om, AB
I have not mentioned this previously, since it is not supplied by the
second hand in either MS.
I mention with more reserve another passage given by V^
only, viz. :
(34) Fat. 41 : ne ille quidem esset in nostra potestate om. ABV^
I now call attention to the formation of V. It is written in two
columns, with 24 lines to the page. In the page reproduced by
Chatelain, if we exclude abbreviations, col. i has an average of
2iS letters and col. 2 of 30 letters to the line. It appears probable
that the formation of Q was somewhat similar.
Tim. 44-8, which appears to represent a folio of Q, contains
2,362 letters. If we suppose that Q was written in two columns,
this gives an average of 1,181 letters to a page and 590 to a
column. If so, a column appears to have contained about 21 lines
(28x21 = 588).
We have now to consider whether it is possible to push back the
inquiry to a further stage, and to investigate the antecedents of Q.
Certain corruptions found in all our MSS. must have been already
present in the archetype. The most striking case is :
Div. i. 97 : quotiens senatus decemviros ad libros ire iussit ! quantis in rebus
quamque saepe responsis haruspicum paruit !
The words quotiens . . . iussi/ (42) occur here /oco suo in the MSS.,
* So V. \i comprehendi is written, the total is 26.
A a 2
356 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
but the next colon qiiantis in . . . parnit (51) has been inserted by
editors from § 98, where the MSS. give :
Nonne et haruspices ea responderunt quae evenerunt et in Sibyllae libris
eaedem repertae praedictiones sunt ? Ouotiens senatus decemviros ad libros
ire iussit ! quantis in rebus quamque saepe responsis haruspicum paruit !
It looks as if the whole passage qtiotietis . . . paridt (93) was
originally omitted, then inserted in the wrong place, and finally a
portion of it qiiotiens . . . iiissit reinserted loco stio, while the whole
remained loco alieno.
The intermediate passage, viz. §§ 97-8, 71am et cum . . .prae-
dictiones sunt, consists of 821 letters.
In connexion with this I would take another curious passage :
Div, i. 70 : human! autem animi earn partem quae sensum quae motum quae
adpetitum habeat non esse ab actione corporis seiugatam ; quae autem
pars animi rationis atque intellegentiae sit particeps, earn turn maxinie
vigere cum plurimum absit a corpore
Here A^CV ?S\.&x pars animi repeat cam partem qnae sensum (19)-
B inserts the words in § 69, thus :
et naves subito [eam partemque sensum] perteniti metu conscendistis
where they violently disturb the sense.
The reading of -(4^ CF seems due to an initial omission of the
words eam partem quae sensum, which were then inserted after pars
animi, instead of after autem animi. The corruption in B is more
striking since there is nothing to explain the insertion of the words
here. The natural conclusion is that a page or column in an ancestor
ended at subito, and that the words were inserted here instead of
after pars animi. If so, the passage §§ 69-70, perterriti . . . pars
animi, should correspond to some division in a remote ancestor.
As a matter of fact this passage, if we omit the words eam partem
quae sensum, consists of 411 letters.
We have previously seen that in Div. \. 97-8 the intervening
passage consists of 8ai letters. The relation of 411 to 831 is very
striking. I therefore suggest that the number 411 corresponds to
the content of a column in a distant ancestor.
In connexion with these dislocations, I mention certain corrup-
tions, also present in Q, which seem to indicate a shorter line in
a previous MS. :
N. D.'x. 2 : quo omnes duce natura venimus deos esse dixerunt
DE NATURA DEORUM, ETC. 357
/), which is practically our only authority for this passage {dcfic. A),
adds sese after oiiines. This looks like a variant for esse. If so, an
ancestor may have had :
quo onines
diice natura uenimiis deos esse (25) tng. sese
dixerunt
ib. : in primis magna dissensio est, eaque nisi diiiidicatur
So editors : the MSS. add quae ahtr primis. This may be a variant
for -que. This indicates :
in primis
magna dissensio est eaque (22) //ig. quae
nisi diiudicatur
A'. D. i. 89 : quem tibi hoc daturum putas ? si enim ita esset, quid opus erat te
gradatim istuc pervenire ? sumpsisses tuo iure. Quid autem est istuc
gradatim ? nam a beatis ad virtutem, a virtute ad rationem video te
venisse gradibus
So editors, after Facciolati. The MSS. place quid autevi est istuc
gradatim (25) before sujupsisscs tuo itcre. The transposition seems
required by the sense.
X. D.\\.\\i: minorem autem Septentrionem Cepheus passis palmis terga sub-
sequitur. Namque ipse ad terguni Cynosurae vertitur Arcti
So the MSS. For terga editors read a tergo. I look on terga as
a variant for tergum, which has got into the wrong place. This
indicates :
palmis
subsequitur namque ipse ad (23)
tug. terga lergum
A'. D. iii. 50 : itemque Leonaticum est delubrum Athenis, quod Leocorion nomi-
natur
Leonaticum appears to be a variant for Leocorion, which has got
into the wrong place. This indicates :
itemque
est delubrum athenis quod (22)
ntg. leonaticum leocorion nominatur
A'. D. iii. 84 : in suo lectulo mortuus in typanidis rogum inlatus est eamque
potestatem quam ipse per scelus erat nanctus . . . filio tradidit
So the MSS., except ^, which has tyrannidis. I accept the reading
358 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
of B, and regard tyrannidis as a gloss on potestatein, which has got
into the text in the wrong place. This indicates :
mortuus in
rogum inlatus est eamque (21)
mg. tyrannidis potestatem
Liicull. 126: nee enim divinationem quam probatis uUam esse arbitror fatumque
illud quo omnia contineri dicitis contemno
So editors : the MSS. repeat esse after ilhid. This suggests :
ullam
esse arbitror fatumque illud (25)
quo omnia
On the strength of these passages, I venture to suggest the
following transposition :
A^. D. ii. 123: ut in araneolis aliae quasi rete texunt, ut si quid inhaeserit con-
fidant, aliae autem ex inopinato observant et si quid incidit arripiunt
The words ex inopinato seem out of place. They should go with
arripinnt. It seems likely that they have been inserted in the wrong
place after omission. An ancestor may have had :
aliae autem
obseruant et si quid incidit
7ng. ex inopinato arripiunt
There are other corruptions which show a multiple of this unit
(46-8), viz. :
N. D. ii. 98 : speluncarum concavas altitudines, saxorum asperitates, impenden-
tium montium altitudines
So the MSS. Lambinus suggests latitudines (after concavas).
An ancestor may have had :
concauas
latitudines saxorum asperi (24)
tates impendentium montium (24)
altitudines
N. D. iii. 8 : primum illud cur quod perspicuum in istam partem ne egere quidem
oratione dixisses quod est perspicuum et inter omnes constaret, de eo
ipso tarn multa dixeris
So the MSS., except that for est (so A V^) BV'^ give esset and C
has et. Editors omit perspiciinm after cur quod and read in ista
pavtitione for in istam partem.
DE NATURA DEORUM, ETC. 359
It is clear that perspicutim has been inserted from the context,
the corruption being due to 6/1. {quod . . . quod). The variants seem
to show that est is an accretion. This indicates in an ancestor :
quod
' in istam partem ne egere qui (23)
dem oratione dixisses quod (23)
perspicuum
^V. D. iii. 24 : vide . . . ne tertianas quidem febres et quartanas divinas esse
dicendura sit, quarum reversione et motu quid potest esse constantius ?
So the MSS. : editors read <7//^(7//r with Lambinus for ^«/rtVw. It
seems more Hkely that quidem should come after quarum. This
indicates :
ne tertianas
febres et quartanas diuinas (24)
esse dicendum sit quarum (21) mg. quidem
reuersione
•
-\'. D. iii. 45 : Quid .-' Aristaeus, qui olivae dicitur inventor, ApoUinis filius,
Theseus [qui] Xeptuni, reliqui quorum patres di, non erunt in deorum
nuinero .'
So the MSS. : qui is struck out by editors. This indicates :
aristaeus
qui oliuae dicitur inuentor (24)
apollinis filius theseus (22)
neptiini
The repetition is due to o/ut.
A'. D. iii. 61 : aut enim in nobismet insunt ipsis, ut mens, ut spes, ut fides, ut
virtus, ut Concordia, aut optandae nobis sunt, ut honos, ut salus, ut
victoria
Baiter says : ' /// spes vcl delenda vel ante ut honos transponenda
censuit Walkerus, coll. § H8 '. In § 88 we find :
quamvis licet Menti delubra et Virtuti et Fidei consecremus, tamen hacc in
nobis ipsis sita videmus : Spei, Salutis, Opis, Victoriae facultas a dis ex-
petenda est
The contradiction is obvious. An ancestor seems to have had :
ut mens
ut fides ut uirtus ut concor (23)
dia aut optandae nobis sunt (23)
tng. ut spes ut honos, ut salus
I should like to stop at this point, since I have no wish to
360 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
multiply ancestors praeter necessitateni. As, however, I have
noticed traces of a slightly shorter line, I feel bound to point them
out. The clearest case is :
N. D. iii. 42 : tertius est ex Idaeis Digitis, cui inferias adferunt [cui]
So the MSS. : editors remove ciii. The word is clearly repeated
from the context. This indicates in an ancestor :
digitis
cui inferias adferunt (19)
N. D. iii. 81 : duodequadraginta Dionysius tyrannus annos fuit
So the MSS., except that F has a transposition mark over annos.
Editors place the word before Dionysius. This indicates :
wj'. annos dionysius tyrannus (17)
fuit
N. D. iii. 35 : non oinnes interpretantur uno modo, quoniam quid diceret [quod]
intellegi noluit, omittamus
Editors here insert qui before quoniam, so F-, and strike out quod^
which is in all MSS. It seems probable that quod is a variant for
the missing qui, which has got into the text out of place. This
indicates :
uno modo 7ng. quod
quoniam quid diceret (18)
intellegi
I would here point out that in Div. i. 70 the words which have been
repeated out of place in all MSS., viz. eant partem quae sensum,
consist of 19 letters.
It is possible that we are here dealing with short lines of the
ancestor previously discussed. A passage, however, already men-
tioned, A^. D. i. 89, is somewhat significant. Here there is a
transposition of suvipsisses tuo iure (17) and quid autein est istuc
gradatim ? (25). The most probable explanation seems to be that
a line of 17 letters was here omitted and reinserted in a subsequent
MS. written in longer lines.
I now mention some corruptions which seem to be connected
with this unit :
A^. D. iii. I : quae cum Balbus dixisset, tum adridens Cotta (37)
These words are written twice by A^B^ F\ viz. at the end of ii, as
well as at the beginning of iii. This seems to be a very ancient
error, due to the repetition of two lines (19 + 18 = 37).
DE NATURA DEORUM, ETC. 361
N. D. ii. 123 : aliae quasi rete texunt ut si quid inhaeserit conficiant, aliae autem
[ut] . . . observant
So ABC. ut is repeated from the context. This indicates :
texunt
ut si quid inhaeserit (18)
conficiant aliae autem (20)
Div. ii. 74 : fulmen sinistrum auspicium optimum [quod] habemus ad omnes
res praeterquam ad comitia, quod quidem institutum rei pubiicae causa
est
So the MSS. : quod is inserted by anticipation from the context.
This indicates :
optimum
habemus ad omnes res (17)
praeterquam ad comitia (20)
quod quidem
Tim. 44 : cum autem animos corporibus necessitate insevisset cumque ad cor-
pora [necessitate] tum accessio fieret, tum abscessio
So the MSS. The repetition seems due to the arrangement :
corporibus
necessitate inseuis (18)
set cumque ad corpora (18)
tum accessio
I now draw attention to a case where there seems to be a
transposition, viz. :
Div. i. 115 : similiter Marcius et Publicius vates cecinisse dicuntur, quo de
genere Apollinis operta prolata sunt. Credo etiam anhelitus quosdam
fuisse terrarum quibus inflatae nientes oracla funderent
Meyer transposes quo de . . . sunt i'^'j), placing the words after
credo . . .funderent (75). The transposition produces an excellent
sense. The distant ancestor seems to have had :
credo etiam anhelitus (rg)
quosdam fuisse terra (18)
rum quibus inflatae men (20)
tes oracla funderent (18)
quo de genere apolli (17)
nis operta prolata sunt (20)
In view of this transposition of yj and 75 letters, I mention the
following corrupt passages :
N. D. i. 77 : [omnium] quis tarn caecus in contemplandis rebus umquam fuit
ut non videret species istas hominum conlatas in deos .''
362 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
Davis conjectures omnino for ovmiuni. I look on omnium as a
variant for Jiomimim, which has been inserted in the wrong place.
The words qids tarn . . . homimim consist of 74 letters.
N. D. ii. 132 : multa praetereunda sunt et tamen multa dicuntur. Enumerari
autem non possunt fluminum opportunitates, aestus maritimi [multum]
accedentes et recedentes
So the MSS. : multiim seems to be a variant for midta. The words
imdta dicuntur . . . maritimi consist of 73 letters.
A'. D. ii. 145 : nam et virtutes et vitia cognoscunt, iratum propitium, laetantem
dolentem, fortetn ignavum, audacem timidumque cognoscunt
Baiter says of cognoscunt after vitia, ' vel hie vel infra malim abesse '.
To me a verb seems desirable here, but the repetition of the same
word is odd. It is possible that cognoscunt has taken the place of
another verb. The words iratum . . . cognoscunt cowsxst oi 72 letters.
N. D. ii. 146: nariumque item et gustandi et [parte] tangendi magna iudicia
sunt. Ad quos sensus capiendos et perfruendos plures etiam quam
vellem artes
So the MSS. : I look on parte as a variant for artes. The words
tangendi . . . vellevi contain 79 letters.
Fat. 41 : quam ob rem cum dicimus omnia fate fieri causis antecedentibus, non
hoc intellegi volumus, causis perfectis et principalibus sed causis ad-
iuvantibus [antecedentibus] et proximis
So the MSS. : antecedentibus was struck out by Davis. The word
is repeated from the context. The passage antecedentibus . . .
causis consists of 75 letters.
There is a striking similarity between these passages.
I mention, but do not attempt to classify, two other cases :
A". D. ii. 100: partim submersarum, partim fluitantium et innantium beluarum,
partim ad saxa nativis testis inhaerentium. Ipsum autem mare sic
terram appetens litoribus eludit ut una ex duabus naturis conflata
videatur
For saxa nativis (edd.) the MSS. have various corruptions, viz.
saxa sanati ids A, saxas anatiuis B : saxa sqnatiids V. Also for
eludit some inferior MSS. give adudit, which seems right (so
Lambinus and Davis). The corruption sa seems due to litoribus
a
eludit, i.e. the combination of a variant with a dittography of -s.
This was subsequently inserted after saxa.
DE NATURA DEORUM, ETC. 363
A*. D. ii. 137: ex intestinis auteni [alvo] secretus a reliquo cibo sucus is quo
alimur pcrmanat ad iecur per quasdam a medio intestino usque ad
portas iecoris— sic enim appellantur — ductas et directas, vias quae perti-
nent ad iecur eique adhaerent. Atque inde aliae pertinentes sunt, per
quas cadit cibus a iecore dilapsus
So the MSS. : editors strike out alvo. After atque indc aliae, Hein-
dorf inserts alio, i.e. aliae alio pertinentes. Orclli says 'sane excidit
aliquid '. It appears to me that the superfluous alvo is a variant
for the missing alio. In § 136 alvo is corrupted to alio in P.
CHAPTER XI
ASCONIUS AND PSEUDO-ASCONIUS.
These works were discovered by Poggio at St. Gallen in 141 6.
The Sangallensis (2) itself is lost, but its readings are known from
three copies, made by Poggio, Sozomenus of Pistoia, and Bartolom-
meo da Montepulciano. These copies are represented by :
P = Matritensis x, 81.
vS = Pistoriensis, Forteguerri 37.
M= Laur. liv. 5.
P appears to be written by Poggio himself, but it is not clear
whether it is his original transcript or a ' fair copy ' made afterwards.
vS" was written by Sozomenus at Constance in 141 7. M is not
the original transcript made by Bartolommeo in 1416, but a copy
of this written by an ignorant scribe.
There can be no doubt that 6" is the most faithful witness to the
readings of 2. Poggio's aim was to produce an edition which
should present the newly-discovered texts in an intelligible form,
while Bartolommeo adopted many conjectures made by his more
brilliant colleague. Sozomenus was content to play a more humble
role, and generally reproduced the corruption which he found in 2.
The latest editor, T. Stangl, speaks severely of Poggio, and looks
upon all his efforts with great suspicion. He frequently, but not
always, prints in italics words given by P, but omitted by 5, and
considers all Poggio's supplements as due to conjecture. I am
disposed to think that he goes too far. This may be seen from the
following passage: —
238. 17 ^ .■ eipaivfia /xfTct crvyxoyprjcrfas
For this P gives :
hironia et asynchores eos
The passage is omitted by 5^ and M. It is wholly inconceivable
^ The reference is to Stangl's Cicovnis Orationum Scholiastae (191 2).
* Stangl does not here mention the reading of 3'.
ASCONIUS AND PSEUDO-ASCOXIUS 365
that Poj^t^io invented this corrupt passage. How then are we to
account for its omission both by ^" and M } I can only suppose
that Sozomenus and Rartolommeo failed to decipher it, or did not
recognize that it formed part of the text. If the latter explanation
is adopted, we may conjecture that the words were written in the
margin.
I would also draw attention to :
241. 5-7 : sed POSCUNT PROVOCANT intelligendum est, ut sit sensus : provocant
se invicem. PoscUNT a pincerna petunt : maioribus autem POCULIS,
ut subaudiatur bibere
Here SM omit the words posciint a pincerna peUiiit. It is v^ry
unlikely that Poggio introduced so rare a word z.s pincerna { = \:i\x\.\tx)
in a conjectural supplement.
Also, Sozomenus was not unwilling to emend the text on
occasions. Thus :
68. 17 {%%. 2): /"J/ give itt repente gladiatores pocuh non debitos polliceretur
Here 6" has the correction populo in the text (so P"^).
42. 20 (50. i): dixerunt a manu Milonis occisum esse Clodium
So PM in the scholium : ^ adds consilio vero maioris alicuius from
the lemma, or from Cicero {Mil. 47). The hypothesis of insertion
from the context by one writer is here more simple than that of
omission by two.
The formation of the Sangallensis can be settled with some degree
of accuracy by the help of the lacunae, which in certain places,
especially in the commentary of Asconius upon the Corntliana,
recur at regular intervals. This subject was investigated by Kiessling
and Scholl, who came to the conclusion that 2) had 39-40 lines to
a page and 30-40 letters to a line. I made an independent
examination of the question, writing out the passages from which
most of the evidence is derived, and came to the same conclusion.
I found the average content of a line in i) to be 36 letters.
I will now call attention to a large omission of S, viz. :
244. 8-246. 12 : *a Verre L. Magio . . . quia nee superioris
Stangl here says ^ dnas archctypi paginas om. S '.
The omitted passage contains 2,892 letters. If we divide this
figure by 36, we obtain as result 80 (80 x 36 = 2,880). This gives
0,66 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
40 lines to a page, i.e. 5 has omitted a folio. This is a striking
confirmation of the result arrived at by Kiessling and Scholl. We
are therefore entitled to conclude that 2) contained 40 lines to
a page, with an average of 0,6 letters to the line.
I now turn to the evidence given by omissions, dittographies, &c.,
in our MSS.^ It will be noticed that most of it comes from S, also
that on several occasions M agrees with vS in an omission.
(23) 238. 17 : *hironiam et asynchores eos 07n. SM
(27) 70. 18 (91.6): cum et imperitos se homines esse oni. S
(35) 53- ^2 (66. 9) : et consulatus candidatum se ostendisset oiti. S
235. 6 ; causit ut diceret Sylla mihi iussit Sylla om. M
{37) 215. 6 : persolvisse vult enim ilium Verris pecunia om. SM
34. II (36. 20): idque ipse ipsum in superioribus circa quos Ms scr. S
(after an interval of 31 letters)
(47) 45. 7 (53. 21) : llli tribuni aerarii condemnaverunt Xlll absolverunt om. S
230. 25 : et rtirsum comperendinato iudicio dicit prior defensor otn. S
(49) 48. 14 (59. i) : in senatu legibus solveretur nisi CC adfuissent neve quis
om. S
(54) 26. 28 (25. 11) : *idem inter primes temporis sui oratores et tragicus poeta
bonus 0}n. S
(56) 61. 4 (78. 2) : qua lege suffragiorum vis potestasque convaluit, alteram
Cassiam ojii. S
241. 16 : poscunt a pincernapetunt, maioribus autem poculis ut subaudia-
tur om. SM
260, 15 : testimonium publicum mandataque acceperant a civitatibus suis
s. bis scr. PM
(63) 195. 1 : *quod hinc pendet suscipitur solum aliquid propter se recipitur ut
mihi non om. S
(64) 251.15: ergo simpliciter accipiendum est: vult enim patrem Verris
divisorem fuisse^w. .S"
(66) 224. 15: *crimina repetundarum et alia pleraque ante acta vita saepe
firmantur. Sumitur otn. S
(67) 26. 8 (24. 9) : quave ratione ut hoc loco Cicero hoc verbo ita usus sit,
praesertim cum adiecerit om. S
228. 31 : qui vero contra facit et sit impedimento ceteris astu tegat de hoc
intelligitur om. S
{yd) 16. 8 (9. i) : eius lege censuram quae magistra pudoris et modestiae
est sublatam adit. Paulo post. Persequere. PM
S'^ here has a curious error, viz. after a capital P, the first letter
of Persequere^ Sozomenus wrote ei?is lege censuram. This indicates
in 2 :
^ The references are to Stangl's edition. In the case of Asconiiis I add in brackets
references to my own edition.
ASCONIUS AND PSEUDO-ASCONIUS 367
eius lege censuram quae magistra pudoris (35)
et modestiae est sublatam adit. Paulo post (35)
Persequere
(83) 231. 26: nomina sua exegisse. Tituli debitorum noinina dicuntur prae-
sertim in his debitis in quibus hominum dis scr. S
(108) 19. 17 (14. 22): triumphus mortuus est ante diem triumphi cum cicatrix
vulneris eius quod ante plures annus in proelio acceperat rescissa esset
om. S
(140) 222.27: »si quis erit qui perpetuam orationem. Vides quia argumentis
se usurum non negat iam modo, quamquam perpetuam orationem se
neget habiturum in hac oratione quae prima est. om. M
(146) 220. II : flagitabat. Hoc Cicero utitur ad invidiam iudiciorum, infamiam
senatu iudicante. Qui Cn. Pompeio invidia tunc Pompeius fuit quod
cons, redderet populo tribuniciam potestatem oin. M
^331) SO- 14-18 (62. 6-12) : in hac causa tres sunt quaestiones: prima, cum sit
Cornelius reus maiestatis legis Corneliae, utrum certae aliquae res sunt
ex lege comprehensae quibus solis reus maiestatis teneatur, quod
patronus defendit : an libera eius interpretatione iudicii relicta sit, quod
accusator proponit. Secunda est an quod Cornelius fecit ne ca maiestatis
teneatur. Tertia, an minuendae maiestatis animum habuerit. om. P
Here we have to notice in the first place errors due to the lineation
of }i; itself. To this we may atti ibute the following examples ^ :
(35) 53. 12: om. S
235. 6 : om. .!/■
(37) 215. 6 : om. SM
34. II : bis scr. .S
(66) 224. 15 : om. S
(67) 26. 8 : om. S
228. 31 : om. S
(70) 16. 8 : repetition in .•>■
(140) 222. 27: om. A/
(146) 220. II : om. S
I omit for the present some cases which admit of more than one
explanation.
What then are we to say of the remaining figures? Arc they
due to mere chance ? It will be observed that there are some
singular sequences. Thus we have :
(27) 70. 18: om. S
(54) 26. 28 : om. S
(56) 61. 4 : om. S
241. 16: om. .^Af
260. 1 5 : it's scr. PAI
' The omissions of 66-7 letters admit of a rival explanation, see infra.
368 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
(83) 231. 26: bis scr. S (27 x 3 = 81)
(108) 19. 17 : om. S (27 X 4 = 108)
(327) 50. 14 : ofn. P (27 X 12 = 324)
Here some light is to be obtained from 260. 15, where we have
the following readings :
testimonium publicum mandata que acceperant a civitatibus suis testimo-
nium publicum mandataque acceperant a suis civitatibus scilicet P
testimonium publicum madataque acceperant a civitatibus suis testimonium
pu. madataque acceperant a civitatibus suis .s. M
testimonium publicum mandata que acceperant a civitatibus suis .s. 5
It is difficult to suppose that Poggio and Bartolommeo both made
the same dittography at the same spot. The easier explanation is
that the dittography existed in the Sangallensis, being inherited
from a previous MS. If so, we may attribute to this ancestor the
reading :
testimonium publicum mandata que (29)
acceperant a ciuitatibus suis .s. (27)
The passage was written twice in 2.
Conversely, in 231. 26, where 6" has a dittography of 83 letters,
it appears to preserve a corruption existing in 2. The previous
ancestor seems to have had :
nomina sua exegisse tituli debi (27)
torum nomina dicuntur praesertim (29)
in his debitis in quibus hominum (27)
I now turn to 241. 16. Here we have the following readings :
maioribus autem poculis ut subaudiatur poscunt a pincerna petunt maioribus
autem poculis ut subaudiatur P
maioribus autem poculis ut subaudiatur SM (ined, om.)
This suggests in a previous MS. :
maiori
bus autem poculis ut subaudiatur (28)
poscunt a pincerna petunt maiori (28)
bus autem poculis ut subaudiatur (28)
The writer omitted two lines (6ju.). How then are we to account for
the omission of the passage by SM, while it is given by /* ? The
answer must be that it was in the margin of 2, and was only noticed
or deciphered by Poggio.
ASCONIUS AND PSEUDO-ASCONIUS 369
I therefore conclude that 2 possessed a number of marginalia,
which were omitted by one, or more, of the transcribers. Thus on
one occasion (50. 14-18) Poggio himself, who scarcely ever omits
anything, left out 327 letters, i.e. 12 lines of this previous ancestor
(27x12 = 324).
It now remains to ask if any significance is to be attached to the
figures which have not yet been considered. Here also there are
some curious points to notice. Thus we have two cases where .S"
omits 47 letters, and one where SJll omit 23. There are five
omissions of ^^-J letters. I have doubtfully assigned those of 66-7
letters to 2, since it is easier to suppose that Sozomenus omitted
lines of his model. It is, however, possible that they are multiples
of 21-2 letters, and represent lines of a more remote ancestor
preserved in the marginalia of 2.
If the results of this analysis are well founded, we should expect
to find embedded in the text corruptions due to the lineation of
these ancestors. Such evidence is not lacking. I take first the
ancestor in lines of 27-8 letters.
(26) 44. 4 (52. 4) : unum turn excuti priusquam in senatum intraret priusquam
iusserat S
Wtx& priusqitai)i has been repeated by error. This indicates:
unum turn excuti
priusquam in senatum intraret (26)
iusserat
(27) 24, 7 (21. 6) : multam irrogavit quod eius opera sacra multa populi R. de-
minuta esse diceret 2
Here multa appears to be a variant for tnnllain. This indicates :
multam nig. multa
irrogauit quod eius opera sacra (27)
P. R. deminuta esse diceret
(27) 226. 1 1 : repetitio verris in qua uidetur insaniae vcrris causa velle monstrari 2
Here uerris (before in qua) appears to be an error iox furoris (edd.).
This points to :
repetitio
furoris in qua uidetur insaniae (27)
uerris causa uelle monstrari
The scribe looked forward to the next line.
(54) 206. 14 : ut haec res non solum compendio moram ac brevitatem temporis
1633 B b
370 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
toUat sed etiam circa artificium dicendi breuiter etiam in hac parte vim
oratoris ostendat 2
Here Stangl reads tarditatem for brevitatem, which seems due to
the occurrence of breviter shortly afterwards. The error points
to the following arrangement :
moram ac
tarditatem temporis tollat sed (27)
etiam circa artificium dicendi (27)
breuiter etiam
(82) 41. 27 (48. 24) : de vi accusante Clodio obiecit et ut legimus apud Tironem
libertum Ciceronis in libro llll de vita eius oppressum Clodio L.
Caecilium 2
Here Clodio (after oppressuni) seems to be repeated from Clodio
(before obiecit).
This indicates :
de ui accusante
clodio obiecit et ut legimus apud (28)
tironem libertum ciceronis in (26)
libro iiii de uita eius oppressum (28)
L. caecilium
The scribe looked back three lines.
(84) 228. I : de nominibus Sabinarum plures fecit {so S : factae PM) quibus
precatricibus parentum bellum maritorumque finitum est : ad postre-
mum XXX et v factae 2
For fecit {factae) Stangl reads dictae^ which seems to be the
necessary correction. It seems probable that fecit is a variant for
factae (after v), which has got into the wrong place. This
points to :
plures
dictae quibus precatricibus pa (27)
rentum bellum maritorumque fini (28)
tng, fecit tum est ad postremum xxx et v factae (29)
(85)41. II (48. 3): Flavius sine comite Romam vix perfugit. Haec eadem
longo intervallo conversa rursus est in me, nuper quidem, ut scitis, ad
Regiam paene confugit {so S : confecit PM) 2
Here vS seems to preserve a corruption from 2, which points to the
following arrangement :
uix per
fugit haec eadem longo interuallo (29)
conuersa rursus est in me nuper qui (29)
ASCONIUS AND PSEUDO-ASCONIUS 371
dem ut scitis ad regiam paene con (27)
fecit
These three cases of corruption after S2-5 letters should be com-
pared with the dittography of <S3 letters in vS" (231. 26).
In view of these corruptions it is probable that the following
omissions of 2 represent lines of this ancestor :
(27) 42. 21 (50. 1) : consilio vero maioris alicuius om. PM
202. 5 : etenim fides mea speculatorem r. Stangl {ex Cic) : om, 2
(28) 229. 13 : contra honorem meum nihil posse d. Stangl {ex Cic.) : om. 2
I now turn to the evidence for a shorter line in a previous
ancestor :
(19) 44. 12 (52. 16): incidebantur iam domi leges quae nos iam servis nostris
addiccrent 2
Here iam (after 7ios) is omitted by the MSS. of Cicero. In all
probability it is due to repetition. This indicates :
incidebantur
iam domi leges quae nos (19)
seruis nostris
(20) 201. 19 : causis eiusmodi soliti
Stangl points out that these words are out of place in 2.
(21J 238. 17: cum imperio ac securibus. hironia et asynchores eos. Cum
imperio ac securibus P
Here SM omit atfu imperio . . . eos. Stangl reads :
mercator signorum. Y.lptovtia /xera o-i^y^'^pijo-fcor. Cum imperio ac securibus
Here mercator sig7iorui)i is supplied from Cicero ( Verr. i. 60).
The more distant ancestor seems to have had :
mercator signorum
hironia et asynchores eos (22)
cum imperio ac securibus (21)
1. 3 was inserted by anticipation before 1. 2, taking the place of the
lemma.
(22) 41. 12 (48. 5): ad Regiam paene confecerit nusquam paene inveni 2
The repetition o{ paene indicates the arrangement :
ad regiam
paene confecerit nusquam (22)
inueni
B b 2
373 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
The repetition is made easy by 6/z.
(22) 256. 17: decuriam modo 'ordinem' ac per hoc ex 'vobis' quia honestiorum
decurie per hec ex vobis 2
The words per hec [hoc) ex vobis are repeated from the context, as
Stangl points out. This indicates :
per hoc ex nobis mg. per hec ex uobis
quia honestiorum decurie (22)
The variant has got into the wrong place. It is to be noticed that
ex
P has et for ex in the first place and et in the second. Possibly the
variant vja.?, per hec et uobis.
(38) 228. 9 : alia enim sortitione nunc sedent, ilia divinatione constituendi accu-
satoris alia fuit 2
Here editors read alia for ilia and omit the word ht^ovQ fuit. It
looks as if a duplex lectio had got into the wrong line. If so, an
ancestor may have had :
sedent
mg. alia ilia diuinatione con (18)
stituendi accusatoris (20)
fuit
(42) 257. 5 : quae quia magis adiuvant accusationem quam ipsae quae [so S'.
om. quae PM) sunt principales 2
Stangl points out that quae is repeated from the context. This
indicates :
quae quia magis adiuuant (21)
accusationem quam ipsae (21)
sunt principales
(43) 27. 16 (26. 11): ceteras [so S: steteras PM) eas sibi inimicitias non sus-
ceptas sed relictas et cetera 2
Here ceteras appears to be a variant for cetera^ which has got into
the wrong place. Probably the distant ancestor had :
eas sibi inimicitias non (21)
susceptas sed relictas et (22)
mg. ceteras cetera
(43) 238. 20 : habeo istius et patris legitur accepti tabulas. Id est acceptarum
pecuniarum. Legitur et habeo et accepti 2
Here legitur 2S.\.&[ patris is an error for eius (Cic). This indicates :
patris
eius accepti tabulas id (20)
ASCONIUS AND PSEUDO-ASCONIUS 373
est acceptarum pecuniarum (23)
legitur
The following omission of - may represent a line of this more
remote ancestor :
(22) 311. 15 : aperte palamque dixisset om. sine lac, PM : in lac. 7 //'//. 5
I have already indicated the possibility that some of the omis-
sions of 63-7 letters in wS may represent multiples of this lower
unit.
I add here for the sake of completeness the other passages which
I have noticed where 2 omits passages of Cicero's text :
(31) 198. 1 : quod mihi ab amicorum negotiis datur Lodoicus (ex Cic.) : otn, 2
(32) 190. 21 : scit is qui est in consilio C. Marcellus Cic. : om. 2
262. 17 : omnia de pecuniis repetundis iudicia Cic: om. 2
(3i) 44- 28 (53. 10) : fecisse commemorat ut non modo virtute Cic. : om. 2
In the last case there is some uncertainty, since for se fecisse Harl.
2682, which so frequently agrees with Asconius, has suavi sc fecisse.
It is possible that the text of Asconius may have had se siuiui
fecisse, in which case suavi must be added to the omission.
I have not here included :
14. 13 (6. 7) : in vagina reconditum om. sine lac. S: in lac. PM
since here I would suggest that the letters i.u.r. may have
dropped out before circa, which follows.
Nor, similarly, 16. 29 (ic. 2), where ^ gives :
Seplasia he . . . te (Seplasia me hercule, ut dici audiebam CYt.)
since there is here some further corruption.
I do not propose to do more than point out the similarity of
these omissions of 31-3 letters, and indicate the possibility that
they may represent rather longer lines of the more immediate
ancestor. I do not like to pass them over in view of the following
corruptions found in S :
(31) 251. 14: qui putant hironicos pronuntiandum non [putat] vident .S"
This seems to indicate :
qui
mg. putat putant hironicos pronuntiandum non (31)
uident
(32) 211. 14: de eorum compellatione nuda quos negotium [iam] tangeret.
Curionem autem patrem dicit. Tarn 2
Stangl says of iam ' e v. 15 pro tavi '.
374 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
This suggests :
negotium
tangeret curionem autem patrem dicit (32)
mg. iam tarn
I now proceed to discuss an extraordinary series of dislocations
found in the pseudo-Asconius. In Asconius proper there is only
one, ^S- 5-1 1 (^8. 19-69. 7) and S^. 1-4 (69. 8-13).
These dislocations vary in character. Many of them are simple
cases of transposition. In others, where the text is considerably
disturbed, there are consecutive transpositions. Sometimes blocks
of text have changed places in what seems to be a very arbitrary
manner. The true order has been restored by editors from Cicero.
There are some curious relations to be observed between the
transposed passages. Thus, to take a simple instance, in 195. 14-23
four blocks which have been transposed consist of 62, 6'3^, 66, 189
letters. I have therefore taken the trouble to put together the facts.
I give first a list of the passages in question, placing them in the
true order, and adding in brackets their order in 2, also the number
of letters which they contain. In all cases I adopt corruptions
found in 2, as against emendations :
(i) W 55* 5-1 1 (68. 19-69. 7): quartum . . . populum (428)
(a) 55. 1-4(69. 8-13): tertium . . . adiecta (214)
(2)
(a)
186.
23:
eorum . . . stantem
(54)
if)
24-5:
in causis . . . fecit
(78)
(^)
26-187.
, 2 : causis . . . anteponendus
(227)
(d)
187.
3-5 :
cum quaestor . . . effectus sit
(177)
ic)
6-8:
Siculis . . . dixit
(175)
(^)
9-17:
veteribus . . . coniuncti
(473)
{£■)
18-19:
causam . . . accusationem
(95)
(3)
(6)
191.
19-22 :
quod in . . . iuris habui
(217)
(a)
22-32 :
sestertium . . . protulisset
(620)
(^)
192.
1-2:
accedere . . . advertere
(118)
(^)
3-S:
si tacent . . . sequitur
(323)
(/)
9-10 :
te ipsum . . . intellegemus
(79)
(e)
11-30:
et quis . . . vita vis
(1071)
(^)
193-
1-5 :
cui metus . . . eiusmodi
(264)
(^)
5-6:
certos . . . perscripsisset
(87)
(0
7-1 1 :
non enim . , . liquere
(272)
(0
11-28:
et ideo . . . invenitur
(1098)
i^)
29-194.
13 : a pueris . . . criminum
(850)
ASCONIUS AND PSEUDO-ASCONIUS
3/0
(4)
('•)
id)
195. 14-17:
18-19:
20-1 :
22-3 :
rationem . . . esset
ut est . . . dictura
deportare . . . locum
deinde . . . velit
(189)
(66)
(62)
(63)
(5)
(«)
199. 3-6:
7-8:
9-10:
transigere . . . monstretur
ipse . . . suum
ex illius . . . reddere
(214)
(95)
(66)
(6)
(^)
(«)
200. 6-10:
11-23:
hunc . . . vocat
totum . . . populum
(240)
(593)
(7)
(^)
(«)
id)
(c)
201. 7-9:
9-14:
15-19:
20-2 :
19:
de populo . . . dicuntur
oblique . . . potestatem
ad columnam . . . vocitata est
vestri . . . solent
causis eiusmodi soliti
(149)
(292)
(280)
(124)
(20)
I here
I adopt Stangl'i
5 suggestion as to the proper
place of
(8)
(«)
202. 26 :
203. 1 :
Circes . . . faciebat
redit ad se . . . homines
(37)
(44)
(9)
(^)
(«)
203. 27-8 :
204. 1-2 :
hie est . . . coniurationem
accusavit . . . accusatus est
(69)
(62)
(10)
(^)
(«)
207. 18-20:
21-2 :
invenit . . . reum
petit . . . petit
(144)
(65)
(II)
(^)
(«)
211. 5-7:
8-9:
ecce . . . Tenedo
comitiis . . . comitia
(108)
(67)
(12)
(^)
(«)
212. 1-3:
4-12:
his diebus . . . comitiis
et M. Metello . . . solet
(173)
(505)
(13)
('^)
(«)
212. 24-9 :
213. 1-4:
divisores . . . dixisset
qui se . . . suscepta
(258)
(197)
(14)
(^)
(«)
213. 17:
18-19
et optima hironia est
patris . . . seni s.
(18)
(57)
(IS)
(«)
219. 14-19 :
20-1 :
qui ambo . . . positum est
qui C. . . . praetore
(349)
(85)
(16)
(^)
(«)
226. 20 :
21 :
non is . . . nocentissimus
non id . . . senatui est
(28)
(35)
(17)
(^)
(«)
230. 19-231
231.23:
. 22 : adimo . . . dixi
in hoc . . . scilicet
(1941)
(45)
(I8)
(^)
(«)
234. 1-4:
5-8:
pro quaestore . . . nummos
cohorti . . • praetorio
(182)
(201)
(19)
(^)
238. 17-19
20-239
cum imperio . . . et privatis
. 4 : habeo . . . potest
(105)
(735)
Here {b)
req
uires some
explanation. In P cum imp
erio ac st
■^^6 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
(ai) occurs twice, viz. before and after hironia et asynchores eos
(32). SM are defective. After this comes :
Cum imperio ac securibus. Bene, quia licet negotiari equitibus et privatis (62)
(20)
{b)
240.
16-17:
videant . . . positum
(73)
Ui)
18-20:
homo . . . procreare
(150)
(21)
{b)
242.
33:
ad inimicos . . . causarum
(41)
{a)
243-
1-2 :
nisi damnato . . . valeret
(119)
(22)
ib)
247.
8-20:
tabulas . . . possideret
(614)
{e)
20-3 :
more . . . vocabantur
(103)
W
23-7:
alii . . , praebiturus
(236)
ia)
27-8:
Terentius . . . tentatum ad-
(41)
id)
248.
1-20:
appellat . . . iudicii
(949)
if)
21-2 :
bona . . , eorum
(68)
ih)
23-5:
eripis . . . servabatur
(141)
[g)
26-249
. 3 : hoc P. R. . . . praetorium
(206)
(23)
ib)
250.
18-20
quam plena . . . orator
(142)
{a)
21 :
tr. pi. M. iolaus palicanus
(20)
{d)
22-3 :
cuius . . . crudelitatis
(69)
ic)
24:
suo tempore de suppliciis
(22)
if)
25-7:
is viros . . . crediderat
(157)
ie)
28-30 :
dat . . . permanere
(134)
(24)
{b)
252.
9-10:
foro . . . dabantur
(57)
{a)
II :
renuntiata . . . nuntiat
(38)
(25)
{b)
253-
1-2 :
et praedibus . . . dicuntur
(108)
{a)
3:
populo . . . scilicet
(30)
(26)
{b)
254.
1-2 :
istam . . . diem
(47)
{a)
3-5:
neque . . . possimus
(161)
{d)
6-8:
putabat . . . retuli
(140)
ic)
9-10:
ut uno . . . detrahere
(63)
(27)
ib)
260.
4-5:
una . . . iudicum
(63)
{a)
6:
in laudando . . . repetundarum
(45)
(28)
{b)
263.
I :
ut praetor . . . composite
(36)
{a)
2-3:
Loctanus . . . laudat
(74)
(d)
4:
iuris . . . virtutem
(54)
W
5-6:
L. Octavius . . . improbum
(98)
These figures exhibit some striking correspondences. Thus
ia=2i4 and 1(5 = 428 (314x2 = 428), 2/= 78 and 2 <5 = 227
(76x3=228), 2^=177 and 2^=175, 2^ = 473 ^nd 2^=95
(95x5 = 475). In (3) we may notice that t: = 323 and /= 79
(80 X 4 = 320), so i^ = 87 and /i = 264 (87x3 = 261), so i = 272
and /= 1098 (272x4 = 1088). In (4) we have the unmistakable
ASCONIUS AND PSKUDO-ASCONIUS 377
series 62, 63, 66, 1N9. Similar features are to be found in other
groups. Thus in (19) /' = 105 and ^ = 735 (io5X7=73o);
in (22) /= 68 and // = 141 (70x2 = 140), ^ = 41 and ^=206
(41 Xj = 205), so f = 103 and ^ = 614 (103 x 6 = 618), so c = 236
and d = 949 (237 x 4 = 948).
I have not here written out all the passages in full on account of
the length of some. I give the following examples in case that any
reader desires to check some figures.
(1) (P) tertium est de legum abrogationibus quo de genere persaepe S. C. fiiint
ut nuper de ipsa lege Calpumia que derogaretur. Lex haec Calpumia
de ambitu erat, tulerat cam ante biennium C. Calpurnius Piso cos. in
qua praeter alias poenas poena pecuniaria erat adiecta (214)
(a) quartum quae lex lata esse dicatiir, ea non videri populum teneri ut
L. Marcio Sex. lulio cos. de legibus uiuis. Puto uos reminisci has esse
leges iuuias quasi ill! consulibus M. lubilius Drusus tr. pi. tulerit qui
cum senatus partes tuendas suscepisset et leges pro optimatibus tulisset,
postea ea licentia est progressus ut nullum in his morem servaret.
Itaque Philippus cos. qui ei inimicus erat obtinuit a senatu ut leges
eius omnes uno S. C. tollerentur. Decretum est enim contra auspicia
esse latas neque his teneri populum {428)
I here write cos. {bis), but consiilibiis, so 2.
(2) (/) in causis iudiciisque publicis iam hoc contra Caecilium est qui numquam
sui periculum fecit (78)
{b) causis iudiciisque publicis. Causae etiam privatae sunt arepelundarum
ambitus maiestatis et cetera rei p. causa constituta sunt. Una et id
quod facio probavit. Principalis divisio huius causae bipartita est,
utrum recte Cicero accuset et utrum Caecilio sit anteponendus (227)
(c) Siculis omnibus oslatorie. Cum enim a duobus quaestoribus Sicilia
regi soleat, uno Lilybitano, altero Syracusano, ipse vero Lilybitanus
quaestor fuerit Sex. Peducaeo praetore, omnibus tamen se placuisse
dixit (175)
I wnic praciorc with 2i:.
{(i) Cum quaestor. Narrationem in exordio multi admirantur hac repre-
hensione sed non recte. Est enim argumentalis narratio ad priorem
divisionem in qua queritur an recte Cicero ex defensore accusator
effectus sit (177)
{g) Causam defensionemque. Causae ingerunt quas iusto defensionem e
inire defensionem vult esse non accusationem (95)
(e) Veteribus patronis multis. Siculi veteres patronos habent in quibus
Marcellus a Marcello ortus qui Syracusas victor servavit incolumes:
Scipiones quorum auctor P. Scipio Africanus Carthagine excisa Siciliae
omamenta retulit sua quibus quondam a Poenis victoribus spoliata erat,
Metellus, quorum familia proxime Siculis patrocinium praebuit, cum
378 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
fuerit Lepidus in ea provincia praetor, instantibus ad accusandum eum
Metellum duobus Celere et Nepote. Populati atque vexati. Populati
avaritia, vexati libidine et crudelitate. Cuncti, simul omnes quasi con-
iuncti (473)
Here also I give praetor with 2.
(4) (d) Deportare litteras, portare aliquid ut intereat, deportare ut mutet
locum (62)
(a) Deinde accusatorem firmuni verumque esse offirmum ut possit verum
ut velit (63)
(^) Ut est hominum genus. Amariora dicturus ad Siculorum personam
contula dictura (66)
(f) Rationem vitae reposcere. Accusatorem esse, suae reddere defensorem.
Nisi a Siculis potuisse cognosci. Quia aut Siculus ipse est aut quia nisi
quaestor in Sicilia nihil aliud fuit Caecilius, in quo nosceretur quid
hominis esset (1S9)
It will be seen that in these cases there is a numerical relation
between transposed blocks. For fuller information I add a list of
all the passages concerned arranged in order of magnitude :
(18)
213. 17
(62)
195. 20-1
(20)
201. 19
204. 1-2
250. 21
238. 19-20
(21)
238. 17 {cum hnperio ac
(63)
195. 22-3
seairibus)
254. 9-10
(22)
250. 24
260. 4-5
238. 17 {hironia et a-
(65)
207. 21-2
synchores eos)
(66)
195. 18-19
(28)
226. 20
199. 9-10
(30)
253-3
(67)
211, 8-9
(35)
226. 21
(68)
248. 21-2
(36)
263. I
(69)
203. 27-8
(37)
202. 26
250. 22-3
(38)
252. II
(73)
240. 16-17
(41)
242. 33
(74)
263. 2-3
247. 27-8
(78)
186. 24-5
(44)
203. I
(79)
192. 9-10
(45)
231. 23
(85)
219. 20-1
260. 6
(87)
193- 5-6
(47)
254. 1-2
(95)
187. 18-19
(54)
186. 23
199. 7-8
263.4
(98)
263. 5-6
(57)
213. 18-19
(103)
247. 20-3
252. 9-10
(108)
211. 5-7
ASCONIUS AND P5EUD0-ASC0XIUS 379
255. 1-2
(118)
192. 1-2
(119)
243- 1-2
(124)
201. 20-2
(154)
250. 2S-30
(140)
254. 6-S
(141)
24S. 23-5
(142)
250. iS-20
(144)
207. iS-20
(149)
201. 7-9
(150)
240. iS-20
(157)
250.25-7
(161)
254. 3-5
{173)
212. 1-3
(175)
187. 6-8
(177)
1S7. 3-5
(IS2)
234- 1-4
(189)
195. 14-17
(197)
213- 1-4
(201)
23+ 5-8
(ao6)
248. 26-249. 3
(214)
55- 1-4
199-3-6
(217)
191. 19-22
(227)
186. 26-187. 2
(236)
247- 23-7
(240)
200. 6-10
(258)
212. 24-9
(264)
193- 1-5
(272)
193- 7-1 1
(280)
201. 15-19
(292)
201. 9-14
(323)
192. 3-S
(349)
219. 14-19
(428)
55- 5-"
(473)
187.9-17
(505)
212. 4-12
(593 »
200. 11-23
(6i4»
247. S-20
(620)
191. 23-32
(735)
23S. 20-239. 4
(850)
193. 29-194. 13
(949)
248. 1-20
(107 1)
192. 11-30
(1098)
193. 11 -28
(1941)
230. 19-231. 22
There are some singular^ correspondences to be obser\-ed in these
figures. I would call attention to the following sequences :
(28) 226.20 (214) 55.1.199.3
(54) 1S6. 23, 263. 4 (428) 55. 5
(57) 213. iS, 252. 9 (850) 193. 29
(108) 211.5,253.1
So also we have :
(118) 192. I (240) 200. 6
(119) 243. I (473) 187. 9
(236) 247. 23 (949) 248. I
I now call attention to the omissions and dittographies of SPM
already considered. I showed that, apart from those cases where
one or more of the MSS. omitted lines of 2S, the omissions fall
into two classes. For the first of these we had the figrures :
27 83
54 108
56 (3 exx.) 327
For the omission of 327 we may compare the dislocation of ^2^
38o DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
(192. 3), and for the dittography of 83 the dislocation of 85 (219. 20).
In both lists the same unit 27-8 appears.
I also gave examples where corruptions have been embedded in
tiie text at a distance of 26, 27 (two exx.),54, 82, 84, 85 letters.
All this evidence converges in the same direction, and appears to
verify the conjecture that 2) contained marginalia, which represented
omitted lines of this ancestor.
The second class of omissions (p. 369) shows the operation of
a smaller unit. Thus we have 23, 47 (two exx.), also five cases
of 62,-"] letters, in the case of which more than one explanation was
possible. In connexion with these omissions I mentioned various
corruptions embedded in the text at a distance of 19, 20, 21,
22, 38, 42, 43 letters.
The same unit seems to appear in the list of dislocations. Thus
we have five cases of 20-3, then there is a break until 28, so we
have six cases of 41-7, followed by a break until 54, then thirteen
cases of 62-9. The large number of examples between 60-70
suggests that another factor is at work, and in view of the four
passages, where 2 omits 31-3 letters of Cicero's text, it appears likely
that the immediate ancestor of S was a MS. very much like itself.
The conclusion appears to be that these remarkable dislocations
were the result of a gradual process in which at least two, and
probably three, units appear.
I now proceed to discuss some further evidence which throws
light upon the pagination of one of these ancestors.
One of the most disturbed areas is 247.
8-248. 20. This fa
lis into
the following blocks :
247. 8-20 : tabulas . . . possideret
(610)
20-3 ; more . . . vocabantur
(103)
23-7 : alii . . . praebiturus
(236)
27-8 : Terentius . . . tentatum
ad-
(41)
248. 1-20: appellat . . . iudicii
(949)
The order in 2 is :
247. 27-8 : Terentius . , . tentatum ad-
(41)
8-20 : tabulas . . . possideret
(610)
23-7 : alii . . . praebiturus
(236)
248. 1-20 : appellat . . . iudicii
(949)
247. 20-3 : more . . . vocabantur
(103)
Here 610 + 236 + 103 = 949.
ASCONIUS AND PSF.UDO-ASCONIUS 381
This is a very remarkable agreement. It appears that if 247.
8-30, 20-3. 23-7 are put into the right order, they contain exactly
the same number of letters as 248. 1-30. The solution seems to be
that the passage 247. 20-3 was accidentally omitted and then entered
by error at the end of the following page. The transposition of
247. 27-8 Terentius . . . tentatuui ad- seems due to a separate
dislocation.
In order to make the point clear I write out the passage in the
correct order :
(610) 247. 8-20: Tabulas cum conficeret. Quomodo ergo dicit Verrem tabulas
non habere sed aliquo tempore cepisse non scribere ? Haec ergo tem-
pore rationis tabulas confectas habent. His expensum non ferres.
Expensum ferre est scribere te pecuniam dedisse. Acceptum cur tu
referrent. Accepisse a te se scriberent expensum talis se te ei scribere.
Ut ex utroque genere. Summa divisionis et actionis praeturae urbanae
et criminum C. \'erris in duobus constituta iuri ditione et sartis tectis.
Qui auspicato a Chelidone. Aves pasccre dicuntur hi euntes magistratus
et qui Chelidonis est hirundo urbem frequentat facete urbanam pro-
vinciam Chelidonis auspicio meretricis dicit esse susceptam. Neque
census esset. Xeque centum milia sestertium possideret
(103) 20-3 : More veterum censi dicebantur qui centum milia in professione
detulissent. Huius modi adeo facultates census vocabantur
(236) 23-7 : Alii sic intelligunt. Neque census esset, hoc est neque census eius
in quinquennium dives factus quorum annorum spatio instaurari census
solet apud censores, quorum administratio per lustrum, hoc est quin-
quennium tenditur. Tamquam sciret quis vellet quidem se P. R. foret
praebiturus
610 + 103 + 236 = 949.
After this comes the dislocated passage :
(41) Terentius, en non dico quasi non noris tentatum ad-
This is followed by :
(949) 248. 1-20: Appellat hercdem. Iniuriosum verbum in personam praetoris,
appellatio enim est inferioris ad potior'em. Cum intelligam legem Voco-
niam. Voconius legem tulerat ne quis census, hoc est pecuniosus, he-
redem relinqueret filium. Hoc ergo caput edicti est legem Voconiam
probantis praetoris. Xon improbum,non inofficiosum, non inhumanum.
Haec enim testamenta non solent valere, nam improbum contra lej;es
inofficiosum contra merita inhumanum contra pietatem. Sua sponte
scelerata ac nefaria est. Beneficia sponte et non disputatione iuris con-
sultorum sed naturali interpretatione fugienda sunt ut veneficium parri-
cidium et cetera quae etiam nullo modo prohibente evitanda sunt
382 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
Cornelia testamentaria nummaria. Ut Cornelia testamentaria quae de
moneta ne quis privatim pecuniam faceret. A certo tempore ut et quod
semper reprehensum est tamen a certo tempore in iudicium veniat et a
certo tempore plecti posset. Rata esse patietur. Hoc totum ev vnoKjuvi]
ut quasi per indignationem dici videatur et interrogative. Cedo mihi
leges Atinias Furias Fusias. Istae omnes de iure civili sunt, nihil con-
tinent criminum capitalium publicique iudicii.
I WYitQ praetoris with 2.
The largest figure in the dislocations is 1,941. If this is divided
by 3, the result is 970. This is interesting in view of the evidence
just adduced.
Perhaps the most singular corruption found in 2 is :
234. 24; Malleolo occiso. Oratorie pro mortuo occisum dixit.
244. 26-7 : Occiso. Suspicioso verbo usus est, nam non institit ut probet a
Verre occisum esse, sed ita vult videri, quia Verri mors eius lucro fuit.
Alteram tutelae. Filii Malleoli tutor factus est Verres.
The scholia here have changed places in 2. After Malleolo occiso 2
adds suspicioso . . . Verres, and after Occiso 2 adds oratorie . . . dixit.
This is most remarkable.
The suspicion arises that Malleolo occiso and Occiso may have
come at the beginning of two quaternions, and that confusion was
caused thus. It is worth while to inquire whether there is any
relation between 234.24, 244. 26-7, and the passage 248. 1-20,
appellat . . . iudicii, which appears to represent a page in an
ancestor of 2.
The best method of comparison is to take the cditio princeps, in
which the text is printed continuously, instead of being broken up
into irregular lines, as in a modern edition.
In this 248. 1-20 occupies i6\ lines. The passage 234. 24-244.
26, Malleolo occiso . . . occiso, occupies 263 lines. Here 16^ x 16=264.
No result could be more satisfactory. It appears that if a page in
an ancestor of 2, containing 949 letters, corresponds to 16^ lines
of the editio princeps, the passages Malleolo occiso and Occiso would
be separated by an interval of 16 pages, i.e. one quaternion, in the
same ancestor.
CHAPTER XII
THE MANUSCRIPTS OF PLATO
The dialogues of Plato were at some ancient date arranged in
tetralogies, i.e. collections of four dialogues without reference to
their length. The traditional order, which is given by Diogenes
Laertius iii. 58-61, is preserved by our MSS. He connects the
arrangement with a person called Thrasylus. Recent writers gene-
rally attribute the tetralogies to Thrasylus, or Thrasyllus, and
identify him with the well-known astrologer at the court of Tiberius.
This identification rests on Schol. ad Juv. vii. 576 : Thrasillus
nut liar um artmvi scientiani professus postrenio se dedit Platonicae
sectae ac delude inathcsi, in qua praccipiic viguit apud Tiberitun, cum
quo sub Jionorc ciusdem artis fauiiliaritcr rixit. It has been ques-
tioned by W. Christ, who points out that Varro, Ling. Lai. vii. 37,
when referring to the PJiacdo, says Plato in quarto, this being the
place which it occupies in the first tetralogy.^ If so, the arrangement
goes back to an earlier date.
Our information comes from two sources, viz. Diogenes Laertius
and Albinus, EtVaycoy^ iv, p. 149. Diogenes says : QpacrvXoi be
<pr](Ti KOI Kara ti}V TpayiKi]v TirpaXoyiav iKhovvai avrbv tovs SmAo'yovs.
He then quotes Thrasylus ((^tjo-i) as to the number of genuine
dialogues and their order (Trpcorr/y ixkv ovv T^rpakoyiav Tidrjcn). After
giving the order he says, koI ouros fxev oikai btaipel Kal rtres. He then
mentions a different order by trilogies, which he attributes to
Aristophanes the grammarian.
Albinus says : 01 yikv aub riav ETrtoToXwi/ apxorrat, 01 8' attb tov
Gcayovs" cio-i Se ol koto TfrpaXoyiav SieXoz-res avTov^ koI raTTOVcn Trptarqv
TCTpaKoyiav -epie'\ouo-ar rbv Evdv(ppova . . . ravTrj^ tt)? So^S elcrl
AcpKvWibrjS Koi (dpacrvWoi.
It will be seen that (i) Thrasylus attributes the arrangement to
Plato himself; (2) Albinus associates Dercyllides, whom he puts
1 Platonische Sluditn (1886), p. 3.
384 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
first, with Thrasylus, while Diogenes speaks of nvis as holding the
same view. It looks, therefore, as if Thrasylus was one of several
scholars who advocated an ancient arrangement, attributed to Plato.
The identification with the astrologer is probably a guess of the
Scholiast.
The MSS. to which the attention of scholars has been chiefly
directed are as follows. I adopt the symbols used by Burnet (after
Schanz), adding those used by Bekker and others.
A = Paris. 1H07, cent. ix.
B = Bodl. Clark. 39, cent, ix (Bekker's Si).
D = Venet. 185, cent, xii (Bekker's IT).
F = Vindob. S^, cent. xiv.
T = Venet. Append. Class. 4. i, cent, xii (Bekker's t).
W = Vindob. 54, suppl. phil. Gr. 7, cent, xii (Stallbaum's
Vind. I).
A complete list of MSS. then known, 147 in number, is given by
Wohlrab with bibliographical details.^
B contains 7>/r. i-vi and A has Te^r. viii-ix. Between them,
therefore, they contain all the Platonic corpus, except Tefr. vii
{Hippias Ma., Hippias Min., To, Menexenus). At the end of the
Menexemis T and some inferior MSS. have the note, riXos tov a
/3i/3Aiou. It has been inferred that at one time the corpus was
divided into two volumes, consisting of Teir. i-vii and viii-ix. The
two last tetralogies include the Republic and the Laws^ and are
therefore unusually long.
It is possible that B has lost Tetr. vii. The first dialogue in A,
the Clitopho, has the number 29. It has been inferred that there
was once a previous volume containing T-28 {Tetr. i-vii). This
seems quite likely. It has also been suggested that B is similarly
imperfect, having lost vol. ii.
The tendency at one time was to look on A and B as the sole
sources of information. Cobet says of the other MSS., vile damnum,
si omnes ad umim flammis co7nburerentiir.'^ He thus states the
theory of the '■ one best MS.', which was fashionable in the middle
of the last century, but is now gravely discredited. Schanz, who
» Jahrb.f. kl. Phil., Suppl. xv-(i887), pp. 666-726. Immisch adds Paris. Suppl. Grec.
668, cent. xi.
2 Mnem. ix (i86o\ p. 337.
THE MANUSCRIPTS OF PLATO 385
started by expressing approval of Cobet's position, showed that
Zwas independent of B in 7V/r. i-vi, and D o( A \n the Republic.
He met this difficulty, however, by supposing that T represented
a missing volume of -r^, and D a missing volume of B.
Of late years the tendency has been to look for MSS. which con-
tain traces of an ' unrevised text ' and appear to be independent of
A and B. The chief of these are F and \V.
We have now to consider two sources of evidence which militate
against the theory of Cobet. The first is supplied by ancient cita-
tions which go back to an earlier period than any of our MSS. The
quotations of Stobaeus, Eusebius, and others show that their texts
frequently agree with F, W, and inferior MSS. as against A and B.
Also, they preserve passages omitted by all our MSS., e.g. Akib. i,
1 15 e, 128 a, 133 c. The second source of evidence is to be found
in the papyri. These exhibit an eclectic text and frequently contain
marginalia, which reappear in late MSS. Their agreements extend
impartially to both families, but they support W or F quite as
frequently 2Ji A ox B. Some interesting remarks are made by the
editors of the Oxyrhynchus papyri. Thus of Ox. 843 {Symposmm),
cent, ii/iii, we are told : ' The text, as so often with papyri, is of an
eclectic character, showing a decided affinity with no single MS.
Compared with the three principal witnesses for the Symposium it
agrees now with B against TW, now with the two latter as against
the former, rarely with T against BW ox with W against BT.' The
editors remark : ' In many cases the papyrus once more proves the
antiquity of readings which modern criticism rejects or suspects.'
Other interesting papyri are Ox. 1016 and loi-] [Phaedrus). We
are told of 1016 that ' as between the two principal MSS., B and T,
the papyrus shows, as usual, little preference, agreeing first with one
and then with the other.' In 1017 there are a number of variants
given in the margin. The most interesting of these is 240 b
r]li<TTOi<Tiv (so B), while the text has ^8iotois with T and Stobaeus,
In connexion with this we may mention Phaedo 68 b, where the
Petrie papyrus supports the reading aAAo^i hwarov eu-ai KaQapQii,
which B^ adds in the margin with the sign yp. (Cf. p. 399.)
The evidence of the papyri, therefore, utterly routs the theory of
Cobet.
The versions of Plato also deserve notice. Mr. F. C. Conybeare
1635 C c
386 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
discovered and published collations of an Armenian version of the
Laws, also of some other dialogues.^ He attributes the translation
of the Laws to Gregory Magistros, early in cent. xi. It is, there-
fore, later than some of our MSS., and, as I show later on, there is
a remarkable agreement between it and one existing MS. (12).
Burnet notices that the text of the Etithyphro, Crito, and Apology
used by the translator was very like that of W. The version of
the Laws omits freely. Conybeare records a few cases only, saying :
' Of lacunae in the Armenian text, the frequency of which accuses
the translator of great want of care, I take no notice, unless some
other authority exhibits them, or unless there is antecedent prob-
ability in their favour.' A full list would be very interesting and
might throw light on the formation of the translator's text, such as
is given by Syr. Sin in the case of the Gospels.^
Immisch considers that the Sicilian translator, Aristippus, cent,
xii, also used an eclectic text,^ but Burnet holds that his MS.
resembled W.
I now proceed to discuss the various MSS. In the passages
which I quote a change of speakers is denoted by a colon, according
to the practice of papyri and MSS. For this I allow one letter in
the figures which I give. I also use iota adscript with the MSS.
The papyri vary in this respect.
I take first A, although it contains Teir. viii-ix, since the ques-
tion is less complicated than in the case of B^ which contains Tetr.
i-vi. For the characteristics oi A \ refer to a valuable paper of
Mr. T. W. Allen in ' A group of ninth-century Greek MSS.' * He
considers Paris. 1962, Heidelb. Palat. 398, Ven. 246 to be written by
the same scribe as A,^ and mentions six other MSS. proceeding
from the same scriptorium.
A facsimile of ^, with a preface by M. Omont, has been published
by the authorities of the BibliotJi(:que Nationale. It consists of
43 quaternions, and is written in two columns with 44 lines to the
page. I have counted the letters on f. 201'", with the result : col. i
= 1022, col. ii = 980 letters. The average for col. i is slightly
^ Am. J. Phil, xii, xiv, xv, xvi.
^ Primitive Text, pp. 36-41.
^ Studien, p. 34.
^ J. Phil, xxi (1893), pp. 47-54. Cf. Melanges Graux, p. 527.
^ D. Serruys, Kev. Phil, xxxviii. 3. 14, adds Paris. Suppl. Grec 921.
THE MANUSCRIPTS OF PLATO 387
over 23 letters, and for col. ii slightly over 22. The limits of
variation are (18) i ex., (19) i ex., and (26) 6 exx.
A number of corrections in A come from a contemporary biopdoi-n'is.
The script resembles closely that of the scribe, and editors are dis-
posed to identify the hands. There are also a number of corrections
in a hand ascribed to the twelfth century. The supplements in
Lf^. 745 a-c, 7H3 b-d, and the numerous additions in the "0,joi
proceed from this writer. On f. 344^' there is a colophon, u)f)du>Oi] 7/
/iii/SAoi' avrq vtto Kan'o-ravTivov fxriTpoTToKirov 'lepaTToAecos Tov Kal (on;(ra-
fjifvov, written in a fourteenth-century hand.
For the purposes of this inquiry the corrections of the bLopdioTTJi
are of great importance, since they, may have been taken from the
model. Those which proceed from the twelfth-century hand (A^)
are taken from another source, and may therefore be disregarded ;
so also corrections of Constantine and other writers of later date.
The subject of telescoped passages in this MS. demands a few
words. I take as an example Lc^. 849 d (f. 241'") tois $(vols kuO*
oaov av ^ovkrjTai Kal uTTuTav t^ovXrjTai. Here A^ has
^fVOlS Kado<TOV av (iiniXr)
TUt
The words koI uttutuv ^ovXTjrai are omitted. The twelfth-century
corrector {A'^), instead of adding kol o-norav jiovX-qTaL after /SoAr/rai,
prefers to add -rai koi o-norav ^ovKij- after jSovXt]. So 920 b (f. 270"")
Toiis hi /ii) ToiovTovi «75-4rrj6fi//xara re CTrtrrjSevorras. A ^ gives :
3< /X/j TOIOVTOVS (mT1j8(V
ovras
A ', instead of adding c-jrirTjSfv/ixard re after roiovrou?, adds -/ixara re
e7riT7}5fv- after e-niT^htv. Here it is obvious that we are dealing
with a mannerism on the part of A^, who affected this method of
correction. We have no reason to look on the passages as
telescoped.
I wish to speak with caution about some of the additions made
by the 8iop(?coT7/s. I take as an example Tim. 58 e Kal hiakvovros
avTo Ti]v o/xa\orr;ra airofSdWd, TavTrjv 8e avo\4(rav. Here A ' wrote
(f. 13c')
Koi diakiov
Tos avTu rqv o/inXor^ra a
noXiaay
C C 2
388
DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
Instead of adding a7ro/3a\Aei ravTrjv be after oiiakoTrjTa, the bLopdcarris
adds -7ro/3a\Aei TavTrjv be a- in the margin after a.
It is possible that he also preferred this method of correction. In
dealing with these passages I have thought it best to mark as tele-
scoped, subject to this reservation, passages corrected by the
bLopdcoTTji, but to treat those filled up hy A^ as simple omissions.
I now give a list of omissions, affixing corr. to those filled up by the
biopOoyTTii and disregarding additions of y^^ I reserve for separate
treatment the omissions of A in the "Opot, as they present some
peculiar features.
Koi apyvpati F: oni. A
Kai dyadovs om. A
6 hi ovbfu fie om. A
fjyyfXXop TO. om. A^ (corr.)
npocrrjKOVijrjs 0»l. A
* acfioBfjorepov om. A
T) 1VO\XTViVCrt(i>V OW. A
Koi. avTicfyoiuov om. A
Kai ^ovXrja-eis om. A
ak\ oiKovfiiuas om. A
re Kai avrcci iav o?n. A^ {corr.)
T€ Kai ovK opdoos om, A
fXTji u>s lacrifiioi oni. A
KCLi ap.cf>ifaiiaTa om. A
Kill ampfiocTTov om. A
Kai TO p.iv deiov om. A^ (corr.)
TovTCdv TTpoahelv om. A
Ka\ inraKOVo'Tfov om. A
Ka\ ^pabvTepovi om, A
fTrirriBfiifiaTU T€ om. A
Til 8e dypovofxovs Om, A
*a)s TTapa (f>i\ovs re om. A^ {corr.)
av ptya 8uvavTai om. A
oKKo. aKVTOTOfiou D: om. AF
eiipre iv fxiktaiv om. A
Kai del dKov6\iiva om. A
**rj pifTii KaKoav t'ip)(oi/- om. A^ (corr.)
Kai K(KO(r^rjfj.(vos om, A^ (corr.)
6 KTfifas €(f)' ois rt om. A
TJi Kdixivrj r) Ka\ fv Otn. A
* Tov XoiTTov xpovov om. A
T€ Kai diKaioavVT] om. A
Kai Tr\v noiKiKiav om. A
(lo) Critias Ii6 d
Epp. ZZl b
346 a
350 b
(11) Z^^. 903 d
907 c
949 e
(12) Leg, 812 e
896 c
(13) Epp. 322 b
Leg. 732 a
842 a
941 a
Rep. 381 a
400 d
Tim, 68 e
(14) Epp. 322 6
328 b
Leg. 773 c
920 b
c
Rep, 328 d
366 a
374 b
379 a
(15) Epp,2,iA^
Leo. 639 c
716a
847 b
877 e
954 d
Rep. 364 a
373 e
THE MANUSCRIPTS OF PLATO
389
(16) Leg. 626 b
778 e
925 e
(17) Leg. 669 c
705 b
829 a
849.1
d
937 d
Afin. 314a
360 a
3820
Tim. 58 e
(18) Epp.zxjz
Leg. 668 d
708 c
731 c
Rep. 386 c
400 a
(19) Rep. 373 6
(21) Z^g-. 874 b
Titn. 47 a
(22) Leg. 841 c
868 e
(25) Leg. 902 e
(28) Leg. 903 c
913d
{2()) Epp. l\2 ^
Leg. 861 c
Mitt. 313 c
(30) Leg. 925 e
AV/. 380 e
(35) ^g- 764 c
(36) Leg 684 d
(37) Rep. 2,76 d
379 b
(39) A'^/^. 601 a
(40) Leg. 822 b
(41) Rep. 504 d
(44) /?<;>• 493 d
(46) AV;>. 443 d
ovT tTriTrjfifi'/wiTWf (>///. yi' {corr.)
TO &f Ta<pp(v<Toi/Tas Ot/l. A
vopo6iTov Kai vrrep <"«. A
Ka\ (j.f\os drtoSovvai om. A^ (corr.)
no\v(f>6pos T( (Iq Kai om. A^ [corr.)
fij]d' (avTois a^iKt'iu om. A^ (corr.)
dyopavofiovs rci rrtpi ' om. A
KOI oiroTav ^ovXrjTin om, A
onoTfpos 8' av KpiOfn om. A
oTi nla-firjcrfi Tinrrji om. A^ (corr.)
ddiKia 3' fTTnivf'iTcu Oin. A
* Tuv napa tov ^aaiXta om. A^ {corr.)
ovre Kara (fiavraaias om. A
»♦ -no^d'XXei mvrqv 5< d- om. A^ (corr.)
nap ai/Tov ypdppxira rd OtH. A
** TO Toi6v8f o^ov Tovs d- om. A^ {corr.)
T( xnl vopodtrtluBai om. A
** -Tov (V ovv Tui Tj^ia>r«- om. A^ {corr.)
* 111 prj ^ioTOi TToXvt (ir) om. A
** -p.1 no'ia 8( onoiov /3jou om. A
* Kai I8iai Ka\ 8t]fioaiai om. A^ {corr.)
* • -TOf Sij vofiiis (IS ripiu etTTO) om. A
Ka\ icrrjptpiai Kai Tporrai F '. om. A Y
■yj-yvoiTo (V Tidaaii rroXfcrt pvi. A
T] d8f\<Pq d8f\<f>6v fj d8f\<fiT]u om. A
T f'mpfXdcrdai Kai bwdnevof om. A
fxfjv tv(Ka oXnv Ka\ ov\ oXov pipovi om. A^ {corr.)
toe 8( TTji (TXXrjf x<x>pai dypovopon om. A
fdiXfiv iripovi 8( ptrant pL'^aadai om. A
» KaX TO fXTj : KaXms fjulv (f>aivT]i Xfytiv ovi. A
Ka\ liXXo piv o^tr, aXXo 8e ra opupfva om. A
yapuv f) ya^iucrOai ylyvqTai' TovToiv om. A
Ka'i Kivflrai olov craypa inro aiTiav t( om. A^ {corr.)
nai8(ias avTo>i> fVfKa, tovs 8( dywwcTtKijf om. A
Twv TOtovTUiv Ti TTOf dnavrdi Xe'ywi' /X17 Kwtiv Om. A^ {corr.)
* iva pi] ioipLtv iKavov Xt'tyov q av^yav 8i(^i<i)pfv om. A \Corr.)
pr] ^XaTTTft KaK(>i/ Ti TTOid '. oiSt ToiiTO : 6 8€ y( om. A^ (corr.)
* iiirrov ovk tnaiovra tiXXa piptiadai oxTTt (i> rn'is* om. A {corr.)
piv if ^padvraTov, tov 8( ^pabvTaTov if Ta^taTOV om. A
• fj yvpva(op(V(i)i fj t> viv 8r] fXfyoptv tov pfyiarov Tt om. A
t'lTf 8rj (V iToXiTiKr)i OTI piv yap av tis tovtois opiXfp om. A^ {corr.)
• avTov avTOv Kai KoapijOavTa K.di (^iXov ytvuptvov iuvTOii om. A
' A has here been doctored by altering 5^ ayopdy to 3i' iifopii'.
* So the corrector : ware iripon FD.
390 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
Rep. 609 b : * '^vyj^i ap oik (Cttiv 6 TTOiet alrf)!/ KaKrjv : Kn\ fii'iXa e(f)t]' a vvv
om. A^ (corr.)
(48) Rep. 556 e: e^w^ei/ firayofifPuv ^ t5>v erepcov e| oXiyapxovfXfvrjs TrdXetoj om.
A^ {corr.)
601 a : iv nerpati Koi pv6p.5>i Kat ipp.oviai Travu tv doKUV \iyfu6ai om. A
{corr.)
(51) Rep. 528 c: * oiiK av TTfldoivTO ol irfpl ravra frjT»jTtKOt fi(ya\o(f)povovp^voi om.
A^ {corr.)
(213) Critias IIie-II2a: npcoTOV ph t6 t^? aKponoXeas ft^e Tore oiix ^s to. vvv
e';^«i* vvv p,fv yap pla yf vopevi] vv^ vypu SiacjiepoiToiS yrjs avrrjv ^iXfjv Trepi-
TTj^aaa -nfKo'n^Kf., aeia-pcdv ap.a Ka\ irpo rrjs eVi AfVKa\i(ovos (pBopas rpirov
■nparepov Zbmoi f'^ataiov yevopevov. to 8e Trpiv ev eVe'pwi xpovcoi om. A
(700) Leg. 783 b-d : * iraihiav Se hi] yivimv pfza rovs yiipnvs dapev, Kai peTo. yevecriv
Tpo(f)!]v Kai Traihdnv. koL rax' av ovra irpoiovrmv rav Xd-ycoi/ o re vopoi rjptv
eKaa-TOS nepaivoiro ds TOvpirpocrBev eVi (TvacriTia i]VLKa d(f)iK6pe6a — ras roinvras
KOivtovlas eiVe cipa ^vi/aiKcoi/ elre av8pa>v Set povoov yiyviadai, Trpoapi^avTfS
avTols (yyv6ev icrco? paWov KaTO-^opeOa — to. re (n'nrpoa-dfv aircov, ert vvv
ovra dvopoderqra, Tci^avres avrd, iwiupovdev iroir]a-6p(da, Kn\ oirep ippriBr) vvv
hi], KaToyj/opedd re avra aKpi^earepov, pdWov re roiis irpocrrjKovTas avro'is koi
■npeiTOVTas vopovs av deiijpfV. opOoTara Xe'yeiy : (pvXd^apev rolvvv rrp pvrjprji,
T« viiv hfj Xe;^^fVra. itrcof yap xp^i-nv ttot avrSav iruvrav t^opev : rd irola hfj
hiaKeXfirji : d To'is Tpicrl Siupt^d/ie^a ptjpaai. fipaaiv pev iXeyoptv ttov Kai
hfvrepov TToaiv, Ka\ d(f)pohiai(tyv he Tiva hianrorja-iv rpirov : navruis, S) $iVf,
ptpvijcropedd ttou av rd vvv hiaKfXfvrji : KnXws om. A
(717) Leg. 745 a-C : * deols dtTovepoiv elhoKipdsrf Ka\ d(f]pios dv flf/" edv he ris direiSjii
rovTuii 70)1 v6po)i, (f)avel piv 6 ^ov\6pevos en\ roli rjpiaecriv, 6 he o(j)Xo)v uXXo
ToaovTov pepos dnori<Tei rrjs avrov KTTjaeas ra 8' T)pi(Tea rcbv 6e5)v' fj he Kr^ats
X<>)pis rov K\i]pov ndvTcov ndaa ev rati (f>avepcbi yeypd(f)do) napd (f)v\a^iv
cipxovaiv, 019 av 6 vopos 7rpoard^r]i, on(os dv ai hiKai Trepl Trdvrcov, ocrai els
Xprjpara, pdihial re win Ka\ oCJ)68pa (Ta(f)e'i5. to S/7 perd rovro npcoTov pev rr}v
TToXii/ ihpvcrdai hel r^s x«p«s on pd\i(TTa ev /xe'crwi, Ka\ rdXXa oaa Trp6cr(Popa
Tj-dXei rS)V vnapx^vrav exf^vra roTiov eKXe^dpevov, a vorjo-al re Kai eiTrelv ovhev
XaXiTTov. perd he ravra pfprj hotheKa hieXeadai, dtpevov Earias Trparov Kai
Aids Kai ^A6i]vds Upov, aKponoXiv dvopdCovra, kvkXov nepi^aXXovra, d(f> ov rd
hwheKO pept] ripveiv Tt]v re ttoXiv avrqv koi ndaav rfjv X'^P"'^' '"« ^^ S^'
yiyveadai rd hwhfKa pepq rai rd pev dyadrjs yrjs eivai (rpiKpd, ra he x^i'Povos
p.ei(a). kXi'jpovs om. A
It will be seen that six passages of 15-21 letters are marked as
telescoped. Schanz, who has anticipated the conclusions at which
I arrived, draws especial attention to Le^^. 668 d Aeyw be to TOLovbe,
olov Tovs apiOixovs tov o-w/xaros /cai kKdaTu>v.
^ I here give Burnet's text. There are some minute differences, and the supplement of
A^ seems corrupt in places.
THE MANUSCRIPTS OF PLATO 391
^' (f. I 71^) has:
Xt'-yo) 8f
pi6fjLovs Tov attyfjLtiTos koi i
KaOTWV
The diorthotes adds in the margin (after Aeyw be) :
TO TotovBf OlOV TOVS a
This implies in the model :
Xf-yo) 8f
TO TOlOfSt OlOV TOVS d (l8)
fjiOfinvs
Schanz says : ' die Aiislassung Idsst sick kaum anders als diirch
Ucberspritigen eincr Zeile erkliiren!
An equally important passage is Rep. 400 a Te^ea/xeVos av eiTroi/xf
Ttoia h\ oiroiov fSiov fxi/i7;/iara, Ae'yeiy ovk (x^' ^^ here gives redeafxtvos
av ciTTot fjnnrjixara incd. ovi. This indicates in the model :
TfOtafifpns (iv fiTTOi
fii iTola 8t onoiov (3»ou (l8)
fiifii)HaTa
I have already mentioned (p. 387) that the omissions of ./' in
Leg. 639 c (15), Tim. 58 e (17), Leg. 731 c (18), admit of another
explanation, but in view of these passages I think it most probable
that there also lines have been omitted. The case of Leg. 731 c
is especially interesting. A has in the last line of col. i, f. 195'" :
Xr)6fiai yt fcrriv naaiu ri/uiwra
Col. ii begins with
rtoi TO fifyiarov kokov oi)
The diorthotes adds as an extra line at the foot of col. i :
TOP ti> OVI/ Twi TifnatTa (l8)
It seems probable that the writer lost his place when beginning
a fresh column and omitted a line of his copy.
The example of 21 in Leg. 874 b requires some explanation.
A has (f. 252'} :
f'Kfi\i]6ria6
fitvnv riTa(f)ov ov Kvpiuis Kti
fifvos
A long variant is added at the top of the page by ^•' (cent, xii),
392 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
preceded by the note (v aAAw ovrws ^vpov, in which the passage is
completed by -ros 8^ v6[xos els rjl^lv icrTM, after ov. This indicates :
ov
TOi 8fl VOflOS flS fjfUV €(TT(i> (2l)
Kvpias KeifJ-fvos
The unit here is slightly longer than in the other examples.
Schanz ^ calls attention to the large number of omissions of
similar length: ' st/id es VVeglassungen von 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 Buch-
staben\ The favourite number is 17.
The three omissions of 36 letters, all of which are supplied by the
8top0a)T7;?, are of special interest. It is also to be noted that he has
remedied the omission of 51 (=17x3) and the two cases of 48.
The evidence seems to show that the unit varied a good deal,
probably in different columns.
Burnet only quotes F for the passage of 213 letters omitted by
A in Critias 11 1 e-iia a. A reference to Bekker's apparatus, how-
ever, shows that the omission is peculiar to A. We may note that
212^4 = 53.
The striking resemblance between the two largest numbers 700,
717 has been noticed by Schanz,^ who suggests that in each case
A has omitted a column of the model. If we take the average
between them and allow 17 for the average length of line, this would
give about 42 lines to the page (17x42 = 714)- He concludes
that the formation of the model resembled that oi A: ^ so hat der
ScJirciber des Paris, aiich in der Hohe sein Exemplar der Vorlage
angepasst, denn auch hier bedingt der verschiedene Character der
ScJirift in Paris, A das kleine Plus.' This explanation may be
right, but in my experience omission of columns is less common
than that of folios, and it is possible that folios of a remote ancestor
have been lost.
The two passages each occupy 18 lines in Stallbaum's text.^ The
intervening space between them occupies 808 lines, to which must
be added something for the title to Bk. vi. We may note that 18
X 45 = 810. There is an interval of 45 columns, or folios, between
the omissions.
' Rhein. Mus. xxxiii (1878), p. 305.
'•' Schanz gives them as 674 and 699. {Ehein. Mus. xxxiii, p. 306.)
^ Ed. Lips, stereotypa.
THE MANUSCRIPTS OF PLATO 393
Before I quit A, I must draw attention to an interesting passage,
Tim. 66 b-c. In J, f. l33^ col. 2 ends with :
TO 8(
TovToyv aiTiov raiv nnOrifni
r<i)v o^i' ■nflo<Tpr)6r]vai ^I'/x
irnfTi Sf To'is TTfpl Tdika
F. 133', col. 1 continues:
fipijfifvoli nados (vavTinv
air' (vavTins tarl irpocfidae
(OS onornv rj tS)v (laiopTOiP
^vcrraais tv I'-ypor? oiVft'n rrji
TTjs y\o)a<TT]s f^fi ne(f)vKv'i
a \€nivT]i fj.€t> (nn\(i(j)ov
aa TO. Tpa\vv6ivTa ra 8(
napa (^vaiv ^vvfCTTurn r] ice
)(v^(va ra ptv ^vvdyT]i to.
8f ^aXiu Ka\ niiu
The hiopOcoTrji adds in the margin, with a reference mark for insertion
after X"^^ '^^^ """^''j the words 8e tovtoov tcoj- T:adi]ixaT(j)v ofw irporrpi^OfivaL
(34). This is a variant (om. ahiov) for the words which occur at
the beginning of the passage. The variant may have been already
out of place in the model or may have been inserted in the wron:
place by the biopduiTiji. We may notice that the intervening;
passage ^vyiT:a<n 6e . . . xakai koX ttuv consists of 226 letters (17x13
= 221). The relation of this to 34 (17 x 2) suggests that the model
was preceded by a MS. in similar formation.
Another error which must go back to the model occurs in £p/>.
311 d-e.
(( f^fir} airrnls frravapduxraadai rds avrayv crvvovaiat ndvv av anovSacrai ware
^fXriai Xtyfadai nfpi ainoiv ^ viv. tovto nvv f]p,'iv (ti, criv 6ta tinfiv,
€^*(TTiP, «t Ti npn pi) KiiKioi nfnpaKTat Kara rqv (pv ponOfv awnvrrinv (irav-
opOutcrna&at Ka\ (py<o xai \6y<a' ntpi ynp (fiCKoaofplav (f>'}pi f'y^ "^n" ftXrfdifrjv
do^av iataOai
A here has a dislocation. The words ras avTtav awovaias . . . f-rrav-
opdoicraadai are placed after xal 6/iyw . . . odfar (rrea-Oai. (63). Thcy
appear to have been omitted by the model and inserted in the
wrong place by A. The correct, order is given b)' the twelfth-
century corrector (/P), with some variants, and the note iv aAAw
OVTOOS €VpOV.
394 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
I now turn to the "Opot, which exhibit a remarkable series of
omissions differing in character from those found elsewhere in A.
Most of them have been supplied by A^ (cent, xii), but these
additions are obviously taken from another source.
(ii) 4i4d: a-vyKdfifvns oin. A
(13) 4146: KoKov TO dyadop om. A
(25) 412 c : VTTOfiovr) TTOvav evfKa tov koKov om. A
415 a: Kara didvoiav aTroTeKovfifuov Of/Z. A
(30) 4156: ** -\rj^is (po^os en\ npoa-doKiai KnKov ko- om. A
(31) 412 6 : * xdpiTos (Totals' pi^rjpr] fx€T^ fiepyeaias om. A
(37) 416 a : * TralSiViTis naidilas TrapaSocris '. i/npoderiKr] 07>t. A
(45) 412 c: * Kcnakn^fj eKovaia tov ^eXriarov' eiiXa/3fio 6p6ov ylroyov om, A
(57) 412 d: *etis npos to ;^pf;/zaTifeo-^ai «y Set' npocrdeais Kal KT^trts ovcrias i)S
Xprj om. A
{^T^ 4^1 <^ • * ^*-d.6icn% Ka6' fjv to e^'^v diaKtififVov reXficos crnovdniop XtytTai. e^is
TroirjTCKrj (vvofiias om, A
(116) 4^1 el * nvTonpnyin Kara (f)v(Tiv' (iiTa^la t^v;^^?. XoyiaTiKr] opiKia yj/vxrjs Tr€p\
KnXuv Koi alcrxpSiv. e^is Kad' fjii 6 exmu u'lptTiKos eari Kcii euXa^ririKos <t)v XPH
om. A
(128) 412 a : *r]pepia ylfvxrjs nepl to 8(iva Koi diipanXtn Kara, tov opdov Xo-yov (f)aiv6-
fieva. aoDTqpia doypaTcov dS^Xwf nepi ra 8fiva Kai ipnupLa noXtpov. e^is
fppevtjTiKi) vopov om. A
The telescoped passage (30) is striking. F. 324', col. ii, ends :
TO
The verso begins with
XflKeia' opiXia t) npos t'jdo
vfjV
The writer of A lost his place after turning over the page.
It is to be noticed that none of the larger omissions are to be
explained by opt. The hypothesis of accident is out of the question.
We are here dealing with deliberate interpolation or deliberate
abridgement. Here the numerical test is decisive. If there is no
relation between the figures, the probability is in favour of inter-
polation. If, however, there is a numerical relation between the
passages omitted and those retained, it appears more probable that
^ The method of division is odd, but the n seems to be original. The twelfth-centuiy
corrector adds At; in mg., ^is ^o/Sos *jrt npoaSoHiat Kanov as an extra line, and ko- before
\aKfia on the verso.
THK MANUSCRIPTS OF PLATO 395
an abbrcviator has been at work, his method being, so far as possible,
to cut out lines of his text.
The two longest omissions, 116 and 128, are in close proximity
to each other (4116-412 a). The intermediate words arbpcia <^iy
. . . TTpo? apeTt]i' contain 253 letters. Here 128x2 = 256, This
is somewhat striking. I now exhibit the whole of this troubled
zone, 411 d-412 e, marking with an asterisk passages omitted
by A.
* 8ki6((TIS KnB" r)v . . . fiivofiias (73)
(f>p6vi](TlS dCvafiis . . . afi)(f(Tdni (5 "4)
* ni'Tonpayia . . . «^i' Xf"? (iJ^)
dvdpfia f^is , . . npoi lipfTtjv (~S3)
tTjpfjun \lrv\i]S . . . epptvrjTiKq vopov (l28)
(yKpdrtia . . . \\mrfi (v(Ka Tov Kokov (3II)
* vnofioff] . . . T<jv KoKov {25)
6dp(Tos . . . ^(XTKnov (fntpfv (226)
* KaraXa^q . . . opdov \jf(tyov (45)
f\fv6tpia . . . f\(v6(pi6Ti]s (ill)
*«|tf Trpof . . . (OS XPl (57)
TTpqoTrjs . . . txitpyiTiKf] avOfjairmp (57^)
* XdfjiTos . . . (Vfpytaias (51)
A glance at these figures shows some curious relations. Thus
73 is followed by 514 (73x7 = 511), 253 is followed by 128 (128
X 2 = 256), 25 by 226 (25 X 9 = 225), 57 is preceded by 1 11 and
followed by 578. I now place them in order of magnitude :
25, 3^ 45, 57y 73' III, "6, 128, 226, 2.33, 311, 514, 578.
The following multiples of 25 are illuminating: 25 x 3 = 75, 25
X 5 = 125, 25 X 9 = 225, 25 X 10 = 250, 25 X 23 = 575.
The next number to 25 is 31. In view of the telescoped passage
of 30 in 415 e we must allow considerable variety in the unit.
If the average is 25, there must have been lower numbers. It is
therefore possible that 45 may equal two lines.
The conclusion therefore is that A gives a ' shorter text ' in the
"0/joi, the result of abridgement, and that it comes from a different
source, with longer lines than those found in the model of A
(average 25, as against average 17).
I now turn to a MS. which has had a somewhat romantic history.
Bekkerin his Apparatus gives readings from a Vatican MS. no. 796,
which he terms 12. At that time (1811) it was in Paris among other
39^ DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
Italian MSS. brought there by Napoleon. Peipers,^ using Bekker's
collation, was of opinion that a number of MSS. were derived
from 12. Jordan showed that i2 was itself derived from A, the
proof being that omissions of 12 occupy lines of A."^ The MS. itself,
however, could not be found in the Vatican. Schanz says : ' ist in
der Vaticana unter dieser Nr. nicht bekannt\ Burnet, who calls it
O, and uses it in Tetr. ix, calls it cod. Vaticanus 796 (?). He does
not refer to Jordan's theory of its derivation from A.
In Cavalieri and Lietzmann's Speciinina Codicum Graecorum
Vaticanorum, Plate 9 reproduces a page from this MS., which in the
Introduction (p. vii) is called ' Vat. Gr. i {olim 796) saecl. ix/x '.
It has, therefore, come to light again.^ The striking point is that
instead of being a comparatively late MS., as Jordan supposed, it
turns out to be the oldest known MS. of Plato after A and B. It
has 40 lines to the page.
I now add Jordan's proofs that 12 {O) is derived from A. I have
corrected some of his statements by the help of the facsimile of A,
and have added some examples which I have myself noticed when
looking through Bekker's variants. I have to thank the Rev. H.M.
Bannister for verifying the readings of Vat. i in some passages
where I was in doubt. The references which I give are to the
folios oi A.
(a) 12 omits complete lines of A :
(20) £/>/>. 354 c (f. SIS'") : 17 To'is dvdpwTToii dfos 8f
(22) Le^. 902 e (f. 263'*') : (f)a(riv ol ^^5oXo•yot Xidovs
(25) Z-e^- 862 e (f. 246^) : re avrols en (fjt/ iifieivov tovs
{b) i2 passes from one line of A to another. I enclose in brackets
the passages omitted by i2 :
(19) Leg. 922 c (f. 271"^) :
r
7
yaifxeda TtXiVrav : [nas too
TO a ^(Vf Xeyety] ;(aXe7ro»'
924 c (f. 272»");
Kar iviavTov {rpeis Ka\ Ka
T tviavTOp] aXXov iTtpoi Tpfls
1 Quaestiones de legibtis Platon., p. 39.
- Hermes xii (1877), PP- 161-72.
^ A note in fl states that its place in the library was changed by Mai. A description
of the MS. is given by Rabe in Khein. Mus. Ixiii (1908), pp. 235-8.
876 a (f. 262^)
(22) Laws 943 b (f. 279^)
THE MANUSCRIPTS OF PLATO 397
(20) Z^-. 705e(f. 1S5O:
v6
fiov [ofiBoit vnoTidtfJuii flu
vov]
This is a striking case.
(21) £<§-. 844 e (f. 239') :
(K TiLl' (aVTOV dpfnTjl [(Vlf 8 €K
T<1)V yfiToi/uv fivaf] t'cic 8 (^ cTX
vofiodtTqrtov [rroia
8!) vofiodtrrjTfov Km] noia
ras fuv \fli rovs onXirat i-rr
ntas 8(] flf Tovs 'anrfas Kui
The following case is interesting (Z,r^. 717 b). A has (f. iqc"^):
opd<JTa
ra (f)€poiT &v npatTOV (liv
il omits 4>(poiT hv . . . fxiv, but has opdorara. Probably a line was
first omitted and then opdora was corrected by conjecture.
In one case H skips two lines o( A :
(45) Demodoc. 386 a (f, 330^) :
Kal Tolf rvypvcnv [ot/xm htXv
nirrrevfiu (I 8i pf] ni(TTfi'€ii>
Tolt TV)(^ovaiv] (<f)q old Sciv
These instances seem sufficient to prove Jordan's contention. It
is probable that an exact collation of Vat. Gr. i would reveal
a number of others.
It must now be noticed that X2 is not copied immediately from A.
This may be shown from the lacunae in the Laws (745 a-c, 7H3 b-d).
In both cases A is supplemented by the twelfth-century corrector,
in 745 a without comment and in 7H3 b with the note iv ncn rdv
aiTiypa(\>uiv (f)ipeTai. xal ruvTa. If the dating is right, it did not contain
either supplement when 12 was written. 12^ agrees with A in
omitting yii^ b-d, the passage being added by 12"^ with the same
note. 12, however, has 745 a-c in the text. There must, therefore,
have been an intermediate MS. between A and il in which the
lacuna in 745 a-c was filled up. I have noticed a large number of
such cases. Thus, in the telescoped passage, /\e/>. 400 a, where A
398 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
omits -IJ.I TToXa be ottolov ^iov, and the loss is not repaired by any of
the correctors, i2, if we may trust Bekker's collation, is not defective.
In some cases corrections in A are found in the text of li, but fre-
quently there are the same marginalia in both MSS. It is probable
that a further study of the relation of 12 to ^4 would be remunerative.
It may be noticed that 12 contains many references to tov naTpiapyov
TO ^kjikiov^ from which it has been inferred that it was written at
Constantinople.
I now point out a very curious point of agreement between il and
the Armenian version, namely that the version like 12 has Leg.
745 a-c in the text, but omits 783 b-d with D} and A. It is
possible that the version was founded on 12 or a kindred MS.
A facsimile of B has been published in the Leiden series with
a preface by Mr. T. W. Allen. The MS. was found in the Isle of
Patmos by E. D. Clarke in 180 1. It has a colophon which states
that it was written in A. D. 895 by a scribe named John, for Arethas
the deacon of Patras. Arethas, afterwards Archbishop of Caesarea
in Cappadocia, collected MSS., several of which still survive. He
Vi^as accustomed to write scholia in his MSS., also to add colophons.
Kougeas, in his recent monograph upon Arethas,^ gives facsimiles
from Paris 451 (Eusebius), Harl. 5694 (Lucian), Dres. Da. 129
(Nicephorus). He says of /?: to \x\v Keifxerov eypa\j/ev 6 'Icoayrrjs, to
jii^Kioypa(PiKbv VTioypap.p.a ixcto. tG>v Koafxr^ixaTuiv 6 'Apedas.
Mr. Allen recognizes three contemporary correctors, whom he
terms A, B, C. The first of these is the writer of the scholia and the
colophon, i. e. Arethas. The identification was originally made by
E. Maas. Mr. Allen had some doubts whether Arethas would
undertake in person the labour of writing such extensive scholia,
but he tells me that he now agrees. He assigns ^ and C to the
same period. Other correctors have been at work, one of whom at
least belongs to cent. x.
The MS. consists of 53 quaternions and has 34 lines to the page.
The contents of three pages which I examined are as follows :
f. 106"^ {Theaet. 192C-193C) = 1,697 letters.
f. 169'" {Parnicn. 157 d-158 d) = 1,783 „
f. 169^ {Parinen. 158 d-i59d) = 1,760 „
1 Rabe, /. c.
2 S. B. Kougeas, u Kaiaapiiat 'ApiOai, Athens, 191 3.
THE MANUSCRIPTS OF PLATO
399
The average on f. io6^ is 50 letters to the h'ne and on f. 169 about
52. I noticed three exceptionally short lines of 42, 44, 45, and
two exceptionally long ones of 58 and 59.
On one occasion, f. 31'' {P/iaedo 68 b), John himself adds in the
margin yp. aWodi bwaruv ilvai KaOapm. This ancient variant clearly
existed in the model.
A number of additions have been made by Arethas. It is prob-
able that these were taken from the model. The contemporary
correctors B and C may also have had access to the model.
On one occasion, f. 105' {Theaet. 192 b), the corrector B writes Iv
aWoii Kal raira before a supplement, which must come from another
source.
In the following list I ascribe the corrections of A to Arethas,
and unite B and C under the symbol corr. I take no account of
the later correctors.
(10) 133d
Meno 99 a
Phaedo 90 d
Polit. 296 e
(11) Alcib. \. 129 b
Polit. 307 c
310a
3loe
Soph. 241 d
(12) Alcib. ii. 141 b
Meno 99 c
Symp. 175 c
(13) Euthyd. 281b
Phaedo 42 c
80 e
Phaedr. 272 a
Prot. 330 b
(14) Alcib. i. 130 c
Crat. 387 d
388 d
Euthyd. 291 b
Gorg. 492 b
Phaedo 80 c
Phaedr. 231 c
Polit. 291 b
(15) Alcib. i. 130 b
Apol. 37 c
OTi Tjfj.eTtpn om. B
Tivoi opdiLs E, am. B, cett.
* Tovi Xoyovf om. B
8ioiKT]<T(<t>s om. B •
up6a>i Xe'yftr om. B
^apvTfpa Kai om. B
nvTt (Vpotiv om. B
»cai aTi^iait om. B
8iafui)(T]Tt'ov om. B
ovK uv /zoi doK(t) om. B
f'vffovaiQ)irr(s E, om. B, cett.
dj7To^€i'dr <rov om. B
Toif av6\iu>T!0ii om. B
Ka\ 8uiKpi(T((Ti om. B
* avTq (IS (avrqv om. B
T( Koi aKaiplav om. B
* f ;^f « h 2o)KpaT(S om, B
dXAa Ka\ fieTj)iois Om. B
oi/o/iufeii' T( Kiti om. B^ {corr.)
6 Ttjv T(\vriv (\uiv om. B^ {add. Areth.)
■trnpixpvaa t( koi om. B
Kiu hiKaKoaiivri'S E, om. B, cett.
(tni hiairvtl(j6in Otn. B
(Toifjioi flat Kai om. B
* Koi yap 8r) Koi vvv om. B
* Tis ovv 6 livdpotrros om. B
o> t'l'dpa 'XBriva'tot om. B
400 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
Corg. 46c e : Kn\ «8tVto? ;^p^rai F, om. B, cett.
480 d : * /117 (p(i8nn€vov aXX' F", om. B, cett.
Phaedo 100 c : ■n\r]v avro to kuXop om. B^ {add. Areth.)
(17) Theaet. 168 a: aviovs 8e fjuarjaova-i om. B^ {corr.)
(18) Crito. 52 b : * on iir] ana^ fls 'ladfiov T, Athenaeus, om. B, cett.
(19) /'^//. 43 b: anav 8fi ■TTov rovvavTiov T^, om. BT^
(21) Polit. 287 e : Kai (^TTvpois xai nnvpois om, B
(23) Crat. 383 b : uvtmi ye tovtoh ovofia eivai ^ om. B^ (corr.)
Corg. 514 b : TTjv Tfxut]v f) ovk ima-rdfuQa F, om. B^ {cor}:) T^
(25) Gorg. 483 a: dl(T-)(i.ov Xeyovros al rov fojiov om. BIV
(26) Crito 47 a : nlde Travruv aWa rav ptv rav S' ov TW, Eusebius, om B^
{add. Areth.)
Corg. 452 e : koI iv ^ovXfvrrjpim ^ovXtwds om. B^ {add. Areth.)
Theaet, 160 c : ovt aWov Xeyovros ano8eKTeov om. B^ {corr.)
(28) Phaedo 71 c: iyprjyopivai Kai «k tov Kadfvdeiv om, B
Theaet. 164 b : Iotiv eiTrep kuI to 6pai enitrTarat om. B^ {corr.)
192 b : Koi o pfj aladiivfTai l)V aladavfTai om, B^ {corr.)
(34) Crat. 391 a : dWh. Sokoj poi a8e tiv fiaWov TTfia-dfiafo-dni om. B^ {corr.)
(36) Theaet. 174 c : Xoihopilv ar ovk ddois kokov ovdev ov8ev6s {om. B^ corr.)
(37) Phil. 54 C : yiyveadai a-vfxiraaav 8f yefeaiv oiiaias (VfKa om. B
(39) Meno 75 d : dnoKp'wtaBaC (O-ti 8e la-(os TO 8ia\eKTiKa>Tepov 07)1. B
(41) Alcib. i. I20e: eKyovoi, t6 S' 'HpuKXeovs re yevos Koi to ' Axaifievovs ^ om.
B^ {corr.)
Apol. 33 b : TTtoTTOTe padr)pa p,r)T€ fdida^a, fl 8e TtV <f)riat, nap' enov^ om. B
Parm. 160 d : ovbev t^ttov yiyvoxTKtTai ri to Xeyofitvop pr] flvai om, B^ at
end of line {corr.) : D
(42) Etlthyd. 296 b : di\ 8' (niardpfvos noTtpov ra ptv Tovrm inlcrraaai om. B
(44) Theaet. 192 C : o pr) olbe ku\ o pf] otSc pr)8e aiaBavfrai 6 prj aiaddvfrai om. B
(45) Phil. 23 C : pdXXov * 8' et ^ovXei Tpix^i : Kaff on (f)pdCois av : Xd^tapev
07n. B^ {corr.)
(46) Phaedo 96 a : ^ovXopai ye : aKOve toipvv wr epovvros. (y(o yap e(f)r) 6 Ke^t]s
om. B^ {add. Areth.)
(49) Euthyd. 303 d : pr]Te dyaBov npaypa prjTe XevKov pr}8'' aXXo tS>v TOiovrav
pr]8ev om. B
(57) EuthyPhro 8d: **-Tovcnv ws ov tov dSi/covvTa 8e'i 8i8uWi 8[ki]v dXV eKtlvo
la-u>s dp(\}i(T^i]- om, B^ {add, Areth.)
(6c) Hipparch. 227 d : elvai oxfyeXda-dai : n ovv 8f} tovto I on Ka\ rdSe uvtS>i
TrpoacapoXoyfjcrapev om. B^ {corr.)
^ Tohn wrote 6 he opoXoyei ti Se med. om. The corrector erased n St, and wrote atrwt
. . . eXvai TL 5ai in the margin.
* For the method of correction here employed, cf. p. 406.
' The passage is added in a tenth-cent. hand.
* pdWov is written in a later hand, but probably the corrector rewrote a word which
had become illegible.
THE MANUSCRIPTS OF PLATO 401
(61) Crat. sSgb : ovkow (Ktlvo biKaiorar av airro & tariv KtpKis KaXtaaifUv : (ixotyt
8oKtt 0/ft. B
Crito 51 d : <ai o\iht\% fj^iciv rosv co/icof (fxnoButv tort ov8' annyoptvft tdv rt m
iioiXijTiii om. B^ {cuid. Areih.)
(62) Theaet. 192 b : to pvrjf.ifluv up6a)S o oiSiv olrjdiji'ni aSwarov Kai o oiOf icai
alaffuvfTai txav om. B^ {corr. iv oXXoty »cal ravra)
(71) Theaet, 192 e: 1<ttiv Se alaQdvivQai. : aXrj^^ : ovkoIv »cni a prj oiSe noWaKu
piv (ori fiTjdi niaduvfcrdnt Ont. B
{75) Alcib. i. 105 d : tvSfi^aTdai on avrrji iravTos li^ios d, fi>8(i^ufx(vni 8( ov8(v ort
ov nafjavTiKci Swrjatcr^ai Otfl. B
(84) Euthyph. 12 b: t-yo) o^K Toirrwi 8i.a(f>(pofxtn toji TroitjTrji. (iTT<t> aoi on^i : rruw
■ye : oil doKt't /jot €tvai Iva 5«o? (vda koi al8a>s om. B {tldd. Art'i/t.)
(97) Protag. 312 6 : Trtpl ovn-jp kcCi fni(rrTfj.ova rrtpl KiBapiatai' rj yap : val : ftVf.
6 8f S/7 crofpKrrfjs irtpi rivos ddvnv noifl Xiyeiv '. dijXov on om. B, tit the end
of a line.
(98) Alcib. i. 134a: ovK apa olov re iav fir) ns <Ta>(^pa)v Kat ayados rji tidaipova
(tvai : oiix olov Tf : 01 (ipa kokoI tS)V avBpatnav ad\ui : (T(f)6opci ye om. B
(591) Theaet. 208 d-209 a : * iraw ptu ovv : Xa3f 8!) ov X"P'«' fiprjrat. fO-Ti 8e ontp
iipT( (Xfynptv u)s (ipn Ti)v 8ia(f)op(iv (Kaarov nv Xap^avrfis rjt tS)v nXXa)i/
8ia(f)fp(i Xcryoi' cos (j)aai rn'ts XijvZ/'rjt to)? S* &v koivov tivos ((piinrrfi tKfUav
TTfpt (Toi fcrrai 6 Xoyoj <ov hv 17 (couot^js ^i : pav&dvu> Kai poi Soku KaXat
f ;(fiv Xoyov to TotoCTOC KnXuv : os 5' *iv pfT^ dpdrjs So^rjs nfpl orovoiv tuiv
oVTOiv Ti)f 8ia(l>opav rail' oXXcoi' npocrXd^rji airov (iTKTTTjpcop yeyovcos ecrrat a>v
npoTtpov fjv 8o^a(rrT]S : (paptv yf pfjv oCtuJ : viv SiJTo, <o &faiTT]Tf, irnvrd-
naaiv ty^f, fTTti8fj fyyis wanep (TKiaypa(f>ripaTOS yeyova roii Xtyopfvov,
(rvviqpi ov8f (TpiKpov, (COS 8e dc^eiorryKr; Tr6ppco6fv, ((fyaivtro ri poi Xeytcrcai :
TTcos ri ToiTO : <}>pd(T(o fav olds re yivcopai. updfjv e-ywyt e\(ov 86^av n(p\ (Tov
(CIV p(v npocrXd0<o tov ctuv Xdyof Offi. B
I have marked 57 {Euthyph. 8 d) as a telescoped passage, but
without any conviction. John wrote (f. 4'") :
f^aaiv d8iK('iv' r) ydp : aKy]6r\ Xeyeif : ovk Spa (Kfivo y( dp(f)i(T^r]
TOV<TtV TO TIS ((TTIV 6 Cl8lK(0V
He here omitted cLs ov rdv abiKovvra 8et bibovai. 5ikj]2' dAA fKciro
l(T(ji)i a{i(f>i.(Ti3r]Tov(nr. Arethas, instead of inserting w? . . . a/xc/)io-/S7j-
Tov(TLv after afi(pia-fii]Tov(ru', added -rovaiv ois ov . . . lo-ojs ap.(pL(rl3rj- in the
margin. The same method is followed by the correctors B and C
on more than one occasion, e.g. Theaet. i6o b (26). Here John
wrote (f. 91') :
Ttov avTwt ("iTf ylyvtcrdai avro fie <^' avrov Ti ^ 6v »J •)iyvop(vov ovt
airroii X(kt(ov if 6 \dyos
He here omitted ovt aWov Aeyoi-ro? a-rrobcKTeov after AeKreor. The
corrector [B), instead of inserting the missing words after XtKTiov,
1633 D d
402 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
wrote avT&i X^KTeov ovr' aWov Ae'yoy- in the right-hand margin and
in the next line wrote -tos otto- in ras. (over avr<Si) and changed A.
(in \€kt4ov) to 8. There are a number of other passages in which the
correctors rewrite the passage instead of making a simple addition.
The most striking point in this list is the agreement of 97 and 98.
We may notice that 98 x 6 = 588, which is very near to 591 ; but in
the absence of intermediate figures I would not lay stress on this.
The next point w^hich calls for attention is the large number of
examples between 40 and 50. It is to be observed that 46 {Phaedo
96 a) and 84 {Eiithyph. 12 b) are both added by Arethas.
In the case of a MS. written in long lines like B it is always
probable that it was preceded by one or more ancestors written in
somewhat similar formation. Since B contains an average of 50-52
letters to the line, nothing would be more natural than that the
content of a line in the model would vary between 40 and 50.
The omission of 97 letters in Protag. 312 e is of special interest
since it comes at the end of a line. Here John wrote (f. 337^) :
vhv TTOtel Xe'yfiy Sxrirfp 6 Kidapiarris 8eivov 8r]nov Troiel \4yfiv (52)
TTept ovTTfp Koi eniaraTaL : (Ikos ye '. t'l 81] (aTiu tovto nepi ov (S*^)
avTos
Here he has omitted 97 letters after -notel Xiy^iv. It is tempting to
arrange as lines of the model
TTtpi ovnep Km ini(TTr)p.ova TTCpi Ki6np[a«os tj yap ' vni '. eiev (49)
6 be 8rj (TO(f)i(TTrji nep\ Tivos 8eiv6v TTOiel \eyeiv : BrjXov oti (48)
It may now be asked if there is any evidence for the formation of
more remote ancestors. Here it is necessary to speak with some
caution. The three examples of 26 and 28 are interesting, also the
sharp break after 28. Also we may notice that two omissions of
26 are remedied by Arethas, a fact which may indicate that they
were in the margin of the model and neglected by John. I have
noticed the following corruptions in B which may be instructive :
Euthyd. 276 b : ol dp.a6els I'lpa p.av6dvov(nv, S) KXeivia, dW ovx ol (TO(f)oi.
B has ao<j)Oi after apa as well as /oco suo. This may indicate
in a previous MS.
It
apa
fiav6dvovaiv w K\eivia aXX' ovx ''^ (^7)
(TO(fioi
THE MANUSCRIPTS OF PLATO 403
Charm. 172 a : livnyjcoToi/ Kaku>t (cal tZ Trpdrrfiv TIV, cdii. plerique.
B has xaAuis T,paxTiiv avayKalov KoAcis kuI (v Trpdrrciv. This may
indicate in a previous ancestor
avayKalov xaXdif Ka\ tv irpdrrftv (27) ''^^- 'caXwf nparrfiv.
Two of the omissions of 28 occur in the Theactctus, both being
added by the corrector (^), who may have found them as marginalia
in the model. It is to be noticed that one of them, 192 b, comes in
a part of the Theactctus where we have a long series of omissions
due to bewildering repetitions of alcrQav^Tai aladdvaTdaL. One of
these 192 b (62) has been remedied by the corrector with the note
(V aAXois Koi ravra to which I have previously referred. This was
clearly taken from another source, not from the model. It there-
fore goes back to a previous ancestor.
In a passage so full of repetitions it is not likely that the
omissions would represent whole lines, at least as a rule, but rather
that the writer would skip from one line to another on account of
6/1. We should not therefore expect to find exact correspondence.
I now exhibit the whole of this troubled zone, Theaet. 192 b-e
<fif. 105'', 106'), marking with asterisks the portions omitted by B.
* KQi. t fif] . , , nl(r0(ivfTai (28)
Kai €Ti ye , , , aiaddvtTai ej^av (l97)
* TO fivqfj-fiov . • . tuadtlvtTai t\a)v (62)
Kara ravra . . . ix^hi alcrdavtrai (9')
* o fiq oi8( . , . fif] alcrOdvfrai (44)
navra ravra . . . p-fj alcrdavtcrOai (657)
*f(mv 8( alirdavfddai . . . p.rjbt alcrdavfadai (71)
Here 28 x 7 = 196. The other figures do not at first look encoura-
ging. If, however, the scribe skipped from line to line, we may find
some connexion between the figures, if we add up the blocks.
Here 62 + 91+44= 197. This is a very surprising result. If
we add 657 and 71, the result is 728. This = 28 x 26 exactly.
The whole passage, therefore, 28 + 197 + 197 + 728= 1150, i.e.
41 lines of 28 (= 1148).
If this analysis is correct, a previous ancestor had in one line
»coi 6 fxr) aladdvfrai <ov alaSavtrai (28)
This was succeeded by seven lines containing kuI ert ye . . . aladaverai
(Xcov (197), then seven lines containing to ixirqfjLfloi' . . . /xr) ala-Odverai
(197), then 26 lines containing -aira ravra . . . i^-qbe aladdvecrdai (728).
Dd 2
404 . DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
I do not venture to suggest previous ancestors, and would only
point out that F preserves two passages of 15 letters, omitted by B
cctt., also one of 14. The additions of Arethas in Crat. 388 d (14) and
Phaedo 100 c (15) may possibly represent marginalia in the model.
It is to be noticed that both the additions in B come from Arethas.
Before I quit B I must make a reference to three passages, all of
them belonging to the same dialogue, where Stobaeus and others
appear to have had a longer text than that given by our MSS.
(45) Alctb, i. 128 a: Kai liidrin kcu (TTpay^nTa tov ("XXod aoiixnTOs ofJLoicos : vai
S/oiaeus, om. codd,
(66) Alcih. i. 1 15 e : * Traw yi ; eV ro?? dplcrTOis "tfin (tv rj-yrji dvBpeiav dvai Kav tois
KtiKiarois ffdvarov Stobaeus, o»u codd. ct Prochcs
(321) Alctb. i. 133 C : ap ovv 06' warrep KcnmrTpd ('(Ttl <Tn(f)((TTfpa tov fv tcoi
t>(f)d(i\pun fvnTvrpov Kin Kad(ipo)Tfpn Knl Xap-TrpoTtpa, ovra Kol 6 deos rov fu
TTJi rjpiTipni \l/vxr]i [■ieXriarov KctffnpaTfpdu re K(h \itp.Trp(')T€pop Tvy)(dv€i bv '.
i'oiKe yf, o) ^uKparfs '. fis tov 6eov apn (iXerrovTes eKdvoyi koXXiotcoi evonrpai
Xponpeff' civ Koi tcov dvfipcoTTiicov etV ti)v '^/'I'X^S' dpfTrjv, Koi ovTwi av naXiaTn
6p<oipev Kin yiyvco(TKoip.iv ijpds ai'Tovi : vai Kusebius, stc fore Stobaeus,
Theodoretus, lulianiis : 07>i. codd.
Here 45 is the average length of a line in the model of B. We
cannot, however, explain the omission in this way, since it is common
to all IMSS. The relation of 45 to 66 suggests that the omission
goes back to an ancestor with 22 letters to the line. There seems
to be a relation between 66 and 321 (64 x 5 = 320).
I conclude with a reference to B as a parent. Schanz considers
that a number of MSS. are derived from it. In the case of one he
proves his case by citing examples of line omissions. The MS. in
question, which consists of two parts, viz. Vat. 225 and 226, termed
by Bekker A and 0, has played a considerable part in Platonic
criticism. Schanz gives the following instances. I add references
to the folios of B :
(45) -Letches 198 d : ytyovev «'AXi/ fie TTfp\ yiyvopivwv oni]i ylyveTOi aWrj 8e om, B
(f-305^')
(47) TheagCS 123c: ^*--<j6a ov fxevTOi t6 ye ovofin rj koi to ovopnl Ka\ to ovofia
eyco-ye om. 6 (f. 278'")
(50) Crat. 404b: **■ -pryrpdv rf kcCi Wpav Kfii 'An-dXXw Kai^\Br]vav Ka\''ii(f3ai(TT0V
Ka\''Apr] om. A (f. 67"")
' The question of the relation o( B to D {Voi. 185) will be
considered subsequently.
THE MANUSCRIPTS OF PLATO 405
D
This MS., Bckker's FI, contains Tctr. i-iv and a portion of
Tetr. viii, viz. Clitoplio and Republic i-x, where it ends at 612 e
€o-Ti rafra, having lost a few pages at the end. Its tradition for the
rest o[ Rep. x is known from Paris. 1810 and other MSS. derived
from it before it was mutilated.
In Tetr. i-iv it is most closely connected with B. Schanz
originally thought that it was not derived from B, but from a
gemellus, but afterwards changed his mind. Most recent writers
speak of it as an apograph of B. In Tetr. viii, however, which is
not contained by B, its tradition is independent of A and its value
is not disputed. It has been suggested that it is derived from the
supposed missing volume oi B.
D, which is assigned to cent, xii, is said to be carelessly written
and, in particular, to contain a number of dittographies. In the
Parvienides it has recently been collated by Waddell : otherwise
we are dependent upon Bekker's collation.
The chief reason for supposing D to be derived from B in
Tetr. i-iv is a curious fact noticed by Waddell.. He observed in
the Pannenides an extraordinary similarity between the lineation
o{ B and D. ' The first three lines in D are identical with those found
in B, the fourth is longer by tj and the fifth by (|)(o, then they diverge,
but tend to revert to identity and then again separate.' ^ A striking
agreement is that the last three lines on f. 169'' and the first three
lines on f. 169'' are identical in the two MSS. Waddell with great
self-restraint says that ' we have very considerable support for the
view that D descends from B. It is not, however, so strong as in
the case of Vat. 225-6 (A0;, and the counter evidence is stronger.'
I would remark in the first place that D cannot be a direct copy
oi B. An intermediate MS. is required. This maybe seen from
certain dislocations in D, mentioned by Schanz, though he does not
point out their significance.
On f. 30"' after Phaedo 68 b aXka ns D has in the middle of the
page Crito 51 a-53 a koI av 6e /y/^ias . . . aTrtOT/-. This block of
the Crito which has got out of place = 87 lines in Stallbaum's text.
* Farm.., p. Ixxxv.
406 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
Subsequently there is a dislocated passage of the Phaedo, viz.
68 c-69 b (f)tXo(r(afxaTOS 6 avTos . . . aperi] /cat rS, which = 43 lines of
Stallbaum's text. Also in the Apology D originally omitted
'ib d-37 e yap S av8/)es . . . ^ew aTret^eii'. This = 84 lines in Stall-
baum's text. The relation between 43, 84, 87 shows that folios of
an ancestor have been displaced.
The contents of the three pages of B which I have already
mentioned, viz. ff. io6^ 169'^', 169^ are respectively equal to 48, 43,
45 lines of Stallbaum's text. These figures agree admirably with
43, 84, 87. We should therefore expect to find that on one occa-
sion a folio of B has been transposed, on another a page, and on
a third a folio has been omitted.
If, however^ we look at B we find that Crito 51 a-53 a comes on
f. 24'*, 1. 23, after -vai, and ends f. 25'", 1. 25 in the middle of a line :
Phaedo 68 c-69 b begins on f. 32'^, 1. 2, towards the end of a line,
and ends on 32^ 1. 4, in the middle of a line, while Apol. 0,^ d-37 e
begins on f. 17^ 1. '>,% in the middle of a line, and ends on f. 18'",
1. 29, before rov-.
The MS. in question, therefore, though extremely like B, was
not B. If we assume the existence of an intermediate MS., we are
left with the singular fact that in the Parmenides at any rate we
have whole lines exactly the same in B and D, after passing through
an intermediate MS. If so, it is also possible that a further ancestor
of B and D had the same traditional formation, in which case D
may after all not be derived from B itself.
Schanz has already given a number of readings which make it
difficult to derive D from B} and it is probably in consequence
of these that Waddell speaks so guardedly. The most striking case
which I have myself noticed is :
Alcib. i. 120 e : 01 [xep'HpaKXeovs, ol 8e ' Axaiiiepovs eKyovoi, to S' 'HpnK\eovs re yhns
KCLL TO 'Axaijjievovs els Ilepa-ea
Here John wrote (f. 256')
\aK(8aipo
vi(ov Koi TrepcTMV ^aaiXeis. fj ova Icrpev ods ol pev fjpuKXeovs
oi Se a)((u.pevo\)S ets Trepaea tov 8i6s dva(f)epfTai Koi yap to
omitting EKyovoi . . . 'Axat/^ieVouj. The contemporary corrector (Q,
1 Platocodex (1877), P- 5^-
THE MANUSCRIPTS OF PLATO 407
instead of inserting the missing passage after 'Axaifxevovs, preferred
to join it to the margin of the previous h'ne. He therefore wrote
01 8e 'Axatfxivovi . . . yivo'i /cat in the right-hand margin, erased ol be
at the beginning of the next line, and wrote t6 in ras., followed by
a small blank space. The addition is made in a bold hand, and
could not possibly be overlooked. D, however, if Bekker's collation
is to be trusted, makes the same omission as John, viz. hyovoL . . .
Wxaifjiii'ovs. He expressly distinguishes it from />, to which he
assigns oi 8t 'Axat/xcVovf . . . yevoi Kai according to the marginal
correction.
Omissions and Dittograpiiies.
I pass over a few omissions of less than 20 letters, also omissions
shared by B. In Rep. x. 612 e-end, I use the symbol d for
apographs of D.
(20) Rep. 535 a : Ka\ roiis avSpdoraTOVs OJH. D
(23) Theaet. 165 c : (cal to \ir] Spav fiij iniaTaaOat oni, D
(24) Rep. 534 S • M"' Tavra So^af atvafxfpoTepa oni. D
(33) Rep. 394*^ • *'y*^ '"■<*>? 5e Kai TrXei'o) en TOvrtav' ov ■yap dt] Oin. D
(36) Farm. 148 d : ro Xv avrov koi tup aXXmi' koi tov fif} aTTTfcrdai otii. D^
(37) Rsp- 563 e : o6(v TvpavvXi (fiCfrai u)s e'/xot 8ok(i : ptaviKr] ovi. D
(39) Amat. 138 a : ^t\\u '. ovkovu ^i fxiv KoXd^fiv opdios eVioTo/xe^a O/n. D
Rep. 400 b : * dWov rpoxdiov uyuofxn^f pi]Kri 8; Km l3pa)(VTr]Tas om. D
(40) Partn. l6oc: tcrji ydp : icrnv lipa k<i\ ^e'-ye^i!? rf kiu crpiKporris ovt. D
(42) Farm. 153 a : o\ik f\ci> Xiytiv : rode yt p,f)U()(fis \(y(iv ort ra aWa oni. D
Phaedo 64 e : o -yf wr olKt^Qqh (f)i\6(To(f)os : ovkoiv oXws 8oKfi coi f(f)r) om, D
(43) Farm. 134 d : ovt tiv f) StarroTfia fj (Kfivutv rjnuv noTt dp dea-rroaeifp oi)l. Z?' 7'
Phaedo 64 e : KaQ ouop p,i] ttoXXj) avdyKq fifTt^^tip (uVwf : uTipci^eiv om. 1)
Phaedr. 274 b : (VaKO)? (\(tu) : W prjv : to S' eiinptjrfiui S17 ypacprjs ntpi Ot>i. D
(44) Folit. 258 b : * Set 6e tawf ert r\TTop Tap-a SiaKcoXiai/, aKKa dq p(Tu top om. D
Rep. 588 C : Xf'yoprai avpTrf(f>vKvlai Ibtai noWai (h (p yeietrSai om. D
Rep. 367 d : * (f>pop€~lv Ka'i vytaiptip S17 K(u ocr' liWn d-yn^a yovipn Trji 07>l. 1)
(45) Rep. 335 d : ndw yt : olbi 8r] tov uyadoii jiXuTTTfip dXXa tov tPnPTiov om. D
469 a: ** -dpajTOJV ', TTdcropfda ptp ovp : 8iaTTvd6p(poi lipa tov Otov om. D
479 d : pq fl.pa^ (pavt'iCrfTai ovTf (fiavoTtpa optos npos to fxaXXop om. D
602 a : irdpv yt '. o8i piprjTtjS nortpop (k tov xprjcrdai (niarrjprjv om. D
607 a : ♦* -ppovi Qto'ii KcCi (yKU)pia TOif dyadoh noiqatus 7rapa8(- 07/1. D
(46) Rep. 335 C : dpo-icrovi 8vvai'Tai TTOietf : ddvPOTOP : dXXa TJjt ImriKrji om. D
(48) Farm. 136a: p^XXov yvpvaoQqvai : nS)s Xiytis (f)dpai : oiop ((f)r) el ^oCXfi
om. D
4o8 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
Parni. 147 a : tou kvo% dpa fxopid taTiv rj kuv ovtos jxeTfl^f Toii fvos ra ixrj iv
om. D
Rep. 616 C : ** -vai yap tovto to (f)MS avvbea pov rov ovpavov olov ra vno^topa-
om. d
(50) Phil. 23 e : eaxiapevov Kal diecnrappiuoi' ISovres tls H ttoXiv eKarepov om. D
Rep. 330 a : iraw n paidicos yripas pera irfinas eviyicoi ovd' 6 prj enuiKrjs om. D
(51) Rep. 328 d : dXX' ij^ets av irapa ae rppiv' viiv be at XPh ^vKvorepov devpo Uvai
07)1. D
Parmen. 134 a • o^ t^s ""op' ^p^v tiv dXrjdeias ei'r; Kal aZ iKaarr) f) nap' fjpTv
emaTTjprj om. Dt^
(53) Alcib. i. 124 e: vai : oWa ra vovtiko. Xeyetj : ov : Trapa tovs vuvtikovs yap av
rjp^v 07)1. D
(55) Rep. ^620: KopiBrji pev ovv : iv rjiTivi 8ij TToXft TrXeiOTOt eVi to avrb Kara
TavTa 07/1. D
(59) Rep. 353 b : eVrij/ : ap ovv aaX dpirq d(p6a\pS)v iariV. Ka\ dperr] : ride corav
rjv Ti epyov 07/1. D
(61) A77iat. 137c: <^aiWrai pot ^ 8' os : Ti 8e norepov rJTTfp ^eXrlovs re Trotel /cat
Ko\d(fL OpdcoS 07/1. D
(62) Clitoph, 408 e : pr]hkv npovoovvras opmv KaOdirep iralbas m eari tis yvpvaaTiKtj
Kal larpLKt] bis scr. D
(64) CritO 44 d : w KpiVwi' oloi rf eiVai 01 TToXXoi TO. peyi(TTa KaKa i^epyd^ecrOai tva
oioi T€ tjcrav 0//1. D
(66) Rep. 543 d : tov {Kfivrji opoiov Ka\ ravra wy eoiKas KaXXicw er4 fx<>iv elneiv ttoXiv
T€ Kal (ivBpa bis scr. D
(80) Rep. 410 d : oVoi av rovvavriov StarfOcbaiv : rivos 8e 7 S" bs Trepi Xe'yeij : dypio-
TTjTos T( Kal aKXrjpoTTjTos Kal ail 0/71, D
(87) Rep. 554 '^ • ^TTi.6vpias : Kal pdXa rj S' OS a(f)6bpa l ovk dp av etrj daTacrlaaros 6
ToiovTOS iv iavTMi ov8e els dWd dinXovs tis 0//1, D
(89) Rep. 335 b : eis rrjv tS)V Innaiv '. ap" odv Kal Kvves ^XanTopevoi x^i-povs yiyvovrai
fls Trjv tS>v kvvmv dXX' ovk fls rqv rav InTroiv 0//1. D
(91) Rep. 583 d : kclx. dyaiT^rov ytyverai fjavxia : Kal orav iravarjTai apa emov ;(atpa)i'
TiS T] TTJs r]8ovr]S rjcrvxi-a XvTvrjpov ecrrai I IVcof 0//1. D
(92) Phil. 32 a : buiKpiais 8e y av nal diaXvcris fj jrapd (f)vaiv tov irvlyovs ndOr]
XvTVT]. Kara (pvaiv S' 17 ttoXiv dTTodoa-is re Kal y\rv^is fj8nvfj 077t. D
(112) Phaedo 97 e : Tr]v alriav Kal rrjv dvdyKrjv Xeyovra to apeivov Kal on avrrjvapei-
vov rjv ToiavT>]V fivai /cat el iv pia-an (fialr] elvai avTrjv ineKdLrjyi'jo-ea-dai 0771, D
(141) Polit. 265 e : m^ovopiK^v 8ieXo}v dnoBos eKarepoov tS>l pepei Xoyai xpd>pevos.
dv yap ovopd^ftv avrd jiovXrjdi^iis earai aoi irepnreTTXeypivov pdXXov rov
diovros : irS>s ovv XPl Xey«j/ : code rrjs 0771. D
(155) Phil. 62 a : erropsvov twi voeiv Kal 8q Kal irepl rcav aXXav dndvrcov ru)v ovruv
uKravrcos diavoovpevos : ecrrco yap ovv : ap" ovv ovros iKavws itriarrip-ns e^fi
kvkXov pev Kal a(f>aipas avrrjs rrjs delas rov Xoyov i'x<^i> 0771. D
I omit for the moment a longer passage in Craiyl. 438 a, since its
authenticity is disputed.
THE MANUSCRIPTS OF PLATO 409
In the above list there are two telescoped passages of 45 letters
and one of 48. A previous MS. had :
Rep. 469 a : av
Q^uiTroiv : i\n.(j6\i.i6a \xkv ovv : hianv66\iivo\, apa roc 6(ov
TTWS
D has av TTco'i vied. oin.
Rep. 607 a : w
/ij/ovj 6(oii Kai (yK<i)fnu toIs dyadois TToirjafuts napaSf
KTtOV
D has vKTiov Died. ovi. This error is shared by a number of later
MSS., apparently derived from D, e.g. vktIov, Ven. C, tKriov Par.
DK, ov\ (KTiov q. Others are said to omit v^ivov's . . . irapabeKTiov.^
Rep. 616 c : fl
vai yap toOto to 0wj uvvbecrfxov tov ovpavov olov to. tTro^u>fxn
ra
d has (Ira med. om.
There are 18 omissions of 40-8 letters, the bulge being at 43-5.
This fact is interesting in view of the problem as to whether D is
derived from B. We have seen that the average length of a line in
B, if we may judge from the pages which I examined, is 50-2. If
D is derived from B in Tetr. i-vi and from a missing volume
of B in the Republic, we should expect to find a striking bulge in
the omissions of D at 50-2. As a matter of fact there are five
omissions of 50-3, but, as Waddell points out (p. 91), an example
of a complete line in B omitted by D has yet to be found.
I would call attention to PJiaedo 64 e. Here an omission of
42 letters comes immediately after one of 43. Between them comes
l\io\.yi. loKtl f.^r\. This indicates
«ca^' oiTov fif] noWf] dvdyKq fieTf\(t.v airrav : dTipA(fiv (43)
ffioiyf 8oK(i f<f)r] o yt ws ciXtjOws (f)i.\6(To({)os '. oixovv (4s)
XtOP 8oKtl (TOl ((fitj
D omits 1. I and o ye is . . . e<^?;.
In Rep. 335 b-c there are neighbouring omissions of 89 and
46 letters. The intermediate passage consists of 249 letters
(=41-5x6).
It appears, therefore, that the MS. which has left most traces on Z?
was not B, but one in which the lines were slightl)- shorter. It is
* Cf. Schanz in Hermes xii (1877), p. 178.
410 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
possible that this was an intermediate MS. between B and D, but
it is also possible that it was the model of B. It is to be noticed
that an omission of 40 letters in Parm. 160 c comes at the end of a
line in B.
There is a curious similarity between the omissions of the two
MSS.
\w B we have eight omissions of 41-9, followed after an interval
by 84, 97, 98. In D there are 18 omissions of 40-8, followed
after an interval by 80, 87, 89, 91, 92. It is possible that a further
collation of D might throw further light upon this puzzling question.
I now come to Crat. 438 a. Here, according to Bekker, a ' m. rec'
adds in D after eao-co/xei; :
(395) '""^^ ^f eTTicrKfyj/aiixeda el 7][xiv Koi rrjide ofioXoyeis (Ire Koi ov. (})fpe rovs ra 6v6-
finra iv Toii TroXeo't TiOejievovs eKaaroTe ev re rnls EWrjviKais koI jSap^npiKals
ovK dpricos opoXoyoipei/ vopoderns elvai koi rrjv rex^^^ '''h'^ tovto bvvapevrjv
vopodeTLKTju : Trdvv ye : Xeye di] ol nparoi vopoderni tci Trpara ovofiara
TTOTfpov yiyvuxT KOVTfS TO. TvpaypxiTa ois end euro eridevro j) dyvoovpres I oipai
fiev eya>, m ^aKpares, yiyvaxxKovres : ov yap ttw, w eralpe KparvXe, dyvo-
ovvTts ye ; ov p.01 doKel : e/c ttoicoi/ de
The words introduce a fresh point and make a good sense.
Former editors adopt the passage except €k ttoloov b4, but Bekker
gives a sense by proposing to assign the words to Socrates, explain-
ing €K TTOICDV 8e yLyi'(0aK0VT€9.
I do not understand Burnet's note ' add. eadem manus €.<c ttoCcov
be ut significet a i k-naviXOmixev ... a 7 dhoia omittenda esse.'
I observe that in the Parmenides Bekker ascribes additions to
m. rec, which, according to Waddell, are made by the corrector.
Burnet, in his Preface to Clit., Tim., Crit., notices that Bekker also
sometimes ascribes to m. rec. corrections made by the ancient
diorthotes in -^. It would, therefore, be helpful to know more
definitely what is meant by m. rec. here. As a matter of fact, the
passage does not rest on this supplement in D alone, but, according
to Krai, it is also found in W} which, like F, has a curious knack
of preserving passages lost by other MSS., as well as in two dett.
The support of W is a fait jioiiveau of considerable importance.
We must, therefore, take into account the possibility that the passage
was omitted by a common parent of B D, but has survived in W
^ Immisch, p. 66.
THE MANUSCRIPTS OF PLATO 411
and in the supplement to D, from whatever source this was obtained.
It is difficult to say why an interpolator should have forged it, and
there is no similar case of extensive interpolation in the text of
Plato. On the other hand there arc long omissions in particular
MSS., e.g. Leg. 745 a-c, 783 b-d in A, Thcact. 208 d-209a in B,
and, in all our MSS., Alcib. i, 133 c. It is easier to omit than to
invent.
The ancient part of this MS. (cent, xii), ff. 5-212'', contains Tetr.
i-vii, and part of viii, viz. Clitopho, Rep. i-iii (ending 389 d apa
8e)/(ret). The remaining folios, 2i3''-265'' are late (cent, xv/xvi) and
come from a different source.
In Tetr. i-vi T represents the altera familia as against B. The
theory that it is derived from a missing volume of A has been
mentioned. For Tetr. vii, which is not \n B ox A/\X. is the chief
authority. At the end of Tetr. vii it has after the Menexenus
(f. 197"") the interesting note reAo? roD a ^ifiXiov. In the portion of
Tetr. viii which it contains it agrees with A.
A minute collation of so interesting a MS, is much to be desired.
Unfortunately our knowledge is incomplete. Bekker gives it in
his list of MSS., but does not use it except for the Symposium,
where he quotes some trivial variants in the first part of the
dialogue. Its merits were pointed out by Schanz, who gives the
more important readings for the dialogues edited by him. Burnet
has also published selected readings in the Phaedo, Politicus, and
Philelnts, while Waddell has used it for the Parmenides.
T is written in two columns, with 50 lines to the page. If we
may judge from a page reproduced by Waddell (p. cxxii), it con-
tains 35-40 letters to a line.
The following omissions arc recorded. I pass over some un-
important cases of 10-13 letters.
(14) Apol, 33 d : Kai Tifimp(la6ai om. T
Crat. 385 e : * kKauTan tviois om. T
Phaedo 64 b : Kai ocov Qavaiov oin. T
(15) Euthyd. 286 e : olhi KfXfitis on om. T
(19) Phil. 43 b: airav hi] irov rovvavrlov om. T^B
Phaedo 77 b : » ioTw npos to anKTrtlv om. T^
(21) Crat. 388 d : orav twi Tpvravai XRV"'""^ ^^^- T
413 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
(22) Hipp, Alin, 365 e : 6Vt ivoiova-iv rj iTria-Tavrai F, oni. TW
(23) Gorg. 514 b : Ti]v Tiyyr]v ^ oivK enurTaneda om. TB^
Soph. 248 6. : rj TO fiev Trddrjfxa to 8e Odrepov 07)1. T
(24) Laches 179 c : irohf^Koi rjpyaa-avTO kol oan fV om, T^
Phaedr, 247 e : * a \6yos ttoXvs tip e'irj 8if\6f7i' on, T
{28) Aniat. 138 d: *7rfp[ tu)V Xeyofievayv ij TrpaTTop.iva>v 07)1. T
(29) A7)tat. 133 e : * r\yov\xai yap opdas '. T}pa>Tr](ra ovp iyia 01)1, T
(34) Go7-g. 467 d : ^r]\Qv OTi TO vyiaiviiv ov evfKa ttivovctiv 0771. T^ (^ add, 7)1. I, ut
videtitr ' Scha7iz)
(35) Soph, 260 C : ^dvayKoiov dXrjdrj ttuvt flvai piyvvpivov hi 0771. T^
(53) Theaet. 177 6 : Xe-yero) to opopa dXXd to npdypa to 6vop.n^6p.ivov deapftTo) :
ixfj ydp 07)1. T
(54) Crat. 384 a : * ovblv rjTTov tovt tlvai opBov to peraTedtv tov irpoTepov Keifiivov
0))l, T.
(59) Theaet. 190 C : * itn tS)v iv /^epft iirfibq to prjpa eTtpov Tai eTtpcoi Kind prjpa
TaVTOP €(TTIV 0))l. T
(64) Phaedo 103 d : Trdw ye : Ka\ to nvp y( av npocnovTos tov yf/vxpov aiiTutL fj
VTTf^ifvai 7j aTToXeicrdai 07)1. T
(87) Crat. 433 d : ye : iiKkh to dvai tcov ovopuTUiv tci pev eV 7rpOT(pa>v (TvyKflpeva^
TU 8( TTpaTa, ov /cnXcoj o"oi doKei XeyeaOai I ipoi 0))i. T^
(103) Par7)ien. 1436: re hio to Sir Iv Kai tou rpi'a to Tp)s ev : dvdyKrj : 8voiv 3e
oPToiv KOI 8\i oiK apdyKT] 8vo dls etVat /cat Tpiav Ka'i Tp\s oiiK dvdyKr) aS
0771. T^
(119) Polit. 275 a : * Qiov dvTi 6vr\Tov TnvTrji pev ndpnoXv 7rapr]V€x6']p(v' on be trvp'
irdarjs Trjs noKfcos cipxovTa avTov drrfcjifjvaptv opTiva Be Tponov ov ditinoptu
TavTrji 8e 0771. T^
The last case is doubtful, since for rpo-nov ov 8tei7ro/xei; T^ gives
TpoTToixev. If this corruption was in the model, the total is no.
Schanz has already drawn attention to the case of 35, which is
not explained by oju. He compares it with the omission of Xoibopelv
CLT ovK eiSws KUKov ovbev ovbevos (^6) by B^ (corr.) in Theaet. 174 c,
and suggests that '^^-^ represents a line in the archetype of the
two families.^ The statistics which I have given from B do not
support this view.
On the other hand, as T contains 35-40 letters to the line, the
omissions of 34 and 35 by T^ may represent lines of the model,
especially if, as Schanz thinks, the addition of 34 is made by the
first hand. Also, there appears to be a relation between 34, '^^^ 64.
The three cases of 53-9, two of which are not explained by o/x.,
are also interesting, and it is to be noticed that three cases of 34-9
^ p. lOI.
THE MANUSCRIPTS OF PLATO 413
are not explained by ufx. There seems, therefore, to be a second
series.
The two largest numbers, 103, 119, may be explained in con-
nexion with either series. The fact that both are repaired by the
corrector suggests connexion with 34-5, in which case probably
Tf)6^To^l€v should be credited to the model and the passage reckoned
as no (x-)X^ = 105).
The important variants which show a cleavage between the
different families are P/n7. 43 b (19), Hipp. Mm. 3656 (22), Gorg.
514b (23), and it is more probable that here we have indications of
the archetype.
The evidence is very unfavourable to the hypothesis that 7" repre-
sents a missing volume of A. If this were so, we should expect to
find a number of omissions of 22-3 letters. As a matter of fact the
few which occur seem to belong to an early period in the trans-
mission of the text.
With regard to the recent part of T, i. e. after Rep. 389 d, Schanz
points out two interesting omissions of the fifteenth-century writer (/}.
Rep. 511 a. The model here had :
fK€l
va 0)9 (vafrytai 8f8o^n(Tfifiois re Koi TfTifirjuevois fxavdavdi (49)
(Ktl /, omitting -va . . . fjiavdi'iva)
394 b : * KOI Toirro ((pTj fiat'ddiu) on fcmv to rr*pi ras rpayaiSias toiovtop (53) Om. t
These omissions reveal the lineation of the model.
T appears to have been a prolific parent. One of its descendants
is Paris. Coisl. 155, cent, xiv/xv, Bekker's F. Schanz produces
the following cases in which Coisl. omits lines of T :
(33) Phaedo 80 b : * /cnru ravra f^ovri icivTa>i ofioiorarov av
(41) Cratyl. 437 b : * jSovXfi ^ Aiiapria Ka\ »; (TVfi(()ofj(t (I Kara to ovond tic
Hipp. Ma. 284 e : 01 tlboTd ^ ot ^17 dhoTa : 01 ttoXXoi : « (Vi 8' oJrot
(42) Alcib. i. 106 C : * 'A^rjcnioiy eVroj ou TroXXoii ;^poi'oi'. d ovv fiiWovra
(44) Meno 93 ^ • * dvQ^iut'nuii olhk irnpaXrjnTuv aXXoji Trap' (IXXou toit' foriv
In P/n7. 18 c rhas:
a0o)K(i
Tjftiv TO fifTci TOiTO 8ifjip(i TO T( ("(pSoyya Koi acjxtjva (4 1 )
fifXP^ '"^f «(cd<rroii
Coisl. omits fjfjuv . . . a<^ma and inserts the words after e/caorou.
This shows that the words were inserted by an intervening MS. in
the margin after kKaarov,
414 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
Another MS. which he derives from T is Paris. 1808, which omits
the following Hnes of 7^:
(36) Parmen. 143 e : * rpia rpls eipai : ttw? d ov : W Sat rpiav ovTOiv
(43) PaTinen. 164 d : * /^ij ovtoi ah\a iariv : Kopihfii fxey ow : oixovv noWoi
T also has a grandson in Paris. 1809, which omits the following line
of Paris. 1808 :
(61) /"rtf/. 322 d: jji \6yos ^ (iWrji Tivos drjfiiovpyiKTjs oXlyois oiovrai fierdpai
(TVfi^ovXrjs
Also, in two instances, the writer of Paris. 1809 passes from one
line of its model to the same place in the next, the omission being
due to oju., viz. :
(56) Z.ys. 213 C : TToWaKis S' ix&pov (Ivai p.r} i-)(6poxi rj Koi (j)i\ov orav fj fuaovv tls
(f>i\rji.
(59) P/ii/. 23 e : dioKpiaiv tivos Swanevov : rax av. ov firjv olfiai ye iv t&i vvp, av
be Ti 8er]i
This MS. contains Teir. vii-viii, together with two dialogues
from Te^r. vi (Gorgias, Meno) and one from ix (Minos). It con-
sists of 263 ff., and once belonged to F. Barbaro. According to
Schneider on Rep. 586 b the words
-Te\S)s ecjiT] 6 TXaiiKCov tov tS>v ttoXXwv S> 2aKpaTes ;fpij(7/xa)t8ers ^lov (52)
form a line.
F was first used by Schneider in his edition of the Republic
(1830). He does not call particular attention to it in his notes, but
in the Index, p. 311, makes the remarkable statement veterem vul-
gatam repraesentat et fere cinn Stobaeo Etisebio . . . consentit.
Professor Burnet, who did not at first observe the statement in the
Index, arrived at the same conclusion from the variants quoted by-
Schneider. In an important article he pointed out agreements of
F with Stobaeus and Eusebius, and also argued from errors which
it contains that it was derived from a MS. older than our oldest
MSS.^ Objections have been raised with some reason to the phrase
' ancient vulgate ',^ and perhaps it is better to speak of an ' unrevised
text '.3
^ CI. R. xvi (1902), pp. 98-101.
2 Stuart Jones in CI. R. xvi, pp. 388-91.
' Imnaisch, p. 15.
THE MANUSCRIPTS OF PLATO 415
As F is the chief enigma of Platonic criticism, it would be very
helpful if we had a facsimile. As it is, we have Schneider's appa-
ratus for the Republic, and Krai has furnished Burnet with readings
in other dialogues. It is probable that the MS. contains much
evidence, yet unpublished, which would throw light upon its
pedigree. For this purpose minute flaws, such as are not recorded
in the Oxford text, are of chief importance. Without further
knowledge it is impossible to say whether F is substantially inde-
pendent, or whether it is of vulgar origin, but corrected by means
of marginalia derived from an excellent source.
The following omissions and dittographies are recorded :
(10) Rep. 407 c : * etKof -ye i<^r\ om. FD
(11) Rep. 380 d: * <\>a\rTa.^taQai om. F
(12) Hipp. Ma. 2S5 e : roi's apxovrai out. F
Rep. 438 a : Xiytiv 6 rairra om. F
459 ^ ' <'f ■'■»«' dpioTOJi' o)H. F
(13) Hipp. Ma. 303 c : 8e \i.r] y] (Kartpov om. F
(14) Goro'. 507 c : u 8f (cmv nkrjdri om. F^
Hipp. Ma. 302 b : Km a tiv eKdrepos om. F
303 d : ofiaiXoyoimv yap om. F
Rep. 374 b : aWa <tkvtot6plov om. FA
(15) Rep. 420 e : paKapinvs noiuv om. F^
(17) Rep. 373 e : 6 ■ntWipoi (pyd((Tai om. F
421 c : notfiv Ka\ iTdOTfov om. F^
558 a : * ov KOfiylrfj ^ ovTTU) €?8ef om. F
(19) Gorg. 467 C : hr]Kov on to vyiaivdv ' om. F^
Rep. 463 e : on t6 tpov tZ Trpdmi. fj om, F
(20) Hipp. Ma. 285 a : dWh. p^v dxptXrjdrja-oirral. om. F
Tim. yi a : r()Ti to piaov piv npu>Tov om. F
( 23) Meno 93 b : dptTqp fjv avTol dyado'i ^(Tav om. F^ in lac.
(24) Gorg. 456 C : r^i pr]TopiKT)t ^prjadai oKTwep om. F^ in lac.
(25) Rep. i,fyi C : to. roiuSf prjpara to Tf tpov Kni bis scr.
(26) Rep. 576 c .' * Tolt bi itoWo'ii TToXXa Kai boKt'i om. F
(28) Rep. 372 d : tI av ainas aWo q ravra ()(6pTa((S om. F^
(31) Rep. 457 d : oIk oipai, ^v 8' t'yu), ntpl yt tov <ii(f>f\ipov om. F
(33) Rep. 466 b : ^ij rrrji KnTa tov toiv (TKVToropav (}>aiv(Tai om. F
(35) A/in. 317b: ov : ovde ptTadrjcrovTai nort nepX tS)v avT(i>v om. F
Rep. 367 b : ov8( to aiiKov tlyai ^iytiv dWa to boKfiv om. F^
505 d : Tt hi To8< ov (ftavfpoVf wf dUaia piv koi KoKd om. F
(36) Rep. 438 b : Ka\ to iaoptvov pu^ov (<Toptvov (Xottovos om. F
Clit. 410 d : Kal T<i\Xu lidvra oiov pi uiv ovt(cs uprjKtvai om. F*
* T here has a further omission.
4i5 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
(38) Rep. 475 C : * (fir](rofj.ev cf)i\ofj.a6ri ov8e ({)iXo(TO(f)ov eivai. axTTtep om. F
506 a : * TTOTe ayadd eariv, ov ttoWov tivos a^iov (f)v\aiia 07)1, F
532 d : iwai ("tWov 8' av rponov ;^aXe7ra firj dnodex^'^doi bis scr.
(40) Rep, 495 a : * 0)9 apn koL avra ra ttJs (pt\oa6(f)ov (fivaecos nepr] orav om. F
(47) Rep, 416 C : OTi df'i avTovs T^s updrjs TV)(e'iv naiSdas ijri? Trore eanv oni. F^
(49) Rep. 553 ^ • * ^^ oXiyapxi^v KaXoiaiv sk Tip,r]pdTcov exovcra tovs opxovras Om. F
(50) Rep. 5Ioe: ypdcfiova-iv koI rdWa ovtcos (ivTn pev ravra a irXaTTOvaiv re Kal
out. F
(51) Hipp. Ma. 303 a: (TTiyiyvoiTo Kal e/car/pcoi Kal ei/rep eKarepai Kal dp^orepots-
om. F^
(52) Meno 75 d : aTroKplveadai' eari Se i'crcof to 8iaKeKTiKa)Tepov pfj p.6vov TdXtjOrj
om, F^
(57) R^p- 544 c : h ^ptJTiKrj re Kol AaKcoviKrj avrr] Kal Sfvrepa Kal 8svTepcos enaivov-
fievT) om. F
(58) Rep. 426 b : e^?;. to yap TOii fv Xeyovri ;^aXe7raiVeii' oIk e;(et X"P^^ • "^^ « ?rati/e-
(59) 7?^/. 585b: tI prjv : ayvoia 8e Kal d(j)pnavvr] ap' ov KevoTrjs iixrl tJj? nepl
ylrvxf)" av e^eas om. F
(65) Gorg. 465 C : oti o KoppccTLKi] -rrpos yvp,va(TTi.Kr]v tovto o^onouKr] wpos larpiKTjV,
pdWov 8e coSf ofH. F, Afistides {cent, ii A.D.)
(85) Rep, 350 d : KaKiav re Kal dfiadiav, elev, tjv K iya, tovto pep r^plv ovTa> Keicrdco,
ecfyapev 8e Sf) Kal laxvpov iwai. Trjv ddiKiav bis SCr.
(96) Rep. 354 s • ^ piv BlKatoi I'lpa ev^aiponv, 6 d' cidiKos adXios ', ecrra) €(j>1 • oXXa
pijv adXiov ye elvai. ov XvcnTfX(7, eiiSaipova Se ; ttcos yap ov om, F
(107) Rep. 465 d : auTrjpiav Tpo(f)TJt. t€ Kal tois aXXois Tracrtr oaav jSio? 8('iTai avToi Te
Kal TTniSf y uvndovPTai Ka) yepa BexovTai irapa ttjs avratv rroXfo)? bis SCT.
(127) Rep. 506 d: ydp r]pi.v Kav warnep diKaiocvvrjs nepi Knl aaxfypotrvvris Kal tS>v
(iXXayv bir]Xdes ovrco Kal Trepl tov dyaOov dUXdrjis I Kal yap ep.oJ, rjv S' iyo)) S>
eraipe, Kal pdXa dpKe(Tfi bis scr.
To these may be added :
(183) Minos 313b: T] Kol Xdyoi aoi SoksI tlvac tu Xeyopeua ^ oyj/is Ta opapeva t)
OKorj TO. dKov6p.eva ; r] aXXo per Xoyos, aXXo 8e to. Xeyopeva ] Kal aXXo pev
ov^ty aXXo 8e rot opcopeva, Kal aXXo plv aKorj, uXXo Se ra aKOvopeva Kal aXXo
8f] v6p.os, aXXo 8f Ta uopi(npfva ;
The passage is written twice in F, but on the second occasion the
words rj aXXo /xer Ao'yo? . . . aXXo be ra uKovoixeva (89) are omitted.
The omission seems accidental and due to 6/x.
In this list we observe a striking bulge at 33-8 (9 exx.), of which
there are three cases of 35. We may also observe that 65 + 31 = 96,
and 96 + 31 = 127. It seems probable that we are here on the
track of an ancestor.
We have also to notice the six cases of 50-59. In view of the
THE MANUSCRIPTS OF PLATO 417
fact that a line of F quoted by Schneider {Rep. 586 b) contains
52 letters, it is possible that some of these may represent lines in an
immediate ancestor.
There is little evidence for any smaller unit. The omissions of
23 and 24 in lac. are interesting, but probably due to accident.
It may be convenient to collect here the passages preserved by
F as against other MSS.
(10) Meno 99 a : rwoi 6p$as
(12) Afgtioggc: ivBovaiburra
(14) Gorg. 492 b : (tm biKaioavvijs
(15) Gorg. 4606 : Kcii adiKox- \pl]Tai
4S0 d : * ii^T] <P(i86fi(iiov aXX'
(21) Ttffi. 47 a : Kai larqfjLfplai Ka\ rponai
(22) //t'p. Min. 365 e : o Tt ■nox.ovaiv J) fntaravrai
w
This MS. contains Tetr. i.-vii., with the exception of two dialogues
in Tetr. iv. {Alcib. ii., A7)iat.). There appears to be some doubt as
to its date. It was used by Stallbaum, who calls it Vind. i, but
his collations were extremely superficial. Thus, he does not
mention that it contains Cratyl. 438 a rahf. l\ . . . ov /xoi Sokci, for
which he quotes an inferior MS. (Gud.), Burnet has used some
readings communicated to him by Krai. Grenfell and Hunt on
Oxyrhynchus 843 [Syviposiuni) refer to a collation placed at their
disposal by Prof. H. Schone of Bale, from which they mention an
interesting omission in 208 d.
The omissions mentioned by Krai and Schone are :
(27) Lys. 209 C : iv off hi apn i\fyoptp KayXvoviTi om. IV^
(35) Meno 97 c : t6t( 5' ov : tto)? Xtyftr, 6 at\ (x<ov opdqv 86^av om. IV
(43) Symp. 208 d : Sv 17 'A;(tXXea narpoxXwi iinmoOiwfiv r\ npoanoOaut'tv Ottt. W
(87) Meno 77 c: d^i(f)6T€pa tpoiyt 8oKu: 7 yap 6oK(i Tit (Toi, o) MtVwv, yiyvua-Kttv
ra KoKa on kokq €<ttiv, oput (iTi6vp(7v avruyv Om. IV ^
(88) Meno 74 e : a-x^ifui tlvai ^ ro tldv f\ ovx ovto) Xty^tf : t-ywyt : ip' ovv Srav
OVTO) Xtyrjit TOTf oihiv /xuXXoc 0)7»f to arp'ryyvXov om. IV ^
The relation between 43, 87, 88 is very striking.
18SS E e
CHAPTER XIII
THE PARIS MANUSCRIPT OF DEMOSTHENES
Paris. 2934 (S), cent, x, is a large MS., consisting of 534 ff.,
1. e. nearly 67 quaternions. It is written in two columns, with
32 lines to the page. I have counted the letters on the verso of
f. 36, and find the contents to be 793 letters in col. i and 768 in
col. ii. This gives a total of 1561 in a page, i.e. about 3,122 in
a folio. The average content of a line in f. 36^ is nearly 25 letters
in col. 1 and exactly 24 in col. ii. Single lines vary from 20 to
30 letters, the numbers being distributed thus :
(20) I ex. (25) 13 exx.
(21) 5 e.xx. (26) II exx.
(22) 5 exx. (27) 2 exx.
(23) 1 1 exx. (28) 3 exx.
(24) 1 1 exx. (30) 2 exx.
Out of a total of 64 lines, 46 contain 23-6 letters.
5 contains a quantity of marginalia written in hands ranging from
the twelfth to the fifteenth century. It is to be noticed that on
some occasions a late hand adds in the margin or elsewhere a
passage already present in the text of .S". The most striking case is
on f. 161^' (xviii 34-5). Here the words a^tcS Se vixa^ . . . airavr
aTTcoAero are written a second time at the foot of the page with
a reference mark in the margin AetTret €k tov K^ifxivov, (rjTei kcltco.
Dindorf points out that the passage must have been omitted by
some MS. with which S was collated. In xxi. 69 ovb' (veavuva-aTo
. . . viT€aT7]i> ovTti) the annotator, who repeats the passage with some
variants, ends with vTreW/jz' ov-. The presumption here is that in
the MS. which he was using a line ended with ov-. These mar-
ginalia on account of their late date cannot cast any light upon the
model of 5, and as they only confuse the issue I think it best to
disregard them. I therefore only employ the formula om. S^ when
the omission is repaired by the scribe or by a contemporary hand.
THE PARIS MANUSCRIPT OF DEMOSTHENES 419
The model of 5 appears to have contained some variants. Thus
xviii. 95 for (ifiwVas- //yoPfxat .S" has ftOoVas flbfvuL. Here dbivai. is
a variant for eiSoVaj, which has expelled rjyovfiai. So liii. J^ for
(TwoiKiav S has ^pjy^V'^VF crwoiKiav. Also some marginal notes
written by the first hand seem to have been taken over from the
model, e.g. f. 134*^ opt/cdr to Kfcfxxkaiov.
Various small omissions are repaired by the scribe, e.g. ff. 103'
Ttpds aindv ov, laS"" 6 67//iOS, 143^ irpos tov, 243"" tj/s r]fx(pai, 384^ Kud'
(Ka<TT0V, 402' Tupiyiviadai, 'OAv/xiTtoSwpos-, 47 1' ^'/S a8«A0^y. The
first of these (xxiii. 162) is interesting. 5 has :
ypcf^ai
a oi)f akt^avhpov npea^fv
(rafiivov npoafde^nro ro'ts
The words irpbs avrov oii are inserted before, instead of after,
TTpfa-fSevcTapLtvov.
There are also some longer passages which suggest that S was
copied from a model written in similar formation. The most
important is on f. 36^ (ix. 17). Here other MSS. give:
tl fti] Koi Tovs TO pt]\ayi]ixaTa f<Pi<TTduTas flpqvrjv uyfti/ (Prjatre twr &v aura TOis
Ttl\(aiv rjdi) npocrayayuMTiv' dW oii fPrjafTt.
S has in the text :
€1 fj.T) Koi TOVf TO firj^avTifxara f<f>i (26)
crrdj/rnf dprjvrjv uytiv (f>r)(TfTf eus (28)
The scribe adds two lines in the margin written thus :
iv avra toU Tfi\(criv f]8ri (21 )
Trpo(Taydywaiv dXX ov c^ijcrfTf (23) = 44
The omission is not recorded by Dindorf, probably because the
work of the first hand is so manifest. Fuhr says " fojj , . . ^7/(TtTc
otn. S^, scriba ipse 6 mutavit in (od^ et hv . . . b add. tn lugJ I am
inclined to think that he is right, since there are traces of an erasure
under ea)s, and 6 in the next line may have been added subsequently.
If so, the original omission consisted of 47 letters. In any case the
suspicion arises that the scribe dropped two lines of his model.
A second case is on f. 501' (Iviii. 62), where the scribe adds in
the space between the columns a passage omitted in col. ii, viz. akXa
TOVS Kiyovras ad ypa(f)6p(voL \pijfxaTa Kop^iuvovmv (47)' The supple-
E e 2
420 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
ment here is not arranged in lines, since the space was inadequate
for this purpose. It is to be noticed that for Aiyovra^ aei other
MSS. (so edd.) give (KeWev.
Other passages ascribed by Dindorf to m. i are :
(27) f. 334^ (xxxv. 56) : (^r](jii(T^(voi Kai irfpiaipTjaea'de
f. 412"" (xlvii, 32) : TtTfXevrrjKOTOS rov Ar]iJLO)(apovs
(34) f- 486^ (Ivii, 10) : oil nXfiovs ^ rpidKovra' iv 8e tovtoh ^crav
(54) f. 388^ (xxxi. 14) : Kai Si' dp(f)aviav fjdmrjpivov Kai irpoiKos a\TjdivTJs an«TT(pr]-
fxivov
After some hesitation I incline to agree with Dindorf in ascribing
the last example to the first hand. I do not feel so positive about
the other three cases, but am quite prepared to agree with his
verdict.
Dindorf speaks of another addition as entered ' a tnanu miti-
qnissima, fortasse prima \ viz. :
(22) f. 108'' (xxiii. 198) * T60J' Tip-div Toii v7rep^o\ais
There can be no doubt that this is written by a second hand, though
possibly that of a contemporary corrector.
I now tabulate the evidence given by these ancient additions :
(22) xxiii. 198
(27) XXXV. 56, xlvii. 32
(34) Ivii. 10
(47) ix. 17: Iviii. 62
(54) xxxi. 14
With the exception of 34, the figures reveal a unit of 22-7 letters.
I now mention three occasions where 5 has an omission in
lacuna, viz. :
(17) f. 250^ (lix. 9) : * wy Y^vpr)vaioi eirja-av
(29) f. 250' (lix. 8) : * Toiis tiKaaras bUaiov opyi^fadai
Here 5 leaves blank a small space at the end of a line, also
a complete line. The probability is that the model had
diKncrras SiKaiov opyi^errdai (25)
(88) f. 389' (liv. 2) : *a nenovd' dKovarjTf. Setr^f yap ovarjs rrjs t6t( arvfi^dat}!
v^pfoii oiiK eXdrraiv t) perd ravT acreXyeid icni tovtovI
The relation of 88 to 22, 47 Ms suggests that four lines of the model
were here omitted.
THE PARIS MANUSCRIPT OF DEMOSTHENES 421
It is to be noticed that 1 7 appears to be in relation to the omission
of 34 previously mentioned. It is, however, necessary to be cautious,
since these omissions in lacuna are most easily explained by sup-
posing that a single MS. was damaged in places, and it may have
been only a portion of a line which was illegible.
There are a number of passages omitted by 5 which might be
here produced as examples of line omission. It will, however,
be more convenient to treat these together with the other omissions,
some of which may go back to a previous ancestor. I therefore
reserve this evidence for the present, and merely give that which is
furnished by various corruptions.
The most important passage is Ep. iii. 10 :
nap inpwv (b(i doyras (k roiv npoaioirroiv
For irpo<Ti.6vTu)v S has -npoT^pwy aiovriav. This indicates in the model
rrop* i
Tfpcav (8(1 Sovras (K tuiv npo (23)
The scribe after writing -Tipuiv . . . -npo- began to repeat the line.
The error may be illustrated from Aristotle, £i/i. iv. 3. 20
a^LOva-iv ovTf opOiHi pLeya\6\f/v\0L kiyovrai. avev yap apcr^y. Here an
Oxford MS. (Corpus Christi cxii) after arev yap has apiaiv oxm
opdQi pL(ya\6\j/v)(^oi K^yovrai av(v yap ^pcTT/y. The MS. in question is
derived from Laur. Ixxxi. 11, which has:
a^iov
(Tiv ovTf 6p6coi p,(ya\u\l/v\oi XtyovTai drtu yap apt
Here the whole line was repeated by the scribe.^
I now add other examples. For the sake of brevity I give first
the distribution which I attribute to the model, and then add the
corruption found in S:
xxi. 40 : navra pLoWov ij raiiTa \€kt(ov (24)
TTav yap
TidvTq (before yap) S.
I 50 : ov8(ua oifiai rpoirov f^ipav (23)
ovbfva (for ovbe) S.
* J. A. Stewart, English MSS. of the Nkomachtan Ethics, p. 44.
42a DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
xxvii. 42 : TO 8vo rdXavra 8r]^o(f)a)UTi Kal (24)
rds
Kol TO. dyg Takayja tcls S.
xxviii. 4 : fjyffiova
fjii TrjS crvfifjLOpias KaraaTrjcras (24)
6^ repeats /xe after KaTacrr'qcras.
XXXV. 3 : fiev oZv ToiovToi fliTiV e'yo) (22)
8' S> avSpts
eyo) ixey b S.
xxxix. 3 : f^anarrjdels viro rfj: Tovrov\ (24)
firjrpos Ofioadarjs
(^aTTaTrjada-ris for jUTjrpos o/xoo-acr?;? S.
xliii. 32 ; Koi €K Tov oIkov ovaa tov 'Ayviov (26)
S repeats km before eir^Lhdv.
Iviii. 62 : vfia^ oiiSelf ias firiXeiyj/ovcrw (24)
c
0(
vS has vfj-qs before ol,
68 : fttracrxfi-v ttjs koi toIs ^tvois (25)
hfhofxevrii.
ixera btbofxivr^s S.
Ix. 5 : x'^P^"
fivai tS)V fjfKTepcov irpoyovau (24)
TTpOy6v(i)V €t 5^.
The example found in Iviii. 62 is of special interest, since in the
same section there is a passage of 47 letters added by the first hand.
(Cf. p. 419.) The intermediate words between the two passages con-
sist of 234 letters (23 x 10 = 230). We can now arrange the model :
{i/ioy ov8e\s <u? fTrikfiyj^ova-iv (24)
oi TotovTOi prjTopes old' as (22)
8ia ToiJTO xflpov f] noXis oIkt] (24)
trfrai" Toxivavriov yap iariv (23)
5 a>s (ya> rStv npea^VTepav aKovio (24)
TOTf yap (^aaip nptora npd^ai (24)
T}]V noXiv ore ptrpioi Ka\ aco (23)
(ppovfs avbpfs inoKiTivovTo (24)
THE PARIS MANUSCRIPT OF DEM0STHP:NES 423
TTOrfpoj/ yap avfi^ovXoui eupoi (25)
10 Til- &y TovTovi ayadovs tiXX' (22)
oiidfi' (V T<i>i dr/fitoi Xtyovcriu (^3)
aWa Toi/s Xtyouras lUi ypa(fi6 (24)
fifvoi \pi]^Ta Xap^iivova-iv (23)
S^ repeats v/xas at the beginning of 1. 2 and omits II. 12-13.
I now take corruptions which exhibit multiples of the unit.
(a) Two lines :
xviii. 257 : mv
rqu noiai rivi Ktj^p^trni ri'x';' (25)
dt' ^v na'ii y.(v Lv fura ttoWtjs (23) = 48
(vSfias
S has piy before trSetas {ttjs L).
XXV ii. 35 : bvo roKavra
8r]ixo(f)a>v 8' (TTTci Koi oydotjKOiTa (25)
puas' ToxTo S' (CTTi rreVrc TaAarra (26) =5^
Ka\ ntvTfKaiSfKa pvai
S inserts »cai -nevT^KaibeKa fivas (from 1. 4) after rdKavra in 1. 1
xlvii. 27 : K\i]T^p(s
fiffjxipTvpTjKatTiv' 03S fie (IcTT] (22)
X^f] (ts TO biKn(TTr)piov Xa^e (23) = 45
6" has ixoi before y.iy.apTvpr}Kacnv as well as after Kajii.
xxxi. 3 : fvBls abiKuv ^ov\6p(voi -^fv (25)
8tis (dqKfV fKfivovi fiKoi Koi (26) = 5 ^
Tovrovs
S substitutes tovtovs for fv6vs in 1. i.
Ivii. 40 : Toiti (ppaTfptov to>p avyytvatv (22)
TOiV T^f prjrpos KOi SrjfioTOiV (22) = 44
papTvplas
S has fxapTvpCas before tQv (f>paTip(Dv as well as after brj^LOTiav.
(b) Three lines :
xviii. 56 : a piv
biwKtl ToO y^r]^i<TpaTOi Z> (if (22)
ipft adrfvaloi raiir' ((TtIv. t (22)
■yo) 8* dn-' avrmv rovrwv nptorov (22) = 66
mg, oiopai oipai
S has & /icv ofo;^ai 8ic<>K6t. This is a clear case of a variant which
has got into the text higher up. Cf. Dindorf, p. xiii {cd. min.).
424 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
(c) Four lines :
XV. 9 • dpio^apCdvrjl
Trpoa-ypayj/^avrts rwi y^r](})i(Tna (23)
Ti fif) \vovTa Tag (T7Tov8as ras (23)
npos Tov daaiXea' I8u)v 8 f'/cct (23)
5 vos TOV fiev dpio0ap^dvT]v (21) = 90
<j)av(pS)s d<p€(TT5>Ta ^aai\f<os
S has (pavepois . . . /3a(TtAecos after ^Apio^ap^dvij as well as sno loco.
With this we may probably connect :
Xviii. 25 : Tr]V dprjvrjv 17 TToXif ivravda nd (25)
\iv (TKeyf/aadf rl fjpciv (Kdrepos (25)
irpoflXfTo wpaTTfiv Koi yap tK (25)
Tovrav ftaeadf ris ^i> 6 (fnXinnai (27) = I02
5 ndvTa
For TTCLVTa SL^ have re rip elp-qvrjv. The scribe seems to have
looked back to 1. i. The unit here is longer than in xv. 9, but the
two examples of 51 (xxvii. ^5, xxxi. 3) justify the arrangement.
(d) Six lines :
X. 69-70 : T^t p.ev
Kara rrjv dyopav evfrrjpiai Xap. (25)
npoi TJjt S" S}V iTpo(Tt]Ke TrapntTKfv (25)
^i KarayeXaaToi' ov tov avrov (24)
5 hi TpoTTOV TTfpi Tf Vjjubv Koi 7r€ (23)
pi avTciv fviovs toiv Xeyovrav (24)
opS) dovXtvopifvovs' vpdt ptv (23) = 144
ydp
S has yap from 1. 8 after rf; {xcv in 1. i (oix).
(e) Eight lines :
Iv. 26-7 : (Is rfjv 686v
f^dyeiv elatdaTe dXX' ov fia (21)
8i (term TO eK ttjs odov Srj^e (2l)
aOni Ti del nXdoii Xeyeiv ov (22)
5 6e yup fK TOVTCJV a8r]Xov oti (22)
(f>av(pa)s a-VKO(f)avToviJiai ov (22)
t' d8iKS)v ov8ev ovTf ^t^Xap. (22)
p,(va)v a (paa-iv' tva S' etSijre o (22)
Ti Koi TOV x^^^ov eh Trjv o8ov (24) = 176
10 (KdfdXT]Ka(ri.v
S has (K§e/3Xrii<.a(TLy after obov in 1. i.
THE PARIS MANUSCRIPT OF DEMOSTHENES 425
xl. 54 : vrrtp u>v tv Xtyrji Kai fif] Vfxas (22)
(jjdaKovra tldtpai Tre/Ji wv av (23)
Tor ovbiv <|f 1 flnttv dUai (23)
ov anoiiSpatTKHv rfjv aXrj (21)
5 6(iav (n(\ Ka\ tyo) oi nvbpa (22)
biKaarai ndvru)v vfxuiv tido (22)
Twi* 6v Tponov dvayKaaBfii 6 (23)
irarrjp (lov (notrjaaTo tovtovs (24) = 180
S inserts vtiipwv {sic) from 1. i before ovhiv in 1. 9. The relation
of 180 to 90 (xv. 9) is to be noticed.
(/) Twelve lines :
xlvii. 74-5 ylrfv8ofi.apTvpi<iiv
tloTt anoka^f'iv pf ra tvfxvpa (24)
Koi tntibr) fbfTjdqv airov dvu (24)
^aXtadai px)i rfju vnfpr]p,fpiav (25)
5 iiapfvos ijiR-outrfv Iva {m(pf]p.t (24)
pos avrSii y(volp.rfv Ka\ (K(f)o (23)
pfjaaiTO pov oit n\u(rTa Knl 81 (24)
a ToiTO QKaKOii Kai Ta^v poi o)po (25)
\6yT](Ttv Iva nidavoi ■yeVijrat (24)
10 Kai pi) KaTa(f)ai>T)s firi^ovXtv (23)
toe TjyoCptyos ovk (ivai avrHn (24)
fit' nXXou Tponov tuvs paprvpas i-S)
d(Pf6rivai. TO)*' y^ffvdopapTVpici)!' (25) = 29O
^ 8ia ToG f'^oTTaT^crai
^ has T] 61Q Toi; efoTraTTJcrai after yj/fvbopLapTvpicav in 1. I, as well
as after the same word in 1. 13. The relation of 290 to 144
(x. 69-70) is to be observed.
I add a conspectus of these corruptions :
(22) XXXV. 3 (51) xxvii. 35, xxxi. 3
(23) xxi. 150, Ep. ill. 10 (66) xviii. 56
(24) xxi. 40, xxvii. 42, xxviii. 4, (90) xv. 9
xxxix. 3, Iviii. 62, Ix. 5 (102) xviii. 25
(25) Iviii. 68 (144) X. 69-70
{26) xliii. 32 (176) Iv. 26-7
(44) Ivii. 40 (180) xl. 54
(45) xlvii. 27 (290) xlvii. 74-5
(48) xviii. 257
I have not included in this list one passage in which a repetition
takes place at a greater distance. In Proocm. xx.xix wc have «ya»
426 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
be ovhafxoii /xey av k^ovkoiiiiv. In Proocm. xl vS gives ^ovXeveadai eyat
be gybaixcof. The intermediate passage here consists of 597 letters.
This might be connected with 290 in xlvii. 74-5 and explained as
24 lines (290 X 2 = 580). The correspondence, however, is not very
close, and it will be seen further on that there is reason for referring
this with some other corruptions to a previous stage in the tradition.
I now proceed to discuss a dislocation in S, which throws light
upon the foliation of an ancestor, viz. :
lix. 83-9 • oi 'Apeionay'LTai . . . aKovovras alrcov
89-107 : ^eKriovs eaeadf . . , 6fio\oyovfi(i>a>s apicTTOvs
These blocks of text are transposed in S} They do not coincide
with folios in 5, and therefore represent folios in an ancestor.
The first point to notice is that §§ 83-9 contain two headings,
viz. MAPTUPIA and NOMOS MOIXEIAS, while §§ 89-107
contain one, viz. *Ha>I2MA REPI nAATAIEXlN. In .S a separate
line is given to each heading. In order, therefore, to make the
comparison exact, we must allow the average content of a line for
each heading. I put this at 24, but any other figure will do equally
well.
The second point is that the longest omission of 5, to. Stj/xotcX^
. . . -nepl TO. Upd (170) occurs in §§ 87-8. This omission may have
been made by the writer of S, or it may have been already present
in the model. The following figures favour the second hypothesis.
§§ 83-9 consist of 1,964 letters. If we add 48 for the two headings
the total is 2,012.
§§ 89-107 consist of 7,358 letters, to which must be added 24 for
the heading, = 7,382.
This result is not satisfactory. If, however, we subtract 170 from
2,012, the result is 1,842. If we divide 7,382 by 4, the result is
1, 845*5, which is exceedingly close. It appears that a folio in
a previous MS. got out of place and was inserted after four folios
in the same MS.
The next point to notice is that this previous MS. does not appear
to have been the model of 6". All the evidence furnished by
omissions of the first hand, lacunas, and corruptions shows that, so
^ A late hand has corrected the dislocation by adding in the margin fitra Svo <pv\\a
(v$a TO ([ ,
THE PARIS MANUSCRIPT OF DEMOSTHENES 427
far as length of line is concerned, the model was much like .S". We
should expect to find that the model more or less resembled vS in
the number of lines to a page. The ancestor, however, which is
revealed b>' this dislocation appears to have contained about 1,845
letters to a folio, while ^ has about 3,122. If written in two columns,
it could only contain 20 lines of 33-4 letters, as compared with 32
in ^. This does not seem probable. It is more likely that the
dislocation took place in a previous MS. written in narrower
columns. We have seen that the omission of 1 70 letters (lix. 87-8)
was prior to the dislocation. We must, therefore, be prepared to
find traces of a previous MS. in narrower columns among the
evidence furnished by omissions and corruptions in 6".
It will be convenient to collect here corruptions in 5" which indi-
cate a previous ancestor, or ancestors. I take first two examples
which are somewhat doubtful, since they might be explained as due
to short lines in the model .
xxiv. 27: OTTcos ai> Ta iepa dvTjTai kui 17 dioUricrK
S inserts ttcos after Kai. This clearly indicates :
o
TTwr av TO. if pa Ovrirai Koi (20)
xviii. 87 • o ^iXirrnos f'^rjXddq rols fxtv onXnn ii(f)' vfiuiv, tfj 8( noKirda koi Tolt
S has v(p' j]}xC>v {sic) before €$r]\a.di] instead of after ottAoi?. The
words appear to have been inserted in the wrong place after pre-
vious omission. This indicates :
(f)i\imros
(^tjXddr) TOii (Mfv onXois (20)
Wj^. li(f>^ Vfiav rfjl d( TToXiTfiai
Apart from these doubtful cases, the evidence indicates a line of
16-18 letters in a previous ancestor. I take first a striking case :
XX. 104 : oil Xiytit KaKoiS roi-r TertXfvrqKOTas rcov (V€py(To>v
S inserts «v after tovs. This indicates :
T0V9
TfTtXevTTjKorai tuv (17)
liitpytTiiiv
428 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
Other examples are :
iv. 30: iv Toii y\^r)<picrfia(ji Kai (18)
6" repeats er after koi.
xviii, 305: Kara ra ffia ■^rjcpiafiara (18)
These words, which are omitted sz(o /oco, before the heading
API0MO2 BOH0EmN, are inserted after it in 6".
xxiii. l6o : rfjv irpos vfias fntfiTrfv (l8)
S^ repeated tijv before ^ttlo-toXt^v. It was subsequently erased.
xxxvii. 1 6 : ovb'
av €1 Ti ytvoiT wirjdrip (l8)
5 repeats av after (Lridrjv (so A).
xlix. 45 : Koi u)S fifv d\T)6q Xe'yei (l8)
ovdeva
S repeats Kai before ovbiva.
Hi. 4 : apxf^id
8>]i Kal tS)i (fipaaiai (l6)
TTpoatTa^fv
S adds hr] after ^pacria.
lix. 15 : TTOKiv
Ti tS>v vop.t(op.(va>u (16)
WTrep
5 repeats n before vTrip.
Ix. 20: cure KaXXio) Trp6(f)a<Tip (l8)
roi) TTjs
S has ovT€ for tov.
I would also call attention to :
xxiii. 157 • *^'?^*Vx^'? '"'^ '"'pdyp' fV awroc^copw
6" inserts (pavep&s, an obvious gloss, before to. This indicates :
TO TTpayfi in aiTo(f)a)pa)i (l8) W^. (pave pais
In the following cases the writer seems to have looked forward,
or backward, two lines :
xxi. 137 : Trjv KUT d^iau tS>v ire (l6)
npaypevav napa tovtuv (19) = 35
S ^ repeated t^v before bLKr]v.
THE PARIS MANUSCRIPT OF DEMOSTHENES 429
Ix. 15; nptxTKTTafitva yap
nayra its fva Katpov (17)
iiv(TKpi,TOV Kadicrrrjcri (18) = 35
flOi
S has /lot after ydp as well as suo loco (so FO).
Ixi. 12-13 •' "'"'' fOTnoT^erai (cai piv (19)
hi] Ka\, riov opoopevuv (16) = 35
*jrt</)av«(rrurov
S has o-oK^ai-fo-rarou in 1. 3. Here either the writer looked back
to (Tov, or a variant o-oi has got out of place and been conflated
with €TTl(f)aV((rTdTOV.
I do not attempt to pursue the subject further, since it would be
difficult to distinguish multiples of this unit and the one previously-
discussed. I will only make an observation about two passages
mentioned above. In xlvii. 74-5 5 inserts ij 6ta tov (^aTraTrjaai (17)
before 290 letters. It is possible that the words formed a line in
a previous ancestor and after omission were inserted after the first
\l/(vbopiapTvpi.civ as well as after the second. In lix. 83-9 the
omission of 170 letters by 5 has been shown to be prior to the
model. It is tempting to suppose that it = 17 x 10.
Two of the corruptions just mentioned, xxxvii. 16 and Ix. 15, are
shared with 5, in one case by A, and in another hy FO. It is
interesting to find a similar unit in corruptions common to all MSS.
I lake first a striking example :
xl. 5 : ovK f'yw TOVTOV aiTtos (l8)
dpi
The MSS. repeat ovk before elfj-i.
With this we may compare :
iii. 7 : TOVTO ninpaKTai wni (l8)
So edd. ^ has tovto iriTTpaKrai ivvi tovto, and so apparently F^.
Other MSS. give -ni-npaKTai wv\ tovto. Here a common ancestor
seems to have added tovto from the previous line ; a corrector
struck out the first tovto instead of the second.
xviii. 112: fis
de Tovf (jvKO(fHiiTai ('6)
ayfiv
So FL. S repeats hi before uyeir, while A V have ds toi/j o-ukoc^cIitcw
aydv.
430 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
Ix. 4 : 8iKal(i)i I'iv Tis vnoXaQoi tovs fxeu inrjXvSns f\66vTus fls ras iroXas Koi Tovrap
TToAiVay npocrayopevofjievovs opoiovs elvai tois tlcTTroirjTois tS>v naidmv
The MSS. place ei? ras (tovs S) before iir-qXvbas. The words
appear to have been inserted in the wrong place after previous
omission. This suggests :
TOVS flfV
enrjXvbas (XOovras (l6)
fn^. (Is ras TToXeis
I add an interesting transposition :
1. 17 : 8av(i(TaiJ.(vos eyw apyvpiov nap'' 'ApxeBrjpov piv tov ^ Ava^XvdTiov Tr(VTfKai8fKa
pvas eniTOKov, oKTUKoalas 8e Spaxpas napa NiKiTrnov tov vavKXrjpov vavTiKov
aveiX6pr]v, as iTv^iV S)v iv 'Sirjara^, (iroyboov
So the MSS. The words 6s hv^^v oiv kv Stjotwi (18) appear to be out
of place. Boeckh says that * they can only be referred to Nicippus
by a very forced translation. Most probably they should come
after 'Ai^a^Auortou, for, since it might appear strange that the
Anaphlystian should be mentioned as being in Sestos, it was natural
to add that he was there by accident.'
The following transposition variants are significant :
vi. 13 : TOVS Qi]^aiovs fj {i/xas (17)
a^Lovv is placed after vp.as by S, and before tovs by other MSS.
Iv. 5 • 8v(rxfpfS npos aXXtjXovs (20)
rjv is placed before Suo-xepe? by S, and after aXK-qkovs by other
MSS.
Iviii. 49 • Xa/3e t6i> vopov tovtov (18)
-naXiv is placed before Xa^i by 6", and after tovtov by other MSS.
In Iv. 5 the unit is slightly longer than elsewhere. The same
phenomenon has already been noticed in the case of corruptions
peculiar to 5. This fact may throw light upon a curious repetition
in i. 19 Tt ovv, av tls elirot, av ypd<piis tuvt (TvaL aTpaTKOTLKO.', fxa At'
ovK eycoye. ey&) ixev yap r]yovpi.ai aTpaTicaTas buv KaTaaKCvaaOfpat koi
TavT' elvat (TTpaTtcoTLKO. Koi fxCav avvTa^iv elvai. Here editors strike
out Kal Tavr' eivat orpariajn/ca. It is to be noticed that the repeated
words, ravT eu'ai arpartcortKa consist of 20 letters, while jua At" ovk
. . . KaTa(TK€va(r6r]vaL KaC consist of 60.
I now recall attention to the list of additions made by the first
THE PARIS MANUSCRIPT OF DEMOSTHENES 431
hand or a contemporary corrector in S, viz. : 22, 27 (dis), 34, 47
(dis), 54. Here 34 is a recalcitrant figure, which has no connexion
with the others. In view of the facts now produced it appears
probable that 34 = 17x2, i.e. two lines of a previous MSS. We
may compare the following corruptions :
xxiv. 100 : r<W n^ui^ds Kara rovs irrrapxovras vofiovs (34)
These words are given twice by the MSS. in the same sentence,
viz. after tQv (yyirqT^v and suo loco (after Kara tovto^v CivaC). The
intermediate passage consists of 113 letters (17x7 = 119)-
lix. 63 : ^paaropa 8' (K^aKovra rt ttjv dvyarfpa rfjy Neai'paf ravTijai ytjiiairra . . . k(i\
ri]v npo'txa ovk anoSovrn
So edd., the MSS. place rt after yrifxavra. This suggests :
(K^a\6vTa mg. Tf
Tr]u dvynripa rljv veal (l8)
pat ravTr/CTi yrjpavra (l?) ^= 35
xxi. lOO : Tit ovv v^pi(o)v ndv<T(T(u . . . d tovtov fxtv aanep 8(iva iraaxovra Aeijo-fTf ,
(I 8( rit TTfVTit pij^fv fjdiKrjKoyt . . . vno tovtov n(pin(nTo)K(, tovto) 8' ov8f
(TvvopyiadTia«T6( ;
Here (xtv after tovtov is supplied by editors. It is to be noticed
that F has /ixeV for fxrjbiv after iiivrjs. This suggests :
TOVTOV
jng. piv atantp beiva iTa<T\ovTn (' (19)
\(t'j<T(Tf fl fie Tit nivTft (19) = 38
pTjbiv
I now take a curious passage, xxii. 23. Blass here accepts from
the citation of Maximus {Rliet. Gr. v. 579) the words xxnipov (irdbav
rvv irepl ojv ciVf/KToi 5wi \6yov (39), which are omitted by all the
MSS.
I have reserved until the last the most striking passage, vi/,. :
lix. 5 • ^i <t)(p\f Twt Sqpoiriai (K nivTf *cat tinnaiv (tuiv (3^)
The words are placed here (after fxaprvpas Trapaaxofxevo^) by edd. In
the MSS. they come in § 9 after ahiav ^evbii, where they destroy
the sense. The intermediate passage kuI t^co . . . alTtav \l/(vh7j con-
sists of 1,190 letters. In view of the distance which intervenes
between the correct place and that which they occupy in the MSS.,
the suspicion arises that after omission they were entered on the
wrong folio of a common ancestor.
I have noticed cases of corruptions involving more than two units.
432
DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
but prefer not to carry the inquiry further, since to do so would
require more time than I have at my disposal. I would only say
that both in 5 and in all the MSS. there are indications of a shorter
line in a previous MS. in addition to the line in the model of 23-4
letters attested by the bulk of the corruptions in 5. It is tempting
to suppose that this previous MS. was the archetype. It is, how-
ever, possible that there were intervening MSS. written in similar
formation.
I now proceed to tabulate the omissions of 5 in the usual way.
The first point to notice is the absence of telescoped passages. The
only one which I have come across is in Prooem. 29 :
fTTdoav TrpaTTfiv ri derj' d fiev ovv ano86pTa>v v/xciv.
S here omits el fxev ovv arrobov- (14). This instance is deprived of
importance by the fact that it comes after the last line of col. 2.
The omission seems due to the scribe's having lost his place when
turning over a page. Apart from it, I do not find any clear indica-
tion of so small a unit. In order, therefore, to lighten the inquiry
I begin with omissions of 16 letters. I reserve for the moment all
cases which occur in P/iil. iii.
(16)
(17)
(18)
vni. 7
17
xviii. 100
257
xix. 25
XX. 15
xxiii. 152
XXV. 28
XXXV. 36
xlv. 69
I. 22
Prooem. 3
xviii. 67
xix. 280
XX. 18
xxi. 76
xxxiv. 7
lix. 9
Ix. 12
ii. 21
iv. 28
X. 73
(cat avayKaiOTarov Otn. SL
8ia(f)dapfja-frai Kai om. SL
iv oh f7n(rT€v6r]Tf Otn. S
* \xlv ovTi (jioirav eif om. SL
Ka\ KaTT]yopovvTos Otft. S L^
Ka\ riji ^e^aioTtjTi om. SYOPQ
Koi Tov ^T](f)i(rfiaT05 om. S
eis TO eVros Tovra^v om. S
* ^a(Tr]\iTr)i TroXirrji om. S
* 17 riva iZ TrdroirjKas om. S
Kai irXola iXKOvrav Otn. S
* ft (f)avep6v yevono om. S
* paibias Koi iroipa>s Oin, SL}
Ka\ ' ApicrroyeiTovos om, SL^
Kai 'Api<TToyfiTOi/os om. SAP^Q}
Kara rmv ahiKovvratv om. SA
* TO. )(pr]p,aT fV(6fT eli om. S
* wr Kvprjvaioi. eirjaav om. S {in lac.)
* napa toIs 7>poy6vois om. S
tS>v Kad' fKuara (radpav om. S
Tois (Trparevopfvois om. S
vno Tcov TTpoyovutv fjp.S>v om. SA^
THE PARIS MANUSCRIPT OF DEMOSTHENES a^s
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(26)
(27)
(29)
(30)
(32)
(33)
(34)
(37)
(38)
(40)
(42)
xviii. 279
xxiii. 15
xlii. 16
xliii. 71
xlviii. 56
xvii. 3
xix. 320
X. 43
XXV. 82
xxxiv. 47
viii. 76
xviii. 253
265
xix. 278
xxi. 161
xxiii. 198
XXV. 14
xlix. 52
XXV. 40
xxxviii. 1 8
viii. 75
xviii. 154
xxxvii. 27
Ix. 17
XXV. 87
XXXV. 56
xxxix. 40
xlvii. 32
lix. 5
xiii. 23
xviii. 129
xviii. 235
Ivii. 10
xl. 54
xxiv, 184
xliii. 26
Iv. 7
X. 16
xiv. 18
xxiv. 86
(46) Iviii. 46
(47) Iviii. 62 :
(49) xx.wi. II :
Kni rrairav (\ti KtiKiOV OIH. S
t'l Ti jTurfoi Xa^iidrjfios Oin. S F
*TTf>os Toi's a-Tpurnyois otn. S
Kai TTapavtvofn'iKacriv Oiil. S
(TXXcuf r( Kn\ TOini-TTji om. S
* ftTTOir' &v oifiiu Tru»T«f Of/l. SA^
* To'ii onXoii !^vvr](TfTai 0»l. S
« ni^iK nkW ov8( tS>v aWaiv Olll. S
* hi] TTafint'urqpos av6p<iiinoi out. S
* I'l'V ra fvavrln fiaprvp ft Om. SF
* ocrn av dvfoivrai Tfji iruKti om. SZ.^
Km Tov 'Arr<')X\a) rov Tlvdiov Offl. SUA^B^
(XOfHVfs, (yto S' fx'^prjyovv om SL,^, r/te/. duo
* (lv.11 KfKdifl Trjv (IpTjvrjv om. SA
* Kav nvu>6fv apxfcrdai djKrji om, SA
* Toiv Tifiojv Tciis vTrep^oXais 01)1. S^ {^add. m. av.tiqtta)
* rols i'pfTtpoii ^ovXfVfxacri- om. S
<•- T« fVf^vpa TOiv ^nvfiaptiTiDV OM. S
* otis avKo(f>ai'T(ov nopipx^eTai om. S
t- TOTi S OJf TTnpn^OVTOi dtUKfTf Om. S
* la'fi Kat TTfpi iii' iv 6 8tiv enrrji om. S
xai TMt Koiv5>i Twv ' AiJ.(f)iicTv6v(t>v om. SL
ra ipavrov I'ikopriv Kopiaaadai Om. S
ri TzpaKTfov «ctti ttji 5f crui^eTai. Om. .S
TO KnS^ nvrrv. "iboiTt 6' av (iTfidfv om. S
(■^i](f)i<Tfi(voi Koi TTtpiaipi]a(a6( om. S^ {add. tn. I )
TtV 8' 2>i prfTTo) irai8(s fieri dr<T(rai om. S
TfTtXtvTTjKoTOS Tov Arj^o'^dpovf om. 6"^ (add. nt. l)
* Tovy biKacrrai btKniov upyi^ecrOai om. S (in lu'.'.)
Kn\ \vcn.T(\ovvT(i aiiTois tSiSocrav om. S
iiWa TTavTfs uracrt ravra, kqv f'yw fxr} Xtya om. SL}BFQ Y
ov6' xmo Ttdv crvKCKpavToivToiV Kpivopfvos om. S
ov TrXilovs rj rpuiKovra' fv 6( toCtois ^crav om. S^ (add. t>:. l)
* {irrip Z)V av Xiyrji Kai fxi] vfias (paarKovTa fldtvai cm. S
* &s oTav croi 8oKfji ttoXii' •ypa>^«tf KaTa)(aivev*iv om. S
oiToerl 6 jrali avt^tov Trnir wv Ayriai irpos miTpoi om. S
* tl rjviyKart r6r( paprvpa Kn\ (irtfiapTipiiaOf vxv Om. SA
Ka\ Twv (pywv Tuv dpyvpelotv Ka'i TocroiTuv irpocruSwv oui. S
* SfVTfpav (Karov irfvre Kai to)v rpirav fKorov rreiT* 0//:. S (tn
fine col.)
: • f<|)' &)i KaT(<m)<T€ Tovs fyyvr]T(is atpficrdui rov 6(jp.oi om. hA 1 O
: €1 6' iyp('i'<\rnT uv, itO)S ov ddvov icrnv iripov ptv ypd^l^avTos cm. S
aWa Tnis Xfyovras d(\ ypacpofxtvoi \prjixaTa Xap^dvovtriv om. ^
(add fn. i)
Ka\ Xa^wv diptaiv 'ArroXXdStopcr alpurai to damiorrrjyf'iov om. S
Ff
434 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
(51) xlv. 25 : (7Tt<TXfS' ivBvfxii(r6e on tS)v buidrjKcov yfypnnrai tu>v YlnaMvos oni. S
(52) xix. 147 : * vvv 8f f] iiev TToXis rS>v avr^s a(f)(<TTr]Kev, ovtos be XPW'^'^'^ f'tXrjcpfP
A : om. S, ■plerique.
xxii. 67 : * fi€T€)(ov(Tiv av d8iK0V(Tiv vixas Tives, ano 8f ratv (laTrpaTTOfifvav Otn.
SVYO
(53) xiii. 32 : a Trpor ^Xtao-iouf orf f^eire(TOv to tvayxos ISoT)6flv fifj (nirpfTrfiv otn. S
xxix. 49 : Trap u/xmj/ eXeou romon xprjTni tois Xoyois' noWa fiev ovv eywy fX'^
om. S
(54) xxxi. 14 : Ka\ fii opcfiaviop fjdiKrjptvov koI irpoiKos dXrjdivrjs aTTe<jT(pr}pevov om.
S^ (add. m. l)
(59) xiv. 23 : * Ka6' (Kaarov vfoapiov 'Iva SxTi avppopiai 8vo, rpiTjpeis rpuiKovra, (fivX'j
pin om. SA
(63) xlv. 37 : Koi (TTiTpOTTfvdrivni KaTO bia6f]Kas pnpTi'paiv drjXov on Ka6 o-rroias av
eiBfirj Oin. S
(64) xxi. lOI : * 01) TOVTOV povov ou (TvXXfyoviTi Kal ov TrXrjparni yiyvovrai TiPfS
(iXX« Kal aWav om. S, plerique
{71) xix. 86 : * 61 Tov pT]de Tovs 6eovi Kad' o ndrpiov tjv npaadai noirjtravTa tovtov
aTipa>pr]TOv d(f)r)cr(Te om. SL K'
(79) vWi. 61 : * vnTjpeTovvTns (Kt'ivati dXX' dvayKt) rovTois wantp Trpo/SoXoty npoa-
TTTtiiovTai vcrrfpi^eiv f'/cftftoi' om. SH
(88) liv. 2 : * ^ TTfTToj/fi' aKoixTrjTf. bfivrjs yap ovtrt^s rrjS roTf (rvfJL0(ia-r]s vSpeas oIk
eXiiTTWv fj pfTci Tavr dcrlkyeid icrn tovtovi om. S (in lac^
(108) Ix. 21 : * TTf pt S>v 5' 6 TUiV fvavTitap fjyepcov vneorjipe tovs fVi tovtwi raxBiVTns,
ovx*- TOVS TToWovs ovt' (Kfivdiv ovff TjpSiv aiTuiaaiT civ tis eiKoTas om. S
(128) xxxvi. 25 : KaX oa-a ns dcfirJKfv »} dnrjWa^ev. flKOTcos. fl yap cVn bUaiov av av
ana^ yevr)Tai h'lKr} prjKtr (^(Ivat SiKa^faOai, ttoXv tcov d(f)(6fVTa)v diKaioTtpov
pf} fivni biKns om. S
(137) vii. 5 : oXX' fi Kni TLS ('(XXor (maTapevos napaKpovadrjvat. av vpas oierat vtto
tS)v ravTavda 8ioiKTj(r(iv a>s av avTos (Kelvos ^ovXrjrai Ka\ irpip vTre(TX^pfP<>>i'
Kn) vvv de irpaTTOVTWP om. SL}
(170) lix. 87-8 : TO. 8r)pOTe\ri e(f) ^i ap poix'ts aXSii' €av 8' etirirji VT]Troive). TracrxeT(0
o Ti ap rrda-xfji TrKrjp davaTov. ^ovXopai toIpvp vpip, S) apdpfs 'Adrjpaioif Kal
TOV 8rjpov TOV ^h.6rjvaia>v papTvplav ■napacrxi^&o-i- «f (rnovbd^ti ntpl to. Upd
om. S
In the absence of telescoped passages special importance attaches
to those where the omission is not explained by dpi. It is to be
noticed that all the omissions of 22-5 letters, eight in number, fell
into this class. I have entered lix. 5 as 28, but, as a space for tovs
is left in the preceding line, this also is really a case of 24 and may
be added to the list. We cannot, however, restrict the unit to this
figure in view of xxxv. ^6, xlvii. 32, in both of which 27 letters are
added by m. i. We must, therefore, assume a line of 22-7 letters
in the model. In the multiples, the addition of the first hand
THE PARIS MAXUSCRirX OF DEMOSTHENES 435
Iviii. 62 (47) and xxxi. 14 (54) are of special interest. It is to
be remembered that the first hand also adds 47 letters in ix, 17
{Phil, iii), a passage not included in this list. The conclusion seems
to be that the model varied somewhat in length of line ; in all
probability one column, as so frequently happens, was narrower
than the other. The fact that there are three examples of 42, two
of them not explained by (V-, deserves notice, and there is a striking
bulge at 52-3 (four examples). Among the larger numbers 88, 108,
12S form an interesting sequence.
It has already been shown (p. 426) that the largest omission of .S'.
1 70 (lix. 87-8), goes back beyond the model, the passage having been
already omitted in a IMS. smaller than the model, a leaf of which,
containing §§ ^3-9, was placed after four other leaves, containing
^§ 89-107. We must therefore be prepared to find at least another
unit present.
I now turn to the smaller figures. Most of these are explained
, by o\i., and the number of cases in which the omission is due to
a repetition of koi is to be remarked. The two most noticeable
passages are :
xviii. 257 : f'/i"' M-" Toiviu I'-r^j^fv, Ai<T)(ivr], -rrni^l fi(i> uvrt (fxttrnv (h ra TTpccrriKOvra
xxxiv. 7 : oCrt yap tqv inodTjKtjv rrnptaxfro ovri to. xP^iH^''' (vt6tT m ri^v vaVy
Kf\(vov:TT]s rrjs cri'yypa(/j^f €ndvayKfs (vriBfadai
The omission of iJ.kv ovti <\>0LTav ets (16) and to. y^pi'niar (vithr (U
(17) destroys the sense.
I have already indicated (p. 42c) the importance of the addition of
^4 letters by m. i in Ivii. 10, this being the only passage added by
m. I which does not appear to be a line, or lines, of the model.
I now call attention to the two passages of 52. These may both
be explained as 26x2, and, if the omission were peculiar to S,
I should without hesitation accept this solution. It is, however, to
be noticed that in both cases the omission is common to a number
of MSS. As I liavc only examined the pedigree of S. I speak with
some reserve, but it is prima facie probable that the omission goes
back to an earlier stage (17 x 3 = 51). The second passage, xxii. 67,
runs as follows :
ro Tovrtav airwv iyut vplv (irra ; on roiruv piv p.(T(\ei if aiiKoiviv vfias Tiv€S, ano
d( TMV tliTTrpnTTOfifVuv v(f)aipf'iTai
F f 2
436 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
The omission (without on.) of //ere'xet • . • da-npaTrofxevMv produces
nonsense.
I now turn to the largest number, ijo. In view of what has
already been said, it seems extremely likely that this = 17 x 10. It
is interesting to notice that the next largest number, 137, is almost
exactly a multiple of 17 (17 x 8 = 136).
It will be seen that the evidence furnished by omissions agrees in
a remarkable way with that obtained from the corruptions previously
considered.
I now take omissions of 5 in Ph7. iii, beginning as elsewhere at
16 letters :
(16) § 50 • '^^''- Terapayfj-fvoLS A, Olli. S cett.
(17) § 3 • '^^'' "^^^ aiJ.apTT]fjidTa)v om. SL}
§ 18 : K.'il KarncTKevn^ovTa om. S L}
(20) § 14: K(u KpLVdP ^ovXofieuciiv oni. SL^
(23) § 44 • o'^^' evnyfS rji to airoKTe^vai OVl, SL
(24) § 43 : Kai 6ea>pe'iTe Trap' vp'iv iivrim out. S
§ 30 : * rrvyyvaip.t] toIs eXeyxop-ivois 0)U. SI-}
(26) § 72 : Kill KXeiro^aY')? Kn\ \vKovpyn^ out. SFYO, posf jBeXriaTos /lad. A
(28) § 37 : * ovbiv TTojKt'Aoi/ olhi <To(f>i)V nW on 0!U. SZ.^ V
(29) § 2 : ovKOvv ov8' Li/xa? o'iovTci belv ex*"' '"'^* •-^■^^
(33) § 37 • * f^nl rrapniTrjcris ouSe/ni' rjv ovSe avyyvaiprj oni. SI} Y
(34) § 26 : * Kai Ti^vT (K j3prtx(ns Xoyou pai8iov 8u^ru 0)11. SL}
(35) § 65 : * ««"' TTpokuQai Tcop i'nep Vjxa>v \iyhVT(x>v rivui om. SI}
(47) § 17 • ^<J*^ ^'' alra toIs Tf ix^criv rjhr] npoaaydyacnv' hXX' ov (^rjcrere 0/n. S^
{add. in. l)
(57) § 20: * Kill To's cvcriv eVei pvv crrpnTLaiTnis irdvff oaav av beoivrnt a-rrocrTuXai
am. SL
§ 38 : KCLi ToT? pr]8fi' fdeXovat noielv Kara Toiv Trdvra a npotjrjKei npaTTovrav
out. SL^
(61) § 58 : * Tore fxfv Trep\lrns rois fj-er' EvpvXo;(ou ^evovs, 77u\iv Se tovs fitra Ilap-
jjLevicopos om. SL^
(7O § 75 • * ^' 7'V rjaav, evpT]VT av TrdXai, IveKo. ye tqv pTj8ev fjfias aiToiis Trotfii'
edeXiiv, dXX' ovK elaip om. SF
Dobree transposes this passage after r.oi-f]<rovTa<i.
(lio) § 65 : >iai TOVS fls Tovd^ virdyovTai vfids 6pa>v ovk opp(o8a), uXXct dvcrMTTovfiaL'
r] yap e^eTTiTijSss *] 81 I'lyvoiav els ;^aXe7roi' ivpdyp.a. vmiyovai ti)v ttoXiv om.
SLFYO
(121) § 71 : * ■navTiiypi els Yii\n7T'':vvv^(J0V els 'PdSoi/ els Xiov a>s /3acrtX/a Xeyco, 01 8e
yap rav eKeliai avpcpspovraiv d(pecrTrjKe to p.'] tovtov eacrai iravTa Karn-
(TTpei^r.crBai om. S
THE PARIS MANUSCRIPT OF DEMOSTHENES 437
(160) § 41 : * oix 'ifn nvTols fji \(f)tjcrifxn' koi yiip (ivfv tovtcov roiV yjiafifiaTuv t<i
5(ovTa ((f>p6i'ovv, <i\X* II'' vfiiii <;^')t« vnoyLvijuara kiu Trnpn^tiyfima (Lr (frrip
TU)v TOioC-roiV JTTOvSu^fiv TfpocrtjKt I, Ti ovv Xt'-yfi Tu ypapfiarn ; 0//1. .S'Z.'
(172) § 46 : ♦"or' oiToi' Ti yiip 8(1 nfp\ Truyruv Ipdv Kcnqyoptip '^ TrapmrXTjtrioss 5<
Kai oi/Siv j3t'\Tioi/ vn<oi' anairrfs o't \oino\"E\\r]V(s' Si6n€p (fyrjfu. tytoy* Km
a-TTovSrjs rroXXI;f Kai ^ovXiji aytiOrji ra TTapovra TTpiiypara 7rpncrd(ia$in. rivos
om. .S'Z*
(204) § 32 : * Kvpws Si nv\a>v KoX Twv (tt\ Tovs"E\\r]vas napt'ibon/ fOTi Koi (fipovpa'is
Kill ^fvois Toi/s Tunovs toCtovs Kurfx^^ J ?X*' ^* ''<''' ''''7*' Trpofiatrrdav toO 6(ov,
TTapuxras ijpiis kiu QfrraXovs ku\ Aiopitas Ka\ tuvs aWovi Apcfuicrinvus, r]S
ui8e rolr "KXXjjctii' arraai ptrtcm ; on. SL^
(596) § 6 : fl flip ovf aTrnirrfs wfioXoyovpfv 'PIXittttoi' t/)* TroXf t TToXfpe'iV Kai ti]v
tiptjvrjif irapa^iilveiv, ovSip aXX' f^fc Tof Trapiovra Xtytii' Ka\ (TvixSovXtvtiv ff
OTTO)? aai^aXicrraTa Ka\ paiar avTov apvvovpfdn' (TTftdq 8' oi/rtoy (iroTrwf
(iioi SiaKfiiTai, wcrre TroXen KUTaXap,3duoi'Tos e/cftVoy Ka\ iroXXa rwv vperepcov
(\oi^t)s Ka\ TTavTas dpOpdojrovs udiKovirrcs dve'x(crd<u tii-cdp eV ran f(c/<\fytnntf
Xfy6pT<t)P noXXuKis ws f]p.(op rn'tr elaip ot noioiiPTfi top rroXfpop, (ivayKr)
(pvXaTTeadai Kai 8iopdova0at TT(p\ tovtov' tori yap deor prfrroG" wf dpLVPoi-
pfva ypdy^/as Tis Koi <rvpi3ovX(C(ras ds ti]p tilriap (pjitcrqi rov ■n'fnoit]Kepai tup
~6i\tpMP. ty(t) 81) TOVTO Trpo)Ti>p dndiTuip Xeyoj Kai diopl^opai' (1 ((jj" i]p.'ip i(jTi
TO /SovXti'fcj-^at 7r«pt toxi TToTepop fipj'iPrjP aycip f) iroXfpf'iP bfl Oill. SL.^
The evidence of Harpocration S7id voc. ariixoi is quoted in favour
of the omission of 23 letters in § 44. The words, however, seem
genuine. Blass says ' haec interpolatori tribuere non ausim '. In the
same citation he agrees with 5 in a short omission, not included in
this list, viz. a\\' ov tovto Ae'yei (15). On the other hand Harpocration
quotes twice sud voce, bvawiroviiai and vTrayova-w from the important
passage in § 65 (110).
The first point to notice in this list is the omission of 47 letters in
§ 17, remedied by the scribe himself, considered at the beginning
of this discussion (p. 419). Here, without doubt, the writer omitted
two lines of his model. It seems reasonable to connect with this
the omissions of 23-4 letters, possibly others.
Among the shorter omissions we may notice that the three
omissions of 33-5 letters arc not explained by o/x. : also, we have
a passage, probably transposed, of 71 letters. In view of previous
evidence, it is not unlikely that these are due to a unit of 17-18
letters.
The large figures in this list must be considered in connexion
with the evidence already obtained from omissions and corruptions
in vS. It must be remembered that this evidence is a farrago
438 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
gathered partly from the model, and partly from at least one previous
ancestor.
1 take first all omissions of more than loo letters in 5:
(io8) Ix. 21 (170) lix. 87-8
(no) /'/'//. iii. 65 (172) P/«7. iii. 46
(120) PhiL iii. 71 (204) P^U. iii. 32
(137) vii. 5 (596) PMl iii. 6
(158) Pliil.'m.^i
The most striking point here is the resemblance between 170 and
172, which is interesting, since, as has already been shown, the
omission of 170 letters in lix. 87-8 goes back to considerable
antiquity. We may also notice the similarity of 108 and 110.
I now take the corruptions, viz. :
(102) xviii. 25 (290) xlvii. 74-5
(144) X. 69-70 (597) Prooem. xl
(176) Iv. 26-7 (1,190) lix. 5
(180) xl. 54
If we combine these lists, the three largest figures are 596, 597,
1,190. Here 1,190^3 = 595. This is a very extraordinary result.
I now recall attention to 1,190 (p. 431 )• Here there is an error com-
mon to all the MSS., viz. that a passage of 38 letters is placed in § 5
instead of in § 9. The natural explanation is that, after omission, it
was placed on the wrong folio of the archetype from which all our
MSS. are descended. If so, 1,190 = a folio of this, and 596-7 = a
page. When speaking of the corruption peculiar to 5 in Prooem. xl
(597), I left the question open whether the error was made by the
writer of S, or whether it went back to a previous MS. (p. 426). In
view of these figures, it would appear that the second explanation is
correct.
The conclusion, then, is that the longest omission of 5 in Phil, iii
represents a division, in all probability a page, or column, of the
archetype.
It is to be noticed that the words d \i\v ovv, with which the
omitted passage begins, occur also at the beginning of the next
sentence. The omission, therefore, is due to ofx. This has already
been pointed out by Voemel, who says aberravit oailus scribae
apriorc d [Ckv ovv ad altenim d \x\v ovv, but this simple explanation
has not found favour with recent editors.
THP: PARIS MANUSCRIPT OF DEMOSTHENES 439
It is to be observed that the four largest omissions before ,'",96 are
not assisted by V. In view of the rarity of long omissions in
other speeches of Demosthenes, the hypothesis of dcHberate abridge-
ment here seems probable. VVc liave already seen that the favourite
method of abbrcviators was to strike out lines of their copy. The
converging evidence shows that the arclietype of Demosthenes
contained about 17 letters to the line. The following multiples of
1 7 are therefore not without interest :
17X 7 = 119.
Cf. 121
17 X 10 = 170.
Cf. 172
17x12 = 204.
Cf. 204
17x35 = 595-
Cf. 596
I now call attention to a passage in PJiil. iii. 73 which I had
previously reserved. Here A vitlg: have (/jtjmi f'ilv . . . avTov-i hk
Tiajxxa-Kiva^icrdai, Ka\ Trpiorovs h \pi] irotovvTas Tore nal rovi aWovi
"EAAjjrav (rvyKakeir. SFYO after irapaa-K^va^^cTdai have toi/s 8' aA\ou?
"EAArjras avyKaK^lv vied. cm. It looks as if the passage had been
doctored by the insertion of ^e before aWovs after an omission.
I now proceed to discuss a remarkable series of obelizations in
the speech against Midias (xxi).^
We know from Hermogenes ttc/jI IbiStv {Rhet. 6"^. iii. p. 308) that
passages in the speeches of Demosthenes were obelized and expelled
on the ground of vulgarity (8ia to ayav (VT(k€s). He gives as
examples two passages which are not found in existing MSS., viz.
Kvdiiov^^ ((f)dovs i^oCtna kutcl vav to 6epos (i:\avaTo (Dc Cor.) and otto
rpioiz' Tpv-rjiMCLTOiV ti]V ipyaaiav TTcnoujadaL {/n Neaeravi). He says of
the first a)^«At(rdt' Tivfi KCLi vTrc^eiAorro, to-co^- opQi.ii<5 TTOLovvTci.
The subject of obelizations in the MSS. of Demosthenes was first
discussed by VV. Christ.^ The MSS. which contain them are SBF.
There are also references to them in scholia.
Christ says that a long passage in P/iiL iv. 22-7 ovk €v€(tti . . .
Ae'yf"' a^i-ov is obelized in B, and quotes a scholium ai:' ivrcvdev (ua
Tov (Tfpov acTTepicrKov tov \6yov tov Ttepl t(ov ev Xfppuirqrria (Tnypa(f)iiT09
(oriv (i. e. = C/iers. 4(S-5i}. This, however, is only an isolated case.
It is in the Midias that the question becomes important. Here
1 Die Atlikusatisgabe des Demosthcms (1883). For critical signs used in ancient MSS.
of Plato cf. Diog. Laert. iii. 39.
440 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
a number of passages are obelized, some of which are short, while
others are of considerable length. Christ thought that the obels
were affixed on subjective grounds by a critic whose abilities he
does not rate highly, remarking that ' he was no Aristarchus '.
Thus he supposes that §§ 197-9 ^^ V^P • • • ^^(^pwo.i'Te were struck
out because they are followed in § 199 by rts yap ka-riv oo-rt? and
the repetition of yap was thought objectionable: so also §§ 217-18
Ttavra yap . . . i^TTrjo-Oai on account of the following sentence ov yap ck
TToAtrtx^? ahias. He thinks that §§ 205-7 Kal fSorjdovaLV . . . 77ot7;a-ets
were obelized on account of the numerous asyndeta, and § 21 8 TroVep'
ovv . . . KOLvd because the passage was thought to be obscure. If
these were the reasons by which the ancient critic was actuated, we
must look on his excisions with grave suspicion.
Christ remarks on one passage § 139 that it may be dispensed
with, and suggests that it was obelized on the authority of a good
MS. Here he is following the adage brevior lectio potio7\ He has
a more suggestive remark on § 99 :
aX\' iWe br]iTOv on TOVi abUois ti iraaxovras, o fir] bvvi](rovTai (pepeiv, eXeelv npocrriKei,
ov rovs S)v TTfiroiTjKaai dfivSyv dlKrjv Bitovras obel. SBF
The next sentence begins with koI tU av tuvt eAcT^o-eie Suatw? ;
Christ says that the critic wished to abridge the text by reading aAAa
Tts av ravT eAejjo-ete biKaCois ; {om. med.). He does not consider the
possibility of omission due to ojx. in a MS. consulted by the critic.
Of this there is a clear case, viz. :
§ 210 pr] To'lvvv pr]8' ovToi ttjp a8(iav, rjv flplf koivijv ovalav ol vopoi rrapexovcn, Kuikvov-
TO)v KiKTrjdQai obel. F
The previous sentence ends with KeKTrja-Oai, and that before it
begins with p.rj roivvv. The omission therefore is very simple,
Blass appears to have treated these obelizations more seriously
than Christ. In his text they are printed in smaller letters like
those passages in Phil, iii which are omitted by .S". This arrange-
ment suggests that the obelized passages are not genuine.
I would here call particular attention to §§ 133-4 KotVot TroVe/)'
iWiv . . . TiavTa^ TjXavves. The passage is obelized in 5 and Blass
prints it in small type. The Scholiast here quotes a variant (ff
'Apyovpas for dpyvpas), ascribing it to the vulgate (rj brjpdhrjs, i. e.
eKboais). On § 147 he refers to 7/ apyaia as giving lipd for Upav
THE PARIS MANUSCRIPT OF DEMOSTHENES 441
((Tdi]Ta. It is clear that in ^ 133 dpyu/jas- was the reading of the
apxaia iKbocru, as opposed to the di]ix(adi}i. It is, therefore, certain
that the section was present in both recensions. Also, a quotation
from it by Helladius is preserved by Photius. Its authenticity,
therefore, appears to be beyond question.
I now proceed to discuss these obelizations. It will be well first
of all to give an example of the way in which these signs are used.
I take as an example § 2i(S. Here .S" has :
— Tf// ovp TovTov yfvoyiivov icpftT
— Toi' i]v avdii I] fvvi Ko\c'i(Tai f yu)
— fxtv oifiai vvv KOii'^ yap t) Kpiais
— Km rdbiKTjixaTa Trdvra f(f> ots
Viv KplviTdL KOtlfJ
Editors say that 77ore/)' oily . . . Koivd is obelized, although in 6" no
obel is affixed to the last line. Apparently the obelizatiou is
meant to include a complete passage.
In most cases the obelization is cowwaonto SBF. The witnesses,
however, do not always agree. In some cases the obelization is
more extensive in one MS. than in another. Some passages are
obelized in F only. These disagreements show that the obels in B
and F cannot have been taken over from S, but that all three 1\ISS.
derive them from a common source. We have also employment in
B and /•', not in S, of another sign, the hi-nkri (>— j, in combination
with the obel. Christ is of opinion that in such cases the passai^es
are regarded as alternatives, that marked by the liirXi] being
retained, while that which is obelized is struck out. It will be seen,
therefore, that there are complications in some cases.
In view of previous experience it occurred to me as possible that
the author of the obclizations was endeavouring to abridge the text,
and went on the method of striking out lines in his copy. I, there-
fore, thought it worth while to examine the length of some of the
shorter passages. I took first :
§ 49 • *'*"' ftoKkoiit rjbr] irapa^uvrat tIv vofiov rolrov i^rfpiaxiiat 6ai>UTo)i (54)
The next obelized passage is :
§ 86 : rfjv fifv Biairav uvTiXa)(wv oIk wfioatv, uXX' fuiaf Kad^ (avrnv Kvpinv yfvtaOai,
Kai dvupoTOS d7Tr]U€\6rj' ^ovXdfitvoi 6t to ^X\ov Xadilv (I07)
The relation of 54 to 107 is most striking. Shortly afterwards
442 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
I found that two obelized passages, § 92 et yap . . . ^aivirai., § 99
dAA' tore . . . 6t8oVras, both contain 110 letters.
I now take the various passages in order, adding a few remarks.
Some of them are isolated, while others occur in close proximity
to each other. In the latter case evidence is also to be obtained
from the intervening blocks of text, since these should exhibit the
operation of the same unit. I, therefore, combine them with the
obelized passages, which are distinguished from them by an asterisk.
The first passage (§§ 38-41) happens to be uncertain. According
to editors S B F obelize en tolvvv . . . ybr] ij>avep6<i. If so, the total
number of letters is 1,467. As a matter of fact, however, 6" has :
e
— a-Tii' t'-di] (pavipis dWa pt)v o
— TTrjviKn Kal TreiroirjKws a
— KnrrjyopS) Koi vSpfL TTfTTOJ
— r]Ku)s (pnLViTni Tois vopovs
The natural interpretation is that the obelization goes down to
^au-erat, after which there is a stop. If so, the total number of
letters in the obelized passage is 1.529.
The next passage is :
§ 49 • *"' T^oXXoii . . . 6aiaTu>i obel. S (54)
This passage I have already mentioned.
We now come to three obelized passages which I combine with
the intervening blocks of text :
§ 86 : ^T\]v pkv dlaiTat' . . . pe^Xov Xadelv obel. SBF {107)
§§ 86-7 : (fnXd^as Ti]v , . . ear' d<T(f)n\ei (448)
§§ 88-92 : * 8el bi] . . . anvpou Tro.el obel. SBF (1,374)
§ 92: Kairoi (I . . , TTapajiaiPovTos (lS7)
§ 92 : * (I yap . . . Odi'nTos (paitfTiu obel. SF (no)
The relation of 107 and no to 54 (§ 49) has already been pointed
out. We may also notice that no x 4 = 440 ; cf. 44(S.
The next group is found in §§ 97-101, viz.:
§ 97 : * Ka\ fiT]6' iopTrjS . . . noirjcrtTe obel. S (98)
vS here twice has ij.7]T€ where editors print //7/6', which makes the
total, as written in this MS., ico. It is to be noticed that the
previous sentence ends with a(pTi<T€T(. The obelization may there-
fore record an omission due to op..
THE PARIS MANUSCRIPT OF DEMOSTHENES 443
While the whole passage is obelized in S, in F SiTrAal are affixed
to the first three lines and obels to the last two. In B the whole
passage is marked with biirKal. It is, thcrefoie, uncertain what the
critical signs mean here.
§§98-9: Knt ri <})i,(T*Tf . . . Toiro Xonrnv (507)
§ 99 : ♦dXX' i(TTt . . . SUrji/ fitfiorrn? oM. 67)'/'' (no)
t'd. : Koi Tis av . . . TTJi MuSiov (230)
§§ 1 00- 1 : T«f orv . . . ti (TvWi^aaBni obel. SBF (661)
For no cf. § 9::. The relation of no to 230 and 661 is to be
noticed.
There is another group in §§ 133-48, viz. :
§§ '33~4- * Kairoi TToTffj' (l(rii> . . . ttuvtus jjXitvvfs ode/. S (438)
B obelizes § 133 only, jcatVoi vurtp' iiaiv . . . oTi-T/yyeAAfro (3.51), while
F affixes hi-nXal to the first seven lines and obels to the last seven.
§§ I34~9* *l y^fv yinj . . . (TTivivovTui' (l,688)
§139* * oxji fill Tois . . . y.apTvfi('ivobel.SBf (130)
§5 140-2 : irdvra 8e . . . tij TToXirfia (812)
f§ 143-8: *\(y(Tm Toiwv , . . (vBtiKi/vfifvos ode/. S {1,71 1)
In B the obelization ends at kut:t€iv biacp^pcL (§ 147), in which
case the total is 1,638, while in F another line is obelized after
fvbcLKl'VfXeVO'i.
The remaining cases are found in §§ 191-21H, viz. :
§§ I9'~2 : *Td)^a Toiwi' . , . Toil npayfiaroi obe/. BF (5^8)
§§ '93"'7 • Oi^i TOiVi'v . . . roiTOi' ToioiTov (1,510)
§§ '97~9' * ov ydf) ovx • • . OfuinjcraiTf obe/. F (493)
§§ 199"-*-'^ • T'S ytfi (<TTIV . . . bfKi'lKli np'XTTjKfl (6O4)
§ 201 ; *ov8f yiif) . . . btaKpoifTiyrai obe/. F (l22)
§§202-4: dXX' €yti>7* . . . ov Trai(T((r6ai (l,028)
§§205-7: * Kill ^orjdoi(Tif . . . Toirn noii'itrtit o/^e/. SF (1,235)
§§ 20S-IO: TTt7rV(Tpni Toiinf . . . KtoXvd KtKTr](Tdni (890)
§ 210 : * fill Toivvv . . . KUiXvovTtxiv KfKTTfaBai obe/. F {jj)
§§ 2II-I7: ovbiv btivitv . . . ififh, fj.T]8afjui)s (l,888)
§§ 217-18 : • irdVra yap . . . rivos rj-rr^adai obe/. SF (507)
§ 21S: ov yap fK , . . dvvtia-dai KpivfTai (133)
ib. : *Ti>T<p ovv . . . KpivtTai Kotvd obe/. SF (I'S)
I now give a conspectus of these figures. In order to be on sure
ground, I reser\'c for the moment those cases in which there is any
444
DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
discrepancy in the MSS. I mark with an asterisk the obelized
passages and add in brackets the MSS. in which the obelization
occurs.
(54) * § 49 i-S)
(507) §§ 98-9
(77) *l2ioiF)
*§§ 217-18(6-/')
(ic7) * § 86 {SBF)
(568) *^l 191-2 {BF)
(no) *§92 (SBF)
(604) §§ 199-201
*•§ 99 i-^BF)
(661) *§§ loo-i (SBF)
(iiSJ *§2i8(6-F)
(812) §§ 140-2
(122) *§ 20I (F)
(890) §§ 208-10
(130) *\i3g (SBF)
(1,028) §§ 202-4
(133) §218
(1,235) *§§ 205-7 (5i^)
(157) §92
(1,374) *§I8S-92{SBF)
(230) § 99
(1.51c) §§ 193-7
(448) §§ 86-7
(1,688) §§ 134-9
(493) *§§ 197-9 (^) •
(1,888) §§ 211-17
The striking point in this hst is that 507 occurs twice, in one case
for an obelized passage and in another for an intervening block.
We have also to notice the relation between 507, 1.028, 1,510.
Among the lower figures we have the sequence 54, 107, 110 bis,
448 : also 115 X 2 = 230.
It seems probable that 54 is not a unit, but a multiple (= 27 x 2).
If so, 77 represents 26x3 (=78), and 107-10 represent 26x4
(= 104). As usual, the unit varies somewhat in the smaller numbers
and becomes more constant in the larger. It will be found that
multiples of 26 account for a large proportion of the figures. I add
the following list :
26x5 = 130.
Cf- 13c, 13-
26 X 6 = 156.
Cf. 157.
26 X 9 = 234.
Cf. 230.
26 X 17 = 442.
Cf. .H«.
26 X 19 = 494.
Cf. 493-
26 X 23 = 598.
Cf. 604.
26 X3I = 806.
Cf. 812.
26x34 = 884.
Cf. 890.
26x53 = 1,378.
Cf. 1,374.
26 X 58 = 1,508.
Cf. 1,510.
26 X 65 = 1,690.
Cf. 1,688.
THE PARIS MANUSCRIPT OF DEMOSTHENES 445
I here add for the sake of completeness the passages where our
authorities differ, following 5" as against B and F :
(100) § 97 : (f/;>f bis, as in 5) (1.529) §§ 38-41
(43S) §§ 133-4 (1,711) §§ 143-S
If we accept the obelization given by 5 in §§ 3'^-4i, the figure
1,529 seems to be connected with the sequence 507, i,02<S, 1,510, to
which attention has been already drawn. We may notice that 26 x
6f) — 1,716.
The natural interpretation to put on these figures is that an
ancient critic, who wished to abridge the speech, obelized passages
which frequently, though not always, coincided with lines in his
text. Curiously enough, his copy appears to have been written in
lines which coincided very closely with those actually found in S.
This fact suggests an objection to the conclusions which I have
drawn, viz. that, as 5 itself contains 24-5 letters to the line and the
obelized passages consist more or less roughly with lines in 5, the
figures must necessarily exhibit some such multiples as those which
I have put together.
This objection would be fatal, if the obelizations were all found
in 5, and in 6" only. As a matter of fact, however, some of them
do not occur in 6" at all, while others are common to 5 and F, which,
presumably, are written in a different formation. There is, there-
fore, no possible explanation, apart from that of mere chance,
except that the obelized passages formed lines in a MS. previous to
SBF. In all probability the obelizations go back to remote
antiquity, probably to a capital MS. written in long lines, not in
columns.
If the results of this analysis are sound, these obelizations reveal
to us an abridged text in the act of making.
ADDENDA
p. 6. SiN'CE this work was in print Mr. Percy Simpson has called
my attention to two interesting doublets in Romeo and Juliet.
In II. ii. 187-III. i. 4 the Second Quarto (1599) gives:
Rom. Would I were sleepe and peace, so sweet to rest !
[The grey eyde morne smiles on the frowning night
Chekring the Easterne Clouds with streaks of light,
And darknesse fleckted like a drunkard reeles
From forth daies pathway, made by Tytan's wheeles.]
Hence will I to my ghostly Frier's close cell,
His help to crave, and my deare hap to tell.
Enter Friar alone, with a basket.
Fri. The grey-eyed mome smiles on the frowning night
Checking the Easterne clowdes with streaks of light :
And fleckeld darknesse like a drunkard reeles,
From forth daies path and Titan's burning wheeles.
Here the bracketed lines have been introduced from the beginning
of Act III. The differences between the two versions suggest that
an alternative draft was inserted in the margin of the MS. (cf. pp.
167, 177). The error survives in the 1609 Quarto and the First
Folio.
In V. iii. )c6 sqq. our editions give :
For fear of that I still will stay with thee.
And never from this palace of dim night
Depart again : here, here will I remain
With worms that are thy chambermaids.
Then, after nine lines :
Here 's to my love ! O true apothecary I
Thy drugs are quick. Thus with a kiss I die.
The Second Quarto, followed by the First Folio, has :
For feare of that I still will staie with thee,
And never from this Pallace of dym night
Depart again : come lye thou in my amies.
Heer 's to thy health, where ere thou tumblest in.
448 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
[O true Appothecarie !
Thy drugs are quicke. Thus with a kisse I die.]
Depart again : here, here will I remain
With wormes that are thy Chambermaids.
The two lines Here 's to ... I die occur subsequently in their proper
place.
Here the corruption is somewhat complicated. In addition to the
doublet we have to notice the intrusion of a variant in 1. 3 after
depart again, while depart agaiti is repeated in 1. 7.
T. H. Burton, in Book Hunter, p. 75, referring to a work called
Men of the Time, says :
A few lines dropping out of the life of Robert Owen, the parallelogram
Communist, were hustled, as the nearest place of refuge, into the biography
of his closest alphabetical neighbour ' Oxford, Bishop of. The consequence
is that the article begins as follows : --
Oxford, The Right Rev. Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of, was born in
1805. A more kind hearted and truly benevolent man does not exist. A
sceptic, as regards religious revelation, he is nevertheless an out and out
believer in spirit movements.
I owe this reference to Mr. Gordon Duff.
I have observed a curious error in copies (undated) of Valla's
tract, de Donatione Constantini. This edition is a reprint of a pre-
vious edition (undated), which I have used in the Bodleian Library
(Bodl. Th. 4° H. 22). The previous edition has at the foot of the
page (E i^) :
moderate imperii! arbitrantur. Haec tamen omnia eo per
tinent ut appareat Constantinu inter tot impedimeta nun
and at the foot of the next page (E ii"") :
Gallias. Adiit Hispanias. Adiit Germanos ceteriij occide
tem. Aut si grauabant~ ambo tantu obire terraij. quibusnam
In the reprint, a copy of which belongs to Queen's College
(347 A. i), the last line on E ii"" in the previous edition has been
transferred to the place of the last line in E i''.
The reprint therefore has :
moderate imperiia arbitrantur. Haec tamen omnia eo per
tem. Aut si grauabant~ ambo tantiTi obire terrain quibusnam
ADDENDA 449
The next page of the reprint begins with :
tinent ut appareat Constantinu inter tot impedimeta nun
and ends with :
Gallias. Adiit Hispanias. Adiit Germanos ceteru% occide
The missing line :
tern. Aut si grauabant" ambo tantu obire terraj;. quibusnam
has been added in thicker type at the top of the next page (E ii"),
but has not been deleted where it occurs out of place (E i').
A curious dittography in the text of Hesychius may be mentioned
here. The MS. has :
(finlaKfS' (fivDi
<f>aidn' o\/rft
<f)ai8tfios' ovofia Kvpiov J] \afinpot
Here cpal' hijfxos is a corruption of (|)ai8i/aoy, which has got into the
text.
p. 5. The Statesman of August 24, 1917, contained the following
transposition :
The severe winter on the east coast was
invalided early this year. He went to re-
side with his sister in Brighton, and died
too much for him, however, and he was
there as stated on June 28th from cancer
on the liver.
Here line 4 should come after line i.
p. 22. Corruptions similar to that found in 2, in Rose. Ain. 4.',,
are frequent in MSS. and papyri, e.g. :
Herondas v. 3-4 :
nX\' ' .\fi.fiVTnir} T7 Mt'ccoi-os iyKfirrai.
iyi> 'AfifPiTciiqu rqii Xfyttf 6pa>pqKa.
The writer of the papyrus (cent, i/ii A. D.) originally gave /zeVtoi- for
X«ytis.
Theocritus xiii. 29-30:
'F.XXtioTroi'Toi' iKoyro i/flrw rp'nov upjip aitni,
€l<T<t> d' o^/ioi' (6(yro nponomiioi, ii-dn Kiat'cLv
The Oxyrhynchus papyrus, No. 694 (cent, ii A. D.), substitutes
iKovTo in 1. 30 for tOfVTo.
i»ja G g
450 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
Sophocles, Ichnetitae 78-9 :
(fiol T tiv ftt] irpoa-ffyiXris ({>pa(Tas t68(,
4>ot/3a) T avoKTi avvTfXrjs evepyerqs
The papyrus, Ox. 11 74 (cent, ii A. D.), has irpoareXiji for avvTekrji
in 1. 79.
p. 29. For el rt cf. koI to. k^}}^ in a MS. (K) containing the
Axiochus, which belongs to the College of Jesuits at Antwerp.
According to Bekker's collation, this symbol is used on four
occasions where the text has been abridged.
p. 33. Cf. Cic. A/t. xiii. 33. 2 Cum Balbo autem puto te
aliquid fecisse H. in Capitolio.
Boot thought that U. m Capitolio is a corruption for kinc incipit
alia epistiila. Bosius conjectured hodie in Capitolio. It is simpler
to suppose that H. is the omission symbol which has been embedded
in the text (cf. p. jo8). Probably the words in Capitolio are out of
place, having been at one time omitted. In the previous sentence
Cicero has been speaking of a. professio, or return of property, which
he had to make. He says:
Neglegentiam miram ! semelne putas mibi dixisse Balbum et Faberium
professionem relatam ? qui etiam eorum iussu miserim qui profiteretur.
Ita enim oportere dicebant.
The words in Capitolio would give a good sense, if inserted after
frofiteretnr. The tabulariiim in which the return was to be entered
vi^as close to the Capitol (Shuckburgh). Cicero's informants told
him where the return should be made.
The edition of Pliny's Letters by Beroaldus (1503) contains an
example of an omission note printed in the text. Most MSS. have
a lacuna from viii. 8. 3 etiam navium patiens to 18. 11 eodem quo
emerat. Beroaldus prints (f. 136'') :
etiam nauium
patiens hie mutilus Codex, eodem quo emerat in
struxit
p. 35. The symbol C^, or Ct, for Cfyrti is found in papyri, e. g. in
Ox. 1174, Sophocles, Ichneutae (cent, ii A. D.), col. ix, 1. 22. In
a Tebtunis papyrus, ii. 343 {Land Survey), cent, ii, it occurs five
times in the text as an abbreviation for (rjTr^Ttov. In MSS. it is
frequently used to express doubt, e. g. in the codex Palatinus of the
ADDENDA 451
Anthology'. Prciscndanz, in his preface to the Leiden facsimile
c>f this MS., says (p. cxxi) of the corrector C, ' C'/"lo'««'? ^'ota ./. lel
C locos pcrvitiltos itistriixit' (cf. pp. Ixi, Ixxiv, cxiii). Tlic MS. ul
IIes)-chius has the following gloss :
Here C^rtir is a conflation of Cv (Ct) with Teir (= (roi).
I have elsewhere (Priviiiive Text, p. 97) suggested that a con-
fusion of this sign with (," (= k-md) is responsible for the conversion
of Sceva's two sons (Acts xix. 16) into seven in v. 14, in all MSS.
except D. M. Havet, in Rev. Phil, xxxvii (1913), p. 131, has
drawn attention to a large number of passages in which a mj-stcrious
/. occurs in MSS. of Varro, de Re Rustica. He considers L to be
a corruption of Z. This sign occurs three times in i. 55. In one
of these it comes in the middle of a word, after bi- in bivium. In
another the MSS. give laudabilicr L, where latidabilior is a con-
jecture for L. The doublet L. laiidabiliter is also found in i. 59. 2.
Cf. Rose. Am. 132, where hoc iudiciinn appears to be a corruption
of ^, to mark a lacuna.
p. 48. The signatures in Vat. Reg. 762 have recently been
discussed with great minuteness by K. K. Rand and G. Howe in
Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, i. (1917), pp. 19-54.
p. 49. For insertion in the wrong place cf. the Hibeh pap)rus,
No. 26, 'PrjTopiKT; 77/jos 'AKe^avcpov (cent, iii B. C.), 159-63 :
Tci)i iToXffiWt T(\tvTr](Tacri TatpTji/
drjfioaiov x<^t>^"*' *y KaX<i)i npo rqs
noXfUi a<f)ii)pi(T6ai KaiToi naOiv av
ruf ((lit rjffricracri (ir Tpo<f)T}v iidovm
Here eis, which has been omitted in 1. 159 before Ta(f>i'ir, has been
inserted in 1. 163 before Tpo(f>i]v.
The same papyrus contains an example of ' botching ' after the
repetition of a word, which deserves mention on account of its early
date.
Lines 116-19 are written thus:
(r/MDC Tpirrwf avayKaiov \(
ytiv r\ yap tpovfitv wr avayKoiov
Ta KudtaruTa din<f>v\aTTt it>
The MSS. have bia(Pv\aK7iov in 1. 119, omitting aiayKoiov in 1. liS.
G g 3
453 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS
This IS clearly a superior reading. The writer of the papyrus, after
repeating avaynalov (1. ii6) changed the verbal adjective to the
infinitive.
p. 52. An interesting example of a long variant out of place
occurs in a papyrus, Ox. 844, containing fragments of Isocrates,
Panegyricus, cent. ii. In § 74 after TrapaAeXei^^at the MSS. have :
6/Lia>f h fK Tuiv VTToXoinodv, eVeiS^ crvfi(f>fp€i rois irpayfiaaiv, ovk 6kvt]T(ov
fjLvriadijvai nepi avrav
In this section the papyrus is deficient, but in § 70, after Korot-
KL(r9rjvai, it has an alternative form of the sentence :
TovTojv 8; ovTms €\6vt<)>v ovk oKvqTfov iaTi TTfpt r5>v inroKolnaiv tlnuv a Si)
avfji(f)fpei Tols Trpdypaai pv-qcrOr^vai,
For similar cases in Giceroi Philippics, cf. pp. 167, 177.
p. 53. An example no less striking than that provided by Harl.
3063 may be found in Spicileginni Paliinpsestoruni,vo\. i {Beiironae
1913). The upper script in this, which contains homilies, was
written about 800 A. D. Apart from an omission of turn splendescere
(15) on p. 86, 1 have only noticed two passages where a supplement
is added by a second hand. These are :
(62) p. 59 : usq: ad fine glorosu uirlit' copletas. N eni qui coepert sed qui
i i i
pseuerauert
(125) p. 67 : cu tantis et p tantis §tiema pmia possidebis, si uero, quod absit,
supbia iracundia murmul-ationes vel in oboedientig forma ad imitandu
te aliis dederis
Here 62x2 = 124.
p. 189. After the example from Phil. ix. 4 add :
xii. 22 ad eum qui mihi fuit propositus exitum.
For exitum the MSS. have exitus {corr. Manutius) : while ns
have exitum after eiim^ as well as exitus at the end. This indicates
in P:
ad eum
qui mihi fuit propositus exitus (27) mg. exitum
p. 202. Mr. Gordon Duff has pointed out to me a singular case
where a marginal note has found its way into the text of an English
printed book. In T. Greenhill's NfKpoKrjbeCa, or the Art of Embalming,
London, 1705, p. 347, the writer is speaking of a tomb, said to be
that of Cicero's daughter, TulHa, in which, when it was opened,
ADDENDA ^53
a lamp was found still burning. According to the printed text,
' Judaeus Apella thinks it not to have been reduced to ashes by
burning, but by the inmission of air or contact with the body '.
This must have its origin in a marginal comment credat ludacits
Apella. Still more curiously, the name of ludacus Apella figures
among the list of authorities given at the end of the book.
A marginal note in Poggio's copy of Asconius {Matrit. x. 81),
apparently written by him, has had a curious history. After
reading the arguments of Asconius to show that Cicero did not
defend Catiline, as asserted by Fenestella, he wrote in the margin :
Vincis me. Itaque puto non defendisse sed tantum de defendendo cogitasse,
quod per epistulam negari non potest
This note was reproduced in various MSS. derived from Poggio's
copy and received into the text by early editors (omitting vincis
me). It remained there until 1H33, when it was struck out by
Baiter.
p. 309. Cf. Lucr. vi. 840 :
frigidior porro in puteis aestate fit umor.
Here there is a lacuna between lines 839 and 840. In the Oblongus
frigidior is preceded by que, in the Qtiadraius by quae, in the
Italian copies by cur. These variants appear to be corruptions of
Q (= quaere), a marginal sign to mark the lacuna (cf. p. ^^).
p. 315. According to Baiter in Marc. 25 A omits si tibi soli
viveres aut (20). H , however, omits inveres aut si tibi etiam soli
(25). We should expect to find the 5ame omission in AH. It is
possible that Baiter has misreportcd A, I have, therefore, not
included this passage.
p. 439. I have not referred to the thorny question of stichometry
in connexion with Phil. iii. According to a note found both in i)
and in B, it consisted of 580 <jrl\o\.. This suits the shorter version,
given by ^, better than the longer version, found in B. W. Christ,
who maintains that the (tti'xoi refer to the edition of Atticus, allows
that the longer text was in existence before the date of this edition.
It is noticeable that Dionysius (p. 947 Reiske) lays stress on the
length of the speech («r 8« ^\] fjLfyCaTj] tQv Kara 4>iAi7r7rov brjfxriyopioiv) ^
INDEXES
I. GENERAL INDEX
i7, oper«, 171.
It, prothetic, i6g.
iitiuf (= ii/fc-r anibo',>e), 205.
abridged texts, 27-31, 40, 123, 147-
53- 394-5, 439-45-
atnf>l(t, 254.
ancient abbreviations, 10, 125, 1 50.
ancient variants, 126,172, 268, 310-11,
440.
m-a>, I.
a^\ain (Khocrii, 44^'
auieitt, insular sign.
b and ?' confused, 126, 169.
blank pages, 47, 213, 220.
bulge in curve of omissions, 12. 22, 33,
36, 65. 72, 76, S3, 251, 254, 275,
409, 416.
c. r. (= civis Romanus), 225, 233.
L. V. (= clarus vf'r), 182, 190.
Caroline revisers. 16S, 228.
I o/u and cotnimita, 46.
columns and long lines in same MS.,
95. 341-
narrow, 7, 10, 12-14, 40, 44-5, 124,
261, 319.
squeezed, 13, 17, 48, 66, 94, 166, 227.
three, 163.
conflation of variants, 1 70, 199, 226,
277,311.
contraction of script, 23, 47-8, 142,
168,215-16,236,337.
corrector, 26.
cum confused with que (= quaere),
309-
d = (iecst, '4.
= dico, 1 70.
ti'^=dimissui», 34, 107, 328-9-
lieletum, 34.
hr)nuifiT]i fgdofflt, 44^-
diniissum, 34, 328-9-
biir\^, 441, 443.
dislocations, 17, 190, 194, 270- 1, 327,
374-J>2. 405-6.
dittography, 6-y passim.
doctored passages, 40, 100, 122-3,1^7
149. 3^9 «•
doublets, 52, 126, 170, 189, 221, 227,
297. 3'o, 419-
d"/- = Ut super.
E and ^confused, 167, 227, 245.
e. prothetic, 169, 224.
ecclesiastical corruptions, 171.
Exxerpta Cusana, 162, 294.
Montepoliliana^ 290, 307.
fly-leaves, 36, 58, 105, iii, 204, 285,
287, 327, 332.
folios, loose, 194.
lost, 105, 172, 283, 2S6, 294.
omitted by scribe, 366, 392.
transposed, 271, 327, 426.
7 = ypii(f)fTm, 107.
gr.grec. = Graecutn. 199, 353.
Gospels, Old Latm, 40, 45, 96-103.
h = ///V, 34 passim.
K= auiem, I07, 202.
//. d. — hie deest, 34 passim.
h. I. = hie lege, 34 passim.
h. m. — hie minus, 34, 186, 193.
h. p. — hie pone, 34.
h. s. = hie supple, 34, 49, 1 70.
hie dimissum. 328, 333.
hie permutatum, 333.
homoeoareton, I.
homoeoteleuton, i.
/, prothetic, 168.
ignorance of scribes, 3, i68-l7t.
intercolumnar notes, 50, 178.
46^'
GENERAL INDEX
irregular gatherings, 48, 219.
isse = ipse, 1 89.
Italian interpolations, 267.
A', KP = captit, 221, 318.
K = neififvov, 107, 418.
KUTCO, I,
t=vel, 35.
lacunae, 105, ill, 283, 293, 33Mo-
large figures, significance of, 10, 24,
25, 39-40, 58, 61, 68, 72, 89, loi,
120, 125, 136, 174, 200, 207, 216-
17, 234, 276, 321, 335, 356, 395,
403, 435. 438, 444-
line omissions and parentage, 7-9, 203,
396,404,409,413-14.
lines struck out by abbre viator, 26-31,
147-53, 394-5' 439-45.
long lines in ancient MSS., 15.
M, reference mark, 50.
marginal notes received into text, 202.
}ma = misericordia, 170.
model bound up with copy, 164.
broader than copy, 87, 96.
similar to copy, 41, 57, 80, 87, 91,
93, 97-102, 106, 206,273, 287,297,
392, 4C2, 406, 427.
nomina sacra, 10, 107.
normal line, 43.
notes on dittography, 160.
on transpositions, 172, 271, 332-4,
426 n.
number of lines to page, 45. Cf. ic6,
121, 236.
obeli, 439-45-
omissio ex homoeoteletito, I pasmn.
omission of
column, 226, 328, 341, 392.
complete lines, 8, 19, 24, 33.
folios, 366, 392. Ql. folios lost.
page, 102, 336.
self-contained passages, 100.
telescoped passages, 3-4, 18, 40, 66,
68, 74, 79, 81, 89, 129, 174-5, 186,
206-7, 222, 230, 249, 254,306, 316,
340, 345, 347, 351, 354-5, 387-8,
431-
omission marks, 34.
in wrong place, 50.
received into text, 34, 38, to, 108,
115, 117, 170, 186, 192, 193, 246,
292, 307, 308, 309.
O^OKlT-l^f, 1,
orthography, 169,
pag. ^ Piigina, 193.
pagination of ancestor, 51-2, 62, 85,
136, 166-7, 177, 185, 195, 200,
235, 271-2, 321-3, 349, 381-2, 431,
438.
papyri eclectic in character, 268, 385.
paragraphs, 47.
proprii errores, \']2.
Q = qiiaere, 35, 309.
quaternions omitted, 162, 172, 283.
signatures of, 46, 141, 156, 212, 218-
20, 228, 236-9, 330.
transposed, 327.
qtee [quam)= Qinrites, 188, 197.
quum, 169.
R = recita, 221, 242,
B = require, 35, 38, 70, 72 passim.
in text, 170, 194, 307, 328.
rt = reliqua, 29.
Bl'_Z — require vel fijTfi, 35.
RQ = require, 35.
in text, 292, 326.
repetition after column, 136, 144, 235,
321-2.
folio, 177, 185, 195, 2CO, 271-2, 428.
page, 323, 349, 381, 438-
quaternion, 382. Cf. 345.
sanatus ■= senatus, 126.
Schol. Bob., 46, 156-61, 284, 299,
307-
Schol. Gronov., 330 «.
scribbling in MSS., 36.
signatures of scribes, 48.
signes de renvoi, 34, 49.
size of MSS., 46.
papyri, 43-5.
spacmg, 42, 93.
sr. siir = super, 34, 54.
stichometry, 43.
stray capitals, 227.
tachygraphic signs, 328-30.
tetralogies, Platonic, 383.
GENERAL INDEX
\57
Imrsprsition variants, 146, 155, 1S7,
255-6, 296, 305,430.
transpositions, 28, 190, 191, 194, 209,
2^0, 271, 279. 304, 327, 330 sqq.,
349. 356, 357, 361, 374-«2, 393,
430, 431. Cf. iiisloca/ions.
unrevised text of IMato, 385, 414.
us = -cir spechibilis, 161.
variants out of place, 49 passim.
vowels confused, 169.
words bisected, 179, 180, 181, 185.
z = C'7"'. 35. 107, 430-
Zi¥ = C'/T*«, require, 35.
II. LIST OF MSS.
(A) PAPYRI
(i) Greek.
Hibeh 26. 'Prrrop«K») Trpo? 'AXt^aiS/joi, cent, iii B.C. pp.
O-xyrhynch. 16. Thucydides, cent, i A.D. pp. i, 310.
Xenophon, cent, ii/iii A. D. p. 311.
Plato, cent, ii/iii A.D. pp. 385, 417.
Plato, cent, ii/iii A.D. pp. 311, 385.
463-
843-
1016.
(2) Latin.
Berol. 13229. Cicero, Plane, cent, v A.D. p.
Oxyrhynch. 1251. Cicero, Cael., cent, v A.D.
II-12.
pp. 266-8, 311.
(B) GREEK MSS.
I-lorence, Laur. Ixxxi. II. Aristotle, cent. x. p. 421.
Oxford, Bodl., Clark. 39. Plato, cent. ix. pp. 384 sqq.
Coll. Corp. Christi 112. Aristotle, cent. xv. p. 421,
Paris 1807. Plato, cent. ix. pp. 384 sqq.
1808. Plato, cent. xiii. p. 414.
1809. Plato, cent. xv. p. 414.
2934. Demosthenes, cent. x. pp. 418 sqq.
Rome, Vat. i. Plato, cent. ix/x. p. 396.
225-6. Plato, cent. xv. p. 404.
X'enice 185. Plato, cent. xii. pp. 384, 405-11.
App. Class. 4, I. Plato, cent. xii. pp. 384, 411-14.
\'ienna 55. Plato, cent. xiv. pp. 384, 414-17.
Suppl. phil. Gr. 7. Plato, cent. xii. pp. 384, 417.
(C) PALIMPSESTS (LATIN)
Milan E 147 sup.
R 57 sup.
Rome, Vat. 5750,
575'
Schol. Bobiensis, cent. v. pp. 46, 156-61.
Cic. Oratt., cent. v. pp. 13, 153-6, 281-2.
Schol. Bobiensis, cent. v. pp. 46, 156-61.
Cic. Rep., cent. iv. pp. 12, 45, 124-38, 235.
Pal. 24. Cic. Font., cent. iv. p. 281.
Reg. 2077. Cic. Verr., cent. iv. pp. 14, 45-6, 212-26.
Turin, A. ii. 2*. Cic. Oratt., cent. iv. pp. 14, 45, 138-56, 226, 291-4.
458
LIST OF MSS.
Phil. 20I
Breslau, R. 169.
Brussels 5345.
IC060.
Carlsruhe ccxii.
(D) LATIN MSS.
Bamberg, M. iv. 5. Cic. Phil., cent. xiii. p. 208.
Berne 136. Cic. post red., cent. xii. p. 24.
363. Horace, cent. ix. pp. 27-31.
366. Val. Maximus, cent. ix. p. 35.
Berlin, fol. 253. Cic. Oratt., cent, xii/xiii. pp. 9, 266-80, 292.
Cic. Phil., cent. xii. pp. 201-2.
Old Latin Gospels, cent, vii/viii. pp. 96-103.
Cic. Oratt., cent. xii. pp. 266-80.
Cic. Cat., cent. xi. pp. 315-16.
Priniasins, cent. viii. p. 104.
Cassel, Theol. fol. 24. Primasius, cent. ix. p. 104.
Cluni 496. Cic. Oratt., cent, viii (.'). pp. 18, 266 sqq., 285 sqq.
498 (= Holkham 387). Cic. Oratt., cent. ix. pp. 48, 235-52, 310 sqq.
Cues C 14. Cic. excerpts, cent. xii. p. 162.
Florence, Bad. 2618. Cic. Oratt., cent. xv. pp. 244-52.
Conv. Soppr. 13. Cic. Oratt., cent. xv. p. 8.
Laur. xlv. 2. Cic. Cat., cent. xiii. pp. 310 sqq.
xlviii. I. Nonius, cent. ix. p. 35.
10. Cic. Oratt., cent. xv. p. 290.
13. Cic. Oratt., cent. xv. p. 9.
24. Cic. Oratt., cent. xv. pp. 8-9.
29. Cic. Verr., cent. xv. p. 8.
1. 4;j. Cic. Oratt , cent. X. pp. 317-18.
liv. 5. Cic. excerpts, Asconius, cent. xv.
S. Crucis xxiii, sin. 3. Cic. Oratt., cent. xiv. pp. 292, 306.
S. Marci 257. Cic. Nat. D., etc., cent. x. pp. 8, 325.
Plautus, cent. xi. p. 41.
Cic. Nat. D., etc., cent. ix/x. pp. 324 sqq., 341 sqq.
Cic. Nat. D., etc., cent. x. pp. 8, 324 sqq., 345 sqq.
Cic. Nat. D., etc., cent. xi. pp. 324 sqq , 352-4.
Cic. Oratt., cent. x. pp. 201, 208-9, 310-15.
pp. 290, 292, 364 sqq.
Heidelberg, Pal. 161 3
Leiden, Voss. fol. 84.
86.
118.
O 2.
London (Brit. Mus.)
Add. 1 1875.
Augustine, cent. ix/x. pp. 46, 50.
Gregory, cent, vii, pp. 37, 47, 52.
Tironian notes, cent. x. p. 34.
Cassiodorus, cent. x. pp. 5, 35.
Bible, cent. ix. p. 163.
Gregory, cent. viii. p. 107.
Isidorus, cent. ix/x. pp. 42, 48 n.
Origen, cent. vii. pp. 7, 37, 54-8.
Cotton Vesp. A l. Psalter, cent. viii. p. 47.
B vi. Bede, cent. ix.
1934. Isidorus, cent, viii/ix. p. 164.
Jerome, cent, viii/ix. pp. 95-6.
Alcuin, cent. ix/x. p. 49.
Gospels, cent. vii. pp. 46-7.
Cic. Nat. D., etc., cent. xii. p. 354.
Quintilian, cent. x/xi. p. 33.
Livy, cent. x. p. 33.
Cic. Oratt., cent. xi. pp. 9, 35, 202, 307, 310 sqq.
Isidorus, cent. ix. p. 3.
Cic. Verr., cent. xv. p. 8.
Horace, cent. x. p. 41.
Arundel
Burney
Egerton
Harley
1 1878.
21 164.
21215.
24142.
31031-
129.
340.
2831.
208.
1775-
2622.
2664.
2672.
2682.
2686.
2687.
2688.
LIST OF MSS. 459
London (Brit. Mus.) [conlinttc'd).
Harlcy 2719. Nunius, cent. ix/x. p. 35.
2725. Horace, cent. X. p. 4i-
2736. Cic. Oratt., cent. x. pp. 35, 47.
2767. Vitriivius, cent, ix/.x. p. 33.
3012. Seduliu.s, cent. ix. p. 4.
3024. Theodulphus, cent. ix/x. p. 48.
3034. Isidorus, Aiigu.stine, cent. viii. p. 5.
3063. Theodoras of Mopsiiestia, cent. ix. pp. 37, 52.
4937. Cic. Oratt., cent. xii. p. 266.
5041. Theol. Tracts, cent. vii. p. 45.
5642. Glossary, cent. ix/x. p. 48/:.
5786. Psalter, cent. xii. p. 163.
5792. Glossary, cent. vii. p. 34.
Regius 15 A. Cic. Phil., cent. xi. pp. 201-4.
Munich 528. Cic. Nat. D., etc., cent. xi. p. 325.
15734. Cic. Oratt., cent. XV. p. 267.
18787. Cic. Oratt., cent. x/xi. pp. 201, 204-8, 291-2, 306.
19472. Cic. Cat,, cent. xi. pp. 315-16.
>'adridx. 81. .Asconius, cent. xv. pp. 364fqq.
.Milan Ambr. C 29 infr. Cic. Oratt., cent. x. pp. 35. 3iosqq.
Oxford (Bodleian)
Bodl. 206. Ambrose, cent. xii. p. 50.
218. Bede, cent. ix. p. 46.
603. Acardus, cent. xiii. p. 2.
Douce 140. Primasius, cent, vii/viii. pp. 2, 34, 40, 42-3, 48, 104-23.
Laud. Lat. 22. Maccabees, cent, viii/ix. p. 45.
29. Cic. Tusc, cent. ix. p. 164.
33. Psalter, cent. x. p. 163.
117. Servius, cent. x/xi. pp. 35, 50.
Laud. Misc. 92. Fulgentius, cent, viii/ix. pp. 5, 70-2.
120. Augustine, cent. ix. pp. 35, 42, 72-5.
121. Augustine, cent. ix. pp. 39, 58-62.
124. Augustine, cent. ix. pp. 83-5.
126. Augustine, cent. viii. p. 35.
132. Augustine, cent. ix/x. pp. 46, 82-3.
134. Augustine, cent. ix. pp. 4, 38, 63-6.
135. Augustine, cent. ix. p. 42.
139. Augustine, cent. ix. pp. 6, 36, 42, 47.
148. Jerome, cent. ix. pp. 38, 47, 57-8.
252. Jerome, cent. ix/x. pp. 37, 47- 5I» 66-70.
256. Jerome, cent. ix. pp. 6, 49, 87-9.
271. Gregory, cent. ix. p. 36.
275. Jerome, cent. ix. p. 6.
417. Jerome, cent. x. pp. 89-91.
427. Pseudo-Bede, cent. ix. pp. 85-7.
433. Gregory, cent. ix. pp. 91-3.
451. Cyprian, cent. ix. p. 42.
' 452. Chrysostom, Origcn, cent. ix/x. pp. 6, 42, 75-80.
456. Gregory, cent. ix/x. p. 50.
464. Authpertus, cent. ix. pp. 46, 49, 80-2.
Paris. 2185. Primasius, cent. x. p. 104.
5730. Livy, cent. v/vi. pp. 16, 46.
5802. Cic. Phil., cent. xiii. p. 201.
6602. Cic. Phil., cent. xiii. p. 201.
7744.\. Cic. Verr., cent. ix. pp. 221, 227-35.
460
LIST OF MSS.
7776.
7794.
7823.
7833.
Paris, {continued)
7775. Cic. Verr., cent. xiii. p. 228.
Cic. Verr., cent. xi. pp. 252-5.
Cic. post red., cent. ix. pp. 23, 46, 268-80.
Cic. Verr., cent. xv. p. 228.
Asconius, cent. xv. p. 24.
7900A. Ouintilian, cent. ix. p. 164.
8084. Prudentius, cent. vi. p. 34.
14749. Cic. Oratt., cent. xv. pp. 18-24, 266-75, 28 1, 284-90, "92-4, 299-
309-
Nouv. Acq. 2195. Psalter, cent. xii. p. 164.
Perugia E. 71. Cic. Oratt., cent. xv. p. 290.
Pistoia, Forteguerri 37. Asconius, cent. xv. pp. 24, 364 sqq.
Rome.
Basil. S. Petri, H. 25. Cic. Pis,, cent. viii. ; Phil., etc., cent, ix, pp. 17, 48,
162-201, 2tJI.
Vat. 3327. Cic. Phil., cent. xii. p. 202.
Cic. Phil., cent. x. pp. 201-3, 208-9.
Plautus, cent, xi, p 41.
Cic. Nat. D., etc., cent, xi. pp. 325, 354.
Cic. Oratt., cent. xiv. p. 26.
Livy, cent. ix. p. 48 «.
Toledo 15. 8. Isidorus, cent, viii/ix. pp. 46, 54.
Vienna 15. Livy, cent. v. pp, 16, 45,
Wolfenbiittel 205, Cic. Oratt., cent. xv. pp. 18, 244.
3328.
3870,
Vat. Pal. 1 5 19.
1820.
Vat. Reg. 762.
III. LIST OF NAMES AND PLACES
Acardus, 2.
Albinus, 383.
Allen, T. W., 3S6, 398.
Arethas, 398, 402, 404.
Aristippus, 386.
Bannister, 325, 396.
Bee, 325,
Bekker, 384 sqq.
Birt, 43.
Blass, 440 sqq.
Bobbio, 146, 153, 156.
Burnet, 384 sqq.
Castiglioncho, Lapo da, 292.
Chatelain, 34, 146, 154, 330.
Christ, W., z^}„ 439.
Cluni, 18, 235, 239, 285.
Cobet, 384-5.
Colocci, 201.
Constantine (Bishop), 387.
Conway and Walters, 49.
Conybeare, 385-6.
Coponii, 267.
Corbie, 54.
Cratander, 282.
Delisle, 235.
Dercyllides, 383.
de Ricci, 15, 177, 200.
Dindorf, 418 sqq.
Donatus, i, 278.
Diimmler, 35,
Ekkehart, 35.
Eusebius, 385, 404, 414.
Ferrarius, 201-2.
Fournival, Richard de, 325
Fronto, 46, 147.
Fuhr, 419.
LIST OF NAMES AND PLACKS
461
r.ellius, 172.
(iraux, 45.
Grenfell and Hunt, 43, 385, 417.
Haase, 97-8.
Halm, 184 sqq., 229, 266-8.
Harpocration, 437.
Jiaussleitcr, 104 sqq.
Havet, I, 5, 4l»49, 145. -95-
Hermogcne?, 429.
Hildcbrand, 46, 156.
Immisch, 384 tt, 386.
Johannes Arrctiniis. 290.
John (scribe), 398, 400-2, 406.
Jordan, 396.
Kiessling and Scholl, 365.
Klotz, A., 266, 270.
Kougeas, 398.
Krai, 410, 415, 417.
Kriiger, P., 147, '49, 151 •
Lagomarsini, 244.
Lindsay, 27, 34, 50.
Loew, 284, 324.
Lorsch, 34, 75, 85, 89, 91.
Madvig, 263, 266-7.
Mai. 213. 222, yjGn.
Manitius, 325 //.
Maximus, 431.
Meusel, 221.
Monte Cassino, 284.
Montepolitiano, Bartolomaeus de, 290,
292, 364.
Niebuhr, 46.
Nohl, 309.
Norden, 318.
Omont, 386.
Onions, 35.
Peterson, 24, 221, 230, 245, 249, 255,
258, 302-3.
Peutinger, 282.
Peyron, 13-14, 45, 141, 147, 292.
Plasberg, 325, 338.
Pluygers, 327.
Poggio, 18, 172, 191-2, 196, 285,
364 sqq.
Purser, 9.
Quintihan, 221, 293, 310.
Reader, 310.
Reififerscheid, 245.
Rodulfus, 324.
Rorarius, 282.
St. Denis, 80.
Sanday, 104-5.
Schanz, 384 sqq.
Schneider, 414.
Schone, 417.
Schwenke, 8, 324.
Shipley, 48 «.
Simbeci<, 49.
Simpson, P., 2.
Skeat, 7.
Sozomenus, 24, 364 sqq.
Stangl, 24, 364 sqq.
Stewart, J. A., 42: //.
Stobaeus, 3S5, 404, 414.
Tegaro, 333.
Thomas, E., 228, 232-3.
Thrasylus, 383.
Traube, 104, 164.
Van Buren, 124.
Varro, 283.
Vogels, 41,96.
Waddell, 405 sqq.
Walters, 34.
Wickham Legg, i.
Wohlrab, 384.
Wrampelmeyer, 18.
Wurzburg, 33, 58, 63, 70, 72, Z^, 87.
Zielinski, 19S.
462
IV. LIST OF CHIEF PASSAGES
REFERRED TO
ASCONIUS AND PSEUDO-ASCONIUS
(references to Stangl's Cic. Oratt.
Scholiastae), 24. 7, p. 369 : 27. 16,
p. 372: 41. 1 1, p. 370: 12, p. 371:
27, p. 371 : 42. 20, p. 365 : 44- 4,
p. 369: 12, p. 371 : 68. 17, p. 365:
206. 14, p. 369: 211. 14, p. 373:
226. II, p. 369: 228. I, p. 370:
9, P- 373 •• 231. 26, p. 368: 234.
20, p. 3S2: 238. 17, pp. 364, 371,
375 : 20, p. 372: 241. 5, P- 365 :
16, p. 368 : 244. 8-246. 12, p. 365 :
26, p. 382: 251. 14, p. 373 : 256.
17, p. 372: 257. s, p. 372: 260.
15, p, 368.
Cicero.
(a) Letters.
Favt. vi, 9. l-io. 6, pp. 45, 147-53-
(b) Philosophical works.
Divin. i. 51, p. 328: 58, p. 344:
70, pp. 356, 360 : 97-8, Dp. 355-6 :
115, p. 361 : 132, p. 326.
'•• 7, P- 349.
Fat. 4, p. 334 : 41, pp. 333, 355,
362 : 46, p. 329 : 48, p. 333-
LeiT. 1. 21, p. 333.
ii. 4, p. 334: 13, P- 334-
ill. 20, p. 329 : 38, p. 334 : 48, p.
334.
Lticiill. 2, p. 333 : 13, p. 333 : 109,
p. 355: 126, p. 358.
Aat. D. i. 1-2, p. 328 : 2, pp. 356-7
6, p. 348: 12, p. 8: 24, p. 344
77, p. 361: 85, p. 353: 89, p. 357
91, p. 334: 120, pp. 343, 354
123, pp. 343-4-
li. 16, pp. 327, 345, 349 : 37, p.
353 •• 50, P- 347 : 81, p. 8: 98,
p. 358: 100, p. 362 : III, p. 357:
123, p. 361 : 132, pp. 355, 362:
"^lil, P- 363: 146, p. 362.
iii. I, p. 360: 8, p. 358: 13, pp.
326, 328: 24, pp. 344, 359: 32,
p. 355 : 42, p. 360; 45, P- 359:
50, p. 357 : 61, p. 359: b5,P- 328:
69, p. 355: 81, p. 360: 84, p. 357.
Parad. 37, p. lii.
Cicero {continued}.
Res Piibl., pp. 12, 234-5.
i.22, p. 136: 28, p. 137: 49, p. 137:
67, P- 137: 71, P- 137.
II. 30, p. 138.
Tim. 38, pp. 334, 351, 354 : 38-4^.,
PP- 327, 338, 355 : 44, p. 361 :
44-8, pp. 327, 338, 355 : 48, p.
334.
Top. 1-3, pp. 327-8,332: 14, p. 347:
28, pp. 329, 345 : 28-72, pp. 527^
8, 332.
Speeches.
Balb. 7-8, p. 277 : 37, p. 277.
Cael. 2-3, p. 276 : 18-27, p. 27c :
25, p. 267 : 27, pp. I, 278 : 27-36,
p. 270 : 29, p. 268 : 35, p. 268 :
■3,']., p. 268 : 38, p. 270 : 42, p. 278 :
43-7, p. 18 : 49, pp. 267-8 : 50,
p. 267.
Cafil. i. II, p. 315 : 13, p. 320.
ii. 4, P- 318: 5, p. 320: 27, p. 310:
29, p. 312.
iii. 20, p. 317: 25, pp. 314-15, 318,
320, 322.
iv. 8, p. 316: 9, p. 320 : 12, p. 317:
13, p. 319: 14, pp. 318-19: 22,
PP- 3'7, 319-
Chi. 36, p. 291 : 72, p. 301 : 84,
p. 302: 102-7, p. 288: 127-33,
p. 288 : 130, p. 305 : 137, p. 303 :
149-54, p- 288 : 153, p. 303: 176-
82, p. 289: 177, p. 304-
Deiot. 24, pp. 321, 323.
Dom. 24, p. 279 : 30, p. 309.
Flacc. 1-39, p. 283 : 40, p. 298 : 46,
p. 298 : 47, p. 299 : 75-83, p. 282 :
105, p. 301.
Font. 11-49, P- 283 : 23, p. 298 : 25,
p. 297 : 32, p. 297.
Har. Resp. 18, p. 27 1 : 23, p. 279 :
46, p. 271.
Lig. 10, p. 310 : 13, pp. 321-3 : 14,
pp. 311, 318: 21, pp. 310,318.
Marc. 2, p. 311.
Mil. 8, p. 307: 18-37, pp. 292-3:
34, p. 292 : 46, p. 308 : 47, p. 5c8:
66, p. 309 : 67, p. 307.
LIST OF CHIKF PASSAGES RKFERRED TO 46 j
Cicero {continued).
Mur. 51, p. 309: 58, p. 303: 65,
p. 304 : 67, p. 304 : 86, p. 289.
Phil. i. II, p. 191 : 30, p. 197: 31,
p. 198: 36, p. 192.
11. 3, p. 192; 27, p. 190: 30, p. 182:
39, p. 181 : 54, p. 180 : 56, p. 183:
58, p. 182: 68, p. 178: 69, p. 178:
74, p. 178: 75, p. 180: 79, p. 190:
«5» P- 187: 93-6, pp. 172, 175,
^77 94, P- J91 : lotJ. P- I99 : 1 10,
p. 187: 115, pp. 180, 187.
iii. 8, p. 81: 12, p. 196: 17, p. 179:
21, p. 180: 31, p. 178: 36, p. 187.
iv. 4, p. 188: 13, p. 197.
V. 4, p- 186 : 12, p. 196 : 30, p. 189:
31-vi. iS, pp. 172, 176.
vi. 3, p. 181 : 10, pp. 185, 195.
vii. 4, p. 188: 6, pp. 174,193: II,
PP- 35, 194-
MM. 5, pp. 184, 195 : 7, p. 178: 9,
p. 178: 22, p. 179: 30, p.UjG: 32,
p. 188.
i.\. 2, p. 188 : 3, p. 182 : 4, pp. 183,
188 : 14, p. 189.
X. 8-10, pp. 172, 175 : 15, p. 189.
XI. I, p. 179; 7, p. 197: 9, p. 209:
14, p. 198: 17. P- 172 : 18-20,
p. 166 : 26, p. 188.
xii. 12-23, P- 194: 22, p. 189.
xiii. i-io, p. 194.
xiv. 13, p. 200: 14, p. 191.
/'is. I, p. 9 : 21, p. 295 : 48, p. 295 :
57, p. 297 : 64. p. 296 : 65, p. 296:
70, p. 296 : 72, p. 297.
/'/anc. 27-8, 46-7, pp. 15, 26, 45,
177,200.
(Juincf. 85, p. 301.
RoK. Am. II, p. 329: 46, p. 289:
loi, p. 289.
AW/, ii. 86, p. 8.
Scaur. 34, p. 155: 43, p. 155.
Sest. 6, p. 269 : 8, p. 278 : 42. p. 277 :
58, pp. 276, 278 : 85, p. 279 : no,
p. 280.
^'at. 4-5, p. 272: 6, p. 272: 15,
p. 156: 26, p. 277.
I'err. Divin. 65-6, p. 230.
Actio Prima 25, p. 262.
Verr. i. 45. PP- 147, 227 : 87, p. 254:
130, p. 252.
II. I, p. 224: 10, p 243 : 22, p. 244:
23-4. p. 242 : 61, p. 253: 64,
p. 223 : 66, p. 260 : 86, p. 260 :
116, p. 226 : 121, p. 263 : J51,
p. 251 : 155, p. 224: 167, p. 263:
176, p. 241 : 181, p. 251.
iii. 67, p. 262 : 69, p. 226 : 74,
p. 264: ^^, p. 223: 109, p. 249:
117, p. 263: 124, p. 258: 171,
p. 225: 172, p 222: 183, p. 223.
IV. 52-3, p. 255 : 63, p. 9 : 88,
p. 231 : 110, p. 9: 144, p. 262 :
151, p. 229.
V. 18, p. 232 : 20, p. 233 : 56, pp.
230, 263 : 61, p. 230 : 72, p. 225 :
81, pp. 223, 264: 93, p. 231 : 94,
p. 232 : 98, p. 224: 130, p. 225 :
133, P- 224: 140, p. 233 : 141,
P- 254 : 153, p. 234 : 162-71,
p. 230 : 168, p. 8 : 173, p. 231 :
186, pp. 234-5.
Demosthenes.
i. 19, p. 430.
III. 7, p. 429.
IV. 30, p. 42S.
yi. 3, p. 430.
IX, (I'hil. iii), pp. 436-9 : 17, p. 419.
X. 69-70, p. 424.
XV. 9, p. 424.
xvui. 25, p. 424: 56, p. 423: 87,
p. 427 •■ 112, p. 429: 257, pp. 423,
425 : 305, p. 428.
XX. 104, p. 427.
xxi. {Mi(iias)y pp. 439-45 : 40, p.
421: 100, p. 4,31: 137, p. 428:
150, p. 421 : 157, p. 428 : 160,
p. 428.
xxii. 23, p. 431 : 67, p. 435.
xxiii. 198, p. 420.
xxiv. 27, p. 427 : 100, p. 431.
xxvii. 16, pp. 428-9: 35, p. 421 :
42, p. 422.
xxviii. 4, p. 422.
-vxxi. 3, p. 423 : 14, p. 420.
xxxiv. 7, p. 435.
XXXV. 3, p. 422 : 56, p. 420.
xxxix. 3, p. 422.
xl. 5, p. 429 : 54, p. 425.
xliii. 32, p. 422.
xlvii. 27, p. 423 : 32, p. 420 : 74-5,
pp. 425, 429.
xlix. 45, p. 428.
1. 17, p. 430.
liii. 4, p. 42t!.
liv. 2, p. 120.
Iv. 5, p. 430 : 26-7, p. 424.
Ivii. 10, p. 4:0 : 40, p. 423.
464 LIST OF CHIEF PASSAGES REFERRED TO
Demosthenes {continued).
Iviii. 49, p. 430 : 62, pp. 419, 422.
lix, 5, p. 431 : 8, p. 420 : 9, p. 420 :
15, p. 428: 63, p. 431 : 83-9,
pp. 426, 435 : 87-8, pp. 426, 434,
436: 89-107, pp. 426,435.
Ix. 4, p. 430: 5, p. 422: 15, p. 429:
20, p. 428.
Ixi. 13, p. 429.
Prooem. xxix,p. 432 : xxxix, p. 426 :
xl. pp. 426, 438.
Horace.
Sal. I. 3. 75-125, pp- 30-1.
Plato.
Alcib. 1. 106 c, p. 413 : 120 e, p. 406.
Charm. 172 a, p. 403.
Cratyl. 437 b, p. 413 : 438 a, p. 410,
Jiuthyd. 276 b, p. 402.
Jiuihyphro 8 d, p. 401
Hifp. ma. 248 e, p. 413.
Leg. 668 d, p. 390: 731c, p. 391:
745 a-c, pp. 392, 398: 783 b-d,
PP- 392, 398 : 849 e, p. 387 : S74 b,
p. 391: 920 b, p. 387.
Meno<^l\>, p. 413.
Phaedo 64 e, p. 409 : Sob, p. 413.
Phileb. 18 c, p. 413.
Protag. 312 e, p. 402: 335 b-c, p.
409.
Rep. 400 a, p. 391 : 469 a, p. 409:
511a, p. 413: 607 a, p. 409: 616 c,
p. 409.
Theaet. 160 c, p. 401 : 192 b-e, p.
403-
Tim. 58 e, p. 387: 66 b-c, p. 393.
Cf. pp. 338-9.
£>>A3iid-e, p. 393.
Defin. 4iie-4i2a, p. 395: 4156,
P- 394-
SCHOL. BOBIENSIS (references to
Hildebrand, Teubner).
74. 8, p. 157: 80. 10, p. 157: 105.
25, p. 158: 125. 21, p. 158: 27,
p. 157 : 133. 8, p. 158 : 147. I,
p. 157.
PRINTED IN ENGLAND
AT THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
PA
47
C4$
Clark, Albert Curtis
The descent of manu-
scripts
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY
