CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME OF , THE. SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND GIVEN IN 1891 BY HENRY WILLIAMS SAGE CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 1924 063 560 548 Cornell University Library The original of tiiis book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924063560548 THE DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS LONDON EDINBURGH GLASGOW NEW YORK TORONTO MELBOURNE CAPE TOWN BOMBAY HUMPHREY MILFORD PUBLISHER TO THK UNIVERSITY THE DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS BY A. C. CLARK CORPUS PROFESSOR OF LATIN IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD OXFORD AT THE CLARENDON PRESS PREFACE This work has been in type for some time, 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 reditum, &c., 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 19 13) 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 with 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. 1 TTie Primitive Text of the Gospels and Acts, Oxford, 1914. Qi. Journal of Theological Studies, 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. (a) 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. ofiotoTTjs (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 33 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 couise 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 nurtlber 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 thd 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 cui-ve 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/xotoTJ/sr, but reject others which are not absolutely necessary, thoti'gh 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 o/xoio'ttjs met with a short shrift. The first duty of the critic was to prune the text, and the fatal maxim brevior lectiff 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 o-kAtj^oV a-oi irpos Kevrpa 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 differ 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 numbei's 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 ofioiorris 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 37-9 letters : there is also one dittography which consists of 56 letters (p. 55). 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, &c.). Much convincing evidence is given by transpositions. When we 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 duplices lec- tiones, or doublets, go back to a very ancient date. Sometimes they are corruptions or voces nihili, 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 : in Phil. ii. 106, where the MSS. have a vox nihili (variously corrupted) which I take to be a doublet for a word in § 104, the intermediate space consists of 953 letters (pp. 199-aoi). 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 Beme Horace, and particularly to the version which it gives of Sat. i. 3. 75-135 (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 are often X PREFACE found (p. 133) 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. Fam. 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 itaque, 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 aa lines in his model, he disguises his handiwork by inserting nihil erit saltern. A minor example is to be found in the pseudo-Platonic "Opoi 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 in 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. 346-8. 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 quaecnmque 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 (§§ 217-18) 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 : jroXXor S' Iftepoevra )(ophv itfpdiTTaff o/uXos Tepiroiuvot' /ucra te o-^if efiiXireTO Btlos aoibos (jtopfu^cav' Scum 8e KujSitrri/r^pe kot airovs fioKTTTJs c^dpxovTos iblvevov Kara fietrtrovs The words jixera hi . . . ^opixi^iav are not found in any MSS. or scholia. They are also absent from the Harris papyrus and B. M. 137. 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 (eiriTe/nwj/ to wouJ/iOTa rbv rpoTtov TovTov). It is to be noticed that without the missing words f^ap^ovTos ^ (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. ^ and N — 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 Bezae {D). My argument is founded in the first place upon omissions. I have put together 41 cases where £i^ &c. omit passages which occupy lines in D. To illustrate the character of these omissions I take Acts i. 5. Here D gives, with support from the versions : Kai o fuWerai \afi^avav ' So Athenaeus; our MSS. have i^ipxavres, so Od. iv. 17-8. xii PREFACE ou fiera jroWas ravras rjufpas eas TTjs irevTTjKoaTrfs Ba &c. omit lines a and 4. In another block of 30 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. mg^ : Tore 7ravT€s ot avveXdovres KaL aKovfravres KaTevvyrja-av rrj KapQia Bi^ &c. give : aKoviravTes fie KaTcvOyrjaav Tqv Kapdiav 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 Bi^ &c. form lines in D. I mention the following as specimens : ^ 11. 37 • '"' ^^^ TTOtrj(rop.ei^ avdpes a5cA<^oi B\^ 8ic. omit the second line. j XV. 23 : ypaylrnvres em(TTn\j]V Sia p^eipor avTwv •ntpiexovirav rabe D E^ &c. omit the second line. 1 The other cases are v. 21 iytpOivTis to irpojf, vi. i iv rp htaKovitf tSjv 'E/3poiW, vii. 24 «ai eicpvifiiv avTiiv iv rp afiiuf, 26 km ilhtv avToiis dSiKoSvTas, 37 outoS dKovaiaee, *. 33 TTapaKaKav e\Seiv Trpos ^/iSr, xli. 21 JiaraWayivTos Si airoS rots Ivpiois, xiii. 41 Kal iaiyqaav, xvi. 19 §s (txov Sl out^s, 38 tA lirfiivra irphi roiis OTparriyovs. AU these occupy single lines in D, of very various length. Also, in xiii. 33 D has a passage of five lines, airrjaai vap' i/iLov . . . t^s yijs, not found in BH Sec. PREFACE xiii 38 : Tov affooTijcrawa air avrav ano 7ra;u0vXior KOI fit] (TvveMoi'Ta fis to epyov fir o e7refi(j)dri rrjs vavfi.a)(ias jiex^pi ttjs iv Tjj vrjtrtf. In an Oxyrhynchus papyrus (no. i6), written in the first century A. D., the words iirokiopKriOrja-av ... ei/ tjj vrjcrm were omitted by the writer. They are added at the top of the page with reference marks, viz. kAtoo at the top of the page and &vw 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 by Donatus, is omitted by our MSS. In such cases homoeoteleuton is a misnomer, and some critics use the term homoeoarcton. I prefer to use the single word oji/otoVijs for all such cases of ' skipping ', and denote this by the symbol oju. A French phrase is saut du mime au mime} The ravages of 6/x. are widespread and in some cases difificult to control. Frequently, however, there is a contributory cause, viz. the coincidence of h\i.. 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 verbale, p. 130. 1B31 B 3 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS When revising his proofs, he found that he had omitted 1. 3, student of the . . . for the. The error was due to homoeoarcton as well as homoeoteleuton. 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 : labiuraque singulorum ut repandi lilii mare quoque fecit unum cuius luter fusilis erat et in ahum 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. a-5, having passed from labiumque . . . lilii in 1. i to the same words in I. 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 dill deus I found that I had written : sicut mosi dicit ego sum dns deus (pm. fited.) Here the saut du mime au mime, viz. from ego sum to ego sum, 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, S hif man'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/^.). ' Revue de P Orient latin, xii, pp. 263-74. OMISSIONS IN MANUSCRIPTS 3 Shakespeare, Troilus and Cressida, II. iii. The First Folio has : Ther. He declin the whole question : Agamemnon commands Achilles, Achilles is my Lord, I am Patroclus Knower, and Patroclus is a foole. [Pairo. You rascall. Ther. 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 lines (oju.). Hamlet, v. i. The First Folio has : Clo. He was the first that ever bore Armes. 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//.). Hamlet, V. i. The First Folio has : This fellow might be in's time a great 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 (ojii.). These instances will sufiSce to show the danger of omission due to o/n. 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 6/1. 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. a686, f. 55^^. Here the first hand gives : inuicS se humogore temperat A second hand adds, after humo : -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 d;x. Laud. Misc. 134, f. 80'. 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. 301a, f. 44. The first hand gives: ecce aperti sunt caeli et uidit spni 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 spin di descendentem sicut colum ba ueniente sup se et ecce uox de caelis dicens hie e filius mens dilectus in quo mihi complacui. I mention as an illustration of these telescoped lines a paragraph which appeared in the Giode of May i, 1914, 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 sua. 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, 19 15, gave the following: The Press 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 unitd de sens et sans qu'il y ait saut du m6me au m^me, il est a prdsumer 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. i. Harl. 3034, f. 80' : non enim inquit est tibi pars neque [sors in sermone hoc separans cum] ab eis Brit. Mus. 21215, f. ao"^: per hoc xps e [ds anima rationalis et caro qua veritate] recognita Laud. Misc. 93, f. 129"': si per se ipsum quasi fidelium [coniugum commixtione duce ratione consideret et culpabilis usus] non in coniugali £cubitu ' Manuel, p. 2oo. 6 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS Laud. Misc. 139, f. 11'': de hac aqua uiua dare mihi non potes [quoniam hauritorium non habes, forte alium] fontem promittis Laud. Misc. 256, f. 81^ : p speluncis [et lenis nidos et catulos LXX transtulerunt] in ceteris ide sensus est Laud. Misc. 375, f. 12=^: in [cottidiana urbis soUempnitate] laborantibus pauca loquenda sunt Laud. Misc. 452> 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 ojx. Repetitions of a line are not uncommon in newspapers. Thus, in the Globe 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 ao, 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. OMISSIONS 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 1. 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 dju. {force a.x\d forces). Prof. Skeat has pointed out an interesting dittography in Thomas Usk's Testament 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 riot 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 ojtx., I would quote an instance from Burn. 340 (Brit. Mus.), f. %']''. 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 quae per . . . comparantes. 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 8 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, •i^'j {F). Schwenke has shown that F is derived from B. The proof is furnished by the fact that on two occasions F omits lines of B : viz. N.D. 1.1%. .5 has: 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 ojx. to assist the omission. 7\^.Z>. ii. 8i. 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 om. med. Here the writer passed from one line to the text, the mistake being due to by.. 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. 29, known as Lag. 29, since in Verr. v. 168 it omits the words crucem toUerentur. Sed quid ego de Gauio .' quasi tu Gauio turn fueris which form a complete line in Lag. 39. The same test shows that another Florentine MS., Laur. XLVIII. 24 (Lag. 34), is descended from different ancestors in the speeches in Rullum and in Pisonem. The decisive passages are Rull. 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. 1 : 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. a68a, cent, xi {H), 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. 163'^ of H ( Verr. iv. 6'^). Here Hh&s libentissime dedit. Mittit etiam truUam gemmea rogatum uelle se earn diligentius considerare, ea quoq' ei mittitur. Nunc reliquS iud' adtendite. E omits mittit . . . mittitur. The copyist looked forward from dedit to nunc in the following line. The other case occurs on f. 1 64' of H ( Verr. iv. 1 1 o). I here write out three lines as given in the MS., numbering the letters. 13) corpore phorrescam, Venit enim mihi fani loci religionis illius in mente nersaiit ante ocnlos omnia s i2) dies ille cum ego hennS iienissem presto mihi sacerdotes cereris com infuli ac iibenis fueft contio ■2) conuentusq; ciuiu in quo ego cum loqnerer tanti gemitus fletusq' fiebant ut acerbissimus tota urbe E omits dies . . . contio (8a). The previous passage, mittit . . . mittitur, contains 79 letters. The passages, therefore, are almost equal in length. A page of H (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 (36 lines) are as follows: 86, 81, 85, 83, 80, 86, 85, 83. 77, 79, 7«, 81, 84, 85, 86, 85, 83, 86, 83, 85, 8a, 85, 79, 80, 81, ^6, 79, 8a, 75, 83, 78, 80, T^, 75, 75, 76 = a9ao. The average here for a line is 81 (81 x 36 = 3916). Since I made this calculation, I have noticed that Dr. Purser, who collated H for the Letters ad Familiares, says of them that they are written in lines which contain about 8a letters.^ The agreement between his calculation and mine is somewhat striking. We now have an arithmetical equivalent for a line of H, viz. about 81 letters. It follows that in a MS. copied from H, if the scribe omitted two lines, the passage would be likely to consist of about • Anecdot. Oxon. Part VII (189a). ' R. Irish Acad., iSSj, p. 366. 10 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 oTrais, 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 81,163, 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 36 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 H 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 xi 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 a6, 'Pr/ropt/c^ Trp&s 'A\4^avbpov. I take 30 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. (mKeur6ai rifioipias roic napa (26) ffaivoviriv ravra xpr] Kut rot; ev (26) TOJi jroXefuoi Te\evrr]piov ey KoKai rrpo rrjs (27) 5 iTo\es Tj^rfiraiTi «c rpo^rjv bihovai (29) Tap pfv ovv ev rais hj^poKpanais (27) vopatv Toiauri)!' hei tijv Beinv (24) troiuaOai' irepi Se ras oKiyapxias (28) 10 Tas pev apxas Set touj vopovs {24) Koravepeiv e^ ktou iraat tois rijs (27) TToXiTfias perexovinv Touro)!/ (25) 8 eiyai ras TrKeuTTas KXrjpaTas (25) Tas Se peyurras le/ju^aiat ^jfr|C|)l (26) 15 pe6 opKcov KOI TrXeioTijs axpijSci (26) as 8iayjfi]^iiTTas 8f i 8e km ras Cv (^6) pias ev rats o\iyap)(iais peyi (25) error enuieicrBai rois v^pi^oviTiv (28) Tivas TU>v TToXiTo)!' eiTixeipovaiv (27) 20 TO yap tt\i}6os ov^ ovto) rav ap (23) 523 ' For exceptions see p. 46. la DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS The figures are thus distributed ; (23) I (24) 3 (25) 3 (26} (27) (28) 3 (29) I The curve bulges at 36, and this is the average for the 20 lines (36 X 30 = 530). 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. 2 col. I niam id est I (10) rerum natu (9) ra longe ma (9) ximi consili (II) 5 constituere (II) earn remp. quae (II) possit esse diu (13) turna si sin (10) gulos nume (9) 10 remus in si (9) gulas quanta (II) iam reperia (10) tur uiroru (9) excellentiu (II) 15 multitudo (9) 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 col. 2 P-36 143 146 SI 167 169 80 152 151 92 164 163 129 146 144 205 157 154 OMISSIONS IN MANUSCRIPTS 13 I tabulated the contents of 30 pages in this MS., which I chqse as examples of different formation. Single columns vary from 135 to 174 letters. The total number of letters in 20 pages is 61 13, divided between the two columns, thus : Col. I = 3057. Col, 3 = 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 are employed one of them generally suffers. The total 6113 = 3o pages of two columns, i.e. 40 columns. If we divide 61 13 by 40, we obtain as average 153 nearly (153 x 40 = 6130). The average number of letters to a line over 20 pages is iG'3. I next take a palimpsest, also written in very narrow columns, but with three columns to the page (34 lines to the page), viz. : Ambros. R. 57 sup., cent, v {A). This MS. contains Cicero, pro Scauro, pro Tullio. 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. IS = 836 16 = 833 17 = 843 ■ 21 = 843 22 = 828 25 = 840 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. 3a 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 16 292 270 271 = 833 31 273 28s 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 coincide. The totals for the lo pages are : col. I = 283s, avg. 283 2 = 2773, avg. 277 3 = 2828, avg. 282. The general average for a line is nearly 12 letters (la x 24 = 288). I now take a palimpsest written in two columns, but with rather longer lines, viz. : Taur. A. ii. a*, cent, iv (7"). 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 the/ro Scaur a.nd pro Tullio, together with A. It had 31 lines to the page. The contents of 10 pages in Peyron's transcript are as follows : col. I col. 2 13 3^9 404 = 783 14 368 377 = 745 19 361 370 = 731 20 377 393 = 770 23 397 390 = 787 24 358 388 = 746 27 374 380 = 754 28 371 384 = 755 41 374 388 = 762 42 357 367 = 724 3716 3841 = 7557 Here the averages are: col. i = 371, col. a = 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. a 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. a, and a little less than 18 for col. i (18 x ai = 378). The largest Ciceronian palimpsest is Vat. Reg. 2077 {V), 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 the average contents of a page in V correspond with great regularity to 35 lines of Teubner text. ' 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 ao letters to the line. The other contains a fragment of Cicero's Letters ad Familiares, 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. 13329, cent. v. This consists of two parchment leaves, containing Cicero, pro Plancio, §§ ay-S, 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 of f. I contains §§ 37-8. primum inacedonia sic diligit hunc (29) ut indicant hi qui principes ciuitatu (32) suarum cum missi 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 ofiSciis (29) benebolentiaq. superarit. (22) 1 5 Tr. pi. fuit non fortasse tam uehemens (30) quam isti quos tu iure laudas set (27) certe taliis quales si omnes semper (30) 469 ' Melanges Chatelain, pp. 442-7. i6 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS The average number of letters to the line is nearly a8 (a8 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. Puteani, 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 ff. 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, 38, 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. I28"' = 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 = 8ia). The 58 lines are thus distributed : 23 I ex. 28 16 exx. 24 I ex. 29 8 exx. 25 3 exx. 30 6 exx. 25 6 exx. 31 3 exx. 27 14 exx. It will be seen that out of 58 lines 30 consist of 27-8 letters. The Puteaneus is written in two columns, with 26 lines to the page. I selected f. 13 for examination. The contents are as follows : redo. 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, IS = 436 verso, col. I = 16, 18, 14, 18, 16, 17, 14, 15, 19, 15, is, 19, I4,-I7, IS, 20, 16, 18, 16, 16, 16, 16, 18, 17, 17, i6 = 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 17 22 exx. i8 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 36 = 429). The 104 lines are thus distributed : 13 2 exx. 14 6 exx. 15 II exx. 16 36 exx. 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. in Pisonem, the script is semi-uncial. The i-est 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. 3"^ = 509 498 471 = 1478 f-4' = 534 468 436 = 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." 1,18; in col. a 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.thefirst quaternion,e.g.: col. I col. 2 col. 3 I' = 546 481 511 = 1538 1^ = 529 495 514 = 1538 2^ = 531 515 488 = 1534 In the later Philippics two passages (xii. 12-33, ^"i- 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 official abbreviations, are : xii. 12-23 = 5828 letters xiii. i-io = 5826 letters less C 1 8 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS I now pass on to the fifteenth century and select a MS, written in France, probably about 1400 A, D., viz. : Paris, 14749, olim S. Victoris (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 Cluentio,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 1414 and was by him sent to Italy, where it subsequently disappeared. The writer of 2 copied from it the speeches /ro Sex. Roscio and pro Mttrena, 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, 5a, 51, e^(5^ 49, 51, 5a. S% Al, 49> 50, 51. 51. 52. 53, 52> 54. 58, Si, 51, 52. 49. 5a. 54, 5a, 5a, 54, 49. 5a. 54, 5a, 54, 5S, 5a = 1923- 2 contains 37 lines to the page. The average number of letters to the line, therefore, is, in this page, 5a (37 x 52 = 1934). 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 Wolfenbuttel MS. ao5 ( 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 b\x. and with double asterisks telescoped passages. W omits the following complete lines of 2. I add the number of letters. ' Manitius, Philologischu am alien Bibliothekskatalogen, p. 15. 2 The Vetus Cluniacensis of Poggio, Oxford, 1905. OMISSIONS IN MANUSCRIPTS 19 (45) Dom. 116: homo religiosus cum edis meas idem emeret et uenderet (47) Sest. 27 : * cu hoc satis eet signi ee impbu qui mutata ueste no eet hac (48) Mur. 6 : * dignitas in sijmo 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. Vtru igit' pcco meo nome subeo an re iudicata (49) Vat. 19 : ** -nique cogitaris. Est enim res ei'modi ut si tibi mode in mente (50) Mur. 30 : * bon^ horridus miles amatur uestril uero studium totum iacet (51) Balb. 29 : coniucta ita m maxime comunione beneficioi^ pmioi{. ciuitatis (52) Mur. s : * michimet ipi ia pride tuleri de ciuium piculis defendendis no (52) Balb. 53 : ** -ma uirtute et dignitate nepotes T. et C. coponios nostis damnato It is to be noticed that there are three examples of 48, also two of 52, the number which came out as the average for Cael. 43-7. In the following cases W passes from one line of 2 to another : (41) Doin. 120 : et [TR. PL. idem ee potest. M. drusus ille clarissimus uir] TR. PL. pontifex fuit (42) Sest. 144: turn ei' filium oculis lacrimatibus [me intuente uideo milone uindicem iire libertatis] 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 iperita multitudine (43) Sest. 46 : suspicione piculi sui no defenderet. [Alii uet'e odio bonorfl incitarentur, alii inuideret,] alii obtestare sibi me arbitret' (44) Sest. 95 : * etiam diem [dixit et accusauit de ui milone. Neque hie tamen nulla] umquam iniuria adduc'et" ut eij 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 socium (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 neq3 [cui'qa ornaenta oratidis 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 heit et q het desoluit] quappt' memoria un (47) Dom. 90 : * facinorosis ex egentib' congregata. Ilia [fuit pulcritudo populi R. ilia forma qua in campo uidisti] tS cil etia tibi cont" senat' tocius (47) Har. Resp. 43 : * foedere impbando senat' seueritas dolori et timori [fuit. Itaq5 res illu forte et clarQ uirQ 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 tamqih a naufragio nu dum (48) Mur. 29 : non po tuerint. [Sic nonnullos uidems qui oratores euadere non potue rint] ad iuris studiii 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 seiunctia [p me psente senatus hominiTiq; ' pterea xx mil. ueste mutauerQt] p eo absente unius squalore sor desque uidistis (49) Sull. 48 : uelis ac defendere que uelis [lino seruit' est non dic'e in quern uelis et defendere que uelis] At si considerare cepis utrii OMISSIONS IN MANUSCRIPTS (so) Pomp. 62 : priuatu pro consule. [L. philippus dixisse dicit~ no se illu sua • sententia p consule] 55 pro consulib' mittere (50) Vat. IT. sit amecia ut in ipa petitione gladiatores [audeas dare nunc que putes illi' tui certissimi gladiatoris] similem (si) QMir. 8: * ^ dcsi * derium mei [lacmeqj pueriles. Aut itineribj necessariis aut magna parte] lectis ac tenebris (51) Dom.%'. * fugisse. ad id qd m crimine dabat". Non ni [pccm no erat sj erat res post nates holes pulcherrima iudiciij] populi ptimuis se (52) Rose. Am. 39 : inter fuisse [nihil autem umquam debuit cupiditates porro quae possiat esse] in eo (52) Gael. 63: * impetrauisset. S3 quid ego de dignitate istoif. testiia loquor [uirtu tern eoi}. diligentiaqj cognoscite. In balneis delituerut] testes egre gios (53) Rose. Am. 92 : multi titudine occiderit. Ac non hoc quaeratur eum qui [romae sit occi sus. Vtrum ueri similius sit ab eo esse occisum qui] assiduus eo tem pore (53) Rose. Am. 100 : * multas esse infamius [palraas, banc primam esse tame lemniscatam quae romae deferatur]. Nullum modum esse hominis occidendi (54) Pomp. 7 : et ita regnat ut se no p5to [neque capadocie latebris occultare uelit sed etnge patrio regno] atqj in iaris uectigalib' hoc est in asie luce uer sari (55) Sest. 135 : no tarn admiror qd mea lege [contepnet hominis inimici qua qS se statuit omino consulare lege] nullam putare an (56) Gael. 56 : herenniij dicere [audistis uerbo se molestii no futurii fuisse caelio n iteril eade de re] suo familiari absoluto nom hie detu lisset (94) Sest. 109: I ilia ruina rei p. dicet se lege tulisse [Quis est q secia cont" me ferebat" inisse sufFragiia confiteat". CQ aut de me eode ex S. C. comiciis centuriatis ferebatur] Quis est qui non pfiteat~ se adfu isse 21 aa 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 (ofi.). 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 ueria etiam contra rerum W after eo has guid 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. {Dom. izo) (42) I ex. {Sest. 144) (43) 2 exx. {Mur. 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. {Quir. 23, Dom. 90, Har. Resp. 43, Sest. 27) (48) S exx. {Rose. Am. 147, Mur. 6, 29, 79, Dom. 72) (49) 5 exx. {Rose. Am. 56, Mur. 86, Quir. 8, Sull. 48, Vat. 19) (50) 3 exx. {Pomp. 62, Mur. 30, Vat. 37) (51) 3 exx. {Quir. 8, Balb. 29, /^o^/z. 95) (52) 4 exx. {Rose. Am. 39, Mur. 5, Ca^/. 63, Balb. 53) (53) 2 exx. {Rose. Am. 92, 100) (54) I ex. {Pomp. 7) (55) I ex. {Sest. 135) (56) I ex. {Cael. 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. 1 8) is 5a. 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 W 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 W, due to the fact that the copyist passed from one line of 2 to another : (58) Quina. 78 : etem cu artifex eiusmodi sit ut solus [dignus uideatur ee qui in scena spec tetur tn uir eiusmodi est ut solus] dignus uideat~. qui eo non accedat (123) Clu. 63 : exitus illi' iudicii futur' esset, uerisimili' tn eet eu [poti' corrupisse qui me tuisset ne ipe condempnaret~ q ille qui uerit' eet ne alt' absoluetur. Delude cu eet nemini dubiia g iudicai necesse esset en certe] poti' qui sibi aliqua (132) Clu. 88 : tra inuidiam his iudicibus freta miserit. Verijtn multa ista iudicia [que sunt ego enl me ad omia 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/x. In the second d/x. is present in 34 cases out of 33. It appears to follow that where o;;^. 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, Sesi. 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/x. Also, there is reason to believe that an intermediate MS. intervened between S 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 reditum, Sest., Vat., Gael., 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 S 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 B and S. 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 ^'j (S) Paris. 7833 (paa-TiKos iuxta LXX intptes semel eni propositu in nobis e et uulgata editions sequi ne aliqua sardanapallo rephendi occasions pbuisse uideamur ceterii n satis mihi uidetur congruere exemplii euer- sionis nineue cum filiis lot qui uocantur ammon. priroij eni ammon dr sed ii ammon deinde amman qug nunc uocatur filadelfia ii est sita sup flumina nee opes illius de mari congregantur quippe qug mediterranea sit nee aqug sunt muri eius nee habet aethiopia et ggiptii et africa et libes federatos cum haec omnia et iuxta potentiam et iuxta exemplum et iuxta seriptione loci et regionis et amicaria gentiij magis alexandrig coaptanda sint et numqua potentissima ciuita^ niniue minori filadelfig comparata audiret ait ppheta numquid melior e. Cui aute dr numquid melior es ostenditur minor ee ea cui comparatur et n debere ea indigne facere si apta sit cu maior et firmior et potentior tam natura loci qua 58 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS ' uiris fortib: ab eode sit hoste superata quia uero nihiuen et mundQ istum interptati sumus I would also draw attention to the following corruption (f. 8a^) : et quia consuetudinis est ere uestimenta . ut in tristibus atq: aduersis scindatis uestjbus qd et pontifex ad dm saluatoris crimen augendum in euangelio fecisse memoratur et paulum et bamaban audientes uerba blasphe mif 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 scindere vestimenta . . . nequaqua consists of 175 letters. The striking point in these figures is that there are two examples of 7a and two of 81-3. 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 {^Sx^ = I75i 35'>^'25 = ^75)- They appear to be in relation to ^6 and the two examples of 7 a. The conclusion is that three units are to be observed here, viz. 36, 41 1 48. I abstain from drawing any further conclusion as to whether they represent successive ancestors. The difference between 36 and 41 is not great. Laud. Misc. lai, cent, ix (Wiirzburg). St. Augustine, de doctrina Christiana. The MS. (Z) contains references to MSS. with which it was- collated, e.g. f 9'^ alius sic, alius sic f, 13'' aliter. The usual omission mark is ti, but others are frequent, e.g. ?S, ;.-=-. Many additions are entered over the line without any sign. The longest passage (435) is added on a fly-leaf. The following is a complete list of omissions and dittographies : (14) 5"' : si tamen et causa (15) 52'': cor quippe cameQ (16) 6'' : et qsi nauigatione 1 1' : ut ex tola mente tua 11' : in quantum peccator iS' : et ambiguitatibus (17) 3' : * magnS bonus et ardufl 50'' : et semitas quas fi nor THE EVIDENCE OF MARGINALIA 59 (19) 15': ppt illud id qd ferimur 40' : qui eni sequit' littera 61'' : in bonis quae rependit (20) Y : * qua se insinuet auribus (21) 19' : * quo cogitat de iudicio di 49^ : * in scripturis canonicis 51": et mandabo uos ex omnibus (22) 5' : quo modo aute a me dictu est 77' : non contemptibilit uiuit ; 77' : potius qua dicat eloquent (23) 57' : multitudo eloquentium sed Cf. 58^, where 33 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 77" '■ et rursus alio modo ipsi n dicunt (28) 50'' : * debuit appellare non enim reuera 72" : portat integritas scltas portat (29) s" : partim eis quae ad corporis sensum 63" : ubi non ipse sed motus quod dicuntur dis scr. 64'' : sit ut sciant sed ut agant qd agendu (31) so' : * sicut sponso imposuit mihi mitram et (32) 39'^ : et xpm non condemnaturum electos suos 77'' : aufer uerbu autem di n est ab eis alienij (33) 22'' : alius aut ait et carne 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 institutum (39) 13" '• nos uero inuice nfi 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) SS' : 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 quantalibet 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 fidia puenimus quanto magis cii puene- rimus 37» : et laetitiam deinde consequenter adnectit ut ostendat purgationem (69) 13'' : sed nescio quomodo etiam nostra fit consequens cu earn misericordiam quam facimus 6p DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS (7S) 52' : adiuncta etia pterita et nox in cuius parte ultima resurrexit nisi totus dies accipiatur (85) 75' • in quocumque istorum trium genera dicere ad persuasionem finis ail id qd intenderis psuadere dicendo (loi) 3'' : cur ipse alius affectat exponere ac non potius eos remittit do ut ipsi quoq: n p homine sed illo intus docente intellegant (102) 33' : errore illius cij 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 quem apostoW n angelu misit instruendil nee ei p angelij id qd n intellegebat et positia aut diuinitus in mente sine hominis ministerio reuelatii est sed potius suggestione diuina missus est ad eii seditq: cQ eo Philippus qui nouerat Esaia ppheta (399) 67'' : * et fraudatis et hoc aput fratres. an nescitis quia in lustris regnii di ii haereditabunt. quid est qd sic indignatur apostolus sic corripit sic expbrat sic increpat sic minatur. quid est qd sui animi afifectil tam crebra et aspera uocis mutatione testat~. quid est postremo qd de rebus minimis tam 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 t magnitudine ingenii 1 maioris inluminationis claritate derideat, sed tamen ut coeperam dicere quantii 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 : proniissione 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 caught by eloquium further on. (125) 41'' : quia pximi spitalibus fuerunt ipsi enim temporalibus et carnalibus notis atque signis quamuis quomodo spitaliter essent intellegenda nescirent quia Hei-e 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, 435. The first two, loi and loa, are practically identical, while 399 is at most 100 X 4. If we subtract 399 from 425, the result is %6. I now draw attention to the following multiples : 25 X 4 = 100, 35 X 9 = 225, 25 X 16 = 400, 35 X 17 = 425. The same unit appears in other omissions, viz. 25 x 5 = 135 (41''), 25 X 3 = 75 (5*^). 35 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 30-3 (seven cases). The probability, therefore, is that there is in the background an ancestor with shorter lines, i. e. with an average of 30-3 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 dfii corpore uero atque pmixto [bonorum et malorum] aut quic uero atque simulato. I quod aliud quia non solum in aeternii uerQ etia nunc hypocriptg non cum illo ee dicendi sunt, quamuis in eius esse 5 uideatur eccia 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 sacramentoria ad hoc per tinet in cantico canticorum fusca sum et speciosa ut tabernacula cae 62 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS i dar speciosa sum ut pellas salamonis. non enim ait fusca fui ut i tabernacula caedar et speciosa sum ut pellas salamonis sed utrii que esse se dixit ppter temporalem unitatem. Intra unum rete 15 piscium bonorum et malorum Here the words bonorum et malorum in I. 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 653 letters. This appears to represent 36 lines of the model (36 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 aeternii (26) ueru 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 sacramentoril 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 utrijque esse (26) 25 se dixit ppter temporalem uni (25) tatem intra unum rete piscium (25) 653 THE EVIDENCE OF MARGINALIA 63 Laud. Misc. 134, cent, ix (Wiirzburg). Augustine, Ep. ad Rom., de spiritu et littera. This MS. consists of two parts, the first of which, flf. 1-14, con- tains Ep. ad Rom., and the second (ff. 1 5-1 10) 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 ^ : in Part II Sc and ; are also frequent. (A) Part I. (72) 2^^ : * non eas quf populo h^breorum s diuinitus credit^, satis oportune mihi uidet' adiungere '^ : * dl in uirtute secund spm scificationis factus est ergo ex semine dauid, id est filius dd 10^: quia non ignorantiae tempore peccatum est et aliam causam ee cu dr ppterea non ignosci (76) 14^ : non potest recta intellegi nisi ut factis dicere intellegatur, non eni hoc in spu scb dicere (77) l'^ : * iustificati deinceps iuste uiuere inciperent, hoc ergo docere intendit aps omnib; uenisse (78) 1 1' : tamquam si diceret leuiter emendatus ad ueniam ptinebit in eo enim quod dictum est uapulabit. (257) 4'' : ex resurrectione eni ceteroru mortuorii n est pdistinatus quos non pcessit ad gloria uitae aeternae 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. quoria mortuorC. nisi ifiu xpi dni nfi (399) l^'^- acceperit ppter quorunda posteriorem puectum t miserabile negle- gentia et tamen illud sacrificium de quo loquebatur id est holocaustum dm quod tunc p uno quoque offertur quodam modo cum eius nomine in babtizando signatur iteru si peccauerit offerri non potest. Non enim possunt denuo babtizari qui semel babtizati sunt quamuis etiam post babtismum per ignorantiam ueritatis peccauerint ita fit ut quoniam sine babtismo nemo recte dicitur accepisse scientiam ueritatis bis scr. Here, out of eight omissions, six consist of 73-8 letters, and no less than three exhibit the same figure, 7a. The dittography of 399 letters seems to represent five lines of the model (78x5 = 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 357 letters seems due to accident (6/i.), Part II. De spiritu et littera ad Marcellinum {Letters), iam n sit gratia nisi quia lucrum legis sed factores sed ei cui redditur p liberO arbitrium P lege ii iustificati aut gratias egerunt n secundii testamentvj apparuit 1 ut audiretur ds dat ut p se ipso habeat uocauit ut iustificaret ubi aii abundauit delictij ds sit ipse quern diligunt uel in ipso corde aliquid bis scr. nee tamen cupimus omne quod * neq. p came qua nfiqua fuisse quis aSt ambulat secundii s^n non sunt itaq: filii liberae uult potius ad nos pertinere bis scr. porro aut si ii gratis mortuus e » non solu actus et euenta uerum Abrahae aijt per promissionem * eadem gratia p s^ s'c'm unde dicit ueterS a quo necesse est hominem * diaboli pcipites ire psuadeant tribuunt cil sit nostrae naturae p que sunt omnia in quo sunt omnia uoluntas di quae ut fiat in nobis legis n impleri secundii iustitia » et hoc quid est nisi peccatum, unde et pelaiani laudando se occultant liberum arbitrium, sic enim uolunt non litigant ut nijquam intellegant Abrahg dictg sunt pmissiones de quo non enim ipse pmittit et alius fecit. After this the first liand adds non enim ipse prontittit sibi congrua hoc e in iustificatione (13) 90V (14) 104^ (16) 35^ 69T 105'' (17) 22^^: 23V (18) 3or (20) 38'-: 74r (21) 18'^: \^: 34^ 471-: (23) 72^: 92^ (24) 75^ ib. 78': (25) 38>^: 68^: 78- <27) 80^: 81^: 89^ 98'^ \oV (28) Ss'' 93^ (29) gi'' 95' (30) 75' 80T Cf. 33' (3J) 39': THE EVIDENCE OF MARGINALIA 65 104'' : * hie uobis pcipit' iustitia cii dicitur, (32) 47"^ : uel linguam alicui quae dicenda n cent 80T : * * -dine uetus testamentum lex et pphetae 831' : * si non in dtn fidem rectam et catholicatn 84^ : necessaria medicina et hoc factum est loi^ : orationibus nris sed qd petamus a do ut (33) 18^ : intrasse in genus humanQ et p unij homing 88' : * ne gfatiam di qua iustificamuf n gratis (3?) 104* : * eOrQ hie in pcepto curanda est actio illic (39) 3°' • '1 f^<^'^ ^P^ 'hu haec est scientia gloriae eius 73"^ : et a dno responsio linguae quia homo pparat cor (48) gS^ : quapropter et in babtismate dimittuntur cuncta peccata. (54) 76' : quale peccatum sit sicut apostolus cii dicitur si non exprimatur (57) 92' : et dm creatorem Credite et corporum quia non potest ee templii sps sTi (58) 25=^: quamuis utriq: horii pi'efei'endus sit qui et habet et nouit a quo habeat (61) 36': alit aiat scificetur nomen tuu, nam illud ideo quia ipse illos fecit ee scbs (64) 31^: *congruebant talia contineat pcepta iustitiae qualia nunc quoq: obseruare (88) 92'': aduersus eos isti non solum ueram sed et ipsam et animath nulla peccati macula respersam fuisse defendunt (100) 89"^: quod uero et ipsis quamuis iustis et do placentibus ppitiatione dm fuisse dicimus necessariam aduersii est pelaianis (156) 31^ : *scriptae in cordibus nisi praesentia sps sci qui est digitus di quo presente difunditur caritas in cordibus iuis quae plenitudo est legis et finis praecepti. nam quia ueteris testamenti These words are added by m. 2 in lac. In the margin is written Quere in aliis codicib; (235) 55': 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 3a is a 'telescoped' passage. The dittographies of 31 and 34 should also be noticed. The omission on 93"^ (33) requires especial attention. The passage as printed by Migne is : non crimen primi hominis transisse in gehus humanum neque ■ptt carnem quam numquam fuisse dicunt 1633 F 66 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS For this the MS. {L) gives : non crimen primi hominis transisse in genus huraanum h dicunt. In the margin is J^ {= require). A second hand supplies the omission (33) in the margin. Here R, the sign of omission, has been received into the text. This postulates a previous stage, when h was written above the line to signify that something was lost. The original loss, therefore, goes back beyond the model. We may, therefore, recognize in ai-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., ined. 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 "^iS to 58 (58 X4 = 23*), while 100 + 56 (cf. 9a') = 156. The unit here seems to be 28-9. Laud. Misc. 353. 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. (17) p. 231 : alium fuisse mundum (18) p. 194: et flos de radice eius (20) p. 95 : * animaduerte quid dicat p. 190: * negotii cardo uersatur (21) p. 137: *referant egressus est ail (22) p. 52 : * compellit me tua dilectio (23) p. 60: * p quib:libet tribulantib: p. 86 : inanis est praedicatio nra p. 23s : pater quo modo cognoscitur {27) p. 100: sed gaudeas quod talem habueris p. 161 : primum spiro solus nfa obrautuit (29) p. 222 : nisi sexus meus et hoc nijqua obicit" ib. : aut n fictil ut fingatur impellitur (31) P* 73 : qui simul mecu dulces capiebas cibos THE EVIDENCE OF MARGINALIA 67 dispensatores domoru alienaru atque spolioru et habrahae dederit decimas dicatur qd minime luceat et parce ab eo sed iustificati estis sed scificati estis flores et gemmas artificis manu non textas mundos ee contendunt et iteru triplex ergo * fugerat quondam et ionas animosus propheta ita inteptatus e obsecro dne libera anima mea mansionii mysteria continent deuteronomium 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 descripsera aequae * interrogare eos qui malitiam prudentiam uocant ch filio saar nee sepultus est in sychem sed in ebron quod nos corrupte ppter ignorantiam dicim' osanna et eustachii antioceni et athanasii alexandrini *tu q:re sententias dies me deficiet si omniii 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 dico 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 ** qug fuit unius uiri uxor in bonis operibus habens testi- o ecclesias frequentius ceperit lectitari quod a grecis ab omnibus inmunditiis uris. Dabo uobis cor nouum et spm nouum (SS) f. 196^: sepelieruntq: in ea sarram uxorem suam atq: in eodem libro postea p. 224 : satis habeo si splendore morii eius et inbecillitas oculorii meorij (58) p. 179 : conpellaris simulabitur mariti infirmitas et qS te moritura facere (67) p. 189: *qua cuncta loquitur et impunitate qua sibi licere omnia putat. Me quoque apud uos (76) p. 194 : p quo in code loco LXX transtulerunt quia paruulus e israhel et dilexi eu et ex egipto uocaui (78) p. 114: legi esse subiectos ut p utrarumque psona et paulus recte rephen- deret eos qui ege seruarent F a (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- 224 (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 (SI) f. 167^ 68 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS (90) p. 218: significant et eclesia XII apostoloru qui ad prf 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 qu§ 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. 19a) is also interesting. Here an ancestor seems to have had : alii sUlibas aucupentur, alii litteras tu q:re sententias dies me deficiet si omniia qui ad (42) sensum interptati sunt testimonia replicavero Z^ omits line a, destroying the sense. The largest number, 9c, is exactly 45 x a. Here we have a ditto- graphy of two lines in the model. This occurs on the same page (p. a 18) as an omission of 45 letters. The intervening passage between the dittography and the omission, as written in L, contains 1,174 letters. Here 45xa6= 1,170. It appears that the inter- mediate words occupied %6 lines in the model. I therefore recon- stitute it thus : significant et eclesia XII apostoloril qui ad prgdica (45) tione missi sunt nomina continentes uel litera et spm (45) in quibus tenentur legis uniuersa mysteria. In dextra (45) s^ 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 ail rationale duplex e aptii et absconditfi simplex (44) et mistycii xil in se lapides habens et IIII ordines quos (46) 10 Illlor ' puto ee uirtutes prudentia fortitudine iusti (45) tia temperantia quae sibi haerent inuicem et dum mutuo (46) miscentur duodenariii numerii efBciunt uel quattuor e (46) uangelia quae in apocalipsi discribuntur plena oculis (47) or ' Probably the model had nil . Cf. 1. 14. THE EVIDENCE OF MARGINALIA 69 et dSi luce radiantia mundutn inluminant in uno iiiior (45) 15 et in quattuor singula unde et aeaoicie et aacia * ide doc (45) trina et ueritas in pectore sacerdotis e cum em indu (44) tus quis fuerit ueste multiplici consequens e ueritate (47) qua 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 sufScere uetus lex noug con (45) gruit id ipsum moyses quod apostolus ille sacerdotis (45) scientia ornat in uestibus iste timotheu et titu instru (47) 35 it disciplinis sed et ipse uestimentorii ordo pcipuus. (45) legamus leuiticu non prius rationale et sic sup hume (44) rale 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. i-a bis scr. L^ : I. 39 om. 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. a 18, 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. ia8, where an omission of 38 letters is followed by one of 43. The intervening passage, as written in L, contains aoi letters (40x5 = 300). 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 laudiceng ecclesi (41) ae sacerdotis nee non presbiterorum panfili py (40) eri luciani malcyonis eusebii cesariensis e^ (40) et eustachii antioceni et athanasii alexandrini (42) L} omits 11. a 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 ^UjKaaa et dXif^fia (Migne, 2?, § 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 30-3 letters are not due to ojj.., also that 45 + 21 = 66 (cf. 67, p. 189). It is tempting to arrange the figures thus: 30-3, 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. 223, 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 = 332. This suggests the following distribution in a previous ancestor : nisi sexus meus et hoc nuqua obicit' (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) taite magis exprimunt tormenta qua (29) risus nisi quod facilius creditur (29)' quod aut fictum libenter auditur (28) . 10 aut n fictu ut fingatur impellitur (29) L^ omits 11. I and 10 (oju,.). 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 (Wurzburg). Fulgentius. Omissions are often introduced by hp, also by hd and h. There is an interesting note on 47'', where various heretical objec- tions are stated without an answer, viz. : ^. Hie requirat lector "Sj. diligenter. aut rectu 11 est aut intellegi n potest THE EVIDENCE OF MARGINALIA 71 Shortly afterwards the whole passage is written out correctly with the answers, as in Migne, Ixv, p. 306. Omissions, (37) iftcf: nunc autem necdum uidenius omnia subiecta ei (38) 59' : quae ds non sit aut altera lucem pt sapientiam (39) 22^ : sed qui seminat in spm et de spu metat uita aet'na 39"' : non tamen in illo eet extra illu ii intra illu eet (41) 41^^ : exterius est. quo arrianos uerbum quod apud dm est. 1 16'^ : cia ergo non dixerit xps tristis sum usq: ad mortem 141'': et ieiunabat uidit omnibus dieb: uiduitatis su§ (43) 76^ : humanum assignant et animam denegant in sola came (45) S'' : sicut ioliannes p opere iustitiae iustitia aute dixit (46) 135'': occidi pmisit, ipse dignatus est mori. sic in eo quod in eo (49) 60'' : ex hoc iam filius subiciat ambob: et saltim sic paraclytus 68'^ : quia reuera si localis non inmensus, si mutabilis non est ds 133": debita sic infirmitatem camis usus excipiat coniugalis (50) 113'': erit excepta diuinitus qug particeps passionum generibus 127'' : et alio loco scire etia supeminent6 scientig caritatem xpi (51) 76"^ : * sic et xps non semet ipsii clarificauit ut pontifex fieret sed (52) 13^: sic nemo potest habere ueram gloria nisi fuerit glorificatus ig'^ : qui seruiunt mihi exultabunt in laetitia, uos aute clamabitis 98"^ : * et filiij demonstrauit ubi se ad imana et iam in nouissimo maris (54) 34"^ '■ hoc itaq: spiritalis f dificatio corporis xpi q: fit in caritate 144^: *nec deputes posse deficere si te ille dignatus fuerit custodire (56) 129^ : * coniugum commixtione duce ratione consideret et culpabilis usus (57) 149^ '• ad spiritalia recurrere et scarii coniugatarum cogitationem magis (58) 167"^ : uelle nullatenus poterit propt quod beatus apots non solii bona opera (67) 12=^ : opera bona p quib: glorificabunt' iusti sic credenda sint pdistinata diuinitus (80) loi'^ : ac ne quis eoi{. qui spm scm in more patre filioq : constituunt hie ubi dictu e sps di habitat in uobis (86) 144'' : tesaurizate ai5 uobis in cflo ubi neq: erugo neq; tinea exterminat et ubi fures n eflfodiunt nee furantur (90) S': male 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 . J J. - (51) 61': sumus agnoscatur non aliud ee quam pater est et m eo quod dixit sumus agnoscatur. 7? 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, 52. It will be noticed that there are nine examples of 49-53, 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, ). e. with the model. It is to be noticed that all the omissions of this MS. are due to ofi. except 76' (51), 98"- (.5a), 144^ (54), 129^ {^6). 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 Scubitu sed in conciabentiii repperiebatur excessu . L^ omits 1. a, destroying the sense. Laud. Misc. 120,^ cent, ix (Wiirzburg). Augustine, de Civitate Dei. This MS. (Z) has received much attention in the way of critical notes. The symbol ^ (= 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' sicut in alio codice, 16'' alter codex aliter habet. The usual omission mark is ^, but <^and %% are also used. Omissions. {16) 31' : insani secarentur (17) 100'': alteri non obueniat I02''' : *teniporib: diuersis ISS"^ : magna qd cibQ pariat (19) 52^^ : troiana amasse rocnana (20^ 59' : asscanii posteris nisi 1 Cf. Pal. Soc, ser. ii, plates 67, 68. THE EVIDENCE OF MARGINALIA 73 laS' 149V 158'' (21) 22"^ 48' II8' (22) 135' 135^ 143'- 153^ 158"^ 1591- (23) e-- 88'- 127^ M4"' (24) 86' 87^ 143"^ (25) 23'- lei-' (26) 133^ (27) 1 7V 26' 86^ 126^ 131'' i6i'' (29) 57' 78V (33) S?'' (39) 21'' (40) lOI^ (44) I5V (45) 143"^: (46) I5>- (48) 43"^ (49) S': 6>-: (54) 97-^: (61) 17'. (79) quando agant quid agant statuendi stabiliendi *quod se apud dea iactare cur no tunc potissimia fit laudandis decus latet et *uolens bonus uideri qd n e non tamen oins natura ds est inpbare banc non audebant et sentimus sensificator ♦pater eet et ioui regnanti non ta deg multg qua nomina **mulierumq- uerecundia con- ille mirabUit temperauit *non enim malignis demonib; ♦contra quos iani quinque prg (m. 2 tn lac.) dea minerua et oscurata est cu a suis partib: non colatur h et suis contemtorib: aereat sicut eni quf ratiocinantur istaru occursu est imminenti ♦ratione ilia orium deoria quib; ut non sint statuae delubrorum ♦extendere ut ex hoc nullum etiam luxuria flueretis nee contriti suoi). sic incipit principio reru in quib: sibi displicet qua in ea s *ubi est nisi in urbe, qui theatrum ♦mortuos et ad daemones pessimos sine quandoq: alba euersa fuerant ♦sibi sufficientem carissimij suis hoc sane utilius feliciusq: successit inrapturia atq: necaturum se fluuiQ 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 istoru ea xpianis ♦ferire uel captiuare non ausi sunt sed uergilius poetarum unde captiuandi uUi nee a crudelib: hostibus abducerent. ♦contra uetustatem tanti possit errqris. profecto et unum dm a quo a semet ipso dilector accepit quando quidem scriptii est diliges proximG 17^: sicut falsum testimoniia cia uetaret, falsum inquit testimoniu non dices aduersus proximil tuum 74 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS (io8) 72": *postea cinna cu mario tu 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) 96': ut sibi sui liberi supstites eent, supstitiosi sint appellati. quis non intellegat eii 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 non 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 populojf. ppositi constituti sunt in aeclesiis ut ii parcant obiurgando peccata. nee ideo tarn ab huius modi culpa penitus alienus est qui licet (;k. 2 in lac). To these I would add the following corruption. (138) 148^ Here L gives : a quam ille q: fit quappter si ad ianum ptinent initia e factoi}. non ido priora sunt efficientib: causis quas io ui tribuunt. sicut enim nihil fit ita nihil inco atur ut fiat quam ilia q: fecit. Here quam, ilia q: fecit is a v. 1. for quam ille q: fit, which has found its way into the text later on {quam ille q: fit . . . ut fiat = i38)-_ In this MS. the bulges in the curve come at 23-3 (10 examples), and at 37 (six examples). The telescoped passage 159'' (aa) is interesting: the model seems to have had : item que de mollibus eidem matri magng 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, ay, THE EVIDENCE OF MARGINALIA 75 plays the predominant part. I give the following multiples, with references to the actual figures in the tabulation. 37 X a = 54 (970- 37x3 = 81. Cf. 79 (17^). 37 X 4 = 108 (73'). Cf. no (63=^). 27x5=135- Cf. 138 (148-). 37 X 10 = 370. Cf. 371 (96'). 37 X 15 = 405. Cf. 406 (8^). The conclusion, therefore, is that 37 represents the average length of line in the model and 33-3 that in a previous ancestor. Laud, Misc. 453, cent, ix/x (Lorsch). This volume contains two MSS. bound up together. Both of them have the library mark of Lorsch {codex de monasterio Set Nazarii). The first MS., ff. 1-191, contains works of Chrysostoni, the second, ff. 193-377, 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. (16) 151'' : diuites epulantes (18) 145"^: et iniuria patiuntur 172'': neq: amicus neq: /rat (22) 51=^ : sedes iudicantes duodeci 161^ ; sed et mortis toUerantia (24) 173'-" : qua uulnerib: sanitas animg 184^: anima aut n possunt occidere (25) 75^ : quare iudaei pacem non habent 175^ : et exacerbauerat qui fecit eu (26) 39^ : si enim hoc fecero mors mihi est bis scr. 57'^ : non sub tali condicione posito 1 1 1=^ : claustra nobis ualida quamvis (30) 81=^ : et gaudiii quod quidem maximu lucrum 163'^ : si ait ex fructib' eoif. agnoscetis eos 183^: *incorpQrib: tanta est differentia (32) 68^ : in nube leui et quia pater sed et in urbe (33) 179''= corpora patietur sed incorruptibilia 182' : arbitrio soUicitudo nobis immineret 76 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS (35) 103'^: et habitauit in nobis uerbia caro factfl est (40) 61^: crux scutu ppetuij crux insensatorum sapientia Tf : 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) les'^ ; sed in hoc gaudete quia nomina uestra scripta sunt (44) 129' : 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 quem in sepulchre queris noli me tangere (55) 190""': immo uero etiam illud addo quia si quis parua n contemnat et minima (58) 188"^ : *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 iugu eni meum (108) 166^ : 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 55, also of 79 to 40 (four examples), and of 64 to 3a. 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 inlumjnabitur. This suggests in the model : nox sicut dies inluminabitur infidelibus autem et dies nocte (40) mutatur 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 EVIDENCE OF MARGINALIA 77 This suggests in a previous MS. : tamen alias tibi decus eius (33) ex uirtutibus suis f. 85': neminera debere desperare salutem quia naturalis malignitas non est liberi quippe nos arbitri creauit 3s ut uoluntate nostra cum adiutorio di quod uolumus faciamus. Si publicanus es, potes fieri euangelista. Si blasphemus es, potes fieri anemjne disperare debere apostolus Here the words neminem debere desperare =%% letters, while the whole passage neminem . . . fieri — 198 (aa 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 nemine disperare debere look like a variant for 1. i, which has got into the text after 1. 9. Part II. Origen on Leviticus. (18) 205^ : sicio aut qualicumq: (24) 255'': separate a terrenis actibus bis scr. (45) 242"^ : nunc pili nominantur iubeatur abicere peccator enim (52) 217': aegyptius 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 ofFerri 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 di sermo (62) 249"^ : achab ilium impiissimia de quo dicit dns uidisti quo modo conpunctii est cor (64) 2oV: *et consumat te et quinquaginta tuos, uis autem audire de ouibus dT dicitur per (68) 221': contingantur aliam in eis qui edit cames sacrificii inmundus sit et inmunditia 78 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS (75) 216' : difficile esse ad intellectum illud enim quod edendum dicit ad pecca- turn 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. 301', 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 wi'ite out the passages as they are given in the MS. {L), merely inserting the line which has been added by the second hand. 233^ 234' : lepus qu5 reducit mmigatione et ungulam non dinidit inmundu hoc uo (57) [bis et erinacius quia reducit ramigationem et ungnla et inmundu hoc uOj (59) bis et sues et cetera 201', aoa ■" : [et consumat te et quinquaginta tuos uis autem audire de ouibus dl 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 303' are written over an erasure. 355\ If we add the line inserted by the second hand, the passage runs as follows : de talibus ipsi enim sentire et nidere possunt quam sibi elegerint partem (62) [tu ergo qui hec audls cui lex diuina recitatur qnem ipsius etiam di sermo] (60) conuenit dicens sci stote quia ego scs sij diiS 3s uester. Sapienter intellege (63) The same explanation appears to apply to some otherpassages.viz.: f. aai"^ : causas hie legislator exposuit unam ne carnes sacrificiorum aliqua inmnn (63) dicia eius in ipso sit tertiam quod et si carnes mundg sint et ipse qui edit mun (64) dus sit The corrector adds contingantur . . . et inmundicia 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 mundg sint et ipse qui edit mun (64) dus sit f. 349' : corri gere nias suas cogitet et oblinisci praeterita et praeparare se ad futnra saltim secun (73) dum achab sed in his omnib: quid de illis dicam qui nee audiunt auribus haec nee (65) The first line here is exceptionally long. The second hand adds achab . . . cor. This seems to imply : gere uias suas cogitet et obliuisci praeterita et praeparare se ad futura saltim secuu (73) dum [achab ilium impiissimQ de quo dicit dnS uidisti quomodo compunctii 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 61 and 65 letters respectively. They are, therefore, due to chance assisted by 6/^. For the sake of completeness I now take the cases of 53-8 letters. (5a) 31 7^ The line before this contains 70 letters and the next contains 64. It is highly improbable that one of 5a would come between these. (54) 376'. Here L gives {sine sensu) : prophetico spu 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 uoiantium qui portabant super asinos et camelos. (54) Here the words et catulus . . . eis 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) 'iiy- L has: benedictiones a do. Qug autem protulerit spinas et tribulos reproba est et male (66) dicto proxima cuius finis ad exustionem. Dictiones a d6 cum imbres biberit et (64) fructii produxerit sed neq: si spinas ac tribulos post pluuiam protulerit conse (67) quitur Z* adds after exustionem 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 ; (3) 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 Dictiones 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) 845'. L has : animal aries est quod in ouibus sine dubio praetiosus est a populo unus qui demit (67) 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 populo, is not likely to have formed a line in the model between lines of 67 artd 64. It niay, 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 dfed 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. (16) 71^: uigore capitis sui 186'' : qd xps ii resurrexit (18) 199^: toUe regnum peccato (21) 6i': carnis neq: et uoluntate (24) 63"^ : et patientia tua ministeriu (26) 13': oculis uero carnis humanitate 75'' : *quid aute p hoc dictij insinuare (z8) 7' : *aliud significet quS qd enarrare (30) 180': *etia quando patiendi tetnpus minima THE EVIDENCE OF MARGINALIA 8l (31) 164'': *in hac uita mortali uisibilis p came (32) 81"^: *sed occisipne illius uituli saginati 105T : indicia legentib: dare ut intra ipsos 142' :' intellegitiir aut ubi filius et sps scs (33) IS*-' quod si amplexus destitutae n abnueris (34) ■88'' : qui nisi desup acceperit n habet quod det (35) 5^' '• **-de ^sonas plerilq: non ad se sed sibi inuice 71'': nolite condemnare et non condemnabimini (43) 1 81' : grando et carbones ignis p fulgore nubis transier' (43) 55' '• ipse enl dixit omnes qui pie uolunt uiuere in xpo ihu (44) i"^ : cum in hac sententia audiat non ee a clamore cessandii (47) 70^^ : alia uero uitg pagendg ef quide prfcepta uitg figurande (49) 32=^ : eade designatur ecclesia et 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 cora patre meo (69) 93^: in uera came ueraciter p nob mortuum in uera came ueraciter a mortuis suscitatum loi^: alas de se reddunt tamqua scilicet duodecim pinnata animalia in uiginti quattuor (71) 115^: sic eiusde operationis silma in istis septe excellentissimis munerib ; psignabatur (84) 190=^ : in fortitudine diuine uirtutis excreuit paulo attestante qui ait et s crucifixus e ex infirmitate ■ (97) 32!': ipsa inueniuntur candelabra, una itaq: e xpi ecclesif q: psona qug et in septe candelabris et in simili filio hominis (124) 46^: regula tenere profitentur quAnti pseudoapostoli inuenjrehtur, 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 helia, alii uero hieroniam aut unil 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 plerijq: non ad se sed sibi inuice (35) coUoquentes introducat The scribe omitted 1. 3. Next in significance to this are those passages where there is no ojotoioVrjs. It is to be noticed that there are only five of these, and that all of them are omissions of 36-33 letters. The three omissions of 66-9 letters (two examples of 69) corre- lt9S G S2 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS spond to the omissions of 32-4 letters. The same unit appears in 97 and 134. On the other hand 168 is in manifest relation to 84, corresponding to which we have three examples of 43-4 and two examples of 30-4. As usual, there is variety in the short passages, and it is impossible to say whether such numbers as 36-8 represent short lines of the model or long lines of a previous ancestor. Laud. Misc. 133 (Eberbach). St. AugttsHne, Psalms, cent. ix/x. This MS. (Z) is written in two columns with 39 lines to the page and an average of about 33 letters to the line. The usual signs for omissions are ft and ^. Omissions and Dittographies. (20) 49^ : quantum sibi iunguntur 63"^ : fi aute sit ipso locus dno (21) 73'^: *ad barbatn qui pertineant (23) ^ : si Sep flebunt ualde miseri II'': sed monemus ne mundij ametis (27) 71'' : na et in turba est unus sed una cum bis scr. {28) 2'' : immo laudandi xpm a xpo prohibeas (29) 57"^ : uident et audiunt oculi et aures et (30) 63=^ : nisi enim in te non fiat quod quaeris (31) 22^: tunc autem uidebimus facie ad faciem (32) 4'' : ascendit ascensiones inquit in corde bis scr. (34) 6'' : auxilifi eni nfm a diio q' fecit celia et terra (41) i8'' : quis unus homo difFusus est usque ad fines terrae 221' : unde abundant nam nisi abundarent supbi n essent (42) 6>' : et moto pede cecidit et de angelo factus e diabolus 44'' : sed nondu e ille castus pmanens in saeculiS saeculi (43) 34"^ : in os intrat aliquid quid uoluit dfis dicere non quod (44) 56'^ : numquid illi qui uoluerunt facere speluca latronum (49) "i^ : de torrente inquit in uia bibit propterea exaltauit caput (53) 64'' : sicut dicit apostolus et pax xpi quae pcellit omne intellectum (66) 68^ : ceciderunt illi de quib: psuserunt et inuoluerunt eos qui de se praesumserunt (78) 47^: quid est sup numerij. non solii illi qui crediderunt qui ptinent ad numeria scorQ sed et sup numerii (104) 44'' : sed nondu e ille castus pmanens in saecul3 saeculi in quo e castus. ia iteria aliquid interrogo quod uosmet ipsos interrogetis (in. 2 /;/ ras)i 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 + 36= 104 and 104+53 = 156. The same unit, a6, appears in all three cases. It is to be noticed that there is an omission of ^^ letters, also three cases of 37—9. We have, there- fore, the following sequence : 37-9, 55, 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 30-3 (five examples) ; (3) The dittography of 33 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 33, or more probably two lines of ^^. There is, therefore, evidence for three units in the figures, viz. 30-3, 36, 33. It is to be observed that in L itself the average number of letters to a line is 33. We may, therefore, with confi- dence ascribe the unit 33 to the model. Laud. Misc. 134, cent, ix (Wiirzburg;. Augustine on St. John. Omissions. {22) 6'' : nunc qS sequitur uidearaus {25) 66^ : querentibus respondentibus SS'^ : seruabat quos in nomine filii 99' : quando pala fuerat locuturus <26) 119^ : et eii plus a quo minus diligitur G 3 84 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS (27) 22'' : abiit cu pfecto nos ipsos pparet (29) 88'' : intellegimus homine in eo qd rogat i (30) 6^ '■ sed angeloif. et dns non tantu ipsorum 96'^ : notum faciam sine fine regnantibus 1 11'^: qd fuerat ablatus de monumento quam (31) 5^ : quid est ego dormio et cor meu uigilat (32) 48"^ : nondum in satietate et ipso desiderio ■ (33) ^3^' quam mercedem significam redemptoris 61'' : et tamqua ipsa sit iustitia ii uidere xpm (34) 20'': sed in domo patris mansiones multae sunt 43'^ : nemo autem potest desperare qui diligit (35) 20' : sapientior alius alio iustior alius alio (36) 17'': quia ex isto uetere induit nos homine nouum " gS'^ : qd ibi iam esset de nobis autem uelle se dixt 117^: uel adquirendi cupiditate non oboediendi (37) 91^^: quia unius substantiae nos et ipsi non sumus (40) 33^ • exaudiuit de dilectione atque manifestatione (45) 104'^: id est ut iudicio ac potestate psidis crucifigeretur (65) g' : qui accipit si que misero accipit. tantia et filius distat a patre, , . qii^uis dixerit (121) 106=^: et tamen si uoluntates si insidias si operam si traditions postremo si extorquentes clamores eorum cogitemus magis utiq: iudei cruci- fixer iHm (126) 103'': in mentem illi uenisse continuo consuetudine fudeoria qua sblet eis dimitti unij in pascha et ideo non expectauit ut responderet ei itft quid est ueritas (160) 72''' : et sps scs de patre pcedit, 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 (L ') inserts the words out of place, viz. after sine initio, instead of before iet sps 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 temerariii cii disserueris definite quia hoc et mentis utciaq: comprehendere et si quid forte mens inde conpre- henderit lingu^ difficillimu est explicare, quantuslibet psit doctor, quantfilibet 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 illoa quo pcedit. a quo illi est essentia, ab illo est scientia ab illo igitur audientia. quod nihil est aliud qua scientia, nee moueat quod uerbum futurum temporis posituest. non THE EVIDENCE OF MARGINALIA 85 enim dictu est quaecuq: audiuit aut quaecuq: audit sed qugcuq: audiet et loquetv|r ilia quippe audientia sempit'na est quia sempitema scientia. in eo aute qS sSpiternii 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 cpgitationi occurrat humanae nam et filius ei de quo natus est] et sine fine. The intermediate passage et sps scs ei . . . sine initio should represent lines of the model. It consists of 751 letters. The omissions of 66, lai, ia6 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 /,, it appears that the model was very similar to L. It is interesting to observe the relation of 136 to 751 (ia6x6= 756). Z.^ 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). i Homilies {Pseudo-Bede). The ordinary sign for omissions is M, not M, the sign specially affected by Lorsch scribes. Omissions. *sed pmanens aeterna puenire digni efficiamil *qua tamen iustitia du humanii careret genus misit ds et spiritui qui loquebat' in eo quia armis iustitiae nouerimus no eos magnitudine uirtutis suae posset *ecce nunc tepus acceptabile, ecce nunc dies salutis inter cetera hortatur dicens, sunt deniq: mulieres dno do nfb ihii xpb et tales nos bonis operibus exibeamus et diuinae cosors factus naturg caue in uetere malitia totum bonii habet quia ds ipse est caritas quern qui habet *ne fiducia habeamus et splendore terrestriS aedificiorum iustitia in pectore renis et cordis inuocat dm ut ipse reddat sint diuersa passuri tormenta ita et iusti p qualitate meritorum p baptisroil ergo peccata omnia dimittuntur et regni caelestis aditus aperitur (68) 54' : hodie crux fixa est et demones dispsi sunt, hodie crux fixa est et mors subuersa est (38) 4'': (43) r: 8': M'-- 25V: 37'": (46) 44^: S"-: 19=^: (50) 36': (SI) 51=^: (55) 132': (66) r- 86 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS (78) 52' : uerum corpus hominis et uera demonstrat anima in ipso qui sciebat humana ferre infinnitatem (107) sS': et seruit cia filiis suis siue in lege litterae siue etiam in carnali opera in ecclesia commorantes ilia aiit quae sursQ 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 bis scr. (132) 2': xps XII misit aplos inter numerositate omniii gentiu euangelizare regnii di ut de illis psalmista ait, in omni t'ra exiit sonus eorii et in fines orB te™ uerba eorum The dittography of 1 1 7 letters does not take place immediately, but after an interval of ao lines. It is due to 6\j.., viz. the recurrence of the words operatur unus atq: idem sps. I transcribe the passage as given in the MS. {L) : dicendo enim setnp idem om nia se dicere de spu sco declarat. haec autem omnia ope ratur unus atq: idem sps. manifesta enim praedicatio est unius deitatis uniusque substantiae patris et filii et sps sci 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 spm scm 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 qug 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 13 explanare et de praeteritis etiam futura cognoscere. alteri fides, in eodem spii, quia alii ueraciter atque perspicatior intellectus datur ad fidem. alii gra tia sanitatum in uno spu, per ipsum datur spm 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 sci sps poterit interpretari aliis ad notitiam 25 haec autem omnia operatur unus atque idem sps. tnanifesta enjm praedicatjo est unius deitatis uniusque substantiae patris et filii et sps sci quj sua potestate dns cK'siriguHs qujbusqua The block of text, 11. 3-25 manifesta enim . . . imns atque idem sps, consists of 1,019 letters. THE EVIDENCE OF MARGINALIA 87 I have only noticed seventeen omissions in this MS. (Z). 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, SI, 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 by a new writer. It is to be noticed that 1019, the block of text before the dittography manifesta . . . 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). yerome on Minor Prophets. 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 serif tor, dehuc sequitur expositio prophetalis ordinem suuin. Omissions. (17) 46': pro peccato animf mf (18) 6^ : et non solu nascentur {19) 113'': iudatn conculcauerint I44>^: omnis eius solemnitas (20) a'^ : Czechia in patris achaz 68'' : ulciscens dns cu furore (24) 72^ : quinta a consurgentib: illi »8 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS I33'': regia et alter iesus de" tribu 148'^ : cu raitteretis incipselen. XX (33) 25* : di sed iudices et sacerdotes et pphetas (34) 25^ ; *et cum dicatur ad scos gratis accepistis (35) 12'' : siro quo LXX transtulerunt in fclesia dni (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 di ad ads (41) 24^' : ibi non erit et ubi iactatis uaticinium f)phetale (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'' : scripturaril de quibus dicitur eloquia diii eloquia (45) 5'- et fundamenta eius reuelabo et omnia sculptilia eius (48) 59^ • *'" hominib: et de mari usq: ad mare et de monte usq: ad monte (57) 45^ • St quanta nobis bona fecerim et mea in uos misericordia cogno- scetis (63) ^^'' : pater mundat ut fructfi magis adferat quod ^ut in rne manet et fructii xi adferat. (64) 4^^ : **-relinquat eos na et de aptis egrediebatur sermo dni ad audientes et tamen non (69) 11^: iterum secfidia littera ut uel x trib. accipiamus in samaria uel in commune omne isrl \\& : si ergo hierusolima 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) 109=^ : 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 hospitiia 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 scoif. 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. et sensus . . . uariis se (203) at the foot of 103'', and peccatorum . . . et dolo (129) at the top of Jos'". Here the first point which meets the eye is the manifest relation of the largest figures, 83, 87, 33a (83 x 4 = 332). 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 senno dni ad audientes et tamen non relinquebat eos The MS. has derelinquebat eos med. om. If arranged in three (23) (20) (2O Laud. Misc. 417 (Lorsch), cent. x. Jerome on Jeremiah. The usual sign for omissions in this MS., as in others connected with Lorsch, is M. Omissions and dittographies. et ipsius sed nee hoc habetur bis scr. hoc est nebeim, LXX pseudopphetas pulchraeq: posuit consolata sunt *dereliqui hereditate mea, reliquit aute siue tempestas egreditur a summitatibus *immolarent et omnis prau§ superstitionis ds pater est, fecit autem in fortitudine sua • non exaudiam preces eorum et si obtulerint et iterum haec dicit dill sup domij regis iuda et populo eius et uiuetis, quare moriemini, tu quod si dixisset, poterat et pseudopropheta in gladio filii eorum et filiae eorum morientur siue docuerunt enim linguam suam loqui mendacium et deletg sunt q3 non habent habitatorem dm dicente siue quia faciam a facie malitiae filiae populi mei hoc dns loquitur non propheta qd uisitet sup semeiam *et hue illucque circumspiee et uide ubi non fornicatione oblitus est mei, sequitur enim, quia oblitus est mei populus meus *fuit qui ioas post interfectionem gotholiae imperifi tradidit (24) 133' (28) las'" (29) 5'' (34) lae'- (35) I2S' (36) 40' 52'' 103-' (37) 134^ 136^ (40) 58^ (42) 46^^ (43) 9' 46^ (44) 144^ (48) IS'- (S3) 88' 144=^ 90 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS (60) 136': babilone, hie aute e contrario etiam ea qug 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 contemptia et erubescere nescierunt. To these may be added the following corruptions : zi' : in praesentemtiarum quid significet ignoro et aquila autem This indicates : in praesen tiarum quid significet ignoro et aquila au (36) tem 19' : si abstuleris quando ergo offendicula 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: prfcepit non credendum necdO autem eo tempore quo haec epistula dirigebatur hiezeciel propheta Here the words ^pheta testatur . . . hiezeciel =124 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 oja. and the omission destroys the sense. A previous MS., probably the imme- diate ancestor, seems to have had : THE EVIDENCE OF MARGINALIA 91 leua oculos tuos o hierusalem et hue illucque circumspice et uide ubi non fomicatione (48) prostrata sis Corresponding to 40-8, we have 90 (i.e. 45 x a). 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). Taio's excerpts from Gregory. This MS. is written in two columns. Omissions are sometimes rectified by the usual symbols, M, M, 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) 28"' : uocarentur quia p uitae meritum ad caelestia propinquarentur uoca rentur quia p uitae meri (20) turn ad caelestia propinqua (23) uerunt The writer looked back to 1. a {-rentur). (71) S4» : eamque fideliter inherendo circum (24) dant. tot nunc quasi uestibus (24) sea aeclesia induitur. Quot (23) V fideliter 93 ' DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS ' ^ So L. The order in the model may have been the same. (93) T^^ '• necesse est igitur ut qui ad ofiGciiim p dicationis studio non recedunt uectes esse ad hoc namque necesse in circu lis arcf semper iubentur The second hand adds M excubant a sacre lectionis, to be inserted before studio, .". necesse est igitur ut qui ad (23) ofificium 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, § 1.23): quia dum caro in delectatione rapitur etiam sua rectitudine spiritus in- firmatus inclinatur. Requisitus Adam confiteri culpain noluit. Here 155'', col. 3, ends with : quia dil caro in delectatione rapitur etia 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. ao, with : pondus habent ad quod The neater hand goes on w^'i'Ai pensant proximo ad dandum, omitting an intermediate line pensant sibi aliud ad quod, 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 occasiofts an extra half- line is added at the end of a page. I now tabulate the omissions of in. i. (16) 251- (17) 71^ 171=- (18) 241- 721- 75' 132^ (19) Ii8>- 121=^ (20) 36' 48- 56V (21) III- 74'- (22) 93' 95' 159' (23) 291' 7F 71" 163"^ (24) 86^ (25) 42'^: 155"^ (27) 119T (29) 49-^: (31) 54'-: (34) 44'-: 134' 1 581': (39) 152^ (40) 84^ (61) S3'-: p (94) C 71' id est transituru e *speciosum appareat *si terrore di ad mtem *di et homlnu remoueri namq: et hoc quaestio officiunt quod aliis simul et reuelatione quatenus os discretum quid per culpa fecimus cernimus clausis nihil dicitur quando atnplius 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 sCIi quia multimodis *nullius uos esse monstratis uenit reus fratemo sanguine **-ne sps infirmatus inclinatur conuertit sed adhuc se perfecte loquuntur magnis ut tam in quib;da dicitur sic indumtum sunt ecclesiae iusti requiescerent et in inferioribus iam se obtinuisse cj concupierat exultat iniquitas natnq: in funiculis uanitatis et quasi gubernator amisso claui in medio mari *pietatis gratia benigni iustitiae seueritate quod erat in maxillas populoru canticum erit uobis frenu quippe erroris 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 (= 9a). 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 10' : ds iacob. Unde paulus apostolus uolens nuncupatiuum di 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 tantii mo do sed dm sup omnia memorauit quia et iustus quilibet ds e sed int omia quia nun cupatiue ds x^ autem ds est All the passage after ds iacob is written in a contracted hand, and occupies I a 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, etiatn si iniquu se tacita cogitatione rephendit. Tani du sppius scm audire se coeperit hoc qd de se intrinsecus tenebat amittit (185) otnnis hypocrita dii cor exterius fundit, quia libent foris falsum de se testimoniil reddit, quale se intus habeat non requirit, unde fit ut uacue laudis fomta etiam cum defuerint quaerat et oblitus qd est appetit uideri qd n est (391) oih hypocritae du iustos se ante humana iudicia simulant ad actiones s| laudib; dignas intuentiil 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 scli iustos crucial, simulatores exaltat, sed iustos dC cruciat purgat, simula- tores dii laetificat 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 185, the result is 24. Brit. Mas., Egerton 2831, cent, viii/ix (Old French). Jerome 01 Isaiah. The MS. is written in two columns, except in one quaternion (ff. 56-63), which is in long lines, though written by the same scribe. Omissions. (26) ^cf : *q: de D experierat reperiuntur (28) 93^ : dni et quasi diadema regni in manu (31) 43'': sabbatia ne poUuat illud custodiens 63"^ : tuine despicies domesticos seminis loi'^ : *per patriarchas moysen et pfetas sed (36) 42^ : cum uideretis ait signu filii hominis quod (37) 491 : *translationem ueteris instrumenti Dcussa (38) 107"'': *et uita est et sS precatur non ueniet mihi pes (40) 32"^ : de quibus aedificat xps aeclesiam super terram (51) 117'' : ut aperiat intellegentiam illius, idcirco enim uallis achor (52) IQ'': *de qua et paulus apostolus loquebatur, induite uos armatura di (59) 29^^ : et gloriam quam accipit is per cuius opera ds glorificatur in gentibus (62) 60^ : *comedunt et rursuquaretacuistisimpietateet iniquitatis eius frumetu 102^: id est gregis dni sm autem hie angelum debemus intellegere qui ductor fuit. 96 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS To these mast be added the following dittography : (159) 73^: propterea recessit iudiciu ab eis et non adprehendit eos iustitia. Cum expectareht 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 sentence, mirorque cur LXX quasi propheta. The dittography is due to b\i.. [propterea and propheta). The striking feature in these figures is the relation of 31 (three cases) to 63 (two cases). It cannot be doubted that 51 represents a line in an ancestor. The examples of 51 and 5a are also highly suggestive in view of those of a6 and 38. Also the four cases of 36-9, two of which cannot be explained by 6/i., 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. 36, 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 33-4 letters. This is contrary to the usual result of such an analysis. We generally find evidence of shorter lines in previous MSS. The solution 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 396 folios, but originally contained at least 45 quaternions. The MS. (-^) is written in two columns, with 30 lines to the page arranged in para- graphs. ■ Vogels says. : ' Die Zahl der ouf die Zeile entfallenden Buchstaben ist wegen der sticldschen Schreibung sehr verichieden THE EVIDENCE OF MARGINALIA 97 und schwankt swischen 3 und 17.' The contents of some columns which I had occasion to count are : f. 15, col. a = 240. f. 183, col. a = 238. f. ao7^, col. I = 343. col. a = 357. f. a68, 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 1 a 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. ao8' the scribe originally repeated what he had written on 207', dividing the lines exactly as before. Haase says : ' inveni antea per errorem totam paginam versifolii 307 servatis lineis eisdem scriptain iterunt fuisse.' The scribe then rubbed out what he had written and substituted the correct passage. On one occasion, f. 183^, the first line of col. a 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. 338', lines 1-9 in col. i and i-io in col. a 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 I -1 3 in col. a 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 caelorttm the scribe originally wrote caeluc, his eye having been caught by nunc in the previous line. less 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. a 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. a-5. (33) f. 219 : minimo et in maiore fidelis est et qui in om. P?. The most interesting error is f. 368 (John vi. 34) : Voluerunt ergo ubi manducaue accipere eum in runt panem naui et statim quem benedi fuit nauis ad ter xerat diis 5 ram in qua ibant 5 altera die turba altera die turba quae stabat trans quae stabat trans mare uiderunt quoniam naui I o cula alia non erat ibi nisi una THE EVIDENCE OF MARGINALIA 99 it quia non fue rat simul cum discipulis suis 15 ihs in naiiem sed soli discipu li eius alius uero superuenerunt naues a teberia 20 de iuxta locu Here the writer has glanced back from col. a, 1. 5, to col. i, 1. 6. He then struck out the passage repeated by error and rewrote correctly. Ji appears to have inherited certain errors from its model, e. g. : f. 2, uidens aiitem is written twice, both at the end of col. i and at the top of col. 3. I assign this error to a predecessor, since the passage is not rewritten, as is the case when a blunder has been made by E}. f. 73 (Matl. XXV. 35) : hospes eram et coUegistis me infirmus et ui sitastis me 5 in carcere et ue nistis ad me Tunc responde bunt ei iusti dicentes 10 dfie quando te uidimus esurie tern et pauimus sitientem et de dimus tibi potil 1 5 nudus et ope ruistis me So B} : lines 15-16 are here out of place. They should come after 1. 3, 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 of 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 3 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 tenia dies est hodie quod haec omnia mulieres quaedatn 5 ex nostris ter ruerunt nos So R^ : m. 3 supplies /arte su7ii sed et after 1. 3. The majority, however, are passages which are self-contained, e.g.: f. 380 (John ix. 37) : qui tecum loquitur ipse est et pro cedens adorauit 5 eum So R^ : m. 3 supplies at ille ait, credo, dne 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 kwAo.^ I would draw particular attention to f. 300 (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 sorer nomine (add. m. 2) after 1. a, in order to distinguish Mary from Martha. It is struck out by m. 3. 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 f. 280 : et dixit ei ili% ' Journal of Theological Studies xvi (1915), p. 233. THE EVIDENCE OF MARGINALrA loi (14) f. 248 : *facta sunt sed et f. 284 : discipulis suis (16) f. 169: qui fuit zorobabel. (^^ gives zorabababel. If so, = 18) (17) f. 85 ; et farisei ad pilatil f. 251 : quid dicis de te ipso f. 280: +at ille ait credo dfie (19) f. 277 : opera eius qui misit me f. 282 : sed ego pono ea a me ipso (26) f. 168: qui fuit matthiae, qui fuit amos (28) f. 270: +ego non ascendo ad diem festC istu (30) f. 272 : hie est uere propheta, alii dicebant (32) f. 2AI : +et egressus foras petrus fleuit amare (33) f- 274: +ego de supernis sii. Vos de mundo hoc estis (41) f. 200: excepit illu in domu sua et huic erat soror nomine (43) f. 265: +et scio quia uerB est testimoniii quod perhibet de me (45) f. 223 : edebant et bibebant emebant et uindebant plantabant {46) f. 212 : +ueru tamen oportit me odie et eras et sequenti ' ambulare (48) f. 276 : mihi. Qui est ex do uerba di audit, propterea uos non auditis (52) f. 293 : + si ds clarificatus est in eo et ds clarificauit eij in semetipso (57) f. 269 : + nemo enim in occulto quid facit et q:rit ipse in pala esse si h^c facis. (79) f. 228: dne 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 salim quia aqu§ mult; erant illic et ueniebant et baptizabantur (140) f. 246: et dies erat parasceues et sabbatu inluciscebat. Subsecutae aute mulieres quae cij ipso uenerant de galilea uiderunt monumentii et que- admodum positum erat corpus eius (203) f. 15: et non cecidit, fundata enim erat supra petram. Et omnis qui audit uerba mea haec et non facit ea similis erit uiro stulto qui ^dificauit 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 sequenti die. Possibly die has been omitted here. T02 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS on f. 352 (John i. 29). Here two columns of 20 lines, containing respectively 223 and 264 letters, are added in the margins, with omission marks (^ and 7^) : hie est de et ego nescieba quo dixi pes 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 uidetis spm des et ego nescie cendentem et bam eum sed manente super eu ut manifesta hie est qui bapti 10 retur illl prop 10 zat in spti sco terea ueni ego et ego uidi et tes in aqua bapti timoniii perhibui zans et tes quia hie est filius dl timonium peri altera die iterC 15 buit Johannes di 15 stabat iohannes cens quia uidi et ex discipulis spm discenden eius duo. Et respi te quasi colli ciens ifirh ambu bam de caelo et lantem dicit 20 mansit super eii 20 ecee agnus di 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 = 323, col. a = 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 ao 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. 308'', viz. by striking out the passage which he had repeated and turning the leaf 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 fif. 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. 1 18, 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 redo and verso of the same leaf. Thus 74"^ has 38 and 74^ 37 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 31-6, and notices pages of 37, 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 : (884) 76V (26) avg. 34 (913) 76-^ (26)1 (26)1 avg. 35 (917) 74' (27) avg. 34 (93>) 78-^ (26) avg. 36 (950) 74" (28) avg. 34 (954) 11'' (28) avg. 34 (959) ir (26) avg. 37 (983) 33' (27) avg. 36^ (1002) 16^ (27) avg. 37 (1051; 36- (27) avg. 39 (1073) 96- (28) avg. 38J (1095) 36V (27) avg. 40 (1096) 95' (28) avg. 39 (1 106) 96>- (28) avg. 39* (1 108) 95"^ (28) 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, 1096, and 1106, 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 looa. The contents of the inserted folio (75) are, recto = 690, verso = 663, which gives an average of 38 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"^ ut iiinci tanto eius impetu, i^d' de uno fundainento 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 : PRIMASIUS ON THE APOCALYPSE 107 optionem dicimus et nomen ciuitatis 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 a bbreviation for autem (It) 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 (75^ 77^ 13a''), or where a correction is made in the margin (86'), or an omission is entered in the text in ras. (145"). Nomina sacra are generally abbreviated. Thus ds, dm, xps, sps, scs are normal. There are, however, irregularities. Thus on f. 95^ we find xpi de xpo in xpb cum xp6 post xfJii per cristum propter cristum. So also on occasions the first hand wrote deus or dominus 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 domini 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^ret) is frequent. On f. 9^ ^ (? = dimissum) 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 Deorum, etc. (p. 328). On f. 81"^, where the first hand gives quiac for quia, the corrector adds d in the margin. On f. 66^, where potestas has been omitted, a later hand adds hct potestas. Quotations from the text of the Apocalypse were originally intro- duced by y (? = ypa^trai) : a second hand has generally combined with this K (= Keiixevov) ^ The symbol y, or yy, is regularly used to mark quotations in Brit. Mus. 31031, cent, viii (e. g. f. 39^ 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. A'( = Kaput) was often used to mark paragraphs, cf. pp. 221, 318. io8 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS lemmata. I would here mention a curious blunder in the vulgdta, which seems due to a misunderstanding of this symbol. ed. Bas. f y : accipite sapientiam sicut aurum et scientiam sicut argentum electum. So also D. For electum La Bigne gives >| elimet, and in the margin H emite. Migne (8 1 a 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. 113^ (Migne, 900 c : ed. Bas. G T') : malis nequior septempliciter inueniatur o ut et quod dicimus planius delucescat inten turn decet esse lectorem* The natural conclusion is that the words ut et . . . lectorem (57) were omitted by one ancestor, put into the margin of another with the symbols d and h, and received into the text of another, with the omission labels still attached to them. The other passages are longer, viz. : S'' (Migne, 779 D : ed. Bas. c 5'') : i smirna canticum . . . congniit diio'* 145'' (Migne, 932 D : ed. Bas. Q y) : 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 tiiigue ftterat humilitas. 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 Smyrna. 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 Pergama 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 of Z>' or Z? : (24) f. I3S' (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. I46T (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 niei bis scr. (36) f- ir (Migne, 823 c) : *et indignos uos iudicastis aeternae uitae om. D, ed. Bas. (52) f. 8s>^ (Migne, 879 a) : »illis inimicus suia dare dicitur thronij quos maxiine possidens om. D^ (60) f. 86-^ (Migne, 879 d) : quando dignitatem ei specialiter debitam sibi ausus fuerit assignare om. D f. 146' : *beati qui lauerunt stolas suas ut sit potestas eorum super lignum uitae om. Z)'. 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 xpo est om. D^. The scribe first omitted the words and went on to duodecim apostolis agni satis superque iam, 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. I39>' (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 light 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 diio et angelo aeclesiae quae est inluminata tyatirae. Here inluminata is a repetition due to o\i.. 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, 345. 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 diio et angelo aeclesiae quae est (32) tyatirae The only figures in the list which do not admit of this explana- tion are 34, 35, 53. These may be due to chance, but the relation of 34-5 to 53 is to be noted. In addition to these omissions and dittographies there is a passage which is out of place in D, viz. : (80s) ff- 39'-39' (Migne, 823 D-824 b ; ed. Bas. i 8'-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 {infine pag.) (39T) cognoscere aliud primum a secundo secernere pri PRIMASIUS ON THE APOCALYPSE iii mus sibi humiliationis uendicat loca sicuti est quod moysis dicit prophetam uobis 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, dispectil et nouissimum uirorum, uirum dolorum, et post paulolum, languores nostras 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 calumniantur mercidem mercinnaris et cetera. This passage is placed by D after sentiendum (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) fF. 35^-37' (ed. Bas. i y-y : om. Migne 823 B, after typice) : **sanabatur et his . . . David quando com- ■ (2) ff. 73^-78'' (ed. Bas. s 6'^-t 6^: 0711. Migne 859 b, after revelaretur) : *quarto enim . . . aculeis et omnis (3) ff- 95^-97' (ed- Bas. 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, 31a letters. The average content of a line in ed. Bas. is a8 letters, so the total passage, as given by D, would fill 85+11 lines = 96. (a) 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 ip) (• 75 (ed. Bas. s 8^-t 1^) : in arboribus . . . fictum (c) ff. 76''-78'' (ed. Bas. t ^-6") : Et datum . . , et omnis (96) ff. 35^-37' , f ,. \y / DO o/ \ _ ^^Q folios. iia DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS Here (a) = 98 lines, ed. Bas. (*) = 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. (98) ff. 73^-74- f = (180) ff. 95-97;)^ four folios. (189) ff. 76^-78^ ) 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^ = 2753- ff. 95'_97'- = 4858. ff. 76^-78^ = 526a. 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 Z>, and about '24I 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 6ft. : (24) 56' (ed. Bas. n 5^ : o>n. Migne, 838 b) : et pro domino mori meruerunt (35) 23' (ed. Bas. £4^: om. Migne, 811 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 ON THE APOCALYPSE 113 (53) 611' (ed. Bas. K 5"^ : om. Migne, 842 b) : et quatemitatis contematae ut quater temi decus dipundius. It is probable that there are many others. {B) The Bale edition omits the following passages which are found in D and Migne : (27) 671^ (Migne, 853 D, ed. Bas. r 3') : qui (quia Migne) seruire memoratur in templo (417) 57^ (Migne, 839 D : ed. Bas. n 7^) : ' *concussi ab ecclesia diuelluntur, proprig autem aceruis fici fructib: comparantur slue pro infidelitate quam conuersi in arcu prauum relicta malunt fide repetere siue propter immaturitatem temporis per quam contigit ut cum felicem aedesia ecru concipiendo quaesierit ortum infelici tamen euentu flebilem de eis patiatur aborsus, i^ 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 Haussleiter, occurs in a passage where D has been mutilated, viz. : (27) Migne, 865 b : ed. Bas. x a"^ : 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 81) : aliud est enim uenturum agnoscere, aliud primum a secundo secernere D (28) aliud primum a secundo secernere om. ed. Bas. (42) aliud est cernere 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. : ll^'lT'' 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. 114 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS (28) 128' (Migne, 912 A: ed. Bas. L i', after exhaurienda peccata) : in suis autem membris frequenter D : om. cett. {33) 41"^ (Migne, 827 a : ed. Bas. k ^, after gloria det) : *iustificati gratis per gratiam ipsius D : om. cett. {36) 37' (ed. Bas. i 7', after adoratur in tribus) : et abissus sicut uestimentum amictus eius D : om. ed. Bas. {def. Migne) {63) 82' (Migne, 862 b : ed. Bas. u 4'', after fumo 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 dns 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 i^, 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'', aStex praedicafltur) : *ipse scilicet qui de patre coetemus inuisibiliter genitus de matre mirabiliter nasci uoluit moriturus atque hgc p spm scm de caelo missum aeclesiae reuelauit quam sibi spqnsam 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 camem suam odio ha buit sed nutret et fouet earn sicut et cristus aecle siam ut utraque his ostenderit comprfhendi 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 dns 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 afTert quod a parte potiore inferio ra quoque aeclesiae membra in ordei menti one cognosce D : om. cett. (336) 107' (Migne, 897 a: ed. Bas. F 7^ after veritatem) : *iam quippe ante quam septem fialarum faqeret mentio nem de scSrum persona et dignitate prg miserat quod cantarent canticum mo si serui di et canticum agni dicentis magna et mirabilia sunt opera tua domi^e omnipotens uel cetera nam et lenteamina eis mundae ' Candida zonasque aureas scorum pectoribus adesse praemisit, in quorum compara tione ranarum respuenda feculentia paruolis etia monstraretur D : om. cett. {438) 8^ (Migne, 779 D : ed. Bas. c 5') : Here D has : a utique *smirna canticum eorum cum hoc consequen ter libro canticum moysi serui di dictum et in aliis nouerimus generaliter frequentatQ diuinae laudis canticum Sanctis praecipue deputati sicuti est cantare diio canticum nouum laus eius in aeclesia scorum et exulta te iusti in diio 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 dno ^ fuerat humilitas. This passage, which is omitted in Migne and ed. Bas., is inserted in the wrong place in D, 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 Pergama to utique is written thus in D : •iii. ^ pergama inter praetatum dicitur diuidenti cornua eorum V uel dissicenti ballem : in sermone porro qui ad eius angelum fecit duas hominum species demon strauit in ipso tenentis fidem jn ajiis autem Je ' munda et m. 2. I 2 ii6 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS nentjs fidem in aliis autem tenentiu'm 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 366 letters, if we exclude the dittography in aliis autem tenentis fidem (35). This may, however, be inherited from a previous MS., in which case the total becomes 391. (496) 18' (Migne, 807 b: ed. Bas. e 4'', after Veritas non est) : sicut in singulis aeclesiis coramonet 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 dieit 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 diio In 1. I Z> has iiii before sicut. After dno comes : K et angelo aeclesiae quae est inluminata ecclesiae The numeral iiii ought to come here, not before sicut. There has, therefore, been some previous dislocation. (930) 9I'> 92"^ (Migne, 884 c :. ed. Bas. C 3=^, after insinuetur 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 conditorum terminum sig PRIMASIUS ON 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 dotnjni ut fur per quam caeli ardentes soluentur et elementa ig nis ardore coquentur ad meliorationem autem dicit, nouos uero caelos et terrain nouam secun dum promissa ipsius expectamus in quibus ius titia inhabitat {1084) 145^-146^ (Migne, 932 d : ed. Bas. Q 3', after manifestet) : h na ut eiusdem cum patre et filio doceatur essentiae, et idem filii qui et patris esse sps declaretur profundioris adhuc in mystirii secreta cognosce, deum sane abra hae et totam nos debere accipere trinitate no uimus si Ir huic nomini sempiternam uerita tem adiungas personarum profecto pro prietates induces ut di abrahae nomine solius patris uideatur significari persona sicut et iUe in danihele locus insinuat ubi dicet et antiquus dierum sedit id est pater sempiterna autem ueritas filius indubi tanter agnoscitur qui dicit, ego sum uia ueritas et uita, uerum ne sancti 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 fill quoque sps demon stretur subiunxit si quis autem spm xpi non habet hie non est eius quod ergo de nu meris promisimus impleamus hoc modo villi VLXXCC I II C I I XL VIII I V X IIIl X LXX eeOC ABPAAMH AEI AlO ^ qui di m. 2. ii8 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS cc I XXX vim VIII* C A A H 9 E 1 A quod cum grae cis litteris per numeros duxeris promis- sam eiusdem numeri summam profecto < 2 V c X cc repperies quam in peristera TT E P I C CCC V C I T E P A id est columba docuimus subsum mari in cuius specie scih spm specialiter legimus discendisse <> post fidem morum probitas memoratur * At the foot of the page is written : (> beati qui lauerunt stolas suas ut sit potestas eorum super lignum uitae (6o) (1968) i6'-i7' (Migne, 806 c: ed. Bas. e 2^, after inquit omnes) : aliter dies decim to tum huius uitae cognoscendum puto corricolQ 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 xj^ sub figurata perso na mulieris agonis pugna spiritalis indicitur ubi diis serpenti dicit inimicitias ponam inter te 1^'^ 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 diio inimi cus niteba||tur inludere tamquam secundo adg eo 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 Z) here : on the previous folio D hai H. PRIMASIUS ON THE APOCALYPSE 119 centis quoniam angelis suis mandauit de'te et cetera, sicut primo hotnini decipiendo sugesse rat dicens eretis sicut dii scientes bonum et malum ut in concessae diuinitatis adpe{|titu deiecisset incautum, tertia uero temtatio audacter infertur in qua regnorum gloria terrenorum et saecularium pompa diuitia 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 intellegi 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 fiiiorum generationem si permanserit in fide et dilectione et sanctificatione cum subri etate haec autem non mulieri mortuae sed xpi euidenter aeclesiae conuenire nullus ignorat. This long passage, preserved by D only, is given by it in the wrong place, viz. after omnes in the sentence (Migne, 806 c : ed. Bas. e 2") : perdidisti inquit omnes quLfornicantur 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 6ju. (24) S6» : et . . . maluerunt D, ed. Bas. : om. Migne 135' : et . . . terram om. D^ (25) 8' : tenentis . . . autem bis scr, D lao DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS (27) 67!" : qui . . . templo D, Migne : om, ed. Bus. Migne, 865 B : statim . . . meus Migne : om. ed. Bas. (defic, D) (28) 39V 128T (32) 146V (33) 41'" (34) (35) (36) 231 23"^ ir zr \v 6ii- 112^ 86'- 1461' (63) 82V (65) 104^ (40) (42) (52) (S3) (57) (60) (245) 139=^ (276) 36V (303) 54=^ (336) 107V (417) (438) 57' aliud . . . secernere D: om. ed, Bas. frequenter Z* : om. Migne, ed. Bas. verbum Migne: om. D, ed. Bas. in at iustificati . -tionem . . in ipsorum et^abyssus et indignos spSi enim . ipsius om, Migne mei bis scr. D . . probantur om. Migne . eius om. Migne . . vitae Migne : om. D, ed. Bas. accepistis o?n. Migne secundo se- oin. Migne illis . . . possidens om, D^ et quaternitatis . . ._ dipundius om. Migne 9 ut et . . . lectorem'i (i.e. omitted by ancestor of D) quando . . . assignare om. D beati . . . vitae om. Z)' ab his . . . sulpure D : om. Migne, ed. Bas. natural! . . . adiecerunt bis scr. D 140^^ : duodecim . . . Christo est om, 2?' (97) 55'' '• quod aperte . . . perditionis D\ om. Migne, ed. Bas. {127) 23=^ : verum . . . illos D: om. Migne, ed. Bas. (174) 44V : ipse . . . adquisivit Z> : om. Migne, ed. Bas. (181) igv : inluminaia tfptaX&d. m D mensura . . . dicit bis scr. D in quibus . . . comprehendi D : ojn. ed. Bas. [defic. Migne) portio . . . cognosce D : om. Migne, ed. Bas. iam quippe . . . monstraretur D : om. Migne, ed. Bas. concussi . . . involutuni om, ed. Bas, Smyrna . . . congruit domino D : om. Migne, ed. Bas. (out of place \n D) (496) 18'' : sicut ... in domino D: om. Migne, ed. Bas. (806) 39'' : sextus . . . cetera : out of place in D (930) 91^: aliter . . . inhabitat/): om. Migne, ed. Bas. (1084) 145V: nam ut . . . memoraturZ?: 0771. Migne, ed. Bas. (1353) 75 • in arboribus . . . fictum 0771. Migne (1968) i6i" : aliter . . . ignorat D: 07n. Migne, ed. Bas. (out of place in D) (2662) 35^-7"^ : sanabatur . . . quando com- om. Migne (2752) 73V-4'' : quarto enim . . . propinquantes om. Migne (4858) ^l^-T '■ nullum est . . . evangelium 07n. Migne (5262) 73V-8V : quarto enim . . . omnis 07n. Migne I take the large numbers first. (i) I have already dealt with 1353, a66a, 4753, 4858, 536a. Their equivalents in lines of the Bale edition are 49, 96, 98, 180, PRIMASIUS ON THE APOCALYPSE lai 189, They must represent i, a, a, 4, 4 folios in one and the same ancestor. These omissions are peculiar to Migne (and G). It is probable that some of the smaller numbers represent lines of the same ancestor. Thus 806 x 6 = 4806, of. 4858, So also there appears to be a relation between 417 and 806, (a) The largest number among the passages preserved by D only is 1968. If this is divided by 4, the result is 49a, cf. 496 (f. 18'). If 49a is divided by 2, the result is 246, which is almost the exact length of the dittography (245) in D on f. I39^ This dittography is unlike the others found in D. 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, a66a, 3753, 4858, 5263. It would therefore appear to represent lines in another ancestor. In all probability the other passages preserved by D 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 (S'') and 1088 (145'), preserve in D omission labels which show that they were at one time omitted by an ancestor oi D. The probability, therefore, is that the omissions of ed. Bas. + Migne go back to a further stage in the tradition than those of Migne 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. 37-8, followed by 54-7 and 32-3 followed by 60-5, 97, 137. 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 (j8'), 31 X 26 = 806 (39'^), 31 X 30 = 930 (91^). 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 3a x 3 = 96, 133 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS cf. 97 ; 33 X 4 = 138, cf. 128 ; 30 x 6 = 180, cf. 181 ; 30 X 8 = 340, cf. 345 ; 31x9 = 279, cf. 376 ; 30 X 10 = 300, cf. 303 ; 30 x 11 = 33°! cf. 33^ ; 30 X 14 = 43°. cf. 417- 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 evangelium, due to the loss of four folios, left the reading : praeceptum domini de virginibus praedicare For this Migne (887 b) 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 5'') : sic apostholus utrumque discernit cum dicit non enim accepistis spin seruitutis iterum in timore sed accepistis s^h adoptionis filiorum So D and ed. Bas. The reference is to Rom. viii. 15 : oil yap AdiSfTc Trvfijia bovKcias TraXiv fls <^o(3oi', aXX' iXa^iTf nvftifia vlodearias. 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 spm servitutis . . . accepistis. I came across one passage where Migne + ed. Bas. have an abridged text, viz. : PRIMASIUS ON THE APOCALYPSE 133 S4» {Migne, 837 C : ed. Bas. n y) : 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 at coniugum, in quibus nunc tribus quartis dari praedicet po testatem hanc 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, hanc uariis praedicet malorum cladib: exercen dam a gentilitate simulata fraternita te et heretica 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 Publica (Vat. 5751). A TRANSCRIPT of this famous palimpsest (C), together with an able introduction dealing with orthographical peculiarities, has been published by A. W. Van Buren 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 IS3 297 P-36 143 146 289 p. SO 159 153 312 p. SI 167 169 336 CICERONIAN PALIMPSESTS 125 Col. I Col. 2 Total p. 62 151 US 296 P- 79 151 165 316 p. 80 152 151 303 p. 81 147 156 303 p. 92 164 163 327 p. 93 IS3 157 310 p. 112 151 13s 286 p. 129 146 144 290 p. 142 154 147 301 P- 143 150 146 296 p. 152 166 174 340 P-IS3 151 160 311 p. 205 IS7 154 311 p. 256 148 142 290 3057 3055 61 12 The average for these ao pages works out at 305! for a page, 152^^ for a column, and loi^ for a line. It will be seen that the content of these columns varies from 135 to 1 74. The interesting point is that the same size recurs so fre- quently. Thus there are six examples of 151, three of 15a, 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 396 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 30 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 resp.,p.r., cons, (sing.), cos. (plur.), tr. pi. are normal, but we find rerum publi- carum (several cases), rebus publicis, populi r. (pp. 38, 378), consul (pp. 60, 83), consules (p. 186), tribunis plebis (p. 193). The abbre- viation mag. (= magistratus) occurs on p. 119, and s.c.{= senatus consultuni) on p. 13. The praenomina are generally abbreviated, but we find Servius (p. 350), Spurius (p. 30 bis, p. 3io), Quintus 136 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, ^^ 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, 55 ex per perpoliti (i.e. expoliti), 71 consiliao, 82 aut aput, 87 cultums, 93 s sub s assiduumos, 10 1 plebie, 120 sublata perta (i. e. perlata), 124 et sj, 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 appellabjtur, 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 corn! sex a Ut rhodii ut athenienses, 94 Ijticinibus, 108 et suffrages, 168 ullae . . . it d min f c peruerterunt, 271 potentatus, 261 conuenit. Omissions of m. i. (8) p. 19s (i. 38) : * turn demum (9) p. 102 (i. 63) : ** nam dictat- (») (10) p. 5 (ii. 56) : obtinendam (l i) p. 30 (ii. 48) : liberata iam C") (13) 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. ' The corruption sanatus for senatus is common in C, e.g. pp. 46, 186, 191, iqj jj?, 241, 281. Cf. Dom. 24 (saenatu P). CICERONIAN PALIMPSESTS la; p. 72 (i. 25) : intermeiistruo (24) p, 265 (i. 60) : earn consilio sedari uolebat (27) p. 217 (ii. 31) : ** isque de imperio suo exemplo pom- ("=> p. 255 (ii. 45) : ipse poenam sceleris sui summam W (32) p. 106 (i. 43) : servitutis si Athenienses quibusdam ("> (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 (8) (50) p. 228 (ii. 9) : Thraciam, Italiam, Siciliam, Africa'm 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. a8) : regem istum Numam Fythagorae ipsius discipulum aut certe Pythago- reum fuisse. Chas : regem istum numam py thagoraene ip f sius discipulum aut cer 1 te 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 i/isius dis- cipulum aut certe pythagoreum (6/x.), 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 abov^. {a) p. loa : indicat nam dictator. O gave : indicator med. om. Probably the model had : indicat nam dictator 1 The omission mark J is used in the margin to denote where the omission occurred, also at the foot of the page, where the supplement is given. 138 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS The scribe passed from the first to the second line. (b) p. 30 : qui etiam liberata iam civitate O- gave : qui etiam ciui tate This indicates in the model : qui et iam liberata (ll) iam ciuitate (11) {c) p. 217: comitiis curiatis creavit, isque de imperio suo exemplo Pompili populum consuluit, C^ gave : commit tis curiatis craeui pilipo pulum con suluit. C"^ inserts t over i in craeui, 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. Toa. If so, we may arrange : creauit isque de im perio suo ex empio 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 PALIMPSESTS 139 Van Buren says that u in 1. 2 is erased. C^ adds ipse poenam sceleris sui summd above the line and me- before -tut. I suspect that ii is a relic of me-. It may, however, be meaningless, in which case the omission was ipse . . . siimmam me-. If so, the total of letters is 29, and the passage is telescoped. {e) C^adds: seruitutis si athenienses quib-da. If we take 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 regiam constituti C* gave : ut contra con sularem cons tituti C- struck out -sularem and inserted : sulare imperium tr. pi. sic illi contra vim regiam Here consularem 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 uim regiam constituti If so, the passage has been telescoped and the omission is one of 33 letters. ■ {g) p. 368: ut uni dicto audiens esset. Quippe vilico. Quid domi ? pluresne praesunt negotiis tuis ? Immo vero unus inquit C^ appears to have written : uni dicto au diens esset quippe uili t immo uero unus inquit. C^ added -co above the line after tdli and apparently -uis after /. 1033 K .13° DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS He then struck out tuis and immo vera 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 Siciliam (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 C and Nonius, as the material is so scanty. It may, however, be worth mentioning" that in i. 70 : expositaque ad exemplum nostra re p. C and Nonius both have the corruption nostrae rei p. Dittographies. (8) p. 97 (i. 15) : sole quod (10) p. 257 (i. 68): vel in agris (15) p. 117 (i. 52) : nuUi cupiditati^ (18) p. 140 (i. 27) : numquam se plus agere' (19) p. 59 (i. 23) : diligebam et in primis p. 283 (ii. 24) : qualiscumque is foret (21) p. 253 (i. 65) : ac totam rem p. substravit (22) p. 94 (ii. 40) : et is valebit in suffragio P- 153 (■• 58) : gentem ingenia quaerimus (30) p. 189 (ii. 51) : hoc regiae civitatis everterit sit. (31) p. 88 (ii. 27) : -discenda quaeque observanda essent (36) p. 266 (i. 60) : -fectum nihil vero inquit magis ergo non pro- (37) P- 9 ("• 70) ■ sine iniuria non posset hoc verissimum esse (41) p. 290 (ii. s) : -que facillimum ut in agrum Rutulorum aboriginum 49) P- 85 (i. 11): 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 quam nihil cum ageret (18). CICERONIAN PALIMPSESTS 131 (57) p. 150 (i. 64): eadem voluntas in eorum posteris si regum similitude per- mansisset (74) p. 170 (i. 49) : teneri potest cum par non sit condicio civium si enim pecu- nias aequari non placet si inge- ^ {in fine pag-.) Simple corruptions. p. %6 (ii. 69). C has : sic ex sum mis et infimis et mediis (8) et mediis et interiectis interiectis p. 169 (i. 49). Chas: cum lex sit /. cum lex ciuilis sit sit ciuilis (10) p. 198 (i. 18). Chas: quaesi .*. quaesierat erat ex me ex me scipio (10) scipio ex me p. 88 (ii. 26). C has : et cupi .'. et cupiditate (12) ditate et bella bellandi di p. 243 (i. 65). C has : autem f mare uUum aut flamam The scribe began to viritejlammam from the next line, p. 306 (iii. 13). Chas: ut call •'• calida et (8) da et frigida frigida et (9) et camara amara The scribe repeated c from calida. p. aao (ii. 35). C has : legem tulit princi .•- legem tulit (10) pio legem principio (9) The writer has repeated 1. i after 1. a. ^ The dittography is not immediate, but comes after 197 letters; cf. p. 1=5. K a autem mare uUum aut (12) flammam 133 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS p. 46 (ii. 43). Chas: ut spartae ly curgi legib. ut ut et sit aliquod ut spartae ly curgi legib. (II) (II) et sit aliquod Here ut is contrary to the sense {quamvis in ea sit et senatus . . . et sit aliquod etiam populi ius). It is to be noticed that here the lines of C seem to coincide with those of the model, p. 388 (ii. 4). C has : ut bene meri ti de reb. com munib. ut The writer looked forward two lines. pp. 221, 394 (i. 35). Chas: sit in illo gene re melior ego cum mihi sit in unum opus The writer looked back three lines, pp. 130, 41 (ii. 60). C has : bene meriti de reb. communib. ut (12) (13) in illo gene (10) re melior ego (II) cum mihi sit (10) unum post res post multis dice ea XX. ex eo (8) dis 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 .•. disputandi (10) in eum dise in eum diem (9) putandj fac factus est tus est Here the writer when he had written di- in I. 2 went back -sputandi in the previous line. He then changed dis to die. to CICERONIAN PALIMPSESTS 133 p. 16 (ii, 45). C has : adque circu itum a prime discite adq. cognoscere lui Probably here there were two variants, viz. cognoscere} If so, que has been introduced from two lines above, p. 270 (i. 19). C has : omnis OS que auidae omnis sapie tiae Here avidos seems to have been assimilated in case to sapientiae while omnis has been repeated, p. a66 (i. 60) : nihil isto ani mo nihjl itao ani mo ani hil ita anima to homine miserius du cerem The writer, after writing ita, seems to have added -0 from animo in the previous line. There is a further confusion between nihil and atii-. The following passages exhibit larger figures ; p. 373 (ii. 14). Chas: patres populu nihil isto (9) animo nihil (10) ita animato (10) homine mise (10) rius ducerem (II) que et suo et (10) ine tanti nom et (10) lucumonis (9) qui romuli (9) socius in sabi (12) que no Here que comes from 1. a. 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. 1., the words que et . . . sabi- consist of 50 letters. * Cf. Cic. Mil. 38 adcognovisset E. 134 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS p. 117 (i. 5a). Chas : ip se nuUi cupi ditati cum quas ad res ciuis ins tituit et uocat eas omnis co plexus est in ul la cupiditati ipse The words cum quas . . . complexus est, as written, consist of 5a letters. The error is due to the recurrence of ipse. Possibly in ulla cupiditati is a variant, which has been inserted in the wrong place. pp. 157-8 (ii. 5). Chas: ad spam 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. 7a (i. 35). Chas: certo illut tempore fieri et necessario cum tota se luna sub or hem solis sub iecisset itaq. etsi non om ni intermens true tamen id fieri non posse nisi cer to tempore CICERONIAN PALIMPSESTS 135 Here certo has been repeated from 1. i. 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: lum ius aute debent esse legis aequale eorum inter quo iure so se qui sunt ci cietas ciuiu ues in eadem 5 teneri potest 5 rep. quid est cum par no enim ciuitas sit condicio nisi iuris so ciuium si eni cietas ciuiu pecunias ae tenerj potest 10 quari non 10 cum par non placet si inge sit condicio nia omniu CJnivim si eni paria esse no pecunjas ae possunt iura quari non 15 certe paria 15 placet si inge We here observe that in 1. 9 of col. 3 the writer went back to 1. 5 in col. I and proceeded to repeat the passage. There is here a lacuna in C due to the loss of folios, so we cannot be sure how much more was repeated. The passage teneri potest (col. i, 1. 5) . . . -cietas civium (col. 3, 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 immor- (p. 302). talitate credi quod multis turn cum ia iam ante sae inueterata clis nuUo alio uita hominu de mortalita 5 ac tractata 5 te homines asset et cogni credidissent 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 136 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS Here the error in col. 2, 1. 4, mortalitate for mortali, is due to the occurrence of immortalitate in col. i, 1. i. We may compare the similar blunder caecitatis for caecis (p. 158). The passage -tate creditum (col. i, 1. \) . . . de mortali (col. a, 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 1 9-20 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. : dittography omission repetition (que) repetition dittography dittography repetition (-tatis) repetition (cert9) intervening space intervening space On p. 170 I have included both the dittography of 74 letters and the intervening 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 metam 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- 85 (50) p. 228 (52) p- 272 p- 117 (57) P- 150 (74) p. 170 (100) p. ^bl (124) P- 72 (197) P- 67 P- 170 CICERONIAN PALIMPSESTS 137 i. 28: Quis enim putare vere potest plus egisse Dionysium turn cum omnia moliendo eripuerit civibus suis libertatem quam eius civem Archimedem, cum istam sphaeram, nihil cum agere videretur, [de qua modo dicebatur] effecerit ? So Heinrich and others. Steinacker proposed to place the bracketed words before nihil. An ancestor may have had : de qua modo (9) dicebatur (9) nihil cum age (11) re uideretur (11) i. 49 : multo iam id in regnis minus quorum, ut ait Ennius, nulla [regni] sancta societas nee fides est. ' vel quoniam ' (i. e. for quorum) ' scribendum videtur, vel' in sequent! versu omittenda vox regni' (Mai). The model may have had regnis minus (11) quorum ut ait (11) ennius nulla (11) sancta Regni may be a repetition from regnis, or a variant which has got into the wrong place. i. 67 : Ex quo fit 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 denique (13). The model may have had canes etiam et equi liberi sint (10) aselli deniq. (12) sic incurrant For the sense cf. Deiot. 34 ' et quem nos liberi in summa populi Romani libertate nati '. i. 71 : Turn Laelius : ' Tuum vero ', inquit, ' Scipio, ac debitum quidem munus '. So Halm : C has tuum for debitum. I am not satisfied with the emendation, but tuum may have been repeated from the context 138 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS and taken the place of debitum 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 [multo] esse facta So Halm : C has (p. 40) aliunde su ta meliora aput multo nos esse fac ta I am inclined to think that C^ has inserted multo in the wrong line, i. e. that it should come before meliora in 1. 3. Taur. A II. a*, 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) Quiiict. 3 ff., Caec. 5 ff., Pomp, i f, Clu. 12 fif., Cael. 4 flf., Pis. 8 ff., Mil. 5 ff., Tull. 8 ff., Scaur. 5 ff., in Clodium i f. There are also two stray leaves, viz. : (3) 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 ai 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- = y]\ lines Fol. ii = §§ 66-70 -sentem sine . . . renoua- = 37 „ The verso of f. iii is illegible. The recto contains §§ 92-93 minas quas . . . ofHcium = 18J lines. If we allow 185 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. = 37* = 152* = 4 = 37 = 284 = 8 = 37 = 46 = I CICERONIAN PALIMPSESTS 139 1-50: quaeres . . . cohonestandas = 526* lines = i4ff. (37*xi4 = S25) *5o-S3 : sed bonorum . . . tu te collegis- 53-66: -ses non . . . Quinctium ab- (37*x4 = iSo) *66-7o : -sentem sine . . . commemorando renova- 70-92 : -re cuius . . . illorum (37 X 8 = 296) *92-93 : minas quas . . . tanta potest 9S-end : miserum est . . . prosequatur It is to be noted that there is a lacuna in § 85 after hoc dico. Apparently about la lines of Teubner text are here lost. (284+ la = 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 : Caec. 1-6 : si quantum . . . disceptatore do- *6-9 : -mestico diiudicatur . . . atrocitatem nostram = 9-13 : reprehendere . . . haec auctio ''13-16: hereditaria . . . Aebuti- 16-38: -us quo testimonio . . . non perspicu- (36 x 8 = 288) -um est ad . . . hoc interdicto Aebutius non . . . quisquam post hac possessionis . . . qui se prae- -cipitatos ex . . . implorare pos- (38 X 4 = 152) -ses quod homines . . . obtempera- -ri non oportere . . . indicetis (39x13 = 507) Here the end of the speech appears to have coincided with the end of a page. "38- -41 41- -47 "47- -50 50- -62 *62- -65 65-end ; = 77* lines = 2ff. = 39 = I = 39 = I = 36* = I = 282 = 8 = 37 = I = 73i = 2 = 38* = I = IS2i = 4 = 39 = I = 506 = 13 Pomp. 1-40 : ; quamquam mihi . . . quae ceteri = 503 lines = i3ff- '40-43 : : tollenda esse . . . quo homine = 35 = I 43-end: vos id quod . . . oportere = 361 == 10 Clu. "•1-7 : animadverti . . . iudicium = 75* lines = sflf. 7-18: quod in . . . nuper Larino = 147 = 4 "18-24 : huius opprimendi . . . ac minis = 76 = 2 24-32 : insequi . . . sustulisset (38x3= 114) = iisi = 3 "32-38: quanto . . . constituunt = 75 = 2 38-74: atque ille . . . Habitus pa- (37x14 = 518) = 517* = 14 HO 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 = n\ = i 94-101 : illi iudices . . . viri boni = 73j = 2 *ioi-io3 : suscepta . . . iudicio mul- =35 =1 103-129 : -ta est ab . . . civem sine = 350 = 10 "139-131 : ignominia . . . probavisse = 35a = ' 131-145 : -res enim . . . causam si- = 213^ = 6 (35x6 = 210) *I45-I47 : -ne lege . . . praescripto = 35^ = i 147-end : fieri . . . veritati = 759 = 30 (371x20=750) Cael. 1-38: si quis . . . fama quotus = 520 lines = 14 ff. (37x14 = 518) *38-42 : quisque est . . . curam rei =72 =2 The second folio here has lost a few lines, but it is not clear from Peyton's account what the mutilation is. 42-54: domesticae . . . illius stu- =i5ijlines= 4 ff. (38x4=152) *54-56: -dis illis . . . futurum Gaelic =37 =1 56-66 : fuisse nisi ... in causa nul- = 187 = 5 (37x5 = 185) *66-69 : -lus exitus . . . miramur si il- =38 =1 69-end: -lam commenticiam . . . 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) *l7-23: -to enim . . . aut te =79 =2 23-33: fuisti Romae . . . omnes exsecra- =157 =4 "33-36: -rentur male . . . essevisam = 4of = i 36-47: nuUis consiliis . . . Macedoni- = 160 = 4 "47-50 : -am in quam . . . ille si non = 42I = i 50-61: acerrime fureret . . . nummus in =157 =4 *6i-64 : -terea, mi Caesar . . . inflixerint = 4o|- = i (The passage -niam qtiidem . . . inflixerint has been cut out.) "64-67 : num etiam . . . quicquam praeter = 40J = i (The folio ends at autem nolite, but I have added the amount which has been cut out.) 67-75: libidines . . . deberem = 119-^ =3 CICERONIAN PALIMPSESTS 141 *75-79' quorum quidem . . . invitavit roga- = 42 lines = i f. (The words Caesarem . . . roga- have been cut out.) *79-83: -vit non sum . . , montes rase- =41 =1 82-end : -dissent amnes . . . viderem = 270 = 7 (40 X 7 = 280) In this speech the unit is higher than previously, viz. 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 : fuerit occidi 36-72 : -tura ipsius ''72-75 : amplecti plebem 75-86: -niam quantam . . . sacranum =159 =4 * 86-8 8 : bonae deae 88-92 : cum solebat '■92-95 : -sa extra . . 95-end: ingratis civibus . . . elegit =124 Here the unit is much the same as in the in Pisonem . partim occisi = 363 . . personis valeat = 4oi non debeo = 34 . . iam ilium na- = 39l . . quia nimis = 402J m ... si sibi pecu- = 41 i . . . sacrarium = 159 . . circumscripsisset ne = 40I . . multa de cau- = 39! enim negat = 42* able exception is §§ 32-33 = 34. missing leaf must have contained extant MSS. (p. 393). Tte/L 1-3 : ante sic . . . consului. Pri- The leaf has been mutilated. 7-1 1 : pecuniae paret . . . datum esset 24-28 : turbarunt. Audite . . . malo eius er- 28-32: -go addit . . . nocte sine 32-36 : vi sine . . . solum igitur 37-41 : ego intellego . . . dedit de cete- A notice- Peyron has shown that the more than is found in the = I f. = 36I lines = = 35 = 394 = 35! = 36f 41-46: -ris damnis 47-51 : boni debent . . . fugit ma- 53-56: tamen verum . . . potest ut eum Scaur. 2-7 : -tis suae . . . etiam facilius nimiamque hominum = 36^ = 37 = 37 = 364 18-23: quoniam habet . . . genus primum = 36^ = 23-28 : ut inquisitum . . . odium popu- = 364 31-36: aut eius qui . . . detraxerint = 37 46-50 : -tuisse templo . . . 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. 142 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS The following conspectus may be of interest. I give the contents of the MS- when perfect, except in the case of TulL, Scaur., and in Clodium, omitting Quinct. 95-end, where there was a vacant space, and two mutilated leaves in Tull. and Scaur. Teubner lines folios avg. for f. Quinct. = 1074I 29 37 (37 X 29 = 1073) Caec. = 1320 35 38 (38x35 =1330) Pomp. = 899 24 37| (37ix24= 900) Clu. = 2793 76 37 (37x76 =2812) Gael. = 1 1 52 J 31 37 (37x31 =1147) Pis. = 1414 36 39 (39 X 36 = 1404) Mil. = 1326 33 40 (40x33 = 1320) Tull. = 293f 8 37 (37x8 = 296) Scaur. = 146I 4 36I (36^x4 = 146) Clod. = 37 I 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. 36. The MS. {T) does not contain much evidence concerning its past history. There are some interesting corruptions in the pro Tullio, 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 esset, non modo servos ¥ or 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 factum) : esset tamen in eo ipso lo (15) CQ qui tuus esset (14) non modo seruos The repetition of non modo servos is due to d/u. § 33 '■ ego non in una re sola, quod mihi satis est, neque in universa re solum sed ThdiS : 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) 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 primum 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 (i6j ista lex The writer looked back from ista lex to istae ipsae leges. §§ 29j 30 : satis est planum facere, vel se a me ipso vi deiectum esse vel me con- silium inisse ut vi deiceretur. Plus igitur datur Claudio, cum ita inter- dicitur, unde dolo male meo vi deiectus sit, quam si daretur, unde a me vi deiectus esset. Nam in hoc posteriore, 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 unde dolo malo meo he wrote unde a me from the imme- diate context. (2) After writing sive consilium inissem, he looked back to me consilium inisse, and repeated ut vi deiceretur. 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 deiceretur (14) plus igitur datur (IS) claudio cum ita in (15) 5 terdicitur unde do (16) lo malo meo ui deiec (16) tus sit quam si da (14) retur unde a me ui (14) deiectus esset nam (16) , 10 in hoc posteriore (IS) 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 -Uir. After copying 1. 16, he looked back to 1. I and repeated 1. a. The words consilium inisse . . . additur sive consist of 338 letters (15 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. 3 to the top of col. I. The evidence seems to show that in the pro Tullio 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 in Pisonem and pro Milone. It does not, however, follow that the contents of this MS. were derived from one ancestor. CICERONIAN PALIMPSESTS 14^ The following omissions may be noticed : (11) Quinct. 53: adfinitatis om. T (12) C/«. 130: a tr. seditioso £im. T Pis. 33 : profectionis om. T (14) Clu. 129: et turpitudinem om. T Cael, 55 : percipite at que om. T (19) Clit. 37 : Asuvium appellat ipse om. 7'' The last of these is interesting. We have already seen that the average number of letters in a line of 7" is 18. The suspicion, therefore, arises that in the pro Cluentio, at any rate, it may have been copied from a model very similar to itself. To these, probably, should be added : (19) Pis. 48 : partim pertnutationes (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 V (Bas. Vat. H. 35), cent, viii, has : tim etiam in illis lo cis ubi omnia diripu it emptiones partim mutationes ad hunc Xyx%culani \\ \\ \\ \\ || montem exstruen dum The words italicized are written in rasura, also there is an erasure after Tusculani. It appears probable that F' wrote emptiones ad hunc, omitting partim permutationes {ojx.). 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} * Manttel, p. 58. it» L i4<5 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS In the second passage, § ai, the later MSS. have : ex omni scelerum importunitate et flagitiorum impunitate. The omission by T of the last three words seems due to 6fx. 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 TF: mei capitis pretio f^//. Mil. 75: exstruere aedificium T: aedificium exstruere f^W. Cael. 39 : Fabricios fuisse arbitror Camillos T: fuisse arbitror Camillos Fabricios ceit. Pis. 22: in quo cum ilium saltatorium versaret orbem, ne turn quidem T\ in quo ne turn quidem cum ilium saltatorium versaret orbem cett. The theory of these transposition variants will be found discussed in detail further on (pp. 355-8). Here I will only remark that such a case as Caec. 41 indicates in a previous MS. mg.est periculosum (11) So we may explain the variants in Cael. 39, Pis. aa as due to in quo fuisse arbi (10) cum ilium sal (11) ;;/^. fabricios tror camillos (12) tatorium uer (11) sed mg. ne turn 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 PALIMPSESTS 147 spaces are left at the end of a paragraph. The contents of the 1 3 lines preserved are as follows : recto. 84, 33, az, 9, %%, 17, 23, ai, 33, 33, 32, 13, 20 = 361. verso. 8, 34, 34, 3i, 30, 35, 13, 33, 33, 3i, 33, 33, 33 = 368. The lost portion of the recto contained 394 letters {nummos . . . semivivum). The leaf, therefore, when intact must have had 37-8 lines. The interest of the 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 poUiceri. The verso was deciphered by P. KrUger, after Peyron had pro- nounced it to be illegible.^ The leaf is written in long lines with 37 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 (36 lines) = 967 letters. verso (37 lines) = loco letters. The average length of a line is 37 letters (37 x 36 = 962, 37 X 37 = 999). This leaf is extremely 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 epitomator who selected those passages which seemed interesting to him. This theory has been adopted by subsequent writers, and Kriiger suggests that this epitome may have been made by Fronto, 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 at spem magnam mihi adfere bat summae probitatis summaeq. eloquentiae ^ Hemus, v (1871), pp. 146-9. L 3 i4« DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS et uiuebat mecum coniunctissimae n solum amicitiae officiis sed etiam studiis communib. 5 semper dilexi nuUo 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 10 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 1 5 nam et consilium tuum uel casus potius diutius in arrais 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 n 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 omnt 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 (T), viz. : 1. 6, after viverem : nihil attinet me plura scribere, quam mihi necesse sit eius salutem et fortunas quibuscumque rebus possim tueri add. codd. I. 7, after cognorim : pluribus rebus add. codd. 1. II, after intellego : hoc mihi gratius facere nihil potes. uale. add. codd. 1. 20, after itaque : 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 nihil erit saltem : CICERONIAN PALIMPSESTS 149 tibi et ilia poUiceor quae supra scrips!, quae sunt adhuc mea, 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 omnes fere familiarissimi eius casu devincti magnis 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 persequi non est necesse, universum 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 tarn difficile, add. codd. It is clear that the words nihil 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 versatum. 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 poUi 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 versatum : 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, 1. 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. a6 is very impudent. Kriiger calls attention to a statement of Fronto, 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 eleganti aut verbo notablli dictum videretur, excerpsi I50 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 attinet . . . tueri, the first passage omitted = 94 letters ; also the block of text which comes between the omission oipluribus rebus and hoc mihi . . . vale, viz. guid tu et . . . intellego, as printed by Mendelsohn, consists of 187 letters. That which is omitted in 1. 30 after itaqtie, viz. et Posiumtdeno . . . puient, consists of 284 letters. Here we have the sequence : 94. 187 (94X3 = 188). 284 (94x3 = 283) 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 T 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. (= qtie), B. (= 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 • If the abbreyiation V\= Vale) was used, this = 31. Cf. Schmitr, Commentarii Notarum Tironiarum, 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 3to 29 183 399 34 (31) 217 676 36 284 Here 31x3 = 93, 31x6=186, 31x7 = 317, 31x9 = 279, 31 X 10 = 310, 31 X 13 = 403, 3 1 X aa = 682. Only one number is recalcitrant to this explanation, viz. 13. This comes between 29 and 183. The probability, therefore, is that the words pluridus rebus were already omitted by the model. If so, the whole passage from vides relictim . . . fieri intellego 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 ^6. The last passage is rather long. It is to be noticed, however, that -que and atqtie 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 [nihil attinet me plura scribere quam (31) mihi necesse sit eius salutem et fortu (32) nas quibuscunque rebus possitn tueri] (31) uides relicum esse '' ut cum cognorim (29) quid tu et de bonorum fbrtuna et de rei (31) p. calamitatibus sentias' nihil a te pe (31) tarn 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 SAL. DIC. • I here read, with T, suscepium maximum semper ac iucundum futurum sit. The other MSS. give susceptum iucundum sit futurum. Kriiger thinks that the words maximum semper ac are part of the botching. Since, however, they do not help ont the constinction, it seems to be more probable that they were present in the model of T. " est cett. ' sentires cett. * esses cett. T52 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS ego quanti te faciam semperque fece (30) rim quantique' me a te fieri intellexe (31) rim sum mihi ipse testis nam et consili (33) 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 (33) 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' turn certe ordinis tui facile prin {31) ceps sed quoniam eodem tempore eadem (31) que de causa nostrum uterque cecidit (31) [tibi et ilia poUiceor quae supra (28) scripsi 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) li^enter 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 agam per me ipse et moliar singu (32) la persequi non est necesse uniuersum (32) studium meum et beneuolentiam ad te (30) ' om. -que cett. 2 jg £5555 „,^_ a dignissimus cett. CICERONIAN PALIMPSESTS 153 defero sed magni mea interest hoc tu (30) OS omnis scire quod tuis litteris fi (30) eri potest ut intellegant omnia cice (31) ronis patere trebiano hoc eo pertinet {32) ut nihil existiment esse tarn difficile] (33) quod non pro te mihi susceptum maxi (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) fructum studiorum 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 34 lines to the page and an average of nearly i a letters to the line. The contents of A are : ^ra Scatiro 6 ff. pro Tullio 4 ff. pro Flacco 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/ro Scauro and pro Tullio are as follows. I omit one folio, containing Tull. 8-14, since it has been badly mutilated : Scaur, 8-13: te dixi . . . flagitio defor- = 39t 13-19: -matos habetis . . . disputem quid = 40j- 19-25 : non habuisti 29-34 : -litu Aetnam 34-40 : se consule . . 40-45 : -um dolori . . ' maximum semper ac out. ceti, . atque iniurias = 394 , . quam ob rem = 4of hoc perfugi- = 41 Scipionum int- = 414 m. ceti. ■•' sit futurum att, 154 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS Tull. 4-8: ore putavit . . . facerecumque =4ii 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 ihcpro 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 366. The total contents of the folio, after this addition, are as follows : Col. I Col. 2 Col. 3 recto 266 264 266 = 7961 _ _ verso 266 249 266 = 781 J 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 Scauro and. pro Tullio. 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/ro Caelio is said to contain : §§ 71-75 '• C. Aeserni . . . et infelici A photograph is given by Chatelain (PI. xxix), but he describes the leaf as malheurensetnent 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 the/ro Scauro and pro Tullio, 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 PALIMPSESTS 155 5ca«n,34 : qui sive patricius sive plebeius esset— nondum enim certum con- stituerat — cum hoc sibi contentionetn fore putabat. So T and Asconius, except that Asconius has consiituUtm erat and cum illo, A has: Qui siue patrici us siue plebeius esset non enitn certum const! tuerat cum hoc sibi certum c6 tentionem fo re putabat Here certum is repeated from the context before con- (o/n.). The model may have had : enim certum con (9) stituerat (9) cum hoc sibi (lo) contentionem In Scaur. 43, A, 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 pestilentiae before plena. If so, we may attribute to the model : in hac gente pestilentiae (12) plena I recently noticed an interesting parallel in Fain,\\\. 34 i. Here Cicero, speaking of the Sardinian Tigellius, calls him hontinem pestilentiorem patria sua. I finally record certain transposition variants in ^ and the other MSS. which seem to go back to an ancestor in narrow columns, viz. : Scaur. 23 : iacere fundamentum A : fundamentum iacere T 33 : in gratiam reditum A : reditum in gratiam T Cael. 71: crimen quaestionis .42 : quaestionis crimen f«//.. disciplinae dedita A'S : dedita disciplinis ceU. studiis aequalium AS : aequalium studiis ce/i. These are 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. 3077) for treatment together with the MSS. of these speeches. Vat. 5750. Scholiasta Bobiensis, The remains of the Scholiasta Bobiensis have been preserved in two palimpsests, 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 Calvinus et Q. 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. {C) has, after videntur} domitius caluinus et q. ancharius et c, quid cum populo agi eo tem pore C^ puts hd over c, 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. 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. : (13) 135. 5 : cum inrisione bis scr. (49) 91. 4 : tamen statim cum ipso corpore alii vero interiecto quodam bis scr. (64) 95. 20 : Claudia de bonis Ptolomaei publicandis M. Cato ut consenserit in legationem bis scr. Here 1 a 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 ahexfuisse denigtie (15) 142.29: Ciceronis xt.-^&a.Vt6. s.i\x.x Ciceronis ipsitts {21) 136.3: contra xepcaXtA. sSlat contra dicenie scilicet (25) 74. 8 : su repeated after supra in illarum quaestionum This indicates in the model : supra in ilia (11) rum quaestionum (14) In other cases the passage repeated is longer, viz. : 147, I : creber fuisti ut haec immodica f repeats creber fuisti (12) after immodica. This indicates : creber fuisti (12) ut haec immodica (14) 125.27: comparandum ut apud iudices editicios O repeats comparandum (11) after editicios. This indicates : comparandum (11) ut apud iudi (10) ces editicios (12) 80. 10: hoc ratiocinationibus validis implet subnectens ad hunc modum, nam quid de Cyro nuntiaret ? C^ repeats hoc ratiocinationibus (20) after nuntiaret. This indicates : hocratioci (10) nationibus (10) ualidis implet (13) 158 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS subnectens (lo) ad hunc modum (ll) nam quid de cy (li) ro nuntiaret (ll) 105. 25 : dicit ducentos bestiarios, id est venatores, sine dubio volens intellegi omnem repeats dicU dticentos bestiarios (23) after omnem. This indicates : dicit ducentos (13) bestiarios (10) id est uena (9) tores sine du (II) bio uolens in (II) tellegi omnem (12) 125. ai : 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 (II) xit qui reus de (12) sodaliciis (10) petitus est (10) lege licini (10) a quam m. lici (10) nius crassus (n) 133-8: 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 caesar (12) causae publi (II) canorum eorum (12) que desideri (II) is CICERONIAN PALIMPSESTS 159 The writer's eye passed from eorum to damnorum. 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 hostili instead of after eorum. 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 (fid and Its). Leo Magnus (Migne, vol. liv). (31) p. 34 (Migne, 777 B): misericordiae dl ad satisfactionem (32) p. 42 (805 B) : ut creator intellegatur non valebunt (so) 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 impugnatores catholicae ueritatis industria sacerdotalis obtinuit ad uestram maxime gloriam redundabit. Here 31x4= 124. The omission of 50 letters seems due to chance, assisted by o\i.. Concilium Calchedonis (Mansi, vi, vii). (16) p. 130 (Mansi, vi. 618 a) : *interIoquutus sum (28) p. 1 10 (vi. 590 c) : inimicos flauiani foris mittite (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 nram salutem i6o DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS (63) p. 205 (vi. 715 d) : quae dicta sunt a scis 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. S70 B) : pauIo mariamme secundae syriae eusebio seleucoboli eutychiano epyfa- niae secundae syriae (84) p. I02 (vi. 578 b) : heliodori epi amathuntis et proecii epi arsinoe epafrodito agu 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. : 38-39, 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 periransi usque ubi adnotationem uidis 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 copying the last passage, after having got so far as Macedonius us (= vir spectabilis) tribunus notarius et referendarius, looked back to the previous passage and went on with Eutyches reu archimandrita. He then rewrote the whole passage from 759 D to 762 c without discovering his error. 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 80 folios, which are distributed thus : I'-S^ : in Pisonem, §§ 33-74. 9^-1 1^ : pro Flacco, §§ 39-54. iiv_jyT. pyg Fonteio, §§ 11-49. i8'-8o'': Philippics, i-xiii. 10. V has suffered various mutilations. A quaternion has been lost before Pis. o^o,, 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 pro Fonteio and Philippics. Place. 54 ends on f. 11^, col. a, 1. ao, and is followed without a break by the extant fragment of \hs. 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. ao. 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 excerpta Cusana 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 Cus. 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 CICERO, 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 FONTEIO 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 F (75 x 6 = 450). It follows, therefore, that Fat 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 V, when complete, the Pisoniana occupied ff. i-aa^ and that the missing folios, 23-48, were occupied by portions of the pro Fonteio 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, V 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. 34142 (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 dretspaltigen Klassiker} He mentions, in addition to V, a ninth-century palimpsest of Quin- tilian's Declamationes (Paris. 7900 a). I have published a Bodleian leaf (Laud. Lat. 39) of the ninth century containing a fragment of Cic. Tusc. (iv. 114-30), written in three columns.'^ V, 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 audi sonst in der Einrichtung nur nackakmt), 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 : \^ (§§ 32-4) : col. I tamen misericordia . . . sapienti op-, col. 2 -tabilius . . . post obitum, col. 3 occasumque . . . servandi l^ (§§ 34-7) : col. I causa Romam . . . fratrem, col. 2 inimici mei . . . vestro- rum, col. 3 propinquorum . . . conscripserat. ■i^ (§§ 37-40) : col. I aerarium . . . attingitur ut, col. 2 semper . . . afflixeras, col. 3 quern deleveras ... an so- ■£> (§§ 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. Forschungen, iv, p. 28. 2 MHanges Chatetain, pp. 169-73. 3 Guarino's ancient MS. of Pliny's letters, now lost, was written in tliree columns. Cf: Sabbadini Codid fosseduti etc. da Guarino, p. 60. CICERO, PHILIPPICS 165 3^ (§§ 44-7) : col. I recitatae . . . se civem, col. 2 esse meminerit ... in scena, col. 3 videtis . . . reliquisse 4^^ (§§ 47~S°) '• <^ol. 1 mitto de . . . praeda quam ex, col. 2 fortunis . . . tantos ha-, col. 3 -beret . . . gravissimae sunt 4^ (§§ 5°~2) : col. I furore . . . vetarent, col. 2 sad quoniam . . . immoitali-, col. 3 -um festi . . . expilaras 5"^ (§§ 52-5) : col. I quam incenderas . . . Macedonia, col. 2 nobilis . . a porta, col. 3 cum lictoribus . . . Macedonicus 5^ (§§ 5S~7) • '^''^- I imperator . . . pestis, col. 2 o labes . . . etiam recu-, col. 3 -santem . . . cumque omnium 6'"(§§ 57-9): col. I tuorum ... a senatu, col. 2 P. Servili . . . cupiditate, col. 3 iusti et . . . fades fidem 6^ (§§ 59-62) : col. I scilicet cum . . . Macedonicam, col. 2 lauream . . . manu, col. 3 perfricans . . . alteri ilium 7' (§§ 62-5) : col. I honorem collega . . . ferreum, col. 2 senatus . . . nominis sui, col. 3 videre . . . philosophi 7^ (§§ 65-8) : col. I manus tibi . . . scitote esse, col. 2 luxuriosius ... in lectis, col. 3 saepe plures . . . ut prorsus. 8'' (§§ 68-71) : col. I una viveret . . . distinguere, col. 2 et dividere . . . assen-, col. 3 -tatorem et . . . qui scripsit 8" (§§ 71-4) : col. I detrahi nihil . . . versus tui, col. 2 nimis negare . . . nee arma, col. 3 scutum aut . . . oratione hoc. The contents, if we allow the usual official abbreviations, are as follows : Col. I Col. 2 Col. 3 Total i"^ 546 481 511 = 1538 I'' S09 528 537 = 1574 2' 529 495 514 = 1538 a'' 531 515 488 = 1534 3"^ 516 505 476 = 1497 3" 483 508 450 = 1441 4"^ 537 489 446 = 1472 4^" 506 477 467 = 1450 s-' 506 450 520 = 1476 5' 538 494 499 = 1531 6"^ 528 536 548 = 1612 6^ 584 561 530 = 1675 r 601 564 547 = 1712 r 546 561 524 = 1631 8-^ 593 581 562 = 1736 8^ 589 8642 576 8321 565 8184 = 1730 = 25147 i66 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS This gives an average content of about 3,144 letters to a folio, 1,57a to a page, 524 to a column, and 17^ to a line. It is to be noticed that col. i tends to squeeze cols. % and 3, especially 3. The averages are : col. i = 540, col. % = 530, and col. 3 = 511. The average numbers of letters to the line are, in col. I, 18 ; in col. 2, 17^ ; in col. 3, 17. As actually written in F, the number of letters is slightly less. Chatelain (PI. a6) 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. 53 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 434 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 Phil, xi, §§ 18 and 30, 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 imperiura 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 § 30 in their proper place. It is to be noticed that the passage as given by F"^ in § 18 is grossly corrupt, while in § 30 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 gerendil 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 optime 5 mo uidear et si quis potest refra 5 merito uidear si quis si quis gari non modo non petenti uerba potest refragrari non modo CICERO, PHILIPPICS 167 etiam recusati. ilia uero hie non petenti uerutn etiam recu aliena consulii dignitate alie santi. ilia uero p. c. natetn dorij grauitates senten aliena consulij dignitate 10 tiae tot COS. dolabellae psequen 10 aliena teporum grauitate di causa si et suria sortiantur sententia est ut consul dolabellae dica curi nutili. Rp. sed prius persequendi causa asia et suri qua turpe cosue pete cum cos. de am sortiant. 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, uerba etiam recusati; 1. 8, alienatem doru grauitates \ 1. I a, curi nutili, &c. It is to be noticed that the words ac de me optime merito (18), or aceme 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 V ' inserted after the first dedit'm. § 18. The error would be simplified, if dedit in §§ 18 and 30 occupied the same place on two pages (cf. p. 5a), 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 V, was written in three columns with 30 lines to the page, this gives us 538 letters to a column and 17^ letters to a line. We have previously found that in ff. 1-8 the averages were 1,573 to a page, 534 to a column, and 1 7-1 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 § ao V goes on : obsidea tur cii in eo liberando salus sit posita rei publicg sed priusquam turpe Here the words sed priusquam turpe (17) have been repeated by 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 ir 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 = 2115 Sol- 810 686 743 = 2239 These exhibit a rise in the average content of a line from 18 up to nearly 35. 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 F, 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 F 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. (1) Orthography. An initial « is common before s, e.g. isceleratorum (ii. ao), iscio CICERO, PHILIPPICS 169 (ii. 41), istatim (ii. 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. ao), afiliam (ii. 99), asuscepimus (x. 14), acuius (xi. 6), esentire (ii. 24), enemo (ii. 36), euxoris (iii. 4), eprodideritis (X. 7). The spelling quum 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] uerua nee bellica F' : berua nee uellica F'. Vowels are frequently confused ; thus e is written for a, e. g. ii. 78 audecem, viii. ij feveo ; or for i, e.g. vii. \<) perspecua, xi. 13 redicu- lum, ib. 1^ eta; so a for i, e.g. daripere, xi. 4, and o for e, e.g. xii. 13 comcodere (= concedere). Letters are often omitted, e. g. i. 31 Dola = Dolabella, ii. 37 mnens = manens, 61 near = negare, and still more frequently transposed, e. g. ii. 40 agrumento = argumento, 48 su aegra = sua erga, 49 gatria = gratia, 56 de ea ealgelem — de alea lege, v. 14 thaheniensium = Atheniensium, 39 sinsi-= nisi, 46 suma = suam. (a) Abbreviations. A vertical stroke is frequently used for -m final, also for other abbreviations, e. g. clarissimoru hominii (viii 7), cii tdnus (ii. 106), nHs bellii (ix. 4), «« cii (ib.), bsederit = obsederit (vii. 15) ; also for a transposition mark, i. 34 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 publica for /. R. and r. p (cf. Halm on vi. 1 6). Various errors show that the full forms are recent, e.g. v. a8 marcus antoni, viii. ai domitius bruti, a7 ex domitio bruti exercitu (cf. xi. 17 at quo domiti = ad quod), xi. ao populoque romanum, xii. ao populi romano, v. ai populo romano; so xii. ao populo romano = praetores (PR.). The abbreviation P.C. is found from time to time, e.g. x- '^, xii. 19, so c. u. = clarissimus vir} e. g. ix. 3 ; so xi. 6 ere = civium Romanortim. Cf. i. ao iud. V^ : indices V^. Among rarer abbreviations may be mentioned xi. ao senatui dico populoque Romano'] senatui I. populoque romanum V, where / appears 1 Cf. xiii. so u. c.\aD = viri clarissimi. I70 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS to stand (or d {= dico), v. 39 sapientia etiam, where etiam appears to represent et mia, i. e. et misericordia. (3) Double readings. These are very frequent, e. g. i. 7 ueritus, uertus, 17 multais, ii. 8 ipsuo, 23 coniunctionise, 43 quods, 45 confirmauiat, 50 alienis alieni, 86 uixereas, 99 frequentissimeo, 104 hastaea, 114 mortali inmortali, 116 magmultis, iii. i postulabatuit, 7 commodoa, la consilium oiudicat, 16 traxit tarxerat, 19 pertitnenat, 22 intellegitat, ■^fS pate- faciunt fecerunt, iv. 5 possiumus, ix. 6 uestraea, xi. 12 nequec, etc., etc. Some strange corruptions are due to various readings, which have been introduced in the wrong place, e. g. ii. 39 plena curae. Here V gives plena curae. There appears to have been a variant plana. V^ inserts a above n instead of above e. So i. 13 editors read with V fuerit ille Brutus, while L. is added before Brutus by D. As ui 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 (= kic supple) has been incorporated in the text i. II. The rare symbol k.m. {=■ hie minus) is used in the margin in v. 4 h.m. quam senatus, si quidem legiones, and is incor- porated in the text vii. 6 h.m. pagate. Marginal supplements are frequently introduced by h. In vii. ix ad bellum proficiscerentur, quod erat helium V inserts R. before proficiscerentur . Here R. = require, a critical note due to the fact that after quod there is a r long insertion taken from § 6. In ii. no for 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. Tulli Ciceronis Philippicarum liber viii explicit \ V^ inserts after Ciceronis the sign 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 lb. : multo postea gravius urguebamur ' (28) om. D The intervening letters number 368 (38 x 13 = 364). Here we seem to be on the track of the common ancestor (/"), which appears to have had : paratum illi 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 om. V 1. 16 om. D (6;u.) 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-. ; GICERO, PHILIPPICS 177 /• seems to have had : si accipiendam cur non rogamur si (28) postulandam quid timemus in hac (27). ego legatione sim aut adid consili (29) um admiscear in .quo ne si dis'sense (28) 5 ro quidem a ceteris 1. I om. D (suo loco) ; 11. 4-5 admisceteris (m^d. om.) V Interesting evidence is also afforded by ii. 93-6 sunt ea . . . de- fendivms,. Here D omits the whole passage, going on immediately to § 97 : Quid ego de commentariis infinitis, quid de innumer?ibilibus chirographis loquar ? F in § 97 has : Quid ego de cornmentariis. infinitis quid de innu merabilibus cyrographis loquar but in §'93, before sunt 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-ao) 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 a8 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 PlanciQ, cent, v, to which reference has already been made. This exhibits with exactitude the formation revealed by this analysis, viz. a 8 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 • U33 N 178 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS V, which appear to have been inherited from one or more ancestors in three columns {U). 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 1 attribute to U. The passages are arranged in order of length. ii. 68. Fhas: os impurissimum ostenim portumnissimutn dere UO) : OS impurissimum osten (17) m^: importunissimum dere viii. 9. ^has: inuitus dico ha sed dicendum est ista caesaris l/(i) : inuitus dico sed dicendum est ista (18) mg: ha caesaris Halm says ' apparet correctionem /ta, quae post dico legitur, ex margine in alienum locum illatum esse.' ii. 69. F has : pro conclavibus popinae triclinis UQ): _ pro conclauibus popinae (18) mg. triclinis viii. 7. Khas: ut clarissimi 1 moru hominu clarudeissi ma p oeniretur necem l/{}): ut clarissimorum hominu (19) crudelissimam poeni (18) retur necem The writer of V looked back from 1. a to 1. i and conflated the two adjectives. iii. 31. Fhas: ifttperator quas effecerit strages imperatori ubicijq: posuit uestigium ^ (0 : imperator mg. imperatori quas effecerit strages (20) ubicumque ii. 74. Khas: dicebatur esse cum inte inuehens sic CICERO, PHILIPPICS 179 ad quo caesar in senatu in aperte inte inte uehens quaestus est U (?) : dicebatur esse cum sica de quo caesar in (17) senatu aperte in te (16) nig. in te inuehens uehens iii. 17. Khas: copellat edicto nescenti tamen s commendationem esse con pellationem £ f(?): edicto nescit tamen commendationem es (16) se compellationem a (16) mg. a suam In V s and a are additions by the second hand. This is a remark- able instance of a phenomenon not infrequent in V, viz. that a word is bisected and the disiecta membra are scattered. xi. I. Fhas: enim quam arma coepert a in hiis qui contra patria is scelerata arma coeperunt inesset immanitas. Here arma coeper is a v. I. for arma coeperunt, which has got into the text between quam and ta, i. e. quanta. U{i): enim quan ta in hiis qui contra (17) patriam iscelerata (17) arma coeperunt mg. arma coeper. V. 24. f gives : circumsedem utinam nja firmissimam et splen didissimam populi roma ni coloniam. £/(?): mutinam firmissimam et splen (18) didissimam P. R. colo (16) niam The copyist looked forward two lines. viii. 22. Khas: mihi quidem amis si sunt nullum quauis de illo ad quern missi sunt be ne existiment N 2 I'So DESCENT , OF MANUSCRIPTS l/{}): ; ihihi quidem : nullum quaniuis de il (17) lo ad queni nfiissi sli'iit (17) mg. amissi sunt iii. 21. Khas : nee poterat aliter xi. aliteri de aduersaris iudicari'ducibus si '\ igur Caesar hostis. Here aliteri is a duplex lectio for aliter, aj^d igur a slip for igitur. For Caesar the reading of D is C Caesar, and, I take .c«. in I. i to represent C. , - ,■ (/(!): aliter . w/f. aliteri de aduersaris iudica . (18) ri ducibus, si igitur (17) mg. f.C A Caesar hostis ii. 75. f^has: , cum , , ■ ? petereiit armis ii quo , rum erant legibus est ■ '' in rebus iftiquissimis' rum erant legibus quid potest esse equi Here est (1. 3) = etsi. UO): _ cum peterent armis iiquo rum erant legibus est (18) in rebus iriiquis'sitaiS (19) quid potest esse aequi V repeats rum erant legibus after, iiuguissipfis. 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 twd lines oi U. ' ■ -* ii. 54. V has : consules ex italiae expul imperi-popuH ni cqm rotna sos que iis CN. pompeiiim 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 ol expulsos. ^ (?) : 1, '. -eK italia expul ■ '■■ sos cumqufi iis CN (14) pompeium quod imperi (18) wzg-. imperi populi decus ac lumen fuit roma :'i'! CICERO, philippics: >'(; i8i iii. 8. Khas: neque enim tarquinio expulso maioribiis nfis ■ tam fuit bptala Itbezta^ quam est depluso maio ribus nils tam antonio retinenda U (?) : neque enim tarquinio expulso maioribus nfis tam (liS). fuit opta!ta liber (15) tas quam est depulso (17) : , antonio retinenda The repetition of ififiiioribus nostris tow is due to oju. {expulso . . . depulso). ii. 39. Here i/seem? to have had : quid, . de me senserit sciunt (18) qui eum de pharsalia (17) fuga paphum persecu (17) ti sunt numquam ab eo (17) mentio de me V has quid ment de me senserit. The writer looked forward five lines, the error being due to dju. {de me). vi. 3. V has : discessio facta non esset tamen praeter pan cos hommes omnes mihi adsensuri uiderentur 5 {{II 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 j^^ nescio qua eis obiecta femissior,) U{Y): discessio facta non .esset tamen prae (17) ?«g-. non est . tei;paucos omnes mihi . (18) adsenpuri uiderentur, , . (19) ho.dierno ^utem dies. ;. : (17) pene scio quaeis obiec , ta remissior i8a DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS ii. 30. Fhas: ergo ego isceleratus appelloratho quem tu suspicatum aliquid sus picaris ille qui stillante 5 prae se pugionem tulit is autenoris causa nomi natur. Here we have to notice the covrw^tions appelloratho (= appellor ate) in 1. 2 and autenoris {^a te honoris) in 1. 6. f/'(?) : ergo ego isce leratus appellor a te (18) quem tu suspicatum ali (19) quid suspicaris ille (18) 5 qui stillante prae se (18) pugionem tulit is a te A (18) mg. a ho noris causa nominatur The marginal addition ho- was added to a te in 1. % instead of to a te in 1. 6. ix. 3. V has : nisi seruilio cur respondendum putare qui hunc honore statue nemi ni tribuendij censuit nisi ei p. qui ferro esset Halm says ' videtur hoc / ad Seruilio pertinere et ex margine false loco hie suppletum esse'. For cui in 1. i editors read clarissimo viro (i. e. c. ?/.) U{i) : nisi mg. p. seruilio cui responden (20) dum putare qui hunc ho (i8) nore statue nemini tri (19) 5 buendS censuit nisi ei (19) qui ferro esset Here/ was inserted after nisi ei in 1. 5 instead of after nisi in 1. i. ii. 38. V 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 183 antecedebant inter quos q* ex oppidis Here the corruption is due to the variants in essedotr.pl. 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 (16) quam ex oppidis The variant was inserted dSter portabatur, and the words lictores . . . inter quos were repeated. ii. 56: Hominem omnium nequissimum] V'mscns in eodem verohetorc hominem. Halm says ' aberravit scriba ad v. 23 '. £/■(?): bomine omniil 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 studiii su (18) um ipse profitetur (16) In eodem uero The scribe looked forward nine lines. ix. 4. V has : nemo r^maxjtne q< ut nepotens regis antiochi ejus qui cu maioribus nris beljii gesserat uirtutem non honorabat. At ea fuit legatio octaui in qua periculi suspicio non subesset nd cQ esset missus a senatu ad animos regum respiciendos liberorum q- populoru maximeq- ut nepote regis antiochi eius qui cum ma ioribus nfis bellum gesserat classes habere Here the words struck out after nemo occur subsequently suo loco. U (?) : nemo uirtutem non honora (17) bat at ea fuit legatio (18) T^4 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 bellia gesserat (17) The writer of F omitted 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 iji,:.-. ,- . ^^,. (a).viii. 5: D. Brutus oppugnatur: non est bellum. Mutina obsidetur: ne Jioc quidem bellum est. ' ]'' ' Khas : domilius brutus oppug natur. non est bellum. mutine dominaretur seturna opside filme hoc quideni bellQ est ' Halm says ' quid lateat plane ignoratur. Vide tamen ne verba inepta ex loco inferiore p. 1349. 9 hue invectasint.' The reference is to § 7 : rursus cum Mario et Carbone Sulla, ne dorairiarentur 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 soj 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, ,1. wiH here mention that the intervening words between Mutina a.n6L domi- narentur occupy 27^ lines of Teubner text and consist of 1,166 letters (i.e. allowing official abbreviations).. ^ CICERGj PHILIPPICS : t^s .(b) vi.io. .■ r' '( Here we are wholly dependent on V, which gives : ris quamtius'plancius uidete quan decertum est ' ut ArerCitum- cvtpfAii ■ men n^ieonejrt qui fi 5 ttis est gaHiM educeret dum ne^,{$r^ius urbetn roiMift ducivua milia a^moueret huwyderiun tiktioni ille pareaV^tum i 6 exiluerit adulescens no bilis ' ' i . - 1 2 PlancUnj qui i , The words uidete qtian decerlum est have been inserted by m. a either in a lacuna or over an erasure. The passage which has been struck out, ut exercittim . . .parent, comes from § 5, where Fhas: ;, ■ , , _ flu ante decretum est ut exercituni citra me (rubiconem add. in ing.) qui fijijs CC est Galliae educeret dum ne plus urbem Roman mil. admoueret huic de- nuntiationi ille pareat ' In § lo decertum est obviously. = decretum est. The words uidete quan are omitted by editors without comment. With I'egard to uidete quan, it is to be remembered that in § 5 decretuin is preceded by ante. I recognize the two parts of this, viz. an- -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., fA proper place for it would be after Plancum in 1. 12, viz. ' Plancum quidem, qui . . . ita maestus rediit ut retractus non reversus videretur, sic contemnit tamquam si illi, aqua et igni interdictum sit'. In my edition of 1900 I had proposed to insert quidem at this place. As there are several, variants betweeri the passages in §§ 5 and 10, it seems probable that an alternative version was by error copied on the wrong folio of ah 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 sefiuvio . . . quam T. Plancus occupies 54i lines 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 multum provectus reject- om. K' (38) vii. 14 : nisi paruerit huic ordini quid re- om. V (30) V. 20 : habebat possessor quantum relique- om. 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 acele- om. D The regularity with which 38 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 om. V^ (28) vii. 14 : multo postea gravius urguebaraur om. D xii. 16: si accipiendam, cur non rogamur si om. D (29) X. 21 : legio fregit iv afflixit sic a suis om. V^ (31) ix.2: non morbus ingravescens retardavit ' om. F' 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 ft decre 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 legionum quam • Halm says ' non morbus ingravescens retardavit cum, quae V^ om., supplevit m. 2 '. According to my notes, V has : 3 morb* [m. 2, sup. lin.) non asperitatis uiaramq. jam ingrauescens retardauit (ni. 2, sup. lin.) ad congressum conloquiuq. ei', i. e. cum is not added by F". CICERO, PHILIPPICS 187 senatus si quidem, not quam senatus si quidem legumes. 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 oi V ox 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 quem coUegam habebas dominum habere velles Here regni is added by D after collegam. P (?) : cum auctor regni esses eumque quem collegam (28) habebas Regni was repeated from the previous line. §110: An supplicationes addendo diem contaminari passus es, pulvinaria noluisti ? So Z? : V adds contaminari zSX^x pulvinaria. P (.') : addendo diem contaminari passus es, puluinaria (29) noluisti Here the same explanation applies. § 115 : non intellegis qui isto mode 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 et (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 multi, contra multitudinem bene sentientium admodum pauci So V. : sed om. D. The proper place for sed is before contra. P (?) : sunt impii ciues pro caritate rei p. nimium multi (a6) mg. sed contra multitudinem 1 88 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS iv. 4 ; quod avtenfj,praesidiuni erat salntis libertatisque vestrae,. sL C. Caesaris fortissimqrumsui patris militum exercitus non fuisstft ? ' So F: suJque Z), ; ; .. ' , ' I • ■ ;' . Mere tgife. naay = Quintes, {Q)f which has gpt into the wrortg place. It would come in admirably after z'^j:^^4^. . •?(•'): libertatisque uestrae:: ; mg'. Q; : si C. Caesaris fortissimorum sui (27) patris militum vii. 4: aduersarium multitudini? temeTitati haec fecit aduer^atum praeclarissi- ma causa popularem V ,. aduersatum multitudinis temeritati haec fecit praeclarissitna causa popu- larem D P (?) : aduersarium tng. aduersatum ; multitudinis temeritati haec fecit (31) praeclarissima causa popularem ' viii. 32 : diutiusque seruitutem perpessi quam captiui frugi efdiligentes solent D V adds semi a-iter capiiui.^ ■ !; ^ /*(?): ' diutiusque seruitutem perpessi quam captiui (29) frugi et diligentes splent ', V repeats sertii from the previous line. ix. 2 : cumque iam ad congressum coUoquiumque eius peruenisset ad qu^m erat missus in ipsa cura ac meditatione obeundi sui muneris excessit e uita D V has : ad congressij conloquiiaq- 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) mg, 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 in rostris come before steterunt. ' ' P {l)i quorum statuae ., ., steterunt usque ad meam memoriam (28) ' ing. in rostris. xi. 26: non ut ex ea acie respectum haberemus, sed ut ipsa acies subsidium haberet tranSmarihum Z',((i'^/ff. V) Editors markYar'as corrupt: it would come better before ipsa. CICERQ, PHILIPPICS > 189 /"(?): . ' • • non ut ex acie respectum haberemus sed ut . (27) mg. ea, ipsa acies subsidium haberet We also find multiples of a8, e. g. : . (a) :^8xa=.56. . , ' , V. 30 : quo die primum convocati sumus, cum designati consules non adessent, ieci sententia mea tnaximo vestro consensu fundamenta rei publicae So Z? and edd. :' F has : ■ '•'■ • .■■.'■ ■ " ■ ' ' con ' ■■'■'' uocati sumus cii designati consules non adessent ieci sententia mea maximo i^rp consensu adfuissem 1 ,, , ■ cum fundamenta reipub ■licaie Halm says of adfuissem cum ' manifestum est glossema, saltem nescimus quid lateat '. . The words appear to stahd for adfui ipse cum, the error being due to the vulgar spelling isse iox ipse. The sense required is adfui ipse cum designati consules non adessent. Cf. Suit. 81 non adfuit alio in iudicio ciim adessent ceteri; Phil. i. '3,6 cum adesse ipsis pi:opter vim armorum non licebat, aderant tamen ; iii. 1 9 edixit ut adesset senatus . . . eo die ipse non adfuit, &Ci, &c. The words adfui ipse or adfui ipse ctini 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 xnea maximo uestro consensu- (29) fundamenta rei p. ix. 14: sed statuae intereunt tempestate vi vetu state, sepulcrorum autem sancti- tas in ipso solo est quod nulla vi moveri neque deleri potest The first vi is omitted by V^ : V^ gives liel, while in D we have the variants -w, -ni; ui. There seem to have been duplices lectiones, viz. ui and uel, p (?) : -tempestate uetustate sepulcrorum autem sane (29) titas in ipso solo est quod nulla ui {29) mg. uel moueri ' , X. 15 : etsi est enim Brutorum commune factum et laudis societas aequa, Deci- 190 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS mo 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 Brutorum. 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 (V) a8 X 3 = 84. To this I should refer the omission of V in ii. 79 : qui tum est impulsus inductus elusus. Qua in re quanta fuerit uterque vestrum p^fidia in Dolabellam (84). Before I had recollated V, I had arranged the reading of its ancestor thus : nihil queror de dolabella qui tum 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 tij 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. 37. I write the passage as I imagine it to have stood in P : 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. 3, since this seems to have been used in the archetype (cf ix. 3 cui V^ -. c. u. V^ : cum t : om. cett.). CICERO, PHILIPPICS 191 Here lines 5-7 an C. . . . debet (83) are placed before lines 1-4 Cn. domitium . . . excitauit (116) in V. ii. 94. Here V, our sole authority {defic. D), gives : quidquam aequi boni imperauit aput mortuum factu e grat compellerat hospitg 5 praesens computarat pecuniatn itnpetrarat Here it is usual to read impetravit in 1. a and imperarat in 1. 6 (so Poggio). It seems more likely that itnpetrarat is a v. I. ior 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 ^r ohaihWity, graiiosus (Ubaldinus) should be read. xiv. 14 : quemquamne fuisse tam 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, for furiosum, t, the best member of D {defic. V), gives fuit. Later on, t inserts fusum (so b, susum) after triduo vel. This appears to be a variant {ox furiosum, which has got into the wrong place. P (?) : tam sceleratum qui hoc fingeret, tam fuit qui crederet unde igitur is (27) mg. fusum ta suspicio uel potius unde iste (27) sermo cum ut scitis hoc triduo uel (28) quadriduo xiii. 19: eoque 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 zittx polliceretur (supr.). (c) a8x4= 112. i. 1 1 : priusquam de re publica dicere incipio, pauca querar de hesterna M. Antoni iniuria, cui sum amicus, idque me non nullo eius officio debere esse 192 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS J plrae me semper tiili. Quid tandert ejtat gausae.cur in senatum hesterno die tam acerbe cogerer D .':{.-.■,. priusquam de re publica (i'cere incipio pauca quaerar hs de hesterna in senatum tami acerbe cogerer {med. om.) V Here As, the common symbol for an omission, has got into the text. V^ supplies at the foot of th^page' the ordinary reading, as given by Z?. Halm, however, p6irtts ' 6iit ' that the collocation of words at the end of the sentence must', have been different in the ancestor of f^, viz. cur die hesterno in senatum, not cur in senatum hesterno die. The omission is due to ojn. /'(?).: . de hesterna , : M.antoni iniuria cui sum amicus id , (28) que me non nuUo 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 ; (3) the correction with the sign hs was writtefi in the margin; r (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 coramen- dares, cum omnes recordarentur libertini generum et liberos tuos nepotes Q. Fadi, libertini honiinis, fuisse (143) om. D I am inclined to, refer this omission of Z* back toy. 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 quidefti Romani iudicia multa ambo habetis quibus vos non satis moveri pernioleste fero Here't/^j non is a correction made b.y Poggio. V has nobis without non, while both words are omitted by Z*. Shortly afterwards, for quid duobus iribunis pi. qui vobis adver- santtir, V gives : qud ii. T.R. P. quiuobis , 110 '■ aduersantur ' * Halm erroneously quotes F as reading vobis non. CICERO, PHILIPPICS 193 Here tto may = vos, a correction for vobis after quihus, which got into the text of V after the second vobis, while D omitted the corruption. The words vobis satis . . . tr.pl. qui = 140 letters. J° (?) : quibus uobis satis moueri permoleste fe (28) m^. uos ro quid enim gladiatoribus clamo (28) res innumerabilium ciuium quid (27) populi uersus quid pompei statuae (29) plausus infiniti quid .ii. tr. pi. qui (28) uobis aduersantur (e) 28 X ] O = 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 V gives : ab ineunte illius h. m. pagate memoria mea praestantissimum Here h. m. is the omission mark, previously noted on v. 4 (see p. 186). I would suggest that pag-. = 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. F, therefore, has here omitted lines 2-1 1 of P. A later hand (cent, xii) has added at the foot of the page the passage as found in D, viz. 1. 1 aetate illius, 6-y perspexi non modo, 1. 11 sed etiam. This supplement is obviously drawn from a different source. 194 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS The missing passage occurs later on in the text of V, ^ ii ad bellum proficiscerejttur qjioderat bellum between ^«^^and erat bellum. 'Re.iort proficiscerentur Fhas the letter .R., for which Halm conjec- tured Roma. I interpret it as ]jt (i. e. require), a critical mark which has got into the text. As given by Fin § xi, the passage runs as follows : ad bellum .R. proficiscerentur quod [te usus consuetudo studio rum societas similitudoq. deuinxit eiusdemq. cura V r incredibilis in asperum is belli ciuilis periculis p specta docuit non modo sa lutis sed etiam dignitatis meae fuisse factore tamen 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 intei-vening passage, viz. §§ 6-1 1 meinoria mea . . . proficiscerentttr quod = 54I lines of Teubner text, and contains 3,270 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. 17a) and (b) 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 («) first. The displaced blocks are xii. 12-23: -sumus iudicare . . . nee corpo- xiii. l-lo : a principio . . . rem acerbam The first of these occupies 140 lines of Teubner text and the CICERO, PHILIPPICS 195 second 139I. Their respective content in letters is 5,838 and 5,826, They are, therefore, identical. If we divide 5,836 by a8, the result is 208 (38 x ao8 = 5834). This gives a very satisfactory solution, viz. that four folios, i.e. eight pages of 36 lines (8 x 26 = 308) have been displaced. If so, the average content of a folio wras 1,456 letters. The lacunae in D at ii. 93-6, x. 8-10 correspond to 34 and ■^^ lines of Teubner. As given in V, the passages contain respectively 1,433 and 1,419 letters. They are, therefore, some 33-7 letters short of 1,456. Here it must be remembered that, whereas in xii. 13-23, xiii. i-io we have the evidence of both V and Z>, in ii. 93-6 and x. 8-10 we have that of V 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 V and the omissions of D to the same cause. So far I have dealt with U, the immediate ancestor of V, and P, the common ancestor of U and D. I have already said that U 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. 1 1 hs de hesterna and vii. 6 h. m. 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 decertum . . . ille pareat {ex § 5) vii. II : -te usus . . . dico sed {ex § 6) It is to be noted that the intermediate passages between vi. 5-10, viz. ille se fluvio . . . gtiam T. Plancus, and vii. 6-11, viz. memoria mea . . . proficiscerentur quod occupy respectively 54I: and 54| lines of Teubner text. Also, in viii. 5-7 the intermediate passage, viz. obsidetur , . . Sulla ne, occupies 37^ lines of Teubner, The relation between 37I, 54^, and 54^ is very significant. The content of the intermediate passages as given in letters is 1,166 (viii. 5-7), 3,336 (vi. 5-10), and 3,370 (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 V and D to reconsti- o 3 196 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS lute their common ancestor {P). It remains to ask, if P contains any evidence which casts h'ght 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 impuro So VD : except c (intolerabile si) : most editors adopt intolerdbile 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) ;«§". 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 in Z> ; in both V and D, 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. i a. Here V has : qui bus rebus tanta pecunia unam in domo coacerua ta est ut si hoc genus pene 5 in unum redigatur non sit pecunia rei publicae defutura Pene in 1. 4 is omitted by Z? : it may be a senseless variant for CICERO, PHILIPPICS 197 pecunia in line a or 6. The emendations pecuniae and rapitiae have been suggested. The reading of V seems to show that there was a confusion between una in domo {D) and unam in domuni (Garatoni). If so, unum 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. iure 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 urbe incendio et caedis metu liberata (32), which rests on the authority of F" only {om. V^D). It may represent a line of Q. As written by V^, it is urbe itwendio et tedis metu liberat (30). We may also notice that in v. 53, where there is a lacuna in V (defic. D), Garatoni's supplement auctoritatem secuti libertaiem P. R. = 30 letters. iv. 13: hanc retinete, quaeso, 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 Quirites quaeso quam, others quaeso qr. pi r. quam. The confusion between Quirites (Q) and quam is constant. The subjunctive sint is unusual with quamquam {sunt D). Madvig strikes o\xt quamquam, while Halm reads namcumv/ith. P. R. MUller. The variants point to an original reading : hanc retinete quaeso qiii ' quam uobis tamquam heredita (27) mg. quamquam tem maiores uestri reliquerunt (27) alia omnia falsa xi. 7 : est enini sapientis quicquid homini accidere possit, id praemeditari feren- dum modice esse, si evenerit. Maioris omnino est consili providere 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, ' = Quirites. 198 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS injury to the rhythm .(Zielinski). The repetition may be due to the following arrangement in Q : si euenerit maioris omnino est con (29) sili prouidere ne quid tale accidat (30) animi non minoris fortiter ferre (28) 1. 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 senates (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 ueteri, ueter, uetera"\ 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 nouo memoriam ueteris doloris abiecisse. Such variants as uetere, ueterh are common, e. g. in the palim- psest of the de 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 . . . metu consist of 300 letters (28 x 1 1 = 308). This indicates the following arrange- ment in Q. I postulate some original error, e. g. ueteres for ueteris. memoriam ueteris doloris abiecisse banc (27) tu P. dolabella magno loquor cum (26) dolore banc 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 D, 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 melu. CICERO, PHILIPPICS 199 viz. grecatiem. This seems due to a survival of tlie original gloss, viz. graec. or grec, which was afterwards expanded into Graeco uerbo and received into the text. Cf. Nat. D. i. 85 sententiis quas appel- latis Kvpias bo^as. Here Harl. 2622, has GR in the margin, while C gives sententiis GR quas appellatis cyrias doxas. Here the intervening words quoniam omnia . . . dixit enint severam consist of 395 letters (28 x 14 = 39a). This indicates the following distribution in Q : lysidicum ipsum mg. grec. quoniam omnia iura dissoluit nisi {29) forte iure germanum cimber occidit (30) cum hanc et huius generis copiam (27) tantam habeat antonius quod see (27) lus omittet cum dolabella tantis (28) se obstrinxerit parricidiis nequa (30) quam pari latronum raanu et copia (27) quapropter ut inuitus saepe dis (27) sensi a Q. fufio 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 adsentior solum sed etiam gra (28) tias ago fufio dixit enim seueram (28) grauem re p. dignam sententiam The gloss grec. was combined with grauem. I now come to two very singular cases : ii. 106. V has : incredibile dictum sed cii uinus inter omnis consta bat neminem esse resalu tatum For the corrupt words cu uinus we find in D other corruptions, viz. et sermulcinus, et simul unu cinus, simul. Madvig conjectured sum vicinus. 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 cii uinus might stand not for sum uicinus but for uinus. In view of previous experience I looked to see if vicinus is found in the context. In § 104 we have quivis amicus, vicinus, procurator arcebit. aoo DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS The words vicinus hospes . . . dictum sed consist of 953 letters (38 X 34 = 95a). xiv. 13. Here we have D only, as Fhas been mutilated. I will give the reading of t, 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 / seems due to accident. The important point is that for impetus {bt) we have the variants impetus (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 tlte pro Plancio contains an average of ^7-8 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 aa letters, contains 474 letters. If we take 474 as normal and multiply by a, 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 : uicinus hospes procurator arce (27) madebant parietes ingenni pueri (28) bit at quam multos dies in ea uilla (28) cum meritoriis scorta inter matres (30) turpissime es perbacchatus ab ho (28) familias uersabantur casino salu (29) ra tertia bibebatur ludebatur uo (28) latum ueniebant aquino interamna (29) 5 mebatur o tecta ipsa misera quam (27) admissus est nemo lure id quidera in (39) dispari domino quamquam quo modo (28) homine enim turpissimo obsolefi (a8) iste dominus sed tamen quam ab dis (28) ebant dignitatis insignia cum in (aS) pari tenebantur studioram enim su (29) de romam proficiscens ad aquinum ,(28) CICERO, PHILIPPICS aoi orum M. uano uoluit illud non libi (28) 10 dinum deuersorium quae in ilia uil (29) la antea dicebantur quae cogita (27) bantur quae litteris mandabantur (29) inra P. R, monimenta maiorum omnis (27) sapientiae ratio omnisque doctri (29) 15 nae at uero te iiiquilino non enim do (29) mine peisonabant omnia nocibus ebiiorum natabant panimenta uino xiv. 13-15 : crimen inuidia quaeretur scitis enim per hos dies creberrimum fu isse sermonem me parilibus qui di es hodie est cum fascibus descen 5 snrnm in aliqnem credo lioc gladia torem aut latronem aut catilinam esse consnlatum ^ non in eum qui ne quid tale in re p. fieri posset effe cerit an ut ego qui catilinam haec 10 molientem sustulerim euerterim afflixerim ipse extiterim' repen te catilina quibus auspiciis istos fasces augur acciperem quatenns haberem cui traderem quemquamne 15 fuisse tam sceleratum qui hoc fin geret tam furiosum qui orederet un de igitur ista suspicio uel potius ('7) (29) = 477 (28) (28) (>7) (28) (28) (27) (28) (28) (28) (28) (30) .(28) (28) (28) (^9) (29) = 477 accederet obuiam ei processit ut est frequens municipinm magna sa ne multiludo at isle operta lecti ca latus per oppidum est ut mortu us stulte aquinates sed tamen in uia habitabant quid anagnini qui cum essent deuii descenderunt ut istnm tamquam si esset cons, sa lutarent incredibile dictum sed unde iste sermo cum ut scitis hoc triduo uel quadriduo tristis a mu tina fania manaret inflati laeti tia atque insolentia impii cines unum se in locum ad illam curiam ai' (28) (28) (28) (28) (27) (28) (26) (27) (28) = 476 (28) (^7) (28) ris potius suis quam rei p. infeli cem congregabant ibi cum consilia inirent de caede nostra partiren turque inter se qui capitolium qui hostia qui urbis portas occupa rent ad me concnrsum futurum ciui tatis putabant quod ut cum inuidi a mea fieret et cum uitae etiam pe riculo famam istam fascium dissi pauerunt fasces ipsi ad me delatu ri fuerunt quod cum esset quasi mea uoluntate factum turn in me impetus (27) (29) (28) (29) (26) (28) (38) (37) (28) (28) (29) (>9)i = 474 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. 580a, cent, xiii, 6603, cent, xiii, Berol. Phil, aoi, cent. xii. n = Voss. Lat. O. a, cent. x. / = Brit. Mus. Regius 15 A. xiv, cent. xi. Since then I have collated various other MSS., the most important of which is : s = Vatic. 3228, cent. x. The MSS. which I term c contain Pktl. i-iv only. They agree with the readings quoted by Ferrarius from his codex Colotianus, a MS. belonging to A. Colocci. I term the gxon^familta Colotiana. In Phil, i-iv c frequently agrees with V as against the other so /. 2 so codd. ' so^. ao3 DESCENT OF 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 autem, due to misunder- standing of the insular sign k: In the two Paris MSS. autem is continually corrupted to hoc, haec, hums, or confused with enim (+f). In the Berlin MS., wherever the first hand gives k, a corrector adds +f above it, and then above this writes enim in full.^ Vat. 3228 {s) is the MS. which Ferrarius calls codex Scalae. It occupies the next place in the Vatican library to another MS. used by Ferrarius, Vat. 3237, which he termed his Langobardicus, a twelfth-century MS. It is singular that j should have remained neglected until now, since Vat. 3227 {v), which is inferior to it in age and value, was collated in Phil, xiv by E. Freiburg 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 French model. A number of critical marks are used, the most frequent being f (= require), which is sometimes combined with t or at, e.g. : viii. 28 : usi] sed s : sup. lin. f t si xii. 27 : tuti] ut j: mg. i al si hie The omission signs are ^, fih. There are great similarities between s and /, e.g. : T cu psens i. 10 : praesentes] praesentes dixit pro populo praesentes / : sequens dixit pro populo praesentes j X. 15: Brutorum commune factum et laudis societas aequa, Decimo tamen iratiores V: Brutorum actiones st (med. om.) xi. 13: emptor tamen inea auctione] emptoriaamenea auctione /: emptoriaaj 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 raultisq: itin^ribus m. lepidu r. p. obligatu tenet, suma nobi ei' Bonitas. M. lep. litas oinis honor ~ amplissimu sacerdotiu. plurima urbis ornath ta ' Class. Rev., xiv (1900), p. 41. CICERO, PHILIPPICS ao3 Here / has : plurima bonitas M. lepidi urbis ornamenta Other cases are xi. 8 crudelitas Dolabellae, 33 laus Deiotari regis. Also variants in s are conflated by /, e.g. : i. 21: populi Romani] publicae rei j, sup. Hn. populi romani : populi romani plubice rei / ii. 59 : tu quaesisti] tu que sis te s, sup. Hn. 1 dedisti : t dedisti turn que siste / In the following case a conjecture in s is adopted by /; X. 14: Italia] fatalia J, «<^. A«. /«/■<; Italia : puto Italia / The strongest evidence is yielded by an omission of /, viz. : vii. I : parvis de rebus sed fortasse necessariis consuliniur, patres conscripti oin. 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 . . . consulitnur p. t.) 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. 34. Here s has : legione quarta tnente cecidit et fugere festinans s. c. de sup plicatione p discessionetn fecit I omits quarta . . . supplicatione (djix.) : Also, ii. 54 : O miserum te si haec intellegis, miseriorem si non intellegis hoc litteris mandari, hoc memoriae prodi Here s omits miseriorem . . . intellegis, while / omits the entire passage. In s prodi comes exactly under constitisse (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 Catilinam ix. 8-14: sarciamus . . . quidem nostri Here viii. 9-15 = 76 lines of Teubner text, while ix. 8-14 = 77I. It is clear that folios of an ancestor have changed places. 304 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. : iii. 3-18 : quo enim . . . imitari velit. This is placed after iv. 15 indtisiria inferior. Here iii. 3-18 = aio Teubner lines. Here 30 x 7 = aio. There appears to be a connexion between this and ii. 108-10. The probability is that the omission in ii. 1 08-10, 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 t, which, where V is not extant, is our most valuable MS. The contents of t are : Philippics, pro lege Manilia, pro Milone,pro Sulla, pro Plancio, pro Caecina, pro Marcello. It is written in long lines, witn 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 t recorded by Halm are as follows : (ll)xiii. 32: *subornastis (12) ii. 34: *hoc consilium iii. 35 : *nostis amicos viii. 4 : *auctoritatem (14) xiii. 30: in praetereundo (21) ix. 6 (22) xi. 37 (26) viii. I (28) ii. 105 (42) X. 15; iii. 6 (45) xiv. 20 (56) xiv. I (59) ii. 82 CICERO, PHILIPPICS 205 (i 5) xiii. 46 : Brutuin obsideant (19) xii. 29: **credunt improbis cred-^ **-que coniugis diligentia **-audio ego etiam veteranos iilio fecit et ut luctu sororis omnia vocibus ebriorum natabant **coinmune factum et laudis societas aequa D. tamen ir-° >Kquod profecto non fecisset, si eum cons, iudicasset principem revocandae libertatis fuisse me ex Kal. Ian. *quam avidissime civitas exspectat allata, laetitia frui satis est ii. 82: vocatur, renuntiatur: deinde, ut adsolet, sulifragia : 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 ex- trema 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 Brutus 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 sacrificiis soUemnibus ante lucem 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 tarn 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 MSS. have sed credunt improbis, credunt turhulentis : t gives sed ut tur- bnltntis {med. om.). I take ul to represent -St, i. e. the last syllable in credunt. 2 For iratiores t has actionez. This appears to be a correction for -aliores. " 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 ambove. So V here and v. 53, and Vt in ix. 16. ■io6 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS (loi) xiii. 24: *ornatum sed ilia ornatnenta in virtute et industria posita lucent. Tu vero qui te ab eodem Caesare ornatum negare non potes (116) xiii. 46: *quid de Pansa et Hirtio loquar? Caesar, singulari pietate adulescens, poteritne se tenere quin D. Bruti sanguine poenas patrias persequatur ? (160) viii. 30: *nani 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-aa letters, and the tele- scoped passage of 43 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 t, apart from abbreviations. If these were not employed, a line in t would contain somewhat more. The suspicion arises that t 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 : amices 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 (77) Plane. 72 : tfamiliaritatis, 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, PHILIPPICS 307 To these may be added a dittography : (80) Sull. 34 : pro salute lei p. suscepi atque gessi. L. ille Torquatus, cum esset meus contubernalis in consulatu bis scr. The significance of these figures will be seen when I mention that apart from Mil. 50, where an omission of ^^ letters is shared by E, the only omissions of 50-70 letters in t recorded by editors are Plane. 67 rebus . . . valuit (57) and Caec. 24 *sed idea . . . alienum (67). In this list it is to be noticed that there are two telescoped passages ; also that the number 8i occurs twice. I now proceed to combine the evidence, affixing asterisks to the telescoped passages : (70) Mil. 21 (80) Sull. 34 (71) Plane. 76 (81) Caec. 88, *Planc. 62 (74) *Phil. xiii. 24 (84) Phil. i. 17 (76) Phil. X. 14 (86) Phil ii. 25 (^^) Plane. 72, Phil. iii. 39 (87) *Mil. 12 (78) Phil. iii. II, viii. 33 (152) Caee. 91 (79) Phil. i. 18 (160) Phil. viii. 30 The favourite numbers are 77-81. 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 81, 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 t. So far two units are yielded by the omissions, viz. 19-32 and 77-81. It is obvious that some of the larger omissions, e.g. loi and 115, may be multiples of the small unit. I hesitate to say more, since 101 and 115 may be connected with 56 and 59, and these again with %S and a8. If so, there may be another intermediate ancestor or these omissions may go back to an earlier stage. The following corruptions in t may be taken in connexion with the ancestor in lines of 19-33 letters : ii. 18 : vitricum tuum fuisse in tanto scelere fatebare In t ftiisse comes tSXrx fatebare. This suggests the arrangement : uitricum tuum mg. fuisse in tanto scelere fatebare (22) xi. 6 : ille pervenisse videtur quoad progredi potuerit 2o8 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS IiW the words pervenisse videtur come after poUierit. This suggests : ille mg. peruenisse uidetur quoad progredi potuerit (ai) xiii. 42 : mihi quidem constat nee meam contumeliam After meam t repeats quidem. This suggests : mihi quidem constat nee meam (20) contumeliam I now turn to s and n. 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 aut (so sn) gerendi bis scr. sn. In the margin ol sis f {= require). (52) X. 14 : nee hoe cadere uerbum in tantam uirtutis praestantiam potest bis scr. n. (73) xii. 3 : quod uidebam equidem, sed quasi per ealiginem : praestrinxerat aclem animi D. Bruti salus bis scr. s. Here there are two series, viz. : 27, 28, 52 38 (pis), 73 The first of these dittographies is instructive. The repetition takes place after the intervening words nam Lysiaden Atheniensem (aa). 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 (37). 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 309 In sn we find : decemendi enim tempus nondum uenerat belli aut gerendi enim tempus non- dum uenerat belli aut gerendi tempus si praetermisisset This indicates : decemendi enim tempus nondum uenerat belli (38) aut gerendi tempus si praetermisisset The writer looked back from -endi to -endi and repeated enim . . . belli, before he realized his error. In connexion with the dittographies of ay, 28, 5a letters the following omissions are interesting : (29) vii. 27 : *beUum indixerit sed uos moneo PRT s^ in ntg. xiv. 18 : sententiis vinci non possum bonis om. s Cf. xiv. 33 : neque oblivione eorum qui nunc sunt nee reticentia posterorum Here ^ repeats eorum iox posterorum. This 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 coipore 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 Trebonii maxima contumelia. The intei-vening passage quam ilia . . . contumelia consists of 450 letters. Here 50 x 9 = 45c. We may compai'e the following omissions : (25) ii. 54: miseriorem si non intellegis ont. s (50) iii. 2 : fuissent eo die quo primum ex urbe fugit Antonius, aut eae non om. s In connexion with the dittographies of 38 and 73 letters I mention the following omissions : (35) xi. 27 : iam nobis notus esset exercitus alterius om. s'- (36) X. 7 : eos qui diadema imposuerint conservandos om. s xii. 18 : sic me iniquum eierabant, de me querebantur om. sn (39) viii. 8 : et discordia civium sed in maxima consensione om. 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 1»S3 P mo 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. aoi). 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 = 170). 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 turpitudinistantaedefensio.' Cupioaudire ut videam ubi rhetoris sit tanta om. Par. 6602 (?«. l) 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 V, i. e. a MS. with an average of about a8 letters to a line. The telescoped passages, v. ao 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-aa letters to the line, the evidence being given by three telescoped passages of this length (ix. 6, xi. 37, xii. 39), also one of 4a 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 aa letters to the line. This, it is to be noticed, is the length of a line in the ancestor oU. It seems likely that this MS. in 19-32 letters was the common CICERO, PHILIPPICS 2,11 ancestor of JD. 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 writeomnid., the number is reduced to aa. 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,Y2X. Reg. 2077 (F), is ascribed to the fourth century. It is written in two columns, with %o lines to the page. Chatelain (PI. 33) gives a facsimile of f. 88"^, containing Verr. ii. 113-15, de publico . . . flagitiorum. The contents of thi^, 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 §§ 1 15-16, crudelita- tisque . . . nan 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 — \%, verso = 17, total = 35. V in its present form consists of 101 ff. It possesses various quaternion markings, the last of which, Q. xxxxii, occurs at v. 120. 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 35 Teubner lines to a folio is remarkably constant. On the other hand the investiga- tion is made difficult by various circumstances. The scribe who superimposed the second work (Prosper's con- tinuation of Jerome) upon the Verrines 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. a contains i. 106-7. Also many folios are legible on one side only. Mai frequently remarks of a page non legitur or oblitterata est, or funditus eluta. In such cases editors give, as contained in V, only what is printed by Mai, without VERRINES ai3 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 Verrines. 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. 40a) : Cur autem Verrinarum amanuensis reliquerit has aliasque paginas vacuas divinare vix queo. Dicerem ob membranarum asperitatem nisi hae mihi laeves esse viderentur : id quod tamen postea a rescribente fortasse curatum est. As I have not myself seen V, I can only quote this statement. In the following tabulation I combine the portions of the speech surviving in V 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 they are found. Where a page is illegible, I allow 1 7| 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 Fis i. 105-14. The previous part of the speech, viz. Verr. i-105, which is lost, = 1,39a Teubner lines. I will merely remark that 35 x 40 = 1400. Allowance has to be made for the title. The rest of Verr. i is distributed as follows : Teub. lines *lo5-ii4 = if. 19 (19^ blank), 2, 5, 11 docet . . . satis = 121^ 114-119 est ostendere . . . iniuriae = 71 '1 19-130 = ff. 14, 4, 7, 22 (22'' blank), 89 (89=^ blank), videbantur . . . locavissent = 1402 130-136 neque potuissent . . . dominata est =71 * 137-139 = f. 79 venit ad . . . deferre = 35t 139-142 tamen de . . . consuetude in = 35l "142-148 = ff. loi, 96 bonis . . . existimationem con- = 71% 148-150 -tempserit . . . Haboni = 3^2 * 1 50-1 53 = f. 86 tabulae ... illorum = 33i 153-158 solitudo . . . sodalem suum = 72 *l58-end = f. 92 Q. Curtium . . . subsortiebatur = 4i Here only the first and the last figures call for com.ment. As f. 19^ is blank, lai^ = 3 ff. -fi page. If we add 17I for the blank page, the result is 139 (35 x 4 = 140). As there are two blank pages in the 214 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 lyf to laif and leave out of sight f. 9a (4-|), the total for ao ff. is 707 (35 X ao = 700). Verrine ii falls into the following parts : *l-3 = f. 97 {verso illeg.) multa . . . pulcherrimis (?) = 34 3-21 exornavit . . . Erycinae esse =212 "21-24 = f- 10° {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 "40-43 = f. 56 {recto illeg.) metus (?)... hereditas = 36f 43-52 ea quae . . . videamur = 141 *S2-68 = ff. 52, 90, 84, 81, 91, 53 (52"^ illeg.) nam me (?) . . . innocens = 213 68-83 et quod . . . studiose ut = 208^^ *83-87 = f. 95 dixi . . . putant = 34 87-100 artificio . . . postremo me = 174 "100-102 = f. 93 ipsum apud . . . Romae cum ac- = 34 102-113 -tares . . . sacro nihil = 141 *II3-Il6 = f. 88 de publico . . . non de Sthe- = 35 116-119 -ni bonis . . . remque hanc = 35^ "119-121 = f. 82 (rerf(7 illeg.) totam (?) . . . dandarum = 36|- 121- 124 ab senatu . . . erat legibus = 36J "124-127 = f. 80 ut is . . . erat ut = 35 127-138 quot essent . . . magistratus = 141J "138-140 = f. 85 adepti . . . iudicent = 34I 140-142 si tibi . . . statuarum = 35 "142-145 = f. 83 (^erso illeg.) nomine . . . considerate (?) = 35 145-152 Syracusana . . . possit quem = 105^- * 1 52-1 56 = ff. 50, 55 voles . . . vobis = 70I 156-166 planissimeque . . . togatorum enim = 139I "166-169 = f. 51 causa . . . posset = 36^ 169-188 ego mea . . . arator = 244I '188-191 = f. 54 an pecuarius . . . dilucide quod = 35 191-end copiose . . . existimarentur = 24^ 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 : 35 X 3 = 105, 35 X4 = 140, 35 X 5 = 175, 35 X 6 = 310, 35 X 7 = 345- It will be seen that all the numbers here are quite normal, except 5 VERRINES ai5 ^^5 (§§ 34-3*)) where the unit rises to 38. The writer appears to have contracted his hand very slightly here and in the following folio (= 37). Verrine iii. *iii. 1-3 = f. 87 omnes etiam . . . teneremus (?), verso illeg. = 34^ 3-20 numquam . . . tradidit =312^ *2o-29 = ff. 94, 61, 57, 63 ut neque . . . neqiie tamen = 142I 30-40 ullum . . . amentissime = 140^ "40-47 = flf. 58, 64, 60 [flerso 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 *66-7o = ff. 26 {redo blank), 40 {recto blank), 35 insolentia . . . virgis te = 7i| 70-74 ad necem . . . fidelitate = 68^ '74-78 = ff. 30, 27 tantus dolor . . . ventum 78-83 est coguntur . . . quae cum = 68-j- *83-88 = ff. 38, 33 (33^ illeg.) de populi . . . magnis (?) = 68 88-128 decumis ut . . . sapientiaque = 604 J *I28-I30 = f. 44 {recto illeg.) opus (?) . . . decumani = 37 130-137 palam et . . . suam sibi =110 "138-144 = ff. 66, 69 totam . . . aratorum = 74^ 144-15 1 fugae . . . emere = Ho * 1 52-157 = ff. 45 {verso blank), 48 {recto blank), 43, 42 tenetur . . . videtis ut =113 157-168 moneat . . . fecit umquam = 152 *l68-l77 = ff. 47, 46, 41, 65 quis denique . . . vidimus = 148I 177-182 huic ab . . . labefactari atque = 75^ * 1 82-1 86 = ff. 68, 67 oppugnari . . . praedonum = 70 186-190 incendiis . . . innocentissimos = 75|- "190-196 = ff. 70, 78 meminimus . . . hoc quid = 75 J 196-199 est venit . . . nummos vero = 4of "199-209 = ff. 74, 59, 62, 75 ut det . . . auctoritas =144 209-212 ettanta . . . provinciam = i%\ *2I2-2I4 = ff. 71 {recto blank), 72 {recto blank) adflictam ... in illo = 36^ 214-230 laudis . . . severitas iudicis = "jo *220-325 = ff. 76, 73 quotus erit . . . tanti = 85 235-328 , ut homines . . . pati = 43^ "228-end = f. 77 nuUo modo . . . revertantur = 6f In connexion with the end of Verr. iii we must take the beginning of Verr. iv. The first extract given by Mai is § 6, hospes esset, &c. This comes on the verso of f. 36, the recto of which is illegible. If we ai6 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS allow 17^ lines for the recto, the verso v^'^A begin with § 5, verum ut. 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. 40I (§§ 196-9), 43I (§§ 225-8), 85 (§§ 220-5). The first of these contains a dialogue, which is spaced out by Mtiller, 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 35 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-l9 = ff. 36 {recto illeg.), 28, 98, 99, 29, 37 verum (?)... onerariam = 2o8i 19-v. 70 navem maximam . . . homines maxime = 3001 *v. 70-72 = f. I (recto illeg.) mediterraneos (?)... crudelissimoque = 35 72-80 cruciatu . . provinciae praesi- = 109 *8o-85 = ff. 12, 13 -dio verum . . . inter tu- = 72J 85-94 -am libidinem ... ex Timarchide = 106 '94-99 = ff- 8 {recto blank), 24 {recto blank), 23 sagum . . . aratorum- = 71 99-104 -ne liberos ... in eum disso- = 69I ^^104-109 -lutus qui . . . reliquisses = 70I 109-114 filium tecum . . . quia legatus = 73 ="114-136 = ff. 18, 17, 21, 3, 9, 16, 6, 20 isto praetore . . . cum tibi = 292 136-end maritimum . . . necesse sit = 763^ Here the large figure, 3,001, comes out very satisfactorily (35X 86 = 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 {^^ x 22 = 770). Verr. iv, v together occupy 4,935i lines of Teubner text, = 140 ff. + 1 page. The extra page comes at the beginning of Verr. iv, VERRINES 317 where either the beginning of the speech was on the verso of f. 77 or there were two blank pages. If we subtract 17I lines for the odd page, the result is 4,918 lines for 140 folios. Here again the unit ^^ holds good (35 x 140 = 4900). In the preceding tables I have noted a8 cases of single folios. Out of these 35 contain 33-7 lines of Teubner. The others are 38I (iii. 209-13), 4o| (iii. 196-9), 43I (iii. 335-8). The last is highly exceptional. There are 35 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. 33o), which comes j ust before the exceptional unit 43^. For three folios there are eight examples ranging from 105I-15. For four folios there are 13 examples. Of these ten contain 139-44 lines. The others are 148I (iii. 168-77), and 153 (iii. 157-68). There are five examples of six folios (35 x 6 = 3 10), for which the numbers are : (208^) ii. 68-83, iv. 5-19 (212) ii. 3-21, iii. 3-20 (213) ii. 52-68 The remaining numbers are : 174 (35 X 5 = = 175) 244i (35 X 7 = :24s) 292 (35x8 = :280) 604* 763i (35 X 22 = = 770) 1392 (35 X 40 = = 1400) 3001 (35x86 = = 3010) I have left blank here the somewhat puzzling figure 604J, 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 (^^^ x 18 = 603). If we take the preceding number 393 and multiply by 3, the result is 584. If we subtract i7f from 604I, the result is 587. The probable solution, therefore, is that 604J = 16 folios 4- 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 Verrine iii. The whole speech, if we exclude §§ 338-end, occupies 3,376 lines of Teubner. This ai8 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS corresponds to 9a folios of V+i page. If we deduct 18 for the extra page, the result is 3358 -^ 93. This gives an average of exactly 36^ 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 = 2081 lines = 59J folios ii. 1-191 = 254s „ = 72 „ iii. 1-228 = 3375 „ = 92I „ iv-v = 4935 ,, = i4oi „ 12936 364I The general average for a folio is ^^\ (35^ X 364^ = 13939!). It is 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. ec) 67 (f. 26T) 88 (f. 33') 153 (f- 48') 175 (f- 41') 213 (f. 72') V. 94 (f. 24-') 120 (f. 17T) Q. xxi, after arationes sed efiam Q. xxii, after decumas ei quern Q. xxiii, after tia magnis Q. xxvi, after inquam Metellwii Q. xxvii, after gesta esse indices Q. xxviiii, after sociorum salutem Q. xxxxi, after provincia verum Q. xxxxii, after cum Timarchide I will take first a case about which there is no trouble, viz. iii. 175-213, cognoscite et ex . . . sociorum salutem. This passage should occupy QQ. xxviii, xxix. It is distributed thus: "175-7 (f. 65): cognoscite . . . vidimus 177-82: liuic ab aerario . . . labefactari atque * 182-6 (ff. 68, 67): oppugnari . . . praedonum 186-90: incendiis . . . innocentissimos "190-6 (flf. 70, 78) : meminimus . . . hoc quid 196-9: est. Venit . . . nummos vero *l99-209 (ff. 74, 59, 62, 75) : ut det . . . auctoritas 209-12 : et tanta . . . tu provinciam *2I2-I3 (f. 71, r^£-/(j blank): adflictam . . . salutem = 35 lines = I f. 754 , = 2fr. 70 „ = 2 » 75i » = 2 „ 75* » =--2 .. 4oi „ = If. 144 , = 4ff. 384 „ = If. 18 „ = I » 16 Here there is no irregularity, except that f. 71' is blank. VERRINES ai9 Elsewhere there are difficulties. I take first the content of Q. xxii. Mai states on iii. 46, arationes sed etiam sedes: ' Q. xxi in cake p. vacuae 120 (= f. 60^). Ergo p. 61 (= f. 31'') incipit Q. xxii ' (i.e. with sedes). He also reports Q. xxii as coming at § 67 (on f. 7,6") after deaimas ei quern. The intervening space is distributed thus : •46-7 (f. 31, recto blank): sedes . . . annonae cari- = 17 lines = I folio 47-52: -tatem non vererere . . . diripi =74 ,» =2 ,, *52-62 (flf. 25, 34, 39, 32) : profecto . . . convivio == 144 „ =4 „ 62-6 : cum interea . . . fugitivorum = 72 ,, =2 ,, *66-8 (f. 26, r^c/(7 blank) : insolentia . . . quem = I7i » =1 ,1 Here the gathering consists of 10 folios, with two blank pages. The next signature, Q. xxiii, comes at § 88 (on f. 33^) after ita magnis. The intervening space is distributed thus : *68-7o (ff. 40, recto blank, 35) : ad modum . . . virgis te = S4J lines = 2 folios 70-4 : ad necem . . . fidelitate = 68J „ = 2 „ *74-8 (ff. 30, 27) : tantus . . . ventum = 66J „ =2 „ 78-83 : est coguntur . . . quae cum = 68J „ =2 „ *83-8 (ff. 38, 33) : de populi . . . magnis =68 „ ^ 2 „ 10 Here again we have 10 folios, with one blank page. The next signature, Q. xxvi, comes at § 153 (f 48^), after inquani Metellum. Here we have to account for QQ. xxiv, xxv, xxvi. The intervening space is distributed thus : 88-128 : decumis . . . sapientiaque 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 *I38-44 (ff. 66, 69) : totam iniquam . . . aratorum 144-51 : fugae, calamitates . . . voluerit emere * 1 52-3 (f. 45, z/^rfc) blank): tenetur . . . Metellum 27 The probability is that there were other blank pages. " 604 lines — 17 fol = 37 -.=. I ,, = no = 3 „ = 74* = 2 „ = no = 3 » = 19 = I „ aao DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS The next signature, Q. xxvii, comes at § 175 (f. 41''). after esse, indices. The intervening space is distributed thus : *IS3-7 (ff- 48, recto blank, 43, 42) : sed hoc . . . videtis ut = 94 lines = 3 folios 157-68: moneat Apronium . . . fecit umquam =152 „ =4 ,, *l68-75 (ff- 47j 46, 41) : quis denique . . . esse iudices = I13f „ =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 § 313, 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. 34^), iSter frovincia verum. The intervening space is distributed thus : *iii. 213-14 (f. 72, recto blank) : multa contra ... in illo = \Z\ lines = i folio 214-20: laudis causam . . . severitas iudicis = ,70 „ = 2 „ *220-s (ff. 76, 73) : quotus erit . . . aestimavit tanti =85 „ = 2 „ 225-8 : ut homines . . . quae pati = 43J „ = I „ *228-end (f. Tj) : nuUo mode . . . revertantur = 6f „ = 1 „ The rest of this folio appears to have been blank, iv. 1-4 : venio nunc . . attigit = 54 „ = 2 „ There must have been a blank page here. '5-19 (fF. 36, 28, 98, 99, 37) : verum ut . . . onerariam = 2o8| „ = 6 „ 19-V. 70: navem maximam . . . homines maxime = 3001 „ = 86 „ *v. 70-2 (f. i) : mediterraneos . . . crudelissimoque =35 >j = i » 72-80: cruciatu dicam . . . provinciae praesi- = 109 „ = 3 „ *8o-s (ff. 12, 13) : -dio verum . . . inter tu- = ^^\ „ = 2 „ 85-94: -am libidinem . . . ex Timarchide =106 „ = 3 „ *94 (f. 8, r^^/f? blank) : sagum sumit ... provincia verum = i8j: „ =1 „ III Here we have 1 1 1 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. lao (f. 17^), after t«»« 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 „ *lo4-9 (ff. 10, 15) : -lutus qui . . . reliquisses = 70^ „ =2 „ 109-14: filium tecum . . . quia legatus =73 » =2 „ *l 14-20 (ff. 18, 17): isto praetore . . . cum Timarchide = 68| „ = 2 „ Here again we have 10 folios, with one blank page. 10 VERRINES 221 V, like the palimpsest of the de Re Publica, contains a number of double readings. I instance the following : sis i. Ill in isdetn causam sis (= causam), ii. 84 facile tacite, 100 quod cum, 143 et eamque, 154 enim nimirum, 169 apud aduersus, iii. 70 aduersuins, 155 primum plurimuiti, v. 72 sua uoluntateme, 83 autem aut, 107 possetuit, 120 in e carcere, 129 sororesque uxoresque, 135 subito suppeditatam, 136 possets In iii. 77 VhdiS peruagatttm etperuulgatum, where other MSS. have peruulgatum only. Since elsewhere (iii. 129, iv. 64) peruagaium and peruulgatum are variants, it appears probable that here two readings have been combined. In v. 72 supponere coepit cives Romanes quos in carcerem antea coniecerat V adds ceruos after quos. This appears to be a corruption for c. r'\ i.e. cives' Romanos. 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 Ro'""""- The spelling saenatus (= senatus), which is frequent in the de 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 V, 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.^4), but his arguments are based upon a misconception. He ignores the fact that ^ 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 R is more ' correct ' ; its ' correctness ', how- ever, does not prove its fides. Peterson says, ' Meusel's laborious enumeration of differences between F" 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 Quintilian, in his quotations from Verr. v. 117-18, ' 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 Quintil. ix. 4. 71 : tibi cibum vestitumque V: cibum tibi R, cett. 1 The Vatican Codex of Cicero's Verrines, Am. J. Ph., xxvi, p. 409. » Variants in Cicero's Verrines, Am. J. Ph., xxviii, p. 133. aaa 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: capitibus {om. V^) ubi legati portusque Cleomenes cogitate ac (O) et iniuriis (O) ludibundos ac rationem exceptione suum probare (/) alia Panhormi (C) **-lia frumentum nobilissimos (O) et flagitaret ornatarumque non pertulerunt et iniquitatem turn non quantum vellet (om. K*) ac locupletissimos {/>) ac diligentissimos aut quo mode 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 V. 1 3 1-2: * te illo tempore ipso superioribusque diebus omnibus in litore cum mulierculis perpotasse dico : harum rerum omnium auctores te- stesque produce. 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 aut V has in sici aut (med. om.). 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 (12) VERRINES aas It is interesting to notice that Mai explains the omission as due to the loss of a line. He says : ' cod. in Sid 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 of exceptione is due to b\i.. Most of the omissions consist of 9-ia letters (15 exx.). Multiples of this unit appear in ao-4 (4 exx.), 31, 44. It is to be noticed that the largest figure, aaa, is almost exactly a multiple of the next largest, 44 (44 x 5 = azo). 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, liciti ¥ or Uciti Vhas poUciti. This indicates : mulieris 'poliatumiri (11) liciti (11) iii. 17s : nihil fictum, nihil ad tempus V inserts a te before fictum. This indicates : nihil fictum nihil (11) ad tempus A te appears to be an anticipation of ad te-. The error is due to 6^. 1 I assume an omission of s- after -ris. 224 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS (12) iii. 183 : eorum hominum fidei tabulae . . . committuntur V repeats hominum Sihcr fidei. This indicates : • eorum hominum fidei (12) tabulae (12) V. 133 : dicit sese in terram esse egressum] For sese V iias 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 6^. (21) ii. 155: quo confugies ? ubinitere? modo . . . abalienasti V repeats quo before modo. This indicates : quo confugi (10) es ubi nitere (11) modo (21) V. 126 : nemo istorum dissimulat, nemo laborat Here V has eistorum and elaborat. The corruptions seem due to the variant enemo (bis) for nemo. Cf. Phil. ii. 36 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.e. simulat nemo (11) laborat VERRINES aa5 (22) V. 121 : quin ita calamitatem illatn putaret illorum ut fortunam tamen non alienam . , . arbitraretur Here V repeats pufarei hdore tamen. This indicates: illam putaret illoif. (12) ut fortunam (10) tamen The repetition is due to b\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 Hexe V repeats satis before factum. This indicates : satis illo (9) rum uolunta (10) ti qui a me hoc (11) petiuerunt (10) factum (62) iii. 171 : quod omnis frumenti copia decumarum nomine penes istum esset redacta, solitum esse istum pecuniam cogere. V gives guod omnis frumenti pecunia decumanorum, &c. Here decumar.jrum is a slip for decumarum, while pecunia looks like a variant ior pecuniam, which has got into the wrong place. This may indicate : frumenti copia decu (9) marum nomine (11) penes istum (10) esset redac (10) ta solitum es (11) »?^. pecunia se istum pecu (11) niam cogere The variant may have been transferred through o^.. {decu-, pecu-). iwa Q '336 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS (8i) iii. 69: summittebat iste Timarchidem qui moneret eos, si saperent, ut transigerent. Pernegabant. Quid ergo? Insingulos HS quinqua- genis milibus damnari mavultis V inserts septu before mavultis. This corruption may be due to a conflation of two variants, viz. sep- for sap{erent), and tu for ut. This indicates : mg. 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 viclarat. 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 potissimum V gives hostissimum Veneri. The corruption hostissimum 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 ol potissimum (10). I would call attention to the fact that the long omission of 322 letters is not explained by h^t.. It seems not unlikely that the scribe skipped a column in his model. If so, this would seem to have contained 20 or 31 lines to the page. Before I proceed to the minuscule MSS., I must mention that the Turin palimpsest A. ii. 3 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, biit omitted by D^, viz. : (54) i. 45 : dictum est hoc in Cn. Dolabellae iudicio. Dictum ? etiam aestimatum The omission is due to 6/x. I also mention here, for the sake of completeness, a fragment from a papyrus book, containing Verr. i. 6c- 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 3^7 I now turn to R = Paris. 7774 A, cent. ix. This MS. is written in two columns, with 2,1 lines to a page. The contents of a page (f. 80') reproduced by Chatelain (PI. 31) are : Col. i = 517 letters, avg. 34J to line. „ ii = 464 „ „ 22, Another page (f. 93^) is reproduced by E. Thomas in his edition of Verr. iv, v. In this : Col. i = 498 letters. .. ii = 454 „ In both pages col. ii contains less than col. i. 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. de = deinde 97 : fano P = fanorum The confusion of £ 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 more occurred in the model, but were removed by Caroline revisers. R in its present form contains Verr. iv-v only. It has, however, been mutilated, as is manifest from the signature Q. xxxv, which occurs on f. 8^ (Chatelain, PI. 31). E. Thomas has pointed out that aoo folios must have perished before Verr. iv, and that aoo folios would exactly suffice for the previous speeches.^ ' These stray capitals are found in the same places in S, also in Harl. 2682 (JI), which has excerpts from Verr. iii, iv. If S and J/ are not derived from H, all three MSS. must have been drawn from a common ancestor written in minuscules. ' J?evue de Philologie, 1885, p. 167. The same conclusion was reached independently by Peterson. 338 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 5 = Paris. 7775, cent, xiii (mutilated). D = Paris. 7833, cent. xv. He considers D to have been derived from S, before 5 was mutilated, and S 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 6" and D appear to give the R tradition where R is no longer extant. As S, in addition to Verr. iv and v, only contains a fragment (1. 90-1 11), D is of real importance for the previous speeches. Omissions oi R-\- dittography : (9) iv. 132 : *religione praedonum ♦civitatum *rex ad istum reponendos imperium ac **litterae re- vestituinque aedificandam 25 : et amplissima monumentorum conservandis iatn continues stupri plenus hoc Hennenses atque amicorum adulteriisque remouerat atque quisquam omnium quae ad iudicium senectutem summa princeps civitatis id facere desistant et et animo aequo videmus nulla esset hie defensio partim in vinclis necatos feriri debere (oportere V) non ego metum V. 42 61 (10) iv. 66 103 V. 40 S6 (II) V. 118 (12) iv. 23 25 80 140 v. 81 95 133 (13) iv. 6 144 (14) V. 71 76 174 (IS) V. 180 (17) V. 47 (19) V. 102 152 (21) V. 75 (22) V. 154 (23) V. 133 VERRINES 329 (24) iv. 54 : atque hac tola de re audistis (28) V. 172 : vestram severitatem desiderant (29) V. 51 : tot annos post iure imperii nostri (33) 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 dome 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 (add. m. 2 in lac.) (83) V. no: *est destitutus. Quid erat autem quod quisquam diceret aut defenderet. Cleomenem nominare non licet [add. m. 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. Quaesivi 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 vitae atque victus, morum, legum, mansuetudinis, humanitatis homini- bus et civitatibus data ac dispertita esse dicuntur bis scr. {e coll. med) (318) iv. 151 : *reliquerat, ademisset. Ac videte hominis impudentiam atque arrogantiam, iud., qui non solum Verria haec turpia ac ridicula ex Heraclii pecunia constituent, verum etiam Marcellia toUi imperarit, ut ei sacra facerent quotannis cuius opera omnium annorum sacra deosque patrios amiserant ; eius autem familiae dies festos tolierent, per quam ceteros quoque festos dies recuperarent. This passage comes at the end of iv, after the words calamitoso dies. Halm 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 141I- 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 R, S, D, &c.* 1 This reading, which is not mentioned by Halm, is taken from my own collation. " Journal of Philology, xxx, p. 174. 230 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. 15a (19), v. 154 (aa), V. 136 (44), iv. 14a (50), iv. '^^ (loa), iv. a; (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 euni 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 loa (iv. 35) + 315 (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 rerum decretarum R has eum deci'etarum, 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 J? has innocentem in hominem. This indicates : innocentem (10) in hominem V. 160: se Syracusis in lautumiis fuisse. R has lautumisse for lautumiis. This indicates : se SyracHsis (11) in lautumis (10) fuisse I would also mention, with some doubt : V. 93 : non enim sicut erat anper consuetude praedonum adventum signi- ficabat ignis. So R}, nuper (for anper) R'^ ; antea p. It is possible that a7iper is a conflation of an (= ante) and per, a variant ior prae- (cf. v. 108 perditum edd. ; praeditum codd.). If so, the corruption may go back to sicut erat ari consuetudo (10) mg. per praedonum The short omissions of R are curiously like those of V. Thus I have noted 15 omissions of 9-ia letters in V, and oddly enough 15 similar omissions in R. So V and R both have four omissions of ao-4, Fhas one of 31, and R one of 33, 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 R, 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 flagiti esse commissum, nolo eos iudices, quos ego probarim , R inserts ^uos ego probarim (15) after causa iud., as well as in the asa 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 etiam, 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 <5hief corruptions which it contains, viz. : (53) V. 18. Here i? gives : ^ servos quos ipse de consilio belli faciendi causa consensisse iudicavit, eos sine consili sententia . . . liberavit. In / we find cum for if ^, before consilio, which is obviously a coirection. Lambinus more plausibly reads de consilii sententia . . . sine consilio . . . liberavit. E. Thomas remarks ' sententia a dft ^tre transpose.' Since the transposition is shared by /, it probably goes back to a remote ancestor. We may, therefore, arrange thus, postulating an original omission of 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 tam graviter animadverti causa in- dicta non oportuisse VERRINES 333 R has maximae after honestissimae. Thomas remarks, 'le mot a du etre transpose de la ligne prdcedente.' The words maxime . . . honestissimae consist of 56 letters. The resemblance to the previous passage is striking. I, therefore, venture to arrange as follows, supposing maximae to be a variant for maxime, which has got out of place in R : si mg. maximae maxime in cul (11) pa fuerit apol (12) lonius tamen (11) in hominem ho (11) nestissimae (11) = 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 hoc before genere and negare. The abbreviation C. R. for civis Romanus is frequent in the MSS., e.g. v. 7a, c. r. = cives Romani V, ib. ceruos = c. r°' (cf. p. azi), 73 civeni Romanum R: c. r. 8, 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 R 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 genera dis (9) crimen itaque (12) iam consuetu (11) dine ad corpo (11) ra c. r. etiam (9) sine istius (10) nutu fereba (10) tur manus ip (10) sa lictoris (10) num potes hoc (n) = 103 negare 234 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS (154) V. isa-s : 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 at fortissimum, permulti occiso Perperna ex illo Sertoriano numero militum confugerunt. For ex illo R has the corruption ex Hs illo ; also, after suscepit ut . . . R has his for iis. It would appear that is (i. e. iis) and his are variants, and that is has got into the wrong place. The words iis omnibus . . . Perperna ex consist of 154 letters. (156) V. 186: mater Idaea, quam ... sic spoliatam reliquit ut nunc nomen modo African! 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, 53, 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 a = 318) in iv. 151. Also, we have the omission of 317 letters by D, the representative ol R, in Div. 6^-6. Further, we have the interesting fact that the omis- sion of loa letters by R in iv. 35 + the dittography of 315 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, col. ii ; 205, col. i {159) p. 50, col. i VERRINES 235 In order to illustrate the point I write out de Re Publica, p. 8i, col. ii, side by side with Verr. v. i86, put into similar formation . de Re PubL, p. 8i, col. ii Verr. v. 186 tasse set a uita (13) reliquit ut (ID) hominum ab (9) nunc nomen (9) horrentem (9) mode africa (10) et a maiorib. (10) ni et uestigia (12) 5 reliqui disse (12) 5 uiolatae re (10) ruerunt sine (II) ligionis ma (10) uUo certo ex (II) neant monu (9) emplari for (10) menta uicto (10) maque reip. (9) riae fanique (II) 10 de generibus (II) 10 ornamenta non (12) et de rationi (II) exstent uos (10) bus ciuitatu (II) que omnium re (II) tu mihi uide (10) rum forensi (10) ris utrumq. (9) um consilio (10) 15 facturus es (10) 15 rummaximorum (12) 156 156 The next column in the ultimate ancestor of R began with legum, for which reliquum 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 gemellus 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. 163-71, 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 Deiotaro et de publicis litteris et de actione 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. a3<5 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 SSS = 1083. avg. 22| (Lig.) l<)^ 601 595 = 1196, avg. 25 {Ver>'.)28^ 652 602 = 1254, avg. 26 ( Verr.) ^7^ 731 693 = 1424, avg. 28 J 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 : (1) 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) ff. g-l2. Cat. ii. 15-iii. I : ne mihi . . . resti- = 209 + subscription + title. (4) ff. 13-15. Cat. iii. 9-19: regem huius . . . urbis atque = 168. (5) f. x6. 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.iZ-Deiot.d: si illi . . . disceptante = 52 + subscription to Z«^. and title to Deiof. (9) ff. 22-7. iPw/. 15-43 : finitimi . . - tuae =■• 35 1| + subscription. (10) ff. 28-33. Verr. ii. 1-30: multa . . . cohorte = 360 + title. (11) f. 34. Verr. ii. 112-17: 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 g. i, on f. 11 g. ii, on f. 16 g. iii, on f. 34 g. x. In the last case two or more letters have been erased after x. It is, how- ever, common in MSS. to iind 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 •f7> avg. 53. The subscription and title must be taken into account. VERRINES 237 (3) ff. 9-12 = 209-r4, avg. saj+ subscription and title. (4) ff. 13-15 = 168 -r 3, avg. 56. (5) f. 16 = 54. (6) ff. 17-18 = 119H-2, avg. S9j. (7) ff. 19-20 = iiStZ, avg. S7h (8) f. 21 = 52 + subscription and title. (9) ff. 22-7 = 351^4-6, avg. 58 J + subscription. (10) ff. 28-33 = 360-^6, avg. 60 + title. (11) f. 34 = 7of. (12) ff. 35-9 = 334 -T- 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 1-38 works out at 57. I now take those parts ot the speeches which have been lost, viz. : Cat i. 5-17 : factum . . . offensum = 159I, i.e. 3 ff., avg. 53. ii. II-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 ) . - _ Li^. 1-18 : novum . . . quamquam = 186 I = ^S^. >.e. 6 ff., avg. 55 + sub- scription to Cat, iv and title of Ltg: 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. 30-112 : cognoscere . . . amplissime = 1106, i.e. 18 ff., avg. 61J. 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 71. Verr. ii. 117-57: cognosce . . . cupierint = 570, i.e. 8 ff., avg. 71J. 183-end: erit de . . . revertuntur = 3520, i.e. 50 ff., avg. ^c\ (nearly). It thus appears that 96 leaves of C have perished. The quaternion markings on fif. 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. i'y-(> ac miserrimo . . . fortuna, 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 338 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS including Cat. iii. 'i^-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. ii-is = I f . *l5-iii. I = 4 ff. 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 Caiilinariae, was 1+39 + 96 = 136, i.e. 17 quaternions. I now come to the signature q. x on f. 34 ( Verr. ii. iia-17). We have found that Cat. i. i-iii. 36 occupied 24. ff. After this point, up to and including f. 34, we have : Cat. iii. 26-iv. 8 = 3 ff. *iv. 8-15 = 2 ff. Lig. IS-end 1-18, = 6ff *i8-28 = 2ff. 28-38 = 2ff. *38- -Deiot. 6 = I f. Deiot. 6-15 = 2ff. * 1 5-43 = 6ff Verr. ii. 1-30 = 6ffi 30-112 = 18 ff. *II2-I7 = I f. 49 We ; ire, therefore, Here 24 + 49 = 73. We are, therefore, 7 ff. short, if Verr. ii. 1 1 3-1 7 is to be on f. 80. In view of the relation of Cto other MSS. which contain the/w Mar cello 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 a39 The J>ro Marcello 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 5if. If we allow la 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 C originally contained the pro 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 \hE.pro Marcello, also for the attempt to correct the signature q. x. If this view is correct, the total contents of C up to Verr. ii. 117 were ten quaternions, i.e. 80 tif. After this we have : Verr. ii. 117-57 = 8 flf. * 157-83 = 5 ff. 183-end =50 ff. 63 This gives a total of 143 ff. 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 iii. 1-9 *ff. 20-2 9-19 f. 23 19-23 * f. 24 {g. iii) 23-6 ff. 25-7 26-iv. 8 *ff. 28-9 iv. 8-15 ff. 30-42 15-end + Marc. + Lig. 1-18 *ff. 43-4 ZzV. 18-28 ff. 45-6 28-38 * f. 47 ■fi-Deiot. 6 ff. 48-9 Driot. 6-1 5 24° DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS * ff. 50-5 Deiot. 1 5-43 * ff. 56-61 Verr. ii. 1-30 ff. 62-79 30-112 *f. 8o(^. x) 112-17 ff. 81-8 117-57 *ff. 89-93 157-83 ff. 94-143 183-end I now proceed to discuss the 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. aa, 36, 37) the missing passage is added by the second hand. There is also one dittography. (10) ii. 26 : HS CCC milia om. C 165 : est quantum om. C 176-7 : ** daret satis- om. C 1 79 : nullius vim om. C (11) ii. 28 : abstinentes om. c 40 : deterrime et om. c 50 : ex aere facta om. c 54 : hereditatem om. c 156 : quam multi et om. c (12) ii. II : tantis opibus om. C 113 : nihil ex sacro om. C 168 : ab aratoribus om. C 176 : quid sociorum otn. C 186 : male gestarum om. c legati laedant om. C ac pudentissimi om. C familiaritatem om. C summa parsimonia om. C 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 maxima om. c * quid sibi esset faciendum om. c (32) iii. 167 : adlatarum libris Romae in litterarum om. c (39) ii. 45 : * sed ad communem litium aestimationem venisse om. c (80) ii. 2 : nostram venissent numquam postea deficerent, pleraeque autem et maxime inlustres in amicitia om. C (82) ii. 24 : satisne vobis magnam pecuniam Venerius homo qui e Chelidonis sinu in provinciam profectus esset om. C in lac. (13) ii. 114: (14) ii. 23 : 169: (15) ii.7: 17: 42: (17) ii. 13 : 26: (18) ii. 22 : 40: (22) ii. 70 : VERRINES 341 (88) ii. 23 : dixit hoc idem M. LucuUus se de his Dionis incommodis pro hospitio quod sibi cum eo esset iam ante cognosse om. 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 tlie 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, adducetur . . . reus iam. 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 convictus (la) are added before tam nocens, and MUUer, with most editors, accepts the addition. Peterson thinks that it comes from i. 10 : 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, lo-ia letters (14 examples). I have marked one of these as a telescoped passage, viz. : ii. 176-7 : misisse 1. Canuleium qui in portu operas daret. Satisne magnum crimen hoc videtur. Here C aiter portu gives operas ne magnum, &c. {med. om.). The number of short omissions in C and 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. %% is of exactly the same length as ii. a6, 1«3S 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 iuris 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. aa, 36. If we take this as 93 letters, there is no explanation except o\i.. If, however, we add tarn convictus, the total is 105, which yields a satisfactory result (17x6 = loa). The other large omissions, 80, 8a, 88, are strikingly similar. The first of these is peculiar to C, 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, 33^ lines 7-10 are left blank. In col. ii the first hand In col. i 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 Luculli, Chlori, Dionis. The correspondence between 88 and 83 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 17 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 343 col i col. ii tio quod sibi cum eo es (18) nis sinu in prouinci (17) 5 set iam ante cognosse (i8) 5 am profectus esset (16) quid lucuUus qui turn (i8) in macedonia fuit me (17) lius haec cognouit (i6) quam tu hortensi qui (17) lo romae fuisti ad quem (17) dio confugit qui de (16) dionis iniuriis gra (17) uissime per litteras (i8) cum uerre questus es (17) 1 5 noua tibi haec sunt in (18) opinata nunc primum (17) aures hoc tuae crimen (18) accipiunt nihil ex di (i8) one nihil ex socru tua (18) 20 femina primaria ser (17) uilia uetere dionis (17) hospita audisti non (17) ne multa mei testes (i6) quae tu scis nesciunt (i8) 25 nonne te mihi testem in (19) hoc crimine eripuit (17) non istius innocenti (18) a sed legis exceptio (17) C omits 11. 1-5, dixit hoc . . . cognosse (88) and satisne . . . esset (8*), leaving a lacuna in both places. References to ofificial 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 K 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. lo : 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 (l6) sed in istum crimina (17) uiderentur esse R a 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 quadruplatorii deterrimus a sacerdote PR. con demnatus iniuriarum etenim erat eiusmodi causa ut ipse ery cum quaereret. Here erycum in II. 8-9 is an error for cum, introduced from erycum 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) pio 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. 3618 (79), cent. xv. This MS. {0), 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. con- tains all the Verrines, but its appearance suggests that Verr. ii, iii, which are in a fairly good hand, resembling that of Wolfenbuttel 205 (p. 1.8), 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 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 C^, 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 (9 is a direct copy of C. I cannot follow him here. What appears to me a fatal diflSculty is that C omits a passage which is found in O, viz. : (80) ii. 3 : 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 0, marking the agreement of C, where the MS. is extant, or of c, where we have quotations from sixteenth-century scholars. The present contents of C, it is to be remembered, are ii. 1-30, 1 13-17, 157-83. I would mention that O was recollated for Miiller by A. Reiffer- 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 iii. 13 : civitates ' Peterson quotes the reading oi C as, E. A. When, however, I recently recollated the MS., I had no doubt that it has F. A. 24*5 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS (lo) 'II) (12) iii. 138 : * senatores 154: invenimus ii. 45 : * hereditate 86: * recuperate 137: * XXXIX milia 165: est quantum (C) 179: nuUius vim (C) iii. 47 : * vehementer 125: familiarem 156: et contemni 187: * in contione 188: iste hordei ii. 26 : * HS CCCC milia (C) 28: * abstinentes (f) 31: * eiusdem modi 39: quis vestrum 40: deterrime et (t) so: Syracusanos ib.: ex aere facta 54: * hereditatem (f ) 152: rogato et eum 156: quam multi et {c) iii. 133 : * satis facere 144: * ea dictitare 204: sed ita fieri ii. 62 : * in provinciam ' 63: alia Panhormi 113: nihil ex sacro (C) 168: ab aratoribus (C) 176: quid sociorum (C) iii. I : continentiae (c) 30: ac turpissimo 64: * esse versatum 97 et fortissimo 178: Carbonem et in 186: male gestarum (c) 220 eripiendarum 226 * et si aratorum ii. 57 * qua in re ipsius 74 non solum mente 114 legati laedant (C) iii. 26 : * professionem R. 132 ignorabas haec (13) ^ For in provinciam has hinc. which has been received into the text. This may possibly represent an omission mark t VERRINES iii. 169 : * fenore accepto (14) ii. 23 ; ac pudentissimi (C) 53 : nisi ei venisset 57 : ob tuum decretum 150: * datur id accipio iii. 60 : summa industria 190: ac difilicillima (15) ii. 17: sive pecuariorum 42 : atque obsecraret (c) iii. 60 : asservatum neque 75 : hominum summorum 92 : contra omnia iura (16) ii. 50: Syracusanis locum 78 : et trades cui uoles 97 : neque humanitatis iii. 128: epistula L. Metelli 168: et recte non putant 172 : * quod numquam antea 217: improbe factum est (17) iii. 151: quod iam addixisses (18) ii. 40: et in iudiciis maxime (c) 83 : sed etiam habitasset (19) iii. 3 : atque eloquentissimo (20) iii. 211: * ratione innumerabilem 224 : vestro, minore periculo Cf. iii. 24 : idem habuit in edicto se ii's scr. (21) ii. 76: minus ad vitae discrimen iii. 131 : ** terror in auribus animis- (22) ii. 38 : ab institutis superiorum 70 : * quid tibi esset faciendum {c) iii. 215 : tempore magnum videretur (23) iii. 205 : non ex iure non ex aequitate 207 : neque tam longinquus neque (24) iii. 59 : mitto vincla, mitto carcerem 208 : publice testimonium dicere (25) ii. 63 : gerere quam istius praeturam 80 : iuratus dicit pecuniam datam iii. 133: non perseveras, non perquiris 157 : * ea monet alienum hominem quae (26) iii. 204 : * bonis everli aratores et id non (27) iii. 79 : atque hoc agebat in cubiculo, iud. 83 : * lex decumis vendundis C. Verre PR. {add. m. I in mg.) 179: in medimnum iterum P. R. a quo HS. XXI (28) iii. 109: **quod ipsi Leontini publice non sa-* iii. 125 : tamen incolumis numerus manebat ^ Cf. Miiller, p. Ixxv. 847 248 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS (30) ii. I : enim causam totius ordinis suscepi iii. 96 : senatorem ut hoc amplissimum nomen (c ?) 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 (c) 223 : hoc ad commodum senatorium pertinere (34) iii 228 : etiamne frumentum pro empto gratis dare (35) iii. 117: * C. Norbani decumae venditae agri Leontinv 202 : est pecunia, Verres, una qua frumentum tibi (36) iii. 74 : * R., litterae publicae, testimonium publicum 123: se lege Hieronica vendidisse quid scribit (39) ii. 45 : * sed ad communem litium aestimationem venisse (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 sunttritici (48) iii. 167 : * litterae 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 difficultas aratorumque penuria tulit (57) ii. 21 : quid ? turn 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 uUa, 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) 6exx. (11) 13 exx. (10) ID 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. (a) O also agrees with C, in the larger omissions, viz. (8a) ii. 34, and (88) ii, 33. 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. 3 nostram . . . amicitia, but found in O, consists of 80 letters. The agreement of CO, therefore, apart from ii. a, where O has recovered — through a corrector — a passage lost by C, 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 aratorutn versaretur where O gives cum tui nominis que aratorum versaretur med. om. (21) since que might easily be detached from animis. The other example is more striking, viz, : iii. 109 : propter banc causam quod ipsi Leontini non sane multum Here, according to Reififerscheid's collation, O has : propter banc causam ne multum {med. om.) This indicates in a previous MS. : propter banc causa quod ipsi leontini publice non sa (28) ne multum The omission is assisted by d/x. 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 C'.^ The instances which he gives are to be found in the preceding list, viz, : (21) iii. 131 (28) iii. log, 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. > Class Rev., xvi (1902), pp. 402-3 ; J. Phil., xxx, p. 195. 350 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS It is of interest here to consider more closely the formation of C. I have already (p. i'^fi) 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 a6. 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, 31, 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 38§. The extreme limits of variation are, on f. 38', ai (one ex.) — 31 (one ex.), and, on f. 37"^, 34 (one ex.) — '>,j, (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 35-30. 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 37-30 x 3. Only one of the omissions of 35-30 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 351 I was a line short. I discovered on examination that I had omitted the line enim . . . susce-, having fallen a victim to ojn. It may now be asked if there are 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 fif. 38"^ 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 O, one of which is striking, viz. : (151) ii. 151: concedas, quod tibi honestissimum est, aratores tibi ad statuam honoris tui causa voluntate sua contulisse. Da mihi hoc, iam tibi maxi- mam partem defensionts praecideris, non enim poteris aratores tibi iratos esse atque inimicos dicere. O has honestis for iratos. Miiller says ' aberratum videtur esse ad honestissimum.^ 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 6/n. The other case is : (93) ii. 181 : quod in publicanorum causis vel plurimum aetatis meae versor vehementerque ilium ordinem observo, satis commode mihi videor eorum consuetudinem . . . cognosse. O has cons for causis. The analogy of the preceding passage 252 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS suggests that the writer looked forward to cons\tcetudinem\. 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 {p), cent. xi. This MS. is written in long lines with 27 lines to the page, and an average of about 6a letters to the line, lis 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 ^ : oni.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 p"^ in mg. (or sup. lin.) : (10) ii. 61 : occasionem (11) iii. 63: *etdomestico (16) iii. 168 : et recte non putant (om. O) (17) i. 74: quod iste iussisset ii. 192 : neque committebant (18) Div.T.^ : et ita tamen mutandam iii. 184 : hoc quamquam denique (19) i. 8 : * non id solum quaeritur 28 : * stragulae quod fuerit 137 : talis viros quo dolore iii. 79: emerat. Hie est Docimus 177 : sad nunc demum tenetur (31) i. 119: quam diu fuit designatus iii. 222 : * cupias tibi licere, atqui VERRINES 353 (22) ii.93 : si tantulum moraefuisset iii. 210 : * et iudicia severa fiebant (23) i. 158 : curando ne litura appareat {add. m. l) iv. 8 : nihil cuiquam relinqueret (26) iv. 150: negare non poterunt frumentum (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.8: 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 maritimis 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 tum esse veritum (73) iii. 62 ; quid est, Lolli, 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 homo improbus atque impurus, Apronius, socium esse PR., venerat res in indicium 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. (id) iii. 158 : in aratorem cO, om.p, cett. 174 : Siciliense cO, om.p, cett. (11) iii. 137 : teneo inquam cO, ovt.p, cett. (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 p^ 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 MUller, followed by Peterson, reads with VOp^ : iste amplam nactus 354 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS explaining amplam as = ' handle ', from Servius on Aen. vii. 796, who explains the name Labicus as ' imh t^s Aa/3^s quam Latine amplam vocamus '. The word is used in a literal sense by Ammi- anus xxi. 3, i, ampla remanserat sola quam retinens valida manu stringebat. Miiller 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 Miiller 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 abusus est (la), 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 6fi. There is a curious error in p, which may go back to an early stage, viz. : V. 141 : reciperatores se de cohorte sua dicebat daturum Here / inserts sed ego before reciperatores. Peterson points out that this is a variant for se de co-. This indicates ina previous MS. the arrangement : reciperatores (13) 7ng. sed ego se de cohorte The variant was inserted a line higher up. The noticeable points in the omissions of /^ (and /) are : (i) 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 lo-ia 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 (a) There are two striking bulges in the curve of omissions, viz. at 19 (5 exx.) and 34 (3 exx.). It is difficult to draw any conclusion ' Primitive Text, p. 3. VERRINES 255 concerning the first of these. They may throw light 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 bello ac tumultu tamen homines inuiti (34) dant etsi ad salutem communem dari sent! (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 3 = 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 Verrines '} 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. 356 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS two explanations, viz. (i) that the variety is due to omission followed by insertion in the wrong place, (a) 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 IS 17 26 36 54 56 60 64 70 72 77 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 uUa CO : uUa in re umquam cett. obtinebant causas CO : causas obtinebant cett. ex testamento negent O : negent ex testamento cett. amicorum suorum V : amicorum cO : suorum amicorum de/t. male acceptos ab se V: ab se male acceptos cett. eius existimatione O: existimatione eius V, cett. mecum decedere VO : decedere mecum 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 tribunali : 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 p, cett. videbitis teneri CO : teneri videbitis cett. litteras primas V: primas litteras cett. consilio confirmato O : confirmato consilio cett. sapientiam maiorum O: maiorum sapientiam cett. saltare in convivio O : in convivio saltare cett. msticarum rerum O : rerum rusticarum cett. aiebat omnis esse V: esse aiebat omnis esse O : omnis dicebat esse^ decumanum putatis : 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 f«/^. VERRINES 257 48 : frumentariae rei O : rei frumentariae ceii, 51 : ilia locatione O: locatione ilia ceii. 5 S : se accepturum VO : accepturum se ceii. 58 : iniurias eorum V: eorum iniurias ceii. 63 : contumeliis iniuriisque O : iniuriis contumeliisque ceii. 65 : fortunarum tuarum O : tuarum fortunarum ceii. 66 : tractatae quem ad modum V: quem ad modum tractatae ceii. 67 : praesertim rnagno O : magiio praesertim ceii. 70 : tamen in consilio O : in consilio tamen ceii\ 75 : lucri dare ei O : ei lucro dare ceii. 97 : arationes haberet O : haberet arationes ceii. 99 : esse videatur praeda O : praeda esse videatur ceii. 104 : in Sicilia nullum O : nullum in Sicilia ceii. 124 : perditamque provinciam miseram O : provinciam miseram perditamque ceii. 1 56 : domestica coniectura O : coniectura domestica V, ceii. 157 : socium in decumis O: in decumis socium ceii. 167 : litteras in Siciliam O: in Siciliam litteras ceii. 168: usura publicanos VO: publicanos usura «//. 171 : Timarchidi et Volcatio V: Volcatio Timarchidi ceii. 182 : pecuniam civitatibus V: civitatibus pecuniam ceii. 184 : moleste ferunt esse V: esse moleste ferunt ceii. esse aliquos ibi V: ibi esse aliquos ceii. terdecies uno nomine VO : uno nomine terdecies ceii. igo : ad portandum loca cO : loca ad portandum ceii. 217 : vestram defensionem O : defensionem vestram ceii. V. 72 : involutis e carcere capitibus V: capitibus obvolutis e carcere ceii. 82: vir Cleomenes V: Cleomenes vir ceii. 97 : parvis myoparonibus V: myoparonibiis parvis ceii. 108 : catenis aspiciunt V: aspiciunt catenis ceii. 121 : neque illis neque tibi V: neque tibi neque illis H : neque tibi deii, 126 : non aurum non argentum V: non argentum non aurum ceii. 132: calamitates quidem V: quidem calamitatis c^//. 186: praesidium propugnaculumque V: propugnaculum praesidiumque f^//. The absence of instances from iv is due to the fact that only a small part of this speech in preserved in V, 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. 156, if a MS. had coniectura (10) domestica (9) it is easy to see how the words would come to be inverted. 1033 S 258 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 /' 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 : provinciam miseram perditamque offendisti O gives perditamque provinciam miseram. It is clear here that perditamque (11) was first omitted and then added in the margin of a subsequent MS., which had : provinciam miseram (17) mg. perditamque offendisti iii. 99 : praeda esse videatur » O has esse videatur praeda. Peterson^ calls this a 'scholarly correction made by the copyist of O '. As the collocation in is a violation of Cicero's favourite rhythm, I prefer to explain it as a mechanical error going back to a MS. which had : mg. 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 {iett. V. 121 : neque illis neque tibi V: neque tibi de/^. : neque tibi neque illis Ii. 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 cefi. 55 : se accepturum VO : accepturum se ceU. These clearly go back to : mg. rei frumentariae (12) mg. 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. > Am. J. Phil., xxvi. 4, p. 422. « Ibid., 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 Fis not quoted, it is deficient : et honesti CO : om. cett. bene de re p. cO ; om. cett. civitates VO : om. cett. * reprehend! V: om.cett. addiderunt V: om. cett. occasionem p^ : om. V, cett. * ad praesens V : om. cett. iniuriis et V: om. cett. * in aratorem cO : om. cett. Siciliense cO : om. cett. * et sua sponte V: om. cett. ac multo plus VcO : om. cett. teneo inquam cO : om. cett. * poposcerant R : om. pb Syracusanum (-norum R) VR : om. cett. vestitumque V, Quintil. : otn. cett. * sic abusus est p : om. cett. et aequitatem VO: om. cett. * omatissimus VO : om. cett. an negotiator cO : om. cett. «rper triennium cO : om. cett. turpe numquam R : om. cett. iam continuos V: om. cett. stupri plenus V: om. cett. et clarissimos cO : om. cett. quos non exarat (-ararat V) VCO : om, cett. atque amicorum V: om. cett. * rex fugitivorum cO : om. cett. denis non licere VcO : om. cett. omnium necessarios cO : om. cett. ac locupletissimos cO : 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. V, cett. non ex eo quod oportuerit cO : om. cett. facito. Quid est suo cuique V: om. cett. iudicio condemnarunt horum CO : om. cett. s a (9) n. 29 iii. 48 74 (10) i. 107 143 ii. 61 66 iii. 74 IS8 174 (II) ii. 86 iii. 29 137 iv. 32 V. 97 118 (13) i. 130 ii. 86 102 188 iii. 179 V. 46 81 95 : (13) iii. 16 . 199 iv. 6 (14) iii. 66 220: (17) ii- 135 iii. 52 : 64: 200 (18) iii. 48 161: (20) ii. 130 . 135: 167: (21) iii. 205 : (22) i. 146: (24) ii. 175 •• a6o DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS iii. 70 : atque adeo cum damnatus eris V; om. cett. (25) iii. 171 : cum suum frumentum (om. cO) probasset VcO: om. ceit, (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. D9 (53) iii. 221 : aestimare. Permissum est : stuUissimus quisque postiiac minimo VO : om. cett. (54) i. 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 : om. cett. (63) ii. no: quem hominem absentem de litteris corruptis causa incognita con- demnasti cO : 07n. cett. Two passages which I have included in this list require some comment, viz. ii. 66, 86. 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 in praesens is used by Cicero in Cat. i. 32, 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 V, 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 extorquenda. 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 sponte. It seems to me more probable that sua sponte is a genuine fragment which is out of place in V, 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 recii- VERRINES a6i per are, regarding et as a repetition of -e, or as due to a variant recttperaret. The converging evidence so far considered shows that the MSS. of the Verrines are drawn from ancestors, or from one ancestor, written in very narrow columns similar to those found in the palimpsest of the de Re Publica. The final question now remains whether we are dealing with a single archetype. This can only be proved hy proprii errores, or minute flaws, pervading all the MSS. I take first the other MSS., apart from V, 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 : opinio . . . quae non modo [apud nos sed] apud exteras nationes 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 5fvl et [medimnis] dcliiii 113: quod si fieri non poterat ut plus quam X medimna ex iugero exararentj medimnum [autem] ex iugero decumano dari oportebat, 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 [uUam], ullum denique omamentum urbis sua voluntate cuiquam vendidit V. 12: atque haec sicubi [facta sunt], ita facta sunt ut homines . . . leva- rentur Here ita 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) pseudo-Ascon. : verum j* : tectum cett. ii. 17 : si cuiquam] sive cuiquam codd. 17s : venient . . . dicent] veniunt (-iant) . . . dicent codd. a63 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS iii. 96 : senatorem] senatorum codd. iv. 13 : iuvat] iuvant codd. (F illegible) 38 : versatae] versata codd. 46 : peraeque] per ea quae codd. 97 : grandis simili in] grandissimi hii in {vel simil.) codd. 128 : parinum codd. : varie emendatum. 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 Miiller). This suggests in a common ancestor : deinde cos non solum (11) Hortensium (10) sed iii. 67 : homines et satis fortes et plane frugi So V, except that it has sed plane ior et plane. The other MSS. repeat satis before plane. 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 laudationes 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 (g) possent non (10) ;«§-. laudationes laudationem (11) sed The insertion of sese in / seems due to correction. It is more VERRINES 363 probable that the original reading was fecisse se. If so, this may be added to the minute flaws. V. 56 : litterae rerum decretarum I have already referred to this passage (p. 230). RS give eum decretarum, which indicates in a common ancestor : litterae re (10) rum decretal^ (i i) Here /8, obviously by conjecture, give et rerum decretarum tritici empti. To these should probably be added : iii. 117: CCXVI decumas agri Leontini vendidisti ; si ex lege, magno; si ut lex esset libido tua, parvo ; si ut quae ditnidiae essent decumae vocarentur, parvo vendidisti Madvig here strikes out parvo after tua, as introduced from parvo before vendidisti. 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, [utrum negotiatores], utrum denique Siculi universi bene existiment The words utrum negotiatores were introduced by Garatoni fi-om § \t%, ab negotiatoribus, ab aratoribus, a communi Siciliae . . . araiorum, negotiatorum, Siculorumque omnittm testimonial 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 V, cett. Here the reading of O may be due to a correction, iii. 60 : a Q. Apronio] quo Apronio V : atque Apronio cett. V. 94 : acta commemorabatur] acta commemorabantur V, cett. 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 a64 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS Editors generally read idoneos, with Garatoni. I incline to consider idoneus a variant for indignus, due to the confusion of and 6 {D) in uncials. In Livy xxxi. 3 the Vienna MS. has inoindigna- rentur 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 tie 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: om. 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 coniinuos (la), 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 (11) 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) VERRINES 265 praetextatum (12) filium etsi (10) 15 recte sine (9) exceptione (10) V omits 1. 16, while 1. 3 is omitted by the other MSS., both omissions being due to 6/li. 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., QUIR., DOM., HAR. RESP.), PRO SESTIO, IN VATINIUM, PRO GAELIC, 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. 352, cent, xii/xiii (£). Harleianus 4937, cent, xii (H). The relation of these MSS. to P 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 Caeliana. For this we also have i; = 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. 367 ^5734 (s), afterwards used by Halm. These he denounced as Italian interpolations. The chief passage is in Cael. 24, where after Tiitis Caiusque the vulgate had : Coponii qui ex omnibus maxime 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, Cael. 50, where the vulgate had ei htiic et ceteris magnam ad se defendendum facultatem dabit, while PGE, etc., have et huic defendendum facultatem dabit, he calls the addition interpolationem ineptissimam et soloecam. One of these supplements deserves especial attention, viz. : Cael. 49 : ut non solum meretrix [sed etiam proterva meretrix] procaxque videatur The words give an admirable sense and are defended by b\t.. 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., 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, Miiller, and more recently Peterson. When the marginalia in S 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 2, one of them being an insertion of three words e coni. {Cael. 45). 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 2 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 F'^, 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 S and P. Among its agreements with P is one which gives a reading clearly inferior, viz. : § 37 : dissice S (Puteanus) : 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 P\ viz. : § 35 acta Ox. GE : actas Z' : § 35 effregit Ox. P^GE : et fregit P^: § 45 disputo Ox. P^GE : disputato P^ : disputavi S. 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 : 07n. 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 emendare 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 sed etiam . . . meretrix after non 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 prudentis alicuius Itali habenda.' ORATT. POST REDITUM, ETC. 369 to the page varies. In a page reproduced by Chatelain (PI. xxili) there are 37 lines in each column. I noticed that f. 18"^ has 37 lines in col. I and ^6 in col. a, while f. 18^ has 36 lines in col. i and 38 in col. a. The redo of f. ao 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 of /' I noticed several ditto- graphies, 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, ao : 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 voluit quam dignus videri After nobilissimos P has : temporibus s optumis factum esset reliquis homjnibus optumis tactum esset reHquis homjnibus optumis tactum esset reliquis honoribus The model seems to have had : optumis factus esset reliquis hominibus with a marginal variant : optumis tactum 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 coniunctum 370 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS The probability is that these also represent lines in the modell I abstain for the present from discussing possible multiples. The majority of the additions made by P^ exhibit a smaller unit, viz. 31-4. 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 _/f/?V . . . defenderet (65), while E omits se non . . . 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. 3-5. 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 atitem (h*) which occur in GE.'^ 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 thepro Caelio which is common to PGE, viz. §§ 17-27 accommodavistis . . . convivhim come after §§ 37-36 remierit . . . timiditatem. The error is rectified in P by a corrector, ' Rhein. Miis. Ixvii (1912), p. 368. " Halm on Val. 41; cf. Sesl, 21. ORATT. POST REDITUM, ETC. 271 who at § 37 inserts in the margin the note hie repete quod dimisisti. In Harl. 49^7 (^) the two passages are given in their proper order. The length of these passages in Teubner 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. : Har. Resp. 46 : quid enim faciat aliud ? illos homines sapientissimos gravissi- mosque miror, pritnum quod quemquam clarum hominem atque optima de re p. (no) 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. §§ 46-50, saepe meritum . . . 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. : Har. Resp. 18 : sed quoniam mea causa expedita est, videamus nunc quid haruspices dicant. Ego enim fateor me et magnitudine ostenti et gravitate responsi et una atque constanti haruspicum voce' vehementer esse commotum This passage is omitted loco suo by PGE and inserted in § 17 before quamquam si me. The intervening passage, §§ 17-^8, quam- quam si me . . . respondeat admoneri, occupies i6| lines of Teubner text. I now arrange these transpositions in order of length : Har. Resp. 17-18 = l6| lines. 46-50= 64 „ Ca^/. 27-36= 130 „ • So edd., 0711. codd. 273 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 peculiar 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 ■ . . tuus 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 sanguinem 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 hdiS 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, §§ 5-6, veterem meum. . . . principum, occupy 33^ 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 : i6|, 32^, 48, 64, 130. The most natural interpretation to put on them is, that 16 = a column, 3a = 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 aa, we get as a result 31 lines to a page (33x31 = 683). I assume that the archetype was written in two columns. After this preliminary discussion I proceed to consider the omissions of the various MSS. We have already seen that the model of P was a MS. very like itself. There is, therefore, an intermediate ancestor between P and the archetype. It is prima 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) Har. Resp. 5 : odio dignitatis om. P 51 : quam in universe om. P^ (15) Cael. 24 : *Caelio existimet om. GE Prov. Cons. 6 : *sed quia nunc sine om. P^ (16) Sest. 118 : aut non exprimeret om. /" (17) Dom. 86: et M. Furius Camillus om. P^ Sesi. 132 : **hominem et a caede ab- ojn. f" (18) Sesi. 100: res p. quam defenditur om. G 1 10 : iuvabant anagnostae om. P^ Vai. 18 : *esset etiam turn in re p. om. GE (19) Dom. 132 : quodam attjue 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. P^ Sest. 48 : laudis partim vitandae om. P^ (21) Quir. 9 : auctores hortatoresque om. GE Sest. 129 : de caelo servaret ne quis otn. G Cael. 66 : cur non comprehenderint om. P Vat. 12 : terreres conscendentes om. P'- 28 : ** inimico suo contionem re- om. P^ (22) Sest. 17 : si ora ipsa oculis vestris om. G^ 57 : honorem istum consecutus om. P^ Cael. 3 : splendidus ipse aut parum om. G (23) Dom. 97 : quibus aequo animo carerem om. G 132 : *tamen institute ceterorum ovt. /" Sest. 58 : huius imperii Mithridatem G : om. PE, cett. id. : a se regem quam constrictum 6is scr. P Cael. 8 : atque etiam isti dignitati om. P 1»S3 T 374 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS Vai. i6 : quos privates esse dicebas om. /" (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 numquatn om. P^ (27) Sen. I : ♦qua nihil potest esse iucundius om. /" (28) Sen. 23 : *amicitias igni perspectas tuear om. G (33) Har. Resp. 26 : istius modi Megalesia fecit pater tuus om. G (38) Gael. 52 : quam ad rem aurum tum iret an non dixerit. Si non 07n. /" (41) Sen. 2 : ne aperte incommoda patriae lugeretis ediceret ojn. P^ (43) Balb. 47 : quoniam re non potest ut conspiciatis eum mentibus bis scr. P (46) Gael. 24 : *Coponii qui ex omnibus maxime Dionis mortem doluerunt 2 : om. PGE (48) Gael. 35 : *facis, quae dicis, quae insimulas, quae moliris, quae arguis 2, pap. Ox. 1251, e/ sic fere P^GE : om. P^ (49) Vat. 10 : atque infimo conferam de te ipso homine et arrogantissimo om. /" Balb. 31 : *iuris habeat necesse est ne quis invitus civitate mutetur om. /" (55) Vat. 7 : etsi ego te perditorem et vexatorem rei p. fero, tu me conserva- torem bis scr. P (63) Quir. 23 : qui reddidit non habet, gratiam et qui rettulit habet et qui habet dissolvit otn. P {add. m. rec.) (64) /far. Resp. 47 : Caesaris in quo fallebat sed eum nemo redarguebat nisi eum inquam exercitum om. P^ Gael. 38 : »se non facile defenderet. Nihil iam in istam mulierem dico, sed si esset aliqua om. E (65) Gael. 38: *filii causa est expeditissima. Quid enim esset in quo se non facile defenderet om. G^ (66) Gael. 2 : cui utrum vellet liceret nee cum descendisset quicquam habiturum spei fuisse om. G (79) Gael. 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 otn. G (83) Sest. 93 : amplectatur, qui bonis viris deserviat, qui solidam laudem veramque quaerat. Cum dicat duo ilia rei p. om. P^ (89) Gael. ii?>: servos familiares esse dominae sciebat. Sin ei tanta consuetude quanta a vobis inducitur non erat, quae cum om. E (95) Prov. Gons. 35 : nondum satis fecerit et malit tamen tardius ad suorum laborum fructus pervenire quam non explere susceptum rei p. om. /" (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^ (If indices, = 107) (106) Balb. 7 : huius crimen ? Minime, nisi honos ignominia putanda est. Cuius igitur? Re vera nuUius, actione accusatoris eius unius qui donavit om. E Gael. 24 : *qui cum doctrinae studio atque humanitatis, tum etiam hospitio ORATT. POST REDITUM, ETC. 275 Dionis tenebantur. Habitabat apud Titum, ut audistis, Dio : erat ei 2, sic fere P^GE : om. P^ (ill) Har. Resp. 46 : quid enim facial aliud ? illos homines sapientissimos gra- vissimosque miror, primum quod quemquam clarum hominem atque optime de re p. om. GE (sua loco) (132) Cael. 38: »se nulla cupiditate inductum de via decessisse. Quid signi? nulli sumptus, nulla iactura, nulla versura. At fuit fama. Quotas quisque istam effugere potest in tam om. P'- 1 give this passage as written by Z'^. The Turin palimpsest (7*) adds est qui before istam and 2 d^dds praesertim before effugere. (152) This figure represents the total omission of P and P' in Cael. 24, viz. Copottii . . . doluerunt (46) om. P + qui cutn . . . erat ei (106) om. /" (159) Cael. 16: et de criminibus istis sodalium ac sequestrium, quoniam hue incidi, similiter respondendum putem. Numquam enim tam Caelius amens fuisset ut, si se isto infinito ambitu commaculasset, ambitus om. GE (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 periculum ambitus subeundum putaret, ipse (146). Halm says that E omits 'usque ad ipse, v. 11', i.e. before sibi perpetuam. According, however, to Wunder's collation of E, it omits down X.o putaret ipse. Here 159 + 146 = 305. In this list there are four telescoped passages, all of them peculiar to P^ : viz. Sest. 13a (17), Prov. Cons. 39 (19), Dom. 17 (30), Vat. 28 (ai). The bulges in the curve of omissions are at ai (5 examples) and 33 (5 omissions and one dittography). There is a marked similarity between the omissions of PGE. Thus among the omis- sions of 31 letters, one is peculiar to C, 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 2 preserves 19 letters omitted by PGE, and Sest. 58, where G preserves 33 letters omitted by other MSS. {sil. 2). 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. 34, where 2 preserves 46 letters omitted by PGE. It can hardly be doubted that PGE have here omitted two lines of the T 3 »76 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS archetype. Probably several of the other omissions are due to the same cause. The omissions of 6^ and 64 letters by P in Quir. 23, Ifar. 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 65 and E omits 64 letters. Here both MSS. omit se non facile defenderet (ai), while G^ omits 44 letters before these words and E omits 43 letters after them. Here the unit 31-2 is clearly visible. The following multiples of aa throw light upon the higher numbers : 22x4 = 88 22X 7 = 154 22 X 5 = 1 10 22x14 = 308 22X6 = 132 For 110 we may compare iii {Har. Resp. 46), also 106 [Balh. 7, Cael. 24) : 13a is found in Cael. 38, while for 154 we may compare 15a in Cael. 25. For 88 we may compare 89 {Cael. 58), and for 308 we have 305 in Cael. 16. The relation of 15a 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. a-3. Here G has two omissions, viz. in § a cm . . .fuisse {(>6), and in § 3 splendidus . . . parum (aa). The intermediate passage nisi alicuius ■ . . aut parum consists of 534 letters (aaxa4 = 5a8), We may compare Sest. 58. Here all MSS. except G omit huius imperii Mithridatem (33), while the words a se regent quant con- strictunt (23) are written twice in P. The average here appears to be 33. The intervening passage pulsum Ponto . . . constitutum consists of 34a 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) till cum reliquis suis copi (23) is in pristina mente mansit (23) ORATT. POST REDITUM, ETC. 277 hunc CN. pompeius cum in suis (23) castris supplicem abiectum (24) 10 uidisset erexit atque 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 (23) a se regem quam constrictum (23) \. 1 G, om. cett. 1. 17 bis scr. P Balb. 7-8. Here E omits 106 letters in § 7, while P^ omits 103 in § 8. The intervening passage qui si addtictus . . . nunc cuncter consists of 440 letters (aa x ao = 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 ulla denique maiestas GE have potestas for maiestas. This seems due to the arrangement : potest esse ulla denique (21) maiestas The writer looked back to 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 P has: non michi uestrij studium sed tneum 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 nominare? Inculcarisne ut C. Pisonem, generum meum, nominaret ill G inserts inconctilcarisne (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) (i,i) 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 bellum adds qiit per ipsi, which Halm emends to nuper ipsi. 1 incline to think that aiit per ipsi is a variant for et 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 noslacessisset 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 iojj..). The intermediate words via et . . . derecta contain 169 letters. The relation of 169 to 87, 42, 21 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. 27 : qui in hortis fuerit Donatus : om. codd. (37) Sest. 8 : P. Sestius cum esset cum coUega meo senserit Schol. Bob. : om. codd. URATT. 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 terrain non tenuit aut tensam si lorum 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 lorum omisit This suggests in a previous MS. the arrangement : si wzf. tensam terram non tenuit si (17) lorum The insertion of aut is a further corruption. (36) Dom. 24 : quas C. Gracchus . . . ut necesse esset quotannis 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 posterius.' This suggests the following arrangement : per senatum lege sanxit eas lege (17) sempronia per senatum (19) decretas (50) Sest. 85 : divini hominis, dicam enim quod sentio et quod mecum sentiunt 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) diuini I now recall attention to Har. Resp. 18. 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 a8o 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 166 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 vexaiissimus, viz. : Sesi. no : nihil saneatg (sane atte G) iuvabant anagnostae In § III we have : illo ore inimicos est meos saviatus I suggest that saneatq = smiiai' e, i. e. saviatus est, a variant for est . . . saviatus. The intermediate passage iuvabant anagnostae . . . est meos consists of 576 letters (17 x 34 = 578). I now recall attention for a moment to the four telescoped passages in P, consisting of 17, 19, ao, ai 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 Our knowledge of the pro Fonteio is derived from two sources, viz. : (i) 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 aa^, aaf, aa| lines of Teubner text. (a) Basil. Vat. H. 25 (F), ff. ii^-i7\ This contains the body of the speech, as now known to us, viz. : §§ 1 1-49 : hoc praetore . . . valuisse videantur. I have already pointed out (p. 1 63) that other portions of the speech must have come in V before the fragment of the pro Flacco (§§ 39-54); also that Font. 11-49 must represent a certain number of folios in a previous MS. These sections occupy 54a lines of Teubner text. For the pro Flacco we are 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 (2). 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. 28a DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS Basil. Vat. H. 35 ( V), ff. 9^-1 1^ This contains : §§ 39~54 ■ litterarum si . . . est egentium. V here has a passage, §§ 47-53 pecuniam Fufiis . . . in re sit, which is omitted by 2 cett. To these must be added the fragmenium Peutingerianum. This was printed in the ed. Crat. (1538) 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, quibusoratio 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^ lines. §§ 75-83 • primum ut in . . . esse caetera = gi^ 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 • ut quam ob . . . Castricium mortuum. This occupies 376| lines of Teubner text. We have now the series : §§47-53= 93*-lines. §§ 53-75 = 276^ §§ 75-83 = 91^ Here 92x3 = 376. PRO FONTEIO, PRO FLACCO, ETC. 283 The significance of these figures cannot be disputed. The natural and simple solution is that 91^-934 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 ill the same ancestor, we should expect §§ 6-47 hunc igitur virunt . . . respondii se omnem to show a multiple of 9i4-93^' 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 = 59 1^ Teubner lines. The unit does not here work (9a to 94 X 6 = 553 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 litterarum si. It ends on f. II'', col. a, 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 54a lines of Teubner text. It must clearly represent folios of a previous MS. I now turn to that part of the/ro Flacco which comes before § 39 litterarum 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 corruptarum) are as follows : §§ i-S = 72^- lines. §§6-39=-469i ,, 542 It is to be noticed that this is the exact length of the Fonteiana,. 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 litterarum si, which comes immediately after the 54a lines of Teubner text contained in §§ 1-39 (Cum in . . . et corruptarum), should occur at the top of a page in V, 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 V, viz. §§ 39-54 litterarum si . . . est egentium, occupies 324 lines of Teubner text. If the theory that §§ 39-54 represent a block of text in an ancestor is well grounded, then 324, 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 = 235, 45 X la = 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 Bobiensis. pro Cluentio. Our knowledge of the speech pro Cluentio is derived from two sources, viz. : M = Laur. li. 10, cent. xi. 2 = Paris. lAr^Ar^ (marginalia and supplements). M contains Varro de lingua Latinaaxid the Auctor adHerennium, in addition to the Cluentiana. 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 §§ I03, 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 atque his rebus (§ 192)- The lacunae which occur in the body of the speech are also found ' E. A. Loew, The Beneventan Script, pp. 11, 17, 70. PRO FONTEIO, PRO FLACCO, ETC. 285 in a number of later MSS. (/n), which appear to be derived from M. These MSS. also have lost the end of the speech, but many of them end a few lines further on in the same section at the words ata ne forte ma-. The natural inference is that the ancestor of M also ended here, and that M has been mutilated after f. 49'. Paris. 14749 is itself copied in this speech from an ordinary MS. of the [L 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 ma-, 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 Mii. were recovered. I now give the length of the Cluni supplements expressed in Teubner lines : §§ 102-107 : in tota , . . omamenta = 84^ lines. §§ 127-132: subscripserunt quis . . . standum = 88J „ §§ 149-154: dicenda est . . . accusatur =90 „ §§ 176-182: quemdam quasi . . . honestissi- = 8g „ The intervening blocks of text presei-ved 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 (86 x 3 = 358). It is to be noticed that there is a similar reduction in the Cluni supplement which immediately precedes this block, viz. §§ 103-7 = ^4^- There is known to be a lacuna in § 103 where editors supply a few words after ob rem iudicandam. The correspondence of 84J with 359 shows that the loss here is not great. It has already been shown that the common ancestor of My. must have ended at § 193 aut ne forte ma-, not a few lines higher in the same section where M itself ends at the foot of a page. We should therefore expect §§ 183-92 -morum sententia . . . 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 § 193, marking with an asterisk the portions omitted by Mfj. : §§ 1-102 = 1372 (85 X 16 = 1360) *§§ 102-107 = 84I §§ 107-127 = 259 (86x3 = 258) *§§ 127-132 = 88J §§ 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 §§ 1-103 appear to have occupied two quaternions. The missing folios were ff. 17, ai, 35, 39. The remainder of the speech §§ 192-303 occupies 143 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 //// indices, \ 86 habebat simtdtates, the only cases which I have noticed are: (55) § 13^ • 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, qualis L. Caulius Mergus Here 2' gives iudicium (68), and S** iudiciorum (70). (93) § 57 • *i'S' iox^t hoc causae est quod medici nihil praeter artificium, oratores etiam auctoritatem praestare debent The coincidence between 55 and 56 is striking, and suggests that the passages represent lines in the model of M. ' So 2. Cicero, de Oratore ii. 224, has in Tiburti forte adsedimus ego et Brutus Jiliu!. PRO FONTEIO, PRO FLACCO, ETC. 387 I have counted the letters in §§ 149-54 (90 h'nes), a passage which I selected on account of its relation to §§ 154-76 (370 lines), and find the total to be 3,780. 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 M 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 (2), was copied. The omissions of a are as follows : ^ (38) § 191 : sed etiam cogitavit quibus eum rebus armaret (73) § 55 '■ *venenum id quod Habito daretur esse quaesitum ? Quae porro tenuissima suspicio coUata (75) § 72 : *ex eius sermone speculae degustarat. Unus et alter dies inter- cesserat cum res parum certa § 190 : *illa sibi ad confirmandas inimicitias adfinitatis coniunctiones pignori fore 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 86-8, 93-5. U a 392 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS Paris. 14749 (2), marginalia taken from Clun. 496. These are reinforced by excerpts made from the Cluniacensis by Bartolommeo da Montepolitiano (£}, who was with Poggio at the time of the discovery. Harl. a68a (H), cent. xi. The readings of this MS., which formerly belonged to Cologne Cathedral, generally agree with 2B. Tegernseensis (T), cent, xi, now Monacensis 18787. Erfurtensis (jE), cent, xii/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 If, extending from § 18, cruentata, to § 'i%paene in-. As the marginalia in 2 stop at § 18 and begin again ^t § 37, 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 cruentata. 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 given by Peyron.^ There is a lacuna between -fuerit occidi and § 33, which in TEa, &c., ends with certe non debeo. There is a missing leaf of P between that which contains §§ 29- 32, and the one which begins -^ith. fiierit 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^, 42I lines of Teubner, and the intervening blocks of the speech show the operation of a similar unit. Here, however, TE cett. {defic. 2,11) 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 ^ Ciceronis oralionum fragmenta, ^'p. 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 audistis, iudices, quantum Clodi before it. He also inserted higher up in the same section after deferre posses two fragments quoted by Quintil. ix. a. 54 and the Scholiasta Bohiensis, p. 176, ed. Hildebrand. 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 2//^ formed a certain number of folios, and that a folio ended at § 33, non debeo. The first point, therefore, to ask is if there is any relation between the passages omitted by S/f, but found in TE, before and after debeo. The results as expressed in Teubner lines are : §§ 18-33 : cruentata . . . non debeo = 210 lines §§ 34-37 : P- Clodi . . . -terfici = 42 „ Here 42x5 = aio. So far we have no information as to whether the unit is 4a or ai. 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 1 1 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 4a, but it is only i| lines short of ai. It is to be remembered that for § 34, -fuerit . . . sibi solutam, 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, sed optaret ? It seems probable that the unit is ai, not 43. If so, TE cett. omit one folio of the common ancestor after § 33, while ^H omit lo + i +a = 13 ff. It now remains to estimate the number of letters contained by a page of the common ancestor of '2HTE, &c. §§ 34~7> P- Clodi . . . -terfici, if we allow for a few official abbrevia- tions, contain 1,748 letters. If these sections i-epresent 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 ai8 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, pro 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 Pisonem, 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 et rogati. Togulae lictoribus To these should possibly be added : (12) § 33 : in provinciam F^ : om. V^, cett. In this connexion a variant furnished by the excerpta Cusana deserves mention. § 60 : quid tandem habet iste currus, quid vincti ante currum duces ? Here Cus. has triumphalis (i i) 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 by V, 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 V, 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, viz. § 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 permutationes 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 Tusculani have been corrected in darker ink and the rest of the line is left blank. A second, but contem- porary hand, has inserted above Tusculani in darker ink an additional line, mutationes ad hunc (16). The natural interpretation is that the first hand wrote emptiones ad hunc Tusculanum, and that the corrector erased hunc, over which he wrote partim. He then added mutationes hunc above the line and altered Tusculanum to Tusculani. It is to be noticed that in the first quaternion of V the average content of a line in col. a is 17 letters. It is therefore possible that V^ omitted a line of an ancestor written in the same formation, the mistake being due to o/n. Omissions are especially frequent in the case of repetitions such as partim . . .partim (e.g. Rull. ii. 36), and the omission by TV"^ seems due to accident. M. Havet very ingeniously emends to partim mutuationes? In this connexion I would mention another passage : § 21 : ex omni scelerum importunitate et flagitiorum impunitate conceplum. So the later MSS. T omits et flagitiorum impunitate (33). V is not 1 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 b\t.. The following variety in collocation is interesting : § 70 : omnia cenarum conviviorumque genera So V: the later MSS. have genera conviviorum. It seems likely that conviviorum was omitted (6/m.) and inserted after genera, -que being omitted. This passage comes immediately after omnia stupra (so V: om. cetL). 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 at sanctissirao cett. Here either sanctissimo (11) ox 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 ceit. 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 %% letters ( = a lines). § 65 : ne acclametur times ? Ne id quidem est curare philosophi. Manus tibi ne adferantur ? So V: the other MSS. place times after adferantur. 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 FONTEIO, PRO FLACCO, ETC. 297 the text later on in the sentence. The words ceteris . . .fere contain 33 letters. The archetype may have had : tng. ceteros ceteris studi (12) is quae fere (10) Epicureos § 57 : ut levitatis est inanem aucupari rumorem at omnis umbras etiam falsae gloriae consectari, sic est levis animi lucem splendoremque fugientis iustam gloriam . . . repudiare. So V: the other MSS. 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\ ^& o\!a.t.x MStS. 3A6. versus zitex scripsisti enim. This looks like an addition from versus tui. The words versus tui . . . scripsisti enim, 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 V may have omitted a line of a predecessor very like itself, the internal evidence is in favour of referring both Fand the other MSS. to an archetype written in lines of about 1 1 letters. In the case of the pro Fonteio there is little evidence, since we are wholly dependent on V. 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 (11) 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, de teste iudi- care arbitrabantur V Here editors read iudices for iudicium, after singulare. The word has been repeated by error after reo. Probably there were variants, i. e. iudicium and iudices, in the model. 298 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS The words iudiciuni (iudices) . . . de reo consist of 35 (34) letters. The writer appears to have looked back three lines. § 23 : de clarissimis [dubitandum] nostrae ciuitatis uiris dubitandum non putauerunt V 'R&XQ dubitandum {10) is repeated before ncstrae civitaiis viris (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 pro Flacco. Very little internal evidence is yielded by V. I have noticed the following corruptions : § 40 : cum tabulae illae ipsae, cuicuiraodi sunt, pfoferuntur. So editors with Schiitz. For cuicuimodi V^ gives huiusmodi (in rasura), while 2, &c., have cuiuscemodi. It is to be observed that V inserts cui before cum. This looks like part of cuicui-, which has got into the wrong place. On the analogy of the in 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) mg. cui cuimodi § 46 : civem suum, cui debebat esse notissimus, percussit. Eius enim fide sumpsit a Fufiis For suum V has sume. The corruption sum for suum is found else- where in V. The addition of -e, however, is odd. It is to be noticed that V gives /ides for 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 FONTEIO, PRO FLACCO, ETC. 299 I have not observed any certain case where V 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 V and 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 rioticed that the clausula is excellent, but this may be due to accident. The Scholiasta Bobiensis, after quoting in his lemma habebat . . . acceperat, adds the following scholium : inludit personae rhetoris imperiti, banc eruditionem discipulorum 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 innuens. The passage in question consists of 46 letters (cf. the corruption in § 46, sume), 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 S and allied MSS. I have noticed the following omissions : (15) § 72 : at lectissimorum (17) § 36 •■ nullam constantiam (18) § 18 : imperio fuerit summo {add. tn. 2) § 44 : et conficientissima (56) § 7S : 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, huicmiseropuero vestroacliberorum vestrorum supplici, iud., hoc iudicio In this family the speech fro Quinciio 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 Quinciio. I have noticed the following cases : (18) § 73 : et complures fuerunt (23) § 33 : is posteriore loco diceret 300 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS {y?) § 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 {add. m. 2). (79) § 85 : ita possideto ut Quinctio vis ne adferatur. Quid ? tu id quern ad modum observas ? Mitto illud dicere {add. m. 2). (85) § 92: nos nostram perfacile cuivis probaturos statuebamus ; quod vitae ratio cum ratione vitae decemeret (167) § 53 : 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 ']'] and 79 letters in Quinct. 85 and 44. It is especially significant that in three cases, Flacc. 7a, Quinct. 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 2 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 'Cos pro Cluentio. I have already given a list of the passages omitted by the first hand in this MS. (p. 387). Apart from one shorter omission, we find the following figures: 73, 75 {bis), 78, 81. I now combine these omissions in the three speeches : (72) Flacc. 105 {add. m. 2) (73) Clu. 55 {add. in. 2) (75) Clu. 72 {add. m. 2) 190 {add. tn. 2) {77) Quinct. 44 {add. m. 2) (78) Chi. 172 {add. m. 2) (79) Quinct. 85 {add. in. 2), Flacc. 105 (81) Clu. .175 {add. in. 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 consist of 44 letters. This is at first sight puzzling, 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 hunc exitum nostrae temeritatis feremus sin hoc animo (72) quam plurimos esse uultis declarabitis hoc iudicio quid sentiatis huic 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. a-3 writes declarabitis hoc iudicio uiuendi praecepta dabitis med. om. (6/x.). 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 /ro i^/acci? and in the/r^ Quinctio there is an omission of 56 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. 8s : 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 2^ 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 eum qui . . . esset 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 Cluentio, to show that this was written in lines averaging 33-4 letters. I have noticed indications which seem to show that it was derived from an ancestor very like itself. In the Cluentiana this ancestor seems to be the parent of all the MSS. I quote the following cases : Clti. 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, pulchre adseverat sese ab Oppianico destitutum So M\i. : as no variant is quoted in S, it is probable that Clun. had 302 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS the same reading. Peterson strikes out queritur se . . . destitutum. It appears probable that the words se . . . destitutum (after queritur) are a repetition from the context (after adseverat). The words in question consist of 23 letters, and the intervening passage, et qui . . . adseverat se-, consists of 139 letters. Here 23 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 M\i. here is : istam conciliationem gratiae Staienus turn recenti re cum faucibus prerae- retur excogitavit sive ut homines tum loquebantur a P. Cethego admonitus istam dedit conciliationis et gratiae fabulam. Two variants are quoted in S, viz. conciliationis 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 conciliationis et gratiae. An insertion which appears necessary is that of est (Kayser) after admonitus. At the beginning of the sentence ita, a word fre- quently confused with ista, seems to be required for istam. I pre- viously considered iutro in 2 to stand for ultra and inserted sive ultro before excogitavit. I now incline to think that iutro = intra, and that dedit should be emended to duxit (i. e. istam introduxit fabulam). 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 iutro from 2 : istam staienus tum recenti re cum (23) faucibus premeretur exco (22) gitauit siue ut homines tum (23) loquebantur a P. cethego ad (22) PRO FONTEIO, PRO FLACCO, ETC. 303 monitus istam iutro dedit (22) mg. conciliationis conciliationis et gratiae (23) gratiam fabulam The similarity between this passage and § 7a should be noticed. In § 7a the passage et qui . . . adseuerat se- consists of 139 letters. Here the words Staienus . . .gratiae consist of 135. If we admit est after admonitus, 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 Mil : no variant is quoted from 2, though in so small a point the argument from silence does not prove much. Peterson strikes out id after ut. It seems more likely that id has been repeated before 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 Mjj. : § 153 : huiusce modi quaestionibus in iudicium vocarentur. Tunc (tum edti.) C. Flavius Pusio, Cn. Titinius, C. Maecenas, ilia robora P. R. ceterique eiusce modi ordinis. So S and the Italian copies. Editors read eiusdem ordinis with Klotz. It seems probable that -ce modi has been repeated from the context. An ancestor of 2 (and probably of M) 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 the/ro Murena : § 58 : saepe hoc maiores natu dicere audivi, banc accusatoris eximiam vim, dignitatem, plurimum L. Cottae profuisse. 304 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS So S 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 audivi. If so, a previous MS. may have had : audi ui 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 nihil 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 a4 letters. § 67 : si mercede conducti obviam candidatis issent, si conduct! sectarentur So 2 : for conducti, after mercede, the Italian copies have corrupti. Neither word is necessary, as is shown by § ']o,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 Chientiana, where there are indications of a remote ancestor written in narrow columns, viz. : § 176 : cum essent animi servorum et spe et metu temptati ut aliquid 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\t.. 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 et vi tormentorum consist of 1 5 letters, while the passage temptati . . . advocatorum contains 74 letters. Here 15 x 5 = 75. This suggests the arrangement : et spe et metu et ui tormentorum (15) temptati ut ali (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 auctoritate 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 M\i.. The Turin palimpsest omits cum equestri ordine after iudicia, also ilia before it. Apart from other possible corruptions, it is clear that the words cum equestri ordine (17) are repeated from the context. The inter- vening passage communicata . . , ilia iudicia 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 iudicia to iudicia, and repeated a line. The remaining speech with which I have dealt in this chapter is the/^tf Milone. 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 cett. § 31 : non illud iam in judicium venit P : illud iam in iudicium venit non ceii. Here aedificium = 10, illud . . . venit = 33. I merely mention 1033 X 3o6 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS these on account of certain other transposition variants in this speech. There remain IHTEa. 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 (pm. 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 araicitiam (246) § 78 : nihil eorum vos visuros fuisse. In spem maximam et, quem ad modum confido, verissimam sumus adducti, hunc ipsum annum, hoc summo viro cons., compressa hominum Ucentia, 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 346 is to be noticed. I now take T, marking agreements with E and 5 (i. e. a, ceti.) : (10) §38: *agnovisset § 102 : a quibus non [E) § 104 : non debitas ill) §28: numquam fere § 30 : etiam beluis {E&) (13) § 105: et fortissinium (S) (19) § 31 : de hoc igitur latum est (S5) §5°: noctu occidisset. Insidioso et pleno latronum in loco occidisset (E8) (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. 24) is a telescoped passage. There is also an omission of 77 letters in Plane. 7a, and one of 15a 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 hy E. 1 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 h. d 2sz. variant from Clun. This shows either that Clun. had in the margin hd aut C, or that M had been received into the text. In connexion with this I would mention : § 67 : armata est. For est 2 has sunt, while H has stmt R. Here R = require. There is a point of contact between Clun., H, and E, in that all three contain a mediaeval argument to the speech. This is given by 2 in a fly-sheet at the beginning of the MS., by H after the speech de Imperio Cn. Pompei, and by E before the pro Milone. It is to be noted that E generally reproduces the I'eadings of the second hand in H. There are a number of agreements between the text of H, or H+ Clun., and that of Asconius and the Schotiasta Bobiensis, the most striking being in § 46, where H, with Asconius, omits cuius . . . et Romae. 2 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. I now give a list of omissions in H, adding agreements or dis- agreements of B. Where B is not mentioned, the passage does not occur in the excerpts : (11) § 57 • occideritne om. H § 105 : illam beatam om. BH (12) § 86: sine lamentis om. BH (13) § 42 : fabulam falsatn B, cett. : om. H (14) § 48 : non id nuntiasse om. H § 67 : si Milonem times om. H (15) § 79 : * haec est quaestio ' om. H ^ This is very doubtful. ZThas nempe . de interitu P. Clodi : TEi have nempe haec est quaestio de interitu P. Clodi. H seems lo preserve the earliest form of a gloss. X a 3o8 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS (30) § 4 : de bonis et fortibus viris, si umquam om. BH (33) § 91 • sustinetis furias insepulti ? nisi vero om. 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 scholium 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., H, TEh, viz. : § 50 : noctu occidisset. Insidioso et pleno latronum in loco occidisset. Nemo ei neganti non credidisset. So 2. H repeats nemo . . . credidisset before insidioso, while TEh omit noctu occidisset . . . loco occidisset. Of this omission Richter said, ' es scheint eine Zeile in der gemeinsamen Quelle von TE u.a. ubersprungen zu sein '. Here the words noctu occidisset . . . loco occidisset consist of 55 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 suo. 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 hi, while Richter 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,\v,H{\\ 8), also RmH{\ 67). In E the lacuna after debeo (§ 33) is marked by dee above the line. I, therefore, suggest that here hi may stand for %, the ordinary sign for omission. The PRO FONTEIO, PRO FLACCO, ETC. 309 words in question qui . . . rediturmn consist of 59 letters, which is very like the omission of SS letters by TEh in § 50. There is another passage in which a notorious corruption may be due to a similar cause, viz. : § 66 : cum tamen si metuitur etiam nunc Milo Many 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 uel cur. The Italian copies have cum, cur, qui, etc. These appear to me various corruptions for q or que (= quaere)?- Probably timebant after quia has been substituted for omnia. It is possible that cum here is due to a similar misunderstanding. If so, I would emend tamen si to tametsi. The paragraph would then end thus : tametsi metuitur etiam nunc Milo It is to be noticed that the words consist of 28 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 : Dojn. 30 : idemque cum dixisset, tum etiam pro salute mea populum Roma- num obsecravit Halm marks a lacuna between idemque and dixisset, saying * cum supra versum a vetere manu P habet atque videntur plura verba excidisse '. I do not agree with Halm's theory of the additions made in P, but the grammar seems odd. We should expect idemque cum dixit, tum etiam. 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 Catilinariae and Caesarianae {pro Marcello,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, p, y. ' The corruptions que, quae, cur, found in the MSS. of Lucretius at vi. 840, aftec 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 Caesarianae : 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 7, Schol. Gronov., Probus, Sacerdos : consulere sibi possunt n/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 o, but on three occasions with ^. Among earlier writers he finds one agreement with ^ in Sacerdos, cent, iii {Lig. 21, domi) and one in Diomedes, cent, iv {Lig. 10, acuit). He therefore pronounces this family to be satis vetusta. 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 oralionil'us Caesarianis rede aestiniandis, Jena, 1906. PRO FONTEIO, 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, Pkaedrus, 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. 843, Plato, Symposium, cent, ii/iii ; 844, Isocrates, cent, ii/iii; and especially 1251, Cicero, pro Caelio. 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 de Re Ptiblica and the strange conflations of different readings, e. g. quods and nequec, given by V in the Philippics. I do not, therefore, think that the agreements of Sacerdos and Diomedes with /3 on two occasions prove anything more than that these were ancient variants. I conceive the o 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 ^y or y must be takeh into account, I would give: Marc. 2 : conservatam ac restitutam j3y : 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 b\s.. seems most likely. 312 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS A peculiarly instructive case is : Cat. ii. 29 : urbem pulcherrimam florentissimam potentissimamque y : urbem pulcherrimam florentissimamque A Va,^ 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 AV'm the Catilinarians and A VH in the Caesarianae. The portions of these speeches extant in Care: Cat. i. 1-5, 17-ii. 11, 15-iii. 1,9-19, •xy-S, iv. 8-15 ; Lig. i8-a8, ^%—Deiot. 6, Deiot. 15-43. Where we have the evidence of C" I use the symbol Co- : (9) Cat. iii. 18: *nutuatqueCa Marc. 1 1 : aliquando a Lig. 28 : praecipue a Deiot. 18 r est factum a (factum C) (10) Cat. i. 7 : * contra rem p. u. 27 : * diligenter Ca Deiot. 5 : domesticos Ca (11) Cat. i. 23 : * si id feceris Ca (12) Cat. i. 15 : nihil moliris a ii. 9 : * esse fateatur Ca iv. 20 : et contemptam a (13) Cat. iv. 18 : studio virtute a Marc. 2 : conservatam ac a (15) Cai. iii. 3 : et quam manifesta u (17) Cat. ii. II : intus insidiae sunt Ca (20) Zz^. 12 : artium atque optimarum a Deiot. 27 : amicitias res rationes Ca (23) Cat. iii. 25 : conflagrare sed in hac urbe Ca {2y) Deiot. 34 : solus inquam es, C. Caesar, cuius in Ca (38) Cat. iv. 13 : minueretur hie ad evertenda fundamenta rei p. Ca (62) Cat. i. 26 : ad obsidendum stuprum verum etiam ad facinus obeundum, vigilare non solum Ca In this list the noteworthy point is the number of small omissions (9-1 a letters), which reminds us of similar phenomena to be obsei-ved in the MSS. of the Verrines. We have also omissions peculiar to one or more members of the family, viz. : C^ omits : (15) CaA 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 PRO FONTEIO, PRO FLACCO, ETC. 313 CA omit : (10) Cat. iv. 10: et corporis (12) DeioL 38 : turn non dubito (17) Deioi. 25 : tibi porro inimicus A or AH omit : (12) Cat. iv. 7 : et miseriarum A (18) Lig. 29 : persequamini si rei p. A (20) Marc. 25 : si tibi soli viveres aut AH Lig. 13 : et nos iacentis ad pedes A (not H) (38) Cat. i. 32 : tantam in nobis consulibus ^ fore diligentiam ^' (113) Cat.m.27: mentes enim hominum audacissimorum 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. 3a, where it does not share the omission of A^. V omits : (9) Cat. iii. 28 : in nobis is (16) Cat.in.21: * a nefariis civibus (17) Cat. iv. 18 : vobis aras Penatium (18) Cat. iii. 2 : restinximus idemque (26) Cat. i. 19 : et ad vindicandum fortissimum (42) Cat. i. 16 : assedisti partem istam subselliorum nudam atque (46) Cat. i. 17 : tarn graviter atque offensum 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. 'i'i : verberatos I add one long omission of a, reported by Halm. (117) Cat. ii.ig: arbitrantur. Quibus 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. 37, but in all probability the pedigree of a. is somewhat tangled. The omissions of a and of the MSS. which compose the family do ^ I here write consulibus in full, since it is so given by C as well as by A^. li' cons.,= 32. 314 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS not give much information. For further light we must go to an interesting corruption which pervades the family : Cat.m. 25 : atque illae tamen omnes dissensiones erant eius modi quae non ad delendam sed ad commutandatn rem p. pertinerent : non illi nuUatn esse rem p. sed in ea quae esset se «sse principes, neque ianc urbem conflagrate sed se in hac urbe florere voluerunt. The simplest form of the corruption seems to be given by V, which after principes has neque hanc urbem non florere voluerunt {med. om.). This indicates the following arrangement in a previous MS. : principes neque hanc urbem conflagrare (25) sed se in hac urbe florere (21) uoluerunt. V omits -flagrare sed se in hac urbe (as), with the consequential change of con- to non. Chas: non illi nuUam 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 nuUam esse rem p. sed in ea quae esset se esse principes neque hanc urbem. Here we notice : (i) that A, like C, omits conflagrare . . . iirbe ; (a) that the model of ^, like C, placed se before voluerunt; (3) that in A the -words florere se {si) voluerunt occur out of place. Apparently, they were in the margin of the model. The last mistake should throw light on the iriodel of .^, as dis- tinguished from the common ancestor of the family, a has, aSter 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 FONTEIO, PRO FLACCO, ETC. 315 With this I would compare another passage : Cat. i. 1 1 : magna dis immortalibus habenda est atqiie huic ipsi lovi Statori . . . gratia, quod banc tam taetram, tarn horribilem tamque infestatn rei p. pestem totiens iam effugimus. Here A inserts terribilem after gratia, while V has terribilem for horribilem. C is here mutilated. The common ancestor of the group seems to have had : gratia quod banc tam taetram tam (21) mg, terribilem horribilem The variant has got into A in the wrong place and supplanted horribilem in V. These corruptions seem to show that the common ancestor of the group was written in lines of ai-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 om. C as well as that of 33 in Cat. iii. 25. I now return to the special corruption of A in Cat. iii. 25. Here the vfords Jlorere se (si) voluerunt 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). I, therefore, arrange the model of 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 ^ 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. 2683, cent. xi. / = Monac. 1947a, 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 aliis (om. in. l) (33) "• 5 • ilium esse nobis quam hos qui exercitum {om. m. i) iii. 4 : cum oculis maleficium ipsum videretis (47) iv. 3 : peste pereamus. Qua re patres c. incumbite ad salutem rei p. (pm. m. \) I retain the ofificial abbreviations, as given by m. 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 u : (31) i. 29 : virtute partam gloriam, non invidiam (pm. 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 33 X a. If so, the arrangement in a previous MS. must have been : recusa re adiungit grauem poenam municipiis (32) si quis eorum uincula ruperit horribi (32) les These are, I think, the only omissions recorded from tu by Halm. I now proceed to combine the evidence furnished by htu : (31) i. 29 am. m' : iii. 19 am. u (32) iii. 13 om. h}- (33) '•• 5 °^^- ^^'- '•'• 4 ""'■• ^- iv. 12 om. t (46) iv. 5 om. t : iv. 29 om. t (47) iv. 3 om. h (53) 'V. 9 om. u: iv. 17 om. K-- (54) iv. 130m. i (64) iv. 8 om. t ' So li^ : non iam cctt. s So the MSS. for vincat. PRO FONTEIO, PRO FLACCO, ETC. 317 Here 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. (x) that the unit is 16 (16 X 3 = 3a, 16 X 3 = 48, 16x4 = 64). If so, we should expect examples of the unit as well as of the multiples, (a) that the figures refer to lines of different ancestors, viz. 31-3,46-7,53. The last two sets of figures might well refer to' the same MS. There must clearly be some close connexion between htu. The curious fact is that h, though its text is mixed, inclines to a, while t and u are prominent members of y, containing the best variants preserved by that group. I would here mention : Cat. iii. 20 : fore ut ea consilia quae clam essent inita contra salutem urbis atque imperii inlustrarentur ut a senatu populoque Romano perspici possent. Atque illud signum cojlocandum consules illi locaverunt. Halm proposes to insert ita before inlustrarentur. The word occurs in u before collocandum, also in another, and more ancient, member of y, viz. Laur. L. 45 (x), cent, x. The words inlustrarentur . . . signum 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 ^ : in amicitiam (11) om. ay. Cat. iv. 12 : qui non dolore et (ac ^) cruciatu nocentis suum dolorem crucia- tumque lenierit. So most members of y3 : dolore . . . suum (a8) om. 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 except one, generally a late 3i8 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS MS., into which a correction seems to have been inserted by conjecture. A striking case is : Cat. iii. 25 : atque illae tamen oranes 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 ;3), which omits calumnia. It is possible that calumnia 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. a6. I have since noticed in Paris. 21242 the reading c in 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 miserias. In the same speech, § 11, we have the following variants: exsol- vitis ^h : 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 : sad tamen meorum periculorum rationes utilitas rei publicae vincat. So the Schol. Gran. : all MSS. have vindicat. Lig. 13 : quodne nos domi petimus precibus ac lacrimis. So all MSS. except cod. (?) Gruteri, which omits domi. The word cannot be right, since Cicero is speaking of the present appeal in the senate house, not of that pi-eviously made domi. § 14 : id a te in foro oppugnari et in tali miseria multorum perfugium miseri- cordiae tollere. ' Aus Ciceros Werkstatt, pp. 6-10 {Kiinigl. Preuss. Akad., 1913, i). PRO FONTEIO, 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 edd. (i det.) ii. 5 : ex Gallicanis] prae Gallicanis edd. 8 : ne uUo] ne ullo quidem edd. (i det.) 20 : insperatis] in insperatis edd. iii. 9 : fastis a(3 : libris 7] fatis edd. 14: Manlium] Annium ff/i;/. iv. 12 : quam] non quam edd. (numquam Lactantitis) 17 : nisi] immo edd. (2 dett.) Marc. 2 : et mihi et meae] et mihi meae edd. 3 : in omnibus] omnibus edd. 1 2 : 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. Thei'c 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 9-13 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 (11) 0: om. ay The chief additiorts 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 of omnium generum (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. necatos (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. Habemus . . . ipsius consist of 33 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. 3 to 1. 5. Cal.'x. 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 in faina. 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 33 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 illi . . . voluerunt). In my edition I have struck out atque illae tamen omnes (ao) at the beginning of PRO FONTEIO, PRO FLACCO, ETC. s^i the first sentence. The intervening words between the first and the second occasion where the passage is found, viz. dissensiones . . . voluerunt, 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 i8a letters. Deiot. 24 : addit etiam illud equites non optimos misisse [ueteris] credo, Caesar, nihil ad tuum equitatum. So a/3 : veteris om. y, edd. In view of previous experiences, it struck me that veteris might be a variant which had got into the wrong place. In § 33 we have : non quaere quam veri simile sit. For veri simile sit we have the following variants in a : uerisiles it C: ueris si lesit H: simile sit ueri A. The corruption tieris in i7is 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 simile . . . optimos misisse consist of 358 letters. If we compai'e these three passages we have the remarkable sequence : Cat. iii. 25 = 180 Lig. 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 : 3aa DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS i) Cat. iii. 35 : dissensiones (12) atque illae (10) erant eius (9) tamen omnes (10) modi quae non (II) dissensiones (12) ad delendam (10) 5 sed ad commu tandam rem p. pertinerent non illi nul lam esse rem p. (10) (10) (II) (10) (II) 10 sed in ea quae esset se esse principes ne que hanc urbem conflag-rare (II) (II) (II) (12) (II) 15 sed se in hac urbe florere uoluerunt (10) (II) (9) 180 The writer began to copy col. a before col. i. The error was due to o/x. {%) Lig. 13 : (10) 10 15 petimus pre (10) domi facere cibus lacri (10) mus mis strati ad (II) pedes non tam (II) nostrae cau (10) sae fidentes (II) quam huius hu (II) manitati id (10) ne impetremus (12) oppugnabis (10) et in nostrum (II) fletum irrum (II) pes et nos ia (10) centes ad pe (10) des supplicum (12) uoce prohibe (II) bis si cum hoc (II) 182 PRO FONTEIO, PRO FLACCO, ETC. 323 (3) Deiot. 33-4 : mg. ueteris ueri simile (10) sam illam uic (II) sit aut habu (10) tarn esse ne (9) isse regem (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) quem profecto (12) qui dicto au (10) is qui optime (II) dientes in (9) nostras 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) bat utrum cau (II) mos misisse (10) I7S 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 0. CHAPTER X DE NATURA DEORUM, DE DIVINATIONE, TIMAEUS, DE FATO, TOPICA, PARADOXA, LUCULLUS, DE LEGIBUS Schwenke says of this collection : ^ ' Omnis memoria librorum de Natura Deorum ducitur a corpore operum Ciceronianorum maximam partem physicorum, quod olim integros libros de Natura Deorum, de Divinatione, Timaeujn, de Fato, Topica, Paradoxa, Lucul- lum, de Legibus continebat. Eius corporis exstabat, ni fallor, in Gallia, exemplar iam minusculis litteris exaratum, quaternionibus non paucis singulisque mem- branis amissis mutilum, aliis suo loco motis perturbatum : ex hoc et ii codices fluxerunt qui quantum illius corporis restabat totum continent et ii qui libros de Natura 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. PI. 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. a57,'[cent. x (Chat. PI. 37). F formerly belonged to the cathedral oflStrassbtirg, to which it was given by Bishop Werinharius (1001-29). ' Class, Rev. iv (1890), p. 347. - Loew, The Beneventan Script, p. Si. DE NATURA DEORUM, ETC. 32,5 M= Monacensis 528, cent. xi. P = Vat. Palatinus 1519, cent, xi (Chat. PI. 40). V= Vindobonensis 189, cent, ix/x (Chat. 38). A photographic facsimile of C was published by Messrs. Sijthoff of Leiden, in 1913, 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 oi 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 £, as well as for the archetype. In view of his suggestion, the following entry in the twelfth-century catalogue of Bec^ 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 M. Schwenke says that F was copied from B in the de Natura Deorum. 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. ' Manitius, Philologisches aus alien BiUiothekskatalogen, p. i6. < lb., p. 17. 3^6 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS found in A, while in B there are extensive dislocations. He considers ilf to be a mixed MS., derived from F, or a gemellus, but corrected from A, or a copy of .^. 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., Par ad., LuculL, 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. 48-143, 148-end ; Timaeus, Fat., Parad., LuculL 1-104. P contains N.D. i. 27-75, "• "^^S^^ <53-8, i6a-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. : TV. D. iii. 13 : ego autem a re rationes *** So ACV^: BV^ add' require. If this supplement is right,^ only one word is missing. ib. 6^. Editors mark a lacuna before and after videamus ea . . . fateare. Sed Div. i. 132: praeclare tu quidem inquam paratus *** The end of the book is lost. The Timaeus is fragmentary. There is a lacuna after § 3 inper- contatione consumpsimus, another after § 38 intellegentia continentur, a third after § 48 modo hue modo illuc, and after § 53 munere neque dabitur the rest of the treatise is lost. The de Fato is in a similar condition. The beginning and the end are lost. There is a lacuna at the end of § 4, after considamus hie * * * , and probably another, though only of a few words, after § 45 ab his fatum abesse. The Paradoxa have a lacuna in § 37 after the words sed dementem insanire. 1 It is possible that requiro is a correction fonnded on tlie critical note R { = require^ DE NATURA DEORUM, ETC. 327 In the de 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, 35, 39, 57 ; ii- a8. There is one large transposition found in all the MSS. This is in N.D. ii. 16, after quid potius dixeris quam deum. Thi? passage is succeeded by §§ 86-156 ex sese perfectiores . . . quae cum maxima, then comes the missing block of text, §§ 16-86 etenim si di . . . ferant aliquid. Here §§ 16-86 = 864 lines of Teubner text, while §§ 86-156 = 883 lines. The obvious inference is that quaternions of Q have changed places. In the Timaeus AD (not V) have a common dislocation, viz. §§ 38-43 sed quia . . . aptissimus and §§ 44-8 sed cum . . . modoilluc have changed places. Here §§ 38-43 = 53 lines of Teubner text and §§ 44-8 = 54 lines. It is to be noticed that 54x16= 864 {N. D. 16-86). It would, therefore, appear that 53-4 form a unit. If this represents a folio, then in the Timaeus two folios have changed places, while in N. D. two blocks, each consisting of two quaternions, have been transposed. It will be noticed thatiV. Z*. ii. 86-156 is slightly longer than ii. 16-86, viz. 883 lines. Here 16x55 = 880. We must, therefore, also recognize ^^ as a unit. There is also a point common to A and B, viz. that the original scribe omitted Top. 1—3 maiores res . . . eiiam suavitate and §§ 38-73 divisionwm auiem . . .possimus hie. The loss was repaired in B by the insertion of a fly-sheet containing §§ 1-3 and of three extra folios containing §§ 38-73. 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. B^ on f. 105 v., after writing Top. 38 edictis magis-, left the rest of the line blank. He then went on with §§ 73-4 ergo argumenta . . . ' lum a corporibus. This passage has been struck out by a corrector and rewritten loco suo after § 73, 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 a; x 3 = 54. Cf. Tim. 44-8 (54) and 38-43 (52) ; also 54 X 8 = 43a. The relation of this figure to N.B. 18-86 (864) is to be noted. Lastly,! would call attention to N.D. i. i-a. Here ^ and C^ omit essedebeat . . . dinumerare sententias. The passage = I3-| lines of Teubner text. We now have the following sequence : (13J) N. D. i. 1-2 (27) Top. 1-3 (52) Tim. 38-43 (54) Tim. 44-48 (430) Top. 28-72 (864) N. D. ii. 16-86 (882) ' N. D. ii. 86-156. The inference which I draw is that I3-| = a column of (2) ^7 = a page, 53-4 = a folio, 430 = a quaternion, 864-83 = two quaternions. The reason why I take 53-4 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 S" t- S" 3" V, which stand for dimissum, hie dimissuln, dimissum hie. For the use of dimissum to indicate losses in the text cf. p. 33. The places where notes of this kind are found are : N. D. iii. 13 (f. 29^^) : ego autem a te rationes *** Secuntur So edd. {rationes requiro B: A^ has reeuntur for seeuntur). A has in the margin R, also (erased) V 3". N. D. iii. 65 (f. ss'^) : efficiam profecto ut fateare. Sed *** A has in the margin h S". Div. i. 51 (f. 42') : exercitum obsidione liberavit. In A liberavit is added above the line after obsidione and K preceded by a rude m is added above the line before obsidione. DE NATURA DEORUM, ETC. 339, Div. ii, 46 (f. 56'') : signum lovis biennio post quatn erat locatum in Capitolio conlocabatur. A has in the margin S" 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 3" V 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 mg. has J)* 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 V^ omit ostentum, for which V^ gives portentum. I can only conjecture that <)" h 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 mg. has V 'b", with a reference mark after oportet. Here it is clear that the note has got out of place. Fat. 48 (f. T]"^) : omnibus naturaliter *** Immediately after this comes : Top. 4 : non potui igitur A mg. has Vii' ate n potui. The reference here is to the lost ending of the de Fato and Top. 1-3. Top. 28 (f. 78'') : auctoritate edictis magis- This is followed by § 73 ergo argumentatio. A mg. has h <)". The reference is to the loss of §§ 38-72. Leg. iii. 20 (f. iiS^') : C. vero Gracchi tribunatus iis sicis quas ipse se proiecisse in forum dixit. li So edd. : for iis sicis A has inscitiis. A mg. has excidiis, with the note 3", which here merely indicates a corruption.^ 1 This note dimissum to mark a corruption may be the source of the variants in Sex. Rosc.w, where 2 gives omnes hanc quaestionem te praetore manifestis maUficiis cotidiano- 33° DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS The fact that in Div. ii. 46, 6a, 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 mai'ked 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 (a,) Q; on f. jg^ (1) x, (a) Q. iii ; on f. 90"' (i) xi, (a) Q. iiii; on f. gS^ (i) xii, (a) Q. v; on f 106^ (i) xiii (erased), (a) 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 i?. a exdcutd les cahiers i-vii ; un autre les cahiers viii-xv (qui portent aussi la num^rotation i-viii, sauf dans les endroits oil 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 {require), 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 Tim. 38-43 and 44-58, and in omitting Top. 1-3 and 28-73, 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., Lucull., 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) sferant futuram. The Scholiasta Gronovianns here has the strange note : Dimissd] Id est prae contempto relicto habitorum (? =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. 1 Plasberg explains ^ as = recognovi. DE NATURA DEORUM, ETC. 331 (1) N. D. i. 1-64 : cum multae . . . impurus fuisset (2) i. 64-91 : nonne igitur . . . cognationes (3) i- 91-ii. 16 : agnoscerem . . . quam deum (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 propensiorl Dtv. i. i-ii. 127 : vetus opinio . . . quam derecto j Since these are given by B in the same order, as in Q, 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) Fai. 5-41 : quorum in . . . diceremus et cum (13) Fai. 41-48 : eae causae . . . naturaliter ] Top. 4-28 : non potui . . . edictis magis- J 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) 713^.28-72: divisionum . . . possimus hie (16) 7V^. 72-end : ergo argumentatio . . . debita accedere ) Farad. 1-37 : animadverti . . . dignum Aetionis i Here again the passages were contiguous in Q. (17) Farad. 37-end: tabula te . . . existimandi sunt ) LuculL 1-2 : magnum ingenium . . . tali ingenio [ This also is one block. (18) Lucull. 2-13 : praeditus LucuUus . . . et P. Scaevo- (19) Lucull. 13-end: -lam aiunt Ti. Graccho . . . descendimus) Leg. i. 1-2 1 : lucus quidem . . . condiscipulorum J Here also is one block. (20) Leg. i. 2l-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^ 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) N. D. i. 1-64 (7) Div. ii. 127-end (3) A': D. i. 91-ii. 16 (5) ii. 86-156 (4) ii. 16-86 (6) ii. 156-iii end + Z*/?/. i. i-ii. 127 {13) Fat. /^\-&cA+Top. if-iZ (16) Top. •j2-e.nA + Parad. 1-37 (18) Lucull. 2-13 (17) Parad. yj-txA-^- Lucull. 1-2 (19) Lticull, i3-end + ZiS^. i. 1-21 (12) Fat. 5-41 (21) Leg. ii. 4-13 (20) Leg. i. 2i-ii. 4 (8) Tim. i.-38 (10) Tim. 44-48 (9) Tim. 38-43 (11) 7z>«. 49-end + i^a/. 1-4 (2) TV. Z). i. 64-91 (22) Leg. ii. 13-iii. 38 (24) Leg. iii. 42-48 (23) Leg. iii. 38-42 The last passage, Leg. iii. 38-43, 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 § a,o fit amhitione. To these are to be added : (14) Top. 1-3 : inserted on fly-leaf (15) Top. 28-72 : 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. lo^, N. D. i. 64: tam impurus fuisset + 2?/z/. ii. 127 : deus si quidem (i) 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 SJ quemadmodum et hie qui liber secundus post iii folia ternjinatur ut in margine scriptum 4- (3) Recipe hie quod reperies infra folio xxi a fine libri citra ad signum 0+0 DE NATURA DEORUM, ETC. 333 f. 14'', Div. ii. 150 : nihil potest + iV. D. i. 91 : agnoscerem non (i) •!• ee iucundius. Quf cS cent dic ta sur reximus. M. TVL. CICERONIS DE DIVINATIONE LIB SECDS EXPL (2) iterum incipit de natura deorum f. 46'-", N. D. iii. 13 : rationes require secuntur So 5 : in the margin is h 3", as in ^4. f. 53^ N. D. iii. 65 : ut fateare sed Here hie dimissu is written in full, so also hie pmutatu e, with tachy- graphical equivalents for both. Here again cf. A. f. 102^^, Div. ii. 127: quam derecto + i^aiA 41 : eae causae Quod hie sequitur requiritur in primo libro de natura deorum sub asterisco adnotatum f. 103^", Faf. 48 : omnibus naturaliter+ Top. 4 : non potui (1) T)" (= dimissum) (2) Hie deest finis huius libri quem invenies quaternione xxi folio seeundo 5S f. 1 14"^, 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 l- 3". f. 114"^, Parad. 37: dignum actionis {sic) + LuculL 2 : praeditus LucuUus (1) hie interpositum est, ut videtur, de libro achademico (2) ordo verus orationis post duo folia repraesentatur f. 116"', LucuU. 13 : et P. Seaevo- + Pararf. 37: tabula te (1) quod hie sequitur in libro LueuUi redditur suo textui (2) redditur hie textus superiori orationi f. lig'^, Lucull. 2 : tali ingenio + Zz^c a//. 13 : -lam aiunt Hie intermissum est sed redditur in libro Paradoxae f. 147^, Leg. i. 21 : condiscipulorum + i^a;/. J : quorum in aliis (1) hie quod in libro Timei sequitur (2) falsa est haec notula quoniam quae secuntur ad librum de divinatione pertinent, non ad Timaeum. Quod qui utrumque legerit verum in- veniet. TEGANO eorrexit. Tegano, however, was wrong, as well as his predecessor.^ f. 154"^, Fat. 41 : dieeremus ut eum + Z«^. ii. 4 : ut cum Ab eo loco quo superius de eorpore Timei interpositum est usque hue per- venit, quod usque sequitur in fine est libri secundi de divinatione usque quo de topicis incipit loqui 1 Cf. Pertz, vol. ix, p. 219. Taginus, Abbot of Eenedictbeuern, is said to have been made Archbishop of Mainz. Pertz discre'dits 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) + Leg. i. 21 : ne quis exaudiat (1) hie usque quod sequitur abhinc xx foliis pertransitis suo.Ioco 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'', Leg. ii. 4 : studioseque eorum + Tim. i : multa sunt a Quod hie sequitur numeratis retro x foliis repperitur f. 169', Ti}n. 38 : confirmatur+ Tim. 44: sed cum duplex (1) dee (2) quod dee verso folio invenies -X f. 169'', Tim. 48 : modo hue modo illue+ Tim. 38 : quia de suis f. 171'', Fat. 4 : considamus hie + TV". D. i. 64 : nonne igitur tam (i) 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 seeundo libro divinationis est interpositum (3) istud est de primo libro de natura deorum in folio x et durat iiii folia usque ad sigfnum o"~o o f. 175^, N. D. \. 91 : cognationes + Xis^. ii. 13 : aliquas concessu A superiori exordio interpositioni usque hue de primo libiro 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. I 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 (loo) Tim. ^^-Fat. 4 (129) Leg. ii. 4-13 (198) Lucull. 2-13 (205) Parad. 27-LucuU. 2 (257) Fat.\\-Top. 28 (305) Div.'\\. 127-150 DE NATURA DEORUM, ETC. 335 (321) N. D. i. 64-91 (408) Tim. i. 38 (430) Top. 28-72 (494) Fat. S-41 (600) Leg. i. 2i-ii. 4 (604) N. D. i. 91-ii. 16 (655) Top. y2-Parad. 37 (760) N. D. 1-64 (864) N. D. ii. 16-86 (882) A^. 2?. ii. 86-156 {1217) Leg. ii. 13-iii. 38 (2379) Lucull. i^-Leg. i. 21 (4721) iV. ZP. ii. is6-Dw. ii. 127 With the exception of 6^, 70, and 139, all of which belong to the de Legibus, 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 100+105 = 305, 305 + 103 = 408, 655 + 105 = 760, 760 + 104 = 864. The relation of 430 to 864 and of 604 to 1217 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 : (i) IVai. D, i. 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 11 = 605, and 50 x la = 600. (4) N. D. ii. 16-86 = 864 54X 16 = 864 (5) N. D. ii. 86-156 = 882 55 X 16 = 880 It is here obvious that two blocks, each consisting of two quaternions, have changed place. We must, therefore, recognize ^^ as a unit. «A/'. 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 (a) = 14 + 6. If we take (3) as 50 x 13, this gives a total of 33 folios, i. e. four quaternions. 336 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS (6) N. D. ii. 1^6-Div. 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) Timaeus 38-43 = 52 (10) Timaeus 44-48 = 54 (11) Timaetts ^g-Fat. 4 = 100 {Tim. 49-end = 46 : Fat. 1-4 = 54) We must make allowance for a possible subscription to the Timaeus 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)+ Tt?/. 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 how 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 = 355 + 27 + 27 = 309, i. e. six folios. (15) ro/. 28-72 = 430 54x8 =432 DE NATURA DEORUM, ETC. 337 This quaternion must have been missing, but was afterwards utilized by E'' for the three extra leaves inserted in that MS. (16) Top. Ji-Parad. 37 = 655 .54 X 12 = 648 (17) Parad. 27-Lucull. 2 = 205 51x4 = 204 Allowance must be made for the subscription and title. (18) Lttcull. 2-13 = 198 This is a little short of the normal content for four folios. (19) Lucull. i^-Leg-. i. 31 = 2379 (20) Leg-, i. 3i-ii. 4 = 600 (31) Leg-, ii. 4-13 = 129 (22) Leg-, ii. 13-ixi. 38 = 1217 (23) Leg. iii. 38-42 = 65 (24) Leg. iii. 43-8 = 70 I take these six blocks together. It is to be noted that 65, 70, and 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 Philippics (p. 168). I therefore incline to explain the figures* as follows : 65, 70 = If. 139 = 3 fif. 600 = 10 fif. 1 217 = 30 ff. With regard to the large block 3379, it is interesting to notice that it seems to be in relation to the largest block 4721 (2379 x 2 = 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 Timaeus and the de Faio. 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 Timaeus by com- 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 : 4)1 oiKEia . . . deoae^icTTaTov and the second of : 41 E-43 B : SiffX^^ Be oCo-ijs . . . Kai itavTrj 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 continentur are followed in the MSS. by ius natura converteret and a lacuna is marked by editors. Plato's equivalents are 37 C vovs eTna-TTJixr) re e^ avayKrjs aworeXetTai and 38 C darepau irepiohos f](iv. It follows that ius is part of alterius {daripov). The passage of Plato for which there is no Latin rendering is 37 C-38 c TovTM bf iv ^ . . . ■7Tfpi(f>opas hs ^. 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 37 C-38 c, now lost, which = 46 lines in Stallbaum, should also = 5a 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. (1) 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 iariv oSy 8^. Thus we have no equiva- lent for 17 A fh, bvo, Tpeis ... 27 D evbei^aCixrjv. 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 : canv ciiiv Sq . . . e| avdyKijs dTroreXciT-at = (Cic.) Ttm. 3-28 : quid est quod . . . intellegentia continentur Here the Greek = 278 lines of Stallbaum. Here the same unit appears (46 x 6 = 276). The Latin equivalent is 39a 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 : Touro) Sc iv ^ . . . irepiipopas &s fj = 46 lines of Stallbaum. I have already discussed this passage. (4) 38 C-40 E : darepov wepioSor . . . diTo8el^ea>v Xeyovaiv, aW = (Cic.) Tim, 29- 38 : -ius natura . . - confirmatur. = 96J lines of Stallbaum. Here 48 x a = 96. For the unit cf. 41 E-43 B (49). The Latin equivalent here is 100 lines of Teubner. (5) 40 E-41 E : as olKeia . . . dtoa-e^earaTov = (Cic.) 7V»2. 38-43 : quia de suis . . . aptissitnum = 46 lines, Stallbaum. (6) 41 E-43 B- S'T^^f 8' oiJo-ijs . . . Koi Tran-j) = (Cic.) Ttm. 44-8: sed cum duplex . . . modo illuc = 49 lines, Stallbaum. I have already discussed these two passages. (7) 43 B-46 a: Kara tovs I| . . . «k)s te aZ = 161 lines, Stallbaum. Here the unit shrinks. If Cicero's version covered four folios of Q, as seems likely, he must have expanded somewhat. (8) 46 A-47 B : nep\ TfjV Xeidrijra . . . SaprjBh ex 6(S>v = (Cic.) Tim. 49-52 : sed si in . . . neque dabitur = 44 lines, Stallbaum. Cicero's Timaeus 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, Tim. 49-53, which must also have formed a folio = 46 lines only. There must have been some irregularity here. (9) 47 B-92 B (end) : \iya Si) toCto . . . /loi'oyfi'ijs a>v = 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. za 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 65 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 „ „ 370-380 „ I „ „ *38 C-40 E „ 2 „ „ *40E-4l E „ I „ „ *4l E-43 B ,, I „ „ 43B-46A „ 4 „ „ *46 A-47 B „ I „ „ 47 B-92 B „ 40 „ „ Out of 65 folios only 1 1 have survived. The other work in the corpus which has suffered from extensive mutilation is the de 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 N.D. ii. \t,e-Div. ii. 127 = 88 Div. ii. 127-end = 6 Timaeus = 65 Fat. 1-4 = I S-41 = 10 /[i-Top. 28 = 5 Top. 1%-Ti = 8 'J2-Parad. 27 = 12 Parad. Vj-LucuU. 2 = 4 LuculL 2-13 = 4 \l-Leg.\. 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 (= 330 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 are : Tim. 38-43 = 2i8g 44-8 = 2362 Fat. 1-4 = 227 1 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 =175 lines, Teubner. This passage is omitted by A C^, but found in B. It consists of 558 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. 1 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 de Divinatione, 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. V and P are written in double columns. I now proceed to consider the internal evidence furnished by the principal MSS. A has been carefully corrected, as will be seen from the following 342 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS list of additions made by A^, where A'^ omits. I have included with them one passage, Top. zS, which is not supplied by A^ : (12) Tim. 44 (13) N.D.\. 120 (14) N.D.\.T2. Leg. i. 35 (15) Div. ii. 93 {\i)N.D.\\. 10 Div. ii. 80 (18) Div.\\. 103 (19) N.D. iii. 4 Ti;/. 90 Zeg. i. 49 (20) Div. i. 123 ii. 38 (21) Lucull. 93 99 (22) N.D. ii. 72 i^a/. 8 Lticull. 24 Z^^. i. 45 (24) Fat. 30 (26) A'. A ii. 107 Lucull. 12 (29) TV)/. 28 Lucull. 67 (30) /JzV. i. 67 (31) N.D.\.\'2,o (32) A^.Zi. ii. 87 Div. ii. 55 /fl/. 12 (33) N.D. iii. 5 Z'zw. ii. 38 Lucull. 122 (34) Fat. 34 (35) r,./, 84 Tim. 30 Z^g-. ii. 24 Lucull. 62 Z. ii. 142) 58 (iV. Z>. iii. 69) 29 (T0P.2S) 65 (A^.Z>. iii. 32) 49 (N.D. m.Zo) 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. 38-72, 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. 14a) in spite of the fact that 16 x 3 = 48, and 16x4 = 64. There is no trace of so small a unit in the omissions either of B 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 6^, which admit of more than one explanation, which, therefore, I reserve for the moment. I would call especial attention to : N. D. ii. 50 : neque solum eius species ac forma mutatur tum crescendo turn defectibus in initia recurrendo sed etiam regie, quae tum 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 regie quae tum est a quilenta aut australis in lunae quoque cursu turn defectibus jn inicia recurren est {fn ras. ex do) et brumae quaedam The corrector inserts the words tum . . . recurrendo (31) in their proper place after crescendo. ' So editors with v, aut cett. 348 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS Here the intervening passage, sed etiam regio . . . quoque ctirsu, consists of 63 letters. This suggests the following arrangement in a predecessor : turn crescendo turn defectibus in initia recurrendo (31) sed etiana regio quae turn est aquilenta (33) aut australis in lunae quoque cursu (30) est et In connexion with this I would take another passage ; A'. 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 consumpsimus -ghas: desertgque discipline copinatum mediocrem a pritno tempore aetatis et iam pridem relictg patrocinium necopinatum a nobis esse susceptum. nos autem nee subito cepimus phi losophari nee mediocrema primo tempore aetatis in eo studio operam curamque consumpsimus Here the words et iam pridem . . . phihsophari nee = 99 letters. It is to be observed that the obelized passage in B consists of two parts, viz. (1) copinatum, (3) mediocrem . . . aetatis. The error is, therefore, complicated. The simplest solution seems to be that the words mediocrem . . . aetatis (39) were in the margin of a MS. written thus : discipline et iam pridem relictg 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 b\t.., viz. -n§, ne, nee. He first skipped a line and wrote copinatum, 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 A , and especially with the repetition of vel accessus after an interval of 94 letters in N. D. iii. 34, and that of praedic- tiones after an interval of 133 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 (A''. 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 + 33. Thus: Div. ii. 150 (end) : mihi vero, inquit ille, nihil potest esse iucundius. Quae cum essent dicta surreximus. B^ after nihil potest goes on immediately with the block, N. D. i. 91-ii. 16, agnoscerem non invitus, &c., which comes here in this MS. B^ adds in the margin esse iucundius . . . surreximus (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 tamen augures ne ipsae quidem fabulae adscivissent B^ omitted Mopsum . . . qtcos (45) suo loco and inserted the words subsequently in § 8 after qui religionibus paruissent. The inter- mediate passage, viz. tamen 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 (N. D. iii. 80), are not due to 6ft. 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 : multo ma gis in tantis motionib; tantisq: uicissitudinib; ta multarum rerum at que tantarum ordinationibus in quib; nihil umquam inmensa et infi nita uetustas mentita sit statuat necesse est ab aliqua mente tantos natu rg motus gfubernari ex sese perfectiores Here ex sese perfectiores is the beginning of the dislocated block, ii. 86-156. B^ has omitted {aiter gubernari) : Chrysippus quidem quamquam est acerrimo ingenio, tamen ea dicit ut ab 35° 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 quarurn est ordo sempiternus ab homine confici non possunt : est igitur id a quo ilia conficiuntur homine melius. Id autem quid potius dixeris quam deum ? (395) The missing passage, together with : tam 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 . . . ferant 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 tam multarum . . . £ubernari. It is to be remembered that the writer of A after ii. 16, dixeris quam 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 = la 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. ii. 72 : et religioso om. K' Div. i. 95 : et discrimen om. V 105 : aut scientia om. V (13) Farad. 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. F>. ii. 103 : cum sole turn degrediens otn. V^ (23) Lucull, 67 : percipi ab iis quae possint om. V DE NATURA DEORUM, ETC. 351 (24) N. D. ii. 72,: tamquam legendo delegendis om. V^ Div. ii. 129: *nisi sapientem divinum esse om. V LucuU. 9 : quam apud Catulum fuissemus om. F' (25) Fat. 8 : in campo ambulemus tecum quatn om. V (26) N. D. ii. 52 : duodecim signorum orbem annis om. F' 83 : nobiscum videt, nobiscutn audit om. F' Fat. 30 : adversarium sive non habuerit om. F' Tim. 8 : et me qui disseram hominem esse om. V (27) Lunill. 19 : aut deducimus multaque facimus om.. V (28) Tz'wz. 38 : **quamquam nee argumentis nee rati- <7»2. F (37) N.D. iii. 64: disputemus diealiusu ignais immortalibus om. F' (38) Div. ii. 98 : * non in hominibus solum verum in bestiis etiam om, F' (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. F' (44) Div. i. 125 : praedictum praesensumque ut cum evenerit ita eadat om. V^ (corr. m. i in mg.) (47) N. D. iii. 29 : si omne animal tale est, immortale nullum est. Ergo itidem om. F' (49) Fat. 35 : utinam ne in Pelio nata uUa umquam esset arbor etiam supra om. V (52) N. D. iii. 36 : nisi ignem probabilius enim videtur tale quiddam esse animum om. V^ (56) Fat. 4 : volo. An mihi, inquam, potest quiequam esse molestum quod tibi gratuni om. V (59) Fat. 27 : ne ilia quidem eversa vera est haee enuntiatio, cepit Numantiam Scipio om,. F* (64) Fat. 33 : quocirca si Stoicis qui omnia fato fieri dieunt consentaneum est huius modi om. F' (66) Div. ii. 103 : hoc quoque est eoncedendum. At quod omne est, id non eemitur ex alio extrinseeus 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 fidem non habere onibus certis {med. 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 a6 and three of 24, to which 53, 49, 47 appear to correspond. It is to be noticed that the omission of 45 in Div. i. 1 25 is supplied by the first hand. V is written in double columns with an average of 38-30 letters. It is more likely that its model 35a 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) N.D. ii. 58 : prudentia vel om. C (13) N. D. ii. 142 : * si quid noceret om. C (14) N.D. iii. 33 : et quod ea sentit om. C (15) N.D. ii. 146 : et parte tangendi om. C ; * atque ut animi item om. C modici turn recessus om. C ; nisi eadem docuisset om. 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 tum degrediens om, C nulla perennia servantur om. C flammeae quocirca terrae om. C alvi dentisque evolsionem om. C ignoremusque vim sermonis om. C contemplandum et imitandum om. C alias esse cornibus arniatas 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 hisque principium motus om. C* argumentari soleo, perspicuitas enim om. C mea Tertia, quid tristis es? Mi pater, inquit om. C * in quo inerant sortes coUocavissent simia om. C eos opiniones esse de bestiis quibusdam quam apud om, C nubium magnitudinem ventorumque vim cognovissent om. C N. D. ii. 37 : quodque undique aptum atque perfectum expletumque sit om. C (81) N.D. iii. jj : philosophorum disputationem interpretarentur tacere prae- staret philosophis quam iis qui se om. C (451) N.D. iii. 58-9: tertiae pater Upis . . . natum accepimus om. C (558) N. D. i. 1-2 : esse debeat . . . dinumerare sententias om. C To these should be added a dittography : (37) N. D. iii. 36 : quod si ignis ex sese animal est nulla se alia bis scr. (16) N.D.\.<)6 (17) N. D. ii. 49 (18) Div. i. 1 16 Leg. ii. 52 (19) Div. i. 102 Leg. iii. 9 (20) yv./?.i.43 98 ii. 103 (22) N. D. ii. 9 118 (23) N. D. iii. 57 Leg. ii. 8 (24) A^.i?. ii. 37 121 154 (2S) N.D.I 12 (26) Div. i. 77 78 (31) 133 (32) N. D. ii. 32 iii. 8 (35) Div. i. 103 (37) Div. i. 76 (42) A^.Z>. i. 81 (44) N. D. ii. 9S : (47) N.D.\x.S7 DE NATURA DEORUM, ETC. 353 I have hesitated to mark Leg. ii. 5a (18) as a telescoped passage. Here the other MSS. give : eos qui tantumdem caperent quantum omnes heredes C has eos qui tantum omnes heredes (med. om.). Here the omission seems due to ojx. The omissions of Care not so instructive as those of A and B. It will be seen that nearly all are due to 6/x. There is little trace of the ancestor in 29-33 letters which we have observed in the case of AB, though the three omissions of 33 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 we have an omission of 24 letters in close proximity to one of 47. The intervening words contain 397 letters (24 x la = a88). 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 aliorum cau (27) sa esse generata ut eas fruges (25) 10 atque fructus quos terra gig (24) nit animantium causa animan (24) tes autem hominum ut equum ue (24) hendi causa arandi bouem uenan (26) di et custodiendi canem ipse (24) IS autem homo ortus est ad mundum (25) contemplandum et imitandum (24) Chas omitted lines a-3 and 16, the omission in each case being due to 6)x. I would also call attention to an interesting corruption : N. D. i. 85 : sententiis quas appellatis Kvplai Sdfat (cyrias doxas codd.) C adds GR. (= Graecum) before quas. This indicates : sententiis quas appellatis cyrias doxas (25) mg. GR. less 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 ut 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. 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. D. iii. 88: ac potestatem (15) N. D. ii. 128 : et ad procreandum (25) N. D. iii. 14 : quis cornicis cantum notavit (28) N. D. iii. 120: *atque ita se erigunt ut animantes (32) N. D. ii. 122: partim unguium tenacitate arripiunt (40) N. D. iii. 91 : portenta enim ab utrisque et prodigia dicuntur (50) N. D. ii. 112 : *cuius propter laevum genu Vergilias tenui cum luce videbis (94) N. 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 : N. D. iii. 14 : dicatis omnia, quod autem semper ex omni aeternitate verum fuerit, id esse fatum [dicatis] Here dicatis . . .fatum = 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 o^ B. Apart from this, we have the following cases : (28) Tim. 38 : **quamquam nee argumentis nee rati- om. V (29) Top. 28 : **-tratuum more aequitate consistat oj?i. AB^ (31) A^. D. i. 120 : **-tate rerum, turn principia mentis quae out. A'' (32) Dtv. ii. 55 : **-res causas rerum non quaerere tu vates om. A' DE NATURA DEORUM, ETC. 355 (S9) N- D. iii. 69 : **esse ratione nee vero scaena solum referta est his sceleri- bus sed mult- om. B^ (65) N, D. iii. 32 : **ullo sensu iucunda accipere, non accipere contraria. Si igitur voluptatis sen- om. E'- Next to these the most significant passage is N.D. ii. 16, where A inserts from § 156. (S4) largitate fundit, ea ferarumne an hominum causa gignere videtur? 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-a 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 V only, viz. : (24) Lucull. 109 : 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 resei-ve 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 a8 letters and col. 3 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 'ij^d'i 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 (a8x3i =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 . . . itissii (42) occur here loco suo in the MSS., ^ So V. \i compreheiidi is written, the total is 26. A a a 356 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS but the next colon quantis in . . . paruit (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 ? Quotiens senatus decemviros ad libros ire iussit ! quantis in rebus quamque saepe responsis haruspicum paruit ! It looks as if the whole passage quotiens . . . paruit (93) was originally omitted, then inserted in the wrong place, and finally a portion of it quotiens . . . iussit reinserted loco suo, while the whole remained loco alieno. The intermediate passage, viz. §§ 97-8, nam et cum . . . prae- dictiones sunt, consists of 8a i letters. In connexion with this I would take another curious passage : Div. i. 70 : humani 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 tum maxime vigere cum plurimum absit a corpore Here A^CV ?S.\&x pars animi repeat earn partem qtiae sensum (19). B inserts the words in § 69, thus : et naves subito [earn partemque sensum] perterriti metu conscendistis where they violently disturb the sense. The reading of ^^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 qtiae sensum, consists of 411 letters. We have previously seen that in Div. i. 97-8 the intervening passage consists of 8ai letters. The relation of 411 to 8ai is very striking. I therefore suggest that the number 41 1 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.'i. 2 : quo omaes duce natura venimus decs esse dixerunt DE NATURA DEORUM, ETC. 357 B, which is practically our only authority for this passage {defic. A), adds sese after omnes. This looks like a variant for esse. If so, an ancestor may have had : quo omnes duce natura uenimus deos esse (25) mg. sese dixerunt ib. : in primis magna dissensio est, eaque nisi diiudicatur So editors : the MSS. add quae sSter primis. This may be a variant for -que. This indicates : in primis magna dissensio est eaque (22) mg. quae nisi diiudicatur N. D. \. 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 autem est istuc gradation (35) before sumpsisses tuo iure. The transposition seems required by the sense. N. D.'\\.\\\: minorem autem Septentrionem Cepheus passis palmis terga sub- sequitur. Namque ipse ad tergum 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) mg. terga tergum N. D. iii. So : 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) mg. leonaticum leocorion nominatur N. 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 5, which has tyrannidis. I accept the reading 358 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS of B, and regard tyrannidis as a gloss on potestatem, which has got into the text in the wrong place. This indicates : mortuus in rogum inlatus est eamque (21) mg. tyrannidis potestatem Lucull. 126 : nee enim divinationem quam probatis uUam esse arbitror fatumque illud quo omnia contineri dicitis contemno So editors : the MSS. repeat esse after illud. 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- ficiant, aliae autem ex inopinato observant et si quid incidit arripiunt The words ex inopinato seem out of place. They should go with arripiunt. 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 tng. ex inopinato arripiunt There are other corruptions which show a multiple of this unit (46-8), viz. : A^. 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 A^. 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 tam multa dixeris So the MSS., except that for est (so A V^) BV^ give esset and C has et. Editors omit perspicuum after cur quod and read in ista partitione for in istam partem. DE NATURA DEORUM, ETC. 359 It is clear that perspicuum has been inserted from the context, the corruption being due to o\t.. {quod . . . guod). The variants seem to show that esi is an accretion. This indicates in an ancestor : quod in istam partem ne egere qui (23) dem oratione dixisses quod (23) perspicuum M D. iii. 24 : vide . . . ne tertianas quidem febres at quartanas divinas esse dicendum sit, quarum reversione et niotu quid potest esse constantius ? So the MSS. : editors read quoque with Lambinus for quidem. It seems more likely that quidem should come after quarum. This indicates : ne tertianas febres et quartanas diuinas (24) esse dicendum sit quarum (21) mg. quidem reuersione N. D. iii. 45: Quid? Aristaeus, qui olivae dicitur inventor, Apollinis filius, Theseus [qui] Neptuni, reliqui quorum patres di, non erunt in deorum numero ? So the MSS. : qui is struck out by editors. This indicates : aristaeus qui oliuae dicitur inuentor (24) apollinis filius theseus (22) neptuni The repetition is due to o\i.. N. D. iii. 61 : aut enim in nobismet insunt ipsis, ut mens, ut spas, ut fides, ut virtus, ut Concordia, aut optandae nobis sunt, ut honos, ut salus, ut victoria Baiter says : ' ut spes vel delenda vel ante ut honos transponenda censuit Walkerus, coll. § 88 '. In § 88 we find : quamvis licet Menti delubra et Virtuti et Fidei consecremus, tamen haec 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 36o DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS multiply ancestors praeter necessitatem. 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 cui. 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 Fhas a transposition mark over annos. Editors place the word before Dionysius. This indicates : mg. annos dionysius tyrannus (17) fuit N. D. iii. 35 : non omnes interpretantur uno modo, quoniam quid diceret [quod] intellegi noluit, omittamus Editors here insert qui before quoniam, so V^, and strike out quod, which is in all MSS. It seems probable that qiiod is a variant for the missing qui, which has got into the text out of place. This indicates : uno modo mg. 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. earn 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, N.D. i. 89, is somewhat significant. Here there is a transposition of sumpsisses tuo iure (17) and quid autem 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 : N. D. iii. I : quae cum Balbus dixisset, turn adridens Cotta (37) These words are written twice by A^E^ V^, 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. /). 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 publicae 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. IIS : similiter Marcius et Publicius vates cecinisse dicuntur, quo de genera Apollinis operta prolata sunt. Credo etiam anhelitus quosdam fuisse terrarum quibus inflatae mentes oracla funderent Meyer transposes quo de . . . sunt (37), placing the words after credo . . . funderent (75). The transposition produces an excellent sense. The distant ancestor seems to have had : credo etiam anhelitus ( 1 9) quosdam fuisse terra (18) rum quibus inflatae men (20) tes oracla funderent (18) quo de genere apoUi (17) nis operta prolata sunt (20) In view of this "transposition of 37 and 75 letters, I mention the following corrupt passages : N. D. \. 77 : [omnium] quis tam caecus in contemplandk rebus umquam fuit ut non videret species istas hominum conlatas in deos ? ?,(>% DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS Davis conjectures omnino for omnium. I look on omnium as a variant for hominum, which has been inserted in the wrong place. The words quis tarn . . . hominum 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. : multum seems to be a variant for multa. The words multa dicuntur . . - maritimi consist of 73 letters. N, D. ii. 145 : nam et virtutes et vitia cognoscunt, iratum propitium, laetantetn dolentem, fortem 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 . . . cognosczmt consist oi 7a 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 . . . vellem contain 79 letters. Fat. 41 : quam ob rem cum dicimus omnia fato fieri causis antecedentibus, non hoc intellegi volumus, causis pei-fectis 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 : N. D. ii. 100 : partim submersarum, partim fluit^ntium 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 uis A, saxas anatiuis B : saxa sanatiuis V. Also for eludit some inferior MSS. give alludit, 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 JV. D. ii. 137: ex intestinis autem [alvo] secretus a reliquo cibo sucus is quo alimur permanat ad iecur per quasdam a medio intestine 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 inde aliae, Hein- dorf inserts alio, i.e. aliae alio pertinentes. Orelli 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 (S) 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. S = 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. 6' was written by Sozomenus at Constance in 141 7. M \i, not the original transcript made by Bartolommeo in 141 6, but a copy of this written by an ignorant scribe. There can be no doubt that 5' 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 editorj 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 * : clpavfia /If TO avyxpr)ii2 = 324) Here some light is to be obtained from a6o. 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 5' 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 341. 16. Here we have the following readings : maioribus autem poculi's ut subaudiatur poscunt a pincerna petunt maioribus autem poculis ut subaudiatur P maioribus autem poculis ut subaudiatur SM {med. 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 (ofx.). How then are we to account for the omission of the passage by SM, while it is given hy P? 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 S 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 347 letters, i.e. la lines of this previous ancestor (27 X la = 334). 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 5 omits 47 letters, and one where SM omit 33. There are five omissions of 63-7 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 ai-a letters, and represent lines of a more remote ancestor preserved in the marginalia of S. 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 37-8 letters. (26) 44. 4 (52. 4) : unum turn excuti priusquam in senatum intraret priusquam iusserat 2 Here priusguam has been repeated by error. This indicates: unum turn excuti priusquam in senatum intraret (26) iusserat (37) 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 multam. This indicates : multam mg. multa irrogauit quod eius opera sacra (27) P. R. deminuta esse diceret (27) 226. 1 1 : repetitio verris in qua uidetur insaniae verris causa velle monstrari 2 Here uerris (before in qua) appears to be an error ioxfuroris (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 16S8 B b 37° DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS toUat sed etiam circa artificium dicendi breuiter etiam in hac parte vim oratoris ostendat S 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 toUat 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 iiii de vita eius oppressum Clodio L. Caecilium 2 Here Clodio (after oppressum) 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) m£. fecit turn 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 6' seems to preserve a corruption from S, 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 82-5 letters should be com- pared with the dittography of 83 letters in i^ (231. 26). In view of these corruptions it is probable that the following omissions of S represent lines of this ancestor : (27) 42. 21 (50. i) : consilio vero maioris alicuius om. PM 202. 5 : etenim fides mea speculatorem r. Stangl {ex Cic^ : om. S (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 addicerent S Here iam (after nos) is omitted by the MSS. of Cicero. In all pi-obability 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. {21) 238. 17 : cum imperio ac securibus. hironia et asynchores eos. Cum imperio ac securibus P Here SM omit cum imperio . . . eos. Stangl reads : mercator signorum. TSlpaveia fiera irvyj^ap^a-eas. Cum imperio ac securibus Here mercator signorum 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. a, taking the place of the lemma. (32) 41. 12 (48. 5) : ad Regiam paene confecerit nusquam paene inveni 2 The repetition oi paene indicates the arrangement : ad regiam paene confecerit nusquam (22) inueni B b a •i^z DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS The repetition is made easy by b\i.. (22) 256. 17 : decuriam modo ' ordinem ' ac per hoc ex ' vobis ' quia honestiorum decurie per hec ex vobis 2 Ttie words per hec {hoc) ex vobis are repeated from the context, as Stangl points out. This indicates : per hoc ex uobis 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 was per hec et uobis. (38) 228. 9 : alia enim sortitione nunc sedent, ilia divinatione coastituendi accu- satoris alia fuit 2 Here editors read alia for ilia and omit the word before y«?V. 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 sad 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 after 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 2 may represent a line of this more remote ancestor : (22) 211. 15 : aperte palamque dixisset om. sine lac, PM: in lac. 7 litt. S I have already indicated the possibility that some of the omis- sions of 63-7 letters in 5 may represent multiples of this lower unit. I add here for the sake of completeness the other passages which I have noticed where S omits passages of Cicero's text : (31) 198. I : quod mihi ab amicorum negotiis datur Lodoicus {ex Cic.) : om. 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 (33) 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. 368a, which so frequently agrees with Asconius, has suam se fecisse. It is possible that the text of Asconius may have had se suam 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. 39 (10. 3), where 2 gives : Seplasia he . . . te (Seplasia me hercule, ut dici audiebam Cic.) 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 5 : (31) 251. 14: qui putant hironicos pronuntiandum non [putat] vident 5 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, Tam 2 Stangl says of iam ' e v. 15 pro tam '. 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, 55. 5-11 (68. 19-69. 7) and Si- i-4 (69- 8-ia). 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. 14-33 four blocks which have been transposed consist of 62, 63, 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 S, as against emendations : (I) (b) 55- , s-ii (t )8. 19-69. 7) : quartum . . - populum (428) («) 55- 1-4 (69 1. 8-13) : tertium . . . adiecta (214) (2) («) 186. 23: eorum . . . stantem (54) (/) 24-5: in causis . . . fecit (78) {i) 26-187, . 2 : causis . . . anteponendus (227) W 187. 3-5: cum quaestor . . . effectus sit (177) if) 6-8: Siculis . . . dixit (I7S) W 9-17: veteribus . . . coniuncti (473) {g) 18-19: causam . . . accusationem (95) (3) ib) 191. 19-22 : quod in . . . iuris habui (217) (a) 22-32 : sestertium . . . protulisset (620) (d) 192. 1-2: accedere . , . . advertere (118) W 3-8: si tacent . , . . sequitur (323) GO 9-10: te ipsum . , . . intellegemus (79) ie) 11-30: et quis . . . . vita vis (1071) ih) 193. i-S: cui metus . . . eiusmodi (264) (k) 5-6: certos . . . perscripsisset (87) (0 7-11: non enim . . . liquere (272) « 11-28: et idee . . . invenitur (1098) U) 29-194 13 : a pueris . . . criminum (830) ASCONIUS AND PSEUDO-ASCONIUS 375 (4) W 195. 14-17: rationem , . . esset (189) (*) 18-19: ut est . . . dictura (66) (d) 20-1 : deportare . . . locum (62) («) 22-3 : deinde . . . velit (63) (5) W 199- 3-6: transigere . . . monstretur (214) (*) 7-8: ipse . . . suum (95) {a) 9-10: ex illius . . . reddere (66) (6) {b) 200. 6-10: hunc . . . vocat (240) {a) 11-23: totum . . . populum (593) (7) (b) 201. 7-9 : de populo . . . dicuntur (149) {a) 9-14; : oblique . . . potestatem (292) {d) 15-19 : ad columnam . . . vocitata est (280) W 20-2: vestri , . . solent (124) W 19: causis eiusmodi soliti (20) here adopt Stangl'i s suggestion as to the proper place of (8) {b) 202. 26 : Circes . . . faciebat (37) {a) 203. I : redit ad se . . . homines (44) (9) {b) 203. 27-8 : hie est . . . coniurationem (69) {a) 204. 1-2 : accusavit . . . accusatus est (62) (10) ib) 207. 18-20 : ; invenit . . . reum (144) (a) 21-2: petit . . . petit (65) (II) ib) 211. s-7: ecce . . . Tenedo (108) (a) 8-9: comitiis . . . comitia (67) (12) ib) 212. 1-3 : his diebus . . . comitiis (173) W 4-12: et M. Metello . . . solet (50s) (13) ib) 212. 24-9: divisores . . . dixisset (258) (a) 213. 1-4: qui se ■ . . suscepta (197) (14) ib) 213. 17: et optima hironia est (18) (a) 18-19 : patris . . . seni s. (57) (15) ib) 219. 14-19: qui ambo . . . positum est (349) (a) 20-1 : qui C. . . . praetore (85) (16) ib) 226. 20 : non is . . . nocentissimus (28) (a) 21 : non id . . . senatui est (35) (17) ib) 230. 19-231 . 22 : adimo . . . dixi (1941) (a) 231. 23 : in hoc . . . scilicet (45) (18) ib) 234. 1-4: pro quaestore . . . nummos (182) (a) S-8: cohorti . . . praetorio (201) (19) ib) 238. 17-19 : cum imperio . . . et privatis (105) {a) 20-239. 4 : habeo . . . potest (735) Here (3) requires some explanation. In P cum imperio ac securibus 376 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS (ai) occurs twice, viz. before and after hironia et asynchores eos (aa). 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) («) 18-20 : homo . . . procreare (ISO) (21) (*) 242. 33 : ad inimicos . . . causarum (41) {a) 243. 1-2: nisi damnato . . . valeret (119) (22) ib) 247. 8-20 : tabulas . . . possideret (614) W 20-3: more . . . vocabantur (103) if) 23-7: alii . . . praebiturus (236) {a) 27-8: Terentius . . . tentatum ad- (41) (d) 248. 1-20 : appellat . . . iudicii (949) if) 21-2 : bona . . . eorum (68) {h) 23-S: eripis . . . servabatur (141) ig) 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 . . . crudehtatis (69) W 24: suo tempore de suppliciis (22) (f) 25-7: is viros . . . crediderat (157) {e) 28-30 : dat . . . permanere (134) (24) {b) 252. g-io ; ; foro . . . dabantur (57) {a) II : renuntiata . . . nuntiat (38) (25) {b) 253. 1-2: et praedibus . . . dicuntur (108) {a) 3: populo . . . scilicet (30) (26) (6) 254. 1-2: istam . . . diem (47) (a) 3-S: neque . . . possimus (161) id) 6-8: putabat . . . retuli (140) (^) 9-10: : ut uno . . . detrahere (63) (27) (i) 260. 4-s: una . . . iudicum (63) (a) 6: in laudando . . . repetundarum (45) (28) ib) 263. I : ut praetor . . . composito (36) («) 2-3: Loctanus . . . laudat (74) id) 4: iuris . . . virtutem (54) W S-6: L, Octavius . . . improbum (98) rhesi e fiS jures exhibit some striking correspond ences. Thus i«=ai4 and i 3 = 438 (314x2 = 428), a/= 78 and a5 = 237 (76x3 = 338), 3(^=177 and 3c = i75, 3^ = 473 ^nd a^=95 (95x5 = 475). In (3) we may notice that t = 333 and /= 79 (80 X 4 = 320), so ^ = 87 and k = 364 (87x3 = 261), so i = 373 and / = 1098 (373 X 4 = 1088). In (4) we have the unmistakable ASCONIUS AND PSEUDO-ASCONIUS 377 series 62, 6^, 66, 189. Similar features are to be found in other groups. Thus in (19) d = 105 and a = 735 (105 x 7 = 735) ; in {2,2) f=68 and ^=141 (70x2 = 140), a=4i and ^=ao6 (41 X 5 = 205), so ^ = 103 and d = 614 (103 x6 = 6iS), 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. (i) (6) tertium est de legum abrogationibus quo de genere persaepe S. C. fiunt ut nuper de ipsa lege Calpurnia que derogaretur. Lex haec Calpumia de ambitu erat, tulerat earn ante biennium C. Calpurnius Piso cos. in qua praeter alias poenas poena pecuniaria erat adiecta (214) (a) quartum quae lex lata esse dicatur, ea non videri populum teneri ut L. Marcio Sex. Julio cos. de legibus uiuis. Puto uos reminisci has esse leges iuuias quasi illi 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. toUerentur. Decretum est enim contra auspicia esse latas neque his teneri populum (428) I here write cos. {bis), but consulibus, so S. (2) (/) in causis iudiciisque publicis iam hoc contra Caecilium est qui numquam sui periculum fecit (78) (b) causis iudiciisque publicis. Causae etiam privatae sunt arepetundarum 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 vjx'ite praetore with 2. {d) 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 (i77) (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 31^ 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 firmum verumque esse offirmum ut possit verum ut velit (63) {b) Ut est hominum genus. Amariora dicturus ad Siculorum personam contula dictura (66) {c) 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 (189) 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 {ctim imperio ac (63) 195. 22-3 securibus) 254. 9-10 (22) 250. 24 260. 4-5 238. 17 {hironia et a- (65) 207. 21-2 iynchores 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. s-6 (57) 213. 18-19 (103) 247. 20-3 252. 9-10 (108) 211. 5-7 ASCONIUS AND PSEUDO-ASCONIUS 379 253- 1-3 (ii8' 192. 1-2 (119) 243. 1-2 (124) 201.20-2 (134) 250. 28-30 (140) 254. 6-8 (141) 248. 23-S (142) 250. 18-20 (144) 207. 18-20 (149) 201. 7-9 (ISO) 240. 1 8-20 (157) 250. 25-7 (161) 254- 3-5 (173) 212. 1-3 (175) 187. 6-8 (177) 187. 3-5 (182) 234- 1-4 (189) 195. 14-17 (197) 213. 1-4 (201) 234. 5-8 (206) 248. 26-249 (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. 3-8 (349) 219. 14-19 (428) 55- S-ii (473) 187. 9-17 (505) 212. 4-12 (593) 200. 11-23 (614) 247. 8-20 (620) 191. 23-32 (735) 238. 20-239. 4 (850) 193. 29-194. 13 (949) 248. 1-20 (1071) 192. 11-30 (1098) 193. 11-28 (1941) 230. 19-231. 22 There are some singular correspondences to be observed in these figures. I would call attention to the following sequences : (28) 226. 20 (214) ss. I, 199- 3 (S4) 186. 23, 263. 4 (428) 55. 5 (57) 213. 18, 252. 9 (850) 193. 29 (108) 211. 5, 253. I So also we have : (118) 192. 1 (119) 243. I (236) 247. 23 (240) 200. 6 (473) 187. 9 (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 2, the omissions fall into two classes. For the first of these we had the figures : 27 54 56 (3 exx.) 83 108 327 For the omission of ^'ij we may compare the dislocation of 333 38o DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS (19a. 3), and for the dittography of 83 the dislocation of 85 (219. ao). In both lists the same unit 27-8 appears. I also gave examples where corruptions have been embedded in the text at a distance of 26, 37 (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 63-7 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, 32, 38, 43, 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 2 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 347. 8-348. 30. This falls 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 (i°3) Here 610 + 336 + 103 = 949. ASCONIUS AND PSEUDO-ASCONIUS 381 This is a very remarkable agreement. It appears that if 247. 8-ao, 30-3, 33-7 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 347. ao-3 was accidentally omitted and then entered by error at the end of the following page. The transposition of 347. 37-8 Terentius . . . tentatum 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. Verris in duobus constituta iuri ditione et sartis tectis. Qui auspicate a Chelidone. Aves pascere dicuntur hi euntes magistratus et qui Chelidonis est hirundo urbem frequentat facete urbanam pro- vinciam Chelidonis auspicio meretricis dicit esse susceptam. Neque census esset. Neque 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 + %'>,6 = 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 heredem. Iniuriosum verbum in personam praetoris, appellatio enim est inferioris ad potiorem. 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. Non improbum, non inofficiosum, non inhumanum. Haec enim testamenta non solent valere, nam improbum contra leges inofficiosum contra merita inhumanum contra pietatem. Sua sponte scelerata ac nefaria est. Beneficia sponte et non disputatione iuris con- sultorum sed natural! interpretatione fugienda sunt ut veneficium parri- cidium et cetera quae etiam nuUo modo prohibente evitanda sunt 38a 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 vTroKpivi] ut quasi per indignationem did videatur et interrogative. Cede mihi leges Atinias Furias Fusias. Istae omnes de iure civili sunt, nihil con- tinent criminum capitalium publicique iudicii. I write J>rae(oris with 2. The largest figure in the dislocations is 1,941. If this is divided by a, the result is 970. This is interesting in view of the evidence just adduced. Perhaps the most singular corruption found in S 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 334. a4, a44. 36-7, and the passage 348. i-ao, appellat . . . iudicii, which appears to represent a page in an ancestor of 2. The best method of comparison is to take the editio princeps, in which the text is printed continuously, instead of being broken up into irregular lines, as in a modern edition. In this 348. i-ao occupies 16^ lines. The passage 334. a4-a44. a6, Malleolo occiso . . . occiso, occupies 263 lines. Here i6| x 16=364. No result could be more satisfactory. It appears that if a page in an ancestor of 2, containing 949 letters, con-esponds to 16^ lines of the ediiio 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 l^im with the well-known astrologer at the court of Tiberius. This identification rests on Schol. ad Juv. vii. 576 : Thrasillus vnultarum artium scientiam professus postremo se dedit Platonicae sectae ac deinde mathesi, in qua praecipue viguit apud Tiberium, cum quo sub honore eiusdem artis familiariter vixit. It has been ques- tioned by W. Christ, who points out that Varro, Ling. Lat. vii. 37, when referring to the Phaedo, 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, EJcraytoy^ iv, p. 149. Diogenes says : ©patriJAoy 8e <|)7j(n KoX Kara ttji; TpayiKrjV rerpaXoyCav eKbovvai, avrbv tovs hiakoyovs. He then quotes Thrasylus (^t/o-^) as to the number of genuine dialogues and their order {irp(&Tr]v jxev ow TerpaKoyiav TiOrjai.). After giving the order he says, /cat oSros fiev ovr o( A in the Republic. He met this difiSculty, however, by supposing that T represented a missing volume of A, 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 W. 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. Alcib. i, 115 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 as A or B. Some interesting remarks are made by the editors of the Oxyrhynchus papyri. Thus of Ox. 843 {Symposium), 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 or 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 1017 (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 ^StoToto-ti' (so B), while the text has ^SiVrots with T and Stobaeus. In connexion with this we may mention Phaedo 68 b, where the Petrie papyrus supports the reading h.'hXoQi hwarov eivai KaOap&s, 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 1633 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. (li). Burnet notices that the text of the Euthyphro, Crito, and Apology. used by the translator was very like that of W. The version of the Lazvs omits freely. Gonybeare 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 1 refer to a valuable paper of Mr. T. W. Allen in ' A group of ninth-century Greek MSS.' * He considers Paris. 196a, 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 A, with a preface by M. Omont, has been published by the authorities of the BibliotMque 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. aoi', with the result : col. i = loaa, 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. Mllanges Graux, p. 527. ^ D. Serruys, Rev. Phil, xxxviii. 3. 14, adds Paris. Suppl. Grec. 921. THE MANUSCRIPTS OF PLATO 387 over 33 letters, and for col. ii slightly over 33. The limits of variation are (18) i ex., (19) i ex., and (36) 6 exx. Anumber of corrections in A come from a contemporary SiopdcoTTjy. 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 Leg. 745 a-c, 783 b— d, and the numerous additions in the "Opoi proceed from this writer. On f. 344'' there is a colophon, ipOdOri fi ;3t^Aoj airr) virbKatvaTavTivov jxrjrpowoXirou 'ItpairoXeMS rod koI avrjaa- fxivov, written in a fourteenth-century hand. For the purposes of this inquiry the corrections of the Siopfltor^s 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 Leg. 849 d (f. 241') rois ^^rots Kud' o(Tov &v PovXrjTai koI oiroVav /3o,i5A.rjTat. Here A^ has IcVoir Kad6(Tov &v jSovXij The words koI oirorav fiovkr]Tai are omitted. The twelfth-century corrector (A^), instead of adding koI oTtdrav ^ovXrfTai after povKrjTai, prefers to add -rai koI oirorav povkr)- after ^avk-q. So 930 b (f. 370^) Tovs 8e fj,ri toiovtovs ewirTjSfv/i^aTd re finTrjbeijovTas. A ^ gives : Se firi TotovTOVS eViTi;8ev ovras A ', instead of adding iiriTribivnaTd re after tolovtovs, adds -jiiaro re einrTjSev- after eittrribiv. 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 Siop^ojTijs. I take as an example Tim. 58 e koI biaXvovroi avTo rriv d^aAoV?/ro aTTOjSaXAet, Tavrrjv be aiioKeffav. Here A ^ wrote Kai oiaAvov Tos avTo rr/p o/naXoTJjra d TToAcani/ C C 3 388 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS Instead of adding airopdXKfL TavTr}v be after o/xaXo'rijro, the biopOmrris adds -iro/SaXAet ravT7}v 6e d- 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 6tO|ods laaiiuoi om. A Rep. 381 a : koi ap-CJUecr/juiTa om. A 400 d : Kal avap/iocTTOP om, A Tim. 68 e : Kai to jiiv Beiov om. A^ {corr.) (14) Epp. 322 e : TovTuiv npo(rb(iv om. A 328 b : Koi imaKova-Teov om. A Leg. 773 c : KOI ^padvTepovs om. A 920 b : emrqBfifmTa re om. A C : TO. be dypovdfiovs om. A Rep. 328 d : *? ■naph. (jtiXovs re om. A^ (corr.) 366 a : av ^f'ya hiivavrai om. A 374 b : oKKa oKVTOToiiov D : om. AF 379 a : ericTc iv p.eK((Tiv om. A (15) Epp. 314 a : KQi del aKov6p.(va om. A Leg. 639 C : ** ^ pxra KaKav apxov- om. A^ {corr.) 716 a: Kal KfKoarjiri pivos om, A^ {corr.) 847 b : KTflvas ((j)' ols T( om. A 877 e ; r\i Kfipivr\ r\ Kai iv om. A 954 d ■ * '■ou XoijroC j(p6vov om. A Rep. 364 a : re km biKaiotrivri om. A 373 e : kh\ Tfjv noiKiKiav om. A THE MANUSCRIPTS OF PLATO 389 (16) Zfg'. 636 b 778 e 925 e (17) Leg. 669 c 7osb 829 a 849 a d 937 d Min. 314 a ^«/. 358 a 360 a 382 6 Tim. 58 e (18) Efip. 347 c Leg. 668 d 708 c 731 c Rep. 386 c 400 a (19) Refi. 2,7Z e (21) Leg. 874 b Tim. 47 a (22) Z^^. 841 c 868 e (25) Leg. 902 e (28) Leg. 903 c 913 d {21)) Epp. 312 a. Leg. 861 c il/ij«. 313 c (30) Z<^. 9256 ^«/. 380 e (35) Leg. 764 c (36) Leg. 684 d (37) Rep.yjdA 379 b (39) ^tf_^. 601 a (40) Z«^. 822 b (41) Rep. 504 d (44) /?«/. 493 d (46) Rep. 443 d our' tmrriSevijutTiov om. A^ (corr.) TO 8e Ta(j)pev(TOVTas om. A Kai fieXos dnoSovvai om. A^ {corr.) iro\v6pos re fir) Kai om. A^ {corr.) fitjff iavTovs abiKfiv om. A^ {corr.) ayopavAfiovs ra wepl ' om. A Ka\ orrorav jSouXijrni om. A (m&Tfpos 8' tiv Kpi6rji om. A OTi altrSria-ei TavTrji om. A^ {corr.) abiKia 8' iitaivfiTax om. A * T&v wapa TOK ^atriXca om. A^ {corr.) ovTe Kara ^avrairias om. A ** -7rO|3aX\€i Tavrriv Se a- om. A^ {corr.) nap avTov ypap.iw.Ta to om. A ** tA Totovhe olov Toiis a- om. A^ {corr.) T« Kn\ vopo6cTe'ur8ai om. A ** -Tou iv oSv T&i Tt/iKBT-a- om. A^ {corr.) * &i ptj pioTos jToKvs eti; om. A ** -fu TToia fie oTToiov j3iou om. A * Ka\ ISiai Kai Sriiioaiai om. A^ {corr.) ♦* -Tos Sfj vofios els fiplv card) om. A Kai Itrrfpfpiai Kai Tpowai F : om. A Y yiyvono iv itaaais irokeai om. A 5 abe\<^i) aheK^ov fj dfi«X(/>iji> om. A T iiripeKeia-Bai Ka\ Svvdpcvov om. A fi/jv fvcKa SXov Ka\ oix oKov /iepovs om. A^ {corr.) eav 8e r^r oXXijr j(a>pas aypovd/WK om. A idektiv irepovs 8e pfTaiTep\lraa-dai om. A * Kai t6 iiT) : Ka\5is fjiiiv aiinji \iyeiv om. A Koi SWo fiev oyjns, aXXo fie to opa/ifva om. A yaptiv fi yapeiuBai yiyvrirai' Toi/rav om, A KOI Kiveirai olov (rmpa vtto o-maii' re om. A^ {corr.) irai8eias avrav IvcKa, tovs fie dyavurriKTJs om. A Tav Toiourffli' ri Tras diravrai Xcyau pf/ Kiveiv om. A^ {corr.) * Xva prj e'apfp iKav6v \6yov tj (rvxvov 8te|ia)/xej/ om. A^ {corr.) pfj ^Xdirrei kokSv ti iroui : oi8e roCro : 6 fie ye om. A^ {corr.) * avTov ovK iitatovra dXKd pipfiaBai a(m iv rots ' om. A^ {corr.) pev wj fipaSiraTov, t6v 8e ^pahirarov as rdxio'Tov om. A * rj yvpvalfipevtiii fj o vvv Sf) iXiyopev TOv /wyiorou re om. A fire 8ri iv TToXtTiK^t on piv yap av tis tovtois opiK^i om. A^ {corr.) * avrbv avTov Koi Koa-prjaavra Kai (j>i\ov ytvdpevov iavT&i om. A ' A has here been doctored by altering 5^ dyopav to 5«' dyopdv. ^ So the corrector : fiffTe iripois FD. 39° DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS /iep. 609 b : * ^vx'ji' ap' ovK etrriv o Troifl aiTrjV kok^v : Knl iui\a etjiT)' a viv om. A^ (corr.) (48) Rep. 556 e: 'i^u>8ev inayofiivav rj rav hepav e^ oXiyapxovufvrjS iroXeas om. A^ (corr.) 601 a: iv fitTpioi Kcu pvOiiai Koi dpfioviai irdw iZ SoKetv \eyear6ai om. A^ (corr.) (51) Rep. 528 c : * OVK &v ireiBoivro ol irfpi ravra fiji-i/rt/coi fuyaKos to vvv exei' vvv peu yap pLa yevopivq vv^ iypa Siacfifpoirios y^s avTrjV yjnXfiv jrepi- Tijlacra ■aciToir)Ki, (reiirpav &pa Ka\ irpo T^s itn &evKa\ia>vos (fidopas rpirov TrpoTfpov uSqtos i^auriov ■j/fi'o^t'vou. to 6c Trpiy iv irepai xpovmi om. A (700) Leg. 783 b-d : * naiSmv 8e 8^ yevtaiv pera tovs yapovs Bapev, Kai pera yci/fo-ii/ rpofpqv Kai TraiSelav. Kai rax av ovrat npo'ioVTav rStv \6y(0v o re vopos riplv €Ka<7T0s jrepaivoiTo els Toxip7rpo(r6€v eVl (TvaatTia rjvtKa av\d^(ap£v tolvvv ttji pv^prji TO vvv 6q XexBivra. tccoff yap ;^p€tai» ttot* avrav Trdvrtov e^opsv : ra TTOia 8^ SiaKeXevrji I a Tois rpttrl dtapi^opeda prjpatrt. ^paacv pev eX^yopev ttov Kai dcvrepov noo'iVf Kai affypoiiiiritov 8e riva dtaTTTorja-tv rpiTov : jrdvTaiS, S ^€f€, pepvTjaopeBd ttov atv rd vvv 8iaKeXeui^t : KaXSis ^ OJn. A (717) Leg. 745 a-C : * Beols dirovepav evdoKtpds re Kai d^rjpcos &v lir]' idv 8e tis dirfiSrii TovTtoi rail vopmi, (jiave'i pev 6 ^ovXopevos f jrl rols rjpicrefnv, 6 &c 6(j)\a>v SXXo ToaovTov pepos aTroTLcrei t^s avTov KTrjaeas rd 8^ fjpiaea ratv Seav' rj 8e KT^ffts Xo>pts Tov KXrjpov 7rdvT0>v irdaa iv rat (pavipSii yeypdffjBo) irapd (pvXa^iv apxoviTtVy OLS av 6 vopos Trpoora^ijt, ottoos &v ai diKat Trtpi TraCTWi', ofrai fls XP^para, pdiSiai re S>ai Kai a(j)6Bpa opa noKei Tav {mapxdvTav ix^vra Tonov iK\e^dpevov, a vorja'aL Tt Kai ciVctv oiSfj" XaXenov. ficTO 8e toCto piprj 8(i>8iKa SieXiadai, Biptvov 'EoTt'as irpSyrov Kai Aids Kai 'Adr/vas Upov, OKpoiroXiv dvopd^ovra, kvkXov nepi^dXXovra, d(j>' ov to SadcKa pepj] ripveiv tjjv re iroXiv avrrjv Kai wdcrav Tt)v X">P''v' ina 8e hti yiyveadai ra 8a)8eKa pepr] rmi rd pev dya8r)S yrjs elvai apiKpd, to 8e ;(Eipoj'OS pel^a. KXrjpovs 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 Leg: 668 d k4ydiTC as SiroTav t} t5>u eiaLovTcav ^uoratrtr fv vypols olxeia t^i rrfs •yXaxrtrijs l^d jre(j>vKv'l a \eaivrjt fiiv etraXeit^ov (ra Ta rpaxwOevra to. 8e irapa (j>vaiv ^vveaTara rj kc XV/ieva TO. p.iv Iwayiji ra de ;^aXai Koi irav The hiopOmrrii adds in the margin, with a reference mark for insertion after x<*^$ """^ Trar, the words 6e tovtwv t&v TraOrjfji,droiv 6^11 ■npoo-pr^drjvai, (34). This is a variant (om. aCriov) 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 wronj place by the Siopfloinjy. We may notice that the intervening passage ^ujHTroo-t Se . . . xaKai Koi ttciv consists of 226 letters (17x13 = 221). The relation of this to 34 (17 x a) suggests that the model was preceded by a MS. in similar formation. Another error which must go back to the model occurs in Ej>p. 311 d-e. ct f^elfj avrois eTravopSaMTaaBai 7as airay avvovfrlas ttuvv av o'7rov8d(rai ware /SeXtio) Xey€(T6ai wept avrSiv ^ vvv. tovto GUI' T)p,'tv cti, arvv 6(m clirelv, e^eariv, et ti npa p^fj koKSis ntirpaKrai Kara rrjv epnpoadev awovaiav iitav- opBaaaaBai Kai fpya xai \6ya' irfpi yap (j)iKoiro(jiiav (l»ipi iya> rrjv oXtjOiv^v 8o|'a«' caeaBai A here has a dislocation. The words tcls avT&v (rwov(rCas . . . i-rrav- opOdaaa-dat are placed after koi epyif . . , bo^av forecrOai (63). They appear to have been omitted by the model and inserted in the wrong place by A. The correct order is given by the twelfth - century corrector (A^), with some variants, and the note ev aWig oUtios evpov. 394 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS I now turn to the "Opoi, 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. (il) 414 d: (TvyKfiiifvos om. A (13) 414 e : KoKov TO ayaBou om. A (25) 412 C : VTTOfiovri irovav evfKa Tov koKov Otn. A 415 a.: Kara hiavoiav arroTcXovfievov om. A (30) 415 e : ** -Xri^ts <^o(3os eVl wpoa-SoKtai Kaxov Ko- om. A (31) 412 e: * p^aptTor (rp^t'crir' jiVTHir] iter' evepy^v xpfj om. A (128) i,\7,2L. : * Tjpfpia ^vxrjs rrepi ra Sfiva Koi 6ap(Ta\ea Karct Tor opdov \6yov ^at|/d- IJifva. a-cDTqpla boypaTav a&ijKa>v irepi TO. Sfiva Kai ipwtipia ttoKe/uov. £^»s ippevrjTiKri vo/iov om. A The telescoped passage (30) is striking. F. 334', col. ii, ends : TO ^eeoff ^v)^s oKuylo'Tov cktt ^ The verso begins with XoKf I'a* opiKia f] npos ^do VTjV 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 op.. 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 ir seems to be original. The twelfth-century corrector adds Xt; in mg., (is ipdpos iirl irpotrSonim kukoS as an extra line, and /co- before XaKiia on the verso. THE MANUSCRIPTS OF PLATO 395 an abbreviator 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 (411 e-4ia a). The intermediate words hvhpeia l^is . . . iipbs apiTr\v contain 353 letters. Here ia8 x a = 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. * dtadco'19 Kaff fjv , . . evvofiias (73) vT) . , . ToO KoKov (25) Sapcros . . . ^iKruTTOV uviv (226) * KardXa/S^ . . . opSov i/royou (45) fXevSepia , . . cXevBepioTtjs (lH) *f^isnp6s . . , as XPV (57) TrpaoTijff . . , evepyiTiKq avOfianav (S?^) *;fdpiTof . . . evepyeaias (3I) A glance at these figures shows some curious relations. Thus 73 is followed by 514 (73 x 7 = 511), 253 is followed by 138 (128 X 2 = 356), 25 by 336 (35 X 9 = 335), 57 is preceded by iii and followed by 578. I now place them in order of magnitude : 25, 31. 45. 57, 73> "I. "6, 128, 336, 2S3' 3". 5H, 57^- The following multiples of 35 are illuminating : 35 x 3 = 75, 25 X 5 = 125, 35 X 9 = 335, 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 "Opoi, 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. Bekker in his Apparatus gives readings from a Vatican MS. no. 796, • which he terms ii. At that time (1811) it was in Paris among other 39<5 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 i2. Jordan showed that ii was itself derived from A, the proof being that omissions of ii occupy lines of A.^ The MS. itself, however, could not be found in the Vatican. Schanz says : * isi 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 Specimina 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 deiived from A. I have corrected some of his statements by the help of the facsimile of ^, 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 of A. (a) li omits complete lines of A : (20) Epp. 354 c (f. 318"^) : fj Tols dvdpaTTois ecos 84 (22) Le^. 902 e (f. 263'') : (j)aa-\v ot '\i6o\6yoi \i6ovs (25) ZiJg". 852 e (f. 246^) : « airoU en (fjv afieivov Tovs {b) 12 passes from one line of A to another. I enclose in brackets the passages omitted by i2 : (19) Leg. 922 c (f. 271^): ■7 yafiida rfXeurav : [ttSs tov TO h ^sve \eyeis] ;^aX67rdj' 924 c (f. 272') : Kar fViavTov [rpeis Kai Ka T evtavTov^ aWov (Ttpoi rpe'is ' Quaestienes de legibus Platon., p. 39. ^ Hermes xii (1877), PP- 161-72. ' A note in n states that its place in the library was changed by Mai. A description of the MS. is given by Rabe in Rhein. Miis. laii (1908), pp. 335-8. THE MANUSCRIPTS OF PLATO 397 (20) Z,fg-. 7ose(f. i8s'): I/O liov [opdas virorlBfjUii fji6 vov] This is a striking case. (21) Z^f. 844 e (f. 239'') : eK tZv favTov Spemji [iav 8' ex tSiv yeiTovwv jukok] cap 8' f ^ a\ X?/s 876 a (f. 262^) : vojMBeTriTeov [Trom 8/} VOflo6fTrjT£OV Koi] TTOlin (22) Zflwj 943 b (f. 279T) : ras ^f V [f If Toiis oTrXiVas Itt TTcar 8e] «s tovj OTTTcas xai The following case is interesting (Le^;. 717 b). A has (f. 190'): opdoTa TO ^ipoiT hv irpaTov piv il omits i^ipoiT hv . . . fiiv, but has opOoTara. Probably a line was first omitted and then opOora was corrected by conjecture. In one case 12 skips two lines oi A : (45) Demodoc. 386 a (f. 330^) : Kai Tois Tvxovmv [olpai. 8e7v miTTfveiv el 8e pr) wiarfvew Tols TV)(ovaiv\ cCJtTi o'Ui 8f iv 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 i2 is not copied immediately from A. This may be shown from the lacunae in the Laws (745 a-c, 783 b-d). In both cases A is supplemented by the twelfth-century corrector, in 745 a without comment and in 783 b with the note tv tkti t&v &vTiypAs om, B 6p6&s Xey«s om, B ^apvTcpa Kai om. B o^TS ivvoiiv om. B Koi aTifiiaii om. B dtapaxv'^'"' 'l^- B ovK &v fjLOL doKta om. B ivdova-tavTis F, om. B, cett. Anroiuvos <^^^^- 480 d : * jiri 0cidn/ici>oi> dXX' F", om. B, cett. Phaedo 100 c : ttX^w avrh to koKov om. B^ (add. Areth.) (17) Theaet. 168 a: ainoiis 8e uta-^aova-t om. E^ (corr.) (18) Crfio. 52 b : * on fir) atra^ its 'ladfiov T, Athenaeus, om. B, cett. (19) Phil. 43 b : awav hq wov Tovvavriov T', om. BT^ (21) Polit. 287 e : Kcu. e\m\)pois Kai aTrvpois om. B (23) Crat. 383 b : avrau. ye rovrai ovojm elvai ' om. B^ (corr.) Gorg. 514 b : Trfv Tex'"!" >) o"K eirurTa/ieda F, om. B^ {corr.) 7'' (25) Gorg. 483 a: arT)ai trap' iiiov ' om. B Parm. 160 d : oi8ei' tjttov yiyvaxritfTai ri to Xeyofuvov fiij eivai om. B^ at end of line {corr^ : D (42) Euthyd. 296 b : del 8' emirraiifvos worepov to /ifv touto)! inlirrairai om. B (44) Theaet. 1 92 C : o pr\ olSe kuI fir) olbe lOjbf altrSaverai b jUi) alaSdverai om. B (45) Phil. 23 C : naKKov * b' el /SovXei Tpi^^' : Koff oTt (ppd^ois av : Xd/3iBji«i/ i?»2. ^' {corr.) (46) Phaedo 96 a : ^ovKopai ye : aKove roivvv mr ipovvTOs. iya yap t^q o Kc/3);r flwz. 5^ (at^i/. Areth.) (49) Euthyd. 303 d : /'^'■f dya^ov irpaypa /irjTC Xevicbv pr)b' aXKo tSi' toioutmi' /ai)8£'i/ tf»z. B (57) Euthyphro 8d: ♦♦-toCo-ii' is oi toi» dSixoCvTa 8«i 8i8ova( b'lKqv dXX' fWco i(ri»s dii(j)i(T^ri- om. B^ {add. Areth.) (6c) Hipparch. 237 d : tlvai ix^fKfiaBai : ri oSv bq toDto : oti koi Tv ifjmobiiv fVri ovb' cmayoptvn iav re tis ^ovXriTuL om. E^ [add. Areth.) (62) Theaet. 192 br to /jLvrjuetov 6p6S>s 8 o28ev olrjB^vai adivuTov (cat 6 OiSe (cm aurBaverai exov om. B^ {corr. e'v aWois Koi ravra) (71) Theaet. 1926: ccmv 8e a\.a6a.vsa6ai : akr\6r\\ ovkovv (cai & fifj o'Se TroWdxis fiiv eoTt firjSe ala-ddve oZv TO\iTj\ov on om. B, at the end of a line. (98) Alcib. i. 134a: ouK apa olov re iav fifj ns (Ti>cf)p6bpa ye om. B (591) Theaet. 208 d— 209 a : * nam piv oSv : \a0e bfj ov X'JP'" ftpijrai. e(TTi be onep (Ipn eXeyoftev as apa rf/v biav SKkav 8iaepei \6yov &s <^a(Ti nves \fi^r)i ecus b' &V (coivoC nvos e(pdnTr)i eKeivtov irept trot earai 6 \6yos av &v rj kolvotjjs rji : fiavOdvo) Kai p.0L boKei Ka\as fXeiv \6yov TO tojoCtok KoKelv : 6s b' &v p.eT opBrjs bo^s rrepl otouoCv tS>v Svrav TTjv biaipopav rav aK\a>v Trpo(TKd^r)i avTOv iiTiafj,ev ye p^rjv ovTrjfuiTOS yeyova toO \eynfievov, (rvvltjiu ovbe (riiiKpov. eas be dipeia'T^Krj iroppadev, eaiveT6 ri jioi Xeyetrdat : nas TL TOvTO : ippdira eav olds re yevapai, 6p6fjv e'yoj'ye e^av bo^av irepX o'ov edv fiev irpoijkd^a tok o-ov \6yov om. B I have marked 57 (Euthyph. 8 d) as a telescoped passage, but without any conviction. John wrote (f. 4') : (jiacnv dbiKe'iv' ? ydp : dXij^ij \eyeis '. ovK apa eKeivo ye dp(j}ia^^r] TovfTiv TO TiS efjTiV 6 dbiicav He here omitted as ov rbv abiKovvra 8ei SiSomi hUriv a\)C eKeivo ta-ois d/x(/)K7/3TjroCo-tz'. Arethas, instead of inserting m . . . a.ixcj>ia-fir}- Tovcriv after dju^ttr/STjTovo-ti', added -rovcriv as ov . . . to-cos anipicr^r]- in the margin, The same method is followed by the correctors B and C on more than one occasion, e. g. Theaet. i6o b (36). Here John wrote (f. 91') : reov avTai eire yiyveadai airo be e'^' avTOv n ^ iv fj yiyvojxevov ovt avrai \eKTeov as 6 \6yos He here omitted opr &Xkov Xeyovros airobenTeov after XeKreov. The corrector (B), instead of inserting the missing words after KeKriov, 1633 D d 4oa DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS wrote avTm XenTeov ovt 6,X\ov kiyov- in the right-hand margin and in the next line wrote -ros aito- in ras. (over avrZi) and changed X (in XeKTiov) 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 which 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 {Euthyph. la 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. 31a e is of special interest since it comes at the end of a line. Here John wrote (f. 337'') : vov voiil 'Kiyfiv &(rjTep 6 KiBapia-rfis Seivov Sr/wov TTOifi Xcyfti/ (52) TTepl omep Koi iTriaraTai : eiKos ye : ri 81) icrriv toCto mpX ov (50) avTos Here he has omitted 97 letters after wotei kiyuv. It is tempting to arrange as lines of the model TTcpi ovTTep KaX iTntjTrjp.ova Trept Ktdapi(T€ KXetvia d\\* ovx ^''' (27) a-oeaTfpa tov iv tS>i otpdaXpLoyi ivoirrpov koi , KaBapanepa Koi XapirpoTspa, ovTta KaX 6 Beos tov iv TTji fifiCTepai ^vxrji. /SeXriorov KaBapaiTepov tc (cat XafiTrpoTepov TvyxpLvei ov '. eoiKe ye, Si SwKpnTe? : els tov 6eov apa ^Xenovres cKeivaJt KaXXttrrot ivowTpGH XP^tped^ &v Kol TOtv avOpwiTivaiV els Trjv "^vxijs apeTtjVf Koi ovTcas av paKiffTa opZipev Kcu yiyvai descends from B. It is not, however, so strong as in the case of Vat. 325-6 (A0), and the counter evidence is stronger.' I would remark in the first place that £> cannot be a direct copy of B. An intermediate MS. is required. This may be seen from certain dislocations in D, mentioned by Schanz, though he does not point out their significance. On f. 30" after Phaedo 68 b oKKa tis D has in the middle of the page Crito 51 a-53 a koI \t,aroi 6 a^ros . . . aper^ km rS, which = 43 lines of Stallbaum's text. Also in the Apology D originally omitted 35 d-37 e yap S &vbpes . . . d^!^ cmeidilv. 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. 106', 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. 33, after -vai, and ends f. 35"', 1. 35 in the middle of a line : Phaedo 68 c-69 b begins on f. 33^, 1. 3, towards the end of a line, and ends on 33^, 1. 4, in the middle of a line, while Apol. 35 d-37 e begins on f. 17', 1. j,j„ in the middle of a line, and ends on f. 18', 1. 29, before roC-. 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 : oJ fiev'HpaKXeovs, oi Se ' Axai/ievovs CKyonot, to S' 'MpaKkeovs re ■yepns Kol TO ^ Axaijiivovs els Ilepcrea Here John wrote (f. 356"") XaKcSai^o viav Koi nipcrSiv /Sao-iXfir. fj ovk. icrnfv ms 01 iiev ^paicXeour 01 de d^aLfisvovs ety Trepcrea tqv ^i6s a]/a(pep€TaL Ka\ yap to omitting sKyovoi . . . 'Axaifj-evovs. The contemporary corrector {€),, 1 Platocodex (1877), p. 56. THE MANUSCRIPTS OF PLATO 407 instead of inserting the missing passage after 'Axaifi-evovs, preferred to join it to the margin of the previous line. He therefore wrote 01 8^ 'Axaifnivovs ■ . ■ yevos /cat in the right-hand margin, erased ol 8^ 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. hyovoi . . . 'k%aniivovi. He expressly distinguishes it from B, to which he assigns ol 8e ' kyai^^vovs . . - yeVos Kal according to the marginal correction. Omissions and Dittographies. I pass over a few omissions of less than %o letters, also omissions shared by B. In Rep. x. 61 a e-end, I use the symbol d for apographs of D. (20) Rep. 535 a: Koi Tovs dvdpeioTaTovs om. D (23) Theaet. 165 c : koi to fii) opav fif) iiriaraadai om. D (24) Rep. 534 a : jih ravra 86^av crvvafKpoTepa om. D (33) R^P- 394 d : fyo) ttroJi hi /cai ttXeiq) et-i TOmiav' ov yap bf) om. D (36) Parm. 148 d : ro hi airov koi tS>v aWmv Kai toS /117 anrecrdai om. D^ (37) Rep. 563 e ; o6iv Tvpavv\s (jtverai cbs i/iol SoKel : veavLKr) om. D (39) Amat. 138 a : ^rjpi : ovkovv §1 tiiv KoXd^eiv 6p6S>s iiruTTOfieda om. D Rep. 400 b : * aWov rpoxalov avofxaCe p-rjurf Se Km ^paxvTr]Tas om. D (40) Parm. 160 c: eo-n yip : etrriv Spa Ka\ fieyeBos Te koi j] om, D (^2) Parm. 134 d : oCt' hv r\ §iVKmai ISeai ttoXXoi (Is ev yevetrdai om. D Rep. 367 d : * (jipoveh koi vyialveiv hi) koi oa>s avvSearfiov tov oipavov oiav ra iirofcofia- om. d (50) Phil. 23 e : iiTxiiTpivav icai Siea-irapp.ei'ov ISovres els ev irdXiv eKarepov om. D Rep. 330 a : T!a.m n paiSicos yripas ficTa trevias iveyKoi oSd 6 iirj inKua]! om. D (51) Rep. 328 d : dXX' ^juels hv napd ae ^tfiev' vvv Se (re xph nvKVorepov deSpo Uvai om. D Parmen. 134a: oi t^s top' ^P" "" o^^^exas t'vi\ kcli aZ iKdarr\ rj nap' rjp.w iiriirTrjpri om. D{^ (53) Alcib. i. 124 e: voi. : ciXXa tq vavrtKa Xeycis : 01! : napa tovs vavnKoiis yap &r ^fisv om. D (5 5) Rep. 462 C : KOpiSrji pev oSu : iv r}iTivi bf) irSKei TrXeioroi eVi to avTO Kara TavTo. om. D (59) Rep. 353 b: 'iariv: 2p' oZv kqi apirq o^BoKpwv iariv '. (caiopfT^: nhe&Tniv rjv Ti epyop om, D (61) Amat. 137 c: (paiveraL poi rj S' os : tI 8e JTOTfpov fjirep ^eXriovs re TTOiei Ka'i KoXdffi 6p6as om. D (62) CUtoph. 408 e : pr\hiv npovoovvras 6pS>v KaBairep nalSas as cori rif yviivauTiicrj Ka\ laTpiKT] bis scr. D (64) CritO 44 d : S Kplraiv oioi rf eivai 01 rroXXoi ra peyKrra koko e^epya^eirBai Iva oloi re Tjaav Om, D (66) Rep. 543 d : rw ixeivtji opotov xai rauTo uj 'ioiKas KaWla %ti exov emeiv ir6\iv T( Kal avSpa bis SCr. D (80) Rep. 410 d : oaoi av TOvoavriov StareBao'iv : twos fie ^ 8' 8s Trepi Xeyeis : aypto- ' rrjTos Ti Kai oKkripoTrjTos Kai av om. D (87) Rep. 554 a : imBvpias : Kal /udXa ^ 8' oy c^dSpa : ouK ap' fif e"^ do-TaffioaTor 6 rotouroff eV eavran ov8e as aXXa 8i7rXoi5s ris v iTVTvav : ap' oSv Kal Kvves 0\a7rr6pevoi )(fipovs ytyvovrai (Is Tqv tS>v Kvvatv dXX' ovk els Trjv tSiv Lirnaiv om, D (91) Rep. 583 d : KoX dyai!i)Tav yiyverai ^crv}(La : Kal OTav naiarjTai apa elirov x^'P""' Tis fj Tijs fiSovqs Tjo-vxla \v7rrjpov earai ; taas om. D (92) Phil. 32 a : hiaKpiais Se y aS Kai 8idXi)(ris r\ napa (j){i(ri.v Tov nviyovs jrdBrj Xinr]. Kara (pvo'LV 8' fj TrdKiv aTToBoais re Kal ^v^is fjSovfi om. D (112) Phaedo 97 e : xijn alriav koI TrjV dvdyKijv Xeyovra to apeivov koI on avrrp/ apti- vov rjV ToiavTr]v elvai Kal el iv pAaiM (palri elvai, airrjv eireKbiijyrjireaBai om. D (141) Polit. 265 e : 7re{^ovopiKriv 8te\&v oTrdSos enaTepwv Tm /upei Xdyat XP'"!^^'"'^' fiv yap ovopd^eiv avra fiovXrjdqis coral O'oi irepiiTeirKeypevov pdWov tov SeovTos : nSis oSi> xph ^eyeiv '. v : TreuTOfieda fiev oSv : biairvBoiievoi, apa tov deov ttSs D has hv irws med. om. Rep. 607 a : u fivovs deois Kai iynafua rots ayadols iroiricreat napade KTeov D has VKTeov med. om. This error is shared by a number of later MSS., apparently derived from D, e.g. vKTiov, Ven. C, kuTiov Par. DK, ov\ fKriov q. Others are said to omit v\wovs . . . -napabeKTiov.^ Rep. 616 c : f' vai yap tovto to (pats (Tvvbmp.ov tov ovpavov olop ra vno^infia Ta d has eira med. om. There are 1 8 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-a. 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-a. 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 Phaedo 64 e. Here an omission of 4a letters comes immediately after one of 43. Between them comes enoiye SoKet l^rj. This indicates Kad' ocrov fir) jroXX^ avayKr) fUTex^iv aiTaii : aTifm^eiv (43) c/xocyc SoKft i's d\ri6Sis (f>i\6(rofi.^6a el r]fiiv Koi TTjibi ofioKoycls etre Kai otf. (pepe Tois. to 6p6- ftara iv Tois TToXetrt Ttdefievovs eKao'TOTe ev re Tois EXX17 WKais Kal ^ap^apiKms OVK dpTLas SfioXoyovp,^!/ vopoderas sivai Koi rr)v Te)^VT]v ttjv tovto bvvap,ivr]v vofiodeTiKTjv : irdw ye : \eye Sij ot TrpaiTOi vofioderat ra wpSiTa ovopara norepov yiyvaxxKovres to. Trpdypara oh erWevro eTiBevro f] ayvoovvres : oXpai pev eya, & SaiKpares, yiyvaxTKOvres : ov yap ■nai, S> eraipe KpariXe, dypo- ovVTes ye : ov poi 8oK€t : eK ttoiwv Se The words introduce a fresh point and make a good sense. Former editors adopt the passage except e/c ttoCcov be, but Bekker gives a sense by proposing to assign the words to Socrates, explain- ing fK TTOicov be yiyvaxTKOVTes. I do not understand Burnet's note ' add. eadem manus ex itolcav be ut significet a i eiraveXOooi/.ev . . . a 7 elbora 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 in. rec. corrections made by the ancient diorthotes m A. 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 Krdl, 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 PF is a fait nouveau 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 are long omissions in particular MSS., e.g. Leg. 745 a-c, 783 b-d in A, Theaet. 208 d-aoga in B, and, in all our MSS., Alcib. i, 133 c. It is easier to omit than to invent. T The ancient part of this MS. (cent, xii), ff. 5-2 ia\ contains Tetr. i-vii, and part of viii, viz. Clitopho, Rep. i-iii (ending 389 d Spa deijo-et). The remaining folios, 213^-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 in B or A, it is the chief authority. At the end of Tetr. vii it has after the Menexenus (f. 197"') the interesting note reAos tov a ^ifSkiov. 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 Pkilebus, 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 are recorded. I pass over some un- important cases of 10-13 letters. (14) Apol. 33 d : Kal n/juopc'ia-dai om. T Crai. 385 e : * exdoTau eViois om. T Phaedo 64 b : (cai oiou Qavaiov om. T (15) Euthyd. 286 e : ouSe KeXeveis 5ti om. T (19) Phil. 43 b : oKav 81) jrou rohvavriov om. T^B Phaedo 77 b : * eVrlv vphs to anuiriiv om. T^ (zi) Crat. 388 d : orav tSi Tpvrrdvai XP^'"'" "^^^ T 4ia DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS (23) Hipp. Min. 365 e : on ttoioSo-ji' ^ cTricrTavTai F, om. TW (23) Gorg. 514 b : t^j/ tcx'"!" "7 o^" cTruTrdfifBa om, TB^ Soph. 248 d : ^ TO /ifv iradiiia to Se Sarepov om, T (24) Laches 179 c : jroXt/xmi fipydaavTO koi oaa ev Otn. T^ Phaedr, 247 e : * a \dyor n-oXis 3i/ cl'i; SieXflfii' ow. 7" (28) Ainat, 138 d: *mpi tS>v Xeyo/ievmv rj npaTTOiievav om, T (29) Ainat. 1336: * fiyovfiai yap op6S>s '. Tjpim^tTa ovv iya> OM. T (34) Gorg. 467 d : S^Xov on to vyiaivn-v ov cvcxa irivovcnv om, T^ {'add, in, I, ut videtur ' Schanz) (35) Soph, 260 C : *a.vayKa'lov aXrjdrj wavT flvai fuyvvfiivov Se om. T^ (53) Theaet. ly/ t : Xeycra TO ovofia aWa to irpayp.a to ovofia(,6p£vov BeapelTui : firi yap oin, T (54) Crat. 384 a : * ohhiv tittov tovt chai opdbu to p,eTaTe6fi> toC nporepov Kdjiivov om. T. (59) Theaet. 190 C : * eVi tS>v iv fiipet eVciS^ TO prjjxa iTfpov Tmi iTipai KaTa pjjjui Tavrdv eariv om. T (64) Phaedo 103d: Tidw ye : xai to wvp ye aS wpoaiovTos toC \jfvxpov avTm ^ VTre^ievai rj dTroXe^trdat om. T (87) Crat. 433 d : ye : afCkk to elvai tS>v ovojxaTcnv to. pcv e'x npoTepav avyKiipfva, Ta de TTpSiTa^ ov Kn\5)S (TOl 8oKel XeyeaQai '. ipxil Oin. T^ (103) Parmen. 143 e: Te SJo to 81s iv koI tS>i Tpla to Tp\s ev : avdyKr) : 81)011/ Se SvToiv Kol 81s ovK avdyttr) 8i'o 81s elvai Kal TpiSyv Kai Tp\s OVK avdyKr) aS om. T^ (119) Polit. 275 a : * ^eov dvri Qviyrov TavTr\i piv wdpiroXv iTapr)vex^1l''^v' on 8e (Tvp- Trao'ijs T^s fftiXeeos lipxovTa aiTov aTtf^rjvapfv ovTiva be Tponov oil dieliropfv TavTr/i 8e om. T^ The last case is doubtful, since for rpoirov ov tui-nojiev T^ gives TpoTTonev. If this corruption was in the model, the total is 1 10. Schanz has already drawn attention to the case of 35, which is not explained by 6ju. He compares it with the omission of Xoiboptlv &T ova dbm naKbv ovbev ovbevoi (36) by B^ (corr) in Theaet. 174 c, and suggests that 35-6 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, 35, 64. The three cases of 53-9, two of which are not explained by o\t.., 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 ofj.. 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 TpoTToixev should be credited to the model and the passage reckoned as no (35x3 = 105). The important variants which show a cleavage between the different families are FM. 43 b (19), HtpJ>. Min. 3656 (aa), Gorg. 514 b (33), and it is more probable that here we have indications of the archetype. The evidence is very unfavourable to the hypothesis that T repre- sents a missing volume of A. If this were so, we should expect to find a number of omissions of aa-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 {t). Rep. ^113,. The model here had : va as evapyecTi 8e8o^a(TiifVois Tf Koi T«TtfH)fiej/oiy fiavBavai (49) exel t, omitting -va . . . fiavdava 394 b : * Kai TOVTO ci^ij fxavBavto on eoriv ro nepi ras rpaycoiSias towvtov (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) Phdedo 80 1 : * koto -ravra exovti tavTai o/ioidraTOK av (41) Cratyl. 437 b : * fiovKei r) dfiapria Koi fj crv/iCJlopa el Kara to ovofid ns Hipp. Ma. 284 e : oi eiSorer r\ 01 p,i] eiBorts '. ol jroXXoi : flv apitTTav om. F (13) Hipp. Ma. 303 c : 8e fi^ ^ iKcerepov om. F (14) Gorg. 507 c : el be eanv oKtjd^ om. F^ Hipp. Ma. 302 b : kox & Sv Ucaepos om. F 303 d ; 6ii6Koyovp,tv yap om-, F Rep, 374 b ; SKKa itkutotopuov om. FA (15) Rep. 420 e : naxapiovs noielv om. F^ (17) Rep. 373 e : 6 ir6kep,os epyd^erai Om. F 421 C : TTOiEiv Kai tteiareov om, F^ 558 a : * ov Ko/i^lj 5 oCtto) eiSes om. F (19) Gorg. 467 C : hr^Kov oti to iyiaiveiv ' om. F^ Rep. 463 e : oti to ip,ov eS irparrei fj om. F (20) Hipp. Ma. 285 a : ahXa yxpi ai^iKifir^aovTW. om. F Tim. 32 a : totc to fieirov p.ev nparov om. F (23) Meno 93 b : a.peTr\v rpi avToi ayaBoi r\iT0.v om. F^ in lac. (24) Gorg. 456 c : t^i pr/TopiKrli xpw^"^ SxTnep om. F^ in lac. (25) Rep. 462 C : TO tokiSe pr^pjora to re ep,ov Kai bis scr. (26) Rep. 5760 : * Tois be troXKois jroXXa Kai fioxet om.. F (38) Rep. 372 d : ti av avras SXXo 5 ravra exopra^es om. F^ (31) Rep. 457 d : oi/c olpMi, ^v &' eya, Ttepi ye tov axjieXipov om. F (33) R^P- 466 b : pi\ JTiji KaTa tov tS>v cnarroToiunv (j)qiveTai om. F (35) Min. 317 b : ou : ohhe p.fTaOrjaovral irore Trepl tS>v avrav om. F Rep. 367 b : ov8e to aSiKov etiim ^eyeiv oKka to SoKetv om. F^ -505 d : Ti 6c T&be oil (jiavepov, i)S Sinala piv Ka\ Ka\d om. F (36) Rep. 438 b : Koi to eaiptevov fiel^ov f(Topievau eKaTTovos om. F cut. 410 d : Kat t2\\u iravTa oiou p.e vvv ovTcor elprjKevai om. F^ 1 T here has a further omission. 4i<5 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS (38) Rep, 475 C : * v(Tecos fi^pT) orav Ofn, F (47) Rep, 416 C : OTi fiei avToiis Tijs 6p6rjs TV^elv iraibelas ^ns TTOri iariv Oin. F^ (49) Rep, 553 '^ ■ *h^ a\iyap-)(i,av KoKoCviv CK TiiirjpdTav e}(ov(ra tovs ap)(OVTas om. F (50) Rep, 510 e: ypa(^ov(nv Kai rSXXa ovrtas aiira p.€v ravra A TrTidrrovatv re /cat om. F (51) Hipp. Ma. 303 a: fTnyiyvotTO Kal eKarepai Koi emep (Karepioi Kal d/xipOTepois om. F^ (52) Meno 75 d : dtroKplvicrdm' eori 8e "eras to BiaKeKTiKarepov p,^ povov TaKr]6rj om. F^ (57) Rep.^i,/^c: rj KprjTiKrj T£ Kni AaKCDViKrj avrr) Kal Sivrepa Kal SevreptDS iiraivov- fiivrj om. F (58) Rep, 426 b ; ei^ij. to yap tZi eS Xeyovn xaKetTalvtiv ovk e)(ei x^piv ', ovk iiraivi- TTjs €t om. F (59) Rep, 585 b: rl pf]V'. ayvoia Se Kal df^pocrivr) ap ov Kivdrrji cVtI rrjs Jre/Ji yjrv\r]V a5 e^etos om. F (65) Gorg. 465 C : 6Vi o KoppmriKri TTpbs yvpvaaTLKfjv rovTO o\^07roitK^ irpos larpiKrjV, paWov Se (oSf (7»z. F, ArisHcies {cent, ii A.D.) (85) /?«^. 350 d : KaKiav TE Kai apadiav, eUv, fjv 8' fym, toCto /iej' iipHv ovTa KeicrBa, et^aipev Bs 8f] Kal lo'xvpov uvai ttjv ddiKiav bis scr, (96) Rep. 354 a : 6 pXv Sixaio; apa evbaipav, 6 8' aSiKos SdXtos', ecTO) ^4"! ' oXXa fiijj/ a^Xtdi' ye eicai ov Xuo'tTeXei, evSaipova Se : ttSj yap ov om. F (107) ^^^. 465 d : CTa>Tr]piav Tpov /3(or 8eiTat airoi tc Koi TTalSfS dvaSovvrai Ka\ yipa bex°VTai irapa ttjs avrSiv iroXeas bis SCr. (127) Rep, 506 d: yap r\p\.v kKv atjirep hiKaiouvvr\s mpi Kal (f)poiTvvris Kal rmv aXKiov SirjXdes ovrm Kal Trepi toO dyadov 8ie'X5?;ir : Kal yap epoi, ^v 8' e'ya, & iralpe, Kal pAXa dpKe'cret bis scr. To these may be added : (183) Minos 313 b: T) cat Xdyoj o-ot SoKei e'j'at to. Xeydftevn 5 o'V"^ ™ opapiva jj aKof) Ta aKovopeva ; ^ aXXo pev Xdyoy, SX\o 8e to Xeyd/iej/a ; Kai aXKo pfv S-^is aXXo 8e ra opinpeva, Koi Sk\o piv aKorj, aXXo 8e Ta (XKOvd/xeva Kal ofXXo 817 vopoS) dWo 8e Ta vojUtfdjtieva ; The passage is written twice in F, but on the second occasion the words rj S,\\o ixkv \6yos . , , tiXXo be ra aKovojxeva (89) are omitted. The omission seems accidental and due to dpi.. In this h'st 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 = 137. 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 5a 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 : rtvos op6S>i (12) Meno 99 c : (vdovaiavrts (14) Gorg. 492 b : koi StKatoarivijs (15) Gorg: 460 e: kgI aBiKcos xp^rai 480 d: * fifj (jieiSoitcvov oXX* (21) Tim, 47 a : xai lirriiifpiai KQi rpoTrai (22) I/ip, Min. 365 e ; Ti jroioOirii' i\ imaravrai w This MS. contains Tetr. i.-vii., with the exception of two dialogues in Tetr. iv. [Alcib. ii., Amat.), 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 rdSe h\ . . . ov /not 60/ceT, for which he quotes an inferior MS. (Gud.). Burnet has used some readings communicated to him by Krai. Grenfell and Hunt oij, Oxyrhynchus 843 {Symposium) refer to a collation placed at their disposal by Prof. H. Schone of Bale, from which they mention an interesting omission in ao8 d. The omissions mentioned by Krai and Schone are : (27) Lys, iog C : iv oh Be apn ekeyoiuv KoKvovtri OWl. W^ (35) Meno 97 C : rdre 6' oC : jrSy Xeyeir, o del t-)(av op6r\v 86^av om. IV (43) Symp. 208 d : Sv 9 'AxtXXea narpoKXaii tvoTsoBavfiv r\ npoairodavtiv Otn. W (87) Meno 77 c : d/i<^drepa efioiye fioKci : 5 yop 8o/cf t ti's iroi, & M('i/cai', ytyixutTKraif TO KoKa oTi KOKa fiTTtv, opas irriBvpeiv avrmv om. W^ (88) Meno 74 e ; a-x^jfa ^^"01 rj to ei6v ^ ov^ ovra Xe'yejj : cyiaye : ip' oSv orav ovTii) Xeyijir rdre ovd(i> /uSXXoi' (/>ijtr to arpoyyvKov om. W The relation between 43, 87, 88 is very striking. E e CHAPTER XIII THE PARIS MANUSCRIPT OF DEMOSTHENES Paris. 2934 (S), cent, x, is a large MS., consisting of 534 fif., i. e. nearly 67 quaternions. It is written in two columns, with 3 a lines to the page. I have counted the letters on the verso of f. ^6, 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,iaa in a folio. The average content of a line in f. 36'' is nearly 25 letters in col. I and exactly 2,4 in col. ii. Single lines vary from 20 to 30 letters, the numbers being distributed thus : (20) I ex. (25) 13 exx. (21) 5 exx. (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. S 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-o)- Here the words o^tS 8e vixas . . . airavT aiT(i\iTo are written a second time at the foot of the page with a reference mark in the margin AetVei in tov Ktifxivov, fTjret Kirta. Dindorf points out that the passage must have been omitted by some MS. with which 6" was collated. In xxi. 69 ovh' eveavLevtraro . . . vTTio-Triv ovTAkaiov. Various small omissions are repaired by the scribe, e. g. ff. 103^ ■irpbs avrbv ov, 128' 6 brjuos, 143'' -npds t6v, 343' Tr\s W^pas, 384^ KaO' eKaria'eTi (23) = 44 The omission is not recorded by Dindorf, probably because the work of the first hand is so manifest. Fuhr says " e'6p.€voi ^pruxara Xajx^avovcriv (47). The supple- E e 2 430 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 Ae'yorras aei other MSS. (so add.) give heWev. Other passages ascribed by Dindorf to m. i are : (27) f. 334'' (xxxv. 56) : eyjfr]aviav r/SiKrifJvov Kai wpotKos dXijSii'^f djreortpij- fievov 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 manu anti- quissima, fortasse prima\ viz. : (22) f. 108' (xxiii. 198) *tS>v Tipav Tois infpPoXais 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 23-7 letters. I now mention three occasions where 5' has an omission in lacuna, viz. : (17) f. 250^ (lix. 9) : * ws Kupijfaiot ctrjirav (29) f. 250^ (lix. 8) : * Tois SiKaaras SUaiov opyl^eirdai Here S leaves blank a small space at the end of a line, also a complete line. The probability is that the model had TOVS SiKaa-Tas SUaiov opyi^eaBai (25) (88) f. 389' (liv. 2) : *& TTfjrovff aKoiarfte. beivrj! yap oucrijr T^f t6t€ irvfi|3d(r;;s v^pfois oiiK eXaTTav if fiera TavT do'cX'yetd eVrt tovtovl The relation of 88 to 32, 47 dis 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 : Trap ercpoiv cfiei dovras eV riav irpoatovrav For ttpoa-iovTwv S has irpoT^f)wy aiovTcov. This indicates in the model Trap' c Tcpav f 8ei B6vTas iK tS>v irpo (23) tri6vTs peyaXuijrvxoi. \eyoVTai avev yap ape 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 5 : xxi. 40 : jrawa fiaWov tj Tavra X«Tto» (24) irav yap isavra (before y&p) S. 1 50 : ovbiva olpai rpoieov (fifpew (23) aide oibsva (for oiihe) S. 1 J. A. Stewart, English MSS. of the Nicomachean Ethics, p. 44. 43a DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS xxvii. 42 : TO. 8io rdXavTa Si/^o^SvTt Koi (24) rds Koi TO Syg jaXayra rds 5^. xxviii. 4 : rfyefdva fie TTjS a-vfifiopias KaraaTria-as (24) 5 repeats ^e after KaTaorrjo-ay. XXXV. 3 : fiev oSv ToiovToi elaW fya> (22) 8' a av8p€s iyu) ij,(y 8 S. xxxix. 3 : e^anaTr;6e\s iim TfjS tovtovI (24) fiijTpor Ofioo-ao-ijs f^airarricrAcrris for fxriTpds ofioa-daris S. xliii, 32 : KOI fit Tov oiKov oScra toC 'Ayvi'ou (26) fVfiSdc 5 repeats xai before iirnbdv. Iviii. 62 : iifiSv oiStij ibe iniKel^ovinv (24) 01 6' has i/xas before ol. 68 : jieraa-xiiv t^s xai Tois ^evois (25) bt. S : xi)pav eiuat Tav r}perep(ov npoyovtav {24) Ttpoyovatv ft S. The example found in Iviii. 63 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 a'34 letters (33 x 10 = 230). We can now arrange the model : vfias ovSils as cTriKfiil/ovaiv (24) oi TOIOVTOI prjTOpes ovS' a>s (22) &ia TOVTO x^'^po" >? wdXw oiKij (24) iTfTM' ToivavTiov yap iariv (23) 5 0)5 iyta tS>v rrpfirPvTfpav aKovo) (24) TOTf yap (23) tppovis avSp€s inoKiTfvovTO (24) THE PARIS MANUSCRIPT OF DEMOSTHENES 433 iTOTepov yap (rvft|3avXov; fvpoi (25) 10 Tis &v TovTovs dyadoiis dXX' (22) ov8ev iv Tail d^/xoii Xeyoviriv (^3) aWa Toiis \eyovTas dei ypa(f>6 (24) fiivoi xpflliuiTa \ait^dvovv itera ttoXX^s (23) = 48 ivSdas S has TTfiy before evbelas {ttjs L). xxvii. 35 : 8uo raXavra hr\pja^aiv S' iirra Koi oySo^Kovra (25) fivas' TovTo 8' fiTTi TrevTf rdXaiTQ (26) =5' KOI TrciTCKaiSf xa /ivaL S inserts kw. ■nevreKalbeKa nvas (from 1. 4) after rdXavra in 1. 1 xlvii. 27 : KKtjTfipes lupjipTvprjKatnv' a>s Sf €i(T^ (22) ;iffli; Ely to diKoorijpioK Xa/3e' (23) = 45 6" has /[^ot before ixmapruprfKOdiv as well as after ka^L XXxi. 3 : fv6iis dbiKtlv /SouXd^fi/os i(f«u (25) Sell idrjKfV fKfivovs eiKos Km (26) = 51 roi5rous 5 substitutes tovtovs for evflwy in 1. i. Ivii. 40 : tSk (pparipaiv tS>v avyyevav (22) tSv t^s p.jfrpos Koi 8rip,oTav (22) = 44 papTvpias S has jxaprvpias before r&v v as well as after hr)noT&v. {b) Three lines : xviii. 56 : a. /lev SiaKei Tov ^\ni^iTa jSatrtXeo); 6' has (f>avep&s . . . ^acnXiuis after 'ApLo^apCavri as well as sua loco. With this we may probably connect : xviii. 25 : t^v ilpijtniv fj irdXir ivravda nd (25) Xiv (TKe^lraa'dc rl fjp^v ixdrepos (25) TrpofiXfTo irpdrreiv koi yap tK (25) TOUTffli' et(T«(rfl« Ti'r ^k 6 (jJtXiirrrai (27) = I02 5 TTOVTa For TrdvTa 5'Z.^ have re t^v elprjvrjv. 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. 35, xxxi. 3) justify the arrangement. (d) Six lines : X. 69-70 • T^l p,fU Kara t^c ayopdv eiirripiai Xa/x (25) Trpol T^i &' &v npoiTTJKe napatrKev (25) rjt KarayeXaoToi' ov rov avTov (24) 5 he rporrov ■Ttepi re vpmv Koi tte (23) pi avrSiv iviovs ratv Xcyovrav (24) opS ^ovXfvofievovs' vfids fiev (23) = 144 yap S has yhf) from 1. 8 after n; fj.ev in 1. i {oix). {e) Eight lines : Iv. 26—7 : fh TTjv 6S6v e^dyeiv elaSarf aXX' ov pa (21) 6t" fi(TmrKovTa tlbivm jrept Si; av (23) Tos ovbiv f |e« threlv dUai (23) ov airoSiSpaiTKetv T^v a\fi (21) 5 Sfiav eirei koL eym !> avSpes (22) SiKaaraX Travriuv v/xav fl86 (22) TiBi» &v Tp&irov dvayiuur8e\s 6 (23) wartjp fiov cVot^o-aro Tourovr (24) Qvdev 180 6' inserts iSwepfflr (sic) from 1. i before ovbiv in I. 9. The relation of 180 to 90 (xv. 9) is to be noticed. (/) Twelve lines : xlvil. 74~S i^tiiSo/uaprupimK aare anoKa^eiv fie to. ivexvpa (24) Kai 6 7recd^ eberjdrjv avrov ava (24) ^a\f 426 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS be ovban&s fiiv av f^ovk6fxr]v. In Prooem. xl S gives j3ov\evea-6ai eyi) be oybafj.&f. The intermediate passage here consists of 597 letters. This might be connected with 290 in xlvii. 74-5 and explained as 34 lines (390 X a = 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 • ^^ 'ApetoirayiraL . . . aKovovras avT&v 89-107 : ^eXriovs ecrecrde . . . o/wXayovfiivas apiarovs These blocks of text are transposed in S} They do not coincide with folios in S, 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. *HtKimros i^rjXaBri Tois p^v on\ois (20) 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 : oi \fyeis Kaicms Toiis TfTeAeuri/Koray tSiv eiepycrav S inserts eC after tovs. This indicates : Toiis TcreXeurijKOTas tS)V (17) ficpyerav 438 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS Other examples are : iv. 30: fv Tols ^IrtjtjiicriiaiTi Kai (18) 5 repeats h after koL xviii. 305: Kara TO. iita y]n]po(ria. lix. 15 : jToielv Ti tS)V vopiiofihav (16) iiTrep S repeats n before virip. Ix. 20: o(!rE KaXXi'o) irpd<^a(rii< (18) S has oirt for tov. I would also call attention to : xxiii. 157: e^rjXiyxBri to irpayp' fir dvTO(j)aipa S inserts (fiavep&s, an obvious gloss, before to. This indicates : (^riKeyxdr) TO irpayn' sir avTO(paipai (18) fng'. (jiavepms In the following cases the writer seems to have looked forward, or backward, two lines : Xxi. 137 : TrjV kot' d^iav tSiv ire (16) iTpayp.ivav irapa Toirav (19) = 35 &LKT]U S ^ repeated r^v before hUriv. THE PARIS MANUSCRIPT OF DEMOSTHENES 429 Ix. 15: npoa-WTafUva yap ndvra €1! eva Kaipov (17) bvfTKpiTov KaB'uTTTitri (18) = 35 ftoi 5 has /xot after y&p as well as suo loco (so FO). Ixi. 12-13 • "^"^ KaTafTTTjirai naX piv (19) hi] Km rStv opapxvav (16) = 35 ^ has (rouj>ave(TTdTov in 1. 3. Here either the writer looked back to , or a variant tovtov mricif (l8) The MSS. repeat ovk before elp-L With this we may compare : iii. 7 : TovTo ireTrpaKTai vmi (l8) So edd. 5 has tovto ire'irpaKTai vvvi tovto, and so apparently F^. Other MSS. give ireirpaKTai vwl 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 : «£ 5e Toi/s tTVKo(])avTas (l6) ayfiv So FL. S repeats 6e' before S.yeiv, while A Y have ih toi/s 6.vTai h' &yeiv. 43° DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS 3x. 4 : Sirai'ar nv tis vvoXdBoi Toi/s iih enrjKvbas i\66vTas els ras rroXeis Km tovtihv TToXtVaff TTpQfrayopevofiiVovs ofioious elvai rois eliTTrotrjTO^s rant TraLOap The MSS. place ds rhi (tovs S) before fTtriXvbas. The words appear to have been inserted in the wrong place after previous omission. This suggests : TOl/S ll€V eTrrjXvBas i\66vTas (l6) mg. els Tas jroKeis I add an interesting transposition : 1. 17 : haveiaajievos eym apyvpiov Trap' 'Apxe&ripov /jex toC 'Ai/a0XvoTi'ou TrevTeKai&eKa pLvas eniTOKOv, oKTaKomas be Spaxpas irapa NiKin-Troii tov vavK\ripov vavriKov dveiK6prjV, os ?Tu;(fi' S)V iv STjCTTa, enoySoov So the MSS. The words 6y hvxev Siv ev Stjotqji (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 ' kva(f>Xv ixiv yap ^yovjxai o-TpaTimras belv KaTaa-K.fva(rOr}vai, icai ravT elvai aTpwrimTiKO. Koi p.lav (rvvra^iv elvaL. Here editors strike out Kol tout' etvai aTpaTKaTiKo,. It is to be noticed that the repeated words, raw' eivai orpantoTucd consist of 20 letters, while /xa Ai' ov/c . . . KaTao-Kivaa-Orjvai Kal 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 (bis), 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 = 17 x 2, i.e. two lines of a previous MSS. We may compare the following corruptions : XXIV. 100 : Tar Trpd^eis Kara rovs vwdpxovTas vo/tovs (34) These words are given twice by the MSS. in the same sentence, viz. after t&v tyyvrjT&v and sua loco (after KaTo. Tommv ilvai). The intermediate passage consists of 113 letters (17x7 = 119). lix. 63 : ipdoTOpa 8' e'K{3a\di/ra re Trjv Bvyarepa Tqv VIealpas tquti/ctI yfipavTa . . . /col' Trjv irpo'iKa ovK d77o86vTa So edd., the MSS. place rt after yrjuavra. This suggests : fK^aKovTa mg. Tf Triv 6vynTfpa t!)!/ vfai (l8) pas TavTr)i eK irevTe kol eiKoatv erav (38) The words are placed here (after ndprvpas irapacrxoixevos) by edd. In the MSS. they come in § 9 after ahiav yjfevbfj, where they destroy the sense. The interpiediate passage Kal I^m . . . ahCav \jrevbrj 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 33-4 letters attested by the bulk of the corruptions in S. 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 S 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. 39 : fitfihav npoTTfiv Ti hirj' el fitu oiv mrohovTiov vfiSiv. S here omits d jxev o^v airobov- (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/til. iii. (16) viii. 7 : Kal dvayKaWTaTOv om. SL 17 : 8tacj}6ap^(reTai Kal om. SL xviii. 100 : tv oir iitiarfvBrfre om. S 257 : * /icy ovri. (jioiTav eh om. SL xix. 25 : Koi KaTTfyopovvTos om. SL^ XX. 15 : KOI rrji fifffawTrin om. SYOPQ xxiii. 152: Kal ToC ^rj(l>Laii.aTos om. S XXV. 28 : «r TO evTOi rovretv om. S XXXV. 36 : * v aSiKovvrmv om. SA xxxiv. "J : *Th. xprif^oT eveBer' eh om. S lix. 9 : * (US Kupijvaioi eofiTav om. S {in lac.) Ix. 1 2 ; * irapa Tois TrpoySvois Ofn. S (18) ii. 21 : tSk Ka6' eKaara caBpSiv om. S iv. 28 : Toir arrpaTevopevois om. S X. 73 • ^"■o '■"" ''rpoyovav fjfuav om. SA^ THE PARIS MANUSCRIPT OF DEMOSTHENES 433 (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) xvni. 279 : Koi Traaav ex^' Kaxiav om. S xxiii. IS : « « 170601. Xapibtjiios om. SF xlu. 16 : *rrpl>s Tovs aTpnTtjyois om. S xllll. 71 '. KOI napavevoiJirjKaaw om. S xlviii. 56 : HKKas t( Ka\ roiavTrji om. S xvii. 3 : * Anovr fix oXpMi iravT€i om. SA^ xix. 320 : * rols oirXois Swria-erni om. S X. 43 : * oifiai dXX' oiSe rav liWwv om. S XXV. 82 : * Sij iraftnovTjpos Spdpamos om. S xxxiv. 47 : * vvv Ta ivavria papTvpei om. SF viii. 76 : * oiTtt. txv divrnvTM Trji 7r6\ei om. SL} xviii. 253 : xm rov 'An-oAXoo rov Tlidiov om. SDA^B^ 265 : f^u/Jevtr, t'yoi fi' ixopijyovv om SL^, rhet. duo xix. 278 : * elvai KeXevfi rfjv elprjvrjv om. SA xxi. 161 : * Kav avaiBev apxea-Bcu SokIji om. SA xxiii. 198 : * rav ti^Sv rair vnep^oXais om. 5' {add. m. antiqud) XXV. 14 : * TOLs ifieTepois fiovXfvixam om. S xlix. 52 : * Tct ive)(ypa tS>v Baveia-pidTcov om. S XXV. 40 : * oAr trvKocfiavTSiv napepx^Tai om. S (24) xxxviii. 18 : * Tori S' as napahovTos 8ia>KeT€ om. S (25) viii. 75 ; * inivi Km irepl iiv &v 6 biiv ein-ijt om. S (26) xviii. 154 : xai tS>i koivSil rav ^ A/jLCJyiKTvovav om. SL xxxvii. 27 : ra e/iavTov (IXofirjv KOfjiiaairBai om. S Ix, 17: Ti TrpaKTeov eVti Ttji de triifeTai om. S XXV. 87 • TO Ka& avTQV. (Soire 6* &v ivrevOev om. S XXXV. 56 : e-\lfr](f>ia-iievoi, xal ire piaiprjaeaBe om. S^ {add. m. l) xxxix. 40 : TLs 8' hi fiijjrM iraibes dv (rvKotjiavToivTcov Kpivopevos om. S Ivii. 10 : ov irXeiovs fj TpiaKovra' iv 8e tovtois r/aav om. S^ {add. m. l) xl. 54 ■ * i"rep Sx av Xeyi/i xai p,i) vp.as (j)dv epyav tS>v dpyvpeiav Kol rocrovTav irpocrobaiv om. S xiv. 18 : * SevTepav ckotov irevre Kal twv rphav (Karbv irivre om. S {in fine col.) xxiv. 86 : * i4> 2)' Kareo'TriO'e row eyyvrjras d^ei(r6aL roO de(Tpov om. SA YO (46) Iviii. 46 : ei 8' iypi^ar av, ttSis ov beivdv iiTTiv irepov jxiv ypi^avTos om. S (47) Iviii. 62 : aXKa rovs Xeyovras del ypatfiopsvoi ^rjpaTa Xap^dvovcriv om. S^ {add m. i) (49) xxxvi. II : Kal Xa^av a'peo-iv 'AjroXXoSiopos atpeirai to d(T7ri.8o7rr]yf'Lov om. S less F f (27) (29) (30) (32) (33) (34) (37) (38) (40) (42) 434 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS (51) xlv. 25 : eViV^fr" ivdvixetcdf on tS>v StaBiiKav yfyparrrai tS>v Haaiavos Oin, S (52) xix. 147 : * vvv hi fj fiiv TToXit t£c avr^s aif)ea-TriKev, ovtos Si xPW'"''- ^'^V'P'" A : om. S, plerique. xxii. 67 : * yxrixowTiv av ahiKovaiv ti/iSc raifs, otto hi t5)V elinrpcnTOfievav Om. SDYO (53) xiii. 32 : a n-por ^Xiao-iov; ote f^fireaviav iihiKiqjiivov Koi TTpoiKos dXij^ti'^s airev 8' 6 tS>v ivavriav tjyepiiDv vrreprjipe Tois eVi Toiraii Taj^divras, ovxi Tovs TToXXoiiy oUt' eKfivcov ovff f]p,li>v alTiAaaiT av tis (LKoTas om. S (128) xxxvi. 25 : Ka\ oa-a tis ck^tjkcv fi djrijXXa^ey. eiKOTais. ft yap iari SUatov av Av ana§ yivrjTai hUr) prjKfT ((eivai SiKafec^at, ttoXu t&v av hiKaioTcpov pf) eivai SUas om. S (137) ^''- 5 ■ "^^' *' ""' "s iiXKos fTTUTTap,evos irapaKpowdrjvai av ipas oUtoi {mb Twv ravTavda hioiKrjaftv as av avTos fKelvos ^ovXTjTai Ka\ rrplv vTreo'x^p^vtov Ka) vvv hi npaTTOVTiav om. SI}- (170) lix. 87-8 : TO. hrjpOTfXij i<^' rji fiv poi)(os aiKStC iav h' ficriijj vijrroii'fi 7raa\iTio n &v ndirxii jrX^v Bavdrov, fiovXopai Toiwv vp,iv, & avhpes 'ABrjvaioiy mi ToC h^pov Tov 'AStjiiaimv paprupiav napacrxio'dai i)S oiTav cis (16) and to, xpniJ-o-T eveder els (17) destroys the sense. I have already indicated (p. 420) the importance of the addition of 34 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 5a. These may both be explained as 26 x a, 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 have 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 '^ = ^^)- The second passage, xxii. 67, runs as follows : TO rouT-av dbriov eya vpXv ema ; on toutbi/ [lev p-erix^i hv afiiKoCo-iv v/i5s rms, dn-o Se TBI/ elanpoTTOfiivav {Kpaipelrat F f 2 436 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS The omission (without ofj..) of ju.ere'xet . . . da-irpaTToixhoiv produces nonsense. I now turn to the largest number, 370. 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 (17x8 = 135). It will be seen that the evidence furnished by omissions agrees in a remarkable way with that obtained from the corruptions previousl}- considered. I now take omissions of 6" in PMl. iii, beginning as elsewhere at 16 letters : (16) § 50 : Kal TiTapayjxevois A, om. S cett. (17) § 3 • ''°' '■'i'" ^t'-apTrjfidTav om. SL} § 18 : Kai KarnfjKiva^ovra om, SZ.^ (20) § 14 : Kal KpivfLP ^ovXa/jieviov om. SL} (23) § 44 : n/\X' elayes ^i to aTioKTUvat om. SL (24) § 43 ' '^"^ deapelre irnp vpiv nvrnls 0JJ2. S § 39 : * avyyvmprj ro'is (Xeyxopevois om. SL^ (26) § 72 : KM KXeiTo^a;(ns Kn\ AvKovpyns om. SFYO, post fieXTKTTOs hdb. A (28) § 37 • * ovSeif nntKi^QV ovds cro(puv aW art om. SL} Y (29) § 2 : ovKovv ov8* vpai olovTOL hiiv '4x^LV om. SL^ (33) ^ $7 '• * '^"'^ irapniTTjo-ts ovdepl^ rjv ouSe crvyyvaprj om. SJJ Y (34) § 26 : * Km TuvT eV ^paxeos Xoyov paihwv bei^ni om. SL^ (35) § 65 : * Kai TTpoeirdaL Tav I'Trep vpa>v Xeyt'iruy Twds om. SLy (47) § 17 : f"f Ak avrh. Toir Tflx^'^^" 'i^V ''ipoaaya.yaiiTiv' dXX' oil (^ijo-ere om. J)' {add. m. i) (57) § 20 '. * Kal TOiff oZfTiv eKSL vvv tTTpaTiiorniS ndvff oa-av civ bicavTai aTTOcrrftXnt om. ST^ § 38 : Km Tols p.r]8€ii i6iKov(Ti iroielv Kara rav TTiivTa a wpoar/Kei wpaTTovTOV om. SL} (61) § 58 ; * Torc piv ■jrep'^as rois per' EvpvXoxov ^evovs, ttoKiv 8i Tois pera Hap- p£via>vos om. SZ} (71) § 75 • * ^' V^P ^"'"V, e'ip-qvr' tiv TrdXai, iviKa. ye tov priSev rjpas ai/roiis irouiv iOikeiv, dXX' oiiK fto'iv om. SF Dobree transposes this passage after TrotTjo-oiras. (no) § 65 : Kai Toiis els ToC^' iirdyoxrar vpas 6pS>v ovk oppa>8S>, aWa SvcraiTovpai' rj yap e|e7riTi)Sef i] 8i' ayi/oiav els ;(aXcOTi' wpaypa vmyovcri Tqu iroKlv OM. SLFYO (121) § 71 : *7TavTnxoi els TI(\oTTuvvr]a-ov els 'PoSoii els Tiiov i>s /SauiXfa Xeya, oMe yap tSiv eKeivai avpf^epovrav d^earriKe to prj tovtov eatrai wivTa Kara- a-rpe-tj^iiaSai om. S THE PARIS MANUSCRIPT OF DEMOSTHENES 437 (160) § 41 • *ovx Ifa avTols ^c ;(p^(n^a' xal yap livev Tovrav T&v ypamuxToiv Tci OeovTa «pp6uotiv, akX 'iv vjieis exV* vrrnnvrjuaTa Km TrapaSeiy/iOTa i>s inep Tiov TOiovTav a-novSd^etv Trpoa-rjKei. ri oiv Xeyfi ra ypap.p,ara ; Om, SL} (172) § 46 ; *iot' avToi' tI yap Set Trepi ffaVTmy viiav KaTrjyopeiv ; TiapanXrja-lais Se Kai ouOEc ^iXriov ifimv OTravrer oi Xoittoi "EXXijvf r" SiSrrfp ripX eymye xal (TTTouo^r TToXX^r Koi fiovKfjs dyaB^s TCL irapovra irpaypiaTa Trpoo'Scttrdai, twos om. S^V- (304) § 32 : * Kvpws 8e IlvX&v Kai rav irn roiis "EXXijvas irapoSav eVri Koi (fipovpais Koi ^evois rovs tottovs tovtovs KaTe;(fi ; e^fi 8e kcu rrjv TrpOjiavreiav ToO dfoiJ, napaxras fjfias Koi SerTaXois Koi AapUas (cai roiis aXXouf 'An(j)iKTiovas, ^s oiifii Tois "EWrjO'ti' anaiTL pfTetm ; om. SL^ (596) § 6 : ei /xei/ oSv aTravTis afidkoyovpev *i\«r;rov riji ttoXci n-oXf^fiv koi tiji/ tiprjvrjv napa^aivetPj oitBev aXX* efiet tov Trapiovra Xe'yfiv Kal (TvpBovhevfLV rj offcof a(T(^aXe(7TaTa koi paicrr alrov dp,vvoip^6a' cVfiS/) 6' outojj arowms €vioi buLKUvTm^ a}(TT€ TToKets KuToKap^dvovTos eKSLvov Koi iroWa Tutv vpeTcpajt exovTos Koi TrdvTas dv6pamovs dbiKovvTOS aye;^eo"^at rivoiv iv tols €KK\t](7lais \ey6t/T Sfj tovto rtpwrov diravrav Xeyio Ka\ dwpi^opai' el e'(f>' rjp.lv iari TO ^ovXevetrOat nepl tov TrdTepov €iprjV7]V aysiv tj TToKepelv BfL onu SL The evidence of Harpocration sub voc. 6.tlixos is quoted in favour of the omission of 33 letters in § 44. The words, however, seem genuine. Blass says ' haec interpolator! tribuere non ausim '. In the same citation he agrees with vS" in a short omission, not included in this list, viz. aAA' ov tovto Xiyei. (15). On the other hand Harpocration quotes twice sud voce, bvo-amovixai and iniayovcnv from the important passage in § 65 (no). 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 ^^-^ letters are not explained by dpi. : 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 5. It must be remembered that this evidence is a farrago 43« DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS gathered partly from the model, and partly from at least one previous ancestor. I take first all omissions of more than loo letters in 5 : (io8) Ix. 31 (170) lix. 87-8 (no) Phil. iii. 65 (172) Phil- iii- 46 (120) Phil. iii. 71 (204) Phil. iii. 32 (I37j vii. 5 (596) Phil. iii. 6 (158) P/iil.m. 41 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 no. I now take the corruptions, viz. : (102) xviii. 25 (290) xK'ii. 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 vS 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. 436). 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 ei [).\v ovv, with which the omitted passage begins, occur also at the beginning of the next sentence. The omission, therefore, is due to 6ju. This has already been pointed out by Voemel, who says aberravit ocidus scribae a priore d ixev ovv ad alterum d \k\v ovv, but this simple explanation has not found favour with recent editors. THE PARIS MANUSCRIPT OF DEMOSTHENES 439 It is to be observed that the four largest omissions before 596 are not assisted by ojn. In view of the rarity of long omissions in other speeches of Demosthenes, the hypothesis of deliberate abridge- ment here seems probable. We have already seen that the favourite method of abbreviatoi-s was to strike out lines of their copy. The converging evidence shows that the archetype of Demosthenes contained about 17 letters to the line. The following multiples of 17 are therefore not without interest : 17 X 7 = 119. Cf. 131. 17X 10 = 170. Cf. 17a. 17x12 = 304. Cf. 204. 17x3.5 = 595- Cf. 596. I now call attention to a passage in Phil. iii. 73 which I had previously reserved. Here A vulg. have <^t\\iX hv.v . . . airoi/s h\ ■napa(rKevd^€(T0aL, koi Trpdrovi h XP'J iroiovvras Tore kol tovs aWovs "EAXjyyoy crvyKakeiv. SFYO after itapao-KevACfcrdai have tovs 8' &.\Kovs "EWrjvas crvyKa\eiv med. otn. It looks as if the passage had been doctored by the insertion of hi before SaAous after an omission. I now proceed to discuss a remarkable series of obelizations in the speech against Midias (xxi). We know from Hermogenes irepl iSewv [Rhet. Gr. iii. p. 308) that passages in the speeches of Demosthenes were obelized and expelled on the ground of vulgarity (8ia to ayav tireAes). He gives as examples two passages which are not found in existing MSS., viz. Kveijotov; k^Qovs ^o&tra Kara irav to Oipos iirXavaTo (De Cor.) and cnro Tpi&v TpviiTjuaTiiiv Trjv epyaaCav ■jieiroirjadaL {In Neaeratri). He says of the first uj3e'Ai(rdi; Tivis kcX inTe^(C\.ovTo, lo-mi 6p9&s iroiowrev. The subject of obelizations in the MSS. of Demosthenes was first discussed by W. Christ.^ The MSS. which contain them are SBF. There are also references to them in scholia. Christ says that a long passage in PAil. iv. 23-7 ovk evea-Ti. . . . Kiyeiv a^iov is obelized in B, and quotes a scholium aw' ivTevOev em Tov hepov a(TTepC(TKOv tov koyov tov isepl t&v iv Xeppovrjcrm kitiypa^ivTos ktTTlv (i. e. = Chers. 48-51). This, however, is only an isolated case. It is in the Midias that the question becomes important. Here 1 Die Attikusausgabe des Demosthenes (1882). 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 °^ y°-P • • • di<^priv b'lK-qv hibovras obel, SBF The next sentence begins with noX ris av ravr eXe'^cret.e biKaiias ; Christ says that the critic wished to abridge the text by reading a\\a Tis hv TavT i\er)(reie bLKaCcos ; {am. med.). He does not consider the possibility of omission due to o\x. in a MS. consulted by the critic. Of this there is a clear case, viz. : § 210 p.ri Toivvv prjS' ovTOi rrjV (idei-av, fjv rjfiiv Koiviju ovaiav oi vojioi 7Tape}(0v-), in combination with the obel. Christ is of opinion that in such cases the passages are regarded as alternatives, that marked by the bmXfj 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 obelizations 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 : Kal TToWovs fjSr] irapa^avras riiv vopov rouTOv e^jipia>Ku(ri Bamrwi (54) The next obelized passage is : § 86 ; Tijc pev hiaiTav avT^ax&iv ova apoaev, ahX' ctacre KaS' tavTov Kvpiav yeviaivirai, after which there is a stop. If so, the total number of letters in the obelized passage is i;529. The next passage is : § 49 • ""^ ''^o^^ois . . . BamTciii. 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 : *Trjv pen diaLTav . . , peh\ov \u6elv obel. SBF (107) §§ 86-7 ." (jiiXd^as Tijv , . . eor' d(T(f>aXes (448) §§ 88-92 : * 8ei 8)j . . . aiojpov notel obel. SBF (l)374) § 92: Kairoi fl . . . Tiapa^aivovTos (lS7) § 92 : * el yap . . . 6avmos ^aivtTui obel. SF (no) The relation of 107 and no to 54 (§ 49) has already been pointed out. We may also notice that 110x4 = 44° ! cf 448. The next group is found in §§ 97-101, viz.: § 97 : * Ka\ prj6' eopTrjs . , . Troiijfferf obel, S (98) 6' here twice has f/Tjre where editors print ixrjB', which makes the total, as written in this MS., ico. It is to be noticed that the previous sentence ends with dc^^o-ere. The obelization may there- fore record an omission due to 6ju. THE PARIS MANUSCRIPT OF DEMOSTHENES 443 While the whole passage is obelized in S, in F bmKai. are affixed to the first three lines and obels to the last two. In B the whole passage is marked with SirXat. It is, therefore, uncertain what the critical signs mean here. §§ 98~9 • *<•' Ti ^p€t (§ 147), in which case the total is 1,638, while in F another line is obelized after hbeiKvvixevos. The remaining cases are found in §§ 191-318, viz. : §§ 1 9 1-2 : *Ta\a roivvv . , . rov Trpdynaros obel. BF (S68) §§ I93~7 • olliLat ToLvvv . . . toCtov toiovtov (1,510) §§ '97~9 • * 0" y"P o"X • • • SeapjjiTaiTe obel. F (493) §§ 199-201 ; TIS yap ia-Tw . . . BeKiiKis Trpoo-ijKei (604) § 201 : * ov8e yap , . . 8iaKpoi\vei KeKTrjirdai (890) § 210 : *pr) Toivvv . . . KoKvovTav KfKT^irOai obel. F (j"]) §§ 2II-17: ovBeu Sfivov . . . i/jiels. p,r]8aiiS)S (l,888) §§217-18: *irdvTayap . . . rivos fjTTrjaBai obel. SF (S07) § 218 : oi yap ex . . . biivairdai Kpiverat (l33) ib. : *7roTfp' olv . . . Kpiverai Koiva obel. SF (nS) I now give a conspectus of these figures. In order to be on sure ground, I reserve 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(S) (507) §§98-9 (77) *§ 210 (/■) *^ 217-18 (SF) (107) * § 86 (SBF) (568) * §§ ,191-2 (BF) (no) * § 92 (SBF) (604) §§ 1 99-20.1 * § 99 (SBF) (661) * §§ loo-l (SBF) (us) * I 218 (SF) (Si2)§§ 140-2 (122) * § 201 (F) (890) §§ 208-10 (130) *§ 139 (SBF) (1,028) §§ 202-4 .. (i33)§2iS (1,23s) *§§2os-7(5i^) (157) §92 (1,374) *§§ 88-92 (-S"^^) (230) §99 (1.510) §§ 193-7 (448) §§ 86-7 (1,688) §§ 134-9 (493) * §§ 197-9 (^)- (1,888) §§ 211-17 The striking point in this list 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, 1,038, 1,510. Among the lower figures we have the sequence 54, 107, no dis, 448 : also 115 X 3 = 330. It seems probable that 54 is not a unit, but a multiple (= 37 x 3). If so, 77 represents 36x3 (=78), and 107-10 represent 36x4 (= 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 36 account for a large proportion of the figures. I add the following list : 26x5 = 130. Cf. 130, ^33- 26 X 6 = 156. Cf. 157. 36 X 9 = 334. Cf 330. 36X 17 = 443. Cf. 448. 36x 19 = 494. Cf. 493. 36 X 33 = 598. Cf. 604. 36 X3I = 806. Cf. 812. 36x 34 = 884. Cf. 890. 36x53 = 1,378. Cf 1,374. 36x58 = 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 : (ij,!,T€ Ms, as in S) (1,529) §§ 38-41 (438) §§ 133-4 (i,7ii) §§ 143-8 If we accept the obelization given by 5 in §§ 38-41, the figure 1,529 seems to be connected with the sequence 507, 1,028, 1,510, to which attention has been already drawn. We may notice that 26 x 66= 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 5. 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 S, 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 S, and in 5 only. As a matter of fact, however, some of them do not occur in 6" at all, while others are common to B and F, which, presumably, are written in a different formation. Thei^e 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, Since this work was in print Mr. Percy Simpson has called my attention to two interesting doublets in Romeo mid Juliet. In 11. ii. 187-III. i. 4 the Second Quarto (1599) gives: Rom. Would I were sleepe and peace, so sweet to rest ! [The grey eyde mome smiles on the frowning night Chekring the Easterne Clouds with streaks of light, And darknesse fleckted like a drunkard reeles From forth dales 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 dales 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. ] 06 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 ! 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 stale with thee, And never from this Pallace of dym night Depart again : come lye thou in my armes. Heer *s to thy health, where ere thou tumblest ip. 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 again is repeated in 1. 7. T. H. Burton, in Book Hvmter, p. ']^, 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 : — t 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^) : moderare imperiQ arbitrantur. Haec tamen omnia eo per tinent ut appareat Constantinii 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 tantia obire terrajf. 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 : moderare imperii! arbitrantur. Haec tamen omnia eo per tem. Aut si grauabant "" ambo tantQ obire terraij. 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 ceteriiqj occide The missing line : tem. Aut si grauabant" ambo tantu obire terrain 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 : ^ai" Srjfios (pntaKcs' e6ms ^atSt/ioc* Svo/ia xipiop rj \afijrp6s Here <^at" brjiios is a corruption of ^afeijuoy, which has got into the text. p. 5. The Statesman of August 2,4, 191 7, 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 38th from cancer on the liver. Here line 4 should come after line i. p. 22. Corruptions similar to that found in S, in Rose. Am. 45, are frequent in MSS. and papyri, e.g. : Herondas v. 3-4 : aW 'AfUpvratr; rij Mfvavos fyKfiacH. eya 'Afxxpvralrjv Tqv Aey€tff opaprjKa, The writer of the papyrus (cent, i/ii A.D.) originally gave fih-Mv for Theocritus xiii. 29-30 : 'EWdtnrovTOV Ikovto vara rpWov a/iap aevTi, etira 8' opfiov iSevro nponovriSos, ivBa &iavS)v The Oxyrhynchus papyrus, No; 694 (cent, ii A. D.), substitutes Ikovto in 1. 30 for tdtvTo. 1633 G g 450 DESCENT OF MANUSCRIPTS Sophocles, Ichneutae 78-9 : e'/iioi r' hv Ar\ 7rpotTis apiv Kara *tAfoiroi/ Sijfxr/yoptwi;) . INDEXES I. GENERAL INDEX a, open, 171. a, prothetic, 169. aaue (= alter ambove), 205. abridged texts, 27-31, 40, 123, 147- S3. 394-5, 439-45- atnpla, 254. ancient abbreviations, 10, 125, 150. ancient variants, 126, 172, 268, 310-11, 440. ftro), 1. a^\aia eKSotrts, 44'- aiiiem, insular sign. 6 and v confused, 126, 169. blank pages, 47, 213, 220. bulge in curve of omissions, 12, 22, 33, 36, 65, 72, 76, 83,251, 254,275, 409, 416. c. r. {= avis Romanus), 225, 233. cv. (= clarus vir), 182, 190. Caroline revisers, 16S, 228. cola and comntata, 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, 170, 199, 226, 277,311. contraction of script, 23, 47-8, 142, 168, 215-16, 236,337. corrector, 26. aim confused with que (= quaere), 309- d = deest, 34. = dico, 170. <^'*= dimissum, 34, lo7, 328-9. deletum, 34. SriiimSris eKdo3S9«- doublets, 52, 126, 170, 189, 221, 227 , 297-310,419. ar = desuper. £ and i^ confused, 167, 227, 245. e, prothetic, 169, 224. ecclesiastical corruptions, 171. Excerpta Cusana, 162, 294. Moniepolitiana, 290, 307. fly-leaves, 36, 58, 105, in, 204, 285, 287, 327, 332- folios, loose, 194. lost, 105, 172, 283, 286, 294. omitted by scribe, 366, 392. transposed, 271, 327, 426. y = ypa(f>fTai, 107. gr. grec. = Graecum, 199, 353. Gospels, Old Latin, 40, 45, 96-103. k = hie, z^ passim. fC= autem, 107, 202. k. 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, 170. hie dimissum, 328, 333. hie permutatum, 333. homoeoarcton, I. homoeoteleuton, I. 2, prothetic, 168. ignorance of scribes, 3, 168-171. intercolumnar notes, 50, 178. 456 GENERAL INDEX irregular gatherings, 48, 219. isse = ipse, l8g. Italian interpolations, 267. K, KP — caput, 221, 318. K — Kcifiivov, 107, 418. KCLTCO, I. ?= vel, 35. lacunae, 105, in, 283, 293, 338-40. 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, 33S, 356, 395, 403, 435, 438, 444- line omissions and parentage, 7-9, 203, 396, 404, 409, 413-14- lines struck out by abbreviator, 26-31, 147-53, 39475, 439-45- long lines in ancient MSS., 15. M, reference mark, 50. marginal notes received into text, 202. mta = misericordia, 1 70. model bound up with copy, 164. broader than copy, 87, 96. similar to copy, 41, 57, 80, 87, gi, 93, 97-102, 106, 206, 273, 287, 297, 392, 4C2, 406, 427. noinina sacra, 10, 107. normal line, 43. notes on dittography, 160. on transpositions, 172, 271, 332-4, 426 «. number of lines to page, 45. Cf. 106, 121,236. obeli, 439-45- omissio ex homoeoteUuto, I passim. omission of column, 226, 328, 341, 392. complete lines, 8, 19, 24, 33. folios, 366, 392. Qi. 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, 60, 108, 115, 117, 170, 186, 192, 193, 246, 292, 307, 308, 309. ofioitWrjs, 1. orthography, 169. pa£: =pagina, 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, \T2. Q = qttaere, 35, 309. quaternions omitted, 162, 172, 283. signatures of, 46, 141, 156, 212, 218- 20, 228, 236-9, 330. transposed, 327. que iguam) = Quirites, 188, 197. quum, 169. R = recita, 221, 242. B = require, 35, 38, 70, 72 passim. in text, 170, 194, 307, 328. rt = reliqua, 29. BLZ = require vel Crjrei, 35. J?Q = require, 35. in text, 292, 326. repetition after column, 136, 144, 235, 321-2. folio, 177, 185, 19s, 2CO, 271-2, 428. page, 323, 349, 381, 438. quaternion, 382. Cf. 345. sanaius = senatus, I7,(i. 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. sur = super, 34, 54. 7. 319- Clu. 36, p. 291 : 72, p. 301 : 84, p. 302 : 102-7, p. 288 : 127-32, 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. x-39, p. 283 : 40, p. 298 : 46, p. 298 : 47, p. 299 : 75-83, p. 282 : 105, p. 301. Font. 1 1-49, 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. 31I. Mil. 8, p. 307: 18-37, PP- 292-3: 34, p. 292 : 46, p. 308 : 47, p. 3c8: 66, p. 309: 67, p. 307. LIST OF CHIEF PASSAGES REFERRED TO 463 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. II. 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: 8s, p. 187: 93-6, pp. 172, 175, 177: 94, P- 191: 106, p. 199: no, p. 187: lis, 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. 18, pp. 172, 176. vi. 3, p. 181 : 10, pp. 185, 195. vii. 4, p. 188: 6, pp. 174, 193 : II, pp. 3S, 194. viii. s, pp. 184, 19s : 7, p. 178 : 9, p,i78: 22, p. 179: 30, p. 196: 32, p. 188. ix. 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. l-io, p. 194. xiv. 13, p. 200 : 14, p. 191. Pis. I, p. 9 : 21, p. 295 : 48, p. 29S : 57, P- 297 : 64, p. 296 : 6s, p. 296 : 70, p. 296 : 72, p. 297. Plane. 27-8, 46-7, pp. 15, 26, 4S, 177,200. Quinct. 85, p. 301. Rose. Am. II, p. 329: 46, p. 289: loi, p. 289. Rtill. ii. 86, p. 8. Scaur. z^,V■ '55: 43, P- i55- Sest. 6, p. 269 : 8, p. 278 : 42, p. 277 : 58, pp. 276, 278 : 85, p. 279 : 1X0, p. 280. Vat. 4-5, p. 272: 6, p. 272: IS, p. 156 : 26, p. 277. Verr. Divin. 65-6, p. 230. Actio Prima 25, p. 262. Verr. i. 4s, 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. 2S3 : 64, p. 223 : 66, p. 260 : 86, p. 260 : 116, p. 226: 121, p. 263: 151, p. 251 : 155, p. 224: 167, p. 263: 176, p. 241 : 181, p. 251. iii. 67, p. 262 : 69, p. 226 : 74, p. 264 : 77, p. 223 : 109, p. 249 : 117, p. 263: 124, p. 2S8: 171, p. 225 : 172, p. 222: 183, p. 223. iv. S2-3, p. 2S5 : 63, p. 9 : 88, p. 231 : no, p. 9: 144, p. 262 : 151, p. 229. V. 18, p. 232 : 20, p. 233 : s6, pp. 230, 263 : 61, p. 230 : 72, p. 225 : 8i,pp. 223, 264: 93, p. 231: 94, p. 232 : 98, p. 224 : 130, p. 22s : 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-s, Demosthenes. i. 19, p. 430. 111. 7, p. 429. iv. 30, p. 428. vi. 3, jp. 430. ix. {Phil, iii), pp. 436-9 : 1 7, p. 41 9. X. 69-70, p. 424. XV. 9, p. 424. xviii. 2S, p. 424 : 56, P- 423 : 87, p. 427 : 112, p. 429 : 2S7, PP-423, 425 : 305, P- 428. XX. 104, p. 427. xxi. {Midias), pp. 439-45 : 40, p. 421: 100, p. 431 : 137, p. 428: 150, p. 421 : 157, p. 428 : 160, p. 428. xxii. 23, p. 431 : 67, p. 435. xxiii. 198, p. 420. xxi v. 27, p. 427 : 100, p. 431. xxvii. 16, pp. 428-9 : 35, p. 421 : 42, p. 422. xxviii. 4, p. 422. xxxi. 3, p. 423 : 14, p. 42a xxxiv. 7, p. 435. XXXV. 3, p. 422 : 56, p. 43a xxxix. 3, p. 422. xl. S, p. 429 : 54, P- 425. xliii. 32, p. 422. xlvii. 27, p. 423 : 32, pu 420 : 74-5, pp. 42s, 429. xlix. 45, p. 428. I. 17, p. 430. liii. 4, p. 428. liv. 2, p. 120. Iv. 5, p. 430 : 26-7, p. 424. Ivii. 10, p. 420 : 40, p. 423. 464 LIST OF CHIEF PASSAGES REFERRED TO Demosthenes {continued). Iviii. 49, p. 430 : 62, pp. 419, 422. lix. 5, p. 431 : 87 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. )x. 4, p.430: 5, p. 422: IS, p. 429: 20, p. 428. Ixi. 13, p. 429. Prooem. xxix, p. 432 : xxxix, p. 426 : xl. pp. 426, 438. Horace. Sat. I. 3. 75-125, pp. 30-1- Plato. Alcib. I. 106 c, p. 413 : 120 e, p. 406. Charm. 1 72 a, p. 403. Cratyl. 437 b, p. 413 : 438 a, p. 410. Euthyd. 276 b, p. 402. Euihyphro 8 d, p. 401 Hipp. 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 : 874 b, p. 391 : 920 b, p. 387. A/««o93b, p, 413. Phaedo 64 e, p. 409 : 80 b, 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. ^^Z. 3iid-e, p. 393. Defin. 4116-412 a, 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 tJNlVERSITY PRESS