MASTER 
 
 NEGA TIVE 
 NO .92-80673 
 
MICROFILMED 1993 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES/NEW YORK 
 
 as part of the 
 "Foundations of Western Civilization Preservation Project" 
 
 Funded by the 
 NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES 
 
 Reproductions may not be made without permission from 
 
 Columbia University Library 
 
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT 
 
 The copyright law of the United States - Title 17, United 
 States Code - concerns the making of photocopies or 
 other reproductions of copyrighted material. 
 
 Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and 
 archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other 
 reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the 
 photocopy or other reproduction is not to be "used for any 
 purpose other than private study, scholarship, or 
 research." If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a 
 photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of "fair 
 use," that user may be liable for copyright infringement. 
 
 This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a 
 copy order if, in its judgement, fulfillment of the order 
 would involve violation of the copyright law. 
 
AUTHOR: 
 
 HALL, FREDERICK 
 WILLIAM 
 
 TITLE: 
 
 A COMPANION TO 
 CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 PLACE: 
 
 OXFORD 
 
 DA TE : 
 
 1913 
 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
 PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT 
 
 Master Negative # 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHIC MICROFORM TARCFT 
 
 Original Material as Filmed - Existing Bibliographic Record 
 
 I 
 
 i 887 
 ' H14 
 
 Restrictions on Use: 
 
 Hall, Frederick William, 1868-1933, ed, 
 
 A companion to classical texts (hyj F. W. ITall. Oxford, 
 Clarendon press, 1013. 
 
 vlll, 363, (Ij p. front., plates, fat^ims. 23 cm. 
 
 Bibliographies at end of chapters. 
 
 CoNTKNTS. — The ancient hook. — The text of Grei^k authors in an- 
 dent times. — The text of Ijitln authors in ancient times. — The liistory 
 of Latin texts from the ap^e of Charleniap:ne to the Italian renais- 
 sance. — Kecenslon. — Emendation. — Manuscript authorities for the text 
 of the chief classical writers. — The nomenclature of manuscript, witli 
 the names of former poss(»ssors. — Index. 
 
 1. Classical literature— Criticism, Textual. _li. Manuscripts, Greek. 
 3. Manuscripts, Latin. 
 
 PA39.II3 
 
 Library of Conprress 
 
 i-'Snii 
 
 14—0503 
 
 TECHNICAL MICROFORM DATA 
 
 REDUCTION RATIO: 
 
 FILM SIZE: 35_j^]2J^ 
 
 IMAGE PLACEMENT: IA,(^,IB IIB 
 
 DATE FILMED: ^ l^^^-fC^^ INITIALS 
 
 HLMEDBY: RESEARCH PUbTjCATIONS. INC WOODDRIDGE. CT 
 
 11^ 
 
 J- J^ / 
 
c 
 
 Association for information and Image Management 
 
 1 1 00 Wayne Avenue, Suite 1 1 00 
 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 
 
 301/587-8202 
 
 Centimeter 
 
 lN 
 
 1 
 
 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIII 
 
 4 5 
 
 iliiiiliiiilii 
 
 6 7 8 9 
 
 iiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiili 
 
 10 n 12 13 14 15 mm 
 
 iiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiii 
 
 Ml 
 
 I 
 
 TTT 
 
 T 
 
 TTT 
 
 ^ri 1 I 
 
 1 
 
 Inches 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 1= 
 
 115 6 
 
 )3 
 
 1 2.8 
 
 3.2 
 
 3.6 
 
 4.0 
 
 1.4 
 
 2.5 
 
 2.2 
 
 2.0 
 
 1.8 
 
 1.6 
 
 MRNUFflCTURED TO fillM STflNDflRDS 
 BY fiPPLIED IMRGE, INC. 
 
1&3€ 
 
 ^rsitv L. 
 
 Columbia ^InitJt rsittp 
 
 mtl)eCttpofletti^0rk 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 From the library of 
 
 EDWARD DELAY AN PERRY 
 
 1854 — 1938 
 
 A.B. 1875. LL.D. 1904. Ph.D. Tubingen 1879 
 
 Jay Professor of Greek 1895-1931 
 Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy 1902-1909 
 
 $iX6jxoroo; ■i|V 
 
 
' « 
 
 )ll 
 
 r' 
 
 A COMPANION 
 
 TO 
 
 CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 F. W. HALL, M.A. 
 
 Fellow and Tutor of St. John Baptist College, Oxford 
 
 OXFORD 
 AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 
 
 1913 
 

 OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 
 LONDON EDINBURGH GLASGOW NEW YORK 
 
 TORONTO MELBOURNE BOMBAY 
 
 HUMPHREY MILFORD M.A. 
 
 rUBLISHER TO THE UNIYERSITY 
 
 
 ■{. ■ 
 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 . The more readable parts of this book have been de- 
 livered from time to time as lectures to the few among 
 m}^ pupils who care for such things. The}' are published, 
 together with certain chapters which cannot claim to be 
 easy reading, in the hope that the whole book will prove 
 useful to a wider circle of students,— especiall}' to those 
 who, without wishing to become specialists in textual 
 criticism, yet find that textual problems inevitabl}^ enter 
 into their studies. Many people tend to regard textual 
 criticism as a disease. But it is neither a disease nor 
 a science, but simply the application of common sense 
 to a class of problems which beset all inquirers whose 
 evidence rests upon the authority of manuscript documents. 
 And I shall be well content if I have succeeded in doing 
 for the ordinary student of the classical and mediaeval 
 writers what has been done so admirably for students of 
 the New Testament by Sir Frederic Kenyon's Handbook 
 to the Textual Criticism of the Nezv Testament and by 
 Eberhard Nestle's Introduction to the Textual Criticism 
 of the Greek New Testament. 
 
 The author of a manual of this kind is necessaril}'- 
 carried into many departments of learning where the 
 credentials that he can exhibit are more than doubtful. 
 Though I have endeavoured wherever possible to go back 
 to the original authorities and have rarely quoted what 
 I have not been able to verify, yet in a book which deals 
 with so many questions of controvers}^ and contains such 
 a mass of references I am well aware that many errors 
 may have escaped my notice. I shall be fortunate if my 
 readers will point them out to me (if possible without 
 undue brutality) in order that I ma}^ correct them when 
 
 473 
 
 a 2 
 
XV 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 I have the opportunity. I have been saved from many 
 by the kindness of friends who have read my proofs or 
 who have allowed me to seek their advice upon points of 
 difficulty. Among such who have assisted me I am bound 
 to mention with especial gratitude Mr. Ingram Bywater, 
 formerly Regius Professor of Greek in Oxford, Professor 
 Hunt, the President of Trinity, Mr. Ross of Oriel, Mr, 
 Garrod of Merton, and Mr. W. H. Stevenson of my own 
 College. The ninth chapter of the book would perhaps 
 have been the most useful if I had been able to render it 
 as complete as I could wish. But to do this is beyond the 
 powers of one man, at any rate until the history of the various 
 collections of manuscripts in Europe has been written with 
 the thoroughness with which the great librarians at Paris 
 have narrated the history of their own unrivalled collections. 
 Meantime I hope that my own imperfect sketch may prove 
 useful until it is superseded by a more exhaustive work. 
 
 I have to thank the Syndics of the Cambridge University 
 Press for permission to reproduce Plate III from Clark's 
 Care oj Books, Messrs. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner& Co. 
 for permission to reproduce Plate IV from Mr. Falconer 
 Madan's Books in Manuscript, the Secretary of the Kgl. 
 Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften for permission 
 to reproduce Plate V from the Sitzungsberichte der Koniglich 
 Preiissischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, and the author- 
 ities of the Bibliotheque Nationale for permission to 
 reproduce Plate VI from their facsimile of the Paris Livy. 
 
 F. W. H. 
 
 June 24, 1913. 
 
 / 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 The Ancient Book 
 
 PAGES 
 
 I-2I 
 
 The form of the ancient book (i) — The Roll. Discoveries at Herculaneum 
 in 175a (2) — In Egypt (3) — Papyrus introduced into Greece (4-5) — Method 
 of manufacturing Charta 5-6^ — Size of the Roll (6-7) — Its influence upon 
 the arrangement of literary works (7-10) — Method of producing editions of 
 ancient works (lo-ii — The length of the line in Prose and Verse (11- 
 la) — Punctuation and other aids to the reader (13) — The furniture of the Roll 
 (14) — The Codex. Belongs to Rome rather than to Greece (15) — Comes into 
 use at Rome in ist cent. a. d. The evidence of Martial (i6^ — In common 
 use in the 4th cent. 18) — Effect of the transference of texts from Rolls to 
 Codices (18-20). 
 
 CHAPTER II 
 The Text of Greek Authors in Ancient Times. 22-52 
 
 The conditions under which texts were transmitted ^22^ — Distinction to be 
 drawn between Greek texts and Latin texts (24-5) — Survey of the history 
 of Greek texts. I. The Pre-Alexandrine Period. The earliest Greek 
 literature in Ionia (26) —Attic tragedy creates a public of readers (27) — The 
 book trade at Athens in the 5th cent. b. c. 27) — Dangers of privately made 
 copies (28-9) —The Petrie papyrus of the Phaedo (29 1 — Growth of philology 
 
 and criticism in the 4th cent. b. c. at Pergamum and Alexandria (31) II. The 
 
 Alexandrines and their immediate Successors. The irivaKts of Callimachus 
 (3a) — Alexandrine KavCvi'i ,32) — Methods of the Alexandrine scholars (33- 
 7) — Defects of the work of their successors (39)— III. The Period from 
 THE reign of Hadrian to the 9TH cent. a. d. The incipient decay of 
 
 scholarship 40) — the range of readers becomes severely contracted (40) 
 
 Growth of selections, commentaries and paraphrases ^4i-3)_IV. From the 
 Thirteenth to the Fifteenth Centuries. The renaissance of studies under 
 the Palaeologi (43-4) — Its influence upon Greek texts (44) — Condition of the 
 problems of modern criticism (45) — Distinction to be drawn between ' protec- 
 ted ' and * unprotected ' texts ;45-6) — Text of Theognis (46)— of Pindar 
 (46-7) — Competition of the Alexandrine and 'proletariat' texts (47) — The 
 work of the Alexandrines on poetic texts more stable than their work on 
 prose texts ; 48 9) — Text of Demosthenes 1,49-51) —of Euripides (5a). 
 
 CHAPTER III 
 The Text of Latin Authors in Ancient Times . 
 
 53-69 
 
 Early methods of producing books at Rome (53) — Influence of Pergamene and 
 Alexandrine scholarship 54)— Growth of Roman scholarship (56) — Revival 
 of the older literature in the time of Sulla (56;— leads to the production of 
 
VI 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 vulgate texts .57 — Condition of Roman scholarsliip in the last century of the 
 Repubhc (57-8) -M. Valerius Probus (58 - History of the text of Vergil's 
 works (59-61 -Christianity and profane literature (62) — Editions of the 
 ancient writers produced from the 4th to the 6th cent. a. d. (63)-Movement 
 begun by pagan aristocrats but continued by Christians ;64) - Cassiodorus 
 (65-6, - Isidore of Seville .67-8; -A 'concordat' between the Church 
 and profane learning ^68). 
 
 CHAPTER IV 
 
 The History of Latin Texts from the Age of 
 
 Charlemagne to the Italian Renaissance . 70-93 
 
 The attitude of the Church towards learning (71 -the seven Liberal Arts 
 
 • ""riT^xr '^''''"^;'^^" ^'^^^^^^^ ^'-'^^ ^"d Atictores (72-3) -Classical studies 
 in the West : I The Irish Missionaries (74} -their influence on Britain 
 (.74;— on the Continent (75^ —some causes of their failure .7s) — II The 
 Anglo-Saxons in the 8th cent. (75) -Their work in the empi^re of 
 Charlemagne (75) - Charlemagne's object in becoming the patron of 
 
 i.7"\^.'^%~.^'T': (76. - Servatus Lupus (77)-Gerbert of Aurillac 
 (78) -The effect of the Carolingian revival upon Germany (78 - Learning 
 destroyed by asceticism ,79} -the Cluniacs and other orders (79)- France 
 .n the nth cent. (80) - Scholasticism (80) - the school at Chartres 81)- 
 Hildebert ol lours .81) -The struggle between scholasticism and classicism 
 ^8i;-Learningm Italy and Spain ^82; - Methods of the mediaeval scholars 
 (B3-5)-Alcuins instructions to copyists (86 _ Orthography < 87) - Dirti- 
 culties which confronted scholars (88; - The preservation of Latin writers is 
 argely due to the Carolingians (89) - The introduction of the Caroline hand- 
 writing ,89 -The soundest texts are those attested by MSS. of the 9th and 
 loth centuries (90) - Later corruptions .90; - Illustrated by the text of 
 Seneca, N.Q. 191) -Dante as evidence for the state of learning in the'isth 
 ccnc. ^9^~3 • 
 
 CHAPTER V 
 
 The History of Texts during the Period of the 
 
 Italian Renaissance ^^_^^^ 
 
 Italy and the ancient learning (94-6; - The only country in winch the laity 
 were educated (96) - This is the explanation of the Renaissance (97 - Hu 
 man,sm (98) - Classical writings were of practical use (99)- Difficulties 
 of scholars and consequent defects in their work (looWThe untrustworthi- 
 ness of copysts ^ ,01) _ Rash emendation of texts, e. g. the work of Tommaso 
 
 wh^chV^'? 7^,"',"T"'°^°'S'"''^^'°^^-S'''"'-'i on the difficult.es 
 which hindered scholarship (104) - Condition of Greek texts ^ ,05 - Marcus 
 Musurus' edUion of Hesychius (.05-6) - The great merits of some 
 Renaissance scholars, e. g. Politian (.06; -Good readings in MSS. of this 
 period olten due to clever conjectures rio7\ 
 
 * 
 
 'i 
 
 ( 
 
 M- 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER VI 
 
 Vll 
 
 Recension 
 
 108-149 
 
 The scientific criticism of documents (io8) — Difficulty in testing the authen- 
 ticity of a document in early times (109) — The history of the Rule of St. 
 Benedict [ 109) — The exposure of the False Decretals { 1 10) — the critical spirit 
 of Protestantism leads to a closer examination of documents (in) — Pape- 
 broch's edition of the Acta Sanctormn (m) — Mabillon's answer in the De 
 Re Diploniatica (112) — Growth of the science of Palaeography (113) — the 
 work of Maffei (113) — Difficulties arising from the dearth of accessible 
 MSS. (113) — Efforts of the scholars of the i6th cent, to discover MSS. 
 (114) — Gelenius (114) — The effect of the Wars of Religion in France 
 (115) — collectors and scholars (116) — Carrio and Modius (116) — Vulgate 
 texts constructed by H. Stephanus (117) — Scholarship in France, Germany, 
 and Holland in the 17th cent. (117-18) — J. F. Gronovius 119) — Bent- 
 ley (120) — F. A. Wolf (122) — I. Bekker (123) — Karl Lachmann (125) —His 
 work upon Lucretius (126) — The classification of MSS. (128-33) — The main 
 types of direct tradition (134) — i. Texts depending upon a single MS. 
 (134) — 2. Texts preserved in a number of MSS. which present a uni- 
 form tradition (134-7) — 3- The tradition follows two or more divergent 
 lines (137 — Indirect evidence for a text (140) — Quotations, imitations, 
 &c. (141-4) — Scholia, commentaries, lexica (144) — Translations (146-8) 
 — changes effected by a careful recension (149). 
 
 CHAPTER VH 
 
 Emendation 
 
 150-198 
 
 Conjectural emendation (150) — must be tested by (a) Transcriptional 
 probability (151) — and (6) Intrinsic probability (151-3) — Classification of 
 the errors of copyists (153) — Visual and psychological errors (154) — Most 
 errors are psychological (155) — Since scribes tend to copy words rather than 
 letters (156; — Criticism of Ribbeck's views upon possible interchanges between 
 letters (156). 
 
 Confusions and attempts made to remedy them. 
 
 1. Confusion of similar letters (158-9). 
 
 2. Misinterpretation of contractions (162-70) — Traube's discovery of the 
 
 importance of the two kinds of contraction (163). 
 Mistranscription through general resemblance (170-2). 
 (rt) Wrong combination or separation (172) ; {b) Wrong punctuation (173). 
 Assimilation of words and of terminations : i.e. False Accommodation of 
 
 construction (174). 
 
 6. Transposition {a] of letters and syllables (176) ; {b) of words and passages 
 
 VI 77-80). 
 
 7. Mistranscription of Greek into Latin and of Latin into Greek (180). 
 
 8. Confusion of numerals (180). 
 
 iV I 
 
Vlll 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 9. Confusion in Proper Names. 
 ID. Mistakes due to changes in pronunciation (183^ 
 
 11. Substitution of synonyms or of familiar words for unfamiliar (193 . 
 
 12. New spellings substituted for old (186 . 
 
 13. Interpolation (186^ — monkish interpolations (188 . 
 
 II. Omissions. 
 
 14. Haplography (i89\ 
 
 15. Lipography (190-. 
 
 III. Additions. 
 
 16. Repetition from or anticipation of the immediate (i. e. Dittography, p. 191^ 
 
 or neighbouring context (i92-3\ 
 
 17. Insertions from the margin. Adscripts, &c. (i93-7\ 
 
 18. Conflated readings (i97\ 
 
 19. Additions due to the influence of kindred writings (198^ 
 
 CHAPTER VIII 
 
 MS. Authorities for the Text of the Chief 
 
 Classical Writers 199-285 
 
 CHAPTER IX 
 
 The Nomenclature of MSS., with the Names of 
 
 Former Possessors 286-357 
 
 Index 
 
 359-363 
 
 LIST OF PLATES 
 
 I. The Papyrus Plant {Cyperus papyrus) . . Frontispiece 
 II. Homer, Iliad II. 695-709 (Bodleian papyrus 
 
 2nd cent. A. D.) To face page 6 
 
 III. A Greek Physician reading . ... « 
 
 IV. Scribe at Work , , 8q 
 
 V. Reginensis Vaticanus Graec. 17^ . . Tn- 
 
 VI. Parisinus 5730 
 
 VII. Vaticanus Reginensis 762 
 
 between pp. 86 and 87 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 THE ANCIENT BOOK 
 
 During the greater part of their history the texts of the 
 chissical writers have been transmitted in copies made by hand 
 upon rolls or upon codices. These texts have been mutilated 
 and defaced by the laxity or ignorance of scribes in every age, 
 and it is the object of this book to show how far it has been 
 possible for scholars to get behind this corruption in the 
 endeavour to recover the autograph, i.e. the text as originally 
 written by the author. 
 
 It must not be forgotten that many of these losses and injuries 
 were due not to the scribe, but to the conditions under which he 
 worked, and in particular to the size, shape, and material of the 
 book in which he wrote. It is necessary, therefore, at the outset 
 to examine briefly the history of the development of the ancient 
 book in order to see how far the changes which it has undergone 
 have aftected the fortunes of the texts which it has preserved. 
 For the present purpose a roll will be assumed to be made of 
 papyrus and a codex to be made of vellum or of paper.^ It is 
 true that vellum rolls are found in use in the earliest period and 
 that codices were made of papyrus in the third century a.d. and 
 later, but such combinations of shape and material were never 
 more than unsatisfactory experiments and never came into 
 common use. (An instance of a vellum roll can be seen in 
 Vaticano-Palatinus 405.) 
 
 1 Paper, made of flax and similar plants (never of cotton), is an invention of 
 tlie Chinese. The Arabs learnt the secret of its manufacture from Chinese 
 prisoners in Samarcand in a.d. 751. Its use spread with the expansion of the 
 Arab dominion, and it is employed for Greek MSS. in the tenth century, for 
 Latin in the thirteenth. The name ' bombycinus ', which was once thought 
 to mean 'cotton-paper', is probably a popular confusion for ^afA^vKivos, i.e. 
 ' made at Bambyke ' near Samarcand. {v. Karabacek, Preface to Papyrus 
 Eyslierzog Rahter, 1894.) 
 
 47.1 
 
 B 
 
1 
 
 2 THE ANCIENT BOOK 
 
 The codex derives its shape and name from the wooden block 
 split into several writing tablets connected by hinges (Sen. de 
 Brcu. Vit. 13. 4 'plurium tabularum contextus caudex apud 
 antiquos uocatur'). Its shape and the beauty and durability 
 of the vellum from which its leaves were usually made would 
 seem to mark it as the most convenient form of book. Yet there 
 is no doubt that it was never really popular in ancient times. 
 It was adopted by the Roman world for reasons that will be 
 described later. It is evident that Greece ignored it as long as 
 she could, since the term Tcr^os, which is the only equivalent for 
 the Latin codex, is not found before the Christian era. For 
 nearly a thousand years after literature began in Greece (600 b. c- 
 A.D. 300) the papyrus roll was without a rival. It was light 
 and easy to handle, while its dull brown colour was pleasanter 
 to readers of normal eyesight than the white surface of vellum.* 
 
 Till the end of the eighteenth century little was known about 
 this form of the ancient book. No roll made of papyrus and 
 containing a classical text was accessible to scholars, and hence 
 it was impossible to form an estimate of the conditions under 
 which texts had been transmitted in the earliest times. In 1752 
 a large number of charred rolls containing the works of Philo- 
 demus, a minor philosopher of the Epicurean school, were 
 discovered in the course of excavations at Herculaneum, where 
 they had remained buried since the eruption of Vesuvius in 
 
 A.D. 79. 
 
 The discovery, however, of an unknown writer threw little 
 light upon the condition of the texts of the great classical 
 authors in the first century and could have no effect upon 
 textual criticism. More valuable discoveries were to come from 
 a different and unexpected source. In 1821 a papyrus copy of 
 a portion of the Iliad (the Bankes papyrus) was discovered in 
 Egypt, and an equally valuable fragment (the Harris papyrus) 
 
 Galen ^^mpX xpcias fiopiojv Kiihn iii. 776) says that the whiteness of 
 vellum was injurious to the eyes. Quintilian {De Instit. x. 3. 31) recommends 
 membranae rather than wax tablets to authors who have weak sight, but only to 
 serve as the rough draft and not for reading. 
 
 ♦ 
 
 THE ANCIENT BOOK 3 
 
 was discovered in 1849. Since then papyri, fragmentary or 
 complete, have been found in increasing abundance in the 
 district of the Fayoum to the south of Cairo and at Ashmunen 
 (Hermopolis) and Behnesa (Oxyrhynchus) in Upper Egypt 
 south of the Fayoum. A convenient summary of the literary 
 texts discovered up to 1897 will be found in C. Haberlin, 
 Griechischc Papyri (Leipzig, 1897). 
 
 These discoveries hav^e contributed a mass of evidence as to 
 the condition of ancient classical texts throughout a period 
 ranging from the end of the fourth century b. c. down to the 
 seventh century a. d. This evidence is even now hardly assimi- 
 lated and has often increased rather than simplified the prob- 
 lems of textual criticism in many writers. Unfortunately, the 
 new knowledge has been almost entirely confined to Greek 
 Literature and has not been balanced by any equivalent 
 gain in Latin. In the tombs and rubbish-heaps of the Greek 
 settlers in Egypt it is only by a rare chance ^ that fragments of 
 Roman authors are found. Whether a scientific exploration 
 of Herculaneum is likely to repair this loss must still remain 
 uncertain. If the discoveries which have already been made 
 there give the promise of a rich harvest, they also show that 
 none but charred rolls, which are exceedingly difficult to un- 
 fold and to decipher, are likely to have survived, since it is only 
 through the carbonization which they suffered in the conflagra- 
 tion of the town that they have been rendered immune from the 
 effects of damp and decay. 
 
 In the present chapter we shall consider the history of the 
 Roll, the conditions which its shape and size imposed upon its 
 contents, the reasons for its gradual disappearance, and also 
 attempt to estimate the influence which the change from Roll to 
 Codex may have exerted upon classical texts. 
 
 Bi'^Ao? or TTaTTu/jos is a kind of reed [Cypcrns papyrus) native to 
 Abyssinia, Nubia, and other regions of the Upper Nile. At an 
 
 * e.g. Oxyrhynchus Livy, Vergil, Oxyrh. 31, 1098, 1099; Cicero, Oxyrh. 
 1097, Rylands 61, Melanges Chatclain, p. 442 ; Sallust, Oxyrh. 884, Pap. Soc. 
 It. no. 
 
 B 2 
 
4 THE ANCIENT BOOK 
 
 early date it was introduced into Lower Egypt, where it 
 grew to perfection, especially in the region of the Delta. The 
 plant is now extinct except in the countries to which it originally 
 belonged. A different species [Cypcrits syriacits) was introduced 
 into Sicily in the tenth century by the Mohammedan Arabs and 
 still grows somewhat precariously in the river Anapus. 
 
 Papyrus is found in use in Egypt as a material for writing 
 at an exceedingly early date. One of the earliest documents 
 is an account book of King Assa which is dated 3580-3536 b.c. 
 For a long time this material remained peculiar to Egypt. 
 Shortly before 1000 b.c, however, there appears to have been 
 some movement in the hitherto arrested civilization of Syria 
 which issued in the invention of a more convenient system of 
 writing. This was the Alphabet, which under various forms is 
 still in use throughout the Western world. 
 
 The use of this alphabet spread rapidly from the nearer East 
 to the countries of the Mediterranean basin and created a demand 
 for a more convenient material for writing than the rolls of 
 leather, tablets of clay, and other substances which had long been 
 employed. To this period must be assigned the introduction 
 among the peoples of the eastern littoral of the Mediterranean of 
 rolls made of lighter materials, such as papyrus, or the inner 
 tissues of similar plants.^ 
 
 The history of the introduction of the roll into Greece is not 
 fully known. It is plain, however, from the fact that several of 
 the technical terms connected with writing are of Eastern 
 origin, that the materials for writing, as well as the alphabet, 
 came to Greece from the East. Bi'ySAos itself is derived from the 
 Phoenician town Byblos (G^bal) : ScAros, the wooden tablet which 
 is the earliest material for writing, is allied to the Semitic dc'leth, 
 *a door'. Xdprt/^j the Greek word for papyrus-paper, is 
 undoubtedly foreign, but its origin is uncertain. It is natural 
 to attribute the introduction of the papyrus roll into Greece to 
 
 ^ The Report of Wenamon (under Rameses XII, 1150 b.c.) mentions' the 
 importation of 500 rolls of papyrus from Egypt to Byblos. Breasted, Ancient 
 Reconh of Egypt, iv. 284. 
 
 I 
 
 \ 
 i \ 
 
 THE ANCIENT BOOK 5 
 
 the intellectual upheaval which began in Ionia in the seventh 
 century and spread rapidly across to continental Greece in the 
 sixth. A demand must have arisen for copies of literary works 
 which were too long to be conveniently reproduced on the 
 wooden tablets or leathern rolls which had hitherto been in use. 
 The intimate relations which existed between Egypt and Greece 
 from early times render it extremely probable that if a new and 
 more convenient material for writing was in demand, the papyrus 
 roll from Egypt could not have been overlooked. It has been 
 held, however, on the authority of Pliny,^ that the rolls in use 
 in Greece before the time of Alexander must have been made of 
 other materials than papyrus. Herodotus, too, has been taken to 
 corroborate Pliny, since in his account of the use made of papyrus 
 in Egypt (ii. 92) he omits to make any mention of its use for 
 paper. But Herodotus's silence may equally well be interpreted 
 as meaning that the use of papyrus for this purpose was so well 
 known in Greece that there was no need to state that it was used 
 for the same purpose in Egypt. And the fact that an Attic 
 inscription of 407 b. c. (C /. A. i. 324) refers to the purchase of 
 two sheets of papyrus for two drachmas four obols, whatever be 
 the interpretation put upon this apparently enormous price, is 
 sufficient to throw the gravest doubts on the accuracy of Pliny's 
 statement. 
 
 The best description of the papyrus plant is found in Theo- 
 phrastus. Hist. Plant, iv. 8. 3 (^t'erat h\ 6 Trdirvpo^ ovk iv pdOu Tov 
 I'daros dA.A' ocrov iv Svo 7rri)(€(riv, iviaxov Sk iv iXdrrovi. 7ra;(os fJikv ovv 
 TTJs pL^rjq rjXiKov Kapiros X^^P^^ dvSpos evpioo-Tov, /xrjKOS Sk virlp SeVa 
 Trrjx^LS. (f>v€TaL 8c V7r€p rrj^ yr^? avTrj<; TrXaytas fJt^as cis tov ttyjXov KaOtiU 
 AcTTTas Kttt TTVKva'S, dvio 8k ToL's TTttTn'/ooi's KaXovfJiivois TpiyMvovi /xe'yc^os 
 
 ws TCT/)a7rr/xci9. This account is embodied in the description given 
 by Pliny, N,H. xiii. ii. 21, where full details are given of the 
 process of manufacture of Charta. The triangular stem was 
 sliced lengthwise into thin ribbon-like strips {philyrae^ scissurae). 
 
 ' Plin. H.N. xiii. 11. 21 * Hanc (chartam) Alexandri Magni uictoria repertam 
 auctor est M. Varro, condita in Aegypto Alexandria. Antea non fuisse char- 
 tarum usum.' 
 
 •L 
 
6 THE ANCIENT BOOK 
 
 As the stem, when the outer envelope was removed, consisted of 
 a homogeneous pith/ all the strips taken from any one plant 
 were of equal quality and differed only in size, those taken from 
 the centre of the stem being the widest. The finest charta was 
 made from the widest strips. Every sheet {KokXrjfia, pagina, 
 scida) consisted of two layers of these strips, so arranged that 
 when the completed sheet lay before the writer, the strips which 
 formed the under layer or verso were perpendicular, while those 
 strips which formed the writing surface or recto were horizontal, 
 and so offered the least possible resistance to the reed pen with 
 which he wrote.- The sheet accordingly resembled a piece of 
 closed network, whence the name ^lktvov or plagiila which was 
 frequently applied to it in ancient times. This structure of the 
 sheet can be seen clearly in plate II. The two layers were 
 moistened with Nile water mixed with a little glue ; they were 
 then pressed together, dried in the sun, and rubbed smooth with 
 ivory or a shell and hammered to expel any moisture left between 
 the layers. The sheet was always greater in height than in 
 breadth, since the vertical strips were generally made longer than 
 the horizontal. The maximum height of the sheet is about 15^ 
 inches, the breadth 9|. But within these limits there are endless 
 variations, and it by no means follows that the tallest sheets are 
 also the widest. 
 
 As regards the size of the roll used for literary works there is 
 no evidence for the hard and fast rules which have been framed 
 by some modern authorities (e. g. Birt, Das imtike BuchwcseHy 
 1882). Pliny states that charta was sold in lengths of 20 sheets 
 (to/xoi y^tprov, scapi), and the number of 20 can still be seen marked 
 at intervals on Egyptian rolls. But such a length was only 
 a device of the xf^pTOTroyXrj^ to meet the average demand, and did 
 not imply any restriction on the author, who was free to issue 
 his work in any size that suited his convenience. The shape 
 and arrangement of the roll, however, suggested a mean size of 
 
 
 
 ..'-.'•(■•■Too,-" It- •» ''* 
 
 
 It: ^^;:^ < ^ -^^ -^ 
 
 I 
 
 -*?■ 
 
 /-;, 
 
 '^ •*< .^ ^C'" ^ 
 
 J 
 
 
 - •'■• -q < -r 'h ■ 
 
 V 
 
 f - . A.-.-. 
 
 >.'• 
 
 • r 
 
 
 
 « ! 
 
 ^ ■ •■ 
 
 
 
 -" ' ^ 
 
 
 
 <- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1%. 
 
 
 *'W' 
 
 * *1. 
 
 y 
 
 
 ~7 
 
 
 ■ -■' 
 
 
 * 
 
 ««» 
 
 .«,., 
 
 
 
 M| 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 ■-■t' 
 
 
 r ^ -t 
 
 
 u 
 
 >» 
 
 ■-*««• 
 
 J 
 
 ■w-- .' 
 
 
 ,.-^... 
 
 
 , 
 
 "'^^ 
 
 ^ ' 
 
 
 - 
 
 ■^*\ 
 
 ■*>. ■ 
 
 .>*-A 
 
 *t 
 
 
 ' (' 
 
 
 ■V 
 
 M 
 
 ! 
 
 
 A. 
 
 8^ < 
 
 o ^ 
 
 X ^ 
 
 ■ « 
 
 f* 
 
 1 It did not consist of concentric layers as is sometimes stated. 
 
 2 According to Ibscher {Archiv f. Pap.-forsch. v. 191) the horizontal fibres 
 would be strained if rolled outwards. 
 
 I 
 
 '•■<^'.' 
 
 rtS 
 
 
 »■ V 
 
 'l^>- fA 
 
 i^^iKm§ 
 
 .-*^ ^ 
 
 '-**& 
 
 ... ' ; 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 '^-^ .v.- ^..^' 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 r 
 
6 THE ANCIENT BOOK 
 
 As the stem, when the outer envelope was removed, consisted of 
 a homogeneous pith/ all the strips taken from any one plant 
 were of equal quality and differed only in size, those taken from 
 the centre of the stem being the widest. The finest charta was 
 made from the widest strips. Every sheet (KoXAvz/xa, pagina, 
 scida) consisted of two layers of these strips, so arranged that 
 when the completed sheet lay before the writer, the strips which 
 formed the under layer or verso were perpendicular, while those 
 strips which formed the writing surface or recto were horizontal, 
 and so offered the least possible resistance to the reed pen with 
 which he wrote.- The sheet accordingly resembled a piece of 
 closed network, whence the name hiKTvov or plagitla which was 
 frequently applied to it in ancient times. This structure of the 
 sheet can be seen clearly in plate II. The two layers were 
 moistened with Nile water mixed with a little glue ; they were 
 then pressed together, dried in the sun, and rubbed smooth with 
 ivory or a shell and hammered to expel any moisture left between 
 the layers. The sheet was always greater in height than in 
 breadth, since the vertical strips were generally made longer than 
 the horizontal. The maximum height of the sheet is about 15J 
 inches, the breadth g\. But within these limits there are endless 
 variations, and it by no means follows that the tallest sheets are 
 also the widest. 
 
 As regards the size of the roll used for literary works there is 
 no evidence for the hard and fast rules which have been framed 
 by some modern authorities (e. g. Birt, Das antike BncJm'eseUy 
 1882). Pliny states that charta was sold in lengths of 20 sheets 
 (to/xoi x'lpTov, scapi), and the number of 20 can still be seen marked 
 at intervals on Egyptian rolls. But such a length was only 
 a device of the x^n^'f^'^^'^^V^ ^^ "^^^t the average demand, and did 
 not imply any restriction on the author, who was free to issue 
 his work in any size that suited his convenience. The shape 
 and arrangement of the roll, however, suggested a mean size of 
 
 
 r 
 
 
 '<»W^'-^»f?H-'^'«1^- 
 
 .ff*^'" 
 
 }■' '"^ 
 
 5., « 
 
 ' i 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 ^m T *-^ *'»n -^ ' ■' 
 
 
 -^ .v«i 
 
 fr*^. 
 
 
 X [ .J 
 
 
 1,^.,« 
 
 
 >• -. - 
 
 r ••' 
 
 \i 4\ •.'if*' \ 
 
 'IJ.J ■^' n -Is «< 
 -J ^ '-7 
 
 
 
 ^t 
 
 
 ./ 
 
 T f 
 
 , } ■ -»v* 
 
 
 >#*'- ■\^ 
 
 t.,' 
 
 
 v^. 
 
 '«• 
 
 ■. y f 
 
 ^' 
 
 e— 
 
 4- 
 
 Vfr' 
 
 7 < 
 
 t fiaM 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 ,*^ 
 
 
 
 ,»^«V 
 
 ■/J 
 
 ««•• 
 
 
 ,(•»• 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 *• 
 
 «--' 
 
 
 -.^./ 
 
 ' 
 
 ^••-v 
 
 
 
 n ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 fc-# 
 
 ^-..i 
 
 
 4 . 
 
 J 
 
 ■ ..it 
 
 0- -V 
 
 V t*"^ 
 
 ^*\ 
 
 
 '•..y 
 
 
 E9S&f 
 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 1 ^ 
 
 • 
 
 
 .4-* 
 
 
 r^ 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 On 
 
 a 
 
 VO 
 
 T3 
 
 CNJ 
 
 3 'g 
 
 X z 
 
 ' It did not consist of concentric la^'crs as is sometimes staled. 
 - According to Ibschcr {Arclnv f. Pap.-forsch. v. 191 the horizontal fibres 
 would be strained it rolled outwards. 
 
 
 .J 
 
 1 f 
 
 
 ► "Y •»-*•*-. 
 
 '•J ; 
 
 r 
 
 
 ./ 
 
 '< 
 
 
 
 Ji/ 'iiL^. . Jiikdabd: 
 
 
 
 r ^ '^ 
 
 -tt-^ 
 
 i 
 
 ^ .'•-^, ^« .^,3f ...'•, 
 
 :Mw« 
 
 
 v^ 
 
 ./ 
 
 ■ '. '■;-' ^ '<' ■^;i 
 
 
 
 i 
 

 yi 
 
 THE ANCIENT BOOK 7 
 
 20 to 30 feet, the higher limit according to Kenyoii being rarely if 
 ever exceeded. The largest papyrus of Hyperides in the British 
 Museum (cviii, cxv) is about 28 feet in length, that of Herodas 
 was originally about 25 feet long, while the roll containing 
 Hyperides 1)1 AtJicnogcncui cannot have exceeded 7 feet. The 
 Herculaneum rolls all vary in length, and to judge from the sum 
 total of columns which is in many instances indicated, they must 
 often have exceeded 20 sheets in length. There are, for instance, 
 147 columns in Philodemus, Trcpt pYjropiKrjs 8' to -n-poTcpov. 
 
 The statements in the classical writers themselves imply that 
 the size of the roll could be adjusted to its contents, e.g. Cic. ad 
 Att. xvi. 6 'Tu illud desecabis, hoc adglutinabis '; Hor. Scnn. i. 
 10. 92 ' I puer atque meo citus haec subscribe libello \ A roll pre- 
 served at Vienna (pap. Zois ii) has been lengthened in this way. 
 It is also clear that Monohibla^ or works published separately in 
 a single roll, could vary considerably in size. Thus the Carmen 
 saeculare contains only 76 lines, Martial's Xcnia 266, Vergil's 
 Bucolics ^2.^, while Horace Epp. i contains 1,006. But, though 
 an author might issue a single book in a roll of any size that was 
 not too awkward to handle, it would have obviously been incon- 
 venient to have a long work, whether a poem or a history, written 
 in sections of unequal length. In the pre-Alexandrine period 
 an author seems to have arranged a long work without any 
 regard to the size of the roll. Thucydides evidently composed 
 his work as a continuous whole without trying to adjust the 
 pauses in his narrative so that they might coincide with the end 
 of the rolls in which it was published. This is the system 
 referred to by the anonymous author of the Lexicon Vitidobonensc, 
 
 p. 273 (Nauck) at /xeVrot paxfu^hiai Kara crwa^eiav ri^ovTO^ KopuyvL^i piovjf 
 
 8tao-T€AXo/x€mt, aXAo) 8' ov^ivi, i. e. the writing was continuous and 
 the break in the narrative was not calculated so as to come at 
 the end of the roll, but might occur anywhere, and was signified 
 by the coronis (v. p. 13) wherever necessary. It is also the 
 system which Livius Andronicus found in use when he translated 
 the Odyssey into Latin, since it is known that his version took 
 no account of the later division into twenty-four books. 
 
8 
 
 THE ANCIENT BOOK 
 
 This system must have made it extremely difficult to find 
 a passage in a long work without considerable trouble. It was 
 accordingly superseded, soon after the foundation of Alexandria, 
 by a new system which was more suited to the needs of the great 
 libraries and to the highly developed trade in books which the 
 great libraries fostered. The principle of the Alexandrines is that 
 the author when composing his work must not forget the size of 
 the rolls which it would require, but endeavour to make his main 
 divisions coincide with the end of each roll. The principle was 
 applied to the older literature, e. g. Herodotus and Thucydides 
 were arranged in nine and eight books respectively. Thus the 
 ' books ' into which the older works are divided are to be regarded 
 as purely arbitrary divisions invented by the Alexandrines for 
 their own convenience and not as part of the author's original plan. 
 
 The introduction of a roll of standard size led to the arrange- 
 ment of large works in groups of rolls. Without some such 
 arrangement a long work would have presented an intolerable 
 chaos to the ordinary reader. 
 
 An obvious scheme of division for long works was found in the 
 twenty-four letters ofthe alphabet (e.g. in Homer, Theophrastus, 
 Aristotle). Where this scheme was not convenient the decimal 
 numeration (with ^ = 6, i = lo, k = 20) was adopted. The 
 various groups in which the longest works were arranged are 
 based upon one or other of these systems. The works of Varro 
 were arranged in groups of three or six rolls (fr/ads or licxads) : 
 those of Plotinus in groups of nine (euucads). The most usual 
 arrangement was in groups of five [pentads, e. g. Diodorus) or ten 
 (decads, e.g. Plato, Republic, Cassius Dio, Livy). If kept in an 
 annariuni or press with shelves, the rolls were often arranged 
 in a pyramid, and for this purpose decads were especially con- 
 venient, since they could be arranged with a base of four rolls 
 on which were placed layers of three, two, and one successively. 
 An illustration of this (though from a late monument) is repro- 
 duced here (plate III) from Clark's Care of Books (p. 38, Fig. 131 
 For transport a capsa or box was used. If the eapsa was square 
 in shape the rolls were tied together in a bundle and laid flat 
 
 < 
 
 tf) 
 
 -T3 ^ 
 
 
 c c 
 
 
 cz 
 
 
 b'-^ 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 7) 
 
 
 — G 
 
 
 ' — ' • ^-< 
 
 
 ~ 0) 
 
 
 r- 
 
 
 bjoq 
 
 
 ci 
 
 
 u . 
 
 
 
 
 *^ 
 
 
 
 05 
 
 y. 
 
 c3 '^ 
 
 Q 
 
 ^_, (/) 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 ta— 
 
 ►-^ 
 
 w.S 
 
 1— H 
 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 y 
 
 • ■*-' M 
 
 < 
 
 ^ == M 
 
 u 
 
 -0 = 1^ 
 
 
 J-. -• 
 
 m 
 
 7 <i; 
 
 > 
 
 (U f- c 
 
 hi 
 
 « ■'-' 
 
 N*4 
 
 ■= bO^ 
 
 
 
 ^^ r^ ^^ 
 
 C •— '»• 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 CC 
 
 
 
 •-.^ s 
 
 
 cS fl) •>. 
 
 <L) r= ::5 
 
 u, ?: re 
 
 g ul^ 
 
 ■^ ^ c 
 ." to 
 
8 
 
 THE ANCIENT BOOK 
 
 This system must have made it extremely difficult to find 
 a passage in a long work without considerable trouble. It was 
 accordingly superseded, soon after the foundation of Alexandria, 
 by a new system which was more suited to the needs of the great 
 libraries and to the highly developed trade in books which the 
 great libraries fostered. The principle of the Alexandrines is that 
 the author when composing his work must not forget the size of 
 the rolls which it would require, but endeavour to make his main 
 divisions coincide with the end of each roll. The principle w^as 
 applied to the older literature, e.g. Herodotus and Thucydides 
 were arranged in nine and eight books respectively. Thus the 
 ' books ' into which the older works are divided are to be regarded 
 as purely arbitrary divisions invented by the Alexandrines for 
 their own convenience and not as part of the author's original plan. 
 
 The introduction of a roll of standard size led to the arrancfe- 
 ment of large works in groups of rolls. Without some such 
 arrangement a long work would have presented an intolerable 
 chaos to the ordinary reader. 
 
 An obvious scheme of division for long works was found in the 
 twenty-four letters of the alphabet (e. g. in Homer, Theophrastus, 
 Aristotle). Where this scheme was not convenient the decimal 
 numeration (with - = 6, / = ro, k = 2o| was adopted. The 
 various groups in which the longest works were arranged are 
 based upon one or other of these systems. The works of Warro 
 were arranged in groups of three or six rolls {triads or hcxads) : 
 those of Plotinus in groups of nine [ciuica(h). The most usual 
 arrangement was in groups of five {/yentads, e.g. Diodorus) or ten 
 {(iccaHs, e.g. Plato, Rcpiihlk, Cassius Dio, Livy). If kept in an 
 annarinm or press with shelves, the rolls were often arranged 
 in a pyramid, and for this purpose decads were especially con- 
 venient, since they could be arranged with a base of four rolls 
 on which were placed layers of three, two, and one successivelv. 
 An illustration of this (though from a late monument) is repro- 
 duced here (plate HI) from Clark's Cave of Books (p. 38, Fig. i3\ 
 For transport a capsa or box was used. If the capsa was square 
 in shape the rolls were tied together in a bundle and laid flat 
 
 /] 
 
 < 
 ►J 
 
 "O .'{I 
 
 en 
 
 O SI 
 
 — u 
 — - bo -w 
 
 ^ C i-j ->. 
 
 o c: -^ 
 
 J- ;= rt 
 
 < 
 o 
 
 
 
i 
 
 ' 
 
 THE ANCIENT BOOK 9 
 
 inside it ; if, as was more usual, it was round, they were placed 
 in it upright so as to stand on their ends. This system of 
 grouping rolls together will explain why whole decads of Livy 
 have perished. Any injury that befell the box might easily affect 
 all the ten rolls which it contained. 
 
 This new principle of standard sizes for the roll— though, as 
 will be seen, the standard was not absolutely rigid — affects all 
 literature from the time of Alexander till the third century a. d., 
 when the vellum codex began to take the place of the papyrus roll. 
 As an indication of the manner in which it was put in practice, 
 the statement of Isidore, Bishop of Seville (d. a. d. 636), may be 
 accepted : ' Quaedam nomina librorum certis modulis conficie- 
 bantur, breuiori forma carmina atque epistolae, at uero historiae 
 maiori modulo scribebantur ' [Etymologiae, vi. 12). 
 
 Poetry was read for pleasure, and the reader would frequently 
 wish to carry the book about with him. Hence the roll was 
 made of moderate size. The average length was from 700 to 1,100 
 lines, and the longer books found in the poems of Apollonius 
 Rhodius (1,285-1,781 lines) and Lucretius (1,094-1,457) are to be 
 regarded as survivals from the pre-Alexandrine period. Vergil 
 in the Acneid ranges from 705 to 952 : Ovid in the Mcfa/norp/wses 
 from 623 to 968. The collections of Letters that were written for 
 publication, and hence are properly to be regarded as belonging 
 to polite literature, fall into similar divisions. The unit of 
 measurement for Prose is the ottixos or line of maximum size 
 which was taken to be the average length of a hexameter verse, 
 i. e. 16 syllables or 34-8 letters.^ The Letters of the younger 
 Pliny were published in nine books, each of which contains from 
 1,062 to 1,232 (TTLxoi. They vary accordingly within the exceed- 
 ingly narrow limit of 170 lines. 
 
 The roll used for prose works was generally intended for 
 reference and appealed to a narrower circle of readers. It 
 
 1 In practice (as will be seen below, p. 12) the written line was often shorter. 
 But for the purposes of the trade, in order e. g. to fix the price of the book and 
 the payment due to the scribe, it was found convenient to have a standard 
 * line ', just as the modern copyist finds it convenient to have a standard * folio ' 
 as a unit of measurement. 
 
lO 
 
 THE ANCIENT BOOK 
 
 I! 
 
 was often four or five times as large as the average roll of 
 poetry. The books of Livy vary in length from 1,905 to 3,365 
 lines. Tacitus, Cassius Dio, and Ammianus rarely exceed 
 two thousand. At a rough estimate the length of the books of 
 a carefully planned prose work may be taken as two to three 
 thousand lines. But, as in Poetry, there was no constraint upon 
 the author who did not choose to consult the convenience of his 
 readers. Polybius and Diodorus are old-fashioned and occasion- 
 ally extend the roll to five thousand. Pausanias, Strabo, and 
 Dioscorides are writers of scientific treatises and allow their 
 material to govern the size of their rolls, which range from two 
 to four thousand lines. 
 
 It is evident, therefore, that the size of the roll ultimately 
 controlled the arrangement of its contents, though the margin 
 of variation was wide enough not to impose any burdensome 
 restriction upon an author. 
 
 The conditions under which the earlier literature was produced 
 before the organization of the book-trade in Greece will be con- 
 sidered in the next chapter. It is known that a commerce in 
 books had developed in Athens towards the close of the fifth 
 century. Xenophon {Anab. vii. 5. 14) states that part of the 
 cargo of a ship wrecked at Salmydessos in Thrace consisted of 
 PipXoi yiypa^^ixivai. It is clear therefore that an export trade had 
 already begun. The evidence as to the methods employed by 
 ancient booksellers in producing editions of literary works is 
 exceedingly scanty until the time of Cicero. There is, however, 
 no reason for .supposing that the methods of the trade had 
 changed in their main outlines between the fifth century and the 
 first. 
 
 In the first century b. c. an author was not paid for his work 
 by the bookseller. Cicero could hardly have cancelled the intro- 
 duction to the Academica without paying some compensation to 
 Atticus, if Atticus had paid him a royalty. There was no law of 
 literary copyright either in Greece or Rome, and the first issue 
 of a book was the only edition that could be controlled by the 
 author or the bookseller whom he employed. Hence it was to 
 
 THE ANCIENT BOOK 
 
 II 
 
 the interest of an author that the first edition of his book should 
 be published in as accurate a form as possible. Often he revised 
 the early copies himself (cf. Mart. vii. 17. 7 Mibellos auctoris 
 calamo sui notatos '). In any case a copy, if properly made, 
 was not issued until it had been revised by the SiopOwTrj^s or 
 corrector, who compared it with the original, or if it were a copy 
 of a work already published, with some standard text. (Cf. 
 Strabo xiil. l. 54, p. 609 koI /Si^XtoTrwAat ni/cs ypa^cuo-t c^ai-Aots xpw- 
 fieioL Kai ovK avTL/3d\XovT€<;, oTrep kol IttI twv olWmv or/x^aiVct tQ)v cis 
 Trpadiv ypa^o/AcVwv /3l/3Xlo)V kol ivOaSi kol Iv 'AAc^arSpeut.) 
 
 When a work was likely to be in demand, a large number of 
 slaves must have been employed simultaneously in producing 
 copies of the author's manuscript. It is often asserted that the 
 text was dictated in order to secure speed in production. But 
 while it is impossible to deny that this method may have been 
 employed, it is difficult to see what advantage it would bring. 
 Whatever time might be saved in making the copy would be 
 lost in the subsequent labour of correcting the numerous errors 
 that could hardly fail to arise in copies taken down from 
 dictation by a large number of scribes, many or most of whom 
 would be foreigners. It is significant that Greek and Roman 
 art preserves no representation of scribes copying from dictation 
 in the manner portrayed in Egyptian reliefs. While there is 
 no evidence of the methods of copying that were actually in 
 use, it is not difficult to imagine one more feasible than dictation. 
 The author's copy might be divided into sections, and each 
 .section passed to a number of scribes to be copied by them in 
 succession : or, if speed were essential, each scribe might copy 
 a single section many times over, the different sections being 
 subsequently joined together so as to form complete rolls. It 
 would not have been difficult to ensure such uniformity of 
 handwriting as would make the difference between the sections 
 hardly noticeable. 
 
 In the earliest period the lines of the columns of prose 
 writing in the roll seem to have been of unequal length. At 
 a later date it becomes the practice, introduced perhaps by the 
 
12 
 
 THE ANCIENT BOOK 
 
 Alexandrines, to make the lines almost uniform in any single 
 roll, if allowance is made for the slight inequalities entailed 
 by the strict rules for the division of syllables which were 
 observed in Greek. The length of the line was not always 
 the same. The old view that the Alexandrines deliberately 
 chose the hexameter line as the standard of length to be 
 always observed by the scribe is now abandoned. The truth 
 appears to be that the hexameter, which contains on an average 
 from 34 to 38 letters, was a convenient measure of maximum 
 length. But the line in common use in the papyri is often 
 much shorter and consists sometimes of not more than 10 to 15 
 letters. The average length is from 20 to 25. 
 
 In verse texts the stichic or uniform metres (e.g. iambic 
 scnarii and the dactylic hexameter) are written line by line. 
 Where, however, the passage is composed of mixed metres, 
 e.g. in lyric poetry and in dramatic choruses, the practice varies. 
 In the Timotheos fragment, contemporary with Alexander the 
 Great, the whole is written as prose: in the Bacchylides 
 papyrus (circ. 50 b.c.) the metres are written in separate lines. 
 In the Berlin Fragments of Corinna (No. 284, second century 
 A.D.) both methods appear. In the Berlin fragment of the 
 Phacthon (P. 9771, which is said to belong to the first century 
 B.C.) the choruses are written in prose, the metres being in- 
 dicated by a horizontal stroke of the pen. This neglect of the 
 proper metrical divisions in the early copies lies at the bottom 
 of much textual corruption in poetry. 
 
 A further source of error was the practice, almost universal 
 in ancient times, of writing each line of the text in a con- 
 tinuous script.^ This led to confusions in writing, and the 
 hand of the 'corrector' who has endeavoured to remove them 
 can still be seen in the papyri that survive. It led also to 
 confusions on the part of the reader, though some attempt is 
 often made to assist the reader by signs. Among such signs 
 are : (i) The ordinary accents placed over difficult words and 
 
 » Instances are found in Latin where the words are divided by points, e.g. the 
 Crtrw^«.ic//rtao«from Herculaneum ;Scott,, Fm^;;/r///a//fm</rt«^«5^^^^ 
 
 THE ANCIENT BOOK 
 
 T3 
 
 proper names. Often the unaccented syllables only are marked 
 with barytone accents. A diaeresis distinguishes the vowels 
 I and i;. (2) The sign _ under the line is used (as in the 
 later codices) to indicate compound words. A diastole or 
 mark like a comma is used as a sign that words are to be 
 separated. (3) Punctuation. The dot above the line indicates 
 the minor pauses. Dots in the middle and low position are also 
 used for punctuation. A colon or double point is used to mark 
 the division between the sentences and a change of speaker. 
 The paragraphos, or lateral stroke ( _._) drawn under the line to 
 which it refers, signifies a break in the sense, such as is 
 occasioned by a change of speaker in a dialogue or play,' and 
 is also used to denote a pause of any kind. In choruses this 
 stroke is used to distinguish strophe and antistrophos. The 
 end of a book or of some large division is marked by the 
 coronis t^, which is merely an elaboration of the paragraphos. 
 Occasionally it is used like the paragraphos to distinguish 
 strophes in poetry. 
 
 If notes are inserted in the roll they are ordinarily written 
 in the space to the right of the column to which they refer. If 
 the scribe contemplated writing notes of any length he left wide 
 spaces between the columns as in the Oxyrhynchus papyrus of 
 the Paeans of Pindar (No. 841). But it was not the custom to 
 surround the text with the elaborate commentaries that are 
 sometimes found in the later vellum codices. Such commen- 
 taries, e.g. the Berlin Didymus on Demosthenes, were published 
 as separate works. 
 
 There is no reason to believe that the lines or columns of a 
 roll were ever numbered so as to facilitate reference. The 
 meaning of the stichometrical numbers has been explained 
 above, p. 9, note i (cf. also Schubart, Das Buck, p. 67 sqq.). 
 
 Papyrus was by no means a durable material except in dry 
 
 climates. When new it was exceedingly tough, but its strength 
 
 diminished with age and use. It was quickly spoilt, if not 
 
 destroyed, by damp and was soon attacked by insects unless 
 
 * The insertion of the dramatis personae dates from the Empire. 
 
14 
 
 THE ANCIENT BOOK 
 
 THE ANCIENT BOOK 
 
 15 
 
 treated with cedar oil. The first sheet (ttpiotukoXXov) and the 
 last {iaxaroKoXXiov, Martial, ii. 6. 3) were peculiarly liable to 
 damage. To enable the first sheet to withstand the strain of 
 constant handling it was sometimes stiffened by a strip about 
 an inch wide pasted on the back. The last sheet was similarly 
 protected. The papyri which have hitherto been found do 
 not show any traces of the rollers {6fx<f>a\6<s, umbilicus) of wood 
 or ivory which the Roman authors constantly mention as at- 
 tached to the beginning and end of the roll.^ There is, however, 
 no reason to doubt that they were in use, though they were 
 probably confined to the more expensive rolls. It is obvious 
 that the first or last sheet might easily be torn from such a 
 roller if the reader was not careful in unrolling his book or in 
 rolling it up again. The effect of mutilations at the beginning 
 and end of the roll upon the texts of classical writers will be 
 considered later. 
 
 A slip of vellum, leather, or papyrus {(TiTTvpos, loriiin, indeXj 
 titiilus) of oblong shape was attached either to the roll itself 
 or to the umbilicus so as to enable the title to be read without 
 opening the roll or even removing it from its receptacle. One 
 has been found still in position attached to a papyrus of 
 Bacchylides (P. Oxyrh. 1091). In the elaborate copies made for 
 libraries or for the best class of purchasers the title of the work 
 was given inside the book as well, either at the beginning or at 
 the end. Copies made privately, according to Galen, sometimes 
 
 had no title : ^iKxn^ ya/j r; fJLa6iiTa7<s i^iSoTo X^/^^^ €7rLyf)a<f>yj^ w? av 
 
 ov^€ TT/jos €k8o(tlv (Galcu, Kuhu, xix. 9). Doubtless many of the 
 instances of anonymous literature, e. g. the Ad Hcrcnnium and 
 the Treatise on the Sublime, are due to descent from some 
 privately written copy of the original. 
 
 The shape of the roll also gave rise to the practice of quoting 
 from memor}', which is common to all ancient writers. The 
 roll would not lie conveniently on the desk, and hence an author 
 could easily be tempted to avoid the trouble of verifying a 
 quotation. The change from roll to codex is reflected in the 
 
 * Cf. Stat. Siln. iv. 9. 8 'binis decoratus umbilicis'. 
 
 methods of writers, such as Orosius [c. a.d. 417), who do not 
 assimilate their authorities but transcribe them. 
 
 The Codex or folded book plays no great part in the transmis- 
 sion of literary works until the fourth century a. d. There is no 
 evidence to show that it was ever in common use in Greece or 
 in Greek lands before the Christian era. The early references 
 which seem to imply the existence of some sort of folded book 
 before this date are all inconclusive, e. g. Aesch. Suppl. 947 ov8' 
 cV TTTi'xat? pipXoiv KaT€(T(f>payLafjieva, a passage which has been 
 needlessly suspected. This, however, may mean no more than 
 a folded sheet. Galen alludes to editions of Hippocrates 
 written on x«pTat three hundred years before his time (Kiihn, 
 xviii. 2). These may not be books, but only copies of the 
 smaller treatises made upon loose sheets for the convenience of 
 the student. For a time it was thought that evidence for the 
 use of the codex in Asia Minor as early as the first century b.c. 
 could be obtained from an inscription discovered at Priene. 
 Early in that century the citizens of Priene decreed certain 
 honours to one of their officials named Aulus Aemilius Zosimus, 
 who, among the many services which he had rendered to his 
 native town, had made a collection of the local decrees and had 
 presented the town with two copies, one on papyrus and the 
 other, it has been supposed, on vellum and in the form of 
 
 a codex : SlttXtJv rijv dvaypacfirjv avTUiV irapaSovs Iv SepptaTLvois kol pvj^- 
 
 XivoL<s Tivx^aiv (Von Gartringen, Insclir. von Priene, No. 114). 
 But it is more than doubtful whether revxo^ can be taken to 
 mean codex at so early a date. More probably it means a roll 
 (cf. Birt, Die Buchrolle, p. 21, note 2) made of the ordinary 
 hi<ji6ipaL or leathern skins that were common throughout the East 
 from the earliest times. The folded book was doubtless known 
 in early times in Greece. The pattern was already to hand in 
 the folded tablet of wood. But it is clear that it was not in 
 common use till it was adopted by the Romans, or the references 
 to it would be more explicit. 
 At Rome it was many centuries before the vellum codex came 
 
 i 
 
i6 
 
 THE ANCIENT BOOK 
 
 li 
 
 into use for works of literature, and the history of its develop- 
 ment is uncertain. Towards the end of the Republic vellum 
 was used by authors for their rough drafts and vellum codices 
 were used by merchants for their account books. Its durability, 
 and the comparative ease with which it could be cleaned and 
 used again, recommended it for both these purposes. Not till 
 the first century a. d. do we begin to find it used for permanent 
 copies of literary works. Martial, in the fourteenth book of his 
 epigrams entitled the Apophorcta, the date of which is placed 
 circa a.d. 85, describes a number of gifts suitable for presen- 
 tation by rich and poor to their friends at the Saturnalia. The 
 gifts are arranged in pairs, and in the original arrangement 
 (which has been disturbed in several places) the expensive gift 
 is described first. Among these gifts are rolls and codices : and 
 it is not easy to infer from the collection as it stands whether 
 the rolls or the codices are regarded as the more costly present. 
 Among the pairs given are : 
 184. Homerus in pugillaribus 183. Homeri Batrachomachia. 
 
 membraneis. 
 186. Vergilius in membranis. 185. Vergili Culex. 
 188. Cicero in membraneis. 189. Monobyblos Properti. 
 
 190. Titus Liuius in membranis. 191. Sallustius. 
 192. Ouidi Metamorphosis in 193. Tibullus. 
 
 membranis. 
 194. Lucanus. 195. Catullus. 
 
 It has been argued with great persistence by Birt that the 
 rolls which are here given in the second column are the more 
 expensive gifts. 
 
 He is led to this view in order to obtain support for his theory 
 that papyrus was always more expensive than vellum, and in 
 order to maintain it he has to assume that the works contained 
 in the rolls were valuable from their rarity as well as written on 
 the more costly material. Otherwise it would be impossible to 
 argue that works of such small compass as the Citlex, Sallust, 
 Catullus, and Propertius could be reckoned as more valuable 
 presents than the whole of Vergil and of Ovid's MctainorpJioses, 
 
 THE ANCIENT BOOK 
 
 17 
 
 But there is no evidence that the small works in question had 
 become rare so early as the age of Martial, and the natural 
 view is to regard them (with Friedlander) as the cheap presents. 
 The vellum codices here mentioned will then be an expensive 
 form of book, pocket editions used by the rich when on their 
 travels^: e.g. the edition of Cicero on vellum in Martial 
 xiv. 188 'Si comes ista tibi fuerit membrana, putato Carpere 
 te longas cum Cicerone uias'. It is not necessary to suppose 
 that such editions contained the complete works of the longer 
 authors such as Cicero or Livy. Doubtless they consisted of 
 excerpts. This seems implied in the description of the codex of 
 Livy in xiv. 190 ' Pellibus exiguis artatur Liuius ingens '. 
 
 The vellum codex therefore as a medium for the preservation 
 of literature was slowly winning its way to recognition in the 
 time of Martial. A small indication of the position which it 
 held by the side of the papyrus roll is afforded by the language 
 of the jurists during the first three centuries of the Empire. 
 Though they had long used the codex themselves they are never 
 quite certain whether it can be included under the legal meaning 
 of the term ' lihri\ In the first century Cassius Longinus 
 ventures on the opinion that membranae are books, and that if 
 a testator left his 'books' to his heir membranae would be 
 included among them. But Ulpian in the third century doubts 
 the soundness of this opinion, and holds that on a strict inter- 
 pretation only rolls are denoted by the term (Dig. xxxiii. 52), 
 though it is immaterial whether rolls are made of papyrus or 
 vellum. 
 
 The convenience of the codex recommended it to the use of 
 the Church. The Gospels were undoubtedly transmitted in the 
 form of rolls during the first two centuries. But the roll was 
 neither compact nor durable. A single codex, however, could 
 
 It is only by assuming tliat vellum was more expensive than papyrus that 
 uc can explain the alarm felt in the reign of Tiberius when the supply of 
 papyrus seemed likely to fail. ' Factumque iam Tiberlo principe inopia chartae 
 ut e senatu darentur arbitri dispensandis : alias in tumultu uita erat ' i^Plin. H. N. 
 xni. 13. 89). Civilized life could hardly have been threatened by such a failure 
 if there had really been cheap vellum ready to take ihe place of papyrus. 
 
 473 C 
 
i8 
 
 THE ANCIENT BOOK 
 
 THE ANCIENT BOOK 
 
 19 
 
 /.■ 
 
 contain all that was essential to the Eaith : it could withstand 
 constant use and could be produced cheaply enough to satisfy 
 the demand of the poorer classes who were the earliest converts 
 to Christianity. 
 
 By the fourth century the codex had become a serious rival to 
 the roll. Basil and Jerome use both forms of book, but Jerome 
 himself in his letter to Marcella offers a typical instance of the 
 change that was everywhere taking place. He there describes 
 the condition of the library of Pamphilus of Caesarea. The 
 rolls in it were found to be in a state of decay towards the end 
 of the fourth century and two priests, Euzoius and Acacius, 
 undertook to transcribe their contents upon codices. In profane 
 literature the growing popularity of the codex is attested by 
 specimens belonging to the fourth century which still survive 
 in a fragmentary condition (e.g. Vatican Vergil 3225, usually 
 quoted as F) : and with this century begins the gradual trans- 
 ference of the ancient literature from roll to codex, though 
 the use of the roll certainly survived among the cultivated 
 pagan remnant in the West till the fifth century. 
 
 The influence which this 'codification' of ancient writers may 
 have had upon the texts of their works is a factor which must 
 enter into any critical estimate. Such a transference is like the 
 change in the gauge of a railway which is bound to affect the 
 rolling stock. One result, which was not long delayed, was 
 a shrinkage in the bulk of the older literature. The vellum 
 codex was costly, though cheaper for a long work than a large 
 number of rolls. Authors survived or perished according to the 
 value set upon them during this period. Many works of the 
 highest value were allowed to decay in the roll form and passed 
 out of existence, e.g. the historian Theopompus. It is to this 
 period rather than to the Byzantine age that the main losses in 
 Greek literature must be ascribed. In nearly every case the 
 effect of the change was to leave the longer works incomplete. 
 Either the collection of rolls which served as the archetype of our 
 vellum manuscripts was defective, or excerpts were intentionally 
 substituted for the complete text. As early as the last century 
 
 before Christ, Diodorus (xvi. 3. 8) complains of the loss of several 
 rolls belonging to the History of Theopompus. The works of 
 Livy, which were complete in the time of Symmachus (350-420), 
 must have become mutilated soon after : and the same fate 
 overtook the writings of Tacitus, Quintus Curtius, Diodorus, 
 and Varro. 
 
 Another effect was the confusion and sometimes the total 
 obliteration of the old arrangement by books. This arrange- 
 ment, which, as has been seen, was the corollary of the roll 
 system, was no longer essential when the text was transferred 
 to the codex. A long section would no longer entail a long and 
 cumbersome roll and the author could now choose sections of 
 any length that seemed best to him. Little harm, however, has 
 been done where the disappearance of the old divisions has not 
 dislocated the text, e.g. in Demosthenes' Aoyot 7rapaypa(f>LKoi, 
 which were arranged in ro/xoi of six orations apiece, as can be 
 seen from the traces that still survive in the Paris codex :^. So 
 too in Juvenal the old division into books would be lost but for 
 the evidence of the Pithoeanus. Here again the text has not 
 suffered. Often, however, the rolls were copied in the wrong 
 order. Jerome utters a warning against this danger in the 
 Preface to Ezechiel : * Ne librorum numerus confundatur et per 
 longa temporum spatia diuisorum inter se uoluminum ordo 
 uitietur praefatiunculas singulis libris praeposui.' As an instance 
 of what has happened to several writers we may take Cicero's 
 Epistiilac ad Familiares. Here a difficulty has always been felt 
 in the traditional order, according to which the official letters, Ad 
 Scnatum et cetcros, are inserted between Book XIV (addressed 
 to his wife Terentia) and Book XVI (addressed to his freedman 
 Tiro). The letters to Tiro are certainly in place at the end of 
 the collection and their order is attested by the subscriptio ego 
 TIRO EDiDi ET VT POTVi EMENDAVi. The grammarian Nonius 
 (or the authorities whom he follows) cites a passage from what 
 is now Book XV as being part of M. Tullius ad Cassium lib. /, 
 thus implying that Book XV came first in his copy of the 
 Ad Familiares. This is the natural position for the official 
 
 c 2 
 
 V 
 
20 
 
 THE ANCIENT BOOK 
 
 THE ANCIENT BOOK 
 
 21 
 
 letters, which ought to precede the letters to private friends. 
 In support of this view it has been observed by F. Marx 
 (Festschrift far O. Benndorf 1898, p. 46) that Nonius cites as 
 much from Book XV as from all the other books in the collec- 
 tion. This is in keeping with the general practice of the ancient 
 grammarians, who make far more liberal excerpts from the 
 earlier books of a work than from the later. The inference to 
 be drawn is that the present numeration of the books of the 
 Ad Familiarcs is not very ancient. In the time of Hadrian the 
 collection began with Book XV and ended with Book XVI. 
 rhc old order was disturbed when the text was transferred 
 from rolls to codices about a.d. 350 and cannot now be recovered 
 in its entirety. 
 
 An error of the like origin is seen in the Natiiraks Ouacstioncs 
 of Seneca and in the Comedies of Plautus. In the Ambrosianus 
 of Plautus the alphabetical order is disturbed, since the Ti-i- 
 nunimus, Triicnlentus^ and Vidtilaria are wrongly inserted 
 between the Menaechmi and the Poenuhis, Terence's plays 
 were arranged in chronological order. This order is preserved 
 in the Bembinus except that the second and third plays (the 
 HcantoH and the EumicJius) have been interchanged. 
 
 It might easily happen that the roll from which the codex was 
 copied was mutilated at the beginning or end.^ Hence the title 
 of a work together with the name of its author might easily be 
 lost, and as rolls on the same subject were frequently kept in the 
 same capsa we have here one explanation of the false ascription 
 of works to well-known writers. A probable instance of mutila- 
 tion at the end of a roll is to be seen in Propertius, Book I. 
 The poem beginning with 'Qualis et unde genus', follows the 
 regular type of literary /?to9 introduced by the Alexandrines to 
 precede or conclude a work. But it is obviously incomplete. 
 The loss, however, cannot be ascribed to the middle age or to 
 the eighth-century archetype which some assume for the existing 
 manuscripts. From its position at the end of the first book it 
 
 must date from a time when the book had a separate existence 
 in a single roll. 
 
 [The main authorities are : 
 
 BiRT, T. Das aiitike Buchiveseu. Berlin, 1882. 
 
 Die Biuhrollc in der Kiiiist. Leipzig, 1907. 
 
 Zur Gescliichtc des antiken Buc/ru'eseris. Centralbhiit fiir Bibliof/iekswesen, 
 
 1900, pp. 545 65. 
 Clark, J. \V. The Care of Books. Cambridge, 1901. 
 DziATZKO, K. Unfetsnchuiigen iiber attsgeivdlilte Kapitel des aiiiikcn Bitr/izvesetis. 
 
 Leipzig, 1900. 
 Articles on 'Buch' and ' Buchhandel ' in Pauly-Wissowa's Real-Eucych- 
 
 pddie^ 1897. 
 Gardthausen, V. Griechisdie Palaeographie, vol. i. Das Bitclnvescii im Altertum 
 
 ttnd itn Bysauiinischen Mittelalter. 2nd ed., 191 1. 
 Gercke, a. ' Das antike Buch ' in Gercke-Norden, Einleitnng in die Alterihums- 
 
 wissenschaft. 1910. 
 Haeberlin, C. Griechisdie Papyri. Leipzig, 1897. An oft-print from Cen- 
 
 tralblatt fiir Bibliotheksiveseu, giving an account of the literary papyri 
 
 discovered up to 1897. 
 HoHLVVEiN, N. La Papyrologie grecqitc. Louvain, 1905. A bibliographie 
 
 raisoniit'e. 
 Karabacek, J. Papyrus Erzhtrzog Rainer, Fiihrcr durch die Aiisstellnug. 
 
 Wien, 1894. 
 Ken YON, F. G. Palaeography of Greek Papyri. Oxford, 1899. 
 Madan, F. Books in Manuscript. London, 1893. 
 Maunde Thompson, E. Introduction to Gk. and Lat. Palaeography. Oxford, 
 
 1912. 
 ScHUBART, W. Das Buch bet den Griechcn und Roniern. Berlin, 1907. 
 Traube, L. Vorlesungen i-ii. Munich, 1909-10.] 
 
 4 
 
 * Cf. the loss of the end of the Gospel of St. Mark. 
 
GREEK TEXTS IN ANCIENT TIMES 
 
 23 
 
 CHAPTER J I 
 
 THE TEXT OF GREEK AUTHORS IN 
 ANCIENT TIMES 
 
 In the preceding chapter it has been shown that the form of the 
 ancient book and the materials of which it was composed imply 
 certain dangers to the text which it contains. More serious 
 dangers arise from other conditions under which the text is 
 transmitted. If no control is exercised over the copyist the 
 integrity of the text is certain to be impaired even during the 
 lifetime of the author. The chances of corruption are infi- 
 nitely greater when the author is dead, the purpose of his 
 work perhaps forgotten and the very meaning of words that 
 were clear to his contemporaries blurred or misunderstood 
 through changes in habits of thought or through the natural 
 development of the language in which he wrote. The text must 
 be protected if it is to survive without loss and such protection 
 can only be given by scholarship— the one safeguard against 
 inevitable corruption in the ages before the invention of printing. 
 But scholarship is not coeval with literature in Greece, and 
 even at Rome some authors, such as Plautus, long remained 
 outside its range. It is necessary, therefore, at the outset to draw 
 distinctions between the various classes of texts. Some, such 
 as \' ergil and the greater Latin poets, have been protected from 
 the first by skilled grammarians and have consequently suffered 
 little harm in transmission. Others, such as Pindar and to some 
 extent the Greek Tragedians, were only protected after a long 
 period of unlicensed transmission and have suffered considerable 
 harm, though the damage can often be estimated and sometimes 
 repaired. Others again, though happily few in number, such as 
 the poems of Manilius, and occasional works such as the letters 
 of Demosthenes, the Batrachomyomachia, and some of the 
 
 Homeric Hymns, seem never to have been protected at all, and 
 survive in a state of grave corruption. 
 
 It is clear, therefore, that before the textual critic approaches 
 the work of Recension (i. e. the critical examination of all the 
 documents in which a text is preserved) and Emendation (i.e. 
 the attempt to restore the corrupt passages which remain in a text 
 after the work of recension is complete) he is bound to consider 
 the history of the text upon which he is working. He must 
 diagnose the disease, or else he may be attempting to correct 
 errors which are of such ancient standing as to be incurable by 
 modern methods, or he may be questioning a text which can be 
 traced back to the original author. 
 
 Almost every Greek author before the Alexandrine period, and 
 certainly each separate department of literature, presents a 
 different problem and the solution of the problem must begin 
 with an exhaustive inquiry into the history of the text, so far as 
 the history is ascertainable. It is only within the last quarter of 
 a century that such inquiries have been conducted with any 
 measure of success ^ upon lines best seen in the work of such 
 men as Wilamowitz-Mollendorff^ on the Tragedians and Lyric 
 and Bucolic poets, Usener on Plato, Diels on Aristotle and 
 Demosthenes, and Leo and Lindsay on Plautus. 
 
 That questions so vital have remained unanswered for so long 
 is due to two causes. In the first place, the materials for forming 
 a judgement upon Alexandrine scholarship were scattered or 
 did not exist. An advance was rendered possible by the work 
 of scholars such as Lehrs and Ludwich — who have determined 
 accurately the methods employed by Aristarchus by their critical 
 
 ^ That the method was no new discovery can be seen from a rough draft of 
 Ritschl's lectures given in Ribbeck's LifeofRiisclil, i. 334 : 'Die Kritik ist Jahrhun- 
 derte lang subjectiv geiibt worden : gliinzend Bentley. Einseitigkeit und 
 Principlosigkeit, die zu jeder Willkur fiihrt, weil kein Anhalt. Historisch ist ztt 
 vofaliren, nach den Quellen zu fragen, nach dm objectiven Gmndlagen . . . die 
 Gescliichte des Textes cu erforschen.'' 
 
 - Especially in his Euripides, Herakles 1899), and his Die Textgeschichtc der 
 i^nec/iisc/i(ii Z-jr/z^fr (Berlin, 1900). The present chapter is founded largely on 
 the theory of development which he has maintained in these works. 
 
24 
 
 GREEK TEXTS 
 
 IN ANCIENT TIMES 
 
 
 i/l' 
 
 if 
 
 examination of the Venetian Scholia to Homer— and by such 
 pioneer editions as Lentz's collection of the Fragments of 
 Herodian, the grammarian of the second century a.d. ; and, as 
 has already been seen, progress has of late been quickened by 
 the rich discoveries of ancient papyri. In the second place, it is 
 now evident that the accepted methods of textual criticism have 
 been based too exclusively upon the needs of the Latin classics. 
 The great Latin authors worked under favourable conditions 
 which had been secured in Greece only after centuries of 
 haphazard transmission. They wrote for a public whose demands 
 were supplied by a highly organized book trade. Hence their 
 works were copied from the first with professional skill, and 
 soon published in standard editions which were protected by the 
 labours of a long line of scholars who had inherited the best 
 traditions of Alexandria. Plautus, it is true, was left to the 
 tender mercies of actors for fifty years after his death : but 
 Plautus is an exceptional instance. The other Roman classics 
 suffered little till the waves of barbarism swept over the Empire 
 and texts began to be copied by men who dimly understood, or 
 were grossly ignorant of the language which they were copying. 
 The principles of Recension and Emendation have been de- 
 veloped to deal with this species of corruption, and on the whole 
 they have dealt so successfully with it that the texts of the great 
 authors, such as Vergil and Horace, may be taken as trustworthy 
 representatives of the original autographs. 
 
 These methods were transferred to the Greek classics where 
 the problem is diff-erent. At first sight it seems an easier 
 problem since it is acknowledged on all sides that Greek texts 
 suffered less than Latin at the hands of copyists. The East was 
 never completely submerged beneath the waves of barbarism that 
 overwhelmed the West. Manuscripts were often copied by stupid 
 and ill-educated men, but never by men who were altogether 
 ignorant of the meaning of what they wrote, since down to the latest 
 times in Byzantine history the language spoken was the lineal, if 
 degenerate, descendant of the language of the great classics. It is 
 true that there was an infiltration of base forms and constructions, 
 
 25 
 
 but this is an evil that was never deliberately inflicted and 
 consequently has not penetrated below the surface of the text. 
 Through the labours of critics such as Cobet it has been removed. 
 But in detecting the evil such critics were prone to exaggerate 
 it and conjured up the phantom of a Byzantine schoolmaster or 
 niagistelliis (as they term him) who had wilfully transmuted the 
 gold that he received into his own baser metal. It is now 
 recognized, however, that with the exception of the philologists 
 of the time of the Palaeologi (i3th-i5th centuries), who represent 
 a Revival of Learning in Greece analogous to the Renaissance 
 in Italy, and who like the Italian Humanists honestly but 
 unsuccessfully endeavoured to improve their texts with the 
 inadequate methods of their time, the Byzantines have handed 
 down without irretrievable loss the trust that they received 
 (v. p. 43). But even when all Byzantine accretions are cleared 
 away the textual critic by no means necessarily finds himself in 
 touch with a sound tradition which goes back to the original 
 authors. All such inquiries begin in Byzantium, as Wilamowitz 
 says, and end in Alexandria. It is, therefore, of the utmost 
 importance to form an estimate of the work done by the Alex- 
 andrines, by considering the material with which they had to 
 deal and the extent to which the results which they obtained 
 have survived. Such a survey falls into four main periods : 
 
 1. The Pre- Alexandrine period. 
 
 2. The period of the first Alexandrine scholars and of their 
 
 successors, which may be taken to extend from 322 b.c. 
 to the reign of Hadrian a.d. 117. 
 
 3. The period from the second century a.d. up to the 
 
 beginning of the present manuscript tradition in the ninth 
 century a. d. 
 
 4. The Renaissance under the Palaeologi, a.d. 1261-1453. 
 
 I. The Pre- Alexandrine Period. 
 
 The literature of early times in Greece was not composed in 
 order to be read. It was composed for recitation in public or in 
 private and consisted essentially of the spoken word. Even when 
 
I 
 
 26 
 
 GREEK TEXTS 
 
 IN ANCIENT TIMES 
 
 27 
 
 it was not imaginative literature but had a scientific or philo- 
 sophic purpose, it was written as an aid to memory in verse and 
 not in prose. Prose writings, however, when they appear 
 in Ionia, show a like origin and aim, as can be seen from the 
 terms lo-Topia and Aoyo?. The historian or philosopher does not 
 write a book and entrust a well-defined text to the pupil. He 
 delivers orally the result of his ' Research' or his 'Argument', 
 and the pupil may take it down in writing if he choose. The 
 author provides the subject-matter, but the ' book \ so far as it 
 can be called a book, is written by the pupils. Another early 
 name for such treatises — vir6ixvy)iia, an ' aid to memory ' — betrays 
 clearly their origin. It is obvious that literature must have 
 a very precarious existence under such conditions. The Elegy, 
 the Song, and the Lampoon pass from mouth to mouth, and 
 either die or are changed to suit a fresh audience. The more 
 complex lyric poems of a Pindar or a Bacchylides were sung by 
 professional choirs in various cities, but they were not read for 
 pleasure since a large part of the pleasure that they gave came 
 from the music to which they were set. Even the most popular 
 of all the forms of literature — the Epic— only survives because 
 it served to profit the powerful guilds of Rhapsodists. Similarly 
 the prose iTro/xi^/xtt, if it is preserved at all, survives in an amor- 
 phous condition analogous to that of lecture notes passed on 
 from one generation of pupils to another and plagiarized by all 
 as they become teachers in their turn. It is to this early period 
 that the loss of the works of such writers as Arion, Terpander, 
 and Lasos must be ascribed — losses which later ages attempted 
 to repair by forgeries. And here too must be sought an ex- 
 planation of such a collection of prose treatises as that which 
 is still extant under the name of the physician Hippocrates 
 (circ. 430 B.C.). 
 
 Up to the end of the sixth century b. c. Greek literature is in 
 this state of ceaseless flux, and is exposed to all the dangers of 
 a tradition that is practically oral. And then the change comes 
 swiftly and suddenly with the birth of a new form of literature, 
 not local nor occasional nor professional as the older Ibrms had 
 
 been, but Pan-Hellenic in its appeal, although it sprang from 
 a single city-state. This new form was Attic Tragedy, which 
 never lost the hold which it rapidly obtained over the Greek 
 race in all quarters of the ancient world. The enthusiasm for 
 Tragedy created a reading public, since but few Greeks could 
 hope to see the masterpieces of the great dramatists performed 
 in Athens. Thus an impulse was given to the production of 
 books which ends in the growth towards the end of the fifth 
 century of an organized book trade with its centre in Athens. 
 
 The demand for books was not without its influence upon the 
 older literature, which was still in the state of flux and precarious 
 transmission that has been described. Here the new enthusiasm 
 acted like a chemical reagent which precipitates what previously 
 was held in solution. Much had perished, and was still to 
 perish, before it could be rescued by the learning of Ionia and 
 Alexandria, but for a time a halt was called in the progress 
 towards annihilation or decay, since the educated public became 
 accustomed to regard written texts as a permanent source of 
 pleasure and not merely as an aid to memory. 
 
 During the fifth century and even later books were still 
 regarded as luxuries which could not be procured without some 
 trouble. It is clear that they were an article of commerce in 
 the time of Socrates, since he alludes in Plat. ApoL 26 d to 
 the purchase of some of the works of Anaxagoras.^ By degrees 
 private persons began to collect them, and contemporary re- 
 ferences are found to libraries belonging to Euripides, Euclides, 
 and Euthydemus. But such collections must have been small 
 in extent, to judge by the surprise which Socrates expresses on 
 hearing that his friend Euthydemus possesses a complete copy 
 of the works of Homer (Xen. Mem. iv. 2. 10), and must have 
 consisted largely of privately made copies procured at consider- 
 able cost. Even the tragedies of Euripides, the most popular of 
 the dramatists, cannot have been in the hands of large numbers 
 
 ^ Cf. also Aristoph. Au* 1288 KattUT av a^ia Karijpav Js to. PiPkia : Eupolis, Fr. 
 304 f Kock) ov TO. j8t/3At" uvea : and Xen. Anab. vii. 5. 14, where an export trade 
 in books is implied. 
 
/ 
 
 28 
 
 GREEK TEXTS 
 
 of the Syracusans, or else the Athenians taken prisoners after 
 the failure of the Sicilian expedition would not have won the 
 favour of their captors by their recitations from his works. 
 Perhaps a glimpse at the methods by which the works of popular 
 authors were distributed at this period is afforded by the gibe 
 levelled at Hermodorus, a pupil of Plato, who was taunted with 
 turning trader and 'travelling in' the Master's Dialogues— 
 XoyoLGLv 'Epfi68ojpo<; ifX7rop€V€Tai. It passed into currency as a 
 proverb, and is explained by the paroemiographer Zenobius, v. 6 : 
 
 o E/j/xodoj/jos aKpouTij^ y€yov€ tov IIAarwj'os kol roi? vir avTov avvTeOiL- 
 
 /xeVovs Aoyto-yw-ovs KOfxi^tDv ci? ^ikcXiuv eVtoAct. In Other words, there 
 was no organized medium of distribution, but the private traveller 
 as well as the travelling merchant would take with him a few 
 copies of a new author on the chance that they would interest his 
 distant friends or customers. If they required further copies 
 would have to make them for themselves. 
 
 There is no doubt that the deep-seated corruptions in the texts 
 of many of the earlier Greek authors belong to this period of 
 privately made copies. Some idea of the form of these copies 
 may be gained from the Berlin Tiniof/iros Rnd the Dublin Antiopc 
 which belong to the fourth and third century respectively. 
 There is, however, no reason to suppose that the habits of the 
 ordinary scribe had changed within so short an interval and 
 they may be taken as evidence of the general features of a book 
 of the fifth century. They present a text written in broad 
 columns, in a continuous uncial or rather monumental script 
 without any divisions to indicate words or metre and without 
 any system of punctuation to indicate the sense beyond an 
 occasional paragraph to mark oft' the larger sections. Such 
 books correspond very closely in form to the inscriptions of the 
 time, and the reader in either case was left with only the raw 
 material or y/ua>/xaTa which he had to analyse for himself into 
 words and sentences. It is obvious how such an original might 
 be perverted in copying, even were the copyist an educated man 
 such as Cephisophon, the slave of Euripides. The risk of 
 corruption would be infinitely greater when the copy was made 
 
 IN ANCIENT TIMES 
 
 29 
 
 by an uneducated mechanic who copied letter for letter, like 
 a lapidary carving an inscription, without troubling to seize the 
 gist of what he wrote. There is no doubt that by the middle of 
 the fourth century the texts of many authors had become un- 
 certain. Bad copies were common, although trustworthy copies 
 were still to be had. Tragedy suffered from the alterations 
 made by actors or by the literary adapters employed by theatrical 
 entrepreneurs. There is direct evidence of this towards the 
 close of the centur}'. In 330 r. c. the orator L^xurgus carried a 
 decree to the effect that an official copy of the works of the three 
 great Tragedians should be preserved in the public archives, 
 
 Ka\ TOV TTj^ TToAco)? y/)a/A/xaT€a 7rapavayLyvii)(rK€LV rots i'TTOKpLVopeiois 
 
 (Plutarch, Lives of the Ten Orators, p. 841 F)— 'and the town 
 clerk was ordered to read it over to the actors ' in order that they 
 might bring their texts into agreement with it. There is no 
 reason to suppose that the text of this official copy (which after- 
 wards came into the possession of the Alexandrine Library) was 
 founded upon a collation of existing manuscripts. It was doubt- 
 less the best copy that the booksellers of the time could 
 supply. 
 
 It is to this period that the mutilation of such plays as the 
 Sepicm of Aeschylus and the Heraclidae of Euripides belongs. 
 
 To it also belongs such bad lines as oi*8ei/ yap eVTuAyeuw 01-8' arr;? 
 
 uTcp in Sophocles Antig. 4, Tr/i'8' aknzapy] Tpi-^a in Soph. El. 451, 
 and such interpolations as (faXeovTL 8c Moio-at in Pindar Olymp. ii. 
 28. The length to which corruption of this kind could go is 
 best seen in the Petrie papyrus of the PJiaedo, which belongs to 
 the third century. A few instances will serve as illustrations : 
 
 68 A. Petrie Papyrus. 
 
 7/ avOpuiirii'MV pkv 7rat8tKa)i/ 
 7; yvvaLKwv 7] Trai^Mv crcKa 
 aTToOarovTMr ttoAAoi ckoi^tc? 
 ifii\'q(Tav cis "AtSov lXOu.v. 
 
 MS. Tradition. 
 
 7) dvOpo)7rLvo)v plv TraiStKwF 
 Ktti yvvaiKiov Kai veiov 
 aTToOavovTOiv TroAAot, Srj €kuvt€<s 
 rjOiXrjoav 6ts AtSof fiereXOeiv. 
 
 where h'ena is a mere interpolation to make the construction 
 
 easier than the genitive absolute. 
 
30 
 
 GREEK TEXTS 
 
 68 E, 
 
 TOVTO OflOLOV TO TTtt^OS TOL 
 
 €7r avTJjv T7;»/ av8/3a7ro8o'>6>; 
 
 (TOJ<f>pO(TVVr]l\ 
 
 83 c. 
 
 TTcpt ov a/x jjidXifTTa tovto 
 
 TOVTO, OU;^ OVTOJS €X^^'* 
 
 dAA' o/xa>s ai'TOis (TVjJLJ3aiv€L 
 
 TOVTO) OfXOlOV TO TTtt^O? TO 
 
 TTcpi TaxTy-jV Ti]v (.vrjOrf 
 ao)<f)po(Tvvrjv. 
 
 7r€f)L o av fidXicTTa tovto 
 7rd(TXr]^ ToiTO ivapyicrTaTov 
 T€ cii'ai Kttt aAry^eVTttTor, 
 
 It cannot be doubted that many texts were exposed to corrup- 
 tion of this kind in the fourth century, and that the scholarship 
 of the time afforded them no protection. Such learning as 
 existed was the learning of the schoolmaster and the sophist. 
 The schoolmaster was content to explain the * glosses ' or diffi- 
 cult words in a text. The explanations were often ridiculous 
 enough, e.g. toios explained as meaning 'good ', too-ov as mean- 
 ing 'a body*. A collection of similar blunders will be found in 
 Lehrs' De Aristarcht stiidiis Honien'a's, p. 36. Such learning was 
 not likely to preserve a text. The sophist, on the other hand, 
 sought for the ethical significance of a passage rather than for 
 any philological interpretation. 'The great aim of education ', 
 says Protagoras in Plato's dialogue, 339 A, ' is -n-epl cVwi/ Scti/oi/ 
 
 €LVai' i.(TTl 6€ TOLTO Til VTTO TWV TTOi'qTUiV XeyOfJiCVa OiOV T €LVaL G^vvLevat d 
 
 T€ opOCi^ TreWv/Tat koX a fxy, i. e. to distinguish between good poetry 
 and bad from the point of view of the moralist. 
 
 It is evident, therefore, that the accuracy oftexts was seriously 
 threatened, if the mischief already done were not arrested by 
 the growth of a school of philology and criticism. But for her 
 political misfortunes in the fourth century Athens might have 
 proved as eminent in this as in all other departments of the 
 intellect. The promise of such a movement can be seen in Aris- 
 totle's many-sided activity. He was the first to collect a large 
 library. But his immediate successors were interested in history 
 rather than in philology. The impulse towards the scientific study 
 of literature was not destined to come from Athens. Neither did 
 it come from Alexandria in the first place, but from Ionia. 
 
 IN ANCIENT TIMES 
 
 31 
 
 After the death of Alexander the Great there seems to have 
 been a reaction against the Athenian culture of which he was the 
 champion. In their dislike of Athens the lonians revived the 
 interest in pre-Attic writers such as Pindar and the other Lyric 
 poets. During the last half of the fourth century this older litera- 
 ture had gone out of fashion in Athens. The Lyric poets are 
 not represented in the library described by Alexis in his comedy 
 the Linos. Neither can they have been much in Aristotle's 
 mind when he framed his theory of /^t'/xr/o-is as an explanation of 
 poetry in general, since it hardly affords a satisfactory explana- 
 tion of Lyric poetry. They were no longer read, but had passed 
 away along with the spirit of the heroic age of Marathon and 
 Salamis to which they belonged. The revival of this older 
 literature— Epic, Lyric, and Elegiac — gave rise to two movements 
 which spread beyond the land of their origin and reach their 
 culminating point in Alexandria. On the one hand, a fresh 
 impulse is given to a creative literature written in the old 
 forms and dialects which had been disused for so long. On the 
 other hand, the science of philology and criticism is brought into 
 being, since the old literature required to be explained before it 
 could be fully appreciated. The new science develops upon 
 Ionian soil into the school of Pergamum,^ but reaches a very 
 different and far higher development in Alexandria, whither it was 
 transplanted by men such as Zenodotus of Ephesus who, like 
 many of his successors, was a man of letters as well as a scholar. 
 It is of the first importance to consider the methods employed by 
 the Alexandrines and the results to which they led. 
 
 ' The history of scholarship at Pergamum is involved in obscurity. Much 
 valuable work appears to have been done on prose authors such as the Attic 
 Orators, and there is evidence of standard copies of poetic writers such as 
 Aristophanes which are Pergamene in origin. 77V/«? Venetian scholia on /htes 
 1508 iv Tofy * At Ti\ lois fvpov OKiahnov Kal h toj naXaiai rev i/jw. But scholarship 
 was soon subordinated to philosophy and sank into the quicksands of Stoic 
 speculations. For the influence of the Pergamene School at Rome v. Leo, Piauf. 
 Forsclimtgen, p. 35 (1912). 
 
32 
 
 GREEK TEXTS 
 
 IN ANCIENT TIMES 
 
 33 
 
 II. The Alexandrine scholars and their immediate successors. 
 
 The Ptolemies had gathered through their agents a hetero- 
 geneous mass of manuscripts which were preserv^ed in the two 
 hbraries at Alexandria, the Brucheum and the Serapeum. The 
 early scholars had before them the Herculean labour of reducing 
 these collections to order. They had first to construct a catalogue. 
 This was a complicated task since it involved inquiry into the 
 authenticity of works that were currently attributed to distin- 
 guished names. The first catalogue to be published was by 
 Callimachus and bore the title of Trtm/cc? rCiv cV ^07; -jraS^U 
 
 These 'Tables' are said to have consisted of 120 books, in 
 which the volumes catalogued were arranged in eight classes : 
 (i) Drama, (2) Poetry (Epic, Lyric, cSic), (3) Legislation, (4) History, 
 (6) Oratory, (7) Rhetoric, (8) Miscellaneous. Within these 
 classes the Alexandrines undoubtedly paid most attention to the 
 authors whose works they found more or less completely pre- 
 served. These are the authors whose works they published in 
 standard editions (cV^oW?), while they wrote separate treatises 
 or vTTOfii'rjfiaTa to elucidate difficulties in the text. In all 
 probability these are the authors arranged by Aristophanes of 
 Byzantium and Aristarchus in kuioic?, or ' Lists ', which are not 
 to be regarded as arbitrary selections made from a large mass of 
 authors whose works had survived in their entirety, but simply 
 as * Lists ' of the authors in each class whose works had survived 
 in sufficient bulk to enable them to be chosen as typical repre- 
 sentatives of their class. The Alexandrines, therefore, recognize 
 five Tragedians, because five and no more survived apart from 
 isolated plays ; nine Lyric poets, because there were only nine 
 that were still current- eVpirroiTo, to use the phrase of a later age. 
 Minor poets, such as Praxilla of Sicyon or Telesilla of Argos, 
 may have existed in the library, but they were not among the 
 TrpaTTo/xcrot, i. e. they were not in the hands of readers. It is 
 important to bear this in mind so as not to do the Alexandrines 
 
 the injustice of thinking that they neglected some of their 
 treasures after they had rescued them from oblivion.. U, is 
 obvious on the contrary that they preserved every fragment ^ on 
 which they could lay their hands, though they were wise enough 
 to apply their energy in quarters where it would produce most 
 effect. The main interest of these scholars was in poetry. How 
 far they edited the prose authors is uncertain. The evidence is 
 incomplete, and how dangerous it is to assert dogmatically that 
 they neglected them is shown by the recent discovery in Egypt 
 of a papyrus fragment referring to a previously unknown com- 
 mentary on Herodotus by Aristarchus (Grenfell and Hunt, 
 Amherst Pap. ii. 3. 12). 
 
 In no single instance has their work survived in its original 
 form, and it is necessary to argue backwards from the indications 
 preserved in later writers in order to gain an idea of the methods 
 which they employed. Apart from scattered notices the best 
 evidence of their work is found in the Venetian scholia to 
 Homer, which contain excerpts from four treatises. The sub- 
 scription in the MS. A (Cod. Venetus, 454 of the tenth century) 
 
 is as follows : Tra/jaKCtrat ra 'ApKTTOviKov (rrjfxita koI to. AiSvfiov Trcpt 
 TYJs ' Apta-Tapx^iov Stop^wo-cws, riva Se Koi ck t^s 'IXtaK^s 7rpocra)8tas 
 'Hpu)8iavov Kal Ik rov Nt/cai/opos 7r€/)t crrty/A^S. Of these Aristonicus 
 
 and Didymus(both contemporary with Strabo, 64 b. c. — a. d. 19) 
 preserved important fragments of the learning of Aristarchus 
 upon Homer, together with references to the work of his pre- 
 decessors, Zenodotus and Aristophanes. The work of these men 
 upon Homer may fairly be taken to illustrate the principles upon 
 which they worked in dealing with other texts. 
 
 The early critics in modern times (e. g. Wolf) laid stress on the 
 defects of these scholars rather than upon their merits. Both 
 will be apparent from a brief survey of their method. 
 
 Their first aim was to clear the text of the interpolations which 
 defaced it in many copies. In detecting such interpolations they 
 
 ' There is interesting evidence of this in Aristoph. Nitbes, 967, where the 
 scholiast in discussing the quotation TrjXtnopov ri fioa^a remarks (paal S^ ixrj 
 thpiaK(aeai otov irori lartv h yap drro<nratJfJiaTi kv rrj ^i^Kioe-qKri (vpetv 'AptffTOipdvrj. 
 
 473 
 
 1> 
 
/ 
 
 bi 
 
 ^ 
 
 34 
 
 GREEK TEXTS 
 
 relied (i) on the external authority of manuscripts, (2) on the 
 internal evidence afforded by the text before them or by other 
 parts of the author's work. 
 
 These internal tests may be roughly classed under four 
 headings : 
 
 (i) Lines which do not suit the immediate context in which 
 they occur, because they are repetitions of lines which are 
 found elsewhere, or because they weaken its emphasis or 
 bring it into conflict with other parts of the poem. 
 
 (2) Lines which do not suit the /"ersons to whom they are 
 
 applied. 
 
 (3) Lines which do not suit the Antiquities of the poem and 
 
 import anachronisms into the Heroic Age. 
 
 (4) Lines which do not suit the Language normally employed 
 
 by the poet. 
 
 The last two are in every way legitimate tests which were em- 
 ployed with admirable results by Aristophanes and Aristarchus. 
 They required a greater command of learning than the earlier 
 critics such as Zenodotus possessed. Of the first two the second 
 is wholly valueless, but has a historical explanation ; while the 
 first opens the door to much criticism that is based only on 
 personal opinion or prejudice. 
 
 A few concrete instances will best explain the success and the 
 failure of these canons of criticism. 
 (I) Zenodotus rejects IT 677 and alters IT 666 to 
 
 Ka\ TOT up i^ "1% 7r/jo(r€0>; Zci? 'ov <t>L\ov t-ioV 
 
 because he can find no indication as to how Apollo reaches Ida 
 from the plain of Troy. 
 
 In A 88, where Athene is referred to : 
 
 llavhapov^ avriOeov Si^rjfXivrj, u ttov i<f>tvpoi. 
 
 €Vp€ AvKiioyo^ VLOV dp.VflOvd T€ KpaT€p6v TC— 
 
 he wishes to read only 
 
 a violent and unjustifiable alteration based apparently on his dis- 
 
 K 
 
 IN ANCIENT TIMES 
 
 35 
 
 like to the repetition of the verb tvpelv in two successive lines. 
 Aristarchus is not free from similar faults. In A 514-15 
 
 lrjTp6<s yap dvrjp 7roXXu)v avrd^Los dXXoiv 
 
 lots T iKTdp.V€lV eTTL T ^TTttt <j>dppaKa ird(T(TUV. 
 
 he rejects the second line on the ground that /xe/^ctwKe rr^v f.pfj>a(Tiv 
 
 Kal TO, TOiaVTd d6€T€LV €L(dO€. 
 
 In A 442 
 
 0) XpvfTTjy TTpo p. €7r€p{f/€v dva$ (ivSpu)V 'Aya/X€/xi'a>r 
 TraiSa re arol dye'/xer, ^oifSu) 0* Upijv iKarop/Syv 
 pe^at virep AavaCov, 6(t>p L\a(r6p,€a0a dvaKra — 
 
 he rejects the third line as pleonastic (Trcpto-o-oV). It can be spared 
 if Txye/icv be taken as the verb common to 7rat8a and kKaropp-qv, 
 
 (2) The charge of to dirpiirk, or incompatibility with the 
 character of the person to whom the line applies, leads to extra- 
 ordinary results. 
 
 In r 424 the goddess Aphrodite places a seat for the mortal 
 Helen to sit upon. Zenodotus rejects the line on the ground of 
 
 airpiiraa : Att^cttcs yap auTw l^atV€TO to ttJ 'EAeV^; Tr/i/ ' AcfipoSiTrjv 
 OKJipov Pa(TTdt,uv, 
 
 Such caprices of criticism belong only to the infancy of the 
 study. Aristarchus is obviously uneasy when he rejects a verse 
 on these grounds ; e. g. in f 244 Nausicaa prays 
 
 at yap ipoi TOLoaSe Trtxris KiKXqpevo^ ih] 
 ivOdSe vai€Tao>Vj Kal ol a8oi avToOt pip-vuv. 
 
 Aristarchus obelizes them on the ground that hoKovaiv 01 Xdyoi 
 
 dTrpeTreis TrapOevio cTmt Kal aKoXaa-TOL, But he has doubt as tO 
 
 whether the first may not be genuine because he found the line 
 imitated in so early a poet as Alcman who puts the words Zev 
 -drep €1 yap c/xo? ttoVi? cltj into the mouths of a chorus of maidens. 
 He has no hesitation in rejecting some of Zenodotus's excisions. 
 In r 424 mentioned above he at once cuts at the root of the 
 objection by remarking that Aphrodite has taken upon herself 
 the semblance of an old woman, and suits her actions to the 
 character that she is sustaining. 
 
 Subjective criticism of this kind was not so unnatural at this 
 
 D 2 
 
 * 
 
 4 
 
36 
 
 GREEK TEXTS 
 
 IN ANCIENT TIMES 
 
 37 
 
 m 
 
 early period. It was partly inherited from the sophistic method of 
 interpretation which has already been described, and partly arose 
 from the inability of men who were living the complex life which 
 the court of the Ptolemies had introduced into Alexandria to 
 understand the simplicity of Homer. There is no reason to 
 believe that this vice of method affects their treatment of other 
 authors. 
 
 (3) An excellent instance of the use which Aristarchus makes 
 of his knowledge of Homeric antiquities is seen in 185. 
 Hector addresses his horses : 
 
 z.dvO€ T€ KOL (TV UoSupye KOL AlOo)v \dfjL7r€ re Su, 
 vvv fiOL Tr]v KO/jLiByjv (IttotiVctoi/ — 
 
 The first line is athetized by Aristarchus on the ground that 
 Homer never mentions a four-horse chariot, and because the 
 verb in the dual is out of place. Furthermore, the names of the 
 horses betray the hand of an interpolator who has taken them 
 from T 400 and ^ 295. 
 
 (4) Of his knowledge of linguistic usage an instance may be 
 taken from K 408 where there were two readings : 
 
 TTws 6 tt[ Tojv dWon' Tfmoyv (f>v\aKa{ 
 TTws Sat TO)V dW(Dv Tpd)(i)v (f>vXaKai. 
 
 and 
 
 Aristarchus chose the latter out of respect for Homeric usage (to 
 eOifiov T(w TTOL-qrov), which is against the article in this sense, while 
 it sanctions the use of W after an interrogative particle. 
 
 Then remains the question how far the Alexandrines intro- 
 duced their own conjectures in defiance of the manuscript 
 tradition. Here an increase of caution came with increasing 
 knowledge. Zenodotus was notoriously rash, c. g. II 93 : 
 
 ' • OrAi' 
 
 /xr/ T(,5 dTT U I'Av/xTToio 6iC)V aciyci'cratfji/ 
 ^pypf fidXa Tov^ yc (faX^i cKa'cpyos 'XttoXXmv 
 aAAtt TTttAa' TpioTTao-Oai, eVryj/ <f>dos Iv vrficrcn 
 Oyiu^. TOV9 ^e T €dv 7r€i)ioi' Kara ^ijpidaa-Oai. 
 
 For these lines, on the ground that they are unsuitable to the 
 gods, Zenodotus substituted the single line : 
 
 p.r} (T aTToyv/xi'ioOevTa Xd/3rj KopvOaioXo^ "EKTiop 
 
 upon which Dionysius Thrax remarks that he might as well have 
 read SdKjj for Xd/3y ! 
 Aristophanes is no less rash at times. In K 349 : 
 
 a>5 dpa (fiUivrjfravTe 7rap€$ oSov iv V€kv€(to-l 
 KXivOrjrrjv 
 
 why the dual ? he asks. Odysseus is the only person that has 
 spoken. Accordingly he inserts a verse of his own : 
 
 [u)? €0ar' ovB dTrLOyja-e ^orjv dya6o<s Ato/x^yS?;?, 
 iX66rT€S 8' eKaTcpl9c] 7rap€$ oSov — 
 
 Aristarchus, on the other hand, was considered over-cautious. 
 In 1 222 the envoys to Achilles had already taken food,— if they 
 take it again it must be from a desire not to offend Achilles. He 
 believed therefore that instead of iSyjrvos ii tpov hro the proper 
 reading was i87]Tvo<s u\j/ iirda-avTo. But respect for the manuscript 
 tradition made him refuse to alter the text— {-tto TrcptxT^s cuAa/^cta? 
 
 ovblv ix€TeOr]K€V, iv TroAAats ovtw^s evpojv ^epo/xeVryi/ rrjv ypa<^r]v. 
 
 The essence of this textual method — when once the idiosyn- 
 crasies of the earlier scholars are swept away — lies in the respect 
 paid to manuscript tradition. This becomes the watchword of 
 the best scholarship of the ancient world till the times of Hadrian 
 and even later. Phrases such as r) TrapdSoo-t? oTScv or ovk ol^^v : 
 oi'K €;(€t ot'rws rd ttjs dvayvdxrew^s (i. e. the traditional text), are typical 
 of the best critics down to Herodian. Herodian can even take 
 Aristarchus to task for violating his own principles, e.g. on 
 4> 162 StcAe'yxct i) 7rapdSo(ns tuv ' ApuTTap^ov. Strabo, Galen, Jerome, 
 and later writers show how sound an instrument of criticism had 
 been forged by the early scholars. None of them had such 
 a genius as Lachmann, but they were as well able as Bekker to 
 construct a trustworthy text. If manuscripts were bad they had 
 to make the best of them. But where they had the choice there 
 is no doubt that they did not choose the worst. 
 
 It is at first sight strange that their treatment had hardly any 
 appreciable effect upon the traditional text or vulgate of Homer, 
 while there is every reason to believe that it vitally affected the 
 fortunes of other classical texts. This is to be explained by the 
 
 V 
 
 / 
 
 / 
 
38 
 
 GREEK TEXTS 
 
 IN ANCIENT TIMES 
 
 39 
 
 unique position which Homer held in the Greek world long 
 before his text came into the hands of the Alexandrines. Other 
 writers (e.g. the Tragedians) appeared in collective editions for 
 the first time in Alexandria. And such editions tended to become 
 the standard texts for the future. But there was already a 
 standard text of Homer,— the ancient vulgate into which the 
 poems had crystallized during the early part of the fifth century 
 under the conditions which have already been described. It 
 was a text with faults which the Alexandrines successfully 
 detected, but with all its faults it was readable and served the 
 purpose of the general public of readers who then, as now, cared 
 little for the accuracy of the texts which they used, provided 
 such texts were cheap and intelligible. The elaborate Alexan- 
 drine editions of Homer were never intended for the general 
 public, but for the class-room. Their diacritical signs required 
 an oral exposition in order to explain them. Hence it is that 
 they represent the excesses of the critical methods of their 
 authors rather than the normal application of such methods. 
 In these works we see the professor with his pupils throwing out 
 a suggestion that may have come to him on the spur of the 
 moment, some hint at the truth which he divines, but cannot 
 prove, and would not wish to set before the larger public. The 
 normal application of the critical method is to be seen in the 
 other texts with which the Alexandrines dealt. These were 
 intended from the first for the general reader. Even if there 
 were no other evidence available, the mere number of authors 
 edited by a scholar such as Aristophanes of Byzantium, who 
 practically codified the whole of the national poetry, would show 
 that the text cannot have been seriously interfered with when 
 once it had been elicited from the best manuscripts. 
 
 The scholars of the next fifty years after the death of Aristar- 
 chus carried on the tradition of the Alexandrian school. They 
 completed outlying portions of their predecessors' work upon 
 the poets, e.g. the text of Sophron and Epicharmus was revised 
 by Apollodorus of Athens (circ. 150 b.c). There is no doubt, 
 however, that the scholarship of this period is on its best side 
 
 assimilative rather than original, while on its worst side it shows 
 a tendency to prefer the curiosities of learning. There were 
 trustworthy texts upon the shelves of the Alexandrine libraries. 
 A demand now springs up for popular editions with marginal 
 commentaries ; for grammars, lexica, and handbooks to metre 
 and antiquities. This demand was satisfied by the labours of 
 such men as Ammonius, Dionysius Thrax, Didymus Chalcenterus, 
 and Theon, the first commentator on the Alexandrine poets. 
 The limited outlook of such men and their lack of independent 
 judgement can be seen in such portions of their work as still 
 survive. A striking instance is afforded by the newly discovered 
 scholia by Didymus on the Philippics of Demosthenes (edited 
 by H. Diels and W. Schubart, Berlin, 1904). On the eleventh 
 Philippic (known under the title Trpo? ttjv iTna-ToXrji' t7)v ^LXtinrov) 
 Didymus remarks that it seems natural to conjecture that the 
 speech is a cento made up of other speeches of Demosthenes. 
 Some authorities, however, state that it is really the work ot 
 Anaximenes of Lampsacus, and that it is to be found word for 
 word in the seventh book of his History of Philip ({-TroroTrr/o-cie 8' 
 
 av Tt9 ovK ULTTO aKOTTOv (TV fnr€.<^oprj(T 6 ai TO koyLSiov €K Tivoiv L^rj^ocrOivovi 
 TrpayfxareLMV iTrtarvvTiOev. kol cicrti/ ol cfyacriv Ava^LfXivov*; cirat tov 
 Aafxyl^aKTjvov tjjv (rvfJiftovXrjVf vvv 8c iv rrj ijSSofxi] twv ^lXlttttlkiov oXtyov 
 
 ^€Lv ypdfjiixaa-Lv avTois ivrcToixOau Col. II. 7). No modern Scholar 
 could find such a statement in his authorities without perceiving 
 its importance for the criticism of the speech, and without 
 attempting to substantiate it or refute it. Didymus, however, 
 notes it as a curiosity which he found in some early vTrofivrjfjLa 
 (written perhaps by Hermippus the Callimachean, who is known 
 to have worked at the text of Demosthenes), and preserves it 
 without further inquiry. This temper of mind is common to the 
 post-Alexandrine school and their Roman imitators. It is seen 
 in Theon's work upon Apollonius Rhodius, where his concern 
 is rather to dilate upon the laTOfnai in the poem than upon the 
 text, and it infects the work of Pliny the Elder, Valerius Maximus, 
 and Aulus Gellius. 
 
M 
 
 40 
 
 GREEK TEXTS 
 
 IN ANCIENT TIMES 
 
 41 
 
 III. From the Reign of Hadrian to the Ninth Century a.d. 
 
 The reign of Hadrian (11 7-138) may be taken as the starting 
 point of the decay in Greek hterature and Greek scholarship 
 which is in full progress by the reign of Septimius Severus 
 (193-21 1). Outwardly it is a period of good government and of 
 great material prosperity, but the spirit of ancient Greece, which 
 had struggled so long against the misrule of the Roman oligarchy 
 and had revived for the time under the wisely ordered system of 
 Augustus, becomes gradually crushed under the centralized 
 admniistration of the later empire. It was an age of material 
 aims, and these aims soon menaced the integrity of the older 
 literature. Men could no longer appreciate or even understand 
 the ideals of the past, which were embodied in works which 
 breathed the spirit of ancient freedom. For a time, indeed, the 
 classics survive as a fashion among educated men. But the 
 public which could find pleasure in them, and in the archaistic 
 imitations of them that were produced by a Lucian and an 
 Alciphron slowly passes away. Even while such a public still 
 exists it is clear that its range of reading is severely contracted. 
 Some authors gradually disappear (e.g. the Tragedians, with the 
 exception of the three ; Comedy except Aristophanes ; and the 
 Lyric poets except Pindar). Those that remain do not survive 
 entire but in selections or in anthologies,^ which rapidly lead to 
 the extinction of all parts of an author's work that they do not 
 include. 
 
 The works of Pindar were arranged by Aristophanes of 
 Byzantium in seventeen books : the v/x.o^, Tram.c., and Uvpa,.pot 
 m SIX ; the 7r^o-o'8ta in two ; the Trapdivia in three ; the iiropx^ara 
 in two; the eyKoi/zta, Op^jvoL, and iirtviKLa in four. Plutarch knows 
 the poet's works in this complete edition, and when Lucian quotes 
 from the first Ode of Pindar he means the first of the Hymns. 
 
 There is no doubt that the Epinicia with their personal 
 
 ' '^'he earliest evidence of an anthology is found in Mahaffy, Flinders Petiic 
 l-apyn, No. III. i, pp. i3_i4. The papyrus belongs to the third century a.d , 
 and contains excerpts from Epicharmus and the Anthpe of Euripides 
 
 references to the Sicilian princes were by far the most popular 
 of the poet's works in antiquity. Hence in the second cen- 
 tury, perhaps in the reign of Antoninus Pius, some unknown 
 grammarian separated them from the Alexandrine corpus and 
 published them with a commentary. From this separate edition 
 the modern text of Pindar is descended. Somewhat earlier than 
 this (circ. a. d. 100) a certain Symmachus had made a selection 
 from the plays of Aristophanes. A similar selection was made 
 from the plays of the three Tragedians. Its original compass 
 cannot now be determined, but it soon came to consist of ten 
 plays from Euripides (Hecuba, Orestes, Phoenissae. Hippolytus, 
 Medea, A/cestis, Andromache^ Rhesus, IVoades, and Bacchae) ; of 
 seven from Aeschylus and seven from Sophocles. Neither the 
 author of the selections is known nor the exact date at which he 
 made them. Apparently they are from one hand since they 
 betray a definite plan. The Septem, the Oedipus, and the Phoe- 
 nissae are evidently chosen in order to be read side by side; 
 other plays are chosen for their easiness (e.g. Prometheus, 
 Persae); others because they form a good introduction to Homer 
 (e.g. Ajax) or a continuation of the story of Troy (e.g. Hecuba). 
 A rough inference as to its date can be drawn from the fact that 
 the collection in its present form was in current use soon after 
 the time of the sophist Philostratus of Lemnos, who lived under 
 Septimius Severus (193-211). He is the last author who quotes 
 irom plays that are not included in it, such as the Oeneus and 
 Pa/amedes of Euripides. 
 
 Selections such as these were made for the school, and for 
 the few cultivated readers who did not lose all interest in 
 literature when they left the school for active life. For both 
 classes of readers a marginal commentary was now essential, 
 and such commentaries consisted partly of extracts from the 
 learning of the Alexandrines and partly of paraphrases. The 
 paraphrase was now a necessity since the Greek language was 
 slowly changing in syntax and in vocabulary. Such commen- 
 taries and paraphrases are of gradual growth, and the scholars 
 who compiled them are either unnamed or merely names. 
 
 ^ \ \ 
 
42 
 
 GREEK TEXTS 
 
 IN ANCIENT TIMES 
 
 43 
 
 There is evidence of a commentary on Aristophanes by Sym- 
 machus which Hes behind the existing scholia. The schoha to 
 the Tragedians point to an origin earlier than the third century, 
 since it is only rarely that authors later than that period are 
 cited in them. It should be borne in mind that such works 
 were essentially compilations from the separate iiro^vyj iiara to 
 separate plays that were in existence long before them. They 
 were rough variorum editions, and not ordered commentaries 
 written upon a definite plan. 
 
 Such selections and commentaries came from the less am- 
 bitious scholars of the time. The more ambitious devote their 
 energies to collecting the learning of the previous generations 
 into grammars, handbooks, and lexica. Scholarship ceases to 
 be discursive and becomes systematic. Apollonius Dyscolus is 
 the founder of systematic syntax. His son Aelius Herodianus 
 covers the whole field of research upon Accent, Quantity, 
 Orthography, and Accidence. The same method and aim is to 
 be seen in the treatises of Heliodorus and Hephaestion upon 
 Metre, of Zenobius on Proverbs, of Herennius Philo upon 
 Synonyms, of Aelius Dionysius and Pausanias the Syrian on 
 Attic usage, and in the work of industrious epitomators, lexico- 
 graphers, and antiquarians such as Juba King of Mauretania, 
 Harpocration, Julius Pollux, Pamphilus, and Diogenian. On 
 its worst side their work is unprogressive, dull, and pedan- 
 tic. But it was founded upon the sound basis of Alexandrine 
 scholarship, and its very pedantry had the saving grace of 
 preserving with unreasoning fidelity what had been received. 
 
 During the succeeding centuries until the ninth, when the 
 present manuscript tradition begins, the Greek classics suffer 
 loss rather than serious corruption. The great losses, as has 
 been explained in the preceding chapter, occurred in all proba- 
 bility before the papyrus roll was finally superseded in the fifth 
 century a.d. by the parchment codex. With the invention of 
 a practically indestructible form of book, literature was no longer 
 at the mercy of the material upon which it was written, and was 
 not necessarily doomed to extinction during a period of neglect. 
 
 That losses occurred even after the introduction of the vellum 
 codex cannot be doubted. The anthologies which, it has been 
 seen, begin as early as the third century, continue to act as 
 a corrosive, and take an ever-widening range, as can be seen 
 from what is known or survives of the work of such men as 
 Proclus, Sopatros of Apamea, Helladios of Egypt, and Joannes 
 Stobaeus, who belong to the fifth and sixth centuries. Losses 
 must also have occurred from sheer neglect during the eighth 
 century — the darkest period in the history of the East, which 
 continues till the revival of letters begun by the Patriarch 
 Photius, and by Arethas Bishop of Caesarea and others circa 
 A.D. 850. 
 
 But throughout this long period of eight centuries the classical 
 texts were not extensively interpolated or reconstructed. An 
 indication of this has always been afforded by the best manu- 
 scripts, which are never without traces of the ancient learning. 
 Even where the manuscripts bear witness to a revision by 
 Byzantine hands, it is clear that such a revision was not 
 a drastic reconstruction. An instance of this is to be seen in 
 the Urbinas of Isocrates, which in the Busiris represents such 
 a revision by a certain Heliconius a/xa rots crat/aot? S^ohwpi^ koI 
 Eva-raOiio. All that these men have done is to correct their text 
 by the best and oldest manuscript available, since the text as it 
 stands shows that ancient rules are still observed, e.g. e/ccti/os is 
 always written except in the phrase r; \iLvos. What is only 
 indicated in the manuscripts is proved beyond all question by 
 the papyri, which show that texts as they stand in manuscripts 
 of the tenth and eleventh centuries are substantially the same 
 as they were in the second and third. 
 
 IV. T/ic Period from the Thirieenih to the Fifteenth Centuries. 
 
 Two centuries before the conquest of Constantinople by the 
 Turks occurred another revival in literary studies which is 
 associated with the House of the Palaeologi, who reigned from 
 1 261-1453. The most famous names in this Byzantine move- 
 
 ^1 
 
44 
 
 GREEK TEXTS 
 
 IN ANCIENT TIMES 
 
 45 
 
 ment are those of Planudes, Manuel Moschopulus, Thomas 
 Magister, Theodorus Metochites, and Demetrius TricHniuS; all of 
 whom flourished during the first quarter of the fourteenth cen- 
 tury. There is, however, no doubt that behind many late Greek 
 manuscripts (e.g. Parisini B and C of Aristophanes, which belong 
 to the sixteenth century) lies the work of some Byzantine scholar 
 of this type who has remained anonymous. Such men wrote 
 commentaries, school books, lexica, handbooks to metre and 
 antiquities, as well as editions of the text of most of the greater 
 Greek classics. They were scholars and not ordinary scribes, 
 and there can be little doubt that both in what they effected and 
 in what they failed to effect they were closely analogous to the 
 scholars of the Italian Renaissance. Through the interest 
 which they aroused for the ancient literature, they were the 
 means of preserving the valuable manuscripts of the tenth and 
 eleventh centuries without which modern scholarship would be 
 helpless; but as textual critics they were too ambitious and 
 violent. 
 
 Unlike the scholars of the earlier Greek renaissance of the 
 ninth century, they laid a heavy hand on the texts which 
 they edited. Occasionally they were right, as were the Italian 
 scholars, but for the most part they defaced the text with trivial 
 emendations based upon their own inadequate theories of metre 
 and language. Their methods can easily be studied in the 
 older texts of Sophocles which were based on the recension of 
 Triclinius (preserved in Paris. 271 1, and other manuscripts): 
 
 e.g. in O. T. 507 <f)av€fMi yap €7r aiVw Trrepoco-o-' yXOi /co/oa, he omitS 
 
 cV aiTuI as Otiose, though he leaves the line hopelessly un- 
 metrical : Ibid. 943 ttw? cTTra?,- 7/ TeOv7]K€ JloXi/So^s yipmv ; he heals 
 the metre by the feeble device of reading [ttoi'] IToAi'/Jo?. 
 
 These texts were the first imported into Italy because they 
 were the most accessible, and for many centuries they continued 
 in use as the vulgate text. It is well to bear in mind when 
 lamenting the fall of Constantinople, that if that disaster had 
 never happened or had been long delayed, such texts might 
 have proved finally victorious to the lasting detriment of Greek 
 
 literature. Such detriment indeed has been suffered by some 
 authors, as can be seen from those parts of Xenophon and 
 Euripides which depend upon fourteenth century manuscripts. 
 
 Thus the problem of textual criticism of Greek authors — when 
 once the ground has been cleared by a proper examination and 
 classification of the manuscript authorities — becomes largely an 
 inquiry into the condition of texts in the period of the Antonines, 
 and into the circumstances which led to that condition. 
 
 It is difficult at the present time to assess the permanent value 
 of recent inquiries that have been made upon these lines. As 
 has been pointed out already, each author presents a different 
 problem, and much work still requires to be done in editing 
 scholia, lexica, &c. before the conditions which govern some of 
 these problems can be ascertained. For, unless the problem 
 be solved off-hand by the discovery in Egypt or elsewhere of 
 some early and well-authenticated text, nothing is clearer than 
 that the only door to the ancient text is the ancient learning. 
 Since much of this ancient learning survives in scholia, it follows 
 thai a text with scholia is far more trustworthy than a text 
 without scholia. Since the ancient scholars were more interested 
 in Verse than in Prose, prose authors have on the whole 
 suffered more corruption than the poets. A few instances of 
 texts which are typical of their kind may be taken to illustrate 
 these statements. 
 
 The early Elegiac poets (e.g. Solon, Phocylides, Mimnermus, 
 Callinus, Theognis) may serve as examples of a type of literature 
 which was neglected by the Alexandrines and their successors. 
 This neglect was due to various causes. None of these writers 
 were of the first class. They offered none of the difficulties of 
 language or metre which attracted the grammarian to the works 
 of other poets. They suffered further from the rivalry of 
 later elegists such as Philetas and Callimachus. Their works 
 accordingly survive for the most part only as fragments, em- 
 bedded in prose authors — where they are quoted to illustrate 
 history or philosophy — or as elegant extracts in Anthologies. 
 
 One alone of these authors --Theognis — survives in a state of 
 
 < 'I 
 
 i 1 
 
46 
 
 GREEK TEXTS 
 
 better preservation. Two books of poems are attributed to him, 
 the first containing 1230 hnes, and consisting of poems dealing 
 with politics and morality, the second consisting of 158 lines of 
 love poetry which survive in one manuscript only, the Mutinensis 
 (now Parisinus Suppl. Grec. 388) belonging to the tenth century. 
 As soon as this collection is critically examined it is clear that 
 it contains much that cannot possibly be attributed to the poet 
 of the sixth century b. c. Many lines belong to earlier poets 
 or to contemporaries such as Solon, Mimnermus, Tyrtaeus, and 
 Euenus. Many of the poems that are incorporated in it are of 
 early date, many again are obviously imitations belonging to 
 the fifth century. Even where the text can be attributed to 
 Theognis himself, it shows every trace of early redaction or 
 adaptation, since divergent versions of the same passage are 
 often presented, the earlier in a longer form, the later shortened 
 and modernized in language. No doubt it is the book used by 
 Xenophon and Plato, but it is a book that has lost all resem- 
 blance to the original work of Theognis, and is a mere collection 
 of stray pieces analogous to the prose vTro/xvr/yiAara that passed 
 under the name of Hippocrates. Here criticism is faced with 
 a hopeless task in attempting the restoration of the form or 
 language. The text has always been unprotected, and the 
 grammarians and lexicographers give no assistance. 
 
 Far different is the condition of a text which has not been 
 left to run wild but has been carefully edited at Alexandria and 
 protected subsequently by a long line of scholars. An instance 
 of such a text is to be seen in the works of Pindar. All the 
 manuscripts of Pindar are descended from a common ancestor 
 or archetype. They preserve a text which, though not the same 
 in extent, has common lacunae and common corruptions. The 
 best representatives of this text fall into two groups : 
 
 (A) = Ambrosianus C. 222 inf., twelfth century which 
 includes only O/yjiip. i-xii. 
 
 (B) = Vaticanus 13 12, twelfth century and Laurentianus 
 32.52, thirteenth century. 
 
 The text which results from the recension and emendation of 
 
 IN ANCIENT TIMES 
 
 47 
 
 these manuscripts is singularly uniforn). Its mistakes are not 
 due to the Byzantine period. The paraphrase given in the 
 scholia belongs to the second century a.d., and it is a paraphrase 
 of the existing text, which goes back through Didymus and the 
 older grammarians to the text of Aristophanes of Byzantium. 
 The injury which the poems have suffered through modification 
 of the dialect and spelling, through interpolation and other 
 forms of corruption, belong to pre-Alexandrine times. All 
 editors, therefore, who attempt to repair such injury on the 
 supposition that it is of later growth are working upon wrong 
 lines. Pindar is an exceptionally favourable instance of what 
 can result from an inquiry into the history of a text. His poems 
 were difficult and unique in style and form. The first fixed 
 point in their history remains fixed, since they were copied 
 mechanically by later ages and suffered little loss. 
 
 Few of the other great classics afTord such definite results. 
 They were more widely read than Pindar for centuries after 
 the Alexandrine period. Hence the settlement which the 
 Alexandrines effected in their text was always liable to be 
 disturbed through the rivalry which sprang up between the 
 revised Alexandrine texts and the unrevised copies circulated 
 by the booksellers. For the time the Alexandrine texts drove 
 out of the market the earlier 'vulgate' or 'proletariat' texts 
 (8r//xw8ets). They certainly killed the extreme forms of corruption 
 that can be seen in the Petrie Pliacdo and in some of the so- 
 called 'eccentric' or 'nonconformist' texts of Homer. But it 
 must not be imagined that an Alexandrine text presented an 
 undeviating form which only required faithful reproduction in 
 order to preserve it. In their virojxvrniaTa or commentaries the 
 early scholars left a record of the material on which they had 
 based their judgement. The variant readings which they had 
 rejected were mentioned as well as those which they accepted, 
 and such readings soon re-entered the text, restored perhaps by 
 subsequent editors or jotted down as marginal annotations by 
 the educated man who read the Alexandrine commentary side 
 by side with his text. Through this passion for collating one 
 
 \ 
 
48 
 
 GREEK TEXTS 
 
 IN ANCIENT TIMES 
 
 49 
 
 :\ 
 
 / 
 
 manuscript with another, which is common to all ages, it is 
 impossible for one strain of tradition to survive uncontaminated, 
 if there are other strains to contaminate it. A text absorbs 
 something from every incident in its history. Whether or not 
 it is possible to reach the texts of the Alexandrines depends 
 largely on the part played by Alexandrine scholarship in the 
 history of a particular text. If it was the dominant influence in 
 forming the text, it may be possible to form an adequate idea of 
 the Alexandrine text. If there were other powerful influences 
 in competition the attempt to recover the Alexandrine text may 
 end only in naive superstitions. 
 
 Roughly speaking the first aspect of the problem is presented 
 by poetry, the second by prose. 
 
 There is no evidence that the work of the Alexandrines upon 
 Greek poetry w^as ever seriously interfered with. Comedy may 
 have suffered a little at the hands of the Atticists of the second 
 century A. D., but Tragedy remained untouched. The limits of 
 variation in a verse text are severely defined by the metre, while 
 the difficulty of the language raises it above the plane of 
 ordinary speech and demands care on the part of the scribe. 
 If, therefore, the scholia survive to protect such a text, there is 
 no reason why it should not represent the main features of the 
 Alexandrine recension. This, it is now generally believed, is 
 true of the texts of the Tragedians and Aristophanes. Where 
 the scholia are well preserved, as in the nine annotated plays of 
 Euripides and the seven of Aristophanes contained in the 
 Venetus, the text is of high quality. The text of Aeschylus and 
 Sophocles is faultier: it is preserved in late manuscripts and 
 the scholia are mere remnants of the original corpus. The 
 tradition is sound but there are not enough witnesses to it. 
 The text of the unannotated plays of Euripides (i.e. the Bacchac 
 and the nine plays found only in the second class of manuscripts) 
 and of Aristophanes exhibits all the defects of a text which has 
 passed out of the control of learning and must be dealt with, as 
 will be seen, upon different lines of criticism. 
 
 It is far otherwise with Prose texts. The Alexandrines 
 
 expended less labour upon them than upon Poetry, and their 
 history has in consequence been more eventful. The meanest 
 scholar felt himself competent to revise them and the meanest 
 scribe indulged in conscious or unconscious expansions, omissions, 
 and emendations. There was always a rivalry between revised 
 and unrevised copies. The latter might be either the corrupt 
 descendants of some scholarly text, or trade copies tracing back 
 their descent to the bad texts of the pre-Alexandrine period. 
 There was no limit to the growth of variants such as was im- 
 posed in poetry by the metre. From time to time there is a 
 demand for a purer text, and some scholar makes his selection 
 from the mass of variants before him. It is as if the text were 
 constantly endeavouring to escape from the control of learning 
 and were as constantly recaptured. Such eclectic texts are the 
 parents of many of the best manuscripts now in existence, e. g. 
 the Bodleian Plato and the Paris Demosthenes. These manu- 
 scripts do not always represent separate traditions that are 
 earlier and better than the readings given by other groups of 
 manuscripts. They represent a text that has been normalized 
 at some period. It is now clear from the evidence of papyri 
 that behind all families of manuscripts (except, of course, such as 
 present the Byzantine recensions of the fourteenth century) lies 
 a text with an apparatus of variant readings. All manuscripts 
 represent a selection from such a corpus of variants and one 
 selection may be more successful than others. But though, 
 happily, the papyri support in most cases the readings of the 
 best family of manuscripts, yet they also recognize some of the 
 readings found in the inferior groups. It is clear, therefore, that 
 all readings which are not obviously late must be considered on 
 their merits and not adopted or rejected merely because they 
 belong to a particular group. Only where the balance of 
 probability is equal can more weight be given to the witness 
 who bears the best character for accuracy. 
 
 The works of Demosthenes may be taken to illustrate 
 the condition of the better prose texts. The manuscripts 
 m which they are preserved are of high quality, and the 
 
 473 
 
 E 
 
 A. ^ 
 
 I' 
 
5^ 
 
 GREEK TEXTS 
 
 IN ANCIENT TIMES 
 
 51 
 
 i 
 
 ( 
 
 text given by these manuscripts is largely confirmed by the 
 papyri. 
 
 Some of the Orations of Demosthenes must have been 
 published during his lifetime : others were not published till 
 after his death. Spurious works soon passed current under his 
 name. The first fixed point in the tradition of the text is given 
 by the Catalogue (TrtVaKcs) of Callimachus in which the genuine 
 speeches were sifted out from the mass of miscellaneous speeches 
 which bore the name of Demosthenes. There is every indica- 
 tion that the work of Callimachus lies behind our present 
 tradition. Speeches which he condemned— such as the v-n-kf) 
 ^arvpov and the virlp Am^i'Aol' — have not survived, although they 
 were recognized as genuine by good critics in antiquity. But 
 the work of Callimachus was only a table of contents and not 
 an edition.^ That there was an Alexandrine edition based on 
 the work of Callimachus is certain, though the author of it is 
 unknown by name. This edition lies behind the present text, but 
 it is not the only influence that lies behind the existing families 
 of manuscripts. It is evident that there were other sources of 
 tradition open to Didymus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and his 
 friend Caecilius — separate editions of single speeches which 
 traced their descent from pre-Alexandrine copies. Such copies 
 lie behind the text of the Third Philippic where there are parallel 
 versions of some passages, and perhaps behind the Speech on the 
 Trierarchic Crown. The Alexandrine edition was soon contami- 
 nated by such rival texts. Its text suffered at the hands of the later 
 Alexandrine scholars, and seems to have been mutilated through 
 the loss of the end of the Zcnothcmis. It reigned, however, as 
 the accepted text, sinking into deeper corruption with every 
 century. But scholarship throughout is constantly making an 
 effort to keep the text pure. Some such attempt seems to lie 
 
 1 Some have thought that Callimachus' work was founded on an early edition 
 made in Athens soon after the orator's death. But this is very improbable 
 since speeches such as those against Phormio and Dionysodorus have their 
 origin in this period, and could hardly have been included as genuine by an 
 Athenian editor. 
 
 li 
 
 behind the tradition preserved by Harpocration and others of 
 a recension made by a certain Atticus (>/ rwi/ 'kjTLKiavCov avTiypd<jio)v 
 ckSoo-is), whom some critics believe to be the friend of Cicero. 
 Another such attempt is seen in the dpxata iK^oai^i of unknown 
 date, which is referred to by the scholiast on the Midiana 133 
 and 147. Even if these editions were still extant they would not 
 exhibit a pure descent from the Alexandrine text, but only 
 skilful selection from the various readings which had overlaid 
 it. Neither is any one of the surviving manuscripts a pure 
 descendant of any of these editions. It is a mistake to regard the 
 Paris MS. (2) as a legitimate descendant of the apxam or of the 
 'ATTtKtttm. Though it is an excellent manuscript yet it shows 
 kinship with manuscripts of base descent. The Augustanus (A) 
 seems to represent the corrupt vulgate ; yet not entirely, since 
 it shows traces of the good readings which are preserved in ::►. 
 The Marcianus (F) and a Parisinus (Y) represent a frank con- 
 tamination or mixture of the traditions seen in 2 and A. 
 
 Thus it is evident that no strand of the tradition ever remains 
 by itself. From the very first they have been intertwined. The 
 existing manuscripts of the highest class represent early attempts 
 at a disentanglement. But the men who made these attempts, 
 although they ejected many of the worst readings before them, 
 may equally well have ejected good readings which have been 
 preserved in inferior manuscripts. 
 
 Textual criticism, therefore, in authors such as Demosthenes 
 must be largely eclectic, and a reading must not be rejected 
 merely because it lacks the authority of the best manuscripts. 
 To go beyond this and to dream of restoring the Alexandrine 
 text is quixotic — at any rate, with the evidence at present 
 available. 
 
 If modern discovery and research lead to this rather unsatis- 
 fying conclusion they teach one salutary lesson. A broad 
 distinction must be drawn between ^protected' and ^unprotected' 
 texts. A protected text, even though it has absorbed bad 
 elements along with the good in the course of its history, offers 
 only a very restricted field for the exercise of conjectural 
 
 E 2 
 
52 
 
 GREEK TEXTS IN ANCIENT TIMES 
 
 emendation. Nothing is more significant than the fact that the 
 one papyrus of Demosthenes which corroborates the largest 
 number of modern conjectures is that containing the greater 
 part of the third Epistle. The Epistles were an outlying portion 
 of the orator's works to which the ancient scholars paid little 
 attention. The text accordingly was unprotected and soon 
 suffered serious corruption. Few important texts are in this 
 condition. Among them unfortunately are the unannotated 
 plays of Euripides. These plays either stand entirely outside 
 the Alexandrine tradition, or more probably represent a portion 
 of the complete edition made by Aristophanes of Byzantium, 
 which has survived by some accident without the scholia which 
 have grown up round the rest. Their text exhibits a uniform 
 and undisciplined corruption, and in one instance — the Hera- 
 clidac — bears every trace of descent from a stage adaptation of 
 the fourth century b.c. Such texts afford a proper field for 
 conjectural emendation which, to paraphrase the words of 
 Wilamowitz,^ 'must be governed by an intimate knowledge of 
 the author's style and of his intellectual environment and by the 
 instinctive and imponderable qualities of scholarship, taste, 
 feeling for language, and imagination.' 
 
 [The main authorities are : 
 Drerup, E. Aniike Demosthenesausgaben P/iilohgus, 1899, Suppl.-Band vii). 
 Lipsius, J. H. Zur Te.xigeschichte des Deruosthenes^ in Berkhte d. kgl. Sachs. 
 
 Gesellscha/t der IVissenschaftcH, phil.-hist. Klasse, 1893. 
 LuDwicH, A. Die Homervidgata. 
 
 Rutherford, W. G. A chapter in the History of Criticism. 
 UsENER, H. Unser Platontext yGoett. Gelehr. Anz. 1892 . 
 WiLAMOwiTZ-MoELLENDORFF, U, VON. Euripidcs, Hcrakks. 1889, i. 120-219. 
 
 Die Tcxtgeschichte der grieihischen Lyriker \Abh. der kgl. Gcstll. dtr Jfis'^eu^rh. 
 
 ZH Gottiugen, phil.-hist. Klasse, N. F., Band i\ , No. 3 , 1900. 
 Die Textgesch. der griechischen Bukoliker. 1906.] 
 
 
 ^ Wilamowitz-MoellendorfT, Herakles, i. 216. 
 
 CHAPTER III 
 
 THE TEXT OF LATIN AUTHORS IN 
 ANCIENT TIMES 
 
 Latin texts, with the exception of the works of the early 
 republican writers, have from the beginning of their history been 
 well protected by scholarship. The early republican literature 
 was mainly dramatic, and made its appeal when it was first 
 composed not to the reader but to the audience in the theatre. 
 
 There is no reason to believe that such works were ever 
 'published' in any technical sense. There was no public of 
 readers sufficiently large to support an organized book trade 
 such as existed later during the last century and a half of the 
 republican period. Till about 169 b.c. the methods of trans- 
 mitting texts were as unorganized in Rome as they were in 
 Athens in the fifth century, so that the various forms of literature 
 which existed were at the mercy of the narrow circles of educated 
 men to whom they appealed. A technical work such as Cato's 
 De Agricultura was annotated and corrected by those who used 
 it, and their alterations tended to become embodied in the 
 tradition of the text. Epic and Satire were less liable to altera- 
 tion since they were not in constant use like a technical hand- 
 book, and, though they were not exempt from the graphical 
 errors which are inseparable from a tradition preserved in 
 writing, they were not exposed to the grave corruption which 
 speedily attacked the drama. A play was written by a Roman 
 dramatist for a special occasion, and his interest in it and his 
 control over it ceased when he had been paid by the magistrate 
 who was conducting the festival at which the play was produced, 
 or by the theatrical entrepreneur (dominus gregis) whom the 
 magistrate ordinarily employed as his agent. Plays generally 
 
54 
 
 LVriN TEXTS 
 
 IN ANCIENT TIMES 
 
 55 
 
 l)ccamc the property of these agents, who revived them from time 
 to time, and did not hesitate to recast them in form (rciracialio) 
 or in language so as to render them more attractive and more 
 intelligible to a later generation of spectators. 
 
 It is convenient to take 169 b.c. as marking the beginning of 
 a new period in the history of such early texts. It is an approxi- 
 mate date for the visit to Rome of the Pergamene Grammarian 
 Crates. 
 
 'Primus igitur, quantum opinamur, studium grammaticae in ur- 
 bem intulit Crates Mallotes, Aristarchi aequalis, qui missus ad sen- 
 atum ab Attalo rege \a mistake : Etimcncs zvas king], inter secun- 
 dum et tertium bellum Punicum, sub ipsam Ennii mortem, cum 
 regione Palatii prolapsus in cloacae foramen crus fregisset, per 
 omne legationis simul et ualetudinis tempus plurimas acroasis 
 subinde fecit, assidueque disseruit ac nostris exemplo fuit. 
 Hactenus tamen imitati, ut carmina parum adhuc diuulgata, uel 
 defunctorum amicorum uel si quorum aliorum probassent, dili- 
 gentius retractarent ac legendo commentandoque ceteris nota 
 facerent.' (Suetonius, Dr Gfanifiinficis, ii.) 
 
 This account was probably borrowed by Suetonius from 
 Varro, who as an admirer of the Pergamene scholars may have 
 exaggerated the influence exercised by Crates from a desire to 
 attribute to his favourite school the impulse towards philology, 
 which was undoubtedly felt at Rome about this time. It is not 
 in itself improbable that the earliest Reman philology should 
 have been of the Pergamene type, and have addressed itself to 
 questions of authenticity and aesthetics rather than to textual 
 criticism. But the influence of Alexandrine scholarship was 
 not long delayed if the statement made in the late tract Z)^ Nofis 
 (Keil, G. L. vii. 533) is to be believed. The author of this tract, 
 which describes the twenty-one diacritical signs used by the 
 Alexandrines, has probably derived his information from a 
 treatise by Suetonius that is now lost. He says : 'His solis in 
 adnotationibus Ennii Lucilii et historicorum usi sunt t uarrus 
 hennius haelius aequae t et postremo Probus qui illas in Vergilio 
 et Horatio et Lucretio apposuit ut in Ilomero Aristarchus.' 
 The corrupt names have been variously emended, but it is 
 
 generally agreed that they must include Vargunteius and 
 L. Aelius Stilo.^ 
 
 The influence of Alexandrine scholarship generated the idea of 
 a standard text which was to be preserved or recovered by an 
 appeal to the best documentary evidence available. This implies 
 a respect for the authentic text which is as strong in Rome as 
 it has been seen to be in Athens, and is not entirely obliterated 
 during the worst periods of the Middle Ages, such as the 
 eleventh and twelfth centuries. 
 
 Side by side with this scientific treatment of a text is the 
 tendency, stronger at some periods than at others, to fill in 
 lacunae, to smooth over difficulties of thought or language in 
 order to consult the convenience of the reader, or to satisfy the 
 ideal of perfection which some dilettante scholar had formed. 
 It is a tendency which is observable in all ages and in all 
 literatures, and starts with the demand on the part of the 
 ordinary reader for texts that are intelligible rather than 
 scientifically accurate. In this way the popularity of a writer 
 may militate against the purity of the text of his works. We 
 need go no further than our own literature to see the effect 
 which such a demand has had by producing the vulgate text of 
 Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, and Defoe. No permanent harm 
 can befall a modern text which has been corrected for the press 
 by its author. In ancient times, however, as has been pointed 
 out in the preceding chapter, any changes of text that become 
 current speedily infect the tradition as a whole. The tradition 
 accordingly may suffer serious damage unless the text is taken 
 in hand from time to time and purified. 
 
 We shall consider briefly some cf the more significant stages 
 m the history of Latin texts, so as to illustrate the conflict 
 between scientific and what may be termed 'vulgate ' texts which 
 was maintained till the seventh century a. d. 
 
 ' Cf. Fronto, i. 7, j). 20: ^ Contigisse C|iiid talc M. Porcio aut Q. Ennio aiit 
 litio poctac? quorum libri pretiosiores habcntur et summam gloriam retinent si 
 sunt a Lampadionc aut Staberio aut Seruio Claudio aut Aelio emendati aut Attico 
 aut Ncpote.' 
 
 I 
 
 ' \ 
 
 M' 
 
 / 
 
56 
 
 LATIN TEXTS 
 
 IN ANCIENT TIMES 
 
 The philological movement, the beginning of which Suetonius 
 attributes to Crates, was continued by Roman scholars and by 
 a number of others who, to judge from their names, were Greeks. 
 Cn. Octavius Lampadio edited the Punic War of Naevius, which 
 he divided into seven books ; Vargunteius worked at the Annals 
 of Ennius ; Archelaus and Philocomus at the satires of Lucilius. 
 Even literary men such as L. Accius (b. 170 B.C.), the last of the 
 old Tragedians, were swept into the current of the new movement. 
 Accius dealt with Greek as well as Roman literature, and seems 
 to have busied himself largely with the somewhat unfruitful 
 speculations of the Pergamene school. But as he composed an 
 index of the plays of Plautus he must have attempted the more 
 useful task of inquiring into the authenticity of the various works 
 attributed to the early writers. Researches on these lines, 
 which continued right down to the great Grammarians of the 
 Augustan period (e.g. Verrius Flaccus), resulted in the formation 
 of a more or less scientific text. But while philologists continued 
 to be interested in these early writers the educated public lost 
 all taste for them towards the end of the second century b.c. The 
 reigning influence was Greek. And if there had been no revival of 
 interest the archaic writers would have remained merely as 
 a field for the exercise of learning outside the purview of the 
 ordinary man, and the oblivion which has overwhelmed them, 
 with the exception of Plautus, would have been anticipated by 
 several centuries. There was a revival of the national literature 
 in the Sullan epoch, due no doubt in part to the victory of Rome 
 in the Social war, which stimulated the national pride and soon 
 made Latin the paramount language in Italy. This revival 
 lasted throughout the lifetime of Cicero, who is a great admirer 
 of the archaic writers (cf introduction to his De Finibiis). It 
 survives into the early Augustan period and is unmistakable 
 in Vergil, but it soon begins to wane, and Horace is found 
 reverting to Greek models and expressing a contempt, that is 
 far from good-humoured, for the archaic writers. 
 
 The immediate consequence of this Sullan revival must have 
 been the production of * vulgate ' texts of the earlier authors. 
 
 57 
 
 f 
 
 Dramatists such as Plautus must have suffered fresh adaptation, 
 and many of the variants which are found in the present tradition 
 may be as old as this period; e.g. Bacch. 519 ' Quam si ad 
 sepulcrum mortuo narres logos ' A : where P has dicat iocmn, 
 where the Greek phrase has been altered because it occasioned 
 difficulty; or M,G. 1180 ^exfafillato bracchio * P: ' expalliolato 
 bracchio ' A, which is not a graphical corruption, but shows the 
 substitution of an intelligible word for one that had become 
 obsolete. 
 
 Few texts have had a more chequered history than that of 
 Plautus, or show more violent fluctuations. But the same influ- 
 ences which distorted his text begin to work sooner or later 
 upon any text which becomes popular in an age subsequent to 
 that in which it was written. Less harm has befallen the great 
 writers of the last century of the Republic, because their history 
 does not begin, so to speak, with a period of licence in which 
 their text was exposed to irretrievable injuries. The conflict 
 between the authentic text and ' vulgate ' copies arises for all 
 texts sooner or later, but owing to the care with which the text 
 was published in the last century of the Republic there was 
 always the chance of good copies surviving, to which later 
 scholars could appeal in order to recover the original words of 
 the author. 
 
 There is no doubt that in the last century of the Republic the 
 standard of accuracy in texts was high, and Cicero's complaints 
 (e. g. AdAtt. xiii. 23. 2, Ad Quint, F. iii. 6. 6 'de Latinis (libris) 
 quo me uertam nescio, ita mendose et scribuntur et ueneunt ') 
 only show that the ordinary scribe did not always satisfy the 
 demands of the scholarly reader. One proof of this respect for 
 the authentic text of an author is to be seen in the treatment of 
 posthumous works. They were published with scrupulous care 
 and without additions or excisions. The unfinished poem of 
 Lucretius was published by Cicero, and according to Jerome 
 ' emended ' by him, but it is clear from the present condition of 
 the text that such ' emendation ' cannot have done more than 
 eliminate the obvious errors in the author's draft. There is no 
 
 ! \ 
 
 \\ 
 
 \ 
 
 \ 
 
 / 
 
58 
 
 LATIN TEXTS 
 
 IN ANCIENT TIMES • 
 
 59 
 
 1 
 
 trace of a revision any more than in the Acneid which Varius 
 edited (Suet. Donat. Vita, p. 64, Reifferscheid) by command of 
 Augustus, ' sed summatim emendata, ut qui uersus etiam imper- 
 fectos si qui erant rehquerit '. 
 
 The same holds good of other posthumous works belonging to 
 this period and to the early Empire, e. g. Cic. De legibus ; Caesar, 
 Bclltim Civile ; Persius ; Lucan, Pharsalia (except i-iii) ; Statins, 
 Achillcis and Silnac, Book V. 
 
 There can be little doubt that editions of the archaic writers, 
 with the usual apparatus of Alexandrine signs, were current 
 during the last century of the Republic. They were founded on 
 the best documentary evidence available, and preserved, like 
 their Alexandrine models, the evidence of those documents even 
 when it involved the preservation of variant readings or of 
 collateral versions of the same passage. 
 
 The demand for such editions of the later writers does not 
 seem to have become imperative until the time of M. Valerius 
 Probus of Beyrout, a grammarian who flourished ci}'ca a.d. 80. 
 The age of Probus affords a fixed point from which to look 
 forward and backward in the history of Roman textual criticism. 
 The main facts concerning him are contained in Suet. Dc 
 Gramm. xxiv : 
 
 ' M. Valerius Probus, Berytius, diu centuriatum petiit, donee 
 taedio ad studia se contulit. Legerat in prouincia quosdam 
 ueteres libellos apud grammatistam, durante adhuc ibi anti- 
 quorum memoria, necdum abolita, sicut Romae. Hos quum 
 diligentius repetere, atque alios deinceps cognoscere cuperet, 
 quamuis eos contemni magisque opprobrio legentibus, quam 
 gloriae et fructui esse animaduerteret, nihilominus in proposito 
 mansit: multaque exempl(orum copia) contracta (i.e. many 
 copies which he had collected) emendare ac distinguere et 
 adnotare curauit.' 
 
 From the passage quoted on p. 54 it will be seen that he 
 edited Vergil, Horace, and Lucretius. 
 
 Some considerable traces of his work on Vergil are preserved 
 in Servius, and as the history of Vergil's text is well known, it 
 will be convenient to consider briefly what an edition like that 
 
 i| 
 
 of Probus effected and what was the condition of the text when 
 it called for such an edition. 
 
 Although Varius had published an authoritative and un- 
 questionably authentic text of the Aeneid, two influences com- 
 bined to produce a ' vulgate ' text of this and of the other works 
 by Vergil, (i) Soon after Vergil's death (19 b.c.) his poems 
 came to form a necessary part of the curriculum in schools. 
 Q. Caecilius Epirota, a freedman of Atticus, is known to have 
 given lectures upon them in his school (Suet. Dc Gram. xvi. 
 p. 112, Reiff.). The schools promoted an intensive study of the 
 text. Questions of exegesis, of punctuation, of consistency in 
 the use of words, would arise, which might never have suggested 
 themselves to the ordinary reader, and their solution might often 
 involve suggestions on the part of the master which would find 
 their way into the pupils' text. (2) The Acneid especially, owing 
 to its incompleteness, became the prey of dilettante scholars, who 
 were constantly tampering with the text by filling in lacunae and 
 clearing up obscurities by minute alterations. Often they sought 
 authority for their interpolations by maintaining that they were 
 in the original draft but had been excised by Varius. Owing to 
 the universal habit in antiquity of collating one manuscript with 
 another such contaminations must speedily have affected the 
 ordinary texts in circulation. It is against alterations such as 
 these that Quintilian (ix. 4. 39) protests: 'Quae in ueteribus 
 libris reperta mutare imperiti solent et, dum librariorum insectari 
 uolunt inscientiam, suam confitentur/ (Cf. A. Gellius, xx. 6. 14, 
 on similar corruptions in the text of Sallust.) It is very signi- 
 ficant that Seneca appears to have read ' Audentis Fortuna iuuat, 
 piger ipse sibi obstat ' in his copy of Vergil, and Servius' com- 
 mentary affords instances of other hemistichs that were similarly 
 interpolated (e. g. Aen. viii. 41). The prefatory verses ' Ille ego 
 qui quondam &c.' cannot be traced back beyond the time of 
 Nero, when a grammarian named Nisus said 'audisse se a 
 senioribus (i. c. that it was traditionally reported) Varium . . . 
 primi libri correxisse principium hi suersibus demptis.' (Diehl, 
 Vitae Vcrgiliaiiae, p. 20.) 
 
 N 
 
 h^ 
 
 i 
 
6o 
 
 LATIN TEXTS 
 
 IN ANCIENT TIMES 
 
 6i 
 
 Yet throughout the first century scholars had been working 
 at the text of Vergil. Three, at least, have left traces of their 
 work in later commentaries. C. lulius Hyginus, a freedman of 
 Augustus, and contemporary with Vergil himself, wrote both on 
 the Georgics and on the Aeneid, e. g. he restored aniaror in G. ii. 
 247 for the vulgate amaro, on the authority of an early copy 'ex 
 domo atque ex familia Vergilii ' (A. Gell. i. 21) : in Am. xii. 120 
 for 'uelati lino ' he read ' limo ', the limits cincfns being an ancient 
 sacrificial dress. 
 
 lulius Modestus, a freedman of Hyginus, followed in his patron's 
 footsteps. He devoted his attention largely to questions of ortho- 
 graphy, e. g. he insisted on the use of v to represent the Greek r. 
 
 L. Annaeus Cornutus, the tutor of Persius and Lucan, is 
 responsible for the reading (or emendation) ' multa nocte recepit ' 
 in Acn. ix. 348. 
 
 These scholars are typical instances of the learning which was 
 expended on Vergil from the very beginning. Much of it was 
 sound and systematic, but much also must have been ill-judged, 
 supersubtle, and desultory. If the authentic text was not to 
 suffer serious damage and possibly be superseded by the 
 ' vulgate ' texts that were now current a thorough and systematic 
 recension was necessary. This is what Probus effected. 
 
 From the traces of his work which still survive it is clear that 
 he sought carefully for the best manuscripts. In the Georgics 
 he is said to have used a codex corrected by Vergil himself. 
 
 'In primo Georgicon quem ego,' inquit, 'librum manu ipsius 
 correctum legi, urbis per /" litteram scripsit. Verba e uersibus 
 eius haec sunt : 
 
 urbisne inuisere, Caesar, 
 terrarumque uelis curam.' (A. Gell. xiii. 21.) 
 
 In Aoi. xii. 605 he restored the undoubtedly true and ancient 
 reading 'Jloros Lauinia crinis ' which has been replaced in our 
 surviving MSS. by * flauos *. lUit he was as ready as any 
 Alexandrine critic (cf. p. 37) to defend the tradition when he 
 conceived it to be right ; e. g. ' uadi dorso ' in Aen. x. 303, which 
 
 he compares with 'dorso nemoris' G. iii. 436. These may 
 serve as instances of what he and the best of his successors 
 understood by Emendation. ' Distinguere ', which is also 
 attributed to him in the passage from Suetonius quoted above, 
 refers to punctuation : e.g. in Acti. x. 173 he placed a comma 
 after 'trecentos' in order to separate it from the following word 
 ' insula '. By ' Adnotare ', with which Suetonius concludes his 
 description, is meant the application of the diacritical signs. 
 These illustrate the conservative character of the textual criticism 
 which Rome had inherited from Alexandria, since they are 
 mostly used to indicate faults in the text which the editor found 
 in his documents but abstained from altering. A few instances 
 are here subjoined : 
 G. ii. 129 : 
 
 X — misciicriintqne Iierbas et non innoxia nerha 
 Here the astcnsats cum obcio indicates that the line is wrongly 
 repeated from G, iii. 283. 
 Acn. x. 444 : 
 
 I liacc ait : et socii ccsscritnt acquore iitsso 
 the alogus indicates that he thought the construction o{ acquore 
 iusso to be corrupt. 
 Acn. vi. 782 : 
 
 f impcrium terris, animos acquabit Olynipo 
 * de hoc loco ', says Servius, ' Trogus et Probus quaerunt ', i. e. 
 the query mark or phi rlio was placed against the line to show 
 that the construction of Olytnpo was looked upon as suspicious. 
 
 There is no reason to doubt the soundness of Roman scholar- 
 ship during the second and third centuries a. d. Suetonius and 
 Aulus Gellius afford ample evidence of the scope and pedantic 
 minuteness of the researches of the grammarians of this period. 
 Arecension of Ciceromadeduringthe second century is attested by 
 the 'subscriptio ' found before the second speech Dc Lege Agraria, 
 'Statilius Maximusrursumemendaui ad Tyronemet Lactanianum 
 et dom (?) et alios ueteres III. oratio eximia.' This is evidence 
 that it was still possible to resuscitate the text of Cicero's 
 speeches as originally published by his secretary Tiro. 
 
 
 i< 
 
 * 
 
 Ii 
 
62 
 
 LATIN TEXTS 
 
 In the fourth and fifth centuries the Roman Empire began to 
 feel the stress of two great forces that had long been latent — the 
 Christian Church and the Northern Barbarians. 
 
 Christianity, it is true, was not officially recognized as the 
 religion of the Empire till 391, when Theodosius forbade sacri- 
 fice and the performance of other pagan rites, but its influence 
 had been allowed to penetrate freely into Roman life and thought 
 ever since the Edict of Toleration published at Milan in 313 by 
 Constantine and Licinius. 
 
 It is often asserted that one outcome of the victory of Chris- 
 tianity was an intense hostility to the ancient pagan literature ; 
 and it is not difficult to find statements in the ecclesiastical 
 writers of the fourth and fifth centuries which, if they are taken 
 by themselves, lend colour to such a charge. ' Ciceronianus es, 
 non Christianus : ubi thesaurus tuus ibi et cor tuum,' are 
 the words of the voice which addresses Jerome (331-420) in his 
 dream (Ad EiistocJi., Ep. xxii. 30. 4, Hilberg). Pagan literature 
 must be cleansed, just as the captive woman must shave her 
 head and pare her nails and put oft' the raiment of her captivity 
 before she is taken to wife [Ad Magnum, Ep. Ixx. 2. 5, 
 Hilberg). Augustine recommends the policy of 'spoiling the 
 Egyptians* [De doctrina Christ, ii. 40, Migne 34, p. 63). Cassian 
 (360-435) finds a 'speciale impedimentum salutis* in secular 
 literature (Conlatio, xiv. 12). Paulinus of Nola (353-431) finds 
 that there is no room for Christ and Apollo in a Christian breast 
 (Canucfi, X. 22). Yet it is not too much to say that these writers 
 are one and all steeped in the classics. They write for an 
 audience who demanded and appreciated subtle artifices of style, 
 illustration, and argumentation. Contemporary with them there 
 is a marked revival in the study of pagan literature as attested 
 by the ' subscriptiones ' which are still found appended to the 
 works of many Latin authors, whose texts are descended from 
 manuscripts written during this period. These subscriptions 
 record the revision of the text by one or more persons. The 
 terms most frequently used are /egi, Icgiiajitimi, enicndaui, correxi, 
 reccnsniy cognoiii, cojituli] dcscripsi, distinxi, and in one instance 
 
 IN ANCIENT TIMES 
 
 63 
 
 annotaui. Records of this type ^ are found in the manuscripts of 
 Apuleius' Metamorphoses (Sallustius 395-7), Martial (Gennadius 
 401), Persius and Nonius (Sabinus 402), Livy (the Nicomachi 
 and Victorianus 402 31), Vegetius (Eutropius 450), Terence 
 (Calliopius, probably in the fourth or fifth century), Vergil 
 (Asterius 494), Horace (Mavortius 527), Macrobius (Symmachus 
 485), Martianus Capella (Felix 534). 
 
 Many of these revisers were men of birth and position. 
 Nicomachus was a ' praefectus urbis' in 402 and was related to 
 the powerful family of the Symmachi. Domnulus w^as a 'uir 
 praeclarissimus et spectabilis ' and 'comes consistorii ' ; Asterius 
 a ' patricius et consul ' ; Sabinus a young officer stationed at 
 Toulouse. They were not trained scholars, but aristocratic 
 readers who wanted a readable text. Their method was to 
 collate their text with older manuscripts, when they could obtain 
 them, and when possible they sought the aid of some grammarian 
 [scholasticuSy magister): e.g. Mavortius is assisted by 'magister 
 Felix '. Sometimes they lament the lack of such assistance, e. g. 
 Sabinus says, 'prout potui sine magistro emendans annotaui'. 
 They also complain of the want of manuscripts or of their 
 corruption, e.g. Eutropius says, 'emendaui sine exemplario': 
 and Felix, 'ex mendosissimis exemplis emendabam'. 
 
 These dilettante editors, although they use the technical terms 
 of scientific scholarship, are not to be compared with the great 
 Roman scholars such as Probus, Servius, or Donatus. But 
 their text was often constructed with care, e. g. it is to Mavortius 
 that we probably owe the readings manibiis (for demens) in 
 Horace, Sat. ii. 3. 303, and pracsectum [{or perfectum) in A. P. 294. 
 
 This revival has often been interpreted as a reaction against 
 Christianity fostered by aristocratic families who were still 
 devoted to the old Roman culture. According to this view, it was 
 the hostility of the Church which reinvigorated the dying forces 
 of Paganism and preserved the Latin classics which now survive. 
 But this enthusiasm for the old literature continues into the sixth 
 
 ^ A full list will be found in O. Jahn, Berichte ilber d. Vcrlmndlimgcn dcr 
 k. Sachs. Gesellach. der Wissenschafien^ phi). -hist. Kl., 1851, pp. 327-72. 
 
 ! -S 
 
 .1 
 
 i'/ 
 
64 
 
 LATIN TEXTS 
 
 century, long after the victory of Christianity had been acknow- 
 ledged in every department of life and thought. And nothing 
 is more certain than that the Church could have destroyed 
 everything that she was not willing to preserve. It is probably 
 nearer the truth to say that the Christian writers up to the first 
 half of the fifth century regarded the old literature, especially 
 poetry, with grave mistrust. As educated men they felt its use 
 for education and the subtle charm that it exercised upon the 
 mind, but its very charm seemed carnal and made them afraid. 
 Augustine puts on record that the exhortation to philosophy in 
 Cicero's Hortenshis first turned his thoughts to God, but he 
 adds, in a phrase which sums up the views of his whole epoch— 
 ' Cicero, cuius linguam omnes mirantur, pectus non ita ' (Con- 
 Jess, iii. 4. 7). Jerome sees a possibility of scandal to the weaker 
 brethren if priests devote themselves to pagan literature. 
 
 ' Nee nobis blandiamur si his quae sunt scripta non credi- 
 mus, cum aliorum conscientia uulneretur et putemur probare 
 quae dum legimus non reprobamus ... At nunc etiam sacerdotes 
 Dei, omissis Euangeliis et Prophetis, uidemus comoedias legere, 
 amatoria Bucolicorum uersuum uerba cantare, tenere Vergilium, 
 et id quod in pueris necessitatis est crimen in se facere uolu- 
 ptatis. [Ad Damasum, xxi. 13. 8, Hilberg.) 
 
 At the back of the minds of these ecclesiastics there was 
 doubtless the feeling that paganism— or, at any rate, the pagan 
 view of life was not wholly destroyed. The weaker brethren 
 were still in touch with the old beliefs. The temple of Apollo 
 still stood on the top of Monte Cassino when Benedict of Nursia 
 founded his monastery there in 529. The old authors could still 
 appeal to the Italian in a tongue but little removed from hi? 
 own : they spoke of beliefs which belonged to the history of his 
 nation and could still exert a noxious influence over weak and 
 ignorant minds. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the 
 earnest Christians of this age felt that to give any undue 
 encouragement to the older culture was like playing with the 
 embers of a fire that was not yet wholly extinguished. 
 
 Yet, if the revival of the classics was begun by the pagan 
 
 4 
 
 IN ANCIENT TIMES 6- 
 
 aristocrats, it was undoubtedly continued by Christians. The 
 two aristocratic families which play a large part in the history 
 and literature of the fourth century are the Synnnachi and 
 Nicomachi. Q. Aurelius Synniiachus, famous as an orator 
 admmistrator, and man of letters, is also famous as the cham'- 
 pion of paganism whose protest in 384 against the abolition 
 of the altar of X'ictory is perhaps the noblest defence of a 
 dymg creed that has ever been made. Virius Nicomachus 
 Flavianus, the consul of 394 and the editor of Philostratus' Life 
 of Apollonius of Tyana, whose son and grandson revised the 
 text of Livy, was also a protagonist in the pagan cause, as is 
 shown by the Carmen coutra paganos vihkh was directed against 
 him. Their families were connected by intermarriage, and both 
 champions of paganism must have stood in intimate relation 
 with prominent Christians. Symmachus was a connexion of 
 Ambrose, Bishop of Milan ; he was a friend of Augustine, for 
 whom he obtained a chair of rhetoric at Milan ; and his family 
 became Christian in the next generation. The aristocrats who 
 continued to protect the ancient literature during the sixth 
 century were beyond all doubt Christians.' 
 
 Accordingly, if it be true that the classical revival was pro- 
 voked by the victory of Christianity, there must have been some 
 other mfluence which caused it to persist. This influence was 
 the desire of the educated classes to protect the national culture 
 against the ignorance of the barbarians who poured into Italy 
 and threatened its civilization with extinction during the fifth 
 and sixth centuries. This desire to save all that could be 
 rescued from the wreck of the old order inspired pagan and 
 Christian alike. The reconciliation, if it may be so called, 
 between Christianity and the Humanities is associated with the 
 two great names of Cassiodorus and Isidore. 
 
 Flavins Magnus Cassiodorus Senator (circ. 490-580) was a 
 ayman who had risen to high office under Theodoric and 
 his successors. He had passed some part of his life at Con- 
 stantinople, and was perhaps influenced by the methods of 
 
 ^ CU Traube, VorlestingeH, ii. 125. 
 473 V 
 
 \l\ 
 
 *r 
 
 '< 
 
66 
 
 LATIN TEXTS 
 
 IN ANCIENT TIMES 
 
 education which he had observed there. His scheme to estab- 
 hsh secondary schools at Rome, in which a training in rhetoric 
 should be combined with a thorough study of the Christian 
 Scriptures, had failed through the death of his friend Pope 
 Agapetus in 536. Towards 540, however, he realized part of 
 his early plan by establishing on his property at Scylaceum 
 (Squillace), on the east coast of Bruttium, the monastery of 
 Vivarium. The lines of intellectual discipline to be followed by 
 the brethren were laid down by him in his Institniioiies dinina- 
 rum et saeculariiim lectionnm. From this treatise it is clear 
 that he regards pagan letters from the same point of view 
 as Jerome and Augustine. The Church is still to profit 
 by spoiling the Egyptians (ch. xxviii). ' Nee illud patres san- 
 ctissimi decreuerunt ut saecularium litterarum studia respuantur: 
 quia exinde non minimum ad sacras scripturas intellegendas 
 sensus noster instruitur' (ibid. ch. xxviii). His policy is to fight 
 the devil with pen and ink: * contra diaboli subreptiones illicitas 
 calamo atramentoque pugnare ' (ibid. ch. xxx). 
 
 The instructions which he provides for the copyists in his 
 monastery illustrate incidentally the dangers which threatened 
 all texts at the time and the safeguards which were thought 
 necessary. In copying the Scriptures great care is to be used 
 in preserving the idioniota, or peculiar phrases of Scripture 
 which are not in accord with the uses of the spoken language. 
 The style of the Scriptures is divinely inspired, and no attempt 
 is to be made to bring it into agreement with the rules of human 
 eloquence. The ' incorrupta locutio quae Deo placuisse cogno- 
 scitur* is to be preserved by an appeal to two or three old and 
 trustworthy manuscripts 'duorum uel trium priscorum emenda- 
 torum codicum auctoritas inquiratur' (ibid. ch. xv). Ortho- 
 graphy is to be studied in the ancient authorities as epitomized 
 by Cassiodorus himself. Punctuation is to be carefully pre- 
 served. In ecclesiastical writings other than the Scriptures the 
 text is to be treated according to the rules laid down for secular 
 literature. It is to be presumed, he says, that such writers 
 observe the rules of grammar which they were taught : 
 
 67 
 
 commentaria legis dmmae, epistolas, sermones librosque 
 priscorum unusquisque emendator sic legat, ut correctiones 
 eorum magistns consociet saecularium litterarum Et ubi- 
 cunque paragrammata in disertis hominibus reperta fuerint, 
 intrepidus uitiosa recorrigat : quoniam uiri supradicti sic dieta 
 sua composuisse credendi sunt, ut regulas artis grammaticae 
 quas didicerant, custodnsse iudicentur.' (ibid. ch. xv.) 
 
 In providing for the instruction of the clergy in the liberal arts 
 Cassiodorus had no intention of preserving the classical authors. 
 Yet their preservation is due in large measure to the liberality 
 of the rules which he devised. It was not difficult for subse- 
 quent generations to overstep the limits which he had recom- 
 mended rather than enjoined, especially as he seems to have 
 encouraged his pupils to push their inquiries as far as possible. 
 In this way the study of Donatus and the Topica of Cicero led 
 on to Vergil, and the clergy came to find pleasure as well as 
 profit in the profane writers. 
 
 The work of Cassiodorus as a mediator between the Church 
 and Antiquity was continued in the seventh century by a man 
 of equal industry, but of far inferior intellectual calibre— Isidorus 
 Hispalensis, commonly known as Isidore of Seville (circ. 570- 
 636). His family had been prominent citizens of Carthagena. 
 They had migrated to Seville, probably owing to the political 
 troubles which led to the destruction of Carthagena in 552. 
 His elder brother Leander became Bishop of Seville about 576, 
 and was succeeded by Isidore about 599 or 600. The 
 interests of Isidore lay rather in learning and education than in 
 dogmatic theology. He enjoyed the patronage of the Spanish 
 king Sisebut, and the sympathy and affection of bishops such as 
 Braulio of Saragossa and Ildefonsus of Toledo. His most 
 important work, which was to influence the education of church- 
 men for nearly a thousand years after his death, is properly 
 entitled Etymologtac, though it is called On'giues in the older 
 printed editions, in defiance of the authority of the manuscripts. 
 It IS an ill-ordered and uncritical encyclopaedia of knowledge 
 arranged so as to illustrate the seven liberal arts— i. e. Grammar, 
 Rhetoric, and Dialectic, with the four mathematical arts, Arith' 
 
 F 2 
 
 II, 
 
 m\ 
 
 Jill 
 
 H 
 
 f 
 
 m 
 
68 
 
 LATIN TEXTS 
 
 metic, Geometry, Music, and Astronomy; passing on from these 
 to Medicine and Theology, and concluding with a discursive 
 survey of all the material bearing upon practical life in ancient 
 times. The work was left unfinished by its author, and was 
 published by his friend Braulio, who is responsible for the 
 present arrangement in twenty books. It is a harmless, desic- 
 cated antiquity that Isidore wishes to preserve as an instrument 
 for the defence of the faith. The great danger to the faith is 
 heresy. Heretics are cunning, and mingle false with true and 
 good with bad ; they attempt even to recommend their doctrine 
 by the authority of the Catholic Fathers ; they foist their errors 
 into the books used by the faithful [Seiitent. 3. ch. xii) ; better 
 Grammar, therefore, than Heresy ('meliores esse grammaticos 
 quam haereticos ', ibid. ch. xiii). In themselves the profane 
 authors are harmful. The study of them inclines men to 
 despise the simplicity of Scripture and leads to intellectual 
 arrogance, while the figments of ancient poetry are actually 
 incentives to lust. To the monk they are to be forbidden abso- 
 lutely. 
 
 The importance of men like Cassiodorus and Isidore is that 
 they represent a movement which has been happily termed a 
 ' tacit concordat ' between the Church and profane letters. 
 Like other concordats it was forced upon the Church and was 
 grudgingly accepted by churchmen of extreme opinions. The 
 strict interpretation of the agreement required that profane 
 letters were to be used only so far as they were necessary, i. e. 
 for the purposes of education and for defence of the faith. But 
 this was a theory, as will be seen later (p. 96), which it was not 
 possible to enforce upon the educated laity in Italy. It was a 
 theory which broke down in practice in the countries outside 
 Italy, because the dangers which it was intended to guard 
 against were too remote to justify alarm. To the Northern 
 nations, such as the Irish and Anglo-Saxons, Latin was a foreign 
 language. The profane writers were not read by the ordinary 
 layman, and could not contaminate him by memories of a glori- 
 ous but unchristian past. The clergy outside Italy could 
 
 f 
 
 IN ANCIENT TIMES 
 
 69 
 
 regard the pre-Christian culture with a detachment of mind, 
 which for the Italian was impossible. 
 
 The close of the seventh century, therefore, marks an impor- 
 tant stage in the history of Latin texts, since the main tradition 
 passes out of the hands of those who still spoke Latin as their 
 mother-tongue. Italy still remains the storehouse of the past, 
 but the scholars who use her stores are not Italians. 
 
 We enter upon the long period of mediaeval transmission 
 which lasts till the renaissance in the fourteenth and fifteenth 
 centuries. 
 
 [The main authorities are : 
 
 Kenyon, F.G. The evidence of Greek papyri ivith regard to Textual Criticism. 
 
 Proceedings of British Academy, vol. i, 1904. 
 Leo, F. Platitinische Forschiittgen, 1912. pp. j-62, for the history of the earh'er 
 
 Latin texts. 
 Lindsay, W. M. The Ancient Editions of Plautiis, 1894. 
 Manitius, Max. Geschichtc der lat. Lit. des Mittelalters, vol. i, 191 1 (in Miiller's 
 
 Handbuch der hi Altertums-Wtssenschaft, ix. 2. i). 
 Traube, L. Vorlesungen, vol. ii, 191 1. 
 UsENER, H. Anecdoton Holderi, 1877.] 
 
 f 
 
 
 !|1 
 
 I • 
 
 <\iy 
 
 >i 
 
 1^ 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 THE HISTORY OF LATIN TEXTS FROM THE 
 
 AGE OF CHARLEMAGNE TO THE 
 
 ITALIAN RENAISSANCE 
 
 O beata ac benedicta priorum rusticitas quae plus studuit optima operari quam 
 loqui !— Agilmar of Clermont ninth century) in Vifn S. Viventii, Act. Satid. Boll. 
 13 Ian. i. p. 813. 
 
 Et quia uicarii Petri et eius discipuli nolunt habere magistrum Platoncm neque 
 Virgilium neque Terentium neque ceteros pecudes philosophorum . . . dicitis 
 eos nee hostiarios debere esse . . . Pro qua re sciatis eos esse mentitos qui 
 
 talia dixerunt. Nam Petrus non nouit tah'a et hostiarius caeli effectus est. 
 
 The papal legate Leo in 994 ;;/ his Epistola ad Hugomm et Rotbertum reges. Mon. 
 Genu. Script, iii. 687. 
 
 Cum ratio morum dicendique ratio a philosophia non separentur, cum studio 
 bene uiuendi semper coniunxi studium bene dicendi . . . Nam et apposite dicere 
 ad persuadendum et animos furentium suaui oratione ab impetu retinere summa 
 utilitas. Cui rei praeparandae bibliothecam assidue comparo. Et sicut Romae 
 dudum ac in ahis partibus Italiae, in Germania quoque ct Belgica (i. e. Lorraine^ 
 scriptores (i. e. copyists) auctorumque exemplaria multitudine nummorum redemi 
 adiutus beniuolentia ac studio amicorum comprouincialium, sic identidem apud 
 uos fieri ac per uos sinite ut exorem.— Gerbert, Ep. 44 (Havet, p. 42). 
 
 Sunt enim ecclesiastici libri . . . quos impossible est sine illis (sc. artibus) 
 prelibatis ad intellectum integrum duci.— Notker Labeo, ed. Piper, i. 860 
 (tenth century. 
 
 Cum cunctas artes, cum dogmata cuncta peritus Nouerit, imperium pagina 
 sacra tenet.— John of Salisbury. Entheticus, 373 (twelfth century). 
 
 Quamuis TuUii libros habere desideres scio tamen te Christianum esse non 
 Ciceronianum. Transis enim et in alicna castra non lanquam transfuga, sed 
 tanquam explorator. — Letter to IVibald Abbot of Stavelot, circ. 1150 (Martcnc et 
 Durand, Vett. Scr. ii. 392). 
 
 Dicebat Bernardus Carnotensis nos esse quasi nanos gigantium humeris 
 insidentes ut possimus plura iis et remotiora uidere non utique proprii uisus 
 aoumine aut eminentia sed quia in altum subuehimur et extollimur magnitudine 
 gigantea.— John of Salisbury, Metalogicus, iii. 4. 
 
 Nam de ignorantia ad lumen scientie non asccnditur nisi antiquorum scripta 
 propensiore studio relegantur. — Peter of Blots, Ep. loi (twelfth century). 
 
 Quantomeliorgrammaticustantopeiortheologus.— (twelfth-thirteenth century.) 
 
 Calicibus epotandis non codicibus emendandis indulget hodie studium mona- 
 chonira.— [Richard de Bury,] Philobiblou, ch. 5 (fourteenth century). 
 
 II ne faut pas lire ces auteurs pour le plaisir ni pour la vanitc et I'ostentation, 
 mais pour le besoin et la necessite.— Mabillon (1637-1707), Traitc des etudes 
 monastiques, p. 372 (Brussels, 1692). 
 
 LATIN TEXTS FROM CHARLEMAGNE 71 
 
 From the seventh century to the fourteenth the classical 
 writers survive, partly because they form the necessary basis 
 of monastic education, and partly because they find champions 
 from time to time in a few exceptional men whose aims and 
 interests rise superior to those of their age. The whole of this 
 period exhibits a conflict, suppressed at times but often overt, 
 between these more generous minds intent on classical literature 
 as the only source at which they can satisfy their intellectual 
 aspirations, and the ordinary churchmen who mistrust all 
 secular learning and endeavour to restrict its influence within 
 the narrowest range. There w^ere fanatics on either side who, 
 as usual, tended to push their views to extreme limits. The 
 enthusiasm for the Classics which could preserve the satire of 
 Petronius and the amatory writings of Ovid was met by an 
 equally zealous dislike which lead to an attempt at various 
 periods to discard the Classics altogether or to remodeP them 
 for Christian use. This conflict will explain the seeming 
 contradiction between many of the quotations which have been 
 prefixed to the present chapter. 
 
 In theory the ordinary churchman was justified in his opposi- 
 tion. He was following the deliberate verdict of the fathers of 
 the Church from Augustine and Jerome to Cassiodorus and 
 Isidore. To them profane learning was only admissible so far 
 as it afforded a training for Theology. Cassiodorus and 
 Isidore, as has been shown in the last chapter, had provided 
 such a training by excerpting from profane authors an indis- 
 pensable minimum of knowledge in the expectation that their 
 pupils would be content not to ask for more. This knowledge 
 was contained as a sort of ' harmless extract of antiquity ' in the 
 seven liberal arts which form the basis of education throughout 
 the Middle Ages. It is important to understand the scope and 
 implications of this system of education since it is one of the 
 strongholds of the opponents of classical studies during this 
 period. 
 
 * e.g. Hadoard's attempt in the age of Charlemagne to purge Cicero of 
 paganism ; v. Schwenke, PhUulogus v, Supplbd. 402 ff. 
 
 1 
 
 h 
 
 I 
 
72 LATIN TEXTS FROM CHARLEMAGNE 
 
 The system is Greek in origin, and dates from the conflict 
 between the philosophers and the sophists in Athens in the 
 fifth century b.c. In one of its aspects this conflict was 
 between what may be called MdeaP and 'practical' education. 
 The sophists aimed at fitting their pupils for success in life by 
 teaching them the re^jat or practical arts : the aristocratic 
 philosophers, such as Plato, wished to reject such a training in 
 favour of Philosophy. The younger Stoics effected a recon- 
 ciliation between these rival theories by making the Arts a 
 propaedeutic to Philosophy. Through the works of Philo and 
 of Martianus Capella this revised system of education is inherited 
 by the Christian Church, in whose scheme Philosophy is 
 replaced by Theology. 
 
 The seven arts are henceforward divided into two groups. 
 The first three (i. e. Grammar, Rhetoric, and Dialectic) form the 
 Trivium — an elementary course of instruction leading up to the 
 Quadrivium, or the four arts which involved a knowledge of 
 mathematics, i.e. Arithmetic, Geometry, Music, and Astronomy. 
 
 In theory the Arts contained all that was necessary for 
 education, and were intended to supplant entirely the study 
 of the profane writers. In practice, however, they were not 
 sufficient, since it was not possible to disregard entirely the 
 ancient authors on whose writings the Arts were founded. It 
 is fortunate that as early as the ninth century the study of 
 the Aitdorcs was grudgingly admitted as a supplement to the 
 Arks} In truth it was difficult to condemn all the profane 
 writers as forbidden fruit. A reasonable case could be made 
 out for the retention of many of them. Some (e.g. Cicero in his 
 rhetorical works) formed the basis on which the Arts were 
 built. Some again (e.g. Vergil, Ovid, Terence, and Sallust) 
 were useful text-books for the school. Others were admittedly 
 harmless, and at the same time appealed to national pride or 
 local interest ; hence the tradition of Tacitus is confined to 
 Germany, that of Caesar mainly to France, while Frontinus' 
 
 • Cf. Servatus Lupus, Ep. i (a. d. 830), ' Cum deindc auctorum uoluminibus 
 spatiari aliquantuium coepissem.' 
 
 TO THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE 73 
 
 Dc aqids tirbis Romae probably survived at Monte Cassino, 
 because the Benedictines who lived there were not far from 
 the great aqueducts which crossed the Campagna. Others again 
 were morally instructive, or even tended to edification, because 
 they exposed the hideousness of pagan corruption or contained 
 the seeds of Christian truth. Hence the high esteem in which 
 the satirists Horace, Persius, and Juvenal were held, and the 
 admiration felt for the philosophical writings of Cicero and 
 Seneca. But these utilitarian motives would not have sufficed 
 unaided to transmit more than a small fragment of antiquity if 
 in a few minds they had not been reinforced by more generous 
 sentiments. Throughout the greater part of the period extend- 
 ing from the ninth to the fourteenth century there was an inner 
 circle of intellectual churchmen who (often, it is true, with 
 uneasy consciences) did not pause to inquire too narrowly into 
 the utility of ancient literature, since they had come to love it 
 for its own sake. Among such are Servatus Lupus, Gerbert, 
 and Bruno in the ninth and tenth centuries, Desiderius of 
 Monte Cassino in the eleventh, and Bernard of Chartres in 
 the twelfth. These are the men who did for the West what 
 Arethas, Photios, and Psellos did for Greece. They were 
 Humanists before their time, and the worthy precursors of later 
 scholars such as Poggio, Traversari, and Valla. 
 
 The following brief account of the history of classical studies 
 in the West up to the time of the Renaissance in Italy will serve 
 to illustrate some of the more general characteristics which 
 mark the manuscripts of classical texts during the several 
 centuries of this period. 
 
 The revival of classical studies in Europe in the seventh 
 century was due in great part to the efforts of the Irish— or 
 Scotti, as they were called by their contemporaries— who from 
 the seventh to the ninth century came to the continent as 
 missionaries, and combined their zeal for Christianitv with an 
 equal zeal for learning. Ireland had been converted by mission- 
 aries from Britain^ and from Western Gaul as early as the 
 
 1 Many authorities deny the influence of Britain. But they ofTer no explana- 
 
 t ' i 
 
 1 
 il 
 
74 LATIN TEXTS FROM CHARLEMAGNE 
 
 fourth century. By the sixth she seems to have been brought 
 into close relations with the continent and with Italy, since the 
 Irish handwriting is only a development of the half-uncial hand 
 in use in Italy and the romanized provinces at this period. 
 Her remote situation, secure from the incursions of the bar- 
 barians, was peculiarly favourable to the growth of secular as 
 well as ecclesiastical learning. The Church did not meet such 
 learning with suspicion, since it was confined to the clergy, and 
 did not affect the mass of the nation, to whom Latin was a 
 wholly alien tongue. There was therefore none of the fear 
 which haunted the early champions of Christianity in Italy that 
 the study of secular learning might lead to the revival of a 
 moribund paganism. The Irish could regard such studies with 
 the detachment of a foreign nation, and could isolate the best 
 elements in the ancient culture without imperilling the Christian 
 faith. We must not, however, rush to the conclusion that their 
 learning was systematized, or that there was at any time a large 
 store of classical manuscripts in Ireland itself. The work of the 
 Irish in copying and preserving secular literature was done on 
 the continent and not at home. Their instinct for scholarship 
 was only fully aroused when they found themselves in contact 
 with the neglected treasures of ancient learning and literature 
 that were still to be found in Italy and France. 
 
 In the seventh century their influence spread to the neigh- 
 bouring island of Britain and to the mainland of Europe. 
 
 In Britain they became the teachers of the Anglo-Saxon 
 invaders, who had recently been converted through the efforts 
 of Gregory the Great. On the mainland they attempted to 
 rouse the dormant energies of the Frankish Church by their 
 missionary zeal, and penetrated as the pioneers of religion and 
 civilization among the heathen tribes to the east of the Rhine. 
 Their immediate aim was the spread of Christianity, but there is 
 evidence that they carried their books with them and that the 
 
 tion of the fact that the earliest stratum of Latin loan-words in Irish is not 
 taken direct from Latin but from the Briton forms of Latin words. Vide 
 Thurneyscn, Hdb. des Altirischen, p. 516. 
 
 TO THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE 75 
 
 monasteries which they founded became imbued with the 
 scholarly spirit of their founders. Two of these are of especial 
 importance in the history of classical learning— Bobbio south of 
 Pavia, founded in 614 by Columban, a monk from Leinster, and 
 St. Gallen south of Lake Constance, built in memory of Colum- 
 ban's favourite pupil Gallus. 
 
 It is important to remember that many other centres of learning 
 in the Carolingian period (e.g. Luxeuil, Reichenau, Peronne, 
 Corbie) were directly or indirectly influenced by the Irish. 
 
 The influence of the Irish in Europe was to some extent 
 circumscribed by their lack of organization and by their con- 
 flict with the Papacy on certain points of ritual, such as the 
 date of Easter. Hence, although they are found all over 
 Europe as preachers, pilgrims, hermits, and scholars up to the 
 end of the ninth century, their work was the work of isolated 
 individuals, and often perished because there was no central 
 organization to provide for its continuance. The Anglo-Saxons, 
 who succeed in the eighth century to the position held by the 
 Irish in the seventh, were firm adherents to the Roman Church 
 and in constant communication with Rome itself— two conditions 
 which were highly favourable to their success as missionaries 
 and as scholars. Their first missionary triumph was in 
 Germany, where Boniface (675-754), a native of Wessex, was 
 the first to establish a Christian organization throughout East 
 Frankland, Thuringia, Hesse, and Bavaria. His influence was 
 preserved through many centuries in the great monastery at 
 Fulda, founded in 744 under his direction by his disciple Sturmi 
 of Bavaria. 
 
 Their second triumph was over the Frankish Empire newly 
 founded by Charlemagne. 
 
 The exhaustive inquiries of Roger ^ have shown that there is 
 little ground for supposing that any considerable traces of the 
 old Roman learning and the organized system of education 
 which had distinguished Gaul till the end of the fifth century, 
 
 ^ V Enscigncmcni dcs Icttres classtqitcs d'Ansonc a Alcuin, 1905. 
 
 I 
 
 .1 
 
 '«ii 
 
76 LATIN TEXTS FROM CHARLEMAGNE 
 
 survived to form the basis of the revival of letters which took 
 place under Charlemagne in the eighth. The Prankish clergy 
 had shared in the decline of the Merovingian kingdom, and at 
 this period thought more of the chase and of the defence of their 
 temporal interests than of learning or of missionary effort. They 
 had been uninfluenced by the Irish, whom they regarded as 
 intruders, and were in no sense fit leaders for the intellectual 
 revival which Charlemagne, like Augustus before him, felt to be 
 the necessary complement to his new empire. 
 
 In promoting this revival it must be remembered that Charle- 
 magne did not look beyond the ideals of his own age. He was 
 a Christian king, and was prompted not so much by enthusiasm 
 for classical learning as by a praiseworthy desire to perpetuate 
 his own fame, and by the practical necessity of having an 
 educated clergy who could understand and preserve the chief 
 documents of the Faith and of its organizations, and perform the 
 ritual of its services with accuracy.' In order to carry out his 
 aims he was untiring in his efforts to attract learned men from 
 every part of Europe. Among these were the Italians Peter of 
 Pisa and Paulus Diaconus, the Irish Dungal and Clemens, and 
 the Spanish poet Theodulf. None, however, enjoyed such 
 influence and reputation as Alcuin, a highly educated Anglo- 
 Saxon ecclesiastic who had been head of the school at York 
 since 778. Two years later the Emperor met him at Parma in 
 Italy, and appointed him head of the Schola Palatina or Court 
 School. In 796 he was promoted to be abbot of St. Martin at 
 Tours. There, till his death in 804, he remained the central 
 figure in the intellectual revival which rapidly influenced the 
 monasteries of the Prankish Empire— Fleur}', Corbie, Caudebec, 
 Micy, St. Riquier, St. Mihiel-sur-Meuse, St. Bertin and Fer- 
 rieres, in the West, and Pulda, Reichenau, Lorsch, Wiirzburg, 
 Trier, Murbach, and St. Gallen, in the East. 
 
 The new movement soon escaped from the narrow limits 
 within which its originators had sought to confine it. Alcuin 
 
 ' Doum rogare uolunt sed per incmendatos libros male rogant :—Ca/>i/niare 
 
 of A. D. 789, C. 71. 
 
 TO THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE 77 
 
 himself seems to have had grave misgivings before his death, 
 and to have attempted to check the enthusiasm for the ancient 
 writers which his own teaching had provoked.^ The effect ot 
 this alarm can be traced in the reaction against secular studies 
 which took place under Louis the Pious (814-40). Charles the 
 Bald (840-77), who succeeded Louis, was a man of broader 
 mind, the patron of the Irish philosopher lohannes Scotus 
 (Eriugena), and of the learned abbot Servatus Lupus, the 
 typical humanist of the ninth century. 
 
 Born of a noble Prankish family in the diocese of Sens in 
 805, Lupus was educated at Perrieres in the ordinary subjects 
 of the Trivium and Quadrivium, and finished his education by 
 a training in Theology at Pulda under Hrabanus Maurus, the 
 most distinguished of the pupils of Alcuin. He returned to 
 Perrieres, where he became abbot in 841, and continued in the 
 office until his death in 862. His letters survive preserved in 
 a single manuscript now at Paris (2858 in the Bibl. Nat.). They 
 are addressed to many of the most distinguished men of his 
 time, to Popes Benedict the Third and Nicholas the Pirst, the 
 Emperor Lothaire, Charles the Bald, Ethelwulf of England, to 
 Einhard the biographer of Charlemagne, to Gotteskalk, and 
 many prominent ecclesiastics. They contain many inquiries 
 for classical books addressed to his correspondents in York, 
 Tours, Fleury, Seligenstadt, Pulda, and Rome itself, and show 
 an acquaintance with the works of Terence, Vergil, Horace, 
 Martial, Sallust, Caesar, Livy, Suetonius, Justin, Cicero, Quin- 
 tilian, Aulus Gellius, Macrobius, Priscian, Donatus, Servius, 
 and Valerius Maximus. He is the first of those exceptional men 
 who love the classics for their own sake, and to him and to his 
 circle of friends is due in a large measure the overwhelming 
 importance of the part played by Prance in the transmission of 
 the Latin classics during the ninth century and the first half of 
 the tenth. One indication of this can be seen in the fact that 
 Cicero is now mentioned for the first time after centuries of 
 
 'Sufficiunt diuini poetae uobis nee egetis luxuriosa sermonis Virgilii uos 
 pollui facundia.' {Ale. Vita, 10, p. 24, Wattenbach.) 
 
 f 
 
 1 
 
 I, 
 
I 
 
 78 LATIN TEXTS FROM CHARLEMAGNE 
 
 neglect. To France belonged Gerbert of Aurillac (940-1003), 
 abbot of Bobbio and, for the last four years of his life, Pope 
 under the title of Silvester the Second. His love of classical 
 learning earned him the reputation of a magician, and this 
 perhaps explains the caution with which he justifies his studies 
 in the quotation given from his letters on page 70. There is 
 little doubt that the preservation of many of Cicero's speeches 
 discovered later by the scholars of the Renaissance in French 
 libraries is directly due to Gerbert. It is known that the 
 Erlangensis of Cicero Dc Oratore was copied expressly for him. 
 
 Germany during the ninth century had felt to the full the 
 
 effects of the Carolingian revival. Educated bishops such 
 
 as Hitto of Freising (810-35), Baturich of Regensburg (817-48), 
 
 and Erchanbald of Eichstddt (882-912), were all collectors of 
 
 manuscripts. Many classical writers, e. g. Tacitus, Ammianus 
 
 Marcellinus, Statins (Si/nac), Lucretius, Silius Italicus (Pttnica), 
 
 would have perished altogether but for the German manuscripts 
 
 of this period discovered in German monasteries by the scholars 
 
 of the fifteenth century. In the tenth century education was 
 
 fostered by the Saxon princes of the house of Ludolfinger. 
 
 Otto the First, the second prince of his line, was as great a 
 
 friend to letters as Charlemagne had been, and collected round 
 
 him a circle of learned men, among whom were Liutprand of 
 
 Cremona, Gunzo of Novara, and Rather, Bishop of Verona, and 
 
 afterwards of Luttich (Liege), one of the first of the mediaeval 
 
 writers to show an acquaintance with Plautus, Phaedrus, and 
 
 Catullus. The Emperor was warmly seconded in his efforts by 
 
 his youngest brother Bruno, his Chancellor, and afterwards 
 
 Archbishop of Cologne (953-65), who exercised an influence 
 
 upon education in Germany in the tenth century comparable 
 
 only to that of Alcuin in the eighth. The result of this influence 
 
 can be traced in the activity of monasteries such as Lorsch, 
 
 Korvey, St. Gallen, Hildesheim, Speyer, and Tegernsee. 
 
 To the eleventh century belongs the foundation of the 
 monasteries of Bamberg and Paderborn, but at its close the 
 
 •J 
 
 ! V 
 
 TO THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE 79 
 
 intellectual movement which had continued intermittently in 
 Germany from the time of Charlemagne had spent its force. 
 The normal monkish distrust of profane studies, which was 
 never entirely victorious in France, easily reasserted itself. 
 During the twelfth century churchmen with any tincture of 
 humanism become increasingly rare. Among the last is Wibald, 
 abbot of Stavelot or Stablot in Belgium, and afterwards abbot 
 of Korvey (1146), whose letters display a wide acquaintance 
 with Latin authors. The best minds, however, were gradually 
 paralysed by asceticism or became absorbed in the Scholastic 
 philosophy. 
 
 The earliest champions of extreme asceticism were the monks 
 of Cluny. This order had been founded at Cluny in Burgundy 
 in 910 by William of Aquitaine. It had spread rapidly over 
 Lorraine and Flanders, and thence to the west of Germany, 
 where the great monastery of Hirschau radiated its influence 
 over the whole of Germany. The influence of the Cluniacs was 
 disastrous both intellectually and politically. By their fanatical 
 devotion to the Papacy they precipitated the quarrel between 
 Pope and Emperor, which rent Germany asunder and involved 
 the clergy in what was essentially a political struggle, while their 
 rigid asceticism and mysticism led them to discourage the study 
 of profane literature as hindering if not actually imperilling 
 salvation. The spirit of Odo of Cluny (878-942), who could 
 compare the poems of Vergil to a beautiful vase full of noxious 
 serpents, was inherited by his successors. The little intellectual 
 energy that survived found its only outlet in the scholastic 
 philosophy which was introduced into Germany by Otto, Bishop 
 of Freising, the uncle of Frederick Barbarossa. The decay of 
 the twelfth century was completed in the thirteenth through the 
 influence of the Dominicans and of the Mendicant orders. During 
 the first half of the fourteenth century learning was at its worst 
 in Germany, and towards its close a man such as Amplonius von 
 Ratinck, the founder of the Collegium Amplonianum at Erfurt 
 (1412), to which he left his collection of manuscripts, is far in 
 advance of the spirit of his contemporaries. 
 
 . il 
 
 : i 
 
 I 
 
8o LATIN TEXTS FROM CHARLEMAGNE 
 
 The intellectual movements in France from the eleventh 
 century to the thirteenth proceed fiom three centres— Chartres, 
 Paris, and Orleans. The distinction between Arks and Auctores 
 which had long been maintained issues in the open conflict 
 between Scholasticism and Classicism. 
 
 Scholasticism in its best aspect was an attempt to unify all 
 knowledge by bringing the Arts and Theology— that is to say 
 the whole of human knowledge, whether acquired or revealed 
 —into a coherent and logical system. The main problem, viz. 
 the place to be found for Theology in such a system, absorbed 
 many of the finest intellects during these centuries, and the 
 solution was found in the reconciliation of the philosophy of 
 Aristotle with the doctrines of the Church. The systematization 
 of secular knowledge was, however, a task of greater difficulty. 
 Few of the liberal arts were sufficiently advanced for such an 
 attempt, and hence the efforts of the minor schoolmen were 
 chiefly expended on Grammar and Logic, the two arts where 
 the task was easiest since speculation was not greatly em- 
 barrassed by facts. In their hands Grammar rapidly becomes 
 a field for useless speculations and Logic a cloak for supersubtle 
 or futile distinctions. By the twelfth century Logic had come to 
 play such an important part in education that John of Salisbury 
 can say bitterly of the ordinary educated youth of his time, 
 
 Laudat Aristotelem solum, spernit Ciceronem 
 
 et quicquid Latiis Graecia capta dedit. 
 conspuit in leges, uilescit physica, quaeuis 
 
 htera sordescit : Logica sola placet. (Entheticus, in.) 
 
 The worst result of this movement was to set up certain text- 
 books as authoritative standards (e.g. in Latin Grammar the 
 Doctrinalc of Alexander de Villa Dei, f 1240) and to discourage 
 the study of the ancient writers upon whom such text-books 
 ultimately rested. Fortunately for classical learning such claims 
 were not allowed to pass without protest. Nowhere was the 
 protest more effectively presented than at Chartres. 
 
 The school at Chartres had been founded as early as 990 by 
 
 TO THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE 81 
 
 Fulbert, a pupil of Gerbert. At the beginning of the twelfth 
 century it rises to distinction under Ivo (tiii5), and becomes 
 a factor in the intellectual development of France under 
 Bernard (tii26) and his brother Theodoric (fl. 1141) The 
 account given by John of Salisbury in his Mctalogicus (i. 24) 
 shows the important place which Bernard assigned to the 
 Classics in his scheme of education : 
 
 ; Poetas aut auctores proponebat et eorum iubebat uesti^ia 
 
 cSaf Hi.:""''^ ^^^^^""^'"^ ^' ^I^g-"^es sermonun' 
 
 clausulas . Historias, poemata percurrenda monebat dili- 
 genter . .^et ex smgulis ahquid reconditum in memoria, diurnum 
 debitum, dfligenti instantia exigebat.' "mum 
 
 Men, he held, were like dwarfs seated on the shoulders of 
 giants, meaning by this that the wide range of modern learning 
 was only rendered possible because it rested on the learning of 
 the ancients. The practice of imitating the ancient authors, 
 which Bernard was not the first to recommend, undoubtedly led 
 to an improvement of literary taste. The refined scholarship 
 which marks many of the writers of this period can best be seen 
 in the works of Hildebert, Archbishop of Tours (d. 1134), many of 
 w'hose poems have been at times mistaken for genuine works 
 of antiquity. His most famous poem, an address to the city of 
 Rome, will be found in Stubbs's edition of William of Malmesbury 
 (Rolls Series, 1889, p. 403). It is suggested by Norden (K. P. ii. 
 724) with some probability that the preservation of poets such as 
 fibullus and Propertius is largely due to the practice of verse 
 composition by men such as Hildebert. The influence of the 
 learning at Chartres upon the text of the younger Seneca will 
 be discussed later. 
 
 The struggle between Arts and Authors continues in France 
 till the end of the thirteenth century. Chartres in this century 
 falls into the background and its place is taken by Orleans 
 a school which had been founded in the ninth century by Bishop 
 Theodulf, the friend of Charlemagne. While the Sorbonne at 
 I aris was devoted to the study of the Arts, Orleans championed 
 the classical authors. The victory was for the moment with the 
 
 ' 
 
 473 
 
 l 
 
 I! 
 
82 
 
 LATIN TEXTS FROM CHARLEMAGNE 
 
 t 
 
 ! 
 
 Schoolmen. But the prophecy of Henri d'Andeli/ that the victory 
 would not last for thirty years, was fulfilled by the scholars of 
 the Renaissance. 
 
 From the above survey it will be seen that the two nations 
 which have contributed most to the preservation of Latin litera- 
 ture are France and Germany. In France the tradition is un- 
 questionably the more brilliant and continuous. Behind both 
 lie their Irish and Anglo-Saxon teachers, of whose classical 
 learning at its earliest period hardly any traces remain. The 
 manuscripts written in the Northern or ' insular ' script which still 
 survive belong to the later period, when the emigrant scholars 
 had become identified with their continental pupils. 
 
 Two nations have been left out of account — Italy and Spain. 
 During the whole of this period Italy remained the central 
 storehouse from which the northern scholars drew their material. 
 With the exception of a brief period in the twelfth century, when 
 learning flourished and increased at Monte Cassino under Abbot 
 Desiderius, she was to all appearance indifferent or hostile to 
 literary studies. How far this is a true estimate of her position 
 will best be seen later in connexion with the Renaissance of 
 letters that took place in the fourteenth century (ch. v). 
 
 The influence exerted by Spain cannot be accurately defined 
 at present since the evidence is incomplete and has not been 
 critically examined. It seems certain that a number of African 
 authors — e.g. Dracontius, Corippus, and the collection of poems 
 preserved in the Codex Salmasianus — derive their tradition 
 through Spain, which, during the fifth and sixth centuries, was 
 intimately connected with the Vandal kingdom of Africa. It is 
 no less certain that Spanish manuscripts came to Bobbio and 
 Monte Cassino as early as the seventh century. In 711 the 
 victory of Tarik at the Guadalete destroyed the Visigothic 
 kingdom, and with it the civilization which Spain had inherited 
 
 ^ A canon of Rouen, and the author of a mock-heroic poem entitled La 
 Btitaillc des sept Arts, of which an abstract will be found in Sandys, History 
 of CI. Schol. i. 649 ; Norden, A'. P ii. 728. 
 
 > 
 
 w 
 
 < 
 
 
 >o 
 
 
 lf> 
 
 
 .V 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 Si 
 
 
 »» 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 <«> 
 
 
 25k 
 
 
 •^ 
 
 
 i: 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 On 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 ■»: 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 •X 
 
 
 
 =0 
 
 ►-. 
 
 On 
 
 .^ 
 
 s 
 
 K^ 
 
 C\ 
 
 ;_ 
 
 
 -- 
 
 ?= 
 
 
 •N* 
 
 
 *^ 
 
 
 PK. 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 r^ 
 
 
 ►— .* 
 
 '-o 
 
 u 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 k. 
 
 ^ 
 
 .CO 
 
 ti: 
 
 11 
 
 % 
 
82 
 
 LATIN TEXTS FROM CHARLEMAGNE 
 
 Schoolmen. But the prophecy of Henri d'Andeli/ that the victory 
 would not last for thirty years, was fulfilled by the scholars of 
 the Renaissance. 
 
 I 
 
 From the above surve}' it will be seen that the two nations 
 which have contributed most to the preservation of Latin litera- 
 ture are France and Germany. In France the tradition is un- 
 questionably the more brilliant and continuous. Behind both 
 lie their Irish and Anglo-Saxon teachers, of whose classical 
 learning at its earliest period hardly any traces remain. The 
 manuscripts written in the Northern or ' insular ' script which still 
 survive belong to the later period, when the emigrant scholars 
 had become identified with their continental pupils. 
 
 Two nations have been left out of account — Italy and Spain. 
 During the whole of this period Italy remained the central 
 storehouse from which the northern scholars drew their material. 
 With the exception of a brief period in the twelfth century, when 
 learning flourished and increased at Monte Cassino under Abbot 
 Desiderius. she was to all appearance indifferent or hostile to 
 literary studies. How far this is a true estimate of her position 
 will best be seen later in connexion with the Renaissance of 
 letters that took place in the fourteenth century (ch. v). 
 
 The infiuencc exerted by Spain cannot be accurately defined 
 at present since the evidence is incomplete and has not been 
 critically examined. It seems certain that a number of African 
 authors — e.g. Dracontius, Corippus, and the collection of poems 
 preserved in the Codex Salmasianus — derive their tradition 
 through Spain, which, during the fifth and sixth centuries, was 
 intimately connected with the \'andal kingdom of Africa. It is 
 no less certain that Spanish manuscripts came to Bobbio and 
 Monte Cassino as early as the seventh century. In 711 the 
 victory of Tarik at the Guadalete destroyed the \'isigothic 
 kingdom, and with it the civilization which Spain had inherited 
 
 ' A canon of Rouen, and the author of a mock-heroic poem entitled Ln 
 B'liaillc dcs sept ^Ir/s, of which an abstract will be found in Sandys, IIt\^fory 
 oj CI. Svhol. i. 649 ; Norden. A'. P ii. 728. 
 
 w 
 
 -3 
 
 NO 
 
 
 •^ ,C5 
 
 
 ^ V^ 
 
 CO ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 .'^ 
 
 p 
 
TO THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE 
 
 «3 
 
 II m 
 
 f 
 
 il 
 
 \ 
 
 \> 
 
 from Rome. The whole of the peninsula, with the exception ot 
 the mountain region of the Asturias in the north, which after- 
 wards centred round Oviedo, came under the Moorish dominion. 
 The presence of Spanish scholars at the court of Charlemagne 
 seems to show that the defeated Christian civilization found 
 a refuge in France and doubtless influenced French learning. 
 But it is impossible to gauge the extent of that influence until 
 the history and character of the Visigothic manuscripts that are 
 still in existence have been thoroughly investigated. 
 
 It remains to consider the methods of the mediaeval scholars 
 and to try to see how far their ignorance or their learning has 
 affected the texts which they have preserved. 
 
 Throughout the whole of the mediaeval period the method of 
 copying manuscripts must have remained very much the same. 
 The monk sat at his sloping desk (phitcus or caro/n) in the 
 scriptorium or in the cloister, with the light falling from the left. 
 At his side, or above him, was the book which he was copying- 
 borrowed perhaps from a neighbouring monastery, perhaps 
 purchased from some Norman pirate who had plundered it from 
 one of the Northern houses, perhaps part of the travelling 
 library of some Irish missionary which had been dispersed after 
 his death. This original is kept flat by a weight suspended by 
 a string. A similar weight holds in place the sheet of parch- 
 ment on which he is writing. In his right hand is his pen, 
 a quill ipenm), except perhaps in Italy, where the reed {ca/mmts, 
 canua) still survived ; in his left a penknife (scripiiirak) set in 
 a wooden handle, serving not only to sharpen the pen but also 
 to keep the parchment firm and to smooth down any irregularities 
 on its surface. If he is a scribe at Bobbio or St. Gall he may 
 be writing not upon fresh parchment (which was costly, and 
 often difficult to procure) but upon renovated parchment or 
 'pahmpsest' taken from some older manuscripts from which the 
 original writing has been removed.^ 
 
 ^ One method of preparing such palimpsests was to soak the parchment 
 thoroughly in milk, powder it with flour to prevent wrinkles, and dry it under 
 pressure. When dry it was scoured with pumice and chalk till a white surface 
 
 G 2 
 
 * I 
 
 Jl 
 
T 
 
 84 
 
 LATIN TEXTS FROM CHARLEMAGNE 
 
 TO THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE 
 
 The smallest units out of which a codex can be constructed are 
 single sheets of vellum, folded into two leaves or folia. This 
 doubled sheet is termed the diploma, or in some late mediaeval 
 writers the arcus. In practice, however, the unit is a gathering 
 or quire consisting of more than one of these folded sheets. 
 The number of sheets in such a quire varies normally from two 
 to six. Within these limits we find the following names for the 
 quires: Binions, Ternions, Quaternions, Quinternions, Sex- 
 tcrnions, which provide respectively 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24 pages 
 (i. e. surfaces for writing) and half these numbers of leaves. 
 Neither page nor leaves are numbered in the earlier mediaeval 
 codices.' The quires, however, are generally marked in the 
 left-hand corner of the lower margin by signatures, which 
 consist of numbers or letters, the letter 'q' being a general 
 designation for any kind of quire that was used. Often the con- 
 nexion between the various quires is indicated by catchwords 
 (reclamantfs), i. e. the first word of a new quire is repeated below 
 the last line of the preceding quire. The quires that are most in 
 use are Quaternions^: but it was often found convenient for 
 various reasons to insert quires of different sizes. 
 
 The size and arrangement of the quires often provide im- 
 portant evidence for the age and history of a codex. 
 
 Before writing the scribe tries his pen, often on the margin of 
 
 was secured. The attempt in modern times to recover the original writing by 
 means of chemical reagents usually ends in destroying the manuscript or in so 
 blackening it as to render it illegible. The monks do not appear to have had 
 any special animus against classical authors, in using ancient codices as palim- 
 psests. Any codex no longer in use might be taken for this purpose, e. g. 
 Vindobonensis 17 originally contained an uncial text of the Bible, but was 
 used in the ninth century for the works of Probus and other grammarians. 
 
 ^ For convenience of reference a codex is now generally * foliated', i.e. 
 a number is pencilled in the upper corner of the leaf which is to the right of 
 the reader as the book lies open before him. This number designates both 
 sides or pages of the leaf, the front page being called the recto, and back page 
 the verso. Thus a page is cited as Fol. 4 r ecto) or Fol. 4 v(erso), or more 
 shortly as F. 4 or F. 4'. 
 
 2 The word 'quire' is not, as often stated, derived from quaternio (which 
 would give carregnon), but from quatenium = a book of four leaves : Ital. 
 qtiaderno J v. cahier has borrowed the suffix of adjectives in -arius). 
 
 85 
 
 the exemplar which he is copying, and often with a jesting line 
 such as 'probatio penne non sit mihi pena Gehenne '. If there 
 were no other evidence the frequency of these probaiiones pennae 
 would show that manuscripts were copied and not dictated during 
 the Middle Age. There was, indeed, little need for dictation. 
 Generally the scribe could perform his work at his leisure. If, as 
 occasionally happened, a copy had to be made in haste, the 
 original was taken to pieces and its quires distributed among 
 a number of scribes. An interesting example of this method 
 can be seen in Vaticanus Reginensis 762, a manuscript of Livy 
 copied at Tours in the ninth century from Parisinus 5730 (the 
 codex known as the Puteaneus), which belongs to the fifth century. 
 In order to save time the original was divided between seven 
 monks who worked simultaneousl}-, each at the portion assigned 
 to him. The two facsimiles which are here reproduced show 
 the original and the copy made by a monk named Ansoaldus, 
 who has signed his name at the foot of the page and has added 
 the letters 'q. ii ' to indicate that this was the second quaternion 
 copied by him. Similar instances of the employment of several 
 scribes will be found in Parisinus 12236, a manuscript of the 
 works of Eucherius, and in Parisinus 10314, a codex of Lucan's 
 Pharsalia belonging to the ninth century. 
 
 In the ninth and tenth centuries there is no doubt that the 
 greatest care was taken to secure accurate copies. It is a fortunate 
 chance that quite half of the surviving Latin classics are preserved 
 in manuscripts of these centuries.^ The condition of the few texts 
 which the Merovingians had preserved must have been exceed- 
 mgly corrupt, as can be seen from a handbook to prosody com- 
 posed during the extreme decadence of the seventh and eighth 
 centuries.2 It consists of an anthology of lines from Latin poets, 
 chosen so as to illustrate the prosody of certain words. Even 
 when allowance is made for the difficulty in preserving the 
 accuracy of lines which are divorced from their context, the 
 
 ^^ Cf. F. W. Shipley, Certain Sources of Corruption in Lat. MSS., p. 5. 
 ' E. Chatelain in Rev. de Phil., 1883, p. 65. 
 
 II 
 
 « 
 
 < 
 
86 
 
 LATIN TEXTS FROM CHARLEMAGNE 
 
 depth of corruption and ignorance which the collection displays 
 is almost incredible : e. g. Martial vi. 77. 4 ' Quid te Cappadocum 
 sex onus esse iuuat \ appears as ' Quid te Cappadocum Saxonus 
 esse'; ib. v. 34. 7 Mnter tarn ueteres ludat lasciua patronos', 
 as ' Interim ueteres laudat ', (Sec. The Carolingian scholars and 
 their immediate successors brushed aside such meaningless 
 rubbish as this and reverted to the purer tradition preserved by 
 the contemporary Irish and Anglo-Saxons or by the earlier 
 Italian scholarship. Yet even with such originals care was 
 necessary. The Irish were notoriously careless in orthography,' 
 and Italian manuscripts, as can be seen from the early fragments 
 which still survive, are by no means free from serious mistakes. 
 In order to secure accuracy the scribe's work was corrected 
 when complete by the best scholar who could be found in the 
 monastery. The correction took the form of Punctuation, 
 Orthography, and Collation, the three functions of textual 
 criticism as practised in antiquity and frequently mentioned in 
 the recensions of the Theodosian epoch (cf. p. 62). Among 
 Alcuin's poems is one^ in which there is a description of 
 a scriptorium where monks are engaged in copying the sacred 
 writings. Careful punctuation and observance of the proper 
 sections is there enjoined upon the scribes : 
 
 Correctosque sibi quaerant studiose libellos 
 
 tramite quo recto penna uolantis eat. 
 per cola distinguant proprios et commata sensus 
 
 et punctos ponant ordine quisque suo. 
 
 This advice only repeats in part what Jerome lays down in his 
 preface to his translation to Isaiah—' sed quod in Demostheneet 
 Tullio solet fieri ut per cola scribantur et commata, nos quoque 
 utilitati legentium prouidentes interpretationem nouam nouo 
 scribendi genere distinximus.' Manuscripts of Cicero belonging 
 to the ninth century still exist written with cola and commata, 
 
 1 e.g. the writing of single consonants for double, or double for single, 
 Affrica, pressul, uigresus, sagita : cf. F. E. Warren, Antipliotiary of Bangor, 
 p. xxiv, and Mort. Germ. poeL lat. Ill, p. 795 i^Traube). 
 
 Dummler, Poet. Lat. acvi Carolhti, i, xciv, p. 320, Migne ci, col. 745. 
 
 \ ■ 
 
 W 
 
 il-, 
 
Plate VI 
 
 Plate VII 
 
 hts 
 
 XXUMI 
 
 ^ 
 
 lOU I'Sf OfLl^U S|f SIS 
 !l«nieiMJeNl XSS PICAS 
 
 iCerseixcN<.iso^X5i 
 «*^f#i4iW?A] mul tornx 
 
 JN^Sfte<Ui>0|UM MCI F^ 
 tu^<»r>et:>eCjep^5|MSX 
 
 lot i&c^xe|» lioc^ieiix 
 ^^iN5:ul€5HosWsmx 
 
 '!i#" 
 
 be!ceexexse f xax 
 rlusomNl&usAui 
 MUMilxi istep.ec; Re 
 
 xuiuisi56et^>ifRo5» 
 QHsiep^RunXKiimos 
 
 lc;Nisijvjxe<>euesixe 
 e/V II M ciu scxesxc| • 
 
 f |i>q |U>esiuesi Kl)s 
 uiiscusio5ixe|us 
 "Nociisfueiixifussu 
 
 r llClMlfONlUflClS 
 
 li>quXf^>v]uxi»HiViil 
 f ORieMC>eNii abcjs 
 
 ceiefMjn^Nec;lec;eN 
 ai xhu mxNi wcci be 
 RxriXroeNcthosu^s; 
 
 mMofti i^usf }u>cjli|lx 
 
 weisuM^licXTioNe' 
 x<>uesixeHx^epL||^lx 
 cuu fWu5C}uxr 
 r|to na scefi4^lsiTu|<^ 
 CONiSULesXc>&eUtn> 
 mo MiTlxseNXiy stf] 
 
 tn \ fa X<; p.4>s futiSb u 
 
 G^M^xef* lew ^€U)tx^ 
 
 PaRISINUS 5730: SAEC. V, EOL. 355 
 
 (/./<-'. xxv'iii. II. 2 8) 
 
 *< •» 
 
 X 
 
 X. 
 
 TP^- 
 
 ,.v...... p„p,rt...^r.* .y.uOM.ru(.-^. .,,„.,;...„„.^^,„.^ 
 
 fUrTT 
 
 ret-rr 
 
 La-icuf 
 
 X"" 
 
 ii<4.icr 
 
 :i7- 
 
 VaTICANUS RegINENSIS 762: SAEC. IX, EOL. 201' 
 
 (Liv, xxviii. 11. 2-T0) 
 
 ^ 
 
 Jl 
 
 (i 
 
 I 
 
m 
 
 I 
 
 \\ 
 
 TO THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE 
 
 87 
 
 i. e. in large or small sections corresponding to the sense, an 
 arrangement intended to facilitate reading aloud by marking 
 the appropriate pauses. More important was the ordinary system 
 of punctuation which Alcuin did his best to reintroduce: ' Pun- 
 ctorum uero distinctiones uel subdistinctiones licet ornatum 
 faciant pulcherrimum in sententiis, tamen usus illorum propter 
 rusticitatem pene recessit a scriptoribus . . . Horum usus 
 in manibus scribentium redintegrandus esse optime uidetur/ 
 (Mon. Germ. Hist. Epp. Karolini aevi, ii. p. 285, 1. 16.) 
 
 The question of Orthography had exercised Cassiodorus in 
 the sixth century. He had made selections from the ancient 
 grammarians and embodied them in a short treatise for the use 
 of his scribes. This treatise, which still survives, served as 
 a guide to later copyists, and was supplemented by similar works 
 written by Bede and Alcuin. The subscription in the manu- 
 scripts of the Carolingian epoch often indicates the care which 
 has been taken with the orthography, e.g. in one of the 
 manuscripts written for Archbishop Baturich (817-48) the note 
 is added : ' scriptus est diebus septem et in octauo correctus . . . 
 Hildoino orthografiam praestante.' (Cod. Monacensis lat. 437.) 
 The results of such orthographical correction can be seen on 
 a small scale in the Vatican Livy that has been mentioned above, 
 e.g. the spellings supplicatio, absumtis in the original Puteaneus 
 have been altered to stibplkatw, apswntis. The practice of collat- 
 ing one manuscript with another can best be illustrated from the 
 letters of Servatus Lupus, e.g. Ep. 104, written about the year 
 846, 'Catilinarium et lugurthinum Sallustii librosque Verrinarum, 
 et, si quos alios uel corruptos nos habere uel penitus non habere 
 cognoscitis, nobis afterre dignemini : ut uestro beneficio et 
 uitiosi corrigantur et non habiti acquirantur.* Ep. 69 (a. d. 847) 
 ' Tullianas epistolas quas misisti cum nostris conferri faciam ut 
 ex utrisque si possit fieri ueritas exsculpatur.' The effect of such 
 collations made by some unknown scholar of the ninth century 
 can still be traced in the text of Justin and Valerius Maximus. 
 The work of Valerius exists in the complete form, and also in an 
 epitome made by Julius Paris in the fifth century before Christ. 
 
 ! 
 
 — ^ kUi^ J-^-ij.. .■ ■■■ij 
 
 L 
 
."il 
 
 88 LATIN TEXTS FROM CHARLEMAGNE 
 
 This epitome was made from a good and early manuscript. 
 The scribes of the ninth century have seen that it sometimes 
 provides readings superior to those which were current in 
 the ordinary copies of the complete text and have not hesitated 
 to transfer them. The effect of such a collation can be seen in 
 the Bernensis 366, the best surviving manuscript of the complete 
 text. The care shown by Grimwald and Tatto in order to secure 
 an accurate copy of the rule of St. Benedict will be described in 
 a later chapter (p. 109). 
 
 It is not probable that these efforts at textual criticism effected 
 much except by a fortunate accident. Manuscripts were rare 
 and jealously guarded. Systematic comparison was impossible, 
 and the level of scholarship, even among the greatest enthusiasts 
 for learning such as Alcuin and Lupus, was not high. The 
 helplessness of the scholars of this period in face of a gravely 
 corrupted text is well illustrated by Dicuil, an Irishman who in 
 825 composed a work entitled Dc Mcnsura Orbis Terrac. In 
 the preface he complains of the corrupt condition of the contem- 
 porary copies of the works of Pliny the Elder. ' Ubi in libris 
 Plinii Secundi corruptos absque dubio numeros fieri cognouero 
 loca eorum uacua interim fore faciam ut si non inuenero certa 
 exemplaria quicunque reppererit emendet. Nam ubi dubitauero 
 utrum certi necne sint numeri sicut certos crassabo (i. e. xa/uaVo-o), 
 " to write") ut praedictus quisquisuerosuideritueracitercorrigat.' 
 (ed. Parthey, />ro/. §. 4.) Similar complaints are not unfrequent 
 at this period. A ninth-century manuscript of Quintilian now at 
 Zurich has the subscription : 
 
 Tam male scribenti tam denique desipienti 
 absque exemplari frustra cogor medicari. 
 
 It is fortunate that the utter decay of scholarship under the 
 Merovingians forced their successors to go far afield and search 
 for the best manuscripts that were then in existence. If a large 
 portion of Latin literature had survived in Gaul after filtering 
 through the ignorance and barbarism of the sixth and seventh 
 centuries the scholars of the ninth and tenth might have wasted 
 
 TO THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE 89 
 
 their energies in producing interpolated texts, such as the scholars 
 of the Italian Renaissance were forced to produce, and the 
 remnants of sound texts in Ireland, England, and Italy might 
 have been lost beyond recovery.^ 
 
 The immense services rendered by the Carolingians to the 
 Latin classics consist, therefore, not in their attempts at recen- 
 sion which could never be systematic, but in the accuracy with 
 which they copied the good manuscripts which were still 
 accessible, and in the legibility of the script in which they copied 
 them. The last service is equally important with the first. At 
 Tours, Fleury, Micy, and elsewhere in France, there was evolved 
 from the ugly Merovingian script, with its numberless ligatures 
 and contractions, and from other sources ^ the handwritin- 
 known as the ' Caroline minuscule \ This clear and beautifu^l 
 alphabet, in which every letter is distinctly formed, spread 
 rapidly over the whole of Europe, and is the parent of the 
 modern script and print which is still used by the majority of 
 the Western nations. The difficulty of the earlier hands such as 
 the Uncial and Half Uncial had often been severely felt. Boniface 
 (Mon. Germ. Hist. Epp. Karoltni aevi, i. p. 329, 1. 32) asks a frie'nd 
 for a Bible written 'claris et absolutis litteris. . . . Quia caligantibus 
 ocuhs minutas litteras ac connexas clare discere non possum. ' ' 
 If a difficult handwriting such as the Irish had been widely 
 adopted in early times the havoc wrought in Latin texts by 
 slovenly monkish scribes during the later period would have 
 been much greater. Even the painstaking scholars of the Re- 
 naissance were completely at a loss when they were confronted 
 with the Irish hand or the Lombardic (e.g. in Tacitus). 
 
 The soundest texts- with the exception of the few fragments 
 of greater antiquity that are preserved-are those which are 
 
 hal/^'V"^'^"^' ?^ ^i", ^''"'' "^^''^ ^""" descended from Merovingian copies 
 
 <vZ K I 17 V '''''^'"' ''■""'"'""' '■" ^'"^^^* ^° ^^"^^^^ '^^^^ intelligible. 
 VVattenbach, Schriftwesen, p. 331. ^ 
 
 2 L. Traube, Vorlesungen, ii. 25 seq. 
 Rnli^/' ^^"^"^^'^' Schriftwesen, p. 440, who quotes an instance of a papal 
 iiull ound at lours in 1075 ' sed quia erat Romana littera (probably -half- 
 uncial ' ) scnptum, non poterat Icgi \ u j i i 
 
« 
 
 90 LATLN TEXTS FROM CHARLEMAGNE 
 
 attested by manuscripts of the ninth and tenth centuries. The 
 succeeding centuries witness only an increase in corruption. 
 This corruption was inevitable and progressive, because, as has 
 been seen, there was no continuity in classical studies. If the 
 spirit of the Carolingian scholars had survived and become 
 widespread, it might have been possible to avoid some of the 
 grosser forms of error. Manuscripts would have been numerous 
 and there would have been safety in large numbers of carefully 
 copied texts. But when a period of decadence was followed by 
 a period of intellectual activity the naive mechanical corruptions 
 introduced by ignorant scribes and accepted with acquiescence 
 by ignorant readers became intolerable to intelligent scholars 
 at a later date, who sought for a meaning in what they read. 
 They were forced, therefore, to emend their texts, and made the 
 corruptions which they sought to remove more ingrained through 
 their interpolations, i. e. their infelicitous conjectures. A few 
 instances may be given to illustrate the ignorance of scribes 
 and the interpolations which it caused. 
 
 Monacensis Lat. 4610, a manuscript of Ovid, will serve to 
 show the depth of corruption reached by Germany in the twelfth 
 century. In it the passage from Met. vii. 759 is given as : 
 
 Carmina Naiades non intellecta priorum 
 soluerat ingeniis, et praecipitata iacebat 
 immemor ambagum uates obscura suarum. 
 Protinus Aoniis immittitur altera Thebis 
 pestis. 
 
 In this Naiades is a corruption for Laiades, and the reference is 
 to Oedipus, the son of Laius, and to the Sphinx [uates obscura). 
 The significance of such a text lies not so much in this isolated 
 error (which is common to all the manuscripts) as in the manner 
 in which it is accepted and explained by a certain Manogaldus, 
 whose notes are preserved in the manuscript : 
 
 'Secundum Manogaldum Diana fecerat quaedam carmina 
 ambigua . . . quoniamque uates illius soluere non poterat homines 
 ea carmina non intelligentes iuerunt ad Naiades quae Naiades 
 soluerunt ilia. Ilium autem uatem quasi soluere non potuit 
 
 TO THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE 91 
 
 praecipitando occiderunt. Unde Diana irata misit ad illorum 
 exitium quandam feram.' 
 
 In Cic. /;/ Verr. Act. n. i. § 151 the right reading is known 
 from the Vatican fragment (3rd-4th century) to be 'pupillum 
 lunium praetextatum uenisse in uestrum conspectum et stetisse 
 cum patruo testimonium dicente questus est '. A Paris manu- 
 script (p) of the eleventh century shows that the reading had 
 been corrupted by that date into the meaningless words Stet esse 
 cum. The mediaeval scholars would seem to have contented 
 themselves with passing over what they could not have under- 
 stood, since it was left for the scribes of the fifteenth century to 
 make such impossible conjectures as ter esse cum and testes 
 sccum. 
 
 The text of Seneca's Naturalcs Ouaestioues affords a good 
 example of the interpolations of mediaeval scholars from the 
 eleventh century to the thirteenth. None of the manuscripts in 
 which the treatise is preserved are older than the twelfth century. 
 All are descended from a common archetype, in which there was 
 a lacuna of about eight leaves in the fourth book. Of this 
 archetype a copy usually designated by the symbol $ was made 
 in the tenth century. Another copy (A) was made a little later, 
 probably in the eleventh century, when the archetype had 
 suffered further injury through the disappearance of the end of 
 Book III. Both of these copies are now lost, but their main 
 features can be recognized in their descendants. As might be 
 expected, A presented a text inferior to that preserved in ^, e. g. 
 
 ^- Q. 1. 1. 17 Hoc certe sciam, Hoccerte sciam omnia angusta 
 omnia angusta esse mens us esse. Sedhaecdeinde. A 
 deum. 4> 
 
 Mensus deum was either unintelligible to the scribe who 
 copied A, or the letters were blurred and he made a haphazard 
 conjecture. Though A has disappeared it is right to infer that 
 this corrupt reading was in its text, since it is a reading common 
 to the whole group derived from A. Where the various members 
 of this group present divergent readings of their own it is equally 
 
 'i 
 
 \ 
 
92 
 
 LATIN TEXTS FROM CHARLEMAGNE 
 
 TO THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE 
 
 93 
 
 right to infer that such divergences are alterations made later 
 than the date to which A is to be assigned. Some of these 
 alterations show that at some time in the eleventh and twelfth 
 centuries the text of the A-group was collated with the better 
 text given in the <^-group. If for this purpose a bad copy of <J> 
 was chosen, the only result was to infect the new text with the 
 errors which had been developed in the course of time in the <I>- 
 group, or to deepen the corruption by trying to emend them ; 
 e. g. in A^. O. vi. 5. 2 the best members of the 4>-group read 
 ' Magni animi fuit rerum naturae latebras dimouere nee coiitoituiu 
 exteriore eius aspectu introspicere '. But some members of the 
 group had corrupted the word contcntiun into crenientnin, others 
 into contemptum. This last reading has found its way into the 
 text of one set of manuscripts belonging to the A-group, but 
 the scribes who adopted the reading have attempted to give 
 a semblance of meaning to the passage by reading contenipncndum. 
 
 If the classical learning of the thirteenth century is judged out 
 of the mouth of Dante there can be no complaint of the unfairness 
 of the test. He is the one writer who has pressed into his 
 service and envisaged with the sympathetic insight of genius all 
 the learning and literature to which he had access. Yet he knew 
 no Greek : and his references to Latin authors are severely 
 restricted in their range and are often inaccurate in detail. His 
 works contain references to Vergil, but only to the Eclogues and 
 the Aeneid, to Lucan's Pharsalia, to Statins* Thebats and 
 Achilleis (but not to the Siliiac), to Ovid's Metamorphoses and 
 the Remedia Amoris, to Juvenal and to Horace's Ars Poeiica, 
 Among prose writers he is acquainted with the De Amicitia^ Dc 
 Officiis, De Fifiibiis, and De Imtejitione of Cicero, with the Epistle 
 to Lucilius, the De Beneficiis and Naturales Ouaestioncs of Seneca, 
 and with Livy, though many apparent references to Livy are 
 drawn from the epitomists Orosius and Florus. 
 
 His manuscript of Vergil must have belonged to the interpo- 
 lated class since in De Mon, II. iii. 102 he quotes Aeii, iii. 340 as 
 ' Quern tibi iam Troia peperit funiante Creiisa '. 
 
 In Pitrgatorio xxxiii. 49 he introduces the Naiades as solvers 
 
 of riddles— a mistake due to the false reading in Ovid, Met. vii. 
 759, which has been discussed above. In Ptn-g. xxii. 40-1 he 
 translates Aen, iii. 56 'Quid non mortalia pectora cogis, Auri 
 sacra fames ? ' but his translation entirely inverts the meaning 
 by the rendering, 
 
 Per che non reggi tu, o sacra fame 
 Deir oro, 1' appetito de' mortali ? 
 
 i.e. as da Ricaldone paraphrases: 'O fames, execrabilis et 
 nialedicta, cur non regis mentes hominum ? scilicet ut moderate 
 ct debite expetant.' 
 
 [The main authorities are : 
 
 BuRSiAN, C. Gesch. dcr classischcn PJiilologic in Ditilscliland, 1883. 
 
 Nor DEN, E. Die antike Ktttistprosa, 1909. 
 
 Roger, M. V cyiscigucnicnt dcslcttvcs classiqucs d Aitsonc a Alciiin. Paris, 1905. 
 
 Specht, F. a. Geschichte des Unierrichlsivescns in Dcntschland von den iiltcsten 
 
 Zciten his znr Mittc des xiii'"'^ Jahrhunderts, 1885. 
 Traube, L. Vorlcstingen utid Abhandhtngcn, vols, i-ii, 1909-11.] 
 
 \) 
 
THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE 
 
 95 
 
 CHAPTER V 
 
 THE HISTORY OF TEXTS DURING THE PERIOD 
 OF THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE 
 
 Fac suspectum tibi quicquid hactenus didicisti, damncs omnia atquc abjiciciula 
 putes, nisi meliorum auctorum testimonio et uelut decreto rursus in corum 
 mittaris possessionem. — Rod. Agricola, Lucnhrn/ioiics, p. 193. 
 
 In the preceding chapter nothing has been said of the position 
 held by Italy in the tradition of the Latin classics, since that 
 position is best considered in connexion with the important 
 period of the Italian Renaissance. 
 
 It has sometimes been held that in Italy there was a complete 
 break with the ancient culture owing to the hostility of the 
 Church and the political unrest which followed the invasions 
 of the Barbarians. At first sight this view appears to be 
 plausible. The immediate effect of the movement in education, 
 begun by Cassiodorus and others, was to relegate the classical 
 writers to the background. The book-trade in the ancient 
 sense disappeared with the final victory of Christianity. The 
 ancient manuscripts which belonged to the period when Latin 
 was still a living language were allowed to perish or were used 
 for later writings, and, as has already been seen, only survive 
 because by a fortunate chance they aroused the interest of the 
 northern scholars such as the Irish at Bobbio. Monte Cassino 
 had not yet become a home of learning. 
 
 Politically also there would appear to be grounds for assuming 
 a complete break with the past owing to the Lombard invasion 
 of 568 and the series of conflicts with the Avars, Hungarians, 
 Saracens, and Normans which marked the long period from the 
 seventh century until the eleventh. During these centuries 
 there is no scholarship or original literature which at first sight 
 
 
 I 
 
 can be called distinctively Italian. Paulus Diaconus, the author 
 of the History of the Lombards, the most distinguished writer of 
 the eighth century, was himself a Lombard. In the ninth century 
 there are no great names in literature. The few names of men 
 interested in intellectual pursuits that survive are those of 
 foreigners such as the Irishman Dungal who taught at Pavia 
 about the year 823. The same may be said of the greater 
 names which adorn the tenth century. Rather, Bishop of 
 Verona (d. 974), came from Liege; Liutprand, Bishop of Cremona 
 (d. 972), was a Lombard ; Pope Silvester II (Gerbert), a Frank. 
 
 Yet on a closer view these foreign names represent a move- 
 ment which was not wholly exotic. They imply the existence, 
 at any rate in Northern Italy, of a public that appreciated 
 scholarship. Verona especially throughout this period seems 
 to have remained in touch with the ancient culture. Shortly 
 before his death in 844 or 846 the Archdeacon Pacificus pre- 
 sented the College of Canons with 218 manuscripts. Various 
 Veronese poems which belong to the ninth and tenth centuries, 
 such as the sapphic verses on Bishop Adelhard and the Pancgy- 
 ricits Bcrengarii, show a remarkable acquaintance with Latin 
 literature. These formal poems would not by themselves imply 
 any widespread interest in antiquity. One occasional poem, 
 however, belonging, as L. Traube has shown, to this period 
 and written at Verona, survives to show the mind of the 
 ordinary man. It is sufficiently steeped in the classical spirit, 
 and, as is now clear, in the classical spirit in its least com- 
 mendable quality, to have misled so great a scholar as Niebuhr, 
 who attributed it to a Pagan author of the fifth century a. d.^ 
 
 By the eighth century the Lombards, though still affecting 
 to despise the Romans for their degeneracy, had assimilated 
 the higher culture of the subject-race. The spirit of Italian 
 nationality was in gradual process of evolution. And the spirit 
 of ancient Rome was part of the inheritance of the new race. 
 The Lombard kings and their successors adhered to the old 
 
 ^ Tile poem beginning 'O admirabile Veneris ydolum ' : v. Traube, O Roma 
 twbilis, 1 89 1, p. 301. 
 
 I 
 
 -^-*.»,dt^^£^ 
 
< _ 
 
 96 
 
 HISTORY OF TEXTS 
 
 German custom of educating promising youths at their court at 
 Pavia. Paulus, who was brought up at the court of Ratchis, 
 mentions that his teacher was the grammarian Flavianus. 
 Liutprand, before he attracted the notice of King Hugo, must 
 have received an education which included the works of Vergil, 
 Horace, Terence, Ovid, Juvenal, and Cicero. The Court itself 
 cannot have remained uninfluenced by the presence of such 
 teachers and such pupils, and it is clear that Paulus's pupil, the 
 Princess Adelperga, daughter of King Desiderius, and her 
 husband Arichis, the Prince of Beneventum, w^ere interested in 
 humane studies. 
 
 The explanation of the intellectual condition of Italy at this 
 period is to be found in the fact that she was the only country in 
 Europe which possessed an educated laity. Elsewhere education 
 was the monopoly of the cloister and led only to a career in the 
 Church. But in Italy the Church never seems to have obtained 
 a complete control over the education of the laity. The clergy 
 remained for the most part' ignorant and fanatical, and had 
 never been affected by the Bonifacian reforms which had stiffened 
 the discipline of the Northern Churches by encouraging learning. 
 They retained their old feelings of mistrust for secular writings, 
 a mistrust that is well expressed by the insolent remark made 
 by Leo, a papal legate sent in 994 to King Hugo and his 
 son Robert, that St. Peter knew nought of Plato or Vergil or 
 Terence and suchlike 'philosophic cattle' ('pecudes philoso- 
 phorum') and yet had become the doorkeeper of Heaven 
 (' Petrus non nouit talia et hostiarius caeli effectus est ').^ 
 
 The result of this temper of mind on the part of the clergy 
 was to leave intact the old Roman system of education by lay 
 professors. A striking proof of this is afforded by a poem 
 addressed to Henry HI by Wipo, the learned chaplain of 
 Conrad II, in which he draws a very unfavourable comparison 
 
 ' We must except the Benedictines of Monte Cassino. Here there was 
 a revival of learning under Abbots Theobald and Desiderius in the eleventh 
 century, and to this revival is due the preservation of Varro, Tacitus, Apuleius. 
 
 2 Pertz, Mott. Germ. Scriptores, iii. 687. 
 
 IN THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE 97 
 
 between the education of the laity in Germany and in Italy. 
 It was education, he says, that made Rome great. In Italy 
 every boy is sent to school. The Teutonic nations alone regard 
 education as useless or even disgraceful except as a preparation 
 for the priesthood.^ 
 
 In the existence of a public of educated laymen in Italy at 
 this period we have an explanation of the Renaissance in the 
 fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Without such a basis it 
 would be a brilliant episode without any relation to the past. 
 We have also an explanation of the lack of great names in 
 literature and scholarship during the mediaeval period. The 
 classical authors continued to be appreciated by a large number 
 of laymen who had neither the time nor the inclination to 
 become authors or scholars because their energies were ab- 
 sorbed in practical life. Such a public was a bad guardian 
 of the text of the authors whom it admired. Since they had 
 no scientific interest in antiquity as a whole they were content 
 with readable texts of those authors only whom they regarded 
 as profitable, and allowed much to decay that has become lost 
 for ever, or was recovered from other lands by the energy of 
 the men of the Renaissance. But they were the seed-plot of 
 a rich harvest. 
 
 The period of the Renaissance or the Revival of learning in 
 Italy may conveniently be taken to extend from the age of 
 Petrarch and Boccaccio to the sack of Rome by the troops of 
 Charles V in 1527. It is not to be supposed that the classical 
 literatures would have perished but for that revival. Both, 
 
 1 Tunc fac edictum per terram Teulonicorum, 
 Quilibet ut diues sibi natos instruat omnes 
 Litterulis . . . 
 
 Moribus his dudum uiuebat Roma decenter, 
 His studiis tantos potuit uincire tyrannos : 
 Hos seruant Itali post prima crepundia cuncti, 
 Et sudare scholis mandatur tota iuuentus : 
 Solis Teutonicis uacuum vel turpe uidetur 
 Ut doceant aliquem nisi clericus accipiatur. 
 
 Wiponis Tetralogus 190 sqq., 
 Mon, Germ, Hist. Script, xi. p. 251. 
 
 473 
 
 H 
 
/ 
 
 98 
 
 HISTORY OF TEXTS 
 
 however, were at a critical period of their history. Latin 
 might have suffered irreparable losses from the continuance of 
 mediaeval neglect, while Greek literature, which, as far as can 
 be seen, was but little affected by the fall of Constantinople in 
 1453, might have been gravely impaired by that disaster had not 
 the study of Greek been transplanted from Byzantium to Italy 
 at least a century before the final victory of the Turks. 
 
 The object of the present chapter is to describe the aims and 
 methods of the scholars of the Renaissance in dealing with the 
 classical texts which they did so much to preserve, since few 
 texts have altogether escaped their influence. 
 
 Humanism — a term borrowed from antiquity — was an ideal 
 of life and not of learning. The 'humane ' man was the educated 
 man free and untrammelled in thought and action by the re- 
 strictions which Emperor, Pope, and the Scholastic Philosophy 
 had imposed upon his development during the Middle Age. 
 The great instrument of liberation was to be found in the 
 ancient literatures, which were revived not entirely through 
 admiration of their intrinsic beauty, but because they embodied 
 an ideal of life which was ancient indeed but not obsolete and 
 irrecoverable. Italy was the only country at this period where 
 such a view of classical antiquity could have been other than 
 the pleasing fancy of a few great minds. There, however, it 
 was fostered not only by the aspirations of the men of the 
 Renaissance, but also by their practical needs. The Italians 
 were a highly imaginative race, devoted to the curious ideal 
 of ' fame * or glory, which largely usurped the influence of the 
 ordinary motives of right conduct during this period, and never 
 forgetting that they were the descendants and heirs of the 
 ancient Romans. The new studies fostered this imagination. 
 But they also satisfied many practical needs. Latin was still the 
 language of the Church, of diplomacy, and of the great professions 
 of Law and Medicine. It was still the ordinary medium of com- 
 munication between educated men in Italy, where the lingua 
 Toscana had not yet won its victory over the other competing 
 dialects. Above all, the Latin and Greek authors were still 
 
 IN THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE 
 
 99 
 
 
 the primary, and often the only, sources for such important 
 departments of practical knowledge as Law, Medicine, Mathe- 
 matics, Mechanics, &c.^ 
 
 The idea that the classical writers were of real practical use 
 and that a transformation of contemporary life was to be accom- 
 plished by means of them pervades the whole period of the 
 Renaissance, and explains the rash methods which were applied 
 to many of the newly discovered texts. A manuscript was of 
 no use to the ordinary man unless it could be read. It could 
 not be regarded as merely a witness to the authentic text whose 
 evidence must be sifted and weighed according to recognized 
 rules, and confronted with the evidence of all other witnesses. 
 It is this demand for readable texts, made at a time when the 
 methods of criticism were necessarily imperfect, which was one 
 of the chief causes of the corruptions which deface the 'Itali ' 
 or ' recentiores ' or ' deteriores ', as the manuscripts of the 
 fourteenth and fifteenth centuries are usually called in a modern 
 apparatus crittcus. 
 
 It is characteristic of the humanistic movement that it did 
 not influence the curriculum in schools and universities until 
 its force was nearly spent. The humanists were, it is true, 
 often employed as lecturers in the universities, but they were 
 nearly always birds of passage, jealous of their freedom, never at 
 home in the air of officialdom, and never seriously competing with 
 the older faculties of Law and Medicine. The early scholars 
 who supported the movement w^re partly enthusiastic amateurs, 
 often in high positions in the political world, and partly pro- 
 fessional men who sought employment wherever they could 
 find it as lecturers, private tutors, or secretaries. To the first 
 class belong men of affairs such as Coluccio di Piero de' Salutati 
 (1330-1406), the friend of Petrarch and chancellor of the 
 Republic of Florence ; Lionardo Bruni (1369-1444), his successor 
 in the Chancellorship ; Churchmen such as Ambrogio Traver- 
 
 ^ Cf. Aldus's preface to Aristophanes of 1498, ' Errant meo iudicio multum 
 qui se bonos philosophos medicosque euasuros hoc tempore existimant, si 
 expertes fuerint literarum Graecarum.' 
 
 H 2 
 
 \ 
 
 \ 
 
lOO 
 
 HISTORY OF TEXTS 
 
 IN THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE 
 
 lOI 
 
 sari (1386-T459), the General of the Camaldulensian order; 
 Poggio Bracciolini (1380-1459), one of the papal secretaries; or 
 private collectors like Niccolo de' Niccoli, the friend of all the 
 earlier discoverers, who, with the support of his powerful 
 patrons the Medici, collected or transcribed many of the manu- 
 scripts that are still in the Laurentian Library at Florence. To 
 the second class belong such wandering scholars as Giovanni di 
 Conversino of Ravenna, who was employed by Petrarch as a 
 copyist; his compatriot (who is often confused with him) Giovanni 
 Malpaghini (ti4i7), the teacher of Poggio and Traversari ; 
 Gasparino da Barzizza (circ. 1370-1459), who devoted himself 
 especially to the study of Cicero and Quintilian ; the Byzantine 
 Manuel Chrysoloras (circ. 1350-1415), the first competent teacher 
 of Greek in Italy; Giovanni Aurispa (circ. 1370-1459), who 
 imported many of the manuscripts of Greek authors now in the 
 Laurentian Library at Florence, and many others. 
 
 The best of these scholars and amateurs were well aware 
 of the difficulties of the problem with which they were faced 
 and of their own slender resources for solving it. Manuscripts 
 were not easily procurable. The great enthusiasts such as 
 Petrarch himself and Niccoli were by no means anxious to 
 lend their treasures ; and Poggio's complaints of the selfishness 
 of the owners of codices ('huiusmodi homines teneri crimine 
 expilatae hereditatis * ^) is re-echoed in the prefaces to many 
 of the cditioncs principcsP- Yet manuscripts were in great 
 demand, and when they could be procured it was often difficult 
 to find a copyist educated enough to transcribe them. The 
 complaints of the worthlessness of the ordinary copyist are 
 constant from the age of Petrarch down to the date of the 
 introduction of printing. Petrarch's outburst against them is 
 found in his Z^^ Remed. Utriusque ForUinae i. Dial, 43, p. 2 : 
 
 ' Ignauissima haec aetas culinae solicita literarum negligens 
 et coquos examinans non scriptores. Quisquis itaque pingere 
 
 ' Orat. funehr. Nic. Nice, in Muratori, Rer. It. Script, xx. 169 E. 
 ' e. g. Cic. Epp. ad Brutum, Andreas, 1470, * Exemplaria quae ab inuidis 
 communi hominum odio occultantur.' 
 
 I 
 
 r* 
 
 aliquid in membranis, manuque calamum uersare didicerit, 
 scriptor habebitur doctrinae omnis ignarus, expers ingenii, artis 
 egens.' 
 
 Salutati complains bitterly of the havoc which the scribes had 
 wrought with the texts even of modern writers such as Dante, 
 Petrarch, and Boccaccio. The following quotations from Poggio 
 will show that the evil was far greater in classical texts. 
 
 'Misistimihi librum Senecae et Cornelium Taciturn, quod est 
 mihi gratum : at is est litteris Langobardicis et maiori ex parte 
 caducis . . . difficile erit reperire scriptorem qui hunc codicem 
 recte legat.' (Tonelli, iii, Ep, xv, p. 213. Written to Niccoli 
 in 1427.) 
 
 In 1430 he writes : 
 
 * Nullus mihi crede Plautum bene transcribet nisi is sit do- 
 ctissimus : est eis litteris quibus multi libri ex antiquis quos a 
 mulieribus conscriptos arbitror nulla uerborum distinctione ut 
 persaepe diuinandum sit' (Ibid. i. 339.) 
 
 ^ Philippicas Ciceronis emendaui cum hoc antiquo codice qui 
 ita pueriliter scriptus est ita mendose ut in iis quae scripsi non 
 coniectura opus fuerit sed diuinatione . . . sed scis in talibus 
 me esse satis sagacem : non potui autem corrigere omnes.' 
 (Ibid, iii, Ep. xviii, written in 1428.) 
 
 The apparatus of scholarship such as Grammars and Lexica 
 either did not exist or was not readily accessible. Hence the 
 path of even the best and most careful scholars was beset with 
 difficulties. As is natural in an age of enthusiasm and progress, 
 the best men tended to overestimate their strength, and the 
 
 
 
 ' divinatory power ' of criticism, as can be seen from the last 
 two passages quoted from Poggio, soon began to play a 
 disastrous part in the emendation of texts. The complaint of 
 Leo Aretinus, Ep. ii. 13 (Mehus) *Qui enim corrigere uoluit 
 eas plane corrupit,' is heard on all sides. 
 
 An instructive instance of the method employed by sueh 
 /correctors is to be found in the account given by Tommaso 
 Seneca of the edition of the poems of Tibullus which he 
 prepared for a certain John, a physician of Rimini. His letter 
 bears the date 1434, and is worth quoting in full, since Seneca 
 is a type of the wandering scholar, with no great ability, con- 
 
 ] 
 
 K 
 
102 
 
 HISTORY OF TEXTS 
 
 vinced that he is improving the text on which he is working, 
 whereas in reaUty he is deepening its corruption. 
 
 loANNi Ariminensi OPTIMO phisico Thomas Seneca salutem. 
 
 Auderem fortassis augere uerbis operani hanc meam, si, ut 
 par fuerat, ultro ac ingenue tui gratia excepissem. Sed quoniam 
 et rogatus et preciosum ad earn adductus, nulle sunt in beneficio 
 partes mercennarii que ad laudem et gratiam proficiscantur. 
 Unum illud audeo dicere, quod pessimi facere mercennarii non 
 solent, quanta potui maxima cura studuisse ut industria superarem 
 opus mercennarium. Neqiic cnini ita lit repperi in exemplis ex- 
 scribere contcntusfniy sed et doctos atque illustratos homines, qui 
 huiuscemodi poematum studiosi habentur, quo tibi quoad possem 
 incorruptum opus perducerem, obisse, et aHquotiens ex Prato 
 Florentiam iter habuisse, ubi Seraphium Urbinatem, lohannem 
 Pratensem, Nicholaum Nicholum ac ceteros una alteraue de re 
 consuhos facerem. Nam quid ipse quasi diuino quodam flatn 
 profeccrim, id praetereo. Certe uacua que fuerant uetustate aut 
 scriptorum uicio deperdita meo ut aiunt Marte suppleui. . . . 
 Interea qualem hunc proinde leges, dum intelHgas hoc non esse 
 alterum in ItaHa incorruptiorem. (Quoted by Baehrens, 
 Tibitllns, 1878^ p. viii.) 
 
 An instance of Seneca's method may be seen in Tib. ii. 3. 75, 
 where he fills up a lacuna with his own line, * Ah, pereant artes 
 et mollia rura colendi.' 
 
 This eager demand for what it was so difficult to supply threw 
 temptations in the way of ambitious and inferior scholars. The 
 long list of quattrocento forgeries ^ shows what an enthusiastic, 
 but wholly uncritical, public was prepared to accept. A public 
 which could content itself with wholesale forgeries was not 
 likely to listen to the protests -of the few scholars of discernment 
 who saw the harm that was produced by the manipulation of 
 texts of acknowledged authenticity. There were scrupulous 
 men such as Niccoli and Pomponius Laetus.^ Zomino of 
 
 ^ Best illustrated in R. Foerster's F. Zainbeccari unci die Briefe des Libanios^ 
 1878; cf. also Sabbadini, Le Scope tie, p. 172. 
 
 2 M. Antonius Sabellicus (Coccio , Ep. xi, p. 56^" ed. 1502, says of Pomponius : 
 ' Cum Varrone diu luctatus est : ut in integrum restitueret. In Crispo : et in 
 Liuio reposuit quaedam : etsi nemo religiosius timidiusquc tractauit ueterum 
 scripta.' Yet the discovery of the Medicean MS. of Varro de Lingua Latina 
 showed that his hand could be heavy on the text, e.g. v. 117 ' Tubae a tubis. 
 quos etiam nunc appellant tubicines sacrorum [id est sacri tubicines tubi uocantur], 
 
 I 
 
 IN THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE 103 
 
 Pistoia maintained that an ancient manuscript should be 
 copied word for word; Gasparino di Barzizza claimed 
 no inspiration for his efforts to render a text readable. 
 'Ouaedam', he says of his text of Cicero De Oratorc, 'etiam 
 cimi deficerent suppleui non ut in uersum cum textu Ciceronis 
 ponerentur, esset enim id uehementer temerarium, nee ab 
 homine docto ferendum ; sed ut ea in margine posita commen- 
 tariorum locum tenerent.' (Sabbadini, Stiidi di G. B. p. 11.) 
 Yet, but for the discovery of the Lodi codex by Poggio, Gas- 
 parino's well-intentioned interpolations might have become an 
 inseparable part of the tradition of the text. 
 
 It must be remembered that before the invention of printing 
 the sense of responsibility was only weakly developed among 
 scholars. Bad or indifferent work did not at once meet the 
 light of criticism, and might remain latent long enough to 
 become authoritative. Casual suggestions thrown out by some 
 wandering scholar, emendations tentatively made by a bad 
 copyist in the margin of his book, interpolations made with the 
 best or worst intentions— all tend to find a permanent place 
 in the subsequent tradition of the text. 
 
 A valuable account of the difficulties and dangers of the 
 scholarship of this period is given by Salutati in his work De Fato 
 et Fortiina. The passage is quoted by Mehus in his edition of 
 Traversari's Letters, p. ccxc, from a still unpublished manuscript 
 in the Laurentian Library at Florence. 
 
 Readers, he says, as well as scribes are responsible for 
 corruptions in Texts. 
 
 ' Late siquidem et ubique corrupta sunt omnia, et dum librarii, 
 per euagationem mentis et capitis leuitatem, inaduertenter omit- 
 tunt, dum temerarie mutant quod non intelligunt, dum plerumque 
 glossulas ex librorum marginibus et interliniis ueluti scribenda 
 recolligunt, nullum omnino textum . . . non corruptissimum re- 
 liquerunt. 
 
 where the words in brackets arc added by Pomponius. An instance where 
 suspicion has been wrongly cast upon the Italians is to be seen in Q\z. Pro 
 Caelio, where scholars have regarded the passages which are not found in P 
 but only in the detcriores as late interpolations. Their antiquity is now attested 
 by the Cluniacensis. (A. C. Clark, preface to the Oxford Text.) 
 
 \ 
 
 U 
 
 Nl 
 
I04 
 
 HISTORY OF TEXTS 
 
 'Quod quidem crimen non ipsis librariis solum, qui per 
 inscitiam suos libris infigunt errores, sed legentibus potius, et 
 illis praecipue qui non prorsus ignari, sibi se scire (quod latum 
 ignorantiae uestibulum est) corrupto iudicio persuaserunt, adscrip- 
 serim. 
 
 *Hi quidem dum rebus non intellectis haerent . . . prae- 
 sumptuosas in libros manus iniiciunt: et aliquando litterarum, 
 quandoque syllabae, et aliquoties dictionum mutatione, tum 
 detrahentes aliquid, tum addentes, non solum alienant textus 
 mutantque sententias, sed omnia usquequaque peruertunt. . . . 
 O quoties uidi magistros nostri temporis non emendationes sed 
 menda suis adnotasse manibus ! . . . Nee id nostrae aetatis solum- 
 modo uitium est, sed omnis quae nos praecessit post auctores 
 ipsos ferme posteritas, ignorantia semper et sine modo crescente, 
 libros quos auctoritas et fama scriptorum perpetuos fore spon- 
 debat uisa est ineptis et inconsideratis suis correctionibus imo 
 corruptionibus abolere.' 
 
 He not only diagnoses the disease, but suggests a remedy : 
 
 * Sicut hactenus aliquando factum fuit constituantur bibliothecae 
 publicae in quas omnium librorum copia congeratur, praepo- 
 nanturque uiri peritissimi qui libros diligentissima collatione 
 reuideant et communem uarietatum discordiam rectae diffinitio- 
 nis iudicio nouerint remouere.' 
 
 He proceeds to say that he has in mind some of the ancient 
 recensions still recorded in manuscripts, e.g. the Calliopian 
 recension of Terence. Emendation, however, is a work of 
 difficulty. 
 
 ' Pauci quidem deprehendunt uitia paucissimique, licet cor- 
 ruptionem uiderint, sunt qui nouerint relictis uestigiis illuc unde 
 uitia coeperint remeare . . . Correctionis labor ipsos grauat 
 et deterret errorum quos infinitos sentiunt multitudo. Si qui 
 forsan aliquid aliquando correxerint, remanet unico solum libro, 
 quidquid utilitatis adtulerunt impressum, nee late, sicuti foret 
 expediens, ampliatur; idemque penitus contigit illis qui nostra 
 tempora praecesserunt.' 
 
 In all this confusion the Greek texts suffered equally with the 
 Latin. As has been described in a preceding chapter, Greek 
 literature had already experienced the effects of a revival of 
 scholarship at Byzantium under the Palaeologi. Planudes, 
 Moschopulus, Thomas Magister, Demetrius Triclinius, and 
 others had laid heavy hands on many texts and forced them to 
 
 \ 
 
Ill 
 
 4 
 
 i 
 
 Plate V 
 
 
 I;- 
 
 
 ^'^■2 
 
 
 
 -Ri^JK 
 
 .'•^ -^ 
 
 ■MC'y / 
 
 r.i 
 
 Amvy^r^ 
 
 
 I 
 
 ,r^V-' ^^rxT> --^.;^.-' ^_.__ ^^- ' /, r>' ^ '^ ' \0'^ ^ 
 
 l'[i»'/KJ<- ♦>//^'»>ic*5«^ 
 
 f - f^9^~, 0-m^M- ^>W« r*f <»»«*»>' ^nroS<»*^l'**^^f^'^A^^ 
 
 >^. 
 
 o»^/ 
 
 
 f^.njn: ^^s.>^r^n.r'J,^s.<ir'^^/^^ ^^^If^^^i 
 
 I , . yuA )*4iPafCy . %(p 
 
 M^ ^W-v >iir . ^W^ 
 
 Oi/ AlPfffV* 
 
 ']tt4»i iir^^^'^'^X^'^i 
 
 -f^^n,^ 
 
 
 5^^ >t^ 
 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 /^ 
 
 
 'r*- 
 
 
 
 .^"^^fte^fc .■"■-. „ -' 
 
 Reginensis Vaticanus Graec. 173: SAEC. XV, FOL. 202' 
 
 Galen^ Kiihn xv. 77) 
 
 ) 
 
 IN THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE 
 
 105 
 
 conform to quite arbitrary canons of vocabulary, grammar, and 
 metre. The same process of distortion was continued by the 
 Greeks who taught in Italy before and after the fall of Constan- 
 tinople. They were not always men of scholarly mind, and, with 
 a few exceptions, excited the contempt of their keen-witted pupils 
 in the West. Budaeus (Guillaume Bude), the French scholar, 
 before he found a competent teacher in Janus Lascaris, had 
 employed George Hermonymus of Sparta, but had made no 
 progress under his tuition. ' Nisi quod legere optime et e more 
 doctorum pronunciare uidebatur, expers erat omnis eruditionis : 
 et qui pingendis litteris Graecis uictum quaerere tantummodo 
 nosset.*^ 
 
 Men such as Palaeocappa, Jacob Diassorinus, Andreas Dar- 
 
 marius were little better than Hermonymus. 
 
 The methods which Marcus Musurus (circ. 1470-1517) is known 
 to have used in editing Hesychius will show how texts were 
 treated by one of the best of the native Greek scholars, and it is 
 unlikely that the far inferior scholars at the beginning of the 
 century were more scrupulous. It was the custom of the early 
 printers to use a codex as copy for their compositors." Many 
 codices have been lost in this way. The codex of Hesychius 
 from which the Aldine edition of 1517 was printed is fortunately 
 still preserved in the Library of St. Mark at Venice. Villoison 
 in his Anecdota Graeca (ii. 256) shows how Musurus has prepared 
 the codex for the use of the printer. He has run his pen through 
 such compendia and ligatures as presented any difficulty and has 
 
 1 Cf. Legrand, Biiliog. Hell, i, p. cxliii. 
 
 2 An illustration is given here of the treatment of codex Reginensis gr. 173 by 
 the editors of the ed. pr. of Galen published in 1525. The codex was used as 
 the copy for Galenas commentary on Hippocrates irtpi (pvaiw avBpwvov. The 
 initial words of proper names have been indicated in capital letters in the 
 margin ; the Lemmata (or text of Hippocrates) upon which Galen is commenting 
 have been written in full in the margin, since the writer of the codex had only 
 given the beginning and ending : spellings are altered in the text : and the 
 printer's signature of sheet 13 Aa is written in the margin and marked by 
 a bracket in the text. This illustration is reproduced (by permission) from 
 J. Mehwaldt's article in Sitzungsberkhte derkgl. Preuss. Akaci., phiL-liist. Klasse, 
 vol. xxxix, 1912. 
 
 ii 
 
 \ 
 
 1 
 
 j^ 
 
 I 
 
 JjE*'--' ^* „ ~^ 
 
I-- 
 
 Plate V 
 
 
 j: 
 
 . y 
 
 
 
 
 fUffv • "ir^ 
 
 
 
 a»- ipi 
 
 
 J 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 ■^f 
 
 ;-A 
 
 ;■"? -:^.*-.;^s^iSau^^i^a^i:.i.^^-^:L:LS^ 
 
 Recinlnsis \'aticanus Graec. 173: sAEC. XV, Eoi- 202' 
 
 Calcn, Kit In I w. 77) 
 
 i 
 
 t 
 
 ) 
 
 1 
 I 
 
 .1 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 ) 
 
 IN THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE 
 
 10: 
 
 conform to quite arbitrary canons of vocabulary, grammar, and 
 metre. The same process of distortion was continued by the 
 Greeks who taught in Italy before and after the fall of Constan- 
 tinople. They were not always men of scholarly mind, and, with 
 a few exceptions, excited the contempt of their keen-witted pupils 
 in the West. Budaeus (Guillaume Bude), the French scholar, 
 before he found a competent teacher in Janus Lascaris, had 
 employed George Hermonymus of Sparta, but had made no 
 progress under his tuition. ' Nisi quod legere optime et e more 
 doctorum pronunciare uidebatur, expers erat omnis eruditionis : 
 et qui pingendis litteris Graecis uictum quaerere tantummodo 
 nosset.'^ 
 
 Men such as Palaeocappa, Jacob Diassorinus, Andreas Dar- 
 
 marius were little better than Hermonymus. 
 
 The methods which Marcus Musurus (circ. 1470 -1517) is known 
 to have used in editing Hesychius will show how texts were 
 treated by one of the best of the native Greek scholars, and it is 
 unlikely that the far inferior scholars at the beginning of the 
 century were more scrupulous. It was the custom of the early 
 printers to use a codex as copy for their compositors.- Many 
 codices have been lost in this way. The codex of Hesychius 
 from which the Aldine edition of 151 7 was printed is fortunately 
 still preserved in the Library of St. Mark at Venice. Villoison 
 in his Anecdota Gracxa (ii. 256) shows how Musurus has prepared 
 the codex for the use of the printer. He has run his pen through 
 such compendia and ligatures as presented any difficulty and has 
 
 * Cl'. Legrand, Biiliog. Hell, i, p. cxliii. 
 
 -' An illustration is given here of the treatment of codex Reginensis gr. 173 by 
 the editors of the ed. pr. of Galen published in 1525. The codex was used as 
 the copy for Galen's commentary on Hippocrates ntpi ipvatojs dveiywirov. The 
 initial words of proper names have been indicated in capital letters in the 
 margin ; the Lemmata (or text of Hippocrates) upon which Galen is commenting 
 have been written in full in the margin, since the writer of the codex had only 
 given the beginning and ending : spellings are altered in the text : and the 
 printer's signature of sheet 13 Aa is written in the margin and marked by 
 a bracket in the text. This illustration is reproduced (.by permission'^i from 
 J. JMehvvaldfs article in Sitzung^bcruhte ihykgL Pnuss. AkacL, pluL-hist. Klassf, 
 vol. xxxix, 1912. 
 
^ 
 
 io6 
 
 HISTORY OF TEXTS 
 
 re-written them in full in the margin. He has carefully arranged 
 the syllables which were wrongly united or divided in the origi- 
 nal and has silently introduced a multitude of corrections, addi- 
 tions, omissions, and transpositions. His employer Aldus speaks 
 with pride in the preface of the results achieved. ' Quantum per 
 occupationes licuit, diligenter recognouit, fecitque, licet cursim, 
 7raT/>o9 dpctw.' Villoison with more truth speaks of 'Toriginal 
 que Musurus a si etrangement denature'. (Legrand, B. H. i, 
 p. cxvii.) A good instance of the less fortunate corrections which 
 he has made can be seen s.v. aeAAa* (TV(TTpo6y) diifiov Koi KovLopTo<; 
 
 (xTTo dca'00-€Ti TTVilv (cod.) aTTo Tov act vo(T€p6v Tt TTvely (Musurus). The 
 
 correct reading is utto tou d^iv o cVri Trmv. 
 
 On the whole, the Greeks were too incompetent and the 
 Italians too impatient for the work which they attempted. Yet it 
 is well to remember that many scholars (e.g. Michael Apostolios, 
 Valla, Politian, Marullus) reached a high level of excellence, in 
 spite of the difficulties by which they were hampered.* 
 
 Even the worst scholars shot so many arrows that some were 
 
 1 I quote two of Politian's notes at length as showing the soundness of his 
 method. 
 
 Politian, Lib. Miscell. p. 278, ed. Bas., cap. Ixi : 
 
 * Verba . . . uitiose posita in Plinianis his codicibus reperiuntur hoc modo ; 
 Virtum potahtrns rex, uiemento te bihere sangnineni terrae. Sicitti iienemtm est 
 hoimni cicuta, ita et tiinum.^ 
 
 ' Leuis profecto sententia, nimisque uiolenta et coacta, uimmi esse homini 
 ne>ienum siaiti dcutimi. Sed enim in uetustissimo illo Medicae familiae Pliniano 
 codice, sic inuenias ; Cicnta homini uenenum est, cicutae mnnnt. Nam lit 
 hominem cicuta, sic cicutae uirus meri potus extinguit. Ex eoque persuadere 
 Alexandre nititur Androcides, ut tanquam re potentissima parcius utatur uino, 
 quod ueneni uenenum fit.' 
 
 lb. c. XX. Suet. Nero xlv. ' Vitiati deprehenduntur Suetoniani codices in 
 Nerone. Nam sic utique in omnibus : Alterius collo et scopa dcligata, simulque 
 tituliis : Ego quid potiii f sed tu ctilleitm menus fi. Nam neque scopa latine 
 dicitur numero singular! : et si maxime dicatur, nihil tamen commercii scopis et 
 culleo. Sed enim in uetustis excmplaribus uestigium, ut arbitror, extat inco- 
 lumis, ueraeque lectionis, hoc modo: Alteriiis collo ascopa deligata. Quare 
 si literam penultimam per scripseris, Ascopera fiet, quod et esse rectissimum 
 puto : siquidem est Ascopera saculus pelliceus. . . . Haec ergo fuit ascopera 
 Neronianae statuae collo deligata, cullei symbolum, quoniam matricida.' 
 
 There is an excellent discussion of the name Vergilius in cap. Ixxvii, 
 pp. 286-7. 
 
 IN THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE 107 
 
 certain to find the mark. Unless this is remembered it is very 
 easy to form a wrong estimate of the manuscripts which have 
 survived from this period. The value of a codex of the fifteenth 
 or sixteenth centuries cannot always be estimated by the good 
 readings which it contains. Such good readings, it is true, may 
 be inherited from a good and early tradition which has been 
 defaced by later corruptions, but it is essential before making 
 this assumption to consider whether they are not merely the 
 fortunate conjectures of some scholar of the Renaissance. In 
 Plaut. Pseud. 1063 the Palatine family of manuscripts read : 
 'Viso quirerum [or quiserum) meus Ulixes egerit.' The cditio 
 princeps (Z) has the right reading, * Viso quid rerum 8ic\ 
 which is also preserved in the Ambrosian palimpsest. But it 
 would be vain to suppose that Z had inherited this good reading 
 from a tradition similar to that preserved in the Ambrosian. It 
 is merely a fortunate conjecture of some scholar of the Re- 
 naissance. An unfortunate conjecture of similar origin can be 
 seen in the reading of the Leipzig codex (F), ' Viso quid seruus 
 
 meus Ulixes egerit.' 
 
 In some authors (e.g. Aristotle's Poetics) it is very difficult to 
 form a correct estimate of the character of the manuscripts 
 belonging to the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The tendency 
 of modern criticism, however, is to distrust them, and not to 
 accept their good readings as credentials for the other possible 
 readings which they offer. 
 
 [The main authorities are : 
 GiESEBRECHT, W. De littaarum sludiis apud Italos pritnis medii ocvi saeculis. 
 
 Berlin, 1845. Tr. into Italian by C. Pascal, Florence, 1895. 
 NoLHAC, P. DE. La bibliotluque de Fnhio Orsini. 1887. 
 S ABBADiNi. Le scoperte dei codici latini e grcci nc' sccoli xiv e xv. 1 905. 
 Sandys, J. E. Harvard lectures on the Revival of learning. 1905. 
 VoiGT, G. Die Wiederbelcbung des klassischcn Alterthums. Third edition by 
 M. Lehnerdt, 1893.] 
 
 % 
 
 if 
 
RECENSION 
 
 109 
 
 CHAPTER VI 
 
 RECENSION 
 
 In the preceding chapters an attempt has been made to sum- 
 marize the history of the large body of documents by means of 
 which classical texts have been preserved till the invention of 
 printing. In the present chapter we shall consider the Criticism 
 of documents, i. e. the methods by which the evidence which 
 they contain is to be interpreted and controlled so as to enable 
 the authentic text to be recovered as far as possible. 
 
 Textual Criticism, as it is now understood, is divided into two 
 processes : (i) Recension, (2) Emendation. By Recension is 
 meant the selection of the most trustworthy documentary evi- 
 dence as a basis on w^hich to found the text. Such a selection, 
 of course, is only possible after a critical examination of all the 
 evidence that is available. Emendation is the attempt to elim- 
 inate the residuum of error which even the best documents will 
 be found to contain. It is an attempt to transcend the tradition. 
 It is, therefore, a deliberate overruling of the written evidence, and 
 its results (unless confirmed by the discovery of fresh documen- 
 tary evidence) are never certain, but can only attain to probability. 
 
 An adequate method of Recension has only been rendered 
 possible by the growth of Palaeography, i. e. the scientific study 
 of ancient documents — the hands in which they are written, the 
 age to which they belong, and generally speaking the purposes, 
 methods, and circumstances which influenced the men who 
 produced them. 
 
 The scientific criticism of documents of any kind is developed 
 late in the history of Western Europe. Throughout the Middle 
 Age the cry for accuracy and authenticity goes up, but with 
 little result. Important interests hung upon such documents as 
 charters ; and churches, monasteries, and towns forged them in 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 large numbers in their anxiety to confirm privileges which they 
 possessed by right or usurpation.^ In the absence of any 
 knowledge of palaeography such documents might be suspected, 
 but there was no means of testing them, and the helplessness of 
 the times is seen in the various devices, such as the oath or 
 duel, which were sometimes employed in default of proper 
 proofs of trustworthiness.' A more effective safeguard was the 
 enrolment of documents upon registers, a practice inherited 
 from Greece and Rome. But such registers were always liable 
 to be destroyed in time of war or civil disturbance. 
 
 If there was difficulty in estimating the character of so short 
 a document as a charter, there was a far greater difficulty in 
 securing purity of text in the larger ecclesiastical documents 
 that were in constant use. It was recognized that age afforded 
 a presumption of accuracy : but if it was impossible to refer to 
 an old copy there was no means of getting beyond the corrup- 
 tions which in the course of time had defaced the original text. 
 A good example of such corruption is to be seen in the famous 
 and widespread Rule of St. Benedict. This was composed by 
 the saint himself at Monte Cassino, circ. 550 a. d., and written 
 in the vernacular Latin of the period. During the two succeed- 
 ing centuries the text assumed a different form, owing to the 
 accidental corruptions introduced by copyists, and the inten- 
 tional alterations made by monks, who were either ashamed of 
 the vernacular style of their founder, or were unable to under- 
 stand it. In consequence of the uncertainty which began to sur- 
 round the text of the Rule, Charlemagne, in 787, on learning that 
 there was a codex at Monte Cassino which was reputed to be 
 in the handwriting of St. Benedict himself, had a copy made so 
 as to provide a standard text for the monasteries of the Benedic- 
 tine order throughout his dominions. About the year 816 two 
 monks named Grimwald and Tatto made a similar copy, which 
 they sent to their master Reginbert at Reichenau in Bavaria. 
 But they placed the readings of the modern and interpolated 
 
 1 Cf. Giry, Manuel de Diplomatique, pp. 877 sqq. 
 
 2 Cf. Wattenbach, Schriftwesen, p. 7. 
 
 i 
 
 
 I 
 
 II 
 
.'-^■H 
 
 IIO 
 
 RECENSION 
 
 version in the margin of their copy ' desiderantes utriimqiie iios 
 et secundum traditionem pii patris etiam modernam habere. 
 Eh'gite nobis quod desiderabiH placuerit animo.* Up to 800 the 
 interpolated version rules in France, Germany, and England. 
 In the next century the pure text is current in Germany. 
 But in a short time there is a conflict between the two versions 
 which 'ends in a disgraceful peace '} It is a striking illustration 
 of the helplessness of the Middle Age in textual criticism when 
 an important community such as the Benedictines finds a diffi- 
 culty in preserving the text of a work which, as Traube says, 
 'has a better attested tradition than the text of any ancient book 
 except Jerome's version of the Bible and the Collection of the 
 Canon law.'^ 
 
 The impulse towards a critical treatment of documents came 
 from the attacks made upon a number of forgeries which had 
 been accepted by the mediaeval Church. These are known as 
 the False Decretals, a series of papal decrees and other docu- 
 ments which were put forth in the West Frankish kingdom in 
 the ninth century under the mask of a certain Isidorus Mercator, 
 in order to strengthen the power of bishops. Their authenticity 
 was successfully impugned by Nicolaus Cusanus (d. 1464). With 
 them was included the so-called Constantine Donation, a forgery 
 of the eighth century which purported to be a conveyance by 
 the Emperor Constantine, on his conversion, of the sovereignty 
 over Rome and all Italy to Pope Silvester and his successors. 
 This was shown to be spurious by Lorenzo Valla (d. 1457). 
 
 This spirit of criticism, w^hich was the fruit of the Renaissance 
 of learning in Italy, had far-reaching developments during the 
 next century. Its first effect was seen in the all-important 
 domain of Theology in the growth of Protestantism. Behind 
 Luther (1483-1546) and the other leaders of the Reformation 
 were critical students of ecclesiastical history such as Matthias 
 Flacius (1520-1575). He and his successors, the Magdeburg 
 
 * Traube, Textgcschichtc der Regiila S. Beiiedicfi, 1898. and 1910, criticized by 
 Butler, Downside Revieiv, 1809, and Jouni. of T/ieoL Studies, 1902, p. 458. 
 2 lb. p. 604. 
 
 RECENSION „, 
 
 Centuriators, analysed the mass of legends and falsifications 
 which had overgrown the history of the mediaeval Church 
 Among the laity the counterpart of this movement is found in 
 the works of Montaigne (1533-1592), who is no sceptic, but the 
 enemy of intellectual fanaticism in every form since he requires 
 belief to be tested by reason and experience. The reaction 
 which followed had one good result. It forced the opponents of 
 the new spirit to examine their documents, and rendered access- 
 ible a mass of material which had hitherto lain hidden in the 
 archives of individuals or corporations. Its influence upon 
 ecclesiastical texts is seen in the inauguration in 1643 of the 
 edition of the Acta Sanctorum by the Jesuit scholar, John 
 Bolland (1596-1655) of Antwerp. After his death the pendulum 
 swung back, and the undertaking, which had been conceived in 
 a conservative spirit, assumed a very different form in the hands 
 of his successors, Daniel Papebroch and Gottfried Henschen. 
 In 1675 Papebroch, by his preface to the new volume of Acta, 
 aroused the hostility of two powerful orders— of the Carmelites' 
 by rejecting the legend that the prophet Elijah had founded 
 their order on Mount Carmel ; and of the Benedictines, by 
 denying the authenticity of the Merovingian documents, which 
 were the chief credentials for many of the Benedictine monas- 
 teries in France. 
 
 The replies of the two orders were curiously different. The 
 Carmelites invoked the Spanish inquisition, which suppressed 
 the offending work in 1695. The Benedictines founded the 
 science of Palaeography. 
 
 The Benedictine order had been revived in France in 1618 
 under the new title of the Congregation de Saint-Maur, through 
 the efforts of Dom Benard. During the next fifty years its 
 members had recovered their ancient reputation for learning. 
 At the time of Papebroch's attack their foremost scholar w^s 
 Jean Mabillon (1632-1707), of the monastery of Saint-Germain- 
 des-Pres, near Paris. Mabillon soon found that he could effect 
 nothing without a more extensive acquaintance with documents 
 than could be acquired within the walls of his own monastery, 
 
 it 
 
 ul 
 
 I 
 
 ■I' 
 
 ii 
 
 
112 
 
 RECENSION 
 
 RECENSION 
 
 "3 
 
 and made a journey in 1680 through Lorraine in order to 
 complete the material for his work De Re Diplomatica, which 
 was published in 1681. As its title shows, it deals mainly with 
 the palaeography of official documents or Miplomata*, and only 
 cites the evidence of manuscripts by way of illustration. Pape- 
 broch was generous enough to recognize the merits of his 
 opponent's work, which can justly be said to have laid the 
 foundations upon which textual criticism has since been built.^ 
 
 It was not long before it was recognized that the problems 
 presented by charters and manuscripts were widely different. 
 In dealing with charters the critic is for the most part working 
 upon documents which claim to be originals or carefully certifi- 
 cated copies of originals. He has therefore to decide whether 
 the handwriting (among other indications) justifies their claim to 
 belong to a certain age. But a manuscript is at the best but 
 a distant descendant from the text originally written by the 
 author and must frequently present the author's words in a 
 gravely mutilated form. 
 
 It was Mabillon's work which inspired the kindred studies of 
 Bernard de Montfaucon, also a Benedictine from St. Maur, 
 whose great work entitled Palaeographia Graeca appeared in 
 1708. 
 
 But though the new science of palaeography was founded it was 
 
 * Other Jesuit scholars, from their dislike of the Benedictines, who at this 
 period were suspected of leaning towards Jansenism, continued to maintain 
 the position which Papebroch had prudently surrendered. Among these were 
 Barthclemy Germon and Jean Hardouin (1646-1729^. Hardouin (who was no 
 mean scholar, as can be seen from his Delphin edition of Pliny's Natural 
 History) maintained in 1693 the extreme paradox that, with the exception 
 of Cicero, Pliny the Elder, and parts of Vergil and Horace, all the surviving 
 classical writers were forgeries dating only from the Renaissance. Such 
 extravagant scepticism refuted itself. Germon, a few years later, upheld the 
 more possible thesis that all codices had been corrupted, i. e. interpolated at 
 various periods. The controversies thus aroused were valuable in so far as 
 they attracted the attention of scholars towards manuscripts rather than 
 charters. Germon's attack upon Coustant, the Benedictine editor of Hilarius de 
 Trinitate, in which he accused his opponent of printing a reading which (as he 
 maintained) rested on an alteration made by some early Adoptianist heretic, 
 led to a protracted discussion which did much to fix the date of the half-uncial 
 hand. (Traubc, Vorlesungen, i. 34.) 
 
 long before its full significance was understood.' The true 
 classification of handwritings, their descent from earlier hands, 
 their affinities with one another, have all had to be investigated 
 by a long line of researchers before it has been possible to 
 assign a reasonably accurate date to an undated manuscript. 
 Until it was possible to classify manuscripts according to age no 
 really scientific basis could be found for criticism. Such a 
 classification was only rendered possible in Latin manuscripts 
 by the discoveries of Maffei (see note below) in the eighteenth 
 century, and the effect of his discoveries was not fully felt till 
 the beginning of the nineteenth century. 
 
 The full significance of modern textual criticism will only be 
 appreciated if we take a brief survey of the empirical methods 
 employed by some of the earlier scholars. 
 
 The difficulties which confronted classical scholarship after it 
 had emerged from the wild enthusiasms of the Renaissance can 
 all be referred to the dearth of good manuscripts. Unless he 
 was prepared to face the danger and expense of travel, the 
 ordinary man was confined to the few libraries within reach of 
 his native town. Scholars who could travel outside their own 
 country in attendance on some rich patron were unusually 
 fortunate. Part of the success of Dionysius Lambinus, the 
 great French scholar (1520-1572), was due to the experience 
 
 ^ In Latin it owes its development to the labour of a number of subsequent 
 scholars. Scipione Maftei (1675-1755^, of Verona, discovered a mass of ancient 
 Latin manuscripts in the Chapter Library at Verona in 1713. With the aid 
 of these he was able to correct Mabillon's theory of ' National ' hands, and to 
 put forward the now accepted view that all the Western systems of writing 
 are descended from the different forms (Majuscule, Minuscule, Cursive) of the 
 Roman hand alone. A further impetus to research was given by the discovery 
 in 1717 by von Hutten and Eckhardt of a large number of early manuscripts in 
 the Cathedral at Wiirzburg, where they had been hidden snice the Swedish 
 invasion of 1631. In 1747 J. L. Walther published his Lexicon Diploutaticmii, 
 i.e. a dictionary of contractions. Between 1750 and 1765 Tassin and Toustain, 
 two Benedictines, published anonymously their Traiie de Diplomatique^ a 
 masterly survey of all previous materials, which for the first time proved the 
 separate existence of the capital, uncial, and half-uncial hands. Greek palaeo- 
 graphy made little progress between the time of Montfaucon and F. J. Bast, 
 whose best-known work is his Conimentatio Palaeographica appended to 
 Schaefer's edition of Gregorius Corinthius, Leipzig, 181 r. 
 
 1 
 
 '1 
 
 il 
 
 1 -^ 
 
 ^ 
 
114 
 
 RECENSION 
 
 RECENSION 
 
 115 
 
 i 
 
 which he gained in the libraries of Venice and Rome under the 
 protection of Cardinal Tournon. But even when a library was 
 accessible it was often difficult to know what it contained, since 
 there were no printed catalogues, and often no catalogues at all. 
 A stranger was frequently denied access to material which he 
 had reason to believe was in existence through the jealousy or 
 indifference of custodians, as Mabillon and Montfaucon found 
 when they inquired for the manuscripts which were known to 
 have belonged to the Cathedral at Verona and as Isaac Vossius 
 found in Rome. There was every temptation therefore for a 
 scholar to abandon all laborious research for fresh material, 
 and to content himself with what lay ready to his hand. 
 
 An early group of scholars who refused to follow these easy 
 paths were the friends of Erasmus, who gathered round him during 
 his residence in Basel between 1521 and 1529 and transmitted 
 to Switzerland and Northern Germany the humanism of the 
 Italian Renaissance. Erasmus had shown his powers as a 
 critic of texts by his work upon the New Testament (though here 
 his work was marred by haste), on St. Jerome, where he endea- 
 voured to discriminate methodically between the genuine and the 
 spurious, and by editions of Aristotle, Ptolemy, and many other 
 classical writers. Among his friends were Beatus Rhenanus, 
 the editor of the cditio prince ps of Velleius(i52o), which is based 
 upon the lost Murbacensis ; Simon Grynaeus (1493-1541), the 
 discoverer of the Laureacensis of Livy 41-45; Johannes Sich- 
 ardus (1499-1552) and Bonifatius Amerbach (1495-1562), two 
 jurists in an age when jurists were also scholars. To the 
 same group belonged Sigismundus Gelenius (1497-1554)1 ^'ho 
 edited Ammianus and Livy, the first from the lost Hersfeld- 
 ensis, and the second, in partnership with Rhenanus, from the 
 Spirensis and the Moguntinus. 
 
 I quote an extract from Gelenius's preface to Livy to show the 
 spirit in which these men approached their task : 
 
 ' Primum uir acerrimi ingenii Rhenanus, diligenti habita per 
 collegia simul et coenobia conquisitione, genuinum exemplar 
 omnium qui extant Liuii librorum, excepta dimidia decade tertia, 
 
 sibi comparauit : eo consilio, ut praelucente antiqua lectione, 
 facilius mendarum tenebras discuteret. Quis enim non uideat, 
 ubi uetera archetypa tam inter se consentiunt, quam a uulgatis 
 editionibus dissonant, multo quum expeditius tum certius sin- 
 ceram Icctionem restitui posse ? * 
 
 Speaking of his own work, he continues : 
 
 * Ne quis igitur mihi hie protinus reclamet, tolli receptam 
 lectionem : sed prius consideret, quid sublatum, quidue reposi- 
 tum. Equidem earn lectionem pro recepta habendam censeo, 
 quae ante annos plus mille recepta est, quam quae proximis 
 annis per typographorum oscitantiam primum irrepsit, mox 
 numerosa uoluminum propagine latius in dies inualuit, doctis 
 interim uel dissimulantibus uel aliud agentibus.' ^ 
 
 In the second half of the sixteenth century the main current 
 of classical learning flows through France and the Netherlands. 
 In the first half the French genius had wasted itself upon a 
 rather barren admiration for Cicero, an importation from Italy 
 which had been accepted by Dolet and others. Erasmus had 
 done his best to kill this pedantic trifling in his dialogue 
 ^ Ciceronianus', published in 1528. Scaliger's father had crossed 
 swords with him intemperately and unsuccessfully. The next 
 generation addressed themselves to the serious business of 
 scholarship. Their success was in part due to the political con- 
 dition of France at this time. The wars of religion set free many 
 of the treasures which had been lying unused in the French 
 monasteries for centuries. Houses such as Fleury were cap- 
 tured and pillaged by the Huguenots. Many of the valuable 
 codices which they contained perished, but many more were 
 sold by the despoilers and found their way into the great private 
 collections which were formed at this time by scholars, jurists, 
 theologians, and men of affairs — in short, by every cultivated 
 man who could afibrd the expense. Among these may be men- 
 tioned Cujacius (1522-1590), the greatest of French jurists ; 
 Pierre Daniel (1530-1603) of Orleans, a scholar as well as 
 a lawyer, who was the first to publish the complete version of 
 
 ^ Aniiotationes B. Rhenani et Sig. Gelenii in extantes T, Lmiilibros^ Lugduni, 
 1537' Preface, pp. 8, 9. 
 
 I 2 
 
 
 \ 
 
 iil 
 
 III 
 
I 
 
 ii6 RECENSION 
 
 Servius's commentary on Vergil, and who purchased a great 
 part of the hbrary of S. Benolt-sur-Loire at Fleury from the 
 soldiers who had plundered it in 1562; lacobus Bongarsius, 
 jurist and diplomat (1554-1612), editor of Justin; Petrus 
 Pithoeus (1539-1596), a pupil of Cujacius, and author of an 
 edition of Juvenal and Persius in 1585 based upon his own 
 codex, in which he made the first advance in the study of these 
 authors. These were all rich men who could afford to possess 
 manuscripts. In the Netherlands we get poorer men filled 
 with an equal enthusiasm for classical antiquity, who had to 
 content themselves with exploring and registering the material 
 that was in the possession of others, in their own country or 
 abroad. To these belonged Ludovicus Carrio (i547-i595)» who 
 travelled through Belgium and Holland making catalogues of 
 the chief libraries ; and Franciscus Modius (1556-1597), a veri- 
 table Ulysses among scholars, who accompanied Carrio on many 
 of his journeys and pushed his own research further afield in 
 Germany. It is men such as these, none of them scholars of 
 the first rank, who stand behind the great protagonists of learn- 
 ing-a Scaliger or a Lipsius. A few extracts from Modius's 
 works may be given here since they show that the proper 
 balance between manuscript authority and conjecture is not 
 a discovery of modern times. In his Vegctiiis, published m 
 
 1580, he says : 
 
 ^ Satis habeat lector, nihil temere aut sine librorum auctoritate 
 in hac nostra editione tentari aut loco suo moueri. (p. 2b.) 
 
 And again in the same book : 
 
 ' Sine quibus (sc. codicibus) nugas agat et temere adeo faciat 
 meo quidem iudicio, qui auctorem aliquem recensendum in manus 
 sumat. Enim periculosa est semper in alieno opere nimia dili- 
 gentia : tantoque periculosior quanto is, qui in tali negotio uersa- 
 fur, eruditione et ingenio excellit aut certe excellere postulat. 
 (Letter of Dedication to the Vegetins.) 
 
 Conjecture can easily become a danger : 
 
 'Neque enim eorum industriam laudare potui, qui, his praesi- 
 diis (sc. codicum) destituti, ad nudas coniecturas dilabuntur et 
 sola ingenii fiducia quosuis auctores emendare aggrediuntur. 
 (Preface to Poems of Vegius, 1579-) 
 
 RECENSION 
 
 117 
 
 I- 
 
 Yet the same century which produced men of the stamp of 
 Modius saw a doubtful service rendered to scholarship by 
 H. Stephanus (1528-1598), when he constructed what long 
 remained the vulgate texts of many of the classics. His work, 
 like that of the Renaissance editors, was a response to a wide- 
 spread demand for readable texts. It was, however, perverse 
 and uncritical, as was immediately seen by good scholars such as 
 Scaliger.^ 
 
 In the first half of the seventeenth century in France scholar- 
 ship was diverted to patristic studies under the influence of the 
 Jesuits, who championed the counter-reformation. They tended 
 to treat Greek as the language of heresy, and allowed the study 
 of it to wither and almost to disappear. In Germany the 
 development promised by the groups of scholars and literati 
 who gathered in such centres as Cologne (e.g. Melchior Hit- 
 torpius 1525-1584, lanus Gulielmius 1555-1584, lohannes Me- 
 tellus 1520-1597) and Heidelberg (F. Sylburg 1536-1596, and 
 others) was arrested by the thirty years' war (1618-1648). In 
 the Netherlands alone scholarship remained to all appearance 
 in a state of overwhelming prosperity, which continued down to 
 the second half of the eighteenth century. In many depart- 
 ments of the study of antiquity, such as history, law, and 
 archaeology, the achievements of the Dutch scholars were 
 undeniably great, but if we consider what progress they made 
 towards founding a methodical criticism of texts the answer 
 must be that their work is on the whole disappointing. They 
 expended their labour mainly upon Latin literature, and in Latin 
 they preferred the poets to the prose-writers. On its best side 
 their criticism always shows immense erudition, and often tact, 
 taste, and ingenuity. On its worst it is irrelevant, diffuse, and 
 too prone to rash conjecture. They always seem to be appealing 
 to manuscripts in order to tinker the vulgate text, instead of 
 casting aside the vulgate and starting afresh from the most 
 ancient and authoritative sources, as even the humbler scholars 
 
 ^ Who describes him as a man 'qui (piXavria laborans temere quidquid displicet 
 immutat et corrumpit '. Prima Scaligcrana s.v. Erotimms. 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 
 .\ 
 
 li 
 
I 
 
 ii8 
 
 RECENSION 
 
 I 
 
 RECENSION 
 
 of the previous century had endeavoured to do. Hence though 
 they cannot be said to have neglected manuscript authority, yet 
 they make no attempt to gain a comprehensive view of the 
 tradition or to arrange the available manuscripts in groups or 
 to quote them systematically. Havercamp as late as 1725, with 
 the two Vossiani of Lucretius at his elbow, failed to see their 
 real importance or even to report them accurately. Hence the 
 texts produced by this school are nearly always eclectic and 
 their criticism desultory and subjective. We must not, of course, 
 forget the temptations and difficulties which stood in their way. 
 Fine minds like Nicolaus Heinsius (1620-1681) were drawn off 
 into diplomacy and political affairs. But great and small alike 
 were flattered by the demands of a large and cultivated public, 
 which, as usual, got what it demanded and deserved. Accordingly 
 texts, commentaries, and handbooks poured from the Dutch 
 presses in an unceasing flood, till in the Variorum editions of 
 men like the younger Burman (i 714-1778) the original current 
 of scholarship lost all freshness, depth, and force. The wander- 
 ing enthusiast like Modius, who had done so much for scholarship 
 in the sixteenth century, was replaced by men holding comfortable 
 academic positions, sure of their public, and dead to all enter- 
 prise.' At the same time we must set their difficulties against 
 their shortcomings. The lack of material or its inaccessibility 
 was still a hindrance to progress. Public libraries, which alone 
 have rendered true advance possible, were few and far apart. 
 Private collectors were not always generous to unknown 
 scholars: their collections were constantly passing into other 
 hands, so that it was very difficult often to trace a manuscript 
 which was known to be in existence ; and private ownership 
 increased the risk of loss and destruction." It must be remem- 
 
 1 Their empirical methods were far more successful in dealing with Latin 
 poetry than in dealing with prose. In poetry the standards of language and 
 metre were fixed once and for all by the great Augustan poets, such as Vergil 
 or Ovid, and their authority remained paramount with all succeeding poets. 
 But Cicero and Livy exercised no such influence over the later prose-writers. 
 See Lucian M tiller, Gesch. der kl. Philologie in den Niederlandcn, 1869. p. 52, 
 
 2 Gassendi in his life of Peiresc, 1655, p. 137, remarks: ' Expetebat uero ut 
 
 119 
 
 bered also that travel was still difficult and dangerous. In the 
 second half of the seventeenth century, after the Peace of Miinster 
 in 1648, Holland enjoyed a period of internal peace and 
 exceptional prosperity. But the rest of Europe, until the peace 
 of Utrecht in 1713, was rent by disastrous wars, which rendered 
 all intercommunication precarious. 
 
 The best expression of the highest aims of the scholarship of 
 the seventeenth century is perhaps to be found in the work 
 of J. F. Gronovius (1611-1671), a native of Hamburg, who 
 completed his education in Holland and succeeded Daniel 
 Heinsius as professor in Leyden in 1659. He travelled widely 
 in Italy, France, and England in order to examine manuscripts, 
 and devoted his energies mainly to the elucidation of Latin prose 
 writers. I quote a few passages from his works, which show 
 that his outlook was in advance of contemporary scholarship. 
 It must be remembered, however, that he expresses an ideal 
 which no man at the time was capable of realizing single-handed. 
 
 'Quare etsi non laudem audaces coniecturas, quibus nonnulli 
 ueterem scripturam nimis transformauerunt, et membranis 
 haerere tutissimum sit ; tamen si quid illae huiusmodi asperi et 
 scabri et senticosi exhibeant, id non tam malo, quia Minucii 
 he is speaking of the text of Minucius Felix] esse certum 
 labeam, quam quia ex eo, quod auctoris fuerit, facilius elici posse 
 non desperem. Non sunt enim codices antiqui sine mendis, 
 etiam prodigiosis: et praeclare nobiscum agitur, cum signa ad 
 salutem et ueram auctoris manum satis plana sunt ac certa : 
 reliquum mens diuina plurimumque doctrinae studium et per- 
 cognita scriptoris indoles ac natura praestabunt.' (I. F. Gronouii 
 Obscrnatoruni Monohibl. 165 1, p. 72.) 
 
 'Quod si caecum illud atque agreste literarum humanitatisquc 
 fastidium et noscendae antiquitatis barbara pigritia non inter- 
 cessisset ; tamen, quia calamis exemplaria exsignabantur, et a 
 fide captuque librariorum pendebant, non utique legis Corneliae 
 seueritatem aut, ut a iuratis opus exigeretur, metuentium ; 
 mirandum non erat, ut tabulae pictae quo saepius transferuntur, 
 eo minus ueritati respondent, sic et ista paullatim minus exstitisse 
 minusque sincera. Quid euenisse cogitabimus, dum inter tot sae- 
 
 rari et bonae notae MSS. nisi quamprimum ederentur, asseruarentur saltern 
 in publicis potius quam in priuatis bibliothecis ; quod ea ratione longe minus 
 malo fato forent obnoxii.* 
 
 I 
 
 l< 
 
 i 
 
 s 
 
 \h 
 
I20 
 
 RECENSION 
 
 RECENSION 
 
 121 
 
 cula aut abiecta quosuis (ut absint aliae noxae) omnia consumentis 
 aeui casus experiuntur, aut tarn infelicibus manibus atteruntur? 
 Ecce aliud ex naufragio naufragium cum iam totum uideretur cae- 
 lum nescioquid clarius relucere. Post longam intercapedinem 
 rursus tandem ueterum facta conquisitio et necessitas agnita : in- 
 uentum formis describere libros |i.e. printing was discovered] et 
 una opera prodere quantum liberet librorum : ita monasteriorum 
 obsidione liberari, et passim salubri etiam annona, ne pretia le- 
 gendi cupidos deterrerent, in manus uenire : cum interim qui 
 officinis praeessent, ut tunc erat, praeter caeteros docti uisi, non 
 in mendas tantum operarum, sed in ipsorum auctorum ingenium 
 stylum uertere ; ut quidque eruditius aut a uulgo remotum occur- 
 risset, expungere ; aliud usu plebeio tritum subicere ; leues et una 
 uel adiecta uel dempta ucl correcta litera mutandos errores pro in- 
 gentibus lacunis de suo sarcire ; nihil quod non adsequerentur, ita 
 ut inuenerant, relictum pati. Actum erat de pulcherrimis reliquiis, 
 et seruatae uidebantur, ut conseruandi specie tristius perirent, nisi 
 homines in coniecturis sagaces et in discernendo acuti, quas earum 
 quisque multum uersando et crebrius euoluendo et intentissima 
 cura cum uniuersas tum per partes considerando arcanius intro- 
 spexerant, ad annosissimas, quae possent haberi, membranas reuo- 
 cassent, et quid ratio atque analogia sermonis, quid cuiusque 
 auctoris genius et aetas, quid alii eandem materiam uel occupatam 
 uel repetitam tractantes suaderent aut adspernarentur, quo sen- 
 tentia, quo literarum uetustissimae cuiusque manus ductus auri- 
 garentur ; haec aliaque eodem facientia bene meditati uindicanda 
 et explananda, per quae ipsi profecissent melioremque animum 
 haberent, iusta pietate suscepissent.' [Obscritaiionum liber nouns, 
 1652, Preface, p. 4 seq.) 
 
 The last great name before classical scholarship was revolu- 
 tionized by F. A. Wolf and his pupils is undoubtedly that of 
 Bentley(i662-i742). It cannot be doubted that almost all the 
 principles of textual criticism which have since been recognized 
 were really latent in his mind, and would have been developed 
 by him if he had had adequate materials to work upon. As 
 H. A. J. Munro says {Lucretius, vol. i, p. 17): 'Had Bentley 
 in 1689 succeeded in his efforts to obtain for the Bodleian Isaac 
 Vossius' famous library, he might have anticipated what Lach- 
 mann did by a century and a half.' If we consider his Horace 
 by itself we must admit that he has often treated the text 
 capriciously and emended the tradition where it was sound. 
 But, even here, it should be noticed that his remark on Car. iii. 27. 
 
 \ 
 
 \ 
 
 15, ' Nobis et ratio et res ipsa centum codicibus potiores sunt,' 
 which is so often quoted as typical of his arrogant methods, is 
 qualified by the context, which is often omitted, 'praesertim acce- 
 dente Vaticani ueteris suffragio.' His real view of the use of 
 manuscripts, and his anxiety to estimate their value justly, is 
 better expressed in his letter to G. Richter about a manuscript of 
 Manilius. 
 
 ' Illud quoque et heic et in aliis te admonuisse non erit inutile: 
 multa scil. in uetustis MStis sub tempore renascentium litterarum 
 iam ab annis circiter trecentis interpolata fuisse, et nouas lectio- 
 nes intrudi solitas, prioribus erasis. Eas, si quae in uestro 
 codice fuerint, ut sine dubio sunt, facile erit tibi dignoscere uel 
 a colore atramenti, uel a ductu litterarum, uel a uestigiis rasurae 
 quae nunquam euanescit. Illud igitur diligenter curabis, ut 
 singula loca indices, quae a manu secunda et interpolatrice sint 
 mutata : et, si fieri poterit, deprehendas, quid olim a prima manu 
 scriptum fuerit, sub rasura ilia nunc latitans.' [Correspondence 
 of Rich. Bentley, ed. Wordsworth, p. 367.) 
 
 If, however, he had been able to complete his magnificent and 
 well-considered scheme for an edition of the New Testament, 
 where, as he himself admits, 'there is no place for conjectures 
 or emendations,' and where all his alterations were to be guided 
 by an appeal to ancient authorities, he could hardly have failed 
 to have lighted upon a more scientific method of criticism. But 
 as it was his project was premature, and failed because the mass 
 of material that required to be considered was not sufficiently 
 digested.^ 
 
 1 It might have been expected that the first advances in methodical criticism 
 of manuscripts would have come from the study of the New Testament, since 
 the material for the solution of the problem of the text there has always been 
 so ample. The early scholars, however, were hampered by their theological 
 prepossessions, e. g. Erasmus thought that age in a codex laid it open to the 
 suspicion of having been altered so as to bring its text into accord with the 
 Vulgate. The first advance is made by Richard Simon 1638 17 12), a French 
 Oratorian, whose Histoirc critique dn Tcxte dii N. T. (1689, beside providing 
 an historical introduction to the text, also attempts an estimate of the manuscripts 
 known to him. Little progress was made for some time after this work, partly 
 owing to the natural timidity of pious editors, partly owing to the vastness and 
 complexity of the problem, and still more owing to the substantial excellence 
 of even the worst tradition of the New Testament, where manuscripts which 
 
 I 
 
 a 
 
 I! 
 
 !t 
 
 ^mmki 
 
122 
 
 RECENSION 
 
 The new and true method of Recension is first formulated by 
 F. A. Wolf, perhaps the greatest and certainly the most stimu- 
 lating scholar of the second half of the eighteenth century (1759- 
 1824). The opening chapter of his Prolegomena to Homer, 
 published in 1795, has laid down the lines followed by Immanuel 
 Bekker and by Karl Lachmann, who may be taken as repre- 
 senting two subsequent stages in the development of modern 
 textual criticism. 
 
 Wolfs doctrine, in brief, is that all the trustworthy witnesses 
 
 to a text must be heard and heard continuously before a verdict 
 
 is given. It is, he says, a ' recensio ' and not a mere ' recognitio' 
 
 that is required. Too often editors found their text on a number 
 
 of manuscripts that they have arbitrarily selected, or even on 
 
 one manuscript ; or they pause only at the passages where the 
 
 sense is obscure or the reading obviously corrupt. Then, and 
 
 not till then : 
 
 'Ad uarias lectiones aut ad uetus exemplar confugiunt, surda 
 plerumque oracula, nisi constanter consulentibus. . . . lusta 
 autem recensio bonorum instrumentorum omnium stipata prae- 
 sidio, ubique ueram manum scriptoris rimatur; scripturae cuius- 
 que, non modo suspectae, testes ordine interrogat, et quam 
 omnes annuunt, non nisi grauissimis de causis loco mouet ; alia, 
 per se scriptore dignissima, et ad ueritatem seu elegantiam 
 sententiae optima, non nisi suffragatione testium recipit ; baud 
 raro adeo, cogentibus illis, pro uenustis infert minus uenusta; 
 emplastris solutis ulcera nudat ; denique non monstrata solum, 
 ut mali medici, sed et latentia uitia curat.* 
 
 Conjecture is not banished from such a scheme of criticism, 
 
 but it is only to be employed after the known sources of the text 
 
 have been classified and their worth estimated. 
 
 'Acerrima eius [sc. ingeni) uis non temperata et subacta 
 assiduo usu librorum in historicis et criticis rebus frustra laborat. 
 
 differ in age do not exhibit the marked contrast in tradition that is often so 
 striking in classical authors. As Lachmann complains {Kleinere Schriften, vol. ii, 
 p. 251) the older editors always asked, ' Is there any ground for departing from 
 the established text?' instead of asking, ' Is there any ground for deserting the 
 best attested reading?' Hence Lachmann felt himself to be following the lead 
 of Bentley, and not of Bengel (1687- 1752) and Griesbach (i 745-1812), when he 
 broke with the Textus Receptus altogether. 
 
 RECENSION 
 
 123 
 
 
 . . . Itaque ut ingenium, sicut par est, membranaceis thesauris 
 ionge praeferas [perhaps with a glance at Bentley's dictum 
 quoted above], plurimum tamen interest ipsius ingenii, quam 
 plurimos codices comparari, quorum testimoniis iudicium de uera 
 lectione nitatur et multis modis adiuuetur diuinatio.' 
 
 Where Wolf has been refuted (e.g. in his criticism of Cicero's 
 speeches Post reditum) it has been through the accession of fresh 
 manuscripts — an argument which he would have been the first 
 to acknowledge. 
 
 Bekker (i 785-1871) devoted his life to the preparation of critical 
 editions of Greek texts. The ferment throughout Europe which 
 accompanied the French Revolution and led to the subsequent 
 hegemony of France under Napoleon led to a quick advance in 
 classical studies as in all other intellectual pursuits. The down- 
 fall of the old order brought with it the suppression of monas- 
 teries, whose treasures in manuscripts were gradually drafted 
 into the great central libraries, such as Paris, Florence, Venice, 
 and Munich. Many of the most famous Italian codices were 
 brought to Paris by the French as the prizes of war (e. g. the 
 two famous Venetian manuscripts of Homer and Aristophanes). 
 Bekker was alive to the unique opportunity which presented 
 itself, and spent the early part of his life in collating Greek 
 manuscripts in France, Italy, Germany, Holland, and England. 
 His researches soon showed that there was a mass of manuscript 
 evidence of higher antiquity than any that had yet been examined, 
 and that the received texts of many authors rested upon unsure 
 foundations, e. g. the whole problem of the text of Isocrates 
 was changed by his discovery of the Urbinas (r) in the Vatican, 
 and it was he who saw the great value of the Paris codex of 
 Demosthenes (^), which had passed through the hands of 
 inferior scholars such as the Abbe Auger (1790) without any 
 appreciation of its merits. Manuscripts, except in rare instances, 
 are not isolated and independent witnesses, but follow one or 
 more lines of tradition, and along these lines of descent fall into 
 various groups or families. Within these groups there may be 
 manuscripts whose evidence is worthless because they only 
 
 III 
 
 .) 
 
\'^ 
 
 124 
 
 RECENSION 
 
 RECENSION 
 
 125 
 
 repeat the evidence of earlier manuscripts which are still extant, 
 from which they can be proved to have been copied.* This is 
 the meaning of the dictum that codices should be weighed and 
 not counted. For the problem of a textual apparatus can be sim- 
 plified by eliminating all such purely derivative evidence : e.g. in 
 Demosthenes the Bavaricus (B) is known now to be descended 
 from the Venetus (F). It is therefore no longer necessary to 
 collate every manuscript throughout, unless all can claim to be 
 independent witnesses, and much of the labour of industrious 
 scholars of the eighteenth century, such as the Jesuit Lago- 
 marsini (who collated a large number of the manuscripts of 
 Cicero), was thrown away. Bekker's name may conveniently 
 be taken as marking a stage in the history of criticism, but his 
 merits as a critic have often been overestimated. He gathered 
 a vast mass of material, but his own work is not the architectonic 
 construction of a master mind. He tended to treat the oldest 
 MS. as ipso facto the best, and regarded the 'best family' of 
 MSS. as the only trustworthy authority. This method is now 
 known to be unsound. An equally serious fault in his texts is 
 his neglect of Interpretation. This often leads him to follow his 
 chosen MSS. in readings which are demonstrably wrong.' 
 
 1 This is well expressed by Madvig (1804 1886 in his preface '1839) to his 
 edition of the De Fim'bits, p. vi. Ed. sec. : * Si cui hoc negotium sit iudici, ut, 
 cum, quid aliquando ab aliquo dictum sit, multi non satis constanter narrent, 
 reperiat. quid in ea re uerum sit, is, si prudens sit, non solum hoc spectet in 
 testibus audiendis, quam quisque per se ipse fidei opinionem afferat, sed ante 
 omnia quaerendum sibi putet, quis a quo audierit, ut sic magnam et inconditam 
 testium turbam ad paucos et certos redigat, a quibus ceteri rem acceperint ; cum 
 aulem cos inuenerit, et illos altcros negiegat et hos quasi primi ordinis testes sic 
 comparet contendatque, ut, quantam quisque sequentium multitudinem trahat, 
 nihil ad rem pertinere iudicet. Nee aliter faciei peritus index, cum ex multis 
 tabularum cxemplis quaeretur, quid in uno aliquo testamento, quod non extabit, 
 scriptum fuerit, nisi quod, quae illic de fama peruagata hominum confessione 
 reperiebantur, hie de scriptura propagata indiciis deprehendenda sunt tacitis. 
 Ab hac quaestione uniuerso gencre non distare eam, quam philologi in ueterum 
 operum codicibus manuscriptis instituunt, nee aliter esse tractandam, non ita 
 multi sunt anni, cum intellectum est, nequc etiam nunc ab omnibus intellegi 
 uidetur.' 
 
 ^ e.g. Aristot. Prubl. 16. 8. Qi^'g. pointed out by I. Byvvater in /oz/n/r?/ 0/ 
 r/iilologv, xxxii, p. 108, where dWov is a palpable error (or avXov. 
 
 Bekker had been content to analyse the existing manuscripts 
 of an author in order to distinguish the best tradition or traditions 
 that they contained. Karl Lachmann (1793-185O, a far greater 
 critic, does not content himself with the evidence which our 
 existing manuscripts contain, but asks whether it is not pos- 
 sible in some cases to push inquiry beyond the existing docu- 
 ments. Does not their present condition betray some of the 
 characteristics of their lost ancestors, and is it not possible some- 
 times to show that a common ' ancestor or archetype (to use the 
 term which Lachmann first brought into use in this sense) lies 
 behind all or some of them? I quote, in his own words, 
 Lachmann's description of the method and aim of criticism : 
 
 'Ad scripta ueterum repraesentanda duabus diuersis utimur 
 artibus : nam et qui scriptor, quid scripserit disputamus, et quo 
 rerum statu quid senserit et cogitarit exponimus : quorum alterum 
 sibi iudicandi facultas uindicat, alterum interpretattone contmetur. 
 
 ' Iudicandi tres gradus sunt rccensere, cmcndare, onginem detc- 
 Pcrc. Nam quid scriptum fuerit, duobus modis mtellegitur, 
 testibus examinandis, et testimoniis ubi peccant, reuocandis ad 
 uerum : ita sensim a scriptis ad scriptorem transiri debet. 
 
 ' Itaque ante omnia quid fidissimi auctores tradidermt quae- 
 rendum est, tum quid a scriptoris manu uenire potuerit ludi- 
 candum, tertio gradu quis quo tempore, qua condicione, quibus 
 adminiculis usus scripserit explorandum [1. e. the so-called higher 
 criticism '1. Ex auctoribus quaerere, quod primo loco posui, id 
 quod recensere dicitur, sine interpretatione et possumus et debe- 
 mus- contra interpretatio, nisi quid testes lerant intellectum 
 fuerit, locum habere, nisi de scriptore constiterit, absolui non 
 potest • rursus emendatio et libri originis inuestigatio, quia ad 
 ingenium scriptoris cognoscendum pertinet, tanquam fundamento 
 nititur interpretatione. 
 
 ' Quo fit ut nulla huius negotii pars tuto a ceteris separari pos- 
 sit nisi ilia una quae debet esse omnium prima : illam dico quae 
 testium fidem perscrutatur et locupletissimis auctoribus tradita 
 repraesentat.' (Preface to Nouum Tcstamentiwi, Berlin, 1842.) 
 
 The best illustration of Lachmann's methods is to be found in 
 his solution of the difficulties of the text of Lucretius as given in 
 his edition published in 1850. It is worth while to give a short 
 account of the results which he obtained. 
 
 Mt is a misuse of the term to speak of the * archetype ' of a single manuscript. 
 
 .1 
 
 ii 
 
 't> 
 
 I 
 
126 
 
 RECENSION 
 
 RECENSION 
 
 127 
 
 
 / 
 
 The text of Lucretius is preserved in a considerable number of 
 manuscripts of different ages. One class of manuscripts, and the 
 largest class, is Italian in origin. These are all descended from 
 a codex, now lost, which was in the possession of Poggio in the 
 fifteenth century. One of these, the Nicolianus (Laurent, xxxv.30), 
 is known to have been copied directly from Poggio's codex ; but 
 beside this there are many which are more remotely descended 
 from the same source — eight at Florence, six at Rome, seven in 
 England. As it is clear that all these are of the same class their 
 evidence is only of value in order to reconstruct the readings of 
 their lost ancestor. As the Nicolianus is known to be a direct 
 copy of this lost codex its evidence is in itself almost sufficient for 
 this purpose, and the remoter copies are only useful in so far as 
 they supplement its occasional deficiencies. Beside the Nico- 
 lianus there are two Vossiani at Leyden (30 and 94), named by 
 Lachmann, from their shape, the Oblongus and Quadratus 
 respectively. They are clearly of greater importance than 
 Poggio's codex, which agrees now with one and now with the 
 other, and cannot consequently have been copied from either of 
 them. Lachmann with peculiar insight saw that these three 
 chief authorities, O Q N, presented a uniform text, and that 
 beside their common readings certain other peculiarities pointed 
 to a common archetype. 
 
 Codex O was in all probability copied direct from this arche- 
 type (which may be called A). Q and N are further removed 
 from A, and are probably both descended from a codex that was 
 a direct copy of A. This copy must have been made later than 
 O, for by the time it was made the archetype A had been 
 damaged, as Lachmann conclusively proved. Four sections of 
 the poem (ii. 757-806 ; v. 928-79 ; i. 734-85 ; ii. 253-304) are 
 placed at the end of Q and N out of their proper place. Each 
 of these passages (with allowance for the sectional headings 
 which are distributed throughout the poem) consists of 52 lines. 
 There are indications elsewhere that the archetype had 26 lines 
 to a page. It is clear therefore that four complete leaves had 
 become detached in it, and had been inserted at the end by the 
 
 binder. From such evidence it was possible to discover the 
 pagination of the archetype. 
 
 The influence of such conclusions upon the textual criticism of 
 Lucretius was very great. The text, it was seen, depends in 
 reality upon a single manuscript, whose existence Lachmann 
 affirms with confidence in the opening words of his preface : 
 'Ante hos mille annos in quadam regni Francici parte unum 
 supererat Lucretiani carminis exemplar antiquum e quo cetera, 
 quorum post ilia tempora memoria fuit, deducta sunt.' ^ The 
 script was in rustic capitals (like the Medicean Vergil), not 
 divided into separate words, though the sentences were marked 
 by points in the middle of lines. The codex consisted of 302 
 pages, and was worn and mutilated. The bottom of the page 
 was especially liable to danger, and hence Lachmann's con- 
 clusions as to the original pagination are of the highest value, 
 since it is now known where exceptional corruption is to be 
 expected. The condition of the archetype has justified the 
 numerous transpositions which editors have made in the text. 
 Verses accidentally omitted by a scribe were commonly inserted 
 at the foot of a page in order not to spoil the look of his copy. 
 No manuscript of a classical poet is entirely free from such 
 errors. When, however, there are numerous independent 
 manuscripts the lapses of one are corrected by the evidence of 
 its rivals. Only when the surviving manuscripts are all ulti- 
 mately descended from a single ancestor does the whole tradition 
 become contaminated. 
 
 Before proceeding to discuss the various types of textual 
 tradition it will be convenient to give a short description of the 
 usual method followed in determining the relationship between 
 a number of manuscripts of the same work. The best illustra- 
 tion of the problem involved in classification will be found in such 
 works as Peterson's Collations from the Codex Cluniacensis and 
 
 ^ E. Chatelain in his Facsimile, Sijthoff, 1908, holds that between O, Q, N and 
 this archetype there lies a manuscript written probably in an Irish hand ol' the 
 seventh or eighth century. 
 
 W 
 
 > ^ 
 
 i 
 
 k 
 
128 
 
 RECENSION 
 
 A.C. Clark's The Vetiis Chmiacensis of Poggio (both in A necdoia 
 
 Oxonietisia). 
 
 (i) Before any classification can be attempted a critic must be 
 assured that he is dealing with properly accredited evidence. 
 In the case of manuscripts which are still extant there is hardly 
 the possibility of a forgery passing unnoticed. There is just the 
 possibility that a manuscript may have been tampered with : e.g. 
 it is thought that some alterations have been made in Parisinus 
 A of Theognis since Bekker's collation made circ. 1815. But 
 where a manuscript is known to have existed, but has subse- 
 quently been lost and the report of its readings depends on the 
 testimony of a single scholar, his bona fides must be carefully 
 established. The greater scholars are generally above suspicion, 
 e.g. N. Heinsius's collation of the lost Eboracensis of Tibullus is 
 accepted universally. Lesser men, however, have from time to 
 time endeavoured to gain credence (though no credit) for their 
 own conjectures by attributing them to some manuscript which 
 never existed, e.g. H. Stephanus in Euripides, Bosius in Cicero, 
 and Caspar von Barth in various authors. 
 
 (2) Given a number of manuscripts containing the same 
 matter, it is first necessary to classify them according to their 
 age. A manuscript is rarely dated, and its age must usually be 
 determined by palaeographical tests, which, since the invention 
 of improved methods of photographic reproduction, increase in 
 delicacy and certainty with every year. As a general rule the 
 manuscript earliest in date is presumed to be the most valuable. 
 This, however, is not always true. Age, as Wolf says, does not 
 always bring wisdom.^ Some very early palimpsests (e.g. the 
 Vaticanus of Cicero's Verrines) are full of careless errors, and, as 
 has already been shown, contaminated texts existed in very 
 ancient times. The Valentianensis of the Apocolocyntosis, which 
 belongs to the ninth or tenth century, is on the whole inferior to 
 
 1 Cf. Wolf, Prolegomena (Calvary ed.), p. 3. * Nouitas enim codicum non 
 maius uitium est quam hominum adolescentia : etiam hie non semper aetas 
 sapientiam affert : ut quisque antiquum et bonum auctorem bene sequitur, ita 
 testis est bonus.' 
 
 1 
 
 
 RECENSION 
 
 129 
 
 the SangallensiS; which is a century later. So too Vaticanus 
 40 of Theocritus, a manuscript of the twelfth century, is of 
 little value, and the Cryptoferratensis (palimpsest) of Strabo is 
 worse than the Paris codex of the eleventh century. The 
 manuscripts of Claudianus Mamertus are classed by the latest 
 editor Engelbrecht in the following order: (i) M, iitli-i2th 
 cent.; (2) CG, nth; (3) RH, loth ; (4) A, 9th; (5) B, early 
 loth. It is always possible that a late manuscript may have 
 been copied directly from an old exemplar and be superior to 
 its rivals which may be far earlier in date: e.g. Parisinus 
 1640 of Xenophon is dated a. d. 1320, but is known to be 
 copied from a manuscript of the ninth century. Lagomar- 
 sinianus 42, containing Cicero's Verrines, is a late manuscript 
 written in a rough cursive hand of the fifteenth century or 
 later, but has long been recognized as a copy, in part, of an 
 exemplar of high value — now identified with the recently 
 discovered Cluniacensis. 
 
 (3) It is also necessary to determine whether the manuscript 
 presents a text of the same quality throughout. Many manu- 
 scripts, especially if the text of the author is not one continuous 
 whole, but an aggregate of separate units, such as speeches, 
 poems, treatises, &c., have often been drawn from different 
 originals and do not possess the same authority throughout. 
 Thus the excellence of the text of Lag. 42 of the Verrines is only 
 found in Act ii. 2 and 3. In the other parts it gives the vulgate 
 text and is valueless. The Ambrosianus of Quintilian's Insti- 
 tutio, a manuscript of the eleventh century, does not present a text 
 of uniform quality. 
 
 (4) It is necessary further to decide what is the reading of the 
 first hand of a manuscript. This is often a matter of some 
 difficulty when the manuscript has been 'corrected ' throughout. 
 There is always this tendency to 'correct' a text which shows 
 any marked divergence from the vulgate. Lag. 42 has been 
 corrected in this way in the Verrines, Act ii. 2 and 3, and brought 
 into conformity with the inferior manuscripts. The same fate 
 has befallen the Montepessulanus (P) of Juvenal. 
 
 K 
 
 I' 
 
 II 
 
 473 
 
I 
 
 11' 
 
 130 
 
 RECENSION 
 
 The usual tests to decide the genealogical relationship between 
 
 manuscripts are : 
 
 (i) Omissions of words and passages and transpositions of 
 pages. Omissions are the surest test of affinity, since if they are 
 numerous they can hardly have arisen by accident, and they 
 cannot have been imported into a text by comparison with other 
 manuscripts. They frequently imply a far closer connexion than 
 could be inferred from identity of reading, and often show the 
 immediate descent of one manuscript from another. Similarly 
 the same transposition is hardly likely to have occurred inde- 
 pendently in two manuscripts, but is a sure test of close con- 
 nexion, e.g. in Vitruvius VII. ch. vi the same transposition is 
 found in both the Harleian and the Gudianus. 
 
 (2) Agreement in a number of peculiar readings or in other 
 peculiarities. E. g. when some of the manuscripts of Livy x. 29. 7 
 agree in reading ^quibus plerisque in scuta uerarisquerutis in 
 corpora ipsa fixis *, it is clear that they must all have come from 
 an original where the reading stood as ^-^^^67///^ ^" Seneca's 
 tragedies the manuscripts fall into two groups according to the 
 order in which they place the plays. 
 
 (3) Where a manuscript is immediately copied from another 
 extant manuscript it is rarely possible to mistake their connexion. 
 It is betrayed by minute agreements, or mistakes which can 
 often only be discerned in the manuscripts themselves or in the 
 best photographic reproductions. E.g. in the Holkhamicus 
 there is an apparently unmeaning K before the words 'Ad huius 
 studium ' in Cic. /;/ Cat. i. 26. This is found in the Medicean and 
 Ambrosian also. 
 
 (4) It must be remembered that the relationship between 
 manuscripts is not always simple, i.e. each manuscript which is 
 accepted as a factor in constructing the text is not necessarily 
 descended from one single ancestor. The problem of relation- 
 ship is often rendered exceedingly complex by the tendency 
 which is variously described as ' contamination ', ' mixture ', or 
 * eclectic fusion * of the different groups. A scribe may have had 
 before him an original filled with variants from which he has 
 
 I; 
 
 RECENSION 
 
 131 
 
 made his own selection ; or, he may have consulted more than 
 one codex in making his copy. This tendency has prevailed 
 from the earliest times (cf. p. 49). 
 
 As an instance of simple relationship the manuscripts of 
 Caesar's Gallic War \w^.y be taken. Nine manuscripts, A, M, B, 
 C, R, T, U, b, G, may be included in the first survey of the 
 materials for the constitution of the text. Their relation to one 
 another and to their ultimate archetype or common parent is 
 shown by the following stemma : 
 
 A 
 
 I 
 
 a. 
 
 li 
 
 <t> 
 
 A»- 
 
 10 
 
 M 
 
 11 
 
 B^ 
 
 QIO 
 
 RIO 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 b'^ 
 
 
 G 
 
 XII u 
 
 12 
 
 Here the Greek letters denote manuscripts which are no 
 longer in existence but whose existence at some time in the past 
 must be assumed in order to explain the relation in which the 
 extant manuscripts stand to each other. The numbers refer to 
 the century in which these extant manuscripts were written. 
 Of these nine manuscripts two (b G) can be eliminated at once 
 since they are only copies of B and R respectively. The re- 
 maining seven fall into two well-marked groups. To the first 
 group belong A M B C R. These, however, cannot all have been 
 copied directly from the same exemplar, because they do not all 
 exhibit the same uniform text, but show by their variations that 
 their text has been transmitted through one or more inter- 
 mediaries in its descent from their common parent a. A M have 
 come by one line of descent which is here called x : B C R by 
 another which may be called <^. 
 
 To the second group ^ belong two manuscripts (T U), pre- 
 senting a text which has been polished at some period by an 
 editor who has endeavoured to tone down Caesar's terse and 
 
 K 2 
 
 \ 
 
132 RECENSION 
 
 vigorous style by touches of Ciceronian elegance (e.g. iv. 4. 7 
 ' citra Rhenum erat ' a : ' citra Rhenum qui in suis sedibus erat '(3). 
 But in spite of presenting a ' doctored ' text the ^-group is un- 
 doubtedly descended from the same archetype which lies behind 
 
 the a-group. 
 
 If a and ft the two copies of A from which all the manuscripts 
 spring, had been of equal value, the collective testimony of each 
 group of their descendants would be of equal value. There 
 would be no ground for attaching a higher value to the a-group 
 merely because it includes a larger number of manuscripts. 
 
 One stage in the criticism of the text is to recover from its 
 descendants the readings of the common original A. These 
 readings will not all be recoverable, and when recovered will not 
 necessarily always be correct, but they will show what was the 
 condition of the text at a period anterior to that in which the 
 existing manuscripts were written. Sometimes the date at which 
 the archetype was written can be conjectured from the nature of 
 corruptions found in its descendants. The c/>-group write the 
 word nosiri in the contracted form «. This was not a natural 
 contraction of the word in the ninth and tenth centuries when 
 these manuscripts were written, as is shown by the fact that they 
 often misinterpret it and write nisi or niJiii, or the meaningless 
 nim. But it is a common contraction in manuscripts of the sixth 
 century, and aftbrds at least a presumption that </> itself was of 
 that date. A therefore could not be later in date and might 
 possibly be earlier.^ 
 
 (i) Where all manuscripts agree in a reading, that reading 
 must have been found in A : e. g. in i. 53. i A read quinqueov V 
 since both a and /? give this number. This is an instance where we 
 are certain of the text of A, and also certain that the text is 
 wrong, since it can be shown from the historian Orosius that the 
 number should be qiiinqnaginta. 
 
 (2) When the two groups give conflicting readings, there can 
 be no absolute certainty as to the reading in A unless the reading 
 
 1 Traube, Nomina Sacra, p. 213. 
 
 ■ 
 
 RECENSION 
 
 T33 
 
 given by the /?-group obviously shows the hand of the editor ; 
 e.g. vii. II. 8cHficfia: uitti /?. Either of these might have been 
 in the archetype. In ii. 12. i, however, where f3 reads pauore 
 [terrore a) the picturesque touch of the grammarian is to be 
 suspected, since pauor is not used elsewhere in the work. 
 
 (3) Where there is a cross-division between the members of 
 the two groups, e.g. vi. 35. 9 ne mums T : numcrus a U, it must 
 be inferred that a U are the true representatives of the arche- 
 type, since it would be a most extraordinary coincidence if 
 six manuscripts all misread nc murus as ntuucnis. Here again 
 A is wrong and the good reading in T must be due to the con- 
 jecture of some unknown scholar or to ^mixture' (p. 130) with 
 some other source than A. 
 
 The following diagram will illustrate the attempt that is 
 sometimes made to represent the mixed descent of manuscripts 
 by means of a stemma. The manuscripts in question are the 
 chief authorities for the text of Cassius Dio : 
 
 Ver^elxjb 396 
 
 Porislnus 1690 xvi 
 
 Vat 993 
 
 Ve5onitinLi5 
 
 This may be interpreted as follows : 
 
 The two main authorities are L and M. L has a direct 
 descendant in V, which, of course, is only valuable in passages 
 where L has sufifered injury since the time when V was copied 
 from it. 
 
 Lb is a mixed manuscript. The scribe who wrote it had 
 before him both L and M, and selected his text now from one 
 and now from the other. This was a common practice in all ages, 
 and was especially common during the Renaissance. 
 
 n 
 
lit 
 
 134 
 
 RECENSION 
 
 P is not a mixed manuscript in this sense, but might rather be 
 termed composite. The greater portion of it was copied from 
 Lb and it therefore exhibits the mixed text of its parent. But 
 as Lb only begins with Book 42 (Books 36-41 having been 
 intentionally omitted) the scribe of P copied the missing books 
 from L. In these books therefore it is a direct descendant of L. 
 
 The problem of recension is not always so simple as 
 Lachmann has made it in Lucretius. It will be convenient 
 therefore to consider some of the main types of tradition 
 which the texts of classical authors present. 
 
 A text may be preserved — 
 
 (A) In one manuscript only, 
 
 (B) In a number of manuscripts which present a uniform 
 
 tradition, 
 
 (C) In manuscripts which present two or more traditions 
 
 which are not reconcilable. 
 
 (A) The text depends upon a single manuscript. Such a manu- 
 script may be an early papyrus roll, e.g. Bacchylides, Aristotle's 
 *A^r/vaiW IIoAtTcm, Hyperides, Herodas ; or a codex, e.g. the 
 Hymn to Demeter, the fifth Decade of Livy, Tacitus' Annates, 
 Petronius' Cena Trinialchionis \ or a palimpsest, e.g. Fronto, 
 Gains, Cicero's De Republica, and Symmachus' Speeches. In 
 some instances the codex has disappeared, and the only evidence 
 rests upon a printed edition based upon it or upon a late 
 transcript, e.g. Nonnus' Dionysiaca, where the only authority 
 which preserves the readings of a lost codex of lohanncs Sam- 
 bucus is the editio princeps of Gerhard Falkenburg, Tercntianus 
 y[2i\xvws> [editio princeps 1497, derived from the lost codex Bobien- 
 sis), Velleius Paterculus (Amerbach's copy of the lost codex 
 Murbacensis), Hyginus (edition of Micyllus, Basel, 1535, which 
 preserves the readings of the lost Frisingensis). 
 
 (B) TJie text is preserved in a miniher of manuscripts zvhich pre- 
 sent a uniform tradition. The aim in criticism in such cases is to 
 analyse the relations of the manuscripts to one another in order 
 to see whether they cannot be proved to be derived from some 
 
 |f 
 
 RECENSION 
 
 ^35 
 
 existing manuscript which is their ancestor, or whether they do 
 not imply the existence of some lost archetype. 
 
 (i) Where such a parent codex is extant the problem of recension 
 is at once simplified, because the derivative copies can be 
 disregarded except in places where the original source has been 
 damaged since the copies were made ; e.g. in Athenaeus* Dcipno- 
 sophtstae (apart from the Epitome) all manuscripts are ultimately 
 derived from the Marcianus (A) of the tenth century, through 
 a copy made in Venice in the fifteenth century. Here the parent 
 codex is still intact. In the Protrepticus and Paedagogus of 
 Clemens Alexandrinus the archetypal codex is known to be P 
 (= Paris. Gr. 451, formerly belonging to Arethas), which since the 
 time when some of the other manuscripts were copied from it 
 has lost five quaternions or quires each of four leaves. Accord- 
 ingly it is not possible to rely on P alone. 
 
 (2) The parent codex is now lost though it is known to have 
 existed. In such cases its readings have to be reconstructed 
 from the evidence of its descendants ; e. g. all the extant 
 manuscripts of Catullus are known to be descended from the 
 lost Veronensis which was discovered early in the fourteenth 
 century. There are more than seventy manuscripts of the 
 fifteenth century which are descendants of this original. Three 
 copies alone (the Sangermanensis, Oxoniensis, and Romanus)are 
 known to belong to the fourteenth century. Here the problem 
 of criticism is very difficult, since owing to the interpolations of 
 scholars of the period of the Renaissance even the consensus 
 of the best codices does not necessarily imply the correctness of 
 a reading. Whenever the tradition of an author depends upon 
 interpolated manuscripts of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries 
 this difficulty always arises and often defeats criticism in poetic 
 texts. Prose authors are not so severely handled, as may be 
 seen from the condition of the text of Cicero's Orator and De 
 Oratore, which have been transmitted in Renaissance copies of 
 the Laudensis, a manuscript of the ninth century discovered by 
 Gherardo Landriani, Bishop of Lodi (1418-27). 
 
 The Siluae of Statins ofter an instance where criticism has 
 
 11 
 
 ' 
 
 
? 
 I 
 
 136 
 
 RECENSION 
 
 RECENSION 
 
 137 
 
 been able to effect more in a tradition of this type. The manu- 
 scripts of these poems are all directly derived from a codex 
 discovered by Poggio while at the Council of Constance in 1417. 
 A copy of this manuscript was made for Poggio by an ignorant 
 scribe and sent by him to Italy. The manuscripts of the 
 Siliiac that are of any importance are nine in number. Five of 
 these (the Vallicellianus, Reginensis, and three Vaticani) form 
 a separate group which can be shown to be descended from the 
 Valliccllianus. The Vallicellianus itself is descended from the 
 MatritensiS; from which the remaining three (Bodleianus, 
 Budensis, Rehdigeranus) are descended mediately or imme- 
 diately. Thus the Matritensis emerges as the archetype of all 
 existing manuscripts and the nine witnesses are reduced to one. 
 It only remains to carry the solution of the problem a step 
 farther and identify the Matritensis (as many critics do) with the 
 copy originally made for Poggio. 
 
 (3) TJie uniformity of the text implies an archetype of ivhosc 
 existence, hoivever, there is no external evidence. This does not 
 exclude the possibility of the manuscripts falling into two or 
 more families which reproduce the archetype with more or less 
 fidelity; e.g. in Ovid's Heroides the manuscripts fall roughly into 
 two families — the one in Carolingian, the other in Lombardic 
 handwriting. But all must be derived from the same archetype, 
 since all omit ii. 18-19. So, too, all the manuscripts of Juvenal 
 break off abruptly in the sixteenth satire and all manuscripts of 
 Suetonius omit the beginning of the life of lulius. 
 
 Each text of this kind presents a different problem. It may 
 be certain that the text is uniform while the divergences of the 
 surviving manuscripts are very great. Accordingly every 
 manuscript may be a factor in determining the true text, and 
 it is rash to rely merely on the older manuscripts as critics have 
 often done ; e.g. in the text of Aristophanes the tradition repre- 
 sented by the Aldine edition has probably been unduly neglected 
 in favour of the tradition of the older manuscripts the Ravennas 
 and Venetus. 
 
 Among uniform texts in Greek may be classed : Aeschylus, 
 
 ) 
 
 Sophocles (excluding the worthless Triclinian recension), 
 Antiphon, Andocides, Lycurgus, Aeschines (where the manu- 
 scripts are in three families all derived from a faulty archetype), 
 and Demosthenes (where no manuscript preserves any speeches 
 beyond those held to be genuine by Callimachus). 
 
 In Latin : Propertius, Seneca rhetor, Vitruvius, Valerius 
 Flaccus, Q. Curtius, and Celsus. 
 
 (C) The manuscript tradition is not uniform but shozvs marked 
 differences in the tivo or more lines zvhich it follows. 
 
 (i) Such divergence may date from the author himself and be 
 due to the publication of several editions of his work. E. g. in 
 Martial's Epigrams three archetypes are now recognized: a, 
 an 'elegant' edition (as Lindsay calls it) which omits gross 
 expressions; ^, which preserves the recension of Torquatus 
 Gennadius, c. a.d. 401 ; and y, the vulgate text. Preserved in 
 these three editions are readings that seem to go back to the 
 author himself. Certainly none of the ordinary corruptions lie 
 behind them : e.g. in x. 48. 23 A has ' de prasino uenetoque mens 
 conuiua loquatur ', where B C imply Scorpoque for uenetoque. It 
 is possible that Martial himself originally wrote Scorpoque and 
 emended it to uenetoque after the death of Scorpus had robbed 
 the line of its original point. The text of Ausonius presents 
 two editions which do not always cover the same ground. One — 
 known as the Tilianus edition from the codex Tilius, a fifteenth- 
 century manuscript now in Leyden — is preserved in late 
 manuscripts. The other— known as the Vossian from the 
 codex Vossianus of the ninth century — is preserved in much 
 earlier manuscripts. It has been noticed that the first collection 
 contains no poem that can be assigned to a year later than 
 A.D. 383. It is exceedingly probable that Ausonius published 
 this collection about that date. The second collection may have 
 been published after his death by his son Ilesperius. The text 
 of Statins' Thebais seems to require a similar explanation of 
 such discrepancies as Th. iv. 555: 
 
 insequitur geminusque bibit d(i uertice serpens (Cod. Puteaneus), 
 effluit amborum gcminus de uertice serpens (Vulg.), 
 
 J ! 
 
T38 
 
 RECENSION 
 
 which cannot be due to any merely graphical corruption. 
 Similar doublets are to be found in Ovid's Metamorphoses, e.g. 
 vi. 280, 281 are parallel to 282, 283, 284. 
 
 In Greek texts the best instance of such a double tradition 
 is seen in the third Philippic of Demosthenes. This speech 
 survives in two versions, the shorter represented mainly by %, 
 the Paris manuscript, the longer by the Vulgate text. Some of 
 the passages in the longer version are additions, others are 
 alternatives. None bear the stamp of the interpolator, and the 
 most convincing theory is that both versions are by Demo- 
 sthenes, the shorter draft representing the speech as it was 
 delivered, the longer the form in which it was prepared for 
 publication. The attempt to explain certain anomalies in the 
 text of Isocrates by assuming two editions has not found 
 general acceptance (v. Drerup, Isocrates, vol. i, p. Ixxxii). 
 
 The ancient critics recognized similar explanations of such 
 repetitions. Cf. Galen, xvii. i, p. 79 f K. ; cVtWc yap v-n-lp eros 
 
 Trpay/AttTo? otTTw? ij/xiov ypaif/dvTMV, eira t^? /xcv cre'pa? ypacf)rj<; Kara to 
 v(f>o<; (the text) oiVr;9, t?}"? ^* erepa? cVi 6aT€pa riov /xctoSttoji' (the margin 
 to right or left of the text), ottw? KpLVMp€.v avrCjv 'n]v kripav €7rt (T)(pXrj<i 
 doKt/Aao-arrc?, 6 7rpu)TO<s fJi€Taypd(f)0)v to /SlJSXlov dfifftoTepa €ypai//^cv, cTra 
 fir] 7rpo<T(T)^ovTMV yjfjLwv tw ycyovoTt, /x>;8' iTravopBtna-apivixw to (r(f>dXfJLay 
 ^laSoOkv €t9 TTO/VAov? TO I3l/3Xiov dv€7rav6p0o>Tov e/xewi} 
 
 (2) The divergence in the tradition may be due to recensions 
 
 ' In modern literature such double versions are by no means uncommon. 
 E.g. Shakespeare, Love's Labour s Lost, iv. 3. 295-300 = 308-15 (Camb. ed., p. 234 
 note). In Goethe's Fnusf, Part I, in the prison scene Scherer long ago raised 
 objection to the passage : 
 
 Wiiren wir nur den Berg vorbei ! 
 
 da sitzt meine Mutter auf cinem Stein, 
 Es fasst mich kalt bei'm Schopfe I 
 
 da sitzt meine Mutter auf einem Stein ! 
 
 und wackclt mit dem Kopfe. 
 
 on the ground that it is in the style of a ballad and unsuited to a tragic situation. 
 He has been corroborated by the discovery of Goethe's original version, which 
 is in prose. ♦ Warcn wir nur den Berg vorbcy, da sizzt meine Mutter auf einem 
 Stein und Wackelt mit dem Kopf!' (G.'s Faust in urspriingUcher Gestalt, 
 E. Schmidt, Weimar, 1899.) 
 
 RECENSION 
 
 139 
 
 of the text at various periods after the author's death, or to 
 selection from a body of variant readings.^ 
 
 Such recensions, as has already been stated, vary in character 
 from the elaborate scientific editions of Alexandrine scholars 
 and their Roman followers, such as Probus, to the amateur 
 efforts of a Mavortius or the the men whose names are mentioned 
 in the subscription found after some of Isocrates' speeches in 
 
 the Urbinas : 'EAiKwrtos dp.a Toh haipoi^ ©coSwpo) Ka\ Ei-o-Ta^/a>. 
 
 The Mavortian recension of Horace has left descendants, 
 as also has the Calliopian recension of Terence. The text of 
 Seneca's tragedies has been manipulated in a similar way, 
 though the name of the editor is unknown. Here, if the 
 Etruscus were not extant, we should be as far removed from the 
 true text as we should be in Terence, if we had to rely only upon 
 the Calliopian manuscripts without the aid of the Bembinus. 
 
 These older recensions cannot be wholly rejected, since it is 
 often difficult to see the extent of the interpolations which they 
 contain. The late Byzantine recensions can, however, be at 
 once ruled out of court whenever there is earlier evidence for 
 the text. E. g. the text of the astronomical poem known as the 
 l^^aipa (attributed to Empedocles) must be founded on Parisinus 
 1310, fifteenth century, since this is the only manuscript which 
 has not been affected by the Triclinian recension. 
 
 (3) Often the divergence in tradition does not spring from any 
 intentional revision of the text, but represents a selection from 
 a corpus of variants preserved in the archetype. 
 
 In most texts a choice has to be made between variants which 
 may be at first sight equally probable. Here the same tests 
 must be applied as we shall find later applied to emendation 
 (see p. 151). These are (i) Intrinsic probability, and (ii) 
 Graphical or Transcriptional probability. In other words we 
 ask (i) What the author from all we know of him is likely to 
 have written, and (ii) What corruptions the transcribers at 
 
 * It may also be due to the reckless treatment of the text by anthologists and 
 other manipulators, e. g. Petronius 55, where the longer version is preserved in 
 the Traguriensis alone. 
 
i 
 
 140 
 
 RECENSION 
 
 RECENSION 
 
 141 
 
 / 
 
 •fi 
 
 various periods are likely to have substituted for the original 
 text. This last question must be answered by the palaeographer. 
 The first must be answered by the critic who has studied the 
 author's work as a whole. An answer is rendered possible by 
 the fact that every author has his own peculiarities of construc- 
 tion, vocabulary, or literary form, and in many cases some law 
 of style or rhythm has been discovered which provides a very 
 delicate test between two conflicting readings or for one resul- 
 tant reading. In Livy xxxi. 44. i the archetype undoubtedly 
 read ' Haec ea aestate ab Romanis Philippoque gesta crant\ 
 But it is contrary to Livy's usage to sum up the events of a year 
 with a verb in the pluperfect tense. This lends some probability 
 to Madvig's conjecture 'gesta terra \ especially as the passage 
 contains a reference to operations by sea (^classis a Corcyra/ 
 &c.). Ennius does not elide the -ac of the genitive. Hence in 
 Trag. 207 Ribb. (quoted in Ad Hcrcnninjn, ii. 22. 34 and 
 elsewhere) the reading is almost certainly ' Neue inde nauis 
 incohandi exordium | coepisset*, and not 'incohandrt^?*. Ovid 
 avoids the elision of a pyrrhic or dactyl ending in a, unless 
 before a following a (L. Miiller, Dc Re Metr. 291). Zielinski 
 and others have proved by their researches into the rhythm at 
 the end of clauses in Cicero that certain rhythms prevail over 
 others. W. Meyer has noticed that in certain late Greek 
 writers the last accented syllable in a clause is always preceded 
 by two or more unaccented syllables. Nonnus does not use the 
 proparoxytone at the end of a hexameter except in the first foot 
 and except in the case of proper names. 
 
 But beside the internal or direct evidence there is generally 
 a certain amount of evidence for the text of an ancient author 
 which may be called external and indirect. 
 
 If every classical author stood alone, and if the only evidence 
 for the text was the manuscripts in which his work survived, it 
 would not be possible to penetrate far into the history of the text 
 which lies behind the manuscripts. It might often be possible 
 to say that a manuscript or group of manuscripts was copied 
 
 from an archetype of a certain period and of a certain hand- 
 writing, but the point at which the inquiry would have to stop 
 would still not be very far removed from the age to which the 
 earliest manuscripts belonged. The critic would be in the 
 position of a mining engineer who could only argue as to the 
 course of a gold reef from the outcrop visible above the surface. 
 And just as the engineer will get his evidence of the course of 
 a reef by boring below the surface at various points, so too the 
 textual critic can often find external or indirect evidence of the 
 condition of a text in the ages before the existing manuscript 
 tradition begins. None of the best authors ever stand alone, 
 and beside the direct documentary evidence for their text, 
 important evidence survives in quotations, commentaries, and 
 translations. In the large critical editions such evidence is 
 often given in a separate section and entitled ' Testimonia \ 
 
 (i) Ouotatioiis, Imitations, 6-c. The evidence derived from the 
 quotations made from an ancient text by other authors or by 
 grammarians and lexicographers is often exceedingly valuable, 
 and a collection of such evidence now forms an indispensable 
 part of a proper apparatus criticus. Students of the New 
 Testament will remember the valuable inferences which can 
 be drawn from the works of Origen as to the condition of 
 the text of the various books during the third century and even 
 earlier. 
 
 As an instance of the evidence given by quotations on the 
 condition of a classical text we may take Pliny's use of Cato dc 
 Agricultura. Cato's work has survived in a very imperfect con- 
 dition. It is full of accretions and repetitions. Among such are 
 the two accounts of the ' Propagatio pomorum aliarum arborum ' 
 in ch. Ii. and ch. cxxxiii. In li. prima are not mentioned ; in 
 cxxxiii. they occur in the list of trees. It is almost certain that 
 Pliny had both passages before him and that he forgot or 
 omitted to notice their similarity, since in H. N. xv. 44 he 
 expresses his surprise that Cato has omitted pi'ttna from his list; 
 while in H.N. xvii. 96 he says, 'Cato propagari praeter uitem 
 tradit ficum . . . pruna,* &c. It would seem therefore to be 
 
142 
 
 RECENSION 
 
 a justifiable inference that the text of Cato exhibited these 
 parallel accounts in Pliny's time. 
 
 So too the corruption in Sallust, Hist. i. 55 ' post memoriam 
 humani ' [om. generis) was as old as the fourth century a. d. 
 when Aurelius Victor copied the phrase slavishly in Caes. xxxix. 
 15. In Propertius i. 15. 29 'multaprius: uasto labentur' may 
 be wrong, but the phrase finds a parallel in the Dirae 7 'multa 
 prius fient '. It is even possible that the author of the Dirae 
 may have derived the phrase from Propertius. In Terence 
 Pliorni. 243 editors are still undecided whether to accept the 
 version of the line given by Cicero in Tusc. iii. 14. 30 : 
 
 pericla damna peregre rediens semper secum cogitet, 
 
 or the version of the manuscript tradition, 
 
 pericla damna exilia peregre rediens semper cogitet. 
 
 A quotation such as the last must be carefull}' scrutinized 
 before it is allowed to displace the manuscript reading. Ancient 
 writers (especially Aristotle) are in the habit of quoting from 
 memory; e.g. Aristotle, Met. 984 b 29 quotes Hesiod, TJieog. 
 120 as 
 
 >yd' E/)os, 05 TravT€.(Tcn fXiTaTfji-TreL uOaviXTOicri, 
 
 where the extant manuscripts give 
 
 OS ku/Wlcttos iv aOavaroLdL OeoiaL. 
 
 Here Aristotle has probably a confused remembrance of the 
 Hymn to Apollo 327 : 
 
 OS K€ U€.OL(TL fJL€Ta7rf)€7rOL dOaVaTOLiTL, 
 
 But when in Hes.'E/jy. icai 'H/x. 288 the manuscripts all give 0X177; 
 fikv 680s fidXa 8' iyyvOi vaui, while four ancient authors from Plato 
 downwards quote the line as Acu/ filv 680s, we cannot doubt that 
 we have in this the genuine text of Plato's time. A cliajiee 
 quotation therefore only affords probable evidence when it is 
 corroborated by other evidence. (Cf Butcher, Oxford Demo- 
 stiienes, Praef. vol. i.) A quotation, however, made deliberately by 
 a grammarian or lexicographer in order to illustrate a word or 
 
 tP 
 
 RECENSION 
 
 143 
 
 phrase, carries great weight, e.g. Nonius's reading in Lucr. i. 66 
 of tendere for tollere. Varro in the De Lingua Latina quotes 
 accurately from his originals, while in the De Re Rustiea it is 
 often obvious that he quotes from memory; e.g. in ii. i. 20 he 
 quotes Plaut. Men. 289 twice and each time gives a different and 
 inaccurate version. The later grammarians often borrow quota- 
 tions from their predecessors, and as they are known to forge 
 quotations from lost writers the passages that they cite from 
 extant writers require to be carefully scrutinized (e.g. such 
 grammarians as Vergilius, and the scholiast to the Ibis). 
 
 As an instance of the evidence to be drawn from imitations 
 Hes.^Epy. Kat 'H/x. 588 may be taken. Here the manuscripts give 
 
 uAAa TOT i]oy] 
 
 €L1] TT^Tpail] T€ (TKLl) Kal Bly^AtVOS OLVOS. 
 
 Editors have attempted to alter the text in various ways (e. g. 
 dAAa TOL jjSv elr) TrerpaLT] avKetj, Nauck), but the more cautious have 
 held their hand, owing to the imitation by Vergil in G. iii. 145 
 ' ubi . . . saxea procubet umbra '. From Aesch. Snpp. 800 Kvalv 8' 
 cTTci^' eXwfm KaTTLxoipLois opvLai SeiTTvov, it is fair to infer that in //. i. 5 
 SoLTa and not irdo-L was read in the time of Aeschylus. 
 
 A text can often be corrected from the text of other authors 
 who deal with the same or similar subjects ; e. g. the reading 
 given by some manuscripts in Hor. Sat. i. 4. 34 ' dummodo risum 
 Excutiat, sibi non, non cuiquam parcet amico ', is now accepted 
 on the strength of the passage in Ar. Et/i. Nic. 1128 a 34 
 
 6 poip.oX6xp^ . . . ovT€ iavTOv ovTi Twv d\\(i)v dzrexo/xei'os el ycAwra ttouj- 
 
 (r€L. An interesting discussion of this problem will be found by 
 Gercke in Ilberg and Ruhler's Ja/irb. 1901, pp. i, 81, 185, from 
 which I have borrowed some illustrations. Diog. Laert. viii. 20 
 
 says of Pythagoras d/ayt^d/xci'os re oiVc olk€T7Jv iKoXa^ev ovT€ iXevOepov 
 
 orScVa. eVaAci Bk to vov6€T€lv TTiSaprdv. lamblichus in his Life of 
 Pythagoras, § 197, either quotes this passage or draws from a 
 common source. His words, outc olKiTqv eVdAao-cv oi-Scls aW^v W 
 opyii<i ovT€ Thiv iXevOepiDv ivovOeTrjcre rivu, justify Cobet's emendation 
 m Diogenes, ovtc IXevOepov \J.vovOiTu\ thus preserving the recog- 
 nized distinction between koAu^cii/, the proper treatment for slaves. 
 
 ■ t 
 
144 
 
 RECENSION 
 
 RECENSION 
 
 145 
 
 / 
 
 and lovOereu', that for free men, which is found elsewhere in Greek, 
 and giving a recognizable meaning to the clause which follows. 
 
 The biography of one author often influences biographies of 
 authors of the same class, e.g. Suet. Li/c of Horace (Reiffer- 
 scheid 44) : 
 
 'Quintus Horatius Flaccus Venusinus, patre ut ipse tradit 
 libertino et auctionum coactore, [ut uero creditum est salsamen- 
 tario, cum illi quidam in altercatione exprobrasset : " Quotiens 
 ego uidi patrem tuum brachio se emungentem] ".' 
 
 This statement is in all probability not interpolated as editors 
 have assumed, but was found by Suetonius in the original 
 authorities whom he consulted. These authorities have assimi- 
 lated Horace's life as far as possible to that of his model Bion of 
 Borysthenes, of whom Diog. Laert. iv. 46 says 1\x.q\ 6 TraWy/j ^iXv i]v 
 
 uTTcAci'^cpo?, TO) uyKwvt u7ro/xu(rtro/x€i'OS (8tc8r;Aou 8c tov TapL)(€ix7ropov). 
 
 Similarly in Einhard's Life of Charlemagne phrases are constantly 
 borrowed from Suetonius' Life of Augustus} 
 
 It is not often that the accuracy of a reading can be tested by 
 reference to the original source from which the compiler has 
 drawn ; e. g. Apollonius, Vita AescJiinis 9 cV tu> TroXefjLU) liiir^a^v vtto 
 
 tCjv TfudKoi'Ta Koi o-t/jutci'o/xci'o? +Kttt ciVotust Koi af)L(TT€iU)V rj^nodi), 
 
 which is drawn from Aesch. Fa/s. Leg. 147 irvfjiPi^qKiv avT<^ 
 
 tKTTcrroi'Ti VTTO tCjv TfiLULKOVTa (TTpaT€V€cr6ai fxlv iv rrj *Acrta apicTTCUciv o 
 
 eV Tots K'iv8iVoi9. Hence koI ciroias is a corruption for cV 'Aaia. 
 
 (2) Scholia, Ancient Commentaries, Lexica. The scholia ((rxoAior, 
 a short discussion of a difficult passage) are commentaries 
 which have grown up round the texts of the principal authors, 
 especially poets. As has been explained above, they have been 
 the means of preserving many of the texts which they accom- 
 pany. Generally they combine the learning of all periods — 
 Alexandrine, Byzantine, Carolingian, and Renaissance ; e. g. 
 the Venetian scholia on Aristoph. l\'sp, 924 have eV SiKcAta tov 
 Tovs SiKcXiwTtt? 7rarTa9 cVpatScvc — a late Byzantine note ; Juvenal 
 i. 128 on 'sportula deinde forum iurisque peritus Apollo ' ' Forvm 
 
 1 Cf. Ihra, Snetomiis, I. p. viii, note 2 : ' Einhardus etsi non multum confert ad 
 crisin Suetoni, tamen neglegendus non est.' 
 
 uenalium rerum, Apollo deinde ubi placitabant '-a Carolingian 
 note, placitare being the regular Prankish term for holding a 
 meeting. An instance of a Renaissance comment will be seen in 
 Plaut. Mostell, 22 : ' Pergraecamlni ; sic hodie turchi faciunt in 
 suis potationibus ut hodie dici posset perturchamini.' The 
 scholia therefore need to be carefully examined before their 
 evidence is invoked, since they consist of different strata of vary- 
 ing value. 
 
 They consist usually of a lemma (A^/xH» i- e. the matter taken 
 from the text, and of the comment upon it. The readings pre- 
 served in the lemmata are rarely worthy of much consideration. 
 When the note is copied from one codex into another the read- 
 ing in the lemma is generally adjusted to the reading in the text 
 of the new codex, so that the only safe indication of the reading 
 which the scholiast had before him is to be found in the substance 
 of his note; e.g. in Hon Serm. ii. 2. 116 edulce is prefixed in 
 cod. <\> to Porphyrion's note, though that is clearly a comment on 
 the correct reading edi luce. Thus, though the lemmata are un- 
 trustworthy, the evidence latent in the notes themselves is often 
 most valuable ' ; e. g. Juv. viii. 148, where the manuscript read- 
 ing was 'rotam astringit multo sufflamine consul', but the 
 scholiast's note ^mulio est qui consul fertur ' implies that he read 
 'sufflamine mulio consul'; Aesch. Cho. 262, where the reading 
 8avapLa<; /xeyai/ S6p.ov is seen to be 8' av apaas from the comment 
 
 8iW(rat avoiKohop.9j(Tai', ibid. 418 7r(We? Codd. : tl ctVoVrc? schol. 
 
 implying the reading c^aVres : Hesiod, Thcog, 91 lp^^^,vov 8' aVa 
 
 ao-rr O^ov 0)9 iXda-KovraL, where the scholiast has dv dywva (for ttVa 
 
 ao-rr) a reading confirmed by the Achmim papyrus. 
 
 The lemmata not infrequently introduce fresh corruptions. 
 In Latin poetry they often consist of the beginning or end of the 
 line in which the word explained occurs. This has its origin in 
 the custom of writing the note in the right or left hand margin 
 against the line to which it refers. If these margins became 
 inconveniently full and the note in a subsequent copy had to be 
 
 1 Cf. Bywater, CouMK to Textual Criticism of the Ethics, p. 2 ; and Hosius, 
 Liican 2, p. xlii. 
 
 473 L 
 
 /; 
 
» 
 
 146 
 
 RECENSION 
 
 RECENSION 
 
 147 
 
 I i 
 
 transferred to the upper or lower margin the scribe often pre- 
 faced it with the beginning or end of the hne in order to facilitate 
 reference. This explains why ignorant copyists often prefix 
 a lemma from the line preceding or following that to which the 
 note applies. If such a lemma is of any considerable length, 
 some of the words are only roughly indicated ; e. g. on Juv. x. 315 
 the lemma plvs qvam lex vl. d. ri represents 'plus quam 
 lex ulla dolori '. It is not improbable that some of the variants 
 in Latin scholia have been produced through misunderstanding 
 caused by such contractions; e.g. Juv. vii. 58 the lemma runs, 
 iNPATiENs cvpiDVS siLVARVM AviDVS, whcnce Jahn has intro- 
 duced auidtts into the text in place of apfus. Vahlen (Opitscula, 
 i. 249) ingeniously suggests that avidvs only represents a. vi. 
 Dis, i.e. 'aptusque uiuendis ', the concluding words of the line, 
 with the common misspelling of tiiticiidis for bibcndis. 
 
 Such scholia must be kept distinct from the ordered comment- 
 aries, treatises, and paraphrases which were the work of a single 
 scholar, e.g. Servius on Vergil, Asconius on Cicero, and the 
 various commentaries on Aristotle, such as those of Simplicius 
 and Alexander Aphrodisiensis. These treatises are not parasites 
 surrounding a text, but existed as separate works and are often 
 of the very highest value. The use to which such commentaries 
 can be put in estimating the age of an archetype is well illustrated 
 by Diels in his history of the text of Aristotle's Physics (Abhandl, 
 der Akad. zii Berlin, 1882). He shows that there are many 
 lacunae in the manuscripts in passages which were intact in the 
 texts of the commentators of the 2nd — 6th centuries a.d. 
 Hence all our manuscripts must be derived from a faulty arche- 
 type. The date of this archetype can be roughly calculated 
 since the corrupt passage in 216^ 17 appears in the commentary 
 of Averroes who uses Arabic versions of the ninth century. The 
 present tradition must therefore have developed between 600 
 and 800 A. D. 
 
 (3) Translations. Few translations from Latin into Greek 
 have survived. The best known is the version of parts of Ovid 
 made by the Byzantine Planudes. Seneca A^. O. iv. a is found 
 
 in a shortened version made in Greek by lohannes Lydus (sixth 
 century), and the pseudo-Aristotelian ir^pl koo-jjlov is translated in 
 Apuleius de Miindo. 
 
 Early translations from Greek into Latin, such as those of 
 Aratus by Cicero, Germanicus, or Avienus, are not common and 
 are too free to be of much assistance as authorities for the 
 original text. Passages of Greek authors are often paraphrased 
 by Cicero in his philosophical works ; e.g. Cic. de Rep. i. 66 = 
 Plato de Rep. 562 c-d ; Cic. Orator 41 = Plato Phaedr. 279 a, 
 where the text of Cicero supports the reading dre of the Clarkianus 
 against the ordinary In tc. A better instance of what is to be 
 gained from an early translation is seen in Tertullian de Aninia 
 18, where a translation is given of Plato Phacdo 65 a : 
 
 ri, Sc ?)i] Trepl avT7]v tjjv t^s (fypovrja^uiq ktyjo-lv ; Trorepov lp.7r6^iov 
 quid turn erga ipsam prudentiae possessionem? utrumne impedimentum 
 
 TO crwfxa 7] ov, iav tls avTo KOLVoyrov crviJLTrapaXafx^dvr] iv rfj ^rjTycret ', 
 erit corpus, an non, si quis illud socium assumpserit in quaestioncm ? 
 
 oiov TO Toior8e Xeyo) ' apa €)(€i aXtjOeLav rtva oi/^/s t€ kol aKorj 
 Talc quid dico, habetne ueritatem aliquam uisio et auditio 
 
 Toi? dv6p(x)7roL<;, kol ol 7rotr)Tal r^/XLV act OpvXovaiv 
 
 hominibus, (an non? Annon) etiam poetae (haec) nobis semper obmussant, 
 
 on ovT uKovopev uKpi^es ov^kv ovre opw/xcr ; 
 quod ncque audiamus certum neque uideamus ? 
 
 Here Tertullian's order differs once from the manuscripts 
 (which give eV rrj ^7]T7J(T€L Koivtovbv avfiTr.). Also he adds ^ ov after 
 dvOpd)7roL<;, and evidently read ^Ap' ov in the next sentence where 
 
 the manuscripts have rj rd ye Toiavra. 
 
 The mediaeval translations of Aristotle, of which the best known 
 are the Latin translations by a Dominican monk, William of 
 Moerbecke (a town on the borders of Flanders and Brabant) 
 c. 1260, are often useful from the slavish accuracy with which 
 they follow the original text word for word. If the version 
 follows a good manuscript its very defects are merits for the 
 purposes of criticizing the original text. 
 
 The Vetusta Translatio of the Rhetoric belongs to the same 
 class. It is full of ludicrous mistakes; e.g. in 1405 b 20 poSoSd- 
 
 L 2 
 
 ]). 
 
148 
 
 RECENSION 
 
 RECENSION 
 
 149 
 
 \ 
 
 
 w^ 
 
 KTvXo'; ^ws is translated ' rhododactylus quam ut ' (i.e. rj ws). But 
 in spite of this it is clear that it has been made from a good 
 manuscript whose readings it faithfully reproduces; e.g. 1398b 32 
 
 it has for Kat 'Hy?J(rt7r7ros iv S€\<f>oL<s cVr/ptora, * HegCSippUS polis 
 
 vel in Delphis interrogabat': clearly reproducing a variant 
 
 77 
 
 oXt? 
 
 'HyrjiTLinros, which must have been added by some scholar who 
 knew that the Hegesippus here mentioned is called Hegesipolis 
 by Xenophon. In 1374 a 16 it alone preserves the right reading 
 
 cAa/?c for iKXeij/e. 
 
 The translations made by the humanists of the fifteenth century 
 rarely offer much evidence for the settlement of a text. Where 
 a good reading is suggested — as by Lorenzo Valla, the translator 
 of Thucydides and by Ficinus in Plato — it may often be due to the 
 acumen of the translator. 
 
 The evidence from translations rarely effects such a revolution 
 in the recension of a text as has recently been found necessary 
 in the Dc Viris Illustribns of St. Jerome. The interpretation of 
 the evidence of the numerous manuscripts (there are about 120) 
 has had to be altered entirely since the publication of von 
 Gebhart's critical edition of the Greek translation by Sophronios. 
 This translation shows that Jerome really issued two editions. 
 
 The change which a careful recension has effected in classical 
 texts is undeniable. The result is more striking in Latin than 
 in Greek for reasons which have already been considered, 
 (p. 24). Any one who reads such authors as Plautus, Caesar, 
 or Juvenal in a sixteenth-century edition and then passes to 
 a modern critical edition cannot help seeing that in numberless 
 passages a veil has been lifted from the text and that the reader 
 is perceptibly nearer to the author's own words. As we have 
 seen, this has been accomplished by the discovery of older 
 manuscripts which present a sincerer text, i. e. a text not 
 necessarily uniform or free from corruption, but at any rate free 
 from the interpolations of the scholars of the Byzantine and 
 Italian revivals. But the Greek papyri (and there is no reason 
 to believe that Latin papyri would tell a different tale) now show 
 
 I 
 
 us that the genealogical method has its limitations. The groups 
 of extant manuscripts in which a text is preserved do not 
 descend in a direct line from the author's original text. They 
 lead us back to a text which, even in ancient times, was sown 
 with variant readings. As long as there was a flourishing book 
 trade in Greece and Rome this mass of variants infected the 
 texts that were most in demand. Texts were in a state of constant 
 oscillation and inclined towards the good or bad variants 
 according as they were protected or neglected by ancient 
 scholars. When the victory of Christianity destroyed the 
 ancient book trade, the codices of a work which survived to be 
 copied in monasteries became the parents of the different groups 
 which are still preserved. The genealogical method therefore 
 by which these groups have been recognized and their value 
 assessed can rarely do more than clear the ground. Where 
 successful it provides a tentative text containing variant readings 
 that were current at a very early period. But in constructing 
 a text no group can be discarded till it has been scrupulously 
 examined, since the papyri show that inferior manuscripts can 
 inherit good readings. In deciding between the variants which 
 are left after this preliminary survey we have to rely on Inter- 
 pretation, i.e. our knowledge of the author, of his style and 
 technique, of the sources and conditions of his work, and, so far 
 as we can recover it, of the subsequent history of his text. 
 
 [The main authorities are : — 
 Blass, F. Hermcnciitik mid Kritik in vol. i of I. Mailer's Handbuch der klassi- 
 schen Altcrtttmsivissenschaft. 
 
 BoECKH, A. Encydopddie iind Mcthodologie der philologischen VVissenschaften. 
 Leipzig, 1877. 
 
 Gercke, a. Formale Philologie, pp. 37-79 in vol. i of Einleiiiing in die Alter- 
 
 iwnswissenschajt. Leipzig, 19 ro. 
 IIaupt, M. De Lachmanuo critico^ in N. JaJirb. f. d. kl. Alt. 1911, pp. 529-538. 
 Jebb, Sir R. C. Textual Criticism in Compam'on to Greek Studies, ed. Wliibley. 
 
 Cambridge, 1905. 
 Lehmann, p. Fraitcisctis Mod/us (ds Ilandschriftenforscher. Munich, 1908. 
 PosTGAiE, J. P. Textual Criticism in Companion to Latin Studies, ed. Sandys, 
 
 Cambridge, 1910. 
 
 Article on Textual Criticism in Encyclopaedia Britatmica, igii. 
 
 Wattenbach, W. Das Schriftwesen im Mittelalter. Leipzig, 1896.] 
 
 I I 
 
EMENDATION 
 
 I*?;! 
 
 CHAPTER VII 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 "Clanfp ^ap ru fiCraypcKpfiv ray iraAatas prja€is iTpoimis, ovtoj Kat (pvkaTTOVTas els 
 yfypanrai ^paxdo-is ri riaiv t) irpoaQiataiv rj vnaWd^tai Sia\v€a$ai rds dnopias 
 dya$wv t^TjyrjTujv (OTiv (pyov. — Galen, vii. 894 (Kiihn). 
 
 Boni critici est tacere potius quam nihil dicere neque naKolaiv IdaOai KaKa. — 
 CoBET, Nov. Led. viii. 
 
 Im Allgemeinen kann man behaupten, dass von 100 Conjecturen, welchc die 
 Kritiken machen, nicht 5 wahr sind. "Apiaros Kpirfj^ 6 rax^oj^ f^^v avvids, fipaSicus 
 ^€ KfHvojv. — BoECKH, EncyclopacUe, p. 175. 
 
 Rationem captiuam sub iugum codicum mittunt. — Madvig, Adv. i. 59. 
 
 Nam interdum etiam homines alioquin prudentes sic se molestis uerbis 
 liberare student, ut obliuisci uideantur scribas simpHces quidem illos homines 
 fuisse, sed tamen sanae mentis. — lb. p. 64. 
 
 Cauendum est ne rimandis litterarum apicibus errorumque uiis indagandis 
 occupati sensum sermonis ueteris hebescere patiamur librariorumque dum causam 
 agimus ingenio scriptorum iniuriam faciamus. — Vahlen, Opitsc. i. 23. 
 
 Gens ilia medicorum qui in locis sanis sanandis operam perdunt. — O. Crusius. 
 
 All that a proper recension of a text can effect is to report 
 the evidence of the documents in which the text has been 
 preserved, and to decide which documents owing to their age or 
 character are the most trustworthy. But though in most cases 
 this process brings us appreciably nearer to the autograph, i. e. 
 the text as it was originally written by the author, yet it always 
 leaves a residuum of passages, greater in number or less according 
 to the character and history of the text in question, which no 
 longer present the words which the author originally wrote. 
 These are the passages usually described as 'corrupt', and 
 before we acquiesce in such corruptions we must consider 
 whether they can be removed or emended. If there is reason 
 to suppose that some portion of the text has disappeared without 
 leaving any trace behind, the injury is irreparable and a careful 
 editor will mark a lacuna in the text until fresh documentary 
 evidence is available. Sometimes, in order to show the reader 
 concisely how he thinks tl e passage should be interpreted, he 
 
 may supply the missing words from hints that are given by the 
 context or by kindred writings, c\:c., but if he does not wish to 
 prejudice the reader unduly he will print such suggestions in the 
 margin, since they are only attempts to replace the text and 
 cannot be held to restore it. In by far the largest number of 
 corrupt passages, however, the text has been defaced but not 
 entirely destroyed, and can be restored with more or less 
 probability by emendation. How are we to estimate the degree 
 of probability that an emendation possesses, and how are we to 
 decide between rival suggestions ? By invoking the same two 
 tests which we have already applied in recension where it has 
 been found necessary to decide between variant readings of 
 apparently equal authority, i.e. (i) Transcriptional Probability 
 and (2) Intrinsic Probability. 
 
 The emendation must possess Transcriptional Probability, 
 i. e. it must explain how the copyist came to err, and in order 
 to do this it must be palaeographically probable. Otherwise it 
 will be little more than a fortunate guess. ' Divination ' of this 
 kind, upon which the older critics prided themselves, may 
 occasionally be proved to be right through the discovery of 
 fresh evidence, such as early papyri, but it proceeds from no 
 method and conveys no certainty. Hence in cases where the 
 corruption has passed beyond the possibility of explanation by 
 palaeography, emendation becomes little more than guesswork. 
 Thus, to take an instance, in the poem of Solon preserved by 
 
 Aristides ii. 536 the phrase rov<i 8' dmyKatr;? vVo ] XPWH-^^ Aeyovras 
 
 is unintelligible, and the correct reading umyKatV ^"^o xp^toO? 
 <t>vy6vTa^, which is now known from the British Museum papyrus 
 of Aristotle 'kO-qvaii^v IIoAiTcia xii. 7, could never have been 
 justified by palaeography if it had been suggested as an emenda- 
 tion by any modern scholar. 
 
 The emendation must be intrinsically probable, i. e. it must be 
 something that the author is likely to have written. It must suit 
 the context, the author's style and vocabulary, and any general 
 laws which have been proved to apply to his works. This is 
 what Galen has in mind when he insists that we should take 
 
 i 
 
 y 
 
152 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 153 
 
 into account not merely the Acfts of Hippocrates, but also the 
 €pfirji'€La and yvoj/xr}, in deciding between rival readings and con- 
 jectures.^ Nowhere is this more necessary than in dealing with 
 the text of Galen's own works : e.g. in his use of the reflexive 
 pronoun of the third person for the first and second; in his use 
 of a>' with the future indicative ; and in his Isocratean avoidance 
 of hiatus. An instance of an emendation which is palaeo- 
 graphically probable can be seen in Cobet's alteration of Suidas' 
 
 Twv dyiiov avapyvpuiv into t^v ayiuiv fiapTvpiov : but this is found tO 
 
 be intrinsically improbable when it is discovered that the avapyvpoi 
 were the two physician saints, Cosmas and Damian, who practised 
 without fee. On the other hand emendation of the meaningless 
 existimatio iicstra knehrae in Cic. pro Flacco § 12 by the con- 
 jecture existimatio uerba ct incptiae attains a high degree of 
 probability on the strength of the parallel passage in /;/ 
 Pisoncm § 65. 
 
 Every sound generalization with regard to language and style 
 proves fatal to a number of hasty emendations. Thus the ex- 
 amination of Attic usage puts out of court Naber's conjecture of 
 iviprepoiv for vewrepon' in Aristophon Frag. 13, Dindorfs TraiVct' 
 av in Ar. P/nt. 136 and imKpdvaL in Aesch. SifppL 624. The 
 examination of the laws of metrical prose destroys as many 
 emendations as it suggests, e. g. in the preface to Avianus, 
 'quis tecum de poemate loqueretur/ the emendations contcndct 
 and /(y(7//r///r disturb the ciirsusuclox -<jkj, kjsj-^ which Avianus 
 almost certainly intended to use. 
 
 But unsound generalizations have in their turn produced 
 a crop of unnecessary emendations. These are seen in the 
 attempts made to normalize the text of an author by smoothing 
 down roughnesses and imposing an unnatural standard of 
 syntax and vocabulary, e. g. Dawes' Canon forbidding the use of 
 the first aorist subjunctive active or middle after oVoj? /X7/ and 01*. 
 /X7/,— a rule which rests upon an incomplete induction ; or Cobet's 
 attempts to force the text of Xenophon to conform to the usage 
 
 » BrOcker, Die Methoden Gakns in ckr literarischen Kntik, Rh. Mus 1885 
 P 433. 
 
 of the stricter Attic writers. The earlier scholars frequently 
 erred through not making sufficient allowance for the indi- 
 viduality of an author. They made the style of a few supreme 
 writers into a law for all writers of the same class. Thus the 
 Italians of the sixteenth century see all Latin prose writing 
 through the style of Cicero; and the earlier Dutch scholars 
 (e.g. N. I leinsius) vitiated their criticism of Catullus, Tibullus, 
 and Propertius by judging them according to the standard of 
 Ovid and by endeavouring to foist Ovidian elegances upon them. 
 
 Hence if emendation is to attain any degree of probability it 
 must satisfy not one but both of these tests. Yet if both cannot 
 be satisfied there is this difference in value between them. An 
 emendation that violates Transcriptional Probability while it 
 satisfies Intrinsic Probability may possibly be true, though we 
 have no right to presume its truth ; an emendation, however, 
 which satisfies Transcriptional Probability yet violates Intrinsic 
 Probability is wholly valueless. This only means that the good 
 critic must be something more than a mere palaeographer. 
 
 We may assume then that the textual critic has considered 
 the Intrinsic Probability of his emendation, — has properly in- 
 terpreted ' his text as Lachmann would say (v. p. 125), and is now 
 proceeding to test his suggestion by what palaeography can tell 
 him of the various errors to which copyists are prone. These 
 errors may for convenience be classified as follows : 
 
 Errors arising from : 
 I. Confusions and attempts made to remedy them. 
 (i) Confusion of similar letters and syllables. 
 
 (2) Misinterpretation of Contractions. 
 
 (3) Mistranscription of words through general resemblance. 
 
 (4) Wrong combination or separation ; wrong punctu^ition. 
 
 (5) Assimilation of Terminations and accommodation to 
 
 neighbouring construction. 
 
 (6) Transposition of letters (anagrammatism) and of words 
 
 and sentences ; dislocation of sentences, sections, and 
 pages. 
 
 (7) Mistranscription of Greek into Latin and vice versa. 
 
 N 
 
154 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 155 
 
 (8) Confusion of Numerals. 
 
 (9) Confusion in Proper Names. 
 
 (10) Mistakes due to change in pronunciation. Itacism, &:c. 
 
 (11) Substitution of synonyms or of familiar words for un- 
 
 familiar. 
 
 (12) New spellings substituted for old. 
 
 (13) Interpolation or the attempt to repair the results of 
 
 unconscious errors. 
 
 II. Omissions. 
 
 (14) Haplography, or the omission of words or syllables 
 
 with the same beginning or ending (homoeoarcta and 
 homoeoteleuta). 
 
 (15) Lipography (parablepsia), or simple omission of any kind. 
 
 III. Additions. 
 
 (16) Repetition from the immediate (Dittography) or neigh- 
 
 bouring context. 
 
 (17) Insertion of interlinear or marginal glosses or notes 
 
 ' (Adscripts). 
 
 (18) Conflated readings. 
 
 (19) Additions due to the influence of kindred writings. 
 
 Such a classification takes as its basis of division the pathology 
 of the written text. It would be equally possible to frame 
 a different classification by taking as the basis of division the 
 source of all such defects, i. e. the scribe or scribes who have 
 written the text. Looked at from this point of view the common 
 errors are sometimes held to fall into two classes : (i) Vt'sual 
 Errors, i. e. substitutions, omissions, or additions which the eye 
 of the scribe makes through weakness or inattention, (2) Psycho- 
 logical Errors, which arise from the tendency of the mind— 
 a tendency often amounting to little more than an unintelligent 
 instinct — to read some meaning into its own mistakes or the 
 mistakes in the exemplar from which the copy is made. The 
 main corruptions in classical texts are due to errors of this 
 class, and textual emendation may become the mere plaything 
 of palaeography if this truth is forgotten. The worst scribe 
 
 i J 
 
 f's 
 
 I ; 
 
 cannot copy mechanically for long without allowing some play 
 to his intelligence. As Jerome says in Epp. 71. 5 'scribunt non 
 quod inueniunt sed quod intellegunt \ Even at the worst he 
 hardly ever copies letter for letter any writing that he under- 
 stands. When visual errors happen, as happen they must from 
 time to time, the harm inflicted on a text which is preserved in 
 more than one manuscript is often wholly transitory. A mean- 
 ingless word like tetera for cetera (owing to the similarity 
 of c and t in rustic capitals) is bound to arrest the attention of 
 the reader, however careless he be, and is soon corrected by 
 conjecture or by comparison with other copies. But an error 
 like contentvs for concentvs may invade a number of copies. 
 The word has a meaning, and may even have a meaning in the 
 passage where it is substituted if the reader is careless and 
 stupid, and does not take the trouble to interpret the context. 
 The instances where the change of a letter will bring sense to 
 a vox nihili in a well-attested text are exceedingly rare, and we 
 might well be spared a great deal of the ' palaographische 
 Taschenspielerei ' against which Schubart protested more than 
 fifty years ago.^ The case is different where the text depends 
 upon a single manuscript, or upon a few inferior manuscripts 
 descended perhaps from a transcript made by a late scribe who 
 was almost ignorant of the language which he was copying. 
 Proper names ofller the one exception to this rule. They are 
 often unfamiliar to the best scribes, and purely visual errors are 
 often found in them since the scribe has to copy letter for 
 letter. 
 
 In most instances, therefore, it will be found that the scribes 
 copy words and not letters, and the true source of their errors is 
 psychological as well as visual. Their attention is not focused 
 on the similarity of letters, though it is often this similarity that 
 suggests the confusion between words. Often, however, it is the 
 general similarity between two words rather than the similarity 
 between the one or two letters in which they diflter that has 
 
 ^ J. H. C. Schubart, Biuchsiiickc cti ciuer Methodologic tier diplomaiischen 
 Kriiik, 1855. 
 
 I "i 
 
 w 1 
 
 %\ 
 
156 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 157 
 
 
 
 brought about the confusion between them : e. g. kcvos : 4'cVos, 
 v7r()ypa<f>€0)q : vtto yi'a(/)€a>s (Stob. Append. Flor. p. 36, Gaisf.), cani- 
 mus : canibus (Verg. Eel, iv. 3), ritrsits : eiirsus (ib. viii. 4), 
 iioluptas : iio/iintas (Liv. xxi. 4. 6, PHn. Epp, ii. 17. 24) are inter- 
 changed from their general similarity and not because k and $, 
 p and V, m and b, c and r, p and w are easily interchangeable. 
 Or again the scribe's eye wanders in the immediate environment 
 of the words which his pen is writing, and is influenced by some 
 letter or letters which precede or follow, e. g. in Suet. Din. Aug. 
 32. 3 addidit (Stephanus) is the generally accepted emendation 
 oi addixit which is found in all the manuscripts. If the sentence 
 be looked at as a whole — ^Ouartam (decuriam) addidit ex inferiore 
 censu ' — it will be seen that the mistake has not arisen from the 
 similarity of the letters d and .r, but has been imported from the 
 word ex which immediately follows. Liv. xlii. 67. 2 gives et pro- 
 pinqito for ex propinquo. Here the scribe's eye has travelled 
 backwards to the et which he has written in the preceding word 
 Magetas. Many of the instances of the interchange of letters in 
 the capital script given by Ribbeck in his Vergil, vol. i, pp. 235 
 sqq., seem to be due to the environment of the word rather than 
 to the causes which he alleges, viz. : (i) the pronunciation of 
 vulgar Latin ; (2) the influence of the old Roman cursive script 
 of the type found in the Pompeian graffiti. It is difficult to 
 believ^e that the rough cursive hands have played such a part in 
 the transmission of so important an author as Vergil when it is 
 clear from the Carmen Actiaeitni that the capital script was in 
 common use in a. d. 79.' 
 
 1 I print a few of Ribbeck's instances, adding in each case the neighbouring 
 words. In the following the scribe's eye has travelled forward. B = M 
 (according to Ribbeck) G. i. 319 RADIC/il/VS/7J/IS for radidbtts imis. G. ii. 
 488 CONVALL/il/VSHAEi^// for coHnallibiis Haemi. L = P G. ii. 394 
 CARMINIi5VSZ.^TRISZ..'iNCESETLIBA for carminibus patriis lances et liba. 
 L = R Aen. i. 103 rERVMADFERSA for mlitm aducrsa. N = R G. iv. 145 
 /ViVVMETSP/A'OS for pirmn et i-piuos. In the following instances it has 
 travelled backwards : B = L Acn. xi. 849 iMONTESV^AiJTO for monte sub alto. 
 D = G Aen. xi. 720 CONGREGITVR for congreditiir. L = R Aen. i. 414 
 MOLmWEMOLA^l for molmue moram. G. iv. 45 RIMOSACVEILIARIMO 
 for riniosa cubilia Unto. Acn. vii. 624 FARSARDVWSARTIS (or pars at duus 
 
 (: 
 
 Many of the early treatises such as Canter's Syntagma (1566) 
 suffer from this tendency to isolate a given letter from the sur- 
 roundings in which it is written ; and many of the more recent 
 treatises such as Bast's Commentatio Palaeographica, Hagen's 
 Gradiis ad Criticen, or Wessely's Introduction to the facsimile 
 of the Vienna Livy, may lead a student to the despairing con- 
 viction that any letter in ancient handwriting can be inter- 
 changed with any other if he does not bear in mind the word in 
 which the interchange occurs and the character of the neigh- 
 bouring letters. 
 
 So too in dealing with the remaining forms of corruption 
 which are discussed below discrimination must be used before 
 they are assumed and emended. The medicine is worse than 
 useless without a good diagnosis. This diagnosis will have 
 been provided by the inquiries into the history of the text which 
 form part of any accurate recension. Not every kind of cor- 
 ruption is found in every writer or at every period. A gram- 
 matical or lexicographical work will contain abbreviations that 
 must not be assumed in the works of a poet or a historian. 
 Owing to the confined space in which they are written scholia 
 and similar marginalia require special abbreviations which are 
 hardly ever used in the body of the text. It would be absurd, 
 therefore, to base an emendation on the mistaken use of an 
 abbreviation which the scribe would never have used ; e. g. tt 
 would be a fitting sign for Trapoifita in a paroemiographer or 
 lexicographer, but not in an ordinary text ; ! = //^/ to introduce 
 a variant reading is not to be assumed in early manuscripts 
 though it is common later. 
 
 aitis. L = V G. iv. 467 F^FCES^FTAOSTIA (or fauces alta ostia. It is 
 difficult also to believe with Chatelain (Preface to SijthofTs facsimile of the 
 Oblongus of Lucretius) that the confusion between B and D has been inherited 
 from such hands as the early papyri and the Dacian tablets exhibit : e. g. arbor 
 for ardor (i. 668) seems a case of general resemblance, dibenti for bidenti (v. 208) 
 to be due to anagrammatism. Often where letters are really similar the 
 confusion is due to some neighbouring word ; e. g. Eur. PJiocn. 184 fieyaXayopiav 
 has been corrupted into ncyaXavopiav owing to the following word vntpavopa. 
 Cf. Heraeus, Quacsiiones criticae, 1885, p. 92 sq. 
 
 1 
 
 \ 
 
158 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 I. Confusions and attempts made to remedy them. 
 
 (i) Confusion of similar letters. 
 
 {a) In Greek} 
 
 A, A, A. Aesch. Slippl. 254 al^vr)^ StaAyos (aiai' ^9 hi ayros). 
 
 Eur. HeL 1584 Sai/Jiov' (kaifiov). Apoll. Rhod. 2. 1260 aXrjfiO' 
 (rvvr)(nv [SaYjfJiocrvvrja-ii'). AeSCh. SuppL 96 Se airi^iov (8' eXTrtSwv). 
 Anth. Pal. vi. 190 ati/^a (Aira). 
 
 p, K. Aesch. Cho. 936 Kapt'StKo? (PapvhiKo^). id. £"///;/. 246 j^cKpoi/ 
 
 (vePpov). Eur. C>'r/. 346 kw/xov (fiiofJLOv). 
 P, fi. Soph. O. C 217 yLtei'Ci? (ySatVcis). Diog. Laert. X. 140 (o-r/x^atVct 
 
 (o-i'/x/xeVct, Bywater). Aesch. Oo. 1068 7rai8o/xopot (TratSo^dpot). 
 
 p, u. This confusion is nearly always due to similarity of 
 pronunciation. Occasionally it arises from similarity of 
 form; v. Cobet, Variae Lcctiones, p. 219. 
 
 n, TT, rn. Cf. Galen, K. xiv. p. 31, where the question is the 
 confusion of letters representing numbers, ra Sc 8^ y8i/3Aia 
 TO, Kara ras /St^Aio^r^Ka? airoKUfJUvaf ra twv dpiO/xutv €)(0VTa crrjjJLiia, 
 
 pa8l'o>9 BLa(TTp€<f>€TaL, TO /X£V € TTOlOlWwV {KaOaTT^p Koi TO O) TO 
 
 8c I r, TrpoadecreL /xtas ypa/x/x^?, wa-irep ye Kat d^aipcVct /xkx? cTC/oas. 
 Eur. /<9;/ 15 oTkov (dyKoi^). Aesch. ^^. 512 /cat Traywvio? (koi 
 Tratonao?). id. /^^r5. 926 yap (ftvcm^ (Tap(f>v<; tis). Eur. Androm, 
 814 p.cy' dAyct (/xcTaAyct). Soph. Ant. 368 irapupMV (ycpaipoji/). 
 
 e, 0, 0, C. Plutarch, Moralia 696 f Ipyov (Oplov). Plato, Politicus 
 284 A 8teAoi''/i,cr (8ioAorp,ci'). Lysias viii. 11 c^' w (o-^wv). 
 Plutarch, Moralia 20 d oiVtj/ (^I'civ). ib. 1099 c ^vo-ias (ovo-tas). 
 
 Z, E, 1^, |. Eur. Heraclid. 493 (T<l>d^€iv ((7</)af€iv). id. Heracles 248 
 
 CTTCvd^CTC (n-TCVtt^CTc). 
 
 Z, T. Eur. Antiope fr. 209 o-ot tt/vS' cs citj/v (o-ot Z^r' cs). Hesy- 
 
 chius, 5. f. Tafiiav {^afJLiav), 
 H, Tl, T), Ti. Isaeus ii. 25 ^8>; ttot (ti' 8»; TTOT*). ib. xi. 19 tl en Sei 
 fiadeiv v/xa? r) (ti) tto^citc aKovcrat (a haplography through 
 
 confusion with H or n). 
 
 1 In this section and in the following section only a few of the commoner 
 interchanges are given. 
 
 ft 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 r, 
 
 \ 
 
 159 
 
 H, IC. Hymn to Demeter ^1 ^aivoXi] ((^aivoAis). 
 
 H, K, T], K. Eur. Bacch. 1048 -n-iKpov (ttoltjpov). Lysias xii. 86 rj 
 
 ayaOoL {KayaOoL). Galen K. xix, p. 9 a.pr]TO (rjpKTo). 
 
 H, n. Lysias xxx. 17 ciVAwv {(ttyjXmv). Arist. Rlict. 1400^^19 
 'Hpo8iKos (IIpoSiKos). Max. Tyr. p. 450. 15 (Hobein) UpoSorov 
 
 ( Hpo8oTOl'). 
 
 K, IC. Aesch. Clio. 897 jxaa-rov Trpos u)KV (Trpos w av). 
 
 Athen. p. 500 C cKaAetTo 8« Kat AepKi'AAtSas 6 AaKc8at/xdrtos (TKV<fiO<i 
 
 (iSiVi'c^o?, cf. Xen. i/^//. iii. i. 8). 
 This corruption leads to many interchanges, e. g. KraaOai, 
 
 l(TTa<jOai '. 7rA€KT09, TrActCTTOS : apl(TTO<i^ apKTOS I CK, CIS : CIS w»', 
 
 €KMv (Lucian Ixx. 25). 
 AA, M. Plat. Gorg. 492 D aXXoOev BTP (afjioOev). Soph. O. C, 
 
 1266 TaAAa (Td/X(x). 
 X, X- Lysias xxi. 10 etAoi' (etxoi'). Eur. El. 1065 (IttwActo (aTrw'xcTo). 
 
 id. Ale. 905 wx^t' (o')A€t'). 
 M, N, fA, »'. Lysias xix. 61 o vvv cts (w v/^cis). 
 
 Eur. Heraclid. 21 TrpoTLjiwv (TrpoTctVwv). 
 N, H. Vide Porson on Hecuba 2. 
 
 N, A. Aesch. Eum. 789 yeVw/xat (ycAw/xai). Eur. 7o« 162 kvkAos 
 
 (kuKVOs). 
 
 y, V. Hymn to Hermes 55 yvre (rjvTe). Eur. Bacch. 129 eV ao-/xao-t 
 
 (cvaap-ao^t). 
 
 I, Tt. Cf. Dawes, Miscellanea Critica, p. 472 : Cobet, F. Z. p. 120. 
 Aristoph. Ach. 1062 d^Va (ama). Xen. Cj)'r. iii. i. 21 ouk 
 
 l^-qfxirihov [ovKen rjfJLTreSov). 
 n, r. Aesch. C//0. 835 Xv-n-pa^ (Arypds). 
 n, ir. Eur. Cycl. 571 o-iywrTa ((TTrwrTtt). 
 
 n, T. Eur. Phoen. 1262 mt Ta^Aa {KaTraOXa). Aesch. /^^. 468 
 
 VTTCpKOTWS (vTTCpKOTTOJs). 
 
 n, Tl. Plat. Pep, 581 D TTOiw/JicOa (tl olwfieOa). 
 
 TT, riT. Clem. Alex. Paed. iii. 6. 3 ij/rjxovo-i fikv t6v xpt«>Ttt, fjpvT- 
 
 Tovcri 8e T^v crdp/ca (f>apfidKOL^ {OpvTrTovdL), 
 T, Y. HeSychiuS, S.T;. {-pet, <;^o/?etTat (Tpci). 
 T, ^ ("h). Alexis (Kock 351) toi^ dij/OTroLov OTKCudo-at \pif)(TToi<; fiovov 
 
 i\ 
 
 1 
 
l;l 
 
 I 
 
 1 60 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 Set TovTov (Tovij/ov). Menander (Kock 618) tl o-avrw uSlkCjv Tr]v 
 
 ij/v^rjv {tvxw) KaraLTia ; This form of \f/ justifies the emenda- 
 tion oif/L^ for or/a- Ac in Aristot. Poef. I456a2(+I = H). Cf. 
 Porson on Medea 553. 
 w, o. Due to pronunciation, e.g. Eur. Hel, 1487 oTroVav at (w irTavai). 
 id. Bacchae 802 orav (J> rar). Aristoph. Z.j's. 281 o//ojs (oj/xws). 
 
 (Z>) /;/ Latin. 
 
 For interchanges found in Inscrr. v. E. Schneider. Diakciae LaU'nac pri'scac cf 
 Faliscac exempla selecta. 1886. For the capital script v. W. Studemund's Index to 
 his transcription of the Ambrosianus of Plautus (1889). A useful list illustrating 
 minuscule changes will be found in M. Ihm, Snefoptius, i, p. xxxix sq. 
 
 A, X. ara (arx) Ov. Fast. i. 245. lana (lanx) Liv. xl. 59. 8. 
 
 ea parte (ex parte) ib. x. 42. 3. sikia (si kix) una retro 
 phylaceida rettulit umbram Stat. St'/it. v. 3. 273. 
 
 a, CO. uellecp tot OG, i. e. uellecj cot, a corruption of ne//e 
 
 qiieat Catull. 75. 3. 
 a, ec. senectum (senatuni) Suet. D. Aug, 94. 3. 
 
 B, R. reliquorum V: belH quorum D, Cic. Phil. xiii. 2. In 
 
 Pro Font. 36, Clark emends to {belli) reliqiiias. 
 
 B, S. inanibus (i. e. inanib.) sententiis Suet. D. Aug. 86. 3 (inanis 
 Gronovius). The SCT. dc Bacch. has the mistake sacanal. 
 
 B, V. laui hodie et ambulaui paukim, ciiii paulo plus sumpsi 
 
 (cibi) Pronto, v. 15 (due to pronunciation). 
 
 C, G. Germanorum (Cenomanorum) Liv. v. 35. i. qui coissent 
 
 ope (qui eguissent) ib. xxi. 52. 8. uincitur (cingitur) Plin. 
 Epp, ii. 17. 15. longo (loco) Suet. D. Aug. 45. 3. 
 
 c, e. et gemitum formaque ac uoce meretur (aeuoque) Stat. 
 Silu. ii. I. 178. deuersorio loco . . . cesserit (deuersoriolo 
 eo) Suet. D. lul. 72. i. 
 
 c, t. curuatur (turbatur) Plin. Epp. ix. 26. 4. arces (artes) Liv. 
 xlii. 47. 4. omnes isti qui recto uiuunt (retro) Sen. Epp, 
 122. 18. This is an uncial as well as a later confusion. 
 
 E, F. cum ea tu (fatu) Plant. Aniph. 906. pulueris ericei (i. e. 
 aericei=Africei) Catull. 61. 206. flatus (elatus) Suet. Nero 
 37. 3, helped by the following word iuflatusquc. 
 
 \ 
 
 r 
 
 ii 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 161 
 
 E, T. iusto die se non dicturum (ius eo die) Liv. iii. 46. 3. 
 
 F, T, P. efllueris (et fueris) Lucr. vi. 800. sed expertae potius 
 
 spectataeque Romanorum fidei credere (toties) Liv. xxxv. 
 49. 12. epulis in multa pericula discoctis (fericula) Sen. Epp, 
 122. 3. The confusion of F and P is common in manuscripts 
 copied from the insular script, e,g. Vitruv. ix. 8. 3 where 
 the Harl. reads confressione for comprcssione. In uncials, ct. 
 Lucan ix. 1048 qui tibi plenidus (qui tibi flendus). 
 
 f, s. femina (semina) Lucr. ii. 497. sucus (fucus) ib. ii. 683 ; 
 cf. Suet. Domit. 8. i semper fusoriis IIQ : semper suasoriis 
 n» : se persuasoriis ST (se perfusoriis). 
 
 G, O H, K H, N are all common in capital script. 
 
 I, P i, p especially when preceded by u or ;;/; e.g. corruitum 
 (corruptum) Plant. Trin. 116. 
 
 I, T i, t. corpora strata tacebant (iacebant) Lucr. vi. 1265. 
 potentiae, quae honoris causa ad eum deferretur, non ui ab 
 eo occuparetur (ui). Veil. Pat. ii. 29. 3. 
 
 I, L i, L cum omnium rnaiorum suorum insigniis se in forum 
 proiecit (malorum) Liv. ii. 23. 3; cf. Munro, cr. n. on 
 Lucr. i. 349. Especially common in manuscripts copied 
 from Visigothic and Beneventan originals, where a long 
 /is used initially to represent the vowel /and medially (e.g. 
 elus) to represent semivocalic /; vide E. A. Loew, Studia 
 Palaeographica, Munich, 1910, pp. 13 sqq. 
 
 L, T 1, t. pars melior senatus ad meliora responsum trahere 
 (mitior) Liv. viii. 21. 6 facile argenti pondus (facti) Q. Curt, 
 iii. 13. 16. 
 
 M, N, IN m, n, ia, ui. tela in domum Maelii conferri eumque 
 contioncs domi habere (coitiones) Liv. iv. 13. 9. nobiliorem 
 (mobiliorem) ib. x. 25. 10. accipiet Capitolium non inimicos 
 currus nee falsae simulacra uictoriae (mimicos) Plin. Pan. 16. 
 intro euntes (nitro euntes) Sen. N. O. iii. 24. 4. 
 
 n, u. leuiter (leniter) Liv. iii. 50. 12. non solitudinem illi 
 7iomtcr insederant (non iter) Plin. Pan, 34. 
 
 «W M 
 
 \ 
 
\ 
 
 162 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 n, r uncommon ; v. Ihm, Suet, i, p. xlvii. gerantur (genantur) 
 Lucr. iv. 143. uini (uiri) ib. vi. 805. 
 
 O, Q. iQVE for lovE Verg. G. iii. 35, ovis for ovis Plaut. Pers, 
 173- 
 
 P, C p, c. petere (cetera) Lucr. iv. 590. scatium (spatium) ib. 
 i. 988. PLAVDVNT for CLAVDVNT IS given by R in Verg. 
 Aeu. vi. 139. punctis (cunctis) Manil. v. 706. Cassius 
 quidam Carmensis (Parmensis) Suet. D. Aug. 4. 2. This 
 error must have been common in the early capital hands 
 with an open P, e.g. the poem on Actium (a.d. 79). 
 
 P, R. paras (raras) Liv. xxiv. 2. 9. impetrarat (impetrabat) Cic. 
 ad Att. i. 16. 4. rutat (putat) Luc. iv. 693. In Ammian. xx. 
 3. I secuturos thecanno VM : /or secuto post haec anno ; the 
 original error must have been sccutoros, with the confusion 
 of P and R common in reading the insular script. 
 
 p, u. aues (apes) Varro, R, R. iii. 2. 11. paulum (altered from 
 pauiu^ a corruption of iiauium) Liv. xxi. 61. 4. Est ubi 
 diuellat somnos minus inuida cura (dcpcllat in some codd.) 
 Hon Epp. i. 10. 18. 
 
 r, n in insular hands, e.g. Vitruv. ii. 8. 17 contigrationem in G 
 for contignationan. 
 
 (2) Misinterpretation of Contractions and Symbols. 
 
 Bast, 'Commentatio Palaeo-raphica ' (in Schacfer's Gregorius Corinihius) 
 181 1 ; E. M. Thompson, /;//. to Gk. and Lot. Palaeography, pp. 75-90; Traube, 
 Nomina Sacra, 1907; Lindsay, Contractions in Early Latin Mimiscitle Mamiscriptl^ 
 1908 (a convenient summary of this is given in Karl Krumbacher, Popiildre 
 Aufsatse, pp. 310 sqq., and more shortly by Lindsay, The Year's Work in 
 CI. Sttuhes, 1908, p. 119) ; T. W. Allen, Notes on Abbreviations in Greek Mann- 
 scripts, 1889; Dougan, Cic. Tusc. p. xlvi ; F. Marx, ad Herenn. p. 26. 
 
 Contractions are of two kinds : (i) literal and syllabic con- 
 tractions, where the word is shortened by the omission of some 
 of the letters of which it consists ; (2) tachygrams, where a 
 shorthand sign is substituted for the whole word or a part of it. 
 
 The study of contractions has gained in importance from the 
 researches of Ludwig Traube who, working upon the suggestions 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 163 
 
 I 
 
 of Maunde Thompson and others, has shown convincingly the 
 value of historical investigation. Such investigations may be 
 the means of throwing light not only on textual corruptions, but 
 also on the ancestry of manuscripts. It has long been recog- 
 nized that the earliest method of contraction is to leave out the 
 end of a word and to write one or more only of the initial letters 
 or syllables, followed by a full stop in Latin or with the last 
 letter above the line in Greek : e. g. D. = deus, DOM. = dominus, 
 K. = Krpto?, Trap^ = TrapOevoq — a method which Chassant long ago 
 termed 'suspension*. Beside this system is another in which 
 the middle of a word is left out and the beginning and end only 
 given, with a bar drawn above them, e. g. DS = deus, DNS = domi- 
 nus, KC =Kvptos. Traube would confine the term ' contraction' to 
 this class. They are here called ' head-and-taiF contractions. 
 Of these two methods the first is the earliest; the second is not 
 found in Latin manuscripts till the influence of Christianity 
 had become predominant. It is used by the Christians as 
 a means of denoting the sacred names and terms that were 
 constantly recurring in sacred texts or in theological works ; 
 e. g. Deus, Christus, Spiritus ; and was by degrees extended to 
 words outside the sacred vocabulary. In its origin it is derived 
 from the reverent Hebrew custom of never writing the name of 
 the Deity in full, but always by means of the mystic tetragram. 
 This custom was imitated by the Greek translators of the Bible, 
 who introduced such head-and-tail contractions as 6C = 0€O9, 
 avoJv = dv6 pio7r<x)v, TrVd = irvevfjiu, and from them it has passed to 
 the early Latin translators. These head-and-tail contractions 
 invade the texts of profane Latin writers about the sixth 
 century. In Greek lands, however, owing to the conservatism 
 of scribes, they remain confined to ecclesiastical and kindred 
 writings (e. g. treatises on magic, Sec, which were influenced by 
 Jewish learning) till the ninth century, when the revival of the 
 ancient literature which is associated with the names of Arethas 
 and Photius took place. 
 
 In accordance with these observations Traube argues that 
 the codex Romanus of Vergil cannot be older than the sixth 
 
 M 2 
 
 / < 
 
i 
 
 164 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 century, since it gives the contraction DS for dciis in Eel. i. 9.^ 
 The word nostri is written ;/ in the half uncials of the sixth 
 century. Two manuscripts belonging to the a-group in 
 Caesar's Gallic War seem to postulate an archetype of the sixth 
 century, since they constantly mistranscribe this symbol as ;//;//, 
 nisi, or nihil. A wider knowledge of the history of contractions 
 will doubtless rule out a number of rash emendations. Traube's 
 rule, for instance, would not allow us to assume a contraction 
 such as avuiv (i. e. ulvOimttiov) as a basis for the emendation aXX^i 
 in a manuscript older than the ninth century. 
 
 It is impossible in the present work to give a complete list of 
 even the commoner contractions in Latin and Greek, and the 
 lists given below must only be taken to illustrate some of the 
 confusions that are possible. The list of Greek contractions 
 which follows is taken chiefly from Venetus 474 of Aristophanes, 
 eleventh century. 
 
 {a) Contractiojis in Greek Manuscripts. 
 
 Aesch. Eiun. 567 7} t' olv 8taro/>os Trpo-f/iiK*/. It has been pro- 
 posed to emend this by assuming that oZv is a corruption of 
 the compendium for oi'/>ai'o?, e.g. ci? ovfjavuv Se SiuTopos. But 
 the suggestion has not been universally accepted. 
 
 Plato, Pllileb. 23 D ct/xt 8', ws eoiKeVy cyw yc/WosTt? tiKarosf. The 
 
 true reading is avOpwiro's: la- has been corrupted to utik by 
 dittography, and the compendium avUs for avOfm-n-o^ misunder- 
 stood. Cf. Cobet, V.L. p. 14. 
 
 Eur. Ion 588 ttc'/k (7raT€/>). ibid. 1304 7r/Tt yr^? (7raTf)LK7i^). PhoCH. 
 1 038 aWo<; aXXuv (dAAo? d/\A ). 
 
 Isaeus viii. 42 KJaXXea Bk [x^/Ka uttu] eV-ciVw 3e'8a>Ke. An insertion 
 of a marginal note which probably was originally x^H^^ 
 
 'Attikt}?. 
 
 ^ Traube's conclusion in this particular case is not necessarily right but his 
 argument is legitimate. The editor of the Vatican facsimile of the Romanus 
 maintains that such contractions must have been common in the sixth century, 
 as can be seen from the Taurinensis-Ambrosianus of Cassiodorus. They might 
 therefore well have been used sporadically a century earlier. 
 
 (Ji) IINEIS 
 
 (js)cuiiV£:s(cont'j 
 
 ^ (-'^^J "T - ''^r. Mjo (-Li^j ^^^(^y) 
 
 W ('Co) Y =- Tov 
 
 
 y 
 
 ■/. 
 
 ('^^^ TO - Tor6 ttqV.:. rrare 
 
 S - K*L Toe 
 V/ t_ ^ S (6V^ ^.yu^V 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 / (-rt^ To'/ - roVe 
 
 (-b; curves 
 
 X (-0^5 J T<yo<^dT<dcur^c^j ^ 
 
 S±^ (jOS^ fJLON ^ ^ 
 
 'it 
 
 ^^^ (-fS ) «C/<r = ^K-ns 
 
 o 
 ( Ov^ Tot t/T »- TOiovTO^ 
 
 V / 
 
 6*- r 
 
 6/^ 
 
 
 rr 
 
 
 OVVOV '- OVPOLWOV 
 
 
 o 
 
 
t66 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 Xenophon, Occon. v. 12 tn Sc rj y^ t^eWo-af . . . ^iKaLO(Tii'r]v 
 
 8i8tto-K€i. (6^crovo-a = ^€os ovaa.) In Some manuscripts the 
 corruption has been emended to BiXovo-a, 
 Athenaeus ii. 67 e ofv yap E : on yap C. The true reading 
 
 IS o^vyapov = o^vyafj. 
 Athenaeus viii. 367 B rjixets fikv ovv o-ol ravra t, KaXk ar^pw7r€,t 
 
 (rvv€L(T€V7rop7](Tafi€v. The emendation of the strange phrase 
 KttAc avOpiDire to KaAc OvXTnaii, adopted by some editors, 
 assumes that avOpoiTre is an expansion of aic which was taken 
 for a compendium of ai'^pojTro?. 
 
 Galen v. 69. 16 (Klihn) cVi'oi-s per oj'wScis to Ttt9t c^iWi (wras). 
 
 ib. V. 83. 15 TTys oAv/s >/p€pas [oTi] : where on has been intruded 
 through the similarity of the compendia for on and r;/xcpa 
 (v. supra 165). 
 
 Llbanius iv, p. 252. 32 w Skikoi'oi n-pcu'rov, — vpcis /xcr <^€(rO€ pe 
 
 ScSc/xcVoj' a^ctv — uTTtTc 8€ t KcV ;;(epo-iVt. (Kciais \ep(Tiv the Com- 
 pendium Kcv" having been neglected.) 
 
 (b) Contractions in Latin Manuscripts. 
 
 In Latin manuscripts contractions are derived from the 
 following sources : 
 
 (i) The old Roman system of simple 'suspension' used for 
 common names, titles, cV'c, on inscriptions and coins, e.g. C = 
 GAivs. (2) The notae Tironiajiae, a system of tachygrams or 
 shorthand invented or improved by Cicero's freedman, Tiro. 
 (3) The notae iuris, found in juristic handbooks. These are 
 borrowed in part from the two classes described, and in part are 
 a separate development: e.g. the use of the sign ' for various 
 endings — c' = cum, m' =-nius; and the use of suprascript letters — 
 m = /;/////, m = modo} (4) The head-and-tail contractions de- 
 scribed above, p. 163. 
 
 In the continuous hands contractions are rare. They are 
 common in the insular hands where the separation of words is 
 fairly consistent. It has been suggested that the practice began 
 at the Irish monastery of Bobbio in Italy. Parchment was scarce, 
 
 * Complete collection by Mommscn in Keil, Grainm. Lat. iv, pp. 267 sqq. 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 167 
 
 and to save space the scribes adopted contractions from all the 
 sources mentioned above. In the later dissected hands, where 
 each word is written separately, contractions enter slowly at first 
 (e.g. in Caroline minuscules), then in increasing volume (e.g. in 
 so-called Lombardic), then in a flood (in Gothic), till they finally 
 all but disappear in the humanistic hands of the fifteenth century. 
 
 The following brief survey of some of the contractions in use 
 in the main Latin hands in which Latin texts have been pre- 
 served will serve to illustrate the problems of emendation which 
 arise from the wrong interpretation of contractions. 
 
 (i) Capital hands. Cf. Ribbeck, Vergil^ i. 260. The sur- 
 viving instances of these hands are thought to belong to the 
 period between the fourth and seventh centuries. The writing 
 is continuous, contractions are rare. 
 
 (a) Capitahs elegans or quadrata^ a large monumental hand. 
 
 (b) Capitalis rustica, a smaller and rougher hand. 
 
 B. = buSj Q. = que. There are a number of compound letters 
 (coutignationes) which give rise to errors ; e. g. NS, NT, OS, TR, 
 VL, VN, VS. Hence such variants as: 
 
 Verg. Georg. iii. 433 torquens M : torquent P. Acn. xi. 667 
 transuerberatj tranuerberat M. 
 
 (2) Uncials. The age of manuscripts in this hand is often 
 difficult to determine. It superseded the capital hands in the 
 fifth century and is still in use in the eighth century. Cf. 
 Wessely 's Codex Vindobonensis ofLivy (facsimile) ; F. W. Shipley, 
 Certain sources of Corruption in Latin Manuscripts, 1904, 
 pp. 54 sqq. 
 
 Contractions (save in juridical works) are few and simple as 
 in Capital hands : 
 
 {a) Suspensions : b. = bus, q. = que, e = est, 'pk = praetor, cos = 
 consul, p. R.=popu/us Rontanus. (b) stroke over vowel = ;;/ or 
 more rarely ;/, but only at the end of lines. The contractions 
 in Half -Uncials are very similar. 
 
 (3) Insular hands [scriptura Scottica, Saxonica, litterae tonsae), 
 i.e. Irish and Anglo-Saxon ; a peculiar type of the half-uncial 
 developed in the sixth century. 
 
1 68 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 
 
 ,^ 
 
 The best account of the contractions will be found in Lindsay, 
 Contractions in Early Latin Minuscule Manuscripts, 1908. A 
 useful selection is given in De Vries, Album Palaeographicum, 
 pp. xxv-xxvii, 1909. 
 
 A study of the system of contractions used in these manu- 
 scripts is of high importance, since books written in these 
 handwritings are often exemplars from which the Carolingian 
 scribes made their copies. Among the commonest tachygrams 
 derived in some cases from the notae Tironianac and notae 
 iuris are : 
 
 rt///^;;/ = If often confused with hoc, i. e. lu 
 
 con = o. contra = 9- in early manuscripts. It was liable to be 
 confused with eius and also with a sign for -us, -os. 
 
 eius= 9 often misinterpreted by later copyists. 
 
 enini = W derived from a nota iuris; sometimes confused with 
 the sign for autem [supra), 
 
 est = -T- or ^. quae = q:', 
 
 et = /. r5S^ = ee (juristic). 
 
 m, n = a bar drawn over the preceding vowel a, e, J, 0, w. 
 ^The ordinary head-and-tail contractions are common, e. g. : 
 ds = deus, pf= pater, nud= nuntero. 
 
 Often the last letter in such contractions is suprascript : 
 
 111 = mi/ii, p = post. 
 
 A number of small words are represented by the initial letter 
 or letters only with the bar of contraction drawn above them : 
 
 a = aut, c = cum, etl = etiam. 
 
 Some old Roman contractions remain, e.g. q: = que, h: = bus. 
 
 (4) Carolingian hands. Contractions are not common in 
 these hands. Most of them are in use also in Insular hands. 
 (a) Tachygraphical signs : 
 
 — or curve ^ suprascript = ;;/ ; also -en, -er, as in 
 Lom bardic ; e. g. ^ai= pater, 
 
 -us, -urare denoted by an apostrophe, e.g. eV = eius, 
 temperet' = temperetur. 
 
 The Insular sign for .wr= 1 (suprascript) is also used. 
 est=^ 
 
 EMENDATION 169 
 
 (b) Other contractions : 
 
 e. or .e. = est, confused with e = -em. 
 
 ee, €e = esse, 
 
 qd = quod, q:- = quae. 
 
 I = uel. 
 
 l)=per. p=pro. p=pri. p=prae. 
 
 qrfi or qnm = quoniam. 
 
 b., q: = -bus, -que. 
 
 Ordinary head-and-tail contractions iin = 7tostri, ^c. 
 Other tachygrams are in use later, e.g. the Tironian y = €t 
 and o = con, 
 
 (5) LoMBARDic, i. e. the Benevcntan and Monte Cassino hand : it 
 probably has no connexion with Lombardy, but is a calligraphic 
 development of the later Roman cursive. It reached its zenith 
 in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Cf. H. Rostagno's preface 
 to facsimile of the Laurentian codex of Tacitus, Annals xi-xvi in 
 SijthofTs series, 1902. 
 
 [a] Tachygraphic signs : 
 
 ; = -us, often hardly distinguishable from the second 
 sign for ;;/ below. 
 
 ^ or 2^ suprascript = ;;/ final or medial. 
 — suprascript = en, cr final or medial. 
 i- suprascript = -iir. 
 
 (b) Contractions of both kinds are common ; e. g. 
 
 e = est. 
 
 n = non. 
 
 dos = deos. f FT =:/ratri. 
 
 (c) p =pcr. p or p =prae. 
 
 ^=pro. p'=post. 
 
 i'= sed, easily confused with the ligatures for 5/' and fi. 
 
 After the twelfth century, which saw the rise of the Gothic 
 hands, contractions of every sort enter into Western handwriting. 
 
 Liv. iii. 35. 9. The Vindobonensis reads— consulibus tantis- 
 simo (constantissimo). 
 
 ib. XXX. 42. 12 factionibus archinae, codd. recc. for factioni 
 Barcinae, i. e. wrongly divided disfactionib. arcinae and mis- 
 interpreted. 
 
lyo 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 In these instances abbreviations have been wrongly assumed 
 by the scribes. In the following they have been wrongly in- 
 terpreted. 
 
 C\c. pro ArcJiia § 8 adsiint Heraclienses legati . . . qui hunc 
 
 adscriptum Heracliensem (esse) dicunt (Heracliense ee 
 
 dicunt). 
 ib. § II delatus est a Lucullo praetore consule \_sic E] (pro 
 
 consule). 
 Cic. pro Sestio § 127 quibus autem consistere . . . non liceat 
 
 (G has the compendium for hoc, a mistake for the insular 
 
 compendium for autem, v. supra). 
 Propertius iii. 7. 46 nil, nisi flere, potest DV : ubi flere NFL; 
 
 a confusion of h and u. 
 Catullus 64. 120 portaret amorem OG, for pracopiarity i.e. 
 
 poptarit > poptarit > portaret. 
 ib. 68. 16 iucundum cum aetas florida uer ageret, corrupted in 
 
 O (1. 49) to florida /// ageret, i.e. u has been misinterpreted. 
 Manilius v. 49 Persida, misread as psida or psid'a appears as 
 
 per sidcra. 
 ib. V. 738 respublica mundi MSS. respendere, respondere ; 
 
 i.e. r . . p, has evidently been confused with some other con- 
 traction (? juristic) for respondere. (Cf. Keil, GL. iv, p. 299 
 
 RP = re spot id it.) 
 
 Germanicus, Arat. Pliaen. 271 plurimulum acceptae prolis: 
 multum accepta epulis, Haupt. epulis— eptis=prolis. 
 
 (3) Mistranscription through general resemblance. 
 
 Madvjg, Adv. i, p. 19 'especially p. 25; ; Vollgraff, p. 28 ; Bywater, p. 15 ; 
 Tucker, Choephon, p. Ixxxvi. 
 
 Many of these errors are due at the outset to wrong com- 
 bination (cf I. (4) infra). 
 
 Aesch. Eum. 727 a-v tol iraXaia^ t8at/xomst KaTa<f>Oi(Ta^ (Siavofids). 
 AriStoph. T/ieSJn. 1047 iw fiot ^nipa^ fai^criKTct SaLfioiv (aT€yKT€). 
 Menander, Fr. 402. I tV' ta/>i<^OT€pav ivaf (or afi<t>^T€pavLv) yj-n-t- 
 K\r]pos yj KaXyj /xcAAci KaOiv^irjcriLV (cV afxffioripav plv)' 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 171 
 
 Eur. Phoen. 538 to yap la-ov vofxifiov avOpMTTOis €(fiv {povi/JLov). 
 Apollon. Fit. Aeschinis, § 9 iieTnaev cV tw ttoAc/xo) vtto twv 
 TpLaKOVTa Kol (TTpaT€v6iJ.€vo<; fKal evvoia^ Koif apLcrreLOiv rjituiOrj. 
 
 From Aeschin. Fa/s. Leg. 147 it is clear that the reading 
 
 must be (TTpaT€v6iJi€vo? iv 'Ao-ia. 
 
 Among such confusions may be noted :—dep6oi, dvepumi (Plato, Gorg. 490 b) ; 
 dvTiiTOpos, dvTippoiros (^Arrian, Anab. \v. 27. 31 ; d?roj/Tcu/', diravTOJV (Lys. xix. 51^; 
 d<TKovvTa^, dKovovra^ (Xen. Cyr. iii. 3. 35^ ; paaiXevaai, ^Xancvaai (Arrian, Anal). 
 iii. 6. 8^ ; eOos, lOvos (Galen, ir. i^vx. iraS. 14) ; kKaroarus, (lKoffT6s (Ath. 543 a); 
 (mopKiav, (niKovpiav (Schol. Find. Ol. xiii. 116); Odrfpof, Oiarpoi' (Plato, Laws 
 659 a) ; Kvrjaii, Kivrjaii (Plato, P/it7eh. 46 d) ; uttKltt^s, woMtt)^ (Lys. xiv. 9 and xv. 
 11); Trd\iv, TToXiv, vdvv, rroKv (Eur. Hemcl. 933); 7r(Aa7<o?, 7rAd7tos (Strabo iii. 
 167); p^^iin], opiii] (Julian, Or. viii. 241 d) ; aKojKrjKOJV, auvKaKcov (Galen, n. ^ux- 
 dfxapT. 87) ; Tonos, rpdiros (Lys. xxxiii. 7). 
 
 It should be remembered that some of these confusions are 
 rendered easier by the environment in which they occur: e.g. 
 Plat. Lysis 212 c foio/xcvott olovTai ovK ai'TK^iXcia-Oai (ol fih'). Here 
 01 fiev has passed naturally into olofievot owing to the influence 
 of the following oiorrai. It would not necessarily follow that 
 the change would be equally convincing in a different en- 
 vironment. 
 
 Liv. xxi. 4. 6 cibi potionisque desiderio naturali, non uoluntate 
 
 modus finitus (uoluptate; cf Plin. Epp. ii. 17. 24). 
 ib. xxi. 40. 9 membra torrida gelu (torpida ; cf xxi. 58. 9). 
 Valerius Max. ix. 12 E.xt. 8 unius grani pertinacior in aridis 
 
 faucibus unior absumpsit (mora). 
 Valerius, Res Gest. Alex. i. 30 (Kuebler, p. 33. 4) quae etiam 
 
 tunc animo uoluntas indidem proficiscitur (uolutans). 
 Seneca, N. O. iii. 18. i nihil . . . mullo expirante illo formo- 
 sius . . . rubor primum, deinde pallor subfunditur, quaui 
 aeque uariantur (squamaeque). 
 
 Cf, also ciuis, cuius (Sen. Here. Oet. 1185) ; fortiter, ferociter (Liv. iii. 47. 2); 
 ingenita, ingentia {Q. Curt. v. 6. 9) ; iustius, istius (ib. v. 5. a) ; manibus, 
 manubiis (Liv. xxxiii. 47. 3^, ; nouus, bonus (Sen. Epp. 1 18. 7) ; persequeretur, 
 per se quaereretur (Liv. xl. 12. 11) ; recipere, reciperare (Cic. Diuinaiio in O. C. 
 § 72) ; tristis, tritus (Stat. Theb. ii. 366). 
 
 \ 
 
\ 
 
 172 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 Cf. Dr. Johnson's emendation, Boswell (ed. Hill), v. 214, 
 'The Devil answers even in engines' {ever in enigmas). Jane 
 Austen, Northangrr Abbey, ch. xxvi, ' By ten o'clock the chaise- 
 and-four conveyed the two from the abbey, cSic' As it is clear 
 from the context that the party must have consisted of three, 
 Dr. Verrall has suggested that the reading should be altered to 
 trio. Shelley, Arid to Miranda, *The artist who this idol 
 wrought ' (viol). Keats' Sonnet xii, ' Pink robes and wavy hair 
 and diamond jar' (tiar). Times, Aug. 14, 1906, 'One doctor 
 described his case as that oi miniature development ' (immature). 
 ib. Nov. 30, 1912, p. 3, 'The crown lays no claim to lumbago 
 found in lands sold by it prior to 1901 ' (plumbago). 
 
 (4) W Wrong combination or separation, often leading to 
 'ghost- words' and to false accommodation (cf. I (5) infra), 
 (b) Wrong punctuation. 
 
 (a) IVrong combination or separation. 
 
 Madvig, Adv. i, p. 26 ; Hagen, pp. 76-8 ; Owen, Ovid, Tn'sfia, p. xxxvii ; Beer, 
 Spidleg. luv., p. 13; Vollgraff, p. 15; Marquardt, Galen, i, p. xxxv ; Hosius, 
 Lucan, pp. viii sqq. 
 
 Such errors are often due to an archetype written in con- 
 tinuous script. V. Christ, ArisL Metaphys., p. vii ; Heraeus, 
 Ouaest. Crit. § i. 
 
 Aesch. Fr, 275 e/jcuStos yap vipoOev 7roT(f')/xci'os, fov 6' ws tTrXfj^ev, 
 
 Anaxilas, Fr. 22. 14 (Kock) td)? ra ttoAAu y dal ravrrj^f {o>aT 
 aTraWayiLo-L raiTTys). 
 
 Soph. Ajax 1056 (Ls €Aot8o>€t (w? cAot ^opQ. 
 
 Eur. H. F. 1 1 15 dKavO€a)v rt9 iivaO' ol /curao-rcVet (a kuv Oewv ns, 
 ct irdOoi^ KararrrcVot). 
 
 Anaxandrides Fr. 49 (Kock) <m er,^' dXa^^^v roiV cVm/xas UXXd 
 
 TiVL Kalf ya/) avrr) ra? rc^m? TTttcras ttoAv (aAAa rt : riKO. ydp), 
 Theocrit. 28. 24 Ky,i'o ydp ns €>€? fno UoaeiSuyv af (tcIttos I8m' a). 
 
 Plutarch, Non posse suauiter, 1102B kuI ^iW fxlv ws fiayupio 
 
 7rapi(TTrjK€ tQ Up€l o-^arToiri, Ovaa^ 8' uttckti Xlyuw fro p\v 
 drSpelovf lOvov ov irpofrixovdiv ovUv fxoL ^co?? {to M€vdi'Sp€Lov), 
 
 173 
 
 Galen, v. 14. 8 (Kiihn) /at/S' av iv eOveat rots KaXws TiOpafjiiJievois 
 
 (L has tOvio-L K'ttAws rots reOp. which points to cV tOca-i kuA- 
 AtWots TiOp.). 
 
 Plaut. Amph. 151 adest ferit (adeste erit, i,e. a wrong separa- 
 tion together with confusion of e and f). 
 
 Verg. Ae)i. ix. 716 Inarime, from misunderstanding dv 
 'ApLfjLOL? in Iliad ii. 783. 
 
 Liv. xxxiv. 57. 8 aut ex formula iuris antiqul aut ex partis 
 utriusque commodo. (This the right reading is preserved 
 in the Moguntinus. The Palatini have : aut ex co sinnda, 
 emended by the inferior manuscripts to ex aequo sinnd.) 
 
 Sen. Epp. 22. 15 ilia (natura) nobis conqueri (nobiscum 
 queri). 
 
 Sen. Epp. 89. 4 philosophia unde dicta sit apparet : ipso enim 
 nomine fatetur. quidam et sapientiam ita quidam finierunt 
 etc. (fatetur quid amet. Sapientiam). 
 
 Tac. Ann. xiii. 25 uia temptantem (ui attemptantem). 
 
 Val. Max. ii. 3. 3 ideoque auctori eius Nauio honos adhuc est 
 habitus (a duce est). 
 
 Cf. Shakespeare, Henry F, iv. iii. 104, 'Mark then abounding 
 valour in our English ' (? a bounding, Theobald) ; A Midsummer 
 Night's Dream, iv. i. 38, ' Fairies, be gone and be always away ' 
 (all ways) ; Richard III, iv. iv. 324, ' Advantaging their loan with 
 interest Oftentimes double gain of happiness ' (Of ten times). 
 Mr. H. Bradley informs me that the ghost-word ' litie ' was once 
 sent in to the Oxford Dictionary supported by the quotation, 
 ' the barbarity and inside litie of the Turks ' (infidelity). 
 
 {b) IVrong punctuation, often leading in Greek to the insertion 
 
 of particles such as ydp, kul, Si. 
 
 F. A. Wolf laid special stress on punctuation. ' Da codicem probe inter- 
 punctum, commentarii iusti uicem habebit ' (Prolegomena ch. i). Valilen, Optsc. 
 i. 103-20. 
 
 AristOt. Eth. Nic. 1122^25 afia yap Set roi^Vwi/ cti/at Kat /i^ ii6vov tw 
 cpyo) dAAu K'at t<J> Troiovvn irpiiruv . . . TrpeTrcL 8c [/cat] oh toluvtu 
 
 7rpovTrdp)^u ktX., where the Kat has been inserted through 
 
174 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 \ 
 
 failure to observe that the three lines in the text between 
 Trp^TTuv and 7r/)€7rei are a parenthesis, vid. By water, Contribu' 
 tions ad loc. and of. ii66'^ lo. 
 Plaut. Epid. 352-3 (v. 353 is rejected by some edd., but 
 should be retained with altered punctuation) : 
 
 nam leno omne argentum apstulit pro fidicina (ego resolui, 
 manibus his denumeraui) pater suam natam quam esse credit. 
 
 Plaut. Trin. 389 ecce autem (in benignitate hoc repperi) 
 negotium. 
 
 Cf. Selden, Tabic Talk (ed. Reynolds), p. 47, s.v. House of 
 Commons : * The House of Commons is called the Lower House 
 in twenty acts of Parliament : but what are twenty acts of Parlia- 
 ment amongst friends ? ' Here amongst friends is an exclamation 
 in parenthesis such as Selden uses elsewhere, e.g. pp. 73, 74, cf 
 the contemporary memoirs of Sir J. Reresby, ed. 1904, p. 283: 
 'The Lord Treasurer and others drank themselves into that 
 state of frenzy that (amongst friends) it was whispered that they 
 had stripped into their shirts, &c.' ' Gray, Elegy : 
 
 'For, who to dumb forgetfulness a prey, 
 This pleasing anxious being e'er resigned,' 
 
 where the commas destroy the construction, which surely is 
 ' who resigned this anxious being as a prey to forgetfulness '. 
 
 (5) Assimilation of Words and of Terminations. 
 
 Madvig, Adv. i, p. 53 ; Wyse, haeus, p. xxxix ; J. B. Mayor, Ciemeiit of 
 Alexandria, p. Ixxiv; J. B. Mayor, DeNat. Deorum, i, p. Ixi; Friedrich, Catnllns, 
 p. 139; S. G. Owen, Ovid, Tristia, p. Ixxvii ; Marquardt, Galen, i, p. xxxviii. 
 
 This error like those arising from wrong combination and 
 separation often leads to 'accommodation of construction', i.e. 
 an attempt is made to readjust the construction of the sentence 
 by further alterations. Cf Dougan, Cic. Tusc. p. liv. 
 
 Aristoph. Vesp. 544 ^aAAo0o>oi K-aAoi'/xe^' av 
 
 » I owe this reference to the Rev. H. E. D. Blakiston. 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 175 
 
 for Ka\ovfX€0\ uvTojfioa-iCjv k. Here the scribe's e3'e has wan- 
 dered to the syllable tiv- which he has hastily taken for the 
 particle av. The verb has been put in the optative in order 
 to suit the construction of av. 
 Aristot. Rlief. 1378'' 2 t?)s (Itto t^? e'XTTiSos (so Ac for ryv (XTTo owing 
 to the influence of the following Ty». 
 
 Dio Chrys. Or. Ixiv, p. 341 (7) tv^V Sc^wkc) ^ioKparei 4>p6in](Tiv, 
 'Apto-TctSct SLKaLo<Tvv')]v, Aa/ccSat/xoi'iois frrp 'AOijvaioivf OdXaaaav 
 (AttKcS. yrjv, 'A0r)vaLOL<s OdX.). 
 
 Pausanias X. 24. 4 O^do-aio av . . . feo-rtv dvi<f>i]V(.v o TrroAcyoiwi't 
 ... 6 i€/0€V9 d-n-iKTeLViv (cod. Angelicus for larLav c<^' tJ Nco- 
 
 TTToAc/xov/). Here the word TTToX^fnov has been given a parti- 
 cipial ending in order to accommodate it to the preceding 6. 
 
 Galen, v. 38. 17 (Kilhn) Kal rd pXv (TraiSi'a) c^tAoVom . . . ra 8' 
 apeXrj , . . evLa fikv UttI tw ;)(ttipeti/ eVati/oi'/xci'ttf . . . evia Sk 
 eVt Tu) KaTayiyvdidK^u-BaL . . . atSoi^/xcm (eVt t(o iiraiveiddaL 
 
 XatpovTa). The participle eVaiW/xcm has been imported 
 through false accommodation to the following participle 
 
 ai8ovfji€va. 
 
 Varro, de Ling. Laf. vii. 64 a quo Accius ait pcrsonas distortas 
 oribus deformis miriones (personas distortis oribus de- 
 formis). 
 
 Liv. iii. 50. 6 sibi uitam filiae %\xae cariorem fuisse (sua). 
 
 Sen. de Tranq. 16. 2 uide quomodo quisque illorum tulerit et 
 si fortes fuerunt ipsorum illos animos desidera (animo, i. e. 
 'we ought to lament the loss of brave men with the same 
 bravery which they themselves have shown '). 
 
 Cf Kingsley, Andromeda : 
 
 ' But the boy still lingered around her. 
 
 Loath like a boy to forgo her, and waken the cliffs with his 
 
 laughter ' (ivaken'd). 
 
 'Rule Britannia, B. rules the waves,' &c. This is now the vul- 
 
 gate reading which is found even in Palgrave's Golden Treasury. 
 
 The right version is ' B. rule the waves ', the verb having been 
 
 adjusted in tense to the following statement. 
 
 / 
 
 i 
 
 
■jtrz' 
 
 176 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 177 
 
 I) 
 
 (6) Transposition : (a) of Letters and Syllables especially 
 Terminations (Anagrammatism, Metathesis), {b) Of 
 Words and Passages. 
 
 (a) Transposition 0/ Letters and Syllables. 
 
 Madvig, Adv. i, p. 50; Schubart, p. 91 ; Wyse, Isaeus, p. xli ; Hagen, p. 88 ; 
 Housman, Manilius /, p. liv ; Richards, Xenophon and Others, p. 302. 
 
 This error is especially common in the transcription of proper 
 names: e.g. Kt>wv'os, MiVwros (Pausanias iii. 12), ©eo-o-a/Ws, ^aAatr- 
 o-ms (ib. vii. 2). It is often due to general resemblance (cf. supra 
 I (3)). But it is no doubt also due, as Schubart suggests, to 
 a faulty pronunciation by mouths no longer familiar with the 
 sounds of the older language. This does not imply that the 
 scribes wrote to dictation, but only that just as the pronunciation 
 of familiar words would be present to their minds when they 
 wrote, so when the word was unfamiliar they attempted m- 
 stinctively to find a pronunciation for it, and the pronunciation 
 they found influenced what they wrote : e.g. xc^W^po?, /xctxa/^pos: 
 
 Aristoph. Acli. 91 ^kovtcs 5yo/x€v contra metriim R for dyovrc? 
 
 Plat. Rep. 437 D h oAiyo) (kv\ Xoyw). 
 
 Lucian, Ti)}Wn 57 ri dyamKTet? wya6'c friVwvt 7rapaK€Kpov(TfxaL (T€ 
 
 [fJLijJV Tl). 
 
 Cic. pro Muren.^^g certe ipsi candidatorum obscurior ei nideri 
 
 solet (creta ipsa . . . obscurior euadere solet). 
 Cf. Gaskell, Cranford, ch. xiv, 'a little of the cold loin sliced 
 and fried * (the context requires ' cold lion *). 
 
 (b) Transposition of Words and Passages. 
 (a) In Poetry. The transposition of words is common here, 
 the reason being, as VV. Headlam shows (C.R. 1902, pp. 243 sqq.), 
 that the scribes tend to write the words in the order of prose. 
 
 Eur. /. A. 396 tra 8* a/x' oM uttoktciw yw rcKva (sO C for Tafxa 
 
 8' ovk). 
 Aristoph. Eq. 231 : R has vtto roi) Uov% ykp fotSels atTovf ^]0(\iv 
 
 {avrov ovSci'?). 
 
 ' 1" 
 
 id. Pint US 715 OVK oXtya? ctxc (c^X^i' o^'K oAtyas), cf. Eccl. 227. 
 
 Lucret. v. 331 natura ;;/////^/5/ (naturast mundi). 
 
 ib. 1 198 ulla tielatunist (\A\?iS\. uelatum). 
 
 The transposition of passages in poetry is due to damage 
 inflicted on the archetype and to the various causes of transcrip- 
 tional error such as homoeoteleuton. The passages omitted are 
 often noted in the margin by the corrector, and are inserted out 
 of place by some subsequent copyist. The loose construction o 
 poetry (especially of elegiac poetry, where each distich tends to 
 be a complete thought in itself) does not always betray the 
 disturbance which has taken place, and if the text depends 
 ultimately upon a single manuscript, such transpositions may 
 easily become part of the tradition. Instances of this will be 
 found passim in Lucretius and Propcrtius. Cf. Postgate, C. R. 
 1902, p. 306. 
 
 (P) In Prose the transposition of Words is due often (i) to the 
 unwillingness of scribes to insert a word or phrase in its proper 
 place when they have omitted or anticipated it by accident. In 
 order not to deface the page they often write the missing words 
 later. Cf. G. Hermann, Opnsc. iii. 104; Madvig, Adv. i. 46; 
 Lehrs, Aristarchns, p. 354; Peterson, Codex Cluniacensis, p. xvi. 
 (2) Occasionally words implying some well-known antithesis are 
 interchanged. Cf. Marquardt, Galen, i, p. xxxviii. 
 
 Isaeus, XI. 21 froj/ pXv VLKaaOaiy tov 8e r/rrdi't {tov ii\v r/rracr^at, 
 rov Se VLKav). 
 
 Ualen, v. 40. 12 (Kllhn) c'yoj roivw otto)? ixkv ti]v (fivaiv e^oj, ovk e^w 
 fyvMvatf. TO yap iavTov fcfydvatj' x^Xcttov icrn, where yvwi'at 
 
 and (lidraL have been interchanged. 
 
 The transposition of Passages in prose is rarer since the 
 argument or narrative cannot often be disturbed without exciting 
 the attention of the reader. Such dislocations have sometimes 
 become permanent when they involve a page or a whole section 
 of the text : e. g. 
 
 Xen. Anab. vi. 3. 14 sqq. 
 
 Galen, Hipp, irepl dpOpw, c. 45 (vol. ii, p. 171. 13, Kiihlwein). 
 
 473 N 
 
 \ 
 
178 EMENDATION 
 
 [The following instances were pointed out to mc by Mr. I. 
 Bywater : 
 
 Diog. Laert. i. 86 koI to fxev la-^vpov ycvecrOat Trj<; <^iWoj5 epyov 
 TO Sk Xiyuv Svva(rdaL to. (TVfxcfiipovTa ttj TraTptSi \f/v)(rj<; tbiov Koi (fypovrj- 
 crcoj?. (.viroptav 8c ;)(pr;/xaTtov ttoXAois kol Slol TV)(r)v ircpLyLvecrOai. 
 
 So the manuscripts and editions of Diogenes. But the Vcrsio 
 Antiqua (of which fragments survive in Walter Burley and Hiere- 
 mias Judex) had here: ' Fortem esse opus nature est; copiam 
 habere pecuniarum opus fortune est ; posse autem fari congrua 
 patrie anime et sapientie proprium est.' 
 
 It is clear that in the existing Greek text the three clauses 
 should be read in the order i, 3, 2, as in the Version. 
 
 PhilO; De incorr. mtiiidi, p. 492. 10, ed. Mangey. After &ktov 
 €(TTai come two blocks of text : 
 
 (1) vTrocTTrjvaL to a-vv€7nypai(/dfJL€V0f; (p. 492. lO tO 497* ^)* 
 
 (2) Kara, to Trai'TcA.cs tO to /xrjSk XP^^'^^ (P* 497* ^ ^^ 5^^- 34)' 
 
 Bernays transposed these two blocks, putting the second first, 
 so as to follow immediately after aSiKTov eo-rai, on the assumption 
 that the order of the leaves in the original manuscript has got 
 disturbed. See his Gesamnicltc AbJiandl. \, p. 283, and his paper 
 read in 1876 before the Berlin Academy where the restored text 
 is printed in full. 
 
 Priscianus Lydus, ed. Berol, p. 100. 16. After multitndo come 
 two blocks of text : 
 
 (i) quaedam aridae to sunt per quos (p. 100. 16 to 102. 5). 
 
 (2) non sunt contrarii to aestimatum eo quod (p. 102. 5 to 
 103. 20). 
 
 Two inferior manuscripts (CM) transpose these two blocks of 
 text, making non stmt contrarii (&c.) follow immediately after 
 mnltitudo (p. 100. 6). There must have been something wrong 
 with the leaves of the immediate archetype of CM.] 
 
 A startling instance of transposition which passed unnoticed 
 by the author himself and generations of readers is to be seen 
 in Kant's Prolegomena, where H. Vaihinger's transposition of 
 three pages from § 4 to § 2 is now accepted. 
 
 Editors have often been unwilling to assume the transposition 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 179 
 
 of smaller passages in prose. But as Brinkmann has shown in 
 RJiein. Mus. 1902, pp. 481 sqq., such an assumption is often 
 justified. From the earliest times ^ scribes have been in the 
 habit of marking an omission that they have noticed by writing 
 the omitted words in the upper or lower margin of the page and 
 attaching them to the nearest * catchword' in the text. Such 
 a catchword is usually the word which follows the omission. 
 Sometimes, however, it is the word which immediately pre- 
 cedes : e.g. 
 
 lamblichus, Protrcpf. ch. 9 €>o)r>;(9eVra, nVos tw cVcK-a IXoLTo 
 y€i'eaOat rt? kol ^rjv, uTroKpivao-O at . . . w? tov Oida-aa-Oai tu Trepl tov 
 
 ovpavov KOL TTcpl avTov d<TTpa ktX., where a parallel passage shows 
 
 that the reading should be Oedaaa-Oat tov ovpavov Kal (ra) 7r€pL 
 
 avTov d(TTpa, i.e. the word ra was found by some scribe to be 
 omitted and he inserted it in the margin before its catchword Trepl 
 and the words ra wepl hav^e been inserted in the wrong place in 
 the text. 
 
 Suidas gives the list of Phrynichus' comedies as: 'E</)iaAr>;9, 
 
 Koi/i/09, Kpovog, Kw/xao-rai', ^aTvpoi, TpaywSoi y) 'ATreXcvOepoL, MovoTpo- 
 
 7ro9, Moi'o-at, Ml'o-t>;s, IToa'o-Tpiat, ^aTvpoi. Other evidence attributes 
 only ten plays to this author. Either therefore we must assume 
 that he wrote two plays with the title ^an-poi (which is improb- 
 able) or that Moi/oVpoTTo? . . . UodaTpuu had been omitted and 
 were inserted in the margin before their proper catchword 
 ^dTvpoL. As the list is alphabetical this assumption is almost 
 a certainty. 
 
 Athenaeus xi. 505 F dXXa firjv ov SiWrat UdpaXos Kdl HaV^tTTTTos 
 ol lUpLKXeovs viol [TcAci-rrjo-arres rw Xoifnu] Up^Tayopa SiaXiyeaOaL, ore 
 (ro) 8€VT€pov i7^€^p.r)a■€ rar? 'AOrjvaL?, ol Itl TrpoTcpov reAcrrryo-avres 
 
 (tQ> Aot/x(u). Here the first reAcvrr/o-ai'rc? rw Ao//xoj is out of place 
 and the error has obviously arisen from the desire of the scribe 
 to insert rui Aoi/^w after the second TeXevTrjn-aiTes. As rw Ao/y/w 
 ends the sentence it was inserted in the margin after the catch- 
 
 ^ ^ Cf. Simplicius m Cafeg. Kalbfleisch, p. 88. 24 5i(Tffoypa<pia tis Ivrovroii avvi^r]- 
 ovHu yap ^ ApicTT0T€\7]s Ik irtpcTTOv rots \6yoi^ npoaTierjaiv, dW laoj^ t^oj napayiy- 
 pafip(vijs TTJs d'AAT;? ypa^p^s ol ypd(povT(s ra 8vo ds to (ddifytov (the text) iviypax^av. 
 
 N 2 
 
 
 \ 
 
 i 
 
i8o 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 i8i 
 
 ^ \ 
 
 word T€Aci'T7;o-aFT€s and a subsequent scribe has copied the 
 passage in the wrong place. 
 
 For similar transpositions in Livy see Conway and Walters, 
 C. O., 1910, p. 274; 191 1, p. 2. 
 
 (7) Mistranscription of Greek into Latin and vice versa. 
 
 Hagen, p. 84. 
 
 Numberless instances will be found in the critical editions of 
 writers such as Aulus Gellius, Apuleius, Seneca, Naf. OitaesL, 
 and Macrobius. 
 
 Cic. Ad Att. xvi. ii. i ex quo ante ipsa posuisti (avOrj). 
 
 Martial, Lib. Spec/, xxi. 8 facta ita pictoria (facta 7ra// la-Toptav). 
 
 Procop. de Bell. Goth. i. 7 (Upla-as upra (africa capta). 
 
 (8) Confusion of Numerals : numerals introduced into 
 the text in place of other words. 
 
 Bedc, Op. i. 149 numeri . . . negligentcr describimtur ct negligentius 
 emendantur. Cobet, F. L., p. 362. F. W. Shipley, Certain sources of corruption, 
 p. 46. 
 
 Thuc. iv\ 13. 2. TT^VTrjKOVTa {TiOTTapaKOVTa). 
 
 Lysias XXV. 14 oiVc rm' rcTpaKoo-Liov iycvofirjv . . . oi'8' eVciS^ 
 toi^cf KaTecTTYjcrav oiSck fx€ uTroSci'^ct dpxw oi'^e/xi'av ap^avra (ol 
 
 TpLcxKovTa, A = 30 misread as A); cf. Isaeus, viii. 7. 5. 
 
 DionyS. Hal. viii. 1685 (rwe/^ovXiva-er kXifrOaL [kXidOai \, i.e. Se'/ca). 
 Athenaeus 640 d (Sophilus) : the Marcianus reads ouxt B : 
 
 other manuscripts ovxl Svo. The' right reading is ovxi SwS^Ka, 
 
 1. e. ov^f- IB. 
 
 id. 137c TTopvat Bvo €i(Tr]\0()v (TTopittt 8' do-rjXOoi'). 
 
 Cic. Epp. ad Fain. xv. 4. 9 castellaque sex capta complura 
 incendimus (ui capta); cf P/iil. x. 7. 15, where an inferior 
 codex reads duo for //. 
 
 Sueton. D. Aug. 54 Antistius Labeo senatus lectione, cum 
 triiiinuirum legeret, M. Lepidum legit (cum uiruinim — which 
 has been wrongly transcribed as cum in tiirmn and this in 
 turn expanded into tyiiiiHuirum). 
 
 The difficulty of maintaining accuracy in numerals caused 
 
 grave inconvenience in ancient times. Damocrates {circ. a.d. 50) 
 is known to have written his medical recipes in iambic verse in 
 order to avoid corruption, v. Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyc. iv. 
 2069. 
 
 In Latin manuscripts of the Carol ingian period there is a 
 frequent confusion of 00 = 1000 with x = 10. The symbol for 
 500 []&) was often omitted because it was mistaken for an ordi- 
 nary D with the sign of erasure drawn through it. 
 
 (9) Confusion in Proper Names. 
 
 Madvig, Adv. i. 142 ; Schiibai t, pp. 5 sqq. and 93 ; Cobct, V. /.., p. 12 ; F. W. 
 Shipley, Sources of Corruption, p. 20; Heraciis, Ouaest. Cut., p. 42 (on mistakes 
 arising from abbreviated names). 
 
 This species of confusion is common even in the best manu- 
 scripts, e.g. the Blandinian of Horace read Claitdi for Cattdi in 
 Sat. i. 5. 51. Latin scribes frequently alter a proper name to 
 the adjective which comes nearest to it in outward form: e.g. 
 Batti appears as beati, Clcoineues as cleiueus; cf. Friedrich, 
 Catullus, pp. 169 and 206. 
 
 rhuc. i. 61. 3 e7rt(rT/)€i//arT€9 (cVt ^Tpeif/av). 
 
 lb. 5. 2. 2 KaT€7r\ev(r€V €S tw fKo\o(f)iorLu)vf Xifxa'a {K(x)(f>ov A/yxeVa). 
 Aristot. 'AO. lloX. xvii avTov for Wvvtov. Cf. Xen. Apologia 
 31. (Due to the suprascript sign for v.) 
 
 Plutarch, Mor. 777 D ov yap t) jxkv ' AcfipoSiry rai? tov t7r/ooo"7roAoi't 
 6vyaTpoi(TLV ifjij'jvLev otl ktX. (II poTroLTov, cf Ovid, Mctaui. X. 22l). 
 
 Athenaeus, 506 D tov a^iXtjiov 8e tov 'AXkl/^lolSov fKoi viKLai'f 
 {KXciviav). 
 
 Often the corruption could not have been remedied but for 
 external evidence : e. g. 
 
 Plutarch, Mor. 99 b teVat iiivToi cfmalv LTTTTov ^(j)ypacf>oivTa, where 
 
 the name NeaAK>; could not have been restored but for the 
 
 evidence of Plin. H. N. xxxv. 104. 
 Cic. in Pis. 85 louis uelsuri fanum (louis Urii, i.e. Ovpiov: 
 
 cf In Verr. 2 Act. iv. 128). 
 /// Verr. 2 Act. iv. 49 homini nobili melioruni hospiti. (So 
 
 \ 
 
r 
 
 182 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 \ \ 
 
 the Harleian. The Regius has iucoltontm, a corruption of 
 Luciillonim.) 
 
 Pro Scst. 62. 130 ad iimun dicitiiis or ad iinnm dido citins (ad 
 Numidici ilHus). 
 
 Liv. xxii. 16. \fortiinae minas saxa (Formiana saxa). 
 
 Suet. Calig. 23. I Actiacas singidasqite uictorias (Siculas). 
 
 Sen. Rhet. Siiasor. vii. 12 Cestium praetorcm (Cestium P(iuni) 
 rhetorem. Here the mistake has come from the abbre- 
 viation). 
 
 A good instance of the confusion caused by this form of error 
 will be found in H. Zimmer, Ncnnius Vmdicafits, p. 272. Suet. 
 Calig. 44 says 'Nihil autem amplius quam Adminio Cynohellini 
 Britannorum regis filio ... in deditionem recepto ', which is 
 corrupted in Orosius, Hist, adu. paganos, vii. 5. 5 to 'Cumque 
 ibi Minocynohcliniun Brittannorum regis filium ... in deditio- 
 nem recepisset'. This is further corrupted in Nennius into 
 ' Minocenni Bcllinum Brittannorum regis filium', who appears in 
 the Welsh triads as 'Beli mawr ab Mynogan'. (I owe this refer- 
 ence to Mr. W. H. Stevenson.) 
 
 It is rare to find proper names introduced as the result of 
 corruption : 
 
 I hue. V. 77. 4 TTcpi §€ Tw o-tw o-r/xaro?, at ^xXv Xyv, ktX. {fia Tyv trc/xc- 
 
 Aryi' is the hopeless corruption of some inferior manuscripts). 
 
 Eur. Heraclld. 163 l\^>t'r^iois ^7/9 {ri fyvataireeL^). 
 Max. Tyr. XXXviii. 3 G Ecmyo^a? (i$ Jyo/^as). 
 
 Liv. XXXV. 16. 6 in AntiocJmm ius repetit (in antiquum ius). 
 Fac. Ann. iv. 73. i ad sua iidauda degressis rebellibus, whence 
 Ptolemy, Gcog. ii. u. 12, has probably invented the bogus 
 
 town 2iiaToi'Tai-8a. 
 
 Cf. Ennius ap. Cic. d. nat. d. iii. 25. 65, where Vahlen would 
 
 read ;// oh ran for Niobe. 
 Substitution of biblical names by Christian Scribes. This is of 
 course unconscious. CT. Friedrich, Catullus, p. 339 and hi/ra. 
 Julian, Conviv., p. 321 a 'E/3fHuojv/or'l/3yf>ojv. 
 Libanius, i. 352. 10 (Foerster, i, p. 521) TaXiXaiar/or 'IraAmr. 
 Cic. P/iil xi. 4 Galileam (in one manuscript)/or Galliam. 
 
 EMENDATION 183 
 
 Liv. xxxvi. 21. 2 Christoteles/or Aristoteles. 
 Suet. D. lid. 25. I Gehenna ybr Cebenna. 
 Quint. Curt. iii. 8. i Barnabazo/or Pharnabazo. 
 Macrob. Sat. iii. 17. 4 hebrei^br ebrii. 
 
 Cf. Chaucer, Book of the Duchesse, 167, ' Eclympasteyre, That 
 was the god of slepes heyre *■ — a corrupt name that has not yet 
 been emended. Byron, Childe Harold, ii. 51. 3, 'Chimaera's 
 Alps extend from left to right' (Chimari's). Shelley, Pronuilwus, 
 137, 'and love how I cursed him ' (and, Jove, how, <S:c.). 
 
 (10) Mistakes due to change in Pronunciation. 
 
 On the question whether dictation is or is not the source of 
 many errors diflterent opinions are still held. Ebert, Hand- 
 schriftkunde, i. 138; Madvig, Adv. i. 10; Schubart, p. 90; 
 W. Schubart, Das Buch b. d. Griechen u. Romern, p. 142 ; hold 
 the view^ (which seems most probable) that there is little evidence 
 that dictation on a large scale was ever practised in antiquity, 
 and that there is no evidence that it was practised in mediaeval 
 monasteries, where silence was rigidly enjoined in the scripto- 
 rium. Neither the 'subscriptiones' which are frequently added at 
 the end of manuscripts nor the errors which manuscripts exhibit 
 afiibrd any ground for such an assumption, while the 'proba- 
 tiones pennae ' so frequently found (p. 84) are direct evidence 
 against it. The explanation of the many errors which seem due 
 to defective pronunciation or to the confusion of ancient with 
 modern sounds is to be sought in the intimate connexion which 
 exists between the ear and the eye (cf. supra, p. 85). The eye 
 of the copyist takes in a small portion of the text, but what his 
 eye sees is necessarily presented to his mind as a collocation of 
 sounds, and hence the sound which would come most readily to 
 his lips is produced as readily by his pen. This view will 
 explain such mistakes as/ar sit [or faxit in Ter. Ph. 554 and nee 
 sibus for nexibus (i. e. nixibus) Verg. G. iv. 199, and such common 
 errors as magoruni (for niaioruni), agebat (for aicbat), genicbat 
 [hiemabat], &c. It is hard to resist the conclusion that texts 
 
 W 
 
 K 
 
 \ 
 
184 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 185 
 
 \ 
 
 would be in a far more hopeless condition if dictation had ever 
 been a recognized aid in reproduction. With a reader as well 
 as a copyist employed the chances of error would have been 
 doubled at the outset.^ For the methods of copyists see p. 11 
 and p. 83. 
 
 Against this view: Keller-Holder, Horace^ \, p. 62; Ribbeck, 
 Vergil, i. 257-8. 
 
 Among the commonest errors in Greek, due to changes in 
 pronunciation are : {a) The confusion of t, r/, r, ci, 01 (called 
 Itacism where i prevails). Cf. Madvig, Adv. i. 99; Vollgraff, 
 p. 25, p. 31 ; Wyse, Isaais, p. xli. 
 
 Lys. Or. Xlii. 34 ot TpiaKovra KaT€crTY]crav kol tTotorror Sciroj'f rrj 
 
 TToAci iy€V€TO {tL OV TU)V SiLvwv). 
 
 Theocr. xiv. 17 /Sokftos ns KoxAm? (probably /3()\/36s, kt€l<;). 
 
 Athenaeus 508 B uTreio-t (a TrctVct). ib. i. 613 D tl €t n {TrjTii). 
 
 Plutarch, Pclopid. 23 tt^s ovScr ovrws iiraih^vov avTois kol 
 (Tvv€LOit,ov^ o>s TO fJLJj TrXai'VLdOaL firjhl TapuLTTirrOaL ra^coj? StaAv- 
 Oei(rr)<;, aAAa )(Jh<)ij.€Vol Trdcn Trarre? cVtcrTaTats Koi ^cryirat?, toVot 
 
 7rOT€ CrVl'L(TT7](TLV O KU'8v»'0S Kui KaTaXafJL^dl'€lf avrap/JiOTTiLV KOL 
 
 lJLd)(€(jdaL Tra^jttTrA //(Ttco? {dirov ttotc kol avv oldTidLV 6 KtVS. Kara- 
 Aa/x/?ai'oi). 
 
 (/>>) Confusion of at, c and of at, oi. Cobet, V. L., p. 124 ; Van 
 Leeuwen, Codex Raveunas, p. xiv. E.g. </)c/)w, confused with </)tttVto, 
 
 lTef)0<i with cVaipos (Ar. Zj'5. 1 153), 7re(T0)fJL€v with TTttiVw/xcv (ib. 
 T/ieSfn. 947). oHTirep uv €L ciTTots for o>cr7rc/)ttrcl Trats (Plato, Gorg. 479 a), 
 8€ Tu (Saira) Athenaeus 460 b. The confusion between at and c 
 is found also when the iota is subscript, e.g. Aesch. Pers. 121 
 co-trat (ao-crat) and where the a in at belongs to one word and the 
 I to the next, e.g. dAA' ew/xcv for JAAa lu)/i€v Plato, 5v////>. 1 74 d, and 
 Epicharmus 254 (Kaibel) where Ahrens reads o-a<^a iVa/xi for 
 (Tu(f>€s dfxi. For the confusion of w and o see p. 160. 
 
 For Latin instances v. Schuchhardt, Vokalismiis, passim, and 
 Hagen, p. 35. 
 
 ^ In Paris. 3056 a manuscript of Athenaeus, written by Hcrmolaus Earbarus, 
 his own subscription i which could not possibly have been dictated) contains 
 the error kypa^pu for iypdfrj, showing how natural such errors are in all ages. 
 
 (11) Substitution of Synonyms or of Familiar Words 
 
 for Unfamiliar. 
 
 Many of these substituted words are glosses and will be con- 
 sidered later, s. v. Adscripts. There is a strong tendency to 
 substitute words similar in form which are meaningless in the 
 context. 
 
 Hesiod, I lieog, 83 tu> pXv lin yXuya-cnj yXvKepyv ;^cioi'(riv fdotSryvf. 
 
 The best manuscripts have dotSrjv with ieparjv suprascript. 
 Upcrrjv is now Confirmed by the Achmim papyrus. 
 
 Aristoph. TJlCSni. 53 Ka/xTrret 8c vca? tdo-7rt8a9t liroiv (dj/ztSa?). 
 
 ib. 910 eyo) Se MereAaa) (t ocra y Ik tCjv fdcfivcjjvf (t^i'coi'), 
 
 Plato, PJlileb. 46 E dTroptais (Trvpiats). 
 
 Xen. Cyr. vni. 3. 6 fK-aAeVasf Se roiVSe roi's e<f)i7nrLov^ rot? tCjv 
 
 iTTTreW r/ye/xocrt 8o's (Kacrd? 'saddles*). 
 I heOCrit. XV. 30 /xr/ Sy TToXv, fd7rXrj(TT€,f €y;(€t vSiop (AaicTT/Di', cf. 
 
 Ilerondas vi. 10). 
 
 [Longinus,] -n-epl vif/ovs, iii. 4 d/jeyd/xeroi fXiv . . . tov TySeos, e^o- 
 Kc'AAorrcs 8c CIS fro pottlkov (siC P) Kat KUKo^-qXav (ro rpoTviKov 
 
 apographa : to ImiriKov Vossius). 
 Clemens Alex. Protrept. ii. 22. 4 fKapSiatf, vdpOrjKes tc kol klttol 
 
 (K/L>d6at). 
 
 Plaut. P?id. 580 ciccum non interdum (interduim). 
 
 Cic. Div. in O. Cacc. 49 quartum quern sit habiturus non uideo, 
 nisi quem forte ex illo grege moratorum. (Here manu- 
 scripts give wrongly vicritorum or oratortnu). 
 
 Liv. xxvii. 20. 9 Tarentum captum astu magis. (P omits the 
 word, the deteriores have captum ingenio.) 
 
 Cf. Boccaccio, Dec. Fourth Day, Tenth novel, the word stratico 
 (<jrparr)y6^\ the proper title of an office in Salerno, has been 
 replaced by stadico, which is here meaningless. Chaucer, Wyf 
 of Bathe, 144, 'And let us wyves hoten (i.e. 'be called') barley 
 breed.' The comparison of wives to barley bread is balanced 
 by the comparison of virgins to wheaten bread. The vulgate 
 reading is 'eaten', which makes nonsense. Id. The Clerkes 
 
1 86 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 187 
 
 K 
 
 Tale, 616, 'And God they thank and herie* (i. e. Upraise'). De- 
 teriores have, 'And God they thank for he was hairy.' Book of 
 Common Prayer, 'Till death us depart.' Now altered to 'do 
 part'. Bullen, O. E. Plays, 1. 32 (1882), 'shoulder /ac/^/ Pelops.* 
 Should be ' shoulder pacht/ i.e. patched, with reference to P.*s 
 ivory shoulder. Gay, Trivia, iii. 203, ' Spongy morsels in strong 
 ragousts are found.' (So some of the recent reprints : the true 
 reading is morclls, a species of mushroom.) 
 
 (12) New spellings and forms substituted for old. 
 
 Instances of this will be found in all manuscripts. Often the 
 later forms are introduced in defiance of metre. 
 
 Ar. Nub. 728 R has €$€vprjT€0^ yap vov<; (XTTOO-repr/TtKos (e^ci'pcTcos) : 
 
 ib. 1409 CTl'TTTT/O-a? for €TV7rTC9. Alt. 394 KaTOpV)(07](T6fJL€6a (OV 
 
 KaTopvxrj(T6ix€aOa. Acll. 865 irpoa-eirTavTO for irpoaiirTOVTO. 
 
 This symptom is of importance for estimating the value of 
 a manuscript, since modernization of spelling is one of the first 
 signs of a wilfully corrupted tradition. In the best manuscripts, 
 though modern spellings have crept in, there is always a large 
 residue of ancient spellings. E. g. ao-/xcvos in the Clarkianus of 
 
 Plato, (TwL^uv (Ran. 151 7), Ovu^lov (Phtt. 710), iyKaTaKXiryvai (All. 
 
 122), trvp,]v,j (Thesm. 1215), in V or R of Aristophanes. 
 
 (13) Interpolation. 
 
 Madvigr, Adv. i. 70 ' palmam simplicitatis Latini scribae tenent rudiores 
 qiiani Graeci ' ; Cobct. de arte interpretandi, p. 67 ; Roemer, Arist. Rhetoric 
 CTeubner), p. xxvii. 
 
 By this is understood any conscious alteration of the text 
 where the original words have become obliterated in whole or 
 in part.^ 
 
 It is difficult if not impossible to detect the interpolations of 
 ancient scholars. The manuscript of Vergil used by Seneca 
 
 ^ Interpolare, *to furbishup'; cf. Plant. Most. 262 <noua pictura intcrpolare iiis 
 opus lepidissumiim '. It is used by Cic. I/i Verr. 2 Act. i. 158 of ' tampering with 
 records' and by the early scholars in the sense of 'to correct', e.g. Muretus, 
 £■/>/>. i. 9 ' per me quidem non intcrpoles mode earn uerum etiam do integro cudas '. 
 
 apparently completed Aen. x. 284 ' audentes Fortuna iuuat ' by 
 the ending 'piger ipse sibi obstat' (Sen. Epp. 94. 28). Had this 
 interpolation invaded our tradition it could hardly have been 
 detected. 
 
 The character of a later interpolation varies greatly according 
 as it is made by an ignorant scribe or a scholar. Scribes 
 always take the path of least resistance, and we must guard 
 against attributing any deep learning or ingenuity to them. 
 E.g. Pausan. iii. 16. 4: owing to some defect in the archetype 
 
 the text is reduced to the letters 'A^>;vatW pw. The scribe 
 
 of one manuscript alters this to 'A^i/mtW yjpun without regard to 
 the context. In most manuscripts the scribes entirely suppress 
 the traces of a lacuna; e.g. Paus. v. i. 5 'H/jaKAewrat 8e h 
 
 AuLTfiov TO 0/J09 uTTOX^prjcraL <j>a(TLV avTov povcn, kol a^vTOV 'Ei'Su/xtwvos 
 
 iariv €v rw AaV/Aw, where some manuscripts suppress pLovaiy which 
 is clearly the termination of the lost verb, others emend wildly 
 to pova-LKat. In a manuscript of Plutarch (cod. Reg. Paris. 1671, 
 thirteenth century) a scribe confesses to this practice of omission. 
 
 TO )(0)pLov TOVTo a(Ta<f>i(jTaTov i(TTL 8ta TO TToWaxov SLacj)Oap€VTa tul twv 
 TTaAuiwi/ uvTLypacf>ix}v pLTj SmuaOat (rto^etv tjjv (Tvve)(€Lav tov \6yoV' kol 
 €i6or iyoj Tra/Vaiav ^l^Xov, iv y 7roX\a)(ov SiaXelp-piaTa yv ws /xry Svvrj- 
 (kvTo'i TOV ypdcj>ovTo<; evpeiv to. XuirovTa, ^X-TriaavTO^ 8' tcrtus €vpr](T€LV 
 u/VAu^or-. ivTavOa p.ivTOL kutu. o-vv€)(€iav iypoLfjn) to, hiaXcLirovTa rw 
 prjKtTL eATTt^as €LvaL tul AeiVorra evpeOyaeo-Oai. Often thc inter- 
 polation is caused by a desire for clearness, and is the result of 
 thc eftbrts of an inferior scholar: e.g. Plut. Pyrrh. 24 /3ui. p^to. 
 Twi/ vTraa-TTia-Tiov, where peTii has been added by some one who did 
 not understand the construction of /Sta. Or a verb is supplied ; 
 e.g. Ov. Heroid. ii. 53 ' Dis quoque credidimus. Quo iam tot 
 pignora nobis ? ' where nobis has been altered to prosunt. 
 
 The more serious interpolation practised by the scholars of 
 the Byzantine and Italian Renaissance has been discussed in ch. 
 ^'> PP« 43 sqq. and in ch. iv. 
 
 It is obviously very difficult in many cases to distinguish 
 interpolations from some of the graphical errors which have 
 been already described. 
 
 1 
 
1 88 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 189 
 
 it 
 
 A few instances are here subjoined in which there is sufficient 
 evidence to show the progress of the corruptions which have 
 ended in interpolation. 
 
 Aristoph. Eccl. 569 u}(tt^ a-i rk /xot fxapTvpeiv (probably the right 
 reading). 
 
 wo-T€ o-c yc fioL jjL. R. loth ccnt. 
 oo-Tis y€ fj.oL fx, r. 14th cent, 
 oo-rts av jj-oL /JL. B. i6th cent, 
 war' e/xoiyc /x. Aldine. 
 Xen. Cyr. v. 5. 23 tmv yc ^(avTMV D : t<7ji/ tc ^(.ovtojv C : twv Tre^wr 
 
 Toil' AG. 
 Athen. 693 C eK-7rc7rry6/;/ca9 Trpii^ uya^or TTfrnrui' Saifjiovu^ XafS^ty. 
 
 cK-TTCTrtr/ScKas ktA. Marcianus. loth cent. 
 iKTTLy 8£7ra? ktA. deter iores. 
 Aristot. Poef. 1461=^34 wSl ry ws A^: (iStK-w? Be Pi^: wSt ttws P^^ 
 
 Aldine. 
 Ovid, Trisf. i. 9. 52 where Haec ditiinaui has passed through 
 the corrupt liacc din noui to the interpolated hccqiic din noiii 
 in the 13th cent. MS. 1). 
 Plin. Epp. i. 20. 14 ' Ego iugulum statim uideo, hunc premo '. . . 
 Respondi posse fieri \\i genu cssct aut tains, ubi ille iugulum 
 putaret. 
 genu essct aut talus M\\ 9th cent. 
 gcnuisset aut talus B. 9th cent. 
 genuisset aut sibi aut aliis F. 9th cent. 
 genu esset aut tibia aut talus u. 15th cent. 
 Many of the developments in the corruption of proper names 
 [supra, p. 181) are true interpolations. The scribe alters the text 
 consciously as soon as he attempts to replace the corruption by 
 articulate words. 
 
 Monkish interpolations. These are negligible in quantity. They 
 do not proceed from malice prepense but are the natural result 
 of minds preoccupied by religion. 
 
 For Greek instances see A. Ludwich, Aristarchs Horn. 
 Textkritihf i. 96. 
 Aristot. Poet. 1455'^ 14 '03vo-(r€t tu> i/^cvSuyycAw. The Arabic 
 
 \ 
 
 version has 'euangelistae illius sancti' (? (Ww or Up(o cmyycXto-r^). 
 This was pointed out to me by Mr. H. W. Garrod. 
 
 For Latin : Traube, Vorlesungen, ii. 67 sqq. ; Postgate, Tibul- 
 ins, p. 203; Havet, p. 265 ; Lindsay, p. 66. 
 
 Lucr. V. 692 contudit tempora serpens (concludit). 
 
 Hor. Car. iii. 18. 12 cum boue pardus (pagus). Velleius, ii. 
 114. I unigenitio (uni negotio). Petron. 43 abbas secreuit (ab 
 asse creuit). Manilius, iv. 422 laudatique cadit post paulum 
 gratia Christi (gratia ponti). Amen is commonly substituted for 
 agnien, amenu tamen, e.g. Cic. Phil. xiii. § 6. Angelas for angulus, 
 e.g. Sen. Epp. 31. 11. 
 
 Cf Hebraisms, supra, p. 182. 
 
 II. Omissions. 
 
 (14) Haplography, i. e. a letter or syllable or word or 
 words are written once instead of twice. 
 
 Madvig, Adv. i. 34 ; Lindsay, Anc. Edd. of Plautiis, p. 109 ; Rocmer, Ar. 
 Rhcf. (Teubner), p. xxv ; Hagen, pp. 78-80 ; Van Leeuvven, Codex Ravcnuas of 
 Arisioph., p. xi ; cf. p. xii, § 6. 
 
 This is generally due to the similar beginnings or endings of 
 words in the same context {liomoeoteleuta or honioeocatarcta). As 
 however any group of letters, whatever their place in the word, 
 might give rise to this error, Postgate has proposed homoeo- 
 grapha as a general term to describe them (C. R. 1902, p. 309). 
 
 Aristoph. Plut. 258. R has w? dKo<; aa-d^vCi^ y€/30i/Tas avSpas r]8rj 
 for yipovTas (wras) : V interpolates ws ekos {ia-Tti'} aaOeveU 
 ktX. 
 
 Plat. Phileb. 41 a ras filv tolvw Trov-qpa? r/Soms . . . oXtyov fuo-rc- 
 povfievf [varepov ipovfiev). 
 
 Eur. Mel. 561 Mc. 'EAXr;vis eT n? 7) ^TTi^Mpta ywr; ; 
 
 'EA. 'FiWtjvl^;' aAAa kol to (tov OiXw fJiaOeiv. 
 
 The first line is omitted in manuscripts of Euripides. It has 
 been restored from the parody in Ar. Thesni. 907. 
 Xen. Cyr. ii. 2. 22 -n-ovMv . . . /SoyXofjievov (/xeior) ^x^n', where 
 manuscripts either omit fi^tov or interpolate avrov. 
 
190 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 191 
 
 Dio Chrys. Or, i, p. 635 <^€>€ toIwv o-r/x^a'Acre rovTo TO €(9os 
 cVctVw Tw v'o/xw, Kttj/ fxkv fvfjilv KaTo. Ttt Kjiaiv-qrai, (fevXdiire aiVo 
 . . . iav 8c 7rai^Tax]7 ^'^OTrov/xei/ot x«^PO»' €vpt(TKrjT€ . . . Aro-are. 
 
 Read kuv fdv vixlv (afieaor) Kara tl. The mistake has arisen 
 from the contraction r/xu', or possibly ifielv, d^iuv. 
 Athenaeus, p. 360 8«s Jim^^ 8o's (80s iLv, dva$, 809): ib. p. 528 dirXoh 
 
 (dTroAoT's). Strabo xiv. 41, p. 648 crt /xaAto-ra (eVt/xa /mAio-ra). 
 
 Plant, il/. G. 727-9 Sicnt merci pretium statuit [qui est pro- 
 bus agoranomus : 
 quae probast (mers, pretium ei statuitj pro uirtute ut ueneat, 
 quae inprobastj pro mercis uitio dominum pretio pauperet. 
 Here the words in round brackets are omitted by the Am- 
 brosian where the scribe's eye was caught by staiiiit. Those 
 in square brackets are omitted by the Palatine group in 
 whose archetype the scribe was mislead by probast, 
 Cic. pro Sulla, 55 at praefuit familiae Cornelius (Cornelius 1. 
 
 eius, i. e. libertus eius, A. C. Clark). 
 Cic. m Pis. 87 uectigalem prouinciam (p. r. i.e. populi Romani 
 
 prouinciam). 
 Ovid, Epp, ex Ponto, i. 4. 36 quae tulit esoniden sa carina fuit 
 (Hamburgensis, 9th cent.): saccarina y (12th cent.): sacra 
 carina p (12th cent.): firma carina vulg. (densa carina). 
 Quint. Curt. iv. 3. 26 ubi loricam corpusquc . . . penetra- 
 
 uerat (corpus usque). 
 Seneca, N,0. i. 3. 12 pars colons sole est sparsa nube 
 (sparsa, pars nube). 
 
 Cf. Selden, Table Talk (Reynolds), p. 61, s.v. Equity 2: ^ . . 
 as if they should make the standard for the measure we call (a 
 foot) a chancellor's foot. What an uncertain measure this 
 would be ! One chancellor has a long foot,' &c. 
 
 (15) Lipography (parablepsia) or simple omission 
 
 of any kind. 
 
 Madvig, Adv. i, pp. 40, sqq. ; Schubart, p. 35 ; Marquardt, Galen (Teubner), i, 
 p. xxix ; Bywater, p. 16. 
 
 This is a form of error recognized by Galen, iz^pX Ivdirvoia^ 
 
 4 
 
 ( Ki'lhn, vii, p. 892), €<f>vXdxOr] re €Ik6t(d<; fJi^xpf^ Sci'po tovt avrb to o-<^aA/xa 
 
 (i. e. the omission of one class of -n-vevfia in Hippocrates' account), 
 
 TiVMV ti€V oAtywpcDS ofJii\ovvT(x)V TOts tCjv TTaXaiwv ISl^Xiol<Sj ws ixr]T €t 
 AeiVci Tt /xr/T €t 8l €T€pov ypa/x/xaT05 up-qTai yrojpi^cti', Iviuiv Se yvMpi- 
 lovTiiW fiev (xAAtt TrpoaOeivai ov toA/xwvtojv. 
 
 Generally the omissions are slight, small words or groups of 
 words, initial letters or letters in the body of a word. The 
 following are taken from Bywater (1. c.) : 
 
 Omission of ou Eth. Nic, 1121^25, py] 1120'^ 16, 32, dv 1170^24. 
 
 TO TTcos (for droTro)?) 1 136'^ 12, d(fiL(TTdvaL (for d(\ii(TTavTai) 1112^ 25. 
 Galen, ir^pl i/^u^. dpapr. 99 T^KOvaa Trpiorjv dfjua-TOvi'TOiv {aTTLO-TOvvTOLV 
 vulg.) hvolv (jiiXoaocfjoiv (d/x</>io-/?r;TOiVTOtr). 
 
 Clemens Alex. Paedagog. ii. no. 2 €t 8€ khI v<f>€ivaL xpv frovTorf 
 
 8ia TOLS yvratKttS (tov tovov). 
 
 In Latin the omission of single letters is exceedingly common 
 in any text copied from the continuous hands, c. g. uncials : 
 
 Liv. V. 39. II nee ante deseri cultum eoriini quam non super- 
 essent qui colerent (deorum); vi. 11. 8 non contentus agra- 
 riis legibus, quae materia semper . . . seditionum fuisset 
 idem moliri coepit (fidem); xxii. 17. 6 tum uero insidias rati 
 esse cum maiore rnulfo concitant se in fugam (maiore tu- 
 multu). 
 
 Catull. 10. 33 sed tulsa O (14th cent.)/<?/' sed tu insulsa. 
 
 HI. Additions. 
 
 (16) Repetitions from the immediate or neighbouring 
 
 context. 
 
 (a) Dittography, i. e. immediate repetition or anticipation of 
 
 any kind. 
 
 Madvig, Adv. i. 34 sqq. ; Schubart, p. 28; Hagcn, pp. 80 2 ; Shipley, p. 23. 
 Lysias xix. 6 /xaAto-ra K^ tovt exoi dv Tts tSciroTttTOi't oTav ttoXXol 
 cVi TTJ avTrj aiTia cts dyuwa KaTaaTiocnv (e;)(Ot dv Tts ISuv, oTav). Cf. id. 
 xiv. 29 ov pdXXov ((lAA' 6v). 
 
 Athen. 694 D ycAao-cta?, w Udv, itr c/xais 
 
 tcr^pocriVais Tata-8' doiSaifjaotScf K^xaprfpivo^. 
 {€V(l>po(Ti Tat(r8' dotSat? k€x-) 
 
 ,> 
 
/ 
 
 192 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 ^93 
 
 PaUS. iii. 10. 2 'Ay>;o-tA«os 8c kol €S Atru)\Lav ia(f}LKOvprj(Ton-\- 
 a(f>LK€To {iTTLKovprjaiov). 
 
 Liv. iv. 44. 12 earn ampliatam pontifex maximus abstinere 
 iocis iiissit. Here M has cam am ampliatam . . .: P am- 
 pliatam : but the rest interpolate/rt/;/^';;/ ampliatam. 
 
 id. xxi. 29. 5 ex consiHis coeptisque hospitis (hostis). 
 
 id. xlii. 17. 8 iiissueiussuromam, so Vind. lat. 15 for iussu 
 eius Romam. 
 
 Sen. Epp. 89. 13 Ariston Stoicus non tantum superuacuas esse 
 dixit sed etiam contrarias (Ariston Chius, the mistake has 
 passed through some such stage as Ariston Stonchins). 
 
 Suet, de iiir, ill., p. 32. 13 Reiff. Ouintus Cosconius redcun- 
 tem e Graecia periisse in mari dicit cum C et VIII fabulis 
 conuersis a Menandro. (Omit cviii, which is a dittography 
 ofCVM.) 
 
 {b) Repetition from the preceding or folloiving context. Sometimes 
 the word repeated displaces another from the text. 
 
 Vahlen, Opttsc. i. 348 sqq. ; Bywater, pp. 18-19; Wessely, Cod. Vindoh. of 
 Livy, p. xviii ; Friedrich, CahiUus, p. 198 ; Richards, Xeiiophon and Others, 
 pp. 307 sqq. 
 
 The smaller the repetition the more Hkely it is that the 
 scribe's eye has travelled forwards : the longer repetitions arise 
 from the eye travelling backwards. 
 
 In the following instances the word or words wrongly repeated 
 are enclosed in brackets : 
 
 AristOph. Anes, 936-7 ro^c pXv oIk aUova-a ffiiXa 
 
 Movcra [toScJ ^wpov Sep^crai. 
 
 Xen. Cyr. vn. 5. 74 ci fj.€v Tp€if/6fi€0a cttI paSiovpytav Kcu Tr]v Twr 
 kukQv dvOpo)7ro)v rj^vTrdOetav, ot vofJLL^ovaL to fiev 7rov€?.v aOXiOTrjTa, 
 TO 8c (IttoVoj? /^lOTCi'ctv [ySvTTaOiLav]. Some noun such as evSaL- 
 
 fioviav has been extruded. 
 
 Lysias, XXXl. 24 -n-epl tijv iroXiv vaTCpov ^orXci'cti/ ttfioiVo) <j>av€p6v tl 
 
 ayaOov wo-rrep totc [aya^oi'] ironja-as {KaKov). 
 [ Longinus] -repl v\l/. 44. 8 yp'Ua Til OyyjTu eavrm' jjLipr} [Ka7rdvr]T<i] 
 
 iKOav/xd^oLev. Kairdv-qTa is a repetition of the preceding syl- 
 lables (r/i't')Ka ra OvrjTii. 
 
 Plautus, Riidens, 968-9: 
 
 Gr. hunc homo feret a me nemo, ne tu te speres potis. 
 
 Tr. non ferat si dominus ueniat? Gr. dominus huic [nemo] 
 ne frustra sis. 
 
 Catull. 76. 23 non iam illud quaero contra [me] ut me diligat ilia. 
 
 Tac. Ann. iv. 37 per omnes [per] prouincias. 
 
 Caution is needed before assuming that a repeated word is 
 necessarily corrupt, e.g. [Tibullus,] iv. 4. 5-6 'effice ne macies 
 pallentes occupet artus, Neu notet informis pallida membra 
 color'. Here the vulgate Candida membra is probably an inter- 
 polation from iv. 3. 10. Cf. Vahlen, 1. c, and also the remarks 
 on the style of Livy, ib. pp. 25 sqq. Particular caution is needed 
 with writers who are more concerned with matter than with 
 style, e.g. Aristotle, (v. Bywater, Poetics 1453'^ 31, note.) 
 
 Cf Bossuet, Traitc de la concupiscence, ' On en voit qui passe nt 
 lour vie ... a rendre agre'ables des choses non seulement in- 
 utiles, mais encore dangereuses, comme a chanter un amour 
 feint ou [agreabky The last word should be veritable. Words- 
 worth, Chaucer's Troilus 118, 'With a soft [night] voice he of his 
 lady dear.' Here the intrusive word night probably anticipates 
 'night by night' in 1. 122. Alexander, Earl of Sterline, To 
 Aurora, ' Then all my thoughts should in my visage shine ' (thy). 
 
 E. Bronte, Poetical Works (ed. Shorter), vol. i : 
 
 Some were dazzling like the sun. 
 Some shining down at summer noon, 
 Some were sweet as amber even. 
 
 Here sojue in the second line should be omitted. 
 
 Other instances are noted by H. P. Richards, Xenophon and 
 Others, p. 309. 
 
 (17) Insertions from the Margin. 
 
 Such as {a) Titles, Numbers, Running Analyses, Remarks of 
 readers, (/;) Variant readings. Glosses, and Explanations of the 
 construction. 
 
 For the last three the wider term Adscript is often used. 
 
 Cobet, V. L., pp. xxix, 480; E. Maa«=:, Mi'langcs Granx, p. 756; Bywater, 
 Poetics 1450*^ 16, note on numbers intruded where a list is under discussion. 
 
 473 o 
 
 " f 
 
194 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 195 
 
 Galen, vTOfjLv. ^' cts cttiS. C^' Kiihn xvii. i, p. 909 (^aiVcrat filv 
 
 yap u)S e$7]yrj(T€L irpoaypatfikv viro tlvo<;, avOif; Se els Tovoa(fio<; (the 
 text) VTTO Tov piPXioypd^ov /xcraTC^€t(r^ai. Siniplicius /// Cat. 
 Kalbfleisch, p. 88. 24 ov^kv yap 'Apto-rore'AT/? ck TnpLTTOv rots 
 XoyoLS TTpocTTLOrjaLv^ dAA L(ro)<; c^w Trapayeypap^p^ivrfs rrj^ aXXvys 
 ypa<f)rj<; ot ypaf^ovres ra 8vo ci9 to ehd<j>U)V eviypaxpav. The 
 
 scribe of Marcianus A of Photius (BtbltotJicca) 336'' 2 notes: 
 
 iv Tw p€TiJi)7rit) rjv TOV TrpuiTOTVTTOV /3i/3\Lov' 6 oc p€Taypaif/a<s Kal 
 TovTo €vt6<: reOeiKe. 
 (tl) LysiaS, xxiv. 3 Kal yap oTpai ^€LV Ttt TOV crw/xaTos 8vcrTV)(y'jpaTa Tot? 
 TTJs ^V)(r]<s iTrLTTjhtvpao-LV laaOai [KaXwsJ. KaAws being a note of 
 
 approval. 
 
 Plat, de rep. 504 E Kal paXa ecftrj [^d$LOV to hiavoypaj. 
 Alciphron, Epp. 3. 7 ota yap oI[a 7rd(T)(€i to. SiKaLaj XaKKOTrXovTot 
 elpyaaavTo pe . . . irXetova rj KaTa to kvtos t>}s yao-Tpo? iu-OUw 
 
 at/ayKa'^oi'Tcs. Cf. Soph. O. T. 896 with Jebb's cr. note. 
 Cic. (ie off. iii. 31. 112. Here a long historical note has found 
 
 its way into the text. 
 Propert. iv. 8. 3. Neapolitanus 268 has [non potuit legi] uetus 
 est tutela draconis, a note stating that some words had been 
 omitted because they could not be read. 
 Varro, R. R. iii. 7. § i de quibus Me[de columbisjrula Axio. 
 Liv. iii. 41. I ferociores iterum coorti Valerius [Valerius 
 Horatiusque contra sententiam Maluginensis] Horatiusque 
 uociferari. In the last two instances marginal analyses have 
 become incorporated with the text. 
 Pomponius Mela 3. 6 Omnium uirtutum ignari (i. e. the 
 Irish) magis quam aliae gentes [aliquatenus tamen gnari|. 
 Perhaps the protest of some Irish scribe or reader. 
 The casual jottings of readers and correctors are often im- 
 ported into the text. Among such may be noted : ^t., i. e. fryTct 
 (Aesch. Choeph. 351, 530) ; Mpaiov (cf. Vahlen on the inpl vipovs, 
 p. viii) ; perhaps the curious yplv so often found in the Urbinas of 
 Isocrates is a relic of some marginal remark. In Latin the most 
 frequent are: hue usque (Hertz, Attl. Gell.y p. Ivii), de(est) hie 
 (perhaps the explanation of the corrupt de his in pro Caeeina 95), 
 
 quaere, require, mire, optime. Cf. Lindsay, Text. Criticism of 
 Plautus, p. 60 ; Traube, Vorlesungen, ii. 68. 
 
 Sometimes the comments (often quite pertinent) of readers 
 or teachers have invaded the text of philosophical and other 
 argumentative works. Cf. Marquardt, Galen, i, p. Iv. 
 
 Cf. Selden, Table Talk (Reynolds), p. 35. The book is 
 arranged alphabetically under headings. Under the heading 
 'Changing sides', after a story about Luther refusing the 
 Pope's overtures, since he had become greater than the Pope 
 could make him, the text proceeds, 'So have our preachers 
 done that are against the bishops, they have made themselves 
 greater with the people than they can be made the other way 
 and therefore there is the less Charity probably of bringing them 
 off.' (Here 'Charity' is the heading of the following section 
 and has been intruded into the text. Most edd. read with 
 Singer less probability.) 
 
 (b) Adscripts. 
 
 The practice of noting variant readings needs no illustration. 
 In Greek they are usually introduced by the sign yp., i.e. 
 ypd(f>€TaL : in Latin by vel or al., i. e. aliter or alius codex. 
 
 Glosses. FAtoo-o-a means originally an obscure word, but the 
 term is generally used in the sense of the explanation of such a 
 word. Thus Varro, de ling. lat. vii. 107, in speaking of a word 
 persibus, which he thinks is derived from perite, says, 'sub hoc 
 glossema "callide" subscribunt.' 
 
 Such explanations are usually written over a word (interlinear) 
 or in the margin. They presuppose some measure of scholar- 
 ship (often very small) and are not due to the ordinary copyist. 
 Three points should be remembered before it is assumed that 
 a gloss has disturbed the original text, (i) The word glossed 
 must not be an ordinary word, but one that presents certain 
 difficulties. (2) Such a word must be glossed by a word easier 
 than itself: ^QitoL could not be a gloss upon vcKpoi. (3) The 
 gloss must be in the same construction as the word which it 
 explains. 
 
 o 2 
 
 \ 
 
 I'. I 
 
196 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 197 
 
 I 
 
 \ 
 
 i 
 
 & 
 I 
 
 I 
 f 
 
 Lysias, rr, vili. I ovt€ TLfJLrj<; T€TayiX€vrj<; TroiXoucrti/, dX/V W9 ai/ Si^Vati^To 
 
 TrXiL(TT7]pLa(TavT€<; [TrXct'o-Tov d7rc8orro]. 
 Isaeus, Vlll. 42. 4 ^eXAca 8c [;((opta, drra] eVctVo) Sc'Swkc. Cf. p. 1 64. 
 Plat, de rep. 364 E TretOoi'Ti*; . . . ws d/>a XiVcis T€ Kttt KaOapfun 
 
 udLKrjpaTiov 8ia OvfTiujv /cat 7rai8ias [lySovwv] ciVi. 
 Dem. O/. 11. §20 at yap ct'Trpafiat Sctrat crvyKpvil/aL \ kol (TvaKid- 
 
 aat] TO. ToiavT 6i'€L8rj. This passage proves the antiquity of 
 
 such glosses. ava-Kido-aL is SUggeStcd by the word iina-KOTel 
 
 which occurs in the preceding sentence. It is omitted in :S, 
 but was in the text used by the rhetor Theon in the time 
 of Hadrian, and is recognized by Stobaeus and the author 
 
 of the pastiche irpo% tjjv eTnrrToXrjv rov ^iXiTnTov which Was 
 
 regarded as genuine by the Alexandrines (v. Weil ad he), 
 
 Dem. ConOH, § 26 Trpo? tov f/3u)ixovf dyoi'Tcs Kai i^opKi^oiTCS. (tt^o? 
 
 Toi' Ai'^ov is known to be the right reading from Harpo- 
 cration.) 
 
 Galen, v. 19. 8 (Kuhn) ws 8c [TrActfrrov'] d/xcrpoi/ at/xa ^^co/xcroi/ 
 c^cdo-aro. 
 
 Cic. in Verr. 11 Act, 2. 61 iste amplam nactus VO : iste am- 
 plam occasionem nactus, qrk (i3th-i5th cent.): iste amplam 
 occasionem calumniae nactus bh (i5th-i6th cent.). Here 
 the gloss to the rare word ampla enters the text and leads 
 to an interpolation. 
 
 Liv. iii. 2. I statiua habuit [castra]. 
 
 ib. ix. 16. 8 eadem nocte portam aperuerunt armatosque clam 
 [nocte] in urbem acceperunt. 
 
 ib. X. 43. 13 eo ipso loco tepropemere sub armis strati, i.e. 
 propcrc in the archetype was a gloss on temerc. 
 
 (c) Marginal or interlinear notes explaining the construction, 
 
 Aristoph. All, 1080 ctra <f}V(T(i)v Tas KL)(\a^ SctKvi'crt [Trdrrt] Kat 
 Ai'/xttii'crat. 
 
 Liv. iv. 21. 6 pestilentior annus tantum [metum] uastitatis in 
 urbe agrisque fecit. 
 
 Cf. Chaucer, The Parlement of Foules, 353, 'The swalow, 
 mordrer of the /lyes smale.' Manuscripts have foules or 
 
 foulis (i. e. fowls), an obvious adscript : the edition of 156 1 
 has bees sniale, Dante, Conv, iv. 15, the word 'etera' 
 (aether) has been displaced by the gloss 'corpo sottile e 
 diafano '. This is an absolutely certain correction since the 
 passage is a translation of Ovid, Met. i. 78-83. 
 
 (18) Conflated Readings. 
 
 Madvig, Emend. Liv., p. 15 ; Scliubart, pp. 52 sqq. ; Heraeus, p. 56 ; Bywaler, 
 p. 19. 
 
 This error results from the practice of recording variants over 
 a word in the text or in the margin (v. supra, p. 195). The scribe 
 who copies a text containing these variants tends to combine 
 them into one word. 
 
 Plat, de rep. 353 a 9 o u/urt ypijJTijJV ADM : o apTL jjpdiTMr irpCjTov 
 
 Angelicus : d/jrt irpdrov F, r)pu)Tix)v added in the margin by 
 
 a later hand. 
 Aristot. Poet, 1449^8 KpiveraL rj vai, i e. KpLveruLL meaning that 
 
 there was a variant Kplvai, cf. ib. 11 where <^ui;AAiKd in A^ 
 
 is a combination of </)ttr'Aa and </)aAAtKd. 
 Plutarch, Mor, 217 f 'Api/yci'?. The name required is Wpevs 
 
 the Lacedaemonian form of "Aprjs. 'Aprjyiv^ is a conflation of 
 
 the two forms. 
 
 Pausanias, vi. 23 eo-rt 8c . . . Kat iv rwv TraAatcrrpwv /xia tvtto? 
 "EpcDTa €)(y)v. Some codd. hav'e Kat TaLVLOJV TzaXaoTTpm', i.e. Iv 
 
 tC)v has been misread as eVtW: this has been corrected to 
 
 ivlo)v: the T has been misplaced and the word read as rcvtW. 
 
 Verbs compounded with two prepositions are often open to 
 
 the suspicion that they are the result of conflation : e. g. 
 
 (TVre(fiL(TT7]jJiL. 
 
 Plaut. Most, 464 the editio princeps reads 'di tc deaeque omnes 
 perduaxint cum istoc omine'. The conflation arose from 
 the confusion of the two readings perduint Tiwdfaxint. Cf 
 RudenSf 11 26. 
 
 Liv. ii. 56. 2 eum uexandis prions anni consulibus permis- 
 surunt adininistraturum tribunatum credebant (cod. Med.). 
 Here administraturum is a variant. The deteriores resort 
 
 \ 
 
 I \ 
 

 i 
 
 198 
 
 EMENDATION 
 
 / 
 
 to interpolation to heal the passage and read administra- 
 
 tiiriun pcrynissnm tribunatum. 
 Sen. Ag. 507 ars cessit malis E : in magnis malis A : ars in 
 
 magnis malis N. 
 ib. H. O. 636 donet A : ponit E : podonet N. 
 
 (19) Additions made to a text through the influence of 
 kindred writings or of other portions of the author's 
 work. 
 
 Leo, Plauiinische Forschungen'^, p. 33, note 3; Baehrens, Poet. Lai. Min. i. 144 ; 
 S. G. Owen, Ovid^ Tristia^ pp. Ixvii-lxviii. 
 
 This is a species of interpolation. 
 
 Plaut. Most. 655 malum quod isti di deaeque omnes duint, has 
 
 been inserted in Ter. Phonn. 976. 
 ib. Capt. 800 faciam ut huius diei locique meique semper 
 
 meminerint, has been inserted in Ter. Eitii. 801. 
 Ovid, Trisiia, ii. 364 a distich is interpolated from Cic. Tusc. 
 
 iv. 33. 71. 
 Germanicus, Aratca, 147 At capiti suberunt gemini prolem- 
 
 que tonantis, has been interpolated in the second class of 
 
 manuscripts from Avienus 370. 
 
 [The main authorities are : 
 
 Byvvater, I. Coniribntiotts to the Textual Ctiticism of Aristotle's Nicouiacliean 
 Ethics. Oxford, 1892. 
 
 CoBET, C. G. Variae Lectioues'^. Leyden, 1873. Novae Lectioties, j8^S. Mis- 
 cellanea Critica, 1876. Collectanea Critica, 1878. 
 
 Hagen, H. Gradus ad Criticen. Leipzig, 1879. 
 
 Havet, L. Manuel de Critique verbale appliqut^e aux textes latins^ 191 1. 
 
 Lindsay, W. M. Latin Textual emendation ^ 1896. 
 
 Madvig, J. N. Adversaria Critica, 187 1-3. 
 
 ScHUBART, J. H. C. Bruchstilckc zit ciner Methodologie der diplomatischen Kritik. 
 Cassel, 1855. 
 
 Shipley, F. W. Certain sources of corruption in Latin Manuscripts. New 
 York, 1904. 
 
 Vahlen, J. Opuscula Academica, 1907-8. 
 
 VoLLGRAFF, J. C. Studia Palacographica. Leyden, 1870. 
 Other works referred to are quoted by the full title.] 
 
 CHAPTER VIII 
 
 MS. AUTHORITIES FOR THE TEXT OF THE 
 CHIEF CLASSICAL WRITERS 
 
 AESCHINES (389-314 B.C.). 
 
 Speeches : (l) Kara Tt/xap;(oi'. (2) IJepl T^s ITapaTr/accr/Jeta?. 
 
 (3) Kara KT7j(TL<f>u)VTo^. (4) Nine letters. 
 
 MSS. numerous and late. The text is corrupt but the cor- 
 ruptions are earlier than the Byzantine age, since many occur in 
 early Egyptian fragments, e.g. Or. 3. § 181 'A/oio-retS/;? 6' 6 Si'/caios 
 
 In Or. 2 and 3 the best MSS. are e = Marcianus App. class. 
 8 cod. 4, 15th cent. k=Par. 2998, i3/i4th cent. l=Par. 3002, 
 i6th cent, ek do not contain O?'. i, and in 1 it is derived from 
 a late source. In Or. i the best is f=Par. Coislinianus 249, 
 ? 13th cent. No MS. of the letters is older than 14th cent. 
 
 Ed. pr. in Aldus, Orationes Rhet. Grace. 1513. 
 
 Index ^ : Preuss, Leipzig, 1896; also in Blass, ed. mai. Teubner. 
 
 AESCHYLUS (525-456 b.c). 
 
 Seven tragedies, preserved in the following order in M : 
 
 VLipaai (472), ' AyafjLefxviDV (458), Xor](f>6poL (458), IXpo/xTy^ev? (before 
 466), Ei'/xcn^es (458), 'ETrra ctti (drjl3a<s (467), 'iKertSe? (after 46 1). 
 
 The chief authority is M=Mediceus sine Laurentianus 32. 9, 
 nth cent. (=L in Sophocles), facsimile by E. Rostagno 1896. 
 It has three lacunae, viz. in Agam. 311-1066, 1 160-1673 (where 
 the loss is supplied by later MSS. especially Fl. = Florentinus 
 31. 8 a paper MS. of 14th cent.), and in the prologue to Choeph.y 
 where the loss cannot be repaired since the only other MS. 
 (viz. the Guelferbytanus) which contains the play is a copy of M, 
 made in the 15th cent. It has been held that all later MSS. are 
 descended from M but (i) Septem 195 is found in the late MSS. 
 and is absent in M, and (2) the late MSS. preserve many good 
 readings which are corrupted in M. It is a question, however, 
 whether such good readings are traditional or merely felicitous 
 
 1 Modern indexes are quoted where they are known to exist. The Delphin 
 indexes, which are quoted by the first edition, have often been reprinted. The 
 most convenient reprint is that of A. J. Valpy, London, 1819-1830. 
 
 \ 
 
 V 
 
m 
 
 20C 
 
 AUTHORITIES 
 
 conjectures of the scholars of the Renaissance; e.g. in Ag. 297, M 
 has 7rat8tov wTTov. The late MSS. have ttcSlov 'Ao-wttoD which 
 possibly has been conjectured from Pcrs. 805. 
 
 The text of Demetrius Triclinius is preserved in Fa = Farne- 
 sianus I. E. 5 of the 14th cent. 
 
 Scholia. The oldest stratum goes back to Didymus. Recent 
 scholia by Tzetzes and others in Parisini 2785, 2787. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Aldus 15 18, where, owing to the lacunae, the ylgani. 
 and Choeph. are printed as one play. 
 
 Index: Bcatson, Cambridge, 1830; \V. Dindorf, Lexicon, 
 Leipzig, 1873-1876. 
 Aetna, s.v. Vergilius. 
 
 AGRIMENSORES (under Domitian and later). 
 
 Works on surveying and kindred subjects by Frontinus— 
 Hyginus — Agennius Urbicus — Balbus — Siculus Flaccus — 
 Nipsus. 
 
 Three classes of MSS. are recognized : (i) the best, Arcerianus- 
 Guelferbytanus 2403, 6/7th cent. (s.v. P. F. Girard, 'Le manu- 
 scrit des Gromatici de Jean du Tillet' in Melanges Filling). (2) 
 Gudianus 105, 9/ioth cent. ; Vaticanus Palatinus 1564, 9/ioth 
 cent. (3) Erfurtensis-Amplonianus362, nth cent. The excerpta 
 Rostochiensia present a separate tradition. The problem of the 
 text has been reopened by C. Thulin, Die Handschriften des 
 Corpus Ag, Rom., Berlin, 191 1. 
 
 First complete edition : Paris, 1554. 
 
 ALCIPHRON (probably contemporary with Lucian). 
 
 Imaginary letters, 118 survive entire, 6 in fragments. These 
 are now arranged in four books. M SS. are derived from the same 
 archetype. None are complete, (i) The best MS. isB = Vindob. 
 gr. 342, 12 13th cent., which contains the four books almost com- 
 plete. (2) MSS. with bk. 4 missing: X = with order 3, 2, i: 
 Harleianus, 5566, 14th cent., and Venetus Marc, class, viii, no. 2, 
 1 4/ 1 5th cent. X^=with order i, 2, 3 : r=Par. 1696, 13/ 15th cent., 
 and others. (3) <l>=Par. 3054, 15th cent., and N = Par. Suppl. 
 352, 13th cent., have four books incomplete in the order i, 3, 2, 4. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Aldus in Collectio Epist. Gr. 1499, containing first two 
 books: bk. 3 in Steph. Bergler, 1715: new letters and frag- 
 ments were published by J. A. Wagner, 1798, E. E. Seiler, 1853. 
 
 Index in M. A. Schepers' ed. 1905. 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 201 
 
 H 
 
 AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS (wrote circ. a. d. 390). 
 
 Remni gestarnm libri, originally in 31 books of which 14-31 
 survive, describing the events of the years a.d. 353-378. 
 
 The only factors of importance in the constitution of the text 
 are V= Vaticanus lat. 1873 written at Fulda 9th cent, and brought 
 by Poggio to Italy circ. 1417, and M, a Hersfeld codex, 9/ioth 
 cent., of which only six leaves survive, preserved at Marburg. 
 
 Ed. pr. : by Angelus Sabinus, Rome, 1474. Text based on 
 Vatic. Reginensis 1994. Glossary in A. W. Ernesti's ed. 1772. 
 
 ANACREON of Teios (age of Polycrates d. 522 b.c). 
 
 Only fragments survive preserved in such writers as He- 
 phaestion, Athenaeus, Stobaeus. 
 
 The Anacreontea are a collection of about 60 poems in the style 
 of Anacreon, made at a much later date. They are preserved in 
 an appendix to the Anthology of Constantinus Cephalas. 
 
 Ed. pr. : H. Stephanus, Paris, 1554. 
 
 Index in Bergk's ed., Leipzig, 1834 ; Anacreontea, L. Weber, 
 Gottingen, 1895 ; C. Preisendanz, Leipzig, 1912. 
 
 ANDOCIDES (born a little before 440 b. c). 
 
 Orations : (l) Ile/Jt jZiV Mva-TrjfjLOiv. (2) Ilc/n ttJ? lavTov KaOoSov. 
 (3) Hepi TTJs 7r/30S AttKcSai/ionovs Etpyri^?. (4) Kara 'AAki^iuSov. I lie 
 
 last is certainly spurious. 
 
 Q=Ambrosianus D 42, 14th cent. Remaining codd. are the 
 same as in Antiphon with the exception of N. 
 
 Ed. pr.: Aldus, Orationes Rhet. G?'aec. 1513. 
 
 Index : Forman, Oxford, 1897. 
 
 ANTHOLOGIA GRAECA, various collections of Epigrams, 
 
 (i) Anthologia Planndca in 7 bks., a collection made by a monk 
 Planudes in 14th cent. His autograph MS. survives in cod. 
 Marcianus 481. 
 
 Ed. pr. : I. Lascaris, Florence, 1494. 
 
 (2) Anthologia Palatina in 15 bks., bks. 1-12 preserved in 
 Palatinus 23, nth cent, (at Heidelberg), the second half of which 
 containing 13-15 is at Paris = suppl. nr. 384 (v. s.v. Palatinus in 
 Index). This collection was made by Constantinus Cephalas 
 (circ. A.D. 917) and consists of 15 bks. In it are incorporated 
 
 h 
 
 
 I'i 
 
 w 
 
202 
 
 AUTHORITIES 
 
 previous anthologies by Meleager, Philippos, and Agathias. The 
 codex was first used by Salmasius in 1607, but its contents were 
 not printed as a whole till Brunck's Analeda, Strassburg, 
 
 1776. 
 
 Index in F. Jacobs* ed. 1814, vol. xui. 
 
 ANTHOLOGIA LATINA. A collection of short poems made in 
 the first half of the 6th cent. a.d. in the Vandal kingdom of 
 
 Africa. 
 It is difficult to determine the original compass of the work 
 since such collections were subject to expansion or contraction at 
 the hands of subsequent copyists. Baehrens' view [Poctac Lat. 
 MvL, vol. iv) that it was in two volumes, the first containing the 
 older writers, the second the later, is not now generally held. 
 The most important MSS. are: A = Salmasianus, given to 
 Salmasius by Jean Lacurne about 1609, now Paris. 10318, an 
 uncial MS. of the 7th cent, which has lost the first eleven qua- 
 ternions. This MS. seems to give the collection in its truest form, 
 but it is impossible to ascertain what poems the lost quaternions 
 contained. A number of copies of this MS. made in the 17th 
 cent, are still in existence (e.g. one by Isaac Vossius). The 
 second best MS., S = Bellovacensis, is now lost and its character 
 is only known from an edition of Epigrams published by Binetus 
 in 1579. It contained a number of poems by Petronius which are 
 absent in A. Other important MSS. are B=Thuaneus sine 
 Paris. 8071, 9th cent., which contains 73 of the Salmasian poems, 
 one by Catullus (62) and some by Martial. L = Lipsiensis Rep. 
 I. 74, 9/ioth cent. V = Vossianus L. Q. 86, 9th cent. Minor 
 excerpts are often appended to the MSS. of the greater poets, 
 e.g. in E=:Vossianus L. F. iii, 9th cent., a MS. of Ausonius. 
 
 The collection probably came into Europe through Spain, 
 which was closely connected with the Vandal kingdom. The 
 most famous poem which it contains is the Pcniigiliiim Veneris, 
 
 ANTIPHON(d. 411 B.C.). 
 
 (l) KaTT]yopLa <^tt/>/xaK€tas Kara tt}? Mr/rpvias. (2), (3), (4) Terpa- 
 Xoytai. (5) Uepl tov 'HpwSov <^ovov. (6) Uepl rov xop^vTov, 
 
 The two chief MSS. are A=Crippsianus (v. s.v. Isaeus) and 
 N = Bodleianus Misc. 208, 14th cent. These are of equal value 
 and descend from a common archetype. B = Laurentianus plut. 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 203 
 
 1 
 
 4. II, 15th cent., the parent of many later MSS., is probably a 
 copy of A. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Aldus, Omtiones Rhet. Graec. 1513. 
 
 Index: Van Cleef, Ithaca, New York, 1895. 
 
 Antoninus, s.v. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. 
 
 APOLLONIUS RHODIUS (circ. 295-215 B.C.). 
 
 Epic, ' ApyovavTiKix in 4 bks. 
 
 Two editions were published by Apollonius. The surviving 
 MSS. preserve the second and nothing is known of the first except 
 for a few quotations in the Scholia. MSS. in two classes headed 
 by(i) L = Laurentianus32. 9, nth cent., containing also the plays 
 of Aeschylus (M) and Sophocles (L). (2) G=Guelferbytanus, 
 13th cent., and L i6=Laurentianus 32. 16, 13th cent. These pre- 
 serve a distinct tradition and their text agrees with the quotations 
 given in the Etymologicon Magnum. The archetype must therefore 
 be as old as the 4th or 5th cent. Papyrus fragments of bk. i in 
 Amherst ii. 16, and of bks. 3 and 4 (2nd 3rd cent, a.d.) in 
 Grenfell and Hunt, Oxyrhynchus Pap. iv. 690-2. Scholia by 
 Lucillus, Sophocles, and Theon, commentators of the age of 
 Tiberius. 
 
 Ed. pr. : I. Lascaris, Florence, 1496. 
 
 Index in Wellauer's ed., Leipzig, 1828. 
 
 APPIAN (circ. a.d. 160). 
 
 'Pw/xtttKa originally in 24 bks., though probably not completed. 
 The surviving portions are bk. 6 (Ip-qpiKr)), 7 (XwiPdiKij), 
 8 (Ai/3vKry), II {^vpLaK7% 12 (Mt^piSarctos), 9 (IXXvpiKiy. forming 
 the second half of the book), 13-17 ('E/x</)t'Ata). There are frag- 
 ments of the first half of 9 (Macedonia) and the Prooemium to 
 4 (KcArtKry). The IJapOLKi] appended in the MSS. to the ^vpiaKi) 
 is, as show^n by Xylander and Perizonius, a Byzantine forgery 
 based upon Plutarch. 
 
 The excerpts in the surviving MSS. have been made on dif- 
 ferent principles, according as whole books or isolated passages 
 from a large number of books have been selected. 
 
 V=:Vat. gr. 141, nth cent., is the only trustworthy authority 
 for Hisp., Hann., Pun. It contains also Prooem. and Celt, in 
 a different and later (12th cent.) handwriting. Prooem., Illyr., Syr., 
 Mith., Bell. Ciu. are contained in a group of related MSS. known 
 
 i; 
 
 (' 
 
 11 
 
 w 
 
204 AUTHORITIES 
 
 as O, for which the best members are B = Ven. Marc. 387, 
 15th cent., V=Vat. gr. 134., i4/i5th cent. There is an inferior 
 class known as /, whose evidence is sometimes of value. In the 
 middle of the 15th cent, the greater part of the surviving text 
 Vv^as translated into Latin by Piero Candido Decembrio who used 
 a MS. similar to those of the 0-group. There are numerous 
 manuscripts of passages excerpted from the different books. 
 Ed. pr. : C. Stephanus, Paris, 1551 ; Latin translation, 1472. 
 
 Lucius APULEIUS of Madaura (Africa) (fl. circ. a.d. 155). 
 (I) Mvtamorplioscon libri XL (2) Apologia. (3) Florida (4 bks.). 
 
 (4) dePlatone et ciits dogmate (3 bks., the 3rd probably spurious). 
 
 (5 ) de dco Socratis. (6) de mundo. [The inpi kpix7)vua<i is spurious. ] 
 MSS. in two groups, (i) Containing Met., ApoL, and Flor., in 
 
 which all are descended from F = Laur. 68. 2, nth cent, (containing 
 also Tac. Ann. xi-xvi and the Histories). It has the subscriptio 
 after bk. ix of Met. 'Ego Sallustius legi et emendaui Rome 
 felix. Olibio et Probino u. c. cons. (i.e. a.d. 395) in foro Martis 
 controuersiam declamans oratori Endelechio. Rursus Constan- 
 tinopoli recognoui Caesario et Attico coss. (a.d. 397).' <t> = 
 Laur. 29. 2, the earliest copy of F, is often of use in passages 
 where F has since been altered or injured. (2) The second group 
 contains de d. Socratis, Asclepius (spurious), de Platone, and de 
 miindo. Their archetype, which is lost, has to be reconstructed 
 from yd) the best class, such as M=Monacensis 621, 12th cent., 
 B = Bruxellensis 100546, nth cent., and others, and from 
 {b) the worse, such as P = Parisinus 6634, 12th cent. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Rome, 1469. Index in Delphin ed. (J. Floridus) 1688. 
 
 ARATUS (circ. 310-245 B.C.). 
 
 <I>a(i^o/x€i'a K'tti Aiocrr/zxcia in 1 154 hexameters. 
 
 Best preserved in M = Marcianus 476, nth cent., containing 
 critical signs, perhaps by Theon, a mathematician of 4th cent. a. d. 
 Scholia by Theon. There are numerous commentaries, the 
 earliest is by Hipparchus the astronomer (circ. 130 B.C.), the latest 
 by Leontius of the 7th cent. Translations by Cicero, Germanicus, 
 Avienus. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Aldus, 1499 (in Astrononi. uctt.). 
 
 Index in Maass' ed., Berlin, 1893. 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 205 
 
 ARISTOPHANES (circ. 450-385 B.C.). Eleven comedies. 
 
 MSS : — F=Fragmentum Fayoumense, 6th cent., contains An. 
 1057-85, 1 101-27. On vellum. R=Ravennas 137. 4 a, loth 
 cent. Scholia. V=Venetus Marcianus 474, 12th cent. Scholia. 
 A= Parisinus 2712, 13th cent. = cod. A in Sophocles and 
 Euripides. Scholia to Nub. and beginning of Ran. r = (i) 
 Laurentianus 31. 15, 14th cent. Contains four plays of Euripides 
 (D) and six of Aristophanes viz.: Ach., Eccl.-\. 1136, Eq., An.- 
 V. 1419, Vesp. (except v. 421-1397, 1494-end), P^.v (except v. 377- 
 1298). Von Velsen has shown that part of this MS. is now in 
 the University Library at Leyden, i.e. (2) Vossianus Gr. F. 52 
 containing An. v. 1492-end, Lysist.-\\ 1034. This portion of 
 the MS. is sometimes quoted as L. Scholia. = Lauren- 
 tianus Abbatiae olim Florentinae 2779. 140, 14th cent. Scholia. 
 A = Laurent. 31. 16, i5/i6th cent. B= Paris. 2715, i6th cent. 
 C = Paris. 2717, i6th cent. 
 
 Of the other MSS. that are occasionally quoted the best are : — 
 M = Ambrosianus L 39 sup., 14th cent. P = Vaticanus Palatinus 
 128, 15th cent. 
 
 Several of the plays were recast by Aristophanes himself 
 (8iao-KCL'7/, 8tao-AC€m^€a'). The second version of the Nub. alone 
 survives. The earlier version was in existence in the time of 
 Eratosthenes of Alexandria (276 B.C.) (cf Nub. Hypoth. vi). 
 Traces of remodelling can be seen in the present text, e.g. 696 ff., 
 937, 1 105. Similarly the second Plutus is alone represented in 
 the MS. tradition, though fragments of the earlier play are ex- 
 tant. Two versions of the Pax and Thcsni. are mentioned, 
 but in either case it was probably not a revision but a distinct 
 play upon the same subject that was produced. The 
 attempt to find traces of revision in the other plays has not 
 been successful. 
 
 The text of Aristophanes had suffered corruption in the pre- 
 Alexandrine period, e.g. the last scene of Ran. (1429-53), cf. 
 Ran. 153 ; TJiesnt. 80, 162 ; Plut. 179. References to the ancient 
 learning are frequent in the Scholia (v. infra). 
 
 Of the 44 plays (4 of which were considered spurious in anti- 
 quity) only II survive, and these only in R, where the order is : 
 Pint., Nub., Ran., Eq., Ach., Vesp., Pax, Au., Thesnu, Eccl, 
 Lysist. There are traces of an alphabetical order in some inferior 
 
 I 
 
 \ 
 
 \i 
 
 i 
 
 h,i 
 
 ii 
 
 ii 
 
 
 II 
 
n 
 
 206 
 
 AUTHORITIES 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 207 
 
 !-^ 
 
 MSS. (Novati, Hermes, xiv. 461). The present order is perhaps 
 due to Symmachus (circ. a.d. 100) who probably made a selection 
 (v. p. 41), and is known to have compiled a commentary. The 
 fragment of a vellum MS. (F) containing 56 lines of Au. shows 
 that in the 6th cent. a.d. the text did not differ appreciably from 
 that of the best MSS. 
 
 The MSS. and Suidas (who quotes Aristophanes more than 
 5,000 times) represent strains of the same tradition. The relations 
 vvhich they bear to one another vary in the different plays, and 
 none of the attempts to make a rigorous classification have been 
 successful. R and V are undoubtedly the best, but it is impossible 
 to rely on them entirely, e.g. Eq. 889 l3aX(\)avTLOL(TL RV while the 
 true reading pXavrioLCTi is preserved in A and Suidas. CLPax 758, 
 Tliesm. 557. R is the sole authority for Pax 897 irXayiav KarapaWeiv 
 
 is y6vaTa kv^S' lardvai : EccL 224 TrcTTovcrt tovs irXaKovvTas waTrep Kal 
 
 irpo Tov and ibid. 303 eV toi? o-r cc^ai/co/xao-iv. In Eq. R is superior 
 to V; in Nub. their authority is equal ; in Pax, Ah., Ran. V is 
 somewhat better than R; in Vesp. V is far superior. Of the remain- 
 ing MSS. the Paris A is the best, and is often found in alliance 
 with the three Laurentian TAO. V often leans to the side of ArAO 
 and, apart from the good readings which they occasionally pre- 
 serve, they serve to control the readings of R where V is absent. 
 The Paris MSS. B and C are not of high value ; they contain 
 many futile emendations and interpolations. But they seem to 
 represent a real tradition akin to that of the Aldine, and occa- 
 sionally give good readings of their own ; e.g. Vesp. 668 ttc^ittc- 
 <j,OeL<; B : 7r€fH7refjii>0us RV. The Aldine edited by Musurus was 
 printed from a MS. which cannot now be identified. (Estensis 
 III. D. 8 of 14th cent, is known to have been in his possession.) 
 The Scholia which it contains are of the highest importance, and 
 its text cannot be wholly neglected though many of its readings 
 are obvious corrections. It occasionally preserves a good reading 
 vvhich is lost in RV, e.g. Nub. 1298 ovk iXas w crafj,<t>6pa ; where RV 
 
 have OVK cXa? w Tlao-ta ; 
 
 ScJiolia. The old scholia which alone are of any value are 
 contained in RVr. A0M and the Aldine contain old scholia, but 
 also later Byzantine notes. Such notes are based upon com- 
 mentaries by Triclinius, Tzetzes, Thomas M agister, and others, 
 and are of no value. The bulk of the old scholia is preserved in 
 
 V. Only excerpts from this larger corpus are preserved in R (vid. 
 A. Romer, Studien zii Ar. 1902). 
 
 Ed.pr. : Aldine, 1498, containing all but Thcsnu, Lysist. The 
 Pax and Eccl. were not taken from the same source as the rest, 
 since there is a subscription printed after Aues. Thesnt. and 
 Lysist. were first published in the second vol. of B. Junta's edition 
 in 15 15. Their text was taken from the Ravennas. 
 
 Indexes: Sanxay, London, 1754; Holden, Onomasticon'^, 
 Cambridge, 1902 ; Caravalla, Oxford, 1822 ; Dunbar, Oxford, 
 1883. 
 
 ARISTOTLE (384-322 b. c). Works on philosophy and 
 science. 
 The numbers following each work in the list given below refer 
 to the page on which they are to be found in Bekker's edition, 
 Berlin, 1831. Spurious works are marked by square brackets. 
 History of the text in Antiquity : Strabo, xiii. 609 o yovv Wpi- 
 
 trroTcAr;? rr/i/ kavrov {/3L/3Xio0y]Krjr) &€ocf>pd(TTio Tra/ae^toKcr, wTrep kol Tr]v 
 (T)^oXr]v (xTreAtTTC, irpCjTos, (ov Lo-fxev, (rvvayaywv jBif^Xia koI StSti^as tovs iv 
 AiyuTTTO) jSaaiX^as /Si/^XioOr'jKrjs crvvTa^LV. ©cot^paoTos Se Nr;Xct 7rapeSu)K€V. 
 o 8 els Trjv '!^Krj{f/Lv Ko/xtcras tols /jlct avTov Tra/oeSwKcv, t8twrats dvOpuyTroLSj 
 o\ Kartt/cActcrra €l)(ov to, ^t/?At'a, ov8 cTrt/^icXw? Kct/xcva* cTrctSr) Se yaOovTo 
 Tr]v cTTTovorjv ru)V ArraXtKiov /^acnXeiov v(j) ols rjv y TroXt?, ^yjtovvtmv 
 I^L^Xia CIS rrjv KaTaa-Kevrjv rrjs iv llepydfiio fS 1/3X1067] Kr)s, Kara yrjs €Kpv\pav 
 €v hidypvyi Tti't* VTTO 8e vorias /cat (TrjTUiV KaKUiOivra 6{f/€ irore diri^ovTO 01 
 ttTTo TOV yevovs ATreXXiKCovTL TU) Tr/to) TToXXiov dpyvpiMV rd re XpurrorlXovs 
 KOL TO, TOV @€0(f>pd(rTOv ftijSXta. 7JV Se 6 ^AireXXiKiov tfttXo^L/SXos fJidXXov 
 7] (f>LX6(ro<f>os. 8to Koi ^tjtCjv iTraropOiDO-tv ruiv hta^ poifidrtav (the damaged 
 pages) its dvTLypacf)a Kaivd ]i€TrjveyKe T7]V ypacf>7]V dvaTrXrjpwv ovk cv, 
 Koi €$€So)K€V dfjiaprdSoiV TrXrjpT] rd ^t/?Aia. avvi^y] 8e rots e/c Ttoi/ Trcpt- 
 TraTMV Tols [jXv rraXai rol% fieTa ®eo(f)pao'Tov ovk €)^ovcnv oXios rd 
 ^i^Xca ttXtjv oXtyuiv, kol /xaAtcrra twv €$(DT€piKwv, jJiTjSev ^X^^^ <j>tXo<Jo<j>eiv 
 TTpayfiaTLKws (systematically) dXXd Oicrus X7]kvOl^€IV' tols 8' vo-TepoVj d<f) 
 ov TO, ^i/3Xia TavTa vpoTJXOeVy d/JLetvov pikv €K€lvii)v cfiLXo(ro(ji€LV kol dpLCTTO- 
 TeXi^eiv, dvayKdt,€(rOaL jxivToi to. iroXXd ciKora Xiyetv 8ia to 7rXrj6os tmv 
 
 dfXapTiCjV, TToXv 8c CIS TOVTO KOL 7] VwfJLT] TTpOO-eXd/^eTO' €v6vS ydp JXCTa T7]V 
 ATTiXXlKOiVTOS TcXiVTTjV ^I'AAa? ^^6 T^V ATTcAAlKtOI'TOS ^L^XloOrjKTJV, O 
 
 Tots 'A^ryras tAojv, ^evpd re KOfuaOeLaav Tvpavvtwv re 6 ypa/xfjiaTiKos 
 8i€;^et/)icrttTO <j)LXapL(TTOT€Xr]S oV, OepaTTiva-as tov ctti ttJs fSij3XLoOrjK7)s^ 
 
 'U 
 
 '1 
 
 .{, 
 
 i 
 
 (I 
 
2o8 
 
 AUTHORITIES 
 
 Kttl /?t/3Ato7rwXat Tii/cs ypa<t>€V(TL (jiavkoi^ xP^')fi€voi Kal ovk avTLf3(i\\ovT€<;, 
 oirep Kal cVl rdv aUwi' o-v/x^aivct rwi/ cis 7rp5o-ti/ ypa<j)OfXiV0)v /SipXlw 
 
 In the above story it is not necessary to believe more than that 
 the rich collector Apellikon bought a set of Aristotle's works 
 which were represented to him by the vendors as the philosopher's 
 private copy. It is unlikely that there was no other copy in 
 existence and that our present texts are descended from Apelli- 
 kon's edition. The credence, however, given to the story in 
 antiquity shows the neglect into which Aristotle's works had 
 fallen during the two centuries after his death. 
 
 (A) Logic. The "Opyavov (a title not older than 6th cent, a.d.) 
 
 consisting of (l) Karr^yoplaL (p. l), (2) Hepl "EpfxrjveLa? (p. 16), (3) 
 
 AmAi'TiKa 7rp6T€pa in 2 bks. (p. 24), (4) 'AiaXiTtKtt varepa in 2 bks. 
 
 (p. 71), (5) ToTTLKii in 8 bks. (p. 100), (6) 5o<^to-TtK'ol eXeyxot (p. 164), 
 
 an epilogue to (5). 
 
 Best MSS. are B=Marcianus 201, a.d. 955; A=Urbinas 35, 
 10 nth cent.; Cr-.Coislin. 330, nth cent.; d=Laur. 72. 5, 
 lo/iith cent. ; n = Ambros. L. 93, loth cent. 
 
 Commentaries, paraphrases, and translations : 
 
 On (i) Porphyrins, Dexippus, Simplicius, lohannes Philoponus, 
 Ammonius, Olympiodorus, Elias : Arabic and Armenian versions. 
 
 On (2) Stephanos, Ammonius : Syrian and Armenian versions. 
 
 On (3) Alexander Aphrodisiensis, lohannes Philoponus, Am- 
 monius, Themistius (?). 
 
 On (4) Themistius, Philoponus, Eustratius. 
 
 On (5), (6) Michael Ephesius. 
 
 (B) PsYCnOLOGY AND MeTAPHYSIC. 
 
 (i) ncpl ^I'xr/? in 3 bks. (p. 402). The best MS. is E= 
 Par. 1853, lo/iith cent. In bk. 3 it is defective and its 
 place is supplied by L = Vat. 253, 14th cent. There are traces 
 pointing to a second edition of the treatise in E and in P = Vat. 
 1339, 12 13th cent. There is a group of late MSS. of inferior 
 
 value. 
 
 Comntaitaries. Themistius, Simplicius, Philoponus, Sopho- 
 
 nias. 
 
 (2) Ta /xcTu T.t 4>i'(TiKa in 14 bks. (p. 980). The name is not due 
 to Aristotle (who uses the term irpMrrj <^iXocro<^ia) but to the later 
 editors of his works who catalogued the Metaphysics after the 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 209 
 
 Physical writings, either because they thought that his scheme 
 implied this order or because it was convenient to use the trea- 
 tises for educational purposes in this order. The whole treatise 
 has been redacted from time to time. Bk. d IXaTTov, which follows 
 a in the MSS., was attributed by some ancient scholars to Pasicles 
 of Rhodes, nephew of Eudemus. Bk. 11 is spurious. 
 
 MSS.: E (vid. B. i supra), A^'=Laur. 87. 12, i2/i3th cent., 
 J = Vindob. phil. 100 shares most of the readings of E. 
 
 Commentaries^ cSc. Alexander (spurious after Book A), 
 Asclepius (A-Z), Themistius (A), Syrianus (BPMN). 
 
 (3) ITept dropoi' ypayu/xwi' (p. 968). MSS. are recent : N = Vat. 258 ; 
 also in P = Vat. 1339, i2/i3th cent.; Wa = Urbinas 44; Z^ = 
 Laurent. 87. 21. 
 
 [(4) llepl 'Bf.vofjxxvov^, Trepl Zyv(DV0S, Trepl Topytov. Lipsiensis 14th 
 
 cent.; P'^ = Vaticanus 1302, 14th cent. Latin version by 
 Felicianus, who used a MS. akin to R^.] 
 
 (C) Ethics and Politics. 
 
 (i) 'H^tKa NtKo/xaxcta in 10 bks. (p. 1094). Bekker selected 
 six MSS. of which the most important are: K^»=Laur. 81. 11, 
 lothcent.; L'>=: Par. 1854, i2/i3thcent. ; Mi>=Marc. 213, 14 15th 
 cent, (of little value, its occasional good readings only dating from 
 the Renaissance ; O^J = Riccard. 46, 14th cent., is a similarly con- 
 taminated MS.); r=:the old Latin version (? by William of 
 Moerbecke). Index in Cardwell's ed., 1828. 
 
 Commentaries, ^'C- Aspasius (who shows that the text has not 
 altered substantially since the 2nd cent, a.d.), Michael Ephesius 
 on bk. 5, Eustratius, Heliodorus. 
 
 [(2) 'HOlkul EvSry/xia in 7 bks. (p. 1214). Pl^=Vat. 1342, 13th 
 cent.; Cc=Cantabrigiensis 1879, 13th cent. An inferior text 
 is given in M^> {supra) and the Aldine.] 
 
 [(3) 'H^tK-a fieydXa in 2 bks. (p. 1181). Two groups : (i) the 
 best K'' [supra); (2) P^OW\] 
 
 [(4) (2) is followed in MSS. by the spurious llepl dperwv Kal 
 KaKL^v (p. 1249) : L'^ {supra) ; Fc=Laur. 7. 35, 14th cent. ; Gt'Ht*= 
 Matritenses 54 and 109.] 
 
 (5) IloXm/ca, 8 bks. (p. 1252). The text anterior to the 
 recensions which most MSS. exhibit can be recovered in part 
 from V"» = Vat. 1298, lo/iith cent., containing palimpsest frag- 
 
 473 P 
 
 li 
 
 It 
 
 ! ! 
 
 ( 
 
 'I 
 
 II 
 
2IO 
 
 AUTHORITIES 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 211 
 
 ments of bks. 3 and 6, and from H=' = Berolinensis-Hamiltonianus 
 397, 15th cent. The complete MSS. fall into two groups: 
 (a) n' to which belong M'^ = Ambrosianus B. ord. sup. 105, 
 14th cent., and other late MSS.; r = the translation of William 
 of Moerbecke which represents a lost codex, (b) n^ which 
 includes P- = Coislinianus 161, 14th cent.; P^ = Paris. 2026, 15th 
 cent. Of these groups n- is slightly the better. 
 
 Displacements in Text. As early as the period of the Renais- 
 sance it was suggested that the books were given in the wrong 
 order in the MSS. It is possible that the 7th and 8th 
 books of the traditional order should follow the first 3 books. 
 Many scholars however hold to the traditional order. 
 
 (6) \\07]yaLiDv TToXiTeta. Brit. Mus. Pap. cxxxi, ist/2nd cent. a.d. 
 Fragments in Berlin Pap. Ed. pr. : Kenyon, London, 1891. 
 
 Index in Sandys' ed., 1893. 
 
 [(7) OlKovofjiLKii in 3 bks. (p. 1343). The third book exists 
 only in two Latin versions, one by Durandus de Alvernia, 
 A.D. 1295. Best MS. : P= or P>= Paris. Coislin. 161, 14th cent.] 
 
 (D) Rhetoric and Poetic. 
 
 (i) 'Pr/TopiKa in 3 bks. (p. 1354). Two families: (a) Ac = 
 Par. 1741, lo/iith cent, (b) Zi' = Vat. Pal. 23, 13th cent, and 
 younger MSS., chiefly useful in supplying the lacunas in A^. 
 William of Moerbecke's translation stands midway between these 
 two classes. Index in Gaisford's ed., 1820. 
 
 Commentaries, 4c. Stephanus and Anonymus Neobarii of 
 late Byzantine origin. 
 
 [(2) 'Pi^ToptKij Trpos 'AXiiavSpov (p. 1420) has been attributed to 
 Anaximenes of Lampsacus, circ. 380-320 B.C. V^=Palatinus 
 160 ; Bc=Urbinas 47.] 
 
 (3) IV 7roi>?TiKfys (p. 1447). Ac= Paris. 1741, lo/iith cent., 
 generally held to be the archetype of all other MSS. Ar.= Arabic 
 version derived from a lost Syriac translation of the Greek text. 
 It implies a Greek text earlier that that of A^ and of different 
 descent. Its value is not great. 
 
 E) Natural Philosophy. 
 
 (i) Uipt <t>v(TiKij^ uKpoJo-cw? in 8 bks. (p. 184). Bk. 7 is spurious. 
 Best MSS.: E = Par. 1853, lo/iith cent. and J = Vindob. phil.ioo. 
 
 Paraphrase by Themistius, Commentaries by Simplicius, 
 Philoponus. 
 
 (2) lle/K ovpavod in 4 bks. (p. 268). MSS.: E and J. 
 Themistius, Simplicius. 
 
 (3) Uepl ycvc'o-ews kol ct>Oopas in 2 bks. (p. 314). MSS. : E and 
 J. Philoponus. 
 
 (4) U€T€iopoXoyiKd in 4 bks. (p. 338). MSS. : E and J. 
 Alexander, Philoponus, Olympiodorus. 
 
 (5) ^^ ^^p'*- ^^ ^*?« LcrTopiaL in 9 bks. (p. 486). The loth bk. 
 given by some MSS. is held by Spengel, though not by 
 Dittmeyer, to be a retranslation into Greek of the Latin version 
 of William of Moerbecke (circ. 1260). Bk. 7, which follows 
 bk. 9 in most MSS., is spurious. MSS.: (i) the best A'^ = 
 Marc. 208, i2/i3th cent.; C^ (or M) = Laurent. 87. 4, 14th cent. 
 (2)P(or V) = Vat. 1339, 15th cent.; Da = Vat. 262, 14th cent. 
 Excerpts in Pliny. 
 
 Index in Aubert and Wimmer*s ed., 1868. 
 
 (6) Uepl (ioojv fiopliov in 4 bks. (p. 639). MSS. : E [supra); P= 
 Vat. 1339, 15th cent.; S = Laurent. 81. i, 14th cent. Different 
 version of iv. 691^28 to end in Y = Vat. 261 (14th cent). 
 
 Commentary by Michael Ephesius. Index in Langkavel's ed. 
 Teubn. 1868. 
 
 (7) Bcpi ^^isiv ycveo-cws in 5 bks. (p. 715). MSS. : E P S Y in (6) 
 supra) Z = Oxon. Coll. Corp. Chr. 108, 12th cent. 
 
 Commentary, Philoponus (more probably Michael Ephesius). 
 
 (8) lle/ot TTopeia? ^u>W (p. 704). MSS.: E, P S Y Z supra (7) ; U= 
 Vat. 260, i3/i5th cent. 
 
 (9) II €^1 ^wwi/ Ktv7/o-€ws (p. 698), possibly genuine. MS! 
 
 :>. 
 
 E, P, S Y supra (7).] 
 (10) The Parua Naturalia, a collection of small treatises, viz. : 
 
 (a) TTcpt atV^7;o-€a)S Kal ttiV^r/Twv (p. 436), (b) irepl /xi/r;/x7;? Ka\ di/ttyui/rycrew? 
 (P- 449); (c) TTC^t vTTVov Kal iyprjyopa-eix)^ (p. 453), (d) wepl ivvTrvtujv Kal 
 TTJs KaO' VTTVOV p.avTiKr]<s (p. 458), (e) Trepl fxaKpo/SLOTrjTos Kal /3/Jtt;^i;/?toT/;T09 
 (p. 464), (f) TTcpl vcoTT^Tos Kal yr;/0(os (p. 467), (g) nepl ^w^s Kal 
 OavuLTOv (p. 467), (h) TTC/jt ava7rvor)<; (p. 470). 
 
 Commentaries: Alexander (de Sensu), Michael Ephesius, 
 Sophronius. 
 
 MSS. in two classes, (i) E (supra): its text ends at 4641*18; 
 M=Urbinas 37, i2/i3th cent.; Y=Vat. 261, 14th cent. (2) 
 
 p 2 
 
 
 '■I' I 
 
212 
 
 AUTHORITIES 
 
 L = Vat. 253; 14th cent., and others. The second group presents 
 a ' doctored ' text in which the roughnesses of the original have 
 been smoothed over. After ^e^^nQ the groups are best repre- 
 sented by (i) M and Z=Oxoniensis coll. C.C.C. 108, 12th cent., 
 and (2) L and S = Laurent. 81. i, 14th cent. 
 
 [(11) Uepl 4>vTwv in 2 bks. (p. 814). This is probably a 
 treatise by Nicholas of Damascus. The present Greek text is a 
 late translation of a Latin version of this work made in the 13th 
 cent, from an Arabic version. MS.: N=' = Marc. 215.] Ed. pr. 
 in Geoponica, Basel, 1539. 
 
 [(12) llc/K K00-/XOV (p. 391). MSS. : = Vat. 316; P = Vat. 1339, 
 i2/i3th cent., and others. It is probably written by a Stoic and 
 addressed to Tib. lulius Alexander, praefect of Egypt in 
 A.D. 67. It has been freely adapted by Apuleius in his De 
 
 Mumh.] 
 
 [(13) llcpl irviifxaTo^ (p. 481). L = Vat. 253 and others.] 
 [(14) nc^l xP^fidTwv (p. 791). E, M=Urb. 37, P, L.] 
 [(15) n€/>t dKoi'o-Twv (p. 800). Ma = Paris.Coislin. 173, 15th cent.] 
 [(16) ^vaioyviofioviKii (p. 805). The best is La = M arc. 263 ; V'= 
 
 Laur. 57. 33; Ka = Marc. app. 4. 58. 
 
 [(17) rie^I Oavfjia(TLU)V aKOvafJuiriov (p. 830). S^ = Laur. 60. 19 and 
 
 many mittiliJ] 
 
 [(18) UpopXiifxara (p. 859), a collection of problems with answers 
 by the later Peripatetics. Y^ z= Par. 2036, loth cent.; 0^ = Laur. 
 87. 4; X^ = Vat. 1283.] 
 
 [(19) Mv/xaviKu (p. 847). MSS. late and infected by Scholia: 
 P=Vat. 1339, i2/i3th cent.; Wa = Urb. 44; A=Par. 2115, 
 1 5th cent., and Bernensis 402. Latin version by Leonicenus.] 
 
 [(20) 'Ave^njjv OiiTiL^ Kut Trpo<T7]yof)laL (p. 973), said to be an extract 
 from Aristotle's lUpl (r7;/x€iW. K'^ (16 supra).] 
 
 Ed. pr. : Aldus, 1495-1498. Index : Bonitz in vol. v of Berlin 
 ed., 1870. 
 
 Flavius ARRIANUS (circ. a.d. 95-175). 
 (i) 'Am)8a(7is 'A\€idvSpov in 7 bks. (2) Scripta minora, viz. 
 
 "IvBlki}, Kvvi/ycTtKos, lIc/JiVAovs Evf ciVou ttovtov, Texi'V raKTi/o/, "Ektu^i? 
 KaT 'AAavwj'. (3) Aiarpi^ai 'Ettlktt'jtov in 8 bks. of which I -4 sur- 
 vive, 'Ey;(€tpt8tov' 'ETTiKTrjroi'. 
 
 In the Anabasis the chief codex is A = Vindobonensis histor. 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 213 
 
 Gr. 4 bombycinus, i2/i3th cent. It is thought to be the arche- 
 type of all the rest since the loss of an entire page explains the 
 lacuna which is common to all MSS. in A nab. vii. 12. 7. The 
 text cannot be based wholly on A which is mutilated at the 
 beginning. Most of the apographs were made before A was 
 corrected. These are in two classes, (a) B = Parisinus Gr. 
 1753, 15th cent.; C = Constantinopolitanus in the Library of the 
 Seraglio, 15th cent, [b] A large number of MSS. arranged in 
 three groups. There are excerpts in Vat. Gr. 73 and in other 
 MSS. In the 'Ii^StKr; A and B are best; in Kwr/yeriKos and 
 IIcptTrXous Vaticano-Palatinus 398 ; in the TaKTiK-q and "EKra^i? 
 a Berne codex. In (3) Bodleianus (Saibantinus) Misc. Gr. 251, 
 1 2th cent. 
 
 Edd. pr. : For the Anabasis Lat. Trans. : B. Facius, Pesaro, 
 1508. Ed. pr. of Gk. text : Trincavelli, Venice, 1535 ; of the 
 n €/)i7rAot's : Gelenius, Basel, 1533: of (3) Trincavelh', Venice, 
 1535. The remaining treatises were published in the 17th cent. 
 
 Q. ASCONIUS Pedianus (9 b.c— a.d. 76). 
 
 Historical Commentary on 5 speeches of Cicero. The text 
 depends on a MS. (? of 9th cent.) discovered by Poggio at 
 St. Gall in 1416. Copies of this were taken by his friends 
 Bartolomeo da Montepulciano and Zomino of Pistoia. Lauren- 
 tianus 54. 5 is an early transcript of B.*s copy. Z/s autograph 
 copy survives in Pistoriensis, Forteguerri 37. Poggio's own 
 copy is identified by the best critics with Matritensis 10. 81 (cf. 
 Manilius). The lost Sangallensis must be reconstructed mainly 
 from this. A commentary on the Vcrrines was attributed to A. 
 until proved spurious by Madvig. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Venice, 1477. 
 
 ATHENAEUS of Naucratis (age of Commodus). 
 
 ^uiTvo(TOfjiL(TTMv ixi 1^ books of which all survive save i, 2, and 
 part of 3. Extracts are preserved from these missing books. 
 
 All MSS. are derived from A=Marcianus Venetus 447, loth 
 cent., brought by loannes Aurispa to Venice from Constanti- 
 nople in 1423. All other MSS. are apographs of this made 
 in 15th or i6th cent., e.g. B = Laurentianus pi. 60. i; P=Pala- 
 tinus (Heidelbergensis) 47, written in 1505-6 by Paolo Began 
 
 I'. 
 
 H 
 
 \i 
 
 V 
 
214 AUTHORITIES 
 
 of Venice. There is an Epitome of the whole work made from 
 a codex which must have been similar to A. It is best given in 
 C = Paris. 3056, written by Hermolaus Barbaras in 1482, and 
 E=Laur. 60. 2. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Aldus, 1514. 
 
 Index glossarum in Kaibel's ed., Leipzig, 1890. 
 
 AULUS GELLIUS (fl. circ. a.d. 150). 
 
 Nodes Atticae in 20 bks. Bks. 1-7 depend on A=thc Vatican 
 palimpsest (Vat.-Pal. 24), 6/7th cent., and on MSS. of i2/i3th 
 cent. Bks. 9-20 on Leidenses-Vossiani, X=F. 112, loth cent., 
 and F. 7. 2, 14th cent., the Vaticani-Reginenses, = 597, loth 
 cent., and n=i646, 12th cent., and others. The inferior MSS. 
 which contain the entire work are badly interpolated and arc of 
 little use save for bk. 7, for the chapter headings of bk. 8, and 
 the last sections of bk. 20. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Rome, 1469. Index in Delphin ed. (J. Proust), 1681. 
 
 Decimus Magnus AUSONIUS (circ. a.d. 310-390, tutor to 
 
 Gratian). 
 (i) Pmefatiiinculae. {2) DotJiesiiea. {^) Ep/iemens, I e. to/ins 
 diei negotiiim (236 lines in various metres). (4) Parentalia (30). 
 (5) Commemoratio professormn Burdigalensium. (6) Epitaphia 
 Jienmm (26). (7) A collection of Eclogues. (8) Cupido crnciatus. 
 (9) Poems (fragmentary) to a German captive woman named 
 Bissula. (10) Mosclla (483). (11) Ordo nohilinm urbium. (12) 
 Technopaegnion. (13) Liidtis septem sapienium. (14) De xii 
 Caesaribiis. (15) Fasti considares (fragment). (16) Griphiis 
 tcniarii immeri. (17) Cento nuptialis. (18) Epistulae (xxv). (19) 
 Epigrams (cxii). There are also, in prose, Gratianim actio ad 
 Gratianiim, and Pcriochae to Homer. 
 
 Two collections are preserved in the existing MSS. : (i) The 
 Tilianus collection preserved in a series of late MSS. whose 
 best representative isT = Leidensis-VossianusQ. 107, 15th cent, 
 (called the Tilianus, from a former owner Du Tillet). It has 
 been noticed that this collection contains no work later than the 
 year 383 and it may represent an arrangement of the poems by 
 the author himself. (2) The Vossianus collection preserved in V = 
 Lcidensis-Vossianus iii, 9th cent., a MS. in a Lombardic hand. 
 This collection must have been made after the poet's death, 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 21 
 
 possibly by his son Hesperius. These two collections do not 
 contain all the poems : e. g. the Pcriochae rest upon the Paris 
 collection (e.g. Parisinus 8500, 14th cent., and Harleianus 2613, 
 15th cent.). The Mosclla is contained in a collection of excerpts 
 found in Sangallensis 899, loth cent., and Bruxellensis 5369/73, 
 1 2th cent. 
 
 Ed. pr. by B. Girardinus, Venice, 1472. 
 
 Index in Delphin ed. (J. Floridus), 1688. 
 
 AVIANUS [Flavius] (age of the Antonines). 
 
 42 fables founded mainly upon Babrius. MSS. exceedingly 
 numerous. Among the best are: T = Treverensis 1464, loth 
 cent. ; C = Par. 5570, loth cent; = Oxon. Bodl. Auct. F. 2. 14, 
 nth cent. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Strassburg, 1515 (according to Frohner). 
 
 Index in Ellis' ed., Oxford, 1887. 
 
 RuFius Festus AVIENUS (proconsul of Africa, a.d. 366). 
 
 (i) Translation of Aratus 4>airoVa'a (1878 hexameters), V:= 
 Vindobonensis in, loth cent., and A=Ambrosianus D. 52 inf., 
 15th cent., and ed. princeps (v. infra). (2) Descriptio orbis tcrrae 
 (1393 hex.), Ambrosianus, a lost codex Ortelianus, and ed. prin- 
 ceps. (3) Ora Maritima (700 senarii) and a poem to Flavianus 
 Myrmeicus are found only in the ed. pr. 
 
 Ed. pr. by G. Valla, Venice, 1488. 
 
 BABRIUS (end of ist, beginning of 2nd cent. a.d.). 
 
 123 fables {fivOtafxlSoL Ato-oWctoi) arranged in 2 bks. 
 
 A=Athous, Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 22087, containing 123 fables. 
 It was discovered by Menoides Minas in 1843. V=Vaticanus 
 Gr. 777, late 15th cent., a corpus of 245 fables by various authors. 
 G = Gudianus, i6th cent., containing fab. 12. T = Tabulae ceratae 
 Assendelftianae, wax tablets of the 3rd cent, written from dicta- 
 tion by a Palmyrene schoolboy. They contain 14 fables, part of 
 which are by Babrius. The text is most corrupt. {Journal of 
 Hellenic Studies, xiii. 292.) 
 
 Besides these MSS. there are subsidiary authorities for the 
 text in (i) Quotations in the Lexicon of Suidas ; (2) Paraphrases ; 
 (3) Imitations, e.g. by Avianus, Aphthonius, c^x. A number of 
 forgeries by Minas were published by G. C. Lewis in 1859. 
 
 f. 
 
 'i 
 
 i 
 
2l6 
 
 AUTHORITIES 
 
 Ed. pr. of the Athoan collection, Boissonade, Paris, 1844. 
 
 Index in Rutherford's ed., 1883, and in Crusius' ed., Leipzig, 
 1897. 
 BACCHYLIDES (circ. 512 b.c— exiled from Ceos circ. 452'B.c.). 
 
 Odes : 13 Ittivlkoi, 6 hiOvpafxPoi, prescr\'ed in a papyrus, dating 
 probably from the ist cent, b.c, discovered in Egypt, and acquired 
 by the British Museum in 1896 (Brit. Mus. Pap. dccxxxiii). 
 
 Ed. pr. : Kenyon, London, 1897. 
 
 Index in Kenyon: Blass, 1904; Jebb, 1905. 
 
 BION of Smyrna (end of 2nd cent, e.g., younger contemporary 
 of Theocritus). 
 
 *E7rtTa<^ios 'A8wrt8os (98 hexam.). 
 
 The tradition is the same as that of the works of Theocritus. 
 
 V=Vaticanus 1824, 14th cent. ; Tr. = Parisinus 2832, Demetrii 
 Triclinii. Fragments of poems are preserved in Stobaeus. 
 
 Ed. pr. : H. Goltzius, Bruges, 1565. 
 
 Index : Meineke^s ed., Berlin, 1856. 
 
 Caius Iulius CAESAR (100-44 ^'^')' 
 
 (i) Commcntarii lie bcllo Gallico, in 7 bks. (bk. 8 is by A. Hirtius). 
 (2) Comment, de hello cittili, in 3 bks. The authorship of the 
 supplements to C.'s works, viz. Bellnm Alexaudrmum, B. Africa- 
 man, B. HispaniensCy is uncertain. 
 
 The belUim Gallicum is preserved in two traditions, which are 
 now distinct, though they are ultimately derived from the same 
 archetype. To (rt) belong: A = Amstelodamensis 81 (Bongarsi- 
 anus), 9^ioth cent; B and M=Parisienses 5763, 9th cent., and 
 5056, I ith cent. ; R=Vat. 3864, loth cent., and others, [h) is best 
 represented byT = Par. lat. 5764 (Thuaneus), nth cent.; U = 
 Vaticanus 3324 (Ursinianus), iiT2th cent. The first class was 
 preferred by Nipperdey and others, while the second has found 
 a champion in Meusel. The first class undoubtedly offers the 
 purer text, since the MSS. of the second have been gravely 
 interpolated at some period by a scholar who was an admirer of 
 Cicero. Both, however, must be considered in the constitution 
 of the text. For the other writings in the Corpus Caesarianum 
 the second class of MSS. is the sole authority. Cf. supra, p. 131. 
 
 Ed.pr. : Rome, 1469. Lexicon Caesarianum, 11. Meusel, 1884; 
 H. Merguet, 1884; R. Menge and S. Prcuss, 1885. 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 217 
 
 \\\ 
 
 CAESIUS BASSUS (under Nero), editor of Persius. 
 
 His work De metris was published by lanus Parrhasius in 
 1504 from a codex Bobiensis, in which it was attributed to 
 Fortunatianus. Lachmann was the first to detect the parts now 
 claimed for Bassus. The best copy of the Bobiensis (which is 
 now lost) is Neapolitanus IV. a. ii. The work De metris Hora- 
 tianis is not by B. 
 
 CALLIMACHUS (circ. 310-240 B.C.). 
 
 (i) Six hymns. (2) 63 eVtypa/x/xara preserved (except 5 and 6) 
 in the Anthology (q. v.). (3) Fragment of the Hccale preserved 
 on a wooden tablet in the Rainer collection. (4) Fragments of 
 the Atria and "lafi/SoL, Hunt, Oxyrhynchus Papyri^ vii (1910), 
 pp. 15 sqq. 
 
 All MSS. are late and are probably descended from a Byzantine 
 collection of Hymns, including Homeric Hymns, Orpheus, and 
 Proclus. Along with the six hymns of C. were preserved some 
 scanty extracts from a commentary compiled by Sallustius in the 
 4th or 5th cent. a.d. From this three families descend : (i) the 
 most important (E), which contains the entire collection. To it 
 belong: m = Matritensis, Bibl. Nat. N. 24, written in a.d. 1464, 
 by Constantine Lascaris at Milan, and three others, one of which, 
 Laurent. 32. 45 (d), was mutilated in the portion containing Calli- 
 machus in order to serve as copy for the ed. pr. by lanus Lascaris 
 in 1494. (2) The A-group, best represented by a=Vat. 1691. 
 This group does not contain the whole of the original Byzantine 
 sylloge, but only the Hymns of Call, and Orpheus. (3) The 
 F-group, consisting of r=Athous Laurae 587 and Ambrosi- 
 anus B. 98. 
 
 Ed. pr. : I. Lascaris, Florence, circ. 1497. 
 
 Index : O. Schneider's ed., vol. ii, Leipzig, 1873. 
 
 T. CALPURNIUS Siculus (under Nero), whose seven eclogues 
 
 are preserved in the same corpus with four by Nemesianus 
 
 (a.d. 284). 
 
 (i)The best class includes: N = Neapolitanus 380, i4/i5th cent.; 
 
 G = Gaddianus 90. 12 inf., 15th cent. ; A = a lost MS. of Thaddeus 
 
 Ugoletus, of which a collation exists in Riccardianus 363, 15th 
 
 cent. (2) F=Parisinus 8049, 12th cent., containing as far as 
 
 Eel. iv. 12, from which the vulgate text descends. 
 
 Ill 
 
 1 
 
 /'■I 
 
 i 
 
 I } 
 
2l8 
 
 AUTHORITIES 
 
 Ed. pr. : Rome, 1471. 
 
 Index in C. E. Glaeser's ed., 1842. 
 
 M. PoRCius CATO (234-149). 
 
 (i) Dc Agri ctiltiira, (2) Fragments of speeches, &c. 
 
 Lost Marcianus of which copies survive ; and also a colla- 
 tion in Paris by Politian in a copy of the ed. pr. The 
 Marcianus was used by P. Victorius for his edition of 1541. 
 For the condition of the text v. p. 141. 
 
 Ed. pr. included in G. Merula's Rci Rusticae Scn'plorcs, 
 Jenson, Venice, 1472. 
 
 Index in H. Keil's ed., 1884-1902. 
 
 Cassius Dig, s. v. Dig. 
 
 Caius Valerius CATULLUS (d. circ. 54B-c.), i 16 poems survive. 
 
 Numerous MSS. of i4/i5th cent, all ultimately descended from 
 a MS. discovered at Verona early in the 14th cent. Of these 
 the best are: G = Sangermancnsis Par. I4i37» a.d. 1375; = 
 Oxoniensis Bodl. Canon. Lat. 30, 14th cent. ; R=Vat. Ottob. 
 1829 (Romanus), late 14th cent. The tradition has suffered 
 greatly from Renaissance interpolators. Tracesof another tradi- 
 tion are seen in T = Paris. 8071 (Thuaneus), which preserves 
 Ixii as part of an Anthology of Latin poetry. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Venice. 1472 ; with Tibull, Prop., and Statins Siliiac. 
 
 Index in Delphin ed., 1685; Ellis' ed., Oxford, 1878; M. N. 
 Wetmore, New Haven, 1912. 
 
 CEBES. 
 
 The TTtVaf, or allegorical description of life from the standpoint 
 of the Platonic and Pythagorean philosophy, is probably the 
 work of an anonymous author belonging to the ist cent. a.d. 
 The end is mutilated and survives only in an Arabic paraphrase. 
 
 The text, which is gravely corrupted, rests mainly on : A = 
 Parisinus 858, nth cent., ending at ch. 23. 2, after which its 
 place is best supplied by Vat. 112, 14th cent. Many late MSS. 
 The Lat. trans, by Ludovicus Odaxius of Padua is the sole 
 authority for a lost codex Urbinas. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Z. Calliergcs, Rome, ? 1515. 
 
 A. Cornelius CELSUS (under Tiberius). Of his encyclopaedia 
 (Artes) bks. 6-13, Dc Mcdidna, alone survive. All MSS. 
 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 219 
 
 come from the same archetype which had a lacuna in iv. 27. 
 The oldest are Vaticanus 5951, loth cent., and Laurentianus 
 73. I, i2thcent. Parisinus 7028, nth cent., contains excerpts. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Florence, 1478. 
 
 Index by G. Matthiae in the Leyden ed., 1785. 
 
 Marcus Tullius CICERO (106-43 b. c). 
 
 I. Speeches. 
 
 The criticism of Cicero's speeches has been greatly advanced 
 of recent years by the researches of A. C. Clark, Peterson, and 
 others into the history of the text. As the speeches are not 
 arranged in chronological order in the groups in which they 
 are preserved in the MSS., it is convenient to survey some of 
 the principal MSS. before dealing with individual speeches. 
 The important MSS. which lie behind the present tradition arc : 
 
 (a) The ucttts Cliiniaccnsis, which contained Pro Milone, Pro 
 Cluentio, Pro Murena, Pro Sext. Roscio, Pro Caelio, belonging 
 possibly to 8th cent, or earlier. In the 15th cent, the Pro Sext. 
 Roscio and Pro Murena were copied by the scribes of 1 = 
 Parisinus Lat. 14749, olim S. Victoris, 15th cent., a large MS. 
 of the orations drawn from many sources. The Cliintaccusis 
 came into the possession of Poggio circa 1413 who brought it 
 to Italy, where his friend Bartolomeo da Montepulciano made 
 excerpts which have been preserved by the scribe of B = Laur. 
 54. 5. The Italian scholars copied from it the two new speeches 
 (Pro Sext. Rose, and Pro Muren.) which had been previously 
 unknown, but, as the MS. was hard to read, contented themselves 
 with extracting variant readings from it in the other speeches. 
 
 [b) The Sylloge Poggiana. In 1417 while at the Council of 
 Constance Poggio acquired the text of Pro Caecina, De Lege 
 Agraria i-iii, Pro C. Rabirio perd. reo, In L. Pisonem, Pro C. 
 Rabirio Post. Poggio always speaks of his own autograph copy, 
 and there is no justification for the belief that all these speeches 
 were copied by him from one and the same MS. The Pro Caecina 
 was copied from a MS. at Langres (Lingonensis) according to 
 the 'subscription' which still follows the speech, but the origin 
 of the other speeches in the sylloge is unknown. Poggio'sown 
 MS. has disappeared, but through the copies made from it 
 (§ 3 ''^A«); it is now the sole authority (except for palimpsest 
 
 m 
 
 
220 
 
 AUTHORITIES 
 
 fragments) for Pro Rose. Com. and the speeches Pro C. Rabirio 
 and Pro R. Post. Additional evidence for the text of the other 
 speeches was found during the period of the Renaissance. 
 
 (c) The Pro Quinctio and Pro Flacco became known to the 
 ItaHans about 1405. Who discovered them and in what MS. he 
 discovered them is unknown. They were probably copied from 
 a French MS., since they are contained in the French MS. 
 
 I (v. supra). 
 
 {d) Codex Cluniacensis nunc Holkhamicits 387, 9th cent. This 
 codex contains in a more or less mutilated form the Catilinarian 
 speeches, Pro Q. Ligario, Pro rege Deiotaro, In Verrem ii, 
 bks. 2, 3. It was discovered by Peterson in Lord Leicester's 
 Library at Holkham, and, as has been shown by him, is identical 
 with no. 498 in the twelfth-century catalogue of the Bibliotheca 
 Cluniacensis from which Poggio obtained the uetus Cluniacensis 
 described above. It is to be regarded as the primary source for 
 all the texts which it contains. 
 
 I. Speeches : (a) First Period, 81-66 b. c. 
 
 1. Pro Quinctio (81 b. c). P = Turin palimpsest containing 
 fragments only. The complete MSS. are all of the 15th cent. : 
 they exhibit two strains of descent, (i) From a codex now lost 
 which was discovered by the Italians circ. 1405. From this 
 descend the French family, whose best representative is 1 = 
 Parisinus 14749, olim S. Victoris. (2) From another lost codex 
 whose readings are preserved in the second hand of b = S. Marci 
 255, Flor. Bibl. Nat. I. iv. 4. The ordinary Italian MSS., e.g. 
 X=S. Marci 254, Flor. Bibl. Nat. I. iv. 5, give a text which is the 
 result of a mixture of both these sources. The tradition is the 
 same as in the Pro Flacco. 
 
 2. Pro Sexto Roscio Amerino (80). All codd. are derived from 
 Poggio's Cluniacensis, now lost, which was brought to Italy in 
 1413 or 1414. An earlier tradition survives in the Vatican 
 fragment. The tradition is the same as in the Pro Murena. 
 Chief MSS. are :— I as in (i). Of the Italian MSS. the best are 
 A = Laur. 48. 10, 15th cent., and Tr=Perusinus E. 71, 15th cent. 
 
 3. Pro. Oiiinto Roscio Conioedo (date uncertain, ? 68). This, 
 together with Pro Caecina, De Lege Agraria iiii. Pro C. 
 Rabirio perduellionis reo. In Pisonem, and Pro C. Rabirio 
 Postumo, descends from a copy made by Poggio from a MS. 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 221 
 
 
 discovered in 1417. This ' Poggianum exemplar ' is lost and 
 can only be recovered from its copies, of which the chief are M = 
 Laur. Conv. Soppr. 13 (which is mutilated and now contains 
 only Pro Caecina, De Lege Agraria, and In Pisonem) ; ft = Laur. 
 48. 26, containing Pro Rose. Com., Pro Rabirio p. r., and Pro 
 Rabirio Postumo; o = Oxoniensis Dorvill. 78; s = Senensis 
 H. vi. 12; m=Ambros. C. 96. Where M is defective ft is the 
 
 best MS. 
 
 4. Pro Marco Tnllio (uncertain, ? 71 b. c). Only fragments 
 survive, preserved in the Turin and Milan palimpsests, 4 '5th cent. 
 
 5. The seven speeches In Verrem (70) have been preserved 
 in most of the MSS. in two groups, viz. (i) Din. in Quint. 
 Caec, I Act., 2 Act., i, iv, v, and (2) 2 Act. ii-iii. This division 
 must be due to some mutilation in an archetype or to a tendency 
 to group together the more interesting and least technical 
 speeches. The first advance in systematic criticism of the 
 text of group (i) was made in 1828 when Madvig arranged 
 the MSS. in two classes: X=the French group, Y = the Italian. 
 The MSS. of the X group are all mutilated. The chief are 
 R= Regius Parisinus 7774,9th cent. (2 Act. iv,v); S = Parisinus 
 7775, 13th cent, (fragments of 2 Act. i and whole of iv, v); D= Pari- 
 sinus 7823, 15th cent., copied from S before the loss of 2 Act. i. Of 
 the Y-group the best MS. is p = Parisinus 7776, nth cent., which 
 contains all the speeches. The early printed texts are all 
 based on inferior MSS. belonging to this group. The Y-text 
 in its best form is ancient and seems to have been used by 
 
 Quintilian. 
 
 In the second group (2 Act. ii, iii) the problem has been 
 changed by the discovery of C=the Cluniacensis (v. supra) and 
 by the proof that = Lagomarsin. 42, nunc Flor. Bad. 2618, is 
 a copy made from C before it was mutilated in the 15th cent. 
 Further evidence for the readings in the mutilated portions of 
 C is afforded by a number of mediaeval collations. In these 
 speeches the Y-text rests mainly on C and its subsidiaries. 
 The inferior Y-text is presented by p and other codd. 
 
 Throughout all the speeches there are fragments of V=palim- 
 psestus Vaticanus Reginensis 2077, 3/4th cent., apparently 
 a composite MS. embodying various recensions, since its rela- 
 tion to the other MSS. constantly varies. In the earlier speeches 
 
 lit 
 
 II ! 
 
 \ 
 
222 
 
 AUTHORITIES 
 
 FOR Cx.ASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 223 
 
 h 
 
 it disagrees with the Y-groiip : in ii-iii it often agrees with HO, 
 though with strange differences in the order of words : in iv, v 
 it seems almost to be the parent of the Y-text. 
 
 (i) Diit. in 0. Caeci/iufti, i Act., 2 Act. i. MSS. are S, D and 
 reports of old codices preserved by Lambinus (X) and Stephanus 
 (s) and fragments of V. 
 
 (2) 2 Act. ii-iii. V (fragments), C, and its copy O. 
 
 (3) 2 Act. iv-v. R S and H = excerpts from Harleianus 2682, 
 loth cent., and fragments in V. 
 
 6. Pro M. Fontcio (?69). Fragments in Vat. palimpsest. 
 Best codex is V=tabularii Basilicae Vaticanae H. 25, 9th 
 cent. (Cf. Pro Flacco, In Pisonem, and Philippics.) 
 
 7. Pro A, Caccina (69). Beside Mos (vide §3 supra), which give 
 the Poggian tradition, there is a separate tradition preserved in 
 T=Tegernseensis, nunc Monacensis 18787, nth cent., and E = 
 Erfurtensis nunc Berolinensis 252, i2/i3th cent. 
 
 [b) Second Period (66-59 b.c). 
 
 8. De unpcrio Cil Pompci (66). P = Turin palimpsest. The 
 best family consists of H = Harleianus 2682, nth cent., E and T 
 (§ 7 supra), t=Hildesheimensis, 15th cent., a copy made from T 
 while T was still entire. 
 
 9. Pt'o A. Clucntio Habito (66). P = Turin palimpsest. The 
 MS. tradition largely depends on the lost uetus Cluniacensis 
 (v. supra I (rtl), whose text has to be inferred from I = 2nd hand 
 in Paris. 14749, 15th cent. B = excerpts by B. da Monte- 
 pulciano. M = Laur. 51. 10, a mutilated MS. of nth cent, in 
 a Lombardic (Beneventan) hand, presents a different tradition. 
 
 10. Dc lege Agraria contra Rullum, 3 speeches. Two sources : 
 (i) The Sylloge Poggiana, Mosw v. supra §3 ; (2) E (§7 supra) 
 and later MSS. 
 
 11. Pro C. Rabirio perdnellionis rco (63). P and V= Vatican 
 palimpsests. Otherwise text rests entirely on the Sylloge Pog- 
 giana, V. supra § 3, e. g. mos and ft=:Laur. 48. 26 (Lag. 26). 
 
 12. In Catilinani, 4 speeches (63). C = Cluniacensis at Holkham 
 (supra ^ I (d)). A=Ambrosianus C. 29 inf., loth cent. V=Vossia- 
 nus Lat. O. 2, nth cent. These form one class. There are 
 besides two inferior classes. 
 
 13. Pro L. M arena (62). All codd. are late and derived from 
 
 
 the Cluniacensis § i (a) supra. The tradition is the same as in 
 the Pro Rose. Ajiierino, 
 
 14. Pro P. Cornelio Sulla (62). T, E (§ 7 supra). E only contains 
 § 81 to end. T is the chief authority. 
 
 15. Pro Archia (62). E (§ 7 supra), and G = Gemblacensis- 
 Bruxellensis 5352, 12th cent., which is undoubtedly the best MS. 
 
 16. Pro L. Flacco (59). The lacunae at the beginning are partly 
 recovered from the scholiasta Bobiensis. M = fragmentum 
 Mediolanense (part of § 5). P = frag. Peutingerianum (§§ 75 83, 
 known from Cratander's edition). V=cod. tab. Basilicae Vati- 
 canae H. 25, 9th cent., containing §§39-54. Otherwise the tradi- 
 tion is the same as in the Pro Quinctio and depends mainly on I. 
 
 (c) Third Period (57-52 b. c). 
 
 17. The four speeches Post reditum, i. e. Cum senatui, Cum 
 populo, De domo sua, De haruspicum responso. P=Parisinus 
 7794, 9th cent. G=:Gemblacensis-Bruxellensis 5345, 12th cent. 
 
 18. ig. Pro P. Sestio and In P. Vatinium (56). Best MSS. are 
 P and G (as in § 17). 
 
 20. Pro M. Caelio (56). Fragments in AT=:Ambrosian and 
 Turin palimpsests. Besides these there are two lines of tradition : 
 (i) The uetus Cluniacensis of Poggio as known from I and B 
 (v. I (a) supra). This text is closely related to that of the palim- 
 psests. (2) P (§ 17 supra) and its descendants. 
 
 21. De Prouinciis considaribus (56). PG (§17 supra). 
 
 22. Pro L. Cornelio Balbo (56). PG (§17 supra). 
 
 23. /;/ L. Pisonem (55). P = Turin palimpsest, V (§ 16 supra). 
 There is valuable evidence in Asconius. E (§ 7 sup?'a). Other 
 MSS. are descended from Poggio's ' Sylloge ' (§ 3 supra). 
 
 24. Pro Cn. Plancio (54). T and E (§ 7 supra). 
 
 25. ProM . Aem.Scauro[^^). Ambrosianand Turin palimpsests. 
 
 26. Pro C. Rabirio Postumo (54). Text rests entirely on 
 Peggio's copy (cf. § 3 supra). Chief MSS. are iimos. 
 
 27. Pro T. Annio Milone (52). P=Turin palimpsest. The 
 best family of MSS. includes H=: Harleianus 2682, nth cent., 
 identified by Clark with the Basilicanus or Hittorpianus, T and 
 E (§ 7 supra), W=the lost Werdensis, used by F. Fabricius. 
 
 (d) Fourth Period (46-43 b. c). 
 
 28. Orations before Caesar, i. e. Pro M. Mar cello (46), Pro O. 
 Ligario (46), Pro rege Deiotaro (45). MSS. fall into three classes. 
 
 \ 
 
224 
 
 AUTHORITIES 
 
 Of the best class the most important member is H (v. § 27 supra). 
 To the same class belong A = Ambrosianiis, 10th cent., V = 
 Vossianus Lat. O. 2, nth cent. 
 
 29. Philippics (44-43), 14 speeches. Best MS. is V = tabularii 
 Basilicae Vaticanae H. 25, 9th cent. The others all spring 
 from a mutilated archetype. 
 
 Ed. pr. o{ Philippics^ Rome, circ. 1470. 
 
 First collected edition of the Speeches, Rome, circ. 1471. 
 
 Index to Speeches: H. Merguet, 1877. 
 
 Ancient Commentaries on the Speeches. 
 
 I. By O. Ascoiiiits Pedianus (written between 54 and 57 a. d.) 
 on the In Pisonem, Pro Scauro, Pro Milone, Pro Cornelio. 
 The commentary on the Diuinatio in Caecilium, Verrines Act. i 
 and Act. ii. 1-2. 35 is not by Asconius. It is therefore usually 
 referred to as pseudo-Asconian. 2. The Scholia Bobiciisia 
 (? 5th cent. A. D.), discovered by Mai in the Frontonian palim- 
 psest from Bobbio (now at Rome and Milan, Vat. lat. 5750 and 
 Ambros. E. 147. sup.), comment on the Pro Flacco,Cum Senatui, 
 Cum populo. Pro Plancio, Pro Milone, Pro Sestio, In Vatinium, 
 Pro Archia, Pro Sulla, and several lost speeches. 3. Scholiasta 
 Groiwviamis. Notes on the third and fourth Catilinarian and 
 mutilated notes on ten other speeches contained in Vossianus 
 quart. 138, loth cent., a MS. once in the possession of Gronovius. 
 Of little value. 
 
 II. Rhetorical Writings. 
 
 1. Ad C. Hcrcnninm dc arte rhetorica, s. v. Herennius. 
 
 2. De inuentionc rhetorica in 2 bks. Codd. are very numerous. 
 The best are H = Herbipolitanus Mp. m. f. 3, 9th cent. P= Paris. 
 7714, 9th cent. These belong to a group of MSS. which are 
 defective in i. 62-76 and ii. 170-175. Commentary by Marius 
 Victorinus (4th cent.) preserved in D = Darmstadiensis, 7th cent. 
 
 Ed. pr. of (i), (2) Venice (N. Jenson), 1470. 
 
 3. Dc Oratorc (55 b. c). Only a mutilated text of the de 
 Oratorc and Orator was known till 1422 when Gerard Landriani 
 discovered a MS. containing a complete text of these treatises 
 and also of the Brutus at Lodi (Laus Pompeia). This codex 
 Laudensis has since disappeared, and it is uncertain whether it 
 was copied throughout or only used to supply the deficiencies 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 225 
 
 in the current text. The tradition of the Laudensis is best given 
 by P=Palatinus 1469 and = Ottobonianus 2057 (dated 1425). 
 Of the codd. mutili the best are H=:Harleianus 2736, loth 
 cent., A = Abrincensis 238, loth cent., E=Erlangensis 848, loth 
 cent., and R= Vat-Reg. 1762 which contains excerpts made by 
 Iladoard (see p. 71 note). 
 Ed. pr. : Subiaco, 1465. 
 
 4. Partitiones Oratoriae (54). P = Par. 7231, p=Par. 7696, 
 both of the loth cent. Late MSS., e. g. Erlangenses 848, 858, 863. 
 
 5. Brutus (46), unknown till the discovery of the Laudensis 
 (v. suprci)^ a copy of which survives perhaps in F = Florentinus- 
 Magliabecchianus i. i. 14, written in 1422 or 1423. B, = 
 Ottoboniani 1592 (a. d. 1422) and 2057 (a. d. 1425), and others 
 are remoter descendants of the Laudensis. 
 
 Ed. pr. (with Orator) : Rome, 1469. 
 
 6. Orator (46). The codd. mutili all descend from the Abrin- 
 censis 238, loth cent. The complete tradition is derived from 
 the Laudensis (supra) which is represented by F and O as in 
 Brutus and by P=Palatinus 1469. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Rome, 1469. 
 
 7. Topica (44). Two classes : (1) = Ottobonianus 1406, loth 
 cent. (2) Vossiani 84 (A), and 86 (B), both loth cent., and 
 others. There is a commentary by Boethius to 20. 77. 
 
 8. De Optimo genere Oratorum (date uncertain). Sangallensis 
 818, nth cent. (G or d), P= Paris. 7347, nth cent., and a 
 number of late MSS. 
 
 III. Philosophic Writings. 
 
 1. De Re publica (between 54 and 51), in 6 bks. The only 
 MS. is the Vatican palimpsest 5757 published by Mai in 1822. 
 For Somnium Scipionis v. Macrobius. 
 
 2. De LegibuSy in 3 bks. (probably a posthumous work). 
 Vossiani A and B, as in Topica, supra, H= Leidensis (Heinsianus) 
 lat. 118, nth cent. There are excerpts made by Hadoard in 
 the 9th cent. (cf. p. 71 7iote). 
 
 3. Paradoxa Stoicoruui ad M. Brutuni (46). Vossiani as in 
 Topica and Vindob. 189 as in Acad. Pr., infra, 
 
 Ed. pr. : Mainz, 1465, with Dc Officiis. 
 
 Q 
 
 473 
 
226 
 
 AUTHORITIES 
 
 4. Academica (45), originally published in two editions, (i) 
 Acadcmica Priora, in 2 bks., of which bk. 2 (qui wscn- 
 biiur LiuuHits) survives, and (2) Academica Postcnora, in 4 
 bks of which bk. I survives. Ac. Post, are preserved in 
 late MSS. only, e.g. Paris. 6331 (Puteaneus), 15th cent., and 
 a Gedanensis. All are from the same archetype. For the Ac. 
 Pr. the authorities are :— the two Vossiani as in Topica, V=. 
 Vindobon. 189, loth cent. The textual tradition of the Ac. Pr. 
 is the same as that of De Nat. Deorum, De Diuinatione, De 
 Fato, Paradoxa, Timaeus, and De Legibus. 
 
 5. Dc finibus bonoriim et malonun, in 5 bks. (45). The 
 best family include A= Vat- Pal. 1513. i^th cent., B = Vat-Pal. 
 1525, 15th cent., E = Erlangensis 38, 15th cent., and the readings 
 of a similar MS. noted in the margin of Cratander's edition of 
 1528. They and the deteriores descend from a recent and 
 faulty archetype. All show a lacuna at i. 22. 
 
 6. Tnsculananm dispuiationum, libri v (45 44)- G = Gudianus 
 294, 9th cent., R=Parisinus 6332, 9th cent., V = Vat. 3246, loth 
 cent. There is a large group of inferior MSS., e.g. D-Bon- 
 nensis 140 (Duisburgensis) ? 13th cent. Ed. pr. : Rome, 1469. 
 
 7. Dc Natitra Deorum, in 3 bks. (44). Same tradition as the 
 Academica Priora, supra. 
 
 8. Cato maior de Senectuic (44). P = Paris. 6332, 9th cent. 
 V=Vossianus O. 79, 9th cent. L=Vossianus F. 12, loth cent. 
 b = Bruxellensis 9591, 9th cent. A=Ashburnhamensis nunc 
 Paris, nouv. acq. Lat. 45b 9tH cent. In two groups, P V and 
 
 bLA. 
 
 9. De Diumatione in 2 bks. (44) ; 10. De Fato (44) ; and 
 II. Translation of the Timaeus, v. Academica Priora. 
 
 12. Laelius dc Amicitia (44). Parisinus-Didotianus, 9'ioth 
 cent. (Mommsen, Rh. Mus. 1863), M = Monacensis 15514, ^oth 
 cent., G=Gudianus 335, loth cent. 
 
 13. De Offwiis, in 3 bks. (44). Two families : (i) B = Bamber- 
 gensis 427, loth cent., H = Wirceburgensis Mp. f. i, loth 
 cent., and others. (2) An interpolated class, e.g. Harleianus 
 2716, 9/ioth cent. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Mainz, 1465, with Paradoxa. 
 
 Ed. pr. of collected philosophic works: Rome, 1471. 
 
 Index to philosophic works: H. Merguet, 1887. 
 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 227 
 
 IV. Poems. 
 
 Translation of Aratus' Prognostica and Pliaenomemi. H = 
 Harleianus 647, 9th cent., Dresdensis 183, loth cent. 
 
 Ed. pr. : in G. Valla's Aviemis, Venice, 1488. 
 
 V. Letters. 
 
 (i) Genera/ correspondence {62-^^)in 16 bks., known as Epistulae 
 ad Familiares, a title introduced by Stephanus. In MSS. the 
 various books are named after the chief correspondent, e.g. 
 M. Tulli Ciceronis epistularum ad C. Curionem. The work was 
 published by Tiro in single books. In the 4th or 5th cent, it 
 was arranged in sets of four books, and before the 9th cent., when 
 our tradition begins, in sets of eight. (2) The Special corre- 
 spondence. (a)AdOuintum F/'<7/r^;;/ (60-54), in 3 bks. (b) Ad Atti- 
 cum (68-44), in 16 bks. [c] Ad M. Brutum (43), in 2 bks. The only 
 authority for the second of these, containing five letters, is the 
 Basel edition of Cratander, 1528. The authenticity of the 
 Letters to Brutus was long regarded as doubtful, but they are 
 now held to be genuine with possibly a few exceptions (e.g. i. 
 16-17). The letters to Atticus must have been published after 
 the time of Asconius (d. a. d. 58) since he does not mention 
 them. 
 
 The textual tradition of the General is distinct from that of 
 the Special Letters. Petrarch in 1345 discovered a MS. in 
 Verona which must have contained the Special Letters. P.'s copy 
 as well as the original MS. has since disappeared. Salutati, 
 hearing that the MS. used by Petrarch was in the possession of 
 Visconti, Duke of Milan, procured a copy which was found to 
 contain the General Letters. The copy had been made, by 
 mistake, not from Petrarch's MS. but from another that had 
 come from Vercelli. This apographon Vercellense still exists 
 in P = Laurent. 49. 7. The copy of the Veronese MS. which 
 Salutati procured in 1389 survives in Laurent. 49. 18. 
 The Vercelli MS. is still preserved in the Laurentian library 
 (No. 49. 9 of the 9th cent.). 
 
 The text of the General Letters depends therefore on this 
 Vercelli MS. known as M (9th cent.), from which the Italian 
 family of MSS. descends, and on a number of independent MSS. 
 In bks. 1-8 the best of these are G= Harleianus 2773, 12th cent., 
 and R= Paris. 17812, 12th cent. Their evidence is not as 
 
 Q 2 
 
 
 • 
 
 ■I 
 
 ii'' 
 
228 AUTHORITIES 
 
 trustworthy as that of M. In bks. 9-16 the independent tradition 
 rests on H=Harleianus 2682, nth cent., F=Berolinensis 
 (Erfurtensis) 252, i2/i3thcent., and D = Palatinus 598, 15th cent. 
 The evidence of M in these books is valuable but not pre- 
 ponderant. 
 
 (2) The text of the Special Letters depends on M=: Laurent. 
 49. 18 (v. supra). Independent authority is claimed for C = 
 Cratander's edition and its marginal readings which are thought 
 to be derived from W = Wirceburgensis, nth cent., which is 
 now fragmentary. Some think that this MS. is identical with 
 the lost Laurisheimensis mentioned in a loth cent, catalogue 
 of the library at Lorsch. Z, the Tornesianus, is a MS. once 
 in the possession of Detournes and now lost : its readings are 
 preserved by Lambinus and others. It represents an in- 
 dependent tradition in the Epp. ad Atticmn. Against CWZ 
 stand M and a number of late Italian MSS. which are akin to it 
 though not descended from it, e.g. E = Excerpta Ambrosiana 
 (E. 14), 14th cent.; N = Laurent. 49. H/^Sth cent.; H=Landianus 
 
 of the same date. 
 
 Ed. pr. o^AdFam., Rome, 1467; Ad Ait., Rome, 1470. 
 
 Index : M. Nizolius, 1559 (often reprinted). Handlexikon, 
 Merguet, Leipzig, 1905. 
 
 Ed. pr. of collected works, Milan, 1498. 
 
 QuiNTUS TuLLius CICERO (102-43). 
 
 Commentariohtm Petitionis. Its authenticity has been called 
 in question. Best MSS. are H and F (v. General Letters, supra). 
 
 Claudius CLAUDIANUS (d. circ. a.d. 404). From the point of 
 view of the textual tradition his poems fall into two divisions : 
 (1) a large collection containing panegyrics, epigrams, and 
 other occasional poems ; and (2) the Raptus Proscrpinae. 
 For (i) the main authorities are : (a) Collations of lost MSS. : 
 E = Excerpta Florentina or Lucensia, contained in a copy of the 
 ed. pr. now at Venice (A. 4.36). e = Excerpt. Gyraldina, pre- 
 served in a copy of the Aldine at Leyden (757. G. 2). {h) Of the 
 MSS. the most trustworthy are: V=Vat. 2809, a volume con- 
 taining several MSS., foil. 1-39 belong to 12th cent, the rest to 
 15th cent. ; P=Parisinus Lat. 18552 (Oiselianus), i2/i3th cent.; 
 n = Par. Lat. 8082, 13th cent., cited sometimes as the Regius; 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 229 
 
 R = Veronensis 163, 9th cent. These fall into two groups: 
 V P and n E e R. Many inferior MSS. 
 
 For (2) no MS. is older than the 12th cent. The poem is 
 preserved in two recensions : (a) the larger contained in F = 
 Florentinus S. Crucis pi. 34 sinistr. 12, 12th cent. ; S = Par. Lat. 
 15005, i3/i4th cent., and other MSS. {h) A and B = two MSS. 
 bound up with others in Bodl. Auct. F. 2. 16; C = Cantabrig. 
 Coll. Corporis Christi 228, 12th cent. There is also a group 
 w^hich stands midway between these. 
 
 Ed. pr. : by Barnabas Celsanus, Vicenza, 1482. 
 
 Index in Births ed., Mon. Germ. Hist. Auctores, vol. x, 1892. 
 
 L. luNius MoDERATUS COLUMELLA (wrote circ. a.d. 65). 
 
 (i) Be Re Rustica (12 bks.). (2) De arboribus (i bk.). Best 
 codex is Sangermanensis, 9/ioth cent., now Petropolitanus 207. 
 It is closely related to Ambrosianus L. 85 sup., 9/ioth cent. The 
 others (of which the best, the Mosquensis, 14th cent., was burnt 
 in the invasion of 1812) are of little value. 
 
 Ed. pr. in Script, de Re Rust., Venice, 1472. 
 
 CONSOLATIO AD LiVIAM, S. V. EPICEDION DrUSI. 
 
 CONSTANTINE EXCERPTS. 
 
 These are excerpts made by direction of the Byzantine 
 Emperor Constantine (912-959) with the object of forming an 
 Encyclopaedia of History and Political Science. Among the 
 authors excerpted are Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, 
 Polybius, Diodorus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Josephus, 
 Appian, Arrian, Cassius Dio, Eusebius, Zosimus. The passages 
 selected were arranged under 53 headings, e. g. ttc/h 7rpco-/3£io>i', 
 Trepl apcT^? Kal KaKia?, Trcpt yi'w/xwi/. As Can be Seen from these 
 titles the matter alone of the authors excerpted was taken into 
 account and no passages were selected for the sake of their value 
 as literature. The selection is preserved partly in MSS. dating 
 from the time of Constantine (e. g. codex Peirescianus, now at 
 Tours, of the section Trepl aperijs Kal KaKias) and partly in later MSS. 
 The information contained in the historical articles in Suidas' 
 Lexicon is for the most part drawn from these excerpts. Best ed. 
 by Boissevain, de Boor, and Biittner-Wobst, Berlin, 1903- 
 
 DEMOSTHENES (383-322 B.C.). 61 speeches : besides irpooi^ia 
 
 and cVtcrroAat. 
 

 230 
 
 AUTHORITIES 
 
 The extant corpus probably represents the selection made by 
 the Alexandrines. There are traces of ancient editions, e. g. the 
 "ArTLKLavd (sc. avTtypa<f>a) mentioned in cod. F, and the dp;^aia 
 (sc. €kSo(tl<;) schol. Mid. § 147, but nothing definite is known about 
 them. There are over 200 MSS. all descended from a common 
 archetype in which the end of the Zenothemis was mutilated. 
 They are sometimes divided into four classes, but their relations 
 to one another are by no means constant in the different 
 speeches, (i) I or S = Parisinus 2934, early loth cent., which is 
 by far the best. In the Third Philippic it preserves a shorter 
 version due possibly to an earlier draft of Demosthenes, and in 
 general it offers a less redundant text than the other families. 
 L= Laurent, plut. 56. 9.136, i3/i4th cent, (partly paper). (2) A=: 
 Augustanus primus, or Monacensis 485, 10 iith cent. (3) Y or 
 Y=Parisinus 2935, nth cent. (4) F or M = Marcianus 416, 
 nth cent. A note on the Ep. ad FJiilippuni (or. xi) states 
 
 that huopOonaL €K ?ivo 'ArTiKLaron'. 
 
 There are many papyrus fragments from the ist cent. a.d. 
 and later which on the whole support the best MSS. 
 
 Scholia to 18 speeches by Ulpian and Zosimus. Many MSS. 
 contain stichometrical numbers and critical signs. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Letters in Aldus, Epp. Graec. Collectio, 1499 ; Speeches^ 
 Aldus, 1504. 
 
 Index : S. Preuss, Leipzig, 1892. 
 
 DINARCHUS (circ. 360-290 b.c). 3 speeches. 
 
 The text depends almost entirely on A=Crippsianus, Brit. 
 Mus. Burney 95, 13th cent., and N = Bodleianus Misc. 208, 14th cent. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Aldus, Orationes Rhetorum Graeconim, 1513. 
 
 Index: Forman, Oxford, 1897. 
 
 Cassius DIO Cocceianus (circ. a.d. 150-235). 
 
 'ViDfuuKi] IrrTopta in 8o bks., of which 36-60 and 79 survive 
 almost entire. Fragments of the others are preserved in the 
 various excerpts mentioned below. Epitome of 36-end by 
 Joannes Xiphilinos (nth cent.): of the earlier books (1-21) by 
 Zonaras (12th cent.). 
 
 (A) Lihri Integri. The text of bks. 36-60 rests mainly upon 
 two MSS., viz.: L=Laurent. Med. 70.8, nth cent. (bks. 36-50), 
 and supplemented to the end of bk. 54 by V=Vat. 144, a copy 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 231 
 
 of L made in 1439. M=Marcianus 395, nth cent. (bks. 44-60, 
 but with frequent lacunae after bk. 55). 
 
 Almost the whole of bk. 79 and the early chapters of bk. 80 
 are preserved in cod. Vaticanus Gr. 1288, 5/6th cent. 
 
 (B) Epitomes. The MSS. of Zonaras are exceedingly 
 numerous: the best are B = Vindob. 16, 15th cent., and C = 
 Colbertinus-Parisinus 171 7, 13th cent. The best authorities 
 for XiphiHnos are V=Vat. 145, 15th cent.; C = Coislinianus 
 
 320, 15th cent. 
 
 (C) Excerpts from the Constantine collection. Excerpta Valesiana, 
 published by Valesius in 1634 from Peiresc's codex of the Con- 
 stantine excerpts (q. v.). 
 
 Excerpta Maiana, published by Angelo Mai in 1827 from 
 Vaticanus 73, a palimpsest, lo/iith cent. 
 
 Excerpta Ursiniana, published in 1582 by Fulvius Ursinus, 
 from copies of a MS. (burnt in 1621) belonging to the Spaniard 
 
 Pacius. 
 
 There are also fragments preserved in Parisinus 1397 of 
 Strabo (A), nth cent.; in the Florilegium S. Maximi (Vat. 739 
 (A), ii/i2th cent.); in V>^W^x'^ Anecdota (Parisinus 345, nth 
 cent.) ; and in Tzetzes and other Byzantine writers. 
 
 Edd. pr. : bks. 36-60, R. Stephanus, Paris, 1548 ; Xiphilinos, 
 R. Stephanus, 1551 ; Zonaras, H. Wolf, Basel, 1557. 
 
 Index: Sturz, vol. viii, Leipzig, 1825. 
 
 DIODORUS (contemporary with Julius Caesar). 
 
 BiPXioOriKy] Lo-TopiK'^ in 40 bks. (published in pentades), of which 
 1-5 and 11-20 survive; excerpts from the rest are preserved. 
 For the 'Ineditum Vaticanum' (Vat. 435, 14th cent.) v, Hermes, 
 1892, pp. 1 18-130. 
 
 In 1-5 there are two classes : (i) D = Vindobonensis 79, nth 
 cent., and its descendants. (2) C = Vaticanus 130, 12th cent., and 
 several MSS. of i5/i6th cent. The divergence is as old as 
 Eusebius whose quotations follow the tradition of class C, e. g. 
 
 I. 16. I V€VpLvr)v D : €vp€LV Euscb. : evpelv r)v C. 
 
 In n-15 there are three groups: (i) P=Patmius, lo/nthcent., 
 by far the best. (2) A=Coislinianus 149, r5th cent., which also 
 contains a valueless text of 1-5. There are other MSS. of this 
 group of 15th cent. (3) F = Laurentianus 70. 12, 14th cent., con- 
 taining bks. 11-20 and others. 
 
 i 
 
232 
 
 AUTHORITIES 
 
 In 16-20 P (v. siipr.) and a kindred MS. X=Venetiis Mar- 
 cianus 376, i4/i5th cent. Other MSS. are useful only in supple- 
 menting the deficiencies in these. All are from the same arche- 
 type with a lacuna in bk. 17. 84. 
 
 Edd. pr. : by Vincentius Obsopoeus, Basel, 1539(16-20); by 
 H. Stephanus, Geneva, 1559 (1-5, 11-20). 
 
 Index : ed. Petrus Wesselingius, vol. ii, Amsterdam, 1756. 
 
 DIOGENES LAERTIUS (early in 3rd cent. a.d.). 
 
 Lives of the philosophers in 10 bks., entitled in the best MSS. 
 
 AaepTLOV AioyeVoi'S <f)LXo(Tu<f>on' piuiv kuX SoyfiaTiov crvvayoiyjjs tCjv cis 
 8cK«. 
 
 There is no complete critical edition. Specimens of a critical 
 text have been published by I. Byvvater, Vifa AristotcUs, Oxf. 
 1879, and by Usener, Epiciirca, 1887, who gives an account of the 
 chief MSS. p. vi sq. The chief MSS. seem to be in two groups. 
 (i) B = Ncapolitanus (Borbonicus) bibl. nat. gr. 253, 12th cent. 
 P (which is almost a gemellus of B) = Paris. 1759, formerly in 
 Cardinal Ridolfi's possession. Q = Paris, gr. 1758 (Fonte- 
 blandensis), 15th cent., is useful to determine the first hand of P 
 before the intrusion of readings from the vulgate. H = Laurent, 
 pi. 69. 35 is a later copy of P after the text had been so corrected. 
 (2) This group is best represented by F = Laurent, pi. 69. 13, 
 i2th cent., copied from a MS. which omitted i. 65 — ii. 17. B is 
 the main authority for the text but F is often useful. There are 
 a number of late interpolated MSS. (e. g. Vat. 1302) which some- 
 times contain felicitous emendations by the humanists. The 
 critical value of the excerpts given by Suidas still remains to 
 be investigated. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Basel, 1533. 
 
 DIONYSIUS of Ilalicarnassus (under Augustus). 
 
 (i) 'P(o/xaiKr; d^>x"^oAoyia in 20 bks. (1-9, lo-ii, and fragments 
 extant). Rhetorical writings. (2) T^x^n] py^ropiKyj. (3) -n-epl a-vvdi- 
 
 frtws oro/xaVoj)'. (4) Trcpt tCov ap^aiwr ptqropinv v7roixvrj[j.aTL(Tfioi (first half 
 only). (5) irepl T»y9 Acktik?}? ^rjfxocrOivov*; Scivotijtix;. (6) eTrtrrroAat 
 Trpo^'A/x/Aaiov (a,^). {"j) Itt. irpo'iTva'Lov UofJiTryLov. (8) ttc/h tov Qovkv 
 ^iSov ^apaKT^po?. (9) TTcpt Ton' 0ouKi'8t'^oL' IbttofiaTon'. (lo) Trept 
 
 ^iiiapxnv. (11) TTc/H /v.i/x>/(rco)s, originally in 3 bks. Fragments of 
 bk. i survive and an abstract of bk. ii entitled tu)v a/>;(aio)»' KpLcns. 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 233 
 
 For (i) the best MSS. in bks. i-io are F=Urbinas io6, loth 
 cent. A = Chisianus 58, loth cent. For bk. 11 the MSS. are 
 late: e.g. L = Laurentianus plut. 70. 5, T5th cent. Excerpts 
 in the Constantine Excerpts and in M = Ambrosianus Q. 13, 
 15th cent. The work was originally arranged in sets of 5 bks. 
 [pentadcs, cf p. 8). For the scripta minora there are traces of 
 three ancient editions : I. in P = Parisinus 1741, nth cent., con- 
 taining (2), (3), and (6^'). II. F = Laurent. 59. i5> 12th cent., 
 containing (3), (4), 10. III. A number of MSS., e. g. M^Ambro- 
 sianus D. 119 sup., 15th cent, containing (4), (7), (8), (9), (5), (6 a'). 
 The text of (3) exhibits two distinct recensions. 
 
 Ed. pr. : History in R. Stephanus, Paris, 1546-1547. 
 
 Scripta minora were published in other works at intervals 
 from 1493-1586. 1493 chapter on Isocrates (4) in ed. pr. of Iso- 
 crates; 1502 (9) in ed. pr. of Thucydides ; 1508 (2), (3), (9) in vol. i 
 of Aldus, Rhctorcs Gracci] 1513 Lysias (4) in ed. pr. ; in 1547 
 all these were reprinted by R. Stephanus in his ed. pr. of 
 the History; 1554 H. Stephanus added the introduction to (4), 
 (7), and Ep. to Ammaeus on Demosth. and Aristotle; 1580 
 P. Victorius printed the chapters on Isaeus and Dinarchus 
 from (4); 1586 F. Sylburgius printed a complete collection of 
 all the opuscula. 
 
 Index in J. Hudson's ed., Oxford, 1704 ; Glossary to (6) and 
 (7) in Roberts* ed., Cambridge, 1901. 
 
 EPICEDION DRUSI, or Consolatio ad Liniam, 
 
 A poem printed in the ed. Romana of Ovid's works in 1471. 
 The existing MSS. are only copies of this edition. M. Haupt, 
 Op. i. 315, regarded it as a forgery made by some scholar of 
 the Renaissance. The tendency of later criticism has been to 
 attribute it to some anonymous poet of the Augustan age. 
 
 Epictetus, s. v. Arrianus. 
 
 EURIPIDES (circ. 480-406 b.c). 
 
 Nineteen tragedies, of these the Ki'kAwj/^ is a satyric drama. 
 The 'P^o-os is regarded as spurious. 
 
 The MSS. fall into two groups : 
 
 I. M=:Marcianus 471, 12th cent. Contains Hcc, Or., Phocn,, 
 Andr., Hipp, to v. 1234. A=rParisinus 2712, 13th cent. Con- 
 tains Hec, Or., Phocn., Andr., Med,, Hipp, (=Cod. A in Aris- 
 
234 AUTHORITIES 
 
 tophanes and in Sophocles). V = Vaticanus 909, 13th cent. 
 Contains Hec, Or., PJioen., Med., Hipp., Ale, Andr., Troad,, 
 Rhes. B=Parisinus 2713, 13th cent. Contains Hcc, Or., Phocn., 
 Hipp., Med., Ale, Aiidr. 
 
 II. L=Laiirentianus 32. 2, 14th cent. Contains all extant 
 plays except the Troadcs ?ind Baccli. 756 sqq. P = Palatinus 287 
 + Laurentianus 172, 14th cent. The Palatine portion contains 
 Andr,,Med,,SiippL,Rlics.,Ion,Iph. T., Iph.A. [Z^rt/m^', a spurious 
 fragment by some Renaissance scholar], Hipp., Ale, Troad., 
 Bacch.y Hcraclid. to v. 1002. The Laurentian (sometimes called 
 G) Hcraclid. from v. 1003, Here, HcL, Elect., Hee, Or., Phoen, 
 P (but not G) belonged to Marcus Musurus who used it in pre- 
 paring the Aldine. 
 
 Of the inferior MSS. the best are: 0= Laurentianus 31. 10, 
 14th cent. D = Laurentianus 31. 15, 14th cent. ( = r in Aris- 
 tophanes). 
 
 The ' Byzantine ' codd. contain a selection of three plays— 
 Hee, Or., P/ioen.— made in the 14th century, and are of no value. 
 
 Kirchhoff rejected the second class as interpolated. This has 
 been shown to be untrue by Wilamowitz in Analecta Euripidea, 
 
 1875. 
 The first class MA VB represents an early selection of ten 
 
 plays (/Ar., Or., Pliocn., Hipp., Med., Ale, Andr., Rhes., Troad., 
 
 Baccli.) made by some unknown scholar about the 3rd cent. 
 
 A. D. No plays outside this group are quoted by writers later 
 than Philostratus of Lemnos, who lived under Sept. Severus 
 (a. d. 193-21 1). This selection was fully annotated. The Bacchae 
 with its scholia was subsequently lost. Nine plays out of this 
 selection survive in one or more MSS. of the first class. Of 
 these M is the best, but A and V, although they are rarely the 
 sole authorities for a right reading, greatly strengthen the testi- 
 mony of M. B is valuable for its scholia and for a number of 
 good variants which support M. O and D agree mostly with 
 
 B, but sometimes with M. They are accordingly useful where 
 M and B fail or their readings give ground for suspicion. 
 
 At a later date, but while the selection still contained the 
 Bacchae, another unknown scholar added to it nine other plays 
 {Hel, Elect, Here, Hcraclid,, Cycl, Ion, SiippL, Iph. A.,Iph. T.) 
 which had survived from some complete unannotated edition — 
 
 Hi 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 235 
 
 probably that of Aristophanes of Byzantium. When adding these 
 nine unannotated plays he discarded the scholia belonging to the 
 ten plays of the selection. 
 
 L is descended from a copy of this composite edition in which 
 the Troades and Bacchae 756-end were missing. In the nine 
 unannotated plays {Hel. — Iph. ^.) P is either copied from L or 
 closely related to it. In the first ten plays P is influenced by 
 the tradition preserved in MSS. of the first class as well as by 
 h, e. g. in Hee, Or., Pliocn., Andr, it tends to agree with M A V, 
 in Rhes., Ale with L. 
 
 The />«/) vn' (e. g. Achmim papyrus of /?//6'5//5, 4/5th cent, a.d.) 
 stand midway between the two classes of MSS. The divergence 
 in tradition in the plays common to both classes cannot accord- 
 ingly be of great antiquity. 
 
 The scholia are best preserved in MB V and in a late MS. 
 Neapolitanus II. F. 4I; 15th cent. They contain fragments of 
 the learning of Aristarchus, Callistratus, Crates, Didymus, and 
 refer to later scholars such as Irenaeus (Med. 218) and Dionysius. 
 Edition by E. Schwartz, Berlin, 1887. Discussed by Wilamo- 
 witz, Herakles, i, pp. 199 sqq. There are Byzantine scholia by 
 Thomas Magister, Moschopulus, and Triclinius upon Hee, Or,, 
 Pliocn. These are of little value. 
 
 Ed. pr. by I anus Lascaris, Florence, 1494 (?), containing 
 only Med., Hipp., Ale, Andr. v. Legrand, Bibl. Helle'n. i. 40. All 
 except Elect, in Aldine ed. by Marcus Musurus, 1503. The 
 Elect, first printed by Victorius, Rome, 1545. 
 
 Index: C. and B. Matthiae, Lexicon A-F, Leipzig, 1841 ; 
 C. D. Beck, Cambridge, 1829. 
 
 EUTROPIUS (under Emp. Valens, 364-378), author of a com- 
 pendium of Roman history in 10 bks. entitled ' Breuiarium 
 ab urbe condita '. 
 Two separate archetypes : (i) seen in the Greek translation of 
 Paeanius, a contemporary; (2) in the extant MSS. which fall 
 into two groups— (A) best represented by G=Gothanus loi, 
 9th cent., a lost Fuldensis (F) used by Sylburg, and a lost MS. 
 used by Paulus Diaconus ; (B) an inferior group descended 
 ultimately from the same archetype as (A) but presenting a 
 'corrected' text, e.g. = Audomarensis 697, lo/iith cent., and 
 Leidensis 141, loth cent. 
 
236 
 
 AUTHORITIES 
 
 Ed. pr. : [G. Laver], Rome, 1471. 
 
 Index in Delphin ed. (Anna Fabri); Havercamp, 1729. 
 
 Festus, s. v. Verrius Flaccus. 
 
 L. Annaeus FLORUS (fl. circ. a.d. 137). 
 
 Epitomae de Tito Liuio bclloriim omnium amiornm DCCC, lib. 
 ii. Two main sources : (i) B = Bambergcnsis, E. iii. 22, 9th cent. ; 
 (2) N = Nazarianus-Heidelbergensis 894,9th cent. The inferior 
 MSS. are still sub iiidice, 
 
 Ed. pr. : [Paris, 1470-2]. 
 
 Index in Delphin ed. (Anna Fabri), 1674. 
 
 Sextus Iulius FRONTINUS (circ. a.d. 41-103). 
 
 (i) Gromatic work, preserved only in excerpts ; (2) Stmtcgcmala 
 in 3 bks., bk. 4 is spurious ; (3) De aqiiis urbis Romac, in 2 bks. 
 
 (i) For tradition v. s. Agrimcnsorcs. (2) Depends on two classes 
 of MSS., (a) best represented by H = Harleianus 2666, 9/ioth 
 cent.; {b) by P=Parisinus 7240, 10 nth cent. (3) All MSS. 
 are copies of Casinensis 361, ? nth cent. 
 
 Edd. pr. : (2) Rome, 1487; (3) J. Sulpitius, Rome, i486. 
 
 Index to (2) in Oudendorp, 1779; to (3) in Polenus, 1722. 
 
 M. Cornelius FRONTO (circ. a.d. 100-175). 
 
 Letters to the Emperors Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius. 
 and other correspondents, together with a few rhetorical writings, 
 are preserved in a palimpsest codex once belonging to the 
 monastery of Bobbio. The fragments are at Milan (in the 
 Ambrosian) and at Rome (Vat. 5750), where they were found by 
 Mai and published in 1815 and 1823. The Ambrosian portion 
 consists of 141 leaves, the Vatican of 53. The codex belongs to 
 the 6th cent, and was used in the loth cent, for a text of the 
 Speeches of Symmachus, the Scholia Bobiensia on Cicero's 
 speeches, and for various classical and theological fragments. 
 The Frontonian text has the subscription : ' Caecilius saepe 
 rogatus legi emendaui/ 
 
 Gellius, s. v. AuLUS Gellius. 
 
 Claudius Caesar GERMANICUS(t5 b.c— a.d. 19), nephew of 
 Tiberius, 
 (i) Translation of Aratus' 4>tti»/J^€m (725 hex.); (2) and of his 
 ProgHostica (fragments). 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 237 
 
 MSS. are in two classes : (i) the best, in which the fourth frag- 
 ment of the Prognosiica follows after Phacnom. 582. To this 
 class belong A = Basileensis A. N. iv. 18, 8 /9th cent. ; B=Bero- 
 linensis-Phillippicus 1832, 9/ioth cent. (2) The inferior family 
 which exhibits interpolations from the Aratea of Avienus, e. g. 
 Bononiensis 5 (Boulogne) 18, loth cent., and L = the Susianus = 
 Leidensis-Vossianus L. Q. 79, a MS. of the 9th cent, famous for 
 
 its illustrations. 
 
 Scholia to the Phacnomena in (i) Basileensis and (2) Sanger- 
 manensis 778, 9th cent. These two sources are combined in the 
 Strozzianus, 14th cent, (now in the Laurentian Lib. Florence). 
 
 Ed. pr. : in Manilius Bologna, 1474. 
 
 Index in A. Breysig's ed., Teubner, 1899. 
 
 GRATTIUS. Cyncgetica (541 hexameters). 
 
 A=Vindobonensis siue Sannazarianus 277, 9th cent., from 
 
 which all others are derived. 
 
 Ed. pr. (with Halieuticaof Ovid and other works): Venice, 1534. 
 Index in M. Haupt's ed. of Halieutica, Leipzig, 1838. 
 
 Ad Herennium, s.v. Rhetorica ad H. 
 
 RHETORICA AD herennium (attributed to Cornificius), 4bks. 
 
 (circa 86-82 b.c). 
 
 There are two classes of MSS.: (i) the older, called by Marx 
 class M, mutilated at the beginning of bk. i, best represented by 
 Herbipolitanus Mp. misc. f. 2, 9th cent. P = Parisinus 77 14, 9th cent. 
 B = Bernensis 433, 9/ioth cent. C = Petropolitanus-Corbeiensis, 
 9/ioth cent. (2) A younger class known as E, with text entire, 
 e.g. b = Bambergensis 423, ii/i3th cent. Leidensis (Gronovianus) 
 22, i2th cent. Darmstadiensis 2283, i2/i3th cent. 
 
 Ed. pr.: together with the De hmcntione of Cicero, Venice, 
 1470. The text, published with the Rhetorical writings of Cicero 
 at Venice in 151 4, is founded on a lost MS. 
 
 Index in F. Marx' ed., Leipzig, 1890. 
 
 HERODOTUS (circ. 480-425 b.c). 
 
 History in 9 bks. A = Laurentianus 70. 3, loth cent. B= 
 Angelicanus 83, nth cent. C=Laurentianus conv. soppr. 207, 
 nth cent. E = excerpts in Parisinus suppl. 134, 13th cent., 
 possibly copied from a MS. of loth cent. P= Parisinus 1633, 
 
238 
 
 AUTHORITIES 
 
 14th cent. R = Vaticanus 123, 14th cent, (paper). Bk. 5 is missing. 
 S = SancroftianLis, Emmanuel College Canibr. 30, 14th cent. V= 
 Vindobonensis 85 (Gr. hist, profan. i), 14th cent. 
 
 The MSS., which are all to be referred to the same arche- 
 type, since all have the interpolated chapter viii. 104, fall into two 
 groups: (i) the Florentine, headed by A; (2) the Roman = 
 BRS V. C and P are of little value, C belonging on the whole 
 to (i), while P has a mixed text. 
 
 Both groups are needed as authorities for the text. The 
 Horentine is superior, but the Roman is often in agreement 
 with the quotations made by grammarians and other ancient 
 writers. 
 
 There are papyri from Oxyrhynchus (at Munich) containing 
 i. 1 15-116 and other fragments of bk. i. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Aldus, Venice, 1502. 
 
 Index : J. Schweighaeuser, Strassburg, 1824; Jacobitz, Spcci- 
 vien li'xkif Leipzig, 1870. 
 
 HERO(N)DAS (circ. 300-250 13. c). 
 
 Eight mimes and fragments in Brit. Mus. Papyrus no. 135, 
 ist/2nd cent. a.d. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Kenyon, 1891. 
 
 Index in Biicheler's ed., Bonn, 1892. 
 
 HESIOD (? 700 B.C.). 
 
 {l)^ioyovLa (1022 hexameters). (2)''E/:>ya KuX rjfxefjai (828). (3) 'AcTTrt? 
 
 'H/jaKA€ovs (480). Its authenticity was doubted in antiquity. 
 
 (l) 0€oyo»'ta. 
 
 MSS. I. Papyri: A=Parisinus Suppl. Gr. 1099, 4/5th cent, 
 (contains vv. 74-145). B = Brit. Mus. clix, 4th cent. (210-238, 
 260-270). R = Vindobon. biblioth. Caes. L. P. 21-29 (Archduke 
 Rainer's Collection), 4th cent. (626-881). Also contains part of 
 'Ao-TTi? and "Epya. II. Codd. fall into two main groups: (ii) C = 
 Fragments in Paris, suppl. Gr. 663 (from Athos), 12th cent., 
 vv. 72-145, 450-504. D = Laurentianus 32. 16, 13th cent. E = 
 Laur. conv. soppress. 158, 14th cent. F= Paris. 2833, 15th cent. 
 G = Vaticanus 915, 14th cent. H=Parisinus 2772, 14th cent. 
 I = Laurent. xxxi. 32, 15th cent. (4/) K = Venetus Marcianus 
 ix. 6, 14th cent. L^ Paris. 2708, 15th cent. 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 239 
 
 All the codd. are held to be descended from one archetype, 
 whose text is preserved best in the Q-group. It is not possible, 
 however, to dispense with the vi;-group, whose readings are some- 
 times superior, e.g. v. 31 Splipaaai where Si has gpe^ao-^at. Of the 
 n-group D is the best. Closely akin to it are the two fragments 
 C, part of a MS. written on Mt. Athos. E and F are copies of 
 
 the same original. 
 
 The papyri generally support the best MSS. 
 
 There are two inferior recensions which occasionally restore 
 or preserve a right reading: x = Casanatensis 356, 14th cent., 
 and two others, e.g. 635 x<^^«^ OvfiaXye exorrcs x: fidxvv 0. 
 l^. P a vj;. t= Recension of Triclinius extant in his autograph copy, 
 Marcianus 464, 14th cent. 
 
 (2) "Epya Kcd jjfJiepaL. 
 
 MSS. I. Papyri : A = Rainer papyrus (R in Theogony q.v.). 
 B=Genevensisbibl. publ. pap. 94- Restores 4 lines after v. 169 
 which were apparently ejected by some ancient critic. II. Codd. 
 fall into 3 classes in which the chief representatives are : (i) 
 C = Paris. 2771, nth cent. (2) D = Laurent. 31. 39, 12th cent. 
 Of the codd. of this group 1 = Laur. 32. 16 (D in Theogony) 
 contains good readings. E. g. 262 TrapK-XtVoxn confirmed by A. (3) 
 E = Messanius bibl. universit. 11 (now destroyed), i2/i3th cent. 
 
 The evidence for the text of the "Epya is of very high quality. 
 The first two groups of MSS. represent the same recension. 
 Triclinius appears to have used a MS. of the D-group for his 
 recension (Marcianus 464). The third class, headed by E, seems 
 to represent a Byzantine recension whose readings or corrections 
 are occasionally of value. 
 
 (3) 'Ao-TTt?. 
 
 MSS. I. Papyri: A=Rainer papyrus (cf. Theog. and "Epya). 
 II Codd. : (na) B=Paris. suppl. Gr. 663 (=C in Theog.), 12th 
 cent., contains vv. 75-298. C=vv. 87-138, another fragment in 
 the same MS. D=Ambrosianus C. 222 inf., 13th cent. F_ 
 Paris. 2773, 14th cent. (Qb) G=Paris. 2772, 14th cent. ( = H 
 in Theog.). H=Laur. 31. 32, T5th cent. ( = 1 in Theog.). 
 I=Harleian. 5724, 15th cent, (vi' a) E = Laurent. 32. 16, 13th 
 cent. ( = D in Theog.). (^b) K = Casanatensis 356, 14th cent. ( = x 
 
240 
 
 AUTHORITIES 
 
 in Theog.). L = LaLir. conv. soppress. 158, 14th cent. ( = E in 
 Theog.). M= Paris. 2833, 15th cent. (=:F in Theog.). 
 
 All codd. are ultimately derived from the same archetype. 
 They fall into two groups Q and ^. In the fl-group the Ambro- 
 sian D is of the greatest importance. The other MSS. of this 
 group, GHI, present a somewhat inferior text. After the 
 Ambrosian D the most valuable MS. is E of the vp-group. The 
 remaining members of this group are of little real importance. 
 
 Ed. pr. : "Epya, printed with 18 Idylls of Theocritus, without 
 printer's name, place, or year. As the work is printed with the 
 same type as the Milan Isocrates of 1493, it is conjectured that it 
 was produced at Milan about that date. First complete edition 
 published by Aldus, 1495. 
 
 Index : Paulson, Lund, 1890. 
 
 HESYCHIUS of Alexandria (5th cent. a.d.). 
 
 A lexicon of noteworthy (Ae'fci?) or rare (yXwo-o-ai) words. 
 
 There is only one MS., viz. Marcianus 522, 15th cent., which 
 was used by Aldus for the ed. pr., Venice, 1514 (cf. p. 105). 
 
 HOMER. 
 
 (A) Ancient Epics : (i) 'lAm?, 24 bks. (2) '08r(ro-em, 24 bks. 
 
 (B) Late works: (i) 'ETnypa/x/xara preserved in the pseudo- 
 Herodotean life of Homer. (2) "Y/iiot (34). (3) Barpaxo/xro/xaxta. 
 
 The Epics differ from almost all other texts in the problem 
 which they present. Other texts must ultimately be derived 
 from an archetype written or corrected by the author, and the 
 restoration of this archetype is the legitimate aim of criticism. 
 But no such archetype can be reasonably supposed to lie behind 
 the Homeric poems. For though the art of writing was not un- 
 known at the time of their composition, yet it can hardly be 
 doubted that they must long have been propagated by oral 
 transmission. The main facts proved by documentary evidence 
 are: (i) a vulgate text (r/ Kotinj, at 8r;/xw6€ts) at least as early as 
 the age of Plato, and derived by some from a recension supposed 
 to have been made by order of Pisistratus. (2) 'Wild' or 
 'Eccentric' texts containing many interpolated lines. Such 
 texts were formerly know^n from the quotation in Aeschines, 
 Tinianhiis 149, and are now amply attested by recent discoveries 
 of papyri (Grenfell and Hunt, Hibch Papyri, i, No. 19). (3) The 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 241 
 
 critical editions of the Alexandrine scholars. Though much is 
 still obscure in the relations which exist between these three 
 types of text, it seems now fairly certain (i) that they were for 
 a considerable period rivals of one another ; (2) that the vul- 
 gate ultimately ousted the Eccentric texts owing to the support 
 which it received from the Alexandrines, who founded their own 
 texts on the best copies of the vulgate that they could procure ; 
 (3) that in the main the vulgate still survives in our MS. tradi- 
 tion, influenced in its readings, though not to any considerable 
 extent, by the Alexandrine editions. The idea first started by 
 Wolf that the Aristarchic text was the parent of the text which 
 is presented by the MSS. is now surrendered. The MSS. 
 contain many readings that are known to have been rejected by 
 Aristarchus. 
 
 An editor therefore who bases his recension on the docu- 
 mentary evidence must aim either at (i) the restoration of the 
 vulgate as given in the best MSS., or (2) the reconstruction of 
 the Alexandrine text, i. e. substantially the diorthosis of Aristar- 
 chus. For this the evidence at present at hand is hardly 
 sufficient. Most editors merge the two aims together and pro- 
 duce an eclectic text. 
 
 From the time of Bentley, however, it has been seen that the 
 documentary evidence represents only one stage in the history 
 of the text of the Epics. Language, metre, folklore, and archaeo- 
 logy have been invoked to supply a number of delicate tests by 
 which distinct stages in the growth of the tradition are revealed. 
 But, as W. Leaf has said, 'The task of producing a really 
 archaic text, if possible, is entirely distinct from the collection of 
 diplomatic evidence ' [Class. Rev. 1892, p. 12), and though such 
 reconstructions are a proper concern of specialists, the ordinary 
 reader must necessarily wish to have the poems in the form in 
 which they were known to the Greeks of the classical period. 
 
 For this there is the following evidence in the Iliad: 
 
 (i) Papyri, many of which are as early as the 3rd cent. b. c. 
 (e.g. Brit. Mus. Pap. 689 a). They often present the 'eccentric ' 
 texts noticed above. 
 
 (2) Codices. The oldest complete codices are : A = Venetus- 
 Marcianus 454, lo/iith cent., containing the Alexandrine signs 
 prefixed to the lines of the text and scholia which are excerpted 
 
 47; 
 
 R 
 
If 
 
 2^2 AUTHORITIES 
 
 from works on the Aristarchean recension by Aristonicus and 
 Didymiis, who lived under Augustus; from Herodian, a con- 
 temporary of Marcus Aurelius, and from Nicanor a contempo- 
 rary of Hadrian. B = Ven.-Marc. 453. nth cent. C = Lauren- 
 tianus 32. 3, nth cent. D = Laur. 32. 15, lo/iith cent. 
 
 The remaining MSS. are arranged by Allen m 17 families, ot 
 which the most noteworthy is h, consisting of Lipsiensis 1275, 
 14th cent., L = Vindobonensis 5, H^iSth cent., and others. 
 These contain more Alexandrine readings than are found in 
 other groups. Whether this is due to accident or to a deliberate 
 recension is uncertain. There are fragmentary codices of early 
 date :— 0=Ambrosianus pictus, 5/6th cent. I = Syriacus rescrip- 
 tus, Brit. Mus. Add. 17. 210, 6/7th cent. Of the codices contain- 
 ing scholia the most important after A and B areT = Townleianus, 
 Brit. Mus. Burney 86, nth cent.; Ge = Genevensis 44, 13th cent. 
 
 In the Odyssey: 
 
 (i) Papyri, of which the earliest is Hibeh 23, 3rd cent. b.c. 
 
 (2) Codices(allminuscule)arevery numerous. They arearrangcd 
 by Allen in 17 groups. The oldest codices are: L' (or G) 
 = Laurent. 32. 24, lo'iith cent. L« (or F) = Laurent. conv. 
 soppr. 52, nth cent. Pal. (or P) = Palatinus 45, a.d. 1201 (at 
 Heidelberg), with scholia. W (or H) = Harleianus 5674, 13th 
 
 cent., with scholia. 
 
 Ed. pr. by Demetrius Chalcondylas [B. and N.T. Nerlius, 
 
 Florence], 1488. 
 
 Index: Gehring, Leipzig, 1891 ; Ebeling, Lexicon, Leipzig, 
 1885-1888; Prendergast, ///W, London, 1875; Dunbar, Odyssey, 
 and Hymns, Oxford, 1880. 
 
 Homeric Hymns, preserved either along with the Epics or in 
 selections from poets such as Callimachus, Pindar, Theocritus. 
 Among 34 hymns attributed to Homer there are only five of any 
 considerable length, viz. (i) E?? ^vMrpav (contained in the 
 Mosquensis alone v. infra). (2) Ek 'ATrcAXoyya. (3) Ek 'EpM'" 
 (4) Eis 'A<^/>o8tT7;i'. (5) V.k Aiorvo-ov. 
 
 All MSS. are descended from the same archetype, which 
 must have presented a number of alternative readings. 
 
 The best account of the condition of the text is given in the 
 edition of Allen and Sikes, 1904. The codices, 28 in number, fall 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 H3 
 
 into three groups, (i) M=Leidensis (Mosquensis) 18. 33 H, 
 T4th cent., a mutilated MS. found in 1777 by C. F. Matthaei in 
 the library of the synod, Moscow. (2) x=a group of 10 MSS. 
 more or less closely related, among, which are E = Estensis 164. 
 3. E. II, 15th cent., and T = Matritensis 4562. 24, a.d. 1464 [rf. 
 Callimachus). (3) p = a group of 14 inferior MSS. which often 
 preserve a superior reading. The superiority of M is undoubted. 
 
 Ed.pr. : Chalcondylas, Florence, 1488, evidently printed from 
 a MS. of the x family. 
 
 Index: Gehring, Leipzig, 1895; Dunbar, Oxford, 1880. 
 
 (3) Harpaxofivoij.axta. Numerous MSS. of which the oldest 
 are Bodleianus-Baroccianus 50, lo/iith cent., and Laurent. 
 32. 3, nth cent. 
 
 Ed. pr. 1488 (supra). Some believe that an earlier edition is 
 in the Rylands library. 
 
 Index in Ludwich's ed., Leipzig, 1896. 
 
 Q. HORATIUS Flaccus (65 b. c.-a. d. 8). 
 
 I. Carmina (4 bks.) and Carmen Saectdare. 2. Epodcs. 
 3. Sermones. 4. Epistulae and Ars Poetica. 
 
 There are about 250 MSS. The best date from the 9/1 ith 
 cent. The keystone of criticism is V=the Blandinianus, the 
 oldest of the four MSS. discovered by Cruquius. They were 
 destroyed in 1566 and the readings of V are known only from 
 C.'s editions, 1565-1578. His good faith has been questioned 
 but is generally upheld. V was probably written in Irish 
 cursive (Winterfeld, Rh. Mus. 1905, p. 32). It alone contained 
 the reading ' Campum lusumque trigonem ' in 5. i. 6. 126. Of 
 the other MSS. the chief are: A=Parisinus 7900 (Puteaneus), 
 loth cent., with its gemellus a=Ambros. 136, loth cent. B = 
 Bernensis 363 (Bongarsianus), circ. a.d. 860. C = Monacensis 
 14685, nth cent. D = Argentoratensis c. vii. 7, 9th cent., burnt 
 in 1870. E = a MS. of the nth cent, bound up with C. 8= 
 Harleian. 2725, 9th cent. Tr<|)»j/=Parisini 10310 (9/ioth cent.), 
 7974; 7971 (both loth cent.). Keller and Holder posit three 
 classes ; Leo and Vollmer only two, which they regard as derived 
 from one arclietype. (i) A B C D E, (2) 8 tt <|> ij/. 
 
 Scholia: (i) by Pomponius Porphyrio, a grammarian of the 
 3rd cent., (2) attributed to Aero, (3) the Commenfafor Criiquianus, 
 i.e. scholia collected from V and other MSS. by Cruquius. 
 
 R 2 
 
 I 
 
244 
 
 AUTHORITIES 
 
 Eight MSS. (including A) exhibit the subscription of Mavor- 
 tius (consul in a. d. 527) after the Epodes. ' Vettius Agorius 
 Basilius Mauortius u(ir) c(larissimus) et in(lustrissimus) ex corn- 
 lite) dom(estico), ex cons(ule) ord(inario) legi et ut potui emen- 
 daui conferente mihi magistro Felice oratore urbis Romae.* 
 
 Ed. pr. : c. 1471 (place unknown). 
 
 Index in Orelli-Mewes, 1889; Keller-Holder, 1864-1869. 
 
 HYPERIDES (389-322 B. c). 
 
 Six speeches are known from fragmentary papyri. ^ 
 Harris and Arden papyrus, ist cent, a.d., containing Kara 
 Ar//y.oo-^cVor9, 'Yttc/. AvKO(^/;oro9, Tttc/. Ei'teriTTTrov, discovered in 1847, 
 Stobart papyrus, 2nd cent. a. d., containing 'E7rtTac/)tos in 1856, all 
 now in Brit. Mus. ; Revillout papyrus, 2nd cent. b. c, of the Kara 
 \\eqvoyivov<; published in 1889; Brit. Mus. papyrus, istcent. a.d., 
 of the Kara 4>tAi7r7rt8oi' published in 1891. 
 
 Index in Blass' ed., Leipzig, 1894; A. Westermann, Leipzig, 
 1 860- 1 863. 
 Flavius IOSEPHUS (a. d. 37-c. 100). 
 
 (1) 'Ioi-8atKr; dcpx<^ioXoyia, 20 bks. (2) W^pi ToO 'lorSaiKov 7ro/\e>oir, 
 7 bks. (3) Kara Wirimvo^, 2 bks. (4) <^\aoviov 'Icocrr/Trou /3tos. 
 [(S) EiS MaKKa/?movs, SpurioUS.] 
 
 ^(1) For first lo bks. the best MSS. are: R = Paris. 1421, 
 14th cent. = Bodleianus miscell. Gr. 186, 15th cent. M^ 
 Marcianus Gr. 381, 13th cent. For last 10 bks.: P=Palatinus 
 Vaticanus 14, 9'ioth cent. (bks. 18-20 missing). F=Laurentia. 
 nus pi. 69. 20, T4th cent. (bks. 1-15). L = Leidensis F. 13, 
 ii/i2th cent. (bks. 11-15). A = Ambros. F. 128, nth cent. 
 M:=Laurentianus pi. 69. 10, 15th cent. These fall into groups: 
 
 (1) PF, (2) L being midway, (3) AM. Epitome preserved in 
 Berol.-Phillipp. 222 and other MSS. 
 
 (2) P=Parisinus 1425, lo/iith cent. A= Ambros. D. sup. 50, 
 lo/iithccnt. V = Vat. 148, nth cent. R = Vat.-Pal. 284, ii/i2th 
 cent. C = Vat.-Urb.84, iithcent. These are grouped as: (1) PA, 
 
 (2) V R C, with a number of MSS. midway between these. 
 
 (3) Laurentianus pi. 69. 22, from which all other MSS. are 
 descended. 
 
 (4) P AM as in (i). 
 
 Ed. pr. : by x\rlenius, Basel, 1544. 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 245 
 
 ISAEUS (fl. 390 350 B. c). 
 
 Eleven Aoyot kXviplkol, 
 
 The only authorities are A=Crippsianus, Brit. Mus. Burney 
 95, 13th cent., and Q = Ambrosianus D. 42 sup., a paper MS. 
 14th (?) cent., a MS. greatly inferior to A though it sometimes 
 preserves the right reading. Several 15th cent. MSS. once 
 thought to be independent are now proved to be descendants 
 of A. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Aldus, 15 13, in Orafionrs RJiet. Grace. 
 
 Index of selected words in Wyse's cd., Cambridge, 1904; 
 T. Mitchell, Oxford, 1828. 
 
 ISOCRATES (436 338 B.C.). 
 
 (1) ITpo? XrjiJioviKov. (2) IIpos ISLKOKXia. (3) Nikok'XJ}?. (4) Tlaviy 
 yi'piKo?. (5) <I>tAt7r7ros, (6) *Ap^t8tt/xo?. (7) 'ApcoTrayirtKo'?. (8) lle/^i 
 YApy]vrj<;. (9) Emyo'pa?. (lo) 'EAcVr;. (ll) Borrnpi?. (12) Ilara- 
 0y]vaiK6<;. (13) Kara tC)v ^o(f)L(TTC)V. (14) IIAaTaiKos. (15) llepl am- 
 8oa-ea>?. (16) Hepl tov ^ei'yovs. (17) TpaTre^iTiKos. (18) Ilu/mypa^r/ 
 Trpos KaAAi/xtt;!(or. (19) Atyii/r;TtKo?. (20) Kara Ao;^iroi;. (21) Il/jos 
 EvOvvovv d/Aapri'pos. (22) 'ETricrroAat'. 
 
 MSS. in two groups: (1) Integri. r=Urbinas 111, 9/ioth 
 cent, and some MSS. akin to it such as A=Vat. 936, 14th cent. 
 (2) A group which is mutilated in the Anfidosis, §§ 72-310, e.g. 
 = Laurent. 87. 14, 13th cent.; and A=Vatic. 65, a.d. 1063. 
 Most of the late MSS. are copied from A. There is little need 
 for conjecture owing to the excellence of r. The papyrus frag- 
 ments provide a number of new, but not important, readings 
 and show that the readings of r are not invariably to be preferred. 
 
 Ed. pr.: o{ Speeelies — Demetrius Chalcondylas, Milan, 1493; 
 of the Epistles — Aldus, Epistolae Diversorum, Venice, 1499. The 
 vulgate text in use till the 19th cent, was based on II. Wolf's 
 edition, Basel, 1553. 
 
 Index: Preuss, Leipzig, 1904. 
 
 Decimus Iunius IUVENALIS (circ. a.d. 62-after 128). 
 
 Sixteen satires in 5 bks. The principal MS. is P=Monte- 
 pessulanus-Pithoeanus 125, 9th cent. Its original readings have 
 been much altered by later hands. There are fragmentary 
 sources similar to P in the Scidae Ai'oiiienses, 10/1 ith cent., 
 and the Florilegium Sangallense (cod. Sang. 870), 9th cent. 
 
246 
 
 AUTHORITIES 
 
 w=the great mass of MSS., which ofifer an inferior text, though 
 their evidence cannot be wholly disregarded. Three of these 
 have the siibscnptio of Nicaeus: ' Legi ego Niceus apud M. 
 Serbium Rome et emendaui.' The earliest evidence for the 
 text is the palimpsestus Bobiaisis (Vat. 5750), ? 4th cent., which 
 contains xiv. 323-xv. 43. Its text is not noticeably good. It 
 supports P at one time and w at another. 
 
 One of the vulgar MSS. = Oxoniensis Bodl. Canon, xli, 
 written in a Beneventan hand in the nth cent., contains 36 
 verses of Sat. vi, which are not found in any other MS., viz. 
 34 lines between 365 and 366, and 2 between 373 and 374. 
 
 Scholia : The most ancient scholia are preserved in P and in 
 Sangallensis 870. Scholia of a similar character are quoted by 
 G. Valla in his edition of i486, and are ascribed by him to a 
 grammarian named Probus. The scholia preserved in the ordi- 
 nary MSS. and known as the Expositio Conniti Sive of little value. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Rome, Ulrich Han, circ. 1470, or De Spira, Venice, 
 
 1470. 
 
 Index : Friedlander's ed., Leipzig, 1895. 
 
 LAUS PISONIS. 
 
 First published by Johannes Sichard in his edition of Ovid, 
 Basel, 1527, apparently from a codex found at Lorsch which is 
 now lost. There are excerpts in an Anthology preserved in two 
 Paris MSS. 7647 (9th cent.) and 17903 (13th cent.). It is attri- 
 buted by some to Calpurnius Siculus. 
 
 Granius LICINIANUS (2nd cent. a. d.). 
 
 Historian ; his work is little more than an epitome of Livy. 
 Fragments known only from the British Museum palimpsestus 
 ter scriptus (Add. MSS. i72i2)-the text of L. lying beneath 
 that of a grammatical treatise over which a Syriac translation of 
 Chrysostom has been written. 
 
 Titus LIVIUS (59 b. c.-a. d. 17). 
 
 Ab nrbc comUta /ibri, in 142 bks., arranged in decades: 
 35 bks. survive, viz. i-io, 21-45. Each decade has its own 
 
 tradition. 
 
 First Decade. All MSS. with the exception of the Veronese 
 palimpsest, bibl. capitularis Veronensis 40, 4th cent, (containing 
 fragments of bks. 3-6), descend from a copy written perhaps ni 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 247 
 
 the south of France, of recensions made by Nicomachus Dexter 
 (3-5), Nicomachus Flavianus, circ. 402-410 (6, 7, 8), and Victo- 
 rianus (i-io), who lived considerably later. The MSS. which 
 combine these recensions fall into three groups: (1) M=Medi- 
 ceus-Laurentianus 63. sg, nth cent., and a lost Vormaciensis 
 known in part from Rhenanus' text. (2) P= Paris. 5725 (Col- 
 bertinus), F=Par. 5724 (Floriacensis), both of the loth cent. 
 U = Upsaliensis, nth cent. (3) R=Vaticanus 3329 (Romanus), 
 nth cent. D=Florentinus-Marcianus 326 (Dominicanus), 12th 
 cent., and others, to which 0=Bodleianus 20631, nth cent., has 
 been' recently added by W. C. F. Walters. In the MSS. all 
 bks. have the subscription : 'Victorianus u.c. emendabam domnis 
 Symmachis.' Bks. 6, 7, 8 join with it the further subscription, 
 'Nicomachus Flauianus u.c. Ill praef. urbis emendaui apud 
 Hennam.* Bks. 3. 4, 5 add, ' Nicomachus dexter u. c. emendaui 
 ad exemplum parentis mei Clementiani.' 
 
 Third Decade. P= Paris. 5730, 5th cent. (Puteaneus), revised 
 at Avellino near Naples in 6th cent., with its descendants, 
 e.g. R = Vatic. Reg. 762, 9th cent.; C = Par. 5731 (Colbertinus), 
 lo/nth cent.; M = Mediceus-Laurent. 63. 20, nth cent., was long 
 thought to be the sole authority for this decade. For the second 
 half, however, the lost Spi'rensis, nth cent, (known from variants 
 preserved by Rhenanus in the Basel ed. of 1535 and from a leaf 
 discovered by Halm), is now recognized as an independent 
 authority. The seven leaves of the Turin palimpsest, 5th cent., 
 from Bobbio (containing parts of 27-29), are also independent and 
 allied with the Spirensis. The object of criticism has been to 
 find traces of this independent tradition in the inferior MSS., 
 e.g. H = Harleianus 2684, 15th cent.; V=Vat. Pal. 876, 
 
 15th cent. 
 
 Fourth Decade. B==Bambergensis, nth cent., contains as 
 far as 38. 46 : fragments of the uncial codex from which B was 
 copied were found in 1907 at Bamberg. The lost Moguntinus 
 (M) in insular script contained from 33. 17 to the end. It is known 
 only from the Mainz edition of 1518 and the Basel ed. of 1535. 
 There are many late MSS. which repeat and supplement the 
 tradition of B. A fragment of a 5th cent. MS. survives in 
 
 Vat. 10696. 
 
 Fifth Decade, bks. 41-45. The tradition depends wholly 
 
248 
 
 AUTHORITIES 
 
 on Vindob. 15, 5th cent. (Laurishamensis). Facsimile in Sijthoff's 
 
 series, 1907. 
 
 A fragment of bk. 91 (Scrtorian war) was discovered by Bruns 
 
 in 1772 in Vat.-Pal. 24. 
 
 Periochae. These are summaries (often degenerating into 
 mere tables of contents). They cover all the books except 136 
 and 137. The best MS. is Palatinus-IIeidelbergensis 894 
 (Nazarianus); 9th cent. Fragments of a rival summary, 37-40 
 and 48-55, are preserved in a 3rd cent, papyrus from Oxy- 
 rhynchus (Grenfell and Hunt, 668). 
 
 Ed. pr. : Rome, circ. 1469 (omitting bks. 33 and 41-45). 
 
 Index: Fiigner, Leipzig, 1897 (un(inished) ; Delphin ed. 
 (Douiat), 1682. 
 
 [LONGINUS]. 
 
 The treatise Uepl vij/ovs, ascribed to Longinus (3rd cent. a. d.), 
 is now recognized to be an anonymous work of earlier date, 
 probably belonging to the ist cent. a. d. 
 
 The text depends on P= Parisinus 2036, loth cent. All other 
 MSS. are copies of this, with the possible exception of Paris. 
 985, 15th cent., which preserves a fragment (copied in Vat. 285) 
 which is thought by some to indicate a different tradition. 
 
 Ed. pr. by F. Robortellus, Basel, 1554. 
 
 Index: R. Robinson in Indices tres, Oxford, 1772. 
 Marcus Annaeus LUCANUS (a. d. 39-65). 
 
 Epic de Bella Cinili, in 10 bks. 
 
 The principal MSS. are: P=:Parisinus lat. 7502 (Colbertinus), 
 loth cent. U = Vossianus Leidensis xix, f. 63, with scholia, loth 
 cent. These two are closely related. M=Montepessulanus 
 H . 1 13, 9/ioth cent. Z= Parisinus lat. 10314, 9th cent., closely re- 
 lated to M. V = Vossianus Leid. xix, q. 51, loth cent., with scholia. 
 
 Fragments of 4th cent. MSS. survive in N = a MS. from 
 Bobbio of which leaves are at Vienna (Vind. 16) and at Naples 
 (Neap. IV. A. 8); and P or n = Vat.-Pal. 24, 4th cent. Beside 
 the ordinary scholia there are the Coninieiifa Benietisia con- 
 tained in Bern. 370, of the loth cent. 
 
 PUMZ and other MSS. contain the following snbscriptio 
 * Paulus Constantinopolitanus emendaui manu mea solus '. Use- 
 ner, Rh. Miis., 1868, p. 497, conjectures that he was alive in 674. 
 It is usual to assume (i) a Pauline family of MSS.; (2) an 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 249 
 
 earlier text, best represented by V, whose readings, however, 
 have been intruded into the Pauline text. Neither of these 
 groups can be neglected in the formation of a text. Scholia in 
 C=Bernensis litt. 370, loth cent., and W = Wallersteinensis I. 
 2, ii/i2th cent. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Rome, 1469. 
 
 Index in Oudendorp, 1728; Lemairc, 1830. 
 
 Titus LUCRETIUS Carus (died in 55 or 53 p..c.). Poem Dc 
 Rcruiii Natitra in 6 bks. 
 
 The text depends almost entirely on two MSS. at Lcyden. 
 A=Vossianus F. 30, 9th cent, (oblongus); B=:Voss. O. 94 
 (Ouadratus, cited by Lambinus as Bertinianus), 9th cent. Be- 
 sides these there are many late Italian MSS. all derived from 
 a lost archetype brought to Italy from Germany by Poggio in 
 1414. A copy of this made by Nicoli is now Laurent. 35. 30 
 (Nicolianus). Fragments of 9th cent. MSS. survive at Copen- 
 hagen, Royal Library, no. 24(Fragmentum Gottorpianum) and at 
 Vienna (Schedae Vindobonenses, no. 107). 
 
 Ed. pr.: Brescia, circ. 1473. 
 
 Index: J. Paulson, Gothenburg, 1911. 
 
 LUCIAN (circ. a. d. 120 — after 180). 
 
 Eighty-two separate writings, mostly in the form of Dialogues, 
 are attributed to Lucian. The 53 epigrams attributed to him in 
 the Anthology are probably by an author of the same name who 
 lived in the ist cent. 
 
 The best MSS. are : r = Vaticanus 90, 9/ioth cent. E = Har- 
 leianus 5694, 9/ioth cent. <t> = Laurentianus C. S. 77, loth cent. 
 n=Marcianus 434, lo/iith cent. S = Mutinensis 193, nth cent. 
 B=:Vindobonensis 123, nth cent. U = Vaticanus 1324, ii/i2th 
 cent. L=Laurentianus 57. 51, ii/i2th cent. Scholia in r, E, ♦, 
 S, O. and A = Vat. gr. 1322, 33th cent. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Florence, 1496. 
 
 Index in J. F. Reitz's ed., Utrecht, 1743. 
 
 LYCOPHRON (fl. 274 B.C.), Cassandra or Alexandra (1474 
 iambic trimeters). 
 The best MS. is M=Marcianus 476, nth cent., containing 
 elaborate scholia, some of which are derived from the com- 
 mentary of Theon, a grammarian of the age of Tiberius. 
 
248 
 
 AUTHORITIES 
 
 t 
 
 on Vindob. 15, 5th cent. (Laurishamensis). Facsimile in Sijthoff's 
 
 series, 1907. 
 
 A fragment of bk. 91 (Sertorian war) was discovered by Brims 
 
 in 1772 in Vat.-Pal. 24. 
 
 Periochae. These are summaries (often degenerating into 
 mere tables of contents). They cover all the books except 136 
 and 137. The best MS. is Palatinus-IIeidelbergensis 894 
 (Nazarianus), 9th cent. Fragments of a rival summary, 3740 
 and 48-55, are preserved in a 3rd cent, papyrus from Oxy- 
 rhynchus (Grenfell and Hunt, 668). 
 
 Ed. pr. : Rome, circ. 1469 (omitting bks. 33 and 41-45)- 
 Index: Fiigner, Leipzig, 1897 (unhnished); Delphin ed. 
 (Douiat), 1682. 
 
 [LONGINUS]. 
 
 The treatise TIe/n iVovs, ascribed to Longinus (3rd cent. a. d.), 
 is now recognized to be an anonymous work of earlier date, 
 probably belonging to the ist cent. a. d. 
 
 The text depends on P=Parisinus 2036, loth cent. All other 
 MSS. are copies of this, with the possible exception of Paris. 
 985, 15th cent., which preserves a fragment (copied in \'at. 285) 
 which is thought by some to indicate a different tradition. 
 
 Ed. pr. by F. Robortellus, Basel, 1554. 
 
 Index: R. Robinson in Indices trcs, Oxford, 1772. 
 Marcus Annaeus LUCANUS (a. d. 39-65). 
 
 Epic de Bella Cinilt] in 10 bks. 
 
 The principal MSS. are: P=Parisinus lat. 7502 (Colbertinus), 
 loth cent. U = Vossianus Leidensis xix, f. 63, with scholia, loth 
 cent. These two are closely related. M=Montepessulanus 
 H . 1 13, 9/ioth cent. Z= Parisinus lat. 10314, 9th cent., closely re- 
 lated to M. V= Vossianus Leid. xix, q. 51, loth cent., with scholia. 
 Fragments of 4th cent. MSS. survive in N = a MS. from 
 Bobbio of which leaves are at Vienna (Vind. 16) and at Naples 
 (Neap. IV. A. 8); and P or n = Vat.-Pal. 24, 4th cent. Beside 
 the ordinary scholia there are the Com men fa Beniensin con- 
 tained in Bern. 370, of the loth cent. 
 
 PUMZ and other MSS. contain the following subscriptio 
 * Paulus Constantinopolitanus emendaui manu mea solus '. Use- 
 ner, Rh. Mits., 1868, p. 497, conjectures that he was alive in 674. 
 It is usual to assume (i) a Pauline family of MSS.; (2) an 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 249 
 
 earlier text, best represented by V, whose readings, however, 
 have been intruded into the Pauline text. Neither of these 
 groups can be neglected in the formation of a text. Scholni in 
 C=Bernensis litt. 370, loth cent., and W = Wallersteinensis I. 
 2, ii/i2th cent. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Rome, 1469. 
 
 Index in Oudendorp, 1728; Lemaire, 1830. 
 
 Titus LUCRETIUS Carus (died in 55 or 53 R.c). Poem De 
 Renim Natura in 6 bks. 
 
 The text depends almost entirely on two MSS. at Leyden. 
 A= Vossianus F. 30, 9th cent, (oblongus) ; B=Voss. O. 94 
 (Quadratus, cited by Lambinus as Bertinianus), 9th cent. Be- 
 sides these there are many late Italian MSS. all derived from 
 a lost archetype brought to Italy from Germany by Poggio in 
 1414. A copy of this made by Nicoli is now Laurent. 35. 30 
 (Nicolianus). Fragments of 9th cent. MSS. survive at Copen- 
 hagen, Royal Library, no. 24(Fragmentum Gottorpianum) and at 
 Vienna (Schedae Vindobonenses, no. 107). 
 
 Ed. pr.: Brescia, circ. 1473. 
 
 Index: J. Paulson, Gothenburg, 1911. 
 
 LUCIAN (circ. a. d. 120 — after 180). 
 
 Eighty-two separate writings, mostly in the form of Dialogues, 
 are attributed to Lucian. The 53 epigrams attributed to him in 
 the Anthology are probably by an author of the same name who 
 lived in the ist cent. 
 
 The best MSS. are : r = Vaticanus 90, 9/ioth cent. E=Har- 
 leianus 5694, 9/ioth cent. <l>=:Laurentianus C. S. 77, loth cent. 
 n=Marcianus 434, lo/iith cent. S=Mutinensis 193, nth cent. 
 B=Vindobonensis 123, nth cent. U = Vaticanus 1324, ii/i2th 
 cent. L=Laurentianus 57. 51, 11/ 12th cent. Scholia in r, E, ♦, 
 S, fl and A = Vat. gr. 1322, 13th cent. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Florence, 1496. 
 
 Index in J. F. Reitz's ed., Utrecht, 1743. 
 
 LYCOPHRON (fl. 274 B.C.), Cassandra or Alexandra (1474 
 iambic trimeters). 
 The best MS. is M=Marcianus 476, nth cent., containing 
 elaborate scholia, some of which are derived from the com- 
 mentary of Theon, a grammarian of the age of Tiberius. 
 
2^0 
 
 AUTHORITIES 
 
 Ed. pr. of text, in Aldus' Pindar, Venice, 1513; of com- 
 mentary, Basel (Oporinus), 1546. 
 
 Index in E. Scheer's ed., Berlin, 1881. 
 
 LYCURGUS (died circ. 326 B.C.). 
 
 One speech (against Leocrates). Same MS. tradition as the 
 
 speeches of Andocides. 
 
 Ed. pr.: Aldus, Oratioucs Rhct. Grace, 1513. 
 
 Index: Forman, Oxford, 1897; Kondratievv, Moscow, 1897. 
 
 LYSIAS (circ. 45^-3^0 ^- ^O- 
 
 Thirty-four speeches. The authenticity of 6 (against Ando- 
 cides) and 9 ('Yttc/. tou (rr/jaruoToi) vvas doubted in antiquity: 
 8 (cxtroicrtao-TiKo.) has been suspected by modern scholars on the 
 ground that hiatus is avoided in it. 
 
 The text of the forensic speeches rests entirely on X = the Pala- 
 tine codex, i2th cent. (Heidelbergensis 88). For the Epitaphios 
 and the speech on the murder of Eratosthenes there is, besides 
 X, what appears to be a separate tradition, best represented by 
 F = Marcianus 416, 13th cent. The speech Kara AtoyctVovo? sur- 
 vives in fragments preserved by Dionysius of Halicarnassus and 
 that against Theozotide^in Papyrus Hibcli, i, no. 13. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Aldus, Venice, 1513. ia Orat. Rhct. Gr, 
 
 Index: D. V. Holmes, Bonn, 1895. 
 
 MACROBIUS THEODOSIUS (fl. circ. a. d. 399). 
 
 (I) Conunentary on Cicero's Sommitm Scipiouis. (2) Saturnalia 
 (7 bks.). The end of bk. 2 and beginning of bk. 3, the second 
 half of bk. 4 and the end of bk. 7 are lost. 
 
 P=Parisinus 6371, nth cent. B = Bambergensis 873, 9^!^ 
 cent. \Sat. 1-3. 19. 5)- B-Bambergensis 875 {Sown. Scip.). 
 There are many inferior MSS. of the Sat. which omit the Greek 
 
 passages. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Venice, 1472. 
 
 M. MANILIUS (under Tiberius), Astronowkon libri v. 
 
 There are 22 MSS. extant. Of these only three are of prime 
 value for the text, (i) G = Gcmblacensis nunc Bruxellensis bibl. 
 reg. 10012, nth cent., and a kindred MS. L=Lipsiensis bibl. 
 Paulin. 1465, nth cent. (2) M=Matritensis M. 31, 15th cent., 
 which contains also the Siluac of Statins. It is held to be 
 a copy made for Poggio of a MS. which he discovered near 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 251 
 
 Constance in 1416-1417. G and L are badly interpolated, while 
 M, though more sincere, is the work of a scribe whom Poggio 
 describes as 'ignorantissimus omnium uiuentium '. The three 
 MSS. are all descended from a common archetype. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Regiomontanus, Nuremberg, circ. 1472. 
 
 Index in Delphin ed. (M. Fayus or du Fay), 1679. 
 
 MARCUS AURELIUS, i.e. MapKOu 'ArrwrtVor avTOKpixTopo'; tC)V €1? 
 UvTov /^l/SXlu iji'. (12 bks.) 
 
 The Palatine codex on which Xylander based the editio prin- 
 ceps is now lost. The only complete MS. surviving is Vaticanus 
 1950, 14th cent., which is very corrupt. Fragments in Darm- 
 stadtinus 2773 (codex Creuzeri), 14th cent., and a large number 
 of other MSS. from 13 Tsth cent. 
 
 Ed. pr.: Gul. Xylander, Zurich, 1559. 
 
 Index in J. Stich's ed., Leipzig, 1903. 
 
 M. Valerius MARTIALIS (circ. a. d. 40-104). 
 
 Epigrams, consisting of (i) Liber Spcctaculoruni, (2) Epigram- 
 maton libri xii, (3) Xcnia and Apophorcta. 
 
 The MSS. are very numerous and fall into three classes 
 whose archetypes can be reconstructed with some probability. 
 The first and best class (which alone contains the Lib. Sped.) 
 consists of Florilegia or collections of Excerpts, viz. H = Vindo- 
 bonense 277, 9th cent. ; T=Parisinum-Thuaneum 8071, 9/ioth 
 cent.; L = Leidense-Vossianum O. 86, 9th cent. (2) In the second 
 class the typical MSS. are: L=Berolinensis-Lucensis Fol. 612, 
 i2thcent. ; P= Vaticanus- Palatinus 1696, 15th cent. ; Q=Arun- 
 dellianus Mus. Brit. 136, 15th cent. (3) Of the third the best 
 examples are: E=:Edinburgensis, lothcent.; X=Parisinus-Pute- 
 aneus 8067, loth cent. ; A = Leidensis-Vossianus O. 56, nth cent. ; 
 V= Vaticanus 3294, loth cent. 
 
 The archetypes of these three families are severally designated 
 by the signs A% B% C'\ Of these A^^ is a recension which has 
 toned down the indecencies of the original text. B^ represents 
 the recension of Torquatus Gennadius, made circ. a.d. 401, as is 
 attested by his subscription at the end of most of the books, 
 e. g. xiii. 4 ' Emendaui ego Torquatus Gennadius in foro Diui 
 Augusti Martis consulatu Vincentii et Fraguitii uirorum claris- 
 simorum feliciter ' (i. e. a. d. 401). C--^ represents a third distinct 
 
252 
 
 AUTHORITIES 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 253 
 
 I 
 
 \ 
 
 recension. The glaring discrepancies in reading between the 
 different recensions can only be explained by the assumption 
 that Martial issued more than one edition of some of his works. 
 
 Ed. pr. circ. 1471, but it is uncertain whether the Roman or 
 the Venetian edition is the earlier. 
 
 Index in Friedlander's ed., Leipzig, 1886. 
 
 Mela, s.v. Pomponius Mkla. 
 
 MENANDER (342-291 n.c), writer of the New Comedy. 
 
 Large fragments of his comedies were found by G. Lefebvre 
 at Aphroditopolis, in a papyrus of 4/5th cent., in 1905, and 
 published at Cairo in 1907, i.e. Heros, Epihrpontcs, Samia, 
 Pcriiiromcne (also fragments in Pap. Lipsiensis 613, P. Oxyr. 
 211). There are also small fragments of Georgos (P. Genevensis 
 155), Citharista (Berliner Klassikertexte v. 2, p. 115), Colax{?. 
 Oxyr. 409), Concazomciiae (P. Dorpatensis), Misumaios (P. Oxyr. 
 1013), Pcrinthia (P. Oxyr 855), Phasma (vellum fragments at 
 St. Petersburg, 4th cent.). 
 
 MOSCHUS (circ. 150 B.C.), bucolic poet. 
 
 His works have the same tradition as the poems of Theocritus 
 (q.v.). (I) 'ETTirac^to? Bton'09 and (2) Mcya'pa in n and <t>-groups ; 
 (3rK/K.9 8pa7r€T>y9 in ♦-group ; (4) E^^^^/ i" F = Ambros. B. 99, 
 i2th cent., M=Vat. 915, 13th cent., and S = Laurent. 32. 16, 
 14th cent. 
 
 M. Aurelius Olympius NEMESIANUS (H. circ. a.d. 280). (i) 
 Cynegetica (325 hex.) ; (2) Four Eclogae. 
 
 (i) A Lombardic MS. was discovered by Sannazaro containing 
 Ovid's Halivutica, Grattius, and Nemesianus Cynegetica. The 
 part containing Ovid and Grattius survives as Vindobon. 277, 9th 
 cent. : a copy only of the Nemesianus survives in Vindobon. 3261, 
 i6th cent. The poem is also preserved in two Paris MSS. (75^^, 
 4839), loth cent. (2) Same tradition as Calpurnius's £r%m', q.v. 
 
 Ed. pr. in Grattius, Venice, 1534. 
 
 Index in M. Ilaupt's Ovid's Halmitica, 1838. 
 Cornelius NEPOS (contemporary with Cicero and Atticus). 
 
 De uiris illustribus, originally in 16 books. Of this there sur- 
 vive: (i) the section De cxcclleutibus (tucilms exterarum gentium, 
 containing 23 biographies; and (2) two biographies (viz. of 
 Atticus and Cato) belonging to the section De Historicis Latinis. 
 
 The Lives of the Generals have been handed down under the 
 name of Aemilius Probus, a contemporary of Theodosius II. 
 An epigram by Probus is appended in the MSS. after the life of 
 Hannibal. It has been held that he is the real author, but 
 there is little doubt that he was merely an editor and that the 
 epigram refers to a copy of selections from the complete work 
 presented by him to the Emperor Theodosius. 
 
 There is some evidence that Nepos himself produced two 
 editions of his work. MSS. are in two groups: (i) The best, 
 represented by P = Parcensis, 15th cent., and by the lost codex 
 Danielinus sine Gifanianus, known from a collation preserved in 
 a copy of the editio Marniana (Frankfort, 1608). (2) An inferior 
 group to which belong : A = Guelferbytanus-Gudianus 166, 
 i2/i3th cent., and B = Sangallensis, 14th cent. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Jenson, Venice, 147 1. The work in this edition is 
 attributed to Aemilius Probus. 
 
 Index in Delphin ed. (N. Courtin), 1675; G- ^^' Bardili, 1820. 
 
 NICANDER (2nd cent, e.g.), didactic poet. 
 
 (l) (H)r;ptttKtt (958 hexam.). (2) 'AAe^^<^a/)/xaK-a (630). (3) A fe\v 
 
 epigrams. 
 
 Best MS. is n=: Paris, suppl. 247, lo/iith cent, (some leaves are 
 lost). G=Goettingensis, i3/i4th cent., and M = Laurent. 32. i6, 
 13th cent., are of use. 
 
 Ed. pr. in Aldine Dioscorides 1499. 
 
 Index in O. Schneider's ed. 1856. 
 
 NONIUS MARCELLUS (first half of 4th cent. n.c). 
 
 De Compendiosa Doctrina in 20 bks. (bk. 16 lost), 1-12 
 being concerned with the diction, 13-20 with the subject-matter 
 of the older Latin writers. 
 
 All MSS. are derived from the same archety[)e, since all have 
 one leaf in bk. 4 placed at the beginning of bk. i out of 
 its proper order. It is probable that this archetype was in 
 three volumes, containing bks. 1-3, bk. 4, bks. 5-20, since 
 the text given by many MSS. is not uniform but varies within 
 these limits. The MSS. fall into three groups, exhibiting 
 (i) a pure, (2) an interpolated, and (3) an excerpted text. In 
 bks. 1-3 these families are represented respectively by : 
 (i) L = Lugdunensis-Vossianus lat. fol. 73, 9th cent. (2) G= 
 
254 
 
 AUTHORITIES 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 255 
 
 n \ 
 
 * _S 
 
 Gudianus 96, loth cent. (3) In this class all omit bk. 3. In 
 bk. 4 the families are (i) L (v. supra), Genevensis 84, 9th cent., 
 B = Bernensis 83, loth cent. ; (2) G (v. siipm); (3) e.g. Oxonien- 
 sis-Bodleianiis, Canon. Class. Lat. 279, loth cent. In bks. 5-20 : 
 (i) L and three others of which the best is H = Harleianus 2719, 
 9/ioth cent.; (2) G; (3) numerous and in two groups. The 
 text has to be founded mainly on L with the aid of the first hand 
 of the Genevensis in bk. 4 and of certain corrections (in 1-3) in 
 F=Laurentianus 48. i, loth cent., which may be derived from the 
 
 archetype. 
 
 Ed. pr. : In i ii. iv-xx, Rome, 1470 : in iii, Pesaro, 151 1. 
 
 NONNUS PANOPOLITANUS (end of 4th cent. a.d.). 
 
 Dionysiaca in 48 bks. [He also wrote a Metaphrasis of 
 St. John's Gospel. J 
 
 MSS. are in two classes, headed respectively (i) by n = 
 papyrus Berolinensis P. 10567. probably of the 7th cent; (2) by 
 L= Laurent. 32. 16, written anno 1280. All codd. are descended 
 from L through P=Pal.-Heidelb. 85, 16th cent. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Falkenburgius, Plantin, Antwerp, 1569. 
 
 OPPIAN (under Marcus Aurelius, a.d. 161-180). Poet. 
 
 (i) Ilalicutica in 5 bks. (2) The KiTr/ycriK-a in 4 bks. are by 
 a later writer who lived under Caracalla. 
 
 MSS. in two classes. To the best belong A = Marcianus 479, 
 containing (2). K = Laurent. 32. 16 (i), 14th cent. C=Par. 2860, 
 i6th cent., containing only (2). D=Neapolitanus, II. F. 17, 15th 
 
 cent., and others. 
 
 Ed. pr. of Halicuika : P. Junta, Florence, 1515 : of Cyncgdica, 
 
 Aldus, Venice, ?i5i7. 
 
 PuBLius OVIDIUS Naso (43 B.C.— A.D. 1 7 or 18). 
 A. Works written before his banishment in a. d. 8. 
 
 1. Heroidcs or Epistitlae Heroidum in 21 poems, of which 16- 
 21 are considered doubtful by some critics. All MSS. descend 
 from a common archetype which omitted ii. 18-19. Best MS. 
 is P=Parisinus 8242 (Puteaneus), 9th cent. Translation into 
 Greek by the Byzantine Maximus Planudes (late 13th cent.) of 
 
 little value. 
 
 2. Amoves, Ars Amatoria, Rcmcdia Amoris, Mcdicamina faciei. 
 
 P (v. snpra\ R=:Parisinus 731 1 (Regius), loth cent. S = 
 
 Sangallensis 864, nth cent. = Oxon. Auct. F. 4. 32, 9th cent. 
 M=Flor. Marc. 223, nth cent., containing the Mcdicamina. 
 
 3. Metamorphoses (15 bks.). M = Florentinus Marcianus 225, 
 nth cent. N = Neapolitanus, nth cent., Frag. Bernense, 363, 
 8/9th cent. (cf. A. Gercke, Sencca-sfiidien, p. 53). The late MSS. 
 are corrupt but indispensable for bk. 15. 
 
 4. Fasti (6 bks). A = Vaticanus Reginensis 1709 (Peta- 
 vianus), loth cent., is the best. V=Vat. 3262 (Ursinianus), nth 
 cent. M=Mallersdorfiensis 2 (at Munich), ? 12th cent. A has 
 probably been overestimated. It gives the Carolingian tradition 
 while V gives the Lombardic. 
 
 B. Works written in exile. 
 
 5. Tm/m (5 bks.). L=LaurentianusS. Marci 123, nth cent., 
 containing i. 5. n— iii. 7. i, iv. i. 12— iv. 7. 5. The rest of the 
 codex was destroyed and replaced by a depraved text in the 15th 
 cent. A= Marcianus Politiani, now lost, ?iith cent. G= 
 Guelferbytanus-Gudianus 192, T3th cent. H=IIolkhamicus, 
 13th cent. V=Vaticanus 1606, 13th cent. 
 
 6. EpistuIacexPofito{4hks.). Frag.Guelferbytanum,6/7th cent. 
 The best complete MS. is A=Hamburgensis, 9th cent. 
 
 7. Doubtftd or spurious ivorks. Doubtful are Halicutica (130 
 hex.). V = Vindobonensis 277 (Sannazarianus), 9th cent. F = 
 Parisin. 8071, 9/ioth cent. Ihis^ in 644 elegiacs. Francofurtanus, 
 i4/i5th cent. G = Galeanus, O. 7. 7, 12th cent., and many others. 
 Also preserved in several collections of Florilegia. Epistula 
 Sapphus. This is not contained in the best MSS. Part of it is 
 probably by Ovid and part an interpolation made during the age 
 of Petronius. A^//.v and Epicedion Drusi are spurious, though both 
 are held by some to belong to the age of Ovid. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Bologna, 1471 ; also Rome, 1471. 
 
 Index: Delphin (D.Crispin), 1669 : P. Burman, 1727 : toMeta- 
 morph. in G. E. Gierig and J. C. Jahn, 1823 : to Halieut. M. 
 Haupt, 1838: to Ibis R. Ellis, 1881. 
 
 PANEGYRICI VETERES (age of Diocletian, a.d. 284-305): a 
 collection of complimentary speeches made to various 
 emperors, including Pliny's Address to Trajan. 
 The collection is derived from a lost MS. discovered by loannes 
 
 Aurispa at Mainz in 1433. Three apographa of this MS. (as is 
 
s 
 
 256 
 
 AUTHORITIES 
 
 > 
 
 now generally admitted) survive, viz.: (i) A=Upsaliensis 18, 
 written by Johannes Hergot (1458)- (2) One written by Aurispa 
 himself in 1433, now lost. Copies of it survive in W = Vat. 1775 
 and other MSS. (3) H=Harleianus 2480. A collation of a lost 
 Bertiniensis made by Fr. Modius was used by Livineius in 
 his edition (Antwerp, 1599). 
 
 Ed. pr. : by Puteolanus, Milan, ? 1482. Index in Delphin ed. 
 
 (J. de la Baune), 1677. 
 PAUSANIAS (under the Antonines). 
 
 lUfm'jyrjm^ T7J<; 'KAAa8os in lO bks. 
 
 The MSS. are numerous but late. The condition of the text is 
 unsound owing to the number of lacunae. Schubart holds that 
 all MSS. are descended from one archetype. If this be true the 
 archetype must have exhibited many variant readings. The M SS. 
 fall into three divisions, though several present a text which is 
 not uniformly characteristic of any one division, (i) P = Paris. 
 1410, A. D. 1491, to which are allied Fa, Fb = Laurent. 56. 10 and 
 56. II, Pd= Paris 1411. (2) L=Lugd. 16. K and others. These 
 two classes probably descend from a codex which belonged to 
 Arethas. (3) The vulgate, e. g. V = Vindob. 23. M= Mosquensis 
 (libr. of Synod) 194. Vn = Venetus 413, Lb = Lugd. 16. L. Any 
 text must be eclectic, and there is a wide field for conjecture. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Aldus, Venice, 1516. 
 AuLUs PERSIUS Flaccus (34-62). Six satires. 
 
 Two classes: (i) A=Montepessulanus 212, loth cent. B = 
 Vaticanus tabularii Basilicae Vaticanae 36 H, 9th cent. These 
 present the recension of Sabinus made in a.d. 402. The sub- 
 scriptio is corrupt, and probably ran as follows ' Flauius lulius 
 Tryfonianus Sabinus u. c. protector domesticus temptaui emen- 
 dare sine antigrapho meum et adnotaui Barcellone consulibus 
 dominis nostris Arcadio et Ilonorio q(uinquies) '. (2) P= Monte- 
 pessulanus 125, 9th cent. (cf. luvenalis). The tendency has 
 been to prefer the evidence of (2). The Fragmentum Bobiensc 
 (Vat. 5750) belongs to 4 5th cent, and contains i. 53-104. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Rome, 1470. Index in O. jahn's ed., 1843. 
 
 P1.RVIGILIUM Veneris, s.v. Anthologia Latin a. 
 
 PETRONIUS ARBITER (d. a. d. 65). 
 
 Satirac in at least 20 bks., of which fragments from bks. 15, 16 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 257 
 
 survive. L=the longer excerpts from a lost MS., preserved in 
 Scaliger's apographum (Leidensis Q. 61) and in the editions of 
 Tornaesius (1575) and Pithou (1587). = the shorter excerpts, 
 found in Bernensis 357, loth cent., and many inferior MSS. 
 H = Par. 7989, 15th cent. (Traguriensis), found at Trau in 1650, 
 which alone contains the Cena Trimalchionis. 
 
 Ed. pr. : in Pancgyrici uett. Milan, circ. 1482: of the Caia^ 
 printed by P. Frambottus, Padua, 1664. Index in P. Burman's 
 ed., 1743. Lexicon by I. Segebade and E. Lommatzsch, Leipzig, 
 1898. 
 
 PHAEDRUS (said to have been a freedman of Augustus). 
 
 Fabidae in 5 bks. The only entire MS. surviving is the 
 Pithoeanus, 9Toth cent., belonging to the Marquis de Rosanbo 
 at Dumesnil near Mantes. Another codex, now lost, was dis- 
 covered in 1608 by the Jesuit scholar, J. Sirmond, at Rheims. 
 It was burnt in 1774, but its readings are known. A fragment of 
 another MS. belonging to P. Daniel (charta Danielis), 9/ioth 
 cent., is preserved in Vat. Reg. 1616. 
 
 Ed. pr. by P. Pithou, Troyes, 1596. 
 
 Index: in Delphin (P. Danet), 1675: A. Cinquini, Milan, 1905. 
 
 PHILO lUDAEUS (fl. a.d. 39), Graeco- Judaic philosopher. 
 
 No MS. of his works is older than the loth cent. The arche- 
 type of all MSS. can be referred to the 4th cent, when the two 
 bishops of Caesarea, Acacius (338-365) and Euzoius (376-379), 
 had the works in the library of Pamphilus and Origen at Caesarea 
 transferred from papyrus to vellum. Cod. V preserves this 
 tradition by the inscription El-^o'ios cVtV/KOTros kv o-oj/Aarioi? ai^ci/ewo-aTo. 
 MSS. very numerous. Among the best in the portions of his 
 works which they preserve are : R = Vat. gr. 316, 9th cent. S = 
 Seldenianus 12, loth cent. V=: Vindob. theol. gr. 29, nth 
 cent. For full account see Cohn-Wendland's ed., 1896- 1906. 
 
 Ed. pr. : A. Turnebus, Paris, 1552. 
 
 PHILOSTRATUS. 
 
 The works which survive under this name probably belong to 
 four men : (i) Philostratus, son of Verus (fl. under Nero) ; (2) 
 Flavius Philostratus (fl. under Septimius Severus, 193-211); 
 (3) his stepson (fl. under Caracalla 21 1-2 17) ; (4) a grandson of 
 (3) who wrote a second set of EtKoi^cs. (1) Ta 1% tov Tvavia 
 
 \ 
 
 473 
 
2s8 
 
 AUTHORITIES 
 
 \\7roX\u)VLOv. (2) Blol cro4n(TTCov. (3) EtKoi^cs. (4) 'UpojiKos. (5) Vifxva- 
 
 o-TiKos. (6)'E7rio-ToAai. (7) Two 8taAe'^'€t5. (8) Nc'pwi'. Phil. I is pro- 
 bably the author of (8), Phil. II of (i) and (2), Phil. Ill of (3) and 
 (4). The authorship of the remaining works is very uncertain. 
 In (i) MSS. are in two groups ; to the better group belongs 
 n = Parisinus 1801. In (2) there are three groups. The best 
 MSS. in each are (a) r = Vaticanus 99. {b) fi=Mediolanensis 
 C. 47. {() p = Parisinus 1696. In (4) four groups. To the first 
 belongs Laurentianus 58. 32. In (6) the best family is represented 
 by R = Vaticanus 140. In (3) MSS. are exceedingly numerous. 
 The best are F = Laurent. 69. 30, 13th cent., P= Paris. 1696, 14th 
 cent., and V2= Vaticanus 1898, 13th cent. (5) depends upon copies 
 of a MS. brought by Menoides Minas from Greece circ. 1840. 
 The second EIk6v€^ depend on Laurent. 58. 32, 12th cent. 
 
 Ed. pr. for (2), (3), (4) in the Aldine Luciafi, 1503 ; for (1) Aldus, 
 1504; (6) in the Aldine Epp. Grace, 1499; collected edition. 
 Morel, Paris, 1608. 
 
 Index to I3) in Teubner text, 1893. 
 
 PHOTIUS, patriarch of Constantinople (c. a.d. 820-891). 
 (i) BipXioOt'/Kyj 7j Miyjto/3i^Aos, a collection of excerpts. 
 
 (2) Ac^€o>»' (Tvvaywyi']. 
 
 For (i) the best MS. is Marcianus 450. For (2) the only 
 authorities are the codex Galeanus and Berolinensis graec. oct. 
 22, 1 1 12th cent., which contains a-anapyos. 
 
 Edd. pr. : (i) D. Hoschel, Augsburg, 1601 ; (2) G. Hermann, 
 Leipzig, 1808. The Berlin frag, was published by Reitzenstcin, 
 1907. 
 
 PINDAR (522-442 B.C.). 
 
 Odes : ( l) 'Ettlvlkol *OAr/>t7riortKats ( I4). (2) 'EttiVikoi llL'6^ioi'tKats (12). 
 
 (3) 'EttiVikoi ^ifieoiLKais (843 celebrating other than Nemean 
 victories). (4) 'EttiVakoi *lfr^/xiort\ais (8). Considerable fragments 
 preserved in papyri and in quotations made by ancient authors. 
 The text has passed through the hands of ancient scholars 
 such as Aristarchus. The oldest scholia go back to Didymas, 
 and were probably edited in their present form in the 2nd cent. 
 A.D. All MSS. are descended from a common archetype dating 
 from this period. The two best, each of which represents a sepa- 
 rate line of descent from this archetype, are A=Ambrosianus 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 259 
 
 C. 222 inf., 13th cent., containing OL i-xii and the 'Ambrosian ' 
 scholia. B=Vaticanus Gr. 1312, 12th cent., containing with 
 a few omissions OL, Pylli., Ncm., Istlini., and the ' Vatican ' 
 scholia. 
 
 A. Boeckh was the first to reject the evidence of the interpolated 
 MSS., which present the recensions of Moschopulus, Triclinius, 
 and Thomas Magister. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Aldus, 1513. 
 
 Index: Rumpel's Lexicon, Leipzig, 1883; Concordance, 
 Bindseil, Berlin, 1875. 
 
 PLATO (427-347 B. c). 
 
 The works attributed to him consist of 42 dialogues, 13 letters, 
 and opoi or Definitions. The authentic dialogues were arranged 
 by Thrasylos (a Platonic scholar of the age of Tiberius) in 9 
 tetralogies. I. (i) EvOv<j)pon'. (2) 'ATroAoym. (3) KpiVwi'. (4) 
 4>at8a)i/. II. (5) K/aari'Ao?. (6) ©eaiViyros. (7) ^o</)to-r>/s. (8) lloAt- 
 TtKo's. HI. (9) RafjfJLevtSrjs. (lo) 4>tA>//?os. (ll) ^vjj,7r6aLov. (l2) 
 4>at6po5. IV. (13) 'AAKi^ia6r;s a. (14) 'AAk. fi'. (15) "iTnrapxos. 
 (16) 'AvT€pa(rTai V. (17) ©cayr/?. (18) Xap/xtS//?. (19) Aa;)^>/5. 
 {20) Averts. VI. (21) EvOvSr]p.o<s. (22) ll/owrayoptts. (23) ropyias. 
 (24) MeVwi^. VII. (25) 'iTTTTcas /x-ct^wi'. (26) 'Itttt. cAttTTtoi'. (27) "Iwj'. 
 (28) M€i/€f€i/o9. VIII. (29) KAeiroc^ojv. (30) lloAireta. (31) Tt/i.atos. 
 (32) Kpm'as. IX. (33) MiVws. (34) ^ofioL. (35) 'ETTtvo/xts. (36) 
 'ETTto-roAat. This arrangement has been attributed to Tyrannion 
 of Amisos who was employed by Atticus. There are traces of an 
 arrangement in trilogies, attributed to Aristophanes of Byzantium. 
 Six spurious dialogues are attributed to the Platonic corpus 
 
 (viz. ilipl 8iKtttov — llepl dp€T7js — A7//X080KOS — ^t(ru</)os — Epv^tas — 
 
 *A^toxos). The opoL are also spurious. A dialogue called 'AAkiwi/ 
 (preserved with Lucian's works) is also falsely attributed to 
 Plato. 
 
 The corpus was originally written in two volumes, the first con- 
 taining tetr. i-vii, the second viii and ix. Each volume has 
 a separate tradition. 
 
 For tetr. i-vii the chief MSS. are : B=Bodleianus, E. D. Clarke 
 39 (Clarkeanus), a. d. 895, containing tetr. i-vi. The apographa of 
 B, viz. C = Crusianus siue Tubingensis, D = Venetus 185, both of 
 1 2th cent., are often of use. T = Venetus Append. Class. 4, cod. i, 
 
 s 2 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
26o 
 
 AUTHORITIES 
 
 represents the same family as B. It contains tetr. i-vii and 
 part ofviii in a 12th cent, hand, the end of the MS. belonging to 
 the period of the Renaissance. W=:Vindobonensis 54. suppl. 
 phil. Gr. 7, contains a mixture of readings from B and T, but is 
 thought by some to represent a separate tradition. 
 
 For tetr. viii-ix, and opoi and spurious dialogues, the best MS. 
 is: A=Parisinus 1807, 9 loth cent. The deficiencies of A are 
 sometimes supplied by later independent MSS., e.g. i" the 
 Republic by D (v. supra), and M=Malatestianus plut. xxviii. 4, 
 in the Twiacus by Y = Vindob. 21, and in tetr. viii by F = Vindob. 
 55. suppl. Gr 39 which ends with the Minos. In tetr. ix L = 
 Laur. 80. 17, = Vat. 796 are of use. 
 
 All MSS. are generally held to be derived from a common 
 archetype. The quotations in ancient writers, e.g. Stobaeus, 
 Eusebius, show a different text known as the ' Old Vulgate ', and 
 traces of this text are discerned by some critics in W and F. 
 
 The fragments of the Phacdo in the papyrus Arsinoiticus dis- 
 covered by F. Petrie are of little value. 
 
 Ancient Commentaries. Hermeias (5th cent, a.d.) on the 
 Phacdrus: Proclus (a.d. 412-485) on the Republic, Ale, Farm,, 
 Tim., Crat. : Olympiodorus (6th cent.). 
 
 Scholia in the various MSS. The most elaborate are those 
 belonging to the Gorgias and Timacus, 
 
 Ed. pr. : Aldus, 1513. 
 
 Index: Ast's Lexicon, Leipzig, 1835-1838. 
 
 T. Maccius PLAUTUS (d. 184 b.c). 
 
 21 comedies. (1) Amphitruo. (2) Asinaria. (3) Auhdaria. 
 {^)Captiui. {^)Curculio. (6)Casimi. {j) Cistcl/aria. {8) Epidicus. 
 (9) Bacchides. (10) Mostellaria. (11) Menacchmi. (12) Miles 
 Gloriosus. (i-^) M creator, (i^) Fseudolus, (1^) Poenulus. (16) 
 Pcrsa. (17) Rudens. (18) Stichus. (19) Trinummus. (20) 
 Truculentus. (21) Vidularia (fragments only in A). 
 
 The best MS. is A= Ambros. G. 82. sup., 3rd/4th cent., a palim- 
 psest with the Latin version of the Book of Kings written above 
 the text of Plautus in the 8th cent. Only 236 leaves are preserved. 
 The Amplu, Asin., and Cure, are missing. Besides this there is 
 P = the Palatine Family, represented by B = Vaticano-Palatinus 
 1615, lothccnt. (uetus Camerarii) ; C = Palatinus 1613, nth cent.. 
 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 261 
 
 at Heidelberg, called the ' decurtatus *, since first eight plays are 
 missing; D=Vaticanus 3870, nth cent. (Ursinianus) ; and by 
 a fragmentary collation of a lost MS. used by Turnebus, which 
 was discovered by Lindsay in the Bodleian. Two views of the 
 history of the tradition are now held : (i) There were two editions 
 in antiquity, (a) one containing more or less the text of Plautus 
 himself, (b) another containing a text which had been adapted for 
 later revivals of the plays. A in the main represents the first, 
 and P the second (Lindsay). (2) Both A and P have a common 
 origin in a text constructed about the time of Hadrian (Leo). 
 
 The plays are arranged in the MSS. in a rough alphabetical 
 order in which only the initial letters are regarded. The order 
 given above is found in the P-group. It agrees in the main with 
 that given in A, except that the Bacchides has been placed after 
 the Epidicus, apparently on the strength of Baccli. 214 'etiam 
 epidicum, quam ego fabulam aeque ac me ipsum amo '. 
 
 Ed. pr. : George Merula, Venice, 1472. 
 
 Lexicon Plautinum, G. Lodge, 1901 ; J. P. Waltzing, Louvain, 
 1900 (both unfinished): Delphin ed. (I. Operarius), 1679. 
 
 PLINY THE ELDER, C. Plinius Secundus (23 or 24 b.c. — 
 A.D. 79). 
 Naturalis Historia (37 bks.). About 200 MSS. in two groups, 
 (i) The older group is imperfect : A=Leidensis-Vossianus f. 4, 9th 
 cent. (bks. 2-6): B=Bambergensis M.V. 10, loth cent. (32-37). 
 There are fragments of uncial MSS. : M= codex Moneus, 
 a palimpsest of 5 6th cent, from the monastery of S. Paul 
 in Lavanter Thai, Carinthia (bks. 11-15). N = Sessorianus 
 (Nonantulanus), 5th cent, palimpsest (bks. 23, 25). 0=:Vindo- 
 bonensis 233, 6th cent. (bks. 33, 34). P=Parisinus 9378, 5 6th 
 cent. (bk. 18. 87-99). H = Lucensis, 8th cent. (bk. 18. 309-365). 
 There are MSS. of io/i2th cent, containing valuable excerpts, 
 e.g. by Robert of Crikelade in England (12th cent.). (2) The 
 younger group, on which the text mainly depends, falls into two 
 classes, {a) D + G4- V, a MS. of nth cent., now in three parts. 
 D = Vatic. Lat. 3861 (bks. 1-19). G= Paris. Lat. 6796 (19-20). 
 V=Leid.-Voss. fol. 61 (bks. 20-36). F=Leidensis Lipsii vii, 
 nth cent. (bks. 1-38), a copy ofD + G + V. R=Riccardianus 
 nth cent, (mutilated in 14-20, 23, 24, 38; IT-13 have been sup- 
 plied from an older text), [b) Of the second class the most 
 
 II 
 
 ;i» 
 
 I 
 
 y. 
 
^ 
 
 262 
 
 AUTHORITIES 
 
 important MS. isE=Parisimis Lat. 6795, to 'nth cent., mutilated 
 
 esp. in bks. 21-23. 
 
 Ed. pr.: Venice. 1469. Index in Delphin ed. (J. Ilardoiiin), 
 
 T723: Lemaire, 1832. 
 
 PLINY THE YOUNGER, Caius Plinii's Cafxilius SFcrxDUs 
 
 (a.d. 61— circ. 113). 
 (t) Panegvncus Traiaiw dictits. (2) Episfulae (9 bks). (3) 
 
 Correspondence with Trajan. 
 
 (t) is preserved among the Panegyrici iieteres (q.v.). There is 
 also an Ambrosian palimpsest (ord. sup. E. 147), 7 8th cent. 
 
 For (2) there are three sources: (a) MSS. containing bks. 
 1-5, of which the best are: R=Florentinus Ashburnhamensis 
 R.98,olim RiccardianusM.il. 488, 9 lothcent. F = Laurentianus 
 S. Marci 284, lo'iith cent, (b) containing eight books, viz. 1-7 
 and 9, e.g. Dresdensis D. 166, 15th cent, {c) containing nine 
 books' e.g. M = Laurentianus 47. 36, loth cent., in the same 
 hand as the Medicean of Tac. Awi. i-vi. V=Vat. 3864 is akin 
 to M. but only contains bks i-iv. Textual criticism is difficult 
 and uncertain. M V are thought to be superior to the rest in 
 the order of the words which they present, but their text shows 
 traces of the hand of some ancient scholar. 
 
 Ed. pr. : by Ludovicus Carbo, Venice, 1471 (1-7. 9) ; loannes 
 Schurener, Rome, circ. 1474 (1-9)- 
 
 (3) depends on a lost French MS. which contained both (2) and 
 (3). Avantius in 1502 used a copy of it made by Leander for 
 letters 41-121. For letters 1-40 a MS. has been found by 
 Hardy in the Bodleian made from loannes lucundus* copy of 
 this French codex, and apparently used by Aldus in 1508. 
 
 Index to (i) in C. G. Schwarz, 1746: to (2) in G. Cortius, 1734. 
 
 PLUTARCH (circ. a.d. 46-120). 
 
 (i) B«H Trafxi\\7]\oi (50, consisting of 23 pairs and 4 separate 
 lives, i. e. Artaxerxes Mnemon. Aratus, Galba, and Otho). (2) 
 5r77pa/x/xaT« ^^iKa, 83 works, mainly on philosophical subjects. 
 (3) Minor historical writings. 
 
 In the Livrs an edition in 3 bks. containing respectively 
 9, 7, and 7 pairs of lives lies behind the present MS. tradition. 
 {a) These three books are preserved in whole or part in one 
 cxroup of MSS. which has been called the Y-group. To this 
 
 \\ 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 263 
 
 belong A BCD = Parisini 1671-2-3--4, i3/T4th cent., which are 
 complete : and incomplete MSS. such as Laurentianus 206, loth 
 cent. (bk. i), Laurent. 69. 6, a.d. 997 (bk. 3), Sangermanensis 319, 
 Toth cent., and many others, showing that each of the three books 
 has acquired its own separate tradition, (b) A recension of this 
 early edition in 3 bks., in which the order of the lives has been 
 altered, survives in the X-group of MSS. and in Photius ; 
 e.g. St=Seitenstettensis, containing 8 pairs of lives. M = 
 Marcianus 385. F«= Parisinus 1676. F= Paris. 1677. Where 
 these MSS. contain lives outside the 8 pairs in St their text 
 belongs to the Y-group. (r) N=Matritensis N. 55, 14th cent., 
 is not derived directly from either X or Y, but from a common 
 ancestor. The present order of the lives dates only from 
 Asulanus, the editor of the Aldine, 1509-19, and illustrates the 
 special interest felt by the men of the Renaissance in the Roman 
 lives. The basis of the order in the MSS. (Y) is Greek. 
 
 (2) In the Moralia the MSS. are not of uniform value through- 
 out all the treatises. Among the best are: E=:Parisinus 
 1672. B=Par. 1675. D=Par. 1956, ii/i2th cent. F=Par. 1957, 
 nth cent. Urbinas 97, ii/i2th cent. Athous 268, 14th cent. 
 Vindobonensis 148 (especially for Quaestiones Symposiacae). 
 
 Ed. pr. : Moralia, Aldus and Asulanus, Venice, 1509; Lives, 
 P. Junta, Florence, 1517. 
 
 Index : Wyttenbach's Lexicon, Oxford, 1830. The Moralia 
 are cited by the pages of G. Xylander, Basel, 1560-1570. 
 
 lULlUS POLLUX (IIoAvScV,;?) (d. A.D. 58). 
 
 'Ojo/xarrTiKoV, a dictionary of antiquities in to bks. 
 
 All MSS. are held to descend from a codex once in the posses- 
 sion of Arethas of Caesarea. This did not give the text of the 
 Onotuasticon, but only an epitome. The MSS. fall into four groups. 
 (t) M = Ambros. D. 34 superior, 10 iith cent. (2) S = .Salman- 
 ticensis i. 2. 3, F= Par. gr. 2646, both of 15th cent. (3) A= Par. 
 Gr. 2670, 15th cent. (4) C= Palatinus Heidelbergensis 375, 12th 
 cent., and others. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Aldus, 1502. 
 
 POLYBIUS (circ. 205-120 B.C.). 
 
 '[fTTo/jmt, originally in 40 bks., of which 1-5 survive entire. 
 The best MS. of these is A=Vat. 124, nth cent. It has been 
 
 i 
 
 
264 
 
 AUTHORITIES 
 
 corrected in several hands. Many inferior MSS. Polybius 
 everywhere avoids hiatus. 
 
 Fragments of the lost books survive in F= codex Urbinas 102, 
 nth cent, (first published by F. Ursinus, Antwerp, 1582), and 
 in a number of MSS. copied from it ; also in the Constantine 
 excerpts (q.v.) and in M = Vat. 73 of loth cent., a palimpsest con- 
 taining gnomic excerpts. Papyri represent a difterent tradition. 
 
 Ed. pr. : bks. 1-5, Vincentius Opsopoeus, 1530. Lat. Trans, 
 of T-5 by Nicolaus Perrottus, 1473. 
 
 Index in Schweighauser's ed., vol. viii, Leipzig, 1795. 
 
 POMPONIUS MELA, of Tingentera m Spain (circ. a.d. 43). 
 
 De Situ Orbis, in 3 bks. All MSS. are derived from Vat. 
 929, loth cent., which has the subscription ' Fl. Rusticius 
 Helpidius Domnulus u(ir) c(larissimus) et sp(e)c(tabilis) com(es) 
 consistor(ianus) emendaui Rabennae '. 
 
 Ed. pr.: Zarotus, Milan, 1471. Index in Tzschucke's ed., 
 Leipzig, 1807. 
 
 PRIAPEA. 
 
 A collection of 80 poems to the god Priapus made under 
 Augustus. MSS. are late, e. g. A = Laurent. 33. 31, 14th cent. 
 
 Sfxtus PROPERTIUS (circ. 50-15 B.C.). 
 
 Elegies in 4 bks. Lachmann, on the strength of ii. 13 a, 25, 
 26, 'Sat mea sit &c.,' divides bk. 2 after poem ix. N = 
 Neapolitanus, now at Wolfenbiittel, inter Gudianos 224. Its date 
 has been fixed as early as the 12th cent, and as late as the 15th. 
 A=Vossianus38, 14th cent. F=Laurentianus 36.49, 15th cent. 
 L=Holkhamicus 333, a. d. 1421. D = Daventriensis 1792, 15th 
 cent. V=Ottoboniano-Vaticanus 1514, 15th cent. Criticism 
 turns largely on the value assigned to N. Of the other MSS. 
 AF and DV form distinct groups. The archetype does not appear 
 to be older than the Carolingian period. 
 
 Ed. pr.: Venice, 1472. Index: Phillimore, Oxford, 1905. 
 
 Claudius PTOLEMAEUS (under Marcus Aurelius (a. D.161- 
 180) according to Suidas). 
 
 ( I ) rco)y/>a</)iK-r; v(f>iiyrjrrL^ (8 bks. ). (2) Mcya A>/ (Ti'i'Ta$L<; t?jS aorporo- 
 /nm?, or Almagest (13 bks.). (3) ITpox^ipot Kaio're?. (4) Kanor I3aa-L- 
 
 \€iCn' (preserved only in the Chronography of the Byzantine 
 
 Georgios Synkellos). (5) ^u<t€l<; a-rXaviov ua-TefMV KUL (Tvvayo)yi} 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 26=; 
 
 iincrrjfxadLuiV. (6) 'YTro^eVci? Twi/ TrXavoj/xeVwr. (7) 'ApfiovLKd (7 bks.). 
 (8) ITcpt KpiT-qpiov /cat r^yijxovLKov. (9) ^Otttlk^} Trpayfxarua (3 bks., 
 
 preserved only in a Latin version). (10) T€TpdpLl3Xo<; o-iWa^V? 
 liaOrjfxaTLKi) (doubtful). The Centiloquium, a collection of sayings 
 from the T£Tpa/?i/?Ao?, is spurious. 
 
 Two small treatises on Astronomy, TTcpt dvaX^y/x/xaros and aTrXwo-i? 
 C7ri</)arcia9 o-<^aipa?, only survivc, except for a few fragments in 
 cod. Ambros. Gr. 491, a palimpsest of 6th cent., in Latin versions 
 made from the Arabic. 
 
 (i) MSS. numerous, but their tradition has not been sufficiently 
 investigated. One of the most important is the Athous L. 
 
 (2) MSS. numerous and good. The two main groups are (a) 
 A=Par. 2389, 9th cent. B = Vat. 1594, 9th cent. C=Marc. 313, 
 loth cent, (b) An inferior group, possibly derived from an 
 Alexandrine recension circ. a.d. 300. 
 
 (3) Par. Gr. 2390, 13th cent. (5) A = Vat. 318, 14th cent. 
 B = Vat. 1594, 9th cent. (6) An archetype can be constructed 
 from three late MSS. Vat. 208 and Marciani 323, 324. 
 
 Edd. pr.: (i) Basel, 1533; (2) Basel, 1538; (4) in Scaliger, 
 Thesaurus Tempornm, 1606 ; (5) in D. Petavius, Uranologium, 
 1630; (6) in J. Bainbridge, Prodi Sphacra, London, 1620; (7) 
 J. Wallis, Oxford, 1682; (8) I. Bullialdus, Paris, 1663; (10) 
 Nuremberg, 1535. 
 
 M. Fabius QUINTILIANUS (a.d. 35-95). 
 
 (i) Institutionis Oratoriae libri xW. (2) The spurious Dcclawn- 
 Hones in two collections ; 19 maiores, 145 minores. 
 
 For (i) there are two families of MSS. The first contains 
 about two sevenths of the complete text. To it belong Bn = 
 Bernensis 351, loth cent. N = Parisinus-Nostradamensis 18527, 
 loth cent. The second is best represented by A=Ambrosianus 
 E. 153 sup., nth cent. Excerpts by the rhetor Julius Victor. 
 Neither family is indispensable. 
 
 Ed. pr.: by Campanus, Rome, 1470. 
 
 Index: E, Bonnell's lexicon, 1834: Lemaire. 1821. 
 
 For (2) in the maiorcs there are two groups with different 
 arrangement of the Dcclamationes. The best MSS. are (<?) B = 
 Bambergensis M. iv. 13, loth cent, and V = Vossianus O. in, 
 lo/iith cent. (/>) P=Parisinus 16230, T4th cent., and S = 
 
 if' 
 
266 
 
 AUTHORITIES 
 
 Sorbonnensis 629, T5th cent. Both Bamb. and Par. have the 
 subscription of Dracontiiis, which runs as follows in Banib. 
 ' Descripsi et emendaui Domitius Dracontius de codice fratris 
 Hieri mihi et usib(us) meis et dis (?discipulis) omnib(us)'. 
 
 Ed. pr.: Rome, 1475 (9, to, 8); first complete ed., Georgius 
 Merula, Venice, 1481. 
 
 Index in G. Lehnert's ed., 1905. 
 
 For the minorcs the chief MSS. are: A=Montepessulanus 
 126, Toth cent.: B = Monacensis 309, anno 1494: C=Chigianus 
 fol. H. viii. 262, 15th cent. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Parma, 1494. 
 
 Index in C. Ritter's ed., 1884. 
 
 QUINTUS CURTIUS Rufus (under Claudius, a.d. 41-54)- 
 Historiac Alexmidri Magui, in to bks., of which the first 
 
 two are lost. 
 
 The MSS. must all come from the same archetype, since all 
 exhibit the same lacunae. They fall into two classes: (i) The 
 older, divided into two groups, consisting of (<?) P=Parisinus 
 5716, 9th cent., allied to which are fragments at Zurich, 
 Vienna, and elsewhere ; [b] F=Laurentianus 64. 35, nth cent., 
 B=Bernensis 451, loth cent., L=Leidensis 137, loth cent., 
 V = Vossianus O. 20, loth cent. (2) A group of late interpolated 
 
 MSS. 
 
 Ed. pr.: either Laver, Rome, or v. de Spira, Venice, both of 
 
 which were published circ. 1471. 
 
 Index: Delphin ed. (M. le Tellier), 1678; Lemairc, Paris, 
 
 1824; O. Eichert, Hannover, 1893. 
 
 QUINTUS SMYRNAEUS (end of 4th cent. a.d.). 
 
 Epic Ta fxeO'^Ofxiifiov, in T4 bks., called Quintus Calaber, since 
 the principal MS. containing his works was procured by Cardinal 
 Bessarion in 1450 from Otranto in Calabria. 
 
 The MSS. are in two groups: (i) M=Monacensis 264, T5th 
 cent. (bks. i-iv. 10, and xii). P=Parrhasianus nunc Neapolitanus 
 168, 15th cent. (2) MSS. derived from the lost Hydruntinus, e. g. 
 V = Venetus Marcianus 455, written for Bessarion by J. Rhosos 
 of Crete. E' = Escurialensis 2. II. 6 and other late MSS. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Aldus, | 1505 '. 
 RHETORICA AD HERENNIUM. See p. 237. 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 267 
 
 C. SALLUSTIUS Crispits (86-35 ^.c.). 
 
 (i) Bellum Catilinae. (2) Bellum Ingurthinum. (3) Fragmcnia, 
 
 The MSS. fall into three classes: (i) Those with the lacuna 
 in lug. 103. 2-112. 3. The foremost of these are : P=Parisinus 
 Sorbonianus 500, loth cent. P^ = Par. 1576, loth cent., and 
 Vat.-Pal. 889 (Nazarianus). (2) MSS. which supply this 
 lacuna, e. g. Vat. 3325 and Palatinus 883, both of r2th cent. 
 Both classes descend from a common archetype. One token of 
 this is the unmeaning /?^//r/Vr;' in 7//^^^-. 103. 2. There are many 
 recentiorcs containing short sentences that are missing in the 
 better MSS. There was a revival of interest in Sallust in the 
 ist cent. A.D., which continued till the 4th. From the 6th to 
 the 8th he was neglected, but he is known to Lupus, Windukind, 
 and the Annales Fuldenses of the 9th and loth cent., the age of 
 the best MSS. The aim of criticism is to reconstruct the text 
 of the ist and 2nd cent. a.d. 
 
 Fragments of the Hisioriae (originally in 5 bks.) survive in 
 V=Vat. 3864, loth cent.; in the Vatican fragment (Reginensis 
 1283); and in Aurelianensis 169, part of which is preserved at 
 Berlin. The two last are of 3rd/4th cent, and came from Fleury. 
 
 Of the spurious works the Ad Caesarem scnem dc rcpuhlica is 
 preserved in V, and two InuccHuae in A = Guelferb. Gud. 335, 
 loth cent., and in H = Harleian. 2716, 9 loth cent., and others. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Venice, 1470. 
 
 Index in R. Dietsch's ed. 1859. Index to Fragments in 
 B. Maurenbrecher's ed. 1891. 
 
 SCRIPTORES HISTORIAE AUGUSTAE (circ. a.d. 300). 
 
 A collection of Lives of the Emperors in continuation of 
 Suetonius and Marius Maximus, covering the period from 
 Hadrian to Carus and his sons (t 17-284). It is defective for the 
 years 244-253. It includes the work of six authors : Aelius 
 Spartianus(7lives),VulcaciusGallicanus(i),IuliusCapitolinus(T4), 
 Trebellius Pollio (6), Flavins Vopiscus (to), Aelius Lampridius (4). 
 
 The main authority is Vaticanus- Palatinus 899, 9 loth cent. 
 The Bambergensis E. III. 19, which was once thought to have in- 
 dependent authority, is now recognized to be an nth cent, copy 
 of the Palatinus (cf. Mommsen, PhiJol. Schrift. 352). Traces of an 
 independent tradition are found in the Exccrpta Cusana. 
 
 i 
 
 J 
 
 i 
 
\ 
 
 268 
 
 AUTHORITIES 
 
 Ed. pr.: B. Accursius, Milan, 1475 (based on Vaticanus 5301, 
 a member of the Palatine group). 
 
 Index : C. Lessing, Leipzig, 1906. 
 L. Annafus SENECA (wrote between a. d. 34-4^). 
 
 (t) Controucrsiae, in 10 bks., 3, 6, and 8 being lost. (2) Suasoriar. 
 
 The chief MSS. are: A=Antverpiensis 411, loth cent. B = 
 Bruxellensis 9581-9595, loth cent. These are copies of a lost 
 codex. V=Vat. 3872, loth cent., supplies words that are 
 missing In AB, but it is a question whether its excellence is 
 authentic or due to interpolation. 
 
 All these MSS. are from the same archetype. A and B are 
 the prime authority. There is an Epitome of the Coutronersiac 
 made in the 4th or 5th cent, which preserves a textual tradition 
 different from that of the complete text. Best MS.: Montepessu- 
 lanus 126, nth cent. 
 
 Ed. pr.: first printed with the works of the younger Seneca. 
 Venice, 1490. 
 Lucius Annaeus SENECA (died a.d. 65). 
 
 id) Tragedies. Nine survive : Here. Fureiis, Troadcs, 
 Phoenissae, Med., Phaedra, Oedip., Agamemnon, Thyestes, Here. 
 Oetaetts. The Oetavia is spurious. 
 
 E = Etruscus sine Laurentianus 37. 13, ii/i2th cent., is by 
 far the best MS. It is supported by R = the Ambrosian palim- 
 psest, and by excerpts preserved in T = Thuaneus nunc Paris. 
 8071, 9/ioth cent. There are two T4th cent, copies of E, viz. 
 M = Ambros. D. 276, and N = Vat. 1769. 
 
 The other MSS. spring from a circle of scholars at Padua, and 
 present a badly interpolated text. None are older than the 14th 
 cent. A number of them are descended from a MS. used by an 
 English Dominican, Treveth (died 1328). 
 
 Diui Claudii'A7roKo/\oKiWojo-t9. Sangallensis 569, 10 nth cent., 
 is by far the best MS. Valentianensis 393, 9^ioth cent., is from 
 the same archetype. Other MSS. are negligible. 
 
 (/;) Dialogues. The following have been handed down under 
 the title of Dialogi : (i) De prouidentia. [2.) De constantia sapientis, 
 (3-5) De ira in 3 bks. (6) De eonsolatione ad Mareiam. (7) De 
 uita beata. (8) De otio. (9) De tranquillifate animi. (lo) De 
 hreuitate nitae. (i\) De eonsolatione ad Polyln'uni. (12) De eon- 
 solatione ad Ileluiam matrem. 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 269 
 
 The best authority is Ambros. C. 90 inf., 10/iith cent. The 
 later MSS., although corrupt, preserve a distinct tradition. 
 Outside this corpus are the following writings : — 
 (13) De dementia. (14) De beneficiis, in 7 bks. Best MS. is 
 N = Vat. Pal. 1547 (Nazarianus), 9/ioth cent. It is disputed 
 whether the inferior MSS., some of which are of high antiquity, 
 — e. g. Reginensis 1529, 9/ioth cent. — represent a separate 
 tradition. In the De dementia there is beside these A = Erfur- 
 tensis Amplonianus Q. 3, 12th cent., ending at i. 18. 2. 
 
 (15) Naturales Quaestiones, in 7 bks. MSS. numerous. 
 None are older than the 12th cent. They fall into three classes. 
 (1) Integri{^)f e. g. H= Paris. 8624, i2/i3th cent., J = Oxoniensis, 
 Coll. Di. Joh. Bapt. 36, 13th cent, (2) Lacnnosi [A], which omit 
 iii. 25. 6-iv. a, e.g. A = Leidensis-Voss. lat. oct. 55, 13th cent. 
 (3) Vulgares, which display a mixture of the two other groups 
 but are most closely related to the Lacunosi. 
 
 (16) Epistulae Morales, in 20 bks. Preserved in two 
 volumes from the 9 12th cent. Vol. i = bks. 1-13, Epp. 1-88, 
 rests mainly on p = Parisinus 8540, loth cent., which has to be 
 supplemented in parts by P = Par. 8658 A, loth cent., L= Laurent. 
 76. 40, 9/ioth cent., V=Marcianus 270 arm. 22. 4, and others. 
 Vol. ii = bks. 14-20, Epp. 89-124, depends mainly on B = 
 Bambergensis v. 14, 9th cent., and A=Argentoratensis C vi. 5, 
 9/ioth cent., burnt in 1870 but fortunately collated by Bucheler. 
 After the 12th cent, the letters are preserved in one volume, e.g. 
 in Abrincensis 239, 12th cent. 
 
 Ed. pr.: Tragedies, Ferrara, circ. 1474-1484 ; Moralia et Epp., 
 Naples, 1475; Nat. Ouaest., Venice, 1490. Index to Tragedies in 
 J. C. Schroeder's ed. Delft, 1729, and in J. Pierrot, Paris, 1832. 
 
 QuiNTUS SERENUS (Sammonicus) (H. circ. a.d. 230 if he is 
 rightly identified with the son of Sammonicus Serenus). 
 
 Tiber medicinalis in 1107 hexameters. All MSS. descend 
 from a collection of medical and scientific writings made by 
 a certain Jacobus for Charlemagne. Two copies of this were 
 made : (i) Turicensis 78, 9th cent. (2) The second is not extant, 
 but is the parent of a large number of MSS., e.g. Vossianus 
 L. Q. 33, 10th cent.; Senensis, nth cent. 
 
 Ed. pr.: without place or date (? Milan, 1484). 
 
 I 
 
270 AUTHORITIES 
 
 SEXTUS EMPIRICUS (circ. a.d. 190). Philosopher. 
 
 (1) Uvppo)V€ioL rTTori'Trwcrcis, in 3 bks. (2) 'YTrofxvijixaTa (TK^TTTiKa 
 (7rpb<i TOVS fJi(xOr}fJiaTLKOVs), in II bks. 
 
 The chief MSS. are: (i) M=Monac. gr. 439, 14th cent. (2) 
 L = Laur. 81, 11, a.d. 1465. (3) E = Par. 1964, 15th cent. (P, 
 in Weber). A=Par. 1963, a.d. 1534 (P3). B=Berolinensis 
 Phillippicus 1518, A.D. 1542. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Latin version of (i) by H. Stephanus, Pans, 1562; 
 of (2) by Gentianus Hervetus Aurelius, Antwerp, 1569; Greek 
 text, P. and J. Chouet, Geneva, 1621. 
 
 Ti. Cauls SILIUS Italicus (a. d. 25-101). 
 
 Picfiica, 17 bks. The tradition is bad since SiHus was neg- 
 lected in antiquity and little read in mediaeval times. His text 
 was rediscovered in 1416-1417 by Poggio at St. Gall. Poggio's 
 copy (which like the original MS. has disappeared) is the parent 
 of all existing MSS. 0( these the best are: L = Lauren. 
 tianus 37. 16, A. D. 1457, F^Aedil. Florent. Eccl. 196, 15th cent., 
 = Reginensis-Oxoniensis 314, 15th cent., and V = Vaticanus 
 1652, 15th cent. At the end of the 16th cent, a MS. apparently 
 of^he 9th cent, was discovered at Cologne. It has since been 
 lost, but is known from the reports of L. Carrio [Enicndatiunum 
 ^-^c'/tbri, 1576) and F. Modius (Nouantiqiiac Icct 1584). 
 
 Ed. pr.: Rome, 1471. 1"^^-^ ^^ Lemaire's ed., Paris, 1823. 
 
 SOPHOCLES (496-406 B. c). 
 
 Seven tragedies. A large fragment of a Satyric play, the 
 'Jvv€LTat is preserved in a papyrus from Oxyrhynchus (No. 11 74). 
 
 MSS.: L=Laurentianus 32. 9, nth cent., contamnig the 
 seven plays of Sophocles, seven of Aeschylus (where it is cited 
 as M) and the Argonautica of Apollonius Rhodius. (Facsimile, 
 Thompson and Jebb, London, 1885.) A=Parisinus 2712, 13th 
 cent., containing six plays of Euripides, seven of Sophocles, and 
 seven of Aristophanes, r or G= Laurentianus 2725, written in 
 A.D. 1282, contains Ai., Elect., O. T., Phil. 
 
 There are large numbers of MSS. which show a close affinity 
 to L or A but are of no independent value. Besides these there 
 is the group known as the ' Libri Tricliniani ', containing the 
 recension made by Demetrius Triclinius circ. 1300. The best 
 MS. of this bad group is T=Parisinus 2711, 14th cent. 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 271 
 
 The seven surviving plays represent a selection made probably 
 by the same early scholar who edited the selections from 
 Aeschylus and Euripides (q.v.). The text which lies behind 
 this selection is undoubtedly the Alexandrine text, gravely 
 corrupted and not as well attested as in Euripides. The text 
 presented by all the MSS. is singularly uniform, e. g. all omit 
 Antigone 1167 iC^i^v tovtov, a'AA' IpAf/vxov r/yoi'/xat v€.Kp6v, which is 
 known only from Athenaeus, and this uniformity led to the view 
 originated by Burges and strongly supported by Cobet and 
 others that all MSS. were ultimately derived from L which is 
 conspicuously the best. But L omits O. T. 800 which is present 
 in all the later MSS. And the old scholia are not all derived from 
 L. Hence this view has now been surrendered by most critics. 
 L, it is clear, was copied from a faulty archetype, and then 
 corrected by the second hand L- from another MS. which 
 represented a slightly different but independent tradition. This 
 tradition survives in A, which is of great importance since it 
 represents fully a tradition whose readings were only selected 
 by the second hand of L. r is a 'contaminated' MS. which 
 combines the two traditions given by L and A. 
 
 The scholia are best preserved in L. They are largely founded 
 on the learning of Didymus (ist cent. b. c.) and contain references 
 to still earlier scholars, e.g. Praxiphanes (O. C. 900), circ. 300 b. c. 
 The latest authority quoted is Herodian (circ. 160 b. c). They do 
 not imply a text perceptibly sounder than what now survives, and 
 support the view that the tragic texts had been largely corrupted 
 before the Alexandrine era. Edition by P. N. Papageorgius, 
 Leipzig, 1888; cf. Jebb, Sop/iocics, Cambridge, 1897, pp. xxvi sqq. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Aldus, 1502, based principally on Marcianus 467, 
 a MS. akin to A. 
 
 Index: Beatson, Cambridge, 1830; Lcwica, EUendt, Berlin, 
 1872; Dindorf, Leipzig, 1870. Index to ac/ioh'a nctera in Papa- 
 georgius' ed., Leipzig, 1888. 
 
 P. Papinius STATIUS (.? a.d. 45-96). 
 
 (i) Thebais in 12 bks. Best MS. is P=Parisinus 8051 
 (Puteaneus), late 9th cent. It forms a class by itself. The best 
 representatives of the second class are B = Bambergensis N. 4. 
 II, 11th cent.; D = St. John's College, Cambridge (Dovoriensis), 
 loth cent.; K = Gudianus 54, 10 nth cent.; N = Philippicus 
 
 » 
 
 
'■» 
 
 AUTHORITIES 
 
 272 
 
 Cheltoniensis, lo/iith cent.; Q=Parisinus 10317, loth cent. 
 P and the rest are derived from the same archetype, probably 
 a minuscule MS. of the 8th cent., P being a later copy than 
 the exemplar from which the rest are derived. The archetype 
 probably had a number of variants which, since they cannot be 
 explained on grounds of graphical corruption, are held by 
 Phillimore to point to a second edition of the poem by the author. 
 As most of these Sevrepai <t>povTL6€<s are preserved by P, its im- 
 portance for the text is very great. Scholia attributed to 
 Lactantius Placidus who is otherwise unknown. 
 
 (2) Achilkis, a fragment in 2 bks. PQK as above, and 
 Etonensis,?iith cent. 
 
 (3) Silitac, in 5 bks. P = a codex found by Poggio in 1416 or 
 1417, probably of 9/ioth cent., now lost. M=Matritensis M. 31, 
 written circ. 1417. A* = readings of P written by Angelo 
 Politian in the margin of a copy of the ed. princeps now in the 
 Corsini Library. Many vulgar MSS. of little value. 
 
 All MSS., it is now generally believed, are descended from P 
 through M. M, which is therefore the prime authority for the 
 text, is probably the copy which Poggio had made for himself by 
 a scribe of whose ignorance he complains. A*, according to 
 Politian's own statement, were taken from the exemplar which 
 Poggio brought from France. This exemplar cannot be the 
 same as M since M contains a line (i. 4. 86) which Politian says 
 was absent from his original. It must therefore have been P 
 itself, and A* is therefore of high value. Against this view v. 
 H. W. Garrod, CL Rev. 1912, p. 263. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Thcb, and Achill. circ. 1470; Siliiac (with Tib., 
 Catull., Propert.), Venice, 1472. Index in Delphin ed. (Beraldus), 
 1685, and in Lemaire, Paris, 1830. 
 
 loHANNLs STOBAEUS (circ. a. d. 500). 
 
 '\veo\6yiov in 4 bks., arranged in two t€i'x>; or volumes. 
 Hence the separate titles 'EKAoyat and *Ai/6'oAoytoi' came into use 
 
 during the Middle Age. 
 
 MSS. oiEclogac : F=Farnesinus, bibl. nat. Neapolit. III. d. 15 
 (Cyrill. 299) (paper), 14th cent. P= Parisinus 2129 (paper), 15th 
 cent. L= Laurent, pi. 8. 22, 14th cent., containing a gnomology 
 of sacred and profane writers. 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 273 
 
 MSS. of Flonlcgiiim : (1) S = Vindobonensis Sambuci (phil. gr. 
 67), nth cent.; Marcianus class, iv. 29, 14 /i6th cent., from 
 which ed. pr. is printed. (2) M=Escurialensis Mendozae, no. 90, 
 ii/i2th cent. ; A=Par. gr. 1984, 14th cent, (a much inferior MS.). 
 
 Ed. pr. : 'Ai^^., V. Trincavellus, 1536; 'EkA., G. Canter, 
 Plantin, Antwerp, 1575. 
 
 STRABO (circ. 64 b. c. — a.d. 19). 
 
 r €ojy pa(t)LKd, in 17 bks. The text is exceedingly corrupt. For 
 bks. 1-9 the best MS. is A= Paris. 1397, 12th cent. C= Paris. 
 i393» I3/J4th cent., contains bks. 1-17 with a large lacuna in 
 bk. 7. Fragments of a MS., possibly of the 7th cent., were dis- 
 covered by Cozza-Luzi (1875) '^i the Cryptoferratensis, a palim- 
 psest in the Vatican. 
 
 There exist also Tables of Contents {K€(f>d\aia) and Epitomes, 
 e.g. Ep. Palatina in Heidelbergensis 398, 10th cent.: Ep. Vati- 
 cana in Vat. 482, 14th cent. The Eclogae by Georgios Gemistos 
 (Plethon), preserved in Venetus 379, are of no value. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Aldus, Venice, 1516. 
 
 Gaius SUETONIUS Tranquillus (circ. a.d. 75-160). 
 
 (i) De vita Caesariim (8 bks). All MSS. are descended from 
 a lost archetype which was mutilated at the beginning (perhaps 
 a copy of a MS. written in capitals and known to Servatus Lupus 
 in A.D. 844). The best extant MSS. are: M = Parisinus 61 15 
 (Memmianus), 9th cent.; G=Gudianus 268, nth cent.; V= 
 Vaticanus 1904, nth cent., ending at Calig. 3. 3. 
 
 (2) Dc illnstribtts gr'ammaticis et daris rhetoribns. This is 
 a fragment of the treatise De viris illustribus, and is preserved 
 in the MSS. of the Dialogus and Germania of Tacitus (q.v.). 
 
 Ed. pr. : Campanus, Rome, 1470. Index in Delphin ed. 
 (Babelon), 16J84. 
 
 SUIDAS (circ. a. d. 976). 
 
 Dictionary of Words and Things. The chief MSS. are: A= 
 Parisinus 2625, 13th cent., and V=Vossianus F. 2. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Chalcondylas, Milan, 1499. 
 
 SULPICIA (wife of Calenus, Mart. X. xxxv, xxxviii). 
 
 Seventy hexameter lines are known from the editions of 
 
 473 
 
 % 
 
 if 
 
II 
 
 274 AUTHORITIES 
 
 Merula (1498) and Ugoletus (1499), vvhich are derived from 
 a codex Bobiensis found in 1493 and now lost. The authenticity 
 of the poem has been questioned. 
 
 PuBLiLius SYRUS (n. 50 B.C.). 
 
 Scntcntiae preserved from his mimes in various collections. 
 
 A collection is mentioned by A. Gellius 17. 14. The collection 
 has now to be reconstructed from (i) = collection in Veronen- 
 sis 168, A.D. 1329. (2) Palatine collection n in Vaticanus 239, 
 lo/iith cent. (3) Zurich collection Z=Turic. C. 78, 9th cent, 
 and Monac. 6369, nth cent. (4) Seneca collection I, which is 
 entitled ' Senecae Prouerbia', preserved in a large number of 
 MSS., e.g. P'^= Paris. 2676, 9th cent. (5) The Freising collec- 
 tion, v»/=: Monac. 6294, nth cent., is a combination of (2) and (4). 
 
 Ed. pr. : in Erasmus, Dionys, Cato, Strassburg, 1515. 
 
 Index in W. Meyers' ed., Leipzig, 1880. 
 
 Cornelius TACITUS (consul a.d. 98, d. after 117). 
 
 The minor works all descend from a codex of the loth cent., 
 discovered at Hersfeld by Enoch of Ascoli in 1455 and brought 
 by him to Rome. This contained : (i) the Gcrmania ; (2) Agri- 
 cola ; (3) the Dialogus and a fragment of Siicton. de grammaticis 
 et riictoribiis. It has been shown recently that the only portion 
 of this codex which survives is now at Jesi in the library of 
 Count Balleani. It contains eight original leaves of the Agricola 
 bound up with a 15th cent, transcript of the remaining six leaves. 
 For the Agricola accordingly this is the archetypal MS. 
 (C. Annibaldi, 1907). 
 
 (i) Dialogus de oratoribiis. Two copies of Enoch's MS. were 
 made, the first, X, by a careful but ignorant scribe, who did not 
 understand the contractions ; the second, Y, by a scribe with 
 more pretentions to scholarship. To X belong, A=Vat. 1862 
 and B = Leidensis Perizonianus 18; to Y belong, C = Neapoli- 
 tanus Farnesianus iv. c. 21, D = Vat. 1518, and others. The 
 tendency among critics has been to prefer the Y-group, but any 
 text must be eclectic. 
 
 (2) The Agricola. Jesi US. (supra) supplemented by Tole- 
 tanus 49. 2 (a direct copy), and r=Vat. 3429, written by 
 Pomponius Laetus, A= Vat. 4498- The text of Puteolanus circ. 
 1475 is from a MS. akin to TA. 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 275 
 
 (3) Germania, written in 98. The Renaissance copies of 
 Enoch's MS. (v. 5///)m) fall into two groups: X including B= 
 Vat. 1862, b = Leidensis Perizonianus; Y including C = Vat. 
 1518, c= Farnesianus. The lost Hummelianus is now recog- 
 nized to have been a descendant of Enoch's MS. 
 
 (4) Historiarum libri {from a.d. 69 to the death of Domitian), 
 probably in 14 bks., of which 1-4 and half of 5 survive. The 
 text, together with Annals 11-16, depends entirely on Mediceus 
 68. 2, nth cent., from Monte Cassino. 
 
 (5) Ab cxccssu ditii Augitsti annaliwn //Z>;7" (continued to a.d. 
 69), probably in 16 bks., of which 1-4, part of 5, 6, and 11-16 
 survive. The text of 1-6 depends entirely on Mediceus 68. i, 
 9th cent., from Korvey. For 11-16 v. (4) supra. 
 
 Edd. pr. : Ann. 11-16, Hist, Germ., Dial, Venice (J. Spirensis), 
 circ. 1470; Ann. 1-5, Beroaldus, Rome, 1515; ^^r/<:.(with Pliny, 
 Panegyr. and Petronius) Puteolanus, Milan, circ. 1482. 
 
 Lexicon Taciteum, A. Gerber and A. Grcef, Leipzig, 1903. 
 
 PuBLius TERENTIUS Afer (d. 159 b.c). 
 
 Wrote six comedies, all of which are extant: (i) Andria (166 
 B.C.). (2) Hecyra (165). (3) Hcautontimormncnos (163). (4) 
 Eunuclms (161). (5) Phormio (161). (6) Adelplioe (160). 
 
 The best MS. is A= Vaticanus 3226 (Bembinus), 4/5th cent., 
 written in rustic capitals. It belonged to Bernard Bembo, father 
 of Pietro Bembo. All other MSS. are interpolated and are 
 derived from the recension made by Calliopius, a grammarian of 
 unknown date. They fall into three groups, of which 8 the 
 older approximates to the text of A, y is further removed, while 
 fi have a mixed text. 
 
 8 = D Victorianus, Laurent. 38. 24, loth cent. G Decurtatus, 
 Vat. Lat. 1640, nth cent. V Fragm. Vindobonense, Vind. Phil. 
 263, loth cent. Contains \~-Andr. 912-981 ; Ad. Per. and 26-158. 
 
 y=P Parisinus Lat. 7859, 9/ioth cent. Illustrated C Vati- 
 canus Lat. 3868, 9/ioth cent. Illustrated. B Basil. Vat. PL 79, 
 Toth cent. Is a copy of C with traces of the readings of D. 
 
 /A = F Ambrosianus H. 75 infr., loth cent. Illustrated. L 
 Lipsiensi.s, Stadtbibl. Rep. i. 37, loth cent. E Riccardianus 
 M iv 
 
 xxx 
 
 (528) nth cent. 
 
 I 
 
 ( 
 
 It is probable that the Palliatae of Terence were published in 
 
 T 2 
 
276 
 
 AUTHORITIES 
 
 « 
 
 a standard edition soon after his death. Hence the original 
 prologues are preserved, and also the original endings to the 
 plays. The Andria, it is true, has two spurious endings, but 
 they are absent from the best and oldest MSS., and were never 
 included in any of the standard recensions. The text has been 
 preserved by a long line of scholars beginning in the second 
 century b.c. with L. Accius (the tragedian), Volcacius Sedigitus, 
 L. Aelius Stilo, and M. Terentius Varro, and continued by 
 M. Valerius Probus (ist cent, a.d.), Aemilius Asper, Arruntius 
 Celsus, Helenius Aero, Euanthius, Aelius Donatus (4th cent. 
 A. I).). The Periochae or metrical arguments to the plays were 
 composed by C. Sulpicius Apollinaris of Carthage, the teacher 
 of Aulus Gellius and the Emperor Pertinax. 
 
 The condition of the text in the 4 '5th centuries a.d. is 
 shown by the Bembine A, which in spite of its manifest supe- 
 riority could hardly be read with comfort by the ordinary reader 
 of that time. The task of making the text more readable was 
 undertaken by a certain Calliopius— a Greek like Euanthius in 
 all probability, and not a Roman of high rank like many of the 
 redactors of the 4/6th cent. a. d. The date of this recension is 
 uncertain. It must be later than the first half of the 2nd cent. 
 A.D. since it contains the Periochae of Apollinaris, and is 
 perhaps later than the middle of the 4th cent., since the Dida- 
 scaliae which it gives seem to be influenced by the Prefaces of 
 Aelius Donatus. All the MSS. except A show the influence of 
 the Calliopian recension. There is considerable doubt, however, 
 as to the right principle of classification. Some critics (esp. 
 Uscner, Rh. M. 28. 409; Leo, ibid. 38. 335) have placed the 
 illustrated MSS. P C F in a separate class from the rest. But 
 there is evidence that D rests upon an illustrated MS., and the 
 illustrations in P and C do not always agree with the inscriptions 
 at the beginning of the scenes and probably do not come from 
 the same source as the text. It is still disputed whether class h 
 or class y represent most accurately the original Calliopian 
 recension. The view (in the main that of Dziatzko and 
 E. Hauler) adopted in the classification given above is that 
 class y contains the truest representatives of the Calliopian 
 recension, which was greatly in vogue after he 5th century 
 owing to the readable texts which it provided. It influenced 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 277 
 
 other texts akin to the Bembine A and its readings were 
 imported into them. Such texts are represented by class 8. 
 Class 8 accordingly stands nearest to the text of A, class 7 is 
 further removed. Whether this view be right or not is of little 
 practical consequence since the text of Terence depends almost 
 wholly on A. 
 
 Coiiiijicntarics and Scholia : — 
 
 The most important commentary is that which passes under 
 the name of Aelius Donatus (4th cent.). It includes all the plays 
 with the exception of the Hcaiit. It is of considerable use in 
 restoring the text : e. g. in AdclpJi. 522 Donatus preserves the 
 correct reading niiscrc iiiniis ciipio, where A has miser iiiitos 
 cupio and the other MSS. niisere ciipio. It also contains 
 valuable information concerning the Greek originals of the plays. 
 The work of Donatus, however, has not survived in its original 
 form, but has been overlaid with much later work. No satis- 
 factory critical edition exists. The commentary of Eitgrapliiiis 
 is not older than the loth cent, and is of little value. Occasion- 
 ally a possible reading is found in it: e.g. Fhonii. 175 rctincrc 
 an uero aniittere accepted by Umpfenbach ; rctinere amare 
 amittere codd. ; rctinere amorem an miitere, Bothe. There are 
 scholia in ADGECF and in Monacensis 14420 of nth cent. 
 
 The subscriptio in the Calliopian MSS. is generally found at 
 the end of each play " Calliopius recensui(t) '. In P C B it occurs 
 at the end of the Pliormio in the form * Terenti Afri explicit 
 comoedia Phormio feliciter Calliopio bono scholastico '. 
 
 In A the plays are arranged in what was (wrongly) supposed 
 to be the order of their composition: Andr., Enn., Ileaitt., Plior., 
 Hec., Ad. The other MSS. present difi"erent arrangements. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Strassburg, circ. 1470. Index in Delphin ed. (Camus), 
 
 1675- 
 
 THEOCRITUS (fl. circ. 270 B.C.). Bucolic poems. 
 
 His poems were originally published separately. Hence the 
 name eiSi'AXia, just as Pindar's poems are called €t8r/, because 
 each is written in its eI8o? ap^ovia^;. In the age of Sulla the 
 poems were collected with those of other Bucolic poets into 
 a corpus by Artemidorus, whose son Theon published a com- 
 mentary. Other scholars edited them subsequently, e.g. Munatius 
 
278 
 
 AUTHORITIES 
 
 (contemporary with Herodes Atticus), Amarantus (contemporary 
 with Galen). No codex is older than the 13th cent. K = Am- 
 brosianus 222, 13th cent. M = Vat. 915, 13th cent. B= 
 Patavinus, a lost codex of Bucaros (Capodivacca) : its readings 
 are preserved in the Juntine edition and that of Callierges, 
 both published in 1516. V=Vat. 1824, 14th cent. L=Par. 2831, 
 14th cent. Tr=Par. 2832^ belonging to Demetrius Triclinius 
 (also known as M). C=Ambrosianus B. 75, T5/i6th cent., which 
 alone preserves xxx^Utai tw xaA.€7rw. D= Par. 2726, 14th cent. 
 
 The traditional order, which is disregarded by Wilamowitz, 
 dates only from Stephanus' edition of 1566. 
 
 Besides poems 1-16, which are contained in nearly all good 
 MSS., there are indications of two larger collections which have 
 been designated <t> and n. Both contain 1-16, 25, Meydpa, 17, 
 BtWos €7nTd(f>Lo<s, 22 and 18. ♦ alone contains 20, 21, "Epws 8pa7rcT>;s, 
 
 19, A8WV1809 eTTira^to?, €h vcKpov^ASayvLV, 22,^^7^ iOaXafJi. A\, fl alone 
 contains 24, 26, 28, 27, 29, 'ETrtypi/x/xaTa and Ik'AeKis. In the 
 above MSS. 4>=VLTr, n = BCD. 
 
 ^" I » 3-13 K is of most value. It is closely followed by M 
 and B. In 14, 2, 15-18 K is still of high importance, though 
 the <t>-group is indispensable. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Milan, 1480 or 1481 (printed with Hesiod). 
 
 Index : Rumpel's Lexicon, Leipzig, 1879 
 
 THEOGNIS (second half of 6th cent. B.C.). 
 
 Elegiac poems in two books : I, lines 1-1230. II, containing 
 158 lines of love poetry (Mnsa Pacdicd). 
 
 The best MS. is A^Parisinus 388, loth ceiit. (sometimes 
 called the Mutinensis, although it was never at Modena but was 
 brought by the French in the Napoleonic wars at the beginning 
 of the 19th cent, from somewhere in North Italy). It is the sole 
 authority for the second book. = Vaticanus 915, 13th cent, is 
 also of high value. There is a considerable number of inferior 
 MSS. which are of little value. 
 
 The condition of the text is discussed on p. 46. The case for 
 the authenticity of all or nearly all the Theognidea is best put 
 by E. Harrison, Cambridge, 1902. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Aldus, Venice, 1495, with Theocritus 1-30. 
 
 Index: in J. Sitzler's ed., Heidelberg 1880: Pod. Mm. Gr., 
 ed. Gaisford, vol. iii. 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 279 
 
 THEOPHRASTUS (circ. 372-287 b.c). 
 
 Xa/jaKT7>es in 32 chapters, dating probably from the beginning 
 of the Byzantine age (6th cent. a.d.). 
 
 All MSS. descend from a mutilated archetype. In this an 
 introduction was prefixed by the interpolator as vvell as epilogues 
 to some of the chapters. From this edition descend: A=Par. 
 Gr. 2977, lo/iith cent, B=Par. Gr. 1983, loth cent., V=Vat. 
 Gr. 110, 13th cent. It is still debated whether the inferior MSS. 
 of i4/i6th cent, have any intrinsic value, and Cobet and Diels 
 deny that they have. AB contain characters 1-15 and 30. 
 § 6-16; V the last 15. It is the sole authority for 29 and the 
 greater part of 30. M=Monacensis Gr. 505, 15th cent., known 
 as the Munich Epitome, contains 1-21 in a shortened form. 
 
 Ed. pr.: Pirckheimer, Nuremberg, 1527 (15 Characters); 
 G. B. Camozzi in Aristotle, Venice, 1552 (23 Characters); 
 Casaubon, 1599 (28 Characters); Amaduzzi, Parma, 1786 (the 
 first to contain 29-30 from V). 
 
 Index in H. Diels' ed., Oxford, 1909. 
 
 (2) ricpt (fiVTC^iV LO-Topias, 9 bks. (3) llepl (^rrwi/ aiVtwr, 6 bks. (4) 
 A fragment IIc/)t XlOmv. (5) Uepl irvpos. (6) lUpl ala-OyaeMV kul 
 
 alaO-qr^v. (7) 'Ek t^v /xcra m (^vo-tKa, and shorter fragments of 
 
 other works. 
 
 MSS.: (2), (3) The best is U = Vaticanus Urbinas 61. M= 
 Medicei Laurent, plut. 85, codd. 3 et 23. (4) A=Vat. 1302. 
 B= Vat. 1305. C = Vat.-Urb. to8. (5) A as in (4). F=Lauren- 
 tianus pi. 87. 20. P=Par. 1921. (6) F P as in (5). (7) A as in 
 (4). B = Laurentianus pi. 28. 45. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Aldus, 1498, with Aristotle. 
 
 Index in I. G. Schneider's ed., vol. v, Leipzig, 1821. 
 
 THUCYDIDES (circ. 460 400 b.c). 
 
 History of the Peloponnesian War in 8 bks. Marcellinus 58 
 mentions an arrangement in 13 bks. and Diodorus 12. 37 one in 
 9. The fresh introduction to v. 26 seems to indicate that 
 Thucydides' plan included originally only the Archidamian War. 
 
 A=Cisalpinus siue Italus, Par. .suppl. Gr. 255, ii/i2th cent. 
 B = Vat. 126, nth cent. E=Heidelbergensis 252 (Palatinus), 
 nth cent, (the only good codex containing the lives). C = 
 Laurentianus plut. 69. 2, early loth cent. F=Monacensis 430 
 
28o 
 
 AUTHORITIES 
 
 (Augustanus), nth cent. G=Monacensis228 (paper), 13th cent., 
 upper margin damaged. M = Britanniciis, Mus. Brit. 11. 727, 
 nth cent. H=Par. 1734, 15th cent. 
 
 These fall into two groups : (i) C G. (2) B A E F M. Both are 
 ultimately to be referred to the same archetype. It is noticed 
 by H. S. Jones that they are more in conflict in bks. 1-2 than in 
 the remaining books. A reading supported by C G E, C G M, and 
 occasionally by G M, is not to be rejected lightly. After vi. 92. 5 B 
 and H follow a separate recension not found in the other MSS. 
 This often preserves the true reading. 
 
 The papyrus fragments = Oxyrhynchium no. i6, ist cent., 
 containing iv. 36 ; W= Faiumense, containing viii. 91, agree with 
 the codd. save in minor details. O does not favour either group : 
 W agrees with C G. 
 
 Valla's translation, published in 1452, contains valuable read- 
 ings, due either to his own conjectures or to the MSS. which he 
 used. The quotations in ancient writers such as Dionysius 
 Ilalicarnassensis rarely outweigh the evidence of the MSS. 
 Scholia are scanty and of little value. 
 
 Ed. pr.: Aldus, 1502. 
 
 Index: Von Essen, Berlin, 1887; Lexicon, Betant, Geneva, 
 
 1843- 
 
 Albius TIBULLUS (died 19 h.c). 
 
 Elegies in 2 bks. : the third book contains a collection of 
 poems by Lygdamus, the Paiicgyricus Mcssallac, and poems on 
 Sulpicia. 
 
 The tradition is late and bad. The best MSS. are A= 
 Ambrosianus R. 26 sup., 14th cent.; V = Vat. 3270, 15th cent. 
 Both are derived from the same source, A being the better. ^ = 
 the rcccntioreSy which are really editions made by the scholars of 
 the Renaissance (cf p. 102). The lost Fragincnitini Ciiiiuianiim 
 was of greater importance than any existing MS. Some of its 
 readings are known from Scaliger's notes, which are preserved 
 at Leyden. 
 
 There are excerpts belonging to the loth and nth cent., the 
 Frisingensia (preserved in Monacensis 6292) being the most 
 valuable. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Venice, 1472 Index in Delphin ed. (P. Silvius), 
 1680. 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 281 
 
 TIMOTHEUS (circ. 448-358 b. c). Fragment of a citharoedic 
 Nomos entitled Ilc/jo-at was discovered in 1902 in a grave near 
 Abusir, Egypt. The papyrus, which dates from the 4th cent. 
 B.C., is now in the Berlin Museum (P. 9875). 
 
 Ed. pr. with index : Wilamowitz-M Ollendorff, Leipzig, 1903. 
 
 Gaius VALERIUS FLACCUS Setinus Balbus (d. circ. 
 
 A. D. 90). 
 
 Epic, Argonautka, in 8 bks. 
 
 V=Vaticanus3277, 9th cent., and S=:Sangallensis (containing 
 i-iii and iv. 1-317), now lost, but known through Poggio's 
 apographum Matritensis, x. 81. The Sangallensis preserves the 
 same tradition as the Vaticanus, but is not a copy. A further 
 source has been sought in a lost codex quoted by Carrio in his 
 edition, Antwerp, 1565. 
 
 Ed. pr.: Bologna, 1474. Index in Lemaire's ed., Paris, 1824. 
 
 VALERIUS MAXIMUS (under Tiberius). 
 
 Factorum ac dictoriun nieiiiorabiliimi libri ix. Abridgements by 
 lulius Paris and lanuarius Nepotianus. The direct textual tradi- 
 tion rests upon A=Bernensis 366, 9th cent., and L=Florentinus 
 1899 (Ashburnhamensis), 9th cent., which come from a similar 
 source. There is also a valuable indirect tradition in Vaticanus 
 4929, loth cent., of Paris' abridgement, which was made from 
 a MS. of high quality. Bk. x, de praenominibus, found in 
 this abridgement, is a stray epitome of another work (possibly the 
 Exenipla of Hyginus) which has become part of Paris' epitome. 
 
 Ed. pr.: Strassburg, circ. 1470. Index in Delphin ed. (P. J. 
 Cantel), 1679. 
 
 Marcus Terentius VARRO, of Reate (116-27 i^- ^•)' 
 
 (i) Dc lingua Latina, in 25 bks., of which 5 10 survive in 
 Mediceus 51. 10, nth cent., a MS. from Monte Cassino in 
 a Lombardic hand. It contains also the Pt'o Cliicntio of Cicero 
 and the Ad Hcrcnnimn. All other MSS. of the Dc lingua are 
 descended from it. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Rome, circ. 1471. 
 
 (2) Rcnun 7'usticaruni libri iii. The tradition is the same as 
 in the works of Cato (q. v.). 
 
 Ed. pr. : Venice, 1472, in the Scriptores de Re Riistica. 
 
 Index in vol. iii of Keil's ed., 1902. 
 
 .( 
 
 i 
 
28: 
 
 AUTHORITIES 
 
 Gaius VELLEIUS Paterculus (under Tiberius a.d. 14-37). 
 
 Historiac Rowanac, in 2 bks. The only authorities are the 
 copies of M=Murbacensis, a MS. discovered in 1515 by Beatus 
 Rhenanus and subsequently lost. To these belong (i) the ed. 
 pr. by Rhenanus, which was printed from his transcript and 
 contains in an appendix a collation with M by his pupil A. Burer ; 
 (2) a copy of R.'s transcript made by B. Amerbach in 1516 
 (Bibl. Acad. Basileensis, A. N. ii. 8). 
 
 Ed. pr. : by Rhenanus, Basel, 1520. Index in Delphin ed. 
 (R. Riguez), 1675. 
 
 PuBLius VERGILIUS Marc (70-19 b. c). 
 
 I. Biuolica, i.e. 10 Eclogues. 2. Gcorgica, in 4 bks. ^.Acncls, 
 in 12 bks. 4. Appendix Vergiliima, containing a number of 
 poems, some of which may be authentic. 
 
 The tradition of the text is exceedingly good and uniform. The 
 chief MSS. are: A=Schedae Vaticano-Berohnenses (2nd /3rd 
 cent.). These are fragments of a codex formerly at St. Denis ; 
 three leaves are at Berlin (codex Augusteus) and four at Rome 
 (Vat. 3256) : F=Sched. Vaticanae 3225, 3rd/4th cent. ; G=Schcd. 
 Sangallenses 1394, palimpsest, 4th cent.; M=Mediceus 39. 29, 
 5th cent., with the siibscriptio ^Turcius Rufius Apronianus 
 Asterius u. c. et inl. ex comite domest. protect, ex com. priu. 
 largit. ex praef. urbi patricius et consul ordin. legi et distincxi 
 codicem fratris Macharii u. c. non mei fiducia set eius cui si 
 (? cuius) et ad omnia sum deuotus arbitrio xi Kal. mai. Romae '. 
 
 P=Palatinus Vat. 1631, 4/5th cent. ; R=Romanus Vat. 3867, 
 ?6th cent. ; V=Sched. Veronenses, palimpsest, 4th cent. 
 
 F M P R V are closely related, A and G are of less value. None 
 of these codices is complete. The text rests mainly on the 
 consensus of MPR. Y = a minuscule codex Gudianus, fol. 70, 
 9th cent., is often of use to decide between conflicting readings. 
 
 The commentary o{ SerJins (4th cent.) is of great value. It is 
 preserved in a long form, first published by P. Daniel in 1600, 
 and in a shorter and more authentic form, first published by 
 R. Stephanus in 1532. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Strassburg or Rome, circ. 1469. 
 
 Index: H. Merguet, Leipzig, 1909; M. N. Wetmore, New 
 Haven, 1911. 
 
 (4) Appendix Vergiiiana. rhe following poems are attributed 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 283 
 
 to Vergil in the introduction to Servius' commentary on the 
 Acncid: Ciris, Aetna, Ctdex, Priapea, Catalepton or Epigram- 
 inata, Copa, Dirae. With these a few other poems are associated 
 in the surviving MSS., viz. Moretuni, Est et non, Vir bonus, 
 Maecenas. At an early date there were two collections, (i) con- 
 taining Cidex, Dirae, Copa, Est et non, Vir bonus, Rosae, Aetna, 
 Moretuni. This collection is represented, though in a fragmentary 
 form, in Vaticanus Bembinus 3252, 9th cent. : Fragmcntum 
 Stabulense, i. e. Paris. 17177, loth cent., and in a number of later 
 MSS. For the Aetna, besides the Frag. Stabulense, the chief 
 authorities are Cantabrigiensis KK. v. 34, loth cent., and a lost 
 MS. of Claudian, quoted by Lilius Gyraldus. (2) Another collec- 
 tion, viz. Ciris, Catalepton, is best preserved in Bruxellensis 
 10675-6, I2th cent., and a number of later MSS. 
 
 M. VERRIUS FLACCUS (Augustan age). 
 
 De ucrborum significatu survives partly in the epitome by 
 Pompeius Festus and partly in an abridgement of Fcstus made by 
 Paulus Diaconus (end of 8th cent. a.d.). 
 
 The sole authority {or Festus is the Farnesianus, nth cent., 
 which when discovered by Rhallus in 1477 consisted of nine 
 quaternions out of an original sixteen, and contained part of the 
 letter M to the letter V. Three of these nine have since been 
 lost (viz. 8, 10, and 16), and their contents are only known through 
 Renaissance copies. 
 
 The MSS. o{ Paulus fall into two classes : (1) best represented 
 by Monacensis 14734, 10 iith cent.; (2) by Guelferbytanus, 10th 
 cent. 
 
 Ed. pr. : probably Milan, 1471. 
 
 VITRUVIUS POLLIO (under Augustus). 
 
 de Are/n'tectura, 10 bks. 
 
 H=IIarleianus 2767, 9th cent.; S = Scletstatensis 1153 bis, 
 loth cent.; G = Gudianus 69, nth cent. All come from the same 
 archetype. 
 
 An abridgement also exists made by M. Cetius Faventinus in 
 the 3rd cent. 
 
 Ed. pr. : by J. Sulpitius, Rome, circ. i486. 
 
 Index: H. Nohl, Leipzig, 1876. 
 
284 
 
 AUTHORITIES 
 
 XENOPHON (circ. 434-355 b. c). 
 
 (1) Kvpov ayd/3a(TL^ in 7 bks. 
 
 The best MS. is C = Parisinus 1640, a. d. 1320. Three other 
 MSS. are descended from it. Of the deteriores the best are D = 
 Bodleianus Canon. 39, 15th cent., and V = Vindobonensis 95, 15th 
 cent. A papyrus fragment of the 3rd cent. a. d. (Grenfell and 
 Hunt, Oxyrhyncli,Pap. iii, p. 120) agrees in the main with C, but 
 also presents readings peculiar to the dett. Athenaeus in his 
 quotations supports the text of the dett. 
 
 (2) Krpoi' TTUiSeta in 8 bks. 
 
 The chief MSS. are (i) C=Parisinus 1640, 14th cent.; E = 
 Etonensis, 15th cent. (2) H=Escorialensis T. 3. 14, 12th cent. ; 
 A=Parisinus 1635, 14th cent.; G = Guelferbytanus 71. 19, 15th 
 cent. ; V= Vat. 1335, 12th cent. (3) D= Bodleianus Canonicianus 
 39, 15th cent. ; F (or D)=Erlangensis, 15th cent. Of these the 
 most important for the text are C H D F. Other aids to the 
 criticism of the text are the Constantine excerpts (loth cent.) and 
 papyrus fragments of the 2nd and 3rd cent. a.d. The papyri do 
 not support any one class. 
 
 (3) 'KAAr;i/iKa in 7 bks., a continuation of Thuc. down to the 
 date of the Battle of Mantinea (362). (i) The better class. B= 
 Parisinus 1738, 14th cent. It is mutilated in bk. 7, where the 
 evidence of others of the same group, e. g. Vaticanus Palatinus 
 140, 14th cent, (paper) has to be taken. M = Ambrosian. A 4 ////, 
 A.D. 1344; is also of value. (2) Deteriores, e.g. C= Parisinus 
 2080, 15th cent. The papyri support the MS. tradition. 
 
 (4) WyrjaiXao^. The MSS. are the same as in the Hiero. 
 The best is A (v. ifi/ra), from which some think all the other 
 MSS. are derived. 
 
 (5) 'le'pwr. MSS. in two groups: (i) A = Vaticanus 1335, 12th 
 cent. To the same class belong inferior MSS., such as N = 
 Marcianus 511, 12th cent. (2) A large group of MSS. of the 
 15th cent. All MSS. are derived from the same archetype, 
 which was faulty and not of great antiquity. Quotations in 
 Stobaeus and Athenaeus. 
 
 (6) 'ATTo/xiaz/xorci'/xttra ^wK/jarovs. 4 bks. A=Parisinus 1302, 
 13th cent, (contains only bks. 1-2). B= Parisinus 1740, 13th cent. 
 The inferior MSS. are of use, e. g. C= Par. 1642 (D in Hcllenka). 
 All are derived from a common archetype different from the 
 text used by Stobaeus. 
 
 FOR CLASSICAL TEXTS 
 
 285 
 
 (7) OiKovofjLLKo^. MSS. very numerous. The most important 
 are E, F=Laur.8o. 13, T3/i4th cent., and 85. 9, 13th cent. M= 
 Lips. 96, 14th cent. V= Marc. 511, 13th cent., andH=Reginensis 
 96, i2/i3th cent. Their relations to one another are still imper- 
 fectly known. All from one archetype. Papyrus fragments of ist 
 cent. A. D. (Grenfell and Hunt, OxyrJi, Pap. ii. 120). 
 
 (8) 'ATToAoyiu SojK/jttTot'?. Same tradition as Hiero and Agesi- 
 laus. B= Vaticanus 1335, 12th cent, (corrections made in the 
 14th cent.). This or a similar MS. lies behind A= Vaticanus 
 1950, 14th cent, and Ha=Harleianus 5724, 15th cent. Quota- 
 tions in Stobaeus. 
 
 (9) 2i'/x7roo-toi'. Two groups of equal value: (i) e.g. A, B = 
 Parisini 1643, 1645, 15th cent. ; H = Vindob. 37. (70), 15th cent. 
 (2)C = Par. 2955, 15th cent.; D= Laurent. 85. 9, 13th cent. 
 D is probably the parent of the Juntine ed. 
 
 (10) Minor writings: (a) Aa/ce^at/xonwi' ttoXltuh. [(b) 'AOyp'auov 
 
 TToAireta, not by Xen. but composed circ. 424, perhaps by Critias. | 
 
 (c) llopoL y Trepl 7rpo(r6Sojv. (d) 'l7r7rap;)(tK09. (f) llc/ot iTTTrtK-^?. (J^) Kvr^y- 
 
 ycTiKos. All are contained in L = Laurentianus 53. 21, 14th cent. 
 For (a) there is also Vat. 1335, vide (8), and many late MSS. 
 For (b) Vat. 1950, vide (8), C = Vat. 1335. For (c) there is a 
 fragment in C=Par. 2955, also Vat. 1950 and Vat. 1335. For 
 
 (d) Paris. 1643 and several late MSS. (e) Paris. 1643 and Par. 
 2955- (/) Paris. 2737. 
 
 Ed. pr. : Hellenica, Venice, 1503; Apologia, Reuchlin, 1520; 
 Opera, Euph. Boninus, Florence (Junta), 1516. 
 
 Index: Lexicon, F. W.Sturz, Leipzig, 1801-1804; G.A.Sauppe, 
 Leipzig, 1869 ; Anabasis, K. W. Kri'iger, Berlin, 1851 ; Mnuora- 
 bilia, M. Kellogg, Cornell Studies, 1900. 
 
 i 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 
 THE NOMENCLATURE OF GREEK AND LATIN 
 MSS. WITH THE NAMES OF FORMER 
 
 POSSESSORS. 
 
 The custom of writing critical editions of classical authors in 
 Latin has led to the general use of Latin names for manuscripts. 
 The following Index has been compiled in the hope of 
 rendering some of the obscurer names intelligible to those 
 vvhose studies are not directly concerned with Textual Criti- 
 cism. 
 
 In most instances such names are geographical and are taken 
 from the place where a manuscript was first discovered, e.g. 
 the Lucensis of Martial retains the name of Lucca, the tow'^n 
 where it was found, although it is at present in Berlin ; or from 
 the monastery, town, or library to which the manuscript once 
 belonged or still belongs, e.g. Bobiensis, Montepessulanus, 
 Vindobonensis. Often the designation has been taken from 
 the name of some private owner, e.g. codices Puteanei, 
 Brunckiani. Occasionally fanciful names have been invented 
 to indicate the beauty, size, shape, or age of the book, or the 
 colour of the ink or parchment, e.g. codex Gigas, Oblongus, 
 Ouadratus, Augusteus, Aureus, Argenteus, Purpureus, Ruber, 
 Nitidus, Ornatus, Tersus, Decurtatus. 
 
 The full description of a manuscript as given in the catalogue 
 of the authorities used in a critical edition should consist'' of 
 {a} the name or names by which the manuscript has been 
 known to scholars at any period; (b) the press-mark which it 
 bears in the catalogue of the library to which it at present 
 belongs ; (r) the s/^^///;;/ or abbreviated mark (usually a letter or 
 number) by which the editor denotes its readings in his apfiara- 
 /Ns rn'fiais; and {(f) information as to its size and shape and the 
 style of its handwriting. 
 
 Thus the full description will often give more than one name 
 
 f 
 
 NOMENCLATURE OF MANUSCRIPTS 287 
 
 if the manuscript has passed through several hands since it 
 became known to scholars, e.g. codex Bernensis olim Bongar- 
 sianus ; cod. Franekeranus nunc Leeuwardensis 45, olim Gene- 
 vensis, pridem Cluniacensis. 
 
 Where a library has been catalogued on modern principles 
 the system employed will rarely cause any difficulty. The 
 separate collections are merged into one large catalogue, usually 
 termed a Summary Catalogue, in which every manuscript has 
 a particular number assigned to it. The Summary Catalogue 
 will not give a full description and history of the manuscript, but 
 merely sufficient information to enable the student to identify 
 it. For further information the older catalogues of the various 
 collections must still be consulted. 
 
 To avoid the use of excessively high numbers the manuscripts 
 catalogued are usually subdivided into groups according to the 
 language in which they are written, and sometimes according 
 to their size and the nature of their subject-matter; e.g. Pari- 
 sinus Fonds Grec 2712; Vindobonensis Hist(orici) 34, Jurid(ici) 
 33; Berolinensis Theolog. Lat. Fol. 481. At Paris the size 
 is denoted by the following letters : 
 
 P, petit format, i.e. up to 27 centimetres 
 M, moyen ,, „ from 27 to 37 
 G, grand ,, „ from 37 to 50 
 A, atlas ,, „ from over 50 ,, 
 
 Accessions are usually denoted by press-marks such as: Sup- 
 pl(ementum), Append(ix), Nouv(elles) Acq(uisitions), Add(itional) 
 MSS. 
 
 In the smaller libraries, and in some of the older collections 
 which have been incorporated with larger libraries, the press- 
 marks are introduced by the Latin word for book-case, press, 
 or desk ; e.g. scrinium, pluteus, theca, armarium, foruli. Or by 
 the Latin title of the room or building in which the collection is 
 preserved ; e.g. Repositorium, Auctarium, Archium, Tabularium, 
 Thesaurarium. The rarest possessions of a library are some- 
 times called Cimelia, as at Ratisbon. The Cotton collection, which 
 now forms part of the British Museum, is still catalogued by the 
 names of the twelve Caesars, Cleopatra and Faustina, whose 
 busts stood over the original cases, e.g. Cottonianus Nero D. 4. 
 
 It 
 
 ff 
 
288 
 
 NOMENCLATURE 
 
 If a manuscript is of any importance for the constitution of 
 a text a siglum or abbreviated sign must be used for denoting 
 its readings when given in the apparatus criticiis. Usually 
 some letter of the Greek or Latin alphabet is employed, capital 
 letters being reserved for the important manuscripts and lower- 
 case letters for the less important. A small number placed above 
 the sigliim is generally used to denote the handwritings in which 
 additions or corrections have been made since the MS. was 
 first written. Thus P- denotes the reading of the second hand, 
 
 P^ of the third. 
 
 Where a manuscript has been mutilated and its fragments 
 or parts are in different libraries the symbol + is often used to 
 indicate the connexion that exists between them, e.g. Vossianus 
 F. 70. I + Canonicianus Lat. Class. 279 are parts of the same 
 MS. of Seneca's letters; Vossianus 79 + Paris. 1750 of 
 Servius; Bern. 347 + 357 + 330 + ^''^^'s. 7665, a MS. of excerpts 
 by Heiric of Auxerre. 
 
 The following are the chief works of reference : 
 
 Geographical Names. 
 
 Lexicon Geographiami, M.A. Baudrand, Paris, 1570. 
 
 Universiis Terraruni Orbis, Alphonsus Lasor a Varea [i.e. R. 
 
 Savonarola], Padua, 1713. 
 Orbis Latimts, J. G. T. Graesse, Dresden, 1909. 
 Gallia Christiana, P. Piolin, 1870. 
 Italia Sacra, F. Ughcllus, 171 7. 
 Lexicon Deutscher Stifter, KlOster und Ordenshannr, O. F. Grole, 
 
 Osterwieck, 1881. 
 Thitani Index, Genevae, 1634, an index to the latinized names in De 
 
 Thoii's history, will sometimes be found useful. 
 Atlas znr Kirchengeschichte, Heussi und Mulert, Tubingen, 1905. 
 Historical Atlas of Modern Europe, ed. R. L. Poole, Oxford, 1902. 
 
 Directories of Libraries. 
 
 Adressbuch der Bibl. der Ost.-ung. Monarchic, J.Bohatta u. M.IIolzmann, 
 
 Wien, 1900. 
 Adressbuch der deittschen Bibl, P.Schvvenke, Leipz. 1893. 
 Minerva, published annually by Triibner, contains the best and most 
 
 accessible information. The various volumes contain accounts of the 
 
 more important libraries. 
 
 OF MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 289 
 
 General Catalogues of MSB. 
 B. de Montfaucon, Bibliotheca Biblioihecarum, 2 vols., Paris, 1739. 
 G. Haenel, Catalogi libroruni wscr. qui in bibl. Galliae, Helvetiae, Belgii, 
 
 Britanniae seniantitr, Lips. 1830. 
 \. Gardthausen, Sammlungen u. Cataloge griechischer Handschriflen, 
 
 1903 (an oft-print from Byzantinisches Archiv). 
 W. Weinberger, Catalogus Catalogorum, Wien, 1902 (a list of 
 
 libraries containing MSS. of ecclesiastical writers). 
 J. L. Heiberg, Ubersicht besonders der griech. Handschriftenkataloge. 
 
 G(itt. Gelehrte Anzeigen, 1907, pp. 707-14. 
 
 Special Catalogues, etc 
 
 Mediaeval Libraries. 
 
 G. Becker, Catalogi bibliothecaruni antiqui, Berlin, 1885. 
 Th. Gottlieb, Cber uiittelalterliche Bibliotheken, Leipz. 1890. 
 
 Austria-Hungary. 
 
 A. Goldmann, Verzeiclinis der ost.-ungar. Handschriftenkataloge in 
 
 Zentralblattf Bibl., 1888, v, p. i sqq. 
 E. Gollob, Verzeithnisder gr.Handschr. in Oest.-Ungarn, Wien. igoj[. 
 
 This does not include Vienna. 
 Xenia Bernardina, vol. ii. Die Handschriftenverzeichnisse der Cister- 
 
 cienstiftej Wien, 1891. 
 
 Belgium. 
 A. Sanderus, Bibliotheca Belgica, Lille, 1641. 
 
 H. Omont, on Greek MSS. in Belgium in Revue de Vinstruction 
 publique, vols. 27-8. 
 
 France. 
 
 L. Delisle, Le Cabinet des MSS. de la Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris, 
 
 1 868-1881. 
 U. Robert, Inventaire sonunaire des 7nss. des bibl. de France, Paris, 
 
 1896. 
 Catalogue general des libl. publiques de France, 1893-1903. This 
 
 includes the libraries of Paris (with the exception of the Bibl. 
 
 Nat.) and of the departments. 
 H. Omont, Inventaire sonunaire des niss. gr^cs, 4 vols., Paris, 1886- 
 
 1898. Contains the Greek MSS. in French provincial libraries. 
 
 Great Britain. 
 
 E. Bernard, Catalogi libr. manuscr. Angliae et Hiberniae, Oxford, 
 1697. 
 
 Holland. 
 
 H. Omont, on Greek MSS. in Zentralblatt f. Bibl., 1886, vol. iv, 
 pp. 185, 562. 
 
 \\ 
 
i 
 
 290 
 
 xNOMENCLATURE 
 
 < 
 
 Italy. 
 
 F. Blume, Ifer Ifa/icitfn, 4 vols., Halle, 1824-1836, containing a good 
 bibliography of all preceding works. Bibliotlieca libr. MSS . Ifa/ica, 
 Gottingen, 1834 
 
 G. Mazzatinti, Inventari dei manoscntti delle biblioteche d Italia, 
 13 vols., Forli, 1891-1904. Catalogues for the most part of the 
 smaller Italian libraries which contain few classical works. 
 
 E. Martini, Catalogo dei manoscritti greci, Milan, 1893. 
 Biblioteche dello S/a/o, Rome, 1893 (unfinished), gives a list and 
 description of Italian public libraries. 
 
 Scandinavia. 
 
 U. Robert, Cabinet historique, 1880, vol. 26, p. 119. 
 C. Graux et A. Martin, Notices somm. des mss. grecs de Suede. Arc/iives 
 des Missions scientifiqiies, Third Series, 1889, xv, p. 293. 
 
 Spain. 
 
 R. Beer, Handichri/tenschatze Spaniens, Vienna, 1894. 
 C. Graux et A. Martin, Notices somm. des mss. grecs d^Espagne et de 
 Portugal^ Paris, 1892. 
 
 Switzerland. 
 
 H. Omont, Cat. des mss. grecs des bibl. de la Suisse. Zentraiblatt f. 
 Bibl., vol. iii (1886), pp. 385-452 ; vol. viii (1891), p. 22. 
 
 Names of Scholars, Collectors, etc. 
 
 F. A. Eckstein, Nomenclator Philologorum, Leipz. 1871. 
 
 W. Pokel, P/iilologisches Schriftsteller-Lexicon, Leipz. 1882. A useful 
 
 but uncritical work. 
 The less known scholars and collectors are often difficult to identify. 
 Some will be found in: 
 
 C. G. Jocher, Gelelirten-Le.xicon^ 4 vols., 1750; 
 
 Zedler, Universal- Lexicon ^ 1732-1 751 ; 
 and in the various national Dictionaries of Biography. 
 
 i 
 
 OF MANUSCRIPTS 291 
 
 NOMENCLATURE. 
 
 A 
 
 Abbatiae de Florentia, monasterium. La Badia, Florence, It. MSS. 
 
 now in the Laurentian among those of the Conventi Soppressi. 
 Abrincensis, Abrincatuanus (Abrincae, Abrincatae), Avranches Fr. 
 
 (Taranne*: Omont*.) 
 Absarensis (Absarus), Ossero in Dalmatia. Monastery of S. Nicholas. 
 
 Library dispersed. 
 Accidas, Manuel Atzidas of Rhodes presented MSS. to Sixtus V in 
 
 1585. In Vatican. 
 Acquaviva, MSS. of this family at Naples (Girolamini) and Vienna. 
 Acragantinus (Acragas, Agrigentum), Girgenti, Sicily. Bibl. Luc- 
 
 chesiana (A. Mancini, 1898). Mostly Oriental MSS. 
 Admontensis, Admont, Stciermark, Austr. Library of the College of 
 
 S. Patak. (Wichner, 1897.) 
 Aedilium Florentinae ecclesiae, s. v. Florentinus. 
 Aegianus, MSS. once belonging to Aegius Benedictus of Spoleto 
 (fl. circ. 1550), cleric, antiquary, and lecturer on the classics at Paris. 
 Aegidius, Cardinal, of Viterbo, It. ; d. 1532. MSS. at Hamburg. 
 Aemilianus, S. Millan de la Cogolla, Sp. Now in library of Real 
 
 Academia de la Historia, Madrid. 
 Aesiensis (Aesis), Jesi, It. 
 Affligeniensis, the monastery (Benedictine) at Affiighem or Affleghem, 
 
 near Malines, Belg. (Cat. of 1642 in Sanderus, Bibl. Belg.) 
 Agendicum s. v. Senonensis. 
 
 Agenensis, the Jesuit College at Agen, Fr. MSS. came into pos- 
 session of the Jesuits of Clermont, v. Claromontanus (i). 
 Agnesiana, library at Vercelli, It. 
 Agobardinus, MSS. of Agobard or Agobald, Abp. of Lyons ; d. 840. 
 
 (e.g. Paris, lat. 1622.) 
 Agricola, Rudolphus (1442-1485), German philosopher and scholar. 
 
 s. V. Palatinus. 
 Agrippinas, Cologne, Germ. s.v. Coloniensis. 
 Alani codd., MSS. of Henry Allen of Dublin, editor of Cicero. Now 
 
 in the possession of his son Samuel Allen of Dublin. 
 Albae-Juliensis, s. v. Weissenburgensis. 
 Albertina, the University Library, Leipzig, Germ. 
 Albiensis, Albigensis, Albi, Fr. (Libri : PortaP.) 
 Albornoziana, s.v. Bononiensis. 
 
 * Catalogues marked with an asterisk will be fouiul in tlic Catalogttc gMeral 
 des bibl. pnbUqties de Frame, 1849 1885 and 1893-T903. 
 
 U 2 
 
 I ' 
 
 '■ \ 
 
292 
 
 NOMENCLATURE 
 
 Alcobacensis, Bibl. Alcobatiae, i.e. of the Benedictine monastery of 
 Alcobaca. Now at Lisbon, Portugal. (Catalogue, Lisbon, 1775.) 
 
 Alderspacensis, Aldersbach, near Passau, Germ. MSS. at Munich. 
 
 Aleander, Hieronymus (1480- 1542), Cardinal, librarian to Leo X. 
 MSS. in Vatican. 
 
 Alexandrinus, (i) Bibl. Alexandrina, a portion of the Vatican Library 
 founded by Alexander VIII in 1690 out of the collections of Queen 
 Christina and of Pius II (s.v. Vaticanus). (2) University Library 
 (Bibl. Alessandrina) in Rome founded by Alexander VII, 1667. 
 (H. Narducci, 1877.) (3) The codex Alexandrinus of the Greek 
 Bible given to Charles I in 1627 by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of 
 Constantinople, came from Alexandria. It is now in the British 
 
 Museum. 
 AUatius, Leo (1584-1667), Greek scholar and theologian. MSS. in 
 
 Vatican and Vallicelliana. 
 Almelovee(n)ianus, MSS. collected by Theodore Jannson van Alme- 
 loveen, 1657-1712, Professor of Classics and of Medicine at Harder- 
 wyk, Holland. 
 Alnensis, Aulne, Belg. (Sanderus, Bibl. Belgica, ii. 234, gives a cata- 
 logue for 1632.) 
 
 Altaempsianus, the MSS. of the Dukes of Altaemps and Galesi, an 
 Italian family descended from the Counts of Hohen-Ems. Their 
 collection, which included the MSS. of Albertus Pius (d. 1529) 
 and Johannes Angelus Altaemps (d. 1627), was purchased by 
 Cardinal Ottoboni and is now part of the Ottoboniani (q. v.). 
 
 Altaha superior, Ober-Altaich, Germ. MSS. at Munich. 
 
 Altaha inferior, Nieder-Altaich, Germ. MSS. at Munich. 
 
 Alt(d)orfinus, MSS. at University of Altdorf, Germ. Now at Erlangen. 
 
 Altenburgensis, Altenburg, Germ. At Diisseldorf. 
 
 Alteriana, libr. of Altieri family at Rome. Blume, Bibl., p. 159. 
 
 Althorp, library founded by Charles Spencer, third Earl of Sunderland 
 (1674-1722), and increased by George John Spencer, second Earl 
 Spencer (1758-1834). Sold in 1892 to form nucleus of Rylands 
 Library, s. v. Mancuniensis. 
 
 Altissiodurensis, also Aut-, Ant-, Auxerre, Fr. (Molinier*.) 
 
 Altmonasteriensis, Altmunster, Germ. At Munich. 
 
 Altovadensis (Vadum altum), Hohenfurth, Bohemia. 
 
 Amandinus, s. v. S. Amand. 
 
 Ambergensis, Amberg, Germ. MSS. at Munich. 
 
 Ambianensis (Ambianum), Amiens, Fr. The library contains Cor- 
 beienses, Fontanellenses, and MSS. of S. Petri Selincuriensis and 
 S. Acheul. (E. Coyecque; Michel*.) 
 
 Ambrasianus, Castle Ambras in Tyrol, Austria. Library transferred 
 to Vienna in 1665. (Th. Gottlieb, Ambraser Hss., 1900.) 
 
 OF MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 293 
 
 |ii 
 
 
 Ambrosianus, library founded at Milan, It,, in 1609 by Cardinal 
 
 Federigo Borromeo (1564-1631). It includes the collections of 
 
 Pinelli and Merula. (Gk. MSS., Martini e Bassi, 1905.) 
 Amerbachianus, Boniface Amerbach of Basel, Switz. (1495-1562), 
 
 Professor of Law ; friend of Erasmus. 
 Amiatinus, Monastery San Salvatore di Monte Amiata, near Siena, 
 
 It., suppressed in 1786. MSS. transferred to monastery of Castello 
 
 Nuovo, Florence, and from thence to the Laurentian. 
 Amplonianus, s.v. Erfurtensis. 
 Amstelodamensis (Amstelodamum), Amsterdam, Holland. Library 
 
 of the University or Athenaeum illustre. MSS. of Foucault and 
 
 Granvella. (H. C. Rogge, 1883 ; Omont.) 
 Andegavensis (Andegavum), Angers, Fr. Library of the Abbayc de 
 
 S. Aubin, now dispersed. (Molinier*.) 
 Andreensis, the Skiti or monastery of S. Andrew on Mt. Athos. 
 Andros, Greece, Moj/;} rjjs 'Ayaiy. (Sp. Lambros.) 
 Angelica, library at Rome founded by an Augustinian monk, Angelo 
 
 Rocca (1545-1620), in 1605. Once the library of the Coenobium 
 
 S. Augustini de urbe. Now in Piazza S. Agostino. Contains MSS. 
 
 of Passionei (s.v.) and part of Holstenius' library. (H. Narducci, 
 
 1893 ; F. de* Cavalieri and J. Muccio in Stitdi ital. di filoloi^ia 
 
 iv, p. 7 ; cf. T. W. Allen, Class. Rev. 1889, P- 345') 
 Angelomontanus, Engelberg, Switz. MSS. dispersed. (B. Gottwald, 
 
 1891.) 
 Annabergensis, Annaberg, Germ. The Franciscan house here was 
 
 secularized in 1558. Some of its MSS. are in the present School 
 
 Library. 
 Antissiodorensis, s.v. Alt-. 
 Antoniana,(i) library at Padua, It. (Josa, 1886.) (2) A library formerly 
 
 at Venice whose MSS. are quoted by the older scholars (e.g. Cic* 
 
 Epp. ad Atf.). 
 Antwerpiensis (Antwerpia, llandoverpia), Antwerp, Belg. (1) Library 
 
 of the Musee Plantin, purchased from the Plantin firm of printers 
 
 (1576-1876) in 1876. (H. Stein, 1886; Omont.) (2) Municipal 
 
 Library (Omont). 
 Apponyi, the library of Count Louis App., which contained a few 
 
 classical MSS., was sold in London (Sotheby) in 1892. 
 Aquensis (Aquae Sextiae), Aix, Fr. MSS. from the Grand Scmi- 
 
 naire are now at Marseilles. 
 Aquiscinctum, Anchin, Fr. MSS. at Douai. 
 Aquisgranensis (Aquisgranum), Aachen, Germ. 
 Arcerianus, Joh. Arcerius Theodoretus, Professor of Greek at 
 
 Franeker, editor of lamblichus (1538-1604). His MS. of the 
 
 Agrimensores is now at Wolfenbiittel. 
 
 ^ 
 
294 
 
 NOMENCLATURE 
 
 Arelatensis ( Arclas, Arelate), Aries, Fr. MSS. now at Marseilles. 
 
 Argentoratensis, Argentinensis (Argentoratuni, Argentina), Strass- 
 burg, Germ. MSS. partly destroyed in 1870, v. M. Vachon, Paris, 
 1882. 
 
 Armamentarii Parisiensis, Bibl. de I'Arsenal. s. v. Parisiensis. 
 
 Arosiensis (Arosia\ Vasteras, Sweden. Hogre allmanna larovcrks- 
 biblioteket. (P. Olai, 1640 ; W. Moler, 1877.) 
 
 Aroviensis (Arovia, Araugia), Aarau, Switz. 
 
 Arsenius, s. v. Suchano. 
 
 Arsinoiticus, papyri discovered at Arsinoe in Egypt. 
 
 Arundelianus, MSS. of Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel (1586-1646), 
 presented to the Royal Society in 1667 by Henry Howard, afterwards 
 sixth Duke of Norfolk (1628-1684). Transferred to the British 
 Museum in 1831. The collection contains the MSS. of Willibald 
 Pirkheimer. (Cat. Forshall, 1840.) 
 
 Ascalingium, Hildesheim, Germ. 
 
 Ashburnhamensis, s.v. Barrois, Libri. 
 
 Ashmoleanus,MSS. of Elias Ashmole (1617-1692), antiquary ; trans- 
 ferred in 1858 to the Bodleian from the Museum which he founded 
 in 1677. (W. H. Black, 1845-1867.) 
 
 Askevianus, Anthony Askew (1722-1774), physician, but better 
 known as a classical scholar. His library, which included MSS. of 
 Mead and Taylor, was dispersed in 1785. Cf. Burneianus, Hauniensis, 
 Severnianus. (Catalogue of sale, 1785.) 
 
 Asola,Giov. Francesco d' (Jo. Franciscus Asulanus), a collector who 
 presented many MSS. to Francis I in 1542 for the library at Fon- 
 tainebleau. He was the father-in-law of Aldus Manutius. 
 
 Atheniensis,'E^i"Kv^t,:i\io^r}*cr/T^s'EXX(i5o?, Athens, Greece. (Sakkelion, 
 
 1892.) 
 Athous, the libraries at Mt. Athos, Turkey. (Sp. Lambros, 1895- 
 
 1900.) The name is also applied to MSS. brought from Mt. Athos, 
 
 e.g. for Scguier (at Paris) and by Minas, Simonides, and others. 
 Atrebatensis (Atrebatae), S. Vaast or Vedast of Arras, Fr. (J. 
 
 Ouicherat*.) 
 Audomarensis, Audomaripolitanus (Audomaropolis), S. Omer, Fr. 
 
 MSS. partly at Boulogne. (H. Michelant* ; Framezelle*.) 
 Augiensis, (i) Augia Major or Dives, Reichenau near Constance, 
 
 Switz., S.V. Reichenaviensis. (2) Augia Alba, Weissenau, Germ. 
 
 (3) Augia Minor, Minderau, Germ. 
 Augustanus, (i) Augsburg (Augusta Vindelicorum), Germ. There are 
 
 a few classical MSS. in the Kreis- und Stadtbibl. Most MSS. from 
 
 the town and church libraries were transferred to Munich in 1806. 
 
 MSS. from the surrounding monasteries have since been added 
 
 (cf. Eichstatt, including Rebdorfenses). (G. C. Mezger, 1842.) 
 
 OF MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 295 
 
 'I 
 
 1. 
 
 .1 .1 
 
 (2) Bibliothcca Augustea, Wolfe nbuttel, founded by Hcrzog 
 August in 1644. (O. von Heinemann, 1884-1890.) (3) Occasionally 
 used for Augusta Trevirorum, i. e. Treves. 
 
 Augusteus, (1) the Berlin and Vatican palimpsest of Vergil (Schedae 
 Berolinenses or Puteaneae). It was given this title by G. H. Pertz, 
 who thought that it belonged to the age of Augustus. (2) Used for 
 Augustanus (supra). 
 
 Augustinus, the library of Antonius Augustinus ( Agustin) (1516- 1586), 
 Abp. of Tarragona, Spain. Now in the Escurial. (M. Baillus, 1586). 
 
 Augustobonensis (Augustobona Trecassium), Tro3'es, Fr. Cf. Tre- 
 
 ccnsis. 
 Augustodunensis ( Augustodunum), Bibliothequc du grand scmi- 
 
 naire, Autun, Fr. (Libri*.) 
 
 Aureatensis (Aureatum), Eichstatt, Germ. Kgl. Bibl. in fiirstbischofl. 
 Sommer-Residenz. (Bethmann.) Cf. s.v. Augustanus. 
 
 Aurea Vallis, Orval, Cistercian monastery in Luxembourg. At Paris. 
 
 Aurelianensis (Aurelianum), Orleans, Fr. MSS. of G. Prousteau 
 (s.v. Proustelliana), who inherited the collection made by H. Vale- 
 sius. (Septier, 1820 ; Cuissard *.) 
 
 Ausonensis, Vich (Ansa nova, also called Vicus), Sp. 
 
 Autesiodorensis, s. v. Altiss-. 
 
 Autricensis, s. v. Carnutensis. 
 
 Auximensis (Auximum), Osimo, It. Bibl. del Collcgio. (Mazzatinti.) 
 
 Avaricensis (Avaricum), Bourges, Fr. Cf. Bituricus. (de Girardot ; 
 II. Oinont*.) t 
 
 Avellanensis, Fonte Avellana, Umbria, It. 
 
 Avennionensis (Avenio), Avignon, Fr. (i) Relics of the Papal Library 
 survive among the Fuxenses in Bibl. Nat. Paris and in the Borghese 
 collection in the Vatican. (2) Bibliotheque d'Avignon, Musce Calvct 
 (L H. Labande, 1892.) 
 
 Aviculae codd., e.g. the Nostradamensis of Ouintilian, formerly 
 in the possession of Antoine Loisel (1536-1617), a French juris- 
 consult, pupil of Ramus and friend of Pithou. Many of them were 
 inherited by his grandson Claude Joly (d. 1700), precentor and canon 
 of Notre-Dame, who left them to the library of Notre-Dame, 
 which since 1756 has become part of the Paris Library (s.v. Nostra- 
 damensis). 
 
 B 
 
 Babenbergensis, Bamberg, Germ. s. v. Bamb-.. 
 
 Badia, s.v. Abbatiae de Florentia. 
 
 Baiocensis, Bayeux, Fr. 
 
 Balliolensis, Balliol College, Oxford. (H. O. Coxe.) 
 
 Balmensis, Baume-les-Messieurs, Fr. 
 
296 
 
 NOMENCLATURE 
 
 OF MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 297 
 
 iff 
 
 Baluzianus, Etienne Baluze (1630-1718), French historian ; librarian to 
 Colbert, q.v. His MSS. were purchased forthe Royal Library, Paris, 
 
 in 1719. 
 Bambergensis (Bamberga, Babenberga), Bamberg, Germ. Kgl. 
 Bibliothek. (H.J. Jaeck, 1831-1835 ; F. Leitschuh, 1887.) Cf. Helle- 
 riana. Some Bamberg MSS. at Munich. Early history in L. Traubc, 
 Abhamil. der hisiorischen Klasse lUr Kgl. Bayer. Akad xxiv, Part i, 
 
 1906. 
 Bankesianus, William John Bankes (d. 1855), traveller and M.P. 
 
 He acquired the papyrus of Homer which bears his name in the 
 
 island of Elephantine, Egypt, in 1821. It was purchased for the 
 
 British Museum in 1879. 
 Barbarus, Hermolaus (1454-1494), Italian humanist. MSS. in Vatican 
 
 (Orsini), Bodleian (Canonicij. 
 Barberin(ian)us, Cardinal Francesco Barbcrini (1597-1679), nephew of 
 
 Urban VIII, founder of the Barberini Library, Rome, which contained 
 
 many MSS. from Grottaferrata (Cryptoferratenses) and also the 
 
 collection of his librarian Lucas Holstenius (Holste) (1596-1661). 
 
 In the Vatican since 1902. (Gk. MSS.: S. de Ricci, Rev. des 
 
 Bibliotheques, 1907 ; Perleoni, Studi It., 1907.) 
 Barc(h)inonensis (Barcino), Barcelona, Sp. (E. Volger, Serapeitm 
 
 viii, p. 273.) 
 Barlow, MSS.of Thomas Barlow,librarian of Bodleian Library, Oxford, 
 
 1652-1660, afterwards Bp. of Lincoln. Now in Bodleian. 
 
 Baroccianus, MSS. of Giacomo Barocci of Venice (v. J. P. Tomasini, 
 Bihl. Venetae, p. 64; Blume,//<^r //«/., i. 233), given to tiie Bodleian by 
 William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, in 1629. (II. O. Coxe, 1853.) 
 Cf. s.v. Cromwellianus and Roe. 
 
 Barrois, Joseph (1785-1855), bookseller and bibliographer. His 
 collection of MSS. (most of which were stolen from public libraries 
 at Paris and elsewhere) was sold by him to Lord Ashburnham 
 
 in 1849. 
 Basilianus, (1) s.v. S. Basilii. (2) MSS. from Basilian monasteries at 
 
 Grottaferrata, Messina, Rome (Vatican), Venice. 
 Basilicanus, (i) The Chapter Library atS. Peter's, Rome (Tabularium 
 
 Capituli Basilicae Vaticanae). (2) Used by some of the earlier 
 
 scholars to describe a MS. belonging to any cathedral library, e.g. 
 
 the Hittorpianus of Cicero. 
 Basileensis (Basilea), Basel, Switz. (Haenel, pp. 513-660 ; Steuber, 
 
 Serapeum, 1856, xvii, p. 129.) Library contains the MSS. of John of 
 
 Ragusa (d. 1443), Amerbach, Froben, and Faesch. 
 Batthyanianus, library founded by Ignatius, Count Batthyany 
 
 (1741-1798) at Siebenburgen, Transylvania. Now at Karlsburg. 
 
 (A.Bcke, 1871.) 
 
 Bavaricus, Munich, Bavaria, s.v. Monacenses. 
 
 Beccensis, Bee, Fr. MSS. at Evreux. Rouen, and in the Vatican. 
 
 Bellaevallensis, Belval, Fr. MSS. at Charlevillc. 
 
 Bellofontanensis, s. v. Fonteblandensis. 
 
 Bellopratensis, Beaupre, Belg. MSS. at Brussels. 
 
 Bellunensis (Bellunum), Bellimo, It. (Bibl. Lolliniana). (Mazzatinti.) 
 
 Belvacensis, Bellovacensis (Bellovacum), S. Pierre de Beauvais, Fr. 
 MSS. from Luxeuil once here are in Le Caron Library (q.v.). 
 
 Bembinus, Bernardo Bembo (i433-i5i9)> and his son the humanist 
 Cardinal Pietro Bembo (1470-1547). MSS. in the Vatican (Ursiniani, 
 Urbinates) ; few at Modena (Mutinensis) and at Venice. 
 
 Benedictoburanus, Benedictbeuern, Germ. MSS. at Munich. 
 
 Benzelius, Ericus, Abp. of Upsala (d. 1709). MSS. at Linkoping and 
 Upsala. 
 
 Beratinus, Berat, Macedonia. 
 
 Bernard Edward (1638-1697), Fellow of S. John's College, Oxford, 
 and Savilian Professor of Astronomy. His MSS. (many of which 
 had been purchased at the sale of Nicholas Heinsius' library in 1682) 
 were purchased by the Bodleian in 1698. (Madan, Siainnary Cat.^ 
 
 iii, p. I.) 
 
 Bernegger, Matthias (1582-1640), Austrian scholar. MSS. at Breslau. 
 
 Bernensis (Berna), Berne, Switz. Stadtbibliothek contains the MSS. 
 of Bongars (presented in 1631), among which are included those of 
 P. Daniel. (J. R. Sinner, 1760-1772 ; 11. Hagen, 1874-1875.) 
 
 Berolinensis (BeroHnum), Berlin, Germ, (i) Kgl. Bibl., founded 1661. 
 (Greek, Mamiscnpta Gracccu C. de Boor, 1897 ; Codd. Phillippici, 
 W. Studemund and L. Cohn, 1890. Latin, V. Rose has catalogued 
 the Phillipps collection and the old hbrary of the elector.) Other Lat. 
 MSS. in Diez, Savigny, and Hamilton collections. (2) Universitats- 
 bibl., founded 1829. All MSS. have been transferred to the 
 Kgl. Bibl. 
 
 Berry, s. v. Bituricus. 
 
 Bertinianus, Benedictine monastery at S. Berlin, near S. Omer, Fr. 
 At S. Omer and Boulogne. 
 
 Bertoliana, library at Vicenza, It., founded in 1708 by will of G. M. 
 BertoH, a lawyer (1631-1707). (Mazzatinti; an account by D.Bortolant 
 
 Vicenza, 1893.) 
 
 Bessarion, Johannes or Basilius (1395-1472), created cardinal in 1439, 
 bequeathed his library to Venice, where it forms part of the 
 Marciana. MSS. formerly in his possession are also at Grottaferrata 
 and Munich. He obtained many of his MSS. from the monastery of 
 S. Nicholas, at Casole near Otranto. (s.v. Hydruntinus.) (Omont, 
 Revue des Bibliotheques, 1894.) 
 
 Besuensis, Bcze, Cute-d'Or, Burgundy, Fr. 
 
298 
 
 NOMENCLATURE 
 
 Betouwianus, MSS. of I. van Betouw (1732 1820). Dutch advocate, 
 
 left to the Ubrary at Leyden in 1821. 
 Beverina, s.v. Hildeshemensis. 
 Beza, Theodore de Beze (1519-1605), of Geneva, theologian, friend of 
 
 Calvnn. 
 Bigaugiensis, s. v. Pigaviensis. ^ 
 
 Bigotianus, Jean Bigot of Rouen and his son Kmcric (1626 1689). 
 Their collection was sold in 1706 to the Royal Library, Paris. 
 (Delisle, CahineU I p. 322. Cat. by Delisle, 1877.) 
 Bittiricus (Bituricae), (i) Bourges, Fr. (Omont*.) MSS. of S. Sulpicc, 
 S. Cyran, Chczal-Benoit (Casalinus). (2) MSS. belongnig to the 
 collection' of Jean de Berry (1340-T416), brother of Charles V of 
 France. Dispersed at his death. MSS. in Bourges, Paris, Brussels, 
 London. (L. Delisle, Rcclierchis sitr la Ubvairk de CJi. V, 1907-) 
 Blandinius, s. v. Blankenbergensis. 
 Blankenbergensis, Blankenberg (Mons Blandinius), a Bcncdictnie 
 
 monastery near Ghent. Holland. 
 Blankenburgensis, library at Schloss Blankenburg, Brunswick, trans- 
 ferred to Wolfenbiittel in 1753. 
 Blavibornensis, Blaubeuren, Germ. 
 
 Blesensis, Blois, Fr. The library of the kings of France at Blois 
 was begun by Charles VIII, who appropriated after his campaign 
 in 1495" the collections made by the Aragonesc kings of Naples 
 (esp. Ferdinand I). The library at Blois was transferred to Fon- 
 tainebleau by Francis I and later to Paris. 
 Bliaudifontanus, s. v. Fonteblandensis. 
 
 Bobiensis (Bobium, Ebobium). Monastery ot S. Columban at 
 Bobbio, It. Its MSS., mostly palimpsests, were neglected by the 
 humanists except Parrhasius (1499), who discovered some which he 
 presented to the Neapolitan monastery of S. Giovanni a Carbonara. 
 These are now in the Bibl. Nazionale at Naples. Others are now in 
 the Vatican (given by Paul V) and at Milan (procured by F. Borromeo 
 in 1609^ Turin, and Woltenbiittel. (A. Peyron, 1824.) 
 Bochart,' Samuel (1599-1667), minister of reformed church at Caen. 
 
 MSS. at Caen (Cadomensis). 
 Bodleianus, the Bodleian Library, Oxford, founded by Sir Thomas 
 Bodley in 1598. The chief collections containing classical MSS. are : 
 Ashmole, Barlow, Barocci, Bernard, Canonici, Clarke, Cromwell, 
 Digby, D'Orville, Douce. Laud, Meerman, Rawlinson, Roe, 
 Satbante, Selden (all described in this index, s.v.). 
 Boernerianus, (i) Kaspai Boerner, librarian at Leipzig arc. 1540- 
 Cf. Caf. Codd. MSS. Bihl. Paulinae, L. J. Feller, 1686. pp. 1-59. (2) 
 Christian Friedrich Boerner (1683-1753). Professor of Theology at 
 Leipzig and librarian. MSS. at Leipzig (University Library). 
 
 OF MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 ' \ 
 
 
 299 
 
 Boherianus, Jean Bouhicr (d. 1671) and his grandson of the same 
 name (d. 1746). Their collection of MSS. was purchased in 1781 
 by the abbey of Clairvaux. It passed to Troyes during the 
 Revolution. In 1804 it was transferred partly to the National 
 Library at Paris and partly to the library at Montpellier. (L. Delisle, 
 Cabinet, ii, p. 266.) 
 
 Boistalierianus, Jean Hurault, Seigneur de Boistaille (d. 1572), am- 
 bassador at Constantinople and collector of MSS. His library was 
 purchased for the Bibliothcque Royale, Paris, in 1622. A few of his 
 MSS. are at Leyden and in Arsenal Library, Paris. (L. Delisle, 
 Cabinet, i, p. 213.) 
 
 Bonelkis, F. Michaele Bonelli, Cardinal of Alexandria, nephew of 
 Pius V. MSS. in Casanatense, Rome. 
 
 Bongarsianus, Jacques Bongars (circ. 1554-1613), jurist and critic, 
 maitre d'hotel to Henry IV of France. His collection of over 500 
 MSS. was derived from Strassburg, S. Benoit-sur-Loire (Fleury), 
 S. Mesmin at Micy (Miciacensis) near Orleans, and from the collec- 
 tions of Cujacius and P. Daniel (s.v. Danielinus). He left it to 
 Jacques Gravisset (b. 1598), who presented it to the University 
 Library at Berne (1631). There are a few isolated codices elsewhere, 
 e.g. Amsterdam. Cf. Bernensis. 
 
 Bonifatianus, s. v. Fuldensis. 
 
 Bonnensis, Bonn, Germ. Kgl. Universitats-Bibl. (A. Klette and 
 J. Stander, 1858-1878.) 
 
 Bononiensis (Bononia), (i) Boulogne, Fr. ; includes the MSS. of 
 S. Vaast of Arras and of S. Bertin of S. Omer. (Michelant*.) (2) 
 University Library at Bologna, It. (Gk. MSS., Olivieri and Festa, 
 1895; Puntoni, 1896.) (3) Biblioteca Comunale in the Archigin- 
 nasio, Bologna, It. (4) Bibl. Collegii Hispanici (Collegio di Spagna), 
 Bologna, founded by Cardinal Albornoz (d. 1367). (Blume, Bibl., 
 p. 81.) 
 
 Borbetomagensis (Borbetomagus, Gormetia), Worms, Germ. Also 
 Vormaciensis. 
 
 Borbonicus, s. v. Neapolitanus. 
 
 Bordesholm, Germ. The MSS. from the monastery were trans- 
 ferred to Gottorp and are now at Copenhagen. A few were 
 acquired by Marquard Gude and are now at Wolfenbuttel. 
 
 Borghesianus, Biblioteca Borghese, incorporated with the Vatican 
 since 1891. The collection was begun by Cardinal Scipio Borghese, 
 nephew of Pope Paul V. 
 
 Borgianus, (i) Museo Borgiano, Rome. MSS. now in the Vatican. 
 (2) The Charta Borgiana is a papyrus found in Egypt in 1778. It 
 was purchased by Cardinal Stefano Borgia and is now in the 
 Museo Nazionale at Naples. 
 
 
 *t 
 
 !' 
 
 ^j 
 
3CX) 
 
 NOMENCLATURE 
 
 Borromeo, Frid. (1564-1631), cardinal. MSS. at Milan (Ambros.). 
 Bosianus, s. v. Crusellinus. 
 
 Bosius, J. A. (1626-1674), Professor of History at Jena. MSS. at Jena. 
 Bouhier, s. v. Boherianus. 
 
 Bourdelot, name assumed by P. Michon (1610-1685), a French physi- 
 cian in the service of Queen Christina of Sweden. MSS, in Vatican 
 
 (Reginenses); also at Leyden and Paris. (Omont, Revue cies Bibl., 
 
 1891, i. 81-103.) 
 Brahe, library of Count Brahe now deposited in the Riks-arkiv, 
 
 Stockholm, Sweden. 
 Braidense, s. v. Brerensis. 
 Brancacciana, library of S. Angelo at Naples founded by bequest ol 
 
 Cardinal Francesco Maria Brancaccio in 1675. (Catalogus bibl. 
 
 S. Angeli ad Nilum, 1750.) 
 Bregensis, S. Nicholas, Brieg, Switz. 
 Bremensis (Brema), Bremen, Germ. Cf Goldastianus. (II. Omont, 
 
 Zentralblatt f, Bibl, 1890, vol. vii, p. 369; Rump, 1843.) 
 Brerensis, Brera (or Braidense) Library, Milan, It. (Gk. MSS., 
 
 E. Martini, 1893.) 
 Breslaviensis (Vratislavia), Breslau, Germ. s. v. Vratislaviensis. 
 Britannus, Britannicus, s. v. Londiniensis. 
 Brixianus (Brixia), Brescia, It. (i) Bibl. Queriniana founded by 
 
 Cardinal Ouerini (d. 1755) in 1747. (F. Garbelli, 1882; E. Martini, 
 
 1896; Lat. codd. in A.Beltrami, Sfiicii Jtaliani, 1906.) (2j Cathedral 
 
 Library. 
 Broukhusianus, Johan van Brouckhuysenor Broekhuizen (1619-1707) 
 
 of Amsterdam, naval officer and poet. Owned MSS. of Tibullus 
 
 and Propertius. 
 Bruehliana, library of Ileinrich Graf von Bruhl (1700-1763), minister ol 
 
 August III of Saxony. Incorporated with the Kurfurstl. Bibl., 
 
 Dresden, since 1768. 
 Brugensis (Brugae), Bruges, Belg. (Laude, 1859.) 
 Brunck, Richard Francois Philippe (1729-1803) of Strassburg, editor 
 
 of Aristophanes and other Greek authors. Many of the MSS. owned 
 
 by him are now in the Bibl. Nat. at Paris (Fonds du supplement 
 
 grec) and in Brit. Mus. 
 Brunsvicensis (Brunsvicum, Brunsviga), Brunswick, Germ. (Nent- 
 
 wig, 1893.) Many MSS. from churches and monasteries in 
 
 Brunswick are now at Wolfenbiittel. 
 Bruxellensis (Bruxellae), Brussels, Belg. Bibl. Royale, which 
 
 contains the Bibl. de Bourgogne (J. Marchal, 1840), founded in the 
 
 15th cent, by Philippe le Bon. (Gk. MSS., Omont; Lat. MSS., 
 
 P. Thomas, 1896.) Contains MSS. of D Asola, Doverinus, Fran- 
 
 quen, Gerard, Lang, Livineius, Schott. 
 
 I 
 
 i I 
 
 .'■,1 
 
 ,11 
 
 OF MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 301 
 
 Bucharest, Roumania. Library of the Roumanian Academy. (Gk. 
 MSS., C. Litzica, 1900-1909.) 
 
 Budaeus, the family of Bude. (i) Jean Bude (d. 1502), whose collection 
 was dispersed in the i6th cent. (2) His son Guillaume Bude 
 (1467-1540), scholar and librarian to Francis I. B.'s library (which 
 contained few MSS.) was sold on his death to President Francois 
 de S. Andre (d. 1571) and has passed through the Jesuits of Clermont, 
 H. de Mesmes, and Colbert to the Bibl. Nat., Paris. A few MSS. 
 are at Leyden. 
 
 Budensis, Budapesti(n)ensis, Buda-Pest, Hungary. University 
 Library (Cat. codd. MSS., Budapest, 1889-1894). Contains MSS. of 
 Matthias Corvinus (s.v.) restored by Sultan Abdul Hamid II. (A. v. 
 Torok, 1877.) Some Budenses are at Vienna. 
 
 Bunaviensis, Heinrich Graf von Bunau (1697- 1762), Saxon minister 
 and historian. His library, of which Winckelmann was at one 
 time librarian, was purchased in 1764 for the Kurfurstl. Bibl., 
 Dresden (M. Franke, 1750.) 
 
 Burdigalensis (Burdigala), Bordeaux, Fr. (C. Couderc.) 
 
 Burensis, s.v. Benedictoburanus. 
 
 Burghesianus, s. v. Borgh-. 
 
 Burgos, Francisco de Mendoza of Bobadilla (1508-1566), Cardinal of 
 Burgos, Sp. MSS. in Escurial. 
 
 Burmannus, (i) Pieter Burman, Dutch scholar, Professor at Leyden 
 (1668-1741). His MSS. at LeydeU; Holland, since 1777. A few 
 in the Hunterian collection, Glasgow. (2) His nephew, Pieter 
 Burman (1714-1778), Professor at Amsterdam. 
 
 Burneianus, MSS. of Dr. Charles Burney (1726-1814), friend of 
 Johnson and father of Frances Burney. Purchased for the Brit. 
 Mus. in 1818. (Forshall, 1834.) 
 
 Busbequius, Ogier Ghislain de Busbecq (1522-1592), ambassador of 
 the Emperor Ferdinand I in Turkey (1555-1562). He made the first 
 copy of the Monumentum Ancyranum. His Gk. MSS. are now in 
 the Imperial Library, Vienna. (Biography by Forster and Daniel, 
 London, 1881 ; Viertel, Busbecks Efleiiiissc in der Tiirkei, 1902; 
 J. Bick in Wiener Sfitdien, 1912, p. 143.) 
 
 Buslidianus, MSS. left to the Collegium Trilingue founded at 
 Louvain, Belg., by bequest of Hieronymus Buslidius or Busleiden 
 (1470-1517), ambassador of Maximilian and a friend of More and 
 Erasmus. Now in the University Library, Louvain. 
 
 Butlerianus, MSS. belonging to Samuel Butler (1774-1839), Bp. of 
 Lichfield, Eng., editor of Aeschylus. 
 
 1< 
 
 I' 
 4\ 
 
 m 
 
ff 
 
 302 
 
 NOMENCLATURE 
 
 CabUfDonensis (Cabillonum% Chalon-sur-Saone, Fr. (Bougenot*.) 
 Cadomensis fCadomum), Caen, Fr. (Lavalley *.) 
 Caesaraugustanus (Caesarea Augusta), Zaragossa, Sp. Pilar 
 
 Library. 
 Caesareus, a general term for an imperial library (e.g. \ lenna. 
 
 S. Petersburg). 
 
 Caesenas, Cesena, It. s.v. Malatestianus. 
 
 Caiogonvilensis, Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge. 
 
 Cairensis, library of the Gk. Patriarchate, Cairo, Egypt. (O. 
 Schneider, Beitriige, 1874, pp. 4I-7-) 
 
 Calaber Calabria, It. In ancient times the name Calabria belonged 
 to the'sE. peninsula of Italy and included among its most impor- 
 tant towns Tarentum and Hydruntum. In the 7th cent, a.d., in the 
 reian of the Emperor Constans, the name seems to have been 
 applied to a large administrative district which included the SW. 
 peninsula (the ancient Bruttium). When the Empire lost its hold 
 on the eastern portion of this district the name Calabria came to be 
 used for the SW. peninsula, Vv^hich still retains it. The title 
 Calaber is therefore properly applied to MSS. written, discovered, 
 or owned in this western district, which includes such towns as 
 Reggio, Cosenza, Rossano ; but it is sometimes loosely applied to 
 MS^S. which come from the eastern province, especially by scholars 
 
 of the Renaissance. , r- ,. it 
 
 Calabricus, the MSS. of the Duke of Calabria, afterwards Ferdinand I 
 of Aragon (1424-1494)^ which he left to the monastery of San 
 Mi-uel de los Reyes near Valencia, Sp. Now in the University 
 Library at Valencia. (Mazzatinti, La Biblioteca dei Re d'Amgona, 
 
 1897, p. cxxvii, note 4.) 
 Calariensis (Calaris, Caralis), Cagliari, Sardinia, It. 
 Calmontensis (Calmontium), Chaumont, Fr. (Gautier*.) 
 Camaldulensis (Campus Malduli), monastery in province of Arezzo, 
 
 It. MSS. at Florence. 
 Camberiacensis (Camberiacum, Chamarium), Chambery, F r. (Per- 
 
 pechon *.) 
 Camberinensis, Cambron, Belg. ^ 
 
 Cameracensis, Camberacensis, Cambrai, Fr. (Molmier .) 
 Camerarius, Joachim Kammermeister of Bamberg, Germ. {1500-1574). 
 
 Professor of Greek at Tubingen and Leipzig. Some MSS. at 
 
 Munich. ^., , ,, , . . 
 
 Camerinensis (Camerinum), Camenno, It. Bibl. Valentiniana, 
 
 founded 1802. (Mazzatinti, [m'pufnri. 1887.) 
 
 OF MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 303 
 
 11 
 
 i I 
 
 \ 
 
 li 
 
 
 Campianus, the Abbt3 Francois de Camps (d. 1723), an authority 
 
 on law and numismatics, abbot of a Cistercian monaster}' at 
 
 Signy, Fr. (Delisle, Cabinet, i. 321.) 
 Campililiensis (Campililium), Lilicnfeld, Austr. (Xeiiia Beniardina 
 
 II-III.) 
 Candidus, s. v. Decembrius. 
 Canonicianus, MSS. of Mattco Luigi Canonici, a Venetian Jesuit 
 
 (1727-1805), acquired for the Bodleian in 1817. (H. O. Coxe, 1854 ^ 
 
 Madan, Situiiiiary Cat, iv. 313.) Some MSS. from the C. collection 
 
 are at Keel Hall, Staffordshire. 
 Cantabrigiensis, Cambridge, Eng. (i) University Library, con- 
 taining MSS. of Bp. More (s.v.). (2) College libraries, M. R. 
 
 James (Caius, Sidney Sussex, Jesus, King's, Trinity, Peterhouse); 
 
 M. Cowie (S. John's); J. T. Smith (Caius); Nasmith (MSS. of 
 
 Matthew Parker at Corpus Christi, 1777), embodied in James' 
 
 catalogue. 
 Cantuariensis (Cantuaria), Canterbuiy, Eng. MSS. mostl}' at 
 
 Lambeth Palace, London, and Corpus, Camb. (M. R. James, 1903.) 
 Capellari, s. v. S. Michaelis. 
 Capilupianus, library of Capilupi family at Mantua, It. (Cf. G. Kupke, 
 
 Oiiellen u. Forschimgen, 1900, iii. 129, and Blume, Iter Ital., i. 
 
 162.) 
 Capitolo Metropolitano, Milan, It. (Gk. MSS., E. Martini, 1893.) 
 Capo d'Istria, Austria. Franciscan convent of S. Anna (E. Gollob, 
 
 Verscichnis, 1903.) 
 Capponianus, the Biblioteca Capponiana bequeathed to the Vatican 
 
 by the Marchese Alessandro Gregorio Capponi in 1745. Contains 
 
 a few Latin MSS. 
 Capranicensis, the Collegio Capranica, Rome, founded b\' Dominicus 
 
 Capranica (d. 1456), jurist and bibhophile. MSS. in Vatican. 
 Carbonensis, MSS. from the Basilian monastery of S. Elia de 
 
 Carbone, S. It. Now in Vatican and at Grottaferrata. 
 Carcassonensis (Carcaso), Carcassonne, Fr. (Gadier*.) 
 Carinthianus, s.v. S. Pauli. 
 Carlopolitanus (Carlopolis), Charleville, Fr. (Quicherat *, Barba- 
 
 deaux*.) 
 Carnutensis (Carnutum, Autricum), Chartres, Fr. (Omont and 
 
 others *.) 
 Carolina, library of the Missione Urbana di San Carlo at Genoa, It. 
 
 (Banchero, 1846 ; Gk. MSS., A. Ehrhard, Zentralbl. f. Bibl., 1893. 
 
 Cf. T. W. Allen, Class. Rev., 1889, p. 255.) 
 Carolinus, the codex of Isidore at Wolfenbuttel is so called after 
 
 Karl, Duke of W. 
 Carolsriihensis (Caroli Hesychia), Karlsruhe, Germ. Contains the 
 
 V , 
 
 ;ii.:i 
 
 •yj 
 
II 
 
 1 
 
 304 NOMENCLATURE 
 
 collections made by the Margraves and Dukes of Baden (br their 
 libraries at Pforzheim, Durlach, Rastatt ; the MSS. and books of 
 Johannes Reuchlin (Capnio) of Pforzheim ; and the MSS. of 
 monasteries secularized since 1803, e.g. Meersburg, Reichenau, 
 S. Blasien. (Brambach, 1891-1896 ; Reichenau, Durlach, and Rastatt 
 codices catalogued by A. Holder, 1906.) 
 
 Carpensis, s. v. Pius. 
 
 Carpentoractensis (Carpentoracte), Carpentras, Fr. Contams some 
 MSS.of Peiresc. (Lambert, 1862 ; Duhamel *.) 
 
 Carrio, Ludovicus Carrio (1547-1595) of Bruges, Belg. ; jurist and 
 scholar, rival of Lipsius; cf p. 116. 
 
 Carteromachus, Scipio (1467-15^3), Italian scholar. MSS. m Vati- 
 can (Orsini). . 
 
 Casalinus, Chezal-Benoit, Fr. Now at Bourges, a few at Pans. 
 
 Casanatensis, library bequeathed by Cardinal Girolamo Casanate 
 (1620-1700), librarian at the Vatican, to the Dominican convent of 
 S. Maria sopra Minerva, Rome. (Audififredi, 1761 ; F. Bancalan, 
 StwM difil class., 1894.) MSS. of Bonelli. 
 
 Casaubon, Isaac (1559-1614), French scholar, librarian to Henry V 
 of France, on whose death he removed to England, where he 
 received a pension from James L MSS. at Paris, Oxford (Bodleian), 
 and Brit. Mus. (Royal library). , r^. • 1 
 
 Caseolinus, Marie Gabriel Florent Auguste, Ccmte de Choiseul- 
 Goufher (1752-1817), French diplomatist and antiquarian. Ambas- 
 sador at Constantinople and, after the Revolution, librarian at 
 
 S Petersburg'". 
 Cassellanus (Cassella), Kassel, Germ. MSS. from Fulda. 
 Cas(s)inensis, Monte Cassino, It. (Bibl. Casinensis, 1874-1894 ; ^^^a- 
 
 vita, 1869-1871.) 
 Castiglionensis, Castiglione, N. It. MSS. at Florence (Laur. Con- 
 
 venti Soppressi). 
 CastroTheodoricensis, Chateau Thierry, Fr. 
 Casulanus, Casole, It. Library of S. Nicholas Casularum Portions 
 
 of it are now at Turin and Venice. (G. CoUine, 1886.) s. v. 
 
 Hydruntinus. /., ,• • a. ^ 
 
 Cat(h alaunensis (Catalaunum), Chalons-sur-Marne, Fr. (Mohnier .) 
 Catinensis (Catana), Catania, Sicily. Bibl. Universitaria, founded 
 
 1755, united in 1783 with Bibl. VentimiUiana. (M. Fava in Zocco 
 
 Rosa's Athenaeum, i, n. 9.) ^ c 1 if 
 
 Cavensis (Cavea), Benedictine monastery at La Cava, Salerno, It. 
 Cenomanensis (Cenomanum), Le Mans, Fr. 
 Centulensis (Centula), S. Riquier, Fr. 
 Cervinus, Marcello Cervini, cardinal, after^vards Pope Marcellus II 
 
 (d. 1555). Left MSS. to Sirleto (q.v.). 
 
 ;i; 
 
 OF MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 305 
 
 Charcoviensis, Kharkov, Russ. University Library founded 1804 by 
 Alexander I. 
 
 Cheltenhamensis, s.v. Phillippsianus. 
 
 Chemiacus lacus, Chiemsee, Germ. At Munich. 
 
 Chemnicensis, Chemnitz, Germ. \i Dresden and Leipzig. 
 
 Chiffletianus,ClaudeChifllet (1541-1580), Professorof Lawat D6le,Fr., 
 possessor of the MS. of PHny, H.N. used bv Dalechamps (1513- 
 1588). Now at Leyden. 
 
 Chigiana, library at Rome, in the Palazzo Chigi, founded by Alexan- 
 der VII (Fabio Chigi) in 1660. (Cat., 1764, Perleoni, Stud, fdoloq., 
 1907.) 
 
 Chiovensis (Chiovia), Kiev, Russ. Cf. Uspenskyanus. (Petroff, 1875), 
 
 Chisiana, v. Chigiana. 
 
 Chremissanus, v. Cremisanus. 
 
 Cibinensis ecclesia, Hermannstadt on the river Zibin Munf^arv 
 s. V. Kemcny. 
 
 Cisalpinus, sometimes used for an Italian MS., e.g. A. of Thucydides. 
 
 Cisneros, s.v. Complutensis. 
 
 Cisterciensis (Cistercium), Citcaux, Fr. At Dijon. (Molinicr, Omont*.) 
 
 Cizensis, Zeitz, Germ. MSS. of Reincsius. (C. G. Muller, 1806.) 
 
 Claravallensis (Claraevallis, Charavallis), Clairvaux, Fr. At Auxerre. 
 Dijon, Montpellier, Troyes. 
 
 Clarkianus, MSS. of Edward Daniel Clarke (1769-1822), traveller. 
 Bought for the Bodleian in 1809. (Cat. Oxford, 1812, 1815 ; Madan, 
 Summary Cat., iv. 297 ; Life by Otter, London, 1825.) 
 
 Claromontanus, (i) Clermont, the Jesuit College at Paris, founded in 
 1561 by Guillaume Duprat, Bp. of Clermont (Ferrand). After the 
 expulsion of the Jesuits in 1595 many of the Clermont MSS. were 
 sold to de Mesmes (s.v. Memmianus) and de Thou (Thuaneus) v. 
 Omont, Invent. Somm., p. xiii. On the second suppression of the 
 order in 1764 some of the MSS. belonging to it w^erc sold to 
 Gerard Meerman. Some of these were bought by Sir Thomas 
 Phillipps in 1824 and sold by his executors in 1887 to the library at 
 Berlin. Others were bought for the University of Leyden. Otiiers 
 are at Leeuwarden and at the Hague, Holland ; cf. Pelicerianus. 
 (2) MSS. at Clermont-Ferrand, Fr. (Couderc.*) 
 
 Classensis, (i) Bibl. Classense, Ravenna, It. Named after the 
 village of Classe, from which the Camaldulensian monastery which 
 originally owned the library had migrated in 1523. MSS. in the 
 Ravenna Library since 1804. (Gk. MSS., cf. A. Martin, Melanges 
 Graux, p. 553 ; Mazzatinti.) (2) The Classen Library, Copenhagen, 
 founded 1482, now united with the University Library. 
 Claustriburgensis(Claustriburgum), Klosterneuburg (founded 1106), 
 Austn (H. J. Zeibig, 1850.) Cf. Pataviensis. 
 
 X 
 
 47a 
 
 1 
 
 '1 
 
 ^1 
 
 f < 
 
 '^ 
 
'' n 
 
 i,\ 
 
 I 
 
 i\ 
 
 306 
 
 NOMENCLATURE 
 
 Cluniacensis, abbey of Cluni, Fr. MSS. dispersed (e.g. at Paris, 
 
 Holiiham). (Cf. Delisle, Inventaire, 1884.) 
 Clusensis, monastery of S. Michael at La Cliiusa, Piedmont, It. 
 
 Library dispersed at some unknown but early date. 
 Coislinianus, Henri Charles du Cambout de Coislin (1664-1732), Bp. 
 of Metz. He iniierited the collection of his grandfather Pierre 
 
 Seguier (q.v.) and bequeathed it to the Benedictine abbey of 
 
 S. Germain-des-Prcs. MSS. now in Bibl. Nat., Paris. (Catalogue 
 
 by Montfaucon.) A few at S. Petersburg, s.v. Dubrowski. 
 Colbertinus, Jean-Baptiste Colbert (1619-1683), Minister of Finance 
 
 under Louis XIV of France. His collection of MSS. (cf. s.v. 
 
 Mesmes, Thuaneus) was sold by his descendants to the Royal 
 
 Library at Paris in 1732. 
 Collegium Graecum, Gk. College at Rome. MSS,, including those of 
 
 Accidas and others, now in Vatican. 
 Collegium Romanum, Jesuit College at Rome, near S. Ignazio. MSS. 
 
 in the Vittorio Emanuele since 1873. 
 Colmarensis (Colmaria, Columbaria), Colmar, Germ. MSS. from 
 
 Murbach (A. M. P. Ingold, Lc Bibliographc, 1897, '• ^S-* 
 Colombina, library at Seville, Sp. Founded in 1539 by Fernando 
 
 Colon (d. 1540,), son of Columbus. Now part of the library of the 
 
 Cathedral Chapter. 
 Coloniensis (Colonia Agrippina), Cologne, Germ. (1) The Chapter 
 
 Library. (Haenel, pp. 979-83; Jaffc and Wattenbach, 1874.) 
 
 The library was removed to Arnsberg in Westphalia in 1794 
 
 when the French invasion was imminent. It was afterwards 
 
 transferred to Darmstadt and was not returned to Cologne till 
 
 1867. (Account by Frenken, 1868.) (2) Stadtbibliothek, cf. 
 
 Wallrahanus. 
 Colotianus, Angelo Colocci (1467-15-19), secretary to Leo X, Bp. ot 
 
 Nocera, It. ; owner of the Medicean Vergil and the Arcerianus 
 
 (q.v.). (P. de Nolhac, Bibliothequc dc Fiilvio Orsiiii, 1887, p. 249.) 
 Columnensis, the Colonna collection in the Vatican (purchased in 
 
 1821). An earlier collection founded by Cardinal Ascanio Colonna 
 
 and others of the family in the i6th cent, was bought by Johannes 
 
 Angelus Altacmps and has passed through the Ottoboni collection 
 
 into the Vatican. 
 Comburgensis, Komburg, Germ. Cf. Neustctter. 
 Comensis (Comumi, Como, It. (Gk. MSS., E. Martini, 1896.) 
 Compendiensis (Compendium), S- Corneille, Compiegne, Fr. Now 
 
 at Paris. 
 Complutensis. College of S. Ildefonso at Complutum or Alcala de 
 
 Ilenares, Sp., founded by Cardinal Ximencs in 15 lo. Now in the 
 
 University Library, Madrid. 
 
 mm 
 
 ill 
 
 II 
 
 OF MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 307 
 
 Condatescensis (Condatum), Conde, Fr. For Condate, Rennes, Fr., 
 
 s.v. Redonensis. 
 Conimbricensis (Conimbrica), Coimbra, Portugal. 
 Constantinopolitanus, Constantinople, (i) Library of the Seraglio. 
 
 (F. B\^^s, Hermes, 1888, vol. xxiii, pp. 219, 622.) (2) Patriarchal 
 
 Library in the Phanar. 
 Conventi soppressi, MSS. belonging to suppressed monasteries, now 
 
 in the Laurentian and National libraries, Florence, It. 
 Corbeiensis (Corbeia), (i) Corbie, Picardy, Fr. Tlie best MSS. were 
 
 transferred to S. Germain (q. v.) in 1638. Many others at Paris, 
 
 Amiens, S. Petersburg. (L. Delisle, 1861.) (2) Used for Corvci- 
 
 ensis (q.v.). 
 
 Corbinianus, the church of S. Maria and S. Corbinian, Freising, 
 Germ. At Munich. 
 
 Coriniensis, Cirencester, Fng. In the Cathedral Library, Hereford. 
 
 Corisopitensis (Corisopitum), Quimper, Fr. (Molinier*.) 
 
 Corneliensis, s. v. Compendiensis. 
 
 Corsendonk, Belg. At Brussels. 
 
 Corsiniana, library at Rome in the Palazzo Corsini, founded by 
 Cardinal Neri Corsini in 1754. Since 1884 it has been united with 
 the library of the Accademia de' Lincei. (Pelissier, in Mekiui^es 
 dArcheologie, vol. ix, 1889; Gk. codd. by Pierleoni, in Stiidi ital. 
 di fiL class., vol. ix, 1901 ; M. Gachard, La Bibliothcqiie des Princes 
 Corsini, 1869.) 
 
 Cortesianum Fragmentum, a supposed fragment of Livy or Corne- 
 lius Nepos, produced in 1884 by Cortesi. Now held to be a forgery. 
 (L. Traube, Paldogr. Forsc/iitng., Part iv, p. 47, 1904.) 
 
 Corveiensis (Corbeia nova), Korvey un the Weser, Germ. The 
 Benedictine house here was founded from Corbie in Picardy in 
 822. MSS. dispersed. Some are at Wolfenbuttel and at Marburg. 
 
 Corvinianus, Matthias Corvinus, King of Hungary (i443(.')-i49oi. 
 His library at Ofen was neglected and dispersed in the i6th cent. 
 Part found its way into other libraries, part was captured by the 
 Turks in 1526, but restored to the Hungarian Academy in 1869 
 and 1877. (L. Fischer, 1878; W. Weinberger, J908; L. Delisle, 
 Cabinet, i, p. 298.) 
 
 Cosinianus, John Cosin (1594-1672), Bp. of Durham. His library 
 
 now at Durham. 
 Cottonianus, library begun by Sir Robert Bruce Cotton (1571-1631) ; 
 
 dedicated to the public use by his grandson John in 1700. Partly 
 
 destroyed while in Ashburnham House, Westminster, in 1731. 
 
 Removed to the British Museum in 1753. Cf. p. 287. (J. Planta, 
 
 1802.) 
 
 Covarruvianus, Covarrubias, Didacus (Diego) (1512-1577), Abp. of 
 
 X 2 
 
 1 ( 
 
 i\ 
 
,13 
 
 3o8 
 
 NOMENCLATURE 
 
 W 
 
 Segovia, Sp. MSS. at the Palace Library, Madrid. Some MSS. 
 belonging to his brother Antonius have passed through the collec- 
 tions of Pantin and Schott to the library at Brussels. 
 
 Cracoviensis (Cracovia), Cracow, Galicia. (i) Jagellonischc 
 Universitats-Bibl. (W. Wislocki, 1877 1881.) (2) Czartoryski 
 Museum, founded by Isabella Princess Czartoryska in 1800. 
 (J. Korzeniowski, 1887-1893.) 
 
 Cremifanensis, Cremisanus (Cremisanum Monasterium), Krems- 
 miinster, Austr. (P. H. Schmid, 1877-1881.) 
 
 Cremonensis, Cremona, It. Bibl. Governativa (Martini). 
 
 Crippsianus, John Marten Cripps (d. 1853), traveller and antiquary, 
 a companion of E. D. Clarke (q. v.) in his travels. He obtained the 
 MS. of Isaeus which is now in the Burney collection in the British 
 
 Museum. 
 Cromwaiianus, MSS. once forming part of the Barocci collection, 
 
 presented to the Bodleian, Oxford, by Oliver Cromwell in 1654. 
 
 (H. O. Coxe, 1853.) 
 Cruquianus, Jacques Cruucke or De Crusquc of Meesen, Flanders, 
 
 Professor of Greek, Bruges, 15+4, d. circ. 1588. s.v. Horatius, p. 243. 
 Crusellinus, a MS. used by Simon du Bos or Dubois (i535-?i58o) i" 
 
 his edition of Cic. Epp. ad Attiaun in 1580. He stated that it 
 
 belonged to a physician named Petrus Crusel(l)ius (cf. Muretus, 
 
 Juvenilia Eleg. vii). M. Haupt proved in 1855 that this MS. and 
 
 another cited by du Bos as the Decurtatus were fabrications. Cf. 
 
 A. C. Clark, Class. Rev. 1895, p. 241. 
 Crusianus, MSS. of Martin Crusius or Krausz (1526-1607), Professor 
 
 of Greek at Tubingen. MSS. at Munich, Stuttgart, Tiibingen. 
 Cryptoferratensis, Grotta Ferrata, a monastery of monks of S. Basil 
 
 (founded 1004) near Rome. (A. Rocchi, 1884.) There are MSS. 
 
 from this monastery in the Vatican (especially the Barbcriniana), 
 
 Naples, Brussels, Paris, Montecassino, Vienna. 
 Cujacianus, Jacques Cujas of Toulouse, French jurist (1522-1590). 
 
 Many of his MSS. were bought by Bongars (q. v.). Some at Paris. 
 Culturensis (S. Petri de Cultura), La Couture, Fr. At Le Mans. 
 Cunaeus, Petrus Cunaeus (Van der Kun), Professor of Law and 
 
 afterwards of Latin at Leyden (1586 1638). His MSS. were added 
 
 to the Leyden Library in 1749. 
 Curiensis (Curia Rhaetorum), Cur or Chur, Switz. 
 Curzon, s.v. Parhamensis. 
 Cusanus, Cues on the Mosel, Germ. Library of Cardinal Nicolaus 
 
 Cusanus (Nicolas Chrypffs or Krebs), 1409-1464. (F. X. Kraus, 
 
 1864 ; J. Marx, 1905 ; J. Klein in Serapeitm, xxv. 353.) Preserved 
 
 in the hospital founded by him at Cues. Some MSS. at Brussels 
 
 and in the British Museum (Harleiani). 
 
 OF MANUSCRIPTS 309 
 
 Cygiranensis, S. Cyran, Fr. At Bourges. 
 Cygneensis (Cj^gnea), Zwickau, Germ. 
 
 Cyriacus, Ciriaco of Ancona, It. (1391-T450), antiquary. MSS. in 
 Vatican (Orsini). 
 
 D 
 
 Dacicus, title applied to MSS. from Hungary, e.g. codex of Valerius 
 Flaccus supposed to have been in the library of Matthias Corvinus 
 (q. v.), and now in the Vatican. 
 
 Dalburgius, Johannes, s.v. Palatinus. 
 
 Dalecampianus, Jacques Dalechamps (1513-1588) of Lyon, Fr., 
 physician and scholar, editor of Pliny, H. N. 
 
 Danesius, Pierre Danes, Bp. of Lavaur, 1497-1577. MSS. at Paris. 
 
 Danicus, s.v. Hauniensis. 
 
 Danielensis, bibl. com., San Daniele del Friuli, It. s.v. Forojuliensis. 
 
 Danielinus, Pierre Daniel, jurist and scholar, of Orleans, Fr. {circ. 
 1530-1603). Purchased codd. after the sack of Fleury (s.v. Floria- 
 censis) by the Huguenots in 1562. He edited Servius' commen- 
 tary on Vergil in 1600. His MSS. were purchased by P. Petau and 
 J. Bongars. Petau's share was sold by his son to Queen Christina 
 and is now in the Vatican. Bongars' share w^as left b}^ him together 
 with the rest of his collection to Berne (s.v. Bernensis). 
 
 Danneschioldiana, library of Danneskjold-Samsoe, nov7 at Copen- 
 hagen. (Catalogue, 1732.) 
 
 Dantiscanus (Dantiscum. Gedanum), Danzig, Germ. (A. Bertling, 
 1892.) 
 
 Darmarius, Andreas, a Greek settled in Venice circ. 1560, who 
 copied and sold MSS. A list of MSS. known to have belonged 
 to him is given in Melber's Polyaeniis, 1887, p. xvi. 
 
 Darmstadtinus, Hof-Bibliothek, Darmstadt, Germ. (P. A. F. 
 Walther, Neiie Beilrdge, pp. 93-128, 1871.) Cf. Coloniensis. 
 
 Datanus, Carlo Dati (1619-1676), Professor of Classics at Florence, 
 1648. Some MSS. at Berlin. 
 
 Daumianus, Christian Daum (1612-1687), schoolmaster and scholar, of 
 Zwickau, where his MSS. still remain. 
 
 Daventriensis (Davcntria), Deventer, Holland. (Catalogue, 1832-1880; 
 Omont, Pays Bas.) 
 
 Decembrius, Petrus Candidus, b. Pavia, 1399, Italian humanist. Most 
 of his MSS. were left to the Monastery of S. Maria delle Grazie. 
 A few, perhaps acquired from here by Borromeo in 1603, are in the 
 Ambrosian. 
 
 Decurtatus, any mutilated MS., e.g. Palatinus C of Plautus or the 
 Vaticanus G of Terence. 
 
 M 
 
 % 
 
 M 
 
3IO 
 
 NOMENCLATURE 
 
 OF MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 311 
 
 M 
 
 4^ 
 
 Delphensis (Delphi Batavoriim), Delft, Holland. 
 
 Demidow Library, incorporated with the Moscow University Librar}\ 
 
 Some MSS. were burnt in 1812. 
 Deodat(i)ensis (Fanum Deodati), S. Die, Fr. (Michelant*.) 
 Derpitanus (Derpitiim, Derbatum). Dorpat, Russia. 
 Dertusiensis (Dertusia), Tortosa. Sp. (H. Denifle and E. Chatelain, 
 
 Rev. d. Bihl.wx^ pp. t-6t, 1896.) 
 Dervensis, Moutier-en-Der, Fr. 
 
 Dessaviensis (Dessavia), Dessau, Germ. Herzogliche Bibl. 
 Diezianus, the collection of G. F. von Diez, Legationsrath, purchased 
 
 for the Kgl. Bibliothek, Berlin, in 1817. It contains many MSS. from 
 
 the collection of the Dutch scholar Laurens van Santen (d. 1798). 
 Didotianus, MSS. belonging to Firmin Didot (1790-1836). French 
 
 publisher. (Catalogue, 1881.) 
 Diessensis, Diessen, Germ. At Munich. 
 Dietranzell, Germ. At Munich. 
 Digbeianus, MSS. of Sir Kenelm Digb}" (1603-1665) given to the 
 
 Bodleian at the instance of Abp. Laud. (W. D. Mncray, 1883.) 
 Dillingensis (Dillinga), Dillingen, Germ. 
 Dionysiacus, S. Dionysios, Mt. Athos, Turke}'. 
 Dionysianus, (1) S. Denis, Fr. At Paris. (2) Monastery of 
 
 S. Dionysios, Mt. Athos. 
 Divaeus, Petrus Divaeus or Pieter van Dieven, b. Louvain, 1536, 
 
 antiquary and historian of Brabant. His codex of Horace is 
 
 Leidensis 127A. 
 Divionensis, Diviobenignanus (Divio), Dijon, Fr. (Molinier and 
 
 others*.) Many MSS. come from the library of the Abbe}' of 
 
 S. Benignus and from Citeaux. 
 Dominicanus, MSS. of various Dominican monasteries, e.g. that at 
 
 Wiirzburg, Germ. (Lehmann, Franciscits Modins, p. 124. MSS. at 
 
 Paris, Bologna, Palermo, Leipzig), and SS. Giovanni e Paolo, Venice. 
 Dominicini, library at Perugia, It. (Blume, Iter It., ii. 208.) 
 Donaueschingiensis, Donaueschingen, Germ. (K. A. Barack, Dir 
 
 Hdschr. der Fursienhurghchen Hofbibliofhek^ 1865.) 
 Dorvillianus, Jacques Philippe D'Orville (1690-1751), Professor of 
 
 Philology at Amsterdam. His MSS. were purchased for the 
 
 Bodleian in 1804. (Madan, Simunary Cat., iv. 37.) 
 Douce, collection of Francis Douce (1757-1834), antiquar}', bequeathed 
 
 by him to the Bodleian, Oxford. (Catalogue, 1840.) 
 Dousa, George (d. 1599), Dutch traveller and antiquary. MSS. at 
 
 Lej'den. 
 Davoriensis, Dover Priory, Eng. MSS. dispersed. ( M. R. James, T903.) 
 Drepanensis, Trapani, Sicil}-. (N. Pirrone, Studi Italituii, 1905.) 
 Dresdensis (Dresda), Kgl. Bibliothek, Dresden, Germ. (F. A. Ebert, 
 
 h 
 
 
 1822; K. Falkenstein, 1839; F. Schnorr von Carolsfeld, 1882-1883.) 
 
 Cf. Bunavicnsis, Bruehliana, Matthaei. 
 Duacensis (Duacum). Douai, Fr. (Dehaisnes* ; Riviere'.) MSS. from 
 
 Anchin. 
 Dublinensis (Dublinum, Dublana), Dublin, Ireland. (T. K. Abbott, 
 
 1900.) MSS. of Abp. Ussher. 
 Dubrovski, Peter, a Russian attache at Paris in 1791. He purchased 
 
 MSS. from the monastic libraries which were dispersed at that 
 
 time, notably those of S. Germain-des-Pres. His collection was 
 
 purchased for the Imperial Library, Petersburg, in 1805. v. Delisle, 
 
 Cabinet, ii, p. 52. 
 Dudithianus, Andrew Dudith (1533-T589 , Bp. of Fijnfkirchen or 
 
 Pecs, Hungary. (C. B. Stieff, 1756: R. P^orster, N.Jahrb. 1900, p. 74.) 
 Duisburgensis (Duisburgum, Duicziburgum), Duisburg, Germ. Now 
 
 at Bonn. Cf. Teutoburgensis. 
 Dunelmensis (Dunelmum), Durham, Eng. (Cat. Veteres, Siirtees Soc, 
 
 vol. vii : T. Rud, 1825.) 
 Dunensis, Dunes, Belg. At Bruges. (P. J. Laude, 1859) 
 Duperron, Jacques Davy, cardinal, Bp. of Evreux (1556-1618). Left 
 
 his MSS. to S. Taurin d'Evreux (s. v. Eboricanus). 
 Duregensis (Duregum), Ziirich, Switz. s. v. Turicensis. 
 Durlacensis (Durlacum), Durlach, Germ. Some MSS. foriricrly here 
 
 in the library of the castle of the Margraves of Baden are now 
 
 at Karlsruhe. 
 Durobernia, Canterbury, Eng. s.v. Cantuaricnsis. 
 
 E 
 
 Ebersbergensis, Ebersberg, Germ. At Munich. 
 
 Ebnerianu9, MSS. (e.g. Persius, Lucan) of Erasmus Ebner, a patrician 
 
 of Nuremberg, Germ., T6th cent., fiiend of Melanchthon. 
 Eboracensis (Eboracum), (i) York, Eng. (2) Ebrach, Germ. At 
 
 Wiirzburg. 
 Eborensis, (i) Evora, Portugal. (2) Collegium Eborense of Franciscans 
 
 at Rome (Ara Caeli). MSS. in Bibl. Nazionale, Rome. 
 Eboricanus (Eboricae, Ebroicum), Evreux, Fr. MSS. of S, Taurin 
 
 and Cardinal Duperron (1556-1618^ Bp. of Evreux. 
 Ebroicensis, s. v. Eboricanus. 
 Echternachensis, s. v. Epternachensis. 
 Edelbergensis, s. v. Heidelbergensis. 
 Edinburgensis (Edinburgum, Edinum), Edinburgh, Sv.otland. (i) 
 
 Universit}' Library. (2) Advocates' Library, founded 1680. 
 Egerton, MSS. of Francis Henry Egerton, eighth Earl of Bridge- 
 water (d. 1829), bequeathed to the British Museum. (Additional 
 
 MSS., 1849.) 
 
 (^ 
 
 
 j' 
 
 n 
 
 i\ 
 
312 
 
 NOMENCLATURE 
 
 '«» 
 
 Egmondanus, Egmontaniis, Egmundensis, Kglise d'Egmont, Belg. 
 At Brussels, Leyden, &c. 
 
 Eichstatt, s.v. Aureatensis. 
 
 Einsiedlensis (Einsilda , Eremitarum coenobium in Helvetiis in 
 Graesse, Einsiedcln, Switz. (Gabriel Meier, 1899.) 
 
 Elbingensis, Elbing, Germ. 
 
 Eliensis, Ely, Eng. The name is sometimes used for MSS. belonging 
 to John More, Bp. of Ely, given to the University Library, Cam- 
 bridge by George I in 1714. 
 
 Elnonensis, Elno or S. Amand near Valenciennes, Fr. (Catalogue 
 of 1635 '" Sanderus, Bibl. Beli^ica.) s. v. Valentianensis. 
 
 Emilianus, San Millan de la Cogolla, Burgos, Sp. s. v. Matritensis (4). 
 
 Emmeranus, Emmeramensis, S. Emmeram, Regensburg, Germ. 
 At Munich. 
 
 Engelbergensis, s. v. Angelomontanus. 
 
 Engolismensis (Engolisma), Angoulcme, Fr. Also applied to the 
 surrounding district of the Angoumois. 
 
 Enochianus, Enoch of Ascoli, employed by Pope Nicholas V to search 
 for classical MSS. in France and Germany. 
 
 Eparchus, Antonius Eparchus, b. circa 1492 in Corfu. Ruined by the 
 Turkish invasion of 1537, he emigrated to Venice and became the 
 head of the trade in Gk. MSS. of which Venice was the centre. 
 (Omont gives a catalogue of his MSS. in Bibliotheqite de lEcole des 
 CImrUs, 1892, vol. liii.) His MSS. are at Augsburg, Escurial, 
 Vatican (Ottoboniani), Paris, Milan, Munich, and Berlin. 
 
 Epternachensis (Epternacum), Echternach, Luxembourg. MSS. at 
 Luxembourg and at Paris. (A. Reiners, 1889.) 
 
 Eporediensis (P^poredia), Ivrea, It. 
 
 Erfurtensis (Erfurtum, Erfordia), Erfurt, Germ. The library con- 
 tains the collections of Amplonius von Ratinck of Rheinberg 
 (Berka) made circ. 1412. (W. Schum, 1887.) Some MSS. cited as 
 Erfurtenses are now at Berlin. 
 
 Erlangensis (Erlanga), Erlangen, Germ. (J. K. Irmischer, 1852.) 
 
 Escorialensis, The Escurial, near Madrid, Sp. (Montfaucon ; Haenel, 
 p. 920; Pluer, Iter per Hispaiiiam: Gk. MSS., E. Miller, 1848; Ch. 
 Graux, Sur les origines du folds grec, 1880; Lat. MSS., P. G. 
 Antolin. 1910.) CL Augustinus, Mendoza. 
 
 Essiensis, Jesi, It. Cf. Aesiensis. 
 
 Estensis, library of the Este family at Modena, It. Contains MSS. of 
 G. Valla and Albertus Pius, Count of Carpi. (V. Puntoni, Sfiidt 
 Jtaliivii, 1896, iv. 379-536; History by G. Bertoni, 1903; cf. T. W. 
 Allen, Class. Rev., 1889, p. 12.) 
 Etonensis (Etona), Eton, Eng. (M. R. James, 1896.) 
 Etruscus, often used by the older scholars for Florentinus. 
 
 OF MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 313 
 
 Ettenheinimiinster, Germ. At Karlsruhe. 
 
 Eustorgianiis (Bibliotheca Divi Eustorgii), S. Eustorgio, a Dominicnn 
 
 monastery at Milan. 
 Exoniensis (Exonia), (i) Exeter, Eng, (2) Exeter College, Oxford. 
 Extravagantes, MSS. not forming part of independent collections at 
 
 Wolfenbi'ittel. s.v. Guelferb3'tanus. 
 
 Fabariensis, s.v. Fav-. 
 
 Fabricianus, (i) Fr. Fabricius Marcoduranus, i.e. Franz Schmidt 
 
 of Diiren, Germ. (1525-1573), Latin scholar, pupil of Turnebus. 
 
 (2) s.v. Hauniensis. 
 Fabroniana, s.v. Pistoriensis. 
 Faeschianus, Remi Faesch (1595-1667), jurist and bibliophile. The 
 
 MSS. belonging to the museum he founded are now in the Univer- 
 sity Library, Basel. 
 Falcoburgianus, Gerard Falckenburg of Nijmegen, Holland (1535- 
 
 1578), editor of Nonnus. Some MSS. at Breslau, Stadt-Bibl. 
 Farfensis, monastery of Farfa near Rome. MSS. in the Vittorio 
 
 Emanuele and Barberiniana, Rome ; at Naples, and at Eton College. 
 Farnesi(a)nus, s.v. Neapolitanus (i). 
 
 Favariensis (Favaria, Fabaria), Pfaffers near Chur, Switz. 
 Feldbachensis, Feldbach, Switz. Library of the Jesuits. 
 Fernandina, another title of the Colombina Library at Seville, Sp. 
 Ferrarensis, Ferrara, It. 
 Ferrariensis (Ferrariae), Ferrieres, Fr. In the Vatican and at Berne, 
 
 Switz. 
 Fesulanus (Fesulae), S. Bartholomew, Fiesole, It. MSS. in the 
 
 Laurentian, Florence. 
 Feuillants, Monastere des, Paris, s.v. Fulienses. 
 Filelfo, F., s.v. Philelphus. 
 
 Firmitas, La Ferte-sur-Grosne, Fr. MSS. at Chalon-sur-Sa6ne. 
 Fiscannensis (Fiscannum, Fiscamnum), Fecamp, Fr. At Rouen and 
 
 among the Bigotiani at Paris. 
 Flacius Illyricus, Matthias (1520-1575), a Lutheran theologian. MSS. 
 
 at Wolfenbi'ittel (Guelferbytani). 
 Flaviniacensis (Flaviniacum, Flaviacum), Flavigny, Fr. At Nancy. 
 Florentinus (Florentia), Florence, It. 
 
 Aedilium Florentinae ecclesiae, library founded by the Florentine 
 Republic circ. 1448 in the precincts of the Cathedral. The church 
 S. Petri in Caelo Aureo was used for the purpose by the permission 
 of Pope Nicholas V. MSS. now in Laurentian. 
 
 Abbatiae de Florentia, s. v. 
 
 '■% 
 
 !(' 
 
 if 
 
 i\ 
 
3T4 
 
 NOMENCLATURE 
 
 II 
 
 Laiirentianns Conv. soppr. MSS. from suppressed monasteries: 
 in the Laurentian Librarj' since 1808. 
 
 Leopoldina. The title given to the varions collections added to the 
 Laurentian by Peter Leopold, Grand Duke of Tuscany (1765) 
 (afterwards Emperor of Austria), s. v. Mediceo-Laur. 
 
 Libri, MSS. sold by Libri (q.v.) to Lord Ashburnham. Repur- 
 chased for the Laurentian in 1884. 
 
 Magliabecchiana, library founded by Antonio Magliabecchi (i6r3- 
 1714), librarian to the Duke of Florence. Now in the Bibl. Naz. 
 Centrale. (G. Vitelli ; Lat. MSS., A. Galante in Sfiidi Ital. di 
 filolo^. 1902, p. 326.) 
 
 Marucelliana, library bequeathed by Francesco Marucelli. of 
 Florence, on his death in 1703. Opened to the public in 1752. 
 iG. Vitelli.) 
 
 Mediceo-Laurentiana, library founded by Cosimo in T444. The 
 fall of the Medici family led to the dispersal of this librar}'. Part 
 was purchased by the monks of San Marco, who in 1508 presented 
 these MSS. to Cardinal de' Medici, afterwards Pope Leo X, who 
 added them to the library in the Villa Medici at Rome. On 
 his death they were returned to Florence and placed in the 
 library of San Lorenzo, built by Michelangelo in T571, where 
 they still remain. (Bandini, 1764- 1778 ; E. Rostagno and N. Festa, 
 1893. Supplementary Ind. of Gk. MSS.. Rostagno, Stud. If., 1898.) 
 In it are included the following collections, many of which were 
 added in 1765 by Peter Leopold, Grand Duke of Tuscany : San 
 Marco (v. infra), Gaddiana, Strozziana, Fesulana, Aedilium Floren- 
 tinae Ecclesiae, Sanctae Crucis. 
 
 S. Marci, MSS. belonging to the church of S. Marco, founded by 
 Cosimo T, now in the Laurentian (1884) and in the Nazionale. 
 
 Nazionale Centrale (1861), contains Magliabecchiana, Palatina, and 
 other collections. 
 
 Palatina, the private library of the Dukes of Tuscany, formerly in 
 the Pitti Palace. Now in the Nazionale. 
 
 Riccardiana, library formed by Riccardo Romolo Riccardi circ. 
 1590 and purchased from his descendants in 1815. (Lami, 1756; 
 S. Morpurgo, 1900. Gk. MSS. by G. Vitelli in StmU It, difiloloo^ta 
 class., ii. 471. 1894.) 
 
 Sanctae Crucis, monastery of Santa Croce. MSS. in the Leopold 
 collection in the Laurentian since 1766. 
 Floriacensis (Floriacum ad Ligerim), Fleury-sur-Loire, Fr. Many 
 
 MSS. belonging to this monastery (which was sacked b\' 
 
 the Huguenots in 1562) came into the possession of Pierre 
 
 Daniel (1530-T603), whose collection was purchased b}' Jacques 
 
 Bongars (1554-1614) and his cousin Paul Petau (1568-1614), both 
 
 OF MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 315 
 
 natives of Orleans (s.vv. I'ongarsianus, Petavianus). The few 
 MSS. which were preserved at the monastery are now at 
 Orleans. (Ch. Cuissard, 1885.) For MSS. at Paris v. Delisle, 
 Cabinet, ii, p. 364. 
 Florianensis, the Chorherrenstift at S. Florian, Austr. (A. Czerny, 
 
 Linz, 1871.) 
 Florio, bibliot., s.v. Utinensis. 
 Eons Avellana, Fonte Avellana, It. 
 
 Fontanellensis, Fontanelle or S. Wandrillc, Fr. At Rouen. 
 
 Fontebla(n)densis, Bibl. Royale au Chateau de Fontainebleau. 
 
 Founded by Francis I, who transferred to it MSS. from Blois. 
 
 Now part of the Bibl. Nat. Paris. (H. Omont, 1889.) Cf. Bliaudifon- 
 
 tanus. 
 
 Forojuliensis (Forum luliii, Friuli, It. Library of Sandaniele. 
 
 (A. Zorzi, 1899: Mazzatinti.) 
 Fossa Nuova, Piperno, It. In the Phillipps collection. 
 Fossatensis, S. Maur-des-Fosscs, Fr. At Paris among the Sanger- 
 
 manenses. 
 Forteguerrianus, s.v. Pistoriensis. 
 
 Foucaultianus, Nicholas Joseph Foucault (b. Paris, 1643, d. 1721), 
 conseiller d'etat and antiquary. MSS. at Leipzig, Paris, Leyden, 
 Glasgow. Some few were bought by Rawlinson and were left by 
 him to the Bodleian. (F. Baudry, Me'moire de N.J. F. in Dorii- 
 inents inedits snr Ihistoire de France, 1862.) 
 Foucquet, Nicolas, s.vv. Montchal, Fraxineus. 
 
 Franciamis, Petrus Francius (1645-1704), of Amsterdam, poet and 
 orator. MSS. belonging to him were used by Graevius and other 
 scholars. 
 Francofurtanus(Francofurtum),(i) Frankfurt am Main (ad Moenum). 
 Germ. Stadt-Bibl. (J. H. Mai, Bibl. Uffenbachiana, 1720 ; E. Kelchner 
 i860.) (2) Frankfurt an der Oder (ad Viadrum), Germ. Kgl. 
 Friedrichs-Gymnasium (R. Schwarze, 1877). 
 Franequeranus (Francquera, Franechera), Franeker, Holland. MSS. 
 
 at Leeuwarden. 
 Franzoniana, librar}^ at Genoa, It. 
 
 Fraxineus, Raphael Trichet du Fresne (i6ti-t66i), an authority 
 on literary history and antiquities. His MSS. were purchased by 
 Foucquet. Many of his Gk. MSS. came from the collection of 
 Vincentius Grimani of Venice. In Bibl. Nat. Paris. (Delisle, 
 Cabinet, i, p. 269 ; Omont, Inv. d. niss. .^r. iv, p. xcii.) 
 Freherianus, Marquard Freher of Augsburg, Germ. (1565-1614), 
 jurist and antiquary. MSS. dispersed ; some arc among the Scali- 
 gerani at Leyden. 
 Freiburgensis (Freiburgum, Friburgum), (ij Freiburg im Breisgau 
 
 / 
 
 4i 
 
3t6 
 
 NOMENCLATURE 
 
 (Brisgoiae), Germ. (2) Freiburg im Uchtland (Nuithonum), Switz. 
 
 (Catalogue, 1852-1886.) .. u 1 • f^ -n. 
 
 Freierianus, n fragment of Cic. ad Famihares u. i, belongmg to Dr. 
 
 Freier of the Frankfort Gymnasium. iP/iihloons, 1867, p. 701.) 
 Fresne, du Fresne, s.v. Fraxineus. 
 Fridericiamis, the library of the Kgl. Friedrichs-Gymnasmm at 
 
 Breslau. (Catalogue included in the Gk. catalogue of the Stadt- 
 
 Bibliothek (Bibliotheca urbica) of Breslau, 1889.) 
 Frisingensis (Frisinga, Fruxinia), Freising, Germ. MSS. at Munich 
 Fuggeriiianus, (i) MSS. of Ulrich Fugger, of Augsburg (1528-1584 , 
 
 Freiherr von Kirchberg. They were incorporated with the Bibl. 
 
 Palatina at Heidelberg and were transferred with it to the Vatican 
 
 in 1622. (2) MSS. of Hans Jacob Fugger (1516-1575)- Now at 
 
 Munich. (3) MSS. of Raymund Fugger added to the Hotbibliothek, 
 
 Vienna, in 1656. . . 
 
 Fulcardi Mons, Foucarmont, Fr. At Paris among the Colbertini. 
 
 Fuldenses(Fulda, Fuldaha), Fulda, Germ. Landesbibliothek. (Kind- 
 linger, 1812; A. V. Keitz, 1890.) Sometimes called Bonifatiani after 
 S. ^Boniface, the founder of the monastery at Fulda. The oldest 
 MSS. are now at Kassel. (F. Falk, Leipzig, 1902.) 
 
 Fulienses, the Feuillants, a Cistercian order founded at Languedoc, 
 Fr., circ. 1580. A few MSS. from their Paris house are in the 
 Bibliotheque Nationale. (Delisle, Cabinet, ii, p. 251.) 
 
 Furstenbergicus, -bergensis, (i) s.v. Donaueschingensis. (2) s.v. 
 Monasteriensis. (3) MSS. of Ferdinand v. Furstenberg (1626- 1683s 
 Bp. of Paderborn, Germ. Cf. Rottendorphianus. (4) Private library 
 of Prince Furstenberg, Piirglitz, Bohemia. 
 
 Furstenfeldensis, Fiirstenfeld, Germ. MSS. at Munich. 
 
 Fuxensis, College de Foix, Toulouse, Fr. At Paris among the 
 
 Colbertini ; among 
 
 them are remains of the papal library at 
 
 Avit^non and Peniscola. (Delisle, Cabinet, i, p. 498.) 
 
 r 
 
 Gaddianus, MSS. belonging to Francesco di Angelo Gaddi (fl. arc. 
 1496) and of other members of his family. Most MSS. in the Lau- 
 rentian at Florence since 1755; a few in Bibl. Nazionale (Maglia- 
 
 becchiana). . 
 
 Gaertneriamis, C. G. Gaertner of Leipzig, owner of MSS. of Livy 
 
 circ. 1750. 
 Gaibacensis, s.v. Pommersfelden. 
 Gaignieres, Roger de, of Paris (d. 1715K Left Gk. MSS. to the 
 
 Royal Library in 1715. 
 
 OF MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 317 
 
 Galeanus, Thomas Gale (1635-1702), high master of S. Paul's School, 
 London, and Dean of York. His MSS. were bequeathed by his 
 son Roger to Trin. Coll., Camb. 
 
 Gambalungiana, library at Rimini, It. Founded circ. 1617 by 
 bequest of Alessandro Gambalunga, jurist. 
 
 Gandavensis (Gandavum, Ganda), Ghent, Belg. (J. de Saint-Genois, 
 
 1849-1852.) 
 Garampi, Giuseppe, cardinal, collector. (Catalogue, Rome, 1798.) 
 
 Some MSS. at Rimini in the Gambalungiana, others in the Vatican. 
 
 (Blume, Iter ItaL, ii. 234.) 
 Gatianus, S. Gatien, Tours, Fr. s. v. Turonensis. 
 Gaulminus, Gilbert Gaulmyn, b. 1585, doyen des maitrcs dcs rcquctes ; 
 
 man of learning and collector. Part of his library was bought by 
 
 Queen Christina (s.v. Reginensis), but most has passed to the Bibl. 
 
 Nat. through various collections (e.g. Telleriana). He died in 1665. 
 Gedanensis (Gedanumi, Danzig, Germ. Cf. Dantiscanus. 
 Gemblacensis (Gemblacum), Gembloux, Belg. At Brussels. 
 Gem(m)eticensis (Gemmeticum, Gemmenticum), Jumicges, 1m-. At 
 
 Rouen. iv/ice 
 
 Genevensis, Geneva, Switz. (J. Senebier, 1779.) Most of the Gk. MbS 
 
 were given in 1742 by Ami Lullin, Professor of Ecclesiastical 
 
 History, who had purchased them from the collection of the Petaus 
 
 (c \T Pptavianus). 
 Genuensis (Genua, Janua), Genoa, It. (i) University Library. 
 
 (E. Martini, Gk. MSS. 1896.) (2) Bibl. Carolina (s.v.). 
 Gerolamini, s. v. Gir-. 
 Geronensis, Gerona, Sp. 
 Gersdorfianus, library of Joachim Gersdorft, 1611-1661. In 
 
 Libr., Copenhagen. 
 Gesner, Conrad (1516-1565), of Zurich, scholar and physician. 
 
 at Zurich. 1 , ■ a. ^ 
 
 Gianfilippi. For this Veronese collection v. Blume, Iter Ital., 1. 265-6, 
 
 also s. V. Saibantinus. 
 Gi(e)ssensis (Giessa), Giessen, Germ. Univ.-Bibl. with which the von 
 Senckenberg'sche Bibl. has been united since 1835. (J. V. Adrian, 
 
 1840 ; F. W. Otto, 1842.) , J • • 
 
 Gifanius, Hubert van Giffen (1435-1604) of Buren, Holland, jurist 
 
 and scholar. , . . 
 
 Gigas, a codex of the N. T. at Stockholm, so called from its size. 
 Girolamini, Bibl. dei, Naples, It. s.v. Neapolitanus. 
 Gislenianus, S. Ghislain, Belg. Some MSS. from here are in PhiUipps 
 
 collection. 
 Gissensis, s. v. Giessensis. 
 Glareanus, Glarus, Switz. 
 
 Royal 
 MSS. 
 
 \i\ 
 
 \ 
 
3i8 
 
 NOMENCLATURE 
 
 Glasguensis (Glasgua). Glasgow, Scotland. Cf. Huntcrianus. 
 Glastoniensis (Glastonia, Glasconia), Glastonbury, Eng. 
 Glogav(i)ensis (Glogovia), Glogaii, Germ. MSS. at Breslau. 
 Glunicensis, Gleink, Austr. At Linz. 
 Goerresianus, MSS. mostly of mediaeval writers, belonging to 
 
 Johannes Joseph von Gorres, 1776-1848. Many came from S. 
 
 Maximin at Trier. (Traube, N. Arc/nvf. alt. deutsche Gesch.-K untie, 
 
 vol. xxvii, p. 737 ) At Koblenz and Berlin. 
 Goldastianus, Melchior Goldast von Heimingsfcld (1576- 1635), Swiss 
 
 Protestant jurist ; bequeathed part of his library to Bremen, Germ. 
 
 Part was purchased by Queen Christina of Sweden and is now in 
 
 the Vatican. 
 Gorlicensis (Gorlicium), Gorlitz, Germ. (R. Joachim, Gcsc/i. d. Milich'- 
 
 sc/icn Bibliothek, 1876.) 
 Goslarianus, Goslar, Germ. MSS. from the monastery on the Geor- 
 
 gcnberg, which was destroyed in 1527. Now at Wolfenbiittel (s.v. 
 
 Guelferbytanus). 
 Gothaniis (Gotha, Gota), Gotha, Germ. Libr. founded by Mcrzog 
 
 Ernst der Fromme, 1640-1675. (E. S. Cyprianus, 1714.) 
 Gotingensis (Gotingai, Gottingen, Germ. (W. Meyer, Verzekhnis 
 
 der Handschr. im Prettssiselien Staate, 1893 ; K. Dziatzko, 1900.) 
 Gottorpianus ( Gottorpia), Gottorp, Schleswig-Holstein, Germ. MSS., 
 
 including those from Bordesholm, are now at Copenhagen (Stcffcn- 
 
 hagen and Wetzel, Kiel, 1881), Wolfcnbuttel, Leyden, Hamburg. 
 Gotwicensis, Gottweig or Gottweih, on the Danube, Austr. 
 Graeciensis (Graecium), Graz, Austr. (J. v. Zahn, 1864.) 
 Graevianus, Jan Georg Graefe or Graevius (1632-1703). Professor of 
 
 History at Utrecht and Historiographer to William HI of England. 
 
 Part of his collection is in the British Museum (Harleian), part 
 
 at Heidelberg. (Cf. A.C.Clark. Neite Heidelberger Ja/irbiicher, 1891, 
 
 p. 238.) 
 Granvella, Antoine Perrenot, Cardinal Granvella (1517-1586), Bp. of 
 
 Arras, Abp. of Besancon. minister to Philip H of Spain. MSS. at 
 
 Leyden, Amsterdam, Vatican, Besancon. 
 Gratianopolitanus (Gratianopolis, Grannopolis), Grenoble, Fr. 
 
 (Fournier and others *.) 
 Gravisset, s. v. Bongarsianus. 
 Greshamense Collegium, London, founded by Sir Thomas Grcsham 
 
 (? 15 19- 1579), a London merchant. 
 Grimani, a Venetian family (e.g. Cardinal Domcnico G., d. 1523). MSS. 
 
 at Venice, Udinc, Paris, Holkham : Vincentius Grimani cf. Fraxineus. 
 Gripheswaldensis (Gripeswalda, Gryphiswalda), Grcifswald, Germ. 
 Groninganus (Groningaj, Groningen, Holland. (H. Brugmans, 1898, 
 
 cf. Zeninilblf. Bibi. 1898, vol. iv, p. 562.) 
 
 OF MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 319 
 
 Gronovianus, MSS. of Johann Friedrich (1611-1671) and his son 
 Jakob Gronov (1645-1716), scholars. MSS. at Leyden since 1785. 
 
 Grotta Ferrata, s. v. Cryptoferratensis. 
 
 Gruterus, lanus (1560-1627), librarian at Heidelberg, 1605. MSS. at 
 Rome and Munich since the sack of Heidelberg in 1622 [Serapeimi, 
 XV. 100, xviii. 209). 
 
 Guarinus, Guarino of Verona (1370 1460), Italian scholar. MSS. at 
 Perrara, Paris, Rome, Vienna, Erlangen. 
 
 Guarnacciana, s.v. Volaterranus. 
 
 Gudianus, Marquard Gude (1635-16891 ot Rcndsburg, Schleswig- 
 Holstein, a Danish collector. His MSS. were sold by auction in 
 1706 (Auction Catalogue, Hamburg. 1706). and some MSS. were 
 acquired for Wolfenbiittel in 1710. (O. von Hcincmann, 1886.) Cf. 
 Tiliobrogianus, Salmasianus, Rottcndorphianus, Bordesholm. 
 
 Guelferbytanus (Guelferbytum), Wolfcnbuttel, Germ. Bibl. Augus- 
 tana or Augustca. founded by Herzog August der Jiingcre of Bruns- 
 wick, d. 1666. It contains, besides the collection of its founder, the 
 Blankenburgenses, Gudiani, Ilelmstadienscs. Weisscnburgenses. 
 (V. Hcincmann, 1898.) 
 
 Guyetus, Fr. Guyet (1575-1655). French scholar. MSS. at Paris. 
 Guzman, s. v. Salmanticcnsis. 
 
 Gyraldensis, Lilius Gregorius Gyraldus (Giglio Grcgorio Giraldi) 
 (1479-1552), of Ferrara; protonotary Apostolic. 
 
 H 
 
 Ilaenelianus, Gustav Friedrich Hacnel ( 1792-1878), travelled ovei 
 the greater part of Europe examining MSS. in libraries. Many 
 MSS. acquired by him on his travels are now in the University 
 Library, Leipzig, and at the Escurial. 
 
 Haffligensis, s.v. Aflligcnicnsis. 
 
 Hafniensis, s.v. Ilauniensis. 
 
 Hagensis (Haga Comitum), The Hague, Holland. 
 
 Hagia Laura, monastery on Mt. Athos, Turkey. 
 
 Halberstadiensis, lialberstadt. Germ. Cf. Ilalcnsis. 
 
 Halensis (Hala Saxonum), Halle, Germ. MSS. from Bergs, 
 burg, Halberstadt. 
 
 Hamburgensis (Hamburgumi, Hamburg, Germ. Stadtbibliothek 
 (Johanneumi. MSS. of Lindenbrog, Ilolstenius, J. C. Wolf, and 
 Uffenbach. (H. Omont, Zcntndblatt f. Bibl., 1890, vol. vii, p. 351.1 
 
 Hamiltonensis, the collection of the twelfth Duke of Hamilton 
 purchased for the Berlin Library in 1882. (Wattenbach. Neitea 
 An/iiv, viii. 327.) 
 
 Magde- 
 
 'll 
 
 ^i 
 
 HOC 
 
320 
 
 NOMENCLATURE 
 
 OF MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 Hannoveranus (Hanovera), Hannover, Germ, (i) Stadtbibl. f. 1440. 
 (Grotefend, 1844.) (2) Kgl. oE Bibl. (Bodemann, 1867.) 
 
 Harlay, Achille de (1689-1707), President du Parlenient de Paris. His 
 collection passed from De Chauvelin in 1755 to the library ot^ S. 
 Germain (q. v., also Delisle, Cabinet^ ii, p. 102). Cf. s. v. S. Germani. 
 
 Harleianus, the collection begun by Robert Harley, afterwards Earl 
 of Oxford and Mortimer (1661-1724). Now in the British Museum. 
 (Nares, 1808.) 
 
 Harrisianus, A. C. Harris, the discoverer of the papyrus of Hyperides 
 in 1847. Purchased by the Brit. Mus. in 1872. 
 
 Hase, Charles Benoit, Greek scholar, employed in Paris Library, 
 1805. Some of his MSS. were purchased for the Paris Library 
 on his death in 1864. 
 
 Hauniensis (Haunia, Hafnia), Copenhagen, Denmark, (i) Royal 
 Library. MSS. of Askew, Lindcnbrog, Rostgaard, Thott. and MSS. 
 from Gottorp. (J. Eyriksson, 1786; C. G. Hensler, Gk. MSS. 1784; 
 Notice so/iimaire (fes ni6S. ^ras par C/i. Grattx, 1879.) (2) Uni- 
 versity Library. (S. B. Smith, 1882.) Contains the collection of 
 J. A. Fabricius, added in 1770. 
 
 Havercampianus, Sigbert Havercamp (1684-1742), Professor at 
 Leyden, Holl. 
 
 Heidelbergensis (Heidelberga), Heidelberg, Germ. Cf. Palatinus. 
 
 Heiligenkreuz, v. S. Crucis. 
 
 Heilsbronnensis, Heilsbronn, Germ. (Hocker, 1731.) MSS. at Stutt- 
 gart, Erlangen. 
 
 Heinsianus, MSS. of Daniel Heinsius (1580-1665), Professor at Leyden, 
 and of his son Nicholas (1620-1681). Many are in the Bernard 
 (s. V.) collection in the Bodleian, some at Leyden ; some belonging 
 to Nicholas are among the Reginenses in Vatican. 
 
 Helenopolis, Frankfurt am Main, Germ. s. v. Francofurtanus. 
 
 Helleriana bibliotheca, collection of Joseph Heller (1798-1849) at 
 Bamberg. (F. Leitschuh, 1887.) 
 
 Helmstadiensis (Helmstadiunij, the library founded at Helmstedt, 
 Germ., by Herzog Friedrich Ulrich in 1614. On the suppression 
 of the University in 1810 the library was dispersed between 
 Marburg, Brunswick, Gottingen. The MSS. sent to Gottingen were 
 transferred circ. 1822- 1832 to Wolfenbuttel, from whence they had 
 been brought in 1614. 
 
 Hemsterhusius, MSS. of Tiberius Hemsterhuys (1686-1766). At 
 Leyden since 1790. 
 
 Henochianus, s. v. Enoch. 
 
 Herbipolitanus (Herbipolis, Wirceburgum), Wiirzburg, Germ. 
 (Catalogue, 1886; History by O. Handwerker, 1904.) Some MSS. 
 at Munich. Some from S. Kilian's now in Bodleian (Laudiani). 
 
 32 T 
 
 I 
 
 Hermannstadt, s. v. Cibinensis. 
 
 Hierosolymitanus (Hierosolyma), Jerusalem, Pal. (1) The Patri- 
 arch's Library. (A. Papadopoulos Kerameus, 1891-1899; K. M. 
 
 Koikulides, 1889.) (2) MSS. from the Bibliotheca S. Crucis at 
 
 Jerusalem, now in the Bibl. Vittorio Emanuele, Rome. (3) Library 
 
 of Mar Saba, now united wnth (4) Library of the Convent of the 
 
 Holy Sepulchre. (Rendel Harris, 1889.) 
 Hildeshemensis (Hildeshemium, Ascalingium), Hildesheim, Germ. 
 
 Cathedral or Beverina Library founded 1681 by Martin Bever (1625- 
 
 1681). Some MSS. from here at Wolfenbiittel. (C. Ernst, 1909.) 
 Hilleriana bibliotheca, s. v. Helleriana. 
 Hirschaugiensis (Hirschaugia, Hirschavia), Hirschau, Germ. 
 Hispalensis, Seville, Sp. s. v. Columbina. 
 Hittorpianus, MSS. (mostly in the Cathedral Library, Cologne) used 
 
 or owned by Melchior Hittorp (1525-1584), theologian, Dean of the 
 
 collegiate church of S. Cunibert, Cologne. 
 Hoeschelianus, David Hoeschel (1556 1617), librarian at Augsburg. 
 
 Some of his MSS. are among the Augustani at Munich. One 
 
 (Royal 16 D. X) is in the Brit. Mus. 
 Hohenfurtensis, Hohenfurth, Bohemia. 
 Holkhamicus, the collection made by the first Earl of Leicester 
 
 (Thomas Coke, Baron Lovel, 1 752-1842), now at Holkham, Eng. 
 
 (R. Forster, PJiilologits^ xlii. 158 (1883); Edwards, Memoirs of 
 
 Libraries^ ii. 154-7.) C^- ^- lohannis in Viridario. 
 Holmiensis (Holmia\ Stockholm, Sweden. (G. P. Lilieblad and 
 
 J. G. Sparvenfeld, 1706.) 
 Holstenianus, s. v. Barberinus. Cf. Angelicanus. 
 Hubertianus, S. Hubert in the Ardennes, Belg. 
 Huetianus, Pierre Daniel Huet (1630-1721), Bp. ot Avranches. His 
 
 MSS. presented to Bibl. Royale, Paris, in 1763. 
 Hugenianus, collection of Constantin Huygens (1596-1687) of 
 
 Zuylichem, Holl., Dutch noble, statesman, and poet. Dispersed ; 
 
 some MSS. now at Leyden, Holl. 
 Hulpheriana, collection at Vasteras, Sweden. In the Laroverks- 
 
 bibliotek. Cf. Arosiensis. 
 Hulsianus, MSS. of Samuel van Hulst, an advocate at the Hague. 
 
 (Catalogue, Bibliotheca Hulsiaiia, Hagae Comitum, 1730.) 
 Hummelian us, Bern hard Friedrich Hummel (1725- i79i),the possessor 
 
 of a MS. of the Germania of Tacitus, since lost. 
 Hunterianus, Hunterian Museum, Glasgow, Scot., founded by bequest 
 
 of Dr. William Hunter (1718-1783) in 1807. (P. H. Aitken, 1908.) 
 Hurault, s. v. Boistallerianus. 
 Hydruntinus (Hydruntumi, Otranto, It. There was a collection 
 
 of MSS. in the Greek monastery of S. Nicola di Casole close to 
 
 Y 
 
 ^1 
 
 473 
 
f. 
 
 322 
 
 NOMENCLATURE 
 
 Otranto, from which Bessarion obtained many of his MSS. (e.g. that 
 of O. Smyrnaeus). It was destroyed by the Turks in 1480. (Cf. 
 Antonius de Ferrariis Galateus, De situ lapygiae, Lycii (Lecce), 
 1727, pp. 48-9; H. Omont, Rev. des Etudes grecqttes (1890), iii. 
 381-91.) 
 
 I 
 
 laniniana, libr. of church of S. Benignus, Dijon, Fr. (Cat. Gen. ties 
 
 MSS. cies Bibl Piibl. de France, vol. v, p. 453.) 
 Indersdorfensis, Indersdorf, Germ. At Munich. 
 Ingolstadiensis (Ingolstadium), Ingolstadt, Germ. At Munich. 
 Insula Barbara, Monastery of S. Benedict on the lie Barbe in the 
 
 river Saone near Lyon, Fr., plundered in 1562, destroyed in 1793. 
 Insulensis, Lille, Fr. (Rigaux Desplanque*.j 
 Intrensis, Intra, It. 
 loannensis, (i) S. John Baptist College, Oxford (H. O. Coxe). (2) 
 
 S. John's College, Cambridge (B. M. Covvie). 
 Ivreensis, Ivrea, It. (Catalogued in Mazzatinti.) 
 
 Jenensis, Jena, Germ. University Library. MSS. of J. A. Bosius. 
 
 (J. C. Mylius, 1746.) 
 Jeremutensis, Yarmouth, Eng. 
 Justinianus, MSS. belonging to the Giustiniani, a Venetian family. 
 
 A few in the Marciana, but most in private hands, e.g. Holkham. 
 
 Justinopolitanus (Justinopolis), Convent of S. Ann, Capo d'Istria, 
 
 Dalmatia. 
 
 K 
 
 Kaisheimensis, Kaisheim, Germ. At Munich. 
 
 Karlsburg, s. v. Wei ssen burg. 
 
 Kasan, Russia. University Library. (Artemjev, 1882.) 
 
 Kemeny, Graf Joseph von, historian (1806-1855), founder of the 
 
 library at Hermannstadt, Hungary, s. v. Cibinensis. 
 Kenanensis, Kells, Ireland. 
 
 Kielensis (Kilia), Kiel, Germ. (II. Ratjen, Serapeitni, xxxl, p. 273.] 
 Kiew, Russia, s. v. Chiovensis. 
 Klosterneuburg, s.v. Niwenburgensis. 
 
 Labronicus ( Labronis portus), Leghorn , 1 1. Bibl. Comunale Labronica. 
 Ladenburgensis, Ladenburg, Germ. Johann Dalberg, Bp. of Worms, 
 
 d. 1503, had a library here which was subsequently incorporated 
 
 with the Palatine at Heidelberg (s.v. Palatinus). 
 Lagomarsinianus, Girolamo Lagomarsini (1698-1773), a Jesuit, Pro- 
 
 OF MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 323 
 
 fessor of Rhetoric at Florence and subsequently at Rome. He 
 collated many MSS. of Cicero. 
 
 Lambecius, Petrus (1628 1680), of Hamburg, librarian at Vienna. 
 His MSS. were purchased for the Hcfbibliothek after his death. 
 
 Lambethanus, the library of the Abp. ot Canterbury at Lambeth 
 Palace, London. (Todd, 1812.) 
 
 Lammens, a private library at Ghent, Belg., now at Brussels. 
 
 Landianus, MSS. in the Passerini-Landi Library, founded by Pier 
 Francesco Passerini, d. 1695, at Piacenza, It. 
 
 Lascaris, (i) Constantine Lascaris (1434-1501) of Constantinople, 
 taught Greek at Milan 1460 1465, and later at Messina, to which 
 town he left his MSS. They were removed to Palermo in 1679 and 
 later to Spain. In 1712 they were placed in the newly founded 
 National Library in Madrid. (2) Janus Lascaris (1445-1535), Greek 
 refugee patronized by Lorenzo de' Medici. While in France he 
 assisted G. Bude in founding the library at Fontainebleau for 
 Francis I. On his return to Italy he aided Cardinal Ridolfi (q. v.) 
 in forming his library. On an autograph list of his MSS. in the 
 Vatican v. K. K. Miillcr, ZentraWl.f. Bihliotheksivesen^ 1884, i. 333. 
 
 Lassbergensis, Landsberg, Bavaria, Germ. At Freiburg i. B. 
 
 Latiniacensis (Latiniacum), the Abbey of S. Furc3% Lagny-sur- 
 Marne, Fr. 
 
 Laubacensis, s. v. Lobiensis. 
 
 Laudensis (Laus Pompeia), Lodi, It. At Piacenza. 
 
 Laudianus, MSS. of William Laud (1573-1645), Abp. of Canterbury. 
 In the Bodleian (H. O. Coxe, 1858 ; Index, 1885) and in S. John's 
 College, Oxford (H. O. Coxe, 1852). 
 
 Laudunensis (Laudunum, Lugdunum Clavatum), Laon, Fr. (F. 
 Ravaisson*.) 
 
 Laureacensis, (i) Lorsch, Monastery of S. Nazarius, Germ. MSS. 
 now at Heidelberg (since 1555), the Vatican (s. v. Palatinus), Vienna, 
 and Montpellier. (History by F. Falk, 1902.) (2) Lorch, near Passau, 
 Germ. 
 
 Laurensis, The Laura on Mt. Athos, Turkey. 
 
 Laurentianus, (i) s. v. Florentinus. (2) Collegium Laurentianum at 
 Cologne. 
 
 Laurishamensis, v^ Laureacensis (i). 
 
 Lausannensis (Lausanna), Lausanne, Switz. MSS. at Berne. 
 
 Lavantinus, s. v. S. Pauli in Carinthia. 
 
 Le Caron, private library at Troussures, Fr., contains MSS. from 
 Luxeuil. 
 
 Leghorn, s. v. Labronicus. 
 
 Legionensis (Legio septima gemina), Leon, Sp. Cathedral Library. 
 (Beer and E. Diaz Jimenez.) 
 
 Y 2 
 
 I 
 
 / 
 
 / 
 
324 
 
 NOMENCLATURE 
 
 OF MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 325 
 
 Leidensis, Lugdunensis (Lugdiinum Batavorumi, Leyden, Holland. 
 Contains Belvacenses, and MSS. of Chifflet, Gronovius, Heinsius, 
 Lipsius, Perizonius, Scaligcr, I. Voss, Vulcanius. (Senguerdius, 
 Gronovius and Heyman, 1716; Geel, 1852; Catalogue of Vulcanici 
 and Scaligerani, 1910.) 
 
 Lemberg, s. v. Leopoliensis. 
 
 Lemovicensis(Lemovicum), Limoges, Fr. (Guibert.*) Cf. S. Martialis. 
 
 Lentianus (Lentia), Linz, Austria. 
 
 Leodi(c)ensis (Leodicum, Leodium}, Liege or Luttich, Belg. (M. 
 Grandjean, 1877: Wittert collection, J. Brassine, 1910.) 
 
 Leopoldi(a)na, s. v. Florentinus. 
 
 Leopoliensis (Leopolis, Leoberga), Bibl. Ossoliniana, Lemberg. Austr. 
 (W. Ketrzinski, 1881.) 
 
 Leovardiensis (Leovardia), Leeuwarden, Holland. Provincial Library 
 of Friesland containing MSS. of the Jesuit College of Clermont, Fr. 
 (Eekhoff, 1871-1897.) 
 
 Lesdiguieres, Alphonse de Crcquy, Comte de Canaples and in 1703 
 Due de L. He died in 1711 and his library was dispersed in 1716, 
 part being purchased by the Benedictines of Marmoutiers. 
 
 Libri, Guillaume Brutus Icilius Timoleon Libri Carucci della 
 Sommaia (1803-1869) fled to France in 1830, and in 1841 was made 
 secretary to a Commission appointed to prepare a catalogue of the 
 MSS. in public libraries. He profited by the negligence of many 
 of the provincial librarians, and stole large numbers of MSS. from 
 Dijon, Lyon, Grenoble, Carpentras, Montpellier, Poitiers, Tours, 
 Orleans, and other towns. By 1845 he had acquired a collection 
 of 2000 MSS. After an unsuccessful attempt to sell them to the 
 British Museum and the University of Turin, he found a purchaser 
 in the Earl of Ashburnham, who paid ^8000 for the collection in 
 1847. Suspicion fell upon Libri soon afterwards and he fled to 
 England in 1848. In 1850 he was condemned in absence to ten 
 years' imprisonment. He maintained his innocence and succeeded 
 in securing the interest of some prominent men, such as Guizot, 
 but failed In the attempt to get the verdict against him reversed. 
 On the death of Lord Ashburnham in 1878 negotiations were begun 
 by France and Italy for the recovery of such part of the Libri 
 collections as had been stolen from their Public Libraries. 
 These negotiations in the end proved successful. In 1884 
 Italy purchased a portion of the MSS. (now in the Laurentian), 
 while France secured the remainder in 1888. iPhilologus, 1886, 
 vol. xlv, p. 201.) 
 Lichfeldensis, Lichfield, Eng. 
 
 Lignitiensis (Lignitiunii, Liegnitz. Germ. Library of SS. Peter and 
 Paul. (W. Gemoll. 1900.) 
 
 Liliocampensis, s. v. Campililiensis. 
 
 Lincolniensis, MSS. of Lincoln College, Oxford ; now deposited in 
 
 the Bodleian, also called Lindunensis. 
 Lincopiensis (Lincopia), Linkoping, Sweden. (Cf. R. Forster, De 
 
 Libanii libris MSS, Rostock, 1877.) MSS. of Bcnzelius. 
 Lindenbrogius, s.v. Tiliobrogianus. 
 Lindesianus, Lord Crawford's Library at Haigh Hall. MSS. in 
 
 Rylands' Library, Manchester, since 1901. 
 Lindunensis, s.v. Lincolniensis. 
 Lingonensis (urbs Lingonum), Langres, Fr. 
 Lipsiensis (Lipsia), Leipzig, Germ. (i> University Library or 
 
 Albertina (formerly Bibl. Paulina). (L. J. Feller, 1686; Gk. MSS., 
 
 Gardthausen; Lat. MSS., R. Hclsigg, 1905.) MSS. from Pcgau, 
 
 Lauterberg, Chemnitz, Pirna, were transferred here circ. 1540. 
 
 The library contains the MSS. collected by Haenel (s. v.). (2) Stadt- 
 
 bibl. or Bibl. Senatoria (A. G. R. Naumann, 1838), containing MSS. 
 
 of Matthias Corvinus. 
 Lipsius, Justus Lipsius (1547-1606). Some of his MSS. arc at Leyden 
 
 (Gk. MSS., V. Gardthausen), others were sold as late as 1722. 
 Lirensis, s.v. Lyrensis. 
 Lisbonensis, s. v. Olisiponensis. 
 Livineius, Jan Lievens (1546-1599), scholar. Canon at Antwerp 
 
 (cf. Bruxellensis). 
 Lobcoviciensis, Library (Fideikommissbibliothek) of Furst Moritz 
 
 von Lobkowitz at Raudnitz, Bohemia, founded by Bohuslav von 
 
 Lobkowitz, circ. 1491, at Hassenstein. (E. Gollob, Vcrzeichnis d.irr. 
 
 Hss. in Osterreic/i, 1903, p. 134.) 
 
 Lobiensis, Lobbes, Belg. At Brussels. (Omont, Rev. des Bibl. 1891, 
 vol. i, p. 3.) 
 
 Loisellus, s. v. Avicula. 
 
 Lolliniana, library at Belluno, It. 
 
 Londin(i)ensis (Londinum). 
 
 (i) British Museum, containing the following collections : Arundel, 
 
 Burney, Cotton, Egerton, Harleian, Old Royal (Casley, 1734), New 
 
 Royal, Sloane. Other MSS. are catalogued as 'Additional MSS. 
 
 Pcipyri, J. Forshall, Pt. i. 1839 ; E- G. Kenyon, 1893- • Cat. of Anc. 
 
 MSS., 2 vols, (with facsimiles), 1881-4 ; H. Omont, Notes sitr ies 
 
 MSS. grecs dit B.M. in Bibl. de VEcole des Charles, vol. xlv, 1884. 
 (2) Londinum Gothorum, Lund, Swed. 
 Longolianus, Christophe de Longueil (1488-1522), Ciceronian scholar. 
 
 friend of Cardinal Pole. 
 Lorrianus, Lorry, a physician at Paris circ. 1810, owned a MS. of 
 
 Nicandcr which has since disappeared. 
 Lovaniensis (Lovaniumi, Luuvain, Belg. Cf. Parcensis. 
 
 / 
 
 /( 
 
 / , 
 
326 
 
 NOMENCLATURE 
 
 i 
 
 Lovel(i)anus, MSS. acquired by Sir Thomas Coke of Holkham. 
 afterwards Baron Lovel, d. 1759 Cf. Holkhamicus. 
 
 Lubecensis, Liibeck, Germ. (J. H. v. Melle, 1807; Omont, Zentralbl. 
 1890.) 
 
 Lucchesiana, library at Girgenti, Sicily. 
 
 Lucensis (Luca), Lucca, It. (1) Biblioteca Pubblica (2)Bibl. Palatina, 
 containing codd. of Lucchesini and S. Maria di Corte Landini (in 
 curtis Orlandigorum or Orlandigerorum). Partly transferred to 
 Bibl. Nazionale at Parma in 1847. (^- Mancini, Florence, 1902.) 
 Libr. of Canons ol S. Martin is catalogued in Blume, Bibi^ p. 53. 
 
 Lucernensis, Lucerne. Switz. (Keller, 1840-1866.) 
 
 Lugdunensis, (i) Leyden, Holland (s. v. Leidensis). (2) Lyon, Fr. 
 (L. Niepce, 1876.) 
 
 LuUin, s.v. Genevensis. 
 
 Lunaeburgensis, monastery of S. Michael, Liincburg, Germ. At 
 Gottingen. (A. Martin, 1827.) 
 
 Lunaelacensis, Mondsee, Austr. At Vienna. 
 
 Lupara, the Louvre Museum, Paris. (Egyptian papyri.) 
 
 Lusaticus (Lusatia), Lausitz, Germ. The term is loosely applied to 
 MSS. from Gorlitz, Zittau, and other towns in this district. 
 
 Luxemburgensis, Bibl. de TAthcnce de Luxembourg. A. Namur, 1855. 
 
 Luxoviensis (Luxovium), Luxeuil, Fr. Cf. Beauvais, Le Caron. 
 
 Lyrensis or Lyranus, Lyre, Fr. At Evreux. 
 
 M 
 
 Madritensis, s. v. Matrit-. 
 
 Maffei, Scipio (1675-1755), Veronese scholar and antiquary. MSS. 
 
 in Capitular Library, Verona. 
 Magdalenaeus, library of S. Maria Magdalcna at Breslau founded in 
 
 1601, incorporated with the Stadtbibliothek in 1865 (s. v. Vratis- 
 
 laviensis). 
 Magdebnrgensis, Magdeburg, Germ. Cf. Halcnsis. 
 Magliabecchianus, Antonio Magliabecchi (1633-1714), librarian at 
 
 Florence. His collection is now in the Bibl. Nazionale there (s.v. 
 
 Florentinus). 
 Maguntinus, s. v. Mog-. 
 
 Maihingensis, Maihingen,Germ. (Grupp, 1897.) Cf.Wallersteinensis. 
 Majus Monasterium, Benedictine monastery at Marmoutieis, Fr. 
 
 At Tours. 
 Malatestianus, library at Cesena, It., founded by Domenico Malatesta 
 
 Novello in 1452, united since 1797 with the Bibl. Comunale. (J. M. 
 
 Muccioli, 1780-1784 ; R. Zazzeri, 1887.) 
 Malleacensis, Maillezais, Fr. 
 Mallersdorfiensis, Mallcrsdorf, Bavaria. At Munich. 
 
 \ 
 
 OF MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 327 
 
 Malvito, a monastery near Cosenza in Calabria. It. 
 
 Mancuniensis (Mancunium), Manchester, Eng. John Rylands 
 Library, founded in 1900 by Mrs. Rylands in memory of her 
 husband, a cotton merchant of Wigan (1801-1888). It includes the 
 famous Althorp (q. v.) library, purchased b}^ her from Earl Spencer 
 in 1892. Cf. Lindesianus. 
 
 Manetti, Giannozzo, Italian scholar and collector (1396- 1497). Some 
 of his MSS. are in the Laurentian. 
 
 Mannheimensis, Mannheim, Germ. At Munich. 
 
 Mantuanus, Mantova, It. Bibl. Gonzaga, cf. Padolironcnsis. (E. 
 Martini, Gk. MSS. 1896.) The old library of the Gonzagas was 
 plundered in 1630. Many MSS. came into the possession of 
 Cardinal Richelieu. After the death of Duke Ferdinando Carlo IV 
 in 1708 part of the library was sold to Venice and passed through 
 Recanati to the Marciana. The remainder was sold in 1735, and 
 part of this has come through the Canonici collection into the 
 Bodleian. 
 
 Marburgensis, Marburg, Germ., including Corbeienses Helmstadi- 
 enses. (Latin codd., C. F. Hermann, 1831.) 
 
 Marchandus, MSS. of Prosper Marchand, b. 1675, bibliographer 
 At Leyden since 1756. 
 
 Marchianensis, Marchiennes, Fr. Now at Douai. 
 
 Marcianus, (i) Library of S. Mark, Venice, founded by Cardinal 
 Bessarion in 1468. (Gk., A. M. Zanetti and A. Bongiovanni, 1740 ; 
 Castellani, 1896. Lat., J. Valentinelli, 1868-1873.) Cf. Nanianus. 
 (2) Library of S. Mark at Florence, founded by Cosimo de' Medici 
 in 1437. (3) Jan van der Mark or Merk (cf. Cat. Anc. MSS. Brit. 
 Mits. i. 15). He collected MSS. at the beginning of the 18th cent, 
 and purchased those of J. de Witt, a jurist of Amsterdam. 
 
 Maros-Vasarhely, Hung. Private library of the Teleky lamily. 
 
 Martini Turonensis, S. Martin at Tours, Fr. 
 
 Martinsberg (Martisburgum, Marsipolis), s.v. Pannonhalma. 
 
 Martisburgensis, Merseburg, Germ. Cathedral Library. Some 
 MSS. from here are in the Stadtbibl,, Leipzig. 
 
 Massiliensis (Massilia), Marseille, Fr. (Albancs*.) 
 
 Matritensis (Matritum, Madritum), Madrid, Sp. (i) Bibl. Nacional, 
 containing MSS. of Const. Lascaris and Merula. I J. Iriarte, 1769; 
 Haenel, pp. 965-74 ; E. Miller, 1884.) (2) University Library. (Villa 
 Amil y Castro, 1878.) (3) Real Bibl., the private library of the King 
 in the Palacio de la Plaza de Oriente, founded in 1714. MSS. 
 mostly from the suppressed Colegios Mayores of Salamanca. (C. 
 Graux et A. Martin, Mss. grecs tVEspagtie et de Portugal^ 1892 ; 
 Catalogue by R. Menendez Pidal, 1898.) Cf. Covarrubias. (4) The 
 library of the Real Academiade la Historia contains MSS. from the 
 
 
>8 
 
 NOMENX'LATURE 
 
 monasteries ofS. Millan de la Cogolla, S. Pedro de Cardcna, and 
 from Jesuit houses in Madrid. 
 
 Matthaei, Christian Friedrich (1744-1811), German scholar, Professor 
 of Classics at Moscow, 1778-1784, returned to the post after an 
 absence in Germany and held it from 1804-181 1. His large 
 collection of Gk. MSS., many of which were stolen from libraries in 
 Moscow, was dispersed by him during his lifetime either as gifts 
 to friends such as Heyne and Ruhnken or sold to the libraries ol 
 Leyden and Dresden. (O. von Gebhardt, ' C. F. M. und seine Samm- 
 lung gr. Hdsch.,' Zentmlblatt filr Bibliothek^ii^esen^ vol. xv, 1898.) 
 
 Maugerard, Jean-Baptiste (1735-1815), a Benedictine of the congrega- 
 tion of S. Vanne. After the Revolution he fled to Germanv, where 
 he dealt in MSS. stolen from public libraries. (L. Traube and 
 R. Ehwald, 1904.) 
 
 Mazarinensis, -aeus, MSS. ot Cardinal Mazarin, many of which 
 came from the collections of Peiresc, du Tillet, NaudcS and Petau. 
 (L. Delisle, Cabinet, i, p. 279.) Now in Bibl. Nat., Paris. For MSS. 
 of the present Bibl. Maz. v. A. Molinier, 1885. 
 
 Meadensis, Meadianus, Meadinus, MSS. of Richard Mead, a London 
 physician (1673-1754), friend of Bentley. Some were purchased by 
 Rawlinson and are in the Bodleian. Cf. Askevianus, Taylor. 
 
 Medianum in Vosago, Moyenmoutier, Fr. At Epinal and Nancy. 
 
 Mediceus, ( i) s. v. Laurentianus. (2) Collection of Catherine de' Medici 
 added to the Bibl. Roy. Paris in 1599, often cited as Medicei Rcgii. 
 Cf. Ridolfianus. 
 
 Mediolanensis (Mediolanum), Milan, It., v. Ambrosianus. Brcra, 
 Capitolo Metropolitano, Trivul^iana. Cf I. Ghiron, Bibliotcchc e 
 archivi, 1881. 
 
 Mediomatricensis (urbs Medioinatrica), Metz, Germ. The Stadtbibl. 
 contains some Saibante MSS. (Ouichcrat *). MSS. from the 
 Cathedral were presented to Colbert circ. 1676 and are now at Paris. 
 
 Mediomontanus, Middlehill, Worcestershire, Eng. s.v. Phillippsianus. 
 
 Meerman, Gerard (1722 1771), and his son Jan (1753-1815). Their 
 collection was purchased in 1824 by the Bodleian and by Sir Thomas 
 Phillipps, whose share was purchased by the Berlin Library in 
 1889 (?). Cf. Claromontanus. (Madan, Summary Catalogue, p. 433.) 
 
 Meersburg, s. v. Carolsruhensis. 
 
 Meldensis (Meldae), Meaux, Fr. Sometimes used for MSS. of du 
 Tillet, Bp. of Meaux, d. 1570. Cf. Tilianus. 
 
 Melitensis (Melita), Malta. (C. Vasallo, 1856.) 
 
 Mellicensis, Melk, Austr. {Catalogus, vol. i, Vienna, 1889.) 
 
 Memmianus, Henri de Mesmes (1532-1596), French diplomatist. 
 His son Jacques died in 1642. Their collection was dispersed at 
 the end of the 17th cent, and the greater part was purchased 
 
 OF MANUSCRIPTS 
 Rov. Paris in 17^11. A few 
 
 173T 
 
 m 
 
 329 
 
 the Bodleian 
 
 for the Bibl 
 (Sclden). 
 
 Menagianus, Aegidius Menagius (Gilles Menage) (1613-1692), French 
 jurist and scholar, left his library to the Jesuits of S. Louis, Paris. 
 
 Menckenianus, MSS. of Otto Mencke (1644 1707) and his son Johann 
 burchard M. (1645 1732), both scholars at Leipzig. The son was 
 author of the well-known Gele/irfcn-Lexicon. MSS. dispersed. 
 
 Mendoza, (i) Diego (Didacus) Huitado dc Mendoza (1503-1575). Mar- 
 quis of Mondcjar and Count of Tendilla, ambassador of Charles V 
 at Rome. He made a collection of Gk. MSS. at Venice which 
 was added to the Escurial Library in 1576. (E. Miller, Catalo<;ue dcs 
 Mss. grecs de V Escurial, pp. iii-iv: Fcsanmair, D. H. de Mendoza, 
 Munich, 1882.) (2) Francisco de Mendoza y Bobadilla (1508 1566, •, 
 Cardinal of Burgos. At Madrid. 
 
 Mentelianus, Jacques Mentel, physician at Paris. His library was 
 incorporated with the Royal Librarv, Paris, in 1669. 
 
 Merseburg, s. v. Martisburgensis. 
 
 Merula, Georgius, of Alexandria della Paglia, near Milan ; taught in 
 Venice and Milan, d. 1494. IVISS. in Ambrosian and at Madrid. 
 
 Messanms, Messanicus (Messana), Messina, Sicily. Contained Gk. 
 
 MSS.from the Monastery of S.Salvadore and S.Placidus. Destroyed 
 by earthquake 28 Dec, 1908. 
 
 Metellianus, Jean Matal 11520-1597), of Cologne, jurist, a friend of 
 Gruter. He owned a MS. of Cicero collated by }. Gulielmus. 
 
 Meteora, monastery of, Greece. Many MSS. were removed to 
 Athens. For those still at Meteora v. J. Drascke, Die muen Hand- 
 schriftenfundc in den M-Klosiern, in A^. Jahrbilcher f. kl. Alt. 1912, 
 pp. 542 sqq. 
 
 Mettensis, Metten, Germ. At Munich. Also used for Mediomatricensis. 
 
 Miciacensis, S.Mesmin (S.Maximinus)de Micyor My, near Orleans, Fr. 
 
 Middlehillensis, s. v. Phillippsianus. 
 
 Milich, J. G., advocate of Schweidnitz, left his library to Gorlitz in 
 1726. s. V. Gorlicensis. 
 
 Millard, library at Troyes, Fr. 
 
 Miller, Emmanuel (1812-1886), assistant in the Department of 
 MSS. m the Bibl. Nat. Paris from 1833-1850 and Bibliothccaire de 
 lAssemblee Nationale till 1880. Travelled widely in Europe and in 
 the near East. His collection of MSS. is now for the most part in 
 the Bibl. Nat. Paris. (Omont, 1897.) 
 
 Minas, Menoides (1790-1860), a Greek employed by the Bibl. Nat. 
 Paris to search for MSS. in Greece. 
 
 Mindensis, Minden, Germ. 
 
 Minerviensis, S. Maria sopra Minerva, Rome. v. Casanatensis. 
 
 Minoraugiensis (Augia minor), Mindarau, Germ. 
 
 V 
 
330 
 
 NOMENCLATURE 
 
 OF MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 331 
 
 n 
 
 Modius, P>anciscus (: dc Mauldc), 1556 1597- o^ Oudenbourg, near 
 Bruges, Bclg. Trained for the law, but devoted his life to work 
 upon classical MSB. in various libraries. (Life by P. Lehmann, 
 1907.) 
 Modoetiensis (Modoetia), Monza, It. 
 
 Moguntinus (Moguntia), Mainz, Germ. The library of the church 
 of S. Martin, now dispersed. (F. Falk, Zmtralblatt filr Bibl. 1897, 
 Beiheft xviii.) 
 Monacensis (Monachiuml, Munich, Germ, (i) University Library, 
 founded 1472. (2) K. Hof- und Staatsbibliothek (Gk. MSS., Hardt 
 1806-1812; Lat., Halm and others), founded by Albrecht V of 
 Bavaria (1550-1579). Contains the collections of Schedel and 
 J. J. Fugger (1575). The main divisions of the library 
 are (I) the old Bibliotheca electoralis ; (2) the Codices Augustani, 
 transferred to Munich from the Augsburg Library in 1806; (3) MSS. 
 added during 19th cent, chiefly from the surrounding monasteries. 
 Monasteriensis (Monasterium), Miinster, Germ. Bibl. Paulma 
 founded 1588. (J. Staender, 1889.) Includes the Bibliotheca 
 Furstenbergica of Franz Egon v. F. added in 1795. 
 Mon. Aug., Monasterium S. Augustini at Munich. MSS. at Munich. 
 Moneus, MS. of Plin. H. N. found in 1853 by Fridegar Mone (1796- 
 
 1851) at S. Paul in the Lavant-Thal, Carinthia. 
 Monspeliensis, s. v. Montepessulanus. 
 
 Montalbanius, Ovidius Montalbanius (Montalbani), physician and 
 
 Professorof Philosophy at Bologna cin: 1640. Friend of N. Heinsius. 
 
 Montchal, Charles de, Abp. of Toulouse, d. 1651. MSS. purchased by 
 
 Nicolas Foucquet, surintendant des finances, after whose disgrace, in 
 
 1661, they passed to Le Tellier (s.v. Tellerianus), who presented 
 
 his collections to the Royal Library, Paris, in 1700. (L. Dclislc, 
 
 Cabinet, i. 273.) 
 
 Montensis, Mons. Belg. 
 
 Montepessulanus (Mons Pessulanus), Montpellicr, Fr. Contains 
 
 codd. of Bouhicr and Pithou. (Libri*.) 
 Montepolitianus (Mons Politianus), Montepulciano, It. The Domini- 
 can library once here became part of the Magliabecchiana (q.v.). 
 Monteprandone, It. MSS. of S. Giacomo della Marca. (A. Crivelucci, 
 
 1889.) 
 More, John (1646-1714), Bp. of Norwich, afterwards of Ely. His 
 
 library was purchased by George I and presented to the University 
 
 of Cambridge, s.v. Eliensis. 
 Morelii codices, MSS. used by Gul. Morelius (Tilianus), who published 
 
 a commentary on Cic. Dc Finibiis at Paris in 1546. 
 Moretanus, Balthasar Moret of Antwerp, grandson of Plantin the 
 
 printer, d. 1641. MSS. at Antwerp. 
 
 Mospurgensis (Mospurgum), Moosburg. Germ. At Munich. 
 
 Mosquensis, Moscuensis (Mosqua, Moscua, Moscovia), Moscow, Russ. 
 (i) University Library. (Reuss, 1831.) (2) Library of the Synod. 
 (C. F. Matthei, 1780; Vladimir, 1894.) (3) Bibliotheca Tabularii 
 imperialis (Arkhiv Ministerstva Inostrannykh Del, or Imperial 
 Record Office), containing library of Macedonian abbot Dionysios 
 given in 1650. (Belokurov. Cf. O. von Gebhart, Zentralblatt f. Bibl. 
 XV. 1898.) 
 
 Moysiacensis (Moysiacum, Musciacum), Moissac, Fr. At Paris 
 (Colbert's collection). 
 
 Murbacensis, Murbach, Alsace. (A. Gatrio, 1895.) Some Gk. MSS. 
 now at Gotha. Catalogues of the MSS. in the Benedictine monas- 
 tery there in 15th cent, are given by Zarncke, Philologits, 1890, p. 616. 
 
 Musciacensis, s.v. Moys-. 
 
 Museum Britannicum, s.v. Londiniensis. 
 
 Mussipontanum Collegium, Jesuit College at Pont-a-Mousson, Fr. 
 MSS. at Florence (Laurentian). 
 
 Mutinensis (Mutina), Modena, It. Bibl. Estcnsc (q.v.). 
 
 Mynas, s.v. Minas. 
 
 N 
 
 Namnetensis (Namnetae, urbs Nannetum), Nantes, Fr. (Molinicr*.) 
 
 Namurcensis (Namurcum), Namur, Belg. 
 
 Nan(n)ianus, (i) MSS. (mostly from the Greek islands) belonging to the 
 
 Nani family of Venice (e. g. Joh. Bapt. Nani, 1616-1678, a diplomatist i. 
 
 Now in the Marciana, Venice. (Lat. codd., J. Morellius, 1776. Gk. 
 
 codd., Mingarelli, 1784.) (2) Pieter Nanninck (1500-1557) of Alkmaar, 
 
 Professor of Latin in the Collegium trium linguarum at Louvain in 
 
 1539. 
 Nansianus, Franciscus Nansius, d. 1595, of Isemberg in Flanders ; 
 
 Professor of Greek in Dordrecht ; owner of MSS. of the Agrimen- 
 
 sores now lost. 
 Nantes, Fr. (Molinier*.) 
 Naude, Gabriel, librarian todc Mesmes (Memmianus), Queen Christina, 
 
 and others, d. 1653. His MSS. were purchased by Mazarin and are 
 
 now in the Bibl. Nat. Paris. 
 Naulotianus, Claude Naulot Duval of Avallon, Fr. {circ. 1573), acquired 
 
 among others the MSS. belonging to Pclicier (q.v.). His collection 
 
 was at the Jesuit College of Clermont, Paris, till the dispersal in 1764. 
 
 s. v. Claromontanus (i). 
 Navarricus, the Collegium Navarricum at Paris. MSS. in Bibl. Nat. 
 
 Paris. (L. Delisle, Cabinet, ii, p. 252.) 
 Nazarianus, S. Nazarius, Lorsch, Germ. Many now in the Vatican 
 
 (Palatini). 
 
 /I 
 
 d 
 
 /I 
 
 ■ i 
 
332 
 
 NOMENCLATURE 
 
 OF MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 333 
 
 Neapolitanus, Naples. It. (i) Bibl. Nazionale. This library was 
 founded in Rome by Alcssandro Farnese (Pope Paul III, 1534 -1549). 
 It was ultimately transferred to Naples and united with the Biblio- 
 theca Palatina of P^erdinand II in 1804 under the name of the 
 Bibliotheca Borbonica. MSS. of the Farnese family, of lanus 
 Parrhasius, and from S. Giovanni a Carbonara and Bobbio, cf Seri- 
 pando. (Gk., S. Cyrillo. 1826-1832: Lat., Cataldo Jannelli, 1827; 
 supplement by G. Jorio, Leipzig, 1892.) (2) Brancacciana (s. v.). 
 (3) dei Girolamini (Oratorians). MSS. of Acquaviva and Valletta. 
 (Gk. MSS., E. Martini. 1896: general, E. Mandarini, 1897.) (4) 
 University. 
 
 The great library of the Aragonese kmgs of Naples was founded 
 by Alphonso I (1435-1458). After the campaign of 1495 Charles 
 VIII brought some MSS. to Blois. Frederic III sold the remainder 
 tire. 1501 to the Cardinal d'Amboise, whose library in the Chateau dc 
 Gaillon was neglected and plundered in the i6th cent. Many MSS. 
 from it have reached the Bibl. Nat. Paris with the collections of dc 
 Thou, Hurault, Seguier, and others. The remnants of the collection 
 at Gaillon were incorporated with the Royal Library in the Louvre 
 under Henry IV. (L. Delisle, C«^///^/, i. 217-259 : G. Mazzatinti, 
 
 1897.) 
 Nemausensis (Nemausus), Nimes, Fr. (MoUnier*.) 
 Neustetter, Erasmus, of Schonfeld (1525 1594), successively Dean and 
 
 Provost of the Abbey of Komburg and founder of the library there. 
 Nicolianus, MSS. belonging to or copied by the Florentine scholar, 
 
 Niccolo de Nicoli (1363-1437^ a pupil of Chrysoloras. MSS. now 
 
 in the Laurentian. 
 Niederaltacensis, Niedcraltaich, Germ. At Munich. 
 Nienburgensis, Nienburg an der Saale, Germ. Some at Dessau. 
 Nilant, a collection of Latin Fables known by the name of the 
 
 Anonymus Nilanti, published by J. F. Nilant, Leyden, 1709. 
 Nitriensis, monastery of S. Maria Deipara in the Nitrian desert. 
 Niwenburgensis, Klosterneuburg, Austr. MSS. from S. Nicola, Passau. 
 Nomsianus, a MS. of Prudentius (? called after some former owner, e.g. 
 
 Nomsz) lent by Isaac Voss to N. Heinsius for his edition of 1667. 
 Nonantulanus, the Benedictine monastery of S. Sylvester at Nonan- 
 
 tula, near Modena, It. Transferred to the Sessoriana(q.v.) and now 
 
 in the Vittorio Emanuele, Rome. 
 Norfolkianus, s. v. Arundelianus. 
 Noricus, a name sometimes used for MSS. in Bavarian libraries or 
 
 owned by Bavarians. 
 Norimbergensis (Norimberga), Nuremberg, Germ. (C. T. v. Murr, 
 
 Memorabilia bibl. pitbl. Xorimbcrgenaiutny 1791; Mammerts, Mis- 
 
 cc llama, 1895.J 
 
 Norvicensis. The MSS. of John More, Bp. of Norwich, afterwards of 
 
 Ely. s. v. More. 
 Nostradamensis, Notre-Damc, Paris. In the Bibl. Nat. since 1756 
 
 (L. Delisle, 1871) and in Sorbonne. Cf. Avicula. 
 Novaliciensis (Novalicia), Novalese, near Mt. Cenis, It. (Blume, 
 
 Iter Ital., iv. 128.) 
 Novariensis, Novara, It. 
 Novum Monasterium, Neumiinster, Germ. 
 Nyracensis (Nyrax), Niort, Fr. (Martin and Chotard'.) 
 
 O 
 
 Oberaltacensis,Oberaltaich, Germ. (Altaha Superior). Nowat Munich. 
 Oberlinianus, Jeremie Jacques Oberlin, of Strassburg, scholar (1735- 
 
 1806). Strassburg MSS. quoted by him are sometimes cited as 
 
 Oberlin iani. 
 Occo, Adolphus (1524-1605), German physician and antiquary. MSS. 
 
 at Munich and Zurich. 
 Oenipontanus (Oenipons), Innsbruck, Tyrol, Austr. University 
 
 Library. (Cat. 1792 ; Cat. of Law MSS. 1904.) 
 Oiselanus, s. v. Avicula. 
 
 Oiselianus, MSS. (e. g. Lucan) of Jac. Oiselius (1631-1686), jurist. Pro- 
 fessor of Law at Groningen, 1667. (Catalogue, Leyden, 1688.) 
 Olisiponensis (Olisipo), Lisbon, Portugal. (Index cod. bibl. Alco- 
 
 batiae, 1775.) Cf. Alcobacensis. 
 Oliveriana, s. v. Pisaurensis. 
 Olivetanus, monastery at Naples (Monachi S. Mariae Montis Oliveti). 
 
 MSS. dispersed. 
 Olomucenis (Olomucium, Olomuncia), Olmi'itz, Austr. K.-K. Studien- 
 
 bibliothek. (E. Gollob, Verzeicluiis, 1903, p. 90.) 
 Opathovicensis, Opatowic, Russian Poland. 
 Oratorianus, (i) s. v. Vallicellianus. (2) s. v. Neapolitanus (2). 
 Orielensis, Oriel College, Oxford. 
 Orsini, (i) Fulvio O, s. v. Ursinianus. (2) Cardinal Giordano Ursini, 
 
 d. 1439. MSS. in .S. Peter's, Rome. s. v. Basilicanus (i). 
 Ortelianus, Veit Ortel (1501-1570), born at Winsheim and hence 
 
 known as Vitus Winshemius; Professor of Greek at Wittenberg 
 
 and Jena. 
 Ossecensis (Ossecense monasterium), Ossegg, Bohemia. {Xenia 
 
 Bernardina^ II-III.) 
 Ossoliniana, library at Lemberg (s. v. Leopoliensis). 
 Ottobonianus, MSS. of the Ottoboni family (e.g. Alexander VlII)incor- 
 
 porated with the Vatican in 1746 by Benedict XIV. Cf. s.v. Altaemp- 
 
 sianus. The collection contains a few of the MSS. belonging to 
 
334 
 
 NOMENCLATURE 
 
 i|. 
 
 Christina of Sweden. Cf. Reginenses. (E. Feron and F. Battaglini, 
 
 1893.) 
 Ottoburanus, monastery at Ottobeuren, Bavaria, Germ. 
 
 Oudendorpianus, Franz von Oudendorp (1696-1761), Professor at 
 Leyden. MSS. left to the library at Leyden by his son Cornelius in 
 1790. 
 
 Ovetensis (Ovetum), Oviedo, Sp. Some MSS. belongmg to the 
 Cathedral of San Salvador are now in the Escurial. 
 
 Oxoniensis (Oxonia, Oxonium), Oxford, Eng. (i) s. v. Bodlcianus. 
 (2) College libraries. (H. O. Coxe, Cat. codd. MSS. qui in collfgiis 
 aulisque Oxonicnsibiis hodie asservantiir, 2 vols., 1852. Vol. i contains 
 the MSS. of: University*, Balliol, Merton, Exeter, Oriel, Queen's, 
 New College, and Lincoln*; vol. ii those of: All Souls (Omnium 
 Animarum), Magdalen, Brasenose (Aenei Nasi)*, Corpus Christi, 
 Trinity, S. John's, Jesus*, Wadham, Worcester (Wigorniensis), 
 S. Mary's Hall (now in Oriel). The MSS. of the colleges marked 
 with an asterisk are deposited in the Bodleian. The MSS. ot 
 Christ Church (Aedes Christi) are catalogued separately by G. W. 
 Kitchin, 1867. 
 
 Pacius, (i) Juan Paez de Castro, a Spanish collector, d. 1570. His MSS. 
 were acquired for the Escurial by Philip H and perished by fire in 
 1671. (Graux.) (2) Julius Pacius de Beriga, b. at Vicenza, 1550, d. 
 at Valence, Fr., 1635 ; Professor of Civil Law at Montpellier, Aix, 
 Valence, Padua. His collection of MSS. was purchased by Peiresc 
 (q.v.). (Omont, Anmiles dii Midi, 1891, vol. iii.) Some of the MSS. 
 were given by Peiresc to Holstenius (q. v.), and were given by him to 
 Hamburg, where they are now in the Johanneum. 
 
 Padolironensis, Polirone, It. MSS. of S. Benedetto di Polirone are now 
 at Mantua. 
 
 Palatinus, the Palatine Library at Heidelberg, was founded by the 
 Elector Philip (1476-1508). The collection was increased by the 
 addition of the MSS. of Rudolph Agricola (who had helped to form it) 
 and of his friend Johann Dalberg, Bp. of Worms, d. 1503, who had 
 acquired for his library at Ladenburg MSS. from the monastery of 
 Lorsch (s. V. Laureacensis). In 1584 it was enriched by the col- 
 lection of Ulrich Fugger. After the capture of Heidelberg by Tilly 
 in the Thirty Years' War (1622) the MSS. in the library were pre- 
 sented to the Vatican (1623) by the Emperor Maximilian. Thirty- 
 eight of them were transferred from Rome to Paris by Napoleon 
 after the Treaty of Tolentino (1797). These were restored to 
 Heidelberg in 1816, with the consent of Pius VII. (History by 
 
 OF MANUSCRIPTS - 335 
 
 MccT' [Jt^^'^^^^' ^817; Catalogues Of the Palatini Vaticani: Gk. 
 MSS. by H.Stevenson, senior, Rome, 1885; Lat. MSS., H.Stevenson, 
 junior, and J. B. de Rossi, 1886.) 
 
 Palatino-Florentinus, Palatine MSS. in the Bibl. Nazionale, Florence 
 (s.v. Florentinus). 
 
 Palatino-Lucensis, Palatine library at Lucca, It., part transferred in 
 1047 to Parma. 
 
 Palatino-Mannheimensis, Bibl. Palatina at Mannheim, Germ MSS 
 at Munich. 
 
 Palatino-Parmensis, Bibl. Palatina at Parma, It. 
 Palatino-Vindobonensis, Bibl. Palatina at Vienna. 
 Pampelonensis, Pampelona, Sp. 
 
 Pannonhalma (Monasterium S. Martini supra montem Pannoniae). 
 Martinsberg, Hungary. (V. Recsey, 1901.) 
 
 Pannonius, Janus, Bp. of Fiinfkirchen, Hungary, circ. 1508. MSS. at 
 Budapest. 
 
 Panormitanus (Panormus), Palermo, Sicily, (i) Bibl. Nazionale. 
 
 (E. Martmi, 1893 ; Gk., A. Pennino, 1883.) (2) Bibl. Comunale. (Rossi 
 1873.) ' 
 
 Pantin, Pierre {circ. 1556-1611), of Louvain, Belg., pupil ot Andre 
 bchott (q.v.), whom he succeeded as Professor of Greek at Toledo 
 and to whom he bequeathed his collection of Gk. MSS s v 
 Covarruvianus. 
 
 Papenbroek, Papenbrochius, MSS. of G. Papenbroek left to the 
 Leyden Library in 1743. 
 
 Papiensis (Papia), Pavia, It. (L. de Marchi and G. Bertolani, 1894). 
 The Viscont. collection is now in Paris (Delisle, Cabinet des mss. 
 '. P- 133), having been appropriated by Louis XII circ. 1500 
 
 Parcensis, the Abbaye du Pare, a Premonstratensian monastery near 
 Louvain, Belg., dissolved during the Revolution and revived in 18^6 
 (Catalogue of library in 1635 in Sanderus, Bibl. Beh ) 
 
 Pareus, Philipp Waengler (1576-1648), editor of Plautus, 1610. 
 
 Parhamensis, the collection of Robert Curzon (.810-1873), afterwards 
 Baron Zouche, now at Parhani Park, Sussex. 
 
 Parisinus, Parisiensis (Parisii', Paris. 
 
 (I) Bibl. Nationale. Cf. p. 289. Regii (Catalogue, 1739-1744) ; 
 Ashburn^iam-Barrois, (Omont, 1902; ; Libri-Barrois (Delisle, 1888) • 
 Miller (Omont, 1897). The history of the various collections is 
 given in L. Delisle, Le Cabinet des MSS. de la Bibliothemu: Natio.mte 
 3 vols., Paris, 1868-1881. Among the chief collections are ( + si^ni! 
 fies some of the original sources) : -Baluziani ( +Salmasiani) added 
 m 1719, Bigotiani 1706, Boheriani 1804, Colbertini (+ Fuxenses 
 Mo.ssac, rhuanei) ,732, Foucaultiani ,728, Foucquet (+ Montchal) 
 1667, Gaignieres 17.5, Mazarinaei (4 Peiresc, du Tillet, Naude 
 
 (^1 
 
336 
 
 NOMENCLATURE 
 
 OF MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 A. Petau) 1668, jMemminni 1731, Putennei 1754. S. Martial 1730, 
 
 Sangermanenses ( 4- Fossatenses, Coisliniani, Harley, Corbeienses) 
 
 1795. (2) Bibl. de I'Arsenal. (Martin, 1885.) ^^SS. from Flavigny, 
 
 Lyon f Augustinians), S. Victor. (3) Bibl. S. Genevieve, founded 
 
 1624. (C. Kohler, 1893.) (4) I^ibl. Mazarine, founded 1643. 
 
 (A. Molinier, 1885-1893.) (5) Bibl. de I'Universitc, Sorbonne. 
 
 (E. Chatelain, 1885.) 
 An account of the ancient libraries in Paris will be found in 
 
 ^\. Franklin, Les anci'ennes bihliot/h-qites de Pan's, 1870. 
 Parker, Matthew (1504-1575), Abp. of Canterbury. MSS., with the 
 
 exception of a few given to the University Library, are at Corpus 
 
 Christi College, Cambridge. (M. R. James.) 
 Parmensis (Parma), Parma, It. Bibl. Palatina. (Gk.. E. Martini, 1893.) 
 
 Cf. Lucensis. 
 Parrhasianus, Aulus lanus Parrhasius (Aulo Giano Parrasio), 1470- 
 
 T534, Neapolitan humanist. Cf. Bobiensis. 
 Pasquinianus, Pasquino de' Cappclli, Chancellor at Milan under 
 
 Giangaleazzo ct'rc. 1389. 
 Passau, s. v. Pataviensis. 
 Passioneus, Cardinal Domenico Passionei (1682-1761), Librarian 
 
 at the Vatican. After his death his library was purchased for the 
 
 Angelica (q. v.). It is said to contain MSS. from S.Gall. (Cf. Hisioire 
 
 de I'Acad. Royale des Insc: et Belles- Leltres, xxxi, p. 331, 1767.) 
 Pataviensis (Patavia, Passavium), Passau, Germ. Some MSS. at 
 
 Munich. Those from S. Nicola at Klosterneuburg. 
 Patavinus (Patavium), Padua, It. (i) Bibl. Antoniana. (A. M. Josa, 
 
 1886.) I2) Capitular Library. (Scarabello, 1839.) (s) University 
 . Library. (J.Tomasini, 1639 ; C. Landi,S///<^////., 1902.) (4) Bibl. del 
 
 Seminario Vescovile. MSS. from the Jesuit College are at Turin. 
 Paterniacensis (Paterniacum), Paj'erne or Peterlingen, Switz. There 
 
 was formerl}^ a Cluniac House here whose MSS. are now dispersed 
 
 (some e.g. at Schlettstadt). 
 Patiriensis, Basilian monastery of S. Maria del Patire, S. Italy. MSS. 
 
 in Vatican. 
 Patmi(ac)us, monastery of S.John Theologus, Patmos,Gr. (Sakkelion, 
 
 1890; Decharme and Petit de Julleville.) 
 Paulina, (i) library at Munster, Germ. (2) The old name of the 
 
 Library of the Dominicans at Leipzig, founded 1229, suppressed in 
 
 1540. Monastery (the Paulinum) and library were transferred to the 
 
 University, Leipzig. 
 Pavia, s. v. Papiensis. 
 Pegaviensis, s. v. Pig-. 
 Peirescianus. Nicolas Claude Fabri Seigneur de Peiresc (1580- 
 
 1637^7 ^ French bibliophile and antiquary. His MSS. he left with 
 
 337 
 
 "-any be r^£7^ ^':;^^ 'i^l^'^' ^''cycaa 
 alone) which thev bear A "°"°.S'^"' ^: ^- *• (sometimes * 
 
 Sahnasius. (Cf I Delislr n?, y Scaliger, Holstcnius, 
 
 Joret, .894, and s ;?:cts ') ^^''^^'^^^ --^-^ /-^--, ^889; Ch. 
 Peletier, Le, s. v. Rosanbinus. 
 
 Peltiscensis. s. v. Polotiensls. ^^' "'"^ ^^ 
 
 Peniscola, the Papal library at Pcfiiscola Sn p . , •■ ■ 
 inc uded in the Kniv .„ii ,■ • '^ , °'^ ^P- ' ^r' ol it is now 
 ^" 111 ine i-oi.\ collection in the B bl Nat Pnr,.. tv 
 
 Petrensis, Peterhouse, Cambridac 
 
 mitacc (\\ ^ ■ " ^'^^^^'"y- (Tichanov, i83i.) (3) Her- 
 
 "'■tagc. (4) University. (5) Eccl. Academy. (A Rodosski t1 ^ 
 
 Petnnus, s. vv. Basilicanus, MUnster. Kodosski, 1894.) 
 
 Petripolitanus, s. v. Petriburgensis 
 
 His MSS ha7b '° '"' '"' ''''' """'^'^"- °^ ^ -d"-"d I of Naples 
 
 Peutingerianus^Conrad C .it,"- r:'" ^^ '" ^^ ^°-^' P-- 
 
 cLiun^ci (1400-1^47), patrician ol Augsburg 
 
 J. 
 
p I 
 
 ( i 
 
 33B 
 
 NOMENCLATURE 
 
 jurist and antiquary, friend of Luther. Conrad Ccltcs bequeathed 
 to him the ancient Itinerariuni discovered at Speyer, since known as 
 the Tabula Peutingeriana and now in the Imperial Library, Vienna. 
 The fragment of Cic. Pro Flacco called the Frag. Peutingerianum is 
 only known from Cratander's edition. 
 
 Phanarianus, the library of the Patriarch in the Phanar or old Greek 
 quarter of Constantinople. 
 
 Philelphus, Francesco Filelfo (1398 1 481), Italian humanist. MSS. in 
 Laurentian, Vatican, Paris, Leyden, Wolfenbuttel. 
 
 Phillippsianus, Phillippicus : the collection made by Sir Thomas 
 Phillipps (1792-1872), antiquary and bibliophile, of Middle Hill, 
 Worcestershire (hence the MSS. are cited in the older classical 
 works as Mediomontani). His most important purchase of classical 
 MSS. was the large portion of the Meerman collection (s.v.) which he 
 secured in 1824. In 1862 the library was removed to Thirlstane 
 House, Cheltenham, where some valuable MSS. are still pre- 
 served. The remainder have been dispersed at various sales since 
 J 890. The German government purchased the Meerman MSS., 
 which are now at Berlin. (Cat. Librorum MSS. in Bibl. Phillippica, 
 1824 -? 1867 : Meermaniani Graeci in Studemund and Cohn, 1890.) 
 
 Phorcensis (Phorca), Pforzheim, Germ. s.v. Carolsruhensis. 
 
 Picciolpassus, Francesco Pizzolpasso, Abp. of Milan, 1435-1443. His 
 collection of MSS. is now in the Ambrosian. (R. Sabbadini, Le 
 Scoperfe, p. 120.) 
 
 Piccolomini, Aeneas Sylvius, Pope Pius II, 1405-1464. MSS. at 
 Siena and in Vatican, v. Sandys, CI. Rev., 1903, p. 461. 
 
 Pictaviensis (Pictavia), Poitiers, Fr. (Molinier and Lievre*.) 
 
 Pierpont Morgan, J., purchased MSS. from Ashburnham and Morris 
 collections. (Cat. 1906.) 
 
 Pigaviensis, Pegau, Germ. MSS. of S. Jakob at Pegau, now in 
 University Library, Leipzig. 
 
 Pighianus, Stephen Vinand Pighc (i 520-1604) ol Kampcn, Holland, 
 Secretary to Cardinal Granvella. A collection of drawings of 
 ancient monuments made by him is known as the 'codex Pighianus*. 
 
 Pilar, library at Saragossa, Sp. 
 
 Pincianus, s.v. Salmanticensis. 
 
 Pinellianus, Gian Vincenzo Pinelli of Genoa, i535-i6o[, friend ot 
 Fulvio Orsini and Claude du Puy. His collection was purchased for 
 the Ambrosian library at Milan by Borromeo in 1608. (Cf Blume, 
 Iter Ital. , i . 1 29- 1 30.) 
 
 Pintianus, s.v. Salmanticensis. 
 
 Pinus, Joannes. Jean de Pins, Bp. of Rieux (1523 1537), ambassador 
 at Rome and Venice. MSS. acquired by Francis 1 fur Fontaincbleau, 
 whence they have passed to Paris. 
 
 ) I 
 
 OF MANUSCRIPTS 339 
 
 Pirkheimer, Willibald (1470-1530), Ratsherr at Nuremberg, scholar 
 and collector. Cf. Arundelianus. 
 
 Pirnensis Pirna Germ. Many MSS. m University Library, Leipzig 
 Pisanus (Pisaej, Pisa, It. ^ ^^' 
 
 Pisaurensis (Pisaurum), Pesaro, It. Bibl. Oliveriana. 
 Pistoriensis(PistoriunO,Pistoja,^ ^^^Liceo Forteguerri. (Zaccaria, 
 
 BibhoJu Pastor., nS2.) (2) Bibl. Fabroniana, founded by Cardinal 
 
 Carlo Agostmo Fabroni in 1719. 
 
 Pithoeanus Pierre Pithou (1539-1596), jurist and antiquary, and 
 ^mncois Puhou, his twin brother, Chancellor of the Parlianient of 
 1 aris, d 1621, the discoverer of the MS. oi' P/uudrus. Their collection 
 
 J"'T^^ "' I'^^T, ""^ Montpellier. Cf Thuaneus, Rosanbinus. 
 
 Pius, (I) Pope Pius II, s. V. Piccolomini. (2) Albertus, Count of Carpi, 
 I ., man of learmng and diplomatist, d. 1529. MSS. at Modeiia 
 (Ls tenses) and a levv in the Ambrosian, Milan, and in Ottoboniana 
 (Vatican). (3) R,dolfo Pio (d. 1564), Cardinalis Carpensis. Hi^ 
 collection vyas dispersed after his death. Part came to the Vatican. 
 
 Placentmus (Placentia), Piacenza, It. (A. Balsamo, StucU //., 1899 , 
 Lt. Landianus. ^^^ 
 
 Plantinianus, Christophe Plantin (1514-1589), printer at Antwerp. 
 His business as printer was carried on by J. Moretus, who married 
 his second daughter, and by their descendants. The Museum 
 belonging to the firm was purchased by the City of Antwerp in 
 1077. (H. Stein, Les Mss. du Mitscc Pkintin'Morctus 1886 ) 
 
 Podianus, Prospero Podiani (d. 1615), a jurist of Perugia. MSS. in 
 Vatican. (Carini, Bibl. Vat., p. 77.) 
 
 Podiensis, Du Puy, Fr. Bought by Colbert and now at Paris. (Delisle 
 Labi net, i- 5^7-) 
 
 Poggianus, Poggio Bracciolini (1380-1459, of Florence, Papal 
 secretary and humanist. ^ 
 
 Pollingensis, Pollingen, Germ. At Munich. 
 
 Polotiensis (Polotium, Peltiscum), Polotzk, Russia. MSS. of the 
 Jesuit Academy were acquired for the Imperial Librarv S 
 Petersburg, in 1831. - ' 
 
 Pommersfelden, Grafl. Schornborn-Wiessentheid'schc Bibl. in the 
 Castle of Weissenstein. Founded by Lothar v. Schon. Abp. of 
 Mainz and Bp. of Bamberg, d. 1729. Contains MSS. iVom 
 Gaibach, Rebdorf, Erfurt. (P. Schwenke, Adressbuch, s. v ) 
 
 Pontanus Giovanni Gioviano Pontano (1426-1503), poet and his- 
 torian, Secretary to Alfonso of Naples. 
 
 Pontiniacensis (Pontiniacum), Pontigny, Fr. MSS. now at Au crre 
 
 and Montpellier. 
 Porfirianus, s.v. Uspenskyanus. 
 Portensis, Schulpfurta, Germ. 
 
 I 2 
 
 ■ ? : 
 
tfV 
 
 
 I 
 
 li 
 
 340 
 
 NOMENCLATURE 
 
 Posnaiiieiisis (Posnania), Posen, Germ. Bibl. Raczynski. (Sosnow- 
 iski, 1885.) 
 
 Posoniensis (Posonium), Pressburg, Hungary. Appony Library, 
 Ibunded 1825. 
 
 Posthius, Joannes (1537-1597), German physician of Wurzburg and 
 owner of MSS. (Cf. P. Lehmann, Franciscus Modiiis, p. 136.) 
 
 Praemonstratensis, Premontrc, in the Forest of Coucy near Rheims, 
 Fr. It was the centre of the Premonstratensian or Norbertinc 
 order founded by Norbert in 1119. Some MSS. formerly here arc 
 now at Soissons. 
 
 Pragensis (Praga), Prag, Bohemia, (i) University Library. (J. Kellc, 
 1872; Lat., J. Truhlaf-, 1905.) (2) Premonstratensian monastery of 
 Strahov. (Wey ranch, 1858.) 
 
 PratellensiS; Preaux, Fr. At Parib. 
 
 Pratensis, s. v. S. Germani. 
 
 Pressburgensis, s.v. Posoniensis. 
 
 Probatopolitanus (Probatopohs, Scaphusum), Schati'hausen, Switz. 
 (Boos, 1877.) 
 
 Proustellianus, Guillaume Prousteau (1626-1715), jurist and bibUophilc 
 of Orleans, Fr. He purchased the library of Valesius. His col- 
 lection is still at Orleans. (Catalogue, 1721 and 1777.) 
 
 Prqviniijensis (Provinum), Provins, Fr. (Molinier*.) 
 
 Prumiensis, Priim, Germ. Monastery of S. Salvator. 
 
 Pulaviensis, Pulawy (now Nowa Alexandria) near Lyublin, in Russian 
 Poland. (Cf. Serapcuui, vi. 48, xi. 333.) 
 
 Pulmannianus, MSS. owned or collated by Theodor I'ulmann {circ. 
 1590), a scholar who published a number of works with Plantin of 
 Antwerp. Some are at Brussels. 
 
 Puteaneus or Puteanus, the brothers Pierre (d. 1651) and Jacques 
 Dupuy (d. 1656). They were placed in charge of the Bibl. Royalc, 
 Paris, in 1645. They bequeathed to the library their collection of 
 MSS.. many of which they had inherited from their father Claude 
 Dupuy (d. 1594). 
 
 Pyrkheimerianus, s. v. Pirkheimer. 
 
 Q 
 
 Quedlinburgensis, (Juedlinburg near Halbcrbtadt, Germ. 
 Queriniana, s. v. Brixianus. 
 
 R 
 
 Raczynskianus, Raczynski Library at Posen, Germ. 
 
 Radingensis (Radinga), Reading, England. 
 
 Radulphi, s. v Ridolfianus. 
 
 Ragusa, John of Ragusa in Dalmatia (de Ragusio), Cardinal and Bp. 
 
 -I 
 
 OF MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 341 
 
 of Strassburg, d. 1443 ; left his collection of MSS. to the Dominicans 
 of Basel, Switz. Many of them are now in the library at Basel. 
 (Omont, Bibliofhi'qitrs de Suisse) 
 
 Rainerianus, collections of papyri made by Graf, Schweinfurth, and 
 others in the Royal Library, Vienna, now known under the title ot 
 * Papyri of the Archduke Rainer ', who secured them for the library 
 in 1884. (J- Karabacek and others, Vienna, 1892.) 
 
 Raitenhaslacensis, Raitenhaslach, Germ. At Munich. 
 
 Rastattensis, Rastatt, Germ. Castle of the Margraves of Baden. The 
 library once here is now at Karlsruhe (s. v. Carolsrnhensis). 
 
 Ratisponensis (Ratispona, Regisburgicum), Ratisbon or Regensburg, 
 Germ. MSS. of S. Emmeram, now at Munich. 
 
 Raudensis (Raudium, Rhaudium), Rho near Milan, It. 
 
 Raudnitzianus, Raudnitz, Austr., s.v. Lobcoviciensis. 
 
 Ravennas, Ravenna, It. Bibl. Classense (s. v.). 
 
 Ravianus, MSS. of Christianus Ravins (Raue), 1613-1677, Orientalist, 
 theologian, and traveller; lectured in England, Sweden, Germany; 
 MSS. purchased by Queen Christina. In Vatican, s.v. Reginensis, 
 and at Berlin. 
 
 Rawlinson, MSS. left to the Bodleian by Richard Rawlinson (1689- 
 1755), nonjuror, collector of books and coins. (Madan. Summary 
 Cat, iii, 177.) 
 
 Rebdorfensis, Rebdorf, Germ. s. v. Augustanus, Pommersfelden. 
 
 Recanatianus, Recanati, It. The cod. Recanatianns of Livy is now 
 Marcianus 364. 
 
 Redonensis (Urbs Redonum. Condate), Rennes, Fr. (Maillet, 1837; 
 Vetault*.) 
 
 Regalis mons, Royaumont, Fr. 
 
 Regiensis (Regium lulii), Reggio (Emilia), It. The famous library 
 of the monastery of S. Spirito is now incorporated with the Bibl. 
 Mnnicipale. (T. W. Allen, Class. Rev., 1889, p. 13.) 
 
 Regimontanus (Regimontium), K6nigsberg, Germ. (A. Stefifenhagen, 
 t86t.) 
 
 Reginensis, library of Christina, Queen of Sweden (1626-1689), ^^^' 
 Iccted for the most part by Isaac Vossius circ. 1650. The collection 
 included MSS. which had belonged to P. Daniel, P. and A. Petau 
 (s.v. Petavianus and Floriacensis), part of the Goldast collection, and 
 many MSS. taken from German monasteries during the Thirty 
 Years' War. She bequeathed it to Cardinal Azzolino, after whose 
 death it was purchased in 1689 by Cardinal Pietro Ottoboni,who on 
 becoming pope, under the title of Alexander VIII, transferred most 
 of the MSS. to the V^itican, where they formed the Bihliotheca Alex- 
 andrinn. The remaining MSS., about too in number, he kept in 
 his private collection, the Ottoboniana. This remained in the 
 
342 
 
 NOMENCLATURE 
 
 possession of his famil}', till it was purchased circ. 1746 by Benedict 
 XIV and incorporated in the Vatican. A few books strayed from 
 the collection, e.g. Vat. lat. 7277, which came into the Vatican from 
 the library of Garampi. (Gk. MSS., H. Stevenson, t888.) 
 
 Regiomontanus, Royaumont, Fr. 
 
 Regius, (i) Bibliotheque Roj'ale, now the Bibl. Nationale, Paris. 
 The MSS. retain the numbers of the Catalogue of 1682. (2) The 
 Roj-al Library in S. James's Palace, removed to the British Museum 
 in 1752. (3) King's College, Cambridge. (4) King's College, Aberdeen. 
 
 Rehdigeranus, Thomas von Rehdiger (1541-1576), collector and 
 scholar. His MSS. were kept in the church of S. Elizabeth at 
 Breslau till 1865, when they were added to the Stadtbibliothek. 
 (A. W. Wachler, 1828; Cat. Codd, Gvaecorinu in Bibl. Urbica 
 Vratislav., 1889.) 
 
 Reichenaviensis (Augia dives or maior), Reichenau, near Constance, 
 Switz. The Monastery was secularized in 1803 and the MSS. 
 dispersed between Karlsruhe (Cat. by A. Holder, 1906), London, 
 Stuttgart, S. Paul in Carinthia, and Zurich. 
 
 Reinesius, Thomas (1587-1667), German physician and collector of 
 MSS. and antiquities. Cf. Cizensis. 
 
 Relandus, Adrian Reland (1676-1718), Dutch scholar. 
 
 Resbacensis, Rebais, monastery in diocese of Meaux, f. circ. 634 by 
 S. Ouen. 
 
 Reuchlin. s. v. Carolsruhensis. 
 
 Rheinaugiensis (Rheni Augia), Rheinau, Switz. MSS. at Zurich. 
 
 R(h)emensis (Urbs Remorum). Reims, Fr. (H. Loriquet*.) 
 
 Rhenanus, Beatus (1485-1547), German scholar. MSS. at Schlettstadt. 
 
 RhenoTrajectinus, s.v. Trajectinus. 
 
 Rhenoviensis, s.v. Rheinaug-. 
 
 Rhodigium, Rovigo, It. (Mazzatinti.) 
 
 Richenoviensis, s.v. Reichen-. 
 
 Riccardianus, s.v. Florentinus. 
 
 Richelianus, MSS. of Cardinal dc Richelieu (1585-1642). Became 
 the property of the Sorbonne in n66o. Transferred with the 
 rest of the Sorbonne MSS. to the Bibl. Nat. Paris in 1796. Some 
 at Leyden. (Delisle, Cabinet. \\. 204.) 
 
 Ricomagensis (Ricomagus), Riom, Fr. 
 
 Ridolfianus, Cardinal Nicholas Ridolfi, nephew of Pope Leo X, 
 collected a famous library of MSS. with the aid of lanus Lascaris 
 and others. His heirs in 1550 sold his collection to Marshal Piero 
 Strozzi, whose collection on his death in 1558 was seized by his 
 kinswoman Catherine de' Medici, from whom it has passed to the 
 Bibl. Nat. Paris. (L. Delisle, Cnlnnet des viajtnscrits. i. 207.) A few 
 in London and Florence (Magliabecchiana and Riccardiana). 
 
 OF MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 343 
 
 Rivipullensis, Rivipollensis (Rivus Pollensis\ Ripoll, Sp. At 
 
 Barcelona. 
 Rodigium, s.v. Rhodigium. 
 Rodomensis (Rodomum, Rotomagusi, Rouen, Fr. MSS. from 
 
 S. Audoeni and Fontenelle. (Omont *.) 
 Rodulphianus, s.v. Ridolfianus. 
 Roe, Sir Thomas (1581 .'-1644), ambassador in Turkey, presented 
 
 some MSS. from the Barocci collection to the Bodleian in 1629. 
 
 (H. O. Coxe, 1853.) 
 
 RofFensis (RoffaN Rochester, Eng. Some MSS. in the British 
 Museum. 
 
 Romanus (Roma), Rome, It. (i) Bibl. Alessandria, University 
 Library founded by Alexander VII in 1667. (2) Apostolica Vati- 
 cana, s.v. Vaticanus. (3) Bibl. Nazionale Centrale Vittorio Ema- 
 nuele (1876), contains MSS. from about sixty-three suppressed 
 monasteries. (4) Vallicelh'ana, s.v. (5) Angelica, s.v. (6) Casana- 
 tense, s.v. (7) Corsiniana, s.v. (8) Chigiana, s.v. (9) Barberi- 
 nlian)a, s.v. (10) S. Pietro, s.v. Basilicanus. (11) Collegio Romano, 
 library of Jesuit College, part of Vittorio Emanuele. 
 
 Rosanbinus, Rosanboensis, the family of Le Peletier-Rosanbo ot 
 Rosanbo, Fr. Like their relatives the brothers Pithou they 
 collected MSS. in the i6th cent., which are still in the possession of 
 their descendants (e.g. Phaedrus, which belonged to F. Pithou). 
 (Omont, Cat. des Mss. gr. des Depart., p. 67.) 
 
 Rossanensis, Rossano, on Gulf of Tarentum, It. (Lal)ba\'e de /?., 
 by P. Battifol, T89r.) MSS. mostly in Vatican. 
 
 Rossianus, library founded by Commendatore Francesco Rossi, 
 d. 1854, second husband of Carola Ludovica of Bourbon. At V^ienna 
 (Lainzerstrasse) since 1877. (Gk. MSS., Van de Vorst, Zaitralld. 
 fiir Bil)l., 1906.) 
 
 Rostgardiana, library of Fr. Rostgaard, now part of the Royal 
 
 Library, Copenhagen, Denmark. 
 Rostochiensis (Rostochium), Rostock, Germ. 
 Rotomagensis, Rouen, Fr. s.v. Rodomensis. 
 Rottendorphianus, Bernhard Rottendorf, a phj^sician 01 Miinster, 
 
 Germ., circ. 1 650. He was private physician for some time to the Bp. 
 
 of Paderborn, Ferdinand von Fiirstenberg. Part of his collection of 
 
 MSS. was acquired by M. Gude (s.v. Gudianus) and is now at 
 
 Wolfe nbuttel. 
 Rubea Vallis, Roodekloster, near Brussels, Belg. 
 Ruhnkenianus, MSS. of David Ruhnken. 1723-1798, at Leyden since 
 
 1799. 
 Rumiancevi Museum, Rumjanzow Museum, Moscow. Russia. 
 Rupefucaldi(n'us, Francois Albert, Seigneur de Rochefoucauld ; a 
 
344 
 
 NOMENCLATURE 
 
 
 learned Frenchman, Bp. of Clermont and Senlis, afterwards 
 cardinal : d. 1645. Some of his MSS. came into the possession 
 of the Jesuits of Clermont and thence into the Meerman collection 
 (q.v). ■ 
 Rylands, s.v. Mancuniensis. 
 
 Saba, (i) s.v. Hierosolymitanus. (2) Basilica of S. Saba, Rome. 
 
 Satbaiticus, s.v. Saba (2). 
 
 Sabbioneta, MSS. of Vespasiano Gonzaga, Duke of Sabbioneta, near 
 Mantua (d. 159T). Tiiey were left to the Servites of Sabbioneta 
 and are stated by Blumc, //^r Italicwn, i. 196, to have become the 
 property of the Comune. They cannot now be traced. (Cf. T. W. 
 Allen, Odyssey y Oxford text, 1910, p. 5.) 
 
 Sagiensis (Sagium), S. Martin, Seez, Fr. At Alencon. 
 
 Saibantinus, the MSS. of a Veronese collector Giovanni Saibante, of 
 which a catalogue is given by Montfaucon, Bibl. Bibliotliecnrinu^ 
 p. 490. The collection came into the hands of another Veronese, 
 P. de' Gianfilippi. In 1820 part of it was purchased for the 
 Bodleian; part was sold in Paris in 182T, and the remainder in 
 1843. MSS. from it are now at Paris, Oxford, Florence (Lauren- 
 tian), and Metz (Salis). (Cf. Omont, Zentralblatt fi'ir Bibl, 189T, in 
 an article on the MSS. at Verona.) 
 
 Salamantinus, Salmanticensis (Salmantica), Salamanca, Sp. 
 University Librar}\ (Cat. de los libros mss., 1855 ; J. Ortiz, Bihl, 
 Salumniina, ^"JTJ.) Cf. s.v. Matritensis (3). 
 
 Salem, Germ. MSS. at Heidelberg, Germ. 
 
 Salis, collection at Metz, Germ. Includes part of Gianfilippi and 
 Saibante collections. 
 
 Salisburgensis (Salisburgum), Salzburg, Austr. (i) Library of 
 S. Peter. Some codd. formerly here are now at Munich and 
 Vienna. (2) Studien-Bibl. (K. Foltz, 1877.) 
 
 Salisburiensis (Salisburium), Salisbury, Eng. Cathedral Library. 
 (Thompson, 1882.) 
 
 Salmanticensis Pintiani, codd. of Pedro Nunez de Guzman, 1471- 
 1552, called Pintianus from his birthplace Vallndolid (Pintia or 
 Pincia Carpetanorum). He was Professor of Greek at Salamanca. 
 
 Salman tinus, s.v. Sal am-. 
 
 Salmasianus, Claude de Saumaise, 1588-1653. Famous as a scholar 
 and as a political controversialist (e.g. against Milton). Some of his 
 MSS. entered the Gude collection (s.v. Gudianus). and others are at 
 Paris in Philibert de la Mare's collection. (Delisle, Cabiiift, i. 361,) 
 
 Samti:crs, Joannes (1531-T584). Hungarian physician and historian. 
 His collcv tion of MSS. is now in the Hofbibliothck, Vienna. 
 
 OF MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 345 
 
 Sanblasianns, library of S. Blaise (S. Blasien). Germ. Part now at 
 S. Paul in Carinthia : seme of the MSS. at Karlsruhe (s.v. Carols- 
 ruhensis). 
 
 Sancroftianus, MSS. of William Sancroft (1617-1693), Abp. of Canter- 
 bury. Now at Emmanuel College, Cambridge. 
 
 St. Agerici, S. Ayric or Airy, Verdun, Fr. 
 
 S. Albini, St. Aubin, Angers, Fr. (Andegavensis). Some passed into 
 the possession of Petau. 
 
 St. Amand, adversaria (chiefly on Theocritus) left to the Bodleian by 
 James St. Amand (1687-1754). (H. O. Coxe, 1853.) 
 
 S. Amandi in Pabula, St. Amand en Puelle or Pevele, near Valen- 
 ciennes, Fr. (Cf. Elnonensis.) MSS. now in town library, Valen- 
 ciennes. Some at Paris among Telleriani (q.v.). 
 
 S. Angeli ad Nilum, S. Angelo a Nilo, Naples. (Blume, Bibl. IfnL, 
 p. 191.) Cf. Brancacciana. 
 
 S. Apri, S. Epvre or Evre, Toul. 
 
 S. Arnulphi, Metz, Germ. In Stadtbibl., Metz. 
 
 S. Audoeni, Rouen, Fr. 
 
 S. Bartolome, Salamanca, Sp. MSS. at Madrid. 
 
 S. Basilii de Urbe, S. Basilio, Rome. MSS. in the Vatican since 1780. 
 Many came from S. Italy. 
 
 S. Benedicti supra Ligerim, Monastery of S. Benoit-sur-Loiro. at 
 Fleury, Fr. Cf. Bongarsianus, Petavianus. 
 
 S. Benignus, S. Benigne, Dijon. At Dijon, Paris, Montpellier. 
 
 S. Calixti de Cysoniis, Cysoing, Fr. Now at Lille. 
 
 S. Claude, Jura, Fr. The library of the monastery here was plun- 
 dered in the 17th cent. Fragments are at Paris, Besancon, Troyes, 
 Montpellier. The modern library contains some MSS. from St. 
 Oyan de Joux. (J. Gauthier*.) 
 
 S. Creus, Cistercian monastery of Santas Creus, Tarragona, Sp., 
 destro^^ed in 1835. 
 
 S. Crucis, (i) Monastery of Santa Croce, Florence. MSS. in the 
 Laiirentian. (2) Heiligenkreuz, N. Austria. (Cistercian.) (3) 
 Heiligenkreuz, Cesta, Kustenland, Illyria, Austria. (Capuchin 
 monastery.) (4) s.v. Hierosolymitanus. (5) S. Crucis in Jerusa- 
 lem, Rome (in Vittorio Emanuele), s.v. Sessorianus. 
 
 San Cucufate de Valles, Barcelona, Sp. In the Archivo, Barce- 
 lona. 
 
 S. Daniele, s. v. Foroiuliensis. 
 
 S. Ebrulfi, S. Evroul, Fr. At Alencon and Rouen. Cf. Uticensis. 
 
 S. Eligii, (i) S. Eloy, Arras, Fr. (21 Scuola di S. Eligio, Milan, It. 
 
 S. Emmeram, monastery at Ratisbon, Germ. MSS. now at Munich. 
 
 S. Eugendi, S. Oyan, Fr. Cf S. Claude. 
 
 S. Fidel, Schlcttstadt, Germ. 
 
34^ 
 
 NOMENCLATURE 
 
 si. ^ 
 
 II 
 
 il 
 
 Sancti Galli in Helvetia, s. v. Sangallensis. 
 
 S. Gatiani, S. Gatien, Tours, Fr., s.v. Turonensis. 
 
 S. Geminiani, S. Gimignano, It. 
 
 S. Genevidve, s.v. Paris. 
 
 S. Germani in Pratis, the Benedictine Abbey of S. Germain-dcs-Pres, 
 near Paris. Besides MSS. which had belonged to the abbey since 
 the 9th cent, the library included at the end of the i8th cent, the 
 collections of Seguier, Renaudot, Harlay, and Cardinal de Gesvres. 
 In 1638 it received 400 MSS. from Corbie ; in 1716 the MSS. of 
 S. Maur-des-Fosses. It was plundered in 1791 and Dubrovsky 
 (q. V.) purchased some of the Corbie MSS. After a disastrous fire in 
 1794 the surviving MSS. were transferred to the National Library 
 at Paris. 
 
 S. Gregorii, Monastery of S. Gregory at Rome. MSS. now in the 
 Vittorio Emanuele. (Cf. S. Michaelis Venetiis.) 
 
 S. Illidii, S. Allyre, Puy-de-Dome, Fr. 
 
 S. lohannis de Carbonaria, S. Giovanni a Carbonara, Naples, It. 
 Once contained MSS. of Demetrius Chalkondylas, Th. Gaza, and 
 Janus Parrhasius. Now in the Nazionale, Naples, and at Vienna. 
 
 S. lohannis in Viridario, S. Giovanni in Verdura, Padua, It. MSS. 
 at Holkham and Venice. 
 
 S. Mang, Stadt am Hof, Bavaria. Now at Munich. 
 
 S. Mariae, Uelzen, near Limeburg, Germ. 
 
 S. Mariae Deiparae. Nitrian monastery. MSS. in Brit. Mus. 
 
 S. Mariae de Cupro, monastery at Coupar Angus, Scotland. 
 
 S. Martialis, Limoges. At Paris since 1730. (Dclisle, Cabinet, i. 387.) 
 
 S. Martini, (i) Tours, Fr., s.v. Turonensis. (2) Tournai, Belg., s.v. 
 Tornacensis. (3) Pressburg, Germ. (Posonii). (4) s.v. Pannonhalma. 
 
 S. Maximini, (i) Treves (Trier), Germ. A few MSS. remain at 
 T., the rest are widely dispersed, s. v. Goerresianus. (2) S. Mesmin 
 de Micy, near Orleans, Fr., s.v. Miciacensis. 
 
 S. Michaelis, (i ) S. Michele, Venice. The library was dispersed in 1812. 
 Many MSS. were purchased by Capellari (afterwards Gregory XVI) 
 and by Zurla (afterwards Cardinal), and were given by them to the 
 Monastery of S. Gregory at Rome. This library is now incor- 
 porated with the Vittorio Emanuele. (Cicogna, Bihliografin Veue- 
 ziana, 1847, P- 5^-^ '2) S. Michaelis in periculo maris, Mont-Saint- 
 Michel, Fr. At Avranches. (3) S. Mihiel, Fr. (Michelant*.) (4) s.v. 
 Clusensis. 
 
 S. Nicolai templum monasterii Cassulorum, s.v. Hydruntinus. 
 
 S. Pantaleonis, a famous monastery at Cologne, Germ. MSS. 
 widely dispersed. 
 
 S. Patak, college at Admont, Austr. 
 
 S. Pauli in Carinthia, S. Paul in the Lavant-Thal, Carinthia, Austr. 
 
 OF MAN L' SCRIPTS 
 
 347 
 
 S. Petri, (i) s.v. Basilicanus. (2) San Pedro de Cardena,near Burgos, 
 
 Sp., S.V. Matritensis (4). 
 S. Placidi, S. Placido, south of Messina, Sicily. Destroyed in the 
 
 bombardment of 1848. MSS. said to have been in University 
 
 Library, Messina. 
 S. Remigii, S. Remy, Rheims, Fr. 
 S.Salvatoris,S.Salvatorede' Greci, Messina, Sicily; partly destroyed 
 
 in 1848. MSS. in University Library Messina, and Vatican. 
 S. Spiritits, Monastery of S. Spirito, Reggio in Emilia, It. (s.v. Regi- 
 
 ensis). 
 
 S. Stephani, (i) S. Etienne, Fr. (Galley*.) (2) Monastery, Wiirzhurg, 
 
 Germ. (P. Lehmann, Francisciis Modiits, p. 126.) 
 S. Taurini, s.v. Eboricanus, Duperron. 
 S. Trudonis, S. Trond, Belg. At Brussels and Liege. 
 S. Vedasti, S. Vaast or Vedast of Arras, Fr. "mSS. at Arras, 
 
 Boulogne-sur-Mer. 
 S. Victoris, Abbey at Paris. Now in the Bibl. Nationalc and Arsenal 
 
 Library. (L. Delisle, 1869.) 
 S. Vincentii, S. Vincent, Besancon, Fr. 
 
 S. Zenonis, S. Zeno at Reichenhall, Germ. Now at Munich. 
 Sangallensis, S. Gall, Switz. (i) Bibl. Monasterii S. Galli. (G. 
 
 Scherrer, 1875 '- History by Weidmann, 1846.) (2) Bibl. Vadiana 
 
 sive Oppidana, founded by Joachim von Watt or Vadianus, 1484- 
 
 T551, a Swiss jurisconsult and friend of Zwingli. (G. Scherrer, 
 
 1864 ; Haenel, pp. 665-722.) 
 Sangermanensis, s.v. S. Germani. 
 Sannazarianus, Jacopo Sannazaro (Actius Sincerus), 1458-1530. His 
 
 MS. of Ovid's Halieutica is now at Vienna. 
 
 Santenianus, Laurens van Santcn. of Leyden (1746-1798). MSS. at 
 Berlin (Diez collection). 
 
 Sarisberiensis, s. v. Salisb-. 
 
 Sarravianus, Claude Sarrau, member of the Parliament of Paris, 
 
 d. 1651. Part of his collection is at Leyden. 
 Sarzanensis, Sarrezano, It. 
 
 Savigneiensis, Savigny, Fr. MSS. bought by Colbert, now at Paris. 
 Savilianus, MSS. of Sir Henr>' Savile (1549-1622), Warden of 
 
 Merton College. Oxford, and Provost of Eton. Gave MSS. to the 
 
 Bodleian in 1620. 
 
 Savinianus, bibl. com. at Savignano di Romagna, It. 
 Scaliger, Joseph Justus (1540-1609), scholar. MSS. at Leyden. 
 (Cat. 19T0.) 
 
 Scaphusianus, s.v. Probatopolitanus. 
 
 Schedelianus, Hartmann Schedel, 1440-1514. A Nuremberg physician, 
 author of the Nnrembno Chronich: His collection of MSS. now 
 
 I 1 
 
1> 
 
 ■ ) 
 
 4 
 
 I 
 
 348 
 
 NOMENCLATURE 
 
 in the Stantsbibliothek, Munich. (R. Stauber, D/f Scliedehche 
 
 BibUoihfh\ 1906.) 
 Scheftlarnensis, Scheftlarn on the Isar, Germ. MSS. at Munich. 
 Schirensis, Schej'ern, Germ. At Munich. 
 Schlettstadtensis, Schlettstadt, Alsace, Germ. Contains MSS. 
 
 S. Fidei (a Benedictine monastery) and of Beatus Rhenanus. {Cat. 
 
 ^m. dfs MSS. iii. 1861 ; F. Urtel, N.Jahr.f. Phil. 109. p. 215.) 
 Schottanus, Andreas Schott, 1552-1629, a Belgian Jesuit, classical 
 
 teacher in Spain (Toledo) and in Italy. MSS., many of which he 
 
 inherited from Pantin (s.v.), at Brussels and in Bodleian (Canonici). 
 Scorialensis, s.v. Esc-. 
 Sedanensis (Sedanum), Sedan, Fr. University here was abolished 
 
 in 1681 and the library dispersed. 
 Seguieranus, Pierre Seguier (1588- 1672), Chancellor of France and 
 
 a notable patron of learning, s.v. Coislinianus. 
 Seguntinus (Seguntia), Siguenza, Sp. Chapter Library. 
 Seidelianus, Andreas Erasmus Seidel, 1650-1707. Dragoman in the 
 
 Venetian service in Greece. His MSS. were sold in 1712 and are 
 
 now at Leipzig, Dresden, Berlin, Moscow, Hamburg, British 
 
 Museum, and Holkham. 
 Seitenstettensis,Seitenstetten,Austr. Huemer,W^7«^;/^r 5/7/^.1887. p.69. 
 Seldenianus, collection of Jchn Selden, 1585-1654, the famous jurist, 
 
 bequeathed to the Bodleian in 1654. (H. O. Coxe, 1853.) 
 Selestadiensis (Selestadium), Schlettstadt, Alsace, Germ. s.v. Sch-. 
 Senatorianus, Bibl. Senatoria. Leipzig, Germ. (A. G. R. Naumann, 
 
 T838.) 
 Senckenberg, Renatus Karl von. left his library in 1800 to 
 
 Giessen. 
 Senensis (Sena Julia), Siena, It. (i) Bibl. Comunale (L. Ilari, 
 
 1844-1848). (2) Bibl. eccl. Cathedralis. (E. Piccolomini, 1899: for 
 
 MSS., &c. taken to the Chigiana, Rome, v. Blume, It. Ital. iv. 228.) 
 Senonensis (Agendicum Senonum?, Sens, Fr. At Auxerre and 
 
 Montpellier. 
 Seonensis, Benedictine monaster}- of S. Lambert at Seon, Bavaria, 
 
 Germ. MSS. at Munich. 
 Seripando, Cardinal Girolamo Senpando (1493-1563), general of the 
 
 Augustinians. presented his own library and that of his brother 
 
 Antonio to the Augustinian monastery of S. Giovanni a Carbonara. 
 
 These are now for the most part in the librar}^ at Naples. A few 
 
 are at Vienna and in the Brit. Museum {Cat. of Anc. MSS. i, p. 15). 
 
 Many of Antonio's MSS, were left to him by Parrhasius. 
 Serres, Macedonia. The ^lovi] \\po^\w\iov. 
 Sessorianus, MSS. belonging to the College of the Cistercians at 
 
 Rome, in the Church of S. Croce in Gerusalemme, or Basilica 
 
 OF MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 349 
 
 Sessoriana (so called from its vicinity to Constantinc's palace, the 
 Sessorium). Now in the Bibl. Vittorio Emanuele (q. v). Cf 
 Nonantulanus. 
 
 Severnianus, 'MSS. in the library of Mr. Severn of Thenford House, 
 near Banbury. They belonged formerly to Dr. Askew.' (Arnold' 
 Thitcydidvs, vol. ii, p. viii). ' 
 
 Severus, Gabriel of Monembasia, Abp. of Philadelphia carly'in i6th 
 cent., lived afterwards at Venice. Some of his MSS. arc at Turin 
 and in Bodleian (Laudiani). 
 
 Seviliensis (Sevilia), Seville, Sp. s. v. Columbina. 
 
 Sevin, Francois, employed circ. 1728 to collect MSS. in the East for 
 the Royal Library, Paris. (Omont, Missions anhcoloir., 1902, p 433 ) 
 
 Sfortianus, library of the Sforza family at Rome. The collection ol 
 Giovanni Sforza of Pesaro is described by A. Vernarecci in Arch 
 stor per le Marche e per Wmbria, iii, p. 513, 1886. MSS. of Cardinal 
 Guido Ascanio Sforza (1518- 1564) have passed through the collection 
 ol Passionei to the Angelica at Rome. 
 
 Sigeburgensis, Benedictine monastery of Sicgburg, near Bonn, Germ 
 Sigiramnensis, s.v. Cygir-. 
 Signiacensis, Signy, Fr. At Charlevillc. 
 
 Silos, monastery of, near Burgos, Sp. Suiiic M3S. at Paris and 
 London. 
 
 Sinaiticus, Mount Sinai, monastery of S. Catherine. (Gardthauscn, 
 
 1886: Benesevic, 1911.) 
 Sinopensis, Sinope, Asia Minor. 
 Sionensis, Sion College, London. 
 
 Sirletanus, Cardinal Sirleto (1514- 1585), librarian at the Vatican. MSS 
 were purchased in 1611 by J. A. Altaemps (q. v.) and through him 
 have passed to the Vatican. A few are in the Escurial. 
 Sloanianus, collection of Sir Hans Sloane (1660-1753), purchased in 
 
 1754 for the British Museum. (E. J. Scott, 1904.) 
 Slusianus, Johannes Gualterus, Cardinalis Slusius (d. 1687), b at Vise 
 in diocese of Liittich (Liege). The catalogue of his library at Rome is 
 given in Montfaucon, B. Bibl., p. 175, and was published separately 
 by K Deseine, Rome, 1690. Purchased by Queen Christina of 
 bweden tor her collection, now in the Vatican (Bibl. Alexandrina) 
 Smyrnensis, Smyrna, Asia Minor. (Papadopoulos-Kerameus 1877 ) 
 Solodurensis (Solodurum), Solothurn, Switz. 
 Sonegiensis (Sonegium, Sogniacum), Soignies, Belg. 
 Sorbonnensis. Sorbonianus, the Sorbonne, Paris. Now in the Bibl 
 
 Nat. (Lat. Delisle, 1870 : Gk. Omont, Inventaire sommaire.) 
 Spanhemensis, Sponhemensis, Spanheim, Germ. The Palatine Mb 
 ol the Anthology is thought to have belonged to the monastery there! 
 Sparnacensis (Sparnacuinj, Epernay, Fr. 
 
H 
 
 tl 
 
 350 
 
 NOMENCLATURE 
 
 Spencerianus, s.v. Althorp. 
 
 Spinaliensis (Spinaliiimi, Epinal, Fr. 
 
 Spirensis (Spira Nemetum), Speyer, Germ. 
 
 Stabulensis (Stabulum), S. Remade at Stavclot or Stablou, Belg. 
 
 Now at Paris. 
 Stephanus, Henricus (Estienne), 1531-1598. French printer and 
 
 scholar. Some MSS. in British Museum (Harleian), Stockholm, 
 
 Geneva, and Paris. 
 Strahoviana, library of Premonstratensian Canons at Prague. 
 Strozzianus, (i) Piero Strozzi (1500-1558), Marshal of France, v. 
 
 Ridoltianus. (2) Carolus Strozza, of Florence (1587-1670). MSS. 
 
 in the Laurentian and in Magliabecchiana collection (Bibl. Centrale), 
 
 Florence. 
 Stuttgardensis, or Stuttgartinus (Stuttgardia), Stuttgart, Germ. 
 Sublacensis(Sublaqueum), Subiaco, It. Bibl. dell* Abbazia. (Mazza- 
 
 tinti.) 
 Sukhanov, Arscnii Sukhanov, archdeacon of Moscow, visited Egypt 
 
 (1649J and Athos. MSS. in Library of the Synod, Moscow. Cf. 
 
 F. Spiro's Paitsanias, i, p. vii. 
 Suchtelenianus, MSS. of Count Sukhtelen incorporated with the 
 
 Imperial Library, S. Petersburg, in 1836. 
 Suecicus, V. Sueco-Vat. 
 Sueco-Vaticanus, Collection of Christina ot Sweden, now in the 
 
 Vatican, also called Reginensis (q.v.). 
 Suessionensis (Suessio, Noviodunum), Soissons, Fr. (Molinicr* : 
 
 E. Fleury. I 
 Susianus, Jacobus Susius (Suysj, of Holland (fl. arc. 1590). Owner 
 
 of various MSS., e.g. Leyden codex of Germanicus Aratea. 
 Sylburgius, F. (1536-1596), German scholar. MSS. at Munich. 
 Syon, monastery of the Brigittine order at Isleworth, Eng. The 
 
 library was dispersed on the suppression of the monastery in 1539 
 
 (old catalogue ed. by M. Bateson, 1898). 
 Syracusanus, Syracuse, Sicily. (Mazzatinti, 1887.) 
 
 Tanneriani, MSS. of Thomas Tanner (1674-1735), Bp. of S. Asaph. 
 
 In Bodleian, Oxford. 
 Tarvisiensis (Tarvesium, Trevisium), Treviso, It. ? At Venice. 
 Taiirinensis (Augusta Taurinorum), Turin, It. Bibl. Nazionale and 
 
 University Library. (J. Pasini, 1749; G. Ottino (Bobienses), 1890. 
 
 It suffered severely from the fire on Jan. 26, 1904. Cf. E. Stampmi, 
 
 Rivisia cii Fi/ohi^ia, 32, p. 385 ; G. Gorrini, 1904.) 
 Taylor, John (1704-17661, classical scholar. Left his MSS. to 
 
 A. Askew (s.v. Askcvianus, cf. Tophanes). 
 
 tl 
 
 OF MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 35 i 
 
 Tegernseensis, Tcgernsec, Bavaria. Now at Munich. 
 
 Teleky, s.v. Maros-Vasarhely. 
 
 Tellerianus Remensis, Charles Maurice Le Tellier. Abp. uf Rheim., 
 
 d. 1710. He presented his MSS. to the Bibl. Roy., Paris, in 1700. 
 Teplensis, Tepl, Bohemia. ' 
 
 Teutoburgensis, Duisburg, Germ. s.v. Duisburgensis. 
 Theodoriana, library at Paderborn, Germ. 
 
 Thessalonicensis, Salonica, Turkey. (Cf. Sp. Lambros, Mrnacum, 
 1890, p. 45 r.) 
 
 Thevenotianus, MSS. belonging to Melchiscdech Thcvenot (1620- 
 1692), traveller, librarian of Bibl. Royale, Paris, 1684-1692. Mostly 
 at Pans since 1712. 
 
 Tholonensis, Toulon, Fr. 
 
 Tho.Tipsonianus, collection of II. Yates Thompson, England (De- 
 scriptive Catalogue of Fifty MSS., 1898; Facsimiles. 1908, 1912.) 
 
 Thosanus, Cistercian monastery of Ter Doest, near Bruges, Bel- 
 Since the time of Napoleon the greater part of the MSS. have 
 been in the public Library of Bruges. Others at Berlin, Brussels, 
 Cambridge, Leyden. ' 
 
 Thottiana, at Copenhagen, now part of the Royal Library. (Catalogue 
 1789.) ^^ ' 
 
 Thuaneus, Jacques Auguste de Thou, President of the Parliament 
 of Pans and keeper of the Royal Library. From 1573 1617 he 
 formed a large collection consisting largely of MSS. once owned 
 by Pierre Pithou, Nicolas Le Febvre. and the Jesuits of Clermont 
 (I.e. the first collection made before their expulsion in isq=;) This 
 was purchased by Colbert in 1680. ' 
 
 Thysiana a library at Leyden, founded 1655 by Dr. Johannes Thvsius, 
 now part of the University Library. (P. J. Blok, 1907 ) 
 
 Ticmensis Ticino, It. Visconti library was removed to France by 
 Louis XII m 150a. Some MSS. now at Paris. Cf. Laurcntii 
 I ignorii Symbo/arum EpMic. liber, ep. xvi, p. 54. Patavii, 1628. 
 
 Tigunnus, 1 iguruin, Ziiricli, Switz. Cf Turicensis 
 
 TUiobrogianus, Friedricl, Lindenbiog or Lindenbiuch, of Hamburg 
 1573-1648: editor of Statius. Some of his MSS. came into the 
 possession of Marquard Gude (s.v. Gudianus) 
 
 Til(llianus, (i) Joannes Tilius (Du Tillet) came from a family be- 
 longing to the Angoumois (hence called Engolismensis), Bp of 
 flleaux, d. 1570. He was a noted antiquary. MSS. once in his 
 possession are at Leyden, Wolfenbuttel, and in the Vatican. 
 
 »^, T'' ^PP^'""^ V in Fotheringham's Facsimile of the 
 
 Bodlemn codex of Jeromes Chronicle.) (2) s.v. Moi-elii 
 Toletanus (Toletum,,, Toledo, Sp. Cathedral Library, Bibl. del 
 Cabildo. (Haenel. pp. 983-990.) Fragmentum Toletanuni of Sallust 
 
 — (v i_^ I 
 
352 
 
 NOMENCLATURE 
 
 ! 
 
 is uow at Berlin. Many MSS. transtbrred to Bibl. Nacional, 
 
 Madrid. 
 ToUianus, Jacob Tollius (d. 1696), Professor at Duisburg, Germ. 
 Tolosanus, Tolosatensis (Tolosa), Toulouse, Fr. (Molinier*.) 
 Torgaviensis (Torgavia), Torgau, Germ. 
 Tornacensis (Tornacumi, Tournai, Belg. (A. Wilbaux, i860.) The 
 
 MSS. ofthe Cathedral and of the suppressed Monastery of S. Martin 
 
 were dispersed, v. Haenel, p. 770; Sanderus, Bibl. Bclgica, pp. 91, 
 
 208 sqq. Many are among the Telleriani (q. v.). 
 Tornaesianus, Jean Detournes, printer of Lyon, d. 1564. He was 
 
 the possessor of a codex of Cic. Epp. ad Alt. 
 Torrentianus, MS. belonging to Laevinus Torrentius (van dcr 
 
 Becken), Bp. of Antwerp, d. 1595. Collection passed to the Jesuits 
 
 of Louvain. 
 Towneleianus, MSS. belonging to the Towneley family, of Towneley, 
 
 Lancashire. Dispersed lirc, 1814, after the death of Charles T. 
 
 (1737-1805). Some were purchased by Dr. Charles Burney, whose 
 
 library was bought by the British Museum in 1818. 
 Tophanes Taylori, conjectures, chiefly on the text of the Attic 
 
 Orators, preserved among the papers of Richard Topham (1671- 
 
 1730), of Trinity College, Oxford. T.'s collections were presented 
 
 to Eton College by Richard Mead, d. 1754. John Taylor the 
 
 Cambridge scholar (1704-1766) communicated the conjectures to 
 
 Reiske, who misread 'Topham's (MS.) ' as ' Tophanls'. 
 Traguriensis (Tragurium), Trau, Dalmatia. The MS. of Petronius 
 
 was discovered there in the Library ot Nicolaus Cippicus by 
 
 Marin us Statilius circ. 1650. 
 Trajectinus (Trajectum ad Rhenum, Ultrajectum), Utrecht, Holland. 
 
 University Library. (P. A. Tiele, 1887 : Hulshof, 1909 ; De Utrecht- 
 
 sche Universiteitsbibliotheek, J. F. van Someren, 1909.) 
 Transylvanensis, s.v. Batthyanianus. 
 Trecensis (Trecae, Augustobona Trecassiumj, Troycs, Fr. (Har- 
 
 mand*, Dorez et Det*.) 
 Trevirensis (Augusta Trevirorum 1, Trier or Treves, Germ. (Keuft'er, 
 
 1888.) 
 Trevethianus, a family of MSS. of Seneca's Tragedies which preserve 
 
 the readings of a MS. used by an English Dominican Nicholas 
 
 Treveth or Triveth (1258-1328). 
 Trevisani, a family at Padua who once owned the Bodleian 
 
 (Saibante) Epictetus. v. Tommasini, Bibliothcca Patavina, Utini, 
 
 1639, p. 115. 
 Tricassinus, s.v. Trecensis. 
 Trincavellianus, Vettore Trincavelli (1491-1563), Venetian physician 
 
 and scholar. He produced the Ed. pr. of Stobacus, 1535. 
 
 Ml 
 
 Hi 
 
 OF MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 353 
 
 Trivulziana, Library of the Trivulzi family at Milan, It. (G. Porro, 
 
 1884; E. Martini, Gk. MSS., 1896.) 
 Truebnerianus, Trubner collection at Heidelberg. 
 Tubingensis (Tubinga), Tubingen, Germ. (W. Schinidt in a Pro- 
 
 gramm, 1902.) The princely library at Hohentiibingen is now at 
 
 Munich. 
 Tudertinensis (Tudertum), Todi, It. 
 Turicensis, Zurich, Svvitz. (i) Cantons- und Universitats-Bibliothek 
 
 (Fritzsche, 1848). (2) Stadtbibliothek. 
 Turingicus, Thuringia. A name given by the older scholars to MSS. 
 
 belonging to Erfurt (q.v.). 
 Turonensis (Urbs Turonum, Caesarodunum), Tours, Fr. (Collon*.) 
 
 Contains MSS. from S. Gatien (Jouan and V. d'Avanne, 1706), 
 
 S. Martin, and Marmoutiers. 
 
 U 
 
 Uelcensis, Uelzensis, Uelzen, Liineburg. A t^vv MSS. from Monas- 
 tery of S. John Baptist are now at Wolfenbuttel. 
 Uflfenbachianus, Zacharias Conrad von Uftenbach (1683-1734), a 
 celebrated bibliophile of Frankfort (on Main), Germ. (Catalogues 
 of his library, Halle, 1720; Frankfort, 1729-1731.) Some codd. at 
 Karlsruhe : a few came into the possession of Henry Allen of Dublin 
 (S.v. Alanus). 
 Ulmensis (Ulma), Ulm, Germ. MSS. at Stuttgart and Munich. 
 Ultratrajectinus, s.v. Trajectinus. 
 
 Upsaliensis (Upsalia), Upsala, Sweden. (J. C. Sparvenfeld, 1706; 
 P. F. Aurivillius, 1806. For MSS. formerly in the Escurial v. 
 Lundstrom in Eranos 2, Upsala, 1897.) MSS. of Benzelius. 
 Urbevetanus, s.v. Urbs Vetus. 
 Urbs Vetus, Orvieto, It. 
 
 Urbinas (Urbinum), Urbino, It. The MSS. of Federico Duke of 
 Urbino, collected circ. 1463, were left to the town of Urbino by 
 Duke Francesco Maria in 1631. They were incorporated with the 
 Vatican by Pope Alexander VII in 1657. (Gk. MSS., Stornajolo. 
 1895; Lat. MSS., Stornajolo, vol. i, 1902.) 
 Ursinianus. The MSS. of Fulvio Orsini, numismatist and antiquary 
 
 (1529-1600). In the Vatican since 1600. (G. Beltrami, 1886.) 
 Ursonensis (Urso), Osuna, Sp. 
 
 Uspenskyanus. The collection of MSS. formed by Porfiri Uspensky 
 (1804-1883), Bp. of Kiev, Russia. In the Imperial Library ot 
 S. Petersburg since 1883. (V. K. Jernstcdt, 1883.) 
 Usserianus. The collection of James Ussher (1581-1656), Abp. oi 
 Armagh; Ireland. Purchased for Trinity College, Dublin, in 1661. 
 
 473 ^ '^ 
 
354 
 
 NOMENCLATURE 
 
 i. ' 
 
 Uticensis (Uticum), S. Evroul (Ebruiphus) d'Ouche, Normandy. 
 
 Some MSS. at Alen^on and Rouen. 
 Utinensis (Utina), Udine, It. Biblioteca Florio. (Mazzatinti : 
 
 Cosattini, Sfndt I fa/., 4, p. 201, 1896.) 
 
 V 
 
 Vadianus, s.v. Sangallensis. 
 
 Valentianensis (Valentianae in Flandris), Valenciennes, Fr. (Man- 
 geart, i860 ; Molinier*.) Cf. S. Amandi. 
 
 Valentiniana, Library at Camerino, It. 
 
 Valentinus (Valentia), Valencia, Sp. Cf. Calabricus. 
 
 Valesianus, (i) Henricus Valesius (de Valois), 1603-1676, French 
 scholar. MSS. at Orleans, s.v. Aurelianensis. (2) Adrien de Valois, 
 1607-1692, his brother, historiographer and scholar. 
 
 Vallensis, MSS. of Laurentius Valla, the Italian humanist (1417-1467). 
 At Paris, \\itican, Modena. 
 
 Vallettianus, MSS. of Giuseppe Valletta, bought for Oratorian 
 Library, Naples, in 1726. 
 
 Vallicellianus. The library of the Oratory of S. Maria in Vallicella, 
 Rome, founded by the Portuguese scholar Achilles Statins (Estaco), 
 1581. (E. Martini, 1902, gives the Gk. MSS.) 
 
 Vallis Clericorum, Vauclerc or Vauclair, Fr. MSS. at Laon. 
 
 Vallisoletanus (Vallisoletum), Valladolid, Sp. (Gutierrez del Cano, 
 1880-1890.) 
 
 Varinus, s. v. Guarinus. 
 
 Varsoviensis (Varsovia), Warsaw, Poland. MSS. at S. Petersburg, 
 Imperial Library, since 1834. 
 
 Vasteras, s.v. Arosicnsis. 
 
 Vaticanus. The Papal Library in the Vatican, Rome, first organized 
 by Nicholas V (1447-1455). The oldest collections of MSS. are : — 
 (I) Ottoboniani (s.v.). (2) Palatini (s.v.). (3) Bibliotheca Pii II, 
 transferred on his death in 1464 to S. Silvestro and incorporated 
 with the Vatican by Clement XI (1700- 1721). (4) Reginenses 
 (s.v.). The Reginenses and the Bibl. Pii II form the Bibliotheca 
 Alfxcudrinn, so called after Pope Alexander VIII (1689-1691). 
 (5) Urbinates (s.v.). (6) Vaticani antiqui (Valtasso and Cavalieri, 
 1902). (7) Capponiani (s.v.). Among recent additions to the Library 
 are: (i) the Bibl. Barberina. (2) Bibl. S. Basilii de Urbe. (3) 
 Bibl. Borghesiana. (4) Bibl. Columnensis. (3) MSS. of Museo 
 Borgiano, transferred in 1902. These are described under their 
 several titles. 
 
 Vedastinus, S. Vaast, Arras, Fr. 
 
 Venetus (Venetiae), Venice, It. s.v. Marciana. (For old libraries cf. 
 J. P. Tomasini, Bibliothecae Venetae, 1650.) 
 
 OF MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 355 
 
 Ventimilliana, library at Catania, Sicily (s.v. Catinensis). 
 
 Vercellensis (Vercellae), Bibl. Agnesiana, Vercelli, It. 
 
 Veronensis (Verona), Verona, It. (i) The Capitular Library. (A. 
 Masotti, 1788; Giuliari, 1888; Gk. MSS. described by Oniont, Zen- 
 tralblait fi'ir Bibl., viii, p. 489.) (2) Bibl. Comunale. (G. Biadego, 
 1892.) 
 
 Vesontinus (Vesontio), Besancon, Fr. MSS. of Cardinal Granvella. 
 (Castan* ; Gk. MSS., E. Gollob, 1910.) 
 
 Viceburgensis, s.v. Herbipolitanus. 
 
 Vicecomites, i. e. Visconti, s.v. Papiensis Ticinensis. 
 
 Vicetinus (Vicetia or Vincentia), Vicenza, It. Bibl. Bertoliana. 
 
 Victoriacensis (Victoriacum), Vitry-le-Francois, Fr. 
 
 Victorianus, Pietro Vettori (Victorius), 1499-1584. Professor of 
 Classics at Florence. Part of his collection of MSS. is at Munich. 
 
 Villoison, Jean-Baptiste Gaspard d'Ansse de (1753-1805^ Professor 
 of Greek at Paris. MSS. at Paris, London, Gottingen, Florence 
 (Laurent.). 
 
 Vimariensis (Vimaria, Vinaria), Weimar, Germ. 
 
 Vindobonensis (Vindobona), Vienna, Austr. (i) Bibl. Caesarea 
 (or Palatina), now called the K. K. Hofbibliothek, founded 
 in 1440. (Gk. Nessel, 1690; Lat. Endlicher, 1836.) The Library 
 contains MSS. formerly in the possession of Busbecq, Matthias 
 Corvinus, Sambucus, Raymund Fugger, Lambecius, and also Gk. 
 MSS. transferred in 1778 from Neapolitan monasteries. (2) Bibl. 
 des Schottenstiftes (A. Hiibl, 1899). ^3^ Fideikommissbibliothek. 
 (M. Becker, 1873.) (4) Rossiani (s.v. Rossianus). 
 
 Vindocinensis (Vindocinum), Vendome, Fr. 
 
 Virdunensis, S. Ayric and S. Vito at Verdun, Fr. 
 
 Visconti, s.v. Papiensis. 
 
 Vitebergensis (Viteberga), Wittenberg, Germ. 
 
 Vittorio Emanuele, Library at Rome founded in 1876. It contains 
 the MSS. of many suppressed monasteries and churches, e.g. 
 S. Andrea de Valle, Ara Caeli, Collegio Romano, Farfenses, 
 Sessoriani. (Gk. MSS., D. Tamila, Stiidi If., 1902. Bibl. deVKcole 
 des Chartcs, 1881, xlii, p. 605, describes the losses suffered by thefts in 
 1870.) 
 
 Volaterranus, Voltcrra, It. Bibl. Guarnacciana. (Mazzatinti.) 
 
 Vorauviensis, Vorau, Austr. 
 
 Vormatiensis, s. v. Wormaciensis. 
 
 Vossianus, MSS. of Isaac Voss (1618-1689), scholar and friend of 
 Queen Christina of Sweden, appointed prebend of Windsor by 
 Charles II in 1673. His collection of 762 MSS. was sold by his 
 executors to the University Library at Leyden after unsuccessful 
 
 negotiations with the Bodleian. 
 
 A a 2 
 
356 
 
 NOMENCLATURE 
 
 Vratislaviensis (Vratislavia), Breslau, Germ, (i) Stadtbibliothek, 
 containing the MSS. of Rehdiger and of Bibl. Magdalenaea (q.v.). 
 (Catalogue of Gk. MSS., 1889.) (2) University Library. (3) Doni- 
 bibliothek founded by Bp. Roth (1482-1506), destroyed in 1632, 
 but restored later (cf. J. Jungnitz, Silesiaca, 1898J. 
 
 Vulcanianus, Bonaventura Vulcanius (de Smet), b. Bruges 1538, 
 Professor of Greek at Leyden 1578, d. 1614. His MSS. are now at 
 Leyden. (Catalogue, 1910.) 
 
 W 
 
 Wallersteinensis, MSS. in the library of the Grafen von Oettingen- 
 
 VVallerstein at Maihingen, Germ. 
 Wallianus, MSS. collected by Hermann van der Wall, acquired by 
 
 D'Orville, from whom they passed to the Bodleian. 
 Wallrafianus, the Wallraf-Richartz Museum, Cologne, Germ., founded 
 
 by Kanonikus F. Wallraf, d. 1824. Now incorporated with the 
 
 Stadtbibliothek. 
 Warmiensis (Warmia), Warmerlandt, now Ermeland, a diocese of 
 
 East Prussia. The Bishop had his see at Frauenburg. 
 Weihenstephensis, Weihenstephan, Germ. At Munich. 
 Weilburgensis, Weilburg, Germ. Bibl. des Konigl. Gymnasiums. 
 
 (R. Gropius, 1885.) 
 Weingartensis, Weingarten, Germ. Now at Stuttgart and Fulda. 
 Weissenauensis, the Monasterium Sanctorum Petri et Pauli at 
 
 Weissenburg, Alsace, Germ. At Wolfenbuttel since 1690. 
 Weissenburgensis, (i) Weissenburg, Transylvania, Austr., now known 
 
 as Karisburg. MSS. in the Batthyaneum. (2) Weissenburg, Alsace. 
 
 MSS. of the abbey of SS. Peter and Paul, now at Wolfenbuttel 
 
 (s. v. Guelferbytanus). 
 Weissenstein, s. v. Pommersfelden. 
 Werdensis, (1) Donauworth, Verda or Donavertia, Germ. (2) The 
 
 Reichsabtei at Werden in Prussia. MSS. at Berlin, Darmstadt, 
 
 Dusseldorf, Munster. (A. Schmidt, Zentralblaft fiir Bibl., 1905, 
 
 p. 241.) 
 Wernigerodensis, Wernigerode, Germ. (Forstermann, 1866.) 
 Wessofontanus, Wessobrunn, Germ. Now at Munich. 
 Westeras, s. v. Arosiensis. 
 Widmannianus, MSS. belonging to Karl Widmann of Wolfenbuttel, 
 
 circ. 1613, e.g. that of Prudentius now in the British Museum. 
 Wigorniensis, (i) Wigornium or Vigornia, Worcester, England. 
 
 (2) Worcester College, Oxford. 
 Windbergensis, Windberg, Germ. At Munich. 
 Wintonianus, Wintonensis (Wintonium), Winchester, England. 
 
 Libraries at the Cathedral and at the College of S. Mary. 
 
 OF MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 357 
 
 Wirzeburgensis, Wurzburg, Germ., s.v. Herbipolitanus. 
 
 Wittert, Coll. of Baron Adrien de W. (1823-1903). Now at Liege 
 
 (s.v. Leodicensis). 
 Wittianum fragmentum. A fragment of Martial discovered by Karl 
 
 Witte at Perugia circ. 1829. For J. de Witt, a Dutch collector oi 
 
 MSS. at the end of the i8th century, vide s.v. Marcianus (3). 
 Wolf (Johann Christoph), pastor at Hamburg, d. 1739. MSS. in 
 
 Johanneum, Hamburg. 
 Wolfenbuttelensis, s.v. Guelferbytanus. 
 Wormaciensis (Wormacia), Worms, Germ. 
 Wyttenbachianus, MSS. of Daniel Albert Wyttenbach (1746-1820), 
 
 Professor at Leyden. In the University Library, Leyden, since 1822. 
 
 X 
 
 Ximenes, Fr. (1459-1517), Cardinal and Abp. of Toledo. 
 Toledo. 
 
 MSS. at 
 
 Zalusciana bibliotheca, formerly at Warsaw, transferred in 1795 to 
 the Imperial Library at S. Petersburg. It was founded by Count 
 Joseph Zaluski in 1747. 
 
 Zamoyski Library, Warsaw, Russia. 
 
 Zulichemius, s.v. Hugenianus. 
 
 Zurla, s. V. S. Michaelis. 
 
 Zviccaviensis, Zwickau, Germ. Cf. Daumianus. 
 
 Zwettl, Lower Austria. (J. von Frast, 1846; RSssler in Xenia 
 Bemardina^ 1891.) 
 
INDEX 
 
 Ace. corr. =accentus correctus. 
 
 accedit A, i.e. codex A begins or re- 
 sumes. 
 
 Accius, L., editions by, 56. 
 
 accommodation, false, 172, 174. 
 
 Acta Sanctorum, in. 
 
 Adalhard, 95. 
 
 add. = add id it ct similia. 
 
 Adelperga, 96. 
 
 adn. = adnotatio, adnotat et situ. 
 
 adnotatio, 61. 
 
 adscripts, 195. 
 
 al. = alius, aliter. 
 
 Alcuin, 76 ; on punctuation, 86, 87. 
 
 Alexandrines, their methods, 34 ; 
 their main interest was in poetry, 
 33 ; Aristarchus, 36. 
 
 alphabet, spread of the, 4. 
 
 Amplonius von Ratinck, 79. 
 
 anagrammatism, 176. 
 
 Anglo-Saxons, their work on the con- 
 tinent, 75. 
 
 anonymous literature, 14. 
 
 Ansoaldus, 85. 
 
 anthologies, their effect upon texts, 
 40, 139- 
 
 Apellikon, 208. 
 
 apxaia eKSoais of Demosthenes, 51. 
 
 archetype, definition of an, 125 (with 
 note). 
 
 Aristarchus, 36. 
 
 Aristotle, text of Poetics, 107; of 
 Physics, 146; A. 's interest in philo- 
 logy? 30- 
 
 armarium, 8. 
 
 the Arts, origin of the system, 72 ; in 
 
 Isidore, 67 ; Artes )( Auctores, 72 ; 
 
 in France, 81. 
 ^XTTiKiavoL dvTiypa(pa, 51, 230. 
 Atzidas of Rhodes, 291. 
 Augustine on profane literature, 62 ; 
 
 on Cicero's Horfensins. 64. 
 Aulus Gellius on the text of Sallust, 
 
 59- 
 
 the Bankes papyrus, 2. 
 Barth, Caspar von, 128. 
 Bast , F. J . , Comimntatio Palacographica, 
 113 (note). 
 
 Beatus Rhenanus, 114. 
 
 Bede on corruption of numerals, 180. 
 
 Bekker, I., 123. 
 
 Benedict, 64; rule of, 109; Bene- 
 dictines, II r; at Monte Cassino, 
 96 (^note). 
 
 S. Benoit sur Loire (Fleury^, MSS. 
 from, 116. 
 
 Bentley, R., 120 sqq.; on a MS. of 
 Manilius, 121. 
 
 Bernard of Chartres, 8f. 
 
 biblical names introduced into texts, 
 182. 
 
 binions, 84. 
 
 Bobbio, Spanish MSS. at, 82; palim- 
 psests at, 83. 
 
 Boeckh, A., on the percentage of true 
 conjectures, 150. 
 
 Eollandists, in. 
 
 bombycinus, i (note). 
 
 Boniface, 75. 
 
 books, privately made copies, 14 ; 
 book-trade in Greece, 10 ; in Rome, 
 
 lO-II. 
 
 Bosius, 128. 
 
 Britain, influence on the Irish, 73 
 
 (note). 
 ^v0\os, 3. 
 Budaeus, 105. 
 
 Burman's variorum editions, ri8. 
 Byblos, 4. 
 Byzantine scholarship, 25. 
 
 Caesar, text of, 131. 
 
 Callimachus, his vivaKe^, 32. 
 
 Calliopius, 276. 
 
 capsa, 8. 
 
 Carolingians, their services to Latin 
 
 texts, 89. 
 Carrio, L., 116. 
 Xf^pT-T]^, 4 ; X^/JT-ai used for the writings 
 
 of Hippocrates, 15. 
 Cassius Dio, text of, 133. 
 Cassiodorus, 65 ; on orthography, 87. 
 catchwords, 179. 
 Cato, De Agricttltiiya, text of, 52 ; 
 
 Pliny's text cf, 141. 
 Catullus, text of, 135. 
 Centuriators, the Magdeburg, in. 
 
360 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Charlemagne, intellectual revival fos- 
 tered by, 76. 
 charters, 109. 
 Chartres, school at, 80. 
 Choiseul Gouffier, 304. 
 Christianity and profane literature, 62, 
 
 64, 68. 
 ci. = coniecit et sim. 
 Cicero, Academica, to ; Ad Familiares, 
 
 19 ; De lege agran't, 61. 
 ' Ciceronianism ', 115. 
 cimelia, 287. 
 
 classification of MSS., 127. 
 codex, shape of, 2 ; its history in 
 Greece, 15 ; codex in the ist cent. 
 A. D., 16 ; used by the church, 17; 
 recto and verso, 84 ; gatherings or 
 quires, 84 ; foliation of, 84 ; age and 
 accuracy, 128. 
 cola, 86. 
 
 coll. =collato ef sim. 
 collation in the middle age, 87. 
 Cologne, a centre of learning, 1 17. 
 Columban, 75. 
 commata, 86. 
 commentaries, 41. 
 conflation, 197. 
 coni. = co(n)iecit et sim. 
 contin. =continuat, i.e. some portion 
 of the text is transferred to the 
 preceding or succeeding speaker, 
 contractions, 157 ; Traube on, 163. 
 copyists, Cassiodorus' instructions 
 to, 66 ; methods of, in the middle 
 age, 83 ; Petrarch on, 100; Poggio 
 on, 100 ; Leo Aretinus on, loi ; 
 Jerome on, 155. 
 Cottonian library, 287. 
 Crates Mallotes, 54. 
 Cuiacius, 115. 
 cum ras. = cum rasura. 
 cursus velox, 152. 
 
 Damocrates, 181. 
 
 Daniel, P., his collection of MSS. , 1 16. 
 
 Dante, 92. 
 
 Dawes' canon, 152. 
 
 decads, 8. 
 
 Decretals, the False, no. 
 
 del. = deleuit et sim. 
 
 S(\tos, 4. 
 
 Sr]fjiw5T]s, 47. 
 
 Demo'-thenes, text of, 49 ; the T/iird 
 
 Philippic, 50 ; the Third Epistle, 52. 
 dett. = codices deteriores. 
 diacritical signs, 54, 58 ; their use by 
 
 Roman scholars, 61. 
 Siaaitfvfj, 205. 
 dictation, whether practised in ancient 
 
 times, II ; in the middle age, 85. 
 
 183. 
 Dicuil and Pliny the Elder, 88. 
 Didymus, 39. 
 
 5iKTV0V, 6. 
 
 dirpOojTTjs, IT. 
 
 diplomata, 112. 
 
 S.aaoypaipia, 179. 
 
 dist. =--distinxit et sim. 
 
 distinctio, 61. 
 
 dittography, 191. 
 
 Dominicans, 79. 
 
 dominus gregis, 53. 
 
 Donation of Constantino, no. 
 
 double tradition of text of Martial, 
 
 137 ; Statins, 137 ; Shakespeare 
 
 and Goethe, 138. 
 dramatists, text of Latin, 53, 57. 
 Dutch scholarship, T17. 
 
 ' eccentric ' texts of Homer, 240 sq. 
 
 Eckhart, 113 (note\ 
 
 Egj'pt, papyrus rolls from, 2. 
 
 Einhard, 144 ;note . 
 
 (k8o<7is ^ edition, 32 ; dpxo-'ta of Demo- 
 sthenes, 51. 
 
 elegiac poets, text of, 45. 
 
 emendation, 150 sqq. 
 
 enneads, 8. 
 
 environment, influence of, in causing 
 corruptions, 156, 171. 
 
 eras. = erasus et sim. 
 
 Erasmus, his ' Ciceronianus ', 115; 
 on MSS. of N.T., 121. 
 
 (rrXfiTOKoWioVj 14. 
 
 etacism, 184. 
 
 Etvmologiae of Isidore, 67. 
 
 Euthydemus, library of, 27. 
 
 ex sil. = ex silentio, i.e. a reading is 
 assumed to be in a MS. because the 
 collator has not noted any variation 
 from the text with which he has 
 made his collation. Often an 
 unjustifiable inference. 
 
 exp. =expunctus et sim., i.e. one or 
 more letters have been marked with 
 dots in the MS. to show that they 
 ought to be omitted. 
 
 External evidence for a text, 140. 
 
 Flacius, Matthias, no. 
 
 Fleury, pillaged by the Huguenots, 
 
 115- 
 foliation, 84. 
 
 forgeries in the quattrocento, 102. 
 France, learning in iith-i2th cent., 
 
 80. 
 Fronto on ancient editions, 55 ^note). 
 Fulda, 75. 
 
 INDEX 
 
 361 
 
 Galen, on vellum as a writing material, 
 2 (^note^ ; on Hippocrates, 15; on 
 emendation, 150; on kpfxrjveia and 
 yvdunrj, 152 ; peculiarities in his 
 style, 152. 
 
 Gasparino di Barrizza and the De 
 Oratore, 103. 
 
 Gelenius, S., 114. 
 
 genealogy of MSS., 123, 130; limita- 
 tions of genealogical method, 149. 
 
 Gerbert on ancient literature, 70 ; his 
 love of the classics, 78. 
 
 S. Germain-des-Pres. in. 
 
 Germany, learning in 9th-ioth cent., 
 78 ; in the 12th cent., 79 ; in the 
 14th cent., 79. 
 
 Germon, B., 112. 
 
 ' ghost-words ', 172. 
 
 7p. =ypdtp€Tai. a sign used to introduce 
 a marginal or interlinear variant 
 reading. 
 
 graphical probability, 139. 
 
 Greeks of the Italian Renaissance, 105. 
 
 Grimwald, 109. 
 
 Gronovius, J. F., 119. 
 
 Hadoard and the text of Cicero, 71. 
 
 haplography, 189. 
 
 Hardouin, J., 112 ;note). 
 
 Harris papyrus, 2. 
 
 Headlam, W., on transposition, 176. 
 
 hebraisms, 182. 
 
 Heinsius, N., 118. 
 
 Heliconius and the text of Isocrates, 43. 
 
 Henschen, G., in. 
 
 Herculaneum, 2. 
 
 Hermodorus, 28. 
 
 Herodotus on pap^'rus, 5. 
 
 Hesychius, Musurus' ed. of, 105. 
 
 hexads, 8. 
 
 Hildebert of Tours, 81. 
 
 Hippocrates, early editions of, 15. 
 
 Hirschau, 79. 
 
 Homeric poems, the text of, 38. 
 
 homoeoteleuta, 189. 
 
 humanism, 98-9. 
 
 von Hutten, 113 (note). 
 
 imitations as evidence for a text, 141. 
 
 insular script, 82. 
 
 interp. = inlerpungit et sim. 
 
 interpolare, original meaning of, 186. 
 
 interpolation, ancient, 29, 186 ; Byzan- 
 tine, 43 sqq. ; monkish, 188 ; late 
 Italian, loi. 
 
 interpretation, Lachmann on, 125. 
 
 intrinsic probability, 139, 151, 153. 
 
 Ionian scholarship, 31. 
 
 Irish, their work in Europe, 74-5 ; 
 
 careless in spelling Latin, 86 ; the 
 
 Irish script, 89. 
 Isidore, 67-8. 
 
 Isocrates, codex Urbinas of, 123. 
 itacism, 184. 
 Italy, always has an educated laity, 95 ; 
 
 ignorance of the clergy, 96. 
 
 Jerome, on profane literature, 62, 64 ; 
 on punctuation, 86 ; his de viris 
 illustribits, 148 ; on copyists, 155. 
 
 Jesuits, their rivalry with the Bene- 
 dictines, 112. 
 
 KuWrjpia. 6. 
 Kopojvis, 7. 
 
 lac. = lacuna. 
 
 Lachmann, K., on the text of the N. T. 
 
 122 (note^ ; on Lucretius, 125 sqq. 
 Lagomarsini, G., 124. 
 Lambinus, D., 113. 
 Lampadio, 56. 
 Landriani, G., 224. 
 lemma, 145-6. 
 
 Lexicon Vindobonense quoted, 7. 
 line, its standard length in the pap^Tus 
 
 roll, 9 (note, 11. 
 lipography, 190. 
 Livius Andronicus, his version of the 
 
 Odyssey, 7. 
 Loisel, Antoine, 295. 
 Lombards become Italianized, 95. 
 lorum, 14. 
 
 losses in Greek literature, causes of, 18. 
 Lucretius, text of, 57 ; Havercamp's 
 
 text, 118. 
 Lupus Servatus, his interest in Cicero's 
 
 works, 77 ; on collation, 87. 
 Lycurgus and the text of the three 
 
 tragedians, 29. 
 
 m. = manus. 
 
 m. sec. = manus secunda. 
 
 Mabillon, J., on the classics, 70; 
 
 founder of palaeography, 111-12. 
 Madvig, J. N., on method of criticism, 
 
 124 (note). 
 Mallei, S., 113. 
 Manogaldus on Ovid, 90. 
 marg. = margo, in margine et sim., i. e. 
 
 any marginal annotation or sign. 
 Martial, his evidence for the codex, 16 ; 
 
 text of, 137. 
 Mavortius, 63. 
 
 mediaeval scholars, methods of, 83. 
 Merovingian decay, 76 ; their texts, 
 
 metathesis, 176. 
 
362 
 
 INDEX 
 
 metre in early papj'ri, 12. 
 
 mixture of readings, 129. 
 
 Modi us, F., 1 16. 
 
 Moerbecke, William of, 147. ■ .. . 
 
 Mommsen, Th., on Solinus, ^4.-- f\' 
 
 monasticism, influence of the Cluniacs* 
 
 79-. 
 monkish interpolations, 189. 
 
 Montfaucon, ^ de, his Palaeographia 
 
 Grace a ^ ii2W 
 Musurus, his edition of Hesychius, 
 
 105; of Aristophanes, 206. 
 
 Netherlands, scholarship of the, 116. 
 Niccoli, Nicolo de'. 100. 
 Nicolaus Cusanus, no. 
 Nicomachi, 63, 65. 
 
 notaeiuris, 166; notaeTironianae. 166. 
 de Noh's, tract, 54. 
 Notker Labeo, 70. 
 
 numerals, corruption in transcribing, 
 180. 
 
 Odo of Cmny* 79 
 
 ofi(l>a\6s, 14. ' "■ ■*■ '-J 
 
 Orleans, 81. • 
 
 orthography, Cassiodorus on. 87 ; 
 
 Irish, 86. 
 Otto I, 78. 
 
 Pacificus of Verona, 95. 
 
 pagina. 6. 
 
 palaeography, growth of, 108 s(j/j. 
 
 Palaeologi, revival under the, 43. 
 
 palimpsests, 83 
 
 Pamphiluh of Cacsarea, 18. 
 
 Pancgyricus Berengarii, 95. 
 
 Papebroch, D., in. 
 
 paper, Chinese origin of, i. 
 
 papyrus, where grown. 3 ; Theo- 
 phrastus' account of, 5 ; introduced 
 into Greece, 4 ; its price in Athens 
 and Rome, 5. 16 ; signs used in 
 papyri, 13; its fragility, 14; failure 
 in the supply of, 17 (note) . 
 
 -napaSoais, i. e. the traditional text, 37. 
 
 paraphrases, 41. 
 
 Paulinus of Nola. 62. 
 
 Peiresc, N., 118 note). 
 
 pentads, 8. 
 
 Pcrgamum, 31 (and note' ; Pergamene 
 scholarship, 54. 
 
 Petrarch on copyists, 100. 
 
 Petrie Phaedo, the, 29. 
 
 philyrae. 5 
 
 Pindar, text of, 46, 
 
 Pithoeus, P., 1 16. 
 
 plagula, 6. 
 
 Plautus, text of, 57. 
 
 Pliny, on papyrus, 5. 
 
 pluteus, 287. 
 
 Poggio, on owners of MSS., 100 ; on 
 copyists, loi ; his work on the text 
 k of Cicero, 219. 
 '■'T*d(Ttrah, 106 and note\ 
 
 Pomponius, Laetus. 102 (note). 
 
 Priene, inscription from, 15. 
 
 primitus uidetur fuisse Sec. , i. e. the first 
 hand reads, &c. 
 
 probationes pennae. 85, 183. 
 
 Prpbus and Vergil, 58, 60. 
 
 pronunciation, 183 ; as a source of 
 error, 176. 
 
 proper names, specialh' liable to cor- 
 ruption, 155, i8i ; how designated, 
 
 159- 
 ■npojTuKoWov, 14. 
 
 psychological errors, 154. 
 
 punct. subi. =puncto subiccto, cf. s. v. 
 
 Exp. 
 punctuation, 61 ; Cassiodorus on, 66 ; 
 
 Jerome on, 86 ; Alcuin on, 86, 87. 
 Puteaneus of Livy, 85. 
 
 ' ■*; 
 
 Quadrivium, 'Ji/^ 4 ■ 
 
 quaternions, 84. 
 
 quinternions, 84. 
 
 Qiiintilian on alterations made by 
 
 editors, 59. 
 quire, 84 ;note 2). 
 quotations, in ancient writers, 14 ; as 
 
 evidence for a text, 141. 
 
 ras. - rasura. 
 
 Rather of Verona. 78. 
 
 recc. = codices recentiores. 
 
 recension, 109 ; ancient recensions, 
 139; of Martial, 251; of Plautus, 
 261 ; as defined by F. A. Wolf. 122. 
 
 reclamantes, 84. 
 
 recto, 6, 84. 
 
 Regula S. Benedicti, text of, 109 Sfjq. 
 
 Renaissance in Italy, 97 sq. 
 
 Ribbeck. O., 156. 
 
 Ritschl, F., quoted, 23. 
 
 Roger, M., on Roman education in 
 Gaul, 75. 
 
 roll, of vellum, i ; reasons for its popu- 
 larity, 2 ; sizes of, 6 ; Alexandrine 
 standards, 9 ; effect of these on 
 literary composition, 8 
 
 Salisbury, John of, 70 ; on logic, 80 ; 
 
 on Bernard of Chartres, 70, 81. 
 Sallust. A. Gellius on text of, 59. 
 Salutati, 99 ; on corruption in texts, 
 
 103-4. 
 Scaliger on H. Stephanus, 117. 
 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 
 
 0032206739 
 
 887 
 
 H14 
 
 vlJ 
 
 • 
 
 o'h 
 
 ") 
 
 REPi 
 
 
 ^eb 
 
 -^cRED 
 
 4 
 
 '% 
 
 5 
 
 r 
 
 BOUND 
 JUN Z 5 195* 
 
 DEC 9 1940 
 

 iTi'. .r 
 
 : . 
 
 
 -*t'IJ»l*.*MCll 
 
 
 ..■■>■ 
 
 .'Hs'3 
 
 :» •!»•• 
 
 .^r't-V,' 
 
 :»" » •~A'« 
 
 * # • J 9 t t « 
 
 
 
 • •'.'i' 
 
 
 
 » -• ' • •?• r* # • w-^^* •**'« 
 
 
 .♦;':>-^^' ::>::: 
 
 4 • • « « 
 
 
 
 '.,t ,'*• 
 
 u • * 
 
 ^ I. : 
 
 
 /M- 
 
 '•Mr 
 
 ( 
 
 ^ 
 
 ;' 
 
 .IV 
 
 • 
 
 1 •. 
 
 ill;;' 
 
 * n 
 
 . . • * • ♦ . r.'»'. • 
 
 ' ■■^rf i iii w j^-Mrt ^ s iii t^iJ i .<»i t>iiti(|gg^