A Harvard Manuscript of Ovid, Palladius and Tacitus 9781463222185

Citation preview

A Harvard Manuscript of Ovid, Palladius and Tacitus

A n a l e c t a Gorgiana

385 Series Editor George Anton Kiraz

Analecta Gorgiana is a collection of long essays and

short

monographs which are consistently cited by modern scholars but previously difficult to find because of their original appearance in obscure publications. Carefully selected by a team of scholars based on their relevance to modern scholarship, these essays can now be fully utili2ed by scholars and proudly owned by libraries.

A Harvard Manuscript of Ovid, Palladius and Tacitus

Edward Kennard Rand

gorgia? press 2009

Gorgias Press LLC, 180 Centennial Ave., Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2009 by Gorgias Press LLC Originally published in All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2009

1

ISBN 978-1-60724-634-3

ISSN 1935-6854

Extract from The ^American Journal of Philology 26 (1905)

Printed in the LTnited States of America

II.—A H A R V A R D M A N U S C R I P T O F PALLADIUS AND TACITUS. PART

OVID,

I.

A fifteenth century manuscript recently acquired by Harvard University deserves the attention of classical scholars, as it contains not only several unedited humanistic works, but also certain portions of Ovid, Palladius and Tacitus which exist only in manuscripts of the fifteenth century. In a previous article 1 I have published a collation of the Ovid text (Heroides X X I 1-144) with a partial description of the manuscript. The present paper contains a more detailed description, with collations of the Palladius and Tacitus texts. The manuscript in question, numbered L 25 is of parchment, with page size 20.3 x 13 cm. It is written in what seems Italic script, with colored capitals and intitulations. The edges are gilt. The fifteenth-century binding consists of boards covered with leather, which is stamped with various patterns of Venetian style; on either side there are brass bosses at the center and the four corners. The manuscript, which was purchased by Harvard College in 1902 from the bookseller Quaritch, was formerly in the possession of Sir Thomas Phillips of Middle Hill and Cheltenham. A brief description in his Catalogus Librorum Manuscriptorum of 1837, No. 6748, states that the volume was bought of the bookseller Payne. Various of Payne's catalogues of about that date make no mention of the volume : it is doubtful whether his description, if contained in some catalogue inaccessible to me, includes any item of value. In my former article, I have tried to date the manuscript between 1455 and 1471 (the year when the editio princeps of Ovid appeared) on the strength of the title of Ovid's letter given in the table of contents—OVIDII" V L T I M A * E P I S T O L A • N O V I T E R • R E P E R T A - This dating, I need not add, is not thereby demonstrated: still, it is at least made highly probable. In the careful account in Quaritch's catalogue,2 the 1 2

Transactions of the Amer. Phil. Assoc. X X X V (1904), p. 128. No. 211 (1902), p. 59.

292

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

manuscript is dated, I know not on what grounds, as about 1460. T h e most important fact omitted in Quaritch is that the volume includes two separate manuscripts ; they are noted here as MS. I and MS. II. fol. 1 - 4 .

T h e contents of the volume are as follows :

T w o uniones, a d d e d w h e n M S . I and M S . I I w e r e combined.

I is pasted to the cover.

written in capitals of the fifteenth century. 1455-1471.

T h e exact date, if I am right, is

B o t h M S S . , naturally, were written before the date of binding.

IN • H O C • V O L U M I N E • C O N T I N E T V R • A T HEN IEN • N O N N V L L A • I E P I S T O L A AD

Fol.

F o l . 4® contains the f o l l o w i n g table of c o n t e n t s ,

DECRETA • • ESCHINIS

•

ATHENIEN • | VIRGILII • VITA • A • L E O N A R D O •

AR°. | E S C H I N I S • D E M A D I S • D E M O S T H E N • O R O E S | DEMOSTHENIS TACIT

• DE

• EPISTOLA • AD • ALEx"- | CORN •

• ORIGINE

• ET

• SITV

• GEMANIE

•|

BASILII • O R O • T R A D V C T A • A LEON • A r ° - | X E N O PHON • D E T Y R A N N O • A LEO • AR° IMP

• RO • A • FR

• PETRACHA

| COMENTARIA •

• | PALLADIVS

• DE

A R T E • INSITIONIS • | OVIDII • EPISTOLA • N O V I T E K • REPERTA

• | PHILIPPI • REGIS • E P L A • A D

• ATHE-

NIENM S . I. T h i s manuscript consists of a single septenion.

It has 22 lines to the p a g e .

T h e text occupies 1 2 . 2 x 6 . 4 c m .

fol. 5.

Rynucius Poggio suo Oratori Eximio | felicitatem (in

red) Ille Rem optimam et sibi salutarem uita nemini datur effugere fatum. fol. 18.*

(fol. 18).

A t in

(One line blank) F I N I S ,

Blank.

A n unpublished letter of R i n u c c i da Castiglione to P o g g i o , with translations of the A t h e n i a n decrees c o n t a i n e d in the D e Corona of D e m o s t h e n e s . The letter must h a v e b e e n written before 1459, w h e n P o g g i o died ; probably b e f o r e 1453, w h e n he l e f t R o m e ; and possibly much earlier still, as he was s t u d y i n g G r e e k with R i n u c c i as early as 1425. See V o i g t , W i e d e r b e l e b u n g des klass. A l t e r t h u m s , 1893, I I , pp. 45, 84. T h e present copy might w e l l have b e e n made about the m i d d l e of the century.

MS. II. T h i s manuscript consists of ten quinions. the text occupies 1 2 . 7 x 6 . 4 cm.

It has 23 lines to the page ;

A HARVARD

MS. OF OVID,

PALLADIUS,

TACITUS.

293

fol. 19. Rex Macedonum Philippus Atheniensium | Senatui plebiq(ue) salutem : traducía p(er). leo.(nardum) aretinu(m) | (in red). Quoniam persepe iam legatos misi (fol. 24) diis testibus inuocatis pro rebus meis pugnabo. Bruni's translation (unpublished) of Philip's letter to the Athenians=Demosth. ed. Dindorf-Blass lSg2, I pp. 182-194.

fol. 24. Eschines atromiti. s(enatui). populoq(ue) athenien(si). sal(utem) | (in red). {One line blank). Ego me ad rem publicam contuli (fol. 26") magis q(uam) Menalopo contra nos roganti annuere. This is the translation, likewise unpublished, of Aeschines, Epist. X I I ed. Blass 1896, pp. 311-316.

fol. 26". Leonardi aretini in vitam virgilij excer | ptam ex comentarijs Seruij gramatici | (in red) V I R G 1 L I U S • M A R O ' M A N T V A N V S | parentibus modicis fuit . . . . (fol. 32) ad sacietatem maliuolor(um) cederent. fol. 32. Eschinis oratoris ad Athenienses oratio (in red) (One line blank). Reminiscor athenienses Alexandrum hac in nostra urbe (32") sibi supplicesq(ue) inuenerit. This and the three pieces following I have been unable to find in the works of the authors to whom they are ascribed. They bear the stamp of unintelligent school-exercises—or possibly they are Bruni's own invention.

fol. 32". Demadis oratoris ad Athenienses contio (in red) (One line blank). Admirans uehementer admiror Athenien(ses) . . . . (fol. 33) consiliis uacu(am) facilius diripiat. fol. 33. Demosthenis oratoris ad Athenienses contio (in red) (One line blank). Apud nos in questione uerti uideo . . . . (fol. 33") ne similes simus Thebanis. (One line blank). Demosthenis ad Alex(andru)m macedonie regem ep(istu)la | (in red) (One line blank). || fol. 34. Nihil habet Rex Alexander uel fortuna tua niaius (fol. 35") que hodierno die cum hec feceris consecuturus es. Vale. (One line blank). fol. 36. C O R N E L I I - T A C I T I • E Q V I T I S • R O • | D E O R I G I N E E T S I T V • G E R M A N I E | L I B E R • INCIPIT • F E L I C I T E R • j (in red). Germania omnis (fol. 55) in mediu(m) relinquam. (two lines blank).

294

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

fol. 55". Basilij oratio de studijs secularibus traducía | per Leonardum aretinum ad coluciu(m) salutatum | (in red). E g o tibi hu / / / librum colucci . . . . (fol. 56) q(uae)so q(uan)ta grauitas sit. Basilij oratio incipit traducta a leonardo are- | tino ad Colucium salutatum. uirum cL(arissimu)m. (in red). Mvlta sunt filiique hortantur . . . . (69" nunc recta C o n s i l i a aspernantes. T h i s is the earliest of Bruni's translations.

S e e V o i g t op. cit. I I p. 164.

Incipit prohemium Xenophontis phy(losophi) de ui | ta Tyrannica traducti a Leonardo aretino | ad NicoLaum niccolum uirum doctissimu(m). (in red) (One line blank). XENOP H O N T I S P H Y L O S O P H I QÜE- | dam libellum quem ego . . . . (fol. 71) nullo modo ausi sumus attingere. (One line blank). Xenophontis de tyrannica uita liber incipit. (in red) (One line blank). CVM A D H Y E R O N E M T I R A N N V ( M ) | Symonides poeta . . . . (fol. 86v) nemo tibi inuidebit. (One line blank). T h i s too b e l o n g s in the c y c l e of Bruni's early translations.

See Voigt op.

cit. I I . 165.

fol. Commentaria imp(eratorum) rom(anorum) a Iulio Caes(are) edita p(er) | Franciscum. petrarcham usq(ue) ad t(em)p(o)ra sua. (in red) (One line blank). ( O ) P T A S (ALARISSIME M A R C H I O HE-1 roicarum cultor uirtutum (fol. 108") nisi modicum occidentis. (in red) (One line blank). T h i s is B e n e v e n u t u s de R a m b a l d i s d e Imola, Liber Angus talis, often appeari n g in collections of Petrarch's works, as in the Basel edition, 1581, pp. 516-

530. fol. 108«. Palladij carmina de arte insitionis (in red) ( Two lines blank.) (H) A B E S • A L I V D • I N D V L T E • F I D V C I E | testimonium . . . . (fol. 113) rusticitate lege. FINIS. (One line blank). = Palladius, Opus Agriculturae, Book X I V .

fol. 113". C E D I P P E • A C O N T I O H E R O I D V M | O V I D I I • V L T I M A • E P I S T O L A . | Pertimui . . . . (fol. 116») legendus eras. (14 lines blank). = O v i d , H e r o i d e s X X I 1-144-

fol. 117-118 Blank.

Fol. 118" pasted to the cover.

A HARVARD

MS. OF OVID, PALLADIUS,

Palladius, Opus Agriculturae,

TACITUS.

2g$

XIV.

The most recent editor of Palladius, J. C. Schmitt (Leipzig, 1898), distinguishes three classes among the manuscripts of Book X I V , the metrical De Insitione. In the first and best class he places A (Vindobonensis 3198) and H (Vaticanus 5245): in the second D (Laurentianus LIII 15): in the third C (Laurentianus X L V I I 24) and B (Vindobonensis 4772 saec. X V I init.). All of these are of the fifteenth century except B, and all are paper manuscripts except C, which is parchment. Schmitt does not construct his text exclusively from A H . He recognizes that the correct reading is given by CB (with which D sometimes agrees) in several instances. For example, (I quote pages and lines from Schmitt's edition) 261, n operant for opera-, 262, 20 condemnabile for commendabile; 264, 25 prem.it for petunt-, 265, 18 rubere C for rubore. The title of the work, also, is doubtless preserved better in the manuscripts of the inferior family—best of all in C: P A L L A D 11 R U T I L I I T A U R I A E M I L I A N I D E I N S I T I O N E L I B E R A D PASIP H I L U M V. D. 1 At the same time there are traces of incorporated glosses in this class, such as 262, 16 rustica for vilia (cf. rusticitate in the foregoing verse): 267, 7 mutare for variare; 269, 3 debitum. for meritum. An interpolation occurs in the unnecessary potius, 261, 11, a stupid blunder in cetera for cerea 267, 5, while summo robore fissa capit (for sumunt robora fissa capuf) is an instance, it would appear, of violent and unintelligent emendation. In A H , on the other hand, I can find only one probable instance of an incorporated gloss, i. e. 265, 20 poma for dona. In the main, the mistakes in this class seem due simply to carelessness: e. g. 264, 7 steriles pinguis for sterilis pingues-, 266, 14 terret for terrent; 268, permutant {or permutat. Semina for aemula, 266, 11, and petunt for prem.it, 264, 25 are more serious errors, but do not seem the result of emendation. Commendabile for condemnabile, 262, 20 might be accounted an intentional correction, were it not possible to trace the mistake to the recollection of commendas in verse 16. I think, therefore, that Schmitt is quite right in recognizing in A H the safer tradition and following their authority in cases subject to no other ' S e e U s e n e r , A n e c d o t o n H o l d e r i 1877, pp. 9, 15 and Jahrbücher f. k l a s s . P h i l o l o g i e , S u p p l e m e n t e d . X X V I (1901) p. 446 ff.

296

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

criterion ; for e x a m p l e , 260, 10 servorum, not famulorum,; 267, 8 sodali, not sorori-, 269, 17 lege, not leges. C o d e x D stands m i d w a y b e t w e e n the two classes. T h e writer p o s s i b l y h a d b e f o r e him j u s t s u c h a g l o s s e d manuscript as that from which C B were c o p i e d , but selected f r o m the variants with g r e a t e r discrimination ; or, m o r e p r o b a b l y , it is the o f f s p r i n g of a manuscript o f t h e A H class, m o r e c l o s e l y related to H than to A , a n d revised from a c o d e x o f the C B t y p e . D has v a l u e chiefly in c o r r o b o r a t i n g certain r e a d i n g s in H . It has no independent significance, a n d s h o u l d not be c o n s i d e r e d as the representative of a distinct class. T h e r e are really o n l y t w o classes a m o n g the m a n u scripts u s e d b y S c h m i t t — A H a n d C B . T o S c h m i t t b e l o n g s the credit of d i s c o v e r i n g the former and better c l a s s ; p r e v i o u s editors h a p p e n e d to follow the inferior manuscripts. A g l a n c e at the a p p e n d e d collation will show that the H a r v a r d c o d e x 1 b e l o n g s with the better family of manuscripts. What n o w of its relation to the other representatives of this class ? A c o m p a r i s o n of the r e a d i n g s reveals a s t r i k i n g kinship with A , a result that m i g h t be p r o p h e s i e d from external features of the t w o texts. F o r as s h o w n in the previous article, in b o t h m a n u scripts the Palladius is p r e c e d e d b y O v i d , H e r o i d e s X X I 1 - 1 4 4 , w h e r e again the t e x t s a r e c l o s e l y related. N o w as A l a c k s of the D e Insitione t h e i n t r o d u c t o r y letters to Pasiphilus ( 2 6 1 - 2 6 3 , 34), it c o u l d not h a v e b e e n the direct s o u r c e of P. A s P l a c k s the h e a d i n g D E S I L I Q U A (267, 3) a n d part of the supers c r i p t i o n of the O v i d text, 2 a n d presents peculiar m i s t a k e s 3 w h i c h d o not a p p e a r in A , A was not c o p i e d from P. T h e y d e s c e n d , then, from a c o m m o n a r c h e t y p e . H represents a different b r a n c h , from w h i c h D also d e r i v e s ; but the testimony of D can not help m u c h in establishing this g r o u p , since its text has b o r r o w e d s o e x t e n s i v e l y from the C B family. 4 A c o m p a r i s o n of the t w o divisions of the better class s h o w s that it w o u l d be arbitrary to g i v e the palm of pre-eminence t o either one of them. F o r , to n e g l e c t for the m o m e n t the r e a d i n g s w h i c h the united manuscripts o f the better family h a v e against the inferior, w e find that A P offers the following p r o b a b l e errors in c o m m o n . I g i v e , first, the correct reading, c o n t a i n e d , unless 1 1 w i l l refer to the manuscript as P(hilippicus) in discussing the Palladius text, to avoid confusion with Schmitt's H . 2 Transactions. 3 See b e l o w p. 297. O p . cit. p. 133. ' S e e b e l o w , p. 298, for their common mistakes.

A HARVARD

MS. OF OVID, TALLADIUS,

TACITUS.

297

otherwise stated, in H ( D ) , and then the erroneous form in A P . First, the titles should be noted. T h e form in H , Palladij Rutilij Tauri aemiliani ad Pastellum de InsUione Liber, in spite of the mistake in the proper name and its position before, not after, the names of the work, is nearer to the correct form as found in C 1 than is Palladii Rutilii Tauri de Insitione Liber A or Palladij carmina de arte insitionis P. T h e other errors are 263, 23 figuntur\ finguntur; 24 fissa"] fix a; 264, 24 pugnacibus\ pugnaniibtis; 265, 21 parei] pares; 23 sudibus~\ suibus; 27 pruno\ primo; 266, 18 pasturi] palustri; 268, 2 curua\ cutru A cur a (citra?) P ; 19 docet\ decet A decet (?) 2 P ; 20 in modicam] Immodicam; 269, 2 amygdaleos] amigdoleos—twelve in all. T o this list A adds ten more contributions 263, 21 nam\ hanc\ 22 credita~\ credite; 25 lumoris\ tumores,; 28 Bacchi\ bachi H;3 264, 1 uitis] uiris-, genus] gemis; uiuida] inuidia\ 265, 17 Baccho] bacho H ; 266, 18 redolentia\ reddentia; 268, 6 cydonea\ cicodena. P ' s mistakes, likewise ten in number, are 262, 1 diu] dici-, pudorem meum\ pudore meutn-, 5 nugis~\ magis-, 7 oculos~\ oculus; 264, 6 feros~\ ferox; 11 commodaf\ commodum.-, 16 mitescere] nitescere; 265, 13 distendere~\ descendere\ 266, 16] non el] monet-, 267, 3 D E S I L I Q U A ] om.; 268, 2 suos A ] suoi H . It will be noted that four of the mistakes in P occur in the prose introduction, which is lacking in A . W i t h these deducted, then, P has fewer mistakes than A ; they are, however, of a somewhat more serious character. W e cannot, therefore, on this g r o u n d , place either manuscript before the other. T h e distinct superiority of the H a r v a r d C o d e x is, however, apparent from the fact that it contains the introductory letters to Pasiphilus. W i t h the help of P, w e may now confidently introduce into the opening sections various readings from H , w h i c h Schmitt, with the material at his disposal, evidently did not think it safe to a d o p t : e. g . 260, 6 opus; 11 omit potius; 262, 6 quaeral for quaeret; 8 quaedam sunt for sunt quaedam. P likewise sub1

S e e above, p. 295.

21

am uncertain w h e t h e r the manuscript reads decet or docet.

31

assume that this easy error recurs in H i n d e p e n d e n t l y , not as a bequest from a common tradition. 4 T h e archetype of the better class m i g h t h a v e had fuor (perhaps at the end o f the line), so that again w e have i n d e p e n d e n t mistakes in P and H , or the latter's archetype (cf. sua in D). 20

298

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

stantiates, I believe, one of the readings of the inferior class, 261, 9 scio} Turning now to H, we notice, with the help of D, certain mistakes contained in their archetype, namely, 261,9 scio] extimo: 266,6 aspernata] spernata-, probably 268, 2 suo2; 21 odore feras] odoriferas ; 269, 2 pistacia] pistachia. H alone has the following seventeen : 262, the insertion of Argumentum before the poetry ; 10 Pasiphile] Passigle\ 263, 2 onusta] honusta\ 28 Bacchi] bachP ; 264, 3 onusta] honusta ; 16 quin] quid; 27 decore] decere ; 265, 6 D E M A L O ] De Pomo4; 17 Baccho] bacho%\ 266, 3 D E C Y D O N E O ] De Fulua cidonea5; 268, 10 adoptiuus] adoptmis\ 12 gemmis] geminis; 15 D E A M Y G D A L O ] De Amingdalo ( A M I G D A L O A amigdalo P ) ; 23 mirari] miraci: 269,1 D E P I S T A C I I S ] De Pistachis\ 2 amygdaleos] amingdaleos (amigdoleos A P ) ; 8 liquore uigent] uigore uigent. Doubtless, if a manuscript could be produced as nearly related to H as D is, but one presenting a purer text, it would be found that several of the above mistakes are not peculiar to H, but descend from the archetype. All told, the amount of error in this group, determined as well as may be from H and D, is almost exactly equal to the individual mistakes of either A or B plus their common errors, though compared with either one of these manuscripts, H presents a somewhat less serious array of defects. But the errors of the archetype of A and P, which through the help of the Harvard manuscript we can now reconstruct, cannot be proved to be more weighty—or less weighty—than those of the archetype of H D from the material at our disposal. A new codex of the H D group would settle this question, about which x Existimo, given by Schmitt, is well-nigh unintelligible, and especially awkward with aestimo immediately preceding. Aestimo may well have been an attempted correction, written as a gloss on extimo, the corrupted form of existimo; the gloss was incorporated and thus forced out scio. MaXUgne exMstimd makes a clausula more in the author's manner than ma\Ugne 1 desti\md. I would read, then : maligne existimo. Scio. 2 See above, p. 297, n. 4. 3 See above, p. 297, n. 3. 4 T h e reading of D, De malo Seu Pomo, indicates that the archetype of H D , like that of A P , had D E M A L O , D having added to this, as usual, the reading of the inferior class, or found the gloss already in its original, as P must have done. 5 D appears to have added malo from the title in the inferior class, D E M A L O C Y D O N E O , and inserted it in the wrong place—De Cydomo malo T h e peculiar variant in H, therefore, is an idiosyncrasy.

A HARVARD

MS. OF OVID,

PALLADI

US, TACITUS.

299

it is unprofitable to speculate now. At present we may state only that the two groups in the superior class are about on a par in their deviations from the correct text, and are both important for its reconstruction. As for the Harvard manuscript, then, it is of present service in making plain the above facts, and in showing the need of several corrections of Schmitt's text of the introductory prose letter. While one may not claim for it pre-eminence over all the manuscripts of the De Insitione, it is certainly superior to A, and with A constitutes one of the two equal groups which make up the better class of manuscripts. The results we have then found may be represented by the following stemma. I have not attempted a further analysis of C and B or the early editions. x

fi D C B edd.

Collation of the Harvard Manuscript Edition of Palladius, Book

with SchmiWs XIV.

Title] Palladij carmina de arte insitionis (in red). Schmitt, p. 261. 5 Habes] ABES indultae] INDVLTE (ae always written e) 6 opus de arte] opus tibi de arte 9 numquam] nunq(am) existimo] scio 11 operam eius] eius opera 362. 1 diu] dici pudorem] pudore 2 feci] fecit 3 ad has modo] modo ad has

Schmitt, p. 363. 4 quaeret] querat adfectio] affectio 5 nugis] magis 6 existimare] extimare 7 oculos] oculus 8 sunt quaedam] quedam s(un)t 9 conpendia] compendi 17 adfeetu] affectu socii] sotij 20 condemnabile] commenda^ bile

3 Schmitt,

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

22 thalami] talami specie] spetie 23 suboli] soboli utrimque] utrinq(ue) 24 adftnibus] affinibus 26 foederibus] federibus (oe always written e) 3 sidera] sydera 19 species] speties 33 figuri tu r] tinguntur 24 fissa] fixa 37 DB VITE] (in red) 30 gemmis] gemis inplicat] implicat 4 DE OLIVA] De oliua. (In red. The remaining titles are in red minuscules.) 6 feros] f e r o x 7 sterilis pingues] steriles pinguis 11 commodat] Commodum 16 phyllida] Phillida mitescere] nitescere 20 inmissi] immissi cydonea] cidonia 24 pugnacibus] p u g n a n t i b u s 25 premit] p e t u n t 26 libycis] libicis 2 adsociata] associata 6 DE POMO] De malo 8 sociam] sotiam 13 distendere] descendere 16 Nymphis] nimphis 17 Thyrsigero] thirsigero 18 rubere] rubore 20 dona] poma PART

Tacitus'

OF

PHILOLOGY.

Schmitt, p. 265. 31 paret] pares 33 sudibus] suibus 37 pruno] primo 366. 1 phyllidis] phillidis 3 DE MALO CYDONEO] De cydoneo 4 praestet] prestent cydonea] cidonea 11 Aemula] Semina 12 admisso] amisso 14 t e r r e n t ] t e r r e t 16 nonet] monet 18 pasturi] palustri 267. 1 fetus] f o e t u s 3 DE SILIQ VA] om. 4 AdBuescunt] Assuescunt 16 commercia] commertia 19 fetus] f o e t u s 34 terebinthus] tberebindus 268. 1 suos] suo 3 curua] cura or citra ( ? ) 6 adnexo] annexo cydonea] cydonia 12 conpellit] compellit 16 DE AMYGDALO] De amigdolo 16 Phyllis] Phillis 17 tegit] t e g e t (gerit erased) 18 p e r m u t â t ] p e r m i t t a n t 19 docet] docet or decet (?) 3(1 in modicam] Immodicam 269. 1 amygdaleos] amigdoleos 2 petunt] ferunt 3 terebinthus] therebintus 7 et] om. 14 Cetera, quae] Cetera q3 sollers] solera II.

Germania.

Since the publication of Professor Abbott's careful study of the Toledo codex of the Germania,1 the existence of a third class among the manuscripts of this work, distinct from X and Y can no longer be doubted. Various scholars had previously suspected the existence of such a class, and had called attention to manuscripts which seemed to derive from some source other than X and Y, but the evidence thus alleged has not appeared conclusive. Now, however, it is clear that the class E, of which the Toletanus is the most significant representative, is not only dis1 The Toledo Manuscript of the Germania of Tacitus, in the Decennial Publications of the University of Chicago, 1903.

A HARVARD

MS. OF OVID, PALLADIUS,

TACITUS.

301

tinct from X and Y , but a better source than either. It avoids mistakes committed by one or the other of these classes, agreeing now with X , now with Y in preserving the true text. Wunsch's suggestion 1 that owing to the late date oi the manuscript—1474 —these good readings may be mere conjectures, is hardly justified, since they are to be found in either of the two classes. Moreover, since the Codex Venetus, written in 1464,2 gives, as I shall try to show, 3 a Y text revised from an E source, and since the archetype of this manuscript and the Parisinus presented the same peculiarity, the existence of the Class E is proved for a date at least ten years earlier than that of the Toletanus. One might postulate that the original of T , which is related in various ways to A was a manuscript of the X class corrected from a Y source, but in this case we should expect some traces of this contamination in a manuscript which otherwise preserves variants so carefully. Abbott's carefully reasoned conclusions on this point are decisive; 4 they have been accepted by Wiinsch, and, to my knowledge, by all other reviewers of Abbott's treatise. W e need now a thorough scrutiny of all the manuscripts of the E class, to determine the characteristic errors of this tradition, and thus ascertain its exact value. Fresh evidence on this point should not be expected from the Harvard manuscript; 5 it has nothing to do with the class E. A glance at the appended collation, furthermore, will discover an astounding array of imperfections in its text. For all that, as I hope to show, the manuscript has an importance of its own. Collation of the Harvard Manuscript with Muellerihoff s Text of the Germania. fol. 36.

Title

] CORNELII • TACITI • EQVITIS • RO |

D E ORIGINE E T SITU • G E R M A N I E | LIBER • INCIPIT • F E L I C I T E R {in red). 1

B e r l . Phil. W o c h . 1904, c. 876. D e T a c i t i G e r m a n i a e A p p a r a t u Critico, 1847, p. 21.

2Tagmann, 3

See b e l o w p. 316

5

F o r the T a c i t u s text I w i l l refer to the manuscript as , since both H and

ff.

P are n e e d e d for other codices.

* O p . cit. p. 30.

302

A ME RICAN

JO URNAL

fol. 36 1, 1 Raetisque] rhetijs q? 2 Danuvio] danuuio (always u, not y) 3 metu] meatu Oceanus] occeanus: always occ. 4 latos] lat 6 Raeticarum] rateicarum 7 praecipiti] precipiti (a© alivays written e except 2, 15; 37, 21.) 10 Abuobae] arnobe (in r. margin ai arbone) pluris] plures 11 sex] se 12 h a u r i t u r ] haurit 2, 6 aditur II fol. 36» 2, 6 porro] om. 8 terris, asperam] terris. Asperam 9 si] om. 12 Tuisconem] Tyifconem in left marg. at tirfonem j> tuil'man (perhaps tuifinan ?) 13 et] eius 14 conditoresque] conditorisq? tris] t r e s Manno] M air no 15 Ingaevones] ingaerones (perhaps ingaevones) 16 Herminones] hermimones Istaevones] inrtenones 2, 17 u t in] a u t e m pluris] plures deo] deos plurisque] p l u r e s q j 18 appellationes, Marsos] appellationes. Marsos Gambriios] gambrinios Suebos] sueos 19 Vandilios] uandilos 21 additum] editum 22 Tungri] t o t u n g r i 23 sint] f t 24 evaluisse paulatim] eualuisse. P a u l a t i m omnes] omnis 25 etiam] & 3, 1 apud eos et] et apud eos 2 omnium II fol. 37 3, 2 proelia] prelia (oe always written e except 21, 1; 28, 7.) 3 haec] huius 4 barditum] bardicum vocant, accendunt] uocant Accendere

OF PHIL

O LOGY.

fol. 37

7 vocis] uoces videtur] v i d e n t u r 9 obiectis] om. 10 Vlixen] ulixem 12 terras] t e r r e 14 nominatumque : aram] nominatumq?/ / / / ///////////Aram 17 et] om. 18 Raetiaeque] rhetieq? 4, 1 ipse] I t e m Germaniae] germanie II 2 conubiis] connubiis 4, 8 patientia] potentia fol. 37v 10 assuerunt] a s s u e u e r u n t 6, 1 specie] spetie n n 3 qua . . . qua] a . . . a g r e e s with Y . T h e list includes these m i s t a k e s — I a d d the r e a d i n g s of T for contrast.

5, 8 propitiine T ] p r o p i t i i ; 12 perinde T B perinde A ]

altogether. O f the manuscripts discussed in the present article I have seen none except the Harvard codex. F o r A B C D I depend on Mullenhoff, with A b b o t t ' s corrections; for E , on A b b o t t ' s collation of T , Roediger's of e ! (Deutsche Alterthumsk. I V , p. 691 if.) and Reitzenstein's notes on p, R d R e (Philologus L V I I (1898), p. 307). Professor Minton W a r r e n has k i n d l y examined for me a few readings in R b and R d . Statements as to the other manuscripts X take from Wiinsch's dissertation, D e T a c i t i Germaniae C o d i c i bus Germanicis, 1893 ( = Diss.) and his article in H e r m e s X X X I I (1897), p. 42 ( = Herm.). For readings that I find implied, but not directly stated in these various articles, I print the symbol of the manuscript in i t a l i c s — e x c e p t for ABCDT. leave out of account the f o l l o w i n g c a s e s : 3, 9 o b i e c t i s ; here