A Textual History of Cicero's Academici Libri 9004109706, 9789004109704

Citation preview

A TEXTUAL HISTORY OF CICERO'S ACADEMIC! LIBRI

MNEMOSYNE BIBLIOTHECA CLASSICA BATAVA COLLEGERUNT J.M. BREMER • L. F. JANSSEN • H. PINKSTER H. W. PLEKET · C.J. RUIJGH • P.H. SCHRIJVER~ BIBLIOTHECAE FASCICULOS EDENDOS CURAVIT C ..J. RUUGH, KLASSIEK SEMINARIUM, OUDE TURFMARKT 129, AMSTERDAM

SUPPLEMENTIJM CENfESIMUM OCTOGESIMUM PRIMUM

TERENCE

J. HUNT

A TEXTUAL HISTORY OF CICERO'S ACADEMIC/ LIBRI

A TEXTUAL HISTORY OF CICERO'S ACADEMIC/ LIBRI BY

TERENCE

J.

HUNT

BRILL LEIDEN · BOSTON · KOLN 1998

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Hunt, Terence J. A textual history of Cicero's Academici libri / by Terence J. Hunt. p. cm. - (Mnemosyne, bibliotheca classica Batava. Supplementum, ISSN 0 l 69-8958 ; 181) Text of Academica in Latin; commentary in English. Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 9004109706 1. Cicero, Marcus Tullius. Academica-Criticism, Textual. I. Cicero, 2. Knowledge, Theory 0£ 3. Philosophy, Ancient. III. Series. II. Title. Marcus Tullius. Academica. 1998 PA6296.A3H86 98-17524 186.2-dc21 CIP Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme [Mnemosyne/ Supplementum] Mnemosyne : bibliotheca classica Batava. Supplementum. - Leiden ; Boston ; Koln : Brill Friiher Schriftenreihe Teilw. u.d.T.: Mnemosyne/ Supplements Reihe Supplementum zu: Mnemosyne

181. Hunt, Terence].: A textual history of Cicero's "Academici libri". - 1998 Hunt, Terence J.: A textual history of Cicero's "Academici libri" / by Terence J. Hunt. Leiden ; Boston ; Koln : Brill, 1998 (Mnemosyne : Supplementum ; 181) ISBN 9(}---04- l097o-6

ISSN 0 169-8958 ISBN 90 04 10970 6

© Copyright 1998 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlo.nds All rights reserved. No part ef this publication mqy be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any TTIJ!ans, electronic, TTIJ!chanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission .from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid direct!J to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

CONTENTS

Preface .......................................................................................... List of Abbreviations .. .. ...... ..... .. .. .. .... .... ..... .. ......... ... .... .. ..... ... .... Conspectus Siglorum ........................................................ ............ Sigla of Reconstructed Manuscripts .. ........... ....... ........... ....... .. Works of Cicero ...................................................................... Frequently Cited Publications ................ .. .................. ....... .....

Ix XI XI

xn xnI XIV

Plates Introduction PART ONE

FROM ANTIQUITY TO THE RENAISSANCE Chapter One: The Problems ... .... ............... .. .... ..... ....... .. ..... ... .... The Composition .................... :............................................... The Title .. ...................... .. .. ......... .... ......... .. .. ....... ..... .... ....... .....

9 10 13

Chapter Two: Who Read the Academici Libri? ........................ In Antiquity ........ .... .... ............. .... .... .. ......... .. .. ... .. ..... .... ............ In the Middle Ages ................................................................ In the Renaissance ..................................................................

17 18 26 30

PART TWO

THE MANUSCRIPTS Chapter Three: The Evidence for Two Families

43

Chapter Four: d - The French Tradition ................................ The 12th-century Manuscripts .... .... .. .. .... ....... .. ....... ..... ......... 14th-century Extracts from P .......... .... .. .. ................ .. ....... ..... 15th-century Copies of P ..... ............... .... .. ....... .. ....... .. ....... ..... 15th-century Copies of Arnst ... ................. .... ..... .. .. ..... ......... ... The Stemma of d .. .... ........... .... .. ............... .. .. ..... .... ....... ....... .. .

48 48 55 56 60 65

VI

CONTENTS

Chapter Five: r - The Italian Tradition ................................ r and Petrarch ...................................................................... The Extant Manuscripts ... .. .. .. .. .. ....... .... ... .. ..... .. .. ... ...... .. .. .. .. . A North-east Italian Branch .................................................. A Florentine Branch .......... .......................... ... .......... .... ... ..... . The Relationship of the Italian Branches and the Character of r ...... ... .. ....... .... .. .. .... ......... .. .... .. .. ...... .............

67 67 71 71 86

Chapter Six: The Archetype .................................................... The Hyparchetypes r and ~ ....... .. ........... ........ .... .. .............. The De Finibus and the Academicus Primus ....................... ..... The Archetype ................................................... .....................

101 101 I 07 110

Chapter Seven: The Deteriores ...... ...... ....... ...... ... .. .... .... ...... .... .... Independent Descendants of Conv ...... .. .. ... .. .. ............. .. .. .. .. North-east Italian Descendants of Conv .............................. A Contaminated and Interpolated Group ...... .. ............... ... A Contaminated Roman Manuscript .. .. ... ........... .. .. ........ .... The Editio Princeps and its Apographs .................................. Esse Malebat Qy,am Vzderi ........................................................

113 116 160 183 205 209 215

95

PART THREE

SINCE THE EDITIO PRINCEPS Chapter Eight: The Printed Editions .. .......... .... ....... ............... The Diffusion ..... ... ..... .. ... .. ... ......... ........... .. ... .. .. .. ................ .... The Text ................................................................................ The Format ............................................................................

225 226 230 25 7

Chapter Nine: Summary and Conclusions ... .... .. ...... ....... .. .... .. When Did the Academici Libri Become Fragmentary? The Re-emergence of the Academicus Primus ........ .... ..... .... ... The Extent of Contamination ........ .. ....... .. ..... ..... .. ....... .. .. .. .. Plasberg as an Editor ... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ... ..... ..... .... ....... .. .. .....

260 260 261 265 265

Appendices Appendix A: Lost Manuscripts

273

Appendix B: A List of Printed Editions ..............................

276

CONTENTS

Vll

Bibliography

299

Indices Index Index Index Index

309 319 322 329

Locorum Auctorum Codicum Nominum

................................................................... .

PREFACE

This study was originally submitted as a dissertation for a university degree in 196 7; this book is the result of a complete re-examination of the subject, started in 1976. The principal difference between the two versions is the addition here of more codicological and historical matter and an extensive study of the printed editions. I owe an immense debt to several scholars: to Professor John Glucker of Tel Aviv University for teaching me textual criticism in the first place and suggesting the Academicus Primus as a fruitful text to study; to Professor Richard Rouse of the University of California at Los Angeles for re-kindling my interest in the subject after a long lapse of time and encouraging me to go into print; to Professor Michael Reeve of the University of Cambridge for reading various drafts of this book and suggesting improvements; to Leighton Reynolds of Brasenose College, Oxford, for keeping me informed of developments in the manuscript tradition of the De Finibus; and to Professor Albinia de la Mare of Kings College, London, for passing her expert eye over microfilms and identifying copyists of whom I had never even heard. I have also received help in the acquisition of microfilms from Professor Peter Wiseman of Exeter University, and from Mrs Mary Connelly and Miss Sarah Gayton of the University Library, Exeter, and have been able to borrow those microfilms on a long loan through the generosity of the Librarian. In addition I would like to thank all those librarians, known and unknown, who gave me help with manuscripts in their own institutions. The majority of the ground work for this book has been carried out in the British Library, the Warburg Institute, and the Bodleian Library; I would like to take this opportunity of thanking everyone in those institutions who has helped me pursue my interest. That the gestation period of this book has been long is due to the unsympathetic nature of my employment. The Academicus Primus has had to compete in the evenings and at week-ends with all the other necessities and pleasures of modern life, and holidays have mostly been arranged around manuscript libraries. The Academicus Primus, it will be discovered, offers a privileged window on the fartuna

X

PREFACE

of the more considerable De Finibus; both appear to have survived through some partially common tradition. The present work should serve as a starting-point for the scholar who takes it upon himself to study the textual tradition of the De Finibus; were I granted another life-time, I would consider it a duty to undertake that work. London, August 1997

Terence J. Hunt

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Conspectus Siglorum Ambr.l Ambr.2 Ambr.3 Arnst

Milano, Bibl. Ambrosiana, D.94 sup. Milano, Bibl. Ambrosiana, C.55 inf. Milano, Bibl. Ambrosiana, F. 71 sup. Amsterdam, Universiteitsbibl., I.C.47

Ball Bas Berl Bodl. l Bodl.2 Bon(!) Bon(2) Bum

Oxford, Balliol College, 248D Basie, unidentified collation in Goerenz (1810) Berlin, Deutsche Staatsbibl., Diez B. Santen 74 Oxford, Bodleian Libr., Auctarium F. 1,12 Oxford, Bodleian Libr., D'Orville 84 Bologna, Bibl. Universitaria, 2228 (Lat. 1096), fols. 208v~214v Bologna, Bibi. Universitaria, 2228 (Lat. 1096), fols. 333c339v London, British Libr., Burney 165

C Cant Ces Chis Conv

Cesena, Bibi. Malatestiana, S.XII 6 Cambridge, University Libr., Add. 2582 Cesena, Bibl. Malatestiana, S.XVIII 1 Citta de! Vatican 0, Bibi. Apostolica Vaticana, Chigi H V 14 7 Firenze, Bibl. Medicea Laurenziana, Conventi Soppressi 131

Dresd.l Dresd.2

Dresden, Sachsische Landesbibl., De 106 Dresden, Sachsische Landesbibl., De 120

F Fes Frei

Firenze, Bibl. Nazionale Centrale, Magliabecchi XXI 30 Firenze, Bibi. Medicea Laurenziana, Fiesole 188 Freiburg-in-Breisgau, Universitatsbibl., Lat. 364

Gadd Gand Ged

Firenze, Bibl. Medicea Laurenziana, Gaddi 90 sup. 78 Gent, Centrale Bibl., 68 Gdansk, Bibl. Gdanska Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 2388

Harl. I Harl.2 Harl.3 Holm

London, British Libr., Harley 3953 London, British Libr., Harley 6327 London, British Libr., Harley 5291 Stockholm, Kungliga Bibl., Va 12

L Laur.I Laur.2 Laur.3 Leid Linc Lond Luce

Firenze, Bibi. Medicea Laurenziana, Strozzi 37 Firenze, Bibl. Medicea Laurenziana, Plut. 76,4 Firenze, Bibl. Medicea Laurenziana, Plut. 90 sup. 77, 1 Firenze, Bibi. Medicea Laurenziana, Plut. 83, 7 Leiden, Bibl. der Rijksuniversiteit, Perizon in fol. 25 Oxford, Lincoln College, Lat. 38 London, collection of Nicholas Barker Lucca, Bibi Capitolare Feliniana, 562

ABBREVIATIONS

Xll

Ma Mon.I Mon.2 Mu

Madrid, Bihl. Nacional, 9116 Munchen, Bayerische Staatsbibl., Clm 328 Munchen, Bayerische Staatsbibl., Clm 763 Modena, Bihl. Estense, Lat. 213

N1 N2 Neap.I Neap.2 Neap.3

Napoli, Napoli, Napoli, Napoli, Napoli,

Ott.I Ott.2 Ott.3 p Pal. I Pal.2 Par Perus Pier

Citta del Vaticano, Bihl. Apostolica Vaticana, Ottobon. Lat. 1196 Citta del Vaticano, Bihl. Apostolica Vaticana, Ottobon. Lat. 1944 Citta del Vaticano, Bihl. Apostolica Vaticana, Ottobon. Lat. 1984 Paris, Bihl. Nationale, Lat. 6331 Citta del Vaticano, Bibi. Apostolica Vaticana, Palatin. Lat. 1511 Citta del Vaticano, Bihl. Apostolica Vaticana, Palatin. Lat. 1516 Paris, Bihl. Nationale, Lat. 17154 Perugia, Bihl. Comunale Augusta, 530 (H 14) New York, Pierpont Morgan Libr., M.497

Rem Rice.I Ricc.2 Rom Ross

Reims, Bihl. Municipale 872 Firenze, Bihl. Riccardiana, 504 Firenze, Bihl. Riccardiana, 513 Editio princeps, Sweynheim & Pannartz, Rome, 14 71 Citta del Vaticano, Bihl. Apostolica Vaticana, Rossi 559

Sant Scar.I Scor.2

St. Andrews, University Libr., PA 6295.A2A00 El Escorial, Real Bihl. de San Lorenzo, g.lV.15 El Escorial, Real Bihl. de San Lorenzo, T.111.18

Urb

Citta del Vaticano, Bihl. Apostolica Vaticana, Urb. Lat. 319

V Vane Vat.I Vat.2 Ven Viet Vind

Citta del Vaticano, Bihl. Apostolica Vaticana, Lat. 1720 Vancouver, University Libr. of British Columbia, 87-366 Citta del Vaticano, Bihl. Apostolica Vaticana, Lat. 6837 Citta del Vaticano, Bihl. Apostolica Vaticana, Lat. 11512 Venezia, Bibi. Nazionale Marciana, Lat. VI 259 (2879) Paris, Bihl. Nationale, Lat. 14761 Wien, Osterreichische Nationalbibl., Lat. 231

Wash

Washington, Folger Shakespeare Libr., SM 9

Ya!

New Haven, Yale University Libr., 284

Bihl. Bihl. Bihl. Bihl. Bihl.

Nazionale, Nazionale, Nazionale, Nazionale, Nazionale,

Sigla

ef Reconstructed Manuscripts

Siglum

Reconstructed from:

a

Mon.2, Neap.2

y

r

F,

ea om.

Plasberg, Minor xviii.

f -

8,31 (13.23) 9,34 (15.1) (15.3) 12,44 (19.6) (19.8)

THE ITALIAN TRADITION

87

esse om. omnzno om. se om. et om. tenebris om.

Four of the five manuscripts come from Florence, the earlier group written between 1410 and 1450, and the later between 1450 and 1460.

1he Earlier Fami!J Firenze, Bihl. Medicea Laurenziana, Strozzi 37 (= L) Sources: Bandini, Cat. Laur. II 379; Plasberg, Maior 33, Minor xix; Badali, 50; Rouse & Rouse, 364. Microfilm of whole ms.; seen 31 March 1978. Characteristics: parchment; ii (paper) + ii + 82 + i (paper) fols.; 297 X 205 mm.; 24 lines; Florence; 1410-20; one hand: humanist; marginal notes and superscript variants in another hand; gold initials with white vine-stems, interstices in pink, red and green within a narrow blue border; arms of Mario Maffei of Volterra; horizontal catchwords; quinions; previous shelf-marks: no. 884 (Strozzi's library?), and S 1 12 (or 5112). Contents: 1. Parad,I 2. Am,/ 3. Sen, 4. Somn, 5. Fat, 6. Acl 54v-73r, 7. Arch. Inscription: M. T. Ciceronis incipit pars quedam cuiusdam libri Achademuorum librorum. Subscription: Nil plus repperi et credo nil plus reperiatur de libro isto. Laus deo. History: The script is early humanist and there are several notes after the style of Salutati. L is one of only two manuscripts of Acl which contain Arch, discovered at Liege in 1333 by Petrarch. Fol. l' bears the arms of Mario Maffei (1463-1537), but Lis not included in the list of his books published by J. Ruysschaert. 22 Whether Mario 22 J. Ruysschaert, 'Recherche des deux bibliotheques romanes Maffei des xve et xvie siecles', Bibliqfilia 60 (1958), 306~55.

88

CHAPTER FIVE

was given L by his father or his brother Raffaele (1451-1522), or whether he acquired it through his own efforts, I have been unable to discover. Mario gave away some of his books during his own lifetime, while the remainder passed to the grandson of his adopted son, Mario junior (d. ca. end 16th cent.). A note in the top margin of fol. 1r reads De figli et hered. dom Mario Mqffei. Other names to appear in L are Uxorius via 113 on fol. 1r, and M.:Asterius:Q,uirinus:lomastro on fol. 80v. L was one of 3000 mss. in the library of Carlo Strozzi (1587-1670), whose ex-libris, dated 1670, is on fol. F. Carlo's mss. stayed with the Strozzi family until Maria Caterina gave them to the Duke of Tuscany in 1785; he divided them between the MediceaLaurenziana (186 mss.) and the Magliabecchiana libraries (1509 mss.). 23 Use: qi-Plasberg; Badali without siglum (Parad). Citta del V aticano, Bibi. Apostolica V aticana, Lat. 1720 (= V) Sources: B. Nogara, Codices Vaticani, Rome, 1912, III 203; Plasbe:r:g, Maior 33, Minor xix; Rouse & Rouse, 365. Microfilm of whole ms.; seen 5 April 1978. Characteristics: parchment; i (paper) + 210 + i (paper) fols.; 315 X 200 mm.; 34 lines; Florence; 1425-40; one hand: humanistic; inline corrections by first hand; marginalia by Guglielmo Tanaglia; gold initials with white vine-stems, interstices in pink and green within a narrow blue border; miniature on fol. Ir by Battista di Biagio Sanguigni; space left for arms; devices of Pope Pius IX and Card. A. Lambruschini on spine; no catchwords; quinions. Contents: 1. Bmt, 2. Orat, 3. De Orat,I 4. Sen, 5. Am, 6. Fat, 7. Ac] 203v-209v. Inscription: MARCI WllJI CICERONIS PARS CUIUSDAM llBRI

UNIUS ACHADEMICORUM. LEGE FEllCITER. Subscription: Marci Tullii Ciceronis pars Achademicomm explicit. Non

reperitur plus. Valeas qui legis.

23

Fava, 61.

r -

THE ITALIAN TRADITION

89

History: As the whole of V is by one hand, a terminus for its copying is provided by the discovery of Brut, Oral and De Oral by Gerardo Landriano at Lodi in 1421. The decoration is by Battista di Biagio Sanguigni, who ran a workshop at Fiesole which flourished around 1430. 24 Marginal notes were added by Guglielmo Tanaglia (recognised by Professor de la Mare) to all the texts except Fat and Acl. Tanaglia (1391-1460) was a Florentine who studied at Padua in 1420 and was one of the executors of the will of Niccolo Niccoli in 1437. 25 Use: q, 1-Plasberg (Maior only: Jere non commemoratus). El Escorial, Real Bihl. de San Lorenzo, T.111.18 (= Scor.2) Sources: Haenel, 942; Hartel & Loewe, 248; Antolin, IV 151; Plasberg, Maior 33, Minor xix; Dominguez Bordona, 84 no. 1581; Grubbs, 184; Rouse & Rouse, 364. Microfilm of whole ms.; seen 18 July 1979. Characteristics: parchment; iii (paper) + 235 + iii (paper) fols.; 218 X 155 mm.; NW Italy (Milan?)/Spain; 1/2 15th cent.; two hands: 1) gothic cursive, 2) gothic formal; few corrections by another hand; initials elaborately decorated with miniatures; binding in the style of the Escorial; horizontal catchwords; mainly 6 sheets; previous shelfmarks: V.G.22 and III.D.17. Contents: (hand 1) 1. Orat,I 2. Brut, 3. Top, 4. Fat,/ 5. Ac] 152r-164r,/ (hand 2) 6. Her. Inscription: M. T. C. Achademicorum liber incipit. History: Scor.2 consists of two separate parts, of which the first could be from NW Italy, Spain or even France; Professor de la Mare thinks that the decoration could be Milanese. Perhaps Scor.2 was written in Italy by a Spaniard close to the court of Pope Callistus III (1455-8), a fellow Spaniard. The miniature which introduces the text of Acl depicts a monk holding a scroll which reads Sapiens deliberat ante + cum consilio fee + non penitebis. Fol. 1r bears the reverse

24 25

See M. Levi d'Ancona, 'Zanobi Strozzi reconsidered', Bibliqfilia 61 (1959), 2. Cosenza, IV 3365.

90

CHAPTER FIVE

image of a note which was originally on the fly-leaf opposite; this note consists of about nine words and includes the phrase B . . . liber P . . , but is otherwise illegible. Use: dabitis dignanda alio om. perducta

r quam rivulos ea mihi non sane faerint Aeschylum Greca dubitantem habitis non om. dignando quad om. producta MN perducta FLV

P in rasura

quam nunc si ut illi Aeschinem Sophoclem Euripidem Grecia -tationem disserendi dabitis tamen non -a quonam enim modo captalempton diceres sed quad per-

Plasberg drew attention to the erasures in P and observed that they sometimes coincide with disagreements between P and r. He stated that the original readings could occasionally be discerned as showing traces of the reading found in r. Not all the erasures which coincide with textual differences between P and r are necessarily significant; some occur where no textual problems have arisen. But most of them suggest that the text of P was originally closer to r than it is today. Before I was able to study P under an ultra-violet light, I wondered whether it might prove to be the parent of r and thus the archetype of the Academicus Primus;

104

CHAPTER SIX

but this idea is refuted by the fact that thirty-eight erasures in P do not coincide with any textual problems and, more significantly, because every textual difference between P and r, where P is probably in error, does not correspond with an erasure in P. Indeed several 'erasures' appear to have been made before the text was written over them; P is not a palimpsest, so perhaps it was prepared with particular care to remove any surface imperfections and allow writing to take place unhindered. The significant erasures, as well as some visible corrections such as maius to magis at 7,25 (11.25), docere to doce at 12,43 (18.24), and the deletion of que at 10,38 (16.7), raise the question how close P was to the archetype. Textual problems in P could have originated through contamination (but not, for the most part, with a member of the r tradition), through conscious interpolation, or because the archetype or hyparchetype itself was unclear. If we exclude the readings where erasures coincide with textual problems, P shows sixtyseven readings in error, according to Plasberg; r, on the other hand, shows forty-seven such readings in error. A 50% difference in error rate between the two witnesses to the archetype may be accounted for by the fact that P is the sole witness to the ii tradition, whereas the quality of r is smoothed out by its reconstruction from two hyparchetypes, which are, in turn, reconstructed from six (and, in places, seven) extant witnesses. The final factor in this re-examination involves the position of esse at 5,21 (9.28-9). Interestingly, this is the only portion of text where P and the two halves of the r tradition present different readings, enabling us to glimpse their relationships to one another and to the archetype. We have already established that r presented the following reading and marginal correction here:

... hominem enim censebant quasi partem quandamess' civitatis . .. P reads hominem esse censebant quasi partem quandam cwztatis, omitting enim. The disagreement of P and r appears to stem from either a correction of enim to esse or the omission of enim by chance or otherwise in P, or the correction of enim to esse in r and its subsequent confusion as an addition to the text. But was it P or r which broke away from the reading of the archetype at this point? If it was P,

THE ARCHETYPE

105

then the archetype presumably was identical to r, for it seems unlikely that P can be a descendant of r, as we have seen. This would require the unlikely coincidence that both the archetype and r read esse as a marginal addition, which the copyist of P understood as a correction of the in-line enim. If, on the other hand, it was in r that the change was made, then the archetype simply read hominem esse censebant etc., as in P. The key to solving this problem lies in establishing what was the probable text of the archetype. It seems fairly certain that the marginal esse was originally part of the text, while enim is less essential; Plasberg includes it, but Reid excludes it as a correctio et maniftsta et mala, since it is presented only by Ged among the manuscripts which he reported, and he considered Ged to be 'largely interpolated and corrected by its copyist'. 2 Nowhere else in Cicero's philosophical works or speeches does enim occur immediately after hominem (or neminem), probably because it would offend against principles of euphony and rhythm. I believe that enim was written in the text of r in error for esse, under the influence of the inflection of the preceding hominem, and that r was then corrected from the exemplar with the marginal esse, but enim was not deleted. P thus presents the reading found in the archetype. We have now examined in some detail the factors which are relevant in helping us to determine the stemma over which the archetype presides, and may draw some conclusions. The most important factor is the obvious division of extant manuscripts into two families, sired by P and r. This division is capable of handling both the presence of rasurae in P and the reading at 5,21 (9.28-9) more simply and effectively than any other stemma. As an example of this, we may consider the possibility that Ma, which shows several striking agreements with the P-tradition, could be independently descended from the archetype in an open recension, agreeing now with P and now with r. But such a stemma would not explain the presence in Ma, on the one hand, and MuNi, descendants of r, on the other hand, but not in y, equally a descendant of r, of such an improbable reading as hominem enim censebant quasi partem quandam esse civitatis. The distribution of apparent errors in P and r, given that one is a sole representative but the other is a reconstruction of two

2

Reid, 120.

106

CHAPTER SIX

hyparchetypes and several extant manuscripts, suggests that they may be at a similar level of descent from the archetype, and the presence of erasures in P may be significant in this respect. But information from outside the tradition of the Academicus Primus has the last word on this matter. The evidence of P and r argues for an archetype consisting of the De Finibus and Academicus Primus, for such are the reconstructed contents of seven-eighths of the tradition: the De Finibus and Academicus Primus are found in P, and are the reconstructed contents ofµ and of one half of the y tradition, represented by F; only in q> does the De Fato, instead of the De Finibus, accompany the Academicus Primus. The reconstruction of these contents is supported by the earliest reference which we have to a manuscript containing the Academicus Primus. This reference occurs in an inventory, made between 1142 and 1164, of books given to the Benedictine abbey of Bee in Normandy by Philippe de Harcourt, Bishop of Bayeux (d. 1163): 3

64. In alio [sc. volumine] Pomponius Mela de cosmographia et Tullius de fine bani et mali et de academicis et Timaeus Platonis ab ipso Tullio translatus et Tullius de particione oratoria et fiber Candidi Ariani ad Victorinum de generatione divina et Hilarius de sinodis et eiusdem fiber contra Valentem et Auxencium. The identification of de academicis as the Academicus Primus and not the Lucullus is justified because the Lucullus was generally called the Hortensius or De Laude Philosophiae at that time. Neither Philippe's book nor any other containing this sequence of works, or even these works of Cicero is extant. 4 If we were restricted to the evidence provided by the Academicus Primus alone in reconstructing its archetype, we should be able to make only a few, tentative observations. As it is, the Academicus Primus participates in a corner of the tradition of the De Finibus and it is this work which enables us to gain a fuller picture.

3 This inventory is found in Avranches, Bibi. Municipale, 159 (1942). A large number of manuscripts at Avranches came from Mont-Saint-Michel. 4 Maslowski & Rouse, 122, pointed out that the works of Hilary of Poitiers and Pomponius Mela are found in Vend6me, Bibi. Municipale, 189, a 12th- or 13thcentury manuscript, which may be a copy of Philippe's book.

107

THE ARCHETYPE THE DE FINIBUS AND THE ACADEMICUS PRIMUS

It is probably true to say that the Academicus Primus owes its survival to the De Finibus; its tradition maps on to that of the De Finibus. The two works were clearly isolated from most of Cicero's other philosophical works by the mid-9th century, if not earlier, for they do not appear in the so-called Leiden corpus or among the excerpts made by Hadoard at Corbie. Neither do they feature in the Florilegium Gallicum, which was gathered in northern France during the 12th century. In the latest and most comprehensive study of the manuscripts of the De Finibus, Reynolds produces the following stemma: 5 Archetype

---------------A

~~

A

~

r

Mu

E

!:i

~

Ma

B

S

~ R p

N1

In this stemma, B (Vatican Pal. Lat. 1525) and E (Erlangen, Univ. Bihl. 618 (84 7) represent a late German family; A (Vatican, Pal. Lat. 1513) is another German manuscript of the 11th century. r is an Italian tradition, represented by two 14th-century manuscripts which also contain the Academicus Primus (MaMu), and S (Firenze, Archivio di Stato, Carte Strozziane ser. 3 no. 46), which presents only the De Finibus and was written in the third quarter of the 14th century. The main differences between the stemmata of the Academicus Primus and the De Finibus lie in the closeness of Ma to Mu against Ni, which we have already discussed, 6 and in the presence in the latter of R (Leiden, Gronovius 21 ), which descends from the same exemplar as P. R is a French manuscript in six parts and includes the De Finibus, written in the late 12th century, and Timaeus, but not the Academicus 5 Reynolds, 2; I have used my sigla rather than Reynolds': f for y, !:i for 8, Ma for M, and Mu for 0. 6 See p. 85. N 1 is not included in Reynolds' published stemma.

108

CHAPTER SIX

Primus. In view of the presence of the Academicus Primus in f and P, but not in ABE, we must assume that it was joined to the De Finibus in ~' which becomes the archetype of the Academicus Primus, at some time during the 11th or 12th century. Thus, the relationship of R to P confirms the need for /',,. between the archetype of the Academicus Primus and P. This stemma sees the source of the De Finibus in Germany. While ABE remained there, ~ travelled to France, where !1, certainly, was written. f, however, is represented only by Italian manuscripts; but economy of movement demands that it surely was also French. 7 If the Academicus Primus was added to ~' then it must have been added in France, for there is no evidence of the text in Germany. Given this stemma, the Bee manuscript could be ~' f, 11, or a non-extant descendant of any of them. But, while the Bee manuscript identified the Academicus Primus correctly, the 12th-century descendants of /1 which present that work called it a sixth book of the De Finibus and most of the descendants of f did not identify it at all, and it is only in 15th-century copies that the correct identification is made, possibly through Florentine ingenuity. The only possibility to which there are no objections is that the Bee manuscript is a descendant of ~- This conclusion accords with the date of the Bee inventory, but we cannot be categorical. Indeed, confusion over the title of the Academicus Primus and of the De Finibus is a feature of the early tradition. Firstly, the Biblionomia of Richard de Fournival (d. 1260) contains the entry: 8 75. Eiusdem [sc. Ciceronis] liber achademicarum disputationum in quo ostendit quod genus phylozophizandi arbitrandum sit minime et arrogans maximeque et constans et elegans. Item eiusdem liber de universalitate, qui vocatur 7himeus Tullii. In uno volumine. The description of the achademicae disputationes is drawn almost verbatim from De Divinatione II 1, 1. (The De Divinatione and De Fato make up the preceding volume, no. 74, in the Biblionomia. Similarly, the Lucullus, no. 76 in the list, is described in the same terms as 7 Rouse & Rouse, 344--51, related the Bee manuscript to the f tradition and thus fixed r in France. 8 Delisle, II 529.

THE ARCHETYPE

109

Cicero used for his description of the Hortensius, with which it was usually confused.) On the surface, we appear to have a manuscript which contains only the Academicus Primus and Timaeus---a rather thin volume! Fournival's library, except for the medical books, passed to the College de Sorbonne in 1272, by way of the bequest of Gerard d' Abbeville, a friend of Robert de Sorbon, and canon of Amiens, like Fournival. A second reference to this book, which clarifies the former reference, is supplied by the catalogue of the Sorbonne library, compiled ca. 1321-30:9 P. I. Disputationes Tullii vel liber Achademicorum eiusdem. :Non eram

nescius Brute.' P. I. 7hymeus eiusdem de universitate. 'Multa sunt a nobis et in acha-

demicis scripta.' Here we are left in no doubt that the manuscript contained the De Finibus and Timaeus without the Academicus Primus. IO Secondly, two closely related copies of R, El Escorial, R.I.2 11 and Venezia, Bihl. Marciana, Lat. VI 81, both originally identified the De Finibus as the Academicus Primus. In the former, the title originally read:

lncipit liber de achademicarum tullii in quo ostenditur quod genus philosophandi arbitrandum sit minime arrogans maximeque et constans et elegans ut habetur in principio secundi de diuinatione. (fol. l 39r) Delisle, III 87. Even so, Rouse & Rouse were of the opinion that these references masked the presence of Acl as well, despite finding a third reference, 349-50, where the mistaken identity of Fin as fiber achademicorum no longer persists, and there is no question of Ac] forming part of the manuscript. The reference appears in a list compiled by a Sorbonnist, Thomas of Ireland, and appended to his Manipulus Florum, which was completed in 1306: 9

10

[7}

Dispositiones eiusdem [sc. Tullii] lib. V. Principium: 'Non eram nescius Brute'. Finis: 'perreximus omnes'.

[9J De universalitate. Principium: 'Multa sunt a nobis'. Finis: 'neque dabitur', vel non est finis. Here Fin and Tim are separated by Nat. 11 This manuscript was no. 827 in the library of Pope Benedict XIII (the owner of Leid; see p. 57) at Avignon and later at Pefiiscola and had previously belonged to Pope Clement VI (1292-1352), formerly Archbishop of Rouen.

110

CHAPTER SIX

The initial de was underscored to denote deletion, and a later hand has struck out de achademicarum and written above it de finibus bona-

rum et malorum. Finally, as we have seen, Bacon consistently referred to a book of the De Finibus as one of the Academici Libri in writing his Moralis Philosophia at Paris around 1260. All of these factors suggest that there was confusion over the identity of the De Finibus and Academicus Primus in the Paris region during the late 12th and 13th centuries in the vicinity of !1.

THE ARCHETYPE

We may accept with confidence that the Academicus Primus survived in France. There it was joined to a text of the De Finibus which had come from Germany. Although the Timaeus features in several early references, it did not participate in the tradition of the De Finibus and Academicus Primus, but belongs to the Leiden corpus. Nevertheless, the presence of the Timaeus in the Bee manuscript suggests that the three works were not far removed from one another during the 12th century. The text of the Academicus Primus filled a complete gathering, and was written in two columns. From the presence in P and r of such alternative readings as ut illi and .faerint, mirentur and imitentur, and Athetus and Athenis, as well as general confusion of enim and eum, all of which consist of a high proportion of minims, we may surmise that the archetype was written in gothic script. The gothic movement finds its earliest examples towards the middle of the 12th century, so that it seems likely that the archetype antedated P and Arnst by a few decades only at the most and must have been written close in time to the manuscript at Bee. It is certain that the Academicus Primus was already fragmentary by the mid-12th century, but perhaps it had only recently become so; for the presence in the text of an incomplete catchword in one half of the tradition surely indicates that the remainder of the text had only recently been lost. Et to is so meaningless that it is much more likely to have been omitted from P than to have been inserted in r. Catchwords made their first appearance in France in the 11th century. 12 It is unlikely that a manuscript containing only what is 12

B. Bischoff, Latin Paleography, Cambridge, 1990, 23.

THE ARCHETYPE

111

left of the Academici Libri would be viable (there is no such example among the extant manuscripts of the work); perhaps that is why it was added to the De Finibus in the first place, particularly as its construction suggests a logical progression to the Academicus Primus:

De De De De

Finibus Finibus Finibus Finibus

I II III IV

De Finibus V Academicus Primus

Exposition of Epicurean doctrine by T orquatus Refutation of Epicureanism by Cicero Exposition of Stoic ethical doctrine by Cato Refutation of Stoicism from Antiochus' standpoint by Cicero Exposition of ethical system of Antiochus by Piso Exposition of Antiochus' doctrine by Varro

In this scheme, the Academicus Primus was clearly identified as a separate work from the De Finibus, as in the Bee catalogue; and yet, the ~ tradition confused it as a sixth book, in spite of the clear statement in De Divinatione II 1 that the De Finibus consisted of five books. It seems unlikely that the Academicus Primus survived because it was mistaken as a sixth book of th~De Finibus, as in P. Indeed, it is quite likely that such a mistaken identity first appeared in P, for, while every page of the De Finibus in P bears the Roman numeral of the appropriate book of the work in the top margin, no such number is found above the text of the Academicus Primus. Furthermore, while books of the De Finibus in P are generally introduced by a two-line rubric or two blank lines, the Academicus Primus starts at the top of a verso folio with a coloured initial. So, it becomes likely that the Academici Libri may have survived in their entirety into the 12th century in the immediately pre-archetype stage. Maslowski and Rouse indicate that works which are now lost were still in existence in the 12th century along the Loire valley. 13 Perhaps this is another example of 'the many texts that emanated from the ninth-century abbeys of the Loire and that were disseminated via Orleans and Chartres in the twelfth century'. 14 Or, in the light of the Bee manuscript, perhaps we should look to Mont-SaintMichel. While it has not proved possible to pursue the archetype of Maslowski & Rouse, 122. Maslowski & Rouse, 122, suggest specifically that Orleans was probably the source for Fin and Acl; this is a more attractive proposition than Chartres, whose Bishop, John of Salisbury, relied on Augustine for a quotation from Acl, as we have seen (see p. 27 n. 32). 13

14

112

CHAPTER SIX

The high-level stemma of the Academicus Primus ITALY Florence

FRANCE Milan

Padua

1100 Archetype

/~~ P

r

Arnst

1200

-------------µ-

1300 (0

y V

I

Rem

- -Ma

1400

Leid

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I Mu - - - - - - - - -_;.,vi- Conv