De officio mariti.
At first glance this again seems to be a well presented volume of the highest quality. Even a somewhat cursory reading, however, reveals a number of troubling features. For this short review I shall restrict myself to the part of the introduction dealing with "Editions and Constitution of the Text" and to some random checks within the Latin text and notes.
On p. xix one finds two different editions represented by one single siglum (W2): an edition by Robert Winter (Basel, 1540) and another by Joannes Oporinus (Basel, s.d.). There is no indication of the location of the copy of the Oporinus edition used by the editor, but a copy of the 1540 Basel edition of Robert Winter is said to be found at the "Biblioteca (sic) Universitatis Lovaniensis." This designation fails to acknowledge the splitting of the old University of Louvain into two entirely independent universities, each of them with its own library, neither of them being called "Biblioteca Universitatis Lovaniensis." Using the Latin name for a library would have been more appropriate in the case of the Royal Library at Brussels (same page), its official name being "Bibliotheca Regia." However, to use the Latin name for the library of the University of Leuven/Louvain only adds to the confusion. The fact is that this particular copy is kept in the Central Library of the University of Leuven, not of Louvain-la-Neuve. It has been described in the catalogue Vives te Leuven, ed. G. Tournoy, J. Roegiers, and C. Coppens (Leuven, 1993), pp. 115-19, nr. 33, where the correct signature is also given (CaaA844). The number "PR 278" is misleading and erroneous in that it relates back to the number "PK 278," which is only an administrative number indicating that this particular volume has been bought thanks to the private endowment of the university.
On the same p. xix the next edition listed is the Opera of Basel, 1555 (=B). Contrary to the information supplied here, where we read "Colophon: Basilae, per Nic. Episcopium Iuniorem anno MDLV vol II, pp. 595-647," the colophon at the end of the second volume reads "Basilae, apud Iacobum Parcum impensis Episcopij Iunioris, Anno salutis humanae MDLV mense Augusto."
Still on the same p. xix, among other editions not consulted by the editor, is quoted an edition from the press at "Hannover, Wechelianis 1614." It is in fact clear that this "Hannover" is an erroneous translation of the Latin "Hanoviae," i.e., Hanau (in the neighborhood of Frankfurt am Main), where the heirs of the printer Andreas Wechel were active during the first two decades of the seventeenth century. There are two more typographical errors on this same page: lege editio princeps (not princep), and Johannes Maire (not Maires). A recent study on this important Leiden printer is by R. Breugelmans, Fac et spera: Joannes Maire, Publisher, Printer and Bookseller in Leiden, 1603-1657 (Houten, 2003).
I should like to finish this short review with a few remarks on the text and the notes. To begin with the notes, the interested reader would certainly have been more pleased if a reference was given for the information supplied. One example only: on p. 5 there is a short note explaining who Honorato Juan was. But one misses a reference here to so fundamental a work as Francisco Jose Sanchis Moreno, Honorato Juan vida y recuerdo de un maestro de principes (Valencia, 2002).
Some random checking of the text reveals that it is not always reliable. The very first lines of the Latin text in Fantazzi's edition read (2): IOANNIS LODOVICI VIVIS AD ILLUSTRISS. D. IOANNEM BORGIAM, GANDIAE DUCEM, PRAEFATIO. To start with, in the editio princeps (C), as well as in the three Basel editions of 1538, 1540, and 1555 (W, W2, B), we read Candiae, not Gandiae. Furthermore the apparatus criticus states that somewhere in this title the words in librum suum de officio mariti are added in the editio princeps and in the 1540 Basel edition. In fact they are also present in the 1538 edition, and, what is more important still, there is no reason whatsoever why these words should be relegated to the apparatus criticus: they are neither a later addition by some editor or printer, nor a first version corrected afterward by the author.
On the same page 2, l. 24, instead of Latina non intellexisset, W, W2, and B read Latinam <viz. linguam> non intellexisset, which is not mentioned in the apparatus criticus but seems to be the better reading (I did not check the editio princeps). On p. 6, l. 6, the reading comitem instead of et comitem appears not only in C and W2, but also in W. On p. 6, l. 19, the three Basel editions read insinuat se instead of insinuat, probably presenting the better reading and anyhow one not mentioned in the apparatus criticus. On p. 8, l. 1, one reads Ludovici, not only in W2, but also in WB, contrary to what is written in the apparatus criticus. On p. 98, [??] 88, the text reads iubemur esse bonus odos, exactly the reading of the 1555 edition. The apparatus fontium, giving bonos (sic) odos, refers to "Vulg. 2 Cor. 2, 15," where one reads, however, bonus odor. The list of corrigenda at the end of vol. II of the 1555 edition offers the correct reading as well. On p. 124 [??] 114 ingenium ... flectile, the 1555 edition does not present the erroneous reading flexile, as is given in the apparatus criticus, but the correct reading flectile. On p. 140 [??] 127 the name Godolina needs to be corrected to Godoliva, the name of the Flemish saint murdered by her husband, mentioned later by Vives as Godeliva in his twelfth dialogue (cf. the recent edition of Vives, Los dialogos, by Ma. Pilar Garcia Ruiz (Pamplona, 2005), p. 230). On p. 182 [??] 166, the source for the Candaules story is not "Hdt 1, 7, 1-13," but Hdt. I, 8-13. On p. 226, [??] [??] 208-9, the line numbering in the apparatus criticus is wrong: instead of "18, 24, 27," read 17, 23, 26.
Sadly, it seems likely from this evidence that a more extensive investigation would bring further cases to light. However those presented here are sufficient in themselves to cast at least some doubt on the character of this edition. It is a pity that, as it seems, it lacked the advantage of a second editor or the scrupulous involvement of a real editorial board. (Gilbert Tournoy, Catholic University of Leuven)
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||NEO-LATIN NEWS|
|Article Type:||Book review|
|Date:||Mar 22, 2008|
|Previous Article:||La recepcion hispana de Juan Luis Vives.|
|Next Article:||Thuanus: The Making of Jacques-Auguste de Thou (1553-1617).|