Printer Friendly

The manuscripts of Cicero's 'De Oratore: E' is a descendant of 'A.'

The manuscripts of Cicero's De oratore divide into two families: mutili and integri.(1) The oldest representatives of the mutilated family are Avranches 238 (A; c. 830-50), Erlangen 380 (olim 848; E; c. 985), and London, Harley 2736 (H; written by Lupus of Ferrieres, c. 830-40). A and H are independent of each other, and the best witnesses to the text of the lost archetype (M). E too is considered to be an independent witness. Since the work of E. Strobel, dating from the early eighties of the last century, the view has been generally held that E, though closely related to A, is not a descendant of it but a copy of a `gemellus' of A. The stemma devised by Strobel(2) has remained essentially the same to the present day.(3)

In the course of my work on the manuscripts of De oratore I began to doubt whether Strobel's view on the relationship between A and E could be correct. I therefore decided to subject both manuscripts to a systematic inquiry. This has convinced me that E is in fact a descendant of A itself.

Apart from A, E has two further close relatives: Leiden, Voss. Iat. O. 26 (F; s. [XII.sup.1]) and a florilegium, Vatican, Reg. Iat. 1762 (K; c. 845-60). F, which has long been neglected, and to which attention is first drawn in Texts and Transmission (p. 106), is there said to be a descendant of E.(4) K's excerpts are thought to have been copied, like E, from Strobel's Abrincensis gemellus (cf. above, n. 3). Throughout the article, I add the readings of F and K (where present) to those given of A and E. I will not deal, however, with the question of exactly how FK relate to AK, reserving this for some other occasion. For the sake of a proper appreciation of many details in the discussion below, suffice it to say that I think that E and F both descend from an early copy of A (a), now lost, but are otherwise independent of each other. K's excerpts are in my view partly ([sub sections]429-41) taken from a, partly ([sub sections]401-28) from some related manuscript, possibly A itself.

In the present article I will concentrate on the relationship between A and E. I will use the following arguments:

A. There are some places where an omission in E corresponds to one or more whole lines in A. Apparently, the mistakes concerned were made in copying from A.

B. On the strength of Strobel's stemma the number of A's copying-errors is too low to be plausible, and among them them there is a strikingly high percentage of errors that are easily corrected by conjecture.

C. As long as the scribe of A writes the verbal ending -mus in full, E also has -mus. However, once he starts using -m; (a rather uncommon abbreviation), things often go wrong in E.

D. Readings in A that look like typical lapsus calami of the scribe of A itself (and of which it is hence improbable that they also stood in a `gemellus' of A) leave their traces in E.

In the second half of this paper I will go into Strobel's counter-arguments and say something on the possibility of E's text being contaminated. I will begin, however, by working out the above points (A-D) in more detail.


The following cases (presented in order of decreasing cogency) are concerned:(5)

(1) 3.203,1-2 ratio atque--percontatio expo om. EF. Here the words omitted exactly fill in A line 18 Of f [47.sup.r] Line 17 ends with supra (3.203,1), line 19 begins with sitioque (3.203,2). When I collated A at this point, my eye too went from supra to sitioque (thus skipping line 18), because A's lines here slope down slightly towards the right, and in addition to that, sitioque is written somewhat high on its line. In E suprasitioque has already been `emended' to suprascriptioque; F reads suprascitioque.

(2) 2.205-6,3-6 goedias agamus--animis aut om. [E.sup.1]F (suppl. [E.sup.3] in mg. inf.).(6) In this case the text omitted by EF exactly fills lines 11-12 of f. [19.sup.v] of A. The meaningless tra (of tragoedias) was `emended' in E to contra,(7) in F to ira.

(3) 2.214,10-11 intuleris--confirmat om. [E.sup.1]F (suppl. [E.sup.3] in mg).(8) The words omitted exactly fill in A the eleventh line of f. [20.sup.v]. At the end of line 10 atque (2.214,10) is abbreviated (to atq); directly underneath, at the end of line 11, stands confirmat (with a distinctio media, i.e. a punctuation mark that looks the same as the single dot of -q. that A uses). This may have caused the `jump'.(9)

In (4) the words omitted do not correspond exactly to lines in A, yet they do come close to it:

(4) 3.111,8- 11 omnis--disceptatur om. EF. In A the tenth line of f. [36.sup.v] begins with: t(ur). Omnis (3.111,8); two lines further down, the twelfth begins with: t(ur), sive (3.111,11). This may have caused the omission in EF.

I must admit that (4) is of doubtful cogency. In this case saut du meme au meme is involved, and this might just as well have happened in some other manuscript than A, e.g. in Strobel's Abrincensis gemellus. To some extent the same goes for (3). (1) and (2), on the other hand, are so remarkable that they alone, I feel, should be sufficient to prove my point. However, because the independence of E from A has been so generally, and for so long, considered to be an established fact, I think a more comprehensive case is called for. Hence I will proceed to develop the remaining parts (B-D) of my programme as well.


On the strength of Strobel s stemma we may define `copying-errors of A' as follows: obvious errors in A where both E and H have preserved the obviously correct reading.

I have drawn up a list of all A's errors (according to the given definition) that I have been able to find (see Table 1). With it go the following remarks:
Table 1. Errors qf A not found in EH

     Book 2
24,9-10 dixi non--Scaevola om. [A.sup.1]: habent
25,4 inlitterarum [A.sup.1]: -ratum EFH
[50,26-60,15: lacuna in A]
65,18 apellant A: appellant EFH
72,20 hausciam A: haud sciam EFH
75,9 aliquod A: aliquot EFH
76,20 uidisse A: uidisset EFH
76,24 erant A: errant EFH
85,7 pos A: possit EFH
95,6 dicend A: dicendi EFH
96.20 quaestio [A.sup.1] (cryphia s.1.): quae stilo
101,22 uituperatio [A.sup.1]: -tionem EFH
104,16 causa causa A: causa EFH
111,13 Ambigorum A: Ambiguorum EFH
111,14 in A: ii EFH
117,13 aptu est A: aptu(m) est EFH
122,3 Nam qu(a)e A: Namq(ue) EFH
135,2 ad / multis A: a multis EFH
136,5 forsitam A: forsitan EFH
146,25 animi [A.sup.1]: animus EFH
148,12 praecipu(a)e A: praecipue EFH
168,11 si uos A: suos EFKH
194,2 imflammatione A: infl- EFH
196,23 lacrumi A: lacrimis EFH
199,13-14 illae seditio / A: illae seditiones
EH (illa sedicio F)
199,3 odum A: odium EFH
214,13 requit A: requirit EFH
[234.15-287,13: omitted by [A.sup.1]EF]
304,10 praemuntione AF: praemunitione EH
308,2 ide(m) AFK: idest E: id e(st) H
327,10 lamentio A: lamentatio EFH
327,10 peruari(a)e A: peruarie EFH
327,1 decemuir siculis [A.sup.1]: decem uersiculis
EH (uersiculis F)
357,5 caecasset A: caecas et EFH
363,24 uoluistis A: uoluisti EFH

     Book 3

13,11 rem AF: rem p(ublicam) EH
[17,11-110,18: lacuna in M]
119,11 quaesti/tionum A: quaestionum EFH
119,13 longust [A.sup.1] (longu(m)st [A.sup.2]): longu(m)
est EFH
136,23-4 honore / [A.sup.1]: honores EFH
[149,26-171,11: omitted by [A.sup.1]EF]
177,12-13 temus A: tenemus EFH
183,7 maxim(a)e A: maxime EFH
186,8 anni A: amni EFH
190,2 utendu st A: utendu(m) est EFH
205,15 discriptio AF: descr- EH
219,1 miscendust A: miscendu(m)st EFH
226,16 tecla A: tela EFH
226,2 intellegu A: intellego EFH

(a) Strobel too provides a list (pp. 31-2). However, as the data on which he had to rely were not seldom either incorrect or incomplete, the following passages have to be removed from it:

2.34,13 quod AEF: quid HK; 2.38,10 minus AK: munus H: om. [E.sup.1]F inter alla (suppl. [E.sup.3] in mg. inf.);(10) 2.40,13 iam [AE.sup.1]F: tam []; 2.41,18 crassus AEFH, edd.; 2.61,17 quos [AE.sup.1]F: quo s(unt) [H.sup.1][E.sup.3]: qui s(unt) []; 2.159,3 ac AEFH, edd.; 2.182,1 persequare AH, edd.: persequere EF;(11) 2.197,11 fuca [AE.sup.1][FH.sup.1] (cryphias in AH): fuga(m) [][]; 2.232,22 ducamus [AE.sup.1]F: ducamur H: deducamur [E.sup.3]; 2.235,13 (this is in apart of the text supplemented by [A.sup.2], but omitted by [A.sup.1]EF);(12) 3.136,6 pontificum [AH.sup.1]: pontificium []; 3.145,15 (A reads simply co(m)pulisti); 3.147,10 ut AEFH; 3.176,16-17 solut A: sotuat EF: soluta H (cf `soluit m, Friedrich app. crit.).(13)

(b) There are a limited number of cases in which A stands alone among the three mutili antiquiores in reducing double i to single i. Examples: 2.80,14 and 3.119,12 ali A: alii EFH; 3.124,15 ingenis A: ingeniis EFH; 3.131,7 studis A: studiis EFH; 3.139,20-4 alisne...alis...alis AF: aliisne...aliis...aliis EH.(14) In each instance it is clear from the context what is meant. Often a later hand added an i above the line. Is A in these passages a faithful copy of its exemplar, whereas the spelling in EH has already been normalised? Whatever the case, it is not a matter of mistakes here, so I have decided to bar these cases from my list.

(c) The same goes for a similarly limited number of cases in which A first abbreviates a word (or syllable), but then changes his mind and decides to write it out after all, without however taking the trouble to delete the abbreviation symbol. Examples: 2.303,2 quom A (cu EF: quo H);(15) 3.147,11 cdommunium / A (to fill out the line? comuniu EFH); 3.186,14 ambit'us A (ambit' EH: ambitus E).(16) I know of two cases in which A does not bother to delete an abbreviation stroke when he has made a mistake but immediately corrects it: 2.130,11 eius A (i.e. e = est corrected to eius; ei' EH: eius F) and 3.126,9 quan / ta copia A (i.e. qua = quam corrected to quantam; quanta copia EFH).

(d) Orthographic errors of A (like celum for caelum, naratio for narratio, phitagoras for pythagoras etc.) I have omitted, except for those that could cause confusion.

(e) For the sake of clarity I have suppressed all those small blemishes, orthographic deviations and other peculiarities of EH that are irrelevant to the point concerned.(17)

(f) Use of the siglum [A.sup.1] implies that a later hand in A has correctly repaired the error concerned.

If we now turn to the list itself (Table 1), the first thing to be noted is that it comprises only 45 cases. Moreover, a large majority of them concern rather insignificant mistakes. Anyone who took the trouble to have a look at all forty-five in their proper context would find that most of them are easily emendable by conjecture. Setting aside the major omission of 2.24,9-10 (which I will discuss when examining Strobel s counter-arguments) and 3.13,11 publicam (to which I will return presently) nowhere have words been omitted. Changes in word order do not occur at all. Among the errors that do occur there is a high percentage of mere trifles.

Once again, a consequence of taking Strobel's stemma for granted is that the scribe of A in copying Books 2 and 3 of De oratore(18) made fewer than 50 mistakes, most of them rather trivial. The man must have been of well-nigh superhuman accuracy,(19) and must have had a curious preference for making mistakes that are emendable by conjecture.(20)

This is unacceptable; the stemma is in need of rectification. We should look at Table I in a different way. It is not a list of A's errors tout court, but only of those of A's errors (whether committed by the scribe of A or by his predecessor) that we find already emended in E. In most cases this emendation will have been achieved per conjecturam,(21) in some by collation.(22) To round off this section, I would like to make the following observation. One could have doubts about whether a number of items in the list of Table 1 really belong to it. I have decided to let them stand, in order to avoid giving the impression of forcing the data into my own mould. For example, the correction in A at 2.25,4 is perhaps not by a later hand, but by the original scribe. At 2.76,20 E reads uidiss&, but the t-part of the ligature seems to be expunged, possibly by [E.sup.1] himself (who in that case must have rectified a copying-error of his own). At 2.117,13 and 3.190,2 the m-strokes of aptu(m) est and utendu(m)st in H look as if they were added by a later hand, so possibly [H.sup.1] read the same as A. At 2.214,13 H has requirit, but ri has subsequently been expunged, and above the word was placed a cryphia,(23) which seems to me in Lupus's hand. So possibly Lupus emended requit while copying to requirit, but on second thoughts deemed it wiser to maintain the original form, with a cryphia above it. At 2.363,24 H reads correctly -isti, but preserves the corrupt ending in the margin, as a `marginal variant'.(24) So almost certainly H's exemplar (or, if one wishes, the exemplar of this exemplar) still read -istis, like A. At 3.13,11 E reads ea quae nosmet ipsi ob amorem in rem p. pertulimus incredibilem et singularem pertulimus. Ac sensim cogitanti etc., with p. pertulimus, as indicated, deleted by underlining. One gets the impression that the scribe of E, while dictating to himself what he had memorized for copying, subconsciously replaced ob amorem in rem incredibilem et singularem by ob amorem in rem publicam, noticed his error almost immediately, and corrected it. If so, in his exemplar p. must have been missing, as in A (F too omits it).


Up to almost the end of the second book the scribe of A does not generally abbreviate the verbal ending -mus (to -m'), probably to preclude confusion with -mur (cf. above, n. 16). Instead, he nearly always writes it in full. At 2.359, however, he suddenly changes his habit and starts using the abbreviation -m; (i.e. -m with a `semicolon'), which then remains in regular use up to the end of the third book.(25) This abbreviation was not uncommon in the early Middle Ages, but seems to have passed into disuse with the rise of Caroline minuscule (except in -b; = -bus).(26)

Why this observation? Because of the curious phenomenon that as long as A writes emus in full, E correctly transmits -mus (mostly shortened to -m'), while as soon as A changes to -m;, E often transmits -m (1st p. sg.; mostly shortened to -(m)). The facts are as follows:

2.359,11 comprehendam; A: comprehenda(m) EF. This is the first case(27) of -m; = -mus in A, and also the first time E transmits this ending wrongly. In the remaining paragraphs of Book 2 nine verbal forms in -mus occur. Of these, three are written out by A (362,6 diligimus; 362,7; 367,1) and correctly transmitted by EF. In the remaining six instances EF make four mistakes: 363,21 ignoscerem E (-re(m) F); 363,21 cognosse [E.sup.1] (-se(m) []F); 364,14 audia(m) EF; 367,3 manere(m) EF.(28)

In 3.1-17 fourteen verb forms in emus occur. Four of these in A are either abbreviated by means of the apostrophe or not abbreviated at all (6,15; 6,18; 14,22; 17,11). They are all correctly transmitted by EF. Ten times, however, A shortens to -m;, and in five out of these ten cases E has a corruption in its text: 13,12 sensim EF; 14,18 perga(m) EF; 14,24 refera(m) E (-ram F); 16,10-11 cognouera(m) E (-ramus F: by emendation?); 16,11 id ipsu(m) EF (haplography of id ipsum sum?).(29)

3.110-48(30) contain sixteen verb forms in emus, one of them not abbreviated in A (123,10; correct in EF). Of the fifteen that are, five are transmitted incorrectly by E: 123,7 possu(m) EF; 123,9 transfera(m) E (-ram F); 137,11 possu(m) EF; 143,10 quaerim E: querimus F;(31) 144,8 dicere(m) EF.(32)

Finally 3.171-230.(33) In this section I noted 30 verb forms in -mus. Two are written out by A (215,5 and 230,17; both correct in EF). The remaining 28 are shortened to -m; in A. Evidently, by this point the scribe concerned(34) has become much more sensitive to these abbreviations, for in this section only one mistake occurs (226,19 cupia(m) EF).(35)


There are a number of places where the text of A has mistakes or peculiarities which, for varying reasons, should be assigned to the scribe of A himself. They quite often have consequences for the text of E. I will discuss only the more conspicuous cases here.(36)

(1) 2.189,8 [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] A: adhiber& uole [sp. vac. parv.] iudici [E.sup.1] (-t ins. m.p.; adhibere uolet iudici FH). In my opinion the reading of A should be explained as follows. Instead of adhibere uol&, the scribe inadvertently wrote adhiber& uol&. He then noticed his mistake, and intended to correct it by erasing the t-part of the &-ligature and adding a horizontal stroke. However, he made another mistake, by altering the wrong &. As a result A has adhiberet vole iudici, and this is also the reading of [E.sup.1].(37)

(2) 2.296,2 [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] A: sem pris fui E (semper is fui FH). The -r of semper may have dropped because, when writing the vertical stroke of it, the scribe of A thought he was already writing the i- of is (a `jump' of one letter). This would at the same time explain why is is connected to the preceding letters, as if to make one word. The slight space after sem is probably unintentional, as a peculiarity of A is that it often leaves such spaces within words. Next, the scribe noticed his mistake and corrected it by adding the -r, in a not unusual manner, viz. with a dot on the line, and one before the letter to be inserted. However, the result of all this looks rather strange. Turning now to E, it is striking to note that it too has a rather strange reading, which moreover can be explained by starting from A's, if we assume that someone made the mistakes (a) of taking the space after sem seriously, and (b) of thinking that the e of `peis' had been expunged and was to be replaced by the r.

(3) 2.299,3 [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] A: proprie EFm (prope H). Here the scribe of A inadvertently wrote(38) probe, instead of prope. He then noticed his error and made the b into a p, without however finding it necessary to erase the b's ascender, obviously trusting that what was meant was sufficiently clear.(39) Yet, later copyists took the result as a p with an i above it (= pri): hence the reading of EF and the manuscripts belonging to Friedrich's m-class, of which it is certain that they derive ultimately from A. That their interpretation was wrong, is proved by the fact that A--as rightly observed by Strobel (p. 36)--does not use this compendium.

(4-5) 3.131,1 [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] A: natis E (natus FH); 3.217,11 [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] A: atreis EF (atreus H). In these two Gases A unintentionally(40) wrote -us in ligature. Or, perhaps more likely, he wrote -is but noticed his error and corrected it by making is into an (improvised) us in ligature.(41) Whatever exactly happened, the resulting forms look like natis and atreis. One cannot argue, however, that they are in fact natis and atreis: A's serifs are short, much shorter than we would have to postulate here.(42) I find it remarkable that precisely in these two instances correctly transmitted forms in -us (as witnessed by AH) are corrupted in E to -is, which hardly, if ever, occurs elsewhere. (*) The following abbreviations of the titles of modern works have been used in this article: I.Priene--F. Hiller von Gaertringen (ed.), Inschriften von Priene (Berlin, 1906); MRR--T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, 3 vols. (New York, 1951-86); RRC--M. H. Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage (Cambridge, 1974); Shackleton Bailey, Roman Nomenclature--D. R. Shackleton Bailey, Two Studies in Roman Nomenclature, American Classical Studies no. 3 (New York, 1976), Sumner, `Governors'--G. V. Sumner, `Governors of Asia in the nineties B.C.', GRBS 19 (1978), 144-53; Sumner, Orators--G. V. Sumner, The Orators in Cicero's Brutus: Prosopography and Chronology (Phoenix Suppl. 11, Toronto, 1973).

(1) I.Priene 121, lines 21-4. This text uses epigraphical conventions different from those in the editio princeps. Here [] indicate supplements to lacunae; < >, letters left out of the text by the lapicide by accident; {}, letters that in the editor's opinion have been erroneously inscribed and must therefore be deleted.

(2) Sumner, `Governors', 147-53.

(3) G. R. Stumpf, `C. Atinius C.f., Praetor in Asia 122-121 v. Chr., auf einem Kistophor', ZPE 61 (1985), 186-90; idem, Numismatische Studien zur Chronologie der romischen Statthalter in Kleinasien, 122 v. Chr.-163 n. chr. (Saarbrucker Studien zur Archaologie und alten Geschichte 4, Saarbrucken, 1991), pp. 6-12; MRR 3.27-8. On Ephesus' civic era, cf. K. J. Rigsby, `The era of the province of Asia', Phoenix 33 (1979), 39-47.

(4) The nine-year interval between Macerio's tribunate of the plebs in 131 and a praetorship in 1122 is somewhat longer than the average, which is five or six years, but not problematic: cf., e.g. eight years between the tribunate of the plebs (99) and praetorship (91) of Q. Pompeius Rufus (MRR 2.2, 20) and the decade interval in the career of Piso Frugi (tr. pl. 149, pr. c. 138, MRR 3. 159).

(5) MRR 1.500, 503, 504, 506, 509.

(6) F. Munzer, RE 10 (1919), col. 1095 s.v. Iunius no. 170; MRR 2.60.

(7) MRR 2.94.

(8) I.Priene 121, line 32: [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. The suggestion of Sumner (`Governors', 150) that Seleucus is not called king because Priene refused to recognize him as such is not attractive: what difference would it make to a Greek city in a Roman province who was king of Syria? In any case, that the people of Priene sent an embassy to the crown prince belies any suggestion that they were hostile to him, as does the fact that the embassy is later cited as a highlight of the honorand's career.

(9) T. P. Wiseman, `Factions and family trees', LCM 1 (1976), 1-3, at p. 2. D. R. Shackleton Bailey (Roman Nomenclature, p. 76), followed by A. Keaveney (`Who were the Sullani?', Klio 66 [1984], 114-50, at 120), confuses the reading on the stone and Gaertringen's emendation. See especially M. H. Crawford, `M. Silanus Murena', LCM 7 (1982), 124. Shackleton Bailey corrects his mistake at p. 97 of the second edition of his monograph (Atlanta, 1991).

(10) Shackleton Bailey, Roman Nomenclature, pp. 50-86, 97-8.

(11) O. Salomies, Adoptive and Polyonymous Nomenclature in the Roman Empire (Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 97, Helsinki, 1992).

(12) Shackleton Bailey, Roman Nomenclature, p. 55.

(13) On the family, see now J. S. Arkenberg, `Licinii Murenae, Terentii Varrones, and Varrones Murenae', Historia 42 (1993), 326-51, at p. 333.

(14) B. Wosnik, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Sullas (Dies. Wurzburg, 1963), pp. 1-9. The query in <...?[GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]is mine (any normal praenomen is possible).

(15) The lapicide made at least one other non-orthographical error in the text: a dittography of the words [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]in lines 27-8.

(16) The praetorship in Spain that Broughton (MRR 1.535) ascribed to him should probably be rejected, as was argued by Sumner (Orators, 78) and as Broughton himself has recognized (MRR 3.114).

(17) Wosnick, op. cit. (n. 14), p. 8.

(18) Crawford, RRC no. 285; for the date, see pp. 65-8, 71.

(19) The only shorter interval is C. Vibius Pansa, moneyer in 48 (RRC nos. 449, 451) and consul in 43. He is obviously exceptional, however, since his career was accelerated by Caesar: it seems that he became consul without ever having held the praetorship (RRC p. 711 and n. 2); cf. G. V. Sumner, `The lex Annalis under Caesar', Phoenix 25 (1971), 246-71, 357-71, at p. 255. A more typical interval between moneyership and consulship is illustrated by the cases of T. Didius (mon. 113 or 112, cost 98) and C. Claudius Pulcher (mon. 110 or 109, cost. 92).

(20) As suggested by Crawford (RRC pp. 710-11, 729) to explain cases where less than a decade separate moneyership and consulship.

(21) The range of intervals between moneyership and praetorship is illustrated by the cases of P. Licinius Nerva (RE 135), who was moneyer in 113 or 112 (RRC no. 292) and praetor 104 (MRR 1.559), and C. Claudius Pulcher (RE 302), moneyer in 110 or 109 (RRC no. 300) and praetor in 95 (MRR 2.11).

(22) RRC no. 220; that his cognomen was Silanus seems to be indicated by the ass's head on his coinage.

(23) R. Syme, `Marriage ages for Roman senators', Historia 36 (1987), 318-32 = Roman Papers, vol. 6 (Oxford, 1991), pp. 232-46; R. P. Saller, `Men's age at marriage and its consequences in the Roman family', CPh 82 (1987), 21-34.

(24) For his adoption, Cic. Fin. 1.24; Liv. Oxy. Per. 54, Per. 54; Val. Max. 5.8.3. For the purpose of adoption in Roman society, M. Corbier, `Divorce and adoption as familial strategies', in B. Rawson (ed.), Marriage, Divorce and Children in Ancient Rome (Canberra and Oxford, 1991), pp. 47-78, esp. p. 66.

(25) RRC p. 259; lex repet. (A. Lintott [ed.], Judicial Reform and Land Reform in the Roman Republic, Cambridge, 1992) line 74, cf. line 23. The suggestion of Lintott (op. cit., p. 154) that the author of the lex Iunia was a Brutus is not impossible, though he is probably wrong to suggest that he is the famous jurisconsult: the filiation of the tribune was D.f., while the jurist was probably a son of M. Iunius Brutus, cos. 178 (F. Munzer, RE 10 [1919], col. 971 s.v. Iunius no. 49; MRR 1.480).

(26) This stemma should be compared with that offered by Crawford (RRC p. 159), which incorporates two assumptions that I prefer not to follow: first, that the praef. soc. 196 died without issue and second that D. Silanus (RE 160), the translator of Mago, was the son of the D. Iunius Silanus, who was father of the moneyer of c. 145. This, however, makes the moneyer of c. 145 (RE 22) the uncle of the praetor of 141 (RE 161), despite the fact that he seems to have been his junior by several years. While this is not strictly impossible, especially if we imagine a second marriage for their putative father, the difficulty can be avoided by supposing that the translator of Mago (RE 160)--who, if father of Manlianus, must have been born in the late third century anyway was the son of the praefectus sociorum.

(27) Cic. Mur. 15.

(28) MRR 3.123, following A. Keaveney, `Young Pompey, 106-79 B.C.,' AC 51 (1982), 111-39, at 123-4.

(29) Broughton, MRR 1.571; F. Munzer, RE 13 (1927), colt 444 s.v. Licinius no. 121.

(30) Cf. Arkenberg, op. cit. (n. 13), 326-51.

(31) Since the minimum age for candidacy for the quaestorship was effectively 27 (A. E. Astin, The Lex Annalis before Sulla [Coll. Latomus 32, Brussels, 1958], pp. 42-5), while that for candidacy for the praetorship was 39 (ibid. 41), an interval of twelve years between these magistrates might be regarded as typical. Obviously, however, one office or both could be held after the minimum age had passed. For comparison, consider the eleven years between the quaestorship and praetorship of M. Antonius (RE 28; q. 113, pr. 102, cost 99); thirteen years for C. Sempronius Tuditanus (RE 92; q. 145, pr. 132, cost 129); at least fifteen years for C. Claudius Pulcher (RE 302; q. 110 [see MRR 3.57], pr. 95, cos. 92). (32) Cic. Brut. 237; his death in 82 is reported at Cic. Brut. 311.

(33) On the chronological structure of the work, see Sumner, Orators, 151-4.

(34) Cic. Brut. 229-39; Sumner, Orators, 153, cf 24.

(35) See above, n. 31.

(36) The suggestion of Keaveney (Klio 66 [1984], 121) that he was quaestor of C. Cassius in the late 90s can be left aside, since it is predicated on the dating of the series of embassies in I.Priene 121 to the nineties and the identification of Murena as M. Iunius Silanus (pr. 77).

(37) J. P. V. D. Balsdon, `Roman history, 65-50 B.C.: five problems', JRS 52 (1962), 134-41, at 134-5.

(38) The most famous cases are Cn. Calpurnius Piso in 65 B.C., who went to govern Nearer Spain as quaestor pro praetore, where he was killed (Sall. Cat. 19.1, ILS 875; MRR 2.159), and P. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus, who was sent in 75 or 74 B.C. to organize the new province of Cyrene (Sall. Hist. 2.43 [Maurenbrecher], MRR 2.97,3.69). Also noteworthy is M. Antonius (cos.99) in 113 B.C. (MRR 1.539; IDelos 1603).

(39) I accept the interpretation of the phrase [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (lex Pirat. Cnid. col. 3, 11.35-7 at JRS 64 [1974], 202) of M. Hassall, M. H. Crawford and J. Reynolds (JRS 64 [1974], 209, 211), despite A. N. Sherwin White, Roman Foreign Policy in the East: 168 B.C. to A.D. 1 (1984), 97-101. Cf. also A. Lintott, ZPE 20 (1976), 81-2.

(40) T. C. Brennan, `Sulla's career in the nineties: some reconsiderations', Chiron 22 (1992), 103-58, esp. 137-44.


On p. 47 of his dissertation Strobel tackles the problem of how to fit E into the stemma. In this connection he explicitly opposes the opinion defended in this paper. I will cite the passage in its entirety. For the sake of convenience I will number his arguments:

Atque E cum A, non cum H coniungendum esse satis, ut mihi videtur, demonstratum est; nam ita illi inter se consentiunt, ut facile quis E ex A descriptum esse suspicari possit. Sed hanc opinionem prorsus reiciendam esse compluribus causis convincitur. (1) Primum enim E aliquot locis recta servavit, ubi in A (et H) errores irrepserunt; (2) deinde E ilium quidem ab [A.sup.1] omissum, ab [A.sup.2] additum locum II 24 exhibet, alii autem loci, qui item in A ab altera menu correcti sunt, in E corrupti leguntur,(3) denique maxime mirum esset, quomodo in E, si ex A difficultatem legenti nullam praebente descriptus esset, tot nova invasissent menda.

As to (3), this may be dismissed briefly. Nothing prevents us from assuming one or more (now lost) intermediaries between A and E, just as the Abrincensis gemellus in Strobel's stemma is obviously such an intermediary, introduced to account for all those `nova menda'.(43) Between A and E lay some 140 years. That E need not necessarily be a direct copy of A seems to have been overlooked by Strobel.

Next (2). This concerns the addition by a later hand of the words dixi non--Scaevola (2.24,9-10), which had been omitted by [A.SUP.1](44) Strobel certainly is right in claiming that the corrections of [A.SUP.2] are as a rule ignored by E.(45) There is some logic in this, since it is clear that, if E descends from A, the copy of A to which E goes back must have been made before A got its major supplements from [A.sup.2];(46) and it is not improbable that [A.sup.2] took his corrections from the same exemplar as these major supplements, and at roughly the same period of time. Strobel is wrong, however, in attributing the addition at 2.24 to [A.sup.2].(47) [A.sup.2]'s hand is of a rounded, almost lax appearance,(48) and the ink he uses is mostly rather pale. By contrast, the addition at 2.24 is in a vigorous, angular hand, and written in a fairly dark brown ink. It must have been made by someone other than [A.sup.2], and as its script is an early Caroline minuscule closely related to the script used by [A.sup.1], I can see no reason why it might not be older than [A.sup.2]'s corrections. This possibility deprives Strobel's argument of its force.

Finally (1). This requires a more elaborate discussion. I should start by saying that it is not entirely clear to me exactly which are the 'aliquot loci' meant by Strobel. Probably he has in mind at least some of the items on his list (pp. 31-2) of A's peculiar errors. Furthermore, he must be thinking of some (not all) of those instances where both A and H are corrupt, while E has the obviously correct reading. Of these, he gives a list on p. 41. The former list I have discussed above (section B). Here I shall discuss the latter, which is shown in Table 2.(49)
Table 2. Errors of AH not found in E

Book 2
39,17 nihilque [AFH.sup.1]: mihique E
[50,26-60,15: lacuna in A]
89,17-18 ut tamen te [A.sup.1][H.sup.1]: Ut tota mente EF
90,1 meo [A.sup.1]H: in eo EF
99,20 ad sas [A.sup.1][H.sup.1]: ad causas EF
99,1 aliqui AH: aliquis EF
101,24 quam om. [A.sup.1]H habent EF
140,16 quod A[H.sup.1] (quot corn Lupus in mg.):
quot EF
140,20 extimatis [AH.sup.1]: exislimatis EF
158,17 uniusque AFH: uniuscuusque E (uniuscuiusque
159,7 ruina [A.sup.1][FH.sup.1]: trutina E
163,4 bocabulum [A.sup.1][H.sup.1]: uocabulum EF
173,6 sublebantur [AH.sup.1]: subleuantur EF
179,16 num AFH: nunc [E.sup.1]
181,10 posita AFH: proposita E
188,19 dicito AHI (dicto [ digito E (cito F)
189,6 adSectet AH: adfietus E (adfietum F, edd.)
215,2 sumentur AFKH: sumuntur [E.sup.1]
[234,15-287,13: omitted by [A.sup.1]EF]
357,5 aspectu AFH: aspectus [E.sup.1]

Book 3
11, 19-20 crassos edicarant AH: crasso se
dicarant EF
[17,11-110,18: lacuna in M]
116,6 simplicum AH: simplicium EF
116,7 honoris A[H.sup.1]: honoree EF
120,15 eaeque AFH: eae quae E
136,6 pontificum A[H.sup 1]: pontificium EF
[149,26-171,11: omitted by [A.sup.1]EF]
190,17 uobis AFH: nobis [E.sup.1]
197,20 exercitamur AH: excitamur EF
202,7-8 amplicandum AH: amplificandum EF
204,14 commonendos AFH: commouendos [E.sup.1]
211,5 dissupatio AH (`(ue)l disputatio' coni.
Lupus in mg.): disputatio EF
211,6 ([an.sup.2]:) at AH (`(ue)l an' cont. Lupus in
mg.): an E (`(ue)l aut' ss. [E.sup.2]; aut F)
212,10 oratoris AFH: orationis [E.sup.1]

Looking through this list, one cannot maintain that in all these cases E has inherited the old, correct reading of M, whereas in A and H errors have crept in. For it is improbable that, independently of each other, A (or his predecessor) and H would have committed the same mistakes in so many places. Moreover, most of the mistakes concerned are amendable, i.e. of such a nature that a medieval reader could conceivably emend them by conjecture. It seems to me, therefore, that what we have is just a list of those places where an old error of the M-tradition is still present in AH, but eliminated in E. This means that we find already corrected in E not only some of the more recent mistakes, viz. those of the A-branch of the M-family (see above, section B), but also some of the older ones. And it would have been strange indeed if correctors in their attempts to eliminate errors had discriminated between age groups. Many of the mistakes in both lists also seem to have been emended in the manuscripts of Friedrich s m-class, which certainly descend from A. Thus, in this respect E already behaves like a mutilus recentior.

Strobel in fact admits (pp. 41-2) that it is probable that most of the readings of E on the list are due to emendation by conjecture. But he would perhaps object that E could have inherited at least some of them, e.g. uniuscuiusque (2.158,17) or the ad fletus of 2.189,6, which receives in his list the designation maxime notatu dignum . This latter reading is indeed highly remarkable.(50) but I do not think it can be used as an argument in the present discussion. To assume that E inherited this reading down the lines of the traditional stemma would mean that the curious corruption of ad fletum to adfectet occurred in both A and H, independently of each other. This is unacceptable.(51)

The same objection does not apply in the case of uniuscuiusque (2.158,17),(52) as the corruption from this form to uniusque is obvious. and might very well have occurred independently in both A and H. On the other hand, I think E's reading can be explained as a conjecture. Perhaps someone sensed that behind uniusque an indefinite pronoun lay hidden, and if you then try to make a possible Latin form out of it, there is a good chance that you will arrive at uniuscuiusque.(53) However that may be, F has the same error as AH, which confirms the impression that E's reading is due to emendation.

There are more instances in the list where F agrees with AH. K does the same at 2.215,2. Here E's reading may even be accidental.(54) Some emendations E probably owes to corrections made by later hands in A (I will return to that presently). Some he may have made himself, while copying.(55) In my opinion there is not a single case in the list that yields a cogent argument in favour of Strobel's view.

I know of two--rather innocuous--cases in which A and H have different errors, whereas E offers something better: 2.335,13 metimus A: metiamur H (`.A. mus' adscr. Lupus in mg.): metimur EF, edd. ;(56) 3.4,20-21 ni ipso loco A: ipso loco H: in ipso loco EF, Friedr., Pid.-Harn., Born. (ipso in loco L, edd. pler.).


If it is accepted, then, that E derives from A, there still remains a word to be said about the possibility of E's text being contaminated.(57) Indeed, it cannot be ruled out a priori that E, though derived from A, is not derived exclusively from it. For example, it is not impossible that a reader of the lost intermediary (a) with the help of some other manuscript was able to make corrections in a that were later incorporated into E's text. Theoretically at least, there is also the possibility of the scribes of a and/or E having a second exemplar at their disposal, which they could use whenever they felt their primary source let them down.(58) If anything of the sort happened, and if a manuscript independent of A or even of AH was used in the process, the resulting contamination should be detectable in either or both of the two Tables shown above, as these together offer a conspectus of all those instances where E is free from mistakes found in either A (Table 1) or AH combined (Table 2).

When looking through these lists again, there are two things we must realize. Firstly, as we have seen above, most of E s readings in both lists can easily be explained as being due to conjecture, and this in turn makes it likely that they are in fact due to conjecture (at least to a large extent), since it is improbable that contamination would result in such a high proportion of easy and inconspicuous emendation. Cases of this nature at any rate cannot be used as arguments in the present discussion. Secondly, there are a number of items(59) in both lists where E's reading coincides with a correction made by a later hand in A. Once it is established that E derives (basically) from A, I cannot see any reason why E should not owe most of these readings precisely to the fact that they have been entered as corrections in A. The corrections involved may well be early enough for a to have profited from them. They were all made by hands other than [A.sup.2], with only four possible exceptions.(60)

If we subtract from Tables 1 and 2 all items falling into these two categories, we are left with the following cases upon which to base our verdict:(61)

2.76,24 erant A: errant EFH, edd. 2.158,17 uniusque AFH: uniuscuusque E (uniuscuiusque edd.) 2.168,11 si uos A: suos EFKH, edd. 2.181,10 posita AFH: proposita E, edd. 2.189,6 adfectet AH: adfletus E (adfletum F, edd.) 2.214,13 requit A[H.sup.pc]: requirit EF[], edd. (cryphias H[E.sup.3]) 3.11,19-20 crassos edicarant AH: crasso se dicarant EF, edd. (cryphias AH) 3.13,11 rem A[E.sup.pc]F: rem p(ublicam) []H, edd. 3.177,12- 13 temus A: tenemus EFH, edd. 3.197,20 exercitamur AH: excitamur EF, edd.

I doubt very much whether this is sufficient proof of contamination. 2.158,17 I have discussed above (with nn. 52-3). For 3.13,11, see the concluding remarks to section B. Some of E's readings in the list may be accidental, as the scribes of both a and E must have been rather careless copyists. If careless copyists copy a long and corrupt text, there is a good chance that, at least occasionally, correct readings will be restored by accident. This may have happened at 2.181,10 and 3.197,20.(62) The emendations at 2.76,24, 2.168,11, 2.214,13, 3.11,19-20 and 3.177,12-13 are perhaps less easy than would appear in retrospect (which is why I included them in this more select list), but I do not believe anyone could reasonably claim that they are impossible as conjectures. In my opinion the only truly remarkable reading in the list is 2.189,6 ad fletus/-tum. One such reading alone, however, makes very slender evidence indeed. All in all, I prefer to assume that the text of E is uncontaminated and to regard the reading at 2.189,6 as a lucky guess.


There are a number of positive indications that E is a descendant of A. For example, a case like D3 alone (2.299,3 prope/proprie) should almost be sufficient to settle the matter. The same goes for A1, A2, D1, D2, and section B of my argument. The other items belonging to sections A and D, as well as C, may serve as corroborative evidence.

Compared to all this material, Strobel's arguments look rather thin. As I have tried to demonstrate, he does not in fact produce anything cogent. Not even 2.24,9-10, which he perhaps considered his strongest asset, actually proves anything. In my opinion the Erlangensis descends from A, and can safely be barred(63) from the critical apparatus wherever A is present. It could still be useful, however, as a substitute for A in those parts of the text where A has been lost to us.(64)

(1) Cf. L. D. Reynolds (ed.), Texts and Transmission: a Survey of the Latin Classics (Oxford, 1983), pp. 102-9; for the mutili, esp. pp. 102-4. Some additions and corrections to this account, and the stemma underlying it, were later given by M. D. Reeve, `The Circulation of Classical Works on Rhetoric from the 12th to the 14th Century'; in Cl. Leonardi/E. Menesto (eds.), Retorica e poetica tra i secoli XII e XIV (Atti del secondo Convegno internazionale di studi dell'Associazione per il Medioevo e l'Umanesimo Latini (AMUL); Trentoe Rovereto, 1985), [Florence, 1988], pp. 109-24 (for De oratore, see pp. 118-24).

I will cite the following work by the author's name only: E. Strobel, De Ciceronis de oratore librorum codicibus mutilis antiquioribus (diss. inaug., Erlangen 1883; also in Acta seminarii philologic) Erlangensis, 3 [1884], 1-74, which I have used).

The edition of De oratore I have used is K. F. Kumaniecki's (Leipzig, 1969). Occasionally the previous Teubner edition by W. Friedrich (1891 etc.) is referred to.

On derivation in general, and the means of establishing it, see M. D. Reeve, `Eliminatio codicum descriptorum: a methodological problem', in J. N. Grant (ed.), Editing Greek and Latin Texts (New York, 1989), pp. 1-35.

(2) p. 48. The reader will find it reproduced in A. S. Wilkins' OCT edition (1902 etc.), p. iv; also in the Introduction to his Commentary (Oxford, 1892; repr. Hildesheim, 1965, 1990), p. 66.

(3) See Kumaniecki, p. vii; the only change he has made is the addition of K (see below), which was still unknown to Strobel. In Texts and Transmission Strobel's/Kumaniecki's stemma is accepted (see e.g. p. 105: `E and K descend from a sister of A'): the only point on which they voice some doubt (see p. 103, n. 2) concerns the intermediary unnecessarily introduced between M and H by Strobel. Cf. Reeve, `The Circulation...' (above, n. 1), pp. 119-21.

(4) Later, Reeve (op. cit., p. 122) saw that it is in fact independent of E.

(5) As Book 1 is lacking in A, all passages adduced in this article are from Books 2 and 3. In citing them I add line numbers (Kumaniecki's edition) to the book and section numbers. All manuscript readings given have been checked with the aid of photographs (the many discrepancies with Kumaniecki's app. crit.--which is highly inaccurate are only seldom made explicit); F I have collated in situ; in a later stage I have also seen A in situ and re-checked many of its readings. Manuscript abbreviations are mostly resolved without notice; sometimes, when it seemed to serve some purpose, line end has been indicated (/). I use the abbreviation p.c. (or [sup.pc]) for corrections evidently made by the original scribe in the course of copying; m.p. (or []) denotes a later corrector on whose identity I cannot be more specific.

(6) It is noteworthy that the words concerned were evidently not missing in K's exemplar, as K's [sections]428 starts with Haec fere maxime etc. (2.206,5).

(7) A rather thoughtless emendation of a type that occurs more often in E: out of an impossible form it makes an existing Latin word, without bothering too much about the sense. As a result of all this E reads: si aut contra quicumque illi erunt etc.

(8) On top of that, in F the words quae (codd.: idque Kuman.) simul atque (2.214,11) are also omitted. This is probably a case of deliberate `emendation'. F reads: Item misericordia aut inuidiam simulatque emissa est adherescit (cf Kuman. ad 9.10; 12). Note that in isolation F's text could be the result of one single jump (from the first simul atque to the second).

(9) There is yet another case of words omitted by E corresponding exactly to one line in A: 2.102,6-7 habeas--plus om. [E.sup.1] (= A, f [8.sup.r], the last line (30) of the page). But here I do not consider the mistake to have arisen in copying from A, because the words concerned are not missing from F, while in E they are supplied, not by [E.sup.3], but by an older corrector ([E.sup.2]), who emended many errors of E throughout the three books of De oratore, and who must have used a descendant of A closely related to EF for his exemplar (perhaps a, or else the cow of a from which F descends). Besides, the bottom line of a page will not, I think, easily be skipped by a copyist. So the mistake is better explained as one of E's own copying-errors, caused by the two occurrences of plus. For the source of [E.sup.3], see below, n. 10.

(10) The omission in [E.sup.1]F concerns 2.38,10-11 suum munus--non potest. Note that the words are not missing in K (they form part of K's [sections]422, which runs from 2.35,2 to 2.38,14), we have seen a similar case at 2.205-6,3-6: above, with n. 6. [E.sup.3] has his supplements (and corrections) either from a manuscript very close to H (cf. Strobel, p. 46), or--more probably--from H itself Like [E.sup.2] (above, n. 9), he made numerous corrections in E. Moreover, he must be responsible for E's cryphias (which correspond continually to either a cryphia or a vacant space in H). He seems to have given up after he had finished 2.233. Note that Strobel and Kumaniecki fail to distinguish [E.sup.2] and [E.sup.3]: to them all the corrections made by these hands are by one and the same corrector ([`E.sup.2']).

(11) In A, per- is not very legible, but autopsy (above, n. 5) has convinced me that this is in fact the correct reading (not con-, as not only Strobel but also Friedrich and Kumaniecki have it).

(12) [A.sup.2] correctly reads p(er)tineret, anyway.

(13) Here, of AEH, only H has the `obviously correct reading'. The readings of EF and m look like attempts to emend the senseless solut. Thus, on the strength of Strobel's stemma, it is uncertain--to say the least--whether solut is indeed one of A's peculiar errors. Cf. 2.128,18 peta A: petam Em: peto FHL, edd.; 2.197,12 causu A: causa [E.sup.1]F: casu [HE.sup.3]L, edd.

(14) In line 20 F's alisne is p.c. (aliisne []).

(15) Unlike H, A nearly always writes quom in full, probably to forestall confusion with quo = quoniam: see W. M. Lindsay, Notae Latinae (Cambridge, 1915; repr. Hildesheim, 1963), s.v. quondam, esp. [sub sections]328, 330.

(16) Unlike EH, A does not generally abbreviate -us, probably to forestall confusion with -ur: in some pre-Caroline scripts, and also in early Caroline minuscule, the apostrophe was not seldom used for both -us and -ur. See Notae Latinae (above, n. 15), s.vv., esp. [sub sections]468, 470-1, 474-5.

(17) E.g. at 2.72,20 in E sci- is p.c. (si- []), but hau/haud is the relevant point; at 2.111,14 [] read hi instead of ii ([H.sup.1]) but in the Middle Ages this is a question of spelling, 2.196,23 lacrumis E; 2.327,1 uirs- [H.sup.1] (uers- []); at 3.190,2 H has st instead of est (with aphaeresis, as in A), but here the final -m is the point concerned; likewise, 3.219,1 est EF: st [HP.sup.pc] (om. []).

(18) To be more precise: the parts of Books 2 and 3 present in A, minus those wntten by [A.sup.2]; all in all about 400 sections.

(19) One cannot argue that he systematically corrected himself: there are relatively few places in A (much fewer, for example, than in H) where the original scribe corrects errors of his own.

(20) By way of comparison: I estimate that in the same parts of the text H--by no means a careless copy--has about 150 to 170 peculiar errors, about 30 to 35 of which concern wordomission (e.g. 2.84,18 sentio; 2.119,11 dumtaxat; 2.128,20 modo; 2.219,15 persaepe; 2.305,15 dicas; 2.312,7 animos; 2.327,10-11 narrantur; 3.139,23 doctissimum; 3.202,11 quam dixeris; 3.227,10 quiddam).

(21) In many places the text of E shows signs of this striving for emendation. Success in at least some of these places need not surprise us. Strobel (p. 44) gives a few (of the many) examples of failure; cf also my notes 7, 13 and 53.

(22) E.g. 2.24,9-10. Note that here (and elsewhere) E probably owes its emendation to the activity of a corrector in A; I will return to this later.

(23) A mark used to indicate a corruption (cf. Isid. Etym. 1.21.10). For the cryphias in H, see Ch. H. Beeson, Lupus of Ferrieres as Scribe and Text Critic: a Study of his Autograph Copy of Cicero's De oratore (Cambridge, MA, 1930), p. 27.

(24) Erased by a later hand. Cf. Beeson (above, n. 23), pp.34-6. By some slip, he lists the present case under H's marginal corrections (see p. 37, s.v. `[8.sup.v].2.15'), rather than under the marginal variants. [uoluisti [E.sup.1]: -s add. [E.sup.2], s.1. (prave Kuman.)]

(25) At the same time he begins to abbreviate superlative forms in -mus in this way: e.g. prim; (3.7,7 and 3.137,17), optim; (3.135,20), grauissim; (3.177,12--graves sumus edd.--and 3.209,14). The same goes for eius: from 2.366,13 onwards this is mostly written ei;. Hui; occurs at 3.121,7 and 3.227,13, cui; at 3.132,13 (Cous edd.). All these forms are correctly transmitted in E, except for 3.7,8 ei; A: ei EF. To be sure, I found an isolated case of ei; as early as 2.46,16 (ei' EF) and one of cui; at 2.233,12 (cui' EF), both well before the turning-point near the end of Book 2. A similar change of habit occurs in H, though a book earlier. Lupus starts abbreviating -mus to -m', but changes to -m; at 1.98,15 (quaerim;). From then on forms like grauissim;, ei; etc. are also frequent in H (hui; already at 1.96,4). The `semicolon' normally looks in H more like a `colon', but that makes no real difference.

(26) For the various means of abbreviating -us, see Notae Latinae (above, n. 15), s.v., esp. [sub sections]475-6; for the one with `semicolon', esp. [sub sections]476 I, 477.

(27) Apart from an isolated case as early as 2.80,8 faciam; A: faciam' E (faciamus F). The preceding word is nobis, which may have prevented a copying-error, or else may have inspired emendation.

(28) The two instances where they commit no error are 362,6 (ignoscim; A) and 362,8 (adnoscim; A). Note that reading ignoscim and adnoscim would produce impossible Latin, and that the context offers ample support for finding the right interpretation.

(29) The remaining five are: 9,23; 9,3; 13,12 (pertulim;); 15,4; 16,8. EF have all five correctly (9,23 suscipimus F). Note that reading suscepim, tenem, pertulim, postulam, would produce impossible Latin. As to interfuissem; (16,8), here the immediate context would probably force even the dimmest of scribes to read a plural.

(30) 3.17-110 are lacking in AEF, as indeed in all mutili.

(31) Perhaps it was by a mere slip that the scribe of E forgot to add the apostrophe here. [si quaerim; A (prave Kuman.)]

(32) Among the remaining ten, three instances of sum; (122,14; 123,8; 147,16) are preceded by nominative plural forms; viderim; (123,11) was perhaps saved by teramus, one line earlier. In the other cases (123,13-14; 126,13; 133,1 ; 137,18; 138,1 ;138,10) neglecting the `semicolon' would have produced impossible Latin.

(33) 3.149-71 are omitted by [A.sup.1]EF.

(34) I.e. the scribe of the lost intermediary between A and EF (a; see above, the introduction).

(35) Among the remaining 27, there are cases in which the immediate context offers little or no support for the correct interpretation of these forms (e.g. 181,13; 182,4; 185,19-20; 186,8; 186,9; 201,1; 210,18). As Professor Reeve (below, n. 64) points out to me, one could, if necessary, suppose that this section of a was written by a different scribe.

(36) Among the others are: 2.193,7 pater/num A: pater num E (paternum FH); 2.346,7 dici or/natissime A (with only a slight space between dici and or-): ditior natissime [E.sup.1] (dici ornatissime []FH); 3.14,22 ii A (looking like n): n. E: om. F (ii [H.sup.1]: hi []: ei edd.); 3.127,1 manc- []: manu [A.sup.pc] (the c made into a u, while copying): manci [E.sup.1] (manu FH). I have noted a few more.

(37) The -t of E's uolet is in my opinion added by a later hand, since (a) it looks different from the way [E.sup.1] writes -t, (b) [E.sup.1] always writes the verbal ending -et in ligature (-&), and (c) as it is now, there is no space-between uolet and the following iudici, which is contrary to E's normal practice.

(38) Or perhaps I should say: nearly wrote, as one could quarrel about whether the b was ever finished. After seeing A itself I think it was, but I am not quite sure.

(39) Kumaniecki is wrong in attributing the correction to [A.sup.2]: considering the shape of the p involved and the hue of its ink, I am convinced that it was made by the original scribe.

(40) I infer this from the fact that elsewhere A always writes -us without ligature (hundreds of cases).

(41) If the latter explanation is right, the corrections must indeed have been made by the original scribe, as there is no difference in ink.

(42) See the reproduction of one of A's pages (f [37.sup.r]) in E. Chatelain, Paleographie des classiques latins, 1 (Paris, 1894), Pl.-XIX.1. (43) Strobel speaks of it as a manuscript `iqui iam non tanta fide quanta A archetypi scripturas servaverat' (p 47).

(44) Cf. above, section B (Table 1). [2.24,9 scaeuola M (prave Kuman.)]

(45) As may be illustrated by the following examples. 2.164,8 ([est.sup.2]:) et A: est [A.sup.2]; 2.209,15 non gessit A: `(ue)l longe sit' ss. [A.sup.2]; 2.231,11 si A: sit [A.sup.2]; 2.233,15 se A: esse [A.sup.2]; 3.113,5-6 mente in A (cryph. adh.): mentiri [A.sup.2] in mg.; 3.116,7 uerberibus A: rue rebus [A.sup.2] in mg.; 3.121,10 pecus A (cryph. adh.): pectus [A.sup.2] in mg.; 3.132,13 cuius A: `(ue)l chous' adscr. [A.sup.2] in mg.; 3.134,11 repereretur A: referretur [A.sup.2] in ma. In all these instances EF still have the corruption of A' in their text (`emended' at 3.121,10 penus E; 3.134,11 repperetur E: repeteretur F). For some exceptions, see below (with n. 60).

(46) 1.157-93, 2.13-18 (?), 2.234-87 and 3.149-71; now partly lost again, because of the mutilation of A. In EF, as in A, these passages were originally missing (they were c. 1470 supplemented in E, but F is still in its original state). Cf. Texts and Transmission, p. 103.

(47) Note that Strobel did not see A itself: he had to rely on a collation made by Heerdegen in 1881 (see his statement to that effect on p. 2).

(48) See Chatelain (above, n. 42), P1. XIX.2.

(49) I have supplemented Strobel s data with a number of cases I have found myself For the sake of clarity cryphias, vacant spaces, and some irrelevant peculiarities are passed over in silence. Unless otherwise stated, the sigla `[A.sup.1]' and `[H.sup.1]' imply that a later hand has correctly repaired the error concerned. `[E.sup.1]' implies that a later hand (probably [E.sup.2], in most cases) corrected the correct reading of E to the corrupt one of AH. Not listed are a few doubtful cases, notably 3.174,18 sum AH: suum F (E s reading uncertain, but perhaps sunt [E.sup.1]: sum [E.sup.2]) and 3.219,5 colicandas AH: colligandas EF: coligandas edd. recc. (collocandas L, edd. vett., fort. recte).

(50) That E reads fletus instead of fletum seems immaterial. Considering the testimony of F, the plural in E might be due to some mistake in copying.

(51) How E's reading should be explained is another matter. Perhaps simply as a lucky guess. I will return to this when discussing the possibility of E's text being contaminated.

(52) E actually reads uniuscu(us)q(ue), but the omission of the i seems only a slip of the pen.

(53) Cf. 2.193,1 quic A[H.sup.1]: quicquid [E.sup.1]: quid edd. (qui F), to illustrate that this method of emending may fail as well. Cf. above, n. 21.

(54) The same may hold true for, e.g., 2.357,5 (there are three words ending in s in the immediate context) and 3.190,17 (uobis and nobis are easily confused in the manuscripts).

(55) E.g. 2.39,17 (where he started writing n-, but immediately corrected to m-).

(56) -mus for -mur is an old error in the M-tradition, emended in H but at the same time cautiously preserved in the margin as a `variant'; we have seen a similar case at 2.363,24 (above, with n. 24). -amur for -mur may be a copying-error of Lupus's.

(57) On contamination in descripti, see Reeve, `Eliminatio...' (above, n. 1), pp. 23-5.

(58) Reeve, loc. cit. (p. 24, with n. 73).

(59) All those in which the siglum `[A.sup.1]' occurs.

(60) 2.163,4, 2.327,1, 3.119,13 and 3.136,23-4. Note that in these four instances the errors involved are easily amendable, and may well have been emended more than once independently. In total, I have found only some eighty corrections made by later hands in A. More than three quarters of these can be assigned to [A.sup.2], either certainly or probably. As we have seen above (with n. 45), they are as a rule ignored by E. The majority of those that are not by [A.sup.2] are adopted by E, and are listed in Tables 1 and 2. I have already discussed one of these (the addition at 2.24,9-10: above, with n. 44), the others are mentioned in what follows. The corrections at 2.99,20, 2.101,22 and 2.101,24 (possibly also 2.96,20) are by one and the same corrector, to be distinguished not only from [A.sup.2] but also from the hand active at 2.24,9- 10. He writes a tiny but dear and precise Caroline minuscule in a fairly dark brown ink. It is likely that E owes its emendations to this hand, as seems to be borne out, paradoxically, by the one case in which it does not follow its lead: 2.101,24 tradi ciatis [A.sup.1] (tarditatis ss. []): traditiatis [E.sup.1]: tarditatis F (traditis []; tradidatis [H.sup.1]: tradi datis []). In this case the corruption of [A.sup.1] is not deleted by our corrector, which may account for the divergence of E from F, as it may have induced a to copy both the corruption and the variant . Something similar may have happened at 2.159,7: here too the corruption of [A.sup.1] (ruina) is not deleted by the corrector (trutina simply being written above it), which may be the reason why we still find it in F, whereas E saw that the variant trutina should be correct. I do not know to which hand I should attribute this correction, or the ones at 2.25,4 (perhaps [A.sup.1] 2.89,17-18 and 2.90,1 (perhaps the hand active in 2.99-101 discussed just now), and 2.146,25; but as far as I can tell, none of these is by [A.sup.2]

(61) I give them here in more detail than I did above. The selection is of course somewhat subjective, but not, I hope, unreasonable.

(62) Though not necessarily, of course. The corrections concerned may also be explained as deliberate conjectures.

(63) Apart from one or two remarkable readings.

(64) I am grateful to my colleagues in Amsterdam (to single out only a few: Se Lenssen, Rodie Risselada, Jaap Wisse) for discussing the contents of this article with me; also to Professor M. D. Reeve (Cambridge), who very kindly read an earlier typescript and returned it to me with numerous valuable annotations and corrections.
COPYRIGHT 1996 Cambridge University Press
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1996 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Renting, D.S.A.
Publication:The Classical Quarterly
Date:Jan 1, 1996
Previous Article:Silanus (and) Murena ('I.Priene' 121).
Next Article:Verse-technique and moral extremism in two satires of Horace ('Sermones' 2.3 and 2.4).

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |