-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4
/
Copy pathPreface-Translation.xml
2070 lines (2070 loc) · 152 KB
/
Preface-Translation.xml
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-model href="http://www.tei-c.org/release/xml/tei/custom/schema/relaxng/tei_all.rng" type="application/xml" schematypens="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0"?>
<?xml-model href="http://www.tei-c.org/release/xml/tei/custom/schema/relaxng/tei_all.rng" type="application/xml"
schematypens="http://purl.oclc.org/dsdl/schematron"?>
<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
<teiHeader>
<fileDesc>
<titleStmt>
<title>Translation of Giarratano's Preface</title>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt>
<p>Publication Information</p>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc>
<p>Information about the source</p>
</sourceDesc>
</fileDesc>
</teiHeader>
<text>
<front>
<div type="preface" xml:lang="en">
<div type="section" n="1">
<head>I</head>
<p>The seven eclogues of Calpurnius and the four of Nemesianus are preserved in the
same manuscripts, which is how it comes to pass that they are always published
together by scholars, even though they differ in terms of refinement and charm.
Add to this the fact that many who use inferior manuscripts that attribute the
eleven eclogues to Calpurnius alone say that Nemesianus did not write any eclogues
at all. From the time of [Taddeo] Ugoleto there has been no shortage of those who
divide the poems between Calpurnius and Nemesianus, assigning the last four to the
latter; until recently they thought that Calpurnius had sent his poems to
Nemesianus. But <bibl><author>Moriz Haupt</author> (<title xml:lang="la"><hi
rend="italic"><ref
target="https://books.google.com/books?id=Z-8nAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false"
>De Carminibus bucolicis Calpurnii et Nemesiani</ref></hi></title>,
<pubPlace>Berlin</pubPlace>, <date>1854</date>, <biblScope unit="page">p.
1–27</biblScope>)</bibl> demonstrated with ample and reliable evidence that
those eleven eclogues belong neither to one poet nor to the same period, but
rather that the first seven should be assigned to Calpurnius and the rest to
Nemesianus. He also demonstrated that Calpurnius lived under the reign of Nero,
while Nemesianus lived in the time of Carus and his sons. Haupt's opinion, which
<bibl><author>Kraffert</author> (<title xml:lang="de"><hi rend="italic"
>Beitr. zur Kritik und Erklaerung lat. Autoren</hi></title>
<biblScope unit="volume">Book 3</biblScope>, <pubPlace>Aurich</pubPlace>
<date>1883</date>, <biblScope unit="page">p. 151</biblScope>)</bibl> and
<bibl><author>Garnett</author> (<title level="a">On the date of Calp.
Sic.</title>, <title level="j">Journ. of philol.</title>
<biblScope unit="volume">XVI</biblScope>
<date>1888</date>
<biblScope unit="page">p. 216</biblScope></bibl>, cfr. <bibl><author>J. P.
Postgate</author>, <title level="a">The comet of Calpurnius Siculus</title>,
<title level="j">Class. Rev.</title>
<date>1902</date>
<biblScope unit="page">p. 38–40</biblScope></bibl>) have recently argued
against in vain, now deservedly has the greatest authority among scholars.
Nevertheless, both because of the similarity in subject matter and the fact that
the condition of the text is the same in both poets' eclogues, I prefer to place
Calpurnius side-by-side with Nemesianus.</p>
<!-- Need to revise this so that it is just Calpurnius -->
</div>
<div type="section" n="2">
<head>II. Overview of the Tradition</head>
<p>There are three closely related families of manuscripts of Calpurnius and
Nemesianus, in particular all of those that trace their origin back to three books
copied from the same archetype. The first family includes two manuscripts that
should be considered the best witnesses of all, since they are nearly free of
interpolations, even though they rather frequently show blemishes from the
ignorance and carelessness of their copyists. Many manuscripts conform to the
so-called family <ref target="#V">V</ref>. Their extraordinary agreement in many
errors demonstrates that all of them emanate from one book, which is also clear
enough from the sheer abundance of interpolations that are unique to this family.
And yet, these manuscripts are not corrupted in the same manner, but they can be
divided into distinct groups, which seems to me a tedious business and hardly
worthwhile. Besides, <bibl><author>Schenkl</author> (<title level="j">Wiener
Studien</title>
<biblScope unit="volume">V</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="page">p. 294 sqq.</biblScope>
<date>1883</date></bibl> and on page 50ff. of the preface to his first edition)
has distinguished two families, <hi rend="italic">v</hi> and <hi rend="italic"
>w</hi>, but I wish he had not. It is easy for me to agree with that most
learned man concerning the group that is called <hi rend="italic">w</hi>; but with
regard to the manuscripts that he denotes with the letter <hi rend="italic"
>v</hi>, it is impossible to know that all of them are of the same kind when only
a few readings have received full scrutiny. But one manuscript is assigned to the
third family because it presents very many errors that the other manuscripts lack
entirely. Moreover, a good number of readings are found in it that are
characteristic of the better manuscripts, but it has none in common with the
inferior manuscripts. For this reason it occupies a kind of middle ground, so to
speak, between the books of good repute and those that have been corrupted.
Indeed, readings have been selected for these books from the German manuscript of
Thadeus Ugoletus and from the manuscript belonging to Boccaccio, and various
excerpts should be added, too. I will consider these matters below.</p>
</div>
<div type="section" n="3">
<head>III.</head>
<p>Now I must discuss the manuscripts of the first family: <ref target="#N">N =
Neapolitanus V a 8</ref> and <ref target="#G">G = Gaddianus Laur. plut. 90, 12
inf.</ref></p>
<p xml:id="CodexNeapolitanusTrans"><ref target="#N" rend="bold">N</ref> = Codex
Neapolitanus V a 8, formerly 280, parchment, 261 X 160 mm., was written at about
the beginning of the fifteenth century. It consists of 116 leaves, of which 1–36ʳ
contain Cato's <hi rend="italic">De Agricultura</hi>; 20–101ʳ, Varro's <hi
rend="italic">De Re Rustica</hi>; 101ʳ–115ᵛ, the <hi rend="italic"
>Bucolica</hi> of Calpurnius and Nemesianus. The remaining leaves are blank.
Each page has thirty-eight verses. With respect to correcting hands, the
manuscript puts two in particular to the test. The first belongs to the original
copyist. The manuscript was corrected again around the same time, but here and
there the second hand cannot easily be distinguished from the first. A third
hand's emendations can be discerned in only a few places. The individual poems
lack titles, but they are separated from each other by brief spaces. The following
subscription appears at the end of the whole work: <quote xml:lang="la">Aureliani
Nemesiani Cartag̅ bucol’ explicit: Deo gratias amen</quote>.
Finally, another more recent hand, as Bursian and Schenkl recognized, wrote <quote
xml:lang="la">Calpurnii eclogae</quote> and <quote xml:lang="la">Nemesiani
eclogae</quote>.</p>
<p>We know nothing about the origin and provenance of this manuscript except what is
understood from the following passages written on the last leaf: <quote
xml:lang="la">Joannes Antonius Perillus patric. neap. ac iuvenis apprime
litteratus Jacobum Perillum hoc libro donavit MDCVII, Klis Juniis</quote>
("Joannes Antonius Perillus, a nobleman of Naples and most learned gentleman, gave
this book to Jacob Perillus in 1667 on the first of June"), and a little below,
<quote xml:lang="la">Antonii Seripandi ex Jacobi Perilli amici opt.
munere</quote> ("This book belongs to Antonius Seripandus, received as a gift
from his best friend Jacob Perillus"). Later it was brought to the library of San
Giovanni a Carbonara, and from there it came to the greatest library in Naples,
formerly known as the <orgName xml:id="preface-borbonica">Reale biblioteca
borbonica</orgName><note target="#preface-borbonica">now the <orgName
ref="http://www.bnnonline.it">Biblioteca nazionale Vittorio Emanuele
III</orgName></note>. Jacques Philippe D'Orville was the first to collate
this manuscript carefully enough for Pieter Burmann's use; his collation appears
in the <ref
target="https://books.google.be/books?id=fSIPAAAAQAAJ&hl=nl&pg=PA723#v=onepage&q&f=false"
>appendix</ref> to <bibl><author>Burman's</author>
<title corresp="#Burm">Poetae Latini Minores</title>
<biblScope unit="volume">Vol. 1</biblScope></bibl>. Next, Conrad Bursian
examined it on behalf of Moriz Haupt, but nothing is known about the quality of
his collation, since the edition promised by Haupt was never published. <ref
target="#Baehr.">Baehrens</ref> was the next to use it, but in way that rightly
earned the scorn of Schenkl, who collated the manuscript in 1878 and inspected it
again a few years later when preparing his <ref target="#Schenkl2">second edition
of Calpurnius and Nemesianus</ref>. For my part, I examined the entire
manuscript in 1907, but to remove all of the discrepancies between my collation
and the testimony of Schenkl, in the summer of 1909 my friend Giampietro Zottoli
inspected with me all of the places where Schenkl had a different reading, and we
often uncovered carelessness on Schenkl's part. I have published in my apparatus
criticus the entire collation of his manuscript, omitting not even the slightest
thing to do with orthography.</p>
<p xml:id="CodexGaddianusTrans"><ref target="#G" rend="bold">G</ref> = Codex
Gaddianus Laurentianus plut. 90, 12 inf., paper, 294 X 225 mm., written at the
beginning of the fifteenth century, consists of 74 leaves. It contains the twelve
eclogues of Francesco Petrarch (ff. 1–44), the <bibl><title>Culex</title></bibl>
of Vergilius Maro, the <bibl><title>Dirae</title></bibl> of Vergilius Maro (ff.
52–55), and Calpurnius and Nemesianus (ff. 55–74). A very brief, unattributed
eclogue follows with the interlocutors Daphnis, Tityrus, Mopsus, and Meliboeus.
Individual pages generally have twenty-nine verses, but some vary, with the
shorter ones having twenty-six and the longer ones haveing thirty-two verses. The
following inscription has been added to the eclogues of Calpurnius: <quote
xml:lang="la">Egloge Calfurnii ad nemesianum cartaginiensem.</quote>
(<quote>The Eclogues of Calfurnius to Nemesianus of Carthage</quote>).
Nemesianus follows Calpurnius with the following title prefixed: <quote
xml:lang="la">Aureliani nemesiani cartaginiensis egloghe incipiunt</quote>
(<quote>Here begin the eclogues of Aurelianus Nemesianus of Carthage</quote>).
At the end of each eclogue there appears an <hi rend="italic">explicit</hi> with
the number of each eclogue, but Calpunrius' sixth eclogue lacks a subscription,
and the following is written at the end of the seventh: <quote xml:lang="la"
>explicit sexta egloga Calphurnii</quote> (<quote>Here ends the sixth eclogue
of Calphurnius</quote>). This is explained by the fact that the seventh eclogue
follows the sixth without any break, with the result that only six eclogues are
attributed to Calpurnius in this manuscript. But in the margin, where the sixth
eclogue ought to end, the copyist has added the following: <quote xml:lang="la"
>aliqui volunt dicere quod ista sit alia et diversa egloga ubi incipit ≪ lentus
≫, aliqui dicunt quod est una etc.</quote> (<quote>Some wish to say that the
eclogue that begins <hi rend="italic">lentus</hi> is a completely different
eclogue; others say that it is the same, etc.</quote>)</p>
<p>In this manuscript the copyist himself added almost all of the corrections either
by removing scribal errors in the verses or adding variant readings to the margin.
But there are some that seem to have been made by another hand. The manuscript was
mentioned by <ref target="#Glaeser">Glaeser</ref> and <ref target="#Haupt"
>Haupt</ref>, but <ref target="#Baehr.">Baehrens</ref> was the first to examine
it, far too hurriedly; <ref target="#Schenkl">Schenkl</ref> was the next to use
it, much more carefully. I myself transcribed the manuscript in 1908 with as much
attentiveness as I could, but I collated it again in the following year, to settle
all of the discrepancies with <ref target="#Schenkl">Schenkl</ref>. Still, there
are very many places that <ref target="Schenkl">Schenkl</ref> has reported
erroneously, as you can gather from my notes, for I have taken greatest pains to
publish all of the readings of this manuscript, too.</p>
<p>Having described the outer appearance of manuscripts N and G and explained their
provenance, I must now discuss in more detail their relationship and their
importance. Until now, no one except <ref target="#Baehr.">Baehrens</ref> and <ref
target="#Schenkl">Schenkl</ref> has examined the authority of either
manuscript. It is no wonder, since <ref target="#Baehr.">Baehrens</ref> was the
first to collate the Gaddianus, and no one before <ref target="#Glaeser"
>Glaeser</ref> considered the Neapolitanus of much value. But <ref
target="#Baehr.">Baehrens</ref> and <ref target="#Schenkl">Schenkl</ref> held
different opinions: the former, as usual, overvalues a manuscript that he was the
first to publish and argues that the Gaddianus is superior to the others; the
latter, however, prefers the Neapolitanus. But <ref target="#Baehr."
>Baehrens</ref> asserts his point of view instead of demonstrating it with
strong evidence. On the other hand, <ref target="#Schenkl">Schenkl</ref> tried to
demonstrate that the Gaddianus admitted interpolations in some places. It seems to
me that neither one has hit upon the truth entirely, as I think the following
makes clear.</p>
<p>I have already said that both manuscripts descend from the same archetype, and
that is supported by the very large number of readings that N has in common with
G, when something else is written in the rest of the manuscripts. But, to be fair,
they differ among themselves in many places, and it is right to discuss their
differences so that it will be easier to see which manuscript departs less from
the archetype. In doing this, I take no account of readings that are attributed to
the second or third hand in the Neapolitanus or of the various readings that the
copyist added in the margin of the Gaddianus. I shall consider those later.</p>
<p>But first of all, although the repute of each of the two manuscripts is frequently
distorted because of the carelessness and ignorance of the copyists, it seems to
me that the Gaddianus was copied a little more carelessly. For instance, four
verses (Calp. 1.40, 4.16, 4.123; Nemes. 1.73) are missing from it, and Nemesianus
2.49 has been placed after verse 45: Moreover, the following words have been
omitted: Calp. 1.92 <quote xml:lang="la">ipsa</quote>, 2.88 <quote xml:lang="la"
>quotiens</quote>, 3.23 <quote xml:lang="la">deus</quote>, 3.3 <quote
xml:lang="la">sed</quote>, 3.89 <quote xml:lang="la">non</quote>. But in the
Neapolitan manuscript, no verse is missing (it is unnecessary, I think, for me to
remind you that I speak here about the unique defects of each manuscript, not
about the common defects that are rightly assigned to the archetype), but Calp.
1.31–32 have been inverted, and Nemes. 2.81 was inserted after 3.16. Then the
copyist overlooked the following words: Calp. 6.46 <quote xml:lang="la"
>pignus</quote>, 6.90 <quote xml:lang="la">hoc</quote>, Nemes. 1.23 <quote
xml:lang="la">et</quote>, 1.71 <quote xml:lang="la">et</quote>, 3.5 <quote
xml:lang="la">ex tereti</quote>, 4.60 <quote xml:lang="la">audit</quote>. Add
to this the fact that in almost 130 places N offers the correct reading and G an
erroneous one and the opposite happens a little less frequently.</p>
<p>Each of the two manuscripts has some errors (N has more by far) in common with V,
which could not have happened in every case entirely by chance. The following
places are clearly due to interpolation: Calp. 2.73 <quote xml:lang="la"
>cicius</quote> or <quote xml:lang="la">citius tenues</quote> NV, 3.35 <quote
xml:lang="la">quod</quote> NV, 6.25 <quote xml:lang="la">verba</quote> N,
<quote xml:lang="la">verba</quote> and <quote xml:lang="la">verbo</quote> V,
6.82 <quote xml:lang="la">te stante</quote> NV, 7.33 <quote xml:lang="la"
>tibi</quote> GV, Nemes. 3.37 <quote xml:lang="la">ostendit</quote>. The rest
of the examples are either doubtful or should be disregarded entirely.</p>
<p>Next, some have deemed the following places in G as possibly
suspicious:<!-- Maybe do this as a list? --> Calp. 1.12 <quote xml:lang="la"
>errantes</quote>, 1.85 <quote xml:lang="la">accipiet</quote>, 3.20 <quote
xml:lang="la">invenias</quote>, 4.2 <quote xml:lang="la">obstrepit</quote>,
4.53 <quote xml:lang="la">discere</quote>, 4.72 <quote xml:lang="la"
>aspernatur</quote>, 4.85 <quote xml:lang="la">corpore</quote>, 4.105 <quote
xml:lang="la">enim</quote>, 4.150 <quote xml:lang="la">liquide</quote>, 5.31
<quote xml:lang="la">primum</quote>, 5.44 <quote xml:lang="la">pascua</quote>,
5.52, <quote xml:lang="la">quod</quote>, 6.59 <quote xml:lang="la"
>mascillo</quote>, 7.11 <quote xml:lang="la">herus</quote>, 7.26 <quote
xml:lang="la">in</quote>, 7.41 <quote xml:lang="la">non</quote>, Nemes. 1.2
<quote xml:lang="la">raris</quote>, 1.5 <quote xml:lang="la">flavit</quote>,
1.16 <quote xml:lang="la">carmina</quote>, 1.63 <quote xml:lang="la"
>carmina</quote>, 1.82 <quote xml:lang="la">canis</quote>, 2.27 <quote
xml:lang="la">nostri tamquam</quote>, 2.32 <quote xml:lang="la">ethera</quote>,
2.74 <quote xml:lang="la">omnes</quote>, 2.89 <quote xml:lang="la"
>discedere</quote>, 3.52 <quote xml:lang="la">saliensque liquore</quote>. But
<quote xml:lang="la">enim</quote>, <quote xml:lang="la">pascua</quote>, <quote
xml:lang="la">mascillo</quote>, <quote xml:lang="la">in</quote>, <quote
xml:lang="la">canis</quote> are without doubt glosses inserted later in place
of the poets' words. One could say the same thing about <quote xml:lang="la"
>accipiet</quote>, <quote xml:lang="la">ethera</quote>, <quote xml:lang="la"
>discedere</quote>. Also <quote xml:lang="la">aethera</quote> and <quote
xml:lang="la">discedere</quote> are just as good as <quote xml:lang="la"
>aera</quote> and <quote xml:lang="la">descendere</quote>, and for a long time
I was not sure which of the two I preferred. And <quote xml:lang="la"
>liquide</quote>, <quote xml:lang="la">primum</quote>, <quote xml:lang="la"
>flavit</quote>, <quote xml:lang="la">carmina</quote> (Nemes. I 16) should not
be considered interpolations, but rather corruptions that arose in these places
since the words that should have been written by the copyist appeared nearby.
Thus, <quote xml:lang="la">liquide</quote> is derived from <quote xml:lang="la"
>dulce</quote>, <quote xml:lang="la">primum</quote> from <quote xml:lang="la"
>spatium</quote>, <quote xml:lang="la">flavit</quote> from <quote xml:lang="la"
>inflare</quote>, <quote xml:lang="la">carmina</quote> from <quote
xml:lang="la">carmine</quote>. But <quote xml:lang="la">carmina</quote> (Nemes.
1.63) is either a gloss or a corruption that owes its origin from the initial
sound of the next word, and <quote xml:lang="la">corpore</quote> and <quote
xml:lang="la">robore</quote> are very often confused in the manuscripts. Then
there are these words: <quote xml:lang="la">herus</quote>, <quote xml:lang="la"
>raris</quote>, <quote xml:lang="la">omnes</quote>. One would hardly believe
that they were made by an interpolator since they are meaningless. But for the
most part, the rest of the examples can be attributed to an interpolator. The
following places in N should be considered: Calp. 1.13 <quote xml:lang="la"
>sequar</quote>, 4.46 <quote xml:lang="la">inter nostras</quote>, 4.136 <quote
xml:lang="la">pede velox</quote>, 4.153 <quote xml:lang="la">in</quote>, 4.164
<quote xml:lang="la">vestros</quote>, Nemes. 2.71 <quote xml:lang="la"
>ducas</quote>. <quote xml:lang="la">in</quote> is a gloss. <quote
xml:lang="la">ducas</quote> is closer to <quote xml:lang="la">ducam</quote>,
which the inferior manuscripts have, than to <quote xml:lang="la">duco</quote>,
which G correctly offers. <quote xml:lang="la">vestros</quote> is owed to an
interpolator. The rest are uncertain.</p>
<p>Finally, the writings of both manuscripts have been corrupted in various ways, but
sometimes they betray an infelicitous effort at emendation. I would like you to
consider the following places, for it is not necessary to say anything about the
rest): Calp. 1.90 <quote xml:lang="la">querit</quote> N, <quote xml:lang="la"
>petit</quote> G; 2.96 <quote xml:lang="la">o</quote> G; 3.50 <quote
xml:lang="la">turbidus</quote> G; 4.63 <quote xml:lang="la">carmen
modulavit</quote> G; 4.125 <quote xml:lang="la">placanda</quote> G; 5.15 <quote
xml:lang="la">montibus</quote> G; 5.16 <quote xml:lang="la">cecinere</quote> G;
5.104 <quote xml:lang="la">nectendum</quote> N, <quote xml:lang="la"
>videndum</quote> G; Nemes. 2.30 <quote xml:lang="la">nullo sudarunt</quote> G,
4.28 <quote xml:lang="la">volucrum tum</quote> G; 4.39 <quote xml:lang="la"
>subeunte</quote> G. Indeed it is hardly the case that all of these places are
equally suspicious, for <quote xml:lang="la">o</quote> is a gloss, and I do not
think one should think otherwise about <quote xml:lang="la">carmen
modulavit</quote>. But <quote xml:lang="la">turbidus</quote> is clearly an
interpolation, which I could hardly say about <quote xml:lang="la">volucrum
tum</quote>. Then <quote xml:lang="la">querit</quote> and <quote xml:lang="la"
>petit</quote> perhaps stem from a poorly understood abbreviation of the word
<quote xml:lang="la">quatit</quote>, but that gives me pause. But the other
examples, with due respect to <ref target="#Schenkl">Schenkl</ref>, are hardly
attributable to interpolators, unless you happen to think that those interpolators
were completely ignorant of the Latin language.</p>
<p>But before we pass judgment on the authority of manuscripts N and G, we must say a
few things about the corrections that each manuscript underwent.</p>
<p xml:id="Ndesc-firsthand">Manuscript N, <ref target="#CodexNeapolitanusTrans">as we said above</ref>, was
emended rather often by the original copyist and others. But all of the
emendations of the first hand, which I have detected in almost sixty places, arose
from the archetype itself. The copyist, as often happens, sometimes corrected the
more trivial scribal errors as he wrote; we are all used to making these errors
when we write. Accordingly, he added letters that he omitted by writing too
quickly, or he deleted extra letters, or he changed vowels and consonants, or he
added words that had been omitted, or he restored the order of verses, or he
inserted notes about people. Since that is the case, nearly all of the emendations
by the first hand are good, or, to state it more truthfully, they restore the
wording of the archetype. At Calp. 1.20, the first hand corrected <quote
xml:lang="la">dipicta</quote> to <quote xml:lang="la">depicta</quote>, which
<ref target="#Jacoby">Jacoby</ref> recently defended in vain, since <quote
xml:lang="la">descripta</quote> is to be read without doubt (cfr. Verg. Ecl.
5.13 and Calp. 1.25), but <quote xml:lang="la">depicta</quote> was in the
archetype, as G shows us. Similarly at Nemes. 4.65 <quote xml:lang="la"
>aversa</quote> is wrong (cfr. Verg. Ecl. 8.101 sq.), and the first hand has
changed the fault into <quote xml:lang="la">adversa</quote>, but <quote
xml:lang="la">adversa</quote> is found in G, from which you can easily conclude
that the same reading appeared in the archetype. Only once did the first hand
corrupt the true reading of the archetype (Calp. 3.67 <quote xml:lang="la"
>qui</quote> from <quote xml:lang="la">quam</quote>), but that should be
attributed to an abbreviation, not at all to his intellect. Finally, all of the
corrections of the first hand are confirmed by the readings in manuscript G, with
the exception of Calp. 1.24 <quote xml:lang="la">propius</quote>, where I have
reasonable suspicion that the person who wrote G misread the word.</p>
<p xml:id="Ndesc-secondhand">The second hand's so-called emendations are three times as frequent as the first
hand's, but in terms of proportion, they are found much more often in Calpurnius
than in Nemesianus, and around a third of them are correct. For the most part, the
second hand corrects scribal errors of a more trivial sort, but sometimes it
restores omitted verses or errors, or it corrects transposed verses, or it
completely overhauls more serious problems. In general, the second hand's
emendations come from manuscripts of the second family, not the archetype, but an
interpolator has corrected some of them after his own fashion. It does not take
many examples to demonstrate this, but, to begin with passages successfully
restored, consider these readings with me, dear reader:</p>
<table rows="18" cols="3">
<head>Comparison of N¹ and G with N² and V</head>
<row role="label">
<cell role="data">Line</cell>
<cell role="data">N¹ and G</cell>
<cell role="data">N²V</cell>
</row>
<row role="data">
<cell role="data">1.20</cell>
<cell role="data"><quote xml:lang="la">depicta</quote> N (ex <quote
xml:lang="la">dipicta</quote>) G</cell>
<cell role="data"><quote xml:lang="la">descripta</quote></cell>
</row>
<row role="data">
<cell role="data">1.25</cell>
<cell role="data"><quote xml:lang="la">codice</quote></cell>
<cell role="data"><quote xml:lang="la">cortice</quote></cell>
</row>
<row role="data">
<cell role="data">1.42</cell>
<cell role="data">omitted</cell>
<cell role="data">added</cell>
</row>
<row role="data">
<cell role="data">1.55</cell>
<cell role="data"><quote xml:lang="la">profuso</quote></cell>
<cell role="data"><quote xml:lang="la">professo</quote> (and many other
mss.)</cell>
</row>
<row role="data">
<cell role="data">1.87</cell>
<cell role="data"><quote xml:lang="la">a</quote></cell>
<cell role="data"><quote xml:lang="la">ex</quote> (and many other mss.)</cell>
</row>
<row role="data">
<cell role="data">3.26</cell>
<cell role="data"><quote xml:lang="la">ibi</quote></cell>
<cell role="data"><quote xml:lang="la">sibi</quote></cell>
</row>
<row role="data">
<cell role="data">4.12</cell>
<cell role="data"><quote xml:lang="la">C.</quote> omitted</cell>
<cell role="data"><quote xml:lang="la">C.</quote> added</cell>
</row>
<row role="data">
<cell role="data">4.46</cell>
<cell role="data"><quote xml:lang="la">quicquam</quote></cell>
<cell role="data">quisquam</cell>
</row>
<row role="data">
<cell role="data">4.82</cell>
<cell role="data"><quote xml:lang="la">canat</quote></cell>
<cell role="data">canit</cell>
</row>
<row role="data">
<cell role="data">4.124</cell>
<cell role="data"><quote xml:lang="la">raptas</quote></cell>
<cell role="data"><quote xml:lang="la">ruptas</quote></cell>
</row>
<row role="data">
<cell role="data">4.145</cell>
<cell role="data"><quote xml:lang="la">nos</quote></cell>
<cell role="data"><quote xml:lang="la">hos</quote></cell>
</row>
<row role="data">
<cell role="data">5.7</cell>
<cell role="data">entire line placed before line 6</cell>
<cell role="data">corrected</cell>
</row>
<row role="data">
<cell role="data">5.28</cell>
<cell role="data"><quote xml:lang="la">vivat</quote></cell>
<cell role="data"><quote xml:lang="la">vivit</quote></cell>
</row>
<row role="data">
<cell role="data">5.45</cell>
<cell role="data"><quote xml:lang="la">peragunt</quote></cell>
<cell role="data"><quote xml:lang="la">peragit</quote></cell>
</row>
<row role="data">
<cell role="data">7.48</cell>
<cell role="data"><quote xml:lang="la">tibi</quote></cell>
<cell role="data"><quote xml:lang="la">ubi</quote></cell>
</row>
<row role="data">
<cell role="data">Nemes. 2.50</cell>
<cell role="data"><quote xml:lang="la">cum</quote></cell>
<cell role="data"><quote xml:lang="la">dum</quote></cell>
</row>
<row role="data">
<cell role="data">3.6</cell>
<cell role="data"><quote xml:lang="la">h</quote> N, om. G</cell>
<cell role="data"><quote xml:lang="la">hanc pueri tamquam</quote></cell>
</row>
</table>
<p>On the other hand, an interpolator has cleverly emended the following:Calp. 3.91
<quote xml:lang="la">licidan</quote> N², <quote xml:lang="la">licidax</quote>
N, <quote xml:lang="la">licidas</quote> or <quote xml:lang="la">lycidas</quote> G
V, 4.152 <quote xml:lang="la">teriti</quote> N G, <quote xml:lang="la"
>tereti</quote> N².</p>
<p>Does it not seem to you that I have demonstrated what I set out to prove? Or does
it seem likely that N and G corrupted the good readings of the archetype in the
same way in all of these places? But, if you need more proof, reflect on these
other examples. First of all, in following places the second hand of manuscript N
substituted the interpolations that mar the manuscripts in V for the genuine
readings of the archetype: Calp. 2.8 <quote xml:lang="la">vindicet</quote>* (I
have indicated all correct reading with an asterisk) N G, <quote xml:lang="la"
>vendicet</quote> N²V; 2.9 <quote xml:lang="la">thyrsi</quote>*, <quote
xml:lang="la">tyrsi</quote> G, <quote xml:lang="la">tirsi</quote> N, <quote
xml:lang="la">tirso</quote> N²V pler.; 4.42 <quote xml:lang="la"
>baetis</quote>*, <quote xml:lang="la">bethis</quote> G, <quote xml:lang="la"
>beris</quote> N, <quote xml:lang="la">bactrus</quote> N²V; 4.53 <quote
xml:lang="la">tantum-ventos</quote>* N G, <quote xml:lang="la"
>solum-nimbos</quote> N²V pler.; 4.75 <quote xml:lang="la">quam</quote>* G,
<quote xml:lang="la">q̅m</quote> N, <quote xml:lang="la">qua</quote> N²V
nonn.; 4.131 <quote xml:lang="la">iam surdant</quote>* G, <quote xml:lang="la">iam
surdat</quote> N, <quote xml:lang="la">exsurdant</quote> N²V nonn.; 4.148
<quote xml:lang="la">deas</quote>* G (<quote xml:lang="la">deas</quote> = <hi
rend="italic">Musas</hi>, as <ref target="#Leo">F. Leo</ref> demonstrated),
<quote xml:lang="la">d'as</quote> N, <quote xml:lang="la">deos</quote> N²V;
5.49 <quote xml:lang="la">afferet</quote>* N G, <quote xml:lang="la"
>afferat</quote> N²V nonn.; 5.61 <quote xml:lang="la">serique-premendi</quote>*
N G, <quote xml:lang="la">seraeque-merendae</quote> N²V; 5.97 <quote xml:lang="la"
>circitor</quote>* N G, <quote xml:lang="la">vinitor</quote> N²V; 5.99 <quote
xml:lang="la">nunc</quote>* N G, <quote xml:lang="la">tunc</quote> N²V; 6.47
<quote xml:lang="la">perdere</quote>* N, <quote xml:lang="la">prodere</quote>
G, <quote xml:lang="la">pendere</quote> N²V; 6.75 <quote xml:lang="la"
>illis</quote> N G, <quote xml:lang="la">ipsi</quote> N²V, pler.; N 1.27 <quote
xml:lang="la">laudem</quote>* N G, <quote xml:lang="la">musam</quote> N²V; 1.54
<quote xml:lang="la">iuris</quote>* N G, <quote xml:lang="la">iusti</quote>
N²V; 2.28 <quote xml:lang="la">nostros posset</quote>* N G, <quote xml:lang="la"
>posset rapidos</quote> N²V pler.; 4.66 <quote xml:lang="la">urar</quote>* N,
<quote xml:lang="la">uror</quote> G, <quote xml:lang="la">arsi</quote> N²V; cfr
praeterea 4.63 <quote xml:lang="la">carmen modulabile</quote> N²V nonn., which
<ref target="#Baehr.">Baehrens</ref> would not have received into the text, if
he had assessed carefully the things Haupt discussed about elisions in Calpurnius,
and 5.65 <quote xml:lang="la">coagulat lacte</quote> N², which clearly comes from
<quote xml:lang="la">coagula lactis</quote> V. Next, in the following places
the second hand made some very poor attempts at conjectures for words handed down
in the tradition: Calp. 1.31 <quote xml:lang="la">sequaci</quote>* G, <quote
xml:lang="la">sagaci</quote> N²; 1.73 <quote xml:lang="la">auferet</quote>* N
G, <quote xml:lang="la">afferet</quote> N²; 1.85 <quote xml:lang="la"
>excipiet</quote>* N, <quote xml:lang="la">excuciet</quote> N²; 2.76 <quote
xml:lang="la">herbas</quote>* N G, <quote xml:lang="la">uvas</quote> N²; 3.25
<quote xml:lang="la">sprevi</quote>* G, <quote xml:lang="la"
>spiritu̅</quote> N, <quote xml:lang="la">speciem</quote> N²; 3.46 <quote
xml:lang="la">acerba</quote>* N G, <quote xml:lang="la">avena</quote> N²; 4.79
<quote xml:lang="la">succinet</quote>*, <quote xml:lang="la">subcinit</quote>
G, <quote xml:lang="la">succinit</quote> N, <quote xml:lang="la">sucinat</quote>
N²; 4.106 <quote xml:lang="la">palen</quote>*, <quote xml:lang="la">panem</quote>
N G, <quote xml:lang="la">palam</quote> N²; 4.111 <quote xml:lang="la"
>densat</quote>* G, <quote xml:lang="la">pensat</quote> N, <quote xml:lang="la"
>pulsat</quote> N²; 4.121 <quote xml:lang="la">et</quote>* N G, <quote
xml:lang="la">at</quote> N²; 4.124 <quote xml:lang="la">saliat</quote>*, <quote
xml:lang="la">psallat</quote> G, <quote xml:lang="la">psalat</quote> N, <quote
xml:lang="la">psaliat</quote> N²; 5.27 <quote xml:lang="la">voca</quote>* N G,
<quote xml:lang="la">loca</quote> N²; 6.19 <quote xml:lang="la">vis</quote>* N
G, <quote xml:lang="la">visne</quote> N²; 6.37 <quote xml:lang="la"
>fruticat</quote>*, <quote xml:lang="la">fruticet</quote> G, <quote
xml:lang="la">frutiō</quote> N, <quote xml:lang="la">fruticem</quote> N²; 6.69
<quote xml:lang="la">mutavimus</quote>* N G, <quote xml:lang="la"
>mutuabimus</quote> N²; Nemes. 1.1 <quote xml:lang="la">fiscella</quote>* N G,
<quote xml:lang="la">cistella</quote> N², 1.5 <quote xml:lang="la"
>versuque</quote>* N G, <quote xml:lang="la">versusque</quote> N²; 2.17 <quote
xml:lang="la">leves</quote>* N G, <quote xml:lang="la">lenes</quote> N².</p>
<p>And so if the second hand's emendations agree with manuscripts of family V, they
can add no authority to them, since they arose from them; but if they depend on no
other manuscript, they must be considered to be the conjectures of a fairly
learned person. If we have discussed them correctly, the emendations of that sort
are entirely without merit, and I did not unjustly omit them outright when I
compared manuscript N with G.</p>
<p xml:id="Ndesc-thirdhand">Finally, there are five emendations by the third hand, of which three are good
(Calp. 2.1 <quote xml:lang="la">puer</quote>, 2.4 <quote xml:lang="la"
>gravis</quote>, 2.33 <quote xml:lang="la">pomona</quote>) and two are bad
(Calp. 1.59 <quote xml:lang="la">truderit</quote>, 5.11 <quote xml:lang="la"
>ganā</quote>).</p>
<p>Manuscript G offers more than eighty emendations in its own right. With two or
three exceptions where you can recognize another hand, they are the work of the
original copyist. Sometimes he restored verses or words that had been omitted, but
for the most part he corrected the more trivial scribal errors. All of the
corrections are good, and they are derived from the archetype itself (as agreement
with its twin manuscript shows), with only three exceptions: Nemes. 2.73, 3.63,
4.10, which the scribe unsucessfully tried to emend. Nemes. 3.53 does not count,
since in this passage either the copyist of manuscript N could read poorly, or G
entered a correction made either above the line or in the margin of the archetype.
But aside from these emendations I found nearly alternate readings in the margin
of this manuscript, which most often were added by the copyist himself. All are
derived either from some manuscript of no special repute or from the conjecture of
some scholar. For the most part, they are not even worthy of mention.</p>
<p>If I have done my job, it is clear what we should think about each of these
manuscripts. Manuscripts N and G outstrip the others not only in the good quality
of their archetype, but also because their copyists were content to transcribe the
archetype faithfully, and they generally abstained from interpolating the words of
the poets. For very rarely have the words handed down from antiquity been
corrupted by the judgment of the scribes. That is why this is the biggest
difference between the Neapolitanus and the Gaddianus: that the latter generally
put the reading of the archetype to the test by his own devices, but the former
admitted the interpolations of inferior manuscripts. And, if we want to think
clearly, the Neapolitanus should be preferred in a certain way, but not as Schenkl
wanted. For the Gaddianus has nearly the same number of good readings as the
Neapolitanus, and sometimes it alone out of all of the manuscripts preserves the
genuine reading for us. And so, there is need for both manuscripts in representing
the true picture of the archetype.</p>
</div>
<div type="section" n="4">
<head>IV. The Second Family: V</head>
<p>The second family, called V, includes a little more than twenty manuscripts, of
which I have selected sixteen for my edition. They are as follows:</p>
<list>
<head>Manuscripts in the Biblioteca Ambrosiana (Milan)</head>
<item xml:id="CodAmbrosianusO74Trans"><ref target="#α" rend="bold">α</ref> = Codex
Ambrosianus O 74 sup., paper, 212 X 145 mm., written in the fifteenth century.
It has 183 leaves with twenty-five verses to a page. Contained in it are minor
poems that were once attributed to Vergil, the epigrams of Claudianus
Alexandrinus (Claudian), the <bibl><title>Orestis fabula</title></bibl>, eleven
eclogues of Calpurnius (ff. 112–133), the
<bibl><title>Parthenopaeus</title></bibl> and two elegies of Giovanni
Pontano, an elegy by Antonio Beccadelli to Johannes Lamola of Bologna, Janus
Pannonius' <bibl><title>Epithalamium in Salomonem Sacratum et Liberam Guarinam,
a poem <bibl><title>In Venetae urbis laudem</title></bibl>, and a poem
<bibl><title>De ortu atque obitu Hermaphroditi</title></bibl>
</title></bibl>. A. Ceriani noted the readings of this manuscript for
Schenkl, then I collated the entire manuscript in 1908, and I inspected it
again in 1909.</item>
<item xml:id="CodAmbrosianusI26Trans"><ref target="β" rend="bold">β</ref> = Codex
Ambrosianus I 26 sup., paper, 214 X 158 mm., written in the fifteenth century.
It consists of 61 leaves, and each page has twenty verses. It contains
<bibl><author>Claudius Claudianus (Claudian)</author>
<title>De raptu Proserpinae</title></bibl> (ff. 1–30), the poems
<bibl><title>De cantu avium et sono quadrupedum</title> (ff.
32–33)</bibl>, the <bibl><title>Bucolica</title></bibl> of Calpurnius and
Nemesianus attributed to Calpurnius alone (ff. 35–61). Folios 31 and 34 are
blank. At the end I read the following subscription: <quote xml:lang="la">die 4
augusti 1463 ego petrus feliciter peregi</quote> (<quote>On August 4, 1463,
I, Peter, finished this</quote>; cf. <bibl xml:id="Sabbadini"><author>R.
Sabbadini</author>, <title>Le scoperte dei codici latini e greci ne'
secoli XIV e XV</title>, p. 16 n. 82 <ptr
target="https://archive.org/stream/lescopertedeicod01sabbuoft"/></bibl>).
In 1909 I was the first to collate this manuscript, which was entirely unknown
to previous editors.</item>
</list>
<p>Then there are six Vatican manuscripts—namely Vaticanus 3152 and 2110, Urbinas
353, Palatinus 1652, Reginensis 1759, Ottobonianus 1466—that I collated in 1908,
then inspected again in the following year. They are:</p>
<list>
<head>Manuscripts in the Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana (Vatican City)</head>
<item xml:id="CodVat3152Trans"><ref target="#γ" rend="bold">γ</ref> = Codex
Vaticanus 3152, paper, 215 X 147 mm., written in the fifteenth century. It
consists of 81 leaves, of which 18ᵛ, 26–30, 51ʳ, 81ᵛ are blank. There are
thirty-one verses on each page. It contains Calpurnius' eleven eclogues
(1–18ʳ), followed by various poems by Cyprian, Lactantius, Firmianus, and
Ausonius.</item>
<item xml:id="CodVat2110Trans"><ref target="#μ" rend="bold">μ</ref> = Codex
Vaticanus 2110, parchment, 284 X 216 mm., most handsomely written in the
fifteenth century under Pope Nicholas V. It consists of 128 leaves. Each page
has forty, forty-one, or forty-three verses. Contents: a Latin translation of
<bibl><author>Aristotle's</author>
<title>Magna Moralia</title> (ff. 1–56)</bibl>,
<bibl><author>Cicero's</author>
<title>Topica</title> (ff. 57–65ʳ)</bibl>, <bibl><author>Boethius'</author>
<title>In Ciceronis Topica</title> (ff. 65ʳ–67ᵛ)</bibl>, Calpurnius' eleven
eclogues (ff. 67ᵛ–80), <bibl><author>St. John Chysostom's</author>
<title>De dignitate sacerdotali dialogus</title> (ff. 81–120ʳ)</bibl>, and
an excerpt from the life of St. John Crysostom (ff. 120ᵛ–128). </item>
<item xml:id="CodVatUrbinas353Trans"><ref target="#ε" rend="bold">ε</ref> = Codex
Vaticanus Urbinas 353, parchment, 387 X 247 mm., most handsomely written in the
fifteenth century. It consists of 309 leaves, and there are twenty-nine verses
per page. <bibl xml:id="Curcio"><author>Gaetano Curcio</author> (<title>Poeti
Latini Minori</title> vol. 2, pt. 1, p. VI ff.) <ptr
target="https://archive.org/details/poetilatinimino03curcgoog"/></bibl>
has meticulously described the outer appearance of this manuscript. The eleven
eclogues of Calpurnius are contained on leaves 95ʳ–113ᵛ of this manuscript,
along with many poems by various authors that it is not necessary to report
here. The following subscription appears at the end of this work: <quote
xml:lang="la">Federicus De Veteranis Urbinas sub divo Federico Urbinat, duce
invictiss. romanae ecclesi. dictat. transcripsit</quote> (<quote>Federico
Veterano of Urbino, in service to Federico di Montefeltro, Duke of Urbino,
Commander of the most indomitable Roman Church, copied this
manuscript</quote>). And a little below that: <quote xml:lang="la">quo
principe decedente utinam et ego de medio tunc sublatus quiescerem ab
instanti temporum calamitate.</quote> (<quote>When that prince dies, may I,
too, be taken from your midst and find rest from the approaching times of
disaster</quote>).</item>
<item xml:id="CodVatPalatinus1652Trans"><ref target="#π" rend="bold">π</ref> =
Codex Vaticanus Palatinus 1652, parchment, 267 X 159 mm, copied most
beautifully in the fifteenth century. It consists of 129 written leaves, and
each page has thirty-seven verses. It contains Tibullus (ff. 1–28ʳ), Catullus
(ff. 28ᵛ–60ʳ), Calpurnius' eleven eclogues (ff. 60ʳ–74ᵛ), Propertius (ff.
74ᵛ–129). The following is written at the end of the work (cfr. <ref
target="#Sabbadini">Sabbadini</ref>): <quote xml:lang="la">a M' petro
montopolitano die XXI februarii 1460</quote> (<quote>By the hand of master
Petrus Montopolitanus on February 21, 1460</quote>). That is followed by two
hexameters written on the death of Giannozzo Manetti.</item>
<item xml:id="CodVatReginensis1759Trans"><ref target="χ" rend="bold">χ</ref> =
Codex Vaticanus Reginensis 1759, formerly in the library of the Convento di San
Silvestro al Quirinale, parchment, 198 X 123 mm. It contains only the eleven
eclogues of Calpurnius. It consists of 22 leaves formatted so that each page
has twenty-five verses. The book was written in the fifteenth century.</item>
<item xml:id="CodVatOttobonianus1466Trans"><ref target="#φ" rend="bold">φ</ref> =
Codex Vaticanus Ottobonianus 1466, formerly in the collection of the Dukes of
the Altaemps and Galesi, paper, 198 X 132 mm., written in the fifteenth
century. It consists of 51 leaves, with twenty-four verses to a page. It
contains the eleven eclogues of Calpurnius (ff. 1–24ʳ); various poems
follow.</item>
</list>
<p>Aside from the Codex Gaddianus (<ref target="#CodexGaddianusTrans">see
above</ref>), another five manuscripts survive in Florence. I collated them in
1908, and I examined them again in 1909. They are:</p>
<list>
<head>Manuscripts in Florence</head>
<item xml:id="CodLaurPlut37.14Trans">Codex Laurentianus plut. 37,14, parchment,
323 X 195 mm., most handsomely written in the fifteenth century. It consists of
224 written leaves. Each page has thirty-five verses. Contents:
<bibl><author>Silius Italicus</author>
<title>Punica</title></bibl>, <bibl><author>Calpurnius</author>
<title>Eclogae XI</title> (ff. 177ᵛ–193ᵛ)</bibl>,
<bibl><author>Hesiod</author>
<title>Opera et Dies</title> in a Latin translation by N. Valla</bibl>,
<bibl><author>Claudian</author>
<title>De raptu Proserpinae</title></bibl></item>
<item xml:id="CodLaurBiblAed203Trans"><ref target="#λ" rend="bold">λ</ref> = Codex
Laurentianus bibl. Aed. ("Edili") 203, formerly in the Cathedral of Santa Maria
del Fiore, paper, 223 X 155 mm, copied in the fifteenth century. It consists of
188 written leaves, with twenty-five verses to a page. It contains the eleven
eclogues of Calpurnius (ff. 140–161), along with the poems of Vergil, Statius,
Caudian, Maximian and other ancient poets. At the end it is inscribed as
follows: <quote xml:lang="la">Georgii Ant. Vespuccii liber</quote> (<quote>This
book belongs to Giorgio Antonio Vespucci</quote>)</item>
<item xml:id="CodRiccardianus724Trans"><ref target="#κ" rend="bold">κ</ref> =
Codex Riccardianus 724, formerly L IIII 10, parchment, 203 X 136 mm. written in
the fourteenth century. It has 29 leaves with twenty-two verses to a page. It
contains the eleven eclogues of Calpurnius (ff. 1–25ʳ), which some removed as
the verses of other writers.</item>
<item xml:id="CodRiccardianus636Trans"><ref target="#ρ" rend="bold">ρ</ref> =
Codex Riccardianus 636, formerly L IIII 14, parchment, 225 X 150 mm., written
in the fifteenth century. It consists of 126 leaves, with twenty-six verses to
a page. I am astonished that <ref target="#Schenkl">Schenkl</ref> reported that
this manuscript is designated as codex 363, especially since the scholar in
charge of the Bibliotheca Riccardiana informed me that the manuscript of which
we speak has never been designated with the number 363. I would not say any
more about this unless <bibl><author>Teuffel-Schwabe</author>
(<title>Geschichte der römischen Literatur</title> 5th edition, p.
748<ptr
target="https://books.google.com/books?id=EoArAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA748#v=onepage&q&f=false"
/></bibl>, <bibl><author>Schanz</author> (<title>Geschichte der römischen
Literatur</title> II.2, second edition, p. 74 <ptr
target="http://hdl.handle.net/2027/coo.31924114797263?urlappend=%3Bseq=94"
/></bibl>, <bibl><author>Skutsch</author> (<title>Calpurnius 119</title> RE
3: 1401ff. <ptr
target="http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.31175030713310?urlappend=%3Bseq=709"
/></bibl>, and others, had not relied on Schenkl's testimony and perpetuated
the mistake. Now I shall return to what I started. The eleven eclogues of
Calpurnius are contained in this manuscript (ff. 25–45), along with other minor
works of various authors that are not worth mentioning here, since the poems of
Calpurnius, as Schenkl knew, were formerly separated from the rest. And
Calpurnius' bucolic poetry includes such a large number of corrections and
glosses added by various hands either in the verses themselves or in the margin
that the various hands cannot always be distinguished among themselves. But
that is as much as I will say, since I propose to discuss the annotations of
<ref target="AngeliTrans">Angeli</ref> elsewhere.</item>
<item xml:id="CodRiccardianus974Trans"><ref target="#ζ" rend="bold">ζ</ref> =
Codex Riccardianus 974, paper, 208 X 142 mm., written in the fifteenth century,
consists of 74 leaves. Among other minor works of various authors, it contains
only the second eclogue by Calpurnius (ff. 3–5), and that under the title of
the first eclogue. Previous editors clearly did not know about this
manuscript.</item>
</list>
<p>I have added three other manuscripts, namely Gothanus 55 (= <ref target="θ"
rend="bold">θ</ref>) and the two Wratislavienses Rehdigerani, I.4.10 (= <ref
target="#η" rend="bold">η</ref>) and I.4.11 (= <ref target="#δ" rend="bold"
>δ</ref>), but I have not inspected them personally.</p>
<p xml:id="CodGothanus55Trans">Regarding the codex Gothanus, <ref target="Wernsdorf"
>Wernsdorf</ref> reported the following: <quote>"Written on parchment. Octovo.
After Vergil's <bibl><title>Bucolics</title></bibl>,
<bibl><title>Georgics</title></bibl>, and
<bibl><title>Aeneid</title></bibl></quote>, it has the seven eclogues of
Calpurnius. It is beautifully written, but finished recently, scarcely before the
fifteenth century. Moreover, it has been damaged, or it was copied from a damaged
manuscript, since the seventh eclogue ends at verse 65. After an empty space on
the last part of the page, the copyist has written the following subscription:
<quote xml:lang="la">Finis: haec quae de Calphurnio inveniuntur</quote>
(<quote>The end. These are the poems that were composed by Calpurnius</quote>).
I. G. Meusel collated the manuscript for Wernsdorf.</p>
<p xml:id="CodRehdigeraniTrans"><ref target="#Glaeser">Glaeser</ref> had the
following to say about the codices Rehdigerani: <quote>The second codex
Rehdigeranus (that is, I.4.11), retrieved from the Rehdigeran library in this
city (i.e., Wrocław), quarto, written carelessly in the fifteenth century, 115
leaves. All eleven are ascribed to Calpurnius. They are preserved on leaves
3ʳ–22ʳ. Aside from one inscription at the beginning, no other is found in this
book, and no indication of characters, with the exception of the recto of the
third leaf. Here, the copyist put this sign (") in the margin when the
character changes. Individual pages have twenty-six verses. Although this
manuscript contains many erroneous readings, I can assert that good readings
are not entirely missing from it. I have collated it myself." "I received
permission to use the first codex Rehdigeranus (that is, I.4.10) from the
Rehdigeran library that is in this city. It is a quarto volume of mixed
material (paper and parchment), beautifully written in the fifteenth century.
It consists of 130 leaves. It contains all eleven eclogues assigned to
Calpurnius. They appear on leave 3ʳ–27ʳ. Titles and signs for characters are
decorated with red ink. Each page has twenty-two or twenty-three verses.
Additionally, many of the minor poems of Vergil and other others (some more
recent) are written in it. I collated it myself."</quote></p>
<p>All of the manuscripts that I have assigned to the second family were copied from
one book, which I will call <ref target="#V">V</ref>, or from a copy of it. The
common origin of these manuscripts is attested not only by the omission or
transposition of the same verses and words, but also by the great number of
interpolations and errors that the other manuscripts lack entirely. But aside from
these common faults, which were transmitted from the archetype, the individual
manuscripts have many other errors unique to themselves. These books can be
assigned to specific groups through careful comparison. For that reason, I do not
want to linger on this subject, but I will advise that Riccadianus 724 and
Vaticanus Reginensis 1759 are so similar to each other that you would rightly come
to the following conclusions: that they were copied from the same book; that the
Ottobonianus, Laurentianus pl. 37,14, the first Rehdigeranus (I.4.10), the
Gothanus, and the <hi rend="italic">editio princeps</hi> descended from the same
copy of manuscript <ref target="#V">V</ref> on account of certain evidence; and
finally that Vaticanus Urbinas 353 and the <hi rend="italic">editio Veneta</hi> in
1472 are closely related by the tightest bonds of affinity. For the oldest
editions are rightly thought to be reproductions of manuscripts (cfr. <ref
target="#Sabbadini">Sabbadini</ref>, p. 213 n. 5); moreover, the <hi
rend="italic">editio Veneta</hi> was printed before Fridericus de Veteranis
transcribed the Codex Urbinas (cfr. <ref target="#Curcio">Curcio</ref>, p. VIII).
Finally, I add that I found the oldest edition of Calpurnius and Nemesianus in the
Bibliotheca Riccardiana, recorded by no editor until now, place and year of
publication unknown, currently bearing the number 498, which I can demonstrate by
the strongest of arguments was copied from the manuscript Laurentianus pl. 37,14
before that manuscript underwent the corrections of the so-called second hand.</p>
<p>If any one should collate all of the manuscripts of this family with care, he
would easily know which readings are those of the archetype from which all of them
originate, and which are owed to the copyists of the individual manuscripts. And
so now it remains to compare <ref target="#V">V</ref> with <ref target="#N"
>N</ref> and <ref target="#G">G</ref> and to see what authority should be
attributed to them.</p>
<p>First of all, both families, but more often <ref target="#V">V</ref>, are marred
with gaps in verses and words. Eleven verses are missing in <ref target="#V"
>V</ref> (Calp. 1.51, 7.32–34, 7.52–54, Nemes. 1.29, 2.83, 3.25, 3.30) and one
verse has been made from the two verses Calp. 2.18–19. On the other hand, Calp.
1.42 is missing in <ref target="#N">N</ref> and <ref target="#G">G</ref>, and the
following words have been omitted: Calp. 4.94 <quote xml:lang="la">posito</quote>,
7.71 <quote xml:lang="la">et</quote>, Nemes. 3.6 <quote xml:lang="la">hanc pueri
tamquam</quote>. Moreover, in <ref target="#N">N</ref>
<ref target="G">G</ref> Calpurnius 5.7 is placed before 5.6 and in <ref
target="#V">V</ref> Calpurnius 5.67 is placed before 5.66. But since verses and
supplied words have been passed down from antiquity and cannot be attributed to
interpolators, the carelessness of copyists must not be blamed in these passages.
But with regard to the words <quote xml:lang="la">(h)anc pueri tamquam</quote>,
which were omitted in <ref target="#N">N</ref>
<ref target="#G">G</ref> even though there was space for them, the copyist, in my
opinion, deliberately omitted them because he did not understand the writing in
the archetype.</p>
<p><ref target="#N">N</ref>
<ref target="#G">G</ref> and <ref target="#V">V</ref> differ in two hundred places
or even more, but the readings correctly preserved in <ref target="#N">N</ref>
<ref target="#G">G</ref> are almost two times greater than those in the second
family. Moreover, what is even more interesting, nearly all of the corruptions
that blemish <ref target="#N">N</ref>
<ref target="#G">G</ref> are owed to the carelessness or ignorance of their
copyists, but <ref target="#V">V</ref> quite often underwent interpolations. For
example, there is no doubt that in <ref target="#N">N</ref>
<ref target="#G">G</ref> the following passages drew their flaws from either the
carelessness of a copyist or an abbreviation poorly understood: Calp. 1.28 <quote
xml:lang="la">tibi vili</quote>, 1.55 <quote xml:lang="la">profuso</quote>,
2.14 <quote xml:lang="la">affuerant</quote>, 2.23 <quote xml:lang="la"
>hic</quote>, 2.80 <quote xml:lang="la">numerat</quote>, 2.96 <quote xml:lang="la"
>canale</quote>, 3.21 <quote xml:lang="la">si</quote>, 3.36 <quote
xml:lang="la">o</quote>, 3.43 <quote xml:lang="la">nunc</quote>, 3.46 <quote
xml:lang="la">quas</quote>, 3.84 <quote xml:lang="la">tum</quote>, 4.2 <quote
xml:lang="la">patula</quote>, 4.31 <quote xml:lang="la">fragra</quote>, 4.43
<quote xml:lang="la">externo</quote>, 4.44 <quote xml:lang="la">intra</quote>,
4.46 <quote xml:lang="la">quicquam</quote>, 4.62 <quote xml:lang="la"
>quoque</quote>, 4.76 <quote xml:lang="la">hospicius</quote>, 4.106 <quote
xml:lang="la">panem</quote>, 4.112 <quote xml:lang="la">primo</quote>, 4.124
<quote xml:lang="la">raptas</quote>, 4.145 <quote xml:lang="la">nos</quote>,
4.153 <quote xml:lang="la">nunc</quote>, 5.6 <quote xml:lang="la">vanaque</quote>,
5.28 <quote xml:lang="la">vivat</quote>, 5.45 <quote xml:lang="la"
>peragunt</quote>, 5.77 <quote xml:lang="la">contrahit</quote>, 5.82 <quote
xml:lang="la">rara</quote>, 5.84 <quote xml:lang="la">let(h)es</quote>, 5.117
<quote xml:lang="la">sint(ne)</quote>, 6.70 <quote xml:lang="la">dabis</quote>,
6.76 <quote xml:lang="la">hinc</quote>, 7.48 <quote xml:lang="la">tibi</quote>,
7.57 <quote xml:lang="la">esse</quote>, 7.65 <quote xml:lang="la"
>(a)equoreis</quote>, 7.67 <quote xml:lang="la">anne</quote>, 7.80 <quote
xml:lang="la">proprius</quote>, 7.82 <quote xml:lang="la">obfuerat</quote>
<ref target="#G">G</ref>
<quote xml:lang="la">offuerant</quote>
<ref target="#N">N</ref>, Nemes. 1.11 <quote xml:lang="la">et versu</quote>, 1.14
<quote xml:lang="la">nam</quote>, 1.38 <quote xml:lang="la">si sentire datur
mi(t)tite</quote>, 1.42 <quote xml:lang="la">novisti</quote>, 1.46 <quote
xml:lang="la">hic</quote>, 1.70 <quote xml:lang="la">honor</quote>, 1.73 <quote
xml:lang="la">tunc</quote>
<ref target="#N">N</ref>, 2.6 <quote xml:lang="la">veneris</quote>, 2.45 <quote
xml:lang="la">rubensque</quote>, 2.50 <quote xml:lang="la">cum</quote>, 2.73
<quote xml:lang="la">vates fauni</quote>, 3.17 <quote xml:lang="la">cepit
fatus</quote>, 3.41 <quote xml:lang="la">hoc</quote>, 3.51 <quote xml:lang="la"
>vocabula cimbula</quote>, 3.57 <quote xml:lang="la">cūcubitum</quote>
<ref target="#N">N</ref>
<quote xml:lang="la">concubitum</quote>
<ref target="#G">G</ref>, 4.10 <quote xml:lang="la">animos</quote> (<hi
rend="italic">s</hi> exp.) <ref target="#G">G</ref>, <quote xml:lang="la"
>arons</quote>
<ref target="#N">N</ref>, 4.21 <quote xml:lang="la">(h)erit-florem</quote>, 4.47
<quote xml:lang="la">habunda(n)s</quote>, 4.58 <quote xml:lang="la"
>annos</quote>.</p>
<p>Glosses have been received into the text in the following passages: Calp. 1.5
<quote xml:lang="la">molliter</quote>, Nemes. 1.49 <quote xml:lang="la"
>mortali</quote>, 2.42 <quote xml:lang="la">vini</quote>, 1.51 <quote
xml:lang="la">uvas</quote>. Also, <quote xml:lang="la">litora</quote> Nem. 2.22
comes from the same word placed at the beginning of the verse, and <quote
xml:lang="la">visus</quote> Calp. 7.84 comes from the preceding verse. There
are certainly some passages that you could trace back to an interpolator: Calp.
1.20 <quote xml:lang="la">depicta</quote>, 1.24 <quote xml:lang="la"
>altos</quote>, 1.25 <quote xml:lang="la">codice</quote>, 1.87 <quote
xml:lang="la">a</quote>, 2.26 <quote xml:lang="la">ibi</quote>, 4.82 <quote
xml:lang="la">canat</quote>, 4.152 <quote xml:lang="la">olim-decurrent</quote>,
6.52 <quote xml:lang="la">illa</quote>, 6.78 <quote xml:lang="la">provocat
ille</quote>, 7.6 <quote xml:lang="la">in umbra</quote>, Nemes. 2.20 <quote
xml:lang="la">atque</quote>, 4.39 <quote xml:lang="la">subeunt(e)</quote>, but,
from the perspective of the archetype, I would attribute even these passages, with
one or two exceptions, to the ignorance or carelessness of a copyist.</p>
<p>The same cannot be said about the archetype of the second family; indeed, things
could not be more different. To say nothing of glosses received into the text, or
words moved either because of the scribes' mistake or judgment (cfr. Calp. 1.8–9,
2.4, 2.73, 3.74, 3.88, 4.76, 4.83, 7.83, Nemes. 1.72, 2.1, 2.23, 2.33, 2.40, 2.47,
2.76, 4.54), and other faults that you could explain in various ways, I have
detected the following in particular in it, and it detracts greatly from its
authority. I refer to a great abundance of interpolations that have arisen only
out of a passion for making changes. And, just to dismiss the several passages
that others have ascribed to the carelessness of copyists, there is no reason to
doubt that the readings marshalled here are owed to an interpolator: Calp. 1.45
<quote xml:lang="la">lusit</quote>, 1.64 <quote xml:lang="la">revocet</quote>,
1.78 <quote xml:lang="la">placidum</quote> or <quote xml:lang="la">placidam
radianti</quote>, 2.5 <quote xml:lang="la">ulmos</quote>, 2.32 <quote
xml:lang="la">spargit</quote>, 2.65 <quote xml:lang="la">fundere</quote>, 2.67
<quote xml:lang="la">fore</quote> or <quote xml:lang="la">fere</quote>, 2.82
<quote xml:lang="la">novembri</quote>, 2.94 <quote xml:lang="la">vocat</quote>,
3.16 <quote xml:lang="la">spatiatus</quote>, 3.24 <quote xml:lang="la">tu
solus-Iolla es</quote>, 3.33 <quote xml:lang="la">vagetur</quote>, 3.35 <quote
xml:lang="la">quod</quote>, 3.47 <quote xml:lang="la">excusso
dispergit</quote>, 3.48 <quote xml:lang="la">destructa</quote>, 3.60 <quote
xml:lang="la">inops</quote>, 3.62 <quote xml:lang="la">narrare</quote>, 3.69
<quote xml:lang="la">nulla-lactis</quote>, 3.75 <quote xml:lang="la"
>dubita</quote>, 3.95 <quote xml:lang="la">ara</quote>, 4.10 <quote
xml:lang="la">munera</quote>, 4.14 <quote xml:lang="la">dum</quote>, 4.16
<quote xml:lang="la">proxima</quote>, 4.24 <quote xml:lang="la">et</quote>,
4.35 <quote xml:lang="la">pellere</quote>, 4.41 <quote xml:lang="la"
>germani</quote>, 4.42 <quote xml:lang="la">bactrus</quote>, 4.53 <quote
xml:lang="la">solum-noscere nimbos</quote>, 4.84 <quote xml:lang="la"
>nunc</quote>, 4.87 <quote xml:lang="la">te</quote>, 4.90 <quote xml:lang="la"
>visurus</quote>, 4.125 <quote xml:lang="la">ut quoque turba bono plaudat
saginata magistro</quote>, 4.129 <quote xml:lang="la"
>nonnullas-choreas</quote>, 4.131 <quote xml:lang="la">exurdant</quote> or <quote
xml:lang="la">exundant</quote>, 4.132 <quote xml:lang="la">lyaeo</quote> or
simile quid, 4.137 <quote xml:lang="la">nisi</quote>, 4.144 <quote xml:lang="la"
>vivas et hunc</quote>, 4.146 <quote xml:lang="la">terram</quote>, 4.151 <quote
xml:lang="la">sonant</quote>, 4.152 <quote xml:lang="la">quam tenero</quote>,
4.155 <quote xml:lang="la">contigerit</quote>, 5.2 <quote xml:lang="la"
>arbore</quote>, 5.12 <quote xml:lang="la">iamdudum</quote> or <quote
xml:lang="la">iampridem</quote>, 5.17 <quote xml:lang="la">habitabit</quote>,
5.19 <quote xml:lang="la">tota</quote>, 5.24 <quote xml:lang="la">mittito
clausos</quote>, 5.30 <quote xml:lang="la">accedere</quote>, 5.34 <quote
xml:lang="la">messe fluat</quote>, 5.58 <quote xml:lang="la">sine</quote> or
<quote xml:lang="la">sive</quote>, 5.61 <quote xml:lang="la"
>seraeque-merendae</quote>, 5.65 <quote xml:lang="la">coagula</quote>
<quote xml:lang="la">lactis</quote>, 5.77 <quote xml:lang="la">corrodet</quote>,
5.79 <quote xml:lang="la">porta</quote>, 5.80 <quote xml:lang="la"
>ulceribus</quote>, 5.81 <quote xml:lang="la">dura</quote>, 5.82 <quote
xml:lang="la">vini</quote> or <quote xml:lang="la">vivi</quote>, 5.97 <quote
xml:lang="la">vinitor</quote>, 5.100 <quote xml:lang="la">debes</quote>, 5.105
<quote xml:lang="la">venit</quote>, 5.111 <quote xml:lang="la">gelida</quote>,
5.116 <quote xml:lang="la">stipulis et</quote>, 5.118 <quote xml:lang="la"
>penetralia</quote>, 6.7 <quote xml:lang="la">ut</quote>, 6.8 <quote
xml:lang="la">turpior</quote>, 6.9 <quote xml:lang="la">te</quote>, 6.17 <quote
xml:lang="la">adesset</quote>, 6.22 <quote xml:lang="la">vincere</quote>, 6.29
<quote xml:lang="la">insta nunc</quote>, 6.30 <quote xml:lang="la">praedam
nactus</quote>, 6.38 <quote xml:lang="la">lucent</quote>, 6.46 <quote
xml:lang="la">hunc ego qualemcumque vides in valle</quote>, 6.50 <quote
xml:lang="la">iugale</quote>, 6.71 <quote xml:lang="la">lapillis</quote>, 6.75
<quote xml:lang="la">ipse</quote> or <quote xml:lang="la">ipsi</quote>, 6.79
<quote xml:lang="la">merito nihil hic nisi</quote>, 6.82 <quote xml:lang="la"
>te stante</quote>, 7.4 <quote xml:lang="la">iam durior</quote>, 7.6 <quote
xml:lang="la">ardet</quote>, 7.21 <quote xml:lang="la">certare</quote>, 7.30
<quote xml:lang="la">contendit</quote>, 7.49 <quote xml:lang="la"
>peragit</quote>, 7.59 <quote xml:lang="la">nocticanam</quote> or <quote
xml:lang="la">nicticanam</quote>, 7.66 <quote xml:lang="la">dignum</quote>,
7.68 <quote xml:lang="la">venientibus</quote>, 7.69 <quote xml:lang="la"
>nos</quote>, 7.71 <quote xml:lang="la">latebris</quote>, 7.72 <quote
xml:lang="la">croceo</quote>, Nemes. 1.9 <quote xml:lang="la">meam mihi care
senectam</quote>, 1.13 <quote xml:lang="la">stupuere</quote>, 1.25 <quote
xml:lang="la">modulantibus</quote> or <quote xml:lang="la">modulatibus</quote>,
1.27 <quote xml:lang="la">musam</quote>, 1.29 <quote xml:lang="la"
>quercus</quote>, 1.37 <quote xml:lang="la">calamos</quote>, 1.47 <quote
xml:lang="la">pelleret</quote>, 1.67 <quote xml:lang="la">campo</quote>, 1.74
<quote xml:lang="la">secuntur</quote>, 1.75 <quote xml:lang="la"
>nascentur</quote>, 1.85 <quote xml:lang="la">plena</quote> or <quote
xml:lang="la">plene</quote>, 2.3 <quote xml:lang="la">furiata</quote>, 2.28
<quote xml:lang="la">posset rapidos</quote> or <quote xml:lang="la"
>rabidos</quote>, 2.30 <quote xml:lang="la">lamberunt</quote> or <quote
xml:lang="la">biberunt</quote>, 2.37 <quote xml:lang="la">Idas ille ego
sum</quote>, 2.44 <quote xml:lang="la">nigra</quote>, 2.71 <quote xml:lang="la"
>cupiam</quote>, 3.19 <quote xml:lang="la">qui quando</quote>, 3.20 <quote
xml:lang="la">odorato-capillo</quote>, 3.29 <quote xml:lang="la">et vocat
ad</quote>, 3.34 <quote xml:lang="la">summas</quote>, 3.37 <quote xml:lang="la"
>ostendit</quote>, 3.40 <quote xml:lang="la">pueri</quote>, 3.45 <quote
xml:lang="la">udaque</quote> or <quote xml:lang="la">nudaque</quote>, 3.47
<quote xml:lang="la">hoc capit</quote>, 3.54 <quote xml:lang="la"
>spumeus</quote>, 3.65 <quote xml:lang="la">ingerit</quote>, 4.11 <quote
xml:lang="la">quos lusus</quote> or <quote xml:lang="la">luxus</quote>, 4.17
<quote xml:lang="la">vultum veniens</quote>, 4.24 <quote xml:lang="la"
>tibi</quote>, 4.44 <quote xml:lang="la">nactum</quote> or <quote xml:lang="la"
>natum</quote>, 4.45 <quote xml:lang="la">vertito</quote>, 4.47 <quote
xml:lang="la">fluens</quote>, 4.50 <quote xml:lang="la">longa</quote>, 4.66
<quote xml:lang="la">arsi</quote>. For these reasons the manuscripts of the
second family cannot be neglected entirely, but they should be used with greatest
caution.</p>
</div>
<div type="section" n="5">
<head>V. The Third Family</head>
<p xml:id="CodPar8049Lat">Our only witness to the third family is codex Parisinus
8049 (= <ref target="#P" rend="bold">P</ref>, whose outer appearance F. Buecheler
described in his edition of Petronius (Berlin 1862, p. XXf.) as follows:
<quote>"Parchment, quarto, bound together in three parts: I. Introduction on
Satire, Perseus; II. end of the 11th century, according to Kelius, end of the
12th century, according to Froehnerus, the end of the second book of the
<bibl><title>De Divinatione</title> by <author>Cicero</author></bibl>. On
the verso of leaf 17: <quote xml:lang="la">Marci Tullii de divinacione liber
IIᵘˢ explicit. Petronii arbitri satirarum liber incipit</quote>. On the
recto of leaf 25: <quote xml:lang="la">explicit Petronius. incipit egologa
Calpurnii (nondum solis equos I 1—quicquid id est silvestre etc. IIII
12)</quote>. III. 12th century. Seneca's proverbs."</quote> Regarding this
manuscript or one very similar to it, Poggio wrote the following to Niccolus
(Epist. 1.91) in 1423: <quote>mittas ad me oro Bucolicam Calpurnii et particulam
Petronii, quas misi tibi ex Britannia</quote> (<quote>Please send me
Calpurnius' <bibl><title>Bucolia</title></bibl> and the excerpt of Petronius
that I sent to you from England.</quote>; cfr. <ref target="#Sabbadini"
>Sabbadini</ref> p. 83 n. 52). <ref target="#Pithou">Pithou</ref> was the first
to use this manuscript, then <ref target="#Heinsius">Heinsius</ref>, as it seems,
Miller (for <ref target="#Glaeser">Glaeser</ref>), Bursian (for <ref
target="#Haupt">Haupt</ref>), and <ref target="#Baehr.">Baehrens</ref> collated
it. Finally, at the request of <ref target="#Schenkl">Schenkl</ref>, Schoene
inspected many of its passages.</p>
<p>The copyist who wrote the Codex Parisinus was utterly ignorant of the Latin
language. In his completely careless performance of his task he committed
countless scribal errors, and he did not finish his work, since the manuscript
contains the first three eclogues by Calpurnius and stops in mid-sentence at verse
12 of the fourth. Since I have mentioned all of the readings of this manuscript in
my apparatus criticus, there is no need to report here all of the defects of
writing with which it teems. But I will now recount certain rather curious things
that are unique to this manuscript, so that you will be all the more amazed at the
copyist's carelessness and ignorance:</p>
<table rows="63" cols="3">
<head>Curious Readings in P</head>
<row role="label">
<cell role="data">Line</cell>