Teubner Edition Research Articles

III. Plautus and Terence

The best texts of Plautus are still those edited by Leo (second edition: Berlin, 1895–96; reprinted 1958) and Lindsay (Oxford, 1904-05). The large Teubner edition by Ritschl, Goetz, Loewe and Schoell (Leipzig, 1871–94), remains indispensable, despite an eccentric text, because of the fullness of its critical information; Goetz and Schoell later produced aneditio minor(Leipzig, 1892–96: there are later prints with editorial changes) with a briefer apparatus and a more conservative text. The Bude edition is by Ernout (Paris, 1932–40). No complete commentary has been published since that of Ussing (Copenhagen, 1875–92; reprinted 1972); commentaries on individual plays, however, published in the more accessible languages during the last fifty years include:Amphitruo,Sedgwick (Manchester, 1960);Asinaria, Bertini (Genoa, 1968);Curculio,Collari (Paris, 1962); a ‘scenic analysis’ by Monaco (Rome and Palermo, 1963);Epidicus,Duckworth (Princeton, 1940);Menaechmi,Moseley and Hammond (Cambridge, Mass., 1933);Mercator,Enk (Leiden, 1932); Cazzaniga (Milan, 1961):Miles Gloriosus,Hammond, Mack, Moskalew (Cambridge, Mass. and London, 1963);Mostellaria,Collart (Paris, 1970); Merrill (London, 1972);Pseudolus,Sturtevant (New Haven, 1933);Rudens,Marx (Leipzig, 1928; reprinted 1958);Stichus,Petersmann (Heidelberg, 1973);Truculentus,Enk (Leiden, 1953). Commentaries in the press or near completion include:Aulularia(Stockert);Bacchides(Lowe);Casina(MacCary and Willcock);Poenulus(Maurach).

Sceparnio's ‘Raincoat’ in Plautus, Rudens 516

What is the dry garment which Sceparnio offers to the sea-soaked Charmides? First of all, there is doubt about the spelling of the word. The Palatine tradition is tigillum, though T has tixillum; the Ambrosian palimpsest is provokingly defective at this point and Studemund was unable to determine whether the vowel is e or i. Since the beginning of the sixteenth century editors have chosen to print tegillum, being influenced by notes preserved in the collections of two grammarians—Nonius and Paulus. I quote these from Lindsay's Teubner editions.

The Manuscripts of Appian's Historia Romana

This study of the twenty-two manuscripts of the i and O families establishes as primary mss for Syr., Mith., 111., and B. C. 1-5 1 (Laurentianus 70.5), Β (Mar-cianus gr. 387), and J (Vaticanus gr. 134) as well as F (Parisinus gr. 1672) and Ε (Parisinus gr. 1642) for B. C. 2.286.1 ad fin. and B. C. 4.1-224. Although the Teubner edition of H. R. (vol. I, Viereck and Roos, 1939, and vol. 2, Mendelssohn and Viereck, 1905) is correctly based on B, J, F, and E, it neglects 1 and cites in its place apographs.

Some Textual Reassessments in the Teubner Menander

Sixty years have now passed since Lefebvre first published the Cairo papyrus of Menander (Fragments d'un manuscrit de Menandre, Cairo, 1907), and Körte's still authoritative third Teubner edition (Menandri quae supersunt, pars prior, Leipzig, 1938, reprinted in 1955 with addenda by Thierfelder) appeared almost exactly halfway between then and now. It laid the coping-stone on the labours of many scholars, of whom four rose head and shoulders above the crowd:

Notes on Claudian's Invectives

The text of Claudian has received little serious attention since the great edition of Theodor Birt in 1892 (MGH Auct. Ant. x). The Teubner edition of the following year is by a pupil of Birt, J. Koch, and, though it is a handy text with a useful preface, it cannot really be used independently of Birt. After that, apart from two not very substantial contributions by J. P. Postgate (C.Q. iv [1910], 257–62)

Notes On Cicero, De Oratore I

In our first series of notes (Mnem. IV 21, 1968, 386-393) we announced our forthcoming comprehensive commentary on the De oratore. Three years later we have to confess with regret, that a publication is not yet to be expected in the near future. A few specimens may suffice to show what kind of work is being done meanwhile. In 1969 Kumaniecki's Teubner edition appeared; for the first time, students have an adequate text and apparatus at their disposition. In our view, there is all the more reason to look afresh at the text and its implications now that at last we stand on firmer ground. Our present notes will be concerned with questions of interpretation, grammar and punctuation *).

The Leyden Manuscript of Tacitus

From the beginning of the seventeenth century it has generally been held that the second Medicean is the parent of all the other extant manuscripts. In two articles C. W. Mendell has demonstrated that Leidensis B.P.L. 16. B is the manuscript once owned by Rudolphus Agricola (d. 1485) and later by Th. Ryck, whose edition (Lugd. Batav. 1687) makes frequent allusion to its readings. Mendell's attempt to show further that L (= Leidensis) represents a tradition independent of the Medicean has found little support until recently, when E. Koestermann, in the course of preparing the latest Teubner edition of Annals (1960) and Histories (1961) became convinced from his own study of L that Mendell's view—in spite of some arguments of dubious validity—was essentially correct. In an article in Philologus (civ [i960], 92–115) and in the preface to his edition of Histories Koestermann has marshalled the arguments which he believes prove L's independence of the Medicean line of descent. Since the new valuation that Koestermann puts upon L has produced a drastic revision of both text and apparatus criticus in his new editions, it may be worth while to examine the evidence that Koestermann adduces in support of his belief in L's independence.

A Curiosity in Seneca

Thus the passage is printed in the Teubner edition of Seneca's Dialogues by E. Hermes, who, on the strength of Aen. 8. 702 f. (‘et scissa gaudens vadit Discordia palla, quam cum sanguineo sequitur Bellona flagello’), adds a note on the quotation ‘versus sunt Vergilii a Seneca licenter mutati’.Now the imputation to Seneca of such gross alteration of Virgil can only be supported if we disregard or eject the evidence to the contrary. As only the last five words are actually Virgilian; as Seneca himself says ‘aput vate nostra?’; as out at the beginning of the second line may introduce a second quotation (so Rossbach); and as est, which Gertz secluded, has a part to play if the lines are by different poets, it is safer to take a step backwards and dispose the passage thus:

The Family of Argyrius

There are in the literary sources few examples of curial life extending over three generations with such a continuity of detail as is provided by Libanius in his references to the family of Argyrius. Yet in the more accessible works of reference, the student of the social life of the later Roman Empire will discover merely a shortened version by Ensslin (PW. Suppl. VII, 680) of Seeck's note on Obodianus (Briefe, 222). In addition, the index of the Teubner edition of Libanius presents much confusion between grandfather and grandson.Towards the end of his life, Libanius addressed to the Emperor Theodosius an open letter upon the parlous state of the curiae at the time, contrasting their present hard lot with the state of things which had prevailed earlier in the century. In dealing with the recruitment of fresh blood into the curia, he cites as an example of previous practice the conduct of his own grandfather (Or. xlix. 18). He, some years before his death in 324, had been instrumental in securing for a young foreigner named Argyrius an introduction into the curia of Antioch. This he had succeeded in doing, despite Argyrius' alien birth, his youth, and lack of property, even against the opposition of the then governor and the then sophist of the city, Zenobius. Oddly enough, there was a family relationship between Zenobius and Argyrius, which Libanius mentions at a later time (Ep. 101).

Notes on Statius (continued)

This is the reading of the manuscripts with the punctuation given it in the Delphin, Loeb, and Teubner editions. But the future (adfore) does not give the sense required. Adrastus is gazing with horror at the two young men who have arrived on his doorstep, realizing that they are the lion and the boar of Apollo's oracle (cf. 395–7 ‘cui Phoebus generos … fato ducente canebat saetigerumque suem et fulvum adventare leonem’). The whole force of the blow lies in the fact that they have actually arrived. The Delphin editor solves the problem by saying that adfore means adesse, the Loeb by translating ‘that they had come’. Gruter suggested ac fore, and Garrod accepted this, putting a comma after ductos. But I do not see how this helps. I suggest that the reading of the manuscripts is correct, provided that we take adfore with quos … ediderat; i.e. put a comma after ductos and supply esse. The presence of three verbs, adfore, portendi, and ediderat, may seem a little clumsy, but each has its point; and the future is now natural, depending upon portendi: ‘he realized that the clear will of heaven had brought to his house the sons-in-law of whom Apollo had announced that their future arrival was destined by fate.’

Some Personalities in Libanius

An investigation into the prosopography of Libanius shows a confusion of identity in the following cases. The textual references are to Foerster's Teubner edition, of which the index compiled by Richtsteig (vol. xii) is to be handled with caution.

Echoes of Propertius

The following collection of possible imitations or reminiscences of Propertius in later Latin verse (Ovid excepted) down to Sidonius Apollinaris is intended to supplement that published by Hosius in his third (Teubner) edition of this author and reproduced (along with some additions by Professor G. B. A. Fletcher x)) in the Prolegomena to Professor Enk's recent edition of the Cynthia 2). Taken together, these lists should give a fairly well-balanced and comprehensive idea of Propertius' influence on his successors so far as verbal similarities reveal it.

The « De Caesaribus » attributed to Aurelius Victor : points arising from an examination of the mss and of the Teubner edition of F. Pichlmayr

The « De Caesaribus » attributed to Aurelius Victor : points arising from an examination of the mss and of the Teubner edition of F. Pichlmayr

Two Manuscripts of Statius' Thebaid

Professor R. J. Getty has drawn attention (C.Q. xxvii, 1933, p. 139) to a tenth- or early eleventh-century manuscript of Statius’ Thebaid, hitherto examined only in Book I, namely Turonensis (T: codex Parisinus nouv. acqu. lat. 1627). Dr. Klotz, in his Teubner edition of 1908, gave citations from Book I, and wrote (Praefatio, p. xiv), ‘dolendum est sane de hoc codice primum tantum librum innotuisse, sed cum Roffensis libri maxime affinis accuratiorem notitiam haberemus, collatione quamvis -aegre careri posse nobis visum est.’ I have collated both T and Roffensis (r: codex Regius Mus. Brit. 15.C.X) in full, and find firstly that the citations of r by Klotz are far from accurate, especially in the last six books, and secondly that while it is indeed true thatT and r are very closely related, T is a much better representative than r of their common source.

The Gerundive as Future Participle Passive in the Panegyrici Latini

Panegyric IV (Nazarius), 24, 2: diducta acie inreuocabilem impetum hostis effundis, dein quos ludificandos receperas reductis agminibus includis.Acidalius' correction ludificando is accepted in both the Teubner editions. The addition of the s would, of course, be an easy error, and quite characteristic of the MSS, of these authors. But there is no need for the correction, in view of the frequency; in the Panegyrici Latini, of the Gerundive as a Future Participle Passive, an unquestionable example of which occurs, in fact, in the last sentence of the chapter in question. ‘Quos ludificandos receperas’ means ‘whom you had admitted with the intention that they should be tricked,’ is equivalent in sense to ‘quos ludificaturus receperas.’ The Gerundive used as Future Participle Passive gives an appropriate picture of the purpose with which the manoeuvre described by receperas was carried out.

The Saint Germain MS. of the Thebaid (Paris B.N. 13046)

Ever since Ph. Kohlmann in his Teubner edition of the Thebaid (1884) asserted that he had used cod. Parisinus 13046, one of the MSS. formerly of St. Germain des Prés, this MS. has been known by reputation to his successors and other students of Statian textual problems, and, designed by the letter S, it is alluded to and cited in the edition of Garrod (Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis 1906) and in the newer Teubner of Klotz, which appeared in 1908. The two later editors confessed that they themselves had not examined the MS., but were relying upon the information accessible in Kohlmann's edition. Doubts having been cast from more than one source upon Kohlmann's accuracy and the soundness of his reports, while at the same time the importance of S as a member of the ω group was emphasized by Mr. Garrod and Dr. Klotz in spite of the incomplete evidence at their disposal, it seemed worth while to the writer to examine the MS. for himself and to make a thorough collation of it. This has been done in the summer of 1932.

Nonius Marcellus II.–IV

In the small Teubner edition (p. 2) a warning is given that the alphabetical arrangement of these books may be medieval. Our MSS. of the Compendiosa Doctrina all come from one archetype, which had a misplaced leaf, many gaps, many ‘doctored’ passages, and a large number of scribal errors. And that archetype I believe to have been preserved in some English monastery library.

The "Lost" MS of Cicero's De Amicitia

Previous articleNext article FreeThe "Lost" MS of Cicero's De AmicitiaC. H. BeesonC. H. Beeson Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Classical Philology Volume 21, Number 2Apr., 1926 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/360757 Views: 2Total views on this site PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

The Abstrvsa Glossary and the Liber Glossarvm

The wholesome severity of publishers' regulations restricted the small Teubner edition of Festus almost to the actual text of the archetype MSS. of Festus and his epitomator Paulus. The flimsy material to be picked up from mediaeval glossaries was excluded from this small and solid structure and reserved for the ampler space and freer air of a second volume, a volume which should attempt a reconstruction of Festus from Paulus' excerpts, like an antiquarian's reconstruction of the Forum from the ruins that now remain. In Goetz' Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum we have apographs of the chief MS. of each important glossary, and in his Thesaurus Glossarum Emendatarum we have all the glosses edited and arranged in dictionary form; but much spade-work has to be done before these glosses can be used by an editor of Festus. Some has been done already by a pupil of Goetz in a Jena dissertation (A. Dammann de Festo pseudo-Philoxeni auctore, 1894), who shows the so-called Philoxenus Glossary to be compiled in part from Festus, and collects and emends its Festus glosses. Yet even this piece of work is not complete. For our (we may say) unique MS. of Philox., a mere ninth-century MS. (of Laon ?), is an imperfec record of that large bilingual collection which has left so many traces of itself in the glossaries of the British Isles and of those parts of the Continent which received English or Irish culture. The Ab Absens Glossary, for example, printed by Goetz (C.G.L. IV. pp. 404–427) from a North Frankish MS. of Charlemagne's time, has (in the A-section) a number of Festus glosses from this collection which are not recorded in our MS. of Philox. and are accordingly ignored by Dammann.

New Evidence for the Text of Festvs.

The Teubner edition of Festus de Verborum Significatu had scarcely appeared when Professor Anspach announced (in the Deutsche Literaturzeitung of November 29, 1913) his discovery of a MS. of Isidore's Etymologies (A 18 of the Vallicelli Library, Rome) with some Scholia taken from Festus. Last Easter, in the limited time at my disposal, I transcribed from the MS. the greater part of this Isidore Commentary and, later, received a transcript of the remainder from Abbe Liebaert some weeks before his death. Although hampered by the deficiencies of our University Library, I am unwilling to keep this new evidence any longer from students of Festus.