Obrázky na stránke

author, either the actual text of which a transcript had been made, or another text. Our correctors seem to have taken down from the library-shelves two other copies of the text of Nonius to help them in emending the transcript which they had to revise. L' availed himself of a text like that of the Extract MSS (ACXDMO), L' of what has been called the doctored'text of Nonius, the text exhibited in the Wolfenbüttel Codex (V) and used by the correctors of a large number of other MSS (H? throughout, E’ in IV-XX, Cant.', etc.).

The original of the Extract MSS had adapted Nonius to use as a Latin dictionary for the monastery-library, and so had provided explanations of some words which Nonius left unexplained. These additions, peculiar to the Extract MSS, are inserted in L by L'; e. g. 167. 20 Reda (vehiculum] 167. 22 Recentiorum (novorum]. In 177. 17 Sportas, which stood without addition in the archetype, as attested by FVL', has in the Extract MSS an etymology attached : Sportas, aut ab spartu quasi sparteas aut ab sportando. This is added in L by L'.

In 439 M. lines 18–28 decreverint were omitted, owing to the homoeoteleuton, by L'. The corrector (L') has supplied only so much of the missing passage as is found in the Extract MSS, viz. 22 Simulare28 decreverint. Other examples of the relation between L’ and the Extract MSS are:

456. 30 vivoque] uiuoquae L': uiuo L' (with the Extract MSS) 461. 29 amnis] amnis L'V, etc. : animis L' (with the Extract MSS

and H'PE).

The 'doctored'text of Nonius is probably the work of some Carolingian abbot who tried to provide a readable version, altering our archetype sometimes rightly, more often wrongly, but rarely reproducing the ‘ipsae litterae' of its unintelligible parts. Most of the peculiarities of this text are mere conjectures, but some are clerical errors, and a few are the result of more faithful transcription of the archetype.

In 162 M. 15 the true reading is libro I (so F), but the reading of the doctored' text of Nonius, as represented by the Wolfenbüttel MS (V), was libro XI. L'has merely libro, L'has changed this to libro XI.

In 256 M. 1 iuniorem was omitted in the archetype, as is shewn by the consensus of L'and the Geneva MS. It is omitted also in the Extract MSS (DMO). But it was inserted in the 'doctored'text (through conjecture, apparently, for the title of Cicero's book of correspondence "ad Caesarem iuniorem” is very often mentioned). L' has inserted the word.

In 233 M. 19 the words iracundiam vel furorem had been miswritten in the archetype iracundum vel furorem (possibly furorum, as the word is written by L'). The Extract MSS rightly changed iracundum to iracundiam, the doctored' text changed furorem to furiosum. L'has iracundum vel furorum, L' corrects iracundum vel furiosum. Other examples are: 248. 7 alescit) alescit L'Gen., etc.: adolescit L'V, etc. 293. 49 exacuta] exacuta L'Gen., etc. : ex hac vita VH?: ex ac

vita L. The combination, therefore, of L' with ACXDMO or of L' with VH adds nothing of corroboration to a reading. Rather L’ should be included with ACXDMO as a group whose combined evidence gives us the reading of one original; and L' similarly should be reckoned with VH’ and in parts) E’Cant. as evidence for the original 'doctored'text.

That these correctors did not also use the actual original of which L is a copy can neither be proved nor disproved. L' certainly emends and supplies omissions in parts not included in the Extract MSS; but, on the other hand, these Extract MSS may quite well have come from an original which exhibited a complete text. Indeed, there is a curious feature of our MS which

suggests this. From book VIII (fol. 221 v.) onwards the practice is followed of separating the definition from the examples by suprascript symbols. These marks have been erased as far as fol. 233 v., but they are clearly seen in the subsequent pages. Now, this is the peculiarity of the Extract MSS, that, for the purpose of adapting the work of Nonius to dictionary-form, the explanation of the word is reproduced, while the examples are wholly (or mostly) omitted. In one group of MSS of this family DMO this practice of curtailment is maintained throughout, although at places (notably in the first half of book VI, where the whole text is given the curtailment is reduced to a minimum. In the other group the whole text is presented from book VI to the end (also

[ocr errors]

at the opening of book I). If the common original was marked in some way like the Leyden MS, we can well understand how the two divergent groups arose.

We thus obtain from our MS a valuable hint for the history of the transmission of the text of our author.

Another point in which L throws light on the nature of the original MS is the treatment of the lemmas, the method of indicating that a new word was subject of discussion in a new paragraph. If these head-words had been indicated by initials (rubricated or not) in the original, we can hardly imagine a calligraphic copy like L ignoring this treatment. But it is not till fol. 15 r. in L that the use of rubricated initials begins. In the earlier pages a horizontal stroke is drawn above the lemma-word by the corrector, e. g. fol. 5 r., above Inlicere 6 M. 15. Traces of the (at least occasional) absence of indication of the lemma in the archetype are seen in corruptions, shared by all MSS of Nonius, like cintinnire for tintinnire 40 M. 12, tibicidas for cibicidas 88 M. 8, for it is in their minuscule, not their majuscule or initial, form that the letters c and t are liable to confusion. There is one miswriting of a lemma which points to majuscule script-the corruption gladatores for glaratores (gralatores 'walkers on stilts'), 115 M. 18, with D for R. It may date from some proto-archetype whose whole text was in majuscules.'

The omission of lemmas in the Extract MSS is often due to the absence of an explanation of the word treated, e. g. adsestrix 73 M. 29, although sometimes, as we have seen, the compiler of the original of the Extract-group has added an explanation of his own; e. g. 167. 20 Reda (vehiculum]. But undoubtedly another cause lay in the absence in the archetype of any indication of the new lemma. Thus 33 M. 10 Pedetemtim has a small p and no indication of a new paragraph in L', and presumably this indication was lacking also in the archetype. The lemma is passed over in the Extract MSS.

(On traces in L of the use in the archetype of c or caput to indicate a new paragraph see Philologus, LV 167.)

Some peculiarities of the spelling of the archetype which are revealed to us by L' (and Gen.') have been already mentioned, such as the use of e for y. This barbarism is the cause of the erroneous reading rex for Eryx in 302 M. 33, where L' has erex,

1 The form glaratores may be the form of the word actually used by Nonius, a popular form like Phyrgio for Phrygio, etc.


and was probably already corrected in the archetype in 237 M. 8, where the quid dante tyranno of our MSS, instead of quiddam tyranno, seems due to a suprascript correction, teranno. The late Latin use of ui for y, from which our name for the letter is derived, we have already found in the archetype. It has led to the corruption virum for gyrum in 252. 18, where L’reproduces the spelling of the archetype, guirum.

That the script of the archetype was minuscule we see from the confusion of letters like cl and d (e. g. 361. 6 hercle] haec de L', herde Gen.'), a and u (e. g. maliorum L' for mulierum).

We may safely assign to the archetype some peculiar contractions, which are reproduced by L' and Gen.' (e. g. supl with horizontal line above for suppliciis in references to Cicero's Verrine oration de suppliciis, e. g. 271 M. 25), or of which we find clear trace in these transcripts. For example, the curious reading of L', sati for senati, 130 M. 10, which the corrector 'corrects' to satis, suggests that in the archetype the unusual contractions with horizontal stroke above was used for sen, just as m with horizontal stroke above is the common contraction of men. And this suggestion is supported by the corruption in our MSS at 312 M. 38 sensu iacerent] sed subiacerent H', subiacerent LVH?. Similarly ostari for ostentari in our MSS at 539 M. 2 may be due to a like contraction of the syllable ten. In 269 M. 35 consentire appears in certain MSS as consistere; in 392 M. 29 evenit appears as evit. In an article in Philologus, already referred to, I have mentioned some other contractions which may with more or less probability be ascribed to the archetype (LV 168).

I will conclude this paper by pointing out a possible feature of the archetype of which we seem to find traces in L: I mean the indication of a word by its initial letter or its first syllable merely, in cases of repetition. At 353 M. 5 sqq. we have the verb niti exhibited in its various meanings: niti est conari ... niti, fultum esse, etc. At the second occurrence of niti we find merely ni in Gen.', while the verb is omitted by L'. At 162 M. i we have the lemma Permittere, with two examples of the verb from Sisenna. In the second example: multi praemissis armis ex summo se permitterent, we find perm representing permitterent in L. Again at 93 M. 24 (lemma Continuari) L omits the verb continuatur in the example from Sisenna, I fancy, because c stood for continuatur in the archetype. In this way I would explain the corruption at 66 M. 4 Excordes concordesve (vae L') ex corde, where the example from Cicero includes vecordes (vaecordes L) as well as excordes and concordes. The archetype had : excordes concordes vae (i. e. vaecordes). Similarly at 175. 25 sqq. the words, Subsicivum positum succedens succidaneum, had been misinterpreted as Subsicivum, positum. Succedens, succidaneum. In the appended example from Cicero subsicivis, written, presumably, s. or su, in the archetype, has become succeders in our MSS. The omission of sumet in the Lucilius example in the lemma Sumere 395. 31 sqq. may be accounted for in like fashion. If this brief indication of a repeated word was really a feature of the archetype, light is thrown on the corrupt readings of our MSS in 167. 6 and 229. 13. At 408. 37, where tangere (with Acc. of person, Abl. of thing) in the sense of circumvenire to cheat' is illustrated by an iambic trimeter passage of Turpilius (129 Ribb.):

hoc quaero; ignoscere istic solentne eas minoris noxias,

ferum si forte quasi alias res uini cauot, the verb tangere does not appear in the example. Editors have found a place for it by changing cavo to tago, although this second aorist form of tango is certain only in the subjunctive mood (ne attigas, attigat, etc.).

It may be that the omission of the verb is due to its having been represented in the archetype by its initial letter merely, in which case cavo may be regarded as a corruption of cado. The true reading may be

erum si forte, quasi alias, vini cado


[merged small][ocr errors]

the word res being a gloss on alias, which, however, is really the
adverb, on other occasions.'


« PredošláPokračovať »