No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Manuscript Tradition of Statius' Silvae
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
It is the purpose of these notes to make a contribution towards solving a problem the difficulty of which has inhibited all modern editors of the Silvae: the apparent impossibility of establishing a satisfactory relation between the Madrid manuscript and the readings noted by Politian in his copy of the first edition now in the Corsinian library in Rome. It is the task of the editor to draw up a stemma that would reconcile the evidence of our text with the testimony of the great humanist.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1953
References
page 69 note 1 See Clark, A. C., C.R. xiii, 1899, pp. 124 ff.Google Scholar
page 69 note 2 See alsoSabbadini, , Scoperte dei Codici Latini e Grecinet secoli XIV e XV, 1914, p. 263;Google Scholar and Walser, E., Poggius Florentinus, 1914, P. 59.Google Scholar
page 70 note 1 Klotz, S, praef. xlviii, lxxiii–lxxiv, lxxxix; Hermes, 1903, p. 470;Google ScholarClark, , C.R. 1899, p. 128;Google Scholar and cf. also Bed. Phil. Woch. 1910, p. 925.Google Scholar
page 70 note 2 But there is no need for us to make such an assumption. See also on this question Slater, D. A., C.R. xxxii (1918), 166.Google Scholar
page 72 note 1 I leave out of account the fantastic theory that the line was originally present in the manuscript, was then erased, and Politian did not notice the erasure (Postgate, , C.R. xvii (1903), 349).Google Scholar Fantastic though this theory is, it has at least the merit that it makes an attempt to reconcile the two sets of evidence.
page 73 note 1 I first heard of the existence of this manuscript from Professor J. F. Lockwood.
page 73 note 2 It is generally accepted that the Corsinian notes were written some time between the first of April 1494, the date of the letter, referred to below, to Beroaldus, in which he makes no mention of having found the old manuscript, and his death later in the same year.
page 74 note 1 When he says dimidiati he means ?in-complete, i.e. he refers not to the condition of the manuscript, but to the fragmentary state of the transmitted text. That becomes clear from this remark: ‘esse autem… dimidiatum…Silvarum volumen, vel uno Sidonii testimonio intellegimus, qui dum aliquot singularum Sylvarum titulos enumerat et de Flavii Farnii Cumis meminit qui libellus interciderit.’ In other words, the fact that there is no such poem in the transmitted text led him to believe that the text is incomplete. That he did not realize that Flavii Farnii Cumis was a corruption of Flavii Earini Comis, i.e. a reference to Silv. 3. 4, indicates a comparatively weak acquaintance with the Silvae, and thus points to a date early in Politian's life. The reference is to Sidonius Apollinaris carm. 22, where the apparatus exhibits this corrupted reading. Politian was not the only one to be led astray by the corrupt passage of Sidonius; a modern scholar who did much work on Statius made exactly the same mistake: Imhof, A., P.P. Statii Ecloga ad Uxorem, p. 4,Google Scholar quotes the same Sidonius passage to prove that the text of the Silvae is incomplete!
page 74 note 2 In fact, I believe the verse to be genuine, even though it does not appear in the old manuscript. There it was left out, either deliberately or by a mistake that would be due to the fact that the second half of the line was a repetition. Read:
86 expectare fuit …
86a attollam cantu: gaudet Trasimenus et Alpes
The original, inherited, corruption consisted in the loss of the second part of 86 and its replacement by the corresponding words in 86a. By the reverse of this dittography the scribe of Politian's vetustissimus then left out 86a as it stood. The Matritensis has a faithful record of what the Poggianus had, and that had already inherited the corruption.