BY CLEMENT Lawrence SMITH A PRELIMINARY STUDY OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS SECOND PAPER N my first paper under this title1 I published the results of an car and traced, as far as the available evidence warranted, the relations of these to the older and better known manuscripts and to one another. Without attempting a complete classification, for which my material was manifestly inadequate, I showed that the majority of the manuscripts examined by me belong to a different class from that of Codex Memmianus (A); and in each of the two classes thus distinguished1-to which I assigned seven and twenty-one manuscripts respectively - I was able to recognize two subordinate groups: in the first class a group represented by Memmianus itself, and one represented by the Third Medicean (M3); in the second class a 'Florentine' group of seven 1 Harvard Studies, vol. XII (1901), pp. 19-58. In referring to that paper I shall cite simply the volume and page of the Studies. 2 Quite independently, and on a much broader basis of research, L. Preud'homme, in his important Troisième étude sur l'histoire du texte de Suétone de vita Caesarum (Brussels, 1904), has reached a similar result, and finds the same division running through about 125 manuscripts. His two classes are essentially identical with mine, and we differ only in the assignment of a few individual manuscripts: V and V35, which I placed in the second class, and 3, 713, 14, and 38, which I left on the border between the two classes, though recognizing their closer affinity to the first, are by him definitely assigned to the first class. Of the manuscripts which, for lack of sufficient evidence, I refrained from classifying, M. Preud'homme assigns P', Ven3, and Z to Class I; Ven' and Ven3 to Class II. One manuscript of my first class and four of my second (R1; V1R2 B3 B) I do not find anywhere in his list. Of the manuscripts discussed in the present paper our classification agrees in the case of all except B, which M. Preud'homme is partly in error, as I shall show (page 11), in assigning to the second class. 3 M. Preud'homme also recognizes in M3 and its congeners a distinct group, in which he includes (besides M1) Parisinus 5801 and Montepessulanus 117 (Troisième étude, page 24). C. L. Smith " copies dating from the XII-XIV. centuries, and an Urbinas' group of seven XV. century manuscripts. A brief sojourn in Europe in the spring of 1903 gave me the opportunity to make some further observations in this field, the results of which I will here set forth. In the Library of the Vatican Vaticanus Latinus 6396. Parchment, 4°, XV. century. A very brief examination of this manuscript, which escaped my notice in 1898, not being found in the Catalogue,1 sufficed to show that it belongs to the Urbinas group. Its agreement with U itself is so constant that in the 46 excerpts from the Julius in which both are represented there is only one case of divergence, and that of no significance: 31, 31 quodam (for quondam). V Vaticanus Latinus 1904. My attention having been called to some errors in the collation of this manuscript which I used in preparing my first paper, I took the opportunity to verify all my excerpts and found them inaccurate in twelve places, where the correct reading is as follows: 32, 26 libris om.; 39, 18 confiteri; 42, 16 pansa equidem ad eos; 44, 31 cleopatra liberis; 46, 5 integri temasini; 52, 36 ad exemplar; 53, 34 senatores; 55, 36 in exprobratis; 58, 11 magnorum; 74, 28 tiburi; 80, 34 demisso e caelo; 85, 30 altero quae. These corrections disarrange my examples somewhat, for instance, the list of twelve places in which I held that V (against A) was 'certainly right' must be reduced to eight; but they do not materially affect the evidence by which I showed the close relation of V to A on the one hand, and to M3 on the other; nor do they disturb my conclusion that V, though standing nearer to the Medicean than to the Memmianus group, is not to be included in either. Its relation to 5 1 See vol. XII, p. 21, footnote. ? I am indebted to Professor Ihm for calling my attention to the inaccuracy of this collation. 3 Vol. XII, p. 46. 4 Vol. XII, pp. 44-48. 'This is also the view of M. Preud'homme, in whose scheme (Trois. étude, pp. 24 ff., 61) V and the archetype (x') of what I have called the Medicean group have their common source in a manuscript (x) closely related to A. |