Page images
[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]



[ocr errors]

N my first paper under this title1 I published the results of an


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).

[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

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, 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'3 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


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) V1 and the archetype (x') of what I have called the Medicean group have their common source in a manuscript (x) closely related to A.

the two groups is neatly illustrated by the variants at 91, 29, where the archetype apparently had EXSERVISSEIVS. In the Memmiánus group this has been transformed by haplography into ex seruis eius. M3 has preserved, with a slight change of spelling, the right reading, exeruisse ius, corrected in R', a later manuscript of the Medicean group, to the more intelligible exercuisse ius. V agrees with Min preserving the verb, but goes its own way and gives us, by dittography, exseruisse eius. The independence of V is vouched for by such examples as the following:

10, 6 licerentur AVA

II, 23 alias addit AVA
19, 22 exulabant AVA
22, 29 uasa AV1
25, 18 et ait uero AVA
27, 29 conibebat AVa
32, 26 detineretur AV1
35, I maximo aequintus AV
38, 14 minos gentes AV1
49, 15 ut c· AV1
50, 28 praesident idem AV prae se identidem M3
55, 23 uirili toga AV1
uirilem togam M3

et brutum M3

62, 10 sedulo lentius AV1

sedulo uiolentius M3

73, 32 etiam memoriam AVA etiam in memoriam M 80, 21 in eius signum rei p · quam AV1

P. quod M

ducerentur M3
aliis additis M
exularent M3

85, 16 quinques AVA

ut uasa M

uero M3 cohibebat M contineretur M

maximae quintus M minis gentis M3

quinque M

7, 6 adiutore A

auctore VM8

11, 17 consulatus A consularis Va M3

18, 19 ac A et V4 M3

26, 32 moranti se A moranti VM8
33, 35 laureo A
aureo V1 M3
36, 18 adinspectantium A
38, 16 magno inter A
39, 18 profiteri A
46, 29 abim A
50, 21 primum A

in sinum eius signum rei

inspectantium V1 M
magno interuallo Va M3
confiteri V M3
abin V1 M8

primo V1 M3

[blocks in formation]

4, 5 regiae B

rerumque missilium Va M®

In the Ambrosian Library at Milan

Am Ambrosianus H. 90.

Parchment, small folio, early XV. century. Ambrosianus H. 144. Paper, 4°, early XV. century (1432). The first of these two I excerpted fully through the Julius. It is a manuscript of the second class, akin to B3 and B', with which it will be discussed below. The second is in a deplorable state, largely motheaten, and apparently still food for moths. I made no excerpts.

In the British Museum

B Lat. Cl. 12009.

Parchment, XV. century.

This manuscript, which for lack of time I had been obliged to pass over in 1898, I excerpted for the Julius. It proves to be of the second class, and closely related to B (Lat. Cl. 31914); and in these two, together with the Ambrosian codex (Am) mentioned above, and probably the Leyden codex (Z), we appear to have come upon a third group in the second class. The Milan and London codices are found to agree, in the excerpts in which comparison can be made, about five times out of six (Am B3 51:10; Am B1 54:10; B3 B* 48:12). In the case of L the amount of divergence is greater (Am L 39:10; BL 63:18; BL 37:14), owing to the fact that L has acquired a number of readings peculiar to itself, such as 11, 23 alias publico; 24, 5 eloquentis; 50, 28 praesedens identidem prae se; 55, 36 ex improbatis; 56, 10 romani populi. These figures are by no means decisive, but the conclusion to which they point is confirmed on a closer inspection of the various readings.1 The cases in my excerpts from the Julius in which Am B3 B1 fail to agree are as follows:

3, 8 iulius caesar annum agens Am B⭑


annum agens caesar L

annum iulius caesar agens

reginae B⭑

regi Am L

For the excerpts from B3 and Z see vol. XII, p. 24 ff.

quidquam L
uatinia B

9, 37 quicquam Am
10, 32 uaticinia Am B
II, I assiria Am B

assyria B3 L
sed B3 B

12, 18 et Am L

13, 2 prosequebatur Am Ba L
14, 16 aduentu fecerat suo Am Â1
14, 37 imperii Am Ba L

aduentu suo fecerat B L
regni B,

om. B3

et uasa L

22, 29 ut uasa Am B3
ut nasa B1
23, 19 a proconsule Am B3 L
proconsule B
27, 29 conniuebat Am B® L • conuiuebat B1
31, 26 amplius Am


amprius B BL

31, 31 exta sacra Am B3 L 32, 28 sententia causa Am L

quiddam B B1

persequebatur B

exacta sacra B1
sententia tam B

summa causa B

Some of these are of the nature of exceptions that prove the rule, as 4, 5 and 27, 29, where a reading which B3 shares with a very small number of manuscripts appears slightly varied in B'. Three or four at most might be held to prove the influence of other manuscripts. Nearly all readily explain themselves as the result of easy errors or intentional corrections or similar causes which are at work in the making of every manuscript. They have little force against the positive evidence of the list that follows, which includes those places only in which Am B3 Ba, and usually L, are found in agreement against one or both of the other groups of the second class :

4, 17 et triumphalem uirum Am B B L Flor uirum Urb

[blocks in formation]


tempestate Urb L

om. Flor

adhortandoque (or -dum

« PreviousContinue »