« PreviousContinue »
with this one exception, it stands absolutely alone) by a Gotha MS. of the 15th century, known as g. That it was not free from interpolation, especially in the Odes, is allowed by those who rate it most highly; see e. g. Od. 4. 2. 6, where it reads 'cum.. saliere,' 4. 6. 21 'flexus.' In such a case as that noticed in Sat. 1. 6. 126, there seem only three theories possible; unless, with Ritter, we can suppose that we have actually a devrépa opovris of the poet, we must imagine a blotted half-line deliberately filled up either in V (or its original), or in some one archetype to which all the other MSS., and the copies which were interpreted in the Scholia, owe their reading.
2. The oldest Bernese MS.1 (363 in the Public Library) was first used by Orelli in forming his text, and has since been recollated by Ritter for his edition, and by Usener for Keller and Holder. It is assigned by Ritter and by Usener to the 9th century. It forms part of a quarto volume, which contains also Servius' Commentary on Virgil, two Treatises on Rhetoric, Bede's History, and Ovid's Metamorphoses. It is imperfect,
omitting all the Epistles and Satires, with the exception of the first two and part of the third of Book I, besides large portions of the Odes. The Odes are not arranged in their usual order, the copyist having apparently started with the intention of an arrangement according to metres, for he begins with nineteen Sapphic Odes. These follow the common order, though the distinction of Books is not marked. They are succeeded by
1 An interesting account of the history of this and of several other of the older MSS. of Horace is given by Ritter in the Prolegomena to his edition. This MS. was originally in the Abbey of St. Benoit-sur-Loire, at Fleury near Orleans. When the abbey was sacked by the Protestants in the Civil War in 1562, the MSS., in which it was rich, were saved, and found a home in the library of Pierre Daniel, an 'avocat' and literary man of Orleans, and bailli' of the abbey. At his death his books were divided between two friends and fellow-townsmen, Paul Petau and Jaques Bongars. The latter of the two died at Paris in 1612, and left his library, including his share of the Fleury MSS., to René de Graviset, a jeweller of Strasburg. De Graviset migrated subsequently to Switzerland, and his son became a leading citizen of Bern, founded a public library there, and placed in it his books, amongst them this MS.
some of the Epodes, then by the Carm. Sec., then by the remaining Odes and Epodes, also in their usual order. The Ars Poet. 1-440 follows the Epodes, then Sat. 1. 1, 2 and part of 3. The omissions in the Odes and Epodes are as follows:-of whole Odes in Book I, Odes 3-7, 9, 11, 33 and 34; in Book III, Ode 3; and of Book IV, Odes 3 and 15, besides parts of twenty-one more Odes and Epodes, viz. Odes 1. 10. 14, 1. 15. 20-32, 1. 16. 15–28, 1. 17. 15, 16, 1. 19. 11–13 and 15, 1. 29. 7-16, 2. 7. 19–28, 2. 17. 7-9, 3. 2. 2, 5-12, 17-32, 3. 4. 17-28, 39-52, 3. 6. 11-13, 15-48, 3. 16. 7–27, 29–44, 3. 22. 5-8, 3. 23. 12-20, 3. 24. 30-64, 4. 14. 5-52; Epodes 2. 37-70, 3. 9-22, 9. 13-38, 1I. 13-28.
3. Of the 10th century the following MSS. have been collated for Keller's edition :
Paris, 7900. This has been held by Otto Jahn and others
Paris, 7971, like the old Bernese, a relic of the Fleury
Paris, 7974. The common readings of this and the last
Paris, 7972. This is one of the MSS. which contains the Mavortian inscription; see next page. With it Holder (1) connects the Leyden MS.,which was one of which Bentley made use. This is marked 7.
Paris, 7973, belonged, like B and y, to Pierre Daniel.
Paris, 10310. Holder seems to put this MS, rather later, and to attribute less value to it.
T. Zurich, Carol. 6. With this Holder connects a MS. (D)
(D) of about the same age, which was in the library of Strasburg, and perished in the siege of 1870. Keller has given, at the end of vol. i, a list of its most important readings in the Odes 1, 2 and 3. 1, 2.
(Orelli's S) St. Gall.
To these Keller and Holder add a Paris MS. (7975) of the 11th century, to which they both attribute high value (y).
Of the 10th century also is the MS. in Queen's College, Oxford, a collation of which was given at the end of this volume in the first and second editions (Reg.).
It has been already suggested, that the only method by which conclusive evidence upon questions of disputed reading could be gathered from MSS. of such late date would be by grouping them in families or 'recensions,' each family being made by its common readings to bear witness to some archetype of much greater antiquity than the copies which we now possess. This has been attempted by Keller, and with more completeness by Holder1. A and a, λ and 7, ø and y, as we have seen, have been supposed to be severally related in this way, and the readings of their imagined archetypes are indicated by Holder by the signs A', ', F. With his fuller 'apparatus criticus' on the Satires and Epistles, the process is carried still further, and the result is, to the extent that uniform readings can be obtained, a certain number of conjecturally restored MSS. of the 7th and 8th centuries. These and the other solitary representatives of older MSS. are again grouped into three classes.
The first of these is distinguished as containing, with many faults of carelessness, and with a certain number of grammatical corrections (e. g. 'videri,' against the metre in Epod. 16. 14), little or no proof of alteration on rhetorical or general grounds. In this class Holder places, of the MSS. named above, A, a (in
1 Their general conclusions are to be found, as regards Keller, who is responsible for the Odes and Epodes, in the Rhein. Mus. vol. xix, p. 211-227; as regards Holder, who undertakes the Satires and Epistles,
in the Preface to vol. ii.
respect of most readings), D, y, and, though not on an equality with these, T.
The second class is supposed to show the corrections of an early and intelligent emender. That such dopowraí existed in early times is stated by the Pseudo-Acron on Ars Poet. 345. And the name of one is found in the inscription which appears, in slightly different terms, at the end of the Epodes in λ, 7, Reg, g. 'Vettius Agorius Basilius Mavortius V. C. et inl. (vir clarissimus et inlustris) Excom. Dom. excons. ord. (Excomite Domestico, exconsule ordinario) legi et ut potui emendavi, conferente mihi magistro Felice oratore urbis Romae.' Felix is not known, but Mavortius was consul in the year A.D. 527. Asterius, consul 494, is similarly connected with the history of the text of Virgil. Bentley had treated this Mavortian recension as the ultimate point to which the oldest MSS. might be expected to take us back. Holder treats it rather as the first, though not the worst, source of systematic corruption. In the class which he thinks owe their peculiarities to this editing, he places B, V, with g, and in respect of some of their readings, A, a, and λ, the first two of these being in respect of much of their text affiliated to class one, the third to class three.
The third class (in which rank F (=$¥),λ′ (=λl), u, π, σ, and others) is held to be of less value, both as having been derived, in the first instance, from more faulty originals, and as bearing signs of later and less intelligent correction.
It may be observed that the tie which is imagined between the MSS. which are classed together is confessedly a loose one. Room is left for considerable influence of MSS. of one class upon those of another. As a fact, there are very few cases indeed of doubtful reading where the division of testimony corresponds at all exactly to the three classes. Doubtless there are a few crucial passages where the value which is set on such MSS. as V or B goes far to decide the choice of a reading, and there must be more cases still where the instinctive feeling of the trustworthiness of particular MSS. on particular points which comes from long intercourse with them, but which no
'apparatus criticus' will convey to a reader, has guided Keller or Holder to a conclusion which the mere inspection of the list of MSS. on one side and the other hardly explains. But a survey of the places where Keller's readings of the Odes and Epodes differ from those of other recent editors will show, I think, that his theory of the relation of the MSS. has not had any very revolutionary effect upon his text, that he admits conjectures at least as largely as others, and that his conclusions, however they were formed, are supported generally by evidence from the Scholia or quotations, or by considerations of style, metre, and the like 1.
Before we leave the MSS. it may be in place to say a few words upon two subjects which present themselves very early to the reader of any notes upon Horace.
1. The first has been glanced at already. I do not know that conjectural emendation has really been exceptionally busy upon Horace's text. That the two are specially associated in the minds of general readers is due doubtless, in a great measure, to their greater familiarity with the author, to the brilliancy of the conjectures themselves, the contributions of a long series of the greatest scholars from the Renaissance onwards,
1 Deducting questions of orthography, punctuation, etc., there are thirty-seven places in the Odes and Epodes where Keller's text differs from that of both Ritter and Mr. Munro. Of these nine are due to his introduction into the text of conjectures (Od. 1. 7. 8 honore,' 1. 15. 36 'Pergameas,' 1. 16. 5 ‘adyti,' 1. 23. 5, 6 ' vepris . . . ad ventum,' 3. 5. 15 trahenti,' 4. 4. 17 'Raetis,' 4. 10. 5 'Ligurine,' Epod. 2. 27 frondes,' 5. 87 humana invicem '). Eleven are cases where readings resting on very slight MS. authority, or even upon none, have been received on other grounds, such as the authority of the Scholia, etc. (Keller, Od. 1. 3. 37 arduum,' 1. 16. 8' si,' 1. 20. 10 'tum,' 1. 22. 2 ' Mauri,' 1. 22. II expeditus,' 2. 3. 11 'quo et,' 2. 6. 19 'fertilis,' 3. 3. 55 debacchantur'; Ritter and Munro, I. 17. 14 'hic,' 2. 13. 23' discretas,' 3. 4. 10' altricis '). There are very few of the remainder where the effect of his view of the MSS. can be distinctly detected in the absence of other arguments from the Scholia, or from internal evidence; such are perhaps 1. 8. 2 ' hoc,' 3. 21. 10 necgleget,' 4. 9. 31 sileri,' Epod. 16. 33 'flavos,' 17. 60 'proderit.'