We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Ever since Ph. Kohlmann in his Teubner edition of the Thebaid (1884) asserted that he had used cod. Parisinus 13046, one of the MSS. formerly of St. Germain des Prés, this MS. has been known by reputation to his successors and other students of Statian textual problems, and, designed by the letter S, it is alluded to and cited in the edition of Garrod (Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis 1906) and in the newer Teubner of Klotz, which appeared in 1908. The two later editors confessed that they themselves had not examined the MS., but were relying upon the information accessible in Kohlmann's edition. Doubts having been cast from more than one source upon Kohlmann's accuracy and the soundness of his reports, while at the same time the importance of S as a member of the ω group was emphasized by Mr. Garrod and Dr. Klotz in spite of the incomplete evidence at their disposal, it seemed worth while to the writer to examine the MS. for himself and to make a thorough collation of it. This has been done in the summer of 1932.
page 129 note 1 In the coarse of a journey made in the compaay of Professor Alexander Souter of Aberdeen, to whom my best thanks are due for his interest in this work and suggestions made even when he was occupied with other matters in the Bibliotbèque Nationale. I owe my inspiration for undertaking this study of S to his often expressed wish that this MS. should be examined carefully, and to his views (of which more anon) put forth in his review of Garrod's edition (C.Q., I, 1907, p. 80 sq.), as well as to the words of Dr. Klotz: ‘qui (Souter) utinam colla-tionem diligenter factam quam videtur possidere, viros doctos ne celet’ (Praejatio to his edition, p. xii). These last words, however, are apparently the result of a slight misunderstanding on the part of Dr. Klotz when he read the review of Professor Souter, for the latter, although he had examined the MS. at some length and recorded several important readings which he then made public, never at that time or at any other undertook a complete collation.
page 129 note 2 Of the twelfth and tenth (or eleventh) centuries respectively. I give a transcription of this ‘life’ from the Turonensis on account of the illegibility of S at this point. ‘Quaeritur quo tempore fuerit iste Statius, sed constat ueraciter fuisse eum temporibus uespasiani imperatoris et peruenisse usque ad imperium domitiani fratristiti qui etiam et titus iunior dictus est. si quis autem unde fuerit quaerat, inuenitur fuisse tolossensis quae ciuitas est Galliae. ideoque in gallia celeberrime docuit rhetoricam. sed postea ueniens romam ad poetriam se transtulit. fuit enim nobili ortus prosapia, clarus ingenio, et doctus eloquio, cuius iuuenalis sic meminit dicens. Curritur ad uocem iocundam et carmen amicae Thebaidos, letam cum fecit statius urbem Promisitque diem: tanta dulcedine captos Afficit ille animos tantaque libidine uulgi Audi-tur, sed cum fregit subsellia uersu Esurit, intactam paridi nisi uendat agauen (Juv. VII, 82–87).Scnpsit autem thebaiden supra taxatiϯ imperatoris tempore. est autem thebais feminum patronomicum; sic aeneis et theseis. dictus est autem proprio nomine statius, papinius autem-cognomine. sursulus autem agnomine quasi sur-sum canens.’
page 130 note 1 Observe in v. 96 the curious misprint of Klotz's edition infirmantia for infamantia, an error which found its way into the text of the Loeb Statius, where nevertheless, as the late Mustard, W. P. pointed out in his review of this work (American Journal of Philology, 1928, Vol. XLIX, p. 402)Google Scholar, ‘Theb. 9, 96 has infirmantia, but the translation suggests infamantia,’ the editor gives the correct rendering from the wrong text, Another- misprint in Klotz is the intrusion of-que in IX II9. I have not seen these errata noted in any review.
page 130 note 2 Observe here the error of Klotz's note tenuiore for tenuere, and Garrod's erroneous description of the correcting hand as ‘aequaeva,’ i.e. of the ninth century.
page 131 note 1 Jahnke, in his Praefatio to his Teubner text of ‘Lactantius Placidus’ (1898)Google Scholar confesses that he has left a great field to his successors in this respect.
page 131 note 2 Klotz, (Praefatio, p. lxv)Google Scholar remarks ‘ubi ferit S ortum est male intellect compendio vocis fer;,’ etc. The mistake is not that of the scribe, however, but of the collator.
page 134 note 1 Codd. recentiores.
page 134 note 2 Compare Hor. Od. I, 32, 1.
page 134 note 3 Perhaps in this line (‘ilicet igne Ionis lap-sisque citatior astris | tristibus exiluit ripis’) S preserves a trace of what may be the true reading ‘laxisque citatior astris.’ Compare X, 145 ‘pluraque laxato ceciderunt sidera. caelo.’ We find adjectives used for perfect participles passive very commonly in the poets; e.g. in Vergil, we have both nudus (Aen. I, 320 nuda genu) and nudatus (Aen. XII, 312 nudato capite)Google Scholar.
page 135 note 1 A preposition used for the sake of convenience, for Pr is ascribed to saec. XII or XIII.
page 135 note 2 Two agreements of S with σ (codd. reccn Hares) are II, 465 eras РωЅ, eri σЅ Deipser; and III, 616 hic РωЅ hue σЅ.
page 135 note 3 I.e. the fact that Ρ and Ѕ were together at Corbie.
page 135 note 4 P. viii of his Praefatio: ‘tamen, cum Garrodius utrum unum an plures correctores liber perpessus sit, non indicet et multis locis quid librarii ipsius sit, quid correctoris non distinguat, eius partes accuratius definiri nequeunt’.
page 136 note 1 S2 agrees sometimes with r, an outstanding instance being immediately after IX, 625, where there is a verse (with variants in certain of r)‘si non uictorem, des uictum cernere saltern’ inserted by S2.
page 136 note 2 Klotz s note to this reading of N is ‘glossa vocis coacti in textum inrepsit.’ I hope to show that the gloss on the word coacti stole into the text, (or at any rate appeared beside it), not of N, but of N's parent. (V, 463 is ‘nee non ipsa tamen thalami monimenta coacti.’)
page 136 note 3 One of the Sc hands shows agreement with the reading of N in several parts of the MS., asn in II, 603 accurrit Slω, occurrit PNQSc; III. 553 feras PωS1, feres NμSc; IV, 413 limite Pω Prisc. S1, lmineNSc; VI, 222 omnia PωS1. omina NS; VI, 304 domitasse PωS1, domuisse NSc; VI, 309 portare NS; VI, 885 in PωS, ad NrSc; VIII, 307 mutastique ѡS1, multastique PNSC. However there is no difficulty here, as the Sc and S2 hands are generally contemporaneous, and our argument is not to prove that any earlier MS. was looked over by a particular scribe, but merely to show that it was called into use at all.
page 137 note 1 In many cases S parts company violently with P. One of the most notable is X, 362, which is omitted by S1 and added by S2. Th e addition contains ardor, the reading of In many cases S parts company violently with P. One of the most notable is X, 362, which is omitted by S1 and added by S2. Th e addition contains ardor, the reading of ω, against animus, the reading of P, while DN read ardor snpralinear to animus.
page 137 note 2 This accords with the remark of Klotz, {Praefatio, p. lvi)Google Scholar, ‘<quae> affinitates cognationesque facillime explicantnr, si ex Galliae septen-trionalis monasteriis Thebaidem propagatam esse sumimus. Cui coniecturae origo librorum singulorum quam maxime favet’.
page 138 note 1 In Book X alone, for instance, P and N have the following readings against the 1 In Book X alone, for instance, P and N ' have the following readings against the ω group: 352 clare, 538 locuntur P loquu- N, 546 solutus, 631 uoluptas, 830 poscenda amentia, 857ualidas, 919 pallent, 935 adhaesit. Other striking proofs of this contention will be found at II, 638; III, 558; IV, 614; VI, 851; VIII, 65; IX, 277; X, 510, 536, 939; XI, 33, 44, 49, 254, 404, 427, 495, 604, 607, 705, 714; XII, 23, 50, 168, 252, 287.
page 139 note 2 See C.R. XXIV (1910), p. 25, where Garrod, in a note to his review of Klotz's text, establishes the fact that N was in the hands of Nicolas Fulginas, who flourished as a teacher at Bologna and Pisa in the fifteenth century.
page 139 note 3 Praefatio, p. liv: ‘ est igitur stirps Anglica horum fere codicum W (the Worcester fragments) DNrTuron. cui numero accedunt ex parte ƅμν quamquam his cum Germanica quoque stirpe affinitas est, nee longe abest S.’
