Skip to Main Content
Have library access? Log in through your library
Reading and Variant in Petronius

Reading and Variant in Petronius: Studies in the French Humanists and their Manuscript Sources

Copyright Date: 1993
Pages: 187
  • Cite this Item
  • Book Info
    Reading and Variant in Petronius
    Book Description:

    Critical editions of most classical authors are based on readings transmitted by medieval scholars that can be examined and collated. Modern editions of Petronius, on the other hand, are principally based on printed editions, most of them published in France during the sixteenth century. In this volume T. Wade Richardson considers the use made of the Petronius manuscripts then extant by seven French humanist editors for their various editions, commentaries, and notes.

    Some of the manuscripts they used may be equated with extant exemplars, which therefore serve as a good check on the quality of their readings. But as much as half of the text rests on the sixteenth-century witness alone. Through a broad and integrated study of the problems of the Petronius text the author attempts to unravel the tangled skein of humanist work on Petronius, to settle some of the old textual puzzles, and to solidify the text and recast the apparatus.

    Richardson also provides information on the codicology and palaeography of the texts and on the talents and habits of the scholars who created them.

    eISBN: 978-1-4426-7900-9
    Subjects: Language & Literature

Table of Contents

Export Selected Citations Export to NoodleTools Export to RefWorks Export to EasyBib Export a RIS file (For EndNote, ProCite, Reference Manager, Zotero, Mendeley...) Export a Text file (For BibTex)
  1. Front Matter
    (pp. i-vi)
  2. Table of Contents
    (pp. vii-x)
    (pp. xi-xii)
    (pp. xiii-xiv)
    (pp. xv-xix)
    (pp. xx-xx)
    (pp. xxi-xxiv)
    (pp. xxv-2)
    (pp. 3-8)

    The entry on Petronius by M.D. Reeve offers both a starting point and a useful focus for this new set of investigations, and the projected multivolumeSatyricaedition of C. Pellegrino, of which the first volume has appeared, is a further stimulus.¹ Among the merits of Reeve′s article are crisp decisions on the controversies and a delineation of the most promising areas for further progress. Yet there is a tension between soundness and brevity, and want of data makes the positions taken difficult to evaluate - this on controversies that have swirled back and forth for a century and more.²...

  10. 1 Marc-Antoine Muret and m
    (pp. 9-23)

    The significant part that Vaticanus Lat. 11428 (= m), a sixteenth-century paper manuscript, plays in the all-important reconstruction of the so-called L manuscript readings, was demonstrated in Müller 1961, though a good deal remained to be found out. The existence of m and its stemmatic allegiance had in fact been known somewhat earlier, for it seems to have been turned up shortly after 1930 by Ullman, who passed notes and a collation of it on to Sage. Sage and his pupil Dorothy Fulmer believed that it was the source indicated in the preface of de Tournes′ edition (= t) under...

  11. 2 Jean de Tournes and t
    (pp. 24-39)

    The editorial practices of the scholars of the sixteenth century, producing the editions upon which we rely so heavily for our Petronius text today, are by no means fully understood. The cause of particular difficulty is the latitude they gave themselves in the use of their manuscript sources. The editors placed themselves under no obligation to cite variants on every occasion of occurrence, and when they cited their alleged origins they were inclined to be vague, in the convention of the day.43Furthermore, though no doubt very good Latinists, these scholars were not necessarily infallible palaeographers. Finally, we must always...

  12. 3 Pierre Pithou and p
    (pp. 40-62)

    The twoSatyricaeditions prepared by Pierre Pithou were in several respects superior to their predecessor, t, the first edition to use *L manuscripts. In the first place, Pithou used more manuscripts: perhaps five for p¹ and an additional one for p². Second, four of these are actually provided with names: Autissiodurensis, Bituricus, Benedictinus and Tholosanus (the last for p² only). This information we derive not from an introduction listing materials, but from Pithou′svarietas lectionumwhich follows his text; here, these names are attached both to readings accepted for the text, and to rejected variants.66Hence we have 60...

  13. 4 Pierre Daniel and Bernensis 276
    (pp. 63-82)

    In a 1978 article M.D. Reeve and R.H. Rouse commenced an evaluation of the marginal annotations in a thirteenth-century Papias dictionary that today, together with aHugutionis Vocabularium, makes up Bernensis 276.90The principal focus of this first study was citations from the commentary of Aelius Donatus on Terence. Subsequent efforts of these two scholars have greatly enlarged the number of citations identified, and an impressive set of authors and excerpts has emerged. It becomes clear that the interests of the annotator provide a curriculum and resource list of medieval learning, together with opportunities to evaluate the contemporary condition of...

  14. 5 Pierre Daniel and d
    (pp. 83-98)

    The texts upon which we depend for our knowledge of the *L-class readings and variants have, in the modern apparatus, the status of manuscripts, though they are actually editions that either saw publication (t, p¹, and p²) or remained in longhand (l, m, r, and d). With the sole exception of d, as this chapter seeks to show, they are to varying degrees the product of a complex interaction of sources, inadequately identified and employed without consistency. The handwritten texts all predate the published editions, though the latest of them, l, seems to have some connection with the earliest printed...

  15. 6 François Daniel and the Notae
    (pp. 99-118)

    TheSatyricacommentary left under the name of the ,Notaeof François Daniel, brother of Pierre, has gained a place in the textual history of Petronius from its preservation of readings, often ascribed to a ′vetus<codex>,′ that have been linked to Cuiacianus, though its capacity for recovering such readings, together with its other features, has not really been explained or developed.148There is sufficient material for such an investigation: close to 150 lemmata and variants, constituting a kind of skeleton of a sixteenth-century Petronius edition constructed from several sources, both manuscript and printed, as the compiler′s methods of citation make...

  16. 7 Daniel Rogers and r
    (pp. 119-131)

    Petronius manuscript r (see Plates 11 to 13) appears first to have been investigated by Konrad Müller in the late 1950s for Müller 1961; a comparison of readings with those quoted by Lambin and Turnèbe from a manuscript belonging to Henri de Mesmes established for the Swiss scholar that it was a scion of the so-called Memmianus and a sibling of d and m.172r′s full-length *L-text makes it at once the most important Memmianus witness, since the quotes in the secondary sources are in their nature selective and not always reliable, d is a mere beginning, and m is...

  17. 8 Pierre Dupuy and B
    (pp. 132-136)

    Parisinus lat. 8790 A, a recent manuscript containing some passages from Petronius, is quite worthless textually, but its not unmerited obscurity to date has served to conceal both the efforts of a man not hitherto connected with French scholarship on Petronius and a source for information on B of potential codicological significance.194

    The library catalogue describes the manuscript as ′olim Puteanus ... decimo septimo saeculo videtur exaratus′; Beck identifies the author as Hendrick van der Putten, a teacher in Louvain; and Schmeling and Stuckey assign it tentatively to the ′late 16 c.′195One can do rather better than this, I...

    (pp. 137-142)
  19. NOTES
    (pp. 143-174)
    (pp. 175-182)
    (pp. 183-184)
    (pp. 185-188)
  23. Back Matter
    (pp. 189-190)