Show Less
Restricted access

From the Protohistory to the History of the Text


Javier Velaza

This volume contains the papers of the colloquium Protohistory of the Text, which took place on 28 and 29 November 2013 at the Universitat de Barcelona. Each paper is devoted to the transmission of a major classical Latin text. The contributors are distinguished scholars from around the world such as Paolo Fedeli, Peter Kruschwitz, Marc Mayer, Stephen Oakley, Oronzo Pecere, Antonio Ramírez de Verger and Richard Tarrant. They discuss texts ranging from the comedies of Plautus and Terence through the writings of Cicero, Livy and Virgil to the Historia Augusta. Their papers review existing scholarship and offer new insights into the transmission of these texts and especially into their protohistory, the phase of their history that precedes the earliest surviving manuscripts.
Show Summary Details
Restricted access

Clara Auvray-Assayas - Which protohistory of the text can be grasped from Carolingian manuscripts? The case of Cicero’s De natura deorum


| 45 →

Clara Auvray-Assayas

Which protohistory of the text can be grasped from Carolingian manuscripts? The case of Cicero’s De natura deorum

If reconstructing the protohistory of the text is the main goal of a classical text’s editor, this difficult task is most urgent when the text transmitted by manuscripts appears garbled, full of lacunae, and has been radically transformed by humanistic philology. Were humanist scholars right to do so? Is the manuscripts evidence to be rejected as the result of errors occurred during the process of copying? These questions have to be answered if only to give a solid ground for a new edition of Cicero’s dialogue De natura deorum1.

The first question arises from a very specific situation. It has to be remembered that since the edition of 1507 (Venice, Pietro Marso2) the text of book 2 has undergone a radical transformation: a part as big as 70 paragraphs (in modern editions) has been transposed, on the never-questioned assumption that a dislocation of quaternions occurred3. But this very common type of error does not help to understand why the supposed dislocation does not result in the same text in the whole tradition and why a group of twelve lines has two different and very distant locations in the manuscripts4. Nonetheless the ‘textus receptus’ inherited ← 45 | 46 → from humanistic philology has been continuously printed as if the carolingian manuscripts were all defective in the same way5. Previous analysis of the explanations given...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.

Do you have any questions? Contact us.

Or login to access all content.