장음표시 사용
21쪽
Beronidi praeceptoris quondam mei: nunc collegae : impressus quidem: sed tamen perpense examinatus. Codri quoque grammatici Bononiensis: cuius copia mihi per Bartholomeum Blanchinum Virum eloquii eXcultissimi laeta est: Marullique poetae industria mira castigatum non doluit exemplar Severo Monaco Placentino graece latineque perdocto musarum athleta non gravatim Oisserente'. Ho multos no niention ut nil of tho man
fuso numine With Avancius, Whieli the latior however corrocis at thoond of his Catullus: and he adds sunt qui legunt lumine'. 15 ior capta ho Wrongly inseris in the texi quodque ; but his lemma has crepta, and his noto rightly explains the construction and malles no mention os
Avanctus; 35 his texi Wro ly gives suspirans, the lemma suspiciens; and so throughout the poem. This very singular circumstance I explain in this Way : he Was living at Romo Whon his edition mas priniud undseems to have sent tho texi and commenta separo tely; for the book- Seller prinis ut the end a long page of errors With this notice prefixod, Hieronymus Platonicus Bononiensis bibliopola ad lectorem. contuli fit exemplar cum edito Lucretio: labeculasque pauculas notari cet.'Ρius' edition was ropi inlud by Ascensius in l511 With not a se changes in the texi, som0 of them talion iroin the notes. The nexi edition must ho evor memorabio in the history of Lucretius, that publishod by Philip Giuntn anno Salutis. M. D. XII. menSΘ
22쪽
INTRODUCTIONiollows Avancius in tho minutust potnts of Spolling and punctuation. Tho latior for instaneo says in his proface that he writes veteres imitatuS repertumst, itemist, necessest ' and tho lilio : Candidus in his proinco that in tum culto, tam nitido, tum undecunque castigato poeta'lio will nos admit archaisms lilio volgum, volnerta; or nullast, h- uα-quamst und tho liko. And so in his toxi Whilo r octing Avnneius' patefactαst, Colnere, etc., he keeps his frugiferenteis, rapaceis und athousand sueti torms which have no authority in thoir favour, Whilethoso Whieli ho discurds have much. Lachmann always so hard upon Avancius says huius ineptissimum scribsendi rationum Elchstadius studiose imitatus est', but has nos a Word of blume ior Candidus. But Whoneo has tho latior got his many anu brilliant cori octions lior feW or nono appear to come irom himsoli. He says in his addi ossio Thomas Sotherinus that what he did was to collate ad the vetustα exemplari; that Were in Florence and to expunge What Was condemned by the obeli Oi Pontanus und Marullus, praestantissimorum aetute noStra Vntum'. He refers of coursu to Jolin Iovianus Pontanus and his
XXXuII 8. But Candidus goes on niterwards to sponti only oi Marullus cuius in hoc opere consuram potissimum secuti sumus '; and in a notent tho end he says iliat in chaning the order oi verses here nud in moreother places ho has tollowed tho arrangement Oi Marullus. To Marullus thorolore everything Whicli is peculiar to the Juntino has usually b00n assigned, Whether in the Way oi pruise, or of blamo as by Victorius and by Joseph Scaligor Who inhorited among many other of his iathoi 'santipathios his distilio to Marullus. But Lachmann has gone muchiarther than this, and has givon to him not only by oversight, iis Will boseon in notes 1, much that bolongs to older authorities ; but everythingthat first apponi est in Avancius' edition as Woli, calling tho latior iurimprobus ' and other opprobrious numes. That he got much assistaneutrona tho labours ot Marullus is certain; but by ascribing to the lalter everything that is in tho Juntine, in somo respecis more, in others tesseredit is given to him than ho deserves. As I can throw sonio light onthis interesting question, I Will examine it ut some longili hero aud in
The scholar, poet and soldior, Michael Tarchaniota Marullus Constantinopolitanus, as he calis himseli in the editions of his poserus
printed during his lile, appears irom this titie and his epitaph in San
as geli as trom the epithet Bigantius givon to him by his triend Petrus Crinitus, to have been horn in Constantinoplo. As he can harilly
23쪽
musarum iactura cladoque insigni unus est Lucrotius receptus' says Candidus in his proface; and his triend Petrus Crinitus in his do honosta diseiplina XV 4, publislied in 1504, but mostly writton it would seombeforo Marullus' deuth, nitor weli resuting an alteration Oi his whichshali prosuntly bo referred to, a diis quae ab eius quoque Sectatoribus recepta sunt pro verissimis'. This intense love of Lucretius lis seems
snys Lucretinnae adeo Veneris per omnem aetatem studiosus fuit, ut cet.' But this must be an exaggeration the fit si edition of his poems,
traee of Lucretius. Thon follow four books of hymni naturales. In thege, especialty sueti as ure Written in heroics, tho struin is of n higlier inood', and w0 meet mitti frequent imitations of Lucretius, even in thelyries, res opibusque late pollens tuis Whicli reculis Ipsa suis pollens op bus. But in these horoles it is to bo notiosed that tho rhythm is Virgi lian, not in any respect Lucretian even Where he closely lollows tholuite s langungo, as in the hymn to earth : Ante repentino creeli quαm territus haustu Vistat aetherirem in lucem, novus editus infans. Cum proiectus humi nudus iacet, indigus, exsors suaeilii, in firmusqu6 pererem infrini que prelati. Thon imitating ut oneo und contradicting Lucretius'
ut aecumst, Cui icinium in vita restet cet. he goes ori Atque uno non tantum infelis, quod suα damna Non capit et quantum superat per
24쪽
INTRODUCTIONinseris two neW Verses in the poem de poetis Latinis ' spolion Oi abovo, Naturet magni versibus Lucretii Lepore musreeo illitis, tho bust in thopoem ntid recalling musaeo contingens cuncta lepore. Crinitu8 l.l. XXIIII quotes this poem unii mentions a convorsation ho had With Marullus in Which iactum est iudicium nuper a nostro Marullo de poetis Latinis
egregie perfectum et prudenter nud Ovid and other poseis ure blamed; and thon it is addod ita tuo lugendi quidem sunt omnes inquit MarullusJ ; sed hi maxime probandi pro suo quisque genore Tibullus Horatius
Catullus ot in comoedia Terentius. Vergilium vero et Lucretium edi cendos asserebeti Let v lint has just b0011 suid bo at oneo applied to astri hing interpolation. Aiter I 15 the Juntino fimi infortuit tho v. Illecebrisque tuis omnis naturα aninιαntum, Whicli long hept iis placo intho common editions. Lachmann of course attributes it to Marullus, asdo most oditors. Lambinus Anys of it neque eum Naugerius neque Pontanus habuerunt. Iarullus unus Vir doctus ex auctoritate veteris cuiusdam codicis, quemadmodum mihi religiose asseveravit Donatus Ianottus, nobis eum restituit. amicus quidam meus ingenio et doctrina praestantiSSimus putat esse ab ipso Marullo factum cet.' What his
one of his verses. I inter thereiore that is is Politian's own; and asCandidus says in his proinco that he collutud ali the vetusta exemplaria' in Florence, he could not have neglected this manuscript Whicli Wasthen in the inmotis conveniunt library of San Marco. I conclude thereioro that Candidus' taliing it iroin tho margin of Politia 11's ms. is the right explanation Oi Ianottus' assertion that Marullus got it irom an ancient codex. It is quite possibio ind00d that Marullus copiod is himsoli iromthis ms. Whicli passed to San Marco immedi ely niter Politian's docease, and thus robbod him of his verso nitor death, as he is sald to havo
another Variation iroin the Juntino, but that a perverse one: in 1 7 heroads Adventuque tuo and joiias it With What folioWs. This corruption I belleve to proe00d irom Marullus ; for his hymn to the sun contains a passage evidently imitated irom Lucretius: Cum primum tepidi stiltemporα verna jovoui stigra suum terris genitalem ea scitat auctum: Adventuque dei gemmantiω pratet colortat: At pecudum genus omne vistet, genus omne Mirorum Perculsi teneras anni dulcedine mentes. I canshem in other cases that Marullus corrupted Lucretius, Where he has not
25쪽
boon tollowed by Avnneius or Candidus: VI 650-652 rere quite corruetlygivon by Avnneius, and in his learned preiaco he Anys With roieroneoto 652 Nec tota pars cet. totus prima brevi, quin quo si redditivus est'. Crinitus l. l. xv 4 quotos 650 65l righi ly, and adds qua in re grammaticorum nobis authoritas patrocinatur, quando et centesimus et millesimus probe dicitur : partem multesimαm inquit Nonius nove positum estn Lucretio pro minima, ne quis forte paulo incautius atque audacius a veteribus decedat. quae a me Vel ob eam rationem Sunt adnotata,
quoniam Marullus Bigantius aetate nostra, Vir alioqui diligens, paulo improbius delere haec et alia pro ingenio subdere tentarit; quae ab eius quoque Sectatoribus recepta sunt pro Verissimis '. Candidus givos thusot o verses rightly and says in note ut enu oi Junt. citatur Nonio locus': ho has got this olearly irom Crinitus, Who in the fame chapter correctly quotos and illustrates I 640 Quamde yrtavis cet. Whicli the Italian mss. and editions had corrupted: this too Candidus took irom him: for Marii lus appears to have read Quam strisior Gresos inter res doses Pius in his notes, and Gryphius of Lyons. Again V1 332 Avancius rightly givesper rara vi um, CandiduS perVersely nitor Marullus per opertar sese his note. But fiity instances lilio the last might bo quotud. Candidus has also missed som0 oi the bost oi Marullus' conjectures : see ior instance notes 1 to Il0l3 Whero I havo got irom tho margin os one of tho Florentino mss. perhaps the most brilliant example of his critical acumen. Then agnin unless I greatly err I havo fhewn in my notes that Gilanius
in preparing his edition had buiore him a copy oi the Venico od. oi I 495, lent to him by the goalous scholar Sambucus, res ho testities both in his
preface to Sambucus and in his reddi ess to the reader. In the formor hes s exemplum Lucretii ad nos dedisti, non illum quidem calamo exaratum, Sed ita Vetustum et idoneum, ut Vicem optimi manuscripti fuerit, siquidem in eo vidi omnium paene mendorum origineS, quae mRgnum partem a Michaele Mamillo, cuius immutationes in eo adscriptae erant omnes, Primum parta, mox admiserunt Florentini cet.': in the addressito spualis of the Sambuci liber quem ipsius Marulli manu adnotatum magno pretio vir ille praestantissimus paravit '. Why then Lachmann p. 6 should writu neque enim iacito Gilanio credere possum Marulli ipsius manu annotatum luisse illud exomplar impressum quod se ab Iohanne Sambuco utendum accepisse scribit' I cannot comprehend. Gitanius Was a dishonest plagiary, but at the sume time a moSt astute man. Why should ho tuli a gratuitous falsehood Whicli Sambucus Wouldat once detect i He wns writing only tWo gonorations alter Marullus' deuth; und even ii Sambucus gavo his monoy ior What Was nos theliandWxiting oi Marullus, it Was ut least a genuine copy oi his notes. But notes t turnish abundant proos Oi What I say: see for instance thoseto I 806 11 16 v 41 and Ospeeialty 111 994. It appears thon that Avancius got ironi Marullus much whiel, tho Juntino does nos record, and On
26쪽
INTRODUCTIONtho other haud, that Candidus to k irom Avancius Without uelanowlodg-ment much that Lachmann and others assign to Marullus. Candidus, ns I have said abovo, formed his texi on a copy of the si si Aldino : indoing this ho must have had botoro him another edition with tho nas. notus ot Marullus, perhaps tho very one Whieli ho telis us Was found onhim ut his death. Ii no nil that is common to tho si si Aldinu und tho Juntino comes ironi Marullus, as Lachmann maintains, surely Candidus must havo boon structi With this coincidence and would havo recordedit against Avaneius the oditor of the great rivul publislier. Yof Av-- eius did borrow largely, Very largely irom Marullus, especialty in the caseoi intorpolatod versos mado by the latior. HOW is this to bo explainod lEvidontly ovon bosoro his deuth Marullus' labours on Lucretius Wore known ; and probably there gere more copi0S than one of these, the onenos a lways agreeing With the other. on this potat compare notos i toi 55l 627, Where Candidus malles somo perverse transpositions olversus, on the authorisy oi Marullus he says in his noto at tho end; buttho learnod annotator of one of the Laurentian mss. states that Aonio put551 564 nitor 576, and adds verum Marullo parum referre videtur quomodo legatur'. This annotator und Avuncius Pius Candidus Gilanius can hardly ult have had the samo copy : perhaps nil mere distorent. Avaneius then may have had his notes in the very copy oi Von. on whicli ho tormed his texi; and may havo looked on thum respublio propero Whicli ho might Dahe use of without uanowlud sentaecording to the practice of tho timo; for notthor Pius nor Candidus achnowl0dgos in his turn What he got irom Avuncius; nor cloes Naugerius the editor Oi Ald. 2 say a syllabio Oi Candidus whose oditionlio copiod With feW Variations. But Lachmann to III 98 cites in proot of his chargo that Avancius Was a dishonest plagiary threo interpola ted verses Whicli dotabiless Woro composed by Marullus and are corruptly given in Ald. I. In notest to 111 98 I have attempted to fhow irom Gilunius that Marullus perhaps Wrote putarit, and that A Vancius intondod to read the sumo: Avunctus Was probably as good a Latin scholar as Marullus, ii lossversed in Lucretius. In the lino inserted niter Iu l02 multae lor multas may be nn error of the printer or an OVersight oi Avaricius. In that insoriod alter iv 532 there can bo liuio doubi that he purposely Wroto suis, imagining that oris mas a plural. The correcting of texis Was thenin iis inianey, and Avancius liud So grievous a task beiore him in multingsenso out of the monstrousty corrupted Venico edition, that much mustin inirness he 0Xcused: we cannos tolt what were tho exact relations botW00n his and Aldus und his printors. At tho Ond of his Catullus published two yeurs later he has talion occasion to giVe four pageSol Lucretian criticism, in Which he has proposed many excellent alterations ot his formor toxi, though I do not find that any editor bufore me
27쪽
Goettingen program oi Proi. Sauppe. Tho learned Writer informA us that ho had Oxaminod tho Munich ms. of Lucretius and found it cor-roeton throughout by Some Italian scholar. Wherse Candidus tho oditoroi tho Juntino mentions in his noto a reading of Marullus, this roredinginvariably uppea red among theso corrections. From this and other indications he concluded, and tho conclusion Seomed most reaSonable, that these Were tho very corrections os Marullus Whioli Candidus lia sused ior his edition. He malles tho probabie suggestion that tho longconnoxion of Victorius With tho Giunius Would roadily oxplain his possession Oi a manuscript Whicli hau bolonged to that firm. At Munich through tho courtesy oi tho librarian I had the tuli uso ofilio following important documents : 1. the manuscript just mentioned: 2. a copy oi the Venice edition Oi l 495 With corrections by Pontanus intho handWriting oi Victorius Who describus thom in the first pago as
omondationes ex Pontani codice testantis ipsum ingenio eas eXprompsisse': 3. another copy of the samo edition lik0Wise corrected throughout by tho hand of Victorius Who says ut tho end contuli cum duobus codicibus, altero Ioviani Pontani, ultero vero Marulli popiae Bizantii, impressis quidem, sed ab ipsis non incuriose, ut putet, emendatis, quos commodum accepi ab Andrea Cambano patritio Florentino M. D. XX.
Idibus Martiis. Petrus Vietorius'. What tho priniud edition Wasirona whieli ho copiud theso sinondations ot Marullus I do not know:vory lik0ly it was this Vonico edition itsoli Whicli must have had a largo circulation und was the very edition containing Marullus' notes Which
28쪽
INTRODUCTIONGilanius nando use os, res has boon Uready told. Victorius sus os orando in v I I92 glando in Pont. libro': no since not only the Venico edition, but the Verona and sirst Aldino have grando, and also the Brescinii as I learn irom Euri Sponder's libro rian, Pontanus must have used sonae printod edition noW unknown. The putans Whieli so eminent a scholar as Victorius has inhon in copying out tWico the emendations olfontanus and once those oi Marullus Would provo tho high ostimation in whieli thogo tWo learned men must have been held When ho Was u youngman Oi twenty. As he has also filled a copy of tho Juntino with long parallel passages trom the Greel , he must himsoli at ono timo havo contemplated an elaborate edition Oi the poet and has to bo addod totho long Est oi scholars with Whom this remninod an unaecomptishod design. Wo have thon an undoubted copy of What Pontanus himsoli assuriodio be his own original emendations; und ns they are accurately repented by Victorius in his seeond copy, ii mo subtraci these me have in Whatremnius tho undoubtud corrections Oi Marullus. NoW the latior mithonly a i- Variations, eastly to bo accounted ior res being earlier thoughisor in other Ways, uti reappear among the alterations of the Munich nas. Whicli are however much more numerous. When me consider ait this, and remember that Whor or Candidus in his notes mentions the numeoi Marullus, the runding Whieli ho assigiis to him is found horo; that hetelis us in his proface his t0xt is grounded maiuly On the revisions olΡontanus and Marullus, the lalter more especially; that, res the presentedition Wili domonstrato, tho numerous renuings Whicli sirst appear in the Juntino, good bad und indifferent, Where not talion irom What We no linoW to he those of Pontanus, nearly HWays agree With the corrections of this manuscript; und finalty that Candidus not unirequently gives aneW rending peculiar to this os nil manuscripis linown to me, as in his noto to v 826 where ho mentions pariendo as a variation, me may lairly concludo that Candidus in proparing his texi had tho usu oi this correctedma Seripi, und that the corrector Was Marullus. It would be naturaltoo to concludo that this is his own copy amended by his oWn han d; andior tho most part I do not doubi that this is so. Howevor they cannotali have been writton ut tho fame timo, res the inli dissors in difforent places; and as So many of the emendations agrese With those of Pontanus, it 800ms not improbabio that the ms. was in his possession bolore it came into tho hands ot Marullus. As the Italian handwritings of that age re-Semble each other so much, at least to our oyses, the writing of the pupilmay not have dissurod much irom that oi the mastor. Howover that
may be, We must conclude that the corrections common to both belongio Pontanus, ns he Was the older and we saW above that he clatins themior his oWn, and the scholar would naturally borroW irom the master. The emendations too oi Pontanus, Valuabio as many Oi them are, haVe
29쪽
ilio reponi ance of being earlior nn d more rudimentary than illoso of thoother: ho nos unirequently too sees that Something is Wanting und says fragmentum', Where tho luiter Supplies a Whole Verse With moro or losssueeess. The scholar thereiore completed What the mastor commendod; and tho omendation of Lucretius liniis their numes together nos tessi onoui ably than does the verse Wo quoted from Ariosio. Upon the wholothis hosti information has greatly rnised my estimate of both, especiallyoi Marullus. His industry is at least as conspicuous as his sagacity: holias evidently cnreiully collatod manuscripis and editions and gathored materinis trom nil accessibio fourcos. Throughout the poena the ninny verses omitted in the Munich manuscript aro supplied With uniat lingdiligendo. Ho evidently Was acquainted With severat oi the oxistingFlorentine manuscripis; among othors that oi Niccoli I belle vo, as mellas that oi his enomy Politian, and Flor. 31 Whose readings Lachmannso strangely assigns to the notary Antonius Marii. Upon the wholo homust be placed ns an amender of Lucretius immediatoly niter Lambinus and Lachmann, ii nos indoed in tho fame front rank, When Wo considertho circumstances of his age and the imperfection of his materiais; and Pontanus porhaps may rank alter him. Lambinus, a s weli res A Vancius and Naugerius seditor of the second Aldine, must have had access to
multesima most uiaskiliuily proposes multa extima; and ior tota rondssit: tho latior Candidus adopis. In other cases his more mature judPment as seen in tho Munich manuscript doubfless differod irom his earlier notions. A man Who studied Lucretius Ao long and earnestly cannotiail to havo osten changod his mind on furthor reflexion and with no fources of information. Candidus does nos by any means tollow Pont nus or Marullus in his orthography: that is tormed as I prouod in mysirst edition mainly on Avuncius. In many cases they might have taughthim botter; to avoid for instance Such embellistiments us his an eis, rirenteis. He rightly ho evur avoidA such barbarisius as the hymbres and sylva oi Marullus. From succus littus aretus and tho lik0, Whichthe latior caroiulty introducus, w0 may inter that he and Pontanus h ad Somo Share in brining such corruptioris into common uSe. The caretulcollation whieli I havo ovon in this edition of the emoridations os Pontanus and Marullus will prove thoir importanee, and She how rusti
30쪽
INTRODUCTIONand unioundod Lachmann's procedure is in assigning everything that isne v in tho Juntino to Marullus : even in ille many instances Where heund I a re in agr00ment, it must be rem embored that ho spontis Without
authority, Whilo I possess the testimony of Marullus himsoli. Tho Juntino eloges the first great epoch oi improvement in tho text
writers us Woli as the Augustan poets has neVer boen surpassed undrai ely equalied. Whoever dotabis that the niuest critical und grammatient questions can be expressed in Ciceronian Latin without effori orassectation, tot him study the commentaries of Lumbinus. Scaliger saysol him Latino et Romano loquobatur optimeque scribebat': his ea seand rendiness aro astonishing. He made use he telis iis ot sive mss. :four of these appear to havo boon Italian mss. oi the fifteenth centu :tho silth, oi whicli ho used a collation by Turnobus, and which he calistho Bertinian, Was tho Samo as tho Leyden quarto. In his preface and throughout the work ho uchnowledges his obligations to Turnebus and Auratus. His Luciretius is perliaps the greatust oi his Wortis: there Wasmore to bo doue here, und thereiore ho has done more. He had more-Over a peculiar admiration for this author, of Whom in the pruinco to his flaird odition ho says omnium poetarum Latinorum qui hodie exstant et qui ad nostram aetatem pervenerunt elegantissimus et purissimus, idemque graViSSimuS atque ornatissimus Lucretius est'. Is his boast that ho