Table of Contents Introduction I. Calpurnius and Nemesianus II. Overview of the Tradition III. Manuscripts: The First Family (N G) IV. Manuscripts: The Second Family (V) V. The Third Family (P) VI. Two lost manuscripts Poem 1. [Corydon, Ornytus] Poem 2. [Idas, Astacus, Thyrsis] Poem 3. [Iollas, Lycidas] Poem 4. [Meliboeus, Corydon, Amyntas] Poem 5. Poem 6. [Astylus, Lycidas, Mnasyllus] Poem 7. [Lycotas, Corydon] Bibliography
next
Calpurnius Siculus, Bucolica Edited by Cesar Giarratano, 1910. New annotations and encoding by Samuel J. Huskey and Hugh A. Cayless, 2017. I. Calpurnius and Nemesianus The seven eclogues of Calpurnius and the four of Nemesianus are preserved in the same manuscripts, which is how it comes to pass that they are always published together by scholars, even though they differ in terms of refinement and charm. Add to this the fact that many who use inferior manuscripts that attribute the eleven eclogues to Calpurnius alone say that Nemesianus did not write any eclogues at all. From the time of [Taddeo] Ugoleto there has been no shortage of those who divide the poems between Calpurnius and Nemesianus, assigning the last four to the latter; until recently they thought that Calpurnius had sent his poems to Nemesianus. But Moriz Haupt ( De Carminibus bucolicis Calpurnii et Nemesiani , Berlin, 1854, p. 1–27) demonstrated with ample and reliable evidence that those eleven eclogues belong neither to one poet nor to the same period, but rather that the first seven should be assigned to Calpurnius and the rest to Nemesianus. He also demonstrated that Calpurnius lived under the reign of Nero, while Nemesianus lived in the time of Carus and his sons. Haupt’s opinion, which Kraffert ( Beitr. zur Kritik und Erklaerung lat. Autoren Book 3, Aurich 1883, p. 151) and Garnett (On the date of Calp. Sic., Journ. of philol. XVI 1888 p. 216 , cfr. J. P. Postgate, The comet of Calpurnius Siculus, Class. Rev. 1902 p. 38–40 ) have recently argued against in vain, now deservedly has the greatest authority among scholars. Nevertheless, both because of the similarity in subject matter and the fact that the condition of the text is the same in both poets’ eclogues, I prefer to place Calpurnius side-by-side with Nemesianus. II. Overview of the Tradition There are three closely related families of manuscripts of Calpurnius and Nemesianus, in particular all of those that trace their origin back to three books copied from the same archetype. The first family includes two manuscripts that should be considered the best witnesses of all, since they are nearly free of interpolations, even though they rather frequently show blemishes from the ignorance and carelessness of their copyists. Many manuscripts conform to the so-called family V. Their extraordinary agreement in many errors demonstrates that all of them emanate from one book, which is also clear enough from the sheer abundance of interpolations that are unique to this family. And yet, these manuscripts are not corrupted in the same manner, but they can be divided into distinct groups, which seems to me a tedious business and hardly worthwhile. Besides, Schenkl (Wiener Studien V p. 294 sqq. 1883 and on page 50ff. of the preface to his first edition) has distinguished two families, v and w, but I wish he had not. It is easy for me to agree with that most learned man concerning the group that is called w; but with regard to the manuscripts that he denotes with the letter v, it is impossible to know that all of them are of the same kind when only a few readings have received full scrutiny. But one manuscript is assigned to the third family because it presents very many errors that the other manuscripts lack entirely. Moreover, a good number of readings are found in it that are characteristic of the better manuscripts, but it has none in common with the inferior manuscripts. For this reason it occupies a kind of middle ground, so to speak, between the books of good repute and those that have been corrupted. Indeed, readings have been selected for these books from the German manuscript of Thadeus Ugoletus and from the manuscript belonging to Boccaccio, and various excerpts should be added, too. I will consider these matters below. III. Manuscripts: The First Family (N G) Now I must discuss the manuscripts of the first family: N = Neapolitanus V a 8 and G = Gaddianus Laur. plut. 90, 12 inf. For descriptions of the manuscripts themselves, see the bibliography below ("First Family"). I will focus here on previous editors’ use of these manuscripts before I provide a detailed comparison of the readings by the manuscript hands. Regarding N, Jacques Philippe D’Orville was the first to collate it carefully enough for Pieter Burmann’s use; his collation appears in the appendix to Burman’s Poetae Latini Minores Vol. 1 . Next, Conrad Bursian examined it on behalf of Moriz Haupt, but nothing is known about the quality of his collation, since the edition promised by Haupt was never published. Baehrens was the next to use it, but in way that rightly earned the scorn of Schenkl, who collated the manuscript in 1878 and inspected it again a few years later when preparing his second edition of Calpurnius and Nemesianus. For my part, I examined the entire manuscript in 1907, but to remove all of the discrepancies between my collation and the testimony of Schenkl, in the summer of 1909 my friend Giampietro Zottoli inspected with me all of the places where Schenkl had a different reading, and we often uncovered carelessness on Schenkl’s part. I have published in my apparatus criticus the entire collation of his manuscript, omitting not even the slightest thing to do with orthography. G was mentioned by Glaeser and Haupt, but Baehrens was the first to examine it, far too hurriedly; Schenkl was the next to use it, much more carefully. I myself transcribed the manuscript in 1908 with as much attentiveness as I could, but I collated it again in the following year, to settle all of the discrepancies with Schenkl. Still, there are very many places that Schenkl has reported erroneously, as you can gather from my notes, for I have taken greatest pains to publish all of the readings of this manuscript, too. Having described the outer appearance of manuscripts N and G and explained their provenance, I must now discuss in more detail their relationship and their importance. Until now, no one except Baehrens and Schenkl has examined the authority of either manuscript. It is no wonder, since Baehrens was the first to collate the Gaddianus, and no one before Glaeser considered the Neapolitanus of much value. But Baehrens and Schenkl held different opinions: the former, as usual, overvalues a manuscript that he was the first to publish and argues that the Gaddianus is superior to the others; the latter, however, prefers the Neapolitanus. But Baehrens asserts his point of view instead of demonstrating it with strong evidence. On the other hand, Schenkl tried to demonstrate that the Gaddianus admitted interpolations in some places. It seems to me that neither one has hit upon the truth entirely, as I think the following makes clear. I have already said that both manuscripts descend from the same archetype, and that is supported by the very large number of readings that N has in common with G, when something else is written in the rest of the manuscripts. But, to be fair, they differ among themselves in many places, and it is right to discuss their differences so that it will be easier to see which manuscript departs less from the archetype. In doing this, I take no account of readings that are attributed to the second or third hand in the Neapolitanus or of the various readings that the copyist added in the margin of the Gaddianus. I shall consider those later. But first of all, although the repute of each of the two manuscripts is frequently distorted because of the carelessness and ignorance of the copyists, it seems to me that the Gaddianus was copied a little more carelessly. For instance, four verses (Calp. 1.40, 4.16, 4.123; Nemes. 1.73) are missing from it, and Nemesianus 2.49 has been placed after verse 45: Moreover, the following words have been omitted: Calp. 1.92 ipsa, 2.88 quotiens, 3.23 deus, 3.3 sed, 3.89 non. But in the Neapolitan manuscript, no verse is missing (it is unnecessary, I think, for me to remind you that I speak here about the unique defects of each manuscript, not about the common defects that are rightly assigned to the archetype), but Calp. 1.31–32 have been inverted, and Nemes. 2.81 was inserted after 3.16. Then the copyist overlooked the following words: Calp. 6.46 pignus, 6.90 hoc, Nemes. 1.23 et, 1.71 et, 3.5 ex tereti, 4.60 audit. Add to this the fact that in almost 130 places N offers the correct reading and G an erroneous one and the opposite happens a little less frequently. Each of the two manuscripts has some errors (N has more by far) in common with V, which could not have happened in every case entirely by chance. The following places are clearly due to interpolation: Calp. 2.73 cicius or citius tenues NV, 3.35 quod NV, 6.25 verba N, verba and verbo V, 6.82 te stante NV, 7.33 tibi GV, Nemes. 3.37 ostendit. The rest of the examples are either doubtful or should be disregarded entirely. Next, some have deemed the following places in G as possibly suspicious: Calp. 1.12 errantes, 1.85 accipiet, 3.20 invenias, 4.2 obstrepit, 4.53 discere, 4.72 aspernatur, 4.85 corpore, 4.105 enim, 4.150 liquide, 5.31 primum, 5.44 pascua, 5.52, quod, 6.59 mascillo, 7.11 herus, 7.26 in, 7.41 non, Nemes. 1.2 raris, 1.5 flavit, 1.16 carmina, 1.63 carmina, 1.82 canis, 2.27 nostri tamquam, 2.32 ethera, 2.74 omnes, 2.89 discedere, 3.52 saliensque liquore. But enim, pascua, mascillo, in, canis are without doubt glosses inserted later in place of the poets’ words. One could say the same thing about accipiet, ethera, discedere. Also aethera and discedere are just as good as aera and descendere, and for a long time I was not sure which of the two I preferred. And liquide, primum, flavit, carmina (Nemes. I 16) should not be considered interpolations, but rather corruptions that arose in these places since the words that should have been written by the copyist appeared nearby. Thus, liquide is derived from dulce, primum from spatium, flavit from inflare, carmina from carmine. But carmina (Nemes. 1.63) is either a gloss or a corruption that owes its origin from the initial sound of the next word, and corpore and robore are very often confused in the manuscripts. Then there are these words: herus, raris, omnes. One would hardly believe that they were made by an interpolator since they are meaningless. But for the most part, the rest of the examples can be attributed to an interpolator. The following places in N should be considered: Calp. 1.13 sequar, 4.46 inter nostras, 4.136 pede velox, 4.153 in, 4.164 vestros, Nemes. 2.71 ducas. in is a gloss. ducas is closer to ducam, which the inferior manuscripts have, than to duco, which G correctly offers. vestros is owed to an interpolator. The rest are uncertain. Finally, the writings of both manuscripts have been corrupted in various ways, but sometimes they betray an infelicitous effort at emendation. I would like you to consider the following places, for it is not necessary to say anything about the rest): Calp. 1.90 querit N, petit G; 2.96 o G; 3.50 turbidus G; 4.63 carmen modulavit G; 4.125 placanda G; 5.15 montibus G; 5.16 cecinere G; 5.104 nectendum N, videndum G; Nemes. 2.30 nullo sudarunt G, 4.28 volucrum tum G; 4.39 subeunte G. Indeed it is hardly the case that all of these places are equally suspicious, for o is a gloss, and I do not think one should think otherwise about carmen modulavit. But turbidus is clearly an interpolation, which I could hardly say about volucrum tum. Then querit and petit perhaps stem from a poorly understood abbreviation of the word quatit, but that gives me pause. But the other examples, with due respect to Schenkl, are hardly attributable to interpolators, unless you happen to think that those interpolators were completely ignorant of the Latin language. But before we pass judgment on the authority of manuscripts N and G, we must say a few things about the corrections that each manuscript underwent. Manuscript N, as we said above, was emended rather often by the original copyist and others. But all of the emendations of the first hand, which I have detected in almost sixty places, arose from the archetype itself. The copyist, as often happens, sometimes corrected the more trivial scribal errors as he wrote; we are all used to making these errors when we write. Accordingly, he added letters that he omitted by writing too quickly, or he deleted extra letters, or he changed vowels and consonants, or he added words that had been omitted, or he restored the order of verses, or he inserted notes about people. Since that is the case, nearly all of the emendations by the first hand are good, or, to state it more truthfully, they restore the wording of the archetype. At Calp. 1.20, the first hand corrected dipicta to depicta, which Jacoby recently defended in vain, since descripta is to be read without doubt (cfr. Verg. Ecl. 5.13 and Calp. 1.25), but depicta was in the archetype, as G shows us. Similarly at Nemes. 4.65 aversa is wrong (cfr. Verg. Ecl. 8.101 sq.), and the first hand has changed the fault into adversa, but adversa is found in G, from which you can easily conclude that the same reading appeared in the archetype. Only once did the first hand corrupt the true reading of the archetype (Calp. 3.67 qui from quam), but that should be attributed to an abbreviation, not at all to his intellect. Finally, all of the corrections of the first hand are confirmed by the readings in manuscript G, with the exception of Calp. 1.24 propius, where I have reasonable suspicion that the person who wrote G misread the word. The second hand’s so-called emendations are three times as frequent as the first hand’s, but in terms of proportion, they are found much more often in Calpurnius than in Nemesianus, and around a third of them are correct. For the most part, the second hand corrects scribal errors of a more trivial sort, but sometimes it restores omitted verses or errors, or it corrects transposed verses, or it completely overhauls more serious problems. In general, the second hand’s emendations come from manuscripts of the second family, not the archetype, but an interpolator has corrected some of them after his own fashion. It does not take many examples to demonstrate this, but, to begin with passages successfully restored, consider these readings with me, dear reader: Comparison of N¹ and G with N² and V Line N¹ and G N²V 1.20 depicta N (ex dipicta) G descripta 1.25 codice cortice 1.42 omitted added 1.55 profuso professo (and many other mss.) 1.87 a ex (and many other mss.) 3.26 ibi sibi 4.12 C. omitted C. added 4.46 quicquam quisquam 4.82 canat canit 4.124 raptas ruptas 4.145 nos hos 5.7 entire line placed before line 6 corrected 5.28 vivat vivit 5.45 peragunt peragit 7.48 tibi ubi Nemes. 2.50 cum dum 3.6 h N, om. G hanc pueri tamquam On the other hand, an interpolator has cleverly emended the following:Calp. 3.91 licidan N², licidax N, licidas or lycidas G V, 4.152 teriti N G, tereti N². Does it not seem to you that I have demonstrated what I set out to prove? Or does it seem likely that N and G corrupted the good readings of the archetype in the same way in all of these places? But, if you need more proof, reflect on these other examples. First of all, in following places the second hand of manuscript N substituted the interpolations that mar the manuscripts in V for the genuine readings of the archetype: Calp. 2.8 vindicet* (I have indicated all correct readings with an asterisk) N G, vendicet N²V; 2.9 thyrsi*, tyrsi G, tirsi N, tirso N²V pler.; 4.42 baetis*, bethis G, beris N, bactrus N²V; 4.53 tantum-ventos* N G, solum-nimbos N²V pler.; 4.75 quam* G, q̅m N, qua N²V nonn.; 4.131 iam surdant* G, iam surdat N, exsurdant N²V nonn.; 4.148 deas* G (deas = Musas, as F. Leo demonstrated), d’as N, deos N²V; 5.49 afferet* N G, afferat N²V nonn.; 5.61 serique-premendi* N G, seraeque-merendae N²V; 5.97 circitor* N G, vinitor N²V; 5.99 nunc* N G, tunc N²V; 6.47 perdere* N, prodere G, pendere N²V; 6.75 illis N G, ipsi N²V, pler.; N 1.27 laudem* N G, musam N²V; 1.54 iuris* N G, iusti N²V; 2.28 nostros posset* N G, posset rapidos N²V pler.; 4.66 urar* N, uror G, arsi N²V; cfr praeterea 4.63 carmen modulabile N²V nonn., which Baehrens would not have received into the text, if he had assessed carefully the things Haupt discussed about elisions in Calpurnius, and 5.65 coagulat lacte N², which clearly comes from coagula lactis V. Next, in the following places the second hand made some very poor attempts at conjectures for words handed down in the tradition: Calp. 1.31 sequaci* G, sagaci N²; 1.73 auferet* N G, afferet N²; 1.85 excipiet* N, excuciet N²; 2.76 herbas* N G, uvas N²; 3.25 sprevi* G, spiritu̅ N, speciem N²; 3.46 acerba* N G, avena N²; 4.79 succinet*, subcinit G, succinit N, sucinat N²; 4.106 palen*, panem N G, palam N²; 4.111 densat* G, pensat N, pulsat N²; 4.121 et* N G, at N²; 4.124 saliat*, psallat G, psalat N, psaliat N²; 5.27 voca* N G, loca N²; 6.19 vis* N G, visne N²; 6.37 fruticat*, fruticet G, frutiō N, fruticem N²; 6.69 mutavimus* N G, mutuabimus N²; Nemes. 1.1 fiscella* N G, cistella N², 1.5 versuque* N G, versusque N²; 2.17 leves* N G, lenes N². And so if the second hand’s emendations agree with manuscripts of family V, they can add no authority to them, since they arose from them; but if they depend on no other manuscript, they must be considered to be the conjectures of a fairly learned person. If we have discussed them correctly, the emendations of that sort are entirely without merit, and I did not unjustly omit them outright when I compared manuscript N with G. Finally, there are five emendations by the third hand, of which three are good (Calp. 2.1 puer, 2.4 gravis, 2.33 pomona) and two are bad (Calp. 1.59 truderit, 5.11 ganā). Manuscript G offers more than eighty emendations in its own right. With two or three exceptions where you can recognize another hand, they are the work of the original copyist. Sometimes he restored verses or words that had been omitted, but for the most part he corrected the more trivial scribal errors. All of the corrections are good, and they are derived from the archetype itself (as agreement with its twin manuscript shows), with only three exceptions: Nemes. 2.73, 3.63, 4.10, which the scribe unsucessfully tried to emend. Nemes. 3.53 does not count, since in this passage either the copyist of manuscript N could read poorly, or G entered a correction made either above the line or in the margin of the archetype. But aside from these emendations I found nearly alternate readings in the margin of this manuscript, which most often were added by the copyist himself. All are derived either from some manuscript of no special repute or from the conjecture of some scholar. For the most part, they are not even worthy of mention. If I have done my job, it is clear what we should think about each of these manuscripts. Manuscripts N and G outstrip the others not only in the good quality of their archetype, but also because their copyists were content to transcribe the archetype faithfully, and they generally abstained from interpolating the words of the poets. For very rarely have the words handed down from antiquity been corrupted by the judgment of the scribes. That is why this is the biggest difference between the Neapolitanus and the Gaddianus: that the latter generally put the reading of the archetype to the test by his own devices, but the former admitted the interpolations of inferior manuscripts. And, if we want to think clearly, the Neapolitanus should be preferred in a certain way, but not as Schenkl wanted. For the Gaddianus has nearly the same number of good readings as the Neapolitanus, and sometimes it alone out of all of the manuscripts preserves the genuine reading for us. And so, there is need for both manuscripts in representing the true picture of the archetype. IV. Manuscripts: The Second Family (V) The second family, called V, includes a little more than twenty manuscripts, of which I have selected sixteen for my edition. They are as follows: Manuscripts in the Biblioteca Ambrosiana (Milan) α = Codex Ambrosianus O 74 sup., fifteenth century. A. Ceriani noted the readings of this manuscript for Schenkl, then I collated the entire manuscript in 1908, and I inspected it again in 1909. β = Codex Ambrosianus I 26 sup., fifteenth century. In 1909 I was the first to collate this manuscript, which was entirely unknown to previous editors. Then there are six Vatican manuscripts—namely Vaticanus 3152 and 2110, Urbinas 353, Palatinus 1652, Reginensis 1759, Ottobonianus 1466—that I collated in 1908, then inspected again in the following year. They are: Manuscripts in the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (Vatican City) γ = Codex Vaticanus 3152. μ = Codex Vaticanus 2110 ε = Codex Vaticanus Urbinas 353 π = Codex Vaticanus Palatinus 1652 χ = Codex Vaticanus Reginensis 1759. φ = Codex Vaticanus Ottobonianus 1466. Aside from the Codex Gaddianus (see above), another five manuscripts survive in Florence. I collated them in 1908, and I examined them again in 1909. They are: Manuscripts in Florence ν = Codex Laurentianus plut. 37,14. λ = Codex Laurentianus bibl. Aed. (“Edili”) 203. κ = Codex Riccardianus 724, formerly L IIII 10. ρ = Codex Riccardianus 636, formerly L IIII 14. I am astonished that Schenkl reported that this manuscript is designated as codex 363, especially since the scholar in charge of the Bibliotheca Riccardiana informed me that the manuscript of which we speak has never been designated with the number 363. I would not say any more about this unless Teuffel-Schwabe (Geschichte der römischen Literatur 5th edition, p. 748 , Schanz (Geschichte der römischen Literatur II.2, second edition, p. 74 , Skutsch (Calpurnius 119 RE 3: 1401ff. , and others, had not relied on Schenkl’s testimony and perpetuated the mistake. Calpurnius’ bucolic poetry includes such a large number of corrections and glosses added by various hands either in the verses themselves or in the margin that the various hands cannot always be distinguished among themselves. But that is as much as I will say, since I propose to discuss the annotations of Angeli elsewhere. ζ = Codex Riccardianus 974. Previous editors clearly did not know about this manuscript. I have added three other manuscripts, namely Gothanus 55 (= θ) and the two Wratislavienses Rehdigerani, I.4.10 (= η) and I.4.11 (= δ), but I have not inspected them personally. The description of the codex Gothanus below is derived from Wernsdorf’s description. I. G. Meusel collated the manuscript for Wernsdorf. The descriptions of η and δ are derived from the descriptions in Glaeser’s edtion. All of the manuscripts that I have assigned to the second family were copied from one book, which I will call V, or from a copy of it. The common origin of these manuscripts is attested not only by the omission or transposition of the same verses and words, but also by the great number of interpolations and errors that the other manuscripts lack entirely. But aside from these common faults, which were transmitted from the archetype, the individual manuscripts have many other errors unique to themselves. These books can be assigned to specific groups through careful comparison. For that reason, I do not want to linger on this subject, but I will advise that Riccadianus 724 and Vaticanus Reginensis 1759 are so similar to each other that you would rightly come to the following conclusions: that they were copied from the same book; that the Ottobonianus, Laurentianus pl. 37,14, the first Rehdigeranus (I.4.10), the Gothanus, and the editio princeps descended from the same copy of manuscript V on account of certain evidence; and finally that Vaticanus Urbinas 353 and the editio Veneta in 1472 are closely related by the tightest bonds of affinity. For the oldest editions are rightly thought to be reproductions of manuscripts (cfr. Sabbadini, p. 213 n. 5); moreover, the editio Veneta was printed before Fridericus de Veteranis transcribed the Codex Urbinas (cfr. Curcio, p. VIII). Finally, I add that I found the oldest edition of Calpurnius and Nemesianus in the Bibliotheca Riccardiana, recorded by no editor until now, place and year of publication unknown, currently bearing the number 498, which I can demonstrate by the strongest of arguments was copied from the manuscript Laurentianus pl. 37,14 before that manuscript underwent the corrections of the so-called second hand. If any one should collate all of the manuscripts of this family with care, he would easily know which readings are those of the archetype from which all of them originate, and which are owed to the copyists of the individual manuscripts. And so now it remains to compare V with N and G and to see what authority should be attributed to them. First of all, both families, but more often V, are marred with gaps in verses and words. Eleven verses are missing in V (Calp. 1.51, 7.32–34, 7.52–54, Nemes. 1.29, 2.83, 3.25, 3.30) and one verse has been made from the two verses Calp. 2.18–19. On the other hand, Calp. 1.42 is missing in N and G, and the following words have been omitted: Calp. 4.94 posito, 7.71 et, Nemes. 3.6 hanc pueri tamquam. Moreover, in N G Calpurnius 5.7 is placed before 5.6 and in V Calpurnius 5.67 is placed before 5.66. But since verses and supplied words have been passed down from antiquity and cannot be attributed to interpolators, the carelessness of copyists must not be blamed in these passages. But with regard to the words (h)anc pueri tamquam, which were omitted in N G even though there was space for them, the copyist, in my opinion, deliberately omitted them because he did not understand the writing in the archetype. N G and V differ in two hundred places or even more, but the readings correctly preserved in N G are almost two times greater than those in the second family. Moreover, what is even more interesting, nearly all of the corruptions that blemish N G are owed to the carelessness or ignorance of their copyists, but V quite often underwent interpolations. For example, there is no doubt that in N G the following passages drew their flaws from either the carelessness of a copyist or an abbreviation poorly understood: Calp. 1.28 tibi vili, 1.55 profuso, 2.14 affuerant, 2.23 hic, 2.80 numerat, 2.96 canale, 3.21 si, 3.36 o, 3.43 nunc, 3.46 quas, 3.84 tum, 4.2 patula, 4.31 fragra, 4.43 externo, 4.44 intra, 4.46 quicquam, 4.62 quoque, 4.76 hospicius, 4.106 panem, 4.112 primo, 4.124 raptas, 4.145 nos, 4.153 nunc, 5.6 vanaque, 5.28 vivat, 5.45 peragunt, 5.77 contrahit, 5.82 rara, 5.84 let(h)es, 5.117 sint(ne), 6.70 dabis, 6.76 hinc, 7.48 tibi, 7.57 esse, 7.65 (a)equoreis, 7.67 anne, 7.80 proprius, 7.82 obfuerat G offuerant N, Nemes. 1.11 et versu, 1.14 nam, 1.38 si sentire datur mi(t)tite, 1.42 novisti, 1.46 hic, 1.70 honor, 1.73 tunc N, 2.6 veneris, 2.45 rubensque, 2.50 cum, 2.73 vates fauni, 3.17 cepit fatus, 3.41 hoc, 3.51 vocabula cimbula, 3.57 cūcubitum N concubitum G, 4.10 animos (s exp.) G, arons N, 4.21 (h)erit-florem, 4.47 habunda(n)s, 4.58 annos. Glosses have been received into the text in the following passages: Calp. 1.5 molliter, Nemes. 1.49 mortali, 2.42 vini, 1.51 uvas. Also, litora Nem. 2.22 comes from the same word placed at the beginning of the verse, and visus Calp. 7.84 comes from the preceding verse. There are certainly some passages that you could trace back to an interpolator: Calp. 1.20 depicta, 1.24 altos, 1.25 codice, 1.87 a, 2.26 ibi, 4.82 canat, 4.152 olim-decurrent, 6.52 illa, 6.78 provocat ille, 7.6 in umbra, Nemes. 2.20 atque, 4.39 subeunt(e), but, from the perspective of the archetype, I would attribute even these passages, with one or two exceptions, to the ignorance or carelessness of a copyist. The same cannot be said about the archetype of the second family; indeed, things could not be more different. To say nothing of glosses received into the text, or words moved either because of the scribes’ mistake or judgment (cfr. Calp. 1.8–9, 2.4, 2.73, 3.74, 3.88, 4.76, 4.83, 7.83, Nemes. 1.72, 2.1, 2.23, 2.33, 2.40, 2.47, 2.76, 4.54), and other faults that you could explain in various ways, I have detected the following in particular in it, and it detracts greatly from its authority. I refer to a great abundance of interpolations that have arisen only out of a passion for making changes. And, just to dismiss the several passages that others have ascribed to the carelessness of copyists, there is no reason to doubt that the readings marshalled here are owed to an interpolator: Calp. 1.45 lusit, 1.64 revocet, 1.78 placidum or placidam radianti, 2.5 ulmos, 2.32 spargit, 2.65 fundere, 2.67 fore or fere, 2.82 novembri, 2.94 vocat, 3.16 spatiatus, 3.24 tu solus-Iolla es, 3.33 vagetur, 3.35 quod, 3.47 excusso dispergit, 3.48 destructa, 3.60 inops, 3.62 narrare, 3.69 nulla-lactis, 3.75 dubita, 3.95 ara, 4.10 munera, 4.14 dum, 4.16 proxima, 4.24 et, 4.35 pellere, 4.41 germani, 4.42 bactrus, 4.53 solum-noscere nimbos, 4.84 nunc, 4.87 te, 4.90 visurus, 4.125 ut quoque turba bono plaudat saginata magistro, 4.129 nonnullas-choreas, 4.131 exurdant or exundant, 4.132 lyaeo or simile quid, 4.137 nisi, 4.144 vivas et hunc, 4.146 terram, 4.151 sonant, 4.152 quam tenero, 4.155 contigerit, 5.2 arbore, 5.12 iamdudum or iampridem, 5.17 habitabit, 5.19 tota, 5.24 mittito clausos, 5.30 accedere, 5.34 messe fluat, 5.58 sine or sive, 5.61 seraeque-merendae, 5.65 coagula lactis, 5.77 corrodet, 5.79 porta, 5.80 ulceribus, 5.81 dura, 5.82 vini or vivi, 5.97 vinitor, 5.100 debes, 5.105 venit, 5.111 gelida, 5.116 stipulis et, 5.118 penetralia, 6.7 ut, 6.8 turpior, 6.9 te, 6.17 adesset, 6.22 vincere, 6.29 insta nunc, 6.30 praedam nactus, 6.38 lucent, 6.46 hunc ego qualemcumque vides in valle, 6.50 iugale, 6.71 lapillis, 6.75 ipse or ipsi, 6.79 merito nihil hic nisi, 6.82 te stante, 7.4 iam durior, 7.6 ardet, 7.21 certare, 7.30 contendit, 7.49 peragit, 7.59 nocticanam or nicticanam, 7.66 dignum, 7.68 venientibus, 7.69 nos, 7.71 latebris, 7.72 croceo, Nemes. 1.9 meam mihi care senectam, 1.13 stupuere, 1.25 modulantibus or modulatibus, 1.27 musam, 1.29 quercus, 1.37 calamos, 1.47 pelleret, 1.67 campo, 1.74 secuntur, 1.75 nascentur, 1.85 plena or plene, 2.3 furiata, 2.28 posset rapidos or rabidos, 2.30 lamberunt or biberunt, 2.37 Idas ille ego sum, 2.44 nigra, 2.71 cupiam, 3.19 qui quando, 3.20 odorato-capillo, 3.29 et vocat ad, 3.34 summas, 3.37 ostendit, 3.40 pueri, 3.45 udaque or nudaque, 3.47 hoc capit, 3.54 spumeus, 3.65 ingerit, 4.11 quos lusus or luxus, 4.17 vultum veniens, 4.24 tibi, 4.44 nactum or natum, 4.45 vertito, 4.47 fluens, 4.50 longa, 4.66 arsi. For these reasons the manuscripts of the second family cannot be neglected entirely, but they should be used with greatest caution. V. The Third Family (P) Our only witness to the third family is codex Parisinus 8049 (= P, The description below is derived from F. Buecheler’s edition of Petronius (Berlin 1862, p. XXf.). Regarding this manuscript or one very similar to it, Poggio wrote the following to Niccolò de’ Niccoli (Epist. 1.91) in 1423: mittas ad me oro Bucolicam Calpurnii et particulam Petronii, quas misi tibi ex Britannia (Please send me Calpurnius’ Bucolia and the excerpt of Petronius that I sent to you from England.; cfr. Sabbadini p. 83 n. 52). Pithou was the first to use this manuscript, then Heinsius, as it seems, Miller (for Glaeser), Bursian (for Haupt), and Baehrens collated it. Finally, at the request of Schenkl, Schoene inspected many of its passages. The copyist who wrote the Codex Parisinus was utterly ignorant of the Latin language. In his completely careless performance of his task he committed countless scribal errors, and he did not finish his work, since the manuscript contains the first three eclogues by Calpurnius and stops in mid-sentence at verse 12 of the fourth. Since I have mentioned all of the readings of this manuscript in my apparatus criticus, there is no need to report here all of the defects of writing with which it teems. But I will now recount certain rather curious things that are unique to this manuscript, so that you will be all the more amazed at the copyist’s carelessness and ignorance: Curious Readings in P Line Readings in N G V Reading in P 1.1 declinis N, declivis G V declivus 1.2 praela N G V praeda 1.3 musta N G V iniusta 1.13 vocas N G V vacas 1.15 pervia N G V previa 1.18 matura N G V matura N G V 1.19 pariter N G V om. 1.25 citius N G V sycios 1.38 pecus N G V om. 1.52 subigentur N G, subigentur vel subdentur V subiguntur 1.53 inmergentque G, immergentque N V imverguntque 1.75 erectumque N G V ereptumque 1.79 sidus N G V plenus 1.85 excipiet N V, accipiet G excipient 1.89 velut N V, velud G velit 1.94 aures or auris N G V auras 2.4 hy cum terras N G, terras hi or ii cum V hīc (om. cum terras) 2.21 iamque N G V iam 2.21 medius N G V meolus 2.22 iudice pignora N G V indice pignor 2.23 hīc N G, hoc V hac 2.24 victus N G V victor 2.29 teda or taeda N G V deda 2.30 etiam N G V cerā 2.33 arbore N G V ardore 2.40 mutabilis N G V mirabilis 2.47 fetura or foetura N G V factura 2.52 crocalem or crotalem or something similar N G V talē 2.53 ego N G V om. 2.57 audiat N G V audeat 2.73 tenues citius G, cicius tenues N, citius tenues V tenues cuius 2.73 numerabit N G V enumerat 2.74 metimus N G V metitur 2.74 bruma N (ex pbruma) G V prima 2.81 renidenti G, renitendi N, renitenti V redempti 2.81 chias N G, thilas V cymas 2.82 nuces N G V mices 2.84 num-num N G V nunc-nunc 2.91 tenui lucere N G V tātū lucē 3.2 tauris N V, thauris G tātis 3.6 nec quicquam or quidquam N G V ne quisquam 3.18 adibo N G V adhibo 3.24 contentus N G V contemptus 3.26 calamos N G V calamus 3.29 ut N G V et 3.31 irata N G V iurata 3.32 te licida ve lycida or something similar N G V theliocida 3.42 ad sidera N G V a sydera 3.43 tua N G V mea 3.48 turdus N G V tardus 3.50 ut N G V et 3.51 te sine N G V desine 3.52 sapiunt N G V sapient 3.57 nec N G V ne 3.57 dubitasti N G V dubitanti 3.66 meis N G V mores 3.66 multris G, multis N, mulctris or something similar V ī ultrix 3.68 nec N G V ne 3.70 quod N G V quo 3.82 metere N G V metā 3.86 turpis N G V cupis 3.89 hy N G, hi V hic 3.92 miseris N G V miseros But despite such an abundance of errors, sometimes the Codex Parisinus reports a correct reading of the archetype that has been corrupted in the other two families: cfr. 2.14 naides P, naiades N V, nayades G, 63 parilibus P, paliribus N G, palilibus V. To those passage you could add 1.4 ornyte*, ornyce P, ornite N G V. Even if you grant that these passages could have been emended by conjecture, nevertheless you would hardly think that a copyist whose ignorance and carelessness we have detected in so many and such great passages should be pardoned. If we have discussed these matters properly, all of the interpolations that the manuscript underwent are owed to the archetype, but the numerous mistakes in writing must be attributed to the copyist. But to make a better judgment about the worth of this manuscript, we should consider what its readings are in the passages where the first family differs from the second. First of all, N G P often give a good reading where V has a corrupt one: N G P versus V Line N G P V 1.28 haec hoc 1.51 Present Omitted 1.78 rediantem radianti 1.80 cruento cremato 1.89 plenum plenus 2.8 vindicet vendicet 2.18–19 Present Collapsed into one 2.21 annosa herbosa or umbrosa or herbora 2.30 parvo dixit parvo hoc dixit 2.31 crescat crescit 2.32 pingit spargit 2.35 iam-nutrire nam-mutare 2.49 pangitur panditur 2.54 decernamque dicam namque 2.61 et est 2.65 figere fundere or fraude 2.67 sunt fore or fere 2.94 agat vocat or vocet or something similar 3.2 ista illa 3.16 spatiosus spatiatus 3.24 sola tu tu solus 3.28 haec hoc 3.33 negetur vagetur 3.47 excluso disperdit excusso dispergit 3.59 haec hoc 3.88 nostros primum primum nostros 4.10 numina munera The following can also be added to these examples: Line N G P V 1.9 densent N, denset G P densat 1.45 vicit N P vīcit G lusit 1.76 fervit G P servit (N V) 3.60 iners N G, inexs P inops 3.95 sub horti] sub orti N G P sub ara But more rarely P V corrupt a reading of the archetype preserved in N G. Here are some examples: N G versus P V Line N G P V 1.8 antra-9 ista ista-9 antra 1.64 referet N, referent G (but corrected in the margin) revocet 2.5 umbras ulmos 2.27 decernunt discernunt 2.32 flora flore 2.35 irriguos inriguis P, irriguis V 2.45 novis novas 2.48 at et 2.80 at et 2.82 decembri novembri 2.88 ipse esse 3.7 nec neque 3.18 quavis quamvis 3.24 iolla iolla es 3.74 furem medio medio furem 3.75 dubites dubita 3.78 gremium gremio 4.10 despicit respicit On the other hand, P V have corrected the corrupted readings of the first family in the following places Correct reading in P V where N G are corrupt Line P V N G 1.5 molle sub molliter 1.20 descripta depicta N (from dipicta) G 1.24 alto altos 1.25 cortice codice N (apparently) G 1.28 triviali tibi vili 1.42 Present Omitted 1.55 professo P, most of V profuso 1.87 ex P, most of V a 1.90 quatit querit N petit G 2.32 et at 2.96 canalem canale 3.21 sed si 3.26 sibi ibi 3.36 a o 3.43 nam nunc 3.46 quos quas 3.84 tunc-tunc tum-tunc 4.2 platano patula And, finally, in some places where the manuscripts of the second family report various readings, P preserves an inferior reading: Places where P has an inferior reading compared to V Line P (with N and/or G) V 1.46 victas N G P vinctas* or victas 1.61 laxabit G P lassabit* or laxabit 1.80 numquid* G, non quod P numquid or non quod or non per 2.14 affuerant affuerunt* or affuerant 2.26 iactate* N G, iactare P iactate or iactare 2.48 arida* N G, altera P arida or altera or avida 3.18 contentus* N G, contemptus P contentus or contemptus 3.55 te* N G, tu P tu or te 3.73 vi G P ut* or vi 3.91 habet* N G, amat P amat or habet In conclusion, to review what has been accomplished in this discussion, where N and G agree with P, there is no doubt that their reading should be preferred to readings of the second family. We have seen that this rule is violated in only three places (1.48 victas, 2.14 affuerant, 3.73 vi), with which I do not concern myself. But where N and G differ from P and V, both groups of manuscripts have nearly the same number of good and corrupt readings. But far be it from me to give equal authority to both groups, for nearly all of the corruptions that N and G received, as it were, by inheritance from the archetype of the first family are owed to the carelessness or ignorance of copyists, but the faults of other manuscripts should be attributed to the perverse zeal of pseudo-scholars for emending and interpolating. That is why, with one or two exceptions, there is never any uncertainty about which reading to select. If these matters have been established correctly, then the Codex Parisinus cannot always be accepted as an arbiter, but we ought always to consider its readings and we must also be sad that it has such a brief run of verses. VI. Two lost manuscripts Now let us discuss the two manuscripts that are lost to us today, that is the Taddeo Ugoleto’s Codex Germanicus (= A) and Boccaccio’s manuscript (= H). We know nothing about the Codex Germanicus other than what Niccolò Angeli has handed down to us about it. Also, the following is written in Codex Riccardianus 636 at the end of Calpurnius in the hand of Angeli: From a very ancient manuscript brought from Germany | this title has been copied: The end of the bucolics of | Calpurnius, the first eclogue of Aurelius Nemesianus the poet | from Carthage. Then, at the end of Nemesianus: I, Niccolò Angeli, collated this manuscript against many others and the very old manuscript that Taddeo Ugoleto, librarian of the royal library in Hungary, brought with him from Germany and prepared for my use. Many poems were discovered in it. In the year of salvation 1492. Regarding Boccaccio’s manuscript, Codex Harleianus 2578 (about which see C. Schenkl in the preface to his edition of Ausonius [Berlin 1884], p. XXI) offers similar testimony. At the end of Nemesianus, the following subscription is found: This manuscript was collated with greatest care with the very old manuscript that Taddeo Ugoleto, librarian of the royal library in Hungary, brought from Germany. Also with the one that Giovanni Boccaccio is said to have written with his own hand to dedicate to the library of Santo Spirito in Florence: We found the title and division of the work in that manuscript, along with many poems. Codex Riccardianus 636 is written very beautifully on the leaves that contain the bucolic poetry of Calpurnius and Nemesianus, but at a later date various hands have obscured the transmitted text by erasing or emending to such a degree that sometimes you can barely see what the original reading was. Moreover, because of their similarities, I could not, like Schenkl, always distinguish the later hands. That is why I have indicated all of them, except Angeli’s readings, in the apparatus criticus with the symbol ρ². For the hand of Angeli is easily distinguished from the others in nearly all instances. And now we must consider his readings to make a proper judgment about the authority of the Codex Germanicus, since we learn nothing from the edition published in Parma (around 1500) or the first Florentine edition (1504), even though Angeli edited the latter and Angelo Ugoleto added at the end of the former that he had established the text based on the Codex Germanicus, when both editions, as Schenkl has demonstrated conclusively, derived from Codex Riccardianus 636. First to consider is whether all of the readings noted by Angeli were taken from the Codex Germanicus or had some other origin. In the subcription of the Codex Riccardianus that we reported above there is mention of many other manuscripts. Moreover, Angeli’s annotations can be divided generally into two classes, for most of them agree with N G, and the rest with certain manuscripts of the second family, especially Codex Urbinas 353 Vatican 3152, Ambrosianus O.74 sup., and the edition published in Venice in 1472. Consider the following passages: Calp. 1.30 non Aεαγe, 1.46 vinctas Aγ, 1.87 et meritis Aεαe, 2.27 discrevit digitus Aεαe, 2.32 et A V, 2.48 arida Aα, 2.67 fore Aεαγe, 3.93 perfer et ore tuo modulator A¹ εγe, 3.98 redit Aεγe, 4.51 aliena Aεe, 4.75 quae Aεαe, 4.77 per me Aεe, 4.94 abis Aεγe, 4.95 reclivus Aεγe et reclivis Aα, 4.101 sonuerunt Aεe, 5.31 ut Aεe, 5.58 vel Aεαγe, 5.100 tum Aεγe, 5.102 ast tibi A N G and ast ubi Aεαe, 6.35 scit Aεe, 6.38 lucent A V, 6.82 carmina Aεαγe, 7.25 clivos Aα, 7.43 tam Aεe, 7.77 referens Aεαe, 7.78 quae sit modo Aεαγe, 7.84 putavi Aεγe, Nemes. 1.31 fagosve Aεαγe, 1.32 suggerit εe, 1.78 olivas A V, 2.8 iam non Aεγe, 2.15 relevare Aεe, 2.30 nulloque biberunt Aεγe, 2.48 tum dulce rubens Aεγe, 3.26 vos etiam et Aεe, nutristis Aεαe, 3.33 leve Aεαe, 3.37 lenes Aγe, 3.51 cymbia Aεγe, 3.63 natus ab ipso Aεαγe, 4.69 artes Aεe. Add these, too: Calp. 5.33 capellis Aνφθ, 7.18 spectavimus Aκχ. In light of these facts, it seems very close to the truth that the Codex Germanicus derived from the same archetype as N and G, and that the readings that agree with N and G should be attributed to that archetype, but that Angeli copied the rest of the readings from interpolated manuscripts. This inference is supported by the fact that Angeli discloses in the subscription to the Codex Riccardianus that he used other manuscripts, too. This agrees with the fact that the four later poems were attributed to Nemesianus in the Codex Germanicus, as attested by Niccolò Angeli at the end of Calpurnius in the Codex Riccardianus and Angelo Ugoleto at the end of the original from Parma. N and G divide the eleven eclogues between Calpurnius and Nemesianus in the same way, but all of them are attributed to Calpurnius alone in the manuscripts of the second family. Therefore the Codex Germanicus should certainly be assigned to the first family. But could it not happen that the Codex Germanicus underwent some interpolations? Indeed it could have happened, but since the task of seeking out a semblance of the lost manuscript is a very risky venture, even though the inference seems probable to me, I nevertheless prefer to report all of Angeli’s readings without distinction under the symbol A. And I feel so strongly about the authority of the Codex Germanicus that when it agrees with N or G, it offers us another witness to the first family, and when it agrees with V, it has the same force as a manuscript of the second family. For Angeli’s annotations hardly ever differ from all of the manuscripts: Calp. 1.45 in ulnis, 1.86 tralati, 2.3 nec, 4.86 in, 5.65 tinniat ore, 5.79 et vitrosa, 5.104 hic, 7.59 manticoram, Nemes. 1.70 hinc, 2.41 horti, 2.83 qui. But sometimes the Codex Germanicus alone among all manuscripts preserves for us the true reading or traces of the true reading, as at Calp. 2.3 nec et, 5.65 tinniat ore. Finally, in the same Codex Riccardianus there are certain corrections that cannot be attributed to Angeli, but doubtlessly descend from some manuscript of the first family. Perhaps some corrector copied those, too, from the Codex Germanicus. Regarding Boccaccio’s manuscript, truly the things that can be said are few and uncertain. For although the Codex Harleianus, according to its subscription, was collated with the Codex Germanicus, Boccaccio’s manuscript, and many others, for the most part the readings that Angelius did not note in the Codex Riccardianus seem to go back to Boccaccio’s manuscript. After carefully inspecting these readings, we can conclude only this: that the manuscrupt that Boccaccio is said to have written with his own hand must be assigned to the so-called first family. Everything else is highly uncertain. As for the authority of this manuscript, the same things that I said about the Codex Germanicus apply. Finally, I think we should not overlook that in one place (Nemes. 4.70 quo Boccaccio’s manuscript alone, out of all of the manuscripts, displays the true reading. Excerpts: Exc. Par. and Exc. Bon. Now I must discuss the excerpts. Two manuscripts in Paris (referred to together as Exc. Par.), namely Thuaneus 7647 (= Exc. Par. Prior), end of the 12th century, and Nostradamensis 17903 (= Exc. Par. Alter), 13th century, (cf. G. Meyncke Rh. Mus. 25: 369ff. and M. Manitius Philol. 56: 541 ), both of which contain excerpts from the poems of Latin poets, have also some verses selected from Calpurnius’ eclogues 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and a few others from Nemesianus’ fourth eclogue, attributed there to Calpurnius. For in the Codex Thuaneus at the beginning of the first excerpt the following is inscribed: Calpurnius in bucolicis; in the Codex Nostradamensis: Scalpurius in bucolicis. But in the latter, the corruption of the name traces its origin to the initial letter of the first verse: Satis hoc (2.23). These are the fragments: Calp. 2.23 satis-24, 3.10 mobilior-femina, 4.14–15, 4.155 vellit-156, 5.12–13, 46–48, 6.53–56, Nemes. 4.19 levant-curas, 4.21–24, 4.32, 4.38 vocat-umbram. Nearly the same verses are found in a certain codex in Berlin (ms. Diez. B. Santen. 60 fol. 29ʳ): cfr. M. Haupt (l. l. p. 13) and M. Manitius (l. l.). Codex Bononiensis 83 (52, II n. 1 = Exc. Bon.) contains other excerpts (Calp. 3.90, Nemes. 4.20–32, 56–59) ascribed to Calpurnius alone: cfr. L. Frati Studi italiani di Filol. classica 16 (1908): 131 . Schenkl examined the books in Paris after Baehrens’ edition, in 1880. In 1909, I was the first to collate the excerpta Bononiensia. Now let us discuss the worth of the excerpts. Certainly the excerpta Bononiensia were copied from some manuscript of the second family. Compare these passages: Nemes. 4.21 eris–flores V Exc. Bon., (h)erit florem N G, 4.24 tibi Exc. Bon., quod N G, 4.28 volucres et V Exc. Bon., volucru et N, volucrum tum G, 4.30 perdis V Exc. Bon., prodis N G, 4.58 animos V Exc. Bon., annos N G. But the books in Paris have a better reputation by far. In the following places N G Exc. Par. offer a good reading, but V offers a bad one: Calp 4.14 nunc N G Exc. Par., dum V, 4.155 contingat N G Exc. Par., contigerit V, 4.156 dicit N G Exc. Par., dixit V, Nemes. 4.24 quod N G Exc. Par., tibi V. Add these, too: Nemes. 4.24 commodet G Exc. Par., comodet N, commodat V. But in two places V Exc. Par. preserve an attested reading that N G have corrupted: Calp. 2.23 hoc V Exc. Par., hic N G, Nemes. 4.21 eris-flores V Exc. Par., (h)erit-florem N G. Moreover, in only one place have the excerpta Parisina admitted the interpolations of the inferior manuscripts: Calp. 5.12 iamdudum pler. V Exc. Par., aetas iam N G. At Calp. 6.55 N and G and the excerpts are different. Finally, they present some readings unique to them: Calp. 4.15 valeate Par. pr., 155 michi, 5.45 erit; dubitanda Par. post. 5.48 tonsoribus Par. pr., 6.54 torvata Par. pr. We have already said that all of the manuscripts that we have today must be traced back by various paths to the same archetype, as their many errors in common indicate, especially the lacuna and the confusion of verses in the amoebaean song in Calpurnius’ fourth eclogue. But that the excerpts about which we speak cannot trace their origin further is supported by a single, but very strong argument (cf. H. Schenkl, Wiener Studien VI p. 84 ). For at Calp. 4.156, where Heinsius quite successfully restored ovilia, all of the manuscripts and the excerpts have vilia Before I end this preface, I want to offer my thanks to those who deserve it from me. H. Cocchia, A. E. Housman, F. Leo, F. Ramorino, G. C. Summers, most learned and humane men to whom I owe my greatest thanks, kindly pointed out many things while I was establishing the text of Calpurnius and Nemesianus. But so that no one attributes to them the errors that I have fallen into, I declare that I have noted everything that they shared with me in its own place in the appratus criticus. Milan, September 1909 Revised in Cosenza, January 1910 C. Giarratano
Bibliography Manuscripts First family N = Codex Neapolitanus V A 8 Naples Biblioteca Nazionale di Napoli V A 8 380 1–36ʳ contain Cato’s De Agricultura ; 20–101ʳ, Varro’s De Re Rustica ; 101ʳ–115ᵛ, the Bucolica of Calpurnius and Nemesianus. The individual poems lack titles, but they are separated from each other by brief spaces. The following subscription appears at the end of the whole work: Aureliani Nemesiani Cartag̅ bucol’ explicit: Deo gratias amen. Finally, another more recent hand, as Bursian and Schenkl recognized, wrote Calpurnii eclogae and Nemesiani eclogae. The remaining leaves are blank. Parchment: 261 × 160 mm.: 116 leaves: 38 verses per page. With respect to correcting hands, two in particular stand out: N1 belongs to the original copyist. See above for a detailed description of this hand’s activity. N2 : The manuscript was corrected again around the same time, but here and there the second hand cannot easily be distinguished from the first. N3 : a third hand’s emendations can be discerned in only a few places. The manuscript was written at about the beginning of the fifteenth century. We know nothing about the origin and provenance of this manuscript except what is understood from the following passages written on the last leaf: Joannes Antonius Perillus patric. neap. ac iuvenis apprime litteratus Jacobum Perillum hoc libro donavit MDCVII, Klis Juniis (“Joannes Antonius Perillus, a nobleman of Naples and most learned gentleman, gave this book to Jacob Perillus in 1667 on the first of June”), and a little below, Antonii Seripandi ex Jacobi Perilli amici opt. munere (“This book belongs to Antonius Seripandus, received as a gift from his best friend Jacob Perillus”). Later it was brought to the library of San Giovanni a Carbonara, and from there it came to the greatest library in Naples, formerly known as the Reale biblioteca borbonica, (now the Biblioteca nazionale Vittorio Emanuele III). G = Codex Gaddianus pl. 90, 12 inf. Florence Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana plut. 90, 12 inf. It contains the twelve eclogues of Francesco Petrarch (ff. 1–44), the Culex of Vergilius Maro, the Dirae of Vergilius Maro (ff. 52–55), and Calpurnius and Nemesianus (ff. 55–74). A very brief, unattributed eclogue follows with the interlocutors Daphnis, Tityrus, Mopsus, and Meliboeus. The following inscription has been added to the eclogues of Calpurnius: Egloge Calfurnii ad nemesianum cartaginiensem. (The Eclogues of Calfurnius to Nemesianus of Carthage). Nemesianus follows Calpurnius with the following title prefixed: Aureliani nemesiani cartaginiensis egloghe incipiunt (Here begin the eclogues of Aurelianus Nemesianus of Carthage). At the end of each eclogue there appears an explicit with the number of each eclogue, but Calpurnius’ sixth eclogue lacks a subscription, and the following is written at the end of the seventh: explicit sexta egloga Calphurnii (Here ends the sixth eclogue of Calphurnius). This is explained by the fact that the seventh eclogue follows the sixth without any break, with the result that only six eclogues are attributed to Calpurnius in this manuscript. But in the margin, where the sixth eclogue ought to end, the copyist has added the following: aliqui volunt dicere quod ista sit alia et diversa egloga ubi incipit “lentus," aliqui dicunt quod est una etc. (Some wish to say that the eclogue that begins lentus is a completely different eclogue; others say that it is the same, etc.). Paper: 294 × 225 mm.: 74 leaves. Individual pages generally have 29 verses, but some vary, with the shorter ones having 26 and the longer ones haveing 32 verses. G1 : The copyist himself added almost all of the corrections either by removing scribal errors in the verses or adding variant readings to the margin. See above for a more detailed description of this hand’s activity. G2 : Some corrections seem to have been made by another hand. Written at the beginning of the fifteenth century. Second family V = Consensus of the second family mss. α = Codex Ambrosianus O.74 sup. Milan Biblioteca Ambrosiana O 74 sup. Contained in it are minor poems that were once attributed to Vergil, the epigrams of Claudianus Alexandrinus (Claudian), the Orestis fabula , eleven eclogues of Calpurnius (ff. 112–133), the Parthenopaeus and two elegies of Giovanni Pontano, an elegy by Antonio Beccadelli to Johannes Lamola of Bologna, Janus Pannonius’ Epithalamium in Salomonem Sacratum et Liberam Guarinam , a poem In Venetae urbis laudem , and a poem De ortu atque obitu Hermaphroditi . Paper: 212 × 145 mm. : 183 leaves : 25 verses to a page. α1 α2 Written in the fifteenth century. β = Codex Ambrosianus I.26 sup. Milan Biblioteca Ambrosiana I 26 sup. It contains Claudius Claudianus (Claudian) De raptu Proserpinae (ff. 1–30), the poems De cantu avium et sono quadrupedum (ff. 32–33), the Bucolica of Calpurnius and Nemesianus attributed to Calpurnius alone (ff. 35–61). Folios 31 and 34 are blank. At the end I read the following subscription: die 4 augusti 1463 ego petrus feliciter peregi (On August 4, 1463, I, Peter, finished this; cf. R. Sabbadini, Le scoperte dei codici latini e greci ne’ secoli XIV e XV, p. 16 n. 82 ). Paper: 0.214 × 0.158 mm. : 61 leaves : 20 verses per page. β1 β2 Written in the fifteenth century δ = Codex Vratislaviensis Rehdigeranus 1.4.11 Vratislavia Bibliotheca Vratislavia Rehdigeranus 1. 4. 11 All eleven poems are ascribed to Calpurnius. They are preserved on leaves 3ʳ–22ʳ. Aside from one inscription at the beginning, no other is found in this book, and no indication of characters, with the exception of the recto of the third leaf. Here, the copyist put this sign (") in the margin when the character changes. Quarto : 115 leaves : 26 verses per page. δ1 δ2 Written carelessly in the fifteenth century. γ = Codex Vaticanus 3152 Vatican City Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Vaticanus 3152 It contains Calpurnius’ eleven eclogues (1–18ʳ), followed by various poems by Cyprian, Lactantius, Firmianus, and Ausonius. Paper : 215 × 147 mm. : 81 leaves. It consists of 81 leaves, of which 18ᵛ, 26–30, 51ʳ, 81ᵛ are blank. There are 31 verses on each page. γ1 γ2 Written in the fifteenth century. λ = Codex Laurentianus bibl. Aed. 203 Florence Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana bibl. Aed. 203 Contains the eleven eclogues of Calpurnius (ff. 140–161), along with the poems of Vergil, Statius, Caudian, Maximian and other ancient poets. At the end it is inscribed as follows: Georgii Ant. Vespuccii liber (This book belongs to Giorgio Antonio Vespucci). Paper : 223 × 155 mm. : 188 written leaves : 25 verses per page. λ1 λ2 Copied in the fifteenth century. Formerly in the Cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore. ε = Codex Vaticanus Urbinas 353. Vatican City Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Urbinas 353 The eleven eclogues of Calpurnius are contained on leaves 95ʳ–113ᵛ of this manuscript, along with many poems by various authors that it is not necessary to report here. The following subscription appears at the end of this work: Federicus De Veteranis Urbinas sub divo Federico Urbinat, duce invictiss. romanae ecclesi. dictat. transcripsit (Federico Veterano of Urbino, in service to Federico di Montefeltro, Duke of Urbino, Commander of the most indomitable Roman Church, copied this manuscript). And a little below that: quo principe decedente utinam et ego de medio tunc sublatus quiescerem ab instanti temporum calamitate. (When that prince dies, may I, too, be taken from your midst and find rest from the approaching times of disaster). Parchment : 387 × 247 mm. : 309 leaves : 29 verses per page. Gaetano Curcio (Poeti Latini Minori vol. 2, pt. 1, p. VI ff.) has meticulously described the outer appearance of this manuscript. ε1 ε2 Most handsomely written in the fifteenth century. μ = Codex Vaticanus 2110 Vatican City Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Vaticanus 2110 Contents: a Latin translation of Aristotle’s Magna Moralia (ff. 1–56), Cicero’s Topica (ff. 57–65ʳ), Boethius’ In Ciceronis Topica (ff. 65ʳ–67ᵛ), Calpurnius’ eleven eclogues (ff. 67ᵛ–80), St. John Chysostom’s De dignitate sacerdotali dialogus (ff. 81–120ʳ), and an excerpt from the life of St. John Crysostom (ff. 120ᵛ–128). Parchment : 284 × 216 mm. : 128 leaves. Each page has 40, 41, or 43 verses. μ1 μ2 Most handsomely written in the fifteenth century under Pope Nicholas V. κ = Codex Riccardianus 724 Florence Biblioteca Riccardiana 724 L IIII 10 Contains the eleven eclogues of Calpurnius (ff. 1–25ʳ), which some removed as the verses of other writers. Parchment : 203 × 136 mm. : written in the fourteenth century. It has 29 leaves with twenty-two verses to a page. κ1 κ2 Written in the fourteenth century. φ = Codex Vaticanus Ottobonianus 1466 Vatican City Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Ottobonianus 1466 Altaempsianus Contains the eleven eclogues of Calpurnius (ff. 1–24ʳ); various poems follow. Paper : 198 × 132 mm. : 51 leaves : 24 verses per page. φ1 φ2 Written in the fifteenth century. Formerly in the collection of the Dukes of the Altaemps and Galesi. χ = Codex Vaticanus Reginensis 1759 Vatican City Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Reginensis 1759 Contains only the eleven eclogues of Calpurnius. Parchment, 198 × 123 mm : 22 leaves : 25 verses per page. χ1 χ2 The book was written in the fifteenth century. Formerly in the library of the Convento di San Silvestro al Quirinale. ν = Codex Laurentianus pl. 37.14 Florence Biblioteca Laurenziana plut. 37.14 Silius Italicus Punica , Calpurnius Eclogae XI (ff. 177ᵛ–193ᵛ), Hesiod Opera et Dies in a Latin translation by N. Valla, Claudian De raptu Proserpinae Parchment : 323 × 195 mm. : 224 written leaves : 35 verses per page. ν1 ν2 Most handsomely written in the fifteenth century. π = Codex Vaticanus Palatinus 1652 Vatican City Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana 1652 It contains Tibullus (ff. 1–28ʳ), Catullus (ff. 28ᵛ–60ʳ), Calpurnius’ eleven eclogues (ff. 60ʳ–74ᵛ), Propertius (ff. 74ᵛ–129). The following is written at the end of the work (cfr. Sabbadini): a M’ petro montopolitano die XXI februarii 1460 (By the hand of master Petrus Montopolitanus on February 21, 1460). That is followed by two hexameters written on the death of Giannozzo Manetti. Parchment : 267 × 159 mm. : 129 written leaves : 37 verses per page. π1 π2 Copied most beautifully in the fifteenth century. η = Codex Vratislaviensis Rehdigeranus 1.4.10 Vratislavia Bibliotheca Rehdigeranus 1.4.10 Contains all eleven eclogues assigned to Calpurnius. They appear on leave 3ʳ–27ʳ. Additionally, many of the minor poems of Vergil and other others (some more recent) are written in it. Paper and parchment : quarto : 130 leaves : 22 or 23 verses per page. Titles and signs for characters are decorated with red ink. η1 η2 Beautifully written in the fifteenth century. ρ = Codex Riccardianus 636 Florence Biblioteca Riccardiana 636 L IIII 14 The eleven eclogues of Calpurnius are contained in this manuscript (ff. 25–45), along with other minor works of various authors that are not worth mentioning here, since the poems of Calpurnius, as Schenkl knew, were formerly separated from the rest. Parchment : 225 × 150 mm. : 126 leaves : 26 verses per page. ρ1 ρ2 : Various hands that are indistinguishable from each other. The hand of Niccolò Angeli, recording variants from the lost Codex Germanicus (see A below). Written in the fifteenth century. θ = Codex Gothanus 55 Gotha Forschungsbibliothek 55 After Vergil’s Bucolics , Georgics , and Aeneid , it has the seven eclogues of Calpurnius. After an empty space on the last part of the page, the copyist has written the following subscription: Finis: haec quae de Calphurnio inveniuntur (The end. These are the poems that were composed by Calpurnius). Parchment : octavo: damaged, or copied from a damaged manuscript, since the seventh eclogue ends at verse 65. Written in the fifteenth century. ζ = Codex Riccardianus 974 Florence Biblioteca Riccardiana 974 Among other minor works of various authors, it contains only the second eclogue by Calpurnius (ff. 3–5), and that under the title of the first eclogue. Paper : 208 × 142 mm. : 74 leaves. ζ1 ζ2 Written in the fifteenth century. Third family P = Codex Parisinus 8049 Paris Bibliothèque Nationale 8049 Bound in three parts: I. Introduction on Satire, Perseus; II. end of the 11th century, according to Kelius, end of the 12th century, according to Froehnerus, the end of the second book of the De Divinatione by Cicero . On the verso of leaf 17: Marci Tullii de divinacione liber IIᵘˢ explicit. Petronii arbitri satirarum liber incipit. On the recto of leaf 25: explicit Petronius. incipit egologa Calpurnii (nondum solis equos I 1—quicquid id est silvestre etc. IIII 12). III. 12th century. Seneca’s proverbs. Parchment : quarto P1 P2 Written in the eleventh or twelfth century. Other codices A = cod. Germanicus Th. Ugoleti = Marginalia copied into cod. Riccard. 636 by N. Angelius (Niccolò Angeli). H = Readings in cod. Harleiani 2578 that appear to go back to the manuscript of Boccaccio or Th. Ugoletus (Taddeo Ugoleto) London British Library 2578 Codex Harleianus H1 H2 cod. Vindob. = Codex Vindobonensis 305, a member of V, but cited only once or twice by Giarratano. Excerpts Exc. Par. = Combination of Exc. Par. Prior and Exc. Par. Alter (below) Exc. Par. Prior = Thuaneus 7647 Paris Bibliothèque Nationale Thuaneus 7647 Exc. Par. Alter = Nostradamensis 17903 Paris Bibliothèque Nationale Nostradamensis 17903 Exc. Bon. = 52 Busta II, n. 1 Bologna R. Biblioteca Universitaria di Bologna 52 Busta II, n. 1 ω = Consensus of all of the manuscripts Early Editions r = Anonymous . editio Romana. [Romae]: Schweynheim et Pannartz, 1471 . e = Anonymous. editio Veneta. [Venetiis]: Ausonius et Giradinus, 1472 . d = utriusque edit. Daventr. consensus d1 = Anonymous. editio Daventriensis prior. [Daventriae]: apud R. Paffraet, 1488 . URL: . d2 = Anonymous. editio Daventriensis posterior. [Daventriae]: apud J. de Breda, 1491 . URL: . u = Anonymous. editio Ang. Ugoleti. Parmae: Angelus Ugoletus, 1492 . c = Anonymous. editio Coloniensis (Buccolica canori poetae Titi Calphurnii Siculi undecim Aeglogis iucunditer decantata). Coloniae: [Henricus Quintell], 1505(?) . URL: . Nordh. = . ed. Nordheimensis. [Nordheim]: s.n., s.d. . s = editio Ascensiana = Badius, Josse (“Ascensius”). Buccolica, cum adnotatione Ascensiana. Parhisiis, in vico Maturinorum: a Durando Gerlerio, 1503 . URL: . b = editio Bononiensis = Guidalottus Bononiensis, Diomedes. Calpurnii et Nemesiani Poetarum Buccolicum Carmen. Bononiae: per Caligulam Bazalerium, 1504 . URL: . Modern Editions i = utriusque ed. Florent. consensus i1 = Anonymous. editio Florentina prior. Florentiae: Philippi de Giunta, 1504. URL: i2 = Anonymous. editio Florentina posterior = Titius, Robertus. M. Aurelii Olympii Nemesiani Carthaginiensis, T. Calphurnii Siculi Bucolica. Florentiae: apud Philippum Iunctam, 1590. URL: l = utriusque ed. Ald. consensus l1 = Anonymous. editio Aldina prior. Venetiis: in aedibus Aldi, et Andreae Soceri 1518. URL: l2 = Anonymous. editio Aldina posterior. Venetiis: in aedibus heredum Aldi Manutii, et Andreae Soceri, 1519. URL: n = Brassicanus, Johannes Alexander. editio Brassicani. Argentorati (Strasbourg): Iohannis Knoblochus, 1519. URL: . Vienn. = Anonymous. ed. Viennensis. s.l., s.d. g = Logus, Georgius. editio Augustana. Augustae Vindelicorum: in officina Henrici Steyner), 1534. URL: Tig. = Anonymous. editio Tigurina Tiguri: apud Christophorum Froschouerum, 1537. URL: . Gryph. = Anonymous. editio Gryph. Lugduni: apud Seb. Gyrphium, 1537. URL: . o = Anonymous. ed. Oporiniana Basileae: Johannes Oporinus, 1546.URL: p = ed. Pithoeana = Pithoeus, Petrus. Epigrammata et poematia vetera. Parisiis: Dionysius Duvallius, 1590. URL: Aurel. = Anonymous. Corpus omnium veterum poetarum latinorum (Volumen Secundum). Aureliae Allobrogum: Samuel Crispinus, 1611. URL: Barth 1613 = ed. Barthii = Barthius, Casparus. Venatici et Bucolici Poetae Latini: Gratius, Nemesianus, Calpurnius. Hanoviae: In Bibliopolio Willieriano, 1613. URL: Ulit. = ed. Ulitii = Ulitius, Ianus. Venatio Novantiqua. Leidae: Ex Officina Elzeveriana, 1645. URL: h = ed. Haverkampi et Brucii = Anonymous. Poetae Latini Rei Venaticae Scriptores et Bucolici Antiqui. Lugduni Batavorum et Hagae Comitum: apud Johannem Arnoldum Langerak, P. Gosse, et J. Neaulme; Rutg. Christoph. Alberts, J. Vander Kloot, 1728. URL: Burm. 1731 = editio Burmanni = Burmannus, Petrus (Pieter Burman). Poetae Latini Minores, Tom. I. Leidae: apud Conradum Wishoff et Danielem Goedval, 1731. URL: t = ed. Mitaviensis = Anonymous. M. Aurelii Olympii Nemesiani Eclogae IV et T. Calpurnii Siculi Eclogae VII ad Nemesianum Carthaginiensem, cum notis selectis Titii, Martelli, Ulitii, et Petri Burmanni integris. Mitaviae: apud Jacob. Frider. Hinzium, 1774. URL: . Wernsd. = ed. Wernsdorfii = Wernsdorf, Iohannes Christianus. Poetae Latini Minores, Tomus Secundus. Altenburgi: ex officina Richteria, 1780. URL: Beck = Beck, Christian Daniel. T. Calpurnii Siculi Eclogae XI. Lipsiae: in libraria Weidmannia, 1803. URL: Glaeser = Glaeser, C. E. T. Calpurnii Siculi Eclogae. Gottingae: sumptibus Dieterichianis, 1842. URL: Baehr. = ed. Baehrensii = Baehrens, Aemilius. Poetae Latini Minores, Volumen III. Lipsiae: in aedibus B. G. Teubneri, 1881. URL: Schenkl = utriusque edition. Schenkl. consensus Schenkl1 = Schenkl, Henricus. Calpurnii et Nemesiani Bucolica. Lipsiae: sumptus fecit G. Freytag, 1885. URL Schenkl2 = Schenkl, Henricus. T. Calpurni Siculi Bucolica in Postgate 1905: 197–205. URL: Keene = Keene, Charles Haines. The Eclogues of Calpurnius Siculus and M. Aurelius Olympius Nemesianus. London: Bell, 1887. URL: Giarratano = Giarratano, Caesar. Calpurnii et Nemesiani Bucolica. Neapoli: apud Detken et Rocholl, 1910. Secondary Sources Baehr. 1870 = Baehrens, Emil. Lectiones Latinae. Bonn: Carolus Georgus, 1870. . Baehrens 1872 = Baehrens, Emil "Zu Calpurnius." Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 27 (1872): 186. URL: Barth 1624 = Barth, Kaspar von. Adversariorum Commentariorum Libri LX. Francofurti: Typis Wechelianis, apud Danielem & Davidem Aubrios, & Clementem Schleichium, 1624. URL: . Barth 1650 = Barth, Kaspar von. Cl. Claudiani, Principum, Heroumque Poetae Praegloriosissimi, Quae Extant Francofurti: apud Joannem Naumannum bibliop. Hamburgensem, 1650. URL: . Bartholinus = Bartholinus, Thomas. De Luce animalium libri III. Lugdunum Batavorum: Ex officina F. Hackii, 1647. URL: . Bergk = Bergk, Theodor. "Philologische Thesen." Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 20 (1865): 288–92. URL: Brantsma = Brantsma, Pieter. Specimen Observationum. Franequerae: s.n., 1772. Buecheler 1860 = Buecheler, Franz. "Coniectanea critica (in Plautum, Pervigilium Veneris, Theocritum)." Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 15 (1860): 428–57. URL: Buecheler 1871 = Buecheler, Franz. "Zur Höfische Poesie Unter Nero." Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 26 (1871): 235–40. URL: . Buecheler 1907 = Buecheler, Franz. "Grammatica et Epigraphica." Glotta 1 (1907): 1–9. URL: . Burm. 1759 = Burmannus, Petrus. Anthologia Veterum Latinorum Epigrammatum et Poematum: sive Catalecta Poetarum Latinorum in VI Libros Digesta. Amstelodami: ex officina Schouteniana, 1759. URL: . Kannegieter = Cannegieter, Hendrik. Flavii Aviani Fabulae. Amstelodami: apud Martinum Schagen, 1731. URL: Carrio = Carrion, Louis. Emendationum et Observationum Libri duo 1.2. Lutetiae: Beysius, 1583. Chytil = Chytil, Franz. "Der Eklogendichter T. Calpurnius Siculus und seine Vorbilder." Jahresbericht des k. k. Gymnasiums in Znaim 1893–94: 3–24. URL: . Dempster = Dempster, Thomas. De Etruria regali libri VII. Florentiae: apud J.C. Tartinium et Sanctem Franchium, 1723. URL: . de Rooy = de Rooy, Antonius. Spicilegia Critica. Dordraci: typis Petri van Braam, 1771. URL: . Ellis = Ellis, Robinson. Review of ‘Calpurnii et Nemesiani Bucoloca Recensuit Henricus Schenkl, Lipsiae, G. Freytag, Pragae, F. Tempsky, 1885’ American Journal of Philology 7 (1886): 88–91. URL: . Erasmus = Erasmus, Desiderius. Opera Omnia Emendatiora et Auctiora, Tomus Secundus: Complectens Adagia. Lugdunum Batavorum: cura et impensis Petri Lander Aa, 1703. . Fabricius = Fabricius, Johann Albert. Bibliotheca Latina, Tomus III. Lipsiae: apud Weidmanni Heredes et Reichium, 1774. . Forbiger = Forbiger, Albert. P. Virgilii Maronis Opera. Lipsiae: I. C. Hinrichs, 1845. URL: . Friesemann = Friesemann, Hendrik. Collectanea critica. Amstelodami: apud Petrum den Hengst, 1786. URL: . Fritzsche = Fritzsche, Franz Volkmar. "De Eclogis Calpurnianis." Jahresbericht der grossherzoglichen Gymnasium Fridericianum zu Schwerin. (1903): 3–19. URL: . Gebauer = Gebauer, Gustavus Adolphus. De poetarum Græcorum bucolicorum imprimis Theocriti carminibus in eclogis a Vergilio adumbratis. Particula 1. Lipsiae: Hermann Mendelssohn, 1860. URL: . Gebhard = Gebhard, Janus. Crepundiorum, seu Iuvenilium Curarum Libri Tres. Hanoviae: Wechelianis, apud Haeredes Ioannis Aubrii, 1615. URL: . Gronov. 1637 = Gronovius, Johannes Fredericus. In Papinii Statii Silvarum Libros V. Diatribe ad Th. Graswinckelium. Hagae-Comitis: ex officina Theodori Maire, 1637. . Gronov. 1755 = Gronovius, Johannes Fredericus. Observationes: Libri IV. Lipsiae: Iohannes Fridericus Iahn, 1755. . Lucas = Lucas, Hans. "Zu Calpurnius." Wiener Studien 22 (1901): 139–40. URL: . Haupt 1854. Haupt, Moriz. De Carminibus Bucolicis Calpurnii et Nemesiani. Berolini: Typis Academicis, 1854. URL: . Haupt 1874 Haupt, Moriz. "Coniectanea." Hermes 8 (1874): 177–83, 241–56. URL: . Heins. in Her.. Heinsius, Nicolaus. Notae in Heroidas P. Ovidii Nasonis. s.l.: s.n. 1661. URL: . Heins. ad Claud. = Heinsius, Nicolaus. Claudii Claudiani Opera. Amstelodami: ex officina Elzeviriana, 1665. URL: . Heraldus = Heraldus, Desiderius. Adversariorum Libri Duo. Parisiis: apud Ieremiam Perier, 1599. URL: . G. Hermann = Hermannus, Godofredus. Bionis et Moschi Carmina. Lipsiae: apud Weidmannos, 1849. URL: . Hoeufft, Hoeufft, Jacob Hendrik. Pericula poëtica. s.l.: s.n., 1783. URL: . Housman 1902 Housman, A. E.. "Virgil and Calpurnius." Classical Review 16.5 (1902): 281–82. URL: Housman 1903 = Housman, A.E. M. Manilii Astronomicon, Liber Primus. Londinii: apud Grant Richards, 1903. . Jacoby = Jacoby, Karl. Review of ‘Calpurnii et Nemesiani Bucolica recensuit Henricus Schenkl, Lipsiae, G. Freytag, Pragae, F. Tempsky, 1885’. Wochenschrift für klassiche Philologie 3 (1886): 1287–94. URL: . Iustus = Iustus, Petrus Paulus. Specimen Observationum Criticarum. Viennae: Typis Ioannis Thomae de Trattnern, 1765. . Leo = Leo, F. Review of ‘Calpurni et Nemesiani bucolica, recensuit Henricus Schenkl. Lipsiae (A. Freitag) et Pragae (F. Tempsky) 1885. LXXII, 130 SS. 8’. Zeitschrift für die österreichischen Gymnasien 36 (1885): 611–21. Maehly = Mähly, Jacob Achilles. Der Oedipus Coloneus des Sophocles Anhang enthaltend Beiträge zu Calpurnius und Nemesianus. Basel: Hugo Richter, 1868. URL: . Magnus = Magnus, Hugo. Review of ‘Poetae Latini Minores rec. et em. Aemilius Baehrens. Vol. III. Lipsiae. B.G. Teubner 1881’. Philologische Wochenschrift 2.26 (1882): 810–13. URL: . Modius = Modius, Franciscus. Novantiquae lectiones. Froncofurti: apud heredes Andreae Wecheli, 1584. URL: . Mueller = Müller, Lucian. Review of ‘Calpurnii et Nemesiani Bucolica Recensuit Henricus Schenkl, Lipsiae, G. Freytag, Pragae, F. Tempsky, 1885’. Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift 5 (1885): 1065–73. URL: Nodell = Nodell, Jan Adam. Flavii Aviani Fabulae ad MS. CD. Collatae.. Amstelodami: apud Petrum den Hengst, 1787. . Postgate = Postgate, John Percival. "Some Suggestions on Calpurnius Siculus." The Classical Review 15.4 (1901): 213–14. URL: . Salmasius 1620 = Salmasius, Claudius. Historiae Augustae Scriptores VI. Parisiis: s.n., 1620. . Salmasius 1656 = Salmasius, Claudius. Epistolarum Liber Primus. Lugduni Batavorum: Ex typographoa Adriani Wyngaerden, 1656. . Sarpe = Sarpe, Gustav Cristoph. Quaestiones Philologicae. Rostochii: litteris Adlerianis, 1819. URL: . Spanheim = Spanheim, Ezechiel. Dissertationes De Praestantia et Usu Numismatum Antiquorum. Londini: impensis Richard Smith, 1717. URL: . Swartius = Swartius, Eustachius. Analectorum Libri III. Lugdunum Batavorum: apud Ludovicum Elzevirium, 1616. URL: . Tross = Tross, Ludovicus. Observationum Criticarum in Scriptores Nonnullos Latinos Libellus Prior. Hammone: sumptibus auctoris, 1828. URL: . Voss = Voss, Johann Heinrich. Des Publius Virgilius Maro Ländliche Gedichte. Altona: Johann Friedrich Hammerich, 1797. URL: . Wakefield = Wakefield, Gilbert. Silva Critica, Sive in Auctores Sacros Profanosque Commentarius Philologus. Cantabrigiae: typis academicis excudebat J. Archdeacon, ubi veneunt apud J. & J. Merrill 1789. Wilamowitz = Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Ulrich von. Coniectanea. Göttingen: Dieterich’sche Druckerei, 1884. URL: . Scholars Cited by Name Argol. = Giovanni Argoli Notes published in Onuphrii Panvinii, De Ludis Circensibus, Libri II. Patavii: Typis Petri Marie Frambotti Bibliop., 1681. URL: Ascensius = Josse Badius Ascensius Editor of s. Brodaeus = Jean Brodeau Notes on Calpurnius cited in Gruterus, Janus. Lampas, sive Fax Artium Liberalium, Tomus Quartus. Francofurti: e Collegio Paltheniano, Sumptibus Ionae Rhodii Bibliopola 1604. URL: Bursian = Conrad Bursian Haupt Haupt notes that he used Bursian’s collation of a manuscript in Naples. D’Orville = Jacques-Philippe d’Orville Cited in Burman 1731 Casaub. = Isaac Casaubon Cited in Burman 1731 Fruterius = Lucas Fruterius Barth 1613 Barth 1613 cites content from the third book of Fruterius’ “Coniect. Verisim.", which is no longer extant. Hartel = G. Hartel Schenkl cites Hartel’s unpublished opinions. Gudius = Marquard Gude Cited in Burman 1731. Guid. = Diomedes Guidalotti Commentary in b, notes in h. Heins. = Nicolaus Heinsius Cited in Burman 1731. Housman = A. E. Housman Housman had personal communication with Giarratano. Kempfer = Gerard Kempher Cited in h Lachmann = Karl Lachmann In Johannes Vahlen, Karl Lachmanns Briefe an Moriz Haupt. Berlin: Druck und Verlag von Georg Reimer, 1892. URL: . Lipsius = Justus Lipsius Cited in Burman 1731. Martell. = Ugolino Martelli Cited in h Oudendorp = Frans van Oudendorp Cited in Burman 1759 Ramorino = Felice Ramorino Ramorino’s personal communication with Giarratano Scaliger = Joseph-Juste Scaliger Cited in Burman 1731. C. Schenkl = Karl Schenkl Unpublished opinions cited in Schenkl’s editions. Scriver. = Pieter Schrijver Scriverius Cited in Burman 1731. Schraeder = ? Schraeder Scholar cited by Brantsma Tit. = Robertus Titius Editor of i2 ; notes in h. Tortell. = Giovanni Tortelli Cited in Guidalotti 1504. Victor Vigilius = Victor Vigilius Barth 1613 Pseudonym used by Kaspar von Barth in his notes to suggest conjectures that he is not prepared to print in his text. Wolf = Johann Christoph Wolf Cited in Burman 1731. Other abbreviations used in this edition edd. = editiones: All editions not explicitly referenced elsewhere in an entry in the apparatus. cod./codd. = codex/codices: Manuscript(s) not explicitly referenced elsewhere in an entry in the apparatus.
next