This article addresses the relationships between the correctors of the three main manuscripts of Cicero’s Lucullus (BAV), to establish whether there are traces of independent traditions or rather, as it is believed, of horizontal contamination. Firstly, the status quaestionis on the stemma of the Corpus Leidense and the dates of the manuscripts is outlined, highlighting the problematic position of A and V as twins, supposed by most editors. The article then analyses the methods of correction of “Hadoard” – to whom we owe the BA phases and the descriptus F – and of Lupus with V. It is shown that in some loci Lupus also could have used the collation of a lost manuscript (Vm). Finally, concerning the F>V contamination postulated by Schmidt, the approximately 170 correspondences prove in fact to be orthographic corrections and/or good conjectures, independent products of the ingenium of both scholars. Moreover, the 13 residual erroneous coincidences prove to be polygenetic, while in no case does Lupus seem to have had the integrations to V present in F at his disposal. In the evaluation of the horizontal contamination, in conclusion, we must not be misled by the numerical data and recognise that the Carolingian correctors could have independently produced the same interventions and the same corrections in the text.

Lupo e “Adoardo” nel Lucullus di Cicerone: congetture carolinge e tradizioni perdute nel Corpus Leidense?

Ermanno Malaspina
2020-01-01

Abstract

This article addresses the relationships between the correctors of the three main manuscripts of Cicero’s Lucullus (BAV), to establish whether there are traces of independent traditions or rather, as it is believed, of horizontal contamination. Firstly, the status quaestionis on the stemma of the Corpus Leidense and the dates of the manuscripts is outlined, highlighting the problematic position of A and V as twins, supposed by most editors. The article then analyses the methods of correction of “Hadoard” – to whom we owe the BA phases and the descriptus F – and of Lupus with V. It is shown that in some loci Lupus also could have used the collation of a lost manuscript (Vm). Finally, concerning the F>V contamination postulated by Schmidt, the approximately 170 correspondences prove in fact to be orthographic corrections and/or good conjectures, independent products of the ingenium of both scholars. Moreover, the 13 residual erroneous coincidences prove to be polygenetic, while in no case does Lupus seem to have had the integrations to V present in F at his disposal. In the evaluation of the horizontal contamination, in conclusion, we must not be misled by the numerical data and recognise that the Carolingian correctors could have independently produced the same interventions and the same corrections in the text.
2020
16
2
251
288
Cicero, Lucullus, Lupo di Ferrières, Hadoardus di Corbie, tradizione manoscritta, correzioni medievali, copisti
Ermanno Malaspina
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Malaspina_131_Lupo_Adoardo_RaRe_2020.pdf

Open Access dal 01/01/2024

Descrizione: Lupo e Adoardo
Tipo di file: PDF EDITORIALE
Dimensione 484.16 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
484.16 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2318/1768118
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact