The Classical Review http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR
Additional services for The Classical Review:
Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here
Onions' Nonius Marcellus [ Nonius Marcellus de Conpendiosa Doctrina i.—iii., edited with Introduction and Critical Apparatus by the late J. H. Onions, M.A., Student of Christ Church, Oxford. Oxford (Clar. Press), 1895. (10/6). (Pp. xxvi. and 298.)]
W. M. Lindsay
The Classical Review / Volume 9 / Issue 07 / October 1895, pp 356 - 358 DOI: 10.1017/S0009840X00202369, Published online: 27 October 2009
Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0009840X00202369
How to cite this article: W. M. Lindsay (1895). The Classical Review, 9, pp 356-358 doi:10.1017/ S0009840X00202369
Request Permissions : Click here
Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR, IP address: 138.251.14.35 on 07 May 2015 356 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW.
ONIONS' NONIUS MARCELLTJS.
[Nonius Marcellus de Conpendiosa Doetrina of judgment has provided us with a text i.—iii., edited with Introduction and Critical which can be accepted with confidence. Apparatus by the late J. H. Onions, M.A., Student of Christ Church, Oxford. Oxford (Clar. Press), The passages marked with an obelus as 1895. (10/6). (Pp. xxvi. and 298.)] hopelessly corrupt are very few, and might possibly with safety be made still fewer;* 1 THIS book, long looked for, has come at and the careful examination in the intro- last. Since his collation of the Harleian duction into the value of the several MSS. Nonius in 1882, Mr. Onions was known to and their relationship to each other con- be engaged on a great edition, based on a cludes with a statement of the rules to be personal collation of all the older MSS., of followed in constructing the text, which the Oompendiosa Doetrina, that fourth shows the reader that he has firm ground century treatise on early Latin words and under his feet. constructions in which is preserved for us On pp. xvii.—xix. of the introduction it almost all that we possess of the lost works is proved beyond, I think, possibility of of early Latin literature, dramatic, epic, doubt that the Harleian codex H (H1, not satirical and historical. The large German H2) is a copy of the Laurentian F ; further, edition of Prof. Lucian Mueller (2 vols., that the Escurial codex from book ii. p. 130 Leipzig, 1888), which appeared meanwhile, M. to the end of book iii. is another copy of did not satisfy him. In two articles in the the Laurentian. We must, I think, add Classical Review (1888 and 1889) he that the Laurentian itself (F1 F2, not F3) is criticized it severely on two grounds, nothing but a copy of the Leyden codex L. excessive love of conjectural emendation, The following evidence seems of itself and insufficient MS. material. Prof. Muel- sufficient to establish this :— ler's collations, he showed, were made by In 230 M. 30 L has, with the other MSS., other hands and were of varying value, that cyeno, but the word is so written as to look of L by Prof. Zangemeister being extremely very like crono. F has orono. good, those of V and A 'far from trust- In 231. 22 L has fupidius (for Fufidius), worthy,' while of the older MSS. FP and but so written as to be indistinguishable all but one of the extract-MSS. (ACXDMO) from stipidius. F has stipidius. had not been collated. The importance of the omission in the case of F he demon- In 66. 14 L has leucotea corrected by strated by showing that this codex contains superscription of a somewhat large h to kuco- corrections (F3) throughout books i.—iii. tliea, and above this in Greek uncial letters taken from a lost 'codex optimus' and A€YKO66A, the superscribed h coming therefore of the utmost value. Only one immediately under and between the O and MS., the Escurial, remained to be collated 9. F2 has ACYKOHeCA (in rasura), by Mr. Onions at his untimely death in mistaking the h for Greek Eta, and referring 1889. It was collated by me in the it to the word above instead of to the word following spring; and now, after a regret- below. table delay of six years, that portion of the In 67. 23 L has prolaterios with trans- Compendiosa Doetrina which he left ready for position-marks (like acute accents) above a the press is given to the world. It comprises and e, thus correcting the word to prole- books i.—iii., about one third of the whole tarios. F {i.e. F1, for F3 corrects the work. For the rest, books iv.—xx., a full mistake) has understood the marks to apply critical apparatus had been prepared, but (as they usually do) to the syllables, not to the text had been written out for a part of the single letters, and gives jrrotelarios. book iv. only. A careful examination of L, which has The mere fact that this edition is the been by the kindness of Dr. du Rieu, the first to avail itself of the readings of a lost Leyden librarian, sent for a time to the • codex optimus' is sufficient to make it Bodleian Library, has convinced me that indispensable to all students of Nonius (and 1 E.g. 39 M. 26 omit me; 79. 1 transpose nequid all who study the earlier Latin literature or and inprimis; 88. 27 and 31 (stent); 92. 7 change grammar must be students of Nonius), but, ultra to citra; 95. 6 read indapalis cena; 96. 14 apart from that, it will be found on every read pardbis tantum; 106. 24 read with Gellius sensibus; 171. 15 change puluere mitieo to pSlubro page that Mr. Onions' characteristically mystico (ptS-lubrum from p8-, Gk. Siro, of pV-silus, English adherence to the MSS, and sobriety p8-lio, etc. and law). THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 357 this view is correct. What seems to con- least weight to the extract-MSS., though flict with it is that F1 in, I think, two1 he shows that for the first ten pages (to 11 instances, and F2 in four, add words which M. 3 covficerei) three of these (ACX) come are not found in L, viz. :— from a lost MS. of great correctness, and 41. 7 quam congugetn (sic) F1 (in a most weight to F3, of which he says ' This passage of Cicero de Off.). source is by far the best; and its corrections 105. 17 in suos F1 (from Cicero Cato). are almost invariably to be adopted.' With 125. 26 odere F2 (in a line of Virgil). this estimate few will disagree. 169. 25 ille F2 (in a line of Virgil). The history of the MSS. I take to have 185. 13 ab nalura F2 (from Sallust Jug.). been something like this. At the .Revival 188. 2 ac saltuatim F2 (in a passage of Letters under Charlemagne, Nonius which is quoted shortly before by Nonius, Marcellus was recommended to monastery p. 168 M. 10). libraries as a useful dictionary of Early These instances, which probably deterred Latin, and a copy of a MS. of the whole of Mr. Onions from accepting the dependence his works was sent from monastery to of F on L, do not seem to me strong monastery that other copies might be taken enough to stand against the great mass of of it. This MS. was possibly from England proof on the other side. (See, for example, (witness the frequent confusion of n and r) the passages quoted on p. xvi. of the intro- and had lost a leaf containing book xvi. duction.) They may be used as arguments Another leaf (with book iv. pp. 406 M. 13 that another copy of Nonius besides L was ' —409 M. 14) was loose, and after the MS. used for occasional reference by the scribe had been for conveniences of copying of F, but I find no other evidence of this 2 divided into three parts, the first volume and prefer to give the scribes the credit of containing bks. i.—iii., the second bk. iv.,the supplying these omissions in L out of their third bks. v.—xx., this leaf which had own knowledge of Cicero and Virgil. fallen out was placed for safety after the first leaf of vol. i. instead of vol. ii., so that Our original authorities for the text are 4 thus reduced to (1) L, (2) H2V, and for all our MSS. have between p. 3 M. 13 and books i.—ii. med. PE, (3) the extract-MSS., 14 this passage of book iv. From these (4) F3. Mr. Onions, like Prof. Mueller, data, that the first leaf of the Archetype regards L (especially the first hand, L1) ES contained p. 1 M. 1—p. 3 M. 13 and our chief guide for orthography, and so another leaf pp. 406 M. 13—409 M. 14, prints the unassimilated form of the also that single lines, whose contents we preposition in compounds, e.g. inmitto, know, are on two occasions omitted (17 M. adpeto, etc. He does not however go with 5 and 133 M. 28), we may estimate that Prof. Mueller the length of printing the Archetype had some forty letters to the spellings of L like aput, set, etc. I found line, and in the page two columns of in his notes some indications of a partial twenty-five lines each. The most faithful admission of these spellings but not enough representative of the Archetype which we to justify me in altering the form of the possess is the Leyden codex, L, a 9th cent, text as he left it. For my own part it specimen of the calligraphy of Alcuin's school at Tours. The group PVE and the seems to me that aput, set and the like were 2 the spellings in the Archetype (cf. Class. corrections H come from a copy into which Rev. ii. p. 316). In the title Mr. Onions a large number of corrections had been writes De Conpendiosa Doctrina (cf. Class. entered, and these not taken from another Rev. iii. 300), not Compendiosa Doctrina, MS. but the arbitrary emendations of some and Tubursicensis (the MSS. have Tuburci- learned abbot, often right but more often and Tuburgi-3). For the text he gives wrong, and whose margins had been filled with glosses or rather indices to the 5 1 I need not add the line from Virgil, 229. 29, bis lemmas. P and E come from a copy of patet in praectps tantum, to which F1 adds t, the this emended text, into .which the scribe initial of the next word in Virgil's line tendit, and had entered the corrections only as far as F2 q.s.a. (que sub auras (!)). All the MSS. end at taTitum. F2 has a similar addition to another line of the middle of book ii. The scribe of P Virgil, 182. 28, rumpere et obductum uerbis uulgare, stayed his hand when he reached the end of where F2 adds d, the initial of dolor em. A glance closely connected in the first two books with P, has at Mr. Onions' critical apparatus for this line will -RG- is strong proof that this was the original show that the Archetype omitted dolorcm. spelling of P. 2 Of course one can be more certain about F1 than F2. 4 But not the original of F3, as Mr. Onions shows. 3 It seemed to me, when I saw the Paris MS. P, This may have been the Archetype itself. that there was little possibility of -RC- having been 5 These are used by Glossary-compilers of the the spelling of P*. The fact that E, a MS. so time (L. Mueller ii. pp. 270 sqq.). 358 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. this corrected portion ; and his fragmentary began by mistake with the second volume copy has since been curtailed by the loss of of the Archetype and did not retrieve his the last leaf. The scribe of E looked about error till he had finished his abridgment of for another corrected MS. (an uncorrected book iv., which accordingly comes first in MS. of Nonius was thought little of) and in DMO. The scribe of the original of ACX a happy moment secured F, which had began by writing out the text of Nonius in been previously used as an exemplar by the full, but after copying pp. 1—10 M. took scribe of the Harleian codex. Some other up the abridged version, and copied from learned abbot compiled an abridged edition it the rest of book i. and the whole of book of Nonius, to make the book more suitable ii.; then returned to his first exemplar for a dictionary, omitting Books iii. and ix. for books v.—xx. which are concerned with the genders and W. M. LINDSAY. cases, not the meanings, of words. He
SUDHAUS' EDITION OF PHILODEMUS.
Philodemi Volumina Rhetorica edidit DR. us. The editor apologizes for the boldness SIEGFRIED SUDHAUS, pp. Iii + 385. Leipzig of some of his conjectures by the sensible (Teubner) 1892. Vol. i, 4 marks. plea : est aliquid audendum ; liber legi posse debet. He acknowledges the help he has PHILODEMUS of Gadara, the Epicurean received from scholars like Buecheler, philosopher and epigrammatist, whom Cicero TJsener and Gomperz, and puts forth his attacks as a friend of Piso in his Speech first volume in the hope that many other in Pisonem (§§ 68, 70), and praises in the scholars may contribute towards the de Finibus (ii 119), is the author of more restoration of the text. than twenty treatises discovered at Her- Since the date of its publication, some- culaneum in 1752. The house in which thing has been done in this direction by they were found is usually called la villa di J. von Arnim in a Rostock program, and Pisone, partly because 'its site agrees with more by the editor himself, who has Cicero's statement that the residence of the examined the papyri at Naples, and Pisos was visible from his own villa at printed some of his results in the first Puteoli,'1 partly because most of the MSS part of the 53rd volume of Philologus were written by members of the Epicurean (1894). All that I can offer here is a few school, of which Piso was an adherent. remarks suggested by spending a single day The difficulty of unrolling and deciphering in the cursory perusal of the Teubner text. all these charred papyri was enormous, and P. 20, col. i—ii, as restored in Philologus, it was not until 1793 that the first volume of runs as follows : TeAos eori Trjs prjTopiKrj'; ov Herculanensia was published. It contained TO \6yu> Treidew • KO.1 yap 6 are^yoi irefflti /xiv, the treatise of Philodemus irep! (LOVO-IKTJS.ov TreiOei 8k pryropiKih'i aAAa StaAeKTiKtus ij This treatise has since been edited by KaTao-K£i>ao-riK(os, a>s KOX &pvvr) KTX. My Kemke (1884), while the philosophical object in citing this is simply to point out works of Philodemus, irepl evo-e/?eias, Trepl that, in the schools of rhetoric, Phryne opyrjs, irtpi 6a.va.Tov, irepl tnjii.ci<0v have been must have been a stock example of per- edited by Gomperz and others (1864—1886). suasion effected by non-rhetorical means. The fragments of a treatise vtpl Tronr)ii.aT