MANILIUS IN SCALIGER'S CORRESPONDENCE

uetere codice collato. Qui et ipse non tanti momenti est.' (xiv Kal. Apr. 1597-)

(I deduce the year from the reference to the receipt of Casaubon's Suetonius, comparing the letter to Casaubon, P. 157 init.)

S. i. 242. Scaliger writes to Lipsius that he has been for two months preparing a second edition of Manilius, employing G. He asks for Carrio's collation of G. (vi Id. Mart. 1598.)

E. 165-6. Scaliger writes to Casaubon about Junius' Variae Lectiones and the second edition of Manilius. (xvi Kal. Apr. 1598.)

E. 167. Item; but Junius not mentioned. Jun. 1598.)

(xvii Kal. E. 173-4. Another letter of Scaliger to Casaubon about Junius. Manilius ed. ii is already printing. (iii Id. Oct. 1598.)

E. 357. Scaliger to Velser: Id nos explicamus alibi.' Colo mesius, Clavis (Opusc. 1659) explains this as a reference to Manilius. (xiii Kal. Feb. 1599.)

C. 208. Casaubon writes to Scaliger: Manilium tuum edi fama ad nos peruenit.' (vi Kal. Aug. 1599.)

S. 242: no. 239. Scaliger sends Lipsius a copy of his second edition ('Virbius'). (Sept. 30, 1599.)

E. 177. Scaliger sends his second edition ("Virbius') to Casaubon. (xii Kal. Oct. 1599.)

R. 116. J. Gillot writes to Scaliger: 'Nous attendrons donc vostre Manile.' (Sine anno; but the reference in the letter to Daniel's Virgil, combined with a comparison of C. 208, above, and R. 137, 491, following, fix the date as Aug. to Nov. 1599.)

R. 137. H. de Monanthveil thanks Scaliger for a copy of the second edition received through Gillot. (Nov. 29, 1599.)

R. 491. Rigault thanks Scaliger for a copy of the second edition received through Gillot. (Nov. 30, 1599.)

II

OTHER MSS. AND AN ATTEMPTED

CLASSIFICATION

'Sed ante omnes is scriptor qui nunc Manilius perhibetur iratis librariis natus est.'-BENTLEY, Letter to P. Burmann.

I will speak first of four lost MSS.

2

1. Codex Politiani. A certain Pietro Leoni, a professor of medicine in Padua,1 showed to Politian in 1491 a MS. of Manilius which Politian pronounces 'as old as any codex he had ever seen'. Politian carried this off (one hopes with Leoni's leave, but the morals of Renaissance scholars in such matters were lax) to Venice, where he collated it with a printed text, which must have been one of six texts-Regiomontanus, ed. Bononiensis, the two Naples editions, Bonincontrius, Dulcinius. Somewhere in one of the libraries of Europe there still perhaps lies, awaiting discovery, the copy (of one of these six texts) in which Politian made his collation. The finding of this volume would be an event of incalculable importance for Manilian criticism. For Sabbadini, who has studied with great care the language which Politian uses in describing other MSS., speaks of the date of the Paduan codex thus: 'Se di Manilio dice "che io per me non ne viddi più antiqui", bisognerà credere che fosse in maiuscolo o communque anteriore al sec. ix.'

3

It is tempting to identify this MS. with the codex (I will call it a) of which I have already spoken as 'lying behind our archetype' -the source of the true readings peculiar to G. a can scarcely have been later, and from its excellent readings may well have

1 It was at Padua that Politian saw this MS., not at Mantua, as Mr. Clark says, by an error, in C. R., xx, p. 227.

2 The Venice edition did not appear until after Politian's death.

3 According to Sabbadini, Scoperte, pp. 169-70, 'uetustissimus', in Politian's usage, is an epithet reserved for MSS. prior to saec. ix.

4 Le Scoperte dei Codici Latini e Greci ne' secoli XIV e XV, p. 170. On the whole subject cf. ib., pp. 154-5, 169-70.

been earlier than the tenth century. And we have no hint of any other MS. of Manilius of such an antiquity. Traube1 finds the provenance of G and Z in Lorraine. Whence Leoni's MS. came to him is beyond conjecture. It is noticeable that he was a doctor of medicine, since in so many of our MSS. (URV H Caes.) Manilius is bound up with medical treatises.

That Politian's MS. cannot be identified with A—the Poggian original-will be obvious to any one who has read what I have said about A on pp. xxv sqq., and who will further trouble to read the section upon the Madrid MSS., M 31 and X 81.

2

6

2. Codex Pithoeanus. All that has hitherto been known-or at any rate related—of this MS. is just so much as is to be found in the Praefatio to Bentley's edition: Usus est praeterea codice P. Pithoei, cuius uarias lectiones in margine editionis primae Bononiensis uidit: hic quasi medius est inter uetustos illos (GL Venetus) et recentiores et in plurimis convenit cum Vossiano.' I think I am in a position to add something to our knowledge of this lost codex, and to convict the Praefatio of Bentley's edition, i. e. Bentley's nephew, of error. Two letters of Bentley (xvii and xviii, ed. 1842, pp. 36-7) deal with this MS. Bentley writes to the Rev. Dr. E. Bernard, living in Holywell, Oxford, thus: 'Among Sir Edward's (i.e. Sherburne's) papers I find the collationes ex Mto Cod. Pithoei upon the first book : this, he tells me, he borrowed of you, being Scaliger's edition with those variations in the margin. I find by what Sir Edward hath transcribed that it was no very old book, being of the last rate of books, equal to the Codex Palatinus, that of C. C. C. and your own3 in 4o, and those from whence the first editions were printed; the second rate is an Italian MS. whose variations are written by Is. Vossius in the Bononian edition: this I call a young Gemblacensis it confirms the Gemb. in hundreds of places for which before we had but one witness' (p. 36). It is, surely, clear that the Codex Pithoei is a MS. quite distinct from the MS. referred to in the portion of this letter which I have italicized. Codex Pithoei and the 'young Gemblacensis' are two quite different MSS. But Bentley's nephew, misunderstanding this letter, has supposed them to be one and the same. The 'young Gemblacensis' is the MS. of which I shall speak

1 Philologus, 1907, p. 122.

...

i. e. the Bodleian MS.; see below, p. xlvi.

presently as

Vossianus tertius'. Letter xviii of Bentley throws a fuller light on the Codex Pithoei. The facts seem to be these. Sherburne had lent to Bentley his collation of Codex Pithoei for Book I, or rather his copy of Pithou's collation. Pithou's collation (not Pithou's MS.) was in Bernard's possession. It was a collation in ' a printed edition (he, sc. Sherburne, thinks Scaliger's in quarto) with those variations in it manu Pithoei' (p. 37). Now in the Bodleian Library (Linc. D. 5. 13) there is a copy of Scaliger's second edition (Leyden, 1600) which once belonged to Pierre Pithou. On the front page is written 'P. Pithoei Luyerii'. The volume contains a collation of some unnamed MS., and at the foot of p. 131 there is a subscriptio: 'collatus cum MS., Calendis Iuliis MDCXIII. Tricassib. Pithou.' MDCXIII is clearly a blunder for MDXIIIC, for Pithou died in 1596.1 (The fact that this collation was made at Troyes (Tricassibus)-where Pithou was born and where he retired to die-makes it likely that the MS. was his private property.) This Bodleian collation may be supposed, I think, to be the same as that used by Bernard, Sherburne, and Bentley. The affinity of Pithoeanus with other MSS. is easily discerned. The Codex Cusanus (a copy, probably of Z) omits III. 188, IV. 235, 312, 746. All these verses are omitted also by the Codex Marcianus; but in Marcianus (which has been revised with some MS. of the M family) they are all added in the margin, with the exception of IV. 312. Now the Codex Pithoeanus contained all these verses in its text save IV. 312. The same is true of Vat. 5160, Pal. Par. Monac. All five MSS., therefore, may be regarded as descendants of the Codex Marcianus tinctured in varying degrees with the M tradition. It was not worth my while to examine the readings of the Pithoeanus throughout. But

2

1 Strangely enough, Pithou makes a similar blunder in an Antwerp edition (1567) of Maximianus mentioned by Ellis, C. R., 1901, p. 369 b: 'contuli cum MS. Puteanorum fratrum Lutetiae MDCxı Kal. Sep. Petrus Pithoeus.' Scaliger, Epist., 1627, p. 158, mentions Pithou's death as occurring in November, 1596.

2 P. Pithou seems to have had a MS. of Manilius in his possession in 1573. Tamizey de Larroque in his Lettres françaises inédites de Joseph Scaliger (Paris, 1881) publishes two letters of Scaliger (iii-iv, pp. 21 and 26), dated 1573, to P. Pithou, in which Scaliger says that he learns from François Pithou that Pierre has an ancient MS. of Manilius. He asks for the loan of this. But I cannot anywhere find that he received it. The Latin letters to Pithou in the 1627 edition contain no reference to Manilius at all.

3 See Thielscher, Rh. Mus., 1907, p. 485.

I compared its readings carefully with those which Thielscher has recorded from Marcianus. I was at first half inclined to identify the two MSS., but certain discrepancies proved too strong for this hypothesis. So closely do the two agree, however, that I have little doubt but that Pithoeanus is derived from Marcianus or some copy of Marcianus. Further, it is possible that Par. is descended from Pithoeanus. It agrees with Pithoeanus in omitting III. 370.1

3. Vossianus tertius. The Bodleian Library possesses a copy (Auct. O. 5. 17) of the editio Bononiensis, containing a collation of that text with some MS. of Manilius designated V. This copy bears on the fly-leaf in faded letters the name 'Isaaci Vossii '. The readings in this collation correspond in detail with those of no known MS. Yet they reveal sufficiently the cognation of the MS. from which they are taken. This MS. omitted all the lines omitted by the Cusanus, and may therefore be regarded as descended from that MS.; see below. In addition it omitted the whole of IV. 10-320 (sic). In GL IV. 10-313 are transposed to follow III. 399. Nothing is said in the collation of any transposition at III. 399, and we may conclude therefore that in V (for so, I think, we are entitled to designate this MS.) an attempt had already been made to rectify the disorder: an attempt, however, which resulted in the complete loss not only of IV. 10-313, but of the seven following lines in addition. Other peculiarities of V3 are that it omits II. 716-17 (which are also not found in the Palatinus) and V. 335. At II. 592 it has mortique locatur, and reads at IV. 745 gelidum tepidi per tempora ueris. At I. 916 it omits alea, but a late hand has written in Leucas.2

3

Ellis in the Introduction to his Noctes Manilianae mentions this Bodleian collation. He says of it, however, mistakenly, that it is a collation of V. That this is impossible is clear from what I have already said—particularly from the lacuna IV. 10–320. But 1 and 3 are very twins none the less.

The Bodleian contains yet another collation of V3 made with the text of Scaliger's first edition, Paris, 1579 (Auct. S. 5. 29).

1 Omitted also by M: on the significance of this omission see Thielscher, 1. c. His explanation applies also to II. 524 om. M Cus. (independently). 2 The titulus to Lib. II 'M. Manili mathematici' shows that V3 is not wholly free from the Italian' influence.

3 p. xi.