Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fw: BMCR 2005.11.18, Moreschini (ed.), Cicero, De finibus

Expand Messages
  • Edward Moore
    ... From: To: ; Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 12:38 PM Subject: BMCR 2005.11.18,
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 24, 2005
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: <owner-bmcr-l@...>
      To: <unlisted-recipients:>; <no To-header on input>
      Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 12:38 PM
      Subject: BMCR 2005.11.18, Moreschini (ed.), Cicero, De finibus

      > C. Moreschini (ed.), M. Tullius Cicero, Fasc. 43: De finibus bonorum et
      > malorum. Bibliotheca Teubneriana. Munich and Leipzig: K.G. Saur,
      > 2005. Pp. xviii, 215. ISBN 3-598-71280-4. EUR 84.00.
      > Reviewed by Andrew R. Dyck, University of California, Los Angeles
      > Word count: 3430 words
      > -------------------------------
      > To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
      > http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2005/2005-11-18.html
      > -------------------------------
      > As recently as 1983 R.H. Rouse wrote "there is no adequate edition"
      > (sc. of De finibus).[[1]] In the meantime the late L.D. Reynolds
      > published his OCT.[[2]] When I reviewed it (this journal 2000.07.21), I
      > would have been surprised to be told that another major series of
      > classical texts would sponsor yet another edition within a few years;
      > after all, 70 years separated Reynolds' text from Martha's Bude/
      > edition. Nor, though he once wrote an article on the manuscript
      > tradition of Fin. (see below), would one necessarily have predicted C.
      > Moreschini (hereafter M.) as the new editor, since he is known for work
      > on (mostly Greek) patristics and late Latin, rather than Cicero. In
      > spite of Reynolds, M. has brought to completion a project begun more
      > than twenty years ago, spurred on by Scevola Mariotti, to whose shade
      > this volume is dedicated (p.XV).
      > The volume consists of a preface (still in Latin in the Teubners)
      > expounding the editor's view of the relations of witnesses, a
      > conspectus codicum, a conspectus editionum, then the Latin text with
      > critical apparatus and between the two an apparatus supplying
      > references for passages cited in the text and the indirect tradition.
      > The lines of each Book are numbered continuously; in the following I
      > cite the text by these numbers. An index of sources compiled by G.
      > Duursma and an index of proper names conclude the volume. One misses a
      > list of secondary works cited such as is provided in most Teubner
      > editions and OCTs these days; instead M. provides references within the
      > critical apparatus. But there are lapses; thus one must have recourse
      > to Reynolds to discover publication details for Faber, cited by M. in
      > the apparatus to 3.344, or H.F. Nissen, cited on 5.253-6.
      > To begin with the Praefatio: this is, as M. candidly admits (pp.V and
      > XIII), mostly a Latin summary of a paper he wrote on the subject in
      > 1987.[[3]] Hence the fairly detailed discussion of the manuscripts used
      > by such older editors as Madvig, Baiter, Schiche, and Martha. But the
      > elephant in the room is, of course, Reynolds; one would have expected
      > an editor publishing this text within a few years to offer a detailed
      > discussion of this predecessor in order to make the case that a new
      > edition is needed. In fact, however, Reynolds' work is discussed in two
      > paragraphs (pp.XIII-XIV) describing some of the differences but merely
      > asserting rather than arguing for M.'s approach. Nor does M. do
      > Reynolds full justice when he describes his contribution as lying in an
      > accurate list of earlier editions, in the selection of conjectures and
      > in drawing up a clear stemma codicum (to which M. opposes his own
      > stemma).
      > The analysis of the tradition by M. and Reynolds differs in several
      > respects. The main witnesses to the text, namely A (Vat. Pal. lat.
      > 1513, 11th cen.), B (Vat. Pal. lat. 1525 of 1467), and E (Erlangen 618,
      > written in 1466), have been known and used by editors since the
      > nineteenth century. These three are grouped together by M. as one
      > branch of the bipartite tradition, whereby A has a direct line to the
      > hyparchetype, alpha, whereas B and E derive from a posited intermediary
      > (beta). Reynolds, however, sees B and E as forming a branch of the
      > tradition (which he designates phi) separate from the other witnesses
      > and cites (p.x of his edition) a number of errors in support of that
      > view; one would have liked to see M. explain why he rejects this
      > classification.
      > Another difference between M. and Reynolds is in the treatment of P
      > (Paris. lat. 6331, 12th cen.): Reynolds groups it with another
      > 12th-century codex, R (Leidensis Gronovianus 21), which has been
      > studied in detail by Magnaldi.[[4]] M., however, separates P from R and
      > combines P instead with a group of 13th century MSS (LSY); he
      > associates R, rather, with another 12th-century Paris MS, Pa (Paris.
      > lat. 18104), which contains excerpts from Fin.[[5]] M.'s apparatus
      > shows Pa agreeing in error with R alone at 1.236, 244, 610, 620, 660,
      > 672, 677 etc. But this last passage argues that the relations are a bit
      > different than M.'s stemma indicates: there viam is omitted by RPa and
      > inserted (in the wrong place, following nullam in the preceding line)
      > in PLSY. M. could explain the position by arguing that the word was
      > omitted in delta, the hyparchetype above both gamma (from which derive
      > RPa) and delta1, the source of gamma1, which in turn spawned PLSY (see
      > M. p.XIV). But then he must assume that the word was also omitted from
      > gamma2 (the source of MNV according to his stemma). But, in fact, the
      > word is attested in the proper place in MNV. This and other indications
      > shake my confidence in the delta hyparchetype as reconstructed by M. I
      > suspect that the stemma should look more like that of Reynolds (his
      > p.viii), with two branches alpha and phi (= BE) and under alpha the MS
      > A as one branch by itself; one would modify his scheme by adding
      > beneath his delta a common source (let us call it zeta) of R and Pa and
      > then another stage (eta) beneath delta as the common source of PLSY.
      > Then we merely have to assume that delta omitted viam at 1.677 and that
      > the word was reinserted (in the wrong place) in eta.[[6]]
      > A final bone of contention is the classification of the Madrid MS (M =
      > Matritensis 9116, 14th century): Reynolds combined it with two
      > fourteenth-century Italian MSS (Mutinensis lat. 213 and Florentinus
      > Cart. Strozz. 3.46; see his arguments, p.xi); M. admits the link but
      > regularly cites it instead in combination with two fifteenth-century
      > ones (N = Neapolitanus IV G 43 and V = Vaticanus lat. 1759). M. fails,
      > however, to show separative errors of M against N and V and thus has
      > not ruled out that N and V are codices descripti (he could, however,
      > have adduced the material omitted by M at 2.1091-92 but transmitted by
      > NV). In any case, the sorting out of this family will require more work
      > on the part of a subsequent editor (though the text will probably not
      > benefit much).
      > M. offers a generally conservative -- often too conservative -- text.
      > It seems perverse to resist Lambinus' habeant at 1.110, invenit of BE
      > (1.232), Reid's posited lacuna prior to itaque (1.189), C.F.W.
      > Mu+ller's voluptatum pleniorum (1.577-8), Madvig's ab eodem illo
      > (referring to Epicurus; one expects a person in this construction) for
      > transmitted ab eadem illa [1.697-8]), Orelli's insertion of si for
      > clarity at 2.278, Manutius' praecipui for praecipue at 2.1264 (scribes
      > were evidently deceived by its separation from the limited noun nihil),
      > Ernesti's clarifying ad portam <Capenam> at 2.1320, or Davies' deletion
      > of aerumnas at 2.1345; and Reynolds was surely right to prefer the more
      > weakly attested indicari to iudicari, given the correspondence with
      > aperiri in the preceding clause and the likelihood of an anticipatory
      > error from the following iudicari (1.322; for the error cf. 2.1260 and
      > 5.615 and 698). M. likewise follows the transmitted text at 2.142: vos
      > de plagis omnibus colligitis bonos ... viros sed certe non pereruditos.
      > But have the Epicureans gathered their followers from "all regions" (de
      > plagis omnibus) or "all the country districts" (de pagis omnibus)? In
      > view of the antithesis, the latter, though attested only in a single
      > witness, seems preferable (and is adopted by Reynolds); for urbani
      > rustici as a global designation characteristic of Cicero's mindset cf.
      > 2.890. At 2.347 M. prints et quidem in the text, but equidem (SBE
      > according to Reynolds' app.; M. lists no variant), adopted by Reynolds,
      > seems much more likely (the emphasis on illud is provided by the
      > following ipsum; contrast 2.938). Surely iustus is not wanted in 2.679;
      > it is likely to be an intrusion based on the following iniuste;
      > Reynolds conjectured iniustus, unnecessarily: iniquus alone (BE),
      > reinforced by the following quam multa vero iniuste fieri possunt ...,
      > will make the point. We surely need Baiter's virtutibus, an easy
      > saltation error following omnibus, at 3.88. Lambinus' tam was easily
      > skipped after tamen and aids the sense at 4.5; and Madvig's ars seems a
      > clear improvement over the vague res at 4.117. At 4.194 Madvig's cum
      > eum restores a plausibly Ciceronian structure (M.'s text involves
      > asyndeton without a strong contrast before in utroque at 4.195) and is
      > no real change (the tradition is divided between eum and cum). Manutius
      > was surely right to delete nomina rerum commutantem as an anticipatory
      > gloss (for a similar error, accepted as such by M., cf. 4.271-72). At
      > 5.991 M. follows Reynolds' judicious use of cruces; he might have done
      > so also at 2.670 and 5.514-15; in the latter passage the unusual
      > correlation et ... atque should have put M. on guard.
      > Reynolds had a fine ear for rhythm: thus at 1.473 he read adhibenda est
      > with BE to avoid the otherwise transmitted heroic clausula est
      > adhibenda, which M. prints. The superior clausula also argues for etiam
      > imitari velis of PLSY (double cretic with initial resolution) rather
      > than the unrhythmical imitari etiam velis adopted by both M. and
      > Reynolds; and M. should not have resisted Madvig's insertion of est at
      > 5.312, instantiating a double cretic; it can easily have dropped before
      > the following et.
      > On the other hand, M.'s conservatism sometimes reaps dividends. He is
      > probably right to reject the lacuna posited by Marsus at 1.224 on the
      > assumption that Cicero meant to criticize Epicurean logic at greater
      > length before turning to ethics; in fact the focus is to be on ethics
      > with only a brief nod to the other "parts of philosophy" (cf. 1.294).
      > At 2.469 Reynolds had adopted T. Bentley's erit for the transmitted est
      > to match the following futures; but he thereby destroyed a
      > sentence-final cretic; est is therefore plausibly returned to the text
      > by M. Again at 2.306 M. is probably right to see an energetic personal
      > assertion (hos ego asotos ... dixerim) rather than a logical conclusion
      > (hos ergo ... ), pace Reynolds. Reynolds oddly preferred audaciter (BE)
      > at 2.362 for the generally transmitted audacter, in spite of
      > Quintilian's having branded the former as pedantic (Inst. 1.6.17); M.
      > rightly sticks with the transmitted text. He likewise does well to
      > retain transmitted referre, rather than adopt referri with Lambinus and
      > Reynolds (2.1239), and the transmitted et at 3.740, changed by Madvig
      > unnecessarily to sed. Careful rhetorical balance is, of course, a
      > hallmark of Cicero's style; hence M. does well to print et tuebere et
      > munies at 2.977 (Madvig and Reynolds had omitted the first et);
      > similarly at 2.1073 he rightly adopts et saepe plane <et>diu to match
      > the preceding nec ... semel nec ad breve tempus. There is no difficulty
      > about et ... -que in Cicero;[[7]] hence M. is right to repeal
      > Reynolds's deletion of et at 4.222.
      > In his philosophical works Cicero sometimes cultivates, for clarity, a
      > fullness of expression bordering on the pedantic. For this reason I am
      > not convinced by Madvig's deletion of animo at 1.600 (the word is
      > retained by M.). By the same token, however, M.'s deletion of
      > voluptatum at 2.121 seems doubtful; I would instead follow Davies'
      > change of quae to qui in the previous line.
      > In general, the places where M. errs in changing the transmitted text
      > are few: et indignantis adds liveliness to exclamations (cf. OLD s.v.
      > et 15), but is often mistaken, as it was by both M. and Reynolds, who
      > delete it (with Manutius) at 2.1180. At 4.14 M. follows Giusta in
      > inserting dicere after soleo and prior to temere; soleo can, however,
      > be used without an infinitive if the context suggests it (OLD s.v. 2a);
      > here it would have to be supplied from the preceding oratio; but if the
      > text is to be changed, one might prefer the order temere dicere as the
      > likelier source of corruption (by saltation). esse must be supplied in
      > 5.897-98 but not in the emphatic position following videre (so M.,
      > following Baiter); we should rather, with Madvig, insert it after
      > honestatis, where it has the further advantage of effecting a
      > ditrochaic clausula.
      > One finds few conjectures proposed by M. either in the text or the
      > apparatus, but one of these is palmaris and will surely be adopted by
      > succeeding editors, namely his nova for non at 3.162. He likewise did
      > well to bracket dicere at 4.880 and is probably right to suppose that
      > something is missing in the vicinity of 5.812 (though I would recommend
      > inserting contemplans after est in 813, rather than legens after
      > innumerabilia in 812). Future editors will want to consider his
      > proposed insertion of a ratione after discrepant at 4.856, though they,
      > like M. himself, will probably not regard it as absolutely necessary.
      > At 2.867 M. conjectures vide for transmitted vides; this is not
      > impossible, but in such ironic postpositive usage videlicet
      > (conjectured here by Manutius, adopted by Reynolds) is more common and
      > probably to be preferred.
      > In Fin. the indirect transmission does not contribute much; but at
      > 5.705 Nonius' hi might have merited at least a "fortasse recte" in the
      > apparatus.
      > Other conjectures I would recommend for adoption: 2.524: Schiche's
      > insertion of contra eum for clarity, an easy omission after Chrysippum;
      > 2.752: Wesenberg's insertion of ut with addition of ita (vino ... ita
      > ut ne noceret) to clarify that this is a consecutive clause with
      > limiting force; 2.914 perhaps delete utilitatis causa expetenda as a
      > gloss; 2.925 <de>precarere (ed. Ven.); 2.1148-49 Baiter's summa eius
      > philosophiae ("the sum-total of his philosophy") is surely what
      > Epicurus' will is said to contradict. In view of the following
      > stylistic strictures at 2.1151 Epicurus can hardly be said to be
      > writing breviter apteque; nor is aperteque, BE, adopted by Reynolds,
      > any improvement in view of the following id eius modi est ut non satis
      > plane dicat ... ; the solution will be Schiche's arteque. At 2.1218
      > Schiche's <ef>fluit is an improvement, an easy omission after preceding
      > -re. I also recommend the addition of non prior to fuit at 3.822, the
      > point being that Sulla was not master of those vices. Cobet's tueri
      > both aids the sense and obviates a heroic clausula at 4.73. At the very
      > least we need to supply qui (= "how") prior to posset dicere (4.268).
      > The emphatic esse is surely needed at 4.379 (the better rhythm is
      > effected by placing est with Gzius before rather than after profecto).
      > Madvig was right to follow the recentiores in reading naturarum at
      > 4.384 since here Cicero argues from the various naturae (= "creatures";
      > cf. my note on N.D. 1.26). At 4.458 one might consider hoc as the
      > likelier source of the transmitted nos, rather than Lambinus' ea.
      > Scribes are prone to introduce the common verb habere in place of a
      > less common one, hence the corruption (marked with a cross by M.) at
      > 5.991; I suspect that similarly habeant is intrusive at 4.659 and that
      > the true reading is moveant. haec can easily have fallen out before
      > hactenus at 4.898; its insertion would restore the common formula. At
      > 5.160 Strato is first called "great" (magnus) in physics, but then the
      > critique begins (tamen, correlated with a preceding etsi); the first
      > point should surely be that most of his points were "not new" (non
      > nova): the non was evidently omitted by haplography. Schiche was right
      > to delete ista animi tranquillitas at 5.270 since ea ipsa provides
      > sufficient reference back; the words will have been inserted by a
      > scribe keen to explain the preceding <greek>EU)QUMI/A</greek>. At 5.630
      > one expects tam multa as the prompt for the following the consecutive
      > clause, and the tam can easily have dropped out after quia. Surely the
      > learned Cn. Aufidius, when he became blind, was moved by the litterarum
      > lucis ... desiderio (5.689-90). Ciceronian balance is enhanced by
      > Davies' Fragellarum for Fragellanum at 5.790. In the following line
      > Cicero, as elsewhere, will have taken the opportunity to connect
      > Athenian actors with the scene of the present discussion (cf., e.g.,
      > 5.1089 in hac urbe); Madvig's huius is therefore to be preferred to R.
      > Klotz's suae -- the former is also the easier error following quis.
      > Another insertion of Madvig's, illud dicere at 5.1000, is clarifying
      > and can easily have dropped out following dicere (cf. also 5.986); and
      > Baiter's sint for sunt is needed in the same line for the apodosis
      > within indirect discourse. Nor should M. have resisted Madvig's elegant
      > deletion of utentes in 5.869 and insertion of magis in 5.1048. We
      > should probably also insert auditor before Polemonis at 5.1169.
      > The lively altercatio at 4.78 ff. has caused difficulties; Gigon
      > thought 4.76-82 misplaced.[[8]] Reynolds assigned the entire passage to
      > Cicero. M. rightly divides it between Cicero and Cato, but then he
      > really must follow Reynolds and the recentiores in writing agat in 79
      > (the subject is presumably Zeno, also the antecedent of ille at 4.82).
      > A special problem is the allusion to Panaetius at 4.275-81. He is
      > reported to have written to Q. Tubero de dolore patiendo but without
      > denying that pain is an evil. Transmitted is cuius quidem, quoniam
      > Stoicus fuit, sententia condemnata mihi videtur esse inanitas ista
      > verborum. I suspect that we need to change inanitas to inanitate and
      > also quoniam to quamquam: although he was a Stoic (and therefore might
      > have been expected to use the school's characteristically sharp mode of
      > discourse), his view was condemned by the emptiness of his rhetoric
      > (i.e., in addressing the problem from the wrong angle).
      > M. uses fairly standard Teubner-style punctuation, i.e., he
      > intersperses commas more liberally than Anglo-American editors are wont
      > to do. This occasionally irritates; cf., e.g., the comma after
      > explicemus at 5.775, which unhelpfully breaks the flow of the sentence;
      > and Lucarini's punctuation cited in the apparatus to 5.1150 seems a
      > more natural way of taking the Latin than M.'s.
      > The brevity of the critical apparatus is a principle of the OCTs,
      > whereas the Teubner series is more tolerant of prolixity. The contrast
      > between Reynolds' apparatus, a veritable masterpiece of concision, and
      > M.'s could hardly be more striking. The latter could have cultivated
      > crispness by substituting his siglum for the family where all members
      > are in agreement on a reading; and many orthographica and peculiar
      > errors of individual witnesses should have been omitted or relegated to
      > an appendix so as to confine the apparatus to stemmatically significant
      > variants. As it is, one must read that the first hand of A wrote
      > herroribus in 1.148 etc. M. does, however, sometimes supply useful
      > detail missing from Reynolds, e.g., on 2.423. On the other hand,
      > occasionally the apparatus is too brief: when a negative apparatus is
      > used with a number of different variants listed, it can be tedious to
      > try to piece together e silentio the source(s) of the lemma (e.g.
      > 2.549, 679).
      > The apparatus of citations is generally well managed (M.'s expertise in
      > patristics shows itself to advantage in the reference to Jerome at
      > 2.921-22), but there are omissions, e.g., of the passages from
      > Aristotle and Diodorus cited at 2.235 and 237, though the references
      > were already supplied by Reynolds. It seems doubtful that the Lucretius
      > passage (1.74) cited on 2.103.1175-76 belongs in Duursma's index
      > fontium: probably both Cicero and Lucretius were thinking of the same
      > passage of Epicurus.
      > I have noticed the following typos and omissions: p. XII, l. 17:
      > observaverat (not observarerat); 5.841 praestigiis; app. crit., 1.145
      > quid (not quod); app. crit. p. 38: change 146 to 147 and add 148 before
      > verbum; 2.626: the lemmata should be in reverse order; app. crit. p.100
      > change "287" to "286" and add "287" prior to accidunt; app. crit.
      > p.121, l. 2 add "809" prior to "descriptus"; app. crit. on 4.2 a
      > superscript 2 is needed after ut tam; inverted commas are omitted at
      > 4.14 and elsewhere; app.crit. p.172 read "367-8," not "376-8"; p. 176
      > app. crit. add "484" before subus.
      > To draw up the balance sheet: Reynolds' De finibus, though very good,
      > was not definitive; there was room for a new edition challenging
      > Reynolds' judgment on some points. M. does this but turns the clock too
      > far back. The same Festschrift that included M.'s paper on the text of
      > Fin. also included a paper by O. Gigon with a number of suggestions on
      > the text, some of which were surely worth at least citing in the
      > critical apparatus,[[9]] but M. does not do so any more than he deals
      > with the arguments of Reynolds' Praefatio or the reviews of Reynolds'
      > edition. One regrets the apparent reluctance to go beyond positions
      > taken up in 1987. The result is that those concerned with textual
      > problems in Fin. will want to consult M. alongside Reynolds, but the
      > OCT remains the basic text of this work, and a definitive edition
      > remains a desideratum.
      > ------------------
      > Notes:
      > 1. R.H. Rouse in Texts and Transmission: A Survey of the Latin
      > Classics, ed. L.D. Reynolds (Oxford, 1983) 113.
      > 2. M.T. Ciceronis De finibus bonorum et malorum libri quinque, ed.
      > L.D. Reynolds (Oxford, 1998).
      > 3. C. Moreschini, "Studi sulla tradizione manoscritta del De finibus
      > di Cicerone," Filologia e forme letterarie. Studi offerti a F. della
      > Corte, 2 (Urbino, 1987) 252-67.
      > 4. G. Magnaldi, "Il codex Rottendorfianus Gronovianus del 'De finibus
      > bonorum et malorum' di Cicerone," AAST 120 (1986) 133-60.
      > 5. Cf. M. (n. 3 above) 256-61 for the relevant errors; Pa was already
      > combined with R by Rouse and Rouse, as M. notes (p.256).
      > 6. N2 has corrected from an exemplar of the eta type (cf., e.g.,
      > 2.757 and 1346), a special case.
      > 7. Cf. R. Ku+hner and C. Stegmann, Ausfu+hrliche Grammatik der
      > lateinischen Sprache 2 (Hannover, 1912, 4th edn. ed. A. Thierfelder,
      > 1962) 36.
      > 8. O. Gigon, "U+berlegungen zum Gehalt und zum Text von Ciceros De
      > finibus," Filologia e forme letterarie. Studi offerti a F. Della Corte,
      > 2 (Urbino, 1987) 235-46 at 245.
      > 9. See previous note; e.g., his deletion of vel Epicuri at 2.443-44
      > in view of 450 has much to recommend it.
      > -------------------------------
      > The BMCR website (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/) contains a complete
      > and searchable archive of BMCR reviews since our first issue in 1990.
      > It also contains information about subscribing and unsubscribing from
      > the service.
      > Please do not reply to this email as this is an unmonitored mailbox.
      > You can contact us by sending e-mail to bmr@....
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.